Another interesting point in connection with the Proto-Attic vases is

the introduction of mythological subjects, as on No. 6 (Herakles and

Antaios), No. 8 (Herakles and the Centaur Nessos), No. 10 (Perseus and

Athena, and a Harpy[978]). The only parallel to this early appearance

of myths on vases is to be found in the Melian class (see below, p.

301), the Aristonoös krater (see below) and the Euphorbos pinax (p.

335), which, however, is of later date. It will be seen that they only

occur in the later group of the Attic vases.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XVI

[Illustration:

From _Wiener Vorl._

THE ARISTONOÖS KRATER (IN THE VATICAN).

]

------------------------------------

On two of these it is to be noted that inscriptions occur, identifying

the figures (Nos. 8 and 10). These are the oldest painted inscriptions

on Attic vases, but henceforward they increase in number, at least in

the Athenian and Corinthian fabrics; they are always more

characteristic of the mainland than of Asia Minor.[979] There are two

early signed vases which may possibly represent the work of Athenian

artists prior to the time of the François vase, the cup by Oikopheles

at Oxford,[980] and the famous vase of Aristonophos,[981] Ariston of

Kos (ὁ Κῷος), Aristonothos, or Aristonoös as various scholars interpret

the name.[982] The former, however, is somewhat archaistic in

character, with careless rather than incompetent drawing, and hardly

earlier than the sixth century; and the latter has been claimed with

much probability as Ionian work, on account of the treatment of certain

details, as well as on the ground of the name Ariston of Kos (if this

interpretation be accepted). The inscription is not conclusive either

way, and it may also be here remarked that the krater has several

points of resemblance with the well-known “Warrior” vase of Mycenae

(Fig. 88),[983] which is probably later in date than the rest of the

pottery from that site, being found outside the Acropolis. The

Aristonoös vase (Plate XVI.) is usually dated in the seventh century,

and is interesting for its subjects as well as for its artistic

position. On one side is a sea-fight, a subject only common on Greek

vases in the Geometrical period, and therefore obviously derived from

that source; on the other, the blinding of Polyphemos by Odysseus, a

subject popular in archaic vase-painting (see Chapter XIV.), and found

in Cyrenaic and other early examples. At first sight this vase would

certainly seem to be of the Proto-Attic class, showing the transition

from Geometrical to developed Attic style; but the Mycenaean and Ionian

elements must not be left out of consideration. As regards the Warrior

vase, M. Pottier has given good grounds for showing that it also is to

be reckoned as Proto-Attic. But we must not leave out of sight the view

urged by Furtwaengler,[984] that the Aristonoös vase is of an Argive

fabric. When the Heraion finds are published, they may afford more

evidence on this point. Meanwhile, it may be remarked that the

circumstances of the finding of the Warrior vase may support this view.

[Illustration: FIG. 88. VASE FROM MYCENAE, WITH WARRIORS.]

Closely connected with these early Attic fabrics is a very interesting

series of small vases which, from the place of their discovery, are

usually known as =Phaleron ware=. They are nearly all small jugs, and

number some fifty, mostly at Athens, but there is a representative

series in the British Museum. More conspicuously, perhaps, than the

Proto-Attic, they illustrate the growing tendency to combine

Geometrical and Oriental influences. In form and technique they are

Geometrical, but in the ornamentation there is a large admixture of

Oriental elements. It has been said that “the whole character of these

vases seems to reflect an influence of the style of Oriental vases on

painters accustomed to the Dipylon style,”[985] and it is largely in

the arrangement of the decoration that the former is apparent, as well

as in the introduction of new motives and patterns.[986] See for

examples Plate XVII. figs. 2, 4, 5.

[Illustration:

From _Ath. Mitth._ 1890.

FIG. 89. VASE OF PROTO-ATTIC

TYPE FROM VOURVA.

]

The usual scheme consists of a panel with figures on the neck, a band

of ornament round the shoulder, and below that parallel bands of lines

or other ornaments, with zigzags or rays round the foot. A typical

example is A 471 in the British Museum, with a cock on the neck, and

below, dogs pursuing a hare.[987] On a cup of Geometrical form, with

conventionalised plants and ground-ornaments of Geometrical character,

are two deer fleeing from a lion, and there is also a pyxis with

chariot-scenes obviously derived from Mycenaean vases. But most curious

and interesting is a jug with two bearded heads and a woman with very

small body, apparently playing flutes.[988] The general effect is quite

unique, but the drawing is rude and childish to a degree; the middle

head is almost Semitic in type. It would seem that here again we have a

Mycenaean influence at work, and in general the appearance and style of

these vases undoubtedly recall the figured vases from Cyprus.[989]

Another series of vases in close relation to the Proto-Attic fabrics is

that found at Vourva, near Marathon[990]; they are important as forming

a connecting link with the next development of Attic vase-painting, the

Tyrrhenian amphorae described at the conclusion of this chapter. They

have been studied by Böhlau,[991] and more recently by Nilsson,[992]

and these writers have shown how they represent the influence of Ionic

ideas, derived through Euboea. On the other hand the friezes of

animals, which are so characteristic of this class, are clearly derived

from Corinthian sources, but are distinguished from those on Corinthian

vases by the absence of accessory colours. Fig. 89[993] may be taken as

a typical example. They appear to be contemporary with the later

Proto-Attic vases, such as the Burgon lebes, on which also traces of

Ionic influence have been noted.

* * * * *

From the Geometrical period onwards the manufacture of painted vases

seems to have been continued intermittently in =Boeotia= down to the

fourth century. It would be taking too great a liberty with chronology

to deal with all Boeotian fabrics here, and the later must fall into

their place with the contemporary Attic fabrics. But there is a small

class which seems to take its origin directly or indirectly from the

Geometrical pottery; and as it belongs to a period anterior to the

perfected B.F. style, it may be treated here as analogous in

development to the Proto-Attic vases.

A favourite shape among the Boeotian Geometrical wares was that of a

jug with long cylindrical neck and somewhat flat body, of a form

clearly imitated from metal.[994] This shape, which is also often found

in Proto-Corinthian fabrics (see below, p. 308), was utilised by a

potter named Gamedes, whose signature is found on a vase from Tanagra

in the Louvre,[995] in the Boeotian alphabet of about 600 B.C. It is

decorated with the figure of a herdsman driving before him a bull and a

flock of sheep, the figures being in black silhouette, with details

indicated by white markings within incised lines. This is quite a local

peculiarity,[996] and seems to be due to a combination of Corinthian

and Ionian influences. Gamedes has also signed his name on an unpainted

aryballos of the typical early Corinthian globular form (see p. 197) in

the British Museum (Plate XVII. fig. 6), and a similar vase in the

Louvre is signed by Menaidas.[997] Yet another Boeotian potter,

Theozotos, has a signed vase with a similar subject to the Gamedes jug,

but the style is more advanced.[998]

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XVII

[Illustration:

EARLY POTTERY FROM GREECE (BRITISH MUSEUM).

1, 3, “PROTO-CORINTHIAN”; 2, 4, 5, “PHALERON” WARE; 6, BOEOTIAN,

SIGNED BY GAMEDES.

]

------------------------------------

Another typically Boeotian form found in the same period is a

kantharos,[999] also obviously imitated from metal and decorated with

figures of animals or palmette-and-lotos patterns of a peculiarly local

type. The style of the animals is, like that of the Gamedes vase, also

peculiar and local; but both in decoration and technique these vases

seem to reflect Corinthian influence.

* * * * *

A small but remarkable class of vases, which seem to stand almost by

themselves, is that known as the =Melian amphorae=. Four vases of this

type now in the Athens Museum[1000] were found in Melos many years ago,

and were recognised as a separate class and described as “Melian vases”

as long ago as 1862 by Conze.[1001] Since that time a splendid example

has been added to the list, found in the same island in 1893[1002]; and

to this must be added several fragments recognised at different times,

including one from Naukratis in the British Museum.[1003] All the

complete vases are large amphorae, about three feet high, but of

elegant proportions, with two handles branching out low down on the

body. The figures are painted in brown on a pale yellow ground, and

enhanced with dull red and purple accessories, some of the details also

being incised. In two cases the subjects are mythological, one

representing Apollo with his lyre in a chariot accompanied by Artemis

and two Muses[1004]; another the Asiatic Artemis (see Chapter

XII.)[1005]; another, the one found in 1893, has the subjects of Hermes

and Athena, and Herakles carrying off Iole. Deities in chariots are a

typical Melian subject. The figures are of quite original design, in no

way imitative, and the costumes seem to indicate a period between Homer

and the sixth century. They may be roughly dated about the middle of

the seventh.

They exhibit a combination of highly-developed Geometrical ornament

with vegetable motives from the East and Mycenaean details, such as the

spiral, which, as has already been noted (p. 294), attains almost to a

rank growth over the vacant spaces of the vases. The human forms are

conceived with a remarkable degree of freedom. In general appearance

they are not unlike the large Proto-Attic amphorae, but much richer and

freer in style; they may be also said to approach the finer Naukratite

or Rhodian vases, such as the Euphorbos pinax with its quasi-Homeric

subject and lavish use of ornament.[1006]

The decoration is more advanced than that of the Proto-Attic class, the

palmettes, for instance, being more freely treated. Riegl[1007] notes

that the palmettes and lotos-flowers are derived from Egypt, but

transformed and Hellenised, and that the spirals are not Geometrical,

but are naturalised into plants. The characteristic arrangement of the

ornament in long vertical stripes he traces from Egypt through

Mycenaean art; it develops later into the plait-band of the Clazomenae

sarcophagi (Plate XXVII.). In brief, the ornament of the Melian vases

forms a direct link between Mycenaean and Hellenic ornament.

An altogether new light has been thrown on this group by a large series

of fragments of painted pottery found in 1898 in the island of Rheneia,

which undoubtedly form part of the contents of graves brought over from

Delos in 426–25 B.C., as recorded by Thucydides (iii. 104). They have

been recently made the subject of careful study by Mr. J. H.

Hopkinson,[1008] who recognised them as belonging to the Melian class,

and identified parts of at least ten distinct vases. The scanty

preservation of fragments of complete vases is, in his opinion, due to

the fact that they had been originally placed outside the tombs like

the Dipylon vases. Like the complete examples, they are characterised

by their fine slip and brilliant polychrome technique, the system of

frieze-decoration with Geometric ornaments and spirals, the free and

spirited drawing, and their purely plastic forms, showing no signs of

imitation of metal. They also bear out the isolated character of this

fabric, in which all the vases seem to be on the same level of

excellence, without any signs of transition at either end.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XVIII

[Illustration: MELIAN AMPHORA (ATHENS MUSEUM).]

------------------------------------

Mr. Hopkinson draws the conclusion, in which he may prove to be

justified, that this pottery is of Delian manufacture, but if so, that

the clay must have been imported, as the local clay is, and always has

been, too poor in character. At all events, the Cycladic origin of the

fabric can hardly be a matter of doubt, and it is clear that the

intermediate position of these islands would account for a combination

of Geometrical and Ionian elements, so far as such exists. But the

strongly individualistic character of the vases compels us to seek some

other influence for their real origin, and it seems on the whole

probable that they represent a separate and independent descent from

Mycenaean pottery, starting with the spiral as the basis of

ornamentation. Some evidence of this descent may be traced in the

native pottery of Phylakopi, to which allusion has been made in the

previous chapter (p. 263).[1009]

§ 3. CORINTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wilisch, _Altkorinthische Thonindustrie_ (1892); Pottier, _Louvre

Cat._ ii. p. 417 ff.; Dumont-Pottier, _Céramiques_, i. chaps. xi.

and xvi.; Rayet and Collignon, p. 39 ff. For “Proto-Corinthian”

pottery see references given in text.

As a commercial and artistic centre, no one city during the early

archaic period entered into serious rivalry with Corinth, which was at

a very remote date in relations with the East, and was one of the first

of the Greek states to extend the system of colonisation in the

Mediterranean, by the foundation of Corcyra, Syracuse, and other

important outposts. The epoch of this supremacy and of its commercial

prosperity extends from the eighth to the sixth century B.C., being

coincident with the rule of the great tyrants, Periander, Kypselos,

etc. In the course of the sixth century, when the Athenian tyranny rose

to such a great height under Peisistratos, Corinth, with equal

rapidity, sank to a subordinate position, and her artistic supremacy

passed to the growing power of Athens. Hence it is fitting that Corinth

and its famous potteries should be the subject of our next section.

Two causes contributed to the importance of Corinth as a centre of

ceramic industry—the excellence of its clay (see p. 205), and its

position as a commercial port at the junction of the Peloponnese and

Central Greece. Pollux[1010] selects Corinthian clay for commendation,

and other writers speak of different varieties of pottery as

Corinthian. Hence it is not surprising that large quantities of pottery

should have been found here, the local origin of which is established

by the inscriptions in the Corinthian alphabet which are frequently

painted upon them; and not only that, but similar pottery has been

found almost all over the Mediterranean, being more widely distributed

than any other fabric except the Athenian B.F. and R.F. vases. The list

of sites as given by Wilisch is as follows: Athens, Eleusis, Aegina,

Argos, Kleonae, Tiryns, Mycenae, Thebes, and Tanagra in Greece; Euboea

(Karystos), Melos, Corfu, Crete, Rhodes,[1011] Samos, and Cyprus among

the islands; Hissarlik, Smyrna, Pontus, and the Crimea; Alexandria,

Naukratis, and Carthage; Syracuse and Selinus in Sicily, and Sardinia;

and many places in Italy, such as Bari, Nola, Capua, Cumae, Beneventum,

Cervetri, Vulci, Orvieto, Corneto, and Viterbo. M. Pottier thinks that

this wide distribution is due, not to the merit of the vases

themselves, which are often of poor style, but to the merchandise which

they contained. This might, at any rate, account for the great

preponderance of small oil-flasks, a form which took the place of the

Mycenaean “false amphora.”

The Corinthian vases are not, however, strictly homogeneous, and,

in fact, fall into certain distinct categories. The earliest class

found at Corinth stands quite by itself, and has been termed

“Proto-Corinthian,” though the justice of this title has been

strongly combated by some scholars. On many of the Sicilian and

Italian sites a class of small vases[1012] is found which differs

from the authentic Corinthian examples of the same forms, and may

not impossibly denote local fabrics. If this is so, they would

stand in the same relation to the genuine Corinthian as the

Boeotian Geometrical vases to those of the Dipylon, forming a sort

of supplementary fabric. At all events, such imitations of a

popular ware might reasonably be expected.

M. Pottier maintains that five distinct varieties of clay may be

observed, which partially serve as a basis for classification, apart

from questions of style and ornamentation. They are as follows: (1)

small vases of a greenish-yellow clay found in Greece, especially at

Corinth, but rare in Italy; (2) vases of cream-coloured clay from

Boeotia, and large kraters from Cervetri; (3) vases of reddish clay

from Boeotia, Euboea, and Etruria; (4) vases of white and grey clay,

very numerous in Italy; (5) vases of yellow clay, chiefly found in

Italy. Some of the “Proto-Corinthian” wares belong to Class (1), but as

a rule they are marked off from the rest by technique as well as

decoration. This first class is without doubt exclusively local, and

represents the κέραμος Κορίνθιος of Pollux; the same clay is even used

at Corinth at the present day. On one of the Penteskuphia pinakes (see

p. 316), the clay of which differs from the rest, a potter is

represented making an aryballos of “Proto-Corinthian” form[1013]; but

the majority belong to the second class, which is also local, and

includes the large kraters of advanced style with Corinthian

inscriptions. In colour and porosity the clay resembles that of

Boeotia. The red clay of Class (3) suggests a connection with Chalkis,

a question which needs future consideration (see below, p. 321); (4)

and (5) present analogies to the native clays of Italy, and include all

the local imitative fabrics. The older varieties with merely linear

decoration are most largely found at Corinth and Syracuse, and the

later with incised lines and figures of animals or men are

comparatively rare. But as far as the present state of our knowledge

permits, it is certainly possible to claim as Corinthian, at least in a

sense, all the varieties of fabrics which have been hitherto mentioned,

except probably the “Proto-Corinthian.”

In describing these fabrics in detail, it will be found more convenient

to ignore the technical differences, and adopt the more chronologically

accurate system of classification which follows the development of the

decoration. We thus obtain five distinct classes,[1014] which may be

summarised as follows:—

1. “Proto-Corinthian” wares (called by M. Pottier the Corinthian

Geometric style). 750–650 B.C., and later.

2. Corinthian vases with incised scale-patterns or imbrications.

3. Corinthian vases with floral decoration, ground-ornaments, and

figures not incised.

4. Similar vases, but with figures incised. [Classes 2 to 4 roughly

cover the seventh century.]

5. Corinthian vases without ground-ornaments, and with large friezes

of animals or human figures; incised details. 600–550 B.C.

1. Although the priority of the so-called =Proto-Corinthian= or

Corinthian Geometrical pottery is certain, the term is, strictly

speaking, applied to vases of different dates, which are only connected

by form with the original fabrics.[1015] The distinction lies in the

fact that the earlier vases have linear decoration without purple

accessories or incised lines, both of which occur in the more developed

examples as the result of the revolution effected by the Corinthian

painters.[1016] They therefore fall into two main classes, of which the

earlier includes the larger vases with purely Geometrical decoration of

a simple type, doubtless reflecting the original local Geometrical

pottery, and sometimes with zones of animals. The figures are merely in

black silhouette. In the later class the vases are small, sometimes

diminutive, but of developed style, with zones of animals of the later

Corinthian type, and with purple accessories and incised lines. The

earlier class date from the eighth to the seventh century B.C.; the

later cannot be older than the sixth. For the dating of the earlier

group some evidence may be derived from the results of excavations at

Syracuse, founded from Corinth in 735 B.C. In its earliest cemeteries,

as also at Megara Hyblaea, numerous Proto-Corinthian vases of the

earlier class have been found.[1017] In Italy Proto-Corinthian wares

were found in trench-tombs of about 750–650 B.C., and in the earlier

chamber-tombs (see Chapter XVIII.). The older class disappears by the

end of the seventh century, when the typical Corinthian _aryballos_

(see p. 197) takes its place.

Besides Corinth and Syracuse, Proto-Corinthian vases have been found in

considerable numbers at the Argive Heraion, at Thebes, and in the

island of Aegina, and more rarely at Tiryns, Athens, Eleusis, Tanagra,

Smyrna, and Hissarlik. Out of thirty in the Berlin Museum, eight

certainly came from Corinth. Taking this into consideration, and also

the Corinthian origin of Syracuse, it is evident that there is, apart

from their style, a strong presumption in favour of their Corinthian

origin.[1018] As long ago, however, as 1877 Helbig cast doubts on this

and proposed to locate them at the rival commercial centre of

Chalkis.[1019] He was followed by Dümmler, Klein, and others,[1020] but

recently Aegina[1021] and Boeotia[1022] have also been suggested, the

latter at least for the earlier class. Yet more recently the pendulum

has swung in another direction, that of Argos,[1023] chiefly in view of

the extensive finds at the Heraion (not yet published). Two specimens

have recently been made known which bear inscriptions, but neither

yields very definite evidence. One is a signed vase (with the name of

Pyrrhos[1024]), in which the alphabet is mixed, but mainly Chalcidian

in character; in the other[1025] the inscriptions are fragmentary, but

though the letter Σ appears in Argive, not Corinthian, form, the Λ is

not of the peculiar Argive [Argive Σ] type, but [Sicyonian Λ]. The

Pyrrhos inscription cannot be much later than 700 B.C., and thus ranks

as the earliest known “signature.” Mr. Hoppin,[1026] arguing from the

Heraion finds, regards the Proto-Corinthian fabrics as a direct

offshoot of Mycenaean pottery, not as forming a link between the

Geometrical and the Corinthian. The term, however, may be preserved, as

implying priority in point of time, and it cannot be said as yet that

the Corinthian theory is absolutely disproved.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XIX

[Illustration:

“PROTO-CORINTHIAN” AND EARLY CORINTHIAN VASES (BRITISH MUSEUM).

1–3, 5, EARLY CORINTHIAN; 4, 6, “PROTO-CORINTHIAN.”

]

------------------------------------

The dominating form is that of the _alabastron_ or lekythos, a

pear-shaped vase with flat round lip and flat handle. The aryballos

form is also known, as are the skyphos, pyxis, and a small krater. A

characteristic shape is the jug with flat base rising in pyramidal form

to a long cylindrical neck, with trefoil lip and handle.[1027] The

earlier group, although of “Corinthian” technique, usually have only

“Geometrical” ornament, such as water-birds or simple patterns; hence

they have been held, for instance, by M. Pottier, to represent the true

type of Corinthian Geometrical pottery. But it does not seem that the

Geometrical style was ever popular at Corinth, and there are many signs

that the Proto-Corinthian fabrics were to a great extent influenced

directly by Mycenaean wares. The patterns, which are in black

monochrome, are on the smaller vases limited to bands, rows of dots, or

a kind of “tongue”-pattern of stylised leaves. The Proto-Corinthian

vases found in Aegina[1028] form in some respects a class by

themselves, being often of considerable size; they also include some

unusual varieties, such as cups, and even amphorae.[1029] They usually

have Geometrical decoration in the form of zigzags, maeander, chevrons,

triangles, or parallel rays; on the larger ones are found friezes of

animals, such as dogs pursuing deer, bulls, or water-fowl.

[Examples of this class are: B.M. A 487, 1050 ff. (see Plate XVII.

figs. 4 and 6, XIX. fig. 1); Louvre E 13, 18, 32, 309, 375, 390, 396

(_Atlas_, pls. 39, 40); Berlin, 316–35; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, pls.

C, D, U, V; _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 7 (B.M. A 1530, of Aegina type).]

The second class is one of considerable interest. It consists of a

series of miniature vases, of which some twenty in all are known, of

the pear-shaped lekythos form, with minute but skilfully-executed

figures in a very advanced style. At their head for beauty and delicacy

of execution stands the exquisite little Macmillan lekythos in the

British Museum,[1030] a masterpiece of its kind. There is also a fine

specimen in Berlin (No. 336), others in the Louvre[1031] and the

Syracuse Museum (the latter from the local excavations), and three very

fine ones have recently been acquired by the Boston Museum.[1032] But

for size and richness, if not for beauty, all these are surpassed by a

marvellous vase in the Chigi collection at Florence.[1033] This is a

jug or oinochoë, decorated with no less than four friezes, two of which

are broad, with numerous figures, the two alternate forming narrow

borders to these, with hunting scenes. The colouring is most

remarkable, the figures being painted in black, yellow ochre, and

bright crimson on a cream ground, with a lavish use of incised lines,

and on the upper narrow frieze the animals are actually painted in pale

buff on a black ground. The upper large frieze represents a combat,

with serried ranks of warriors and horsemen advancing to meet each

other, those on the right all having elaborate emblems on their shields

(birds, ox-heads, Gorgon-heads, etc.). On the lower friezes the figures

fall into groups: a four-horse chariot and a row of boys on horseback;

a Sphinx; hunters slaying a lion; and lastly a fragmentary group,

clearly representing the Judgment of Paris (see Chapter XIV.). It is

the figures of this group which bear the inscriptions alluded to above.

As an instance of the extreme richness and delicacy of the painting,

attention should be called to the chariot-horses in the lower frieze,

which are drawn slightly in advance of each other, and painted

respectively yellow, black, red, and yellow.

The Macmillan lekythos, in spite of its diminutive size, is decorated

with no less than three friezes of human figures and animals, as well

as other ornaments; the main design represents a combat of warriors;

the next, a race of boys on horseback; the lowest, dogs pursuing a

hare, and a crouching ape. The total height of the vase is barely 2¾

inches, and yet every detail in these friezes is marked with surprising

care and accuracy, the shield-devices of the warriors, for instance,

being drawn with wonderful minuteness. The three Boston vases are

interesting for their subjects: on one is Bellerophon slaying the

Chimaera; on the next, a hero attacking a lion with a human head on its

back (a monster no doubt _suggested by_ the Chimaera); the third has

the favourite early subject of Herakles’ combat with the Centaurs. In

all these vases the use of a red colour on the human figures should be

noted, a technical device which we have already noted in the figures on

the Melian amphorae (see above, p. 301).

It is abundantly clear that such work could not have been produced in

the eighth, or even the seventh, century; the style is virtually that

of the subsequent black-figured vases, and we are therefore forced to

the conclusion that these miniature vases were made under the more or

less direct influence of the later Corinthian wares proper, at a time

when that style was developing into the black-figured.

With the Proto-Corinthian ware may be linked a series of vases in the

form of animals, human heads, etc., which imitate Oriental porcelain

vases and show an early development of the plastic art which is

remarkable for its advanced style (see pp. 127, 492). The decoration of

these vases is usually of a simple Geometrical character. They are

found in Rhodes and on many other sites, such as Eretria, Vulci, and

Nola.

2. =Vases with incised imbrications.=—The importance of this class is

betokened by the appearance of the incised line, which as a matter of

pure technique is of course only a revival from the primitive fabrics,

but as an adjunct to figure-decoration in order to express details is

an entirely new feature (see above, p. 306, and below, p. 313). It was

probably derived from metal-work, in which it had long been familiar,

as the Boeotian Geometrical fibulae and the early Corinthian or

Chalcidian bronze reliefs testify. Although destined largely to

revolutionise design, it was at first used with restraint. In the vases

under consideration it is confined to the imbrications[1034] or

scale-patterns with which the body is largely covered (Plate XIX. fig.

3). They were produced by means of a compass in which the graving-tool

was fixed, the edge of each scale forming an arc of a circle, the

centre points of which are usually visible. This scale-pattern is not a

new feature in the decoration of vases; it appears in a painted form on

many Mycenaean specimens,[1035] and was also adopted by the Ionian

painters of Daphnae in the Egyptian Delta (see p. 352). But as a more

satisfactory result was obtained by incising, the Corinthian variety

soon became exceedingly popular. The effect is often enhanced by the

use of red colour.[1036] In some cases this ornament is combined with

painted friezes of animals (as in the Louvre vase E 421). The shapes

employed are various, but a new and conspicuous variety is the large

jug or _olpe_, with circular lip and large discs attached on either

side to the tops of the handles. Attempts have been made to dissociate

this fabric from Corinth, by attributing it to Rhodes, Ionia, and

Sicily[1037]; but although it is certainly true that large numbers were

found in Rhodes and in Sicily, the claims of neither prevail over those

of Corinth, and the most that can be said with any certainty is that

some are local imitations. It is, moreover, possible to discover their

prototypes in the Proto-Corinthian wares.

3. =Vases with floral decoration=, but no incised lines (about 700–650

B.C.).—Towards the end of the eighth century may be observed an influx

of Oriental motives, transforming the Corinthian style, just as at

Athens it transformed the local style, producing the Phaleron ware. Its

effect can also be observed in Etruria (Chapter XVIII.). It is largely

due to historical causes, such as the development of Greek commerce and

colonial expansion, and generally to the fusion of Dorian and Ionian

elements. Hence the prominent characteristic which distinguishes the

new variety from the Proto-Corinthian; namely, the employment of

vegetable ornament, not from direct observation of nature, but

conventionalised. These patterns seem to be largely drawn from Oriental

textile embroideries, and mainly take the form of rosettes, leaves, and

flowers strewn all over the field; according to some writers, this is

the explanation of the phrase _spargentes lineas intus_,[1038] used in

connection with the Corinthian painters Aridikes and Telephanes.

_Ground_-ornaments are almost unknown in Oriental art; but their

adoption from the embroideries would only exemplify the principle,

universal in early art, of imitating in one material the salient

features of another. It has been suggested that these flowers and

leaves are intended to represent the ground on which the animals are

walking. If this is so, the effect is due to a principle already

existing in Mycenaean art—the conventional rendering of perspective by

placing objects whose real position is beyond the principal subjects in

the same vertical plane with them. Another favourite pattern, either as

a ground-ornament or as part of the subordinate decoration, is a

combination of the palmette and lotos-flower, picked out with purple

accessories[1039]; this pattern is purely conventional, and often

assumes colossal dimensions in relation to the size of the vase. The

purple accessories, which now become very common, may possibly be

connected with another traditional Corinthian invention, that of

Ekphantos, who used a red pigment made from pounded earth (see p.

395).[1040]

As regards shapes, the alabastron and aryballos[1041] are preeminently

popular; the flat-bottomed jug, the pyxis or covered jar, and the

skyphos or kotyle, are also found (see Plate XIX. figs. 1, 2, 5). There

arises now a tendency in the larger vases to divide the body into zones

or friezes, which henceforth become a characteristic feature. The

subjects are strictly limited to animals such as the lion, or various

types of birds; and friezes of running dogs and other quadrupeds now

become the typical Corinthian motive.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XX

_To face page 312_

[Illustration:

1. COVERED JAR OF CORINTHIAN FABRIC.

2. “RHODIAN” OINOCHOE.

(BRITISH MUSEUM).

]

------------------------------------

4. =Vases with floral decoration and figures with incised lines= (about

650–600 B.C.).—In this next stage, the date of which corresponds with

the later trench-tombs and older chamber-tombs of Etruria (see Chapter

XVIII.), there is a marked tendency of the vases to increase in size,

and several new forms are either introduced for the first time or

increase in popularity. Besides the ever-popular aryballos and

alabastron, there are various forms of covered jars, the cylindrical

pyxis, and the so-called _lekane_, a sort of tureen; also various

drinking-cups, the kotyle, the so-called _kothon_, and the kylix, the

last a new type. Its prototype is perhaps to be sought in the shallow

four-handled bowls of the Boeotian Geometrical ware, and it is marked

by its bent-over rim and low foot.[1042]

The decoration loses all restraint, and the prevailing idea with the

artist is the _horror vacui_ which impels him to fill up every vacant

part of the surface, at the expense of utterly conventionalising his

figures and ornaments and distorting their forms (cf. Plate XIX. figs.

1, 5, and XX. fig. 1). The vases contrast unfavourably with their

Ionian contemporaries, in which, however profuse the ground-ornaments,

the importance of the figures is never lost sight of, and they never

fail to strike the eye. Incised lines and purple accessories are

employed freely, and even the rosettes are always marked by cross-wise

incisions.

Incision as a method of ornamenting vases was of course always known

from the earliest times, but it was not until now employed within and

round painted designs. Hitherto the only alternatives were plain

silhouettes (as in Geometrical vases) or half-opaque, half-outlined

figures (as in Mycenaean and some early Ionian vases). The former,

however, were too conventional, the latter too elaborate, and the new

method of painting _plus_ engraving reconciled the two, being at once

more realistic and more rapid. It is generally supposed that this

method was a Corinthian invention (compare its use in the imbricated

vases, p. 311), but it is not unknown in early Attic vases, and Böhlau

attributes its origin to an early Ionian tendency to imitate metal

ware.[1043] But this was an anomaly, and the Ionians never took to the

incising method, preferring outline designs or inner lines of white

paint (see p. 331). In any case the Corinthians were the first to adopt

it and popularise it.

The subjects, which now begin to present greater interest, include all

kinds of animals and monsters, arranged in friezes, and by degrees

human figures, and even scenes from mythology, make their appearance.

Some vases have only decorative ornament, such as a flower of four

long, pointed petals, which is frequently found on the aryballi.[1044]

The animals include the lion, panther, boar, bull, ram, deer, goat,

swan, and eagle; the monsters are Gryphons, Sphinxes, or Sirens, and a

sea-deity of which the upper part is human (both male and female), the

lower is in the form of a sinuous fish-tail, and the figure is often

winged in addition.[1045] It is possible that in these figures we may

see the local sea-deities Palaemon and Ino-Leukothea. The human figures

are either single, ranged in friezes, or in groups; the favourite types

are combats of two warriors and Bacchanalian dances; hunting scenes;

and warriors setting out in chariots. The mythological scenes include

the combat of Herakles with the Centaurs,[1046] and scenes from the

Trojan War, such as the combat of Ajax and Aeneas, or the episode of

Dolon.[1047]

So far, then, in the three groups of Corinthian fabrics proper, we are

able to trace the working of M. Pottier’s law of the _hiérarchie des

genres_,[1048] the law which was made by M. Dumont the basis of his

work _Les Céramiques de Grèce propre_ (vol. i., dealing with the

earlier fabrics). According to this law, the decoration of vases

advances by a logical process from linear patterns to floral ornament,

and then from animals to human, and finally mythological, figures.

Another feature in this group is that inscriptions now appear for the

first time. They became exceedingly popular at Corinth, and on most of

the vases with figure-subjects they may be found, each person bearing a

name, whether the scene is mythological or not.[1049] The fashion seems

to have received an impetus from the chest of Kypselos, which was

largely a Corinthian work, and often shows close parallel with the

vases (see below). We have a signed vase with figures in this style by

Chares (Louvre E 609), and others by Timonidas (Athens 620), and

Milonidas (a pinax in Louvre).[1050] The abundance of these

inscriptions has done much to increase our knowledge of the somewhat

peculiar Corinthian alphabet (see Chapter XVII.).

Among the vases of this period one of the most remarkable is the

so-called Dodwell vase in Munich (Fig. 90),[1051] found at Mertese,

near Corinth, about the year 1800, and purchased by the explorer

Dodwell. It is a cylindrical jar or box (_pyxis_), with cover,

decorated round the sides and on the top. Round the body are two

friezes of animals, with numerous flowers as ground-ornaments; on the

top of the cover is a frieze representing a boar-hunt, in which eight

fancifully-named personages take more or less active part. Of these

Philon lies dead under the boar’s feet; Thersandros attacks it with a

sword in front, and Pakon discharges an arrow at it from behind. Behind

him Andrytas hurls a spear, and he is followed by four inactive

figures, all draped and unarmed—Dorimachos, Sakis, Alka ... and

Agamemnon. The scene is closed by a heraldic group of two Sphinxes. It

will be observed that here, as in other contemporary scenes with human

figures, the ground-ornaments are already showing a tendency to die

out; perhaps under the influence of Ionia, where it was soon discovered

that they interfered with the effect of figures in action. The alphabet

of the inscriptions enables us to date this vase about 650–620 B.C.

[Illustration: FIG. 90. THE DODWELL PYXIS (COVER).]

The _pinakes_, or votive tablets, from Penteskuphia, of which mention

has been made elsewhere (p. 51), form an important feature in this

group, both from their subjects, their inscriptions, and the method of

painting. They appear to range in date from 650 to 550 B.C., and fall

into three classes in point of style. The earliest have designs in rude

silhouette without incised lines; in the second only the contours of

the figures are incised; the third are like the vases, with incised

lines and purple details. In a few cases the clay is red, not

drab-coloured. Some are decorated on both sides, but the majority on

one only, and they were clearly intended for hanging up in a temple.

Two of them are signed by artists, Timonidas and Milonidas,[1052] and

there are other interesting inscriptions, besides the ordinary

dedications to Poseidon and Amphitrite (see Chapter XVII.). The

subjects are partly the same as on the vases, but the majority fall

under two heads: (_a_) Poseidon and Amphitrite, standing or in a

chariot (Fig. 115); (_b_) _genre_ scenes from Corinthian industries,

such as miners digging out clay, potters and painters at work, and

vessels exporting pottery over the sea (cf. pp. 207, 216, and Chapter

XV. § 5). Of the subjects common to the vases, Oriental animal-types

and horses occur most frequently; also rosettes and floral

ground-ornaments.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXI

[Illustration: 1. IMITATION CORINTHIAN KRATER, RETURN OF HEPHAISTOS; 2,

CORINTHIAN KRATER WITH BOAR-HUNT (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

------------------------------------

5. The vases of the fifth class (600–550 B.C.) are characterised by the

prevalence of =human and mythological subjects=, with large friezes of

animals, a general use of incised lines, and an absence of

ground-ornaments. They are mostly of considerable size, but small vases

still continued to be made during the sixth century, as is seen in the

“Proto-Corinthian” lekythi. The amphora and hydria now first make their

appearance; the later lekythi approach more to the Attic form.[1053]

One or two other typical shapes may also be noticed, such as the

column-handled krater (Plate XXI.) and the trefoil-mouthed jug with a

panel on one side of the vase only; the prototype of the former we have

seen in the krater of Aristonoös. Another important feature is the

general use of a red ground in the place of the old creamy white; and

yet another, the use of white accessories, especially for the flesh of

female figures. It should be noted that this white is always applied

directly on the clay, as in Ionian fabrics, not as in the Attic, upon

the black varnish. We may bear in mind that it was about this time that

the Athenian Eumaros _marem a femina discrevit_, according to Pliny;

but his date is uncertain, and the bearing of this invention on the

vase-paintings is not to be accepted without hesitation. For the faces

of male figures purple is often used, and, generally speaking, the

vases tend to present a polychrome appearance. This again is an Ionian

characteristic.

The subjects now take a much wider range, and include almost every

variety known in the earlier part of the sixth century. Friezes of

animals seldom form the main motive of decoration, but are placed in

subordination either on the shoulder or low down on the body. Some of

the older types still linger, such as the monsters and fish-tailed

sea-deities, and also that of a heraldic group of two animals with a

palmette and lotos pattern between, suggesting the old Assyrian motive

of two animals guarding the sacred tree. Generally, there is a great

advance in composition; but two traditional principles are still

observed—the juxtaposition of figures turned in the same direction, as

in Oriental compositions, and a symmetrical disposition of the two

sides converging to a centre, a “Continental” principle already seen in

the Dipylon vases. The subjects taken from daily life include combats,

banquets, Bacchic or grotesque dances, hunting-scenes, warriors setting

out for battle, and processions. Some appear now for the first time,

as, for instance, the banquets. Among the mythological scenes, Herakles

and his adventures find most favour; scenes from the Trojan cycle are

far from uncommon; and other myths of more isolated character are those

of Amphiaraos, Perseus, and the Theban cycle (Tydeus killing Ismene).

Many of the mythological scenes are really only _genre_ scenes with

names added; for instance, the krater in the Louvre with Herakles’

reception by Eurytos (E 635), is only an ordinary banquet-scene in

composition, but for the inscriptions; and so with many others, as we

have also observed in the preceding class.

It may suffice to describe one vase in detail as typical of the later

Corinthian wares. This is the so-called Amphiaraos krater in

Berlin,[1054] a column-handled krater of considerable size and very

richly decorated. It belongs to a series exceptionally well represented

in the Louvre (E 613–39; all found, like this, at Cervetri), and

illustrating the absolutely latest development of Corinthian pictorial

art. Its special interest is that it affords a close comparison in

several points with the chest of Kypselos. The subjects are disposed in

two rows all round the vase, of which the upper is the more important,

containing two mythological subjects. These, which are unequally

divided, one occupying more of the circumference than the other, are

the Departure of Amphiaraos and the Funeral Games for Pelias,[1055] the

ἀγὼν ὁ ἐπὶ Πελίᾳ of Pausanias.[1056] On the lower frieze are seven boys

taking part in a horse-race, seven groups of combatants, and two

marching hoplites. It will be noted that there is no frieze of animals.

The Amphiaraos scene depicts that hero in the act of ascending his

war-chariot, in which the driver Baton stands; he turns to look at his

family behind, consisting of two daughters, a son, and an infant in the

nurse’s arms, and last of all his wife Eriphyle, who stands in the rear

with the pearl necklace, the price of her treachery. Her children seem

to be supplicating for her. In the background Amphiaraos’ house is

indicated by a Doric building. The correspondence of this scene with

the description of the Kypselos chest[1057] is extraordinary; the

latter might almost be a description of the vase. An interesting

feature of this painting is formed by the animals which are scattered

over the scene: a hare, a hedgehog, an owl and another bird, a serpent,

a scorpion, and a lizard or salamander.[1058]

The funeral games for Pelias adjoined the Amphiaraos scene on the

chest, just as they do here, except that the scene on the vase is only

an excerpt from the contest of the Pentathlon, which is there complete.

We have here only the wrestling (by Peleus and Hippalkimos), and in

place of the other scenes a chariot-race, with the judges waiting to

decide the result; as on the chest, tripods are standing ready as

prizes for the victor. It must not, of course, be supposed that these

scenes are directly copied from the chest—the discrepancies are too

great, although the parallels are very interesting; but the only object

of such comparisons is to assist us to an idea of the appearance of

these great contemporary works of art.[1059]

One of the chief features of this class is the almost total

disappearance of the ground-ornaments. Sometimes indeed a frieze of

animals with the old profusion of rosettes is combined on the same vase

with a design of figures on a clear field; but, generally speaking,

rosettes are not found with the figure subjects. Their place is almost

supplied by the inscriptions, which become more and more extensively

employed, even for animals. Accessory colours are used in a purely

conventional fashion, not to reproduce nature, but—probably—to

reproduce metal-work. Thus we may surmise that white is intended to

give the effect of silver (or ivory) and red that of copper (or gold),

just as such substances were used on the chest of Kypselos in order to

give variety and picturesqueness to the surface. The black then

represents the ground of bronze or wood.

The sixth-century Corinthian vase-paintings have a special importance

at the present day, because they are almost the only remnant left to us

of the artistic products of the city at that time.[1060] Though not of

course to be reckoned as examples of the higher art, they yet reflect

it in some measure, and help us to reconstruct such works as the chest

of Kypselos, almost every subject on which finds a parallel in the

Corinthian vases. And it is possible that they are important in another

respect. We know from Pliny that there was a very influential school of

painting centred at Corinth in this century, which is represented by

the names of Kleanthes and Aridikes, Ekphantos, Aregon, and perhaps

also Kimon of Kleonae. Although Professor Robert[1061] has endeavoured

to show that the traditions are untrustworthy, and places Kimon in the

seventh century, Kleanthes later, the probability is that they may

fairly be upheld, and Pliny’s dates accepted. Allusion has already been

made to the inventions traditionally associated with Aridikes and

Ekphantos; but Kimon belongs to a later development of painting

altogether, and must be reserved for a later chapter. Of Kleanthes it

is only stated that he “invented linear drawing,” whatever that may

mean; Pliny, our informant, was perhaps hardly aware himself, and is no

more definite as to the period at which he lived. We can only,

therefore, assume that he marks the epoch of some new departure or

advance in contour or outline drawing.[1062]

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXII

[Illustration: CHALCIDIAN VASE: HERAKLES AND GERYON; QUADRIGA

(BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE).]

------------------------------------

There are a few vases which, on account of various peculiarities, can

only be described as “imitation Corinthian.” Among these may be

mentioned one with an inscription in the Sicyonian alphabet (Berlin

1147), and a krater in the British Museum (B 42 on Plate XXI.) with

designs on a white ground, which from the similarity of its style to

the Berlin vase may be linked therewith.[1063] The late F. Dümmler was

of opinion that these two vases were made at Sikyon. There is also the

group of vases from Caere in the Campana collection of the Louvre,

which have usually been regarded as imitations of Corinthian ware made

in Italy; but M. Pottier in his catalogue makes no distinction between

these and the genuine Corinthian fabrics.

§ 4. CHALCIDIAN VASES

A very puzzling class of vases, about which little is at present known,

is that formed by the so-called Chalcidian group. They are so named

from the fact of their bearing inscriptions which may undoubtedly be

referred to the alphabet of Chalkis in Eretria; but there is no

evidence that they were actually made there. We know, however, that

Chalkis was a great art-centre and rival of Corinth in the seventh and

sixth centuries, and was especially famous for work in metal. As,

therefore, more than one of these vases bears evident indications, in

the shape of the handles, the ornamentation, and other details, of an

imitation of metallic originals, there may be some ground for the

attribution. Only a dozen or so of these vases with Chalcidian

inscriptions are known, and several of them are in character almost to

be ranked with the developed B.F. Attic wares; their date cannot

therefore be earlier than the middle of the sixth century, probably

about 560–540 B.C. On the other hand, they often present a close

parallel, especially in the ornamental patterns, to the later

Corinthian wares,[1064] whence it seems probable that they form, like

the so-called Tyrrhenian amphorae (see below), a connecting-link

between Corinth and Athens. While as yet it is impossible to obtain a

definite idea of the characteristics of “Chalcidian” vases, the attempt

to classify other uninscribed vases with them can only be very

tentative, although there is more than one in the British Museum, in

the Louvre, and elsewhere, which presents some feature especially

typical of the inscribed examples.[1065]

The prevailing shape is the amphora, all but one of the inscribed group

coming under this heading, in which the outline of the body approaches

nearer to a pure ellipse than is usual in this form; the typical

ornaments are rows of oblique zigzags and a peculiar variety of the

lotos-pattern. An occasional rosette in the field preserves a trace of

Corinthian influence. The subjects are mainly mythological, such as the

combat of Herakles and Geryon, battle-scenes from the Trojan legends,

etc.; and two points are worth noting as apparently characteristic of

the group: (1) the tendency to represent fallen figures in full face,

which is very rare in archaic vase-painting; (2) the type of Geryon,

who is winged, and not, as in the Attic vases, “three men joined

together,” as Pausanias describes the figure on the chest of Kypselos,

but a triple-headed, six-armed monster.

The most typical example of the class is the amphora in the Hope

collection at Deepdene,[1066] with scenes from the Trojan War. Ajax

stands over the body of Achilles, defending it from the attacks of

Glaukos, whom he has wounded, and of Paris, who has just discharged his

bow; behind the latter advance Aeneas and two other Trojans with

spears, while a fourth falls back wounded. Achilles and the two wounded

men are all shown in full face.[1067] The combat is watched by a stiff

archaic figure of Athena, with serpent-fringed aegis, and behind her,

standing apart, is Diomede, having his wounded hand bound up by

Sthenelos. The drawing on the whole is accurate, and the style more

vigorous and less conventional than that of the Attic vases.

Two of the group represent Herakles encountering Geryon: an amphora in

the British Museum (B 155) and one in the Bibliothèque at Paris (202).

In the latter the figure of Athena is almost exactly repeated from the

Deepdene vase, and behind her is a group of cattle. The reverse of this

vase represents a quadriga seen from the front (a typical Chalcidian

subject). Both sides of the vase are illustrated in Plate XXII.

Until the whole series of Chalcidian vases is properly studied and

estimated,[1068] it is difficult to give an adequate account of this

important group; we append, however, a list of those bearing

inscriptions in the alphabet, and a few others for various reasons

associated with them.[1069]

§5. “TYRRHENIAN AMPHORAE”

There is a large and important class of vases, not differing in

technique from the Attic B.F. vases proper, yet clearly of earlier

date, and while not exclusively Attic in all their characteristics, yet

sufficiently so to suggest that they are closely connected therewith.

The problem which these vases have for a long time presented is whether

they merely represent an early stage of the Attic B.F. fabrics, linking

them to the “Proto-Attic,” or whether they owe their origin to foreign,

_e.g._ Corinthian, sources.

About eighty vases, nearly all amphorae, have been recognised as

presenting the characteristics of this class, and all have been found

in Italy, chiefly at Cervetri and Vulci; hence they have been known for

many years. As long ago as 1830 the name “Tyrrhenian amphorae” was

applied to them by Gerhard, meaning thereby a sort of cross between

Greek vases proper and those of obviously Italian origin. The name has

adhered to them, and was also used generally to describe the

characteristic form of amphora, with its cylindrical neck and

egg-shaped body[1070]; but it was not long before it began to be

realised that the vases bore inscriptions in the Attic dialect, and,

further, that the subjects on them had much in common with the later

Corinthian fabrics. Thereupon sprang up the idea, fostered by

Loeschcke,[1071] that the vases were made by Athenian potters, but that

they were largely indebted to Corinthian—or, as Loeschcke called them,

Peloponnesian—prototypes.[1072] For the last ten years or so they have

been generally known as “Corintho-Attic,” but Thiersch, the most recent

writer on the subject,[1073] reverts to the old name of Tyrrhenian,

using it of course in a purely conventional sense. His conclusion is

that the class is to be regarded as “old Attic,” rather than imitative

of Corinthian, and he shows clearly that it must be regarded as a

development of the Vourva vases (p. 299), as will be seen from an

examination of the vase given in Fig. 89, p. 299; but that it is

entirely free from Corinthian influence can hardly be maintained. We

have seen that the Vourva class borrowed from Corinth the friezes of

animals which are also characteristic of this group, and it is possible

that this influence continued to make itself felt. At all events, this

ware belongs to the first half of the sixth century B.C., and stands in

close relation to the François vase, and others which represent the

earliest school of Attic B.F. artists. Its specially Attic

characteristic are, according to Holwerda, (1) the inscriptions, (2)

the clay, (3) the types of the lotos and other ornaments, (4) the

importance given to one subject, (5) the thin proportions of the

figures.[1074]

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXIII

[Illustration: “TYRRHENIAN” AMPHORA: DEATH OF POLYXENA (BRIT. MUS.).]

------------------------------------

The vases are for the most part decorated in the same manner, with an

elaborate lotos-and-honeysuckle pattern on either side of the neck, and

several friezes of figures, usually three, covering the body, of which

all but the principal one are composed of animals or monsters. The

principal frieze is always the upper one, covering the body from the

neck to the middle. The friezes are more numerous on the earlier

examples; they become fewer as Corinthian characteristics give way to

Attic. Altogether, these vases are remarkably homogeneous, both in

style, in shape, and in technique, and it has even been suggested that

the whole series is the work of one man; nor is this an impossibility.

An interesting feature is formed by the inscriptions,[1075] which are

of frequent occurrence. They tend, however, to degenerate into

meaningless collocations of letters, which some have thought to

represent Corinthian inscriptions misunderstood; but the alphabet is

pure Attic throughout, except for the double forms on the Berlin

amphora (see below), and a Chalcidian [Chalcidian Γ] for Γ on a vase in

the British Museum. The artist is fond of giving his figures surnames,

and thus we find Hermes styled Κυλλήνιος, “of Kyllene,” Nestor Πύλιος,

“of Pylos,” and Ajax [Ὀ]ιλιάδης, “son of Oileus,” a feature which

hardly occurs on any other class of vases. The meaningless inscriptions

are not easy to account for; certain groups of letters are repeated

over and over again, and it has been suggested by Thiersch that they

are analogous to the friezes of animals, with their repetitions and

combinations. They also seem to serve a decorative purpose by filling

up spaces.

The subjects are mainly mythological, with many features of interest.

For several the artist seems to have had a decided preference, such as

the combats of Herakles with Amazons and with the Centaur Nessos, that

of the Lapiths with the Centaurs, the adventure of Troilos and Polyxena

from the Trojan legends. Bacchic scenes are altogether wanting, but on

many examples a Corinthian type is adopted in their place, representing

grotesque dancing figures in various attitudes.[1076] Of scenes from

daily life, combats of armed warriors and young riders galloping

prevail above all others; the latter are, as on the Caeretan hydriae

(p. 355), little more than decorative. Generally speaking, it is

doubtful if Loeschcke’s idea of types borrowed from the Peloponnese can

be maintained; it is true that some scenes which occur on the chest of

Kypselos may be found, but the treatment is not quite the same; and

some subjects seem to be rather from an Ionic source. The animals or

monsters which form the subordinate friezes include the Sphinx and

Siren; the lion, panther, goat, and deer; the eagle, swan, and

cock.[1077]

Some of the vases call for more than passing mention, especially the

remarkable Berlin vase (_Cat._ 1704) with the Birth of Athena, and the

richly decorated specimen recently acquired by the British Museum, with

the Death of Polyxena. The former seems to be the earliest example of

its subject, and in the number and arrangement of the figures it

resembles the fine early Attic amphora in the British Museum (B 147).

Its chief interest is epigraphical, in the use of the double forms

(Corinthian and Attic) in the same word of the letters E ([Corinthian

E]) and Κ (Ϙ).[1078] Over the figure of Hermes is written Ἑρμῆς εἰμὶ

Κϙυέλνιος (sc. Κυλλήνιος), as already noted above. This vase may be

regarded as having established the “type” for the subject so long

popular on Attic vases, until Pheidias created a new and more ideal

version.[1079] The Museum vase (Plate XXIII.) has a very remarkable

representation of a subject rare in Greek art, with several unique

features.[1080] The body of Polyxena is carried in a rigid horizontal

position by Ajax Iliades (_sc._ son of Oïleus) and two others, to the

tomb of Achilles, over which Neoptolemos stands to perform the fatal

deed. Phoenix, Diomede, and Nestor “of Pylos” are spectators of the act.

The style of the vases as a whole is coarse and clumsy, though it often

rises to a greater standard of merit; the lines are often mechanically

drawn and lifeless, which may be to some extent the result of

imitation. Details of drapery are seldom shown, except that the dresses

are often richly decorated with incised patterns, but the folds are

never indicated.[1081]

-----

Footnote 930:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 222–3.

Footnote 931:

Wide, in _Ath. Mitth._ 1896, p. 385 ff.; see also _ibid._ 1893, p.

138.

Footnote 932:

Cf. the results from the Argive Heraion (Waldstein, i. p. 49 ff.).

Footnote 933:

Cf. Horace, _Ep._ ii. 1, 156: _Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et

artes intulit agresti Latio_.

Footnote 934:

M. Pottier notes the unexpected repetition of curvilinear elements in

Geometrical pottery (_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 223).

Footnote 935:

For Melos, see _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 112; for Thera, H. von

Gaertringen, _Thera_, ii. p. 127 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, p. 1 ff.;

for Crete, _Brit. School Annual_, 1899–1900, p. 91.

Footnote 936:

Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 29; _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 103, fig.

150; Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304.

Footnote 937:

See Wide’s study of the pottery in the Athens Museum, _Jahrbuch_,

xiv. (1899), pp. 26, 78, 188; xv. (1900), p. 49.

Footnote 938:

_Zur Geschichte d. Anfänge d. Kunst_, p. 1 ff. (_Sitzungsber. d. k.

Akad. d. Wiss._ Wien, 1870, lxiv. p. 505 ff.).

Footnote 939:

See Bibliography.

Footnote 940:

Perrot and Chipiez, vii. pp. 51, 208.

Footnote 941:

_J.H.S._ viii. p. 68 ff.; cf. _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223 ff.

Footnote 942:

See p. 35, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, p. 73 ff.

Footnote 943:

_E.g._ B.M. A 383, 384; Louvre, A 490, 491; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1872,

pl. K, fig. 12.

Footnote 944:

_Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 95.

Footnote 945:

_Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 165, reproduced in Fig 83. The part

bracketed denotes the ornamentation of the neck.

Footnote 946:

See Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 150 ff.

Footnote 947:

_E.g._ _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 600.

Footnote 948:

_J.H.S._ xix. pl. 8.

Footnote 949:

For other instances of ships on Dipylon vases, see Chapter XV. § 7;

also _Mon. Grecs_, xi.–xiii. (1882–4), p. 40 ff.; _Rev. Arch._ xxv.

(1894), p. 14 ff.

Footnote 950:

Cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 57.

Footnote 951:

Schliemann, _Tiryns_, pl. 13; _J.H.S._ xvii. pl. 3, p. 70.

Footnote 952:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1885, pl. 8.

Footnote 953:

_Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 119.

Footnote 954:

The most important of the Dipylon vases have been published in the

_Monumenti_, vol. ix. pl. 39, and _Annali_, 1872, pl. 1, besides the

others already mentioned. See also Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 29; _Louvre

Cat._ A 516–19, 526, 575; _Athens Cat._ 196–214, 350, etc.

Footnote 955:

_Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.

Footnote 956:

_Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 212.

Footnote 957:

_Monuments Piot_, i. p. 35 ff.

Footnote 958:

A 575 in the Louvre, with funeral scenes; Fig. 86 below.

Footnote 959:

See Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 173.

Footnote 960:

Riegl, fig. 81.

Footnote 961:

_Cat._ 306; _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 357.

Footnote 962:

On these fibulae see _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xxxix, and Nos.

119–21, 3204–5.

Footnote 963:

This would seem to suggest a textile origin for Geometrical patterns,

at least on Boeotian vases.

Footnote 964:

_E.g._ B 57–8 in Brit. Mus.

Footnote 965:

_Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 99 ff.: see also, for relations with Egypt,

p. 114.

Footnote 966:

Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304 ff.

Footnote 967:

See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 232, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, p. 285.

Footnote 968:

_Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 106; Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 229.

Footnote 969:

In the B.F. period, pinakes and prothesis-amphorae (Athens 688–690,

845–847; Berlin 1811–26, 1887–89); in the R.F. period, the white

lekythi.

Footnote 970:

See Pottier, _op. cit._ i. p. 135 ff.

Footnote 971:

See also _Ath. Mitth._ xiii. (1888), p. 280.

Footnote 972:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1895, pl. 3.

Footnote 973:

See _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 35.

Footnote 974:

Ionian influence in the early part of the sixth century is also

indicated by the finds of Rhodian and Naucratite pottery on the

Acropolis at Athens; and in another way by the style of the vases

found at Vourva and others from Eretria: see Böhlau, _Aus ion. u.

ital. Nekrop._, p. 116; Nilsson in _Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.

Footnote 975:

Cf. Athens 464, 469; _Jahrbuch_, 1897, pl. 7; _Notizie degli Scavi_,

1895, p. 186, as examples of the transition.

Footnote 976:

Cf. the large Boeotian πίθοι, (Plate XLVII., and _Bull. de Corr.

Hell._ 1898, p. 497 ff.).

Footnote 977:

Athens 665–66: cf. 469.

Footnote 978:

See Chapter XIV.

Footnote 979:

See Chapter XVII.

Footnote 980:

_Ashmolean Vases_, No. 189.

Footnote 981:

In the Vatican (Helbig, i. p. 435, No. 641). Reinach, i. 179 =

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 1, 8.

Footnote 982:

For the interpretation of the inscription see _J.H.S._ x. p. 187

(Ramsay); _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr.-Ungarn_, 1888, p. 85

(Dümmler); _Class. Review_, 1900, p. 264 (Richards). The last

explanation (Aristonoös) seems the most natural. See Chapter XVII.

Footnote 983:

Schliemann, _Mycenae_, p. 133: cf. Pottier in _Revue Arch._ xxviii.

(1896), p. 19. The technique of the vase is not strictly Mycenaean,

as the use of yellow colour for details implies.

Footnote 984:

_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.

Footnote 985:

See _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 58.

Footnote 986:

That they are an immediate development of the Dipylon style is

indicated by various features of the later Attic Geometrical vases

(_Jahrbuch_, 1886, pp. 98, 120).

Footnote 987:

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 48, fig. 8 = Plate XVII. No. 5.

Footnote 988:

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 46.

Footnote 989:

See p. 246; and cf. for example _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 73, figs.

126–27. For a later Ionic vase of similar type see _Bull. de Corr.

Hell._ 1884, pl. 7 (below, p. 339).

Footnote 990:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1890, pls. 10–12; 1893, pl. 2.

Footnote 991:

_Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 115 ff.

Footnote 992:

_Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.

Footnote 993:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 10.

Footnote 994:

Cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 446, and Plate XIX. fig. 5

(Corinthian).

Footnote 995:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1, figs. 2 and 7: cf. Berlin 1651 = _Bull.

de Cor. Hell._ 1897, p. 448.

Footnote 996:

It also occurs at Daphnae: see below, p. 352.

Footnote 997:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 1, fig. 1.

Footnote 998:

Louvre F 69. For other signatures see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 999:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 450: cf. Athens 612 and a Berlin vase

= _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116. On this shape see above, p. 187.

Footnote 1000:

_Cat._ 473–76. Plate XVIII. gives No. 474.

Footnote 1001:

_Melische Thongefässe._ See also Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 213;

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 211.

Footnote 1002:

Athens 477 = Mylonas in Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1894, pls. 12–4, p. 226 (admirably

reproduced in colours).

Footnote 1003:

Cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 212.

Footnote 1004:

Athens 475.

Footnote 1005:

Berlin 301 = Reinach, i. 380, 4.

Footnote 1006:

Cf. also _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 79 and B.M. A 762–64, 790.

Footnote 1007:

_Stilfragen_, p. 154.

Footnote 1008:

_J.H.S._ xxii. p. 46 ff.

Footnote 1009:

Cf. _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 66.

Footnote 1010:

x. 182.

Footnote 1011:

On the relations of Corinthian and Rhodian pottery, see Wilisch,

_Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 127. The Corinthian vases found in Rhodes

are roughly contemporaneous with the so-called Rhodian fabric.

Footnote 1012:

_E.g._ Louvre E 460, 467; Berlin 1156 ff. Furtwaengler, Dümmler, and

Wilisch call these Italo-Corinthian, but Böhlau regards them as

Aeolic, Orsi and Gsell as Sicilian. See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p.

422.

Footnote 1013:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 106.

Footnote 1014:

Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 6 ff., limits these classes to

three: Proto-Corinthian, Yellow-ground, and Red-ground; he arrives at

this by combining Classes 2, 3, and 4 in one.

Footnote 1015:

Cf. Couve in _Rev. Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 214.

Footnote 1016:

Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 16, of Aridikes and Telephanes, _spargentes

linear intus_. But it is not certain that this passage refers to the

use of _incised_ lines.

Footnote 1017:

_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, pls. C, D; _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 780.

Footnote 1018:

_J.H.S._ xi. p. 173; Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 481.

Footnote 1019:

_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, p. 406; _Italiker in der Po-ebene_, p. 84.

Footnote 1020:

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 18; Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 68; Wilisch, p. 11.

Footnote 1021:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pp. 262, 265 ff.; and _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 17.

Footnote 1022:

_Rev. Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 228.

Footnote 1023:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 262; _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 202; _Amer.

Journ. of Arch._ 1900, p. 441.

Footnote 1024:

_Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902), p. 41.

Footnote 1025:

_Ant. Denkm._ ii. pls. 44–5.

Footnote 1026:

_Amer. Journ._ loc. cit.

Footnote 1027:

It is interesting to note that this form quite disappears, and is not

revived until the glass vessels of the Roman period. Cf. _J.H.S._ xi.

p. 175: see also p. 300; and for this and the other shapes, Plates

XVII., XIX.

Footnote 1028:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 265 ff.

Footnote 1029:

In some specimens Ionian influence seems to manifest itself: cf. for

instance the Ionic palmette in _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 279. Studniczka

notes that the purely monochrome outline drawing of the Aegina vases

is like that ascribed by Pliny to the early Corinthian painters

(_Ath. Mitth._ 1899, p. 376).

Footnote 1030:

Plate XVII. fig. 3 = A 1050 = _J.H.S._ xi. pls. 1, 2: cf. also

_ibid._ p. 179.

Footnote 1031:

_Mélanges Perrot_, pl. 4, p. 269, and see p. 271, note 2; _Rev.

Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 213.

Footnote 1032:

_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pls. 4–6, p. 441.

Footnote 1033:

_Ant. Denkm._ ii. pls. 44–5.

Footnote 1034:

So called from the imitation of overlapping roof-tiles (_imbrices_).

Footnote 1035:

_E.g._ B.M. A 193, 223; Louvre A 275.

Footnote 1036:

_E.g._ Louvre, _Atlas_, pl. 40, E 347.

Footnote 1037:

_Mon. Antichi_, iv. p. 271 ff.; Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 91.

Footnote 1038:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 16. See p. 306, note 1016.

Footnote 1039:

Cf. Louvre E 350 ff.

Footnote 1040:

Studniczka (_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 151) connects Ekphantos with Melos

(cf. the inscription in Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 32). On the

connection of Corinth with Melos, see Wilisch, p. 123 ff.

Footnote 1041:

The aryballos is also found in early Boeotian fabrics (subsequent to

the Geometrical period): cf. the Gamedes vase in the B.M. (p. 300.),

and that of Menaidas in the Louvre.

Footnote 1042:

See Wilisch, p. 24; examples in Athens Mus., Nos. 621, 622, 640 ff.

Footnote 1043:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 437 ff.; but see _Ath. Mitth._ 1895, p.

125, and Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 98.

Footnote 1044:

_E.g._ Athens Mus. 502 and 507; Berlin 1034 ff.; _J.H.S._ xii. p. 312

(from Cyprus); and cf. Wilisch, p. 41.

Footnote 1045:

See _Él. Cér._ iii. 31–32 B, etc., and Chapter XII.

Footnote 1046:

_J.H.S._ i. pl. 1.

Footnote 1047:

Louvre E 600; Wilisch, figs. 47–9. In some of these the inscribed

names may be purely fanciful. The Corinthian potters were

particularly fond of idealising ordinary scenes in this way. Cf. for

Trojan scenes Chapter XIV. and _Hermes_, 1901, p. 388.

Footnote 1048:

See above, pp. 245, 284.

Footnote 1049:

Cf. the Dodwell pyxis described below.

Footnote 1050:

Cf. also the aryballos of Ainetas, B.M. A 1080 = _Ann. dell’ Inst._

1862, pl. A, and the series of pinakes described below.

Footnote 1051:

_Cat._ 211; Dodwell, _Tour_, ii. p. 197; Baumeister, iii. pl. 88,

fig. 2046.

Footnote 1052:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1.

Footnote 1053:

Cf. B.M. B 30 and B 586.

Footnote 1054:

_Cat._ 1655 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 10 = Reinach, _Répertoire_, i.

p. 199.

Footnote 1055:

See Chapter XIV.

Footnote 1056:

v. 17, 9.

Footnote 1057:

Paus. v. 17–19.

Footnote 1058:

Cf. the Arkesilas vase described below, p. 342.

Footnote 1059:

See on this subject H. S. Jones in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 30 ff.

Footnote 1060:

Cf. the Thermon metopes (p. 92).

Footnote 1061:

_Arch. Märchen_, p. 121: see p. 395 ff.

Footnote 1062:

See on the achievements of the early Greek painters as described by

Pliny, Jex-Blake and Sellers, _Pliny’s Chapters on Greek Art_, p.

xxviii.

Footnote 1063:

But see _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 510, and _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287, note.

The other vases classified in the Museum Catalogue as imitations (B

43–6, 49–53) are more probably of Ionic or quasi-Ionic fabric. Athens

655 is in style not unlike B.M. B 42.

Footnote 1064:

See Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 133 ff.

Footnote 1065:

Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenm_. p. 161, points out that the Chalcidian

fabrics are not like those of Corinth and Athens, exhibiting growth

and development, but a small group coming from one workshop.

Footnote 1066:

_Mon. dell’ Inst._ i. 51 = Reinach, i. 82.

Footnote 1067:

It is curious that the Chalcidian artists only attempted this novelty

in the case of helmeted warriors.

Footnote 1068:

A publication by Loeschcke is in preparation (1904). See also

Furtwaengler’s remarks on this group (to which he adds some examples)

in _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 161. For the inscriptions see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1069:

The list in Klein’s _Euphronios_, p. 65, is as follows:—

(1) _Mon. dell’ Inst._ i. 51 (Deepdene): Combat over body of Achilles.

(2) Gerhard, _A.V._ 105–6 = Reinach, ii. 58, 253 (Bibl. Nat. 202):

Geryon; quadriga (Plate XXII.).

(3) B.M. B 155: Geryon; Perseus and Nymphs.

(4) Gerhard, _A.V._ 190–91 = Reinach, ii. 95 (Bibl. Nat. 203):

Warriors arming.

(5) _Ibid._ 322 = Reinach, ii. 160 (Wurzburg 315): Departure of

Hector.

(6) _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1839, plate P = Reinach, i. 259 (Kopenhagen

64). Skyphos: Tydeus and Adrastos.

(7) Leiden 1626 (Reinach, ii. 268): Sileni and Maenads.

(8) Durand Coll. 145.

(9) Gerhard, _A.V._ 237 = Reinach, ii. 120 (Munich 125). Hydria: Zeus

and Typhon; Peleus and Atalanta.

(10) _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1870, p. 187, No. 32 (in Florence).

(11) Gerhard, _A.V._ 95–6 = Reinach, ii. 53: Contests of Herakles

with hydra and Amazons.

To these may be added (12, 13) B.M. B 75 and B 76 (both inscribed);

(14) Munich 1108; (15) Vienna 219; (16) _Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p.

154, note 82; (17) B.M. B 154 (inscriptions Attic, but style

resembling No. 1); (18) Gerhard, _A.V._ 205, 3–4 = Reinach, ii. 105,

2 (inscriptions Ionic, but style Chalcidian); (19) Kopenhagen 115 =

Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 821, fig. 1026; (20) _Arch. Anzeiger_,

1889, p. 91 (in Berlin); also Louvre E 793–813 (according to

Pottier). See on the subject generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p.

551, and for the inscriptions, Kretschmer, _Gr. Vaseninschr._ p. 62.

Footnote 1070:

For a description of the shape of this particular kind of amphora,

see p. 160.

Footnote 1071:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 108.

Footnote 1072:

On the relation of Attic vases to Corinthian, see Wilisch, _Altkor.

Thonindustrie_, p. 137.

Footnote 1073:

_Tyrrhen. Amphoren_ (1898).

Footnote 1074:

_Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 237 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 564.

Footnote 1075:

See Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1076:

See, _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287. The dance is that known as the κόρδαξ.

Footnote 1077:

On the ornamental patterns typical of this group, see Thiersch,

_Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 69 ff.

Footnote 1078:

Cf. the [ΖΔΕΥΣ] (Ζδεύς) on E 852 in the Louvre; and see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1079:

M. Reinach, in a recent article (_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1901,

p. 127 ff.), maintains that the vases with this subject are of

Megarian origin. See also _Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 108 ff.

Footnote 1080:

See for fuller discussion _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 15, p. 282.

Footnote 1081:

See on the subject of these vases generally, Dumont-Pottier, i. p.

329 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 237 ff.; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 283;

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 564; and above all, Thiersch, _Tyrrhen.

Amphoren_ (1898).

CHAPTER VIII

_VASE-PAINTING IN IONIA_

General characteristics—Classification—Mycenaean influence—Rhodian

pottery—“Fikellura” ware—Asia Minor fabrics—Cyrenaic

vases—Naukratis and its pottery—Daphnae ware—Caeretan

hydriae—Other Ionic fabrics—“Pontic” vases—Early painting in

Ionia—Clazomenae sarcophagi.

Having traced the history of vase-painting in Greece Proper down to the

middle of the sixth century B.C., the point at which a tendency towards

unification of style becomes perceptible, we must now turn our

attention to the remains of the art on the other side of the Aegean,

among the representatives of the Ionian race and in the centres of

Ionian influence. To a certain extent it is difficult to treat the

subject at all in a handbook, as, owing chiefly to want of material,

the existence of an Ionian school of vase-painting has only been

realised of late years, and it is as yet too early to sift proofs from

theories, or to give a succinct and systematised account of the

development and achievements of this school. The most that can be

attempted is to present the reader with a review of the accumulated

materials, and to point out what groups of vases may be regarded as

exhibiting “Ionian” characteristics, or at all events such as permit of

their being connected together.[1082] It must be borne in mind that

some of these fabrics, such, for instance, as the Rhodian wares, have

not actually been found in Ionic settlements; in other words, the name

Ionian is to be applied to certain styles or schools, in the main

associated with that race, apart from considerations of ethnography.

On one point scholars are in general agreement—namely, that Ionic art

is a direct survival of Mycenaean. This was recognised as long ago as

1879 by Furtwaengler[1083] and by Lenormant,[1084] who pointed out that

the silver cauldron dedicated by King Alyattes at Delphi must have been

quite Mycenaean in character, although not earlier than the seventh

century. It was decorated with aquatic animals and plants. There was in

Ionia no disturbing element, such as the Dorian invasion introduced

into Europe, between Mycenaean culture and the spread of Oriental

influences. The Greek cities in Ionia owe their origin to that

upheaval, but their culture was not affected by it; and their founders

brought their Mycenaean civilisation with them fresh from Greece to

their new homes in Miletos, Ephesos, Phocaea, Chios, and Samos. This

was in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C., and the Panionion, or

union of Ionian cities, lasted down to the sixth century (when it was

broken up by the Persian invasion), besides stretching out its feelers

over the Mediterranean, to the Egyptian Delta and elsewhere. The actual

centres of pottery-manufacture are not, however, easy to determine, and

much may depend on the results of future excavations. That there was

more than one is fairly obvious, and it will probably appear that

Clazomenae, Miletos, and perhaps Phocaea, played the most important

parts.

As regards the characteristics of the Ionian wares, a rough division

may be made into two classes, corresponding to the buff-clay and

red-clay Corinthian wares respectively. In the earlier, the vases are

always covered with a creamy-white or drab-coloured slip, on which the

figures stand out in lustrous black paint.[1085] The most typical

fabric is that of the Rhodian wares, found in such large quantities in

that island, but not necessarily made there. In the later group the

place of the white slip is taken by a red coating or glaze similar to

that of the Attic and later Corinthian wares, but somewhat brighter.

The principal subdivisions may be classified as follows (the

arrangement is M. Pottier’s, with one or two small differences):—

I. 1. Rhodian wares.[1086]

2. Samian and “Fikellura” wares.[1087]

3. Asia Minor fabrics:

(_a_) Caria.[1088]

(_b_) Knidos.[1089]

(_c_) Larissa.[1090]

(_d_) Myrina.[1091]

(_e_) Pitane.[1092]

(_f_) Phocaea.[1093]

(_g_) Troad.[1094]

4. Vases found in the Crimea.[1095]

5. Naukratis wares.[1096]

6. Clazomenae sarcophagi.[1097]

II. 1. Cyrenaic wares.

2. Daphnae wares.

3. Caeretan hydriae.

4. So-called “Pontic” vases.

5. Developed B.F. Ionian fabrics from Clazomenae, Kyme,

Naukratis, Rhodes, etc.

6. Italo-Ionic vases of the decadence and Etruscan

imitations.[1098]

The subdivision between the earlier and later fabrics is, roughly

speaking, between those with white and red ground, and between those in

which ground-ornaments are used or not. Generally speaking, all the

second class have more in common with the Attic B.F. vases than with

“primitive” fabrics.

Before proceeding to the consideration of these fabrics in detail, it

may be as well to note some of the general characteristics of Ionian

pottery. In the use of incised lines and accessory pigments we may note

two points: firstly, the absence for some time of any attempt at

incised lines, their place being taken partly by contours drawn in

outline on the clay; secondly, the use of white lines or patches for

details. The incised lines, when they do appear, seem to be derived

from Corinth. We may, perhaps, detect their arrival in the vases with

imbrications (see p. 311), which were imported thence to Rhodes; but

another theory is that they were derived from engraved work in metal.

Practically their place had been, and to some extent continued to be,

taken by the white paint, which, be it noted, is obviously a Mycenaean

survival or revival.[1099] It frequently occurs on the pottery of

Ialysos and Enkomi, in precisely the same manner as we see it used in

Rhodes or on the sarcophagi of Clazomenae. Sometimes both the incised

lines and the white-paint details are found on the same vase, as is

seen in some of the Rhodian jugs, or on a pinax from Naukratis.[1100]

The white pigments are usually laid directly on the clay, not on the

black, as at Athens. They are used for flesh tints, but not to

distinguish sex (cf. the Caeretan hydriae, p. 355, where men are

painted white, as on the Melian vases they are yellow).

As regards the ornamentation, the persistence of Mycenaean motives is

exceedingly remarkable.[1101] It is seen especially in the fabrics of

Rhodes and Naukratis, with their wealth of ground-ornaments, and is

found not only in the more conventional motives such as spirals, or

scale-pattern, but also in the vegetable patterns. There is generally

in the floral decoration of the vases a tendency towards the naturalism

of Mycenaean pottery. Animals, when decoratively treated, are usually

arranged in long friezes, contrasting with the Corinthian method of

grouping them heraldically in pairs.[1102] In the human figures

Oriental influence is frequently prominent, as in the hybrid beings

which so often adorn the vases, or in such types as the “Asiatic

Artemis”; or, again, in small details, the conical caps and shoes with

turned-up toes, which recall the figures on the monuments of Lydia and

Phrygia. Oriental costumes generally are reproduced with great

fidelity. As a rule the proportions are gross and heavy, as compared

with the slimness of figures on Attic vases, wherein a curious contrast

may be observed with the characteristics of Ionian and Continental

architecture and sculpture, in which these features are reversed. There

is, moreover, a conspicuous absence of stiffness in the Ionian

compositions—rather, a remarkable freshness, vigour, and originality

quite in advance of their time. Another point of contrast with the

Attic vases is the absence of any differentiation of the sexes in the

shape of the eye, which is always oval (cf. p. 408).

In the choice of subjects the same law may be observed to prevail as in

the Corinthian wares—that of the _hiérarchie des genres_. Mythological

subjects appear first about the middle of the seventh century, in the

Euphorbos pinax. Later we find actually scenes of a quasi-historical

character, as in the battle-scenes on the Clazomenae sarcophagi and the

Cyrenaic Arkesilaos vase. Throughout there is a remarkable absence of

inscriptions, which are only found at the most on some half-dozen

vases. The height of the Ionian style may be said to have been reached

in the seventh century, lasting up to about the middle of the sixth;

thence there is a rapid downfall, due mainly to historical causes, and

the traces of its influence are only to be sought in Italian imitations

of an inferior kind, and in some of the Attic black-figured vases, such

as those of Amasis and Nikosthenes.

But the influence that was exercised during all this period by Ionian

art in general on Greece is not easy to estimate; it is not confined to

the pottery, but is found in sculpture and architecture as well as the

minor arts. There are numerous passages in ancient writers bearing on

the activity of early Ionian artists, such as Theodoros and Rhoikos of

Samos, and their works, which often took the form of offerings of

Asiatic princes to the Greek temples. The Ionic school of sculpture,

illustrated by the early temple at Ephesos, the “Harpy” Monument, and

other notable works, as well as the great Amyclaean throne, which

Bathykles of Magnesia was commissioned to erect, established the fame

of early Greek sculpture in no small degree; and Ionic architecture,

though slower to win its way to favour in Greece Proper, reached a high

degree of excellence at an early period on the eastern shore of the

Aegean. Of painting in Ionia, apart from the vases, we propose to speak

later. In literature and in civilisation generally Ionia was, up to the

middle of the sixth century, far more advanced than any part of the

Greek mainland.

§ 1. RHODES AND ASIA MINOR

The distinctive pottery of Rhodes,[1103] which, whether of local

manufacture or not, is found almost exclusively in that island,[1104]

represents the union of Mycenaean elements with a new feature, that of

Oriental influence. Although primarily due to the dispersion of the

Phoenicians by Assyria in the eighth century, this Orientalising of

Ionia is purely artistic and industrial, not political, and is due to

the commercial activity of the Phoenicians. The pottery represents a

sort of transition between Assyrian and Greek decorative art, the

essentially Greek elements in which are a survival of Mycenaean

ornaments and a Mycenaean faculty of observation of nature, especially

in the animal world. From the East were derived such features as hybrid

monsters (the Sphinx, Siren, etc.), animals such as the lion, isolated

motives like the lotos-flower and the rosette, and generally a tendency

to imitate textile fabrics with long bands of decoration, in which the

ground is strewn with these rosettes and other ornaments. We have

already seen that these features also made their mark on the Corinthian

style, but they are more especially characteristic of Rhodes. Human

figures are exceedingly rare.

In regard to the shapes a great advance is made towards the classical

types; the parts of the vase are more clearly distinguished, and the

forms are few and consistent. The special Rhodian shape is the

oinochoë, a large jug with trefoil lip and spherical body, decorated

with two or three friezes of animals (see Plate XX. and p. 177); next

in popularity is the circular plate or _pinax_. The ornamentation is

always in lustrous black paint on the characteristic white or

drab-coloured slip, with a free use of purple for details. White is

little used as an accessory—there seems to have been a prejudice

against its use when the ground of the vase was also white—but incised

lines occur more freely. On the other hand, the heads of animals are

almost always outlined in black on the clay ground, a feature derived

from Mycenaean pottery, and interior details are also frequently left

in the ground of the clay, as in the Geometrical style. We have already

mentioned instances in which the two methods are found on the same vase.

The typical Rhodian oinochoae, like the contemporary Corinthian vases,

owe much to the imitation of the textile embroideries of Assyria, of

which we have already spoken under the other head (p. 312). These had

become familiar in Rhodes through the agency of the Phoenicians, but it

is also possible that the Ionians were themselves proficient in this

industry. The bands of lotos-ornament and friezes of animals also

appear on the porcelain vases found in large numbers at Kameiros (p.

127), which are sometimes most elaborately ornamented, and are clearly

of Phoenician origin; the seventh century was, in fact, the time when

the Greek world was most dominated by Oriental influences.

The ornamental patterns on the vases of this class fall under two

heads—the smaller independent ground-ornaments, and the more elaborated

bands of vegetable ornament. The former are best illustrated by the

Euphorbos pinax, presently to be described; in contrast to the

unvarying Corinthian rosette, they show a considerable variety of

treatment, and are partly variations on the rosette theme, partly

geometrical, like the fragments of maeander, or crosses with hooked

arms, which recall in form the ubiquitous _swastika_. The band of

lotos-flowers and buds actually occurs at a much earlier date in

Boeotia, as we have seen, but it is at Rhodes that it first assumes the

characteristic Greek form. On the pinakes a development of this motive,

forming a fan-shaped combination of radiating leaves, is usually

employed to fill in the “exergue” below the designs; a similar ornament

is found on the black wares with incised patterns, and it is the

forerunner of the pear-shaped radiations painted on the small bowls of

a more recent date.[1105]

A typically Ionian motive is the plait-band, found at Naukratis and on

the Clazomenae sarcophagi, and introduced from Assyria. The Mycenaean

spiral, so prominent in Attica and Melos, retires into the background,

or loses its geometrical significance, and becomes a mere vegetable

motive, an adjunct to the floral combinations of bud and flower. The

Rhodian vases are, in fact, the first in which spiral motives were

freely used for calyx-ornaments, as, generally speaking, they were the

first in post-Mycenaean times to raise floral motives from mere

ground-ornaments to independent decoration.[1106]

The series of pinakes yield the most interesting examples of Rhodian

vase-painting; they are usually decorated with a figure of a ram or

other animal on a large scale (Plate XXIV.), the exergue or lower

portion of the field being filled in with a suitable pattern, such as a

sort of fan-pattern of spreading rays or fronds (see above), or a free

variation of the Egyptian lotos-flower. But one is of surpassing

interest and importance, the famous Euphorbos pinax as it is generally

called, which was found at Kameiros, and is now in the British Museum.

The subject is the combat of Menelaos and Hector over the body of

Euphorbos,[1107] a scene from the _Iliad_, but not reproduced in

accurate detail, as, indeed, is seldom the case in archaic art. The

figures are drawn partly in outline, with a lavish use of purple for

details, and the whole of the ground is filled in with various

ornaments, rosettes, etc., one at the top of the scene taking the form

of a pair of eyes, with a conventionalised floral pattern between.

Additional interest is given to the design by the fact that the figures

are named, the words being in the Argive alphabet (see Chapter XVII.).

This inscription does not necessarily affect the question of the place

of fabric of the pinax, as it has been shown that the Argive alphabet

was used in Rhodes in the seventh century[1108]; but it enables us to

fix its date about B.C. 650, and the whole of the Rhodian ware may be

regarded as belonging to the seventh century. It has, indeed, been

suggested that the subject is copied from an Argive metal relief, and

this might account for the unexpected presence of an inscription.

As to the place of fabric of Rhodian ware generally, it has been more

than once suggested that it is to be sought, not in Rhodes, but in the

neighbouring Ionian city of Miletos.[1109] Dümmler’s theory of an

Argive origin, resting as it does almost exclusively on the Euphorbos

inscriptions, is practically negatived by the absence of any similar

pottery in the extensive finds at the Argive Heraion. Miletos, however,

was in close connection with Rhodes, and in favour of the argument is

the remarkable parallelism of the pottery of Naukratis, which was

undoubtedly in close association with Miletos; it was, in fact, first

colonised by Milesian Greeks, and the Milesian Apollo was worshipped

there. But further evidence is needed before this view can be regarded

as other than a mere hypothesis. At all events, no convincing argument

has as yet been urged against the pottery being of local manufacture.

In date, as has been said, it covers the seventh century, being thus

contemporaneous with the Melian and earlier Corinthian fabrics.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXIV

[Illustration: 1. PINAX FROM RHODES; 2. BOWL FROM NAUKRATIS (BRITISH

MUSEUM).]

------------------------------------

In one of the extensive cemeteries of Kameiros, known as Fikellura,

there were found quantities of a class of pottery which has since been

generally known by that name, but is probably not a local fabric. It

has also been found in large numbers in the island of Samos,[1110]

where Rhodian vases are comparatively rare, and owing to this more

recent evidence the ware has been regarded as probably of Samian

origin. Several specimens were also found on another Ionian site, that

of Daphnae in the Egyptian Delta, but are quite distinct from the local

fabric of that place. The date of the tombs in Samos is the second half

of the sixth century, and it is noteworthy that from the ornamentation

of these vases all Oriental influence has disappeared. On the other

hand, they seem to represent the last lingering vestiges of Mycenaean

influence. The majority are in the form of amphorae, but other forms,

such as jugs and lekythi, are known. The technique is that of the

Orientalising vases, with the typical Ionian creamy-white slip; the

black has a tendency to become brown, or even red, and purple

accessories are employed. Incised lines do not appear, but details are

marked by spaces left in the ground of the clay. The subjects are

simple in character and arrangement, usually one or two animals (or

sometimes human figures) on either side of the body, the spaces being

filled in with palmettes, spirals, or other ornaments. The

ornamentation is strikingly characteristic, especially the network

patterns on the necks of the vases, the scale-patterns, and the bands

of crescents which we also find in use in Lesbos and at Daphnae.[1111]

They form altogether a clearly-distinguished group, but sometimes show

signs of late date, if they are not actually to be regarded as

archaistic. Examples are given in Fig. 91.

[Illustration: FIG. 91. VASES OF SAMIAN OR “FIKELLURA” STYLE (BRITISH

MUSEUM).]

The system of decoration is curiously reminiscent of the Mycenaean

vases,[1112] as exemplified in the great prominence given to the

ornament as the main decoration, the scrolls and palmettes recalling

the seaweed and other vegetable patterns on the former. This prominence

of ornament is always an Ionian characteristic, retained as late as the

Caeretan hydriae (p. 354), with their bold bands of palmettes and

lotos-flowers round the very centre of the body. The scale-patterns,

another Mycenaean legacy, we shall meet with again at Daphnae, where

similarly they cover the most prominent part of the vases. The most

representative series of Fikellura vases is that in the British Museum,

from Rhodes, Naukratis, and Daphnae; there are also some in the Louvre

(A 321–34).[1113]

Dr. Böhlau, in his treatise on Ionian pottery,[1114] discusses as a

class certain vases which, in accordance with his theory, he terms

“Later Milesian.” At all events, they demand attention from the

remarkable way in which they combine Ionian and Corinthian

characteristics, sometimes, as we have seen, on the same vase. They

have been found in Rhodes, Naukratis, and Italy, but the place of their

manufacture is variously assigned to Corinth, Naukratis, and

Miletos.[1115] An oinochoe found in Rhodes, with the incised lines in

one animal-frieze and the details left in the colour of the clay or

shown in black outline in the other, seems to incline to an Asiatic

origin, at least as regards its shape[1116]; on the other hand, the

fine krater in the Louvre[1117] is of a form more usually associated

with Corinth. The upper half of the latter is Corinthian in style, the

lower Rhodian, and thus there is not much to choose. But on the

evidence adduced by Dr. Böhlau[1118] it would seem to be more probably

of Ionian fabric. It may be that further evidence will enable us to

assign these vases of mixed style to Naukratis, always a meeting-place

of styles or fabrics; but it has not as yet been definitely ascertained

to what extent the earlier fabrics of that place are local in origin.

Meanwhile, the group is one that fully deserves separate consideration.

Dr. Böhlau points out that it is characterised by the half-palmettes at

the handles of the vases, by the Mycenaean-like spirals, and the

inferior careless ground-ornaments, and generally by its deviations

from the normal Rhodian types.

The black ware with patterns in purple and white and incised lines

which has been mentioned as found in Rhodes is regarded by Böhlau[1119]

as Aeolic. It is, as we shall see, paralleled at Naukratis by wares

which there is good reason for regarding as of Lesbian origin. The

typical form of decoration, the fan-shaped palmette, also occurs at

Daphnae. In any case there is clearly an attempt at the imitation of

metal vases, the polychrome colouring being intended to reproduce the

effect of bronze inlaid with gold and silver. But before it can be

established as an Aeolic fabric more results must be obtained by

excavation in that part of Asia Minor.

In various places on the mainland of Asia Minor (see p. 62) vases of

early fabric have been found, about which at present little is known,

except that they usually show some points of comparison with the

recognised Ionian fabrics, and may therefore be regarded as of local

manufacture, or at least from some place on the coast of Asia. An

attempt has indeed been made by Böhlau to recognise in these also an

Aeolic fabric, centring in the neighbourhood of Kyme and Myrina. An

example is to be seen in the remarkable vase found at Myrina,[1120]

with the bust of a man painted in outline, which resembles in shape the

Fikellura vases, and is probably intermediate between the Rhodian and

this fabric. Similar pottery finds have been made at Larisa, at Pitane,

and in the Troad. At Larisa and Myrina Böhlau notes vases of the

earlier Rhodian style, and at Larisa others which show a distinct

independent derivation from Mycenaean pottery, especially in the

ground-ornaments. On the site of Troy Dr. Dörpfeld found fragments of

pottery of a Rhodian type with ornaments of pear-shaped leaves, such as

occur on late sixth- century bowls from Kameiros[1121]; also a vase

with a female head resembling that from Myrina, and another of

Naucratite character. There appears to have been a local fabric in the

sixth century—or perhaps even later—of flat bowls with bracket-handles,

on which are painted figures of birds, etc., in coarse black pigment

without any incised lines or accessories; a series of these is in the

British Museum, and others were found by Dr. Dörpfeld (see above, pp.

61, 259).

In Caria the Ionian style is represented by finds at Stratonikeia and

Mylasa,[1122] with ornamentation of Mycenaean character, which appears

to have reached a similar stage of development to the earlier

Graeco-Phoenician vases from Cyprus; many analogies may be noted. That

the Mycenaean influence was strong in Caria is also shown by the

pottery of transitional character found by Mr. Paton at Hissarlik.[1123]

At Temir-Gora (Phanagoria) in the Crimea a vase was found in 1870 with

paintings in brown on buff ground, representing a hare-hunt, panthers,

and other animals.[1124] The style has evident affinities to that of

the “Rhodian” vases, and Phanagoria being a Milesian colony, this is

only natural. But it seems to be a local product, not an importation;

the panther, for instance, is unknown on Rhodian vases proper.

§ 2. AFRICA

The fabrics of the Ionian school are not confined to Asia Minor as

regards their place of origin. In the Greek colonies which were founded

in Africa in the seventh and sixth centuries we find evidences of great

industrial activity, and in some cases extensive remains of painted

pottery, which exhibit a close connection with the fabrics more closely

associated with Asia Minor. There is, however, one group of vases which

seems to stand by itself, and which, though it may be ranked with the

Ionian fabrics from its use of the white slip and from the original

naturalistic treatment of the subjects, yet shows a marked independence

both in technique and in decoration.

The vases grouped under this head have been found chiefly in Etruria,

but more recently several examples have come to light in the Ionian

colony of Naukratis in the Egyptian Delta and in Samos.[1125] As long

ago as 1881 it was proposed by Puchstein to connect them with the

Theraean colony of Kyrene on the north coast of Africa, on the ground

of the subject depicted on the finest and most remarkable of them—the

Arkesilaos cup of the Cabinet des Médailles at Paris. When, however,

the Naucratite specimens turned up, it was thought that they might

after all be a local fabric of that colony, especially as that place

was known to have had a close connection with Kyrene, whence about 570

B.C. came the queen of Amasis, who was a great benefactor to Naukratis.

But to urge only one of the opposing arguments, there seems to have

been little or no export of pottery _from_ Naukratis, although imported

specimens have been found there of almost every early fabric known. It

was reserved for the ingenuity of Dr. Studniczka[1126] to identify a

scene on a fragmentary cup found there with the figure of the nymph

Kyrene, the patron goddess of that city, and thereby to establish

definitely the origin of this class. Curiously enough, no remains of

the early colony of Kyrene have ever been discovered; but when, if

ever, they are brought to light, it may be confidently hoped that

further evidence will be obtained.

The =Cyrenaic= vases, as they are now generally styled, are for the

most part _kylikes_ of a slender and graceful form, owing much

apparently to metal originals, as indicated by the use of palmettes at

the ends of the handles, and by their form and ornamentation in

general. The designs are painted in black on a slip varying in tint

from deep buff to a pale cream-colour, with firmly-drawn incised lines

and a plentiful use of purple for details. The drawing is remarkably

spirited, and the subjects mostly marked by _naïveté_ and freshness.

The popularity of mythological scenes is remarkable; we find

representations of Zeus, Atlas and Prometheus, Kadmos, Pelops, and

other heroic figures, besides the remarkable vases which deal with

local legend and history.

[Illustration:

From _Baumeister_.

FIG. 92. ARKESILAOS OF KYRENE SUPERINTENDING HIS COMMERCE

(FROM A KYLIX IN THE BIBL. NAT.).

]

The Arkesilaos vase[1127] (Fig. 92) demands something more than a

passing description. It represents the king of Kyrene superintending

the weighing of the silphium-plant, which was a valuable source of his

revenue. Although there were four sovereigns of that name, the choice

is practically limited to one, the second of the name, who reigned

about 580–550 B.C. The scene takes place on a ship ready to sail, of

which the yard-arm and part of the sails are visible; from the yard

hangs a large balance, inscribed with the word σταθμός, in each pan of

which is a large mass of some substance, which has generally been

interpreted as representing the silphium. But as a matter of fact it is

open to doubt whether it is not really wool, or some similar article of

merchandise. On the left of the scene, on a folding-chair, sits the

king, with flowing locks and large hat, before whom a man named

Sophortos stands, with a gesture implying that he is making a statement

relating to the transaction. On the right are four men variously

occupied, two carrying bags of the stuff tied at the neck; one of these

is named Σλιφόμαχος,[1128] a word of uncertain meaning, but apparently

having some reference to the silphium. A horizontal line is drawn below

the scene, and in the lower part of the circle we see perhaps the

storing of the merchandise in the hold, under the superintendence of an

official named Φύλακος (guardian); two men are carrying bags to add to

a heap of three already stored away. In the upper part of the design

and behind Arkesilaos are depicted various birds, a monkey, a lizard,

and a panther, perhaps to give local colouring to the scene.[1129] The

whole is conceived with wonderful _naïveté_ and freshness, so much so

that early writers regarded it as a parody or burlesque of a serious

subject; but this can hardly be the case.

Several other scenes on the Cyrenaic vases merit description, did space

permit; but it must suffice to refer to the list of subjects already

given. The majority of the specimens are in the Louvre, which possesses

no less than ten cups, besides three larger vases, decorated with

animals and ornaments only. There are also four in the Cabinet des

Médailles, of which, besides the Arkesilaos cup, one representing

Polyphemos devouring the companions of Odysseus and the subsequent

blinding (all in one scene) is of conspicuous interest. The British

Museum possesses two or three cups and several fragments from

Naukratis, including the important one restored by Studniczka as

representing the local nymph holding branches of silphium and

pomegranate, and surrounded by flying daemons, male and female, or

Boreads and Harpies (Fig. 93).

[Illustration: FIG. 93. CYRENAIC CUP WITH FIGURE OF KYRENE (BRITISH

MUSEUM).]

Of this series the Arkesilaos cup is the only one with inscriptions.

They are without doubt in an alphabet of Peloponnesian, not Ionian,

character, as is shown, for instance, by the [ψ] for Χ in Σλιφόμαχος.

But this may be explained by reference to the history of the city,

which in the seventh and sixth centuries received a considerable influx

of the Dorian element, especially from Sparta, whose alphabet may have

been adopted for general use.

The total number of specimens in existence is about forty; some of

which, however, are merely fragmentary examples.[1130]

Allusion has already been made to the extensive finds of pottery at

=Naukratis=, among the most remarkable of recent years, which have done

much to increase our knowledge of Ionian industrial art. As has been

said, almost every other early fabric is represented there, from the

Melian and Corinthian wares to those of Rhodes and other Asiatic sites,

including a large series of Athenian vases or fragments down to the

latest times. But with these were present in overwhelming numbers

specimens of an entirely new fabric which could only be regarded as

local in its origin. Of the pottery with figure subjects three stages

can be traced, all characterised by the Ionian cream-coloured slip, of

which the earliest is remarkably like the Rhodian wares, the next is

distinguished by its polychrome decoration on a white ground, and the

third represents a sort of transition from the quasi-Rhodian style of

decoration to the regular black-figured ware, and is parallel in many

respects to the sister-fabric of Daphnae (see below).

All this pottery was discovered in _favissae_ or rubbish-heaps attached

to the sanctuaries of Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera, and the Dioskuri,

especially the two former. As the vases had been rejected as useless or

crowded out by new ones, they are almost all broken and fragmentary.

But it is interesting to note that on numbers of the earlier potsherds

from the Apollo temple the words Ἀπόλλωνος ἐμί, “I am Apollo’s,” have

been roughly scratched, as if the priests had wished to mark them as

sacred and preserve them from profane uses, although no longer

required. Even more frequent on all the sites are dedications to the

respective deities, with the formula ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, or τῇ

Ἀφροδίτῃ, in the Ionic alphabet (cf. Fig. 16, p. 139). On

palaeographical grounds the inscriptions may be dated as ranging from

about 600 to 520 B.C., but there are some difficulties with regard to

the date of the foundation of the settlement.

Strabo (xvii. 1, p. 801) assigns the foundation to Greeks of Miletos,

about 620 B.C., but the words of Herodotos (ii. 178) are to the effect

that Amasis (564–526 B.C.), “who was a phil-Hellene ... gave those who

arrived in Egypt the city of Naukratis to inhabit.” If this means that

no Greeks had lived there before his time, we cannot place any of the

pottery earlier than 570; but it does not seem unreasonable to take the

words to mean that the city already existed, and that Amasis merely

recognised the right of Greeks to reside there. Herodotos also tells us

that by permission of Amasis the Milesians independently founded the

temenos of Apollo. From the evidence of the excavations Messrs. Petrie

and Ernest Gardner felt themselves justified in placing the foundation

of the city about the middle of the seventh century, a date which

certainly seems to be required by the character of the earliest

pottery. The disappearance of the local fabrics and their replacement

by Attic importations would then fall about 520 B.C.

[Illustration: FIG. 94. FRAGMENT FROM NAUKRATIS, ILLUSTRATING “MIXED

TECHNIQUE.”]

In the earliest class a distinction, as in Rhodes, is to be noted

between figures without incised lines, but with faces in outline, and

figures with incised lines, the two being sometimes combined on one

vase, as in Fig. 94. It has already been shown that the former must be

earlier in origin than the latter. On the other hand, in the polychrome

white ware (see below) the incised lines again disappear; but the more

advanced style of the drawing and choice of subjects testifies to its

being a later variety. There can, however, be no doubt that the

influence of Rhodes (or whatever was the fabric-centre of “Rhodian”

pottery) was very strong at Naukratis, and if we adopt Böhlau’s theory

of a Milesian origin for the Rhodian wares, this is fully accounted for

by the history of the place. Consequently the two fabrics are very

difficult to distinguish, and, in fact, the difference is mainly in

point of style.

There is, however, a class of wares found at Naukratis which does not

seem to be of local origin. This is the so-called Polledrara fabric, or

black ware resembling that found in Etruria, and especially in the tomb

of that name at Vulci (see Chapter XVIII.). It has also been found in

Rhodes, where black wares are by no means uncommon, some closely

resembling the Italian bucchero in character. It is hardly likely that

this ware is Naucratite in origin, although the Polledrara tomb

contains objects undoubtedly exported from Egypt. Professor E. A.

Gardner[1131] has pointed out that one of the black-ware vases bears an

inscription showing that it was dedicated by a Mytilenaean, and others

have inscriptions in Aeolic dialect. Hence he deduces the theory that

this black ware was made in Lesbos, and exported thence both to Rhodes

and to Naukratis. He also points out that it is really distinct from

the Italian variety both in style and technique, as, for instance, in

the Italian use of blue.

But there is a class of pottery, unfortunately only represented by

fragments, which appears to be developed partly from the “Lesbian”

ware, partly from the early Naucratite fabric, and must certainly be of

local origin. It has never been found elsewhere,[1132] and the

combination of “Lesbian” and Rhodian elements also points to this

conclusion. The vases, which seem to have been large bowls, are covered

on the inside with a black varnish, on which patterns of purely

decorative character (palmettes, pear-shaped rays of Rhodian or Aeolic

form, etc.) are painted in white and red. The outside, on the contrary,

is covered with a white slip, the designs being painted, partly in

outline, in various tints, such as flesh-colour, dark brown, purple,

dark red, yellow, and even opaque white. In spite of the retention of

the Rhodian system of outlines and absence of incised lines, the style

is remarkably advanced, and the treatment of details often most careful

and elaborate; moreover, the subjects are almost exclusively human

figures, although the fragmentary nature of the remains renders the

interpretation in many cases almost impossible. They seem to stand on

the same level as the Daphnae pottery (see below), both in style and

range of subject.[1133]

To return to the vases of “Rhodian” type, a few typical characteristics

may be noted, showing their development. The earliest specimens are

decorated exclusively with animals, painted in the Rhodian fashion,

with heads and other parts in outline and details only indicated by

leaving them in the colour of the clay. The typical ground-ornaments

are the cross with hooked arms, the spiral, and a pattern of diagonals

with chevrons between.[1134] Later, a preference is shown for large

vases, usually bowls or kraters, sometimes also large plates, with

friezes of animals and Sphinxes on a corresponding scale. The Rhodian

style still obtains, with the addition of purple accessories. The

favourite animals are the lion, bull, boar, and Cretan goat; a broad

plait-band or guilloche as border is of frequent occurrence; and in

addition to the ground-ornaments already mentioned, various forms of

rosettes and borders of maeander are found. On a large bowl dedicated

to Aphrodite by one Sostratos (Plate XXIV.), besides lions, Sphinxes,

and water-fowl, two dogs are seen attacking a boar; the drawing is more

advanced than in most examples.[1135]

The next stage in which the incised lines begin to appear is best

illustrated by the fine plate with a seated Sphinx,[1136] where they

are combined with outlined contours (in the head), and details rendered

by white laid on the black, as also are the patterns round the rim.

Another large plate (A 986) has a dance of men and a frieze of animals

with incised lines and purple accessories, but the surrounding patterns

(lotos-flowers and palmettes, tongue-pattern, etc.) are in plain black.

Lastly, there is the stage which forms a transition from the earlier or

“Rhodian” style to the black-figured, in which for a time the influence

of Corinth seems to make itself felt. The figures are painted in black,

which often turns to red through faulty firing, on a warm buff ground,

sometimes with purple accessories. The favourite shapes are the _lebes_

or _deinos_ with flat rim, and the column-handled krater so popular at

Corinth in the sixth century, with flat-topped handles, on which human

heads or animals are painted. Corinthian influence is sometimes also

seen in the designs, as in the Sphinxes of B 100; or in other ways, as

in the olpe A 1534, with a ram in a panel on one side of the handle.

Another curious example is the column-handled krater A 1533, with two

friezes of animals, of which the lower is more Ionic in type. The

British Museum collection also contains numerous fragments (B 102–3) in

this local style, together with a few of other fabrics,[1137] among

which an interesting representation of Odysseus passing the Sirens may

be noted; also a series of chariot-scenes and horsemen, which in style

recall the Caeretan hydriae (see p. 355). The merging of the local

style in the fully-developed black-figure Athenian style is clearly

visible in these fragments, which are interesting from their

parallelism, though not their resemblance, to those of Daphnae.

Among the later Ionic fabrics, of practically fully-developed

black-figure style (_i.e._ with buff ground, incised lines, and

accessory colours), not the least interesting is the group of vases and

fragments from =Daphnae= in the Egyptian Delta, now in the British

Museum.[1138] Like the pottery of Naukratis, they illustrate the

relations between Ionia and Africa in the sixth century, but even in a

more marked degree, inasmuch as they were more directly influenced by

local circumstances.

This pottery was discovered by Mr. Flinders Petrie in 1886, on a site

known as Tell Defenneh, representing the Tahpanhes of the Hebrew

prophets and the Daphnae of Herodotos,[1139] from whom we learn that a

fort was found here by Psammetichos I. at the beginning of the sixth

century. As Naukratis guarded the west of the Delta, so did Daphnae the

east, with the highway to Syria. Herodotos[1140] also speaks of camps

garrisoned by Ionian and Carian troops; and if we might identify these

with Daphnae, we should have a _terminus post quem_ for the pottery, as

the camps were desolated by Amasis about 560 B.C. On the other hand,

the pottery is hardly to be dated so early from its style, and it is

important to notice that it is practically unrepresented at Naukratis,

that meeting-place of all early fabrics.

The chief problem with which we are confronted in regard to the Daphnae

pottery is whether it is a local fabric or imported. Opinions of

scholars are somewhat divided, Dümmler and Endt declaring for the local

fabric,[1141] Zahn for importations from Clazomenae.[1142] The close

connection with the fabrics of Asia Minor, such as the Caeretan hydriae

and the Clazomenae sarcophagi, cannot be denied, and there are many

small details which are peculiar to Ionic vases; but, on the other

hand, there is much that is peculiar to this group and tells in favour

of a local origin. It is also important to bear in mind that the

Daphnae pottery has little in common with that of Naukratis, in spite

of the relation of both to Ionia.

[Illustration:

FIG. 95. “EGYPTIAN SITULA,” FROM DAPHNAE

(BRITISH MUSEUM).

]

It will perhaps be convenient to take the groups of Daphnae fragments

one by one, noting the general characteristics and individual

peculiarities of each. First we have a group of tall cylindrical

vases[1143] (one or two of which are completely preserved), of an

obviously Egyptian form, which has been called a _situla_ or pail (Fig.

95). The clay is of a drab colour, brittle, and badly levigated, and

covered with a dark brown varnish laid on a coating of glaze. Owing to

chemical causes this varnish has in almost all cases disappeared,

carrying with it most of the designs, which can only be distinguished

by the incised lines. The figure subjects are confined to panels on

either side of the neck, and usually consist of heraldic groups of

animals or winged monsters. Round the body are patterns of

lotos-flowers and fan-shaped half-rosettes of Rhodian type. The

technique, however, and other points recall the Geometrical vases, and

this is especially marked in one case (B.M. B 104 = Fig. 95), where the

panels are bordered and filled in with ornamental patterns of

Geometrical style.[1144] The whole appearance of this vase, in which

the varnish is preserved, is that of the Geometrical style; the method

may have been learned through Rhodes. On the other hand, some subjects

are of Egyptian type, such as the hawks (B 106_{2}), and the pair of

combatants with their nude bodies and shaven crowns (B 106_{1}).

Secondly, there is a group of tall slim amphorae, of purely Greek

style,[1145] with a characteristic scheme of decoration, consisting of

panels on the neck, usually containing a Sphinx or Siren, and two

friezes round the body, divided by a band of dots; the neck is always

divided from the body by a moulded ring, below which is a polychrome

tongue-pattern in black, white, and purple alternately. An example is

given in Plate XXV. It is important to note here that the white

colouring, of which lavish use is made, is laid directly on the clay,

as in other Ionic vases; incised lines are only employed for inner

details, not for contours. This group is obviously of later date than

the _situlae_, and the points of correspondence between it and the

Caeretan hydriae and sarcophagi of Clazomenae (see below) are very

marked. Sometimes the place of the main design is taken by a panel of

scale-pattern,[1146] rendered in colour only, curiously reminiscent of

Mycenaean vases. Two other points are worth citing here as presenting

the same feature: the two-handled cup with tall stem on B 115_{2}, which

is clearly the Mycenaean type of kylix, and the borders of white dots

laid on the black which sometimes occur on the draperies. The clay is

of a warm yellow colour, well levigated and polished, and the general

appearance of the vases is bright and pleasing. The lower frieze on the

body usually takes the form of a row of animals, especially of geese

feeding; but where the main design is replaced by a scale-pattern,

dancing figures are usually found.

Thirdly, there is a squat form of amphora, with cylindrical neck and

wide body, which has been distinguished by the name of _stamnos_.[1147]

Most of the vases of this form found at Daphnae are of the “Fikellura”

type described above (p. 337), and are obviously importations, whether

from Samos or Rhodes; but others (nearly all fragmentary) are of the

same type as the amphorae. On both shapes a motive is sometimes

introduced which is clearly learned from the Fikellura vases, that of a

row of crescents, which, instead of being merely painted in black, are

treated, like the tongue-pattern, in polychrome.[1148] The only other

shape found is the hydria, of a type differing greatly from the

Caeretan (see below) with its flat shoulder at right angles to the

body; but the same typical wreath of pointed leaves occurs on both (cf.

B 126–27). The list is completed by a few fragments of imported B.F.

vases from Athens.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXV

[Illustration:

IONIAN VASES.

1. SITULA FROM DAPHNAE (BRITISH MUSEUM); 2. DEINOS IN SOUTH

KENSINGTON MUSEUM.

]

------------------------------------