Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:04:58.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The beginning of Greek polychrome painting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Gerald P. Schaus
Gerald P. Schaus
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3C5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

About the mid-seventh century, polychrome styles of vase painting appeared in five different Greek wares, and in a sixth ware a short time after. By polychrome here is meant the use of a light brown or reddish brown paint for male flesh in human figure scenes, to go with the normal colours found on seventh-century Greek vases, black, red and white. The use of this light brown or reddish brown paint may have begun a little earlier, e.g. for parts of animals, but it would be confusing to call this partial polychrome and to regard this as a preliminary step towards the distinctive use of brown for male human flesh. The six wares in which polychrome vases appear are Protocorinthian, Protoattic, Argive, Naxian, ‘Melian’ (likely from Paros), and a ware found at Megara Hyblaea. Except for ‘Melian’ polychrome which continues to the end of the seventh or early sixth century, each of these polychrome styles flourishes for a brief time and then disappears.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 108 , November 1988 , pp. 107 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1988

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

This paper was first delivered as a lecture at the American School of Classical Studies in February, 1987. I wish to thank G. L. Huxley and Martin Robertson who read earlier drafts of this paper, and also A. Baker and the other members of a seminar on East Greek painting I offered at the American School in winter, 1987 for their helpful criticisms.

1 By mid-seventh century I take to mean the decade before and after 650 BC. The origin and development of the polychrome style in these wares was discussed recently by Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 133–8.Google Scholar

2 Villard (n. 1) divided the early use of polychrome decoration into four phases. The first phase he called ‘polychromie partielle’, dated after ca. 670 BC. This included the occasional use of brown on animals and objects. Its use in this way may have begun before its use for male flesh; however, when found on animals or objects it is arbitrarily applied and is not clearly related to its regular use for male flesh. For examples of Protocorinthian vases with this brown (sometimes described as yellow) on animals, see Payne, H., Necrocorinthia (Oxford 1931) 11 n. 3Google Scholar.

3 Johansen, K. F., Les vases sicyoniens (Paris, Copenhagen 1923) 97–9, 103-4, 113Google Scholar; Payne (n. 2) 94-7; Benson, J. L., Die Geschichte der korinthischen Vasen (Basel 1953) 16–19, 68, 70Google Scholar ‘'Painter of the Berlin Centauromachy’, ‘Ekphantos Painter’); A. Newhall Stillwell—Benson, J. L., Corinth XV, iii (Princeton 1984) nos. 275, 285, 288, 301, 304Google Scholar; see also D. A. Amyx—Lawrence, P., Corinth VII, ii (Princeton 1975) 12–13 no. 1.Google Scholar

4 Küble, K., Altattische Malerei (Tübingen 1950) 18–19Google Scholar; id., Kerameikos vi, 2 (Berlin 1970) 1, 147-8, 453, 456-66. See also p. 108 and n. 13 below.

5 Courbin, P., BCH lxxix (1955) 1–49 pl. I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Salviat, F.—Weill, M., BCH lxxxiv (1960) 347–86Google Scholar pls. IV-VI; Ch. Karusos, JdI lii (1937) 166-97. For other fragments, see Praktika 1960, pl. 196a (note pl. 197a, c); Praktika 1961, pl. 156c; ASAA n.s. xlv 3 (1983) 117 figs. 21-2; likely also Délos xvii, 17 no. B4.219 pis. 9.2, 70.

7 Papastamos, D., Melische Atnphoren (Münster 1970) dating summary p. 135Google Scholar; and most recently Zapheiropoulou, Ph., Problemata tes meliakes aggeiographias (Athens 1985) 79–90, 101-7Google Scholar dating summary p. 155. For a lower dating of ‘Melian’ polychrome, see below n. 19. Clay analysis suggests a home for ‘Melian’ pottery on Paros, see Jones, R. E. et al., Greek and Cypriot pottery (Athens 1986) 652–8Google Scholar.

8 Vallet, G.—Villard, F., Mégara Hyblaea ii (Paris 1964) 163–72, 192Google Scholar; Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 134–7Google Scholar; also Vallet, G., Villard, F., Auberson, P., Mégara Hyblaea iii (Rome 1983) 156 figs. 65-9Google Scholar. The use of brown for male flesh on these vases begins about the mid-seventh century.

9 Five of the six wares were dated by R. M. Cook to about the mid-seventh century (Greek painted pottery2 [London 1972] pp. 51, 71, 92, 112, 146Google Scholar). ‘Melian’ polychrome began a bit later, perhaps two decades after the beginning of non-polychrome ‘Melian’, which is dated ca. 650 by Cook, p. 114. Later polychrome vases appear also in Thasian, Cretan, Samian, East Dorian, Cycladic and Chian wares, all before the mid-sixth century.

10 Payne (n. 2) 18, 94-7; Dunbabin, T. J.—Robertson, M., BSA xlviii (1953) 179–80Google Scholar (Macmillan Painter).

11 Payne (n. 2) 94; id., Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei (Berlin 1933) 13–14Google Scholar (caption to pl. 21). Benson (n. 3) 16, 68-9 attributed the aryballos in Berlin to the Painter of the Berlin Centauromachy and put it in his Early Protocorinthian III group apparently dated to the 670's. Dunbabin, —Robertson, , BSA xlviii (1953) 179Google Scholar, however, called this vase a very early work of the Macmillan Painter. A date in the 650s seems most likely.

12 Kübler, Kerameikos vi, 2, p. 1 (‘Anlage XI’).

13 Hesperia ii (1933) 572-3 no. 133 figs. 31-2; Brann, E., Agora viii (Princeton 1962) 105 nos. 649-51 pl. 41Google Scholar. See Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 134Google Scholar.

14 Courbin, P., BCH lxxix (1955) 32–5Google Scholar.

15 Salviat, F.—Weill, N., BCH lxxxiv (1960) 382–6Google Scholar. Mer Égée, Grèce des îles (Paris 1979) no. 59 p. 117–18Google Scholar. Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 133–4Google Scholar Puts it in his partial polychrome phase.

16 Ch. Karusos, , JdI lii (1937) 187–95Google Scholar suggested a date in the middle of the second quarter. This was supported by Brock, J. K., BSA liv (1949) 76–80Google Scholar, who, however, believed the Aphrodite amphora and the ‘Melian’ Apollo amphora were about contemporary. Yet the Apollo amphora should date after the mid-century, see n. 19 below.

17 Papastamos (n. 7); Zapheiropoulou (n. 7).

18 For references, see n. 7.

19 Boardman, J., BSA xlvii (1952) 24, 26Google Scholar; id., Island gems (London 1963) 90, 105-6Google Scholar; Cook (n. 9) 105, 114.

20 Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 133–5Google Scholar.

21 For example, Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 137.Google Scholar I prefer the term ‘free’ painting to ‘monumental’ or ‘mural’ painting, following Amyx, D. A. in Moon, W. G., ed., Ancient Greek art and iconography (Madison 1983) 37–8Google Scholar.

22 For the relationship between vase painters and ‘free’ painters see, Robertson, M., ‘The place of vasepainting in Greek art’, BSA xlvi (1951) 151–9Google Scholar.

23 Robertson, M., Greek painting (Geneva 1959) 43–7Google Scholar.

24 Euphorbos plate, Simon, E., Die griechischen Vasen (Munich 1976) 54–5 no. 31Google Scholar; Cook, R. M., BABesch lviii (1983) 2–3Google Scholar. Samos hydria, Furtwängler, A. E., AthMitt xcv (1980) 188–97 figs. 8–11 pls. 54-5 beil. 1Google Scholar.

25 For the style, see Price, E. R., JHS xliv (1924) 217–19Google Scholar; Boardman, J., BSA li (1956) 59–60Google Scholar.

26 Villard, F., ASAA n.s. xliii 1 (1981) 137Google Scholar. Protocorinthian is certainly exported, but its style is quite different from most of the other polychrome wares.

27 Robinson, H. S., ‘Temple Hill, Corinth’, in Jantzen, U., ed., Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern (Tübingen 1976) 239–50Google Scholar, especially p. 246 (dating); id., Hesperia xlv (1976) 211–12 (dating), 224-35Google Scholar.

28 Salmon, J. B., Wealthy Corinth (Oxford 1984) 60Google Scholar; Rhodes, R., The beginnings of monumental architecture in the Corinthia (Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1984) 104–8Google Scholar. I am grateful to Ch. Williams for these references and discussion on the dating of this temple.

29 Robinson, , Hesperia xlv (1976) 228 pl. 51Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., pl. 51b right (C-71-285).

31 For the paintings, see Broneer, O., Isthmia I, The temple of Poseidon (Princeton 1971) 33–4Google Scholar figs. 53-4 pls. A-C. On the date of the temple, see R. Rhodes (n. 28) 104-8, 135-6 who suggests that the paintings were on the interior of the temple. The variety of colours used at Isthmia is greater than on contemporary polychrome vase painting, including purple and light blue.

32 Bellerophon plate, Salviat, F.—Weill, N., BCH lxxxiv (1960) pl. VIGoogle Scholar. Salmon (n. 28) 60 suggested a midseventh century date for the wall paintings on stylistic grounds.

33 Robertson (n. 23) 43-6, 75; Boardman, J., The Greeks overseas3 (London 1980) 147–53Google Scholar.

34 For a good historical account, see CAH2 III, iii, 35-7.

35 Hdt. ii 147, 151-54; see also Diod. Sic. i 66.12. Diodorus (i 66.7-9) also mentions Greek merchants trading with Psammetichos’ region of Egypt. If true, this could not have occurred much if at all before the hiring of Greek mercenaries by Psammetichos.

36 Rassam cylinder, Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient records of Assyria and Babylonia ii (Chicago 1927) nos. 784–5Google Scholar. The events are discussed by Kaletsch, H., Historia vii (1958) 27–9Google Scholar who dates the help sent Psammetichos by Gyges to ca. 655 BC.

37 See Boardman, Greeks overseas3 (n. 33) 144.

38 Ibid., 143. For the Greek debt to Egyptian architecture especially in technical matters, see Coulton, J. J., Greek architects at work (London 1977) 32–50, and p. 49-50Google Scholar regarding the significance of dating the Corinth and Isthmia temples for the argument of Egyptian influence. On a lower dating for these two temples, to the mid-seventh century, Salmon (n. 28) 60.

39 Webb, V., Archaic Greek faience (Warminster 1978) 5Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., 9-10. For other posited Phoenician workshops on Rhodes, producing unguent flasks, perhaps scarabs and other luxury items, see Markoe, G., Phoenician bronze and silver bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Berkeley, Los Angeles 1985) 127Google Scholar.

41 Holloway, R. R., AJA xc (1986) 486Google Scholar doubts such a transfer.

42 Above nn. 37-8 for influences on sculpture and Chrisarchitecture, and n. 40 for the nationality of early faience makers in Greece.

43 Plin. N.H. xxxv 15-16. It is a matter of speculation who Philokles of Egypt was, mentioned as the inventor of linear drawing by Pliny (N.H. xxxv 16). His praedicaname is Greek and it is possible he received his surname ‘the Egyptian’ from a trip or a stay he had in Egypt. See Croisille, J.-M., Pline l'Ancien, Histoire Naturelle, Livre xxxv, Texte établi, traduit et commenté, ed. Budé, (Paris 1985) 140 n. 1Google Scholar commentary to Plin. N.H. xxxv 16. For the evidence of Greek knowledge of Egypt before Psammetichos’ reign, see Austin, M. M., Greece and Egypt in the Archaic age, PCPhS, supp. ii (1970) 11–14Google Scholar.

44 For references to discussions of Pliny's sources, see Croisille (above n. 43) 15 for Plin. N.H. xxxv 15-16, and pp. 17-18 for Plin. N.H. xxxv 55-6; for Xenokrates, see Schweitzer, B., Xenokrates von Athens (Halle 1932)Google Scholar; Pernice, E. in Hausmann, U., ed., Allgemeine Grundlagen der Archäologie, Handbuch der Archäologie (Munich 1969) 494–6Google Scholar; Rumpf, A., RE ix B2 (1967)Google Scholar s.v. Xenokrates10 1531 f.; and for a summary of work on Xenokrates, see Schoder, R. in Jex-Blake, K. and Sellers, E., The Elder Pliny's chapters on the history of art, first American ed. (Chicago 1968) p. ‘G’Google Scholar. Sellers, p. xx n. 2 noted the strong Sikyonian slant to Xenokrates’ writtransfer, ing, and so called him Xenokrates of Sikyon.

45 For Saurias, see Athenagoras, Presbeia peri Christianon, 17; and for Boularchos, Plin. N.H. xxxv 55, vi 126 (‘destruction’ [exitium] of the Magnesians).

46 De picturae initiis incerta nee instituti operis quaestio est. Aegyptii sex milibus annorum aput ipsos inventam priusquam in Graeciam transiret adfirmant vana praedicatione, ut palam est, Graeci autem alii Sicyone alii aput Corinthios repertam, omnes umbra hominis lineis circumducta, itaque primam talem, secundam singulis coloribus et monochromaton dictam postquam operosior invenca erat, duratque talis etiam nunc. inventam liniarem a Philocle Aegyptio vel Cleanthe Corinthio primi exercuere Aridices Corinthius et Telephanes Sicyonius, sine ullo etiamnum hi colore, iam tamen spargentes linias intus. ideo et quos pingerent adscribere institutum. primus invenit eas colore testae, ut ferunt, tritae Ecphantus Corinthus.

N.H. xxxv 15-16

Quid quod in confesso perinde est Bularchi pictoris tabulam, in qua erat Magnetum proelium, a Candaule rege Lydiae Heraclidarum novissimo, qui et Myrsilus vocitatus est, repensam auro? tanta iam dignatio picturae erat. circa Romuli id aetatem acciderit necesse est, etenim duodevicensima olympiade interiit Candaules aut, ut quidam tradunt, eodem anno quo Romulus, nisi fallor, manifesta iam tune claritate artis, adeo absolutione. quod si recipi necesse est, simul apparet multo vetustiora principia eosque qui monochromatis pinxerint, quorum aetas non traditur, aliquanto ante fuisse, Hygiaenontem, Dinian, Charmadan et qui primus in pictura marem a femina discreverit, Eumarum Atheniensem figuras omnes imitari ausum, quique inventa eius excoluerit Cimonem Cleonaeum. hie catagrapha invenit, hoc est obliquas imagines, et varie formare voltus, respicientes suspicientesve vel despicientes. articulis membra distinxit, venas protulit, praeterque in vestibus rugas et sinus invenit. Panaenus quidem frater Phidiae etiam proelium Atheniensium adversus Persas apud Marathona factum pinxit. adeo iam colorum usus increbruerat adeoque ars perfecta erat… N.H. xxxv 55-56

47 Jex-Blake translates proelium here as ‘defeat’ because of Pliny's other reference to the theme of this painting, N.H. vii 126: cf. below, p. 115.

48 Croisille (n. 43) 15, 18. See also above, n. 44. The Boularchos anecdote was apparently inserted where Pliny supposed it to belong in the relative development of painting. For Varro as its likely source, see Münzer, F., Hermes xxx (1895) 541–2Google Scholar; Croisille (n. 43) 17-18.

49 The lack of dates is due to Pliny's source, Xenokrates, see Schweitzer (n. 44) 17.

50 Since Gyges’ death must be lowered to about 652 BC from Herodotus’ date ca. 681 BC (i.e. 135 years before the fall of Sardis ca. 546—Hdt. i 15, 16, 25, 86), it is not certain how many years should be given to Gyges’ reign. Herodotus was obviously mistaken about the length of reign of the other Lydian kings. For a date ca. 680 BC for the beginning of Gyges’ reign, see Kaletsch, H., Historia vii (1958) 30–4Google Scholar.

51 Note Reinach, A., Recueil Milliet (Paris 1921) 65 n. 9Google Scholar; Sellers (n. 44) 86 commentary to Plin. N.H. xxxv 16 lines 3 and 5; Furtwängler, A., Plinius und seine Quellen (Leipzig 1877) 25–6Google Scholar.

52 See Croisille (n. 43) 141 n. 1 commentary to Plin. N.H. xxxv 17.

53 Furtwängler (n. 51) 27.

54 For Demaratos as an historical entity, see Blakeway, A., JRS xxv (1935) 147–9Google Scholar.

55 Plin. N.H. xxxv 152.

56 The names of the three clay workers mentioned by Pliny have been thought to be epithets rather than real names. There is, however, some recent archaeological evidence to suggest otherwise. A terracotta antefix was found at Camarina, Sicily signed by a certain Diopos, the same name as another of the three clay workers accompanying Demaratos. For the antefix, see AR 1976-7, 71 fig. 44, and other references, Croisille (n. 43) 262 n. 4 commentary on Plin. N.H. xxxv 152. The use of terracotta roof tiles was supposed to have been brought to Italy by Demaratos. Archaeological evidence for this, though scanty, supports a midseventh century date, see Williams, Ch. II, ‘Demaratus and early Corinthian roofs’, in ∑THΛH, Tόμος είς μνήμην Nικολάου Kοντολεόντος (Athens 1980) 345–50Google Scholar.

57 Benson, (n. 3) 89 makes a similar comparison, but he places the beginning of polychrome vase painting earlier, in his Early Protocorinthian III style, see above n. 11.

58 Silhouette figures, such as in Geometric vase painting, are not painted as described in this stage, i.e. outlining a shadow.

59 Robertson's second phase of outline drawing, BSA xliii (1948) 58-9.

60 For example, Robertson (n. 22).

61 Pliny, N.H. xxxv 56 notes that the origin of painting (presumably in polychrome) was much earlier than the Boularchos painting and that monochrome painting was even earlier (aliquanto ante fuisse) than this. The development of linear drawing must be fitted in between.

62 Pfuhl, E., Malerei und Zeichnung der Criechen I (Munich 1923) 496Google Scholar believed that colour was used to differentiate men from women, but Pliny here is talking about monochrome painters, so the differentiation should be by reservation or at most a lighter shade of the one colour. For examples of such reservation, especially for sphinxes’ faces, see Robertson, M., BSA xliii (1948) 50 fig. 35Google Scholar, and other references pp. 58-9; Dunbabin, T. J., ed., Perachora ii (Oxford 1962) 43–4 no. 255Google Scholar with references to early Attic examples; perhaps also Kraiker, W., Aigina (Berlin 1951) no. 267 pl. CGoogle Scholar (though Eriphyle's arm is not clearly discernible as being reserved in the published photograph, Kraiker, pl. 19). The goddesses in the Judgment of Paris scene on the Chigi vase are drawn in outline with reservation, Johansen (n. 3) pi. 40.

63 Robertson, , BSA xlvi (1951) 154Google Scholar. For very early essays in outline drawing on Protocorinthian vases, see Robertson, M., BSA xliii (1948) 55–9Google Scholar; Dunbabin, T. J.—Robertson, M., BSA xlviii (1953) 173, A nos. 1-7Google Scholar; Cook, B. F., British Museum Quarterly xxxvi (1972) 110–13 pls. 38-9a-bCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Kraiker (n. 62) 50 no. 267 pls. C and 19; Payne (n. 2) 98 n. 3 fig. 30.

65 Morris, S. P., The Black and White style (New Haven 1984) 122 no. 9 pl. 7Google Scholar; Cook, J. M., BSA xxxv (1934-1935) 189–90, 205Google Scholar ‘stand from Aigina’.

66 The Chigi vase, from ca. 640, likewise has labelled figures in the Judgment of Paris scene. Johansen (n. 3) pl. 40. The script of the Chigi vase is non-Corinthian, possibly Syracusan (Jeffery, L. H., The local scripts of Archaic Greece [Oxford 1961] 264Google Scholar), though other scripts are also possible including Rhodian.

67 Müller, C. O.—Welcker, F. G., Ancient art and its remains (London 1852) 42Google Scholar; Reinach, S., REG viii (1895) 176–7Google Scholar.

68 An observation first made by Jacoby, F., CQ xxxv (1941) 104 n. 4Google Scholar. Jacoby suggested instead Phoenician silver bowls as models for the Boularchos painting, but wherever Greek copying of Phoenician drawing can be identified, it is little better than any other Greek work, For Greek copying of Phoenician bowls, see Borell, B., Attisch geometrische Schalen (Mainz/Rhein 1978) 55–8 pl. 28Google Scholar; also Markoe (n. 40) 45-7 (vanquishing pharaoh type), 51-2 (city-siege theme), 117-27 (Phoenician influence in Greece), esp. n. 156 for Phoenician influence on the Tiryns shield ca. 700-680 BC. For the date of this shield, see Bothmer, D. V., Amazons in Greek art (Oxford 1957) 1–2.Google Scholar

69 Jacoby, F., CQ xxxv (1941) 104–7Google Scholar discusses all the known early wars associated either with Magnesia ad Maeandrum or Magnesia ad Sipylum. He favours the victory by Magnesia ad Sipylum allied with Lydia against the Amazons as the theme for Boularchos’ painting (FGrH 90 F 62, Pedley, J. G., Ancient literary sources on Sardis [Cambridge Mass. 1972] 20 no. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar). But Pliny makes no mention of the Lydians fighting on the side of the Magnesians which is surely a worthwhile detail if a Lydian king purchased Boularchos’ painting, Even more important, Pliny refers to a destruction of the Magnesians, not a victory by them.

70 The name, Kandaules, was not uncommon in the region of Lydia. It is mentioned by Hipponax as a name or epithet of a Meonian deity, Masson, O., Les fragments du poète Hipponax (Paris 1962) fr. 3 pp. 31, 104-6Google Scholar; and see Hesychius, Test., ‘Kandaules’. The father of a Carian sea captain also had the name, Hdt. vii 98.

71 For dates and events, see Kaletsch, H., Historia vii (1958) 25–30Google Scholar. The destruction of Magnesia by the Treres is usually associated with the 652 campaign, though it may have occurred in the last campaign ca. 645 when Ardys was also beaten by the Treres and Lycians, and Sardis was briefly occupied.

72 For the higher dates, see Blakeway, A., Greek poetry and life (Oxford 1936) 34–55Google Scholar; for the lower dates, see Jacoby, F., CQ xxxv (1941) 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and note Graham, A. J., BSA lxxiii (1978) 61–98, esp. p. 86.Google Scholar