Acknowledgements. This article is derived from a Sydney MA dissertation submitted in 1982. To Professor J. R. Green and Dr J.-P. Descceudres, who supervised the thesis, go my heartfelt thanks for criticism and encouragement at all stages of the work. My debt to Professor Green is particularly great; through his patient efforts I gained many insights into the nature of Greek pottery and from numerous discussions, in which he freely gave of his time, I came to a better understanding of my subject. Dr G. Pinney read the thesis, as did Professor M. Robertson who later saw a draft of this paper. Professor J. N. Coldstream has also read a draft version. Their corrections and encouragement are gratefully acknowledged. Errors that might remain are the responsibility of the author.

Dr Ph. Zapheiropoulou, Ephor for the Cyclades, kindly gave her permission to study pottery in the museums of Mykonos, Paros, Siphnos, and Thera, and for the following drawings and photographs of this material to appear. Dr O. Picard, Director of the French School at Athens, permitted my work in the museum on Delos; to him I should like to express my gratitude for permission to stay on Delos in the house of the French School. For permission to study vases from Kimolos now in their possession I thank Mr and Mrs Kaloudis. Dr G. Beckel gave me every assistance during my visit to the M. v. Wagner Museum, Wiirzburg, and to him I express my thanks. Permission to publish photographs of vases in their care was generously given by the authorities of the M. v. Wagner Museum, the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (for which I thank Dr J. Christiansen), and the British Museum.

I thank Dr D. Schilardi for discussions on his current excavation at Koukounaries, Paros; Dr R. E. Jones for freely giving me the advantage of his work on the clay analysis of Cycladic wares; Mr M. Murphy for help with references and photographs; and Liz Coats, who assisted with museum work, taking photographs on my behalf, and reading through early drafts. Finally, without the generous help of Mrs Gillian Cox, who did the final typing, this article might still be ‘forthcoming’.

PLATE 19 and FIG. 13 were kindly supplied by Dr G. Beckel, M. v. Wagner Museum (Neg. no. PF 13/1–2; KB 168/42–44). FIG. 12 is from Langlotz, E., Griechischen Vasen in Wiirzburg (1932) 10 no. 79 pl. 7.Google Scholar PLATE 20 and FIG. 14 were kindly supplied by Dr J. Christiansen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, FIG. 23a is a detail from Délos XVII pl. 27, and FIG. 25a is from pl. 26. FIG. 24, courtesy of Liz Coats, FIG. 26 was kindly given by the British Museum, London, and is published by kind permission of The Trustees. All other photographs belong to the author, as do the drawings (which were photographed by Mr K. Furnell, Department of Photography, Sydney University).

The following abbreviations are employed in addition to those in normal use: Brock—Brock, J. K., BSA 44 (1949) 1–80Google Scholar; Buschor, —Buschor, E., AM 54 (1929) 142–63Google Scholar; Coldstream, J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (1968); Cook Protoattic—Cook, J. M., BSA 35 (1934/1935) 165–219Google Scholar; Cook GPP ² R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery ² (1972); Das Delion—O. Rubensohn, Das Delion von Paros (1962); Pfuhl, —Pfuhl, E., AM 28 (1903) 1–290Google Scholar; Thera II—Dragendorff, H., Thera II (1903).Google Scholar

¹ The circumstances of this find are given by the excavator, Stavropoulos, D., PAE 1898, 101–4.Google Scholar See also Hopkins, J. H., JHS 22 (1902) 47fGoogle Scholar, and Haspels, E., in Études déliennes. BCH Suppl. 1 (1973) 227–32.Google Scholar

² Cook Protoattic 172 ff. Coldstream 54.

³ The ‘Wheel Group’, for example, is very likely Parian: Cook GPP ² 30; Coldstream 178 ff. Recent finds on Paros are noted by Schilardi at Koukounaries, in Hägg, R. (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the 8th Century B.C. (1983) 173–83.Google Scholar Orientalizing ‘Melian’ pottery was apparently produced on Paros (and elsewhere). Schilardi, pers. comm., draws my attention to recent finds (unpublished) on Paros.

⁴ The most succinct statement on these problems is still that of Payne, , JHS 46 (1926) 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Thera: Coldstream 185 ff. (with bibliography).

⁵ Cook GPP ² 343. The only significant account missing is that of Kontoleon, N., AM 73 (1958) 136 n. 90.Google Scholar He considers Group Ab to be the only wholly Parian Geometric group and the forerunner of Group Ad, the first Parian Orientalizing pottery. The Aa vases are described as generally Cycladic—only some were Parian, but Group Ac was Naxian.

⁶ Akropolis, Parian: AM 42 (1917) 73–88 figs. 84–101.Google Scholar

⁷ Buschor 142–52 Beil. 51. Paroikia, the modern capital of the island, is built over the ancient city and its akropolis. As the source of sherds Buschor lists the Paros Delion and the Eileithyia Hills (143), both on the outskirts of Paroikia.

⁸ Das Delion 83 110 pls. 14–22.

⁹ Koukounaries: Schilardi, op. cit. 173–83. Annual excavation reports begin in PAE 1976. I omit reference to Bakalakis, G., AA 84 (1969) 125–32Google Scholar; the small group of sherds here are of no use to the study of local styles. Zapheiropoulos, N., AD 18 (1963) Chr. 273f.Google Scholar, reports Geometric and Archaic pottery from tombs close to Paroikia (not illustrated).

¹⁰ Rubensohn, , AA 31 (1916) 83–6Google Scholar; Das Delion 85.

¹¹ I wish to acknowledge my debt to Mr Kydonieos and to S. Ghikas and M. Mallioux for their generous and friendly assistance during my visit to Paros in 1979.

¹² Group Aa: Délos XV 12–25 Pls 2–14, 50 Dugas was responsible for the text of Groups Aa, Ab, Ae, and Af; Rhomaios for Groups Ac and Ad.

¹³ Buschor 142–6 (‘Reifenware’). For attributions of Group Aa see Cook GPP ² 343.

¹⁴ Aa 43, 58–61 are now recognized as PG: Desborough, V., Protogeometric Pottery (1952) 154–6Google Scholar, and Coldstream 154 n. 5 (as Sub-Protogeometric). Aa 44–55 are Middle Geometric: Cold-stream 166.

¹⁵ Only the exterior contours and the inside of the lip could be drawn; each vase (with the exception of the jug and bowl from Kimolos) had an interior plaster lining to enable its reconstruction. As there are few unbroken profiles I have found it necessary to trace sherds from different, though usually nearby, parts of the one vase rather than record the filling in between. This permitted a check on the reconstruction and by and large the results concur.

¹⁶ Pfuhl 147 Beil. 18.4.

¹⁷ The taller, more ovoid-shaped body of Aa 7 caused the handles to be set at a higher level and the system of decoration was adjusted accordingly. The wavy line of the handle zone is still at the centre of the scheme but the balance is now between the weight of the glaze bands beneath the handle zone and the combined force of the shoulder and neck zones.

¹⁸ Cf. Kerameikos inv. K 1073, perhaps the most refined statement of Ripe PG decoration: Kerameikos IV pl. 10. Desborough op. cit. 25 pl. 5. The question of a relationship between this material, Attic Late Geometric ‘banded’ pottery and PG is complex and without ready explanations. Young, R. S., Hesperia Supp. II (1939) 27f.Google Scholar, compared seventh-century banded hydriae from the Athenian Agora with the Aa Group, commenting that though somewhat earlier, they are close to the Attic examples and show with them a strong PG influence. As Protogeometric is known to have lasted late in Boeotia and Thessaly, it is not impossible that it should have influenced the Cycladic workshops. More recently, Schweitzer, B., in Greek Geometric Art (English edn. 1971) 67Google Scholar, has asserted that the ‘style of (Aa) decoration has no Geometric or foreign influence and is simply a less disciplined version of Protogeometric, adapted for a later period’. It also seems possible that PG vases were rediscovered and imitated in the Geometric period.

¹⁹ Cf. Kerameikos V I pl. 33; Coldstream pl. 10a.

²⁰ I have omitted Aa 29 from the Parian Aa Group, however, because of the vessel's shape.

²¹ Wheel Group: see n. 3 above; cf. Délos XV pl. 15 Ab 1. Although worn and fragmentary, there is evidently a central vertical line dividing the panel on the neck of Ab 1.

²² AM 42 (1917) 81 no. 4d fig. 91 (wrongly described by Rubensohn as being from the neck of an amphora), now Heidelberg inv. G120: CVA Heidelberg (3)105 f. pl. 136. 3.

²³ Buschor 143f. fig. 1.7.

²⁴ Cf. Délos XV pl. 15. Also Pfuhl 187 J₁₇ Beil. 30, and Munich inv. 456: CVA Munich (6) pl. 265.

²⁵ In a paper presented to the ‘Table ronde réunie à l'Université de Dijon, 1982’, now published in Les Cyclades. Matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique (Paris 1983), V. K. Lambrinoudakis identifies Geometric sherds from his excavations at Grotta on Naxos with Groups Aa, Ab, Ac, and Ae of Délos XV. The three pieces illustrated by Lambrinoudakis, op. cit. 166 figs. 7–9, as belonging to the Aa Group are, however, best placed in another context, and certainly are not to be included in the Parian Aa Group. Fig. 7 is possibly PG (the multiple wavy line is typically PG and lacks the tension associated with the LG use of this motif, especially in the Parian Aa Group). Fig. 8 reveals a different relationship between the central wavy band and bordering lines (note that they overlap). Fig. 9 suggests Aa 33 and then Bb 59 (Délos XV pl. 41). Now see Lambrinoudakis, ASAtene 61 (1983) 109–19Google Scholar, esp. 111 f.

²⁶ Coldstream 177; Brock 34–45, 74–79 pls. 12–16. Excavations are now being conducted by B. Philipakki at Ayios Andreas on Siphnos (AAA 9 (1976) 93 ff.) where Geometric pottery is reported. Unfortunately, Parian clay is not distinctive, but can be matched by finds from both Siphnos and Tenos (see Coldstream 172). The fabric of the Parian Aa vases and the Geometric pottery from Parian find-spots is the same: a well-levigated clay containing golden mica. Obviously there will be colour variations between vases and between parts of the same vase. In general, the colour may be described, using the Munsell system, as following: clay: 2·5YR 7/4 (pale reddish orange) to 5YR 7/4–6/4 (dull orange); slip: 7·5YR 7/4 (dull orange). Dr Richard Jones of the Fitch Laboratory in Athens kindly provided valuable information on problems associated with the clay analysis of Cycladic pottery and allowed me to see the preliminary results of his work in this area. Wheel Group on Siphnos: e.g. Brock pls. 12.13, 27; 13.2, 3.

²⁷ The amphora, Brock pl. 12.23, identified as Naxian, has a short, angular rim with a flat upper face, a form often found on bowls in this Siphnos collection (e.g. pl. 13.13) and unlike the rim forms of Naxian amphorae in Groups Bb and Bc of Délos XV; it is more likely to be of Siphnian manufacture. Coldstream 181, notes that several bowl fragments (Brock pls. 14.8; 15.17, 24) repeat common formulae of the Melian School but are not necessarily imports.

²⁸ P₅₄₂₃: Agora VIII 31 no. 8. Brann's comparison with Mannheim 66 (CVA Mannheim (1) 14 pls. 2 and 4) seems unconvincing.

²⁹ Coldstream 179, however, notes that the neck-handled amphora has some affinity with the plump Attic LG II type but the neck is usually taller.

³⁰ Ad Group: Délos XV 39–48 pls. 20–5, 27, 48.

³¹ Ad Group: Délos XV 43 f.

³² The presence of this painter has been suspected for some time. Thus Coldstream 178 n. 1 (excluding Ad 6 and 7): ‘the whole category seems to be the work of a single and highly individualistic painter’.

³³ Note, however, the small Geometric-looking bird below the handle of Ad 4; it is more properly part of the subsidiary decoration.

³⁴ JdI 52(1937) 166 ff.

³⁵ Délos XV 42, 45. The long tendril from the head is also shown by Naxian griffins. Cf. Brock pi. 8.4–5. From the procession of animals on a Protoattic plate, Kerameikos inv. 74 (Kerameikos VI 2, 445f. no. 34 pls. 22 4), we may deduce that in curling the tail between the legs, the Ad Painter was attempting to indicate the body of a lion.

³⁶ Coldstream, , Geometric Greece (1977) 113, 124.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. the frieze of recumbent goats on an Naxian amphora, Délos XV pl. 18 Ac 2, which are also Atticizing.

³⁸ As an antelope: Délos XV 43, 45. Animals with similarly curved horns, however, are shown eating from a tree on a seventh-century relief pithos from Tenos (Themelis, G., Frühgriechische Grabbauten (1976) 21 f. fig. 3Google Scholar) and in this context should be thought of as goats in a ‘tree of life’ motif. Cf. the discussion of this motif on the Cesnola Krater by Kahane, P., in The Archaeology of Cyprus. Recent Developments, ed. Robertson, N. (1975) 151–210.Google Scholar Relief pithoi also provide illustrations of goats with long evenly curved horns as well as the short horned variety. Cf. AE 1969 pl. 40a, b. Two bowls from the workshop of the Dipylon Master confirm that similar distinctions were made between goats and deer: Munich inv. 6402 and Athens NM 886. Both are conveniently illustrated on the one page by J. M. Davison, Attic Geometric Workshops 33 figs. 19 and 20. The importance of this distinction will become apparent when Ad 1 is later compared with Würzburg 79.

³⁹ A similar pose is adopted by goats of the Attic Hirschfeld Painter (though all four legs are shown), and later copied by Melian vase-painters: Coldstream 44 (Hirschfeld Painter), 182 ff. pl. 39d (Melian).

⁴⁰ Coldstream 63 f.

⁴¹ Jdl 12 (1897) 195–7 pl. 7; Simon, E., Die griechischen Vasen (1976) pl. 20.Google Scholar The theme of stalking lioness and grazing stag is known from eighth-century Attic gold diadems: Ohly, D., Griechische Goldbleche des 8 Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (1953) 15–20.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Rhomaios identifies this feline as a lion, Délos XV 42 f., but conventions of pose suggest a lioness. Ohly identifies the prowling feline on the Attics bands, Ohly A 1–4 op. cit. 15–20 pls. 1; 2.1, 6, as a lioness and this is accepted by Coldstream (Geometric Greece 124) and Müller, P. (Löwen und Mischwesen in der archaischen griechischen Kunst (1978) 14).Google Scholar It may be contrasted with that identified as a lion on the band, Paris, Louvre, inv. 1291 (Ohly A 12 pls. 4.1, 7.2). The lioness stalks with her head lowered while the lion is more upright and has either attacked or is about to attack his prey. Müller's identification of the feline on Ad 4 as a lion (op. cit. 92, 245 cat. 110) should, on the above ground, also be rejected.

⁴³ Cf. Linear Island amphorae: Thera II 203 fig. 409 (Athens NM 11709) and Pfuhl 185 J7 Beil. 27. Note also the feline on the BM Griffin Jug (BM 73.8–20.35): JHS 46 (1926) pl. 8.

⁴⁴ Cf. Coldstream 178.

⁴⁵ I have excluded the fragment Ad 13 (Délos XV pl. 48). It depicts the legs and lower body of a recumbent animal (goat?) and part of another. There is too little to be sure of its relationship to the work of our painter.

⁴⁶ Langlotz, E., Griechische Vasen in Würzburg (1932) 10Google Scholar; Cook Protoattic 180 n. 2.

⁴⁷ Ibid. 179f.

⁴⁸ Cook, J. M., BSA 42 (1947) 139–41.Google Scholar Davison op. cit. 53f. distinguishes this second group as the work of the Vulture Painter from the amphorae, which are attributed to the workshop.

⁴⁹ Cook Protoattic 179.

⁵⁰ Ibid.

⁵¹ The Würzburg amphora is here presented for the first time after being cleaned. I wish to thank Dr G. Beckel and his staff for their assistance during my visit to the Museum in 1983 and for generously permitting me to publish the Museum's new photographs of this vessel. Würzburg 79 was originally published by Langlotz, E. in Greichiscke Vasen in Würzburg (1932) 10 pl. 7Google Scholar and one side is here shown in FIG. 12 (the photographs were reproduced again by Christiansen, J., Meddelelser fra Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 36 argang (1979) 28f.Google Scholar figs. 10, 11). It had been extensively repainted to compensate for a very worn surface and with the removal of the paint it is difficult to discern much of the figured decoration from photographs. Langlotz's repainted version provides a reliable guide to the detail of figures and subsidiary ornament. However, contours are often incomplete and it has been left to the ‘restorer’ to follow his own judgement. This can lead to the distortion of a figure's proportions and must be kept in mind when studying the repainted version.

⁵² The Copenhagen vase was recently published by Christiansen ibid. 25 ff. figs. 5–7. Here it is seen as the latest of the three amphorae in Cook's original Würzburg Group.

⁵³ See n. 39, above.

⁵⁴ Cook Protoattic 179; BSA 42 (1947) 139 ff. fig. 2; CVA Louvre (16) pls. 44, 45.

⁵⁵ Coldstream 41.

⁵⁶ The process is well documented by Brokaw, C.AM 78 (1963) 63–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The Ad Painter's use of motifs employed in Cycladic Geometric vase-painting is also to be noted. Floating billet zones, for example, are regularly found on vases of the Wheel Group (Délos XV pl. 15 Ab 2; Das Delion pl. 16.9) and these vases are probably Parian.

⁵⁸ Délos XV 39.

⁵⁹ The clay of these vases attributed to the Ad Painter is well levigated and contains specks of golden mica. It is a well-fired, hard fabric, which typically gave a colour reading (Munsell system) of 5YR 6–7/4 (dull orange). The surface, which was polished rather than slipped, was most often 7·5YR 7/2–3 (light brownish grey to dull orange) though at times was greyer. The paint is a dark, matt colour, rarely thin. The fabric is thus comparable to that of the Parian Aa Group but the surface tends to be greyer.

⁶⁰ As with Ad 6 this is evidently an Atticizing work. Cf. Louvre A 566: CVA Louvre (16) pl. 11.

⁶¹ Coldstream 179 n. 2.

⁶² Ae 3 (Délos XV pl. 26) would seem to be the most likely candidate but I am not completely certain of its relationship to the Parian Aa Group.

⁶³ Mustakas, C., who published the vases in AM 69–70 (1954/1955) 153–8Google Scholar, notes that they were found in a grave at Deka near Hellenika in company with other fragments. Of thesi fragments, nos. 2 (from an amphora) and 4 (skyphos) in his lis are related to the work of the Ad Painter but too little survive to be certain of the precise link. The strange kantharos, no. 5, is either Melian or a local version of Melian work.

⁶⁴ Hellenika, : BCH 78 (1954) 146 figs. 41–4Google Scholar; Felten, W., in Stele. (Studies for Kontoleon 1980) 394–401 pls. 185–6.Google Scholar Cold stream 181, who examined the material, concluded that it is not clear whether Kimolos imported from Melos, or had a ceramic industry of its own. The nature and colour of the clay also distinguishes the pots attributed to the Ad Painter (see n. 59 above). The clay of finds from both Melos and Kimolos has silver mica and black grits. Melian clay is a deep buff to reddish brown in colour while that of the Kimolos vases tend to be a soft gingery brown according to Coldstream 181.

⁶⁵ Das Delion 100.

⁶⁶ Cook Protoattic 180.

⁶⁷ Ibid. 200 ff. This date is also supported by Brokaw, op. cit. 63 ff.

⁶⁸ BSA 42 (1947) 141.

⁶⁹ In a new study of this subject, The Black and White Style (New Haven 1984), Sarah Morris argues that the Polyphemos Painter and his associates were Attic-trained artists established on Aegina. Professor Coldstream has pointed out to me that the relocation of the Polyphemos Painter on Aegina, following his training in Athens, provides an interesting point of comparison with the career of the Ad Painter.

⁷⁰ Cook Protoattic 187.

⁷¹ New York Nessos amphora: the vase is fully illustrated and described by Richter, G. M. A. in JHS 32 (1912) 370–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a recent discussion (with bibliography) see Morris, op. cit. 65–70. Eleusis amphora: G. E. Mylonas, O protoattikos amphoreus tis Eleusinos (1957); Morris, op. cit. 37–51 (the Polyphemos Painter), 43–5 (the Eleusis vase).

⁷² Illustrations of the two vases are conveniently provided on opposing pages in Robertson, M., Greek Painting (1959) 41 f.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cook Protoattic 202 ff.

⁷⁴ Ibid. 202.

⁷⁵ Sarah Morris, op. cit. 65–8, reasonably argues that the New York amphora belongs to a mature stage of the Black and White Style (c. 650–640 BC) and not to its beginnings, as Schefold, K. (c. 680–670 BC), in Myth and Legend in Greek Art (1968) 39 pl. 23.Google Scholar Similarly she would prefer a lower date for the Eleusis vase, arguing that it is a ‘mature work’ of the Polyphemos Painter whose career is thought to begin c. 670 BC. Mylonas, op. cit. 112 ff., suggests the second quarter of the seventh century. Simon, E., Die griechischen Vasen (1976) 41 f.Google Scholar pl. VI. 15, dates it to the decade 670–660 BC. These later works of the Ad Painter might then coincide with the early years of the Polyphemos Painter.

⁷⁶ Group D: Délos XVII 33–43 pls. 24–34. Dugas, Ch. initially proposed an Argive-Cycladic style in La Céramique des Cyclades (1925) 229–52.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Délos XVII 3. This followed criticism of his earlier classification, particularly by Payne, H., JHS 46 (1926) 210 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The scheme had been used, however, in the publication of pottery from the Herion, : Délos X (1928).Google Scholar Links with ‘Argive’ ainting were suggested, according to Dugas, (Délos XVII 34)Google Scholar, by leaf clusters, for example, a motif not found on earlier Cycladic vases. Perhaps, suggests Dugas, the potters of the islands are importing Argive decorators.

⁷⁸ The transition was illustrated by D 1; the horse protome on this amphora is compared with that of C 11, ibid. 33 pls. 20, 24. Karusos, Ch., Jdl 52 (1937) 166 ff.Google Scholar, has since shown that C 11 is Naxian.

⁷⁹ Délos XVII 36; Buschor 159f.

⁸⁰ Mrs Ph. Zapheiropoulou has recently completed a dissertation on the Melian pottery from Delos (University of Thessalonike) and her publication of this material is planned. See n. 117, and addendum.

⁸¹ Délos XVII 33 ff.

⁸² Délos XVII 33.

⁸³ Cf. Lambrinoudakis, op. cit. (n. 25) Les Cyclades 167–74 fig. 29 and ASAtene 61, 115 n. 27 fig. 15. Although it is here compared with the ‘Leyden Group’ and in particular the Stockholm amphora I believe it better held to vases in Group C of Délos XVII (the crisp, metallic outlines of the griffin clearly recall the lion protomes of C 1, etc.).

⁸⁴ Cf. CVA Berlin (1) pls. 12 and 13 (A22).

⁸⁵ There seems something of a general resemblance to the characteristic birds of the Vulture Painter, birds which Miss E. Faull has pointed out to me are unlikely to be vultures because of their short necks. Cf. his standed bowls, Louvre CA 1838 and CA 1839 and lid CA 1840: CVA Louvre (16) pls. 44, 45, 48, 54. Here again the distinctive wing is rendered in outline by several strokes sweeping back from the neck and away from the body, and the head is a large circle with a dot eye and protruding beak. Their relationship to these Cycladic birds, however, is not clear.

⁸⁶ The appearance of the cock in Greek art and its meaning are discussed by Hampe, R., Ein Frühattischer Grabfund (1961) 58 f.Google Scholar 82 and by Kübler, K., Kerameikos VI 2, 32 and n. 21, 66 f.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ London 1865.7–20.1: Cook Protoattic 181 f; Hampe, op. cit. 36f., 79 fig. 24; Kübler, op. cit. 614 no. 262; Christiansen, op. cit. 29 fig. 8d Kübler, op. cit. 66, lists nine examples of the cock in Early Protoattic: four with cock friezes and five with a single cock.

⁸⁸ The incised stripes decorating birds on D 15 suggest a comparison to the similarly marked feathers of cocks on Berlin A 22 (CVA Berlin (1) pls. 12 and 13), a stand from the third quarter of the seventh century. The raised wing of the Cycladic birds is alien to the Attic cocks but common to Protocorinthian versions: Payne, , Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei (1933) pl. 6.Google Scholar These Cycladic birds, however, seem unlikely to be cocks.

⁸⁹ Vultures: Hampe, op. cit. 66 ff., 85 (Protoattic); AE 1969, 226, pls. 46–7 (Cycladic relief pithoi). Hens: I cannot find an irrefutable instance of a hen in either Protoattic or Protocorinthian painting. A possible case is seen on an Early Protocorinthian aryballos in Boston (Payne, , Necrocorinlhia (1931) pls. 1.3Google Scholar). The distinction between cock and hen may not have been clearly made until the sixth century. See J. Boardman andj. Hayes, , Tocra I (1966) 63 nos. 785Google Scholar, 786 pl. 43 (where hens and cocks appear side by side on Chiot bowls) and 102 no. 1056 pl. 77.8 (Attic). I owe this suggestion to Miss E. Faull.

⁹⁰ Dog and cock in Protoattic: Hampe, op. cit. 58 f, 82; Kübler, op. cit. 66 f.

⁹¹ Copenhagen NC, inv. 2761: Christiansen, op. cit. 25 ff. figs. 5–7.

⁹² Mainz Krater B: Hampe, op. cit. 17 and passim pl. 27.

⁹³ Cook Protoattic 181 f.

⁹⁴ Oxford 1935.18: ibid. 182 fig. 5.

⁹⁵ Certain details call for comment. The long leaf-like ear hardly seems canine but compare those of the dogs on the London jug. The targe fetlocks look equally outsized, and match the spurs of the cock on the reverse. They all seem to indicate that it is not a large creature.

⁹⁶ See n. 83, above.

⁹⁷ Neat quartered lozenges are found on the necks of Parian Aa vases. Those of the Big Bird Group are slightly different in that the dividing lines protrude over the border of the lozenge and are thus closer to Attic patterns. Cf. CVA Berlin (1) pl. 3 (A₇).

⁹⁸ Attic heart patterns: Kerameikos VI 2 pl. 16.

⁹⁹ ‘Parian’ post-Geometric skyphoi: Délos X pl. 6o (665–8); Délos XV Ac 57 and 64 pl. 24; Délos XVII pl. 68A, Lin. 20; Tocra I 74 f. 78 cat. 918–19 fig. 38 pl. 54; Paros: Buschor Beil. 51; Dai Detion pl. 15–13. This class is also known from Thasos (Études thasiennes VII 51 ff. pl. 20.21) where it is amongst the earliest pottery of this Parian colony. Coldstream 179, notes similarities in profile between skyphoi of the Ad Painter and these Thasian finds.

¹⁰⁰ CVA Berlin (I) pl. 3. 8.

¹⁰¹ Délos XVII 33 f. The Munsell chart reading was typically 7.5YR 6–5/4 (dull orange to dull brown) for the fabric of Big Bird pottery. The slip was usually 10YR 8/3 (light yellow orange) and the glaze tends to a brownish black: 7.5YR 3/2. Thus the clay tends to be a duller orange than that of Parian Geometric pottery or that of the Ad Painter (usually 7.5YR 6–7/4). The yellowish slip is quite different and may reflect the influence of ‘Melian’ vase-painting.

¹⁰² CVA Berlin (i) pl. 4 (A8).

¹⁰³ Three-leaf sprigs of the type found on D 2, etc., are noted in Boeotien vase-painting from the second quartet of the seventh century: Ruckert, A., Frühe Keramik Böotiens, Beih. 10 AntK (1967) 24, 53f.Google Scholar (amphora group B), pl. 11. Leaf sprigs an known to Protoattic (the name vase of the Analatos Painter, for example) but not quite in this form. Incision is rare in Early Protoattic. Its use begins to increase with Middle Protoattic (Agora VIII 25 f.) but is never common till Late Protoattic. The same is true of added red; its regular use in Attic pottery begin in the second quarter of the seventh century (ibid. 27). The use of incision and added red are also rare in Early Protocorinthian and more common in the succeeding phase (Cook GPP ² 47–52). Red bands over black glaze (on the interior of skyphos D 11) also occur on Protocorinthian bowls and cups from the second quarter of the seventh cenvury (Perachora II (1962) 77 no. 673). Dr J.-P. Descoeudres has pointed out to me that red and white bands on the interior of D 16 suggest a lower date. They are initially found on the exterior of Protocorinthian pottery in the late phase, according to Payne (Necrocorinthia 19).

¹⁰⁴ Coldstream 171.

¹⁰⁵ Melian LG and the Rottiers Painter: Coldstream 181–5. Naxian and the Cesnola Painter: Coldstream 172–6. Cold-stream later came to believe that the Cesnola Painter was Euboean, : BICS 18 (1971) 1 ff.Google Scholar See also Boardman, , in Lefkandi i (1980) 74–6.Google Scholar The evidence for his Naxian origin was first set out by Kontoleon, , AE 1945–1947, 11 ff.Google Scholar, and later supported by Descceudres, , in Eretria V 57 n. 344Google Scholar, and Walter-Karydi, E., AA 87 (1972) 403–9, 416.Google Scholar It seems likely that the Cesnola Painter had his workshop on Naxos but that his followers subsequently established themselves in Euboea.

¹⁰⁶ Buschor 152 ff.; Walter-Karydi, op. cit. 395 ff.; Coldstream 177 f.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Agora VIII 35 no. 39 pl. 3; Hesperia 30 (1961) 118f., 128f. cat. L 8–9, N 6 pl. 14.

¹⁰⁸ Banded ware from Samos, : AM 74 (1959) 10–34 esp. Beil. 46–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See n. 18 above.

¹¹⁰ Wheel Group: see n. 3 above. Coldstream 178 ff., follows Payne, (JHS 46 (1926) 205)CrossRefGoogle Scholar in seeing the Wheel Group as the ‘Parian’ Geometric predecessor of Orientalizing Linear Island pottery found on Thera. Note also Lebessi, A., AD 22A (1967) 117–32.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Andros: e.g. Cambitoglou, A., Archaeological Museum of Andros (1981) 68 cat. 168 and 168aGoogle Scholar; Delos: e.g. Délos XV Ab 1–8, 10; Siphnos: e.g. Brock pl. 13.2–3; Thera: e.g. Pfuhl, 187f, J 14, 16–18 (‘besonderer Art’); Aegina, : AM 22 (1897) 270 fig. 4.Google Scholar

¹¹² Coldstream 360 f. and Geometric Greece 132 ff.

¹¹³ Paroikia frag.: AM 42 (1917) 84 fig. 96.

¹¹⁴ I wish to thank Professor J. R. Green for bringing the results of these excavations to my attention, and for numerous discussions in which he shared his comprehensive knowledge of the Zagora pottery.

¹¹⁵ Délos XVII 79–85 pls. 53, 54, 63, 65.

¹¹⁶ Das Delion 117–25.

¹¹⁷ On the topic of links between the Ad Group and ‘Melian’ pottery, see most recently Les Cyclades. Matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique (1983) 177–83 (Zapheiropoulou), 185–90 (Salviat).