The Farwell collection m900nt837

Citation preview

The Farwell Collection

+

*

MONOGRAPHS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND FINE ARTS Sponsored by

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA AND THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

VI

by FRANKLIN P. JOHNSON

PUBLISHED WITH THE AID OF A GRANT FROM THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 1953

All tights reserved by the ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

Printed in Germany a# J.J. Augustin, Gliickstadt

Acknowledgments I am indebted to Captain Farwell for permission to study and publish his discoveries;

to Miss Bertha Wiles, Curator of the Epstein Collection, for permission to use certain facilities in working with the pottery; to Mr. Thorkild Jacobsen, who, when Dean of the Division of the Humanities at the University of Chicago, provided funds for photographs of the pottery in the main collection; to Mr. T. D. Stewart, of the United States National Museum, who courteously supplied photographs of the pieces in that collection and inform-

ation about them; to Dean Napier Wilt, of the Division of the Humanities, and to the Divisional Committee on Reseatch Funds, for a subsidy which covered approximately half of the cost of publication. Thanks ate expressed for more specific assistance in a number of places in the monograph.

Most of the photographs were made by Mr. Harold Allen; and it is believed that his skill, patience, and desire for perfection have resulted in a series of illustrations of notable quality.

University af Chicago Franklin P. Johnson

Vv

a

.

°

Table of Contents IT INTRODUCTION 1.0... cece eee eee teen eee nett e ence eneenns IAQ Captain Farwell at Ordona ........ cece cece eect e eee e ee teeneeeeeeeeee I Rarlier digging and relevant publications ......... 0. cece cece eee eeeeeeeeeee I

Captain Farwell’s work 2.0.0... cece cee nent e cette ee eteneeeteeee 3 Character of his Graves .... cee ccc cee cece eee eee teste e tests cesenes 4 Reliability of the grave GrOUPS 2... cece cece eect eee e ects ee esseecee 6 Three classes of pottery . 0... ccc cece cece cee eee e cette eee eteerteecesee 8

IT CATALOGUE 2. cee cee ee tee eee eet eee eee ee eee eee 10-33 The fifteen grave QTOUPS 1... cece ee cece eee eee ee eee eteseeeseeceees FO Handmade pottery not belonging to grave groups ........ cc cece eee e eee e eee 22 Wheelmade pottery not belonging to grave groups .......... ccc cece cence eee 29

TT] TECHNIQUE 1... ccc ec ee eee eee tet e eee eee eee e canes 34-36 IV THe POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM. ....... 0. cece eee eee e eee eens 37-60

The handmade Ware oo cvvvvcc ccc ccc cece cere ence eee een eee nee 37-48

Kraters coc ccc ccc cee cece cece eee ete e eee ee eet ates esses eeeseees 37

Jugs with wide, flat rim oo... eee cee cere eee e teen eeeeeeeeeneee 39 Trefoil jugs .. cece cece cece ec ence eee e nett eeestteessessseesees 40 Jugs with small mouth 10... .. ccc cece cece cee e ete eeeeeesteeteeee AI Small jugs ....ee cc cece cece cece eee erect e etter erect eects ersseseses AI Other jugs 0... cece eee c cece cece eee eee eee eene ee eeseetreesseesece G2 Bowls with one tall handle 2... 0... cee cece eee e cece ete sees eeceecsee 42

Oe aD 7 Stemmed plates ..... ces eee eee eee eee eee e eee ee ee nce eeeeneesseeseeess MF

Plates and bowls 2... cece cece ee cee cette reece eeetceseeceesecsses 4O

ASKOL . occ ccc ccc ccc cee cece te eee c eee tree ee ee esteeesceeeesessesess 46

| vii

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS The Italic wheelmade ware... ccc ccc ccc eee nen e eens 4B-$§7 Trefoil Jugs occ eee c ccc cee cece cere eee e ete eect ee ee eteseessseces 48

1d CAs) a

Jugs of form A... ccc ccc cece cece cece eee e cece eee teeeessseces 48

Jugs of form Bow. cc cece cree eee cece eect eeeeeeeee 49 Other Jugs ... ccc cece eee cece cece cece ee eee eevee esses eeesesesessne §0

Oo 6s

Bowls with one horizontal handle ........ 0... cee cee eee cece ee eeeeeee SI “AShttays? . occ ce cece cee cee eee eee eee terete eee cesses eeesees §2 Stemmed bowls ...... ccc cece cece cece eee e eens eee teeescessecees §4

GT o 0 x0) a

Various bowls ....... cece cece cece cece ence eee tenet eeeeeseeesessssees §f Plates and stemmed plates ......... cece cece cece cece eee eee ceesevecee 56

The Italtote pottery occ ccc ccc ccc cece cece e eee e cece eee neeeeene 57-60

V CONCLUSIONS. 6... eee eee eee eee eee ee eee eee e ee eeeceee 61-66 Relative chronology of graves and pottery .......... cece eee cece cece eee eeeee OF Greek influence in handmade ware ...... 0... cece eee e cee cece eects esecess 63 Banded wate 2.0... ccc ccc cnc cece ete e tence eee et ee eeteesscsessressecees G3 Monochrome wate ...... cece cee ccc cece cee ee neces ees eeresssseeseeses 63 Pryce’s historical scheme ....... cc ccc ccc cece ee cee cee eee escescceveeee 65 Absolute chronology .......c ccc eee c cece e cece cece cer eseeeeeccsccseeses 66 APPENDIX I Note on graves excavated by Angelucci ..... 0... cece cece ee eeeeecees 67

AppENDIx IT Daunian vases in the Classical Collection, University of Chicago ..... 69 APPENDIX III The Arkesilaos vas€ 1... . cscs cece cece eee ce eres eccstceveseses 73

I. Introduction In 1944 and 1945 the second battalion of the 21st engineer aviation regiment of the American army was stationed at Cerignola, about 23 miles from Foggia, in southeastern Italy. Captain Byron Farwell, the battalion Adjutant, found that his duties left him some leisure, and thought that he would like to do some archaeological excavation; and he heard that ancient graves were abundant at Ordona, about twelve miles from Cerignola. In nor-

mal times, it would have been contrary to law to open ancient graves without official permission, which would hardly have been granted to Captain Farwell; but in the circumstances then existing, the enterprise was perhaps open to no legal objection. At all events, no objection was actually raised in any quarter, and Captain Farwell opened about twenty graves. He sent to America, besides a small amount of miscellaneous material, 209 pieces of pottery, of which 104 belong to fifteen grave groups; the others came from his first few graves, which wete not recorded in any way, or were acquited by purchase or gift; probably all or nearly all were found originally in graves at Ordona. Seventeen pieces were presented to the National Museum at Washington, and the remainder probably constitute the largest collection of Daunian pottery outside of Italy. Ordona is the successor of the ancient Herdonia, the modern village being just north of the ancient town, as shown in Captain Farwell’s sketch map (Fig. 1).1 An Italian army officer, Angelucci, stated in 1876 that tombs were scattered over all the space between ancient Herdonia and modern Ordona and around the latter, and that many of them had been dug by the villagers. Angelucci himself dug some thirty graves in 1872 and 1875, and

published two brief reports, Ricerche preistoriche nella Capitanata (Turin, 1872) and 1 In Mayer’s map (Apulien, frontispiece) Ortanova appears as Herdonia and Ordona is not shown atall.

This is probably a mere slip, though at one place in his text Mayer writes: “Die heute an der Stelle (of ‘

1 Johnson ]

Herdonia) gelegenen Ortschaften heiBen Ordona und Ortanova.” The two villages are some twelve miles apart.

2 THE FARWELL COLLECTION Ricerche preistoriche e storiche nella Italia meridionale (Turin, 1876).2 He was interested chiefly in weapons, and was disappointed that he found fewer than local reports had led

him to expect. The pottery that he found is not illustrated in his reports; some of it is fairly well described; much is not. Angelucci stated? that all his discoveries and archaeological acquisitions were in Turin, in the Museo Civico or the Artillery Museum; at least nine handmade vases are now in the Museo di Antichita at Turin, having been transferred from the Museo Civico. A photograph of these was courteously sent by Dr. Gino Lo Porto, who is preparing a publication. In 1902 a professional archaeologist, Quintino Quagliati, opened two graves at Ordona, and a fairly complete account of them was published.* The discoveries went to the museum

at Taranto. Quagliati, like Angelucci, heard from the villagers of the great extent of the ancient necropolis, which was said to spread around the ancient town over a radius of about three kilometers, and grieved that the vast field had been left “‘alla pit: ignorante e devastratice speculazione antiquaria.” Captain Farwell gained the impression that the local digging,

thus bitterly described, had continued after Quagliati’s visit as before it; but 80 years of | such digging has not exhausted the cemetery. In 1914 appeared Maximilian Mayer’s notable book, Apuwlen vor und wdahrend der Hellenisirung mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der Keramik. The third part of this work (pp. 87—174) is devoted to Daunian pottery and, in the discussion, Mayer sometimes makes a distinction between Canosa and Ruvo, on the one hand, and the region north of the Aufidus, including Ordona, on the other. The latter class corresponds, in general, to the handmade pottery of the Farwell collection, and this is by far the most important discussion of such pottery. The principal collection is in the museum at Bari. Many pieces are listed as having come from Ordona, though the information is generally subject to some doubt, since none of the material was found in supervised excavation. Mayer presents also (pp. 64—67) a summary of Angelucci’s publications, attempting to list the contents of each grave in intelligible modern terms.' Apparently he did not understand Angelucci’s references to illustrations of vase shapes in Rich’s dictionary of antiquities, of which several editions had been published under various titles; these references help somewhat, though not much, in interpreting the descriptions. Furthermore, Mayer virtually ignores the wheelmade pottery,® and this not only affects his interpretation of Angelucci’s descriptive phrases, but constitutes a temarkable deficiency in the chapter on pottery. Since several wheelmade pieces were 2 These publications are probably rare. The earlier is in the library of Harvard University, the other in the Johns Hopkins library. The statement quoted: 1876, p. 16. 3 1872, p. 44.

4 NSe 1907, pp. 28-38. This article will hereafter be cited by the author’s name only. 5 In the grave numbered 17 by Mayer, he mentions three small vases inside the jar, Angelucci (1876, p. 50) only one. In Mayer’s grave 26 there is included a fibula (g) put together from fragments of amber and terracotta, which seems from Angelucci (1872, pp. 9f.) to have been bought from a local digger. 5 Mayer does mention several kinds of wheelmade pottery, especially in Chapter XIV, but none seems to be our ware. On p. 293 he mentions the stemmed plate in Quagliati’s first grave.

INTRODUCTION 3 found by Quagliati, Mayer cannot have been unacquainted with the ware, and the Farwell graves would suggest that it was plentiful; I do not understand its absence from the book; surely it was not considered too late to include, for other Apulian pottery that is still later is duly presented. Among relevant publications subsequent to Mayer, special importance attaches to part of the British Museum Corpus Vasorum, with text by F. N. Pryce.’ This discussion evidently rests on independent study, but is presented in meagre form. Randall-Mclver gives a good brief account, based on Mayer, of Daunian ware;8 and a popular article by Quagliati deals with the early periods in all Apulia.® Discoveries at Arpi, which could be relevant, are known to me only from a brief summary.’ The air survey of Apulia! seems to promise well for future research. The excavations at Ceglie! and Cannae,!8 as far as known from the publications, yielded little of direct value for the present purpose. Mingazzini’s publication of a more distant Italian site, the Marica sanctuary," is helpful chiefly because of its full treatment of the pottery, and the same is true of Miss Lake’s article!> on a special deposit at Minturnae, which apparently belongs to the middle of the third century B. C. Gervasio’s book, Brongi Arcaici e Ceramica Geometrica nel Museo di Bari (1921), important as it is for Peucetia, has little direct bearing on the Ordona material. It may be mentioned here that, on his first day of digging and then only, Captain Farwell was accompanied by Captain Wayne H. Byrne, who also brought to America a certain amount of pottery. And Captain Farwell saw some pottery like his in a shop at Capri; he could learn only that it had come from the vicinity of Foggia. Captain Farwell’s first period of digging was from February 20 to April 12, 1944. He estimates that during this time he opened four, five, or six graves. No records were kept and

the discoveries were not labeled. It is recalled, however, that one grave contained the remains of a child, along with a silver fibula, some beads, and several pieces of pottery including the rattle Y 51. The fibula and the beads were lost in shipping, and of the pottery only the rattle can be identified. In the collection there are several very small pieces that might reasonably belong to a child’s grave, but Captain Farwell does not remember that the pottery in this grave was unusually small. On April 12, 1944, he opened the grave that he numbered I. Grave II was dug on either that day or the next, and grave IJI on April 13. During the remainder of 1944 he had no opportunity for further excavation, and forgot just how many graves he had dug and num| * Fasc. 7 (Great Britain 10) (1932), IV D a pls. 5—r1o. 8 The Iron Age in Italy (1927), pp. 214-220. 9 Japigia, 1930, pp. 5 ff. 10 AJA 1947, p. 451.

Antiquity, 1950, pp. 84 ff. 12 Japigia, 1930, pp. 241-272 (Gervasio). 13 Japigia, 1938, pp. 389 ff. (Gervasio); cf. A.A, 1938, 717-721. M4 ML XXXVII, 1938, 693-983. 1S Boll, Stud. Med. V, 1934-1935, pp. 97-11 4. 1*

4 THE FARWELL COLLECTION beted; so when he resumed work in 1945 he numbered the first grave X. Graves X—-XXI were opened between January 28, 1945 and September 17 of the same year. The discoveries in each of these fifteen numbered graves were tagged or labeled to show the grave from which they came. No other systematic records were kept, though certain notations were

made and preserved. Also a number of photographs were made; they show two of the graves, XIII and XIV, in process of excavation, and a considerable quantity of pottery. When the photographs were taken, the material from the earlier digging had been shipped, and it follows that anything appearing in the photographs either belongs to graves K—XXI

ot was not found by Captain Farwell at all, but was acquired by purchase or gift. In this way it is indicated that 14 handmade and 5 wheelmade pieces (Y 1, 6, 21, 22, 31, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 533 YW 2, 4, 5; Z 19 or 20, 24, 25, 26, 32) did not come from his own digging.

Four pieces not included in the grave groups bear labels indicating that they were acquired from the priest in Ordona (Z 1, Z 4, Z 16, Z 37); and Captain Farwell more or less distinctly recalls the acquisition of some others from various sources. The word “‘Nectopolis” on the map (Fig. 1) indicates the general region of his digging. As far as can be understood from the statements of Angelucci and Quagliati, neither dug in this vicinity; but it would probably belong, at least in part, to the region “‘nella parte d’oriente della citta vecchia,” where Quagliati was told that the graves were closest together.1¢ This probably means that it was the poorest part of the cemetery. One of Captain Farwell’s graves, XI, was at some distance from the rest in a place indicated, with rough approximation, by a cross on the map; and this grave is the only one that produced any considerable quantity of metal-work, of which Angelucci found a good deal in his graves. Each grave was found to be covered by a large stone slab (Fig. 2), which in Angelucci’s time was locally called tombagno or chianco.” Angelucci mentions that in some instances the slab was lacking and there was only a heap of stones over the grave, which naturally was likely to be crushed; but Farwell came on no graves of this sort. Quagliati was informed

that there was regularly a heap of stones over the slab; this was not found by Farwell, possibly because his graves were on ground that had been plowed. Quagliati was told also that an iron sword was likely to be placed on the slab over awarrior’s grave, but the single sword found by Farwell was inside the grave (XI); no swords were found by Angelucci or Quagliati. In two cases Angelucci did find an iron spear-point on the slab (Mayer nos. 4 and 21); Farwell found one such point beside a slab, another inside the grave. A piece of one slab was kindly examined by my colleagues, D. Jerome Fisher and Francis J. Pettijohn;

they pronounced it a highly calcareous sedimentary rock, or more technically pisolitic calcareous tufa. It was Captain Farwell’s impression that the slabs were not of the same tufa in which the graves were cut, but he may have been misled by appearances. 16 Quagliati, p. 36. 1? 1872, p. 9. Same practice in various Apulian places: Mayer, p. 60.

INTRODUCTION 5 The dimensions of four graves were recorded for Captain Farwell. The slab over Grave XIII measured 1.47 by 1.37 by 0.203 m.; the grave itself was 1.116 by 0.86 m. at the top, 1.47 by 1.292 m. at the bottom, and its depth below the slab was 0.964 m. The slab over Grave XI was 1.596 by 1.09 by 0.228 m.; the grave was 1.116 by 0.86 m., and the depth below the slab 0.634 m. In a third instance the slab was 1.498 by 1.09 by 0.228 m., the grave 1.168 by 0.71 m. and 0.812 m. deep. In a fourth, the slab was 0.203 m. thick and (appatently) 1.242 m. square; the grave was 1.14 by 0.508 m. at the top, 1.446 by 0.888 m. at the bottom, and 0.735 m. deep.}8 Angelucci gives dimensions for some of his graves. His largest slab (Mayer 21) measured 1.40 by 1.20 m. In general his graves do not differ greatly in scale from the Farwell graves, but tend to be longer or narrower; however, the graves are too few to establish any rule. Quagliati’s first grave was covered by a heavy slab, 1.50 by 1.35 by 0.35 m. As for conditions inside of the grave, Quagliati’s drawing of his first grave! would serve petfectly to illustrate the type found by Captain Farwell; compare also Fig. 3. In each grave there was apparently a single skeleton in contracted position, the head resting on a stone. One of Quagliati’s two graves contained two skeletons, one of them of a child, and Angelucci found five graves with two skeletons each and one with four. In all the Farwell graves the bones were much decayed, but it was judged that there was never more than one skeleton. (In three graves opened by Captain Farwell at Cannae, the skeletons, lying on their backs, were well preserved, but had nothing buried with them.) There was a shell in the child’s grave, another in Grave XV. There were no traces of clothing. In one of Angelucci’s graves (Mayer no. 6) the body lay on a terracotta piece, probably a roof tile, but Farwell found nothing of the sort. Like his predecessors, he found a large vessel in every grave; and in every instance but one, as he remembers, there was a small vessel inside of the large one.” Presumably the large vessels, usually kraters or jats, contained water or wine, and the small ones would serve as dippers. The local term for the jars is fiszva, accotding to Quagliati; Angelucci used o//a. Most of the large jars were undecorated and were not shipped, but were left in the possession of Dr. Albanese, of Cerignola, in whose house Captain Farwell was quartered during his last nine months in Italy. The collection now contains three of these large vessels (XII 1, XV 1, and Y 46) and it is probable that Y 2 was used in the same way. XII 1, XV 1, and five others are shown in a Farwell photograph (Fig. 4); the jar at the lower left probably belongs to Grave XIII. The vessels inside were small jugs or cups in three cases (II 1, XIII 4, XIX 5), and Captain Farwell recalls that this was usual; but once a bowl with “figurine” handle was found inside CXII 2), and perhaps a similar form was used in one of Angelucci’s graves (cf. p. 67). Each grave 18 These measurements are converted from those recorded in inches. In the grave mentioned fourth, the circumference is given as 49 inches; this seems impossible, and I conjecture that the slab was square, like one of Angelucci’s (Mayer, no. 17). 1 Quagliati, p. 29. 20 This feature, as well as others, is closely paralleled in the graves at Ceglie (note 12 supra).

6 THE FARWELL COLLECTION contained other pottery in varying quantity, in no discernible order; objects other than pottery were few except in Grave XI. The pottery was generally broken little or not at all, though naturally there were exceptions. Pieces that were reduced to fragments were not usually kept. The digging was careful and caused little damage. There was wide variation as regards the condition of the sutface. Many of the vases wete covered more or less completely with a deposit resembling

concrete, which was eventually removed by hydrochloric acid. Often, though not invariably, the removal of a particularly heavy coat of this material revealed a surface in particularly good condition (especially Y 38); the deposit gave protection from deterioration.

It seems likely that much, though certainly not all, of the pottery was brand new when placed in the graves. The pottery was shipped to Captain Farwell’s relatives in the United States, unpacked by them, and eventually repacked and shipped to me in Chicago. In its travels, many pieces were very considerably broken. In my laborious mending I found only two old breaks; all the rest resulted from digging or shipping, and it is clear from the Farwell photographs that the digging was seldom to blame. It was also reasonably evident, though not so definitely demonstrable, that little damage was suffered in the final trip to Chicago; it was in the trans-oceanic voyage that the injuries occurred. With regard especially to the value of the grave groups, one must consider the possibilities that pottery has been lost and that labels have been lost or have been misplaced. None of these misfortunes would be unexpected in the circumstances. Captain Farwell prepared a card for Graves X—XIX, on which he evidently intended to record the number of pieces in each grave. However, he actually set down the number for only two graves, XITI and XIX. For XIII the number is 22. The discoveries in this instance were photographed in the grave (Fig. 3), and it appears from the photograph that the large jar was included in the count. The jar was presumably not shipped, and the collection now contains 21 pieces with labels indicating that they belonged to this grave. Virtually all of them are immediately to be recognized from the photograph; XIII 4 is still in the large jar; and the fragmentary plate XIII 17, which is present but hardly recognizable inside of XITI 1, is remembered by Captain Farwell as having been found in this grave. For Grave XIX the number on the card is 11, which presumably included the large jar as before, and 10 pieces ate now present and labeled as from XIX. Grave XIV, like XIII, was photographed immediately after digging. The photograph (Fig. 13) shows ten vases, including the large jar. Eight of them are in the National Museum at Washington, a ninth in the Farwell Collection itself (cf. Catalogue, XIV 8), and the large jar was not shipped. One of the vases from Grave XVII (no. 6) had a tag that bore, besides the number of 21 For counsel in this matter I am indebted to Mr. Burtch, Preparator at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

INTRODUCTION 7 the grave, the notation “12 pieces.” Doubtless this indicates the number in the grave, including the large jar. The collection now contains 11 pieces labeled as from XVII. The label of II 5 bears the notation “Of the five pieces from this tomb, this is the best.” This

appears to be unlike the notations previously mentioned, but like a number of others (see | below), in that it is more or less definitely addressed to Captain Farwell’s relatives; and it

is therefore reasonable that the five pieces should include only those that would go to America. At all events there are in the collection five pieces with labels of Grave II, of which II 5 is indeed the best, and the “quite large urn” mentioned in the label of II x is not among them. (IT 5 itself was not the large urn, for its mouth is not large enough to admit IT 1.)

In addition to the contents of Graves XIII and XIV, Captain Farwell’s various photographs show 29 vases, and these ate all accounted for. Thus, five graves are now, in all probability, represented by their full quotas; there is only the slight possibility of one loss from XVII and one from XIX. That the collection contains not only the right numbers, but the right vases, is absolutely certain only for XIII and XIV, but there is no reason whatever for suspecting confusion in the others. The 56 vases from these five graves, with the 29 others known from photographs, make a total of 85, which is not far short of half of the collection. Since there is apparently no loss whete loss could be detected, one is tempted to conclude that there is no loss at all. On the other hand, the sword from Grave X1 is certainly lost, and so are the silver fibula and beads from the child’s grave (p. 3) which would belong to an earlier shipment. Then there ate three graves (XII, XV, XVI) from which we have only two labeled vases apiece.

Captain Farwell is sure that none of his graves contained so few, though he admits a possibility that some were badly broken and only two were saved. Furthermore, on the card previously mentioned, Captain Farwell made a tentative division into chronological groups,

and placed Grave XV in a third period along with XVII and XIX. This does not seem a natural placing, as the groups stand now, and Captain Farwell himself thinks that there must have been other pieces from Grave XV to suggest the position that he gave it. Of

course lost labels would explain the problem as well as lost pottery. In many cases the grave numbers were written on tags, which were attached to the handles of the vases by string or wire. The tags were secure unless the handles were afterwards broken. Sometimes the form of the vase, either originally or because of damage, was such that there was no part to which a tag could well be attached; in these cases and some others the number was written either on a piece of adhesive tape or on a tag or piece of catdboard which was placed inside of the vessel. In some instances the adhesive tape continued to adhere even after a week’s soaking, when the pottery was cleaned, and it is very probable that none of the tape labels had come off previously. As for the others, the possibility of loss would be greater; but with each piece wrapped separately, as was the rule, the danger would be slight. None of the nine vases in Grave XIV had a label when ex-

¢

8 THE FARWELL COLLECTION amined in this country. Since it is scarcely conceivable that they should all have lost the labels, one must suppose that they escaped labeling in the first place, though how that could have happened is a puzzle. Fortunately, the photograph prevents loss of information in this instance. Captain Farwell feels sure that he dug Y 1, and thinks that he dug and tagged Y 4o; if he is right, those two lost their labels. A misplaced label would be worse than a lost one, and unhappily it seems certain that one tag became attached to the wrong piece. Several tags bore, in addition to the number of the grave, brief remarks in the nature of messages to Captain Farwell’s family. Some of these were mote or less completely marked out before the collection came to me, and I did not try to read them. After cleaning several vases from Grave III, naturally removing their tags in the process, I noticed that the message onone tag was: “This needs to be cleaned up a lot to bring out the design on the inside.” This tag was attached to III 3, [1] 4 or III 7, and obviously it was not appropriate to any of them, or to any piece with a tag assigning it to Grave III. The vase from which I removed that tag probably did not originally belong to Grave III, and it is most regrettable that I could not identify it with certainty. It ought to be III 7, which looks out of place with the others of Grave III, and I rather thought that it was ITI 7, but I could not be sure. If the original bearer of this tag is now present among the unlabeled vases, it would best be Y 35; Y 29 might be possible also. It would not be Y 39, Y 41, Y 42, or Y 43, because they appear in the Farwell photographs; nor Y 38, because it was so heavily encrusted, when it reached Chicago, that there was nothing to suggest interior decoration; nor, probably, Y 40, because it was well cleaned before it reached me. Y 35 has an interesting interior pattern, and strenuous efforts had been made to clean it, but there was still a very considerable deposit when I first saw it. Thus it must be acknowledged that some labels are lacking, that one label has been misplaced, and that some pottery may have been lost. However, it appears that none of these mishaps has been extensive, and that the integrity of the grave groups can generally be telied on. The Farwell pottery falls into three classes, two large and one small. The first class consists of 91 pieces made by hand and decorated with matt paint; of these 33 come from the numbered graves and 58 were unlabeled; 6 pieces ate in the National Museum at Washington, one is in the possession of Captain Farwell’s mother, and 84 are in the main collection. The second class consists of 106 pieces made on the wheel (including XV 2) and decorated with lustrous paint; of these 67 come from the numbered graves and 39 were

unlabeled; 10 pieces, including 7 from Grave XIV, ate in the National Museum, the others in the main collection. The two technical criteria never conflict, but there are included in each class a few pieces that are not painted at all. The two classes may be termed Italic, though there is considerable Greek influence in the second. The third class comptises 11 pieces of “Italiote” ware, with strong Attic influence; 7 are from the numbered graves; one, from Grave XIV, is in the National Museum, the others in the main collection.

INTRODUCTION 9 Of the fifteen numbered graves, five contained only handmade pottery, five contained only wheelmade, and five contained both. However, the condition is not as simple as that statement might suggest. Three graves (II, with five pieces; XI, with five pieces; XII, with two pieces) contain only handmade pottery, and all of it may be reckoned typical; this term being understood simply from the evidence of the present collection. Two graves (XVI, with two pieces; XVIII, with four pieces) contain only handmade pottery, but some of it could be considered late-looking. Two graves CX, with five pieces; XV, with two pieces) contain both handmade and wheelmade ware, but the wheelmade pieces are atypical and, in Grave X, in a minority (one of five). Two graves (I, with eight pieces, including one Italiote; XVII, with 11 pieces) contain both kinds, but the handmade pieces are atypical

and in a minority (two in Grave I, three in Grave XVII). Five graves (XIII, with 21 pieces, including two Italiote: XIV, with nine, including one Italiote; XIX, with ten; XX with five; XXI, with eight, including three Italiote) contained only wheelmade ware. (In these figures no account is taken of the large jars, which probably were always handmade.) Thus Grave III is the only one to contain both typical handmade and typical wheelmade ware; and in that instance there is only one wheelmade piece and, as has been seen (p. 8), it is by no means certain that that piece really belongs to the grave.

Quagliati’s first grave contained six handmade pieces, including the large jar, along with four wheelmade, and neither group is conspicuously atypical. However, reason will be found for considering some of the handmade pieces late, and the wheelmade do not belong to common forms. His second grave apparently contained one handmade jug, distinctly not typical, and four wheelmade pieces. I read a paper on the Farwell collection at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute in 1948, and published a brief article in 1949.” It is expected that Mr. Farwell will soon resume possession of his pottery which will be housed in his residence in Detroit. 22 Archaeology, sammer 1949, pp. 86f.

II. Catalogue The grave groups are given under the numbers assigned to the graves by Captain Far-

well: I—ITI, X—XXI. Then the pottery that does not belong to the grave groups is listed in two separate numerical series, one having the letter Y before the number and the other the letter Z. It should be understood that each Y vase is, wholly or predominantly, handmade, and is painted, if at all, with matt paint; each Z vase is wheelmade and is painted, if at all, with lustrous paint. The arrangement within the Y and Z lists is generally accord-

ing to form; but Y 52 and Y 53 are out of place by this criterion, and Z 40—Z 45 ate grouped together because they are Italiote. The vases in the National Museum at Washington that do not belong to Grave XIV are listed at the ends of the Y and Z series, with the symbols YW and ZW respectively. The descriptions in the Catalogue are not intended to include what can be clearly seen in the illustrations. I 1, Pyxis (Figs. 5, 59). Ht. without handles below: band, with two lines above and two be0.075, diam. of mouth ca. 0.075, max. circ. 0.382. low it. On bottom: quartered circle. A painted Handmade. Usual clay, color uniform; spot of band around each handle-attachment, covering iron below one handle-attachment. Dark brown the protuberance. On handle: two bands; several

| matt paint. One handle is entirely lost, with short lines across top of handle, joining the two much of the surface in that vicinity; however, bands. the places of attachment for the handle are per- I 2. Bowl with one handle (Figs. 5, 49). Diam. ceptible. It is not clear that the original rim is at top 0.155, ht. with handle 0.093. Handmade.

preserved at any point; no lip; nothing to show Usual clay, somewhat light, color nearly uniform. whether there was a cover. A protuberancebeside Dark brown matt paint. Unbroken. Bottom flat, each handle attachment, probably imitating a no offset. Design inside not in center. Outside,

metal handle. Bottom flat, no offset. No paint three bands on rim; two short vertical strokes inside. On each half of outside, a step pattern down from rim on each side of handle; two (not a checkerboard, as the white squares are not lines along handle, with three groups of short closed). Above: one band, two lines below it; strokes projecting from the inner one. 10

CATALOGUE I] I 3. Stemmed bowl, monochrome (Fig. 5). Ht. painted red inside base-ring. Interior of vase 0.062, diam. of mouth 0.095. Wheelmade. Usual black. Two horizontal ridges on base-ring. With clay. Black lustrous paint, on entire surface ex- nine distinct patterns, this is a notable example cept a small area inside of foot. Unbroken, con- of the Apulian kantharoi called by Beazley siderable paint lost. Foot hollow, conical inside. (Etruscan Vase Painting, pp. 218f.) the Xenon Rim offset outside, not inside. Suspension holes Group.

before firing. ThumbIf 1.print inside. Rough jug (Fig. 6). Ht. with handle,

I 4. Small bowl, one horizontal handle (Figs. 0.105; diam. of mouth 0.084. Handmade. Prob- :

5, 64). Ht. 0.044, diam. 0.103-0.105. Wheelmade; ably usual clay. Little damaged by external patched by hand in one place before firing; hori- means, but fabric heavy and poor; four more or zontal wheel-marks much more distinct in upper less vertical cracks, loose layers inside. Handle than in lower part. Usual clay. Cracks that donot toughly rectangular in section; bottom flat, no go through. Dark brown lustrous paint. Bottom offset. No paint. Label: “found in a quite large slightly concave, no offset or ring. No paint out- urn.”

side except rim;with bands spots on 6, handle. II 2. at Bowl tallinside, angularthree handle (Figs. 45, 46). Ht. with handle, 0.10; without handle,

I 5. Jug, banded (Fig. 5). Ht. with handle 0.04; diam. 0.151; width of rim o.o15. Hand0.179, diam. of mouth 0.082. Wheelmade. Usual made. Usual clay; surface paler, probable slip. clay. Paint varying, red to brown, slightly lus- Dark brown matt paint. Lacks a piece of the rim trous. Tall, hollow lip; bottom flat, offset; crack and nearly all of the rear half of the double handon bottom, not going through. Lacks triangular le; the front half is replaced. Lip offset inside. piece from lip. Spots on lip, band inside in hol- ‘Two pellets at base of handle, each with painted low. Outside: narrow band below lip, going boundary and central dot. Patterns relatively well down on each side of handle; wavy line below; drawn. The back of the handle had three pairs of

on body, one broad band and three narrow vertical lines, the central pair apparently with bands, narrow band above offset at bottom. On ‘“‘flags”’ as in XI 2.

handle: long vertical band, two short oblique

lines crossing it and each other at top. TI 3. Jug (Figs. 6, 59). Ht. with handle 0.099,

without handle 0.078, diam. of mouth 0.06. IG. “Ashtray” (Fig. 5). Ht. 0.028, diam. of Handmade. Clay pale, probably the usual kind. mouth 0.085. Wheelmade. Usual clay. Brown Bottom roughly flat, no offset. Unbroken. Horilustrous paint, partly iridescent. Surface slightly zontal marks inside mouth, but no suggestion of damaged, some paint lost elsewhere. Large crack wheel. Three groups of short verticals painted on bottom, of which part goes through. There is inside mouth; four groups hanging from lowest a base-ting and a black band just within it; the line on outside, all alike.

apa eed and most of the area within it are I 4. Jug with narrow mouth (Figs. 6, 32, 59): Ht. with handle 0.145, without handle o.115, I 7. Jug, monochrome (Fig. 5). Much mend- diam. of mouth 0.052; max. circ. 0.345. Handed; lacks handle, part of rim, other small pieces. made. Usual clay. Virtually unbroken. Tall baseHt. 0.113, max. circ. 0.342. Wheelmade. Clay ring; within it, painted quartered circle; resting probably as usual, though little mica. Bottom surface also painted. Two pellets on handle just flat, offset. Paint largely red, but large brownish above mouth. Short verticals painted inside

spot and two small spots nearly black. mouth, irregularly spaced. 17 horizontal bands of various widths; 4th, 7th, 12th, and 16th from

I 8. Italiote kantharos (Figs. 5, 71, 72). Ht. top are red.

0.106, diam. of mouth 0.11. Wheelmade. Clay not the usual. Lacks one handle and a piece from Ii 5. Jug with tall angular handle (Figs. 6, 21). the rim. Red paint over good black glaze. Bottom Ht. with handle 0.215, without handle 0.135;

12 THE FARWELL COLLECTION width of rim 0.032, diam. of mouth 0.062. Hand- usual, surface much lighter, apparent slip. Matt made; marks on top of rim near mouth, on bot- paint. The rear half of the handle is missing; tom of rim near edge, and inside of mouth might most of the front half was in a separate package, suggest use of wheel; but irregularity, and verti- with no tag, and has been attached. Grooves on cal marks of same character on back of front half the back of this piece place its pertinence beyond of the handle, indicate that these are not actually question, and the deposit on the joining surfaces wheel marks. Clay probably as usual, though showed that the break was old. Three holes go

relatively pale; surface still paler, perhaps slip. through the handle. The decoration is all in Unbroken except for slight bruises, considerable brown except for the middle horizontal band on paint lost, including most of ornament on back the body of the bowl, which is red.

of handle. Paint all brown. Two lateral project- ; ; ; ,

ions, rounded and perforated, on front of handle. — 3 J Fe wn wide fat rm ss. nee 26). A slight ridge bounds the mouth; the rim slopes 4 i - nanee on ‘ itoad OBiccwie O04 upward somewhat from the mouth to the outer wi A ° iol, oa ble lie ME IScult as usual, edge. Bottom flat, no offset. Patterns relatively Pa im . bre ts i ane 4, 'P- Te _ * anes well drawn. In band with hatched squares, four _ rmiy brown. Dottom Nat, no olset. rele on vertical oblongs, reserved, on each side. On both therwise th s little damaged except fot handle and body, the row of oblique rectangles i Oe ay © vase Is little camaged excep

; andle, at front. Part of handle, at top, is lost;

has a half rectangle at one end. On back of hand- “0°S © paint.

le: a central pair of vertical lines; a group of III 4. Jug (Figs. 7, 59). Ht. with handle 0.112, three horizontal lines about midway between the diam.of moutho.o7. Handmade. Biscuit as usual,

group near the top and the lower group visible surface lighter, probable slip. Matt paint, all in the illustration; the central pair of vertical brown. Muchof handle replaced; surface in good lines probably did not continue below this; the condition. Bottom flat, no offset. A line around

scheme was much as in XI 5. mouth, from which four groups of three short Label: “Of the five pieces from this tomb, this verticals hang inside. Six such groups hang from

one is the best.” lowest line on body, three of plain lines alternat-

; , ing with three in which the outside lines have

UT 1, Jar with two handles (Fig. 7). Ht. 0.095, horizontal strokes at the bottom. diam. of body without handles ca. 0.13, diam. of mouth 0.05, max. width of rim as preserved 0.01, ITI 5. Stand? (Figs. 7, 57). Ht. 0.041, diam. but it is probably not complete at any point. The 0.095. Handmade. Biscuit as usual, surface pale,

thickness of the wall varies from 2 to 6mm. apparent slip. Matt paint. On top and bottom: Handmade. Usual clay. Matt paint. Much broken red band between two brown bands. On side: and mended, some pieces lost, much of the sur- brown bands at top and bottom, red bands next face flaked off; the layer so lost varies in thickness them; in center, two brown lines with brown and there is no difference in color, no suggestion hatched diamonds between them. In the “top,” of a slip. Bottom flat, no offset. Rim flat, slopes four pairs of suspension holes, apparently made down to mouth. On rim: several (probably four) after firing and painting. On the “top” the outer groups of four black dots; around edge, black painted band is much and uniformly worn, sugband. On body: broad black band, red band, gesting that this was originally the bottom; the three black bands, red band, four black bands. outer edge would be the resting surface. If a Between attachments of each handle: black X, vessel with a large flat base were frequently set red V and inverted V in upper and lower angles on the “stand,” the same kind of wear might of the X. Black paint also on handles, which are result, but the shape of the “stand” would sug-

cylindrical in section. gest that it was intended to receive a vessel with

a smaller base. Perhaps the object was first used III 2. Bowl with tall “figurine” handle (Figs. as a stand, then the suspension holes were pierced 7, 40, 41). Ht. without handle 0.04, diam. at top and it was used otherwise. The surface inside of 0.141; width of rim 0.02, Handmade. Biscuit as _ the ring shows no sign of wear.

CATALOGUE 13 Ill 6. Feeding bottle (Fig.7). Ht. 0.075. from rim on inside, four groups of three short Handmade. Usual clay. The body nearly globu- vertical lines.

lar. Bottom flat, no offset. The opening in the

small spout is very small. It is broken; the edge %3-Jug (Fig. 8). Ht. with handle 0.093,

of the large spout is broken slightly. Matt paint, Without handle 0.082; diam. of mouth 0.055. all brown. Considerable paint lost; the pattern Handmade; horizontal streaks inside continue was the same on bothsides, thelower part probab- farther down than usual. Usual clay in biscuit, ly unpainted. ‘Two lines along handle, two cross #Pparently pale slip. Matt paint, all brown exlines within handle. Two bands around large C¢Pt for one red band, second from top on body. spout at top, one at base; on front and back of Unbroken. Bottom flat, no offset. Down from spout, an inverted V; on each side of spout, two timon inside, four groups of three short vertical

pairs of vertical lines. Two lines enclose the lines. whole upper part; there is a distinct scallop in X 4. Jug with wide flat rim (Fig. 8). Ht. 0.12

te pew ne ree spout. An inner band (to highest part of rim as wap Std diam. of mouth 0.05, width of tim 0.027. Handmade; III 7. Jug (Fig. 7). Ht. with handle 0.087, horizontal streaks inside mouth, lacking contidiam. of mouth 0.056, max. circ. 0.272. Wheel- nuity; “brush-marks” numerous on unpainted made. Usual clay. Unbroken. Paint redto brown, ¢%tetior. The wide rim was apparently made lustrous. Base apparently was a disc made sepa- separately and attached; the marks on its lower rately and inaccurately attached; offset. Band ‘Suttace are not regular enough to indicate the inside tim, about height of lip; most of handle wheel. Probably usual clay, though little mica.

painted. Surface from which paint has been lost is noticeably darker than rest of surface. Matt paint.

X 1. Bowl with vertical handle (Figs. 8, 49). Bottom flat, no offset. Brown dots around mouth; Ht. with handle 0.074, without handle 0.054; meat edge of rim, red band between two brown diam. 0.145. Handmade. Usual clay. Matt paint, bands. On body all bands are brown except for black and red. Lacks piece from rim; other small tW° red; one Is below the broad band just below

breaks. Traces of paint on top of handle show the tim, the other is the upper of two bands that it is virtually complete. Unusually thin interrupted by the handle.

fabric. Many cavities and rough places in the _ ;

clay. On the inside of the bowl are horizontal i 5. eas shaped jug Os *) at wan mae’ streaks, which, near the edge, are tegularenough Wrreelmade. Usual clay, mica abundant. Paint

to suggest wheel work; but the bowl is certainly d. slichtly lustr Bottom 4 &

made entirely by hand. Bottom roughly flat, cro? Sy Tustrous. Somom tat, HO olisct.

diam. ca. 0.07. No offset at rim. The edges of Vertical grooves on about a quarter of the cit the handle were painted; on the back of the cusmterence Below painted ba nce on body. .™

handle, four irregular, more or less vertical, P nPop Ay Hance unpainted.

splotches. Outside of bowl unpainted except for X 6. Loom-weight (Fig. 8). Base 0.038 by band at rim. Inside: black circle, red circle, black 9.05; ht. 0.08. Pierced horizontally near top,

citcle halved; in each half, red mark. before firing. Clay coarser and somewhat redder

than usual. X 2. Jug (Fig. 8). Ht. with handle 0.11, without handle 0.095; diam. of mouth 0.059. Hand- XI 1. Bow! with tall angular handle (Figs. 9, made. Usual clay, though somewhat pale. Matt 45). Ht. with handle 0.117, without handle o.o5; paint, all brown except for one red band, second diam. of mouth o.12 (from handle across) to from top on body. Bottom roughly flat, no offset. 0.135; width of rim, not as sharply offset as usual, No considerable breaks; on rim, paint over a ca. 0.019, Handmade. Clay uniform, very pale. place bruised after firing. Horizontal streaks in Matt paint, all dark brown. Handle replaced.

Clay, part way around inside of neck. Down Rim offset on inside, but less sharply than in

14 THE FARWELL COLLECTION some others. The interior is not painted except a panel containing three groups of three vertical for the rim, the bottom not at all. The handle lines; at front of vase, the same. On each side, is noticeably askew and the lines poorly drawn. three panels; the central one contains a dotted circle; the other two, two vertical lines apiece. XI 2. Bowl with tall angular handle (Figs. 9, Bottom flat, no offset; bounded by painted 45, 46). Ht. with handle 0.096, without handle ine. 0.035; diam. of mouth 0.125 (from handle across)

to 0.137; width of rim 0.012. Handmade. Usual XI 6. Iron sword (Fig. 10). Lost, but photoclay, much browner than in XI 1. Matt paint, gtaphed by Captain Farwell. Length, estimated black and red. Handle and adjoining part of ftom the photograph, ca. 0.45. Two rivets rebowl replaced. Red: middle of three bands on mained in the handle. The type was substantially inside of rim, lower of two on outside of rim, 8 in Mayer, p. 44, fig. 13; cf. p. 52. middle of three below broad band, two pellets XI 7-14. Eight bronze bracelets (Fig. 10).

on front of handle, Five are flat in section; the widest is 0.008, the XI 3. Jug (Figs. 9, 35). Ht. with handle 0.096, | 4tfowest 0.004; these two are uniform in width,

diam. of mouth 0.06 (from handle across) to ‘wo of the others taper somewhat toward the 0.072. Handmade. Probably usual clay; pale slip, ends, which were turned out and back. Three which is brownish inside rim; embedded near t€ found in section and pointed at the ends. The bottom, piece of iron; plentiful brush-marks in length varies from 0.175 to 0.206. Apparently unpainted parts. Dark brown matt paint. Un- the ends did not overlap. All the pieces were broken. Bottom flat, no offset; bounded by found linked together, apparently constituting

painted line. a single wide ornament.

XI 4. Jug with tall handle (Figs. 9, 22). Ht. Xl 1. Krater (Fig. 11). Ht. 0.225, diam. of with handle 0.23, without handle 0.145; diam, mouth 0.21, max. circ. 0.876. Handmade; the of mouth 0.057, width of rim 0.035. Handmade; im was made separately, and horizontal streaks horizontal streaks on upper and lower surfaces © 1t are conspicuous, but hardly such as to indiof rim and inside mouth, but too irregular for cate the wheel. The clay is about as micaceous wheel-marks; rim probably made separately and 8 usual, but distinctly redder and softer; many attached. Usual clay, surface slightly paler; it holes. Thickness of wall varies from 0.004 to numerous brush-marks in unpainted areas, es- 9-007. The first rough cleaning caused many pecially on bottom. Matt paint, all brown except furrows inside. Bottom flat, no offset. Brown matt red line below uppermost broad band on body. paint, unusually fugitive, especially when wet. Bottom flat, no offset; bounded by painted line. Poorly shaped and poorly mended; the soft fabric

Considerably mended, some parts missing. made accurate joins difficult. The patterns on

the two sides follow the same scheme, but are XI 5. Jug with tall handle (Figs. 9, 21). Ht. not closely similar; the photograph shows the with handle 0.165, without handle 0.11; diam. side where the paint is better preserved. Above of mouth 0.045, width of rim 0.027. Handmade; the triangle are two vertical lines, separate in marks on lower side of rim, much obscured by only part of their length. Around each handlehandling before firing, do not indicate wheel; attachment, a loop; the two loops touch and many similar marks, unusually clear, in interior, make, within each handle, an X; this could result various directions. Usual clay, paler slip. Piece incidentally from the meeting of the loops, or of iron in bottom, seen only in break; smaller the loops could be developed from the X. One spots of iron on outer surface of bottom. Put band on the outer surface of each handle, antogether from fragments, lacks several pieces. other on top of handle; from the latter, short Matt paint, all brown. The execution is not fine, oblong projections on inner surface of handle. but the pattern is noticeably symmetrical in the Under each handle, a group of concentric circles; lowest band, which is divided into panels by from one of them the outermost circle was omitbroad vertical bands. Under the handle, there is ted, leaving the pattern much smaller than the

CATALOGUE 15 other five on the lower part of the krater. On the XIII 3. Monochrome jug (Fig. 12). Ht. 0.11, inside of the rim, a pattern, largely lost, some- diam. of mouth 0.086-0.089, max. circ. 0.336. what like that of XV 1 (Fig. 56), but the sections Wheelmade. Usual clay. A hole below handle, are ten in number and small; there are three otherwise unbroken; considerable paint lost. narrow lines, not parallel with the broad band Base flat, offset. Red lustrous paint on entire ex-

but, roughly, with the edge of the rim. terior, except bottom, and inside of mouth; color apparently was uniform.

XIT 2. Bow! with tall “figurine” handle (Figs. eit Mt h ‘ao (Fi H

11, 40, 41). Ht. to top of handle as preserved, 4. Monochrome jug ( 1g. 12). Ht, 0.074,

ante rrwithout seert diam. of mouth 0.065,diam. max. circ. 0.231. Wheel0.12; handle, 0.048; 0.153; width ; made. clay. Unbroken, little paint lost. of ?rim 0.01.; Usual Handmade. Usual clay, uniform ; excc » Base flat, offset. Red lustrous paint on entire color. Brown matt paint. Parts of both “‘arms ~ ; terior, except bottom, and inside of mouth; an lost, little other damage. On the bottom, only irreoular area of slightly darker color. Label: the area of the central circle is flat. Narrow rim, ey .. de water jue.” gay 7 abe!

offset inside only. No decoration inside below aside water U8:

rim. The “eyes” on the handle have eight spokes XIII 5. Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 12). Ht. apiece. Label: “inside water jug,” which presum- 0.09, diam. of mouth 0.095. Wheelmade. Usual

ably would be XII 1. clay. Unbroken. Base-ring. Lustrous red paint . over entire exterior, except base-ring and within X11 3. Tron spear-point (Fig. 11). Totallength it, and inside of mouth. Color uniform except 0.26; interior diam. 0.023; width of blade 0.033. for small dark area on rim and yellowish spots XII 4. Bronze ring? (not illustrated). Thin at bottom where held by thumb and three fingers. bronze piece, o.o11 wide, bent nearly double; XIIT 6. Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 12). Ht. total length ca. 0.028. It is not clear whether the 0.053, diam. of mouth 0.086. Wheel-made. Usual

piece is complete, probably not. clay. Unbroken. Base-ring. Lustrous red paint over entire exterior, except base-ring and within

XII 1. Bowl with two handles (Figs. 12,69). it, and inside of mouth. A considerable darker

i“ oe aan. ae cP . rinoual, light area on and one nan’ spots at wide. eelmade. lrobadays" ; ottom where henear thumb and; yenowish two fingers. brown on outside and small part of inside, but XUr Monochtne kanthatos (Fi ) Ht there mostly gray of varying the break JT g. 12). Ht. . 0.09, diam. of tone; mouthin0.101. Wheelmade. Usual

the one color shades into the other, the gray Ie j B ; oing more than half way through; the gray clay. Nearly intact. Base-ring. Lustrous paint

Bowes : 5 over entire exterior, except base-ring and within presumably results from imperfect firing. The ° J inside of th. Paint dark b

paint is light red and lustrous; it loses its color 1% ¢ inside ot mouth, Faint dark brown, virtu«set ally where the gray of the interior growsblack, deeper, and nearly uniform except for light becoming dark gray. Two pieces put together, d three fineers

; ; spots at bottom, where vase was held by thumb

virtually complete. Bottom slightly hollow, offset. *” Bets.

Edge of base and top of rim painted; on each XIII 8. Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 12). Ht. handle, three spots. Wavy line on outside, intet- 0,08, diam. of mouth 0.102. Wheelmade. Usual

rupted by handles. Circles inside. clay. Nearly intact. Base flat, offset. Lustrous dle (Fi brown paint with considerable variation; light

1),Dina ~ spots nearfingers. bottom, where was held by _~ 2eae 22annie ee ;nan umb an ree faint ase covers entire

Usual clay. Mended, lacks piece of rim and much exterior, except side and bottom of base, and of paint. Incurving rim, distinct base-ring, sus- jos 46 of mouth. pension holes before firing. Red lustrous paint Over entire vase except base-ring and within it; XIII 9. Monochrome bowl, no handle (Fig. a few yellowish spots where the bowl was held 12). Diam. 0.135, ht. 0.036. Wheelmade. Usual

by fingers while being painted. clay. Nearly intact. Incurving rim, base-ring,

16 THE FARWELL COLLECTION groove around outside about midway between Wheelmade. Probably usual clay, though pale. rim and base-ring, suspension holes before firing. Small piece of iron in one place. Handle replacLustrous paint, dark brown but with considerable ed. Rim hollow; bottom nearly flat, offset, unvariation, including spots near bottom where painted. Lustrous paint, uniformly red. Inside held. The paint covers the entire bowl except of rim painted, and spots on top of it. On handle:

base-ring and within it. vertical line in middle and one at each side;

XIII 10. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 12). these cross each other and the middle line at Diam. 0.084, ht. 0.028. Wheelmade. Usual clay. OP of handle. On body: one broad band and Unbroken, considerable paint lost. Heavy in- four narrow ones, including one at bottom, that curving rim, base-ring, suspension holes before 8° 2tound vase; one below rim that goes down firing. Lustrous paint, brown with variation, ©” each side near handle. Just above painted including light spots near bottom where held; band at bottom, short vertical incisions all paint has unusual metallic sheen. The paint cov- around ; above, band of larger and less regular ers the entire bowl except bottom of base-ring “C1105; above those some others, but not a

and within it. complete band.

XIII] 11. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 12). XIII 16. Banded jug (Fig. 12). Ht. with hanDiam. 0.09, ht. 0.031. Wheelmade. Probably usu- dle 0.20, diam. of mouth 0.085, max. circ. 0.521.

al clay. Unbroken, considerable paint lost. In- Rim nearly flat on top, 0.01 wide. Bottom flat, curving rim, base-ring, suspension holes through offset, unpainted. Wheelmade. Usual clay. Hanbase-ring before firing. Fabric heavier than XIII dle and parts of rim replaced, small pieces lack10. Black lustrous paint, approaching Attic, cov- ing. Lustrous paint, uniformly red. Top of rim

ers entire surface. painted; decoration on body as in XIII 15, plus

XIII 12. Monochrome bow], one handle (Fig. a wavy line; on handle as in XIII 15. 12). Diam. 0.09, ht. 0.03. Wheelmade. Probably XIII 17. Plate (Fig. 12). Ht. 0.042, original usual clay. Unbroken, some paint lost. Incurving diam. ca. 0.155. Found in fragments; incomplete,

rim, base-ring. Lustrous paint, dark brown to surface largely lost; color mostly gray, presumblack except for small red areas on rim and be- ably as result of imperfect firing. Wheelmade. low it on both inside and outside, covers entire Probably usual clay. Base-ring. Rim has ridges

surface. on top and offset 0.01 from edge on outside. XIII 13. Trefoil pitcher (Fig. 12). Ht. with Suspension holes before firing. Lustrous ted handle 0.145, max. circ. 0.333. Wheelmade. Per- Paint. Edge of rim painted; broad band on top; haps usual clay. Bottom flat, unpainted; two t least two narrower bands. No paint on outside. concentric circles incised on the bottom; marked XIII 18. Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 12)

offset results in relatively tall base. Unbroken, Ht. 01 diam. of mouth 0.123. Wh selon de.

considerable paint lost. Handle ca. rectangular in Usual clay. Much mende d,s mall pi eces la cking.

neddich metros P ie bot 1 ee Base-ring, divided by groove not strictly horimouth and exterior except at bottom, where zontal. Lustrous red paint, nearly uniform; yel-

; ; ; , lowish spots at bottom where held by thumb

there is a separate painted stripe. and two fingers. Paint covers entite exterior, exXIII 14. Monochrome feeding bottle (Fig. cept base-ring and within it, and inside of mouth. 12). Ht. with handle 0.095, max. diam. 0.09. This is the largest kantharos in the collection.

Body nearly globular. Wheelmade. Usual clay. , ,

Unbroken, considerable paint lost. Bottom flat, tin c 7: Mon ochrome jug (Fig. 12). noe ,

offset, unpainted; lustrous red paint covers the sam. 1 ee O-nT, max. wach io nee rest of the surface and inside of the mouth. made. sual clay. Much mended, some pieces

lacking, surface damaged in part. Bottom flat, XIII 15. Banded jug (Fig. 12). Ht. with han- offset. Lustrous paint, apparently good uniform dle 0.23, diam. of mouth 0.10, max. circ. 0.514. ted. Paint covered entire exterior, except bottom

CATALOGUE 17 and parts below offset, and inside of mouth. This Wheelmade. Lustrous paint, brown, largely lost.

is the largest monochrome piece in the collec- Unbroken, lacks lid.

"on. . . XIV 8. Plate (Figs. 13, 67, 68). Diam. 0.237, XIII 20. Italiote stemless kylix, stamped ht. 0.035; rim 0.05 wide. Wheelmade. Usual

(Figs. 12, 73, 74). Diam. 0.183, ht.0.054. Wheel- clay. Lustrous paint, fairly uniform brown. made. Clay little visible, probably not the usual. Put together from several pieces, nearly comUnbroken; paint lost from an area of interior, plete. Base-ring. Suspension holes before firing, though the impressions are still visible there. made with unusual neatness. The outer part of Black varnish of Attic type covers entire surface the rim consists of three grooves divided by except area enclosed by base-ring, which is ridges, all included in one painted band; two painted red. Ridge in interior; ring perhaps other bands also on the rim. In the center of the from stacking. Stamped inside, five palmettes, plate, a projecting point; then a painted circle;

connected by rouletted lines. then a ridge, with a painted circle outside of it;

XIII 21. Italiote skyphos (Fig. 12). Ht. 0.076, anothe’ Painted’ cnc & Second, “idge, with ‘ diam. 0.092. Wheelmade. Clay probably not the f we les. the last just i e de of © Pairs ©

1. Mended, nearly complete. Black varnish _2*8° CIfE'SS: Se ast Just insice © the tim. On suas , y comp the outside of the plate, one broad painted band.

closed is painted reerthea Pby notbase-ring, correspondwhich to the interior form,red. where

of Attic type covers entire surface except area The double curve of the exterior contour d

XIV 1. Banded jug (Figs. 13, 78). Diam. 0.166, rim rises in a nearly uniform convex curve from

ht. 0.173. National Museum 387755. Wheelmade. _ the flat central mL 4 hat th

Lustrous paint. Captain Farwell assured me that this was the

late shown in the photograph of Grave XIV, XIV 2. Banded jug (Figs. 13,79). Diam. 0.115, Since he had only one example of the form (beht. 0.118, National Museum 387756. Lacks most sides XIII 17, which was in bad condition when

or handle. Wheelmade. Lustrous paint, ted- found), For a time I was reluctant to accept the

Own. . identification, because the plate in the photoXIV 3. Monochrome jug (Figs. 13, 81). Diam. graph appeared to have a narrower rim than the

0.058, ht. 0.071. National Museum 387764. present plate. However, it seems likely that the Wheelmade. Lustrous paint, brown. Base ap- inner part of the rim, as well as the flat part of

proximately as in I 7. the plate, was concealed by earth. That the , ; late bears no label is naturally no objection,

XIV 4. Banded kantharos (Figs. 13, 79). Diam. Fince it now appears that none of the pottery from

0.115, ht. 0.116. National Museum 387757. thi labeled

Unbroken. Wheelmade. Lustrous paint, reddish 8 Brave was lane’ brown. The painted band at the base extends XIV 9. Italiote skyphos (Figs. 13, 78). Diam.

somewhat above the foot. 0.09, ht. 0.071. National Museum 387762. Black XIV 5. Monochrome bow] (Figs. 13, 80). Diam. varnish of Attic type.

0.147, ht. 0.034. National Museum 387760. XV 1. Krater (Figs. 14, 56). Ht. 0.185; diam. Unbroken. Wheelmade. Lustrous paint, fairly across top 0.177, of mouth 0.085. Handmade for uniform red inside, largely dark outside. Sus- the most part; the rim was made separately, on

pension holes. the wheel, and attached. Possibly usual clay, but

, ale; there seems to be a slip, though there is

Da IV 6. Bowl with one handle (Figs. 13, 80). ite difference in color. Matt paint brown. One iam.o.112, ht. 0.041. National Museum 387761. handle and € ri Wheelmade. Lustrous paint, poor. Narrow band andle and parts of rim replaced, other parts of

paint, Pon lacking. offset. D t of: :;paint rim.Bottom um flat, 8 anocorarion orderly; pattern, as seen in photograph, over XIV 7. Monochrome pyxis(Figs.13,78).Diam. each handle and at middle of each side, two 0.109, ht. 0,065. National Museum 387763. vacant panels between each two patterns. On 2 Johnson

18 THE FARWELL COLLECTION each handle: two horizontal lines with three additional panel at each end, containing one oblong projections above upper one. Band at black and one red vertical line; also a panel on

outer edge of rim is largely lost. each side of the vase containing vertical lines,

, . five in one case and three in the other, two bein

XV 2. Jug (Fig. 14). Ht. with handle 0.08, +oq in each panel. Three bands on the body ae

diam. of mouth 0.055, max. circ. 0.255. Lacks . and one on the red, also the inner one on the rim part of rim. No paint. Clay red and soft, probably front of the handle

same as in XII 1. Bottom flat, no offset. Marks

of rotation are abundant on the outside, but not XVI 2. Jug (Fig. 15). Ht. with handle o.11, discernible on the inside. The jug is noticeably without handle 0.086, diam. of mouth 0.065. asymmetrical, to the extent that the circle of Handmade. Usual clay, possible slip. Almost the bottom is not concentric with the circle of intact. Matt paint, black and red. Bottom flat, the maximum circumference. It seems likely no offset. Inside of rim: a black and a red line. that the vase was shaped around a solid coreand Outside, from top: black line, broader black finished on the wheel, and this conclusion is con- line, red line, black line, black zigzag, red line,

firmed by my colleague, William J. Tallon. black zigzag, red line, black zigzag, black line; Mayer (pp. 115f., figs. 39-40) shows suchacore, two more black bands at bottom. On handle: not very different in size or shape from that black crossing lines, one red line on front. which would serve for this jug, and also a vase XVII 1. Jug (Fig. 16). Ht. with handle 0.122, which evidently had been shaped on acore and diam, of mouth 0.07. Perhaps usual clay; thick divided into sections. Mr. Tallon thinks that this pale slip, which has largely worn off. The jug is jug may have been made in the same way, and made by hand, and for the most part quite rough-

finds possible traces of the seam between the ly; but outside of the mouth, and to a greater sections, though these are slight indeed in com= depth inside, are horizontal streaks which might parison with the seamon Mayer's vase. Inview te mistaken for wheel-marks. These are on the of the general candor of Herdonian potters and slip, not on the prior surface. Vertical streaks of the insignificance of this jug, laminclined rather 41.0 same kind are on the handle. Bottom flat. no

to another suggestion made by Mr. Tallon, that (aot No paint, Unbroken. °

the core consisted of some material like the “French sand” of modern potters, which would XVII 2. Small bowl (Fig. 16), Diam. 0.095, crumble and could be removed without dividing ht. 0.03. Probably usual clay; surface slightly

the pot. paler, but probablyzontal no slip. Handmade; horistreaks on outside of rim, but not all XV 3. Loom-weight (Fig. 14). Base 0.043 by around. Matt paint, black; only on rim and for 0.027; ht. 0.05. Unbroken. Pierced horizontally stat in center. Unbroken.

through top, before firing. Apparently a light ; ; ;

slip, largely worn off. Clay probably as in XV 1; AVIT 3. Banded jug (Fig. 16). Ht. with handle

definitely unlike that of X 6. 0.195, diam. of mouth 0.108, max. circ. 0.527.

Probably usual clay, no slip. Handmade; nothXVI 1. Tripod jar (Figs. 15, 23). Ht. with ing to suggest rotation. Unbroken. Bottom flat, handle 0.175, without handle 0.127; diam. of no offset; handle round in section. Matt paint, mouth 0.042, width of rim 0.018; max. diam. dark brown. Wavy line on shoulder, band on ca. 0.11. Handmade; the rim may have been top and inside of rim. On handle, pattern as made separately on the wheel. Usual clay, paler described under XIII 15, except that the side slip. In the angle of the handle, abundant re- lines are are not as long as the central one. mains of the clay by which the two parts of the This jug is notable for the use, in a handmade handle were attached. Back of handle and smaller and matt-painted piece, of the decorative scheme pieces replaced; front of handle and small pieces customary in the wheelmade and lustrous-paint-

lacking. Matt paint, black and red. The broadest ed ware. The round handle is not proper to black band on the body contains a wide reserved _ either class, and is ill suited to the pattern painted panel on the front of the vase with diamonds; an __on it.

CATALOGUE 19 XVII 4. Banded jug (Fig. 16). Ht. with handle form except in thin spots near bottom, where 0.158, diam. of mouth 0.085, max. circ. 0.376. held by thumb and two fingers. The inside of the Wheelmade. Usual clay. Lustrous paint, varying rim is painted in a band of irregular width, and from light reddish brown nearly to black. Bottom the entire exterior except the base-ring and offset, nearly flat; hollow rim. A vertical crack within it.

down from the rim; otherwise almost in mint XVII 10. Monochrome jug, small (Fig. 16). condition. Top and inside of rim painted, vet- y+. with handle 0.08, diam. of mouth 0.046, max.

tical stripe on handle, five bands on body. circ. 0.209. Wheelmade. Probably usual clay. XVIT 5. Banded jug (Fig. 16). Ht. with han- Mended; one large and several smaller pieces dle 0.127, diam. of mouth 0.092, max. circ. 0.40. missing from rim. Bottom flat, offset; rim hollow.

Wheelmade. Usual clay. Lustrous paint, red; Dark brown lustrous paint, generally uniform; lighter where thinner, otherwise uniform. Mend- _ but light spot on one side and several light spots

ed, nearly complete. Bottom flat, offset; rim near bottom, where held by fingers. The inside slightly hollow. Top and inside of rim painted; of the rim is painted, and the entire exterior on handle, vertical stripe tapering to a point at except the bottom.

bottom; five bands on body. XVII 11. Monochrome jug (Fig.16). Ht. XVII 6. Banded jug (Fig. 16). Ht. with han- with handle 0.12, diam. of mouth 0.072, max. dle 0.098, diam. of mouth 0.057, max. citc. 0.236. circ. 0.317. Wheelmade. Probably usual clay.UnWheelmade. Usual clay. Bottom nearly flat, off- broken. Bottom flat, offset; rim hollow. Lus-

set; hollow rim. Nearly intact. Paint lustrous, trous paint, uniform red except for thin places black where thick, brown where thin. Inside of near bottom where held by fingers; worn off in rim painted; irregular vertical stripe on handle; some places. The inside of the rim is painted, bands on body so imperfectly painted that one and the entire exterior except the bottom. The cannot say how many were intended. Label: red paint is, in present condition, the best in the

“4t17/12 pieces.” collection, closely approaching the appearance

XVII 7. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 16). of Arretine ware. Diam. of mouth 0.093, ht. 0.032. Wheelmade. XVITI 1. Bowl with tall loop handle (Figs. 17, Usual clay. Rim cracked in one place, otherwise 37, 38). Diam. 0.137, ht. with handle 0.096, undamaged. Rim offset on outside only; base- without handle 0.039. Width of rim 0.02. Usual ting; suspension holes before firing. Lustrous clay, uniform. Apparent wheel-marks on outpaint, fairly dark brown, uniform except for side of rim and on interior of side walls below, lighter spots where held by fingers. Paint covers probably on inside of rim also. On the bottom entire surface except bottom of base-ring and outside, a few irregular marks from smoothing

area within it. by hand. Matt paint, black and red. Unbroken.

XVII 8. Monochtome bowl, two handles On the bottom, a slightly depressed circular (Fig. 16). Ht. without handles 0.051; diam. be- fea corresponding (but not exactly) to the tween handles 0.11, crosswise 0.124. Wheelmade, painted, eight-spoked wheel. There was a patUsual clay. Unbroken. Dark brown lustrous tern inside, but it is almost obliterated; apparentpaint; generally uniform, but a few thin spots ly it was of the general type seen in Y 29. Red where held by fingers. Paint covers entire sur- band between two black bands on inside of rim, face except bottom of base-ring and area within outside of body, and handle; on the handle, be-

it. There is also a small, triangular area on the tween each two bands, groups of four dots in inside that is unpainted, evidently because it was ™oreor less definite diamonds. Between the lotus

covered by a leaf when painting was done. and me wnee!, festoons ‘I in Fa 4, ill preserved; XVII 9. Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 16). considerable paint fost elsewhere. Ht. 0.084, dia. 0.095. Wheelmade. Probably usu- XVIII 2. Jug with narrow rim (Fig. 17). Ht. al clay. Unbroken. Slight base-ring,bottom near- with handle 0.145, diam. of mouth 0.056, width ly flat. Dark brown lustrous paint, nearly uni- of flat rim 0.013. The surface outside, and inside 2*

20 THE FARWELL COLLECTION of the mouth, is pale, apparently a slip; biscuit Wheelmade. Usual clay. Lustrous red paint. Rim and interior surface are of the usual clay. Un- misshapen; tall, not hollow; bottom flat, offset. broken. Bottom flat, no offset. Handmade; hori- Lacks piece from rim. On handle, broad vertical zontal streaks inside mouth and on lower sur- band, painted over flaws. On rim, broad band

face of rim are not continuous and regular at edge and narrower band. enough to indicate the wheel. Matt paint, black XIX 3. Banded jug (Fig. 18). Ht. with handle and red. On rim: one ted band around mouth, , it. diam. of mouth 0.081. max. circ. o one black band on edge. On body: broad black wWpeelmade. Usual clay. Lustrous red paint,

II, , 081, , . O31,

band, narrow red; black, with black wavy below nearly uniform. Unbroken. Rim poorly shaped; it; narrow red, broad black, narrow red; at bot- bottom flat, offset. Decoration very like that of

tom, two black. On handle: three vertical black, yyy ,

Diack and red! across. XIX 4. Banded jug (Fig. 18). Ht. 0.121, diam XVIIT 3. Jug with broad rim (Fig. 17). Ht. o¢ mouth 0.09, circ. now i 39. Wheelmade. Usuwith handle 0.136, diam. of mouth 0.051, width 4) clay. Lustrous red paint, nearly uniform. of rim 0.025. Usual clay, uniform. The rimand 7 aks handle and a piece from rim; about a third part of the neck were made on the wheel, the rest of body in bad condition with numerous holes. by hand ; on the inside it is clear where the two) Rin somewhat tall, not hollow; bottom flat, sections were joined. Matt paint, black and red. offset. Decoration as in XIX 2.

Part of the body opposite the handle is lacking; also a small piece from the edge of the rim; this XIX 5. Monochrome jug (Fig. 18). Ht. with break is painted over. Bottom flat, no offset. On handle 0.068, diam. of mouth 0.054, max. circ.

rim: red band between two black ones. Broad 252. Wheelmade. Perhaps usual clay. Unblack band on neck; below, seven bands, the broken. Dark brown lustrous paint, lighter where first and fifth red. On handle, three black bands thin. Entire outside painted, also inside of mouth. XVIII 4. Bowl (Figs. 17, 56). Ht. 0.077, diam. Label: “inside water jug. 0.19. Usual clay, pale slip. Three pieces of iron | XIX 6. Banded kantharos (Fig. 18). Ht. with surrounded by red areas. Handmade; horizontal handles 0.13, diam. of mouth 0.103, circ. below streak inside of mouth (not elsewhere) is con- handles 0.35. Wheelmade. Usual clay. Virtually tinuous enough to suggest that the bowl was intact. Lustrous paint, fairly uniform red for the whirled once or twice on the wheel after being most part, dark brown in some places. Rim not finished. Bottom flat, no offset. Considerably noticeably hollow; misshapen. Base-ring. Inside mended, small pieces lacking. Matt paint, dark of rim: broad band at edge, narrower band. The

brown. No paint on outside below rim. band at junction of rim and shoulder does not

, o around the vase, but down beside each handle.

XIX 1. Banded jug with narrow rim (Fig.18). Band just above base-ring, five bands on body. Ht. with handle 0.22, diam. of mouth 0.087, Op each handle: broad vertical band, two short width of rim 0.015, max. circ. 0.605. Wheelmade. strokes crossing it and each other at top.

Probably usual clay. Lustrous paint varying from

rather light red almost to black, the difference XIX 7. Banded kantharos (Fig. 18). Ht. with being due to manner of application. Rim flat; handle 0.117, diam. of mouth 0.10, circ. below bottom slightly hollow, offset. Much mended, handles 0.34. Wheelmade, usual clay. Lacks one but complete. Top of rim painted, separate band handle and pieces of rim; two other pieces of inside of mouth. Band just above offset at bot- tim attached. Lustrous paint, dark brown to tom. On handle, broad vertical band, and short light red. Rim not noticeably hollow; misshapen. strokes crossing it and each other at top. This is Base-ring. Scheme of decoration as in XIX 6 the largest of the late jugs, though XIII 15 is except that there are no crossing lines on top

slightly taller. of handle. |

XIX 2. Banded jug (Fig. 18). Ht. with handle XIX 8. Banded flask (Fig. 18). Ht. 0.185, diam. 0.13, diam. of mouth 0.09, max. circ. 0.37. of mouth 0.064, max. circ. 0.477. Wheelmade.

CATALOGUE 2] Usual clay. Lustrous paint varies from red- covers inside of mouth and nearly all exterior brown to-nearly black; broad band is darker at except bottom; thin and bare spots near bottom edges than elsewhere, probably by intention. where held by fingers.

Bottom offset, roughly flat; clay was added on

the bottom. Rim hollow. Lacks small pieces in XX 4. Partly monochrome jug (Fig. 19). Ht. bottom and lower part of body, mended else- with handle 0.082, diam. of mouth 0.065, max. where. A number of coarse incisions, accidental, citc. 0.25. Wheelmade. Usual clay. N early intact.

preceded the painting, as did several finger- Base-ting; rim not hollow. Lustrous paint, fairly marks. The top and inside of the rim are painted; uniform ted; one dark spot. Inside of mouth a band on edge of base and above it. The bands painted also upper part of exterior including

on the body were painted first, then the bands C.

that go down beside the handles, then the wavy XX 5. Partly monochrome jug (Fig. 19). Ht.

bands. with handle o.10, diam. of mouth 0.063, max. _ circ. 0.295. Wheelmade, though many irregular

nb deme ene Sia ok is sor, "Pecheps streaks made before firing. Usual clay. No conusual clay, though somewhat pale. Wheelmade. aug Maer ean mmiar die pa ‘ pottom

Small pieces missing, two attached. No paint. » ONSET; HOMow.

Two grooves on rim, near edge; raised vine be- paint, nearly uniform red. Inside of rim painted, tween rim and bowl. Bottom largely flat, deep also upper part of exterior including handle.

conical hole in middle. 2OT Banded jug (Big. 20). Ht. with handle

IX 10. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 18). 0-155, lam. of mouth 0.105, max. Circ. 0.493. He 30 38, diam. 0.094. Wheelmade. Urea day Wheelmade. Usual clay. Rim and lower part of Base-ring ; rim offset on outside only; suspension body mended; nearly complete. Rim curves out,

holes before firing. Lacks piece from side; con- nearly flat; bottom fiat, ofset Lustrous paint, siderable paint lost; still some hard incrustation. V4tY"& from light red to lack, chiefly accordLustrous brown paint, which covered entire sur- 19 [0 thickness. Top of tim painted; vertical

face except base-ring and area within it. band on handle; band on side of base and just

above it. The two narrow bands below the broad

XX 1. Deep bow! (Figs. 19, 69). Diam. 0.20, band on the body are joined in one in most of ht. 0.078, diam. of base-ring 0.07. Wheelmade. their extent. The wavy line on the shoulder is Usual clay. Intact. Suspension holes before fir- dark brown in its beginning, becomes thin and ing. A slight and somewhat irregular offset just red, and does not quite reach the vertical on below rim on outside. Lustrous paint. Rim paint- the other side of the handle; the brush went dry.

ed; seven circles inside; no paint on outside be- . . .

low rim. On rim, paint varies: red, light brown, XXI 2. Banded jug (Fig. 20). Ht. with handle nearly black; in circles, nearly uniform brown. 0.15, diam. of mouth 0.096, max. Cifc. 0.464. , Wheelmade. Usual clay. Virtually intact. In every XX 2. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 19). Diam. — sesnect very similar to XXI 1; in this case there

0.102, ht. 0.032. Wheelmade. Probably usual i, definitely a single band below the broad band clay. Nearly intact. Base-ring. Suspension holes on the body.

before firing. Lustrous paint covers entire sur- .

face; color varies from dark leathery brown to | XXI 3, Bowl with one handle (Figs. 20, 64). light reddish brown, chiefly according to thick- Diam. 0.11, ht. 0.044. Wheelmade. Usual clay.

ness. Virtually intact. Bottom flat, no offset. Lustrous , . aint, brown, nearly uniform. No paint on out-

h “tt 3: Monochrome jus ce 8 ty) Be with side except rim and handle. The two smaller

andle 0.075, diam. of mouth 0.057, .citc rahe

0.253. Wheelmade. Usual clay. Nearly intact. circles inside are partly double. Bottom flat, offset; rim not hollow. Lustrous X XI 4. Monochrome jug (Fig. 20). Ht. 0.13, paint, leathery brown except where thin. Paint diam. of mouth 0.103, max. citc. 0.368. Wheel-

22 THE FARWELL COLLECTION made. Usual clay. Lacks a piece from rim, some lower part of handle and other pieces missing. paint lost. Rim curves out, nearly flat; bottom Thickness varies from 0.002 to 0.008. Streaks flat, offset. Lustrous paint, dark brown and red, inside of mouth and on lower surface of rim are the variation due to firing. Paint covers rim and not regular enough to imply use of wheel; there inside of neck; also entire exterior except bottom are similar streaks, more or less vertical, on the and small areas just above it; lighter brown where handle. In some parts of the pot the clay is pale

held by thumb and two fingers. inside the wall, brown on the surface; elsewhere

; ; ; it is uniformly thewith former XXI 5. Monochrome jug (Fig.brown; 20). Ht. : , parts ; ‘ablare usu-

handle 0.10, without handle 0.088; diam. of a thicker, thougn not _invariab Ys ane the h o.oGo. max. citc. 0288. Wheelmade ifference in color is clearly a matter of firing.

MOU 0.009) Pnary " In the upper part it is noticeable in places that, Usual clay. Little broken, but paint very largely h nt has been 1 h face is b

lost. Bottom flat, offset. The paint covered the th “re nore 1as been “ost, me TL el the la ne inside of the rim and the entire exterior toa line '™" h “re ‘hiche oe lee eact » anc , atte 0.015 above the bottom; this boundary was quite vf Botton, eric oe no noeer, ve ts oe oieh definite. The presence of the paint is indicated painted circles on front of handle. No red paint. only by a darker surface except for a few patches, Around edge a t bottom, a broad band, usually

where tt Is ars brown, as lustrous as usual, and 7 bottom rather than side, but irregular. The

as a normal appearance. band with the hatched diamonds contains three

XXI 6. Italiote “ashtray” (Fig. 20). Diam. teserved rectangles on each side; four of the six 0.08, ht. 0.025. Wheelmade. Clay little visible. contain a Greek cross apiece. Virtually intact. Base-ring. Black varnish of This piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s Attic type covers entire surface except area with- photographs and bears no label; nevertheless

in base-ring, which is painted red. (cf. p. 8) he is sure that it was dug up in his

; , presence, so it must be assumed that the label

XXI 7. Italiote bowl, stamped. (Figs. 20, 73, was lost. Of the graves X-X XI, the photographs 75). Diam. 0.182, ht. 0.047, diam. of base-ting of X11] and XIV make it certain that the vase

a Suspension holes’ have black me usual did not belong to them; it probably did not be-

Ad, ouspension totes nave 1 > long to XVII or XIX, since their groups are

which would suggest that they were made be- ,,ohably complete. Apparently some pieces are fore firing or at least before painting; the form missing from XV, but they would be of late type of the holes is scarcely decisive. Black varnish of (cf. p. 7). For this jug XII and XI would be Attic type covers entire surface except for a | oct jiz ely, then X.

round area in the center of the space enclosed by °

the base-ring. Inside of the bow]: stamped rosette Y 2. Large jug with flat rim (Figs. 24, 25).

and rays, impressed circles. Ht. 0.25, diam. of mouth 0.08, width of rim 0.05.

, ; ; Usual clay; pale slip on entire exterior and inside

Wee 8. iL liote . miess ve igs. 20 73): mouth, no definite boundary for it. Rim made 0.093, i heclmade. Nearly ntact, Clay little separately, on the wheel, and attached; the rest

visible, probably not the usual kind. Ridge in of the vase Clean'y made py an ont fiat interior. Black varnish of Attic type covers entire bottom varies from 0.045 to 0 oy The middle suttac € except area enclosed by base-ring, which band on the rim and the narrow one below the

is painted red. Incised in this area,a neat A,in |g band just below the rim are red; also two wach a three lines are slightly curved. No narrow bands interrupted by the handle, three

" verticals beside the handle on each side, and one

Y 1. Jug with tall handle (Figs. 21, 22). Ht. oblong panel on each side at the same level. with handle ca. 0.223, without handle 0.145; Considerably mended, but nearly complete; surdiam. of mouth 0.067, width of rim 0.037; max. face excellent. This is the largest piece in the circ. 0.585. Put together from many fragments; collection.

CATALOGUE 93 Somewhat oddly, Captain Farwell has no Farwell photographs, hence was probably not positive recollection of the vessel, but thinks that dug by him.

it was acquired from a peasant. Y 7. Trefoil jug (Fig. 28). Ht. with handle Y 3. Jug with flat rim (Fig. 26). Ht. 0.135, 0.185, without handle 0.165, max. circ. 0.492. diam. of mouth 0.057, width of rim 0.03, max. Probably usual clay; color uniform in lower part, circ. 0.46. Rim possibly made on the wheel, rest surface paler in upper part and inside of trefoil. certainly handmade. The clay is apparently pale No brush-marks noted. Much mended; lacks

throughout, as seen in breaks; brush-marks a- part of lip and other small pieces. Thickness bundant and clear in unpainted areas; in part, at varies from 0.006 to less than 0.002. Bottom flat, least, they were made when the handle was in no offset. A distinct round mouth inside of treplace. A piece broken from rim and replaced, foil; the piece including both was made separatelittle damage otherwise. Bottom roughly flat, no ly. On handle: four vertical stripes for most of

offset. Red paint very poor, in part rather a its length, horizontal marks at top. Edge of rim greenish brown. Two dots in each interlinear painted; depending from this, four groups of space on handle, near top. The middle band on four short verticals inside, two groups of three the rim and the second and sixth on the body are outside. Ten bands on body, also a wavy line

“red.” making loops below seventh band; second and ., . , ; sixth bands are red, also one horizontal on handle.

oe Jug with fat fim (8 Hof dime 328, Fifth and sixth bands are interrupted by a circle max. circ. 0.408. Streaks on lower surface of that encloses lower attachment of handle. rim hardly suggest wheel. Usual clay, no slip. Y 8, Trefoil jug (Fig. 28). Ht. with handle Lacks most of handle and small pieces ftom 0,205, without handle 0.177, max. circ. 0.489. rim; surface generally good. Bottom roughly Usual clay, pale slip. The trefoil mouth was apflat, no offset. The middle band on the rim and parently made separately; horizontal marks inthe second and sixth on the body are red. There side and outside were apparently made when the

were three vertical stripes on the handle. mouth was in trefoil form, hence not on the Y 5. Jug with flat rim (Fig. 26). Ht. to rim wheel. Lacks a piece from handle; handle and 0.102, diam. of mouth 0.045, width of rim 0.024, rim mended. Bottom roughly flat, no offset. Edge

max. circ. 0.349. Usual clay, color uniform. of rim painted; depending from this, four gtoups Streaks on lower surface of rim and inside mouth of four short verticals inside and, outside, JIL in

would hardly indicate wheel, though it is sug- ach of two concavities. On body, eight bands; gestive that the former continue under the at- below the third, a wavy line making loops with tachment of the handle. A piece lost from rim, 1¢5 second and seventh bands are red, with the otherwise unbroken; much paint lost. Bottom original color well preserved in some places. . flat, no offset. On handle, three vertical stripes, Bought by Captain Farwell, according to his the middle one red. On body, eight bands of tecollection. nearly uniform width, the second and fourth red. Y 9. Trefoil jug (Fig. 28). Ht. 0.135, max. Y 6. Jug with flat rim (Fig. 26). Ht. to rim circ. 0.37. Usual clay, color uniform; yet brush0.113, diam. of mouth 0.043, width of rim 0.023, | marks are visible in unpainted areas. Horizontal

max. citc. 0.374. Usual clay, color uniform; yet marks inside of mouth were apparently made brush-marks are abundant and clear inunpainted when the mouth was round, but their character areas. Horizontal streaks inside of mouth are not hardly indicates the wheel. Lacks handle and continuous enough to indicate wheel; those on much of paint. Bottom flat, no offset. Edge of the lower surface of rim are largely worn away. rim painted; depending from this, inside, four

Unbroken, paint in fair condition. Bottom groups of three short verticals and, outside, roughly flat, no offset. Red paint only in second pattern as shown in each of two concavities. and sixth bands on body. Two bands on rim. Second and seventh of nine horizontal bands are This appears to be the jug shown inoneofthe ted; between fourth and fifth, a wavy line.

24, THE FARWELL COLLECTION Y 10. Trefoil jug (Figs. 28, 59). Ht. with han- Y 14. Jug (Fig. 29). Ht. with handle 0.1109, dle 0.125, max. diam. ca. 0.097. Usual clay; sur- without handle 0.10; diam. of mouth 0.07, max.

face pale, apparently a slip. Much mended; circ. 0.31. Usual clay; pale slip on outside and lacks a third of lip and other pieces. Thickness upper part of inside. Nearly intact. Bottom flat, varies from 0.006 to less than 0.002. Bottom flat, no offset. On handle, three vertical lines. The no offset. Inside of the trefoil, an accurately edge of the rim is painted; depending from this, round mouth; the piece including both was made inside, four groups of three short verticals. Red separately. Handle cleft on both sides; cleft dis- only for second of six bands on body.

appears toward the bottom. Ten bands on body;

second, third, and sixth ate red; below the se- _Y 15- Jug (Fig. 29). Ht. with handle 0.108,

cond, a wavy line. without handle 0.086; diam. of mouth 0.071, Bought by Captain Farwell, according to his ™%. Citc. 0.31. Clay and slip probably as before,

recollection. though no breaks to show. Horizontal streaks outside and inside of rim, not indicating wheel.

Y 11. Trefoil jug (Fig. 28). Ht. with handle In some places where paint is lost, the surface 0.13, diam. ca. 0.12. Usual clay, color uniform. below is distinctly darker than elsewhere. Bottom Bottom flat, no offset. Unbroken, considerable flat, no offset. The jug is intact, with the paint in paint lost. Two vertical stripes on handle. Se- notably good condition. The edge of the rim is cond and fourth bands above the panel zone are __ painted; depending from this, inside, three red. Rim probably painted; inside, at least four groups of three short verticals and one of four.

groups of short verticals. Red only for second of seven bands on body.

¥ 12. Trefoil Jus (Figs. 28, 59). Ht. with Y 16. Jug (Fig. 29). Ht. with handle 0.102, handle 0.155, without handle 0.1335 Max. CHC. Without handle 0.088; diam. of mouth 0.067, 0.322. Probably usual clay, pale slip. Horizontal Way circ. o, 275. Usual clay, pale slip; in some streaks on mouth were apparently made when pjaces the slip remains where paint has come

the mouth was round; perhaps that part was G@ elsewhere it has come off with the paint. made on the wheel. Many vertical strokes clear Streaks inside of mouth are more or less horiin clay, also numerous brush-marks in unpainted zontal, but markedly irregular, not implying the areas. Lacks piece from rim and two from edge Whee], Unbroken, much paint lost. Bottom flat, at bottom; otherwise unbroken. Bottom offset, ooffset. The edge of the rim is painted; dependslightly hollow. On handle: three wavy lines, the ing from this, inside, four groups of three short middle one red. Edge of rim red, inside andout- verticals. Red only for second of six bands on side. Below: a plain line, a wavy line,a red band, 4,, dy. a plain line, a wavy line on shoulder, a red band bounded by brown lines, a wavy line, a plain line, Y 17. Jug (Fig. 29). Ht. with handle 0.105,

a red band. Around edge at bottom, dots; on without handle 0.095; diam. of mouth 0.063,

bottom, circle enclosing swastika. max. circ. 0.303. Clay and slip probably as beCaptain Farwell is inclined to think that he fore, though no good breaks to show. Hori-

obtained this piece from the priest. zontal streaks inside and outside of rim do not

, , indicate wheel. Nearly intact. Bottom flat, no

¥ 13. Jug (Fig. 29). Fit. with handle 0.129, offset. Inside of mouth, a horizontal line below without handle 0.105; diam. of mouth 0.067, band around rim. Red only for second of six max. circ. 0.326. Usual clay; pale slip on outside ponds on body. and upper part of inside. Nearly intact. Bottom flat, no offset. On the handle: two long lines that Y 18. Jug (Fig. 29). Ht. with handle o.119, cross near the top and two short horizontal lines without handle 0.094; diam. of mouth 0.07, max.

at the top. The edge of the rim is painted; de- circ. 0.31. Probably usual clay and slip. Little pending from this, inside, four groups of three broken, some paint and slip lost. Where paint is short verticals. Red only for second of six bands lost, no slip is perceptible. Horizontal streaks

on body. inside and outside of mouth on slip, none where

CATALOGUE 20 slip is lost; they do not appear to indicate the The jug appears in one of Captain Farwell’s wheel. Bottom flat, no offset. A break on the photographs, hence was presumably not dug by rim is painted over. No paint inside except on him.

tim. Paint ts all black. Y 23. Jug (Fig. 29). Ht. with handle 0.10, Y 19. Small jug (Fig. 31). Ht. with handle without handle 0.09; diam. of mouth 0.06, max. 0.08, without handle 0.065; diam. of mouth circ. 0.305. Usual clay; pale slip apparently on 0.053, max. citc. 0.23. Usual clay, uniform color. some parts, not all; perceptible in some places Bottom flat, no offset. Unbroken, much of paint where paint has come off. Brush-marks abundant lost. Paint all brown. Below handle,a pattern, JIL. and clear in unpainted areas, both slipped and Y 20. Small jug (Fig. 31). Ht. with handle slipless. Horizontal streaks inside and outside of

0.081, without handle 0.06; diam. of mouth mouth are not very regular and do not indicate 0.0 47. Usual clay, color uniform. Horizontal wheel. Bottom flat, no offset. Interior very rough. streaks clear inside and outside of mouth. Mend- FP htee vertical stripes on handle. Top of rim not ed, lacks piece from mouth. Handle double, painted, but inside of it one group of four short horned; bottom roughly flat, no offset. Paint all verticals, one of six, one of seven, one of eight. brown. Vertical line on each reed of handle. Edge Of six bands on body, third and sixth are red of tim probably painted, though remains are (though the difference between red and brown scant. Inside: two groups of four short verticals, much less clear than usual). Bands are very one probably of three, another mostly lost. From TOughly drawn.

the lowest of six bands on the outside depend ¥ 24. Jug (Figs. 34, 35). Ht. with handle

four patterns, JIL. 0.135, without handle 0.115; diam. of mouth Y¥ 21. Jug with small mouth (Figs. 32, 33). 9-089, max. circ. 0.422, Usual clay, pale slip. Ht. 0.11, diam. of mouth 0.05, max. circ. 0.314. | Horizontal streaks inside and outside of lip and Usual clay, color uniform. Streaks inside and within mouth below lip. Brush-marks in all di-

outside of mouth, more or less horizontal, do ‘ections, not differing in character from the not indicate wheel. Unbroken, but paint largely horizontal streaks. Surface below paint 1s perlost; design restored in Miss Reinke’s drawing, ceptibly darker than elsewhere. Virtually unwhere latticed bands represent red. Bottom flat, broken; some paint lost. Bottom roughly flat, no offset. Black band on rim; depending from 0 offset. There seems to be an intentional disthis, inside, four groups of three short verticals, tinction between black and brown paint, though Three vertical stripes on handle. Most of the the difference is not great and is probably only lines continued from the side of the jug on the matter of thickness. Brown band on edge of bottom, but apparently formed no pattern there. f!m, black band inside. On body: broad black The jug appears in one of Captain Farwell’s band, brown line; six patterns, each like two photographs, hence was presumably not dug by M S; black line, brown line, wavy black line,

him. straight brown line, wavy black line, broad brown ; band, two black lines. On top of handle, short

Y 22. Jug with small mouth (Fig. 32). it. crossing lines; below, long crossing lines. with handle 0.147, without handle 0.13; diam. of mouth 0.052, max. circ. 0.45. Usual clay, Y 25. Jug (Fig. 35). Ht. with handle o.155, color uniform; some horizontal streaks inside without handle 0.13; diam. of mouth 0.081, max. mouth, not suggesting wheel. Little broken, but circ. 0.415. Probably usual clay, though little much paint lost. Bottom flat, no offset.On han- mica; pale slip. Horizontal streaks inside and dle: three vertical stripes, also two short ones at outside of mouth, perceptible under slip where top and bottom, thus: [I]]|; red horizontal mark it has come off; they do not appear to indicate on front of handle. Brown band on rim; depend- the wheel. Lacks part of lip and considerable ing from this, inside, four groups of three short paint. Surface slightly darker where paint has verticals. On body, ten stripes and one row of come off. Bottom flat, no offset. Double handle, dots; the second and sixth stripes are red. with black vertical stripe on each reed. Red band

26 THE FARWELL COLLECTION on rim. On the body, the wavy band and the three vertical stripes; in front one, probably the second and sixth of eight straight bands are red. same, with groups of dots between the stripes. The red paint has checked a good deal, which On rim: three bands, the middle one red. No is unusual; the black paint has a normal appear- interior pattern. Outside, the third of four bands

ance. is red,

Y 26, Jug (Fig. 34). Ht. with handle 0.13, Y 31. Bowl with tall loop handle (Figs. 36,

without handle 0.105; diam. of mouth 0.093, 37, 38, 44). Ht. with handle 0.10, without handle max. diam. ca. 0.125. Three pieces of rim re- 0,041, diam. at top 0.146; width of rim 0.02. placed, otherwise little damaged. Coarse, brick- Usual clay, probably pale slip. Handle replaced, red clay, very different from the usual kind. several pieces of bowl missing. Most of handle About a third of the surface is fired dark. Bot- occupied by three stripes, the middle one red, tom flat, no offset; handle roughly round in with groups of dots between the stripes; two of section. The jug is substantial enough, and good horizontal marks also are red. Third of four bands and regular in form, but the surface is rough on outside is red.

inside and outside. No decoration. The piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s Y 27. Small jug (Fig. 31). Ht. with handle photographs, hence was presumably not dug 0.072, without handle 0.058; max. circ. 0.19. by him. Probably usual clay, pale surface. Nearly intact. Y 32. Bowl with tall “figurine” handle (Figs. Bottom roughly flat, no offset. No decoration. 39, 40, 41). Ht. with handle 0.12, without handle Y 28. Bow! with tall loop handle (Figs. 36, 37, 9:043: diam. at top o.14; width of rim O-orr 38). Ht. with handle 0.112, without handle 0.04; ; Usual clay; surface paler, but not clearly a slip. diam. at top 0.16; width of rim 0.023. Usual Horizontal streaks on outside of rim do not sugclay, probably pale slip. Abundant brush-marks 8¢St wheel. Handle replaced; some pieces lost, in unpainted areas, but no horizontal streaks. including ends of “arms;” some paint lost, inHandle replaced, condition generally good. Red: cluding part of intetior pattern. Two unp ainted central stripe on handle and on rim, central hori- pellets on front of handle; painted vertical lines zontal mark on handle, cross in interior pattern, between them. All paint brown. A painted “eye

third band on outside. on the back of the handle in addition to two on the front.

Y 29. Bowl with tall loop handle (Figs. 36, 37,

38). Ht. with handle 0.098, without handle 0.04; Y 33. Bowl with tall “figurine” handle (Figs. diam. at top 0.136; width of rim 0.02. Usual 39, 40, 41). Ht. with handle 0.075, without hanclay, pale slip seems clear. Several pieces of rim dle 0.033, diam. 0.123; width of rim ca. 0.01, lost; other small breaks. On handle: three stripes, offset not as distinct as usual. The clay of the middle one red; between each pair of stripes, bowl has the usual appearance, that of the handle several groups of four dots in diamonds; one of could be thought different. Circular traces within horizontal marks on front of handle is red. Red citcle on bottom, not indicating use of wheel. also: central band on rim, third of four on body. Handle lacks most of “head” and “arms,” and A thin, curving line across the circle on the bot- 2 part fromone side; otherwise unbroken. Vertical

tom was presumably made by accident. slit in handle; there was a rounded projection, pierced, on each side. No interior pattern. Paint Y 30. Bowl with tall loop handle (Figs. 36, 37, all brown. Fabric decidedly thinner and lighter 38). Ht. with handle 0.098, without handle 0.04; than in any other of similar form. diam. at top 0.14; width of rim 0.017. Usual clay,

pale slip seems clear; on the inside the slip is Y 34. Bowl with tall “figurine” handle (Figs. largely worn away. Horizontal streaks on outside 39, 40). Ht. with handle 0.13, without handle of rim do not suggest wheel. Put together from 0.039, diam. 0.144; width of rim 0.019. Usual three pieces; some other damage. Horizontal clay, color uniform. Much mended, lacks some marks divide handle into two panels; in rearone, pieces; the handle lacks the point of one “arm,”

CATALOGUE 27 slightly more of the other, and one “eye.” The Y 38. Goblet (Figs. 50, 51). Ht. 0.076, diam. handle is more massive than in any similar piece 0.11. Usual clay. In virtually mint condition; in this collection; on it, two pellets and a round when it came to Chicago it was coveted with hole between them. Suspension holes below rim, heavy incrustation, and only a few dots on the near handle, probably after firing. The traces of rim were visible. Suspension holes before firing;

paint, apparently all brown, are scant. On the bottom of foot slightly hollow; on outside, a bottom there were at least three concentric circ- place rudely patched between firings. Red for les, the innermost divided into (probably) eight middle circle on bottom inside, crossing lines parts as in Y 33; slight traces belong toa “lotus” within inner circle, middle band inside of mouth at the handle and a smaller “lotus” on one side, and same outside.

as in Y 33. There was paint also on the rim. The piece was acquired from a workman, acY 35. Bowl with horned handle (Figs. 47, 48). cording to Captain Farwell s recollection,

Ht. with handle 0.092, without handle 0.043- Y¥ 39. Stemmed plate (Figs. 52, 53). Ht. 0.05; diam. at top 0.125. Usual clay. Bottom flat, 9-043-0.052, diam. 0.143. Usual clay. _Horiunpainted. Little broken, but considerable paint zontal streak on outside of rim, not indicating lost, partly through indiscreet attempts to re- wheel. Unbroken, but surface somewhat damagmove incrustation. Red: middle bandon outside ¢d 0n inside, considerable paint lost. Suspension of rim, middle circle inside, crossing lines within holes before firing; bottom of foot slightly holinner circle. The pattern is unusually rich and low. Red: second circle from edge, cross in

relatively well executed. innermost circle,

In one of Captain Farwell’s photographs,

Y 36. Bowl with horned handle (Figs. 47, 48). hence presumably not dug by him.

Ht. with handle 0.094, without handle 0.046, Y 40. § d plate (FE; HW diam. at top 0.132. Usual clay; brush-marks on 40. jian P ate ( ey . 53). Me

outside in unpainted areas, but apparently no 1 ob een Tithe su Ia ay, probably no slip. Roughly horizontal streaks inside, not indi- S“P: F AOFOKED, Su € paint lost. Foot divided

cating wheel. Bottom fairly flat, unpainted. | Red: oecle nen, uspension holes before firing. Little damaged except for paint. Inside, appar- Ree Cire ‘Fae 1 chinks hy orc.

ently a group of dots in rough triangle. Traces . aptain feo, C 1 st . e dug and tagged

of paint on upper surface of rim, apparently two this piece; If so, the tag was lost. lines. Outside, six bands, the third red; the sixth Y 41. Shallow bowl (Figs. 55,56). Ht. 0.04is partly on the bottom and partly on the side. 0.05, diam. 0.215. Probably usual clay, though

On handle, horizontal stripes. somewhat pale. Horizontal streaks on outside of

In one of Captain Farwell’s photographs, rim, apparently from thinning of rim; similar

hence presumably not dug by him., streaks in various directions inside. firing. BottomHeav flat, no offset. Suspension holes before Y 37: Bow! with rounded handle (Figs. 49, fabric. Paint al dark brown to black; it rubs off 55). Ht. with handle 0.051, without handle o.o46; ove easil y than usual.

ough somewhat pale. - ;

he ; vy 0-097 hat ty top. Probaby usua clay, The piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s side and outside of tim, more regular than most photographs, hence presumably not dug by him.

such streaks; no other suggestion that rim was Y 42. Bowl with two handles (Figs. 55, 57). made separately. Unbroken. Fabric fairly thin Ht. 0.052, diam. without handles 0.14. Usual and good, elliptical shape probably intentional. clay, color about uniform. Unbroken. Bottom Bottom flat, no offset. Painted stripe on handle. flat, no offset. A protuberance on each side of Half of bowl painted red inside, black outside; each handle, probably imitating metallic form. other half unpainted; the division inside and Paint all dark brown. A painted horizontal band that outside are at the same point on one side on each handle, and a solid quadrangle includof the rim, where the paint started, but nearly ing each “metallic” projection; dots on rim and

0.01 apart on the other side. top of handles; no other paint on outside,

28 THE FARWELL COLLECTION The piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s apparently not made on wheel. No considerable

photographs, hence was probably not dug by breaks. Bottom flat, no offset. Three pointed

him. projections on shoulder. No paint.

Y 43. “Mesomphalos” bowl (Figs. 55, 57). Y 47. Small jar with cross-handle (Fig. 31). Ht. 0.044, diam. 0.11. Probably usual clay. Un- Ht. with handle 0.07, without handle 0.052; broken. Suspension holes, probably after firing. 0,08 (perpendicular to handle) by 0.05. Usual Bottom hollow, corresponding to “omphalos” clay, Roughly formed, but bottom well flattened,

inside. Paint all dark brown. no offset. Two protuberances on handle, one In one of Captain Farwell’s photographs, largely lost. No decoration. hence presumably not dug by him. Y 48. Cup with tall handle (Fig. 34). Ht. with Y 44. Askos (Fig. 58). Ht. 0.134, diam. 0.15. handle 0.12, without handle 0.07; diam. 0.115. Usual clay. Some streaks inside and outside of Probably usual clay, though pale except in three the mouth of the spout, but hardly such as to places. Some horizontal streaks, especially on imply the wheel; it is quite clear that the spout outside of rim, but certainly all hand work; heavy, is not, as a whole, made on the wheel. Except for surface rough. Unbroken. Two protuberances the mouth of the spout, no considerable breaks, on top of handle; rim offset inside only; bottom but much paint lost. Bottom flat, no offset. At flat, no offset. No paint.

the level of the handle, a brown band, mostly

horizontal; one section curves sharply down to Y 49. Cup with tall handle (Fig. 34). Ht. with enclose the handle, and there is a similar scallop handle 0.073, without handle 0.046, diam. 0.09. below the spout. Below this band, five others Probably usual clay. Surface of handle damaged, parallel it throughout; the fourth from the bot- P*¢+"aps by use. Heavy fabric. Bottom flat, no tom is red. Above the band first mentioned are Offset; conspicuous shaving on sides towards four others; the lowest is interrupted by the bottom. No paint. handle; the others are straight above the handle, Y 50. Cover (Fig. 57). Diam. 0.114, ht. 0.064. but apparently have the scallop below thespout; Usual clay. Little broken, but considetable paint of these four the second from the bottom is red. Joct. ‘The knob is quadrangular above a cylindriThere was at least one band around the base of ¢4] part, and narrows to a ridge at top. The paint the spout; above, some vertical lines, perhaps jg all brown. The pyramidal part of the knob was only in three groups. On top of the askos, a real apparently painted in solid color. No paint incheckerboard (not as in I 1), which is largely side except for edge of rim. The laurel pattern is lost; enclosed, at the front at least, by three bands, unique in the collection. of which the middle one is black and the others

red. There is a band around each handle-at- Y 51. Rattle (Fig. 31). Ht. 0.054, max. circ. tachment and some paint on the handle, probably 9-103. Usual clay. Paint all brown. Two holes in

belonging to two bands along the handle. top, made after firing. Interior inaccessible; it

contains at least two objects, presumably small Y 45. Small dish (Fig. 34). Ht.0.04, max. pebbles, to rattle. After being rocked somewhat, diam. 0.092. Clay coarse and sandy, spotsof mica but not too much, the rattle returns to upright unusually large; clay probably quite different position. Crossing lines are painted on the botfrom usual kind. Bottom flat, no offset. Thick tom. and heavy, roughly formed. Broken places on This piece was found by Captain Farwell in the

rim. No decoration. grave of an infant (cf. p. 3).

Y 46. Jar (Fig. 58). Ht. 0.20, diam. of mouth Y 52. Jug (Fig. 30). Ht. 0.10, max, circ. 0.328. 0.095—0.10, max. Circ. 0.692. Usual clay; surface Usual clay. Lacks handle and rear half of rim, paler than biscuit in some places, not everywhere; by old breaks; recently much broken and mend-

surely no slip; no brush-marks. Rim made ed, some pieces missing. Edge of rim painted, separately; some horizontal streaks on it, but inside and outside; red only for second of six

CATALOGUE 29 bands on body. The typical incrustation has not vertical line which divides in half a W, as in been removed. It was not intended toincludethis Peucetian patterns (Mayer, pls.19, 5; 20, 6; rough and fragmentary piece in the catalogue, 21, 3). The middle circle in the lower part of the but it is not just like any other in form. Its con- handle is pierced through. In Captain Farwell’s dition implies that Captain Farwell would hardly photographs, hence presumably not dug by him. have acquired it except by his own digging. National Museum 3877209. Y 53. Bowl with tall angular handle (Figs. 43, YW 6. Stemmed plate (Fig. 54). Diam. 0.134, 44). Exact dimensions are not available, but this ht. 0.064. Red paint for alternate dots on edge, is evidently larger than any other of the bowls cross and inner narrow circle in interior, middle with tall handle. Apparently unbroken. Red is of three in each set of horizontals outside (the evidently used for the middle band on the lip, upper set not visible in the photograph). Nationthe third band from the top on the outside, and al Museum 387759.

two horizontal bands on the front of the handle. _

Note that additional information became Z 1. Trefoil jug (Fig. 58). Ht. 0.21, max.

available after the Catalogue had been set in page width of mouth 0,09, max. citc. 0.42. Lacks proof, It is, accordingly, appended on page 33. handle, parts of rim, part of foot. Perhaps usual clay, surface pale. Handle apparently was round YW 1. Jug with flat rim (Fig. 27). Ht. 0.106, in section; bottom of foot partly flat, recessed diam. 0.118. Pale slip. Paint largely lost; no red. in center. Brown paint. Mouth painted inside; Bottom flat, no offset. National Museum 387727. wavy line on shoulder. Label: ‘‘Priest.”’

YW 2. Jug with flat rim (Fig. 27). Ht. 0.123, Z 2. Banded jug (Fig. 60). Ht. with handle diam. 0.135. The middle bandon the rimandthe 0.142, without handle 0.135, diam. of mouth second and seventh on the body are red. Bottom 0.10, max. circ. 0.427. Usual clay. Unbroken. flat, no offset. In one of Captain Farwell’s pho- Rim slightly hollow; bottom flat, offset. Paint tographs, hence presumably not dug by him. red to dark brown. Inside of rim painted, also

National Museum 387726. handle. The upper two lines on the body come

YW 3. Trefoil jug (Fig. 27). Ht. 0.103, diam. together at the handle. 0.083. Red paint on rim; also for middle zigzag, Z 3. Banded jug (Fig. 60). Ht. with handle middle line above zigzags, middle of three verti- 0.09, without handle 0.081; diam. of mouth cals on handle. The two lowest horizontal bands 0.057, max. circ. 0.27. Usual clay. Unbroken. ate very roughly drawn. National Museum Bottom flat, offset; original cracks go through it.

387758. Inside of rim painted, also middle part of handle.

YW 4. Bowl with tall loop handle (Figs. 42, Z 4. Banded jug (Fig. 60). Ht. with handle 44). Diam. 0.16, ht. without handle 0.046. Poor 0.138, without handle 0.127; diam. of mouth red paint for middle band on rim and upper nar- 0.09, max. circ. 0.41. Probably usual clay. Lacks row horizontal on outside. Horizontals and ver- piece from rim; other parts replaced. Rim holticals on back of handle; two opposed triangles low; barely perceptible central furrow on handle; inside. In Captain Farwell’s photographs, hence bottom slightly concave, offset. Paint dark brown, presumably not dug by him. National Museum _ lighter where thin. Inside of rim painted; two

387728. stripes across handle. Label: “Priest.”

YW 5. Bowl with “figurine” handle (Figs. 42, Z 5. Monochrome jug (Fig. 60). Ht. with 43, 44). Diam. 0.14, ht. without handle 0.042. handle 0.094, diam. of mouth 0.068, max. circ. Red paint for middle band on rim and upper 0.285. Hole through bottom; some paint lost, narrow horizontal on outside. On outside oppo- chiefly from rim. Paint nearly uniform black; site handle, angular pattern as in III 2, three brownish in thin spots near bottom, where held times. The back of the handle is paneled ap- by thumb and three fingers. Inside of rim paintproximately as in Y 32; in the larger panel isa _ ed.

30 THE FARWELL COLLECTION Z 6. Partly monochrome jug (Fig. 60). Ht. and on the outside stops at a fairly definite line, with handle 0.098, diam. of mouth 0.075, max. ca. 0.012 above bottom.

circ. 0.328. Usual clay. Virtually intact. Bottom ; ,

flat, offset. Paint uniformly black. Inside of rim 4 *3. ponochrome jug (Fig. 61). Ht. 0.096,

painted, the boundary irregular. iam. o mouth 0.075, max. circ. 0.27. Usual clay. Slightly mended, nearly complete. Bottom

Z 7. Partly monochrome jug (Fig. 60). Ht. flat, offset. Paint largely lost; what remains is with handle 0.078, diam. of mouth 0.062, max. black. Paint covers the inside of the rim down circ. 0.26. Lacks about a quarter of rim. Paint to the shoulder and on the outside stops at a mostly a good red, brownish in one area. Upper fairly definite line, 0.007 above bottom.

part of rim painted inside; on outside paint stops Z 14. Monochrome jug (Fig. 62). Ht. with at a fairly regular line, ca. 0.025 above bottom. handle 0.111, diam. of mouth 0.06, max. circ. Z 8. Monochrome jug (Fig. 60). Ht. 0.085, 243: Probably usual clay. Unbroken. Rim width of mouth 0.067, max. circ. 0.303. Usual hollow; bottom flat, offset. Paint dark brown, clay. Lacks handle, part of rim, part of bottom; with some variation. surface bad elsewhere. Rim misshapen. Paint Z 15. Monochrome jug (Fig. 62). Ht. with | red with considerable variation. Rim painted handle 0.081, diam. of mouth 0.043, max. circ. inside; on outside paint stopped at a fairly regu- 0,185, Probably usual clay. Unbroken. Rim

Jar line, ca. 0.015 above bottom. hollow; bottom flat, offset. Paint uniform black

Z 9. Monochrome jug (Fig. 61). Ht. 0.128, ©*°ePt for thin spots. diam. of mouth 0.093, max. circ. 0.355. Usual Z 16. Monochrome jug (Fig. 62). Ht. with clay, though no mica perceptible. Lacks ca. 0.06 handle 0.116, diam. of mouth 0.042, max. circ. of rim. Bottom flat, offset. Paint nearly uniform, 0.24. Usual clay. Much paint lost, otherwise a rematkable leathery brown; thin spots near little damage. Rim curves out; bottom flat, offset. bottom, where held by thumb and two fingers. Paint greenish brown, fairly uniform; bottom The side of the offset base is partly painted, also painted. Label: “Priest.”

the inside of the rim at62).top. . Z 17. Monochrome jug (Fig. Ht. witha ,

Z 10. Monochrome jug (Fig. 61). Ht. 0.125, handle 0.085, diam. of mouth 0.045, max. circ. diam. of mouth 0.095, max. CIfC, 0.338. Clay as 9,205. Probably usual clay. Nearly intact. Rim in Z 9. Much mended, some pieces lacking. Bot- curves out. Base ca. 0.006 high, unpainted. Horns tom flat, offset. Much of paint nearly uniform at top of handle; a slight protuberance on body ted, some mottling with black. Rim painted of vase, opposite handle. Paint black, red, and

inside at top. brown in different parts. A painted band inside Z, 11. Monochrome jug (Fig. 61). Ht. o.ros, Mouth at top. diam. of mouth 0.072, max. circ. 0.262. Usual Z 18. Partly monochrome jug (Fig. 62). Ht. clay. Considerable paint lost, little damaged with handle 0.092, diam. of mouth 0.07, max. otherwise. Bottom flat, markedly offset, resulting circ. 0.287. Usual clay. Intact. Bottom flat, no in base 0.007 high. Paint uniform red; it covers offset. Paint red-brown; lighter and redder in the inside of the rim down to the shoulder and three spots, at the lower boundary of the paint, on the outside stops, though not accurately, at where held by thumb and two fingers. This is

the offset at the bottom. the only case in which the appearance of such Z 12. Monochrome jug (Fig. 61). Ht. 0.101, spots suggests that they are intentionally used

, , as of ornament; correspondingly, they are higher diam. mouth 0.08, max. oncirc. 0.296. Usual clay. the vase than usual. A painted band of irreMended, but virtually complete. Bottom flat ree , soe ep: ; > gular width inside mouth at top. Good thin ware.

offset. Paint is fairly uniform black for most part;

part of handle and area below it are red. Paint Z 19. Bowl with one handle (Figs. 63, 64). Ht. covers the inside of the rim down to the shoulder 0.034, diam. 0.094. Usual clay. Unbroken. Bot-

CATALOGUE ol tom slightly hollow, no offset. Conspicuous pension holes before firing. Paint mostly brown, wheel-marks on upper part of outside, not be- red in some parts; it covered the entire surface, low; probably due to revision of contour. Out- including the bottom. side unpainted except for spot on handle, red to This piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s brown. Near the rim the paint is uniformly red, photographs, hence was presumably not dug by

near the center uniformly brown. him.

This or Z 20 appears in one of Captain Far- « yo

well’s shotographs, hence was presumably not Z 26, Monochrome ashtray” (Fig. 65). Ht.

dug by him. 0.033, diam. 0.093. ring, Usual clay, Unbroken. Baserelatively wide and flat; suspension holes

Z, 20. Bowl with one handle (Figs. 63, 64). before firing; double offset on outside between Ht. 0.035, diam. 0.09. Usual clay. Unbroken. Upper part and base-ring. Original cracks in Bottom flat, no offset; on it, several irregular bottom, not going through; vertical crack in rim, wavy lines painted idly, or perhaps to try the which must have originated before or during paint, which is poor. Paint uniformly dark brown. firing. Paint reddish brown, with some variation; Paint on handle and (an accidental smear) onout- unusually high lustre.

side of bowl near bottom. This piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s

This or Z 19 appears in one of Captain Far- photographs, hence was presumably not dug by well’s photographs, hence was presumably not him.

dug by him. Z 27. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 65). Ht.

Z, 21. Bowl with one handle (Figs. 63, 64). 3 diam. 0.092. Little broken, but much paint Ht. 0.042, diam. 0.095. Usual clay. Unbroken. lost. Usual clay. Base-ring, relatively wide and Bottom flat, offset. Brown paint, lighter where flat; through it, Suspension holes before firing.

thin. Paint brown, fairly uniform except for thin spots. Paint probably covered entire dish except resting

Z 22. Bowl with one handle (Figs. 63, 64). surface and area within base-ring. Ht. 0.04, diam. 0.105. Usual clay. Lacks handle “ sy pas and considerable part of bowl. Bottom flat, Z 28. sono enrome ashtray 8: °9). Ht. slightly offset. Red paint, uniform. Outside un- Use, diam. 0.085. Un token, paint largely lost. painted. sual clay. Base-ring, groove above it. Paint brown, fairly uniform. Paint probably covered

Z 23. Bowl with one handle (Fig. 63). Ht. entire dish except resting surface and area within 0.035, diam. 0.098. Usual clay. Lacks handle, base-ring.

small part of rim, and much of exterior surface. ,

Bottom flat, no offset. Paint mostly red, yellow- Ae 29° Monochrome stemmed pow! "8: 03

brown in some parts; it covered the entire bowl, S ° mnie lew 0.0 , robably hole Cc oy including the bottom, but is largely lost. everal breaks on rim. Suspension holes, prob-

ine 8 ably before firing. Bottom of foot hollow. Dark Z 24. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 65). Ht. brown paint, now iridescent, covers entire sur0.036, diam. 0.105. Probably usual clay. Un- face except bottom of foot. There is a groove broken. Heavy fabric; base-ring; suspension around the bottom of the foot and a ridge around holes before firing. Paint mostly a good red, but _ the stem just above the foot.

half of rim and other sp lotches dark; paint cov- Z 30. Banded kantharos (Fig. 66). Ht. with

ers entire bowl, including bottom. handl d Snail This piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s 2#00°© 48 Presefved 0.105. omaller than XIX 7. P PP Phence Lacks part,not also hotographs, wasupper presumably dugpart by arof one handle and

Pm. 8 all of other; largely Usual ring. Paint paint brown. Fivelost. bands on clay. body,Basealso Z 25. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 65). Ht. band on bottom of body and upper part of base0.036, diam. 0.112. Usual clay. Unbroken, but ring; band at top, i.e. at junction of rim and much paint lost. Base-ring, outcurved rim, sus- shoulder, which went all around, not affected

32 THE FARWELL COLLECTION by handles as in XIX 6-7. On handle, vertical ing to black; it covers entire vase, including botstripe that comes from above and ends ina point. tom.

Interior unpainted. Z 37. Monochrome cup (Fig. 70). Ht. 0.057, Z 31. Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 66). Ht. diam. at top 0.075. Usual clay. Complete except with handle 0.099, diam. of mouth 0.113. Usual for loss of paint. Rim curves in; tall base-ring.

clay. Lacks one handle and piece from rim. Paint apparently varied considerably: black, Base-ring. Paint is a good uniform red; appar- light brown, reddish. Resting surface apparently ently it was intended to cover the entire exterior was painted, but not area enclosed by base-ring. of the vase, though an area on the bottom was Label: “Priest.”

not painted. Interior unpaintedZexcept at top. 38. Stemmed plate (Figs. 67, 68). Ht. 0.065; Z 32. Kantharos (Fig. 66). Ht. with handle diam. of top 0.168, including rim ca. 0.032 wide; 0.108, diam. of mouth 0.086. Usual clay. Small diam. of foot 0.062. Usual clay. Little damaged breaks. Foot hollow on bottom. Paint dark except for slight loss of paint. Suspension holes brown, lighter where thin. Vertical stripe on before firing. Conical hollow within stem. Paint

each handle. Interior painted only at top. ted with some variation. At edge of rim, two This piece appears in one of Captain Farwell’s grooves separated by a ridge. In center of plate, photographs, hence presumably was not dug by a circle painted in solid color, within a slightly

him. larger circle depressed in the clay; then the level Z, 33. Bowl with two handles (Figs. 67, 68). rises again, the offset being included in a painted

Ht. 0.086, diam. 0.138 including nearly flat rim, circle. Outside, above stem: a broad band; 0.01 wide. Usual clay. Excellent condition. Base- within it, a narrower one, which apparently was

ting, Paint largely a good red, dark brown in "VST complete. places. Resting surface and area within it are Z, 39. Pyxis with lid, monochrome (Fig. 70).

unpainted. Ht. without lid 0.075, with lid 0.105, max. circ. Z. 34. Bowl (Figs. 67, 68). Ht. 0.043, diam, 9-392: Usual clay. Excellent condition. The lid 0.149. Usual clay. Unbroken, much paint lost. _§s flanged; two slight offsets on its top. Base-ring.

Base-ting. Paint brown with some variation, Paint a fine red in parts, nearly black in others. greenish in places. Suspension holes before fir- The lid is entirely painted except for a small ing. Paint covered entire surface, including bot- 44 inside, and the outside of the pyxis except tom. A remarkable feature of this bowl is the for the resting surface and the area within the

clear evidence, where the paint has been lost, of base-ring.

an earlier decoration in bands. On the inside at Captain F arwell recalls that he received this least two narrow concentric circles are percepti- Piece from the priest at Ordona. ble, and per haps a wider band around the rim; Z 40. Italiote stemless kylix, stamped (Figs. on the outside, two narrow bands seem clear. 73, 76). Ht. 0.052-0.054, diam. 0.188. Not the Z, 35. Skyphos (Fig. 70). Ht. 0.068, diam. at usual clay; harder, redder in parts, mica scanty. top 0.106. eee day, though largely gray from Much mended, lacks half of one handle. Offset firing, as in XIII 1. Put together; lacks a con- Just above base-ring, probably where two secsiderable part of one side from rim to base, Bot- “ons were joined; one break follows this line in tom flat, offset. Paint red, black, gray. Three Patt. Ridge in interior. Black varnish of Attic spots of paint on each handle. Inside: broad tYPe Covers entire vase except atca within base-

band at the rim, two pairs of bands below. ring, which is painted red; some spots of the varnish over the red. Inside: six stamped palm-

Z 36. Monochrome skyphos (Fig. 70). Ht. ettes joined by coarse incised lines; within the 0.081, diam. at top o.104-0.096. Usual clay. hexagon so formed, an impressed dot, an incised Lacks one handle and a triangular piece fromone circle around it, and part of another circle. Capside, also some paint. Base-ring. Paint red, shad- _ tain Farwell thinks that he dug this piece.

CATALOGUE 33 Z 41. Italiote bolsal (Fig. 70). Ht. 0.04, diam. ZW 2. Monochrome jug (Fig. 81). Ht. 0.077, 0.107; total width across handles, 0.16. Clay diam. 0.081. Paint brown, largely lost. Base aplittle visible. Unbroken. Thick fabric; rim flat; proximately as in Caskey, Geometry of Greek base-ring somewhat high, but hardly asin Z 37 Vases, p. 147, no. 100. National Museum 387732. and Z 42. Black varnish of Attic type covers en-

tire vase except area within base-ring, which is ZW 3. Monochrome “ashtray” (Fig. 80). painted red. “Bolsal” is a name suggested by Diam. 0.087, ht. 0.03. Red. Suspension holes

Beazley (BSA 41, p. 18, note 2). before firing. National Museum 387730.

Z 42. Italiote skyphos, stamped (Figs. 70, 77). — Ht. 0.057, diam. of mouth 0.095. Clay could be AppENDUM. The bow! with tall angular handle, the usual kind, though redder than usual. One Y 53 (Figs. 43, 44), has only recently become handle mended; virtually complete. Incurving available for examination. Ht. with handle 0.134, rim, tall base-ring. Paint gray rather than black; without handle 0.053, diam. at top 0.185~0.20, it covers the entire vase except the inner side of width of rimo.o23. Probably usual clay, probable the base-ring and the area enclosed by it. The slip. Horizontal streaks on inside and outside of stamped rosette comprises a disc in the center, rim donotsuggest wheel. No considerable breaks,

seven triangles around it, and a small disc be- some paint lost. Three holes through front of tween each two triangles. All elements of the handle; rim offset inside only; bowl poorly rosette, like the palmettes, are in relief within shaped. No pattern inside. Back of handle much depressed areas, whereas in XIII 20 and Z 4o as in XVI 1 (Fig. 15); one of the bands at top

the palmettes are impressed. There are four is red. Red also: third band from top on outbands of rouletting; the inner two consist of side, middle band on rim, paint around middle longer, lighter lines, the outer two of shorter, hole in handle, two horizontal bands on front

deeper marks; all are curved. of handle, lighter squares in checkerboard. The Captain Farwell thinks that he dug this piece. piece appears in Captain Farwell’s photographs,

, ; .. given to his mother. piece has been published separately (Studies In vi € th ; dand the relation ;

Z 43. Italiote owl skyphos (Fig. 70). This hence was presumably not dug by him; it was

Presented to David M. Robinson, II, pp. 96-105). n view OF the copious rec’ and the relation in ornament to the loop-handled bowls (p. 44), it is ZW 1. Monochrome jug (Fig. 81). Ht. 0.081, unlikely that this bowl belongs to the period of diam. 0.087. Paint red, largely lost. National the four earliest graves, as suggested on p. 63. Museum 387731.

3 Johnson

III. Technique THE HANDMADE WARE.

The usual clay is a clear brown in color, with very small shining particles, presumably mica, in considerable quantity. As a rule it is fairly clean and uniform in texture; the most noticeable impurities are the relatively large pieces of iron (XI 3, X15, XVIII 4). The color varies from a warm brown to a considerably paler hue, but never has much red in it. The vatiation makes definite statements risky, but there is a strong probability that the clay

, used in the great preponderance of the pottery came from one place. Y 26 is perhaps the only piece of which one can say positively that its clay is altogether different from the usual

kind. Perhaps it was an amateur product, in which clay not suitable for pottery was employed. The same could be true of Y 45. XII 1 and XV 2 use a soft red fabric, perhaps the same in the two pieces. I am inclined to believe that the gray fabric of XV 1 indicates an unusual clay, and this may apply also to XI 1. The color of the surface often differs from that within the wall; invariably, when there isa difference, the surface is paler. Sometimes — most clearly in XVII 1 — the outer coating of clay is unmistakable, aside from the difference in color; and in other cases, notably XVIII 4, thete is a very pronounced difference in color, which strongly indicates a slip. (It is said that the appearance of a slip may result from polishing the surface, but in this ware the surface is decidedly not polished.) The slip was put on with a brush, as brushmarks in unpainted areas indicate. Sometimes, however, there is nothing in either color ot physical character to suggest a slip, and one concludes that there is none. In some instances there is prima facie evidence of a slip on some parts of a vase, but not on all parts (e. g., Y 7, Y 23); since the slip was applied with a brush, this is perhaps not very remarkable.

“Brush-marks” sometimes appear on unpainted surfaces where there is nothing else to suggest a slip (e. g. Y 9); apparently the implements that produced these marks were sometimes used merely to smooth the surface. Mr. Tallon tells me that a wet brush is often so 34

TECHNIQUE 35 used now. In some cases the matt paint apparently became so thoroughly united with the slip that whenever the paint came off it brought the slip with it, leaving the surface brown in contrast to the paler slipped unpainted area (best in Y 1). Here the color difference could perhaps be explained by the protection of the surface by paint during the firing; but in some such cases, at least, the presence of a slip is otherwise indicated. There is no doubt that every vase of this class, with the barely possible exception of XVIII 1, is handmade for the most part; but many of them have marks around the mouth, and on the lower surfaces of broad rims, that suggest the wheel. The practice of placing wheelmade tims on handmade pots is known or claimed from several regions (Goldman, Eutresis, p. 115, with references; Dohan, Italic Tomb-Groups, p. 3); on the other hand, nothing could be more natural than to finish a handmade vase of circular form by smoothing the mouth or tim horizontally, and this would produce marks much like wheel-marks, though presumably less continuous and uniform. Furthermore, while this smoothing was done with one hand, it would be natural to rotate the pot somewhat with the other hand. Or, the pot being set on a piece of wood or matting, this could be rotated by an assistant, while the shaper used both hands in his work. Next, the basis would be made substantial and mounted on a spindle, so that it could be turned more easily; and finally basis and spindle would be so adjusted that the former could be turned rapidly and smoothly. When this stage is reached, the appliance is a potter’s wheel and the product is genuinely wheelmade. It is doubtful whether it is even theoretically possible to recognize the traces of all these variations in the process. In the Catalogue each pot is considered as an individual ptoblem; it is not believed that one solution applies to all cases in which there are marks of rotation. The upper patts probably were genuinely wheelmade in some instances (XV 1, Y 2). It is hardly probable that Herdonia was so secluded from the world that completely wheelmade ware was altogether unknown there in the sixth and fifth centuries, but the local potters apparently were not precipitate in adopting a new technique. The exterior is often shaped by broad strokes, probably of a wooden stick, with distinct tidges between them; these are likely to be approximately vertical, on the lower part of a vase. Single vessels show great variation in the thickness of the walls, best seen when broken; one part may be 8 mm. thick, another only 2 mm. The thinnest part is likely to be where the vase is widest, as is natural but unsound. Mayer suggested (pp. 115 f.) that a core was often used, and certainly it is very reasonable to suppose that the maker of XV 2 was familiar with the use of a core in handmade wate. In such pottery the core would hardly be detectible except by the seam between sections of the pot, and there would be no seam if the core could be crumbled and removed without dividing the pot. It seems quite incredible that the seams, if generally present in this pottery, would not be obvious. The matt paint chiefly used in the decoration varies somewhat in tone, and it has been termed black or brown as seemed appropriate in each instance, but it appears always to be *

36 THE FARWELL COLLECTION essentially the same. In Y 24, but not elsewhere, two shades seem to be used intentionally. The red paint, often used as a second color, varies rather more; at its best, as in XVI 2, it is a tich carmine. Only in Y 23 do the two colors approach each other. They differ little in texture or durability. The patch on Y 38 indicates two firings; it might not be altogether impossible to do it so badly in unbaked clay, but the condition of the paint indicates that, when it was fired, the clay of the patch was in a different state from the rest of the clay, being unfired when the rest was fired. Some corroboration may be found in Y 18, where the paint covers what seems to be a break in fired clay. The copious and, one might say, ingenious patterns could be considered parallel to the apparently complicated technique previously discussed, both being in contrast with the general carelessness of execution. I conceive that the workmen (or workwomen) fondled

their pots as they gossiped with their fellows, devoting to the work plenty of time and some thought, but not much attention. THE Iratic WHEELMADE WARE.

The clay is generally the same clear brown as that used in most of the handmade ware. Variation in color, though naturally not entirely lacking, is slight; it is never as warm as in XVIII 1 and never, except in a few pieces apparently misfired in whole or in part, as pale as in XI 1 or various slipped pieces. There is no slip in the wheelmade ware. The paint differs altogether from the matt paint; it is thin and definitely, though not extremely or uniformly, lustrous. It varies in color, from black through brown to red; this vatiation may often be seen in a single vase, and is due to differing thickness of the paint or to irregular firing. The former is more conspicuous in the banded ware, where a band is often heavy and black at one end and thin and red at the other. The irregular firing is especially noticeable in the mottled examples of monochrome; in XXI 4 the red and black give quite an Early Minoan effect. In some cases the color is uniform, the technical difficulties under control; but advantage is never taken of the opportunity to use two distinct colors on one vase. The monochrome vases of uniform red color may be considered the most advanced in the collection. It is very probable that Z 17 was not made in the same place as was most of the pottery, and this may well be true also of Z 37 and Z 16, though in none of the three is there any definite eccentricity of clay or paint. It is quite possible that some other pieces also ate imported; but it will scarcely be doubted that the great preponderance of both handmade and wheelmade pottery was produced in a single center. It is impossible to establish a difference in clay or paint between the banded and the monochtomeware. The latter is prone to be lighter in weight and better finished; but this difference disappears in the few cases where the same form occurs in the same size in both classes. The use of a core in XV 2 is noted in the Catalogue, p. 18.

IV. The Pottery according to Form THE HANDMADE WARE

Of the trans-Aufidus kraters listed by Mayer (p. 110), nos. 3 (pl. 10, no. 13, from Lucera) . and 2 (pl. 7, no. 3, ftom Ascoli Satriano) are most similar to XIT 1. The clay of the former is described as gray, hence must be quite unlike the clay of XII 1; but the pattern, illustrated only in part, is so strikingly similar that one would not suppose the two pieces far apart in either time or space, though the Lucera ornament seems considerably better in execution. Mayer’s no. 2 is like XII 1 in form and uses groups of concentric circles in the same way, but the effect of the ornament differs considerably. Mayer mentions undecorated kraters, similar in form to those two, from Ordona, including Bari 3928. The only one from Ordona that is included in his list (no. 4; pl. 12, no. 11; Bari 3927) differs from XII 1 in both form and ornament. A gtoup of kraters (Mayer, pp. 102—104) differs from those mentioned by the presence

of a foot, but otherwise the form is the same as in the Ascoli krater, and the ornament includes concentric circles used in the same way. Two or three of these kraters were found at Minervino Murge and are now at Taranto. Randall-Mclver (Iron Age, p. 218) writes of this discovery: “In the courtyard of a house, a space so small that we cannot reasonably suppose it to have contained objects widely different in date, were found Greek pottery,

Daunian pottery, and fibulae... None of the Greek pottery, which is of the advanced red-figure class, would be earlier than the fifth century.” Randall-Mclver therefore adopts 450 B. C. as the lower limit for such pottery as the footed kraters, and Mayer concludes that the category belonged to the fifth century, “jedenfalls nicht viel nach 500.” Both scholars were relying on information ,iven orally by Quagliati, who never published any considerable account of the matter. However, in his Museo Nazionale di Taranto (1932; in the series, Itinerari dei Muset e Monumenti d’Italia) he implies (p. 14) that all the objects in the Minervino find should be contemporary and mentions the “ceramica magnogreca a 37

38 THE FARWELL COLLECTION figure rosse e... finissimo vasellame verniciato di nero lucente in prevalenza del IV secolo.” Apparently, then, it was Quagliati’s later judgment that all the material should belong to the fourth century. Ten of the Daunian vases from Minervino are published in the first Taranto fascicule of the Corpus Vasorum (Italy, pls. 717f.). All of them could well be closely related; some definitely belong south of the Aufidus according to Mayer’s system, none north of the river. Since the red-figure pottery is still unpublished, one can only quote Quagliati on chronology; but there is a fundamental uncertainty in the matter; it does not appear that the pottery constituted a grave-group or a closed group of any sort, and no certain conclusions can be based on the fact that it was all found in a small area. Other footed kraters of Daunian style have been found, and in Mayet’s opinion were made, outside of Daunia. One (Randall-Mclver, Iron Age, pl. 25, no. 19, pp. 123, 2183 cf. Mayer, p. 165) was found in one of the Servici graves at Novilara; another (Mayer, pl. 17, no. 10, pp. 166—168) in Istria. Randall-McIver thought that the former could be little if at all later than 600; Whatmough (Foundations of Roman Italy, p. 205) dated the decorated steles, of which one came from the Servici cemetery, about 7oo—650; but Aberg (Bronzexeitliche und friiheisenzeitliche Chronologie, I, p. 206) places most of these steles in the Arnoaldi period, 625—-500. The Istrian krater is said to accompany objects of the Este III period, about 500—350. It is hard to believe that the two kraters are separated by any considerable interval, as far as their manufacture is concerned, though of course they could be placed in graves of widely different dates. The Minervino Murge kraters differ from the two just mentioned in that their rims are distinctly larger in proportion, and it is not unreasonable to suppose them somewhat later. XIT 1 and the Ascoli krater mentioned at the beginning of this discussion have low rims,

which may suggest that they are early in relation to the series of kraters with feet. , No. 6 in Mayer’s trans-Aufidus kraters (Bari 3516, from Melfi; RM 1904, Beilage 3, no. 1) is closely related, in form and ornament, to XV 1, as is one found at Teano in Campania and now in Naples (Mon. Linc. XX, p. 54, fig. 29; Mayer p. 114). Mayet’s descriptions indicate that the likeness extends to the clay at least in the Teano vase, and to the decoration of the handle at least in the Melfi. The Teano krater may be placed between the other two according to the details of the pattern, but this is doubtful evidence for the order of manufacture; the three could well be very close together in origin. The Teano krater is said to have come from a tomb, but its companions are apparently unknown. The form was chiefly employed at Ruvo, according to Mayer (p. 104), but there such vessels were made on the wheel, of red clay, and quite differently decorated. The copious use of concentric circles at Ruvo suggests XII 1 rather than XV 1, and in one example (Mayer pl. 6, no. 6) the triangular pattern of XII 1 occurs; in another (pl. 6, no. 7) there is an approximation to the triangular pattern of XV 1, though with little else to suggest that vase. Mayer seems to believe, apparently from the character of the clay, that the krater found at Melfi was made there.

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM 39 XII 1 and XV 1 differ in the handles and in the proportionate size of the rim, but the form is basically the same. The two are joined by the distinctive decoration of the handles and, to a considerable extent, by the whole scheme of decoration. The lower tim of XII 1 is typologically earlier, but the ornament of XV 1 might reasonably be thought earlier; indeed Mayer (p. 112), in comparing the triangular patterns of the Melfi and Lucera kraters, calls the former an older version; he is perhaps influenced by parallels in the cache of pottery at Tarentum (Mayer, pl. 3, no. 7; pl. 4, no. 11). In another place (pp. 163 f.) he implies that the Teano kinsman of XV 1 1s at least as early as 500 B. C. On the other hand, what

looks like a development from the pattern of XV 1 occurs in “Late Canosan” (Toronto no. 504, Robinson-Harcum pl. 87; Copenhagen CVA, fasc. 5, pl. 227, 6); and an askos in the British Museum (CVA fasc. 7, IV D a pl. 10, 1) obviously of early date, has an approximation to the pattern of XII 1. The apparent use of the wheel for the rim of XV 1 and for XV 2 naturally suggests a relatively late petiod, and the single grave-companion of XII 1 strengthens the probability that it is earlier. It is very possible that neither was made at Ordona. Y 46 is an example, probably smaller than most but otherwise typical, of the jar which was 2 tegular feature of Herdonian graves. Four pieces in Fig. 4 belong to the type; also

the jat in Grave XIV (Fig. 13) and that in Quagliati’s first grave. The three “thorns” on the shoulder are mentioned by Angelucci in one case (Mayer, p. 66, no. 24) and Mayer notes that they are usual. Since two graves with no other handmade pottery CXITI and XIV) contain such jats, and two others with both handmade and wheelmade (Quagliati’s and Angelucci’s no. 24), the question might arise whether these pieces represent a change from an earlier fashion, to which XII 1, XV 1, and the column krater in Fig. 4 would belong. However,

a good parallel for Y 46 (though said to be wheelmade) was found in a grave at Oliveto Lucano and was referred, on the evidence of its unpublished companions, to the eighth century (NS¢ 1919, p. 253, fig. 9, A). Fourteen pieces in the collection, which it seems reasonable to call jugs, have wide flat tims. Four of these (II 5, X1 4, XI 5, and Y 1) have tall angular handles. Mayer (pp. 118 ff.) lists 12 trans-Aufidus examples of the general form; but several of these (nos. 21—24, 30— 32) ate decidedly unlike ours, as are others that he refers to the region south of the Aufidus (‘bid.) and to Campania (p. 171). He illustrates only three like the Farwell examples; two (no. 25, pl. 8 no. 11, Bari 4079; no. 27, pl. 9 no. 13, Bari 2883) were found at Ordona, one (no. 29, p. 163 fig. 53, Foggia) at Arpi. One in Quagliati’s first grave (Quagliati, p. 32, fig. 4), though not included in Mayer’s list, is mentioned by him (pp. 124f.) as related to his no. 25, though it seems closer to no. 27. It is surely this same piece that appears in the CVA (Tatanto fasc. 1, colored plate Italy 757, no. 2; text to IV D by, pl. 2) as having been found at Castelluccio in 1914. Y 1 and Mayer 25 could well be from the same hand; otherwise there seem to be no particularly close stylistic relations among the eight pieces. Ten jugs have wide flat rims, but low handles (IIT 3, X 4, XVIII 3, Y 2—6, YW 1—2).

40 THE FARWELL COLLECTION Y 2 is the largest piece of any form in the whole collection, the others are much smaller and do not differ widely in size. The absence of similar vases from Mayer’s book (though cf. pl. 7 no. 10, pp. 97, 102; pl. 3 no. 8; pl. 18 no. 20, pp. 110, 114) is singular. The two groups do not differ only in the height of the handles. The pellets or similar features, which usually occur on the figurine and angular handles of bowls, are found on all the high handles here except for XI 5; the only low handle with anything of the sort is III 3, with ove pellet. The high handles are always considerably wider than the rims that accompany them; this is true of no low handle except in III 3. The jugs with low handles, except III 3 and perhaps Y 5, have more distinct necks than any of those with high handles. Seven of the low handles (not III 3 or Y 2 or perhaps YW 2) are decorated on the back simply with three vertical lines, which is not known to be true of any high handle. Eight of the jugs with low handles have only horizontal bands and lines on the body (except that Y 4 has a band of dots in fairly distinct diamonds), which is not known to be true of any with high handles; at least five of the latter, including all four in the Farwell collection, have a

panel zone around the lower part of the body, and this occurs in III 3, but not in Y 2, despite its size and magnificence. At least five of those with high handles, including the Farwell four, have a painted band bounding the bottom; this is present in III 3, but not elsewhere, as fat as known, with the low handle. Most examples of both types have marks around the mouth. These marks are short radiating lines in II 5, XI 4 ,and Y 1, with high handles, and also in ITI 3 and Y 5 and apparently YW 1; but in six with low handles they are unmistakable dots. III 3 and YW 1 are the only two with low handles that lack red paint; it is used for a thin line on XI 4, copiously on Quagliati’s piece, not at allon II 5, XI5, or Y 1. It is evident that III 3 occupies a position of transition or compromise between the two groups. The same could be consideted true of XVI 1, which is much like a high-handled jug with three feet added. The dots around the mouth and the abundant ted would associate it with the other group; the contour and the decorative scheme, including the back of the handle, chiefly recall Y 2.

Since neither group possesses marked stylistic homogeneity, the largely consistent differences between them should reflect a difference in period, though doubtless there would be some overlapping. It is probable at a glance that the jugs with tall handles go with the bowls having handles of similar form, and this is borne out in the grave-groups XI and II. The jugs with low handles are associated with the loop-handled bowls by copious use of red, verticals on the backs of the handles, dotted diamonds, and generally unambitious decoration, and by their occurrence together in Grave XVIII. There ate seven handmade trefoil jugs (Y 7 — Y 12, YW 3) and two made on the wheel (XIII 13, Z 1). Captain Farwell recalls that he bought Y 8 and Y 10 from a man known to him as “the Neapolitan,” and he thinks that Y 7 and Y 9 came from the same man. No two of the seven are very similar in all points. In exterior form Y 7 and Y 9 ate much alike, Y 8 separated from them by its long neck and YW 3 by its small mouth; each of the

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM Al other three is isolated. The groups of short verticals within the mouth in Y 7, Y 8 and Y 9 differ in such a way as to indicate strongly that no two of the three were decorated by one man. Y 10 is unlike all the others in its double handle and in the distinct round mouth, marked off not only in the shape but also by paint, from which the trefoil rises. This inner round mouth is fairly distinct, though not painted, in Y 7. Quagliati’s first grave contained one trefoil pitcher (NS¢ 1907, p. 32, no. 6), in form and size similar to Y 7. In decoration it is not like any of our pieces; there is a step pattern, in

two tows only, and horizontal bands which suggest the wheelmade wate. Mayer, who knew few trefoils, shows two from Ascoli (pl. 14, nos. 5 and 7, p. 157); one resembles Y 7 and Y 9, the other is quite unlike any of ours. A jug found at Minervino Murge (CVA Taranto, Italy pl. 717, no. 1) is fairly close to Y 10 in form, but quite different in decoration. For Y 12 the best parallels noted are from the Bari region (Mayer, pl. 31, 1 and 3, p. 179); there might be an Attic lekythos in its ancestry (e. g. Haspels, A BL pl. 4, no. 2). Y 7 and Y 9 appear to represent the regular trans-Aufidus type of trefoil jug. The looping

lines on Y 7 and Y 8, occurring elsewhere only on XVIII 2, the wavy lines on Y 9, Y 10 and : Y 12, and the bands on the Quagliati jug suggest that the trefoils are relatively late in the handmade wate. II 4, Y 21, and Y 22 are jugs with small mouths. Y 22 is decorated in the manner of the flat-rimmed, low-handled jugs, and could very well be by the painter of Y 4. Y 21 is similar in form, but isolated by its striking pattern, which is less suggestive of the zigzag of YW 3 than of such quartered circles as in Y 35, Y 39, and Mayer pl. 12 no. 6 or of the triangular patterns mentioned in connection with kraters (p. 38f.); there might be Lucanian connections (Mayer, pl. 41, no. 14); the copious use of red would tend to place it with the loop-

handled bowls et al. II 4 differs considerably from the other two in form and stands alone in its decoration; the pellets on the handle associate it with the high-handled jugs and the bowls with angular and figurine handles, as would be reasonable for Grave II. Ten small vessels, which seem best called jugs though they may have been used for drinking, have definitely the same form: II 3, III 4, X 2—3, Y 13—18. Quagliati’s first grave contained one (p. 31, fig. 3, left). Mayer knew similar pieces (Pl. 15, no. 9, p. 143; pp. 124f.), but says little about them. IT 3 and III 4 obviously stand together against the rest, though III 4 is the more neatly executed of the two. Of the other nine, including Quagliati’s piece, none has pendants from the lowest band, and each (except Y 18) has one red band, always in the same place. Y 18 and Y 17 have two lines on the back of the handle; the.usual number is three. Y 13 has crossing lines on the handle, which suggests a connection with wheelmade jugs, but otherwise it is fully typical. The two pieces in Grave X ate not much alike, and indeed no two of the nine seem likely to be made by one man, but in general character there is little variety. From the use of red, the backs of the handles, and the evidence of Grave X, it may be supposed that the nine of this type are roughly contemporary with the low-handled flat-rimmed jugs. Several of them, including X 2, Y 13, and Quagliati’s piece,

42 THE FARWELL COLLECTION have the lower attachment of the handle more or less enclosed by curving lines; this is paralleled in the tripod XVI 1 and the trefoil jug Y 7 and is approached in XVIII 3 but not, as far as known, in any other flat-rimmed jug; perhaps it is a late feature. There remain a number of jugs of which no two ate closely similar. Y 19 and Y 20 are distinctly smaller than Y 13—18, and have the upper part reduced, but would reasonably be associated with II 3 and III 4. Y 52, with lip turned out, follows Y 13—17 in decoration and doubtless is to be regarded as a variant of their type in form; in profile it resembles Y 5, with flat rim. Y 23 could be considered another variant, or could be included with the following. XI 3 is decorated in a scheme apparently borrowed from kraters (cf. especially XV 1), and the bounding line at its base associates it with the high-handled jugs, as would be reasonable for Grave XI. The rough and unpainted II 1 may be reckoned the same form. These ate perhaps the earliest ancestors of the common wheelmade form (p. 48f.), with which Y 24, Y 26, and Y 27 are more clearly connected. In Y 24 the connection extends to the decoration, in which there is an approximation to the broad band, with finer lines above and below, of the wheelmade jugs. This appears still more clearly on Y 25, together with a wavy line, which also is a late feature; in form Y 25 is isolated. XVI 2 and XVIII 2 are very similar in form except for the rim, and certainly should be contemporary; both rims occur chiefly in wheelmade ware; the whole form of XVI 2 is closely approached (despite a base-ring) in a monochrome wheelmade piece in Quagliati’s first grave (Quagliati, p. 30, fig. 2). The wavy lines of XVI 2 indicate a late period; the bands on the shoulder of XVIII 2 suggest wheelmade pieces, and its looping band recalls a handmade piece in Quagliati’s first grave (Quagliati, p. 31, fig. 3, at right). The numerous crossing lines on the handle of XVI 2 recall Y 24. The two jugs in Grave XVII, 1 and 3, quite definitely follow wheelmade types. The Farwell collection contains 18 pieces that may be comprehended under the title “bowls with one tall handle.” Five (XVIII 1, Y 28—31) have loop handles, five (III 2, XII 2, ¥ 32—34) figurine handles, three (II 2, XI 1, XI 2) angular handles, two (Y 35—36) horned handles, and three (I 2, X 1, Y 37) more or less triangular handles. A sixth loop handle (YW 4), a sixth figurine handle (YW 5), and a fourth angular handle (Y 53) have been separated from the main collection. Mayer (p. 147) lists 21 trans-Aufidus bowls, without clearly distinguishing the types of handle. He could be understood to imply that only four, his nos. 24a—27, have figurine handles; of these 24a, in Vienna, and 26, in Bari, are illustrated (Masner pl. 1, Mayer pl. 14, no. 11). However, his nos. 37 (in Hamburg; pls. 15, 8 and 14, 12) and 41—43 (British Museum H 252—254; CVA IV D a, pl. 6, 1—3; pl. 8, 2, 7, 3) have handles of this type

| also, except that in H 252 the “figurine“‘ has no head. (It is evident that no. 41 in this list, for which the museum number H 256 is given, should be exchanged with no. 24 in the list on p. 144, for which the museum number H 254 is given.) Altogether twelve examples of

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM 43 the type are fairly well known to me. Of these seven, including the Hamburg bowl, come from Ordona; one, Mayer 26, from Ordona or Ascoli Satriano; one, British Museum H 254, from Nola; the others from unknown places. Mayet’s no. 38 (pl. 15, 5; in Munich) has an angular handle, as has apparently his no. 34 (Berlin 257, not illustrated). His nos. 30 (pl. 14, 13; Bari from Ordona) and 31 (pl. 15, 6; Bari from Ascoli Satriano) have loop handles. In his no. 32 (pl. 14, 8; Bari from Ascoli Satriano) the handle is largely lost and its form perhaps unknown. His no. 35 (pl. 15, 4; Berlin 258) has a handle of unique form. Most of the bowls with angular or figurine handles have a feature near the bottom of the handle which, in its simplest and most describable form, consists of two pellets, which might be imitation rivets. This feature is entirely absent only from XI 1, among the angular handles, and only from XII 2 among the figurine handles. No loop handle has it. The bowls with loop handles, except for Mayer’s no. 30, differ little in form; each has a lip of considerable width, definitely offset on the inside and usually fairly distinct on the outside also; this last is most true of XVIII 1 and least of Y 28. Those with angular handles have narrower tims or, in XI 1, the rim is nearly vertical and not sharply offset. Among those with figurine handles, the lip of Y 33 is both narrow and nearly vertical, that of XII 2 narrow but clearly offset; the others are not definitely unlike the loop-handled bowls, but in general the lips are less wide or more nearly vertical and affect the exterior contour less. As fat as known, all examples of the three types have at the handle a painted pattern which Pryce conveniently, whether accurately or not, terms a lotus; and regularly, (not in XI 1) the central part of the exterior is occupied by a circle, divided in one way or another. In all six of the Farwell bowls with loop handle, the lotus is double, and there is no other panel or angular pattern outside of the central circle. ( In decoration as in form, Mayet’s no. 30 is exceptional.) In five of the six, excluding YW 4, groups of short verticals occur; some of these become “leg patterns” in XVIII 1, and in Y 30 they are modified in a way suggesting Peucetian pieces (Mayer, pl. 19, 5; pl. 20, 6, 8; pl. 21, 3). All except YW 4 use red paint more than any of the other two types. At least five have three vertical bands on the back of the handle, and four have dots in diamond-shaped groups; neither feature is known to occur in either of the other types. Evidence from other parts of Italy (Aberg, pp. 76ff.; figs. 242, 222, 225, 63, 142) shows that the bow! with loop handle, or its near telatives, existed at an earlier date than is likely for any of the Farwell material; and at Canosa the history of the form certainly continued beyond our limits (Mayer, pl. 38). However, it is clear that at Ordona most of the examples make a group that is rather closely coherent, though no two of them seem likely to have been made by one man. The exterior patterns of the bowls with figurine and angular handles have a considerable range of variation. XII 2, Y 33, and British Museum H 252, which are much alike in the absence of a projecting rim, have a single lotus at the handle, three others in the quarters of the periphery, angular patterns in a distinctly secondary role, no short verticals of the

44, THE FARWELL COLLECTION usual sort, and no interior pattern. On Y 34, which is not much like the first three in form, slight traces indicate a similar pattern; and Mayer’s no. 32 presents an elaborated version of it. The first four pieces have figurine handles, and it is reasonable to suppose that the same is or was true of Mayer’s no. 32. The five make a group that appears to stand far from the bowls with loop handles. It is even clearer in this group than in the other that its coherence does not arise from common authorship} no two of the five seem likely to be the work

of one hand. Y 33 is isolated by its small size and lightness, XII 2 by its deep, curving form. In Y 32, with figurine handle, there is a single lotus at the handle and one opposite the handle, with angular patterns in the other two quarters; there are leg patterns, but no proper verticals. None besides the foregoing has more than one lotus. In several pieces the angular pat-

tetns become mote conspicuous. In II 2 (with angular handle), III 2, Mayer no. 37 in Hamburg, and probably Mayer no. 24a in Vienna, three angular patterns occupy quarters of the area; in III 2 and Vienna there are solid triangles, with dependent leg patterns, in the angular patterns; all have short verticals; the lotus is single in II 2, double in III 2 and Hamburg, unmentioned in Vienna. The isolated loop-handled bowl, Mayer no. 30, has this scheme with the solid triangles, but with no short verticals and apparently no lotus. In YW 5 there are three angular patterns containing solid triangles, but all are in the sector

opposite the handle, with double lotus; in British Museum H 253 two angular patterns are : similarly used, opposite a double lotus; and Mayer no. 26, of which only the handle is shown, may be placed here because it is surely by the same hand as the preceding. XI 2 has one angular pattern, without the solid triangle, opposite a double lotus, and leg patterns. Mayer no. 38, in Munich, has a similar scheme, as far as known, and might even be by the same hand. XI 1, with a single lotus and nothing else, is the most meagrely decorated

of all the bowls with figurine or angular handle. Y 53, with angular handle, and British Museum 254, with figurine handle, are the only two of these forms which, in scheme of otnament, go with the six with loop handle. The two bowls with horned handles have a general similarity in form; but whereas in Y 35 the rim cutves inward from the angular shoulder without further change, in Y 36 there is a slight outcurving lip. In decoration they are quite unlike in both plan and quality, Y 35 being much superior. In I 2, X 1, and Y 37 the contour is an unbroken cutve; the incurving tim is slight in I 2 and Y 37, hardly perceptible in X 1; 1 2 and Y 37 are altogether very like in form; X 1 stands alone by its handle and also by its painted ornament. A type apparently native to western Italy is represented by pieces from the Roman forum (NS¢ 1911, pp. 160—163, Fig. 3, c), Marino (NS¢ 1924, pp. 476ff., Fig. 25), and Oliveto Citra (NS¢ 1952, pp. 55f., Figs. 3—4). This type is not closely similar to any of our forms, but could bean ancestor for all five. The Novilara cemeteries contained a number of pieces with handles somewhat like that of X 1 and profiles recalling one or another of

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM 45 these bowls (ML V, pl. 8, no. 53; pls. r1—12). One bowl (pl. 13, no. 1) is fairly close to Y 35 in both profile and handle, except that the horns are blunt. There is a poor parallel for the horned handles in Mayer, pl. 14, no. 18 (p. 151), and somewhat better ones from the Bari region (Mayer, pl. 20, nos. 7—8, 11; pl. 22, no. 5; p. 183); one could compare also Picene bowls at Ascoli (Mariotti, Museo di Ascolt, p. 19). A bowl from Canosa (Mayer, pl. 15, M0. 15) is similar to X 1 in handle and apparently in profile. One from Minervino Murge (Mayer, pl. 15, no. 16) seems close in form and handle ornament to I 2, though the interior pattern is very different. It appears that none of these five bowls has much connection with any of the three types previously considered; there is only the interior pattern of I 2, which is a coarse and degenerate version of earlier designs, to suggest descent. Foreign influence is best seen in Y 35 as regards general form, in X 1 as regards the handle; it may be that the distinct horns of Y 35-36 represent a local development. I 2 and Y 37 may reflect a second

, foreign influence. The similarity of the tall-handled bowls to early Sicilian forms (cf. Mon. Line. II, pl. aftet p. 35) is striking, but can be explored only in a broader context. I 2 is placed, by its grave-companions, in a very late period of handmade ware, and there is likelihood that Y 37 is contemporary with it. X 1 would be placed in a late, though not the latest, period by its grave-group, and its copious red would tend to confirm this. Y 3; is probably roughly contemporary with the other pieces that have its pattern, none of them in grave-groups. Y 36 would naturally be placed with Y 35, yet this could be wrong; with its restrained central pattern inside and its relatively copious decoration outside, it recalls the loop-handled bowls, and its painted band around the resting surface is a feature of the highhandled jugs. The stemmed plates Y 39—40, YW 6 and the goblet or stemmed dish Y 38, as well as Y 35 and Y 41 are all connected by their interior patterns. In its complete form, this pattern

consists of a quartered circle enclosed by tangent arcs; it appears thus in Y 38, YW 6 and, at its best, in Y 35. In Y 39 the tangent arcs are omitted, in Y 40 the circle is latticed instead of quartered. In four cases (Y 35, 38, 39, 41) the circles are quartered in the same way, for which very fair parallels can be cited from the Bronze Age in Central Italy (NSc¢ 1933, pl. 2, p. 81. Cf. also, for the Iron Age: Montelius, Czy. Prim., pls. 148, 288; NSc 1934, p. 454; Trendall, Paestan Pottery, pl. 19, d, a red-figure vase ascribed to Python; Mayer, p. 154) and from much earlier periods in Mesopotamia (JNES 1944, figs. 281290

after p. 72). The circle enclosed by a series of tangent arcs is found on the rims of the kraters XII 1 and XV 1 and frequently elsewhere in Apulia (Mayer, p. 111). The complete pattern, as in Y 35, does not seem to be common. The bowl from Minervino Murge (Mayer pl. 15, no. 16), which has been mentioned as apparently fairly close to I 2, has a pattern somewhat similar to that of Y 35, and that may suggest that all these pieces are latish, as might be suspected also from their use of red paint.

46 THE FARWELL COLLECTION The quartered circle of YW 6 is different from the others and recalls Peucetian pieces (Mayer, pl. 20, 8; 21, 4a; 22, 2; 23, 8), though also a bowl assigned to Canosa (Mayer pl. 15, no. 14). The form of Y 39 is approximated in a brazier from the Agora (Hesperia 1949, pl. 97, no. 100), but this is doubtless merely a coincidence. It appears from Mayer, as well as from the Farwell collection, that the stemmed plate was a fairly common Daunian form. Apparently that was not true of Y 38. Forms more or less close to it occur in many places, perhaps most abundantly in Etruria; for Greek ones see Hesperia 1946, p. 324, pl. 66, no. 276. In exterior appearance a Laconian piece of the seventh century (Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, p. 71, fig. 44 B, f) is quite noticeably similar to Y 38. The plate or shallow bowl Y 41 is related, by its solid semicircles, to two pieces in Tiibingen (Mayer pl. 13, nos. 13-14; p. 154), though they are said to have conical feet. They, as well as pl. 13, no. 4, have in the center more elaborate versions of the pattern of X 1. Mayer finds that the Tiibingen pieces stand apart from most Daunian bowls. The others shown by him (pl. 12, nos. 9 and 6; pl. 13, no. 4) have no resemblance in ornament to Y 41, but apparently would match pretty closely in form; it is not clear whether they have feet. XVIII 4 resembles a bowl from Canosa (Mayer, pl. 35, no. 6; p. 157) in form and ornament. Y 43, by its ornament, would be supposed near XVIII 4; its mesomphalic form presumably shows Greek influence, but no close parallels have been noted. The two-handled bowl Y 42 is associated with I 2 and others by the neglect of the outside, and by the dotted edge with Y 38, Y 40, YW 6, and the flat-rimmed, low-handled jugs. The swastika occurs in Y 12 and in other Apulian pieces (Mayer, p. 154). The form is

apain vaguely Greek. ,

The askos, Y 44, is unusual in form. One in Munich (Mayer pl. 13, no. 3; p. 159, no. 48; p. 162) seems much the same except that the handle is on the other side; it is said to be small and coarse, and is evidently much inferior to ours. The handle of Y 44, placed as it is, seems practical only if the askos was to be held with the spout toward the person holding; the thumb would be above the handle, the fingers would press the side and bottom of the vase. So held, it fits the hand very well. The state of the surface gives no clear indication for ot against such handling. Possibly a urinal ? For the decoration of the lower part, another askos in Munich (Mayer, pl. 16, no. 5; p. 159, no. 21) affords a fairly good parallel. The diminutive askos or feeding-bottle, III 6, would perhaps be reckoned a late example of Mayet’s form B (Mayer, pp. 158ff.); I do not know whether any in his list are so nearly globular as this, but Bari 305 (Mayer, pl. 16, 3) is not remote. With this form and the sup-

posed bird’s tail of type B replaced by the small spout, III 6 is the evident ancestor of XIII 14 and of some Late Canosan pieces (¢ufra, p. 71). Two features of the ornament that are appropriate to the form—the scalloped enclosing line and the inverted V’s on the neck—occur on other handmade askoi (Y 44, supra; Mayer, pl. 16, 3 and 5; British Museum,

CVA fasc. 7, IV Da, pl. 11, 1-2) and continue in Late Canosan.

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM AZ The general form of the pyxis I 1 is widely represented. Generally, such pieces are wheelmade, have offset bases or base-rings, and are Greek or show obvious Greek influence. A few show metallic influence in the handles (CVA Robinson, fasc. 3, pl. 30, no. 1; Fairbanks, Boston Catalogue, no. 706), most do not. No pieces closely similar to I 1 have been observed in Apulia or elsewhere. The step pattern and bands of wheelmade style connect the pyxis with a trefoil jug in Quagliati’s first grave (Quagliati, p. 32, fig. 4, right); these two pieces, like the grave-groups to which they belong, would reasonably be thought approximately contemporary. The pyxis or jar III] 1 is like a miniature krater in form. There is a piece in the Boston museum (Fairbanks, Catalogue, no. 696) that is not much larger, and the same is perhaps true of two in Mayer (pl. 18, nos. 4 and 7; p. 188). In none of these is there any resemblance to the decoration of III 1, which is typical for Ordona.

No close parallels for the stand (?), III 5, have been noted. The Lake pottery included some tough rings (p. 110, pls. 15 and 21) of sizes up to that of IIT 5, which, it is thought, may have been used in the furnace; but our piece surely had no such purpose. The tripod bowl XVI 1, as already remarked, is simply a high-handled bow] modified by the addition of three feet; the inspiration was not unique (cf. NS¢ 1914, p. 325, from Vetralla) and the result did not become a regular feature of the potter’s repertory. A bowl with four feet, found at Ordona (Mayer, pl. 11, no. 11, p. 128), might well be quite close in origin, though hardly by the same hand. Y 45, Y 47, Y 48, and Y 49 are unpainted and rough. The small dish Y 45 is about as crude as pottery can be; the other three are more ambitious in form and somewhat better in fabric. Y 47 is similar to Bari 3776 (Mayer, pl.5, no. 19, pp. 44f.), though smaller; Mayer mentions others. Y 49 is not remote from Mayer, pl. 5, nos. 14-15 (pp. 43f.); and such pieces could give tise also to the form of Y 48. Mayer's treatment would imply that such pottery is earlier than the mass of Daunian material; this may be right, but it does not appear to rest on clear evidence. If Y 48 should be found to represent an early type, that type could well be an ancestor of the bowls with angular and figurine handles. A good parallel for Y 49 could be cited from Bronze Age Sicily (Pace, Arte e Civilta della Sicilia Antica, I, p. 126, A). The cover Y 50 is much too small for Y 42, which, as related to the Greek lekanis, might be expected to have a lid. It is about the right size for Y 38 or Y 43, but fits neither well, and neither would be likely to have a lid. It might serve for I 1, occupying all the space between the handles, and clay and paint would match very well. In all probability, however, the cover does not belong to any vessel in the collection. The laurel shows Greek influence, direct or indirect. For the rattle Y 51, the best parallel noted is Bari 1554 (Mayer, pl. 11, no. 9, pp. 157£.; ht. 0.095 ; no provenience), though it is larger and has the small end somewhat in the form of a bird’s head. The shape could be influenced by the Greek “bottle” (Payne, Necro-

48 THE FARWELL COLLECTION corinthia, p. 313). Terracotta rattles with pebbles inside are not rare (Daremberg-Saglio 5. v. ctepitaculum), but those as plain in form as ours are seldom mentioned.

THE Iratic WHEELMADE WARE

There are two wheelmade trefoil jugs, XIII 13 (monochrome) and Z 1 (banded). They ate quite unlike each other, and neither has any considerable resemblance to any of the handmade trefoils. XIII 13 is an unpoetic version of an Attic form, Beazley’s “oinochoe 2”; one in Naples (Sommer photo 11069, row 4, no. 6, from Nola) is more like ours than most Attic examples; the nicked base, approximately as in I 7, is an Attic feature, though apparently not common in this form. The form, but not the ornament, of Z 1 has parallels in Apulia (Mayer, pl. 14, no. 17, p. 157; pl. 31, 5); it is doubtless Greek in origin and could be Attic (Beazley’s oinochoe 1), but need not be (cf. Payne, Necrocorinthia, pl. 45, nos. 5 and 7; pp. 215f.). No good parallels for form and ornament together have been observed. The jugs III 7, XIV 2, XVII 5, XIX 2, XIX 3, XIX 4, Z 2-4, all banded, are of substantially the same form (A). The three in grave XIX are less globular than the others and resemble each other closely; certainly they were made and decorated by one man. XVII 5 and Z 3, though differing considerably in size, are very like otherwise, particularly in the vety slightly hollow rim and in the paint on the handle; ITI 7 goes closely with them except for the color of the paint. The same form is represented by five partly monochrome pieces: XX 4 (red), XX 5 (red), XXI 5 (black), Z 6 (black), Z 7 (red); by two others, in which there is no definite boundary for the paint at the bottom: XX 3 (black) and ZW 1; by Z 8 (red), like the last two, but misshaped; by Z 5, like the last three except that the lip is distinctly hollow; and by XIX 5, in which the dark paint covers the entire vase, inside and outside. XX 4 and XX 5, though not especially like each other, are less globular than most, approaching XIX 2-4 in form. XX 4 is alone in having a base-ring. XV 2, with no offset at the base and technically ambiguous, has much the same form. A banded jug of this type, found in a grave near Picciano in Apulia (NS¢ 1935, 381) could have come from Ordona as far as form is concerned, but is differentiated by the lack of a broad painted band. A jug in the Metropolitan Museum, from Tarentum (17.230.40) has substantially the same form and the same ornament as well, with a wavy line added. Handmade pieces in the collection that seem related are mentioned elsewhere (p. 42). Other handmade pieces have been found at Ordona (Quagliati, p. 31, fig. 3, center) and elsewhere in Apulia (Mayer, p. 142f.; CVA British Museum, IV D a, pl. 5, no. 6). The form does not occur in the Lake pottery or at the Marica sanctuary, though here there is a possible relative (ML 37, pl. 35, no. 12), less close to our type than to pieces briefly mentioned by Mayer (pp. 6of.) as found in the Bari region and also at Herdonia. Some from Cumae (CVA Michigan, pl. 37,9; ML 22, pl. 68, 3, left) might be related; one of them was

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM 49 found in a grave with a lekythos of about 500 B.C. (Haspels, A BL p. 107). A jug in the Musée Rodin (CVA, pl. 7, 3), of unknown origin, has a considerable resemblance to those in graves XIX and XX. There ate a good many Greek jugs or cups, apparently of Cycladic origin (AM 1903, pp. 115 f.; Délos XV, pl. 32, nos. 95 f.; CVA Copenhagen, fasc. 3, pl. 99, no. 11; ML 17, p. 192), which are much like ours in form, but have no offset at the base. An Early Corinthian jug (Hesperia 1948, p. 217, D 7; pl. 78) is not remote; but the development at Corinth, as traced by Weinberg (Corinth VII, 1, no. 231) leads away from our form. Other Greek and Etruscan types (Clara Rhodos II, p. 151, fig. 33; Montelius, Civ. Prim., pl. 259, 10; 282, 15) do not seem to be connected. This is the commonest wheelmade form and the only one in which banded and monochrome pieces ate approximately in balance. The form seems to be at least in part a local development; it is so simple that no specific origin need be assumed, though thete could be a connection with the Cycladic type or with the common handmade form at Herdonia; if the latter is true, the transition is very ill seen in the known material. Twelve jugs have substantially the same form (B). All are monochrome; XIII 3, XIII 4, XIII 19, and Z 11 are red; XIV 3 and Z 9 are brown, though not really the same color; I 7, XXI 4, Z 10, and Z 12 ate mote or less mottled in red and brown or black, with the most striking effect in XXI 4; some black paint remains in Z 13 and some brown in ZW 3, but not enough in either to show the original appearance. The various pieces differ somewhat in proportions, but not to an extent that seems significant. In most of them the offset base is made in what would be considered the obvious way, i. e. the curve of the side continues to the offset; but in Z 11 the diameter of the jug diminishes abruptly, so that there is a distinct horizontal soffit above the base. I 7 and XIV 3 have the same feature, though less marked. Attic vases of this general form, which Beazley counts as one kind of “‘oinochoe 8,” have been discussed by him (Poland, p. 59), Miss Talcott (Hesperia 1935, pp. 476, 508, nos. 50-52), Miss Pease (Hesperia 1937, pp. 277-280, nos. 55-60), and Corbett (Hesperia 1949, p. 332, nos. 78-80). The Attic vases are often, as it seems usually, ribbed or channeled, but some have red-figute ornament and some ate plain black (CVA Oxford, fasc. 2, pl. 65, no. 26; CVA Sévtes, pl. 23, no. 19; in Naples from Nola, Sommer photo 11024; Toronto, Robinson-Harcum no. 569, pl. 92; cf. Hesperia 1948, pl. 85, E 8, p. 232). Of those considered Italiote a larger proportion, apparently, have plain varnished surfaces (Holwerda, no. 137;

CVA Cracow, Poland pl. 96, no. 25; CVA Sévtes, pl. 49, six pieces), though some are ribbed; an example in Apulian red-figure shows an exaggeration of the form (CV’A Copenhagen, fasc. 6, pl. 265, no. 2); another Apulian jug, closer to the Attic form, is decorated with applied red (British Museum, CVA fasc. 7, IV Eb pl. 1, no. 1, pl. 2, no. 5). The base of Z 11 is paralleled in a red-figure jug in Boston (97.606; Caskey, Geometry, p. 147, NO. 99) and doubtless is the regular Attic form; Miss Talcott’s term “nicked base” applies well to it; but in most illustrations it can hardly be distinguished from the base shown in another 4 Johnson

50 THE FARWELL COLLECTION of Caskey’s drawings (Boston 99.482, bronze; Caskey-Beazley, p. 21, fig. 20). This base is more like most of ours; but the Attic jugs are so broad at the bottom that the appearance of the lower part is very different. The base of most of the Farwell jugs, natural as it seems, is certainly rare in Attic; Miss Talcott cites one jug (Wiirzburg; Langlotz no. 720, pl. 220), which could be reckoned an example of it, but except for this feature it is very unlike our jugs; and it seems likely that the usual base at Ordona is a local development. The form is well represented in the graves at Ceglie, where it is one of two types found inside of the large jars (Japigia 1930, pp. 251, 264, 266, 268; of the grave-groups illustrated, no. 2 is dated ca. 450, the others later). It does not occur in the Lake or Marica pottery. In Athens, according to Corbett, it apparently “‘cannot have persisted long after’’ 375. Miss Talcott notes a tendency toward less stocky proportions in later Attic examples; this would suggest that outs are relatively late, as doubtless they are; but probably the difference is chiefly geographical. XXJ 1 and XXI 2 are twins in form and ornament, the contour angular, the lip outcutving and more or less flat. XIII 17 is less angular, and XIX 1 still less so, with the most definite flat lip of the four. These four are banded. Z 18, small and partly monochrome, appeatss to be related, though there is no distinct flat lip and no offset base. XVITI 2, handmade,

has a narrow flat rim, as in XIX 1, and could be related as well. XIV 1 has the narrow, flat rim, but otherwise is closer in shape to the following group, though its ornament is that of XXI 1 and its fellows. I 5, XIII 15, and XVII 3 are banded and large or fairly large, with hollow lip. I 5 has the otnament of XXI 1, plus dots on the edge of the rim. XIII 15 has the dots, but lacks the wavy line. XVII 3, the smallest of the three, has only horizontal bands. XVII 6 is much like XVII 3, though much smaller. XVII 10 (black monochrome) and XVII 11 (good red monochrome) resemble XVII 6 in form, though larger near the bottom. Z 14 and Z 15 (dark monochrome) are very like each other and in form go with XVII 6 mote closely than with XVII 10-11. These five are small. Considering the Farwell collection alone, one could regard all the foregoing jugs as constituting a single family, but they probably represent more than one strain. Those with the narrow, flat lip could be derived from the handmade form with wide, flat lip; although the transition is not well seen in the collection, the narrow, flat lip does occur in a handmade piece, XVIII 2. For the five small jugs with hollow rim, Miss Lake’s black type 2 offers a fairly good parallel, though it has a lower handle and a base-ring; Beazley (E#/rlP, p. 258) mentions it with others which are farther from our type. A bronze jug from Montefortino, in Ancona (ML IX, pl. 5 at end, no. 20; mentioned by Beazley, p. 260) has some resemblance to Z 14-15, including base and hollow tim. Perhaps I5, XIII 15, XVII 3, and XVII 6 represent a fusion of the other two types. There are no flat rims in the Lake pottery, and apparently neither flat nor hollow tims at the Marica sanctuary; except for the rims, both XXI 1 and I 5 are fairly well paralleled there (pl. 35, nos. 2-3).

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM 51 X 5 is the only wheelmade jug without an offset base, except for XV 2 and Z 18, which ate small and unpainted. XVII 1, handmade, has essentially the same form. One in Quagliati’s second grave, wheelmade with offset base, may be reckoned a variant of the form (NS¢ 1907, p. 35). X 5 is quite closely similar to Miss Lake’s black-on-buff type 21, except that the Lake handle is lower, and her types 20 and 22 differ from 21 chiefly in size. Fifteen jugs at the Marica sanctuary (ML XXXVII, pl. 40, no. 1, col. 904) are similar. The Lake types are mentioned by Beazley (E/rl’P p. 259) in connection with others not close to our

piece. Indeed no other kinsman as close as the Lake forms has been observed, though analogous jugs are widely distributed: Montelius, Czy. Prim., pl. 374, no. 7 (Aufidena); Olynthus V, no. 719; Sevres, CVA pl. 25, no. 64 (mentioned by Beazley, Ezrl’P p. 260); Petit Palais, CVA pl. 2, no. 9; Copenhagen, CVA fasc. 4, pl. 176; bronze jugs in Naples, Sommer photo 11132; ML XXII, pl. 68, two in grave-groups at Cumae. Z 16 is a common Attic and Italiote form, though usually there is more rim. Beazley calls it “oinochoe V c” and cites several (text to CVA Oxford fasc. 1, pl. 48, no. 13); also: CVA Michigan, pl. 19, no. 9; Sevres, pl. 49, no. 27; Holwerda, no. 71, considered Cyrenaic; no. 130, shape exaggerated, considered Campanian; O/ynthus XIII, no. 300, p. 154; ML XX, 47-48, fig. 27, C; Sommer photos 11024, Naples from Nola, and 11023, Naples from Apulia. The form does not occur in the Lake or Marica pottery. Z, 17 has a slightly smaller twin in Toronto (Robinson-Harcum no. 568, pl. 92), which is included in a list of sixteen “‘nipple-jugs” (Beazley, EVP, p. 261; others mentioned as related; NSc 1922, 269a and NS¢c 1949, 98, lower left apparently belong to the list). It is noted that they belong to Campania and its vicinity, including Mintutnae and the Marica sanctuary. Many of them have the lower half, or thereabouts, unpainted, though in our example only the base and a small space above it are unpainted. Apparently the horns on the top of the handle are not usually so distinct; Beazley writes of a “swelling.” There is no indication that any ate earlier than the fourth century. For the flask XIX 8, no good parallels are known to me. There could be a connection with such “aryballoi” as Lake’s black no. 7 or black-on-buff 18, or with such lekythoi as

Richter-Milne, fig. 100, a second handle being added; or with “amphoriskoi” (Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 314, nos. 1073 ff.; 324, 1351 ff.; Richter-Milne, fig. 35) or Attic pelikes, or both in contamination. Taking into account both form and decoration and disregarding historical probability, one could find a plausible origin in a Cypriote jug such as British Museum, CVA fasc. 2, II Cc, pl. 1, no. 27; the addition of the second handle might be suggested by the common Cypriote flask. Nine small bowls have one horizontal handle apiece. I 4 and XXI 3, banded, are similar in general, though hardly made by one man; in each the bottom is merely flattened and the handle is of strap type. Z 19 and Z 20, banded, are much like the first two, but their handles ate lighter and less definitely of strap type, though still rectangular rather than round in section. XIV 6 might be placed between the two pairs. Z 21 is much like Z 20

°

a2 THE FARWELL COLLECTION except that it has a distinct offset at base and bands on the outside as well as the inside. Z 22 has bands inside and a slight offset at base; its handle is lost. Z 23 is monochrome, entirely

coveted with fairly good ted; its handle is lost, its bottom merely flattened. XIII 12 is quite unlike all the foregoing in form, having a base-ring, incurving rim, and handle round in section; dark paint covers it entirely.

The forebears of XIII 12 are Attic, apparently beginning in black ware about 450 (Talcott in Hesperia, 1935, pp. 507f.; cf. also Corbett in Hesperia, 1949, pl. 93, nos. 72-75, pp. 330f.; Robinson, O/ynthus XIII, pp. 334£., with most of the citations on p. 335; Holwerda, nos. 15, reckoned fourth century Attic, and 124, reckoned Campanian). The form occurs in the Marica pottery (ML 37, pl. 38, 5) and in black-on-buff, but not in black, in the Lake pottery (pls. 8-9, no. 1). As for the others, two at the university of Michigan (CVA, pl. 38, nos. 1-2) are akin; the second, said to have come from Rome, is particularly like XXI 3; the first is thought to be from Pozzuoli or Cumae and, as Miss Van Ingen notes, resembles another found at Cumae (ML 22, pl. 68, 3) in a grave of about 500 B.C. (cf. p. 48f.). The prototype could be Attic, an eatlier model than that followed by XIII 12 (Talcott and Robinson as cited above; Robinson, Olynthus V, pl. 27), ot perhaps Greek though not Attic (Hesperia, 1937, p. 295; Corinthian). However, the plain flattened bottom, which seems to be regular in our type (and in no other wheelmade form in the collection), sets it apart from these Greek types. One from a grave in Samos (Béhlau, Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen, pl. 8, no. 1, p. 45) seems to agree with our type in this point, as do two, larger than outs, found in Rhodes (Clara Rhodos VXI, p. 152). Many examples are said to have been found at Bitalemi (Gela) (ML 17, col. 674); only one is shown, and it has a base-ring or offset base; there is no indication whether this is usual; Bohlau’s illustration is cited as if typical for Gela. Others in Sicily (ML 7, col. 267) ate fairly close to ours, though generally larger. On the whole, an East Greek origin seems probable, though there are possible ancestors in the cremation graves of the early Iron Age at Timmari (ML 16, col. 66). A distinctive name is desirable for the thirteen diminutive bowls, and the term “ashtray” has at least the advantage that it cannot give rise to misunderstanding. It seems preferable, also, to Beazley’s “‘dishie.”” Mingazzini suggested that such pieces were really lamps (ML XXXVII, 891f.), but it seems improbable that a primitive form of lamp would have been abundant, in good pottery, long after more developed types were in common use. Further, if the ‘“‘ashtrays” were merely spoutless lamps, one would expect a considerable correspondence in profile with normal lamps, and there seems to be no such correspondence (cf. Broneet’s drawings of lamps, Corinth IV 2, p. 32, and Corbett’s eight Attic profiles (Hesperia 1949, p. 338). It is not necessary to assume that all “ashtrays” served the same _ purpose. They could well be used for sweetmeats or nuts. XXI 6 (Italiote), 1 6, and XIII 11 have substantially the same form (A), in which the ptofile consists of a torus over a cavetto, with a distinct offset between. In Z 27 and Z 28

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM oo the upper part has more or less a torus form, but this approaches an echinus and descends to a simple base-ring (B). In XIII 10, XVII 7, XIX 10, XX 2, and Z 24 (no two closely similar) there is a considerable interval between tim and base-ring, with a distinct offset below the rim (C). In all ten thus far mentioned the rim curves in and the interior forms an unbroken curved surface. In Z 26 the lower part is a cavetto as in the type A, but is a smaller part than in those three; the upper part is relatively thin and nearly vertical, and the interior nearly flat on the bottom (D). ZW 3 is similar in the upper part, but not in the base. In Z 25 the rim curves out and there is a double curve in the profile (E). All are monochrome; none is perfected red ware, though Z 24 and ZW 3 approach it. “Ashtrays” ate numerous in many places, but, as one can understand, are seldom completely published. Each grave of the fifth or fourth century at Rhitsona contained one “ashtray” (Ute, Sixth and Fifth, p. 38); the forms vary; only one is shown, and it is not like any of ours. Miss Lake publishes fully the types in her Minturnae pottery, and Mingazzini those at the Marica sanctuary (ML XXXVII, 891 ff., pls. 37f.). The Lake pottery offers no really close parallels, though it includes many small dishes with base-ring and incutved tim. Miss Lake’s common black forms 13 and 14 are most like our type B, but the propottions are quite different, largely in the smaller diameter of the base-ring. Her form 46 (only one example) differs similarly from our C, and her form 45 from our E. Our forms A and D are not approached in the Lake pottery. The Marica “ashtrays” tend toward the proportions of those at Minturnae, and the form that is commonest (Mingazzini, pl. 37, no. 7; 104 examples) does not differ widely from Miss Lake’s commonest form (no. 13). However, type A is represented by six examples (pl. 37, no. 6; col. 895); three others (pl. 37, no. 5; col. 894) ate fairly close to type B; and two (pl. 37, no. 19; col. 894) to type C. D and E ate not approximated. Some 200 “ashtrays” were found at Olynthos in 1928 and 1931 (O/yuthus V, pl. 176). Apparently most of them correspond to our type B, though some forms are not clear in the illustration. The site yielded at least one good example of type A (O/ynthus VIII, pl. 224, no. 784). The pieces from Olynthos ate presumably Attic, at least in type. From Athens itself, there are some in the shaft of the early fifth century (Hesperia 1946, pl. 66, nos. 283-294) which are smaller than outs and apparently do not belong to any of our types except perhaps B. According to Corbett (Hesperta 1949, p. 325, 0 no. 151) many examples of type A, belonging to the late fifth century, were found in the Agora. This is true also of type B (Hesperia 1949, p. 329, nos. 63-67), and it still existed at the end of the fourth century (Thompson in Hesperia 1934, pp. 317f., nos. 14-18), though the examples mentioned are mostly somewhat larger than outs. Rhodian graves of the fifth century contain several “ashtrays” that are definitely type A: Clara Rhodos IV, p. 96, fig. 81; p. 116; p. 166; VIII, p. 45. Several pieces, good examples of this form but too large to be classified as “‘ashtrays’’, have been recognized as fifth century Attic: Hesperia 1949, p. 325, no. 151, from the Agora; Oxford (CVA fasc. 2,

54. THE FARWELL COLLECTION III I, pl. 52, no. 13); Cracow (CVA pl. 84, no. 32); Providence (CVA pl. 27, no. 3). Types A and B occur in Samos (AM 1929, pp. 41-43). Some of the Spina graves contain numetrous “ashtrays”’, but the exact form cannot be made out from the illustrations, and the same is true of several others, B or possibly A: Clara Rhodos IV, p. 252, from a grave apparently 450-425; Sevres, CVA pl. 23, nos. 17 and 23, considered Attic; several in Naples (Sommer

! photo 11023, lowest row, “Puglia”; photo 11024, “Nola’’). In Holwerda’s catalogue of Leyden vases, nos. 41-47 ate approximately type B and are reckoned Greek, probably Attic; nos. 160-161, of similar form, are reckoned Campanian; no. 159, also reckoned Campanian, approaches type A; nos. 259ff., considered Etruscan, are approximately type C, though not close to ours. Type B is represented at Rome (Ryberg, fig. 90b). In Beazley’s account of Etruscan and related “‘ashtrays” (E#lVP, pp. 242-245), class i corresponds to our type B but is much broader, and class iii is similarly related to our type C. Of class i he writes: “This variety of dishie appears to be Etruscan: at least in the Attic type that corresponds to it the lip is less prominent; and I have not found it in other Italian fabrics.” In summary: type A is Attic, of the latter part of the fifth century; the plainer type B is Attic, beginning earlier and continuing later; type C may be Etruscan in immediate ancestry. As for D and E, no doubt their origin is Attic (for D cf. Clara Rhodos IV, p. 166; for E Hesperia 1934, p. 436, A 71), but it is not clear that they were abundant in the small size at any time. The two small stemmed bowls, I 3 and Z 29 are both monochrome but differ considerably; I 3 has a taller stem, foot with narrow edge, lip offset on the outside, and better paint; Z 29 has a thick foot and no offset at the lip. The negative evidence of Olynthos and the Agora publications indicates that this is not a common Attic form. However, examples were found in a well-deposit of the early fifth century in the Agora (Hesperia 1946, pl. 66, nos. 274-275, Vanderpool; pl. 63, no. 237 is similar in shape but larger) and several others have been published as Attic. A number were found in the graves at Spina (Aurigemma, Museo di Spina*, p. 57, beginning of fifth century; p. 71, first quarter; p. 191, late fifth century; p. 229, third quarter; p. 255, second quartet; p. 277, probably third quarter); these, with the Agorawell, give some indications on chronology. From these indications it would seem that I 3, by its lip, and both pieces, by their proportions, follow types of the early fifth century; though it is possible that the same types actually continued in use later. Fairly close to I 3 are one in Cracow, considered Attic (CVA, Poland pl. 84, no. 18) and one at Michigan (CVA, pl. 18, no. 2), considered Italiote; one from Rhitsona, apparently of the sixth century (Ure, Sixth and Fifth, pl. 12, 102.51), has a groove below the lip, giving much the same effect as the offset. Most such pieces, as known from the publications, have distinctly taller stems than our two and no offset lip; this is true of all those at Spina except the first two; compare also Beazley, Raccolta Gughelmi, nos. 77-78; CVA Oxford, fasc. 1, pl. 48, no. 42; CVA Cambridge, fasc. 1,

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM 55 pl. 41, no. 22; Holwerda, nos. 35-37; Sommer photos 11023 (“Puglia’”’) and 11024 (“Nola”) for a number in Naples. Miss Lake’s form 47, as drawn, is not too remote from Z 29, but

the two examples of it that are shown photographically seem different. Beazley (E“VP, p. 245) deals with Etruscan examples of the general form. In grave XIII there are five kantharoi (5-8, 18), all monochrome; two ate of good red color, one black, two more or less mottled. Though they differ in size and proportions, all ate fundamentally of the same form, sessile or stemless. The proportions of XIII 6 are such that it would hardly be called a kantharos except for its obvious connection with the others. XIII 8 is the only Farwell kantharos with base merely offset (no base-ring or foot). XVII 9 (dark) is slightly less like XITI 7 and XIII 8 than they are like each other. Z 31 (good red) is closer than the others to the Xenon kantharos I 8, but differs especially in the handles. When others of the Xenon group are considered also, it becomes evident that this monochrome series has no close relation to them, but presumably follows Attic models as do the Xenon kantharoi. The Attic sessile kantharoi have been remarked on by Miss Pease (Hesperia 1937, p. 276); for the painted ones of the Saint-Valentin group, see Beazley, EtrlV’P p. 219, with references. The form does not seem to be common in Attic monochrome; one from Rhitsona (Ure, Black Glaze, pl. 9, no. 23, p. 37), from a grave of the fifth century, is fairly close to Z 31. Miss Lake’s black type 38 has only a general resemblance to ours (cf. Beazley, Etrl’P p. 235). Z, 32 (banded and part black) is a considerably different form, which might be connected with some at Rhitsona (Ure, Black Glaze, pl. 9, nos. 21-22; Sixth and Fifth, pl. 6, 110.3, 126.115).

XIX 6 and XIX 7, certainly made by one man, belong to a third type, as do XIV 4 and Z 30; all are banded. The tall, flaring rim suggests that this may be a genuine Apulian development; there is a fairly close parallel in Apulian red-figure (Langlotz, Warzburg, pl. 245, no. 863). Both form and ornament are approximated at Oliveto Citra (NS¢ 1952, Pp. 70, no. 3).

The monochrome kantharoid bowl XVII 8, with a tim of the same kind, might also represent a local experiment. XIII 1 corresponds, in general shape, to the Attic lekanis, which sometimes is decorated in a manner not altogether different (Hesperia 1949, pl. 96, no. 87); but the Attic pieces ate regularly flanged for a lid, which is not true of outs. Miss Lake’s black-on-buff form 7 is somewhat like ours, but has a base-ring and narrow rim. Vessels more or less like ours in form and ornament may be found from Cyprus (CVA Cambridge 2, II C pl. 10, no. 32) to Etruria (NSc 1930, p. 143, fig. 27, no. 5; Tarquinian grave of the sixth century). One of the best parallels, apparently, comes from the pre-Perstan level at Olynthos (O/ynthus V, pl. 25, P 28; cf. pp. 25f., 56; the same vase in O/ynthus XIII, pl. 4); Mylonas cites similar

pieces at Chios and Klazomenai, the latter unpublished. Indeed a quite common East Greek type (Clara Rhodos ITI, p. 186; VI-VII, pp. 521, 538; Thera Il, p. 48; ML 17, col.

56 THE FARWELL COLLECTION 87, fig. 55b; col. 610, fig. 413; Kinch, Vrousza, pl. 23, no. 2) differs but little from XIII 1,

and apparently is usually decorated in more or less the same fashion. The Ionian bird bowls could be regarded as presenting a refined version of the same form. The monochrome bowls XIII 2 and XIII 9 ate similar in form except that in the latter the wall of the vase is thickened just below the incurving rim, as in the ashtrays; in XIII 2 there is no such thickening. XIV 5 is more like XIII 9 in this feature. Z 34 differs considerably from those three, having a larger base-ring and a rim nearly vertical. The Italtote piece XXI7 (p. 58) agrees with Z 34 in the rim, but is not closely similar otherwise. The Lake pottery includes bowls like XIII 9 in the rim (black no. 23), but they are larger than ours and differ in proportions. According to Corbett (Hesperia 1949, p. 328, no. 62)

the general form first becomes common in the Agora in the last quarter of the fifth century and increases in popularity in the fourth. However, none of the pieces illustrated by him is at all close to any of ours. Some of the Rhodian graves contain bowls that are apparently Attic and look, in the illustrations, quite similar to those in grave XIII (Clara Rhodos II, pp. 154f.; III, p. 246). The same is true of many at Olynthos (O/yuthus V, pls. 154ff.; XIII, pls. 218 ff, pp. 346-365). The Attic origin of the type seems clear. The banded bowl] XX 1 is quite unlike the foregoing. It resembles pieces used as lids at Este (NS¢ 1922, p. 27). An East Greek handleless bowl has much the same decoration (Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 52); the shape is not clear. The bowl Z 33 could be regarded as a skyphos (cf. Richter-Milne, fig. 172; Hesperia 1949, pl. 86, no. 34) of unusual proportions, or as a miniature krater (cf. Hesperia 1935, pp. 494 and 511, no. 71). Pattern, paint, and rim associate it with XIII 1, but it cannot confidently be assigned to the same potter. The skyphoi XIII 21, XIV 9, Z 36, and Z 43 do not differ much in form. The first two are black, with varnish of Attic type; the contour of XIV 9 is slightly more suggestive of the cyma often found in the fourth century. The owl skyphos, Z 43, is a trifle taller than XITI 21, smaller at the mouth, wider at the base-ring. Z 36, monochrome and mottled, is larger, with its base-ring smaller in proportion. The four follow Attic types of the late fifth century; see especially Corbett, Hesperia 1949, p. 317.

Z 35, banded, is a quite different model, earlier-looking and probably not Attic; the otigin might be Corinthian; cf. Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 294, on eatly skyphoi in divers regions; Hesperia 1946, pl. 66, no. 314; Levi, Early Hellenic Pottery of Crete, pl. 21, nos. 1-2.

Of the two banded plates, XIII 20 and XIV 8, and the stemmed plates, XIX 9 ‘unpainted) and Z 38 (banded), no two are particularly similar, though all have ridges on the rim. A stemmed plate in Quagliati’s first grave (Quagliati, p. 33, fig. 5, left) appears to be an almost exact duplicate of Z 38, which therefore may reasonably be supposed the earliest of the four pieces. There is no apparent connection with the handmade stemmed plates, Y 39-40, ot with any other handmade piece. The Lake (cf. coarse form 15) and Marica pottery offer no parallels.

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM a7 In Greece, stemmed plates belong chiefly to the East Greek region, where plates also were abundant. Those of most familiar types are presumably too early to be connected with our pieces and do not resemble them; but a plate in Oxford (CVA fasc. 2, IID, pl. 3, no. 7), found at Kameiros and regarded by Miss Price as Rhodian work of the late fifth or fourth century, could well be connected, particularly with Z 38; it has the depressed area in the center. Quagliati’s plate, mentioned above, is classed by Mayer (p. 293), with a question mark, as East Greek; he refers to one found at the Bitalemi sanctuary at Gela (ML 17, col. 671, fig. 495), which is indeed a legitimate parallel, though it is painted in three colors. If Quagliati’s plate were really East Greek, the same would probably be true of Z 38, but it seems entirely at home with the other banded ware of the collection. A plate from the Agora (Hesperia 1935, p. 476, no. 66) does not look unlike in form; but the accurate drawings of Attic shapes (Hesperia 1946, pls. 36, 64f.; 1949, p. 325) show none that seem close to outs, and the same is true of Corinthian (Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 312). One could cite, as possibly related, two “Campanian” plates in Copenhagen (CVA fasc. 5, pl. 231, nos. 4-5) and two in a grave of the late sixth century at Spina (Aurigemma, Museo di Spina", p. 59). Plates were abundant in Apulian red-figure, and both forms in Etruscan (cf. Beazley, EtrlP, pp. 23, 24, 175), but no close relation to our pieces is discernible in the illustrations. The monochrome pyxides XIV 7 and Z 39 ate very similar. There are no parallels in the Lake or Marica pottery or, to my knowledge, in Attic pottery after the early Geometric petiod (Hesperia 1949, pp. 284, 290). Derivation from a common Corinthian form (Payne, Necrocorinthia, pp. 293, 305, 322, 331) is probable. A pyxis apparently very similar (at least in form; no decoration visible) was found at Spina (Aurigemma, Museo di Spina’, p. 123, tomb 787). It is referred by Aurigemma, along with others which have no relation to anything at Ordona, to a North Adriatic fabric; Beazley (E#VP, p. 177) thinks that the class may simply be Etruscan. There is no information on any other pieces in the grave with the Spina pyxis, but some members of the class are hardly earlier than the end of the fourth century. The tall base-ring of the cup Z 37 suggests a connection with the Italiote skyphos Z 42. By clay and paint it could be Herdonian, though the paint is unusually poor. THE ITALIOTE POTTERY

I 8; XIII 20-21; XIV 9; XXI 6-7-8; Z 40-41-42-43. Nine of these pieces, excluding XXI 7 and Z 42, have every appearance of being closely related; the varnish seems to be the same, the area within the base-ring is always painted ted, and the three stemless kylixes have similar bases, with a roundel above the base-ring proper (Fig. 73). Since the kantharos I 8 is an example of a well-known Apulian class, it _ was evidently probable that all nine were Apulian, though the glaze could perhaps be Attic. Thompson and Miss Talcott kindly informed me that the stamped kylixes did not fit well

58 THE FARWELL COLLECTION with the Agora material, i. e. were probably not Attic; and Beazley, when he saw the pottery in 1949, confidently classed as Apulian eight of the pieces; he was not certain about Z 41, but it seems likely that it goes with the rest. The bowl XXI 7 is distinguished from the main group by the simpler base-ring and by the treatment of the area within it, partly black and not reddened; by the suspension holes,

if they ate original; and probably by the clay; the varnish also is slightly duller. The skyphos Z 42, with its gray surface and its tall, plain base-ring, is quite unlike both XXI 7 and the group of nine. XXI 7 is less Attic-looking than the nine, and Z 42 would not be mistaken for Attic. Of the three stemless kylixes, Miss Talcott writes: “All three would by our parallels be-

long in the second half of the fifth century... XIII 20 and XXT 8 look later rather than earlier, because of the marked turn-back of the handles. The rouletted arc has not appeared in Attic of this time.” The broken lines of XIII 20 are, of course, very different from the kind of rouletting so common in the fourth century. Thompson suggested as relevant the dented piping between neck and shoulder of Miss Talcott’s nos. 49-52 (Hesperia 1935, pp. 476, 508; cf. Hesperia, 1937, p. 279, no. 57) and the end-to-end rouletting of her no. 115, of the fourth century. The dotted circle of her no. 14, from the well with pottery of 450-430, would seem a reasonable predecessor of the broken arcs. Close parallels doubtless exist in Italy. For the pattern of Z 40, one could cite a piece in the Fogg Museum (CWA, USA fasc. 8, pl. 37, no. 1; considered Campanian) and one in Naples (NSe¢ 1928, p. 235, e€) from the region of S. Angelo. On Attic stemlesses of the late fifth century cf. Corbett in Hesperia 1949, DP. 322.

It is highly probable that XXI 7 and XXI 8, being in one grave, were closely contemporaty in origin, and XXI 8 and XIII 20 ate so similar in form and fabric that they should not be far apart. Z 40 might be a little earlier, as Miss Talcott suggested. There is a reasonable likelihood that Italiote things are later than the Attic pieces which they most resemble, and thus it may be supposed that all four would belong to the fourth century. From the total contents of the graves, it is likely that XIII and XXI are later than I, with its Xenon kantharos. A. D. Trendall, whose special competence in the Italiote field is well known, kindly tells me that he would place XIII 20, XXI 7-8 and Z 4o in the second quarter of the fourth century. The bolsal Z 41 exemplifies a common Attic type (Beazley, text to CVA Oxford, fasc. 1, III I pl. 48, 6; Robinson, Olynthus V, nos. 546f.; XIII, nos. 654f.; Hesperia 1935, p. 503, Talcott; Hesperia 1949, p. 331, Corbett), but the extreme proportions of our piece are unusual. One at the University of Michigan (CVA, pl. 18, no. 19) is closely similar in form, though not reddened on the bottom; it is said to have come from Canosa and is classed as Italiote. One in Sevres (CVA, pl. 49, no. 30), considered Campanian, is also similar.

| The Apulian kantharos I 8 is distinguished in the Xenon group (Beazley, E/rlVP p. 219) by excellence of form and variety of pattern. Most of its patterns occur elsewhere in the

THE POTTERY ACCORDING TO FORM o9 group, but ate not so numerous in any other single vase. The latticed panel is found only in Beazley’s no. 27 (British Museum 47. 8-6. 48; CVA fasc. 7, IVE b, pl. 4, no. 2, p. 5), as far as I know, and there in considerably different form. It is not uncommon in Gnathia wate, in which one finds also the egg and dart, wave pattern, running dog, scroll, ivy, and Z pattern. The stars or rosettes do not occur, to my knowledge, elsewhere in the Xenon group or, closely similar, in Gnathia. They might be derived from the discs, subdivided in vatious ways, in Apulian red-figure (e. g. CVA Copenhagen, fasc. 6, pl. 255, no. 1); or from better models in Messapian pottery (many in Lecce; CVA fasc. 1, IV D f d); the pattern occuts in earlier Greek pottery also. Of the Xenon kantharoi that have been illustrated, Beazley’s no. 14 (Copenhagen; CVA fasc. 6, pl. 272, no. 8) is most like ours, considering both form and pattern; yet the wave patterns on the two would hardly indicate common authorship. In form, Beazley’s 13 (Naples; BCH 1911, pl. 9, no. 128) is about equally close. These are the first two in the list of kantharoi, and their position probably implies that Beazley considers them the earliest. However, the relative (let alone the positive) chronology of Xenon kantharoi is not vety clear. Beazley has pointed out that they are imitated from the Attic Saint-Valentin kantharoi, but the relation between the two classes is not extremely close; except for the bars on the tim, the laurel is the only pattern that has at all the same role in both; and this pattern, — being abundant in other Apulian ware, does not tell much about the telation between the two classes. The narrow vertical panels that flank the main panels on the Farwell and Copenhagen kantharoi may have significance; a corresponding scheme is found on only a few Saint-Valentin kantharoi (Lecce, CVA fasc. 2, IV Dt, pl. 54, nos. 6, 9; New Haven, Baur, Stoddard Collection, p. 186, fig. 81; British Museum, CVA fasc. 4, pl. 32, no. 12; another sold in auction of Signorelli collection, Rome, 1951; no. 244 in the auction catalogue). In his unpublished A. M. thesis, Seymour Howard studied and arranged the SaintValentin kantharoi and skyphoi, and placed three of these four (the Signorelli example being unknown to him) at the end of the series, which would mean, apparently, soon after 400. For a certain number of Saint-Valentin vases, there is external evidence of date, but not for any of these four; the position assigned to them depends on shape and patterns. It may be noted that three of the four, excluding the British Museum kantharos, were published as Apulian; this may reflect the old view that the whole series is Apulian, still it might be right for these four. For the Farwell kantharos the first quarter of the fourth century is a probable, though not a certain, date. The skyphoi XIII 21, XIV 9, and Z 43 have been remarked on (supra, p. 56); also the ashtray XXI 6 (p. 52). Miss Talcott writes that there is a good parallel for the shape of XXI 7 from an Agora context of 450-425 (Inv. 13,222). “The inside is undecorated. The shape seems rate, and

60 THE FARWELL COLLECTION the piece is the earliest black-glazed bowl we have in this medium size.” It appears that the Agora affords no parallels for the decoration, and I have observed none elsewhere; nor do I know any pieces that can be seen, in available illustrations, to be closely similar in form. The best parallel observed for the shape of Z 42 is Poland, CVA fasc. 3, pl. 125, no. 6, considered Campanian; the stamped decoration inside is not shown. Several other pieces are fairly close. One in Cambridge, black, is considered fourth century Attic (CVA fase. 1,

pl. 41, no. 31); one in Cracow (CVA, Poland pl. 83, no. 4) and another in Sevres (CVA pl. 43, nos. 2 and 4) have red-figute decoration, obviously late; the former is considered Attic, the latter Campanian; four in Toronto (Robinson-Harcum no. 535, pl. 91), the Fogg Museum (CVA, USA fasc. 8, pl. 36, no. 2), Goluchow (CVA pl. 53, no. 6), and Wiirzburg (Langlotz no. 851, pl. 241) are decorated in Gnathia style. The handles, sharp, with angular turn-back, are markedly later in type than those of XIII 20 and XX1I 8. In the technique of the stamped ornament there is a difference from XIII 20 and Z 4o, as described in the Catalogue; and the technique of Z 42 is employed in Miss Lake’s pottery of around 250 B.C. For the central rosette there is a good parallel (not from the same stamp) on Miss Lake’s pl. 21, next to lowest line, next to right end; also CVA Michigan, pl. 35, no. 9. For a concentration of such material cf. CVA Mouret, pls. 23-30. Altogether it appears that Z 42 is distinctly later than the other Italiote pieces and doubtless Campanian. Professor Trendall kindly informs me that it need not be later than the end of the fourth century, though it could belong to the third. Captain Farwell thinks that he remembers digging it; if he is tight, it is most unfortunate that the companions of the vase cannot be identified.

V. Conclusions Inasmuch as I have not been able to study the great quantity of unpublished or inadequately published material in European museums that would be relevant to a thorough consideration of Daunian pottery, the conclusions presented here are concerned only with the Farwell collection and the evidence derived from it. The criteria by which one may attempt to determine the order of the graves containing handmade pottery have been indicated, chiefly in the discussion of broad-rimmed jugs and high-handled bowls: high-handled jugs, bowls with figurine or angular handles, and elaborate linear patterns with little or no red are likely to be early; low-handled jugs, bowls with loop handles, and meagre patterns with copious red are likely to be late; though in the very latest things red is again avoided. The earliest grave appears to be XII (no red paint). Since it contains only two pieces, and one of them pretty well isolated in the collection, the conclusion is not beyond question; but certainly the evidence, such as it is, places this grave at the farthest extreme from the later ones. Second, by the same criteria, would be grave II (ted in one of five pieces, including one unpainted); and then graves IIT (ted in three of six handmade) and XI (red in two of five). It is not easy to say which of these two would be earlier. Even with the elimination of III 7, which is taken for granted, ITI is difficult; from the relative abundance of red,

the transitional form of III 3, and the probable original presence of Y 35 or a lost piece somewhat like it, one would not consider the grave very early; on the other hand, III 4 and II 3 would not be supposed far apart, nor would III 2 and II 2. After this group of four would come XVI (red in both of two), XVIII (red in three of four), and X (red in all of four handmade). It is a question whether the single wheelmade jug in X and the form and pattern of X 1, so far from the earlier bowls, should place that grave later than the other two, in which XVI 2 and XVIII 2 suggest connections with the wheelmade ware. XVI and XVIII should not be far apart. 61

62 THE FARWELL COLLECTION Quagliati’s first grave (red in four of five handmade) produced a more evenly balanced transitional group (five handmade, four wheelmade) than any of the Farwell graves. It contains a high-handled jug, which is in general an early form; but the copious red and the festoons, as in the loop-handled bowl YW 4, indicate that this is a belated example. The trefoil jug has bands of the sort found chiefly in wheelmade ware, and the wheelmade “‘dipper” resembles XVI 2 in form. Closest of ours to the Quagliati grave shouldbe I, in which wheelmade pieces are decidedly predominant, but I 2 shows the old style at its last gasp, and I 1 has two patterns in common with Quagliati’s trefoil. Grave XVII contains three examples of the old technique, but not of the old style; XVII 3 is decorated altogether in the manner of the wheelmade pieces, the other two are perfunctory and nondescript. Here, as in I, no red is used. Except for XVII, the graves thus far mentioned are surely earlier than the five in which all the pottery is wheelmade. For these an arrangement can hardly be suggested with much confidence; still, there are certain features by which they can be divided. Since there are two types of jug in apparently similar roles, one could suppose that one succeeded the other: graves I and XIII, with the Attic type B, would be earlier than graves XVII, XIX and XX, with the Herdonian favorite type A; and XIV and XX], with both, would be in an intermediate position. Similarly: I and XXI, with ashtrays of the fifth century Attic type A, might be earlier than XVII, XIX and XX, with ashtrays of type C; and XITI, with both, would be intermediate. Then: the eleven banded pieces in graves XVII and XIX have two nattow bands both above and below the broad band; whereas in I (one piece), XITI (two pieces), XIV (three pieces), and XXI (two pieces) there are two narrow bands above, but only one below. (The clarity of this division is somewhat marred by the occurrence on the handmade pyxis I 1, and on Quagliati’s trefoil, of the scheme of graves XVII and XIX; but this does not prove that the division is accidental; it would not be a matter of historical development, but of fashion in the workshops from which the wheelmade ware issued.) Finally: Graves I, XIII, XIV and XXI contained Italiote ware, XVII, XIX, and XX did not. One would not wish to rely on any one of these four criteria, but the area of agreement among them is so considerable that it must have meaning. It might be possible to consider some of the differences due to two contemporary streams of foreign influence, but that is out of the question for the third criterion. For a chronological interpretation, it is somewhat embarrassing that I and XVII, which have some handmade pieces, are so emphatically severed; but, as already noted, the handmade pieces in XVII can well be of no significance. I is certainly early; with everything considered, the order of the others might be: XX], XIII, XIV, XX, XVII, XIX. The perfected red ware of XIII and XVII would tend to put them together and late, but the absence of A jugs from the large group in XIII cannot be disregarded. Grave XV is still altogether unplaced, and unplaceable by any direct evidence. Although

CONCLUSIONS 63 Captain Farwell grouped it with XVII and XIX, the transitional technique of its two pieces would rather suggest the period of I and Quagliati’s grave. It would naturally be helpful for chronology if vases by one hand could be recognized in two graves. Unfortunately this has not been possible. As already noted, there are two

cases of noticeable similarity between graves II and III; but in neither case do the two pieces really seem to be by the same man at approximately the same time. (In pottery of this kind, I do not think that even Beazley could recognize a paintet’s style in works separated by any considerable interval.) XTII 1 and XX 1 are another such pair; the interior appearance is closely similar, but they differ in the rim (nearly flat in XIII 1, more rounded in XX 1) and in the base (base-ring in XX 1, only offset in XIII 1). It may be noted that there are several convincing instances of common authorship within grave-groups. XI 2 and XI 4 go closely together by reason of the tone of the clay, the decoration of the back of the handle, and particularly the lines in lattice patterns, which tend to be thick in the middle and sharp at the ends, drawn with more dash than accuracy. XI 1 and XI 5 are very unlike the former pair and could well go together, particularly by the shaky drawing of thin lines. II 2 and IT 5 could well be painted by the same steady hand. XXI 1 and XXI 2 are nearly exact duplicates, surely by one hand. Five vases in grave XIX (2, 3, 4, 6, 7) were surely made and painted by one man; XIX 1 and XIX 8 should be by another man. Among the Y vases, only a few appear to belong to the period of the four earliest graves: Y 1, 19, 202, 32-34, 53, YW 5. A few others should be contemporary with grave I: Y 24, 25, 26, 27, 36°, 37°, 42, 50. Y 51 and the unpainted pieces are altogether unplaceable; but most of the others seem to belong with graves X, XVI, and XVIII, being generally, perhaps, earlier than those graves rather than later. Pryce’s term “lotus” probably implies a belief in Greek influence on the handmade ware even at an early period. However, it is not certain that the design in question is really a lotus. The groups of short verticals, so conspicuous in many of our pieces, have parallels in Rhodian and other Greek wares which belong, largely at least, to the early sixth century. Howevet, at Ordona this motive seems to be intimately connected with the “‘leg pattern” (e. g. III 3) and the “‘flags” (e. g. III 3), and the similarity to Greek designs may be due only to

coincidence. In the forms, there is nothing to suggest Greek influence until one reaches | a very late period, to which I1, Y 42, and Y 43 would belong. It is a doubtful question whether the trefoil jugs imply Greek influence; if so, they would probably carry such influence back to the period of graves XVI and XVIII, though the earliest grave-group that includes a trefoil is Quagliati’s.

Horizontal bands constitute the easiest and most obvious decoration for wheelmade pottery, and banded ware may probably be found wherever pottery is painted. Being com-

paratively uninteresting, it is often not fully published; still, a good deal is fairly well known.

64 THE FARWELL COLLECTION Our wheelmade banded ware shows a distinction between forms in which the decoration is entirely or predominantly exterior and those in which it is entirely or predominantly interior. In the former, with few exceptions, there is a broad band with two narrow bands above and one or two narrow bands below; and this is decidedly the principal ornament; though there may be also a wavy line or other accessories, a considerable part of the exterior is left bare. The interior patterns usually consist of paired lines, or single, wider bands, which ate more or less evenly spaced in the area. As was seen in Part IV, it is nearly certain that the plates and bowls with patterns of the latter sort show the influence of East Greek pottery. This is not surprising (Mayer, pp. 267 ff., 292), and one might reasonably expect that the same would be true of the exterior patterns. If three vases in the Metropolitan Museum (17.230.38-40; supra, p. 48) be accepted as © East Greek, they prove the East Greek origin of the exterior patterns; but it seems very probable that these pieces, reported to come from Tarentum, were made in Italy. In banded ware from East Greek sites, a broad band with one line above and one below ts not rare, but not very common either; and really close parallels (two lines above the broad band, one or two below, and much of the surface bare) must be very scarce. Such parallels do occur occasionally in the White Painted ware of Iron Age Cyprus and perhaps could be claimed in Submycenean and Protogeometric; but nowhere, as far as I know, do they constitute a regular system as at Ordona. Apparently, then, the exterior patterns are a matter of local development, with East Greek ware as one source and perhaps the local handmade wate as another. More direct East Greek influence may be seen in the pottery from two graves at Picciano (NS¢ 1935, 381; supra, p. 48). It may be noted that the exterior scheme of our ware is not found in the Lake or Marica pottery or at Cumae. The jug X 5 is the earliest wheelmade piece among the grave-groups, but yields little information (supra, p. 51). The trefoil jug Z 1 appears to show, for once, the interior scheme applied to the outside. Three banded pieces (Z 32, Z 33, Z 35) have the lower part in solid color, with no other broad band, and their similarity is increased by the presence of a wavy line in each instance. Examination of paint and fabric does not indicate that any two of the three were made by one man. The source of their common character is not clear. The monochrome wate consists chiefly of jugs of type B, kantharoi of one type with variations, ashtrays, handleless bowls, and small stemmed bowls; there are also the trefoil jug XIII 13, the bowl with one horizontal handle XIII 12, and the skyphos Z 36. For each of these Attic origin is certain, though it may not be clear just how direct the connection is. The monochrome pyxides (supra, p. 5 7) and the askos or feeding-bottle XIII 14 (supra, p. 46) do not seem to be Attic; but it seems clear that the chief model for the monochrome ware of Ordona is Attic black ware. The pyxides apparently follow Corinthian models, and it is possible that, when Corinthian pottery later than 550 is more fully studied, its influence may be definitely traceable in other pieces. However, it is clear that the two chief Greek sources for the wheelmade

CONCLUSIONS 65 pottery are Attic and East Greek, with the earlier native ware a factor difficult to appraise on the Farwell evidence. Although some forms are both monochrome and banded, the two streams of influence evidently remained independent to a great extent, presumably in two different groups of workshops. Whether these two groups were at the same town, and whether, if so, that town was Herdonia, are questions to which no positive answer can be given. Against an affirmative answer there is Captain Farwell’s report that he could find no clay suitable for pottery in the vicinity of Ordona. The monochrome red ware has more or less exact parallels in pieces made in the fifth and fourth centuries in Athens and perhaps other Greek centers (Waagé in Hesperia 1933, p. 280; Thompson in Hesperia 1934, p. 430). This pottery has not received a great deal of attention; but it is not my impression that, in any Greek center, it is known to have become a distinct and perfected ware, as apparently it did at Ordona. Having reached this position, it ought not to have vanished without leaving descendants, and perhaps it will prove to have a place in the ancestry of Arretine ware. However, its forms show no connection with Atretine or with any of the Hellenistic red wares. As noted in the Introduction, Mayer distinguished regional groups within the field of handmade Daunian pottery and largely ignored questions of chronology. F. N. Pryce, in his succinct text to the seventh British Museum fascicule of the Corpus Vasorum, suggested that Canosa was the only important center in the region for the manufacture of pottery and that Mayer’s groups represented “not local differences but chronological stages of the early period.” In Pryce’s brief statement there is some apparent inconsistency; Mayet’s transAufidus group is placed in the latter part of the seventh century, yet the three bowls with figurine handles, which are the most notable membets of that group in the British Museum, ate classed as Orientalizing and dated ca. 600-550. It is clear that the Farwell evidence supports Mayer’s geographical theory, since most of the pottery that can be placed at all in his scheme fits in the trans-Aufidus division. Yet there is support also for some features of Pryce’s arrangement. Our graves XII, II, XI, and III would belong to his Orientalizing period, 600-550 B.C. “The latest orientalizing vases are bichrome,”’ and the next period, 5 50-500, is characterized

by the bichrome technique; here would be graves XVI, XVIII, and X; or perhaps some of these, and some of the numerous Y vases that go with them, would belong to the fifth

centuty, a period of bichrome technique and of decadence, in which “the ornament is | reduced to bands and patches.” The “continued decadence,” “‘mainly monochrome,” which

is thought to occupy most of the fourth century, might be represented by the handmade pieces of grave I and Y 24 and some others. The potter’s wheel first appears late in the fourth century, according to Pryce; among its earlier products is one piece (CVA pl. 11, no. 3), which could be reckoned to our banded ware, though not a typical example; such things were soon followed by the familiar ““Late Canosan.” Thus there is a kind of parallel between Pryce’s scheme and the arrangement suggested 5 Joknson

66 THE FARWELL COLLECTION for the Farwell graves. The imperfection of the parallel may be partly due to gaps in the series of graves, but probably is due in greater part to the non-Herdonian origin of most of Pryce’s material. The absolute chronology of the Farwell pottery depends on the Italiote pieces in grave

groups; and, as was seen in Part IV, these pieces cannot be placed with great precision. However, it is reasonably certain that none of them is materially earlier than 400, and probably they are all somewhat later than that date. The local wheelmade ware would begin before 400; handmade ware persisted for some time after 400, but in a decidedly decadent state. Grave I would probably belong to the first quarter of the fourth century; Quagliati’s might be slightly earlier than 400. But how long before that does the series of graves begin, and how late does it continue? The Farwell material does not justify a definite answer to the

question. In my preliminary article I suggested that all the graves would belong to the fifth or the fourth century. I still think it probable that none is later than the fourth—unless Z 42 belonged to a grave-group, which would perhaps be of the third century. The ear-

| lier graves are more widely spaced than I thought; the earliest of them may well go back to the early sixth century, as Pryce’s system would require.

Appendix I NOTE ON GRAVES EXCAVATED BY ANGELUCCI

Angelucci describes some of his pottery enough to indicate its classification. In one grave (Mayer no. 21; Angelucci, 1876, p. 55) there was found a ¢ayza decorated with a circle of chocolate color having a red Greek cross inside it. This evidently belongs to the handmade class. Except for the o//a and vasettino inside, there is only mention of broken pottery in addition. In another grave (Mayer no. 4; Angelucci, 1876, p. 44) there was found the usual

olla containing a vasetto with a high handle (cyatus). This would suggest Y 48 ot Y 49, though it is quite possible that the piece was really one of the high-handled bowls of frequent occurrence, for which Angelucci could hardly have found a Latin term more suitable than cyathus. The grave is said to have contained five other vasefti of various forms anda very small rough coppa (patina), which might resemble Y 45. In a third grave (Mayer no. 24; Angelucci, 1876, p. 56) there was inside the o//a a “vasettino piccolissimo verniciato di rosso,” evidently an example of the monochrome wheelmade wate, and ten other vases that are somewhat described. One of them is a “‘tazza de bete”’ with two handles, like a cantharus; and this term is followed, in parentheses, by “V. Rich aq.v.” i.e. Vide Rich a questo verbo. This gives the clue to the interpretation of Angelucci’s Latin vase-names, which ate based on Rich’s illustrations; but since the illustrations are relatively few, it cannot be assumed that the correspondence is very close. The kantharos,

painted with lines and bands in dark red, would be somewhat like XIX 6, XIX 7, Z 30, ot Z 32. Of two “‘tazze (calices),” the larger had “‘fasce, filetti ed ornamenti” in dark red and

the smaller was “verniciata” in the same color; the latter would be like I 3 and Z 29, the former probably like XIX 9 and Z 38. Four small “tazze (patinae)” each with one handle “‘parallelo al labbro” are mentioned; one was varnished black, the others had lines and bands in red or black; Angelucci does not say whether the lines and bands were inside or outside, but doubtless they were wholly or chiefly inside, as in I 4, XXI 3, and Z 19-22.

s* 67

68 APPENDIX I Two “‘boccali’ with round mouths were decorated with bands and lines, which were red on one, black on the other; the form of these jugs cannot be determined, but one would certainly be wheelmade, since no handmade piece is painted entirely in red, and it seems likely that the two were similar. These nine vases, then, as well as that inside the o//a, were wheelmade; but the remaining one was unquestionably handmade; it is described as a tazza for drawing liquid” (cyatus), dipinta a fasce maggiori e minori,” red and black, with a swastika inside, and probably would be one of the tall-handled bowls. Thus this grave would correspond roughly to I in the Farwell series. It may be noted that it contained also a knife of Picene or Bosnian type. In another grave (Mayer no. 28, misprinted 30; Angelucci, 1872, pp. 10f.) there was a ““patera con bella vernice nera,” which certainly would be wheelmade; it could be Italiote, like XXT 7, or local like XIII 2. Two others are said to be similar, with black and dark yellow stripes outside and inside; the yellow stripes were doubtless unpainted, as Mayer suggested,

and the two pieces would be wheelmade banded ware. Then there was a rough tazza with a tall handle, with rough ornament consisting of straight, oblique, and wavy black lines inside and outside, which would belong to the handmade class. The grave contained other pottery, but it is not helpfully described. The fifth grave (Mayer no. 13; Angelucci, 1876, p. 49) yielded “una tazza (calix) di bella forma con piede e due manichi dipinta di nero a fascie ed a linee inclinate su fondo del color naturale della terra.” This is not easy to visualize, but might be something like Z 33; at all events, “bella forma” probably implies the use of the wheel. In the o//a was a “vasellino tutto dipinto in rosso,” which surely would be wheelmade. Other pieces are inadequately described. In summary: two of Angelucci’s graves contained handmade pottery and are not shown to have contained wheelmade; two contained both kinds, with wheelmade in heavy preponderance in one of them; and one grave contained wheelmade only, as far as known.

Appendix II DAUNIAN VASES IN THE CLASSICAL COLLECTION, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The Classical Collection of the University of Chicago contains three Daunian vases. On one of them, which has been published already (4 JA 1949, pp. 245-247), a few additional remarks are offered. The clay could not be distinguished from that of Herdonian pottery. There are no considerable breaks, but where the surface has been abraded and where the plastic necklace of the priestess has come off, one finds a darker color, as often at Ordona (supra, p. 35). I should now be inclined to stress the similarity between our piece and British Museum H 263 (CVA fasc. 7, IV D a, pl. 9, no. 1), though the profiles of the priestesses differ considerably. The beaker H 259 in the British Museum (CVA pl. 8, no. 10) could easily be painted by the same hand as ours; also the “‘libation vessel,” CVA Robinson, fasc. 3, pl. 29, 2. Each diamond on our vase contains dots in two tows, roughly parallel with two sides of the diamond; these are quite unlike the dotted diamonds of the priestess vase in Bari (Mayer, pl. 1, no. 2) and unlike any others observed. (The dotted diamonds occasionally found in the Farwell pottery are quite a different thing, each one consisting of four dots in a diamond pattern without enclosing lines.) The other two pieces in the Classical Collection may be termed askoi, though of widely differing types. Ring askos. (Figs. 82, 83, 84, 85). Ht. 0.119, diameter of body 0.13, diameter of central opening 0.023, total length 0.20. Slightly offset base. The central opening is genuinely cylindrical, i. e. does not flare or curve at top or bottom. Most of the ornament is visible in

the illustrations; on the front of the neck there is a four-part diamond, with a smaller diamond in each part. Red paint is copiously used, as follows. On handle: two inner broad lines. Inside of spout: perforated area, birds. Outside of spout: N’s, markings in side compattments. Rim: middle one of three circles. Neck: Middle one of three broad bands at bottom; two of the horizontal, and four of the vertical, fine lines. Body of vase, in zone 69

70 APPENDIX II bridged by handle: two solid triangles, inner broad verticals in flanking panels. Between handle and spout: two broader bands and six of the fine verticals between, symmetrically placed. At level of spout, two inner broad verticals on each side of spout, first and fifth of five fine horizontals. Below spout: broad band. Below this band, under spout: outer frame of panel; two (top and bottom) of four small diamonds enclosed in large diamond within this panel; farthest fine vertical on each side of the panel; solid oblique quadrangle, farther on each side. Same level, under neck: inner broad vertical on each side of panel, uppermost and lowest horizontals in panel. On bottom: middle one of three circles. According to Tarbell’s inventory, the piece was “in perfect condition” when it arrived in 1902 as part of the donation from E. P. Warren. At some later period, probably when the cases containing the classical collection were shifted in 1945, the askos was broken into three pieces and neatly mended. In a recent cleaning it came apart again, and the accident proved informative. In strong contrast to Herdonian practice, the outside is so carefully smoothed (except for the lower surface of the rim, which presents the same ambiguous appearance often noted in the Farwell collection) that one can scarcely find clear traces of either wheel or hand-work, and the circular form is so accurate that it might be thought to imply the use of the wheel, though the painted lines would testify against it. The interior, entirely invisible when the vase was complete, makes it quite clear that the wheel was not employed. It is clear also that the main part was made in two sections; the upper and smaller one, with the handle, was added after the “chimney” was in place. Where the two sections join, the wall of the vase was almost paper thin in part of the circumference. Again, from the exterior appearance, one could hardly distinguish the clay from that used at Ordona. In broken surfaces and in the interior the clay is seen to be red and hard, quite unlike any in the Farwell collection except perhaps in some Italiote pieces. The light surface is a slip, applied so carefully and uniformly that it can be discerned, as a separate element, only in the lower part of the “chimney” and of the vertical spout. In general appearance this is an askos of Mayet’s type F a (Apua/ien, pp. 159, 161), though this type is said usually to be wheelmade. The spout with perforations is not an essential feature of the type, but occurs in several cases. Bari 3634, from Barletta (Mayer pl. 10, no. 10) is a good parallel for the form, except that it does not have the “chimney,” which apparently never occurs in the type. This feature might be taken from Greek ring-vases, East Greek (cf. Rumpf in JdI 1933, p. 76; DélosX, p. 34, pls. 16-18) or the kind found chiefly at Aigina (Furtwangler, Aegina, p. 436). Mayer (p. 107) seems to put these two together, and finds influence from them in the patterns of certain pieces assigned by him to Ruvo. As far as I know, the ring-vases have not been found in Apulia. “‘Italo-Corinthian”’ ring-vases are more temote in appearance (Sieveking-Hackl, no. 621; CVA Genoa, Italy pl. 916, 2-3). The slightly offset base is apparently not a feature of any known group of askoi; but Mayer (p. 104) mentions it as a characteristic of kraters made at Ruvo, and his illustrations show it exactly as in our askos,

APPENDIX II ral A notable feature of the decoration consists of the trapezoidal oblique strokes on the lower part. It may be that there is a connection with the “lotus,” as in Y 29. A tall-handled jug in Heidelberg (Mayer, p. 122, fig. 41) offers a good parallel for the pattern. Another conspicuous element is the “wooded hill” on the front of the spout. This is found quite com-

monly, as it seems (Mayer, pp. 106, 161 et passim) in elaborated versions of the triangular , patterns of both XII 1 (tall-handled jug in Bari, Mayer pl. 9, 9-10, pp. 119, 123; askos in British Museum, CVA fasc. 7, IV D a pl. 10, 1) and XV 1 (askos in Bari, Mayer pl. 16, 3, p- 159; krater in Ruvo, Mayer pl. 6, 2-3, p. 104; krater in Bari, found between Ruvo and Bitonto (Mayer pl. 6, no. 7, pp. 104-107). For the linear man in the spout, the best parallels noted are on fragments in Naples (Mayer pl. 16, 1-2; pp.97, 102, 155f.); these make it clear that the figure represents a

human being, which might otherwise be doubted, and probably a male. The Naples fragments appear to represent an actual scene, in which human beings and birds are associated; but this interpretation is hardly plausible in our askos. The uncommonly neat birds place the askos in the “pictorial style influenced by Greek black-figure” which, according to Pryce (CVA, British Museum fasc. 7, text to IV D a, p. 5) prevailed for a few decades around 500 B.C. No birds have been observed that are closely similar to ours; cf. Pryce pl. 6, 7; pl.9, 1; Mayer pl. 1; pl. 7, 11; pl. 11, 13; pl. 13, 6; pl. 16, 1-2; pl. 24. No askos has been observed which, on the whole, is noticeably like ours in the decoration.

The kraters assigned to Ruvo show a considerable similarity, e. g. Mayer, pl. 6, nos. 7-9; pl. 11, no. 10. Decidedly similar also are the tall-handled jugs already mentioned (Mayer, pl. 9, nos. 9-10; p. 122, fig. 41). Mayer notes that few of this form have been found at Ruvo, and seems inclined to think that all were made at Canosa; however, it is not known where either of these two was found. The panels in the lower part of the askos suggest Peucetian “combs” more than is usual in Daunian ware, and this could be regarded as supporting a Ruvese origin. On the whole this origin seems probable. The date would be early fifth century. Few pieces of Daunian pottery are more pleasing. Warren-Tarbell 29; “bought in Rome.” Askos. (Figs. 86, 87) Ht. 0.115, diam. 0.10. Wheelmade. Double handle. Inside large spout, a strainer. Rim of large spout and end of small one slightly broken. Light buff clay,

no difference in breaks; dark brown paint; red only for inside of large spout. On body within handle: quartered circle, dots, two short curved lines as in the lowest zone of the double jar, British Museum CWA, fasc. 7, IV D a, pl. 11, no. 8. Near bottom, quartered circles in addition to patterns visible in photograph. On bottom, two pairs of lines and two single lines, all crossing near center. This is a fully typical specimen, somewhat below the average in quality, of “Late Canosan.” The presence of the small spout makes a form not very common (for predecessots, supra, p. 46), but Mayer shows two examples (pls. 38, 16 and 4o, 13; pp. 306f., nos. 37-38,

72 APPENDIX II cf. 40) and there is one in New Haven (Baur, Stoddard Collection, no. 251), one in Bologna

(CVA fasc. 3, IV D f, pl. 1, no. 8) and one in Taranto (CVA fasc. 1, IV D bz, pl. 1, 4). The last is nearly the same size as ours and apparently is not far from a twin in ornament. The askos should be later than many askoi with single spouts (five in Bari, Mayer pl. 39, 8 and RM 1914, pp. 113-114; two in Taranto, CVA fasc.1, IV D b 2, pl. 1, 1-2; two in Toronto, Robinson-Harcum, nos. 503-504, pl. 87; British Museum, CVA pl. 12, 2; Copenhagen, CVA fasc. 5, pl. 227, no. 6; Naples, ML VI, col. 369, fig. 11) and a few with double spouts (British Museum, CVA pl. 11, 4; Naples, ML VI, pl. 13, 1). It should be earlier than many with double spouts (three in Taranto, C4 pl. 1, 5; pl. 2, 5-6; two in the British Museum, CVA pl. 11, 6 and pl. 12, 1; Lecce, CVA fasc. 1, IVD fb, pl. 1, 1-2) and some “triple askoi”’ (Naples, ML VI, col. 367, fig. 10; Mayer pl. 40, 6 and 8, Tiibingen and Hamburg). It might be roughly contemporary with some askoi with single spouts (British Museum, CVA pl. 12, 3; Goluchow, CVA pl. 49, 1) and somewith double spouts (three in Naples RM 1914, pp. 183f., fig. 1, 2, 4). The latticed band seems to be a somewhat uncommon and latish feature. The curious double palmette occurs, much more neatly drawn, on the “triple askos” in Bari (Mayer pl. 39, 9); on a Messapian trozzella (CVA British Museum, pl. 1, 6) it is no better than on our piece. The askos would belong to the third century. Warren-Tarbell, 40; “bought in Rome.”

Appendix II THE ARKESILAOS VASE (FIGs. 88, 89, 90)

An inscription incised on a vase found in central Apulia was published by Paul Kretschmer (G/otta iv, 1912-13, pp. 200-206). Little was publicly known of the vase itself until it appeared as no. 147 in the collection of Angelo Signorelli, which was sold at auction in Rome on October 29-31, 1951. At that sale the vase was bought for the Classical Collection of the University of Chicago. It is hardly necessary to name all who collaborated in this small enterprise, but acknowledgment should be made to Dean Napier Wilt, who supplied funds for the purchase; and certainly to Dr. Joshua Taylor, a colleague in the Department of Art, who took time from his short stay in Italy to attend the sale and thereafter shepherded the vase through much of Europe and across the Atlantic. Kretschmer knew the inscription from two copies made by different persons and sent him by Hiller von Gaertringen. Apparently, though this is not made quite definite, Hiller had not seen the vase, which he describes briefly as a Daunian olla, 10 cm. in height. The actual height is 0.098, the diameter of the mouth 0.077~-0.08, the maximum diameter ca. 0.137, the width including the handles 0.21. The vase has been broken into five pieces, but in all probability is virtually complete; the original edge of the mouth is not preserved

at any point, but the present edge is very thin, and probably the loss has been slight; a projecting rim is scarcely possible. The bottom is nearly flat. Coarse wheel-marks on the inside leave no doubt that the wheel was used. The color in breaks and on the inside is somewhat redder than on the pale surface, but I doubt if there is a real slip. The paint is mostly black or dark brown, but red in some places, and slightly lustrous. It is considerably checked and much of it is lost; the photograph shows the side in better condition. There was a narrow band around the mouth and two other bands between mouth and handle, with somewhat irregular strokes from the mouth into the lower band. The two bands are uneven, apparently not applied while the vase was on the wheel. There is an 73

74, APPENDIX III upcurving line on each side of each handle, which appears to be a continuation of the paint on the outer surface of each handle. Between the handles, on the side visible in the illustration, there is a wavy line and, below it, large, irregular dots in a roughly horizontal line. On the other side this panel is narrower and apparently contained only a line of dots. There is another horizontal band below the handles and a narrow bandon and above the foot. Mayer (Aputien, pl. 31, 4, pp. 268-70) shows a vase much like this one in form except that it has a projecting rim; it is painted with horizontal bands and has the curving marks

beside the handles. This is the clearest kinsman known to me. Various others could be considered related: CVA Bologna, fasc. 3, IV D f, pl. 1, nos. 10-12, ‘“‘Peucetian”; CVA Lecce, fasc. 1, IV D f d, pl. 12, nos. 4-10, especially 8, “Messapian”; Thera II, pl. 197, fig. 393; Toronto, Robinson-Harcum nos. 442, 444, 445 (pls. 79, 82). The wavy line between the handles seems to be a meagre version of a wreath or scroll, which appears in corresponding position in Lecce no. 8 (supra); in Mayer, pl. 28, no. 6 (p. 250); and in a number of Messapian trozzelle (CVA Lecce, pl. 4, nos. 4 and 11; pl. 5, no. 6; pl. 6, no. 8; pl. 7, no. 2; CVA Taranto, fasc.1, IV D d, pl. 4, no. 2) and some kraters (CVA Lecce, pl. 11, no. 9; pl. 14, nos. 4, 10, 12). According to Mayer, the first vase mentioned in the preceding paragraph belongs to a group which occurs in Peucetian graves of the fifth century, perhaps beginning about 500 B.C. Apparently the Arkesilaos vase would belong to the same group. The use of the wheel shows that it is not Daunian of any early period, and all discoverable connections tend to locate it in central or southern Apulia. The date for Mayer’s group rests on his statement, as far as I know, though it may be noted that the trozzelle with scrolls do not seem to be among the earlier examples of that form (on which cf. CVA British Museum, fasc. 7, IV D a, text, p. 3). The inscription was incised before the paint was applied, as is evident particularly where the wavy line crosses the letters AF of Arkesilaos. The clear, clean incision also indicates that the clay was not baked. Some of the vertical strokes, affected in appearance by crossing the tiny ridges that result from rotation on the wheel, might suggest that the clay was fired, but this conclusion would probably be wrong. It may be noted that the disfiguring scar in the upper part, near the end of the inscription, was made before painting and before firing. Kretschmer tead the inscription as follows: "ApxeotAnog adOFé Tuyatos (or tuyatdc)

BdFeov Bante tac mAcoag EaBorvaurs. He had no interpretation for the last eleven letters. The rest he understood to mean: Arkesilaos of Tyche (or with good fortune) with the strength of an ox trod on (or beat) the body of Flaminius (or Blaminis). This is not as convincing as could be wished, but it is not clear why Whatmough should say (ConwayWhatmough-Johnson, Prae-Italic Dialects Il, p. 565) that “the sentiment seems a curious one of which to give so permanent a record.”” Whatever the objection to the sentiment, the man who scratched this graffito surely had no thought of setting up an eternal memorial. After Kretschmer, Ribezzo dealt with the inscription (RévIGI lv, 1920, pp. 237-239).

APPENDIX Il 75 He presented a “grafico” which, evidently, was simply copied from Kretschmer. It surely was not intended as an exact copy; yet the author used it rather than Kretschmet’s version, which perhaps was accessible to him only briefly, when he mentioned, as evidence for the date, the occurrence of both crooked and straight iota and both round and quadrangular o. Kretschmer correctly shows all iotas in the three-bar form and all o’s more or less, and equally, quadrangular; and one would reasonably accept his rough date, the sixth century. The lettering corresponds to that of Roberts, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, nos. 302303 (IG XIV, 647, 665), 1. e. to the earliest in appearance of known Achaean inscriptions.

There is no external evidence for the date of these two, or of most of the Achaean inscriptions, which are not very numerous. However, there is a dedication on a mirror-handle that went from Paestum to Berlin (Roberts 304; IG XIV, 664; Neugebauer, Antike Broncestatuetten, p. 64, Tafelbild 34; Jantzen, Bronzewerkstatten in Grofgriechenland und Sizilten, p. 4, no. 27, pp. 14f.; Bruns, Antike Bronzen, pp. 34f.), which Bruns places in the first decade of the fifth century, and that 1s reasonable from the style of the figure. Also there has recently been published (N Sc 1952, pp. 167 ff.) a dedication by one Phayllos, which was found at Croton. Jacopi plausibly suggests that the dedicator was the famous athlete and that the inscription accordingly belongs to the beginning of the fifth century, though he seems to expect that some scholars will think that it must be earlier and consequently must be detached from the famous Phayllos. Both of these inscriptions are decidedly later in appearance than our graffito; compare especially o and epsilon in both, also alpha and theta on the mirror-handle; the Phayllos inscription contains no theta. Thus the graffito would reasonably be placed well back in the sixth century. As was seen, the indications for the vase itself would favor a later date. Since neither line of argument is very secure, a close dating must await further evidence. Kretschmer’s copy is not a really accurate facsimile; for example, the lowest stroke of the first iota is in reality nearly parallel with the longer stroke of the lambda which follows it. The dot that he shows in one omicron is doubtful on the vase. He is substantially right for the last two letters of TYYAIOX, and in showing the tau with a cross-bar distinctly oblique, and for most of the letters his deviations from accuracy are unimportant. However, in the puzzling latter part they require consideration. Here Kretschmer shows an X, interpreted as xi. It is definite that neither of the crossing lines is continuous; i. e., the X consists of four distinct strokes plus a fifth, a vertical down from the point at which the

others approximately meet. There is no doubt that the five marks exist, but it is not so clear how many of them are intentional and really parts of the letter. The upper and lower

marks at the left are beyond question. The vertical is distinct enough, but could be an accidental scratch; yet it is not substantially different in character from divers strokes that are certainly parts of letters. The remaining two strokes look less like scratches, but are indistinct. In view of the discontinuity of the lines that ought to cross, it is hardly possible that Kretschmer’s interpretation is right. Whatmough (op. ci., p. 292) suggests that this

6 APPENDIX III letter should be transcribed as T’. It certainly is not the same sign that is used for tau elsewhere in the inscription; yet it may be conceivable that, if the word is not Greek, neither is the letter; and the varied t’s used in Italy (cf. Whatmough’s table, at p. 502) include one that approximates this sign. If this is a Greek letter, it should be kappa; the two strokes at the left are excellent for this interpretation, and the stroke at upper right and the vertical would serve as the upright of the kappa, the stroke at lower right being accidental. After this sign four letters, AIMO, are perfectly clear; and the next two, IN, are doubtless beyond question, though in both cases it might be disputed whether the middle stroke is actually visible. Then Kretschmer shows an incomplete alpha. The two vertical strokes exist, though not as tall as he shows them, and there is a trace of the horizontal stroke; but the copy is at fault in not indicating the wide space between this letter and the preceding

nu, in which there surely should be a letter. One could hardly be sure of any incision

: belonging to this missing letter, but there are two painted strokes, where, as in other cases, the paint in the incision is preserved, though lost on the surface round about. These strokes make an angle open at the bottom, quite close on the right side of Kretschmer’s alpha. They could be combined with one stroke of his alpha to make a different alpha, similar in form to the alpha that follows the possible kappa. This would involve the assumption that the horizontal in Kretschmer’s alpha is accidental and that the left vertical in it belongs to another letter, of which the upper part is lost; this would best be rho or lambda, since there is not much room for the lost upper part. It is barely possible that the vertical, deeper than the other strokes nearby, is accidental. Kretschmer’s upsilon is probably right; the longer stroke is clear, though shorter than he shows it, continuing only a little below the point of junction with the other stroke, which is faint but perceptible. An imperfectly scratched X (xi) might be possible. The iota is reasonably certain, though the upper stroke is faint and the middle one invisible. The final letter is defaced by a roughly vertical furrow, and its left leg consists of two separate strokes, as seen in Mr. Allen’s photograph rather more clearly than on the vase. It is conceivable that the lower stroke is a mark of punctuation, corresponding to the marks that divide words in the earlier part of the graffito, though there is no curvature in this stroke. If that should be so, the letter should be mu, not san. However, it seems that a

final m is no mote to be expected in Messapic than in Greek. xy Thus the probable reading, based on what can be seen, would be xatOorv« et cotrresponding to Kretschmer’s GarBowvauis. Pe eR As tegards intelligibility, the gain in the new reading is not great. The first three letters make a Greek word, and it may be noted that the last three make another, vic an uncommon form of utdg (the aspirate being omitted as in some Achaean inscriptions). Since it seems

that u or upsilon is not properly a Messapic letter, its apparent presence here militates against the view that this part of the inscription is Messapic; yet upsilon does occur in some inscriptions classed as Messapic. It is hoped that the photographs will aid in future study of the inscription.

Plates

i /i E|/4 y/ | | . 7 q ru !/ | see = OSS ORDONA ___ _

P _ ca — ane — ~ LO ~~ aS r? oaot NOVA

/ “N f ‘—— . Oar) CJ Qi ae \ ate\ bn=|) Cad // ~-, W wet Bere beh Zao WY

,

_— poe Ki Pe :vite : ~~ — - ee id Re, j \| 48h,dais weiineait.

‘ “ | Eg mA | j

E (i DoW San| }“

’

: cae Riss Ree : ne . nd ees a ioe a ~ . O 2: eee kai Ma a|Q Bes,Beg al Bt.i aea“Soe ag 0 eee ae ‘Ae C /; [1

“ii ate ‘gi 7 | Y) ty tt: Ms palit my ees Sar 4 hee, ¢ Pe tO, ane . UY // a lier Pg Sys Ra SFwet Re:

Y / NY ne Teck ae Soe a i; Be ps ot i, + di a - ie ? oR

©) © | NYE |

|

/ Railroad ttt ttt tt | i) Road ie Cart 1rack. =

ag Fig. 4. Seven jars, including XII 1 and XV 1; jar at lower left, probably from XIII

Fig.1. Sketch Map —

TySy. .aT%ay”" “Pebepay oye a: .rare 4 ge me : . aorewhe.Aeaom ™ 7‘ PNA Me ake OTe res oo oan ie ah » : f “=. Yee 4 ~, Wy ” 2 ~ hae st se : , . ate 2ae!ws i; Vie “ Fok ie: % x: :Se : he : p“ “hi ; 4 a hn ae”)_— 4 ra/‘wy fer, o, ; 7Geet Ag a = a¥ = ~ag? wf,sae oe oo 3 rrat‘ -i astn: , BoMae a pe Be Pie ve : ee ty Mo) OsPyeae ee ig ‘ ay A) %nthe: ee faye,SR - . a At 2 aeoh “—_hme = ° - *4oeoe meThe . sah) a. . eeoT hy ¥.ey i >eS wn

«he PE a +. a. to aE ee es ws . e.g : bj

vieeee ae”Iea? A “4 =i ; % « iPints PeLao d fa=fre¢i ve RsaA Sgwt hisis te gt “A Bj Smee 30%4, . hv Ps y“Ry sand p «“ge : ange . a |*"§ “ yi ‘44 é‘ ia o oe . 4 Ps te, 2 * oa ra Ae SS . ios aPeTag Pa ; a iv POR. * oe a men * : m — : ha ee Fixx: bee i. ny Sy pe Re .tae WA nie a, DA se ; tae Ae rT. 1" ; :8hrs .Bo : ei) ¥ aCRY i oeweWy, ¢etCable erwycalle ; ‘.2$2 :Oe m+ t. pe : Cat: ae OI ps Pe A OP. CLF TORN RIGS, |eS atom SD;:SD /. = a»esADh ca, ee eeSSR re > SOX Ty . “~~ _\ by ‘6s ¥} Am

Sg SR ESS EY BE RPT ee a | "ss i et ey ee |. a ot wo A ear om y a> “hee ee » Caz. ee ee Li THE? Susy . “ é‘ ;=Ta. 3 ee hs :3os‘6, ‘%Pt; ee # 4i:; 7” EF.ee. age ie es ;ei. + e~ y? aPeet, me A! Pi ee 4 wi op % atee cad rol Bod eS ‘th *ae >PES +ee ae age t.ee 2 ead €Ke Die BREN Ne oe fe, Ai oeop ae -ONE: a.et”Pays > th i” ae ?) & - Poe

gS Ee owt Va ye +- sa

y*oe\- Le. Coe af sabe . hia oy4 “i eoaatutI 5&ee ‘ hs oy a. fos ee a me Rare, en) OO Lio tw >“oat é Nd ¢ ‘ m4 onPy . myoaSeard m4 fealae a . a. ie s‘4. yin, tun)oea_. Pam Ls .,so7aa CX) &vi ¥ B77 pk te & ot pth - .a bay x NG SRAM A AR Boe A aa sem be ee, OS ei aa esRe a enhdae OY Age er ae1a anaes pe,oS ME “vhs ie Zeaie Sig. RBS NR aa.£ ne } : . ‘«1 ud es SE, ABB o~— reg lo eee ur ey + > tee AS gs ERE: ad bi 83 —

Fig.14. Grave XV: 3, 1, 2. Fig. 15. Grave XVI: 1, 2.

|1h_e.

a _ St

eli.em “4 . ; P ; y | : ot. N , ie oO — “i rh |2FS 7 = at — : Sd Nop es. : > ne ae w i, re le O | eS Ptene ) 4 ~ 5 al . > ~ s ~ 7; 0em opeig Sirs rats : 0 | eeSif) zs E A ; re es a par A es os watt: 5 | 5 O Ar |soon 0we 4,d0 ~ i,

: J | fon Ni + f =, 2 ae a :i |7 vf oe — i C8) = y O c es i a, ~ )4)ob: ’ \o

+

cn

LD :. —

\9

: LD ke 7 ™ He tes . b oy _ be aenas Ne i ->‘a> ,VR ©=ah ee = Cee poy oe 2

ay

”

aed

footy

»a:|if}inKOS nner f een A a ; YY | per iji S 4aAM Ips 7) Uf “ — © * aA AA CS RAY | ' ee _ woe 4 a i E a —. ;

ee ; }eeae

—— aes ae eee

Qerenerstianene- ~ ———

——_—_—_— ‘ on tener eure org me 3

i i PS yd . Ty ee [ ' ! ey EE ee es by . 4) a j f ig Poo : a oe es yy) ; £ een a *a. Md. A ” o/ a * *,, cain 2 thks . a. "a aA ‘ pies ,tie -adSane i =< —_ xve or =: iis a.BS Be ~*. * een cs Pein. 4 .\)=e oe nae tate eleaeee —=heony , ve ky, a72ae, ‘67 co cramer nashe aa : Rye ees achee S ke em j| |oi 6 @ ? Pigeon: bE ge ae .) — ; as e sees 4 Gro m3 —x. 8,

\ s Cae

+ a rye .

Be 3 Gx» a 74 oy . Oe cs Mi,:' ‘ft BEES a o ay 3 Ss r ore Lo >4J~*tyas ae oe 4 :eit ie tt! |#PSeal Pd eed See oA i oe e

‘od ge ee Lat Beth tea A “

7°

“A ~pie ,Royna » P i ete , we a eh © Soe, , yer Sin = de ae en % ga Ed eet — pe + ¥a0 “ , i iae es+RR Me nlonN‘ aaa. . Pe eee. IME pcr elem. —_ ee . Lf ea al ify it os . Pane. sal mre ne Fi ;—_—_ oicascnamanea ca or} |) 4be ae TT i, , a aaaa : oi ‘» % aa Baye ~_-_ . DR eet ) ab os aN Brie aed jE REE. eres ae Raa ase ae ea. te ee Prensa ee wt

ea eon Big < at eriean - ——_ ©a i;x‘e4+; asShen eae HG ne as 4 7 = : Ce ae ie et | ‘.4ite ‘ A RE dtp ele Ge ’ ie. bey ‘ ee he ‘ Sas ) ae , . Hate Sara . ak a § esj :: %Sei ee ws : My % e
; By Bre A) oea BS Lye ¢ N s j cue ae rian étais ig he eae ; : bie gt se : nail ne Re ', i. ae - Rt »% ae a Rea ke.¥a ne : ry

‘ edi ; : i | Weae“4 | (eau

ile * age Fe Peety 2 PEAS Orpen mee ere *. %e ereees skate S|

ANB Bees et i} : a 38 BAoieSec 18 pes sys” ae Fics — oesip. ;+ ‘Le ’ Beat 25. GN

a | ee _ - —

ei ibs Pe ; 4iMie ce a;. lie 1 Bras) pT ;nhs seus:| >

eos ae N . ¢ Bees pn 8 eal -ee ~:,ftKs Lh Ao ¥¢ tel ene and aN re Sah MMP ae. «yok ths bes= 4i:rey ig alge aera LS nt ekg Be tio 2 Macs rr. Eee 4 Van ie a ee es hs Ra ARR ciate Beeman See 5 LoT 9) eat ee ay Heat Tee j * he. Beatie aes per pte pane eae ¥ cael ‘s+ 4 : age 28 ssa.% Pek yt ws Me 5 neabe aptoeee era* * «beae eas md olbed r ¢ee”, ‘3 % an‘ By ¥Am et eae .% Aig i} ee Beh 1 bere ooh ets

Ve a ee (a Bae: ee aoe : ‘Doe EE GM Benes sy i DR se OR ae ; : cv es A POS. Lean ne sth Pe Beir ak Bik eee — i Ae = ees eee ey ‘ Ly ae e! a " (tae + ogee 3 Aeris ; : ?dy tip Be RT ae eer a Doe oe aa ittic a; e tn aha taal oe pase : Hay nae: os gee Ane ,i os is Ph tsiy :‘ ee, ok|reg ot Es ae ans i genta ipsoa OSD ASGs. aE,

eats BR «oes se Ve Behe tt ace ge =ivA | 7i °OES” a eat tiBae | De aks aes Bate ene eso wae is a) PRS CI, alEyue iif:ak Rd ES CO ’ Fe et Oe sae hig ee as *Bee arr hes et homme ee yee Beret Bey t LIES CSET ee # cai", 3 aia | oa ‘i : eee | ‘ ‘te Sy. 7. BREE Sa ces s brl* Soda Pe Ds Se oa = i es ¥ tf Poe 2%] ' i, an f > = i ee a > ie : f _ ty ba Fe ,«oh ~. : "i NN | oh } wis 4 a s ; \ “EEE eee ¥ % N : a ON rc * a pee : cit ay . aha ° — ‘BaeRe | 5a . vee ae OQ

Tee4h i ehVee da aon | ome es mf : >+p eee ag oY a

fe hess: CO “ sae ea :

v3 ee i ee ym hg # at if r_ a I. xe _ F } i es Rie ; ‘is aoo yf | \a,:afSy aie / iss j . , , — i (LSS ot: geliatae Oe eS‘ iFR goEY eM ae >> ;:J “te ASA taeee. eeriattai ee wih fs Pos ee ba nh al bee «a pee a cA ars ee Sele 6 oS ey Sage ay4 ..ge aie ) A het ao ‘ ae sw ee i span ee,ee. CEA |pte rete: Rema.” o) .; ei, es, oP R: a ; ‘— 7 it Dia tan poate ap" aaa of i By wits |.4 waht tHe oe Pep , , a. ian Roy ks Wares

a aes ros # o> . 3 Aa Jem “eule gfe tele “hs

, < be b> eae < : ; ETveet_— - oe. ‘. yt

baon ets es: pee:MoS el”4 ae ~StS So, bai f# ‘Mme eRe m ORE - ae Ath Hay f os My P Fy ee Pathe x * ~ 4 ° ps ah Sea N PP weak et) Ref , an CO eI oa) * o., ae mare arg ep Soe ‘ SY ages eA ee N ‘ Pat ok”.aGal Saat Sepa Oe iin, § “Ue eS i eS SOR emo sf RO ENE > ex

Pe ae ba & pean tag Ray | ™ |

ae ‘Se ry) r ’8) \- ‘. nm 1 * a BX, ¢ L

Yam ' ge all oh ae _— » . -

ST

t Pay : egt. ra) wae 3 %‘a Tt RE > \ x4 : Ax be si — i VV Se B . — ats } ~ i: > ss :— & ~ oe ; oo>otBrat, i Bees >I. ey ie pet al Clete, 4 —a

: .nh / ets ia: « o ah/£“4;j 4Gi Beevinhs .sa — on “Be be oe v ¥ oP af : ‘S “o\\% oa

a Rigrtake S$| eN W‘thas P “A i ¢ I N : ig NO 7 ss ea \ ®—_

caw : ' a fh © Se I be 4

Sa)ae MES LA >: r,* y, - LO. Rodinty SE ’ ;ey. eae siee3Shee $ oO P r eae . ey her Tf .=

\o , “4 a hy ‘ >

. }: j, 4‘ eoe ; ) oO pPern ‘hive’ N :oO ae”: :Bes

«a 4 ——— ’ >“ : Rg. te by. 4 mi) hee s ‘‘; ba Shy ° r D> | hdgt‘ 4 2 F : ,Laat , 4 lag f y P ; . , : : Ase ae we iam) :3are i Nie ‘ Y° sea:OD | Ree’ :tek cae ‘bg; ,‘ Oh : ‘ F Se 4b at a y

d >pe WE SE oy eal80 eeoe Reese bisa See Meee eosin ee ane a:

t ‘eee. sDe 5 as i Ae a?%capt ssMast ; Se eras. ‘ aera ere ae Ba “ens Eton Wah5fa Wee ae tee Zope aby ee Re eh jmale's Jaan Shs eT ;a,faYps i es, aaa aR VSR an er itat ek sitet CPOE WN Bak ge f RA ae: pe alRE hes, y “Nabe) i iemig Pegi at 39% *MEE eae, her "Sua Sareece OE AS SE 2aahaaTeg ee ateon Pe es Mee, eal eees tek ht eS MEE AEN Nae eee TSG Ree oO RO ge“ke

bs: .

4.hee ées ~ a: * rs! < hd ae bs A ae ; FU, ,“ee Bre sa AS : j@ ‘ee JP.— 4,;'we irk .se Sie a ; ; Be seat), aot ffIPaie, #2 ae 4 Le~ == = 5. 1 ee wr ae eae)

\"En ae4ZS

ie pe : ; % 7 5 RAR AME EAMED IY |

om ee: iia aot Pe cw akaa ieee rE ,;sera | Oe 4 sh ae EE Tar :;4gi #4 a 5 ia! ac Cae EPR CS ee Sane Sey bane mRs an ee Sees 8 aS io fe PR CC + ee aed. ' ove 1 Sea. Areae"4ME \ Viege tetas, BOX. : fet‘ “eB " oe : op ae »Sear Lifees eras. ee te”, * 4

¥ . NT

> ie goeget ‘ 3 gales at: By j . 7herie are reayoay aha tent Prete =. )ss) . s Pam Mae % oe ie es

, oa wy. .; ieee eh oe,’ RSs: eee CBs 5 ea : ee meas +e i aSeen fRe :4; aapi PRS > we Spey tt. .Ree Oe: ateoaieald PRE seo) © ail tte mest, ond Beesas: ee Meare pace : igAo ems A oS eeemie Raaign mrgee one UPR te wkee SSeo. Bh ar. er ay) : aeaeate Lines zs iy aieVie ae oll ; ae

> aeagate aeRy eo.ee Beaw agate ae |J be vyriorC4, os q+4Pvet :*- SR ‘. tt me es ', ae. Cg Soll ios ay ‘ Bee) ty ys ee y + a —gor es fee i ru a3 * PY < -ghaall — a a Ye aS : ee hi ai irae ete . ee ee Rene: a ; dish xi Pe hed >a a eee etsPer ct MR SL a SOaesaaE ee on seaaem S44tne " visting re gO re gh Roy MR 6 et ine ayate Pca as ae tem Perv!Ns ShPlesk ingsSih aSAira ee ,

|— RARE eS Pe Fy—— ee tes RE Ror Ae Me ka “os ;'

riee Od % a : “a ane Se . " “ial wasamme Sg ie . ~ 2 Se > — 1 RR aay _~ é twa ut a 3 3B, ay ru i See = RAs Gy ie. | Bt asaeae2iaic“ies gi ed x mes oe | , ee Bett i! ene . roe Payers | > ia Cae . SAP abate ot P Wig = 4¢“Ss .;hes Pe : .Sid . red rs’. yy ete —— ), ere > Cait, en ee yy of

oa ° a3 ae Se

Of bos SS a | a ee.

= ee B. j 4 ae . my i .ares: “a ’ ean ae Pe | e nn va NS » rs ae 4 ake ees ; fee,’ IS ; 2 soon ae 4 pow : aa i. aga ‘ea Ve “shea yA 4 ate) ; Z a 4 ed A:4 ‘ c . rea ON se & et we : pete ee eg 7 we 3 . etek > See Nui en a“ oS, ee ‘ Wine Ses bend ~ Pa. “ < as 4 yeaa ORE T aoe ‘ aNinimmenmpnne a arene 4 TOR aa,ssSa oe fsf , SES oe ~."“— mae “AS . aetna irs ew;ame Ro EN. ee » . a‘ aa ~A “ = ee 7 : See ear~araeeeFe aapane we . Ss

aa e=; 7" J; S.), eeoe — a ¢ :74,wd > . A, > “a / fy ayber) ‘¥ «wy Pe UZ ar 4aA we*v ogi “N4 e*‘ % \aa

7 7 s ae nal N “4 \O Me ESS xs We ae, \9S ee “ °

PAN Siena de 5 ae) at. ms =. " aSagi alld aa ar ee me LFS . Bere ge i, Af ; é ._on Ve Mise hag Mets" Se eal,;&om mY ad Belin RY oP Pe . -« a’ 3 g is aynn f, ¥Sees Mie 5*am ee eee $" _j r’neag, ie ger > pieiey

is, i - n

dj ce ie ay, 5 By Lae eS Si Bei, So eee :

St |

1] i en CNS Bt N Sigh Ne ee et , i

; f te ty ie, ; oy

: ee ANY oA eee \ ess. s BNA, Ot EAR 5 On °ea‘“ae ae,onoe on y ‘ ve at a Ee vee gee yee SR ix fi = '(ee ( ee ee Ping oe eee ae a { ie y Se ee Re ee Oi ree bes a tages? Bektied eect ne a Petes” eee oe Shc cutie ate ot) ‘ ae hapa e WG" § Men Soe *y eT. ee E, IE i Ee Ae 2 a 4 he, -Ie : Ve Pa dy) le ee ih saa & eee” BLS i SUM Qed NA CURR : a nk a ty . Sl ND a, : ve sah Pg SP es ah ie BS a ba s- . DAP A Sep : th Eee, e ep trea Pf < aie . a bes hy Re,

on ee a2ig;=vece OEbars A ogy ow te wy i Sa a4 ikeee Mee Nesats oo G8 Ataaa ,aa»a od Pi er a olla eke, ikWED aoo tes ?Deis © %hech FNSitcg ay eR Lane”. Kalo sy ee ee SBF ee, Pee og rere peal se RM Sr iefCe oe aie -Se mae RO NO RA pe eae neeMe Kase Beast aE amas Boke ES eeK i oe iat idlemeenieely wenden Sat Nae eee Api : PsBene Cea re aN a+

lg. be... ;gl % E% b:Fane

preg Soete) Ss EN hy aaa ERS ofSete bea RE ers |ae Fae fee . ea #ee# Me os Mi noe Si aENT yeek ra eee «tae eees ety RE Rese : oF aeSaeS iVER ke a.-.4 in!gs nee AIT AR? lle arn” 0BP xree. >Me ey ng ee. CORO + eVS iaAy wre x gs, ey = ee(2s ingipe 1aun aad ¢a aM % oe # Dk: Le Uae eS nclie ge ee $ Fi eS PO SRR a cl Sais é} in, ig RS RN ee a rem erat, s Tioaeet $s Sed ®s Fr ee A er toSe ee GY ARE aera se aceetag 2am, Se Arete fs ee Be ‘gee aac Miner ee ES!“ . EE Oe ih ih Ba a Oe we, es eo Se 7 Lf Fa Se > a Sin cael oy ae ei eo en é ‘eS ee 43 “Say > a m Ve | ss ‘ 00 no a x | \> > oO Ps ‘ » De > .\ ‘ ‘ ‘ a> . ; , ? m4 ° ; ‘ ’ Hy N 3, “¢ b F x vo a) wv a 3 \ a0 ie ee . / : |tBete NS > Bet on 2. iy Be or ry 8 We 7 Te fy \ in, Menta . , y bP eeeeat ie 9 , “4 J Peet 4 Ms J (ig al _ per aes .> * -_ Aes ‘ Rat. : mS. / ae ae aaeae - Soh wp ed ii aDay

a 7:Magi eth het anes ; 7 q : ‘ ;fsjeBes Sat lh PA eC ir. P | SRE Sta 3% ) N [a FS . : SS i Net te : 5 ye o Pe ai? ty a" 7 . ‘ be | 4 ‘, a+ ag 5 ~ 4A , Ae Se a ¢ . “ + og 4 f i: .qVe NY “oat th B : 7 ; ; wee A ri? om ' 2m Sedan tel ae . aN nh = x. 7 per are o> 4 P 5 ’ oN fi7tia rN \, eek ty / fo) 4 eb . Ce {4 a 3 a ei vin a ee < git ] i go a eg ee > oh+S ie eo iaehees $’aa y-_7Ph: - A} ‘aeobey Sis ee De bh oe Saha Soveeme, s ’ ; . an sa MBN, oY “ iid ,) y ~ Se > ao! Soe ae ae 7 ie

fs see ig PT .\\e ae ” ee

f ets, 4 ey ps ae ‘ EBay. se Me ff , us ME WR er ERC i op \\" Be En Goes

. RN ae ne, ne ea NRL [a ie fie stn tem _er. ; “ie mae S|\ Cate eT ee SO Gaa Dei aga ts i e. 02A, eg Se \\e Seine Sic RETA " a” - Ea REen Bais ee Cri eeon eAaen ‘ PO= ee eh ae te 3\ i eS aaa

‘adyo ugNi 4t oY $) e Pe, Hit 3k OI CiaION) aAE “YasoyES u Nis me a im, es eee pel ia , i.9)

oy Bp a A as ar — a oF oe OLy aang| fee ¥ 5ghy eS ;0a eae ‘ AmRL cre LD H oa

PApk ae pl! a Wi GS e Raet cere a aece, Ce f}|!) eee29 Se Sore ei re i,anah Teeeas Pt ea $ Nsoebsate se aceuhy fia) é at yee: a ea Mn. P rh .@ Py o v icon on % ia Op Ga ; ae P] PO Res tm aly ean 8 de COATS, 9 IO vy B

sels a Ss ye : ' ae me ; * agp’ 3 .

"i % eae Wats / F

be Se na of Z

ON

iaeRy,%Fp|ie et ’ ; { > * aie itt et ‘ eae eee 7 Ate |Si . ‘ as 3 ‘aWY Rtenals Re arte oe tle |)eae_ Wea: jeeetian csbeiar Preare es *Na 5 .eatin PS Tel a ‘iPD opee es:* aeee ee ol 2 4 . yee b Jf ; Se ey Le ge aes ei ‘ .Ss pelME becake ate RN Sau & SEM eS K, 7i .mx) “op ans Sue nat

igh 4mg Bik ‘xsf-4Say ae Me, wet, *'> i.dy) $§@ Sh aejta ‘ffSe gue Lh oe *aBg 60 “Po .a{> *aSneek ,Che a.Pee Fi o£ Fo , \ OR. SEZ ae e. ikf “@ iy wt ; mf 4 ’ ~ % te Te ‘ t Lh ®, 7 Gam if &. Reeth ‘;ay ih’ “ ‘ , ~ _ a ly she ode he ft my _ aan . a. 4 Sides Ste Ne ; fo 24 FPs*veyeX -eae0*,oe? a4 fast %) :mn’PRs We £7, aes =j aYeSne, Ie ‘afpnfy “Paediy 6?" aeit: JryAED, ee .AN "eet VW Nl £E, hi Pi 59 tei=.: Sine: 3 9®, ‘;*". 4% rod Were caBP % Son ar gee me aitai: 7dgece ~_ net & Ccaaaaaniner gt i ahs " ey, ‘ \ ~~ Me a “Sa ——— M, 6 7 begat fe Ke 2S ~\\ Ag Ar Oe aR IS , :; ak —~ 7oho “he ¢a Rie m4;ay aa Kia ee Ba ’ ey \\ aed ‘4 iheh ite, a‘Yeas

yca reee Dy Fig. 39, YRSy” 40 — Lm Ae ee ee ‘; “i 7 4 . at| peat SETS Apia : ‘ ae re }° .4: 53. ? AYasiee tie , —bade ae yeh ts Jaa ve Aha Tit rene c. Wae AWS tf: ey 2 ™, My et a oaon Fides Wea, ‘4Wide % 2] del Le ane 4 :f ™ ud_:q4,“aes mae?

ae oe ee me eae ap -h 5_ 3Poy: -‘ F’;eat ‘* ‘£6 « on j::,owe ‘ ra Pe

Fi he a i

ig. 56. At left: 1. Upper right: Y 41. °

‘ Pa—~~ ~e . -

Lower right: XVIII 4 °

eRe ae |© ee5 Lay SoS NP ieRIE aict ns

eo Ce eeam

opt te,‘ a) e~~Sexe Si I: wean, Wegq >a r P .teee

%, “4%? Nt : , : Pissdpe Se Mn 7 & pate Ree iy msa bey ane te eo 38 5 hed : tito Pence = Jsa

2h7eige eee =:aeek See oo fr ; foe 8N 2”.: 8/* i” fy Ps Lc a Re ney C4 mis i 7.ie a—_— : *ee We tae ¢Pie aie ‘inl ih os 5WR Mae "-5. Peet Anos MU i aiy * Pe Ye3 aSein ta Se oak aie"Oe =¥ie! Raat hipeatce

7 “eh bee oc ‘,

Fig.54. YY 43 g. 54. Fig. 55. YYW6 37, Y 41, Y 42,

- ‘v. ‘

nai RN . “7 . js Tt a *. 7 aes ‘ ng (|het . Mi ,duF»‘ ‘yy mee ° ary© bin3 fi ,iae “— panne a—Phigan es eeiw ‘& ¥ i : . ¥ * re ; *“t op

ey +4: +“ 4’wae ayes 7 Ay _; ~“ sen. 5Ae ‘ ¢de ¥ 41haNe > >> of> ; ‘ LW, ; af»AN ee | ke Te eles 4 MRE ie Ce uaa ER Ag nn MS EA occl hy y:ne ‘; A. Nha Aeae, i aitA dita a Series way Wary ; Vas y Yea eee be Wage: Sree Sth Prinses :PRs: : is ne _—— ; he EAR RO BON Csi he Se ae me ta )E aele er : eens , :Neth aee RLLE OTRAS. SIR rete She ise Pixs . jNG mae :SAS) Rm Le Were ise fe Rie CC BS lis Scat, Yee. Leh UNS SoA etann meee Prey — , Mb icchons SCN Ran AES 2 Cape > op deine Pirie Oey es ajaednek” Fo 3 fe eee ORES Seo OE DE Om ag gc pete a ete ee es f TBrets Dee a> Se os a ae 3)astsaan Te Ry iacaeut Meer tact EY,

bd Oe a < ’ . ah ngtet ef OR ede, ok Ler f es Sis Wis aes ta ‘4 ~ ™mew n> SS te” UIE(AE gece +ISNet Re eu al Se lian; , . . SY a are eee V Sta wt>, tle ‘yan . Cd a ee Sans Bee : eet

b* PUTT weoe ‘ i .eRe 4 ie he NO ane, SN ORyest, eh CaP “ef, ‘s:% stig ng *

Ty ?bd . . >. 5)

,Soha Garne i or rey aeas. eeteSe ene, fca” ' .‘ SA A M AMM CSB A IA The oatheM i nthe RENE PNT Litaae ye pn agadCOPE CMa Ne ro SR Ne ee Har hota ae in ‘al Py/SRT .IE ‘ :GN GIN ane ie alate tiaeg UPON eRYale Eels att: AMR tute age Mee te aaa Paes a. .fyes bbe aYeeres Dit SMES Simei lian Pee ON agPay at My isred eemich Beater Tate

4 ,Dia asat. :gah Pa asite tteSOeiasane Ales eC a»; Col Pr Oemee MEETS Ot Aoh AtyI aoneeNa Se URRY ciao coat Rs A Bar ERC) Co Sr iy FPSs Mace itrST oisaesNi ‘ee ART a Ms BeME Lh 3EIN gay we ides?) ae ‘ Bee tg OE RIE aRBS A ie eatin NNN Borat ace tS eS MERE Sea ce aah ose Yar e FD ayt. cigtils MORNE oth am or fies ek aa om ¢ 3 yy és. Vee BD ro ee eee eet CA at EPR To oa Silo, * eT “ 44 OS EE OMS Sp OS SetSS Ss RE SS RAIS. Saher te ante er sh eareeaea Coe at eed & aes Vat.RES PE ORES OS RE Se aaeoy AP9 ae Peeteaety

_ Pag de WES aa Sahn de)haga coke aitate Pee —— ; : coy Sege et ai aeeycolea : ReaSan ane Ne8 ace eeea ee

Fig.57. Above: Y 43, III 5. Below: Y 50, Y 42 Fig.58. Z1,Y 46, Y 44

‘

Y\ y

= ” “A as F “ | N ii ‘t ;3si N ‘ Pa . , — nm re na " _ N N , © 73) "uU oe) :: N , .°; ’N iy, ee "ieee ,: \ae heees ze ‘ee » wie if “ Cee a eo

oN ae 4 See ae s

° . fo)

s . hs $e , A y , j aj 3 i | oul

PF a .N S| Site ue ee. NM case, Vee nN HeON sa ttTe Rca * Be. \, Brhtgts: : ,4eeBx. |OO ibaa ¥. éREESE eas i ee ie ‘4 AS ig ssiipe Sea § 7 eth ‘ ened spams ; N“ N oo ‘se ps Say SF ee ‘ may age | | 4 os Vinee7+coh ae ; LT 4 WaSER f ie -]OO | es.Met Taio \~