Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T19:51:03.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zeuxippus Ware

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

A. H. S. Megaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Trench V of the 1927 excavations of the British Academy in the Hippodrome of Constantinople was located just beyond the tomb of Ahmet I, in the direction of St. Sophia. With two extensions (VA and VE) it became a considerable excavation, which uncovered a series of massive piers of brick interrupted by occasional courses of stone. These the excavators identified as part of the Baths of Zeuxippus. In 1928 they uncovered more of the building and, to the south-east of it, part of a separate portico with a large exedra. This second building fitted the identification, as part of the connected gymnasium, particularly when two pedestals were found inscribed with the names of Hecuba and Aeschines, both of whom are known to have had statues there.

Objections to the identification have been raised; notably on the grounds that the excavators found no water-tanks or hypocausts. This particular objection was removed in 1952 by the discovery near by, during the laying of a sewer, of connected structures; for these included a plastered cistern and basins. In a recent review of the topography of the approaches to the Great Palace the identification is accepted; nor does it appear to be invalidated by any of the testimonia relating to the Baths of Zeuxippus which have lately been collected.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 63 , November 1968 , pp. 67 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1968

Access options

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

References

1 Preliminary Report upon the Excavation carried out in the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927 on behalf of the British Academy, 1928 (hereafter abbreviated BA 1927 Report) 20 ff.

2 BA 1928 Report 10 ff. and 18 ff.

3 Mamboury, and Wiegand, , Kaiserpaläste 46 f.Google Scholar Cf. Mambury, in Byzantion xi. 259 f.Google Scholar; Janin, , Constantinople byzantin 217.Google Scholar

4 Mamboury in Mango, C., The Brazen House 186 ff.Google Scholar

5 Mango op. cit. 37 ff.

6 Guilland, R. in Jahrb. der öster. byz. Gesellschaft xv. 261 ff.Google Scholar

7 This article was already approaching completion when ‘More Byzantine and Frankish Pottery from Corinth’ by MacKay, Theodora Stillwell appeared (Hesperia xxxvi (1967) 249 ff.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar In this, finds of our ware both in Corinth and elsewhere are discussed in considerable detail under the classification Shiny Olive Incised Ware II (258–61).

8 BA 1927 Report 34.

9 Ibid. 48.

10 Ibid. 21.

11 BA 1928 Report 24.

12 Rice, , Byzantine Glazed Pottery (1930), fig. 5, 14Google Scholar; no. 12 in the catalogue on pp. 72 ff. below.

13 This list was kindly communicated by Professor D. Talbot Rice, together with permission to publish the selection here presented. For permission to study, photograph, and draw these and other specimens in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, I am indebted to Dr. Nezih Firath.

14 Apart from the centre fragment, a substantial part of the rim of what I take to be the same bowl is preserved in the same Museum (Acc. no. 7005), not joining but identical in fabric and glaze. The rim fragments were found at a distance of some 300 metres from the Baths of Zeuxippus, in the Walker Trust excavations in the area of the Great Palace. For permission to publish this and other pieces found in the same excavation, I am again indebted to Professor Talbot Rice.

15 Cf. Morgan, in Corinth xi. 23 Google Scholar; though his date for its introduction ‘not before the 14th century’ is too late (see below p. 87).

16 Cf. Plate 21, d, top four fragments (Paphos). When present in Class I (e.g. 6, Plate 14, ƒ) the out-turned rim is less developed.

17 e.g. those on Corinth xi, pl. xlviii.

18 Cf. Corinth xi, pl. xliv.

19 When examining the material I was primarily concerned with classes IA and II and took note of no green-glazed fragments. Some were found, but from Rice's descriptions they appear not to be of Zeuxippus Ware: BA 1927 Report 35; BGP 50.

A complete green-glazed bowl found in Sofia published by Changova, Jordanka (Arkheologia iv, pt. 2, Sofia 1962, 29 fig. 4)Google Scholar is a candidate for our class IC. It has an up-turned, vertical rim and a border divided into panels by radial combed bands and in each panel ‘brackets’ drawn with a four-pronged tool. See also n. 97 below.

20 e.g. the palmette both on fine sgraffito (Corinth xi, no. 995) and on the later incised sgraffito (ibid. no. 1463).

21 Corinth xi, pls. xlvi, xlvii.

22 Ibid. 158 and 328.

23 Examples of the use of green alone in place of yellow-brown to enhance engraved designs are known on Byzantine sites and the similar use of manganese purple is also re ported. But neither among the Hippodrome pottery nor among what I have handled elsewhere do I recall these colours in association with the Zeuxippus fabric, and at present there is no justification for subdividing our class II to accommodate examples touched up with a colour other than yellow-brown.

24 After the catalogue number, the inventory number of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (if any) is given, followed by any other numbers present on the fragment.

25 Wallis, , Byzantine Ceramic Art (1907), pl. xii, 32.Google Scholar

26 Ibid. pl. vii, 20.

27 Ebersolt, , Cat. des poteries byz. (1910) 13, no. 1.Google Scholar

28 Ibid. 14, nos. 9 and 11. I assume the exterior treatment ‘vernissage avec taches brunes’ here implies intermediate tongues or larger areas of slip as in the case of the goblet from Izmir (Plate 15, d), of which Ebersolt uses the same expression (ibid. 24, no. 67).

29 Ibid. 15, no. 16.

30 Ibid. 18, no. 38.

31 Istanbul, Arch. Mus. 5449; Demangel, and Mamboury, , Le quartier des Manganes (1939) 139 Google Scholar, no. 8 and figs. 184, 1; 185. 4.

32 Ibid. 142, no. 23 acd fig. 184, 16.

33 Ibid. 142, no. 19 and fig. 184, 12.

34 Ibid. 139, no. 10 and figs. 184, 3; 185, 13.

35 Ibid. 139, no. 15, and figs. 184, 8; 185, 10. A comparable little cross is used on the class II fragment, no. 22 from the Hippodrome (Plate 16, b).

36 Stevenson's group B2b: in The Great Palace … First Report on the excavations…‥on behalf of the Walker Trust (1947) (hereafter abbreviated GP i) 53. His careful description of the characteristics of the ware supplements Rice's quoted above in several respects: ‘Compared with the other classes its clay is much finer and harder baked. It is of a dull red to ruddy-grey colour, more rarely bright red. The glaze is cream-coloured as a rule, often having a green tinge, but greyish-white is not infrequent, and is thicker and compacter, with a close, scarcely visible crackle. It has a marked tendency to flake off the white slip. The outside may be coated with slip rather darker than the body, and is often whitened near the base, and glazed. Where the glaze has been laid directly on the clay, it usually appears dull green (olive) in colour, though brown is not rare. The walls and bases are not so thick as in the other sgraffito classes.’

37 Ibid. pl. 20, 30. Istanbul Arch. Mus. 7010.

38 Ibid. pl. 20, 31. Istanbul Arch. Mus. 6932.

39 Corinth xi, no. 1445 and pl. xlviii.

40 GP i pls. 20, 26 and 25, 20.

41 Ibid. pls. 20, 24 (where gouged grooves on the exterior are indicated) and 25, 23.

42 Ibid. pl. 25, 24.

43 Ibid., pls. 20, 27; 25, 21.

44 Ibid. pl. 20, 28.

45 Ibid. 56 and pl. 20, 10, Istanbul Arch. Mus. 6925.

46 Ibid. pl. 20, 29. Istanbul Arch. Mus. 6935 (1536).

47 Ibid. 54 and pl. 27, 5.

48 e.g. Corinth xi, pl. xliii, k–m.

49 Istanbul Arch. Mus. 700 (2174), not from either of the above deposits. Red body with smooth finish covered first with red slip and then with white, extending on the exterior to below the rim. The glaze is pale greenish-yellow and the design in the medallion (D. 0·135) has touches of yellow.

50 GP i, pl. 20, 28.

51 Istanbul Arch. Mus. 5937. Finds of Byzantine pottery are mentioned in the short report in Échos d'Orient xxix (1930) 341.

52 Istanbuler Mitteilungen xv (1965) 135 ff.

53 Istanbul Arch. Mus. 9465. I owe this photograph, and permission to publish it, to the kindness of Professor R. Naumann.

54 Cat. no. BP.12: DOP xx. 233 and fig. D, 12. The glaze is pale yellow-green.

55 BP.26, unpublished. See Addendum, p. 88.

56 BP.48: DOP xx. 238 and fig. G, 1; the other, BP.34.: ibid. 238 and fig. G, 2.

57 Ibid. 237. See Addendum, p. 88.

58 Donation of Andronicos Kidaoglou: inv. nos. 17288–90, 17275 (cf. the orange-glazed class IB), 17277 and 17278. I am indebted to the Director, M. Chatzidakis, and his staff for facilities to inspect these pieces.

59 No. 6870: Volbach, W. F., Mittelalterliches Bildwerk aus Italien und Byzanz (1930) 217 and pl. 28.Google Scholar

60 Stevenson in GP i 53 n. 1.

61 de Bock, V., ‘Les poteries vernissées du Caucase et de la Crimée’ Mém. de la Soc. nat. des Antiquaires de France lvi (1897) 136 Google Scholar, no. 29 and 237, no. 30.

62 De Bock's ‘engobé par plaques et vernissé’, op. cit. 234–6, no. 28. He mentions a similar piece in Moscow from Suchum-Kalé in the Caucasus published by Sisoff, , Mat. pour l'arch. du Caucase ii, pl. vi.Google Scholar

63 Hermitage x. 282; de Bock, op. cit. 218, no. 12 with restored drawing, whence our Plate 18, b. For the photographs reproduced on Plates 17, b, 18, a, 19, a, 20, a, and Fig. 5, for the profiles included in Fig. 4, and for permission to republish these five pieces I am very much indebted to Mme A. Banck.

64 Hermitage x. 397; de Bock, op. cit. 216 f., no. 11 with restored drawing, whence our Plate 19, b.

65 No. 6662, Volbach, op. cit. 194 and pl. 17.

66 Hermitage x. 336; de Bock, op. cit. 212, no. 8; Yakobson, , Srednevekoviyi Khersones (Materialy i issled. po arch. SSSR 17), pl. xxvii, 107 a.Google Scholar

67 von Stern, E., Theodosia und seine Keramik (Odessa, 1906) 67, no. 54 and pl. vi.Google Scholar

68 Yakobson, op. cit. 137 ff. and pls. iii–vi.

69 Ibid. pl. iv, nos. 18 and 19.

70 Ibid. 174 and pl. v.

71 Ibid. 172, no. 5 and pl. 1, where no. 5a (not described) is a fragment identical with our 7 (Plate 14, ƒ) from the Hippodrome.

72 Ibid. 172, no. 7 and pl. ii.

73 Ibid. 172, no. 6 and pl. ii.

74 Ibid. 173, no. 12 and pl. iii; cf. GP i, pl. 25, 23.

75 Yakobson, op. cit. 196, no. 104 and pl. xxvii.

76 Ibid. 196, no. 107 and pl. xxvii.

77 Ibid. 196, no. 105 and pl. xxvii.

78 Frantz, M. Alison, Byzantium xv (1940–1941) 87–91 Google Scholar; Notopoulos, J., Hesperia xxxiii 108 ff.Google Scholar

79 Yakobson, op. cit. 195, no. 99 and pl. xxvi.

80 Ibid. 195, no. 103 and pl. xxvi.

81 Ibid. 195, nos. 100, 101 and pl. xxvi; 197, nos. no 111 and pl. xxviii.

82 Hermitage x. 728 and x. 727. Belov, , Soobschennia Gosudarstvennovo Ermitaz xi. 48 f.Google Scholar; Banck, A. B., Byzantine Art in the Hermitage Museum 1960, pls. 88 and 90Google Scholar; World Ceramics (London, 1968) 105, fig. 316.

83 Soloviev, A. V. in Acten der xi Int. Byzantinistenkongresses (Munich, 1960) 572 ff.Google Scholar On the position of Cherson, see Yakobson, op. cit. 25 f.

84 Ibid. 171 f. nos. 1–3 and pl. i: three fragments only.

85 Yakobson, , Rannesrednevekoviyi Khersones (Materialy i issled. po arch. SSSR 63) pls. i–xvii.Google Scholar The examples from Cherson of Byzantine polychrome ware are of the same pre-Cuman period: ibid. pls. xviii–xix.

86 Only comparison of the fabrics will determine whether any of the unpretentious pieces included in Yakobson's groups are local imitations, as he believes them all to be (Srednevekoviyi Khersones 175).

87 Yakobson, , Srednevekoviyi Khersones pls. vii and xxix–xxx.Google Scholar

88 Ibid. pls. xxxvi–xxxix.

89 Cf. Nystazopoulou, M. G., Ἡ ἐν τῇ Ταυρικῇ Χερσονήσῳ Πόλις Σουγδαία (1965) 17.Google Scholar

90 Ebersolt, op. cit. 24, no. 67 and fig. 19.

91 Berlin 6309 and 6310: Volbach, op. cit. 212 and pl. 25.

92 Berlin 6306: ibid. 210 and pl. 25.

93 Berlin 6324: ibid. 213 and pl. 26.

94 Berlin 9521: ibid. 207 and pl. 22.

95 Berlin 6291: ibid. 223 and pl. 28. A similar bowl in the Louvre from Myrina ( Reinach, , Necropolis de Myrina 238 Google Scholar, no. 3 and 585, no. 558) is illustrated in Wallis, op. cit., pl. xxvii, 59. For another radial design see Pergamon i. 2. 323, Beibl. 65 no. 9.

96 Berlin 6289: Volbach op. cit. 219 and pl. 24.

97 Berlin 9575: ibid. 216 and pl. 28. The feine Kreislinien on the exterior confirm its place in our group. The combed bands dividing the metopes link this bowl with the green-glazed one in Sofia (see above n. 19), the bracket motif on which is repeated on the Pergamon fragment Berlin 9579 (ibid. 216 and pl. 28). The position of the Sofia bowl in our class IC seems assured.

98 Pergamon i. 2 323, Beibl. 65 no. 6.

99 Berlin 6302: Volbach, op. cit. 211 and pl. 27.

100 Berlin 6301: ibid. 211 and pl. 25.

101 Berlin 6300: ibid. 211 and pl. 25.

102 Berlin 9608: ibid. 212 and fig. on 213.

103 Among other green-glazed pieces the bowl centre with a bird within gouged circles (Berlin 6281: ibid. 205 and pl. 23) may well be of our ware.

104 See note 23 above. Among other Pergamon fragments for attention in this connection are Berlin 6315 with added green (ibid. 212 and pl. 25) and two with added manganese purple (9530: ibid. 207 and pl. 22; 9563: ibid. 212 and pl. 25).

105 Gelzer, , Pergamon unter Byzantinern und Osmanen (1903) 82 ff.Google Scholar; Conze, in Pergamon i. 2. 307.Google Scholar

106 Regling, in Pergamon i. 2. 330 and 360.Google Scholar

107 Gelzer, op. cit. 86 f.

108 Corinth xi. 171 f. and fig. 154, E–J.

109 Hesperia xxxvi. 258 ff. nos. 27–8, pl. 63 and fig. 1. The other external treatment is also represented: slip ‘trailed in thick loops’ (ibid. 259).

110 Lot 1641. Examined by the writer through the kindness of H. S. Robinson, who conducted the excavations.

111 Lot 1611.

112 Hesperia xxxvi. 252.

113 Megaw, , ‘Glazed bowls in Byzantine Churches’, Δελτ. Χριστ. Ἀρχ. Ἑτ. Δ′ (1964) 161, nos. 25–7.Google Scholar

114 Morgan, , Corinth xi. 107 andGoogle Scholar, for the latest evidence, MacKay, , Hesperia xxxvi 257 f. and 263 n. 38.Google Scholar

115 In Χαριστήριον εἰς Α. Κ. Ὀρλάνδον, Γ' 92–3.

116 MacKay, , Hesperia xxxvi. 257 f.Google Scholar

117 Johns, C. N., QDAP iii. 141.Google Scholar

118 Archaeologia ixxxvii. 43 and pl. xx, i (unlettered).

119 Ibid. 44 fig. 7F is a Cypriot thirteenth-century piece, to judge by the characteristic lipped form of the foot. For an analysis of what Lane included when discussing his ‘second class’ see MacKay, , Hesperia xxxvi. 260 n. 31.Google Scholar

120 Archaeologia, lxxxvii. 23 f.

121 Ibid. pl. xxi, bottom row; compare our Plate 18, c bottom right.

122 Ibid. 46.

123 Ibid. 42.

124 Waage's class vii, BI: Antioch on the Orantes iv. i. 98 and fig. 88, 1–5.

125 Ibid. 100, class xiic, 2b and fig. 85, the lower eight.

126 Ibid. 99 f. class xiic, 2a and figs. 82–4, fired upright.

127 Ibid. 96, class vi, F5, tripods used in stacking.

128 QDAP iii. 139 and pl. lvi, i.

129 Cat. no. C.967–1921 (photograph supplied through the kindness of R. J. Charleston). It comes from a bowl of medium size (width of fragment 0·102 m.) standing on a low foot with the characteristic sharp-edged section.

130 Berlin 9587. Volbach, op. cit. 206 and pl. 23.

131 This information and the photographs are included by courtesy of G. T. Scanlon, Director of the Fustat Expedition of the American Research Center in Egypt. For a preliminary report: see Addendum on page 88.

132 Dölger, , Regesten 1591.Google Scholar See Addendum on page 88.

133 Pergamon i. 2. 323 Beibl. 65 no. 6.

134 A green-glazed rim fragment from the Polis area is possibly of our ware (RDAC 1940–8, 88 no. 11 and fig. 9).

135 Ebersolt, op. cit. 18, no. 38.

136 A handsome orange bowl in Larnaca in the Z. D. Pieridis collection is also probably a local derivative, by reason of its form (RDAC 1937–9, 4 and pl. iv, 1). But a rim fragment, which reached the Cyprus Museum in company with a clearly imported Byzantine fine sgraffito piece and the green rim fragment referred to in n. 134 above, has a better claim to inclusion in the Zeuxippus class IB (RDAC 1940–8, 88, no. 9 and fig. 8).

137 For a short preliminary report with the salient historical data: see Addendum on p. 88.

138 Ibid. 27, fig. 5, for some examples.

139 RDAC 1940–8, 82 group iiia, especially pl. viii, g. The contemporary Cypriot monochrome group IC (ibid. 81) is similarly a derivative of the Zeuxippus class IA.

140 The examples from Bulgarian sites published by Changova, Jordanka (Archeologia iv, pt. 2, Sofia 1962, 25 ff.)Google Scholar are of particular interest in view of the relative proximity of these sites to Constantinople. Of class IA there is a bowl-base from Koprinka (Fig. 1, 2) with a characteristic chevron medallion as our Plate 14, c A rim fragment, which the author suggests may come from the same vessel (Fig. 3, 3), has panels divided by radial combing which relate it to the green-glazed bowl from Sofia (Fig. 4) mentioned above (n. 19). Of class II there are several fragments from Preslav with the usual motifs: an oval (Fig. 3, 2), from a rim border as Plate 18, c, a spiral-filled triangle (Fig. 3, 4) and a fragment (Fig. 3, 8) evidently from a bowl-base of the common type illustrated in Plate 16, c.

141 The Genoese treaty, which was renewed in 1192, by specifically excluding from the concession the two cities guarding the Straits of Kertch, implies that trade was envisaged with cities on the Black Sea coast such as Cherson: Miklosich, F.–Müller, I., Acta et diplomata graeca iii. 35 11. 30–35 Google Scholar; cf. Nystazopoulou, op. cit. 17 and notes.

142 MacKay, , Hesperia xxxvi. 256, no. 20.Google Scholar

143 DOP xx (1960) pls. 4–5 and 8–13.