Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Euboica

 | 
Bruno D'Agostino
, 
Michel Bats

Euboea and Naxos in the Late Geometric period: the Cesnola Style

Nota Kourou

Texte intégral

1Inter-island communication in the Aegean during the Geometric period is usually discussed in terms of pottery exchange or influence. In our rather poor archaeological record for this period other imports to the Aegean are rather scarce or of a non securely identified provenance; thus pottery styles seem to offer the main and most reliable evidence for trade or cultural exchanges among the islands. Euboea and Naxos, therefore, should be considered as well connected in the LG period since several of their pottery styles are strikingly similar.

  • 1 For the foundation of Naxos cf. P. Rizzo, Naxos siceliota, Roma 1894; Kontoleon 1967; S. N. Consol (...)
  • 2 Cf. Malkin 1987.

2The common involvement of the two islands in the foundation of the colony of Naxos in Sicily, implied by some ancient authors, offers another kind of evidence for their assumed close contacts1. Historical facts are rarely met by archaeological data and any attempt to retrieve the historical framework within which an association of Euboea and Naxos might have taken place during the later part of the eighth century, whether a political alliance, a league or other kind of union, if any, will inevitably remain speculative. Written sources are not revealing on this point concentrating on the primary role played by Chalcis, later acting as mother-city for Sicilian Naxos2.

  • 3 Cf. Strabo, Geogr. C 267.
  • 4 According to Eforos by Strabo, Geogr. C 267. 2. For precolonial expeditions in the West cf. Coldst (...)
  • 5 Cf. Malkin 1987.
  • 6 Cf. Strabo, Geogr. C 267 «Θεοκλέα δ’ ’Αθηναῖον παρενεχθέντα ἀνέμοις εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν ϰατανοῆσαι τή (...)

3The oikist Thoucles or Theokles, who is described as Athenian by Eforos3, was a former prospector that had visited the coasts of precolonial Sicily “privately”, i. e. at his own initiative and not at an ethnic enterprise4. Although he was possibly the first to realise the importance of having the patronage of a mother city, in practice he remained a private entrepreneur throughout his lifetime by acting later as the oikist of two more colonies in Sicily5. The mixed character of the crew that participated in the expedition for the founding of Naxos, however, remains an important feature in literary sources6.

  • 7 M. C. Lentini, ‘Le oinochoai “a collo tagliato”, un contributo alla conoscenza della ceramica di N (...)
  • 8 Pelagatti 1982; P. Pelagatti, ‘Bilancio degli Scavi di Naxos per l’VIII e VII sec. a. C.’, in ASAt (...)
  • 9 P. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos’, in Gli Eubei in Occidente, ‘Atti del XVIII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Gr (...)
  • 10 Several cults attested in Naxos Sicily have been thought to reflect similar cults of cycladic Naxo (...)
  • 11 For a mixed character of most colonies cf. A. Snodgrass, ‘The Growth and Standing of Early Western (...)

4Pottery excavated at the site of the ancient settlement of Naxos at Capo di Schiso is basically Eu-boean and most of the later local pottery from the settlement has also a strongly Euboean character7. Though material from the earliest strata of the settlement also includes other pottery, and mainly a large quantity of the ubiquitus Corinthian and Thap-sos Class vases8, nevertheless Cycladic pottery is reported only vaguely as consisting of a “few sherds ”9. Yet, some Naxian aspects of the colony’s culture have been identified on the evidence of epigraphy, numismatics and religion10 suggesting a mixed cultural background from the very beginning11.

  • 12 For the “Cesnola Painter” cf. Kontoleon 1945-47; Coldstream 1968; idem 1971; J. N. Coldstream, ‘Pi (...)
  • 13 Boardman-Schweitzer 1973, p. 273.
  • 14 Cf. Coldstream 1994b.

5But it is not in the aims of this paper to reassess the cultural traditions of Sicilian Naxos, nor the historical facts that led to the foundation of Naxos in Sicily. Instead an attempt will be made for illuminating on the relationships of Euboea with the island of Naxos in the Cyclades during the eighth century BC by way of a distinct LG pottery class explained at large as the work of the “Cesnola Painter” and his workshop12. Attributions to this painter or his workshop vary and the style has been claimed as Naxian or Euboean alternatively, but clay analysis used for the main representatives of this class of pottery has not yielded fully decisive results13. Pottery in this style had a wide distribution all over the Mediterranean and a great impact on colonial workshops in the West14. A reassessment of this style in the light of some new evidence from technical and technological investigations of material from the island of Naxos, therefore, might be proven useful for a better understanding of the Cesnola style and its wide distribution all over the Mediterranean during the LG period.

Euboean LG Styles and the Cesnola Painter

  • 15 For LG Euboean pottery cf. Coldstream 1968, pp. 189-195; idem 1977, pp. 192-197; Boardman 1980, p. (...)
  • 16 Coldstream 1977, 192-197; Coldstream 1982, pp. 21-37; idem, ‘Some Peculiarities of the Euboan Geom (...)
  • 17 Cf. Kourou 1984; Aloupi 1993.
  • 18 Cf. e. g. A. Andreiomenou, ‘Geometric and Sub-Geometric Pottery from Eretria I-V’, a series of art (...)
  • 19 Cf. supra note 12.
  • 20 Cf. Gisler 1985; idem 1995.

6Euboean pottery of the LG period includes several distinct fabrics and styles like the “Small Concentric Circles Style” or the “Black and White Style” and the “Bichrome Ware” that possibly reflect the influence of cypriot pottery15. Otherwise Euboean pottery of this period has an atticizing character whether on slipped or unslipped wares16. Slipped surface of the vase prior to painting is an element of island pottery of the Geometric period and more particularly of Euboean and Naxian workshops. The practice is also known in Attica, though it is not a regular feature of Athenian wares17. From the rather large amounts of Euboean pottery published from Euboea it is evident that there were at least two distinct LG styles deriving directly or indirectly from Attic workshops. Pottery which can be called the “Bird Style” or rather “Bird Styles”, as there are variations in the rendering of birds that constitute the most popular subject in the iconography of these vases, provides the greater part of Euboean ceramic production18. A much smaller class of Atticizing vases is represented by the pottery group of the so-called “Cesnola Painter” and his workshop19 including a relative style from Eretria20.

  • 21 Kontoleon 1945-47 with previous bibliography; Coldstream 1968, p. 172.
  • 22 Coldstream 1971; Buchner 1971.
  • 23 Walter-Karydi 1972; Descoeudres 1976.
  • 24 Boardman 1980; Gisler 1985.
  • 25 Boardman 1980, p. 37; idem 1992, p. 4.

7The term “Cesnola Painter” and consequently “Cesnola Workshop” has been applied to a number of LG vases, which are considered to form a homogenous group of pottery with a distinctive iconography and close stylistic affinities. However, stylistic attributions to this workshop vary and the problem concerning its origin is characteristically reflected in the history of the debate. When the workshop’s name-piece, the large crater from Kourion in the Cesnola Collection in New York (fig. 1), was discovered it was explained as Attic and only much later, after being systematically studied, it was recognised as an island product and attributed to a Naxian workshop21. But after the discovery of a large number of Euboean elements on the vases of this style by Buchner and Coldstream, working independently in 1971, the workshop “changed address” and it was recognised as Euboean22. Yet, a Naxian origin for the vases in this style continued to be discussed23, while at the same time a number of new finds recovered at Eretria and Lefkandi seemed to favour a Euboean provenance24. Likewise, because of the many non-Euboean elements on the vases of this style, it was suggested that the Cesnola Painter was a Naxian who emigrated to Euboea25.

  • 26 Gisler 1995.

8The recent publication of material in this style from Eretria attributed to another painter, the “Eretria V 116 Painter”, made clear that there were more workshops in Euboea using the style of the “Cesnola Painter”26. At the same time it became apparent that style, iconography and fabric attributed to this painter should be looked at in more detail and in comparison with similar Naxian and Attic wares.

  • 27 For lists cf. Coldstream 1971; Boardman 1980, pp. 75-6; Gisler 1995, p. 89.
  • 28 Gisler 1995 pls 1-4.
  • 29 Cf. supra note 12 (no 5); P. G. Themelis, ‘News from Euboea’, in AAA 1, 1969, pp. 26-30.

9Among the several stylistic groups distinguished for the Euboean version of the style quality varies and sometimes attributions rely more on iconography than on style itself27. Of the entire Euboean group only the three name pieces, the Kourion crater (fig. 1) and the two jugs in New York (cf. fig. 2), are totally homogenous stylistically28. They apparently formed a set made by the same hand to which have also been attributed the Delos crater and the hydria from Chalkis29.

  • 30 Boardman-Schweitzer 1973, p. 273; Boardman 1980, p. 75; idem, in Jones 1986, p. 659.
  • 31 Boardman-Schweitzer 1973, p. 273.
  • 32 Cf. Jones 1986, p. 659.

10The fabric of the Kourion vases was investigated long ago by Optical Emission Spectroscopy at the Oxford Laboratory for Archaeometry but the results obtained were not absolutely positive30. The samples taken from the crater (fig. 1) and the jug (fig. 2) were analysed and compared with the results of the analysis of some Euboean Pendent Semicircle skyphoi, which «match each other very closely but are not a good match for the Euboean wares so far recognised from analysis of Bronze Age, Geometric and later material, including modern samples from Lefkandi»31. The same results further processed by dendrogramms later and compared with the results of analysis of two Orientalizing groups recognised as Naxian were taken to confirm that the crater was different from them, but consistent with the Pendent Semicircle skyphoi from Lefkandi32. Since then the fabric of the Kourion vases has been claimed as of definitely Euboean origin, although sampling was limited and comparisons with LG Euboean and Naxian vases were missing from the investigation.

Fig. 1. The Cesnola crater in New York. Metropolitan Museum of Art 74. 51. 965. Purchased by Subscription, 1874-6.

Fig. 2. The Cesnola oenochoe in New York. Metropolitan Museum of Art 74. 51. 838. Purchased by Subscription, 1874-6.

Naxian LG pottery and the Cesnola style

  • 33 Cf. Coldstream 1977, pp. 213-215; Kourou 1984.
  • 34 Close links with Attica have a long tradition on Naxos going back to the LPG period, during which (...)
  • 35 Cf. Kourou 1984.
  • 36 For the material from graves cf. Zapheiropoulou 1983.
  • 37 For the pottery from Palatia cf. Walter-Karydi 1972. For a review of unpublished material from Gro (...)
  • 38 Cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983a, p. 116 fig. 19 (musician); Lambrinoudakis 1983, p. 172 fig. 25 (shipwrec (...)

11Naxian workshops of the LG period present a lesser variety of styles than their contemporary Euboean33. In their majority Naxian potters and painters are deriving directly or indirectly from Attic pottery34; orientation towards other non-attic styles is exceptional and it is basically confined to a few painters that follow neighbouring Parian workshops35. Because of a gap for the LG I period in the sequence of graves at the cemeteries of Naxos36, the beginning of local LG styles is not accurately fixed; however, the Naxian pottery from the unstratified deposits at Grotta, Aplomata, Kaminaki and Palatia which can stylistically be attributed to the LG I period is fully Atticizing37. Pictorial subjects are not very common, but there are several sherds with figurative scenes, like a shipwreck or a musical subject, that allude directly to similar scenes of Attic LG I pottery38.

  • 39 Cf. Délos XV, 71; Coldstream 1968, p. 172.
  • 40 Cf. Gautier 1993, pp. 196-7.
  • 41 Cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983a, 110 fig. 5; idem 1983; Kourou 1984, p. 109 fig. 3.

12Of the non-atticizing LG styles identified in local fabrics worthy of mention are the Naxian versions of the so-called “Aa” and “Ab” styles, originally known only from the Delos-Rheneia find and attributed to Parian workshops39. Circles and linear motifs, usually wavy lines, are the commonest patterns and often there is a combination of circles and birds in panels (fig. 3). The resemblance between local Naxian and similar pottery from Paros is so strong that it is fabric, not style, that forms the most revealing element for the provenance of the ware40. An important innovation on the Naxian version of these styles is that they are applied also on slipped fabrics41, while the same styles from the Delos-Rheneia find attributed to Paros seem to have been used almost exclusively on unslipped pottery.

  • 42 Cf. Délos XV; Kourou 1994, p. 88.

13Of the slipped wares the best known so far as representing Naxian LG pottery is the so-called “Bb style” first identified on Delos Rheneia (fig. 4), but now well evidenced among the fragmentary pottery excavated at Naxos itself42. This is a very late Atticizing style from a conservative workshop that has a limited number of mostly closed shapes, usually am- phorae or hydrias. The decorative scheme is very simple with generous use of horizontal bands all over the body of the vase and only a small number of linear patterns or occasionally figurai motifs, mostly birds, painted in narrow panels on the neck. Drawing and iconography is comparable to contemporary Euboean pottery trends, nevertheless the final composition of patterns and motifs creates a very independent style.

  • 43 Cf. also Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33.
  • 44 Cf. E. Buschor, ‘Kykladisches’, in AM 54, 1929, p. 154, figs. 6-7; Walter-Karydi 1972, p. 396 fig. (...)
  • 45 Cf. also Kourou 1984, p. 109 fig. 1, right.
  • 46 Cf. also Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33.
  • 47 Cf. Walter-Karydi 1972, p. 411 fig. 38, 59.

14Otherwise, however, Naxian pottery of the LG period (figs. 5 and 6) is very similar to its contemporary Euboean Atticizing wares and mainly the very common and widespread Bird Styles. Another local Naxian style is closely matching Euboean wares attributed to the Cesnola Painter and his workshop. All the iconographic elements of this style are present in this class of Naxian pottery: the horse at the manger (figs. 7-8)43, the hanging double axes44, the birds under the horses (fig. 9)45 or on their backs46, the reclining deer looking backwards47, goats at the Tree of Life (fig. 10), the hatched quatrefoil (fig. 11) and many more. Filling motifs known also from Attic workshops, but widely used by the Cesnola Painter, like the folded swastika, the small dotted rosette or the columns of chevrons complete the “Cesno-lian” character of this class of Naxian vases. Variations in the style of the painting and the quality of the slip identified on vases of the same fabric suggest a number of painters working in the same area but using different techniques.

  • 48 Aloupi 1993; Grimanis et alii 1989.
  • 49 For other investigations of Naxian fabrics cf. Gautier 1993; F. Villard, ‘La Localisation des Atel (...)

15Naxian fabric, made of a hard-fired brick red clay containing a large amount of mica, is very distinctive; for fixing more accurately the origin of the pottery in the Cesnola style found at Naxos though, an investigation by optical emission spectroscopy and other techniques was conducted at the Institute for Archaeometry in the Nuclear Research Center “De-mokritos” at Athens48. For this reason an extensive sampling was undertaken from all fabrics recognised as local macroscopically49.

Fig. 3. Naxian sherd in the Ab style. Na-xos Museum, no. 6384.

Fig. 4. Amphora in the Bb style from the De-los-Rheneia find. Mykonos Museum.

Fig. 5. Naxian sherd in a Bird style. Naxos Museum.

Fig. 6. Naxian sherd in a Bird style. Naxos Museum, no. 6388.

Fig. 7. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, AE 78/28.

Fig. 8. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, no. 6055.

Fig. 9. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, B. 993.

Fig. 10. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, no. 2155.

Fig. 11. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, no. 6251.

  • 50 Grimanis et alii 1989.

16The first step was a scientific investigation for distinguishing between slipped and unslipped vases in a fabric considered on statistical grounds as local. Samples of both groups were investigated by INAA using as a control group Naxian MG pottery50. The results of this analysis have shown that the clay used for the three groups was of the same chemical composition and therefore all of them (i. e. Naxian MG, LG slipped and unslipped pottery) should be of local manufacture. It was also made clear that the production of pottery with a slip did not necessarily imply the use of a different clay. At the same time, it was shown that in the LG period there was a number of pottery workshops at Naxos using the same local clay, but following a variety of decorative techniques and styles, some of them known also from other islands.

  • 51 Cf. Aloupi 1993.
  • 52 Cf. Délos XV, 71.
  • 53 Cf. Grimanis et alii 1989.

17Consequently, a technological investigation of the slipped groups was carried out51. The use of the slip in itself does not necessarily imply any particular stylistic affinities or variations between workshops; yet, differences in the quality and the colour of the slip suggest the use of different raw materials and varying technical procedures, which consequently imply the possible existence of separate ceramic workshops. Four kinds of slip possibly corresponding to distinct workshops could be distinguished: a pale yellowish slip (5Y 8/ 4 of the Munsell charts) mainly used on vases of the the Bb style of the Delos-Rheneia find52, a pinkish cream slip (5YR 8/ 4) mostly applied on pottery in the Cesnola style, a white slip (2. 5Y 8/ 2) occurring mainly on vases following the Bird styles and a light gray slip (10 YR 7/2) possibly the result of misfiring. The fabric of all the samples taken was fired to over 800 degrees C. and it was of a very micaceous brick red clay (2, 5 YR 5/ 6) tested by INAA and proved to be of the same local provenance53.

18Through this scientific project the Naxian version of the Cesnola style came out as an independent local workshop and this was made possible by comparison with other Naxian and not Euboean fabrics. Further comparisons between Euboean and Naxian vases in the Cesnola style, which have not been possible, would certainly further clarify the issue of the various workshops using the Cesnola style. However, limitations in the sampling of Euboean vases had no decisive effect in the final result of this study because the Naxian aspect of the Cesnola style emerged from a comparison of local fabrics in themselves.

  • 54 Cf. an amphora neck with white slip Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33.
  • 55 Cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983, p. 117 fig. 20.

19For the Naxian vases of the Cesnola style it is regularly used the pinkish cream variety of slip, which represents the best quality of local slips and together with the hard-fired fabric and the fine painting indicate a workshop of very high standards and experienced potters and painters. However, variations of the same style have been identified on Naxian sherds with white slip54 or even on unslipped pottery55 (fig. 11) suggesting the possibility of more than one painter using the same style in the island.

  • 56 For the Naxos amphora cf. Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33. For the Samos hydria cf Walter-Kary (...)

20As the Naxian material in the Cesnola style has no well stratified context dating depends entirely on style. The drawing of the pottery with the white slip seems to represent the latest expressions of this style on Naxos; the best example of this group is the neck fragment of an amphora with a pair of horses at a manger, the style of which very closely recalls that of a similar representation on a fragmentary hydria from Samos attributed to the later followers of the Euboean Cesnola Painter56.

  • 57 Cf. Coldstream 1968, p. 33.

21The earliest evidence of the Naxian Cesnola style is offered by a neck fragment of an unslipped amphora with a scene of goats at a Tree of Life (fig. 10). The date of this sherd is securely fixed by the ridged form of the neck immediately below the lip, which is an early feature that does not survive the LG Ib period57. The Tree of Life is a popular subject in the iconography of the Cesnola style and often more central in the entire composition of painting than the horses at the manger. It is the main feature on two vases that belong to the nucleus of the style, the crater from Kourion and the hydria from Chalkis. But the tree shown on the Naxian sherd has the form of three leafy shoots of a bush radiating from the ground and not the distinctive leafy stalk with triangular base of the Kourion crater and the Chalkis vase. Thus direct derivation of the Naxian workshop from the Cesnola Painter’s hand is excluded not only on chronological but also on iconographical reasons.

  • 58 Coldstream 1994a, p. 157 fig 1 (drawing of a pyxis from the Athenian Acropolis, now in Stockholm).
  • 59 Coldstream 1994a.
  • 60 Cf. a number of unpublished vases from Anavyssos eg Themelis 1973-74, pl. 85d.
  • 61 For this painter cf. Coldstream 1968, pp. 41ff.
  • 62 Cf. Th. Rombos, The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery, Jonsered 1988, p. 234, table 3 (...)

22The subject of goats rampant at a tree appears in Attic vase painting early in the LG period on vases mostly decorated in a metopal style58. The best iconographie parallel for the tree of life of the Naxian amphora is offered by a large Attic kantharos found in a Cypriote tomb (tomb XI) at Kition (fig. 13) and dated on stylistic grounds to the LG la period59. The rendering of the tree on the Naxian vase, dated also to the LG la period, shows a direct reflection of the Attic theme, while the shape of the tree with a sturdy triangular base on the Kourion crater is simply a free version of the Attic subject. Direct derivation of the Naxian Cesnola style from Attic LG la vase painting is suggested by several other motifs like the metope with a quatrefoil hatched pattern filled by dotted rosettes among the leaves. The subject is extremely common in Attic vase painting of this period occurring mostly on small and medium size vases decorated in a metopal style outside the classical tradition of the Dipylon Painter60 and deriving directly from the Hirschfeld painter’s work61. Though versions of the subject are extremely common in the Cesnola style, a mug in Florence, Archaeological Museum inv. no 84808 (Fig. 12)62 dated to the LG Ia period and most probably a work by the Hirschfeld painter seems to offer an exact parallel for the Naxian vase (fig. 11).

The Attic background of the Cesnola Style

23The number of workshops or hands producing vases in the Cesnola style that have been identified so far implies a popularity of this style in Euboean and Naxian workshops, but at the same time it further complicates the puzzling problem regarding the origin of this class of pottery. However, on statistical grounds, let alone fabric, there is no reason to doubt the local origin of wares in this style excavated at Chalkis, Lefkandi and Eretria, while the fabric of the Naxian pottery in the Cesnola style has been proved local after a thorough scientific investigation. The difficulty, therefore, seems to concentrate mainly on the three name-pieces of the style, the vases from Kourion, which are reckoned as the fundamental work by the painter who initiated the style.

  • 63 I am most grateful to Dr Mertens for informing me for this cleaning and for permit to examine the (...)
  • 64 For such qualities of Attic clay cf. S. Charitonidis, ‘Πηλίνη Γεωμετρικὴ Ροιά, in ArchEph 1960, pp (...)
  • 65 For Attic clays of this period cf. R. Jones, ‘Greek Potter’s Clays. Questions of Selection, Availa (...)
  • 66 Cf. eg the slipped pottery from Anavyssos cf. Themelis 1973-74.

24The clay of the Kourion crater, examined macro-scopically after its recent thorough cleaning undertaken for the first time since it entered the Metropolitan Museum in New York63, did not look Naxian in quality, colour or amount of mica. On the other hand its fabric is not typically Euboean, but it has a light red colour (2. 5 YR 6/8 of the Munsell charts) which is similar, if not identical, to the clay and fabric of certain Attic wares64. Unlike the very distinctive fine fabric in a pale orange colour of Athenian vases, clays from other parts of Attica have a paler or a more enhanced pinkish colour65 and a wider range of fabrics, including somewith mica. By contrast to LG Athenian workshops, which avoid slipping the vase surface, contemporary Attic workshops situated outside Athens not infrequently make use of a slip as it is evident from the material from Merenda, Anavyssos, etc66. The slip used for the Kourion crater is of a very good quality in a pinkish cream colour (5 YR 8/3 of the Munsell Charts) that can be well compared with slips on Attic vases from Anavyssos or Merenda at least. It is certainly premature to comment further on the the fabric of the Kourion crater without additional scientific investigation and comparisons to the right Euboean and Attic wares. But it is important to emphasise the Attic and the Naxian parameters in the development of the so-called Cesnola style.

Fig. 12. Attic jug by the Hirschfeld Painter. Florence, Archaeological Museum 84808.

  • 67 Coldstream 1968, p. 174; idem 1994b, p. 79; Kahane 1971.
  • 68 Cf. Coldstream 1994a.
  • 69 Coldstream 1968, p. 41.
  • 70 Cf. eg CVA Tübingen 1 pls. 18-19; ArchDelt 26, 1971, B1 pl. 188. e; CVA Copenhagen 2, pl. 67. 3 an (...)
  • 71 Chalkis, Lefkandi and Eretria cf. Boardman 1980, p. 75.
  • 72 For lists cf. supra note 12.
  • 73 E. La Rocca, ‘Crateri in argilla figulina del geometrico recente a Vulci’, in MEFRA 90, 1978, pp. (...)

25The Cesnola style has recognisably many Attic elements thought to derive from the Dipylon painter67, but the Kition kantharos (fig. 13) has shown that more close in iconography and style are some other Attic workshops of the LG Ia period that deviate from the Classical tradition68. It has been pointed out that many patterns or filling motifs of the Cesnola style derive from an Attic workshop attributed to the non-classical Hirschef eld Painter69. Derivation from Attica seems almost direct in the Naxian workshops thus underlining another factor that of the Style as such, i. e. as a broad inter-regional pottery fashion and not simply a painter’s and his workshop’s production. No individual painter or workshop could possibly have such an impact on so many areas including Boeotia70. However, unless the Kourion vases are proved of non Euboean origin, the style seems basically to have flourished at Euboea and Naxos71. Isolated examples known from Andros, Delos, Samos and Crete are in a Euboean fabric72, as are similar finds in Eastern and Western Mediterranean, where the style had quite a few followers in the local workshops73.

Fig. 13. Attic kantharos from Kition. Larnaca Museum 1498.

  • 74 Cf. Coldstream 1968, pp. 182-184.

26The Cesnola style in view of its several Naxian and Euboean versions, its strong impact on Boeotian pottery and its many Attic connections should now be seen not as a workshop’s or painter’s production, but simply as a Style, a kind of LG partial koine shared by Euboea and Naxos that had also an impact in some Boeotian workshops. Although the fabric of the New York Cesnola vases has yet to be further investigated, the role of Attica in the development of the style emerges more important after the publication of the Kition kantharos and the identification of Attic elements on early Naxian versions of the style. The Hirshfeld painter and his followers in Attica appear to be key personalities in the development of the Cesnola style, as they had an equally strong impact on the Rottiers Painter at Melos74.

Annexes

Additional abbreviations

Aloupi 1993 = Aloupi Ε., Φύση ϰαι Μιϰρομορφολογία των Βαφών σε αρχαία Κεραμειϰά, Athens 1993.

Boardman-Schweitzer 1973 = Boardman J. - Schweitzer F., ‘Clay analysis of Archaic Greek Pottery’, in BSA 68, 1973, pp. 267-83.

Boardman 1980 = Boardman J., ‘The Cesnola group’ in M. R. Popham - L. H. Sackett-P. G. Themelis (eds.), Lefkandi I, London 1980, pp. 74-76.

Buchner 1971 = Buchner G., ‘Recent Work at Pithekous-sai (Ischia)’, in AR, 1971, pp. 63-67.

Coldstream 1968 = Coldstream J. N., Greek Geometric Pottery, London 1968.

Coldstream 1971 = Coldstream J. N., ‘The Cesnola Painter: A Change of Address’, in BICS 18, 1971, pp. 1-15.

Coldstream 1977 = Coldstream J. N., Geometric Greece, London 1977.

Coldstream 1981 = Coldstream J. N., ‘Some peculiarities of the Euboean Geometric Figure Style’, in ASAtene 59, 1981, pp. 241-249.

Coldstream 1982 = Coldstream J. N., ‘Some Problems of eighth-century Pottery in the West, seen from the Greek Angle’, in La Céramique Grecque ou de tradition Grecque au Ville siécle en Italie Centrale et Méridionale, (Cahiers du Centre J. Bérard, III), pp. 21-37.

Coldstream 1994a = Coldstream J. N., ‘A figured Attic Geometric Kantharos from Kition’, in RDAC, 1994, pp. 155-159.

Coldstream 1994b = Coldstream J. N., ‘Prospectors and Pioneers: Pithekoussai, Kyme and Central Italy’, in Tsetskhladze G.- De Angellis F. (edd.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Oxford 1994, pp. 47-59.

Crielaard 1992-93 = Crielaard J. P, 1992-93, “Ναυσιϰλειτὴ Εὔβοια. Socio-economic Aspects of Euboian Trade and Colonization”, in Aρχεῖον Εύβοϊκών Μελετῶν 30, 1992-93, pp. 45-54.

Gautier 1993 = Gautier J., ‘Caractérisation de Centres de Production Céramiques par Microscopie Optique’, in R. Dalougeville-G. Rougemont (eds.), Recherches dans les Cyclades. Resultats de la RCP 583, Lyon 1993, pp. 167-204.

Gisler 1985 Gisler J-R., ‘Erétrie, La Céramique Géometrique’, in Les Dossiers, Histoire et Archéologie 94, 1985, pp. 36-37.

Gisler 1995 = Gisler J-R., ‘Erétrie et le Peintre de Cesnola’, in Archaeognosia 8, 1995, pp. 111-95.

Grimanis et alii = 1989 Grimanis A. P. -Katsanos A. A. -Kilikoglou V. -Kourou N. -Maniatis Y. -Panakleridou D. -Vassilaki-Grimani M., ‘An Interdisciplinary Approach to Geometric Pottery from Naxos: Provenance and Technological Studies’, in Y. Maniatis (éd.), Archaeometry. ‘Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium’, Athens 1989, pp. 169- 175.

Guarducci 1985 = Guarducci M., ‘Una nuova dea a Naxos in Siciliae gli antichi legami fra la Naxos siceliotae l’omonima isola delle Cicladi’, in MEFRA 97, 1985, pp. 7-34.

Jones 1986 = Jones R., Greek and Cypriot Pottery, Athens 1986.

Kahane 1971 = Kahane P., ‘The Cesnola krater from Kourion in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: an iconografical Study in Greek Geometric Art’in N. Robertson (ed.), The Archaeology of Cyprus, Recent Developments, New Jersey 1971, pp. 151- 210.

Kontoleon 1945-47 = Kontoleon N. M., ‘Γεωμετριϰός ‘Aμφορεύς ὲϰ Νάξου’, in ArchEph, 1945-47, pp. 1-21.

Kontoleon 1967 = Kontoleon N. M., ‘Zur Gründung von Naxos und Megara auf Sicilia’, in Europa. Festschrift E. Grumach, Bern 1967, pp. 179-190.

Kourou 1984 = Kourou N., ‘Local Naxian Workshops and the Import-Export Pottery Trade of the Island in the Geometric Period’, in Brijder H. A. G. (ed.), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, ‘Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium Amsterdam’ (Allard Pierson Series 5), Amsterdam 1984, pp. 107-112.

Kourou 1990-91 = Kourou Ν., ‘Εύβοια ϰαι Ανατολική Μεσόγειος στις Αρχές της Πρώτης Χιλιετίας’, in Αρχεῖον Εύβοϊϰών Μελετῶν 29, 1990-91, pp. 237- 279.

Kourou 1992 = Kourou Ν., ‘Á propos d’un Atelier Géométrique Naxien’ in Les Ateliers de Potiers dans le Monde Grec aux Epoques Géométrique, Archaïque et Classique, (BCH Suppl. 23), 1992, pp. 131-143.

Kourou 1994 = Kourou Ν., ‘H Ναξακή Παρουσία στο Αιγαίο ϰαι τη Μεσόγειο ϰατά τη Γεωμετρική εποχή’, in Probonas (ed.), Η Νάξος διά μέσου των Αιώνων, Athens 1994, 263-311.

Lambrinoudakis 1983 = Lambrinoudakis Β., ‘Les ateliers de céramique Géometrique et Orientalisante de Naxos: Perspective pour l’analyse archeometrique’, in Les Cyclades (CNRS) Lyon 1983, pp. 165-200.

Lambrinoudakis = Lambrinoudakis Β., ‘Νέα Στοιχεία για τη 1983a Γνώση της Ναξιακής Γεωμετριϰής ϰαι Πρώϊμης Αρχαϊκής Κεραμειϰής’, in ASAtene 45, 1983, pp. 109-118.

Malkin 1987 = Malkin I., Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden 1987.

Pelagatti 1982 = Pelagatti P., ‘I più antichi materiali di importazione a Siracusa, a Naxose in altri siti della Sicilia Orientale’, in La Céramique Grecque ou de tradition Grecque au Ville siècle en Italie centrale e méridionale (Cahiers du Centre J. Bérard III), Naples 1982, pp. 113-181.

Schweitzer 1969 = Schweitzer B., Greek Geometric Art, London and New York 1969.

Themelis 1973-74 = Themelis P., ‘Aνάβυσσoς. Гԑωµԑτριϰό Νεϰροταφείο’, in ArckDelt 29, 1973-74, pp. 108-110.

Vallet 1969 = Vallet G., ‘Incontro di studi sugli inizi della colonizzazione greca in Occidente’, in DialArch III, 1969, pp. 126-175.

Walter-Karydi 1972 = Walker-Karydi E., ‘Geometrische Keramik aus Naxos’, in AA, 1972, pp. 386-421.

Zapheiropoulou 1983 = Zapheiropoulou Ph., ‘Γԑωµετριϰά Aγγεία από τη Νάξο’, in AS,Atene 45, 1983, pp. 121-135.

Notes

1 For the foundation of Naxos cf. P. Rizzo, Naxos siceliota, Roma 1894; Kontoleon 1967; S. N. Consolo Langher, ‘Naxos di Sicilia, profilo storico’, in Φιλίας χὰριν, Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di E. Manni, Roma 1980, pp. 539-551; Malkin 1987; V. Costa, Nasso dell’Egeo, Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca, Univ. di Bologna 1991, pp. 58 ff; Kourou 1994, pp. 286 ff.

2 Cf. Malkin 1987.

3 Cf. Strabo, Geogr. C 267.

4 According to Eforos by Strabo, Geogr. C 267. 2. For precolonial expeditions in the West cf. Coldstream 1994b. The activity and possibly the provenance of such prospectors is evidenced mainly by Euboean and Corinthian MG II cups and skyphoi cf. J. P. Descoeudres-R. Kearsley, ‘Greek Pottery at Veii: another look’, in BSA 78, 1983, p. 41; R. Kearsley, The Pendent Semi-Circle Skyphos, London 1989, p. 69, but some Attic or Cycladic amphorae that have been found at precolonial contexts in Sicily allude at the possibility of a larger spectrum of the earliest prospectors visiting the West individually. Cf. the amphora of MG II date from the cemetery of Fusco at Syracuse cf. Vallet 1969, pl. 30,1 and a similar amphora from Gela, buried possibly as an heirloom in a much later context cf. P. Orlandini, ‘La più antica ceramica greca di Gela e il problema di Lindioi’, in Cron-Catania, 1963, pp. 50-56, pl. IX. 4. For the possible role of Phoenicians in the transfer of Greek vases in the pre-colonial West cf. D. Ridgway, ‘Phoenicians and Greeks in the West’, in G. Tsetskhladze-F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Oxford 1994, pp. 35-47.

5 Cf. Malkin 1987.

6 Cf. Strabo, Geogr. C 267 «Θεοκλέα δ’ ’Αθηναῖον παρενεχθέντα ἀνέμοις εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν ϰατανοῆσαι τήν τε οὑδένειαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ϰαὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς γῆς, ἐπανελθόντα δὲ ’Αθηναίους μὲν μὴ πεῖσαι, Χαλϰιδέας δὲ τoὺς ὲν Εὐβοίᾳ συχνοὐς παραλαβόντα ϰαὶ τῶν ’Ιώνων τινάς, ἔτι δέ Δωριέων, (ὧν) οἱ πλείους ἦσαν Μεγαρεῖς, πλεῦσαι». But cf Thucyd., VI. 3. 1 «Χαλϰιδεῖς ἐξ Εὐβοίας πλεύσαντες μετὰ Θουϰλέους οἰϰιστοῦ»; also by Hellanikos apud Stef. Byz., s. v. Χαλϰὶς cf Jacoby FHG, F 82 «Θεοϰλῆς ὲϰ Χαλκίδος μετὰ Χαλκιδέων ϰαὶ Ναξίων πόλιν ἔϰτισεν». Naxian participation in the foundation of Sicilian Naxos is directly implied by Appian stating that the statuette of Apollo Archeghetes was erected next to the god’s altar by the first Naxian colonists (Bell. Civ. V 109, 454: «ό δέ ’Aρχηγέτης ’Απόλλωνος ἀγαλμάτιον ἐστίν, ὅ πρῶτον ἐστήσαντο Ναξίων οἱ εἰς Σιϰελίαν ἀποικισμένοι»). Naxian participation in the founding of the Sicilian colony is also implied by the name of the colony itself (cf. Kontoleon 1967).

7 M. C. Lentini, ‘Le oinochoai “a collo tagliato”, un contributo alla conoscenza della ceramica di Naxos di VIII e VII sec. a. C.’, in BdA 75, n. 60, 1990, pp. 67-82. In the area of the Greek colonies in the West Euboean styles were used mainly by colonial workshops situated in Campania, near the Euboean colonies of Cumae and Pithecussae cf. Pelagatti 1982, p. 159; F. Villard, ‘La Céramique Polychrome du VII siècle’, in AS Atene 45, 1983, pp. 133-138. By contrast colonial workshops in Sicily had a Corinthianizing character, thus the local workshops at Sicilian Naxos represent the only Euboeanizing workshops in Sicily and therefore they offer a further, strong argument in favour of the colony’s Euboean character.

8 Pelagatti 1982; P. Pelagatti, ‘Bilancio degli Scavi di Naxos per l’VIII e VII sec. a. C.’, in ASAtene 45, 1983, pp. 291-311.

9 P. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos’, in Gli Eubei in Occidente, ‘Atti del XVIII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia’, Taranto 1973, p. 151.

10 Several cults attested in Naxos Sicily have been thought to reflect similar cults of cycladic Naxos, while there has been a long debate as for the nature of Apollo Archegetes, that is whether he represented the Apollo of Delphi counselled by every potential colonist in Greece or the Delian Apollo more closely related to the inhabitants of the Cycladic islands (Guarducci 1985). For epigraphic evidence cf. e. g. the inscription on a 7th c. votive stele excavated at the deposit of a sanctuary by the river Santa Venera that has been recognised as written in cycladic naxian alphabet (Guarducci 1985). For numismatics cf. the grapes or Dionysus shown on the earliest coins (H. Cahn, Die Miinze der Sizilischen Stadt Naxos, Basel 1944, p. 37; C. W. Kray-M. Hirmer, Greek Coins, New York 1966) that are thought to reflect types of the cycladic homeland.

11 For a mixed character of most colonies cf. A. Snodgrass, ‘The Growth and Standing of Early Western Colonies’, in Tsetskhladze G. - De Angelis F. (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Oxford 1994, p. 2. However, the earliest greek pottery on the site is still not known as it is the site of the altar set up by the first colonists on the long promontory outside the settlement, so that it could be easily seen from a distance by those sailing to the settlement cf Thucyd. VI. 3. 1.

12 For the “Cesnola Painter” cf. Kontoleon 1945-47; Coldstream 1968; idem 1971; J. N. Coldstream, ‘Pithekoussai, Cyprus and the Cesnola Painter’, in ΑΠΟΙΚΙΑ. Scritti in onore di G. Buchner, AION ArchStAnt 1 (N. S.), 1994, pp. 77-87; idem 1994b; Buchner 1971; Boardman 1980; J. Boardman, ‘Euboeans Overseas: Problems of Identity’, in Erétrie et le Monde Mediterranéen aux Epoques Géometrique et Archaïque, ‘Colloque à l’Universitè de Lausanne, 12-13 Juin 1992’, pp. 1-6; Kahane 1971; K. A. Sheedy, ‘Attic and Atticizing Pottery in the Cyclades during the 8th B. C.’, in EYMOYSIA, Ceramic and iconographic studies in honour of Alexander Cambitoglou, Sydney 1990, pp. 31-40; Walter-Karydi 1972; J. P. Crielaard, ‘Some Euboean and Related Pottery in Amsterdam’, in BABesch 65, 1990, pp. 1-12; Gisler 1985; idem 1995.

13 Boardman-Schweitzer 1973, p. 273.

14 Cf. Coldstream 1994b.

15 For LG Euboean pottery cf. Coldstream 1968, pp. 189-195; idem 1977, pp. 192-197; Boardman 1980, p. 57 ff.

16 Coldstream 1977, 192-197; Coldstream 1982, pp. 21-37; idem, ‘Some Peculiarities of the Euboan Geometric Figured style’, in ASAtene 45, pp. 241-249.

17 Cf. Kourou 1984; Aloupi 1993.

18 Cf. e. g. A. Andreiomenou, ‘Geometric and Sub-Geometric Pottery from Eretria I-V’, a series of articles in Greek in Ar-chEph 1975-1983, passim.

19 Cf. supra note 12.

20 Cf. Gisler 1985; idem 1995.

21 Kontoleon 1945-47 with previous bibliography; Coldstream 1968, p. 172.

22 Coldstream 1971; Buchner 1971.

23 Walter-Karydi 1972; Descoeudres 1976.

24 Boardman 1980; Gisler 1985.

25 Boardman 1980, p. 37; idem 1992, p. 4.

26 Gisler 1995.

27 For lists cf. Coldstream 1971; Boardman 1980, pp. 75-6; Gisler 1995, p. 89.

28 Gisler 1995 pls 1-4.

29 Cf. supra note 12 (no 5); P. G. Themelis, ‘News from Euboea’, in AAA 1, 1969, pp. 26-30.

30 Boardman-Schweitzer 1973, p. 273; Boardman 1980, p. 75; idem, in Jones 1986, p. 659.

31 Boardman-Schweitzer 1973, p. 273.

32 Cf. Jones 1986, p. 659.

33 Cf. Coldstream 1977, pp. 213-215; Kourou 1984.

34 Close links with Attica have a long tradition on Naxos going back to the LPG period, during which some Naxian workshops were producing vases that only on grounds of fabric can now be distinguished from their attic counterparts (Kourou 1984; eadem 1992).

35 Cf. Kourou 1984.

36 For the material from graves cf. Zapheiropoulou 1983.

37 For the pottery from Palatia cf. Walter-Karydi 1972. For a review of unpublished material from Grotta, Aplomata and Kaminaki cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983; idem 1983a; Kourou 1984.

38 Cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983a, p. 116 fig. 19 (musician); Lambrinoudakis 1983, p. 172 fig. 25 (shipwreck).

39 Cf. Délos XV, 71; Coldstream 1968, p. 172.

40 Cf. Gautier 1993, pp. 196-7.

41 Cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983a, 110 fig. 5; idem 1983; Kourou 1984, p. 109 fig. 3.

42 Cf. Délos XV; Kourou 1994, p. 88.

43 Cf. also Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33.

44 Cf. E. Buschor, ‘Kykladisches’, in AM 54, 1929, p. 154, figs. 6-7; Walter-Karydi 1972, p. 396 fig. 18.

45 Cf. also Kourou 1984, p. 109 fig. 1, right.

46 Cf. also Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33.

47 Cf. Walter-Karydi 1972, p. 411 fig. 38, 59.

48 Aloupi 1993; Grimanis et alii 1989.

49 For other investigations of Naxian fabrics cf. Gautier 1993; F. Villard, ‘La Localisation des Ateliers Cycladiques de Céramique Géometrique et Orientalisante’, in Dalongeville R. -Rougemont G., Recherches dans les Cyclades. Resultats des Travaux de la RCP 583, Lyon 1993, pp. 143-159.

50 Grimanis et alii 1989.

51 Cf. Aloupi 1993.

52 Cf. Délos XV, 71.

53 Cf. Grimanis et alii 1989.

54 Cf. an amphora neck with white slip Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33.

55 Cf. Lambrinoudakis 1983, p. 117 fig. 20.

56 For the Naxos amphora cf. Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 135 fig. 33. For the Samos hydria cf Walter-Karydi 1972, p. 408 fig. 34; Boardman 1980, p. 75, no 11.

57 Cf. Coldstream 1968, p. 33.

58 Coldstream 1994a, p. 157 fig 1 (drawing of a pyxis from the Athenian Acropolis, now in Stockholm).

59 Coldstream 1994a.

60 Cf. a number of unpublished vases from Anavyssos eg Themelis 1973-74, pl. 85d.

61 For this painter cf. Coldstream 1968, pp. 41ff.

62 Cf. Th. Rombos, The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery, Jonsered 1988, p. 234, table 34 n. 63.

63 I am most grateful to Dr Mertens for informing me for this cleaning and for permit to examine the vase, which will be soon fully published by Professor Mary Moore.

64 For such qualities of Attic clay cf. S. Charitonidis, ‘Πηλίνη Γεωμετρικὴ Ροιά, in ArchEph 1960, pp. 155 ff; N. Kourou, ‘A propos de quelques ateliers de céramique fine, non tournée du type «Argien Monochrome»’, in BCH 111, 1987, p. 46.

65 For Attic clays of this period cf. R. Jones, ‘Greek Potter’s Clays. Questions of Selection, Availability and Adaptation’, in Brijder H. A. G. (ed.), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, ‘Proceedingceedings of the International Vase Symposium Amsterdam’(Al-lard Pierson Series 5), Amsterdam 1984, pp. 21-30.

66 Cf. eg the slipped pottery from Anavyssos cf. Themelis 1973-74.

67 Coldstream 1968, p. 174; idem 1994b, p. 79; Kahane 1971.

68 Cf. Coldstream 1994a.

69 Coldstream 1968, p. 41.

70 Cf. eg CVA Tübingen 1 pls. 18-19; ArchDelt 26, 1971, B1 pl. 188. e; CVA Copenhagen 2, pl. 67. 3 and 4.

71 Chalkis, Lefkandi and Eretria cf. Boardman 1980, p. 75.

72 For lists cf. supra note 12.

73 E. La Rocca, ‘Crateri in argilla figulina del geometrico recente a Vulci’, in MEFRA 90, 1978, pp. 465-514; Coldstream 1982, p. 27; idem 1994a; M. Martelli, La Ceramica degli Etruschi, Novara 1987, p. 11.

74 Cf. Coldstream 1968, pp. 182-184.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. The Cesnola crater in New York. Metropolitan Museum of Art 74. 51. 965. Purchased by Subscription, 1874-6.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,9M
Légende Fig. 2. The Cesnola oenochoe in New York. Metropolitan Museum of Art 74. 51. 838. Purchased by Subscription, 1874-6.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,8M
Légende Fig. 3. Naxian sherd in the Ab style. Na-xos Museum, no. 6384.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 453k
Légende Fig. 4. Amphora in the Bb style from the De-los-Rheneia find. Mykonos Museum.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,5M
Légende Fig. 5. Naxian sherd in a Bird style. Naxos Museum.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 541k
Légende Fig. 6. Naxian sherd in a Bird style. Naxos Museum, no. 6388.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 398k
Légende Fig. 7. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, AE 78/28.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 435k
Légende Fig. 8. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, no. 6055.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 361k
Légende Fig. 9. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, B. 993.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 339k
Légende Fig. 10. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, no. 2155.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 606k
Légende Fig. 11. Naxian sherd in the Cesnola style. Naxos Museum, no. 6251.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 380k
Légende Fig. 12. Attic jug by the Hirschfeld Painter. Florence, Archaeological Museum 84808.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 173k
Légende Fig. 13. Attic kantharos from Kition. Larnaca Museum 1498.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/652/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 241k

Auteur

© Publications du Centre Jean Bérard, 1998

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