Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:40:37.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A List of Clazomenian Pottery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

R. M. Cook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By ‘Clazomenian’ is usually meant what seems to be the main group of East Greek pottery decorated in a mature b.f. style. It is most obviously distinguished from Attic, on which it is partly dependent, by its greater tendency to decorative forms and details, as for example in the more extensive use of rows of white dots, and by such favourite motives as sirens and scales containing white drops. The home of Clazomenian is in northern Ionia: from Samos southwards, where its counterpart is the reserving and more traditional pottery known as Fikellura, no important b.f. school developed.

The first and still the only big find of Clazomenian pottery was made by W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1886 at Tell Defenneh in Egypt: most of this find went to the British Museum and a selection of the pieces was promptly and fairly published in 1888. In this publication Petrie, though not expert in Greek archaeology, noted the unity of the group, but—mainly (I suspect) on grounds of frequency—considered it to be a local Greek product of Tell Defenneh.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 47 , November 1952 , pp. 123 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

It is my pleasant duty to thank all those who have helped me in this study. I am especially indebted to Sir John Beazley for the loan of photos and for advice, to Dr F. Brommer for much information, to the officers of the British Museum for the facilities they have always given me. In checking details I have had the kind help of Mme S. B. Mollard and M. F.Villard of the Louvre, Mr J. Boardman, Dr E. Kukahn of Bonn, Dr G. H. Chase of Boston, Prof. C. Blümel and Dr E. Rohde of Berlin, Dr B. Neutsch and Dr K. Schauenburg of Heidelberg, Dr R. Lullies of Munich, Prof. B. Schweitzer of Tübingen, and Prof. E. Eichler of Vienna. Some other debts are acknowledged later. For permission to reproduce their photos I am grateful to Dr F. Brommer (Plate 29, 3), and to the authorities of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Plate 30), of the Pelizäus Museum, Hildesheim (Plate 31, 2), of the Archäologisches Institut, Heidelberg (Plate 29, 1–2), of the Staatliche Kunstammlungen, Kassel (Plate 33, 3), of the National Museum, Athens (Plate 31, 1), and of the Antiquarium, Berlin (Plates 32 and 33, 1–2).

Besides the regular abbreviations I have used Izv for the Russian Izvestia. By ‘amphora’ I throughout mean the neck-amphora: the amphora where neck passes into body in an unbroken curve I call ‘one-piece amphora’. Reference to plates of CVA is by the national serial number.

After this paper was written Dr G. R. Edwards very kindly sent me photos of the Clazomenian fragments from Tell Defenneh now in Philadelphia: I am sorry if they are rather awkwardly incorporated in my catalogue. I have also added a few more pieces in the Louvre from the large collections from Naucratis (given by Seymour de Ricci) and from Clazomenae and the Smyrna region (given by P. Gaudin). There is still more Clazomenian from the Anglo-Turkish excavation at Old Smyrna.

1 The so-called Ionian Little Masters, probably working in Samos, did not fulfil their promise (Kunze, E., AM LIX 81–122).Google Scholar In Rhodes there have been found some feeble imitations of Attic as well as more independent ventures in b.f.; they are probably local (Kunze, op. cit., 119 n. 2; Beazley, J. D., EVP, 14Google Scholar; see also below, pp. 140–1, F e–g). There are traces of other East Greek b.f. workshops in the finds from Naucratis, Old Smyrna, and elsewhere.

2 Tanis II 47–96.

3 Op. cit., 62.

4 BMC Vases II (1893), B. 102–129 passim.

5 JdI X (1895), 35–46; AD II, pl. 21.

6 AM XXIII 38–79. Zahn further argued that in the mid-sixth century Clazomenae must have held the leadership of Greek painting: but his conclusion, though logically developed from the current assumption that Greek occupation of Tell Defenneh ended about 565 B.C., was not generally accepted. Isolated comparisons between Clazomenian sarcophagi and pots had been made before Zahn (Smith, C., JHS VI (1885), 180–91 for D 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

7 Funde aus Naukratis (Klio, Beiheft VII: 1908), 42–57.

8 MuZ I (1923), 171–9.

9 East Greek Pottery (1928), 22–30.

10 JdI XLVIII (1933), 60. For Walter's and Dümmler's earlier criticism see BMC Vases II, 2 and 42, and JdI X (1895), 36. Since writing this paper I have seen the catalogue of Clazomenian compiled with exemplary industry by Ricci, G. (Antichità II 1, 2–20).Google Scholar

11 Little new has been published in the last fifty years, and even Petrie's material—to judge by the number of joins recently made—had not been closely studied.

12 CVA British Museum VIII, pls. 582–95.

13 Cf. B.13.

14 White dots with dark centres are common in the Petrie group.

15 One is apparently bearded, but I suspect that the ‘beard’ is a slip of the painter's brush.

15a A fragmentary pyxis found recently at Old Smyrna looks from the drawing that has been exhibited to be by the same hand.

16 From the excavation of G. Oikonomos, on which see p. 151.

17 Two fragments perhaps from the foot of a big amphora of this group were with this sherd in Plovdiv Museum. There is no record of the provenance of the mixed batch of sherds in which they were.

18 Mr M. Gjødesen, to whom I owe my introduction to the examples in Paris, has been good enough also to give me his opinion of the arrangement and dating of the heads. As he observes, they show a considerable range in style; and though this may be the result of unequal workmanship, yet at this stage of Clazomenian studies it is reasonable to assume that the differences indicate chronological development. The order in my list is that suggested by Gjødesen and I here add his comments, a–b he dates c. 560–50, and compares a to the marble head Berlin 538 (Blümel, C., Kat. II 1, A.20, pls. 45–7Google Scholar; G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi, no. 91, figs. 270–1). c–ƒ he places c. 550–30, inserting the heads of my nos. 1, 6, and 3 between e and ƒ: to d and e, which may perhaps both be from one mould, and to nos. 1 and 6, which may both be from another, he compares the heads from Ephesus, B.M. B. 90–1; to no. 3 the face from Ephesus, B.M. B. 89; to ƒ, conceivably from the same mould as no. 3, the marble head Munich 48 (C. Blümel, Gr. Bildhauerarbeit, pls. 7–8; Gr. Bildhauer an der Arbeit, figs. 20–1). g–k come last, c. 530–20; j and k might be from one mould.

The dates that Gjødesen gives for the heads of nos. 3 and 6 are close enough to my dates for the paintings of those pots; and though he considers no. 6 to be rather before and no. 3 rather after 540, inverting my order, I do not think that at present that matters much. What is more disconcerting is that the heads—and therefore the large amphorae and lids—should continue into the 520's, but further discoveries may provide pots of those shapes with late decoration.

19 Cf. the women's heads with CII.5.

20 E.g. B.M. 88.6–1.520 (B.103.5: Naukratis II, pl. 13, 1; E. Pfuhl, MuZ III, fig. 123). Files of women holding wreaths are frequent in the Chiot Chalice style. For shod and barefoot women cf. a chalice fragment in the British School, Athens (no. 13). For a flautist cf. fragments of a Chiot chalice, Cambridge 94–6. N.81 (CVA II, pl. 496, 40: JHS XLIV 215 fig. 54); and of a Late Wild Goat style dish, Oxford 1925. 608 d. 1 (CVA II, pl. 395, 18).

21 But they are common on the Attic Tyrrhenian amphorae. It is anyhow probable that Attic influence is the reason why the Clazomenian monsters do not wear spirals on their heads.

22 Crescents occur earlier in Fikellura. See below, p. 143–4.

23 See below, p. 145. The lotus-palmette crosses (nos. 1, 6, 10) have their descendants in the Enmann class (D 6, 7).

24 See below, p. 146.

25 Louvre B.561 and 561.1 (BCH VIII 509–14, pl. 7). Cf. also the similar amphorae, probably Aeolian, Rhodes 14225 and 14226 (Clara Rhodes VI/VII, Nisyros, figs. 33–4) and Istanbul (Kinch, K. F., Vroulia, pl. 20, 2).Google Scholar

26 Leningrad 17567 (Izv (GAIMK) V, pls. 19–20).

27 E.g. Larisa III, pl. 35, 15; pp. 83–4, 103–8.

28 Mr M. Gjødesen is studying them with other East Greek plastic work of the sixth century: see above, n. 18.

29 Perhaps this piece belongs rather to the Urla group, but my impression was that it came from a slim and not a broad amphora.

30 There is no good reason for supposing that the riders are female. The protuberant pectoral occurs in one form or another on other works of this group (B.9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18) as well as on A.6, CII.25, and F.2, and in a more surprising form on CI.4 and II.18. On white for male flesh see below, p. 141.

31 There remains what is probably the neck and horn of a goat; cf. the deer of A.3 and D.3, 4.

32 There is a similar archer's cap on Reading 26.ii.74 and 75, a fragment from the shoulder of a broad amphora from Naucratis (CVA, pl. 550, 36).

33 The siren of the fragment of a neck, which may belong to no. 13, could be by the same painter: much of its difference of aspect comes from a clumsy use of incision instead of paint for details of the white area.

34 Cf. also no. 20 and CIII.2. The semicircle may be a rudimentary ear; for parallels in ‘Chalcidian’ see A. Rumpf, Ch.V., pl. 33, and later in Corinthian Broneer, O., Hesp XVI (1947), 216Google Scholar, pls. 50, 1 and 3, 51.

35 See CVA British Museum VIII, App. A. Perhaps even all the slim amphorae from Tell Defenneh were bought in one lot; if so, my division into an early and a later group becomes less likely.

36 On the transmission of the type see Smith, H. R. W., Origin of Chalcidian Ware (Univ. Calif. PCA I), 129Google Scholar and nn. 112–3. But I think the Petrie painter received it through Attic, where it is common in the mid-sixth century (e.g. A. Rumpf, Sakonides, pls. 1, 2, 6, 7).

37 Cf. e.g. the lions and bulls of no. 7 and A.3. The swans perhaps are remodelled on Attic.

38 He also uses a row of similar drops as a dividing band. Dark dots with white centres appear on A.6, which may be no earlier than the Petrie painter, and in alternate rows of scales on B.25 and 25b.

39 Only no. I is reasonably complete, though its handles are restored: the lower attachments usually come further down the body. Lips are sometimes grooved, as of Tyrrhenian amphorae.

40 See BSA XXXIV 46–51 and 58–60. The scale is much smaller than Clazomenian and the quality inferior: the most comparable Fikellura piece is that of pl. 15b.

41 E.g. some amphorae by ‘Elbows Out’ (Beazley, J. D., BSA XXXII 20, nos. 1–3).Google Scholar

42 Edgar, C. C., Greek Vases, pls. 5–6.Google Scholar

43 As Rumpf, A. noted (Gnomon I 330).Google Scholar

43a I am grateful to Prof. K. Schefold and Prof. H. Junker for knowledge of this sherd.

44 Prof. C. M. Robertson kindly sent me a tracing of this fragment.

45 Dr E. Bielefeld kindly told me that there was in 1937 in the market in Paris a fragment of a pyxis in shape similar to A.I and decorated with long-bearded comasts like those of the Upsala piece.

46 I have included this fragment in the Urla group only because of the form of the tongues: the cock is not decisive, since there is no development from the Tübingen and Petrie groups to the Urla group.

47 See below, n. 102.

48 The variations are that the incision on the butt has the shape not of a ∨, but of a ∪ (so on no. 14); and that the radial white dots are omitted on nos. 31a and 32. On no. 33 the butt is not incised and there may be no white dots or purple. There is more elaborate decoration on nos. 38–9, if they belong to this group.

49 As already on A.3a and 9, and B.27a. The form appears also on a large Fikellura head (BSA XXXIV 41-S.12, fig. 6).

50 The Fikellura pot is Louvre A.330 (BSA XXXIV 20-L.3 and 24 n. 2). On two Attic cups in Boston (AJA XXVII 426–7 figs. 1–2) Odysseus is sneaking up behind Circe.

51 See Greifenhagen, A., AA 1935, 449–50 no. 25, fig. 37.Google Scholar

51a It is unlikely that the foot was moulded, or Petrie would have preserved a specimen. If the fragment F.23 comes from an amphora of this type, it adds—as is anyhow to be expected—that there were rays below the dark band. Two other fragments from Tell Defenneh in Philadelphia (E.147.9–12 and E.147.24–27) also show rays below a dark band; but I am not sure that they are Clazomenian or from amphorae.

52 For the use of Tell Defenneh for dating see CVA British Museum VIII, App. A.

53 It is here said that this amphora has a thin white slip, and that similar pieces were frequent in South Russia.

54 For knowledge of this pot I thank Sir John Beazley, for a photo and other details Signora F. Bonajuto and the authorities at Turin.

54a K. Schefold interprets the subject, wrongly I think, as Herakles gripping Kerberos or some other savage animal (op. cit., 172).

55 There is now one example of the Knipovitch class from Old Smyrna (E III. 8).

55a I thank Mr J. M. Cook for knowledge of this piece.

56 Nos. 2–6 and 8 have mane brushed forward, no. 7 brushed back, no. 1 parted. On no. 1 the horse is also more richly caparisoned.

57 In this paper, publishing several askoi, O. Waldhauer expressly says that none is slipped (p. 236). The statement of Pfuhl, E. (MuZ I 176)Google Scholar that this askos is slipped I suppose mistaken. Of Waldhauer's askoi Olbia 455 and 457 are similar in shape and belong, I think, here: Olbia 452 is listed below (EV.2), and Kief above (D.2): the rest I omit.

58 E.g. BMC Coins, Ionia, pls. 1, 10, 22; 31, 8, 9, 11: Troas, pl. 15, 3–11: Mysia, pls. 18–20: Caria, pls. 18, 1–2, 4–7; 35, 6: Lycia, pl 7, 11. These coins extend over a long time, but some are of the sixth century: the type seems most popular at Lampsacus. (A similar type occurs on some small coins of Corinth, but there it is an abbreviated Pegasus.) A whole winged horse appears in the upper panels of a Clazomenian sarcophagus of the end of the sixth century (Berlin Inv. 3347; AD II, pl. 27, 2), and another forepart on a late archaic marble relief from Thasos, (MonPiot XXXV 25–48, pl. 3).Google Scholar

59 CVA British Museum VIII, text to pl. 584, 3.

60 See CVA British Museum, VIII, App. A.

61 A similar stage is shown by sherds in Alexandria (F.4) and Istanbul (D.e). The jaw folds are common on Clazomenian sarcophagi.

62 T. N. Knipovitch, publishing some of the pieces listed above, suggested that they were made in Samos, (Izv GAIMK V 94 and 100–1Google Scholar: I owe my understanding of these passages to the kind help of Prof. T. Sulimirski). I think Knipovitch wrong in choosing Samos, but right in segregating his pieces from the main group of Clazomenian. Those who fancy an outside chance might plump for Lampsacus, where the forepart of a winged horse was common on coins. Little else is known of archaic Lampsacus.

63 I know this sherd only from a photo kindly given me by Dr. F. Brommer.

64 E. R. Price stressed the importance of the Cambridge sherds, but because they are slipped regarded them as a link between the Clazomenian pots and sarcophagi (East Greek Pottery, 22). Dates and styles do not permit the connection. Of the other slipped pieces mentioned by Price I have identified the archer (F.b); perhaps the cock is B.M. 86.4–1.1197 (CVA VIII, pl. 589, 9); the rider I suspect is the sherd in Oxford (F.1c): but there does not seem to be a close group. Neither her ‘probable’ krater nor her ‘possible’ plate belongs here.

65 Mr. G. Woodhead kindly advised me on this inscription. For confusion of ε and η cf. Délos XI, figs. 146 and 149.

66 Berlin Inv. 4531Af could be from this pot. Fragment of lip of krater: from Clazomenae: top, ivy leaves; edge, chequers.

67 This is R. Zahn's suggestion.

68 Related patterns appear on some Clazomenian sarcophagi and on the perhaps Egyptian Greek amphora, Bonn 1524 (AA 1936, 396–8 no. 45, fig. 51: E. Pfuhl, MuZ III, fig. 167).

69 Perhaps a travesty of the Calydonian hunt. The file of men and the boar seem to come from the same (very wide) panel, so that there is only one band of lotus.

70 The dark area below Achilles' shield is a shield-apron, the earliest example I know.

71 Zahn interpreted the lower scene as Troilus pursued in sight of Priam. But the band below the tassels across the horse's chest should be harness for a chariot. E. R. Price describes it as Priam and Hecuba receiving the herald, but without specifying the occasion.

72 The b.f. animals in subsidiary bands on Clazomenian sarcophagi of the end of the sixth century were as lavishly embellished with detail, though it has usually perished, Fig. 6 offers a rough sketch of a lion from the top band of the headpiece of the sarcophagus Dresden 1643. Cf. also an amphora in Rhodes (e, below) and an Ionian b.f. cup in Samos (K.1383; E. H. Wedeking, Archaische Vasenorn., figs. 4–5).

72a There is a rather similar sherd from Naucratis in Munich.

73 JdI XLVIII 67.

74 The satyr turns his chest to the spectator, not his back (as Dümmler, F., RM III 161Google Scholar, and Zahn, R., AM XXIII 74Google Scholar). The twist has been doubted, but I think that the set-back of the markings on the belly implies twisting.

75 But other apparently Rhodian b.f. products are not in this style (see p. 123 n. 1). For the lion cf. Fig. 6.

76 Kunze, E., AM LIX 81–122.Google Scholar

77 It is not clear why contemporary Attic painters preferred a dark undercoat for their white paint. To judge by our Clazomenian pots, the white was no more durable for the undercoat and often (when thin) took from it a greyish tone. Perhaps the explanation is that Attic painters regarded white as an embellishment rather than an original part of the design.

78 White males on B.30, CII.26, F.3, 7, 15, 19, and probably on A.20, B.14, 17, CII.25, 27, F.15, 20. Most are beardless youths. The Clazomenian use of white—direct on the clay and with painted details and outline—comes from East Greek tradition, especially Chiot, where, too, male flesh is often light. I do not think there is any direct influence of the exuberant Corinthian red-ground painting.

79 D.4, EIII.c.

80 Cf. p. 139 n. 64. I cannot tell from my notes if Berlin Inv. 30409 is Clazomenian, but think it is not. Fragment of krater from Sardis: on the rim vertical zigzags, on the handle plate a siren, on the shoulder animals—between the handles a goose; inside over dark paint white, purple, and white bands. The surface has a thin whitish slip.

81 Generally, I hope, there is a coherence of style in each group, but where style failed I have used shape as a secondary characteristic in my grouping. So the results are probably too simple.

82 The necking ring seems a useful criterion for fragments—in the Tübingen group broad and flat, in the Petrie group large and round, in the Urla group usually small and round for hydriae and broader and flatter for amphorae. The Enmann class has generally a small necking ring, the Knipovitch class none.

83 For fragments of others see p. 125 n. 15a and p. 132 n. 45.

84 Groups A and B. On the type see p. 127.

85 Groups B and C. An isolated woman apparently on F.15. For the type see p. 130. Cloaked men are a variant on CII.15.

86 Groups B and C.

87 Groups B and C, A.26, F.16 and 17. On F.18 satyr with a great boar. Clazomenian satyrs are hooved; but the nature of the feet and legs of satyrs seems to be unimportant (see Smith, H. R. W., Origin of Chalcidian Ware (Univ. Calif. PCA I), 134–5Google Scholar; and Brommer, F., Satyroi, 31–3Google Scholar).

88 A.20, B.14, CII.24–26, F.1–6 and 15. Some of these scenes may represent or be inspired by Troilus (see CVA British Museum VIII, text to pl. 585, 1–2). For the horses and their trappings see Beazley, J.D., Lewes House Coll., 22–4.Google Scholar

89 CI.14 (presumably a goddess—Athena?—mounting), CII.27–28. There is on A.3 a chariot in a larger scene.

90 B.17, F.20—both include archers: cf. also F.b. Soldiers and women in a probably meaningless scene on A.3.

91 B.15 and 18, perhaps sacrifices.

92 The subject is taken from Attic but characteristically provided with another enormous cock.

93 Chiot sphinxes keep the spiral, which reappears (though not regularly) on sphinxes on Clazomenian sarcophagi. Fikellura does without the spiral.

94 The long stiff wing is characteristic of Clazomenian: cf. the cocks on a Clazomenian sarcophagus by the Dennis painter (B.M. 86.3–26.5–6: CVA VIII, pl. 613, 2). The division of the wing, but more neatly done, appears in Attic b.f. on lip cups of Tleson. The cock of F.8 has not the special Clazomenian tail; perhaps the fragment is not Clazomenian.

94a The feeding ‘cranes’ recur on an early Clazomenian sarcophagus, once in the Evangelical School, Smyrna, (AD I, pl. 46, 1)Google Scholar: it is probably by the Borelli painter, who has some affinity to Clazomenian vase-painters.

95 Cf. the youth in the animal zone of Fd. Such strays turn up sporadically in Attic from the beginning till the middle of the sixth century.

96 Nearer to the comasts of some Fikellura pots than to those of groups B and C.

97 There is little development from the larger b.f. deer of the end of the Wild Goat style.

98 The cocks D8, though affected, are of the same kind as those of groups A–C.

99 White crosses on Oxford G.129.4 (no. 2 in the list of n. 102): crosses for drops occur in Fikellura too.

100 On B.25 and 25b alternate rows of scales have white drops with dark centres and dark drops with white centres.

101 BSA XXXIV 78–9 (the Göttingen amphora is Attic: B.M. 88.2–8.57 is republished in CVA VIII, pl. 606, 3).

102 As E. Kunze has remarked (AM LIX 82 n. 1). Cf. also for general similarity the scales on some Attic squat lekythoi and alabastra of the fourth century (Bulas, C., BCH LVI 392–8Google Scholar). Still I imagine that most of the following sherds belong to one or other of the groups listed above. The scales contain white drops unless it is otherwise stated.

1. Berlin University D.764. From Luxor. White drops with dark centres.

1a. Heidelberg. From Tell Defenneh: White drops with dark centres. CVA, I, pl. 3, 1 (provisionally).

2. Oxford G.129.4. From Memphis. White crosses with dark centres. CVA II, pl. 401, 14.

3. Oxford 1910.531. 1–4. From Memphis. Small white drops. Petrie, W.M.F., Meydum and Memphis III 41.Google Scholar

4. Heidelberg I.28 and 29. From Naucratis. CVA I, pl. 2, 27 and 29 (provisionally).

5. Brussels A.1797. From Naucratis. This amphora had a small necking ring.

6. Boston 86.555 (N.254). From Naucratis. A. Fairbanks, Cat Vases, pl. 37, 338.

7. Cambridge, Museum of Classical Archaeology, NA. 137. From Naucratis.

8. B.M. 86.4–1.1267b. From Naucratis, . CVA VIII, pl. 590, 27.Google Scholar

9. B.M. 1924.12–1.1156 (A.1329). Probably from Naucratis. This amphora had a small necking ring. CVA VIII, pl. 590, 23.

10. B.M. 88.2–8.80b. From Tell Defenneh. Perhaps from the hydria CI.2. CVA VIII, pl. 590, 24–6.

11. B.M. 88.2–8.79b–C. From Tell Defenneh. Probably from a hydria or amphora of Urla shape. CVA VIII, pl. 590, 30–1.

11a. Philadelphia E.147.38. From Tell Defenneh. Perhaps from the same pot as no. 11.

12. Istanbul. From Lindos. Blinkenberg, C., Lindos I, pl. 48, no. 1058.Google Scholar

13. Athens. From Clazomenae.

14. Istria. From Istria. I noted two or three fragments in 1935.

15. Athens, Agora Museum P.8801. From the Agora, Athens (found in a context of the early fifth century).

16. Athens, Agora Museum P.3578. From the Agora, Athens. Vestigial tongues above the scales, but no necking ring. (I thank Mr. B. Shefton and Miss Lucy Talcott for knowledge of these two items.)

Some other pieces with abnormal scales are not Clazomenian, but perhaps dependent.

a. B.M. 86.4–1.1295 and Cairo 26.149: Fragments of amphora. From Naucratis. Body, outlined tongues on cream ground: scales with doubled outline and containing white drops (on orange-brown clay ground). CVA VIII, pl. 590, 29; and Edgar, C. C., Greek Vases, pl. 3.Google Scholar

b. B.M. 86.4–1.1267a (A.1331). From Naucratis. Large coarse scales without drops. CVA VIII, pl. 590, 28. (Cf.—still more degenerate—Leningrad, Olbia 456: askos: AA 1911, 222, fig. 29 and 1929, 238 no. 2, figs. 6–7; Mat. Russ. Arch. XXXIV, pl. 3.2.)

c. B.M. 88.2–8.57. Amphora. From Tell Defenneh. Neck, band of opposed triangles. Shoulder, cable. Belly, coarse scales without drops. CVA VIII, pl. 606, 3. Perhaps made in Egypt.

103 See BSA XXXIV 73. The two Attic examples mentioned there have been supposed to be Clazomenian (Zahn, R., AM XXIII 54Google Scholar; he was followed for the sherd in Eleusis—from Megara—by Prinz, and by Pfuhl and Price): a third Attic example is on an aryballos by Nearchos, New York 26.49 (AJA XXXVI (1932), 272–5, pls. 10–1). For Chiot crescents see n. 105. Crescents in a whirligig appear on a large plate of Late Wild Goat style from Clazomenae (Kassel T. 469, on which see below, n. 156). There are also crescents of a sort in the outer zone of an Aeolian t.c. shield from Larisa (Göttingen Lar.209: Larisa III, pl. 36, 15).

104 B.25 looks like a fairly direct copy of Fikellura.

105 There are purple and white crescents on the dark inside of a Chiot phiale, Boston 88.961 (A. Fairbanks, Cat. Vases, pl. 32, 302, 3: JHS XLIV (1924), 208, fig. 38). If we had more phialae, which are on the inside more closely decorated than the chalices, this ornament might prove less rare. Crescents alternately in dense and dilute dark paint occur on a sherd from a Chiot b.f. dinos from Naucratis, Cambridge, Museum of Classical Archaeology, NA.107, probably from the same pot as Manchester Museum III. D.12 (Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc. LXXVII, pl. 1, 3-middle right): here Fig. 7.

106 The flowers and buds are not, I think, joined as Watzinger's drawing has them.

107 Lotus flowers as filling ornaments in the main field occur on two pots which I have excluded from Clazomenian—F.a, with palmette filling; and F.d, with the central linked to the outer petals (as on some Clazomenian sarcophagi of around 500 B.C.).

108 Perhaps also F.9.

109 A useful collection of these ornaments is given by Thiersch, H., Tyrrh. Amphoren, 69–86.Google Scholar Note incidentally on A.10 the difference between the lotus flowers of the cross and of the chain round the foot; they come from different sources. On A.6 the flower is akin to those of F.a (see n. 107).

110 An exception on Louvre E.855 (CVA I, pl. 35, 9). Similarly on the Attic neck-amphorae of about 560–50 B.C. from Tell Defenneh the central petal, though rather less emphatic, is omitted only once (CVA British Museum VIII, pl. 607, 2—upper member).

111 Some Nikosthenic amphorae approach this form.

112 Cf. the indeterminate branch on F.g.

113 There are plain ivy branches on the lip of Berlin Inv. 4531 Af (n. 66) and the neck of the Cyme krater (F.d).

114 This variety of the palmette—like a tongue with chevrons incised across it—is not uncommon in the Late Wild Goat style (e.g. Boston 88.1030: Fairbanks, A., Cat. Vases, pl. 33, 317Google Scholar). It appears also in Laconian and Etruscan, probably independently. A palmette similarly constructed but in outline style occurs exceptionally on an oinochoe of Late Wild Goat style of unknown provenance, B.M. 67.5–8.925.

115 As in the scales of the Petrie group (cf. p. 130).

115a Further discoveries should make it possible to disentangle the Tübingen group, which is probably the main body of Clazomenian. The relatively compact Petrie and Urla groups are clearer mainly because they happened to be well represented at Tell Defenneh.

116 This decorative use of white dots, often within a pair of incised lines, was first systematically exploited at Corinth around 600 B.C. (Payne, H.G.G., Necrocorinthia, 285 n. 4Google Scholar: for the date of the early examples in Corinthian see Amyx, D. A., Univ. Calif. PCA I 220Google Scholar). Though there are a few examples in Corinthianising work of the Late Wild Goat style, the Clazomenian painters probably learnt from Athens, where rows of white dots are common around the middle of the sixth century and continue later.

117 See pp. 136 and 138.

118 See CVA British Museum VIII, text to pl. 614, 1 (cf. text to pl. 613, 2).

119 Op. cit., text to pl. 610.

120 I exclude the Caeretan hydriae, supposing that they were made in Etruria. After reading the proofs of this paper Mr. J. M. Cook kindly informed me that other more serious schools of East Greek b.f. contemporary with Clazomenian have been revealed in the Anglo-Turkish excavation at Old Smyrna: unfortunately I know very little of the finds from that excavation and so cannot take account of them at this stage, but I imagine that it is true to say that by the test of exports Clazomenian was the most important school of East Greek b.f. of its time.

121 BSA XXXIV 6—B.7; 41—S.12. I now think p.40—S.8 male.

122 E.g. JHS XLIV (1924), pl. 6.

123 AD II, pl. 21, the finest illustration of Clazomenian b.f. pottery, may have contributed. For a coloured plate the editor naturally chose three of the most colourful Clazomenian pieces.

124 AM XXIII 38–79. But I do not accept one of Zahn's arguments, that there is a significant similarity in the types of Clazomenian painting and coins (pp. 58, 69: see CVA British Museum VIII, text to pl. 584, 3).

125 See CVA British Museum VIII, App. A.

126 M. Santangelo implies that Clazomenian was not unusual at Caere, (MonPiot XLIV 38 n. 1).Google Scholar I doubt it, as I do some other reports of Clazomenian: the term is often used very loosely. A more recent claim has been made for Hyblaea, Megara (AJA LV 187).Google Scholar

127 From the recent Anglo-Turkish excavations. Some pieces of Clazomenian b.f. have been published in current reports, but it is too early yet to form a general idea of the finds as a whole.

128 BSA XXXV 162.

128a See Prinz, H., Funde aus Naukratis, 148Google Scholar: on this sherd was a painted inscription -\ΟΛΟ(?) The sherd is not accessible and I do not know if it is Clazomenian.

129 There is probably more Clazomenian from Istria (see Lambrino, M., Vases Archaiques d'Histria, 361).Google Scholar

130 Pieces similar to D.4 were said to be frequent in South Russia (AA 1912, 337).

131 I. Castle Ashby (the ‘Northampton vase’): Beazley, J.D., BSR XI 1–2Google Scholar; pls. 1, 1 and 3, 2, 4: Burlington Cat. 1903, pls. 89–92 (G.12): E. Gerhard, AV, pls. 317–8. 2. Munich 585: Sieveking, J. and Hackl, R., Vasensg. pl. 21 and figs. 69–70Google Scholar (reproduced by E. Buschor, Gr. Vasenmal. 2, figs. 78–9, Gr. Vasen, figs. 109–10; E. Pfuhl, MuZ III, fig. 148; P. Ducati, Storia Cer. Gr. I, fig. 154; Merlin, A., Vases Grecs I, pl. 23aGoogle Scholar). 3. Munich 586: Sieveking-Hackl, pl. 21 and figs. 71–3 (reproduced by Buschor, Gr. Vasenmal. 2, fig. 77, Gr. Vasen, fig. 108; Pfuhl, fig. 149). 4. Würzburg K.131 (formerly Dr. Lieben, Vienna): E. Langlotz, Gr. Vasen in Würzburg, pls. 16–17). Nos. 2 and 3 were probably found at Vulci, no. 1 was bought in Rome.

The group was first isolated by Studniczka, F., JdI V (1890), 142–3.Google Scholar

132 Phw 1902, 1261–3; JdI XXIII (1908), 176. He was followed by Buschor, E., Gr. Vasenmal. 2 (1914), 110–1Google Scholar and still Gr. Vasen (1940), 94; Pfuhl, E., MuZ I (1923), 178–9Google Scholar; Price, E.R., East Greek Pottery (1927), 28–30Google Scholar; Beazley, J.D., BSR XI (1929), 1–2.Google Scholar Sieveking and Hackl (op. cit.) did not classify these pots as Clazomenian.

133 Langlotz, E., Gr. Vasen in Würzburg (1932), 18.Google ScholarKunze, E., AM LIX (1934), 121.Google Scholar

134 Wedeking, E.H., Archaische Vasenornamentik (1938), 35–6Google Scholar: he rightly denies Kunze's connection between the Northampton group and the Ionian Little Masters, and gives a useful analysis of the group.

135 Greifenhagen, A., Eine att. s.f. Vasengattung (1929), 56–7Google Scholar and 91—by elimination only Italy remains. Smith, H. R. W., Origin of Chalcidian Ware (Univ. Calif. PCA I: 1932), 133 n. 119.Google Scholar

136 The Clazomenian was the only contemporary East Greek b.f. school of more than local importance; the other b.f. workshops, which were probably numerous, had little artistic merit or independence.

137 The Ionian Little Masters are alone comparable in quality; but this rather earlier Samian venture seems to have been short-lived. Clazomenian b.f. is generally inferior, as is Fikellura. The Caeretan hydriae, even if their gay colouring reflects Ionian taste—and this is a mere opinion, I take to be made in Etruria; and anyhow their style is coarser.

138 Thus the lozenges on the lip of the Northampton amphora have parallels in Fikellura (M. Lambrino, Vases Archaiques d'Histria, fig. 317) and in Pontic (Ducati, P., Pontische Vasen, pl. 8bGoogle Scholar): and the loop pattern on the same amphora can be found in a thinner form on some late pieces of the Wild Goat style, but more frequent and akin on Pontic and other Etruscan b.f. pots (e.g. Ducati, op. cit., pl. 17b; J. Endt, Beiträge zur ion. Vasenmalerei, fig. 23; Sieveking-Hackl, op. cit., pl. 40 no. 903, pl. 44 no. 994). Wedeking sees Rhodian connections in the single leaves on the lip of Munich 586 and the Würzburg amphora; Laconian is, I think, as likely a source.

139 The Northampton vase has on its neck a Triton, a monster known in both East Greek (e.g. D.a) and Etruscan art: but the Northampton Triton has the belly stripe continued up to the nipple, an anatomical misunderstanding paralleled in Pontic (e.g. Endt, op. cit., fig. 43) where it is probably acquired from the hippocamp. The use of palmettery on the neck of Munich 586 suggests Etruscan taste (cf. Endt, op. cit., figs. 16–7). The cheekpieces of the helmets on the Würzburg amphora are (according to Kukahn, E., Gr. Helm, 42–3Google Scholar) of a type related to the ‘Chalcidian’ (which I follow Smith in placing in Etruria) and found on Pontic vases. The incised details of faces in the Northampton group have a pettiness that again occurs in ‘Chalcidian’ and Pontic, but is unusual in East Greek work of any quality. The clumsy cable of Munich 586 seems to me incredible in the native East Greek schools. I might add that a general ‘Chalcidian’ influence has in the past been postulated for the Northampton painter.

140 So, even though the Etruscan home of Pontic is now generally admitted, Ionic factors are often recognised in it. I am sceptical about much of the alleged Ionic contribution to Etruscan art. Some of the resemblances are due to accidental similarity of taste, some to deviations from common Attic models, and others perhaps to mistaken identification of Ionian. It is anyhow curious how little certainly East Greek pottery—Clazomenian and Fikellura—has been found in Italy.

141 JHS XIX 144–5.

142 MonPiot XLIII 33–57.

143 Painter I, Louvre E.737; Florence 3784; Rome, Villa Giulia (from Caere); Rome, Conservatori 106. Close to these—the neck (?) D.c; and the askos D.2 above.

Painter II. Boston 13.205; Louvre, Campana 10.234; Rome, Villa Giulia 25.134; Louvre E.736; Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus. 3578 (once Oest. Mus. 4604); Louvre, Campana 10.233. By the same hand the amphora F.a above.

Painter III. Louvre E.739. By the same hand the hydria n. 148 below.

Another dinos from Caere in the Villa Giulia, Rome is described by Ricci, G. (Antichità II 1, 20 n. 21)Google Scholar: from his description it may be by Painter I. I take the opportunity here of thanking Dr. Ricci for his kindness in showing me his finds.

144 F. Brommer connected F.a (Satyroi, 32).

145 The resemblances noted by Villard are indeed mostly to pieces which I think are themselves patently imitative. But there is significance in his comparison with Dohrn's Etruscan La Tolfa group (op. cit. 56 n. 4).

146 See n. 1 above: cf. also CVA British Museum VIII, pl. 606.1–2 and text.

147 Note also the replacement of the normal tongues on the shoulder by a loop pattern. Cf. the vestigial palmettes of the dinos from Caere in the Villa Giulia listed by Villard under Painter I.

148 Ricci, G., ASA XXIV/XXVI, 47–57Google Scholar (well illustrated). The hydria is from Caere and in the Villa Giulia, Rome.

149 They also did not usually keep small objects.

150 A few cases had been shipped to Athens, where by the courtesy of Prof. Oikonomos I was privileged to view their contents. A.9 and n. 102(13) are from this collection.

151 The pottery is scattered, but the more considerable collections are in Smyrna (from recent sherding), the Louvre (given by P. Gaudin, but not at present generally accessible), and Bonn (especially under the serial 1120). For sculpture see Deonna, W., Dédale II 52 nn. 3–5Google Scholar: add a wooden statuette of a bearded man in Munich (AA 1938, 425, figs. 3–4). The Clazomenian sarcophagi, which are generally later than the pottery discussed in this paper, I hope to discuss separately.

152 Inv. 30070: photos nos. 5766–7. H. 26 cm. Plate 33, 1–2.

153 D. originally 21·5 cm. Fig. 8. For the profile I am indebted to Dr. F. Brommer.

154 Inv.2332. AA 1936, 378 no. 26, fig. 28.

155 Inv.1522. AA 1936, 378 no. 27, fig. 30.

156 T.469. D. 39 cm. Plate 33, 3. This piece has often been cited as Clazomenian b.f.

157 Further, among the objects from Clazomenae that Oikonomos brought away to Athens there is what appeared to me to be the foot of an oinochoe of Wild Goat Style which had buckled and split apart during firing.