ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used in this article, in addition to those ordinarily in use in the Annual.

AH C. Waldstein and others, The Argive Heraeum.

Albizzati C. Albizzati, Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano.

Amsterdam, Gids Allard Pierson Museum, Algemeene Gids, Amsterdam (1937).

Amyx Amyx, D. A., ‘Corinthian Vases in the Hearst Collection at San Simeon’, Univ. of California Publications in Classical Archaeology, iGoogle Scholar, no. 9 (1943).

Baur, Stoddard Coll. Catalogue of the Rebecca Darlington Stoddard Collection (Tale Oriental Studies: Researches, vol. 8).

Blinkenberg, Lindos Blinkenberg and Kinch, Lindos, Fouilles et Recherches, I.

Boehlau Boehlau, Aus Ionischen und Italischen Nekropolen(1898).

Bonn, Greifenhagen, A.Greifenhagen, A., ‘Ausserattische s. f. Vasen im Akademischen Kunstmuseum zu Bonn’, AA LI (1936), 343 ff.Google Scholar

Boston, Fairbanks Fairbanks, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases, I.

Brants, Leiden Brants, Description of the Classical Collection of the Museum of Classical Archaeologycal Archaeology of Leiden, Part II, Greek Vases.

Coliu, Muséee kalinderu Coliu, La Collection de vases grecs du Musée Kalinderu (Bibl. d'Istros, vol. i, 1937).

Dohan, Philadelphia Dohan, E. H., Italie Tomb-Groups in the University Museum, Philadelphia (1942).Google Scholar

Dugas, Délos (X, XVII) Exploration archéologique de Délos; X:C. Dugas, Les Vases de l'Heraion (1928); XVII: Dugas, Les Vases Orientalisants de style non-melien( 1935).

E. von Mercklin, Führer E. von Mercklin, Führer durch d. Hamburgische Museum f. Kunst u. Gewerbe, II, Griechische u. Römische Altertümer.

F. de D. Fouilles de Delphes.

Feytmans D. Feytmans, Les Vases grecs de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique.

Graef B. Graef, and others, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen.

Johansen K. Friis Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens.

Kinch Kinch, Fouilles de-Vroulia.

Langlotz, Würzburg E. Langlotz, Katalog d. Martin von Wagner Museums in Würzburg.

Mercklin, E. von See E. von Mercklin.

Munich SH. Sieveking and Hackl, Die königliche Vasensammlung zu München, I.

NC. H. Payne, Necrocorinthia, A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period (1931).

Neugebauer, Antiken K. A. Neugebauer and others, Antiken in deutschem Privatbesitz (1938).

Neugebauer, Führer Neugebauer, K. A., Berlin, Führer durch das Antiquarium, II, Vasen (1932).Google Scholar

Payne, NC. See NC.

Perachora I H. Payne, Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia (1940).

Pottier, Louvre E. Pottier, Vases antiques du Louvre.

PV H. Payne, Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei (series Beazley-Jacobsthal).

Raccolta Guglielmi Beazley-Magi, La Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi nel Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, I: Ceramica.

Schaal, Bremen H. Schaal, Griechische Vasen in Bremen, Abh. u. Vorträge von der Bremer wissensch. Gesellschaft, Hft. i–ii (1933).

Toronto, RHI Robinson, Harcum and Iliffe, Greek Vases at Toronto.

Ure P. N. Ure, Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona.

Vasseur, Marseilles Vasseur, L'Origine de Marseille.

VS K. Friis Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens.

Weinberg Corinth VII, i: S.S. Weinberg: The Geometric and Orientalising Pottery.

gr. grave.

no. number.

n. note.

f.b. flat-bottomed.

EPC, MPC, LPC Early, Middle, Late Protocorinthian.

EC, MC, LC I, LC II Early Corinthian (black-figure), Middle, Late Corinthian, period I, II.

In reference to the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum the rubric III C or III Ca is commonly omitted.

Note. The writer wishes to thank Mr. T. J. Dunbabin for the interest and assistance he has given to the present work, both in the provision of material (some from the notes of the late H. G. G. Payne) and in criticism and help of every kind.

¹ As by Amyx. See n. 5 below.

² After consideration it appeared best to list them under the headings of the works in which they appear, except in the case of unpublished vases noted by the writer and others, which figure under museum headings.

³ Kalathoi are, however, omitted, since they are poorly represented except at Perachora, where the large numbers found necessitate a fresh study of the shape (by T. J. Dunbabin) in PerachoraII. The same applies to the dish-form, of which great numbers appeared at Perachora, though they are rare in museum collections.

⁴ Cook, R. M. in JHS LXIV (1944), 113Google Scholar has rightly pointed out the ambiguity which exists in the nomen-clature of Corinthian pottery. It is clear that some change must be made to avoid the ‘nice distinction’ of ‘early Corinthian’ and ‘Early Corinthian’. The change has not, however, been made here since the earliest pottery of Corinth is not under consideration. Early, Middle and Late Corinthian will here be understood to mean Corinthian ‘Black-Figure’.

⁵ Amyx has pointed out a number of useful criteria in ‘Corinthian Vases in the Hearst Collection’, esp. pp. 210–13.

⁶ Ibid., 219.

⁷ Ibid., 207–13.

⁸ Payne, NC, 296, thinks nos. 700–3 are possibly; from the same workshop as the kotylai nos. 678–81, which, in turn, are connected with the late Transitional kotyle no. 189. Payne's group NC, nos. 700–3 has been criticised by Feytmans, Les Vases grecs de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, 17, who asserts that the Louvre exx. differ from the Belgian in clay and glaze, as well as in style, and that NC, no. 701 is definitely earlier than the other vases of this group. She also seems to have misunderstood Payne's reference to the Leyden ex. NC, no. 706, where the statement that it is ‘of the same type’ means of the same shape and general organisation of decoration, not of the same: style. On the question of the other pots (correct Payne's ‘MNC 167’to ‘667’and ‘;L 159’to ‘MNC 336’) it may be pointed out that it is expressly stated in CVA that both the Louvre exx. Have the same clay. This means very little, as practical acquaintance with the Corinthian fabric should show, but Feytmans uses as an argument against the association of the Louvre and Brussels pots the different clay and glaze of the latter. Both the Louvre exx. are said to have been found at Corinth though acquired in different years. As Feytmans suggests, MNC 667 (NC, no. 701) might be earlier; ‘different’ would be more correct; it is more careful and elaborate than the others, certainly not ‘raide et hiératique’. On the other hand the Brussels ex. and MNC 336 seem very close, though not by the same hand, and so too the Brussels and New York exx. The order of development of style is: Louvre MNC 667, Louvre MNC 336, the Brussels ex., and finally the New York ex.

⁹ NC., 277–8, and pl. 11, 1.

¹⁰ Cf. NC., 20, on Late Protocorinthian.

¹¹ NC, 31, n. 1; 278 (nos. 163–7); 286 (no. 459); 300 (no. 760); pl. 12 and pl. 21.

¹² Op cit., 216–20. Under NC, 313, no. 1054, read ‘853’ for ‘835’.

¹³ See Payne, NC, 63–4, and Amyx, op. cit., 221–3, where he points out that the Scale-pattern Group appears to be part of a larger vaguely related group.

¹⁴ NC., 64, 286 and 297.

¹⁵ NC, 292, nos. 659–62.

¹⁶ On this ‘group’, see p. 206 below.

¹⁷ For the palmette rendering of the nose, cf. also the type E aryballos with lions, CVA Hague II, pl. 7, 5, not far from the Mykonos Group in style.

¹⁸ The double line appears elsewhere in quite different styles, in NC., no. 801, related to the Chimaera Group, in Bonn inv. 845 (AA LI (1936), 358), and even in Attic under Corinthian influence; cf. AA XLIX (1934), 207, fig. 7.

¹⁹ Cf. NC., no. 1114 (CVA Cambridge I, pl. 5, 17), though this again appears elsewhere, cf. the pointed aryballos NC, no. 57 (pl. 12, 2), pl. 23, 4, and fig. 140 bis; also in Chalcidian, cf. Rumpf, Chalkidische Vasen, pl. LXXXIX, 49 and LXXXIV, 50.

²⁰ The division of the groups with Dodwellian reminiscences into ‘hands’ is a chancy business. Amyx himself admits (op. cit., 225) ‘the whole body of later vases under the influence of the Dodwell Painter is remarkably lacking in distinctive character. There is often little to grasp in them other than the common derivation of their style. … Thus many later vases clearly showing dependence on his style are not easily attributable to any particular hand. A few pieces stand out enough to be assigned to some one artist, but in most specimens of the class it is hard to find the imprint of a personal style’.

²¹ Op. cit., 224–5.

²² For survivals of the style of the Scale-pattern group and others of the ‘heavy’ category in LC I, see Amyx, op. cit., 219 and 223. It would appear from NS 1936, 132–4, fig. 21 that pots (kotylai) decorated with animals in a very heavy style existed alongside the slender LC I style.

²³ The earlier but related group of f.b. aryballoi NC, nos. 821–35, and the kraters related to these (nos. 1155–6, regarded by Payne as transitional from Early to Middle Corinthian), seem to be more reasonably dated.

²⁴ Dunbabin informs me that Payne finally dated the François Vase c 570 B.C.; this does not affect the general criticism.

²⁵ Note that the horses of NC, no. 1052 seem certainly to be earlier. The Gorgoneion also seems earlier than the type of the Gorgoneion cups.

²⁶ There also appears to be a close resemblance between the Chimaera Group and some examples of the early Middle Corinthian ‘heavy’ style; cf. CVA Louvre VI, pl. 8, 1 with CVA California I, pl. 9, 1 a (Middle Corinthian heavy style, but not late).

²⁷ By this Payne means the Gorgon Painter, and such works of his as the amphora Louvre E 817 (Pfuhl, 93); he compares NC., no. 1041 (CVA Louvre VI, pl. 8, 1–4) with NC, fig. 87 (from the Louvre amphora). Payne dates the amphora about 590–85 B.C.(cf. NC, 344 and 346: ‘certain very early features’), a little later than the Louvre dinos, but in view of the fact that it is now clear from the Vari finds that Protoattic is not backward in comparison with Protocorinthian and Corinthian (i.e., J. M. Cook, BSA XXXV, 200, proposes to date the Nessos amphora c. 625 B.C., as against Payne's former 615–10 B.C.), perhaps the amphora should go back to c. 600 B.c. In any case Louvre E 817 is little removed in shape from Athens CC 661 (JdI 1914, 221, fig. 15), which Payne dated c. 600 B.C. For the Gorgon Painter, see AM LXII (1937), 120 ff., where Karouzou identifies him with the early work of Sophilos. But see also Beazley, , in Hesperia XIII, 39Google Scholar, who prefers to keep the two painters distinct. It is suggested, AA 1940, 134, that Sophilos was a pupil in the workshop of the Nessos Painter. A very doubtful matter.

The Chimaera Group and the Samos Kotyle Group seem to be regarded as more or less contemporary by Payne; the plates ‘little before 575 B.C.’; the Samos Group 585–75 B.C. It seems odd, therefore, that the plates should resemble the earlier Gorgon Painter, while the kotylai (cf. especially MC, pl. 33, 8, which shows the nearest in Corinthian to the Attic ‘flame’ mane) correspond to the contemporary Attic Comast Group (cf. NC, pl. 52, 2–3; Beazley's KX Painter), a later development in Attica from the Gorgon Painter.

²⁸ The difficulties of archaeological dating are well outlined by Burn, A. R., JHS LV (1935), 134–5.Google Scholar especially the lack of an outside ‘control’.

²⁹ Cf. Young, R. S.'s remarks, AJA XLVI (1942), 23, n. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Cf. Burn, A. R., JHS LV (1935), 145.Google Scholar

³¹ A few pieces are published (Protocorinthian only) in Welter, Aigina. The Protocorinthian and Corinthian fragments from the ‘Aegina Find’ (bought ‘before 1916 in the Athens “Kunsthandel”’ and passed in 1936 from private ownership to the Berlin Coll.) are still not published. See CVA Deutschland II, Berlin I, p. 5. For the publication of the Kerameikos and North Cemetery material at Corinth, see the references in Necrocorinthia, p. ix, and the following: Art and Archaeology, April 1931, 224 ff., and AJA 1930, 541 ff., both relating to the North Cemetery. AJA 1931, 1 ff., Newhall, ‘The Corinthian Kerameikos’, is the only publication of finds from this area. A few vases are illustrated figs. 7–13, and a fine LC I polychrome style fragment, p. 10, fig. 5; this style is otherwise scarce. Most interesting is the kotyle fragment, p. 9, fig. 4, which seems to be a trial piece by an apprentice painter. It should be noted that it is stated by Newhall that little chronological evidence is to be obtained from the Kerameikos (loc. cit., 10), and there are gaps in the sequence of styles (ibid., 29).

³² Weinberg, in the Preface to Corinth VII, i, p. v, also mentions ‘two large and important’ well groups found in 1940, the study of which was prevented by the war. These are now published in Hesperia XVII (1948), 197 ff. For comment on one of these well groups see the note at the end of this article.

³³ To the publications of the Rhitsona finds available to Payne (JHS 1910; BSA 1907/8) is added Ure's Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona (1934), a careful and detailed study of some minor categories of vases (alabastra, aryballoi, etc.). Divergences from Payne's darings are not so great as they would appear to be at first sight; see below, under ‘Aryballoi’.

³⁴ AA 1933, 262 ff.; 1934, 196 ff.; 1940, 309 ff.

³⁵ JHS LIII (1933), 272; JHS LIV (1934), 188. Very interesting also in AA 1934, 203–7 are the striking Attic imitations of Corinthian, especially p. 206, fig. 6, the fragment of a kotyle with swans and confronted polos-wearing sphinxes, ith incised rosette filling, a seeming forerunner of the Polos style; ibid., 207, fig. 7, broad ovoid aryballos, with angular ring foot, with boar and lion in a heavy style not very different from certain Transitional and Early Corinthian types (Kubier, loc. cit., dates it in the late seventh century).

³⁶ JHS LV (1935), 154; LVI (1936), 143; LVII (1937), 125; cf. also BSA XXXV, 200. A few pieces are published by Karouzou, in AM LXII (1937), pls. 43 and 44Google Scholar; further examples in AA 1939, 224–5; 1940, 126–134, especially figs. 6 and 8; BCH LXI (1937), pls. 33–4 and P. 451; LXII (1938), pls. 45–6; LXIII (1939), pls. 49–51.

³⁷ There has also been a recent very useful republication of the graves from the Phaleron cemetery, by Young, R. S., in AJA XLVI (1942), 23 fr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with a discussion of the small PC/Cor. vases occurring there and the contemporary Attic associated with them.

³⁸ The Danish excavations at Lindos (Blinkenberg, Lindos, 1931) are of very small importance from this standpoint.

³⁹ As in the case of Crete, where a surprisingly limited amount of Corinthian has been found. Cf. the extensive cemetery at Arkades, where the Corinthian is limited to single vases in a few of the graves (Annuario X-XII). The shapes are mainly aryballoi and alabastra. The latest are the quatrefoil aryballoi of pithos grave 81 (fig. 153) and 104 (fig. 164). The rest are EC/early MC. There are only two larger vases, the jug with trefoil mouth and small bottom in pithos grave 24 (fig. 78 and pls, XIV) of a peculiar shape, with rather rough EC animal frieze (if it is Corinthian) and a fine black-polychrome jug in shape half-way between a broad-bottomed oinochoe and a conical oinochoe (PC ?). It seems to be regarded as.Cretan by Levi, D. in Hesperia XIV, pl. 13Google Scholar, 4, as do a ‘football’ aryballos (ibid., pithos 110, pls, 19, 7) and an Early Corinthian alabastron (ibid., pithos 60, pls, 19, 9).

⁴⁰ Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 10: small type A alabastron (cocks) with a Fikellura amphora (inv. 12197; R. M. Cook, BSA XXXIV, Würzburg Group, 8) and Attic b.f. Cook dates the grave contents mainly to 540–20 B.Cand suggests two burials to account for the Corinthian alabastron (op. cit., 26, note). It can hardly be a survival. It is perhaps an intrusion from another burial, like the kotyle fragment ibid., gr. 8, with running dog (inv. 12180, p. 69, fig. 44) found with Attic b.f. and black-glaze ware. This kotyle is certainly of the early type, not of the later type which occurs, e.g., in the Middle Corinthian well-group at Corinth (Corinth VII, i, pl. 42, 341). Langlotz very wrongly uses it (Gnomon X (1934), 419–20) as an argument for the long continuance in production of the subgeometric type. Ibid., gr. 12: Transitional (dot-and-circle filling) olpe, with b.f. ware of the end of the sixth century. Possibly a survival (as it is one of the larger shapes), but the period involved is very considerable, far greater than in the case of ibid., gr. 6, containing a Fikellura amphora and a r.f. hydria dated in the 'sixties of the fifth century (see Jacobsthal, , GGA 1933, 8).Google Scholar Something of the same distance of time appears in the ‘group’ quoted by Payne, NC, 289, under no. 555. Clara Rhodos VI–VII, Papatislures, gr. 2: Corinthian alabastron (inv. 13672, figs. 5 and 6 and pls. 1) of MC style, and Laconian II cup (Lane, , BSA XXXIV, 180Google Scholar; cf. the similar groups at Taranto there cited, p. 122) with what seems to be a fine Attic black-glaze cup (inv. 13677), in an apparently undisturbed tomba a camera (there was penetration from ibid., gr. 1, and earth made its way into the tomb, but the cup can hardly have got in in this manner). The two skeletons, quite apart from anything else, make clear a case of two burials.

⁴¹ That vases and even parts of vases were carefully preserved is clear from the case of the lids Clara Rhodos III, gr. 45, 40 (Corinthian ?), and gr. 46, 14. There is no trace in the graves of the pyxides to which they might belong. The oinochoai, lids Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 178, may have been used as small lamps; here again the jugs are missing. For the question of survival over a long period, see also Homann-Wedeking, Archaische Vasenornamentik, 69.

⁴² Cf. Clara Rhodos VI–VII, Papatislures, gr. 5 (fig. 21): Corinthian convex-sided pyxis and lid (inv. 13697, figs. 21 and 28), probably late MC rather than LC I, as Cook would have it (op. cit., 33), and fragments of what appears to be a black-polychrome small-bottomed oinochoe, found With Fikellura amphorae (inv. 13692, Cook, p. 25, no. 6 and inv. 13693, Cook, p. 32, no. 13) and two late Attic continuous curve cups with b.f. palmette bands (inv. 13695 and 13696). There were probably two burials, as the Attic cups make clear; but in their absence the Fikellura might well have been dated too early, unless other examples of the same group corrected the impression obtained from this grave group. Cf. Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 9: Corinthian oinochoe (4; inv. 12193) with trefoil mouth and neck of a form similar to NC., no. 1392, and body of a more ovoid shape; decoration black glaze and narrow purple bands. It was found with Fikellura (Cook, op. cit., 30, no. 1) and late Attic b.f. It is true that such Corinthian ware continues well into the second half of the sixth century, but it starts in LC I or even earlier. The grave is disturbed; there may be two burials; to which groups does the Fikellura belong ? The clearest example of the uncertainty which can arise from the chronological use of the Clara Rhodos Corinthian is given by Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 192: late warrior aryballos, found with a fragmentary Fikellura amphora (Cook, op. cit., 42, no. 1) of group T, the only dateable example in the group. Cook says (op. cit., 43): ‘these vases date around the middle of the century’. This is true, but they can also be earlier (Ure, Ary ballot and Figurines, 23, considers it unlikely that they continued much later than 570 B.c.), and on this basis so could the Fikellura, though Cook prefers to date the group to which it belongs a little later than the Lion and Mykonos Groups.

⁴³ There appears to be a good deal in Cook, R. M.'s view (BSA XXXIV, 88)Google Scholar that at Kamiros ‘the largest cemetery, that at Makri Langoni …seems to have been neglected for over half a century, and to have become popular once more about 540 B.c. when also some of the chamber tombs were reused ’. Perhaps half a century is too long; about thirty years would seem to be a fair estimate. There is the same poor representation of later Corinthian at the other Kamiros cemeteries and at Ialysos. Vroulia (dwellings) does not go beyond the Middle Corinthian period to any considerable degree; later are only the late miniature kotyle, Kinch, pls, 28, 7, possibly some quatrefoil aryballos fragments, and the fragment of an, Attic skyphos. The grave contents cover much the same period as the fragments found in the dwellings mentioned above; they tail off at the end of Early Corinthian. Vroulia appears to have been a very poverty-stricken place, however, and perhaps the conclusion is unfair. Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 178 is the only certain grave of the period 575–50 B.C., containing Corinthian but no Attic; possibles are gr. 204, and gr. 192; gr. 181, with a quatrefoil aryballos found outside the pithos, can hardly be counted; gr. 204 is an undisturbed chamber tomb. In Clara Rhodos III, gr. 5 the Corinthian vases 4, 5, 12, 13, 18 seem to form a homogeneous group of Middle Corinthian of before 575 B.C. (cf. the period of the Attic ‘kothon’, ibid., figs. 16–17) which survived in use to the period 550–40 B.c., the time of the Eukheiros cup from the same area. In Cla ra Rhodos VIII, Marmaro 22 (area di cremazione) it is not clear whether the Corinthian fragments (fig. 132) are MC or LC I. Ibid., gr. 2 (pp. 70 ff.) with fine-quality Laconian and Attic need not have been buried before 550–40 B.C., though some of the vases are earlier. Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 211, with a late MC oinochoe (figs. 413–14) and a kotyle (inv. 12569, p. 366) which sounds like one of the late miniature kotylai, may belong to the second half of the century, as may ibid., gr. 121 (late warrior aryballos and black glaze cup). There is a fair quantity of Corinthian of LC I period from earlier excavations (cf. MC, nos. 1204 and 1224 (alabastra); 1239, 1240, 1243 A, 1247, 1248, 1251, 1260 (aryballoi); 1351 (amphoriskos); 1379 (oinochoe); 1453 A (krater fragment)). The whole group (with the exception of the krater fragment) is of a poor quality, and taken with the Corinthian in the more recent Rhodian excavations it might seem to suggest a certain impoverishment in the period 575 –50 B.C., yet the fine Attic vases and the Laconia hydria of Clara Rhodos VIII, Marmare gr. 2 seem to contradict this view.

Here should be mentioned the theory of Smith, H. R. W. (‘The Hearst Hydria’; Univ. of California Publications in Classical Archaeology, vol. 1, no. 10, 1944)Google Scholar, that Corinthian trade with Rhodes was cut by the Samian privateers about the end of the first quarter of the sixth century. The main archaeological basis of the suggestion is this same ‘dearth’ of Corinthian after 575 B.C. (see op. cit., 256; 263–5), of which Smith says: ‘Very striking in contrast with the quantity and quality of the Late Corinthian black-figure found in Italy and Sicily is the miserable yield of Corinthian vases of the same period from Rhodes’. This is true in part of the finds in the Italian excavations; not so true of the list in Necrocorinthia. In any case Smith's arguments are based on a comparison with the earlier periods, when, in his opinion, Rhodes was ‘among the best customers’ of Corinth. Even in the earlier periods, however, the contrast with Italy and Sicily holds good, and if Rhodes was among Corinth's best customers it was for the same types of pot, for the most part, as in the period 575–50 B.c., i.e., aryballoi and small alabastra. The Siana grave-group with a very large number of vases, quoted by Smith, must have contained mainly aryballoi and alabastra, and is paralleled in the LC I period by Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 178 (fig. 346), which contains a large number of minor vases, apparently the collection of two lifetimes. Though other shapes appear these small vases predominate in the graves published in Clara Rhodos (the fine alabas-tron, Clara Rhodos III, gr. 45, pp. 72 ff., and that of Clara Rhodos VI–VII, Papatislures, gr. 2, figs. 5 and 6 and pl. I must not obscure this fact) and reference to Necrocorinthia will show that the same is true of the earlier finds from Rhodes. Payne's Catalogue contains vases of all periods from Rhodes, and though there are specimens of a fair number of shapes, small perfume vases predominate. Most striking is the dearth of the figure style proper, or of any quantity of vases which might be classed with it. There are two Chimaera Group plates (NC, nos. 1040 and 1044), a Gorgoneion cup (no. 990) and fragments of three good kraters (two are MC and one is LC I). This is not very much in comparison with Western sites, and hardly enough to justify Smith's argument. It may be that Rhodes mainly imported small Corinthian vases which contained perfume, as seems to have been the case in Boeotia, where, at Rhitsona, enormous numbers of aryballoi have been found (cf. grave 51; NC, 60) and little else. If this apparent predilection of the Rhodians be recognised, there will be less justification for believing that Corinthian imports fell off in the period 575–50 B.C.

⁴⁴ NC, 21–27; 55 ff.

⁴⁵ In Rhitsona, however, graves containing pointed aryballoi (Ure, Aryballoi and Figurines, 22, pl. IX, graves 89 and 91) seem to show later Corinthian than in Rhodes.

⁴⁶ In Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 3, the late ovoid (LPC) aryballos 15 (fig. 21 ) hardly makes an exception.

⁴⁷ For the earlier group with pointed aryballoi, cf. Clara Rhodos III, Ialysos, gr. 3 (scale-pattern pointed); gr. 19 (scale-pattern pointed); gr. 29 (scale-pattern pointed and bird bowl); gr. 30 (pointed with scale-pattern and running dog between bands); gr. 35 (pointed with running dog between bands and dot-and-band); gr. 37 (running dog pointed and bird bowl); Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 3 (LPC and Transitional ware, with a pointed aryballos and three alabastra, one possibly Transitional, the others small EC type A); gr. 4 (small scale-pattern pointed, with a neat small f.b. aryballos with incised petals and verticals, an EC ‘football’ type (8, fig. 22)); gr. 15 (two scale-pattern pointed, with a ‘Vroulia’ cup as in gr. 3 (7)); Clara Rhodos VI–VII, Papatislures, gr. 12 (scale-pattern pointed; type A alabastron; bird bowl); gr. 13 (late Transitional alabastron; pointed aryballos; dot-and-band EC alabastron, and bird bowl); gr. 14 (area di cremazione: pointed aryballos with running dog, and bird bowl). Note that ibid., gr. 11 (ovoid local (?) aryballos and pointed aryballos with running dog) appears to have been disturbed. In Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 209 the alabastron 4 (fig. 408) and the pointed aryballos 3 (fig. 408), with ‘argilla rosea’, may be local. Clara Rhodos III, gr. 3, with a pointed scale pattern aryballos, abo contains a spherical aryballos with dot-and-band, and apparently two other aryballoi (1 and 2) of types also represented ibid., graves 33, 45 and 46. The latter contain no pointed aryballoi, and seem to be of late EC–MC date. To the same period as these belong Clara Rhodos VI–VII, Papatislures, gr. 4, with a fine late EC or early MC alabastron (figs. 18–19), and Clara Rhodos VIII, Dafni, gr. 4. Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 178, unlike Clara Rhodos III, Ialysos, graves 33, 45 and 46, contains quatrefoil aryballoi, and a LC I cup, and is therefore considerably later (though the other aryballoi range from EC onwards), though it contains no Attic. Somewhat earlier, but probably not seventh century is Clara Rhodos VIII, Marmaro, gr. 1. Contemporary with Clara Rhodos III, graves 33, 45 and 46 would be Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 208 (two type A alabastra), gr. 210 (small kotyle with running dogs (the rays look fairly early) and three alabastra which may extend into MC), gr. 214 (polychrome ‘football’ aryballos; floral aryballos and neat EC alabastron), and Clara Rhodos VI–VII, Papatislures, gr. 6 (EC dot-and-band aryballos and EC type A alabastron). This last group may be a little earlier than the others mentioned. The grave group Clara Rhodos VI–VII, gr. 27, damaged by water and collapsed, may be dated to the late seventh century; in addition to a small kotyle with running dogs (fig. 91), a ‘football’ aryballos, a type B aryballos with padded dancers, and a small type A alabastron, it contains the fine plastic aryballos in the form of a squatting man (pl. IV, and figs. 97–8).

Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 5 (disturbed) is the solitary example of a grave group containing what appears on stylistic grounds to be Middle Corinthian, together with pointed aryballoi. The contents are: a small-bottomed oinochoe (inv. 12096), which is of early shape, but on stylistic grounds might be called early Middle Corinthian; a phiale mesomphalos (inv. 12098), Middle Corinthian, if not a Rhodian imitation, as Jacobsthal suggests (GGA, 1933, 8); fifteen alabastra decorated variously with bands, dot-and-band and scales; another alabastron (inv. 12132) of EC (?) date; three ovoid aryballoi (one, fig. 32), which may be local imitations such as occur at Vroulia; seven pointed aryballoi of different sizes, with scale pattern and petals or bands and petals. Though only one group of bones was found, there may well be two grave groups here. The Corinthian jug and phiale, the Samian bottle, the East Greek ‘fruit-stand’ (inv. 12100, Rumpf's ‘Euphorbosgattung’, Jdl 1933, 81, IIIh 33) seem to form a later group. The ovoid aryballoi, the pointed aryballoi, the linear alabastra, the bird bowl and the East Greek jug (inv. 12097, Rumpf's ‘Kamirosgattung’, 1 6) go well together to form an earlier group. The type A alabastron (inv. 12132) and the two East Greek cups might belong to either group. (Note: The cup type with offset rim and conical foot seems to cover a long period; cf. Clara Rhodos IV, gr. 3, which contains two examples of a shape much as Munich, SH., pl. 18,492, appearing with a Corinthian Transitional oinochoe (14), ovoid and pointed aryballoi (15 and 16) and EC alabastra. The same type (as Munich, SH., 492) appears ibid., gr. 208 (p. 364, fig. 407) in an EC/MC context. A type not very different also appears in gr. 121 at Makri Langoni (Clara Rhodos IV, 253, fig. 275) with a late warrior-frieze aryballos, and an Attic (?) black-glaze cup; in gr. 192 (fig. 374) with a late warrior-frieze aryballos and a fragmentary Fikellura amphora (Cook, BSA XXXIV, 42, no. 1); and in gr. 216 (p. 373, fig. 42) with an Attic b.f. cup (inv. 12584). Of the two examples in Clara Rhodos IV, Makri Langoni, gr. 5, one is of the type Munich, SH., 492, and the other of a heavier type, as SH., 485.)

⁴⁸ Payne (NC., 26, n.) rejected the Vroulia graves as evidence for chronology. There is, however, something to be got from them, and they seem to form a parallel to the earlier graves published in Clara Rhodos. The number of cremations at each grave appears to have been determined by Kinch from the thickness of the layer of ashes (there are few remains of skeletons), as he infers in reference to grave 32. Whatever the number of cremations, something can be elicited from the succession of pottery (from the top of the layer of ashes downwards) in the burnt remains and in the curious pockets at the corners of the graves. Grave 2, containing the most Corinthian pottery, certainly shows earlier types at the lower levels, i.e., there is a descending order from EC (or early MC) to LPC. In grave 2, except the pointed aryballos no. 9, the pointed aryballoi occur in the lower levels; dot-and-band alabastra occur more or less throughout, and the figured (animal style) Corinthian appears in the upper levels. Much the same is apparent in the other graves containing Corinthian.

⁴⁹ There seems some reason for believing that kotyle shapes are apt to be deceptive; cf. Hesperia I (1932), 70, a kotyle of seemingly early shape, with double rays, but in style probably not earlier than 600 B.c. See also J. K. Brock in the forthcoming publication of the Corinthian pottery from the sanctuary of Hera Limenia at Perachora (Perachora II), p. 218 below, section on kotylai, and the note, on a group of Corinthian and Attic pottery found in the Corinthian Agora, at the end of this article.

⁵⁰ The Corinthian in the Biscari Museum at Catania (mentioned by Payne, NC, 25, n. 2) is poor and late. Apart from these, finds from Kamarina seem to have disappeared. There is no Corinthian from Agrigentum in Palermo. Some poor and late Middle and Late Corinthian can be seen in the Museo Civico in Agrigento, of the sort in keeping with Payne's chronology. See Dunbabin, The Western Greeks, 305 ff.

⁵¹ There appears to be some uncertainty on the date; cf. CAH III, 553, n. 1, and H. R. W. Smith, The Hearst Hydria, 274, n. 98.

⁵² L'origine de Marseille(1914).

⁵³ ‘Gallia Graeca’, in Préhistoire 1933.

⁵⁴ Vasseur, pl. 5, 12: ‘rebord d'une pyxide. Premier style; pourrait être protocorinthien.’ Cf. the PC ovoid aryballos with bands and running dog (mentioned by Payne, NC, 189, n.) in Hyères Museum from Olbia (Gallia Graeca, 40, fig. 40 b).

⁵⁵ To Vasseur's list of fragments from Marseilles Jacobsthal adds two more: a fragment of a LC I red-ground krater, and a fragment of a MC cup.

⁵⁶ ÖJh XXVII (1931/1932), Beibl., 127 ff. An extensive ‘necropolis’ is mentioned also (126), but this appears to contain no vases of interest to the present problem.

⁵⁷ Ibid., fig. 87, 15 and fig. 88; unless these are really ‘eine Nachahmung rhodischer Erzeugnisse’, as Miltner calls them, ibid., 177, under c

⁵⁸ Ibid., fig. 92, 16.

⁵⁹ Ibid., fig. 92, 11.

⁶⁰ Note that fabrics later than 585 B.c., the date commonly given for its destruction, do occur on the site: Cook, BSA XXXIV, 89, n. 4 (Fikellura and Attic).

⁶¹ ÖJh XI–XII (1922–4), Beibl., 23 ff., 33–4, fig. 8.

⁶² Albania, 1932, no. 4, pp. 1–27.

⁶³ Ibid., 27.

⁶⁴ That is what the kothon, ibid., 16, could be, though it might be earlier.

⁶⁵ Naucratis, on account of the uncertainty of its foundation date, gives no evidence for the chronology of Corinthian. The date suggested by Cook, R. M. (JHS LVII (1937), 235)Google Scholar is one determined by the pottery found there, i.e., Attic and Corinthian of the end of the seventh century (op. cit., 228 and NC., 25), and East Greek seemingly not earlier than the end of the seventh century (Cook, p. 228). For the Corinthian, cf. MC, no. 191 (one fragment of a kotyle with debased running dogs), 467, 467 A, 503 B, 718 (of these Payne, NC., 25, seems to regard 191 and 503 B as dating before 600 B.C). There are no pointed aryballoi (see note preceding JVC, no. 478). The early (?) Transitional fragment (Payne, NC., 340; Boston (Fairbanks), pl. 37, 340) is a very doubtful piece of evidence, as Cook points out. There is no Corinthian at Tell Defenneh; this is probably fortuitous; the earliest sherds date 570–60 B.c. They have no chronological value (cf. Cook, op. cit., 236).

⁶⁶ As Atkinson would argue, BSR XIV, 134–6.

⁶⁷ Cf. MA XXXII, 313: ‘nello strato piu basso del primo megaron non v'e traccia di grandi vasi corinzii e molto meno di quelli a figure humane’. For the objects found at the primitive altar, cf. ibid., 149–50: ‘modesto vasellame corinzio di importazione, oggettini di pastiglia egizia, di collanine con qualchi correnti di cristallo di rocca e simili’. Atkinson, op. cit., 133–4 seems to suggest that this material is the same as that of graves 27 and 55. It is not clear on what evidence she makes this assumption. It may be noted here that it does not appear that all the material is published in MA XXXII (cf. p. 311).

⁶⁸ MA XXXII, 126.

⁶⁹ ‘The alabastron NC, no. 76 (Palermo 489), called late Transitional by Payne. Note that Johansen, VS, 89, mentions an ovoid aryballos in the Louvre from Selinus.

⁷⁰ A few pointed aryballoi of the type NC, fig. 8 A; cf. NC, pp. 23 and 286, under pointed aryballoi B; a few ‘exceedingly debased’ subgeometric kotylai as NC, fig. 9 C; cf. NC, 23 and no. 191; one or two linear cups of the type NC, fig. 9 B.

⁷¹ The Corinthian is commented on by Payne NC, 339. Pl. 87, 1–2 and 4: EC alabastra; pl. 87, 9: kotyle with debased version of NC, fig. 9 C.

⁷² MA XXXII, fig. 134 a–b: krater fragments from the end of the EC period; pl. 86, 2: Early Corinthian or early Middle Corinthian; so also pl. 86, 3. All the aryballoi pl. 87, 5, 6, 7, 8, pl. 88, 3, 4 (NC, no. 553), 6, 7 (NC, no. 549), 12, could be very late EC or MC. The conical oinochoe pl. 87, 11, with rows of dots on the body (compared to the black-polychrome example NC, no. 758), is called EC by Payne, but it could certainly be MC. To the above may be added the aryballoi NC, nos. 550, 593 and 638, which also continue into the sixth century. The oinochoe fragment NC, no. 743 is grouped with Early Corinthian, but may be later to judge from its position in Payne's catalogue. In effect there is nothing in this group which can be regarded with any assurance as early Early Corinthian or even Early Corinthian at all.

⁷³ Galera and Bagliazzo to the north of the city, and Manicalunga to the west near the temple of Demeter Malophoros.

⁷⁴ A small group, graves 27 and 55, were published in BSR XIV, 115 ff., where the pottery was all dated too early; cf. Amyx, op. cit., 231, n. 103; Young, , AJA XLVI (1942), 23, n. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BSR XVI, 19 fr. The author, in the same article, when discussing chronological difficulties, points out some of the weaknesses of the dating from Selinus.

⁷⁵ Pace Atkinson, loc. cit., 129. We have a choice between this conclusion and the other, that the grave groups have been mixed by the excavator or since. It is hardly possible that later offerings were made at the graves.

⁷⁶ Cf. grave 37: late miniature kotylai with b.f. lekythoi with vertical palmettes; similar graves are 22, 43, 51 and 52. As Atkinson points out (loc. cit., 116), the general quality of both Corinthian and Attic is poor, though there are exceptions such as grave 25 with an Attic lip-cup (Herakles and the Nemean Lion in the medallion) and a large MC alabastrem, a combination very similar to that of Clara Rhodos III, Ialysos area di cremazione 5 (Middle Corinthian and a Eukheiros cup).

⁷⁷ Published in Clara Rhodos III. Other types of pottery also represented in the Selinus graves are: (1) ‘Samian’ bottles (cf. Boehlau, pl. VII) of red. clay; cf. Clara Rhodos III, gr. 48, 1–2. (2) Long alabastra with grooves; cf. Clara Rhodos III, gr. 5, 6; gr. 33, 25; graves 45 and 46. (3) Bucchero kantharoi; cf. Clara Rhodos, gr. 2, 6 and 7 (fig. 6); same shape, though the Rhodian exx. are of ‘argilla rossa’. (4) Black and red cups with offset rim, much of the shape of Munich, SH., 492; some of these may be imported, others Sicilian imitations; cf. in Clara Rhodos IV the exampies mentioned in n. 47 above. (5) Black glaze amphoriskoi, with shoulder reserved in red; cf. Taranto, Contrada Vaccarella, gr. 43, NS 1936, 132–4 (with late MC/LC). (6) Lydia (East Greek). (7) Plastic vases, both Corinthian (hare, gr. 11) and East Greek (the fine griffon head, gr. 36; siren alabastron, gr. 51; alabastra with top in the form of a woman's head and shoulders, graves 22, 24 and 35); cf. Clara Rhodos, passim.

⁷⁸ Such as appear in the earlier contexts in Rhodes; cf. Clara Rhodos III, Ialysos, graves 19 and 37.

⁷⁹ The kotylai are in the silhouette style, with animals in the main frieze and subgeometric birds between upright wavy lines on the rim. These may be the examples referred to in NC., under no. 191. It is possible that they are later than Transitional.

⁸⁰ This particularly obvious difficulty has not received the attention which might have been expected from those who would date Corinthian pottery in general later than Payne. To be sure, Byvanck (Mnemosyne 1936–7, 205) expresses certain misgivings (comparing the earliest finds at Selinus with the latest from Old Smyrna, and suggesting that either the Thucydidean foundation date of Selinus is too high or the known remains at Selinus do not cover the earliest period of the city), but his main criticism seems to be that the development of Late Protocorinthian is too compressed into the third quarter of the seventh century, and that the Chigi Jug cannot be dated much before 600 B.C Langlotz (in his review of Necro-corinthia in Gnomon X (1934), 419–20) accepts the later foundation date of Selinus, but objects to Payne's dating on the grounds that (i) imports depend on the particular trade relations of a State at a given time; (2) the Late Protocorinthian fabric may have been completely destroyed in Selinus; (3) if pottery dates are to be deduced from the foundation date, what of the dedalic marble heads (lamp fragments, republished in JHS LX (1940), 23–7), which are to be dated on stylistic grounds to c. 650 B.C.? (4) In the latest Protocorinthian period, according to Langlotz, there was an increase in ‘Massenware’, so that factories must have worked ‘protokorinthisch’ into the early sixth century. (5) He abo objects that Payne compresses Late Protocorinthian and Transitional too much into a period of ten to fifteen years each. The first of these objections is sufficiently answered in advance by Payne (NC, 24). The third, on the dedalic lamps, Langlotz does not press, but admits that they may have been manufactured well before the foundation of the city. The relevance of the fourth point is difficult to see in the case of Selinus, where so little ‘subgeometric’ appears. The second objection cannot altogether be excluded, especially in view of the disappearance, more or less complete, of a fabric on other sites, e.g., Corinthian from Kamarina and Akragas, into which cities it must have been imported; though it should be pointed out that Selinus has been far more extensively dug than Kamarina or Akragas. The objection to the ‘compression’ of Late Protocorinthian seems more relevant (it is the chief argument with Langlotz as with Byvanck), and is discussed in the text.

⁸¹ Cf. at Vroulia, where there seems to be quite a number covering a relatively short period. As far as adults are concerned, a peaceful settlement would produce few early graves; opposition from the natives the reverse. It seems to be very difficult to decide which would have been the case at Selinus. Atkinson, (BSR XIV, 131–3)Google Scholar appears to accept a preliminary settlement (for which she produces no evidence. Mr. T. J. Dunbabin points out to me that there is archaeological evidence of preliminary settlement at almost every Sicilian colony which has been explored, except Selinus, which seems to have been founded ‘out of the blue’) and treating with the natives (p. 131), a recollection of which, in her opinion, gave rise to the earlier foundation date (650 B.C.), and (P. 133) a ‘final settlement’ unlikely to have been achieved without considerable bloodshed. The preliminary settlement would have been carried out, she thinks, by a mere handful, the final settlement by a greater number; ‘…and for this reason, as well as from the probability that the earlier settlers were already advanced in years when the colony was officially founded, there is no need to date the earliest Greek tombs at Selinus, even though they are numerous, much if any later than the final foundation of the city’. The grave contents are dated accordingly, and what Payne dates c. 615 B.C. she appears to date 625 B.C., with the observation (p. 131) that: ‘it seems to follow that fine and debased examples, full-sized and miniature vases, were produced at the same period’, presumably to explain the absence of Payne's earlier Corinthian types.

⁸² More likely than through the ‘imperfect baking’ mentioned in MA XXXII, 126.

⁸³ Despite Payne's contention, NC, 24, that Selinus has been widely explored, there appears to be a suggestion in MA XXXII, 7–8 that other burial areas remain to be explored to the west of the city.

⁸⁴ An end-date for Early Corinthian c 590 B.C. is suggested by Payne (NC, 57) as a possible modification of his chronology, and would not be out of keeping with the evidence from Massilia.

⁸⁵ As, for example, Byvanck's reaffirmation (Mnemosyne IV, 205), of the old view: ‘Die Chigi Kanne wird man kaum viel vor 600 v. Chr. datieren’.

⁸⁶ Note the process: the cups (NC, nos. 986 ff.) are compared with similar Attic types; with the cups (pl. 32, 1–2, 5) are compared the kotylai NC, nos. 950 ff. (one from Samos, gr. 21), the krater fragment no. 1195 (pl. 33, 6) and other vases of which die date is given as c. 585–75 B.C. With a related group of cups (NC, nos. 975–6) is connected the pyxis NC, no. 882, with plastic heads which seem to fit well in with Payne's series of plastic heads (cf. p. 235) and afford not independent but confirmatory evidence of the fact that the cups NC, nos. 975–6 are slightly earlier than the Gorgoneion group. The Samos grave also afforded other vases (see NC, 62 and Boehlau, pl. IV, 2 and 3; pl. V, 1 and 3) taken to be of much the same period. There is a certain weakness of argument here; the plate NC, no. 1034 is said to have the same patterns as the Chimaera Group (these patterns are merely concentric bands), which is dated by comparison to the François Vase to c 580–70 B.C.

⁸⁷ Cf. NC, 61: ‘The most useful criterion for the chronology of this period is the standard given by contemporary Attic’.

⁸⁸ An attempt has been made above to show that a largish group (the Chimaera Group) cannot be dated as a whole by the comparison of part of it to one particular part of Attic.

⁸⁹ NC, 60; and cf. ibid., 70 (and pl. 37, 3) on the Lydos lion-type in LC I.

⁹⁰ Gnomon X (1934); though he seems to use Payne's chronology in his Catalogue of the Martin von Wagner Museum at Würzburg.

⁹¹ Langlotz, loc. cit., 426 dates the François Vase in the ‘early period of the tyrants’, and suggests a comparison of the Nessos Amphora with the Deianeira lekythos, and of the Gorgon deinos in the Louvre with the Nearchos aryballos. As far as can be seen, this system of dating is quite untenable, though the stylistic basis of the dating of Attic allows a certain margin for dispute.

⁹² Loc. cit., 421.

⁹³ He would institute comparisons with very late seventh- and early sixth-century works of sculpture (op. cit., 421–2) to date Early Corinthian vase painting from 600 B.C. (this means the figure style), observing: ‘Eindeutige Beweise gibt es noch nicht, aber der Aufschwung innerhalb der korinthischen Keramik, das Entstehen neuer Gefässformen, die neue Erzählerlust und der monumentalere, weil plastischer gesehene Figurenstil scheint mir ebenso wie in Athen auf die Wendezeit nach 600, die Zeit der Sieben Weisen hinzudeuten’; This view seems largely to have been rebutted by the Vari finds. Comparisons with sculpture at such an early period seem to be rather hazardous (cf. the comparisons instituted for a somewhat later period by Karouzou-Papaspyridi, in AM LXII (1937), 124).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ A double lowering of its date in comparison with the chronology of Payne, who dates it before the Gorgoneion cups and Timonidas, and therefore ten to fifteen years before the François Vase, which, however, Langlotz dates c. 555 –50 B.C.

⁹⁵ Cf. however, for fold rendering in Corinthian, NC 108 and no. 1410 and one or two fragments of Perachora Corinthian; unless indeed decorative fringes are here intended.

⁹⁶ I quote from a letter of Mr. T. J. Dunbabin, since this volume of jdI is not available to me. ‘His ground is the succession of a number of grave monuments in the Kerameikos, each of which cuts into the one below, and is therefore later than it, and which cannot be compressed into the space of time allowed by Payne's chronology of the late seventh century’. See additional note at the end of this article, p. 254.

⁹⁷ As Cook, J. M. has shown in BSA XXXV, 209.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ For ä real archaising style, cf. the Eleutherna bronze bands, NC, 226 ff., in which, as Payne points out, the rendering of certain details makes the archaising character of the work clear.

⁹⁹ Hesperia VI (1936), 257 ff., Pease, ‘A Well of the Late Fifth Century’; Hesperia VII (1937), 585, forawell group extending from mid-sixth century to 500/480 B.C.

¹⁰⁰ At Ialysos (Clara Rhodos III) Corinthian is mostly limited to the ‘tombe arcaiche a cremazione’. In the ‘tombe a inhumazione’, which seem to date from the mid-sixth century, to judge from the Attic vases appearing in them, only LC II appears, as e.g., in graves 148, 165, 172, 180, 224 and 232. The same is the case at Kamiros. Where Corinthian appears with Attic it is of that sort already ascribed by Payne to the latter half of the sixth century; cf. Clara Rhodos IV, graves 11, 13, 75, 113, 1332, 142,,162, 167; there are others of the same type. In the later excavations at Ialysos (1934; Clara Rhodos VIII), despite the considerable amount and excellence of the Attic (starting with Siana cups in Marinaro 2 and 23), there is no Corinthian associated with it (the East Greek ‘wild-goat’ style is equally lacking). The Corinthian all appears in the earlier graves with little or no Att

¹⁰¹ JHS1936, 144: ‘The earliest material is Attic b.f., including Siana cups, with Late Corinthian, the last gasp of the animal-frieze style’.

¹⁰² This is emphasised again here because there is a tendency to attempt to extract too much from the Rhodian finds, as e.g., in connection with the dating of Fikellura by Homann-Wedeking (Archaische Vasen-ornamentik (1938) and AM LXV (1940), 31 ff.), who bases close datings and detailed arguments on some of the Rhodian grave-groups in a manner which seems wholly unjustifiable. See also Cook's, R. M. comment in JHS LVIII (1938), 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰³ The material was less extensively studied by Payne than that from Sicily (see SC, 188), though a good deal of it was available before 1931. A fair amount has also been found since that date. The extensive finds at Corneto/Tarquinia, not so readily to be studied in grave groups, are also largely unpublished; the pottery from Caere and Vulci is for the most part dispersed.

¹⁰⁴ The most recent are published in SS 1936, 119 and 132–4. They contain no Attic.

¹⁰⁵ In keeping with the theory of H. R. W. Smith (The Hearst Hydria, 263) that the fall of the Cypselids (if this is to be placed c 550 B.C.) was attended by a sharp fall or practical disappearance of Corinthian trade with Italy. Lane, (BSA XXXIV, 150)Google Scholar points out the decline of Laconian after 550 B.C., the removal of Corinthian inspiration, though this is not so telling in view of the dating of Laconian mainly by Corinthian.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. (1) Via Leonida, 8/4/24: large crude MC kotyle, LC I cup with griffon birds and eagles, and an Attic trefoil-mouthed panel olpe, of a date early in the second half of the sixth century.

(2) Via Leonida, 8/4/24: two crude MC kotylai and a linear amphoriskos, with Attic trefoil-mouthed olpe, in the panel of which a quadruple lotus-palmette of c. 550 B.C.

(3) Via Dante, 2/5/27: Corinthian red-ground pyxis with upright handles (horsemen on alternate black and white horses galloping to 1.), with Attic b.f. continuous-profile amphora of c550 B.C.

(4) Contrada Madre Grazia, 27/7/20: Corinthian red-ground panel amphora: A. siren and cock, rosettes; B. two confronted female heads of LC I style; with an Attic ‘C’ cup.

(5) Via Ramellini, 24/5/34: small amphora with lotus-palmette complex in panel, of inferior style wth coarse incision; may be Corinthian or an imitation; found with a latish band cup and a ‘C’ cup. Published NS 1936, 183.

(6) Arsenal Excavations, 26/8/07, gr. 428: Corinthian ‘white-style ‘amphoriskos, Corinthian continuous-profile amphora (cock with white-dot enhancement, in panel; traces of red on surface) of late MC or LC I period, Corinthian pyxis with upright handles (tongues and lotus-palmette chain on body) of LC II style, and two Attic band cups, one with a nonsense (?) inscription, tne other with a boar between panthers in neat ‘Kleinmeister’ style.

(7) Contrada Santa Lucia, 8/11/24: material found outside the grave. Large LC II pyxis with upright handles, Corinthian fictile hare and LC aryballos, with Attic band-cups (i. Herakles and Triton; ii. Warrior combat) in ‘Kleinmeister’ style.

For a somewhat earlier stage, cf.Via Duca degli Abruzzi, gr. I (16/11/22): Comast cup and a large MC kotyle with thick filling. For a somewhat later context of a comast cup, cf. Villa Pepe, gr. 2 (21/9/15), with Attic only, including a ‘Kleinmeister’ band-cup.

¹⁰⁷ NS., 78–9; NC, 8 and n. 2; Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona, Appendix, p. 93.

¹⁰⁸ If, indeed, this vase belongs to this period, and is not somewhat later.

¹⁰⁹ Associated with Early Corinthian alabastra. See p. 173, n. 47, for Rhodes.

¹¹⁰ See johansen, NS, 79.

¹¹¹ See n. 40 for a general discussion of this problem.

¹¹² Cf. the linear example of the shape, MA XXV, 541, fig. 124.

¹¹³ The kotyle published by Coliu, , Musée Kalinderu (Bucharest 1937)Google Scholar, no. 7, p. 29, figs. 7–8, is of uncertain date. Decoration: vertical wavy lines on rim (double axe at handles), divided by broad and narrow bands from a silhouette frieze of lions, goats and swan, with filling of small neat dot-rosettes; below, dot-and-band and rays. The style seems early, but the shape is not; it is later than that of the kotyle published ibid., fig. 6, p. 28 (no. 6), with double rays, of the very narrow-based type similar to MC, fig. 120 A. No. 7's shape is more like Corinth VII, i, pl. 34, 252 (from the EC well-group), and shape is probably a better criterion than style in this case; so that the kotyle may be dated close to the end of the seventh century. The same might be true of the not very dissimilar kotylai from Tomb 42 at Selinus. See p. 179, n. 79.

¹¹⁴ The Corinthian example, with birds and dogs, is published in Corinth VII, i, pl. 25, 183.

¹¹⁵ Cf. also the alabastron with two friezes of silhouette animals in crude style from the Agora South-East deposit at Perachora (Perachora I, pl. 31, 3), which may be Transitional in date, and is close in style to the ‘straggling’ type.

¹¹⁶ Cf. MA XVII, 625, fig. 438.

¹¹⁷ Graef calls it ‘Nachahmung protokorinthischer Muster in altkorinthischer Töpferei’.

¹¹⁸ Note, in connection with this group, that some thing like it occurs in Protocorinthian, in the ovoid aryballos period; cf. Johansen, NS, pl. 17, 5.

¹¹⁹ A convex-sided pyxis of crude Middle Corinthian style, having a lid with ‘stilt-legged’ animals of the Munich kotyle (222) type with hailstorm filling, was found at Papatislures (Kamiros), in gr. 5 (Clara Rhodos VI-VII, 23 ff., and fig. 28), which is not, however, of a great deal of value for close dating, since it obviously contained two interments. See p. 172, n. 42.

¹²⁰ Though the date of the grave group, according to Payne, is mid-sixth century (NC., 294). It was found in grave 64 with a terracotta standing female figurine with a dove.

¹²¹ The convex-sided pyxis Louvre E 609 (Pottier, pl. 43), signed by Khares, hardly belongs to this group, though Payne (NC, 322, no. 1296) compares it, not very suitably, to the powder pyxis MA XVII, 54, fig. 26.

¹²² Of Payne's shapes the nearest is perhaps NC., fig. 10 H.

¹²³ Payne says of this (CVA Oxford II, p. 62): ‘The vase is difficult to date; the curving sides show that it cannot be earlier than the period of Transition from Protocorinthian to Corinthian; it is not likely to be later than the end of the seventh century, as in the sixth century other types of pyxis prevail. Probably late seventh century.’.

¹²⁴ Note that the Protocorinthian type is generally quite different; cf. Johansen, VS, pl. 6, 1. A fore runner of the Corinthian type is Perachora I, pl. 23, 8.

¹²⁵ Called Late Corinthian I by Payne (NC, 321 no. 1292), probably on account of the floral chain in the upper frieze, which is somewhat similar to NC, fig. 65 D.

¹²⁶ NC. numbers refer to the Catalogue.

¹²⁷ NC. numbers refer to the Catalogue.

¹²⁸ Cf. also Ithaca, M. Robertson, BSA XLIII, 31.

¹²⁹ Also in Payne, PV, pl. 31, 3–4 and Buschor, , Griechische Vasen (1940), 33, fig. 39.Google Scholar