History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2)
by H. B. Walters · English · Gutenberg #48154 · 1,220,514 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2)
Author: H. B. Walters
Samuel Birch
Release date: February 7, 2015 [eBook #48154]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48154
Credits: Produced by KD Weeks, Chris Curnow and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY: GREEK, ETRUSCAN, AND ROMAN. VOLUME 1 (OF 2) ***
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical
effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Bold
font is shown delimited by the ‘=’ character. Super- and subscripted
characters are shown as '^2' and '_{2}' respectively.
This text includes the rendering of ancient Greek inscriptions, using
the alphabets in a number of different regions, not all of which exist
in the unicode character set. It is not possible to render these
inscriptions in text without a wholesale loss of information about the
variant forms. Each inscription, therefore, is simply rendered using
modern Greek characters, including several archaic characters (koppa =
Ϙ and digamma= Ϝ) which are supported in unicode fonts. These
inscriptions are better viewed, obviously, in the HTML or epub versions
which can be found at Project Gutenberg.
Minor errors and inconsistency in punctuation and formatting have been
silently corrected. Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of
this text for details regarding the handling of any other textual
issues encountered during its preparation.
Footnotes appeared in the printed text numbered sequentially on each
page. They have been renumbered to be unique across the text, and
gathered at the end of each chapter. The occasional references to them
by the original number have been changed.
Volume II of this text is available separately from Project Gutenberg
at:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48155
------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE I
[Illustration:
KYLIX BY DURIS.
THE LABOURS OF THESEUS.
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]
------------------------------------
HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY
GREEK, ETRUSCAN, AND ROMAN
BY H. B. WALTERS, M.A., F.S.A.
BASED ON THE WORK OF
SAMUEL BIRCH
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOLUME I
WITH 300 ILLUSTRATIONS
INCLUDING 8 COLOURED PLATES
[ILLUSTRATION]
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINTED BY
HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD.,
LONDON AND AYLESBURY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE
In 1857 Dr. Samuel Birch issued his well-known work on ancient pottery,
at that time almost the first attempt at dealing with the whole subject
in a comprehensive manner. Sixteen years later, in 1873, he brought out
a second edition, in some respects condensed, in others enlarged and
brought up to date. But it is curious to reflect that the succeeding
sixteen years should not only have doubled or even trebled the material
available for a study of this subject, but should even have
revolutionised that study. The year 1889 also saw the completion of the
excavations of the Acropolis at Athens, which did much to settle the
question of the chronology of Attic vases. Yet another sixteen years,
and if the increase in actual bulk of material is relatively not so
great, yet the advance in the study of pottery, especially that of the
primitive periods, has been astounding; and while in 1857, and even in
1873, it was impossible to do much more than collect and co-ordinate
material, in 1905 Greek ceramics have become one of the most advanced
and firmly based branches of classical archaeology.
It therefore implies no slur on the reputation of Samuel Birch’s work
that it has become out of date. Up till now it has remained the only
comprehensive treatise, and therefore the standard work, on the
subject; but of late years there has been a crying need, especially in
England, of a book which should place before students a condensed and
up-to-date account of Greek vases and of the present state of knowledge
of the subject. The present volumes, while following in the main the
plan adopted by Dr. Birch, necessarily deviate therefrom in some
important particulars. It has been decided to omit entirely the section
relating to Oriental pottery, partly from considerations of space,
partly from the impossibility of doing justice to the subject except in
a separate treatise; for the same reason the pottery of the Celts and
of Northern Europe has been ignored. Part I. of the present work,
dealing chiefly with the technical aspect of the subject, remains in
its main outlines much as it was thirty years ago; but the other
sections have been entirely re-written. For the historical account of
vase-painting in Birch’s second edition one chapter of forty pages
sufficed; it now extends to six chapters, or one quarter of the work.
The subjects on the vases, again, occupy four chapters instead of two;
and modern researches have made it possible to treat the subjects of
Etruscan and Roman pottery with almost the same scientific knowledge as
that of Greece.
A certain amount of repetition in the various sections will, it is
hoped, be pardoned on the ground that it was desirable to make each
section as far as possible complete in itself; and another detail which
may provoke unfavourable criticism is the old difficulty of the
spelling of Greek names and words. In regard to the latter the author
admits that consistency has not been attained, but his aim has been
rather to avoid unnecessary Latinising on the one hand and pedantry on
the other.
Finally, the author desires to express his warmest acknowledgments to
all who have been of assistance to him in his work, by their writings
or otherwise, especially to a friend, desiring to be nameless, who has
kindly read through the proofs and made many useful suggestions; to the
invaluable works of many foreign scholars, more particularly those of
M. Pottier, M. Salomon Reinach, and M. Déchelette, he owes a debt which
even a constant acknowledgment in the text hardly repays. Thanks are
also due to the Trustees of the British Museum for kind permission to
reproduce their blocks for Figs. 75, 109, 118, 125, 128, 131, 138, 185,
191, and 197, to M. Déchelette for permission to reproduce from his
work the vases given in Figs. 224, 226, and to the Committee of the
British School at Athens for similar facilities in regard to Plate XIV.
(pottery from Crete). Lastly, but by no means least, the author desires
to express to Mr. Hallam Murray his deep sense of obligation for the
warm interest he has shown in the work throughout and for the pains he
has taken to ensure the success of its outward appearance.
H. B. W.
LONDON, _January 1905_.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
PAGE
PREFACE v
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I ix
LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I xiii
LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I xv
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY xix
NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK xxxvi
PART I
GREEK POTTERY IN GENERAL
CHAPTER I
_INTRODUCTORY_
Importance of study of ancient monuments—Value of pottery as
evidence of early civilisation—Invention of the art—Use of
brick in Babylonia—The potter’s wheel—Enamel and
glazes—Earliest Greek pottery—Use of study of
vases—Ethnological, historical, mythological, and artistic
aspects—Earliest writings on the subject—The “Etruscan”
theory—History of the study of Greek vases—Artistic,
epexegetic, and historical methods—The vase-collections of
Europe and their history—List of existing collections 1–30
CHAPTER II
_SITES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCOVERY OF GREEK VASES_
Historical and geographical limits of subject—Description of
Greek tombs—Tombs in Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Sicily,
Italy—Condition of vases when found—Subsequent
restorations—Imitations and forgeries—Prices of vases—Sites
on which painted vases have been found: Athens, Corinth,
Boeotia, Greek islands, Crimea, Asia Minor, Cyprus, North
Africa, Italy, Etruria—Vulci discoveries—Southern Italy,
Sicily 31–88
CHAPTER III
_THE USES OF CLAY_
Technical terms—Sun-dried clay and unburnt bricks—Use of
these in Greece—Methods of manufacture—Roof-tiles and
architectural decorations in terracotta—Antefixal
ornaments—Sicilian and Italian systems—Inscribed
tiles—Sarcophagi—Braziers—Moulds—Greek lamps—Sculpture in
terracotta—Origin of art—Large statues in
terracotta—Statuettes—Processes of
manufacture—Moulding—Colouring—Vases with plastic
decoration—Reliefs—Toys—Types and uses of
statuettes—Porcelain and enamelled wares—Hellenistic and
Roman enamelled fabrics 89–130
CHAPTER IV
_USES AND SHAPES OF GREEK VASES_
Mention of painted vases in literature—Civil and domestic
use of pottery—Measures of capacity—Use in daily
life—Decorative use—Religious and votive uses—Use in funeral
ceremonies—Shapes and their names—Ancient and modern
classifications—Vases for storage—Pithos—Wine-
amphora—Amphora—Stamnos—Hydria—Vases for
mixing—Krater—Deinos or Lebes—Cooking-vessels—Vases for
pouring wine—Oinochoë and variants—Ladles—Drinking-
cups—Names recorded by
Athenaeus—Kotyle—Skyphos—Kantharos—Kylix—Phiale—
Rhyton—Dishes—Oil-
vases—Lekythos—Alabastron—Pyxis—Askos—Moulded vases 131–201
CHAPTER V
_TECHNICAL PROCESSES_
Nature of clay—Places whence obtained—Hand-made
vases—Invention of potter’s wheel—Methods of
modelling—Moulded vases and relief-
decoration—Baking—Potteries and furnaces—Painted vases and
their classification—Black varnish—Methods of
painting—Instruments and colours employed—Status of potters
in antiquity 202–233
PART II
HISTORY OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING
CHAPTER VI
_PRIMITIVE FABRICS_
Introductory—Cypriote Bronze-Age
pottery—Classification—Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus—Graeco-
Phoenician fabrics—Shapes and decoration—Hellenic and later
vases—Primitive pottery in Greece—Troy—Thera and
Cyclades—Crete—Recent discoveries—Mycenaean
pottery—Classification and distribution—Centres of
fabric—Ethnography and chronology 234–276
CHAPTER VII
_RISE OF VASE-PAINTING IN GREECE_
Geometrical decoration—Its origin—Distribution of
pottery—Shapes and ornamentation of vases—Subjects—Dipylon
vases—Boeotian Geometrical wares—Chronology—Proto-Attic
fabrics—Phaleron ware—Later Boeotian vases—Melian
amphorae—Corinth and its pottery—“Proto-Corinthian”
vases—Vases with imbrications and floral decoration—Incised
lines and ground-ornaments—Introduction of figure-
subjects—Chalcidian vases—“Tyrrhenian Amphorae” 277–327
CHAPTER VIII
_VASE-PAINTING IN IONIA_
General characteristics—Classification—Mycenaean
influence—Rhodian pottery—“Fikellura” ware—Asia Minor
fabrics—Cyrenaic vases—Naukratis and its pottery—Daphnae
ware—Caeretan hydriae—Other Ionic fabrics—“Pontic”
vases—Early painting in Ionia—Clazomenae sarcophagi 328–367
CHAPTER IX
_ATHENIAN BLACK-FIGURED VASES_
Definition of “black-figured”—The François vase—Technical
and stylistic details—Shapes—Decorative patterns—Subjects
and types—Artists’ signatures—Exekias and Amasis—Minor
Artists—Nikosthenes—Andokides—“Affected” vases—Panathenaic
amphorae—Vases from the Kabeirion—Opaque painting on black
ground—Vase-painting and literary tradition—Early Greek
painting and its subsequent development 368–399
CHAPTER X
_RED-FIGURED VASES_
Origin of red-figure style—Date of introduction—Καλός-names
and historical personages—Technical characteristics—Draughts
manship—Shapes—Ornamentation—Subjects and types—Subdivisions
of style—Severe period and artists—Strong
period—Euphronios—Duris, Hieron, and Brygos—Fine
period—Influence of Polygnotos—Later fine period—Boeotian
local fabric 400–453
CHAPTER XI
_WHITE-GROUND AND LATER FABRICS_
Origin and character of white-ground painting—Outline
drawing and polychromy—Funeral lekythi—Subjects and
types—Decadence of Greek vase-painting—Rise of new
centres—Kertch, Cyrenaica, and Southern
Italy—Characteristics of the latter
fabrics—Shapes—Draughtsmanship—Influence of Tragedy and
Comedy—Subjects—Paestum fabric—Lucanian, Campanian, and
Apulian fabrics—Gnathia vases—Vases modelled in form of
figures—Imitations of metal—Vases with reliefs—“Megarian”
bowls—Bolsena ware and Calene phialae 454–504
LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I
(_Except where otherwise noted the objects are in the British Museum_)
PLATE
I. Kylix signed by Duris: Labours of Theseus
(_colours_) Frontispiece
TO FACE PAGE
II. Archaic terracotta antefixes 98
III. Restoration of temple at Civita Lavinia 100
IV. Greek lamps and “brazier-handles” 106
V. Moulds for terracotta figures 114
VI. Terracotta vases from Southern Italy 118
VII. “Melian” reliefs 120
VIII. Archaic terracotta figures 122
IX. Terracotta figures of fine style 124
X. Porcelain and enamelled wares 128
XI. Cypriote Bronze-Age pottery 242
XII. Mycenaean vases found in Cyprus 246
XIII. Cypriote “Graeco-Phoenician” pottery 252
XIV. Example of Kamaraes ware from Palaiokastro,
Crete (from _Brit. School Annual_) 266
XV. Mycenaean vases (_colours_) 272
XVI. Subjects from the Aristonoös krater in the
Vatican (from _Wiener Vorl._) 296
XVII. Phaleron, Boeotian, and Photo-Corinthian vases 300
XVIII. Melian amphora in Athens (from Conze) 302
XIX. Proto-Corinthian and Early Corinthian vases 308
XX. Corinthian pyxis and Rhodian oinochoë
(_colours_) 312
XXI. Later Corinthian vases with figure subjects 316
XXII. Chalcidian vase in Bibl. Nat., Paris: Herakles
and Geryon; chariot 320
XXIII. “Tyrrhenian” Amphora: The death of Polyxena 324
XXIV. Rhodian and Naucratite wares 336
XXV. Situla from Daphnae; later Ionic vase in South
Kensington 352
XXVI. Caeretan hydria (_colours_) 354
XXVII. Painted sarcophagus from Clazomenae 364
XXVIII. The François vase in Florence, general view
(from Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._) 370
XXIX. Attic black-figured amphorae 380
XXX. Vases by Nikosthenes 384
XXXI. Obverse of vase by Andokides: Warriors playing
draughts (B.F.) 386
XXXII. Reverse of vase by Andokides: Herakles and the
Nemean lion (R.F.) 386
XXXIII. Panathenaic amphora, earlier style 388
XXXIV. Panathenaic amphora, later style 390
XXXV. Vases with opaque figures on black ground (Brit.
Mus. and Louvre) 394
XXXVI. Red-figured “Nolan” amphorae and lekythos 412
XXXVII. Cups of Epictetan style 422
XXXVIII. Kylix at Munich signed by Euphronios: Herakles
and Geryon (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold) 432
XXXIX. Kylikes by Duris at Berlin and in the style of
Brygos at Corneto (from Baumeister) 436
XL. Vases signed by Sotades (Brit. Mus. and Boston) 444
XLI. Hydria signed by Meidias 446
XLII. Vases of “late fine” style (_colours_) 448
XLIII. Polychrome white-ground vases (_colours_) 456
XLIV. Campanian and Apulian vases 484
XLV. Apulian sepulchral vase (colours) 486
XLVI. Vases modelled in various forms 492
XLVII. Archaic vase in Athens with reliefs (from
Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική) 496
XLVIII. Vases of black ware with reliefs (Hellenistic
period) 500
LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN
VOLUME I
FIG. PAGE
1. Coffin containing vases, from _Stackelberg_
Athens 34
2. Bronze-Age tombs in Cyprus _Ath. Mitth._ 35
3. Tomb at Gela (Sicily) with _Ashmol. Vases_
vases 37
4. Campana tomb at Veii _Campana_ 39
5. Map of Greece 47
6. Map of Asia Minor and the
Archipelago 63
7. Map of Cyprus 66
8. Map of Italy 70
9. Diagram of roof-tiling, _Durm_
Heraion, Olympia 93
10. Antefix from Marathon _Brit. Mus._ 99
11. Inscribed tiles from Acarnania _Brit. Mus._
and Corfu 102
12. Ostrakon of Megakles _Benndorf_ 103
13. Ostrakon of Xanthippos _Jahrbuch_ 103
14. Hemikotylion from Kythera _Brit. Mus._ 135
15. Child playing with jug _Brit. Mus._ 137
16. Dedication to Apollo _Brit. Mus._
(Naukratis) 139
17. Youth with votive tablet _Benndorf_ 140
18. Vases used in sacrifice _Furtwaengler and
Reichhold_ 141
19. Funeral lekythos with vases _Brit. Mus._
inside tomb 143
20. Vases placed on tomb (Lucanian _Brit. Mus._
hydria) 144
21. Pithos from Knossos 152
22. Greek wine-jars _Brit. Mus._ 154
23. Amphora-stamps from Rhodes _Dumont._ 156
24. Amphora-stamps from Thasos _Dumont._ 158
25. “Tyrrhenian” amphora 160
26. Panathenaic amphora 160
27. Panel-amphora 161
28. Red-bodied amphora 161
29. “Nolan” amphora 162
30. Apulian amphora 162
31. “Pelike” 163
32. Stamnos 164
33. “Lekane” 164
34. Hydria 166
35. Kalpis 166
36. Krater with column-handles 169
37. Volute-handled krater 170
38. Calyx-krater 170
39. Bell-krater 170
40. Lucanian krater 172
41. Psykter 173
42. Deinos or lebes 173
43. Oinochoë (7th century) 177
44. Oinochoë (5th century) 177
45. Prochoös 178
46. Olpe 178
47. Epichysis 179
48. Kyathos 179
49. Kotyle 184
50. Kantharos 188
51. Kylix (earlier form) 190
52. Kylix (later form) 191
53. Phiale 191
54. Rhyton 193
55. Pinax 194
56. Lekythos 196
57. Lekythos (later form) 196
58. Alabastron 197
59. Aryballos 197
60. Pyxis 198
61. Epinetron or Onos 199
62. Askos 200
63. Apulian askos 200
64. Guttus 200
65. Potter’s wheel, from _Ant. Denkm._
Corinthian pinakes 207
66. Potter’s wheel (vase of about _Ath. Mitth._
500 B.C.) 208
67. Boy polishing vase; interior _Blümner_
of pottery 213
68. Seilenos as potter 216
69. Interior of furnace _Ant. Denkm._
(Corinthian pinax) 217
70. Interior of pottery _Ath. Mitth._ 218
71. Red-figured fragment,
incomplete 222
72. Studio of vase-painter _Blümner_ 223
73. Vase-painter varnishing cup _Jahrbuch_ 227
74. Vase-painter using feather- _Jahrbuch_
brush 228
75. Cypriote jug with concentric _Brit. Mus._
circles 251
76. Cypriote vase from Ormidhia _Baumeister_ 254
77. “Owl-vase” from Troy _Schliemann_ 258
78. Deep cup from Troy _Schliemann_ 259
79. Vase in form of pig from Troy _Schliemann_ 259
80. Double-necked vase from Troy _Schliemann_ 259
81. Vases from Thera _Baumeister_ 261
82. Mycenaean vases with marine _Brit. Mus._
subjects 273
83. Ornamentation on Geometrical _Perrot_
vases 283
84. Geometrical vase with panels _Brit. Mus._ 284
85. Boeotian Geometrical vases _Jahrbuch_ 288
86. Coffer from Thebes (Boeotian _Jahrbuch_
Geometrical) 289
87. Burgon lebes _Brit. Mus._ 296
88. Warrior vase from Mycenae _Schliemann_ 297
89. Proto-Attic vase from Vourva _Ath. Mitth._ 299
90. The Dodwell pyxis (cover) _Baumeister_ 316
91. Vases of Samian or “Fikellura” _Brit. Mus._
style 337
92. The Arkesilaos cup (Bibl. _Baumeister_
Nat.) 342
93. Cyrenaic cup with Kyrene _Brit. Mus._ 344
94. Naukratis fragment with “mixed _Brit. Mus._
technique” 346
95. “Egyptian situla” from Daphnae _Brit. Mus._ 351
96. Kylix by Exekias _Wiener Vorl._ 381
97. Vase by Amasis: Perseus _Brit. Mus._
slaying Medusa 382
98. Vase from Temple of Kabeiri _Brit. Mus._ 392
99. Diagram of rendering of eye on _Brit. Mus. Cat._
Attic vase 408
100. Palmettes under handles (early _Jahrbuch_
R.F.) 414
101. Palmettes under handles (later _Riegl_
R.F.) 415
102. Development of maeander and _Brit. Mus. Cat._
cross pattern 416
103. Krater of Polygnotan style: _Mon. dell’ Inst._
Slaying of Niobids (Louvre) 442
104. Boeotian kylix _Brit. Mus._ 452
105. Burlesque scene: Herakles and _Jahrbuch_
Auge 474
106. Apulian sepulchral vase _Brit. Mus._ 477
107. Vase by Assteas in Madrid _Baumeister_ 480
108. Lucanian krater: Departure of _Brit. Mus._
warrior 482
109. Hydria with opaque painting on _Brit. Mus._
black ground 489
110. Phiale with Latin inscription _Brit. Mus._ 490
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY
PART I
PERIODICALS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT
_American Journal of Archaeology._ Baltimore and Boston, 1885, etc. In
progress. (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._)
_Annali dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome, 1829–85.
(_Ann. dell’ Inst._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in
_Répertoire des Vases_, vol. i. (1899).
_Annual of the British School at Athens._ London, 1894, etc. In
progress. (_Brit. School Annual._)
_Antike Denkmäler_, herausgegeben vom kaiserl. deutschen Institut.
Berlin, 1887, etc. In progress. A supplementary atlas to the
_Jahrbuch_. (_Ant. Denkm._)
_Archaeologia_, or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity. London,
1770, etc. Issued by the Society of Antiquaries. In progress.
_Archaeological Journal_, issued by the Royal Archaeological Institute.
London, 1845, etc. In progress. Numerous articles on Roman pottery,
etc. in Britain. (_Arch. Journ._)
_Archaeologische Zeitung._ Berlin, 1843–85. Vols. vii.–xxv. have the
secondary title _Denkmäler, Forschungen und Berichte_. (_Arch.
Zeit._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,
vol. i. (1899).
_Archaeologischer Anzeiger._ Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress; a
supplement bound up with the _Jahrbuch_ (new acquisitions of
museums, reports of meetings, etc.). (_Arch. Anzeiger._)
_Archaeologische-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn._
Vienna, 1877–97. Now superseded by _Jahreshefte_. (_Arch.-epigr.
Mitth. aus Oesterr._)
_Athenische Mittheilungen._ Athens, 1876, etc. In progress. Organ of
the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. (_Ath. Mitth._)
_Berichte der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften._ Leipzig,
1846, etc. In progress. Important articles by O. Jahn, 1853–67.
(_Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._)
_Bonner Jahrbücher. Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im
Rheinlande._ Bonn, 1842, etc. In progress. Important for notices of
pottery, etc., found in Germany, and for recent articles by
Dragendorff and others on Roman pottery (Arretine and provincial
wares, vols. xcvi., ci., cii., ciii.). (_Bonner Jahrb._)
_Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique._ Athens and Paris, 1877, etc.
In progress. (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._)
_Bullettino archeologico Napolitano._ Naples, 1842–62. Ser. i. 1842–48.
New ser. 1853–62. Re-edited by S. Reinach, 1899. (_Bull. Arch.
Nap._)
_Bullettino dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome,
1829–85. Chiefly records of discoveries in Italy and elsewhere.
(_Bull. dell’ Inst._)
_Classical Review._ London, 1887, etc. In progress. Reviews of
archaeological books and records of discoveries.
_Comptes-Rendus de la Commission impériale archéologique._ Petersburg,
1859–88. Edited by L. Stephani. With folio atlas, re-edited by S.
Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i. (1899). (Stephani,
_Comptes-Rendus_.)
Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική. Athens, 1883, etc. (new series). In progress.
Plates of vases, 1883–94, re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,
vol. i. (1899). (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ.)
_Gazette archéologique._ Paris, 1875–89. (_Gaz. Arch._)
_Hermes._ Zeitschrift für classische Philologie. Berlin, 1866, etc. In
progress.
_Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen Instituts._
Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress. With _Arch. Anzeiger (q.v.)_ as
supplement and _Antike Denkmäler (q.v.)_ as atlas. (_Jahrbuch._)
_Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen Institutes._
Vienna, 1898, etc. In progress. (_Jahreshefte._)
_Journal of Hellenic Studies._ London, 1880, etc. In progress. With
atlas in 4to of plates to vols. i.–viii., and supplementary papers
(No. 4 on Phylakopi). (_J.H.S._)
_Journal of the British Archaeological Association._ London, 1845, etc.
In progress. A few articles on Roman pottery in Britain. (_Journ.
Brit. Arch. Assoc._)
_Monumenti antichi_, pubblicati per cura della R. Accad. dei Lincei.
Milan, 1890, etc. In progress. (_Mon. antichi._)
_Monumenti inediti dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._
Rome, 1829–85 (with supplementary volume, 1891). Re-edited (the
plates of vases) by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i. (1899).
(_Mon. dell’ Inst._)
_Monuments Grecs_, publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des
Études grecques. Paris, 1872–98. (_Mon. Grecs._)
_Monuments Piot._ Fondation Eugène Piot. Monuments et mémoires publiés
par l’Académie des Inscriptions. Paris, 1894, etc. In progress.
_Museo italiano di antichità classica._ 3 vols. Florence, 1885–90.
Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i.
(1899). (_Ath. Mitth._)
_Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità_, communicate alla R. Accademia dei
Lincei. Rome and Milan, 1876, etc. In progress. Important as a
record of recent discoveries in Italy and Sicily. (_Notizie degli
Scavi._)
_Philologus._ Zeitschrift für das klassische Alterthum. Göttingen,
1846, etc. In progress. With occasional supplementary volumes.
_Revue archéologique._ Paris, 1844, etc. In progress (four series, each
numbered separately). (_Rev. Arch._)
_Römische Mittheilungen._ Rome, 1886, etc. In progress. Organ of German
Institute at Rome. (_Röm. Mitth._)
PART II
WORKS ON GREEK VASES
ADAMEK (L.). _Unsignierte Vasen des Amasis._ Prague, 1895 (Prager
Studien, Heft v.).
AMELUNG (W.). _Personnificierung des Lebens in der Natur in den
Vasenbildern der hellenistischen Zeit._ Munich, 1888. See also
Florence.
ANDERSON (W. F. C.). See Engelmann and Schreiber.
_Antiquités du Bosphore cimmérien._ 3 vols. Petersburg, 1854, fol.
Vases, etc., found in the Crimea. (Re-edited in 8vo by S. Reinach,
1892.)
ARNDT (P.). _Studien zur Vasenkunde._ Leipzig, 1887. Adopts Brunn’s
theory of the late Italian origin of black-figured vases.
_Athens_ (National Museum). _Catalogue des Vases peints_, by M.
COLLIGNON and L. COUVE. Paris, 1902. With atlas of photographic
plates. The fragments from the Acropolis form the subject of a
separate catalogue (in preparation).
_Aus der Anomia._ Collected articles, some relating to vases. Berlin,
1890.
BAUMEISTER (A.). _Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums._ 3 vols.
Munich, 1884–88. Excellent illustrations of numerous vases
accompanying the articles, which are arranged alphabetically in
dictionary-form. The article _Vasenkunde_, by Von Rohden, is
useful, but now somewhat out of date. (Baumeister.)
BEGER (L.). _Thesaurus Brandenburgicus selectus._ 3 vols. Köln, 1696,
fol. Publishes vases belonging to the Elector of Brandenburg (see
Vol. I. p. 16).
BENNDORF (O.). _Griechische und sicilische Vasenbilder._ Berlin,
1869–83, fol. Chiefly funerary vases and later fabrics. (Benndorf,
_Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._) See also _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_.
_Berlin._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium_, by A.
FURTWAENGLER. Berlin, 1885. 2 vols. With plates of shapes.
BLOCH (L.). _Die zuschauenden Götter in den rothfig. Vasengemälden._
Leipzig, 1888.
BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste._ 4
vols. Leipzig, 1875–86. (Vol. ii. _Arbeit in Thon_, for pottery and
terracottas; vol. iii. for building construction.) Out of date in
some particulars, but still exceedingly useful, and fairly well
illustrated. (Blümner, _Technologie_.)
BOECKH (A.) and others. _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum._ 4 vols.
Berlin, 1828–77, fol. Vol. iv. contains many vase-inscriptions.
(Boeckh, _C.I.G._)
BÖHLAU (J.). _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen._ Leipzig, 1898,
4to. Indispensable for the study of Ionic vase-fabrics. (Böhlau,
_Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._)
_Bologna_ (Museo Civico). _Catalogo dei vasi_, by G. PELLEGRINI.
Bologna, 1900. (Plates and cuts.)
BOLTE (J.). _De monumentis ad Odysseam pertinentibus capita selecta._
Berlin, 1882, 8vo.
_Bonn._ _Das akademische Kunstmuseum zu Bonn_, by R. KEKULÉ. Bonn, 1872.
_Bonner Studien._ Aufsätze aus der Alterthumswissenschaft R. Kekulé
gewidmet. Berlin, 1890. Collected papers, including several on
Greek vases.
_Boston._ _Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman vases in the Museum
of Fine Arts._ Boston, 1893. By E. ROBINSON. Now withdrawn, owing
to re-numbering and extensive subsequent accessions, for which see
_Boston Museum Reports_ (below).
_Boston Museum Reports_, 1895, etc. In progress from 1896. Issued
annually, with full details of new acquisitions, describing many
unique specimens. (_Boston Mus. Report._)
BÖTTIGER (C. A.). _Griechische Vasengemälde._ Weimar and Magdeburg,
1797–1800.
—— _Kleine Schriften._ 3 vols. Dresden, 1837–39.
_Bourguignon Collection._ _Sale Catalogue_, 18 March 1901. Paris, 1901.
(Best vases not included.)
BRANTEGHEM (A. VAN). See Froehner.
_British Museum._ _Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases._ Vol. i.,
by C. Smith, in preparation. Vol. ii., Black-figured vases, by H.
B. Walters (1893). Vol. iii., Red-figured vases, by C. Smith
(1896). Vol. iv., Vases of the later period, by H. B. Walters
(1896). (Referred to as _B. M. Cat. of Vases_, or B.M. with number
of vase.)
—— _Designs on Greek Vases_, by A. S. Murray and C. Smith. 1894, fol.
(Plates of interiors of R.F. kylikes.)
—— _White Athenian Vases_, by A. S. Murray and A. H. Smith. 1896, fol.
—— _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. 1898, fol. (The sarcophagi
from Clazomenae, Kameiros, and Cervetri; see Chapters VIII. and
XVIII.)
—— _Excavations in Cyprus_ (Enkomi, Curium, Amathus). 1900. By A. S.
Murray, H. B. Walters, and A. H. Smith.
BRÖNDSTED (P. O.). _A brief description of 32 ancient Greek painted
vases, lately found at Vulci by M. Campanari._ London, 1832, 8vo.
BRONGNIART (A.). _Traité des Arts Céramiques_, ou des Poteries
considerées dans leur Histoire, leur Pratique, et leur Théorie. 3rd
edn., 1877. 2 vols., with Atlas. (Brongniart, _Traité_.) See also
Sèvres.
BRUNN (H.). _Geschichte der griechischen Künstler._ 2 vols. Stuttgart,
1859. The second volume has some account of the vase-painters then
known.
—— _Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1871, 4to.
Theory of Italian origin of B.F. vases.
—— _Neue Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1886.
—— _Griechische Kunstgeschichte._ 2 vols. (incomplete). Munich,
1893–97. Deals with some of the earlier fabrics.
—— _Kleine Schriften._ Vol. i. Leipzig, 1898. In progress. See also Lau.
BULLE (H.). _Die Silene in der archaischen Kunst._ Munich, 1893.
_Burlington Fine Arts Club._ _Catalogue of objects of Greek Ceramic
Art_ (exhibited in 1888), by W. Froehner. (Mostly vases from
Branteghem Collection.)
—— _Catalogue of Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art_, 1903, by E. Strong
and others. A revised _édition de luxe_ (1904) with plates.
_Cambridge_ (Fitzwilliam Museum). _A Catalogue of the Greek vases in
the Fitzwilliam Museum_, by E. A. GARDNER. Cambridge, 1897. With
plates.
CANESSA (C. and E.). _Collection d’Antiquités_, à l’Hôtel Drouot, 11
May 1903, 4to. Paris, 1903. A sale catalogue of an anonymous
collection containing several interesting vases.
CANINO (Prince Lucien Bonaparte of). _Muséum Étrusque de L. Bonaparte,
prince de Canino._ Fouilles de 1828 à 1829. Vases peints avec
inscriptions. Viterbo, 1829, 4to. With atlas of plates, of which
only one part was published.
—— _Catalogo di scelte Antichità Etrusche trovate negli Scavi del Pr.
di Canino_, 1828–29. Viterbo, 1829, 4to.
CAYLUS (A. C. P. de). _Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques,
grecques et romaines._ 7 vols. Paris, 1752–67, 4to. (Vases given in
vols. i. and ii.)
CESNOLA (L. P. di). _Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs, and temples._
(With a chapter on the pottery, by A. S. Murray.) London, 1877, 8vo.
CHRISTIE (J.). _Disquisitions upon the Painted Vases_, and their
connection with the Eleusinian Mysteries. London, 1825, 4to. (See
Vol. I. p. 21.)
COLLIGNON (M.). See Athens, Rayet.
_Commentationes philologae in honorem T. Mommseni._ Berlin, 1877, 4to.
Several useful papers on vases.
CONZE (A.). _Melische Thongefässe._ Leipzig, 1862. Folio plates.
—— _Zur Geschichte der Anfänge griechischer Kunst._ Vienna, 1870, 8vo.
See also _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_.
COREY (A. D.). _De Amazonum antiquissimis figuris._ Berlin, 1891, 8vo.
COUVE (L.). See Athens.
DAREMBERG (C.) and SAGLIO (E.), and subsequently E. POTTIER.
_Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines._ Paris, 1873,
etc. In progress (to M in 1904). (Daremberg and Saglio.) Special
reference should be made to the articles Figlinum, Forma, Lucerna,
and those on vase-shapes. The bibliographies are very exhaustive.
DENNIS (G.). _The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria._ 2 vols. London,
1878 (2nd edn.), 8vo. Introductory matter on vases antiquated;
useful as record of discoveries, etc. (Dennis, _Etruria_.)
DES VERGERS (N.). _Étrurie et les Étrusques._ 2 vols. and atlas. Paris,
1862–64. Some fine vases published.
DISNEY (J.). _Museum Disneianum_, being a description of a collection
of various ancient fictile vases in the possession of J. D. (now at
Cambridge). London, 1846, 4to.
DUBOIS-MAISONNEUVE (A.). _Introduction à l’étude des vases antiques
d’argile peints._ Paris, 1817, fol. (Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._)
DUMONT (A.). _Inscriptions céramiques de Grèce._ Paris, 1872, 8vo.
(Inscriptions on handles of wine-amphorae.)
—— _Vases peints de la Grèce propre._ Paris, 1873. (Reprinted from the
_Gazette des Beaux Arts_.)
—— _Les Céramiques de la Grèce propre_; histoire de la peinture des
vases grecs depuis les origines jusqu'au V. siècle avant
Jésus-Christ. Illustrations by J. Chaplain. Revised by E. Pottier.
2 vols. Paris, 1888–90. Vol. i., on earlier vase fabrics (now
becoming out of date); plates mostly of later vases. Vol. ii.,
miscellaneous papers (vases, terracottas, etc.). (Dumont-Pottier.)
ENDT (J.). _Beiträge zur ionischen Vasenmalerei._ Prague, 1899, 8vo.
(Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._)
ENGELMANN (R.). _Bilder-Atlas zum Homer._ Leipzig, 1889. Translated by
W. F. C. Anderson: _Pictorial Atlas to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey_,
London, 1892. (Engelmann-Anderson.)
—— _Archaeologische Studien zu den Tragikern._ Berlin, 1900. _Eranos
Vindobonensis_ (collected papers). Vienna, 1893, 8vo.
FEA (C.). _Storia dei vasi fittili dipinti_ che si trovano nell’ antica
Etruria. Rome, 1832. (Dealing with “Etruscan” theory.)
_Festschrift für Johannes Overbeck_ (collected papers). Leipzig, 1893,
4to.
_Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu seinem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet_
(collected papers). Vienna, 1898, 4to.
FIORELLI (G.). _Notizia dei vasi dipinti rinvenuti a Cuma nel 1856._
Naples, 1857. Plates reproduced in _Bull. Arch. Nap._ (_q.v._).
FLASCH (A.). _Angebliche Argonautenbilder._ Munich, 1870.
—— _Die Polychromie der griechischen Vasenbilder._ Würzburg, 1875.
_Florence._ _Führer durch die Antiken in Florenz_, by W. AMELUNG.
Munich, 1897.
FÖRSTER (P. R.). _Hochzeit des Zeus und der Hera_, Relief der
Schaubert’schen Sammlung in .... Breslau. Breslau, 1867, 4to.
—— _Der Raub und die Rückkehr der Persephone._ Stuttgart, 1873.
FROEHNER (W.). _Choix de vases grecs inédits de la collection du Prince
Napoléon._ Paris, 1867, fol.
—— _Deux peintures de vases grecs de la nécropole de Kameiros._ Paris,
1871, fol.
—— _Musées de France._ Recueil de monuments antiques. Paris, 1873, fol.
—— _Collection de M. Albert B_(_arre_). Paris, 1878, 4to. (Sale
catalogue.)
—— _Collection Eugène Piot_, Antiquités. Paris, 1890. (Sale catalogue.)
—— _Collection van Branteghem._ Brussels, 1892, fol., with plates.
(Sale catalogue.)
—— _Collection d’antiquités du Comte Michael Tyszkiewicz._ Paris, 1898.
(Sale catalogue.)
And see Burlington Fine Arts Club, Marseilles Mus.
FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Eros in der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1875, 8vo.
—— _Collection Sabouroff._ 2 vols. (the first giving vases). Berlin,
1883–87, 4to. (Also a German edition; the vases now in Berlin.)
—— _Orpheus, Attische Vase aus Gela_ (in _50tes
Winckelmannsfestprogr._, 1890).
—— _Neuere Fälschungen von Antiken._ Munich, 1899, 4to.
—— and LOESCHCKE (G.). _Mykenische Thongefässe._ Berlin, 1879, obl. fol.
—— —— _Mykenische Vasen_: Vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete
des Mittelmeeres. Berlin, 1886, 4to, with atlas in fol.
—— and REICHHOLD (C.). _Die griechische Vasenmalerei_, Auswahl
hervorragender Vasenbilder. Munich, 1900, etc. Text by A. F. and C.
R.; plates (separate) by C. R. And see Berlin, Genick.
GARDNER (E. A.). See Cambridge, Naukratis.
GARDNER (P.). See Oxford.
GARGIULO (R.). _Cenni sulla maniera di rinvenire i vasi fittili
Italo-Greci._ Naples, 1831; 2nd edn., 1843.
—— _Raccolta de Monumenti più interessanti del Real Mus. Borb._ Naples,
1825–3-. 2 vols. of plates.
GENICK (A.) and FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Griechische Keramik._ 4to. Tafeln
ausgewählt und aufgenommen von A. G., mit Einleitung und
Beschreibung von A. F. 2nd edn. Berlin, 1883, 4to.
GERHARD (E.). _Antike Bildwerke._ Munich, 1828–44. Text in 8vo and
plates in fol.
—— _Berlins antike Bildwerke._ Berlin, 1836, 8vo.
—— _Griechische und etruskische Trinkschalen_ des königl. Museums zu
Berlin. Berlin, 1840, fol.
—— _Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder._ 4 vols. Berlin, 1840–58.
(Gerhard, _A. V._) Re-edited by S. Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii.
(1900).
—— _Etruskische und campanische Vasenbilder_ des königl. Museums zu
Berlin. Berlin, 1843, fol.
—— _Apulische Vasenbilder_ des königl. Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1845,
fol.
—— _Trinkschalen und Gefässe_ des königl. Museums zu Berlin und anderer
Sammlungen. Berlin, 1848–50, fol.
—— _Gesammelte akademische Abhandlungen und kleine Schriften._ 2 vols.
in 8vo and atlas in 4to. Berlin, 1866–68. (Chiefly papers on
mythology, illustrated by vases.)
GIRARD (P.). _La Peinture antique._ Paris, 1892. Vases as illustrative
of Greek painting.
GORI (A. F.). _Museum Etruscum._ 3 vols. Florence, 1737–43, fol.
GSELL (S.). _Fouilles dans la nécropole de Vulci_, exécutées et
publiées aux frais de Prince Torlonia. Paris, 1891, 4to.
HANCARVILLE (P. F. HUGUES, _pseud._ D’). _Antiquités étrusques,
grecques, et romaines_, tirées du cabinet de M. Hamilton. 4 vols.
folio, 1766–67.
HARRISON (JANE E.). _Myths of the Odyssey in art and literature._
London, 1882, 8vo.
—— _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_ (with translation from
Pausanias, by M. de G. Verrall). London, 1890. Introduction
important for vases relating to Attic cults.
—— _Prolegomena to Greek Religion._ Cambridge, 1903. Numerous vases
interpreted with reference to mythology and religion.
—— and MACCOLL (D. S.). _Greek Vase-paintings._ London, 1894.
_Harrow School Museum._ Catalogue of the classical antiquities from the
collection of the late Sir G. Wilkinson, by CECIL TORR. Harrow,
1887, 8vo.
HARTWIG (P.). _Die griechischen Meisterschalen des strengen
rothfigurigen Stils._ Stuttgart, 1893, 4to, with atlas in fol.
Invaluable for a study of cups of R.F. period.
HELBIG (W.). _Das homerische Epos, aus den Denkmälern erlautert._ 2nd
edn. Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. (Vases used to illustrate civilisation of
Homeric poems.)
—— _Les vases du Dipylon et les naucraries._ Paris, 1898, 4to.
—— _Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos oder Hippias auf einer
schwarzfigurigen Schale._ Munich, 1898, 8vo.
—— _Les_ Ἱππεῖς _Athéniens_. Paris, 1902, 4to. And see Rome.
HERMANN (P.). _Das Gräberfeld von Marion auf Cypern._ Berlin, 1888,
4to. An account of the finds by O. Richter and others at Poli,
Cyprus. (_48tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._)
HEYDEMANN (H.). _Iliupersis auf einer Trinkschale des Brygos._ Berlin,
1866, fol.
—— _Humoristische Vasenbilder aus Unteritalien._ Berlin, 1870. (_30tes
Winckelmannsfestprogr._)
—— _Griechische Vasenbilder._ Berlin, 1870, fol. (Chiefly vases at
Athens.)
—— _Nereiden mit den Waffen des Achill._ Halle, 1879, fol.
—— _Satyr und Bakchennamen._ Halle, 1880. (5tes hallische
Festprogr.). Numerous other monographs, chiefly Hallische or
Winckelmannsfestprogramme. And see Naples.
HIRSCHFELD (G.). _Athena und Marsyas._ Berlin, 1872.
HOPPIN (J. C.). _Euthymides_; a study in Attic vase-painting. Leipzig,
1896.
HUDDILSTON (J. H.). _Greek Tragedy in the light of vase-paintings._
London and New York, 1892.
—— _Lessons from Greek Pottery._ London and New York, 1902. With
bibliography.
INGHIRAMI (F.). _Monimenti etruschi o di etrusco nome._ Ser. 5. Vasi
fittili. Fiesole, 1824, 4to.
—— _Galeria Omerica._ 3 vols. Fiesole, 1831–36.
—— _Etrusco Museo Chiusino._ 2 vols. Fiesole, 1832–34, 4to.
—— _Pitture di vasi fittili._ 4 vols. Fiesole, 1833–37.
—— _Pitture di vase etruschi._ 4 vols. Florence, 1852–56. (A second
edition of the preceding work.)
JAHN (O.). _Telephos und Troilos._ Kiel, 1841, 8vo.
—— _Ueber Darstellungen griechischer Dichter auf Vasenbildern._
Leipzig, 1861. (From _Abhandl. des sächs. Gesellsch._ viii.)
—— _Archaeologische Aufsätze._ Greifswald, 1845, 8vo.
—— _Archaeologische Beiträge._Berlin, 1847, 8vo.
—— _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung Königs Ludwigs in der Pinakothek zu
München._ Munich, 1854, 8vo. (_Vasens. zu München._) The
_Einleitung_ (Introduction) gives a résumé of the whole subject.
—— _Ueber bemalte Vasen mit Goldschmuck._ Leipzig, 1865, 4to.
—— _Die Entführung der Europa_ auf antiken Kunstwerken. Vienna, 1870,
4to.
JATTA (G.). _Catalogo del Museo Jatta_ (at Ruvo). Naples, 1869, 8vo.
_Karlsruhe. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung der grossherzoglichen
vereinigte Sammlungen zu Karlsruhe_, by H. WINNEFELD. 1887, 8vo.
KARO (G.). _De arte vascularia antiquissima quaestiones._ Bonn, 1896,
8vo.
KEKULÉ (R. VON, now KEKULE VON STRADONITZ). See Bonn.
KIRCHHOFF (A.). _Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets._
4th edn. Gütersloh, 1887.
KLEIN (W.). _Euphronios_; eine Studie zur Geschichte der griechischen
Malerei. 2nd edn. Vienna, 1886, 8vo.
—— _Die griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen._ 2nd edn. Vienna,
1887, 8vo.
—— _Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften._ 2nd edn. Vienna,
1898.
KNAPP (P.). _Nike in der Vasenmalerei._ Tübingen, 1876, 8vo.
_Kopenhagen. De malede Vaser i Antikkabinettet i Kjöbenhavn_.
Kopenhagen, 1862. Catalogue of the vases, by S. Birket Smith.
(Referred to as Kopenhagen, with number of vase.)
KRAMER (G.). _Ueber den Styl und die Herkunft der bemalten griechischen
Thongefässe._ Berlin, 1837.
KRAUSE (J. H.). _Angeiologie._ Halle, 1854, 8vo. (Study of vase-shapes
and their names.)
KRETSCHMER (P.). _Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach
untersucht._ Gütersloh, 1894.
LA BORDE (A. DE). _Collection des vases grecs de M. le Comte de
Lambert._ 2 vols. Paris, 1813–28, fol. The vases are now at Vienna.
Re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. ii. (1900).
LA CHAUSSE (M. A. de = Caussius). _Romanum Museum._ Rome, 1690; 3rd
edn., 1746.
LANZI (L.). _Dei vasi antichi dipinti volgarmente chiamati Etruschi._
Florence, 1806.
LAU (TH.), BRUNN (H.), and KRELL (P.). _Die griechischen Vasen, ihre
Formen und Decorationssystem._ Plates and text. From originals at
Munich. Leipzig, 1877. (Brunn-Lau, Gr. Vasen.)
LENORMANT (C.) and DE WITTE (J.). _Élite des monuments
céramographiques._ 4 vols. Paris, 1837–61, 4to. (_Él. Cér._)
LETRONNE (J. A.). _Observations sur les noms de vases grecs._ Paris,
1833.
_London._ See British Museum.
LONGPÉRIER (H. A. PRÉVOST DE). _Musée Napoléon III._ Choix de monuments
antiques ... Texte explicatif par A. de L. Paris, unfinished,
1868–74, 4to.
_Louvre._ See Paris.
LÜTZOW (C. VON). _Zur Geschichte des Ornaments an den bemalten
griechischen Thongefässen._ Munich, 1858.
LUYNES (H. D’A. DE). _Description de quelques vases peints_, étrusques,
italiotes, siciliens et grecs. Paris, 1840, fol. The vases are now
in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Re-edited by S. Reinach,
_Répertoire_, ii, (1900).
MACCOLL (D. S.). See Harrison.
MACPHERSON (D.). _Antiquities of Kertch_, and researches in the
Cimmerian Bosphorus, etc. London, 1857, 4to. (Discoveries in the
Crimea.)
_Madrid_ (Museo arquelogico nacional). _Catalogo del Museo_, by A. G.
Gutierrez and J. de D. de la Rada y Delgado. Part i. Madrid, 1883,
8vo.
_Marseilles._ _Catalogue des antiquités grecques et romaines du Musée_,
by W. FROEHNER. 1897.
MARTHA (J.). _L'Art Étrusque._ Paris, 1889, 4to.
MASNER (K.). See Vienna.
MAYER (M.). _Die Giganten und Titanen in der antiken Sage und Kunst._
Berlin, 1886.
_Mélanges Perrot._ Paris, 1902, 4to. (Collected papers in honour of
Perrot.) (Recueil de mémoires concernant l’archéologie classique,
la littérature, et l’histoire anciennes, dedié à Georges Perrot.)
MICALI (G.). _Storia degli antichi popoli Italiani._ 3 tom. Firenze,
1832, 8vo. With atlas entitled _Monumenti per servire alla storia_,
etc. Fol.
——— _Monumenti inediti a illustrazione della storia degli antichi
popoli italiani._ Florence, 1844, 8vo, plates in fol. Vases found
in Etruria. (Micali, _Mon. Ined._)
MILCHHOEFER (A.). _Die Anfänge der Kunst in Griechenland._ Leipzig,
1883, 8vo.
MILLIET (P.). _Études sur les premières périodes de la céramique
grecque._ Paris, 1891.
MILLIN (A. L.). _Peintures des vases antiques._ 2 vols. Paris, 1808–10,
fol. The _Introduction_ of Dubois-Maisonneuve (_q.v._) was
published uniform with this. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to, Paris,
1891. (Millin-Reinach.)
MILLINGEN (F.). _Ancient Unedited Monuments_ of Grecian Art. 2 vols. in
one. London, 1822–26. (Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Monum._)
——— _Peintures antiques de vases grecs, tirées de diverses
collections._ Rome, 1813, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to,
Paris, 1891. (Millingen-Reinach.)
——— _Peintures antiques de vases grecs de la collection de Sir J.
Coghill._ Rome, 1817, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,
ii. (1900).
MORGENTHAU (J. C.). _Ueber den Zusammenhang der Bilder auf griechischen
Vasen._ I. Die schwarzfigurigen Vasen. Leipzig, 1886. 8vo.
MOSES (H.). _A collection of antique vases, etc._, from various museums
and collections. London, 1814.
——— _Vases from the collection of Sir Henry Englefield._ London, 1848.
MUELLER (E.). _Drei griechische Vasenbilder._ Zurich, 1887. 4to.
MÜLLER (K. O.). _Denkmäler der Alten Kunst._ 1832–69, obl. fol. 2 vols.
(2nd re-edited by F. Wiestler).
—— —— Theil ii. 3rd edn., 1877. Text 4to; plates, 1881, obl. fol.
_Munich._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung König Ludwigs in der
Pinakothek_, by O. JAHN. Munich, 1855. With admirable introduction.
See also the guide (_Führer_) published in 1895. A new catalogue by
Furtwaengler said to be in progress.
MURRAY (A. S.). _Handbook of Greek Archaeology._ London, 1892. (Chaps.
i. and ii. deal with vases.) And see British Museum.
_Museo Borbonico._ Naples, 1824–57. 16 vols., 4to. Illustrations of the
collections in the Naples Museum (Real Museo Borbonico). See also
Gargiulo.
_Museo Gregoriano._ Museo Etrusci ... in Aedibus Vaticanis ...
Monumenta. 2 vols. (vases in 2nd). Rome, 1842, fol. (_Mus. Greg._)
MYRES, J. L. See Nicosia.
_Naples._ _Die Vasensammlungen des Museo Nazionale zu Neapel_, by H.
HEYDEMANN. Berlin, 1872. See also Gargiulo, Museo Borbonico.
_Naukratis, I._ and _II._ Third and Sixth Memoirs of the Egypt
Exploration Fund, by W. M. Flinders Petrie, E. A. Gardner, etc.
London, 1886–88. Plates of pottery found at Naukratis, discussed in
text by C. Smith and E. A. Gardner.
_Nicosia_ (Cyprus Museum). _A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum_, by J. L.
MYRES and M. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER. Oxford, 1899.
OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.). _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer._ 2 vols., text
and plates. Berlin, 1893. Also a German edition. Useful for
collected examples of Cypriote pottery and terracottas. See also
Nicosia.
OVERBECK (J.). _Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und troischen
Heldenkreis._ 2 vols., text and atlas. Brunswick and Stuttgart,
1853–57. Lists of vases illustrating Theban and Trojan legends.
(Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._)
—— _Griechische Kunstmythologie._ Vols. ii.–iv. only published (Zeus,
Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Apollo, and myths connected with them).
Leipzig, 1871–89. With atlas in fol. (Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._)
_Oxford_ (Ashmolean Museum). _Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the
Ashmolean Museum_, by P. Gardner. Oxford, 1893. With coloured
plates.
PANOFKA (T.). _Vasi di premio illustrati._ Florence, 1826.
—— _Musée Blacas._ Paris, 1829, fol. Vases mostly in B.M.
—— _Recherches sur les véritables noms des vases grecs._ Paris, 1829.
—— _Antiques du cabinet du comte Pourtalès-Gorgier._ Paris, 1834, 4to.
(Panofka, _Cab. Pourtalès_.)
—— _Bilder antiken Lebens._ Berlin, 1843, 4to.
—— _Griechinnen und Griechen nach Antiken skizzirt._ Berlin, 1844, 4to.
—— _Der Vasenbilder Panphaios._ Berlin, 1848.
—— _Von den Namen der Vasenbildner in Beziehung zu ihren bildlichen
Darstellungen._ Berlin, 1849, 4to.
—— _Die griechischen Eigennamen mit_ καλός in Zusammenhang mit dem
Bilderschmuck auf bemalten Gefässen. Berlin, 1850.
(And many other pamphlets with publication of vases, chiefly from
the mythological point of view, but now out of date.)
_Paris_ (Louvre). _Catalogue des vases antiques de terre cuite_, by E.
POTTIER. Paris, 1896, etc. In progress (two volumes issued, dealing
with earlier fabrics). With accompanying atlas of photographic
plates (2 vols., down to Euphronios).
_Paris_ (Bibliothèque Nationale). _Catalogue des vases dans le Cabinet
des Médailles_, by A. DE RIDDER. Paris, 1901–02. 2 vols. With
plates.
PASSERI (J. B.). _Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis._ 3 vols. Rome,
1767–75, fol.
PATRONI (G.). _Ceramica antica nell’ Italia meridionale._ Naples, 1897.
A useful study of Greek and local fabrics of Southern Italy.
PELLEGRINI (G.). See Bologna.
PERROT (G.) and CHIPIEZ (C.). _Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité._
(Text by Perrot, plates by Chipiez.) In progress: 8 vols, published
in 1882–1904. Vol. iii., Cypriote pottery; vol. vi., Mycenaean;
vol. vii., Dipylon. (Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art._)
_Petersburg._ _Vasensammlung der kaiserlichen Ermitage_, by L.
STEPHANI. Petersburg, 1869. 2 vols.
POLLAK (L.). _Zwei Vasen aus der Werkstatt Hierons._ Leipzig, 1900.
POTTIER (E.). _Étude sur les lécythes blancs attiques à représentations
funéraires._ Paris, 1883, 8vo. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises,
No. 30.)
—— _La peinture industrielle chez les Grecs._ Paris, 1898, 8vo.
—— and REINACH (S.). _La Nécropole de Myrina._ 2 vols. Paris, 1887.
See also Daremberg, Dumont, Paris.
RAOUL-ROCHETTE. _Monumens inédits d’antiquité figurée._ Paris, 1833,
fol.
—— _Peintures antiques inédites._ Paris, 1836, 4to.
RAVESTEIN (E. DE M. DE). _Musée de Ravestein_; Catalogue descriptif. 2
vols. Liège, 1871–72, 8vo.
RAYET (O.) and COLLIGNON (M.). _Histoire de la céramique grecque._
Paris, 1888. (More or less popular, and becoming out of date; well
illustrated.) (Rayet and Collignon.)
REINACH (S.). _Chroniques d’Orient._ Paris, 1891–96. 2 vols. Reprinted
from the _Revue Archéol._ (1883–95). Notes of discoveries, etc.
—— _Répertoire des Vases Peints._ Paris, 1899–1900. 2 vols. An
invaluable re-editing, with outline reductions of the plates, of
many publications of vases, with bibliographical notes and
explanations appended. See Laborde, de Luynes, Tischbein, etc., and
list of periodicals. (Referred to as _Reinach_, with number of
volume and page. In Chapters XII.-XV. the references are all to
this publication in preference to the original works.)
See also Millin, Millingen, _Ant. du Bosph. Cimm._, and Pottier.
REISCH (E.). See Rome.
RIDDER (A. DE). See Paris.
RIEGL (A.). _Stilfragen._ Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der
Ornamentik. Berlin, 1893, 8vo. A valuable study of early vegetable
ornament on vases.
ROBERT (C.). _Thanatos._ Berlin, 1879, 4to. (_39tes
Winckelmannsfestprogr._)
—— _Bild und Lied._ Berlin, 1881, 8vo. On the relation of
vase-paintings to the Homeric poems.
—— _Archaeologische Märchen_ aus alter und neuer Zeit. Berlin, 1886,
8vo. Papers on various subjects, more or less controversial.
—— _Homerische Becher._ (_50tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._) Berlin, 1890.
ROBERT (C). _Scenen der Ilias und Aithiopis_ auf einer Vase der
Sammlung des Grafen M. Tyszkiewicz. Halle, 1891, fol. (_15tes Hall.
Winckelmannsprogr._)
—— _Die Nekyiades Polygnot._ Halle, 1892. (_16tes Hallisches
Festprog._; a restoration of the painting on the basis of vases.)
—— _Die Iliupersis des Polygnot._ Halle, 1893. (_17tes Hallisches
Festprogr._; dealing similarly with that painting.)
—— _Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile_ und weiteres über Polygnot.
(_18tes Hallisches Festprogr._) Halle, 1895.
ROBERTS (E. S.). _An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy._ Part i. The
archaic inscriptions and the Greek alphabet. Cambridge, 1887, 8vo.
ROBINSON (E.). See Boston.
ROEHL (H.). _Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae_ praeter Atticas in
Attica repertas. Berlin, 1882, fol. (Roehl, _I.G.A._)
ROHDEN (H. VON). See Baumeister.
_Rome_ (Vatican, Museo Gregoriano). _Führer durch die öffentlichen
Sammlungen in Rom_, by W. HELBIG and E. REISCH. 2nd edn., 1899. 2
vols. In vol. ii. is given a full description of the best vases
(about 250) in this collection; they are quoted as Helbig 1, 2, 3,
etc., according to the numbers of the book. See also _Museo
Gregoriano_.
ROSCHER (W. H.). _Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen
Mythologie._ Leipzig, 1884, etc. In progress (down to P in 1904).
Many vases published in the later parts.
ROSS (L.). _Reisen auf die griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres._
Halle, 1840–52, 4 vols., 8vo.
—— _Archaeologische Aufsätze._ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1855–61. With plates in
fol.
ROULEZ (J.). _Choix de vases peints du Musée d’antiquités de Leyde._
Gand, 1854. Re-edited by S. Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii., 1900.
_Ruvo_ (Museo Jatta). See Jatta.
SALZMANN (A). _Nécropole de Camiros_. Paris, 1866–75, fol. Plates only.
SCHLIEMANN (H.). See Vol. I. p. 269.
SCHNEIDER (A.). _Der troische Sagenkreis in der älteren griechischen
Kunst._ Leipzig, 1886.
SCHNEIDER (F. J.). _Die zwölf Kämpfe des Herakles in der älteren
griechischen Kunst._ Leipzig, 1888.
SCHNEIDER (R.). _Die Geburt der Athena._ Vienna, 1880, 8vo.
SCHÖNE (R.). _Le antichità del Museo Bocchi di Adria._ Rome, 1878, 4to.
SCHREIBER (TH.) and ANDERSON (W. C. F.). _Atlas of Classical
Antiquities._ London, 1895, obl. 8vo. (Schreiber-Anderson.)
SCHULZ (H. W.). _Die Amazonenvase von Ruvo_, erklärt und in
Kunsthistorischer Beziehung betrachtet. Leipzig, 1851, fol. See
Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii.
_Sèvres Museum._ _Description méthodique du Musée Céramique de Sèvres_,
by A. BRONGNIART and D. RIOCREUX. Paris, 1845. 2 vols., with atlas
of plates.
SITTL (K.). _Die Phineusschale und ähnliche Vasen mit bemalten
Flachreliefs._ Würzburg, 1892.
SMITH (A. H.). See British Museum.
SMITH (CECIL). _Catalogue of the Forman Collection of Antiquities_
(illustrated). London, 1899. And see British Museum.
SMITH (S. B.). See Kopenhagen.
STACKELBERG (O. M. VON). _Die Gräber der Hellenen._ Berlin, 1836, fol.
STEPHANI (L.). See Petersburg and _Compte-Rendu._
_Strena Helbigiana._ (Collected papers in honour of W. Helbig.)
Leipzig, 1900, 8vo.
STUDNICZKA (F.). _Kyrene, eine altgriechische Göttin._ Leipzig, 1890.
_Tanis II._ Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund (Tell-Nebesheh
and Defenneh). London, 1887. By W. M. F. PETRIE and F. L. GRIFFITH,
with notes on the Daphnae pottery by A. S. Murray.
THIERSCH (F.). _Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen_, mit besonderer
Rücksicht auf die Sammlung des Königs Ludwigs von Bayern. Munich,
1849. From _Abhandl. d. k. bayer. Akad., Philosoph.-philol.
Classe_, vol iv.
THIERSCH (H.). _Tyrrhenische Amphoren._ Eine Studie zur Geschichte der
altattischen Vasenmalerei. Leipzig, 1899.
TISCHBEIN (W.). _Collection of engravings from ancient vases_ (the
second Hamilton Collection; see Vol. I. p. 17). 4 vols. Naples,
1791–95, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii.,
1900. About 100 plates were engraved for a fifth volume, never
published.
TREU (W.). _Griechische Thongefässe in Statuetten- und Büstenformen._
Berlin, 1875, 4to. (_35tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._)
TYSZKIEWICZ (COUNT M.). See Froehner.
URLICHS (C. L. VON). _Der Vasenmaler Brygos und die ruland’sche
Münzsammlung._ Würzburg, 1875, fol.
—— _Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte._ Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. See also
Würzburg.
USSING (J.). _De nominibus vasorum graecorum disputatio._ Copenhagen,
1844.
_Vienna._ _Die Sammlung antiker Vasen und Terracotten im k. k.
Oesterreichischen Museum für Kunst und Industrie_, by K. MASNER.
Vienna, 1892. With plates.
VOGEL (K. J.). _Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in griechischen
Vasengemälden._ Leipzig, 1886.
_Vorlegeblätter für archäologische Übungen._ Vienna, 1869–91, fol.
Plates without text. Series i.–viii. 1869–75, _ed._ A. Conze
(chiefly R.F. kylikes, by Euphronios, Hieron, Duris). Series A-E,
1879–86, _ed._ O. Benndorf (chiefly R.F. kylikes). Third series,
1888–91 (3 vols.), _ed._ Benndorf and others (chiefly signed B.F.
vases). (_Wiener Vorl._)
WALLIS (H.). _Pictures from Greek Vases. The White Athenian lekythi._
London, 1896.
WALTERS (H. B.). See British Museum.
WATZINGER (C). _De vasculis pictis tarentinis capita selecta._
Darmstadt, 1899, 8vo.
WELCKER (F. G.). _Alte Denkmäler._ 5 vols, and atlas. Göttingen,
1849–64.
WERNICKE (K.). _Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsnamen._ Berlin,
1890.
—— and GRAEF (B.). _Denkmäler der antiken Kunst._ Leipzig, 1899, etc.
In progress. A new edition of Müller and Wieseler’s well-known
work. Text and atlas.
WESTROPP (H. M.). _Epochs of painted vases, an introduction to their
study._ London, 1856.
WILISCH (E. G.). _Die altkorinthische Thonindustrie._ Leipzig, 1892.
WINKLER (A.). _De inferorum in vasis Italiae inferioris
repraesentationibus._ Breslau, 1888, 8vo.
WINNEFELD (H.). See Karlsruhe.
WINTER (F.). _Die jüngeren attischen Vasen_ und ihr Verhaltniss zur
grossen Kunst. Berlin, 1885.
WITTE (J. J. A. M. DE, BARON). _Description des antiquités et objects
d’art qui composent le cabinet de feu M. E. Durand._ Paris, 1836,
8vo.
—— _Description d’une collection de vases peints et bronzes antiques_
provenant des fouilles de l’Étrurie. Paris, 1837, 8vo. [Another
edition, 1857.]
—— _Noms des fabricants et dessinateurs de vases peints._ Paris, 1848,
8vo.
—— _Études sur les vases peints._ Paris, 1865, 8vo. (Extract from the
_Gazette des Beaux-Arts_.)
—— _Description des collections d’antiquités conservées à l’Hôtel
Lambert_ (the Czartoryski collection). Paris, 1886, 4to. (_Coll. à
l’Hôtel Lambert._) See also Lenormant.
_Würzburg._ _Verzeichniss der Antikensammlung der Universität
Würzburg_, by C. L. VON URLICHS. 1865–72, 8vo.
ZANNONI (A.). _Gli Scavi della Certosa di Bologna._ 2 vols., text and
plates. Bologna, 1876, fol. (An account of excavations at Bologna;
many illustrations of tombs and Greek vases.)
PART III
TERRACOTTAS
_Athens._ See Martha.
_Berlin Museum._ _Ausgewählte griechische Terrakotten_ im Antiquarium
des königliches Museum zu Berlin, herausgegeben von der
Generalverwaltung. Berlin, 1903. See also Panofka.
BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie._ See above, p.xxi. Vol.
ii. deals with method of working in clay (Thonplastik, p. 113 ff.).
BORRMANN (R.). _Die Keramik in der Baukunst._ Durm’s _Handbuch der
Architektur_, part i. vol. 4. Stuttgart, 1897. On the use of
terracotta in classical architecture. See also Dörpfeld.
_British Museum._ _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. London,
1898. See above, p. xxii.
—— _Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum_, by H. B.
Walters. London, 1903. See also Combe.
CAMPANA (G. P.). _Antiche opere in plastica._ Rome, 1842–52, fol. Text
incomplete; plates of architectural terracottas of the Roman period.
COMBE (TAYLOR). _A description of the collection of ancient Terracottas
in the British Museum._ London, 1810. Describes the Towneley
figures and mural reliefs.
DAREMBERG (C.), SAGLIO (E.), and POTTIER (E.). _Dictionnaire des
Antiquités._ See above, p. xxiii. The article _Figlinum_ in vol.
ii. will be found useful.
DÖRPFELD (W.), GRAEBER (F.), BORRMANN (R.), and SIEBOLD (K.). _Über die
Verwendung von Terrakotten_ am Geison und Dache in griechischen
Bauwerke, (_41tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._) Berlin, 1881. (On
terracotta in architecture.)
FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Collection Sabouroff._ See above, p. xxiv. Vol. ii.
contains plates of Tanagra figures, with useful text to each.
HEUZEY (L.). _Les Figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée du
Louvre._ Paris, 1883, 4to. Plates, with brief text.
—— _Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée du
Louvre._ Vol. i. Paris, 1891. Deals with archaic terracottas
(Rhodes and Cyprus). No more published.
HUISH (M. B.). _Greek Terracotta Statuettes_, their origin, evolution,
and uses. London, 1900. (The plates include some doubtful
specimens.)
HUTTON (MISS C.A.). _Greek Terracotta Statuettes._ (_Portfolio_
monograph, No. 49.) London, 1899. An excellent _résumé_ of the
subject, with good illustrations.
KEKULÉ (R., now KEKULE VON STRADONITZ). _Griechische Thonfiguren aus
Tanagra._ Stuttgart, 1878, fol.
—— _Die antiken Terracotten_, im Auftrag des archäologischen Institutes
des deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben von R. K. Stuttgart, 1880,
etc., fol. In progress.
Vol. i. _Terracotten von Pompeii_, by A. VON ROHDEN. 1880. Chiefly
architectural.
Vol. ii. _Terracotten von Sicilien_, by R. KEKULÉ. 1884.
Vol. iii. _Typen der griechischen Terrakotten_, by F. WINTER. 1903.
In two parts. A _Corpus_ of all known types of terracotta
statuettes, with numerous illustrations and other useful
information.
MARTHA (J.). _Catalogue des Figurines en terre cuite du Musée de la
Société Archéologique d’Athènes._ Paris, 1880, 8vo. (Bibliothèque
des Écoles françaises, Fasc. 16.)
MINERVINI (G.). _Terre cotte del Museo Campano._ Vol. i. Naples, 1880.
Illustrations of architectural terracottas.
PANOFKA (T.). _Terracotten des königlichen Museums zu Berlin._ Berlin,
1842, 4to.
PARIS (P.). _Élatée_, la ville, le Temple d’Athéna Cranaia. Paris,
1892. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises, Fasc. 60.) Contains some
useful information on the subject.
POTTIER (E.). _Les Statuettes de Terre Cuite dans l’Antiquité._ Paris,
1890. (Bibliothèque des Merveilles.)
POTTIER (E.) and REINACH (S.). _La Nécropole de Myrina._ 2 vols., text
and plates. Paris, 1887.
ROHDEN (H. VON). See Kekulé.
SCHÖNE (R.). _Griechische Reliefs aus athenischen Sammlungen_,
herausgegeben von R. S. Leipzig, 1872, fol. Illustration and
discussion of the “Melian” reliefs (see pls. 30–34).
WINTER (F.). See Kekulé.
PART IV
ROMAN POTTERY
ARTIS (E. T.). _The Durobrivae of Antoninus_ identified and
illustrated. London, 1828, fol. Plates only; for accompanying text
(by C. Roach-Smith) see _Journ. of Brit. Arch. Assoc._ i. p. 1 ff.
Deals with pottery and kilns of Castor and neighbourhood.
BLANCHET (A.). _Mélanges d’Archéologie gallo-romaine_, ii. Paris, 1902,
8vo. (Lists of potteries in Gaul on p. 90 ff.)
BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie_, etc. See above, p. xxi.
BRONGNIART (A.). _Traité de la Céramique._ See above, p. xxii.
BUCKMAN (J.) and NEWMARCH (C. H.). _Illustrations of the remains of
Roman Art in Cirencester, the ancient Corinium._ London and
Cirencester, 1850, 4to. (Now somewhat out of date.)
CAUMONT (A. DE). _Cours d’antiquités monumentales_; histoire de l’art
dans l’Ouest de la France. 6 vols. Paris and Caen, 1830–41, 8vo,
with atlas in oblong 4to.
CHOISY (A.). _L'Art de Bâtir chez les Romains._ Paris, 1873, 4to. (For
the use of bricks and tiles.)
_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum._ Berlin, 1863, etc., fol. In progress.
The portions of the published volumes giving the inscriptions on
vases, tiles, and lamps, under the heading _Instrumentum
Domesticum_, are invaluable, especially vol. xv. (by H. Dressel)
relating to Rome. (_C.I.L._)
DÉCHELETTE (J.). _Les Vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine_
(Narbonnaise, Aquitaine, et Lyonnaise). 2 vols. Paris, 1904, 4to.
An invaluable survey of the pottery of Central and Southern Gaul,
with much new material. (Déchelette.)
FABRONI (A.). _Storia degli antichi vasi fittili aretini._ Arezzo,
1841, 8vo. (On the Arretine wares.)
_Guildhall Museum._ See London.
HÖLDER (O.). _Formen der römische Thongefässe, diesseits und jenseits
der Alpen._ Stuttgart, 1897, 8vo.
KOENEN (K.). _Gefässkunde der vorrömischen, römischen, und frankischen
Zeit in den Rheinlanden._ Bonn, 1895, 8vo.
_London_ (Guildhall Museum). _Catalogue of the Collection of London
Antiquities_ in the Guildhall Museum. London, 1903, 8vo.
—— (Museum of Practical Geology). _Handbook to the collection of
British Pottery and Porcelain_ in the Museum. London, 1893, 8vo.
MARINI (G.). _Iscrizioni antiche doliari_, edited by G. B. de Rossi and
H. Dressel. Rome, 1884, 4to.
MARQUARDT (J.). _Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer_ (with T. MOMMSEN).
Bd. vii., Privatalterthümer. Leipzig, 1879–82, 8vo. See p. 616 ff.
for Roman pottery.
MAZARD (H. A.). _De la connaissance par les anciens des glaçures
plombifères._ Paris, 1879, 8vo. (On the enamelled Roman wares
described in Vol. I. p. 129.)
MIDDLETON (J. H.). _The Remains of Ancient Rome._ 2 vols. London, 1892,
8vo. (On the use of bricks and tiles at Rome.)
PLICQUE (A. E.). _Étude de Céramique arverno-romaine._ Caen, 1887, 8vo.
(On the potteries of Lezoux.)
ROACH-SMITH (C). _Collectanea Antiqua_; etchings and notices of ancient
remains, etc. 7 vols. London, 1848–80, 8vo. Useful for records of
discoveries of Roman remains in Gaul and Britain.
—— _Illustrations of Roman London._ London, 1859, 4to.
STEINER (J. W. C). _Codex Inscriptionum Romanarum Danubii et Rheni._ 4
vols. Darmstadt, etc., 1851–61, 8vo. Contains many inscriptions on
pottery and tiles not as yet published in the C.I.L.
_Victoria County History of England_, ed. by W. PAGE, etc. In progress.
London, 1900, etc. Articles in the first volume of each separate
county history, by F. HAVERFIELD, dealing with all known Roman
remains. Those of Northants and Hampshire are especially useful and
complete.
WRIGHT (T.). _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon._ Fourth edn., 1885.
Still useful as a summary of Roman Britain, though out of date and
inaccurate in many particulars.
----------
Reference should also be made to the _Bonner Jahrbücher_ (see above, p.
xix), especially to the treatise by Dragendorff in vol. xcvi., and
for German pottery to Von Hefner’s article in _Oberbayrische Archiv
für vaterlandische Geschichte_, xxii. (1863), p. 1 ff.
For Bibliography of Roman Lamps, see heading to Chapter XX.
----------
NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK
B.F. = Black-figured vases.
R.F. = Red-figured vases.
B.M. = British Museum.
Reinach = Reinach’s _Répertoire des Vases_ (see Bibliography).
In the cases where particular vases are cited, as in Chapters XII.-XV.,
the name of the museum is given with the catalogue number attached, as
B.M. B 1; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2000, etc. The vases in the Vatican Museum
at Rome are quoted as Helbig, 1, 2, 3, etc. (see Bibliography, under
_Rome_).
All other abbreviations will be found in the Bibliography.
PART I
GREEK POTTERY IN GENERAL
CHAPTER I
_INTRODUCTORY_
Importance of study of ancient monuments—Value of pottery as
evidence of early civilisation—Invention of the art—Use of brick
in Babylonia—The potter’s wheel—Enamel and glazes—Earliest Greek
pottery—Use of study of vases—Ethnological, historical,
mythological, and artistic aspects—Earliest writings on the
subject—The “Etruscan” theory—History of the study of Greek
vases—Artistic, epexegetic, and historical methods—The
vase-collections of Europe and their history—List of existing
collections.
The present age is above all an age of Discovery. The thirst for
knowledge manifests itself in all directions—theological, scientific,
geographical, historical, and antiquarian. The handiwork of Nature and
of Man alike are called upon to yield up their secrets to satisfy the
universal demand which has arisen from the spread of education and the
ever-increasing desire for culture which is one of the characteristics
of the present day. And though, perhaps, the science of Archaeology
does not command as many adherents as other branches of learning, there
is still a very general desire to enquire into the records of the past,
to learn what we can of the methods of our forefathers, and to trace
the influence of their writings or other evidences of their existence
on succeeding ages.
To many of us what is known as a classical education seems perhaps in
these utilitarian times somewhat antiquated and unnecessary, but at the
same time “the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome”
have not lost their interest for us, and can awaken responsive chords
in most of our hearts. Nor can we ever be quite forgetful of the debt
that we owe to those nations in almost every branch of human learning
and industry. To take the most patent instance of all, that of our
language, it is not too much to say that nearly every word is either
directly derived from a classical source or can be shown to have
etymological affinities with either of the two ancient tongues. Nor is
it necessary to pursue illustrations further. We need only point to the
evidences of classical influence on modern literature, modern
philosophy, and modern political and social institutions, to indicate
how our civilisation is permeated and saturated with the results of
ancient ideas and thoughts. The man of science has recourse to Greek or
Latin for his nomenclature; the scholar employs Latin as the most
appropriate vehicle for criticism; and modern architecture was for a
long time only a revival (whether successful or not) of the principles
and achievements of the classical genius.
Now, those who would pursue the study of a nation’s history cannot be
content with the mere perusal of such literary records as it may have
left behind. It needs brief consideration to realise that this leaves
us equipped with very little real knowledge of an ancient race,
inasmuch as the range of literature is necessarily limited, and deals
with only a few sides of the national character: its military history,
its political constitution, or its intellectual and philosophical
bent—in short, its external and public life alone. He who would
thoroughly investigate the history of a nation instinctively desires
something more; he will seek to gain a comprehensive acquaintance with
its social life, its religious beliefs, its artistic and intellectual
attainments, and generally to estimate the extent of its culture and
civilisation. But to do this it is necessary not only to be thoroughly
conversant with its literary and historical records, but to turn
attention also to its _monuments_. It need hardly be said that the word
“monument” is here used in the quasi-technical sense current among
archaeologists (witness the German use of the word _Denkmäler_), and
that it must bear here a much wider signification than is generally
accorded to it nowadays. It may, in fact, be applied to any object
which has come down to us as a memorial and evidence of a nation’s
productive capacity or as an illustration of its social or political
life. The student of antiquity can adopt no better motto than the
familiar line of Terence:
Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.
For the very humblest product of the human brain or hand, a potsherd or
a few letters scratched on a stone, may throw the most instructive
light on the history of a race.
In no instance is this better seen than in the case of Assyria, where
almost all that we know of that great and wonderful people is derived
from the cuneiform inscriptions scratched on tablets of baked clay. Or,
again, we may cite the stone and bronze implements of the primitive
peoples of Europe as another instance where “the weak and base things
of the world and the things that are despised” have thrown floods of
light on the condition of things in a period about which we should have
been completely in the dark so long as we looked only to literary
records for our information. Nothing is so common that it may be
overlooked, and we may learn more from a humble implement in daily use
than from the finest product of a poetic or artistic intellect, if we
are really desirous of obtaining an intimate acquaintance with the
domestic life of a people.
Among the simplest yet most necessary adjuncts of a developing
civilisation Pottery may be recognised as one of the most universal.
The very earliest and rudest remains of any people generally take the
form of coarse and common pots, in which they cooked their food or
consumed their beverages. And the fact that such vast quantities of
pottery from all ancient civilisations have been preserved to us is due
partly to its comparatively imperishable nature, partly to the absence
of any intrinsic value which saved it from falling a prey to the
ravages of fire, human greed, or other causes which have destroyed more
precious monuments, such as gold ornaments, paintings, and statues of
marble or bronze. Moreover, it is always in the pottery that we
perceive the first indications of whatever artistic instinct a race
possesses, clay being a material so easy to decorate and so readily
lending itself to plastic treatment for the creation of new forms or
development from simple to elaborate shapes.
To trace the history of the art of working in clay, from its rise
amongst the oldest nations of antiquity to the period of the decline of
the Roman Empire, is the object of the present work. The subject
resolves itself into two great divisions, which have engaged the
attention of two distinct classes of enquirers: namely, the technical
or practical part, comprising all the details of material,
manipulation, and processes; and, secondly, the historical portion,
which embraces not only the history of the art itself, and the
application of ancient literature to its elucidation, but also an
account of the light thrown by monuments in clay on the history of
mankind. Such an investigation is therefore neither trifling in
character nor deficient in valuable results.
It is impossible to determine when the manufacture of pottery was
invented. Clay is a material so generally diffused, and its plastic
nature is so easily discovered, that the art of working it does not
exceed the intelligence of the rudest savage. Even the most primitive
graves of Europe and Western Asia contain specimens of pottery, rude
and elementary indeed, but in sufficient quantities to show that it was
at all times reckoned among the indispensable adjuncts of daily life.
It is said that the very earliest specimens of pottery, hand-made and
almost shapeless, have been discovered in the cave-dwellings of
Palaeolithic Man, such as the Höhlefels cave near Ulm, and that of
Nabrigas, near Toulouse; and pottery has also been found in the
“kitchen-middens” of Denmark, which belong to this period. Such relics
are, however, so rude and fragmentary, and so much doubt has been cast
on the circumstances of their discovery, that it is better to be
content with the evidence afforded by the Neolithic Age, of which
perhaps the best authenticated is the predynastic pottery of Egypt.[1]
Abundant specimens of pottery have been found in long barrows in all
parts of Western Europe; these are supposed to be the burial-places of
the early dolichocephalic races, now represented by the Finns and
Lapps, which preceded the Aryan immigration. The chief characteristic
of this pottery is the almost entire absence of ornamentation.
Neolithic man appears to have been far less endowed with the artistic
instinct than his palaeolithic predecessor. Where ornament does occur,
it appears to have a quite fortuitous origin: for instance, a kind of
rope-pattern that appears on the earliest pottery of Britain and
Germany, and also in America, owes its origin to the practice of
moulding the clay in a kind of basket of bark or thread. It is also
possible that cords of some kind were used for carrying the pots; and
this reminds us of another characteristic of the earliest pottery,
which, indeed, lasts down to the Bronze Age—namely, the absence of
handles.
The baking of clay, so as to produce an indestructible and tenacious
substance, was probably also the result of accident rather than design.
This was pointed out as long ago as the middle of the eighteenth
century by M. Goguet. In most countries the condition of the atmosphere
precludes the survival of sun-dried clay for any length of time;
moreover, such a material was more suitable for architecture (as we
shall see later) than for vessels destined to hold liquids. Thus it is
that Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia alone have transmitted to posterity
the early efforts of workers in sun-dried clay.
To return to the new invention. The savage conceivably found that the
calabash or gourd in which he boiled the water for his simple culinary
needs was liable to be damaged by the action of fire; and it required
no very advanced mental process to smear the exterior of the vessel
with some such substance as clay in order to protect it. As he found
that the surface of the clay was thereby rendered hard and impervious,
his next step would naturally be to dispense with the calabash and
mould the clay into a similar form. These two simple qualities of clay,
its plastic nature and its susceptibility to the action of fire, are
the two elements which form the basis of the whole development of the
potter’s art.
From the necessity for symmetrical buildings arose the invention of the
brick, which must have superseded the rude plastering of the hut with
clay, to protect it against the sun or storm. In the history of the
Semitic nations the brick appears among the earliest inventions, and
its use can be traced with various modifications, from the building of
the Tower of Babel to the present day. It is essential that bricks
should be symmetrical, and their form is generally rectangular. Their
geometrical shape affords us a clue to ancient units of measurement,
and the various inscriptions with which they have been stamped have
elevated them to the dignity of historical monuments. Thus the bricks
of Egypt not only afford testimony, by their composition of straw and
clay, that the writer of Exodus was acquainted with that country, but
also, by the hieroglyphs impressed upon them, transmit the names of a
series of kings, and testify to the existence of edifices, all
knowledge of which, except for these relics, would have utterly
perished. Those of Assyria and Babylon, in addition to the same
information, have, by their cuneiform inscriptions, which mention the
locality of the edifices for which they were made, afforded the means
of tracing the sites of ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria with an
accuracy unattainable by any other means. The Roman bricks have also
borne their testimony to history. A large number of them present a
series of the names of consuls of imperial Rome; while others show that
the proud nobility of the eternal city partly derived their revenues
from the kilns of their Campanian and Sabine estates.
From the next step in the progress of the manufacture—namely, that of
modelling in clay the forms of the physical world—arose the plastic
art. Delicate as is the touch of the finger, which the clay seems to
obey, almost as if comprehending the intention of the potter’s mind,
yet certain forms and ornaments which require a finer point than the
nail gave rise to the use of pieces of horn, wood, and metal, and thus
contributed to the invention of tools. But modelling in clay was soon
superseded by sculpture in stone and metal, and at length only answered
two subordinate ends: that of enabling the sculptor to elaborate his
first conceptions in a material which could be modified at will; and
that of readily producing works of a small and inexpensive form, for
some transitory purpose. The invention of the mould carried this last
application to perfection, and the terracottas of antiquity were as
numerous and as cheap as the plaster casts now sold by itinerants.
The materials used for writing have varied in different ages and
nations. Stone and bronze, linen and papyrus, wax and parchment, have
all been used. But the Assyrians and Babylonians employed for their
public archives, their astronomical computations, their religious
dedications, their historical annals, and even for title-deeds and
bills of exchange, tablets, cylinders, and hexagonal prisms of
terracotta. Some of these cylinders, still extant, contain the history
of the Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-pileser and Assurbanipal, and the
campaign of Sennacherib against the kingdom of Judah; and others,
excavated from the Birs Nimrud, give a detailed account of the
dedication of the great temple by Nebuchadnezzar to the seven planets.
To this indestructible material, and to the happy idea of employing it
in this manner, the present age is indebted for a detailed history of
the Assyrian monarchy; whilst the decades of Livy, the plays of
Menander, and the lays of Anakreon, confided to a more perishable
material, have either wholly or partly disappeared.
The application of clay to the making of vases was made effective by
the invention of the potter’s wheel. Before the introduction of the
wheel only vessels fashioned by the hand, and of rude unsymmetrical
shape, could have been made. But the application of a circular table or
lathe, laid horizontally and revolving on a central pivot, on which the
clay was placed, and to which it adhered, was in its day a truly
wonderful advance. As the wheel spun round, all combinations of oval,
spherical, and cylindrical forms could be produced, and the vases not
only became symmetrical in their proportions, but truthfully reproduced
the potter’s conception. The invention of the wheel has been ascribed
to all the great nations of antiquity. It is represented in full
activity in the Egyptian sculptures; it is mentioned in the Scriptures,
and was certainly in use at an early period in Assyria. The Greeks and
Romans attributed it to a Scythian philosopher, and to the states of
Athens, Corinth, and Sikyon, the first two of which were great rivals
in the ceramic art. But, as will be explained hereafter, it was
introduced at a very early stage in the history of civilisation upon
Greek soil (see p. 206).
Although none of the very ancient kilns have survived the destructive
influence of time, yet among all the great nations baked earthenware is
of the highest antiquity. In Egypt, in the tombs of the first
dynasties, vases and other remains of baked earthenware are abundantly
found; and in Assyria and Babylon even the oldest bricks and tablets
have passed through the furnace. The oldest remains of Hellenic pottery
in all cases owe their preservation to their having been subjected to
the action of fire. To this process, as to the consummation of the art,
the other processes of preparing, levigating, kneading, drying, and
moulding the clay were necessarily ancillary.
The desire of rendering terracotta less porous, and of producing vases
capable of retaining liquids, gave rise to the covering of it with a
vitreous enamel or glaze. The invention of glass was attributed by the
ancients to the Phoenicians; but opaque glass or enamels, as old as the
Eighteenth Dynasty, and enamelled objects as early as the Fourth, have
been found in Egypt. The employment of copper to produce a brilliant
blue-coloured enamel was very early both in Babylonia and Assyria; but
the use of tin for a white enamel, as discovered in the enamelled
bricks and vases of Babylonia and Assyria, anticipated by many
centuries the rediscovery of that process in Europe in the fifteenth
century, and shows the early application of metallic oxides. This
invention apparently remained for many centuries a secret among the
Eastern nations only, enamelled terracotta and glass forming articles
of commercial export from Egypt and Phoenicia to every part of the
Mediterranean. Among the Egyptians and Assyrians enamelling was used
more frequently than glazing; hence they used a kind of faience
consisting of a loose frit or body, to which an enamel adheres after
only a slight fusion. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the art of
enamelling terracotta disappeared except amongst the Arab and Moorish
races, who had retained a traditionary knowledge of the process. The
application of a transparent vitreous coating, or glaze, to the entire
surface, like the varnish of a picture, is also to be referred to a
high antiquity. Originally intended to improve the utility of the vase,
it was used by Greeks and Romans with a keen sense of the decorative
effects that could be derived from its use.
In Greece, although nearly all traces of the Stone Age are wanting, and
little pottery has been found which can be referred to that period,[2]
yet the earliest existing remains of civilisation are, as we shall see
later, in the form of pottery; and Greece is no exception to the
general rule. But the important difference between the pottery of Asia
and Egypt and that of Greece is that only in the latter was there any
development due to artistic feeling. Of the Greek it may be said, as of
the medieval craftsman, _nihil tetigit quod non ornavit_. In the
commonest vessel or implement in every-day use we see almost from the
first the workings of this artistic instinct, tending to exalt any and
every object above the mere level of utilitarianism, and to make it, in
addition to its primary purpose of usefulness, “a thing of beauty and a
joy for ever.” Feeble and rude it may be at first, and hampered by
imperfect knowledge of technique or capacity for expression—but still
the instinct is there.
There is indeed at first but little in Greek pottery to differentiate
it from that of other nations possessing any decorative instincts. As
M. Pottier[3] has pointed out, there is a universal law which manifests
itself in nascent art all over the world: “More than once men have
remarked the extraordinary resemblance which the linear decoration of
Peruvian, Mexican, and Kabyle vases bears to the ornamentation of the
most ancient Greek pottery. There is no possibility of contact between
these different peoples, separated by enormous distances of time and
space. If they have this common resemblance at the outset of their
artistic evolution, it is because all must pass through a certain
phase, resulting in some measure from the structure of the human brain.
Even so at the present day there are savages in Polynesia who, by means
of a point applied to the soft clay, produce patterns exactly similar
to those found on Greek or Cypriote pottery of fifteen or twenty
centuries before our era.” Or to take a later stage of development, the
compositions of vase-paintings of the sixth century B.C. are governed
by the same immutable laws of convention and principles of symmetry as
the carvings of the Middle Ages. Instances might be multiplied _ad
infinitum_; but the principle is universal.
* * * * *
A question that may be well asked by any visitor to a great museum is,
What is the use of the study of Greek vases? The answer is, that no
remains of Greek art have come down to us in such large quantities,
except perhaps coins, and certainly none cover so long a period.
Portraying as they do both the objective and subjective side of Greek
life, they form perhaps the best introduction to the study of Greek
archaeology in general. In no other class of monuments are the daily
life and religious beliefs of the Greeks so vividly presented as in the
painted vases. Their value to the modern student may be treated under
four separate heads: (1) Ethnological; (2) Historical; (3)
Mythological; (4) Artistic.
(1) =Ethnological.=—On this subject we have already touched in this
chapter, pointing out that pottery has an exceptional importance, not
only as one of the most universal and instructive illustrations of the
early developments of a single nation, but for purposes of comparison
of one nation with another. Sculpture, painting, architecture, and
other arts have a more limited range, and tell us nothing of domestic
life or social progress; but the common utensils of daily life, like
flint implements or bronze weapons, are of incalculable value for the
light that they throw on the subject, and the evidence which, in the
absence of historical data, they afford. We have also called attention
to the prevalence of universal laws acting on the development of the
early art of all nations.
Thus in dealing with the early history of Greece, before historical
records are available, we are enabled by the pottery-finds to trace the
extent of the Mycenaean civilisation, from Egypt to the Western
Mediterranean; we may see Homeric customs reflected in the vases of the
Geometrical period from Athens; and in the decorative patterns of the
succeeding period we may see signs of close intercourse with Assyria
and a knowledge of Oriental textile fabrics. The finds in Rhodes,
Cyprus, and the islands off Asia Minor also testify to a continued and
extensive intercourse between the mainland of Greece and the Eastern
Aegean.
(2) =Historical.=—The historical value of Greek vases rests partly on
the external, partly on the internal evidence that they afford. In the
former aspect those of historic times, like those of the primitive age,
confirm, if they do not actually supplement, literary records of Greek
history. Thus the numerous importations of vases from Corinth to Sicily
and Italy in the seventh century B.C. show the maritime importance of
that city and the extent of her commercial relations; while in the
succeeding century the commercial rivalry between her and Athens is
indicated by the appearance of large numbers of Attic fabrics in the
tombs of Italy along with the Corinthian; the final supremacy of Athens
by the gradual disappearance of the Corinthian wares, and the
consequent monopoly enjoyed by the rival state. The fact that after the
middle of the fifth century the red-figured Attic vases are seldom
found in Sicilian or Italian tombs shows clearly the blow dealt at
Athenian commerce by the Peloponnesian War, and the enforced cessation
of exports to the west, owing to the hostility of Sicily and the
crippling of Athenian navies; and the gradual growth of local fabrics
shows that the colonists of Magna Graecia at that time began themselves
to supply local demands. Instances might be multiplied.
But the internal evidence of the vases is of even greater value, not
only for the political, but still more for the social history of
Greece. By the application of painting to vases the Greeks made them
something more than mere articles of commercial value or daily use.
Besides the light they throw on the Greek schools of painting, they
have become an inexhaustible source for illustrating the manners,
customs, and literature of Greece. A Greek vase-painting—to quote M.
Pottier— is not only a work of art, but also an historical document.
Even when all artistic qualities are lacking, and the vase at first
sight is liable to be regarded as a worthless and uninteresting
production, a closer inspection will often reveal some small point
which throws light on a question of mythology, or of costume or armour.
Or, again, an inscription painted or even scratched on a vase may be of
surpassing philological or palaeographical importance. For instance,
the earliest inscription known in the Attic alphabet is a _graffito_ on
a vase of the seventh century B.C. (see Chapter XVII.), which of itself
would command no consideration; but this inscription is valuable not
only as evidence for early forms of lettering, but from its
subject-matter. It is true that it need not necessarily be contemporary
with the vase itself, as it may have been scratched in after it was
made, but this cannot detract from its importance or affect its
chronological value.
Or, again, a fragment of a painted vase found at Athens bears the name
of Xanthippos rudely scratched upon it; on the foot of another is that
of Megakles (see below, p. 103). Both of these are undoubted instances
of ὄστρακα, which were used for the banishment of these historical
personages. They therefore provide a striking illustration of the
institution of Ostracism, and bear out what we have said as to the
importance of archaeological discoveries for the study of History.
Historical or quasi-historical subjects are sometimes actually depicted
on the vases, but this question must be reserved for fuller treatment
in Part III., which deals with the subjects on vases in detail. In that
section of the work we shall also deal with the relations of
vase-paintings to ancient literature; and in the list of subjects taken
from daily life (Chapter XV.) it will be seen what ample information is
afforded on such points as the vocations and pastimes of men, the life
of women, war and athletics, sport and education.
(3) =Mythological.=—On this head reference must again be made to the
chapters on Subjects, as affording ample evidence of the importance of
the vases not only for the elucidation of Greek mythology and legend,
but also for religious cults and beliefs. One other point, however, is
worth noting here. Our knowledge of Greek mythology, if only derived
from literary records, rests largely on the compilations of Roman or
late writers, such as Ovid, Hyginus, and Apollodoros. It has been aptly
pointed out by a recent writer[4] that in these authors we have
mythology in a crystallised form, modified and systematised, and
perhaps confused with Latin elements, and that our popular modern
notions are mainly derived from these sources as they have been
filtered down to us through the medium of Lemprière’s Dictionary and
similar works. But vase-paintings are more or less original and
contemporary documents. Granted that it is possible to run to the
opposite extreme and accept art traditions to the utter neglect of the
literary tradition as derived from Homer and the Tragedians, the fact
still remains that for _suggestions_, and for raising problems that
could never have arisen through a literary medium, the evidence of
vases is of inestimable value.
In regard to Greek religious beliefs, it should be borne in mind that
with the Greeks art was the language by which they expressed their
ideas of the gods. It was thus largely due to their religion that they
attained supremacy in the plastic art, and their absolute freedom of
treatment of their religious beliefs almost eliminated the hieratic and
conventional character of Oriental art from their own, with its
infinite variety of conceptions. The vase-paintings, almost more than
any other class of monuments, reveal the universal religious sentiment
which pervaded their life—the δεισιδαιμονία which prevailed even in
Romanised Athens. Thus the vases constitute a pictorial commentary on
all aspects of Greek life and thought.[5]
(4) =Artistic.=—(_a_) _Form._ In the grace of their artistic forms the
Greeks have excelled all nations, either past or present. The beauty
and simplicity of the shapes of their vases have caused them to be
taken as models; but as every civilised people has received from other
sources forms sanctioned by time, and as many of the Greek forms cannot
be adapted to the requirements of modern use, they have not been
extensively imitated. Yet to every eye familiar with works of art of
the higher order their beauty is fully apparent.
(_b_) _Decoration._ It is at first difficult to realise how little we
actually know of Greek painting. Our modern museums are so full of
specimens of Greek sculpture, either originals or ancient copies of
masterpieces, that we feel it possible to obtain an adequate idea of
the genius of Pheidias or Praxiteles at first-hand, so to speak. But
ancient literature clearly shows that painting was held by the Greeks
in equally high estimation with sculpture, if not even higher. Consult
the writings of the elder Pliny on ancient art. A considerable space is
there devoted to the account of the great painters Zeuxis, Apelles, and
Parrhasios, while Pheidias is barely mentioned, and the account of
Praxiteles’ works is far from complete. Yet we look in vain through
most modern collections for any specimen of Greek painting on fresco or
panel.
This is, of course, due to the perishable character of pictures and the
destruction of the buildings on the walls of which the great frescoes
were preserved. But the fact remains that we have to look in other
directions for the evidence we require to find. We have here and there
a painted Greek tombstone, a Pompeian fresco, or the decoration of an
Etruscan sepulchre to give us a hint; but while the first-named are far
too inconsiderable in number to give us any idea of the art of their
time, the two latter are merely products of an imitative art, giving
but a faint echo of the originals.
Now, in the vases we have, as noted in regard to mythology,
contemporary evidence. It must never be forgotten that vase-painting is
essentially a decorative art; but, as we shall see later in tracing its
historical development, there is always a tendency to ignore the
essential subserviency of design to use, and to give the decoration a
more pictorial character. Many of the late vases are, in fact, pictures
on terracotta. Again, there is a class of fifth-century vases with
polychrome paintings on white ground which actually recall the method
we know to have been employed by the great master of that century,
Polygnotos. And with regard to the late vases we shall hope to show in
a future chapter that, like the Pompeian paintings, they often reflect
the spirit, if not the exact likeness, of some well-known painting of
which we have record.
Many instances might be given of vase-paintings which reflect, or
assist our knowledge of, the products of the higher arts. Even as early
as the end of the sixth century the group of the Tyrant-slayers, the
creation of Antenor and of Kritios and Nesiotes, is found repeated on a
black-figured vase[6]; and the early _poros_ pediments from the
Athenian Acropolis find an interesting parallel in an early Attic vase
of about the same date.[7] So again in Ionia, the style of the
sculptures of the archaic temple at Ephesos finds its reflection in
some of the local sixth-century vase-fabrics.[8] Coming to the fifth
century, the heads in Euphronios’ paintings may be compared with some
of the Attic heads in marble, like that of the ephebos from the
Acropolis.[9] Combats of Greeks with Amazons and Centaurs on later R.F.
vases often seem to suggest a comparison with the friezes of Phigaleia
and Olympia; a figure from the balustrade of the Nike temple is almost
reproduced on a R.F. vase,[10] and the riding youths of the Parthenon
frieze on some of the white Athenian lekythi; and the Kertch vase with
the contest of Athena and Poseidon (Plate L.) is of special interest as
an almost contemporary reproduction of the Parthenon west pediment. In
painting, again, the later R.F. vases in many instances reflect what we
know of the style and composition of Polygnotos’ paintings, and there
are many instances on the vases of the subjects treated by him and
Mikon.[11]
It is not necessary here to say more of the importance of a study of
Greek vases on the several lines that we have pointed out. It is
sufficient to say that specialists in all these branches of Archaeology
instinctively turn to vases for the main source of their information.
* * * * *
The earliest date at which public attention was directed to the painted
vases was the end of the seventeenth century. In those days, it need
hardly be said, systematic excavation was a thing quite unknown, while
archaeology as a science was non-existent. Beyond a few sculptures
which had been handed down at Rome or elsewhere through many
vicissitudes, cabinets of gems which had been preserved by cardinals
and other dignitaries who employed them for signet-rings, chiefly for
ecclesiastical purposes, and some collections of coins of the
Renaissance period, there were no specimens of ancient art preserved.
During the seventeenth century, however, the fashion arose of making
voyages to Italy or Greece, and bringing back any spoils that might
attract the notice of the traveller. In this way the collection of
Arundel Marbles at Oxford was made, and the nucleus of many of the
famous private collections of England formed. But the painted vases,
which for the most part lay buried in tombs, escaped notice almost
entirely—and, perhaps even where specimens were preserved, they
attracted little notice—until with Winckelmann arose a gradual
hankering after the possession of artistic treasures and the formation
of collections of antiques.
The earliest allusion to be found to painted vases is in the works of
La Chausse (Caussius),[12] and in the _Thesaurus_ of Graevius,[13]
while the oldest existing catalogue is that of the collection of the
Elector of Brandenburg, compiled by L. Beger in 1696–1701.[14] Some few
are illustrated in these works, while others were given later by
Montfaucon,[15] Dempster,[16] Gori,[17] and Caylus.[18] Winckelmann
published several vases in his _Histoire de l’Art_ (1764) and
_Monumenti Antichi_ (1769), and the industrious Passeri in 1767–75
published, besides a supplement to Dempster, three volumes containing
coloured engravings of vases in various collections.
Sir William Hamilton, who was for some time English Ambassador at
Naples, formed there a considerable collection of Greek and Roman
antiquities, mostly painted vases, which had been discovered in various
tombs in Southern Italy and Etruria. All these he brought with him to
England and sold to the newly instituted British Museum in 1767. A
Frenchman named Hugues or D'Hancarville compiled a magnificent work in
four volumes[19] illustrating the vases in this collection, with
elaborate diagrams of the shapes; but the representations of the
subjects are often marred by the imaginary ornamental borders in which
they are framed, while the whole work, like others of the same period,
is marked by a tendency to ignore all but the artistic interest, and
instead of an accurate reproduction to aim merely at giving a pretty
picture.
A second collection of vases belonging to Hamilton was mostly lost at
sea, but a record of it has been preserved in Tischbein’s work, _Vases
d’Hamilton_[20] in four volumes, which is more accurate and useful than
that of D'Hancarville. It is believed that many of these vases are now
in the Hope collection at Deepdene, which is unfortunately inaccessible
to archaeologists.
The Hamilton collection formed, as we have said, the nucleus of the
magnificent array of vases in the British Museum. Most of them, it is
true, belong to the later period or decadence of vase-painting, and
were not only found, but had also been manufactured, in Italy. Although
the time for a scientific study and classification was not yet to be
for some sixty years, the interest in the subject was decidedly on the
increase, and many English noblemen and gentlemen were forming
collections, as well as such foreigners as the Duc de Blacas, the Duc
de Luynes, and M. Millin. It became the fashion to produce large folio
works embodying the contents of these collections in series of coloured
illustrations, and thus we have, besides those already mentioned, the
imposing publications of Millin,[21] Millingen[22], Laborde[23], and
others. On the same lines, but mostly of later date, are the
publications of De Rossi[24], Christie[25], Moses[26], Inghirami[27],
Lanzi[28], Böttiger[29], Micali[30], Raoul-Rochette[31],
Stackelberg[32], and the Duc de Luynes[33], who published either their
own vases, as De Luynes, or some well-known collection like that of the
Duc de Blacas, or some particular class of vases: _e.g._ Micali, those
found in Etruria; Raoul-Rochette and Inghirami, those illustrating
Homer; and Stackelberg, those found in tombs in Greece Proper. Few of
these, it will be seen, were published in England, where neither public
patronage nor private enterprise were found prepared to rival the
achievements of the Continent.
In most of these works the vases are styled “Etruscan” as a matter of
course. Even nowadays it is a very common experience to hear vases
spoken of as “Etruscan” or even as “Etruscan urns,” as if every vase
was used as a receptacle for the ashes of the dead. This error has
lasted, with all the perseverance of a popular fallacy, for over a
century, and cannot now be too strongly denounced. But at the beginning
of the last century the Etruscan origin of painted vases was most
strongly maintained by erudite scholars, chiefly Italians who desired
to champion the credit of their own country, and the controversy raged
with varying force till Greece was able to substantiate her own case by
the numbers of vases that came forth from her tombs to proclaim their
Hellenic origin.
The “Etruscan” theory was first promulgated by Montfaucon, Gori,
Caylus, and Passeri, between 1719 and 1752; their arguments being based
on the plausible ground that up till that time the vases had been found
almost exclusively in Etruria. So the term “Etruscan vase” passed into
the languages of Europe, and has survived in spite of a century of
refutation. But in 1763 Winckelmann, the father of scientific
archaeology, conceived the idea that the spirit and character of the
vase-paintings were wholly Greek; and he proposed to call them
Italo-Greek or Graeco-Sicilian, indicating Magna Graecia as the true
place of their manufacture. This was a step in the right direction, and
he was supported later by Lanzi, Millin, Millingen, and others
(1791–1813). A further attempt was made to define the particular places
of their fabric, and Nola, Locri, and Agrigentum were suggested as the
most important centres. Meanwhile, the discoveries of vases in Attica,
at Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece, and subsequently the publication
of Stackelberg’s work, helped to confirm the position of Winckelmann’s
followers.
In 1828 came what M. Pottier terms “an objectionable revival of
Etruscomania,” with the extensive and marvellously fruitful excavations
at Vulci under the direction of the Prince of Canino, Lucien Bonaparte,
on whose estates most of the tombs were found. Several thousand vases
were the yield of this site, mostly of the best periods of Greek art.
This was a great epoch in the history of the study of Greek vases. A
flood of fresh light was thrown on the subject by the mass of new
material, and a whole new literature arose in consequence. Hitherto
vases of the archaic and fine periods had only been known in isolated
instances, and the bulk of the existing collections was formed of the
florid vases of the Decadence; but now it became possible to fill up
the gaps and trace the whole development of the art from the simplest
specimens with decorative patterns or figures of animals down to the
very last stages of painting.
These discoveries prompted Prince Lucien Bonaparte to revive the theory
of Etruscan origin, in which he was supported by D'Amatis and De Fea.
It is probable that all three were animated more by patriotic motives
than by intellectual conviction. At any rate their arguments appealed
but little to scholars, although not a few inclined to take a middle
course, and maintained that there existed, not only in Etruria but also
in Southern Italy, various local centres of manufacture under Greek
superintendence and in close connection with Athens and her influences.
These ideas were upheld by Gerhard, Welcker, the Duc de Luynes, and Ch.
Lenormant. But the preponderating arguments were to be found on the
other side, from Kramer (1837), who attributed all vases but those of
the Decadence to an Attic origin, O. Müller, who limited this to the
finer examples from Vulci, and Raoul-Rochette, who pinned his faith to
Sicily, to Otto Jahn[34], who may be said to have founded the modern
comparative study of Greek ceramics on its present basis (1854).
Jahn pronounced decisively for the Greek origin of all but the later
fabrics, and his principles have been adopted by all succeeding
archaeologists, with the exception of Brunn, and one or two of the
latter’s disciples, who have swung back to the Italian theory in some
respects. Up to his time all had been in chaos, and each writer worked
on his own particular line without regard to others, both as regards
the origin of the vases and the subjects depicted thereon; but Jahn, in
his epoch-making catalogue of the vases at Munich, was the first to
make a serious and scientific attempt to reduce the chaos to order, not
only by adopting a rational system of interpretation, but by
systematising and reducing to one common denominator all previous
contributions to knowledge.
We may say that the study of Greek vases has passed through three main
stages: (1) Artistic; (2) Epexegetic; (3) Historical.
(1) =Artistic= (1690—1770).—In the first stage, as we have seen, the
artistic merit of the vases and the aim of producing a pretty picture
were alone regarded. Hence, too, arose the fashion of making copies of
Greek vases, and many specimens were produced by Wedgwood[35], bearing,
however, no more than a superficial likeness to the originals.
(2) =Epexegetic= (1770—1854).—In the second stage it seems to have been
suddenly discovered that the figures on the vases were not mere
meaningless groups, like the Watteau shepherds and shepherdesses on
Dresden china, and many strange theories were at first promulgated as
to the purposes for which the vases were made and the subjects thereon
depicted. Three main lines of interpretation seem to have been adopted
by the writers of this period:—
(_a_) Passeri, Millin, Lanzi, and Visconti supposed that allusions were
made to the life of the deceased person in whose tomb they were found;
allegorical representations were given of his childish games, his
youthful pastimes, or the religious and social ceremonies in which he
took part.
(_b_) Italynski, in his preface to Tischbein’s work, enunciates the
strange notion that they allude to events of Greek and Roman history:
for instance, three draped men represent the three chief archons of
Athens, or three women conversing, Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus,
with her daughter and daughter-in-law, considering whether she should
appear as a suppliant before her son. The utterly fantastic and
unscientific nature of these explanations was self-evident; the writers
of the first group at any rate had a sounder basis for their theories,
and on the analogy of the sculptured Greek tombstones might well have
been near the truth.
(_c_) Another theory, which attained great popularity, and was even
adhered to partially for some years afterwards by Panofka, Gerhard, and
Lenormant, was that the subjects bore allusion to the Mysteries, more
particularly the Eleusinian. The vases were regarded as presents given
to the initiated, and the reason why their interpretation was so
difficult was that they related to the secrets unfolded in those
ceremonies. Many attempts were made to unlock those secrets and to show
the mystic moral purport of the pictures; but all is the merest
guesswork. The height of fantastic explanation is perhaps reached by
Christie, whose work is quite worth perusal as a literary curiosity.
Panofka, on the other hand, turned his attention to the inscriptions on
the vases,[36] and discerned a symbolical meaning in these, reading
into the names of artists rebuses on the subjects over which they were
inscribed, _e.g._ Douris is indicated by Athena with a spear (δόρυ) or
Hermaios by a figure of Hermes.
(3) =Historical.=—The historical or scientific method of studying Greek
vases consists mainly in classifying them according to different
periods, and within that period to different schools. To these main
considerations the artistic merits of the vases and the explanation of
the subjects are subordinated. The reason for this is obvious. The
artistic and mythological interest of the vases is soon exhausted, and
receives no new impetus from new discoveries. Now, with the comparative
study of vases this is not the case. Any day may bring forth a new
discovery which will completely revolutionise all preconceived
theories; hence there is the constant necessity for being “up-to-date,”
and for the adjustment of old beliefs to new.
But the historical method is not entirely of modern growth. As long ago
as 1767 the first attempt was made by D'Hancarville[37] to classify
vases according to their age. Taking such scanty data as were
available, he divided Italian vases into five classes, ranging from
“some centuries before the foundation of Rome” down to the reigns of
Trajan, the Antonines, and Septimius Severus, which “announc’d the
total decadency of the Art.” The earlier vases he sought to fix more
precisely by reference to the history of painting as told by Pliny.
The Duc de Luynes, writing in 1832,[38] hesitates to define the exact
age of the various styles, though he arranges them generally in six
classes, ranging from the “Doric” or “Phoenician” vases down to
barbaric imitations by the natives of Italy. According to him the
red-figured vases lasted from the time of Perikles down to that of
Pyrrhos. Millingen was content with three periods only, his
division[39] being: (1) ancient style, 700–450 B.C.; (2) fine style,
450–228 B.C.; (3) late style, 228 to Social War. Kramer distinguishes
five epochs: (A) Egyptian style, 580–500 B.C.; (B) older style, 500–460
B.C.; (C) severe style, 460—420 B.C.; (D) fine style, 420–380 B.C.; (E)
rich style, 380–200 B.C.[40] Gerhard[41] surmised that the earliest
vases might date from the ninth or tenth century B.C., the fine style
extending over the fifth and fourth, while the decadence culminated in
the second, and in the first century fictile vases were entirely
supplanted by those of metal.
De Witte made a more detailed classification, extending to nine groups,
and based rather on technical differences, as several of the groups are
contemporaneous; but his classification is essentially a practical one,
and may be regarded as forming a sound basis for all succeeding
catalogues and treatises, as also for the arrangement of museums.
Jahn in his Introduction is content with four main headings, which for
a general classification of a large collection is convenient enough,
and has, in fact, been adopted in the Vase Rooms of the British Museum.
Under this system the four divisions are: (1) Primitive; (2)
Black-figured; (3) Red-figured; (4) Vases of the Decadence. In the
Louvre, on the other hand, the arrangement is mainly geographical,
according to the sites from which the vases have come.
It is recognised by modern archaeologists,[42] working on the lines
laid down by Jahn in the three main divisions of his Introduction, that
in dating and classifying a vase or series of vases three points must
be taken into consideration: (1) circumstances of discovery; (2)
technique and style; (3) inscriptions (when present). The various
questions with which the modern study of vase-paintings has mainly to
deal will be fully investigated in subsequent chapters, and it is not
necessary to say more on this head. But we trust that sufficient
attention has been drawn to the many-sided interests presented by—it is
not necessary to say a collection of vases, but—a single vase[43].
It may be worth while here to turn aside for a moment and study the
rise and growth of the various great vase-collections of Europe. We may
with pardonable pride regard the British Museum as standing at the head
of these collections, possessing as it does the most representative
collection of any, if not the largest. Hardly any known fabric is
unrepresented, nor the work of any known artist; though here and there
another museum may have the advantage—as, for instance, the Louvre in
early black-figured fabrics, Naples in vases of Southern Italy
(especially the large specimens), or Athens in various fabrics peculiar
to Greece, such as the early vases of Thera and Melos, or the
marvellous specimens of “transitional” handiwork found on the Acropolis
of Athens.
The nucleus of the British Museum collection was, as has been
indicated, formed by the vases obtained from Sir W. Hamilton in 1767,
supplemented by those of Towneley and Payne Knight (1805–24): these are
nearly all vases of the late period from Southern Italy. Between the
years 1837 and 1845 a large quantity of fine black-figured and
red-figured vases was acquired from the Canino collection, having been
found on that estate at Vulci, and in 1836 acquisitions from M.
Durand’s sale had helped to swell the number of vases representing that
site, including some very fine examples. In 1842 came the Burgon
collection, mostly of small vases from Athens and the Greek islands; in
1856 the bequest by Sir William Temple of his collection, formed at
Naples, added greatly to the value of the collection of later vases. In
1860–64 large numbers of vases of all periods from 700 B.C. to 400 B.C.
were excavated by Salzmann and Biliotti at Kameiros in Rhodes; and from
Ialysos in the same island came a number of Mycenaean vases by the
generosity of Prof. Ruskin in 1870. Meanwhile, the Blacas collection,
purchased in 1867, had added a large number, chiefly of red-figured and
Italian vases, and in 1873 many more fine specimens from Capua, Nola,
and elsewhere were acquired from M. Castellani. Of late years the chief
additions have been from Cyprus, beginning with a few vases from
Cesnola in 1876 down to the Turner Bequest excavations in 1894–96, and
from the Egypt Exploration Fund’s excavations at Naukratis and Daphnae
(1884–86). Other acquisitions have been mostly in the form of isolated
purchases, especially of the white lekythi and similar classes; some
have come from important collections, such as those of Forman,
Tyszkiewicz, and Van Branteghem.
In 1870, when the old Catalogue was completed, the collection must have
numbered over 2,000 painted vases, besides 1,000 undecorated; at the
present day the total cannot be computed at less than 5,000, of which
about 4,000 may be described as painted vases.
The Louvre collection in Paris[44] started life about a century ago
under the first Napoleon, who established a ceramic section about 1797.
Other vases were added from the Vatican and Naples; and meanwhile the
Royal collection went to form the present Cabinet of Antiquities in the
Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1818 the very limited collection was
augmented by 564 vases from M. Tochon, and in 1825 came a magnificent
acquisition of about 2,000 vases (mostly painted) from M. Durand. From
this time till 1863 the growth was very slow, and the Louvre does not
seem to have profited like other museums by the excavations at Vulci.
In the latter year, however, another splendid collection of 2,000
painted and 1,400 unpainted vases was acquired from Count Campana,
which necessitated the building of new galleries. The early B.F.
fabrics, in which the Louvre is so pre-eminently rich, were all in this
collection. During the last thirty years the only acquisitions of
importance have been representative specimens from Greece and Cyprus;
but the total number is now reckoned at 6,000.
The growth of the Berlin collection has been much more slow and
consistent.[45] Its nucleus was derived from the collection of the
Elector of Brandenburg described by Beger in 1701. Up to 1830 most of
the vases acquired were from Southern Italy and Campania, including
1,348 from the Koller collection in 1828. In 1831, 442 vases and 179
specimens of Etruscan plain ware were acquired from the Dorow
collection, and from 1833 to 1867 the activity of Gerhard procured fine
specimens from time to time, while 174 were bequeathed by him at his
death. When Levezow’s Catalogue was published in 1834, it included
1,579 specimens; the next one by Furtwaengler in 1885 describes more
than 4,000. Of late years many valuable specimens have been derived
from various parts of Greece.
These three may be regarded as the typical representative collections
of Europe; those of Athens, Munich, Naples, and Petersburg are all of
great merit and value, but chiefly strong in one particular
department—Athens in early vases and Attic lekythi, Petersburg in late
red-figured vases, and Naples in the fabrics of Southern Italy. Many of
the finest specimens, however, are to be found in the smaller
collections in the Paris Bibliothèque, at Florence, Vienna, Madrid, and
in Rome. Of late years Europe has found a formidable rival in America,
especially in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, which, backed by
almost inexhaustible private benefactions, is gradually acquiring a
large proportion of the signed vases and other _chefs-d’œuvre_ which
from time to time find their way into the market. The Metropolitan
Museum at New York, on the other hand, rests its claim to distinction
on the possession of General Cesnola’s enormous collections of Cypriote
pottery of all periods.
The gradual centralising of vases into public museums is a noteworthy
feature at the present day. The private collections formed by so many
amateurs at the beginning of the century have nearly all been long
since dispersed and incorporated with the various national
collections[46]; and those formed more recently are rapidly sharing the
same fate. Hardly a year passes now without seeing the dispersion of
some notable collection like those of M. Sabouroff, M. van Branteghem,
Colonel Brown (Forman collection), or M. Bourguignon; and almost the
only important one that still remains intact is that of Sig. Jatta at
Ruvo (consisting almost entirely of South Italian vases). Now that the
days are past when it was the custom for rich collectors to publish
magnificently illustrated atlases of their possessions, this tendency
to centralisation can only be welcomed both by artists and students.
For the latter now it only remains to be desired that a scientific and
well-illustrated catalogue of every public museum should be available.
We append here a list of the principal museums and collections in
Europe, which may form a supplement to that given by Jahn in 1854. The
more important ones are printed in heavier type.
I. GREAT BRITAIN.
1. =London. British Museum= (see p. 24). Catalogue by C. Smith and
Walters.
South Kensington Museum (a few isolated specimens; also some
from the Museum of Practical Geology Jermyn Street).
Soane Museum (the Cawdor Vase).
2. =Oxford. Ashmolean Museum.= Catalogue by P. Gardner (1893).
3.= Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum.= Catalogue by E. A. Gardner
(1896).
4. Deepdene (Dorking). Hope Collection. Inaccessible to students.
Consists entirely of late vases from Southern Italy.
5. Numerous private collections, among the more important being—
Richmond. The late Sir F. Cook.
Castle Ashby. Marquis of Northampton.
6. Harrow School Museum (a fine “Theseus” Kylix and Krater with
Centaurs). Catalogue by C. Torr (1887).
7. Edinburgh.
II. FRANCE.
1. =Paris. The Louvre= (see p. 25). Catalogue by Pottier (in
progress).
=Bibliothèque Nationale.= Catalogue by A. de Ridder (1902).
Dzialynski Collection. See De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel
Lambert_.
2. Marseilles Museum. Catalogue by Froehner (1897).
3. Rouen Museum.
4. Boulogne Museum.
5. Compiègne Museum.
6. Sèvres Museum.
III. BELGIUM AND HOLLAND.
1. Brussels.[47] See Cat. of Musée de Ravestein. Somzée Collection
(now dispersed).
2. Amsterdam. Six Collection.
3. Leyden Museum. See Roulez, _Vases de Leyde_.
IV. GERMANY.
1. =Berlin. Antiquarium= (see p. 25). Catalogue by Furtwaengler
(1885).
2. Altenburg.
3. Bonn.
4. Breslau.
5. Brunswick.
6. Dresden.
7. Frankfurt. Museum Städel.
8. Gotha.
9. Heidelberg.
10. =Karlsruhe.= Catalogue by Winnefeld (1887).
11. Leipzig.
12. =Munich.= Catalogue by Jahn (1854).
13. Schwerin.
14. =Würzburg.= Antikenkabinet. Coll. Bankó.
V. DENMARK AND SWEDEN.
1. Kopenhagen. Catalogue by Smith (1862).
2. Stockholm.
VI. RUSSIA.
1. =Petersburg. Hermitage.= Catalogue by Stephani (1869).
Stroganoff Coll.
Pisareff Coll.
2. Dorpat (University).
VII. AUSTRIA.
1. =Vienna. Oesterreichisches Museum.= Catalogue by Masner (1891).
K. K. Kabinet. University.
2. Cracow. Czartoryski Coll.
3. Prague. Pollak Coll.
4. Trieste. Museum.
VIII. SWITZERLAND.
1. Berne }
2. Geneva } All unimportant for Greek Vases.
3. Zürich.}
IX. SPAIN.
Madrid.
X. ITALY AND SICILY.
1. Acerra. Spinelli Coll.
2. Adria. Museo Bocchi. Publication by Schöne.
3. Arezzo. Chiefly Roman Arretine ware.
4. =Bologna. Museo Civico.= Catalogue by Pellegrini (1900).
Università.
5. Capua. Campana Coll.
6. Cervetri. Ruspoli Coll.
7. Chiusi. Museum. Casucchini Coll. (but see p. 73).
8. Corneto. Museum. Bruschi Coll.
9. Florence. Museum.
10. =Naples. Museo Nazionale.= Catalogue by Heydemann (1872).
11. Orvieto. Museum. Faina Coll.
12. Palermo. Museum.
13. Parma.
14. Perugia. Museum.
15. =Ruvo. Jatta Coll.= Catalogue by Sig. G. Jatta (1869).
16. Taranto. Museum.
17. Terranuova (Gela). Private collections.
18. =Rome. Vatican= (=Mus. Gregoriano=). Guide by Helbig. Museo
Capitolino. Museo Papa Giulio. Numerous private
collections: Hartwig, Torlonia, Castellani, etc., and
Deutsches Arch. Inst.
XI. GREECE.
1. =Athens. National Museum.= Catalogue by Couve and Collignon
(1902). Do. (Acropolis Collection). Catalogue in
progress. Trikoupis Coll. Other private collections.
2. Eleusis. Museum (local finds).
3. Candia (Crete).
XII. ASIA MINOR.
Smyrna. Various private collections.
XIII. CYPRUS.
Nicosia. Cyprus Museum. Catalogue by Myres and Richter (1899).
Private collections at Larnaka, Nicosia, and Limassol.
XIV. EGYPT.
Cairo. Ghizeh Museum.
XV. AMERICA.
1. =Boston.= Catalogue by Robinson.
2. New York. Metropolitan Museum. Atlas of Cesnola Collection from
Cyprus published.
3. Baltimore.
4. Chicago.
-----
Footnote 1:
_B.M. Guide to First and Second Egyptian Rooms_ (1904), p. 22; for
early Neolithic pottery from Ireland see _Guide to Antiqs. of Stone
Age_, p. 84.
Footnote 2:
Remains of Neolithic pottery have recently been found in Crete
(_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 158) and in the Cyclades.
Footnote 3:
_Cat. des Vases Antiques du Louvre_ i. p. 18.
Footnote 4:
Miss Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, preface, p. ii.
The Introduction to this work contains some excellent examples of the
modern method of using vase-paintings to elucidate mythology.
Footnote 5:
For the use of vase-paintings in illustration of Greek religious
beliefs and customs, reference may be made to Miss Harrison’s
_Prolegomena to Greek Religion_ (Cambridge Press, 1903), containing
many interesting interpretations of scenes on the vases which may
bear on the subject.
Footnote 6:
See Chapter XIV., _ad fin._
Footnote 7:
_Ant. Denkm._ i. 57.
Footnote 8:
Cf. for instance Berlin 2154 (Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 29).
Footnote 9:
Collignon, _Hist. de la Sculpt. Grecque_, i. p. 362.
Footnote 10:
Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasenb._ 81.
Footnote 11:
As, for instance, the subjects of Odysseus and Philoktetes; Orestes
slaying Aegisthos; the death of Polyxena; Theseus fetching the ring
from Amphitrite. Cf. Huddilston, _Lessons from Greek Pottery_, p. 28.
Footnote 12:
_Museum Romanum_, Rome, 1690, fol.
Footnote 13:
_Thesaur. Antiq. Rom._ xii. 955.
Footnote 14:
_Thesaur. regii Brandenb._ vol. iii.
Footnote 15:
_Ant. Expliq._ iii. pls. 71–77 (1719).
Footnote 16:
_Etr. Regal._ 1723, fol.
Footnote 17:
_Mus. Etr._ 1737–43.
Footnote 18:
_Recueil_, 1752–67 (especially vols. i.–ii.).
Footnote 19:
_Antiqs. Étr. Gr. et Rom., tirées du Cabinet de M. H._, fol. 1766–67.
Footnote 20:
1791–1803. Plates for a fifth volume were prepared, but never
regularly published (see Reinach, _Répertoire des Vases Peints_, ii.
p. 334).
Footnote 21:
_Peintures des Vases Antiques_, edited by M. Dubois-Maisonneuve, in
two volumes, with Introduction (1808–10); now re-edited by S. Reinach
(1891).
Footnote 22:
_Vases Grecs_, Rome, 1813; _Vases de Coghill_, Rome, 1817; _Ancient
Uned. Monuments_, London, 1822; the two former now re-edited by S.
Reinach, 1891 and 1900.
Footnote 23:
_Vases de Lamberg_, Paris, 1813–25; re-edited by S. Reinach, 1900.
Footnote 24:
_Vasi de Blacas._ This was never actually published: see Reinach,
_Répertoire_, ii. p. 383.
Footnote 25:
_Disquisitions on the Painted Vases_, 1806.
Footnote 26:
_Coll. of Antique Vases_, London, 1814.
Footnote 27:
_Vasi Fittili_, 4 vols. 1833; _Mon. Etruschi_ (1824), vol. v.; _Gal.
Omerica_, 3 vols. 1831–36, etc.
Footnote 28:
_De’ vasi antichi dipinti_, 1806.
Footnote 29:
_Gr. Vasengemälde_, 1797–1800.
Footnote 30:
_Monumenti per servire alla storia degli ant. pop. ital._ 2nd edn.
1833; _Monumenti inediti_, 1844.
Footnote 31:
_Mon. Inéd._ 1828.
Footnote 32:
_Gräber der Hellenen_, Berlin, 1837.
Footnote 33:
_Descr. de quelques vases peints_, 1840.
Footnote 34:
_Die Vasensammlung zu München_, Introduction.
Footnote 35:
He gave the name of Etruria to the place in Staffordshire where he
set up his pottery, after the supposed origin of the ancient vases.
Footnote 36:
_Namen der Vasenbilder_, 1849.
Footnote 37:
Vol. ii. p. 108.
Footnote 38:
_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1832, p. 145 ff.
Footnote 39:
_Peintures_, p. viii.
Footnote 40:
_Der Stil u. Herkunft der gr. Vasen_, p. 46 ff.
Footnote 41:
_Rapporto Volcente_, in _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1831, p. 98 ff.
Footnote 42:
The names of the chief modern writers on the subject are given in the
Bibliography, and in the notes to the Historical Chapters (VI.-XI.),
where also brief bibliographies are given.
Footnote 43:
The writer is indebted to the Introduction to M. Pottier’s admirable
little Catalogue of the Vases in the Louvre for many ideas worked up
in the foregoing pages.
Footnote 44:
See Pottier’s Catalogue, i. p. 59.
Footnote 45:
See the Introduction to Furtwaengler’s Catalogue.
Footnote 46:
Cf. the lists given by Jahn, _Vasens. zu München_, pp. xi, xiv, with
(for instance) the notes appended to the pages of Reinach’s
_Répertoire_.
Footnote 47:
The collection made by Baron Hirsch in Paris is now incorporated with
this Museum.
CHAPTER II
_SITES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCOVERY OF GREEK VASES_
Historical and geographical limits of subject—Description of Greek
tombs—Tombs in Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Sicily, Italy—Condition of
vases when found—Subsequent restorations—Imitations and
forgeries—Prices of vases—Sites on which painted vases have been
found: Athens, Corinth, Boeotia, Greek islands, Crimea, Asia
Minor, Cyprus, North Africa, Italy, Etruria—Vulci
discoveries—Southern Italy, Sicily.
Before dealing with Greek vases in further detail, it may be as well to
say something of the circumstances under which, and the localities in
which, they have been discovered. And further, we must clearly define
the limits of our subject, both historically and geographically.
(1) =Historical.=—It may seem somewhat paradoxical to doubt whether the
primitive pottery found on Greek soil ought, strictly speaking, to be
called Greek. In a succeeding chapter we shall have occasion to touch
upon the question of the ethnological origin of this pottery, which, in
the opinion of some authorities, is not the product of Greeks as we
understand the term, but of some Oriental nation, such as the
Phoenicians. It is, however, enough for our present purpose that it has
been found on Greek soil, and that it forms a stage which we cannot
omit from a study of the development of Greek pottery, seeing that its
influence can be plainly traced on later fabrics.
Turning to the other limit of the subject, we find that nearly all the
latest vases, belonging to the period of the Decadence, were
manufactured in Southern Italy or Etruria. But nearly all bear so
unmistakably the stamp of Greek influence, however degenerate and
obscured, that we can only regard them as made by Greek artists settled
in the colonies of Magna Graecia, or at any rate by native workers in
direct imitation of the Greeks.
We may roughly define our historical limits as from 2500 B.C., the
approximate age of the early pottery of Crete, Cyprus, and Hissarlik,
down to 200 B.C., when the manufacture of painted vases came to an end
under the growing dominion of Rome. It was formerly supposed that the
senatorial edict of 186 B.C., forbidding the performance of
Bacchanalian ceremonies in Italy, was the means of putting an end to
this industry, but this is hardly borne out by facts; it rather died a
natural death owing to the growing popularity of relief-work both in
terracotta and in metal (see Chapters XI. and XXII.).
(2) =Geographical.=—Having defined our historical limits, it remains to
consider the extent of Greek civilisation during that period, as
attested by archaeological or other evidence. Besides the mainland of
Greece and the islands of the Aegean Sea, the whole of Asia Minor may
be regarded as in a measure Greek, although practically speaking only a
strip of territory along the western coast became really Hellenised,
and we shall not be concerned with pottery-finds in any other part of
the country.[48] To the north-east, Greek colonisation penetrated as
far as Kertch and other places in the Crimea, known to the ancients as
Panticapaeum and the Bosphoros respectively. In the Eastern
Mediterranean the island of Cyprus will demand a large share of our
attention. Egypt, again, has yielded large numbers of vases, mostly
from the two Greek settlements of Naukratis and Daphnae; and farther to
the west along the north coast of Africa was the Greek colony of
Kyrene, also a fruitful site for excavators.
The rest of the ground is covered by the island of Sicily and the
peninsular portion of Italy from Bologna southwards. Greek vases have
occasionally turned up in Spain, Gaul (_i.e._ France and North Italy),
as at Marseilles (Massilia), where primitive Greek pottery has been
found, and also in Sardinia; but the Western Mediterranean sites are
chiefly confined to Southern Italy and Etruria. In fact, till recent
years these regions were almost our only source of information on Greek
pottery, as has already been pointed out.
Generally speaking, it may be said that all Greek vases have been found
in tombs, but the circumstances under which they have been found differ
according to locality. We propose in the succeeding section to say
something of the nature of the ancient tombs, and the differences
between those of Greece, Cyprus, Italy, and other sites.
Of finds on the sites of temples and sanctuaries it is not necessary to
say much here; the explanation of such discoveries will receive some
attention in Chapter IV., and the individual sites will also be noted
in the next section of this chapter. It is a rare occurrence to find
complete vases under these circumstances, as they generally owe their
preservation to the fact that they have been broken in pieces and cast
away as rubbish into holes and pits. The most notable instance is the
remarkable series of fragments discovered on the Acropolis at Athens.
Greek tombs are not usually very remarkable in character,[49] being for
the most part small and designed for single corpses; this may possibly
account for the comparatively small size of the vases discovered on
most Hellenic sites. In the earlier tombs at Athens and Corinth the
pottery was found at a very great depth below the soil. The six
shaft-graves in the circle at Mycenae are of great size, and contained
large quantities of painted pottery; an exact reproduction of the
sixth, found by M. Stamatakis in 1878, with its contents, is in the
National Museum at Athens. Here also are reproductions of two typical
fifth-century Greek tombs containing sepulchral lekythi,[50] and
showing how the vases were arranged round the corpse.[51]
Rock-graves are seldom found in Greece, the normal form of tomb being a
hole or trench dug in the earth, either filled in with earth or covered
with tiles (as at Tanagra). The rock-grave is almost exclusively
Asiatic, but some fine specimens were found at Kertch in the
Crimea.[52] Some large ones have also been found in Rhodes,[53] but the
most typical form of tomb there is a square chamber cut out of the hard
clayey earth, approached by a square vertical shaft and a door. They
generally contained single bodies, round which were ranged vases and
terracotta figures. Sir A. Biliotti, in his diary of the excavations at
Kameiros (1864), also records the finding of tombs cut in the clay in
the form of longitudinal trenches, covered with flat stones forming a
vaulted roof. Others were merely troughs cut in the surface of the rock
and covered with stones and earth. In the shafts of the first type of
tomb large jars or πίθοι were often found containing the bones of
children (see page 152). Nearly all these tombs have yielded Greek
vases of all dates. In the island of Karpathos[54] Mr. J. T. Bent found
tombs containing early pottery, consisting of two or three chambers
with stone benches round the sides.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. INTERIOR OF COFFIN FOUND AT ATHENS, SHOWING
ARRANGEMENT OF VASES.]
The tombs of Cyprus are especially interesting for two reasons:
firstly, that they exhibit types not found elsewhere; and, secondly,
that they vary in size and character at different periods of the
island’s history. In the earliest tombs of the Bronze Age period (down
to about 800 B.C.) we find a very simple type, consisting of a mere
oven-like hole a few feet below the surface of the ground, with a short
sloping δρόμος leading to it (Fig. 2). These tombs have very rarely
been found intact, and in most cases are full of fallen earth, so that
exact details of their original arrangement can seldom be obtained.
Each tomb generally contained a few exported Mycenaean vases and a
large number of local fabric, usually hand-made and rude in character.
The rich cemetery of Enkomi is, however, an exception, for here we find
large _built_ tombs, with roofs and walls of stone. Sometimes the
Bronze Age tombs were in the form of a deep well.[55]
[Illustration:
From _Ath. Mitth._
FIG. 2. DIAGRAM OF BRONZE AGE TOMBS, AGIA PARASKEVI, CYPRUS.
]
In the Graeco-Phoenician period (about 700–300 B.C.) the “oven” type of
tomb is preserved, but on a larger scale and at a greater depth, and
often reached by a long flight of stone steps. These tombs usually
contain large quantities of the local geometrical pottery, as many as
eighty or a hundred vases being sometimes found in one tomb. At Curium
and elsewhere, where the tombs contain Greek painted vases, they are
sometimes in the form of narrow ramifying passages.
The tombs of the Hellenistic period are of a very elaborate character,
especially those of Roman date, with long narrow δρόμος leading to a
chamber some ten by twenty feet or more, round the walls of which are
sarcophagi and niches; but these tombs seldom contain any but plain and
inferior pottery, the manufacture of painted vases in the island having
come to an end, as in the rest of Greece.
Frequently a tomb was found to contain pottery of widely different
periods, especially in cemeteries such as Amathus and Curium, where the
finds are of all dates, showing that the tombs were used again and
again for burials.[56]
The tombs in the Cyrenaica, which were explored by Mr. Dennis and
contained many Greek vases, he describes as follows[57]: “The great
majority of the tombs were sunk in the rock, in the form of pits, from
6 to 7 feet long, from 3½ to 4½ feet wide, and from 5 to 6 feet
deep.... Vases were sometimes placed in all four corners of the
sepulchre, but this was rare; they were generally confined to two
corners, often to one. The most usual place was the corner to the right
of the head, and this was the place of honour; for here a Panathenaic
vase in the tomb of a victor, a ribbed amphora of glazed black ware, or
more commonly an ordinary wine-_diota_, would be deposited upright,
with a number of smaller vases within it, or at its foot, either
figured or of black or plain ware, according to the circumstances of
the deceased. Occasionally small vases, or sometimes terracotta
figures, were placed along the sides of the tomb, between the head and
feet of the corpse; but I do not remember ever to have found vases
deposited on the breast, or under the arms of the deceased, as was
often the case in the Greek tombs of Sicily.”
Mr. Arthur Evans has given an interesting account of the tombs at Gela
(Terranuova) in Sicily, from which he has excavated many fine vases for
the Ashmolean Museum.[58] Chronologically the limits of their date can
be ascertained, between the foundation of Gela in 589 B.C. and its
depopulation by the Carthaginians in 409 B.C., but a few tombs belong
to the subsequent period down to 284 B.C., when it was finally
destroyed by the Mamertines. In the early graves containing B.F. vases
skeletons were found; these tombs were in the form of terracotta cists
with gabled covers and tiled floors. The next stage, containing R.F.
vases, has vaulted roofs made of two pieces of stone. During this
period cremation-pits containing ashes and bones are sometimes found;
the burnt bones were placed in kraters and covered with shallow
vessels. In these were found white lekythi, in some respects rivalling
those of Athens; but the subjects are domestic rather than sepulchral,
and they are probably, like many of the B.F. and R.F. vases, local
fabrics. Some of the tombs with B.F. vases are in the form of chambers
with vaulted cement roofs. In the earlier tombs the disposition was
usually as follows: a kylix on the left side of the head, an alabastron
under the right arm, and a lekythos under the left (Fig. 3.). The tombs
of Selinus, which are all of early date, have been described by a local
explorer.[59]
[Illustration:
From _Ashmolean Vases_.
FIG. 3. DISPOSITION OF VASES IN TOMB AT
GELA, SICILY.
]
We next review the types of tombs in Italy from which vases have been
obtained. Those at Vulci, and in the Etruscan territory generally, from
which the finest and largest vases have been extracted, are chambers
hewn in the rocks. The early tombs of Civita Vecchia and Cervetri are
tunnelled in the earth; in Southern Italy, especially in Campania, they
are large chambers, about two feet under the surface. In
D'Hancarville’s work (see p. 17) an illustration is given[60] of a tomb
in Southern Italy, which is constructed of large blocks of stone,
arranged in squared masses, called the Etruscan style of masonry, in
contradistinction to the Cyclopean. The walls are painted with
subjects, the body is laid upon the stone floor, and the larger vases,
such as the kraters, are placed round it. The jugs are hung upon nails
round the walls. Fig. 4. gives an example of a tomb of this kind from
Veii. A full account, with illustrations, of the tombs excavated in the
Certosa at Bologna about thirty years ago, has been given by Signor
Zannoni.[61] The tombs of Southern and Central Italy were made upon the
same plan, and the same description applies to both sites.[62]
The most ordinary tombs were constructed of rude stones or tiles, of a
dimension sufficient to contain the body and five or six vases; a small
one near the head and others between the legs, and on each side, more
often on the right than on the left side. An oinochoe and phiale were
usually found in every tomb; but the number, size, and quality of the
vases varied, probably according to the rank or wealth of the person
for whom the tomb was made. The better sort of tombs were of larger
size, and constructed with large hewn stones, generally without, but
sometimes completed with, cement; the walls were stuccoed, and
sometimes ornamented with painted patterns.
In these tombs, which were like small chambers, the body lay face
upwards on the floor, with the vases placed round it; sometimes vases
have been found hanging upon nails of iron or bronze, attached to the
side walls. The vases in the larger tombs were always more numerous, of
a larger size, and of a superior quality in every respect to those of
the ordinary tombs, which had little to recommend them except their
form.
Many of the larger and more important Etruscan tombs have also been
described and illustrated by Dennis in his work on Etruria, especially
those of Vulci and Corneto, which are famous both for their contents
and for the paintings which adorn their walls.[63] In the basement of
the British Museum may be seen large models of Etruscan tombs in which
the arrangement is carefully reproduced.
The vases, as we have already mentioned, are often ranged round the
dead, being hung upon or placed near the walls, or piled up in the
corners. Some hold the ashes of the deceased; others, small objects
used during life. They are seldom perfect, having generally either been
crushed into fragments by the weight of the superincumbent earth, or
else broken into sherds, and thrown into corners. Some exhibit marks of
burning, probably from having accompanied the deceased to the funeral
pyre. Sometimes they are dug up in a complete state of preservation,
and still full of the ashes of the dead.[64] These are sometimes found
inside a large and coarser vase of unglazed clay, which forms a case to
protect them from the earth.
[Illustration: FIG. 4. THE CAMPANA TOMB AT VEII, AS IT APPEARED WHEN
OPENED.]
* * * * *
Almost all the vases in the museums of Europe have been mended, and the
most skilful workmen at Naples and Rome were employed to restore them
to their pristine perfection. Their defective parts were scraped,
filed, rejoined, and supplied with pieces from other vases, or else
completed in plaster of Paris, over which coating the restored portions
were painted in appropriate colours, and varnished, so as to deceive
the inexperienced eye. But either through carelessness, or else owing
to the difference of process, the restorations had one glaring
technical defect: the inner lines are not of the glossy hue of the
genuine vases, and there is no indication of the thick raised line
which follows the original outline in the old paintings. Sometimes the
restorer pared away the ancient incrustation, and cut down to the
dull-coloured paste of the body of the vase. Sometimes he even went so
far as to paint figures in a light red or orange oil paint on the black
ground, or in black paint of the same kind on orange ground. But in all
these frauds the dull tone of colour, the inferior style of art, and
the wide difference between modern and ancient drawing and treatment of
subjects, disclose the deception. The calcareous incrustation deposited
on the vases by the infiltration into the tombs of water, containing
lime in solution, can be removed by soaking the vases in a solution of
hydrochloric acid.[65]
In other cases vases with subjects have been counterfeited by taking an
ancient vase covered entirely with black glaze, tracing upon it the
subject and inscription intended to be fabricated, and cutting away all
the black portions surrounding these tracings, so as to expose the
natural colour of the clay for the fictitious ground. When red figures
were intended to be counterfeited, the contrary course was adopted, the
part for the figures only being scraped away, and the rest left
untouched. Vases, indeed, in which the ground or figures are below the
surface should always be regarded with suspicion, and their genuineness
can only be determined by the general composition and style of the
figures, and by the peculiarities of the inscriptions. The latter also
are often fictitious, being painted in with colours imitating the true
ones, and often incised; indeed, nearly all inscriptions incised after
the vase has been baked are liable to give rise to suspicion. The
difference of style in the composition of groups, and especially small
points in the drawing, such as the over-careful drawing of details, the
indication of nails, and various other minute particulars, are also
criteria for detecting false or imitated vases. Water, alcohol, and
acids will remove false inscriptions, but leave the true ones intact.
Greek vases are not so easy to imitate as terracotta figures, the main
difficulty being the black varnish, which can never be successfully
reproduced. Acids or alcohol will always remove modern counterfeits,
but cannot touch the original substance. Since the discovery in Greece
of white-ground vases forgers have had a better chance, and they have
often ingeniously availed themselves of genuine ancient vases on which
to place modern paintings. But the antique drawing is exceedingly
difficult to imitate. In former times Pietro Fondi established
manufactories at Venice and Corfu, and the Vasari family at Venice, for
fictitious vases,[66] and many such imitations have been made at Naples
for the purpose of modern decoration.
The first to make such an attempt in England was the famous potter
Wedgwood, whose copy of the Portland Vase is well known. His paste is,
however, too heavy, and his drawings far inferior to the antique in
freedom and spirit. At Naples, chiefly through the researches and under
the direction of Gargiulo, vases were produced, which in their paste
and glaze resembled the antique, although the drawings were vastly
inferior, and the imitation could be at once detected by a practised
eye. They were, indeed, far inferior in all essential respects to the
ancient vases. Even soon after the acquisition of the Hamilton
collection by the public, the taste created for these novelties caused
various imitations to be produced. Some of the simplest kind were made
of wood, covered with painted paper, the subjects being traced from the
vases themselves, and this was the most obvious mode of making them.
Battam also made very excellent facsimiles of these vases, but they
were produced in a manner very different from that of the ancient
potters, the black colour for the grounds or figures not being laid on
with a glaze, but merely with a cold pigment which had not been fired,
and their lustre was produced by a polish. In technical details they
did not equal the imitations made at Naples, some of the best of which
deceived both archaeologists and collectors.
Sometimes illustrations of vases which never had any real existence
have appeared in publications. One of the most remarkable of these
fabricated engravings was issued by Bröndsted and Stackelberg in a fit
of archaeological jealousy. A modern archaeologist is seen running
after a draped woman called [PHÊMÊ], or “Fame,” who flies from him
exclaiming, [ΕΚΑΣ ΠΑΙ ΚΑΛΕ], “A long way off, my fine fellow!” This
vase, which never existed except upon paper, deceived the credulous
Inghirami, who too late endeavoured to cancel it from his work. Other
vases, evidently false, have also been published.[67]
M. Tyszkiewicz, the great collector, in his entertaining
_Souvenirs_,[68] gives some interesting illustrations of the methods of
Italian forgers of vases, of which he had frequent experience. “The
Neapolitans,” he says, “excel above all others in this industry; and it
is in ancient Capua, now Sta. Maria di Capua Vetere, that the best
_ateliers_ for the manufacture of painted vases are situated.” But
“even the famous connoisseur Raimondi, who was considered the master of
his art at Sta. Maria—even he could never invent altogether the
decoration of a vase so as to make it pass for an antique. Only if this
talented artist could get just a few fragments of a fine vase, he was
clever enough to be able, by the aid of illustrations of vases in
museums or in private collections, to reconstruct the whole subject. He
replaced the missing parts, and threw such an air of uniformity over
the vase that it was almost impossible to tell what was modern. But if
you tried to wash a vase faked up in this manner, in pure alcohol
chemically rectified, you would find that the modern portions would
vanish, while the ancient paintings would remain. Neither Raimondi nor
any one else could ever manage to discover the secret of the ancient
potters—how to obtain the background of a brilliant black colour,
improperly known as the _varnish of Nola_. To disguise their failure in
this respect, the forgers are obliged, when the vase is entirely
reconstructed and repainted, to cover it all over with a varnish of
their own invention; but the surface of this varnish, although
brilliant, lacks the freshness and brightness of that used by the
ancients. Relatively this surface appears dull, and vanishes the moment
it is washed with alcohol.”
At Athens also, says M. Tyszkiewicz, laboratories have been established
for making vases, of which he was acquainted with three. These forgers
excel in turning out the white-ground vases, which, even when antique,
cannot resist the action of alcohol. For the same reason they apply
gilding to their black-and-red vases, because this also yields to its
action. The large prices fetched by the white vases (see below) have
stimulated their activity in this direction, and their efforts have not
been without artistic merit, though failing in technique.[69]
On the subject of forgeries in relation to Greek vases the literature
is very scanty; but reference may be made to Prof. Furtwaengler’s
_Neuere Fälschungen von Antiken_, which raises some very interesting
questions in regard to forgeries, though his conclusions may sometimes
be thought rather arbitrary.
Of the prices paid for painted vases in ancient times, no positive
mention occurs in classical authorities, yet it is most probable that
vases of the best class, the products of eminent painters, obtained
considerable prices. For works of inferior merit only small sums were
paid, as will be seen by referring to the account of the inscriptions
which were incised underneath their feet, and gave their contemporary
value (Chapter XVII.). In modern times we have no information about the
prices paid for these works of art till about seventy years ago, when
they began to realise considerable sums. In this country the
collections of Mr. Towneley, Sir W. Hamilton, Lord Elgin, and Mr. Payne
Knight all contained painted vases; but as they included other objects,
it is difficult to determine the value placed on the vases. The sum of
£8,400 was paid for the vases of the Hamilton collection, one of the
most remarkable of the time, and consisting of many beautiful specimens
from Southern Italy. The great discoveries of the Prince of Canino in
1827, and the subsequent sale of numerous vases, gave them, however, a
definite market value, to which the sale of the collection of Baron
Durand, which consisted almost entirely of vases, affords some clue.
His collection sold in 1836 for 313,160 francs, or about £12,524. The
most valuable specimen in the collection was the vase representing the
death of Kroisos (Fig. 132), which was purchased for the Louvre at the
price of 6,600 francs, or £264. The cup with the subject of Arkesilaos
(p. 342) brought 1,050 francs, or £42. Another magnificent vase, now in
the Louvre, with the subject of the youthful Herakles strangling the
serpents,[70] was only secured for France after reaching the price of
6,000 francs, or £240; another, with the subject of Herakles,
Deianeira, and Hyllos,[71] was purchased for the sum of 3,550 francs,
or £142. A krater, with the subject of Akamas and Demophon bringing
back Aithra, was obtained by Magnoncourt for 4,250 francs, or £170.[72]
An amphora of the maker Exekias (B 210) was bought by the British
Museum for £142. The inferior vases of course realised much smaller
sums, varying from a few francs to a few pounds; but high prices
continued to be obtained, and the sale by the Prince of Canino in 1837
of some of his finest vases contributed to enrich the museums of
Europe, although, as many of the vases were bought in, it does not
afford a good criterion as to price. An oinochoë with Apollo and the
Muses, and a hydria, with the same subject, were bought in for 2,000
francs, or £80 each. A kylix, with a love scene, and another with Priam
redeeming Hektor’s corpse,[73] brought 6,600 francs, or £264. An
amphora with the subject of Dionysos, and the Euphronios cup with
Herakles and Geryon (Plate XXXVIII.), sold for 8,000 francs, or £320
each. A vase with the subject of Theseus seizing Korone (Chap. XIV.),
another by Euthymides with the arming of Paris, and a third with Peleus
and Thetis, sold for 6,000 francs, or £240. The collector Steuart was
offered 7,500 francs, or £300, for a large krater, found in Southern
Italy, ornamented with the subject of Kadmos and the dragon; £120 was
paid by the British Museum for a fine krater ornamented with the
exploits of Achilles[74]; £100 for an amphora of Apulian style, with
the subject of Pelops and Oinomaos at the altar of the Olympian
Zeus.[75] For another vase, with the name of Mousaios, £120 was paid,
and £100 for the well-known Athenian prize vase excavated by
Burgon.[76] At Mr. Beckford’s sale the Duke of Hamilton gave £200 for a
lekythos representing a procession of Persians, which is now in the
British Museum (E 695). At Naples the passion for possessing fine vases
outstripped these prices; 2,400 ducats, or £500, was given for a vase
with gilded figures discovered at Capua. Still more incredible, early
in the nineteenth century, 8,000 ducats, or £1,500, was paid to
Vivenzio for the vase now in the Naples Museum representing the sack of
Troy; 6,000 ducats, or £1,000, for one with a Dionysiac feast; and
4,000 ducats, or £800, for the grand vase with the battle of the
Amazons, published by Schulz.[77] Another vase, for which the sum of
£1,000 was paid, was the so-called Capo di Monte Vase, purchased by Mr.
Edwards, at Naples.[78] For the large colossal vases of Southern Italy
from £300 to £500 has been given, according to their condition and
style. But such sums will not be hereafter realised, now that their
place in the estimation of the connoisseur has been rightly taken by
the fine red-figured or white ground vases, which, owing to the
stringency of modern laws, seldom now find their way into the market.
The vases with white grounds and polychrome figures have also been
always much sought after, and have realised large prices, the
best-preserved examples fetching as much as £70 or £100.[79] Generally
the highest prices have been paid for artistic merit, but these have
been surpassed in the case of some vases of high literary or historical
value. As a general rule vases with inscriptions have always been most
sought after, especially when the inscriptions are the signatures of
the names of potters or artists, or names of historical interest. The
inferior kinds have fetched prices much more moderate, the kylikes
averaging from £5 to £10, the amphorae from £10 to £20, the hydriae
about the same; the kraters from £5 to £20, according to their general
excellence, the oinochoae about £5, and other shapes from a few
shillings to a few pounds. The charming glaze and shapes of the vases
discovered at Nola have often obtained good prices from amateurs. Those
of Greece Proper have also fetched higher prices than those of Italy,
on account of the interest attached to the place of their discovery.[80]
* * * * *
We propose now to give a survey of the principal localities in which
the fictile products of the Greeks have been discovered, and the
excavations which have taken place on these sites. It need hardly be
said, however, that it is quite impossible to detail all the places
where specimens of common pottery have been found.
[Illustration: FIG. 5. MAP OF GREECE.]
I. GREECE
We naturally begin with Greece, following the geographical order
observed by Jahn,[81] as the mainland and centre of Hellenic
civilisation; and since Athens was not only the principal, for many
years the only, centre of the manufacture of Greek vases, but has also
been the most prolific source of recent discoveries, it is to Athens
that we first turn our attention.
=Athens= was duly celebrated in ancient times as the chief home of the
ceramic industry.[82] The clay of Cape Kolias is eulogised by Suidas
for its excellent qualities, and the extent of the Κεραμεικός, or
potters’ quarter, is still visible beyond the Dipylon gate. One of the
earliest painted vases found on Attic soil was the famous Panathenaic
amphora discovered by Burgon in 1813 outside the Acharnian gate, and
now in the British Museum.[83] The tomb in which it was found also
contained remains of burnt bones, a lekythos, and other small vases.
The subjects are: on one side Athena brandishing a spear, with the
inscription [ΤΟΝ] [ΑΘΕΝΕΘΕΝ] [ΑΘΛΟΝ] [ΕΜΙ], “I am a prize from the
games at Athens”; on the other, a man driving a _biga_, or two-horse
chariot. The date is usually considered to be about 560 B.C. It was
rightly identified by the early writers as one of the prize-vases
described by Pindar in the passage we have quoted elsewhere (p. 132),
and was the means of identifying many other vases similarly painted and
inscribed, but found on other sites, as belonging to the same class. A
considerable number of vases found on Greek soil, mostly at Athens,
were published by Stackelberg in 1837,[84] but little was done for many
years in the way of systematic excavation. The National Museum was
opened shortly after the declaration of Greek independence, and
assisted by royal benefactions. The law forbidding the export of
antiquities has now been in force for many years, but unfortunately has
had a bad as well as a good effect, in that the vendors of
surreptitious finds are wont to give imaginary accounts of the
circumstances of their discoveries, in order to screen themselves.
To give anything like a description of the vases found at Athens would
be useless here, where so many classes are illustrated by the finds; it
may, however, be worth while to note a few of the most typically
Athenian groups of pottery. (1) Earliest in date are the Dipylon vases,
which were found outside the gate of that name, and have from their
conspicuous character given a name to a whole class. They are, however,
fully treated of in Chapter VII. (2) The numerous fragments of vases
found on the Acropolis, which can all be dated anterior to 480 B.C.,
include many exceedingly beautiful and unique specimens of the
transitional period of vase-painting, some having black, some red
figures.[85] Although in few cases anything more than fragments have
been preserved, yet these fragments are enough to show that the
originals were masterpieces surpassing even the finest examples from
the Italian cemeteries. They will, it is to be hoped, shortly be made
known to the world by means of an exhaustive catalogue. (3) The white
lekythi, discussed at length elsewhere (Chapter XI.), besides forming a
class by themselves, are specially remarkable as being almost peculiar
to Athens. It is not, however, certain that they were not made also at
Eretria, where many fine ones have been found of late years; but
otherwise none have been found outside Attica, with the exception of a
few importations to Cyprus, Locri in Italy, or Sicily. (4) A group of
late R.F. vases of the “fine” style, mostly of small size and sometimes
with polychrome decoration. The drawing is free and graceful, but tends
to carelessness; the subjects are drawn chiefly from the life of women
and children. Some of the smaller specimens were no doubt actually
children’s playthings.
Elsewhere in Attica vases have not been numerous. _Eleusis_ has yielded
some interesting fragments,[86] including a plaque of about 400 B.C.,
with an interesting representation of the local deities, found in 1895;
at _Marathon_ the grave of the fallen warriors has been recently
explored, and was found to contain both B.F. and R.F. vases, but none
of particular merit.[87] The find was, however, important, as
illustrating Greek methods of burial. The tombs of _Phaleron_ are
important, as having yielded a special class of early vases which are
known by the name of the site.[88] These Phaleron vases combine in an
interesting manner the characteristics of the Geometrical and Rhodian
or Oriental styles, being akin to the so-called Proto-Corinthian. The
beehive tombs at _Menidi_ and _Spata_ and other tombs at _Haliki_, near
Marathon, have yielded Mycenaean pottery of the usual types, and an
instructive find of early Geometrical pottery has been made at
_Aphidna_.[89] There are vases in the museums of Athens and Berlin of
various dates, to which the following provenances are assigned: Alike,
Alopeke, Hymettos,[90] Kephissia, Cape Kolias,[91] Pikrodaphni,[92]
Peiraeus,[93] Sunium,[94] Thorikos,[95] Trakhones,[96] Vari,[97]
Velanideza, and Vourva, the two latter near Marathon.[98] _Megara_[99]
has produced little beyond specimens of a class of late bowls with
designs in relief, sometimes known as “Megarian bowls,” but more
probably of Boeotian origin (see p. 53).
=Corinth=, as a centre of the manufacture of vases, occupied in early
times a position in Greece only second to Athens. Down to the first
half of the sixth century it actually seems to have held the
pre-eminence; but after the rise of Athens it sank altogether into
obscurity, and ceased to produce any pottery at all after about 520
B.C. But we know from Strabo[100] that the fame of Corinthian wares
still existed in Roman times, for in the days of Julius Caesar the
tombs of the new Colonia Julia were ransacked for the vases which were
the admiration of the rich nobles of Rome. The expression used by
Strabo, ὀστράκινα τορεύματα, seems to imply that these were probably
specimens of the later relief-ware which did not become popular in
Greece before the fourth century, but then gradually ousted the painted
fabrics.
Corinth, like Athens, claimed the invention of pottery and of the
wheel; it was also one of the supposed centres of the origin of
painting in Greece. We read, moreover, that when Demaratos fled thence
to Italy he took with him two artists named Eucheir and Eugrammos, who
doubtless helped to develop the art of vase-making in Etruria. The
vases found here are nearly all of the early archaic and B.F. periods,
from the so-called Proto-Corinthian wares down to ordinary B.F.
fabrics. The Mycenaean and Geometrical styles are practically
unrepresented, but occasional finds have been made of Attic B.F. and
R.F. vases. With these exceptions all were actually made at Corinth, as
is shown in many cases by the inscriptions in the local alphabet
painted upon the vases.
The earliest discovery, and in some respects one of the most
remarkable, was the vase known as the Dodwell pyxis (see p. 315), which
was acquired by that traveller in 1805, and is now at Munich. In 1835 a
large number of vases were found by peasants at Chiliomodi, the ancient
_Tenea_,[101] one of which represented Herakles and the Centaur Nessos;
most of these are now at Athens. In 1843 Ross[102] records the
discovery of over a thousand at various sites, on the Isthmus and at or
near Tenea, and ever since that time tomb-digging has been carried on
without intermission. The best collections of Corinthian vases are
those at Athens, Berlin, and the British Museum. But the most
noteworthy find at Corinth has been that of the series of plaques
(πίνακες) or votive tablets discovered at Penteskouphia in 1879, most
of which are now at Berlin. They are all of votive character, and come
from the rubbish-heap of a temple of Poseidon; most of them are painted
with figures of and inscribed with dedications to that deity, and they
belong to the late seventh or early sixth century B.C.[103] The British
Museum possesses a R.F. “pelike” from _Solygea_, near Corinth, and
isolated finds are also recorded from _Sikyon_.[104]
Turning to the adjoining state of Argolis, we find three sites of
special importance in early times—Mycenae, Tiryns, and Argos. Of these
the two former had ceased to have any importance in historic times, but
this is amply compensated for by the wonderful discoveries of the
Mycenaean period.[105] At _Mycenae_ large quantities of painted pottery
were found in the six shaft-tombs in the Agora, five of which were
excavated by Dr. Schliemann; outside the Acropolis, and possibly
belonging to a later period, was found the remarkable vase with figures
of warriors marching.[106] The finds at _Tiryns_ were chiefly
fragmentary, but at _Nauplia_, where considerable quantities were
found, there were some fragments with painted designs of chariots like
the vases from Cyprus (p. 246).[107] Mycenaean pottery has also been
found at _Asine_,[108] and the site of the Heraion at _Argos_, recently
excavated by the American School, has yielded an exhaustive series of
fragments of pottery, representative of nearly every known fabric from
Mycenaean times down to the best Greek period. They have not as yet
been published, but may be expected to yield important results. Other
occasional finds are reported from Argos, including a curious archaic
vase with a representation of Herakles and Kerberos.[109] At _Kleonae_,
on the northern frontier of the state, was found a Corinthian vase
signed by Timonidas, and there are vases from _Hermione_ in the museum
at Athens.[110]
In the rest of the Peloponnese finds of painted vases have been
exceedingly rare. The Berlin Museum possesses a B.F. vase found at
_Megalopolis_,[111] and isolated finds are also recorded from _Magoula_
in Laconia and _Amyklae_ near Sparta.[112] At _Olympia_ painted vases
were very rare, but several different fabrics from the Proto-Corinthian
downwards are represented by fragments.[113]
In Central and Northern Greece the only fruitful region has been
=Boeotia=, particularly its capital, _Thebes_. This city, like Corinth,
has principally yielded early vases. As has been shown elsewhere (pp.
286, 300), Boeotia was the home of more than one indigenous fabric,
notably the local variety of Geometrical ware, partly parallel with
that of Athens and other sites, partly a degenerate variety with local
peculiarities, forming a transition to the Phaleron and
Proto-Corinthian fabrics. The last-named have frequently been found at
Thebes, notably the Macmillan lekythos in the British Museum. Signed
vases of local fabric, with the names of Gamedes, Menaidas, and
Theozotos, are in the British Museum and in the Louvre. On the site of
the Temple of the Kabeiri, near Thebes, a remarkable series of late
B.F. pottery came to light, evidently a local fabric, with dedicatory
inscriptions and subjects of a grotesque or caricatured nature.[114]
They are quite peculiar to the site, and seem to have had a close
connection with its religious rites. Besides many examples of the
Geometrical and Corinthian fabrics, there have been found at Thebes
several specimens of the so-called Megarian bowls with reliefs, of the
second century B.C.; the proportion to other sites is such that Thebes
has been thought to be the centre of the fabric. Another local fabric
is that produced by _Tanagra_ about the end of the fifth century B.C.,
consisting of small cups, toilet-boxes, etc., with somewhat naïve
outlined designs.[115] The vase-finds here have served as evidence for
the dating of the terracotta statuettes, with which no painted fabrics
were found, but only ribbed or moulded black-glaze wares,
characteristic of the fourth and third centuries B.C.[116] Where
painted vases have been found, the accompanying statuettes were all of
an archaic or even primitive type.[117]
In excavations at _Orchomenos_ in 1893[118] the French School unearthed
large numbers of fragments, Mycenaean, Boeotian Geometrical,
Proto-Corinthian, Corinthian, and Attic black-figured; Mycenaean vases
have been found at _Lebadea_, and Thespiae, Thisbe, and Akraiphiae are
also mentioned as sites where painted vases have been found.[119] Very
few sites in Northern Greece have yielded finds of pottery, but the
Athens Museum contains R.F. vases from _Lokris_, _Phokis_, and
_Lamia_[120] on the Malian Gulf, and finds are also recorded from
Anthedon,[121] Atalante,[122] Exarchos, and Galaxidi in Lokris, from
Elateia,[123] Abae,[124] and Daulis in Phokis, and from Thessaly.
Fragments of painted pottery were seen by early travellers at
_Delphi_.[125] At _Daulis_ the pottery was of Mycenaean character,[126]
as also that from the beehive-tombs of Volo in Thessaly and its
neighbourhood. A recent excavation at _Dimini_ is reported to have
yielded very early painted vases of a quite new, probably local ware,
with affinities to the Cycladic types of Thera and elsewhere.[127]
Turning now to the Greek islands, we find somewhat more extensive and
interesting results. Little indeed has been found in the Ionian Islands
of the western coast,[128] even in _Corfu_, which as a rule has been
fruitful in works of art. The only vases worth mentioning from that
island are those found in the cemetery of Kastrades, in the tomb of
Menekrates.[129] The contents of this tomb, which are all of an early
and somewhat mixed character, are now in the British Museum; they can
be dated from the inscription on the tomb about 600 B.C. Travelling
round by the south of the Peloponnese, we come to _Kythera_, which has
yielded a cup (now in the British Museum) remarkable for its
inscription, ἡμικοτύλιον; it is illustrated below, p. 135.
_Salamis_[130] again has produced little, but some interesting pottery
of a transitional character from Mycenaean to Geometrical has been
found.[131]
=Aegina= appears to have been a pottery centre in early times, and
recent discoveries are adding to our knowledge of its fabrics. Among
the older finds from this island are a fine early oinochoe in the
British Museum (from the Castellani collection), formerly supposed to
be from Thera,[132] and several very fine red-figured and white-ground
vases, notably the elegant R.F. astragalos or knucklebone-shaped vase
in the British Museum, with its figures of dancers; a white Athenian
lekythos, with the subject of Charon,[133] and two beautiful vases now
in the Munich Museum (208, 209), with polychrome designs on a white
ground.[134] In 1892–93 the British Museum acquired a series of
Mycenaean, Corinthian, and Attic vases from a find on this island,[135]
and other examples of Corinthian and Attic vases are recorded.[136] In
1894 excavations were made on the site of the so-called temple of
Aphrodite, and yielded a number of early vases chiefly Mycenaean,
Geometrical of the Athenian type, and a large series of
Proto-Corinthian wares, some of unusual size.[137] Some of this pottery
may possibly be of local fabric. More recently the excavations on the
site of the great Doric temple (now shown to be dedicated to the
goddess Aphaia) have yielded an extensive series of fragments of
different dates.[138] Aegina was always celebrated in antiquity for its
artistic achievements, and that it was a centre for pottery is
indicated by an anonymous comic writer, who addresses the island as
“rocky echo, vendor of pots” (χυτρόπωλις).[139]
=Euboea= possessed two important art-centres in Chalkis and Eretria. It
is true that no vases have actually been found at Chalkis, but the
existence of early B.F. vases with inscriptions in the local dialect
amply testifies to the existence of potteries there (see p. 321).
_Eretria_, on the other hand, has been carefully excavated in recent
years, and has yielded many antiquities both of the early and of the
finest period. Among the former are vases of a type akin to the earlier
Attic fabrics, but distinguished by the use of a “pot-hook” decorative
ornament, and others more akin to the Attic B.F. vases, but clearly of
local make[140]; among the latter are so many fine white-ground lekythi
(as well as other forms) that it has been supposed that they must have
been specially manufactured here as well as at Athens. The British
Museum has lately acquired several white-ground and late R.F. vases of
considerable beauty from this site. Many years ago an inscribed
Corinthian vase was found at Karystos.[141]
=The Cyclades.=—In these islands we find traces of absolutely the
earliest fabrics known in the history of Greek pottery, but later finds
of painted vases are comparatively rare. Mycenaean pottery has been
found in the islands of Amorgos,[142] Delos and Rheneia, Kythnos,
Seriphos, Sikinos, Syros, Thera, and Melos.[143] Other finds recorded
are from Paros and Antiparos (early fabrics), Keos, Kimolos,[144]
Kythnos,[145] Siphnos, and Syros[146]; a remarkable Ionic vase in the
Louvre, found in Etruria, has also been attributed to an island fabric,
that of Keos,[147] and another at Würzburg to that of Naxos.[148] The
chief finds of “Cycladic” or pre-Mycenaean pottery are those from the
volcanic deposits of the island of _Thera_ (see p. 260), which, from
the circumstances of their discovery and the geological history of the
island, are supposed to date back beyond 2000 B.C. They are painted
with vegetable patterns in brown on a white ground, and have chiefly
been excavated by the French School during the years 1867–74; a few are
in Athens, but the majority are in the Louvre or the Sèvres Museum. In
the superincumbent layers Mycenaean and Geometrical pottery came to
light,[149] and a fragment of a large Melian amphora with the so-called
Asiatic Artemis, now in the Berlin Museum (No. 301), is stated by Ross
to have come from this island. The same traveller saw here large πίθοι
with painted subjects of early character and similar smaller vases,
also some with black figures, in a private collection.[150] More
recently (in 1900) excavations made in the Acropolis cemetery by German
archaeologists yielded a large quantity of pottery, chiefly Geometrical
in character, extending from the eighth to the middle of the sixth
century B.C.[151]
The vases found in _Melos_ amount to a considerable number, of
different ages and styles.[152] Recent excavations by the British
School on the site of Phylakopi brought to light large quantities, not
only of Mycenaean, but of pre-Mycenaean remains, including
pottery.[153] Mr. Thomas Burgon’s collection included many B.F. and
later vases from Melos, now in the British Museum; they are mostly
small and unimportant. Ross also saw painted vases in Melos.[154] The
island is, however, chiefly celebrated for a class of early vases, few
in number, but of exceptional merit, which have mostly been found in
the island, and so are known as “Melian” amphorae (see below, p. 301).
Recently, however, large numbers of fragments of similar pottery have
been found at Rheneia, opposite Delos, and it is possible that Delos
was the centre of the fabric, not Melos, as hitherto supposed.[155]
They date from the seventh century B.C. Among the finds of later date
from Melos, by far the most noteworthy is the Louvre Gigantomachia
krater (see Chapter XII.).[156]
Turning now to the eastern group of Aegean Islands, known as the
_Sporades_, we begin with _Lesbos_, where many fragments of B.F. and
R.F. vases were found by Mr. Newton during his Vice-Consulate. From
epigraphical evidence it seems probable that many of the early B.F.
fragments found at Naukratis (see below) should be attributed to a
Lesbian fabric, but this has not so far been established. Vases have
also been found in Tenedos and Chios.[157]
Next we come to _Samos_, an island always renowned in antiquity for its
fictile ware. The Homeric hymn to the potters is addressed to Samians.
It was, however, in Roman times that its renown was especially great,
and its connection with a certain class of red glazed wares has caused
the name of “Samian Ware” to be applied indiscriminately but falsely to
all Roman pottery of that kind.[158] Finds of pottery have, however,
been few and far between. The British Museum possesses a lekythos of
the B.F. period in the form of a sandalled foot (Plate XLVI.), which
Mr. Finlay obtained here. More recently Dr. Böhlau excavated some early
cemeteries, and found a considerable quantity of pottery of the “Ionic”
type, which enabled him to establish a Samian origin for certain wares
of the sixth century.[159] _Kalymnos_ was explored by Mr. Newton in
1856, but has yielded little beyond plain glazed ware,[160] and the
same may be said of Kos, although the latter was famed in antiquity for
its amphorae and culinary vessels. The small islands of _Telos_,[161]
_Nisyros_, _Chiliodromia_,[162] and _Karpathos_ have been explored at
different times by Ross, Theodore Bent, and others, and have yielded
vases of a late R.F. period, corresponding to the later Athenian
fabrics, several of which are in the British Museum. Messrs. Bent and
Paton have also found pottery of the Mycenaean period in Kalymnos and
Karpathos[163]; and similar remains are reported from _Kos_.[164]
But all other discoveries in the islands are far exceeded both in
extent and importance by those of =Rhodes=.[165] They are principally
due to the labours of Messrs. Salzmann and Biliotti, who diligently
explored the island during the ’sixties, and the results as far as
pottery is concerned, extend from Mycenaean times down to the
destruction of Kameiros in 404 B.C. The earliest finds were on the site
of _Ialysos_, and these are exclusively of “Mycenaean” type. The tombs
containing Mycenaean vases were cut in the rock in quadrangular form,
with vaulted δρόμος and steps. This site was explored by the
above-named gentlemen about the years 1867–70, and the results of the
excavation, by the liberality of Prof. Ruskin, found their way into the
British Museum. Their archaeological value was not recognised for some
years; but when the discoveries of Mycenae became known, it was at once
seen that the Ialysos pottery must fall into line with them.
_Kameiros_ is first heard of as a Dorian colony of the eleventh
century, and its history extends down to 408 B.C. It was fully and
systematically excavated between 1859 and 1864. Far more abundant and
comprehensive than the Ialysos results, the Kameiros finds illustrate
the history of Greek pottery from the Geometrical period[166] down to
the time of its decline, and include many fine specimens of the B.F.
and R.F. periods, as well as numerous examples of the Rhodian,
Corinthian, and other early classes, from the eighth to the sixth
century B.C. The most interesting discovery was perhaps that of the
_pinax_, with the fight over the body of Euphorbos, which is described
elsewhere (p. 335). Among the finer specimens of the later period is
the polychrome _pelike_ with Peleus wooing Thetis. The majority of
these finds are now in the British Museum, together with porcelain,
bronze, and other objects illustrating the early pottery; part also
went to the Louvre and to Berlin. The latest vases are of the free and
careless type of late R.F. Athenian fabrics, and since they are known
to be not later than the fifth century they supply valuable evidence
for the dating of R.F. vases.
=Crete= in all probability will, before many years are over, supply a
great mass of material for the history of early Greek pottery. Until
recent years it has received little attention from travellers or
explorers, and few vases of any period have come therefrom into our
Museums.[167] But Crete has always been looked to by archaeologists for
the solution of the Mycenaean problem, and the systematic excavations
now at length set on foot are even richer in their yield of Mycenaean
and primitive pottery than those of Rhodes, Melos, and Cyprus. Mr. J.
L. Myres found at _Kamarais_ in 1894 a series of fragments of painted
pottery with designs in opaque colours on a black ground, which he
regarded as pre-Mycenaean.[168] This theory was subsequently borne out
by the discoveries of Messrs. Arthur Evans and D. G. Hogarth at
_Knossos_ and elsewhere, which have been very rich in pottery of a
similar kind, and also in vases with remarkably naturalistic patterns
in relief.[169] Other finds have been made in the Dictaean Cave,[170]
at Zakro[171] and Palaeokastro,[172] at Phaestos,[173] Praesos, Erganos
and Kourtes, and Kavousi.[174]
Before we turn our attention to the continent of Asia we must hark back
to the European mainland, working round by the northern coasts of the
Aegaean and Euxine Seas. Macedonia and Thrace have yielded scarcely
anything,[175] but when we come to the northern shore of the Black Sea
we find at _Kertch_, in the Crimea (the ancient Panticapaeum), a
remarkable centre of Greek artistic production. The finds here are
practically limited to one period, covering little more than a hundred
years, and mainly illustrate the art of the fourth century B.C. There
are, however, many magnificent vases, which in style, if not in shape
or composition of subjects, must belong to an earlier time—namely, that
of the fine red-figured period.[176] The excavations have mostly been
undertaken by the Russian Government, in whose museum at the Hermitage
the collections are now to be seen, but much was done unsystematically
by Englishmen and others at the time of the Crimean War. It cannot be
said that more than about one-quarter of the total find of 400 vases
have any merit; they are chiefly small, with red figures, and of the
later fine period; some are polychrome and ornamented with
gilding.[177] The most remarkable by far is the vase signed by the
Athenian Xenophantos (p. 447); but that with the contest of Athena and
Poseidon (Plate L.) is also an exceptionally fine specimen; and others
have interesting subjects relating to the Eleusinian mysteries. At
_Phanagoria_ an early B.F. vase of Ionic style came to light.[178]
Vases have also been found at Olbia on the neighbouring mainland, at
Kief, at Temir Gora in Circassia, and on the modern sites of Blisnitza,
Iouz Oba, Melek Chesme and Pavlovski-Kourgane in the Crimea.[179]
II. ASIA MINOR
_The Troad_ first claims our attention. Here on the site of the second
city of Troy, at Hissarlik, Dr. Schliemann found the earliest pottery
at present known from Greek soil (see Chapter VI.). This has been
generally dated about 2500–2000 B.C. In subsequent excavations Dr.
Dörpfeld proved the sixth city to be the Homeric Troy, the remains from
which, including pottery, are all of Mycenaean character. Later finds
of pottery from the Troad are of no great importance[180]; some are of
Aeolic or Ionian origin, and others seem to be from an inferior local
fabric, consisting of flat bowls with looped side-handles, carelessly
painted in matt-black silhouette with figures of ducks and other
animals. Some of these were found in 1855–56 by Mr. Brunton on the
sites of New Ilium and Dardanus; others by Mr. Calvert in 1875–76, and
by Dörpfeld and Brueckner in 1893. The finds of the two first-named are
in the British Museum, together with some poor R.F. vases of late
style. From _Sigeion_ two polychrome lekythi have been reported,
resembling the Attic white-ground fabric[181]; Jahn also records finds
of painted vases from _Lampsakos_ and Parion,[182] and a fine gilded
vase with figures in relief has recently been found on the former
site.[183]
In _Aeolis_ and _Mysia_ the finds have not been considerable, but some
are of importance as throwing light on the existence of local fabrics.
In a private collection at Smyrna there is or was a late B.
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48154