A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery

AWE-4-1.qxd 10/18/2005 12:09 PM Page iii ANCIENT WEST & EAST VOLUME 4, NO. 1 BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 1 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY* MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND UDO SCHLOTZHAUER A At present, we are faced with several competing classifications of East Greek pottery of the Archaic period. New finds and recent research have, however, shown that all of them have grave deficiencies. A new approach is, therefore, made in this paper to a classification system that, for the first time, comprises all classes of East Greek ceramics, figural and ornamental, banded as well as unpainted wares, within a homogeneous framework. The basic principle of the new system is a division according to production places or regions on the one hand and, on the other, a separation according to chronological periods and phases. The definitions are flexible in terms of their precision, and the classification can, therefore, be adapted if and when further progress in research should make this necessary. To a large extent the new system is compatible with the classification of R.M. Cook. The present article uses the painted pottery of South Ionia as a template with which to explain the proposed new classification. The study of East Greek pottery is beset by a non-homogeneous terminology and several competing classification systems. These make it rather difficult to find one’s way about in this complicated and multifaceted field of Greek pottery, which is probably the reason why some scholars who are not specialists in this matter are still using general terms such as ‘East Greek’ or ‘Rhodian’ in order to avoid the current terminology which is often confusing and imprecise, sometimes even contradictory. The effort necessary to understand the existing classification systems might indeed be partly responsible for the backwardness of our knowledge of the pottery of the East Aegean compared with that of other Greek regions. The history of the research of East Greek pottery and its inherent problems have been discussed in detail elsewhere.1 To sum up, the main difficulties of the classification systems so far proposed are either that they largely disregard regional differentiation (R.M. Cook, W. Schiering)2 or that they lack some form of coherent chronological structure (H. Walter, E. Walter-Karydi).3 Moreover, all current classification systems are restricted to fine pottery bearing elaborate figural and/or ornamental decoration while the banded and * We thank N. Kunisch and Sir John Boardman (both Oxford) for their comments and correcting the English version of our manuscript. 1 Cook 1997, 295–300; 1998, 5–7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 25–36. 2 Schiering 1957; Cook 1960, 118–26; 1992; 1997, 109–34; 1998, 26–137. 3 Walter 1968; Walter-Karydi 1973. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 2 10/18/05 3:03 Page 2 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER undecorated wares have never been comprehensively classified; the so-called ‘Ionian cups’ (better called ‘Knickrandschalen’)4 and trade amphorae5 are among the few exceptions. We do not think that an adaptation of one of the existing systems to the present state of research would be helpful. Too many fundamentally new results have been obtained by archaeometric investigation and extended field research in the East Aegean in recent years.6 In his latest publications Cook tried to revise his classification of the Wild Goat style without, however, being very successful.7 Aware himself of this problem, he proposed to create a new classification as early as 1992 but hesitated to go through with it: To accommodate the new partitioning of the Wild Goat style, local and temporal, a new nomenclature may well prove necessary, but at the present stage of study it would be confusing to propose yet another . . .8 It seems to us that this moment has now come: the increase of knowledge permits and calls for an adequate form of expression. The classification proposed in the following pages is based upon a clear and simple concept. It is made up of a chronological as well as a geographical co-ordinate. Both components are incorporated within every single term; both provide the flexibility to chose variable degrees of precision, which permits the use of an overall system for various regions even if these differ from one another in the depth of present-day research. The principle of the 4 For a discussion of the various classifications, see Catling and Shipley (1989, 188–90, 199); and Schlotzhauer (2000, 407–09), who introduces the neutral term ‘Knickrandschale’ (cups with everted rim) to replace the geographically defined ‘Ionian cup’ which is problematical if used for vessels of non-Ionian origin. The classification still commonly used today was worked out by Villard and Vallet (1955, 14–34) nearly half a century ago. It is based on the range of types occurring at a colonial site in the central Mediterranean and not on that of the East Aegean production centres. 5 Dupont 1982, 193–208; Cook 1998, 142–91. 6 Dupont 1983; Akurgal et al. 2002. For an overview of the excavations in western Asia Minor, see the annual preliminary reports in KST and AJA. 7 Cook 1992; 1998, 32–63. Having accepted the fundamental results of the archaeometric investigations of Dupont 1983, R.M. Cook tried to differentiate his phase MWG II in accordance with the various regions but failed to introduce adequate new terms. Another inconsistency in Cook’s classification is the lack of terms for certain chronological phases in certain geographical regions (see Kerschner 2000, 554). On the one hand, Cook confines the terms EWG and MWG to South Ionia without offering adequate names for the contemporaneous phases in North Ionia (Cook 1998, 51–52). On the other hand, his phase LWG is restricted to North Ionia so that Cook (1992, 260–62) hesitatingly introduced the term MWG III to fill the resulting chronological gap in South Ionia. Boardman (1998, 143) adopts MWG III for the late phase of South Ionian Wild Goat style, but in the captions of the accompanying figures (154–155), he uses LWG instead of MWG III. Boardman’s use of LWG is the logically more consistent solution of the terminological paradox in Cook’s classification that South Ionia is given an Early and Middle, but no Late Wild Goat style. 8 Cook 1992, 255; cf. Cook 1987, 71: ‘None of these terminologies is now satisfactory, but till more is known it would be only confusing to invent another.’ TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 3 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 3 classification may be described as being as precise as possible and as general as necessary. It also allows progress in every field of research. Whenever new investigations yield more precise results with either chronology or provenance it will in future be possible to replace a general term with one that is more precise. In this way those terms will prove to be less exact but not actually wrong. The system allows flexibility also with regard to specific and divergent developments at different pottery centres. It is open to the possibility that, in some places, certain stylistic phases may begin later or persist longer or not even occur at all. The new system should be understood more as a framework the details of which have still to be elaborated by colleagues working on finds from the various pottery centres of the East Aegean. It has been compiled empirically on the basis of the material available at the present time, on the observation of the typological and stylistic development of pottery products the relative chronology of which has been worked out by way of archaeological contexts. The absolute dating of particular periods and phases can be discussed independently as a separate step; this does not, after all, affect the terminology. In this our system resembles Humfry Payne’s time-tested classification of Corinthian pottery.9 It too is a classification of chronological periods and in this way encompasses all ceramic wares and classes being produced at a given time. Once again, however, painted pottery has been taken as the decisive class to define the various periods because it provides the more distinctive features as well as a clearer and speedier development of style and typology. Keeping in mind the need for clarity, we are focusing on one specific class of East Greek pottery production, i.e. on what is commonly called the Wild Goat style. We hope to use this as a way in which to explain the structure and the application of the new system. The Wild Goat style represents the most elaborate example of East Greek vase painting during the Orientalising phase of the Archaic period. It was described for the first time and in detail in the 1880s when a number of specimens came to light during the excavations at Naukratis.10 Different names were in use until E.A. Gardner’s proposal was generally adopted to name the recently recognised style after its most conspicuous motive, i.e. the ibex or wild goat.11 It should be pointed out, however, that Gardner himself was aware of the disadvantages of the new name: This title is in many respects unsatisfactory; on some of the vases included under it the ibex is not found; and the ibex often occurs on other pottery which, though 9 Payne 1931, 43–66. Smith 1886, 49–50 (‘Egyptian style’ as sub-group of the ‘Oriental style’); Dumont and Chaplain 1888, 161–72 (‘le style de Rhodes’). 11 Gardner 1888, 45–46 (‘Ibex type’). 10 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 4 10/18/05 3:03 Page 4 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER somewhat similar, has elsewhere been classified. But the animal is of such frequent occurrence on this type of ware that it seems to afford a characteristic mark by which we may indicate it.12 The classification most widely used today in respect of the Wild Goat style pottery was first proposed by Cook in the early 1930s13 and formulated in detail only some decades later.14 He based his system on the bipartite scheme proposed by E.R. Price some years before,15 but enlarged it to encompass three phases: Early (EWG), Middle (MWG) and Late (LWG). Cook’s basic tenets are still valid today. Indeed, they form the backbone of the new classification which we are proposing, being compatible, in all relevant points, with this model.16 There are two major differences from Cook’s classification: we recommend redrawing the line between the phases MWG I ~ SiA Ia and MWG II ~ SiA Ib, and, as a second measure, we would like to introduce a subdivision of the rather long phase MWG II (including the phase MWG III which Cook only introduced in 1992)17 which we propose to call SiA Ic and SiA Id respectively. First Element of the New Classification: Provenance The geographical element of the classifying term indicates the place of production of the vessel. If this is not known with any degree of certainty it would at least give the wider region of its origin. The principle of this classification should be to circumscribe the area of production as narrowly as possible without defining localisation more precisely than is scientifically arguable. In order to provide the necessary graduation in terminology, the geographical component comprises several levels. The largest and least specific geographical unit—the East Aegean as a whole (abbreviation: E)—is divided into the following main regions: the Aiolis (Ai), North Ionia (Ni), South Ionia (Si), Eastern Doria (Ed), Caria (Ca) and Lydia (Ly). It will in time be possible to extend this classification to include the pottery production of the Ionian colonies and their sphere of cultural influence.18 12 Gardner 1888, 45–46. Cook 1933/34, 2, n. 1. 14 Cook 1960, 118–26; 1965, 507; 1992, 256–62. 15 Price 1928, 11–15. 16 M.K. is grateful for having had the opportunity to discuss a first draft of the new classification with R.M. Cook in May 1999, one year before his death. 17 Cook 1992, 260–62; 1998, 44. 18 Colonial ceramic production of East Greek type on Thasos: Salviat and Weill 1961; Walter-Karydi 1973, 74–76, pls. 101–104; Cook 1998, 67–68; on the Aegean coast of Thrace: Lemos 1991, 209–22; on the Black Sea coast: Dupont 1983, 36; Cook 1998, 66; Dupont 1999; at Naukratis: Dupont 1983, 36, n. 38; Cook 1998, 66–67; Schlotzhauer in press b; in Etruria: Cook 1998, 68–70, fig. 8.29. 13 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 5 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 5 The following subdivision concerns the minor regions. In some cases, these cannot yet be determined but, as research progresses, they should find their place within the system. These minor regions comprise neighbouring production centres which show close typological, stylistic and technical similarities in their pottery production. This level should prove to be helpful in the classification of small fragments with but a few distinctive criteria or for little known parts of the territory. Examples of such minor regions are islands with (presumably) several pottery centres, such as Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Rhodes, which may even show typological and stylistic resemblances with products of the neighbouring mainland (e.g. Chios and Erythrai or Samos and her peraia).19 This subdivision is marked with an additional letter preceding the main abbreviation, e.g. wNi for western North Ionia, a minor region comprising Chios and Erythrai. If other minor regions with closely connected pottery production are found, analogous terms could easily be introduced. The smallest geographical units are the production centres themselves. These would normally be located in the poleis, sometimes also in their chora. If a precise determination of the production place is possible the name of the polis or kome, suitably abbreviated, supersedes the term of the region: e.g. Kyme (Kyme), Phokaia (Phok), Smyrna (Smyr), Klazomenai (Klaz), Teos (Teos), Ephesos (Ephe), Miletos (Mile), Samos (Samo), Meropis on the island of Kos (Mero), Knidos (Knid), Kameiros (Kame), Lindos (Lind), etc. In this geographical order the degree of precision descending from the region as a whole to specific poleis and villages is expressed by the number of letters forming the abbreviation. Each step advancing to a more precise designation is marked by the addition of another letter. It is, therefore, possible to differentiate between identical names of islands and their main sites. In this way ‘Sam’ points to the island as a whole whereas ‘Samo’ designates the city. The system is designed to be flexible and can easily be adapted if new production centres are found, a considerable advantage compared with previous systems. Second Element of the New Classification: Chronology This classification uses the well-established archaeological criteria of style, typology and technique in order to define different stages in the development of pottery production that can be equated with particular dates. The new system distinguishes three chronological units. The largest units, the epochs, are indicated by the first letter of their name. Thus G stands for Geometric, A for Archaic, etc. The next smaller units, the periods, comprise several decades 19 Chios and Erythrai: Bayburtluo<lu 1978, 27–30; Dupont 1983, 24–25; cf. Lemos 1991, 205. The Samian peraia: P. Hommel in Hommel et al. 1967, 93–94; Akurgal et al. 2002, 52. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 6 10/18/05 3:03 Page 6 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER and are indicated by a roman numeral. These periods are further divided into even smaller units, the phases, which are indicated by lower-case letters in alphabetical order. This classification too is flexible with regard to the number, duration and chronology of periods and phases which may differ from one region to another and from one production centre to the next. It could even be that a particular phase is missing in one or more regions.20 Should future research arrive at newer or better subdivisions of periods or phases there should be no problem to include these in this system. Classical archaeology generally agrees about the two phases in the development of Archaic pottery of the East Aegean. The earlier one has often been labelled Orientalising.21 In date it mainly occupies the second half of the 7th century BC, starting a decade or two earlier in some regions and extending a few years or even decades into the early 6th century. This period is followed by another which extends over the main part of the 6th century down to the end of the Archaic period at the beginning of the 5th century. The first period is called Archaic I (A I), the second period Archaic II (A II). These phases are defined by marked stages in the stylistic development. It is important to point out that never is one criterion alone taken to define a period or phase but always a combination of several specific criteria. One also has to take into account that a particular feature may have emerged at the end of the preceding phase or may survive into the next one.22 They are, however, not considered characteristic criteria of such phases unless they are important for a certain stage of the stylistic development. There always exist retarding sub-branches of the main stream, such as the Subgeometric bird bowls which carry on with some form of Geometric decoration to the very beginning of the 6th century BC. In our new classification based on chronology the Subgeometric phenomenon is, therefore, not considered to be a phase in its own right but merely as a conservative current within phases dominated by and named after more progressive stylistic developments. For this 20 At the present state of knowledge this seems to be the case in the Aiolis where there are no traces of early Archaic stages of the stylistic development that could be compared to the phases SiA Ia/Ib in South Ionia (see Cook 1998, 57). See also the diagram in Coldstream 1968, 330 Tab. which shows the differences in the development of Geometric pottery in the individual Greek regions. 21 E.g. Schiering 1957; Cook 1972, 41–46, 115–29; Akurgal 1987, 21–25; Boardman 1998, 141–48; Schaus 2000; Mannack 2002, 84, 90–94. Walter 1968, 47, however, rejects the term ‘orientalisierend’, ‘weil damit der Einfluß der orientalischen Kunst auf die griechische überbewertet erscheint.’ The term ‘Orientalising’ is not well defined and can be used differently— see Kerschner 1997b, 206 n. 107. 22 See the definition of the phases of Corinthian pottery according to Payne (1931, 43–66). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 7 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 7 reason the bird bowls should be assigned to the phase North Ionian Archaic I (NiA I) within which they were indeed produced.23 As far as figural and ornamental vase painting is concerned the two periods of Archaic East Greek pottery production may be divided according to the general idea that the earlier period, named East Greek Archaic I (EA I), is characterised by the technique of outline drawing (e.g. Wild Goat style, Orientalising dishes), whereas at the beginning of the later period, named East Greek Archaic II (EA II), introduced new techniques. In South Ionia we find an elaborate version of silhouette painting with meticulous reservation for the rendering of details (i.e. the Fikellura style of the period Milesian Archaic II = MileA II) covering approximately the same span of time as a black-figure style in North Ionia and the Aiolis (Clazomenian black-figure and related classes of North Ionian Archaic II = NiA II and Aiolian Archaic II = AiA II). The diagram on page 8 shows the classification of the Archaic pottery in South Ionia documenting our new classification and its relation to the system of Cook. The relative chronology given in the diagram is based on the stratigraphical sequences excavated in Miletus and Ephesus as well as on closed deposits at other sites of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. We possess, however, only a few fixed dates of the kind needed for the establishment of an absolute chronology. Cook discussed them some years ago.24 The nucleus of the current chronology rests on some synchronisms with Corinthian and Attic pottery 23 Cook (1998, 26–28) treats the ‘bird bowls and rosette bowls’ as a separate group between ‘Geometric’ and ‘Early Orientalising’. Coldstream (1968, 330), on the other hand, regards the Subgeometric phenomenon in the East Aegean and in other Greek landscapes as a phase of its own. 24 Cook 1997, 252–55, fig. 42–43; 1998, 8–10. Thanks to recent advances made in research some additions can be made. At Miletus new excavations have shown that habitation did not cease completely after the fatal destruction at the hand of the Persians in 494 BC, and even the production of Fikellura may have lingered into the first half of the 5th century BC (see von Graeve and Senff 1990, 50, pl. 7.1–3; Kerschner 1995, 214–18). The debris of the destruction of 494 has been found in several places in the city; it is an important starting-point for the dating of the stratigraphical sequence at Miletus (von Graeve 1986, 41–43; von Graeve and Senff 1990, 50, pl. 7.3, Beil. 2; Kerschner 1995, 215–16, fig. 17; Niemeier 1999, 378–94). At Sardis further excavations of the destruction deposit caused by the Persian conquest in 547 BC have brought to light a substantial number of well-preserved vessels (see Greenewalt, Ratté and Rautman 1996, 11–19, figs. 14–20; Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 490–97, figs. 15–22). At Ephesus the effect of two initiatives of the Lydian king Croesus (560–546 BC) has been found during the excavations: the building of the marble temple for Artemis and possibly also the enforced relocation of the settlement (Kerschner 1997b, 88; in press). In Israel, recent excavations at Ashkelon, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Batash-Timnah have revealed sealed destruction layers attributable to the conquests of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in the years around 600 BC (Waldbaum and Magness 1997). The important site of Mezad Hashavyahu saw recently a careful study and reappraisal by Fantalkin (2001). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 8 Page 8 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER New Classification of East Greek Pottery (demonstrated on the example of South Ionia) Classification of R.M. Cook 1998 New Classification SiG 675 670 Early Orientalising a 650 650 EWG b MWG I 630 SiA I 625 c 610 MWG II 600 d 590 ( Hiatus? or 580 E.g. Bilinguals 570 MWG III? a 560 SiA II Fikellura 494 SiC 494 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 9 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 9 found together with East Greek wares in closed deposits: it very much depends on the dating of these related wares. For this reason the calendar years given here must be regarded as general chronological indications, not as precise dates. The Archaic period is defined by the Geometric at the upper end and by the Classical at the lower, as we have shown in the diagram using the example of South Ionia (South Ionian Late Geometric—SiLG and South Ionian Classical—SiC). East Greek Geometric pottery has already been classified in a system similar to and compatible with that proposed here.25 The local Classical pottery of the East Aegean still awaits detailed study. In terms of absolute chronology, it seems reasonable to suppose that there are several differences in dating across various regions of the East Aegean.26 The diagram is intended to illustrate not only the new classification but also its relation to the system of Cook. The following lists of criteria will help to define the proposed phases and give typical examples for the different phases of the period South Ionian Archaic I (SiA I). SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC I In geographical terms this period may be divided, wherever possible, according to the different production centres, into Milesian Archaic I (MileA I), Samian Archaic I (SamoA I), Ephesian Archaic I (EpheA I) and other provenance groups as yet unlocated. SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Ia (SiA Ia) In the course of this phase Orientalising motives, appearing only occasionally among Geometric ornaments during the first decades of the 7th century, become more frequent and eventually dominant. At the end of this phase the animal frieze is fully developed. South Ionian Archaic Ia corresponds, to a large degree, both to Early Orientalising and Early Wild Goat style in Cook’s system27 as well as to the anatol¤zvn rodiakow ruymow of C. Kardara.28 The oinochoai nos. 1–3 and 10, as listed by E. La Rocca, also find their place in within this phase.29 It is important, however, to remember that only very few vessels have so far been attributed to SiA Ia, which still gives this phase a somewhat patchy appearance. 25 Coldstream 1968, 262–301, 330. The main difference between the new classification and Coldstream’s is that Subgeometric is not considered a period of its own but divided according to the dominating stylistic currents between Late Geometric and Archaic Ia, as has been explained above. 26 For the phases of Geometric pottery in different regions, see Coldstream 1968, 330. 27 Cook 1992, 256 with n. 13; 1998, 29–31, 33–36 with n. 5. 28 Kardara 1963, 35–60. 29 La Rocca 1987, 37–38. The oinochoe no. 1 is possibly, and nos. 4 and 9 are presumably, of North Ionian origin. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10 10/18/05 3:03 Page 10 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Selected examples: 1. Oinochoe at Laon 2. Oinochoe at Bochum (Figs. 1–2) 3. Oinochoe from the Heraeum of Samos 4. Oinochoe or amphora from Miletus 5. Oinochoe from Miletus (Fig. 3) 6. Oinochoe from Miletus 7. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 4) 8. Amphora from Miletus (Fig. 5) 9. Fragment from Miletus 10. Fragment from Miletus (Fig. 6) 11. Krater from Pythagoreion on Samos (Fig. 7) 12. Krater from the Heraeum of Samos (Fig. 8) 13. Krater from Miletus 14. Oinochoe from the Heraeum of Samos 15. Oinochoe in Brussels (Fig. 9) 16. Oinochoe from the Heraeum of Samos 17. Oinochoe from Rhodes Cook 1990, 55, fig. 1, pl. 9.2; 1998, 35, fig. 8.4. Walter-Karydi 1986, 79, pl. 5; Kunisch 1996, 30–34; Cook 1998, 35, fig. 8.3. Walter 1968, 110, no. 341, pl. 57. von Graeve 1971, 109–19, pls. 33–37; 1974, 102, no. 83, pl. 26. von Graeve 1974, 101, no. 78, pl. 26. von Graeve 1975, 48, no. 31, pl. 7. Jacopi 1931, 54, no. 2, figs. 26, 28; Walter 1968, 126, no. 597, pl. 119. Kleiner 1959/60, 88, pl. 80.2; Voigtländer 1986, 53, fig. 18.1918; Cook 1998, 30, fig. 7.2. Kerschner 1999, 35, no. 24, fig. 23. Kardara 1963, 41, fig. 13. Eilmann 1933, 83, Beil. 26.5; Walter 1968, 112, no. 371, pl. 65. Walter 1968, 113, no. 377, fig. 33d, pls. 66–68; Kyrieleis 1981, 40, fig. 28. von Graeve 1974, 101–02, no. 80, pl. 26. Walter 1968, 110, no. 334, pl. 57. Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, IID, 2, pl. 2.6 = 104.6; Schiering 1957, 15–16, 67–68, pl. 3.1; Walter 1968, 120, no. 501, pl. 90; Cook 1998, 34, fig. 8.2. Eilmann 1933, 135, fig. 86, Beil. 43.8; Walter 1968, 111, fig. 30, no. 349, pl. 59. Cagiano de Azevedo 1941, 192–93, figs. 5–6; Walter 1968, 119, no 492, pls. 87–88. possibly NiA I possibly NiA I late in SiA Ia late in SiA Ia TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 11 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Fig. 1. Oinochoe at Bochum (SiA Ia) (after Cook 1998, 35, fig. 8.3). Fig. 2. Oinochoe at Bochum (SiA Ia) (after Kunisch 1996, 32). 11 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 12 10/18/05 3:03 Page 12 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 3. Oinochoe from Miletus (SiA Ia) (after von Graeve 1974, pl. 26.78). Fig. 4. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Ia) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 28). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 13 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Fig. 5. Amphora from Miletus (SiA Ia) (after Cook 1998, 30, fig. 7.2). Fig. 6. Fragment from Miletus (SiA Ia) (after Kardara 1963, 41, fig. 13). 13 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 14 10/18/05 3:03 Page 14 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 7. Krater from Pythagoreion on Samos (SiA Ia) (after Eilmann 1933, Beil. 26.5). Fig. 8. Krater from the Heraeum of Samos (SiA Ia) (after Kyrieleis 1981, 40, fig. 28). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 15 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 15 Fig. 9. Oinochoe in Brussels (SiA Ia, possibly NiA I) (after Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, pl. 104.6a). Characteristic features: Shapes: • The range of shapes decorated in SiA Ia mainly encompasses round-mouthed oinochoai, amphorae and kraters. • The characteristic shape of the oinochoe has a broad, bulbous body on a wide ring base, a cylindrical neck with flaring lipless rim, round mouth and a vertical strap handle reaching from rim to shoulder. Decorative system: • The figural decoration is restricted to the shoulder on oinochoai, to the neck panel on amphorae and to the handle-zone on kraters. The belly of the oinochoe bears a broad belt consisting of several bands containing different, symmetrically arranged ornament. • The metope system of Late Geometric tradition persists on some vessels. In SiA Ia, the central panel is emphasised by being made broader than the lateral ones, whereas the panels of LG metope friezes (e.g. North Ionian Bird kotylai or Bird oinochoai, NiLG) were of identical width. • Within a metope frieze, the figural decoration is restricted to the central panel. It nearly always has several animals, whereas in LG friezes panels one animal—often a bird—was usual. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 16 10/18/05 3:03 Page 16 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Ornaments: • The frames and division of the panels are usually made up of strips of simple ornament such as broken cable. In the following period they will be replaced by simple lines. • The necks of oinochoai are divided into several bands of ornament, which mostly are arranged symmetrically and often show a dotted chequerboard, the whole framed by broken cables. • The upper edge of the shoulder zone on oinochoai is often adorned by a band of tongues. • Dotted volutes appear now for the first time. There are different variations, but these are not yet combined to form chains which will become a characteristic element of the following period SiA Ib. • Favourite filling ornaments of this phase are a large lozenge made up of four small lozenges, and a vertical strip of small lozenges. • Horizontal dividing bands are adorned with broken cable (with or without dots), chequerboard (with square or oblong panels, the blank ones with or without dots) or loop pattern. • The lowest frieze of the oinochoe usually has rays or tongues. Figures: • Figural decoration focuses on animals and mythical creatures, human beings occurring only exceptionally. The predilection for animals is characteristic for the whole period of SiA I. • Large animals, like lions or boars, are often antithetically arranged, threatening each other or weaker creatures; sometimes they are fighting. • The heads are regularly rendered in outline technique but sometimes they are still filled with paint in the tradition of LG silhouette painting. Both techniques may occur on the same vessel. • Eyes are comparatively large and often still rounded. The upper contour of the eye sometimes coincides with the outline of the head. • The interior details of the bodies are indicated by schematic reserved arches. • The animals are often standing on the tips of their toes giving the impression of insecurity. • The manes of lions are often indicated by scales, which may at times be dotted. The phase SiA Ia as a whole is characterised by a great variety of style of figures and ornament. This seems to be a feature typical for the initial phase of new styles as yet unable to develop canonical formulae. Every vase is treated as an individual and there are no indications of serial production in the period SiA Ia, which, however, will be evident later in SiA Ic and SiA Id. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 17 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 17 SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Ib (SiA Ib) This phase essentially corresponds with Cook’s Middle Wild Goat style I30 the main difference being that SiA Ib terminates earlier than MWG I. The reason for this must be that Cook’s decisive feature of MWG I was the occurrence of ornamental bands dividing the animal friezes,31 while the line between Sia Ib and SiA Ic is defined by various other criteria, among which the syntax of the animal friezes is the most important one. Many examples listed here as SiA Ib are categorised by Kardara as usterow anatol¤zvn ruymow and sxolh Arkãdvn.32 The first of these groups, however, also includes coeval pieces from East Aegean regions outside South Ionia. Selected examples: 18. Oinochoe from Naxos on Sicily (Fig. 10) 19. Oinochoe from the Heraeum of Samos 20. Oinochoe in Paris, Louvre (Fig. 11) 21. Oinochoe from the Heraeum of Samos 22. Oinochoe from Temir Gora in St Petersburg (Fig. 12) 23. Oinochoe from Boltyshka (Fig. 13) 24. Oinochoe in Rome (Fig. 14) 25. Oinochoe from Miletus 26. Amphora from Nemirov34 (Fig. 15) 27. Amphora from Miletus 30 Lentini 2000, 427–28, figs. 308–310.33 Walter 1968, no. 510, pl. 97. early in SiA Ib early in SiA Ib Schiering 1957, 15–17, pl. 3.2; early in SiA Ib Kardara 1963, 62, 67, no. 1, fig. 34. Walter 1968, no. 502, pls. 91–93. Walter 1968, no. 503, pls. 94–96; Sokolov 1974, 26–27; Cook 1998, 36, fig. 8.5; Boardman 1998, 152, fig. 285. Onajko 1966, 14, pls. 1–2; Kardara 1963, 75, 77, no. 2, fig. 41. Giuliano 1975; Walter-Karydi 1986, 79, pl. 4. Käufler 1999, 211, no. 1, figs. 1–6. Onajko 1966, 15, pl. 3.3–8; Walter 1968, no. 609, pl. 123, Vakhtina 1998, 128, 130, 132, figs. 3–4. von Graeve 1973/74, 104, no. 95, pl. 28. Cook 1992, 256 with nn. 15, 17; 1998, 36–39. See Cook 1998, 39. 32 Kardara 1963, 61–78, 91–94. 33 The rotelle at the attachment of the handle proposed by Lentini (2000, 428, fig. 310) is a free reconstruction not based on any fragments preserved. 34 The authors could not accept the attribution as an oinochoe after having studied the fragments in the State Hermitage, St Petersburg, June 2005. 31 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 18 3:03 Page 18 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Table (cont.) Eilmann 1933, 84–85, fig. 30, Beil. 27.2; Walter 1968, 68–70, 123–24, nos. 559–560, fig. 42, pls. 106–107. Dinos from Ephesus Kerschner 1997a; Kerschner EpheA Ib (Fig. 16) et al. 2002, 199–206, fig. 7. Lids from Miletus von Graeve 1973/74, 105, nos. 102–103, pl. 28. Lids from Miletus (Fig. 17) Posamentir 2002, 11–13, 22, nos. 1–3, fig. 1. Cup with everted rim Kerschner 1997b, 168–69, 194, from Ephesus no. 125, pl. 16. Stemmed dish from Miletus Heinrich and Senff 1992, 104, (Fig. 18) pl. 19.1. Dish from Miletus Villing 1999, 196, 201, no. 8, fig. 11. Oinochoe from Arkades Levi 1927/29, 353–55, fig. 462, late in SiA Ib on Crete pl. 24; Walter 1968, 75, no. 594, pl. 118. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, no. 526, pl. 100. late in SiA Ib Heraeum of Samos 28. Dinos from the Heraeum of Samos 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Characteristic features: Shapes: • The shapes preferred by SiA Ib vase painters are round-mouthed oinochoai, kraters, dinoi, lids, cups with everted rim (Knickrandschalen) and stemmed dishes. Trefoil-mouthed oinochoai make their first appearance but still remain rare. • The characteristic shape of the oinochoe has a broad, bulbous body, a cylindrical neck with flaring lipless rim, a round mouth and a vertical strap handle from rim to shoulder. The diameter of the ring base is narrower than in SiA Ia. The upper attachment of the vertical strap handle to the lip is mostly adorned, on both sides, by rotelles (= small discs). Decorative system: • In SiA Ib, a second animal frieze is added to the one traditionally placed on the shoulder of oinochoai. It encircles the belly at the level of its largest diameter. On some oinochoai probably to be dated early in Sia Ib, the traditional SiA Ia decoration system of a broad belt of three or more ornamental bands encircling the belly is still alive. A neck panel decorated with animals occurs on a few round-mouthed oinochoai. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 19 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 19 Fig. 10. Oinochoe from Naxos on Sicily (early in SiA Ib) (after Lentini 2000, 427, fig. 308). Fig. 11. Oinochoe in Paris (early in SiA Ib) (after Schiering 1957, pl. 3.2). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 20 10/18/05 3:03 Page 20 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 12. Oinochoe from Temir Gora in St Petersburg (SiA Ib) (after Sokolov 1974, 27). Fig. 13. Oinochoe from Boltyshka (SiA Ib) (after Onajko 1966, pl. 2). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 21 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Fig. 14. Oinochoe in Rome (SiA Ib) (after Giuliano 1975, fig. 3). Fig. 15. Amphora from Nemirov (SiA Ib) (after Onajko 1966, pl. 3.5). 21 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 22 10/18/05 3:03 Page 22 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 16. Dinos from Ephesus (SiA Ib) (after Kerschner 1997a, 10, fig. 1). Fig. 17. Lid from Miletus (SiA Ib) (after Posamentir 2002, 13, fig. 1.1). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 23 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 23 Fig. 18. Stemmed dish from Miletus (SiA Ib) (after Heinrich and Senff 1992, pl. 19.1). • A new composition for the shoulder frieze of oinochoai is developed during phase SiA Ib becoming nearly canonical until the beginning of SiA Id at which time alternatives appear. The lower joint of the handle interrupts the shoulder frieze and in this way defines the central axis on the opposite side. This centre is often accentuated by a complex symmetrical volute motive sometimes enriched with further ornaments. The animals are arranged antithetically around this central floral ornament. • The belly frieze of SiA Ib oinochoai and dinoi undergoes a different treatment to those on the shoulder. We see the introduction of a new compositional concept in South Ionian vase painting: the frieze of animals moving in one direction around the vessel. Two kinds of movement occur: running or striding. This continuous circle is occasionally interrupted and accentuated in that a single animal is shown turning in the opposite direction. • The animal friezes are often high enough to leave some free space above the backs and heads of the figures. Ornaments: • The shoulder-zone on oinochoai is framed with simple vertical lines instead of the ornamental bands of earlier times. • As in SiA Ia the upper edge of the shoulder zone on oinochoai is often adorned by a band of tongues. Apart from on some early pieces these tongues in SiA Ib are encircled by a fine horizontal line. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 24 10/18/05 3:03 Page 24 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER • Horizontal dividing bands are adorned with loop patterns, hatched meanders and squares (alternating crosshatched and filled with small ornaments). Broken cable and chequerboard are rare in SiA Ib. The loop pattern is the preferred ornament for separating animal friezes on the shoulder and belly of oinochoai. • A broad band filled with an orthogonal or obliquely-hatched meander is often the chief ornamental band on the neck of amphorae and oinochoai as well as on the belly of oinochoai. • Volutes are accompanied by dotted bands. They are joined together to form chains, often filling the lowest frieze on dinoi or the central disc on cups and dishes. • As in SiA Ia rays or tongues still occur in the lowest frieze of the oinochoai. Appearing for the first time are chains of lotus flowers and buds. Broadly shaped flowers are typical for SiA Ib. • There is a greater variety of filling ornament in SiA Ib than ever before, some variants running to considerable complexity. Most of them are delicately drawn and small compared with figures, giving the whole a delicately light effect. • Where half roundels are suspended from the upper line of a frieze they are neatly framed with trim rows of petals. • At the end of SiA Ib triangles, suspended or rising from the borders of friezes, make their first appearance. Other than in the following phase SiA Ic, when they become obligatory, the suspended triangles of SiA Ib are not yet invariably used to separate one animal from the other. • On dishes chains of volutes, accompanied by dotted bands and rosettes consisting of elongated, framed leaves, were used as the central ornament of the interior. Figures: • An outstanding characteristic of SiA Ib is the great variety of species making up the animal friezes. Dogs, wild goats and hares (with dotted skin) are frequently shown. Griffins, lions, panthers, bulls and geese occur only in the antithetical compositions of the shoulder frieze. Wild goats and foxes are found both on the shoulder and on the belly, dogs and hares only on the belly. • Two reasons are given for this line-up of animals: grazing or being hunted. Hunting-dogs are occasionally running in the opposite direction as if to trap their victims, producing at the same time a pleasant variation in the compositional rhythm. There are as yet no grazing wild goats or deer to be found in the belly friezes of oinochoai. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 25 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 25 • Figural details show greater differentiation and delicacy than in the previous phase while their disposition becomes ever more canonical. • The reserved parts of the bodies are frequently filled with fine dots. • The manes of lions now consist of small lozenges. Scales, once popular in SiA Ia, occasionally occur as a backward-looking feature. • Eyes are consistently almond-shaped by now with a short line projecting at one or both pointed ends. Because their heads are painted in silhouette it is only the geese which retain the old rounded shape of the eye. • Only two legs are shown when animals are running, whereas striding animals are given all of their four legs. SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Ic (SiA Ic) As we remarked, our new classification divides Cook’s MWG II into two separate phases: SiA Ic and SiA Id. SiA Ic, the earlier of the two, already contains the stylistically most advanced examples of Cook’s MWG I (see above). The painted vases of the phases SiA Ic and SiA Id show obvious signs of serial production. These vessels were exported in considerably higher quantities than those of the preceding phases of South Ionian vase painting which is why they have been more extensively represented and discussed in those earlier publications of East Greek pottery primarily based on finds from Rhodes, Delos and colonial sites such as Naukratis. Selected examples: 37. Lévy-Oinochoe in Paris 38. Oinochoe from Knossos 39. Oinochoe from the Heraeum of Samos 40. Stemmed dish from Kameiros (Fig. 19) 41. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 20) 42. Oinochoe in Tübingen (Fig. 21) 43. Krater from the Heraeum of Samos 44. Oinochoe from Kameiros Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6, pls. 6–7 = 22, 49; Walter 1968, 73–74, no. 592, pls. 116–117; Kopeikina 1982, 6–7, fig. 1; Boardman 1998, 153, fig. 297. Moignard 1996, 437, fig. 88, pl. 111.11. Walter 1968, 122, no. 537, pls. 102, 116. Kardara 1963, 91, 94, fig. 57. Jacopi 1931, 47–50, no. 13, figs. 19–20; Walter 1968, 73–74, no. 601, pl. 120. Wallenstein 1973, 23–25, pls. 8–10. Walter 1968, 69, no. 556, pl. 105. Jacopi 1931, 43–45, no. 1, fig. 14. early in SiA Ic early in SiA Ic early in SiA Ic early in SiA Ic early in SiA Ic early in SiA Ic early in SiA Ic TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 26 3:03 Page 26 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Table (cont.) 45. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 22) 46. Oinochoe in Richmond 47. Oinochoe in Boston 48. Oinochoe in Munich 49. Oinochoe in Zurich (Fig. 23) 50. Oinochoe in Brussels (Fig. 24) 51. Oinochoe from Kameiros in Paris 52. Dinos from the Heraeum of Samos (Fig. 25) 53. Dinos in Knossos (Fig. 26) 54. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (Fig. 27) 55. Cup with everted rim from Miletus 56. Stemmed dish with high rim from Cyprus in London (Fig. 28) 57. Stemmed dish from the Heraeum of Samos 58. Stemmed dish in Rome 59. Stemmed dish from the Heraeum of Samos 60. Lid from Miletus (Fig. 29) 61. Lid from the Heraeum of Samos Jacopi 1931, 82, no. 1; 87, fig. 67; ca. 1933, IIDh, 1, pl. 6.1–4 = 474.1–4. Cook 1998, 37, fig. 8.6. Boardman 1998, 153, fig. 288. Walter-Karydi 1968, 18–19, fig. 2, pls. 273–274. Isler 1973, IID, 7, pl. 2 = 44. Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, IID, 1, pl. 2.1 = 104.1; 3.1 = 105.1. Pottier 1923, IIDc, 5, pl. 5.2 = 21.2; Kardara 1963, 94–95, fig. 59; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 514, pl. 62; Cook 1998, 39, fig. 8.7. Eilmann 1933, 85–87, figs. 31–32, pls. 2–3; Walter 1968, 69, 124, no. 563, fig. 43, pls. 108–109. Moignard 1996, 451, figs. 81–82, pl. 103. Schlotzhauer 2000, 408, 412, fig. 293, colourpl. IV/6. Schlotzhauer 2000, 408, 412, fig. 295. Kinch 1914, 212–14, fig. 102; Villing 1999, 190–91, fig. 1. Technau 1929, 26, Beil. 14.4–5; Walter 1968, 125, no. 579, pl. 113. Paribeni 1904, 279–83, no. 3, pl. 26; Walter-Karydi 1973, 60, 136, no. 651, fig. 127, pl. 77. Walter 1968, 125, no. 577, late in SiA Ic pl. 112. Posamentir 2002, 15, 22, late in SiA Ic no. 6, fig. 2. Technau 1929, 22–23, fig. 17.1; late in SiA Ic Walter 1968, 125, no. 576, pl. 112. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 27 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 27 Fig. 19. Stemmed dish from Kameiros (early in SiA Ic) (after Kardara 1963, 91, fig. 57). Fig. 20. Oinochoe from Kameiros (early in SiA Ic) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 19). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 28 10/18/05 3:04 Page 28 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 21. Oinochoe in Tübingen (early in SiA Ic) (after Wallenstein 1973, pl. 8). Fig. 22. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Ic) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 67). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 29 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 29 Fig. 23. Oinochoe in Zurich (SiA Ic) (after Isler 1973, pl. 44). Fig. 24. Oinochoe in Brussels (SiA Ic) (after Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, pl. 104.1). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 30 10/18/05 3:04 Page 30 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 25. Dinos from the Heraeum of Samos (SiA Ic) (after Eilmann 1933, 86, fig. 32). Fig. 26. Dinos from Knossos (SiA Ic) (after Moignard 1996, fig. 81). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 31 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 31 Fig. 27. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA Ic) (after Schlotzhauer 2000, 408, fig. 293). Fig. 28. Stemmed dish with high rim from Cyprus in London (SiA Ic) (after Villing 1999, 191, fig. 1). Fig. 29. Lid from Miletus (late in SiA Ic) (after Posamentir 2002, 15, fig. 2.6). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 32 10/18/05 3:04 Page 32 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Characteristic features: Shapes: • The range of vessels bearing painted decoration has been considerably broadened by now. Among the shapes preferred by SiA Ic vase painters are the trefoil-mouthed oinochoai, dinoi, kraters, bowls, lids, cups with everted rim and (stemmed) dishes. • Among oinochai the type possessing a trefoil mouth becomes predominant and supersedes the earlier type with a rounded mouth. The body of these trefoil oinochoai is less broad than those of their predecessors. The vertical axis becomes ever more important while the largest diameter has shifted from the middle of the belly to the lower edge of the shoulder. The raised handle is usually made up of three connected rods and adorned by two rotelles at its upper attachment. Decorative system: • The main innovation of SiA Ic which marks this phase off from the preceding SiA Ib is the stereotyped use of triangles and half roundels so important in giving a standardised rhythm to the animal friezes. Both ornaments are usually suspended from the frame in rigorous alternation. The points of the suspended triangles separate the bodies of the grazing ruminants while the half roundels fit smoothly into the slightly curved outline of their backs. Upright triangles sprout between their legs and stabilise their movement. • The deceleration of the movement within the animal friezes is the result of a change of subject matter: hunting scenes, so prevalent in the body decoration of oinochoai in SiA Ib, are losing their importance at this time. When these are still to be found the motion of animals is retarded by large triangular and rounded ornaments protruding from the frame. From SiA Ic onwards uniform friezes are invariably dominated by ever-repeated wild goats and deer bending their heads towards the ground. • Some vase painters of SiA Ic increase the number of friezes on the belly of oinochoai. The Lévy oinochoe, for example, has five friezes of grazing animals one above the other in small but sophisticated variation. • Animal friezes are still rather high, as they were in SiA Ib. Ornaments: • Cable pattern, single or multiple, has now become the canonical ornament decorating the neck of oinochoai. • Horizontal divisions at this time are most often made with simple bands, sometimes highlighted with a central line in additional red. Loop pattern and cable have become rare, whereas a zigzag band, filled with antithetic triangles, is a new addition to the ornamental repertoire. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 33 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 33 • In SiA Ic the chain of lotus flowers and buds has become the standard ornament of the lowest frieze on oinochoai while the band of tongues disappears entirely. A circle of narrow, filled rays can be found as an infrequent alternative. A combination both of rays and a chain of lotus flowers and buds is very rare indeed. • There still is a great variety of filling ornaments. They often are densely packed to give a tapestry-like effect. The individual patterns tend to be more standardised, simpler and with fewer details than in SiA Ib. • The suspended half roundels are still framed by rows of petals but at the same time a simplified version appears consisting of short radial lines between two framing curves which J. Boardman has so aptly called ‘tramlines’.35 • Additional red is used for in emphasising some details of intricate ornaments. In certain parts of the vessels individual ornaments are painted in additional white on the dark glazed ground (e.g. dot rosettes or eyes on the mouth of trefoil-mouthed oinochoai). • The central ornaments of dishes are mostly complex motives (e.g. chains of volutes and palmettes), as they already were in SiA Ib. Figures: • The number of species shown in the belly friezes of SiA Ic oinochoai has been reduced compared with SiA Ib. Wild goats are by far the most favourite animals. Fallow deer offer some variation. Sphinxes and geese are common on the shoulder. • The standardisation of the belly friezes on oinochoai leads to a uniformity of the grazing ruminants extending even to the smallest detail. • The habit of filling the reserved wing base of geese, griffins and sphinxes with fine dots is now fairly rare. • Additional red is now regularly used for emphasising certain details of animals.36 SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Id (SiA Id) This phase encompasses the stylistically advanced examples of Cook’s MWG II as well as those of his phase MWG III which he introduced in 1992 without giving a precise definition.37 The vase painting of SiA Id is characterised by continuing standardisation and a new tendency towards simplification. 35 Boardman 1998, 143 figs. 291–292. There exist some examples of half roundels in SiA Ic showing the transition from petals to tramlines on one and the same piece, e.g. Jacopi 1931, 43–45, no. 1, fig. 14; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 514, pl. 62; cf. Schlotzhauer in press a. 36 See Schlotzhauer in press a. 37 Cook 1992, 257, 260–62; 1998, 39–45. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 34 10/18/05 3:04 Page 34 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Selected examples: 62. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 30) 63. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 31) 64. Fragment of an oinochoe from Berezan in Odessa 65. Stemmed dish from Lindos (Fig. 32) 66. Stemmed dish from Berezan in St Petersburg 67. Oinochoe at Karlsruhe (Fig. 33) 68. Oinochoe in Toronto 69. Fragments of an oinochoe from Berezan in St Petersburg 70. Fragment of an oinochoe from Berezan in Odessa 71. Oinochoe in Torino (Fig. 34) 72. Oinochoe from Rhodes in Paris 73. Oinochoe from Rhodes in Paris 74. Fragment of an oinochoe from Berezan in St Petersburg 75. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 35) 76. Oinochoe from Kameiros 77. Oinochoe from Rhodes 78. Oinochoe from Rhodes 79. Oinochoe from Vroulia Jacopi 1931, 44–46, no. 3, fig. 15; Walter 1968, 126, no. 603, pl. 120. Jacopi 1931, 80, no. 1; 84–85, figs. 64–65; ca. 1933, IIDh, 4, pl. 4.1 = 415.1. Kopeikina 1982, 8, fig. 2.7. early in SiA Id early in SiA Id early in SiA Id Kinch 1914, 212–14, fig. 101; early in SiA Id Walter-Karydi 1973, 134, no. 562, pl. 66. Kopeikina 1982, 14, 17, fig. 11. early in SiA Id Thimme 1986, 89–91; Cook 1998, 39–40, fig. 8.8. Walter-Karydi 1973, 51, no. 526, pl. 63. Kopeikina 1982, 7–8, fig. 2.8. Kopeikina 1982, 9, 11, fig. 5. Lo Porto 1969, IID, 3, pl. 1.2–3 = 1777.2–3; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 516, pl. 62. Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6, pl. 5.8 = 21.8; Kinch 1914, 260, fig. 131; Cook 1998, 39–40, fig. 8.9. Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6, pl. 5.9 = 21.9; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 515, pl. 62. Kopeikina 1982, 9, 12, fig. 6.1. Jacopi 1931, 338, no. 1, figs. 372–373, pl. 6; ca. 1933, IIDh, 4, pl. 4.2–3 = 415.2–3; IIDh, 4, pl. 5 = 416. Jacopi 1933, 85, no. 1, figs. 91–93, 95. Walter 1968, 126, no. 606, pl. 121; Boardman 1998, 154, fig. 291. Kinch 1914, 198, fig. 79. Kinch 1914, 127, pl. 24.5; Cook 1998, 42, fig. 8.10. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 35 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Table (cont.) 80. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 36) 81. Oinochoe in Turin 82. Oinochoe from Kameiros in Paris (Fig. 37) 83. Oinochoe from Kameiros in London 84. Oinochoe from Ashkelon 85. Oinochoe from Miletus (Fig. 38) 86. Oinochoe from Berezan in St Petersburg (Fig. 39) 87. Bowl from the Heraeum of Samos 88. Lid from Miletus (Fig. 40) 89. Stemmed dish from Rhodes in Florence 90. Stemmed dish from Kameiros in Paris 91. Stemmed dish from Kameiros 92. Stemmed dish from Vroulia (Fig. 41) 93. Stemmed dish from Kameiros (Fig. 42) 94. Fragment of a stemmed dish from Berezan 95. Fragments of a stemmed dish from Berezan in St Petersburg 96. Stemmed dish from Vulci in Munich Jacopi 1933, 85–86, 89, no. 3, fig. 96. Lo Porto 1969, IID, 3, pl. 2 = 1778. Kinch 1914, 211, 213, no. 2, fig. 100; Pottier 1923, IIDc, 5, pl. 4.4 = 20.4. Kinch 1914, 214–15, fig. 104; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 534, pl. 64. Stager 1996, 67, 69, fig. 10 (fragments in the upper three rows and in the lower left corner). Heinz 1990, 59, pl. 14.24; Cook 1998, 44–45, fig. 8.12. Kopeikina 1982, 9, 13, fig. 7.1. Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 290, pl. 37. Posamentir 2002, 17, 25, no. 22, fig. 4. Kinch 1914, 210, fig. 95; Kardara 1963, 120, no. 22, pl. 10g; Walter-Karydi 1973, 134, no. 563, pl. 73. Kinch 1914, 251, fig. 124; Walter-Karydi 1973, 134, no. 564, pl. 73; Boardman 1998, 155, fig. 294. Jacopi ca. 1933, IIDh, 3, pl. 2.1 = 413.1. Kinch 1914, 74–75, no. 10, pl. 3.1. Jacopi 1933, 94, 99, no. 1, fig. 106. Kopeikina 1982, 8–9, fig. 3.2. Kopeikina 1982, 18, fig. 12.1. Walter-Karydi 1968, 20, pl. 276.1; 1973, 136, no. 655, pl. 80. 97. Stemmed dish from Rhodes Walter-Karydi 1973, 134, no. 570, pl. 74. 35 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 36 3:04 Page 36 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Table (cont.) 98. Stemmed dish from Vroulia 99. Stemmed dish from Kameiros in London 100. Stemmed dish from Vroulia 101. Bowls from Miletus 102. Polemarchos-Krater from Naukratis in London (Fig. 43) 103. Fragments of an krater from Berezan in Odessa 104. Dinos from Rhodes in Berlin 105. Fragment of a dinos from Miletus 106. Fragment of a dinos from Berezan 107. Stemmed dish from Berezan in Kiev 108. Oinochoe in Munich 109. Amphora from Thebes/ Gurna in Cairo (Fig. 44) Kinch 1914, 21, no. 3b, pl. 17.3; Cook 1998, 43, fig. 8.11. Kardara 1963, 122, no. 1, pl. 10a; Boardman 1998, 155, fig. 293. Kinch 1914, 20–21, no. 3a, pl. 4.1. Villing 1999, 193, 201, nos. 5–6, figs. 7–8. Petrie 1886, 18, pl. 4.3; MileA Id Schiering 1957, 40–41, pl. 11.3; Walter-Karydi 1973, 136, no. 645, pl. 77. Kopeikina 1982, 14, 16, fig. 10.1. Kinch 1914, 215, fig. 103a–b; Walter-Karydi 1973, 133, no. 559, pls. 65–66; Kopeikina 1982, 10, 14, fig. 8. von Graeve 1973/74, 103, no. 87, pl. 27; Walter-Karydi 1973, 59, 136, no. 646, pl. 78. Kopeikina 1982, 11, 15, fig. 9.2. Kopeikina 1982, 20, 22, fig. 14.1. Walter-Karydi 1968, 18, 20, pl. 275; 1973, 132, no. 527, pls. 64, 73. Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 598, pl. 78; Weber 2001, 139–40, pl. 22.4; Dupont 1992, 156, fig. 2a. late in SiA Id late in SiA Id late in SiA Id Characteristic features: Shapes: • Shapes preferred by SiA Id vase painters are trefoil-mouthed oinochoai with high or squat bodies, amphorae, the dinoi, kraters, lids, cups with everted rim, bowls and the (stemmed) dishes. • The trefoil oinochoai with high bodies are slimmer than they were in SiA Ic. Their shoulders are more rounded, the shape as a whole becoming more ovoid. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 37 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Fig. 30. Oinochoe from Kameiros (early in SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 15). Fig. 31. Oinochoe from Kameiros (early in SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 65). 37 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 38 10/18/05 3:04 Page 38 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 32. Stemmed dish from Lindos (early in SiA Id) (after Kinch 1914, 213–14, fig. 101). Fig. 33. Oinochoe at Karlsruhe (SiA Id) (after Cook 1998, 40, fig. 8.8). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 39 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Fig. 34. Oinochoe in Turin (SiA Id) (after Lo Porto 1969, pl. 1777.2). Fig. 35. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 372). 39 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 40 10/18/05 3:04 Page 40 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 36. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1933, fig. 96). Fig. 37. Oinochoe from Kameiros in Paris (SiA Id) (after Kinch 1914, 213, fig. 100). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 41 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY Fig. 38. Oinochoe from Miletus (SiA Id) (after Heinz 1990, pl. 14.24). Fig. 39. Oinochoe from Berezan in St Petersburg (SiA Id) (photograph S. Solovyov, State Hermitage, St Petersburg). 41 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 42 10/18/05 3:04 Page 42 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 40. Lid from Miletus (SiA Id) (after Posamentir 2002, 17, fig. 4.22). Fig. 41. Stemmed dish from Vroulia (SiA Id) (after Kinch 1914, pl. 3.1). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 43 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 43 Fig. 42. Stemmed dish from Kameiros in London (SiA Id) (after Kardara 1963, pl. 10a). Fig. 43. Polemarchos-Krater from Naukratis in London (SiA Id) (photograph; British Museum). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 44 10/18/05 3:04 Page 44 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 44. Amphora from Thebes/Gurna in Cairo (late in SiA Id) (photograph: DAI Neg. 45913/14). Decorative system: • SiA Id sees a revival of the former metope system but in a newly modified form: two groups of suspended filled rays are used as a frame for a central panel containing a solitary figure such as a protome, or a large ornament. This pattern may be found on all types of vessels but is extremely popular on dishes. On closed shapes it is confined to the shoulder frieze. • Another modification of an earlier concept often adorns the belly of some oinochoai: on these the animal frieze is replaced by a broad belt divided into three bands. Other than in the SiA Ia version the decorative belt of SiA Id Gürtelbandkannen38 employs but one simple ornament, frequently a hooked meander between two broad bands of dark glaze, often enlivened by stripes of additional red. A similar decoration appears on dishes, dinoi, kraters and cups with everted rim. • In SiA Id the animals take up more space within the frieze which often gives the impression of being squeezed between the lines of the frames. • In SiA Id geese are often lined up within a frieze like wild goats or deer. 38 Schiering 1957, 20–21. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 45 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 45 Ornaments: • A new ornament in the form of meander and square appears on the neck of oinochoai and soon becomes quite frequent. • The band of suspended tongues framing the upper border of the shoulder frieze on oinochoai now degenerates into a ladder band. • Favourite decorations on dividing bands are the hooked meander, zigzag with T-filling or squares, alternating either with diagonal crosses and dots or with larger dots. • Filling ornaments become less frequent. • Reduced space within the animal friezes leads to flattening and elongation of the suspended half roundels. • There is less variety in suspended or standing triangles which often bear a dotted loop at the apex.39 • Framing or dividing elements in metope friezes now consist of groups of wedge-shaped rays with long, thin apices. • The central rod of the handles of oinochoai may have a simple decoration of oblique strokes. • A rosette, consisting of filled leaves without a line frame is commonly used as a central ornament on dishes and cups. We are as yet unsure whether this motive already appeared in the preceding phase SiA Ic. • In line with the elongation of the bodies of oinochoai the lotus flowers and buds in the lowest frieze also increase in size. On the types showing a decorative belt (Gürtelbandkannen) the vegetable ornament is replaced by high, filled rays which sometimes cover the entire lower half of the body. On squat oinochoai the lowest frieze has groups of vertical strokes or may be left entirely undecorated. Figures: • The bodies of the quadrupeds are now unnaturally elongated so that fewer animals are needed to fill the length of the frieze. • A new motive appears in the shoulder friezes of SiA Id oinochoai: wild goats or fallow deer with bent forelegs. Their head is either upright or lowered and turned around. • Human and animal protomes are frequent on dishes and oinochoai with metope decoration. • Additional red continues to be used regularly to enhance certain details of the animals. 39 See Schlotzhauer in press a. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 46 10/18/05 3:04 Page 46 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC II (SiA II) Most of the figural and ornamental vase painting of this period corresponds to the Fikellura style as defined by Cook.40 At the present stage of research there is no indication that painted pottery with figural and complex ornamental decoration of the period SiA II was produced anywhere else in South Ionia except in Miletus.41 The examples listed below might, therefore, be more precisely described as Milesian Archaic II (MileA II). SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC IIa SiA IIa is an intermediate period between SiA I and SiA II. When we accept as a rule that the first appearance of one or more decisive new features marks the beginning of a new phase or period, this intermediate phase should rather be called SiA IIa—as we propose in this paper—than SiA I/II. The decisive criterion for the beginning of the period SiA II is the appearance of the silhouette technique. It is first to be observed with ornaments, especially in the rendering of the lotus flowers and buds. On vessels of the initial phase SiA IIa the figural friezes tend to be more conservative and adhere in part to the traditional outline technique. In our classification system we use the first appearance of a stylistic element of importance for future development to determine the establishment of phases and periods. In this way transitional pieces showing the new silhouette technique are already classified as SiA IIa.42 Those vessels listed below as SiA IIa had been classified by Cook either as MWG II or as Fikellura.43 For now the definition of SiA IIa is based exclusively on stylistic arguments because stratigraphical evidence is still lacking. Future excavations might show if perhaps there is a chronological overlap of the phases SiA Id and SiA II.44 It might be wise to keep in mind the situation which obtained in Athens during the Late Archaic period where the old black-figure technique and the new red-figure vase painting were practised side by side for many years. 40 Cook 1933/34. See Akurgal et al. 2002, 41–44. 42 Cook 1933/34, 4–5; see also Schlotzhauer in press a. 43 Cook 1933/34, 4–5; 1998, 46, fig. 8.13b; cf. Schlotzhauer in press a. 44 Cf. Cook 1933/34, 5: ‘There is not enough evidence to establish the relation of this fragment [the Vathy Lion Fragment] to the Lion Group, whether it is an ancestor or a collateral.’ 41 TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 47 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 47 Selected examples: 110. Stemmed dish from Berezan in Kiev 111. Oinochoe or amphora from Samos (Fig. 45) 112. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 46) 113. Oinochoe in the Walters Art Gallery 114. Oinochoe from Kameiros (Fig. 47) 115. Oinochoe from Kameiros in Paris 116. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (Fig. 48) 117. Cup with everted rim from Miletus 118. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (Fig. 49) 119. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (Figs. 50–51) 120. Stemmed dish in London 121. Stemmed dish from Rhodes in London (Fig. 52) 122. Stemmed dish from Berezan in St Petersburg Kopeikina. 1982, 21–22, early in SiA IIa fig. 15. Cook 1933/34, 4–5, no. A1 (‘The Vathy Lion Fragment’), pl. 14b; Walter-Karydi 1973, 33, 115, no. 12, pl. 8. Jacopi 1933, 22, no. 1, figs. 16–17. Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 518, pl. 63. Kinch 1914, 202, fig. 84; Pottier 1923, IIDc, 5, pl. 4.5; Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 531, pl. 63. Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6, pl. 5.11 = 21.1. Schlotzhauer 2001, 120–21, pl. 16. Schlotzhauer 2001, 122, pl. 17.1, 17.3. Schlotzhauer in press a. Schlotzhauer in press a. Kardara 1963, 125, fig. 81. Kinch 1914, 203, fig. 85. Kopeikina 1982, 22, fig. 16. Characteristic features: Shapes: • The vase painters of SiA IIa preferred the same shapes as in the preceding phase, i.e. trefoil-mouthed oinochoai with high or squat bodies, amphorae, dinoi, kraters, lids, cups with everted rim and those without pronounced rim, bowls and (stemmed) dishes. Some exceptional shapes like aryballoi, tripods, chalices and others were newly adopted by South Ionian workshops. • Miniature vessels become popular now, in particular amphoriskoi, but also miniature versions of many other shapes like krateriskoi, diniskoi, small cups and mugs, etc. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 48 10/18/05 3:04 Page 48 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 45. Oinochoe or amphora from Samos (SiA IIa) (after Cook 1933/34, pl. 14b). Fig. 46. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA IIa) (after Jacopi 1933, fig. 17). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 49 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 49 Fig. 47. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA IIa) (after Kinch 1914, 202, fig. 84). Fig. 48. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA Iia) (after Schlotzhauer 2001, pl. 16.3). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 50 10/18/05 3:04 Page 50 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Fig. 49. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA IIa) (after Schlotzhauer in press a). Fig. 50. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA IIa) (after Schlotzhauer in press a). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 51 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 51 Fig. 51. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA IIa) (after Schlotzhauer in press a). Fig. 52. Stemmed dish from Rhodes in London (SiA IIa) (after Kinch 1914, 203, fig. 85). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 52 10/18/05 3:04 Page 52 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Decorative system: • Purely ornamental friezes appear beside or even instead of animal friezes. On oinochoai they often occur on the shoulder, on cups with everted rim on the belly and below. • Ornamental friezes may be arranged by now in the form of rows of unconnected single motives giving the impression of floating in the air. • Another new element is the doubling or multiplication of bands filled with ornaments like crescents, rays, etc. Sometimes these bands cover half or more of the belly of a vessel as a coherent zone. • New decoration systems like rosette-net pattern or stylised feathers may cover great parts or even the whole of the vessels. • Buds and volutes appear as adornment of the joins of handles. • One of the main innovations of SiA II is the omitting of the outline of ornaments (the same feature can be seen on figures, see below). • Single buds were isolated from the lotus-bud frieze and used as single motives in friezes and at the joins of handles. • The variety of filling ornaments is decreasing. • A number of new ornaments appear in SiA IIa: pomegranates arranged in friezes, star pattern and many more. Figures: • Parts of the bodies of human beings and animals are in general rendered no longer in outline as in SiA I. The figures are painted all over in black as in the black-figure technique of other Greek regions. In their drawing technique, the South Ionian painters, however, outline inner lines and eyes. • The representation of human beings gets more and more frequent in figure friezes. • Additional red continues to be used on figures and ornaments, but with time gets less frequent. * The proposed classification should be regarded as no more than a framework awaiting further detailed studies at different production centres as well as wherever East Greek pottery might be found in the future. The aim of this draft is merely to achieve clarity and unambiguity of the terminology and to make comparisons between different classes of pottery easier. We hope that our proposal will be accepted as a step towards a ‘common language’ for East Greek pottery studies. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 53 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 53 Michael Kerschner Austrian Archaeological Institute Franz Klein-Gasse 1 1190 Vienna Austria Michael.Kerschner@oeai.at Udo Schlotzhauer German Archaelogical Institute Eurasien-Abteilung Im Dol 2–6, Haus II 14195 Berlin Germany us@dainst.de BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations AA Archäologischer Anzeiger AASOR The Annual of the American School of Oriental Research ABSA Annual of the British School at Athens AJA American Journal of Archaeology ASAtene Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique BdA Bollettino d’arte CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum IM Istanbuler Mitteilungen JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JOAI Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes KST Kazı sonuçları toplantısı MA Monumenti antichi MDAIA Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung MEFRA Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology Akurgal, E. 1987: Griechische und römische Kunst in der Türkei (Munich). Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H. and Niemeier, W.-D. 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Vienna). Bayburtluo<lu, C. 1978: ‘Les céramiques chiotes d’Anatolie’. In Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident, Colloque du Centre Jean Bérard 6–9 Juillet 1976 (Paris), 27–30. Boardman, J. 1998: Early Greek Vase Painting (London). Cagiano de Azevedo, M. 1941: ‘Una oinochoe della necropoli di Jaliso nel Museo dello Spedale dei Cavalieri a Rodi’. Clara Rhodos 10, 185–99. Catling, R.W.V. and Shipley, D.G.J. 1989: ‘Messapian Zeus: An Early Sixth-Century Inscribed Cup from Laconia’. ABSA 84, 187–200. Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.) in press: Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Akten des Symposions am Panionion 26.9.–1.10.1999. Coldstream, J.N. 1968: Greek Geometric Pottery (London). Cook, R.M. 1933/34: ‘Fikellura Pottery’. ABSA 34, 1–98. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 54 10/18/05 3:04 Page 54 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER ——. 1960: Greek Painted Pottery (London). ——. 1965: Review of Chrysoula Kardara, Rodiake angeiographia. Gnomon 37, 502–07. ——. 1972: Greek Painted Pottery2 (London). ——. 1987: ‘Antecedents of Fikellura’. In Bayburtluo<lu, C. (ed.), Festschrift Akurgal, Anadolu 21, 1978–80 [published 1987], 71–74. ——. 1990: ‘A Wild Goat Oinochoe in Laon’. In Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.), Eumousia. Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of A. Cambitoglou (Sydney), 55–56. ——. 1992: ‘The Wild Goat and Fikellura Styles: Some Speculations’. OJA 11, 255–66. ——. 1997: Greek Painted Pottery3 (London/New York). ——. 1998: In Cook, R.M. and Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery (London/New York), 1–141. Dumont, A. and Chaplain, J. 1888: Les céramiques de la Grèce propre I. Histoire de la peinture des vases grecs (Paris). Dupont, P. 1982: ‘Amphores commerciales archaïques de la Grèce de l’Est’. La parola del passato 37, 193–209. ——. 1983: ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales archaïques d’Istros. Rapport préliminaire’. Dacia 27, 19–46. ——. 1992: ‘Amphores grecques archaïques de Gurna: à propos d’une publication récente’. In Zaccone, G.-M. and di Netro, T.R. (eds.), Sesto congresso internazionale di Egittologia, Torino 1.–8. 9. 1991. Atti I (Turin), 153–66. ——. 1999: ‘Mise au point sur les céramiques locales d’Istros’. In Villanueva Puig, M.-C., Lissarrague, F., Rouillard, P. and Rouveret, A. (eds.), Céramique et peinture grecques. Modes d’emploi, Actes du colloque international l’École du Louvre 26–28 avril 1995 (Paris), 129–35. Eilmann, R. 1933: ‘Frühe griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’. MDAIA 58, 47–145. Fantalkin, A. 2001: ‘Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background’. Tel Aviv 28, 3–165. Gardner, E.A. 1888: Naukratis II (London). Giuliano, A. 1975: ‘Una oinochoe greco-orientale nel Museo di Villa Giulia’. BdA 60, 165–67. von Graeve, V. 1971: ‘Eine Sagendarstellung der frühen milesischen Vasenmalerei’. IM 21, 109–19. ——. 1973/74: ‘Milet. Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der hellenistischen Stadtmauer 1963’. IM 23/24, 63–115. ——. 1975: ‘Milet. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen im Südschnitt an der hellenistischen Stadtmauer 1966’. IM 25, 35–59. ——. 1986: ‘Die Grabung auf dem Kalabaktepe’. IM 36, 37–51. von Graeve, V. and Senff, R. 1990: ‘Die Grabung am Südhang des Kalabaktepe’. IM 40, 44–50. Greenewalt, C.H., Jr, Ratté, C. and Rautman, M.L. 1996: ‘The Sardis Campaigns of 1992 and 1993’. AASOR 53, 1–36. Greenewalt, C.H., Jr and Rautman, M.L. 1998: ‘The Sardis Campaign of 1994 and 1995’. AJA 102, 469–505. Heinrich, H. and Senff, R. 1992: ‘Die Grabung am Kalabaktepe’. IM 42, 100–04. Heinz, M. 1990: ‘Katalog ausgewählter Funde’. IM 40, 56–61. Höckmann, U. and Kreikenbom, D. (eds.) 2001: Naukratis. Die Beziehungen zu Ostgriechenland, Ägypten und Zypern in archaischer Zeit. Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz, 25.–27. November 1999 (Möhnesee). Hommel, P., Kleiner, G. and Müller-Wiener, W. 1967: Panionion und Melie, 23. Ergänzungsheft JdI (Berlin). Isler, H.P. 1973: CVA Zürich, Öffentliche Sammlungen 1 = Schweiz 2 (Bern). Jacopi, G. 1931: Esplorazione archelogica di Camiro I. Scavi nella necropoli Camiresi 1929–1930’. Clara Rhodos 4 (Bergamo). ——. 1933: Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro II. Clara Rhodos 6–7 (Bergamo). ——. ca. 1933: CVA Rodi 1, Museo Archeologico dello Spedale dei Cavalieri di Rodi = Italia 9 (Milan/Rome). Kardara, C. 1963: Rhodiake angeiographia (Athens). Käufler, S. 1999: ‘Die Frühstufe des Middle Wild Goat I-Stils in Milet’. AA, 203–12. Kerschner, M. 1995: ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe’. AA, 214–20. ——. 1997a: ‘Ein Kessel des frühen Tierfriesstiles aus den Grabungen unter der TetragonosAgora in Ephesos’. JOAI 66, 9–27. TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 55 A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 55 ——. 1997b: ‘Ein stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jh.s v. Chr. aus dem Artemision von Ephesos’. JOAI 66 Beiblatt, 85–226. ——. 1999: ‘Das Artemisheiligtum auf der Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe in Milet’. AA, 7–51. ——. 2000: Review of Cook 1998. Klio 82, 553–55. ——. in press: ‘Das Keramikbild von Ephesos im 7. und 6. Jh. v. Chr.’. In Cobet et al. in press. Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., Rogl, C. and Schwedt, A. 2002: ‘Die Keramikproduktion von Ephesos in griechischer Zeit. Zum Stand der archäometrischen Forschungen’. JOAI 71, 189–206. Kinch, K.F. 1914: Vroulia (Berlin). Kleiner, G. 1959/60: ‘Die Grabung im Norden des Athena-Tempels’. IM 9/10, 86–96. Kopeikina, L.V. 1982: ‘Rodossko-ioniiskaya keramika VII v. do n. e. s o. Berezan’ i ee znachenie dlya izucheniya rannego etapa sushchestvovaniya poseleniya’. In Boriskovskaya, S.P. (ed.), Khudozhestvennye izdeliya antichnykh masterov (Leningrad), 6–35. Krinzinger, F. (ed.) 2000: Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions Wien 24.–27. März 1999 (Vienna). Kunisch, N. 1996: Erläuterungen zur Griechischen Vasenmalerei (Cologne). Kyrieleis, H. 1981: Führer durch das Heraion von Samos (Athens). La Rocca, E. 1987: ‘Mileto e Iasos nel VII secolo a. C.: Un’oinochoe del “Middle Wild Goat Style I”’. In Studi su Iasos di Caria. Venticinque anni di scavi della missione archeologica Italiana (Rome). Lemos, A.A. 1991: Archaic Pottery of Chios. The Decorated Styles (Oxford). Lentini, M.C. 2000: ‘Una oinochoe Middle Wild Goat I da Naxos di Sicilia’. In Krinzinger 2000, 425–28. Levi, D. 1927/29: ‘Arkades. Una città cretese all’alba della civiltà ellenica’. ASAtene 10–12, 1–723. Lo Porto, F.G. 1969: CVA Torino, Museo di Antichità 2 = Italia 40 (Rome). Mannack, T. 2002: Griechische Vasenmalerei. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt). Mayence, F. and Verhoogen, V. 1949: CVA Bruxelles, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire (Cinquantennaire) 3 = Belgique 3 (Brussels). Moignard, E. 1996: ‘The Orientalizing pottery’. In Coldstream, J.N. and Catling, H.W. (eds.), Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs (London), 421–62. Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.) 1986: Milet 1899–1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung, Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980 (Tübingen). Niemeier, W.-D. 1999: ‘Die Zierde Ioniens’. AA, 373–413. Onajko, N.A. 1966: Antichnyj Import v Pridneprov’e i Pobuz’e v VII-V vekah do n.e. (Moscow). Paribeni, R. 1904: ‘Vasi inediti del Museo Kircheriano’. MA 14, 269–308. Payne, H.G.G. 1931: Necrocorinthia (Oxford). Petrie, W.M.F. 1886: Naukratis I, 1884–5 (London). Posamentir, R. 2001: ‘Funde aus Milet XII. Beobachtungen zu archaischen Deckeln: Tierfries und „Graue Ware“’. AA, 9–26. Pottier, E. 1923: CVA Musée du Louvre 2 = France 2 (Paris). Price, E.R. 1928: East Greek Pottery. CVA Classification des céramiques antiques 13 (Macon). Salviat, F. and Weill, N. 1961: ‘Plat aux lions affrontés de l’Artémision Thasien: Art “rhodien” et art cycladique au VIIe siècle’. BCH 85, 98–122. Schaus, G.P. 2000: ‘Orientalisierende Vasenmalerei’. In: Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.), Der Neue Pauly 9 (Stuttgart/Weimar), 23–25. Schiering, W. 1957: Werkstätten orientalisierender Keramik auf Rhodos (Berlin). Schlotzhauer, U. 1999: ‘Funde aus Milet IV. Beobachtungen zu Trinkgefässen des Fikellurastils’. AA, 223–39. ——. 2000: ‘Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Formen und Entwicklung der sog. Ionischen Schalen in archaischer Zeit’. In Krinzinger 2000, 407–16. ——. 2001: ‘Ausgewählte ostgriechische Keramik aus Naukratis im Blickwinkel neuer Forschungen’. In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, 111–25. ——. in press a: ‘Zum Verhältnis zwischen sog. Tierfries- und Fikellurastil (SiA I und II) in Milet’. In Cobet et al. in press. ——. in press b: ‘Griechen in der Fremde: Wer weihte in die Filialheiligtümer der Samier und Mileser in Naukratis?’. In Naso, A. (ed.), Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari del Mediterraneo antico. Atti del convegno Udine 20.–22.11.2003 (in press). TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 56 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER Smith, C. 1886: ‘The Painted Pottery’. In Petrie 1886, 46–54. Sokolov, G. 1974: Antique Art on the Northern Black Sea Coast (Leningrad). Stager, L.E 1996: ‘Ashkelon and the archaeology of destruction: Kislev 604 BCE’. Eretz Israel 25, 61–74. Technau, W. 1929: ‘Griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’. AM 54, 6–64. Thimme, J. 1986: Antike Meisterwerke im Karlsruher Schloß (Karlsruhe). Vakhtina, M.Y. 1998: ‘Osnovnye kategorii grecheskoi importnoi keramiki iz raskopok Nemirovskogo gorodishcha.’ In Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii VI (Simferopol), 122–39. Villard, F. and Vallet, G. 1955: ‘Lampes du VIIe siècle et chronologie des coupes ioniennes’. MEFRA 65, 7–34. Villing, A. 1999: ‘Funde aus Milet I. Zwei archaische Schüsselformen’. AA, 189–202. Voigtländer, W. 1986: ‘Zur archaischen Keramik in Milet’. In Müller-Wiener 1986, 35–55. Waldbaum, J.C. and Magness, J. 1997: ‘The Chronology of Early Greek Pottery: New Evidence from Seventh-Century B.C. Destruction Levels in Israel’. AJA 101, 23–40. Wallenstein, K. 1973: CVA Tübingen, Antikensammlung des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität 1 = Deutschland 36 (Munich). Walter, H. 1968: Frühe samische Gefäße. Chronologie und Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße. Samos V (Bonn). Walter-Karydi, E. 1968: CVA München, Museum antiker Kleinkunst (6) = Deutschland (28) (Munich). ——. 1973: Samische Gefäße des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße, Samos VI.1 (Bonn). ——. 1986: ‘Zur archaischen Keramik Ostioniens’. In Müller-Wiener 1986, 73–80. Weber, S. 2001: ‘Archaisch ostgriechische Keramik aus Ägypten außerhalb von Naukratis’. In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, 127–50.