Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Nouvelle contribution à l’étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes

The foundation of Pithekoussai

David Ridgway

Texte intégral

  • 1 J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968: hereafter «GGP»), p. 91 note 1 and p. 101 (...)
  • 2 S. Benton, BSA 48, 1953, pl. 42, no. 666 (Aetos; for Pithekoussai v. ibid. p. 279 note 165 — the s (...)
  • 3 Neeft, Utrecht, p. 107 and p. 121, Table V.

1It is generally agreed that the transition from Corinthian Middle to Late Geometric (hereafter «MG» and «LG») coincides with the development of the hemispherical kotyle (skyphos sans rebord) out of the deep skyphos (skyphos à rebord oblique)1. In the handle-zones of the first Corinthian LG hemispherical kotylai, chevrons appear above a layer of horizontal lines; these two features are together flanked by verticals, which meet solid paint below the level of the handles. This is the decorative scheme christened «Aetos 666» by Buchner in 19632; it is the same as that found on Neeft’s «E-3» skyphoi, which begin in Corinthian MG II3.

  • 4 GGP p. 101 with p. 330 (chronological table); a more detailed chart is attached to J. N. Coldstrea (...)
  • 5 G. Bartoloni and F. Cordano, Calcidesi ed Eretriesi nell’Italia centrale e in Campania nel secolo (...)

2On Coldstream’s estimate, followed by Neeft, the Corinthian LG chevron (or Aetos 666) kotyle makes its first appearance around 7504. The type stands — in substantial quantities — at the upper end of the ceramic sequence in the cemetery and on the other constituent sites at Pithekoussai; and this fact led Buchner to state in 1975 that there is nothing at the oldest Greek establishment in the West which «must necessarily be earlier than 750» — but that «in view of the vast extent of the settlement in the third quarter of the VIII century, it seems most probable that Pithekoussai was founded before the end of the second quarter». Doubt has recently been cast on the validity of this reasoning, and hence on the validity of the absolute date to which it leads5: and the first object of this paper is to defend both.

***

  • 6 Pace S. Benton, BSA cit. p. 279 and GGP p. 101. See Neeft, Utrecht, p. 107 note 73 (Attic origin o (...)
  • 7 Dr. Neeft kindly informs me that since 1975 he has observed this interior decoration on a fr. from (...)
  • 8 See note 4, above. I am unable to trace the source of the «datazione del Coldstream dal 760 a. C.» (...)

3Apart from the Aetos 666 scheme in the handle-zone, the Corinthian LG chevron kotyle-body has no further linear decoration save for a reserved line inside the rim, which in some cases inherits groups of little vertical bars from its MG II forerunner6. This feature occurs on many fragments of chevron kotylai examined by Neeft in the Vathy (Aetos) museum, and on thirteen out of fourteen recognizable fragments at Delphi. The only other site7 where the feature was encountered by Neeft’s exhaustive autopsy (published in 1975) is that of Pithekoussai. Chevron kotylai with these bars, which «disappear gradually» (Neeft), may reasonably be supposed to be comparatively early in any sequence of chevron kotylai that there may be. The fact that there is a significant number of chevron kotylai at Pithekoussai with this feature is already, therefore, a pointer towards the earliest possible date for the presence of Corinthian LG there: around 7508.

  • 9 Neeft, Utrecht, p. 108, Fig. III (type 2a) and p. 123, Table VIII («vertical squigglekotylai» are (...)
  • 10 The ratio between greatest/mouth diameter: height: foot diameter of Pithekoussai I201-2 is virtual (...)

4This impression is if anything reinforced by the presence in local LG I tombs (ca. 750-725) of Corinthian LG «vertical squiggle kotylai», related to (rather than derived from) the Aetos 666 type9. One of them, Pithekoussai I, 201-2, is actually of a form which on Descoeudres’recent analysis appears to precede those of the chevron kotylai at Corinth, Aetos and Pithekoussai10.

  • 11 A new terminology to describe the stages between «à rebord oblique» and «sans rebord» is badly nee (...)
  • 12 G. Buchner, Contribution, cit., p. 66 f. with pl. I (map). On the Blacksmiths’Quarter see idem, AR (...)
  • 13 S. C. Humphreys, Il commercio in quanto motivo della colonizzazione greca dell’Italia e della Sici (...)
  • 14 R. M. Cook, Reasons for the foundation of Ischia and Cumae, in Historia 11, 1962, p. 114.
  • 15 O. Murray, Early Greece (London, 1980), p. 100.
  • 16 I refer to the stratified Corinthian MG-LG sequence displayed and discussed at the International C (...)

5It is clear, in other words, that the final stages in the «kotylization» of the Corinthian MG II skyphos can be followed in some detail at Pithekoussai11. In itself, of course, this does not necessarily authorize the assumption of a purely MG horizon, hitherto unattested. Nevertheless, as Buchner’s 1975 statement (above) clearly implied, the existence of such a horizon (however unjustified it may appear to some) can logically be deduced from the sheer physical extent of the settlement — and of the distribution in it of «early» chevron kotylai — by 750. At that date, Pithekoussai was not a rural fair that had. been temporarily erected overnight: it was already a permanent community, consisting of a number of individual sites (including a suburban. Blacksmiths’Quarter) ranged along an axis that is 1 km. in length — this is, in fact, the greatest extent ever achieved by Pithekoussai in its long history12. How long it took to grow to this size is quite another matter: but years rather than months seem more probable if we care to think in terms of «a friendly base for wintering, mending ship, or loading cargoes assembled in advance byagents»13 developing naturally out of «a useful place to stop and revictual»14 — and generally fulfilling the pre-734 role convincingly assigned to Ischia in a new analysis: the essential one of «lifeline and source of information»15. Although it was the Euboeans rather than the Corinthians who took the first step westwards, the new finds from Otranto may well furnish a terminus post quern of around 780 for a significant increase in the variety no less than the volume of Greek commercial activity in Tyrrhenian waters, too16.

  • 17 GGP, p. 354 (see note 5, above). Dr. Buchner kindly informs me that the«anonymous» piece involved (...)
  • 18 Pithekoussai I Sp. 4/4 (pres. ht. 9,4; diam. mouth 14,5; Naples inv. no. 168838; tav. 245). For th (...)
  • 19 On the survival, perhaps with some loss of popularity, of the chevron skyphos into Corinthian LG, (...)
  • 20 General accounts of the Scarico Gosetti: G. Buchner, Expedition 8-4, 1966, pp. 4-12; DdA 3, 1969, (...)
  • 21 I am grateful to Dr. Buchner for permitting me to publish these sherds now, in advance of their de (...)

6Finally, it has not so far been sufficiently appreciated that there are a few faint traces of an MG presence at Pithekoussai. In 1968, Coldstream referred to the «late MG II character» of a. local skyphos — almost a kotyle, with a very low rim17. A similar chronological definition should surely be applied to another local imitation of a Corinthian original: a skyphos that resembles a kotyle only in its possession of the canonical Aetos 666 scheme of decoration in the handle-zone (Fig. 1)18. Both pieces have been re-built from sporadic sherds found in the cemetery: originally, they were almost certainly deposited in graves that were subsequently dismantled. It is hardly likely that the local potters who made these cups were recalling the Corinthian models they had left behind: it is much more probable that they were required to augment a meagre trickle of actual imported skyphoi, which in the nature of things are more likely to have been MG than LG19. In addition, re-examination of the material from the Acropolis Dump (the «Scarico Gosetti»), excavated in 196520, now reveals a number of sky-phos fragments with chevrons and with rims offset to varying degrees. The fabric is not local; in one case (Fr. 1, below) it is clearly Corinthian; that of the others (Frr. 2-9, below) I define for the time being as generically «Euboean». More detailed exegesis of the precise affinities of these sherds is inappropriate here: I limit myself simply to their presentation, in the hope of stimulating further definition and discussion21.

CATALOGUE (Pl. II)

Corinthian

  • 22 ht. 6,2; diam. ca. 13. I am most grateful to Professor A. Cambitoglou for supplying the original o (...)

7Fr. 1 ht. 3,9; diam. ca. 19; Naples inv. no. 169114; Neeft, Utrecht, p. 121 Table V, no. 26. Reddish yellow (5 YR 6/6) clay; surface very pale brown (10 YR 8/4); paint outside and inside red (2. 5 YR 4/8), slightly lustrous. As M. Robertson, BSA 43, 1948, p. 11, fig. 1 and pl. 2 nos. 9 and 10 (Aetos) — defined as possibly «on the verge of MG II» (GGP, p. 102); and A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora I (Sydney, 1971), fig. 44 (Fig. 2)22. Fr. 1 is surely not far removed from Corinth C 37-4 (Corinth VII-1, no. 75, pl. 12 and p. 27, fig. 7; Neeft, Utrecht, p. 120, Table IV, no. 5), à propos of which Coldstream remarks «towards the end of MG (my italics), the shape seems to have deepened» (GGP, p. 97 with pl. 17h); cf. also J. K. Anderson, BSA 53-54, 1958-59, pl. 22, no. 60 (Old Smyrna). I therefore believe that Fr. 1 is a Corinthian MG II piece; Dr. Neeft’s preference is for LG («and not very early in that period»).

Euboean

8In addition to the specific parallels cited ss. vv. Frr. 2-9, below, the following sherds from Euboea are generally relevant: — M. R. Popham, L. H. Sackett et al., Lefkandi I: The Iron Age {BSA Supplementary Volume no. 11; London, 1979-plates only), pl. 50, nos. 201-204 from various areas of the Xeropolis settlement, defined as LG kotylai (sic). Like Frr. 6, 7, 8 and 9 below, the chevrons on these Xeropolis sherds are floating in the field to a greater (201, 202 and 204) or lesser (203) extent (see further s. v. Fr. 6, below); the scheme is not necessarily Aetos 666 (as ibid. 200); in. the absence of descriptions (forthcoming) and profiles, it is not possible to evaluate the precise shapes of the rims, but (to judge from the photographs) those of 201 and 202 may be offset, while those of 203 and 204 might be «nicked». Chevrons that are definitely not floating will be found on the sherds illustrated ibid. pl. 21 nos. 414-418 (Xeropolis Area 2, The Levelling Material: MG Attic and Atticizing), which look like sherds of chevron skyphoi with distinctly offset rims. See also six sherds from Eretria, published by A. Andreiomenou in Arch. Eph. 1977, p. 131, fig. 1, nos. 31-36 (profiles); p. 147, nos. 91-96; pl. 52a; and the drawings of several MG and LG frr. with chevrons from Otranto, presented with commendable speed by F. D’Andria in Salento Arcaico, cit., pl. 12.

9Fr. 2 ht. 4,5; diam. ca. 14. Light reddish brown (5 YR 6/4) clay; surface abraded, elsewhere pink (7. 5 YR 7/4); paint outside and inside red (2. 5 YR 5/8). Presumably a non-local imitation of the Corinthian type represented by Fr. 1. Cf. Pithekoussai I, Sp. 4/4 (above; and Fig. 1).

10Fr. 3 ht. 2,3; diam. ca. 22. Approximately pink (7. 5 YR 7/4) clay and surface (5 YR 7/4); paint outside yellowish red (5 YR 5/6), inside reddish brown (5 YR 4/3). Interior glazed save for a line in a broad reserved band inside the rim.

11Fr. 4 ht. 2,7; diam. ca. 21. Light red (2. 5 YR 6/8) clay; surface pink (7. 5 YR 7/4); paint outside and inside red (10 R 5/8). Interior glazed save for a thick line in a broad reserved band inside the rim.

12Fr. 5 ht. 2,3; diam. ca. 18. Pink (7. 5 YR 7/4) clay; surface very pale brown (10 YR 7/3); paint outside and inside red (10 R 5/8).

13Fr. 6 ht. 6,3; diam. ca. 13 (rim distorted); Naples inv. no. 169409. Four joining frr. Light red (2. 5 YR 6/6) clay; slip pale yellow (2. 5 Y 8/4); paint outside black to dark brown (7. 5 YR 3/2), inside red (2. 5 YR 5/6) to dark reddish brown (5 YR 3/2). Six-stroke multiple brush. Cf. Lefkandi I, cit., pl. 50, no. 204. The chevrons are well and truly floating in the field; but this piece is much finer than, say, Eretria III, pl. 15, no. 61 (the context of which is ca. 720 or later) or SE 35, 1967, pl. 58g (Veii: post 750). See further J. N. Coldstream, Rapport de synthèse: the pottery, in Actes du Colloque «La céramique grecque...», cit., in press — where the whole of the «floating chevron» class of skyphoi is excluded from the inventory of pre-colonial finds.

14Fr. 7 ht. 5,9; diam. ca. 18; Naples inv. no. 169415. Two joining frr. Red (2. 5 YR 5/8) clay; slip very pale brown (10 YR 8/3); paint outside red (2. 5 YR 5/6), inside mainly dark reddish brown (5 YR 3/2). Cf. Lefkandi I, cit., pl. 36, no. 1 (profile: pl. 60, no. 1); Andreiomenou, Arch. Eph., cit., p. 147, no. 93 (Eretria; chevrons barely floating-v. pl. 52a; for profile, see p. 131 fig. 1, no. 33). Perhaps a Euboean version of Corinth C 50-107: GGP, pl. 18d (MG II; «the immediate predecessor of the LG skyphos of the Thapsos class», p. 97) and Neeft, Utrecht, p. 121, Table V, no. 17.

15Fr. 8 ht. 4,5; diam. ca. 20; Naples inv. no. 169684. Approximately pink (7. 5 YR 7/4) clay, encrusted in the breaks; slip very pale brown (10 YR 7/3); paint outside and inside brown (7. 5 YR 5/2). Interior glazed save for a single reserved line on the top of the rim, crossed by sets of short vertical bars. Concerning the latter feature, Neeft (Utrecht, p. 121) observes that the varieties of the chevron skyphos collected in his Table V «continue until after the beginning of LG, as testified by the disappearance (my italics) of the groups of vertical strokes from the reserved line».

16Fr. 9 ht. 1,6; diam. ca. 23. Red (2. 5 YR 5/8) clay; slip very pale brown (10 YR 7/3); paint outside dark red (10 R 3/6), inside red (10 R 5/8). Interior glazed save for a single reserved line inside the rim, crossed by a set of short vertical bars (on the possible significance of which see Neeft, s. v. Fr. 8).

***

  • 23 D. Ridgway, SE 1967, p. 313 f. and the references there cited.
  • 24 «It seems very probable to me that there had been a Euboean horizon in Pithekoussai before the Cor (...)
  • 25 Neeft, Utrecht, 121 (note to Table V); cf. Fr. 8, above.

17The minute quantity in which this — as I believe — basically MG material is present at Pithekoussai inhibits any attempt to assess its chronological and historical significance too precisely. We are dealing with sherds; there are no handles, no complete profiles (deep or otherwise), and no complete panels (with all that they might show us in the way of flanking verticals23 and underlying horizontals); nor am I convinced that rim lengths of less than 2 cm. (Fr. 2) and of just under 4,5 cm. (Fr. 5) are sufficient to exclude the presence of vertical bars in the reserved line inside the rim — whatever their significance (Frr. 8, 9). How indicative is the numerical disparity between the Corinthian and the Euboean pieces presented above24? Furthermore, Neeft suspects that his Corinthian E-3 scheme (the immediate precursor of the Aetos 666 decoration on kotylai) « continues on skyphoì (my italics) for quite some time inLG»25. But do we really know enough about the Corinthian-Euboean relationship to transfer this kind of observation automatically to Euboean material — and indeed to a «Western Euboean» piece like Pithekoussai I Sp. 4/4 (above; and Fig. 1)? And the date of 750 for the Corinthian MG-LG transition is in any case an ominously approximate one. Even so, there is surely a reasonable chance that some at least of the rim frr. listed, above belong to Euboean MG chevron skyphoi, and that they are earlier — in time as in typology — than the Aetos 666 variety of Corinthian LG kotyle, invariably cited as the earliest Greek type found so far at Pithekoussai. This being the case, one question in particular is inevitable.

  • 26 In Some problems, cit. (note 4, above).
  • 27 Bartoloni and Cordano, PdP cit., p. 321 note 1 (on which see note 5, above).

18Hitherto, as Coldstream noted in 1976, the Greek skyphoi with chevrons exported to Italy have been found in native tombs, and were therefore presumably traded to the natives themselves as luxury articles26. The above Euboean sherds from the Scarico Gosetti were found neither in tombs nor in a native context: should we therefore see in them a clue to the immediate source of the extraordinary — and frankly un-Greek» — popularity of the chevron motif on «pre-colonial» skyphoi in the West (Campania and Etruria but not Latium vetus), as distinct from Euboea itself and the East? The issues raised by this question are complex, and cannot be solved by Pithekoussai alone. For the moment, it is sufficient to stress that there is no reason to doubt the existence of a Euboean presence on Ischia in the second quarter of the VIII century. Buch-ner’s argument for a foundation-date prior to 750, already unimpeachable in terms of common sense, can no longer be accused of resting even in part on the «presumed existence of earlier material, as yet undocumented»27.

***

  • 28 The following items are indispensable: V. D. Blavatski, I. T. Kruglikova, G. A. Koshelenko, On the (...)
  • 29 T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (Oxford, 1948), p. 453 contra A. W. Byvanck, Mnemosyne 4, 1937, (...)
  • 30 G. Colonna, Ceramica geometrica dell’Italia meridionale nell’area etrusca, in Atti VIII Convegno d (...)

19Much recent and current discussion28 revolves around the alternative definitions of «trading settlement» and «colony» — and around the application of one or the other to Pithekoussai. What then of the process that may now be assigned there — even more emphatically than before — to late MG? Was it the beginning of trade, or the raising of a flag? Should we conclude, for the reasons stated long ago by Dunbabin29, that the oldest tombs at the first Western Greek establishment have still to be discovered? — or, worse still, that they were all dismantled at a later stage? In this connection, it is interesting to recall that the distribution pattern of chevron skyphoi in Etruria is the same as that of the contemporary South Italian pottery there. Accordingly, Colonna has deduced the existence of «a competitive situation that is difficult to imagine after the foundation of Pithekoussai, given the monopoly exercised by the latter centre over Tyrrhenian trade»30. In other words, if Pithekoussai was fully operational at the time of the chevron skyphoi, it would have blocked the trickle of contemporary Oenotrian Geometric into Southern Etruria. Since it did not succeed in doing so (always supposing that it tried), I am tempted — at least for the time being — to interpret the modest quantity of Corinthian, Euboean and local MG pottery considered in this paper as the outward and visible sign of what in a. more robust age would have been called an «advance party», still in the process of establishing the LG monopoly to which Colonna refers.

  • 31 A. J. Graham, Colony and mother city in ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964), pp. 4-8; Murray, Early (...)

20As to the status of the Pithekoussan community at any stage in the VIII century, my own view is that both the «trading settlement» and the «colony» definitions have at least something to commend them. The nature (as distinct from the bulk) of the archaeological evidence so far retrieved at Pithekoussai is limited: nevertheless, I am beginning to wonder how important the emporion/apoikia distinction was to the VIII century Pithekoussans themselves — and indeed, as I have already hinted, whether the former could not have evolved effectively into the latter. If this suggestion seems unduly naive, I would plead that the dangers of rigid classification, notorious even among later Greek establishments overseas31, are likely to be even greater in the case of the first such establishment. After all, literacy and figurative art of a high order were present at Pithekoussai from an early stage and on a scale that almost compels conferment of «special case» status.

***

  • 32 Resident Orientals: G. Buchner, Testimonianze epigrafiche semitiche dell’VIII sec. a. C. a Pitheko (...)
  • 33 C. Roebuck, Some aspects of urbanization in Corinth, in Hesperia 41, 1972, pp. 96-127.
  • 34 G. Buchner, Contribution, cit., p. 69 ff, with pl. II (family plots).
  • 35 A. M. Snodgrass, Archaeology and the rise of the Greek state (Cambridge, 1977), p. 33.
  • 36 M. Pallottino (on CIEII, 1, i), SE 22, 1952-1953, p. 193 f.: Orvieto, where ninety different famil (...)

21I should like to conclude by illustrating the current difficulties that I have encountei-ed in the search for a less anodyne word than «establishment» to define the status of Pithekoussai. Trading settlements (emporta) tend to be of mixed or otherwise uncertain parentage and to be characterized by mixed populations. Al Mina, Naucratis, Adria and Spina satisfy both these conditions: Pithekoussai satisfies only the second, and that to an arguably limited degree32. Colonies (apoikie), qua self-sufficient (because food-producing) city-states abroad, are a product of the world of the Greek polis — with all its attendant social implications. That there was a degree of social, indeed urban, organization at Pithekoussai from the mid-VIII century onwards cannot be doubted. But it is hard to believe that the polis concept was already packaged for export at the first available opportunity, along with the Euboean and Corinthian skyphoi: more than a generation later, in the 730’s, Corinth herself was no more than a group of villages33. In any case, it is far from obvious that the social arrangements archaeologically perceptible at VIII century Pithekoussai are exclusive to the polis, or to full-blown colonial status. Local dispositions concerning the siting (and doubtless the conduct) of the suburban Blacksmiths’Quarter, or the delimitation (and dismantling) of family plots34 in the cemetery are surely no more significant socially than the physical choice of an easily-defended site for the acropolis. Pioneers in strange lands are inevitably required to solve new problems on an ad hoc basis: and the resulting phenomena should not be taken as implying derivation from similar institutions at home. On the contrary, the most stimulating question asked recently about Pithekoussai is precisely this: «Is it possible that the example of the colonies (sic) may have accelerated developments at home?»35. If the answer to this question is simply «yes», the undisputed status of Cumae and of most of the Sicilian foundations as poleis makes good sense, and so does Cumae’s subsequent transmission of the polis-concept to the Etruscans. It remains true that the classic description of the new class which wielded the main power in the Etruscan poleis as an «evoluta ed ardita classe di commercianti»36 is strikingly reminiscent of the situation at Pithekoussai two centuries earlier.

  • 37 J. M. Cook, Greek settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Minor = CAH I-II, rev. edn. (Cambridge (...)

22On the Bay of Naples, and perhaps in the West generally, I suggest that the process of urbanization may usefully be compared with that in contemporary Ionia. Although the re-organization of Smyrna after the presumed earthquake of ca. 700 amounts to «the first certain and unambiguous apparition of the Hellenic polis»37, the first wall circuit there dates to the mid-IX and the second to the mid-VIII century. Both represent public undertakings of considerable proportions, and the impression of an organized community is borne out by the densely packed structures of the VIII century habitation — between 400 and 500 families on a peninsula that was barely one third (365 m) as long as the axis of contemporary Pithekoussai.

***

23Meanwhile, I can as yet see no reason why Euboean skyphoi with chevrons, at Pithekoussai as at Cumae, should not retain their traditional significance as trace-elements of pre-colonial exchanges.

Notes

1 J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968: hereafter «GGP»), p. 91 note 1 and p. 101; Idem, Geometric Greece (London, 1977), p. 168; C. W. Neeft, Corinthian fragments from Argos at Utrecht and the Corinthian Late Geometric Kotyle, in Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, 50, 1975, pp. 97-134 (hereafter «Neeft, Utrecht»).

2 S. Benton, BSA 48, 1953, pl. 42, no. 666 (Aetos; for Pithekoussai v. ibid. p. 279 note 165 — the scrap of kotyle rim with chevrons found on Monte di Vico and published by G. Buchner in ASMG 1954, tav. iv fig. 8); G. Buchner, Atti III Taranto 1963 (1964), p. 264 and fig. 1,a (whence GGP pl. 19,j); Neeft, Utrecht, p. 108, Fig. III (type 1) and p. 122, Table VII (chevron kotylai).

3 Neeft, Utrecht, p. 107 and p. 121, Table V.

4 GGP p. 101 with p. 330 (chronological table); a more detailed chart is attached to J. N. Coldstream, Some problems of eighth century pottery in the West, seen from the Greek angle, in Actes du Colloque «La céramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIe en Italie centrale et méridionale» (Naples, Centre J. Bérard, 1976; in press).

5 G. Bartoloni and F. Cordano, Calcidesi ed Eretriesi nell’Italia centrale e in Campania nel secolo VIII a. C., in PdP 33, 1978, p. 321 note 1 dispute the absolute chronology proposed by G. Buchner in Contribution à l’étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes (= Cahiers du Centre J. Bérard, II, Naples, 1975), p. 67. It should be noted that neither the word «polis» nor the date «775 a. C.» occur on the page cited, although their existence there is implied by Bartoloni and Cordano, loc. cit. — where the important information on GGP p. 354 is also apparently misunderstood. See note 8, below.

6 Pace S. Benton, BSA cit. p. 279 and GGP p. 101. See Neeft, Utrecht, p. 107 note 73 (Attic origin of the vertical bars); ibid., p. 109 note 87 and p. 122, Table VII (where the feature is labelled«d» in the rim column: nos. 7, 8, 15 from Pithekoussai; no. 17 from Aetos; no. 18 from Delphi) with p. 110 f. note 118 (and addendum: p. 127).

7 Dr. Neeft kindly informs me that since 1975 he has observed this interior decoration on a fr. from Asine and on a number of chevron skyphos and chevron kotyle frr. from the new excavations at Otranto and Cavallino near Lecce (note 16, below).

8 See note 4, above. I am unable to trace the source of the «datazione del Coldstream dal 760 a. C.» for the Aetos 666 kotylai mentioned by Bartoloni and Cordano, PdP cit., p. 325. Coldstream’s use of 760 as a terminus ante quem for the foundation of Pithekoussai (GGP, p. 354) is clearly motivated by considerations similar to those expounded by Buchner (loc. cit., in note 5, above).

9 Neeft, Utrecht, p. 108, Fig. III (type 2a) and p. 123, Table VIII («vertical squigglekotylai» are possibly derived from «E-1» Corinthian MG skyphoi: ibid., p. 109, note 90). Two imported examples of this type will be published by G. Buchner and D. Ridgway in Pithekoussai I (MA monograph, in press: the tav. nos. cited here and elsewhere are those submitted to the Accademia dei Lincei in October 1979): tomb 201-2 (Naples inv. no. 166960; tav. 89; Neeft’s Table VIII no. 22; three-limbed sigmas) and tomb 331-1 (Naples inv. no. 167482; tav. 127; not tabled by Neeft; four-limbed sigmas). The sigmas on 201-2 and 331-1 are not floating in the field; pace Neeft, therefore, I would assign them to his type 2a rather than to his type 2b. There are more frr. of type 2a in the Acropolis Dump («ScaricoGosetti») material: Neeft’s Table VIII, no. 17.

10 The ratio between greatest/mouth diameter: height: foot diameter of Pithekoussai I201-2 is virtually the same as that between the equivalent measurements of Corinth C 31-159 (Corinth VII-1 no. 107, pl. 16, and p. 36 fig. 11; Neeft’s Table VIII, no. 7-type 2a), which is classified as «Form 1» on the Table that accompanies J. -P. Descoeudres, Euboeans in Australia: some observations on the imitations of Corinthian kotylai made in Eretria and found in Al Mina, in Eretria VI (Berne, 1978), pp. 7-19. Pithekoussai I 331-1 falls halfway between Descoeudres’Forms 3 and 4. The three imported Aetos 666 kotylai in Pithekoussai I belong to Descoeudres’Form 3 (Sp. 5/1: Naples inv. no. 168845; Neeft’s Table VII no. 7. Sp. 5/3: Naples inv. no. 168847; tav. 246; GGP pl. 19 j; Neeft’s Table VII, no. 9) and, like 331-1, to Form 3/4 (Sp. 5/2: Naples inv. no. 168846; tav. 246; Neeft’s Table VII, no. 8). It may be noted that a local version of the Aetos 666 type also belongs to Descoeudres’Form 1 (469-2: Naples inv. no. 167804; tav. 138); and so does a local kotyle with a single bird in the panel and flanking verticals broken by double axes (Sp. 5/22: Naples inv. no. 168866; tav. 248). Of these, 469-2 (old tomb-no.: 359), is associated with two pairs of long-footed bronze fibulas con arco rivestito: on the chronological significance of this, see J. Close-Brooks, SE 35, 1967, p. 328.

11 A new terminology to describe the stages between «à rebord oblique» and «sans rebord» is badly needed; and so is reflection on the human factors involved in their appearance. Progress under both headings could suitably be based on the stratified evidence that is emerging in the recent and current excavations at Otranto (notes 7 and 16): for practical purposes, this sequence is likely to be more instructive than the unstratified material from the Pithekoussai acropolis. The assemblages from the later excavations in the Pithekoussai cemetery (tomb 724 onwards) and from the Blacksmiths’Quarter there (see next note) are not yet available for detailed overall exegesis.

12 G. Buchner, Contribution, cit., p. 66 f. with pl. I (map). On the Blacksmiths’Quarter see idem, AR for 1970-71, p. 64 ff. (S. V. «the Mazzola habitation site»); and J. Klein, A Greek metalworking quarter, in Expedition 14-2, 1972, pp. 34-39.«Early» chevron kotylai with vertical bars crossing a reserved line inside the rim occur in both the Acropolis Dump (the «Scarico Gosetti») and the Mazzola material, and were noted by Neeft, Utrecht as follows: p. 111 note 118, nos. 1-3 and p. 122, Table VII, no. 15 (Gosetti); p. 111 note 118, no. 4 (Mazzola).

13 S. C. Humphreys, Il commercio in quanto motivo della colonizzazione greca dell’Italia e della Sicilia, in RSI 77, 1965, p. 425.

14 R. M. Cook, Reasons for the foundation of Ischia and Cumae, in Historia 11, 1962, p. 114.

15 O. Murray, Early Greece (London, 1980), p. 100.

16 I refer to the stratified Corinthian MG-LG sequence displayed and discussed at the International Colloquium held in the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Lecce in April 1979:I am glad of this opportunity to thank Professors D. Adamesteanu, F. D’Andria and C. Pagliara for their hospitality on that memorable occasion; see now the Atti of the Colloquium, Salento Arcaico (Università di Lecce, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Archeologia e Storia Antica, 1, Galatina, 1979). 780 is a round date for the beginning of Corinthian dedications at the Aetos shrine, presumably connected with the establishment of a Corinthian trading post there (GGP, p. 353): as Miss Benton remarked, «the richness of the shrine must depend on Westerncolonisation» (BSA 48, cit., p. 260; and cf. now F. D’Andria in Salento Arcaico, cit., p. 24,«d»). However, Dr. Neeft tells me (in litt.) that he sees «no reason as yet to go (if at all!) very much beyond 750 for the Corinthian interest in Otranto». On the possibility of Euboean interest in Aetos before the middle of the VIII century, see GGP, p. 227 f. Interestingly enough, Dr. Neeft also tells me that «the (Otranto) material as I have seen it resembles more Pithekoussai thanAetos»; and cf. now B. D’Agostino in Salento Arcaico, cit., p. 29 («... il quadro non sarebbe allora così discordante da quello che conosciamo per la costa tirrenica»).

17 GGP, p. 354 (see note 5, above). Dr. Buchner kindly informs me that the«anonymous» piece involved is Pithekoussai I Sp. 5/5 (Naples inv. no. 168849; tav. 247), classified as «LG corinzia d’imitazione locale (del tipo "Aetos666")». In Corinthian terms, the black handle certainly suggests MG II: but Dr. Neeft comments that this feature is not so far attested on his «E-3» skyphoi, whereas it is found in LG in the Euboeo-Cycladic koiné (e. g. GGP pls. 38-41).

18 Pithekoussai I Sp. 4/4 (pres. ht. 9,4; diam. mouth 14,5; Naples inv. no. 168838; tav. 245). For the Corinthian MG II model, see Fr. 1 in the Catalogue below and the comparanda there cited. Dr. Neeft points out that the chevron skyphos Corinth Τ 2209 (Corinth XIII, grave 20-2, pl. 6; Utrecht, p. 121, Table V, no. 4) constitutes the only«early» parallel for the single horizontal lines on the handles of this piece; otherwise, the feature is common on the handles of Thapsos cups post 740/30 and of post-LG tall kotylai. This being the case, it should be noted that one fr. of Sp. 4/4 was found underneath the agglutinated cremations 174 and 175, of which the latter yielded a local oi-nochoe of typically LG I appearance (as J. Boardman and G. Buchner, JDAI81, 1966, p. 4 figs. 3-5). I conclude that the terminus ante quem for the deposition of Sp. 4/4 (in a subsequently dismantled grave?) may be more than a little earlier than the stage in LG I represented by 175.

19 On the survival, perhaps with some loss of popularity, of the chevron skyphos into Corinthian LG, see Dr. Neeft’s opinion apud Fr. 8 in the Catalogue below: presence/absence of vertical bars inside the rim is not a valid indicator of MG/LG examples.

20 General accounts of the Scarico Gosetti: G. Buchner, Expedition 8-4, 1966, pp. 4-12; DdA 3, 1969, p. 98 f. ; AR for 1970-71, pp. 63-67; and in Contribution, cit., p. 67 («è ben possibile che in quell’area non ci siano stati scarichi del periodo più antico»).

21 I am grateful to Dr. Buchner for permitting me to publish these sherds now, in advance of their definitive presentation in Pithekoussai II (currently in active preparation, under my direction); to Fritz Gehrke, who drew them for me at short notice in September 1979; and to J. N. Coldstream ard L. Kahil for their comments. I am especially grateful to C. W. Neeft for an exhaustive critique (in litt., 1-12-1979) of an earlier version of this paper. I have quoted his views at length, and feel bound to relay also his general conclusion: «nothing (on Pls. I and II here) is necessarily earlier than 750».
My work on the Scarico Gosetti in the Summer of 1979 was made possible by grants from the British Academy and from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, to whom my best thanks are due.
In the list that follows, measurements are given in centimetres; diam., where given, refers to the mouth and is reconstructed. Following the recent and relevant examples of Neeft, Utrecht and of Descoeudres in Eretria VI cit., I have described the clay, surface/slip and pail t in terms of the Mun- Mun-sell Soil Color Charts (Baltimore, 1971). Unless otherwise stated, the interior is glazed save for a single reserved line at the top of the rim.

22 ht. 6,2; diam. ca. 13. I am most grateful to Professor A. Cambitoglou for supplying the original of Fig. 2.

23 D. Ridgway, SE 1967, p. 313 f. and the references there cited.

24 «It seems very probable to me that there had been a Euboean horizon in Pithekoussai before the Corinthians frequented it, and these skyphoi might well testify that stage» (Neeft, in litt.) — a scenario that is not seriously disturbed by our different opinions of Fr. 1, and may even find a parallel at Otranto (see note 16, above).

25 Neeft, Utrecht, 121 (note to Table V); cf. Fr. 8, above.

26 In Some problems, cit. (note 4, above).

27 Bartoloni and Cordano, PdP cit., p. 321 note 1 (on which see note 5, above).

28 The following items are indispensable: V. D. Blavatski, I. T. Kruglikova, G. A. Koshelenko, On the problem of Greek Migrations, and other contributions (all in Russian) to Problems of Greek colonization of the northern and eastern Black Sea littoral: Materials of the 1st All-Union Symposium of the Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral, Tskhaltubo, 1977 (Tbilisi, 1979); A. Mele, Il commercio greco arcaico: prexis ed emporie (Naples, 1979). For a summary of the specifically Cam-panian scene, see most recently M. W. Frederiksen, The Etruscans in Campania, in Italy before the Romans (D. and F. R. Ridgway, eds.: London, 1979), pp. 277-311.

29 T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (Oxford, 1948), p. 453 contra A. W. Byvanck, Mnemosyne 4, 1937, p. 224f.; more recently Neeft, Utrecht, p. 116 contra GGP, p. 322.

30 G. Colonna, Ceramica geometrica dell’Italia meridionale nell’area etrusca, in Atti VIII Convegno di Studi Etruschi, Orvieto 1972 (1974), pp. 297-302; cf. D. Ridgway, The eighth century pottery at Pithekoussai: an interim report and analytical index, in Actes du Colloque «La céramique grecque...», cit., in press.

31 A. J. Graham, Colony and mother city in ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964), pp. 4-8; Murray, Early Greece, cit., p. 104. See also Dunbabin, op. cit., p. 451, note 2 on « frontierlife ».

32 Resident Orientals: G. Buchner, Testimonianze epigrafiche semitiche dell’VIII sec. a. C. a Pithekoussai, in PdP 33, 1978, especially p. 142.

33 C. Roebuck, Some aspects of urbanization in Corinth, in Hesperia 41, 1972, pp. 96-127.

34 G. Buchner, Contribution, cit., p. 69 ff, with pl. II (family plots).

35 A. M. Snodgrass, Archaeology and the rise of the Greek state (Cambridge, 1977), p. 33.

36 M. Pallottino (on CIEII, 1, i), SE 22, 1952-1953, p. 193 f.: Orvieto, where ninety different families are attested epigraphically in the Crocefisso del Tufo cemetery between 550 and 500. The parallel with the VIII century situation on Ischia (where epigraphic evidence is less extensive: but see note 32, above) now extends to a VI century «Celtic penetration» at Orvieto to match the earlier «resident Orientals» at Pithekoussai: C. De Simone, Un nuovo gentilizio etrusco di Orvieto (Katacina), in PdP 33, 1978, pp. 370-395.

37 J. M. Cook, Greek settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia Minor = CAH I-II, rev. edn. (Cambridge, 1961), p. 32; Idem et al., Old Smyrna, 1948-1951, in BSA 53-54, 1958-1959, pp. 1-181.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/220/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 126k
Légende Fig. 2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/220/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 173k
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/220/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 970k

Auteur

© Publications du Centre Jean Bérard, 1982

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540