Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:24:07.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Fikellura Vase Painters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Gerald P. Schaus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two most important Fikellura vase painters are here studied and their works catalogued. The earlier of the two, the Altenburg Painter, was recognized first by R. M. Cook (BSA 34 (1933–4) 1–98), but the number of vases attributed to this painter has greatly increased and now includes some of the earliest Fikellura vases with figure decoration. His career covers most of the third quarter of the sixth century. The second painter, named the Painter of the Running Satyrs, is studied for the first time here. His production spans most of the fourth quarter of the century. Although not very numerous, his vases have novel themes and show a vigorous figure style. The study of these two painters' careers helps in dating some of Cook's various groups of Fikellura vases and clarifies their relationship with the work of these painters. The source of most Fikellura is now seen to be Miletus, but the question of the origin or antecedents of Fikellura pottery is still not entirely settled. Some explanation is, however, offered for the sudden appearance of this ware about the mid sixth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 81 , November 1986 , pp. 251 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1986

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

Acknowledgements. I am indebted to R. M. Cook and C. Greenewalt, Jun. who read a draft of this article and had many helpful comments to make. Both also were kind in sharing photographs of Fikellura pieces with me. Kind thanks are also due to my wife, Pamela, who produced the figure drawings for me. Support for this study was provided by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a course remission grant from Wilfrid Laurier University.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in addition to the standard ones:

CGE Les Céramiques de la Grèce de l'Est et leur diffusion en Occident (Colloque, Centre Jean Bérard, Naples 1976) (Paris-Naples 1978)

Cook, GPP Cook, R. M., Greek Painted Pottery 2nd edn. (London 1972)Google Scholar

FP Id. ‘Fikellura Pottery’, BSA 34 (1933 4) 1–98.

Gjerstad et al., GGAP Gjerstad, E., Calvet, Y., Yon, M., Karageorgis, V., and Thalmann, J. P., Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery Found in Cyprus (Stockholm 1977).Google Scholar

KS Kratkie Soobshcheniya

MIA Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR

Histria IV Alexandrescu, P., Histria IV, La Céramique grecque d'époque archaïque et classique (Bucharest 1978)Google Scholar.

Samos VI, i Walter-Karydi, E., Samische Gefässe des 6.Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Samos VI, i (Bonn 1973)Google Scholar.

SGE Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha

References to vases in Cook's catalogue (FP 3–53) are given simply by their group letter and number, e.g. Y 12. His various groups are sometimes referred to only by their letter, e.g. Group Y.

1 R. M. Cook, FP 1–98.

2 Id., CVA BM (8) 1–13 pls. 568–81. Several other studies have appeared more recently which have had a bearing on Fikellura; these include, Samos VI, i (an attempt to divide East Greek pottery styles among various cities. Fikellura is given mostly to Samos and Miletus, with small amounts to Rhodes and Ephesus); Jackson, D. A., East Greek Influence on Attic Vases (London 1976)Google Scholar (studies the influence of East Greek vases, largely Fikellura, on Attic shapes and decoration); Dupont, P., ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales archaïques d'Istros. Rapport préliminaire’, Dacia NS 27 (1983) 19–43Google Scholar (discusses laboratory results of clay analysis on pottery from Histria and elsewhere, and indicates the source of Fikellura clay to be the area of Miletus). Fikellura pottery from Histria has been published or republished in Histria IV nos. 155–99 (see also Histria II (Bucharest, 1966) nos. 388–416, xvii. 9, xix. 1). Individual pieces of Fikellura are discussed in Dimitriu, Dacia NS 6 (1962) 457–67; Laubscher, , AA (1966) 488–91Google Scholar; Kunisch, , AA (1972) 553–67Google Scholar; Simon, E. and Hirmer, M., Die griechischen Vasen (Munich 1976) 56–57Google Scholar; M. Martelli Cristofani in CGE 191–2; F. Boitani Visentini in CGE 217–19; Kälin, K., Hefte des archäologischen Seminars der Universität Bern 5 (1979) 5–9Google Scholar; Schaus, G., Classical Views NS 2 (1983) 226–9Google Scholar. Occasional pieces published from recent excavations and of importance to this study are noted in the catalogue.

3 See Robertson, M. in Beazley Addenda (Oxford 1982) p. xivGoogle Scholar, first sense of ‘Group’.

4 Cook, FP 1–98; BSA 47 (1952) 123–52. He was careful to Doint out the relationship of vases within each group. Some of lis groups had less cohesiveness than others.

5 It is unfortunate that a Corinthian vase painter is also called Altenburg Painter.

6 The use of incision is sparing and occurs only sporadically on Fikellura. On the Altenburg vase (no. 21) the incision is apparently modern (JHS 59 (1939) 149), but other vases show ancient incision clearly, as Cook's Q23, CVA BM (8) pp. 2, 5; Samos VI, i no. 145 fig. 35 pl. 16, and two vases by the Painter of the Running Satyrs, nos. 63 and 64. Another vase, Cook's C1, clearly shows use of a pointed tool to sketch the animals in the vase surface prior to painting. An amphora in Histria (Cook's K11, CVA BM (8) 2; Histria IV no. 166 pl. 18) has incision on the komasts marching on the shoulder, but this vase is an odd one, a local Histrian imitation of Fikellura (clay analysis by Dupont, , Dacia NS 27 (1983) 36Google Scholar). Another vase thought to be related to Fikellura which was found at Taranto also makes use of incision for details of the bird on each side, F. Lo Porto in CGE 136 pl. 69 fig. 23 left.

7 For further details on clay, slip, and paint, see Cook, FP 53–4; CVA BM (8) 5. An orange or orange-brown paint is used for ornament together with the normal dark-brown glaze and purple paint on a neck fragment in Cambridge, Museum of Classical Archaeology, NA.121, and it occurs also on neck and belly sherds in Philadelphia, University Museum E147.8, E147.30.

8 Abbreviations used in the catalogue:

d.—diameter

Ht.—height

I—curving left

L.—length

MHt.—maximum height

MPD.—maximum preserved dimension

MW.—maximum width

Pres. ht. preserved height

r—curving right

W—width

Bibliographic references in the catalogue entries are limited to the most recent and most important publications of individual vases, and to the most convenient sources of illustrations (often Samos VI, i).

9 His J 1, here 21.

10 Cook, , FP 17 n. 1, 18Google Scholar; CVA BM (8) 1 (J10a); H9 was noted as being by the Altenburg Painter in a personal letter to G. R. Edwards, at the University Museum, Philadelphia, 1955.

11 Cook, FP 15.

12 Gorbukova, , SGE 27 (1964) 36–8Google Scholar.

13 Kopeikina, L. V., Sovetskaya Arkheologiya no. 1 (1981) 203.Google Scholar

14 Cook, , CVA BM (8) 6 pl. 568.2.Google Scholar

15 Id., FP 94.

16 Ibid. 7.

17 Ibid. 7.

18 Cook, FP 18 and n. 3, no. K3. Perhaps there is even a bird to be made out faintly on one block of this structure, as on the Cambridge fragment of Chian ware cited by Cook.

19 Samos VI, i 22.

20 Cook, , FP 19 no. K7 (see p. 261 below).Google Scholar

21 The double row of billets is found on an oinochoe also of Group B or else imitating it, but certainly not by the Painter, Altenburg, Samos VI, i no. 602 pl. 82Google Scholar; and on the neck of an early amphoriskos, Cook, FP no. Y13 pl. 15b.

22 See p. 262 below.

23 Hislria IV no. 155 pl. 14; Samos VI, i no. 623 pl. 85.

24 Similar birds with reserved bodies are found in procession on the shoulder of BM 88.2–8.48, 1924.12–1.1048, CVA BM (8) pl. 577.2.

25 An example is the vase by Lydos illustrated in Jackson, op. cit. (see n. 2 above) fig. 11 Florence 70995.

26 It is possible these straps represent drinking garlands (hypothymis), as mentioned in Athenaios 15.674c, d, 678d. Other Fikellura figures with these straps are on 52; 63 (where they are apparent on one maenad, Dacia NS 6 (1962) 463; on the pygmies of the Rubensohn, vase (Samos VI, i no. 613 pl. 84)Google Scholar); and 32. These last two examples are the only occasions where the figures are not participants in drinking bouts and therefore the straps may not represent drinking garlands. The maenad on 63 should be an imbiber like the komasts. Single straps across the chest are usual on Chian black-figure chalices with komasts, and wreaths around the neck or on the arm are found on Attic, as CVA Metropolitan Museum New York (4) pl. 14.3.

27 Boardman, J., Athenian Black Figure Vases (London 1974) 209Google Scholar, bibliography p. 239. Also Franzius, G., Tänzer und Tänze in der archaische Vasenmalerei (Göttingen 1973) 71–9Google Scholar for East Greek examples.

28 Cook, , BSA 47 (1952) no. C.II.16–18, 21, C.IV.2, D.2, D.c, F.23.Google Scholar

29 Boardman, , Excavations in Chios 1952–1955, Greek Emporio (Oxford 1967) 158Google Scholar, c. 580–550 BC or later.

30 Compare the far right edge of one of the fragments with banqueters, from Cyprus, no. 17, Samos VI, i no. 109 pl. 13. Here what looks like an arm and hand hold up an object, not likely to be a cup. Note also the banquet scene in the tombpainting from Karaburun with a hooded woman holding fillets, AJA 77 (1973) pl. 44. Women with a head-dress are seen on the wall-paintings at Gordion, , From Athens to Gordion, DeVries, K. (ed.) (Philadelphia 1980), 98 fig. 5Google Scholar, and at Karaburun (above) in a banqueting context. For East Greek and Cypriote examples of ‘veils’ combined with ear-rings, see Hemelrijk, , BABesch 38 (1963) 38Google Scholar 40. The poorly preserved fragment 69, may have had a garment over the head also.

31 Payne suggested Artemis holding a lion and a female votary as a possibility for this vase, but the curling line in the right corner will not do for a lion's tail. Cook, , FP 6, 68.Google Scholar

32 Samos VI, i no. 424a pl. 47.

33 As Pruglo identified it, KS 156 (1978) 46.

34 An East Greek plate, which Cook calls transitional to Fikellura, possibly shows Perseus running with a basket, Cook, FP 60 n. 2 pl. 19. The basket though looks too small for a Gorgon's head to fit in it and the ‘wings’ on his boots may simply be ‘tongues’ front and back. If so, this may be a hunter, as Schiering proposed, Werkstätten orientalisierender Keramik auf Rhodos (Berlin 1957) 106. The theme also occurs on a tombpainting from Kizibel, , AJA 74 (1970) pl. 61 fig. 29Google Scholar, where Medusa is shown with her two offspring. A Gorgon on a plate from Rhodes is depicted as ‘Mistress of Birds’, A748, Arias, P., Hirmer, M., and Shefton, B., A History of Greek Vase Painting (London 1962) pl. 29Google Scholar.

35 Cook, FP 19. The headpiece is an apt rendition of the Pharaonic crown by a Greek artist, perhaps even by one who had seen Egyptian depictions of it; cf. Laver, J., Costume in Antiquity (London 1964) 29Google Scholar no. 4. Busiris is the only Egyptian monarch to appear regularly in Greek art, in the episode with Heracles. For other vases with the Busiris myth, see Brommer, F., Vasenlisten zur griechischen Heldensage 3rd edn. (Marburg 1973) 34–6.Google Scholar Brommer recently noted in a paper in Amsterdam (Symposium, Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam 1984, Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, abstracts), the appropriateness of the Busiris depiction for this vase found in Egypt. This may be true, but it is the only piece of Fikellura from among many found in Egypt that has an Egyptian theme, while other Fikellura vases with animal headed humans, possibly also an Egyptian theme, were found at Berezan (no. 60) and Rhodes (Cook, FP L3).

36 Cook, FP 62 n. 10.

37 These include, ibid. C5 (BIABulg 23 (1960) 241 no. 4 fig. 1.4), F3 (CVA BM (8) pl. 575.7), and F4; Diehl, , AA (1964) 585–6 no. 63 fig. 42Google Scholar (Samos VI, i no. 110 pl. 13); Wintermeyer, , IstMitt 30 (1980) 160Google Scholar no. 257 pl. 53. Cook, , Clazomenian Sarcophagi (Mainz/Rhein 1981) 125Google Scholar n. 114, lists other representations in East Greek art, especially on terracottas. Åkerström, A., Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens (Lund 1966) 218Google Scholar, notes that processing partridges are South Ionian typically. On architectural terracottas, the processions normally include partridges with their chicks, as Åkerström, figs. 35.1–2, 67.3–4 pl. 59.1. A partridge is also found on the tomb-painting at Karaburun, , AJA 78 (1974) pl. 70 fig. 19Google Scholar, in close association with a cock, hen, and dog. It may be a kind of pet, or at least household animal.

38 For the slit in the dress, note Boardman, , Archaic Greek Gems (London 1968) 28 n. 7.Google Scholar

39 See n. 30 above.

40 See Cook, FP 69–70.

41 Cook, FP 71.

42 Ibid. 71–8.

43 See n. 21 above.

44 See Cook, FP 71–2 fig. 11.3.

45 For volute patterns, see Cook, FP 79–82.

46 Cook's D1 and E1, FP 74. Ivy leaves are common on the lip of Ionian Little Masters cups and also on various Attic vases earlier than Fikellura.

47 Id.FP 54–60.

48 Jackson, op. cit. (see n. 2 above) 13–37, argued that the Fikellura amphora with wide shoulder and three-reed handles was the model for Attic neck amphorae which appeared early in the second half of the sixth century. His arguments are in need of further support since much Fikellura should be down-dated by a decade or so, and also since the amphora was a rare East Greek shape with very few East Greek, particularly South Ionian, antecedents. Furthermore, the ornament below the handles on Fikellura is, I think, found earlier on Attic than Fikellura and therefore if anything probably owed its origin to Attic.

49 Cook, FP 58–9 pl. 15b.

50 Gorbukova, X., SGE 27 (1964) 38.Google Scholar

51 Cook, , BSA 47 (1952) 130.Google Scholar

52 Diehl, E., AA (1964) 585–6 no. 63 fig. 42.Google Scholar

53 Simon and Hirmer, op. cit. (see n. 2 above) 56.

54 IstMitt 23–4 (1973–4) no. 89 pl. 27.

55 See IstMitt 25 (1975) 43 fig. 8 or ibid. 29 (1979) 148 fig. 18. For examples of the shape in Chian, see Boardman, op. cit. (see n. 29 above), 123 nos. 284–345 162 nos. 772–4. Cups from Samos have a ring base and rounded belly, AM 95 (1980) 218, 220 fig. 22 nos. IV/1–4.

56 Kiev Historical Museum, from Olbia. Ht. 0·115. Shtitelman, F. M., Antique Art (Kiev 1977)Google Scholar no. 12 colour pl. This cup has a meander cross around the base, as 4, but ‘eyes’ at pressed in edges of the lip, and grape vine all around the middle. For a fragment with figured decoration perhaps from a cup, see IstMitt 29 (1979) 105 pl. 24.4.

57 A group of six vases by this painter was first discussed by the author in a paper in New Orleans, 1980, see AJA 85 (1981) 216–17 (abstract). Since then eight more vases have been attributed to his hand, and several others are probably by him.

58 Cook, FP 48 nos. Y12 and Y12a.

59 Ibid. 48 n. 2 nos. Y16, Y18, Y19, Y24.

60 Histria IV 55 no. 175.

61 Schiffler, B., Die Typologie des Kentauren in der antiken Kunst (Frankfurt 1976) 94Google Scholar no. O.7.

62 Samos VI, i nos. 443, 447, 476, 484. The dolphins on her no. 476 at least represent the Tyrrhenian pirates being changed by Dionysus since some still have human legs.

63 Another amphora shoulder fragment with pendent buds, a handle volute of Altenburg Group type, and deer in the field with two filling ornaments, is not by the same painter as no. 61, but must be close in date, MIA 50 (1956) 43 fig. 8.

64 Hirschmann collection, Isler, H. P., JdI 98 (1983) 23–8Google Scholar, 31–5 figs. 10, 14–15, with bibliography.

65 For East Greek centaurs, see Schiffler, op. cit. (see n. 61 above) 91–106, catalogue pp. 285–92.

66 Bruneau, P., BCH 86 (1962) 217–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Boardman, op. cit. (see n. 38 above) nos. 293, 578–9, 589, see pp. 105, 154.

68 Ibid. nos. 354, 575.

69 Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology (London 1959) colour pl. opposite p. 36 (sixth century BC papyrus).

70 What are called ‘Waffentänzer’, two youths with swords and scabbards arranged beside a pithos, are seen on the back of a Caeretan hydria, Isler, , JdI 98 (1983) 27–8, 37–8 figs. 11, 16–17.Google Scholar See also StEtr 41 (1973) pl. 116a. Their pose is reminiscent of the Fikellura figure.

71 A vase in Cook's Running Man Group, L16 (CVA BM (8) pl. 574.2), also has figures set off-centre above the volute.

72 Stibbe, C. M., Meded NS 1 (1974) 20–1Google Scholar n. 27, points out a possible Egyptian origin even for these ‘demons’ who seem to be equated with sirens on Laconian vases.

73 Id., Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Amsterdam 1972) 46 n. 1.

74 In fact, the komasts are common types from the tradition of the Altenburg Painter, the dot-and-billet is not uncommon for Fikellura, and not common at all in Laconian exactly this way, nor is the use of incision new to East Greece or somehow to be connected with Laconian. If a Laconian connection is to be found, the volute-palmette complex beside the handle on the exterior of no. 64 is new for Fikellura and comparable to the common handle palmettes on Laconian cups. These palmettes though may have been transmitted indirectly by way of the Ionian Little Masters cups which have somewhat similar handle palmettes.

75 As id., Meded NS 1 (1974) pls. 5.2, 6.2.

76 See n. 74 above. The winged ‘demons’ are paralleled on the tomb-painting at Kizibel, , AJA 77 (1973) pl. 43Google Scholar, CRAI (1979) 481.

77 Stibbe, , Meded NS 1 (1974) 19–31Google Scholar, esp. 24–25, 29.

78 For Walter-Karydi's comments on it, see Samos VI, i 36–7 and references to other East Greek Gorgoneia, id., n. 125; also Cook, CVA BM (8) 34–5 and for Clazomenian sarcophagi, Cook, op. cit. (see n. 37 above) 124–5.

79 See Cook, CVA BM (8) 34–5 (text to pl. 601.6).

80 As Ducat, J., Les Vases plastiques rhodiens archaïques en terrecuite (Paris 1966) pl. 8.2Google Scholar; 1stMitt 9–10 (1959–60) pl. 68.1; Åkerström, op. cit. (see n. 37 above), pls. 30.3, 53.2.

81 Three other oinochoai belonging to Cook's Group S have human figures in the belly panel. They are, from Samos, Boehlau, J., Aus ionische und italische Nekropolen (Leipzig 1898) pl. 3.5aGoogle Scholar; from Didyma, , 1stMitt 13–14 (1963–1964) 47 pl. 12.2 no. 25e, fGoogle Scholar (mistakenly dated mid-seventh century); and from Olbia, 32.

82 Cook, FP 48.

83 A Boeotian imitation of Fikellura has a figure of Dionysus which ibid. 96, notes may be modelled on an actual Fikellura vase.

84 For these tombs, see Mellink, M., Actes du collogue sur la Lycie antique (Paris 1980) 15–20Google Scholar; CRAI (1979) 476–96 (pp. 481, 483 for the warrior-banqueter association); RA (1976) 21–34. It is worth remarking on the number of similarities between the wall-paintings in these tombs near Elmall and figures or scenes on Fikellura pottery. Among the similarities are the banqueter-warrior figures closely associated together, the winged ‘demon’, the hooded woman, the Gorgon, the dog and partridge, and such details as the banqueter's ear-ring and phiale, the segment rosettes, pillows with a fringe at the corners. These comparisons to some extent are expected, but they are important in showing just how close the similarities may be between vase-painting and wall-painting of neighbouring regions.

85 Cf. the heads on 32, by the Altenburg Painter.

86 Cook, CVA BM (8) 17, sets out the evidence for similar figures with busts being male on Clazomenian pottery. He concludes that this Fikellura figure may also be male, ibid. 3 no. S8. There are, however, no comparable figures with ‘busts’ that are certainly male in the Fikellura style.

87 Id., FP 48 n. 1; CVA BM (8) 54.

88 Women with ear-rings are found commonly on vases of the Urla Group in Clazomenian pottery, though isolated examples from the earlier Tübingen and Petrie Groups are also known, id., BSA 47 (1952) 133 n. 49. The ear-rings are made of two parts, a semicircular upper part with three droplets, and a circular lower part with cross-and-dots pattern. Cf. ear-rings on women in wall-paintings from Gordion, From Athens to Gordion (see n. 30 above) 97–8 figs. 3, 5, 6. For Greek ear-rings and ear caps, Hemelrijk, J. M., BABesch 38 (1963) 28–50Google Scholar; Brein, F., AnatSt 32 (1982) 89–92Google Scholar; Hemelrijk, , Caeretan Hydriai (Mainz/Rhein 1984) 172 3, pl. 141a, c, and esp. p. 173 nn. 649–50Google Scholar for men's earrings.

89 For the krobylos, see Hemelrijk, op. cit. (see n. 35 above), 176. On Caeretan hydriai the krobylos is found only on men.

90 Cook, FP pl. 12a.

91 Cook, FP 58–9.

92 It was found with an amphora by the Euphiletos Painter. For advice on the dates of Attic vases found in contexts with Fikellura pottery, I am deeply indebted to Mary Moore.

93 Perhaps the earlier vases of Cook's Group S, his Group E and G, and possibly also his C1 and C2 are examples of the same workshop style. In these vases figures and florals tend to be neat, if sometimes oddly clumsy, and small; bands of ornament are narrow, at times crowded. Processions of water birds on the shoulder are common, and the use of scale pattern occurs occasionally.

94 Chronologically it is not plausible that Attic took the handle volute ornament from Fikellura, as Jackson, op. cit. (see n. 2 above), 23–5, would have it.

95 Cook, FP 91–2; GPP, 134.

96 Lambrino, M., Les Vases archaïques d'Histria (Bucharest 1938) 311, 314–17Google Scholar.

97 Cook, FP 92; GPP 134; Samos VI, i passim.

98 Dupont, , Dacia NS 27 (1983) 19–43Google Scholar (preliminary report; detailed results are forthcoming).

99 Jones, R. E., ‘An Analytical Study of Some Eighth to Fifth Century B.C. “Rhodian” Pottery and Terracottas’, Greek and Cypriot Pottery (Athens 1986)Google Scholar chs. 3 part E and 8.

100 Cook himself, however, altered proposed dates for a few of the British Museum vases when he published them in CVA BM (8). For his Li and L4 (ibid. pl. 571. 1, 2) after the grave group for L1 was reconstituted from Biliotti's notes, he suggested a date in the third quarter of the sixth century rather than 550–540 BC. For some fragments without figured decoration which could belong in the Altenburg Group (ibid., pl. 576.16, 17a, 17b, 19) he suggested the third quarter also rather than his earlier 550–540 for this group. For his D2 (ibid., pl. 576.8) again he suggested the third quarter rather-than 540–530 BC, and for F1 (ibid., pl. 577.1) the third quarter rather than 550–535 BC. For his O3 (ibid., pl. 580.2) he proposed the last third of the century instead of the middle of the second half.

Note Hopper, R. J., BSA 44 (1949) 1713Google Scholar nn. 40–3, for the perils of relying on the Clara Rhodes tomb groups for dating Fikellura and other wares associated with Attic and Corinthian vases. The grave groups have been examined again recently by Gates, Ch. in his dissertation, Burials at Ialysos and Kameiros (Rhodes) in the mid-Archaic Period, ca. 625–525 BC (University of Pennsylvania 1979Google Scholar; University Microfilms International, 7919458).

101 Cook, FP 7; Kunze, E., AthMitt 59 (1934) 83Google Scholar, 85 6 nos. 1–2; Samos VI, i nos. 420, 422 pl. 47.

102 Cook, GPP 130.

103 CIRh VIII grave 10 pp. 112–28 figs. 98–112 pl. 5; Simon and Hirmer, op. cit. (see n. 2 above), 56, c.540 BC; Gates, op. cit. (see n. 100 above) 146–7, second to third quarter of the sixth century; M. Moore (pers. comm.) mid-sixth to third quarter of the sixth century. For the Merrythought cup, see Ramage, N., AJA 87 (1983) 454.Google Scholar

104 Isler, H. P., Samos IV (Bonn 1978) 62 no. 131 pls. 48–9.Google Scholar

105 Greenewalt, C., Jun., Ramage, A., Sullivan, D., Nayir, K., and Tulga, A., BASOR 249 (1983) 6Google Scholar.

106 Preliminary discussion of his material, Ramage, , AJA 89 (1985) 347.Google Scholar

107 CAH 2nd edn. vol. 3.3, 401–2.

108 Cook, CVA BM (8) 59–60.

109 Id., FP 24.

110 Ibid. 29.

111 Ibid. 29, suggested before 530 BC.

112 Ibid., suggested 540–520 BC for the Attic cup.

113 Cook, , BSA 47 (1952) 134–5.Google Scholar Another askos, very similar to D2 in shape, has a dog on one shoulder and hare on the other, reminiscent of the dog hare chases of the Altenburg Painter. See Fabritsius, I., Arkheologicheskaya karta Prichernomor'ya Ukrainskoy SSR (Kiev 1951) pl. 7.4a–b.Google Scholar

114 Cook, CVA AM (8) 6 pl. 571.1.

115 Id., FP 24, suggested late in the third quarter for the black glaze cup.

116 Ibid., suggested the end of the sixth to beginning of the fifth century for the context of L12.

117 Ibid., 29 30, Group O (Volute Free Group). One vase from this group (O1) was found with Attic vases as late as 450 BC and another (O5) with Attic of the late sixth to early fifth century (Cook, 525–500 BC). The Attic cup found with O2 may be dated coser to 500 BC than to before 530 BC, the date Cook proposed after advice from Payne.

118 Cook, CVA BM (8) 60.

119 Id., FP 48 no. Y12, ‘last quarter of the sixth century’. Y16 is from a grave with Attic which Cook dated about 530 BC, but this should probably be lowered to 520–510 BC.

120 Id., FP 48.

121 Ibid. no. Y12a, ‘c.520 BC’.

122 Dimitriu, and Coja, , Dacia NS 2 (1958) 85 fig. 4.1Google Scholar; Dimitriu, , Dacia NS 6 (1962) 466 7 n. 39.Google Scholar

123 I owe this idea to R. M. Cook.

124 Cook, FP 90–1.

125 Dupont, , Dacia NS 27 (1983) 37.Google Scholar

126 Cook, , FP 60, 91.Google Scholar

127 W. Schiering, op. cit. (see n. 34 above) 11, dates his late style of the Camirus Group (comparable to Cook‘s Early-Middle Wild Goat) 610–560 BC, overlapping and influencing the early stages of Fikellura.

Kardara, Ch., Rhodiake Angeiographia (Athens 1963) 197–8Google Scholar, calls two vases Proto-Fikellura, which, however, are identified as very early in Wild Goat by Cook, , Gnomon (1965) 505.Google Scholar Kardara also points to her Group B of the Sub-Camiran style as a kind of Proto-Fikellura, dating c.590–570 BC, it seems. Hayes, J. in Excavations at Tocra 1963–1965, The Archaic Deposits i (Oxford 1966) 42Google Scholar, argued that Tocra no. 586 was a pre-Fikellura vase, dated to the 580's, even though it came from Deposit III, after c.565 BC. The date of this vase is difficult to estimate. Except for the added red and white, and odd floral, it is not so different from normal Fikellura. Hayes may be right in suggesting an early date for it, though it could also be an odd piece of Fikellura or even an imitation. Greenewalt, C., Jun., ‘Fikellura and “Early Fikellura” Pottery from Sardis’, CSCA 4 (1971) 153–80.Google Scholar Some name other than ‘Early Fikellura’ would have been better for this somewhat odd group of vases.

Walter-Karydi, , Samos VI, i2, 33Google Scholar, like Schiering, sees a kind of Middle Wild Goat style continuing through the first half of the sixth century until Fikellura appeared.

Moon, W. and Berge, L., Greek Vase-Painting in Midwestern Collections (Chicago 1979) 29 no. 18Google Scholar, suggests the vase in Indiana is ‘Early Fikellura’ c.580 BC. This is another of the ‘provincial’ looking vases from Caria; see p. 290 n. 132 below. Dupont, , Dacia NS 27 (1983) 38 n. 45Google Scholar, regards two fragments from Histria, several from Miletus, and one in Bodrum as forerunners of Fikellura and also thinks Middle Wild Goat may have continued after c.600 BC. The two fragments from Histria he mentions could be Middle Wild Goat, the one from Bodrum, found in the village of Turgut, in the area of Yagatan, seems to me to be another piece imitating the Fikellura style. Dupont, ibid., noted that Schiering regarded a plate fragment from Miletus, (IstMitt 23–4 (1973–1974) no. 93 pl. 27)Google Scholar as being a possible transitional piece to Fikellura from the first half of the sixth century. Cook instead suggested it may be Fikellura, which seems to be confirmed when the fragment is joined to another piece from Miletus, ibid. 25 (1975) pl. 11.55. The plate is a new shape for Fikellura.

128 Cook's CI is an exception, but stylistically its deer and goat procession is also some distance from Wild Goat style processions. Cook's Group R vases (FP 37–9) may be earlier, though their relation to the main series of Fikellura is hard to establish.

129 A late East Greek black-figure plate from Old Smyrna, (Samos VI, i no. 988 pl. 124)Google Scholar has a collapsing goat which reflects the most common pose of herbivores on Fikellura vases.

130 Cook, FP 60.

131 I am grateful to R. M. Cook for allowing me to read a draft of his article which is to appear in Festschrift Akurgal. W. Moon (in Moon and Berge, op. cit. (see n. 127 above) was on the same track as Cook in calling the Carian vase in Bloomington ‘Early Fikellura’.

132 Examples are found in Moon and Berge, op. cit. (see n. 127 above) nos. 11, 18; Gercke, P., Funde aus der Antike, Sammlung Paul Dierichs, Kassel (Kassel 1981) nos. 1–35Google Scholar; Archaeologica Traiectina 14 (1980) 74–9 pls. 15–17. In this last article, the vases are considered to be local products of a Carian workshop. Cook gives a list of known vases of this type in his Festschrift Akurgal article, see n. 131 above. A couple of vases apparently of the same type were reported by Y. Boysal in excavations at Stratonikeia, Caria, in 1983.

133 Excavation reports for both sites have been published in IstMitt beginning with vols. 9–10 (1959–60).

134 Ibid. pls. 82.2 (East Greek plastic aryballos), 86.1, 2 (Attic); 13–14 (1963–4) pl. 24.1 A; 18 (1968) pl. 36.2; 21 (1971) pl. 7.56, 85–87; 22 (1972) pl. 21.6 bottom; 23–4 (1973–4) pl. 32.140, 143 (Corinthian), 32.141 (Laconian), 32.144 (Attic); 25 (1975) 54 fig. 25 no. 56 Pl. 11; 29 (1979) 150 fig. 21 pls. 39.4, 40.5; 30 (1980) pl. 51.19, perhaps also pl. 51.17.

135 Ibid. 23–4 (1973–4) Pl. 26.78.

136 Boardman and Hayes, op. cit. (see n. 127 above).

137 Nor is a continuous development necessary. The sudden appearance of Merrythought cups again in the fifth century, a hundred years after the first series of these cups appeared, shows how potters could revert to an older type, Ramage, AJA 87 (1983) 454. Certain Attic painters in the first half of the fifth century are known for their archaizing style, deliberate attempts to imitate an earlier way of painting.

138 Both come into their own after c.600 BC. For Tell Sukas, see Ploug, G., Sukas II (Copenhagen 1973) 43–69Google Scholar nos. 150–309; for the Sanctuary of Demeter, Cyrene, see Schaus, , The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya, Final Reports, Vol. II: The East Greek, Island, and Laconian Pottery (Philadelphia 1985) 49–72 nos. 267–445 passim.Google Scholar

139 For Hashavyahu, Mesad, Naveh, J., IEJ 12 (1962) 97, 110–13 figs. 9–10 pls. 9–10Google Scholar; for dating, see Cook, , BSA 64 (1969) 14Google Scholar; for Mina, Al, Robertson, , JHS 60 (1940) 8, 10, 12–14, 16 fig. 5 pls. 1–3.Google Scholar Robertson (p. 8) differentiates ‘Rhodian A’ and ‘Rhodian B’ and these types in general conform to Middle and Late Wild Goat respectively, but none of the pieces he notes as ‘Rhodian B’ appears to me to be clearly Late Wild Goat.

140 Dupont, , Dacia NS 27 (1983) 40Google Scholar; Hdt. 5.28–9.

141 This seems possible though the circumstances of the fighting would have to have a direct bearing on the potters and about this we have no information. Even so, it does not easily explain the sudden appearance of Fikellura.

142 Forthcoming, see n. 130 above.

143 Hdt. 1.17–22. Herodotus' dates for the Lydian kings would place Alyattes' reign at 617–560 BC. The war spanned the last six years of Sadyattes' reign and the first six years of Alyattes', suggesting an end to it around 611 BC. Herodotus' dates, however, do not agree with Eusebius (609 BC for Alyattes' accession) or the Parian Chronicle (apparently 605–604 BC), and by using Herodotus' chronology for the Lydian kings one arrives at too high a date for Gyges' reign (716–679 BC). Assyrian annals put his death at about 652 BC. The problem is discussed at length by Kaletsch, H., Historia 7 (1958) 1–47Google Scholar. Kaletsch (p. 47) suggests a date around 607 BC for Alyattes’ accession and an end to the war with Miletus about 602 BC.

144 Cook, GPP 129–30; Samos VI, i no. 449 pl. 53, nos. 419–22 pls. 46–7; CGE pl. 91.7 Cook, FP 60 nn. 2–3, noted two vases which are transitional to this style, the ‘Perseus’ plate from Camirus and a large dish from Samos, , Samos VI, i no. 190 pl. 24 and no. 1121 pl. 136Google Scholar, respectively. The Ionian Little Masters cups in black figure are related, but by other painters.

145 Cook, FP 3; GPP 134; ‘The Fikellura painters … have much in common with the Ionian Little Masters; which borrowed from the other is not clear, but perhaps they were sometimes the same individuals.’

146 These include the following: Vineyard cup, Louvre F68, Samos VI, i no. 419 pls. 13, 46 Samos K1420 and K1513, ibid. no. 424 pls. 8, 47 Münster, Archaeology Seminar, ibid. no. 613 pl. 84 Miletus 68 S AI, IstMitt 29 (1979) 152 no. 64 pl. 41.4 Perhaps also, a vase once in the art market, Samos VI, i no. 615 pl. 84.

147 Ibid. nos. 420–2 pl. 47; CGE pl. 91.7.

148 Samos Vi, i nos. 420 2, 424 pl. 47. Two others came from Italy, ibid. no. 419 pls. 13, 46 (Vineyard cup) and CGE pl. 91.7; and one from Naucratis, , Samos VI, i no. 449 pl. 53.Google Scholar Cook, GPP 130 noted others from Aegina, Apollonia Pontica, and perhaps Perachora.

149 The clay for the cups is no doubt highly refined, which can change its appearance. Clay analysis of the figured vases could decide whether they were made on Samos or Miletus or somewhere else. Dupont's analysis has suggested that some of the ‘de luxe’ Ionian cups were made of Samian clay, though Miletus also produced some Ionian, cups, Dacia NS 27 (1983) 33–4.Google Scholar

150 Ibid. 36 fig. 15; these include the following seven published pieces, Histria II nos. 394, 404; Histria IV nos. 80, 166, 185, 194, 198.

151 Dupont, , Dacia NS 27 (1983) 36.Google Scholar

152 Histria IV no. 166 pl. 18.

153 Ibid. no. 185 pl. 20.

154 Archaeologica Traiectina 14 (1980) 76 pl. 17b–c Gercke, op. cit. (see n. 132 above) nos. 3 (amphora, 9 (olpe), 32 (oinochoe).

155 Archaeologica Traiectina 14 (1980) 74, 79 pl. 16c–d (the same vase in Samos VI, i no. 602 pl. 82); Gercke, op. cit. (see n. 132 above) nos. 30 1.

156 Jully, J. J., Archaic Pottery, Labraunda ii. 3 (Stockholm 1981) 12 nos. 33–8 pl. 2.Google Scholar

157 Athens 418, Cook, FP 95–6 fig. 21; Wolters, P., Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben i (Berlin 1940) 125 pl. 35.1–3.Google Scholar

158 CIRh VI/VII, 504 fig. 32.

159 Cook, FP 25 n. 1 no. M10.