Achaian Vapheio cup

JOHN K. PAPADOPOULOS

THE ACHAIAN VAPHEIO CUP AND ITS AFTERLIFE INARCHAIC SOUTH ITALY

Summary. This article publishes an Archaic Greek cup of individual formfrom the extramural sanctuary of the Achaian colony of Sybaris at FrancavillaMarittima in south Italy. The Francavilla cup, which is Achaian or Achaian-style, is fully discussed and similar Archaic cups from the site of Incoronata,near the Achaian apoikia of Metapontion, are assembled. These vessels find noimmediate parallel among contemporary Greek or indigenous pottery of theseventh and earlier sixth centuries BC, but bear a remarkable similarity to thecharacteristic cylindrical, so-called Vapheio cups of the Aegean Bronze Agewhich are known in metal, clay and stone versions from as early as the EarlyMinoan III period through the Late Helladic era. It is argued that these cupsrepresent the Archaic creation or re-creation of a well-known Bronze Age shapein the Achaian apoikiai of south Italy.

One of the most idiosyncratic shapes among the pottery recovered from the sanctuaryon the Timpone della Motta at Francavilla Marittima in northern Calabria – the extra-muralsanctuary of the Achaian apoikia of Sybaris on the site of an earlier indigenous Oinotriansettlement (Fig. 1) – was a vessel that can best be described as a two-handled Vapheio cup (Fig.2).1 The distinctive form is one of a growing number of pottery imports that I have designatedelsewhere as Achaian or Achaian-style (Papadopoulos 2001), a conclusion that is now furthersupported by more recent finds in the Sibaritide (Tomay 2002, who follows very closely myconclusions and publishes many of my drawings). The most characteristic shape is the kantharosand a large number of plain banded and monochrome kantharoi were recovered from the site.I assemble a few of these kantharoi from Francavilla together with examples from the north-west Peloponnese for comparison in Figures 3–4. In shape and style, these kantharoi are closestto a series of vessels from various sites in the north-west Peloponnese, particularly Achaia, and

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 22(4) 411–428 2003© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 411

1 For the excavations at Francavilla see Foti and Zancani Montuoro 1965–6; Zancani Montuoro 1975; Stoop andPugliese Carratelli 1965–6; Pugliese Carratelli 1965–6; Stoop 1970–1; Stoop 1974–6; Stoop 1979, 1980, 1983,1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1970–1, 1974–6, 1993, 2000; Maaskant-Kleibrink andSangineto 1998; Mertens and Schläger 1980–2; Lattanzi and Vagnetti 1983–4; Luppino 1996; Papadopoulos2003. For the excavations at the nearby Macchiabate cemetery, see Zancani Montuoro 1970–1, 1974–6a,1974–6b, 1974–6c, 1977–9, 1980–2, 1983–4.

THE ACHAIAN VAPHEIO CUP AND ITS AFTERLIFE IN ARCHAIC SOUTH ITALY

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY412 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Figure 1Map of South Italy and Sicily. R.G. Finnerty.

the fact that Sybaris itself was, according to tradition, founded by Achaians, pointed to Achaiaas the chief source of inspiration of this ceramic style (Papadopoulos 2001, 2002; for a historyof Sybaris, see Callaway 1950). The Peloponnesian character of this material has only recentlybeen recognised in studies of Greek pottery in south Italy and Sicily (fully discussed inPapadopoulos 2001, 377–407; for earlier studies see Lo Porto 1964, 226–7; de la Genière 1968,189; Coldstream 1998, 328–30). It is worth stressing that the absence of a full-fledged Achaianfigured style of Archaic and Classical vase-painting, such as contemporary Athenian, Corinthian,Lakonian, and East Greek, has led to the general neglect of Achaian pottery by students of Greekceramics. Until quite recently, this was a feature exacerbated by a lack of systematic excavationat, and publication of, Archaic levels at Achaian sites (for a summary of excavated material fromAchaia, see Papadopoulos 2001, 383–94).

Any account of Achaian pottery in the West must necessarily begin with the mostcharacteristic shape in the Achaian repertoire: the kantharos. I have reviewed the incidence ofthis shape in its home region elsewhere, stressing that what I refer to as ‘Achaian’ may havebeen produced in a larger area or koine than the modern province of Achaia (Papadopoulos2001). This is an area conceivably encompassing Elis, parts of Arkadia, as well as Aitolia, WestLokris and Phokis and even some of the Ionian Islands (Papadopoulos 2001). I have decided,however, to retain the term Achaian and Achaian-style because it is in keeping with the literarytradition of Achaian colonisation and on account of the fact that there is no literary tradition forEleian or Arkadian or Ithakesian colonisation (for the problems associated with much of thehistorical evidence for colonisation, see especially Hall 1997; Osborne 1998; Papadopoulos2002).

As for the term ‘Achaian-style’, this requires a word of explanation. In addition to theimports from the Greek mainland, Achaian pottery was copied by potters at a number of sites,especially the Achaian apoikiai of Sybaris and Metapontion, giving rise to a locally produced


OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 413

Figure 2Achaian or Achaian-style Archaic two-handled Vapheio cup from Francavilla Marittima (inv. Bb-1343). Drawing by

Patrick Finnerty.



Figure 3Selection of Achaian banded kantharoi from Francavilla Marittima, some with decoration in added white. Drawing

by Patrick Finnerty.

style of pottery that is best designated ‘Achaianising’ or ‘Achaian-style’. Such an appellationhas the advantage of acknowledging the pedigree of the material, in the same way that the terms ‘Italo-Corinthian’ or ‘Etrusco-Corinthian’ point to the influence of Corinth. Similarly,Mycenaean pottery in the Italian peninsula, whether imported or locally made, is convenientlyreferred to as ‘Mycenaean’, with good reason (for Mycenaean pottery in the West see Gras 1985;Vagnetti 1999; for a comparison between the distribution of Mycenaean and Archaic Achaianpottery in Italy and Sicily, see Papadopoulos 2001, 434–44), whether it is first, second or thirdgeneration. I hasten to add that my use of terms such as Achaian and Corinthian is confined tothe identification of easily distinguished ceramic styles. Pottery by itself can be a misleading



a

c

b

d

Figure 4Banded kantharoi, some with decoration in added white, from various sites in the northwest Peloponnese. Drawingsby Patrick Finnerty: a) Asani (after Dekoulakou 1984, 233, fig. 30:a–b); b) Pharai (after Zapheiropoulos 1952, 402,

408, figs. 10, 26, no. A7); c) Phlamboura (after Mastrokostas 1968, pl. 155:b); d) Olympia, rim fragments ofbanded kantharoi, inv. K1344, K2907 (after Morgan 1990, 245, fig. 23).

and inadequate indicator of social realities, and, more particularly, interpretations of social andeconomic pre-eminence and ethnicity should not be formulated on the basis of pottery stylealone (Graham 1986; Papadopoulos 1996, 158; Osborne 1998, 258; see further Papadopoulos1997; also Hall 1997; Morgan 1991).

Of the kantharoi in the West generally, I am certain that many are imports on theevidence of their fabric and the close similarity in the details of shape and decoration with vessels found in the north-western Peloponnese. Others, however, are clearly locallyproduced. The same holds true for the Achaian and Achaian-style pottery from Francavilla.Some of the pieces should be Peloponnesian imports, whereas others are better seen as local products. The kantharoi from Sybaris, Francavilla and Metapontion – whether local orimported – were made by potters who were trained in an Achaian or north-west Peloponnesiantradition.

The problem of determining local from imported is not as straightforward as it mayseem at first. Here it is worthwhile remembering that even Sir John Beazley changed his mind on whether certain examples of red-figure pottery were Attic or Lucanian, and MartineDenoyelle has effectively shown that emigré Athenian potters were no strangers to the shoresof south Italy in the Early Iron Age/Archaic period, including perhaps pioneers as early as the

Analatos Painter (Denoyelle 1996, 1997). In the later case of the Pisticci Painter, a potter andpainter well versed in red-figure, Denoyelle asks the question: Attic or non-Attic? (Denoyelle1997). Elemental or some other form of scientific analysis may clarify the situation in the future– both with regard to imported and locally-produced ‘Achaian’ and Athenian versus Lucanianred-figure – though there is at present a dearth of such studies for Archaic Achaian pottery inmainland Greece. I am wary, however, that scientific analysis will resolve the issue any timesoon.

As with many regions of the Greek world, the Achaian ceramic repertoire is rich andvaried. Many different shapes were produced and some were exported. These include jugs, andother closed vessel forms, kraters, even an idiosyncratic tall stamnos referred to as a ‘pithos’(see Robertson 1948, 72–4, pl. 27, no. 401; Benton 1953, 302, pl. 52, no. 859; for the variousnames given to this distinctive shape, see Papadopoulos 1998), but these are generally moredifficult to identify outside the north-west Peloponnese and the adjacent area on the north sideof the Corinthian Gulf, especially when fragmentary. But of all these shapes, perhaps the mostinteresting is the solitary example of what I refer to as a two-handled Vapheio cup (Fig. 2). Theform appears to be the Archaic version of the Mycenaean Vapheio Cup (Furumark 1972, 53–6,fig. 15, 622–3, Shapes 224–8, under the general heading of cylindrical cups). I know of noidentical published parallel from Achaia, but some related shapes are discussed in more detailbelow. It has to be stressed, however, that there is not a good deal of Archaic Achaian potterypublished from the region (see now Gadolou 2002). The fabric appears to be Achaian, andidentical to banded kantharoi from Achaia and to many of the similar vessels from FrancavillaMarittima.

The Francavilla cup (inv. no. Bb-1343) (Figs. 2 and 5) stands to a height of 0.099m;the diameter at the base is 0.086m; the diameter at rim 0.107m. The vessel is reconstructedfrom many joining fragments preserving almost the complete vessel, though small parts of body,rim and one handle are not preserved. The base is a flat disk, slightly pushed up on the underside.The lower wall rises almost vertically, though it is slightly concave in section. The upper wallflares slightly to a plain rim with rounded lip. The juncture of the upper and lower bodies ismarked, on the exterior only, by a slight bulge, not quite a rib. Similar, but more pronouncedribs are a standard feature of Minoan and Mycenaean Vapheio cups (see below). The bulge onour cup is at the point of the lower handle attachment; immediately below are numerous diagonallines created during manufacture. There are two vertical strap handles, one complete, thelocation of the other indicated by scars. The handles are of the usual angular form –characteristically thin and sharply angular in profile – of the type well represented on the bandedkantharoi. The clay body of the vessel is fired close to light brown and reddish yellow (7.5YR6/4–6/6 on the Munsell scale). The paint is of good quality on the interior and exterior, with ametallic sheen; the paint has fired brown where it was more dilute. The decoration on thereserved underside consists of two concentric rings. The exterior of the body is painted solid;the rim is reserved and decorated with two horizontal bands, with a third band at the lip. On theupper wall on either side of the vessel, centred between the handles, is an idiosyncratic motifin added white, as shown (Figs. 2 and 5). The lower portion of the preserved handle is paintedsolid; the upper portion is decorated with a diagonal; the edges are painted as shown. Thedecoration of the preserved handle is similar to the outer faces of the handles of the morecommon kantharoi, which are usually decorated with stripes, both horizontal and diagonal, aswell as crosses, variously configured, or else painted solid (see Papadopoulos 2001, 405, fig.30). The interior is painted solid except for a reserved band at the rim.



The banded decoration on the cup is very similar to that of the standard bandedkantharos, which is painted solid on the exterior, except for a reserved band near the centre,immediately below the lower handle attachment, itself decorated with two or three, sometimesmore, thin horizontal bands. The rim exterior is similarly reserved and decorated with severalthin bands. A few of the banded kantharoi are further decorated with a variety of motifs in addedwhite, in a manner almost identical to that on our Vapheio cup. Such decoration is limited tothe upper body of the kantharos, above the reserved band near mid-point and usually centredbetween the handles. Examples of kantharoi with decoration in added white from sites in thenorth-west Peloponnese include the floral motifs on the kantharoi from Phlamboura in Akhaia(Fig. 4c = Mastrokostas 1967, pl. 155:b [= Dekoulakou 1982, 234, fig. 35]; Papadopoulos 2001,fig. 11), Olympia (Fig. 4d = Morgan 1990, 245, fig. 23 [K1344, K2907]; Mallwitz 1999, pl. 62,nos. 1–2), as well as the feline on the fragmentary kantharos from Olympia (Furtwängler 1890,pl. 69, no. 1296 [= Gauer 1975, pl. 32, no. 3]). Added colour becomes more standard on thelate form of kantharos from Elis (see Gauer 1975, 169–72; Coleman 1986; Papadopoulos 2001,404, fig. 29). In other parts of Italy, identical kantharoi with decoration in added white are knownfrom the excavations at Francavilla Marittima and at Megara Hyblaia (for the pieces fromFrancavilla, see Papadopoulos 2001, 394, fig. 14; Tomay, Munzi and Gentile 1996, 219, fig.3.96; for Megara Hyblaia, see Vallet and Villard 1964, pl. 160:4, with further discussion inPapadopoulos 2001, 393–4, fig. 13).

As for the date of the Vapheio cup, this is difficult to establish with certainty, as a largepart of the material from the Timpone della Motta at Francavilla was recovered from large votive‘stipes’, or else in contexts that were not well stratified or precisely dated. In the case of thebanded and monochrome kantharoi from Francavilla, together with those found in other partsof Italy and Sicily, the majority is best accommodated in the seventh and early sixth centuriesBC (chronology is discussed more fully in Papadopoulos 2001). By the middle and later sixthcentury BC the form of the kantharos changes and becomes rare. The close similarity in terms



Figure 5Achaian or Achaian-style Archaic two-handled Vapheio cup from Francavilla Marittima (inv. Bb-1343).

of fabric, paint and decoration between the Vapheio cup and the more numerous kantharoisuggests that the cup is best dated in the seventh or earlier sixth century BC.

Although the Vapheio shape is not common in the Archaic levels at Francavilla andSybaris, one- and two-handled versions of this shape in local fabric – ‘ceramica di produzionecoloniale’ – are common at Incoronata (Fig. 6), near the Achaian colony of Metapontion, wherethe shape occurs primarily, if not exclusively, in the early contact levels. Three examples of theshape from Incoronata are assembled on Figure 6 (Panzeri Pozzetti 1986, 159, nos. 109–10;Orlandini and Castoldi 1992, 75, 82, 130, figs. 139, 194, no. 23; Orlandini and Castoldi 1995,157, no. 58). The form as it is found at Incoronata is the same as that of the Francavilla cup,but the decoration is different, consisting of a more dilute, less glossy paint applied in the formof simple bands and various wavy or tremulous lines directly onto the reserved surface of thevase. More importantly, the shape remains unattested in the local indigenous repertoire and,apart from a related Archaic vessel form of different fabric and decoration from Samos (Walterand Vierneisel 1959, 24, fig. 3; Beil. 14, 34, 39–40 [various examples]), the form is little knownin the Archaic Greek world outside the examples from the Achaian colonies of south Italypresented here. There is no mistaking, however, the pedigree of the shape.

As was noted above, the shape of the Francavilla cup recalls the familiar straight-sided,conical cups of the Bronze Age, a number of which are usually referred to as Vapheio cups.Such cups are named after the discovery in 1888, by Christos Tsountas, of the famous pair of



Figure 6Selection of Achaian-style one- and two-handled Archaic Vapheio cups from Incoronata, near Metaponto. Drawingsby Patrick Finnerty (after Panzeri Pozzetti 1986, 159, nos. 109–110; Orlandini and Castoldi 1992, 75, 82, 130, figs.

139, 194, no. 23; 1995, 157, no. 58).



gold cups in the unplundered tholos tomb at Vapheio near Sparta (Tsountas 1889; Perrot andChipiez 1894, 11, 228–39; Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pls. 178–85; Davis 1977, figs. 1–10,12, 14, 17, 20–1; Xenake-Sakellariou 1991). Whether in gold, silver, bronze, copper, stone orterracotta, the form is one of the hallmarks of both Minoan and Mycenaean culture. A numberof gold and silver cups of the so-called Vapheio shape are found in the Shaft Graves of GraveCircle A at Mycenae; they date to c.1550 BC and are most frequently decorated with floral orspiral motifs (Fig. 7) (Karo 1930–3, 161, fig. 78, no. 912; pls. 103: 73; 104: 392–3; 107–8:441–2; 110: 313; 123; 124: 628; 125: 629; 127: 518; 170: 220; Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pls.190, top; 191, bottom; 193–4; Strong 1966, 35, fig. 8:a–i; Davis 1977, figs. 98–103, 108–12,115, 136–42). Two similar gold cups, decorated with spirals, were found at Peristeria (Davis1977, figs. 196–7), and silver cups of the same form, including some with inlaid decoration, are known from the Vapheio tomb (Davis 1977, figs. 202–5), as well as from Midea,Myrsinochorion, Enkomi on Cyprus, and several other sites (Davis 1977, figs. 104–5, 114,116–19, 159–60, 200–1, 210–11, 228, 257). A bronze Vapheio cup from Mochlos on Crete wasuncovered by Seager (1912, 62, pl. XII:f; Davis 1977, figs. 36–7, and for a related copper inlaidcup see figs. 95–7) and there is a stone example of the shape from Knossos (Davis 1977, fig.38 [inv. 2098]). Moreover, the form appears both in the Linear B tablets, as well as on Egyptian

Figure 7Selection of Early Mycenaean gold Vapheio cups from the Shaft Graves of Grave Circle A at Mycenae. Drawing by

Patrick Finnerty.



tomb paintings, such as the Tomb of Senmut, which shows Aegean emissaries carrying typicallyAegean votive gifts or tribute (Davis 1977, figs. 39–40).

This type of cup can be traced back to the Early Minoan III period in Crete and ispopular in the various phases of the Middle Minoan period (Strong 1966, 36; Betancourt 1985,53–114; a good Kamares Ware example from the Old Palace at Phaistos is illustrated inMarinatos and Hirmer 1960, 21, top left; cf. also pl. 20, bottom; pl. 78, middle). According toBlegen (1937, 395), some examples of similar form on the Greek mainland are known in greyMinyan and in Matt-painted wares – there is, indeed, an early version of the shape in clay inthe Shaft Graves (Karo 1930–3, pl. 173: 954) – and the form is also represented in the mainlandware with light-on-dark decoration, corresponding to fabrics of Middle Minoan III (Blegen1937, 395, 398–9). In the Late Bronze Age, the terracotta version of the Vapheio-type cup(Furumark 1972, Shape 224, cf. Shapes 225, 226, 228) takes root in the early Mycenaean period,and the characteristic Vapheio cup of Late Helladic I and II (Furumark 1972, Shape 224) evolvesinto the mug (Furumark 1972, Shape 225) – sometimes called ‘tankard’ (see Papadopoulos 1979,124) – by Late Helladic III A1 (Mountjoy 1986, 63), which in turn continues, as FurumarkShape 225, 226, 228, into Late Helladic III C Early (Mountjoy 1986, 147).

A few Mycenaean examples of the shape are assembled together on Figure 8. The earliest of the four (Fig. 8a), a classic example of Furumark (1992, pl. 127) Shape 224, dating toLate Helladic I–II, is the cup with the characteristic plastic rib at the level of its narrowest diameter; it comes from Aigina (Hiller 1975, 69, pl. 3:30). Its form is very reminiscent of the metal versions of the shape already discussed (Fig. 7). Figure 8b, assigned to Late HelladicIII A:2, is characteristic for the related form referred to as Furumark Shape 225, where the diameter of the vessel is usually greater than the height, and the handle is placed midway downthe side (Furumark 1992, pl. 128, no. 225:7 = British Museum A 846 from Ialysos on Rhodes).Furumark Shape 226 (Fig. 8c) is taller than the preceding, the height of the vessel is equal to, orgreater than, its diameter and the handle is proportionately smaller; the illustrated example, whichis probably Late Helladic III B, comes from Ialysos on Rhodes (Furumark 1992, pl. 128, 226:4= British Museum A 848). Of related form is the flat-bottomed example from Hala Sultan Tekkeon Cyprus (Fig. 8d; Furumark 1992, pl. 129, no. 228:1), of Late Helladic III B date, which is verysimilar in form to the Archaic examples from Francavilla and Incoronata discussed above.

In the north-west Peloponnese, in Mycenaean Achaia, related forms of cups, referredto as deep cups, are common in Late Helladic III A:2 through III C Early (Papadopoulos 1979,121–3, figs. 184–5, 273–4), and a classic example of Furumark Shape 226 is assigned byThanasis Papadopoulos (1979, 124, figs. 186, 268) to the Late Helladic III C period, though itscontext is earlier. Similar cups, many decorated with simple bands, such as the Archaic examplesfrom Incoronata, are known at Perati in east Attica and date to the very end of the Bronze Age(Iakovides 1969–70, Vol. 2, 226–7). Although there is, to date, little Geometric and early Archaicpottery published from sites in Achaia – particularly the cities, such as Helike, that, accordingto tradition, founded Sybaris (Papadopoulos 2001, 2002, 21–5; Katsonopoulou, Soter andSchilardi 1998; Katsonopoulou 2002) – there is, nevertheless, an interesting but fragmentaryvessel from Ano Mazaraki (Rakita) in Achaia recently published by Gadolou (2002, 180, 187,pl. 1, no. 57:a [RAK 561a–c]). Listed under the votive cylindrical and biconical forms of finepainted Achaian Geometric, the pot (Fig. 9) is described as a ‘biconical handless open vessel’(Gadolou 2002, 180). The general form is again reminiscent of the Vapheio shape of the AegeanBronze Age and the cups from Sybaris and Incoronata discussed above, particularly those from Incoronata, as the banding and overall form of decoration is similar. Although we must



Figure 8Selection of Late Helladic terracotta Vapheio cups: a) Aigina Museum, inv. no. 1678, from Aigina. H: 9 cm. LH I–II.Photo courtesy of the DAI Athens, neg. no. 73/1605 (Photo: Hellner); b) London, BM, inv. A 846, from Ialysos. H:6.3 cm. LH III A:2. Photo courtesy British Museum; c) London, BM, inv. A 848, from Ialysos. H: 16.2 cm. LH III B.Photo courtesy British Museum; d) London, BM, inv. 98 12–1 231, C 619, from Hala Sultan Tekke.

H: 11.4 cm. LH III B. Photo courtesy British Museum.

await further evidence of similar forms of Geometric and early Archaic date from the Achaianhomeland, it is clear that the basic form of the Vapheio cup shape is not unknown in LateMycenaean and Early Iron Age Achaia.

Vessels like the Vapheio cups from Francavilla and Incoronata raise the issue ofarchaising in early Greek ceramic traditions (see Papadopoulos and Smithson 2002). A numberof scholars, looking at the problem from an Athenian Early Iron Age perspective, have discussedthe incidence of a Mycenaean or Protogeometric style in later Geometric contexts in terms ofsurvivals and/or revivals, and even as copies (see, for example, Smithson 1961, 166, under no.43; Brann 1962, 34–5, under no. 37; Benson 1970). In dealing with specific Protogeometricshapes echoing Mycenaean tradition, Smithson noted that this ‘may be, like a number ofresurgent types, a Mycenaean revival, i.e. a “copy”, slightly modernized, of pieces salvagedfrom disturbed tombs’ (Smithson 1961, 166, under no. 43). A similar sentiment was expressed

c

d

a

b



by Brann (1962, 19; cf. Brann 1961, 125, under L66) in her discussion of certain Late Geometricand Early Protoattic shapes and motifs that are strikingly Mycenaean in their appearance. Shestates: ‘The Athenians certainly often came across Mycenaean antiquities, so there would havebeen no lack of models’ (Brann 1961, 19). The fullest account of such ‘confrontations with thepast’ was offered by Benson (1970, 114–23), in terms of early material found in later contexts,of later objects associated with earlier graves or structures, in addition to other forms of contactacross the Bronze and Iron Age divide. Indeed, Benson provides an interesting analysis of theenduring legacy of Mycenaean influence on later Greek art of the Geometric period, particularlyin terms of the iconographical motifs of horse, bird and man (Benson 1970; cf. Himmelmann-Wildschütz 1968).

In the case of the Vapheio cups of Archaic Achaian south Italy we do not need to goso far as to argue for the discovery of Mycenaean ‘heirlooms’. Whether the Vapheio cup shapein south Italy is viewed as a survival, revival or even as a copy, it is possible that a version ofthe Bronze Age shape in the Achaian homeland continued into the Geometric period. Moreimportantly, however, several scholars, beginning with Patrick Geary (1994) and Susan Alcock(2002; see also Schacter 1996) have shown the power of social memory in creating sharedidentities in past communities and, more particularly, how it is possible through the materialrecord, especially artefacts, monuments and landscape, to trace patterns in commemoration andforgetfulness (Alcock 2002; cf. various papers in Appadurai 1986). The work of such scholarshas brought to the fore the theoretical underpinnings for, and processes through which, sharedremembrances – often triggered by a single object or a monument in its landscape – providepeople with both an image of their past and, in the continued use of such objects and memories,a way to define their future (cf. Papadopoulos 2002, 48).

In this paper I have attempted once more to draw a common thread between ‘Achaian’pottery and metal vessels of the Bronze Age and those of the historic period. The first ‘western

Figure 9Achaian Geometric biconical open vessel from Ano Mazarakis, Rakita. Drawing by Patrick Finnerty (after Gadolou

2002, 187, pl. 1, no. 57:a [RAK 561a–c]).

Greeks’ were Mycenaeans, or Achaioi, as they were known in Homer, or earlier as ‘Ahhijawa’(Vermeule 1960, 1972, 271–4; Taylour 1958; Gras 1985, 43–111; Fisher 1988; Vagnetti 1999).Although I have been accused, unfairly, of conflating all Mycenaean imports and stylisticinfluences, not merely Achaian, in seeking to link the Bronze Age pattern in south Italy withthat of the Early Iron Age (Morgan 2002, 110), my argument, simply put, is that this is preciselywhat the Achaians of the historic period sought to do (Papadopoulos 2001, 2002). That is tosay, the Achaians themselves consciously blurred the line between history and prehistory(Papadopoulos 2002, 48). They did it with their coinage and they did it with their pottery, amongother things. What happens in the pottery is not an isolated phenomenon. The images andemblems chosen for the coinage of Sybaris, Kroton and Metapontion are not only those currentin the contemporary cultural landscape of the historic Achaians, but ones that actively recall theworld of the heroic Achaians of the Bronze Age (Papadopoulos 2002). Many of the individualemblems on these coins – cattle, bronze tripods, grain – refer to older measures of value. InHomer, for example, finished objects of metal, such as bowls and tripods, and other keimeliafunctioned as stores of wealth, while cattle and grain served as measures of value and quantitiesof land, not only in Homer but also in the Linear B tablets (Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 197–8,213–14; fully discussed in Papadopoulos 2002; see also Seaford 1998, 119–20; Kurke 1999, 11;von Reden 1997, 157–63).

By drawing a common thread between the Achaians of the Heroic Age and those of theHistoric Period, my aim is not to conflate the very different worlds of heroic and historicAchaians. Nor is it my intention to confuse between ethnic ‘Achaian’ and geographical orstylistic ‘Achaian’. As Jonathan Hall (1997) has argued, numerous tiers of identity were exploredand exploited, and it is important not to confuse between them at any given time. Rather, I arguethat the Achaians of the historic period – those who settled parts of south Italy – knew exactlywhat being ‘Achaian’ meant, and they exploited this to construct their own identity. As Sir JohnBoardman (2002) has recently and so cogently shown, the Greeks created and re-created theirpast in physical terms in both objects and images and this was subsequently used as a paradigmfor their contemporary behaviour. The examples that Boardman assembles are rich and varied:Bronze Age walls and tombs that were the work of Cyclopean giants; artefacts from the pastbecame the spear of Achilles, the necklace of Helen or the cup of Herakles. The Greeks couldpoint to Odysseus’ cave in Ithake, to the exact place where Poseidon struck the rock of theAthenian Acropolis with his trident and to Athena’s olive tree. All this enhanced their sense of‘Greekness’ and of history (Boardman 2002). By re-creating their mythical past in the imageschosen for their coins and in their creation or re-creation of a vase shape common in the Heroicpast, the Achaians of Archaic south Italy not only enhanced their own ‘Achaianess’, but theyprovide us with one more example of the archaeology of nostalgia.

Department of Classics andThe Cotsen Institute of Archaeology

University of California, Los AngelesFowler A210

Los Angeles, California 90095-1510U.S.A.



references

alcock, s.e. 2002: Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories(Cambridge).

appadurai, a. 1986: The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge).

benson, j.l. 1970: Horse, Bird and Man: The Origins of Greek Painting (Amherst).

benton, s. 1953: Further Excavations at Aetos. Annual of the British School at Athens 48, 255–361.

betancourt, p.p. 1985: The History of Minoan Pottery (Princeton).

blegen, c.w. 1937: Prosymna: The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum (Cambridge).

boardman, j. 2002: The Archaeology of Nostalgia: How the Greeks Re-created their Mythical Past(London).

brann, e.t.h. 1961: Late Geometric Well Groups from the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 30, 93–146.

brann, e.t.h. 1962: The Athenian Agora VIII: Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery, Mid 8th to Late7th Century B.C. (Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

callaway, j.s. 1950: Sybaris (Baltimore).

coldstream, j.n. 1998: Achaean Pottery Around 700 B.C., at Home and in the Colonies. InKatsonopoulou, Soter and Schilardi 1998, 323–34.

coleman, j.e. 1986: Excavations at Pylos in Elis (Princeton, American School of Classical Studies atAthens, Hesperia Supplement 21).

davis, e. 1977: The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (New York).

dekoulakou, i. 1982: Keramike 8ou kai 7ou aiona p. Ch. Apo taphous tes achaïas kai tes Aitolias.Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene 60 (n.s. 44), 219–36.

de la genierè, j. 1968: Recherches sur l’âge du fer en Italie méridionale: Sala Consilina (Naples,Institute français de Naples, Publications du Centre Jean Bérard).

denoyelle, m. 1996: Le peintre d’Analatos: Essai de synthèse et perspectives nouvelles. Antike Kunst39, 71–87.

denoyelle, m. 1997: Attic or Non-Attic? The Case of the Pisticci Painter. In Oakley, J.H. Coulson, W.D.E. and Palagia, O. (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings (Oxford),395–405.

fisher, e.a. 1988: A Comparison of Mycenaean Pottery from Apulia with Mycenaean Pottery fromWestern Greece (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota).

foti, g. and zancani montuoro, p. 1965–6: Scavi a Francavilla Marittima, I: Le premesse di unintervento sistematico e i primi risultati. Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 6–7, 7–13.

furtwängler, a. 1890: Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem deutschen Reich VeranstaltetenAusgrabung IV. Die Bronzen und die übrigen kleineren Funde von Olympia (Berlin).

furumark, a. 1972: Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification (Stockholm, Skrifter utgivna avSvenska Institutet i Athen).

furumark, a. 1992: Mycenaean Pottery III: Plates (edited by P. Åström, R. Hägg and G. Walberg)(Stockholm, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen).

gadolou, a. 2002: The pottery fabrics and workshops from Ano Mazaraki: The 1979 Excavation Season.In Greco 2002, 165–204.

gauer, w. 1975: Olympische Forschungen VIII: Die Tongefässe aus den Brunnen unterm Stadion-Nordwall und im Südost-Gebiet (Berlin).

geary, p. 1994: Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium(Princeton).



graham, a.j. 1986: The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 12, 51–9.

gras, m. 1985: Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques (Paris, Bibliothèques des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes etde Rome).

greco, e. 2002: Gli Achei e l’identità etnica degli Achei d’occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionaledi Studi, Paestum, 23–25 febbraio 2001 (Fondazione Paestum, Tekmeria 3) (Paestum and Athens, ScuolaArcheologica Italiana di Atene).

hall, j.m. 1997: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge).

hiller, s. 1975: Mykenische Keramik (Alt-Ägina IV:1) (Mainz).

himmelmann-wildschütz, n. 1968: Über einige gegenständliche Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten desfrühgriechischen Ornaments (Wiesbaden).

iakovides, s.e. 1969–70: Perati: To nekrotapheion (Athens, Athens Archaeological Society).

karo, g.h. 1930–3: Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (München).

katsonopoulou, d. 2002: Helike and Her Territory in the Light of New Discoveries. In Greco 2002,205–16.

katsonopoulou, d., soter, s. and schilardi, d. (eds.) 1998: Helike II: Ancient Helike and Aigialeia.Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Aigion, 1–3 December 1995 (Athens).

kleibrink, m. and sangineto, m. 1998: Enotri a Timpone Motta (I), la ceramica geometrica dallo stratodi cenere e materiale relativo dell’edificio V, Francavilla Marittima. BABesch 73, 1–60.

krinzinger, f. 2000: Die Ägäis und das westlische Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8.bis 5. Jh. v. Chr. Akten des Symposions Wien 1999 (Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie derWissenschaften).

kurke, l. 1999: Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton).

lattanzi, e. and vagnetti, l. 1983–4: Documenti micenei dalla Motta. Atti e memorie della SocietàMagna Grecia 24–5, 157–60.

lo porto, f.g. 1964: Satyrion (Taranto): Scavi e ricerche nel luogo del più antico insediamento laconicoin Puglia. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 1964, 177–279.

luppino, s. 1996: La ricerca archeologica sul Timpone Motta. And Santuari arcaici della Sibaritide: I santuari dispersi. In I Greci in Occidente: Santuari della Magna Grecia in Calabria (Naples), 195–7,221–32.

maaskant-kleibrink, m. 1970–1: Abitato sulle pendici della Motta. Atti e memorie della Società MagnaGrecia 11–12, 75–80.

maaskant-kleibrink, m. 1974–6: Abitato sull’altopiano meridionale della Motta. Atti e memorie dellaSocietà Magna Grecia 15–18, 169–74.

maaskant-kleibrink, m. 1993: Religious Activities on the ‘Timpone della Motta,’ Francavilla Marittima,and the Identification of Lagaria. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 68, 1–42.

maaskant-kleibrink, m. 2000: Early Cults in the Athenaion at Francavilla Marittima as Evidence for aPre-Colonial Circulation of nostoi Stories. In Krinzinger 2000, 165–84.

mallwitz, a. (ed.) 1999: XI. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia: Frühjahr 1977 bis Herbst 1981(Berlin).

marinatos, s. and hirmer, m. 1960: Crete and Mycenae (New York).

mastrokostas, e. 1967: Achaïa. Archaiologikon Deltion 22, B’1 (1968), 213–17.

mertens, d. and schläger, h. 1980–2: Die Bauten auf der Motta. Atti e memorie della Società MagnaGrecia 21–3, 143–71.

morgan, c.a. 1990: Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the EighthCentury B.C. (Cambridge).



morgan, c.a. 1991: Ethnicity and Early Greek States: Historical and Material Perspectives. Proceedingsof the Cambridge Philological Society 37, 131–63.

morgan, c.a. 2002: Ethnicity: The Example of Achaia. In Greco 2002, 95–116.

mountjoy, p.a. 1986: Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (Göteborg).

orlandini, p. and castoldi, m. (eds.) 1992: Richerche archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. Scavidell’Università degli Studi di Milano, Istituto di Archeologia: 2. Dal villaggio indigeno all’emporio greco.Le strutture e i materiali del saggio T (Milan, Commune di Milano).

orlandini, p. and castoldi, m. (eds.) 1995: Richerche archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. Scavidell’Università degli Studi di Milano, Istituto di Archeologia: 3. L’oikos greco del saggio S. Lo scavo e ireperti (Milan, Commune di Milano).

osborne, r. 1998: Early Greek Colonization? The Nature of Greek Settlement in the West. In Fisher, N. and Van Wees, H. (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London), 251–69.

panzeri pozzetti, p. 1986: Ceramica di produzione coloniale. In I greci sul Basento: Mostra degli scaviarcheologici all’Incoronata di Metaponto 1971–1984 (Como), 144–68.

papadopoulos, j.k. 1996: Euboians in Macedonia? A Closer Look. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15,151–81.

papadopoulos, j.k. 1997: Phantom Euboians. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 191–219.

papadopoulos, j.k. 1998: A Bucket, by Any Other Name, and an Athenian Stranger in Early Iron AgeCrete. Hesperia 67, 109–23.

papadopoulos, j.k. 2001: Magna Achaea: Akhaian Late Geometric and Archaic Pottery in South Italyand Sicily. Hesperia 70, 373–460.

papadopoulos, j.k. 2002: Minting Identity: Coinage, Ideology and the Economics of Colonization inAkhaian Magna Graecia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12, 21–55.

papadopoulos, j.k. 2003: Le Dea di Sibari e il santuario ritrovato. Studi sui rinvenimenti dal TimponeMotta di Francavilla Marittima, II.1: The Archaic Votive Metal Objects (Rome, Ministero per i Beni e laAttività Culturali).

papadopoulos, j.k. and smithson, e.l. 2002: The Cultural Biography of a Cycladic Geometric Amphora:Islanders in Athens and the Prehistory of Metics. Hesperia 71, 149–99.

papadopoulos, t.j. 1979: Mycenaean Achaea (Göteborg).

perrot, g. and chipiez, c. 1894: History of Art in Primitive Greece (London).

pugliese carratelli, g. 1965–6: La dedica di Kleombrotos e le sigle preposte a nomi in epigrafi italiote.Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 6–7, 209–14.

robertson, m. (with heurtley, w.a.) 1948: Excavations at Ithaca, V: The Geometric and Later Findsfrom Aetos. Annual of the British School at Athens 43, 1–124.

schacter, d.l. 1996: Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past (New York).

seaford, r. 1998: Tragic Money. Journal of Hellenic Studies 118, 119–39.

seager, r.b. 1912: Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (Boston and New York, American School ofClassical Studies at Athens).

smithson, e.l. 1961: The Protogeometric Cemetery at Nea Ionia, 1949. Hesperia 30, 147–78.

stoop, m.w. 1970–1: Francavilla Marittima B. Santuario di Athena sul Timpone della Motta. Atti ememorie della Società Magna Grecia 11–12, 37–66.

stoop, m.w. 1974–6: Francavilla Marittima B. Acropoli sulla Motta. Atti e memorie della Società MagnaGrecia 15–17, 107–67.



stoop, m.w. 1979: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 1–2. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 54, 77–97.

stoop, m.w. 1980: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 3. Bulletin Antike Beschaving 55:2, 163–89.

stoop, m.w. 1983: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 4. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 58, 16–52.

stoop, m.w. 1985: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 5. Una base di recinto. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 60, 4–12.

stoop, m.w. 1987: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 7. Oggetti di bronzo vari (animali, ornamenti personali, armi, varia). Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 62, 21–31.

stoop, m.w. 1988: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 8. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 63, 77–93.

stoop, m.w. 1989: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 9. La ceramica attica. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 64, 50–60.

stoop, m.w. 1990: Note sugli scavi nel santuario di Atena sul Timpone della Motta (Francavilla Marittima-Calabria), 10. Bulletin Antike Beschaving 65, 29–37.

stoop, m.w. and pugliese carratelli, g. 1965–6: Tabella con iscrizione arcaica. Atti e memorie dellaSocietà Magna Grecia 6–7, 14–21.

strong, d.e. 1966: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London).

taylour, w. 1958: Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge).

tomay, l. 2002: Ceramiche di tradizione achea della Sibaritide. In Greco 2002, 331–55.

tomay, l., munzi, p. and gentile, m. 1996: Santuari arcaici della Sibaritide: Ceramiche di produzionelocale. In I Greci in Occidente: Santuari della Magna Graecia in Calabria (Naples), 213–20.

tsountas, ch. 1889: Ereunai en te Lakonike kai o taphos tou Vapheiou. Archaiologike Ephemeris 1889,cols. 129–72.

vagnetti, l. 1999: Mycenaean Pottery in the Central Mediterranean: Imports and Local Production inTheir Context. In Crielaard, J.-P. Stissi, V. and van Wijngaarden, G.J. (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery:Production, Circulation, and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early FifthCenturies B.C.) (Amsterdam), 137–61.

vallet, g. and villard, f. 1964: Mégara Hyblaea II: La céramique archaïque (Paris).

ventris, m. and chadwick, j. 1973: Documents in Mycenaean Greek (2nd edition) (Cambridge).

vermeule, e.t. 1960: The Mycenaeans in Achaea. American Journal of Archaeology 64, 1–21.

vermeule, e.t. 1972: Greece in the Bronze Age (2nd edition) (Chicago).

von reden, s. 1997: Money, Law and Exchange: Coinage in the Greek Polis. Journal of Hellenic Studies117, 154–76.

walter, h. and vierneisel, k. 1959: Heraion von Samos: Die Funde der Kampagnen 1958 und 1959.Athenische Mitteilungen 74, 10–34.

xenake-sakellariou, a. 1991: Anazetese tou ergasteriou ton chryson kypellon tou Vapheiou.Archaiologike Ephemeris 130, 45–64.

zancani montuoro, p. 1970–1: Francavilla Marittima: A) Necropoli di Macchiabate. Atti e memoriedella Società Magna Grecia 11–12, 7–36.

zancani montuoro, p. 1974–6a: Francavilla Marittima A) Necropoli. I. Tre notabili enotrii dell’VIII sec.a.C. Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 15–17, 9–82.



zancani montuoro, p. 1974–6b: Francavilla Marittima A) Necropoli. II. Dischi compositi. Atti ememorie della Società Magna Grecia 15–17, 83–92.

zancani montuoro, p. 1974–6c: Francavilla Marittima A) Necropoli. III. La leggenda di Epeo. Atti ememorie della Società Magna Grecia 15–17, 93–106.

zancani montuoro, p. 1975: I labirinti di Francavilla ed il culto di Atene. Rendiconti dell’Accademiadi archeologia, leterre e belli arti, Napoli 50, 3–18.

zancani montuoro, p. 1977–9: Francavilla Marittima. Necropoli di Macchiabate: Saggi e scoperte inzone varie. Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 18–20, 7–91.

zancani montuoro, p. 1980–2: Francavilla Marittima A). Necropoli e ceramico a Macchiabate zona T.(Temparella). Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 21–3, 7–129.

zancani montuoro, p. 1983–4: Francavilla Marittima: Necropoli di Macchiabate zona T. (Temparella,continuazione). Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia 24–5, 7–109.

zapheiropoulos, n.s. 1952: Anaskaphikai ereuna eis periphereian Pharon Achaias. Praktika of the AthensArchaeological Society 1952, 396–412.



Achaian Vapheio cup

Documents

Transcript of Achaian Vapheio cup