Thapsos-Class Ware Reconsidered: The Case of Achaea in the Northern Peloponnese: Pottery Workshop or Pottery Style? 9781407308531, 9781407338378

Citation preview

BAR S2279 2011 GADOLOU THAPSOS-CLASS WARE RECONSIDERED

B A R

Thapsos-Class Ware Reconsidered: The Case of Achaea in the Northern Peloponnese Pottery workshop or pottery style?

Anastasia Gadolou

BAR International Series 2279 2011

Thapsos-Class Ware Reconsidered: The Case of Achaea in the Northern Peloponnese Pottery workshop or pottery style?

Anastasia Gadolou With a contribution by A. Sakalis, D. Tsiafakis and N. Tsirliganis Non destructive elemental ceramic analysis from Achaea using X-Ray fluorescence spectroscopy (m-XRF)

BAR International Series 2279 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2279 Thapsos-Class Ware Reconsidered: The Case of Achaea in the Northern Peloponnese © A Gadolou and the Publisher 2011 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407308531 paperback ISBN 9781407338378 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308531 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To Nota Kourou

Contents List of Figures in the text ..................................................................................................................... iii Preface and Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Aims and Scope of the study....................................................................................................... .....1 1.2 History of the research................................................................................................................. ....1 1.3 Distribution of Thapsos-class ware in Achaea................................................................................4 1.4 Technical features........................................................................................................................ ...4 1.5 Chronology................................................................................................................................... ..6 CHAPTER 2 ANALYSIS OF SHAPES AND DECORATION............................................................................. ..8 2.1 “Predecessor skyphoi” (760-750 B).................................................................................................8 2.2 Vase fragments (750-700 BC) ..........................................................................................................8 2.3 Plain, panel and tripartite type vases (750-725 BC) ........................................................................9 2.4 Panel, plain, tripartite and ornate type vases (725-700 BC) ..........................................................11 2.4.1 Panel type vases (725-700 BC). .................................................................................................11 2.4.2 Tripartite type vases (725-700 BC) .............................................................................................12 2.4.3 Zone type vases (725-700 BC) ..................................................................................................14 2.4.4 Ornate type vases (725-700 BC) ................................................................................................15 2.5 The Mavriki Krater .......................................................................................................................15 2.6 Unclassified sherds ........................................................................................................................16 CHAPTER 3 DISCUSSION OF SHAPES AND DECORATION.. ......................................................................18 3.1 SHAPES.........................................................................................................................................18 3.2 DECORATION. ............................................................................................................................19 3.2.1 “Predecessors” skyphoi (760-750 BC). .....................................................................................19

i

3.2.2 Plain type skyphoi and skyphoi-kraters. .....................................................................................20 3.2.3 Tripartite or panel type skyphoi and skyphoi-kraters (750-700 BC) ..........................................20 3.2.4 Panel type skyphoi (750-725 BC) ...............................................................................................20 3.2.5 Panel type skyphoi (725-700 BC) ...............................................................................................22 3.2.6 Tripartite type skyphoi (725-700 BC) .........................................................................................22 3.2.7 Tripartite type skyphoi-kraters (725-700 BC).............................................................................26 3.2.8 Tripartite type pyxides (725-700 BC) .........................................................................................26 3.2.9 Tripartite type oinochoe (725-700 BC) ......................................................................................27 3.2.10 Ornate type vases (725-700 BC) ...............................................................................................27 3.2.11 Zone type oinochoe and tripod (725-700 BC) ..........................................................................29 3.3 Comparison of the Thapsos-class motifs to the Late Geometric Achaean fine painted and impressed wares .............................................................................................................................29 CHAPTER 4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE WARE ...................................................................................................38 4.1 Delphi.............................................................................................................................................38 4.2 Boeotia (Thebes, Orchomenos), Central Greece (Kalapodi) .........................................................39 4.3 Attica (Oropos, Phaliron) and Euboea (Eretria) .............................................................................41 4.4 Ithaca.. ............................................................................................................................................42 4.5 Other sites in western Greece. .......................................................................................................42 4.6 Thera. .............................................................................................................................................43 4.7 Remarks regarding the type of sites ..............................................................................................44 4.8 South Italy and Sicily .....................................................................................................................44 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................46 CATALOGUE ....................................................................................................................................48 Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................84 Bibliography. ........................................................................................................................................85 APPENDIX .........................................................................................................................................89

ii

Non destructive elemental ceramic analysis from Achaea using micro x-RAY fluorescence spectroscopy (m-XRF) by A. Sakalis, D. Tsiafakis, N. Tsirliganis Abstract.. ..............................................................................................................................................90 Introduction. .........................................................................................................................................90 Archaeological Context. ......................................................................................................................91 Samples-Groups of Pottery... ...............................................................................................................92 Experimental Part.................................................................................................................................94 Conclusions.. ......................................................................................................................................115 Bibliography. ......................................................................................................................................116

List of Figures in the text FIG. 1 Thapsos panel type skyphos from Delphi (inv. No. 7603) FIG. 2 Middle Geometric skyphos from Neos Erineos (AMA 520) FIG. 3. Achaean Thapsos class motifs (Meanders) FIG. 4. Achaean Thapsos class motifs (Meanders meander hooks, vertical wavy lines, S’s motif, vertical and horizontal zigzag lines and spiral) FIG. 5. Achaean Thapsos class motifs (Birds and star as side metope decoration motif) FIG. 6. Achaean Thapsos class motifs (Spirals) FIG. 7. Achaean Thapsos class motifs (Horizontal zigzag lines and cellular dotted pattern) FIG. 8. Achaean Thapsos class motifs (Chevrons, vertical zigzag lines and loose spiral ) FIG. 9. Late Geometric Achaean impressed ware motifs FIG. 10. Late Geometric Achaean fine painted ware motifs FIG. 11-12. Thapsos class Berlin oinochoe (inv. No. V1. 3143.45) FIG. 13. Fragment of a Thapsos panel type skyphos from Orchomenos (NAM 21864) FIG. 14. Predecessor Thapsos class skyphos from Thera (inv. No. 1111)

iii

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Recent excavations in the region of Achaea in the northern Peloponnese have brought to light new evidence on the Thapsos-class of vases. Their identification amongst the grave goods as well as the dedications in the two important sanctuary sites of the area – of Artemis Aontia at Ano Mazaraki and that of probably Helikonios Poseidon at Nikoleika – provide a starting point for reassessing the question of this particular ware’s identity and its main production centre. After a brief introduction on the aims and scope of the study, the history of the research, the distribution of Thapsos-class ware in Achaea, its technical features and a short discussion on chronological issues (Chapter 1) the various fabrics of the Thapsos-class ware attested in Achaea are first presented and analyzed (Chapter 2) and then examined and discussed (Chapter 3) with particular respect to their resemblance with the Achaean Late Geometric workshops producing the impressed and fine painted wares. Next the similarities, as well as the differences, of vases of this class recovered mainly from Ithaca, Delphi and Thera but also from other areas of mainland Greece are set out (Chapter 4). The conclusions are set out in Chapter 5 and the thesis that Achaea should be recognized as one of the most important production centers of this particular ware is further asserted. A full catalogue of the Thapsos class ware data derived so far from Achaea is submitted with photographs and drawings of almost every sherd and vase. Finally the results of a non destructive elemental ceramic analysis using micro X-RAY fluorescence spectroscopy (m-XRF) applied to various fabrics and wares from Achaean pottery of the Late Geometric period is published in the Appendix. A more fundamental aim of the present study is to bring forward new aspects for investigation concerning this ceramic group, so closely associated as it is with the foundation and life of the Greek colonies in the west. This study would have never been completed unless a number of people, colleagues and friends had placed their full trust in me and given me much help. M. Petropoulos, former Ephor of Antiquities of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism permitted me to study the pottery from the sanctuary of Artemis Aontia at Ano Mazaraki; E. Kolia, archaeologist in the Ȉȉ’ ǼȆȀǹ (Patras), did likewise for the pottery from the Nikoleika sanctuary in the area of Ancient Helike; and A. Vordos of the same Ephorate of Antiquities discussed and shared information on his latest finds from Mavriki village near Aigion. All the above have been extremely supportive in their encouragement. I thank them all most sincerely. Further, the conservator of the Ȉȉ’ ǼȆȀǹ, V. Kyrkos, has been an invaluable collaborator in selecting and conserving the material from the Nikoleika sanctuary site. It is a pleasure to acknowledge also the generous financial support that I have received from INSTAP (the Institute of Aegean Prehistory) and the Psychas Foundation: this was decisive in enabling the drawing and photographing of the finds, as well as making the chemical analysis of some ceramic material. The present study was actually finished whilst I was at the University of Oxford, as recipient of the centenary bursary of the British School at Athens, in 2010. I thank Professor I. Lemos for her crucial observations, advice, guidance and much more. Professor C. Morgan further assisted my efforts, giving generously of her valuable time to discuss Thapsos matters and also to review material at the Patras and Aigion Museums. I have benefited greatly from my many conversations with her, whose interests on the specific subject closely match my own. My friends and colleagues G. Kavvadias and A. Psalti shared their knowledge with me, always finding time to listen to my opinions and to help me out. Nor must I fail to fully express my debt of gratitude to the Director of the National Archaeological Museum, Dr N. Kaltsas, and the Museum’s former Keeper of the Collection of Vases and Objects in the Minor Arts, E. Stasinopoulou, as well as to my colleagues in the same Collection: all, in their various capacities, were instrumental in securing my one-year sabbatical leave (2009-2010) from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, during which I was able to devote the necessary time to complete the present study. For information on unpublished material or permission to study published vases I would like to warmly thank Fotini Saranti, archaeologist in the ȁȈȉ’ ǼȆȀǹ (Messologi) with respect to the Thapsos pottery from Naupaktos and Professor Jean-Marc Luce for his kindness and hospitality at Delphi Museum. I could not have reached any conclusions on the Achaean identity of the Thapsos material he has published, if he had not been willing to show and discuss with me the disputed sherds. Likewise I express my gratitude to

iv

the director of the Ĭ’ ǼȆȀǹ (Thebes), Dr. V. Aravantinos, and the archaeologist of the same Ephorate of Antiquities, K. Kalliga, for showing me the material from the sanctuary site of Hercules in Thebes; to the former director of the ȁǼ’ ǼȆȀǹ (Cephallonia), Andreas Sotiriou, for information on unpublished Thapsos material from the area of ancient Krane in the prefecture of Argostoli; to my colleagues A. Aggeli and Th. Kontogianni of the Arta Museum, who kindly showed me the recently excavated Thapsos material from Arta; to both the director of the Ȁǹ‘ ǼȆȀǹ, Dr. M. Marthari, and the archaeologist of the same Ephorate of Antiquities, M. Eustathiou, for permission to study the Thapsos vases from Ancient Thera at the Thera Museum. I also deeply thank D. Theodoratos, commercial director of Blue Star Ferries, for arranging and offering me the journey to Thera. For information on the Berlin Oinochoe I am deeply indebted to Dr. Agnes Schwarzmaier of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Antikensammlung Altes Museum. The drawing of the profile of the above vase was created by Mr. J. Denkinger of the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin. I sincerely thank my friend and colleague C. Paschalidis for the drawing of the front cover inspired from my favourite Thapsos skyphos-krater fragment from Aigion. My debt overall to N. Kourou, Professor at the University of Athens, is immeasurable: her generosity and support have been consistent and invaluable. I sincerely thank her for her mentorship and advice throughout this project. It was her valuable work on the Thaspos “question” that first inspired me; and her fundamental study that enabled me to take this complex ceramic conundrum further. After all she was the one who, long ago, proposed the term style for Thapsos class pottery instead of workshop. In acknowledgement and recompense, I dedicate this study to her. Finally, I am indebted to my husband, Takis, for reasons too many to enumerate. He and my son Sotiris were by my side during all the stages of my work.

v

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

products of the Late Geometric fine and impressed ware workshops. References to Thapsos-class material from other sites, such as Delphi, Ithaca, Thebes, Oropos, Thera and Arta (ancient Ambrakia) will contribute to the study of the distribution of the ware. From this will develop first a redefinition of the ware’s identity and thus its recognition not as the contents of one pottery workshop but rather as a pottery style, distributed and copied in several sites in mainland Greece, especially along the Ionian Sea on into south Italy and Sicily.

The present research emerged from a comprehensive study of the Late Geometric Achaean pottery that formed a part of my study on Achaea in Early Historical Era (Gadolou 2008), in conjunction with a lecture presented at the conference in memory of Professor N. Coldstream, held in the British School at Athens, in March 2008. During the study and recording of the pottery having derived from various rescue excavations and in particular the excavation at Eisodion Street at Aigion, I came upon a number of Thapsos-class sherds (K 40, 41, 95, 96, 97) of a fabric and especially a clay colour (7.5 YR 7/5 and 10YR 8/4) totally different from the one classified as the Thapsos-class fabric (2.5 Y 8/2) until then. The resemblance of these fabrics to the Late Geometric fine painted and impressed Achaean pottery formed the basis for the re-examination of the issue of the place of manufacture of this particular ware.

The importance of Thapsos-class pottery for the Greek colonists of the second half of the 8th c. BC and for the native populations of south Italy and Sicily has been pointed out by various scholars (Neeft 1981; Pelagatti 1982; Dehl 1982 and 1984, Bozana-Kourou 1983; Kourou 1994; Coldstream 1998). Its wide distribution to almost every Greek colony and the imitations by the local inhabitants it spawned, can be compared to the importance that Corinthian chevron skyphoi and Euboean pendant semicircles skyphoi had in the west and east Mediterranean markets respectively (Coldstream 1983, Kourou 1994, 3235, 38-43).

The study of the pottery, derived from the 1979 excavation season of the sanctuary site of Artemis Aontia at Ano Mazaraki, published by the present author (Gadolou 2002) resulted in the identification of four different fabrics of Thapsos-class pottery there. Meanwhile Thapsos-class skyphoi and kantharoi had been identified amongst funerary goods from various tomb sites of Achaea and especially from north eastern Achaea (prefecture of modern Aigialeia). The number of vases for examination was much increased during the excavation of the sanctuary site probably dedicated to Helikonios Poseidon, accidentally discovered in 2004 at Nikoleika, 7km east of the modern town of Aigion (Kolia-Gadolou 2007, Kolia-Gadolou 2011, Kolia forthcoming, Gadolou forthcoming). Last but not least the extensive survey in the Kalavryta region in the southern part of modern Achaea – as conducted by the archaeologist of the sixth Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquites, G. Alexopoulou (Alexopoulou 2010) – showed the presence of Thapsos-ware here. This region is recognized as forming part of ancient Achaea rather than Arkadia during the Early Historical Era (Gadolou 2008, 24).

Perhaps the most important question is not so much where was the place of manufacture of Thapsos-class, but why this certain ware became so famous and widely copied. 1.2 HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH Thapsos ware flourished in the Late Geometric and Protocorinthian periods, with a few precursors dated to the Middle Geometric II period. Scholars have been intrigued by it since the beginning of last c., when the first examples of this ware, two skyphoi, were found at Thapsos in Sicily (Orsi 1895, 90-150, pl. IV, 16). The term “Thapsos-class” was first used by Vallet and Villard in 1952 (Vallet and Villard 1952, 338, fig. 11). In 1968, Coldstream in his fundamental work on Greek Geometric pottery expanded the term to include all the other shapes in the same style (1968, 102). Two main problems have concerned scholars: one is the place of manufacture and the other the stylistic and chronological development of the group. Delphi, Aegina, Megara and Corinth have all been suggested as places of its origin (Neeft 1981, 54-56, Bozana-Kourou 1983, 1, Kourou 1994, 38). All subsequently have been rejected, excepting the last, Corinth, today considered the most likely candidate, despite the fact that Thapsos-class pottery displays similarities rather with Protocorinthian and none at all with the orthodox Late Geometric workshop. Indeed

So far, one hundred and sixteen whole vases and fragments of Thapsos-class ware from excavations in Achaea have been recorded. Given the scarcity of the ware in Corinth (Pfaff 1999), identified as the place of origin of Thapsosclass ware (Bozana-Kourou 1978 and Bozana-Kourou 1983), this considerable presence in Achaea calls for the further examination of its identity and distribution patterns. The aims of the present study are to present the data of Thapsos-class ware from Achaea (by fabric, shapes and decoration) and to reveal their affinities with Achaean

1

THAPSOS-CLASS WARE RECONSIDERED it is represented at Corinth only by a few examples (Morgan 1999, 131, 272-277; Pfaff 1999, 58-59, 99, no. 96).

arose was to determine the pottery workshop where the first creators of these vases had been trained. A group of Middle Geometric II pots at Delphi was recognised as their precursors in terms of decoration, and was so regarded as the link between Thapsos ware and the Middle Geometric Corinthian workshop. This line of reasoning provided a terminus post quem at the end of the Corinthian Middle Geometric period, while the lower chronological boundary was assigned to the Middle Protocorinthian period on the existence of the krater from Aigion.

Two of the most important and comprehensive articles on this particular ware are those by Neeft and Kourou. In 1981, in his article “Observations on the Thapsos Class”, Neeft sought to establish the evolution of the shapes and decorative motifs, to date the various phases, and to determine the place of manufacture of this pottery group. Dating was based on the evolution of the five types of decoration recognised. The most popular shape, the skyphos, was shown to have a steady development in terms of the shape and the arrangement of the decorative motifs. The question of the place of manufacture was discussed on the basis of the decoration, shape and technical features, especially the composition of the fabric, and on their distribution. According to Neeft, the problem remains unsolved, since, as he notes, characteristically: “Decoration, shape, distribution, and probably fabric, too, favour a non-Corinthian origin” (Neeft 1981, 57).

An interesting term- “The true spiral group” - was proposed by Benson (1989, 16-17) for Thapsos-class vases, for whom the Corinthian identity of which seems indisputable. Coldstream (1998, 327-328) accepted the Corinthian origin of this pottery group on several grounds: on the basis of the archaeometric analyses of the fabric; from the fact, as he mentions, that the motifs of the Thapsos-class vases are not related to those of the Achaean workshop; and lastly because if any place other than Corinth were recognised as the place of origin of Thapsos-class pottery, this would in turn involve divorcing Protocorinthian pottery from Corinth, which he judged unjustifiable.

Dehl seriously critized Neeft’s chronological system (1984, 47-48). She maintained that the skyphoi bearing horizontal lines on the lower body should be dated earlier than the skyphoi that had the same area solid glazed (Dehl 1984, 71-72).

In the publication of the pottery of the Early Historical Era from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, Pfaff (1999, 58-59) mentions a Thapsos-class sherd from there, and also recognises the rarity of this pottery at Corinth.

Kourou (Bozana-Kourou 1983) discussed at great length the origin of this group, the length of time for which it was produced and its stylistic evolution. She commented that “The problems concerning the origin of the Thapsos-class vases are very complicated since their fabric is exactly the same as that of the Protocorinthian vases, but their style and distribution differs markedly. The rarity of the fabric in Corinth is certainly impressive…”. Nonetheless, the strong links between Thapsos-class vases and the products of Protocorinthian workshops in the composition of their fabric continue to provide the basic reason that a Corinthian origin for the group is generally accepted.

In the publication of the Isthmian shrine Morgan notes: “Despite long-held, if much debated, arguments for a Corinthian origin, pottery of the Thapsos-class remains rare in the Corinthia. The presence of five small fragments of open vessels in Thapsos fabric at Isthmia, a shrine located in Corinthian territory and with particularly close ceramic ties to Corinth itself, therefore inevitably bears on the question of the origins of Thapsos.” (1999, 272273). She observes that neither Neeft’s scheme, as far as chronology is concerned regarding to the kind of motifs, nor Dehl’s classification, which is totally different from the one mentioned above, can be applied to the Isthmian material. This is a particularly important observation: for the conclusion reached upon examination of the material evidence from Achaea is the same. Morgan analyses the data on Thapsos-Class pottery in the context of Late Geometric Corinthian pottery from Isthmia, noting that the evidence from this site may cast further light on the question. Although she does not divorce Thapsos ware from Corinth, she makes some very interesting remarks on the role played by other areas, especially Ithaca, in the creation of the style at Corinth, and on the importance, or position, occupied by this particular fabric in the export trade. (Morgan 1999, 131, nos. 404-405 and 272-277).

A further link between the above two categories of pottery is a large skyphos-krater from Mavriki (Bozana-Kourou 1978), a village near Aigion. This was the first vase found that combines Protocorinthian elements (like the sphinxes and the eagle in the side metopes) in an otherwise typical Thapsos-class style (as represented by the shape, the linear motifs and the decorative system of the vase). In addition to the archaeological study of the above krater, an archaeometric analysis was also carried out. This showed that the fabric was of a composition similar both to the fabric of Protocorinthian sherds and to that of Thapsosclass sherds from Delphi (Grimanis et al. 1980). It was also noted that it was identical with that of a group of Late Geometric Corinthian sherds. The Corinthian origin of the technical features of the group was therefore considered indisputable, but this was not thought a satisfactory explanation for the shapes and decorative motifs. For the last, it was suggested that influence from a Peloponnesian metal workshop could be detected. The question that then

Papadopoulos (2001, 385) advances the view more recently that some of the Thapsos-class pottery was manufactured in Achaea, though he does not discuss this in detail. At the conference ‘The Athenian Potters and Painters’, held

2

MAP 1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

3

THAPSOS-CLASS WARE RECONSIDERED in Athens in 2008, in view of the large number of Thapsosclass vases that have come to light in rescue excavations in Arta in recent years, he suggested that the Corinthian colony of Ambrakia should be recognised as the centre at which Thapsos ware was created by Corinthian–trained potters. He has not, however, yet undertaken a systematic study of the material from the region (Papadopoulos 2009, 238).

Thapsos-class pottery, hardly anyone studied it in the wider context of the local pottery workshops, amongst the products of which Thapsos ware had been distributed. On this point what Morgan wrote some years ago on the importance of new material derived from Corinth at the time – “such finds have the advantage of eliminating the need to look at the west to confirm the basic stylistic sequence, which carries the risk of smoothing over variation resulting from import preferences and local needs” (1995, 313-344) – still holds good and could be perfectly well applied to the substantial body of new Thapsos-class vases that have been excavated in Achaea.

DeVries in the seventh volume of the Corinth publication series, on 8th c. Corinthian pottery (2003, 152-153) accepts the Corinthian origin of the Thapsos-class pottery. Listing the Thapsos-class vases that have been found in Corinth, he provides the very useful information that: “So far at Corinth, definitely Thapsos-type pottery, has not turned up in any purely LG deposit, but has been found in two deposits from the site that span the end of Late Geometric and the beginning of Early Protocorinthian” (2003, 152). Building on the last observation, he explains the nonoccurence of the Thapsos-class pottery at Corinth as simply because “the final phases of Late Geometric, as opposed to early phases, are not well represented in the deposits of the site” (2003, 152, ref. 54). In our opinion, however, it is precisely this fact that Thapsos-class pottery has not been recovered in excavations at Corinth earlier than the end of the Late Geometric period that forms an argument against the recognition of a Corinthian origin for the style as prior to that period. It is also accepted by us that in other areas, such as Achaea and Delphi, protoThapsos pottery has been recognized as existing since the end of the Middle Geometric period.

What then is the new evidence from the region of Achaea that has led us to reopen the debate on the place or places of manufacture, and the stylistic development of this particular ware? In this study, the great abundance of the ware in the area as well as its chronological and stylistic development in accordance with its relationships with the Late Geometric local wares, are going to be presented and discussed. 1.3 DISTRIBUTION OF THAPSOS-CLASS WARE IN ACHAEA (MAP 1) Thapsos-class vases have been derived so far at the following sites in Achaea, starting from the east of the region, Seliana, Erimo Chorio, in the vicinity of Seliana, Nikoleika, Aigion, Mavriki, Trapeza-Koumaris, Ano Mazaraki, Drepano and Chalandritsa- in central Achaea. Recently, Kalavryta has been added: a fragment of a krater, collected during a surface survey. Of the above sites, it is only at Nikoleika and Ano Mazaraki that Thapsos-class vases are classified as dedications. All the others are grave sites, some of which define the site of a cemetery proper. The Thapsos vases are found in grave groups which also contain products of the Late Geometric Achaean impressed-ware and painted-ware workshops.

In 2008, Luce published the pottery from his excavations of 1990-1992 at the sanctuary of Delphi and in the area of the Pillar of the Rhodians. He accepts the Corinthian origin of the ware (Luce 2008, 168), though he mentions that the chronology should be reconsidered. Significantly, he also notes that neither Neeft’s nor Dehl’s classification and chronological system can be totally applied to the material from Delphi (Luce 2008, 169-170). Since the material he published is well stratified, this remark is consequently of great importance.1

1.4 TECHNICAL FEATURES Five basic categories of fabric (TABLE I) have been identified, on the basis of simple unaided observation, without the benefit of archaeometrical analysis or the application of any other scientific analytical methods. The criteria used were the colour and composition of the clay: reddish-yellow, pale brown, pink, yellow or pale yellow (almost white) and pale red, with very few or no inclusions, and a slip that is usually of a lighter colour than the clay. Only two examples had a white fabric: one is the wellknown krater from Ano Mavriki (K 113) which defines the final stage of the development of the style (BozanaKourou 1978, 303-320).

One feature characterizing the research on the Thapsosclass potery to date is the special importance allocated to the material derived from excavations at Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily. In our opinion this is too narrow a viewpoint. The Thapsos-class vases and sherds from Achaea also permit by virtue of their quantity (a rare phenomenon for this particular ware in mainland Greece) a presentation of their characteristics and the drawing of a number of conclusions: so far as concerns both the organization of decorative motifs and the evolution of shapes with respect each time to the Late Geometric local wares. Because Corinth had long been accepted as the place of origin for

Vases of the reddish yellow fabric (between 7.5 YR 8/6 or 7.5 YR 7/6) form the majority: it seems that this particular fabric is popular in the sanctuary sites in the region of Aigion (Ano Mazaraki, Nikoleika), while three examples come from grave groups from Aigion, one from a grave from central Achaea and finally a surface find from

Cf pp, 46-47 in this volume where the published material from the old and recent French excavations at Delphi is discussed with the aim to recognize an achaean identity for some of the Thapsos vases imported at the great sanctuary. 1

4

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Ano Mazaraki (Sanctuary site)

Nikoleika (Sanctuary site)

Aigion (tombs)

Reddish yellow (between 7.5 YR 8/6 or 7.5 YR 7/6)

11

28

3

Pink (7.5 YR 8/4)

1

24

3

17

8

5

1

4

FABRICS

Very pale brown (10 YR 8/4 or 8/3) Yellow or pale yellow almost white (2.5 YR 8/2, 8/3, 8/4 or 5 Y 8/2, 10 YR 7/6 and 10 Y 8/2) Pale red (2.5 YR 7/6 and 7.5 YR 8/6)

Central Patras reNortheastern Achaea gion Aigialeia Chalandritsa (Drepanon (tombs) (tombs) tomb) 1

Kalavryta

1

1 4

1

1

2

TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF FABRICS.

Kalavryta, the first evidence of Thapsos ware from this area. The second most popular fabric seems to have been the very pale brown one (10 YR 8/4 or 8/3); the majority of the examples derive from the sanctuary site at Nikoleika. Eight vases come from grave groups at Aigion, while only three examples come so far from the sanctuary site at Ano Mazaraki, four from grave groups in eastern Aigialeia and one from central Achaea. Here it should be noted that the only two Thapsos-class vases from central Achaea belong to the two most popular categories of Thapsos-class Achaean fabrics. Third comes the pink fabric (7.5 YR 8/4) with examples only from the two sanctuary sites and one from a grave in eastern Aigialeia. The yellow/pale yellow, in cases almost white fabric (2.5 YR 8/2, 8/3, 8/4 or 5 Y 8/2, 10 YR 7/6 and 10 Y 8/2) is attested only in eleven pieces so far. Even though this particular fabric more closely resembles the Corinthian one and is the fabric from which the krater from Mavriki is said to have been made, yet four of the examples come from grave groups from Aigion, a very interesting situation. Bearing in mind that the same fabric is attested in Achaean Late Geometric painted and impressed wares,2 its provenance should be reconsidered.3 Archaeometrical analyses applied to Mycenaean Achaean pottery have indicated a similarity between the fabrics of Achaean vases and the clays of eastern Peloponnese (Papazoglou 1993, 213-214).

when two closely related geological areas, such as are Corinth and Achaea, are examined, we should not expect to find totally different clays. The nature of the clays and their firing conditions are the elements relevant to this point of study and should be further investigated. It is by establishing similarities and/or differences amongst the fabrics attested in certain areas that one can obtain results concerning the technical procedures of a workshop or workshops. As it has already been mentioned, “It is true that similarity or even identity in clay alone cannot be hold valid for workshop identity” (Bozana-Kourou 1983, 269). On the same topic, the comments made by Jones and Garrigós regarding the assignment of a particular origin to a particular vase (2004, 93–94) are most relevant: they observe that chemical analysis is crucial in distinguishing individual pottery production centers. Which has obvious and immediate relevance in questioning the, to now widely accepted, thesis for the Corinthian origin of Thapsos-class vases. As already pointed out, the identification of all the local peculiarities (if there are any), first in the decorative motifs and their organization on the surface of the pots, and then in the evolution of the shapes and their resemblance or not to the securely known local products should constitute the main approach in establishing the characteristics and the identity of any ware under investigation.

Finally, in two examples from Nikoleika a red fabric (2.5 YR 7/6 and 7.5 YR 8/6) has been recorded, a rather isolated situation, which could result from a rather high firing temperature, applied to these two vases.

As far as fabric and shape inter-relationships go (TABLE II), one can note a close interdependency. In other words the majority of the specimens of the two most popular shapes (skyphos and skyphos-krater), as well as the widest range of shapes, are found in the two most popular fabric categories.

A general observation should be pointed out here, with respect to technical features- mainly the colour of the clay: Gadolou 2008, 278, table 9. Note also what was written by Neeft 1981, 56, “Recent research has clearly shown that the composition of Thapsos pottery clay is the same as that of mainstream pottery (Corinthian is meant). That does not necessarily mean, as Bozana-Kourou emphasized to me, that it was manufactured in Corinth. Conditions responsible for a similar composition of the clay present in a greater part of the Peloponnesus” and cf the Appendix on the chemical analysis. 2

Comparison of the list of technical features of the Thapsos-class vases from Achaea with the list of fabric details of vases from the Achaean Late Geometric pottery workshop reveals that the fabric of the Thapsos vases corresponds to one of the categories of fabric of the

3

5

THAPSOS-CLASS WARE RECONSIDERED FABRICS

Skyphos

Skyphoskrater

Kantharos

Oinochoe

Pyxis

Reddish yellow (between 7.5 YR 8/6 or 7.5 YR 7/6)

26

10

4

4

1

Pink (7.5 YR 8/4)

18

2

4

2

Very pale brown (10 YR 8/4 or 8/3)

18

10

1

2

Yellow or pale yellow almost white (2.5 YR 8/2, 8/3, 8/4 or 5 Y 8/2, 10 YR 7/6 and 10 Y 8/2)

9

1

1

Pale red (2.5 YR 7/6 and 7.5 YR 8/6)

1

1

Tripod

1

TABLE II. FABRICS IN RELATION TO VASE SHAPES

Achaean Late Geometric vases, particularly with regard to colour. Moreover, three of the basic fabric categories of Thapsos-class vases (pink, pale brown and yellow) find correspondences with the fabric categories of the impressed-ware workshop. More telling still is the case of the fragment of a skyphos-krater (K 40) from Aigion: while the decorative motifs assign this to the category of Thapsos-class vases, the fabric bears no comparison with those traditionally to be expected. Rather, it is identical to that of the Late Geometric vases from the area of Aigion.

classified as “predecessors”.6 The rest of the vases and fragments are dated to the Late Geometric period (750700 BC). Vases and fragments bearing simple decoration – mainly of the plain and panel type with continuous motifs – have been assigned to LG I (750-725 BC.); others with tripartite, zone and ornate type of decoration call for a later date in LG II (725-700 BC.), even though a certain number of vases dated here still belong to the plain and panel types. Nevertheless all types of decoration are found in the same stratigraphical layers in excavations in Achaea. So, the chronological differentiation has been based on the evolution of decorative motifs rather than stratigraphy. Unfortunately not even the well stratified and recent excavation at the Nikoleika shrine has provided any further clues concerning the chronological evolution of the decoration: something it was hoped would be the case at the start of the present research.

Recently an archaeometrical analysis on the various fabrics of Thapsos ware from Achaea, as well as on Late Geometric Achaean fine and impressed ware, has been conducted by the Cultural and Educational Technology Institute (www.ipet.gr) using micro X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (m-XRF).4 The purpose was to define similarities or differences amongst the various wares. The results were of great interest: the particular wares from Achaea mentioned above have a great internal resemblance, but showed clear differentiation from the Corinthian fabrics, whose data is held on the Institute’s database. For a more extensive dataset it is planned to use a more advanced archaeometrical method, such as neutron activation analysis, on selected samples not only from Achaea, but also from all the areas in mainland Greece where Thapsos-class pottery has been found.5

Even so with regard to the chronology suggested for the earlier panel skyphoi with continuous motifs (pace Neeft’s classification), this can be supported by the frequency this vase-type has been excavated together with the ‘predecessor’ skyphoi at Nikoleika. Consequently both Neeft’s scheme, expressed in approximate dates, for the panel type of vase (1981, 26-27) as well as Dehl’s chronological classification, based on the decoration of the lower part of the body of the vases (1984, 44-48, 68-72) need to be reconsidered, as far as the Achaean material is concerned.

1.5 CHRONOLOGY As many as twenty four skyphoi are dated in the transition from Middle to Late Geometric periods (around 760-750 BC): they belong to the category of the Thapsos-class

The skyphos predominates amongst the vase shapes. It is attested from almost all the sites where the Thapsosclass pottery has been traced, found in funerary as well as in ritual contexts. It makes up the majority in all fabric classes, as well as in the types of decoration. These points hold true too in Achaea (except for the area of eastern

The results of the archaeometrical analysis are presented in the end of this volume as an Appendix. 5 This is a programme that is currently being organized under the direction of Prof. N. Kourou of the University of Athens in collaboration with the National Archaeaological Museum (A. Gadolou) and the Cultural and Educational Technology Institute at Xanthi (N. Tsirliganis and D. Tsiafakis). 4

For the Thapsos class predecessors skyphoi cf Neeft 1981, 38-41 and Bozana-Kourou 1983, 265-266. 6

6

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Central Achaea Chalandritsa (tombs)

Patras region (Drepanon tomb)

10

1

1

14

3

1

3

1

SHAPES

Ano Mazaraki (Sanctuary site)

Nikoleika (Sanctuary site)

Aigion (tombs)

SKYPHOS

12

49

SKYPHOS-KRATER

4

KANTHAROS OINOCHOE PYXIS

2

Northeastern Aigialeia (tombs)

6

2

3

2

TRIPOD

Kalavryta

1

1

TABLE III. DISTRIBUTION OF VASE SHAPES

Aigialeia): the skyphos thus appears as the most popular shape of the ware in Achaea, where it is the only shape with a standard evolution from 760 BC down to the end of the 8th c. BC.7 The skyphos-krater is the second most popular shape, recorded mainly from Aigialeia (Aigion, Ano Mazaraki, Nikoleika and Mavriki) with one example from the Kalavryta region (surface find) and one from the Chalandritsa tomb site in central Achaea. It appears in every fabric identified in the region. The kantharos is attested by only four examples; three come from the sanctuary site at Nikoleika and the last, an imitation rather than an original Thapsos-class example, from the cemetery site at Trapeza. All kantharoi are assigned to the reddishyellow fabric, the most popular local variant (TABLE II).

The analysis of the shapes is organized primarily by chronological criteria, and secondarily according to those of fabric, shape and decoration. The analysis of the shapes is organized mainly chronologically, and secondary according to those of fabric, shape and decoration.

As far as closed shapes are concerned the oinochoai, both trefoil and round-mouthed, is attested by ten examples, from Aigialeia. The majority come from the two sanctuary sites, though one example from the Seliana and one from the Erimo Chorio grave groups in Eastern Aigialeia testify to the existence of this type of vase in funerary contexts as well. Eight examples belong to the reddish and pink fabric-groups, while one piece is assigned to the yellow and pale brown sets. Pyxides are represented only by five examples derived from Nikoleika and Erimo Chorio. Their production in the three most popular fabrics (reddishyellow, pink, and very pale brown) shows that even though less popular as a shape, yet the pyxis is spread wide in Thapsos-class Achaean production. The tripod is found uniquely amongst the vases comprising the Seliana grave group, assigned to the third most popular fabric. This very pale brown fabric is used for every vase of the Seliana grave group: it probably forms a local peculiarity of choice of clay.

Also Gadolou 2008, 260-265 on the evolution of the shape from the Protogeometric period. The importance of the skyphos in the life of the Greeks is mentioned and explaned by Coldstream (1983, 21-22). 7

7

Chapter 2 Analysis of Shapes and Decoration

2.1 “Predecessor skyphoi” (760-750 BC) (Table IV)

The large number of proto-Thapsos skyphoi from excavations in Achaea establishes, as it will be shown in the discussion, one of the main arguments for the importance Achaea had in the production of Thapsos-class pottery.

Twenty four “predecessor” skyphoi are attested: two examples come from a grave group at Aigion, the rest from the sanctuary site at Nikoleika. Interestingly, their distribution by fabric-type is analogous to the popularity of the fabrics within Achaean pottery production: compare TABLE IV with TABLE I. FABRICS

Nikoleika (Sanctuary site)

Reddish yellow (between 7.5 YR 8/6 or 7.5 YR 7/6)

12

Pink (7.5 YR 8/4)

8

Very pale brown (10 YR 8/4 or 8/3)

The kantharos AMA 1876 (K 42), the only grave good of the burial pithos no. XI from the site of Trapeza at Aigion, should be assigned to the transition from the Middle Geometric to the Late Geometric period (Gadolou 2007, 19, 25, fig. 14). Its reddish yellow fabric (5 YR 7/6) is similar to others from Achaea. Further the close similarity of its shape to the Middle Geometric skyphos AMA 520 (FIG. 2, pg. 20) from N. Erineos (Gadolou 2007, 21, Gadolou 2008, K 16, 96, 172, 263-264) reinforces its identification as a local product. The decoration of the vase, three horizontal bands of black on the exterior of the rim and a running hatched meander on a metopal panel on the shoulder flanked by vertical bands of black, is a typical Thapsosclass decoration of the “predecessor” class. Nevertheless the careless execution of the decorative motifs could be a weightly for the identification of the present vase as a Thapsos-class imitation rather than an orthodox piece. The importance of this piece is its manufacture and its appearance in a grave located in the broad environs of a Thapsos-class production center, that of Aigialeia.

Aigion (tombs)

2

Yellow or pale yellow almost white (2.5 YR 8/2, 8/3, 8/4 or 5 Y 8/2, 10 YR 7/6 and 10 Y 8/2)

1

Pale red (2.5 YR 7/6 and 7.5 YR 8/6)

1

2.2 Vase fragments (750-700 BC) (TABLE V) TABLE IV. PREDECESSOR SKYPHOI (760-750 BC)

These twelve fragments are all missing characteristic parts of the vase shape, by which a more exact chronology could be established; they have been dated generally in the Late Geometric period.

The two skyphoi from Aigion (K 91, 92) are characterized by a flat-slightly hollowed below, a convex body with an everted, vertical rim and cylindrical-sectioned handles set horizontally. They bear the characteristic decorative motif of the simple, black meander in the reserved handle zone. These two vases formed the template for recognizing all “predecessor” skyphoi fragments derived from the excavation of the Nikoleika sanctuary from which too comes a “predecessor” skyphos (K 30), almost complete and of the same fabric as the Aigion examples. The similarity of the profiles of these three vases with all the analogous fragments from Nikoleika, as well as with the profiles of early meander hooks skyphoi from Delphi (Neeft 1981, 29) reinforces their classification as protoThapsos examples of the ware. The Achaean identity of the two skyphoi from Aigion cannot be disputed since the two vases belonged to the same grave group as a slightly earlier kantharos (of a reddish yellow fabric, as are the majority of “predecessor” examples from Nikoleika) decorated with hatched triangles in the reserved handle zone: a vase type and decoration characteristic of the Achaean Early-Ȃiddle Geometric fine wares (Gadolou 2008, 98, no. 19; 167; 256-257).

FABRICS

Ano Mazaraki (Sanctuary site)

Nikoleika (Sanctuary site)

Reddish yellow (between 7.5 YR 8/6 or 7.5 YR 7/6)

3 skyphoi 1 skyphos -krater

3 skyphoi

Pink (7.5 YR 8/4)

1 skyphos 1 oinochoe

Very pale brown (10 YR 8/4 or 8/3)

1 skyphos 2 skyphoi-kraters

TABLE V. VASE FRAGMENTS (750-700 BC) All of them come either from the Ano Mazaraki or the Nikoleika sanctuary sites. Three skyphoi (K 2, 4, 7) and one skyphos-krater (K 5), all of the reddish yellow fabric have been derived from the first site. Skyphoi K 2, 4 and 7, bearing traces of a hatched and a number of running maeanders, could be assigned to both the panel

8

CHAPTER 2 ANALYSIS OF SHAPES AND DECORATION 2.3 Plain, panel and tripartite type vases (750-725 B C) (TABLE VI)

and the tripartite types of decoration. To the same scheme of decoration could also belong the skyphos-krater K 5. Unfortunately no vertical bands of black have been preserved in any of the above examples, a feature which would be of great importance in providing a more specified classification and chronology. The three skyphoi fragments from Nikoleika (K 36, 37, 39), all of the reddish-yellow fabric, are decorated with a metopal structure framed by vertical, black bands (traces), probably of the tripartite type of decoration. The continuous motifs (meander and chevrons), as well as the solidly glazed lower part of the body preserved in two of the examples, favour an early date, as do their excavation contexts. However, the fragmentary preservation of the pieces prevents more accuratel dating. Fragments of both a skyphos (K 46) of the tripartite decoration and of an oinochoe (K 65) of the panel or zone type, belonging to the pink fabric group, are proposed to be broadly Late Geometric in date; the absence of further technical and decorative features does not allow a more detailed analysis. One skyphos (K 74) and two skyphoi-kraters (K 83, 84), all of the very pale brown fabric, have been assigned to the same chronology as the fragments above. The skyphoi-kraters K 83 and K 84 belong to the same stratigraphical layer and share a design of continuous motifs in metopal panels, characteristic of a place at the beginning of the series of panel and tripartite Thapsos skyphoi. The resemblance of the vase K 74 to the Aigion skyphos K 111 in profile as well as in the fabric suggests a tripartite decoration for this fragment. The fact that the vase from Aigion (K 111) was found in a grave together with two more skyphoi (K 110 and K 94) dating to 750-725 BC. for the first and to 725-700 BC. the second, could further justify the proposed dating.

The majority of vases (fifteen) dated in the third quarter of the 8th century BC have been derived from the Nikoleika sanctuary site, while one fragment comes from the sanctuary site of Ano Mazaraki. Two intact skyphoi (panel and tripartite) have been derived from a grave group in Aigion, and another comes from Drepanon, near Patras. Most examples are of the very pale brown fabric (nine fragments) and come from the two sanctuary sites, while three of the Nikoleika examples, each one of a different vase shape, belong to the second most popular fabric, the reddish-yellow one. Four fragments are of the pink fabric, while only three from grave groups at Aigion and Drepanon are of the yellow variety. The distribution of fabrics to sites follows the scheme that has already been observed in the two previous chronological categories of Achaean Thapsos. The skyphos (K 114) from Drepanon is assigned to the plain skyphoi. Its solidly glazed interior differentiates it from Neefts’ classification of the characteristics of the type (Neeft 1981, 37). The only two known examples to Neeft are quite peculiar (1981, 81, table III, group 3); the pieces from Achaea, except that from Drepanon, number five more, all from the Nikoleika sanctuary site – two skyphoi (K 75, 79) and three skyphoikraters (K 85, 86, 87). All partake of the second most popular fabric in the area, the very pale brown one, and in decoration a reserved rim zone decorated with horizontal, black bands, and characteristic of the type is combined with a solidly glazed interior or a reserved line on the inner upper rim. Their dating to the third quarter of the 8th c. BC (750-725 BC) is further justified from their excavated position: the majority of accompanying vase fragments have been assigned to the same date.

A very general comment to be made apropos which shapes go with which fabrics is that the majority of shapes is associated with the two most popular fabrics of the area (the reddish-yellow and the very pale brown ones).

FABRICS

Ano Mazaraki (Sanctuary site)

The panel and tripartite type skyphoi from a grave group at Aigion (K 110, 111) belong to the same grave group with a

Nikoleika (Sanctuary site)

Reddish yellow (between 7.5 YR 8/6 or 7.5 YR 7/6)

1 panel type skyphos 1 panel type oinochoe 1 kantharos, probably an imitation

Pink (7.5 YR 8/4)

4 panel type skyphoi

Very pale brown (10 YR 8/4 or 8/3)

1 panel type skyphos

Aigion (tombs)

Patras region (Drepanon tomb)

5 skyphoi of the panel and the plain types 3 plain type skyphoi-kraters 1 panel and one 1 plain type skyphos tripartite type skyphos

Yellow or pale yellow almost white (2.5 YR 8/2, 8/3, 8/4 or 5 Y 8/2, 10 YR 7/6 and 10 Y 8/2)

TABLE VI. PLAIN, PANEL AND TRIPARTITE TYPE VASES (750-725 BC)

9

THAPSOS-CLASS WARE RECONSIDERED tripartite skyphos (K 94) dated in the last quarter of the 8th century BC. The dating of the two vases to earlier in the third quarter of the c. is based mainly on the early characteristic of the solidly glazed lower part, and also on the continuous motifs (horizontal zigzag and vertical wavy lines) which decorate the handle zone. The third vase bears certainly later in date: the horizontal, black bands on the lower part of the body (a typical feature of the Late Geometric fine ware Achaean pottery),1 a second decoration zone on the rim of the vase and a more advanced (and less stylized) star, in comparison with the star on the skyphos AMA 1118 (K 111), on the side square of the handle metopal panel. The existence of two early and one late in the 8th c. vases in the same grave group should not cause surprise as the appearance of pots of different dates in one grave is a wellrefernced phenomenon.

on its interior, as has been set down by Neeft. Continuous motifs on the panel decorate eight more examples of panel skyphoi and one oinochoe fragment (from the Nikoleika sanctuary site – K 12, 58, 60, 61, 62, 76, 78, 81 and the oinochoe K 15). All come from stratified layers with ‘predecessor’ skyphoi; the existence of two later examples in the same layers should be seen as merely accidental. No chronological confusions need arise. One panel skyphos comes from the excavation of Ano Mazaraki (K 72) bearing a triple zigzag in a metopal panel. The tripartite skyphos from Aigion (K 111) favours an early date because, as it has already been noted, of the continuous motif in the handle zone, the stylized star on the side square and its solidly black-glazed lower part. An almost identical example, as far as the decoration is concerned, comes from Delphi (Neeft 1981, 75, 7, Delphi no. 5982). The shape though of the Delphi piece is unique in the Thapsos repertoire, as it is accurately identified as that of a Corinthian kotyle.

The two vases examined here belong to the panel type and tripartite type of the Thapsos skyphoi respectively. The panel skyphos does not seem to match any of the two varieties classified by Neeft (1981, 20). On the contrary it combines characteristics from both of them; the upper inner rim surface is reserved (Neeft’s “b” variety) and the continuous motif on the panel, (the “a” variety; 1981, 22). Nevertheless, the black line on the handle of the panel skyphos matches perfectly the single reserved line 1

It is as an imitation rather than as a true piece that the kantharos (AMA 2629; K 35) from Nikoleika is to be judged: due to its generally careless manufacture. This is the second vase from Achaea that is so characterized, alongside another kantharos (AMA 1876; K 42) from Trapeza (cf. p, 8).

Gadolou 2008, 176, 273.

FABRICS

Ano Mazaraki (Sanctuary site)

Nikoleika (Sanctuary site)

Aigion (tombs)

Northeastern Aigialeia (tombs)

Central Achaea Chalandritsa (tombs)

Kalavryta

5HGGLVK\HOORZEHWZHHQ