HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT 28
SzTUDIE ARCHAIC
INS
C ORINTHIAN VASE
PAINTING
BY
D. A. AMYX AND PATRICIALAWRENCE
THE AMERICAN
SCHOOL
OF CLASSICAL
PRINCETON,
STUDIES
NEW JERSEY 1996
AT ATHENS
HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT 28
STUDIES ARCHAIC
IN
CORINTHIAN VASE
PAINTING
BY
D. A. AMYX
THE AMERICAN
AND
SCHOOL
PATRICIA LAWRENCE
OF CLASSICAL
PRINCETON,
STUDIES
NEW JERSEY 1996
AT ATHENS
Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Amyx, Darrell A. (DarrellArlynn), 1911Studies in Archaic Corinthian vase painting / by D.A. Amyx and Patricia Lawrence p. cm. - (Hesperia, Supplement; 28) Includes bibligraphicalreferencesand index. ISBN 0-87661-528-0 (alk.paper) 1. Vase-painting, Corinthian. 2. Vases, Corinthian-Catalogs. I. Lawrence, Patricia, 1934- . II. Tide. III. Series: Hesperia (Princeton, NJ.). Supplement; 28. NK4645.A5 1996 96-43204 738.3'82'09387-dc2O CIP
?
American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1996
TYPOGRAPHY BY THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES PUBLICATIONS OFFICE
6-8
CHARLTON STREET, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
PLATES BY THE STINEHOUR PRESS, LUNENBURG, VERMONT PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY PRINCETON ACADEMIC PRESS, LAWRENCEVILLE, NEW JERSEY
CONTENTS iii
PREFACE .1..................................
LiST OF ILLUSTRATIONS....................................
vii
ix
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... AFTERMATH by
1
D. A. Amyx .....................................................
THEOLnvE
HARvEST
3
......................................
CATALOGUE ..............
....................................................
FEMALE HEADS OR PROTOMAI ............................................... DOLPHINS ................................................................. APPENDIX:
Additional Bibliography for Corinth VII, ii, Section
CONCORDANCE .
A ................
51
....................................................
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH by Patricia
Lawrence
...................
.......
LISTS OF ATTRIBUTIONS .................................................... DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER by Patricia
31 36 38 48
Lawrence
INDEX ....................................................
......
..............
53 117 133 151
A. GENERAL
B. PAINTERS,
POTTERS,
AND GROUPS
C. PROVENIENCES
D.
NUMBERED
PIECES IN MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONS
TABLES OF PROVENIENCES .................................................... PLATES
159
ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURESIN TEXT AFTERMATH
1. Oinochoe 1, Loop Pattern................................................................. ...................................... 2. Oinochoe 62, Lion and Typhon ....................
4 20
THE CHImAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
1. Early and Late Middle Corinthian Plates by the Chimaera Painter: Profilesand Banding . 2. The Chimaera Group: Profilesand Banding .............................................. 3. Plan of the Potters' Quarter at Corinth . ................................................... 4. X1: Reconstruction of Palmette-LotusCross.............................................. 5. Gl: Reconstruction of Palmette Cross.................................................... 6. G3: Reconstruction of Palmette-LotusCross..............................................
100 101 105 117 125 125
PLATES ................................................................................ THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH .........................................................
AFTERMATH
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER.....................................................
1-37 38-58 59-64
CREDITS Plates 40 and 41: Courtesy Musee Rodin, Paris (photo: Brunojarret) Plates 42 and 43: Courtesy Assessorato Beni Culturali e Ambientali della Regione Sicilia: Museo Archeologico Regionale Caltanissetta(photo: P. Lawrence) Plates 45 and 52 (L4): Courtesy Fondazione Mormino, Banco di Sicilia, Palermo (photo: Giuseppe Capellani) Plates 46-49: Courtesy AkademischesKunstmuseum,Bonn (photo: P. Lawrence) Plate 50: Courtesy Musee du Louvre (photo: M. Chuzeville) Plate 52 (L10): Courtesy Assessorato Beni Culturali e Ambientali della Regione Sicilia: Museo Archeologico Regionale "Paolo Orsi" Siracusa (photo: museum) The remaining photographs are from the Corinth Excavationsfiles.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS VOLUMES Oxford 1956 Vase-Painters, ABV=J. D. Beazley,AtticBlack-Figure Amyx, D. A. 1961a. "The Alabastron of Oinanthe," AM 76, 1961, pp. 12-14 . 1961b. "The Medallion Painter,"AJA65, pp. 1-15 .1971. "Dodwelliana," CSCA4, pp. 3-48 Anderson,J. K. 1958-1959. "Old Smyrna: The Corinthian Pottery,"BSA 53-54, pp. 138-151 (Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut),Berlin 1891-1931 AntDenk= AntikeDenkmaler Boston/New York, 1902 ArgiveHeraeum= C. Waldstein, TheArgiveHeraeum, rearsof GreekVasePainting(trans.and rev. Arias, P.E., M. Hirmer, and B. Shefton. 1961. A Historyofa Thousand by Shefton), New York Vase-Painters, 2nd ed., Oxford 1963 ARV2=J. D. Beazley,AtticRed-Figure Bakir,G. 1981. Sophilos,Mainz 7), in KorinthundAttikazwischen625 und550 v. Chr.(Beitrdge zurArchdologie Bakir,T 1974. DerKolonnettenkrater Wtirzburg toABJ
x
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Paris 1875 et romaines, desantiquitis grecques DarSag = C. Daremberg and E. Saglio, Dictionnaire (Explorations deDLlosX), Paris 1928 DelosX = C. Dugas, Lesvasesdel'HPraion archdologiques Ducat,J. 1962. "Chronologie absolue de l'archaisme,"BCH 86, pp. 165-184 Dunbabin, T., and M. Robertson. 1953. "Some ProtocorinthianVase-Painters,"BSA48, pp. 172-181 Geagan, H. 1970. "MythologicalThemes on the Plaques from Penteskouphia,"AA [JdI 85], pp. 31-48 delBancodi Sicilia:ceramica archeologica Giudice, F., et al. 1992. La collezione figurata,Palermo 21, Glyptotek fra Jy Carlsberg Johansen, F. 1964. "Et korinthisk Fad af 'Chimaera-Maleren',"Meddelelser pp. 42-51 Paris Johansen, K. F. 1923. Lesvasessicyoniens, = Berlin 1970 desspdten8. bisfrilen 6. Jahrhunderts, VI, ii K. Kubler,Die Nekropolen Kerameikos Libya. Final Reports: at Cyrene, of DemeterandPersephone Sanctuary Kocybala, A. Forthcoming. The Extramural The Corinthian Pottery,Philadelphia Berlin Kraiker,W 1951. Aigna, die VasendesIO. bis 7. Jahrhunderts, Kritzas, C. B. 1977. AeXt 28, 1973, B' 1 [1977], pp. 132-134 Malrei, Tubingen Kabler, K. 1950. Altattische Lane, A. 1948. GreekPottery,London Lawrence, P. 1959. "The Corinthian Chimaera Painter,"AJA63, pp. 348-363 . 1984. "The Samos Painter,"AJA88, pp. 59-64 .1986. Review of A. N. Stillwell andJ. L. Benson, Corinth XV, iii, in AJA90, pp. 237-238 Lo Porto, F. G. 1959-1960. "Ceramica arcaica dalla necropoli di Taranto," ASAtene37-38, n.s. 21-22, pp. 7-230 (Tirana Univ.) 1 dhemateriale Mano, A. 1971. "Nekropolii Apollonis6-Tuma 1," Iliria:Studime arkeologjike in Midwestern Collections, Chicago Moon, W, and L. Berge. 1979. GreekVase-Painting Munsell 1973 = Munsell Soil Color Charts, Baltimore 1973 Oxford 1931 (referencesto its catalogue are prefixed "NC") = H. Payne, Necrocorinthia, Necrocorinthia Pottey, of Corinthian Neeft, C. 1984. "The Dolphin Painter and His Workshop,"in Studiesin the Chronology Amsterdam (= BABesch52-53, 1977-1978, pp. 133-170) in theArchaicPeriod,Amsterdam Vase-Painting toD. A. Amyx,Corinthian 1991. Addendaet Corrigenda Ohly, D. 1961. "Die Chimaren des Chimarenmalers. Zum Krater mit Chimara und Bellerophon im Kerameikosmuseum,"AM 76, pp. 1-11 ALeXt23, A', 1968, pp. 77-98 Papapostolou, I. <>, czoi 'Avayupo~vtoq,Athens Papaspyridi-Karouzou,S. 1963. 'Ayytea Additions toAttic Black-FigureVase-PaintersandtoAttic Red-Figure =J. D. Beazley,Paralipomena: Paralipomena Vase-Painters,Oxford 1971 Berlin Vasenmalerei Vasen), (Bildergriechischer Payne, H. 1933. Protokorinthische = The Sanctuaries and R. T. ofHeraAkraiaandLimenia,Oxford 1962 Hopper, II H. Payne, Dunbabin, Perachora ActaA 49, 1978, pp. 151-190 Rafn, B. 1978. "The Corinthian Chimaera Group," di a Demetra di un santuario Catania,"BdA45, pp. 247-262 Rizza, G. 1960. "Stipe votiva A the to 333 Corinth: History 1984. B.C., Oxford of Ciy Wealthy Salmon,J. B. Basel Meisterwerke Kunst, griechischer Schefold, K. 1960. Scheibler,I. 1961. "Olpen und Amphoren des Gorgomalers,"JdI 76, pp. 1-47 KomosVases,London Seeberg, A. 1971. Corinthian III, ii, pp. 66-80 zurArchdologie Beitrdge 1973. "Tomba Campana, Corinth, Veii," in Hamburger Strom, I. 1961. "The Painter of Louvre E 574," ActaA32, pp. 173-192 at Tocra,1963-1965 I), London 1966 TocraI =J. Boardman andJ. Hayes, TheArchaicDeposits(Excavations Weinberg, S. 1948. 'A Cross-Section of Corinthian Antiquities,"Hesperia17, pp. 197-241 Williams, C. K. 1972. "Corinth, 1971: ForumArea," Hesperia41, pp. 143-184 . 1982. "The Early Urbanization of Corinth,"ASAtene60, n.s. 44, pp. 9-20
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS PERIODICALS AA = Archdologischer Anzeiger (Copenhagen) ActaA= Actaarchaeologica = American of Journal Archaeology AJA Abteilung Archiologischen AM = Mitteilungen desDeutsclzen Instituts,Athenische AntK= AntikeKunst classica ArchCl= Archeologia = ApXEq 'ApXaL0oyXLXh'EylVeptq diAtenee delleMissioniitalianein Oriente ASAtene= AnnuariodeltaScuolaarcheologica AnnualPaperson ClassicalArchaeology BABesch= Bulletinaniekebeschaving. BCH = Bulletindecorrespondence hellinique BdA= Bollettinod'arte BICS = Bulletinof theInstituteof ClassicalStudiesof theUniversiyofLondon BMFA= Bulletinof theMuseumof FineArts,Boston BSA = Annualof theBritishSchoolat Athens CR = ClassicalReview Studiesin ClassicalAntiquity CSCA= California AeX-t = 'ApXctLoXoyLx0vAEXtEov
Instituts Archiologischen JdI = JahrbuchdesDeutschen JHS = Journalof HellenicStudies antichi MonAnt= Accademia nazionaledeiLincei,Monumenti NSc = Accademia nazionaledeiLincei,Notiziedegliscavidi antiquit& ABBREVIATIONS IN TEXT a.f. = animal frieze b.-f. = black-figured Diam. = diameter dim. = dimension f.o. = filling ornament H. = height
1. = left max. = maximum p. = preserved r. = right rest. = restored W = Width
int. = interior Colors In descriptions of banding, fine lines are indicated by lower-case letters, heavier stripes by upper case. b (B)black r (R) red y (Y)yellow w (W)white Dates EPC, MPC, LPC = Early,Middle, Late Protocorinthian TR = Transitional EC, MC, LC = Early,Middle, Late Corinthian
PREFACE HE THRUST of HesperiaSupplement 28 is twofold. The first unit of the tripartite organization of this publication is 'Aftermath", a study by D. A. Amyx that updates the work he did in CorinthVII, ii. In 1981 the focus of the Corinth excavations turned to the Roman levels east of the Theater in Ancient Corinth and then in 1989 continued in Frankishlevels southeast of Temple E. Since 1980 nothing of significance for the study of hands in Archaic Corinthian pottery that would need inclusion in 'Aftermath"has been recovered from the excavations. Thus 'Aftermath"and CorinthVII, ii together stand as a full catalogue of and commentary on painters at present contained in the collection of the Corinth Excavations. The other two parts of Supplement 28 are the work of Patricia Lawrence. In "The Chimaera Group at Corinth" she discusses that group and its importance by a close examination of the material excavated at Corinth. "Dodwellians in the Potters' Quarter" is a new examination of material that has been presented in Corinth XV, iii, together with fifteen additional fragments. This third study attests to the facts that several Dodwellians are present in the pottery excavated in the Potters'Quarter and that the GeladakisPainter is richly represented along with the Dodwellians. It is the pleasure of the present Field Director of the Corinth Excavationsto acknowledge the achievements of ProfessorAmyx, who has worked for so many years to define the hands of so many Corinthian painters and to put them in an order that allows them to be discussed by the world at large. It is as much a pleasure to congratulate Professor Lawrence, a student of ProfessorAmyx and a highly skilled scholar in her own right, on the work that she has done to advance the precise defining of the Chimaera Group, the Dodwellians, and the Geladakis Painter. T
CHARLES KAUFMAN WILLIAMS II
October 1996
AFTERMATH
AFTERMATH HIS CHAPTER is meant to serve as a supplement to CorinthVII, ii.' It contains a selection of materials drawn from the following sources: 1. Corinthian pottery found after 1969, the cutoff date for Corinth VII, ii. 2. Corinthian pottery found before 1969 but for one reason or another not included in Corinth VII, ii. 3. Potterypublished in Corinth VII, ii for which, in furthersearch, additional fragments (usuallyjoining with the published part) were found. 4. Pottery already published elsewhere but judged worthy of republication in the present context. Not included in this catalogue are the following kinds of materials: 1. Materialsalreadyassigned to other scholarsfor study and publication. Chief among these are the pottery from the excavations on Temple Hill and the uninventoried pottery from the Potters' Quarter. 2. Materialsalreadypublished elsewhere,for which republicationseemed superfluous. 3. Non-Corinthian pottery and Corinthian imitations of Attic black figure. On the latter,see Bentz 1982, pp. 112-113. At the end of this chapter will be found a concordance of catalogue and inventory numbers and an appendix listing bibliographicaladdenda to Corinth VII, ii. T
CATALOGUE 1 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENTS Fig. 1, PI. 1 C-48-156 a-k. South Basilica, Well 1948-1. Eleven nonjoining fragments of a large vase of PC shape, no doubt tall necked. Max. p. dim. of largest fragment 0.085 m. Generally firm glaze, worn on some fragments. Incised details, in black-figuretechnique. Surviving are parts of at least two friezes of decoration on the body and tall double base rays, the inner ones
1
void. Below the upper (shoulder) frieze, three narrow bands; below the lower (body) frieze, four narrow bands. In the shoulder frieze, inverted alternating lotus and palmette and finely drawn upright crosshatchedtriangles(fragmentd). At left, on fragment b, upper register, the continuity appears to have been interrupted by a short strip of geometric ornament (squareswithin squares?),perhaps located beneath the handle juncture. In the body
A preliminaryreport on this project was presented by me at the meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Baltimore, 1989 (abstractin AJA93, 1989, p. 280). In all stages of the work CharlesWilliamshas provided indispensablesupport and encouragement. For much help along the way I am chiefly indebted to Nancy Bookidis for her collaborative efforts in rescuing many items from oblivion. She has been indefatigablein providingme with additional information. Further thanks are due to Evelyn Bell, Barbara Forbes,and PatriciaLawrence. In this publication, the clay is not explicitly described unless there is considerable deviation from the typical Corinthian clay.
4
AFIERMATH
FIG.
1. Oinochoe 1, fragmentb
zone, beginning with the largest fragment (b, lower area), a pattern of serpentine loops, forming symmetrical C-spirals,with inward curling tips ending in a bird's head. This design embraces a rudimentary palmette, consisting of seven slightly spreading strokes,apparentlybound together at their base by a toruslike nodule (not well preserved). Below
the crossing point of the large loop at 1. on fragment b, there is another bird's head, facing left, also a terminal? To the right of all this, there is a tiny curvilinearelement (unexplained);to its right, a solid round object with incised inner details (a bird's head? see below). A small fragment (c), belonging somewherewithin the body zone, has a griffin'shead and neck to r., renderedin full black-figure technique; at its right, a small koppa-like element, unexplained. Other floating fragmentsgive us (e) a large bird, hoveringto r., with part of a loop pattern beside it, and (f, not illustrated)part of another avian creature(?)with curvedwing. Partsof the base rays appear on five fragments(g, h, i, j, k), but there are no traces of figurework on any of these. at Corinth," S. Weinberg,"Investigations Bibliography: Hesperia 18, 1949 [pp. 148-157],p. 154,pl. 20:30;Dunbabinand Robertson1953, p. 174, near bottom;PeraXV, iii, choraII, no. 82, pp. 21-22; Bensonin Corinth publication p. 20, B 2. Weinberg's no. 122,p. 37; CorVP, of thispiecemustof coursestandas a basisforall further discussionof it; severalotherof the descriptiveentriesin the followingcatalogueare also indebtedto Weinberg's originalpublication.
This is truly a remarkablevase, worthy of special attention even in its ruinous state. Its looped, spirallyornament relates it to the Cumae Group (cf. Dunbabin and Robertson, loc.cit.,and CorVP, pp. 19-20).2 The style is more advanced, however:the skillfuluse of black-figuretechnique, as well as the sophistication of its elements, seems to place it one stage beyond that of the Cumae Group proper. Especially notable is the extreme delicacy in the rendering of incised details (as on the griffin protome). The large-headed, fat-necked bird (fragmentd, lower register)is captivatingly charming, reminiscent of those by the Painter of the Hopping Birds (CorVP,pp. 17-18, pl. 2:1). In Weinberg'sarrangementof the fragments(op.cit.,pl. 20:30) the body of the flying bird is shown standing nearly upright;this position is confirmed by the visual autopsy of the wheelmarks. Frieze TheShoulder The placement of a floral (lotus-and-palmette)frieze on the shoulder of a PC vase, though common enough on aryballoi from an early date (e.g., Oxford 1935.41, by the Corneto Painter; CorVP,p. 22, A 3, pl. 2:5), is rarely encountered on PC oinochoai. Our example may be one 2
In CorVP,p. 20, note 1, I erroneouslystate that a certainvase from Ithaca (M. Robertson, "Excavations in Ithaca, V: The Geometric and Later Finds," BSA 43, 1948 [pp. 9-124], p. 33; no. 141, p. 36) "does not appear" in the Dunbabin and Robertson (1953) list of attributions to the Cumae Group. Actually, it is explicitly barred from membership in the Cumae Group, in a note at the foot of their list (op.cit., pp. 174-175). The vase is not illustrated by Robertson (1948), but it is clear from the context that this piece must be one of a number of imitations and poor relationsof the Cumae Group, which are decorated with monotonously repeated chains of figure-of-eightloops, the interior spaces filled each with a large dot. XV, iii, no. 151, p. 42). One of the parallels On these "loop-chain and dot" vases, see Benson (Corinth cited by him, however, an oinochoe in Wurzburg(Lane 1948, p. 26, pl. 13:A)taken by Benson, following Museumder Universitit Lane, to be PC, is actually an Italian imitation: cf E. Langlotz, Martinvon Wagner Vasen,Munich 1932, no. 756, p. 135, pl. 226; Langlotz cites as a parallel I, Griechische WirzburgBilderkataloge, MonAnt22, 1913, col. 384, fig. 139. Cf. K. F.Johansen 1923, fig. 60 (a Protoatticamphora in New York, M.M.A.).
CATALOGUE
5
of the earliest, but stylisticallyit is already well advanced, another sign of its lateness in relation to the Cumae Group. Indeed, the lotuses, with their void inner petals and the pair of "eyes"set into the base, are to my knowledge unique, and they show a fine boldness of conception and execution. Looking farther down the road, we may compare the still more elaborately designed example on the MPC II oinochoe, Aigina K 209 (Kraiker1951, p. 44, pl. 15), noteworthyalso for its placement of the floral chain on the shoulder and for the two vivid narrativescenes on the body of the vase. Fillers Triangle XV, The upright, crosshatchedtriangleused as fillingornament is, as Benson has noted (Corinth iii, no. 122, p. 37), "sometimesused, restingon the ground line," for which he cites, as parallels,the examples on this vase and those on an aryballos in Naples (MonAnt22, 1913, pl. 46:4; see also CorVP,p. 15, First Outline Group, no. 4, where only the central zone is described). BaseRays The presence of double base rays is common on PC aryballoi, such as those by the Huntsmen Painter (CorVP,p. 24, A 1, A 2, pl. 5:2), and kotylai, such as those by the Hound Painter (CorVP, p. 26, A I to A 3, pl. 7:2), but their use on oinochoai is very rare. The only other example known to me is the great MPC II oinochoe from the Long Walls Cemetery (CorVP,p. 480, note 138; see also D. Callipolitis-Feytmans,"Importof Protocorinthianand TransitionalPottery into Attica," in Corinthiaca [pp. 168-177], p. 177),which has other interestingaffinitieswith 1. It is also noteworthy that in both of these cases the inner rays are void. To my knowledge the only other occurrence of this feature on a vase of any shape is that on the bottom of the round aryballosCorinth C-60- 130 (below,32). TheMain Friezes Spiral Complex The volute complex is of course the featurewhich allies this oinochoe with those of the Cumae Group (CorVP,pp. 19-20; references hereunder are to that list). Because of its very fragmentary condition, and because of the wide variety of complexes on vases of that Group, it is hard to devise a completely definitive reconstruction. One possible arrangement,however,is as follows: The design of this complex was evidently symmetrical. In accordance with the precedent of certain members of the Cumae Group (cf. especially nos. 2, 5, 6, and 10) it seems most plausible to bring the two legs of the upper volutes directlydown to the base line to form a pattern overlying a second pair of volutes which spring from the central node in two inverted, involuted scrolls, these also terminating in bird's head finials (Fig. 1). This reconstruction is economical and practical, and it accounts for all the preservedfeatureswith a minimum of elaboration. In this proposal, it is necessary to assume two independent complexes, one overlying but not linked to the other, representinga degree of elaboration not found on any of the oinochoai of the Cumae Group. Whatever solution is proposed, it seems desirable, following a common feature of the Cumae Group, to supply,as is done in Figure 1, hanging from the central node, an inverted element, vertically opposed to the upright rudimentary"palmette". Bird'sHead Finials Still another manifestation of our artist'soriginality is his adaptation of the scroll finials into the form of birds' heads.3 This feature goes beyond anything that was conceived by the artists of the Cumae Group, where the scrollsmay simply terminate by tapering to a wormlike ending, or end in knobs, or (more enterprisingly)be providedwith clothlike tassels. 3 For later variants of this bird-headed interlace motif, cf. Hiberno-Saxon art, especially the cross-carpet
in theBritishIsles I, page in the Lindisfarne Gospels: J. J. G. Alexander, A Surveyof Manuscripts Illuminated Oxford/New York 1978, no. 9, pp. 35ff., ill. 38.
AFI7ERMATH
6
Birds Our painter loves birds. As evidence of his ornithomaniait may be observedthat, if symmetrical pairing of elements is included within the scroll complex, there are no fewer than seven birds, birds' heads, or bird protomai within the part of the body frieze that has been preserved to us. Chief among these, of course, is the winsomelyappealing,juvenile-lookinggriffinhead or protome. GriffinProtome Most interestingof all the elements of decoration is the little griffinon fragmentc, exquisitely rendered. It is a prize catch but also somewhatpuzzling. Concerning its poor state of preservation, II, no. 82, p. 22) has remarkedthat it is uncertainwhether a complete griffinor Dunbabin (Perachora only a protome is represented. Actually,the problem is even more complicated than that because there are at least two further possibilities that must be considered, viz., a griffin-birdor a griffin protome attached to a bowl. All four possibilities are well documented in Protocorinthianvase painting. The fragmentarystate of the creaturemakes it hard to decide. Apparentlythe best course is to assume that our little griffinis actuallyan attachmenton a griffindinos. Because of its high location (crowdingthe upper border of the frieze), it could hardly be a protome rising from a groundline. Furthermore, because of its small size (contrast the scale with that of the standing bird) it does not seem able to exist as an entity beside the other elements of the design. The slender form of its neck is not matched on any of the early (stillless, the later)representationsof griffins,which tend to be thickerand shorter.The sinuouscurve of the neck (an open S) is also suggestiveof the form of the griffin-protomeattachmentson bronze griffindinoi.4 Summary The painting on 1 displaysa virtuosityand sophisticationsurpassingthat of any of the vases of the Cumae Group. Rather, it follows the oinochoe by the Toulouse Painter5and points the way to the Aegina Bellerophon Painter,and eventuallyto the splendid oinochoe from the Long Walls (see p. 5 above). The rarity of MPC oinochoai, combined with the uniqueness of some features of the decoration, earn for it a conspicuousplace in the repertoryof MPC I-II oinochoai. So little of the decoration of the vase has survivedas to make interpretationand reconstruction extremely difficult. What is extant, however,shows that the artistpossesses great originality. Middle ProtocorinthianI/IH. 2 PYXISLID, FRAGMENT
Pi. 1
CP-2305. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Two joined fragments,all edges broken. Max. p. dim. 0.063 m.
Dull glaze, somewhat abraded;added red. Fragmentarypyxis lid with deep inset ledge. On top, root of vertical handle. Decorated with incised
On the bronze prototypes, see especially H. Payne, Perachora [I], Oxford 1940, pp. 126-130 and on a PC aryballos see K. E Johansen a dinos For Berlin 1955. griffin Greifienkessel, U. Jantzen, Griechische note 3 and p. 276, note 2) cites a p. 210, pl. 2:3. Payne (Necrocorinthia, and CorVP, 5:6, 1923, pp. 60-61, pl. "griffon-headdinos" on a fragment of an oinochoe in Aigina (Kraiker 1951, no. 342, pp. 60-61, pl. 27, where the attachments are called "hockendeVogel [?]"). 5 CorVP,p. 21, A 1;J. L. Benson, "Middle ProtocorinthianPeriodization,"in Corinthiaca[pp. 97-106], p. 100, figs. 1-3. I
CATALOGUE scrollpattern within medallion, then tongues RBRB ... , rather crudely drawn. Protocorinthian, recalling the Cumae Group (CorVP,pp. 19-20, esp. A 17). Middle Protocorinthian I. Pi. 1 3 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT CP-3 180. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Two joining fragments, broken on all sides. RH. 0.046, p.W 0.047 m. Ivory-gray clay (burnt?),deep brown glaze. Interior glazed. Exterior, from 1. to r.: advanced leg of feline, rhomboid with crisscrossincisions, "amphora"from neck to foot with base of two handles, decoratedwith cross and dots on reserved ground, rhomboid, and advanced leg and open mouth of lion. Below the groundline, two broad horizontal bands. The decorative scheme is perhaps to be interpreted as a quasi-vegetal ornament, with a quartered rhombus on either side, flanked by animals (e.g., lions or sphinxes). The central ornament is not purely geometric: there is a certain vegetal quality in its curvilinear elements. In this respect it would stand somewhere in between the stackedlozenge complex often seen between sphinxes (e.g., pl. 3:1; by the SacrificePainter,CorVP, Necrocorinthia, p. 36, A 1) and the more elaborately curvilineardesigns, such as the one flanked by griffinson the alabastron London 1860.2-1.31 (Necrocorinthia, pl. 3:3). On the sources and development of the vegetal motifs, see K. F.Johansen 1923, pp. 57-61. Middle Protocorinthian?
4 PYXIS,FRAGMENT
PI. 1
C-71-218. Forum Southwest, MPC fill. Single fragment, giving nearly full height of body wall to base. P.H. 0.034, p.W 0.045 m. Profile slightly concave. Grayish ivory clay; glaze orange brown inside, brownish on exterior. Two bands; two-row dicing; two bands; a.f.; tworow dicing between pairs of narrow bands; short, thick rays; two narrow bands. In a.f., lion to r., dog(?)to r.; no fo. preserved. Bibliography:Williams 1972, no. 8, p. 148, pl. 20 ("MPG"). Fairly crude style, resembling that of the Hallowe'en Painter (cf. CorVP,p. 22, no. 3, pl. 4:2a-c, and App. III, p. 333). Middle ProtocorinthianII.
7
Pi. 1 5 CYLINDRICAL PYXIS (OR KOTYLE), FRAGMENT C-64-87. Vrysoula, Grave 1964-5. Single fragment, from body wall. P.H. 0.038 m. Brown to orange glaze. Glazed inside. Below rim, vertical zigzags, then very clean threerow dicing between tripletsof fine bands; a.f.; three fine bands; rays. In a.f., boar facing hound. No fo. preserved. Very neat, lively style; incision is used sparingly but effectively. The animal facing the boar must be a hound rather than a lion. The hound is very excited. Cf., for example, the aryballos Hamburg 1935.10 (CorVP,p. 41, Oberdan Group, A 15). For similarsyntax of decoration, cf. Perachora II, no. 943, pl. 41. Middle ProtocorinthianII. Pi. 1 6 KRATER (OR LEBES?), FRAGMENT C-67-88. PeribolosofApollo, Classicalfill. Single body fragment, all edges broken. P.W 0.085 m. Grayishbuff clay,firm shiny glaze; added red and white. A.f.: rear legs and part of tail of a bull(?)to r.; no f.o. Below,broad black zone with superimposedred and white bands. Large bold style, typical of the monumental wing of Protocorinthian. Cf., e.g., Aigina K 273 (Kraiker 1951, pls. 20-22; CorVP, Aegina Bellerophon Painter, A 1, pl. 28) and Syracuse 42648 (Necrocorinthia,pl. 7; CorVP,p. 29, Aegina Bellerophon Painter,A 4). Middle ProtocorinthianII? PI. 2 7 LARGE OPEN VASE, FRAGMENTS C-59-7 a, b. Lechaion Road, later fill. Two nonjoining fragments from body wall (of a krater?). (a)Max. p. dim. 0.082 m. (b)Max. p. dim. 0.049 m. Dull glaze, black tending to brown black, crazing; added red. Fairlythick fabric. Glazed inside. On fragment a, apparently a bird to r., with its head twisted around (red spots on back and neck; traces of incised wing base); to its right, part of the tail and hindquarters of a bull to r.; in the field, behind the bull'stail, a "pomegranaterosette" (i.e., pinwheel, with spokes extending beyond the ring of dots). On fragment b, part of the redspotted neck of the same bird or another; at its right, another pomegranate rosette; along edge of chipped-off area, a line, apparently forming the upper or lower border of the frieze.
8
AFTERMATH
29, 1968, p. 252, Bibliography:S. Weinberg,Hesperia pl. 64:d("secondquarterof the seventhcenturyB.C."). Fine work, with carefullyrendereddetails;it is unfortunatethat it is so poorly preserved. Forthe form of the bull's tail, cf. Kraiker 1951, no. 273, pl. 21. For the pomegranate rosette cf (later)CallipolitisFeytmans,ApXEq 1970, pl. 30:a, b.
cf. Lo Porto 1959-1960, p. 17, fig. 6:g and p. 29, fig. 20:b. See further the richly detailed analytical study by Neeft, op.cit. End of Middle ProtocorinthianII or beginning of Late Protocorinthian.
8 PROTOCORINTHIAN ARYBALLOS P1.2 C-71-214. Forum Southwest, PC fill on floor. Put together from fragments;practically complete, except for small gaps. H. 0.071, max. p. dim. 0.043 m. Firm glaze. Fairlyplump ovoid body with steep shoulder,low center of gravity,recurvingslightly at base to form the hint of a toe; no foot ring. On top of mouth, six rays; edge of lip plain. On back of handle, vertical wavy line between vertical bars. On shoulder, confronted dogs, in silhouette technique; below, seven narrow bands. On body, a.f. (fourdogs, in silhouette technique, running to 1.; in field, two dot-cluster rosettes); below, four narrow bands, two-row dicing, frieze of widely spaced dot-cluster rosettes, and three thick bands (no rays) at base. Williams1972,no. 9, p. 148,pl. 20 ("PC"); Bibliography: Amcitedin C. Neeft,Protocorinthian Subgeometric Agyballoi, sterdam1983,no. 618, p. 395.
9 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 2 C-71-213. Forum Southwest, foundation trench for PC wall. Section of upper wall of a large kotyle, fromrim down into ray zone, composed of sixjoined fragments. PH. 0.126 m. Deep brown to black glaze. On exterior, at lip, two lines. In handle zone, eleven vertical bars, "butterfly"pattern, four vertical bars, lozenge pattern (crosshatched). Below, three bands, crude three-row dicing, two bands, a.f., three bands, tall rays (two). In a.f., from 1. to r., a horizontallydivided lozenge, leaping hare to r., back half of hound to r. On the glazed interior, below the lip, a reserved line. The decoration of the handle zone, on either side between the handles, can be reconstructedas follows:numerousvertical bars,butterfly,fourverticalbars, lozenge chain, four vertical bars, butterfly,numerousvertical bars. Our fragment is from the area between the left handle on one side and the central panel with the lozenge chain.
Injudging the shapes of PC aryballoi,FriisJohansen's classic sequence, from fat to ovoid to piriform, cannot be rigidly applied, for there are many variations in each of the three stages, and, as Johansen himself observed (1923, pp. 16-17), the decoration must also be taken into account. In spite of its peculiar recurving toe, 8 agrees well with most typical MPC shapes: compare, for the general effect, Boston 99.511, by the SacrificePainter(CorVP, p. 35, A 2; Payne 1933, pl. 19:6), or, on a humbler level, Taranto 4760 (Lo Porto 1959-1960, pp. 2122, figs. 9:d, 11). The elements of the decoration on 8 (narrow and wide horizontal bands, dicing, reserved band with dot-cluster rosettes, and silhouetted dogs) are all common features of MPC aryballoi, occurring in a large number of variations and permutations. Here, again, one should not look for exact replicas of our vase, even though each of its elements is easy to match. One interesting feature is the leftward motion of the dogs in its middle zone, as on Taranto 4760 (above). For the presence of bands instead of rays at the base, a relatively late phenomenon,
Williams1972,no. 7, p. 118,pl. 20 ("MidBibliography: dle Protocorinthian"). The syntax of the decoration can be matched on many kotylai: e.g., Perachora II, esp. nos. 404 and 487, pl. 26. The decoration of the handle zone (bars, butterflies, lozenge pattern) is found on the necks of oinochoai as early as EPC, such as London 1859.2-16.38 (Payne 1933, pl. 4:1; N. Coldstream, GreekGeometric Pottery,London 1968, pl. 21:b), and in MPC I, as on Toulouse 26.106 (CorVP,p. 21, Toulouse Painter,A 1; Payne 1933, pl. 12), and in the handle zone of a MPC II kotyle from Aitos attributedby Dunbabin and Robertson (1953, p. 176) to the Huntsmen ('Aetos") Painter (CorVP,p. 25, D 4; cf. also D 3). The leaping hare in the picture zone adds a livelytouch to an otherwisetrite subject. The kotylai from Perachora (above) that exhibit similaritiesof syntax have been dated to LPC/TR. See Corinth VII, ii, no. 5, p. 14. The band of dicing above the picture zone is carelessly rendered and, though not in itself a sure sign of lateness, does suggest that the date of the fragment may not be quite so early as the excavatorplaced it.
CATALOGUE End of Middle ProtocorinthianII or beginning of Late Protocorinthian. 10 CONICAL OINOCHOE, P1.2 FRAGMENT C-3 1-110. Area of New Museum, late context. Single fragment, from base to upper part of body, from a small vase. RH. 0.039 m. Glaze badly worn; added red. Below (missing) neck, tongues RBRB ..., tworow dicing, figured frieze, two-row dicing, rays. In frieze, two hoplites confronted, brandishing spears; a third hoplite runs up from 1. All three carry shield and spear; they wear helmets with high plumes on the crest. Contours of figures incised. No f.o. preserved. Corinth Bibliography: VII, i, no. 185,p. 51, pl. 25. Fine, precise rendering. The incised contours of the figures seem closely allied to the work of the Huntsmen Painter (CorVP, pp. 24-26), with which it is contemporary. For the on-edge view of the shield of the middle warrior Weinberg (CorinthVII, i, no. 185, p. 51) cites as parallel K. F.Johansen 1923, pl. 32 (CorVP,p. 32, Chigi Painter,A 2). See also the aryballos Corinth CP-2096 (CorVP, p. 25, Near the Huntsmen Painter,B 1, pl. 6:1a-e). Middle Protocorinthian II or beginning of Late Protocorinthian. 11 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT PI. 2 C-7 1-161. Forum Southwest, PC Well 1971-4, under Building I. Single fragment from lower part of body wall. PH. 0.078, p.W 0.061 m. Glaze fired orange; added red. Part of a.f., black polychrome band, rays. In a.f., forepart of an animal (hound? lion?), crouching, to 1.;at 1., tip of something (another dog's tail?). Sketchy rendering; somewhat reminiscent of the Hound Painterand perhaps also the Aegina Bellerophon Painter,but I have found no close parallel. End of Middle Protocorinthian or beginning of Late Protocorinthian. 12 LARGE OPEN VASE, FRAGMENT PI. 2 C- 1976-250. Forum Southwest, late context. Fragment from a krater, or outsized kotyle? Max. p. dim. (on chord) 0.160 m. Bright orange glaze. Interior glazed. On exterior, what has survived is the lower part of an a.f.; three bands; large tall
9
rays. In a.f., something, then hind legs of a feline(?)crouching to r., then the wing tip of an avian. Possiblyto be restored as a sphinx, crouching to r.? Large, bold style, with heavy, precise incisions. Different from but contemporary with (and worthy of) the Aegina Bellerophon Painter. Middle to Late Protocorinthian. 13 PYXIS LID, FRAGMENT PI. 3 C-65-200. Gymnasium, late context. Rim fragment, preserving part of a.f. Max. p. dim. 0.059, est. Diam. 0.120 m. Black glaze, partly peeled off; added red. On top of lid, a.f. between pairs of bands. Part of a bird(?)to r., goat to 1.;f.o., two bichrome pinwheel rosettes. Bibliography: J. Wiseman,"Excavations at Corinth:The GymnasiumArea, 1966,"Hesperia 36, 1967 [pp. 402428], no. 1,p. 424, pl. 90:b,givinga fullerdescription(but notaltogetherin agreementwithmine),withappreciative remarkson the style(LPC). Wiseman compares, for the rendering of the goat's ear, Aigina K 339 (Kraiker 1951, pl. 26). The dainty, mincing style should be easy to recognize, if encountered. For the general effect, one might compare Vatican 81 (Payne 1933, pl. 15:1-3; repainted). Late Protocorinthian. 14 UNCERTAIN SHAPE, FRAGMENT PI. 3 CP-3178. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment, broken on all sides, either from a closed vase or, possibly, the lid of a vessel such as a pyxis. Max. p. dim. 0.042 m. Flat shape, with concentric wheelmarksinside. Chocolate brown to orange-brown glaze. On exterior, standing quadruped to r., head and chest missing. Running diagonally from 1. down into its back, something which at first looks like a tail, but it is very straight and could possibly be a spear and spearhead (the tip is a very slender leaf shape). Scanty incision; no f.o. preserved. Late Protocorinthian. 15 DINOS STAND(?), FRAGMENT PI. 3 CP-2918. East of Theater, 1926, late context. Single fragment, thick, with a pronounced lateral curve and a slight curve outward at the bottom, apparently from the midsection of a dinos stand. PH. 0.095, p.W 0.096 m. Slightly lustrous but badly peeled glaze; added red and yellow. Inside not glazed.
10
AFI ERMATH
At top, fat incised tongues, . . . BYYBY . . ., then a black-polychromeband, overpaintedwith bands, YRY;a.f.; glazed zone. In a.f., lion facing boar; at r., tip of the muzzle of another lion, partly overlapping the tail of the boar. On lebetes ("dinoi")and stands see, in general, CorV, pp. 475-479. Note, in particular,the LPC stand Basel, Antikenmuseum, Ludwig Collection (CorV, p. 37, Near the Sacrifice Painter,B 5) with two animal friezes on the lower portion, and the unfigured example, also PC, London 1846.6-19. lb (A 741: NC 116; Necrocorinthia, p. 276, fig. 119; J. Boardman, 'A ProtocorinthianDinos and Stand," AntK 13, 1970 [pp. 92-94], p. 93, pl. 44:5 [not "48.6-19.1"]). The Corinth fragment would come fromthe upperpart of the flaringlower section of the stand, just below the bulging transitionalmember. For inverted tongues in this position compare the standin London, which also flareslesswidely toward the base than does the Ludwig stand. So placed, the Corinth fragment might have belonged to a stand with severalanimal friezesseparatedby blackpolychrome bands, roughly comparable in overall size to the stands in London (H. 0.490 m.) and Basel (H. 0.472 m.). The rendering of the animals is crisp and clean, with contours extensively reinforced by incision. The head of the lion is too badly flaked to allow close stylistic study, but its type is characteristically PC. Remarkable for the boar are its walkinggait (not charging),its shortforelegsand forward-sloping back, its long snout, and its carefully incised tail. The incised lines in its legs and feet should be distinctive, but nothing quite like them has thus far come to light. The artist belongs to the period of the Head-in-Air Painter (though the style is different), a time when the boar first became a popular subject for PC vase painters. Late Protocorinthian. 16 OLPE(?),FRAGMENT PI. 3 C-70-118. Sacred Spring, PC fill. Eight joined fragments, giving part of shoulder and upper part of body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.115 m. Blackglaze, partlypeeled off; added purplishred. From top of fragment: tongues, scales, a.f. Tongues alternately red(?); scales alternately purple red and yellow. What remains of the a.f. is part of a boar facing 1.;no f.o. The shape could be either an oinochoe or an olpe; the curvaturetends to favorthe latter identification.
The syntaxwould servefor either shape:in LPC and Transitional the vertical sequence tongues-scalesa.f. is a common feature. On olpai, for example, cf. London OC 397 (A 1009: NC 48; CorVP, pp. 3839, Chigi Group: Various,no. 13), where the frieze also has no f.o. For oinochoai, cf. the Transitional exampleBasel, Antikenmuseum,LudwigCollection L-l 1, by the Painter of Vatican 73 (CorVP,p. 68, A 10, and App. III). The absence of fo. in LPC and Transitionalanimal friezes is not so rare as it once seemed to Weinberg(Corinth VII, i, no. 186, p. 51). Extremely fine style, though hard to judge because of the poor condition of the surface and the lack of the boar's head. Late Protocorinthian. 17 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENTS PI. 3 C-66-167 a, b. Peribolos of Apollo, PC fill. Two nonjoining clusters of joined fragments, from upper body wall and shoulder of a narrow-footed oinochoe. (a)W 0.160 m. (b)W 0.128 m. Brownishglaze; added red and white. Black-polychrome tongues, wide black-polychrome band (w-rrrrrrr-w),a.f., black zone with black-polychromebands (w-rr-w). In a.f., on fragment a, confrontedwater birds with long beaks and long legs, with a swastikaand sigma between, hound running to r., back end of another hound to r., and on fragmentb (not illustrated),hare to r., then upper part of a net(?). Interestingstyle, with plentiful but rather sketchy incised detail. On hare hunts with nets see CorVP, p. 368 and note 13, and J. K. Anderson, Huntingin theAncientWorld,Berkeley 1985, esp. p. 107. Late Protocorinthian. 18 BLACK-POLYCHROMESQUAT PI. 3 OLPE, FRAGMENTS CP-3170 a-c. Cistern 1901- 1, ForumNorthwest. Three fragments, 8 sherds joining 6-1-1; all sides broken. Enough is preserved to show shape and syntax of decoration down to tips of rays above (missing)base. (a)H. 0.045, W 0.185 m. (b) Max. p. dim. 0.098 m. (c) Max. p. dim. 0.090 m. Firm, slightlylustrousglaze; added red and white. Fragment a shows a bit of neck (glazed), shoulder, and upper body. Fragment b (not illustrated) shows part of shoulder and upper body to sharp inward bend at level of maximum diameter, and below. Fragment c shows part of body above and
CATALOGUE below level of maximum diameter, into zone of rays (tips of two are preserved). Black-polychromedecoration consists of the following: On shoulder, below neck, carefully incised tongues, every fourth one filled with red: RBBBRBBB ... Some indication of white, which would be natural (e.g., RBWBRBWB ...), in that the tongues in question appear to be a duller black: RBbBRBbB ... Immediately below tongues, polychrome bands WRRRRW, the same repeated just above maximum bulge of body. Near lower edge of glazed area, not far above ray zone, a red band above a yellow-orange band. On the squat olpe (a rare shape), cf. CorVP,p. 490 and the examples there cited, notes 187-189. Like the others of its kind, 18 is notable for its exceptionally fine technique. The nearest analogy to its scheme of decoration is on the splendid example in the British Museum, London 1860.2-1.32 (A 1008: NC 51; Lane 1948, pl. 24A). Late Protocorinthianor early Transitional.
19 CONCAVE-SIDED PYXIS AND PI. 4 LID (FRAGMENTARY) C-40-224 a-c. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Put together from fragments,missing parts restored in plaster. Rest. Diam. of lid, 0.178, rest. H. of vase (not fully determined), 0.092 m. From lid, one set ofjoined fragments (a) and one isolated fragment (b, not illustrated) have survived; of the body, fragment c, p.W 0.135 m. Greenish clay, glaze much worn; added red and white. On lid (knob restored), rays, polychrome bands, a.f. (feet toward rim): (feline), lion, goat, (lion) ... goat. F.o., fused dot-cluster rosettes. On body of vase, one set ofjoined fragmentshas survived,giving part of rim and one spurred handle, a.f. Flanking handle, vertical bars, vertical zigzag wavy lines; then, above a.f., black-polychrome bands; in a.f., (lion), goat, (panther) ... Bibliography: p. 70, A 1. CorVP, In spite of its poor state of preservation, this is an interestingvase because of its style of decoration. It is a typical work of the Sphinx Painter,in his early stage. From his late period there is also a concavesided pyxis with lid, Syracuse 52134 (CorEP,p. 71, A 15). Transitional.
11
P1.4 20 OLPE(?),FRAGMENT C-40-290. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Wall fragment, broken on all sides. RH. 0.052, p.W 0.041 m. Brown to red-brownglaze, added red. Part of a.f. (rearpart of bull to r.), between black bands; below, red (and white?) polychrome bands. Eo., fused dot-cluster rosettes. Bibliography: p. 78, A 7. CorVP, Clumsy but distinctive style; by the ClermontFerrandPainter. Transitional. 21 UNCERTAIN SHAPE, FRAGMENT PI. 5 C-64-151. Vrysoula Deposit. Single fragment, brokenon all sides, frombodywall (ofan oinochoe?). Max. p. dim. 0.072 m. Firm glaze; added red and white. Part of an animal frieze: feline to r., fused dotcluster rosette in field. Below, black-polychrome bands. Very heavy style, for which no exact match has been found. Transitionalor beginning of Early Corinthian. 22 ALABASTRON (FRAGMENTARY) PI. 5 C-40-269. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Preserved to full height; missing parts restored in plaster. H. 0.088 m. Good glaze, added red, surface well preserved. Tongues on mouth, dots on edge, tongues below mouth, tongue rosette underneath. In picture zone, Boread to r., facing swan. F.o., incised rosettes and small, incised "plus"rosettes. Bibliography: Weinberg1948,D16, p. 219, pl. 79. Fine style. Near the Typhon Painter (cf. CorVP, pp. 56-57). Early Corinthian. 23 ALABASTRON PI. 6 C-40-264. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Mended from fragments. Nearly complete. Part of mouth missing; small gaps in body restored in plaster. H. 0.085, Diam. 0.044 m. Good glaze, tending to peel in parts; added red. On top of mouth, tongues; on edge, dots. Above picture zone (no bounding lines), tongues. Underneath, dot ring. In picture zone, crouching lion to r. (red in shoulder area, between rib marks, in ear and face). F.o.,varied incised rosettes, including one large one in front of lion.
12
AFTERMATH
Weinberg1948,DI 7, p. 219, pl. 79 (small Bibliography: illustration). Routine work. Fairly coarse but well above the level of The Apprentice (CorVP,p. 82). Early Corinthian. PI. 6 24 ALABASTRON (FRAGMENTARY) CP-23 17, with additionaljoiningfragment. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. PH. 0.042, p.W 0.051 m. The new fragment gives the base. Old glue shows that another fragment, once joined, is now missing at the top. Two seated felines, confronted; in the field, incised rosettes. Underneath, tongue rosette. VII, ii, no. 20, pp. 18-19, pl. 5 Bibliography:Corinth (part). Very fine style, possiblyby the Painterof Palermo 489. We have conjectured (loc.cit.)that this may be the same vase as NC 91, described as "very close" to the Painter (Necrocorinthtia, p. 275). Early Corinthian. PI. 6 25 ALABASTRON, FRAGMENT CP-3143. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Part of a small vase, preserving part of tongues below neck and part of a figure. RH. 0.034, p.W 0.025 m. Firmglaze, slightlypeeled on figure'shead; added red. Part of a "Boread" to r., spread sickle-shaped wings. Red in face and wings. No fo. preserved. Typhon Group, possibly by the Painter himself. Cf. especially Bochum S 1098 (CorVP,p. 335, AP 1). Transitional. PI. 6 26 ALABASTRON, FRAGMENT CP-3142. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Two joined fragments, giving handleroot and part of body wall, mainly at back of vase. RH. 0.047, p.W 0.039 m. Black to orange-brownglaze. Traces of tongues below neck. Two panthers confronted, their tails (crossed and?) looped high above their backs. The panthers have incised arcs of fleckingon their necks, framedside whiskers. F.o., small incised rosettes, none with centers. Flecking in the form of incised arcs and the bounded side whiskersrecall the pantherson an alabastron in the Beverly Hills Market (Summa Galleries, 1981), now Malibu 85.AE.5, apparently by
the Painter of Palermo 489) ((orgV, p. 335, A? 1), but the latteris much finer. Compare also Columbia (Missouri)University 67.48 (CorVP,p. 63, Near the Dolphin Painter,B 6). Good style. Early Corinthian.
PI. 6 27 ROUND ARYBALLOS, FRAGMENT C-73-109. Lechaion Road, Archaic fill below Exedra. Part of body wall, preserved to full height. Max. p. dim 0.051 m. Glaze partly chipped; added red. Tongues, two bands, frieze of padded dancers, two bands, tongue rosette. In frieze, parts of two padded dancers, back-to-back;incised rosettes and blobs. The head of one padded dancer is partly preserved, showing that the vase belongs to Seeberg's "Flap-group 1" (1971, pp. 60-61). The flap allies it to the La Trobe Painter (CorVP,pp. 108-111, 309310), but the style seems too coarse to belong to him. Early Corinthian.
PI. 7 28 ROUND ARYBALLOS C-73-146. Lechaion Road, Pit 1973-1 in LC House. Body intact; neck, mouth, and most of handle missing. RH. 0.054, Diam. 0.056 m. Glaze black and brown to orange; added red. Main picture zone not bounded above or below; underneath, tongue rosette. Young bird (gosling or cygnet?)to 1.,wings spread, head turned;red in wing bands. Eo., incised "shapes"and, at back, regular incised rosettes with circularcontours. VII, By the same hand as Corinth CP-485 (Corinth ii, no. 36, p. 21, pl. 6). This latter is evidently the p. 290, under piece cited by Payne (Necrocorinthia, NC 585, a composite entry of aryballoi decorated with "swans with outspread wings"). Within that groupthe followingare also near replicasof 28: Ddlos X, pl. 23, nos. 234 (surfacepoorly preserved),235, 236, 237; CVA,BibliothequeNationale 1 [France7], pl. 13 [297]:20; to which add Prague, N.M. 247 (much repainted)and an example once in the Basel Market (Munzen und Medaillen A.G., 1963, unpublished?). All the foregoing should be by one artist,whom we may call the Fledgling Painter. Early Corinthian.
CATALOGUE PI. 7 29 ROUND ARYBALLOS (FRAGMENTARY) C-40-25 1. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. About two thirds of vase preserved;back part missing. H. 0.054 m. Good fabric. Firm glaze; added red. On top of mouth, tongues; on edge of mouth, dots; no bounding lines; below neck, tongues. Crouching lion to r. (red in neck, shoulder, and rib markings). F.o., incised rosettesof varied size, includingtwo large ones. Underneath, tongue rosette. Bibliography:cf. Weinberg1948, under D27, p. 220; Corinth VII, ii, under no. 10, p. 16, on the contextof finding. Good clean work, with carefully rendered details of lion's head and shoulder markings. Early Corinthian. 30 ROUND ARYBALLOS PI. 7 (FRAGMENTARY) C-40-253. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Bottom half, recomposed from fragments. PH. ca. 0.040, Diam. 0.055 m. Good fabric. Firm glaze; added red. Siren(?) to r., wings spread, facing a swan with folded wings. F.o., incised rosettes, various sizes. Underneath, tongue rosette. Red in breast and wing band of siren. Bibliography:cf. Weinberg1948, under D27, p. 220; Corinth VII, ii, under no. 10, p. 16, on the contextof finding. Good style. Interesting details, e.g., the siren's(?) wing. Early Corinthian. 31 ROUND ARYBALLOS PI. 8 (FRAGMENTARY) C-40-257. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Twojoined fragmentsgiving base and much of body on one side, a little bit on the other (main) side. Small size; dainty fabric. PH. 0.035, p.W 0.055 m. (nearlyits original diameter). Firm glaze; added red. Underneath, tongue rosette; on one side of body, frontal ox head (partially preserved); beside it, a neatly incised rosette (no center); on the other side, large rosette with double incised lines encircling a central rhomboid design. Red in alternate "core" rhomboids and alternate petals of the rosette. The frontal bull's head is a common decorative theme, used especially on round aryballoi and as a
13
shield device, and at least once on the handle-plate of a krater. On aryballoi it is especially favored by artists active in the Lion Group (see CorVP,The Ox-head Painters,pp. 119-122). The design on the reverseside of the aryballosoccurs, in a slightlymore elaborateform, as the central patternin a whirligigoffour wings on an aryballosin a Swissprivatecollection (Chamayand Maier 1984, pp. 64-65) and, in a still more elaborate version, on the alabastronTaranto 4849 (Lo Porto 1959-1960, p. 111, fig. 86) as filling "rosettes". Compare also the central design of an elaborate lotus-palmette cross on the alabastronTaranto 20720 (ibid.,p. 106, fig. 83). Good early work, with careful incised lines. Early Corinthian. 32 ROUND ARYBALLOS, Pi. 8 FRAGMENT C-60-130. Forum Southwest, Roman context. Five joined fragments of a large aryballos with flattened bottom, giving part of main body zone and nearly all of base. Max. p. dim. 0.110 m. Good, firm glaze; added red. Above main body zone, apparently,two-row dicing, with round dots instead of squares. In frieze, siren to r., with spread wings (red in face, breast, and middle wing strip); also preserved, from another part of the frieze, a small bit of the hind leg of a feline. Fo., varied rosettes (none with centers), including "plus" rosettes, and dots. Below, two bands, frieze of reversed Z's, two concentric bands. Underneath, circle surrounded by double rays, the inner ones void. Very precise, careful work. Unusual syntax of decoration. The fancy base pattern (unique?) appears to be the proclamation of a major purpose on the part of the artist. Apparently Early Corinthian, in spite of the large size and flattened base. On double base rays with inner ones void, see under 1, p. 5 above. Early Corinthian (?). 33 ROUND ARYBALLOS PI. 8 (FRAGMENTARY) C-3 1-109. New Museum, late context. Mouth, part of neck and handle missing. Diam. 0.059, p.H. 0.056 m. Dull black glaze, smoky brown where thin; surface worn on front. At back of handle, three horizontal bars. No bounding line; no tongues above picture area. In
14
AFTERMATH
main body zone, bird (swan?) to r., with spread wings. F.o., incised rosettes, dots. Underneath, small tongue rosette. Routine work; the form of the bird's tail is unusual. Early Corinthian. Pi. 8 34 ROUND ARYBALLOS (FRAGMENTARY) CP-2627, with new joining fragments. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Half of body of a round aryballos with (new fragment) shoulder and neck, composed of four joining fragments. PH. (new) 0.049, est. Diam. (still)0.057 m. Paint mostly worn off. Three padded dancers in varied poses. The new upper fragment gives the tops of the heads of the two incompletely preserved dancers (to 1. of handle-root). A small new piece of the body gives the upper half of the second dancer, to r., behind the fully preserved dancer (to the right of the handle-root). Seeberg 1971, no. 184 bis,p. 34; Corinth Bibliography: no. VII, ii, 32, p. 21, pl. 5; CorVP,p. 109,A 7. La Trobe Painter. Early Corinthian. Pi. 8 35 ROUND ARYBALLOS (FRAGMENTARY) CP-2339, with additionaljoiningfragment. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. PH. 0.035, p.W (new) 0.063 m. Padded dancer, siren(?), filling rosettes. The newly joined fragment completes at left a large rosette, of which three petal tips are visible in the original illustration. Red in cores and some petals of the rosettes. VII, ii, no. 38 (part, with further Bibliography:Corinth 6. 22, literature), pl. p. Good, clean style, recalling the Warrior Group (CorVP,pp. 95-100). Early Corinthian (late). Pi. 9 36 ROUND ARYBALLOS CP-1973. Isthmos Cemetery. Fully preserved except for a hole in the body of the vase in the area of the siren'sneck at right. H. 0.079, Diam. 0.078 m. Paint much worn; added red, white-dot borders. On top of mouth, fine tongues within bands; on edge of lip, dots. On body, floral complex between
sirens, wings folded, heads turned; no fo. Underneath, whirligig (clockwise, six). Sirens have red spots in forwardarea of wings. p. 123, Lion Group:Unattributed CorVP, Bibliography: arecited. Vases,no. 23, wherecomparanda Lion Group (good style). Early Corinthian. Pi. 9 37 CONVEX-SIDED PYXIS (WITHOUT HANDLES), FRAGMENTS C-1976-179 a-d. Forum Southwest, late context. One group of joined fragments (a); a secondary group (b); and two nonjoining insignificant fragments (c and d). (a) Top Diam. 0.097, p.H. (nearlycomplete) 0.083, max. body Diam. 0.137 m. Foot broken out and missing. (b) Part of foot with base rays, dicing, part of lowest part of a.f., p.H. 0.054, max. p. dim. 0.092 m. (c) Part of dicing, bit of lowest part of a.f. (rosette,dots, hind leg of ruminant), max. p. dim. 0.031 m. (d) Small sliver,with part of dicing, max. p. dim. 0.020 m. Full syntax is given by fragmentsa and b combined. Dull glaze, tending to peel rather badly, giving a scabrouseffect to the surface;applied red. On top of rim, reversed Z's between bands; on body,fine tongues, three-rowdicing between bands, a.f., two bands, three-row dicing between bands, rays. In a.f. (readingfrom1.to r., beginning at break in main fragment),siren to 1.,wings raised;stag to 1., betweenlion(s);floralbetween sphinx(es),with sickle wings; lion to 1. On fragment b, not belonging to any of the creatures on fragment a: [- - -] (feline)
(something)[-- -]. Thick f.o., consisting of rosettes, incised odd "shapes",and one circle and dot. The style recallsthat of the Royal LibraryPainter (CorVP,pp. 126-128, 310-311), but the renderings are choppier and less flowing, and the field is more cluttered. Early Corinthian. Pi. 10 38 PYXIS LID C-40-220. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Put together from fragments, the missing parts restored in plaster; knob missing. Restored Diam. 0.142 m. Glaze partly worn off; added red. Dots, a.f., dicing between bands. In a.f., lion facing goat, siren to r. with raised wings, head turned, lion facing bull.
CATALOGUE Bibliography: Weinberg1948,D63, p. 226, pl. 83; CorVP, p. 137,A 11 (wherethediameteris givenas ca.0.134 m.). Painter of the Munich Pyxides. Early Corinthian. 39 CONCAVE-SIDED PYXIS Pi. 10 (FRAGMENTARY) C-40-223. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Put together from fragments,shape restoredin plaster. Spurredhandles restored. H. to rim 0.088, base Diam. 0.129 m. Pale greenish ivory clay, glaze mostly lost; added red. Vertical wavy line in handle zone, stopped by bars flanking handles; a.f. between bands; rays at base; inside, bands. In a.f., goat to 1. between panthers, bird, panther, goat. Fo., dot-in-circle rosette. Underside plain. Bibliography: Weinberg 1948, D63, p. 226, pl. 83 (illustrated together with lid 38, to which it may belong). Cf. CorinthVII, ii, no. 42, pp. 22-23, pl. 6; CorVP,p. 31 1, A 9 bis.
Painter of the Munich Pyxides. Early Corinthian. 40 KOTYLE, FRAGMENTS Pi. 10 C-73-148 a, b. Lechaion Road, Pit 1973-1 in LC house. Two joined fragments (a) and one isolated fragment (b), both from rim down into upper body. (a) RH. 0.057, p.W 0.106 m. (b) RH. 0.059, p.W. 0.026 m. Dull glaze, tending to peel; added red. In handle zone (fragmentsa and b), frieze of water birds ("swans")to r., with raised wings, in silhouette technique. In main frieze, fragment a, siren to 1., with raised sickle-shaped wing, and panther to 1.; fragment b, wing of siren to r. Eo., incised rosettes, dots. Fairlycoarse style. Silhouetted birds occur also in the handle zone of 41, wherein, however,the style is different. Early Corinthian. 41 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) Pi. 10 C-67-105. Peribolos of Apollo, Archaic fill. Composed from fragments; no restorations. Preserved on one side from rim down into ray zone at base; part of one handle-root preserved. RW (nearly full diameter) 0. 168, p.H. 0.116 m. Red-brownglaze in main zone, grayishblacknear rim; added red and white.
15
In handle zone, frieze of silhouetted young birds ("swans")to r. Below, a wide glazed zone with superimposed bands, wRw; a.f.; wide glazed zone with superimposedbands, wRw; double raysat base. In a.f., lion to r., ram(?) to r., panther to 1. Fo., incised rosettes, dots. Forceful but not highly refined style. Certain featuresrecall the Lowie Painter (CorVP,p. 140), but others are different. Friezes of standing water birds are found in the handle zone of kotylai by the Royal Library Painter (CorVP, pp. 126-128), in carefully rendered black figure. Here, the same occurs in a debased version (unincised silhouette), and the style of the animals is similar but coarser. Early Corinthian. 42 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) Pi. 11 C-47-584. Southeast Building, Well 1947-4. Handles missing,parts of body missing and restored in plaster. H. 0.082, Diam. (rim)0.120 m. Rosy buff clay, glaze tending to brown; no added red. In handle zone, verticalwavy lines between bands (two above, two below); a.f.; rays. In a.f., ram facing panther, bird to r. Fo., crudely incised blobs and "shapes". Rough style (cf. CorVP,p. 134). Painter of Corinth C-47-576. Early Corinthian. 43 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) Pi. 11 C-40- 143. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Put together from fragments, the missing parts restored in plaster. H. 0.096 m. Vertical wavy lines; a.f. between single bands; rays. In a.f., lion to r.; bird to r., head turned; lion to r. Fo., unincised blobs and crosses. Bibliography:Cointh VII, ii, attributedunder no. 53, p. 25. Cf.Benson1983,pp. 322-323, pl. 67:e(C-40-159) ("PlusPainter"). By the Painter of Corinth C-40-159, to whom are attributablefifteen kotylai, most of them from the same well. Ugly style, but the sleepy lions are amusing. End of Early Corinthian. 44 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) Pi. 11 C-40-153. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Fromrim down into ray zone; missing parts restored in plaster. Diam. including handles 0.158, Diam. rim 0.115, p.H. 0.078 m. Good glaze.
16
AFTERMATH
In handle zone, vertical zigzags between bands; a.f.; rays. In a.f., three(?)lions to r., bird to r., head turned. F.o., dots and blobs. Bibliography: CorVP,p. 134,A 14. Crude style. Painter of Corinth C-40- 159. End of Early Corinthian. 45 KOTYLE P1. 12 C-40-161. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Nearly complete, the missing parts restoredin plaster. H. 0.095, Diam. with handles 0. 180(?)m. Dull black glaze; added red. In handle zone, verticalwavylines between bands; on body of vase, a.f., single groundline, rays. In a.f., lion, forepartof lion (!),panther,all to r. F.o., blobs, dots, unincised crosses. Bibliography: Weinberg1948,D43, p. 222, pl. 81; Corinth VII, ii, attributedunderno. 53, p. 25; CorVP, p. 133, Painterof CorinthC-40-159,A 8; Benson1983,pp.322323, "PlusPainter". Crude but distinctive style, on which see Weinberg, loc.cit. The sleepy panther deserves our sympathy,if not our admiration. Painter of Corinth C-40- 159. Early Corinthian. 46 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 12 C-40-305. New Museum, Archaic Well 1940-2. Two joined fragments, giving part of the rim and body wall. RH. 0.040, p.W (at rim) 0.055 m. Firm glaze; added red. In handle zone, verticalwavylines between bands; then a.f., head of lion to r., tail of feline to r. (?). Fo., unincised blobs. Bibliography: CorVP,p. 134,PainterofCorinthC-40-159, A 15. The lion's head is characteristicof the style of this painter. Painter of Corinth C-40- 159. Early Corinthian. 47 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 13 CP-3 131. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment,brokenon all sides, preserving part of body wall from part of handle zone down into main frieze. RH. 0.041, p.W 0.070 m. Firm glaze, black to brown on exterior, light brown to orange on interior;added red. In handle zone, vertical wavy lines. Below, black band, narrow band, a.f. In a.f, head and neck of
panther to r. F.o., incised fillers of various shapes, including a fan-shaped filler behind the neck of the panther. Unusuallyclean work, with characteristicallyfluid elaboration of details in the brow, ears, eyes, and muzzle of the panther. Recalls the Lowie Painter (CorVP,p. 140), but finer. Also related to the early workofthe Painterof BerlinF 1090 (CorVP,pp. 175177, especially his kotyle, Athens, from Perachora, A 23, p. 176). Compare also Corinth KP 1093 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 348, p. 78, pl. 18),which is of equally refined but slightly differentstyle. Early Corinthian. 48 KOTYLE PI. 13 CP- 1997. Isthmos Cemetery. Complete. H. 0.073, rim Diam. 0.104, Diam. with handles 0.158, foot Diam. 0.047 m. Dull black to brown glaze; added red. Inside glazed red brown. In handle zone, vertical (slightly)wavy bars; a.f.; two bands; rays. Slope of underfoot glazed; circle and fat dot in medallion. In a.f., goat facingpanther, owl to r. F.o., dots and blobs, various incised shapes. Goat's eye incised; panther has vertical incised line in its brow. Bibliography: CorVP, p. 132,A 1. The name-vaseof the Painterof Corinth CP- 1997 (CorVP,p. 132, A 1). Another kotyle by this hand was once in the Basel Market (MfinzenundMedaillen, Sonderliste L, 1969, no. 23, pp. 9-10; CorVP,p. 132, A 2). Cf. Benson 1983, pp. 320-321, where the Basel vase is included in a list of kotylai attributed to one hand, in which, however, Corinth CP-1997 does not appear. I am not convinced of the unity of Benson's list, but some of the pieces may belong together. Painterof Corinth CP-1997. Early Corinthian. 49 SHALLOW BOWL (PHIALE?), PI. 14 FRAGMENT C-67-9 1. PeribolosofApollo, late fill. Twojoined fragmentsfrom rim and outer part of a bowl. Max. p. dim. 0.055 m. Firm glaze; brilliant red. On exterior,polychrome band, black with superimposed RwR band of polychrome "incised verticals". On interior, ground frieze of polychrome "incised verticals", a.f. In a.f., ..., panther facing
CATALOGUE goat, .... Fo., one biggish incised rosette, various smaller blobs and "shapes". Interesting style; should be attributable. Early Corinthian. PI. 14 50 CONICAL OINOCHOE (FRAGMENTARY) CP-2371, with additional joining fragment giving base of vessel. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Not a convex pyxis as stated in CorinthVII, ii. RH. (new)0.070, p.W (new)0.080 m. Feline to 1., avian to r.; incised rosettes and small dots. The new fragment adds the body of the feline; below, groundline, a second band with a red stripe painted over it, very short rays, and at base, a red band. Bibliography: Corinth VII, ii, no. 100(part),p. 35, pl. 16. Dodwellian in character, but not by the Painter himself. Middle Corinthian. 51 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT PI. 14 CP-2483. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Two joined fragments, from body wall. P.H. 0.052, p.W 0.048 m. Firm glaze; added red. Part of an a.f., black-glazed zone below, with overpainted bands, wwRww. In a.f., hindquarters of a feline striding to r.;f.o., incised rosettes, blobs. Fairlyrough but vigorousstyle. Forgeneral effect, compare 52 (CorinthVII, ii, no. 65, p. 27, pl. 11). Early Corinthian (fairlyadvanced). 52 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT PI. 14 CP-2484, with newjoining fragment. Earlyexcavations; exact provenience unknown. From shoulder of vase. RH. (still)0.040, p.W (new) 0.091 m. Crouching panther to r.; the new fragment continues the body of the panther, with more strong slanting rib lines and the top of the curved-back tail. Above, two incised six-petal rosettes and part of the black band at the base of the neck of the vase. Bibliography:CorinthVII, ii, no. 65 (part,with stylistic comments),pp. 27-28, pl. 11. Furtherexperience has suggestedthat the crouching pose is somewhat less rare than we had assumed. Still, an impressivefragment. Early Corinthian.
17
53 OLPE, FRAGMENT PI. 14 C-50-167. South Stoa, Archaic to Classical fill in colonnade north of Shop XXVI. Three joined fragments, from middle to lower body wall. RH. 0.154, p.W 0.093 m. Firm glaze; added red and white. Parts of two a.f. are preserved; between them, a black-polychromeband; below the lower frieze, a black-polychromezone and the top of one base ray. In the upper frieze, part of the tip of the tail and one spread wing of an avian (swan?), to 1.; forepart of a lion to 1. In the lower frieze, swan to 1.with raised wings, rear end and one hind leg of a ruminant to r. Eo., crudely incised rosettes, including one "fan" rosette, unincised dots, and one dot-in-circle. Not very fine but possibly distinctive style. The olpe shapeis not very common among the finds at Corinth itself. See remarksunder 16 and 18. Early Corinthian. 54 KRATER, FRAGMENTS PI. 14 C- 1978-75 a, b. Forum Southwest, Classical debris in Building IV. Fourjoined fragments (a) and one isolatedpiece (b). Fromupper wall (in panel?)of krater.(a) RH. 0.125, p.W 0.122 m. (b) PH. 0.042, p.W 0.055 m. Brown glaze fired orange red on lower part of fragment b on exterior. Interior black glazed. Added red and white. At bottom of fragment a, upper part of body wall, then a broad glazed area, over which are superimposed, near top, two narrowwhite bands, flankinga broad red band. In field, fragment a, sphinx to r., with walking hind legs, forelegs together(?), raised sickle wings, raised tail. Incised details: fringed rump and advanced hind leg, elaborate "pulled" muscles on flank. Under sphinx's body, incised rosette; behind her tail, another incised rosette, partly preserved. Added red in wing bands, alternate feathers of wing and stripes on haunch. Tips of feathers in wing carefully contoured with incision. On fragment b, head of sphinx (partly preserved) wearing polos; at r. of her head an incised rosette, then a horn-shaped form with incised interior details. The subject is perhaps to be completed as a symmetrical composition (conceivably set within a reserved panel) consisting of two sphinxes flanking a central floral ornament, of which the horn-shaped object on fragment b might be a part. For example, compare the krater Rome, Conservatori 266
18
AFTERMATH
(NC 1161; CVA,Musei Capitolini 1 [Italy 36], pl. 3 [1603]:1, 2). See also 55 below. The pose of a walking sphinx with raised sickle wing and raised S-shaped tail enjoys a certain vogue in PC; cf. the Boston Painter (CorVP,p. 134, A 2), the Boston aryballos 95.10 from the Chigi Group (CorVP,p. 37, no. 2), and the Athens fragmentfrom the Argive Heraion (C. Waldstein, TheArgiveHeraeumII, Boston/New York 1902, pl. LXV: 3 [color]; B. Philippaki, Vasesof theNationalArchaeological Museumof Athens,Athens n.d., no. 7, pl. opp. p. 40); it survives into Transitional as in the work of the Polyteleia Painter (CorVP,pls. 26, 27:1b). Early Corinthian. 55 KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 15 C-73-147. Lechaion Road, Pit 1973-1 in LC House. Single fragment giving part of neck and upper part of body wall. RH. 0.120 m. Firm glaze; added red. In reservedpanel, boar to 1. F.o.,dots and incised rosettes. This represents an early type of krater,with animals in reservedpanels on either side and no lower frieze. Cf. Seeberg 1973, pp. 66-80, and Athens, N.M. 12432 (NC 776; Corinth VII, i, no. 188, pl. 26), panther facing boar; Corinth T 1472 (Corinth XIII, no. 135-3, pl. 89:1), bird facing goat; Corinth C-32-257 (Corinth VII, ii, no. 73, pl. 12), goat facing bird; and Corinth CP-2551 (Corinth VII, ii, no. 74, pl. 12), goat facing small bird at right end of panel. As these examples show, the composition need not have been symmetrical. See also T. Baklr 1974, pp. 10, 23-24. Early Corinthian. 56 SMALL OPEN VASE, FRAGMENT PI. 15 C-50-40. South Stoa, Archaic to Classical fill in colonnade north of Shop XXVI. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from body wall. PH. 0.042, p.W 0.063 m. Strongly convex vertical curvature: perhaps from a krateriskosor exaleiptron? Brown glaze; added red. Part of a.f., with bounding line above and glazed zone below. In frieze, floral complex (red in alternate leaves)between lion and panther. Fo., crudely incised rosettes and small unincised blobs and dots. Raw but distinctively self-confident style. Unorthodox rendering of incised details. Early Corinthian?
57 ROUND ARYBALLOS, PI. 15 FRAGMENT C-73-273. Lechaion Road, MC fill in Exedra. Section, recomposedfromfragments,frombase and one side of body. RH. 0.050, p.W 0.073 m. Mostly firm glaze; much added red and white. Below neck (missing),three bands. In field, floral complex consisting of a fancy lotus cross with red and black petals, red cores; many white dots; at center, an incised rosette with white and red petals; and bud-shaped angle fillers. Below, three bands. Underneath, whirligig (six, counterclockwise). Bibliography: CorVP, p. 124,LionGroup:Florals,no. 8. Lion Group (CorVP,pp. 118-126). An unusually rich floral example. End of Early Corinthian or beginning of Middle Corinthian. 58 ROUND ARYBALLOS, PI. 15 FRAGMENT CP-236 1. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragmentfrombody wall, all edges broken. Preservedare a major part of the body wall and a bit of the base on one side. PH. 0.039, p.W 0.055 m. Dull glaze; added red. Strong turning ridges inside. Part of a lotus cross with ovoid ("leafy")angle fillers. The left-hand lotus is almost completely preserved, together with a bit of the lower lotus, all of the lower left leafy filler,a bit of the upper left filler, and a bit of the central node. The filler has two incised concentric circlesat its midpoint. At the base, tongue rosettes. Structurallysimilar is the lotus cross on Corinth C-70-84 (CorVP,p. 122, Lion Group: Florals, no. 6, pl. 50:6), but with differencesin the renderingof details, a reminder that the floral crosses on aryballoi exhibit numerousvariationson a limited number of basic formulas. End of Early Corinthian or beginning of Middle Corinthian. 59 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 15 CP-3 129. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Fivejoined fragments,giving segment of body wall from handle zone into rays. PH. 0.108, p.W 0.090 m. Brownishglaze on exterior,streakyorange inside; added streakyred.
CATALOGUE Vertical zigzag lines, two bands, a.f, two bands, rays. In a.f., panther facing (goat); thick, varied f.o., including incised rosettes, none with centers, dots, blobs. Rough style. Goat's head and horn not completely incised. Panther has slender, highlooped tail in reversed S. The a.f. is thickly cluttered with fo.; renderings of figuresinept, strangelyin contrast to the carefully rendered zigzags and rays. Apprentice work, bad but not very late. Compare, e.g., CorinthXV, iii, nos. 355, 357, pl. 18. Early Corinthian to early Middle Corinthian. PI. 15 60 LEKANE, FRAGMENT C-30-42 a-c. Found ca. 160 meters north of village plateia. Three joined (a) and two nonjoined fragments (b, c; not illustrated)from rim and body of bowl. (a) Max. p. dim. (on chord) 0.175, est. Diam. rim 0.330 m. (b) Max. p. dim. 0.120 m. (c) Max. p. dim. 0.113. Firm, metallic glaze; added red and white. Fragment a: Section from rim to lower part of bowl. Top of rim red, with white stripe. Interior glazed, with red band at edge of rim, bandswRwjust below curve. Spurred handle partly preserved on exterior. In handle zone, neat stepped zigzags (4 to 1.);below, two bands, a.f., two bands, rays (top of one fine ray preserved). In a.f., part ofpanther to 1., [...], swan to r. (under handle), rear end of feline to r., [.. .]. F.o., incised rosettes,blobs, dots. Fragmentb: Partof opposite handle, bit of rim, section of handle zone and top of a.f. (back of ruminant to 1. and tail of feline to r.). Incised rosette with double center; alternate petals red. Fragmentc: Rim, handle zone, bit of a.f. (ear of panther at 1.,something else at r.). A bowl with spurredribbon handles, like Corinth VII, ii, no. 145, p. 44, pl. 24). CP-2447 a-c (Corinth Neat style, recalling the Warrior Group (CorVP, pp. 95-100). End of Early Corinthian or beginning of Middle Corinthian. 61 OINOCHOE (FRAGMENTARY) Pls. 16,17 C-32-134. Temple E, Archaic Well 1932-4. Oinochoe recomposed from fragments. Complete except for small missing areas restored in plaster. RH. 0.222, Diam. 0.170 m. Light buff clay, greenish tinge. Paint nearly worn off. In main body zone, five padded dancers; below, two bands.
19
nearTemBibliography: C. Boulter,'A Pottery-Deposit ple E at Corinth,"AJA41, 1937 [pp. 217-236], no. 48, pp. 230, fig. 33, and 232-234; Corinth VII, i, no. 231, pp. 62-63, pl. 32; Seeberg 1971, no. 150, pp. 7, 31; Corinth VII, ii, p. 78, note 19. An early example of the shape. The padded dancers are also of an early obese type. The shape is well illustrated, but the presence of the padded dancers is barely discernible in the previouspublications. Here are shown a new profile view of the vase and tracings of the padded dancers, made by PatriciaLawrence,who has kindly allowed me to reproduce them. Early Corinthian. 62 OINOCHOE WITH NARROW Fig. 2, P1. 17 FOOT, FRAGMENT C-1976-319. Forum Southwest, Archaic Well 1975-2. Many joined fragments, forming a large part of the body on one side. PH. 0.180, p.W (on chord) 0.265 m. Black glaze, much peeled; added red and white, giving a rich polychrome effect. On the body, large a.f. going around the vase; below it, black with polychrome bands; at base, rays. In a.f., lion facing "Typhon". F.o., large rosettes, some with double centers, some with single centers, some without. Red in lion's head, shoulder, central strip of each foreleg, rib spaces, belly stripe. Forelegs have "fringe" on front and back edges, and the shoulder incisions have a conformation recalling the Scale-pattern Group. The Typhon's tail has a red central stripe with rows of white dots flanking it, the outer stripes incised with transverse tongues on one side, zigzag line on the other. The creature's chiton has red and orange scales. At the juncture of head and body, there is a horizontal ellipse with a red core bordered with white dots, and the outer ring of the ellipse is divided by pairs of incised lines into alternately red and black segments. The Typhon's right hand, hanging down, crosses in front of his tail. Bibliography: p. 308, A 3. CorVP, This remarkablevase was decorated by the Painter of Berlin F 1008, a specialist in alabastra. On his name-vase is shown a Typhon to r. and a lion to r., head turned. Many stylistic traits agree with those of the Corinth oinochoe. It is surprisingto find the same artist decorating such widely different shapes, but the details of rendering, e.g., the markings in
20
AFTERMATH
0~
~~~~~~~~~~0
FIG. 2. Oinochoe 62, scale 1:3
the forelegs and shoulder of the lion, make the attribution highly convincing. It is not clear whether the lion to the left of the Typhon was balanced by another on the right, for the painter shows both symmetrical and asymmetrical groupings on his alabastra. Painter of Berlin F 1008. Early to Middle Corinthian.
PI. 18 63 KRATER, FRAGMENTS C-66-37 a, b. Peribolos of Apollo, in Classical basin. Two clusters ofjoined fragmentspreserving part of body wall with picture zone and wide black zone below it. (a) PH. 0.095, p.W 0.140 m. (b) RH. 0.081, p.W 0.105 m. Firm glaze; added red and white. Fragment a is from middle to lower part of body wall. Partof an enclosed panel at left end with avian (siren?)with raised wings to r.; f.o., incised rosette, small dot. Below panel, broad glazed zone with two bands of polychromy, wRw and wRw. Fragment b is from upper part of body wall (root of neck preserved). Two bands above picture zone, in which are represented a swan to r. between siren(s)with raised wings; f.o., incised rosettes and dots. The
swan has a red wing band and a row of red dots on its neck; red wing band also on siren at r. It is possible that both fragments come from the same side of the vase. If so, then the avian on fragment a is the same as the slightly preserved figure at the left edge of fragment b. The vase is fairly early, as the presence of enclosed panels and the lack of a lower frieze seem to suggest, but already with a symmetrical design. Close to the Hochschule Group (CorVP,pp. 147-148, esp. no. 1; CVA,Zurich 1 [Switzerland2], pls. 5 [47]:4-7 and 6 [48]:1, 3). See also 64. LateEarlyCorinthianorearlyMiddleCorinthian. PI. 18 64 KRATER, FRAGMENTS CP-2534 a, b. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. (a) Six joined fragmentsfrom upper part of body wall. (b) Two joined fragments. P.H. 0.092, p.W 0.165 m. Black glaze; added white, purple. The kraterevidently had only one figured frieze. Slight bend into neck at top of preserved part, then frieze, then broad black zone with polychrome bands near its top: wrw,wr. In frieze: sickle-winged avian (griffin-bird?)to r., head turned (?),then bird with droopytail to r. Possiblypart of a three-figured
CATALOGUE symmetrical grouping of a bird between griffinbirds. No f.o. Fairlyrough style but not very late. The abraded surface of the fragment makes it hard to judge. But there is enough to indicate a close relationshipwith or actual membership in the Hochschule Group (CorVP, pp. 147-148, esp. nos. 2 and 3; p. 313). See also 63. LateEarlyCorinthianor earlyMiddle Corinthian. 65 COLUMN KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 18 Found ca. 160 north of C-30-14. meters village plateia. Section pieced together from fragments, including part of handle-plate and handle, neck, and upper body. PH. 0.122, p.W 0.29 m. Dull glaze; added red. On handle-plate, bird to r., wings folded. Neck black. On body, side A, swan to r., between griffinbirdswith raised wings (added red in wing band and on body of swan, on breast, neck, wing, and in wing and tail feathers of griffin-birds).Under handle, at r., bird (swan?)to r., with folded wings (red in wing band). Hochschule Group (CorVP,pp. 147-148). In this group of kraters the decoration consists mainly of variation on a common stock of avian elements (sirens, griffin-birds, "swans", and "eagles") with varied renderings of the wings (folded, raised, or sickle-shaped). The composition on 65 is best matched on CorVP,p. 148, no. 2, but there is throughout the Group a tendency to play around with these features. See 63 and 64. End of Early or beginning of Middle Corinthian. 66 KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 19 CP-539. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Four joined fragments, broken on all edges. Preserved is a small bit of the neck, part of the figuredzone, part of the broad black zone below the figures. RH. 0.173, p.W 0.115 m. Dull but firm glaze, red in figured zone, red and white bands (wRwRW)below. Glazed inside. Exterior, in zone below neck: siren (probably sickle winged) to r., facing floral complex of vertically opposed palmettes. Small incised "plus" rosette in field. Red in face, breast, and wing band of siren, cores, alternate petals, and parts of stems of palmettes. Good style. One relatively deep figured zone (probably not in panel; probably symmetrical), no
21
lower frieze. Cf. the Hochschule Group (CorVP, pp. 147-148) or (better?) the Medallion Painter (CorVP, p. 195, A 10, AP 1). But 66 seems firmer (earlier?)than any of these. For the floral complex, cf. Corinth CP-2510 (a handle-plate, Corinth VII, ii, no. 81, p. 31, pl. 13). Early Corinthian (?) or beginning of Middle Corinthian. 67 ALABASTRON, FRAGMENTS Pi. 19 C-34-2553 a, b. South Stoa, pit in colonnade north of Shops X, XI. Two nonjoining fragments from body. (a) Fourjoined fragments:max. p. dim. 0.101 m. (b) Six joined fragments: max. p. dim. 0.114 m. This was a very large alabastron,decorated with a wrap-aroundfloral cross. The tips of the right-hand floral reached around until they almost touched those of the left-hand member, with red sepals and alternately red petals (horizontal, as preserved)and interiorwhite-dot bordersto sepals, the vertical part attached to a central node or "box" with white-dot borderat top (and bottom?)and white center; then a large lotus with white core and white dots bordering it, sepals alongside (all this repeated downward on missing lower part?). Compare a fragmentary Chimaera Group alabastron in Syracuse, attributed to the Painter of Louvre E 574 (CorVP, p. 171, A 2). 67 may not be by the Painter,but it produces a similar effect of monumentality and grandeur. Middle Corinthian. 68 FLAT-BOTTOMED ARYBALLOS, Pi. 19 FRAGMENT CP-2368, with additionaljoined fragment.Julian Basilica, Classical Well 1915-2. P.H. 0.012, p.W (still)0.081, est. Diam. of base 0.080 m. Part of an avian to r.; varied f.o. The newly joined fragment gives part of the long fanlike tail and a blobby crisscrossfiller below. Corinth Bibliography: VII, ii, no. 97 (part),p. 34, pl. 16. The shape is not commonly found in Corinth itself Middle Corinthian. 69 ROUND ARYBALLOS,FRAGMENT PI. 19 C-1977-85. South Stoa Stele Shrine, in earliest floor. Single fragment, all edges broken, from a large round aryballos,preservinga section from the
22
AFTERMATH
base up into the main picture zone on one side. PH. 0.065, p.W 0.035 m. Firm glaze; added red. Hoplite to r.,wearinggreavesand carryinga large shield, drawn freehand. On the shield, an incised vertical strip,with overlappingreversedsquared Z's between verticalincised lines (asillustratedby Payne [Necrocorinthia], p. 306, under NC 874, 875). Eo., neatly incised rosettes, dots. Below picture zone, two wide bands; at base, tongue rosette. Part of a frieze of hoplites marching to r. Vertical strips of ornament cutting through the shield are found occasionally on other warrior-friezearyballoi, most notably on Tarquinia RC 1818 (NC 532; CorVP,p. 114, Near the New YorkKomast Painter, B 1), with a band of reversed Z's, as on the Corinth fragment, and a band of chevrons. The rendering of 69 is coarse (carelessly hand-drawn circles, crude incisions for greaves), but it is far too early to belong to the stereotyped run of warrior-frieze aryballoi, and it should perhaps be regarded as a rough imitation of the style of Tarquinia RC 1818. See further CorinthVII, ii, no. 37, pp. 21-22, pl. 6 and the remarksthereunder. Middle Corinthian. 70 ROUND ARYBALLOS Pi. 19 (FRAGMENTARY) C-66-124. Peribolos of Apollo, Archaic fill. Five joined fragments,giving a large section of the body wall on one side and part of the bottom of a round aryballosof large size, with a slightlyflattenedbase. Max. p. dim. 0.105 m. Dull black glaze, slightly peeled; added red. In main body zone, avian (with swanlike tail) to r., with wings spread (red in middle wing band). The wing feathers and tail feathers of the avian are rendered by straight parallel incised lines; the neck and breast are "shaded" with similar parallel incised lines. F.o., incised rosettes (none with center), including one very large one, with red spots added on alternate petals. Middle Corinthian. 71 ROUND ARYBALLOS, Pi. 19 FRAGMENT C-68-245. Anaploga, Manhole 1965-3. Joined fragments giving large part of body wall. PH. 0.053 m.
Dull glaze; added red. At top of body, unenclosed tongues, then a band; below it, picture zone with hoplite wearing helmet and moving to 1., back-to-backwith charioteer clad in short chiton, holding reins and driving horses to r. Below picture zone, two bands; underneath, whirligig. Fairlyelaborately incised details. In the field, "hailstone"fo. The decoration is unusuallyrich for a vase of this type, alliedby its fillingornament to the late warriorfrieze aryballoi with "hailstone" filling ornament (cf 111). For the chariots and hoplites see also an alabastronin Malibu, unpublished. Middle Corinthian. 72 ROUND ARYBALLOS(?), PI. 20 FRAGMENT CP-3141. Odeion, manhole to Drain Zeta. Two joined fragments, giving part of body wall on one side. PH. 0.050, p.W 0.090 m. The shape has a strong lateral curvature, suggesting a round (or flat-bottomed?)aryballos. Well polished on exterior;firm glaze; added red. The subject is not very clear: apparentlya swan, with raised wings and roundedtail, to 1. and, at r., the hind legs of a horse to r., the tail of which, with diagonal incisions, overlaps the wing of the bird behind it. Thick fo., including two very large rosettesand others varied in size and incisions. Red in haunch stripesof horse and also in rosettes. The thickly varied fo. recalls the work of the Painter of Berlin F 1090 (CorVP,pp. 175-177), but the figurework is different. Middle Corinthian. 73 ROUND ARYBALLOS, PI. 20 FRAGMENT C-29-80. Odeion, manhole to east. Five joined fragments, giving lower part of body wall around most of circumference,and part of underside. PH. 0.090 m. Good firm glaze; added red. In main body frieze, two avians ("swans")to r., one with wings spread, the other with folded wings. Of the former the lower part of the ends of each wing are preserved, along with the end of the tail. Added red on wing bases of both; red spots on the breast of the avian with folded wings. Thick varied f.o., including one of the "pine-cone"type, a "fan" rosette, and one large unincised blob. Underneath,
CATALOGUE two concentric bands, tongue rosette around two circles. Middle Corinthian. 74 ROUND ARYBALLOS PI. 20 (FRAGMENTARY) CP-2342, with additional joined fragment. Earlyexcavations;exact provenienceunknown. RH. (still)0.035, p.W (still)0.067 m. Snake between cocks; no fo. Back plain. The new fragment adds to the breast of the cock at 1. Bibliography: VII, ii, no. 86, pp. 32-33, pl. 14; Corinth p. 122,LionGroup:Unattributed Vases,no. 25. CorVP, Lion Group. ProbablyMiddle Corinthian. 75 ARYBALLOS PI. 20 Isthmos Cemetery. CP- 1974. Complete. H. 0.063, Diam. 0.065 m. On edge of lip, band; below neck, short tongues; no boundary line. In main picture area, panther to r.; in the field, rosettes with double centers; under the panther's body, an accidental smear of paint. Underneath, whirligigs(?). Bibliography: Amyx196lb, p. 13,note45 ("strongly suggestivelikeness"to the Painterof the BerlinLekythos [CorVP,p. 258], but I no longer see this likenessas compelling). Middle Corinthian. The style recalls that of the Medallion Painter (CorVP,pp. 194-195, 318) or that of a close follower, the Painterof BrusselsA 2182 (CorVP,pp. 195-196), but not quite enough to warrant an attribution. It would be remarkable to find a painter who decorated both kylikesand aryballoi. 76 ARYBALLOS PI. 20 CP-1972. Isthmos Cemetery. Complete. H. 0.066, Diam. 0.067, D. of mouth 0.048 m. Black to orange-brown glaze, unevenly applied. Tongues on top of mouth, dots on edge of lip; at back of handle, three horizontal bars. On body, swan to r., wings raised above its back. The figure is rendered in outline and silhouette drawing (no incision). Underneath (off-center),asteriskrosette. The artistwas most probably inspiredby the quatrefoil aryballoi (cf.]'ecrocorinthia, p. 147, fig. 54:e, f). Interesting for its technique. Middle Corinthian.
77 CONVEX-SIDEDPYXIS, FRAGMENT
23 P1.20
C-50-54. South Stoa, Well 1946-3. Single fragment, from body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.085 m. Dull glaze; surface worn. In a.f., feline (panther?)facing goat. F.o., dots. Bibliography: CorVP, p. 215, A 35. By the Geladakis Painter. Middle Corinthian (ate). 78 CONVEX-SIDED PYXIS, PI. 20 FRAGMENT C-50-94. South Stoa, Well 1946-3. Single fragment, from body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.041 m. Good glaze. Three bands, below them part of an a.f.: ruminant (goat?)to 1. F.o., small dots. Bibliography: CorVP, p. 219, A 11. By the Ampersand Painter. Perhaps from the same vase as C-50-92 (CorVP,p. 219, A 10). Middle Corinthian. 79 CONVEX-SIDED PYXIS, PI. 20 FRAGMENT C-39-3 18. Museum West, Classical Well 1939-1. Wall fragment from a pyxis with upright handles. All edges broken. PH. 0.109, p.W 0.060 m. Brownishglaze; no added color preserved. Part of an a.E;below it, narrow and broad bands (spaced nn-BB-nn ... .). In a.f., back part of a feline to 1., tail and part of wing of an avian to r. Eo., incised rosettes (none with centers);blobs and dots. Feline has fringed hindquarters, slanting rib(s), no incised belly line. Recalls the Geladakis Painter, but seems too scrawny and weak to be his own work. For the general effect, and for certain details of rendering, compare Corinth KP 2422 (Corinth XV, iii, no. 850, pp. 163-164, pls. 39, 106), by the Geladakis Painter (CorVP,p. 214, A 9). Below the main frieze, the combination of broad and narrow bands (see above), in a variety of syntactical arrangements, seems to be a common feature of pyxides with vertical handles among the followers of the Dodwell Painter, especially on those by the Geladakis Painter. Near the Geladakis Painter? Middle to late Middle Corinthian.
24
AFTERMATH
80 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 C-36-204 + C-36-2476. South Basilica, Early Roman drain in southeast corner. Three joined fragmentsplus a newlyjoined piece. New measurements: PH. 0. 130, p.W 0.080 m. Firm glaze; added red. Inside glazed to near top of rim. Two bands, main frieze, two bands, broad black band with narrow overpainted red band at top and bottom, fine rays (not pencil thin). In main frieze, forepart of a horse with forelegs of another horse to r.; facing them from 1. a hoplite (helmet, shield, spear, chiton). He wields a spear in his right hand, the point passing in frontof the horse'schest;hoplite is in a partial knee-bent crouch and would be very tall if standing upright. At his right side, advancing to r., another warrior,of whom only the rump and right leg are preserved. The leg crosses with the other warrior's"back"leg. In the field, two bloblike rosettes. Shield has whirligigpattern with alternate whirls irregularlyred. Bibliography:CorinthVII, i, no. 320 (giving only C-36-204),p. 76, pl. 40. Samos Group? This kotyle, however, would be rather large in comparison with those of the Samos Group. Rather poor style. Middle Corinthian. 81 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 CP-2598. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Wall fragment, all edges broken, reaching from near top to near base. Max. p. dim. 0.065, p.W 0.027, Th. at top break0.002, at bottom break 0.003 m. Very fine fabric. Firm glaze; added red. The decoration consists mainly of a broad blackglazed surface,with reservedbands top, middle, and bottom, the middle wide band of which contains a fine maeander pattern in applied red bordered by thin black lines. Painted over the black glaze are red bands, two above and two below the middle band. A small bit of the decoration in the top (handle) zone is preserved. Apparently it belongs to the left half of an inverted lotus. One of the petals is red, as is the core. This detail seems to have stood at the right end of an alternately inverted palmette-lotus chain, next to a handle-root. At base, pen-stroke rays.
Samos Group: Unfigured. Typical work: cf. CorVP,pp. 192-193, 318, 345 [Lawrence]. Middle Corinthian (late). 82 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 C-67- 119. Peribolosof Apollo, early-5th-century B.C. fill. Single fragmentfrom rim and upper part of body. PH. 0.062, p.W 0.075 m. Firm glaze; added red. Below rim, band. In handle zone, vertical wavy lines. Below, two bands, a.f. In a.f, panther to r. F.o., incised rosettesof irregularshape. Bibliography:C. K. Williams,AeXr 23, 1968, BI 1 [1969],p. 134,pl. 79:c. Slapdash but not altogether hopeless rendering; the panther has an interestingface. Middle Corinthian. 83 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 C-53-167 b. Forum Southwest, Archaic Well 1953-1 under "Tavernof Aphrodite". Small sliver, preserving part of rim and body. Max. p. dim. 0.017 m. Glaze dull; surface abraded. Partof youthfulhead to 1.,wearing a fillet (profile abraded). Bibliography: E.Brann,"AWellof the'Corinthian' Period FoundinCorinth,"Hesperia 25, 1956,no. 19,p.358,pl.54 (C-53-167a incorrectlyconnectedwithC-53-167b; not fromthe samevase). Refined style, very close to (by?) the Samos Painter. Compare, e.g., the heads of the sirens on his name-vase in Kassel (CorVP,p. 190, A 1). Middle Corinthian. 84 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 C-47-636. Southeast Building, Well 1947-4. Six joined fragments,giving rim and part of upper main frieze. Max. p. dim. 0.147 m. Firmglaze; addedred, roughlyappliedin splashes. At rim, band above verticalwavy lines; below,two bands. In main frieze, forepart of ram to r. (added red between rib marks,in shoulder and neck), rear end of ruminant to r. (added red between lines in haunch). Thick f.o., variedincisedrosettes(one with double center) and other fillers,including "cruller"like shapes. Fairly rough but distinctive style. Very close to the Painter of Corinth KP 64, on whom see CorinthXV, iii, no. 575, p. 117, pl. 27, and especially Benson 1983, p. 321, with reference to
CATALOGUE CorinthVII, ii, nos. 107-109, p. 36. Furtherstudy of
the style, which needs sharper definition, may bring 84 into the fold of attributablepieces. Two further fragments, C-47-635 and C-47-640, both with base raysand smallpartsof the main frieze preserved, may belong to the same vase as 84. Middle Corinthian. 85 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 C-34-2554. South Stoa, pit in colonnade north of Shops X, XI. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.046 m. Firm black glaze; trace of added red. Head and neck of panther to r.; to his right, an adaptive space-filling ornament with incisions, then a trace of something else. The entire face of the panther is "shaded"with short diagonal incised lines, giving it an unshaven look. The renderingof the panther'sface is unique, but see Corinth CP-2568 (CorinthVII, ii, no. 75, p. 30, pl. 12) with somewhat similar flecking on face and neck. What the painter lacks in skill is made up for by his enthusiasm. Middle Corinthian. 86 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 21 C-36-2443. Agora South Central, area of Underground Shrine, Greek fill. From lower part of body wall, extending into ray zone. PH. 0.063, p.W 0.053 m. Fairlythin fabric. Dull brown to black glaze, streakilyapplied. Woman to r. in long skirt, flanked by large "bowtie" rosettes; at 1., head of panther. Below picture zone, two bands, thin sharp rays. Bibliography: CorVP,p. 186,A 18. By the Patras Painter (typicalwork). Middle Corinthian. 87 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 22 C-36-2444. Agora South Central, area of Underground Shrine, Greekfill. Frommiddle part of body wall. PH. 0.065, p.W 0.050 m. Thick fabric, from a vase larger than the foregoing. Brown to orange-brownglaze. Part of chain of women, jointly holding wreaths. Thick f.o. of incised rosettes and other fillers. Bibliography: CorVP,p. 18,A 9. By the Patras Painter (typicalwork). Middle Corinthian.
25
88 LARGE KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 22 C-3 1-491. Asklepieion, Well 1931-10 ("Miniature Deposit"). From rim to middle of body, over ca. 40 percent of the circumference;one handle preserved. PH. 0.070, p.W. (on chord) 0.190, est. Diam. 0.200 m. Firm glaze. Interior glazed to near rim. Exterior: band, vertical wavy lines, two bands, a.f.: head and neck of a panther to r., bull to r. with tail depending below handle. Added red (streakilyapplied) in panther's neck, neck and body of bull; at r. of bull, incised blob. Fairlycoarse style, but interestingfor subject and for panther's face. Middle Corinthian. 89 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) PI. 22 C-3 1-45 (correction, on vase fragment, from C-31-96). Asklepieion, Well 1931-10 ("Miniature Deposit"). Reconstructed from fragments, missing parts restored in plaster. Both handles, large part of one side missing. H. 0.128, Diam. at rim 0.173 m. Firm but dull glaze, fired deep brown to dull gray. Two bands, vertical wavy lines, two bands, a.f., two bands, rays. In a.f.: A, panther to r., ...; B, ruminant to 1., panther to 1....; under handle, bird to r., head turned (red wing band, red spots on neck). F.o., incised rosettes without centers, various filler shapes. CorinthXIV,no. 2, pp. 15-16 (notpl. 5:2, Bibliography: whichis C-31-46,90). Typical run-of-the-millMC kotyle, no worse than most of its kind, but undistinguished. Middle Corinthian.
90 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) PI. 23 C-3 1-46 (correction, on vase fragment, from C-3 1-97). Asklepieion, Well 1931-10 ("Miniature Deposit"). Reconstructed from fragments, missing parts restored in plaster. Missing: one handle, part of body on one side. About two thirds of vase preserved, to full height. H. 0.105, Diam. at rim 0.146, Diam. with handles (as restored)0.217 m. Black to brown glaze; added red, carelessly applied. Below rim, horizontal band, then vertical wavy lines, two bands, a.f., two bands, rays. In a.f, ruminant (goat?)to r., between panthers; .... Eo., dots and blobs, carelessly applied.
26
AFTERMATH
Bibliography: CointhXIV no. 3, p. 16, pis. 3:1 and 5:2 (incorrectly identifiedas C-31-45,89). Crude renderings,as if by an apprentice,copying something like 89 (from the same context). Middle Corinthian. 91 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 23 CP-3181. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Wall fragment, all edges broken. Max. p. dim. 0.038 m. Firm but not very lustrousglaze. Interior glazed. On exterior, a design consisting of dot-in-circle rosettes and a larger circle (or scroll?),the latter decorated with red spots. Compare to the Group of the Taranto Floral Kotylai (CorVP, p. 190), with which it shares the predilection for loops, scrolls, dot-in-circle rosettes, and red dots. Within that Group, A 1, A 2, and A 5 seem most closely allied to one another, the others standing somewhat apart. 91 may be compared with A 4. Late(?)Middle Corinthian. PI. 23 92 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT CP-2420. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Section of body of large kotyle with flaring profile, extending from rim to ray zone, composed of ten joined fragments. Maximum diameter below rim, curving in slightly to fine rounded lip. Roughly three quarters of profile and one fourth of circumference preserved. No remains of handles. PH. 0.111, p.W, 0.154 m. Black glaze; added red. Interior glazed. Exterior: glazed line below rim, zone of vertical squiggles, two discolored glazed lines, a.f., three glazed bands, fine rays at bottom. In frieze (1.to r.): front left paw, chest, and tip of muzzle(?)of feline to r.;swan with outspreadwings to r. (liberallyincised; added red in neck and middle zone of wings and chest area);f.o., incised rosettes and blobs. Middle Corinthian. PI. 23 93 KYLIX, FRAGMENT C-50- 169. South Stoa, late fillin colonnade north of Shop IV Five joined fragments, preservingpart of main body frieze and a bit of upper frieze. The curvature is not suitable for a kotyle. RH. 0.040, p.W 0.077 m. Firm glaze, brown where thin; added red. Partly slipped on exterior?
At upper edge, bottom step of a stepped zigzag with a band below it. In the main frieze, at r., a centaur (Pholos?)collapsing to r. He has the body of a horse, sinking toward the front (head and front part missing);above his back there is a slanting tree trunk, while beneath his body a hand and forearm are preserved,extending awkwardlybackward. His sex is shown. At 1., the tip and a bit of the shaft of an arrow (with a V-shaped incision dividing the tip from the shaft and a cross incision on the shaft at the edge of the fragment);above this a small curving section with fourparallelincisions is all that remains of the bow of Herakles (lost). The lost section of the picture on the right was probably filled out with at least two more fleeing centaurs. The subject is Herakles and Pholos, as on the kotyle Louvre MNC 677, the namepiece of the Pholoe Painter (CorVP,p. 184, no. 1). The representation is lively, with dynamic action, worthy of comparisonwith the scene on the column-krater Corinth C-30-103 (Corinth VII, i, pp. 74-75, pis. 38, 39). For the incised crosslines on the upper end of the recurved bow of Herakles, compare the archer (Herakles?)in the Centauromachy on the PC aryballos Berlin F 336 (inv. 2686; CorVP,p. 37, Chigi Group:Various,no. 1). Middle Corinthian. P1.23 94 KYLIX, FRAGMENTS CP-2456 a, b, with new joining fragments. Early excavations;exact provenienceunknown. Two nonjoining fragments,recomposed from smallerpieces. To these should be added CP-2446 (not illustrated, see below). (a) RH. ca. 0.074, p.W 0.132 m. (b) PH. 0.065, p.W 0.063 m. On fragment a: two a.f.; in lower frieze at far left corner a new surface flake gives a bit of the goat's head and back with the two bands separating the upper and lower friezes. On fragment b: two a.f.; a small fragment added at upper break continues sicklewing of avian (sirenor griffin-bird?) to 1. in upper frieze; several surface flakes give two more wing feathers, part of body and fanlike tail of avian(?),together with forepaw and bit of upper leg of panther at r. Corinth VII, ii, no. 128, p. 41, pl. 21, inBibliography: cludingadditionalfragmentCP-2446(withfurtherreferences);CorVP, pp. 199, 320, A 3. Taranto Painter. Middle Corinthian.
CATALOGUE PI. 24 95 LEKANOID BOWL C-47-7 18. Southeast Building, Well 1947-4. Bowl with flat rim, spurred handles, and distinct foot-ring. Recomposed from fragments;small missing areas restored in plaster. H. 0.067, Diam. of rim 0.223, Diam. with handles 0.273, Diam. of foot 0.100 m. Hard, metallic glaze, fired deep chocolate brown to dark orange brown; added red and white. Glazed all over, inside, outside, and under foot. Decorative polychrome bands, concentric within bowl. Inside: wRw,far down on curve of bowl; wRw around foot of bowl; small white ring around center of bowl. Outside: wRw slightly below rim; wRw in middle zone; wRw at base of bowl, just above foot ring. Under foot: wRw,wRw, near center. Bibliography:CorVP,p. 468, note 94.
Typical lekanoid bowl of the kind decorated by the Chimaera Painter. Black-polychromy,without incision, but otherwise clearly similar to Munich S.H. 341 and London, B.M. 1921.11-28.1 (NC 713, 714), both of which are MC, like the fragmentscited under NC 715. In fact, black-polychromevases of this type might well be classifiedunder the heading "Chimaera Group: Unfigured Vases". On the dating, see CorinthVII, ii, nos. 150, 151, p. 46, pl. 26; CorVP,p. 468. 95 is importantbecause it gives us a complete vase with the same kind of polychromy. Middle Corinthian. PI. 24 96 STEMMED BOWL WITH ASTRAGALOID HANDLES MP 196. Provenience unknown; included in a miscellaneous lot of objects published by Lucy T Shoe ('A Box of Antiquities from Corinth," Hespera 1, 1932, pp. 56-89). Though not further mentioned or discussed, this item is apparently cited ibidd.,p. 56) as one of "two cups of differentshapes". The pottery vessels in this lot were assigned inventory numbers with the prefix "MP". See also 97. Part of foot missing; two handles restored. Diam. with handles 0.185, Diam. of bowl 0.169, H. 0.065 m. Firm glaze, badly abraded in some areas. Shallow open bowl with flat, slightly inwardoverhanging rim, four astragaloid lugs, between each two a single pointed spur, cylindrical stem, spreading foot. Except for colored bands over the black, the decoration consists of two zones each,
27
inside and outside, of "incised verticals" (with no added color). Inside central medallion, rosette surrounded by rays. Black-polychromedecoration but without benefit of polychromy in the incised zones. Shoe 1932(asabove). Bibliography: With what follows, see also CorVP,pp. 465-468 (bowls)and pp. 470-474 (exaleiptra). This is a remarkable kind of vessel. Indeed, it seems to be a hybrid, embodying features derived from two or more different sources. It is clearly characterizedby its shallow,open bowl, the presence of knucklebonehandles, and its cylindrical stem. In the shape of the bowl and in its blackpolychrome decoration, it most closely resembles the lekanoid bowl, as in the example Munich S.H. 341 (NC 713), and the interstitial spurs may point in the same direction. But the knucklebone handles (vestigialremains of a once-functional ringhandle attachment) do not appear on vases of that shape, nor do the latter have stems. On the other hand, one type of exaleiptron has knucklebone handles (regularly three in number), but it differs radically from 96 in the shape of the bowl. And it does not usually have a stem. An isolated early example is the stemmed exaleiptron from Old Smyrna (Anderson 1958-1959, no. 78, pp. 143-144, pl. 23; E. Akurgal, Alt-SmyrnaI, Ankara 1983, pl. 102:A). The shape then falls out of sight, not to reappear until LC II, in a fashion unrelatedto 96. The relevance is thereforedubious. Whence, then, comes the stem? Or is it perhaps our potter'sfelicitous invention? Stemmed bowls do appear in two furthertypes of Corinthian vases, but the resemblance is not close enough to justify recognizing in these a source for our specimen. The first of these is a footed kraterof a peculiar sort, found in the Potters' Quarter. The best-preserved example is Corinth KP 45 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 381, p. 85, pl. 20). This small vase (H. 0.085 m.) has "stirrup" handles, because of which Benson regards it as a late variety of the PC type of footed krater. Apart from its having a stem, however, this shape bears little resemblance to 96. Second, there is a kind of stemmed bowl with cover (no handles) called a "stemmed lekanis"by Payne (Necrocorinthia, p. 297), comprising one example in Syracuse (NC 719) and another now in Cambridge, Fogg Museum, exHoppin Collection (NC 1015), but here again there is no evidence of any typological connection with 96.
28
AFTERMATH
After all, it may be best simply to regard 96 as a variant form of the lekanoid bowl. Middle Corinthian. 97 STEMMED BOWL WITH ASTRAGALOID HANDLES MP 197. Unknown provenience (see 96). All four handles, one small spur, part of foot restored; abraded in some areas. Diam. as restored 0.137, H. 0.060 m. Black glazed inside and outside. On exterior (underside), "incised verticals". Added red and white (?) bands, plus one zone of "incisedverticals". On interior,two zones of incised verticals,plus radiatingcentral tongues or radiating "incisedverticals". Except for its smaller size, this vase is a near replica of 96, on which see the discussion concerning its shape. Middle Corinthian. 98 SMALL PLATE(?),FRAGMENT PI. 25 C-73-266. Lechaion Road, late context in Exedra. Single fragment broken on all sides. At the top the break follows the edge of the tondo. Max. p. dim. (on diagonal) 0.048, est. Diam. (tondo only) 0.125 m. Deep orange and yellow-orange glaze (unusual and apparentlyintentional). On underside, concentric bands. In tondo, Hydra. Preserved are parts of five snake-headed appendages: at the left edge, the tip of one fork of the tongue of one snake head (lost);in the center, an almost completely preserved S-shaped snake-headed appendage, to r., with incised scales, neck ring, eye, "beard",and nostrils, and a brown forked tongue; at the lower right corner, parts of three(?)more appendages (snake heads lost). No fo. preserved. All the snake heads apparently faced to r. and would have occupied the top third of the full circumference of the tondo, the center of which will have been occupied by the body of the Hydra, probably resting on a groundline,with a small exergue below. Fine style. For illustrationsof Herakles and the Lernean Hydra in Corinthian vase painting (one Transitional, two Early,and nine Middle Corinthian), see P.Amandry and D. A. Amyx, "Heracleset l'Hydre de Lerne dans la ceramique corinthienne," AntK 25, 1982, pp. 102-116, and CorVP,p. 629. On the plate the Hydra may have been represented alone. Herakles, if he was included in the lower
right quadrantof the medallion, with the curled tail of the monster occupying the left, would have been dwarfed by the Hydra. All the previously known examples of the theme in Corinthian vase painting are in frieze form and on a smaller scale. The artist of the present piece may have drawn his inspiration from elsewhere. For the differenttypes of tondo figures found on MC plates, see CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, pp. 145-164, esp. pp. 149-155 (MC). In this connection, note the entwined confronted snakes on the fragmentaryplate Thera Inv. 1190 (NC 202); Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, no. 4 (Transitional),p. 148; E. Pfuhl,AM 28,1903, p. 203, pl. 4. The representationof the Hydra alone(?)on the Corinth plate would find a parallel in the representationsof the Chimaera without Bellerophon, as on the plate Vienna, KHM IV 1624 (Hofmuseum 193), CorVP,p. 168, A 12, the namepiece of the Chimaera Painter. Middle Corinthian. 99 EXALEIPTRON, FRAGMENTS P1.25 C-73-115 a, b. Lechaion Road, Pit 1973-1 in LC House. Three fragments, two joined (a) and one nonjoining (b). (a) Max. p. dim. 0.160 m. (b) Max. p. dim. 0.097 m. Tubularshape; handle missing. Firm glaze; added red and white. On outer edge of roll, a glazed band with a superimposedrow of white dots; between inner and outer face of roll, five narrowbands;at base, rays. In the main frieze, perhapsopposite the (lost)handle, a very fine red-and-blackfloral complex, of which a conventional lotus has survived. "WhiteStyle"(cf.Necrocorinthia, pp. 322-327), but with unusually fine and elaborate rendering of the floral pattern, which seems out of place on such a vase: perhaps earlier than LC I? Middle Corinthian? 100 LEBES, FRAGMENT P1.25 C-73-107. Lechaion Road, late context. From rim and upper part of body. Max. p. dim. 0.060 m. Coarse, gritty clay, surface yellow buff; black glaze; added red. Inside glazed. Some chipping of glaze. On top of rim, painted enclosed tongues, alternately red and black. On bowl, head of youthful musician (probably a padded dancer) playing the double pipes (&uXot),held in place by a mouthguard (qoppem'). His hair is apparently rolled up at the back in a bun (xpp6 Xo~). He wears a red
CATALOGUE chiton, marked off at the top by a pair of incised horizontal lines. Behind his back, an incompletely incised rosette. His face is partially abraded where the glaze is chipped. Bibliography: D. Callipolitis-Feytmans, "Survivancedu sur1'histoire dinosde terrecuitea Corinthe,repercussions du dinosathenien,"ApXEp1975,pp. 28-31, fig. 1. This example demonstrates that the lebes ("dinos")did not, as Payne assumed, die out at Corinth before the beginning of Corinthian proper. See further CorVP,pp. 475-479. Rim fragments of Attic dinoi of the time of Sophilos and contemporary with our example have also been found at Corinth (CP-2582 and C-35-94, from one vase, possibly by Sophilos, on which see Brownlee 1987, no. 3, p. 77, pl. 12:3). The musician's mouth-guard is a common feature of auletai, on which see in general DarSag Vx cols. 300-322, sv. Tibia [T. Reinach]. Other Corinthian examples are on the EC fragment Corinth C-62-896 (CorinthVII, ii, An 205, p. 139, pl. 71) and on the aryballos Corinth C-54-1 (CorVP, p. 165, Related to the LiebieghausGroup, C 2) and a fragmentarypyxis lid, Aigina K 539 (Kraiker 1951, p. 84, pl. 40), both MC. The style of 100 is pleasing; the incised lines are carefully rendered, and the uptilted chin of the musician gives him an exuberant aspect. Middle Corinthian (well advanced). 101 OINOCHOE(?), FRAGMENT PI. 25 CP-3 134. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from body wall, from shoulder down into a.f PRH. 0.056, p.W 0.071 m. Probably from a large trefoilmouthed oinochoe with narrow foot. Black to brown glaze, tending to flake;added red. On shoulder, "incised verticals"; below, a wide black-polychromeband, part of a.f. reaching down to (two) groundlines. In a.f., pantheress to 1.; at r., part of crouching figure (feline or sphinx?) to r. Eo., incised rosettes (none with centers);blobs, dots. Crudely applied red in neck, shoulder, belly stripe and on teats of the pantheress. Careless, splashing style; pantheress has very strange features. Middle Corinthian. 102 OINOCHOE FRAGMENT PI. 26 C-73-117. Lechaion Road, Pit 1973-1 in LC House. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from
29
middle part of body wall, perhaps from a standard trefoil-mouthed oinochoe with narrow foot. PH. 0.054, p.W 0.047 m. Black to brown glaze. Partsof two a.f. separatedby a broad glazed band, bounded above and below by a narrow band. In upper frieze, part of avian to r., paws of feline to 1. In lower frieze, end of tail, back, shoulder,neck, and head of panther to r. F.o., varied incised rosettes, none with centers. Fairlygood style. The panther has an interesting face, recalling the Lowie Painter (CorVP,p. 140, pl. 56:1; CorinthVII, ii, pp. 84-85, pls. 44, 90-91, 103, 106). Middle Corinthian. 103 BROAD-BOTTOMED PI. 26 OINOCHOE (FRAGMENTARY) CP-2487, with four new joining fragments. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Section of low sloping shoulder and rounded body of vase, composed of five joining fragments. PH. (new) 0.105, p.W (new) 0.125 m. On shoulder,a.f.: feline crouching to 1.and avian with raised wings to r. (details of both in red); a new fragment gives more of the wing and body of the avian and more of the incised rosette with double center encircled by the curling tail of the feline. On body (new), a.f.: head and forequartersof panther to r. (added red on body, double incised line within shoulder area, spreading Dodwellian jowls), head and withers of goat to 1. (added red on body); fo., incisedrosetteswith double centers (one quite large), "shapes",blobs and dots; below, red groundline. Bibliography: Corinth VII, ii, no. 158 (onefragmentfrom shoulder),p. 48, pl. 28; CorVP, p. 348, Painterof Athens 931,A22bis. Compare Corinth C-53-178 (CorVP,p. 212, A 20, pl. 88:3). Painter of Athens 931. Advanced Middle Corinthian. 104 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT PI. 26 CP-3133 a, b. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Two nonjoining fragments, each consisting of two joined fragments, from body wall, preserving sections of lower body frieze with a tiny bit of the upper body frieze on each. (a) PH. 0.090, p.W 0.048 m. (b) RH. 0.098, p.W 0.050 m. Probably from a large trefoil-mouthedoinochoe with narrow foot.
30
AFTERMATH
Blackto brownglaze, tending to peel and splinter; added red and white. In upper body frieze: (a) hoof of ruminant to r. (?) and incised rosette; (b) foot of feline to r. and two incised rosettes. In lower body frieze: (a) part of body, shoulder, forelegs, and neck, and a bit of cheek (with parallel incisions) of panther to r.; (b) head, neck, part of shoulder and forelegsof panther to r., horn of facing grazing goat to 1. F.o., various incised rosettes, none with centers. Distinctivestyle. Thepanthershaveflecking(short incised arcs) on their necks, heavy slashing parallel strokeson their brows and cheeks. Middle Corinthian. PI. 26 105 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT CP-3135. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Three joined fragments,preservingpart of body wall, with a.f. It is not clear whether there were other frieze(s)above or below this one, or both. Max. p. dim., on diagonal, 0.126 m. Dull black glaze; added red. Band, a.f., band (... .). Panther to 1.;at r., tail and wing of avian to r. The panther has a fringed rump, forward-slantingrib markings, and a small, poorly delineated face. Eo., crudely rendered rosettes, dots. Weak Geladakian style. Several features are evocative of that painter's work (CorVP,pp. 213218, 321-322), but it seems to be a close imitation, not his own. Middle Corinthian (well advanced). PI. 26 106 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT CP-3 136. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Three joined fragments, broken on all sides, from body wall, with parts of two a.f. PH. 0.105, p.W 0.100 m. Probablyfrom a large trefoilmouthed oinochoe with narrow foot. Dullish black glaze, rather badly peeled off. In upper body frieze, hind legs and haunches of feline to r. In lower body frieze, rear part of ruminant (goat?)to 1.,rear part of feline to r. Fo., varied rosettes,including severalwith double centers, dots, blobs. Below lower frieze, black-polychromeband. Good style, hard to decipher because of the poor condition of the surface. Possiblyby the same hand as 107. Middle Corinthian.
PI. 26 107 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT CP-3 137. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from body wall, with part of a.f. PH. 0.074, p.W 0.092 m. Fine fabric, rather thin (Th. to ca. 0.004 m.). Probably from a large trefoil-mouthed oinochoe with narrowfoot. Firm glaze; added red. Feline (panther?) to 1.; at r., end of bill (with incised line) and a bit of breast of water bird to 1.(?). Eo., neat, large incised rosetteswith double centers, smaller ones with no centers, unincised blobs and dots. Added red in stripes on haunch and between rib markings(no incised belly line) of feline. Below frieze, black band or top of wide black zone. Superior style and technique. By the same hand as 108 and 109 and probably also 106. By the Painterof Corinth CP-3 137 (the name-vase). Middle Corinthian. PI. 27 108 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT CP-3 138. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Three joined fragments, broken on all sides, from body wall of a trefoil-mouthedoinochoe with narrow foot, giving parts of middle and lower body friezes and a tiny bit of the upper body frieze below the shoulder. PH. 0.131, p.W 0.082 m. Dull glaze, tending to craze; added red and white. In upper body frieze, tip of foot of animal, with incisedline. In middlebody frieze, shoulder,foreleg, part of neck and body of feline (panther?) to 1. In lower body frieze, at 1., part of spread wing of avian, face, neck, shoulder, and part of body of panther to 1. Added red on neck, in shoulder, and betweenrib markingsof the two panthers. Fo., large incisedrosetteswith double centers and smallerones without centers, unincised dots and blobs. Blackpolychrome bands above and below middle body zone preserved. Very clean style. By the same hand (from the same vase?)as 107. Middle Corinthian. PI. 27 109 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT CP-3 139. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Three joined fragments, broken on all sides, from body wall, giving part of a.f. and black-polychromezone below it. PH. 0.055, p.W 0.107 m. Probably from a large trefoil-mouthed oinochoe with narrowfoot.
CATALOGUE Dull but firm glaze; added red and white. In a.f., back end of feline to L.,part of avian to r., with wings spread (or raised above back?). F.o., incised rosettes, one with a double center, unincised dots and shapes. Good style. By the same hand (from the same vase?)as 107. Middle Corinthian. PI. 27 110 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT CP-3140. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from body wall. P.H. 0.076, p.W 0.062 m. Apparently from a large oinochoe with trefoil mouth and narrow foot. Firm glaze; added red. In body frieze, back part of feline to r. Eo., varied incised rosettes, some with double centers, some with no centers; small unincised dots and blobs. Added red on haunch and between rib lines of panther. Band above, band or wide black zone below a.f. Very close to 107 but apparently not from the same vase and perhaps not by the same hand: by a benchmate? Middle Corinthian.
31
111 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENT PI. 27 C-26-13. East of Theater, 1926, late context. Body fragment, broken on all sides. PH. 0.060, p.W 0.080, max. p. dim. 0.085 m. Brownishblack glaze, brown where thin. Section of main frieze with groundline and bit of a second line below it, where the sherd shows traces of a sharp bend inward. In the frieze, an olive(?)harvesting scene: male figure in short chiton and headband to r., bent forward and holding in both hands a long pole; above him, seemingly in mid-air, a dog(?,or fox?)with two rib incisions; to r., a leaning ladder, a basket suspended by a rope, and a tree trunk(lessprobably a woman in a long robe, but the two parallelhorizontal incisions near the bottom are like those of a woman's dress);at the left edge of the fragment is also preserved the back leg of a second male figure to 1., back-to-back with the first, whose back leg intersects that of the lost figure, so that the entire scene is perhaps to be restored symmetrically ([tree-man with pole]-man with pole-tree). In the field, roughly crisscrossed "blob" rosettes and "hailstone" f.o. (or, in the context, olives?). Fairly crude incisions. Middle Corinthian.
The OliveHarvest In Attic vase painting the subject of the olive harvest is depicted on two black-figuredneckamphoras by the Antimenes Painter,Berlin 1855 (ABV,p. 270, no. 50) and London B 226 (ABV, p. 273, no. 1 6;J. D. Beazley, TheDevelopment rev. ed., Berkeley 1986, pl. 83:5). ofAtticBlack-Figure, On both vases, as on the Corinth fragment, poles are used to beat the ripe olives down off the branches of the tree, a practice still familiartoday,despite the criticismsof Pliny,N.H. 15.3.11-12. Note also the fruit-pickerson San Simeon (Hearst) 5486, r.f. hydria (ARV2,p. 503, no. 21, Yale Oinochoe Painter) and New York, M.M.A. 07.286.74, r.f. column-krater(ARV2,p. 523, no. 1, Orchard Painter),both illustratedby H. Fracchia("The San Simeon Fruitpickers,"CSCA5, 1972, pp. 103- 1l1, pis. 1-4), where other examples of the genre are also listed on pp. 107-108. Ladders, on which see, in general, DarSag IV, cols. 1106b-I 109, s.. scalae(G. Nicole), are uncommon enough in vase painting to be listed: 1. Louvre F 123, b.f. kylix signed by Nikosthenes as potter (ABV,p. 231, no. 6; Paralipomena, p. 109; Arias, Hirmer, and Shefton 1961, pl. 58 [landing ladders on ships]). 2. Ruvo, Jatta 1501, from Ruvo (ARV2,p. 1338, no. 1; Paralipomena, p. 481, Talos Painter), side B, gangplank of the ship Argo; cf. also the Ficoroni cista, Rome, Villa Giulia 24787 (see, e.g., G. Becatti, TheArtofAncientGreece andRome,New York 1968, p. 242, fig. 221). 3. London, B.M. E 241 (ARV2,p. 1482, no. 1, Apollonia Group), on which see C. Edwards, 'Aphrodite on a Ladder,"Hesperia53, 1984, pp. 59-72, esp. p. 61, pl. 19:c, and, for other similar scenes, H. Metzger, Les representations dansla ceramique attiquedu IVe si'cle,Paris 1951, nos. 41-46, pp. 92-99.
32
AFTERMATH
4. Toronto C.392 (A. D. Trendall, TheRed-Figured VasesofLucania,Campania, andSicily,Oxford 1967, no. 2/207, p. 257, Group of Toronto 387 [Campanian], miscalled a "hydria"[instead of oinochoe] in text and index), two warriorsand scaling ladder. 5. Vatican V 19 (old no. 121; A. D. Trendall, PaestanPottery,Rome 1936, no. 48, p. 116, pl. IX:c, and PhMyax Vases[BICSSupplement 8], London 1959, no. 59, pp. 33-34). 6. London, B.M. F 150 (Trendall,op.cit. [1936], no. 47, p. 116, pl. IX:d; op.cit. [1959], no. 34, p. 27), this and the preceding with scaling ladders for amorous adventures. "Hailstorm"fillingornament is most commonly found on LC I warrior-friezearyballoisuch as Munich 308 (J. Sieveking and R. Hackl, Die kfinigliche Vasensammiung zu Mfinchen,Munich 1912, pl. 9; NC 1249, with Payne's [Necrocorinthia, p. 320] remarks). It is also freely used in Frauenfest scenes, as on the neck-amphoraby the Politis Painter PhiladelphiaMS 552 (CorVP,pp. 311-312, A 2; E. Dohan, AJA 38, 1934, p. 523, fig. 3, pl. 32:a, b), and on a head-pyxis probably by the Skating Painter, Munich Inv. 7741 (CorVP,p. 229, AP 2; CVA,Munich 3 [Germany 9], pls. 144 [426]:5, 6 and 145 [427]:1, 2, and pp. 40-41, figs. 8, 9). The Corinth fragmentseems more closely relatedto the Frauenfest vases, by virtue of its interest in paraphernalia, the pipe-stem limbs of the human figure, and the interspersing, among the hailstones,of crudelyincised rosettes. The painter'scavalierdisregardfor the laws of gravityplaces him in a class apart, but he may also have some stylistic connection with one or another of the Frauenfest painters. The elongated proportions of the rump and legs of the male figure are also reminiscent of those of certain figures on the Penteskouphiaplaques. Cf., for example, AntDenkI, pl. 8:4 (Berlin F 802B) and 7 (F 871B); Geagan 1970, p. 40, fig. 13:a (F 703 + 659) and p. 45, fig. 19 (F 466 + 766). 112 CORINTH OINOCHOE, PI. 27 FRAGMENTS C-73-73 a, b. Lechaion Road, Pit 1973-1 in LC House. Two joined fragments (a) and one isolated fragment (b). Fragmenta is extant from beginning of neck to lower part of body; max. p. dim. 0. 128 m. Fragmentb gives a bit of the handle-root. Good glaze; added red and white. In the main picture zone, a bearded padded dancer to r., his right hand placed on his right hip, his left arm extended toward a stemmed bowl. His left foot is deformed, twisted backward. Below main picture zone, broad polychrome band, black with overpainted stripes (RwR);lower part of vase reserved. Bibliography:C. K. Williams, Hesperia43, 1974, no. 26, pp. 21-22, pl. 5.
The shape and syntax of decoration of this vase are typical of the Corinth oinochoe, a special kind of round-mouthed vessel found almost exclusively at Corinth (cf. CorinthVII, ii, pp. 78-80). It has a bulging shape, with a broad black-polychromeband slightlybelow its middle. Figuresare confined to the
upper zone, usuallywithout fo.; the area below the band is plain; the outer edge of the foot is glazed. Padded dancers appear rarely on other Corinth oinochoai, but see 61, on which, unfortunately,the figures are almost completely worn off; Corinth C-40-87 (Corinth VII, ii, no. 71, p. 29, pl. 12), fragmentary; and New York,M.M.A. 1976.221, of unusual shape (twohandles, and two padded dancers on either side between the handles). The last of these was said by the dealer to have been found in Asia Minor: surprising,if true. On padded dancers see especiallyNecrocorinthia, pp. 118-124; Seeberg 1971; CorVP,pp. 651-652, 658-660. These figures are often representedwith twisted or deformed foot (or feet):cf. Seeberg 1971, p. 104 (Index). This feature mimics the lameness of the god Hephaistos,who appearsin Corinthianvase painting in a famous representation of his Return to Olympos on the amphoriskosAthens, N.M. 664 NC 1073, p. 119, fig. 44:G; A. See(JNecrocorinthia, berg, JHS 85, 1965, pp. 102-109, pl. 24; Seeberg 1971, no. 227 a [with references],p. 45). The mixing bowl to the right of the padded dancer is extraordinary. It is not a column-krater, for it has no handles and does have a stemmed foot.
CATALOGUE Evidently intended is a one-piece dinos and stand, a variant of the usual assemblageof two pieces, with separate bowl and pedestal. This shape is new in Corinthianware, but there are two similarone-piece dinoi in Etrusco-Corinthianpottery, both of which were decorated by the Pilgrim Flask Painter. Cf. BuVdzafestiszet, J. G. Szilagyi, Etruszko-Korinthosi dapest 1975, pls. 18, 19:25, 26 (Basel, Antikenmuseum, Zust 194 and Zt1st 195). The foot is simple and not stemmed, but in all other respects the general effect is similar. Clean, crisp rendering,with careful incision. Middle Corinthian. PI. 27 113 OINOCHOE, FRAGMENTS CP-972 (a) and CP-973 (b). Southeast Building, from Classical drain at southwest corner. Two nonjoining fragments, from one vase. (a) Fourjoined fragments, max. p. dim. 0.088 m. (b) Fourjoined fragments, max. p. dim. (vertical)0.095 m. Dull glaze; no added red. Fragment a: part of an a.f. (two felines back-toback). Very raggedly incised f.o. of rosettes and blobs; dots. One feline has triangular incision within hind leg; the other has a fringedrump. Below a.f., frieze of reversed Z's between broad bands. Fragment b: part of an a.f. (ruminant to 1.), fo. as above. Below a.f., between bands, frieze of reversed Z's;at base, rays. For a vase with similarly rough style and syntax (but with Z's not reversed), compare Corinth KP 1088 a, b (Corinth XV, iii, no. 397, p. 88, pl. 21), attributed by me to the Macri Langoni Painter (this attribution rejected by Benson, loc. cit.), and the "spoiled"neck-amphoraCorinth KP 1000 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 406, p. 90, pls. 22, 91). Compare also the oinochoe Tarquinia RC 6928 (two a.f.; frieze of roughly rendered, three-stepped zigzags). Middle Corinthian (early). 114 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 28 C-1978-53. ForumSouthwest,late fill over Building III. Six joined fragments, broken on all sides, giving part of body wall. RH. 0.090, p.W 0.195 m. Veryfirmglaze; added red. Thicklyglazed inside, with bands of dilute glaze at the top edge where the neck begins. Cavalcade, of which a large part of one horse and rider and a small part of a second horse are preserved. Youthful rider, apparently nude, wearing a fillet, on a cantering horse, to r. The rider holds
33
the reins in both hands, together with a spear in his right, the shaft of which is made visible by a light incision as it crosses the rider'sthigh and the horse's side. The body and parts of the tail, neck, mane (with parallel horizontal incisions), and forelegs of the horse are preserved. Behind the back of the rider,a flying bird, to r. Added red on the neck and haunch of the horse and on the wings and tail of the bird. At the right are preserveda bit of the tail, with three slanting incisions, and part of the haunches and rear legs of a second horse cantering to r. No flo. Compare the early MC column-krater Louvre E 633 (NC 780 A; T. Bakir 1974, K 21), for the red overpainting of the necks of the horses, the horizontal mane incisions (rare in advanced MC), the poses of the horses, and also the pointed chins ("beards")of the riders. Early Middle Corinthian. 115 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 28 C- 1976-163. Forum Southwest, late context. Three joined fragments from middle part of body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.080 m. Dull glaze; added red. Interior glazed. On exterior, parts of two friezes with a red band between them. In the upper zone, part of a snake with markings consisting of incised circles and hastily applied red color. Below, part of an a.f. (animal'sback?). The subject in the upper zone appears to have been a symmetrical composition consisting of a snake between cocks. This is a fairly uncommon motif on MC column-kraters,on which see the remarksunder 134. Fairly coarse style; interesting mainly for the subject. Middle Corinthian. 116 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 28 C-66-84. PeribolosofApollo, late context. Single fragmentfrom upper body wall, broken on all sides. P.H. 0.054, p.W 0.050 m. Black to brown glaze; added red. Upper part of young rider to 1., wearing a chiton and carrying a spear. Red (mostly worn off) in chiton and in neck of horse. Fine style. The delicate features of the youth recall the work of the Samos Painter (CorVP,pp. 190193). Middle Corinthian.
34
AFTERMATH
117 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 28 C-65-212. Temple E, northwest, late context. Single fragment, brokenon all sides, frombody wall. Max. p. dim. 0.085 m. Blackishglaze, peeling. Parts of two riders to r., each with a spare horse. The near leading horse is a stallion. Bibliography: 36, 1967, p. 12, J. K. Anderson,Hesperia pl. 6:f. Stocky horses, with thick bodies; good style. Middle Corinthian. 118 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 28 C-36-1142 a. Agora South Central, area of UndergroundShrine, Greekfill. Twojoined fragments, from body wall, giving part of body wall with lower frieze. Max. p. dim. 0.137 m. Not from the same vase as C-36-1142 b; possibly belongs with 120. Brownishglaze; added red. Part of a.f., with black-polychromezone below. Feline to r. (panther?),ruminant to 1.(doe or stag?). F.o., large to small carefully incised rosettes. Fine style, with distinctive renderings of incised details. There is a strong carryoverof EC practices in the presence of carefully incised rosettes, as for instance in the work of the N. B. Hunt Painter (CorVP,p. 340). For the style, cf. 126 (Corinth CP-2541 and CP-2542, two nonjoining fragments; Corinth VII, ii, no. 189 a, b, pp. 54-55, pl. 36). Middle Corinthian. 119 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 28 C-36-2481. Agora South Central, area of Underground Shrine, Greek fill. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from upper body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.060 m. Firm glaze, crazed on interior;added red. Helmeted hoplite to 1. (preserved from the neck up) wielding spear in his raised right hand. Above, cut into by the helmet, part of a tongue frieze. Red in helmet and in alternatetongues. In helmet, above casque, incised zigzag line between bands. Middle Corinthian. 120 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 29 C-36-2482. Agora South Central, area of UndergroundShrine, Greekfill. Single fragment,from upper part of body wall and lower part of neck. P.W 0.087, p.H. 0.075 m.
Brown glaze tending to peel. Interior glazed. Neck glazed. On body, part of mounted hoplite, with helmet and shield, carryingtwo spears;at upper left, a bit of something else, with incised wavy line, apparently edge of horse's mane; behind rider,flying bird to 1. Shield blazon:whirligig,surroundedby glazed band containing incised rhomboi. The theme is a cliche on MC column-kraters. Closely similar (by the same hand?) is Corinth CP-2634 (Corinth VII, ii, no. 181, p. 53, pl. 35). Middle Corinthian. 121 COLUMN-KRATER, PI. 29 FRAGMENTS C-50-192 a, b. South Stoa, in front of Shop XXVI. Two joined fragments(a) and small isolated fragment (b) from body wall. (a) RH. 0.132, p.W 0.114 m. (b) RH. 0.025, p.W 0.032 m. Not from the same vase as any of the fragments bearing the inventorynumberC-50-5 (see 134), with which they were once inventoried. Brown to orange-brownglaze; added red. On fragment a, part of main frieze and a bit of lower frieze: parts of three padded dancers (extended hand of one, to r.; head, upper body, and buttocks of middle one, to 1.; and lower legs of a third, to r.). No f.o. Below, a.f. (part of a goat's back?). On b, head of a young padded dancer, to 1. (a fourthfigure,perhaps to the right of the rightmost figure on fragment a). Carter1953, no. 4, p. 211, pl. 65 (upper Bibliography: illustration right only);Seeberg1971,U 123,p. 54. Hasty work, with careless rendering of details. Interestingbecause of subject. Middle Corinthian. 122 COLUMN-KRATER FRAGMENT PI. 29 C-30-16. Found ca. 160 meters north of village plateia. Parts of rim, neck, and body wall well preserved. RH. 0.120, p.W 0.177 m. Dull black glaze. Top of rim: stepped zigzags. Edge of lip and neck black. Then a.f., then black-glaze zone with polychromebands. Partof one handle-plate(bird?). In figured zone: feline to 1., goat to 1.(?);no f.o. Middle Corinthian (?).
CATALOGUE 123 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 29 CP-3176. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment from upper part of body wall, with a bit of the neck, broken on all sides. There is a glued edge at the top, forwhich thejoining piece of the neck has not been found. RH. 0.043, p.W 0.052 m. Black glaze, peeling badly. Interior glazed. Upper partofyouthful riderto r., wearinga chiton and carrying a spear. The glaze is mostly lost, but the incised details make the design clear. Middle Corinthian. 124 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 29 CP-3171. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Fourjoined fragmentsof a large vase, all edges broken. Preserved is part of the body frieze from near its top down into black zone below it. RH. 0.115; p.W 0.103 m. Dull black glaze, badly worn on exterior; added red. The subject is hard to interpret. Apparently a sphinx to 1., confronted by a large flying bird; no f.o.; uncertain whether there was a lower frieze. For the subject, compare frieze IA of the krater Rome, Villa Giulia 50381 (exCastellani Collection; P. Mingazzini, VasideltaCollezioneCastellani,Rome 1930, no. 361, pl. 28; NC 1156; CorVP,p. 233, Group [Painter?] of Louvre E 565, no. 2), large flying bird to r., between seated griffins. Wild style; oddly proportioned creatures. Middle Corinthian (fairlyearly). 125 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 30 CP-253 1. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Former CP-2560 with five new joining fragments (CP-2531 + CP-2539), all renumbered CP-253 1. Section of rim, neck, and shoulder,with one handle-root, of column-krater,composed of six joining fragments. RH. 0.1 16, p.W ca. 0.273 m. Firm glaze but dull, with streaky brown areas inside. On rim, stepped zigzags (six steps down to 1.). In frieze (1. to r.): under handle, lion to r., with head turned back; griffin-birdwith raised wings to r., of which only the wings (withadded red on wing bands) and incised ear are preserved.
35
Bibliography:Corinth VII, ii, no. 188 (CP-2560only), p. 54, pl. 36. Quite possibly by the same artist as 126. Middle Corinthian. 126 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 30 CP-2541 + CP-2542, now joined. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Bit of neck and part of upper body of column-krater,composed of fourjoining fragments. PH. (still)0.095, p.W (new) 0.192 m. Dull glaze. In upper frieze, stag with head down to r., facing panther; f.o., two incised rosettes. Bibliography:CorinthVII, ii, no. 189 a, b (withfurther comments),p. 54, pl. 36. Possiblyby the same painter as 125. Middle Corinthian. 127 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 30 CP-974. SoutheastBuilding, fromClassicaldrain at southwest corner. Cluster of three joined fragments from middle part of body wall. PH. 0.092, p.W 0.048 m. Black to orange-brownglaze, evenly applied. Parts of two friezes preserved: I, parts of two padded dancers, back-to-back;II, ruminant (goat?) to 1. No f.o. Fairlyrough style. Middle Corinthian. 128 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 30 CP-538. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment, all edges broken. One handle-root preserved and a small part of the body to the right of it. Max. p. dim. 0.1 10 m. Firm glaze; added red. Under arch of handle (as shown by curvature of handle-root),part of avian creatureto r.;below, part of lowerfrieze (a.f.;bit of curved tail preserved). Red in alternate feathers of wing and tail of the avian; zigzag framed by pairs of incised lines at base of tail. Avians, with spread, or raised, or sickle-shaped wings, form a convenient and highly adaptable space filler for the area beneath the arch of the handles of a column-krater.The present example, with its spreadingfantail, could plausiblybe restoredas a siren or a griffin-bird,with raised or spread wings
36
AFTERMATH
(cf., for example, CorVP,pl. 58:2). Very clean renderings, carefully applied red. Surely by a worthy artist,but no narrowlyattributableparallelhas been found. One thinksof the paintersof fine kylikesand kraters, such as the Medallion Painter,the Detroit Painter, and the Cavalcade Painter, as analogous (CorVP,pp. 194-195, 196-197, 197-198). Middle Corinthian. 129 COLUMN-KRATER(?), PI. 30 FRAGMENT CP-3175. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Fragmentfrombody wall ofopen vase, all edges broken. Max. p. dim. 0.055, Th. ca. 0.005 m. The fabric seems too thin for a krater; perhaps a krateriskos? A kotyle or (better) a kylix is also possible. Brownish glaze; traces of added red. Banquet scene. Preserved are parts of a couch, with a table in front and a footstool below. The near leg at the right end of the table is shown, with a vertical incised line serving as decoration; apparently the front was plain. Shown between the legs of the table is a longitudinal stretcher,on top of which is a ball-shaped object, apparently a decoration. On top of the table there are coneshapedcakes, as often in Corinthianbanquetscenes. If more of the right end of the table were preserved, we might find to the right of the cakes a drinking cup of some sort. The couch behind has a fringed coverlet extending to the right beyond the leg of the table; the leg of the couch is missing. The footstool below has the heavy blocklike form that is characteristicof those represented in Corinthian banquet scenes. See, for example, the kraterLouvre E 634 (CorVP,p. 234, Memnon Painter,A 2; T. Baklr 1974, K 32, pls. 14-16). Baklr lists eleven banquet scenes on Corinthian column-kraters:nos. K 20, K 27, K 32, K 37, K 38, K 40, K 42, K 44, K 48, K 59, and K 64. To these add the krateronce New YorkMarket,Andre
Emmerich Gallery, H. A. Cahn, Art of theAncients: Greeks, Romans,andEtruscans, An Exhibition... February 7-March13, 1968, no. 3, pp. 6-7; the fragmentary kraters TocraI, no. 233, p. 33, pl. 16, and once Hamburg Market, Galerie Neuendorf (Holger Termer,KunstderAntike, Nov. 22-Dec. 20, 1978, pp. 7-8, with ills.);and the fragment Corinth KP 1151 (CorinthXV,iii, no. 679, p. 135, pl.3 1). Banquetsalso appear on MC kylixes:once Frankfurt,private (CorVP, p. 197, Cavalcade Painter,A 1) and Taranto 52914 (CorVP,p. 199, Related to the Taranto Painter,C 1). On banquetssee also B. Fehr,Orientalische undgriechischeGelage(Abhandlungen zur Kunst-,Musik-undLiter94, Bonn 1971, pp. 26-32, 138-140). atunvissenschaft The theme passed into Attic black figure on at least one column-krater, Louvre E 623 (T. Baklr 1974, A 6, once thought to be Corinthian), and on Siana cups by the C Painter (ABV,pp. 58-62 and 681-682, and Paralipomena, pp. 23-26), with more than twenty examples either by the painter himself or in his manner. Of course, in Attic red figure the theme is revived and enjoys a fantastic success, for example, in the work of the Brygos Painter. Middle Corinthian. 130 COLUMN-KRATER, PI. 31 HANDLE-PLATE C-65-180. Oakley House South, late context. Handle-plate nearly complete. Brokenat upper left corner, across top of fragment, at right where rim begins. P.W 0.098; dimensions of handle-plate:on radius 0.070, lateral W 0.078. Black glaze, somewhat abraded. On rim, stepped zigzag; on handle-plate, female head to 1., in outline and silhouette technique; fillet around head. A relatively unattractive representative of the type, with big nose, thick lips, and heavy chin. No close match for the style has been found. Middle Corinthian.
FemaleHeads or Protomai
Female heads or protomai are represented,on the handle-platesof column-kraters,singly and in various combinations. In addition to that on the present example, they appear singly on several other pieces. Cf. T Bakir 1974, nos. K 61, K 68, and K 69; add Corinth KP 1143 (Corinth XV, iii, no. 659, p. 132, pl. 30), AmsterdamAP 2031, ex Hague, Scheurleercollection (CVA,Scheurleer 2 [Netherlands 2], pl. 8 [71]:8), and Perachora II, no. 2262 (one of two), p. 234, pl. 78. A pleasing variant of the scheme presents two heads or busts shown jugate: 131; Perachora II, no. 2250, p. 231, pl. 78; Orvieto, Faina 2727 (CVA,Orvieto 1 [Italy 41], pl. 3 [1861]:l, 2 = T Bakir 1974, K 60, inaccurately described by her). Once, there is even a triplet of heads, in
CATALOGUE
37
echelon: Cambridge, FitzwilliamN 8, from Naukratis(CorVP,p. 508, note 272; for the inscription, p. 600, Table II [6]). One very late example has a male and a female head,jugate: Boston, M.EA. 63.420 (BMFA61, 1963, pp. 159-164, figs. 10-12; F Brommer, Vasenlisten zurgriechischen Heldensage, 3rd ed., Marburg 1973, C-I, p. 70). The earlier examples are rendered in outline and silhouette technique, without incisions; the later ones are black figured, with added white paint for the exposed female flesh and incision in II, no. 2262, Berlin 1959.1 = T. Bakir 1974, K 61, and Boston, M.F.A. the black areas. Cf. Perachora 63.420. Male heads are also shown singly, in a few cases: T. Bakir 1974, K 70 and K 71, to which add Corinth KP 1465 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 663, p. 132, pl. 31) and Corinth C-1976-300, from Temple Hill. The idea of presenting in outline technique a female head or protome within a confined rectangular area probably first found its place on the handle-plates of the aryballoi of the Liebieghaus Group (CorVP,pp. 164-165). Cf CorinthVII, ii, no. 85 (CP-2355), p. 32, pl. 14. As is noted there, among the works of the Boar Hunt Painter there are three aryballoi with jugate heads underneath (CorVF,pp. 163-164, A 5-A 7). The male head passes over into early Attic black figure, first finding its place on the handleplates of column-kraters(cf. T. Bakir 1974, A 9, A 10, and A 20, to which add two by Lydos, ABV,p. 108, nos. 7, 8); then, in greater numbers, appearing on the necks of ovoid neck-amphoras of the circle of Lydos (e.g., thirteen on vases by the Painterof Vatican 309 alone, ABV,pp. 121-122, nos. 8-20).
131 COLUMN-KRATER, PI. 31 HANDLE-PLATE (FRAGMENTARY) C-72- 14. ForumSouthwest, BuildingIII, Archaic fill. Lower left quadrant and part of upper edge missing. Adhering parts of handle present to near edge of handle-plate. PH. 0.070, p.W (all or nearly complete) 0.082 m. Black-glazed areas much worn. Partsof two female heads injugate formation, to 1. The leading (or yonder) head is all but wholly missing; the trailing (or near) head is better preserved, but the figure's chin is missing. Profile features are rendered in outline technique. The mass of the hair is black, with a reserved band for a fillet. A single transverseline below the chin apparentlyrepresents a necklace. The features of the better-preserved figure are oddly malproportioned: tiny eye, sharply pointed nose, tight lips, very long, heavy chin (lower part missing). The examples ofjugate heads on handleplates of kraters mentioned above are different in style and offer no usefully comparable features. On outline heads see furtherCorinth VII, ii, underno. 85, p. 32. Middle Corinthian.
132 COLUMN-KRATER, PI. 31 FRAGMENT C-50-3. South Stoa, Archaic to Classical fill in colonnade north of Shop XXVI. Handle-plate and part of adjoining rim and neck. Max. p. dim. on top (diagonally)0.262, handle-plate 0.070 x 0.105 m. Firm but dull glaze; added red and white. On rim, stepped zigzags (six, downward to 1.), edge of rim black. Neck black, with big red dots, around which are small white dots, as often on LC I red-ground kraters. On handle-plate, dolphin to r. Red in dolphin's body, toward front. No fo. Bibliography: Carter 1953, no. 5 (with no mentionof dolphin),p. 211, pl. 65. The two examples of dolphins on the handleplates of column-kraters,132 and KP 1164, are, as Benson (CorinthXV, iii, no. 380, p. 85) has stated, stylistically related to each other but not closely enough to warrant their attribution to one hand. Middle Corinthian.
38
AFTERMATH
Dolphins Dolphins are often representedin Corinthianvase painting (cf.Necrocorinthia, p. 76, note 9; and there are many more examples). On kraters they appear under the handle arch, as on CorVP, p. 148, Hochschule Group, nos. 3 and 4; Syracuse,fragment,sineinv.,from Gela (MonAnt17, 1906, col. 626, fig. 436); Louvre E 568 (J. Morin-Jean,Le dessindesanimauxen Griced'apresles vasespeints, Paris 1911, p. 72, fig. 75 [drawing]);on an unpublishedfragment, Corinth CP-2546; on a krater fragment (C-61-414) from the sanctuary on Acrocorinth (Corinth XVIII, i, no. 205, pl. 22); and on a kraterof "Chalcidian"type once in the Basel Market (MfinzenundMedaillenAuction18, 1958, no. 80, p1. 20; CorVP,p. 271, Related to the Tydeus Painter,C 4). It should be noted here that the kraterLouvre E 623 (Morin-Jean,op.cit., p. 72, fig. 76), with a dolphin under a handle arch, already branded by Payne (J/ecrocorinthia, pp. 205-206) as non-Corinthian, is in fact Attic, by the Ptoion Painter (ABV,p. 83, no. 1; Paralipomena, p. 31 = T Baklr 1974, A6). Of the occurrence of dolphins on handle-plates,I know of only one example besides 132: Corinth KP 1164, from the Potters' Quarter (Corinth XV, iii, no. 380, p. 85, pl. 20; see further Benson'sremarksthereunder). Some further examples (not illustrated)are collectively cited by Hopper (Perachora II, no. 2257, a composite entry,"miscellaneoushandle-plates",p. 232). Dolphins form a very attractiveornament for the handle-plate of a column-krater,and as handy space fillers they fit well under the handle arch. It is surprisingthat so few examplesare found in these positions. See T Bakir1974, pp. 66-67, tables, where no example of the former,and only one of the latter (CorVP,p. 271, C 4), is listed. For ancient representationsof dolphins see the helpful survey by Eunice Burr Stebbins, The andRome(diss.JohnsHopkinsUniversity,Menasha, Wisconsin andArtofGreece Dolphinin theLiterature 1929), to which the following notes are partly indebted. Corinthianvase painters,from the Dolphin Painter(name-vase:LouvreA 452, CorVP,pp. 6061, A 1; E. Pottier, VasesantiquesduLouvreI, Paris 1897, pI. 15) onward, consistently misrepresent the dolphin by the omission or distortionof some featuresand by the gratuitousaddition of others. Often it is impossible to determine whether the dorsal fin or the fartherflipper is meant. Toward the tail a pair of ventral fins is usuallyshown, a featurenot found in nature and certainlyborrowed from the anatomy of fishes. The flukes are shown in a vertical position; this is not necessarily a confusion with the tail fins of fishesbut ratheran artisticconvention. In BronzeAge Aegean art the representation of dolphins is more true to nature, as may be seen in the examples illustratedin H. T. Bossert, Altkreta,3rd ed., Berlin 1937, figs. 31 (Tiryns, floor painting), 49 (Mycenae, Shaft GraveV, ostrich egg with applique dolphins in relief), and 240 (Knossos,Queen's Megaron, mural painting, much restored). Attic vase painters tend to overlook the dorsal fin but generally do not make the mistake of adding ventral fins: see, for example, Arias, Hirmer, and Shefton 1961, color pls. XIV (kylix, Tarquinia) and XVI (kylix, Munich 2044; Exekias, ABV, p. 146, no. 20, p. 169) and p. 60), pls. 58 (kylix, Louvre F 123; ABV, p. 231, no. 8; Paralipomena, Paralipomena, There is one p. 358). 134 (kylix, Louvre G 104; Onesimos, ARV2, p. 318, no. 1; Paralipomena, remarkableexception in the case of the dolphins represented on the Nettos Amphora, Athens, p. 2, no. 6; AntDenkI, pI. 57, whence J. Boardman, N.M. 1002 (ABV,p. 4, no. 1; Paralipomena, AthenianBlackFigureVases,London 1974, p. 21, fig. 5:2). On the coins of Syracuse and Taras (C. M. Kraay and M. Hirmer, GreekCoins,New York 1966, pls. 24 45, 102-108), the dorsal fin is correctly represented, and on the former, the flukes (in relief) are rendered in perspective as being horizontal. Whether shown in isolation or in friezes,dolphinsin Corinthianvase painting are mainly used as decorative elements, with no reference to their watery habitat and no narrative significance. The only possible exception known to me is the remarkablescene on the kotyle Corinth C-62-449
CATALOGUE
39
(CorinthVII, ii, An 86, p. 115, pl. 66), where, in the same frieze with a standing swan or goose, a strange fish-man is representedstrokingthe throat of a dolphin. 133 KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 31 C-30-9. Found ca. 160 meters north of village plateia. Most of rim, one handle-plate, part of neck and body preserved. Diam. of rim 0.262, p.H. 0.125, handle-plate 0.075 x 0.087 m. Dull glaze, worn; added red. Exterior: on rim, stepped zigzags (to 1.); on handle-plate, griffin-birdwith sickle wings to 1.;on body below handle-plate, part of griffin-birdwith spread wings to r. and, on the right, remains of a padded dancer (belly, buttocks, legs), from which the paint is nearly all gone. Middle Corinthian. 134 COLUMN-KRATER Pls. 32, 33 (FRAGMENTARY) C-50-5. South Stoa, Archaic fill in colonnade north of Shop XXVI. Upper part put together from severalnonjoining clustersofjoined fragments. The missing parts, including the lower half of the body, restored in plaster. Diam. rim (restored) 0.275, Diam. rim, with handle-plates (restored)0.348, est. Diam. body 0.371 m. Glaze unevenly fired black to brown to orange; added red. On top of rim, stepped zigzags (five downward to 1.). Handle-plates, each with a siren with raised wings to r., head turned back; no Co. except (accidental?) blob under one siren; added red in wings, tail, and face. Vertical edge of lip, and neck, are black. Frieze IA: snake between cocks; under the handles (a) big bearded head to 1., (b) the like (?). Frieze IB: avian (siren?)to 1.,wings raised, between griffin-birds(?),wings raised. Frieze II, a.f., of which there remain only part of a goat to r. and a panther to 1. Interior glazed. Carter1953,no. 4, p. 211, pl. 65 (inaccuBibliography: ratelyand incompletelydescribedandillustrated). For the snake between cocks, cf. CorinthVII, ii, no. 161, p. 49. The theme is associated especially with the Detroit Painter (CorVP,pp. 197, 310, A 7 and AP 3, also p. 345, AP 4) and the Painter of the Moscow Gorgoneion Kylix (CorVP,p. 198, A 2), but no exact match for the style of 134 has been found. See also 115.
Large heads are a common feature of MC vases: on pyxides by the Geladakis Painter (e.g., CorVP, p. 215, A 28, A 31, A 32) and, more pertinently, on column-kraters,on the handle-plates or, as here, beneath the handle arches. For the latter,compare, for example, CorVP,p. 148, Hochschule Group, no. 2. Fairly rough style, with slashing incisions and sketchilyapplied color. Middle Corinthian. 135 MINIATURE KOTYLE PI. 33 CP-595. North Cemetery, Grave 1916-47. Put together from fragments. Complete, except for small chip out of rim and small gap (restoredin plaster)beneath one handle. H. 0.057, Diam. with handles 0.123, Diam. rim 0.082, Diam. foot 0.039 m. Dull black to brown glaze, worn off over much of surface, inside and outside. On exterior,band at top, then picture zone, tworow dicing, pen-stroke rays. In the frieze, running all aroundvase, chain of eight women holding hands (no wreaths or branches). Silhouette technique, no incision. Only one of the figures has paint well preserved. CorinthVII, ii, underPatrasPainter,p. 40, Bibliography: no. 1; CorVP, p. 188. The shape of the figuresrecalls the PatrasPainter, and this piece, as well as others like it, may actually be his work. End of Middle Corinthian or beginning of Late Corinthian I. 136 KYLIX, FRAGMENTS PI. 33 CP-247 1 a-c, with new joining (to CP-247 1 a) and nonjoining (CP-2471 c) fragments. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. (a) RH. (still)0.062, p.W (new)0.090 m. (c) PH. 0.030, p.W 0.055 m. On fragment a: avian (siren or griffin-bird)with sickle wings to r.; the new fragment,joining on the right, gives the round tufted tail, wing (withred wing band), and beak of bird to r. with head bent back; the groundline and area below are also present. On fragment c (not illustrated):tail and wing (with red wing band) of another like bird to r. The syntax,
40
AFTERMATH
combining them, might have been A, bird between griffin-birds;B, the like; under each handle, blobby f.o. (e.g., fragment b). Bibliography: Corinth VII, ii, no. 137,p. 42, pl. 23. Recalls the Medallion Painter. End of Middle Corinthian or beginning of Late Corinthian I. 137 COLUMN-KRATER, PI. 33 FRAGMENT C-59-3. Lechaion Road East, Well 1959-3. Rim fragment, with part of adjoining neck. EL. 0.078, p.W 0.040, W of rim 0.029 m. Brownish glaze; added red and white. On top of rim, chain of alternately inverted lotuses and palmettos. Inside glazed, with red band near top. On vertical edge of rim, stepped zigzag. Neck black, with dot-cluster rosettes composed of very large red center surrounded by small white dots. Very pretty work. The lotus-palmette chain is a common feature of rim-top decoration on Middle Corinthian kraters (on which see T. Bakir 1974, p. 58, where eight examples are cited). A similar example, somewhat more loosely constructed than 137, is on the fragment Corinth KP 1759, from the Potters' Quarter (CorinthXV, iii, no. 660, p. 132, pl. 30). The rosettes on the neck are perhaps a later feature pointing to LC I, toward, e.g., the Tydeus Painter. End of Middle Corinthian or beginning of Late Corinthian I. PI. 33 138 ROUND ARYBALLOS (FRAGMENTARY) C-64-424. Acrocorinth, Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, generalfill. Recomposedfromfragments; parts missing from mouthpiece and lower body. H. 0.065, Diam. 0.062 m. Dull, grayish ivory clay. Burnt? On mouth, top and edge, bands. On body, siren to 1.,wings spread. Eo., incised petal rosettes,neatly drawn. Underneath, concentric bands. CorinthXVIII, i, no. 251, p. 121, fig. 17, Bibliography: 26. pl. Siren recalls Herzegovina Painter. Possibly his work? Cf. London OC 368 (CorVP,p. 238, AP 6, pl. 105:4). Late Corinthian I.
139 FLAT-BOTTOMEDARYBALLOS PI. 33 (FRAGMENTARY) C-40-459. New Museum, built into wellhead of Well 1940-3. Recomposed from fragments; neck, mouth, handle, and part of body missing. RH. 0.083, Diam. base 0.060, max. Diam. 0.096 m. Late shape. Glaze fired reddish. Palmette-lotuscross. At back, incised rosette(s). A late, relatively loose form of a complex which found some favor in the works of the Painter of Berlin F 1090 and the Otterlo Painter (CorVP, pp. 175-180). For the specific pattern, cf. Dilos X, no. 340, pl. 27. Relativelyfew flat-bottomed aryballoi have been found at Corinth, a fact which suggests that this shape was produced mainly for export. Late Corinthian I. 140 KOTYLE, FRAGMENT PI. 34 C-47-645. SoutheastBuilding,Well 1947-4. Two joined fragments,preservingone handle and part of body from rim to lower part of body. Max. p. dim. 0.103 m. Black to brown to orange glaze; added red. Below rim, two narrow bands. In a.f., seated sphinx to r., with raised sickle-shapedwing, facing floral complex consisting of palmettes and conventional and "naturalistic"lotuses;no doubt there was a (lost) matching sphinx at the right of the central floralcomplex. Under the preservedhandle, a large loop, apparentlynot a tail(?).No flo. Bibliography: CorVP, p. 250, OtherLC Kotylai,no. 4. See the general remarks,loc.cit. 140 seems somewhat better than most of its kind. Late Corinthian I. 141 KOTYLE OR SMALL PI. 34 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT C-74-30. ForumWest, late context. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from middle part of body wall. Max. p. dim. 0.053 m. Orange-brown glaze on exterior, deep brown (nearlyblack)inside. Fine fabric. Partsof two horses walking to 1. Bit of rump and most of tail of one; chest, bit of barrel, and part of forelegs of the other (its surface partly peeled). No fo. preserved.
CATALOGUE Veryclean work. Noteworthyare the long slender legs, the advanced foreleg bent at the knee. Cf. the kotyle BrusselsA 1011 (CorVP,p. 248, Eurymachos Painter,A 1). Late Corinthian I (or advanced Middle Corinthian). 142 KYLIX (FRAGMENTARY) PI. 34 C-39-25 1. Museum, West, ClassicalWell 1939-1. RH. 0.045. Birds confronted, heads turned, then griffin-bird to 1.with raised sickle wing; bird to r., head turned. No incision whatever. Bibliography: CorVP,p. 254, no. 55. End of the line for LC "BirdieCups". Cf. CorVP, "Coda", p. 254. Late Corinthian I (very late). 143 KYLIX (FRAGMENTARY) PI. 34 C-3 1-169. Peribolosof Apollo. Fragmentsjoined but falling apart. Bit of rim, large part of bowl, one handle, foot preserved. PH. 0.060, Diam. foot 0.057, est. Diam. lip 0.15 m. Black to (mostly)orange glaze; no added red (?). Interior glazed; reserved central medallion with concentric bands around central dot. Exterior:a.f., with bands below. Apparently each side had bird to r., head turned, between sickle-wingedgriffin-birds (not sirens). Bibliography:CorinthVII, i, no. 370 (not ill.), p. 81; CorVP,p. 253, no. 31.
Typical "BirdieCup". Late Corinthian I. 144 PHIALE, FRAGMENT PI. 35 CP-3 177. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Small part of rim and part of bowl. EL. 0.052, p.W 0.041, est. Diam. 0.150 m. Brown glaze; pinkish added "red". On exterior, broad concentric bands, the outermost of which is "red". Inside: below rim, two bands; then chain of women to r., in silhouette technique, heads toward the rim, standing on groundline. Thick "hailstone" fo. Toward center, broad zone of "red" continuing inward beyond the edge of the fragment. For the subject (Frauenfest) and the technique, compare the miniature kotyle 135. The Frauenfest theme seems to have had a special attraction
41
for "hailstone"fo., on which see the comments under 111 and pp. 31-32. Late Corinthian I. 145 PANELAMPHORA(?), PI. 35 FRAGMENTS C-30-45. Found ca. 160 meters north of village plateia. Two joined fragments, giving part of body wall. Max. p. dim. (on diagonal) 0.1 10 m. Wheelmarksinside prove correct orientation. Firm glaze; added red. Part of avian (siren or griffin-bird?)to r., with spread wings, in reserved panel. At left edge, red verticalframingline. In field at upper left, bichrome rosette. The trailing wing of the avian goes down to 1., crossing part of the tail. Red in alternate wing bands and wing feathers, in base of tail, and in alternate tail feathers. Extremely fine work. Spread-winged avians occupy the framed reserved panels of the panel amphoras London B 19 (CorVP,p. 258, Painter of the Berlin Lekythos,A 2, pl. 1 2:1b) and once Lucerne Market (ArsAntiqua,A.G., AuktionI, 1959, no. 93, pl. 44, and other examples). Late Corinthian I. 146 OLPE (ATTIC TYPE), PI. 35 FRAGMENT C-31-295. New Museum, late context. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from near top, including the beginning of the recurve of the "neck". Max. p. dim. 0.047 m. Orange slip (red ground) on exterior; firm lustrous glaze; added red and white. Below neck, above picture zone, frieze of opposed alternately inverted lotuses and palmettes (red in cores and alternate leaves; white dots in hollows between leaf tips). Below this, in picture zone, are preserved parts of the manes of two horses, jugate to r., with lively flamelike locks, alternately red and black, and in the field behind these, a rosette with double center (redin core and alternatepetals; white dots in hollows between petals). A remarkably elaborate and colorful piece. A somewhat similar treatment of the horses' manes is shown on the flanged lid Corinth KP 1145 (Corinth XV, iii, no. 709, p. 140, pl. 32). Corinthian olpai of Attic shape (on which see, in general, CorVP,p. 491) normally have a band of tongue pattern above the picture zone, but the
42
AFTERMATH
presence of the lotus-palmettefrieze on the Corinth fragment can be explained as an Atticizing feature, for which good parallels exist on Attic olpai by or near the Gorgon Painter. Cf, for example, Athens, N.M. 19159 (ABV,p. 14, no. 11; Paralipomena, p. 9, and Scheibler 1961, p. 35, fig. 36). The same is found in conjunction with a tongue frieze on the olpe Tubingen 5445/28 (ABV,p.9, no. 11 [Gorgon Painter]; Paralipomena, p. 7, and Scheibler 1961, pp. 6-7, figs. 7-9). The liberal sprinklingof white dots in the floral elements on the Corinth fragment has analogies in the work of the Gorgon Painter,but there is also ample precedent for it in Corinthian vase painting. For direct imitations of Attic black figure, see Bentz 1982. Late Corinthian I. 147 SMALL RED-GROUND PI. 35 VASE, FRAGMENT C-36-2477. South Basilica, EarlyRoman drainin southeast corner. Three joined fragments, broken on all edges, of body of small "red-ground"vase. PH. 0.068, p.W 0.066 m. Perhaps from a small panel amphora or olpe (of Attic type?)? Red-ground exterior, "toned". Clay on interior pale. Exterior:part of upper borderline of picturezone preservedabove head of sirenwith spreadwings to r. (face, neck, breast, and middle wing band red; some of wing feathers white); small incised rosette below tail. Center of face incised. Excellent style. Not imitating Attic except in technique and shape? Not cited by Bentz (1982). For locks, strand of hair in front of ear, cf. panel amphora Basel Antikenmuseum, Ludwig Collection L-14 (E. Berger Ludand R. Lullies,AntkeKunstverke ausderSammiung wig I, Basel 1979, pp. 40-42, ill. on p. 42); Taranto 52844 (Lo Porto 1959-1960, p. 225, fig. 199:b). Late Corinthian I. 148 NECK-AMPHORA(?), PI. 35 FRAGMENT C-72-72. Sacred Spring, Classical fill. Two joined fragments from the body wall of a closed vase (globularoinochoe or neck-amphora?),broken on all sides. The curve of the fragment is fairly pronounced from top to bottom, less so from left to right. PH. 0.062, p.W 0.052, Th. 0.006 m.
Orange slip, black glaze; added red and white. Inside not glazed. Two dueling warriors(1.and r.)with a third warrior behind (middle). On the left, a helmeted warrior to r., wearing a white corselet with designs in dilute black, holding a shield, the inside of which is shown, on his left arm. Overlapped by his shield is the outside of the shield of his facing opponent, on the right. In the middle, between and behind the pair of dueling warriors, is the bottom of the helmet, with lines indicating hair below, of a third warrior, to r.; the line of dilute black on the left is apparently the crest of the helmet of the middle warrior.The hand of the warrioron the left is incorrectlyrendered:the fingersof his left hand should be shown, bent around from behind, on the near side of the shield grip. His spear is not shown, although normally in representationsof dueling warriorsthe spear poised in the right hand of the warrior on the left crosses his upper body and shield. The black area at the lower right corner of the fragment should be the upper thigh of the right leg of the warrior on the right, but the interpretation of the two sets of incised lines here is difficult. Two chips at the top of the fragment have removed part of the helmet and face of the left-hand warrior and part of the helmet of the middle one. Red is added on the helmets of the left and middle warriors, on the interior of the shield of the warrior on the left, and on the exterior of the shield of the warrior on the right. The subject was apparently a melee with dueling pairs of warriors in the foreground and background, as on the kraterof "Chalcidian"type, Louvre E 622 (CorVP, pp. 270-271, Tydeus Painter, A 13). Other examples of white corselets with patterns (but none as complex as that on the Corinth fragment) are found on the column-kraters New York, M.M.A. 12.229.9 (CorVP,p. 198, Cavalcade Painter,A 6), LouvreE 636 (NC 1456; CorVP,p. 262, Hippolytos Painter,A 1), on the AmphiaraosKrater (CorVP,p. 263, A 1), and on two vases by the Tydeus Painter:London 1884.8-4.7, B 39 (NC 1399, a globular oinochoe; CorVP,p. 269, A 1) and Copenhagen 13531 (a neck-amphora;CorVP,p. 270, A 7, pl. 123:la, b, and frontispiece [color]; D. A. Amyx, "Some Problems in Archaic Corinthian Prosopography,"in PLXtvt fr etq FxcapytovE. MuXovtv B', Athens 1986, pp. 166-167, pl. 42:a).
CATALOGUE For so elaborate a subject, the rendering seems somewhat slapdash. The style resembles that of the Tydeus Painter,but it is of lower quality. Late Corinthian I (red ground). 149 KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 35 C- 1978-101. Forum Southwest, late context. Wall fragment, all edges broken. PH. 0.074, p.W 0.060 m. Glaze blackto brown to light-brownwash, slightly flaked. Inside glazed, but exterior has unusual syntax for a krater. Parts of two zones preserved. In the upper field, leg and foot of figure advancing to r., wearing winged boot or sandal; below it, a groundline, golden brown with red stripe through its middle, wide glazed band, narrow glazed band, then reserved area, which may have been part of an a.f. with none of its figures surviving. The wing on the foot of the figure in the upper frieze is fairly rudimentary; Perseus fleeing the Gorgons? Compare the figure so labeled on the pyxis Corinth C-65-519 (E. G. Pemberton, "ALate Corinthian Perseus from Ancient Corinth," Hespena 52, 1983, pp. 64-69, pl. 16; CorinthXVIII, i, no. 260, pp. 122-123, fig. 31; CorVP,inscr. no. 55, p. 569). Late Corinthian I? (not red ground). 150 KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 35 C-1977-82. Forum Southwest, Hellenistic context. Fragment from main picture zone, broken all around. Max. p. dim. 0.072 m. Glaze fired red on inside, brown on outside; added red. Thick-walled, of fairly coarse clay. Parts of two horses racing to 1. Of the leading horse the rear half is preserved,with part of the tail at the lower right corner, overlapping the second horse, whose head and neck are preserved. There is no trace of the rider of the lead horse. Abundant but rather careless incision. (Rib markings, as on the first horse, are unusual.) The bridle, bit, and reins of the second horse are added in red. On representationsof horse races in Corinthian vase painting see CorVP,p. 648. The straining pose and the vivid rendering of the head of the second horse, with its streamingmane, convey more intensity than is normally found in such scenes. Of special interest are the incised marks behind the rib lines of the lead horse, which are
43
evidently meant to represent a brand. Earlier discussions of brands represented in Attic vase painting: M. Moore, "Horses by Exekias,"AJA 72, 1968, p. 358 (Exekias); R. Blatter, "Neue Werke des Schaukel-Malers,"AA [JdI 84] 1969, pp. 73-74 with no. 14 (Swing Painter); R. Lullies, AntK 14, 1971, p. 47 with note 16 (Berlin Painter). These are superseded by the thorough treatment of these marks by K. Braun ("Brunnen B1 [Streifen mit Pferdewerten],"AM 85, 1970, pp. 256-267) with the additions of J. Kroll ('An Archive of the Athenian Cavalry,"Hesperia46, 1977, pp. 86-88); these authors publish groups of bronze tablets from the Kerameikos and the Agora with records of the horses of Athenian cavalrymen, including their brands. Of the fifty-four brands known from the tablets, several are also found in vase painting (snake, kerykeion, san), while a few more found in vase paintings (qoppa, swastika, and other nonrepresentationalsigns) are missing from the tablets. The apparent brand on the horse from Corinth might represent a malformed crown (stephanos)or a palm branch (phoinix, an appropriatesign in this context!), both of which occur in the Kerameikos tablets,but the identificationis uncertain. I know of no other brands in Corinthian vase painting. Another example of rib incisions for a horse is found on one side of the Atticizing panel amphora Berlin 1963.18, published by R. Lullies in Festschrifl D~iner,H. Keller and K. Jurgen, eds., fir Gerhard Tubingen 1976, p. 29, pls. 5, 6. Late Corinthian I. 151 KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 36 C-29-222. Lechaion Road. Two joined fragments of a large vase, preserving part of body wall. PH. 0.088, p.W. 0.051 m. Firm glaze; added red. Between two zones of black, a band of palmettelotus chain, alternatelyinverted. Red base and core of palmettes and lotus. The sherd is slightly thicker at the end near the palmette-lotus chain, which would place the wider black zone above it, but this does not offer proof of the proper orientation. Good style, very clean rendering of details. The placement of a palmette-lotus chain on the body of the krater is quite rare. On vases by the Sphortos Painter,such as Florence 4198 (CorVP,p. 265, A 1), it is placed well below the picture zone, where it is to
44
AFTERMATH
be regarded as an Atticizing trait, but the present case is not quite the same. The attenuated form of the ornament and the widely flaring sepals of the lotuses indicate a fairly late date. Compare, for example, the lotus-palmette frieze on the Sphortos krater Florence 4198, and contrast the same element on the Eurytios krater Louvre E 635 (CorVP,p. 147). Beginning of Late Corinthian I? 152 KRATER OF "CHALCIDIAN"(?) PI. 36 SHAPE, FRAGMENT C-68-215. Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, surface. Single fragment, from neck into the upper body, apparentlyfrom a kraterof "Chalcidian" shape. P.W 0.070 m. Dirty buff clay, orange slip in decorated area; black glaze, slightly peeling; added red. At top, below black neck, enclosed tongues, with a red spot in alternate tongue tips. In frieze, parts of two riders to 1. The first is a youth holding an upright spear; then follows another rider, of whom there is extant the tip of his spear and the head and part of the neck of his horse. In the space between the head of the leading youth and the head of the horse behind, the inscriptionWiMn= FUov. Bibliography:CorVP,p. 587, inscr.no. 108, pl. 142:7 (facsimiledrawingof inscription). The fat, short tongues are typical of kraters of "Chalcidian"shape: cf., for example, Louvre E 622 by the Tydeus Painter (NC 1480; Necrocorinthia, p. 330, fig. 174:B,pl. 41:3; CorVP,p. 270, A 13). The style of the figuresalso belongs in that general area. For the subject, compare the krater Madrid 10840, Near the Hippolytos Painter (NC 1482; CorVP,p. 263, B 13). The name Wibn occurs frequentlyin Corinthian vase painting. It has no specific sense, for it is used mainly as a filler (cf. CorVP,p. 552). Late Corinthian I. PI. 36 153 KRATER, FRAGMENT C-71-36. Forum Southwest, found in cleaning. Two joined fragments, broken on all sides, from lower part of body wall. PH. 0.103, p.W 0.080 m. Hard, metallic glaze; red ground; added red and white. In main zone, riders (one of whom is partially preserved)on three horses galloping to r. The middle horse, in the foreground, is white; the horse at
the right has an added red stripe on his hindquarters. Below, a black zone with polychrome bands, wRwRw. Possiblyfrom a kraterof "Chalcidian"shape. Cf. Madrid 10840 (NC 1482; CorVP,p. 263, Near the Hippolytos Painter,B 13), to which it also has some stylisticresemblance. Late Corinthian I. 154 KRATER OF "CHALCIDIAN" PI. 36 SHAPE, FRAGMENTS C-50-164 a, b. South Stoa, Archaic to Classical fill in colonnade north of Shop XXVIII. Cluster of five joining fragments (a) and one nonjoining fragment (b) from the middle and lower part of the body wall. (a) Max. p. dim. 0.131 m. (b) Max. p. dim. 0.053. Black to golden-brown glaze; added red and white. Part of main frieze; below, a three-row pomegranate net, then the upper part of a glazed zone. In the frieze, two (or more) four-horsechariots racing to 1. Of the leading chariot (on a), overlapped by the one following it, only the wheel and part of the chariot-box (with red stripe)remain; of the second, the horses (two white) are partially preserved togetherwith the reins and a small part of the rim of the chariot wheel at the right edge. On fragmentb are the front hooves, white and black, of a chariot team and the tip of a horse'stail at the left edge. The hooves on fragmentb might belong to the following chariot and team on fragment a, and the tail to the team of the leading chariot or to another,lost pair of chariots. Above the reins of the following chariot on fragment a, the name of the lost charioteer of the lead chariot, lzaToq. Bibliography: p. 582, inscr.no. 94. CorVP, On chariot races in Corinthian vase painting see CorVP,p. 648. The subject is quite rare. It appears, interestingly,on a panel amphora recently in the Basel Market (MUnzenundMedaillen,ca. 1983), on which (side A) a white-robed charioteer is driving a quadriga leftward at full speed in what must have been a very exciting race. On the Corinth vase, the tails of the horses are swept back and raised by the speed of the race. Although it does not have a red-ground slip, on the basis of style the Corinth vase must be later than MC, as is also suggested by the shape, which
CATALOGUE is essentially LC. Furthermore, the pomegranatenet pattern appears often below the picture zone on LC I vases of various shapes (amphoras and hydrias,kratersof "Chalcidian"shape, but never on column-kraters). This pattern is not found before LC I or at least very late in MC. On its supposed occurrence on MC kylikes see Payne (Necrocorinthia, p. 311 [NC 991, 993], by the Cavalcade Painter [CorVP;pp. 197-198, A 3, A 4, and cf. A 2]), who states that "these vases should perhaps be placed in the Late Corinthian category." The Corinth vase is perhaps early in the LC series of kraters of "Chalcidian"shape. Beginning of Late Corinthian I? PI. 36 155 KRATER, FRAGMENT CP-3150. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Single fragment, broken on all sides, from body wall of a small krater (of "Chalcidian" shape?). Max. p. dim. 0.047, Th. not more than 0.005 m. Exterior "toned" light orange brown; added red and white. Inside glazed. Chariot team of horses, white and black, to 1., with a standing robed figure behind, to r. Preserved are the hooves and lower forelegs of two black and one white horse at r. The draperyof the robed figure is rendered in silhouette and outline technique; the narrow black strip with two horizontal incisions at its lower end appears to be the hanging edge of an outer garment worn by this figure; the unincised vertical black line to the right (behindthe legs of the horses) is perhaps a staff or spear held by this figure or else by the second robed figure that is perhaps to be recognized in the patch of white with an interior vertical line along the right edge of the fragment (also behind the legs of the horses). For the positions of the legs of the horses of the chariot team cf., e.g., Berlin 1959.1 (CorVP,pp. 27 1272, Tydeus Painter: Another Attribution, D 1; MiinzenundMedaillen,AuktionXVI, June 30, 1956, pl. 16, no. 77). For the polychromy cf., e.g., Vatican 126 (CorVP,p. 198, Cavalcade Painter,A 9; Arias, Hirmer, and Shefton 1961, pls. X, XI). Late Corinthian I. 156 COLUMN-KRATER, FRAGMENT PI. 37 C-34-2537. South Stoa, colonnade, Well 1934-4 north of Shops X, XI. Two joined fragments,giving lower part of main zone and upper part of lower
45
zone (a.f.) on one side. The exterior of the sherd is damaged by two deep vertical grooves. Max. p. dim. 0.144 m. Glaze much worn (completely gone on interior surface). FriezeIA. Battle over a fallen warrior. Lower part of hoplite at 1. (greave, shield) advancing to r., his foot overlappinga nude fallen warrior,lying prone, his head to r., evidently shown with his arms (lost) stretched out in front of him (incisions show the genitalia on the lower side of the figure below the buttocks, and, at r., what appear to be his diagonal baldric and the lower part of his helmet); leg and foot of warrior advancing to 1., crossing in front of the fallen figure (the paint is much worn here). FriezeII. Head and shoulder of panther to r.;no fo. preserved. The panther has a flat face and rather light, scratchyincisions. In spite of its poor condition, this piece is interesting for its subject matter. Corpses are shown between or among groups of dueling warriors on five other Corinthian column-kraters. Cf. T. Baklr 1974, pp. 34-35: Vatican 88 (CorVP,N. B. Hunt Painter,p. 340, no. 1); Louvre E 635 (CorVP,Eurytios Krater, p. 147); Naples 80995, H 683 (CorVP, pp. 191, 345, Samos Painter [?], A 8 [shield not shown]); Louvre E 636 (CorVP,p. 262, Hippolytos Painter, A 1 [shield not shown]); and Corinth C-72-149 (CorVP,p. 329, Sphortos Painter,A 3). In the first four examples the fallen warrior is shown supine, having fallen over backwards. Cf. also the figures on the PC aryballos Louvre CA 931 (CorVP, p. 38, Chigi Group:Various, no. 6) and the EC aryballos Taranto 20587 (Lo Porto 1959-1960, p. 99, fig. 75:b). The warriors on the fragmentary krater by the Sphortos Painter (with shield) and on 156 (without shield) are shown prone, having fallen forward; cf. also the collapsing figure on the lekythos London B 40 (CorVP,p. 270, Tydeus Painter,A 5). The theme also occurs on contemporaryAttic vases, sometimeswith legendary content: see, for example, the Tyrrhenian amphora Munich 1426 (ABV 95, no. 5; Paralipomena, p. 36). Late Corinthian I. PI. 37 157 KRATER, FRAGMENT C-26-12. East of Theater, 1926, late context. Single fragment from body wall, all edges broken. RH. 0.065, p.W 0.070 m.
46
AFTERMATH
Orange-toned exterior; interior glazed; added white. Part of main frieze preserved, including a bit of the groundline. Part of a group of naked women and padded dancers. At 1., woman to r., facing a male dancer; at r., the hand and forearm of a third dancer, evidently back-to-backwith the second. Groups of naked women and padded dancers first appear in LC I, on red-ground vases. There are several examples in and near the Andromeda Group (CorVP,p. 268, A 3, p. 269, A 10, p. 353, B 1, B 2), one by the Poteidan Painter (CorVP, p. 266, A 2), one by the Brussels Dancers Painter (CorVP,p. 267, no. 1),and one by the TydeusPainter (CorVP,p. 270, A 3). There is also one curious specimen in Chios(?),from Kato Phana (W.Lamb, BSA 36, 1934-1935, no. 34, pp. 162-163, pl. 37), notnear the Andromeda Group, as has been maintained (Seeberg 1971, no. 238, p. 48; F. Lorber,InVasen,Berlin 1979, no. 134, aufkorinthischen schrzften p. 85, fig. 52 [dwg., part]), which looks suspiciously un-Corinthian. This theme is related to that of banquets with men and nakedwomen present, as on the SphortoskraterFlorence 4198 (CorVP,pp. 265-266, A 1) but already found in MC, as on Detroit 24.119 by the Detroit Painter (NC 1184; CorVP,p. 196, A 4; also published by E. Bell in Moon and Berge 1979, no. 16, pp. 26-27), and on Louvre E 629 by the Athana Painter (NC 1186; CorVP,p. 235, A 1). To this context also belongs the representation of an erotic symplegma on the krater fragment London 1886.4-10.178, apparentlyby the Ophelandros Painter (NC 1179; CorVP,p. 234, AP 2; Lorber [op.cit.], no. 43, pp. 40-41, fig. 29 [dwg., part]). The style resembles that of the krater Dresden ZV 1604 in the Andromeda Group (NC 1477; CorVP,p. 269, A 10), but the likeness is not close enough to justify an attribution. Most remarkable is the strongly curvilinear character of the incised
detail, which sets this piece apart from all the others showing this subject. Just as the Corinthian padded-dancer theme was borrowed and adapted by Attic vase painters of the Komast Group, so was the scene of padded men and women dancing borrowedand developed, with interesting variations, by Attic artists of the Tyrrhenian Group. See ABV, pp. 94-106, 683pp. 9684; Paralipomena, pp. 34-43; BeazleyAddenda, 11, passim,for example, nos. 66, 82, 98 (withBeazley Addenda, p. 11), 104, and 105. Late Corinthian I (red ground). PI. 37 158 KOTYLE (FRAGMENTARY) C-37-946. Agora South Central, Archaic Well 1937-3. H. 0.100, Diam. rim 0.130, Diam. with handles 0.188, Diam. foot 0.068 m. Shape fully determined;missing parts restored in plaster. Firm glaze, no added red. Body frieze bounded by broad band above and below; at base, tall thin rays. In body frieze, each side, siren to r., with spread wings, between sirens with raised sickle-shaped wings. Odd f.o., giving worm-eaten effect. The figures are crudely rendered. M. T Campbell,Hesperia 7, 1938,no. 106, Bibliography: p. 591, fig. 17; C. K. Williams, Hesperia42, 1973, no. 8,
p. 14; CorVP,p. 249, The VermicularPainter,A 3; Corinth XV, iii, no. 835, pp. 161-162, "QuarterMoon Painter"; Benson 1983, p. 322. AJA41, 1937, pl. XIII:2.
For the context, see
By the Vermicular Painter, an artist of distinctively horrid style and monotonously repetitivesubject matter. He is descended from the Chaironeia Group (cf. CorVP,p. 250, where the sequence should be reversed: i.e., the Vermicular Painter should come after that Group). End of Late Corinthian I or beginning of Late Corinthian II.
Painter The Vermicular The VermicularPainter is by now well defined, but a rerun may be justified in order to bring the materialsup to date. Here is a revised list of his works: Koylai 1. Corinth C-37-946. CorVP,p. 249, A 3 [Williams]. 2. Corinth C-62-692. CorVP,p. 249, A 2 [Williams]. 3. Corinth C-72-39. CorVP,p. 249, A 1 [Williams]. 4. Thebes 51.33, from Rhitsona. P. N. Ure, JHS 30, 1910, p. 337, fig. 2, left; NC 1335; CorVP, p. 249, A 4.
CATALOGUE
47
5. Agrigento S/2121, from Montelusa cemetery (rim fragment). CorVP, p. 249, A 5, p. 421, pl. 131:8. 6. Polygiros 333-A18-A2, lerissos. P. Aupert, BCH 100, 1976, pp. 676, 679, fig. 216; CorVP, pp. 326, 351, A 6 [Pemberton]. 7. From Comiso. A. di Vita, JMScser. 8, 6, 1951, p. 347, fig. 13 [Benson]. 8. Athens, British School A-31. Benson 1983, p. 322, pl. 67:c [Benson]. Attributions Unverified Benson (1983, p. 322; CorinthXV, iii, no. 835, pp. 161-162) also attributes the following unpublished examples: E- 1. Corinth, from Nemea, P 118. E-2. Corinth, from Nemea, P 123. E-3. Corinth C-62-732 a, b. E-4. Philadelphia, University Museum, 31-22-1. 159 COLUMN-KRATER HANDLE, PI. 37 FRAGMENT CP-3174. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Part of a handle arch and part of the handle-plate above it. Max. p. dim. 0.057 m. Lustrousglaze; added red. The design, though incomplete, can be restored as a palmette cross, with oval lotus-budfillers in the angles. Red in lotus-bud fillers. A fully preserved handle-plate with a design of this kind is on Corinth KP 857 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 661, p. 132, pl. 30), on which a part of the rim is also preserved. The pattern is evidently derived from the familiar quatrefoil design occurring on hundreds of round aryballoi, adapted to suit the flat surface of the handle-plate by making it quadrilaterally symmetrical. It is not clear when or how this adaptation first appeared. Cf. also 160. Late Corinthian II(?). 160 COLUMN-KRATER PI. 37 HANDLE-PLATE CP-3 116. Early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Partially preserved, all edges broken. Dims. as preserved 0.055 x 0.077 m.
Dull glaze; added red. The design, though incomplete, can be restored as a palmette cross with lotus-bud angle fillers (cf. 159). The palmette leaves are simple strokes, not enclosed or even tongue shaped. The form of the palmettes may be indicative of a late date, perhaps even later than that of the foregoing entry. Late Corinthian II(?). 161 PLATE OR SHALLOW PI. 37 BOWL(?),FRAGMENT C-75-54. West Shops, Classical fill under South Tower. Twojoined fragmentsof a large open vessel, all edges broken. Max. p. dim. 0.089, Th. ca. 0.011 m. The fragment has very little curvature. Red and black glaze, with some added white, most ofwhich has flakedoff. Black-figuretechnique. Interior glazed. On exterior,ivy spray,the leaves black, stem red. Orientation and meaning of decoration unclear; conceivably, to 1., pendent drapery(?),red with incised folds of border in black. The subject is a mystery,perhaps Bacchic in significance. Date? Could it be post-Archaic, in spite of the firm command of the black-figuretechnique?
APPENDIX ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CORIJ\THVII, II, SECTION A REVIEWSOF CORINTH VII, II
ArchCl28, 1976, pp. 360-364 (F.Canciani);A7A81,1977, pp. 245-246 (H. Geagan);JHS 97, 1977, Archeologja pp. 222-223 (A.Johnston); Sovietskaja 1977, 4, pp. 318-321 (S. Boriskovskaya,in Russian);BABesch 52-53, 1977-1978, p. 288 (M. Stoop); CRn.s. 28, 1978, p. 188 (R. M. Cook), and Gnomon 51, 1979, pp. 773-777 (J. Benson). BIBLIOGRAPHY
p. 5, KP 1147: Corinth XV, iii, no. 278, p. 63, pis. 14, 84. p. 5, KP 1186: Corinth XV, iii, no. 294, p. 67, pl. 15. pp. 6, 18, KP 193: Corinth XV, iii, no. 321, p. 72, pl. 16. Cat. no.4, pp. 13-14, AT 248 a, b: CorVP,p. 47, A 2. Forfurtherattributionsto the TorrPainter,see CorVP,pp. 47, 302, 334, A 4, and p. 47, A 5. Cf. Benson 1979, p. 773. The pointed aryballos referred to here as "once in Basel Market (Cahn, 1963)" (CorVP,p. 47, A 3) is published by H. Bloesch, Das Tierin derAntike,Zurich 1974, no. 202, p. 35, pl. 33 (Basel, Private [Cahn]; H. 0.083, Diam. 0.037 m.).
Cat. no. 8, pp. 14-15, C-69-127: CorVP,p. 48, Related to the Fusco Painter,C 1. Cat. no. 9, p. 15, CP-2647: CorVP,p. 64, PerachoraPainter,A 7; Benson 1983, p. 322. Cat. no. 10, pp. 15-16, C-40-289: CorVP,p. 64, PerachoraPainter,A 8; Benson 1983, p. 322. Cat. no. 11, p. 16, C-40-291 a-c: CorVP,p. 64, PerachoraPainter,A 9; Benson 1983, p. 322. Cat. no. 14, p. 16, C-40-284: Perhaps by the Sphinx Painter,although not enough is preserved to be certain. Compare, for example, Palermo 1465, CorVP,pp. 71, 305, A 2. Cat. no. 16, p. 17, C-2296 a, b: CorVP,p. 70, Near the Painter of Vatican 73, B 2. Cat. no. 17, pp. 17-18, C-40-140: CorVP,p. 73, Polyteleia Painter,A 4; CorinthXV, iii, no. 330 ("StagPainter"),p. 74, pls. 17, 86 (on KP 345 a-f, not the same vase as C-40-140). Cat. no. 46, p. 23, CP-2390 a, b: CorVP,p. 129, Havana Painter,no. 3; Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 47, p. 24, CP-2391 a-c: CorVP,p. 129, Painter of Corinth CP-2391, no. 1 (name-vase); Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 50, p. 24, C-40-162: CorVP,p. 134, Painter of Corinth C-40-162, no. 1 (name-vase); Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 51, p. 24, C-40-163: CorVP,p. 134, Painter of Corinth C-40-162, no. 2; Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 52, pp. 24-25, C-40-167: CorVP,p. 134, Painterof Corinth C-40-162, no. 3; Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 53, p. 25, C-40-159: CorVP,p. 133, Painterof Corinth C-40-159, A 1 (name-vase);Benson 1983, p. 323, pl. 67:e. Cat. no. 56, p. 25, C-47-576: CorVP,p. 134, Painter of Corinth C-47-576, no. 1 (name-vase); Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 57, pp. 25-26, C-47-586: CorVP,p. 134, Painterof Corinth C-47-586, no. 1 (name-vase); Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 58, p. 26, C-47-603: CorVP,p. 135, Painter of Corinth C-47-603, no. 1 (name-vase); Benson 1983, p. 323.
APPENDIX
49
Cat. no. 59, p. 26, C-47-612: CorVP,p. 135, Painter of Corinth C-47-612, no. I (name-vase); Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 62, pp. 26-27, CP-52: CorVP,p. 140, Lowie Painter,A 3; Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 63, p. 27, C-40-303: CorVP,p. 145, Painter of London A 1355, no. 2. Cat. no. 64, p. 27, CP-2490: CorVP,p. 145, Perhaps by the Macri Langoni Painter, AP 1. Cf. Benson 1979, p. 775, "I have difficultywith the Makri Langoni Painter to whom two works from the Potters' Quarter have been attributed." The pieces in question are now published: Corinth XV, iii, no. 406, p. 90, pis. 23, 91 (CorVP,p. 145, A 2) and no. 397, p. 88, pl. 21 (CorVP, p. 145, A 3). Cat. no. 69, p. 28, CP-2309: CorVP,p. 96, Probablyby the Duel Painter,AP 2. Cat. no. 72, p. 29, CP-2538 a, b: Seeberg 1973, no. 14, p. 79. Cat. no. 73, pp. 29-30, C-32-257: Seeberg 1973, no. 22, p. 79. Cat. no. 74, p. 30, CP-2551: Seeberg 1973, no. 23, p. 79. Cat. no. 76, p. 30, C-38-635: Seeberg 1973, no. 15, p. 79. Cat. no. 79, pp. 30-31, CP-2521: Seeberg 1973, no. 13, p. 79. Cat. no. 95, p. 34, CP-2363: CorVP,p. 310, Apparentlyby the Basel Ox-Head Painter,AP 1. Cat. no. 106, pp. 35-36, CP-2423: Attributedby Benson (1979, p. 775) to the Painter of Corinth KP 14 (Corinth XV, iii, no. 576, pp. 117-118, pl. 27). Cat. no. 117, p. 37, CP-2394 a-c: CorVP,p. 188, PatrasPainter,A 48. Cat. no. 118, p. 37, CP-2395: CorVP,p. 188, PatrasPainter,A 47. Cat. no. 119, p. 37, CP-2396: CorVP,p. 186, PatrasPainter,A 24. Cat. no. 120, p. 37, CP-2397: CorVP,p. 186, PatrasPainter,A 24 (same vase as Cat. no. 119). Cat. no. 121, p. 38, CP-2399: CorVP,p. 188, PatrasPainter,A 49. Cat. no. 122, p. 38, CP-2398: CorVP,p. 186, PatrasPainter,A 24 (same vase as Cat. no. 119). p. 38, KP 1894 (PatrasPainter,no. 8): CorVP,p. 186, A 6; Corinth XV, iii, no. 628, p. 126, pl. 29. p. 38, KP 102 (PatrasPainter,no. 9): CorVP,p. 186, A 17; Corinth XV, iii, no. 606, p. 123, pl. 29. p. 38, KP 103 (PatrasPainter,no. 10): CorVP,p. 186, A 5; Corinth XV, iii, no. 609, p. 124, pl. 99. p. 39, KP 104 (PatrasPainter,no. 23): CorVP,p. 187, A 29; Corinth XV, iii, no. 607, pp. 123-124, pl. 29. p. 39, KP 2697 (PatrasPainter,no. 25): CorVP,p. 188, A 51; Corinth XV, iii, no. 611, p. 124, pl. 29. p. 39, KP 1106 (PatrasPainter,no. 42): CorVP,p. 187, A 38; Corinth XV, iii, no. 610, p. 124, pl. 29. p. 40, KP 2321 (PatrasPainter,no. 47): CorVP,p. 188, A 52; Corinth XV, iii, no. 613, p. 124, pl. 29. Cat. no. 124, p. 40, CP-2400: CorVP,p. 189, The "C-47" Painter,A 4. Cat. no. 125, p. 40, C-47-647: CorVP,p. 189, The "C-47" Painter,A 3. Cat. no. 126, pp. 40-41, C-47-649: CorVP,p. 189, The "C-47" Painter,A 2; Benson 1983, p. 313, pl. 67:g. The kotyle Tocra 333 is CorVP,p. 189, A 6. Cat. no. 128, p. 41, CP-2446 and CP-2456 a, b: CorVP,p. 199, Taranto Painter,A 3. Cat. no. 129, p. 41, CP-2457 a, b: CorVP, p. 204, Gorgoneion Group: Unattributed Kylixes, no. 8. The lebes on a stand-a rare Corinthian shape-has recently gained a number of new recruits:see the list and discussionby Callipolitis-Feytmans(1970, pp. 86-113, pls. 30-38, esp.
pp. 104-105)and also CorVP, pp. 475-479.
50
APPENDIX
Cat. no. 130, p. 41, CP-2458: CorVP,p. 199, Possiblyby the Taranto Painter,AP 1. Cat. no. 135, p. 42, CP-2464: CorVP,p. 195, Painterof BrusselsA 2182, A 3. Cat. no. 139, p. 43, MP 6: CorVP,p. 202, Painter of Corinth MP-6, A 1 (name-vase). To the bibliographyadd Benson 1964, p. 171. Cat. no. 145, p. 44, CP-2447 a-c: CorVP,p. 199, Near the Taranto Painter,B 2. Cat. no. 146, p. 44, CP-516 (part),CP-2439, CP-2442, and CP-2440: CorVP,p. 168, The Chimaera Painter,A 8; see X35, p. 121 below. Cat. no. 147, pp. 44-45, CP-516 (part)and CP-2441: CorVP,p. 168, The Chimaera Painter,A 9; see X36, p. 121 below. Cat. no. 148, p. 45, CP-2438 a, b: CorVP,p. 173, Chimaera Group, Unattributed Vases, no. 4; see p. 78 below. Cat. no. 158, p. 48, CP-2487: CorVP,p. 348, Painter of Athens 931, A 22 bis;republished above with four new joining fragments, 103, Plate 26. Cat. no. 166, p. 50, C-38-276 a, b: CorVP,p. 207, Dodwell Painter,A 38; Blomberg 1983, no. 60, p. 79; three new drawingspublished here, Plate 60:a-c. Cat. no. 172, p. 51, CP-2034: CorVP,p. 234, Memnon Painter,A 3. Cat. no. 187, p. 54, CP-2559: CorVP,p. 197, Near the Detroit Painter,B 3. Cat. no. 209, pp. 56-57, C-47-648: CorVP,p. 250, Other Late Corinthian Kotylai, no. 8; Benson 1983, p. 323. Cat. no. 210, p. 57, CP-2465: CorVP,p. 253, Some Late Corinthian Kylixes, no. 21. Cat. no. 217, p. 58, C-50-87: Probablya kraterof "Chalcidian"type rather than a column-krater, to judge from the tongues, which are (characteristically)shorterand fatter. Cat. no. 219, p. 58, C-39-31 1: Like Cat. no. 217, probablya kraterof "Chalcidian"type.
CONCORDANCE OF CORINTH INVENTORY AND 'AFTERMATH" CATALOGUE AND PAGE NUMBERS
Inv.N~o.
Caat.No.
C-26-12 C-26-13 C-29-80 C-29-222 C-30-9 C-30-14 C-30-16 C-30-42 a-c C-30-45 C-30-103 C-31-45 C-31-46 C-31-96 C-31-97 C-31-109 C-31-110 C-31-169 C-31-295 C-31-491 C-32-134 C-32-257 C-34-2537 C-34-2553 a, b C-34-2554 C-35-94 C-36-204 C-36-1142 a C-36-1142 b C-36-2443 C-36-2444 C-36-2476 C-36-2477 C-36-2481 C-36-2482 C-37-946 C-39-251 C-39-318 C-40-87 C-40-143 C-40-153 C-40-161
157 111 73 151 133 65 122 60 145 sub93 89 90 cf. 89 cf. 90 33 10 143 146 88 61 sub55 156 67 85 sub 100 80 118 sub 118 86 87 80 147 119 120 158, p. 46 142 79 sub112 43 44 45
Inv.No. C-40-220 C-40-223 C-40-224 a-c C-40-251 C-40-253 C-40-257 C-40-264 C-40-269 C-40-290 C-40-305 C-40-459 C-47-584 C-47-635 C-47-636 C-47-640 C-47-645 C-47-718 C-48-156 a-k C-50-3 C-50-5 C-50-40 C-50-54 C-50-92 C-50-94 C-50-164 a, b C-50-167 C-50-169 C-50-192a,b C-53-167 a C-53-167 b C-53-178 C-54-1 C-59-3 C-59-7 a, b C-60-130 C-61-414 C-62-449 C-62-692 C-62-732 a, b C-62-896 C-64-87
Cat No. 38 39 19 29 30 31 23 22 20 46 139 42 sub84 84 sub84 140 95 1 132 134; cf. 121 56 77 sub78 78 154 53 93 121 sub83 83 sub 103 sub 100 137 7 32 p.38 pp. 38-39 p. 46 p. 47 sub 100 5
Inv.No. C-64-151 C-64-424 C-65-180 C-65-200 C-65-212 C-65-519 C-66-37 a, b C-66-84 C-66-124 C-66-167 a, b C-67-88 C-67-91 C-67-105 C-67-119 C-68-215 C-68-245 C-70-84 C-70-118 C-71-36 C-71-161 C-71-213 C-71-214 C-71-218 C-72-14 C-72-39 C-72-72 C-72-149 C-73-73 a, b C-73-107 C-73-109 C-73-115 a, b C-73-117 C-73-146 C-73-147 C-73-148 a, b C-73-266 C-73-273 C-74-30 C-75-54 C-1976-163 C-1976-179 a-d
Cat.No. 21 138 130 13 117 sub 149 63 116 70 17 6 49 41 82 152 71 sub58 16 153 11 9 8 4 131 p. 46 148 sub 156 112 100 27 99 102 28 55 40 98 57 141 161 115 37
52
AFTERMATH: CONCORDANCE OF INVENTORY AND CATALOGUE NUMBERS
Inv.No. C-1976-250 C-1976-300 C-1976-319 C-1977-82 C-1977-85 C-1978-53 C-1978-75 a, b C-1978-101 CP-485 CP-538 CP-539 CP-595 CP-972 CP-973 CP-974 CP-1972 CP-1973 CP-1974 CP-1997 CP-2096 CP-2305 CP-2317 CP-2339 CP-2342 CP-2355 CP-2361 CP-2368 CP-2371 CP-2420 CP-2446
Cat.No. 12 p. 37 62 150 69 114 54 149 sub28 128 66 135 113 113 127 76 36 75 48 sub 10 2 24 35 74 p. 37 58 68 50 92 94
Inv.NVo. CP-2447 a-c CP-2456 a, b CP-2471 a-c CP-2483 CP-2484 CP-2487 CP-2510 CP-2531 CP-2534a,b CP-2539 CP-2541 CP-2542 CP-2546 CP-2551 CP-2560 CP-2568 CP-2582 CP-2598 CP-2627 CP-2634 CP-2918 CP-3116 CP-3129 CP-3131 CP-3133a,b CP-3134 CP-3135 CP-3136 CP-3137 CP-3138
Cat.]Vo. sub60 94 136 51 52 103 sub66 125 64 See 125 126, sub 118 126, sub 118 p. 38 sub55 See 125 sub85 sub100 81 34 sub120 15 160 59 47 104 101 105 106 107 108
Inv.Nvo. CP-3139 CP-3140 CP-3141 CP-3142 CP-3143 CP-3150 CP-3170 a-c CP-3171 CP-3174 CP-3175 CP-3176 CP-3177 CP-3178 CP-3180 CP-3181 KP 45 KP 857 KP 1000 KP1088a,b KP 1093 KP 1143 KP1145 KP1151 KP 1164 KP 1465 KP 1759 KP2422 MP 196 MP 197 T 1472
Cat.No. 109 110 72 26 25 155 18 124 159 129 123 144 14 3 91 sub96 sub159 sub113 sub 113 sub47 p. 36 subl46 subl29 sub132, p.38 p. 37 sub137 sub79 96 97 sub55
1 PLATE
AFTERMATH
*
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~kfr
Af a
1 c (C-48-156 c)
lb (C-48-156 b)
i j (C-48-156 j) 1 d (C-48-156 d)
1 e (C-48-156 e)
2 (CP-2305) 3 (CP-3180)
4 (C-7 1-218)
5 (C-64-87)
6 (C-67-88)
PLATE 2
AFTERMATH
7 b (C-59-7 b)
7 a (C-59-7 a)
9
pr
(C-7 1-213)
As
8 (C-71-214) 10 (C-31-110)
7AWd 11 (0-71-161)
12 (C-1976-250) Scale 1:2 except 8 1:1; 103:2
PLATE 3
AFTERMATH
13 (C-65-200)
17 a (C-66-167 a)
14 (CP-3178)
I..
18 a (CP-3170 a)
15 (CP-2918)
16 (C-70-1 18)
18 c (CP-3170 c) Scale 1:2except13, 14 1:1
PLATE 4
AFTERMATH
19 c, tracing
19 a (C-40-224 a)
:
19 a, tracing
19 c (C-40-224 c)
20 (C-40-290) Scale 1:1 except 19a, c 1:2
PLATE 5
AFTERMATH
ye~~~
Y
21 (C-64-151)
22 (C-40-269), view A
22, view B
22, view C Scale 1:1
PLATE 6
AFTERMATH
tat...
~
~
~
~
~
-~^.
24 (CP-2317)
23 (C-40-264), view A
4
23, view B
25 (CP-3143)
27 (C-73-109) 26 (CP-3142), view A
26, view B Scale 1:1
PLATE 7
AFTERMATH
28 (C-73-146),viewA
28, viewB
29 (C-40-251),viewA
29, view B
30 (C-40-253), view A
30, view B
Scaleca. 1:1
PLATE8
AFTERMATH
CN
b
Un
V~~~~~~~~~~V
Cr)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
$ RO 014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C(0
4
>4
Ce) e
PLATE 9
AFTERMATH
.
:,
.....
--.
.
S
_
.
37 a (C-1976-1
~ a),
4t--A
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~
A-
-
.
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J
?)4) a.~~~~4~
'44
!;3
C-7- 9
p W~~~~WW
36 (CP-1973), view A viewAC a ~~~~~37
36, view B (-9-19a,
37 a, view B A
Sa
1:1
r:
PLATE 10
AFTERMATH
1 -4
39 (C-40-223)
38 (C-40-220)
40 (C-73-148)
41 (C-67-105), view A
41, view B
Scale 1:2
PLATE 11
AFTERMATH
00
ffi
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f
Li
AFTERMATH
PLATE 12
,q e
*
~~ ~
S@. q.
45 (C-40-16 1), view A
e
'
I...~~~~~~~~f..
lZE
46 (C-40-305)
45, view B
45, view C
Scale 1:2 except 46 1:1
PLATE 13
AFTERMATH
48 (CP-1997), view A
47 (CP-3131)
I'~~~~~' 48, view B
MU
i8,mviewpCScale
Wit
in
ibE;? p
ww
P WA
kX
1:1 except 48, view A 1:2
PLATE 14
AFTERMATH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o
I:*
49 (C-67-91) 50 (CP-2371)
'a 51 (CP-2483)
r 52 (CP-2484)
54 b (C-1978-75 b)
54 a (0-1978-75 a)
53 (0-50-167) Scale 1:2except49, 51, 52 1:1
AFTERMATH
PLATE 15
55 (C-73-147)
Al
56 (C-50-40)
-
58 (CP-2361) 57 (C-73-273)
129) 59(CP-3
60 a (0-30-42 a) Scale
1:2except 56-58 1:1
PLATE 16
AFTERMATH
Itr
t
.
^
i
'
^
,
n
j
'
"I'
m
at
61 (C-32-134)
t
1:3
4'
't
61, dancer A, tracing
-
-
%
4, -
Z
61, dancer B, tracing
*
'I:
6~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o
v~~~~~~~~~
t
7
._ _~~~~~~~~~
a
9
dancer C, tracing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~61,
PLATE 17
AFTERMATH
61, dancer D, tracing
61, dancer E, tracing
62~~~~O (C17-39 2
C1
: A19
1:2
PLATE 18
AFTERMATH
PfrA
63 a (C-66-37 a)
63 b (C-66-37 b)
64 b (CP-2534 b)
.si'
I
64 a (CP-2534 a)
65 (C-30-14), handle-plate
65, view A 65, view B
Scale 1:2except65, viewA 1:3
PLATE 19
AFTERMATH
67 a (C-34-2553 a)
67 b (C-34-2553 b)
66 (CP-539)
68 (CP-2368) 69 (C-1977-85)
70 (C-66-124) 71 (C-68-245)
Scale 1:2 except 68, 69, 71 1:1
PLATE 20
AFTERMATH
72 (CP-3141) 74 (CP-2342)
A;~~~~;
75(CP-1974)
77 (C-50-54)
_
76 (CP-1972) 78 (C-50-94
s
^~9C-93 _
8
7,(76,57951:
73
Scale 1:1 xcept73,
u i
(C-29-80)u
AFTERMATH
PLATE 21
82 (C-67-119) 80 (C-36-204 + C-36-2476)
U_
it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~an
83 (C-53-167b) 85 (C-34-2554)
81 (CP-2598)
84 (C-47-636)
86 (C-36-2443) Scale 1:1 except80, 84 1:2
PLATE 22
AFTERMATH
88 (C-31-491), view A
88, view B
88, view C
87 (C-36-2444) 89 (C-31-45), side A
89, side B
89, under handle Scale 1:2except87 1:1
PLATE 23
AFTERMATH
1r".'
'tinllPUII
90 (C-31-46), view A
90, view B
mam
91 (CP-3181)
92 (CP-2420)
94 b (CP-2456 b)
93 (C-50-169)
94 a (CP-2456a) Scale 1:2 except 91, 93 1:1
PLATE 24
AFTERMATH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ -
95 (C-47-7 18), side view
3
_
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
IN
95, interior
95, exterior
96 (NIP 196), side view
96,Ainterior'96,
exterior
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Scale
1:4except96 1:3
PLATE 25
AFTERMATH
99 a (C-73-115 a)
98 (C-73-266)
3
_
,iA "Li
99 b (C-73-115 b)
100 (C-73-107)
101 (CP-3134)
Scale 1:1 except99a, b 1:2
PLATE26
AFTERMATH
102 (C-73-117)
104 aS(CP-3133a)
103 (CP-2487)
104 b (CP-3133 b)
105 (CP-3135)
-_
106 (CP-3 1 36)
107 (C.P-3137)
AFTERMATH
PLATE 27
ohs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b
109 (CP-3139)
108 (CP-3138)
110 (CP-3140) 112 (C-73-73)
111 (C-26-13)
113 a (CP-972)
113 b (CP-973) Scale 1:2
PLATE28
AFTERMATH
114 (C-1978-53) 116 (C-66-84)
115 (C-1976-163) h~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cl xet14,17*1
118 (C-196-1623)(C624)
(C-65-212) ~~~~~117 1:
:
AFTERMATH
PLATE 29
120 (C-36-2482)
121
123 (CP-3176)
a(C-50-192 a)
121 b (C-50-192 b)
14.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
122 (C-30-16)
124 (CP-3171) Scale 1:2 except 121, 123 1:1
PLATE 30
AFTERMATH
125 (CP-2531)
126 (CP-2541 + CP-2542)
128 (CP-538)
127 (CP-974)
129 (CP-3175) Scale 1:2 except 129 1:1
PLATE31
AFTERMATH
.7
130 (C-65-180)
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8
131 (C-72-14)
vs2
133 (C-30-9), handle-plate
132 (C-50-3)
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cl 1:2'
PLATE 32
AFTERMATH
_I-h
134 (C-50-5), side A -t
S
134, handle-plate A
134, handle-plate B
Scale 1:2except134, sideA 1:3
PLATE 33
AFTERMATH
x
_&Mu-m A.
w_
a
135 (CP-595)
136 a (CP-.2471 a)
1:1e 134,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 137 (C-59-3)
tr~~~~
136 b (CP-2471 b)
PLATE34
AFTERMATH
140 (C-47-645) 143 (C-31-169)
~~~~~~~~~4I ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
141 (C-74-30)
14,
S
ie
u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\.~~~~~~~~~~~~~o 'Ad
PLATE 35
AFTERMATH
*
4 145 (C-30-45)
144 (CP-3177)
147 (C-36-2477) 146 (C-31-295)
of
148 (C-72-72)
'I Xl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%: 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cl 1: exep 145, 147,t1:
PLATE 36
AFTERMATH
152 (C-68-215)
151 (C-29-222)
k-
153 (C-71-36)
154 a (C-50-164 a)
... 1mmm-; es..
154 a, detail
155 (CP-3150) Scale 1:1except153, 154 1:2
PLATE 37
AFTERMATH
156 (C-34-2537) 157 (C-26-12)
158 (C-37-946)
159 (CP-3174) 160 (CP-3116)
161 (C-75-54) Scale 1:2except157 1:1
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH NOWLEDGE of the Corinthian pottery industry as an artistic and economic entity in the Archaic Greek world is slowly being won, partly as a result of continuous excavation at Corinth and elsewhere, partly by advanced understanding of the groups of vase painters and potters.' The latter depends mostly on stylistic connoisseurship. For the Middle Corinthian Chimaera Group, a quarter century's study has brought many clarifications.2 Besides, at Corinth alone, there are now sixteen pieces attributableto the Chimaera Painter, three to the Painter of Louvre E 574, and eight attributions to other hands in the Chimaera Group. Together with many other pieces that were not known twenty,or even ten, years ago, these have provided a test of the stylisticcriteria previously obtained, clarified the development and relationshipsof the Chimaera Group, and given us a much sounder idea of the activity and definition of a group of Archaic Corinthian craftsmen. This progress is due also to the generosity of museums who have made the material accessible for personal inspection.3 The Chimaera Painter's list published here amounts to thirty-nine items, that of the Painter of Louvre E 574 to seventeen; the Riehen Painter still has only six. Nearly fifty other pieces are listed; among them four hands can be isolated, one of which may be an aspect of the Chimaera Painter himself. A dozen pieces, representingmany more, must be discussed only to be excluded from this Group. The purpose and scope of the present study is best explained by anticipating and summarizing its conclusions. The Chimaera Painter's activity begins with the dawn of Middle Corinthian. It is virtually unanticipated by any previous style or trend. His is one of the new styles that I Amyx's lists in CorVPnow supersede all earlier ones. 2 The most important contributions,besides Amyx's, are those of Lawrence (1959), Callipolitis-Feytmans (1962), Rafn (1978), and, finally,the publication of the Potters' Quarter pottery in Corinth XV, iii (1984). 3 The collections and persons to whom thanks are due include all those represented in the lists; even where material proved to be inaccessible (the Piazza S. Francesco deposit at Catania, the majority of the Perachora fragments in Athens), every effort was made to be of assistance. Without the generosity that enabled personal examination of almost every piece, progresswould have been impossible. In the case of the unpublishedpieces, special thanksare due to the FondazioneMormino in Palermo, to Charalambos Kritzas at Argos, to Hildegund Gropengiesserat Heidelberg, to Vincenzo Tusa at Palermo, and to E. G. Pemberton for providing sections of her catalogue (Corinth XVIII, i) in advance of publication. I owe my knowledge of X29 and L4 initially toJ. L. Benson, of R5 to D. von Bothmer,of L2, L8, and S7 to D. A. Amyx, of X13 and X19 to C. Neeft, of X15 and X22 to N. Bookidis, and of X14 and X19 to A. B. Brownlee, although they bear no responsibilityfor my opinions where these differfrom their own. Besides the American Excavations at Corinth, several institutions have generously provided and permitted me to publish new photographs; these are credited on p. vii above. For the profile drawings,as for the tracings, I am myself responsible, but Denise Plauche was of great assistance in the final preparation of the profiles and reconstruction drawings and the arrangement of the plates. For thirty-fiveyears' help and encouragement, as well as recent advice, this study owes much of what may gain his approbation to D. A. Amyx. Finally, Charles K. Williams and Nancy Bookidis at the Corinth Excavationshave assisted me in every way imaginable; without pulling together all the material at Corinth, it would have been impossibleto do more than reconsider,with a slightly expanded corpus, the stylistic evidence as such; "The Chimaera Group at Corinth" is due to their help.
56
PATRICIALAWRENCE
justify and define the term "Middle Corinthian". Among the components of his early style are ideas and motifs boldly adapted from Attic work of his time. As the artist who designed and developed the influentialplate with a heraldic motif in its tondo, the Chimaera Painter remains, certainly,the dominant artistin the Chimaera Group. Unlike his principal companion, he did some workon pyxides and bowls, as well as on plates, clay plaques, and aryballoi; his are the only pyxides in the Chimaera Group. His early plates with floral crosses,4 which, like his horse protomai and regardant lions, may reflect his interest in Attic work of the end of the 7th century, seem to be securely attributed;the more difficultfloral crosses, K1-K5, at a later date, may also be his. The hypothesis that his more detailed or more tightly drawnworkis the earlieris borne out by the development of the profile of plates within Middle Corinthian and within the Chimaera Group. His activity seems to cease at a date estimated as ca. 580 B.C., that is, perhaps as much as a decade before the time when most Corinthian artistsadopted habits that we should call "Late Corinthian". The Painter of Louvre E 574 proves to be, in spite of the pretentious manner that he adopted for those plates, the hand of the famous Copenhagen plates and of other work related to them, as well as of the aryballoi and alabastra which prove that he was the Columbus Painter'spupil. Since all his other work seems to be later than his namepiece, and that later than the Chimaera Painter'searlywork, he is clearlythe younger artist. The late work of his Early Corinthian teacher, the Columbus Painter, is contemporary with work that we should call Middle Corinthian. Only three of his nine plates are arguablyas early as most of his closed vases or as early as any of the plates attributedto the Chimaera Painter. The other six may well be contemporarywith the beginnings of Late Corinthian work. It is suggested that he was the Chimaera Painter'ssuccessor as principal decorator of plates. Since he was as fine a draughtsman as the Chimaera Painter, and evidently only a little younger, the picture that emerges suggests that the Chimaera Painter may have governed plate production through the firsttwo decades or so of Middle Corinthian; at least, he seems to have guarded his prerogatives. The Painter of Louvre E 574 was the only artist in the Chimaera Group who decorated alabastra;this fact and the type of his felines confirm his uniquely close relationship to the Columbus Painter. As a plate decorator, he depends heavily on the Chimaera Painter, who in turn, at the period of their closest association, uses some of his ideas in decoratingflat-bottomedaryballoi. His latest pieces bear motifs that must derive from workin a medium other than vase painting. His career spanned at least a quartercentury. None of the other recognizable hands are artists of the same stature. The Riehen Painter is heavily dependent on the leading artists. The Painterof Gela G. 9 is competent but undistinguished. Both decorated plates that belong to the Chimaera Group, and neither hand has been recognized on vases that belong to other stylistic groups. Thus, they seem to be members of the Chimaera Group, but one wonders whether hands that have only a few attributions,in a weakly defined style, were not mere occasional helpers (conceivablyonly members of the major artists'families)who could be called upon to help fill an order. Some explanation is required for the dumbfounding number of hands in 4 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 135 (second paragraphin fine print).
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
57
Corinthian black figure, relative to the large, but quite reasonable, number of distinctive styles and continuous traditions. Several plate fragments from Selinous in a good but hesitant style dependent primarily on the Painter of Louvre E 574 are by a hand not recognized elsewhere and are easily imagined as arrivingin a single shipment. The case of the much discussed Rhodes aryballos, U2, quite unattributable, is somewhat different; there the style is excellent and distinctive. Since the Painter of Louvre E 574 decorated no lekanoid bowls (and the Chimaera Painter's use of such a bowl for tondo decoration seems to stem from his unusual interest in Attic work), it is not surprisingthat the hands of the bowls P1 and P2 and Q1 and Q2, respectively,are dependent specifically on the Chimaera Painter. The question of the Carrousel Painter also has had to be reconsidered, now that his little animal-frieze plates seem to be no earlier than the Chimaera Painter's first large, heraldic ones, and some later, larger,and very much worse plates, unrelated to Chimaera Group style, seem to be his; these seem to lead straight to certain silhouette-technique plates of advanced MC date. Was he really, even at the date of the very small plates securely attributed to his hand and related to early work of the Chimaera Painter, a member of the Chimaera Group? The profilesof the plates suggest either that the proper Chimaera Group plate is simply a standardMiddle Corinthian plate or that the mediocre animal-friezeplates were actually made and decorated in the same workshopas the showy ones but painted by hacks. The majorityof MC plates, with similarprofiles,may have been made in one workshop;if the master artist'sexercise of "prerogative"has been correctly interpreted, that shop was governed (if not owned) successively by the Chimaera Painter and the Painter of Louvre E 574. The major vase painters may even have done most of the potters' work. Whether they did or not, the Chimaera Group is defined by the painters' work on plates, and the painters (or painter-potters)seem to have been in charge of the operation. The Chimaera Painter's work on pyxides and the Painter of Louvre E 574's work on alabastra may have been executed in other shops. It might seem likely that the flatbottomed aryballoi were, too, but four hands in the Group occasionally worked on this shape, and the aryballoi are somewhat distinctive. In particular, they differ from the majority of those attributedto the Otterlo Painter,which are less globular and often have short strokesbetween the petal tips on the shoulder. The Erlenmeyer and Otterlo Painters are not members of the Chimaera Group. Neither of them borrowed any more from the Group than Sophilos did from the Chimaera Painter. Neither of them decorated a plate. The ErlenmeyerPainter'slarge alabastrawere made by a less skillfulpotter than those of the Painter of Louvre E 574. Their emulation of the Chimaera Group occurs on only a few vases for a short time. Their use of heavy animals is implicit in their decorating large aryballoi and alabastra. There is no such thing as a "Heavy Style" or a "MajesticLions Group". The Otterlo Painter'srelationshipto the Chimaera Group is trivial, confined to the heads and shoulders of lions alone on a couple of his aryballoi. Two aryballoi by the Riehen Painter may have adopted traits from his.5 5 Cf. also the Galera Painter,in Benson 1971, p. 18.
PATRICIALAWRENCE
58
Picture plates, like Payne's NC 1056, and several other fine pieces must also be excluded. Theirs is a differentkind of excellence. The foregoing conclusions differ,in some places radically,from previouspublications, including the writer's own, on the Chimaera Group. The attributions on which they depend differ from even the latest published lists.6 Besides new attributions,some pieces need careful reanalysis. The Chimaera Group had a rather homogeneous repertory and were interested in each other's work, so each hand's style (how he draws) must be distinguished from learnable types of creatures7and, above all, from shared repertory. Both major artists used confronted horse protomai, both used winged figures, both painted terracotta plaques. At least three hands in the Group (four, if the Painter of the Kameiros Plates is not the Chimaera Painter himself) used floral crosses. Thus, the conclusions proposed here emerged only when surer attributionsand a more cogent relative chronology of the painters' styles were correlated with the development of their plate profiles and these with work on other vase shapes. When the relative chronology of the entire Group had been worked out, the Group could be defined and described as a working entity in the Archaic Corinthian industry. The study will be presented as follows (for the lists of attributions,with bibliography, see pp. 117-132): Connoisseurship The ChimaeraPainter;his relationto Atticwork(ListX: chiforChimaera) The Painterof LouvreE 574 and his relationto the ColumbusPainter(ListL) The RiehenPainter(ListR) The Painterof GelaG. 9 (ListG) The Painterof the KameirosPlates(ListK) Paintersof LekanoidBowls(ListsP and Q) The Styleof SomePlatesat Selinous(ListS) The CarrouselPainter(ListV, forVienna) Chronology The relativechronologyof the vasepaintingsin the ChimaeraGroup Developmentalcriteriafor the chronologyof ChimaeraGroupplateprofiles Definitionof the ChimaeraGroup Descriptionof the Groupas a workingentity Workto be excludedfromthe ChimaeraGroup CONNOISSEURSHIP X; Pls. 38-49) The lioness on the Cincinnati plate, X4, so vividly recalls the Louvre lioness, X7, and the New York chimaera, X6, that several significant differences may escape notice.
THE CHIMAERA PAINTER (List
6
CorVP,pp. 165-174. Since Corinthian animals are much simplerand more formulaicthan nude or draped human figuresin Archaic Attic red figure, reliance on configurationsmust be intensifiedwhen dealing with incised animals a centuryearlier(D. G. Kurtz ["Gorgos'Cup,"JHS 103, 1983, pp. 68-86, pls. III-IX] restatesand fullyjustifies Beazley's reliance on configurations);with animal friezes, very finely honed discriminationis necessary. 7
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
59
There is no separately rendered topknot in front of the ear, the ruff is filled simply with parallel lines, and the shoulder is divided by a double line. The large eye has a single teardrop-shaped cell drawn beneath it, the cavity of the mouth is very large and deep, and the tip of the tongue curls up. All these traits derive from the Columbus Painter, an older artist,who is intricatelyrelated to the Chimaera Group.8 Even in X7 the roaring mouth has begun to assume tamer proportions,yet stylisticallythe Cincinnati and Louvre lionesses seem practically identical because of their shape and their disposition in the tondo; the design of the forelegs and the structure of the head alone would suffice to guarantee the attribution. The use of double-centered rosettes on X4 and of a single, large lotus bud on X7 represents alternative treatment of the field. Corinth KP 2902, X5 (PI.38), is a tiny fragment from the head of a closely similarlion. The preservedpart is structurallythe same as X4 and X7; the band across the muzzle has added red instead of the usual meandering incision. The fabric and technique are as fine as on X4. Corinth C-69-185, X9 (PI. 39), from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth, is another obvious attribution on which foundations may be laid. The compositional scheme is that of the Mykonos plate, X37 (two lions with crossed hindquarters turn their heads to face center, and their intertwined tails rise to fill the space between them and to strengthen the central axis of the design), but the incised details are quite different and the drawing far neater. The attributionof the Mykonos lions depended on the Vienna chimaera, X28; this one depends on X6 and X4. One of the lions, indeed, still has the Columbus Painter's double line dividing the shoulder, but the other has the Chimaera Painter's customary marking: two single lines within the shoulder divide it into three areas. The ears are not round (as on the Louvre and Cincinnati lionesses) but heart-shaped (as on the two chimaeras). On one lion the ruffhas simple, parallel hatching, but on the other the hatching shifts direction decoratively,as on X6 and X7. One has an eye drawn with a single circle, the other with an inner circle for the pupil, as on X28. The contours of the topknots (the paint is partly flaked away) and of the oral cavities are closest to those on X6, and the tongue is still fairly long, but the pouch below the eye on both lions has the amoeboid shape, based neither on nature nor on Assyrian lions,9 that is a trademarkof the Chimaera Group (above the eyes there is still a simple brow line). In sum, X9 ties together the central group of attributions. The attributionof the terracottaplaque Corinth KN 55, X23, like that of X5, is easy because a critical part of the lion'sjaw and ruff is preserved. The ruff is that of the Vienna chimaera, X28. Given this much, the design of the head could be reconstructed with fair confidence.10 It must have been a magnificentplaque, with the entire mane rendered in separate flame-shaped locks. Such manes ceased to be customary after the Transitional style in Corinth, after the time of the great Vari kratersand the Aigina and Kerameikos chimaeras in Athens (for their relation to the Chimaera Painter, see the next section, pp. 65-69 below). The Chimaera Painter evidently disliked the shorthand, crosshatched 8 Much of what the Columbus Painter transmittedwas learned from the Painter of Palermo 489; CorVP, pp. 85-86. 9 In Attica it occurs at least as early; see p. 68 below. 10 Corinth XV, iii, pl. 112. Missing parts are based on X6, X7, and X28.
60
PATRICIALAWRENCE
mane, which the Group inherited from the Columbus Painter and the Painter of Louvre E 574 retained, for he used it only once, on the pyxis X26, in the middle of his career. A larger fragment, from the floor of a plate, Corinth C-62-605, X24, which Amyx and I agree must be by the Chimaera Painter,cannot be reconstructed;the snaky parts should be part of a Typhon, and we have no complete Typhon of his. The part of a wing bow on the reverse could belong to a swan (Typhon and swan occur together on L5) or to a siren or even an eagle. This attributiondepends on style in the strictestsense of the word. The incised lines terminating in distinctive tiny, tapered hooks, as the artist lifts the incising tool and brings it back to draw the next scaly mark on the serpent, can only be matched in the Chimaera Painter,and best on X28. As negative evidence, the proof that the Perachora Typhon, L5, is by the Painter of Louvre E 574 (see below) is valuable, because the snake coils of the two Typhons are thoroughly different in shape, proportions,and incisions, although they are of the same basic type. Corinth CP-3245, X15 (PI.38), a newly inventoriedand very beautifulplate fragment, adds a heraldic griffin (or griffin-bird)to the Chimaera Painter'srepertory. The center of the plate being indicated by the rings on the underside, the composition has to have consisted of the lotus rooted at the left-hand side of the tondo (part of one tendril is also preserved),with a griffin occupying the other two thirds of the circle. The double jowl and the vertical band on the neck guarantee a griffin'shead, but one too unusual to be completed, even in its general lines, on the basis of other Corinthiangriffins.A lion-griffin, with the forelegs as on X6 and the hindquartersas on X9, allowing the tail to cross onto the rim, is more easily accommodated with the lotus in a twenty-centimetertondo (the whole plate was as large as X16) than a griffin-birdwith its tail. The forms are very sturdy and the drawing deliberate, as on X16, but the lotus has almost EC proportions, and the tightly controlled meandering line across the lotus is closest to that on the lioness's muzzle on X4, and X7 is the only other plate with a single lotus growing from the edge of the tondo. Two plates that Humfry Payne assigned "probably"to the Chimaera Painter were attributed to him in Lawrence 1959. The attribution of the Louvre male-siren plate, X30, has been accepted almost unanimously.'1 On this Louvre siren and the Boread on the shoulder of the Hermitage pyxis, X26, another accepted attribution, three more attributionsdepend. Independently,Amyx and I attributedthe PerachoraBoread, X31, to the Chimaera Painter. The face of the Boread on X31 is that of the Louvre male siren, his body conformation, garment, and limbs those of the Hermitage Boread. Like the Vienna chimaera, X28, these heavy-limbed creatureswith bold features, free of finicky detail, represent the Chimaera Painter in his most idiosyncratic vein, independent of both the tradition of the Columbus Painter and influence from his major companion, the Painter of Louvre E 574. This is Middle Corinthian at its strongest,replacing exhausted EarlyCorinthianformulaswith entirelynew ones. Artistsrespondvariouslyto change; the 11
Callipolitis-Feytmans(1962, p. 135) objected to its incisions'continuing beyond the paint contour. It is, instead, the Painter of Louvre E 574 who controls his incisionspainstakingly.The Chimaera Painter's,even on the early pieces and generally on the mature ones, are not slovenly but often go beyond the contour. Another sign of his relativelyrapid line is the tapered hook in which incisions terminate as he lifts his stylus.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
61
ChimaeraPainter'sresponseto the advent of High Archaic is analogous to the Kleophrades Painter'sto Early Classical. Callipolitis-Feytmansattributed two plates bearing figures with sickle wings to the "Painterof the Copenhagen Sphinxes"(the Painterof Louvre E 574), and Benson accepted her attributions.12It seems unlikely that two talented decorators were restricted to given subjects. Emulation, rather, was the rule. Benson assigned Corinth KP 2122, X32 (PI. 44), to the same hand as X31, as is obviously correct, since they are replicas (except that X32 omits the lower pair of wings) and drawn identically,but his attributionis to the "Copenhagen Painter" (sic). The attribution of X31, however, to the Chimaera Painter (X26, X30) is certain, and we agree that X32 goes with it. The tendency to restrict the Chimaera Painter to feline subjects amounts to equating repertory with style. Thus, too, the sickle-wingedsphinxes on Li have "attracted"all the other creatureswith sickle wings, whether or not similarly drawn. Furthermore, X26, the vase that confirms the attribution of X31 and X32 to the Chimaera Painter, is a pyxis; the attributions of the Boreads to the wrong hand were made in a study confined to plates. With X31 and X32 secure, the attribution of X33 (once freed from KP 1455 a13), another replica (PI. 44), is assured. When we call the Chimaera Painter an original artist, we do not preclude large editions. Like K1-K3, X31-X33 are true replicas, not merely versions of the same compositional idea, like X2 and L14. Berlin F 3934, X34, is the second plate given to the Chimaera Painter in 1959 that Payne had thought probably his. It is not in any sense a replica of the Boreads just discussed. Amyx, Johansen, and Rafn accept the attribution; Callipolitis-Feytmansand Benson, the latter emphatically,'4 reject it. My original arguments were inadequate; we now know that the type of beard is originally but not exclusively the Chimaera Painter's, and the chronological position of X34 must be grounded on more than generalizations. The attribution, however, is fully secured, for FlemmingJohansen's attribution of the Ny Carlsbergplate, X10, rests both on the New Yorkchimaera, X6, and on X34. First we must review that attribution. Like X24, X10 is decorated on both sides. On the face, a sturdy,jaunty winged Artemis, radicallyunlike the hieratic Potniai on the alabastrafrom Delos, 5 walks to right holding two swans firmly by their necks. As preening swans, they must have been lifted from another context.16 In the tondo on the bottom, the artist has given us no mere protome but the entire forequartersof a cavortingbilly goat, perhaps the least conventional goat in all of Corinthian vase painting. He falls between the goats of the two chimaeras, X6 and X28, with precise, detailed markingslike the former and the freer manner and more goatish character of the latter. The filling ornament is closer to that 12
Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 135; Corinth XV, iii, no. 774, p. 152, note 3, and no. 765, p. 151, note 1. Style apart (for that of KP 1455 a, see p. 112 below), the two fragments differ in color (though they would yield the same number from the Munsell soil-color chart), texture of clay, and (under magnification) texture of glaze-paint. Measured at the red band on the bottom, for KP 1455 a, Th. 0.007 m.; for KP 1455 b, Th. 0.008 m. There is a turning scar on the bottom of each; on KP 1455 a, it is 0.009 m. from the red band, on KP 1455 b, 0.013 m. The red bands, also, are not quite the same width. 14 Corinth XV, iii, no. 774, p. 153, note 3. 15 DdlosX, nos. 450, 451, pis. XXXIII, LXVII. 16 See p. 68 below. '3
62
PATRICIALAWRENCE
on X6, but the goat is more massive and vigorous than that of its chimaera. Although the Potnia is unique for the Chimaera Painter,her arm muscles are those of the replicated Boreads, X31-X33, and of the Boreads on all three of his pyxides, X17 (Pls. 40:b, 41:a), X26, and X39 (P1.47:d);note that those on the pyxides are less than a third of her height (22.5 centimeters). These broad shouldersand short, sturdyarms with their characteristic markings are dear to the Chimaera Painter. Every anthropomorphicfigure attributable (on other grounds)to the Painterof Louvre E 574 will be found to lack these markingsand have longer, slenderer arms. The Ny Carlsbergplate is a marvel; the Chimaera Painter, although entirely within the conventions of the early 6th century, tilts the head, raises one shoulder, slants the belt, and alters the contour over the marching leg, to make an Archaic Potnia (of all subjects!)seem to live and move. Less can be claimed for the Berlin Boread, X34, but, as Johansen saw (see under X10), he is closest of all to the Potnia. His arms and shoulders, similarly marked, are even more massive than hers. The knees, we now see, are perfectly matched on X32 (P1.44), reconfirming both attributions. The Berlin Boread is a smaller figure than the Potnia, on a smallerplate, but a similarstructurallogic sets him apart from the general run of MC Boreads, which tend to sprawl. If we had no chimaeras with goat parts, the attribution of X10 (with that of X34 challenged)would have requiredrathersubtle arguments:similaruse of the circularspace (forthe goat) and distributionof rosettes;similarstructuraland proportionalprinciples;the same line quality-all real but not reducibleto concrete description. Abstractdescriptions are hard to distinguishfrom subjectivity.ForPalermo,N.I. 1707, X2, my abstractionsfully convinced only Rafn (1978), who had the evidence of X10 providing additional concrete indices. The entire Chimaera Group evidently liked confrontedhorse protomai (U1, X2, X3, L14), but the Palermo protomai share several peculiarities, zoologically indifferent, with the goat on X10. The hooves, pasternjoints, and fetlocks are the same shape. The markingson the upper leg, the juncture with the shoulder,and the double stripe dividing the belly from the rib cage are remarkablysimilar. The mouths and noses are significantly more alike than goats and horses ought to be. Another trait, an extraordinarytrait, seems to be unique to these two plates: the corners of the eyes, on goat and both horses, are left open; the lines recurve, leaving no more than a millimeter between them. Another detail, already noted,17 is the inexplicable nub exactly at the top of one horse's mane; this recurs, equally oddly, in the same position on the lions of X7 and X18 but nowhere else in the Chimaera Group. The Palermo plate must indeed be by the Chimaera Painter. So also must Corinth KP 2903, X3 (PI.38), which seems to preserveparts of the left-hand protome from a similarplate, also with an early type of mane. If this is what the fragments represent, the long, curved muscle markings on the neck are rather unanatomical. In any case, the style, like the broad treatment of the mane, seems safely attributableto the Chimaera Painter. Judging from the publication, X3 bis, from Apollonia, smaller than X2, not only helps to confirm the attribution of X3 but also may help in interpreting that fragment. 17 Lawrence 1959, p. 353.
GROUPATCORINTH THECHIMAERA
63
The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth produced two more plates to be attributed to the Chimaera Painter. One of these, Corinth C-62-762, X16 (PI. 39), was very large. Preserved is the upper part of a crouching sphinx with parts of her forelegs, raised to press against the rim of the tondo, as on X4 and X7. The sphinx has "Volomandralocks" of an undeveloped type over her brow, similar to those of the Louvre siren, X30, and especially like those of the man in bed on X22; the generously looping wavy line framing the brow also is matched on these. Such "Volomandralocks" and the deep waves find no parallel elsewhere in the Chimaera Group. In particular,the Syracuse siren plate, L10 (P1.52), by the Painter of Louvre E 574, may be contrasted. X16 also has a pattern of narrowrings on the bottom to match X4; L10 has a differentpattern, one that none of the Chimaera Painter'splates has. Finally,the sphinx'sforepaws and the hair over the shoulder,squaredoff at the bottom and terminatedby a curved double line, is matched only on the Louvre siren, X30, and drawn identically. By contrast,we now have four large female heads, on L2 (PI. 50:b), L7, L9, and L10, by the Painter of Louvre E 574. All of these have receding chins, where the sphinx on L16 has a strong,squareone. None of them has the deep waves framing the face as on X16. The sphinxes on L2 do not have raised forepaws;they do have neckbands,but these do not curve effectivelyto suggest a cylindrical neck, and they are decorated not with a meandering line but with a tight zigzag.18 The other Acrocorinth plate, Corinth C-62-770, X38 (PI. 44), preserves most of the forelegs and one hind paw of a crouching feline; a rosette was in the space below the belly, So far as preserved, the legs, which are in the Chimaera Painter's favorite posture, are like those of his Mykonos lions, X37, doubtless by his hand and at about the same date (see pp. 94-96 below). The relatively naturalisticleg markings common to later felines of the Chimaera Group are drawn with a much crisper nicety, and on legs of a different shape, by the Painter of Louvre E 574 on LlI and L12.'9 Thirty-five years ago it was possible (with less evidence) and necessary (to show that Lii and L12 were not a manneristic development of the Chimaera Painter) to emphasize the differences between the two major artists.20 Now we can define their styles without exaggerating their differences, and a remarkableflat-bottomed aryballos, Palermo, Mormino 621, X29 (PI. 45), shows how intimately,at least at one point in their careers, the Chimaera Painterworkedwith the Painter of Louvre E 574. A palmette-lotus cross, like that on Gela 8702, X25 (PI. 42:b), is flanked by lions, neither with the usual raised forepaw. Their hindquartersnearly meet at the back. The only filling ornament is two simple rosettes,between the lions' muzzles and the lotuses. X25 and X28, the Vienna chimaera, are closest in style and development. The panthers on X25 (Pls. 42:a, 43) and the lions on X29 have less elaborate details than the Vienna chimaera, but both lions on X29 have heads with its topknot, ears, and ruff(hithertoonly partlypreservedon X23 and weakly echoed on the Mykonos lions, X37). The curvature and spacing of the incisions 18
Privately,I have never doubted that the New Yorkman-in-bed plate, X22, is by the Chimaera Painter; comparison with X16 and autopsy of the Boread on X39 brought me to add this small plate (an occasional, specificallyfunerary piece?) to his list. In fact, even the red dots (on the coverlet) are typically his; cf. X6, X7, and Xli. 19 Lii and L12 may be a little later than X37 and X38. 20 Lawrence 1959, p. 356.
64
PATRICIALAWRENCE
in the ruff are exactly similar; compare also the side locks in the Louvre siren's beard, X30. The eyes, with amoeboid forms above and below, also match but lack the inner circle, or pupil; see X9, lion at right (P1.39). The shape of the open mouth and tongue agrees with the Vienna chimaera. On one lion, at left, the shoulder and haunch also are typical of the mature Chimaera Painter. The other lion's body (P1.45:b) is a nearly deceptive imitation of the Painter of Louvre E 574, as on L7 or L4 (P1.52). "Nearly deceptive" because the Chimaera Painterhas imitated the body shape and stance, as well as the markingsof his companion's felines (it is strictly "in the manner of"), and has all but succeeded; his lion is not quite so trim or elegant, and, besides his own unmistakable lion's head, it has his habitual thick tail. Also, although the rest of the facing lion and the floral cross are in no one's manner but his own, both lions' forelegs have markings as on L7, markings proper to the Painter of Louvre E 574.21 Mormino 621, X29, is an exercise such as connoisseurs dream of but hardly hope for; besides suggesting that the artistswere really "benchmates",it provides a valuable synchronism. A plate fragment in Bonn, X19, preservespart of a lion similar to that in the bowl X18. The lion's ear and the somewhat loosely drawn double-centered rosette leave no doubt that it is by the Chimaera Painter. Besides, its fabric is exactly that of his other plates, and the underside is decorated with evenly spaced broad bands, a pattern of his (X9, Xii, X22, X28, X30, X38) which the Painterof Louvre E 574 is not known to have used. The lion's ruffis the same as on X18, and this enclosed ruffwith sawtoothlocks is, of course, proper to his companion (L1, L4, L7, not preserved on L8). Such commonly borrowed configurationsdo not affect the style; on X19 the ear does not have the kind of elongated, soft tip that we see on L7. X20 (P1.44) from the Asklepieion at Corinth, a fragment from a large bowl of the same type as X18 but finer and with a larger lion, has been identified and attributed(surelycorrectly)by Ann Brownlee. A fragment, Corinth KP 2316, X21 (P1.44), preservesonly a panther'sface, a simple rosette, and the tip of a lotus sepal: evidence of a palmette-lotuscross,as on X25 and X29. The curvatureof the fragment, in both directions, shows that it came from an aryballos. The basic scheme for a panther'sface in the Chimaera Group is common property;each man draws it differently.In the Chimaera Painter (X25, X26), the lines for the wrinkles on the nose are pairs of round arcs, and the closely spaced ruffincisions slant outwards,to right and left. With the Painter of Louvre E 574, this face is specialized, unnaturallywide between the ears, unnaturallysquare in both jaws; the tip of the nose is narrow,and the wrinkles(not rounded)slant downwards;the parallel ruffincisions are nearly vertical (L9, Li i, L12); the panther face looks foxy. The face on X21 is the basic one, with arcs for the nose wrinkles: by the Chimaera Painter,earlier than X25.22 Five plates with palmette-lotus crosses, X1, Xi i-X14, it is agreed, are from one hand.23 Their profiles must also be considered in dating them, but X1 (Fig. 4, p. 117 below) and probablyX13 and X14 (P1.38) can be placed at the dawn of Middle Corinthian 21 A foreleg marking inherited from the Columbus Painter (see p. 74 below) is combined with ladder markings;the latter are common to both artists. 22 Reference to Corinth XV, iii, no. 796 (KP 2316), p. 156, will show that I approve Stillwell'scomparison with X25 and that Benson disagrees with respect to both attributionand relative date. 23 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 135; Corinth XV, iii, no. 750, p. 147 and note 1. C. Neeft (unpublished note on photograph)referredX13 to K1-K3 (I am inclined to think that this may be right;see p. 77 below; X13 is closest, however,to X1 and X14, next closest to Xli and X12).
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
65
because the flowers have so few and such fat petals.24 Only the bud on X7 might be compared developmentally.Exhaustiveargumentfor attributionto the Chimaera Painter, based on the Berkeleyplate, has been published.25 These floral plates stand in the same relation to the floral crosses on X25 and X29 as his felines on plates to those on his aryballoi, structurally alike but more elaborate and more artfully designed. The ring patterns on the bottom of the plate, in each case, are such as recur on plates by the Chimaera Painter. On the other hand, we now have a certified lotus ornament on L8 by the Painter of Louvre E 574, which makes attributionof these five plates to the latter artist most unlikely. TheChimaera Painter's toAtticWorkat theEndof the7th Relationship andtheBeginning of the6th Century At a date corresponding to the beginning of Middle Corinthian style, Corinthian plate-makers adopted a double half-round foot molding from Attica, and a type of plate with a profile obviously modeled on Corinthian plates appeared in Athens.26 It is no overstatement that "les changes artistiquesont ete assez intenses entre Athenes et Corinthe depuis ce moment ... ,"27 but, apart from the double foot molding, CallipolitisFeytmanssuggests that the Athenians were the borrowers,both of the tondo occupied by a single figure28and of the tondo with a floral cross.29 Determining that a single Attic or Corinthian surviving example is earlier than its comparandum, when they obviously are close in date, is usually impossible, but if we take all the evidence together we shall conclude, I think, that the Chimaera Painter learned a great deal from Attic artists who were at their prime at the beginning of his career. In fact, his familiaritywith Attic ideas of decoration, not with single motifs alone, is such as to suggest a professional trip to the Athenian potters' quarter.30 He has not just seen random exports but chosen what he could use. First, his use of the tondo. There were Early Corinthian plates with tondo decoration,31 but they were few and different; they had no rampant lions with great heads 24
See p. 83 below. Lawrence 1959, pp. 352-353. I should add, however,that certain arguments are inherently specious; "symmetry"implies something in the artist'spersonalitywhen sphinxes are placed in strict symmetry (Lii) but not when an intrinsicallysymmetricaldesign is in question, such as a floral cross (Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, p. 135), nor do I see any "mannerism",however defined, in the Berkeleyand Catania plates, XI1 and X12 (Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, bc. cit.). 26 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 125; Callipolitis-Feytmans1974, A I, 4-6, pp. 33-35 and p. 410, fig. 10. 27 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, bc. cit. 28 Callipolitis-Feytmans1974, A I, 3, p. 33, pl. 3. 29 Ibid.,AI,6,p.34,fig. 1. 30 Caution is required; I am not suggesting that he was trained, even partly, in Athens. He draws like a Corinthian, just as the Panther Painter draws like an Athenian. Simply, the distance to Athens is not impossible; the Chimaera Painter seems a remarkablyindependent vase painter; his work is full of well digested, distinctivelyAttic ideas. Similarly,as H. A. G. Brijder (1983, pp. 44-56) emphasizes, early Attic black-figuredcups are thoroughly in the Attic tradition of potting and decoration. It is the fundamental idea of using a drinking cup as a field for figural decoration (and an assortment of details inessential to the distinctive character of the cups) that is Corinthian in origin and testifies to the artists' interest in each others' work. 31 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 124; CA 9, p. 149. 25
66
PATRICIALAWRENCE
regardant. Corinthian lions walk demurely;even when devouringa bull,32they keep their forelegs together. No previous Corinthian tondo pictures had single animals dynamically disposed in the circle. The Panther Painter'sfamous lekanis33may be no earlier than X4, but the dynamic, rampant, regardant animal is quintessentiallyAttic. If we doubt the lions, we may trust the horses.34 The publication of the Vari lekanides gives us three examples of confronted horse protomai in tondos,35 at just the date relevant to X2 and X3. It is the way that the feline and equine motifs are displayed in tondos that counts, not that the Attic examples are in bowls instead of on plates. Second, there is the bowl itself, which the Chimaera Painter also uses for its tondo (X18, X20, X35, X36; cf. K4, K5, G4). As Amyx has pointed out, NC 716 and NC 717 may be the earliest Corinthian examples.36 These need not be earlier than X1-X4, but they probably antedate X18. The Nessos Painter'sVari bowls,37 indeed, are probably earlierthan any of the foregoing,and three of them have spurredhandles, round in section, like the Corinthian bowls.38 It seems more than likely that the bowl came to Corinth with its tondo decoration. The evidence of the Chimaera Painter'sinterest in Attic felines is subtler but, taken together, quite convincing. It answers the radical question, why the Chimaera Group is different from the rest of Corinthian. The animals, in the first place, are simply bigger than any since Protocorinthian,such as the Hound Painter'sor those on black-polychrome plaques.39 Then, the seated pose with, in combination, the raised foreleg, regardanthead (making a long arc down the back of the neck responding to the circle), and the tail in the space between the lion's back and its face (X4, X7), is Attic.40 The mane down the back of the neck, in flame locks but not covering the entire neck (see especially X20), is probablyAttic, too, although if it occurredon a lion in a traditionalCorinthianpose one might argue an independent genesis. The separately incised molars (X4, X5, X7, X9; Pls. 38, 39) are significantbut disputable. Rafn4l thought that the Panther Painter'slion 32
pl. 22:4. ]Nfecrocorinthia, p. 11, no. 3; Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16355, pl. 61. Paralipomena, 34 Lawrence 1959, p. 353, note 18, where I failed to pursue the fact that, "curiously enough," the oldest example of confronted horse protomai, Athens, Agora P 22551, has exactly the same scheme as X2. Unwillingness to admit Attic influence is expressed, ibid.,p. 363, note 70. 35 Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16366, pls. 36-38, attributedto the Nessos Painter,and nos. 16358, pl. 64, and 16361, pl. 67, to the Panther Painter. 36 CorVP, p. 467; Amyx 196lb, pp. 4-5, pls. 5-8 (CorVP,p. 195, A 6 and A 7). 37 ABV,p. 5, nos. 6-9; Paralipomena, p. 4, nos. 17-24. 38 Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16367, p. 15, fig. 4; no. 16365, p. 18, fig. 8; no. 16414, p. 23, fig. 14. So also nos. 16360, p. 31, fig. 24, and 16357, p. 32, fig. 26, by the PantherPainter. The rest have ribbon handles or handles flush with the rim and rectangularin section. 39 CorVP, XV: iii, no. 1320, pls. 55, 112. pp. 26-27, A 1-A 5; Corinth 40 See note 33 above. Another such, fragmentary,is Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16413a, p. 33, fig. 27. 41 Rafn 1978, p. 188; it was her serious discussion of the relationship of the Chimaera Painter to Attic work that, with Callipolitis-Feytmans'sdetailed discussion (1974, pp. 32-35), compelled me to reconsider this very importantquestion. My conclusionsdifferfrom Rafn's,partlybecause I grant the radicaldifference of the Attic work and the more than 90% purity of the Corinthian but am all the more interested in the traits that they do share, and partly because I am unwilling to place so much emphasis on possible wall 33
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
67
was Corinthianizing because it lacks incised molars. If so, the Chimaera Painter's early felines,just cited, would be Atticizing, because they have them. In fact, it is Early Archaic (i.e., 7th-century)lions that, if they are large enough to warrantsuch detail, and sometimes even if they are small, have mouths full of separately incised teeth, in both Corinth and Athens. Artists of the first third of the 6th century,in both schools, usually omit them. The sphinx on X16 also may be consideredin this light. Fragmentaryas she is, she was obviously a very heavy, large sphinx by Corinthian standards. One wants to compare the typically Attic sphinxes on Vari Krater B42 or, in a tondo, one by the Panther Painter,43 tamer and probably her contemporary. Again, it is not a question of the Chimaera Painter's copying Attic work or disregardinghis own tradition but of his admiring Attic grandeur and panache and forming eclectic ideas about what we should call principles of decorative design. Another element in the Chimaera Painter's work, and one that he seems to have transmitted to his Group, is becoming increasingly apparent, but I would stress that it is a matter of repertory, not of style: an interest in old-fashioned patterns. It is not only that incised molars are a little archaic even at the beginning of the 6th century. The rectangular fall of hair terminated by a double line (X16, X30) harks back to the 7th century. The confronted horse protomai (Ul, X2, X3, L14) with raised forelegs and a rosette between them are, by the date of L14, of virtually antiquarian interest. The unattributedplate from Selinous, S1, surelyto be referredto the Chimaera Group in spite of being unique, has protomai radiating from a medallion; the only prototype known to me for this kind of plate decoration is Middle Protoattic.44 Then there is the eagle on L15 (those by the Riehen Painter on R3 and R5 are quite different). In its preliminary publication,45 its surprising character is evident; it is a fully feathered, predatory eagle with a snake, surroundedby dense double-centered rosettes. Its iconographic prototypes date from the end of the 7th century.46 The eagle on L15 must be later than the KX Painter's eagle-and-snake lekanis,47but it preserves the old Attic motif in full detail and with considerable vigor, without the attenuation and simplification of the KX Painter's version, which, in a bowl 38 centimetersin diameter,is not smallerthan that on the bottom of a plate less than 25 centimeters with its rim. paintings and on early-7th-century seals at Perachora that might have been seen, but I owe a great deal both to her discussion and to Callipolitis' monumental work on plates. 42 Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, pls. B, 5, 16, and 17. 43 Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16353, pl. 56. 44 Callipolitis-Feytmans 1974, A I, pl. 1; Kerameikos VI, ii, cat. no. 34, inv. no. 74, pl. 24; and Kubler 1950, p. 55, fig. 42. This very early Attic plate has a whirligig of horse protomai in the tondo on the bottom. 45 Kritzas 1977, B' 1, pp. 132-134, pl. 121:a, P. The excavator,Dr. Charalambos Kritzas, very kindly allowed me to study this extraordinaryplate, which I do not wish to discuss in inappropriatedetail, pending its definitive publication. 46 Compare especially the column-kraterfrom Vari, Athens, N.M. 16388, of which a detail is illustrated by Ohly (1961, Beil. 3, fig. 2). Also, Prometheus's eagle on Vari Krater F (Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, pls. E and 22a) and those on the lid of Krater A (ibid.,pl. F) may be compared, although only the eagles on the column-kratercarry great snakes as they fly. 47 Basel 1960.27, ABV,p. 680, no. 3 bis;Paralipomena, p. 14, no. 3 bis;the best illustrationis that in MUnzen undMedaillen, June30, AuktionXVI, 1956, no. 81, pl. 17.
68
PATRICIALAWRENCE
One of the Chimaera Painter's most telling configurations,which I call amoeboid cells surrounding the eye (to distinguish it from other eye pouches, as in the Painter of Louvre E 574), probablywas adopted from Attic lions and certainly is old-fashioned. It is more remarkable,as such, because it does not appear in his earliestwork. As Stillwelland Benson point out, something like it may be seen at the beginning of Early Corinthian,48 where the pouches are larger,like those around the panther'seyes on X21 (PI.44). Much closer to those on, e.g., X28, the Vienna chimaera, are the forms around the eyes of the Kerameikos and Aigina chimaeras and the lions of the third Vari krater.49Whether the models for the Chimaera Painter'samoeboid cells were Attic or Corinthian, they seem to be furtherevidence of his fondness for the best work of the preceding generation. I should not call this archaisticmannerism, because his style is not such as are called mannered. A Corinthian artist keenly observantof work outside his own time and place, but motivated by his own taste, is the rarest of phenomena. We may now consider this period of intense exchange of ideas from the Attic side. Sometimes it is impossible to say in which fabric something was done first. A bowl by the Panther Painter has a preening swan as its tondo motif50 An Attic plate from Van, close in date, has one rather like it.51 The Corinthian plate L5 has a preening swan as its tondo motif on the bottom. The profiles of the Attic and Corinthian swan plates are unknown; in each only the floor remains. Although the Corinthian swan plate should be the latest of the swan tondos, it is imprudent to argue from the relative dates of surviving examples; X24, which is earlier than L5, may have had such a swan on the bottom (cf. also U7; PI. 56). Corinth has priority in designing tondo plates, but Attic artists may have transferredsuch a motif from their own bowls if they were inspired by Corinthian feline plates to make plates similarlydesigned. L5 may owe its swan tondo either to swans by the Columbus Painter52and the Chimaera Painter (X10), to an earlier Corinthian plate such as X24 may have been, or to the example of Attic plates like the one from Vari-or to general awarenessof all of these. Similarly,a floral plate, Athens, Kerameikos inv. no. 1602,53 has a profile inspired by Corinthian practice, and the use of a floral cross in a plate tondo recalls Xli and X12 (the Attic bowls do not have floral tondos), but the design and separate flowers are purely, blatantly Attic. In neither fabric do we see slavish imitation, but the evidence seems ample to establishavid professionalinterest and 48
Corinth XV, iii, no. 454, p. 98, pl. 23.
49 ABV, p. 3, nos. 1, 3; p. 4, third item; Paralipomena, pp. 1-5, nos. 1, 9, 13; Kubler 1950, pp. 74-75,
VI, ii, cat. no. 187, pl. 113; colored drawings figs. 72, 74, and (for Kerameikos, inv. no. 154) Kerameikos in Ohly 1961, pp. 1-11, Beil. 1-5, pls. I, II (color); Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, krater r, pl. 28. The ofArtemisOrthiaat Sparta, amoeboid forms are possibly Syrian (viz.,Orientalizing)in origin; cf. TheSanctuary R. M. Dawkins, ed., London 1929, pls. CLI, CLII, and esp. CXI. 50 Not listed in Paralipomena; Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16413y, p. 34, fig. 28. 51 Callipolitis-Feytmans1974, A I, 3, p. 410, fig. 10, pl. 3. For the style, ibid.,pp. 33-34, note 25. 52 CorVP,pp. 85-86. VI, ii, cat. no. 100, pl. 92; Callipolitis-Feytmans1974, A I, 6, p. 34, fig. 1; p. 410, fig. 10. 53 Kerameikos Cf. also Brownlee 1987, pp. 94-95, no. 35, pl. 16. Compare the KX Painter'sfloral cross in his London lekanis, CVA,BritishMuseum 2 [GreatBritain2], pl. 7 [65]:3 a, b. In the interval,Attic artistshave acquired the discipline and elegance seen in Corinthian florals like Xli and X12, although the structure and the flowers are both typically Attic.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
69
respect on both sides. What is happening is nothing like the red-groundmovement in Late Corinthian. The Corinthianizing that distinguishesthe Panther Painter's animal friezes should be seen in the same light.54 Common sense suggests, since the bowls were native to and more frequent in Attic, and the tondo plate was native to and much more popular in Corinthian, that each fabric, while bowls and plates of these kinds still prevailed, drew upon the strengths of the other. The intense exchange of ideas, however, did not involve all styles alike. The extent of the Chimaera Painter's interest in Attic work is unparalleled in other Middle Corinthian groups. Sophilos liked not Corinthian lions generally but those of the Chimaera Painter;55the Attic Komast Group was certainly interested in the products of the Corinthian Gorgoneion and Samos Groups,56while the Samos Painter adorned his lions with both the Chimaera Painter'sruff and an Attic mane. In sum, these were the Middle Corinthian styles that were admired outside their own potters' quarter. THE PAINTEROFLouvREE 574 (List L; Pls. 50-52)
Fragments of a new (1974) alabastron by the Painter of Louvre E 574 in Syracuse, L8, were noted and attributedby Amyx. The fragments show that the entire alabastron was at least as large as the namepiece, L1. The feline (no head or mane is preserved, but the fringed forelegs indicate a lion) is exaggeratedly long-legged; the centerpiece was an elaborate lotus ornament. The attributionis incontestable, the Munich aryballos, L9, being closest in style. The Syracusealabastronshows that the artisthad not abandoned this vase shape at an advanced stage in his career,and it provides the "certified"floral design by this painter that, with concentric incisions in the base of the lotus, characteristically sharp, close-packed zigzags in the decorative bands, and added red used in all the broad areas, precludes attribution to this hand of any of the floral plates here assigned to the Chimaera Painter,the Painter of the Kameiros Plates, or the Painter of Gela G. 9. Close inspection of the vase, especiallyof the sphinx at right (the least damaged figure), convinced me that the flat-bottomed aryballos Louvre E 575, L2 (PI. 50), which Amyx says "couldwell be by the Painter"of Louvre E 574, in fact is his. It never was an elaborate piece; it is smaller than L7 or L4. The sphinx is perfunctory by his standards, but the profile of the face (with a puffy upper lip and receding chin), the eye, nostril, and ear, the foreleg and haunch markingsall agree with correspondingfeatureson L1, L4 (P1.52), and L7. Alexandrescu'sattributionto this hand of L2 bis strengthens the stylistic continuity from L2 to L4. The flat-bottomed aryballos in Palermo, Mormino 319, L4, also is slightly less selfconsciously elegant than L7 but large and elaborate. The lions have every requisite trait: heads as on Li and L7, with teardroppouches below the eyes and long, hooked tongues; forelegs with ladder markings of this artist's special type; shoulders of developed shape, as on L7; white dots added between the double lines on the shoulder and belly band. 54 These are fully illustratedin Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, pls. 55, 57-59, 62, 72, and, in comparison with some animals of the Nessos Painter,pp. 50-59, figs. 41-50. 55 G. Bakir 1981, p. 54. 56 Lawrence 1984, p. 63. These remarksshould not be taken as contradictory to the central theses of Brijder's 1983 study.
70
PATRICIALAWRENCE
They are, however,sturdierthan his other lions and have less extremely tapered tails than the Painter of Louvre E 574 usually made. As another incontestable attribution (made independently by both Amyx and Benson and confirmedby my own inspection with X29 beside it), L4 is extremely important. Between the lions (and crowding them so that their hindquarters meet at the back) is a sickle-winged Typhon, regrettably damaged; much of the glaze-paint is gone, and the surface is both pitted and encrusted, but the figure is still legible. This Typhon, which guarantees another, more problematic attribution, must be described. Traces of the beard show that the head faced left. The bands across the shoulders and sleeves are decorated with sharp zigzags. The curved feathers in the sickle wings are individually incised with beautifullyrounded tips. The arms are folded across the body, but the hands are not clenched; traces show them flat, one above the other. The forearms are long, and only the elbow is marked with incision. The bodice, not divided vertically, is covered with a finely executed scale pattern. The waistband is narrow and rectangular. The snake coils below the waistband are bordered on both sides by narrow margins of widely spaced scales, as on L5 and L6 (see below). The coils terminate by recoiling inwards, instead of S-curving outwards under the wings. These traits in combination are important in attributingL5 and L6. In both Typhon and lions, and generally in the Painter of Louvre E 574, the incisions are fine, sure, and exact, controlled to just reach the contour or another line, without intersecting. A fragment of a plate from the Potters' Quarter at Corinth, KP 2904, L6 (P1.51, interior),preserves exactly such coils as we saw on L4. Those on the Chimaera Painter's X24 should be contrasted. Especially characteristicof the Painter of Louvre E 574's Typhon coils are the short, curved, widely spaced scale markingsin the narrowmarginsof the coils, which are not at right angles to the parallellines that enclose them. Anticipating another argument, note that L6 and L4 confirm by way of Typhon coils what L2, L7, and L10 do with female profiles, that the painter of the alabastraand aryballoi is in fact the painter of the plates. The evidence of L9 alone was not enough, however striking; the evidence of L17 is that of a late, weak piece; now we have the manifold and diverse evidence that the identificationrequires. II, no. 1960, L5, despite many traits derived from The fragmentary plate Perachora the Chimaera Painter,never seemed to be in his style, although some of his early workis as painstaking and tightly drawn. The interlocked hands (Typhon'sown or Zeus's; cf. the Argos plate, L15, p. 71 below) are reduced to a complicated pattern, whose character, with thumbnails added, seemed radically unlike the Chimaera Painter. Above all, when one studied, side by side in their showcase, this plate and the Chimaera Painter'sX31, they were decisivelydifferentin the qualityof the incised line. The Typhons on L4 and L6 prove that L5 is by the Painterof LouvreE 574. The drawingof the scale pattern, the long, slender wrists, the slim waist and straight waistband, and the design of the snake coils, as described above for L4 and L6, all match, confirmingthe impressiongiven by the fine, precise incision. L5, like L6, is a small plate (the fabricis delicate, and the tracingof L6 on Plate 51 is 1:1), and so the two Typhons on the plates are drawn at about the same scale as that on the aryballos, L4. Here, then, is another plate attributableto the hand of the alabastraand aryballoiby the Painterof Louvre E 574 independently of the Copenhagen plates, L11 and L12!.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
71
But the Typhon on L5 has a beard of the Chimaera Painter's type (cf. X34) and a meandering line, not sharp zigzags, in the band across the shoulders;as on the Chimaera Painter'sX29, the artists'companionship is apparent, and still more stronglyin the tondo on the bottom of L5. Here the subject is indisputably a swan (as Callipolitis-Feytmans, who could examine it, as I did, said), a preening swan of the same type as those on the Chimaera Painter'sX10, with raised wings and a fluffybreast.Just enough is preservedto prove that the neck curved round to bring the beak against the fluffypart of the neck. Half of a double-centered rosette is also preserved. We shall see that on plates in the tradition establishedby those of the Chimaera Painter,the Painterof Louvre E 574, who never used filling ornaments on his alabastraand aryballoi, adopted the rosettes along with the rest of the repertory. There is no reason to question the attribution of the Typhon because the swan so closely echoes those on X10 (in any case, with the head and tail and most of the wings lacking, connoisseurship is difficult)or to suggest that the companions shared the decoration of a single plate. Preening swans evidently were in the workshop repertory, like confronted horse protomai (see pp. 72, 97-98 below).57 The attribution of L5 does not rest solely on the other two Typhons, although they secureit. Another small, exquisiteplate, L15, decoratedon both sides and in the Chimaera Painter'stradition (withfilling ornament in the field and with a beard of his type) was found in the excavations of the Greek Archaeological Service at Argos, reported in 1977.58 It is later than the foregoing, and, by linking L4, L5, and L6 with the Copenhagen plates, Lii and L12, its appearance supplied the last evidence needed to abolish the "Painter of the Copenhagen Sphinxes". The Argos plate, L15, shows Herakles wrestling with a Triton-at any rate, a hero wrestlingwith a fish-man, who has a full head of hair; I shall use the conventional names.59 It is certainly the most ambitious composition on any plate in the Chimaera Group.60 In the tondo on the bottom, a true eagle flies to right, holding a full-length snake in its beak. There are severalrosettesin the field on the face of the plate and many on the bottom. The face ofthe rim is coveredwith blackand red concentricbands. The Heraklesand Triton are certainlyby the same hand as the sphinxes on L1 1 and the komast on L12. Facialprofiles, mustaches, eyes, ears, headbands, the outline of the beard around the cheek; the yoke across the shoulders and the elbow, knee, thigh-muscle, and ankle incisions on Herakles, Triton, and komast;the tightly drawn, elongated scales on Triton and sphinxes (cf. also the Typhons on L4 and L5)-all testify to the authorshipof the Argos plate. Though Triton's beard is of the type invented by the Chimaera Painter,it juts forth in an improbable shelf Swans could have come from the Columbus Painter's motif repertory; compare especially London, 5 B.M. A 1399, CorVP,p. 85, A 1. Since this is a single swan on a plate, the Attic parallels (p. 68 and notes 50 and 51 above) must also be considered. Note that the artist's alabastra and aryballoi bear nothing alien to the tradition that he inherited for work on those shapes;the plates do, and this is one reason why,with only a few pieces, it was impossible to demonstrate adequately ("theymust be" can never be an argument)that all were his. 58 See note 45, p. 67 above. 59 On the iconography of fish-men and for a summary of previous literature,see most recently R. Glynn, "Herakles,Nereus, and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth-CenturyAthens,"AJA85, 1981, pp. 121132, pls. 21-23. 60 On plates like Payne's NC 1056, which I propose to exclude from the Group, see p. 112 below.
72
PATRICIALAWRENCE
as on the Copenhagen sphinxes, L1i. The komastlikehead on the bottom of Perachora II, no. 1970, L13, also is comparablewith Triton's. On both Heraklesand the komast, L12, the long, slender arms have no internal markingsexcept for the elbows. Any temptation, prompted by Triton'sbeard, to extend the Chimaera Painter'scareer into Late Corinthian via this new plate, very differentin composition from L11 and L12, must be forestalled. The Argos plate cannot be by the Chimaera Painter. The leg, knee, and elbow markings(cf XiO, X31-X34) are wrong,and the arms are too long and slender (even on his late pyxis, X39 [P1.47:d], the arms of a Boread by the Chimaera Painter are stockier and the musculaturefull and characteristicallymarked). The heads of Herakles and Triton do not resemble those of the Louvresiren, X30, or the Boreads on X17, X26, X34, and X39, although the Boread on X34, like the Triton, has an open mouth.61 We may now assign to the Painter of Louvre E 574, also, the famous horse-protomai plate Munich 6449, L14. The attribution,which was suggested long ago, can be argued today a little more concretely. For the long lines parallel to the contour, defining bone on the horses' noses and muscle in their necks, compare the similar long line defining muscle in Herakles' thigh, L15. The horses' eyes are exactly like the eyes of Herakles, L15, and the sphinxes, L11, and the long locks in the mane are drawn with exactly the same wavy lines (the line havingjust the same tension)as the sphinxes'beards. The elbows of the horses are marked by the same configurationas the ankle of one of the sphinxes. The largestrosette on the face of the Argos plate is particularlylike the rosettebetween the horse protomai. Note that this rosette, unlike those on the earlier U1 and X2, is placed exactly at the compass center of the plate. The attribution to the Painter of Louvre E 574 of one of the votive plaques from Penteskouphia,L16, is borne out by the evidence of L15. Although some of the Poseidon plaques are much later than the time of the FrangoisVase, this one certainly is not.62 The head of Poseidon compares most precisely with that of Herakles on L15, although the attribution (made initially on acquaintance with the Corinth fragment alone) was originally based on the faces of the Copenhagen sphinxes, Lli, which have a specialized, bony and elongated nose and more stronglyprotrudinglips than Poseidon or Herakles. One fine, fairly large plate, L13, is problematicbecause, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to study it except from the pictures(Perachora II, no. 1970, pls. 80, 82) since before WorldWarII. The attributionto the Painterof LouvreE 574 (i.e., to the hand of Ll 1) seems safe. The evolved, elaboratedesign and the tightly controlledincision in the floral decoration on the face of the plate (a four-lotuscross, the sepals extended to frame 61 This open mouth with protrudinglips, like beetling brows, snub noses, and horrid hair in later Greek art, betokens a bestial component in the character represented. The locusclassicusis the face of Nettos, contrasted with the tight-mouthed Herakles (as also on L15) on the Athens amphora, ABV, p. 4, no. 1, p. 2, no. 6, with references to new illustrations,but the feature is common through the first Paralipomena, half of the 6th century. 62 Geagan (1970, no. 6, p. 36, fig. 6; p. 37 and note 19) dates L16 to the "late sixth century". Any draped deity in profile, as early as the Antimenes Painter,as Exekias, even as early as Lydos, in comparison with this head and shoulders,will sufficeto place it in the generation, instead, of Kleitias (or,very exactly,with the Herakles on L15). "Late sixth century" is the red-figurePioneers and the Leagros Group, to whom this work would look as quaint as the Polyphemos amphora from Eleusis would look to Kleitias. The Poseidon even has "Volomandralocks": hair brushed back as, evidently,on that kouros.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
73
double palmettes on small volutes) seem to ally this plate more closely than any other with L1i and L12. The equally fragmentary design on the bottom, only partly published, is tantalizing: man walking to left, with dog. The published tracing of the head is that of a komast (note also the short-sleeved garment); the picture should not resemble the approximately contemporary plaque signed by Timonidas,63 where the man is a serious hunter. What does it look like? Do the anatomical markings agree with those of the Argos Herakles, L15, and the komast on L12 (whose facial profile is fuller than appears in pictures, owing to the loss of glaze-paint)? Is the dog drawn compatibly (shoulder,forelegs, haunch) with the Munich horses, L14, and the felines by this hand? The tracing of the head has a tentative quality and interrupted lines, suggesting loss of paint and surface damage as well as fragmentary preservation. On the strength of the shape of the skull, the round eye, the nostril and mustache (but not their rounded shape), and the line of the shoulder, the komast is attributedto the same hand as that on L12 and (for the open mouth) the Triton on L15. Compare also the fleshy upper lip of the siren on L7. Pending autopsy, I have based no stylistic argument on this plate. A flat-bottomed aryballos, Gela G. 10, L17, remarkablybroad bottomed, later than any other aryballosby a hand in the Chimaera Group, bears a Typhon whose face actually resembles the soft-contoured tracing of the man on L13. Rafn64must be right to base the attributionto the Painter of Louvre E 574 primarilyon the Copenhagen komast, L12 (her comparisons seem quite sufficient),because the Typhon on Mormino 319, L4, flanked by lions that guarantee its attributionto the same hand as L1, L2, and L7-L9, is of an entirely differenttype, based on a differentmodel, without a single incised detail in common with the Gela Typhon, Li7. Indeed, if Lli and Li2 were not now proven to be by the Painter of Louvre E 574, the attributionof L17 to the same artist as L4 would be incredible: one Typhon faces left, the other right, one has sicklewings, the other outspreadwings; one has a scale-pattern bodice with a zigzag band across the shoulders, the other a plain bodice, divided vertically,with a maeander band (matchedonly on the komastLi2); above all, one has snake coils decorated in the traditionof the Chimaera Group pX24, L5, L6) and coiled up below the body, the other plain coils spread out to left and right in S-curves below the wings. In fact, the Late Corinthian aryballos,L17, its potting also alien to that of the other flat-bottomed aryballoi, postdates the dissolution of the Chimaera Group as a working entity and shows its longest-lived member, in his dotage, using a Typhon type from some other source. Even the drawing suggests, if not an unsteady hand, deteriorating eyesight. A plate fragment, L3, Corinth C-72-244, presents a different kind of problem. As Pemberton's description shows, it is, so far as preserved, a typical Chimaera Group fragment, and the face of the winged panther protome has the proportions and all the markingsof those on Lli, Li2, and L9. The fragmentis so worn that the "shadow"of the glaze-paint contour is lost; only incised lines remain (P1.51). Judging from the incised details, the face is less evolved, less specialized, probablyearlierthan its comparanda; also, the simple pattern of narrow rings on the bottom recurs on plates of no very advanced type by the Chimaera Painter. The incisions are heavier than they ought to be, and the 63
CorVP,p. 201, no. 2, pl. 84:2 a, b; AntDenkI, pl. 8, fig. 13.
64 1978, p. 159.
74
PATRICIALAWRENCE
amoeboid forms around the eyes are drawn with ill-controlled, discontinuous lines, but their shape, like that of the wrinkles on the nose, is exactly correct for the Painter of Louvre E 574. With such a panther's face, the fragment should not be so early as the exquisitely drawn lions on Li, but throughout his career, this artist'sforte was his fine, resilient, precise incised line, worthy of comparisonwith any Protocorinthianartist. If L3 is not an unaccountably awkward,minor work from his own hand (it would be, perhaps, the earliest of his plates to survive), it must be a strict copy of his work; I think that it is his (see note 218, p. 109 below). E 574 PainterandthePainterofLouvre TheColumbus Amyx does not call the ColumbusPainterthe teacher of the Painterof LouvreE 574.65 I see, however, the same complete continuity between these two artists as between the Painter of Palermo 489 and the Columbus Painter.66The Painter of Louvre E 574 has certain persistent habits that are inexplicable if they were not deeply ingrained during actual apprenticeship with the Columbus Painter: the way that the lion's eye with the double pouch below it fits the face; the very long lower jaw with a large eyetooth and long tongue; the recurving outline of the ruff; the shape of the shoulder (interestingly, derived from rather early lions by the ColumbusPainter)with a double line dividing it; his use of white dots (alien to the rest of the Chimaera Group and not used on their plates even by the Painter of Louvre E 574); finally, the long line with an arc at the top, on the front of a feline'snear foreleg,the most significanthabit of all, formalized eventuallyas part of the unique configuration on the sphinxes and pantheresses of L1i and L12.67 Furthermore, the little siren on Li is still placed between the lions in the same way as the bird on the Columbus Painter's(ratherearly)Syracuse alabastron.68 The basic differencesbetween the styles of the Chimaera Painter and the Painter of Louvre E 574 (barringinnate qualities) can be stated succinctly. The Painter of Louvre E 574 adheres very faithfully to his heritage from the Columbus Painter.69 For the Chimaera Painter, the Columbus Painter's feline types were only a point of departure. The Painter of Louvre E 574, on his alabastraand aryballoi,gives no hint of interest in the motifs or decorative principles of Attic work; they are very purely Corinthian. The late plates, L14 and L15, with horse protomai and eagle with snake, are thus all the more remarkable(see p. 67 above), as if taking over the decoration of plates entailed its special repertory. Lii and L12 were influenced by something other than vase paintings, but 65 CorVP,p. 85, "Fine work, ... leading to the MC Painter of Louvre E 574"; ibid.,p. 171, the Painter of Louvre E 574's "type of lion is derived from that of the EC Columbus Painter." Earlier (196la, p. 14) Amyx had said, "The sequel to his style is found ... in the work of the Painter of Louvre E 574, as for example in the large alabastronwhich is the name-piece of that artist." 66 Amyx (CorVP,p. 85) calls the Painter of Palermo 489 "the Columbus Painter'sgreat teacher"and calls attention to the alabastron in the Ludwig Collection, no. L-12, now in Basel, which, though by the great teacher,was easily mistaken for an early work of the Columbus Painter. 67 For the Columbus Painter'slions, see Amyx 1961a, Beil. 6 and 7, and DdlosX, no. 461, pls. 32, 66. 68 Syracuse, N.M. 34993; CorVP,p. 85, A 6. 69 For continuity over a comparable span of time (the Painterof Palermo 489 began in Transitional, the Painterof Louvre E 574 workedinto LC), see Neeft's study (1984, pp. 133-170) of workshopcontinuity from the Dolphin Painter to the Herzegovina Painter.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
75
whatever it was seems to have been Corinthian-at any rate, not Attic. The Painter of Louvre E 574 and the Chimaera Painter, certainly close companions, prove to be more independent as artists than Archaic Corinthian vase painters might be expected to be, more self-conscious as artists,that is, than most of their colleagues were. R) For the Riehen Painter, there is only one new attribution, but his style, such as it is, needs to be characterized more carefully than it has been. There are two extreme tendencies in dealing with Corinthian vase painters: either to take some animal-frieze or aryballoshand and talk about his style and personalityas if he were Matisse or Raphael or to treat all of them as if they were so many work units painting flowers on china in a factory. In reality,as in Attic red figureor in any later highly developed artisan tradition, a few were talented artists, whose style can be discerned in their vision and design as well as in their "handwriting";I should claim as much for the Chimaera Painter and the Painter of Louvre E 574. Some hands were really just work units; they painted barely attributablekotylai and round aryballoi, silhouette-techniquepottery, and the like. They must be sorted by handwriting analysis and, if we possess their products in quantity, by quasi-mechanical repetitions in their work.70 They do not bother with design or have any personal way of seeing things. Most vase painters fall between these extremes and should be considered accordingly. The Riehen Paintertypifiesgood mediocrity. He draws competently and is not content merely to copy or to repeat ad nauseam (as, for example, the Patras Painter7l did). He seems to have taken interest in his work, which also reveals a certain vigor. But his "originality",though the way he draws is fairly easy to recognize, consists in novel combinations of what he learned from others; these are often striking. Amyx calls him "a close follower of the Painter of Louvre E 574"; R2 imitates that artist's work, but R1 imitates the early Chimaera Painter. The sphinxes on R3 and R4, although the Riehen Painter draws better than the Otterlo Painter,look as if he had been admiring also some work of that kind. R6 drawson late lions by the Chimaera Painterwith elements from the Painterof Louvre E 574, but its horse and rider are unparalleledin the Chimaera Group. So are the flying eagles on R3; the eagle on L15 is in no way similar. His style is always bold, broad, and straightforward.Evidently,he never wanted to refine his design by calculating the placement of the double line dividing the feline shoulder as the Painter of Louvre E 574 did (L4, L7-L9). Did he notice the difference? On his aryballoi, he vacillates between figures in a void field (R1-R3) and the use of a few rosettes (R4, R6). The new attribution is that of R5, a plate in Heidelberg not yet fully published. Although L15 is almost certainly later than R5, the growing evidence for a shared repertory of tondo motifs in the Chimaera Group suggests that there may have been other, earlier flying-eagle plates by the two major artists. If so, the broad style and the direct, somewhat naive treatment of the eagle carrying dolphins must be the Riehen Painter's own, for the eagle on L15 is detailed and traditional, with late-7th-century prototypes. It is the eagle on L15, rather than those on R3 and R5, that belongs in the THE RIEHEN PAINTER(List
70 71
Neeft (1984) has developed a useful methodology for dealing with unselfconscious hands. CorVP,pp. 185-189; Corinth VII, ii, pp. 38-40.
76
PATRICIALAWRENCE
same tradition as the KX Painter's.72The eagles on R3 and R5 differin type and posture, but the markingson the head and the rather unanatomical subdivisionsof the wings and their feathers show that the hand is the same. Also, the broad and even distribution of incised lines, both on the birds and in the rosettes,is consistentwith the rest of the Riehen Painter'swork, and the somewhat antic, or naive, expression is precisely his. The Riehen Painter was a specialist in flat-bottomed aryballoi, associated with the Chimaera Group throughout his career. It is not surprising if occasionally he essayed a plate, just as the Chimaera Painter occasionally painted aryballoi. I had wondered if some of the floral plates might be his, but none of his aryballoi have floral centerpieces. Also, his line is too undisciplinedfor him to have been responsiblefor plates like K1-K3, and his own plate, R5, has different banding on the underside from any other plate in the Group. R5 also, and uniquely,is badly warped;we shall have to consider whether vase painters usually made the plates that they decorated. 9 (List G; PI. 53) Gela G. 9, G2, is an aryballoswith panthers flanking a floral centerpiece, obviously modeled on one like the Chimaera Painter'sX25. Now,just as the floral cross on X25 is similarin design to those on X11 and X12, that on G2 has the same design, based on four rings, as on G1 (Fig. 5, p. 125 below); and G3 (Fig. 6, p. 125 below), rather obviously by the same hand as G1, differs in having lotuses in place of two of the palmettes. G4 (PI.53) preservesonly a lotus flower,but that is perfectly consistent with the lotus on G3. Independent of any attribution, Gela G. 9, G2, is one of the globular-bodied flatbottomed aryballoi with a maximum diameter falling rather low on the body, with neat tongues on the shoulder,with little or no filling ornament, that were favored by (though not confined to) the Chimaera Group. Its composition, with a floral cross instead of a winged creature between the felines, and its seated panther, with a raised forepaw,show that the Chimaera Painter rather than the Painter of Louvre E 574 inspired it. Corinth KP 2909, G4, is a lekanoid bowl rather than a plate. Here indeed is a hand singularly dependent on the Chimaera Painter,the only other one known so far to have worked on just that repertoryof shapes: aryballoi,plates, and small lekanoid bowls. The drawing is competent but not very intelligent. The Painter of Gela G. 9 lacks the Riehen Painter's antic vigor. Between him and the Chimaera Painter is the chasm that separates neat, legible penmanship from a classic of calligraphy. His incisions make perfectly good Corinthian panthers but lack any awareness of design-that is, of proportions,of refined configuration,of intelligent structure. These observationsare as true of the four floral crosses, compared with those on X1 (Fig. 4, p. 117 below), Xli, and X12, or K1-K3, as of the panthers. Palmettes and panthers are drawn with slackly curved lines that make their petals and paws seem rubbery.73 THE PAINTEROF GELA G.
72 Schefold (1960, p. 138, III: 92) compared the Riehen eagle (R3 is the namepiece)with the KX Painter's lekanis; Rafn (1978, p. 189) followed his suggestion and accepted his dates. But P.3 is not so early as ca. 600 B.C.; it may be no earlier than the KX Painter'slekanis (here, too, Schefold's date, ca. 590, seems a little high), and its plump eagles are of a differenttype from the KX Painter's. 73 Benson (CorinthXV, iii, no. 753, p. 148, note 2) suggeststhat G1 and G3 are probablyby the Chimaera Painter. For the reasonsjust given, I disagree.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
77
PLATEs(List K; PI. 53) THE PAINTEROFTHEKAMEIROS
Of the six pieces given to this hand, one, the bowl in Delphi, K5, is taken on faith. And Payne's note74 No one seems to have seen it since the publication of Necrocorinthia. is laconic, "frag.with palmette complex, as in nos 1049-51 of the Chimaera Group." Was the Delphi bowl really like the plates Kl-K3, which have a unique pattern, a remarkable design, less a palmette cross than a composition of knotted tendril loops with four large and four small palmettes placed where the tendrils separate? Since I could not see it, I disregarded the Delphi bowl until, following a note of A. N. Stillwell's,75we located K4 (PI.53), now inventoried as Corinth KP 2910. The existence of a second fragment of a bowl of typical Chimaera Group fabric preserving the unique design of the three plates enhances the likelihood that the Delphi bowl also has the knotted design. This design is so idiosyncraticand the drawing so perfectly alike on K1-K4, although two of the plates have different ring patterns on the bottom and rather differentprofiles,76that it is safe to conclude that they are by one hand.77 Like K1, the Apollonia plate, K3 bis, is only more careless than K2 and K3. The differing ring patterns on K1 and K2 are both of types used by the Chimaera Painter rather than the Painter of Louvre E 574 (L3, L10, L14), or the Riehen Painter (R5), or the hand of two plates close to the Columbus Painter (S2, S3). Ring patterns hardly sustain an attribution, but these seem to exclude, at least, the hands that used differentones; even the plates by the Painterof Gela G. 9 are distinctive to the extent of having very simple rings on the bottom: narrow rings in pairs, as on some of the Chimaera Painter's early plates (X1, X2, X4, X6, X16 [Fig. 1, p. 100 below]; also X31, X32) and on L3. K2 has broad bands, equally spaced, alternately red and black (cf. X9, Xli, X22, X28, X30, X38 [Fig. 1]), which no other hand in the Group is known, so far, to have used. K1 has bands similar to those on X7 and X37. Kl-K3 also have, each, eight very tiny plus-incised rosettes disposed among the palmettes and tendrils near the edge of the tondo; these also indicate a very close relationship to the Chimaera Painter, since they do not occur on vases attributable to other hands in the Group78but on his own mature work (X30, X34, X35). We may never be sure whether the Painter of the Kameiros Plates is the Chimaera Painter himself, for whom we have no other floral plates assignable to his maturity,because this floral pattern is self-sufficient as a design, too elaborate for use between felines on an aryballos. My eyes argue that the drawing is his, and the highly structured,original, effective design ought to be his; the ring patterns and tiny rosettes prove that the plates are very close to him, closer than the plates by the Painter of Gela G. 9, but unless a double-faced plate with an attributable motif in the second tondo or an aryballos with a modified version of the knotted design as a centerpiece comes to light, I cannot quite demonstratethat these plates and bowls belong to the Chimaera Painter at the stage of X30-X34. fecrocorinthia, under NC 1012, p. 312. Corinth XV, iii, p. 147 (at bottom of second column). 76 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, nos. 57 and 59, p. 153, fig. 17. 77 Can it really be that we have trouble with the connoisseurship of floral patterns simply because they have no facial expressions, as the animals seem to have? Yet we see style in architecture. The complexity and possible variety in design and renderingare certainly as great for floral crosses as for goats and panthers. 78 There is one tiny rosette on R5, but it is less studied than these, not artfullydisposed. 74
75
78
PATRICIALAWRENCE
PAINTERSOF LEKANOIDBoWLs
ThePainterof CorinthCP-2438 (ListP; P1.53) Nearly forty years ago, Amyx recognized, among fragmentsof pottery from the early excavations at Corinth, CP-2438, Pi, as a lekanoid bowl belonging to the Chimaera Group and good enough to be by one of the major hands.79 But the style was different, though the fabricwas typical, and no other workby this hand was identifieduntil KP 2915, P2 (P1.53), was noticed in the pottery from the North Dump in the Potters'Quarter. Here is work at the same scale, ratherlarge for its tondo, since these are bowls of the same size as X18, X35, and X36. P2 has the same splashy rosettes as on P1, incised at the same angles to their shape. It has the same penchant for internal incisions running parallel to the contour of the paint (the panther's skull and ear; the griffin'sknobs and ear), and just the same careful, not very rapid, incised line. The style is quite distinct from the Chimaera Painter's,still fartherfrom the studied elegance of the Painter of Louvre E 574, as is natural, since the production of lekanoid bowls in the Chimaera Group was the Chimaera Painter'sdepartment. KP 1670 (List Q; Pls. 54 and 55) ThePainterof Corinth Very large lekanoid bowls, approaching a diameter of forty centimeters, appear in Corinth fairlylate in MC; KP 1670, Q1, may be the earliestknown. Several of the others are by the Painter of Athens 93 1, at a date when he was no longer the Dodwell Painter's loyal subject.80 His work in large tondos is elaborate, colorful, and tasteless, but its only possible antecedents are represented by Q1 and Q2. His interest in, or even fleeting association with, the Chimaera Group is independently attested by a plate fragment in Palermo, SlO, from the Demeter Malophoros sanctuaryat Selinous. Q1 also, as all agree, is very closely related to the Chimaera Painter. It is an extremely important piece. Owing to its existing in partly nonjoining fragments, and to its long-delayed publication, everythingpreviouslyin print about it requirescorrection XV, iii, pl. 116 and personal examination, or modification. The profile drawing in Corinth first, leave no doubt that it is a large bowl, and no plate; Stillwell was right, of course.81 Second, its major fragments all belong to it; no part of it belongs to a plate, instead.82 One fragment, badly worn, is problematicbut seems to belong. It is not by the Chimaera Painter (as earlier Lawrence,followed by Amyx);83its exterior frieze does not, stylistically, closely resemble that on the pyxis Hermitage 5551, X26 (Benson),84but rather confirms what personal examination of the fabric and the drawing also require, that it is no earlier VII, ii, no. 148, p. 45. Corinth The Dodwell Painterand the Chimaera Painterseem to have been exactly contemporary;their hold on their companions is undone at about the same point, somewhat before the change to LC style. On the Painter of Athens 931, see Amyx 1971, pp. 21-29, and CorVP,pp. 205-210. Blomberg (1983) proposes an EC beginning for the Dodwell Painter,but X1, I think, is as early as anything that she includes. 81 Corinth XV, iii, no. 774 (second paragraph and note 1), p. 152; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 70, p. 155. 82 See discussion, CorVP,pp. 168-169, at A 6 and A 22. 83 CorVP,p.168, atA6. 84 Corinth XV, iii, p. 152, note 3 on no. 774. 79
80
THECHIMAERA GROUPATCORINTH
79
than X26 and cannot be by the same hand. The exterior frieze is not generically different from the Chimaera Painter's, however, but a world apart from anything by the Painter of Louvre E 574. Therefore, the latter need not even be considered. There is no reason to think, although the animal-frieze manner is very differentfrom the tondo-motif manner, that the interior and exterior are by different hands; the Painter of Athens 931 and the Attic painters of lekanides85all decorated their bowls both inside and out. The figure in the tondo does resemble the Chimaera Painter'sBerlin Boread, X34,86 though the latter is work at a much smaller scale, but it may be, rather,a Potnia Theron, as on X10.87 The double outline over the buttocks suggests that it is a Potnia, and there is plenty of space in the vast tondo for the height of a standing figure, rather than the Boread's Knielauf, and for a couple of swans or other animals. The absence or presence of a beard, not preserved, would be decisive; Boreads, however, often look backwards and hold their hand across their body, as on X34, and this figure doesn't, and their buttocks, because they are running, should be more bunched up and rounded than these are. Boread or Potnia, it is not by the same hand as X34 and X10. The vertical, parallel, wiggly incisions in the hair show the influence of the taste of the Painter of Louvre E 574. The partly preservedear is stylisticallydistinct from both major artists'ears. On XIO and X34, respectively, the axis of the body bends slightly at the waist to impart conviction to walking and running; on X10 the waistband curves to suggest corporeality; on both X10 and X34 the kolpos falls in front of the waistband. These are rare master touches in the early 6th century. In each case, Q1 by contrast is rigid and formulaic, without, we must add, the genuine elegance of the Painter of Louvre E 574's formality,where the Chimaera Painter'swinged figuresare flexible and vigorous. Even the feathersand rosettes are slightly too dry when compared with X10 and X34 or, for that matter,with Lii. The goats in the exterior animal frieze of Q1 have generic configuration;so have those on the Chimaera Painter'spyxides. But Q1 has no complete felines, and only one of the goats on X2688 is quite so ordinary as those on Q1. Even he has a sturdier and more distinctivehead and a walking gait dependent for its effect on his well articulatedforelegs. The slenderer legs and more delicate head of the goats on Q1 suggest, like the winged figure in the tondo, that it is later than X26, but comparison with the animals on X39, which must be as late as Q1, still more strongly discouragesmaking any close association. On X39, though their proportions are those of later animals, the goats (P1.46:b) have remarkablywell knit limbs and bodies, beside which those on Q1 are loose, boneless, and ordinary. Finally, the filling ornament on Q1 is all wrong; instead of being unusually dense for its date, with a high proportion of double-centeredrosettes, it is fairlysparse and includes dot-and-ring fillers, which are alien to the Chimaera Group. I have not found another animal frieze by this hand, but the artist of Q1 was probably a painter of pyxides or oinochoai who worked on lekanoid bowls, perhaps briefly,late in Middle Corinthian, as For the Attic bowls, see notes 35 and 38, p. 66 above. For the style of X34, see pp. 61-62 above; for the relative date of the profile of the plate, see p. 103 below. 87 Even the figure standing in the tondo of a 29-centimeter plate, however,does not approach the scale of one in a 40-centimeter bowl. 88 Lawrence 1959, pl. 90: fig. 20. 85 86
80
PATRICIALAWRENCE
(a little later still) the Painter of Athens 931 did. In other words, Q1 and Q2 belong to the Chimaera Group, but their artistperhaps is an outsider. Q2 is a small, thick fragment from the floor of a very large bowl like Q1. Since it comes from a trench in the TerracottaFactoryin the Potters'Quarter,instead of the Road Deposit, and is not quite identical to Q1 in color or thickness,it almost certainly belongs to another bowl. Very little is preserved of the figure work, and that is puzzling, but the borderpattern is exactly the same as on Qi: the meanderingline has extremelylong loops with characteristiccurves (PI. 55). These ought never to have been confused with those in the Chimaera Painter'sborder patterns, where the loops are consistently shorter and tighter. The work is at the same, very large, scale as in the tondo of Q1. Q2 is valuable, however small and abraded, as evidence that Q1 was not a unique effort. (List S) FROMSELINOUS THE STYLEOF SOMEPLATES A group of uninventoried fragments in Palermo, from the Demeter Malophoros sanctuary at Selinous, presents subtle problems.89 Three of the plate fragments, S4, S5, and S6, preservepart of a human head (twopreservepart of a raised wing as well) but none the eye or the profile of the face. Two have the hair of the head or beard rendered in separate, rippling locks, and all three have fine, precise incisions, although rosettes, where preserved, are perfunctorilyincised. Two of the fragments have black-figurework on the reverse: one a palmette festoon and, nearer the center, a band of three-row dicing (as on the otherwise dissimilarV2-V4). Many traits on S4-S6 can be referred to the Painter of Louvre E 574, but the line, though fine, seems timid, and their fragmentary preservationmakes connoisseurshipdifficult. Similarly,the feline hindquarterson S7 are exactly in the manner of the Painterof Louvre E 574, but the structureis different,and the fine, timid incised work recalls that on S4-S6. All the plentiful Chimaera Group material from the Malophoros sanctuary that I have seen is atypical and by neither principal artist but evidently proper to the Group. Si, published by Gabrici (Payne'sNC 1052), has unique decorative syntax, but its lion protomai are closely related to the Columbus Painter,to the hand of S2 and S3 (if that is not the Columbus Painter himself),90 and to the Painter of Louvre E 574. Even the syntax is arguablycharacteristicof the Group (see p. 67 above). Either S2 or S10 could be the plate intended by Payne at NC 1043, not attributedto the Chimaera Painterbut listed directly following his feline plates. I incline to S2, because it preserves the lion's head, but it is a protome, which Payne usually named as such, and the crosshatched mane on S10 provesthat it, too, was a lion. It is, however,a plate with white dots and by the Painter of Athens 931.91 Perhaps Payne entered either of them in the catalogue on the basis of incomplete notes, but, in fact, both fragments are rather marginal to the Group, and it 89
These are being studied for publication by Dr. Christiane Dehl. I owe my knowledge of them to the Soprintendente, Dr. Vincenzo Tusa. New excavation in the Malophoros sanctuary is under the direction of Dr. Sebastiano Tusa. 90 See p. 115 below. I have listed S3 with S2 because it is by the same hand as the Selinous plate fragment and thus representsone of the stylesfound at that excavationsite, but this listing does not imply any suspicion as to its provenience, which, unfortunately,is unknown. 91 CorVedp. 212, A 18.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
81
is not impossible that Payne saw some plate fragment closer to NC 1040-1042 than either of these. That the finds from a single sanctuary are consistently so distinctive (relative to the rest of Sicily itself) must have implications for the commercial organization responsible for the distribution of the pottery.92 For Chimaera Group work from Cyrene that could have similar implications, see L13 bis. V) I The lists G, K, P, and Q represent hands closely related to the Chimaera Painter, some or all of whose work is in the tondos of lekanoid bowls of the same kind as his, although Qi and Q2 are much larger. But the last of these hands may have worked with the Chimaera Group only briefly. In the Carrousel Painter'scase, we are not sure. Only his early work, V1-V4, betrays direct contact with their work, and it is found on very small plates that Callipolitis-Feytmansdid not include in the Chimaera Group. Her profile drawings are to scale and show how much larger CM 52-81 are than CM 8-10,93 but she did not give diameters or discuss the importance of one group of plates' being half again the diameter of the other. Allowing that the small plates have more perfunctory moldings, V2-V4, her CM 8-10, have profiles not very different from those of X7, her CM 53, or Xli, her CM 67 (on the development of profiles, see pp. 99-103 below). This is not to insist that they were made in the same shop, but they might have been. V1 does not yet show the influence of the Chimaera Painter;on V2-V4 it is unmistakable. These are the four pieces that are assigned unanimously to the Carrousel Painter, as such an artist without a past or a future, since all could have been made in less than five years. I am afraid that he also decorated V5 and V6 and quite possibly V7. Amyx lists these as "related"and as "poorer imitations of the style."94 I should assert that the poor imitator is the same hand. Of these, TocraI, no. 299, V5, is the smallest, earliest, and closest to V3 and V4. The animals are still perky, and the goats still have the gait of those on V4. Filling ornament reappears,MC filling ornament now, as on the Chimaera Painter'spyxides, X17 and X26. The dicing around the central medallion and the rays on the rim have disappeared. V6 stands in the same relation to V5 as the latter to V4, larger,with larger animals that have quite lost the stuffed-toycharacterof those on V1-V4. But among its animals is a bird between the heads of a panther and a goat in the same position as on V4 (obverse)-and the bird is the same shape as that on the much earlierV2 (reverse)! V7 is a full-size plate (Diam. 0.292 m.); apart from its wretched animal frieze and medallion, it would pass as a good Chimaera Group plate, in every detail of its profile, the color of its half-round foot and rim moldings, and the narrow red and black rings on the underside; compare, e.g., K1 or X37 (Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, fig. 17, CM 59 and 61). The animal frieze no longer resemblesthose on V4 and V5; it does resemble that THE CARROUSELPAINTER(List
92
Similarly,after assessingthe complexion of Corinthianpottery at Tocra, Boardman and Hayes observe, "So our Corinthian may have been imported mostly in large batches" (TocraI, p. 21). 93 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 149, fig. 15, and p. 153, fig. 17. 94 CorVP,p. 167. The other pieces, much better, that he lists as "near" or "related to" the Carrousel Painter all seem to me to be related, truly, but differently,as animal-frieze work sharing the Carrousel Painter'sspecific origins (see Berlin F 3929, CorVP,p. 166, B 1) rather than dependent on his own work.
82
PATRICIALAWRENCE
on V6, but the animals are walking in the wrong direction, felines clockwise, ruminants counterclockwise, contrary to V1-V6. Perhaps another hand has taken over; if so, he has done just that, no more. Now, from V6 or V7 to TocraI, no. 301, is another easy step, and the latter is a silhouette-friezeplate; no profile of it is provided, but silhouette plates quite commonly, if they are not small or very late, have profiles and rim banding very much as in the Chimaera Group.95 Remarkably,on TocraI, no. 301, all but one of the animals again walk as they did for the Carrousel Painter (ruminants clockwise), and the bird reappears. It is by no means unlikelythat the CarrouselPainterdid the Tocra silhouette plate. It should be clear why, in the summary of conclusions, I suggested the apparent dichotomy that, as a painter, the CarrouselPainter might not qualify as a member of the Chimaera Group, while it is ratherlikelythat a numberof silhouetteplates were fabricated in the Chimaera workshop. A Group may coincide largelywith a Workshop;evidently it is not quite the same thing.
CHRONOLOGY Periodization("Isthis still EC or alreadyMC?")can be as misleadingas the use of absolute dates. Frantois Villard,96by proposing dates that let MC begin ten years before EC ends, allows a truer picture to be drawn, and, asJean Ducat made clear,97those dates, actually very similarto Payne'sfor the periods that concern us here, are as good as presentlycan be obtained. It has become a cliche to question stylisticallybased dates by invoking young 95 This is true even at the end of MC: Boehlau 1899, p. 137, pl. V:1. 96
See the center column, headed "Villard,Lesvasesgrecs,1956," in Ducat 1962, p. 182, Table II. Ducat 1962, especiallyhis conclusions,p. 182. Since I do not believe that a Lydianmonarch necessarily would be constrainedby having made diplomatic offeringsat Delphi, for "le plus grand intervallepossible," from making war on any Greek city, which is Ducat's only reason for putting the destruction of Smyrna at ca. 595-590 B.C. instead of ca. 605-600 (p. 181); and since Alyattes' taking over from his father the war against the Milesians (p. 179) does not necessarilyimply his concluding it instantlyon coming to the throne, post quem;and since Ducat satisfactorilydisposes of so that even 605 is an uncertain, if probable, terminus all other argumentsfor various proposed revisions,he most laudablyconcludes, "Nous nous garderonsbien de proposer un autre systdme(un de plus!) pour remplacercelui de Payne.... Mais ce que l'on peut esperer c'est que les archeologues trouventd'autrespoints de repere qui permettent de dater sufrementla ceramique de Corinthe" (p. 182). Query: What could be found to yield a dependable absolute date? As for Smyrna, the "end of the Middle Corinthian period" fragments from Pit 5 (Anderson 1958-1959, nos. 131-133, p. 149, pl. 28) are misdated; "end of EC, probably coinciding with the beginning of MC style", in my opinion, is a correct assessment. If this is "reoccupation"pottery, as published, it leaves very little time VII, ii, An 75, p. 87 and pl. 107, which for abandonment. On the exhausted characterof late EC, see Corinth represents the stage in question though in a different stylistic tradition and on a different shape from the Smyrna examples. Late and terminal MC style, even when wretched, is different. Papaspyridi-Karouzou (1963, p. 122 and fig. 86) compared the Nessos Painter with the Dipylon kouros; this is a relative date. Whether the kouros is dated ca. 600 B.C. or later, the absolute-lookingdate will be found ultimately to be based on pottery,and the dates of the pottery on the familiarfoundation dates and Near Eastern monarchs. In her slightly later summary of the literature, G. M. A. Richter (Korai,New York 1968, p. 26) reached conclusions similar to Ducat's and quoted Dunbabin'swarning against "viciousprecision". 97
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
83
and old, conservativeand progressiveartists. The argument has little substance, for old or conservative artists never have been loath to adopt a few ideas from new trends.98 It is equally true that at the time that Villard calls both EC and MC, ca. 600-590 B.C., when vase painters like the Dodwell Painter,99the Medallion Painter,100and the Chimaera Painter were forging MC style, an older artist, like the Columbus Painter, though all his later work contains telltale elements and ideas of the new style, and though he made some contribution to it himself, continued to design his animals and distribute his filling ornament in what must be called an EC style. Clarity on this point is basic to what follows; when I say that the Columbus Painter is an EC artistand that one of his alabastra(not the latest)is contemporary with one of the Chimaera Painter'splates, I am not saying that the Chimaera Painter "began in EC" and not saying that it is wrong to call the alabastron an EC pot. 101 THERELATIVE OFTHECHIMAERA CHRONOLOGY GRouP Painter'sYouth Developments duringtheChimaera Two plates, V1 and V2, are certainly Early Corinthian in style, although the double foot molding on V2,102 like the ring foot on "Columbus"alabastra(see p. 84 below), is an innovation. Hopper called attention to the EC lotus and filling ornament on V1,103 and V2 is only a little more advanced. Since U1, poorly preservedand unavailablefor autopsy, the earliest Corinthian plate with confronted horse protomai, has a plus-shaped rosette in the center and the horses look even earlier than those on X2, it probably also antedates the beginning of the Chimaera Painter'scareer. Placing that beginning at ca. 600 B.C.,making the Chimaera Painter one of the originators of MC style,104follows from the very early characteristicsof his firstwork, which his astonishing proficiency tends to mask. On X1, his earliest floral plate, the evidence of the profile (see p. 102 and Fig. 1, p. 100 below) is borne out by the few and fat petals of its lotuses and palmettes (Fig. 4, p. 117 below); the Columbus Painter's Oinanthe alabastron,105probably not more than a decade later, has petals comparable rather with Xli. The floral fragments X13 and X14, if the rest of the design also resembled X1, could be equally early. What is new is the highly disciplined quality of the design.106 98
It is sometimes asserted that connoisseurs could not establish the contemporaneity of works reflecting different stylistic preferences if their documentation had been lost. Not true. For example, the stylistic evidence for contemporaneity at a date not far from A.D. 1400 and in Florence far outweighs in the trial reliefs for the north doors of its Baptistery the elements of Brunelleschi's independence and Ghiberti's conventionality. 99 CorVP,pp. 205-210. 100 CorVP,pp. 194-195. 101 The plates S2 and S3, which might prove to be his, are MC plates, but they are later than and in several ways different from the alabastra. I have not seen the Florence alabastron, CorVP,p. 86, A 11, which is singled out as especially late. 102 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 125. 103 Perachora II, at no. 1943, p. 193. '10 See also Amyx 196 la, p. 14, but he makes the whole of the Columbus Painter antecedent. 105
10
CorVP,p. 86, A 12. Corinth VII, ii, p. 85.
84
PATRICIALAWRENCE
The horse protomai on X2, which has a profile like that of XI, only larger,not only still have manes of an EC type107but also, like very early kouroi, are constructed to be graphically rational, to make a horse pattern that is convincing, not because it looks like a horse but because the pattern is clearlystructuredand the traitstypifyinga horse perfectly integrated. This "conceptual"way of drawing (or carving, or modeling) is Early Archaic. The last horse-protomai plate, L14, requires description in quite different terms. Both X1 and X2 on the bottom have only a pair of narrowrings near the center and a pair near the foot molding, all in plain glaze-paint. Distinguishable from the last two by their more developed ring patterns, slightly more sophisticated profiles, and altogether masterlydrawing, six plates by the Chimaera Painter and the earliest work showing his influence are still extremely early and, I judge, all still closer to ca. 600 than to ca. 590 B.C.'08 These are X4-X9, V3, V4, and RI. The Cincinnati plate, X4, and X5, which is like it, must be the earliest of the plates displaying a feline, those on which the Chimaera Painter's fame rests. Which of the Columbus Painter'salabastrashould be most nearly contemporary? The early ones, like Syracuse, M.N. 34993,109 have small-headed lions with short ruffs, and their mid-EC filling ornament also puts them out of consideration. Of the well published lions, those of London, B.M. A 1399 and Athens, N.M. 12721,110with large heads, long ruffs, almost mannered shoulders, and abundant white-dot embellishment, seem latest; they do not even have double lines in the shoulder,and the filling ornament is most evolved. These, in fact, should be later than X4, where the ruffis a little shorter,the shouldersand neck are less hefty,and the leaf-shapedshoulderactuallyderivesfrom early ColumbusPainterlions, like those on Syracuse,M.N. 34993. The requisitedevelopmentis found in the lions of the ring-footed "Columbus"alabastra, Delos B 6322 and Louvre MNB 629,1,i whose ruffs just overlap the shoulder,which is divided by a double line; their foreleg markingsalso are more similar to those on X4, and the sobriety of the style more consonant; white dots are absent. The ring-footed alabastron, unlike the flat-bottomed aryballos, was only a passing fad in Corinth;112significantly,the experiment can be linked with the birth of a new style. The New Yorkchimaera, X6, is placed next, because the eight rosettes,now all double centered (X4 has one simple rosette),are so similar;so is the plate itself. But the chimaera has a longer neck, shorter nose, shallower mouth, straighter tongue, a twice-divided 107 Like ]ecrocorinthia, p. 72, fig. 18:C and D, as opposed to fig. 18:E and F; this is not the only kind of EC mane (an enclosed area divided into horizontalor diagonal bands),but it is one that ceased to be used as MC style established itself. 108 In what follows, I shall use dates with what may seem "viciousprecision"(note 97, p. 82 above), since a concise mode of expressionis required. What is to be understoodis that (a)I accept a chronology similarto Payne's and to that used for early Attic black figure, and (b) I use the "dates"ca. 600, ca. 590, and so on, as a graduated scale. This understandingof the only concise way of expressingdevelopment/time is implicit in every date that I give. 109 CorVP,p. 85, A 6. 110 CorVP,p. 85, A I and A 3. 1 CorVP,p. 86, A 13 and A 14. 12 Amyx 1961a, p. 14, on their contemporaryinvention.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
85
shoulder, and more angular haunches than the lioness on X4.113 Everything on X6 is a little more elegantly accomplished, on X4 a little more dynamically compact. Both still have the Columbus Painter'steardroppouch below the lion's eye (so has X5), but on the chimaera the ruff is elaborated in the pattern characteristicof the Chimaera Painter's early lions.114 The Louvre lioness plate, X7, is smaller,but the decorative banding on the rim and around the floor is uniquely heavy and rich in added red. The rings on the bottom 15also are experimental. The profile is exactly comparablewith that of X6, but the lioness'shead looks earlier than that of the New Yorkchimaera;the powerfullowerjaw and deep mouth, the eyebrow incision which only on X7 corresponds to the paint contour of the brow, the small round ear, all look very early,but the ruffand neck are longer than on X4, and so is the lioness's body. The red in the forelegs,116the red-dotted tail, and the fat (early)lotus bud all are unique, although the snake part on X6 also has red dots, and the absence of rosettes suggests an external influence. X8 is fragmentary and inadequately published, but the long-shanked forelegs and the treatment of the lioness's belly recommend placing it with X7."17 The CarrouselPainter'sV3 and V4, whose profilesare early,118also belong here. The Carrousel Painter, who on V1 and V2 used so much nondescript filling ornament, on V3 uses only two large rosettes on the face and one on the bottom, all three carefully drawn and double centered; V4 has only a single double-centered rosette, in the frieze on the bottom. V3 and V4 also have smaller central medallions than V2 and rays with attenuatedpoints, and one panther on the bottom of V4 is seated heraldicallywith a raised foreleg.119All these traits show that they are later than V2; the tiny heraldic panther and, especially,the void field must reflectthe same influence or shift in taste that was responsible for X7. The influence would have to be that of the Chimaera Painter, for the Painter of Louvre E 574 did not use raised forelegs, and his earliest surviving work must be a little later. The relationshipof X9 to X4-X7 has alreadybeen discussed(p. 59 above)tojustify the attribution. This is the Chimaera Painter'searliestworkwith amoeboid forms below lions' eyes (PI. 39; his early plates show him rapidly replacing inherited formulas), the earliest that certainlyhas an elaborate composition of two lions, one repeated more naturalistically on X37. Here at a date still close to X2 and on a plate with an early MC profile, the 113
We cannot say whether the ruff overlapped the shoulder or was tucked behind it on X6 because the only important restorationon the plate is just there. 114 On the bottom, X4 adds to the two pairs of narrow rings inherited from plates like X2 a single narrow red ring at the center and another intermediate between the pairs of black rings. The very large bottom of X6 has three pairs of similar narrow black rings and between the inner pairs a red band equal in width to a black pair. 115 CVA,Louvre 6 [France9], pl. 8 [392]:4. 116 The Louvre plates are free of retouches; all the added red is original. 117 The curious arrangement of the survivingparts suggests that the subject may have been two lionesses, perhaps as on X9. 118 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, pp. 125-126. 119 Ibid.,p. 129, fig. 6, bottom.
86
PATRICIALAWRENCE
artist already eliminates the manes, as on X37 (the design is fussy enough without them), but still drawssharp molars, as on X4, X5, and X7; the rosettes(so far as X9 is preserved) are already in the same places as on X37, although one might be dated ca. 595, the other ca. 580 B.C. On X9 as on the horse-protomaiplate X2, however, the topknots are level; also, as those horses' forelegs are level and crossed symmetrically,these lions' tails intertwine in a symmetrical pattern and rise straight on axis, right between the heads, with their tips together, level, right between the rosettes. The later plate, X37, like the later horse-protomaiplate, L14, modifies and naturalizesall this, while retaining the old compositional motif The Riehen Painter'sR1, whose lions are directlyinspiredby such as on X4-X9, and by no others, cannot be appreciably later than these plates. It thus stands earlier than known aryballoi by the Chimaera Painter. X21, a fragment preserving only a panther's face (P1.44), is obviouslyearlierthan X25 and might, since the amoeboid forms under the eyes are still unspecializedand large as on X9, be placed here by the criterionof the incised work alone, but I have listed it closer to the complete aryballos,X25, because the missing body and floral centerpiece might not have looked quite so early as the face does.120 Developments duringtheChimaera Painter's EarlyMaturiy His namepiece, L1, is surelythe earliestworkthat we possess by the Painter of Louvre E 574; the size alone warns us not to place it too early relative to the later work of the Columbus Painter.121At this point the lions on London, B.M. A 1399 and Athens, N.M. 12721,122which, like L1, have white dots123and a grandiose manner, are relevant. In the numerous, parallel incised arcs on the lion's muzzle (London)we may even see the pupil's influence on the teacher,who might well have been impressedbut never sufficiently to discard his evolved but essentially EC filling ornament. The Painter of Louvre E 574, always faithful to his teacher'scrosshatchedmane and long-jawedlion face with a curling tongue, and to the shoulderdivided by a double line, later refinedthe shape of the shoulder (L4, L7) and developed, step in step with the ChimaeraPainter,the markingsof the forelegs and theirjoint at the shoulder.124Li, which is undeveloped in these respects,can be only a little later than X4-X7; it could be contemporarywith X9. From the beginning, the artistsworkedin very differentmanners. The elegance and elongation on Li are innate in the Painter of Louvre E 574, not a sign of advanced date. The Zurich aryballos,R2,125by the Riehen Painter,standsin the same relationshipto Li as R1 does to X4-X9. The lion's head, shoulder,and forelegspresupposethe existence 120
Well I does not provide evidence for an exact chronologicalplacement; Corinth XV, XV, ii, p. 22; Corinth iii, p. 7. 121 It is as tall as DdlosX, no. 451, pls. XXXIII, LXVII (CorVP, p. 89, no. 2), and should be as late. None of the Columbus Painter'salabastrais quite so tall. 122 CorVP,p. 85, A I and A 3. 123 The "ghosts"of white dots, bounded by parallel incised lines, are visible on Li but not in photographs. They are used less lavishly than on L7. 124 Six lions on three vases, Li, L4, and L7, have the same ruff, certainly his own invention; on L8 the lions' heads are not preserved. 125 R2 differs in shape and syntax from other flat-bottomed aryballoi in the Chimaera Group; it is also smaller: H. 0. 115. The height of the rest ranges from 0. 15 m. to more than 0. 17 m.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
87
of lions as on Li; the hindquartersand tail are composed as on L7, an aryballos, but the simplicity of the foreleg markingsand the shoulder requiremodels very early in the career of the Painter of Louvre E 574, as on L1. The Selinous plate, S1, should be no later; the gorgoneion certainly is MC, and the lion protomai have ruffsthat bespeak the activity of the Painterof Louvre E 574, but the horse protomai are still designed in terms similarto those of X2, and the lions' heads, apart from the ruffs, are perhaps more closely akin to those of the Columbus Painter.126Similarly,another exceptional plate, remotely related to the Chimaera Group, has a very early-lookingprofile'27 and an early MC palmette chain on the rim. For the Chimaera Painter himself, this stage, probably centering on ca. 590 B.C.) is represented by X10-X12 and X15-X17. The profiles of these plates (see p. 102 below) are discernibly more developed than those of X4-X9. The Ny Carlsberg plate, X10, is placed first because its nearly complete preservationand ambitious figural decoration provide grounds for accurate relativeplacement. The Medallion Painter'sgreat oinochoe in Palermo128 must be just contemporary;if its Potnia'shead might be earlier,that of the sphinx beside her probably could not (its new elegance makes one remember that Li also is contemporary), and no other animal alien to the Chimaera Group is developmentally so comparable with the goat on the bottom of X10 as the ram facing an owl on the middle frieze of the Palermo oinochoe.129 Still, X10 could hardly be the earlier of the two, since the Chimaera Painter's Potnia has a composite headband and a separate tress of hair issuing from behind the ear. On the other hand, her skull, the separation of the neck from the underchin, and the placement of the ear all are very much less advanced than on the Medallion Painter's "classicMC" namepiece, Boston, M.EA. 12.422.130 A famous Potnia, no earlier than X10, is on Payne'sNC 381,131one of a very few alabastra larger than Li; once the process had begun, very little time would be required for the attractive late EC style of NC 380132 to become the garish and overladen travesty of NC 381. Its actual date must be close to that of X10, while NC 380 is probably earlier than the Columbus Painter's ring-footed alabastra.133 The Potnia's face on NC 381, indeed the whole style, has evolved from its EC beginnings;there is scarcely a hint of fresh 126
See p. 80 above.
127 128
Corinth C-64-388; Corinth VII, ii, no. 153, pl. 27. CorVPp. 195, A 9, pl. 77.
129
Amyx 1961b, pl. 10:c.
30 CorVP,p. 195, A 3, pl. 76:a-c. 131
DdlosX, no. 451 (seenote 121,p. 86 above).The artistis calledthe TaucheiraPainter,afterTocra31 (CorVP, p. 90, no. 1). The TaucheiraPainteris one hand in the LuxusGroup;on the non-viabilityof "White-DotStyle"as a stylisticcategory,see CorVP, p. 87. 132 DdlosX, no. 450, pl. XXXIII. This alabastronis unattributed in Amyx'sLuxusGroup(CorVP, p. 91, The LuxusGroup:Unattributed Vases,no. 1);if I haveunderstoodhisremarks(CorVP, p. 89, The Taucheira Painter) correctly, he thinks that Payne did not mean to say that NC 380 represents the starting point of
"White-DotStyle";thereare manytypographicalerrorsin ]ecrocorinthia, but, as my own remarksshow,I do not thinkthat this is one of them. NC 380 (DilosX, no. 450) is by a differenthand, but I agreewith Paynethatits stylewasthe startingpointforthe Luxusdevelopment.My currentworkin the LuxusGroup promisesclarificationof the relativepositionsof NC 380 and 381. 133
CorVPp. 86, A 13-A 15.
88
PATRICIALAWRENCE
MC ideas, and only mindlessnesscan account for the scrambledlines in the swans' wings. Swans significantlymore comparablewith those held by the ChimaeraPainter'sPotnia are seen on the Columbus Painter'slate alabastrain London and Athens,just compared with Li.'34 The London swan has an elegance, differentfrom all his others, that belongs to this time. All these parallelsconfirm the placement derived from the Chimaera Painter's goats alone (see pp. 61-62 above), that X10 falls between X6 and X28 but is closer to the former, as its goat's peculiar eyes, paralleled only on X2, would suggest. On X10, the evidence of the figure work is so many-sided and complete that the figure work must date the profile of the plate, which then can be used to control the placement of poorly preserved pieces. X10 is the first plate in the list with a comparatively level rim, not slanting as in EC (some Protocorinthianplates had nearly upright rims).'35 The floral plates X11 and X12 are near replicas, except that the curled tendrils(with red dots that recall those on the lioness's tail, X7, and the chimaera's snake, X6) are omitted on X12, where the lotus sepals also have a more pronounced outward curve, and all the petals are tipped with small nubs, which either go back to that on the bud of X7 or are borrowed from contemporary floral aryballoi among the later products of the Lion Group.'36 The Catania plate, accordingly,could be the later of the two, but the pattern on the bottom and the profile are unknown,'37and so it is placed tentatively here with X11. The three almost equally spaced broad bands on the bottom of X11 already appeared on X9, but here the second band is overpainted red to complement the color on the foot and rim moldings. Where X1, X13, and X14 (PI.38) had five petals on each of the preservedlotus and palmette, X1 1 has eight and nine on the lotuses, twelve and fourteen on the palmettes (which, however,are proportionatelylarger in this design); the Columbus Painter'slate alabastronof Oinanthe has already been compared.'38 For such a large plate, X11 has a crudely turned profile, resembling V2 and V3 (only two thirds its size) in this as in the slanting, early MC, angle of the rim. The profile of X16 (Fig. 1, p. 100 below) shows that it cannot be much later than X9; this rim is only slightly more curved. Unfortunately,the center of the plate, with most of the sphinx'sbody and its wings, is lost, and the stylisticdevelopment hard to judge. The forelegs could be very early indeed, and the pattern of paired black and single red narrow bands on the bottom is that of X4. But the flame-shaped "Volomandralocks" over the brow, though in an undeveloped form compared with those on X30, should not be quite so early,and the squared-offterminationof the fall of hair also is paralleled, in the CorVP,p. 85, A 1 and A 3; Amyx 1961a, Beil. 6:1 and 2. VII, ii, pl. 112. Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, figs. 10-1 4; see also Corinth p. 146, 136 CorVP,p. 118; the floralcomplexes with nubs on the petals are illustratedby Payne (Necrocorinthia, 59:A). fig. fig. 53:B; p. 151, fig. 57:B and C; p. 152, 137 The plate, with X8, belongs to a votive deposit which is in storage in the Museo Communale and has received only preliminary publication. The deposit (Rizza 1960) includes a good deal of pottery later than either of these plates. 138 CorVP, p. 86, no. 12. In Attic, compare the floral cross on Vari Krater B (Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, pls. 19cr,19p)with those of the next generation (Scheibler 1961, pp. 1-47), especially the amphora Louvre E 817 (ibid.,p. 2, fig. 2, and p. 14, fig. 17). The floral work and sphinxes here, as Scheibler's list (p. 20) suggests,arejust earlierthan the Gorgon dinos, Louvre E 874. X11 could be as late as the amphora Louvre E 817; the floral work on the Gorgon dinos seems to me slightly later. 134 135
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
89
Group, only on X30.139 The drawing, on the other hand, is much more formal than on the namepiece, X28, or X30 (more nearly comparablewith X10), and the sphinx'sprofile looks even earlier. On X15 (P1.38), also, the drawingis formal and sturdy,resemblingthat on X16, and the squarish lotus flower could be quite early; too little is left of the griffin to suggest its relative position in terms of the relative development of this creature. The paired narrow rings on the bottom, so far as preserved, also are like those on X16, and their curvatureshows that X15 was as large a plate. Another difficultplacement,'40 that ofthe intact kotyle-pyxisX17 (Pls.40, 41), can be reduced to similar terms; it is "still early" Chimaera Painter,bearing traits that preclude placing it much earlier or later. The vase, with its lid, cannot be nearly so late as Payne's NC 974A,141 the latest kotyle-pyxisknown to him, which has a domed lid, squat body, and proportionatelybroad foot; its black-figurestyle also is advanced MC, and the palmette, lotus, and tendril ornament on the lid (the lotus with splayedcalyx, splayed sepals)is much more advanced than the floral pieces on Xli and X12. It cannot be nearly so early as Payne's later-EC example, NC 700,142 where the conical lid complements the tall vase with a narrow foot. The lid of X17 is no longer conical but is only incipiently domed, while the vase is still fairly tall143 but broader footed than NC 700. The lid certainly belongs to the vase, so the relative date cannot be earlier than the frieze on the lid will allow; it is the animal frieze on the vase that looks very early and recalls the Carrousel Painter'sV3 and V4. The lions on the lid of X17 are small, yet all have eyes fully surroundedby amoeboid shapes; on larger lions this feature appears first on X18. They have shallower mouths than any really early lion, comparable again with X18, and it is first on X18 that we see a really sharp-tipped leaf-shaped shoulder, which is used consistently on X17, sometimes divided by a double line, so that Hopper thought of the Dodwell Painter,144 and sometimes reduced to a sliver for want of space, but always in its developed form, not as on X4-X7 but as on X18, X28, and on X25 (Pls. 42:a, 43:a) and X29 (P1.45:a), aryballoi in mature style, and on the pyxides with female heads, X26 and X39 (Pls. 47:a, b, 48:a, d). Where it has a double line, this fits the shoulder more as on the Painter of Louvre E 574's L4 and L7 than as on L1, where the placement of the double line still recalls the Columbus Painter'susual practice. Yet the vase shape of X17 urgesplacing it as early as possible, and the friezes of X26 are not only more consistent in style but also clearly related to work more mature than X18. The lekanoid bowl X18, then, exhibits innovations that, with its ruff borrowed from the Painter of Louvre E 574 (the sharp locks continued inside the ear are the Chimaera 139 Hair rendered in this way, in both Attic and Corinthian, however,is not new; it is, rather,old-fashioned. As a simplification of a vase-painterly rendering of one kind of Daedalic wig, it is commoner in the late 7th than in the early 6th century. 140 The present assessment supersedesmy placement of the kotyle-pyxisas among the Chimaera Painter's earliest works (Lawrence 1959, p. 362; 1963, p. 185). 141 Copenhagen, N.M. Chr. VIII 867; CVA,Copenhagen 2 [Denmark 2], pl. 89 [90]:7. 142 Necrocorinthia, pl. 22:5. 143
The total height, 0.225 m., consequently, although the lid is lower, is 0.01 m. greater than that of NC 974A. The diameters (without handles) of X17 and NC 974A are the same: 0.21 m. '4 R. Hopper, 'Addenda to Necrocorinthia,"BSA 44, 1949 [pp. 162-257], pp. 167, 224.
90
PATRICIALAWRENCE
Painter'sown idea) and probablyalso the zigzag on the nose, make it pivotal. It is an ideal ruffs.145It is also slightly more loosely drawn model for certain Attic lions with Ohrlock than any of the foregoing large felines. X19, a plate fragment from Kameiros in Bonn, preservesthe lion's ear and part of the ruff,which is exactly like that on X18. The bottom has the broad bands of X9 and Xli. The rosette,like those on X18, is not quite so tightly drawn as on really early work. At this point, we may consider several pieces that cannot be early but seem less advanced than X25 or X28; severalof them are fragments. X21 (P1.44) is not only neater than X25, but the amoeboid shapes around the eyes look earlier,146and the head from ear to ear is narrower. The plaque fragment from the Potters' Quarter, X23, preserves still less, but that little does not seem necessarily earlier than X28, though fastidiously executed. The double-sided plate fragment X24 might be as late as X28 and X30, but its style surely requires placing it considerably earlier than L5 and L6, for which it or similar plates will have been prototypes. The snake parts preserved on X24 are of the same kind, with scale borders along the sides of each trunk, as on L4-L6, but the borders on X24 are still rather wide, with proportionatelylarge scales; compare Payne's NC 97 (Transitional)and NC 531 (EC).147 The smaller New York plate, X22, has a rather level, not especially early-looking profile. As with the connoisseurship,so for chronology,everything depends on the man's head (the pattern on the back is of a type148that, once established,remainedpopular for a considerable time), and the head may be as close to X16 as to X30. Finally,L2, the aryballos that cleaning rescued for the Painter of Louvre E 574, has the fully MC composition with a full-size creaturefirmly planted on the same groundline as the flanking felines, as on L4 and L7, not a smaller bird or hare or diminutive siren, as in the traditionfrom the Painterof Palermo 489149to the ColumbusPainterand even to Li; that creature, furthermore, is a griffin-bird. On the other hand, the tolerably well preserved sphinx at right (P1.50) quite lacks the sophisticatedform that distinguishesL7 and L9; L4 has lions with meager bodies, but the sphinx's hindquarterson L2 are still more meager. Her head is closer to those on L7 and L9 than to that of the little siren on Li. 145 S. Papaspyridi-Karusu,"Sophilos,"AM 62 1937, pis. 45, 47 (KX Painter,ABV,p. 24, nos. 1, 7), 53, 60, 62 (Sophilos,ABV,pp. 38-40, nos. 1, 2, 16) and G. Bakir 1981, pls. 11, 16, 19, 26, 46 provide a sampling of photographs that show this featureclearly. The Ankaraspouted bowl, Baklr'sno. A 19, probablyrepresents direct borrowing from a lion by the Chimaera Painterat exactly the time of X18. I agree with Bakir(op.cit., p. 52) that it is specifically from the Chimaera Painter that Sophilos borrowed Corinthian elements. The enclosed sawtooth ruff was the invention of the Painter of Louvre E 574, but there is no hint of the latter artist'sstylistic influence in Sophilos's work, and whatever the relationshipamounted to in actuality,it was the Chimaera Painter who had real connections with his Attic contemporaries. 14 Those on X25 have been assimilatedto the (originallyAttic) amoeboid cells proper to lions' eyes, as on X18 and X28; those on X21 are designed for the frontalpanther'sface. See p. 68 above with note 48. 147 Necrocorinthia, pls. 15:4, 24:1. 148 Lawrence 1959, pl. 89: fig. 16. The decoration of the underside with broad bands alternating with reservedbands of approximatelythe same width extends in the Chimaera Painter'scareer from X9 to X38. 149 CorVP,pp. 58-60; Necrocorinthia, pl. 15:7-9, 11.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
91
Developments duringtheChimaera PaintersFullMaturiy The next series includes the most typical examples of the Chimaera Painter'smaturity and the Painter of Louvre E 574's prime aryballoi: X25, X26, X28, L4, L7, and X29X33. Fourteen other pieces are to be grouped with them, but the length of the list seems to testify rather to intense activity (or selective accidents of preservation)than to a long period. I suppose them all to have been made within a period expressible as ca. 590 to ca. 580 B.C. but without requiringa whole decade for the development that they represent. This is the time when the Chimaera Group is most obviously a working entity. The Gela aryballos, X25, already has been singled out for comparison with the Vienna chimaera plate, X28.150 The chimaera is better work; the Chimaera Painter did not handle stronglyconvex surfacesso happily as the Painterof Louvre E 574 and gave his best efforts to plates. But they tally in trait after trait and share a striking new sobriety due to the reduction or elimination of the pretty,double-curvedcontours that characterize the glaze-paint silhouettes on X4-X7 and even on X18. G2 presupposesan aryballoslike X25 but not such as L4, L7, and X29; coming from the same site, it is not impossible (or even unlikely) that G2 and X25 left Corinth in a single shipload. R3 is a very similar vase, evidently by the same potter at about the same time, but its provenience is unknown. The triplet plates, K1-K3, two of them from Kameiros but the third from Corinth, with K3 bis and the bowl K4, whether or not they eventuallyprove to be by the Chimaera Painter, belong to this stage in the Group's development, as comparison with the lotusand-palmette centerpieces on X25 (P1.42:b) and X29 reveals. Like the felines, they are more boldly conceived and less deliberatelypretty than their early MC predecessorsX11 and X12. On K2, the pattern on the bottom of the plate is exactly as on Xli, X19, and X22; K1 has a differentring pattern that is equally typical of the Group. The profilesalso differ.151 G1, G3, and G4 are less distinguished than X25; they have no traits of late MC but are just as remote from the early freshness of X1, so best placed here, especially since G1 preserves the same floral pattern as G2.152 The Hermitage pyxis, X26, must be contemporary with X25 and X28. That its female heads have been called "earlyMC" may mean either that its stylisticdevelopment is to be placed as close as possible to ca. 590 (and all the preceding development conceived as rapid evolution requiring not much more than a decade, as indeed is not impossible)or that the mold represents a type that was created somewhat earlier than its occurrence on this vase.153Certainly its plastic heads are of an earliertype than those on X39 (PI.49). 150
Lawrence 1959, p. 352.
151 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 143, fig. 17:57 (K2) and 59 (K1). The Louvre plate, K2, is the finest of the three in all respects. The correspondence of the concave back of the rim to its curved surface and the perfect toruses of the foot and rim moldings representfine craftsmanship. 152 Amyx (CorVP, p. 174, no. 10) says that G3 is "like the foregoing" (K1-K3); its style and manner are indeed rathersimilar,but the pattern is built on rings instead of knotted loops; that is, on the design structure of G1, with lotuses substitutedfor two of the palmettes. Callipolitis-Feytmans(1962, p. 135) compares the "luxe d'entrelacs"of K1-K3 with Attic work;this has special relevance if they prove to be by the Chimaera Painter. 153 Students of terracotta figurines will vouch for the likelihood of the second alternative;when one dates such a head, it is the type from which the mold derives that is dated.
92
PATRICIALAWRENCE
The sirenpainted on the shoulder,154if that partalone were preservedas a fragment,would be placed squarely in the middle of MC; the general character of the style is paralleled by the Dodwell Painter'sbroad-bottomedoinochoe in Rio dejaneiro ratherthan his early work, e.g., the Dodwell pyxis itself, or his latest style.'55 The attributionto the Chimaera Painterwas based originallyon comparisonswith workat this stage,156but the Boreadson X31-X33, not then availablefor study,are especiallylike that on the shoulder of X26.157 The "sobriety"and "weight"of the animals and the close similarity of the goats' heads to that on X28 also confirm its placement here. The fragmentof a pyxis, X27, in as much as it preserves,resemblesX26. The innovative character of the Vienna chimaera, X28, has always been recognized. It is still true that any lion's head with a ruff drawn in this way must reflect its artist's awareness of the Chimaera Painter'smature work. A technical observation suggests that X28 was the first, or one ofthe first,pieces on which he used it. The ChimaeraPaintermust have drawnvery many felines by the time that he decoratedthe Vienna plate. Accordingly, it is not surprisingthat among all the masterlyincised configurationson the plate there is no sign of preparatory sketching except in the innovative ruff, where, with raking light, indented sketching under the paint is clearly visible, and we can observe how the artist perfected the curvature and distributionof the individual locks in the final execution.158 The ruff really is new and special. The plate itself is finished with unusual care; it was perfectly recentered for turning and banding, the turning is exact, comparable, for once, with fine Attic work, it is the only plate in the Groupwith two grooves,instead of one, at the edge of the rim, and the banding is related to these grooves most precisely.'59It is only a medium-sized plate, and the back has only the pattern of black and red broad bands (with carefullyadjusted spacing,just as on X 1),160 but everything suggests that the artist took uncommon pains with it; justly it is his namepiece. Its profile, concomitantly, also may be regarded as classic for the Group and as markingthe midpoint in MC development. Two pieces with lions' ruffs that presuppose that of X28 are S2 and S3, the strange plates surprisinglysimilarto the style of the Columbus Painter;otherwise, in the structure of the lions' heads and in the fillingornament, they are conservativework. The shape of the raised forepaws, however,and their markingsare best paralleled on X25 (Pls. 42:a, 43:a). Similarly,the development of the amoeboid forms around the eyes on L3 presupposes panther faces as on X25 ratherthan X21 (PI.44). It is doubtful, too, that any artist in the Lawrence 1959, pl. 90: figs. 18, 19. Amyx 1971, pis. 1 (the Dodwell pyxis), 6 (the Rio vase), 3 (late),and 4: fig. 1 (late). Lawrence 1959, p. 355. 157 Ibid.,pl. 91: figs. 21, 22. 158 On no other piece, under magnificationand with the plate in hand, have I observed the artist similarly engaged in perfecting a design. 159 The grooves are not simple V-gouges; the inner face of each groove is vertical, perpendicular to the surface on which the plate rests, so that they provide two steps down to the round molding of the rim. The molding has red over black, as usual, but very accuratelyapplied. Just above each groove on the surface of the rim is a black line, that above the outer groove less than one millimeter wide, that above the inner a little less than two. 160 To obtain the effect of painted and reservedbands all of the same width, the bands are widened slightly as the circles expand. 154 155 156
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
93
Group would have made the panther's head quite so wide between the ears at an earlier date. L3, unfortunately,preserves nothing of the rim profile, but the simple banding on the bottom does not require a late date, and the panther's head (P1.51) is still far from the perfected manner of its comparandum on L1i or even the panthers on L9. The aryballoi L4 (P1.52) and L7 by the Painter of Louvre E 574 bear lions which, if less magnificent than the pair on L1, are more refined and have more advanced details. The double line in the shoulder now responds exactly to the calculated curvature of the enclosure of the shoulder;the forelegshave perfect ladder markingscomparablewith those on X25161 and X29. Something like ladder markings,but tentative, occurs first on X4, but in their final, characteristicform they belong to this and later stages in the Chimaera Group, occurring even on one of the small lions on X26.162 The arched marking on the front of the foreleg, inherited from the Columbus Painter,in combination with ladder marks, appears first on L4 and L7; this compound configuration is conspicuous on all subsequent felines by the Painter of Louvre E 574 or directly influenced by his work. Otherwise the lions on L4 and L7 are conservative, retaining the enclosed sawtooth ruff, gaping jaws, and long, curling tongue based directly on the Columbus Painter'sEC tradition. The aryballoi themselves resemble X25, G2, and R3. Another aryballos of the same kind is X29 (P1.45); its relative chronological position is plain, since its lions are directly and immediately influenced by felines such as the chimaera on X28 and the lions on L4 and L7.163 The Chimaera Painter's aryballoi all have floral centerpieces,164the two that are complete very similar; these seem to be contemporary with K1-K3. The Painter of Louvre E 574's L4 and L7 (like L2 and L9) have large figures between the felines: a siren (L7) developmentally comparable, in its proportions, with the Chimaera Painter'sX30, and a Typhon (L4)which helps in dating L5 and L6. Yet another aryballos, the Riehen Painter'sR4,165 can hardly be earlier than X29 and L7. The attribution of X30 was argued on its intimate relationship to X28.166 Now the evidence of the equally broad individual locks in the lions' ruffs on X29 and the equally solid bodily proportions of the siren on L7 may be added to confirm that this is also its relative chronological placement. The potter's work sets X30 apart; it has a single foot molding, and the rim slants upward. The upward slant is matched on the floral plate K1 (which is not for that feature to be thought earlier than its finer replica K2), but the whole fabric of X30 is atypical and unusuallydelicate, even compared with another plate, X37, that is equally small;we must allow for personal differencesand experimentation. 161
Since the firstpublication of X25, a fragment in the forepartof the seated panther has disappeared;for these ladder markings, the original publication (reproduced in Necrocorinthia,p. 305, fig. 140 bis) must be consulted. 162 Lawrence 1959, pI. 90: fig. 19. 163 The Mormino aryballoiwere separately acquired, and there is nothing to suggest that they came from one tomb, cemetery, or site. 164 The tip of a lotus petal in the expected position near the panther's face is preserved on X21. 165 Examining R4 I thought (withoutusing ultravioletlight or any laboratorytest) that the added red paint and perhaps also the glaze-paint had been touched up by a restorer,but I saw no evidence that the contours of the figures or the incisions had been affected. 166 Lawrence 1959, pp. 351-352.
94
PATRICIALAWRENCE
The head of the Boread on X31 is very close to that of the male siren on X30. It is perhaps slightlylater,since the eye is not quite so large, and the brow and waves framing the face are a little less boldly drawn. The development is towards the Berlin Boread, X34, but that plate represents something new (see below). The pattern of large scales on the bodice and the radiating lines in the skirt of the tunic on X31 are paralleled rather by the Boread on the Hermitage pyxis, X26. Both of these traits recur on the fragment X32, a near replica of X31; X33 also must be contemporary. These Boreads have exceptionally massive limbs, even for the Chimaera Painter. Labels are pernicious; "majestic"lions, "heavy" style, and "monumentality"'67all have obscured real criteria and blurred distinctionsin this context of Middle Corinthian. With the proviso that they are not labels, I would emphasize the boldness and sobriety of the formal design and drawing in this phase of the Chimaera Group'sdevelopment. LateWork Painter's withtheChimaera Developments Contemporary The plates X34 and L5 (as well as L6) should be contemporary and later than the foregoing. At this point, if not before (if L3 is not earlier), both of the major artists were decorating plates, at a date which (if we respect Payne's placement of X39,168 a vase that is late in but not at the end of MC) will not be later than ca. 580 B.C. L5 preserves only the floor of a smallish plate, about the same size as X34, whose profile, with the rim strongly bent back and very hollow on the underside (cf. X38, and see p. 103 below), must be relativelylate in MC. The attributionof X34 as certainly by the Chimaera Painter has been reviewed (pp. 61-62 above); the influence of the Painter of Louvre E 574, especially of his taste, can be admitted at this date, comparing L5 with X34 and in the light of the relationshipof X29 to L7. The Boread on X34 is less vigorous and more carefullydisposed in the tondo than those on X31-X33; the design is tightened up. The comparison with the Gorgon in the Corfu pediment,'69 with similarproportions and self-containment,suits only this one Boread by the Chimaera Painter. Those on X26 and X31-X33 are not trim enough, and the one on X39 (PI. 47:d) is too long limbed and loose-jointed, too naturalistic.170The suggestionthat his companion'spersonal taste, not Zeitgeistalone, affected the design of X34 is borne out by borrowed details, zigzags across the shoulders of the Chimaera Painter'sBoread on X34, a meandering line in the same position on his companion's Typhon on L5. And they have used the same kind of beard (originally the Chimaera Painter's),but the one with straight and separated, the other with curved and contiguous locks. From now on, the majority of the Painter of Louvre E 574's work also will be on plates. 167 "Heavy style"was once used, not recently,by D. A. Amyx ("Corinthian Vases in the Hearst Collection Publications in ClassicalAntiquiy1, 1943 [pp. 207-232], pp. 217of California at San Simeon," in University 218); "majestic"isJ. L. Benson's (1956, p. 225, is its first appearance in English); I myself harped on "monumentality"and, incidentally,used the word imprecisely(1959, p. 349). Such tags tend to be quoted as if they had real meaning, then elevated to the statusof specious "stylistic"propertiesor categories. 168 p. 307, II, and at NC 892. "Ca.580-570", Necrocorinthia, 169 New York 1957, pl. 15. One good photograph is that in R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, GreekSculpture, 170 Clustering members of a "minorityshape", I misdated the pyxides (Lawrence 1959, p. 362).
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
95
The Corinth bowls, X35 and X36, are hard to date, but several traits in X35, the more fully preserved, argue against placing them with X18; the incised line seems closest to X37 and X38, which, however, have a later type of leg markings. The evolved type of griffinhead on the derivativebowl P2 (P1.53) also arguesagainst clusteringall the bowls around the date of X18. The fragments of larger lekanoid bowls (Q1 being larger than any of the earlyAttic lekanai from Anagyrous171)should be no earlier. P1 has an elaborate panther mask. The animal friezes on Q1 (Pls. 54, 55) are unlikely to be either as late as those on X39 (Pls. 46-48) or contemporarywith X26; they fall between the middle and late years of Middle Corinthian. The Boread or Potnia on Q1, with a long torso and hair in tresses (howeverthey terminated), should not be earlier than X34 and L5.'72 Tentatively,the Riehen Painter'splate, R5, may be placed here. The drawing is a little freer than on R3 but much more disciplinedthan on R6, where the lions provide evidence of lateness. The profile of the plate,'73 with a level rim, need not be much later than X28; the inner foot molding is reduced but by no means as on L14. The treatment of the remarkablesubject matter is so straightforwardand unadorned that there is little to compare developmentallywith more conventional work. The forelegsof the lions on X37 have Chimaera Group markingsmodified-no longer boxed and with discontinuous lines suggesting muscles and sinews-in the direction of naturalism. The same is true, in spite of their highly formal treatment, of the forelegs of the sphinxes and pantheresseson Lii and L12. The rim profile of X37 is strongly curved in section, though less extremely than those of X34 and X38. Most instructivein trying to grasp the change in Greek art that has come about between the dates of early MC and late MC, the date of this plate (already in the 570's?) is a comparison of X37 with X9. On X37, the right-hand lion is raised, which implies that he occupies real space behind the other; the crossed tails are no longer twisted (as if the artist had reflected that twisting was not only spatially impossible but physically painful) and, relative to the suspension holes in the rim, are no longer exactly vertical or exactly centered but lie in the left-hand half of the circle; the lion's topknot is no longer exaggerated, and the cavity of the mouth is small. If the drawing of the forelegs, at right, is confusing, it is because one leg is shown behind the other; so also with the jumbled hindquarters at the bottom. We can hardly doubt from what remains of each that X9 gave a more legible pattern and that by the date of X37 representation of what one sees and knows empirically had priority over a telling pattern. These two plates, like the horse-protomaiplates, even if ancient craftsmen had nothing like pattern books, assure us that models existed in their practice, whether they sketched on the workplace walls, kept some of their products, simply remembered and could reproduce designs on demand-or all three variably. X38 is placed with X37 because its rim is most extremely curved in section and all that remains of the lion's legs resembles those on X37; their position shows that this lion was another traditional type, 171 Papaspyridi-Karouzou 1963, pp. 15-35; the diameters range from 0.305 m. to 0.325 m., except for the Panther Painter'sAthens, N.M. 16356, D. 0.375 m. 172 U3, Rodin TC 899, to judge by the character of the shape and its sepaled palmettes, is probably to be placed here, but judgment is difficultwithout closer comparanda. 173 The plate is remarkablywarped, but the character of the profile is not affected.
96
PATRICIALAWRENCE
posed like the early chimaera on X6. The broad bands on the back are all black, as on X9 and X30 (the choice of somber banding has no chronological significance). Of all the Painter of Louvre E 574's work on closed vases, L8 and L9 most nearly approximate the manner of the famous plates Lii and L12. The forelegs are not longer than on Li but much straighter.The lions on L8 have their tails tucked into the haunch, as on L9, not crossed at the back of the vase. Comparisonof L9 with L7 will make clearer than words can why the latter aryballos rather than L9 is aligned with X28 and X29. L8 and L9 represent a new departure; the fully mature style of the Painter of Louvre E 574 is a formal style, towardswhich this work is one stage. The Rhodes aryballos, U2, might be placed slightly earlier but for a striking trait that it shares with the Chimaera Painter'slast work, on X37 and X39; the same trait occurs on R6. This is the enclosure of a lion's face with a wavy line. Until the Bonn pyxis, X39, could be studied closely, its dating had to rely on the molded heads, although the goat in one photograph looked very late. The chimaera and both lions on X39 (P1.48:a, c, d), small as they are, have the wavy line around the face. The sphinxes have hair in tressesterminating in a rounded tip, as on the Copenhagen sphinxes, Lli, or the siren on L9. The long-legged Boread leans and moves to the right, breakingthe pinwheel design that still sufficed to indicate motion on X34. Every other stroke or configuration in all these creaturesis what the Chimaera Painterhas drawn all his life (Pls.47:b-d, 48), but in the lower frieze (Pls. 46:b, 47:a) the panthers depart from any known model within the Chimaera Group; the goats are a logical development of those on X26, with largerbodies and spindlierlegs, characteristicof this date.174This pyxis is probablythe latest surviving work by the Chimaera Painter (although there is nothing to prove that X37 and X38 are not as late). Payne's date for the pyxis, in the 570's, cannot be far wrong.175 The Chimaera Painter will have worked for about a quartercentury. An identical chronology for Sophilos, obtained by Guven Bakir,176 is confirmed by and confirms the Chimaera Painter's, for both chronologies draw their evidence from both the potters' work and the painters', they were obtained independently,and both artistswith their groups show the same development from exactly the end of Early Archaic through a period which is probably most of the first quarterof the 6th century. E 574 at theBeginning ThePainterofLouvre ofLateCorinthian The Copenhagen plates, Lii and L12, have profiles which must be quite late.177 Their independence oftraditional ChimaeraGrouppractice (theyabjurethe use of rosettes 174 The near self-parodyof some of the GeladakisPainter'sanimals at this date (e.g.,JNecrocorinthia, pI. 29:8; Amyx, "The GeladakisPainter,"Hesperia25, 1956, pl. 28:b, c; Amyx 1971, pls. 11:1, 12:2)is only an extreme example. 175 K. Wallenstein (Korinthische vorChristus,Bonn 1971, p. 49 [and note Plastikdes 7. und 6. Jahrhunderts 172], p. 115, no. IV/A 14, pl. 9:3, 6) places it at 585/575 B.C., among "gesicherte Werke"-that is, he follows Payne for the relative date of both the plastic heads and the vase painting. He justly takes me to task (p. 176, note 172) for failing to distinguish chronologically the heads on X26 and X39. The pyxis Getty 88.AE. 105 (Neeft 1991, p. 50, AP-0) also has interestingheads, but it is not, in my opinion, by the Chimaera Painter. 176 G. Bakir 1981, p. 59. 177 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 134; I would argue only that her CM 62 and CM 67 (X2 and Xli; p. 99, note 190, and p. 102 below) are differentfrom the Copenhagen plates, her CM 63 and CM 64.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
97
but use rayson the rim and seem to adopt designs alien to vase painting)might even suggest that the Painter of Louvre E 574 was at last free to follow his own bent in decorating plates, that so long as the Chimaera Painter was engaged in that work the younger master was somehow constrained by the practice of the elder (X34 and L5 are very much the same kind of plate, and X24 was probably a compositional prototype for L5 and L6). Besides, in terms of the Painter of Louvre E 574's own stylistic development, Lii and L12 seem later than L8 and L9, and the komast on the bottom of L12 can hardly be earlier than those on the Samos Painter'skotyle in Copenhagen.'78 The Syracuse plate with a siren, L10, although comparable in design with X30 and stylisticallyespecially close to L7, cannot be much earlier than Lii, since the siren'shair and headbands are not matched in work earlier than its sphinxes. The same typological criteriamake an earlierdate unlikelyfor the fragment S5, and the palmette chain on S6 so closely corresponds to that on the lid of X39 as to confirm that the beard in separate rippling locks on the other side of the fragment also belongs to this time (S4 preserves too little for interpretation). The fragment by the Painter of Athens 931, SlO, may also be placed here, less because any of the traits that it preserves must be so late than because the comparanda on which the attributionrests179belong to the end of MC, to the post-Dodwell Painter phase of its artist'scareer. The Perachorafloral plate, L13, does not have rays on the rim but is described as hav180 ing a profile comparable with that of Li 1 and incision "resemblingincised metalwork." The rosettes "with double incised centres" in the field around the man and dog on the bottom are paralleled on L15. Thus, unless L3 had none, Lii and L12 are the only figuredplates in the Group altogetherwithout filling ornament. Hopper's description also makes it plain that added red was amply applied (cf. the floral ornament on L8) and that the plate is beautifully finished, like LIi and L12. The "band overlaid with red" on the rim "at its junction with the horizontal portion" recurs on L14 (but on no plate by the Chimaera Painter),where L1 1 and L12 have three narrowlines, the outer two with added red. This is the taste of fine work at the outset of Late Corinthian. The Munich horse-protomai plate, L14, has the latest-looking profile among Chimaera Group plates; the published drawing,'81which looks extreme, actually softens the bend in the rim. Its banding also introduces striking novelties. The pairs of very fine lines in glaze-paint, as fine as in Protocorinthianwork, on the face of the rim inside the groove and just before it bends to meet the floor of the plate, and on the floor coinciding with the four nail holes,182 are unique in the Group. Still more remarkable is the total 178 N.M. Chr. VIII 872; Payne's NC 952; Seeberg 1971, p. 38, no. 203; CorVP,p. 190, A 3; Lawrence
1984, pp. 59-64, pl. 21. The relative date of his later kotylai is given by the Samosfind,to which NC 950 belongs; see Boehlau 1899, p. 62. The same relative, but a lower absolute, date is given by Krantz and Lullies, CVA,Kassel 2 [Germany 38], pp. 11-23, pis. 49-57 [1849-1857]. 179 The Demeter Malophoros fragment, S10, is CorVP,p. 212, A 18; the best comparanda from Amyx's list for this painter are A 15 (AgrigentoS. 2215) and A 16 bis(Ascona Market;later Basel Market),both large bowls which seem to have been inspired by such as Q1 and Q2. 180 R.J. Hopper (at Perachora II, no. 1970, p. 198). 181 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 153, fig. 17:68. 182 Callipolitis-Feytmans(1962, p. 164) observed that the "faible relief" of the foot moldings on L14 is conducive to its being nailed "pas eloigne du mur". I agree. Both the reduced moldings and the minimal treatment of the underside (here truly the back of the plate) were a response to its intended special(?)use.
98
PATRICIALAWRENCE
absence of black underpainting on the back of the plate: not only the two bands (scant pattern) and the foot moldings but the underside of the rim molding (its upper half does have glaze-paint under the red) are in red applied directlyto the clay. Yet the face of L14 is very carefully banded; it is the differentiationthat is novel. The timeworn comparison with the horses of the Francois Vase-all of them-is as valuable as ever; they must be contemporary. The Late Corinthian horses by artistslike the Dionysios Painter,183and their Attic comparanda, are clearlylater;the majority(butnot all) of the horses on Middle Corinthian cups and on kraters not in the red-ground technique seem discernibly less advanced.184 Therefore, this plate and the next are placed ca. 570 B.C. The difference between these horses and those on X2 is practically equivalent to the gulf between the Nessos Painter's or the Panther Painter'shorse protomai and Kleitias's horses.185 By a date which brings us to the earliest kouroi in Richter'sTenea-VolomandraGroup,186 the horse protomai on L14 are drawn so as to suggest solid, plastic forms, even muscles under skin;they hold their heads so that they seem to nod at each other, and their raised forelegs are those of creatures that prance. Only the traditional compositional scheme (and this may be its last appearance in mainland Greek art) is EarlyArchaic. The long-limbed Herakles on the Argos plate, L15, does not look earlier. The plates are hard to compare because L15, although a masterpiece, is a small plate, L14 a large one; they seem to be by differentpotters, too, and L15 has its own innovativepeculiarity, the red and black banding that covers the face of the rim.187 The type of the eagle on the bottom of L15 confirms the suggestion that Attic and Corinthian flying eagles are related,188but it seems unlikelythat the type in question was native to Corinth. The KX Painter had magnificent and more closely similar prototypes in his own tradition.189 The relative chronology has still to be studied adequately, but 183
W E. Kleinbauer, "The Dionysios Painterand the 'Corinthio-Attic'Problem,"AJA68, 1964, pp. 355370, pls. 113-114; CorVP,p. 265. 184 CorVP,pp. 234 (the Memnon Painter),235 (the Athana Painter), 194-195, A 2 (the Medallion Painter), 196-197 (the Detroit Painter), 197-198 (the Cavalcade Painter), 199, A 2 and C 1 (by and related to the Taranto Painter), 201, no. 1 (the bottle signed by Timonidas), 204, nos. 3, 7 (Gorgoneion Group: Unattributed). Where no list numbers are given, most or all of the painter's work includes horses (usually riders). 185 Papaspyridi-Karouzou 1963, no. 16366, pls. 36-38 (ABV,p. 5, no. 8, Paralipomena, p. 11, no. 5); p. 11, no. 7). Forcompletephotographsof the FrancoisVase, see M. Cristofani no. 16361, pl.67 (Paralipomena, and M. Grazia Marzi, Materialiperservreallastoriadel VasoFranfois(BdA,Serie speciale 1, 1980), with Corpus photographicum by Antonello Perissinotto. 186 G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi, 3rd ed., London/New York 1970, nos. 65, 66, which still show more of the period style of the Moschophoros (Akr.624) than intimations of the Rampin Rider (Akr.590). The really difficultquestion is the relativedate of the Volomandrakouros(ibid.,no. 63) himself,within a span estimated as ca. 570-550 B.C. 187 The band on the underside of the rim is paralleledon a fragmentat Corinth, U5, which may be thought to have belonged to a late plate by the Painterof Louvre E 574 because it is very finely finished, has rays on the face of the rim, like Lli and Li2, and in profile looks like a slightly earlier (stronglycurved, rather than bent) version of L14. 188 Schefold 1960, no. III, 92, p. 138, and p. 141 (illus.);also, p. 15, where no. 97 (= R3) is cited as a Corinthian prototype. Rafn (1978, p. 189) developed Schefold'sideas. 189 See note 46, p. 67 above.
GROUPATCORINTH THECHIMAERA
99
the KX Painter'sBasel lekanis is surely earlierthan L15, although the latter,astonishingly, is closer to the Attic prototypes of the late 7th century. Is the venerable design motif accountable for the profuse rosettes? After all, the same artist on L14 kept the central rosette that was traditionalbetween the heads of horse protomai.190The style of drawing, of course, is consistent with the date requiredby the profile face and bodily proportions of Herakles on the face of the plate. The bird, the snake, and the Triton all are adorned with the same very neat, elongated scales as on L5 and LIi. The fragments of a Poseidon plaque from Penteskouphia, L16, are so similar to the Argos Herakles that they must date from the same time, even allowing that part of their likeness resides in the dignity deemed appropriateboth to the hero and to the god. Latest surely is L17, the Gela Typhon aryballos, a LC vase, weak but undeniably by the Painter of Louvre E 574. This pot does not belong with the Chimaera Group aryballoi, its attribution notwithstanding. Contemporaneously, the Laurion Painter191 was producing alabastra and aryballoi that presuppose the tradition of the Chimaera Group, but the Group as a working association no longer existed. No further original and germinal developments come from their tradition. Neither master was still active, and no succession such as gave continuity in Athens from Euthymidesand Phintias to the Phiale Painter, through the Berlin Painter and his pupils, seems to have been provided for in Corinthian workshops. CRITERIAFORTHE CHRONOLOGYOF CHImAERAGROUP PLATEPROFILES DEVELOPMENTAL
In her fundamental article of 1962, Callipolitis-Feytmansagreed specificallywith two of my chronological placements published three years earlier.192The New Yorkplate, X6, has a profile that places it at the beginning of Middle Corinthian, and the Mykonos plate, X37, is late Chimaera Painter and well on in the evolution of plates in the Group. Both of these opinions are fully confirmed now. She did not, however,distinguishsharply between X28 and X7 (her CM 52 and CM 53). We agree that X30 and K2 fall somewhere in the middle of MC and that L12 and L14 are contemporary with the beginning of LC. In other words, the outlines of development, as Rafn made clear,193 are not in question. It was, in fact, Callipolitis-Feytmans'swork that prompted reexamination of the evolution of the several artists' black-figurestyles, this time with twice as much material available to provide criteria and with the profilesand banding of the plates taken together with their figuraldecoration. All the evidence had to be considered at once. With the present results, conflicts can be resolved and, within the Chimaera Group, finer criteriafor relative dating of profilesproposed. The early X6 is the largestplate in the Group, but others of the clearly early plates are also much larger than average, more than 28 centimeters in diameter (X4, X10, X16). 190 Papaspyridi-Karouzou1963, no. 16366, pls. 36-38; no. 16361, pl. 67. Ul and X2 also have central
rosettes.
191 CorVP, pp. 181-183.
192
Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 134, notes 2 and 3.
193 Rafn 1978, pp. 170-173: 'Although I disagree with Callipolitis on a number of minor points, there is
no doubt that the plates in the Chimaera Group ... are very convincingly placed in Middle Corinthian to an extent that supports Hopper's distributionof the pieces over the whole of this period" (p. 173).
PATRICIALAWRENCE
100
X161B
X9~~~~~3
1:I~~-AK Scale
FIG Eal
an
Lat
Midl
Co
ritan
plte
by
thChmeaPitr
poie
n
adn
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
L6
K4
U4
U5
>-EV00t~000ff0Xf~i01
1
U6
Scale 1:1I Fi.. 2. The Chimaera Group: profiles and banding (wherepreserved)
101
102
PATRICIALAWRENCE
These large, early plates are ratherheavy,and they have wide rims;they need them, lest on a large plate the rim seem small relative to its tondo. The widest, heaviest rims are on X6 and X2; the latter is the second largest and the heaviest of Chimaera Group plates. X4 and X6 guarantee that the large, heavy plates are early. Two of them, X2 and X4, have minimal moldings on the edge of the rim. Smaller early plates, X1, X7, X9, have narrowerrims but otherwise are similar: (a) Early MC plates have slanting rims, that is, high clearance; the underside of the rim molding is much farther from the tabletop than the floor of the inside of the plate. (b) The rim is thick at the root to cover both of the foot moldings on the undersideentirely (X1, X1 1), to nearly cover both, or to cover at least half of the inner molding (X7, X9, X16). (c) The foot moldings are not yet evolved to virtualhalf-roundmoldings (contrastK2194); they are usually rounded but not in strong relief Two plates, X9 and X10, have a thick-rootedrim trimmed back at the edge of the tondo; the result is a sharp vertical offset, perhaps transitional to a lighter rim. The Berkeley floralplate, X1 1, is large but incompetentlyturned. It resemblesnot L14 (contrastthe rim moldings)but the tiny plate V2-remarkably, consideringthe 10-centimeter differencein their diameters.195 It could be the work of the same potter (or trimmer). Note that it has a slanting rim (high clearance) without resembling the (quite unrelated) profiles in the later Stavros Group.'96 In any case, we have shown above why the floral cross on X11 cannot be pushed very far into the 6th century.197 One of the foregoing, X10, otherwise like X9, has a more nearly level rim. In the period that may be called "still fairly early in MC", the slant of the rim is not consistent and at the root it covers about half of the inner foot molding. The rim and foot moldings are better rounded. The Vienna plate, X28, is the classic mid-MC Chimaera Group profile. X22, X30, K1, and K2 (the profileof K3 is not published)have approximatelycontemporaryprofiles; R5 is surely no earlier. This profile has developed from the type of X9 and X10. (a) The rim is level; on well made plates like X28 and K2, the floor of the inside of the plate is about the same distance from the tabletop as the undersideof the rim molding. (b) The rim may still cover more than the outer molding (X28) but typically only a little more (K1, K2). (c) The moldings are well defined half-rounds. (d) Although the over- and underside of the rim are almost parallel in profile, there is no strong bend, no real hollowing out of the underside as on later plates; the rim is remarkablystraight, usually level, still relativelyheavy. 194
Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 57, p. 153.
'95 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 149, fig. 15:10 (V2), p. 153, fig. 17:67 (Xii) and 68 (L14). 196
Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 155, fig. 18. These rims bend back, a late trait. The other plate that Callipolitis-Feytmansplaces very late and I very early is X2, already discussed. It is simply unevolved, unspecialized. In hand, it is not at all like Lii and L12, which are large but very delicate, with the underside of the rim hollowed, with the rim not slanting (straightup and out) but bent back: beautiful late plates. X2, itself beautiful, is a great primitive hulk of a plate, like a slightly inexpert enlargement of X1. In X4 and X6, the large format has been mastered. 197
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
103
None of these plates is large; they average 26 centimeters in diameter.198 Remarkably, only early and late plates exceed 28 centimeters. X22 and X30 are small; the latter is slight in fabric with a slanting rim (high clearance), but its single foot molding is sharply defined, as on K2. The profile is very different from that of X1, which has the same diameter. I agree with Callipolitis-Feytmansin placing it at mid MC; the drawing matches X28 (see p. 91 above), and the potter's work is just rather peculiar. A Corinth fragment, U4, resembles it. The next stage is that of the Chimaera Painter's late plates, X34, X37, X38, and of the Painter of Louvre E 574's L6, which closely resembles X38. These plates also average 26 centimeters in diameter. (a) Instead of being level, the rim is curved, or arched, back, and since the over- and underside in profile are parallel, the underside is hollowed. The rim, therefore, may have very low clearance; on X38, the underside of the rim molding is nearer the tabletop than the interior floor of the plate is. (b) The root of the rim covers only the outer molding, and that barely. (c) The half-round moldings are still well defined, on X38 almost toruslike. The plates that are later than the Chimaera Painter's last work depart from the tradition implicit in the foregoing development. These are Lii, L12, L14, L15, U5, and M8. (a) When the rims have high clearance, they firstrise well above the floor,then bend back; when they have low clearance (L14), the rims are bent back very abruptly. (b) The large plates, with diameters exceeding 28 centimeters, reappear and again have wide rims; in profile, these wide rims are the ones with the most extreme bend. (c) The smaller plates, L15, U5, are less extreme, but U5 has a remodeled rim molding, and, as on L14, its foot moldings are flattened and the inner one reduced. (d) A significantmarkof lateness is the outer foot molding that rises so high on the exterior that it meets the underside of the rim at a point well above the surface of the plate's floor (always measuring from the tabletop). Contrast X2 (very early) with L12 and L14 (verylate). The profile of the plate at the beginning of Late Corinthian is in process of radical remodeling. Callipolitis-Feytmansobserved199that the reduced foot moldings on L14, which has four nail holes on the perimeter of the tondo, would allow it to be secured more closely to the wall. Assuming that it was designed to be permanently affixed, its unique minimal banding on the bottom, without glaze-paint, is not to be interpreted as Late Corinthian "degeneracy". Whatever the special requirementsfor the extremely reduced moldings and banding on L14 (and its nail holes), these were not repeated on fully LC plates200and cannot without reservebe regarded as developmentally significant.20' 198 Only K3, at Diam. 0.275 m., exceeds 27 centimeters.
199 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CR 9, p. 157, fig. 20, followed in Corinth VII, ii, no. 212. 200 Note 182, p. 97 above. 201 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 158, fig. 21.
104
LAWRENCE PATRICIA DEFINITION OF THE CHIMAERA GROUP202
DESCRIPTION OF THE GROUP AS A WORKING ErNITY
A clear idea of potters' workshopsremains beyond our grasp. At least, it will require further excavation. There is strong evidence, however, that some artists worked very closely together. This is what Amyx and I meant when we called the Anaploga styles and the range of styles in the Potters' Quarter material "distinctsegments"of the industry,203 together representingmuch less than the whole. At neither site is a pottery workshopproperly preserved. At the Anaploga site, the construction of the Roman villa had removed any substantial earlier remains. At the Potters'Quarter (Fig.3), the unmendablepottery from the Road Deposit (and at the south end of the southern part of the South Long Building)and from the North Dump accounts for many of the more significant black-figurestyles. Wherever it came from, it was as a quantity of already mixed sherds that it was brought to be deposited. Some of it is misfiredpottery,but unlike the almostwholly mendable potters' dump from the Anaploga Well, it evidently was not deposited direct from the workplace.204 Salmon's notion of the North Road Deposit's resulting from "casualtiesfrom the displays of wares for sale" is plainly untenable, while the speculationthat followsis not merely "perhapstoo fanciful" but altogether unrealistic.205The North and South Long Buildings, as known, are little more than long west walls parallel to the Kypselidwall.206Most of the Chimaera Group material is closely associated with the southern part of the South Long Building.207See 202
A question can be raised concerning the criteria for including a plate in the Chimaera Group. X12 was excluded by Callipolitis-Feytmans(1962, p. 152, CM 34, and p. 164), evidently because its profile is unknown, even though its decoration is by the same hand as Xli. Xli was included in the Chimaera Group on the strength of its decoration (alreadyassigned to the Chimaera Group by H. R. W. Smith, CVA, Berkeley 1 [U.S.A. 5], p. 17), although its profile is as crude as those of the Carrousel Painter'slittle plates, which were excluded. A plate from the Artemision, Thasos, is illustratedin profile (Callipolitis-Feytmans isolies, 1962, p. 151, fig. 16, p. 152, CM 31-32 and note 1) and listed in the same classeas X12, exemplaires moyen.The tondo subject is a palmette-lotus cross, which I have not seen, but depuiskemilieudu corinthien the profile seems to me to resemble those of X1 and X6 so closely (whilethe banding on the bottom, so far as preserved, is the broad bands of X9, Xli, X19, X22, X28, X30, K2, X38) that, first, unless the style of the palmette-and-lotuscross is alien, the Thasos Artemisionplate should belong to the Chimaera Group (perhaps even, like X1 and X1 1-X14, to the Painter,or to some hand like the Painterof Gela G. 9, although he, so far, has no plates with broad bands on the bottom) and, second, it is not later MC but rather no later than plates like X9, X10, and X16, possibly earlier; its rim molding is like that on X1, whose early placement is confirmed by its almost EC-looking lotus and palmetto. 203 Corinth VII, ii, p. 69. 204 In the Northwest Angle Deposit and Well I, some shapes, especially kotylai, were mendable but others not. 205 Salmon 1984, p. 102. 206 Williams 1982, pp. 17-18, fig. 3. 207 "Trench F' included Wall E, the south end-wall of that building, and an area south of its south end; "WallA' designated the southern stretch of the South Long Building'swestern wall; "Outside Wall A' is practically equivalent to the southern end of the South Road Deposit. "Outside South Building" seems unambiguousbut may include materialfrom outside the wall identifiedas an extension northwardof WallA. See also my review of CorinthXV, iii (Lawrence 1986, pp. 237-238). "Road Deposit" could include the full
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
105 NORTH
RECTANGULAR NE CORNER
TOWER OF CITY
DUMP
ATk$-
ORTH
BUILDING
.CORINTH
;Fk@
ROAD
POTTERS'QUARTER 1:
o SOUTH BUILDING
5
10
50m
CONTINUED?
WALLA
~WALLE r A
- _
/
EAST
DEPOSIT
AFe
la-fteLXtr' FI.3
ure
a
oit
PATRICIALAWRENCE
106
the List entries (pp. 117-132) for X3, X5, X23, X33, G4, K4, Q1, U7-U11, M2, M3, M8, M9. Besides, M6 probably belongs with these, because this is material that slid downhill when sections of the wall fell into the ravine. Most of the rest is from the North Dump: X1, L6, G1, G3, P2, M5, M7. The bowl M4 is half from the North Dump, half from the East Deposit, as the crow flies, more than 150 meters apart. The East Deposit may also be represented by Q2, which came from a lot tagged Tr. XXII and XXIV; the East Deposit lay at the east end of the latter. Finally,from all the pottery in Well I, only X14 and X21 belong to the Chimaera Group, and both are small fragments. M10, which is extremely marginal to the Group, came from the RectangularSouth Pit. It is important to be careful in interpretingthis distribution. It is probably safe to say, first, that all the material around the South Long Building came from one source, a very massive dump of brokenpottery,and, second, that such a pile of dumped pottery probably indicates a cluster of potteries contributingto it (it does not belong to a single generation), and, third, that if pottery sherds to be used as road metal had not been available close by, something other than sherds would have been used instead. We may add that among the contributorswere not only the Chimaera Group but other makers of plates (perhaps most of the makers of Corinthian plates)and makers of a large but limited range of other shapes and styles in no way specially related to the Chimaera Group. This means, as we found in the Anaploga Well, that specialistsseem to have workedin clusters(including, in this case, makers of plates and bowls) but not systematicallyor exclusively. What the evidence does not either require or preclude is that they worked in the excavated area of the Potters' Quarter or, specifically,in the southwesternpart of the South Long Building. If the pottery had been dumped directlyfromworkshopsinside WallA, much, much more of it should have been mendable, and, as in the TerracottaFactory,we should expect some such pottery to have been found, no matter what the vicissitudesof the structure,within the building. We should also expect, if the full length of the Long Buildings had been potters' workplaces,gradually paving the way outside with their throwaways,that in the Road Deposits there would have been a succession of heavy concentrations of different shapes and styles as trench after trench (laid out west to east and working northward) moved up the walls and the road. Instead, the excavator found the material sufficiently uniform to be placed under a single rubric, remarkingonly208that there was later pottery outside the North Building. In sum, the Potters' Quarter indicated that the Chimaera Group worked together at or very near that site. If they worked in the South Long Building, their primary dump was elsewhere than in the road (to which, in any case, Wall A preservedno doorways).209 length of the pottery-paved stretch between the Kypselid wall and the long buildings. See Figure 3; Corinth XV, iii, pp. 4-8 and Plan of Deposits. The terminology,as in every XV, i, pp. 15-20, pl. 51; Corinth excavation, developed as walls became buildings and areas were interpreted. The term "Road Deposit" does not occur in the field notebooks. "WallA', "Trench F", "WallE" come first; the "South Building" becomes "Long" only as excavation revealed a wall that seemed to continue Wall A. The densely packed pottery between the Kypselid wall and the two Long Buildings became "Road Deposit" only when the excavation could be interpreted as a whole. 208 CorinthXV, i, p. 21; XVxiii, p. 6. 209
Williams1982,pp. 17-18.
THECHIMAERA GROUPATCORINTH
107
The presence of water channels and the clay floor suitable for wedging clay210do suggest that this structure, like the Terracotta Factory later, may have been at once residential and industrial,211but we simply do not know the Long Buildings beyond the depth of a single room, and that rather poorly preserved. It is interestingthat the only hands in the Group not represented anywhere around the South Building or in the North Dump are the Riehen Painterand the CarrouselPainter,but, again, the excavationwas too restricted to allow much emphasis to be placed on the fact. After all, the Painter of Louvre E 574 is represented only by L6. On the other hand, the consistent contextual association with his work of lekanoid bowls, generically like X18, X21, X35, and X36 but not by the Chimaera Painter and much inferior (M3, M4, M6, M7), favored including the M list in the Group. If our notion of workshops is highly tentative, ideas concerning the economy of the industry and the r6le of export merchants are practically all speculative. Anyone looking for exploitative enterprise in antiquity can suggest that merchant entrepreneurs pushed potters to shoddy overproduction. The many secondary hands in Corinthian production could be seen as resultingfrom the exploitationof wives and children. Slaverycan be urged by anyone convinced that the economy of Archaic tyrannies depended on it. There is no evidence to the contrary. The only solid evidence of any kind comes from the excavations of export sites (on Selinous and Tocra, see p. 81 above and note 92). Salmon212is careful: "The colonists did not bring their taste for Corinthian with them.... The merchants must therefore have taken a deliberate decision to exploit the new market." The amount exported was very great. On the scale of an ancient economy, Corinth's pottery industry cannot have been unimportant, althoughworkin more perishable,more valuable materials may have vied with it. We need not, however, and probably ought not to suppose that, because the industrywas large by ancient standards,it had to be organized and overseen: by the tyrant, by merchant shippers, or by anyone else. Better models exist, describing the industrialeconomy of small to medium-sized urban centers. Where these thrive, there are hundreds of family-sized enterprises, some with a few employees and apprentices, exploiting local resources and providing the processed materials, component products, and finished products that the city's industries and trade require. The reciprocity of the small enterprises works organically but is not externally organized. That Corinth at the beginning of the 6th century had such an early urban (or small urban) industrial economy is speculative but accords well with both the unstructured early development of the city itself213 and with the likelihood that pottery workshopswere scattered rather than concentrated only on the Potters' Quarter plateau. The discussion of the Chimaera Group that follows assumes as a working hypothesis this type of industrial economy, together with the evidence of the Potters' Quarter, as described. The evidence of emulative work and sustained quality suggests that artisans at 210
Corinth XV,i, pp. 16-17. C. K. Williams ("The City of Corinth and Its Domestic Religion," Hesperia50, 1981, pp. 408-421) makes clear that if it had not been a residence, it would not have contained stele shrines. 212 Salmon 1984, p. 112. 213 Salmon 1984, pp. 18-19. 211
108
PATRICIALAWRENCE
the level of the Chimaera Group had a strong sense of the worth of their products and regarded themselves as artists,in a relativelymodern sense of the word. At the outset, ca. 600 B.C., the Carrousel Painter and the Chimaera Painter may actually have worked together. Their animal-friezework (V1-V4, X17) is related to the same kind of Early Corinthian pyxis,214and both, however differently,worked on plates. Whether such a working relationship,if real, persisted depends on the attributionof the Tocra plates (pp. 81-82 above) to the Carrousel Painter and the importance we assign to the similarityof their profilesto those of plates by the Chimaera Painter. The Painter of Louvre E 574 would have to be deemed a major vase painter even if he had never come to work with the Chimaera Painter,and there is no sign that they did actually work together until after both their personal styles were well formed. The Chimaera Painter'sinitial choice of lion types based primarilyon those of the Columbus Painter,ultimatelyon the Painterof Palermo 489, however,shows that, long before there is any evidence of their close association, he admired the tradition in which the Painter of Louvre E 574 was formed. We cannot suggest that the Chimaera Painterwas also actually a pupil of the Columbus Painter,because we have no alabastronfrom his hand, and even his earliest lions, as on X4, require no closer contact than appreciative familiaritywith the older artist'swork, while his relationshipto pyxis painters and his obvious interest in Attic work are alien to the Columbus Painter'stradition. It is difficult to avoid forming an idea of the young Chimaera Painter as a precocious, self-confident,inquisitiveyouth, generouslyendowed with native ability. I do not suppose that he and the Painterof Louvre E 574 were at any point unawareof each other'swork;it may be taken for granted, I think, that every competent member of the industryknew what the others produced, regarding with professionalinterest anything novel or particularlyattractive. This is why influence, as such, in the form of borrowed motifs, does not require the inclusion of the magpies in the Group; borrowed sawtooth ruffson X18 and X19 do not necessarilymean that a working relationship was already established between the Painter of Louvre E 574 and the Chimaera Painter;the workingrelationshipbecomes a virtualcertainty only when the formerbegins workingon plates (L5 and L6, unlessL3 is earlier)and the latterproducesan aryballoslike X29. Both X21 and X25 show nothing derived from the Painterof Louvre E 574, who inherited no panther type from the Columbus Painter (who did none); the Chimaera Group's panther face is the Chimaera Painter'sdesign, and its earliest known occurrence is on X21.215 214 CorVP, p. 166, B 1. Another EC pyxis, ManchesterIII C 58 (Salmon 1984, p. 39; CorVP,p. 315, B 1 bis), also might stand behind both early Dodwellian pyxides and those by the Chimaera Painter and the early plates by the Carrousel Painter. 215 Benson (Corinth XV, iii, p. 156, at no. 796, note 1)seems to thinkthe contrary;this is simplyincorrect. In any case, the painter's "honor" (any artist's dignity) does not depend on "being first". Elsewhere ("The Populonia Painter,"AJA68, 1964, p. 172) he has written in a way that suggestszeal for the Painterof Louvre E 574. I hope to have shown throughout the present study that neither artist stands in any need of our zeal. It is simply a fact, even if one prefers the equally excellent Painter of Louvre E 574, that certain types, and among them the kind of plate that defines the Group, are proper instead to the Chimaera Painter. On some panthers in the Chimaera Group, including those on R4, G2, and X39, half-moon markingsare used on the cheeks. These are common on flat-bottomed aryballoi and are only occasionally borrowed on work that belongs to the Chimaera Group.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
109
If it is work on plates that defines the Chimaera Group, it is its production of flatbottomed aryballoi that testifies to greater cohesiveness than the foregoing suggests. The Riehen Painteris the only hand to which they are proper;the Chimaera Painterhas no ties with late EC aryballos specialists; the Columbus Painter and his predecessors did none. The Riehen Painter'sstylisticdependence on the major hands, persistentas it is, might not sufficeto make him a member of the Group (rather,a hanger-on), if the Chimaera Painter and his floral assistant, the Painter of Gela G. 9, and the Painter of Louvre E 574 had not taken to decorating aryballoi themselves: L7 and L9, in fact, are probably the finest flat-bottomed aryballoi ever made. Taken together, these facts show that the aryballoi and the Riehen Painter are integral to the Group. It is not surprising that they influenced other MC aryballoi;by the standardsof aryballospainters, even the Riehen Painter looks distinguished. Perhapsthe discoveryof additional aryballoi, especially if they were rather early,would clarify the position of the Riehen Painterin the Chimaera Group. As it is, R1 seems to depend on early plates like X4, R2 on alabastralike L1, and the aryballoi by the major artistsseem to representtheir response to the Riehen Painter'ssuccessfuladaptation of their felines to this other vase shape. The Chimaera Painter,who used rosettes on his plates, transferredthem to his aryballoi; the Painter of Louvre E 574, who did not use them on Ll,216 retained a void field on the aryballoi. The evidence, so far as it goes, suggeststhat each plate painter also did all the subsidiary banding on his own plates. It is quite likely that they also usually made their own.217 The plates by the Riehen Painter and the Painter of Louvre E 574 are themselves different from those attributedto the Chimaera Painter. Plates are not difficultto throw;the quality of the profile depends at least equally on the turning (trimming on the wheel) of the plate when it is leather hard. Besides, as soon as leather-hard pottery has been turned and smoothed, it is ready for glaze-paint and incision;218the banding on one side will be applied while the plate (centered on the wheel for turning and smoothing) is still in position. The natural (economical)procedure is to smooth the newly turned surface, then (a) apply all glaze-paint, both for banding and figure work, (b) execute incision, and (c) apply all added red, both in figure work and on banding; the time required for incision usually would be sufficientfor the glaze-paint to have dried to the point that the red could be laid over it.219 I should not insist that the ancient craftsmen adhered consistently to the most efficient procedures, and very likely there were assistants and apprentices, but both the degree of consistency in the plates themselves and considerations of efficiency in manufacturesuggest that the vase painters at least usually turned and banded the plates that bear their figure work.220 216 The Painter of Louvre E 574 did not get his taste for rosette-freegrounds from the Columbus Painter. This taste may have become popular among several vase painters at the moment when we saw void fields also on work like X7 and (nearlyvoid) V3 and V4, in artistswho, before and after,liked rosettes. 217 We saw that the similar turning and patterns on the underside strengthen the possibility that K1-K5 are actually the Chimaera Painter'sown. 218 The surprisinglyragged incised line on L3 could be due, simply,to the plate's having become too nearly dry before the incised work was executed. 219 The Copenhagen plates, Lii and L12, were closely studied in this connection and confirm the sequence; so does U9. 220 These remarksalso apply to the bowls, and certainlyvase painters could roll out their own clay plaques.
110
PATRICIALAWRENCE
It is less obvious that flat-bottomed aryballoi were made by their painters. Not everyone can learn to throw narrow-neckedglobularpots; here, turning applies mostly to the foot of the vase, since a wall of the properthicknessmust be produceddirectlyby skillat the wheel from the soft, wet clay. If in ancient Corinth ceramicistswere generallyexpected to make the vases they decorated, and trainingwas geared to that expectation, then a man like the Riehen Paintercould become an aryballosspecialistthroughpossessingthat knack, and his association with the Chimaera Painter and the Painter of Louvre E 574 would make his specialty available to them. At present, it is much less safe to conclude that the aryballoi and plates were made in the same shop. The absence of the Riehen Painter from the Potters' Quarter material might not be accidental negative evidence. We cannot assume that workshop equals group. Artists could be closely associated for a couple of decades otherwise than by their workplace: they could be related as kin or by marriage;they could be close friends;their premises could be adjacent. If it is shape specialization that is linked with the physical workplace, the Chimaera Group's plates, bowls, and votive plaques represent one shop (as their distributionin the Potters'Quarter also suggested)and the aryballoi another. This hypothesisalso providesthe most plausibleexplanationfor the Painterof Louvre E 574's continued work on alabastra (L8) and the Chimaera Painter'son pyxides (X26, X39) at the time in their careerswhen their principalassociationwas with each other and both were workingon plates as well as aryballoi. We saw that the Chimaera Painter'searly link with the CarrouselPainter suggestshis having come out of a late EC pyxis workshop, very possibly the same that formed the young Dodwell Painter,even though the Chimaera Painter'spersonal attraitwas to Attic grandeur and, the closest thing to it in EC Corinth, the Columbus Painter's lions; his occasional pyxides, then, were made in that shop, or its succession. Similarly,the occasional later alabastra by the Painter of Louvre E 574 would be products of the alabastronshop where the Columbus Painter worked. Pyxides are quite alien to the plates, and in Middle Corinthian, alabastraand aryballoi evidently were not usuallyallied. The ColumbusPainter,the PopuloniaPainter,and the Erlenmeyer Painter,for example, are "alabastronstyles";the Riehen Painter and the Otterlo Painter are "aryballosstyles".22' If these ideas are viable, then it is very likely that the Painter of Louvre E 574's initial association in the Chimaera Group was with the Riehen Painter in the production of flat-bottomed aryballoi and that his exceptional ability and the evidently increasingly close association of these aryballos makers with the Chimaera Painter'splate-and-bowl shop drew him eventually into plate production. The Painter of Gela G. 9, on the other hand, seems to be merely an assistantto the Chimaera Painter. It is obvious that speaking of an aryballos shop perhaps "next door to" a plate-andbowl shop not only goes beyond the evidence but is no more than a way of imagining what an abstract "close relationship"might have been in reality. Converting abstractions 221 CorVPpp. 85-86 (Columbus Painter), 160-162 (ErlenmeyerPainter), 162-163 (Populonia Painter), 172 (Riehen Painter), 177-180 (Otterlo Painter: 50 aryballoi, 5 alabastra). I do not include the Taucheira Painter (p. 89: two alabastra) and the Painter of Berlin F 1090 (pp. 175-177) in this list, since I have aryballoi, however, are in the Painter of Berlin proposed that they are the same hand; all the flat-bottomed F 1090 list (MC).
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
111
into concrete terms, however, is a most useful check on the validity of one's ideas, even when the concrete realities have to be contrived from knowledge of modern potteries and other artisan shops, both in Greece and abroad, and include social and psychological assumptions derived from modern rather than ancient Greeks. "Relationships","ideas", and "influences" did not spread like viruses. Every development, every difference or similarity that we see, resulted from the opportunities and exigencies of that time and place, from the abilities and tempers and health, from the friendships and competition of the craftsmen. Concretely,the Otterlo Painter'srelationshipto the aryballoi of the Chimaera Group may have involved brief actual association222but more probably competitive emulation, because his aryballoiseem to be by a differentpotter (again, himself?), and the short strokes among the petals on the shoulder are alien. Benson himself says that he "cannot be called a full-fledged member of the Group," his "independent"mind makes him "an associate who stayed somewhat on the periphery,"his filling ornament is far less conservative than theirs, and, in his most characteristicfloral patterns, "there is really nothing ... to recall the Chimaera Group as such."223 My purpose here is to demand that by "Group" we mean something concrete, evidence that several hands really worked together regularly for a prolonged period, in such a way that we speak not of their influencing each other but of shared habits. Now, the Otterlo Painterdoes not share the stylistichabits, the repertory of motifs, or, aryballoi apart, the repertory of shapes of the Chimaera Group.224 These criteria exclude the ErlenmeyerPainter225still more drastically. If we speak of groups without such criteria in mind, not only will the art-historical concept of the Group lack weight and definition but also a historically false notion of the size and composition of working groups, as economic entities, will be propagated. Conversely,unrealisticallyrigid criteria will produce a fragmented picture, equally false. WORK TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CHIMAERA GROUP
A great quantity of pottery that can be compared with the Chimaera Group, some of which was influenced by it, does not belong to it, if we understand "group"realistically.226 222
Note the spiraltopknot and non-Chimaeroidstructureof the sphinx (and, for that matter,the eagles) on the Riehen Painter'sR3, besides the half-moon markson the cheeks on R4. It is very obvious, however,that not only is the Otterlo Painter'sfloral work independent of the Chimaera Group but so also is his vigorous and amusing human anatomy. 223 Yet Benson's article (1971, pp. 13-24, pls. 1-5; the phrases quoted are from pp. 20-22) is entitled, 'A Floral Master of the Chimaera Group: The Otterlo Painter,"and elsewhere in the article he speaks of this hand as part of the Chimaera Group. The possibility of "cross-influencewith the Chimaera Painter himself" suggested by Benson on p. 21 is delusory because he attributed Gela G. 9 (G2) to the Otterlo Painter and his remarksdepend on that piece. I accept the same attributionsto the Otterlo Painter as Amyx (CorVP,pp. 177-180). 224 Later, at the date to which R6 is assigned, one of the aryballoi that Benson (1971, p. 18, pl. 5:8, 9) assigned to the Galera Painter exhibits late traits borrowed from the Chimaera Painter or Riehen Painter. 225 CorVP,pp. 160-162; Benson 1964, pp. 72-81, pls. 22-25. CorVP,p. 160, A 8, the Yale alabastron (Benson, loc.cit.,pl. 22, fig. 2), alone is, of course, inspired by Li or a replica of it. 226 See also M. Robertson's discussion of Beazley's terms, in BeazleyAddenda, pp. xi-xviii. We may use the term when we are not certain that a single workshop,literally,is involved but when an enduring working relationship is implied.
112
PATRICIALAWRENCE
PicturePlates If Payne had not included one of these, NC 1056,227in his Chimaera Group, no one, probably,would have thought of including others. Some Chimaera Group plates have vertical (Lii, L12, L14) or metopelike (X28) compositions. The picture plates differ in technique, using outline, and composition, using narrative,even literary,subjectswhich, unlike Heraklesand Triton, for example, are alien to the vase painter'srepertoryof motifs. Thus Corinth CP-2645 and a plate in Athens, National Museum, from Perachora228 are better compared with the Gorgoneion Group229and with each other than with the Chimaera Group. Now, the Akropolisplate, Payne'sNC 1056, is of the same kind. The plate in Paris,Cabinet des Medailles,230which I have not seen, is clearlyanother such; it is even inscribed. Callipolitis-Feytmans,however, who saw it, observes that Chiron's tail is treated similarly to the lions' ruffs on X6 and X7,231 so that this plate, as she says, may be closer to the Chimaera Group than the Akropolis one, which, as Stillwell saw, really does resemble Corinth KP 2058.232 PlatesandBowls Competitive Not all excellent Boreadsin the tondos of MC plates and bowls belong to the Chimaera Group. The fragment Corinth KP 1455 a,233separated from X33, is a good example. The Boread is slightly smaller and much slenderer than theirs, and the plate itself was a little lighter. The Boread on Corinth KP 2114,234which may be by the same hand, is in a bowl, a thinner-walledbowl than those of the Chimaera Group. By another fine hand, Corinth C-65-449235 has a long-bodied, long-skirted Boread, with a non-Chimaeroid border pattern on the hem. Its fabric also is wrong; the clay differs in texture, it is fired orangish throughout, and the glaze-paint looks different from that seen on Chimaera Group plates and bowls. Without either scales or a vertical band on the upper garment, its Boread not only differs in style and proportions from those of the Chimaera Group but is of a different type and, perhaps, later. Similarly,as Hopper saw,236a Perachora Boread, related to all the foregoing, is very different from X31, and, although we now have a griffin, X15, by the Chimaera Painter, a slenderer one on a Perachora plate237 does not belong to the Group, because its filling ornament and proportions are wrong. CorVP,p. 173, no. 5. Corinth VII, ii, no. 152, p. 46, pl. 27; Perachora II, no. 1958, pp. 195-196, pl. 81. 229 CorVP,pp. 194-204. 230 CorV p. 173, no. 6. 231 Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, p. 136, where her referenceto my "p. 358" seems to be a misprint. Hatching in alternating directions is perhaps commoner for horses' tails than for lions' ruffs,where it is confined to early work of the Chimaera Painter, but before dismissing the Paris plate I should like to see it, since a very elaborate Penteskouphiaplaque, AntDenkI, pl. 7:11, seems to be somehow related to the late plates and plaque of the Painter of Louvre E 574 (L 1-L16), although not by his hand. 232 Corinth XV, iii, no. 747, p. 147, pl. 104. 233 Ibid.,no. 755a, pl. 35. 234 Ibid.,no. 772, pl. 36. 235 CorVP, p. 173, no. 10; Corinth XVIII, i, no. 241. 236 Perachora II, no. 1962, p. 196, pl. 82. 237 Ibid.,no. 1966, pl. 82. 227
228
THECHIMAERA GROUPATCORINTH
113
Fine flying eagles, as on Corinth KP 2790,238 need not be referred to that on L15, even when, as on Corinth KP 2918239and KN 47,240 they are feathered. Each of these has its own distinctive style, and all are drawn at a smaller scale than the eagle on L15. Corinth KP 2065, as Stillwell observed,241does recall styles in the Chimaera Group, but this thin fragment, as she said, may come from a cup. Not even every lion in a tondo can be referred to the Chimaera Painter. Benson is right that Corinth KP 2059 "looks curiously un-Corinthian, especially in the incisions of the head," and its little siren does not really resemble that on Louvre E 574.242 When it comes to floral crosses in tondos, which, once introduced, were evidently a great success, the criteria for inclusion in the Chimaera Group must be especially strict. The fabric of the plate or bowl must be like theirs, and the structureof the floral design and its drawingmust agree with theirs. There are borderlinecases, by which I mean plates like S8 and S9. The plate and its banding are approximatelyright, though not very elegant, and the structureof the lotus cross is free of alien elements, but the drawing is mediocre (wretched, to be blunt). Much better work, which has been referred to the Chimaera Group, must be excluded categorically.243Also to be excluded, as firmly as the Otterlo Painter whose floral designs Benson compares, are a bowl in Corinth, KP 2061,244 and a plate from Perachora.245The bowl is too thin, the tondo is too large relativeto its diameter, and the lotus cross is structurallynon-Chimaeroid.246The drawing is undisciplined. 238 Corinth XV, iii, no. 1321, pl. 55. Again, it is Stillwell who correctly identified the vase shape: it is not a plaque but a plate because on the bottom (in the center) it preserves a dot (D. about 0.015 m.) and 0.020 m. from it (at several points where the edges of dot and band both are clearly preserved) a broad concentric band (W. at least 0.012 m.; the outer edge of the paint is lost because the clay is soft, orange, and powdery). Concentric decoration applied when the plate was centered upside down on the wheel is conclusive evidence. Many fine plates are too well finishedfor turning marksto be seen, even in the brightest light and under magnification. 239 Fragmentfrom the floor of a plate. From the Potters'Quarter,Northwest Angle Deposit. Max. p. dim. 0.062 m. Pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). No paint remains. The fragmentpreservespart of a neatly feathered creature in black figure, but with reference to what seems to be an eagle's claw the feathers would be growing towards the head. The incision is painstakingbut less sure-handed than on L14. Probably LC I, ca. 575-560 B.C. 240 Corinth XV, iii, no. 768, pl. 35. 241 Ibid.,no. 770, pp. 151-152, pl. 36. 242
Ibid., no. 744, p. 146, pis. 34 (siren), 104 (lion). This little plate tondo, dating as it does to the very beginning of MC, like the earliest horse-protomaiplate, U1, probably does have some relationship to the formative Attic elements in the early work of the Chimaera Painter; he may not have been quite alone. But examination of the fragment shows that the fabric is as unlike the Chimaera Group as the style. The little siren is purely Corinthian, but the lion is glaringly Atticizing, not only in his facial type but in his relationship to the tondo. Here it is not decorative principles alone (see p. 67 above) but an entire tondo motif that has been borrowed, and not adapted but copied. 243 Corinth KP 1435, Corinth XV, iii, no. 756, pp. 148-149, pls. 35, 116. 244 Ibid.,no. 769, note 3, p. 151, pl. 36. 245 Perachora II, no. 1973, pl. 76. 246 The bowl (CorinthXV, iii, no. 769) is compared, for shape, with KP 1670, Q1, but surely only most generically, for one has an estimated diameter of 0.22 m., the other of 0.39 m. (at least), and they differ extremely in weight.
114
PATRICIALAWRENCE
MarginalPlatesandBowls A number of pieces are, like the floral plate S8, borderline cases. The shape and syntax are approximatelythose of the Chimaera Group, but the drawing,at least as much as is preserved, is by other and usually less distinctive hands. The only bowl from early excavations at Corinth that might be identified as Payne's NC 1013 is M1,247 roughly finished and crudely drawn. The large human head in the bowl M3 recalls the large motifs in P1 and P2 and the head of the Potnia or Boread in Q1 but also may adumbrate that by the Painterof Athens 931.248 The style is less strikingthan any of these. The siren, wearing a polos, with spread wings in M4, similarly,is in the tondo of a bowl like X35 but is drawn by a nondescript hand. The bowl M6 preserves a motif and filling ornament that relate it directly to X35, but the incisions are gross, and the raised forepaw of the Painter of Athens 93 1's sphinx protome, again,249warns us that not every raised paw and double-centered rosette need belong to a Chimaera Group feline. M7 likewise is a well made bowl preserving part of a feline in the tondo, but the rib and shoulder markings so far as preservedare not those of our artists. M2 looks like a real Chimaera Group plate, even though the feline back and haunch have strangemarkings. On the other hand, M8, a plate with a fine LC profile, developed well beyond those of Lii and L12, preserves a sickle wing, probably of a sphinx, which seems closely related to the Painter of Louvre E 574, as on Lii. Some relationshipis undeniablebetween the remnantsof the Dodwell Painter'sGroup and the remnantsof the Chimaera Group duringthe upheavalsin the Corinthianpotteries (admittedly,a tempest in a teapot) that accompanied the transition to Late Corinthian styles. We have a plate, S10, and several bowls by the Painter of Athens 931 and now a newly inventoried bowl, KP 2922,250 which may well be by the Geladakis Painter.251 Much of these artists'late workshows a new taste for single animalsdisplayedin a delimited field, as on panel amphoras,at this moment borrowedfromAttica. The Chimaera Group's tondos provide a similarfield. If bowls alone were involved, they could have been inspired directly by contemporary Attic lekanides, although Attic has nothing quite like Q1, but the plate S10 and the Dodwellian bowls together suggest a general shuffling of habits and allegiances among Corinthian vase painters at the end of MC. This is not to say that the later Dodwellians "became members of" the Chimaera Group. Everyone involved, in this case, was nearing his dotage, and the Chimaera Group itself was about to break up. Likewise,fragmentsof a plate and a bowl have drawingin a style related to the Otterlo Painter (M9, M10). The rim of the bowl is not preserved;the plate is the same size as many in the Chimaera Group, but the rim covers less than the outer foot molding. The lotus cross is built on spokes radiating from a small medallion with two rows of dicing, Corinth VII, ii, no. 149, pI. 26. CorVP,p. 321, A 16 bis. 249 Ibid. 250 Fragment from the wall of a lekanoid bowl. From the Potters' Quarter, "Trench I, 1929, Misc.; NB 106 bis,p. 170". Probablylate MC, ca. 580-570 B.C. See p. 146 below, 11. 251 The Painterof Athens 931, CorVP,pp. 211, 321, A 13-A 16 bis;the GeladakisPainter,ibid.,pp. 213-218. 247 248
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
115
and the zigzag in the lotus flower is in its center, not in a band across it. These may be more closely related to bowls like Corinth KP 2061252than to the Chimaera Group. The Selinous plate S3, and its companion S2, unless they prove to be late work by the Columbus Painter himself, stand in a similarlydubious relationship to the Chimaera Group. The complete plate has dicing on the rim and careless banding (by the standards of the Chimaera Group); both are roughly finished, with turning marks left even in the tondo on the face of the plate. The rings on the bottom of S2 and S3 differ from those in the Chimaera Group but match each other.253 The ruff and raised forepaw of the lion protomai are certain evidence of the Chimaera Painter's influence, but the nondescript filling ornament is as alien as the diced rim, and but for their style these plates would be "merely related". The style is closer to the Columbus Painter's than is his own pupil's. The lion protome has his lowerjaw with a huge tooth. The lines in its crosshatchedmane cross at the same angle as his. The shoulder is that of his late lions with a double line placed as he placed it. The topknot and ear look like his. The filling ornament, atypical for MC (and S2 and S3 certainly are MC plates, even fully developed ones), looks like the deterioration of his late EC filling ornament. Now, if these plates should represent the old Columbus Painter, their relationship to the Chimaera Group would be much more intricate, especially if they were as late as the period when the Painter of Louvre E 574, his pupil, and the Chimaera Painter,who also owed him much, were collaborating most closely. In their own right, however, S2 and S3 are rather plates influenced by the Chimaera Group than part of it. A small fragment of a plate at Corinth, M5, with part of a feline shoulder and foreleg joint, seems to be related to S2 and S3, but too little is preserved for certainty,and the bands preservedon the bottom do not match theirs. IsolatedPieces Among the aryballoi listed by Payne in the series NC 821-860A, one, NC 830, in the Fogg Museum, was early associated with U2, Rhodes 5175,254 which belongs to the Chimaera Group. The publication of the panther on the other side of U2,255 however, shows that the Fogg panthers are by another hand, and nothing remains, since it is unlike X25, X29, L2, L4, L7, L9, Rl-R4, R6, and G2, to suggest special proximity to the Chimaera Group, who use sirensor griffinsor floralsbetween felines, not geese, and either filling ornament unlike that on the Fogg aryballos or none at all. Gela 7864 is a fragmentof a conical oinochoe, and a Syracusefragmentlong discussed in connection with the Chimaera Group looks like a lid.256These are shapes remote from 252
See p. 113 above with note 244. Since the Painter of Louvre E 574 and the Riehen Painterband their plate bottoms differentlyfrom the Chimaera Painter,this fact alone would not exclude these plates from the Group. 254 CorVP,p. 173, nos. 2 and 3. 255 Papapostolou 1968, pl. 45:y. 256 CorVP,p. 169, B 2 (the exact reference is MonAnt46, 1963, col. 61, pl. 22:c);for the Syracuse fragment, ibid.,p. 170, D 1, with earlierliterature. P.Orsi (MonAnt17, 1906 [= Gela,Rome 1906], cols. 612-614; ill. on cols. 615-616), while suggesting the possibility (he thought) of large lids being used as plates, placed them under a heading, "Tegami molto espansi e relative coperchi." See also the equally fine lid CorinthXV, iii, 253
116
PATRICIALAWRENCE
the Chimaera Group. I mean to say that X17, X26, X27, and X39, if they were not by the Chimaera Painter, would themselves have no claim to relationship, since, as we have seen, the Chimaera Painter'soccasional involvement with animal-frieze pyxides is not shared by the rest of the Group. Now, the Syracuselid is lovely but without any isolable configurationtypical of any Chimaera Group artist. The Gela conical oinochoe is work at the same level as X27 but, in my opinion, not related to the Chimaera Painter in any important way. With the larger body of material now at our disposal, we may lay down the rule that work on plates, bowls, plaques, flat-bottomed aryballoi, and perhaps large alabastra may be proper to the Group if it either is by one of its hands or, like U2 and U4, shares all its distinctive characteristics.257Work on other shapes does not belong to the Group unless, astonishingly,it actually belongs to one of its painters. It may be argued that the late EC pyxis, Berlin, S.M. 3929,258 in a style ancestral to V1-V4 and X17, shows that the Carrouseland Chimaera Paintersmay even have come out of a pyxis workshop. They may have. Just as arguably,the Chimaera Painter may have married a girl whose father or brother made pyxides, incurringan obligation to help from time to time. All we can assert is that there was some tie with a pyxis specialist. That tie does not make pyxides, as such, ripe candidates for inclusion in the Group. Wherever or however the Chimaera Painter's style and practice were formed, it is the formed repertory, not his inception, that defines the Group that he headed. I have already argued (note 94, p. 81 above) that the CarrouselPainteris unworthyof the lovely fragmentsthat are related to his style.259 The remainingpiece to be disassociatedfrom the Group is in a quite differentcategory. It is a very beautiful Early Corinthianplate, Gela 16379, from Bitalemi, which Amyx calls "very close to the Painter".260Our disagreementis implicit in what I take to be its date: early in Early Corinthian, because the feline has a C-arc tail, the bull has a relatively short body and long legs, the doe has a big head and an enormous ear, with a short neck, the panther also has a short neck, the other feline has a slender body proportioned like those of the Sphinx Painter at his best or the Polyteleia Painter,261and all the animals walk prissily, as all nice Corinthian animals did well before the end of the 7th century. It is close to the Chimaera Painter in the sense that the latter would admire this work, with its really elegant design and austere reserved ground, but it may well be too early for him to have seen it new, even as a boy, and, apart from an enclosed shoulder and no. 391, pl. 21. Stillwell(op.cit., p. 150), discussingno. 763, anticipatedmy rejection(Lawrence1959, p. 355) of the Syracuse piece; she also excluded it, as I do now, from the Group. 257 These include, for aryballoi and alabastra,the virtual elimination of filling ornament. 258 Note 214 above. 259 CorVP,p. 167, C 1, C 2, C 6, C 7. The plate fragment,C 2, is now published in Corinth XVXiii, no. 407, pl. 22. 260 CorVP,p. 169, B 1. From the descriptionof the finds in the report (A. W Van Buren, "Newsletterfrom Rome," AJA68, 1964, p. 384), one would guess that there are other,unpublishedCorinthianplates from this excavation of a Demeter sanctuary.In fact, X13, whose inventorynumber shows that it is from Orlandini's, not Orsi's, excavation, is one such. 261 CorVP,pp. 70-73 (Sphinx Painter), 73 (Polyteleia Painter; I believe that B 1, p. 73, is by the painter himself).
117
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
one boxed foreleg, it has nothing specifically ancestral to his style. In other words, the Chimaera Painter ought to have studied with this fine EC plate painter, but the odds are that he did not.
LISTS OF ATTRIBUTIONS Lists X (Chimaera Painter), L (Painter of Louvre E 574), R (Riehen Painter), and V (Carrousel Painter) are, so far as possible, in chronological order, irrespective of vase shape, which is given following the museum number. The short lists, G, K, P, Q, and S, cannot be taken developmentally.List U presents previouslypublished pieces first. List M relegates to the end pieces most remote from the work in lists X and L. Groupings of important pieces that cannot at present be placed definitively are given two-letter designations (Kr and Cy). For lists according to vase shape, see CorVP,pp. 165-174. To avoid confusion with Amyx's use of A, B, C, and AP to distinguishdegrees of proximity to a painter's style, I have used other letters to designate my lists. Amyx provides bibliography for each painter and vase (Neeft 1991, pp. 50-51, gives some additional publications; it reached me after the present study was completed and required no changes to my own lists); not to duplicate Amyx's lists uselessly,I have cited only the best or most generally accessible reproduction of each previously published piece. Finally, I have repeated, in square brackets, the names of scholars who made attributionsconfirmed here, including even my own name, so that new attributionsare readily identifiable as such. Rejected attributionsare cited in footnotes as they are discussed in the text.
THE CHIMAERAPAINTER X1. Corinth,KP 1773
Figs. 1, 4
Fragmentary plate, from the Potters' Quarter (North Dump). Est. Diam. 0.25 m. Palmette-lotus cross. Bottom: two fine rings near foot molding, traces of nonconcentric lines (but no incisions) farther in. CorVP,p. 174, no. 4; CorinthXV, iii, no. 774, pls. 36, 116 (profile). [Lawrence;cf. CorVP,loc.cit.] X2. Palermo, N.I. 1707 (old inv. no. 202) Plate, not from Selinous. Confronted horse protomai. Bottom: two fine rings near foot molding and two near center. NC 1048. Lawrence 1959, pl. 88: fig. 11; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 62, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 169, AP 2. [Lawrence]
\
FIG. 4. X1: Reconstruction of palmette-lotus cross
118
PATRICIALAWRENCE
X3. Corinth, KP 2903 a, b262 PI. 38 Plate fragments, from the Potters' Quarter ("Trench F", which included Wall E, identified as the south wall of the South Long Building,and the area south of Wall E). Probably confronted horse protomai. Bottom: red over black in groove of foot molding, then two rings, one with added red, each 0.002 m., then blank so far as preserved. X3 bis. Tirana Plate, from Apollonia, tumulus 1, tomb 119. Diam. 0.260 m. Confronted horse protomai, near replica of X2 but with odd neck markingsas on X3, confirming the subject matter of the small fragment. Bottom: two fine rings near foot molding and two near center, a single ring halfway from center. Mano 1971, p. 163, pl. 17:1 a, b. X4. Cincinnati, Art Museum 1976.205 Plate. Diam. 0.285 m. Lioness. Bottom: two fine black rings near foot molding, two more near center; a single red ring at center, another midway between the pairs of black rings. E. Bell in Moon and Berge 1979, no. 22, pp. 3637, with illustration. CorVP,p. 168, A 15. [Cahn] PI. 38 X5. Corinth, KP 2902263 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter ("TrenchF'; see under X3). Part of a lion's face, similar to that of X4. Bottom: blank, so far as preserved. 262
X6. New York,M.M.A. 41.11.1 Plate, from Attica(?). Diam. 0.311 m. Chimaera. Bottom: from center, two fine rings, a band with added red, two fine rings, then an interval of about 0.03 and two fine rings near foot moldings, of which only inner one has added red. againstItsHistorG. M. A. Richter,ArchaicGreekArt icalBackground, New York 1949, fig. 16; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 54. CorVP,p. 168, A 13. [Richter] X7. Paris, Louvre 1679 Plate, from Corinth. Diam. 0.240 m. Lioness; lotus bud on stem. Bottom: from center, fine rings, red band, fine ring; after an interval, two fine rings, red and black. The added red on the foot moldings slightly exceeds their width. NC 1041. CVA,Louvre 6 [France 9], pls. 8 [392]:1, 4, and 9 [393] (color);Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, CM 53, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 168, A 14. [Payne] X8. Catania Fragmentaryplate, from the Demeter sanctuary, Piazza S. Francesco,Catania (1959). Part of a lioness. Bottom: unknown. Rizza 1960, no. 6, p. 250, fig. 5; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 81. CorVP,p. 168, A 16. [Rizza] X9. Corinth, C-69-185 Fig. 1, PI. 39 Fragmentaryplate, from the Sanctuaryof Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth. Est. Diam. 0.260 m.
Two nonjoining fragments from the floor. Max. p. dim. (a) 0.06, (b) 0.031 m. Very pale clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3), uniformly very well fired. Reddish brown glaze-paint. Bright added red. With regard to the outline of the tondo, (b) is placed above (a); thus, the subject preservedis part of a horse protome to right, in the left half of the tondo, with a small rosette behind the mane at far left (cf. X2). If this is correct, there is added red between the incisions on the neck and possibly in the mane. On the bottom, red over black is preserved in the groove of the foot molding and, near the foot, two bands, black and red over black, each 0.002 m. wide. 263 Fragment from the floor. Max. p. dim. 0.029 m. Pale clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3, yet different from the last; the colors rarely match exactly), uniformly very well fired. Brownish black glaze-paint. Purplish added red. Preservespart of the face of a lion: pouch under eye, framing of face and band over muzzle, parallel lines in ruff, wrinkle on nose and one upper canine, oral cavity and sharp lower teeth. Added red in eye pouch and band over muzzle. On the bottom, no painted decoration preserved.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH Two lions with crossed hindquarters, regardant. Bottom: broad bands. CorinthXVIII, i, no. 238, p. 51, fig. 16 (profile), pl. 25. CorE, p. 169, A 17. [Amyx; Pemberton] X10. Copenhagen, Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek 3289 Plate. Diam. 0.292 m. Artemis with swans. Bottom: forequartersof goat. F.Johansen 1964, pp. 43-44, figs. 1-2 and front cover. CorVP,p. 168, A 10, pl. 64:2 a, b. [Flemming Johansen]
Xl l. Berkeley, Lowie Museum of Anthropology 8/104 Plate, from Rhodes. Diam. 0.283 m. Palmette-lotus cross. Bottom: broad bands, alternately red and black. CVA,Berkeley 1 [U.S.A. 5], pl. 6 [187]:4 a, b; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 67, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 174, no. 3, pl. 65:3 a, b. [Lawrence; cf. CorVP,loc.cit.] X12. Catania Plate, from the Demeter sanctuary, Piazza S. Francesco, Catania (1959).
119
Palmette-lotuscross. Bottom: unknown. Rizza 1960, no. 2, p. 250, fig. 45. CorVP, p. 174, no. 5 [q.v., for previous attributions].
X13. Gela, M.N. 20689 Plate fragment, from Gela, Bitalemi. Lotus, as on X1. [Neeft, to the same hand as KM-K3] (Listed here because only one flower is preserved;it may be as early as X1.)
X14. Corinth, sherd L1929-10-75264 PI. 38 Plate fragment,from the Potters'Quarter (WellI). (Palmette-)lotuscross (cf. X1 and X13). Bottom: a pair of narrowringsand part of another. [Brownlee] (As X13.)
X15. Corinth, CP-3245265
PI. 38
Plate fragment, from early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Est. Diam. 0.29, of tondo 0.20 m. Griffin (head) facing lotus. Bottom: pair of narrow rings and a bit of another.
264 Two joined fragments from near center of the floor of a plate. Max. p. dim. 0.0514, Th. 0.0049 m. (a very delicately made plate, not larger than Diam. 0.250 m.). Pale clay (Munsell lOYR 8-7/3 on face or on break but between 5YR 8/4 and 7YR 7/4 where cleanest on back), fired hard. Nearly black glaze-paint. Added red. In the tondo, (palmette-)lotuscross;cf. X1 and X13. On the bottom, from center, ... part of a ring, 0.03 m. blank, two rings (0.003 m. and 0.004 m.) about 0.003 m. apart, then blank so far as preserved (0.008 m.). 265 Fragment from the floor. Max. p. dim. 0.086 m. The estimated diameter, in this case alone, was obtained by matching the curvatureof the rings on the bottom with those on X16 (the pattern is the same); the est. Diam. at the edge of the outer preservedpainted ring is 0. 17 m.; this was surely paired with another ring, with a narrow reserved band separating this pair from the painted foot moldings; the scale of the drawing also suggests that this plate was at least as large as X16, and space is requiredat left to complete the lotus calyx. One may even calculate, from the approximatediameters of tondos on the face and bottom, that the rim must have "covered" about half of the inner molding, as on X16. The whole floor (both faces) is more domed than usual. Normally pale clay (Munsell 1OYR7/4), very like that of X28, very well finished, pink at core (like X16, which is very pale on the surface). Still glossy, dark brown glaze-paint, with some lighter streaksin lotus, crazed where thicker: firmer than on X16 but not quite so dark and firm as on X24. Purplishadded red. Preservespart ofjaw (doublejowl), neck (verticalband), and wing (curvingline crossing base of neck) of griffinor griffin-birdfacing a large, straight-sided,broad lotus blossom, with a tendril issuing from behind one side of it. Added red in calyx, sepals, and alternate petals of lotus, on tongue, jowl, and neck (but not in decorative band) of griffin;the paired narrowrings preservedon the bottom both are black.
120
PATRICIALAWRENCE
Fig. 1, PI. 39 X16. Corinth, C-62-762 a-e of Demeter Sanctuary Plate fragments, from the and Kore on Acrocorinth. Est. Diam. 0.29 m. Sphinx. Bottom: as on X4. XVIII,i, no. 239, pl. 25 (fragmenta only). Corinth CorVP,p. 173, no. 7. X17. Paris, Musee Rodin Co 1379 (TC 607)
Pls. 40, 41
Kotyle-pyxis. H. with lid 0.225 m. Lid: animal frieze, with Boread. Body: animal frieze. CVA,Musee Rodin 1 [France 16], pl.5 [693]:1-5. CorVP,p. 168, A 4. [Lawrence] X18. London, B.M. 1895.10-27.1 (A 1389) Lekanoid bowl. Diam. 0.276 m. Lion. NC 1009. Lawrence 1959, pl. 88: figs. 7, 8. CorVP,p. 168, A 7. [Payne] X19. Bonn, Akad. Kunstm. 1840.14 Plate fragment, from Kameiros. Partof a lion's head with ruffas on the last. Bottom: broad bands, alternately red and black. [Neeft]
X20. Corinth, C-31-551266
PI. 44
Fragmentof a lekanoidbowl, fromthe Asklepieion (MiniatureBowl Deposit). Est. Diam. about 0.30 m. Part of the neck of a lion, regardant. Larger and finer than X18. [Brownlee] PI. 44 X21. Corinth, KP 2316 Aryballos fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Well I). Panther'sface; tip of a lotus sepal.
XV, iii, no. 796, pl. 37. [Compared with Corinth Gela 8702, X25, by Stillwell, loc.cit.,but by Benson assigned to the Painterof Louvre E 574.] X22. New York,M.M.A. 06.1021.26 Plate, from Corinth. Diam. 0.235 m. Man in bed. Bottom: broad bands, alternately red and black. NC 1046. Lawrence 1959, pl. 89: figs. 15, 16; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 60. CorVP,p. 169, AP 3. ["probably",Payne] X23. Corinth, KN 55 Fragment of a clay plaque, from the Potters' Quarter (Road Deposit). XV, iii, no. 1322, pp. 10, 242, pls. 55, 112. Corinth [Lawrence,cited in the primarypublication] X24. Corinth, C-62-605 Plate fragment, from the Anaploga Well. Max. p. dim. 0.052 m. Snaky creature (Typhon?). Bottom: part of a wing bow. VII, ii, An 95, pl. 71. Corinth CorVP,p. 168, A 11. [Amyx;Lawrence] Pls. 42, 43 X25. Gela, M.N. 8702 Flat-bottomedaryballos,from Gela. H. 0.155 m. Palmette-lotus cross between seated and walking panthers, each with one paw raised. NC 835. Necrocorinthia, p. 305, fig. 140 bis. CorVP,p. 167, A 1. [Lawrence] X26. St. Petersburg,Hermitage 5551 Head pyxis. H. 0.140 m. Shoulder: Boread between panthers and siren between lions. Body: animal frieze.
266 Fragmentpreservingpart of the foot, floor,and wall. Max. p. dim. 0.08 1, est. D. of foot 0.190, probable Diam. of bowl about 0.30 m. Pale clay (closest to Munsell lOYR 8/3, slightly pinker on interior than on exterior). Reddish brown to brown glaze-paint on interior (abraded?);black glaze-paint on exterior,flaking in places. Added red on neck of lion and, on exterior, over black on inside and outside of foot. Above offset of foot, on black, a fine white line. In tondo, part of neck of lion, with mane of flame locks down the back of the neck; at the right, a double-centered rosette. The position of the preserved part relative to the foot ring shows that, whether seated or walking,the lion was regardant. Exterior: black-polychrome; cf. X18 and X35. This is the largest Chimaera Group bowl before the time of Q1.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH Lawrence 1959, pis. 90, 91: figs. 18-23. CorVP,p. 167, A 2. [Lawrence] X27. Athens, N.M. (not inventoried) Pyxis fragment, from Perachora. Lion(s),goat. Perachora II, no. 1765, p1. 72. CorVP,p. 168, A 5. [Lawrence] X28. Vienna, KHM IV 1624 (Hofmuseum 193) Plate, from Siana. Diam. 0.265 m. Chimaera. Bottom: broad bands, alternately red and black. NC 1040. Lawrence 1959, p1. 87: fig. 1; Rafn 1978, p. 153, fig. 1; Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, CM 52, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 168, A 12. [Payne] X29. Palermo, Banco di Sicilia, PI. 45 Collezione della fondazione Mormino, inv. no. 621 Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.177 m. Palmette-lotuscross flanked by lions. Giudice et al. 1992, C 55, p. 55. [V. G. Rizzone (ibid.)attributesit to the Painter of Louvre E 574.] X30. Louvre CA 1629 Plate, from Boiotia. Diam. 0.250 m. Bearded siren. Bottom: broad bands, all black. NC 1045. CVA,Louvre 6 [France9], pI. 8 [392]: 2, 3, 5. CorVP,p. 169, A 19. [Payne, "probably";Lawrence] X3 1. Athens, N.M. (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Perachora. Max. p. dim. 0.178 m.
121
Boread. Bottom: fairly narrow rings near center and a fine ring farther out. CorinthXX iii, no. 765, pl. 104; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 76. [Attributed, locc. citt., to the same hand as the last but not to the Chimaera Painter] X33. Corinth, KP 1455 b PI. 44 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Road Deposit). Partof skirtand leg of Boread to right. Bottom: one red line (cf. X16 and the last). Corinth XVXiii, no. 755, pl. 35. [Attribution,loc.cit., confused by associationwith KP 1455 a, but Stillwell rightly compared the leg and lower border with Berlin, S.M. F 3934, X34.] X34. Berlin, S.M. F 3934 Plate, from Kameiros. Diam. 0.255 m. Boread. Bottom: broad bands, alternately black and red. NC 1044. Lawrence 1959, pl. 87: fig. 6; Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, CM 56, fig. 17 (profile). Mended in antiquity; cleaned and newly mended; new photograph, W-D. Heilmeyer, Antikenmuseum Berlin,Die ausgestellten Werke1988, no. 16, pp. 52-53. CorVP,p. 169, A 20. [Payne, "probably";Lawrence] X35. Corinth, CP-516 (part) + CP-2439 + CP-2442 and (nonjoining)CP-2440 Fragmentary lekanoid bowl, from early excavations. Est. Diam. 0.025 m. Lioness. NC 1010 (part). Corinth VII, ii, no. 146, pl. 25. CorVP,p. 168, A 8. [Payne]
Boread. Bottom: three fine rings near the center and a pair farther out. Perachora II, no. 1961, p1. 82. CorVP,p. 169, A 21. [Amyx; Lawrence: CorVP, bc. cit.]
X36. Corinth, CP-2441 + CP-516 (part) Joining fragments of a bowl, from early excavations. Max. p. dim. 0.111 m. Part of feline to right. NC 1010 (part). Corinth VII, ii, no. 147, pl. 25. CorVP,p. 168, A 9. [Payne]
X32. Corinth, KP 2122 PI. 44 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Outside South Building).
X37. Mykonos, KB 922 Fragmentaryplate, from Rheneia. Diam. 0.253 m.
122
PATRICIALAWRENCE
Two lions with crossed hindquarters, regardant. Bottom: three fine rings near center (red, black, red) and a single black ring near foot molding. NC 1042. C. Dugas, Dilos, XVII, Lesvasesorientalisantsdestylenon-Milien,Paris 1935, no. 145, pl. 62; Lawrence 1959, pl. 87: fig. 4; Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, CM 61, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 169, A 18. [Payne] X38. Corinth, C-62-770 + Fig. 1, PI. 44 C-65-509 Plate fragments, from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth. Est. Diam. 0.265 m.
Hind paw and two forelegs of seated lion to right (not regardant, to judge from the arrangement of the feet). Bottom: broad bands, all black. Corinth XVIII, i, no. 26, pl. 5 (C-62-770 only). CorVP,p. 173, no. 8. [Lawrence;Pemberton] X39. Bonn, Akademisches Pls. 46-49 Kunstmuseum666 (not "466") Head pyxis. Lid: palmette chain. Shoulder: chimaera between sphinxes (one bearded) and Boread between lions. Body: animal frieze. NC 892. Lawrence 1959, pl. 92: figs. 24, 25. CorVP,p. 167, A 3. [Payne(?);Lawrence]
THE PAINTER OF LOUVRE E 574 Li. Paris, Louvre E 574 Alabastron. H. 0.305 m. Siren to right between seated lions. de Part II, photographique NC 801. Engyc1opidie p. 269; Strom 1961, p. 176, figs. 4-6. CorVP,p. 171, A 1. [Lawrence] L2. Paris, Louvre E 575
PI. 50
Flat-bottomed aryballos. Griffin-birdbetween sphinxes. CorVP,p. 172, AP 1. [Amyx: "could very well be by the painter"] L2 bis. Bucharest, inv. no. 5793, from Istria Flat-bottomed aryballos. Est. H. 0.15, Diam. 0.183 m. Siren (? only wings preserved)facing seatedpanther (other animal lost). CorVP,p. 316, A 4 bis. [Alexandrescu] PI. 51 L3. Corinth, C-72-244 Plate fragment, from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth. Est. Diam. of tondo 0.17 m. Winged panther protome. Bottom: two fine rings at center, one in the middle of the field, two at the foot molding. 267
CorinthXVIII, i, no. 240, pl. 25. On the attribution, see pp. 73-74 above; Lawrence credited by Pemberton, loc.cit.
PI. 52 L4. Palermo, Banco di Sicilia, Collezione della fondazione Mormino, inv. no. 319 Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.163 m. Typhon between seated lions. CorVP,p. 172, A 5. [Amyx; Benson, followed by Rizzone (in Giudice et al. 1992, C 54, p. 55)] L5. Athens, N.M. (not inventoried) Fragmentaryplate, from Perachora. Max. p. dim. 0.178 m. Typhon. Bottom: preening swan and part of a double-centeredrosette. Perachora II, no. 1960, pls. 80, 82; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 18 (that is, CM Classe IV, instead of Chimaera Group;the rim is not preserved). CorVP,p. 169, AP 1. Fig. 2, PI. 51 L6. Corinth, KP 2904267 Plate fragment,from the Potters'Quarter (North Dump).
Fragmentpreservingparts of floor, foot moldings, and rim. Max. p. dim. 0.103 m. Pale clay (Munsell lOYR 8/3). Traces of black glaze-paint. Purplishadded red (preservedonly in offset groove). Decorated on both faces in black figure. Interior: broad, intertwined coils, with scaled margins, of a Typhon (cf. L4, L5). Bottom: part of a large subject, not evidently the top of a human head.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH Est. Diam. at outer foot molding 0.22 m. Typhon (intertwinedcoils). Bottom: traces of large, unidentifiablesubject in black figure. L7. Florence, M.A. 79246 Flat-bottomed aryballos, from Rhodes. H. 0.180 m. Siren between seated lions. Benson 1956, pl. 71: figs. 20, 21; Rafn 1978, pp. 157-158, figs. 5-7. CorVP,p. 171, A 3. [Benson] L8. Syracuse, M.N. (not inventoried) Fragmentsof an alabastron, from Syracuse. Est. H. "at least 0.300" m. (Amyx). Floral cross between seated lions. CorP, p. 171,A2. [Amyx]
L9. Munich319 UJ.154)
L12. Copenhagen, N.M. 1631 Plate, from Corinth. Diam. 0.286 m. Heraldic pantheresses. Bottom: komast. NC 1055. CVA,Copenhagen 2 [Denmark 2], pl. 90 [90]:4 a, b; Rafn 1978, p. 159, figs. 10, 11; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 64, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 170, A 2, pl. 65:2 a, b. [Payne, as the last] L13. Athens, N.M. (not inventoried) Plate fragments,from Perachora. Est. Diam. 0.270 m. Floral cross. Bottom: man walking to left, with dog. Perachora II, no. 1970, pis. 80, 82. CorVP,p. 170, A 3. [Callipolitis-Feytmans,to the hand of Ll, L12] L13 bis. Cyrene Fragmentof a plate.
Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.145 m. Siren between seated panthers. NC 853. Strom 1961, pp. 178-179, figs. 8-10; Rafn 1978, p. 158, fig. 8. CorVP,p. 171, A 4, pl. 66:1 a, b. [Payne, to the hand of Ll, L12; Lawrence to that of Li, L7] L10. Syracuse, M.N. (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Syracuse.
123
PI. 52
P.W0.130 m. Siren. Bottom: traces of a narrow ring at center, four rings farther out, two rings at foot molding. G. V Gentili, "Siracusa,"]'Sc ser. 8, 10, 1956, p. 141, fig. 2 (drawing);Callipolitis-Feytmans1962,
CM 75. CorVP,p. 170, A 4. [Lawrence; CallipolitisFeytmans,both to the hand of Lli, Li 2] Lii.
Copenhagen, N.M. 1630 Plate, from Corinth. Diam. 0.283 m.
Confronted bearded sphinxes. Bottom: panther protome. NC 1054. CVA,Copenhagen 2 [Denmark 2], pls. 90 [91]:2 a, b, 90 A [98] (color); CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 63. CorVP, p. 170, A 1, pl. 65:1 a, b. [Payne, to the hand of L9 and L12]
Palmette-and-lotus complex, as on L13. Bottom: large rosette. Kocybala (forthcoming),no. 194. [Kocybala, to the "Painter of the Copenhagen Sphinxes"] L14. Munich 6449 (346A) Plate. Diam. 0.285 m. Confrontedhorse protomai. Bottom: two red rings, each about 0.008 m.; red line near foot molding; red moldings: all, including underside of rim molding, without glaze-paint under the red. NC 1047. Lawrence 1959, pl. 88: fig. 12; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 68, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 171, AP 1. [Lawrence, "probably"by the hand of Ll, L12] L15. Argos 4526 Plate, from Argos. Diam. (small)about 0.23 m. Herakles and Triton. Bottom: flying eagle with snake; much filling ornament. G. Touchais, "Chroniquedes fouilles,"BCH 102, 1978, p. 663, fig. 49; Kritzas 1977, pp. 132-134, pl. 121:x, P3.
PATRICIALAWRENCE
124
L16. Berlin, S.M. F 431 + F 660 + Corinth, C-63-122 Fragmentaryplaque, from Penteskouphia. Poseidon. Geagan 1970, no. 6, pp. 36, fig. 6, and 37. L17. Gela, Coll. Navarra G. 10 Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.148 m.
Typhon (more than half of the circumferenceof the vase left white). CVA,Gela 1 [Italy 52], pl. 41 [2335]:1-6 (label on plate, "G. 9", is incorrect;cf. G3). CorVP, p. 172, A 6. [Rafn, as evidence that her entire list is one hand; see also Amyx's remarks, CorVP,loc.cit.]
Alabastra and aryballoi imitative of the Painter of Louvre E 574 are not rare. Some have been attributedto other named hands (as the ErlenmeyerPainter'sYale alabastron, CorVP,p. 160, A 8). Others (such as Wurzburg H 5391, CVA,Wurzburg 1 [Germany 39], pl. 32 [1914]; Tubingen 5565, CVA,Tubingen 1 [Germany 36], pl. 29 [1757]) borrow the decorative patterns of his work with less competence. One group, however, may be by a single hand related to the Painter of Louvre E 574 in much the same way as the Painter of Gela G. 9 is to the Chimaera Painter. This style is scratchy,like that of the S list, below, and should be consideredwith it. THE GROUP OF THE KREFELD ARYBALLOS Krl. Krefeld, Kaiser Wilhelm-Museum (not inventoried) Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.171 m. Siren to right between seated lions. No filling ornament. CVA,Nordheim-Westfalen1 [Germany49], pl. 33 [2398]:4-6 and text p. 43, Abb. 17 (siren). [Siedentopf(CVA,loc.cit.) comparesNC 853-857; NC 853 is L9.] Kr2. Corinth, CP-2364 Fragment of flat-bottomed aryballos, from early excavations.
RH. 0.095 m. Forepartof panther to r. VII, ii, no. 96, p. 34, pl. 16. Corinth [Amyx and Lawrence, "outer periphery of Chimaera Group"] Kr3. Geneva, priv.coll. Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.19 m. Siren between lions. Chamay and Maier 1984, pp. 76-77. Only the siren is illustrated. (This attribution is subject to correction if not borne out by the lions.)
THE RIEHEN PAINTER R1. Berlin (west)F 1089 Flat-bottomed aryballos,from Nola. H. 0.165 m. Siren between seated lions, each with one forepaw raised. NC 857. Lawrence 1959, pl. 92: figs. 31-33. CorVP,p. 172, A 4, pl. 66:2 a, b. [Lawrence] R2. Zurich, priv. coll. Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.1 15 m.
Lion, large rosette. H. Bloesch, AnykeKunstin derSchweiz,ErlenbachZurich 1943, pls. 8, 9, whence P. Lawrence, "Notes on the Chimaera Group,"AJA66, 1962 [pp. 185187], pl. 55: fig. 6. CorVP,p. 172, A 2. [Lawrence] R3. Riehen, priv.coll. Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.177 m. Bearded sphinx between flying eagles.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
J. Benson, Die Geschichktderkorinthischen Vasen,Basel 1953, pp. 80-81, pis. 7, 8. CorVP, p. 172, A 1 (note: the reference there to Benson 1953 should be as given above). [Lawrence] R4. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 3177 Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.162 m. Crouching sphinx between seated panthers. Strom 1961, pp. 174-175, figs. 1-3. CorVP,p. 172, A 3. [Lawrence] R5. Heidelberg, Archaologisches Institut 79/1 Plate. Diam. 0.264 m.
125
Eagle aloft, bearing three dolphins. Bottom: three broad bands, but narrowerand more widely spaced than on plates by the Chimaera Painter. Basel, Minzen undMedailkln,1978, no. 208 (negs. MuM 7437, 7438, bottom). Amyx (CorVP, p. 343, AP 1) now accepts my attribution(but adds "apparently"). R6. Gela 8662 Flat-bottomed aryballos, from Gela. H. 0.179 m. Horse and bearded rider between lions. P. Orlandini, "Gela," MScser. 8, 10, 1956, p. 310, fig. 27. CorVP, p. 172, A 5. [Amyx; Lawrence, "probably"]
THE PAINTER OF GELA G. 9 G1. Corinth, KP 1945 Fig. 5 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (North Dump). W 0.094 m. Part of palmette cross (the petals of two adjacent palmettes are preserved),as on the next. CorinthXV, iii, no. 753, pl. 35; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 72. CorV, p. 174, no. 11.
FIG.
5. Gi: Reconstruction of palmette cross
G2. Gela, Coll. Navarra, G. 9 Flat-bottomed aryballos. H. 0.167 m. Palmette cross between seated panthers. CVA,Gela 1 [Italy 52], pl. 40 [2334]:1-6 (label on plate, "G. 10", is incorrect;cf. L17). CorVP,p. 173, no. 1.
FIG.
6. G3: Reconstruction of palmette-lotus cross
PATRICIALAWRENCE
126
Fig. 6 G3. Corinth, KP 1775 Plate fragment, from the Potters'Quarter (North Dump). Est. Diam. of foot 0.21 m. Palmette-lotuscross, with four-ringcenter. CorinthXV, iii, no. 751, pl. 35; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 73. CorVP,p. 174, no. 10.
G4. Corinth, KP 2909268
PI. 53 Bowl fragment, from the Potters'Quarter ("Outside Wall A"). Est. Diam. of foot 0.160 m. Part of a lotus, like that preservedon the last.
THE PAINTER OF THE KAMEIROS PLATES K1. Athens, N.M. 12941 Plate, from Corinth. Palmette cross built on knotted tendrils. NC 1049. Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 59, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 174, no. 7. K2. Paris, Louvre A 417 Plate, from Kameiros. Diam. 0.260 m. Palmette cross, replica of the last. NC 1050. CVA,Louvre 8 [France 12], pl. 23 [492]:6; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 57, fig. 17 (profile). CorVP,p. 174, no. 8. K3. London, B.M. 1864.10-7.20 Plate, from Kameiros. Diam. 0.275 m. Palmette cross, replica of the last two.
NC 1051. Lawrence 1959, pl. 92: fig. 26; Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 58. CorVP,p. 174, no. 9. I3 bis. Tirana Plate, from Apollonia, tumulus 1, tomb 119. Diam. 0.260 m. Palmette cross, nearly a replica of the last three. Mano 1971, p. 163, pl. 17:2 a, b. K4. Corinth, KP 2910269
Fig. 2, PI. 53
Bowl fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Outside South Building). Est. Diam. of foot 0.170 m. Partof palmette cross,with knot as on the foregoing. K5. Delphi Bowl fragment. "Palmette complex, as in nos. 1049-1051 of the Chimaera Group" (Payne). NC 1012 (see p. 77 above).
THE PAINTEROF CORINTHCP-2438 P1. Corinth, CP-2438 Bowl fragment, from early excavations; exact provenience unknown. Max. p. dim. 0.080 m.
268
Pantherprotome. VII, ii, no. 148, pl. 26. Corinth CorVP,p. 173, no. 4.
Fragmentpreservingprofile of foot and part of floor. Max. p. dim. 0.077 m. Pale clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4). Crazed, charcoal-grayglaze-paint. Purplish added red in black figure. Part of a lotus with tendril issuing from behind it (for this motif only, cf. X1, X15). Added red in center, sepals, and alternate petals. 269 Fragmentpreservingprofile of foot and part of floor. Max. p. dim. 0.062 m. Pale clay (Munsell 1OYR 8/3). Crazed, charcoal-grayglaze-paint. Purplish added red. From bowl with pattern of knotted tendrils and palmettes in its tondo; part of loop-knot at base of palmetto. Added red in center of palmetto.
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
P2. Corinth, KP 2915270
P1.53 Bowl fragment, from the Potters'Quarter (North Dump).
127
Est. Diam. of foot 0.120 m. Griffin(or griffin-bird).
THE PAINTER OF CORINTH KP 1670 Q1. Corinth, KP 1670 Pls. 54, 55 Fragments of a large bowl, from the Potters' Quarter (Road Deposit). Est. Diam. at least 0.39 m. Potnia Theron or Boread (tondo; see p. 79 above). CorinthXV, iii, no. 774, pis. 36 (interior,with exterior of one fragment), 116 (profile); CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 77, whence listing as a plate in CorVP,p. 169, A 22. I also had read a photograph of the interior of fragmentsa and b as a plate, besides misattributing it. Amyx knew of the unmistakablebowl fragments and provided a separate listing, CorVP,p. 168, A 6. Now that the fragments
are accessible, and we have the authoritative publication (see CorinthXV, iii, p. 152, last paragraph under no. 774), with a profile drawing, no further confusion should arise. Even fragment e, which is difficultto understand, must belong. P1.55 Q2. Corinth, KP 2913271 Fragmentof a large bowl, from the Potters'Quarter ("TrenchXXII and XXIV, April, 1931"). Max. p. dim. 0.072 m. Parts of, evidently, a garment border, a leg bent at the knee, and feathers(?).
SOME PLATES FROM SELINOUS (DEMETER MALOPHOROS) Fordiscussionof the styles, see The Style of Some Platesfrom Selinous, pp. 80-81 above. A plate of unknown provenience, S3, by the same hand as S2, is listed with them. S 1i, from another Sicilian site, Akragas, like these needs further study and is listed with them because, in the photograph availableto me, the style seems light and scratchycomparedwith the principalhands. See also The Group of the Krefeld Aryballos, p. 124 above. S1. Palermo (not inventoried) Fragmentaryplate, from Selinous. Gorgoneion, surrounded by lion and horse protomai. Bottom: unknown. NC 1052. MonAnt32, 1927, pl. 86:9. CorVP,p. 173, no. 9.
S2. Palermo (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Selinous.
Lion protome with raised forepaw;rosettes without double centers. Bottom: broad ring near the center, a broader one farther out. NC 1043(?);see also under SlO. S3. Once Beverly Hills, Market (1982; Summa Galleries) Plate. Lion protome with raised forepaw;rosettes without double centers. Bottom: broad ring near center, a broader one farther out. Face of rim: checkered
Joined fragments preserving profile of foot with part of floor and wall. Max. p. dim. 0.095 m. Pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). Crazed, dark gray glaze-paint, mostly gone. Purplish added red preserved in only one place. Tondo: very large head of griffin or griffin-bird(protome?),with two round knobs on thin stems and the base of a very large ear. Field of tondo has a reddish stain. No paint remains on the exterior. 271 Fragment from floor. Thickness of floor just inside foot 0.0 13 m. Pale clay (Munsell lOYR 8-7/3). Crazed, flaking,darkgray glaze-paint. Added red. In the tondo, part of a large subject, puzzling because an area with parallel, diagonal lines, which might be the edge of a wing, falls infrontof what seems to be a heavy leg, bent at the knee, while the area read as the outside (with a border pattern) of the skirt of a short chiton passes behind that leg. Not found in the same deposit as Q1 but certainly like it. 270
128
PATRICIALAWRENCE
(three-row dicing). By the same hand as S2, very close to the Columbus Painter (CorVP,pp. 85-86) but later than any of his alabastra. [Amyx; Moon, for its relationship to the Columbus Painter] S4. Palermo (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Selinous.
S8. Palermo (not inventoried) Fragmentaryplate, from Selinous. Lotus cross. Bottom: broad bands, as on plates by the Chimaera Painter. MonAnt32, 1927, col. 31 1, fig. 130. CorVP,p. 174, no. 6. S9. Palermo (not inventoried)
Part of hair, neck, and wing, as of a sphinx or siren. Bottom: broad bands, as on plates by the Chimaera Painter.
Plate fragment, from Selinous. Partsof a lotus and a rosette. Bottom: broad bands. Face of rim: two broad bands in glaze-paint.
S5. Palermo (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Selinous. Boread (or Typhon) to right. Bottom: part of a raised wing.
SlO. Palermo (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Selinous. Part of lion: double contours with white dots; red shoulder and belly. Bottom: two narrow rings at center, two more after an interval. NC 1043(?);see also under S2. CorVP,p. 212, no. 18. By the Painter of Athens 931 (see pp. 80-81 above).
S6. Palermo (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Selinous. Male head with beard in rippling locks. Bottom: a checkered band (three-rowdicing; cf. the rim of S3) enclosing something at the center; between this and the foot molding, a palmette chain. S7. Palermo (not inventoried) Alabastronfragment, from Selinous. Feline trunk and seated haunch with tucked tail. Double lines on haunch divisions as well as belly band; all these, and the interstices of the ribs as well, have very tiny white dots. The tail is very thin.
Si . Agrigento, inv. no. S 2215 Two joined fragments of a plate, from Akragas, Necropoli di Contrada Montelusa. Larger part of lion to left, with raised right foreleg; no certain traces of added red; in the field, one double-centered rosette and possible traces of a second below the raised foreleg. di Agrigreco:le necropoli Ernesto di Miro, in Veder gento(catalogue),Rome 1988, p. 241, fig. 3.
SOME PLATESFROM CYRENE Fragments of two plates, once doubtless splendid, from Cyrene show a surer hand and more ambition than the foregoing. Their exact relationshipto the Painter of Corinth KP 1670 or to the Painter of Louvre E 574 is at present undetermined. Both are double-sided with very large drawing on the bottom of the plate and painstakinguse of a compass in the floral crosses on the face, evidently contemporary with L13 and L13 bis, Q1 and Q2. A third unattributedplate fragment from Cyrene (Kocybala [forthcoming], no. 195) should also belong to the Chimaera Group. Cyl. Cyrene Fragmentof a plate. Palmette and tendrils (ending in compass-drawn rosette) from a floral cross. Bottom: part of mane (largeflame locks) and shoulder of a lion. Kocybala (forthcoming),no. 192.
Cy2. Cyrene Fragmentof a plate. Petals of a palmette and tendrils, as the last but larger. Bottom: Haunch (of an ungulate?) to 1. Kocybala (forthcoming),no. 193. Kocybala also places these only in the Chimaera Group.
THE CHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH
129
THE CARROUSEL PAINTER V1-V4 are certainly,V5 and V6 probably,and V7 possibly,his work. V1. Athens, N.M. (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Perachora. EL. 0.080 m. Face: . . . floral, lion, goat, . Bottom: pegasoi galloping to right. Perachora II, no. 1943, pl. 72. CorVP,p. 166, A 4. [Callipolitis-Feytmans] V2. Oxford, Ashmolean Mus. 1947.238 Plate. Diam. 0.187 m. Face: horses, bird. Bottom: animal frieze. Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CM 10, p. 150; p. 130, fig. 7:a, b; p. 149, fig. 15 (profile). CorVP,p. 166, A 1. [Callipolitis-Feytmans] V3. Vienna, KHM IV 1775 Plate. Diam. 0.194 m. Face and bottom: animal friezes. NC 1027. Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, CM 8, p. 150; p. 128, fig. 5:a, b; p. 149, fig. 15 (profile). CorVP,p. 166, A 2. [Callipolitis-Feytmans; Lawrence] V4. Vienna, KHM IV 1776 Plate. Diam. 0.203 m. Face and bottom: animal friezes.
NC 1028. Callipolitis-Feytmans 1962, CM 9, p. 150; p. 129, fig. 6:a, b; p. 149, fig. 15 (profile). CorVP,p. 166, A 3. [Callipolitis-Feytmans; Lawrence] V5. Tocra 299 Plate. Est. Diam. 0.285 m. Animal friezes. Bottom: "similar"to V7. TocraI, no. 299, p. 37, pl. 21. CorVP,p. 167, C 5. [Amyx: "related'] V6. Tocra 298 Plate. Diam. 0.283 m. Animal frieze. Bottom: "similar"to V7. TocraI, no. 298, p. 37, pl. 21. CorVP,p. 167, C 4. [Amyx: "related"] V7. Tocra 297 Plate. Diam. 0.292 m. Animal frieze. Bottom: narrow bands, red and black. TocraI, no. 297, p. 37; p. 36, fig. 18 (profile,with banding), pl. 20. CorP, p. 167, C 3. [Amyx: "related"] Cf. also Tocra 301 (TocraI, p. 37, pl. 21); see p. 82 above.
CHIMAERAGROUP,UNATTRIBUTED Ul. Athens, N.M. (not inventoried) Plate fragment, from Perachora. Confronted horse protomai. II, no. 1965, p1.82. Perachora CorVP,p. 173, no. 11. U2. Rhodes, inv. no. 5175 Flat-bottomed aryballos,from Ialysos, grave 78. H. 0.160 m. Palmette-lotus cross between seated panther and crouching lion. CVA,Rodi 2 [Italy 10], p1. 3 [487]:8; Papapostolou 1968, p1.45:y. CorVP,p. 173, no. 2.
U3. Paris, Musee Rodin TC 899 Stemmed bowl. H. 0.110 m. Interior: palmette-lotus cross. Exterior: palmette chain. CVA,Musee Rodin 1 [France 16], pl. 6 [694]:4, 5. CorVP,p. 174, no. 1. ["Possiblyby the Chimaera Painter",Lawrence 1959]
U3 bis. Bucharest,V 1083 Plate fragment, from Istria. "Diametre probable"0.23 m. Floral cross, with very broad palmettes.
130
PATRICIALAWRENCE
P.Alexandrescu, S. Dimitriu, and S. Coja, Histria, et classique(VIIPd'lpoquearchafque IV, La cdramique IVe s.), Bucharest 1978, no. 289, p. 66; p. 65, fig. 9, pI. 29.
U7. Corinth, KP 2905272 PI. 56 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Outside South Building). Est. Diam. of foot 0.20 m. Part of raised wing, near edge of tondo.
U4. Corinth, CP-2453 Fig. 2 Plate rim fragment, from early excavations. Est. Diam. 0.24 m. No figural decoration preserved. CorinthVII, ii, no. 212, p1. 39 (assigned there to LC I, following Callipolitis-Feytmans1962, CR I, no. 9, p. 157).
U8. Corinth, KP 2906273
U5. Corinth, CP-2454 Fig. 2 Plate rim fragment, from early excavations. Est. Diam. 0.260 m.
Fig. 2, PI. 56 Plate fragment, from the Potters'Quarter ("Outside Wall A'). Est. Diam. (approx.)not greater than 0.25 m. Part of lotus sepal, near edge of tondo.
U9. Corinth, KP 2907274
PI. 56 Plate rim fragment, from the Potters' Quarter ("OutsideWall A'). Max. p. dim. 0.045 m.
Feline paw on rim, overlapping offset from floor (cf. X6, X37).
Only rays and banding are preserved. CorinthVII, ii, no. 155, pI. 28; CallipolitisFeytmans 1962, CM 80. [Chimaera Group, Callipolitis-Feytmans;this is surely correct.]
U10. Corinth, KP 2908275
U6. Corinth, C-60-48 Fig. 2 Plate fragment, from Forum Southwest, Byzantine refuse fill. Est. Diam. 0.260 m. Part of the rim and edge of tondo with rosette.
Ull. Corinth, KP 2917276
(nr7VP
272
n
17q
nn
19
PI. 56
Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Outside South Building). Max. p. dim. 0.059 m. Part of neck(?),breast, and wing bows of a sphinx(?) or siren. PI. 56 Plate fragment, from the Potters'Quarter ("Outside Wall A'). Max. p. dim. 0.046 m.
Double-centered rosette. rings.
Bottom: two narrow
Fragment preserving part of floor and beginning of rim. Max. p. dim. 0.070 m. Pale clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2). Nearly black glaze-paint with sheen. Added red. Interior: part of raised wing near edge of tondo. Bottom: nothing preserved. Outer foot molding black, inner red over black. 273 Fragmentof floor and rim. Max. p. dim. 0.074 m. Pale, warm clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). Firm, glossy, nearly black glaze-paint. Added red (preservedon both foot moldings and in groove at offset). From floral plate: tip of lotus sepal at edge of tondo. The red on both foot moldings was evidently applied directly to the clay (cf. L14). 274 Chip from surface of rim. Max. p. dim. 0.045 m. Pale, warm clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4). Nearly black glaze-paint. Added red (in band above offset). Feline paw overlapping offset of rim. Note that the red banding was applied over both black paint and incisions of paw. 275 Fragment from floor. Max. p. dim. 0.059 m. Pale clay (Munsell 10YR 8/4). Crazed, charcoal-gray glaze-paint. Purplish added red in black figure. From plate with an avian (sphinx or siren?). Added red in presumed neck, breast, and wing bows. Technically, this fragment is extremely similar to X35-X36, G3-G4, and K4. 276 Fragment from floor. Max. p. dim. 0.046 m. Pale clay (on interior, Munsell 5Y 8-7/2). Brownish vestiges of glaze-paint. Interior: double-centered rosette. Bottom: two narrow (0.003 m.) rings, 0.006 m. from foot molding(s).
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
131
ON THE MARGINS OF THE CHIMAERA GROUP Some of these, if more fully preserved, could doubtless be either included or rejected. Some of the bowls may be poor work from the same workshop. M9 and M10 are extremely marginal. Pieces discussed on pp. 11 1-1 17, and not listed here, are excluded for the reasons adduced. Ml. Corinth, CP-2437 Fragmentarybowl, fromearlyexcavations;provenience unknown. PH. 0.070, p.W 0.057 m. Winged figure (Boread?). NC 1013(?). CorinthVII, ii, no. 149 (with reference to Payne's remarks),p. 46, pl. 26.
Max. p. dim. 0.072 m. Rear half of large human head to right, in left half of tondo.
M4. Corinth, KP 2916279
PI. 57
Fragmentary bowl, from the Potters' Quarter (part from the North Dump, part from the East
M2. Corinth, KP 2912277 PI. 57 Plate fragment, from the Potters'Quarter ("Out-
Deposit) Est. Diam. of rim 0.200 m. Siren, wearing a polos, with outspreadwings, a large
Est. Diam. Daml'. of of tondo, tondo 0. 0.180, est. Diam. Diam. of of plate plate Est. 180, est. 0.260 m. Part of back and haunch of a feline. Bottom: two narrow bands preserved near foot molding.
double-centered rosette on either side of her head.
M3. Corinth, KP 2914278 PI. 57 Fragmentary bowl, from the Potters' Quarter (Outside South Building).
277
M5. Corinth, KP 2920
P. 58 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (North Dump). Max. p. dim. 0.065 m. Partof shoulderand forelegjoint of a feline, perhaps related to S2 and S3.
Fragment from floor and rim offset, preserving inner and a bit of outer foot moldings. Max. p. dim. 0.084 m. Pale clay, more orangish on bottom (Munsell 7.5YR 8-7/4). Crazed, charcoal-gray glaze-paint on interior, firm and dark red brown to nearly black on bottom. Added red. In tondo, part of back and haunch of feline to right (as its relation to border of tondo requires)with three incised arcs on back instead of two. Added red in haunch. Band (0.0015 m.) around tondo, red band at offset (accidental red dot in field). Bottom: at least inner foot molding was red over black, then reserved (0.002 m.), band (0.004 m.), reserved (0.002 m.), band (0.0025 m.), then reserved to break. 278 Wall fragment. Pale pinkish clay (Munsell 5YR 8/4). Red-brown glaze-paint. Added red and white banding over glaze-paint on exterior. In tondo, rear half of large human head to right (so that possibly another such faced it) with a bit of "Volomandra"forelock, compound headband, and most of ear. Behind the head, part of a simple rosette. 279 Joined fragments preservingprofile of wall and rim (with part of handle) but not foot of lekanoid bowl. On interior, pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2); on exterior, variable and very pink, where glaze-paint is partly gone, partly dark gray, partly red brown. The polychromy added on the exterior is poorly preserved; it was wRw on lower exterior of the bowl. On interior,glaze-paint is mostly flaked away,in part brownish gray and crazed. In tondo, each group of fragments(note the distance from each other at which the left and right pieces were excavated) preserved about half of the sphinx or siren and one of the rosettes. The fragments at left (PI.57), with some paint, are those from the "North Dump". 280 Fragment from floor. Pale clay (Munsell 1OYR8/3). Crazed, gray glaze-paint with brown streaks (fugitive on bottom). No certain traces of added red. In tondo, part of shoulder and foreleg joint, with a little behind it, part of feline to 1. The remains of banding on the bottom do not match S2 and S3.
132
PATRICIALAWRENCE
M6. Corinth, KP 2921281 PI. 58 Bowl fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (along west side of hill). Max. p. dim. 0.074 m. In tondo, large rear paw and belly of feline(?); double-centered rosette. M7. Corinth, numbered sherd L1929-4-6282 Bowl fragment, from the Potters'Quarter (North Dump). Max. p. dim. 0.073 m. Ribs and part of shoulder of feline.
Est. Diam. 0.285, est. Diam. of foot molding 0.220 m. Sicklewing, probablyof sphinx, at left side of tondo. Late Corinthian. M9. Corinth, sherd L1929-5-1284 Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter ("TrenchF'). Est. Diam. of foot molding 0.190 m. Lotus cross.
Fig. 2, PI. 58
PI. 58 M10. Corinth, KP 2919285 Bowl fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (RectangularSouth Pit). Max. p. dim. 0.050 m.
Plate fragment, from the Potters' Quarter (Outside South Building).
Partof head and shouldersof man to left; bold style but unlike the Chimaera Painter.
M8. Corinth, KP 2911283
Fragmentsof other bowls, which in theirpreservedstateseem less certainlyrelevantto the Chimaera Group, may be cited here. They are all from bowls of the same type as X18, X35, and X36, and all but the last are from the "North Dump" or the areas around the "South Long Building": Corinth, numbered sherds L1929-4-2, L1929-4-4, L1929-4-1 and 5 (from one bowl), L1929-4-7, L1930-1-1, and L1931-2-1 (NorthwestAngle Deposit). Fragment from the rim and wall. Max. p. dim. 0.074 m. Pale clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Brownish to gray glaze-paint. No added red. 282 Fragment preserving profile of floor, foot, and part of wall. Max. p. dim. 0.073 m. Very pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). Crazed, gray glaze-paint. Pale, purplish added red. In tondo, parts of feline: slash ribs (with alternate interstices red) and part of shoulder are clearly legible. Good potter's work, but see also CorinthXV, iii, no. 769, pl. 36. 283 Fragment preserving part of floor and full profile of rim. Powdery,pinkish clay (Munsell 5YR 8/4). Darkerand reddish traces of glaze-paint. Added red (evidentlyover glaze-paint)preservedonly on moldings and in banding on back. At left side of tondo, sickle wing, probably of sphinx. Banding (uniform width 0.0035 m.): one inside groove on rim, three at its root (above, at, and inside offset). The rim molding and double foot molding are red. Bottom: two bands, 0.01 m. inside foot molding and 0.0025 m. apart, then blank to break. I have not seen an earlier plate that had all the bands painted with the same medium-sized brush, as here. 284 Fragment from floor with foot moldings. Clay reduced by fire (Munsell, about 7.5YR 7/2). Vestiges of glaze-paint are dark gray, of added red dull purple. In tondo, ringed center with two rows of dicing; to the outer ring, lotus blossoms are attached, as if on spokes,with buds(?)between them. On bottom, bands (W.about 0.003 m.) about 0.015 m. apart (not the nearly equal painted and reservedbands of X28 et al.). In profile, the rim "covers"less than the outer foot molding. This plate probably representsemulation of the Chimaera Group. It is much too large a plate for Callipolitis-Feytmans'sCM Classe I (1962, p. 149, fig. 15) and clearly later. 285 Fragmentpreservingprofile of foot with a little of floor and wall. Pale clay (Munsell2.5Y 8/2). Crazed, dark gray glaze-paint. Traces of added red. In tondo, part of head and shoulders of a man to 1., with a large zigzag in the border across his shoulders. 281
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
PLATE38
'All
X5 (KP2902)
3:2
9:10
X3(KP2903)
5:6
X15 (CP-3245)
X14Al92910y7)
X14 (L1929-10-75)
-.
1:1';
-i
1!
X15, tracing
,
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
PLATE 39
----A,>-
.. .I
..
,,t
....
X1 (C..6
i-
a ,d,
rcn
PLATE40
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
K
E :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A Y!.,
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W
a. ViewA
b. ViewB X17 (Paris,Mus&eRodinCo 1379 [TO607])
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
PLATE 41
Al_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
J-6#
a. View C
pp_-
b. View D X17 (Paris,Musee Rodin Co 1379 [TC 607])
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
PLATE42
X25 (Gela,M.N.8702)
a. ViewA
b. ViewB
A~
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
1FW
PLATE43
X25 (Gela, M.N. 8702)
a. View C
_4
_b.
ViewD
PLATE44
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
X20 (C-31-551)
I:
X21 (KP 2316)
{A''
X32 (KP2122),tracing
4:3
w
X33 (KP 1455 b)
X38 (C-62-770+ C-65-509), tracing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5:4
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
_
m
F
PLATE 45
~~~~~~~~~X29
_-_
(Palermo, Fond. Mormino, inv. no. 621)
An'~~~~~~~A
a. View A
V.i
PLATE 46
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
I'".~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A~
~~
~~
a. Lid
-40
_
;S
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b. Detail: body frieze
X39 (Bonn, AkademischesKunstmuseum,inv. no. 666)
PLATE47
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
~
%u
'(
a;
<
3
'-
r
~
.
'
L4 '
E
bfi
.4.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~l %
(
,,Y'?
o
~%i.fr~~7 1'
01~~~~~
'
A.
Joe,,~ .<4
~
"
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 't
~
Ve "O.'
~
PLATE 48
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
Its)
~~~
~
et 4..l
A
F~ D
m
A
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
a. Detail: head of Chimaera
b. Detail: male sphinx
4?,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
-
c. Detail, head of lion
*
wi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
d. Detail, head of lion
4
PLATE49
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
:~~~~~~~~~~~~
In,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. bit'
0i'
"0
II
"0
"low~~~~~~~~ U,
am~~~~~~~~~
0
U,~~~~~~~
c~~~~~~~~~~~d ~ ~ ~ ~~
c~~~~~d
c~~~~~~~~~d~
PLATE50
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
Ar~~~~~~~~~~~
4.
-D
lotX,,,
,
,
-A;
#;tSE
~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~i
r-
PLATE51
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
./ /
;~~~~~~~~J t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ interior,tracing
..~~~~~~~~~~~6
botm
. v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 bottom L6,~~~ ~
3:4
tracing
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
PLATE52
He~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g L4 (Palermo, Fond. Mormino, inv. no. 319), view A
L1O (Syracuse, M.N., interior)
44_ UIS
L4, view B
L1O bottom
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1*
L4(aero
od.Mriniv
view n.39,
A
L1
LSyaue, botm.,ineor
PLATE53
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
Wait~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KI (0
4~~~~~~~~~1
lei
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OO
C4
0C)
C14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
b
i~~~~~~~~~~
vtvt
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
PLATE54
-
'C
/
Qi c (KP 1670c), exterior
K
~
as,
~~~~~~~~~~/
K
-
.f-
Qi c, exterior,tracing
PLATE55
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
._ C-) CU ._
X~
-- 9-!.....b
f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t ,~~~~~~~~~ 7-
//
s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~ .
f
Ie% :
M
St
s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fiibsss~~~~~~~~~~~aC
g
Cd
M~~~~~~~~ 'a)
PLATE 56
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
U8 (KP 2906)
U7 (KP 2905)
ca. 1:1
111U9
U10 (KP 2908)
ca. 1:1
(KP 2907)
1.1:1
Ull (KP 2917)
2.3:2
PLATE57
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
6"~~B
bOD
C14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
--W r~~~~~~~~~~~~~q,
* * l- , '\\hCM
p4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C)'
A *
''''
'
s
~s
GS
w
'
.
'''
''l
tfj
*
Y~~~~~~~
S~~~~~~~~ 4.
*
i
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
s
Ce)
WP
L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I C)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
PLATE58
THE CHIMAERA GROUP AT CORINTH
M5 (KP 2920)
'' 2921) (KP
M6(KP2921)
9:8
3:4
M8(KP2911
3:4
M8(KP2911)
MiD (KP2919)
ca. 1:1
3:5I
3:5
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER THE
CORINTHIAN VASE PAINTERS dependent on the painter of the Dodwell pyxis were singled out by Humfry Payne to exemplify Middle Corinthian stylistic development. To this group he contrastedthe highly singularChimaera Group, the artists who made the finest cups and kotylai, and hands that worked in a broader manner on larger animals (such as the Scale Painter or the decorator of the krater Louvre E 565). It is D. A. Amyx who has defined the styles dependent on the Dodwell Painter. Mary Blomberg has devoted an entire monograph to the Dodwell Painter himself.' The most characteristicproductsof the major hands are easily recognized, but routine work is stylistically ill defined. Amyx's connoisseurship has clarified distinctions and relationships,on the basis of a corpus of Dodwellian work sufficientlylarge for such study. Even now, we do not fully understand relationshipswithin the group and beyond it, in the larger picture of the Corinthian pottery industry. The fragmentspresented here, although small or worn, contributeto that understanding, not only because their shapes may alter the profile of bar graphs showing distribution of vase shapes but also because they all come from the Potters' Quarter excavation at Corinth. The Geladakis Painter is the only Dodwellian in the publication of the inventoried pottery by A. N. Stillwell andJ. L. Benson.2 Fragmentsfrom the context pottery prevent our supposing incorrectlythat the Dodwell Painterhimself was not representedin the preponderantly Middle Corinthian deposits there3-and so might have needed to be disassociated to some extent from the groups that were. They also expand and perhaps refine our understanding of the Geladakis Painter. One of the published vases, on the other hand, proves to be by the Schistos Painter,a rather obscure Geladakian whose list 1
A summer researchgrant from Louisiana State University in 1984 enabled me to work in Corinth and study the material presented here. D. A. Amyx shared not only his wisdom but also material from his photo archives,at the same time encouraging my venturingindependently into territorythat is particularlyhis own (any mistakes are mine). He also brought to my attention the sherds (1-5, 9) that he had identified the previous year. I wish to thank Charles K. Williams II, the director of the Corinth Excavations, both for advice and for permission to publish this material, and Nancy Bookidis, the associate director,for assistance without which this study would have been at least very difficult. In an earlier form, the Geladakian material was the subject of a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America (Lawrence 1985, p. 338). The photographs are by Ino Ioannidou and Lenio Bartzioti. The tracings are my own. 2 CorinthXV, iii, pp. 11-12, gives only nos. 731 and 850 as certain attributions,but the catalogue suggests very strongly that nos. 847 and 848 are also his. Nos. 635 and 701 are "related". The Ampersand Painter is mentioned, among others, for his use of red dots in the shoulder area. The Painter of Athens 931 is mentioned at no. 754 only to deny relationship. According to Index IV, the Dodwell Painter is nowhere mentioned. 3 The deposit "Outside Wall A" (see 10, 12, 13) and Well I were especially rich in Middle Corinthian, some of which fifty years ago might have been called Early. The North Dump also is rich in good Middle Corinthian, including 1-5, 7, and 14 here.
136
PATRICA LAWRENCE
contained only two vases of similar date. The addition of an earlier vase, since this is a competent hand who workedon elaborate, relativelyexpensive oinochoai, will probably lead to the identification of further work. It is impossible to say much about a hand or a group until enough has been identified to define its range of activity.
THE DODWELL PAINTER The seven fragments by the Dodwell Painter,4fittingly,were identified as such by Amyx. Six of them, 1A (PI.59), come from several(probablyfour)conical oinochoai; the seventh, 5 (PI.59), comes either from another such or from one of the other small, thin-walledvase shapes. All are from the same deposit, but since that deposit yielded so few mendable vases that it should be secondary dumping, and one conical oinochoe, 1, is clearly earlier than 2-4, we ought not to imagine them as coming from one batch. The seventh fragment, 5, has exceptionally fine drawingand glaze-paint, truly remarkablefor any conical oinochoe (if that is what it is) dating later than Protocorinthian. None of these fragments seems to be so late as the Dodwell Painter'sbroad-bottomed oinochoe at Corinth, C-38-276, some drawings of which are here provided (P1.60:a-c).5 To remain viable, the conical oinochoe must have served some very specific purpose (as a cruet?). The Dodwell Painter is the only important 6th-century artist to favor it with animal friezes. If we revise Blomberg'sbar graph6 to include 1-5, the three that she illustrates,and two unpublishedexamples listed by Amyx,7 conical oinochoai will seem to rankwith convex pyxides in his oeuvre, but the equivalence is probablyunreal, illustrating how a dumped-potterydeposit at a potters' quartercan skew shape distributionwhen only a small fraction of a man's work survives and accidental preservationand discovery are so variously conditioned.
THE PAINTER OF ATHENS 931 Careful study has shown that 6 (PI. 60), a sherd that seemed rather Geladakian, is much closer to another Dodwellian, the Painter of Athens 931.8 Unless this sherd is actually a superior example of his early work, this hand, closest to the Dodwell Painter himself, has yet to be recognized in materialfrom the Potters'Quarter. Certainly,in the absence of lions' heads, his rather rough drawing can be hard to recognize,9 and great quantities of the context pottery have yet to be studied. In any case, by virtue of decorating 4 CorVP,pp. 205-210, 320-32 1; in Appendix III, pp. 346-347, a concordance with Blomberg'slists and illustrationsis provided. 5 This vase was published in Corinth VII, ii as no. 166, pls. 29, 30, but the loss of paint makes the photographs partly illegible. Blomberg (1983, no. 60) also lists it as late (cf Corinth VII, ii, p. 50). 6 Blomberg 1983, p. 31, fig. 8. 7 Blomberg 1983, nos. 42-44; CorVP, p. 207, A 20, A 21. 8 CorVP, pp. 211-213, 321, 348. 9 Amyx 1971, p. 27.
DODWELLIANSIN THE POTTERS QUARTER
137
lekanoid bowls with tondos, he has other strong, although indirect, ties with material well represented there.1
THE GELADAKIS PAINTER Whether significantly or by accident, the Geladakis Painter'1 is the Dodwellian best represented, in variety of vases as well as quantity, both in the Potters' Quarter and at Corinth generally.12 In CorinthXV, iii, four pieces are attributed to him and two others described as related; the hydria, no. 738, not attributed there, also proves to be his own work. A newly inventoried bowl and four lotted sherds (possiblyfive) seem to be his. Also, his place among Middle Corinthian painters of oinochoai whose taste is rather like the Dodwell Painter'sneeds to be considered, even if it cannot yet be defined. First,I agree with Stillwelland Benson that the pyxis fragments Corinth XV, iii, nos. 847 and 848 resemble no. 850 so closely that they must also be by the Geladakis Painter. I also agree that, considered developmentally, they are Late Corinthian and thus late in the artist'scareer. Amyx also agrees with the authors of CorinthXV, iii that KP 1968 (no. 731) is his.13 With it we must compare KP 1769 (no. 738), which preservesone of the horizontal handles of a hydria. On these fragments, from deposits at two points in the west road outside the Long Buildings,14 the clay and vestiges of glaze-paint are so similar that, if the feline on KP 1968 were not drawn at a slightly larger scale than those on KP 1769, the two could be assigned to the same vase. Even so, KP 1968 (listed under oinochoai both by Amyx and by Stillwell and Benson)15 is thicker than the walls of most oinochoai, however large, I discussabove (pp. 114-1 15) the evident convergenceof some late Dodwellian workwith late Chimaera Group work at the end of Middle or the beginning of Late Corinthian. The Painter of Athens 931 even worked on plates (CorVP,p. 212, A 18) but is well represented on bowls (CorVP,p. 211, A 13-A 16; p. 321, A 16 bis,with further publication given p. 348). 11 CorVP,pp. 213-218, 321-322, 348-349. 12 See note 2, p. 135 above; he is also mentioned in CorinthXV, iii, at nos. 663, 735, 739, 866, and 1305, but not for attributions. Also from Corinth: CorVP,p. 215, A 35, A 39, A 40; p. 216, A 49. 13 CorVP,p. 216, A 46, with fuller description, as an oinochoe of undetermined shape. The same piece, KP 1968, is listed with the description "felines"on p. 214, A 10 (= Amyx 1971, p. 30, List 8, no. 11, which Benson cites, Corinth XV, iii, no. 73 1, note 1; their measurementsfor the height of the fragment differby only a millimeter,and the same sherd must be meant). PerhapsAmyx on a later examination of the sherd saw that it could not come from a pyxis, but the earlier entry,from Amyx 1971, was not deleted from the typescriptof the CorVPLists when no. 46 was added. 14 "Outside South Long Building" is really the southern extension of the "Road Deposit"; see my review (Lawrence 1986, pp. 237-238) of CorinthXV, iii. It is separate because it is more homogeneous and representeda concentration of pottery. 15 I disagree with Benson (Corinth XV, iii, no. 731, note 1) that the sherd "could be any closed shape." With all the Dodwellian material at Corinth assembled on a table, it is easy to ascertain that convex-pyxis sherds are always very much thinner than this one. So are sherds of broad-bottomed oinochoai. That hydrias have heavier walls than large oinochoai may be due to their heavier rims and horizontal handles for lifting or to the expectation that they would actually be handled full of liquid. A large trefoil oinochoe (35-40 cm. tall), however handsome, would be very unwieldy if full of wine. Were they used ostentatiouslybut half full? 10
138
PATRICIALAWRENCE
and most plausibly comes from the shoulder of a hydria. In any case, the contours and markingsof the animals on KP 1769 (PI.60:d) leave no doubt that it is by the Geladakis Painter, contemporary with KP 1968. The backwards-lookingbird under the handle is matched on his Vienna pyxis.16 All the feline paws have his version of Dodwellian socks. The feline shoulder,ribs, and tail attachment are correct (althoughthe tail itself has been forced up the back by the presence of the handle). The filling ornament suggests a date at the end of Middle Corinthian. His troubling to incise all the feline paws even in the lower frieze and under a handle, where least care is usually taken, shows that, fired to the right color, KP 1769 would have been a handsome large vase.17 Fragmentsrepresentingfive vases, 7-11 (Pls. 61, 62), previouslyunpublished, identified among context sherds from the Potters'Quarter,seem to be by the GeladakisPainter. That he should be foundjoining the Painterof Athens 931 in the use of another shape not traditionallyDodwellian, the lekanoid bowl (othersare the panel amphora and the globular oinochoe), is especiallyinteresting,grantedits preservationonly of legs and haunches: I have vacillatedrepeatedlybetween my initial confidence in recognizingthe style as his and uncertaintydue to the absence of animal forepartsand heads. A sixth piece, 12 (PI.63), is less distinctive; I have retained the category "weak Geladakian"18for work that seems perfectly like his but for its lack of very distinctive marks and personal flair; this needs to be distinguished from work under his influence but clearly by other hands and work thoroughly Geladakianbut by no means weak.19 A fragment, 13 (PI.63), that seems Geladakianin taste proves to be by the same hand as KP 1092 (CorinthXV; iii, no. 730), from Well I.20 Besides, other animals on KP 1092 show no special relationshipto any of the Dodwellians. The Geladakiantaste, in this case, is merely the effect of curly lines and quite delusory. It may be worthwhile to remember that certain aspects of the way a person writes or draws (apart from whether he is leftor right-handed), such as whether he tends to slash or to scribble, are congenital and ineradicable, not learned, and so far as possible should be isolated from learnable traits which alone are evidence for relationships.The fragment 14 (PI.63) has more in common with this new hand than with the Dodwellians; like him, it is rather more generically Middle Corinthian than they are. As Payne said,21 he isolated five groups that were distinctive, and he urged us to consult the catalogue for the less distinctive. We have, quite naturally,pursued the identities. It is difficult, or impossible, to work out relative chronology,dependencies, and developmentswithout the fruitsof connoisseurship;it may CorVP,p. 214, A 11. Sherds with "yellowishgray"or "grayishyellow"clay and "darkgray"stains (actuallyclose to Munsell 7.5YR 5/4 and 5YR 6/3 on these fragments)where the paint had been are quite common. The paint is nearly always gone, and the vases will have been in most cases unsalable. Any remaining added red is also badly discolored. 18 Corinth VII, ii, An31, p. 88, note 57. The term is not used in Amyx 1971 or, except in CorVP,p. 217, at C 8, citing our use of it in Corinth VII, ii, elsewhere in print. 19 Clearly by another hand and certainly under his influence, CorVP,p. 218, C 9, Corinth CP-140 (NC 1096). KP 88, which is "by no means weak" in its Geladakiantraits, is discussedbelow, pp. 139-140. 20 Ann Brownlee is studyingthe materialfromWell I, which includes numerousfragmentsfrom oinochoai. 21 Necrocorinthia, p. 65. 16 17
DODWELILANSIN THE POTTERS'QUARTER
139
be time now to depend on sound connoisseurshipbut fill out the less structuredpatches in the jigsaw puzzle and complete the picture. The last fragment, 15 (PI.63), is an object lesson. The incohesiveness of lists of vases "relatedto" an artist is due more often to disparate kinds of relationship than to varying degrees of similarity,especially when a piece very peculiarlyand intricatelyrelated to an artist'swork appears among pieces that merely lack his distinctivetraits. Stillwelland Benson are right that the large kotyle-pyxis(it has spurred handles and grooved rim) KP 88 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 635, here PI. 64:a), from Well I, is related to the Geladakis Painter; Amyx, indeed, says that it is "Near the Painter".22 We shall see that the Schistos Painter and KP 88 are so Geladakian that they count as "Dodwellian" only on the strength of his relationship to the Dodwell Painter. That is, the Geladakis Painter has the status of a younger, second master rather than a mere follower. KP 88 is one of the most interesting vases at Corinth; A. N. Stillwell gave it detailed description and singled it out for preliminarypublication.23 It is fussy and archaizing and vacuiand nervous-lookingsmall filling ornament; archaizing inconsistent:fussy in its horror in the vase shape, the "metopes", the zone of Z's, the hooks among the rays, and in the sphinx centerpiece (which looks as if it had been freely copied from something earlier); inconsistent in its varied and perhaps experimental animal markings(forelegs,joints, and other articulations) and in its shoddy horizontal banding and degenerate dicing on an otherwise unusually ambitious vase. Even more interesting is the style, which rewards analysis. It has no specifically Dodwellian traits: no strongly cocked panther heads, no braked forelegs, no Dodwellian socks among all its leg markings, no double-centered rosettes or fan and bundle fillers. It also lacks the GeladakisPainter'sextravagant maniera, his ears marked concentrically or with lower-case omegas, his use of rows of incised flecks or red dots (but these occur rather later), as well as the socks and double-centered rosettes from his association with the Dodwell Painter.24But it possesses animals shaped like his (except for the sphinxes), with belly lines that swing up like his, with fringed haunches, with shoulder enclosures that look like his (especially that on the goat, which not even the Schistos Painter shares), with the underside of the tail marked off from the haunch,
22 CorVP, p. 217, B 2 (= Amyx 1971, List 10, no. 1). Benson (Corinth XV, iii, no. 635) must be excused for missing this reference since Amyx lists it without inventory number or reference to the preliminary publication (A. E. Newhall, "The Corinthian Kerameikos,"AJA 35, 1931 [pp. 1-30], p. 15, fig. 11) and as a kotyle instead of a kotyle-pyxis. On a photocopy from Amyx's photo archive for the Geladakis Painter, of Corinth Negative 4088A (an early negative antedating the inventory of the Potters' Quarter), a large detail of this vase, featuring the panther,I read clearly Amyx's notation, "Cat. p. 217 no. B-2," but the sheet is otherwise labeled only "Corinth"and "KP"and "Neg. 4088A",with earlier notes showing that at one time he wondered whether it might be by the GeladakisPainter. The vase shape is not evident in the photograph, but Amyx's identification of the photograph with his no. B-2 proves that KP 88 is the vase in question. 23 Newhall, loc.cit., preceding note. 24 It is remarkable that the Geladakis Painter avoided all the bundle and fan fillers that the Dodwell Painter (Blomberg 1983, p. 17, fig. 1) used habitually and abundantly.
140
PATRICIALAWRENCE
with rib markings consistently slashing downwards from right to left.25 An archaizing vase is hard to date, but KP 88 is at least earlier than Corinth T 1516, from the North Cemetery, or CP-140, from Swift'sWell.26 Amyx says that the Geladakis Painter began "fairlylate in MC", and I take T 1516 (P1.64:b, c) for an early work, although Amyx only remarksthat it is "unusuallyfine". It is also, as Stillwelland Benson say,quite close to KP 88. The drift of discussion is plain. An early and idiosyncraticvase, in an ambitious but tentative style, that is Geladakianwithout being Dodwellian could be an early work of the Painter.27It is sorely tempting. All we need is something to link it with his Dodwellian oeuvre and some evidence that it is actually earlier than any of that work. Toying with temptation here has some point. KP 88 is too important to be dismissed as not quite attributable. The analysis brings the relative independence of the Geladakis Painter into sharper focus. Finally,it illuminatesthe nature of talented nonage. Worklike the Plymouthbroad-bottomedoinochoe cannot representthe formativestage of the youth who was shortlyto produce Munich 327, the Dodwell pyxis.28Even talented ten-year-olds can control a brushand graver,only (asis the case with a child'ssignature)they cannot do it with much fluency,and they lack the practice, the repetition, that produces characteristic calligraphic habits. Whosever it is, KP 88 looks like talented adolescent work. Like decorations in a secondary-schoolyearbooktrying to imitate Art Nouveau, KP 88 is fussy, inconsistent, derivative (the sphinxes), and tight. It is exactly the kind of thing that an ambitious adolescent in fact does do.
THE SCHISTOS PAINTER Of the hand that decorated Corinth C-62-388 and an oinochoe known to me only from a photograph labeled "Syracuse, from Akrai. Mus. Neg. No. B6491" (see CorVP,p. 349, referenceto p. 218, no. 2), Amyx saysthat he is "closelyrelatedto the GeladakisPainter".29 While checking all the vases in Corinth XV: iii whose animals had bent shoulder enclosures, 25
It tends to strengthenthe relationshipof Corinth CP- 140 (note 19, p. 138 above)to the earlyworkof the Geladakis Painter that the rear anklebone markings of the panther at the left of the left-hand sphinx on KP 88 recur on CP- 140 and not, so far as I know,in the work of the later GeladakisPainter. VII, i, nos. 33126 Swift'sWell, which seems consistently late Middle Corinthian, is published in Corinth 360; see ibid.,p. 74. 27 In conversation at Corinth some thirty years ago, Benson and I discussed, interalia, the possibility that KP 88 was an early work of the Geladakis Painter,but I made no notes and no longer remember our arguments for or against, or even whose idea it was. In CorinthXV, iii, p. 128, he says only that "while it is clear that it is not by that artist, it would be appropriateto add it to the list of related vases." If, as I believe, KP 88 is youthful and emulative,the earlierstyle that the boy admired was probablythat of the vase painter whom we call the Royal Library Painter,who worked on this vase shape. Compare, e.g., KP 1672 XV, iii, no. 371; CorVP,p. 128, AP 1: "Probablyby the Royal LibraryPainter")and the namepiece (Corinth (CorVP,p. 127, A 7, pl. 51:1 a, b). 28 Blomberg 1983, no. 1, p. 73, pls. 1, 2. Neither do I see why the vase needs to be earlier than the Dodwell pyxis (Blomberg 1983, no. 3; CorVP,p. 205, no. 1). In CorVP,p. 348, AP 12, Amyx says, "Perhaps notby the Painter?",with which I concur, unless the artist were thoroughlyill or drunk. 29 CorVP,p. 218.
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
141
I noticed that KP 1085 (no. 726; many more fragmentsare preservedthan are illustrated)30 is by the same potter and the same painter, the Schistos Painter, as C-62-388. Shape and drawing both show that KP 1085 is considerably earlier,contemporary with Swift's Well rather than the level of baskets 9-21 in the Anaploga Well.31 Like CP-140 from Swift'sWell, it has heavy animals with long midsections but filling ornament with a larger proportion of incised elements than on C-62-388. Like C-62-388, KP 1085 is Geladakian without being Dodwellian, except that it has some bundle-shaped fillers. Some, but not all, of its simple rosettes already are made with asterisksin the center of large blobs, as is the rule on C-62-388 (for details, see Corinth VII, ii, pl. 97). Comparison of KP 1085 and KP 88, which are closer in date,32 with the Geladakis Painter and each other, brings into relief the more personal quality of the Geladakian traits on KP 88.
SUMMARY The pieces at Corinth presented here confirm the traditional character of the Dodwell Painter, who began working at the dawn of Middle Corinthian, based his style on antecedents from the end of Early Corinthian, and never radically altered that style, even in his latest work. They also strengthen the claim that (granted the essential personality of an Ampersand or Elvehjem Painter)33only the Geladakis Painter, although a true Dodwellian, was himself also a leader, with his own followers. In the Dodwell Painter's dotage, the Geladakis Painter and the Painter of Athens 931 decorated vases of kinds that the Dodwell Painter had never thought of, in ways alien to his habits. It is fair to suggest that without their example the old Dodwell Painter would not have undertaken worklike the globularoinochoe in Bari.34 Considerationof worklike 13, KP 1092, and 14 helps to define what ought and ought not to be called "Dodwellian". The Dodwellians are one characteristicgroup of animal-friezepainters in Middle Corinthian, not the only one. Much good animal-frieze work is generically like theirs, and perhaps not unaffected by 30
Besides fragments a-t, cited at CorinthXV, iii, no. 726, there is fragment u, with part of a feline and, below, a bit of the back of some quadruped. With the complete C-62-388 at hand, it is possible with some assurance to sort out the friezes and the sequence of figures on KP 1085. KP 1085 has the same collar at the base of the neck as C-62-388 and the Syracuse oinochoe, mus. neg. no. B6491 (CorVP,p. 218, no. 2); Dodwellian oinochoai can be sorted out to a great extent on potters' work alone (CorinthVII, ii, p. 89). The confronted sirens in the center of the shoulder frieze (opposite the handle) preserved on fragment c are clearly both earlier than their counterpartson C-62-388 and by the same hand (although there is reason to question whether all of KP 1085 is one vase, and on fragment c the collar around the neck seems to have a slightly smaller circumference than on fragment a, the fragments are certainly all by the Schistos Painter). So, too, the owls, the felines, and the goats, especially those on fragments f and t compared with Corinth VII, ii, pl. 97:f and i; only when KP 1085, fragmentt is laid beside pl. 97:i do its markingsmake sense. 31 Corinth VII, ii, pp. 65-66, An2l-An54. Swift'sWell, note 26, p. 140 above. 32 Stillwell, in fact, cited KP 88 (her no. 635) for the relative date of KP 1085 (CorinthXV, iii, no. 726, p. 143). 33 CorVP,pp. 218-220 (AmpersandPainter),221-222 (ElvehjemPainter). 34 CorVP,p. 208, A 42; Blomberg 1983, no. 61, pl. 48.
142
PATRICIALAWRENCE
it (it cannot have been easy to keep shop secretsin the Potters'Quarter),but does not seem to have been made by potters and painters who actually workedwith them.
CATALOGUE Munsell numbers for clay color were taken consistently from reserved areas on the surface (notfrom the interiors of closed shapes or from areas where paint had once been). For the location of Potters' Quarter deposits, see Figure 3, p. 105 above. 1. Conical oinochoe, fragments
PI. 59
a. L1929-4-12. Max. p. dim. 0.0747 m. Two joined body fragments. From the North Dump. Pale clay (Munsell 1OYR8/3); good, nearlyblack glaze-paint, partly abraded. Added red. b. L1929-4-16. Max. p. dim. 0.0471 m. Single body fragment. From the North Dump. Paleclay (Munsell7.5YR 8/4); good, nearlyblack glaze-paint. Added red. Scale and drawing suggest that these are from one vase. The different Munsell numbers mean only that b is slightly pinker (complete vases often differ more dramatically than these from one side to the other). When one sherd is laid inside the other, the fit is close but not perfect. The sherdsare not, therefore, quite certainly from one vase. The largerfragment preservespart of the incisedverticalsbelow the neck, a black-polychromeband, and, in the frieze, most of the forequartersof a panther to r.; in the field are four rosettes,simply incised with two, three, or four lines, according to their size. The smaller fragment has the body of a feline (panther) to r., two simple incised rosettes, a longer blob incised like a simple rosette, and part of a bundle filler. Both fragmentspreservea very short segment of the groundline. By the Dodwell Painter [Amyx]. Ca.590 B.C. Not only the neat style but the limited and disciplined filling ornament, without unincised dots, suggest that this is the earliest known example of this vase shape by the Dodwell Painter. For the panther with a simple shoulder, cf. Athens, N.M. 967 (CorVP,p. 209, AP 7 [see Amyx's note there]; Blomberg 1983, no. 15, pl. 13); for neat, small animals but filling ornament more advanced by Blomberg's criteria, cf. Osaka, Oka collection
(CorVP,Appendix III, p. 346, A 0; Blomberg 1983, no. 29, pl. 23). PI. 59 2. Conical oinochoe, fragments a. L1929-4-13. Max. p. dim. 0.072 m. Two joined fragments of the body, with part of the base. From the North Dump. Pale clay (Munsell lOYR 8/3); thin, brownish black glaze-paint. Vestiges of added red (visible under magnification). b. L1929-4-14. Max. p. dim. 0.065 m. Body fragment, including part of the zone of rays but brokenjust above the base on the exterior. From the North Dump. Clay and paint as on a. Scale, style, and the drop-shaped rays suggest that these are from one vase; uncertainty is due to the differentbreadthof the bands between animal frieze and zone of rays and to extensive crazing in the glaze-painton a, whereverthe glaze-paint is blacker and thicker. Also, the preservationon the inside of the beginning of the bottom of the vase prevents the simple test for curvature, placing one sherd inside the other at the same height on the vase. The larger fragment preserves part of the animal frieze (ruminant, probably goat, to 1.), the blackpolychrome band below it, and drop-shaped rays at the base; there is no base molding. The smaller sherd, brokenjust short of the base, preservespart of a panther, seated and regardant. The filling ornament is simple rosettes and dots, all but two of which are incised, and a medium-sized irregular fillernot representedin Blomberg 1983, p. 17, fig. 1. By the Dodwell Painter [Amyx]. Not earlier than ca. 580 B.C. Of the published conical oinochoai attributed to this artist, that in Gela (CorV, p. 347, A 22 bis; Blomberg 1983, no. 43, pl. 35:b-d [Neeft]) appears
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER to have the same rays. The stylisticphase seems to be that of the Manchester pyxis (CorVP,p. 206, A 7; Blomberg 1983, no. 39, pl. 32), where the very ripe Middle Corinthian style as yet shows no tendency towardLate Corinthian. Blomberg (1983, p. 21 and p. 38, fig. l0:e) would have seated panthers early, regardantlate; actually,seated panthers are too occasional in the Dodwell Painter for generalizations to be made. PI. 59 3. Conical oinochoe, fragment 105 Three joined m. L1929-4-1 1. Max. p. dim. 0. fragments from the body, brokenjust short of the base. From the North Dump. Pale, warm clay (Munsell 7.5YR between 8/4 and 7/4); thin, grayish brown glaze-paint. Faint traces of added red. The scale and style are like 4, but this group of sherds is thinner at the top (that 4 is pinker would not alone preclude their being from one vase). The interiors of 3 and 4 are alike, but these seem to be from two closely similar conical oinochoai. The joined fragmentspreservepart ofthe animal frieze (a small part of feline to r. and the largerpart of a goat to 1.; filling ornament mostly simple rosettes with three or four strokes,with three unincised dots and an irregularfiller similar to Blomberg's type 6a or type 20c, another like her types 9 and 13 [Blomberg 1983, p. 17, fig. 1]) with bands (once polychrome) above and below and very short rays at the base. By the Dodwell Painter [Amyx]. Not earlier than ca. 580 B.C. Plain and loose work, not necessarily earlier than 2. The rays here would be teardrop-shaped, too, if they were not partly covered by the base line (as doubtless was intended on 2 as well). 4. Conical oinochoe, fragment
PI. 59
L1929-4-15. Max. p. dim. 0.0512 m. Fragment from the body. From the North Dump. Pinkish clay (Munsell between 5YR and 7.5YR 7/6); thin brownto red-brownglaze-paint. Added red. From an example similar to 3. The sherd preserves part of the animal frieze (part of panther to r., with head twisted around; a simple rosette with four strokes, one with three, five incised dots, and a bundle filler, Blomberg's type 9e [Blomberg 1983,
143
p. 17, fig. 1]) and part of the band (once polychrome) above. By the Dodwell Painter [Amyx]. Not earlier than ca. 580 B.C., as the last. PI. 59 5. Closed vase, fragment L1929-4-17. Max. p. dim. 0.0424 m. Fragment from the body. From the North Dump. Pale, warm clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4). Thin, nearly black glaze-paint. Added red. The fragment, broken all around, preserves no bands or base lines. On the interior are diagonal twist marksthat occur when the potter contracts the shape. The vertical curvatureis too slight for the shoulder frieze of a convex pyxis (Blomberg 1983, pls. 4, 9), although the body frieze of a small convex pyxis might be possible. The scale is too small and the wall too thin for the shoulder of a standard oinochoe. Either the sherd comes from the shoulder of a broad-bottomed oinochoe no larger than Corinth C-38-276 (CorVP, p. 207, A 38; Blomberg 1983, no. 60), where the wall is only slightly thicker at the shoulder, or from another conical oinochoe, smallerand finer than the foregoing (butits horizontal curvatureis a little less than theirs). It preserves part of the animal frieze (lion to r., identified by part of its ruff) with parts of two fillers (a simple rosette with three strokes,below the lion's belly, and an irregular filler [Blomberg 1983, p. 17, fig. 1, type 6 or 8 or 20] above its back). By the Dodwell Painter [Amyx]. Early. Perhapsca. 600-590 B.C. The lion's shoulder is still related to several on the namepiece (CorVP, p. 205, A 1, pl. 86:1 a, b; Blomberg 1983, no. 3, pl. 4), but the filling ornament preserved,iftypical of the whole, shouldnot be quite so early. In the shape of the shoulder,the leafshaped prototype is still evident; the later shoulder usually is more simply boxlike, although occasionally, as on the Richmond olpe (CorVP,p. 347, A 44 bis;Blomberg 1983, no. 23, pls. 19, 20), the painter takes pains to show that he knows the prototype. Blomberg has proposed that the Dodwell Painter began in Early Corinthian, but the leaf-shaped prototype for his typical feline shoulder (wellestablished on the namepiece) hardly antedates the end of Early Corinthian and is shared at the beginning of Middle Corinthian with the Carrousel Painter and the Chimaera Painter(CorVP,pp. 166-170; on theirparallel
144
PATRICIALAWRENCE
careers, see pp. 89 and 108 above). For this sherd, cf. CorVF,p. 206, A 3, A 4; Blomberg 1983, nos. 11, 13, pls. 9, 11. 6. Closed vase, fragment PI. 60 Max. p. dim. 0.0436 m.; Th. L1929-1-1. 0.00415 m. Fragment from the body. From the Potters' Quarter, 1929; exact findspot unknown. Very pale clay (Munsell IOYR 8/4; at the core, equally pale but pinker);glaze-paint, with some sheen, shading from brownish black to reddish brown. The sherd is not too thick for a convex pyxis, but the upper body and shoulder of a fine, large oinochoe (CorinthKP 1092 and KP 1085 were compared)are equally thin, and the sherd'scurvaturefits KP 1085 when laid in ruminant's-headposition in the main body frieze; the character of the filling ornament also slightly favors a large trefoil oinochoe. The sherd preservesonly part of an animal frieze: head of panther to r. and part of head of ram to 1.; the filling ornament includes two large simple incised rosettes, a bundle filler, two unincised boomerangs (one complete), and four unincised dots. Related to the Painterof Athens 931, the Dodwell Painter'sclosest follower (CorVP,pp. 211-213, 321, 348). Ca. 585-570 B.C. (latter half of Middle Corinthian). Amyx himself (1971, p. 27) confesses that the bordersof thispainter'sstyle are difficult. On thissherd, the handwritingseems insufficientlyfarouchefor the PainterofAthens 931, who habituallydispatchesanimals and fillers alike with rapid, somewhat curved strokespredominantlydrawn downwardsfrom 1. to r., like the lower stroke of a C in pen-and-ink calligraphy. The panther'sface resembleshis. He likes double-circled ears and eyes, but his rams are not well published, and I have not been able to ascertain how closely this ram matches his. It is, like the panther face and filling ornament, Dodwellian and clearly not by any of the hands discussedbelow. Rams, when present, are often more reliable than panthers and goats in discriminatingamong styles. 7. Three-frieze trefoil oinochoe, fragments PI. 61 a. L1929-4-10. Max. p. dim. 0.136 m. Two joined fragments. From the North Dump.
Very pale clay (Munsell 1OYR8/3); glaze-paint (crazed,half gone) nearlyblack, but brown where thin. Added red. b. L1929-4-8. Max. p. dim. 0.113 m. Nonjoining fragment. From the North Dump. Very pale clay (Munsell lOYR 8/3-4); paint as on a. The fragments come from a large oinochoe with three animal friezes. The largerpiece preservespart of the principal and lower friezes, the smaller one part of the plastic collar at the base of the neck, part of the shoulder frieze, then (separated by a blackpolychromeband), a bit of the principalbody frieze: row of dots, as over a ruminant'sback (cf. the goat on Corinth T 1516, CorinthXIII, no. 155a, pl. 85; CorVP,p. 215, A 40). In the friezes: I (shoulder)... ruminant to 1., goat to 1., with simple rosettes and some unincised blobs (a possible double-centered rosette in front of goat's head); II ... ruminant to 1., feline to r.,with four-strokesimple rosettesand some unincisedsmall blobs;III ... part of head of panther to r., with part of a simple rosette and a largish triangularunincised blob (behind panther's head). Added red; I, on goat's neck; II, on ruminant's belly and haunch; III, on panther's neck; traces of polychromyon bands between friezes. By the Geladakis Painter (CorVP,pp. 214-218, 321-322,348-349). Ca.580 B.C. (late in Middle Corinthian). The contours of the animals (before flaking) and the sober, rather careful incision (see animals' feet) show that this was once a superior vase; on the ruminant in II, so much of the crazed glaze-paint as still adheres is glossy. The attribution is certain (Amyx concurs), with the Geladakian version of Dodwellian socks, fringed haunch, rib marksslashing down from right to left, a crisscrossedtip on the feline tail (II), and typical contours and incisions for the goat's ear (I). It is earlier than the Syracuse oinochoe (CorVP,p. 215, A 38) or the namepiece of the Schistos Painter (CorVP, p. 218, A 1) but contemporary with KP 1085, on which see p. 141 above. 8. Trefoil oinochoe, fragments PI. 62 L1931-5-2. RH. 0.1223 m.; p.W 0.0922 m. Five joined sherds. From 'Along West Side of Hill, June 4-13, 1931. NB 123, 187ff".
DODWELLIANSIN THE POTTERS'QUARTER Creamy, pale clay (Munsell between 7.5YR and IOYR 8/4); firm, nearly black glaze-paint. Added red. The fragments preserve part of a two-frieze oinochoe: a bit of the shoulder frieze, part of the body frieze, the wide black-polychrome band, and the upper part of the rays. The horizontal curvature shows that it was too small for three friezes, the vertical that it was rather globular, but the syntax is standardfor a trefoil oinochoe. It is too thick and the wrong shape for any kind of pyxis. In the friezes: I, parts of a feline hind leg, an incised rosette, and two dots; II, forepaw of feline to r., goat to 1. (a fleck of added red remains on his neck). Simple rosettes, V-incised blobs, unincised "rice" and dots. Traces of polychromyon bands. Rays with attenuated tips. By the Geladakis Painter. Ca. 570-565 B.C. (beginning of Late Corinthian). This is typical rapid but sure, routine work by the Geladakis Painter, with all his calligraphic flair in minimal scope. The attribution is easy (Amyx concurs). The evolution of the filling ornament is comparable with that on the Schistos Painter's namepiece (CorVP,p. 218, A 1),from which the relative date derives, and his own three-friezeoinochoe, Corinth C-72-196 a-c (CorVP,p. 322, A 39 bis). 9. Pyxis with upright handles, fragment PI. 62 L1931-9-1. Max. p. dim. 0.080 m. Sherd from the body. From the Road Deposit. Very pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2); glaze-paint black where not flaked and abraded. Added red. The fragment must come from a rather large pyxis; only pyxides with upright handles, especially the stemmed ones, have twogroundlinesabove the black area. This sherd preserves these with a bit of the solid black below (none of the whole examples preserves three lines). In the animal frieze, part of a feline to 1. (there was added red on the belly, now preserved only where it overlay bare clay); there are four simple rosettes, a double-centered rosette beneath the feline, and an unincised blob. By the Geladakis Painter [Amyx]. Ca. 570-565 B.C. (beginning of Late Corinthian). The sherd was identified and attributed by Amyx. As with the last, although the work is hasty and the sherd small, the attribution is certain owing to this artist'scalligraphicflourish(here, for example, in the curve of the belly line). Preservationstronglyaffects
145
perception; reduced to a scuffed sherd, one of the panthers on the handsome Munich stemmed pyxis (NC 906; CorVP,p. 215, A 26) would not look so good even as ours. The filling ornament on NC 906 also is very similar. Whether, with Payne (J/ecrocorinthia,p. 308), we see this style as still Middle Corinthian or consider the shape, the manner, the outlined tongues on the shoulder (NC 906) as characterizing a new style is a matter of definition; the date given reflectsmy belief that the Late phase is of shorter duration than its predecessors. This sherd will be contemporary with the last, but it is work on a less traditionalshape than the trefoil oinochoe. The unstemmedpyxis with uprighthandles Taranto 20774 (CorVP,p. 214, A 7; for its LC context, ibid., top of page) has slightly furtherevolved filling ornament than the Munich pyxis, NC 906, or that from which 9 came. 10. Oinochoe, globular or "Corinth" type, fragment
PI. 62
L1928-1-3. Max. p. dim. 0.070 m.; Th. 0.0044 m. Sherd from the body. From "Outside Wall A" (southern part of west wall of South Long Building). Pale, slightly dirty clay (Munsell 1OYR 8-7/3). Traces of glaze-paint and of added red. The fragment probably comes from a Corinth oinochoe like those from baskets 9-21 of the Anaploga Well (Corinth VII, ii, An 21, An 50). The curvature of the sherd closely matches An 21 (profile, ibid.,pl. 109), and its decorationrecallsAn 50, by the Dodwellian Painter of Athens 931 (CorVP,p. 212, A 19). Possibly,however,the sherdis thick enough to have come from a globular oinochoe (CorVP,p. 215, A 42-A 44), a shape usually more than 20 centimeters tall; these may have so little filling ornament that none would survive on this sherd, which preservesonly the hindquarters,broken away above the leg joints, of a feline to 1. There are traces of added red in the belly and perhaps on the haunch. By the Geladakis Painter. Ca. 570-565 B.C. (beginning of Late Corinthian). On the basis of the globular oinochoe Athens, N.M. 17556 (CorVP,p. 215, A 43), this sherd seems, despite its limited preservation, securely attributable to the GeladakisPainter(with allowance for its fragmentary state, Amyx concurs). The direction of the ribs and the thin tail with no X tuft are both
146
PATRICIALAWRENCE
matched twice there; the other marks, the proportions, and the assembly of parts also match. Either of the vase shapes is unproblematicfor a Dodwellian at this date (see above), and, even if the shape is the globular trefoil-mouthedoinochoe, the relativedate is that of his fellow Dodwellian's Corinth oinochoe (CorVP,p. 212, A 19). PI. 62 11. Large bowl, fragment KP 2922. Max. p. dim. 0.095, max. Th. 0.008 m. Wall fragment (two joined), broken on all sides. From Trench I, 1929. Pale, creamy clay (Munsell 1OYR 8/4), slightly warmer on the interior; generally solid glazepaint, fired red brown to brownish black. Nothing of foot or rim is preserved. The estimated diameter of the interior tondo alone is about 36 centimeters. On the exterior,the animalsare drawn at a slightly larger scale than on Corinth KP 1670 XV, iii, no. 774; est. Diam. at least 0.39 m.). (Corinth Although the wall is thinner in 11 than in KP 1670 (but the clay is finer),the diameter of 11 has to have been about 40 centimeters. In the tondo, part of a hind leg and a rear hoof of a cervid(?)with part of a large double-centeredrosette and a simple rosettein the field. Polychromebanding began 0.004 m. from the edge of the tondo; it seems to continue (leaving a matte surface where it was) as far as glaze-paint is preserved. In the animal frieze on the exterior, hindquartersof a ruminant to 1.and part of haunch and tail of a feline to r., with two double-centered rosettesin the field. There are tracesof added red on haunches of both and in the belly of the ruminant. They stand on a band, W 0.004 m., red over black, below which not much more than 0.001 m. reserved exists before the edge of the sherd. Evidently neat, large work by the Geladakis Painter. Perhaps ca. 580-570 B.C. (late Middle Corinthian?). With the reservation that the bowl is an unprecedented shape for the GeladakisPainter,Amyx agrees that the attribution is "plausible". The Painter of Athens 931, however, liked bowls and even plates (CorVP,p. 211, A 13-A 16, A 18, p. 321, A 16 bis), and the later Dodwellians seem to have hobnobbed with the later Chimaera Group, to which the bowls are proper (see p. 114 above). 11 is not only fragmentary but has exceptionally large,
neat drawingfor the GeladakisPainter,yet it seems to be his. First, the shapes and proportions and laying on of paint are right; second, the fluency of the long lines, which both define form and are attractive as sheer calligraphy, favors the attribution; finally, the rosette incisions (especially of the three smaller rosettes) match his others (although slightlyless hasty). Of the GeladakisPainter'sability to draw beautifully,even his most rapid work leaves no doubt. PI. 63 12. Closed vase, fragment L1928-1-2. Max. p. dim. 0.878 m. Two joined sherds. From "Outside Wall A"(see 10 above). Warm buff clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4); very reddish glaze-paint (close to Munsell 2.5YR 5/8). Added red and white. The fragment comes from a large closed vase and is fairly thick towards the lower edge (0.0063 m.). The shape at this point does not contract rapidly enough to have come from the third frieze of a large oinochoe. Among Dodwellian shapes, the amphora and the two-frieze oinochoe (cf. Blomberg 1983, pls. 14, 29) are possible or, if the broad-bottomed oinochoe can be so thick-walledas this sherd, that shape best suits its very slight vertical curvature. The fragment preservespart of an animal frieze, a black-polychromeband (W. 0.025 m.), and a bit of a reserved zone (not a chip at the tip of the sherd) below. In the frieze, ... (heel and tail of) feline to 1., (head and forelegs of) goat to 1....; two large simple rosettes and numerous unincised blobs and dots. Added red on goat's neck. WeakGeladakian(Amyx 1971, p. 39; Corinth VII, ii, p. 88, note 57; the Apollonia and Tocra vases are CorVP,p. 217, B 5, B 6, B 8, B 9, the Anaploga Well kotyle, CorVP,p. 217, C 8). Ca.570-565 B.C. (beginningof Late Corinthian). The dating is based on the quantity of unincised detritus in the filling ornament (cf. Amyx 1971, pl. 13; the Syracuse oinochoe is at least as evolved VII, ii, An 22 in this respect). Weaknessis as Corinth the only obstacle to an attributionto the Geladakis Painter;he can be this cursoryand workwith a light touch and fine point, but this goat lacks his maniera and his long, strong lines. In lightness and deftness it matches the Schistos Painter (see pp. 140-141 above), but it is not his and is actually less tame than his work. The feline leg has a Dodwellian
DODWELLIANSIN THE POTTERS'QUARTER sock, and the style seems less weakly Geladakian than that of the Anaploga Well kotyle mentioned above, yet at every point (eye, beard, ear) it lacks his idiosyncratic markings. The lines in the goat's beard, for example, are less curved than on Corinth T 1516 (CorVP, p. 215, no. 40; here PI. 64:b, c). 13. Closed vase (trefoiloinochoe?), fragment
PI. 63
L1928-1-1. Max. p. dim. 0.532 m. From "Outside Wall A"(see 10 above). Very pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2); brownish traces of glaze-paint. Probably from the lower animal frieze of another largeoinochoe like KP 1092, fragmentb (see below); it has the same curvature. The fragment preserves, as there, (part of the chest of a) panther facing (the head of a) ram, with a simple incised rosette, part of a bundle filler,and some unincised blobs and dots. Attributed to the same hand as KP 1092 (Corinti XV, iii, no. 730), from Well I. Ca.580 B.C. The style is thoroughly Middle Corinthian and rather fine, but the filling ornament cannot be very early,so the date given is the earliest likely estimate, since the ram so closely matches that on KP 1092. 14. Closed vase (trefoiloinochoe?), fragment
PI. 63
L1929-4-9. Max. p. dim. 0.0711 m. Single wall sherd. From the North Dump. Very pale clay (Munsell2.5Y 8/4, at left, to lOYR 8/4, at right);brown to red-brownfugitive glazepaint. Slight traces of added red. The sherd probably comes from the lower frieze of a large oinochoe (the wall seems too thick for a pyxis or broad-bottomed oinochoe, too thin for a hydria, such as KP 1769 [CorinthXV, iii, no. 738], here attributedto the Geladakis Painter [PI. 60:d]). It preserves part of a black-polychrome band at the top, an animal frieze, and the edge of a band or zone at the bottom. In the frieze: forepart of panther to r., head of ram to 1. (added red in neck, possibly in shoulder and belly of panther);two simple rosettes, a very long and amorphous bundle filler,and unincised dots are preserved. Unattributed. Ca. 580-570 B.C. (stillMiddle Corinthian). The manner of drawing is more nearly akin to the hand of 13 and KP 1092, himself not a
147
Dodwellian, than to the Geladakis Painter or the weak Geladakian vases. It most certainly is not by that hand, however; the drawing is quite different, and the filling ornament (assuming that the elongated incised thing had counterparts elsewhere on the vase) is different from that of KP 1092, with which 13 agrees well, so far as preserved. 15. Large open vase kraterr?),fragment PI. 63 L1930-23-1. Max. p. dim. 0.0724, Th. 0.0056 m. Two joined wall sherds. From the Terracotta Factory. Very pale clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2); fugitive, brownish gray glaze-paint. Added red. The very slight curvaturein both directions and the glazed interior indicate a large open vase. That there is no sign of a shoulder towards the top argues that the fragment comes from the lower frieze of a large krater. In these respects it is comparable with CP-2554 and CP-2556 (CorinthVII, ii, nos. 178, 179), with drawing at the same scale. The fragment preserveswhat is probablythe breast and part of the forepaw of a feline to r. and the head and part of the neck of a ram to 1.,with added red on the neck. No filling ornament. Unattributed. Perhaps ca. 580-570 B.C. (i.e., late in Middle Corinthian). The ram's head may be compared with that on the Geladakis Painter'sglobular oinochoe, Athens, N.M. 17556 (CorVP,p. 215, A 43, at H. 0.257 m. a large vase with drawing at a scale at least as large as on a krater). Nothing is either identical (the nose marks work differently, the brow contour relates differentlyto the incised markings,the muzzle is not exactly the same shape) or so different that, if more were preservedand all that matched, it would quite preclude an attribution. If so little were preserved of Athens, N.M. 17556, we might not attribute that piece to him either, but since there are other vases of the same shape in his list we should hesitate less than with a krater (with universally available computer graphics, every attribution of any vase shape may appear later as a statistic in someone's bar graph). A kraterof Geladakian character is not unthinkable, since the date of production is one of shifting allegiances and working habits, but a sherd the size of this one would have to bear an exact replica of one of his own best rams to carry its weight as evidence.
PLATE59
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
,.;
2 a (L1929-4-13)and 2 b (L1929-4-14) 9:10
1 a(L1929-4-12)
~
ca.3:4
WA
a
Ab A-1
1 b (L1929-4-16)
3 (L1929-4-11)
4 (LI929-4-15)
6:5
ca. 4:5
5 (L1929-4-17)
9:10
7:6
PLATE 60
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ K a.~ Dealofsd-, ~
*.f
'S
shule
.
b. Dealofsd.
z
't,
'
'
/
s
.
.'
;
t
!
pr.
''S
/
c. Detail of side A a-c. Corinth C-38-276, broad-bottomed oinochoe, tracing
11~~~~~~~~~
6 (Li1929-1-1)
(
/~~
'-?;/,Vw,
~
~~
d.
Coit
.
/
K;
BXH">
. <s
A,
A
P16,
yra
rcn
1.1:1
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
PLATE61
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/,
7 a, tracin ~
~
~
~
~
..
A
..
4
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
.11
7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tracingl
t_'sst''~
7 b(L92-48)3:
east
b,
PLATE62
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
w
_*^~~~
_a
a
9 (L1931-9-1) 8 (L1931-5-2)
11
5:8
1
10 (LI928-1-3)
11(KP2922), interior
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9:10
7:9
11,exterio/
0, tracing
7:
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
PLATE63
A~~~~~~Aa
5:6
12 (L1928-1-2)
9:8
13 (L1928-1-1)
5:6
14 (L1929-4-9)
15 (L1930-23-1)
9:10
-, as /(C3 ^,,~~~51 -
.;
..
13, tracing
15, tracing
PLATE 64
* , a. Corinth KP 88, kotyle-pyxis, detail
DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS' QUARTER
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ..
*~~~~~~~. Is
I
A%
b. Corinth T 1516, A broad-bottomed oinochoe, details Set
c. Corinth T 1516, broad-bottomed oinochoe, detail
.
'
F
_ -
-
z
~
W
w
INDEX AND TABLES OF PROVENIENCES
INDEX No references are given to 'Aftermath" Appendix, pp. 48-50. Cross references to other sections of the Index are prefixed by the letter of that section. Bold numbers refer to the 'Aftermath" catalogue; other numbers are page references.
A. GENERAL ALABASTRON.
See"Columbus"alabastron;
Oinanthe. amoeboid forms (around eyes) 59, 64, 68, 74, 85, 86, 90, 92. Seealso teardrop pouch. Amphiaraos Krater 148 Anaploga (Corinth): styles 104. Seealso Section C.2. apprentice work 19, 26 Argo (ship) 31 Artemis 61. Seealso Potnia Theron. asterisk rosette 76 astragaloid handles 96, 97 Atticizing 113242 auletai 100 129 bar graphs, use of. Seeshape distribution. battle over fallen warrior 156 Bellerophon 98 bird's head finials 5 Birdie Cup 142, 143 black-polychrome 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 53, 95, 96, 101, 106, 108, 109, 112, 118, 66, 120266, 142, 145, 146, 147 Boread 22, 25, 60, 61, 62, 6318, 72, 79, 92, 94, 95, 96, 112, 114, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128, 131 bow-tie rosette 86 bowl, Attic 66, 79 brands, on animals 150 bronze tablets from Kerameikos (Athens) with records of Athenian cavalry 150 Brunelleschi, F. See relative chronology. butterfly pattern 9 BANQuET
CAMPANNIA RED FIGURE
32
cavalcade 114, 117, 123, 152, 153, 98
cavalry. S&ebronze tablets. centaur 93 "Chalcidian"type (shape). Seekrater. chariot, four-horse 154; races 154; team 154 Chimaera without Bellerophon 98 "Columbus"(ring-footed)alabastron 83, 84, 87 Corfu pediment, Gorgon, Boreads compared with 94 Corinthianizing, in Attic early black figure 67, 69 cups, Attic, Komast and Siana 6430, 69. Seealso B: Komast Group. (rectangularfall of hair) 67, 88-89 dinos 15, 100, and stand, one-piece 112; dinos stand 15. Seealso Gorgon dinos; griffin dinos. Dipylon, kouros from 82 Dodwellian 50, 103, 108214, 114. Seealso B: Athens 931, Painter of; Elvehjem Painter; Geladakis Painter; Schistos Painter. Dodwellians, later, and the later Chimaera Group 78, 80, 97 Dolphin, on coins of Syracuse and Taras 38; in floor painting at Tiryns 38; in mural at Knossos 38; on ostrich egg at Mycenae 38; stroked by fish-man 39. Seealso eagle. double base rays, inner rays void 5, 32 DAEDALIC WIG
(osPR.EY?):bearing dolphins 75, 125; bearing snake 67, 71, 123 entrepreneurs 107 erotic symplegma 157 Etrusco-Corinthianpottery. See dinos, one-piece. Eurytios krater 151, 156 exaleiptron 56, 96, 99 export sites, evidence from 81. Seealso Section C.1. EAGLE
152
INDEX
53, 73 Ficoroni cista 31 Fish-man 71. Seealso dolphin; Triton. Flap-group 1 27 floral cross 56, 58, 64, 65, 68, 76, 88, 113, 123, 128, 129. Seealso lotus cross; palmette cross; palmette-lotus cross. Francois Vase 72, 98 Frauenfest 32, 144 fruit-pickers31 FAN ROSETTE
105, 146-147. Seealso B: Geladakis Painter. Ghiberti, L. Seerelative chronology. Gorgon dinos 88138 gorgoneion 127 griffin: dinos 6, protome 6 GELADAKLAN, WEAK
HAILSTONE FILLINGoRNAMENT 71, 111, 144 hailstorm filling ornament 32 handles, ribbon 6638; spurred 60; spurred, round in section 66 hare hunt with nets 17 harvest, olive(?) 31-32 head, human, in tondo of bowl 114 heads (painted): 134; female 36, 50; jugate 36, female 37, 131, male 37, male and female 37 heads (plastic), female 91, 96175 "Heavy Style" 57, 94 Hephaistos 112 Herakles 93, 98, 71, 72, 73, 98, 99, 112, 123 hoplite 119, 156, mounted 120 hoplites 10, 69, 80 horse protomai 56, 58, 62, 98; confronted 66, 67, 71, 72, 83, 84, 117, 118, 123, 129; radiating in whirligig pattern 67 horse races 150. Seealso chariot. Hydra, Lernean, without Herakles 98 KNIELAUF 79 krater,of "Chalcidian"type (shape) 38, 148, 153, 154; from Vari 59, 6746, 88138 krateriskos56, 129
LADDER 31-32, scaling 32 ladder markings (on feline legs) 6421, 69, 93 lebes. Seedinos. lekanis from Vari 66. Seealso bowl. lions, Assyrian 59
lotus cross 57, 58, 72, 113, 114, 128 lotus-palmette chain. Seepalmette-lotus chain. lotus-palmette cross 31; 91. Seealso floral cross; palmette-lotus cross. lozenge chain 9 comparison with 97 molars (sharp), separately incised 66, 67, 86 monumentality 94 Moschophoros (Akr. 624) 98186 MPC oinochoai 6 musician playing double pipes 100 METALWORK, INCISED,
NETTOS AMPHORA 38 OHRLOCKRUFFS90
Oinanthe, alabastron of 83, 88 olive. Seeharvest. olpe, squat 18 outline technique 130, 37, 131 27, 34, 35, 61, 100, 112, 121, 127, 133; and naked women 157 palmette chain 87, 97, 122, 128, 129 palmette cross 159, 160, 125, 126 palmette-lotus chain 81, 137, 146, 151 palmette-lotus cross 139, 159, 160, 63, 64, 104202, 117, 119, 121, 125, 126, 129. Seealso floral cross; lotus-palmette cross. periodization 82-83 Perseus, fleeing Gorgons(?) 149 pinakes. Seeplaques, terracotta. "pine-cone" filling ornaments 73 Pioneers, Attic red-figure 7262 plaques, terracotta 58, 59. Seealso C.2: Penteskouphia plate, picture 58, 112; Attic, relation of profile to Corinthian 65; silhouette-technique 57, 82; from Vari 68. Seealso Protoattic. Polyphemos amphora 7262 pomegranate net 154 pomegranate rosette 7 Poseidon 72, 99, 124 potmaking, by painters 109-111 Potnia Theron 61, 62, 79, 87, 88, 95, 114 Potters' Quarter (Corinth) excavation: archaeological evidence for pottery making 104, 106; Archaic city wall 104, evidence for Chimaera Group production at 104-107, evidence for activity of the Dodwell Painter and his followers PADDED DANCERS
153
INDEX at 135; state of preservation and interpretation of buildings 104; stele shrines in 107 pouch, under eye. Seeamoeboid forms; teardrop pouch. Protoattic, Middle, plate decoration 67 QUATREFOIL ARYBALLOI
76, 159
RIDER98186 RAmPIN red-ground technique 147, 157 relative chronology: conservative and progressive styles (Ghiberti and Brunelleschi) 83 rhombus, quartered 3 rider, armed. See cavalcade. road metal, pottery as 106
stacked-lozenge complex 3 swan(s),preening 61, 68, 71, 122 TEARDROPPOUCH(BELOWEYE) 59, 69, 85. Seealso
amoeboid forms. Tenea-Volomandra Group, kouroi 98. Seealso Volomandra. Triton 71, 72, 73, 99, 112, 123 Typhon 62, 60, 70, 71, 73, 93, 94, 99, 120, 122, 123, 124, 128 tyrannies, Archaic, economy of 107 Tyrrhenian amphora 156 VoLomANDRA:kouros from 98186; "Volomandra locks" 63, 7262, 7262, 88, 131278. Seealso
Tenea-Volomandra Group. volute complex 5
SAMOSFuND 97178
secondary hands (in Corinthian vase painting) 56-57 Siana cup 129 shape distribution, use of bar graphs to show 135, 136, 147 silhouette technique 8, 40, 130, 37, 135, 144, 155, 75. Seealso plate. slavery 107 snake between cocks, on krater 115, 134
69, 32 Seealso hoplites. 156. warriors, duelling 148, "White Style" 99 "White-Dot Style" 87 women, chain of 87, 135, 144; naked. See padded dancers.
WARRIOR-FRIEZEARYBALLOI
ZEUS 70
B. PAINTERS,POTTERS,AND GROUPS AEGINA BELLEROPHONPAINTER 6, 11
'Aetos" Painter. See Huntsmen Painter. Ampersand Painter 78, 1352, 141 Andromeda Group 157 Antimenes Painter 31, 7262 Apollonia Group 31 Apprentice, The 23 Athana Painter 157, 98184 Athens 931, Painter of 103, 78, 79, 80, 97, 114, 128, 1352, 136-137, 141, 144, 145, 146 BERLIN F 1008, PAINTER OF 62 Berlin F 1090, Painter of 139, 110221; recalls 72; related to 47 Berlin Lekythos, Painter of the 75, 145 Berlin Painter 150, 99 Boar Hunt Painter 37 Boston Painter 54 Brussels A 2182, Painter of 75
Brussels Dancers Painter 157 Brygos Painter 129
C PAINTER 129 Carrousel Painter 81-82, 89, 108, 143 Cavalcade Painter 128, 129, 148, 154, 155, 98184
Chaironeia Group 158 Chigi Group 16, 54, 93, 156 Chigi Painter 10 Chimaera Group 67, 95, 55-132 passim, 135, 13710, 146 Chimaera Painter 95, 98, 55-132 passim, 143 Clermont-FerrandPainter 20 Columbus Painter 56, 58, 59, 60, 68, 7157, 74, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 108, 109, 110, 115; very close to 128; and the Painter of Louvre E 574 74
154
INDEX
"Copenhagen Painter". See "Painterof the Copenhagen Sphinxes". "Copenhagen Sphinxes, Painter of the" 61, 71, 123. Seealso Painter of Louvre E 574. Corinth C-40-159, Painter of 43, 44, 45, 46 Corinth C-47-576, Painter of 42 Corinth CP-485, same hand as the painter of 28 Corinth CP-1997, Painter of 48 Corinth CP-2438, Painter of 78 Corinth CP-3137, Painter of 106 Corinth KP 64, close to the Painter of 84 Corinth KP 1670, Painter of 78, 128 Corneto Painter 4 Cumae Group 4, 5, 6, 2
KAMEIROS PLATES,Painter of the 58, 69, 77, 126 Kleitias 7262, 98 Kleophrades Painter 61 Komast Group, Attic 157, 67, 69 KX Painter 67, 6853 76, 90145, 98; eagle-andsnake lekanis by 67; lekanis by 99
LA,TROBE PAINTER 27, 34 Laurion Painter 99 Leagros Group 7262 Liebieghaus Group 37; related to 100 Lion Group 31, 36, 74, 88, Florals 57, 58 Louvre E 565, Group (Painter?) of 124 Louvre E 574, Painter of 67, 55-132 passim, 98187
DETRorr PAINTER 128, 134, 157, 98184
Dionysios Painter 98 Dodwell Painter 50, 79, 78, 83, 89, 92, 110, 136, 139, 141, 142-143, Group of the 114. Seealso A: Dodwellian. Dolphin Painter 38, 7469;near 26 ELVEHJEMPAINTER 141 Erlenmeyer Painter 57, 110, 111, 124 Eurymachos Painter 141 Euthymides 99 Exekias 38, 150, 7262
FIRST OUTLINE GROUP
5
Fledgling Painter 28 GA-ERA PAINTER575, 111224
Geladakis Painter 79, 134, 96, 114, 135, 137140, 141, 145-146; near(?) 79. SeealsoA: Geladakian. Gela G. 9, Painter of 55-132 passim,76 Gorgon Painter 146 Gorgoneion Group 69, 98184, 112. Seealso Moscow Gorgoneion Kylix, Painter of the. HALLOWE'EN PAINTER 4
Head-in-Air Painter 15 Herzegovina Painter 7469; recalls 138 Hippolytos Painter 148, 156; near 153 Hochschule Group 64, 65, 66, 38, 134; close to 63 Hopping Birds, Painter of the 4 Hound Painter 5, 11, 66 Huntsmen ('Aetos") Painter 5, 9, 10; near 10
Lowie Painter,recalls 41, 47, 102 Luxus Group 87132 Lydos 37, 7262 MACRI LANGONI PAINTER 113
"MajesticLions Group" 57, 94 Medallion Painter 66, 128, 83, 87, 98; recalls 75, 136 Memnon Painter 129, 98 Moscow Gorgoneion Kylix, Painter of the 134 Munich Pyxides, Painter of the 38, 39 N. B. HUNT PAINTER 118, 156 Nessos Painter 6635, 6954, 8297, 98 New York Komast Painter, near 69 Nikosthenes, potter 31 5 Onesimos 38 Ophelandros Painter 157 Orchard Painter 31 Otterlo Painter 139, 57, 75, 110, 111, 113, 114115 Ox-head Painters 31 OBERDAN GROUP
PAuERmo 489, Painter of 598, 74, 90, 108; apparently by 26; possibly by 24 Panther Painter (Attic) 6530, 66, 67, 68, 69, 95171, 98 Patras Painter 86, 87, 75; recalls 135 Phiale Painter 99 Phintias 99 Pholoe Painter 93 Pholos 26 Pilgrim Flask Painter 33
INDEX "Plus Painter" 43, 45 Politis Painter 32 Polyteleia Painter 54, 116 Populonia Painter 110 Poteidan Painter 157 Ptoion Painter 38 "QUARTER
MOON PAINTER"
158
75-76 Royal Library Painter 41, 14027;recalls 37 RIEHEN PAINTER56,
8; near 15 Samos Group 80, 81, 69; Samos Painter 156, 69, 97; close to 83; recalls 116 Scale Painter 135 Scale-pattern Group 62 Schistos Painter 135, 139, 140-141, 145, 146 Skating Painter 32 Sophilos 100, 57, 69, 90145, 96 Sphinx Painter 19, 116 Sphortos Painter 151, 156 Stavros Group 102 Swing Painter 150
SACRIFICE PAINTER 3,
155
TALosPAINTER31 Taranto Floral Kotylai, Group of the 91 Taranto Painter 94, 98184; related to 129 Taucheira Painter 87131, 110 Timonidas, terracotta plaque with man and dog 73 Toronto 387, Group of 32 Toulouse Painter 6, 9 Tydeus Painter 137, 148, 152, 155, 156, 157; related to 38; style resembling 148 Typhon Group, possibly by the Painter himself 25 Typhon Painter, near 25 Tyrrhenian Group, Attic 157 VATICAN 73, Painter of 16 Vatican 309, Painter of 37 Vermicular Painter 158, 46-47 WARRIORGROUP,RECALLS35, 60
YALEOINOCHOEPAINTER31
C. PROVENIENCES For findspots of items from Corinth catalogued in "Aftermath"and "Dodwellians in the Potters' Quarter" or included in the Lists of Attributions in "The Chimaera Group at Corinth," see TABLES OF PROVENIENCES, pp. 159-161. Proveniences 1. ExportSitesandOtherNon-Corinthian Aigina 59, 68; K 209 5; K 273 6, 7; K 339 13, 100; K 342 6, 13, 100 Aitos 9 Akragas (Si1) 127, Necropoli di Contrada Montelusa 128 Akrai 140 Anagyrous (Attica) 95 Apollonia (Albania) 62, 77, (X3 bis) 118, (K3 bis) 126, 146. Seealso D: Tirana. Argive Heraion 54 Argos 71, 72, 98, (L15) 123. Seealso A: Herakles. Attica(?) (X6) 118 Boiotia (X30) 121 Catania, Demeter sanctuary,Piazza S. Francesco 553, 6525, 88, (X8) 118, (X12) 119 Comiso 47
Cyrene 81, (L13 bis) 123, (Cyl, Cy2) 128 Delphi 77, (K5) 126 Gela 38, 63, 73, 76, 91, 99, 115, 116, (X25) 120, (L17) 124, (R6, G2) 125; Bitalemi 116, (X13) 119 Ierissos 47 Istria (L2 bis) 122, (U3 bis) 129 Ithaca 42 Long Walls Cemetery (Attica) 5, 6 Naukratis 37 Nola (Campania) (Ri) 124 Perachora 9, 47, 36, 55, 60, 6641, 70, 72, 97, 112, 113, (X27, X31) 121, (L5) 122, (L13) 123, (Vi, Ul) 129 Rheneia (X37) 121 Rhitsona 46
156
INDEX
Rhodes (Xli) 119, (L7) 123; Ialysos 57, 96, 115, (U2) 129; Kameiros 77, 90, 91, (X19) 120, (X34) 121, (K2, K3) 126; Siana (X28) 121 Selinous 57, 67, 80, 87, 107, 115, (Si, S2, SFS10) 127-128, Sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros 78, 80 Smyrna, Old 96, 8297 Sparta, Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia 6849 Syracuse 19, 38, 69, 97, (L8, L10) 123. Seealso A: dolphin; D: Syracuse. andIts Vrinino 2. Sitesat Corinth Anaploga, Well at 104, 106, 141, 145, 146. See also A: Anaploga. Penteskouphia 32, 72, 99, 112, 124. Seealso A: plaques. Potters' Quarter East Deposit 106 Long Buildings 104, 107, 137 North (Long) Building 106 North Dump 104, 106, 107, 135 North Road Deposit 104 Northwest Angle Deposit 104204 "Outside South (Long) Building" 104207,13714
Taras. SeeA: dolphin. Tarquinia 69, 113, 38 Thasos, Artemision 104202 Tiryns. SeeA: dolphin Tocra (ancient Taucheira) 81, 107, 108, (V5V10) 129 Vari. SeeA: krater;lekanis; plate. Seealso Anagyrous.
"Outside Wall A' 104207, 135 Rectangular South Pit 106 Road Deposit 104, 137 South (Long) Building 104, 106, 107 Terracotta Factory 106, 107 Trench F 104207 Trench XXII and XXIV 106 Wall A 104207, 106 Wall E 104207 Well I 104207, 106, 135, 138, 13 Swift's Well 141
D. NUMBERED PIECES IN MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONS References to the catalogue in "Aftermath"are boldface numbers. Items in the Lists of Attributions,"The Chimaera Group at Corinth," pp. 117-132, are identified by boldface List numbers, with letter prefix, in parentheses, those in the catalogue in "Dodwellians in the Potters' Quarter" by boldface numbers in parentheses;for both, referencesare to page numbers. S/2121 47; S/2215(Sl 1) 128 Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum (ex Hague, Scheurleer Collection) AP 2031 36 Argos, Museum 4526(L15) 123 Athens, British School of Archaeology A-31 47 Athens, Kerameikos Museum 154 6849; 1602 68 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 664 112; 967 142; 1002 38; 12432 55; 12721 84, 86; 12941(K1) 126; 16356 95171; 16388 6746; 17556 145, 147; 19159 146. Seealso C.1: Perachora. AGRIGENTO
Antikenmuseum, 1960.27 6747, Ludwig collection L-l 116; L-12 7466; L-14 147 Basel, AntikenmuseumZUst 194 112; Zast 195 112 Berkeley,University of California, Lowie Museum of Anthropology 8/104(X11) 119 Berlin, Staatliche Museen F 336 (inv. 2686) 93; 1855 31; 1959.1 37, 155; 1963.18 150; F 3929 814, 116; F 431+660(L16) 124; F 466+766 32; F 703+659 32; F 1089(R1) 124; F 3934(X34) 61, 121; F 802B 32; F 871B 32 BASEL,
INDEX Bochum S 1098 25 Bonn, University, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 666(X39) 122; 1840.14(X19) 120 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 12.422 87; 63.420 37; 95.10 54; 99.511 8 Brussels A 1011 141 Bucharest 5793(L2 bis) 122; V 1083(U3 bis) 129-130 CAMBRIDGE, Fitzwilliam N
8 37 Cincinnati, Art Museum 1976.205(X4) 118 Columbia (Missouri), University of Missouri Museum 67.48 26 Copenhagen, National-museum 1630(L11) 123; 1631(L12) 123; Chr. VIII 867 89141; Chr. VIII 872 97178 Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 31 77(R4) 125; 3289(X10) 61; 13531 148 Corinth, Museum C-31-551 (X20) 120; C-38-276 136; C-60-48(U6) 130; C-62-388 140-141; C-62-605(X24) 120; C-62-762 a-e(X16) 120; C-62-770 + C-65-509(X38) 122; C-63- 122(L16) 124; C-64-388 87 127; C-65-449 112; C-69-185(X9) 118; C-72-196 a-c 145; C-72-244(L3) 122; CP-140 138's, 140, 14025, 141; CP-516 (part) + CP-2439 + CP-2442 and CP-2440(X35) 121; CP-2364(Kr2) 124; CP-2437(M1) 131; CP-2438(P1) 78, 126; CP-2441 + CP-516(part)(X36) 121; CP-2453(U4) 130; CP-2454(U5) 130; CP-2554 147; CP-2556 147; CP-2645 112; CP-3245(X15) 119; KN 47 113; KN 55(X23) 120; KP 88 138'9, 139-140, 141; KP 1085 141, 144; KP 1092 138, 141, 144, 147; KP 1435 113243; KP 1455 a 112; KP 1455 b(X33) 121; KP 1670(Q1) 127, 146; KP 1769 137, 138, 147; KP 1773(X1) 117; KP 1775(G3) 126; KP 1945(G1) 125; KP 1968 137, 138; KP 2058 112; KP 2059 113; KP 2061 113, 115; KP 2065 113; KP 2114 112; KP 2122(X32) 121; KP 2316(X21) 120; KP 2790 113; KP 2902(X5) 118; KP 2903 a, b(X3) 63, 118; KP 2904(L6) 122-123; KP 2905(U7) 130; KP 2906(U8) 130; KP 2907(U9) 130; KP 2908(U1O) 130; KP 2909(G4) 126; KP 2910(K4) 126; KP 2911(M8) 132; KP 2912(M2) 131; KP 2913(Q2) 127;
157
KP 2914(M3) 131; KP 2915(P2) 127; KP 2916(M4) 131; KP 2917(U11) 130; KP 2918 113; KP 2919(M1O) 132; KP 2920(M5) 131; KP 2921(M6) 132; KP 2922(11) 114, 146; L1928-1-1(13) 147; L1928-1-2(12) 146-147; L1928-1-3(10) 145146; L1929-1-1(6) 143-144; L1929-4-1 132; L1929-4-2 132; L1929-4-4 132; L1929-4-5 132; L1929-4-6(M7) 132; L1929-4-7 132; L1929-4-8(7b) 144; L1929-4-9(14) 147; L1929-4-10(7a) 144; L1929-4-11(3) 143; L1929-4-12(la) 142; L1929-4-13(2a) 142-143; L1929-4-14(2b) 142-143; L1929-4-15(4) 143; L1929-4-16(lb) 142; L1929-4-17(5) 143; L1929-5-1(M9) 132; L1929-10-75(X14) 119; L1930-1-1 132; L1930-23-1(15) 147; L1931-2-1 132; L1931-5-2(8) 144-145; L1931-9-1(9) 145; T 1516 140, 144, 147 Corinth (Nemea) P 118 47; P 123 47 Delos, Museum B 6322 84 Detroit, Institute of Art 24.119 157 Dresden, Albertinum ZV 1604 157 Florence, Museo Archeologico M.A. 4198 151, 157; 79246(L7) 123 Gela, Museo Civico M.N. 7864 115; 8662(R6) 125; 8702(X25) 120; 16379 116; 20689(X13) 119; Collezione Navarra G. 9(G2) 125; G. 10(L17) 124 Hamburg, Museum fUr Kunst und Gewerbe 1935.10 5 Heidelberg, Archaologisches Institut 79/1(R5) 125 London, British Museum 1846.6-19.1b 15; 1859.2-16.38 9; 1860.2-1.31 3; 1860.2-1.32 18; 1864.10-7.20(K3) 126; 1884.8-4.7, B 39 148; 1886.4-10.178 157; 1895.10-27.1 (A 1389)(X18) 120; 1921.11-28.1 95; A 1399 7157, 84, 86; B 19 145; B 40 156; B 226 31; E 241 31; F 150 32; OC 368 138; OC 397 16 Madrid, Museo Arqueologico 10840 152, 153 Malibu (California),J. Paul Getty Museum 85.AE.5 26; 88.AE.105 96175
158
INDEX
Manchester, University III C 58 108214 Munich, Antikensammlung S. H. 308 32; 319 (J. 154)(L9) 123; 327 140; 341 95, 96; 1426 156; 2044 38; 6449 (346A)(L14) 123; Inv. 7741 32 Mykonos, Museum KB 922(X37) 121 Naples, Museo Nazionale 80995, H 683 156; aryballos 5 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 06.1021.26(X22) 120; 07.286.74 31; 12.229.9 148; 41.11.1(X6) 118; 1976.221 112 Orvieto, Collezione Faina 2727 36 Osaka, Oka Collection 142 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1947.238(V2) 129 Palermo, Collezione della Fondazione Mormino (Banco di Sicilia) 319(L4) 122; 621(X29) 121 Palermo, Museo Nazionale, N.I. 1707(X2) 117 Paris, Musee du Louvre 1679(X7) 118; A 417(K2) 126; A 452 38; CA 931 156; CA 1629(X30) 60, 121; E 565 135; E 568 38; E 574(L1) 55132 passim;E 575(L2) 122; E 622 148, 152; E 623 129, 38; E 629 157; E 633 114; E 634 129; E 635 151, 156; E 636 148, 156; E 817 88138;E 874 88138;F 123 31, 38; G 104 38; MNB 629 84; MNC 677 93 Paris, Musee Rodin TC 607 (Co 1379)(X17) 120; TC 899(U3) 95172) 129 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum 31-22-1 47; MS 552 32 Polygiros, Museum 333-A 18-A2 47 Prague, National Museum 247 28 Rhodes, Museum 5175(U2) 129 Rome, Museo del Palazzo dei Conservatori 266 54
Rome, Museo Nazionale di Villa Giulia 24787 31; 50381 (ex Castellani Collection) 124 Ruvo,Jatta 1501 31 St. Petersburg,Hermitage Museum 5551(X26) 60, 78, 120 San Simeon (California),Hearst State Historical Monument 5486 31 Syracuse, Museo Nazionale 34993 7468, 84; 42648 6; 52134 19 Seealso C.1: Syracuse. Taranto, Museo Nazionale 4760 8; 4849 31; 20587 156; 20720 31; 20774 145; 52844 147; 52914 129 Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale RC 1818 69; RC 6928 113. Seealso C.1: Tarquinia. Thebes, Museum 51.33 46 Thera, Museum Inv. 1190 98 Tirana (Albania)527a(X3 bis) 118, 527b(K3 bis) 126. Seealso C. 1: Apollonia. Tocra (Libya),Museum 299(V5) 129; 298(V6) 129; 297(V7) 129; 301 129 Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum C.392 32 Toulouse, Musee Saint-Raymond 26.106 9 Tubingen, University 5445/28 146; 5565 124 Vatican, Museii Vaticani 81 13; 88 156; V 19 (old 121) 32 Vienna, KunsthistorischesMuseum KMH IV 1624 (Hofmuseum 193)(X28) 98, 121; KHM IV 1775(V3) 129; KHM IV 1776(V4) 129 Warzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum der Universitat H 5391 124; oinochoe42 Markets Basel 28, 48, 38, 154 Hamburg, Galerie Neuendorf krater 129
TABLES OF PROVENIENCES A. 'AFTERMATH": CATALOGUE Acrocorinth, Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore General fill Anaploga, Manhole 1965-3 Asklepieion, Well 1931-10 ForumNorthwest, Cistern 1901-1 Forum South Central Archaic Well 1937-3 Area of Underground Shrine, Greek fill
Forum Southwest, Archaic Well 1953-1 Under "Tavernof Aphrodite" (BuildingIII) Archaic Well 1975-2 Building III, Archaic fill Building IV, Classical debris Foundation trench for PC wall Hellenistic context Late context Late fill over Building III MPC fill PCfillonfloor PC Well 1971-4 under Building I Roman context ForumWest, late context Gymnasium, late context Isthmos Cemetery Julian Basilica, Classical Well 1915-2 Lechaion Road Archaic fill below Exedra Late context Late context in Exedra Later fill MC fill in Exedra Pit 1973-1 in LC House
Well 1959-3 West side of road, ca. 160 meters north of village plateia
Museum, West Classical Well 1939-1
C-64-424 C-68-245 C-31-45 C-31-46 CP-3170 a-c
138 71 89 90 18
C-37-946
158
C-36-1142a C-36-2443 C-36-2444
118 86 87
C-53-167 b C-1976-319 C-72-14 C-1978-75 a, b C-71-213 C-1977-82 C- 1976-163 C-1976-179 C-1978-53 C-71-218 C-71-214 C-71-161 C-60-130 C-74-30 C-65-200 CP-1972 CP-1973 CP-2368 C-29-222 C-73-109 C-73-107 C-73-266 C-59-7 a, b C-73-273 C-73-73 a, b C-73-115 a, b C-73-117 C-59-3
83 62 131 54 9 150 115 37 114 4 8 11 32 141 13 76 36 68 151 27 100 98 7 57 112 99 102 137
C-30-9 C-30-14 C-30-16 C-39-251
C-31491
88
C-36-2481 C-36-2482
119 120
C- 1976-250 C-1978-101
12 149
C-71-36
153
CP-1974 CP-1997
75 48
C-73-146 C-73-147 C-73-148 a, b
28 55 40
133 65 122
C-30-42 a-c C-30-45
60 145
142
C-39-318
79
160
TABLES OF PROVENIENCES
New Museum Archaic Well 1940-2
Area of, late context Late context Well 1940-3, built into wellhead North Cemetery, Grave 1916-47 Oakley House South, late context Odeion Manhole to Drain Zeta Manhole to east Peribolos of Apollo Archaic fill Classical basin Classical fill Early-5th-centuryB.C. fill Late context Late fill PC fill Sacred Spring Classical fill PC fill South Basilica Early Roman drain, southeast corner Well 1948-1 South Stoa Archaic fill in colonnade, north of Shop XXVI Archaic to Classical fill in colonnade, north of Shop XXVI north of Shop XXVIII Late fill in colonnade north of Shop IV Pit in colonnade north of Shops X, XI Shop XXVI, in front of Stele Shrine, in earliest floor Well 1934-4 in colonnade, north of Shops X, XI Well 1946-3 Southeast Building Classical drain, southwest corner Well 1947-4 Temple E Archaic Well 1932-4 Northwest, late context Theater, east of, 1926, late context
C-40-143 C-40-153 C-40-161 C-40-220 C-40-223 C-40-224 a-c C-40-251 C-31-110 C-31-109 C-40-459 CP-595 C-65-180
43 44 45 38 39 19 29 10 33 139 135 130
CP-3141 C-29-80 C-31-169 C-66-124 C-66-37 a, b C-67-88 C-67-119 C-66-84 C-67-91 C-66-167
72 73 143 70 63 6 82 116 49 17
C-72-72 C-70-118
148 16
C-36-204 C-48-156 a-k
80 1
C-50-5
134
C-50-3 C-50-40 C-50-164 a, b C-50-169 C-34-2553 a, b C-50-192 a, b C-1977-85
132 56 154 93 67 121 69
C-34-2537 C-50-54
C-40-253 C-40-257 C-40-264 C-40-269 C-40-290 C-40-305
30 31 23 22 20 46
C-31-295
146
C-67-054
41
C-36-2477
147
C-50-167
53
C-34-2554
85
156 77
C-50-94
78
C-972 and CP-973 C-47-584 C-47-636
113 42 84
CP-974 C-47-645 C-47-718
127 140 95
C-32-134 C-65-212 CP-2918 C-26-12
61 117 15 157
C-26-13
111
TABLES OF PROVENIENCES Vrysoula Deposit Grave1964-5 WestShops SouthTower,Classicalfill
C-64-151 C-64-87
21 5
C-1975-54
161
161
B. "THECHIMAERAGROUPAT CORINTH":ATTRIBUTIONS Acrocorinth,Sanctuaryof DemeterandKore Stairwaycuts C-69-185 X9 Mixedlots X16 C-62-762a-c RoomD C-62-770+ C-65-509 X38 Anaploga,Wellat C-62-605 X24 Asklepieion,MiniatureBowlDeposit C-31-551 X20 ForumSouthwest,ByzantineRefuseFill C-60-48 U6 Penteskouphia L16 C-63-122 Potters'Quarter 'Alongwestsideof hill" M6 KP 2921 EastDeposit M4 (part) KP 2916 OutsideSouthBuilding KP 2122 X32 KP 2910 KP 2905 U7 KP 2911 KP 2908 U10 KP 2914 KP 2906 "OutsideWallNA" U8 KP 2909 KP 2907 U9 KP 2912 NorthDump KP 1773 Xi KP 2915 KP 1775 G3 KP 2916 KP 1945 G1 KP 2920 KP 2904 L6 L1929-4-6 RectangularSouthPit KP 2919 M10 RoadDeposit KN 55 KP 1670 X23 KP 1455 b
Q1
X33
"TrenchXXII andXXIV,April1931"
KP 2913
Q2
"Trench F"
KP2902 KP2903 a, b L1929-10-75
X5 X3 X14
Well I
K4 M8 M3 G4 M2 P2 M4 (part) M5 M7
L1929-5-1
M9
KP2316
X21
C. "DODWELLIANS IN THE POTTERS'QUARTER": CATALOGUE Potters'Quarter 'Alongwestsideof hill" L1931-5-2 8 North Dump
"Outside Wall A' Road Deposit Terracotta Factory Trench I, 1929
L1929-4-8 L1929-4-9 L1929-4-10 L1929-4-11 L1929-4-12 L1928-1-1 L1928-1-2 L1931-9-1 L1930-23-1 KP2922
7b 14 7a 3 la 13 12 9 15 11
L1929-4-13 L1929-4-14 L1929-4-15 L1929-4-16 L1929-4-17 L1928-1-3
2a 2b 4 lb 5 10
