History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2)
CHAPTER VII
_RISE OF VASE-PAINTING IN GREECE_
Geometrical decoration—Its origin—Distribution of pottery—Shapes and ornamentation of vases—Subjects—Dipylon vases—Boeotian Geometrical wares—Chronology—Proto-Attic fabrics—Phaleron ware—Later Boeotian vases—Melian amphorae—Corinth and its pottery—“Proto-Corinthian” vases—Vases with imbrications and floral decoration—Incised lines and ground-ornaments—Introduction of figure-subjects—Chalcidian vases—“Tyrrhenian Amphorae.”
§ 1. THE GEOMETRICAL PERIOD
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 154 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1872, p. 138 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 94 ff.; 1899, pp. 26, 78, 188; _Ath. Mitth._ 1881, p. 106; 1892, p. 285; 1893, p. 73 ff.; 1896, p. 385 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 212 ff. For Boeotian Geometrical pottery, Böhlau in _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.; for early Argive wares, Waldstein, _Argive Heraeum_, i. p. 49 ff.
The Dorian invasion of Greece, which is generally supposed to have taken place in the twelfth century—the traditional date is about 1100 B.C.—was, like the contemporaneous Etruscan immigration (Chapter XVIII.), only an episode in the general displacement taking place throughout Europe. In Greece it caused a dispersion of the Achaean race, chiefly in the direction of Asia Minor, which, as we have already seen, probably gave rise to the stories of the Trojan War and subsequent adventures of the Achaean leaders. In other words, the Mycenaean civilisation was driven to seek a new home elsewhere, and to lay the foundations of a new artistic development in the cities of Aeolis and Ionia. But its disappearance from Greece was not complete, and Hellenic Greece was from the beginning an amalgam of the old and new elements, the Achaean (or Ionian) and the Dorian, in which one or the other had at different times or in different places the pre-eminence. The Ionian element represents the civilisation of the Mediterranean, succeeding to that of the Mycenaean world; the Dorian, the influence of Central Europe.[930]
It has hitherto been a truism of archaeology that the Dorians brought with them from Central Europe a new form of art, of which the chief characteristic is that of _rectilinear and geometrical decoration_, forming, it is obvious, a marked contrast to the curvilinear and naturalistic Mycenaean designs. This new principle was thought to be most conspicuously illustrated by the pottery which now replaces the Mycenaean. But certain recent discoveries have given occasion for some scepticism in regard to the acceptance of this idea as conveying the whole truth; and even if they do not radically alter preconceived ideas, they are at least worthy of consideration.
At Aphidna in Attica a find has been made of very rude pottery, without glaze or varnish, but with decoration of a Geometrical character, sometimes painted.[931] Although earlier than any other pottery in Attica, it need not be pre-Mycenaean in date; it seems more likely to be a _contemporary survival_. Early wares have also been found in the islands, as in Aegina, with Geometrical ornament in _matt_-colour; nor must we forget that the Geometrical principle was known in Cyprus and the Cyclades, as also at Hissarlik, at a very remote age. From these data Dr. Wide has ingeniously drawn the conclusion that the Geometrical style was always indigenous in Greece,[932] pointing out that it was more likely and more in accordance with historical precedent that the Dorians, like Rome in later days, accepted the art of the people they conquered[933] than that they introduced their own and forced it upon the subjugated race. This theory has the additional merit of disposing of a difficulty which had always been felt. If the Geometrical pottery was Dorian, how do we account for its reaching its height in Attica, which was never at any time Doric, or influenced by Doric characteristics? But if it can be shown to be indigenous in Attica, the difficulty disappears.
Again, it is necessary to explain the varying character of Geometrical pottery in different parts of Greece, as compared with the homogeneity of the Mycenaean wares. If, as was supposed, the Geometrical style came full-grown into Greece, why should this be? Dr. Wide therefore maintains that there were in Greece _concurrently_ a _Bauernstil_ or domestic art, aboriginal and industrial, which produced the rude geometrical fabrics, and a _Herrenstil_ or _art de luxe_, exotic and ornamental, which we know as Mycenaean. With the upheaval and dispersion of the Achaean aristocracy this art practically died out, but the humbler industry held its ground, and gradually forged its way to comparative excellence, perhaps learning much from Mycenaean technique.
The real novelty of the developed Geometrical pottery which now manifests itself in Greece consists in its evolution _as a style_, and the combination of the patterns into an artistic system, with a continuous progress towards symmetry and rhythm. Geometrical patterns are indeed the property of all primitive peoples, and are no less spontaneous and universal in their origin than the folk-lore stories which we find adopting the same or similar forms in all parts of the world. In Greece, no doubt, the cultured traditions of Mycenaean art had in course of time their due effect, and both in technique and in ornament left their impress on the inferior fabrics,[934] as we have seen to have been the case, especially in the Greek islands. It is an influence which is not confined to the pottery, but made itself felt, for instance, in architecture. It can hardly be doubted that in the Lion Gate of Mycenae we find the prototype of the Doric column; and the parallel with the Geometrical pottery can be further followed up when we consider that Doric architecture also became the common property of Continental Greece, and also realised its highest perfection at Athens.
The Geometrical pottery has been found in great numbers in Attica and Boeotia, in the islands of Aegina, Melos, Thera, Rhodes, and Crete,[935] in Argolis and Laconia, in Sicily and Etruria, and also isolated specimens in Cyprus and the Troad.[936] That found in Italy and Cyprus is certainly exported from the mainland. It has been observed that each region has its own peculiar variety of the style, and this is especially conspicuous in the examples from Attica and Boeotia.[937] The first writer who attempted to deal with it scientifically was Conze,[938] but owing to its clearly-defined characteristics it has always been more or less correctly treated by the older schools of archaeologists. But with a more extended outlook over the fabrics of early Hellas, many problems have arisen in connection with it which have called for more recent discussion, and the writings of Kroker, Böhlau, and Wide in particular should be studied.[939]
At Mycenae fragments of Geometrical pottery were found both on the surface and in the palace, among the débris of the huts built on its site; while in the island of Salamis there is a cemetery of distinctly transitional character, containing false amphorae with linear decoration and combinations of the spiral with the maeander.[940] It may be noted that a similar transitional cemetery was found by Mr. Paton at Assarlik in Caria,[941] and that the “sub-Mycenaean” pottery of Cyprus (p. 246) has been shown to exhibit the same combination of features. These facts fall into line with what has already been said as to the survival of Mycenaean art in these fabrics.
From the fact that large quantities of this ware have been obtained from the tombs of the Kerameikos near the Dipylon Gate of Athens, chiefly between 1870 and 1891, it has frequently been styled _Dipylon ware_; but it is questionable whether this title should not be reserved for varieties peculiar to this site. These Dipylon tombs were in the form of deep quadrangular trenches, and the bodies had been sometimes inhumed, sometimes cremated, the bones being placed in vessels of bronze or clay, containing smaller objects. Above the trenches was a layer of earth mixed with burnt offerings, on the top of which, _outside the tombs_, were placed the large painted vases (representing the tombstones or stone sepulchral vases of later times) which now form a prominent part of the collections at Athens and in the Louvre.[942]
* * * * *
Turning to treat of their general characteristics, we note that the vases are all wheel-made, of a carefully-prepared red clay covered with a lustrous and impermeable yellow slip, on which the designs are painted in the same lustrous black as the Mycenaean wares. Later, but rarely, white is introduced as an accessory. As regards the shapes, there is less variety than in Mycenaean pottery. They include the typical forms of Dipylon vases, a large wide-mouthed _krater_ on a high stem, and an _amphora_ with cylindrical neck and side-handles; also the _lebes_, the cylindrical jug or _olpe_, the wide bowl or _skyphos_, and the _pyxis_ or covered jar. Open-work stands for vases are often found in the Cyclades.[943] On the covers of the _pyxides_ a group of two or three rudely-modelled horses sometimes forms the handle. In considering the forms generally, it is permissible to say that the potter of the day was in advance of his Mycenaean predecessor, although the painter was not.
The decoration follows a development which permits of the division of Geometrical vases into three periods, in which we follow Kroker[944]: (1) for a long time it is exclusively limited to Geometrical patterns, and (2) even when quadrupeds and birds are introduced they are still only decorative (as in Boeotia); (3) finally, while the animals take a subsidiary place, human figures and large compositions spring into prominence. But this final development is chiefly characteristic of Athens. Wide distinguishes four varieties of the Dipylon ware: (_a_) amphorae, with black varnished bodies and designs only on the neck; (_b_) “black Dipylon ware,” mainly varnished, but more decorated than (_a_); (_c_) large vases, with linear decoration or figures all over in horizontal friezes (the tomb-amphorae); (_d_) as the last, but with vertical panels, divided like metopes. His view is that these represent a continuous development, but that the style did not last long in Attica. Returning to Kroker’s classification, it must be borne in mind that the three classes are not successive in point of _time_, only in artistic development; the plain linear decoration survived throughout, and is often found in tombs contemporaneously with the figure subjects.
The patterns are mainly, though not exclusively, rectilinear, and sometimes extremely elaborate. The favourite are a large bold maeander, chevrons, chequers, and arrangements of hatched lines; also squares, with diagonals and much ground-ornament. Among the simpler motives are lines of dots, triangles, lozenges, and various forms of crosses; but concentric and “tangent” circles occur not infrequently, the latter being clearly derived from the Mycenaean spiral, and one vegetable motive appears in the form of a conventionalised leaf, later developed into a rosette. M. Perrot[945] gives a very instructive diagram of the typical scheme of ornamentation on the neck and body of a vase, including most of the principal varieties. It should also be noted that these patterns occur frequently on the field of the designs as ground-ornaments, to cover the vacant spaces.
In the arrangement of the patterns an architectural instinct is clearly at work, the influence of the Doric metope being especially prominent. They are usually arranged, as the diagram (Fig. 83) shows, in horizontal bands round the neck and body, like the bands of painted ornament on the entablature of a temple. The metopes and triglyphs are represented by large square patterns of ornament, separated by narrow vertical strips of simpler motives (cf. Fig. 84). The introduction of the frieze principle proper is a later development. Generally speaking, there is an invariable tendency towards symmetry and refinement in the arrangement. When figure subjects begin to be introduced, it betokens a great advance in decorative art, especially over the Cypriote and other varieties of the style. In the tendency to a _horror vacui_, the style is inferior to Mycenaean, as also in the figure-drawing, of which more anon. The absence of any plant-ornament is most characteristic, as showing the great change from the Mycenaean spirit; but it was not long before this element was destined to reappear and virtually usurp the field of decoration.[946]
In regard to its ornamentation the Geometrical style may be said to have attained success. It is not so, however, with its representations of living form, least of all those of human beings. But this is only in accordance with the principle which M. Pottier styles the _hierarchie des genres_, a principle which is universal in all early development of Greek art, and to which we have already referred (p. 245: see also p. 315). Briefly it is this: first, the predominance of pure _ornament_ and the perfecting of the same; secondly, the employment of _animal_ forms and the relegation of ornament to a subsidiary place; thirdly and lastly, the rise and development of _human_ forms, the other animals ceasing to form the main theme of decoration, and sinking to the level of mere decorative adjuncts.
Hence we find that figures of animals when first introduced on Geometrical vases are of a conventional and ill-drawn character, but show a gradual progress and development. Human forms again, which now appear for the first time, are only seen in a very rude and undeveloped stage, from which there is continuous development throughout the archaic period till perfection is reached in the fifth century. Their original extreme conventionality may be the result of a training in Egyptian canons of art.
The favourite animal motives are the horse, the deer, and water-fowl. The first also appears in a plastic form, surmounting the covers of vases and forming a sort of handle. Usually a single animal is seen in a metope-like panel (cf. Fig. 84), and the frieze system is seldom found at this period. A curious conception is that of a lion or wolf devouring a man, whose legs are seen protruding from its mouth, and this appears to have been adopted by the Etruscans, on whose archaic bronze-work and bucchero vases it sometimes occurs.[947] The lions on the Geometrical vases, it may be noted in passing, are obviously drawn without knowledge, and borrowed from Asiatic art; the same conventional type obtains at a later date, as in the Burgon lebes (below, p. 296).
Human figures are almost confined to the large vases from the Dipylon cemetery, which are evidently a purely local product; almost the only exceptions are two from Boeotia (see below, p. 288), and one from Rhodes in the British Museum (A 439). The infantile and barbarous style of the figures recalls in a measure the primitive marble idols from the Cyclades; there is seldom any actual distinction of sex, the narrow waist, wide hips, and tapering limbs being apparently common to both. The figures being painted in plain silhouette, there is no attempt at rendering features. Where it is intended to represent a warrior, the body is completely hidden behind a shield of the Boeotian type [Boeotian shield], a ready resource of the artist for avoiding anatomical difficulties, which was also adopted later by his seventh-century Corinthian successors, except that in the latter case the shield is circular.
The subjects include battles and naval scenes, dances of women hand in hand, and funeral processions. From the combination of ships with funeral scenes, it would seem that they were sometimes used for carrying the dead. A remarkable lebes recently acquired by the British Museum[948] is decorated with a large ship-of-war with two banks of rowers (bireme), and appears to represent a warrior landing therefrom on shore.[949] The funeral scenes on the great Dipylon vases are exceedingly elaborate, and exhibit a corpse drawn on a bier, accompanied by chariots and bands of mourning women beating their heads.[950] By a conventional attempt at perspective the figures are often placed above the central group when they are supposed to be on its farther side, just as, in the fresco from Tiryns, and an “Island-gem” of the Mycenaean period, a man leading a bull is represented over its back.[951]
Two very interesting specimens of Geometrical fabrics are in the museum at Kopenhagen,[952] late indeed and almost transitional in character, but still typical. One is a deep two-handled cup or bowl with long panels on either side, in two tiers; the upper ones are filled with ornaments and animals, and in the lower are several subjects—combatants, lyre-players, a dance of armed men with shield and spear, two lions devouring a man (see above), and men with jugs and lustral branches preparing for some religious rite. The other is a jug, with very little ornamentation except on the background of the designs, which also include several subjects. On the neck is a man holding horses; on the shoulder, dogs pursuing a hare; and on the body, combats on land and sea.
In the range of subjects a general correspondence with epic poetry is to be noted,[953] as in the funerals and combats; but there are some important discrepancies, such as the _quadriga_ in place of the Homeric _biga_, the types of the ships, and in the appearance of horsemen, which are of course unknown to Homer.[954]
The Geometrical vases found in Boeotia form an important and distinct local variety, which calls for separate treatment. The existence of this local style was first suspected by Furtwaengler in 1878 on seeing the first finds made at Thebes, and it has since been studied with great care and detail by Böhlau.[955] Among these finds were, in addition to the recognised local pottery, ordinary (imported) Dipylon vases, and later Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian wares, as well as bronze fibulae and terracotta figures, to which subsequent reference must be made. Similar pottery was also found in large numbers on the site of the temple of Apollo at Mount Ptoös in 1885–91, and other examples have turned up at Tanagra. It has been suggested, though on somewhat slight grounds, that Aulis was the centre of the local fabric; and, further, it was supposed by Böhlau, who is supported by Perrot,[956] that the Boeotian wares represent a primitive phase of the Geometrical pottery, anterior to the Dipylon, and consequently that Boeotia is the original home of the style as a whole. But in view of what has been said above, and generally of the relation of the Boeotian pottery to the Dipylon, and to the later Proto-Corinthian, it seems doubtful if this view can be maintained. Moreover, it has been pointed out by M. Holleaux,[957] in discussing the Ptoös finds, that the pure Geometrical vases were found at a lower level than the typical local wares, and were never found either with them or with the analogous terracotta figures. This certainly points to the later origin of the Boeotian pottery.
The local clay differs from that of Athens both in nature and appearance, being less well levigated and of a reddish-yellow colour, as compared with the warm brown of the Dipylon. Further, the designs are not laid directly on the clay, as in the latter, but on a thin creamy-yellow slip, as in Mycenaean and Ionian pottery. The technique is, generally speaking, inferior, as is also the black pigment used; the work is rough and hasty, the drawing careless and inaccurate.
The vases are mostly small, at least compared with those of the Dipylon, and the favourite shape is the _kylix_, with or without a stem. Out of seventy-two examples given by Böhlau, no less than fifty-five take this form. He traces its development from a deep bowl with “base-ring,” which seems to be related to the Cypriote white-slip one-handled bowls; but the Boeotian type has at first two small finger-pieces in place of handles, afterwards replaced by a single handle for hanging up. The majority, however, have no less than four handles, and that they were still intended for suspension is shown by the method of decoration which can only be properly seen in this position (cf. Fig. 85).
There is a wearisome uniformity in the patterns, and indeed in the decoration generally. Only two examples are known from Boeotia with human figures,[958] and the rest belong to the intermediate class, with its combination of animals and decorative patterns. On the exterior is usually a broad frieze, divided by bands of ornament into four or five fields, in which are birds or palmette patterns; these panels are not necessarily arranged with reference to the position of the handles. The patterns comprise rows of vertical zigzags, dotted lozenges, chevrons, latticed triangles, rosettes, and scrolls, the first-named being specially characteristic of Boeotia. It is to be noted that the typical Athenian motives, the maeander and the ornamented square, do not occur; in fact, these bowls have no analogies in the Dipylon ware. But it is also interesting to observe the appearance of a new vegetable element in the form of friezes of palmettes and lotos-flowers.[959] The importance of this feature is due to the extensive part it was destined to play in the ornamentation of Greek vases all through the sixth century. Some of the palmettes are remarkably advanced, and the whole pattern is even emancipated from the confinement of the frieze, and treated freely without regard to space.[960] Böhlau, in his analysis of the ornament as a whole, notes its independence of the Athenian vases, though remaining a parallel and closely-related development.
Individual vases do not call for much comment, but there is a curious coffer of terracotta from Thebes in Berlin (Fig. 86),[961] painted with figures in this style. The subjects include the Asiatic Artemis, a hare-hunt, a woman leading a horse, a horse tied up, and two serpents erect, confronted. The ground is filled in with rosettes, crosses, and other ornaments, such as the so-called _swastika_.
While on the subject of the Boeotian vases it is worth while to call attention to the remarkable parallels presented by two other classes of objects also found in that region: bronze fibulae and terracotta statuettes. The former may be regarded as important chronological evidence, inasmuch as their development can be clearly traced from their first appearance at the end of the Mycenaean period (about the tenth century), and similar types have been found in Rhodes, at Olympia, and elsewhere. The characteristic of the Boeotian fibulae is the flat plate which forms the foot (in some cases the central part or bow), and is generally of a quadrangular form, decorated with an engraved subject, usually animals or birds of a similar type to those painted in the panels on the vases. More rarely ships or human figures are found.[962]
The terracotta figures (p. 123), on the other hand, bear a different relation to the pottery. They are flat board-like figures (σανίδες), known to the modern Greek digger as “Pappades,” the high head-dress which they wear suggesting to him the well-known hat of the orthodox “Papas” or priest. The flat surface of the body gives scope for ornamentation representing embroidered robes,[963] and the patterns employed are just those which are seen on the vases; and, moreover, the method of painting is the same, the figures being covered with a buff slip, the patterns in black with purple details. It should be remarked that some of these figures are comparatively developed in style,[964] and that they are practically _later imitations_ of the decoration of the vases.
* * * * *
In considering the Geometrical vases as a whole, we are struck with the laudable aspirations of the artist, who, though unable to execute his new ambitions with complete success, yet shows in his work the same promise of the future that is latent in all early Greek art. His best achievement is in the ornamentation. Oriental influences as yet count for very little, though they are perhaps to be discerned in the human figures, as already noted; Kroker also thinks that the nude female figures on the larger vases are due to Oriental art.[965] In any case they are not to be traced until late in the period, and first, as might be expected for geographical reasons, in the fabrics found at Kameiros in Rhodes.
The question of chronology must next be considered. That the developed Geometrical style succeeds to the Mycenaean, and forms a link between it and the early Attic attempts at black-figured ware, of which we shall subsequently treat, is sufficiently clear. It may also be laid down that the Dipylon ware represents the last stage of Geometrical decoration, being in point of fact too far advanced to be regarded as a purely typical Geometrical ware. Such data as the finding of iron in the tombs, or the evidence of finds at Troy,[966] also tend to place the beginning of the style at least as early as the tenth century. It has also been noted that the figures correspond closely with the bronzes of Olympia which are dated about the ninth century, and this, if accepted, necessitates placing the simpler linear decoration back as far as the tenth. The lower limits of the style may be roughly fixed by the evidence from the tombs of Etruria, discussed in Chapter XVIII., at about 700 B.C.
Next, there is the evidence afforded by the ships,[967] which it should be noted are all of the bireme or διήρης form, with two banks of oars. The invention of the trireme, as we learn from Thucydides (i. 13, 5), was due to Ameinokles, about the year 704 B.C. Hence Kroker’s dating of the Dipylon vases about the year 700 can hardly be accepted. But the eighth century may be taken as representing the latest period of the Geometrical pottery, both in Attica and Boeotia. The curious inscription engraved on a Dipylon vase from Athens is dealt with elsewhere (Chapter XVII.); undoubtedly the earliest known Attic inscription, its value as evidence is limited to that of a _terminus ante quem_, from the fact that it was probably engraved at a subsequent time to the manufacture of the vase.
The question of centres of manufacture is one that has already been the subject of some discussion,[968] the result of which has been to show that there is no complete homogeneity in the wares from different sites, and consequently no one central fabric. The colossal funerary vases, which, it may be remarked in passing, stand at the head of a long line of funerary fabrics and show the Athenian fondness for this class of vase,[969] were not, and could not have been, generally exported, in spite of the notable exception at Curium. The ordinary wares might have been made in some one place (probably a Dorian centre, not Attica or Boeotia); but we have seen that most finds, as in Rhodes, present local peculiarities.[970] Athens at this period was not sufficiently advanced to become the centre of large potteries, and did not become so, as we shall see, before the age of the Peisistratidae; such vases as were made were strictly confined to special purposes. It is a curious fact that very little Geometrical ware was found on the Acropolis.
The Geometrical pottery of Cyprus has already been discussed in its relation to that of Greece (pp. 249, 253)[971]; but there is yet another region which passed through a Geometrical period similar to that of Greece, and that is Etruria (see Chapter XVIII.). It is, however, better illustrated by the metal products of the Villanova period, such as the bronze discs and large cinerary urns, than by the local pottery, which never reached the same level as in Greece; in the former the same combinations of elaborate ornament with rude animals and yet ruder human figures may be witnessed, and it is possible that importations from Greece may have had a share in influencing these products. They cover the period from the tenth to the eighth century B.C.
§ 2. ATTICA, BOEOTIA, AND MELOS
Following on to the Geometrical vases both in chronological and artistic sequence is a small class of Athenian vases, which, more for convenience than with regard to strict accuracy, have been styled =Proto-Attic=. The term has this much of truth in it, that the group may be said to stand at the head of, and in direct relation to, the long series of painted vases produced in the Athenian potteries for some two centuries afterwards. It is only of late years that a sufficient number of these vases has become known for them to be studied as a separate class, and even when Böhlau first drew attention to them, in 1887, only two or three were known. The list up to date is as follows (the order being roughly chronological):—
1. Athens 467
(_Couve’s Amphora Kerameikos _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. Cat._) 10.
2. Berlin 56 Amphora Hymettos _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 5.
3. Athens 468 Hydria Analatos _ibid._ pls. 3, 4. (Phaleron)
4. Athens 464 Lebes Thebes _ibid._ pl. 4.
5. Athens 469 Amphora Pikrodaphni _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, pls. 2, 3.
6. Athens Mus. Amphora Kynosarges _J.H.S._ xxii. pls. 2–4.
7. Athens 650 Fragment Aegina Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic._ _Vasenb._ pl. 54.
8. Athens 657 Amphora Kerameikos _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57.
9. Athens 651 Amphora Peiraeus Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, pl. 5.
10. Berlin 1682 Lebes Aegina _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pls. 9, 10.
11. B.M. A 535 Lebes Athens Rayet and Collignon, p. 43 = Fig. 87.
We may also add to this list Athens 652–664, a vase from Aegina (_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 8), B.M. A 1531 (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 285), and another at Athens (_ibid._ p. 283).
It will be noticed that the majority are of the amphora form, and that all without exception have been found in or near Athens, which leaves little room for doubt as to their origin.
A close connection with the Dipylon vases may be observed in the first three, not only in shape and technique, but in decoration. In No. 2, which we may take as typical of the oldest form of the Attic amphora, a combination of Geometrical and Mycenaean ornament is to be observed, but the figures of the warriors are purely Hellenic, like those of the Euphorbos pinax (p. 335). The shape of No. 3 is typical of the Geometrical vases, with its long neck and slim body, and it is perhaps more accurately called a three-handled jug than a hydria, though at the same time it is clearly the prototype of the later Attic hydria. The panel on the neck of the vase (also seen in No. 6) is also a Geometrical feature, and the figures therein are quite in the Dipylon style. On the other hand, in the arrangement of the designs in continuous friezes without vertical divisions we trace the incoming influence of a foreign style—the Rhodian or Ionian. Other motives again, such as the birds and the vegetable ornaments, have nothing of the Geometrical or Ionian about them, and may perhaps be directly derived from Mycenaean vases. But the typically Geometrical lozenges, zigzags, etc., still hold their own. In No. 6 Mr. Cecil Smith notes that the ornamentation covering the field of the design is partly rectilinear and geometrical, partly floral and of Mycenaean origin. The spiral pattern which here closes the design, and is also seen on No. 1, is again an instance of Mycenaean influence, and is a motive which became exceedingly popular. In another seventh-century class, the so-called Melian vases, it is absolutely overdone, but the more restrained Attic tradition is preserved for many years as an appropriate decoration for the division of the designs under the handles, especially in the red-bodied amphorae of the developed B.F. style. This vase has some other unusual features, such as incised lines, which are also found on some early Attic fragments from the Acropolis,[972] but seem to appear equally early at Corinth, so that it is impossible to say certainly if the process is an Attic invention. At all events it is not Ionian, as its place is taken on the east of the Aegean by lines of white paint (_e.g._ in the Clazomenae sarcophagi). Curiously enough, in this same vase (No. 6) may be noted attempts at this very process, here, no doubt, as on the Ionian vases, due to Mycenaean influence (see p. 331); but it is unique in early Attic work.[973] The peculiar treatment of the eye and hair is also worthy of attention.
To sum up the characteristics of the Proto-Attic vases, it may be said that they represent the transformation of the Attico-Dorian element into the Attico-Ionian, just as we shall see in the next stage a further transformation under new influences into Attico-Corinthian (p. 324). The Ionian influence brings with it into Attica not only a revival of Mycenaean elements, but also traces of Orientalism.[974] The general appearance of the decoration links it with the Geometrical, but closer examination shows the admixture of spirals, rosettes, and lotos-flowers with the lozenges and zigzags, while the Geometrical animal-types are combined with new ones from Ionia, such as the lion, and the funeral scenes and combats are supplanted by Centaurs and winged genii of Assyrian character.[975] Further, there is a distinct tendency to get rid of the old silhouette and to draw in outline, a practice typical of Ionia and a direct heritage from Mycenaean vase-paintings. As in the Rhodian vases, the bodies are rendered in full colour, the heads in outline; while the practice of covering the field with ground-ornaments is also a peculiarly Rhodian characteristic. These latter, however, gradually disappear, as do the Geometrical conventions in the drawing of the figures.
The amphora-type develops steadily onwards from the Berlin Hymettos amphora, which, as has been pointed out, is the oldest Attic variety. In some of the forms, as in No. 5, there are traces of a metallic origin, shown by the open-work handles and other details.[976] Generally speaking, there is a tendency towards the colossal, and towards emphasising the figure-decoration, not only by increasing the size of the figures, but by confining the subject to one side. M. Pottier thinks that this is due to architectural influences, and suggests a comparison with a temple-façade. But the local traditions are still strong, and in spite of the influence of the lively and original Ionic style, the vases remain “continental” at bottom, the drawing always soberer and more powerful throughout. In many respects there is, as we shall see, a close parallelism with the so-called Melian fabrics.
No. 11, the large Burgon lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87), is one of the latest representatives of the Proto-Attic class; its Ionic-looking lions and “Rhodian” wealth of ground-ornaments seem to suggest Asiatic influences, the presence of which has been accounted for above. Moreover, the loop-pattern on the reverse is distinctly Proto-Attic, and finds its parallels on vases found at Eretria,[977] as well as on others of the class under consideration.
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
------------------------------------
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.
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.
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
------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
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_
------------------------------------
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.
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
------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
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).