A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery

ANCIENTWEST & EAST

VOLUME 4, NO. 1

BRILLLEIDEN • BOSTON

2005

AWE-4-1.qxd 10/18/2005 12:09 PM Page iii

* We thank N. Kunisch and Sir John Boardman (both Oxford) for their comments and cor-recting the English version of our manuscript.

1 Cook 1997, 295–300; 1998, 5–7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 25–36.2 Schiering 1957; Cook 1960, 118–26; 1992; 1997, 109–34; 1998, 26–137.3 Walter 1968; Walter-Karydi 1973.

A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY*

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND UDO SCHLOTZHAUER

A

At present, we are faced with several competing classifications of East Greek potteryof the Archaic period. New finds and recent research have, however, shown that allof them have grave deficiencies. A new approach is, therefore, made in this paperto a classification system that, for the first time, comprises all classes of East Greekceramics, figural and ornamental, banded as well as unpainted wares, within a homo-geneous framework. The basic principle of the new system is a division according toproduction places or regions on the one hand and, on the other, a separation accord-ing to chronological periods and phases. The definitions are flexible in terms of theirprecision, and the classification can, therefore, be adapted if and when further progressin research should make this necessary. To a large extent the new system is com-patible with the classification of R.M. Cook. The present article uses the painted pot-tery of South Ionia as a template with which to explain the proposed new classification.

The study of East Greek pottery is beset by a non-homogeneous termi-nology and several competing classification systems. These make it ratherdifficult to find one’s way about in this complicated and multifaceted field ofGreek pottery, which is probably the reason why some scholars who are notspecialists in this matter are still using general terms such as ‘East Greek’ or‘Rhodian’ in order to avoid the current terminology which is often confusingand imprecise, sometimes even contradictory. The effort necessary to under-stand the existing classification systems might indeed be partly responsible forthe backwardness of our knowledge of the pottery of the East Aegean com-pared with that of other Greek regions.

The history of the research of East Greek pottery and its inherent prob-lems have been discussed in detail elsewhere.1 To sum up, the main difficultiesof the classification systems so far proposed are either that they largely dis-regard regional differentiation (R.M. Cook, W. Schiering)2 or that they lacksome form of coherent chronological structure (H. Walter, E. Walter-Karydi).3

Moreover, all current classification systems are restricted to fine pottery bear-ing elaborate figural and/or ornamental decoration while the banded and

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 1

undecorated wares have never been comprehensively classified; the so-called‘Ionian cups’ (better called ‘Knickrandschalen’)4 and trade amphorae5 areamong the few exceptions.

We do not think that an adaptation of one of the existing systems to thepresent state of research would be helpful. Too many fundamentally newresults have been obtained by archaeometric investigation and extended fieldresearch in the East Aegean in recent years.6 In his latest publications Cooktried to revise his classification of the Wild Goat style without, however, beingvery successful.7 Aware himself of this problem, he proposed to create a newclassification as early as 1992 but hesitated to go through with it:

To accommodate the new partitioning of the Wild Goat style, local and tem-poral, a new nomenclature may well prove necessary, but at the present stageof study it would be confusing to propose yet another . . .8

It seems to us that this moment has now come: the increase of knowledgepermits and calls for an adequate form of expression.

The classification proposed in the following pages is based upon a clearand simple concept. It is made up of a chronological as well as a geograph-ical co-ordinate. Both components are incorporated within every single term;both provide the flexibility to chose variable degrees of precision, which per-mits the use of an overall system for various regions even if these differ fromone another in the depth of present-day research. The principle of the

2 M. KERSCHNER AND U. SCHLOTZHAUER

4 For a discussion of the various classifications, see Catling and Shipley (1989, 188–90, 199);and Schlotzhauer (2000, 407–09), who introduces the neutral term ‘Knickrandschale’ (cups witheverted rim) to replace the geographically defined ‘Ionian cup’ which is problematical if usedfor vessels of non-Ionian origin. The classification still commonly used today was worked outby Villard and Vallet (1955, 14–34) nearly half a century ago. It is based on the range oftypes occurring at a colonial site in the central Mediterranean and not on that of the EastAegean production centres.

5 Dupont 1982, 193–208; Cook 1998, 142–91.6 Dupont 1983; Akurgal et al. 2002. For an overview of the excavations in western Asia

Minor, see the annual preliminary reports in KST and AJA.7 Cook 1992; 1998, 32–63. Having accepted the fundamental results of the archaeometric

investigations of Dupont 1983, R.M. Cook tried to differentiate his phase MWG II in accor-dance with the various regions but failed to introduce adequate new terms. Another inconsis-tency in Cook’s classification is the lack of terms for certain chronological phases in certaingeographical regions (see Kerschner 2000, 554). On the one hand, Cook confines the termsEWG and MWG to South Ionia without offering adequate names for the contemporaneousphases in North Ionia (Cook 1998, 51–52). On the other hand, his phase LWG is restrictedto North Ionia so that Cook (1992, 260–62) hesitatingly introduced the term MWG III to fillthe resulting chronological gap in South Ionia. Boardman (1998, 143) adopts MWG III forthe late phase of South Ionian Wild Goat style, but in the captions of the accompanying figures(154–155), he uses LWG instead of MWG III. Boardman’s use of LWG is the logically moreconsistent solution of the terminological paradox in Cook’s classification that South Ionia isgiven an Early and Middle, but no Late Wild Goat style.

8 Cook 1992, 255; cf. Cook 1987, 71: ‘None of these terminologies is now satisfactory, buttill more is known it would be only confusing to invent another.’

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 2

A NEW CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EAST GREEK POTTERY 3

classification may be described as being as precise as possible and as generalas necessary. It also allows progress in every field of research. Whenever newinvestigations yield more precise results with either chronology or provenanceit will in future be possible to replace a general term with one that is moreprecise. In this way those terms will prove to be less exact but not actuallywrong. The system allows flexibility also with regard to specific and divergentdevelopments at different pottery centres. It is open to the possibility that, insome places, certain stylistic phases may begin later or persist longer or noteven occur at all. The new system should be understood more as a frame-work the details of which have still to be elaborated by colleagues workingon finds from the various pottery centres of the East Aegean. It has beencompiled empirically on the basis of the material available at the present time,on the observation of the typological and stylistic development of pottery prod-ucts the relative chronology of which has been worked out by way of archae-ological contexts. The absolute dating of particular periods and phases can be discussed independently as a separate step; this does not, after all, affectthe terminology. In this our system resembles Humfry Payne’s time-testedclassification of Corinthian pottery.9 It too is a classification of chronologicalperiods and in this way encompasses all ceramic wares and classes being pro-duced at a given time. Once again, however, painted pottery has been takenas the decisive class to define the various periods because it provides the moredistinctive features as well as a clearer and speedier development of style andtypology.

Keeping in mind the need for clarity, we are focusing on one specific classof East Greek pottery production, i.e. on what is commonly called the WildGoat style. We hope to use this as a way in which to explain the structureand the application of the new system. The Wild Goat style represents themost elaborate example of East Greek vase painting during the Orientalisingphase of the Archaic period. It was described for the first time and in detailin the 1880s when a number of specimens came to light during the excava-tions at Naukratis.10 Different names were in use until E.A. Gardner’s pro-posal was generally adopted to name the recently recognised style after itsmost conspicuous motive, i.e. the ibex or wild goat.11 It should be pointedout, however, that Gardner himself was aware of the disadvantages of thenew name:

This title is in many respects unsatisfactory; on some of the vases included underit the ibex is not found; and the ibex often occurs on other pottery which, though

9 Payne 1931, 43–66.10 Smith 1886, 49–50 (‘Egyptian style’ as sub-group of the ‘Oriental style’); Dumont and

Chaplain 1888, 161–72 (‘le style de Rhodes’).11 Gardner 1888, 45–46 (‘Ibex type’).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 3

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

The classification most widely used today in respect of the Wild Goat stylepottery was first proposed by Cook in the early 1930s13 and formulated indetail only some decades later.14 He based his system on the bipartite schemeproposed by E.R. Price some years before,15 but enlarged it to encompassthree phases: Early (EWG), Middle (MWG) and Late (LWG). Cook’s basictenets are still valid today. Indeed, they form the backbone of the newclassification which we are proposing, being compatible, in all relevant points,with this model.16 There are two major differences from Cook’s classification:we recommend redrawing the line between the phases MWG I ~ SiA Ia andMWG II ~ SiA Ib, and, as a second measure, we would like to introduce asubdivision of the rather long phase MWG II (including the phase MWG IIIwhich Cook only introduced in 1992)17 which we propose to call SiA Ic andSiA Id respectively.

First Element of the New Classification: Provenance

The geographical element of the classifying term indicates the place of pro-duction of the vessel. If this is not known with any degree of certainty itwould at least give the wider region of its origin. The principle of thisclassification should be to circumscribe the area of production as narrowly aspossible without defining localisation more precisely than is scientifically arguable.In order to provide the necessary graduation in terminology, the geographi-cal component comprises several levels. The largest and least specific geo-graphical unit—the East Aegean as a whole (abbreviation: E)—is divided intothe following main regions: the Aiolis (Ai), North Ionia (Ni), South Ionia (Si),Eastern Doria (Ed), Caria (Ca) and Lydia (Ly). It will in time be possible toextend this classification to include the pottery production of the Ionian coloniesand their sphere of cultural influence.18


12 Gardner 1888, 45–46.13 Cook 1933/34, 2, n. 1.14 Cook 1960, 118–26; 1965, 507; 1992, 256–62.15 Price 1928, 11–15.16 M.K. is grateful for having had the opportunity to discuss a first draft of the new

classification with R.M. Cook in May 1999, one year before his death.17 Cook 1992, 260–62; 1998, 44.18 Colonial ceramic production of East Greek type on Thasos: Salviat and Weill 1961;

Walter-Karydi 1973, 74–76, pls. 101–104; Cook 1998, 67–68; on the Aegean coast of Thrace:Lemos 1991, 209–22; on the Black Sea coast: Dupont 1983, 36; Cook 1998, 66; Dupont 1999;at Naukratis: Dupont 1983, 36, n. 38; Cook 1998, 66–67; Schlotzhauer in press b; in Etruria:Cook 1998, 68–70, fig. 8.29.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 4


The following subdivision concerns the minor regions. In some cases, thesecannot yet be determined but, as research progresses, they should find theirplace within the system. These minor regions comprise neighbouring pro-duction centres which show close typological, stylistic and technical similari-ties in their pottery production. This level should prove to be helpful in theclassification of small fragments with but a few distinctive criteria or for lit-tle known parts of the territory. Examples of such minor regions are islandswith (presumably) several pottery centres, such as Lesbos, Chios, Samos andRhodes, which may even show typological and stylistic resemblances withproducts of the neighbouring mainland (e.g. Chios and Erythrai or Samosand her peraia).19 This subdivision is marked with an additional letter preced-ing the main abbreviation, e.g. wNi for western North Ionia, a minor regioncomprising Chios and Erythrai. If other minor regions with closely connectedpottery production are found, analogous terms could easily be introduced.

The smallest geographical units are the production centres themselves. Thesewould normally be located in the poleis, sometimes also in their chora. If aprecise determination of the production place is possible the name of the polisor kome, suitably abbreviated, supersedes the term of the region: e.g. Kyme(Kyme), Phokaia (Phok), Smyrna (Smyr), Klazomenai (Klaz), Teos (Teos),Ephesos (Ephe), Miletos (Mile), Samos (Samo), Meropis on the island of Kos(Mero), Knidos (Knid), Kameiros (Kame), Lindos (Lind), etc.

In this geographical order the degree of precision descending from theregion as a whole to specific poleis and villages is expressed by the numberof letters forming the abbreviation. Each step advancing to a more precisedesignation is marked by the addition of another letter. It is, therefore, pos-sible to differentiate between identical names of islands and their main sites.In this way ‘Sam’ points to the island as a whole whereas ‘Samo’ designatesthe city. The system is designed to be flexible and can easily be adapted ifnew production centres are found, a considerable advantage compared withprevious systems.

Second Element of the New Classification: Chronology

This classification uses the well-established archaeological criteria of style,typology and technique in order to define different stages in the developmentof pottery production that can be equated with particular dates. The new sys-tem distinguishes three chronological units. The largest units, the epochs, areindicated by the first letter of their name. Thus G stands for Geometric, Afor Archaic, etc. The next smaller units, the periods, comprise several decades

19 Chios and Erythrai: Bayburtluo<lu 1978, 27–30; Dupont 1983, 24–25; cf. Lemos 1991,205. The Samian peraia: P. Hommel in Hommel et al. 1967, 93–94; Akurgal et al. 2002, 52.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 5

and are indicated by a roman numeral. These periods are further dividedinto even smaller units, the phases, which are indicated by lower-case lettersin alphabetical order. This classification too is flexible with regard to the num-ber, duration and chronology of periods and phases which may differ fromone region to another and from one production centre to the next. It couldeven be that a particular phase is missing in one or more regions.20 Shouldfuture research arrive at newer or better subdivisions of periods or phasesthere should be no problem to include these in this system.

Classical archaeology generally agrees about the two phases in the devel-opment of Archaic pottery of the East Aegean. The earlier one has oftenbeen labelled Orientalising.21 In date it mainly occupies the second half of the7th century BC, starting a decade or two earlier in some regions and extend-ing a few years or even decades into the early 6th century. This period isfollowed by another which extends over the main part of the 6th centurydown to the end of the Archaic period at the beginning of the 5th century.The first period is called Archaic I (A I), the second period Archaic II (A II).These phases are defined by marked stages in the stylistic development. It isimportant to point out that never is one criterion alone taken to define aperiod or phase but always a combination of several specific criteria. Onealso has to take into account that a particular feature may have emerged atthe end of the preceding phase or may survive into the next one.22 They are,however, not considered characteristic criteria of such phases unless they areimportant for a certain stage of the stylistic development. There always existretarding sub-branches of the main stream, such as the Subgeometric birdbowls which carry on with some form of Geometric decoration to the verybeginning of the 6th century BC. In our new classification based on chronol-ogy the Subgeometric phenomenon is, therefore, not considered to be a phasein its own right but merely as a conservative current within phases domi-nated by and named after more progressive stylistic developments. For this


20 At the present state of knowledge this seems to be the case in the Aiolis where there areno traces of early Archaic stages of the stylistic development that could be compared to thephases SiA Ia/Ib in South Ionia (see Cook 1998, 57). See also the diagram in Coldstream1968, 330 Tab. which shows the differences in the development of Geometric pottery in theindividual Greek regions.

21 E.g. Schiering 1957; Cook 1972, 41–46, 115–29; Akurgal 1987, 21–25; Boardman 1998,141–48; Schaus 2000; Mannack 2002, 84, 90–94. Walter 1968, 47, however, rejects the term‘orientalisierend’, ‘weil damit der Einfluß der orientalischen Kunst auf die griechische überbe-wertet erscheint.’ The term ‘Orientalising’ is not well defined and can be used differently—see Kerschner 1997b, 206 n. 107.

22 See the definition of the phases of Corinthian pottery according to Payne (1931, 43–66).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 6


reason the bird bowls should be assigned to the phase North Ionian ArchaicI (NiA I) within which they were indeed produced.23

As far as figural and ornamental vase painting is concerned the two peri-ods of Archaic East Greek pottery production may be divided according tothe general idea that the earlier period, named East Greek Archaic I (EA I),is characterised by the technique of outline drawing (e.g. Wild Goat style,Orientalising dishes), whereas at the beginning of the later period, named EastGreek Archaic II (EA II), introduced new techniques. In South Ionia we findan elaborate version of silhouette painting with meticulous reservation for therendering of details (i.e. the Fikellura style of the period Milesian Archaic II= MileA II) covering approximately the same span of time as a black-figurestyle in North Ionia and the Aiolis (Clazomenian black-figure and relatedclasses of North Ionian Archaic II = NiA II and Aiolian Archaic II = AiA II).

The diagram on page 8 shows the classification of the Archaic pottery inSouth Ionia documenting our new classification and its relation to the systemof Cook.

The relative chronology given in the diagram is based on the stratigraph-ical sequences excavated in Miletus and Ephesus as well as on closed depositsat other sites of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. We possess, however,only a few fixed dates of the kind needed for the establishment of an absolutechronology. Cook discussed them some years ago.24 The nucleus of the cur-rent chronology rests on some synchronisms with Corinthian and Attic pottery

23 Cook (1998, 26–28) treats the ‘bird bowls and rosette bowls’ as a separate group between‘Geometric’ and ‘Early Orientalising’. Coldstream (1968, 330), on the other hand, regards theSubgeometric phenomenon in the East Aegean and in other Greek landscapes as a phase ofits own.

24 Cook 1997, 252–55, fig. 42–43; 1998, 8–10. Thanks to recent advances made in researchsome additions can be made. At Miletus new excavations have shown that habitation did notcease completely after the fatal destruction at the hand of the Persians in 494 BC, and eventhe production of Fikellura may have lingered into the first half of the 5th century BC (seevon Graeve and Senff 1990, 50, pl. 7.1–3; Kerschner 1995, 214–18). The debris of the destruc-tion of 494 has been found in several places in the city; it is an important starting-point forthe dating of the stratigraphical sequence at Miletus (von Graeve 1986, 41–43; von Graeveand Senff 1990, 50, pl. 7.3, Beil. 2; Kerschner 1995, 215–16, fig. 17; Niemeier 1999, 378–94).At Sardis further excavations of the destruction deposit caused by the Persian conquest in 547BC have brought to light a substantial number of well-preserved vessels (see Greenewalt, Rattéand Rautman 1996, 11–19, figs. 14–20; Greenewalt and Rautman 1998, 490–97, figs. 15–22).At Ephesus the effect of two initiatives of the Lydian king Croesus (560–546 BC) has beenfound during the excavations: the building of the marble temple for Artemis and possibly alsothe enforced relocation of the settlement (Kerschner 1997b, 88; in press). In Israel, recent exca-vations at Ashkelon, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Batash-Timnah have revealed sealed destruc-tion layers attributable to the conquests of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in the yearsaround 600 BC (Waldbaum and Magness 1997). The important site of Mezad Hashavyahusaw recently a careful study and reappraisal by Fantalkin (2001).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 7


NewClassification

Classification of R.M.Cook 1998

Early Orientalising

EWG

MWG I

MWG II

MWG III?

Hiatus? or

SiC

SiA II

SiA I

SiG

a

b

c

d

a

494

610

630

650

670675

650

625

600

590

560

494

Fikellura

580570E.g. Bilinguals (

New Classification of East Greek Pottery(demonstrated on the example of South Ionia)

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 8


found together with East Greek wares in closed deposits: it very much dependson the dating of these related wares. For this reason the calendar years givenhere must be regarded as general chronological indications, not as precisedates. The Archaic period is defined by the Geometric at the upper end andby the Classical at the lower, as we have shown in the diagram using theexample of South Ionia (South Ionian Late Geometric—SiLG and SouthIonian Classical—SiC). East Greek Geometric pottery has already been classifiedin a system similar to and compatible with that proposed here.25 The localClassical pottery of the East Aegean still awaits detailed study. In terms ofabsolute chronology, it seems reasonable to suppose that there are severaldifferences in dating across various regions of the East Aegean.26 The dia-gram is intended to illustrate not only the new classification but also its rela-tion to the system of Cook. The following lists of criteria will help to definethe proposed phases and give typical examples for the different phases of theperiod South Ionian Archaic I (SiA I).

SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC IIn geographical terms this period may be divided, wherever possible, accord-

ing to the different production centres, into Milesian Archaic I (MileA I),Samian Archaic I (SamoA I), Ephesian Archaic I (EpheA I) and other prove-nance groups as yet unlocated.

SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Ia (SiA Ia)In the course of this phase Orientalising motives, appearing only occa-

sionally among Geometric ornaments during the first decades of the 7th cen-tury, become more frequent and eventually dominant. At the end of this phasethe animal frieze is fully developed. South Ionian Archaic Ia corresponds, toa large degree, both to Early Orientalising and Early Wild Goat style inCook’s system27 as well as to the anatol¤zvn rodiakow ruymow of C. Kardara.28

The oinochoai nos. 1–3 and 10, as listed by E. La Rocca, also find theirplace in within this phase.29 It is important, however, to remember that onlyvery few vessels have so far been attributed to SiA Ia, which still gives thisphase a somewhat patchy appearance.

25 Coldstream 1968, 262–301, 330. The main difference between the new classification andColdstream’s is that Subgeometric is not considered a period of its own but divided accord-ing to the dominating stylistic currents between Late Geometric and Archaic Ia, as has beenexplained above.

26 For the phases of Geometric pottery in different regions, see Coldstream 1968, 330.27 Cook 1992, 256 with n. 13; 1998, 29–31, 33–36 with n. 5.28 Kardara 1963, 35–60.29 La Rocca 1987, 37–38. The oinochoe no. 1 is possibly, and nos. 4 and 9 are presum-

ably, of North Ionian origin.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 9

Selected examples:

1. Oinochoe at Laon Cook 1990, 55, fig. 1, pl. 9.2;1998, 35, fig. 8.4.

2. Oinochoe at Bochum Walter-Karydi 1986, 79, pl. 5;(Figs. 1–2) Kunisch 1996, 30–34; Cook

1998, 35, fig. 8.3.3. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, 110, no. 341, pl. 57.

Heraeum of Samos4. Oinochoe or amphora von Graeve 1971, 109–19, pls.

from Miletus 33–37; 1974, 102, no. 83,pl. 26.

5. Oinochoe from Miletus von Graeve 1974, 101, no. 78,(Fig. 3) pl. 26.

6. Oinochoe from Miletus von Graeve 1975, 48, no. 31,pl. 7.

7. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 54, no. 2, figs. 26,(Fig. 4) 28; Walter 1968, 126, no. 597,

pl. 119.8. Amphora from Miletus Kleiner 1959/60, 88, pl. 80.2;

(Fig. 5) Voigtländer 1986, 53, fig.18.1918; Cook 1998, 30,fig. 7.2.

9. Fragment from Miletus Kerschner 1999, 35, no. 24,fig. 23.

10. Fragment from Miletus Kardara 1963, 41, fig. 13.(Fig. 6)

11. Krater from Pythagoreion Eilmann 1933, 83, Beil. 26.5;on Samos (Fig. 7) Walter 1968, 112, no. 371,

pl. 65.12. Krater from the Heraeum Walter 1968, 113, no. 377,

of Samos (Fig. 8) fig. 33d, pls. 66–68;Kyrieleis 1981, 40, fig. 28.

13. Krater from Miletus von Graeve 1974, 101–02,no. 80, pl. 26.

14. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, 110, no. 334, possibly NiA IHeraeum of Samos pl. 57.

15. Oinochoe in Brussels Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, possibly NiA I(Fig. 9) IID, 2, pl. 2.6 = 104.6;

Schiering 1957, 15–16, 67–68,pl. 3.1; Walter 1968, 120,no. 501, pl. 90; Cook 1998,34, fig. 8.2.

16. Oinochoe from the Eilmann 1933, 135, fig. 86, late in SiA IaHeraeum of Samos Beil. 43.8; Walter 1968, 111,

fig. 30, no. 349, pl. 59.17. Oinochoe from Rhodes Cagiano de Azevedo 1941, late in SiA Ia

192–93, figs. 5–6; Walter1968, 119, no 492,pls. 87–88.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 10


Fig. 1. Oinochoe at Bochum (SiA Ia) (after Cook 1998, 35, fig. 8.3).

Fig. 2. Oinochoe at Bochum (SiA Ia) (after Kunisch 1996, 32).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 11


Fig. 4. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Ia) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 28).

Fig. 3. Oinochoe from Miletus (SiA Ia) (after von Graeve 1974, pl. 26.78).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 12


Fig. 5. Amphora from Miletus (SiA Ia) (after Cook 1998, 30, fig. 7.2).

Fig. 6. Fragment from Miletus (SiA Ia) (after Kardara 1963, 41, fig. 13).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 13


Fig. 7. Krater from Pythagoreion on Samos (SiA Ia) (after Eilmann 1933, Beil. 26.5).

Fig. 8. Krater from the Heraeum of Samos (SiA Ia) (after Kyrieleis 1981, 40, fig. 28).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 14


Characteristic features:

Shapes:• The range of shapes decorated in SiA Ia mainly encompasses round-mouthed

oinochoai, amphorae and kraters.• The characteristic shape of the oinochoe has a broad, bulbous body on a

wide ring base, a cylindrical neck with flaring lipless rim, round mouth anda vertical strap handle reaching from rim to shoulder.

Decorative system:• The figural decoration is restricted to the shoulder on oinochoai, to the

neck panel on amphorae and to the handle-zone on kraters. The belly ofthe oinochoe bears a broad belt consisting of several bands containingdifferent, symmetrically arranged ornament.

• The metope system of Late Geometric tradition persists on some vessels.In SiA Ia, the central panel is emphasised by being made broader than thelateral ones, whereas the panels of LG metope friezes (e.g. North IonianBird kotylai or Bird oinochoai, NiLG) were of identical width.

• Within a metope frieze, the figural decoration is restricted to the centralpanel. It nearly always has several animals, whereas in LG friezes panelsone animal—often a bird—was usual.

Fig. 9. Oinochoe in Brussels (SiA Ia, possibly NiA I) (after Mayence and Verhoogen 1949,pl. 104.6a).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 15

Ornaments:• The frames and division of the panels are usually made up of strips of sim-

ple ornament such as broken cable. In the following period they will bereplaced by simple lines.

• The necks of oinochoai are divided into several bands of ornament, whichmostly are arranged symmetrically and often show a dotted chequerboard,the whole framed by broken cables.

• The upper edge of the shoulder zone on oinochoai is often adorned by aband of tongues.

• Dotted volutes appear now for the first time. There are different variations,but these are not yet combined to form chains which will become a char-acteristic element of the following period SiA Ib.

• Favourite filling ornaments of this phase are a large lozenge made up offour small lozenges, and a vertical strip of small lozenges.

• Horizontal dividing bands are adorned with broken cable (with or withoutdots), chequerboard (with square or oblong panels, the blank ones with orwithout dots) or loop pattern.

• The lowest frieze of the oinochoe usually has rays or tongues.

Figures:• Figural decoration focuses on animals and mythical creatures, human beings

occurring only exceptionally. The predilection for animals is characteristicfor the whole period of SiA I.

• Large animals, like lions or boars, are often antithetically arranged, threat-ening each other or weaker creatures; sometimes they are fighting.

• The heads are regularly rendered in outline technique but sometimes theyare still filled with paint in the tradition of LG silhouette painting. Bothtechniques may occur on the same vessel.

• Eyes are comparatively large and often still rounded. The upper contourof the eye sometimes coincides with the outline of the head.

• The interior details of the bodies are indicated by schematic reserved arches.• The animals are often standing on the tips of their toes giving the impres-

sion of insecurity.• The manes of lions are often indicated by scales, which may at times be

dotted.

The phase SiA Ia as a whole is characterised by a great variety of style offigures and ornament. This seems to be a feature typical for the initial phaseof new styles as yet unable to develop canonical formulae. Every vase is treatedas an individual and there are no indications of serial production in the periodSiA Ia, which, however, will be evident later in SiA Ic and SiA Id.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 16


SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Ib (SiA Ib)This phase essentially corresponds with Cook’s Middle Wild Goat style I30

the main difference being that SiA Ib terminates earlier than MWG I. Thereason for this must be that Cook’s decisive feature of MWG I was the occur-rence of ornamental bands dividing the animal friezes,31 while the line betweenSia Ib and SiA Ic is defined by various other criteria, among which the syn-tax of the animal friezes is the most important one. Many examples listedhere as SiA Ib are categorised by Kardara as usterow anatol¤zvn ruymow andsxolh Arkãdvn.32 The first of these groups, however, also includes coevalpieces from East Aegean regions outside South Ionia.

Selected examples:

18. Oinochoe from Naxos Lentini 2000, 427–28, early in SiA Ibon Sicily (Fig. 10) figs. 308–310.33

19. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, no. 510, pl. 97. early in SiA IbHeraeum of Samos

20. Oinochoe in Paris, Louvre Schiering 1957, 15–17, pl. 3.2; early in SiA Ib(Fig. 11) Kardara 1963, 62, 67, no. 1,

fig. 34.21. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, no. 502,

Heraeum of Samos pls. 91–93.22. Oinochoe from Temir Walter 1968, no. 503, pls.

Gora in St Petersburg 94–96; Sokolov 1974, 26–27;(Fig. 12) Cook 1998, 36, fig. 8.5;

Boardman 1998, 152, fig. 285.23. Oinochoe from Boltyshka Onajko 1966, 14, pls. 1–2;

(Fig. 13) Kardara 1963, 75, 77, no. 2,fig. 41.

24. Oinochoe in Rome Giuliano 1975; Walter-Karydi(Fig. 14) 1986, 79, pl. 4.

25. Oinochoe from Miletus Käufler 1999, 211, no. 1,figs. 1–6.

26. Amphora from Nemirov34 Onajko 1966, 15, pl. 3.3–8;(Fig. 15) Walter 1968, no. 609, pl. 123,

Vakhtina 1998, 128, 130, 132,figs. 3–4.

27. Amphora from Miletus von Graeve 1973/74, 104,no. 95, pl. 28.

30 Cook 1992, 256 with nn. 15, 17; 1998, 36–39.31 See Cook 1998, 39.32 Kardara 1963, 61–78, 91–94.33 The rotelle at the attachment of the handle proposed by Lentini (2000, 428, fig. 310) is

a free reconstruction not based on any fragments preserved.34 The authors could not accept the attribution as an oinochoe after having studied the frag-

ments in the State Hermitage, St Petersburg, June 2005.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 17

28. Dinos from the Heraeum Eilmann 1933, 84–85, fig. 30,of Samos Beil. 27.2; Walter 1968, 68–70,

123–24, nos. 559–560, fig. 42,pls. 106–107.

29. Dinos from Ephesus Kerschner 1997a; Kerschner EpheA Ib(Fig. 16) et al. 2002, 199–206, fig. 7.

30. Lids from Miletus von Graeve 1973/74, 105,nos. 102–103, pl. 28.

31. Lids from Miletus (Fig. 17) Posamentir 2002, 11–13, 22,nos. 1–3, fig. 1.

32. Cup with everted rim Kerschner 1997b, 168–69, 194,from Ephesus no. 125, pl. 16.

33. Stemmed dish from Miletus Heinrich and Senff 1992, 104,(Fig. 18) pl. 19.1.

34. Dish from Miletus Villing 1999, 196, 201, no. 8,fig. 11.

35. Oinochoe from Arkades Levi 1927/29, 353–55, fig. 462, late in SiA Ibon Crete pl. 24; Walter 1968, 75,

no. 594, pl. 118.36. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, no. 526, pl. 100. late in SiA Ib

Heraeum of Samos


Shapes:• The shapes preferred by SiA Ib vase painters are round-mouthed oinochoai,

kraters, dinoi, lids, cups with everted rim (Knickrandschalen) and stemmeddishes. Trefoil-mouthed oinochoai make their first appearance but still remainrare.

• The characteristic shape of the oinochoe has a broad, bulbous body, a cylin-drical neck with flaring lipless rim, a round mouth and a vertical strap han-dle from rim to shoulder. The diameter of the ring base is narrower thanin SiA Ia. The upper attachment of the vertical strap handle to the lip ismostly adorned, on both sides, by rotelles (= small discs).

Decorative system:• In SiA Ib, a second animal frieze is added to the one traditionally placed

on the shoulder of oinochoai. It encircles the belly at the level of its largestdiameter. On some oinochoai probably to be dated early in Sia Ib, the tra-ditional SiA Ia decoration system of a broad belt of three or more orna-mental bands encircling the belly is still alive. A neck panel decorated withanimals occurs on a few round-mouthed oinochoai.


Table (cont.)

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 18


Fig. 10. Oinochoe from Naxos on Sicily (early in SiA Ib) (after Lentini 2000, 427, fig. 308).

Fig. 11. Oinochoe in Paris (early in SiA Ib) (after Schiering 1957, pl. 3.2).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 19


Fig. 13. Oinochoe from Boltyshka (SiA Ib) (after Onajko 1966, pl. 2).

Fig. 12. Oinochoe from Temir Gora in St Petersburg (SiA Ib) (after Sokolov 1974, 27).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 20


Fig. 14. Oinochoe in Rome (SiA Ib) (after Giuliano 1975, fig. 3).

Fig. 15. Amphora from Nemirov (SiA Ib) (after Onajko 1966, pl. 3.5).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 21


Fig. 16. Dinos from Ephesus (SiA Ib) (after Kerschner 1997a, 10, fig. 1).

Fig. 17. Lid from Miletus (SiA Ib) (after Posamentir 2002, 13, fig. 1.1).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 22


• A new composition for the shoulder frieze of oinochoai is developed dur-ing phase SiA Ib becoming nearly canonical until the beginning of SiA Idat which time alternatives appear. The lower joint of the handle interruptsthe shoulder frieze and in this way defines the central axis on the oppositeside. This centre is often accentuated by a complex symmetrical volutemotive sometimes enriched with further ornaments. The animals are arrangedantithetically around this central floral ornament.

• The belly frieze of SiA Ib oinochoai and dinoi undergoes a different treat-ment to those on the shoulder. We see the introduction of a new compo-sitional concept in South Ionian vase painting: the frieze of animals movingin one direction around the vessel. Two kinds of movement occur: runningor striding. This continuous circle is occasionally interrupted and accentu-ated in that a single animal is shown turning in the opposite direction.

• The animal friezes are often high enough to leave some free space abovethe backs and heads of the figures.

Ornaments:• The shoulder-zone on oinochoai is framed with simple vertical lines instead

of the ornamental bands of earlier times.• As in SiA Ia the upper edge of the shoulder zone on oinochoai is often

adorned by a band of tongues. Apart from on some early pieces thesetongues in SiA Ib are encircled by a fine horizontal line.

Fig. 18. Stemmed dish from Miletus (SiA Ib) (after Heinrich and Senff 1992, pl. 19.1).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 23

• Horizontal dividing bands are adorned with loop patterns, hatched mean-ders and squares (alternating crosshatched and filled with small ornaments).Broken cable and chequerboard are rare in SiA Ib. The loop pattern is thepreferred ornament for separating animal friezes on the shoulder and bellyof oinochoai.

• A broad band filled with an orthogonal or obliquely-hatched meander isoften the chief ornamental band on the neck of amphorae and oinochoaias well as on the belly of oinochoai.

• Volutes are accompanied by dotted bands. They are joined together to formchains, often filling the lowest frieze on dinoi or the central disc on cupsand dishes.

• As in SiA Ia rays or tongues still occur in the lowest frieze of the oinochoai.Appearing for the first time are chains of lotus flowers and buds. Broadlyshaped flowers are typical for SiA Ib.

• There is a greater variety of filling ornament in SiA Ib than ever before,some variants running to considerable complexity. Most of them are deli-cately drawn and small compared with figures, giving the whole a delicatelylight effect.

• Where half roundels are suspended from the upper line of a frieze they areneatly framed with trim rows of petals.

• At the end of SiA Ib triangles, suspended or rising from the borders offriezes, make their first appearance. Other than in the following phase SiAIc, when they become obligatory, the suspended triangles of SiA Ib are notyet invariably used to separate one animal from the other.

• On dishes chains of volutes, accompanied by dotted bands and rosettes con-sisting of elongated, framed leaves, were used as the central ornament ofthe interior.

Figures:• An outstanding characteristic of SiA Ib is the great variety of species mak-

ing up the animal friezes. Dogs, wild goats and hares (with dotted skin) arefrequently shown. Griffins, lions, panthers, bulls and geese occur only in theantithetical compositions of the shoulder frieze. Wild goats and foxes arefound both on the shoulder and on the belly, dogs and hares only on thebelly.

• Two reasons are given for this line-up of animals: grazing or being hunted.Hunting-dogs are occasionally running in the opposite direction as if to traptheir victims, producing at the same time a pleasant variation in the com-positional rhythm. There are as yet no grazing wild goats or deer to befound in the belly friezes of oinochoai.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 24


• Figural details show greater differentiation and delicacy than in the previ-ous phase while their disposition becomes ever more canonical.

• The reserved parts of the bodies are frequently filled with fine dots.• The manes of lions now consist of small lozenges. Scales, once popular in

SiA Ia, occasionally occur as a backward-looking feature.• Eyes are consistently almond-shaped by now with a short line projecting at

one or both pointed ends. Because their heads are painted in silhouette itis only the geese which retain the old rounded shape of the eye.

• Only two legs are shown when animals are running, whereas striding ani-mals are given all of their four legs.

SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Ic (SiA Ic)As we remarked, our new classification divides Cook’s MWG II into two

separate phases: SiA Ic and SiA Id. SiA Ic, the earlier of the two, alreadycontains the stylistically most advanced examples of Cook’s MWG I (seeabove). The painted vases of the phases SiA Ic and SiA Id show obvioussigns of serial production. These vessels were exported in considerably higherquantities than those of the preceding phases of South Ionian vase paintingwhich is why they have been more extensively represented and discussed inthose earlier publications of East Greek pottery primarily based on finds fromRhodes, Delos and colonial sites such as Naukratis.

Selected examples:

37. Lévy-Oinochoe in Paris Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6, pls. early in SiA Ic6–7 = 22, 49; Walter 1968,73–74, no. 592, pls. 116–117;Kopeikina 1982, 6–7, fig. 1;Boardman 1998, 153, fig. 297.

38. Oinochoe from Knossos Moignard 1996, 437, fig. 88, early in SiA Icpl. 111.11.

39. Oinochoe from the Walter 1968, 122, no. 537, early in SiA IcHeraeum of Samos pls. 102, 116.

40. Stemmed dish from Kardara 1963, 91, 94, fig. 57. early in SiA IcKameiros (Fig. 19)

41. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 47–50, no. 13, early in SiA Ic(Fig. 20) figs. 19–20; Walter 1968,

73–74, no. 601, pl. 120.42. Oinochoe in Tübingen Wallenstein 1973, 23–25, early in SiA Ic

(Fig. 21) pls. 8–10.43. Krater from the Heraeum Walter 1968, 69, no. 556, early in SiA Ic

of Samos pl. 105.44. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 43–45, no. 1,

fig. 14.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 25

45. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 82, no. 1; 87,(Fig. 22) fig. 67; ca. 1933, IIDh, 1,

pl. 6.1–4 = 474.1–4.46. Oinochoe in Richmond Cook 1998, 37, fig. 8.6.47. Oinochoe in Boston Boardman 1998, 153, fig. 288.48. Oinochoe in Munich Walter-Karydi 1968, 18–19,

fig. 2, pls. 273–274.49. Oinochoe in Zurich Isler 1973, IID, 7, pl. 2 = 44.

(Fig. 23)50. Oinochoe in Brussels Mayence and Verhoogen 1949,

(Fig. 24) IID, 1, pl. 2.1 = 104.1;3.1 = 105.1.

51. Oinochoe from Kameiros Pottier 1923, IIDc, 5, pl. 5.2 =in Paris 21.2; Kardara 1963, 94–95,

fig. 59; Walter-Karydi 1973,132, no. 514, pl. 62; Cook1998, 39, fig. 8.7.

52. Dinos from the Heraeum Eilmann 1933, 85–87, figs.of Samos (Fig. 25) 31–32, pls. 2–3; Walter 1968,

69, 124, no. 563, fig. 43,pls. 108–109.

53. Dinos in Knossos (Fig. 26) Moignard 1996, 451,figs. 81–82, pl. 103.

54. Cup with everted rim Schlotzhauer 2000, 408, 412,from Miletus (Fig. 27) fig. 293, colourpl. IV/6.

55. Cup with everted rim Schlotzhauer 2000, 408, 412,from Miletus fig. 295.

56. Stemmed dish with high Kinch 1914, 212–14, fig. 102;rim from Cyprus in Villing 1999, 190–91, fig. 1.London (Fig. 28)

57. Stemmed dish from the Technau 1929, 26, Beil. 14.4–5;Heraeum of Samos Walter 1968, 125, no. 579,

pl. 113.58. Stemmed dish in Rome Paribeni 1904, 279–83, no. 3,

pl. 26; Walter-Karydi 1973,60, 136, no. 651, fig. 127,pl. 77.

59. Stemmed dish from the Walter 1968, 125, no. 577, late in SiA IcHeraeum of Samos pl. 112.

60. Lid from Miletus (Fig. 29) Posamentir 2002, 15, 22, late in SiA Icno. 6, fig. 2.

61. Lid from the Heraeum Technau 1929, 22–23, fig. 17.1; late in SiA Icof Samos Walter 1968, 125, no. 576,

pl. 112.


Table (cont.)

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 26


Fig. 19. Stemmed dish from Kameiros (early in SiA Ic) (after Kardara 1963, 91, fig. 57).

Fig. 20. Oinochoe from Kameiros (early in SiA Ic) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 19).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:03 Page 27


Fig. 21. Oinochoe in Tübingen (early in SiA Ic) (after Wallenstein 1973, pl. 8).

Fig. 22. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Ic) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 67).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 28


Fig. 23. Oinochoe in Zurich (SiA Ic) (after Isler 1973, pl. 44).

Fig. 24. Oinochoe in Brussels (SiA Ic) (after Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, pl. 104.1).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 29


Fig. 25. Dinos from the Heraeum of Samos (SiA Ic) (after Eilmann 1933, 86, fig. 32).

Fig. 26. Dinos from Knossos (SiA Ic) (after Moignard 1996, fig. 81).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 30


Fig. 27. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA Ic) (after Schlotzhauer 2000, 408, fig. 293).

Fig. 28. Stemmed dish with high rim from Cyprus in London (SiA Ic) (after Villing 1999, 191, fig. 1).

Fig. 29. Lid from Miletus (late in SiA Ic) (after Posamentir 2002, 15, fig. 2.6).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 31


Shapes:• The range of vessels bearing painted decoration has been considerably broad-

ened by now. Among the shapes preferred by SiA Ic vase painters are thetrefoil-mouthed oinochoai, dinoi, kraters, bowls, lids, cups with everted rimand (stemmed) dishes.

• Among oinochai the type possessing a trefoil mouth becomes predominantand supersedes the earlier type with a rounded mouth. The body of thesetrefoil oinochoai is less broad than those of their predecessors. The verticalaxis becomes ever more important while the largest diameter has shiftedfrom the middle of the belly to the lower edge of the shoulder. The raisedhandle is usually made up of three connected rods and adorned by tworotelles at its upper attachment.

Decorative system:• The main innovation of SiA Ic which marks this phase off from the pre-

ceding SiA Ib is the stereotyped use of triangles and half roundels so impor-tant in giving a standardised rhythm to the animal friezes. Both ornamentsare usually suspended from the frame in rigorous alternation. The pointsof the suspended triangles separate the bodies of the grazing ruminants whilethe half roundels fit smoothly into the slightly curved outline of their backs.Upright triangles sprout between their legs and stabilise their movement.

• The deceleration of the movement within the animal friezes is the result ofa change of subject matter: hunting scenes, so prevalent in the body dec-oration of oinochoai in SiA Ib, are losing their importance at this time.When these are still to be found the motion of animals is retarded by largetriangular and rounded ornaments protruding from the frame. From SiAIc onwards uniform friezes are invariably dominated by ever-repeated wildgoats and deer bending their heads towards the ground.

• Some vase painters of SiA Ic increase the number of friezes on the bellyof oinochoai. The Lévy oinochoe, for example, has five friezes of grazinganimals one above the other in small but sophisticated variation.

• Animal friezes are still rather high, as they were in SiA Ib.

Ornaments:• Cable pattern, single or multiple, has now become the canonical ornament

decorating the neck of oinochoai.• Horizontal divisions at this time are most often made with simple bands,

sometimes highlighted with a central line in additional red. Loop patternand cable have become rare, whereas a zigzag band, filled with antithetictriangles, is a new addition to the ornamental repertoire.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 32


• In SiA Ic the chain of lotus flowers and buds has become the standardornament of the lowest frieze on oinochoai while the band of tongues dis-appears entirely. A circle of narrow, filled rays can be found as an infre-quent alternative. A combination both of rays and a chain of lotus flowersand buds is very rare indeed.

• There still is a great variety of filling ornaments. They often are denselypacked to give a tapestry-like effect. The individual patterns tend to be morestandardised, simpler and with fewer details than in SiA Ib.

• The suspended half roundels are still framed by rows of petals but at thesame time a simplified version appears consisting of short radial lines betweentwo framing curves which J. Boardman has so aptly called ‘tramlines’.35

• Additional red is used for in emphasising some details of intricate orna-ments. In certain parts of the vessels individual ornaments are painted inadditional white on the dark glazed ground (e.g. dot rosettes or eyes on themouth of trefoil-mouthed oinochoai).

• The central ornaments of dishes are mostly complex motives (e.g. chains ofvolutes and palmettes), as they already were in SiA Ib.

Figures:• The number of species shown in the belly friezes of SiA Ic oinochoai has

been reduced compared with SiA Ib. Wild goats are by far the most favouriteanimals. Fallow deer offer some variation. Sphinxes and geese are commonon the shoulder.

• The standardisation of the belly friezes on oinochoai leads to a uniformityof the grazing ruminants extending even to the smallest detail.

• The habit of filling the reserved wing base of geese, griffins and sphinxeswith fine dots is now fairly rare.

• Additional red is now regularly used for emphasising certain details ofanimals.36

SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC Id (SiA Id)This phase encompasses the stylistically advanced examples of Cook’s MWG

II as well as those of his phase MWG III which he introduced in 1992 with-out giving a precise definition.37 The vase painting of SiA Id is characterisedby continuing standardisation and a new tendency towards simplification.

35 Boardman 1998, 143 figs. 291–292. There exist some examples of half roundels in SiAIc showing the transition from petals to tramlines on one and the same piece, e.g. Jacopi 1931,43–45, no. 1, fig. 14; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 514, pl. 62; cf. Schlotzhauer in press a.

36 See Schlotzhauer in press a.37 Cook 1992, 257, 260–62; 1998, 39–45.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 33

Selected examples:

62. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 44–46, no. 3, early in SiA Id(Fig. 30) fig. 15; Walter 1968, 126,

no. 603, pl. 120.63. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 80, no. 1; 84–85, early in SiA Id

(Fig. 31) figs. 64–65; ca. 1933, IIDh,4, pl. 4.1 = 415.1.

64. Fragment of an oinochoe Kopeikina 1982, 8, fig. 2.7. early in SiA Idfrom Berezan in Odessa

65. Stemmed dish from Lindos Kinch 1914, 212–14, fig. 101; early in SiA Id(Fig. 32) Walter-Karydi 1973, 134,

no. 562, pl. 66.66. Stemmed dish from Kopeikina 1982, 14, 17, fig. 11. early in SiA Id

Berezan in St Petersburg67. Oinochoe at Karlsruhe Thimme 1986, 89–91; Cook

(Fig. 33) 1998, 39–40, fig. 8.8.68. Oinochoe in Toronto Walter-Karydi 1973, 51,

no. 526, pl. 63.69. Fragments of an oinochoe Kopeikina 1982, 7–8, fig. 2.8.

from Berezan inSt Petersburg

70. Fragment of an oinochoe Kopeikina 1982, 9, 11, fig. 5.from Berezan in Odessa

71. Oinochoe in Torino Lo Porto 1969, IID, 3,(Fig. 34) pl. 1.2–3 = 1777.2–3;

Walter-Karydi 1973, 132, no. 516, pl. 62.

72. Oinochoe from Rhodes Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6,in Paris pl. 5.8 = 21.8; Kinch 1914,

260, fig. 131; Cook 1998,39–40, fig. 8.9.

73. Oinochoe from Rhodes Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6, pl. 5.9 =in Paris 21.9; Walter-Karydi 1973, 132,

no. 515, pl. 62.74. Fragment of an oinochoe Kopeikina 1982, 9, 12, fig. 6.1.

from Berezan inSt Petersburg

75. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1931, 338, no. 1, figs.(Fig. 35) 372–373, pl. 6; ca. 1933,

IIDh, 4, pl. 4.2–3 = 415.2–3;IIDh, 4, pl. 5 = 416.

76. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1933, 85, no. 1,figs. 91–93, 95.

77. Oinochoe from Rhodes Walter 1968, 126, no. 606,pl. 121; Boardman 1998,154, fig. 291.

78. Oinochoe from Rhodes Kinch 1914, 198, fig. 79.79. Oinochoe from Vroulia Kinch 1914, 127, pl. 24.5;

Cook 1998, 42, fig. 8.10.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 34


80. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1933, 85–86, 89, no. 3,(Fig. 36) fig. 96.

81. Oinochoe in Turin Lo Porto 1969, IID, 3,pl. 2 = 1778.

82. Oinochoe from Kameiros Kinch 1914, 211, 213, no. 2,in Paris (Fig. 37) fig. 100; Pottier 1923,

IIDc, 5, pl. 4.4 = 20.4.83. Oinochoe from Kameiros Kinch 1914, 214–15, fig. 104;

in London Walter-Karydi 1973, 132,no. 534, pl. 64.

84. Oinochoe from Ashkelon Stager 1996, 67, 69, fig. 10(fragments in the upper threerows and in the lower leftcorner).

85. Oinochoe from Miletus Heinz 1990, 59, pl. 14.24;(Fig. 38) Cook 1998, 44–45, fig. 8.12.

86. Oinochoe from Berezan in Kopeikina 1982, 9, 13, fig. 7.1.St Petersburg (Fig. 39)

87. Bowl from the Heraeum Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 290,of Samos pl. 37.

88. Lid from Miletus (Fig. 40) Posamentir 2002, 17, 25,no. 22, fig. 4.

89. Stemmed dish from Kinch 1914, 210, fig. 95;Rhodes in Florence Kardara 1963, 120, no. 22,

pl. 10g; Walter-Karydi 1973,134, no. 563, pl. 73.

90. Stemmed dish from Kinch 1914, 251, fig. 124;Kameiros in Paris Walter-Karydi 1973, 134,

no. 564, pl. 73; Boardman1998, 155, fig. 294.

91. Stemmed dish from Jacopi ca. 1933, IIDh, 3,Kameiros pl. 2.1 = 413.1.

92. Stemmed dish from Kinch 1914, 74–75, no. 10,Vroulia (Fig. 41) pl. 3.1.

93. Stemmed dish from Jacopi 1933, 94, 99, no. 1,Kameiros (Fig. 42) fig. 106.

94. Fragment of a stemmed Kopeikina 1982, 8–9, fig. 3.2.dish from Berezan

95. Fragments of a stemmed Kopeikina 1982, 18, fig. 12.1.dish from Berezan inSt Petersburg

96. Stemmed dish from Vulci Walter-Karydi 1968, 20,in Munich pl. 276.1; 1973, 136,

no. 655, pl. 80.97. Stemmed dish from Rhodes Walter-Karydi 1973, 134,

no. 570, pl. 74.

Table (cont.)

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 35

98. Stemmed dish from Kinch 1914, 21, no. 3b,Vroulia pl. 17.3; Cook 1998, 43,

fig. 8.11.99. Stemmed dish from Kardara 1963, 122, no. 1,

Kameiros in London pl. 10a; Boardman 1998,155, fig. 293.

100. Stemmed dish from Kinch 1914, 20–21, no. 3a,Vroulia pl. 4.1.

101. Bowls from Miletus Villing 1999, 193, 201,nos. 5–6, figs. 7–8.

102. Polemarchos-Krater from Petrie 1886, 18, pl. 4.3; MileA IdNaukratis in London Schiering 1957, 40–41,(Fig. 43) pl. 11.3; Walter-Karydi 1973,

136, no. 645, pl. 77.103. Fragments of an krater Kopeikina 1982, 14, 16,

from Berezan in Odessa fig. 10.1.104. Dinos from Rhodes in Kinch 1914, 215, fig. 103a–b;

Berlin Walter-Karydi 1973, 133,no. 559, pls. 65–66; Kopeikina1982, 10, 14, fig. 8.

105. Fragment of a dinos von Graeve 1973/74, 103,from Miletus no. 87, pl. 27; Walter-Karydi

1973, 59, 136, no. 646, pl. 78.106. Fragment of a dinos Kopeikina 1982, 11, 15, fig. 9.2.

from Berezan 107. Stemmed dish from Kopeikina 1982, 20, 22, late in SiA Id

Berezan in Kiev fig. 14.1.108. Oinochoe in Munich Walter-Karydi 1968, 18, 20, late in SiA Id

pl. 275; 1973, 132, no. 527,pls. 64, 73.

109. Amphora from Thebes/ Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 598, late in SiA IdGurna in Cairo (Fig. 44) pl. 78; Weber 2001, 139–40,

pl. 22.4; Dupont 1992, 156,fig. 2a.


Shapes:• Shapes preferred by SiA Id vase painters are trefoil-mouthed oinochoai with

high or squat bodies, amphorae, the dinoi, kraters, lids, cups with evertedrim, bowls and the (stemmed) dishes.

• The trefoil oinochoai with high bodies are slimmer than they were in SiAIc. Their shoulders are more rounded, the shape as a whole becoming moreovoid.


Table (cont.)

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 36


Fig. 30. Oinochoe from Kameiros (early in SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 15).

Fig. 31. Oinochoe from Kameiros (early in SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 65).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 37


Fig. 32. Stemmed dish from Lindos (early in SiA Id) (after Kinch 1914, 213–14, fig. 101).

Fig. 33. Oinochoe at Karlsruhe (SiA Id) (after Cook 1998, 40, fig. 8.8).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 38


Fig. 34. Oinochoe in Turin (SiA Id) (after Lo Porto 1969, pl. 1777.2).

Fig. 35. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1931, fig. 372).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 39


Fig. 36. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA Id) (after Jacopi 1933, fig. 96).

Fig. 37. Oinochoe from Kameiros in Paris (SiA Id) (after Kinch 1914, 213, fig. 100).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 40


Fig. 38. Oinochoe from Miletus (SiA Id) (after Heinz 1990, pl. 14.24).

Fig. 39. Oinochoe from Berezan in St Petersburg (SiA Id) (photograph S. Solovyov, State Hermitage, St Petersburg).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 41


Fig. 40. Lid from Miletus (SiA Id) (after Posamentir 2002, 17, fig. 4.22).

Fig. 41. Stemmed dish from Vroulia (SiA Id) (after Kinch 1914, pl. 3.1).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 42


Fig. 42. Stemmed dish from Kameiros in London (SiA Id) (after Kardara 1963, pl. 10a).

Fig. 43. Polemarchos-Krater from Naukratis in London (SiA Id) (photograph; British Museum).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 43

Decorative system:• SiA Id sees a revival of the former metope system but in a newly modified

form: two groups of suspended filled rays are used as a frame for a cen-tral panel containing a solitary figure such as a protome, or a large orna-ment. This pattern may be found on all types of vessels but is extremelypopular on dishes. On closed shapes it is confined to the shoulder frieze.

• Another modification of an earlier concept often adorns the belly of someoinochoai: on these the animal frieze is replaced by a broad belt dividedinto three bands. Other than in the SiA Ia version the decorative belt ofSiA Id Gürtelbandkannen38 employs but one simple ornament, frequently ahooked meander between two broad bands of dark glaze, often enlivenedby stripes of additional red. A similar decoration appears on dishes, dinoi,kraters and cups with everted rim.

• In SiA Id the animals take up more space within the frieze which oftengives the impression of being squeezed between the lines of the frames.

• In SiA Id geese are often lined up within a frieze like wild goats or deer.


38 Schiering 1957, 20–21.

Fig. 44. Amphora from Thebes/Gurna in Cairo (late in SiA Id) (photograph: DAI Neg. 45913/14).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 44


Ornaments:• A new ornament in the form of meander and square appears on the neck

of oinochoai and soon becomes quite frequent.• The band of suspended tongues framing the upper border of the shoulder

frieze on oinochoai now degenerates into a ladder band.• Favourite decorations on dividing bands are the hooked meander, zigzag

with T-filling or squares, alternating either with diagonal crosses and dotsor with larger dots.

• Filling ornaments become less frequent.• Reduced space within the animal friezes leads to flattening and elongation

of the suspended half roundels.• There is less variety in suspended or standing triangles which often bear a

dotted loop at the apex.39

• Framing or dividing elements in metope friezes now consist of groups ofwedge-shaped rays with long, thin apices.

• The central rod of the handles of oinochoai may have a simple decorationof oblique strokes.

• A rosette, consisting of filled leaves without a line frame is commonly usedas a central ornament on dishes and cups. We are as yet unsure whetherthis motive already appeared in the preceding phase SiA Ic.

• In line with the elongation of the bodies of oinochoai the lotus flowers andbuds in the lowest frieze also increase in size. On the types showing a deco-rative belt (Gürtelbandkannen) the vegetable ornament is replaced by high,filled rays which sometimes cover the entire lower half of the body. Onsquat oinochoai the lowest frieze has groups of vertical strokes or may beleft entirely undecorated.

Figures:• The bodies of the quadrupeds are now unnaturally elongated so that fewer

animals are needed to fill the length of the frieze.• A new motive appears in the shoulder friezes of SiA Id oinochoai: wild

goats or fallow deer with bent forelegs. Their head is either upright or low-ered and turned around.

• Human and animal protomes are frequent on dishes and oinochoai withmetope decoration.

• Additional red continues to be used regularly to enhance certain details ofthe animals.

39 See Schlotzhauer in press a.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 45

SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC II (SiA II)Most of the figural and ornamental vase painting of this period corresponds

to the Fikellura style as defined by Cook.40 At the present stage of researchthere is no indication that painted pottery with figural and complex orna-mental decoration of the period SiA II was produced anywhere else in SouthIonia except in Miletus.41 The examples listed below might, therefore, be moreprecisely described as Milesian Archaic II (MileA II).

SOUTH IONIAN ARCHAIC IIaSiA IIa is an intermediate period between SiA I and SiA II. When we

accept as a rule that the first appearance of one or more decisive new fea-tures marks the beginning of a new phase or period, this intermediate phaseshould rather be called SiA IIa—as we propose in this paper—than SiA I/II.The decisive criterion for the beginning of the period SiA II is the appear-ance of the silhouette technique. It is first to be observed with ornaments,especially in the rendering of the lotus flowers and buds. On vessels of theinitial phase SiA IIa the figural friezes tend to be more conservative andadhere in part to the traditional outline technique. In our classification sys-tem we use the first appearance of a stylistic element of importance for futuredevelopment to determine the establishment of phases and periods. In thisway transitional pieces showing the new silhouette technique are alreadyclassified as SiA IIa.42 Those vessels listed below as SiA IIa had been classifiedby Cook either as MWG II or as Fikellura.43 For now the definition of SiAIIa is based exclusively on stylistic arguments because stratigraphical evidenceis still lacking. Future excavations might show if perhaps there is a chrono-logical overlap of the phases SiA Id and SiA II.44 It might be wise to keepin mind the situation which obtained in Athens during the Late Archaic periodwhere the old black-figure technique and the new red-figure vase paintingwere practised side by side for many years.


40 Cook 1933/34.41 See Akurgal et al. 2002, 41–44.42 Cook 1933/34, 4–5; see also Schlotzhauer in press a.43 Cook 1933/34, 4–5; 1998, 46, fig. 8.13b; cf. Schlotzhauer in press a.44 Cf. Cook 1933/34, 5: ‘There is not enough evidence to establish the relation of this frag-

ment [the Vathy Lion Fragment] to the Lion Group, whether it is an ancestor or a collateral.’

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 46


Selected examples:

110. Stemmed dish from Kopeikina. 1982, 21–22, early in SiA IIaBerezan in Kiev fig. 15.

111. Oinochoe or amphora Cook 1933/34, 4–5, no. A1from Samos (Fig. 45) (‘The Vathy Lion Fragment’),

pl. 14b; Walter-Karydi 1973,33, 115, no. 12, pl. 8.

112. Oinochoe from Kameiros Jacopi 1933, 22, no. 1,(Fig. 46) figs. 16–17.

113. Oinochoe in the Walters Walter-Karydi 1973, 132,Art Gallery no. 518, pl. 63.

114. Oinochoe from Kameiros Kinch 1914, 202, fig. 84;(Fig. 47) Pottier 1923, IIDc, 5, pl. 4.5;

Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 531,pl. 63.

115. Oinochoe from Kameiros Pottier 1923, IIDc, 6,in Paris pl. 5.11 = 21.1.

116. Cup with everted rim Schlotzhauer 2001, 120–21,from Miletus (Fig. 48) pl. 16.

117. Cup with everted rim Schlotzhauer 2001, 122,from Miletus pl. 17.1, 17.3.

118. Cup with everted rim Schlotzhauer in press a.from Miletus (Fig. 49)

119. Cup with everted rim Schlotzhauer in press a.from Miletus (Figs. 50–51)

120. Stemmed dish in London Kardara 1963, 125, fig. 81.121. Stemmed dish from Kinch 1914, 203, fig. 85.

Rhodes in London(Fig. 52)

122. Stemmed dish from Kopeikina 1982, 22, fig. 16.Berezan in St Petersburg


Shapes:• The vase painters of SiA IIa preferred the same shapes as in the preced-

ing phase, i.e. trefoil-mouthed oinochoai with high or squat bodies, amphorae,dinoi, kraters, lids, cups with everted rim and those without pronouncedrim, bowls and (stemmed) dishes. Some exceptional shapes like aryballoi,tripods, chalices and others were newly adopted by South Ionian workshops.

• Miniature vessels become popular now, in particular amphoriskoi, but alsominiature versions of many other shapes like krateriskoi, diniskoi, small cupsand mugs, etc.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 47


Fig. 45. Oinochoe or amphora from Samos (SiA IIa) (after Cook 1933/34, pl. 14b).

Fig. 46. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA IIa) (after Jacopi 1933, fig. 17).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 48


Fig. 47. Oinochoe from Kameiros (SiA IIa) (after Kinch 1914, 202, fig. 84).

Fig. 48. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA Iia) (after Schlotzhauer 2001, pl. 16.3).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 49


Fig. 49. Cup with everted rim from Miletus (SiA IIa) (after Schlotzhauer in press a).


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 50



Fig. 52. Stemmed dish from Rhodes in London (SiA IIa) (after Kinch 1914, 203, fig. 85).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 51

Decorative system:• Purely ornamental friezes appear beside or even instead of animal friezes.

On oinochoai they often occur on the shoulder, on cups with everted rimon the belly and below.

• Ornamental friezes may be arranged by now in the form of rows of uncon-nected single motives giving the impression of floating in the air.

• Another new element is the doubling or multiplication of bands filled withornaments like crescents, rays, etc. Sometimes these bands cover half ormore of the belly of a vessel as a coherent zone.

• New decoration systems like rosette-net pattern or stylised feathers maycover great parts or even the whole of the vessels.

• Buds and volutes appear as adornment of the joins of handles.• One of the main innovations of SiA II is the omitting of the outline of

ornaments (the same feature can be seen on figures, see below).• Single buds were isolated from the lotus-bud frieze and used as single motives

in friezes and at the joins of handles.• The variety of filling ornaments is decreasing.• A number of new ornaments appear in SiA IIa: pomegranates arranged in

friezes, star pattern and many more.

Figures:• Parts of the bodies of human beings and animals are in general rendered

no longer in outline as in SiA I. The figures are painted all over in blackas in the black-figure technique of other Greek regions. In their drawingtechnique, the South Ionian painters, however, outline inner lines and eyes.

• The representation of human beings gets more and more frequent in figurefriezes.

• Additional red continues to be used on figures and ornaments, but withtime gets less frequent.

*

The proposed classification should be regarded as no more than a frame-work awaiting further detailed studies at different production centres as wellas wherever East Greek pottery might be found in the future. The aim ofthis draft is merely to achieve clarity and unambiguity of the terminology andto make comparisons between different classes of pottery easier. We hope thatour proposal will be accepted as a step towards a ‘common language’ forEast Greek pottery studies.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 52


Michael KerschnerAustrian Archaeological InstituteFranz Klein-Gasse 11190 [email protected]

Udo SchlotzhauerGerman Archaelogical InstituteEurasien-AbteilungIm Dol 2–6, Haus II14195 [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AbbreviationsAA Archäologischer AnzeigerAASOR The Annual of the American School of Oriental ResearchABSA Annual of the British School at AthensAJA American Journal of ArchaeologyASAtene Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in OrienteBCH Bulletin de correspondance helléniqueBdA Bollettino d’arteCVA Corpus Vasorum AntiquorumIM Istanbuler MitteilungenJdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen InstitutsJOAI Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen InstitutesKST Kazı sonuçları toplantısıMA Monumenti antichiMDAIA Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische AbteilungMEFRA Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. AntiquitéOJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology

Akurgal, E. 1987: Griechische und römische Kunst in der Türkei (Munich).Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H. and Niemeier, W.-D. 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis.

Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramikaus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Vienna).

Bayburtluo<lu, C. 1978: ‘Les céramiques chiotes d’Anatolie’. In Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Estet leur diffusion en Occident, Colloque du Centre Jean Bérard 6–9 Juillet 1976 (Paris), 27–30.

Boardman, J. 1998: Early Greek Vase Painting (London).Cagiano de Azevedo, M. 1941: ‘Una oinochoe della necropoli di Jaliso nel Museo dello Spedale

dei Cavalieri a Rodi’. Clara Rhodos 10, 185–99.Catling, R.W.V. and Shipley, D.G.J. 1989: ‘Messapian Zeus: An Early Sixth-Century Inscribed

Cup from Laconia’. ABSA 84, 187–200.Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.) in press: Frühes Ionien:

Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Akten des Symposions am Panionion 26.9.–1.10.1999.Coldstream, J.N. 1968: Greek Geometric Pottery (London).Cook, R.M. 1933/34: ‘Fikellura Pottery’. ABSA 34, 1–98.

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 53

——. 1960: Greek Painted Pottery (London).——. 1965: Review of Chrysoula Kardara, Rodiake angeiographia. Gnomon 37, 502–07.——. 1972: Greek Painted Pottery2 (London).——. 1987: ‘Antecedents of Fikellura’. In Bayburtluo<lu, C. (ed.), Festschrift Akurgal, Anadolu 21,

1978–80 [published 1987], 71–74.——. 1990: ‘A Wild Goat Oinochoe in Laon’. In Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.), Eumousia. Ceramic

and Iconographic Studies in Honour of A. Cambitoglou (Sydney), 55–56.——. 1992: ‘The Wild Goat and Fikellura Styles: Some Speculations’. OJA 11, 255–66.——. 1997: Greek Painted Pottery3 (London/New York).——. 1998: In Cook, R.M. and Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery (London/New York), 1–141.Dumont, A. and Chaplain, J. 1888: Les céramiques de la Grèce propre I. Histoire de la peinture des

vases grecs (Paris).Dupont, P. 1982: ‘Amphores commerciales archaïques de la Grèce de l’Est’. La parola del pas-

sato 37, 193–209.——. 1983: ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales

archaïques d’Istros. Rapport préliminaire’. Dacia 27, 19–46.——. 1992: ‘Amphores grecques archaïques de Gurna: à propos d’une publication récente’.

In Zaccone, G.-M. and di Netro, T.R. (eds.), Sesto congresso internazionale di Egittologia, Torino1.–8. 9. 1991. Atti I (Turin), 153–66.

——. 1999: ‘Mise au point sur les céramiques locales d’Istros’. In Villanueva Puig, M.-C.,Lissarrague, F., Rouillard, P. and Rouveret, A. (eds.), Céramique et peinture grecques. Modes d’em-ploi, Actes du colloque international l’École du Louvre 26–28 avril 1995 (Paris), 129–35.

Eilmann, R. 1933: ‘Frühe griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’. MDAIA 58, 47–145.Fantalkin, A. 2001: ‘Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background’. Tel

Aviv 28, 3–165.Gardner, E.A. 1888: Naukratis II (London).Giuliano, A. 1975: ‘Una oinochoe greco-orientale nel Museo di Villa Giulia’. BdA 60, 165–67.von Graeve, V. 1971: ‘Eine Sagendarstellung der frühen milesischen Vasenmalerei’. IM 21,

109–19.——. 1973/74: ‘Milet. Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der hellenistischen Stadtmauer

1963’. IM 23/24, 63–115.——. 1975: ‘Milet. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen im Südschnitt an der hellenisti-

schen Stadtmauer 1966’. IM 25, 35–59.——. 1986: ‘Die Grabung auf dem Kalabaktepe’. IM 36, 37–51.von Graeve, V. and Senff, R. 1990: ‘Die Grabung am Südhang des Kalabaktepe’. IM 40,

44–50.Greenewalt, C.H., Jr, Ratté, C. and Rautman, M.L. 1996: ‘The Sardis Campaigns of 1992

and 1993’. AASOR 53, 1–36.Greenewalt, C.H., Jr and Rautman, M.L. 1998: ‘The Sardis Campaign of 1994 and 1995’.

AJA 102, 469–505.Heinrich, H. and Senff, R. 1992: ‘Die Grabung am Kalabaktepe’. IM 42, 100–04.Heinz, M. 1990: ‘Katalog ausgewählter Funde’. IM 40, 56–61.Höckmann, U. and Kreikenbom, D. (eds.) 2001: Naukratis. Die Beziehungen zu Ostgriechenland,

Ägypten und Zypern in archaischer Zeit. Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz, 25.–27. November 1999(Möhnesee).

Hommel, P., Kleiner, G. and Müller-Wiener, W. 1967: Panionion und Melie, 23. ErgänzungsheftJdI (Berlin).

Isler, H.P. 1973: CVA Zürich, Öffentliche Sammlungen 1 = Schweiz 2 (Bern).Jacopi, G. 1931: Esplorazione archelogica di Camiro I. Scavi nella necropoli Camiresi 1929–1930’. Clara

Rhodos 4 (Bergamo).——. 1933: Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro II. Clara Rhodos 6–7 (Bergamo).——. ca. 1933: CVA Rodi 1, Museo Archeologico dello Spedale dei Cavalieri di Rodi = Italia 9

(Milan/Rome).Kardara, C. 1963: Rhodiake angeiographia (Athens).Käufler, S. 1999: ‘Die Frühstufe des Middle Wild Goat I-Stils in Milet’. AA, 203–12.Kerschner, M. 1995: ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe’. AA, 214–20.——. 1997a: ‘Ein Kessel des frühen Tierfriesstiles aus den Grabungen unter der Tetragonos-

Agora in Ephesos’. JOAI 66, 9–27.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 54


——. 1997b: ‘Ein stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jh.s v. Chr. aus dem Artemision vonEphesos’. JOAI 66 Beiblatt, 85–226.

——. 1999: ‘Das Artemisheiligtum auf der Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe in Milet’. AA, 7–51.——. 2000: Review of Cook 1998. Klio 82, 553–55.——. in press: ‘Das Keramikbild von Ephesos im 7. und 6. Jh. v. Chr.’. In Cobet et al. in press.Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., Rogl, C. and Schwedt, A. 2002: ‘Die Keramikproduktion von

Ephesos in griechischer Zeit. Zum Stand der archäometrischen Forschungen’. JOAI 71,189–206.

Kinch, K.F. 1914: Vroulia (Berlin).Kleiner, G. 1959/60: ‘Die Grabung im Norden des Athena-Tempels’. IM 9/10, 86–96.Kopeikina, L.V. 1982: ‘Rodossko-ioniiskaya keramika VII v. do n. e. s o. Berezan’ i ee znache-

nie dlya izucheniya rannego etapa sushchestvovaniya poseleniya’. In Boriskovskaya, S.P. (ed.),Khudozhestvennye izdeliya antichnykh masterov (Leningrad), 6–35.

Krinzinger, F. (ed.) 2000: Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Akten des Symposions Wien 24.–27. März 1999 (Vienna).

Kunisch, N. 1996: Erläuterungen zur Griechischen Vasenmalerei (Cologne).Kyrieleis, H. 1981: Führer durch das Heraion von Samos (Athens).La Rocca, E. 1987: ‘Mileto e Iasos nel VII secolo a. C.: Un’oinochoe del “Middle Wild Goat

Style I”’. In Studi su Iasos di Caria. Venticinque anni di scavi della missione archeologica Italiana(Rome).

Lemos, A.A. 1991: Archaic Pottery of Chios. The Decorated Styles (Oxford).Lentini, M.C. 2000: ‘Una oinochoe Middle Wild Goat I da Naxos di Sicilia’. In Krinzinger

2000, 425–28.Levi, D. 1927/29: ‘Arkades. Una città cretese all’alba della civiltà ellenica’. ASAtene 10–12,

1–723.Lo Porto, F.G. 1969: CVA Torino, Museo di Antichità 2 = Italia 40 (Rome).Mannack, T. 2002: Griechische Vasenmalerei. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt).Mayence, F. and Verhoogen, V. 1949: CVA Bruxelles, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire (Cinquantennaire)

3 = Belgique 3 (Brussels).Moignard, E. 1996: ‘The Orientalizing pottery’. In Coldstream, J.N. and Catling, H.W. (eds.),

Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs (London), 421–62.Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.) 1986: Milet 1899–1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung,

Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980 (Tübingen).Niemeier, W.-D. 1999: ‘Die Zierde Ioniens’. AA, 373–413.Onajko, N.A. 1966: Antichnyj Import v Pridneprov’e i Pobuz’e v VII-V vekah do n.e. (Moscow).Paribeni, R. 1904: ‘Vasi inediti del Museo Kircheriano’. MA 14, 269–308.Payne, H.G.G. 1931: Necrocorinthia (Oxford).Petrie, W.M.F. 1886: Naukratis I, 1884–5 (London).Posamentir, R. 2001: ‘Funde aus Milet XII. Beobachtungen zu archaischen Deckeln: Tierfries

und „Graue Ware“’. AA, 9–26.Pottier, E. 1923: CVA Musée du Louvre 2 = France 2 (Paris).Price, E.R. 1928: East Greek Pottery. CVA Classification des céramiques antiques 13 (Macon).Salviat, F. and Weill, N. 1961: ‘Plat aux lions affrontés de l’Artémision Thasien: Art “rho-

dien” et art cycladique au VIIe siècle’. BCH 85, 98–122.Schaus, G.P. 2000: ‘Orientalisierende Vasenmalerei’. In: Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.),

Der Neue Pauly 9 (Stuttgart/Weimar), 23–25.Schiering, W. 1957: Werkstätten orientalisierender Keramik auf Rhodos (Berlin).Schlotzhauer, U. 1999: ‘Funde aus Milet IV. Beobachtungen zu Trinkgefässen des Fikellurastils’.

AA, 223–39.——. 2000: ‘Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Formen und Entwicklung der sog. Ionischen

Schalen in archaischer Zeit’. In Krinzinger 2000, 407–16.——. 2001: ‘Ausgewählte ostgriechische Keramik aus Naukratis im Blickwinkel neuer Forschungen’.

In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, 111–25.——. in press a: ‘Zum Verhältnis zwischen sog. Tierfries- und Fikellurastil (SiA I und II) in

Milet’. In Cobet et al. in press.——. in press b: ‘Griechen in der Fremde: Wer weihte in die Filialheiligtümer der Samier

und Mileser in Naukratis?’. In Naso, A. (ed.), Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari del Mediterraneoantico. Atti del convegno Udine 20.–22.11.2003 (in press).

TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 55

Smith, C. 1886: ‘The Painted Pottery’. In Petrie 1886, 46–54.Sokolov, G. 1974: Antique Art on the Northern Black Sea Coast (Leningrad).Stager, L.E 1996: ‘Ashkelon and the archaeology of destruction: Kislev 604 BCE’. Eretz Israel

25, 61–74.Technau, W. 1929: ‘Griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’. AM 54, 6–64.Thimme, J. 1986: Antike Meisterwerke im Karlsruher Schloß (Karlsruhe).Vakhtina, M.Y. 1998: ‘Osnovnye kategorii grecheskoi importnoi keramiki iz raskopok Nemirovskogo

gorodishcha.’ In Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii VI (Simferopol), 122–39.Villard, F. and Vallet, G. 1955: ‘Lampes du VIIe siècle et chronologie des coupes ioniennes’.

MEFRA 65, 7–34.Villing, A. 1999: ‘Funde aus Milet I. Zwei archaische Schüsselformen’. AA, 189–202.Voigtländer, W. 1986: ‘Zur archaischen Keramik in Milet’. In Müller-Wiener 1986, 35–55.Waldbaum, J.C. and Magness, J. 1997: ‘The Chronology of Early Greek Pottery: New Evidence

from Seventh-Century B.C. Destruction Levels in Israel’. AJA 101, 23–40.Wallenstein, K. 1973: CVA Tübingen, Antikensammlung des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität 1 =

Deutschland 36 (Munich).Walter, H. 1968: Frühe samische Gefäße. Chronologie und Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße. Samos V

(Bonn).Walter-Karydi, E. 1968: CVA München, Museum antiker Kleinkunst (6) = Deutschland (28) (Munich).——. 1973: Samische Gefäße des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße, Samos

VI.1 (Bonn).——. 1986: ‘Zur archaischen Keramik Ostioniens’. In Müller-Wiener 1986, 73–80.Weber, S. 2001: ‘Archaisch ostgriechische Keramik aus Ägypten außerhalb von Naukratis’. In

Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, 127–50.


TSETS 4,1_f2_1-56 10/18/05 3:04 Page 56

A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery

Documents

Transcript of A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery