TOM

ÁŠ

KOLO

N ·

KER

AM

IKA

TYPU

GN

ATH

IA A

„W

EST

SLO

PE“

Publikácia sa zaoberá problematikou vývoja maľovanej stolovej keramiky v období helenizmu. Významné zmeny v politickej, hospodárskej, spoločenskej a sociálnej situácii sa bezprostred-ne dotkli aj úžitkového umenia, vrátane hrnčiarskej výroby. Nenáročná technika, postupné zjednodušovanie používaných výzdobných prvkov a narastajúca štandardizácia v rámci ume-leckej koiné umožnili na relatívne veľkom priestore rýchle šírenie spôsobu zhotovovania de-kóru a „módnych“ trendov. Zároveň však v niektorých regiónoch dochádza k akejsi „obrode“ lokálneho štýlu. Značné rozšírenie publikovaného materiálu v posledných dvadsiatich rokoch otvorilo nové možnosti komplexnejšej analýzy. Predkladaná publikácia sa vzhľadom na kvan-titu a roztrieštenosť týchto poznatkov pokúša vytvoriť jasnejší obraz o produkcii keramiky typu „West Slope“ a Gnathia v období od druhej polovice 4. stor. pred Kr. až do neskorého helenizmu, s dôrazom na pochopenie jej vývoja v rámci celkovej hrnčiarskej tvorby v stredo-morskom priestore.

Kniha je určená záujemcom o antickú kultúru a môže poslúžiť ako učebný text nielen študen-tom klasickej archeológie a príbuzných odborov, ale aj širšej odbornej verejnosti.

9 7 8 8 3 7 4 9 0 7 1 6 3

ISBN 978-83-7490-716-3FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTATRNAVSKEJ UNIVERZITY V TRNAVE

TOMÁŠ KOLONKERAMIKA TYPU GNATHIA A „WEST SLOPE“ÚVOD DO ŠTÚDIA HELENISTICKEJ KERAMIKY

AHEEEHAPHDOEFKELFPAHEEEHABNFFFNBPBCJDADMKJPBNFFFNBKBDBCGFAKKLMMBMNKNNCFNPJEPAGMDFFJOPOJNJPMINHKFIHBEMFNNFFEPICNENMDHAHFHAIBNMAPBBBPAPAAFHBPDBCACECGBDAHHHHHHHPPPPPHHPPPPHHHHHHH

kolon_obalka.indd 1 25.02.2015 19:05:53

keramika typu gnathia a „west slope“

úvod do štúdia helenistickej keramiky

FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTATRNAVSKEJ UNIVERZITY V TRNAVE

TOMÁŠ KOLONKERAMIKA TYPU GNATHIA A „WEST SLOPE“ÚVOD DO ŠTÚDIA HELENISTICKEJ KERAMIKY

5

Fotografia na obálke:Skyfos typu Gnathia. Národní muzeum, Praha inv. H10 3863

© Tomáš Kolon, 2014© Spolok Slovákov v Poľsku, 2014© Filozofická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave, 2014ISBN 978-83-7490-716-3

v e d e c k á r e d a k t o r k adoc. PhDr. Marie Dufková, CSc.

r e c e n z e n t k aProf. PhDr. Klára Kuzmová, CSc.

Zoznam skratiek použitých prác a periodík . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zoznam skratiek a symbolov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Predslov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Úvod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Základná charakteristika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Špecifické problémy helenistickej keramiky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technológia výroby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Keramika typu a v štýle Gnathia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pôvod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rozšírenie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Produkčné centrá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Apúlia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lukánia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paestum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kampánia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lácium a južná Etrúria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sicília . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adriatická oblasť . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Keramika typu „West Slope“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pôvod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Produkčné centrá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veľké produkčné centrá . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atény . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pergamon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Knossos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Skupina brečtanovej misy („Ivy Platter group“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Menšie dielne regionálneho charakteru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spôsoby rozšírenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Obsah

711

13

14

16

18

31

3333424545586264656870

757587909096

104111115121

6 7

Vzájomný vzťah keramiky typu a v štýle Gnathiaa keramiky typu „West Slope“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Záver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Použitá literatúra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Obrazová príloha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

128

139

141

150175

Α’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Α’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική. Ιωάννινα 1986, Πρακτικά Πρακτικά: Ρόδος, 2000

AA Archäologischer Anzeiger ABulg Archaeologia Bulgarica ActaHyp Acta Hyperborea Agora The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens AJA American Journal of Archaeology ALUB Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon AM Mitteilungen Des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,

Athenische Abteilung AmerAnt American Antiquity Anatolia Anatolia. Revue annuelle de l‘Institut d‘archéologie de

l‘Université d‘Ankara AntK Antike Kunst AR Archaeological Reports ArchCl Archeologia Classica ArchDelt Arkaiologikon Deltion ArchIug Archaeologia Iugoslavica Arch. roz. Archeologické rozhledy ASAtene Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni

Italiane in Oriente Ashkelon Final reports of the Leon Levy expedition to Ashkelon AvP Altertümer von Pergamon Β’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Β’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική.

Χρονολογικά προβλήματα της ελληνιστικής κεραμεικής. Ρόδος 22-25 Μαρτιου 1989, 1990

BABesch Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology

BAR-IS British Archaeological Reports International Series BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique BEFAR Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome Berenice Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London BJb Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn

und des Rheinischen Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege

Zoznam skratiek použitých prác a periodík

8 9

Halikarnassos The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum

IstMitt Istanbuler Mitteilungen JAS Journal of Archaeological Science JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JEA The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology Kabirion Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben KERAMEIKOS Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen KTÈMA Ktèma: civilisations de l‘Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome

antiques Kyme Anatolian Collection of Charles University Labraunda Labraunda: Swedish Excavations and researches MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome MarbWPr Marburger Winkelmann-Programm MBAH Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Médéon Médéon de Phocide MeditArch Mediterranean Archaeology MEFRA Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome Mel. Lip. Meligunìs Lipára MUSE Annual of the Museum of Art and Archaeology University of Missouri-Columbia NumAntCl Numismatica e antichità classiche ÖJh Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien ÖJhBeibl Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, Beiblatt OlBer Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia OlForsch Olympische Forschungen PA Památky archeologické PEUCE SN Studii si cercetari de istorie si arheologie – SERIE NOUĂ PF Pergamenische Forschungen RA Revue Archéologique RCRF Acta Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta RdA Rivista di Archeologia RÉA Revue des Études Anciennes RM Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische

Abteilung RStLig Rivista di Studi Liguri ΣΤ’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Συνάντηση ΣΤ’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική

Κεραμική. ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΓΗΣΗΣ ΚΛΕΙΣΤΑ ΣΥΝΟΛΑ – ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΑ. ΒΟΛΟΣ 17-23 ΑΠΡΙΛΙΟΥ: 2000,

im Landschaftsverband Rheinland und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande

BSA The Annual of the British School at Athens BSS Black Sea Studies Bulletin De La S. F. A. C. Bulletin de la Société Française d’Archéologie Classique CAH The Cambridge Ancient History Caiete ARA Arhitectură. Restaurare. Arheologie. Ed. ARA, Bucharest Corinth Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American

School of Classical Studies at Athens CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Δ’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Δ’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική,

Μυτιλήνη 1994, Πρακτικά (Αθήνα 1997). ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΙΚΑ ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΚΛΕΙΣΤΑ ΣΥΝΟΛΑ – ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΑ, ΤΟΜΟΣ Α: ΚΕΙΜΕΝΑ 960-214-757-1, ΤΟΜΟΣ Β: ΠΙΝΑΚΕΣ 960-214-758-Χ

DissPan Dissertationes Pannonicae, Budapesta Dor Excavations at Dor Ε’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Ε’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική,

Χανια 1997, Πρακτικά (Αθήνα 2000). ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΓΙΚΑ ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΚΛΕΙΣΤΑ ΣΥΝΟΛΑ – ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΑ, ΤΟΜΟΣ Α: ΚΕΙΜΕΝΑ ISBN 960-214-276-6, ΤΟΜΟΣ Β: ΠΙΝΑΚΕΣ ISBN 960-214-277-4

ΕλλΚερ Ήπειρος Ελληνιστική Κεραμική από την αρχαία Ήπειρο, την Αιτωλοακαρνανία και τα Ιόνια Νησιά. Ιωάννινα-Αθήνα: 2009, ISBΝ: 978-960-214-834-1

ΕλλΚερ Θεσσαλίας Ελληνιστική Κεραμική από τη Θεσσαλία. Βόλος, 2000, ISBN 960-214-274-X

ΕλλΚερ Κρήτης Ελληνιστική Κεραμική από την Κρήτη. Χανιά, 1997 ΕλλΚερ Μακεδονίας Ελληνιστική Κεραμική από τη Μακεδονία. Hellenistic pottery

from Macedonia. S. Drougou edit., Thessaloniki: Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, 1991, ISBN 960-243-500-3

ΕλλΚερ Πελοπόννησος Ελληνιστική Κεραμική από την Πελοπόννησο (Αίγιο 2005). ΑΘΗΝΑ: ΥΠΠΟ ΣΤ ΕΠΚΑ, ISBΝ: 960-214-437-8

Ephesos Forschungen in Ephesos, Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut in Wien

Eretria Eretria: Ausgrabungen und Forschungen, Schweizerische Archäologische Schule in Griechenland

FuB Forschungen und Berichte Γ’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Γ’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική.

Θεσσαλονίκη 1991, Πρακτικά: Αθήνα, 1994, ISBN 9G0-7034-34-4

Gravina An Iron Age and Roman Republican Settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia. Excavations of 1965-1974. British school at Rome

Gortina Gortina, Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente

10 11

Abb. Abbildungen (nem.; vyobrazenie) Beil. Beilage (nem.; príloha) Bd. Band (nem.; zväzok) edit. editor Fasc. Fascicolo, Fascicule (tal., angl.; zväzok) Fig. Figura, Figure (tal., angl.; obrázok) Kat. Nr. Katalog-Nummer (nem.; katalógové číslo) No. number (angl.; číslo) Op. cit. opere citato Pl. plate (angl.; tabuľka) ΠΙΝ. ΠΙΝΑΚΕΣ („pinakes“, gr.; obrázky) Taf. Tafel (nem.; tabuľka) tav. tavola (tal.; tabuľka) vol. volume (angl.; diel, zväzok)

2004, ΤΟΜΟΣ Α: ΚΕΙΜΕΝΑ 960-214-362-2, ΤΟΜΟΣ Β: ΠΙΝΑΚΕΣ 960-214-363-0

Sabratha Excavations at Sabratha 1948 – 1951 Samaria Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition

in 1931 – 1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935 SIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology StAnt Studi di Antichità StMisc Studi Miscellanei StTroica Studia Troica Taras Taras, Rivista di Archeologia Tarsus Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus Tel Anafa Excavations at Tel Anafa TMO Travaux de la Maison de l‘Orient Tocra Excavations at Tocra 1963 – 1965 VAHD Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku VAPD Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku VjesArhMuzZg Vjesnik Archeološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu Ζ’ ΕπΣυνΕλλΚερ Ζ’ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική,

Αίγιο 2004, Πρακτικά: Αθήνα 2011

Zoznam skratiek a symbolov

13

Pred mnohými rokmi napísal R. M. Cook známu vetu „Hellenistic pottery has been neglec-ted, and deservedly.“ Paradoxne to boli práve tieto slová, ktoré podnietili nebývalý záujem o štúdium helenistickej keramiky. Pre mnohých bádateľov sa stali akýmsi memorandom v snahe o dosiahnutie zmeny. Len vďaka ich systematickej, detailnej a často celoživotnej práci sa dnes dá bez obáv povedať, že vyššie uvedená veta už našťastie neplatí. Samozrej-me, s nárastom znalostí sa odkryli nové problémy, otázky, či sa podarilo odhaliť možnosti a limity dovtedy štandardne a v mnohých prípadoch i nekriticky uplatňovaných metodic-kých postupov. Tieto zistenia doposiaľ vyvolávajú vážne diskrepancie a názorové rozdiely pri hľadaní odpovedí na kľúčové otázky týkajúce sa chronológie, typológie, identifikácie a rozlíšenia jednotlivých výrobných centier a pod. Bolo by zadosťučinením, ak by táto publi-kácia prispela aspoň malým dielom k rozšíreniu poznania helenistickej keramiky a zároveň zvýšila povedomie o tejto tak dlho neprávom opomínanej súčasti antickej kultúry. Predlože-ná publikácia je upravenou verziou magisterskej práce Helenistická keramika typu Gnathia a „West Slope“. Otázky vzniku a vzájomných vzťahov výrobných centier obhájenej v roku 2009 na Katedre klasickej archeológie Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave.

Na záver by som rád úprimne poďakoval všetkým, ktorí mi pomohli akýmkoľvek spô-sobom, či už počas rokov štúdia, alebo pri písaní tejto publikácie. Osobitne by som chcel vyjadriť svoju vďaku pani doc. PhDr. M. Dufkovej CSc., nielen za navrhnutie témy magis-terskej práce, cenné rady, konzultácie a usmernenia, ale najmä za nádherné a inšpiratív-ne prednášky, prostredníctvom ktorých sa snažila v študentoch vzbudiť záujem o antickú, zvlášť helenistickú keramiku a dodať nám odvahu a túžbu prekonať náročné počiatočné kroky na ceste za poznaním. Moje poďakovanie patrí takisto celej rodine, za nepretržitú podporu a v mnohých prípadoch aj trpezlivosť a porozumenie. Za nespočetnú pomoc počas štúdia ďakujem i Mgr. I. Malinkovej. Moja veľká vďaka patrí i Mgr. L. Halásovej. Srdečnou vďakou som napokon zaviazaný Mgr. A. Ďurianovej, PhD. za mnohé pripomienky, upozor-nenia a jazykovú korektúru. Len zásluhou všetkých týchto ľudí môžem aj naďalej snívať svoj „archeologický sen“.

Predslov

14 15

typológie tvarov nádob a používaných výzdobných prvkov, ktoré by spĺňali charakter prí-padnej „univerzálnej aplikácie“. Žiaľ, takýto veľmi potrebný, avšak po mnohých stránkach náročný druh štúdie v tejto chvíli ďaleko presahuje reálne možnosti tejto publikácie. Jej primárnym cieľom je oboznámenie sa so základnou problematikou a vytvorenie určitej plat-formy pre ďalšie bádanie. V snahe vyvarovať sa rizík spojených s prílišným zovšeobecnením sú niektoré možné riešenia iba naznačené. Kým prvé tri kapitoly sú zamerané na objasnenie názvoslovia, spôsobu výroby, chronológie a možnosti použitia jednotlivých archeologických metód, v ďalších sa rozoberajú otázky pôvodu, rozšírenia a vzájomného vzťahu keramiky typu Gnathia a „West Slope“. Vzhľadom na absenciu zaužívanej slovenskej terminológie boli u prevažnej časti odborných termínov ponechané pôvodné „štandardizované“ označenia, resp. sa dodatočne uvádzajú za slovenským prekladom, zohľadňujúc tak riziko skreslenia v prípade presadzovania výhradne novovytvorených slovenských označení.

Tak aj hrnčiar sadá k svojej práci,pričom nohami poháňa kolo,

ustavične je ustarostený o svoje dielo...

Kniha Sirachovcova 38,32

Helenizmus predstavuje jednu z veľmi dôležitých fáz vo vývoji produkcie maľovanej stolovej keramiky v oblasti materského Grécka, južnej Itálie a Sicílie. Zmeny v politickej, hospodár-skej, ako aj v spoločenskej a sociálnej situácii sa bezprostredne dotkli aj sféry úžitkového umenia, vrátane hrnčiarskej tvorby, i keď v jej prípade nešlo o náhly „zlom“, ale o plynulý proces trvajúci desiatky rokov. Množstvo dielní zásobujúcich miestne trhy vzniklo v dôsled-ku straty dominantného postavenia Atén a nárastu bohatstva a prosperity viacerých, často novozaložených miest na pobreží Malej Ázie, Sýrie a Egypta, ako i menších, skôr provinč-ných, resp. regionálnych centier. Nenáročná technika, postupné zjednodušovanie používa-ných výzdobných prvkov a narastajúca štandardizácia v rámci umeleckej koiné umožnili na relatívne veľkom priestore rýchle šírenie spôsobu zhotovovania dekóru a „módnych“ trendov. No zároveň v niektorých regiónoch dochádza k akejsi forme „obrody“ lokálneho štýlu. Práve kombinácia týchto dvoch zdanlivo protichodných tendencií, spolu s obmedze-nou možnosťou použitia štýlovo-komparatívnej analýzy a nedostatkom dobre datovaných „uzavretých“ nálezových celkov, dlho spôsobovali a čiastočne stále spôsobujú v štúdiu hele-nistickej keramiky nemalé komplikácie. Niekoľkonásobné rozšírenie publikovaného mate-riálu v posledných dvadsiatich rokoch otvorilo nové možnosti komplexnejšej analýzy.

Predkladaná publikácia sa vzhľadom na kvantitu a roztrieštenosť týchto poznatkov pokúša vytvoriť jasnejší obraz o produkcii keramiky typu „West Slope“ a Gnathia v období od 2. polovice 4. stor. pred Kr. až do neskorého helenizmu, s dôrazom na pochopenie jej vý-voja v rámci celkovej hrnčiarskej tvorby v stredomorskom priestore. V prípade jednotlivých výrobných okruhov sa práca snaží vyzdvihnúť najdôležitejšie fakty, poukázať na prípadné nezrovnalosti a vyvolať diskusiu. Rozhodujúci vplyv na celkovú koncepciu a štruktúru pub-likácie mali rôzne limitujúce činitele, ako napr. chýbajúci priamy prístup k väčšine skúma-ného materiálu, jeho kvalitatívne a kvantitatívne vlastnosti, veľmi široký geografický rámec sledovaného územia (od Itálie a Sicílie cez pevninské Grécko, Egejskú oblasť, Malú Áziu, Pričiernomorie, až po Blízky východ a severné pobrežie Afriky), stav publikovania, dos-tupnosť relevantnej literatúry a pomerne obmedzený časový priestor. Navzdory už vyššie spomínanému niekoľkonásobnému rozšíreniu materiálnej základne sa prevažná časť prác doposiaľ venovala výhradne publikovaniu výsledkov z určitej lokality, či oveľa zriedkavejšie v rámci konkrétneho regiónu či oblasti. To sa prirodzene prejavilo aj v absencii ucelenej

Úvod

140 141

úvahy i nízka cena neskoro-klasickej a helenistickej maľovanej keramiky, tak nie je vôbec prek-vapivé, že prakticky v každom regionálnom centre mohla pôsobiť nejaká hrnčiarska dielňa.

Z hľadiska intenzity recipročných kontaktov medzi Gnathiou a „West Slope“ hrá roz-hodujúcu úlohu geografická poloha a politicko-ekonomická situácia daného územia. Vplyv Gnathie je obzvlášť postrehnuteľný v Epire, na Peloponéze a na Kréte, čo sa odráža vo výbere motívov a takisto v ich zhotovení – najmä využívanie širokej škály technických prostriedkov za účelom dosiahnutia farebnosti, tieňovania a plasticity. Dokonca v prípade Kréty sú dolo-žené i priame imitácie apúlskych prác.

Summary

Gnathia type pottery and West Slope Ware Introduction to the study of Hellenistic pottery

Introduction and basic characteristics

Hellenism represents a very important phase in the development of painted tableware pro-duction on the Greek mainland, in southern Italy and in Sicily. Political, economic, and so-cial changes directly affected applied arts, including pottery production. Rather than a sud-den change, this was a fluid process lasting several decades. Many workshops supplying the local markets were established as a result of Athens’ loss of its dominant position and, on the other hand, the increasing richness and prosperity of several newly founded towns on the coasts of Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, as well as of smaller, provincial or regional centres. The undemanding technique, gradual simplification of decorative elements and the increa-sing standardisation within the artistic koiné meant that the decoration technique and fas-hion trends spread quickly in a relatively wide area. On the other hand, however, a certain form of renaissance of the local style occurred in some regions.

Pottery that became popular in ancient Italy in this period was incised before firing and painted in white, yellow, but also red and brown colour on a black slip. This pottery is conventionally called Gnathia. However, the term itself has a strict geographical meaning, which does not correspond to the actual spread of this pottery. On these grounds the term “Gnathia type pottery” seems to be more suitable for Apulian production, and the term “Gnathia style pottery” for other areas.1 Around the same time as Gnathia-type pottery started to flourish in Italy, “West Slope Ware” (also “Westabhangkeramik”, “Westabhangstil”, “céramique du versant occidental”, “κεραμική Δυτικής Κλιτύος”) appeared in Greece. It was named by C. Watzinger after the place of its first find – western slope of the Acropolis of Athens (“Keramik vom Westabhang”).2 Terminologically speaking, the terms “Gnathia type” and “Gnathia style” pottery and “West Slope Ware” do not so much define a concrete pottery “type” as they refer to a specific decoration technique.3

The study of Hellenistic pottery was in the past restricted by the lack of published ma-terial, a relatively limited number of closed finds, and the qualitative and quantitative traits of pottery production. Most pottery collections have been published separately from the results of excavations, and in many cases only selectively. Pottery collections are therefore

1 Compare e.g. Lanza 2005, pp. 22 – 24.2 Kotitsa 1998, p. 42.3 Baumeister 2001, p. 221; Kotitsa 1998, p. 57.

142 143

decoration cannot be clearly identified. The use of a small number of simple and common motifs (e.g. dotted rosettes, diagonal lines, etc.) cannot express an artist’s individuality.12

In terms of work organisation and the nature of production, potter’s workshops spe-cializing in production of fine painted tableware in the Late Classical and Hellenistic pe-riods generally belong to two categories. The first one is the so-called individual workshop industry, whose characteristics correspond to a large extent to other frequently used terms (e.g. master’s workshop – “Meisterbetrieb”, family workshop – “Familien-Betrieb”). The sec-ond category are the so-called nucleated workshops (“Werkstattkrei”).13 Both categories in-clude predominantly smaller or medium-sized production centres of family character, with a small number of workers selected mostly on the basis of family relations (often passed from father to son) or dependence on a master (pupils, slaves).14 They commonly contained one or two smaller kilns (Ø ca. 1 – 2 m). Ethnographic studies indicate several important benefits of such a system, one being the possibility of continuous production, where one kiln was used for firing pottery, while the other was being prepared for the next firing. With this system the whole cycle could be repeated every four or five days.15

A lower risk of financial loss, in case the products were damaged during firing (for example by high temperature), played an equally important role. Technologically speaking, the firing process always represented the most complicated and risky phase of production. One of the key factors was the ability to achieve ideal and equal conditions for the entire content of the kiln, including the optimum firing temperature.16 The most critical phase of the three-phase firing process was the middle, so-called reduction phase, when oxygen ac-cess was restricted for around 30 to 40 minutes, while high temperature was maintained in the kiln.17 In general, it was much easier to reach a relatively quick reaction for the entire firing period in smaller kilns.

Gnathia type pottery

In southern Italy and Sicily, painting on a black slip applied to unfired vessels had a very long tradition, which was not interrupted by the arrival of red-figure vase painting. Indeed, potters in several areas continued in its production also in the Late Classical period, which is testified by the existence of numerous, specific regional groups, for instance “Xenon Group” in Apulia, “Teano style” in Campania, “Hesse Group”, “Sokra Group and Phantom Group” in Etruria, and others.

A decisive role in the birth of Gnathia type pottery was played by Apulian pottery of the Ornate Style. It was characterised by an increasingly elaborated decoration and composi-tion, and a gradual increase in the application of added colours – white and yellow, less often also different shades of red and brown. Although the relationship between these two types of pottery products has not yet been satisfactorily clarified, there are several indications of

12 Rotroff 1991, pp. 61 – 62.13 This is the traditional classification of pottery production in the Roman period according to D. P. S. Peacock.

For a brief overview see e.g. Rice 2005, p. 184.14 Migeotte 2009, p. 96.15 Murphy – Poblome 2011, p. 36; Bounegru 2009, p. 87.16 Hanykýř – Kutzendörfer 2008, p. 134.17 Hasaki 2012, p. 262.

often without their contexts, which means that their analytical potential cannot be used in the study of predepositional, and particularly depositional and postdepositional processes, nor in the interpretation of stratigraphic situations.4 This also means that they restrict the possibility of re-analysis and revision of original conclusions, which frequently results in uncritical adoption of published data and creation of circular reasoning. As a result of the abovementioned processes, particularly in areas with long-term and intensive settlement, deposits from homogeneous archaeological contexts are often contaminated by intrusions, specifically by a form of residuality or infiltration. Without analysing the extent of their ef-fect we cannot construct a reliable relative chronology.5

Since the 1990s, scholars’ interest for this pottery has increased, which has brought more knowledge about the nature of given pottery production. In addition, possibilities and limits of standard methodological procedures applied by then were revealed, in particular the application of the stylistic comparative analysis. For instance, in the early, and partly also middle phase of Gnathia ware production, the vases can to a certain degree be typologically classified and attributed to particular artists and production centres on the basis of (figural) decoration. In the later period this is much more problematic due to the reduced number of used motifs. The biggest risks lie in constructing a relative chronology based on an as-sumed relationship between the teacher – master and his pupils or a workshop. Such a view of pottery production is strongly influenced by the concept of “centre” (in this case Tarent) and “periphery” (the territory of Peucetia, Daunia a Messapia).6 This sometimes results, for example, in an uncritical exaltation of the position and role of Tarent in the given region.7 However, the assumed parallel existence of several workshops in one area manifested itself in a certain degree of stylistic homogeneity, a natural consequence of their interaction and reciprocity.

The stylistic comparative analysis clearly points towards certain “connections” be-tween particular painters and workshops, which, however, are little useful in the attempt to precisely locate and identify places of production.8 The nature of the given decoration allows it to be relatively easily imitated and used without visible changes over a longer period.9 This may be one way of preserving a stylistic tradition and resistance to changes in a given period of time.10 Indeed, the limited possibilities of the stylistic comparative analysis for dating of Late Classical Italian painted pottery have recently been pointed out by several prominent scholars (e.g. E. Lippolis, D. Graepler, A. D’Amicis and others).11

Due to the badly preserved decor and character of painting, the application of this method is similarly complicated in the case of West Slope ware. In particular, details painted in white colour are in many cases flaked off, or completely lost, and only a different shade of slip proves an earlier presence of ornament. Even on extremely well preserved pieces,

4 Compare e.g. Roskams In: Čapek 2010, p. 17.5 Compare Čapek 2010, p. 28.6 Compare e.g. Carpenter 2009, p. 27, pp. 30 – 32.7 Compare Op. cit. 2009, p. 30.8 Op. cit. 2003, p. 5.9 Puritani 2002, p. 380, p. 387, pp. 389 – 390; Graepler 1997b, p. 58.10 Compare e.g. Muller 1977, p. 26.11 Puritani 2002, p. 380, p. 387, pp. 389 – 390; Graepler 1997b, p. 58; D’Amicis 1996, p. 434, p. 436. See also Lip-

polis – Mazzei 2005, pp. 13 – 15; Denoyelle 2005, pp. 103 – 112.

144 145

The gradual increase in additional colours on the red-figure pottery reflects also a favourable social situation that was necessary for investment in pottery production and subsequent production and distribution of pottery in large volumes. Customs related to a deep-rooted tradition, religious imagination and funeral rite are an attempt to preserve continuity. We must also take into account potters’ conservatism and traditionalism, as is indicated by several ethnographic parallels.28 Sudden changes in pottery production (ves-sel types, decoration, etc.) may not have always been welcome by customers. Gnathia type pottery is represented mainly by vessel types designed for serving and consuming wine or similar. Their primary purpose, which was to serve food and drinks, is also reflected in the selection of decorative elements. These are closely related to symposia (in the real as well as symbolic sphere) and the cult of God Dionysus, which can explain the frequent occurrence of this pottery in graves. However, it is difficult to determine which part of the production was related exclusively to the funeral rite.

During the fourth century BC, two significant changes took place in pottery produc-tion.29 They were related to a certain form of industrialization of production in the middle phase (340/330 – 310/300 BC). In the case of Gnathia type pottery, new types were added, and the number of products increased – particularly smaller vessels with relatively simple and repeated decoration.30 This was probably related to their changed function.31 Several smaller, almost identical vessels started to be preferred in graves (the first change). The use of narrative composition was clearly reduced in favour of simple decorative elements with a strongly symbolic character – especially in connection with the cult of Dionysus and belief in the afterlife (the second change).32 The early phase of the production of Gnathia type pottery, which lasted for around 30 years (a period roughly identical with the activity of one generation of vase painters), created conditions suitable for a successful establishment of this new decorative technique. The main impulse for further development cannot be clearly identified. One of the factors was probably a decline in the production of red-figure vases, and the possibility to continue in the traditional technological production process (three-phase firing technique).

The gradual reduction of the surface area and the preference of middle-sized and smaller vessel shapes had a direct impact on the decoration method. Simpler, repetitive and rather stereotypical motifs (mostly only floral elements such as ivy or vine), sometimes ex-tremely simply expressed, only sketch-like by a few quick strokes of a brush, were a reaction to the changing requirements of the customers.33 The less demanding painting, technically and timewise, increased the volume of production without increasing the cost due to an increased number of employees, technological equipment, etc. Producing smaller vessels with simpler decoration, which had supplementary function, certainly did not mean loss of attractiveness for potential customers. Quite the opposite, such products were popular with a large part of society also thanks to a relatively low price. This ensured regular sales – a key factor in a long-term trading strategy.

28 Compare e.g. Op. cit. 1985, pp. 221 – 224.29 Robinson 2004, p. 199.30 Gravina II, p. 52.31 Robinson 2004, p. 199.32 Op. cit. 2004, p. 199.33 Compare D’Amicis 1996, p. 433.

their mutual interconnectedness.18 This is evidenced by both iconography and motifs used on Gnathia type pottery.19 In addition to Erotes, human and mythological figures (mostly as-sociated with the cult of Dionysus – satyrs and maenads), female heads among plant tendrils and flowers (often winged – Nike, Eros-hermaphrodite type),20 they include theatre masks and comic actors (phlyax).21 A gradual loss of emphasis on narrativeness of the scenes played an immensely important role in establishing the new technique.22 The close connection be-tween these two pottery types is confirmed by several vessel shapes – calyx-kraters, pelikes, squat lekythoi, oinochoai and skyphoi. On the other hand, Gnathia type pottery completely lacks large volute and column-kraters, and it only occasionally contains Panathenaic ampho-rae.23 The close connection between potters using both of the techniques is also suggested by the production in Campania, Paestum, Sicily and, most importantly, on the Aeolian Islands (Lipari), where using rich polychromy was very common and typical (in addition to white, yellow and red colour, also pastel blue, green and pink was used).

The date of origin of the earliest Gnathia type pottery and the inventor of the given pro-duction method cannot be determined exactly, on several grounds. From the point of view of the linear concept, the attribution of authorship to one particular artist is methodologically defensible. Indeed, masters referred to as the Painter of the Birth of Dionysus, the Black Fury Group, the Ilioupersis Painter, the Lycurgus Painter and the Konnakis Painter undoubtedly fulfil several criteria. In real environment, however, the innovation of pottery production cannot be perceived through one act or a concrete moment. Rather than that, it is a process consisting of several phases, chronological or simultaneous.24 The phases ideally appear in form of certain changes, whose character was related to the traits of the given production sys-tem. An integral part of the system were the so-called stability factors, or factors of changes in pottery production, such as material resources, production efficiency, eating habits, ritual practices and society’s value system, the potter’s status, production organization and demand for products.25 In other words, it was a complex of technological, social and economic ele-ments. In general, the decision to innovate was, paradoxically, economically irrational.26

The potter-innovator’s status in society played no less important role.27 Decoration us-ing additional colours gradually became more common on the territory of Italy during the first half of the fourth century BC. It had to do with a general attempt to enliven red-figure vase decoration, which can be observed in the whole of the Mediterranean area. Implemen-tation of new elements is most common in the production of Apulian monumental vases of the Ornate Style. Their close connection with the earliest Gnathia type pottery manifested itself in the preference for calyx and later bell-kraters, and in the selection of motifs. Based on current state of research, the number of products made by Gnathia technique does not seem to be high in the given period.

18 Lanza 2005, p. 24; Gravina II, p. 52.19 Compare e.g. Gravina II, p. 52.20 Cambitoglou 1954, p. 121; Kirigin 1979, p. 18; Also D’Amicis 2005, p. 167; Redavid 2010, p. 29 – 30.21 Trendall 1988, pp. 138 – 139.22 Lanza 2005, p. 24.23 Webster 1968, p. 2; Green 1982, p. 254.24 Spratt 1989, p. 246.25 Rice 1984, pp. 242 – 243.26 Arnold 1985, p. 220.27 Op. cit. 1985, p. 220.

146 147

The most important predecessor of West Slope ware is traditionally thought to be the gold decorated pottery (“Golddekorierte Schwarzfirniskeramik“). Its production started around the second quarter of the 4th century BC and continued until the early 3rd century BC. Typical were extraordinarily “restrained” and “economical” motifs, which served to ac-centuate the shape of the vessel. A comparison with the vessels of the next period reveals two opposing tendencies. The first one is the complete absence or radical reduction of those West Slope vessel types that were very popular in the fourth century BC (e.g. chous, calyx-krater, hydria, lebes gamikos, loutrophoros).37 The second tendency is the adoption of vessel types from the previous period during the early phase of West Slope ware, the most popular being kantharos, calyx-cup, cup-kantharos and pyxis.

Sites where West Slope ware is found can be divided into three categories: large pro-duction centres, smaller workshops and places with exclusively imported ware.38 The large production centres are characterised by a high number of vessels with a variety of shapes and decorative elements, and a certain share of export. Based on the published material, this group includes the cities of Athens, Pergamon and Knossos and the Ivy Platter group39 with an unknown provenance. However, the term “large production centre” suggests a workshop or a cluster of workshops with several potters and employees. In reality it serves only to denote a production centre with a larger volume of production and with documented in-traregional and long-distance export. Current knowledge of the size of workshops and their spatial arrangement is considerably limited by insufficient archaeological evidence.

Unlike large production centres, smaller areas of production are regional in nature, with no or little export to distant areas. The variety of decorative motifs is typically limited. The location of workshops producing fine painted tableware in the Hellenistic period is in line with the concept according to which production centres were located in main regional centres, which supplied the nearby area.40

The absence of published material is another significant factor affecting the overall pic-ture of pottery production, as West Slope ware from the Peloponnese shows. Until recently it was represented almost exclusively by material from Corinth, Isthmia and Elis. New exca-vations revealed other sites with local production – e.g. Patras and Aigion. The same trend in the rising number of identified workshops can be observed in Thessaly (e.g. Demetrias, Larisa), Macedonia (e.g. Vergina, Veroia, Pella, Aiane), and Asia Minor (Ephesus, Sardis, Knidos, Tarzus, Kelenderis, Metropolis/Torbalı – Yeniköy, Phocaea, Daskyleion?, Kyme?). The current state is not final and discovery of further workshops is only a matter of time. In faraway areas, production of West Slope ware has been confirmed on the island of Rhodes. Local imitations of imports have been found even in Carthage and the Black sea area.

The way West Slope ware spread and was adopted depended on several factors, the most important being the nature of settlement and the geographic location. A particularly important factor was the varying degree of Hellenization of the given area (including eth-nicity) and the related specific local traditions. The adoption process itself could take place on several levels. The first is the initial attempt to faithfully imitate a rather limited number of imported products, particularly when compared to the usual volume of local pottery

37 Agora XXIX p. 42.38 Rotroff 2002, p. 98.39 Op. cit.2002, p. 98.40 Compare Hasaki 2002, pp. 234 – 235.

The place of origin of Gnathia type pottery is traditionally thought to be Tarent. Al-though the earliest products occurred already between 370 and 360 BC, the volume of pro-duction was relatively low to begin with. Quantitative increase (including a wider range of shapes and decorative elements) took place at the beginning of the middle phase (c. 340/330 BC), when also export of the pottery and potters’ mobility intensified. It was common for potters to change the place of their activity as a way of solving their socio-economic prob-lems. An analogical situation in the case of red-figure pottery is worth mentioning, with the first significant wave of Apulian influence in the surrounding regions between 340/330 and 320 BC. In the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC, also the number of small workshops scattered in the Messapian area rose.34 Some of them have their own distinctive style, while others imitate the work of larger production centres. The second significant wave of Apulian influence is assumed to have taken place at the time of the military conflicts between Tarent and the Romans, who subsequently occupied the town in 272 BC. Technological knowledge was not necessarily spread as a result of the mobility of Tarent potters. The relatively simple decoration method, simple decorative elements and particularly the increasing demand for these products enable us to assume that the local workshops with potters of perhaps mixed cultural-ethnic backgrounds (?) were able to adopt the decoration method of Gnathia type pottery relatively quickly through import and develop it further.

In this work we subscribe to the modified version of the traditional classification of Gnathia type pottery: early (370/360 – 340/330), middle (340/330 – 310/300) and late phase (310/300 – 175/150 (?) BC). Between the end of the middle phase and beginning of the late phase we assume the existence of a transitional period of around 10 or 20 years, when pro-duction typical for the middle phase subsides, and new elements typical for the later pottery are introduced (e.g. ribbing).

West Slope ware

The origin of West Slope ware is also a complicated subject, and its development was not linear. The technique itself was not an invention of Hellenistic Athenian potters; it is much older with roots going back as far as the late archaic period, to the so-called Six Technique.35 Application of polychromy (combination of green-blue, violet, red, pink, brown, yellow, black and golden colours) is documented also on relief pottery in Athens already in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. When searching for the origins of West Slope ware, also Kerch vases can be taken into account. They were characterized by a gradual increase in the application of various polychrome effects using white and coloured engobe, gilding and plastic details, and in the later period also blue, green and grey colours.36 White colour did not serve only to emphasise details, it also covered a larger surface. It is therefore surprising that white col-our was used sparingly on West Slope ware from the early phase. These types of pottery also differed in decorative motifs, so the Kerch vases could not be an immediate predecessor of West Slope ware. This thesis is also supported by the shapes of vessels.

34 Green 1986b, p. 184.35 Agora XXIX, p. 39.36 Braunová 1981, p. 16, p. 24.

148 149

Aegean. Relatively intensive mutual contacts between Italy and continental Greece are also evidenced by pottery from the Peloponnese and Epirus. The influence of Gnathia type pot-tery on West Slope ware is apparent in terms of the choice of decorative elements and the decoration technique. A standard motif used in Elis area – ivy tendrils formed by an incised undulating stem, white trifoliate elongated triangular leaves, and korymboi in form of three dots,48 is also found in the early phase of Gnathia type pottery (as early as 370 – 360 BC), in the production of the Konnakis group Kb.49 The workshop of the Konnakis Painter provides also other evidence of mutual influence – a stemless bell-krater (Green’s type B),50 which was popular only in the early production of Gnathia type pottery (370/360 – 340/330 BC). Since the earliest specimens from Corinth date back to the period before 370 BC, there are no doubts that Apulian potters were inspired by Greek models.51

The existence of reciprocal contacts between artists from southern Italy and continen-tal Greece and Macedonia is also indicated by pottery products from the east coast of the Adriatic Sea and adjacent islands. Besides numerous imports of Gnathia type pottery there is evidence of vessels of Greek provenance or their local imitations. For instance, a consid-erable part of material from the island of Vis (ancient Issa) comes from local production and is characterised by adoption of elements from both West Slope ware and Gnathia type pottery. An ideal example are oinochoai, whose shape – narrow elongated neck, smoothly continuing to a ribbed body, with a central interrupted plain band, and a high narrow ring base, undoubtedly draws on Apulian models. On the other hand, the geometric decoration on the neck in form of cross-hatching, concentric rectangles, and a chessboard pattern (ei-ther incised or accompanied by white painting) shows connections with West Slope ware.52 A similar situation of artistic syncretism is also found when analyzing finds from Budva, where a local potter portrayed alternating squares filled with diagonal lines and cross-hatch-ing on a late variant of a “new” amphora of Gnathia type pottery.53 The influence of Gnathia type pottery on the local production of Crete can be seen on two “levels”. The first level are direct imitations of the Alexandria group, which include, for instance, two kantharoi with ring handles, reportedly found in one grave in Crete (?),54 whose shape and decoration (a palmette framed by myrtle sprigs and hanging taeniae), are directly influences by Apulian models. The second level is represented by West Slope ware, which adopts particularly the wide range of decoration techniques in order to achieve colourfulness, shading and plas-ticity. Local potters’ choice of motifs and decoration techniques was inspired not only by Apulian, but also Sicilian production of Gnathia type pottery, and by red-figure pottery.

48 Alexandropoulou 2002, p. 30.49 Webster 1951, p. 224; 1968, p. 6.50 Green 1986a, p. 137, Fig. 31a,b; Green’s type B = Morel’s type 4616a (Morel 1981, p. 322, Pl. 139).51 Green 1979, p. 81; 1986, p. 137; McPhee 1997, pp. 135 – 136.52 Kirigin 1980, p. 85; 1990, p. 61.53 Krstić 2004, p. 587.54 Alexandropoulou 2002, p. 193; Bielefeld 1970, p. 3; Callaghan 1981b, p. 63; Green 2001, p. 75; Pfromer 1996,

p. 180.

production. The variety of shapes, the application of decoration (including types of mo-tifs) and the technological production process are usually derived from models,41 which are gradually abandoned and a distinctive style is developed. Another possibility is the combi-nation of domestic tradition and a new, foreign influence,42 either by using a typical decora-tion technique (or one of its parts) or decoration and motifs typical for West Slope ware, or by adopting vessel shapes alone.

Since the origin and geographical spread of West Slope ware was not linear, it is not always possible to precisely determine the primary “source” of impulses. The situation is often worsened by the absence of accuracy in the chronology of smaller workshops compared to At-tic production,43 which has recently seen down-dating.44 This fact raises doubts about wheth-er the application of West Slope technique was dated correctly. In general, West Slope ware is a result of a combination of local traditions and external impulses. Their ratio varies from region to region. While pottery production in Epirus, Boeotia, the Peloponnese and on Crete evolved independently of Athens, in Asia Minor, Macedonia and the Black Sea it was not so.

Relationship between Gnathia type pottery and West Slope ware

The intensity of mutual influence between Gnathia type pottery and West Slope ware was not the same in all areas. In many cases it had regional character. It depended on several fac-tors, the most important being the geographical location, which permitted closer commer-cial contacts, but also social, cultural-historical, and mainly political factors. The Hellenistic period is usually associated with the process of globalization, which meant syncretism and overlapping of the Greek and Oriental cultures. In reality, the existence of several Hellenistic kingdoms with various degrees and nature of reciprocity directly influenced the kind and extent of economic and commercial relations. This factor was also significant in the case of pottery production. On the one hand, most of the fine painted tableware was primarily in-tended for local markets, and in the long-distance trade it had a character of supplementary commodity.45 On the other hand, the presence of pottery of foreign provenance indicates that a certain form of mutual contact and distribution network existed. Trade in commodi-ties such as fine tableware never accounted for a dominant part of the economy of polis, and this fact was not changed by the arrival of Hellenism.

Features of distribution schemes varied with types of ware. They directly depended on several factors, such as technology and organization of production, the potential and eco-nomic possibilities of the given trade network, the wider social context, and not least the as-sumed kind of primary use.46 Looking at the distribution of Gnathia type and Gnathia style pottery and their imitations (so-called pseudo-Gnathia47) in the Mediterranean, we see that its occurrence was restricted to the regions and territories under the reign of the Ptolemaic dynasty during the 3rd century BC. Apart from Alexandria they controlled Cyprus and the

41 Compare Rotroff 1997b, pp. 228 – 229.42 Compare Op. cit. 1997b, p. 229.43 Rotroff 2004, p. 658.44 We observe the same situation e.g. in Corinth.45 Guldager Bilde 1993, p. 193.46 Compare e.g. van der Leeuw 1999, p. 125.47 For the term pseudo-Gnathia see Pfrommer 1996, p. 180.