Ancient West & East, Volume 4, No 1 9004141766, 9789004141766

Citation preview

ANCIENT WEST & EAST VOLUME 4, NO. 1

Academic Periodical

ANCIENT WEST & EAST Monograph Supplement: COLLOQUIA PONTICA editor-in-chief

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (AUSTRALIA) editors

A. Avram (Romania/France) – Sir John Boardman (UK) O. Bopearachchi (France) – J. Bouzek (Czech Rep.) – A. ÇilingiroÅlu (Turkey) – B. d’Agostino (Italy) – F. De Angelis (Canada) – A. Domínguez (Spain) – O. Doonan (USA) – M. Fischer (Israel) – J.Hargrave (UK) J. Hind (UK) – M. Kazanski (France) – A.Podossinov (Russia) D. Ridgway (UK) – N. Theodossiev (Bulgaria) – A.Wilson (UK) advisory board P. Alexandrescu (Romania) – S. Atasoy (Turkey) – L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain) A.D.H. Bivar (UK) – S. Burstein (USA) – J. Carter (USA) – B. Cunliffe (UK) J. de Boer (The Netherlands) – P. Dupont (France) – A. Fol (Bulgaria) – J. Fossey (Canada) I. Gagoshidze (Georgia) – E. Haerinck (Belgium) – V. Karageorghis (Cyprus) M. Kerschner (Austria/Germany) – A. Kuhrt (UK) – I. Malkin (Israel) – F. Millar (UK) J.-P. Morel (France) – R. Olmos (Spain) – A. Rathje (Denmark) – A. Sagona (Australia) A. Snodgrass (UK) – S. Solovyov (Russia) – D. Stronach (USA) – M.A. Tiverios (Greece) M. Vassileva (Bulgaria) – A. Wasowicz (Poland) All correspondence should be addressed to: Aquisitions Editor/Classical Studies Brill Academic Publishers Plantijnstraat 2 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden The Netherlands Fax: +31 (0)71 5317532 E-Mail: [email protected] or Gocha R. Tsetskhladze Centre for Classics and Archaeology The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia Tel: +61 3 83445565 Fax: +61 3 83444161 E-Mail: [email protected]

ANCIENT WEST & EAST VOLUME 4, NO. 1

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN 1570–1921 ISBN 90 04 14176 6 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Editorial ...................................................................................................... G.R. Tsetskhladze

vii

Articles M. Kerschner and U. Schlotzhauer, A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery ............................................................ 1 M. Valdés Guía, The Cult of Aglauros (and Aphrodite) in Athens and in Salamis of Cyprus: Reflections on the Origin of the Genos of the Salaminioi ............................................................................ 57 M. Damyanov, Necropoleis and Ionian Colonisation in the Black Sea ................................................................................................ 77 R.A. Kearsley, Women and Public Life in Imperial Asia Minor: Hellenistic Tradition and Augustan Ideology ...................................... 98 M.P. Abramova†, Idiosyncracies of the Formation Process of the North Caucasian Alan Culture (Based on Archaeological Data) 122 Notes J. Hind, Archaic Scythia: Neither Scythia nor Archaic? (Herodotus, Hist. 4. 99. 2) .................................................................... 141 J.H. Shanks, Alexander the Great and Zeus Ammon: A New Interpretation of the Phalerae from Babyna Mogila .............. 146 P. Magee, Columned Halls, Bridge-Spouted Vessels, C 14 Dates and the Chronology of the East Arabian Iron Age: A Response to Some Recent Comments by O. Muscarella in Ancient West & East ............................................................................................ 160 Book Reviews West and East: A Review Article (4) (G.R. Tsetskhladze) .......................... Recent Romanian Publications (Z.H. Archibald) ............................................ New Publications on Murals (F.R. Serra Ridgway) .................................... B.A. Barletta, The Origins of the Greek Architectural Orders (R.A. Tomlinson) .................................................................................. A.K. Bowman, H.M. Cotton, M. Goodman and S. Price (eds.), Representations of Empire (R. Alston) ........................................................ G. Bradley, Ancient Umbria (P. Milnes-Smith) .......................................... A.J. Clark and J. Gaunt (eds.) (with B. Gilman), Essays in Honor of Dietrich von Bothmer ( J. Boardman) .................................................... K. Clarke, Between Geography and History (R. Alston) .............................. E. Csapo and M.C. Miller (eds.), Poetry, Theory, Praxis ( J. Boardman) ........................................................................................

171 175 179 182 184 185 188 188 190

vi

CONTENTS

A.A. Donohue and M. Fullerton (eds.), Ancient Art and Its Historiography ( J. Boardman) .................................................................. E.R.M. Dusinberre, Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis (M. Weiskorf ) ........................................................................................ J. Fejfer, T. Fischer-Hansen and A. Rathje (eds.), The Rediscovery of Antiquity ( J. Boardman) .......................................................................... J. Fornasier and B. Böttger (eds.), Das Bosporanische Reich (S.M. Burstein) ...................................................................................... K. Geus and K. Zimmermann (eds.), Punica-Libyca-Ptolemaica (C. Sagona) ............................................................................................ E. Haerinck, The Tombs (P. Magee) ........................................................ M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis ( J. Boardman) .......................................................... W. Held, Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet (R. Nicholls) ........................ V. Karageorghis (ed.), The Greeks beyond the Aegean ( J. Boardman) ........ V.I. Kozenkova, U istokov gorskogo mentaliteta (S.L. Dudarev) .................. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City ( J. Tuck) .... L. Moscati-Castelnuovo (ed.), Identità e Prassi Storica nel Mediterraneo ...... Greco (A. Snodgrass) .............................................................................. D.T. Potts (ed.), Ingenious Man, Inquisitive Soul ( J. Boardman) ................ J. Prevas, Xenophon’s March into the Lair of the Persian Lion (C. Tuplin) .............................................................................................. W. Regter, Imitation and Creation (D. Ridgway) ........................................ C. Rolley (ed.), La tombe princière de Vix ( J. Boardman) .......................... B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner (eds.), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen ...... Kontext ( J. Boardman) ............................................................................ St John Simpson (ed.), Queen of Sheba (B. Overlaet) .............................. K. Smoláriková, Abusir VII: Greek Imports in Egypt ( J. Boardman) ........ V. Tosto, The Black-Figure Pottery Signed NIKOSYENESEPOIESEN (D. Ridgway) .......................................................................................... M.J. Versluys, Aegyptiaca Romana (C. Vout) .............................................. V.M. Zubar and A.I. Khvorostyanyi, Ot yazychestva k khristianstvu (L.G. Khroushkova) ..............................................................................

191 192 195 195 196 198 200 202 205 206 208 209 210 211 213 215 215 216 218 219 221 223

New Publications Albanian Archaeology (O. Lafe) ..............................................................

229

Books Received ..............................................................................................

235

In the Next Issue ..........................................................................................

239

Notes to Contributors ......................................................................................

241

EDITORIAL From this year we are introducing a list of standard abbreviations of journals and other publications to be used in place of full titles and descriptions in all subsequent issues of AWE and Occasional Papers. (The list is at pp. 248–54 below.) We have also modified slightly our Notes to Contributors. The revised version is published at pp. 241–54. The modified Notes and the list of abbreviations can be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief, the other Editors, members of the Advisory Board, or directly from the Classics Editor at Brill. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze Editor-in-Chief

A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY* MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND UDO SCHLOTZHAUER Abstract At present, we are faced with several competing classifications of East Greek pottery of the Archaic period. New finds and recent research have, however, shown that all of them have grave deficiencies. A new approach is, therefore, made in this paper to a classification system that, for the first time, comprises all classes of East Greek ceramics, figural and ornamental, banded as well as unpainted wares, within a homogeneous framework. The basic principle of the new system is a division according to production places or regions on the one hand and, on the other, a separation according to chronological periods and phases. The definitions are flexible in terms of their precision, and the classification can, therefore, be adapted if and when further progress in research should make this necessary. To a large extent the new system is compatible with the classification of R.M. Cook. The present article uses the painted pottery of South Ionia as a template with which to explain the proposed new classification.

The study of East Greek pottery is beset by a non-homogeneous terminology and several competing classification systems. These make it rather difficult to find one’s way about in this complicated and multifaceted field of Greek pottery, which is probably the reason why some scholars who are not specialists in this matter are still using general terms such as ‘East Greek’ or ‘Rhodian’ in order to avoid the current terminology which is often confusing and imprecise, sometimes even contradictory. The effort necessary to understand the existing classification systems might indeed be partly responsible for the backwardness of our knowledge of the pottery of the East Aegean compared with that of other Greek regions. The history of the research of East Greek pottery and its inherent problems have been discussed in detail elsewhere.1 To sum up, the main difficulties of the classification systems so far proposed are either that they largely disregard regional differentiation (R.M. Cook, W. Schiering)2 or that they lack some form of coherent chronological structure (H. Walter, E. Walter-Karydi).3 Moreover, all current classification systems are restricted to fine pottery bearing elaborate figural and/or ornamental decoration while the banded and

* We thank N. Kunisch and Sir John Boardman (both Oxford) for their comments and correcting the English version of our manuscript. 1 Cook 1997, 295–300; 1998, 5–7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 25–36. 2 Schiering 1957; Cook 1960, 118–26; 1992; 1997, 109–34; 1998, 26–137. 3 Walter 1968; Walter-Karydi 1973.

2

M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER

undecorated wares have never been comprehensively classified; the so-called ‘Ionian cups’ (better called ‘Knickrandschalen’)4 and trade amphorae5 are among the few exceptions. We do not think that an adaptation of one of the existing systems to the present state of research would be helpful. Too many fundamentally new results have been obtained by archaeometric investigation and extended field research in the East Aegean in recent years.6 In his latest publications Cook tried to revise his classification of the Wild Goat style without, however, being very successful.7 Aware himself of this problem, he proposed to create a new classification as early as 1992 but hesitated to go through with it: To accommodate the new partitioning of the Wild Goat style, local and temporal, a new nomenclature may well prove necessary, but at the present stage of study it would be confusing to propose yet another . . .8

It seems to us that this moment has now come: the increase of knowledge permits and calls for an adequate form of expression. The classification proposed in the following pages is based upon a clear and simple concept. It is made up of a chronological as well as a geographical co-ordinate. Both components are incorporated within every single term; both provide the flexibility to chose variable degrees of precision, which permits the use of an overall system for various regions even if these differ from one another in the depth of present-day research. The principle of the

4

For a discussion of the various classifications, see Catling and Shipley (1989, 188–90, 199); and Schlotzhauer (2000, 407–09), who introduces the neutral term ‘Knickrandschale’ (cups with everted rim) to replace the geographically defined ‘Ionian cup’ which is problematical if used for vessels of non-Ionian origin. The classification still commonly used today was worked out by Villard and Vallet (1955, 14–34) nearly half a century ago. It is based on the range of types occurring at a colonial site in the central Mediterranean and not on that of the East Aegean production centres. 5 Dupont 1982, 193–208; Cook 1998, 142–91. 6 Dupont 1983; Akurgal et al. 2002. For an overview of the excavations in western Asia Minor, see the annual preliminary reports in KST and AJA. 7 Cook 1992; 1998, 32–63. Having accepted the fundamental results of the archaeometric investigations of Dupont 1983, R.M. Cook tried to differentiate his phase MWG II in accordance with the various regions but failed to introduce adequate new terms. Another inconsistency in Cook’s classification is the lack of terms for certain chronological phases in certain geographical regions (see Kerschner 2000, 554). On the one hand, Cook confines the terms EWG and MWG to South Ionia without offering adequate names for the contemporaneous phases in North Ionia (Cook 1998, 51–52). On the other hand, his phase LWG is restricted to North Ionia so that Cook (1992, 260–62) hesitatingly introduced the term MWG III to fill the resulting chronological gap in South Ionia. Boardman (1998, 143) adopts MWG III for the late phase of South Ionian Wild Goat style, but in the captions of the accompanying figures (154–155), he uses LWG instead of MWG III. Boardman’s use of LWG is the logically more consistent solution of the terminological paradox in Cook’s classification that South Ionia is given an Early and Middle, but no Late Wild Goat style. 8 Cook 1992, 255; cf. Cook 1987, 71: ‘None of these terminologies is now satisfactory, but till more is known it would be only confusing to invent another.’

A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY

3

classification may be described as being as precise as possible and as general as necessary. It also allows progress in every field of research. Whenever new investigations yield more precise results with either chronology or provenance it will in future be possible to replace a general term with one that is more precise. In this way those terms will prove to be less exact but not actually wrong. The system allows flexibility also with regard to specific and divergent developments at different pottery centres. It is open to the possibility that, in some places, certain stylistic phases may begin later or persist longer or not even occur at all. The new system should be understood more as a framework the details of which have still to be elaborated by colleagues working on finds from the various pottery centres of the East Aegean. It has been compiled empirically on the basis of the material available at the present time, on the observation of the typological and stylistic development of pottery products the relative chronology of which has been worked out by way of archaeological contexts. The absolute dating of particular periods and phases can be discussed independently as a separate step; this does not, after all, affect the terminology. In this our system resembles Humfry Payne’s time-tested classification of Corinthian pottery.9 It too is a classification of chronological periods and in this way encompasses all ceramic wares and classes being produced at a given time. Once again, however, painted pottery has been taken as the decisive class to define the various periods because it provides the more distinctive features as well as a clearer and speedier development of style and typology. Keeping in mind the need for clarity, we are focusing on one specific class of East Greek pottery production, i.e. on what is commonly called the Wild Goat style. We hope to use this as a way in which to explain the structure and the application of the new system. The Wild Goat style represents the most elaborate example of East Greek vase painting during the Orientalising phase of the Archaic period. It was described for the first time and in detail in the 1880s when a number of specimens came to light during the excavations at Naukratis.10 Different names were in use until E.A. Gardner’s proposal was generally adopted to name the recently recognised style after its most conspicuous motive, i.e. the ibex or wild goat.11 It should be pointed out, however, that Gardner himself was aware of the disadvantages of the new name: This title is in many respects unsatisfactory; on some of the vases included under it the ibex is not found; and the ibex often occurs on other pottery which, though 9

Payne 1931, 43–66. Smith 1886, 49–50 (‘Egyptian style’ as sub-group of the ‘Oriental style’); Dumont and Chaplain 1888, 161–72 (‘le style de Rhodes’). 11 Gardner 1888, 45–46 (‘Ibex type’). 10

4

M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER

somewhat similar, has elsewhere been classified. But the animal is of such frequent occurrence on this type of ware that it seems to afford a characteristic mark by which we may indicate it.12

The classification most widely used today in respect of the Wild Goat style pottery was first proposed by Cook in the early 1930s13 and formulated in detail only some decades later.14 He based his system on the bipartite scheme proposed by E.R. Price some years before,15 but enlarged it to encompass three phases: Early (EWG), Middle (MWG) and Late (LWG). Cook’s basic tenets are still valid today. Indeed, they form the backbone of the new classification which we are proposing, being compatible, in all relevant points, with this model.16 There are two major differences from Cook’s classification: we recommend redrawing the line between the phases MWG I ~ SiA Ia and MWG II ~ SiA Ib, and, as a second measure, we would like to introduce a subdivision of the rather long phase MWG II (including the phase MWG III which Cook only introduced in 1992)17 which we propose to call SiA Ic and SiA Id respectively. First Element of the New Classification: Provenance The geographical element of the classifying term indicates the place of production of the vessel. If this is not known with any degree of certainty it would at least give the wider region of its origin. The principle of this classification should be to circumscribe the area of production as narrowly as possible without defining localisation more precisely than is scientifically arguable. In order to provide the necessary graduation in terminology, the geographical component comprises several levels. The largest and least specific geographical unit—the East Aegean as a whole (abbreviation: E)—is divided into the following main regions: the Aiolis (Ai), North Ionia (Ni), South Ionia (Si), Eastern Doria (Ed), Caria (Ca) and Lydia (Ly). It will in time be possible to extend this classification to include the pottery production of the Ionian colonies and their sphere of cultural influence.18

12

Gardner 1888, 45–46. Cook 1933/34, 2, n. 1. 14 Cook 1960, 118–26; 1965, 507; 1992, 256–62. 15 Price 1928, 11–15. 16 M.K. is grateful for having had the opportunity to discuss a first draft of the new classification with R.M. Cook in May 1999, one year before his death. 17 Cook 1992, 260–62; 1998, 44. 18 Colonial ceramic production of East Greek type on Thasos: Salviat and Weill 1961; Walter-Karydi 1973, 74–76, pls. 101–104; Cook 1998, 67–68; on the Aegean coast of Thrace: Lemos 1991, 209–22; on the Black Sea coast: Dupont 1983, 36; Cook 1998, 66; Dupont 1999; at Naukratis: Dupont 1983, 36, n. 38; Cook 1998, 66–67; Schlotzhauer in press b; in Etruria: Cook 1998, 68–70, fig. 8.29. 13

A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY

5

The following subdivision concerns the minor regions. In some cases, these cannot yet be determined but, as research progresses, they should find their place within the system. These minor regions comprise neighbouring production centres which show close typological, stylistic and technical similarities in their pottery production. This level should prove to be helpful in the classification of small fragments with but a few distinctive criteria or for little known parts of the territory. Examples of such minor regions are islands with (presumably) several pottery centres, such as Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Rhodes, which may even show typological and stylistic resemblances with products of the neighbouring mainland (e.g. Chios and Erythrai or Samos and her peraia).19 This subdivision is marked with an additional letter preceding the main abbreviation, e.g. wNi for western North Ionia, a minor region comprising Chios and Erythrai. If other minor regions with closely connected pottery production are found, analogous terms could easily be introduced. The smallest geographical units are the production centres themselves. These would normally be located in the poleis, sometimes also in their chora. If a precise determination of the production place is possible the name of the polis or kome, suitably abbreviated, supersedes the term of the region: e.g. Kyme (Kyme), Phokaia (Phok), Smyrna (Smyr), Klazomenai (Klaz), Teos (Teos), Ephesos (Ephe), Miletos (Mile), Samos (Samo), Meropis on the island of Kos (Mero), Knidos (Knid), Kameiros (Kame), Lindos (Lind), etc. In this geographical order the degree of precision descending from the region as a whole to specific poleis and villages is expressed by the number of letters forming the abbreviation. Each step advancing to a more precise designation is marked by the addition of another letter. It is, therefore, possible to differentiate between identical names of islands and their main sites. In this way ‘Sam’ points to the island as a whole whereas ‘Samo’ designates the city. The system is designed to be flexible and can easily be adapted if new production centres are found, a considerable advantage compared with previous systems. Second Element of the New Classification: Chronology This classification uses the well-established archaeological criteria of style, typology and technique in order to define different stages in the development of pottery production that can be equated with particular dates. The new system distinguishes three chronological units. The largest units, the epochs, are indicated by the first letter of their name. Thus G stands for Geometric, A for Archaic, etc. The next smaller units, the periods, comprise several decades 19 Chios and Erythrai: Bayburtluo