Clay Analyses of Archaic Greek Pottery

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 21

The Annual of the British School at Athens

http://journals.cambridge.org/ATH

Additional services for The Annual of the British School at Athens:

Email alerts: Click here


Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Clay Analyses of Archaic Greek Pottery

J. Boardman and F. Schweizer

The Annual of the British School at Athens / Volume 68 / November 1973, pp 267 - 283
DOI: 10.1017/S0068245400004470, Published online: 27 September 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0068245400004470

How to cite this article:


J. Boardman and F. Schweizer (1973). Clay Analyses of Archaic Greek Pottery. The Annual of the British School
at Athens, 68, pp 267-283 doi:10.1017/S0068245400004470

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATH, IP address: 128.122.253.228 on 19 May 2015


CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY
(PLATES 53-55)

T H E study of Greek pottery of the Archaic period has reached the point at which most groups
can be identified on stylistic grounds alone and confidently assigned to their place of manu-
facture, while in some groups works of individual studios, painters, and potters can be detected.
There remain, however, both many problem pieces whose origin is disputed or unknown, and
some major classes about which, for example, it is still possible to argue whether they were made
in Italy or Greece. This is a field in which the techniques of clay analysis might prove beneficent,
and this article presents the provisional results of the first of a series of tests designed to explore
this potential.
Analysis by optical emission spectrography has already been applied with some success to
problems of Bronze Age pottery in the Greek world. The work was undertaken by the Oxford
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, under the archaeological guidance
of Dr. Catling, and the results published in this journal and elsewhere.1 Further tests on Iron
Age Greek pottery in Italy were sponsored by Mr. Ridgway and Mr. Prag, the material being
chosen on the same general basis as that for the Bronze Age tests, by selection of series of sherds
from particular sites. The material for the tests described here has been selected according to
somewhat different principles, as will appear.
The process of analysis and its application have been conveniently described in BSA Iviii
(1963) 95—101.2 The presence of the nine trace elements (strictly speaking, their oxides) deemed
the most sensitive to local variations in clay composition is determined, and displayed graphi-
cally in diagrams of the type used to illustrate this article, which allow of easy comparisons.
Where a large group of similar composition is involved the results are presented in diagrams of
the same type as a series of range measurements for each element representing an 80 per cent
level of confidence. 'This means that in the long run 80 per cent, i.e. four out of five, sherds
belonging to the same population should have concentration within the calculated range' (ibid.
97). Otherwise individual tests are plotted. The results of earlier tests on Bronze Age and other
pottery in the Oxford laboratory have been used here, adjusted to correlate with the tests
conducted after the recalibration of instruments in 1971. The recalibration will be explained in
detail by Mr. Schweizer in a forthcoming number of Archaeometry.,3 Similar tests on other classes
of Archaic Greek pottery are being carried out in the laboratory of the Louvre Museum, under
the archaeological guidance of Mile Waiblinger. Mr. Noble reported briefly the results of some
tests in New York in a book published in 1965. Otherwise this is not a field which has been much
explored by these techniques, although there have been useful studies by others employing
other techniques of microscopic examination, which is likely to prove particularly effective for
coarser wares.4 Comparison of analyses by neutron activation and by optical emission spectro-
graphy have proved reassuring.5
Certain 'articles of faith' in the interpretation of these analyses deserve a moment's attention
in the light of the problems of Archaic wares. It might be thought that the clays from different
1
BSA Iviii (1963) 94 ff.; and articles in Archaeometry iv-xi Prag, F. Schweizer, L. R. Llewellyn, a n d j . Williams.
(1961-9). * J . V. Noble, The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery (1965)
2
And see Archaeometry viii (1965) 16. 2 f., 90 f., 212; M. Farnsworth, AJA lxviii (1964) 221 ff.
3 5
'Hellenistic Glazed Ware from Athens and Southern I. Perlman and F. Asaro in Science and Archaeology (ed.
Italy: Analytical Techniques and Implication', by A. J.N.W. R. H. Brill, 1971), and Archaeometry xi (1969) 21 ff.
268 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER

areas of one bed or from different beds in one area could have markedly different compositions.
So far, observation of material from Greece and Italy has shown that the variations are slight
and, within the elements chosen for inspection, negligible. Thus, quite extensive areas in south
Italy, in the Peloponnese, and in central Crete appear to use clays of consistent composition for
each area although readily distinguishable one from another. And in central Euboea tests on
material of four different periods from the Late Bronze Age to modern are consistent. It has
been demonstrated elsewhere, however, that a clay bed can yield significantly different compo-
sitions in different layers, and the observed consistency presumably indicates that in any one
period only one area was normally being worked, or that the beds happen to be fairly homo-
geneous. The problem becomes acute when, with a given sample compared with an established
range pattern, there is marked disparity in one element, or slight disparity in two or more. Only
a fuller study of 'permissible' variations or fuller knowledge of the composition of possible
alternative sources will resolve this.
There are, furthermore, clays from different areas which cannot as yet readily be distin-
guished at all (Euboea and south Italy is a sore example). It may be that the answer to such
impasses lies in the plotting of other trace elements. But it means that while almost total
confidence can be placed in negative identifications ('this is not Attic, Corinthian, etc.'),
positive identifications require the support of other criteria, archaeological or stylistic. This
brings us to the differences in selection and interpretation of the material presented here from
that for the Bronze Age tests. For the latter large numbers of sherds from chosen excavated sites
were submitted for analysis. From the results the dominant composition type was judged
probably local. The sites were generally those for which local production might be assumed, and
the pottery of a type for which no stylistic criteria had been discovered to determine place of
origin, or for which the criteria were in dispute. In the Archaic Greek period—we are thinking
principally now of the black-figure vases of the sixth century B.C.—the situation is very different
and the problems to be answered of a somewhat different character. They are either more
rigidly historical, or purely art-historical. Regardless of provenience it is usually possible to
identify an Athenian or Corinthian black-figure vase. The physical appearance of the clay, the
shape, the style of decoration often allowing even identification of painter, inscriptions—there
are many and sure criteria. The majority of surviving complete or near-complete Athenian
black-figure vases have not been found in Athens but in Italy. And on colonial foundations,
where the identity of pottery imported may determine important historical problems about
trade or the homeland of the colonists, it is common for most of the vases to be imported. To
take an example which has yielded some specimens analysed here: the Greek colony of Tocra
(Taucheira) in Cyrenaica has yielded hundreds of decorated vases and fragments belonging to
the first hundred years of its history—late seventh to late sixth century B.C.—from votive
deposits. Approximately 85 per cent was obviously imported, and the remainder, mainly plain
wares, presumed local.6 Of the imported, the majority could be identified by use of the standard
archaeological criteria of visual appearance of clay, shape, and decoration, but there are still
classes and individual pieces which are homeless. For these the only hope lies in analysis or in
the patient expectation that more finds in Greece will reveal their origin. Black spots in the
study of Archaic vases have been some major sites which, since they cannot be or have not yet
been extensively excavated, have offered no clear criteria for the identification of local pottery.
Notable examples are Megara, Sicyon, Miletus, Ephesus. Analysis of samples of local clay beds—
a study which has been underestimated hitherto, and can only be used in a limited fashion
here—could produce negative identifications for some homeless classes ('this is not Milesian');
6
For the statistics see J. Boardman and J. Hayes, Tocra ii (1973) 5.
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 269

or plausible positive identifications ('this could be Milesian and stylistically it agrees with what
we would expect of Miletus'). The instance cited here, of Miletus, is one closely connected with
the problems of the identity of Greek pottery exported to Syria and Egypt in the Archaic
period (Al Mina and Naukratis), which is the subject of current tests to be reported at another
time.
The art-historical problems are only slightly different. To take a relevant example: during
the preparation of a Corpus Vasorum of Attic black-figure amphorae in Oxford one vase, which
had passed (albeit uneasily for some) as Attic, resisted attempts to place it exactly in the Attic
series. Analysis demonstrated that it was not Athenian (see below, p. 276). On the other hand
analysis has not yet demonstrated where it was made, and instead has presented an embarrass-
ing choice. Other classes of black figure have been in recent years suspected of being non-
Athenian, although hitherto classified as such. For these, or some examples of these, new homes
can now be assured. All this involves far more than a correction to a museum label, since it
makes it easier now to establish sure stylistic criteria for the identification of similar classes
found in historically valuable contexts (in colonies, etc.) and enriches our knowledge of the
iconography and art-history of 'non-metropolitan' cities in Archaic Greece.
While, therefore, the identification of the clay composition of vases made in specified areas
offers exactly the same problems and benefits for the Archaic period as it has for the Bronze
Age, in practice much more may depend on the analysis of and on the judgement of analysis of
individual pieces. Even within a major and apparently homogeneous group, study of individual
analyses and their grouping has proved rewarding, and might prove rewarding also in restudy
of Bronze Age wares. For the identity of'controls', too, stylistic criteria may be able to give us
greater confidence in the coherence of a small group being tested than identity of find place
could for a larger group.
What is urgently required is analysis of samples from known clay beds in Greece, Italy, and
other Greek colonial areas. Until this is done we shall have more negative identifications than
positive ones. The material presented here is a first stage, premature in some degree in the light
of what has just been said, and provisional in its conclusions, towards the establishing of in-
dependent criteria for the identification of Archaic wares. Further progress will depend on
concerted programmes of study in Greece and Italy, and collaboration between laboratories
conducting analyses with these techniques. Even at this early stage the prognosis is good.
The analyses published here have been made under the supervision of F. Schweizer at the
Oxford Laboratory with the assistance of Miss L. R. Llewellyn. Text and commentary are Mr.
Boardman's. We are grateful to the Trustees of the British Museum, the Keeper of the Depart-
ment of Antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum, the Curator of the Museum of Greek Archaeo-
logy, University of Reading (Mrs. Ure), and the Curator of Antiquities in the University
Museum, Manchester (Mr. Prag), for permitting us to use clay samples from their vases; and to
Dr. G. Buchner and Professor G. Vallet for providing sherds from Ischia and Megara Hyblaea.
Dr. Hayes brought specimens from the excavations at Tocra. Mr. Ridgway and Mr. Prag have
kindly allowed us to make use of the results of other analyses undertaken for them in Oxford. In
this account, where possible, an indication is given of the appearance of the wares to the eye or of
descriptions by others—a criterion, however unscientific, which has proved effective in a good
many cases and may remain so. The details of each analysis are listed at the end, and for one or
two vases which have now lost a home or hope to find a new one there is appended a separate
discussion in order not to interrupt the main account with iconography and art-history. The
subjects are tests on black figure in the Attic-Euboean-'Chalcidian' range, on Protocorinthian,
and on some suspected Cretan pottery from Tocra. Tests are continuing with especial reference
270 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER

to the problems of 'Melian', the East Greek schools represented at Naukratis and well-known
groups of clay figures and figure vases.

I. A T H E N I A N , ' C H A L C I D I A N ' , AND E U B O E A N BLACK F I G U R E


ATHENIAN
The fabric of Athenian black-figure vases is well known and has been often described—a rich
red sometimes with a few micaceous inclusions.7 There is no difficulty in choosing pieces of
unquestioned Athenian origin, since this is a series whose decoration has been subjected to
a classification which admits identification of individual painters and potters, often backed by

NiO CrjO3 MnO TiO, MgO CaO Na,0 Fe2O3 AJjO NiO Cr2O3 MnO T i ^ MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiOj MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O;
:1000 xlOO x100 xiO x10 X1000 x1OO xlOO X10 xiO xlOOO x100 xlOO x10 xlO

-
~i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r~ 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 r~
:
DIAGRAM I DIAGRAM II DIAGRAM
ATHENIAN B.F. \ ATHENIAN BLACK GLAZE
RANGE OF 12 \ (2c B.C.) •

. I RANG OF 20 -

f
w\
/

V •

1 1 1 1

inscriptions on the vases themselves. The following twelve pieces were chosen from the Oxford
collection to give a good range of sixth-century Athenian workshops:
(1) Oxford 509 (G. 268). Neck amphora by the Affecter. ABV 239, 5.
(2) Oxford 510 (G. 272). Neck amphora akin to the Group of Wiirzburg 199. ABV 290.
(3) Oxford 220 (1874.291: G. 210). Neck amphora, Light-make Class. Paralipomena 300.
(4) Oxford 214 (1885.656). Neck amphora of the Dot-band Class, from Caere. ABV 484, 10.
(5) Oxford 1913.164. Tyrrhenian amphora from Caere. ABV 100, 64.
(6) Oxford 1952.549. Panathenaic amphora fragment by the Eucharides Painter, from Al
Mina. ABV 396, 4.
(7) Oxford 1960.1290. Neck amphora. Early Lydan. Archaeological Reports for 1963-64, 53 f.
fig. 10.
(8) Oxford 1965.100. Belly amphora by the Lysippides Painter. ABV255, 10; Paralipomena 113.
(9) Oxford 1965.115. Neck amphora by the Antimenes Painter. ABV 269, 49; Paralipomena
118.
' J . V. Noble, The Technique of Painted Attic Pottery (1965) source by ancient writers; see G. M. A. Richter, The Craft
1-3. Cape Kolias (just SE of Phaleron) is mentioned as a of Athenian Pottery (1923) 97.
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 271

(10) Oxford 1965.124. Belly amphora in the manner of the Princeton Painter. ABV 300, 6;
Paralipomena 130.
(11) Oxford 1965.125. Neck amphora near the Class of New York 96.9.9. Paralipomena 295.
(12) Oxford 1965.141. Belly amphora in the manner of the Princeton Painter. ABV 299, 1;
Paralipomena 130 f.
The composition range pattern of these analyses is shown in Diagram I. Plotting individual
vases produced two pairs with very close similarities: (3) and (12) which have very low figures
for Al, Fe, Ti, and Cr; and (5) and (6) with high figures for Fe, Mn, Cr, and Ni. There are no
date or workshop connections here, so this may indicate no more than local varieties in the clay
beds used.
Another series of Athenian pottery analyses, taking twenty samples of black-painted vases
from a second-century B.C. group found in the Athenian Agora, was undertaken for Mr. Prag
who kindly permits me to illustrate the composition range pattern in Diagram II. This corre-
sponds closely with Diagram I, but allows for higher readings in Fe, lower in Ca.
Diagrams I and II give a clear indication of the composition of clays used in the Athenian
potters' quarter in the Archaic and Hellenistic periods. It is always possible, however, that other
potteries in Attica used clay beds of different composition. The existence of 'countryside'
workshops may certainly be suspected in the sixth and fifth centuries, supplying vases, for
example, to Eleusis, Brauron, and Vari. This may be worth further investigation. For example,
Diagram III gives the corrected composition range pattern of eleven Bronze Age fragments
from the site at Perati in East Attica, which were studied some years ago.8 The high Ca readings
in particular show a marked difference from the Athenian of Diagrams I and II, but we cannot
be sure that the Perati pottery was made locally.

'GHALCIDIAN'
'Chalcidian' vases are the most distinguished sixth-century black-figure series after the
Athenian. Virtually all have been found in Italy and Sicily, and are named for the 'Chalcidian'
forms of the inscriptions upon them. The clay is orange to brown, less ruddy than Attic. Current
opinion favours an origin in the south Italian colony Rhegion (Reggio) founded by Chalcis.9
The style is distinctive, but owes much to Corinth, Athens, and Ionia, and in its later years is
strongly Atticizing. Six 'Chalcidian' vases in Oxford were analysed:
(13) Oxford 1950.6. Neck amphora by the Phineus Painter. Ashmolean Museum Visitors Reportfor
ig50 pi. 2.
(14) Oxford 191. Neck amphora from Caere (?), Group of the Vienna Amphora. A. Rumpf,
Chalkidische Vasen (1927) 18 no. 32, pis. 66, 84.
(15) Oxford 1929.29. Neck amphora. Group of the Vienna Amphora. H. R. W. Smith, The
Origin of Chalcidian Ware (1932) pi. 19; Ashmolean Museum, Beazley Gifts igi2-66pl. 9.103.
(16) Oxford 192 (1885.652). Neck amphora from Caere. Group of the Orvieto Hydria. Rumpf
21 no. 50 pis. 84, 91.
(17) Oxford 1929.403. Hydria. Group of the Orvieto Hydria. Smith pi. 17.
(18) Oxford 1965.132. Neck amphora. Group of the Orvieto Hydria. Rumpf 18 no. 26 pis. 52-4.
The composition range pattern for these 'Chalcidian' black-figure vases is shown in Diagram
8
BSA lviii (1963) 103ff.no. 5, Group C. a brief statement of the problem, admitting Etruria as a pos-
9
See R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery (1972) 158 for sible alternative source.
272 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER
IV. For Cr three readings were of < 0-026; the three others were 0-034, °'°38; a n d 0-052, so
a considerable range in this oxide must be admitted.
There are also a number of vases related to the 'Chalcidian' in style and shape which are
generally called pseudo-'Chalcidian'. Four examples in London and one in Reading were
examined:
(19) London B 16. Neck amphora. Memnon Group. Rumpf 156, c, pi. 198.
(20) London B 17. Neck amphora. Memnon Group. Rumpf 156, d, pi. 199.
(21) London B 154. Neck amphora from Vulci. Polyphemos Group. Rumpf 161, VI, pis. 202,
203.
(22) London 1949.2-17.1. Neck amphora. Polyphemos Group. BMQxvi (1951) pi. 27.
(23) Reading University Museum 130.51 RM. Oinochoe. Archaeological Reports for 1962-63,
57 f. fig. 67, where Professor Banti's observation of the resemblance to figures on a vase of
the Polyphemos Group is recorded (also in EAA s.v. 'Calcidesi, vasi' as an amphora). Its
shape also resembles oinochoai of this Group (as Rumpf pis. 221, 222) more closely than
the 'Chalcidian'.
The results are plotted individually in Diagrams V and VI and in VII all are superimposed
on the 'Chalcidian' range. Over all a comparison with the 'Chalcidian' results shows that
pseudo-'Chalcidian' gives uniformly lower readings for Mg and Ti and generally higher ones
for Na. (23) differs from the other pseudo-'Chalcidian' in respects which, for Cr, Ca, Na, and
Ni, are very close to the 'Chalcidian' (16), but its place with the pseudo-'Chalcidian' seems
assured. Although the analyses are few there seem grounds for believing that the two series used
different, though not very different, clay beds.
Once the clay beds from all the areas which might have produced 'Chalcidian' vases have
been analysed, the problem of their origin should be solved. Rumpf thought that they were
made in homeland Chalcis, in Euboea, and we shall have later to consider what analysis can
and cannot say on that score. Dr. Walter-Karydi has more recently suggested that they are
successors to the Archaic 'Melian' vases,10 but analysis of these vases (to be published later) does
not bear this out, nor does analysis of clay and vases from Melos itself, or of pottery from Paros,
one of the proposed sources for 'Melian'. (The reader unfamiliar with Archaic Greek vases will
have become aware already of important areas of uncertainty in their study!) The local clays of
Rhegion have yet to be examined, but analyses of fifth- and fourth-century local wares from
other areas of south Italy (Apulia), to be published by Mr. Prag, give results comparable with
those for 'Chalcidian' in all except Ca, where 'Chalcidian' is generally lower. Etruria is the
other popularly supported source and local Etruscan clays have also yet to be examined. It can
at least be said that 'Chalcidian' and Pontic (a sixth-century ware certainly made in Etruria)
seem dissimilar ('Chalcidian' has far more Mg, rather less Ca).
Rumpf had affirmed a visual fabric difference between 'Chalcidian' and pseudo-'Chalcidian',11
denied by Vallet.12 Analysis suggests a difference hardly greater than there seems to be in the
style, but the geographical significance of this is hard to assess as yet, as we shall see. The minor
respects in which pseudo-'Chalcidian' differs from 'Chalcidian' bring it close to the composition
of some eighth-century vases from Veii, and Etruria has been suggested as a source for pseudo-
'Chalcidian'. But the problems of the origin of the Veii pottery (analysed for Mr. Ridgway)
cannot be discussed here. This is another area for closer study.
10
CVA Munich vi. 23 f. " In Chalkidische Vasen (1927) 167 f.
12
REA 1956, 46 f. and, on the whole problem, in Rhegion et £amle (1958) 211 ff.
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 273

EUBOEAN

An Atticizing school of black figure has been identified at Eretria, on the island of Euboea,
from a number of vases of distinctive shape and decoration found at the site.13 Their clay is
pink-red, slightly paler than Attica, occasionally even yellowish, without mica. Other vases,
from other sites or without known provenience, have been attributed to Eretria or more
generally Euboea,14 including a number which have long passed as Athenian, and which have
appeared in Beazley's lists as Attic. Mrs. Ure makes another important contribution to this
study in another article in this volume of BSA (pp. 25ff.),citing several of the pieces mentioned
below. There is a happy congruence here of results from stylistic and chemical analysis.
The black-figure vases from Eretria itself are not available for analysis, and it might seem
improper to rely on those attributed to Eretria on grounds of style for an identification of
Eretrian clay. There are, however, other sources of information for the clay used at Eretria and
at the other great Euboean city, Chalcis, which is only some 20 kilometres away to the west.
Between the cities lies the Lelantine plain and midway, on the coast, is the important Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age site of Lefkandi beside which there are rich clay beds. A Bronze Age
site at Amarynthos, east of Eretria, has also been explored.15 The following samples from the
sites named have already been examined:
(a) Lefkandi. Two samples from the modern clay beds.16 Diagram VIII (corrected).
(b) Amarynthos. Of sixteen Bronze Age sherds tested17 eleven are of the uniform composition
indicated in Diagram IX (corrected).
(c) Chalcis. Twelve Late Geometric sherds from the ancient site at Chalcis were tested for
Mr. Ridgway.18 Diagram X (corrected).
Diagrams V I I I - X can be seen to correspond closely except for the slightly higher readings in
Ti for the two samples from Lefkandi clay beds, which may not be significant. They can be
taken to indicate clearly the composition of Euboean clays in the Lelantine plain area.
Before the analyses of problem pieces are presented we should compare the three main groups
so far distinguished—the Athenian, 'Chalcidian', and Euboean. The Athenian is triumphantly
distinctive. Between the 'Chalcidian' and Euboean there is less to choose, however. The
'Chalcidian' has consistently higher readings for Mg, but we may recall that the lower Mg was
also a feature of the pseudo-'Chalcidian'. In fact the Euboean and pseudo-'Chalcidian' are
found to correspond closely except for the generally slightly lower readings in Ti for the latter.
From the analyses so far made it is not possible to say categorically that 'Chalcidian' vases
could not have been made in Euboea, but the detectable, though slight, differences, and the
apparently strong archaeological and stylistic arguments in favour of looking for the homeland
of both 'Chalcidian' and pseudo-'Chalcidian' in the west, make the proposition most unlikely.
We are faced, however, with the fact that on present evidence, which may be inadequate
either on grounds of numbers tested or of elements recorded, it would be unwise to attempt to
distinguish between Euboean black-figure products of east and west on grounds of analysis
alone.
Study of the composition of local wares of Apulia of rather later date suggests that the clays of
13
BSA xlvii (1952) 30if. (Lefkandi), 64-6 (Amarynthos); M. Popham and H.
•• Articles by D. A. Amyx, AJA xlv (1941) 64 ff.; A. D. Sackett, Excavations at Lefkandi (1968).
l6
Ure, JHS lxxx (i960) 160 ff., lxxxii (1962) 138 ff., lxxxviii Details in Archaeometry xi (1969) 8 no. 32.
(1968) 140 f., BICS vi (1959) 1 ff., xii (1965) 22 ff.; by the " Details in BSA lviii (1963) 103 ff. no. 7a, Amarynthos
writer in BSA Hi (1957) 18 ff.; D. von Bothmer, Metr. Mus. I, Group D.
l8
Journal ii (1959) 27 ff. The figures given in Archaeometry xi (1969) 8 are from
15
For the Bronze Age sites see BSA lxi (1966) 60 f. a wider choice of sherds.
D384 T
274 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER
NiO Cr,O 3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 NiO Cr 2 O 3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3
xiOOO x1OO xlOO x1O xiO xlOOO xlOO xlOO xlO xlO x1000 xlOO xlOO xlO xiO

DIAGRAM IV ; DIAGRAM V DIAGRAM VI


'CHALCIDIAN' B.F. PSEUDO-'CHALCIDIAN' B.F. - PSEUDO-'CHALCIDIAN' B.F.
RANGE OF 6 - • (22)
• (20) = (23)
• (21)

/A ^ « \i //

i,\ \\ f\ if
-\
V t i

NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI 2 O 3 NiO Cr2O3 MnO TQ MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3
1OOO xlOO x100 xlO xlO xlOOO XlOO x1OO xlO xTO xlOOO xlOO x100 xlO XlO
~I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

DIAGRAM VII DIAGRAM VIII DIAGRAM IX


^ 'CHALCIDIAN' B.F. RANGE
AND PSEUDO-'CHALCIDIAN'(l9)-(23) LEFKANDI CLAY BEDS B.A. AMARYNTHOS
• baked RANGE OF 16
» unbaked

'A
W

V—I- V—L
.NiO Cr 2 O 3 MnO TfO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI 2 O 3 NiO Cr 2 O 3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI 2 O 3 NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3
xiQOO x1QO xlOO x1O x1O XlOOO xlOO xlOO x10 x10 xlOOO x100 xlOO xlO X10

DIAGRAM X ; DIAGRAM > II :


CHALCIS GEOMETRIC • (26)
RANfiE OF 12 ° (23)
•> (30)

K$ \/J :
:
V
-

^Ul 1 1 1
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 275
NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 NiO Cr 2 O 3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 N:O Cr 2 O 3 MnO TiO, MgO CaO Na.O Fo,0, Al-O,
:1000 xlOO xlOO xlO _ XlO X1OOO x1OO xlOO x1O x1O xlOOO x100 xlOO xlO xib

D I A G R A M XIII DIAGRAM XV
f3l) EUBOEAN BF.
(32)
(33) R A N G E OF 7

\
\
A //
-\—
/ , \ //
—-//\V/--H
— . ' • -

\
; \
\
\ // V

/
w / //
/ /

\, /

NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 AI2O3 NiO O 2 0 3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O3 NiO Cr r 0j MnO TiO MgO CaO too Fe ; 0j AI;O
xiOOO xlOO xlOO xlO xlO x1000 xlOO xlOO xlO xlO iOOO r.:OQ xlOO xlO xlb

DIAGRAM XVI DIAGRAM XVII D I A G R A M XVII!


B.A.THEBES BOEOTIAN B.F. LEKANAI ;.;::::::: T M A T S O S LLASS
KANGE OF i|
RANGE OF 33
(39)

A\ /A V /

NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO 2 MgO CaO Na2O Fe2O NiO Cr2O3 MnO TiO? MgO CaO Na2O F e ^ AI2OS NiO Cr t O, MnO TiO2 MgO CaO Na ; O FH^O. AI.O.
xiOOO xlOO xlOO xlO xlO X I O O O xlOO x1OO xlO x10^ »1OOO *100 xiQO xlO x10

DIAGRAM XIX DIAGRAM XXI


3.A. MEGARA MINOA B.A. CRETE (GROUP B)
RANGE OF 15
276 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER
all this area of south Italy may bear a generic similarity to 'Chalcidian'. The results of this
study will be published elsewhere by Mr. Prag. The same problem is faced in the earlier period
in attempts to distinguish by analysis imported and local wares in the early Euboean colonies,
a study inaugurated by Mr. Ridgway. It is enough in the present context to observe how it
might affect our study of Euboea and the 'Chalcidian' workshops.
There follows individual consideration of problem pieces, all black-figure but for one seventh-
century jug and one sherd.
(24) Oxford 1960.741. Black-figure neck amphora (lip missing), PLATES 53, 54. The clay is like
Attic but the surface has a more livid, yellowish tinge. The vase was acquired by the
Ashmolean Museum in 1960 and taken for Attic by the Museum and Sir John Beazley,
although he did not attribute it to an artist or group. The writer had reservations about its
origin when it arrived, and in compiling a CVA of Attic black-figure amphorae for Oxford
became convinced, on stylistic grounds, that it was not Attic. After its analysis I learned
that Dr. von Bothmer had been inclined to associate it with the pseudo-'Chalcidian' vases.
A fuller description and study of the vase appears below (pp. 280-2). Analysis (Diagram XI)
shows its similarity to the Euboean-'Chalcidian' clays, sharing with Euboean and pseudo-
'Chalcidian' the relatively low Mg, and with 'Chalcidian' and the Lefkandi samples the
relatively high Ti. In Cr it is closer to Euboean than to pseudo-'Chalcidian'. Stylistically it
cannot belong to the main 'Chalcidian' series. Analysis tends to favour Euboea but is
indecisive on this point, for the reasons already stated. At least it is not Attic, quod erat
demonstrandum.
(25) Oxford 1971.901. Slim jug. PLATE 55a. The clay is a pale pink-buff, clean. The shape is
represented by three other vases which, on other stylistic grounds, appear to be Eretrian.19
The multiple brush patterns on the Oxford jug recall the decoration of one of these, and are
characteristic of sub-Geometric Eretrian pottery. Analysis (Diagram XI) confirms the
attribution, only the reading for Ni (where there is often considerable range) being high.
(26) Private collection. Spherical aryballos, published in BSA lii (1957) pi. 7e. The clay is pink
and clean. Stylistically the vase is attributable to Eretria for the disposition of colour in the
flower and bud frieze which is its only decoration. Analysis (Diagram XI) confirms this
with slightly high readings for Ni (as in the last) and Cr.
(27) Reading University 56.8.8. Black-figure lekane, published in Archaeological Reports for
1962-63, 58 ff. figs. 10, 11, and BICS xii (1965) pis. 1-3. The clay resembles Attic. The
vase was attributed to Eretria by Mrs. Ure on grounds of style, and this is confirmed by
analysis (Diagram XII), though a little low in Ca, high in Ni.
(28) Reading University 27.4.11. Black-figure kotyle, published in CVA i pi. 16.7 and BICS vi
(1959) 2 f. pi. 1.2. The clay is 'pale darkened to a warm reddish-buff'. The vase was first
attributed to Boeotia by Mrs. Ure. Analysis reveals close similarity to Euboean (Diagram
XII) though a little low in Ca.
Dolphin Group lekythoi. Von Bothmer has suggested that all of this group of lekythoi, taken as
Attic by Haspels and Beazley, are of Euboean origin.20 Beazley agreed that many were (in
Paralipomena 199) and Mrs. Ure has studied them further in this volume (pp. 29-30). One example
in Oxford and one in Reading were tested:
19
Louvre CA 2365 (BSA xlvii (1952) pi. 7), Berlin 2664 (BSA lii (1957) 16 fig. 2), Athens 2244 (ibid., pi. 2 f; from
2
Tanagra). ° Metr. Mus. Journal ii (1969) 33, 38.
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 277

(29) Oxford 1937.301. ABV 457, 17; Paralipomena 199.


(30) Reading University 26.12.8. E. Haspels, ABL 193, 5; ABV 698, %bis; Paralipomena 199;
CVAipl. 11.6.
The clays look like Attic. Analysis suggests (Diagram XII) that both are Euboean, although (29)
is slightly low in Fe and (30) a little low in Ca, high in Ni.
(31) Reading University 51.4.8. Black-figure hydria. ABV 458, 25 (Dolphin Group); von
Bothmer, Met. Mus. Journal ii (1969) 32 no. 8. Here, PLATE 10b. Attributed to Eretria by
Mrs. Ure (see p. 30) on grounds of style, confirmed by analysis (Diagram XIII).
(32) Reading University 60.8.2. Black-figure hydria. Paralipomena 200, 6 (related to the Dolphin
Group). Here, PLATE 10a. Attributed to Eretria by Mrs. Ure on grounds of style (see p. 30),
confirmed by analysis (Diagram XIII) though a little low in Ca, high in Ni.
(33) Oxford 1925.141, from Athens. Black-figure oinochoe, published in CVA ii pi. 13.3; Beaz-
ley ABV 420, 1 (Class of the Oxford Siren Jug), noting its relationship to the Dolphin
Group of lekythoi; and in Paralipomena 178, declaring that it belongs to that group. See also
Mrs. Ure, here, p. 30. The clay resembles Attic, somewhat paler. The relationship to the
Dolphin Group, observed by Beazley, calls into consideration the possible Euboean origin
of this vase, confirmed by analysis (Diagram XIII). Beazley made a similar observation
(in ABV, Paralipomena) about another jug of this class, now in Leningrad. It was found at
Olbia, in south Russia, which has already proved the source of attributed Eretrian black
figure.21
(34) Reading University 51.1.4. Black-figure plate, published in BICSvi (1959) 2 f. pi. 3.5. The
clay resembles Attic. Attributed by Mrs. Ure to Boeotia. Analysis (Diagram XIV) shows
a composition very close to Attic.
(35) Manchester University Museum. Black-figure hydria from Veii, published in AJA xlviii
(1944) 253 figs. 2, 3. ABV 91, 3 (The Atalanta Group). Von Bothmer suggested that this
might be Euboean,22 but analysis (Diagram XIV) indicates rather Attic, or at least not the
Euboean groups and vases so far tested.
(36) Oxford 1957.32. PLATE 55^>. Black-figure oinochoe (chous) published in Ashmolean Museum
Visitors Report for 1957 pi. 4a. The clay is pale red. The jug, which is further discussed
below (p. 283) was taken for Boeotian or Euboean. Analysis (Diagram XIV) shows it to be
probably Attic.
(37) Oxford 1948.282. PLATE 55c. Fragment of conical stand, from the Argive Heraeum,
bought at Mycenae. The fragment (width 8 cm.) clearly belongs to the decorated stand
found in the excavations at the Argive Heraeum and published by C. Waldstein in The
Argive Heraeum ii. 161 pi. 67, and later by J. M. Cook in BSA xxxv (1934-35) 191 pi. 52. We
see the crossing legs of warriors from one of the central friezes (ibid. pi. 52a, centre frieze;
g, lower frieze). Payne and Cook recognized the piece as Attic, but Argive pottery decor-
ated in a roughly comparable style has become better known in recent years, and the
possibility that the Heraeum stand should be added to the list requires consideration.
Courbin gives a good account of the history of the stand in BCHhadx (1955) 10—12, with
fig. 9, and a description of the fabric on p. 10, n. 7, taking it for 'perhaps Attic'. Analysis
(Diagram XIV) shows that the Oxford fragment is far closer to Attic, despite high readings
21
Archaeological Reports for 1962-63, 42 f. fig. 21, and JHS lxxxii (1962) 139. See also Mrs. Ure in this volume,
Mrs. Ure, ibid. 56, hydria from Berezan, the island site p. 31.
near Olbia. AA 1912, 360 fig. 50, lekythos from Olbia, » Metr. Mus. Journal ii (1969) 30.
278 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER
in Cr and Ca, than to the Argive and other Peloponnesian Bronze Age pottery which has
been tested.23
Style and analysis have combined to confirm the Euboean origin of a number of the pieces
discussed. Seven of them (25-8, 31-3) have been chosen to form the basis of a composition range
diagram (XV), which may be taken to demonstrate the apparent composition of clays used
in the sixth century, and compared with Diagrams VIII-X, from other periods. The slightly
higher range for Cr and Ni, and low for Ca, may be noted.
This leaves one or two vases whose home is not obvious stylistically, yet whose clays do not
appear to match exactly either the Attic or the Euboean norm. Geology is not bound by political
frontiers, but political frontiers are often determined by geology. However, Attica is a large
area, and 'provincial' workshops on the straits opposite Euboea might have used clay beds
which match the Euboean better than the Athenian, or may have brought clay across the water.
Boeotia, a strongly Atticizing area in the black-figure period, yet also a source for demonstrably
Euboean pottery, certainly had many black-figure workshops in the sixth century, almost
certainly operating in several different places. Analyses of Boeotian wares are being undertaken
by the Louvre Museum and we may hope that they will throw light also on the Euboean-Attic
problems. Our only contribution to this study is to publish a corrected diagram for thirty-three
Bronze Age sherds from Thebes, which are thought to represent local ware24 (Diagram XVI).
It will be noted that the pattern is not unlike that for Bronze Age Perati (Diagram III). The
analyses of two of the well-known class of Boeotian 'orientalizing' black-figure lekanai are given
in Diagram XVII. The vases are:
(38) Reading University 53.8.3. Published in Archaeological Reports for 1962-63, 57 fF. figs. 8, 9.
(39) Reading University 27.4.8. Published in Met. Mus. Stud, iv (1932) 30 fig. 20; CVA i pi. 17.2.
There is some divergence between the two specimens, but they correspond fairly well, and are
not far from Attic composition. They are quite unlike the Euboean, which is promising for
further research in this area.

II. P R O T O C O R I N T H I A N AND T H E T H A P S O S CLASS


The Thapsos Class of vases has been most recently described by Coldstream in his Greek
Geometric Pottery 102-4, and taken for a variety of Corinthian pottery of the second half of the
eighth century. Its colour is generally the same as Protocorinthian, but there are differences in
texture which argue different treatment in the kiln, and since the range of shapes, decoration,
and distribution for the class differ somewhat from those of 'mainstream' Corinthian, and none
has so far been published from Corinth itself, the possibility of a different place of origin seems
worth investigating by analysis.
Diagram XVIII gives the composition range pattern for sixteen fragments of Protocorinthian
(four from Ischia, the rest from sites in Greece), shown against the range offered by eleven
fragments of the Thapsos Class (six from Megara Hyblaea and five from Ischia). The analyses
are listed as (40) and (41). The only obvious difference is that the mean of readings for Na in the
Thapsos Class is double that for Protocorinthian, but the ranges overlap.
The writer had suggested in Gnomon xlii (1970) 496 that the Thapsos Class might have been
manufactured in Megara. Megara is not far from Corinth: is its clay different? Fifteen Bronze
Age sherds from Megara Minoa had previously been tested25 and the corrected range is shown
23 2
BSA lviii (1963) 104fif.,Group A. * Archaeometry viii (1965) 19 ff. Type B*.
25
BSA lviii (1963) 105 ff. no. 4. The readings are corrected here.
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 279

TABLE OF ANALYSES

NiO Cr 2 O 3 MnO TiO a MgO CaO Na2O Fe 2 O 3 A1 2 O,


(0 00330 0-065 0-078 o-gi 4-8 38 090 6-9 15-5
(2) 0-0340 0-068 0-098 o-95 5-i 4-9 082 7-1 17-1
(3) 0-0290 0-046 0080 084 4'5 47 0-92 6-o 14-6
(4) 0-0390 0-076 0081 o-95 5'5 7'4 I-I2 7-9 16-7
(5) 00430 0079 0096 083 3-4 4'9 O- 9 8 g-6 16-4
(6) 0-0390 0-087 0-094 1-13 4-4 5-8 I-IO 1 0 0 ig-8
(7) 0-0400 0-073 0085 O'93 5-i 41 I-IO 6-6 16-9
(8) 0-0310 0068 0079 0-96 5'5 4-6 o-88 7'9 186
(9) 00330 0-073 0-078 o-gi 5'i 4-0 091 7-3 16-4
(10) 0-0390 0-068 0-069 092 5-i 4'5 O'95 6-6 18-6
( » ) 0-0320 0-064 0-105 o-gi 48 4-3 1 05 6-g 16-4
(12) 00240 0-048 0065 o-75 4-1 37 o-68 47 13-1
/ ( i ) - ( i 2 ) range 0-035 0-068 0084 092 4'9 4'7 °-95 7-3 16-7
±0-007 ±0-016 ±0-015 ±O-I2 ±o-8 ± 2-5
I ± i-4 ±0-18 ± 2-O
(13) 00090 < 0-026 0081 o-8o 37 5'4 •17 6-g 20-9
(14) 00060 0-034 0086 o-81 4'3 6-o •40 6-2 20-7
(15) 0-0082 < 0-026 0-093 o-gi 4'5 4'9 •25 97 24-4
(16) 0-0094 <OO26 0-084 082 4'i 3'i •17 8-g 23-9
(17) 00068 0038 0083 082 4-i 4-6 •25 7-6 25-2
(18) 00110 0052 0090 o-88 4-0 37 •r5 99 23-2
/(i3)-(!8) range 00084 0086 084 4'i 4-6 •23 82 23-0
( ±0-0027 ±0-006 ±0-06 ±0-4 ± 1-2 ±0-13 ± 2-2 ± 2-8
(19) 00058 OOIO 0098 o-6o 2-4 6-2 2-25 6-1 158
(20) 0-0084 O-OI2 0106 °-59 2-3 4-1 2-70 7-8 16-3
(21) 0-0068 0-013 0-076 058 3-0 3-6 1-50 7'5 18-2
(22) 0-0087 0014 0-087 063 30 6-5 1 -38 10-4 190
(23) 0011 0021 0-082 o-6o 2-8 2-6 1-07 8-2 19-1
IDiagram X range 0012 0-02O 0-104 0-70 2-4 6-4 1-26 91 22-1
±0-005 ±0-008 ±0-014 ±0-07 ±0-3 ± I-I ±0-28 ± 1-2 ± 17
I (24) 0-0078 0028 0-085 083 2-8 6-5 1-25 7-8 20-2
(25) 0024 0026 0-123 082 2-6 5'4 i-53 80 2OO
(26) 00172 0039 0096 0-93 3-0 57 1-67 7-8 2I-O
(27) 0-0178 0-024 0-098 0-74 2-7 3'4 i-35 8-6 193
(28) 00114 0019 0-103 o-68 2-7 3-i 1-62 6-7 19-2
(29) 0-0104 0025 0-083 0-72 i-7 4-2 i'55 4'9 160
(30) 0-0163 0028 0092 0-77 2-4 2-6 i-73 6-7 186
(3i) 00069 0-034 O-IO2 0-76 3-2 6-9 I-2I 7-3 208
(32) O-02OO 0029 0-103 0-76 2-5 3'3 1-28 8-3 20-0
(33) O-OI23 0032 OO92 o-8i 2-2 4'5 1-25 78 ig-8
(34) 0-0365 0-060 OO78 o-86 4'7 5'4 1-08 7-2 2 0 0

(35) 0-0380 0060 0-074 0-79 43 5'5 095 no 168


(36) 0-0320 0-065 OO83 0-97 37 4'4 1 1 0 7-8 178
(37) 0-0440 0-096 0-083 1-13 4'7 82 1 1 0 8-g 178
f Diagram X V range 0-0157 0029 0-102 079 2-7 4-6 1-42 78 2 0 0
±0-0083 ±0-010 ±O-OI4 ±o-n ±0-5 ± 2-1 ±0-27 ± o-9 ± i-o
(38) 0-0575 0058 O-O93 089 5'5 8-8 0-76 140 I9-4
(39) 0040 0044 0-065 ogo 2-7 7-0 168 9-i 161
f Diagram X V I I I range 0-028 0-039 o-i 14 1-03 3-i I5-5 °-99 9'4 20-8
I Protocorinthian (40) ±0-009 ±o-on ±0-029 ±0-23 ±t>-3 ± 3'8 ±o-6i ± 17 ± 2-6
[Diagram XVIII range OO2O 0-042 0-104 0-84 2-9 16-2 1 64 7'5 182
[Thapsos Class (41) ±0-007 ±0010 ±0-014 ±0-09 ±0-4 ± 5-2 ±0-63 ± 1-2 ± 1-6
(42) 0-042 0-052 0093 1-17 5'2 10-2 1-46 111 180
(43) 0-040 0-063 O-IO2 1-17 4'9 9-i 1-72 iog 17-8
(44) 0043 0-053 O-O93 1-13 4'9 IO-2 1 •58 I2-O 17-0
280 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER
in Diagram XIX. It corresponds closely with the ranges in Diagram XVIII, Na being medial.
The composition, however, is that of Bronze Age pottery from the Argolid to the Megarid,
including Corinth,26 but we cannot be sure that the tested Megara pieces were made locally. If
they were, analysis is not likely to help solve this problem unless other trace elements prove
decisive, or a higher relative Na level for Megara is demonstrated, and the strong stylistic
distinction remains.
III. CRETAN POTTERY FROM TOCRA
A small group of vases from the School's excavations at Tocra in Cyrenaica was identified as
Cretan, in Tocra i (1966) 78-80, on grounds of shape and style, although no exactly comparable
finds of that date (early sixth century) had been made in the island, and there were strange
elements in their decoration which recalled Minoan patterns.27 Confirmation seemed desirable
and three pieces were tested:
(42) Tocra i no. 921. Hydria.
(43) Tocra i no. 924. Jug.
(44) Tocra ii no. 2103.
The results are plotted individually in Diagram XX. A large number of Cretan Bronze Age
sherds have been analysed and a common composition for sites in Central Crete and the north-
east has been established (for Knossos, Tylissos, Gournia, A. Triada), 28 shown in Diagram XXI.
Clearly the Cretan origin of the Tocra Group may be accepted.
J . BOARDMAN
F. SCHWEIZER
APPENDIX
Oxford i960.J41. The Melchett amphora, PLATES 53, 54
The neck amphora was formerly in the Melchett Collection and illustrated by Eugenie
Strong in her 1928 Catalogue of that collection, pi. 41 no. 45, where the neck is shown restored
and misleadingly overpainted with a pattern of rays. The clay and its analysis have been reported
above (24) .29
Of the neck enough is preserved to show that
it was decorated with a palmette and lotus
interlace cross with spiral corners, of a type
familiar on many Attic Tyrrhenian amphorae.
The lotus has a central spike or leaf—the scheme
is shown in FIG. I. The handles are triple-
reeded, and below them are painted forked
tendrils bearing flowers with white centre pieces, and palmettes in the forks, with red hearts
and centre leaves. Below this is a downward-pointing bud. Above the figure scenes runs a row
of alternating black and red-on-black tongues; below them, a frieze of linked red-on-black buds
and flowers with white centre pieces. There are rays above a bold red-painted fillet at the foot,
which is black, with a concave top. The surface of the vase has flaked badly.
On A there is a fight over a fallen man. All wear Corinthian helmets (two with high crests
painted white, one with a low crest painted white and red) and greaves, and carry hoplite
26
Ibid. 105 f. Group A. 96 fig. id.
2
" The writer, in Acta of the Second Cretological Conference i « Height preserved 28-0 cm. Painted within the neck to
(1967) 134-6. its base.
28
BSA lviii (1963) 109 f. Group B; Archaeometry ix (1966)
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 281

shields and spears. The fighters have swords slung from a white baldric and with white chapes.
The one on the left wears a bell corslet over a short chiton, the one on the right a short red
chiton. His shield device is a white lyre with plektron, with a border of dots, and that of the
fallen man a snake. The interior of the other warrior's shield is painted red, with a fine white
porpax and the antilabe attached very close to the rim.
On B three maenads dance. All wear chitons, but the sleeves of the third are tight and short,
the upper part of her dress is painted red, and the skirt covered with red blobs. While the others
have projecting fillets on their heads, she wears her hair bound up at the back. All have incised
necklets and triple-dot ear-rings. All play clappers—the central pair red. The outer two wear
animal skins, one red, over their chitons. Their eyes have black pupils.
The vase is not Attic—this much the eye can suspect and analysis has confirmed. But the
composition of its clay is not decisive between pseudo-'Chalcidian' and Euboean, so we have to
turn to stylistic criteria, with an eye also to the 'Chalcidian' and Attic features which may have
inspired the work, and, for good measure, to Boeotia.
First, its neck and handles. The palmette-lotus cross with spiral corners is quite unfamiliar in
this or any other position in 'Chalcidian' or pseudo-'Chalcidian'. It is commonplace in Attic,
notably on Tyrrhenian vases or the work of artists like the Camtar Painter, of the second quarter
and middle of the sixth century, on amphora necks or in animal friezes. In Euboea it is borrowed
for the Eretrian Wedding Amphora, although in a different, unincised technique, and for the
lekane, Reading 56.6.8, whose Euboean origin was suspected on grounds of style and confirmed
by analysis (27).30 On Boeotian black-figure lekanai the compositions are different again, and
spirals rare as corner pieces, but the general type is known.31 We cannot be sure that the upper
corners of the complex on the Oxford vase were not occupied by flowers rather than spirals.
The lotus has a central leaf or spike. This is normal in Attic down to about 550, already being
omitted often by that date. It is normal on the Boeotian lekanai, which are dated in the third
quarter of the century. It is never met in 'Chalcidian', but in pseudo-'Chalcidian' it can be
found twice in the Polyphemos Group.32
The handles are triple-reeded. This construction has a long history in east Greece but appears
for neck amphorae in Athens little before the mid century on some Tyrrhenian vases (double-
reeded) and soon becomes normal. So by Attic standards this combination of handle and neck
pattern suggests a date of about 550. Reeded handles for amphorae are unknown in 'Chalcidian'
or pseudo-'Chalcidian', where the neck amphora shape is common, but are found on an attri-
buted Euboean amphora (in the Louvre). The handles run down the sides of the neck on to the
shoulder. This is an unusual treatment, although standard Attic neck amphorae of the second
half of the century come close to this, especially the Affecter's.33 The handles of a Boston neck
amphora, taken for Eretrian, are also like this.34
We turn to the other florals. A floral cross or fork attached to the handle is not seen on
'Chalcidian' or pseudo-'Chalcidian' vases, where any floral, even unattached, is very rare in
this position." The handle scheme is commonplace in Attic, but with palmettes only, not flowers.
Independent of the handles the flower terminals are, of course, common in 'Chalcidian' and on
the Boeotian lekanai.
The flowers in the handle complex have the bulging calyx haft characteristic of 'Chalcidian'
30
Pictures of these features conveniently in BICS xii ii pis. 61.3, 4; 62.
33
(1965) pi. 3.1-3. e.g. CVA Munich vii pis. 332, 336.
31 3
Metr. Mus. Stud, iv (1932) 25fig.9, where the centre * Metr. Mus. Journal ii (1969) 30fig.5.
bottom member is a palmette, not a lotus, and the upper 35 Unattached floral cross on Rumpf, pi. 46 (22).
corners have flowers. Vertical pendent florals of a quite different type, ibid. pis.
32
Rumpf, pis. 204-5 (Vatican 223); and CVA Adolphseck 52 (35), 84 (50) and in pseudo-'Chalcidian', pi. 212 (XI).
282 J. BOARDMAN AND F. SCHWEIZER
but generally ignored in Attic, where there is often found no more than a pair of incised lines
beneath flowers and buds—exactly the scheme of the floral band lower down on the Oxford
vase.36 The double incision, without the bulge, is seen on the Boeotian lekanai;37 and with the
bulge (as under the handles of the Oxford vase), on the amphora in Boston, attributed to
Eretria and already mentioned for its handles.38 The colourful floral band on the belly of our
vase is a type current on Attic vases through the second quarter of the century, but no later; not
on 'Chalcidian' but common on pseudo-'Chalcidian' of the Polyphemos Group where, however,
the centrepiece is drop-shaped, not a wedge.39
The horizontal, concave top to the foot is odd. Most 'Chalcidian' amphorae have a steeper or
convex profile, but some poorer late examples approach this.40
Finally, the figure scenes. The pseudo-'Chalcidian' vases follow this scheme of a deep frieze
below tongues, as do very many Attic, and only the main 'Chalcidian' series prefers a separate
shoulder frieze with figures or florals. Our artist cannot be faulted for composition. On one side,
the precise symmetry of the fight, with the geometrical balance of the three shields.41 On the
other, the three dancers whose differing actions and glances neatly interlock to fill the field.
Beside them the usual Attic or 'Chalcidian'42 dancers look positively arthritic. On 'Chalcidian'
the dress for maenads is quite different and on pseudo-'Chalcidian' they wear peploi.43 For dress
and manner they are far closer to the Attic of the third quarter of the century, and given the
other comparanda with Attic already observed, it is difficult to date the vase much after the

Where was it painted? Clearly not in the Attic, Boeotian, 'Chalcidian', pseudo-'Chalcidian'
(the Polyphemos Group is apparently the work of one man), 44 or Eretrian workshops as we
know them. Our mainland comparisons are far more numerous and more telling than the
western 'Chalcidian' or pseudo-'Chalcidian'. Clay composition hints at Euboea. I would have
expected a vase painter at Chalcis in Euboea to display just this degree of deviation from Attic,
with echoes of styles practised in Eretria and Boeotia, and nothing of Corinth. One of the ones
who stayed at home—whose further work or influence was either cut short or has yet to be
discovered?
36 For this feature in 'Chalcidian' and Attic see H. R. W. It is generally agreed that the Polyphemos Group is more
S m i t h , The Origin of Chalcidian Ware g i . strongly Atticizing than the main 'Chalcidian' series, yet
37
Metr. Mus. Stud, iv (1932) 27 fig. 16, 31fig.2 1 . closely linked to it, old-fashioned, and comparatively late
38
Above, n. 34. (last third of the sixth century). If it is so late (and I am not
39
e.g. R u m p f pis. 211-19. wholly convinced—Rumpf suggested c. 530) I do not see
40
As R u m p f pis. 60 (30), 67 (33), 68 (34), 139 (151). how it could exhibit long-out-of-date Attic features (the
41
The fallen warrior on his hands and knees is a little centre leaf or spike and patterned bands on the lotuses)
unusual but can be matched in 'Chalcidian': Rumpf, pi. 7 unless it was either made in an area of mainland Greece
(3) for Eurytion, and cf. pis. 115 (65), 218 (XVII); and in where such features lingered, as they did in Boeotia and at
Attic, e.g., for another Eurytion, ABV 133, 8 (D. M. Eretria, or by an emigrant (presumably to Italy) from that
Buitron, Attic Vase Painting in New England Collections (1972) area (presumably Chalcis) at a date appreciably later than
28 f. n o . 10). that of the inception of the main 'Chalcidian' series. Either
42 circumstance would explain some similarities to the Oxford
As Rumpf, pis. 27-30 (Kunstwerke der Antike, Coll.
K a p p e l i , D 23) a n d K . Schefold, Meisterwerke n o . 153. vase. The earliest of the Polyphemos Group would be the
« Rumpf pis. 206 (III), 216 (XV). Vatican (Rumpf II) and Adolphseck (above) vases, but even
44 if they are brought nearer the mid century their connection
Some examples published since Rumpf:
P. E. Corbett, BMQ_x\r'\ (1951) 74-6 pi. 27. with the rest of the series is clear, since similar archaizing
CVA Adolphseck ii pis. 61.3, 4; 62. features persist (the colourful florals, the animals with the
D. von Bothmer, Metr. Mus. Bull, iv (1947) 131 ff. (New old Attic double shoulder line) and Rumpf's arguments for
York 46.11.5). a single hand remain unshaken. All this indicates an artist
Miinzen und Medaillen Auktion xi no. 315. who did not take much notice of the styles affected by the
G. Vallet, REA 1956, 42 ff. (Louvre Campana 10498, 'Chalcidian' series in the 530s; perhaps a man who learned
10532). something, but not enough, from the artist of the Melchett
Reading University, see above, analysis (23). amphora.
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY 283

Oxford 1957-32. Black-figure oinochoe. PLATE


The presumed Boeotian or Euboean origin for this jug had been encouraged by the appear-
ance of similar pieces at the Theban Cabirion. Its lip is black. The clay is clean, orange-red.
The figures stand on an irregular ground line over two broad stripes and a black foot. Two men
with short beards are shown, running forward and holding upright, in both hands, a stick or
branch from which hangs a mass with a wavy outline, covered with light incisions and white
dots. The men have fillets wound around their bodies and over their arms but are otherwise
naked. Between them is a U-shaped motif in line and dots, and before each of them, at thigh
level, are short upright strokes, four in front of the leader, two in front of his follower.
Analysis has shown the vase to be probably Attic (36), certainly not Euboean and not
demonstrably Boeotian. The shape has an unusually varied career in fifth-century Athens (we
can hardly take this style of black figure to be any earlier) not only with the prolific red-figure
jugs which have been associated with the Anthesteria by various scholars,45 but also in a class of
Haimonian vases with added red figures,46 and others with polychrome comedy scenes.47 We
may be encouraged to look for an explanation of the scene on the Oxford vase in terms of
Athenian cult or myth. We see two men carrying long stems from which hang heavy shapeless
masses which look most like bunches of grapes. They recall the Athenian festival of the Oscho-
phoria.43 The cbcrxoi are the new tendrils with the grapes upon them, and the way the artist
shows both the length of the shoot and the mass of the grapes suggests that he had just this in
mind. Ancient writers say that the oschophoroi were young men dressed as women. Ours are
bearded and stark naked—nearer satyrs than transvestites—mortals, but they have no tails.
This was obviously a vinous festival and the translation of the oschophoroi into elderly komasts,
if not satyrs, would be easy to understand. The details we have about the Oschophoria are all
late and we should not perhaps rule out the possibility that in the sixth and fifth centuries the
oschophoroi appeared as Dionysiac attendants and may even have been dressed as satyrs,
although it is less likely that they would have been in later days. This is the period of the satyr
plays and of the great popularity of satyr players with the vase painters, who do not always
bother to indicate the clothing required to fasten on the animal and other members.49 The
transvestite behaviour of the oschophoroi as later recorded is also Dionysiac.50
The Oxford jug may carry others with it as Attic rather than Boeotian, for example another
Oxford jug which shows a young excited (like a satyr) dancer with a jug before him,51 or the jug
in Athens with a woman approaching a pot on a stand, which was found in Athens but has been
associated with the finds at the Theban Cabirion.52
J. BOARDMAN

45
M o s t fully b y G . v a n H o o r n i n Choes and Anthesteria Dionysos could impersonate satyrs in the Anthesteria,
(1951). But dissociated b y R u m p f in Bonner Jahrbiicher clxi accompanying the god on his ship car through the streets of
(1961) 208-14. Athens; see J. Boardman, JHS lxxviii (1958) 6 f.
46 50
J . R . Green, AA 1970. 475 ff. H . K e n n e r , Das Phdnomen der verkehrten Welt in der
47
M . Crosby, Hesperia xxiv (1955) 76 ff. griechisch-romischen Antike (1970) 112.
48 51
L. Deubner, Attische Feste 142-7 a n d in Abhandl. Preuss. Oxford 1966.1007, Ashmolean Museum, Beazley Gifts
Akad. Wiss. 1943.12, ' D a s attische Weinlesefest'. igi2-66p\. 8.95, as Boeotian.
49 s2
I n general see F . Brommer, Satyrspiele (1959) a n d Athens 1721; van Hoorn, op. cit. 68 no. 68; P. Wolters
A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens and G. Bruns, Das Kabironheiligtum bei Theben i (1940) 126
(1968). In the later sixth century it seems that priests of pi. 61.6; S. Karouzou, AJA 1 (1946) 130 n. 48.
td
C/2

ON
00

(*)
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY
Oxford 1960.741 >
H
w
Ui
PLATE 54
B.S.A.

(*)
CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY
Oxford 1960.741
B.S.A. 68 PLATE 55

CLAY ANALYSES OF ARCHAIC GREEK POTTERY


(a) Oxford 1971.901; (A) Oxford 1957.32; (c) Oxford 1948.282

You might also like