Chapter XVIII.). The animals are so characteristic as in themselves to

mark off this class as distinct; sometimes they are naturalistic, sometimes conventional, and repetitions in one frieze are very rare.

The favourite quadruped is a deer; Gryphons of a peculiar type and Sphinxes are frequently found, and on some specimens a subordinate frieze of quails.[1174] On the necks of the amphorae heraldic groups of panthers or other animals confronted are sometimes seen, varied by palmette and lotos patterns. The latter form the chief decorative motive; but a combination of maeanders and stars (see Chapter XVI.) is often found on the oinochoae, and this, it is interesting to note, also appears on the Clazomenae sarcophagi. On one of the vases published by Dümmler there is represented a combat of Greeks and mounted Barbarians; the latter he identified as Scythians, and mainly on this ground attributed the group to the northern coast of Asia Minor. But they are more likely to be from Phocaea, or Kyme, or one of the neighbouring cities. The oinochoae appear, from the absence of human figures, to be earlier than the amphorae, and the number of friezes often exceeds two; there are also a few minor distinctions.[1175]

§ 4. EARLY PAINTING IN IONIA

It is now time to turn, by way of supplementing our account of Ionic pottery, to the history of the art of painting in general among these peoples, so far as it is illustrated by literary records and by existing monuments other than the vases. That the latter do afford us considerable information on the subject of painting in Ionia is amply shown in the foregoing pages; but there is yet another group of monuments which the material of which they are made would alone entitle to inclusion in this work, apart from the valuable illustration they afford of certain aspects of Ionic pottery.

In the light of modern researches, we are prepared to find in Ionia a great centre for the art of painting in the archaic period. That this region inherited the characteristics of Mycenaean art has already been so abundantly shown that we need not hesitate to believe that, among other branches of art, that of fresco-painting was firmly established in the Asiatic colonies. The art of which Crete, Mycenae, and Tiryns have furnished such remarkable examples is hardly likely to have died out. Hence it need excite no surprise when we read that as early as about 700 B.C. Kandaules, the king of Lydia, purchased for its weight in gold a picture painted by Bularchos representing a battle of the Magnetes.[1176] That such an elaborate subject should have been treated at this early date, when the vase-painter had not emerged from his earliest limitations, is, if we may accept Pliny’s account, a most remarkable proof of advanced art. Saurias of Samos is also mentioned as an early painter,[1177] who “invented silhouette drawing,” and Philokles the Egyptian, who “invented linear drawing,” was probably a Naucratite, and his “inventions” may be reflected in the outlined paintings on white ground which have been described above. Lastly, we read that about 515 B.C. Mandrokles of Samos painted a picture which represented Dareios watching his army crossing the Bosphoros,[1178] and Kalliphon of Samos, probably a contemporary, painted scenes from the story of Troy.[1179]

Combining these traditions with what we also know of Ionic painting from the pottery, we should expect to find that its characteristic form was that of figures in black silhouette or outline on a ground covered with white slip; and, further, that the subjects treated were by no means of an elementary character, but comprised elaborate battle-scenes or groups of warriors, and even historical themes. Now, these conditions are exactly fulfilled in the group of terracotta sarcophagi excavated during the last twenty years at or in the neighbourhood of Clazomenae, on the Gulf of Smyrna. It is practically certain that all have come from this district,[1180] and no attempt has ever been made to connect them with any other site. Further, we have already seen that there are reasons for attributing some of the vase-fabrics to this place, or at least for connecting them closely with the sarcophagi; and thus there are good grounds for regarding Clazomenae as one of the principal centres of Ionian art.

The sarcophagi which have come to light up to the present number over twenty, inclusive of fragments, but very few are anything like complete. There are fine specimens at Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and Constantinople, with paintings round the flat rims; but all are overshadowed by the magnificent example recently acquired by the British Museum,[1181] which is absolutely complete, with a massive gabled cover, and decorated over almost every inch of its surface with subjects or ornamental patterns. Its dimensions are: body, 7 ft. 6 in. by 3 ft. 9 in. by 2 ft. 9 in.; cover, 8 ft. by 4 ft. by 2 ft. The only undecorated portions are the central panels on the sides of the coffin and the bottom, but in some other parts the designs are largely worn away. It is made of a coarse brick-like clay of very hard consistency, which is completely covered, except on the bottom, with a thick white slip to receive the paintings. The figures are painted throughout in black silhouette, without any method of reproducing inner details except by _traits réservés_, _i.e._ by leaving them unpainted on the white ground; but the greater part has been imperfectly fired, so that the black has become bright red.

On the long sides of the interior are representations of funeral games, such as contests with spears and a chariot-race; the shorter sides have groups of warriors on horseback and on foot. The chariot-races are also repeated along the flat rim of the coffin, the exterior and the space above the interior designs being ornamented with bands of egg-and-dart moulding and the typical Ionic pattern of maeander interspersed with stars, which we have already met with in the pottery (p. 360). The main designs on the cover are in two rows, those on one side having almost entirely disappeared; on the complete side the upper band represents an episode from the story of Dolon, the lower an ordinary scene of combat.[1182] The gable-ends have groups of Centaurs and horsemen, and along the lower edges of the cover, underneath, are further scenes from the Doloneia, groups of Sphinxes and Sirens, and bands of ornamental pattern (rosettes, maeander, etc.). Of the many minor details of interest in these paintings this is not the place to speak; but they have been fully discussed by Murray (_op. cit._), especially peculiarities of armour and costume.

It is possible that the battle-scenes on this and other sarcophagi may, as Murray and S. Reinach[1183] have suggested, have some bearing on the question of the painting by Bularchos already mentioned. It would, at all events, help to explain the selling of the painting for its weight in gold, if we may regard it as painted on terracotta; but it is not safe to say more than that the sarcophagi confirm the story to the extent of showing the popularity of such subjects in early Ionian art.

Many of the motives on the British Museum sarcophagus are found repeated again and again throughout the series, especially the battle-scenes; groups “heraldically” composed, such as a warrior between two chariots or horsemen, or pairs of Sphinxes (Plate XXVII.), or animals confronted, are of constant occurrence. There are also various minor motives constantly repeated, such as helmeted heads of warriors (Plate XXVII.),[1184] pairs of horses, one looking up, the other down (this being a convenient position for silhouettes), or dogs running under the horses.

M. Joubin,[1185] considering the group of sarcophagi as a whole, recognises a triple development in form, technique, and decoration, enabling him to divide them into three classes. In regard to technique we observe throughout a remarkable combination of two methods, the details of figures being expressed either by outlining or by leaving in the colour of the clay, as in the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite vases (see p. 331 ff.), or by lines of white paint _laid on the black_. The latter method, which is not unknown on the vases (see p. 347), was no doubt used in place of incising, which would have been a difficult matter in the hard clay.[1186]

In the oldest group, then, the usual method is that of outlining or “reserving” on the clay; the second group may be regarded as transitional[1187]; and in the third group, which in style answers to the Caeretan hydriae and later Ionic fabrics, the use of white for details, and even of purple, is general. But it is noteworthy that, for the groups of animals at the bases of the sarcophagi or elsewhere, the old “Rhodian” method of the earlier examples is retained. This, it may be remarked, is in accordance with a principle by which an older technique tends to survive in subordinate decoration, just as on R.F. vases friezes of animals or ornamental patterns are frequently painted in the old black-on-red method.[1188]

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

PLATE XXVII

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

In the decoration the development is in the direction of scenes with human figures, in preference to friezes of animals and floral patterns; the compositions advance from single figures to large groups, and accessory figures are introduced, like the dogs under the horses. Finally, we have the long friezes of figures which are so characteristic, for instance, of the British Museum sarcophagus. Mythological scenes, except the Doloneia, are conspicuously absent; battles, chariot-races, and hunting-scenes have the preference, as well as the heraldic groups of animals.

Nor is the development confined to the main decoration; it may be traced both in the form of the sarcophagi and in the subordinate ornamentation.[1189] The older examples approach more to the human form, with a shouldered opening at the top indicating the place for the head; but towards the end of the series the rectangular form predominates—the opening enlarges, and the upper edge projects over the lower. The British Museum example and one in Constantinople[1190] are very elaborate, with mouldings and carefully-considered architectural proportions. The origin of the form is doubtless to be traced to the Egyptian mummy-cases, or perhaps to Chaldaean sarcophagi; but the Cretan cinerary urns (p. 145) are also on the same plan, and may have formed an intermediary link.

In point of date the sarcophagi seem to extend over the greater part of the sixth century. We have seen that some present the same characteristics of painting as the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite fabrics; others fall more into line with the Caeretan hydriae and Ionic B.F. pottery. In any case the sarcophagi form our best standard for determining the sequence and relation of the Ionic fabrics, and at the same time furnish an argument for regarding Clazomenae as one of the principal centres of Ionic pottery. M. Reinach is of opinion that none are later than about 540 B.C., at which time the people of Clazomenae, menaced by the invading power of Persia, migrated to the neighbouring islands. But one or two instances of advanced technique seem to point to a later date.

The list of Clazomenae sarcophagi as at present known is as follows[1191]:—

Reinach’s Joubin’s List. List.

1. Brit. Mus. (1895) — — _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 1–7.

2. Brit. Mus. (1900) — — —

3. Brit. Mus. (1902) — — Plate XXVII. of this work.

4. Brit. Mus. 7 12 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 46, 4 = _J.H.S._ iv. pl. 31.

5. Brit. Mus. 8 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 3 = J.H.S. iv. p. 20, fig. 15.

6. Brit. Mus. 9 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 5 = J.H.S. iv. p. 19, fig. 14.

7. Louvre 10 11 _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1890, pl. 6.

8. Louvre 11 3 _Ibid._, 1892, p. 240.

9. Louvre 12 1 _Ibid._, 1895, pls. 1–2, p. 71.

10. Louvre 13 2 _Ibid._, 1895, p. 80.

11. Berlin 1 8 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 44.

12. Berlin 2 9 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 2.

13. Vienna 15 10 _Ibid._ pl. 45.

14. Smyrna 14 14 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 1.

15. Constantinople 3 7 _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pl. 53 = _J.H.S._ iv. p. 8 ff.

16. Constantinople 4 4, 5 _Ibid._ pl. 54 = _J.H.S._ iv. p. 2 ff.

17. Constantinople 5 — _Röm. Mitth._ 1888, p. 163.

18. Constantinople 6 6 _Revue des Études Gr._ 1895, p. 161.

19. ? 16 — _J.H.S._ iv. p. 15.

20. ? 17 — _J.H.S._ iv. p. 20.

21–3. In the market 18–20 — See _Revue des Études Gr._ _i.e._

To which may be added:—

24. Brit. Mus., from — — _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl. Kameiros 8.

We have seen in the course of this chapter the gradual evolution of Ionic vase-painting, from the time of lingering Mycenaean influences down to the period when it ceased to have any existence as a separate style, and having reached the same point of development as Attic vase-painting, was soon merged in the latter. It is probable, however, that this was largely due to political circumstances, which put an end to Ionic art and industry generally about the close of the sixth century. The conquest of Ionia by Harpagos in 545 B.C. was the event which led to this result, and consequently to the dispersion of Ionic artists, partly into Greece, partly into Italy. The migration of the Phocaeans in particular caused an influx of Ionian culture into the semi-barbarous regions of Italy, and contributed to the production of the imitative vase-fabrics to which allusion has been made.

M. Pottier, in summing up the rôle played by Ionian Greece in the history of art, regards it as the principal agent of transmission of culture between the East and Europe, and thus the true civiliser of Europe, influencing both Doric Greece and Etruscan Italy. Thus we may see in Ionia the parent of modern civilisation.

Footnote 1082:

See M. Pottier’s excellent _résumé_ in his _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 486 ff.

Footnote 1083:

_Bronzefunde von Olympia_, p. 45: cf. _Olympia_, iv. p. 109.

Footnote 1084:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 208: cf. Athenaeus, v. 210 B, and Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 487.

Footnote 1085:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1890, p. 378. The painting on a white slip marks an important development, and a rupture with all previous styles (_ibid._).

Footnote 1086:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p. 179; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 161 ff.; Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 73 ff.

Footnote 1087:

Böhlau, p. 52 ff.

Footnote 1088:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 226.

Footnote 1089:

_Rev. Arch._ xxv. (1894), p. 26.

Footnote 1090:

Böhlau, p. 86 ff.

Footnote 1091:

Pottier, ii. p. 277.

Footnote 1092:

Böhlau, _i.e._; Pottier and Reinach, _Nécropole de Myrina_, p. 505.

Footnote 1093:

See above, p. 254; probably a Cypriote fabric.

Footnote 1094:

Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 310.

Footnote 1095:

Stephani, _Comptes-Rendus_, 1870–71, pl. 4 = Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 34.

Footnote 1096:

_Naukratis I., II._; _J.H.S._ x. p. 126 ff.

Footnote 1097:

See below, p. 362.

Footnote 1098:

For bibliographies of Class II. see below, pp. 344, 349, 358 ff.

Footnote 1099:

See _Monuments Piot_, i. p. 45.

Footnote 1100:

Cf. Fig. 94 below; _J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, viii. pl. 79; and _Monuments Piot_, i. pl. 4.

Footnote 1101:

See Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 503.

Footnote 1102:

See _Röm. Mitth._ 1887, p. 180.

Footnote 1103:

See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff. A list of Rhodian vases is given in _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p. 179.

Footnote 1104:

For fragments found in Cyprus see _J.H.S._ xii. p. 142; _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 104, fig. 151.

Footnote 1105:

Cf. examples in Cases 43–4 in the First Vase Room, Brit. Mus.

Footnote 1106:

See generally Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 160.

Footnote 1107:

_Il._ xvii. 60 ff.: see Chapter XIV. The vase is published by Salzmann, _Nécropole de Camiros_, pl. 53; Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig. 784.

Footnote 1108:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1891, p. 118: cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 263, and _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.

Footnote 1109:

The latest supporter of this view is Böhlau (_Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 73 ff.).

Footnote 1110:

Böhlau, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.

Footnote 1111:

Böhlau regards this pattern as “Mycenaean,” on the ground that it does not follow the lines of the vase.

Footnote 1112:

Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, pl. 21, fig. 188, and _Mon. Antichi_, vi. pl. 11, figs. 30, 34.

Footnote 1113:

See Böhlau’s list, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.

Footnote 1114:

_i.e._ p. 79.

Footnote 1115:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 524; _Naukratis I._ p. 50; Böhlau, _i.e._

Footnote 1116:

_J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, fig. 3 (now in Berlin). Cf. Fig. 94 on p. 346.

Footnote 1117:

E 659 = _Monuments Piot_, i. pl. 4, p. 43.

Footnote 1118:

_Op. cit._ p. 85.

Footnote 1119:

_Op. cit._ p. 89 ff.

Footnote 1120:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, pl. 7; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 274.

Footnote 1121:

See examples in B.M. (Second Vase Room, Cases 24–5). The B.M. also possesses similar vases found in the Troad.

Footnote 1122:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223.

Footnote 1123:

_J.H.S._ viii. p. 68 ff.

Footnote 1124:

Stephani, _Compte-Rendu_, 1870–71, pl. 4, p. 178; Reinach, i. 34.

Footnote 1125:

Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125.

Footnote 1126:

_Kyrene_ (1890), p. 17 ff.

Footnote 1127:

Baumeister, iii. p. 1664, fig. 1728; Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 81; and see bibliography in De Ridder’s _Catalogue_, i. p. 98. It is a matter for much regret that no satisfactory publication of this vase has as yet been made. The best is in Babelon’s _Cab. des Antiques de la Bibl. Nat._ pl. 12.

Footnote 1128:

_I.e._ Σιλιφιόμαχος.

Footnote 1129:

Cf. the Amphiaraos krater (p. 319).

Footnote 1130:

The list is as follows: B.M. B 1–7; Bibl. Nat. 189–92; Louvre E 660–72; Petersburg 183; Munich 737 and 1164; Vienna 140; two each in the Vatican, Florence, and Würzburg (Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 26 in Dumont’s list); one in Brussels (_Gaz. Arch._ 1887, pl. 14); _Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 189 (Berlin); Dumont-Pottier, i. pp. 301, 305, Nos. 17 and 32; Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238; _Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3, p. 189, and see _ibid._ pp. 191, 193; Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125 ff.; and a doubtful example in B.M. B 58. For an exhaustive bibliography of the subject, see Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 226.

Footnote 1131:

_J.H.S._ x. p. 126.

Footnote 1132:

Other examples of Naucratite wares have been found in Rhodes (_J.H.S._ _loc. cit._), Cyprus (_J.H.S._ xii. p. 142), and at Athens on the Acropolis (_Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 341).

Footnote 1133:

These fragments will be fully illustrated in colour in the forthcoming vol. i. of the _B.M. Catalogue of Vases_.

Footnote 1134:

Cf. A 763 in B.M. = _Naukratis II._ pl. 5, 1.

Footnote 1135:

A 762. Other good examples are A 764, 790, 792.

Footnote 1136:

A 985 = _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 79.

Footnote 1137:

One Melian; B 102_{5} and 102_{29} (with Corinthian inscriptions); B 102_{13}, 102_{27}, 102_{32} (Daphniote), etc.

Footnote 1138:

See generally _Tanis II._ (_Fourth Mem. Egypt Expl. Fund_), pp. 48 ff., 61 ff., pls. 25–31; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff. and _Ant. Denkm._ ii. pl. 21; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. p. 41; Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 18.

Footnote 1139:

ii. 30, 107.

Footnote 1140:

ii. 154.

Footnote 1141:

_Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff.; Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 18.

Footnote 1142:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 51: and cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 256.

Footnote 1143:

B.M. B 104–6.

Footnote 1144:

Cf. for the crosses in the field the Boeotian example given in Fig. 86, p. 287.

Footnote 1145:

B.M. B 107–15.

Footnote 1146:

See Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 65. He derives this pattern through the medium of the “Fikellura” vases.

Footnote 1147:

B.M. B 116–25.

Footnote 1148:

This is also occasionally found at Naukratis, and appears on a fragment from Mytilene in the British Museum (B 99) of Daphniote style.

Footnote 1149:

_Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 55.

Footnote 1150:

See Zahn in _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 50.

Footnote 1151:

Cf. the Xanthos reliefs, _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. No. 86.

Footnote 1152:

See Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 17, and cf. coins of Methymna.

Footnote 1153:

Cf. Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ pp. 5, 13 ff., who points out the similarity in subject and decoration, as also in details of colouring, armour, etc., with the other groups.

Footnote 1154:

_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895, p. 182.

Footnote 1155:

Vienna 217–18; Louvre E 696. For list of subjects see _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 254.

Footnote 1156:

B.M. B 103_{14} for instance.

Footnote 1157:

Cf. Louvre E 739. Also found at Daphnae as a shield-device (B.M. B 115_{2}), and on coins of Clazomenae (see Endt, p. 24).

Footnote 1158:

Cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 259.

Footnote 1159:

_Röm. Mitth._ iii. (1888), p. 159 ff.; now in B.M.

Footnote 1160:

_Op. cit._ p. 172.

Footnote 1161:

It is found also on the sarcophagi (cf. _Terracotta Sarcophagi in B.M._ pls. 1, 2), on the quasi-Ionic vase, Gerhard, _A. V._ 205, and on B.M. B 379 (see below).

Footnote 1162:

Cf. for instance _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. 53–4.

Footnote 1163:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 6, p. 38 ff.

Footnote 1164:

Vol. II. Frontisp.; Reinach, ii. 124.

Footnote 1165:

Cf. especially Berlin 2154 (Endt, _op. cit._ pl. 1, figs. 11–13) and Gerhard, _A. V._ 194 = Reinach, ii. 97. They have been discussed by Endt (_op. cit._ pp. 21, 29), by Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 424 ff., and by Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 146 ff.

Footnote 1166:

B.M. B 379–82; _J.H.S._ v. pls. 40–3.

Footnote 1167:

These have been recently collected and discussed by Böhlau (_Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 40 ff.), who notes a total of seventeen. His list is certainly incomplete, as some examples in the British Museum might have been added. See also Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 220, who attributes the Phineus cup to Naxos.

Footnote 1168:

See _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 93.

Footnote 1169:

_Mon. dell’ Inst._ vi.–vii. pl. 78: see Fig. 111 and Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1170:

Gerhard, _A.V._ 205, 3–4 = Reinach, ii. 105: see p. 323.

Footnote 1171:

See on Ionian inscribed vases, Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 38; Böhlau, _loc. cit._ p. 93.

Footnote 1172:

_E.g._ B.M. B 348–58, 439–50.

Footnote 1173:

_Röm. Mitth._ 1887, p. 171 ff. Furtwaengler regards the whole class as South Italian (_Antike Gemmen_, iii. p. 88); Pottier (_Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 538) wavers between Kyme and Italy.

Footnote 1174:

B.M. B 57; Gerhard, _A.V._ 185: cf. B.M. B 58, which is difficult to classify.

Footnote 1175:

A complete list of this group is given by Endt (p. 39 ff.), and may be briefly recapitulated:—(1) Amphorae: B.M. B 57; Cambridge 43; Bibl. Nat. 171–73; Berlin 1673, 1675; Munich 123, 155; Vienna 216 and Kaiserhaus 278; Würzburg, iii. 79–80, 84; four in Rome (see _Röm. Mitth._ 1887, pls. 8–9); others in Brussels, Karlsruhe, and Orvieto. (2) Jugs: B.M. B 54–6; Bibl. Nat. 178; Munich 173, 176, 1047, 1291; Würzburg, iii. 36 and 40; others in Karlsruhe, Florence, and Boulogne. (3) Ionic or Italian allied fabrics: Berlin 1677–79 and numerous others in Munich and Würzburg, enumerated and illustrated by Endt, p. 55 ff. figs. 27–40: cf. also Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92 = Endt, p. 65. To his list must be added the vase on Plate XXV.

Footnote 1176:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 55.

Footnote 1177:

Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293.

Footnote 1178:

Hdt. iv. 88.

Footnote 1179:

Paus. v. 19, 1, x. 26, 6.

Footnote 1180:

The British Museum possesses a sarcophagus of the same type from Kameiros in Rhodes (Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl. 8).

Footnote 1181:

Published by A. S. Murray in _Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._ pls. 1–7, and in _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.

Footnote 1182:

See Murray’s description and commentary, _op. cit._ p. 7 ff., and in _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 40.

Footnote 1183:

_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895, p. 161 ff.

Footnote 1184:

Cf. the archaic Rhodian vases in the form of helmeted heads (_e.g._ B.M. A 1117, 1118, 1121; Pl. XLVI. fig. 1).

Footnote 1185:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 89.

Footnote 1186:

Cf. _J.H.S._ vi. p. 185.

Footnote 1187:

Examples of the earliest are Nos. 9–12, 16–18 in list below; of the second, Nos. 8, 13, 15 in list below.

Footnote 1188:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 240 ff.

Footnote 1189:

The principal decorative patterns are the guilloche or plait-band; maeander, often combined with stars, as on the “Pontic” vases; palmettes; a bold egg-and-dart pattern of Ionic type. For an Egyptian prototype of the maeander-and-star pattern, cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, i. fig. 541.

Footnote 1190:

_Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. 53 = No. 15 below.

Footnote 1191:

The following bibliography may be useful: _J.H.S._ iv. p. 1 ff.; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1892, p. 240 ff., 1895, p. 69 ff.; Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._ p. 1 ff., and _id._ in _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.; _Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895, p. 161 ff.