Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T04:33:35.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Amathus bowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. L. Myres
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The masterpiece of Oriental craftsmanship reproduced in Plates I—III is said by General L. P. di Cesnola to have been found in April 1875, in a rich but partially despoiled chamber-tomb at Amathus in Cyprus. Cesnola's account of the discovery exaggerates the depth at which chamber-tombs are found in Cyprus, but his plan corresponds fairly well with that of a large tomb (still accessible in 1894, and probably to-day) in the low ground north of the acropolis of Amathus. The silver bowl, already broken, and other objects, are said to have been found in a ‘copper cauldron,’ as if discarded by an earlier tomb-robber.

The ‘Amathus Bowl’ and a bronze shield-boss (rondache) said to have been found with it were published by G. Colonna-Ceccaldi in 1876 and republished in 1882 in his collected papers. The copper-plate illustration is signed S. Dardel, and was printed by Ch. Chardon ainé in Paris. If the ‘patère et rondache’ were brought separately to Paris, this may account for their alienation from the main Cesnola Collection. Dardel's engraving does not include the long ends of the rim, and is inaccurate in several details, as appears from the reproduction in fig. 1. It was reproduced on a smaller scale in Helbig, Homerisches Epos, 1884, Plate I, and repeatedly elsewhere.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , 1933 , pp. 25 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1933

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 Cesnola, , Cyprus, pp. 255–270Google Scholar: plan, p. 260. Individual measurements of ‘thirty-nine and a half feet’ (p. 269) and ‘forty-nine feet’ (p. 270) look like misreadings of 3′ 9½′ and 4′ 9″, which would be about right; and the generalization ‘40 to 55 feet’ (p. 255) may represent 4′ to 5½′.

2 Colonna-Ceccaldi, , Révue Archéologique, XXXI (1876), pp. 25Google Scholar ff.; Monuments antiques de Chypre, &c. (Paris, 1882), ch. iv, pp. 137–152, PI. VIII. With the ‘patère et rondache’ (p. 139) were found ‘une espèce de sabre en fer d'environ deux pieds anglais de long, très oxydé,’ a mass of ‘points de javelots en fer,’ two ‘haches de bronze,’ scarabs and scaraboids engraved in ‘style égypto-assyrien,’ and Assyrian cylinders in hard stone (p. 138). The bronze axes throw doubt on the whole list, though the sword, arrow-heads, and ‘egypto-assyrian’ seal-stones are likely enough.

3 E.g. Daremberg-Saglio, Diet. d'Antiquités, s.v. ‘Caelatura,’ fig. 927: Ohnefalsch-Richter, M., Kypros, the Bible, and Homer, 1893Google Scholar, Pl. 156; Brunn, H., Griechische Kunstgeschichte, I, 1893, p. 98Google Scholar, fig. 70.

4 Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquité, III, p. 775, fig. 547.

5 E.g. on the bowl, the uraei on the heads of the sphinxes in the innermost zone have tails like those on the hawk-headed figures in the middle zone: the tails are omitted by Dardel, but recorded by Wallet.

6 E.g. by Poulsen, F., Der Orient und die frühgriechische Kunst (Berlin, 1912), p. 21Google Scholar; Contenau, G., Manuel d'Archéologie Orientale (Paris, 1931), p. 1346Google Scholar.

7 The fine figure-painted oenochoae in the Pitt-Rivers Museum are published in Essays in Aegean Archaeology pres. to Sir Arthur Evans (Oxford, 1927), pp. 73–89Google Scholar, Pls. XII, XIII, XIV.

8 Der Orient und die frühgriechische Kunst (Berlin, 1912), chapter iii.

9 Villanovans and Early Etruscans (Oxford, 1924), pp. 228–230.

10 When Dr. Randall-Maclver wrote, this scarab was still assigned to Psammetichus I (663–609 B.C.); it is, however, now thought more probable that all the scarabs in the tomb are of sixth-century date. But Mr. F. N. Pryce tells me that the Polledrara tomb seems to contain two if not more groups of objects, from separate interments; the earlier may be a generation earlier; so Dr. Randall-Maclver's general perspective is not seriously affected.

11 There is, of course, fully developed gadrooning on contemporary vessels, for example in the Polledrara tomb; but such persistence of older fashions is familiar. We still reproduce ‘willow-pattern’ and ‘Indian-tree’ designs on our dinner-plates.

12 The Bernardini version of the ‘Hunter's Day’ is figured in Poulsen (p. 24, fig. 14) and Perrot and Chipiez, III, fig. 543; the other, from Cyprus, , in Hdbk. Cesn. Coll., 4556Google Scholar, and Marquand, , AJA. iii (1887), Pl. XXXGoogle Scholar. It deserves republication, and there are other fine fragments in New York.

13 The lateral panel, on the right, ended at 130° from mid-line, about 10° beyond the fore-feet of the chariot horse; and that on the left, about 35° beyond the mounted archer, if he subtended 15° like each of the other mounted men.

14 Handbook, No. 4555.

15 The castle of the ‘Hunter's Day’ subtends only 15°, but it has no need for defenders or spectators on its walls.

16 Poulsen, no. 15 (fig. 15); Monumenti, X, Pl. 33. These measurements are only approximate, as they are taken on the published drawings, not on the bowl itself. But only those drawings are quoted, where the whole circumference is shown continuously. Diagrams like Poulsen's fig. 11 (the bowl from Delphi) or Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. no. 4556 (the ‘Hunter's Day’ from Cyprus) are of course useless for this purpose.

17 Homolle, , Rev. de l'art anc. et mod. XV, pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar; Perdrizet, Fouilles de Delphes, V, p. 23, Pls. XVIII–XX; Poulsen, no. 10, fig. 11.

18 E.g. Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. 4554; = Perrot and Chipiez, III, fig. 552; = Colonna-Ceccaldi, Pl. X. Here it is in the outer and principal zone and the central medallion is from the same repertory.

19 E.g. on Cypriote votive statues, Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. 1266, 1267, 1362, and 1363; the last perhaps a portrait of Amasis, king of Egypt.

20 Representations of cupola-houses, Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, II, Pl. 17; Meissner, Babylonien u. Assyrien, I, fig. 90. Modern cupola villages, Layard, , Nineveh and Babylon, p. 112Google Scholar; Speleers, , Syria, VIII (1927)Google Scholar, Pls. xvi, xvii; Rostovtseff, , Caravan Cities, 1932 p. 162Google Scholar. I owe these references to Mr. R. D. Barnett, of the British Museum.

21 Poulsen, nos. 15, 18, 19.

22 Ibid., nos. 15, 19.

23 Ibid., no. 18.

24 Ibid., nos. 15, 20.

25 For horse-trappings, compare Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. (statuettes), 1013–17, (terracotta) 2079. The globular cap or turban of the horseman next behind the archers recurs on the head of a terracotta centaur from Cyprus, , Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. (t-c), 2065Google Scholar.

26 Colonna-Ceccaldi, Pl. IX. Spiked bosses, Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. (terracotta) 2102, 2093, 2098–2100, (bronze) 4754.

27 Shown in the siege-scene from Delphi, , Poulsen, , no. 10, and on the inner zone of Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. 4556Google Scholar.

28 Iliad, X. 335–458.

29 Iliad, X. 258–259. It is distinguished as

30 Hdt. I. 171,

31 Clay shield with ὄχανον, , Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. 555Google Scholar.

32 Reichel, , Homerische Waffen 2, pp. 100–1Google Scholar. The fore-and-aft crest is seen on a terracotta horseman in the Cesnola Collection Handbook (t-c), 2093. An early example from the Lower Town of Mycenae is figured by Reichel, p. 107, fig. 44.

33 Halbherr, and Orsi, , Museo Italiano, II, 1888Google Scholar; Poulsen, figs. 76, 78, and p. 79. Cf. BSA. XI, 1904–1905, Pl. XVI. p. 306 (Palaikastro).

34 Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. (t-c), 2109.

35 Iliad, VI. 118, etc.; cf. XI. 34–5, a shield with twenty ὄμφαλοι.

36 Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. (pottery), 707–714.

37 For shields with ray-ornaments compare Hdbk. Cesn. Coll. (t-c), 554–555, 2098, 2100, 2102; concentric red and black bands (t-c) 2099.

38 Herodotus, II, 152.

39 E.g. on seventh-century reliefs in the British Museum.

40 Professor Beazley calls my attention to a similar treatment, much later, of vine-foliage on a red-figured fragment, Acropolis Vases, II, Pl. xxvii. 441. But this tree is not a vine.

41 The siege was probably in 500 B.C.: Hdt. V. 104. Cf. Hdt. V. 113,

42 Figs. 5–7; reproduced by permission from Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1932, July, Pl. III, right, ‘sacred tree’; Pls. I, and III, left, ‘infant Horus.’

43 I Kings, xxii. 39.