² The abbreviations are those usually employed in BSA, with the addition of the following:

Åkerström Åkerström, Der Geometrische Stil in Italien.

Cumae E. Gàbrici, MA XXII.

^*H. W. A. Heurtley, BSA XXXIII.

Kahane P. Kahane, AJA XLIV.

Kerameikos W. Kraiker and K. Kübler, Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen.

Myk. L. H. III.

NC H. Payne, Necrocorinthia.

P. Protogeometric.

PV H. Payne, Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei.

^*R. M. Robertson, BSA XLIII.

VS K. F. Johansen, Les Vases Sicyoniens.

^*W. S. S. Weinberg, Corinth VII I.

(^*Numbers after these refer to running numbers, not to pages.)

Note on Lost Vases. The vases from my excavation were moved during the war into a leaking building. Two aryballoi were removed by the Occupying Power, but surprisingly few others suffered damage. For earthquake damage (1953) see note at the end of this article.

³ BSA XXXIII 25, 33–6, 63–5.

⁴ See ibid. 26, fig. 3.

⁵ BSA XXXIII 28. See also errata in BSA XXXIV.

^5a Cf. Desborough, , Protogeometric Pottery 271 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ See next area W, and all the V numbers Fig. 2.

⁷ BSA XXXIII 36.

⁸ The pin is of the same type as R. E 24 (R. pl. 50): it is E 214, Plate 66.

⁹ The plans, Figs. 1 and 2, were drawn out by Miss Petty from those made by our surveyor Nigel Bruce. Owing to the war interval and his death on operations, the section could not be deciphered. I hope our photographs will explain our story.

¹⁰ The term ‘pithos’ as used in both excavations is conventional. Part of one is extant, probably Heurtley's ‘Pithos A’ and is an amphora. See his drawing, BSA XLIII 3, fig. 2. It is possible that Vollgraff dug here. In his notes, which he kindly put at our disposal, he mentions finding pithoi and Geometric sherds in this neighbourhood. See BCH XXIX 145 ff.

¹¹ R. p. 55. He seems to have had qualms later, ibid. p. 65 ‘from the Lower Deposit and evidently not later than the middle of the eighth century’.

¹² Placed late in his list of kantharoi, but he does call it an early vase (R. p. 65). For R. 289, cf. my 615, Plate 41.

¹³ The ‘skyphoi’ mentioned by Heurtley, BSA XLIII 6Google Scholar, are my ‘Tall Cups’. One is marked ‘pithos’ by Heurtley, which means that it is from the Upper Deposit. It has lines all down, and pattern like 639, Plate 41; it is unbroken except for a handle. See pp. 271 ff. below.

¹⁴ Heurtley, BSA XXXIII 65Google Scholar; Robertson, BSA XLIII 55.Google Scholar I see R. later (ibid. 123) suggests ‘early ninth century’.

¹⁵ Dunbabin, T. J. no longer wishes to lower this date as in JHS LXVIII 65Google Scholar; see Fasti Arch. IV 168, no. 1670.

¹⁶ See op. cit. Cf. also the jug P. 146 (my Fig. 6).

¹⁷ I have photographed and drawn sections of all open vases. It is impossible to publish all the material, but note-books and albums will be available.

¹⁸ See BSA XXXIII, pl. 1, west of the road.

¹⁹ Surely not ‘candlesticks’ see p. 328 below. See 1036 for Herakles and the Keryneian deer.

²⁰ In the Artemision, see n. 503.

²¹ BSA XXXIX 43.

²² BSA XXXV 55.

²³ BSA XXXIII 52, fig. 30, nos. 88 and 95. See also on the metal tripods at Polis, , BSA XXXV 52 ffGoogle Scholar. They may have been connected with games or an oracle. There are also bronze horses from the shrine at Aetos which have a sporting look, see JHS LXX, pl. V, and E. 190 ff., p. 348 below.

²⁴ VS 185. It was probably a short-lived product, made for export.

²⁵ PV 20. See R. p. 54.

²⁶ W. pl. 12. Vertical wavy lines were used early by the Athenians, Kahane, pl. XX 2, but they were not so popular in Attic Geometric as in Corinthian.

²⁷ BSA XXXIII 181, 200.

²⁸ For R. 572 (R. pl. 43), which Robertson placed near 800 B.C. (R. p. 97), see under 627 below.

²⁹ Unpublished, in Corinth Museum. See under 886 below.

³⁰ My system fits in with Dunbabin's, (JHS LXVIII 68)Google Scholar, except that my Late Geometric overlaps with Orientalising, a term I use for Protocorinthian where I can.

³¹ See no. 666, Plate 42. For names used for vase-shapes see p. 271.

³² W. 130; Young, Hesperia Suppl. II 96, fig. 67, Grave XX 7.

³³ E.g. 886, Plates 51 and 54: R. 63 (R. pls. 3 and 5).

³⁴ E.g. Kahane, pl. XVIII 2. His pl. XXIII 3 may be earlier than he says.

³⁵ Kahane pl. XXII 4 must be earlier than his XXII 3. The former has an earlier base, the latter has inscribed tangential circles. All the vases quoted are probably earlier than R. 567 (R. pl. 43). See n. 277 below on R. 59 (R. pl. 4). This pattern seems to be earlier than the running spiral on Corinthian vases.

³⁶ How many styles are to be seen on one shelf in one pottery store at Mycenae? See Papadimitriou-Petsas, , in PAE 1950, 203 ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ AJA XLIV 464 ff.

³⁸ BSA XLII 151. See also p. 279 below.

³⁹ Op. cit. 482, 478; Athens NM 771; Hampe, , Sagenbilder pl. 32.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. the fine new Corinthian Geometric kraters and kantharoi (of which Mr. Amandry kindly sent me an early photograph), BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX.

⁴¹ Perachora I 61, pl. 13, 8 and 9, and pl. 123, 1 and 2.

⁴² Délos XV, pl. XXIX 50 and 51. See below pp. 285 ff. Homann-Wedeking has reversed the figures of Cycladic and Corinthian sherds in the ‘lowest layers in Ithaca’. Homann-Wedeking's figures: Corinthian, none, Cycladic, ‘eine erstaunliche Menge’ (Grossplastik 160, n. 60); Robertson's figures: Corinthian 46, Cycladic 2; my figures: Early and Middle Corinthian Geometric, over 50 numbers representing hundreds of vases; no Cycladic before 750 B.C. Homann-Wedeking must be confusing Ithaca with Al Mina (Robertson, , JHS 1940, 2 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁴³ Robertson calls these ‘sub-geometric’ (e.g. R. 467, p. no); confusing because the word has a rather different meaning for Johansen. Robertson considers them Ithacan, and places them in the eighth century. This leaves the seventh century still without big vases, and makes such motives as rays, dicing, and even birds, occur in Ithaca before they are known in Corinth.

⁴⁴ E.g. the oinochoai 927 and 948 (Fig. 27), also 930, 930a (Fig. 21), R. 467 (R. pl. 31).

⁴⁵ See especially the history of cups, pp. 271 ff. below.

⁴⁶ Attica may have had these considerably earlier.

^46a W. 133 is, of course, much later, though its group is said to belong to the end of the eighth century. Some aryballoi with pointed rays may be earlier than 670 B.C.

⁴⁷ MA XXII, pl. XXX. Not all has been published. Robertson points out that R. 52 (R. pl. 4 and fig. 12) with similar rays, is second black-figure style.

⁴⁸ VS, pl. IX 2. This date is too low (forthcoming evidence from Old Smyrna).

⁴⁹ VS, pl. I 2.

⁵⁰ See on kotylai p. 279.

⁵¹ Attic handles do not follow this sequence, and it must be expected that there may be exceptions in Corinth too.

⁵² Cf. W. 32.

⁵³ Cf. Cumae pls. XLIII 4, XLVI 4.

⁵⁴ See p. 307 below.

⁵⁵ See below, p. 333. If the acme of fine linear painting at Corinth is about 675 B.C., it is unlikely to have reached Ithaca in the second quarter of the eighth century; see Robertson, p. 52.

⁵⁶ See p. 280.

⁵⁷ A fragment of it was found in Nucleus 15. Its diameter is 0·122 m.

⁵⁸ See nos. 808, 966, 1022.

⁵⁹ See p. 258.

⁶⁰ Åkerström 146.

⁶¹ On Syracusan kraters see p. 295 below. Add Falerii, Ischia, Thapsos, Modica, Lentini, Megara, Taranto.

⁶² Δρᾶγμα M. P. Nilsson, 461.

⁶³ See below, pp. 307, 327. The little jug is closer to Protogeometric models in Kephallenia than to Protocorinthian vases.

⁶⁴ On my use of the word ‘diamonds’ see n. 391 below.

⁶⁵ Åkerström, pl. 9, 9. Of course diamonds are common in many styles, but these detached ones are close to those on the vases in Ithaca cited below. The shape of these clumsy amphorae in Italy recalls Protogeometric amphorai in Kephallenia, (e.g. AE 1932, pl. 7).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ 644 Fig. 7; 899 Plate 57.

⁶⁷ 930a Plate 57.

⁶⁸ Cumae, pl. 36, 3, itself a derivative vase and found in grave 32 with Late Geometric vases. It has orientalising features.

⁶⁹ JRS XXV, pl. XXI 63. Åkerström 53. Certainly imported Greek and the earliest in Italy except one in Ischia.

⁷⁰ See 650 (Fig. 7), and R. 1 (R. pl. 1) for the pattern. It is quite unlike dark-based seventh century tall cups, to which Åkerström compares it. See below on 650, 679, 727, and contrast 653 (Fig. 7).

⁷¹ Åkerström, pl. 19, 1.

⁷² See also p. 331.

⁷³ See on 908–10. On metope style see p. 261.

⁷⁴ AM 1903, 51.

⁷⁵ Kraiker, , Aigina p. 12, pls. 4–6Google Scholar; pl. 5, 108.

⁷⁶ 1069 (Fig. 15).

⁷⁷ Archaeohgia LXXX 1 ff.; see also PPS XVIII 237; Kunze, , Kretische Bronzereliefs 267 ff.Google Scholar, Festschrift Reinecke 96 ff.; Hawkes, forthcoming. On swivel handles, see below p. 296. On shapes of bronze vases, see p. 341.

⁷⁸ Casson, , BSA XXVI, pl. V.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See p. 341. Milojčic, , AA 1948/1949, 11Google Scholar ff., fig. 3, 22. See below, E 208.

⁸⁰ See on kantharoi, p. 285 below. On the oinochoe R. 432 see below p. 306. There are some early local Geometric oinochoai 876–80.

⁸¹ See PAE 1950, 223.

⁸² BSA XXXIII, pl. 4, 43. For 802, see JHS LXX 9.

⁸³ See 649, 652 (Fig. 8).

⁸⁴ See 717 (Fig. 8), also pp. 285, 288 ff. On the Corinthian origin of vertical wavy lines, see p. 260. There is an unpublished kantharos at Corinth KP 172.

⁸⁵ Délos XV, pl. XXIX 50, 51. Cf. the dots and wavy lines on 50 with those on W. 73.

⁸⁶ For a discussion of the line in a panel and turned-up toes, see below pp. 296–7.

⁸⁷ W. 119 and W. 135. On cups and kraters see below pp. 271, 294.

⁸⁸ On conical oinochoai, see p. 322.

⁸⁹ See below on rhytons p. 328 and ring-vases p. 329.

⁹⁰ See R. pp. 82, 89. Contrast Homann-Wedeking, E., Die Anfänge der griechischen Grossplastik 52.Google Scholar

⁹¹ BSA XXXIII 37 ff. H. 84 is mentioned on p. 51.

⁹² BSA XXXIX 1 ff. for Polis, , and BSA XLIV 307 ff.Google Scholar

⁹³ BSA XLIII 269. Protogeometric Pottery 272. Surely he exaggerates the difficulty of travel. What Corinthian Protogeometric there is appears to be an offshoot of the Attic style, those two styles are indistinguishable at the beginning of the Geometric period, when there is contact between Corinth and Ithaca. See 872 below.

⁹⁴ BSA XXXIII 61, no. 117.

⁹⁵ Kerameikos IV, pl. 39.

⁹⁶ ADelt V 117, fig. 32.

⁹⁷ See p. 325 and p. 327 below.

⁹⁸ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (PPS) (1951), 95; see also my note ibid. XVIII 237.

⁹⁹ ADelt V 111, fig. 27, 4.

¹⁰⁰ BSA XXXIII 47, no. 73; for Polis see BSA XXXIX, pl. 6, nos. 25 and 26; for Athens, , Kerameikos I, pl. 62Google Scholar, Inv. 559.

¹⁰¹ There was a tradition in Ithaca that a sword was found in a grave below our site towards Pisaetos. Vischer says de Bosset gave Woodhouse a sword from Ithaca. It may be the Woodhouse sword in the British Museum (see BSA XXIX 114), with a flat blade and hooked guards.

¹⁰² FdD V 8.

¹⁰³ Cf. Marinatos, , AE 1932, pl. 4Google Scholar, 5a from Lakkithra.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. AE 1932, pl. 10, 149, from Lakkithra; Kyparissis, , ADelt V 103Google Scholar, fig. 18, from Diakata (both in Kephallenia). The vase in fig. 18 comes from Pit 3, where the Protogeometric pins (fig. 32) and the spiral fibula (fig. 33) were found. Both the Kephallenian and the Ithacan patterns are no doubt descended from patterns like Wace, , Chamber Tombs, pl. LVI 2Google Scholar (L.H.I–II), pl. XLI, 316 (L.H.I.), but both have gone a long way.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. the lower part of ADelt V 103, and also of AE 1932, pl. 5, 13. Such reserved lines on the base are not found on Mycenaean vases.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. P. 132.

¹⁰⁷ For the decoration cf. the neck of a jug from Diakata, (ADelt V 108, fig. 24, 2)Google Scholar, from the same grave as the krater mentioned above, but from a different pit.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. H. 54, BSA XXXIII 45.

¹⁰⁹ BSA XXIX, pl. IX 6; 251, nos. 88, 89. The vase from Palaikastro there mentioned has been published by Hutchinson, , BSA XL, pl. 14 f.Google Scholar It has a cut-away neck, but need not for that cause be Minoan. The neck of Payne's vase really belongs to that body.

¹¹⁰ Cf. H. 76, BSA XXXIII 49. Our sherd may not be Protogeometric.

¹¹¹ But see 981, Fig. 14.

¹¹² BSA XXXIII 51.

¹¹³ It may be later. See Desborough, V., Protogeometric Pottery, pl. 37.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ There is an aryballos with similar cross-hatched triangles, in the technique, labelled Protogeometric in the Ashmolean Museum (1936.424–5). Here is another link between Attica and Ithaca.

¹¹⁵ For R. 356 see below p. 327.

¹¹⁶ Cf. W. 21, 39–45, 68, 80.

¹¹⁷ Kraiker calls a mug with this rim Late Protogeometric, (Aigina 25, pl. I 21).Google ScholarCf. also Tiryns I, pl. XVIII 4.

¹¹⁸ Cf. Perachora I, pl. 11, 1; also R. 289 (R. pl. 16).

¹¹⁹ Attic handles show much more variety than Corinthian Geometric handles. In particular, Attic early cups have horizontal stripes on the handle. At Corinth barred handles start in Early Geometric times, e.g. W. 61; cf. also W. 75.

¹²⁰ R. 15 (R. pl. 2) is a kotyle, not a cup. Robertson remarked this resemblance of cup to kotyle.

¹²¹ Cf. R. 286 (R. pl. 16), which is certainly Corinthian. R. 1 (R. pl. 1) might be Middle Geometric, but I think spirals are a Late Geometric pattern. R. 1 is certainly earlier in style than R. 2–4; its section is like the upper row (Vallet, and Villard, , BCH LXXVI 335Google Scholar, fig. 9b), and should be earlier than the lower row of R. 2–4 type.

¹²² Weinberg places the Falerii tall cup with his dark-faced group (AJA XLV 32), before the middle of the eighth century. Is it perhaps from Chalkis?

¹²³ E.g. the meander and spiral on R. 4 (R. pl. 1) are done with a fine, hard brush.

¹²⁴ See p. 259. There is generally a difference of fifty years between Robertson's dates for Geometric pottery and mine. Nothing will reconcile us over the Tall Cups. He puts them before the first kotylai, I put them all after.

¹²⁵ The Falerii cup, see above p. 264. Tall cups are now being found at many sites in Sicily, Modica, Lentini, Thapsos, Megara; and also in Ischia.

¹²⁶ See R. 2, 3, 4 (R. figs. 1 and 2); 679 (Plate 42), 727 (Plate 45), 935 (Fig. 23).

¹²⁷ E.g. 656–8.

¹²⁸ Amandry, , BCH LXXIV 322Google Scholar, pl. XXXIX. Dunbabin dates the cup Perachora I, pl. 121, 7 early on stratification.

¹²⁹ See pp. 266, 296.

¹³⁰ See p. 258. Part of the Early Geometric cup 617 came from my Pithos 1. It may be a survival or out of place.

¹³¹ Cf. W. p. 19, fig. 6, nos. 68, and 39–43. R. 289 (R. pl. 16) is similar, cf. also Perachora I, pl. 11.

¹³² On the stratification see pp. 255 ff.

¹³³ Cf. a late vase of this shape in Thera, , AM XXVIII Beil. XX, c 79Google Scholar from tomb 82 (63) (see on 882 below) with white stamped circles; of course not Cretan.

¹³⁴ On the stratification, see pp. 257 ff.

¹³⁵ Cf. oinochoe 871.

¹³⁶ These cup shapes move away from the kotyle, contrast 624; cf. shape of W. 83.

¹³⁷ The colours are like those on W. 73.

¹³⁸ For shape and decoration, cf. Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 8, 130.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Cf. W. 80. Our vase is later. R. 572 has now got a base that joins. H. 0·12 m. Last quarter of the eighth century.

¹⁴⁰ It has just the wavy lines of W. 107, which I should place in the third quarter of the eighth century; W. 106 and W. 110 are earlier. Same pattern as R. 15, which is a kotyle (R. pl. 2).

¹⁴¹ Cf. the shape of R. 290 (R. pl. 17).

¹⁴² Cf. 687 (Plate 43), also the Ithacan heron-kantharoi R. 314, 315 (R. pl. 20).

¹⁴³ Cf. R. 290 (pl. 17), which is of very thick fabric.

¹⁴⁴ This type of cup may have started early, but it certainly continued till orientalising times, cf. Cumae, pl. XL 5, found with pl. XL 8, which has birds on parade, and also pl. XXXVI 3, with thin, solid rays at the neck, all from tomb XXXII, p. 241. The technique is close to that of many Tall Cups. See also the oinochoe 893 (Fig. 20).

¹⁴⁵ Cf. a kantharos at Delphi (see above, n. 40), which certainly looks Middle Geometric. 635 may be from a kantharos. Cf. also W. 61.

¹⁴⁶ Weinberg 11 under no. 29, says that ‘apices’ are characteristic of Corinthian zig-zags on vases.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. the zig-zag on an Ithacan tripod-handle, BSA XXXV, pl. 13, c, no. 3, and pl. 15, b. Contrast the regular zig-zags on later cut-out Ithacan metal handles, loc. cit., no. 9.

¹⁴⁸ See Heurtley, , BSA XLIII 6.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Cf. also the painting on the heavy rather pointed kotyle 667 (Plate 42). An exactly similar cup has been found at Delphi, , BCH LXXIV pl. XXXIX 2.Google ScholarCf. the slightly earlier cup, MA VI, pl. IV 19, from Thapsos.

¹⁵⁰ Cf. the technique and pattern of the oinochoai 894–7. Plate 58, Fig. 19. See the kantharos 756 (Plate 47).

¹⁵¹ Cumae, pl. XLVII 1. Cf. conical oinochoe 1014a (Fig. 31).

¹⁵² In chains, ibid. pl. XXXVII; detached, pl. XXXVI 3a, with pointed rays at the neck.

¹⁵³ Cf. the spiral on the neck 1034. For a complete Tall Cup cf. R. 1 (R. pl. 1). The spirals in the panel are also like those on the rim of R. 4 (R. pl. 1). 645 must be contemporary with the kantharos in Dresden cited by Robertson, , AA 1892, 162Google Scholar, no. 24. Cf. a vase from Modica (unpublished).

¹⁵⁴ Cf. the spirals on the neck of the big oinochoe with lines all the way down, PV pl. 2. It also is Late Geometric. It has a row of birds in silhouette.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. Thera, , AM XXVIII, pl. XXXIII 3Google Scholar (K. 28) found in grave 47 with K. 39, which is an orientalising globular aryballos. Dunbabin quotes also Perachora II, pl. 29, 686.

¹⁵⁶ See also the neck 1033 (Plate 55), and R. 2 (R. pl. 1). The painting of the meander hooks on the cup from Falerii, (JRS XXV, pl. XXI 63)Google Scholar is like this but quite unlike the next. See note 70.

¹⁵⁷ Cf. AM XXVIII, Beil. XI, A 91, at Thera: no doubt Corinthian, as there are so many like it in Ithaca.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. VS pl. 2, I from Delphi.

¹⁵⁹ Cf. kotyle 683 (Fig. 10).

¹⁶⁰ See pp. 266, 296. It goes closely with R. 280 (R. pl. 16), and R. 363 (R. pl. 24).

¹⁶¹ Shape like W. 157 and R. 288 (R. pl. 16), which is also Corinthian.

¹⁶² A cup like this seems to have inserted itself into Kraiker's hospitable Geometric group (Aigina, pl. 8, 129). R. 288 is not very far away.

¹⁶³ J. M. Cook suggests that this cup is a non-Corinthian import.

¹⁶⁴ BSA XLIII 12.

¹⁶⁵ One scrap of a kotyle rim with chevrons has lately been found by Dr. Buchner in Ischia.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. W. 75. See p. 272 above.

¹⁶⁷ Our cup 628 (Plate 41).

¹⁶⁸ BSA XLII 151 ff. See also p. 261 above.

¹⁶⁹ On other large kotylai, see below p. 280.

¹⁷⁰ So do tall pyxides. Cf. also Kahane, , AJA XLIV, pl. XXVIII 1, 2.Google Scholar Note our 685 with a steeper shape, lines all down the body and horizontal lines on the handles.

¹⁷¹ VS, pl. XVII 1.

¹⁷² BSA XLIII 15, drawing.

¹⁷³ Cf. W. 176 and 179. On a Black and White style see above p. 264.

¹⁷⁴ Hesp. Suppl. II 144 ff.

¹⁷⁵ Cf. W. 162, ‘third quarter of the seventh century’.

¹⁷⁶ See R. 298–303 (R. pl. 17).

¹⁷⁷ NC 9, n. 2, pl. 2. On this reconstruction see n. 188.

¹⁷⁸ See below, pp. 307, 315. Dunbabin tells me that he dates dotted loops with the Cumae Group. Surely they should be contemporary with other chain patterns, e.g. floral chains, in the seventh century. Certainly the rays of the kotyle 690, Plate 43, are later than the rays of Cumae, pl. XXX.

¹⁷⁹ Young in this series tries to date by shape alone, forgetting that the sequence of shapes is a slim shape between two wider shapes. Dohan, E. H. (Italic Tomb Groups 30, 21, pl. XIV)Google Scholar does the same. She compares her kotyle to a drawing of uncertain shape and obviously different decoration. A Rhodian kotyle of the second half of the seventh century looks much nearer (Vroulia, pl. 43, 27, la found with pl. 44, 27, which are Late Protocorinthian).

¹⁸⁰ Cf cups 624, 626 (Plate 41), also the pyxis 825 (Plate 50), the Small Jug 1029 and the oinochoe 971 (Plate 62). Cf. also Perachora I pl. 13, 21.

¹⁸¹ For pattern and shape cf. the Tall Cup 641 (Plate 41). See p. 274 above. Contrast the elegant foot of 666.

¹⁸² Robertson's study is extensive (R. pl. 3).

¹⁸³ See preceding note.

¹⁸⁴ Cf. Perachora I 94, pl. 25, 8, there probably dated too early. See also ibid. 59, pl. 12, 2.

¹⁸⁵ Cf. 650, 727: see above p. 272.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. the cup fragment 658 (Fig. 7).

¹⁸⁷ Cf. Kahane, pl. XXVIII 1, which is a little earlier both in shape and in handle decoration.

¹⁸⁸ Cf. Syracuse, , Arias, BCH LX, pl. XI, A.Google Scholar Both are Corinthian patterns. Payne's reconstruction of a kotyle in Aegina was rash (NC pl. 2), and Kraiker's (Aigina, pl. D, 189, 197) is definitely misleading. He has put Second Style rays (cf. our 690) on a First Style rim. See also 694. Why invent a new style of ray? Why not use those that actually occur (pl. 10, 185; pl. 12, 191)?

¹⁸⁹ For loops, cf. our oinochoai 951 ff.; see also 1039 (Plate 58) and Lane, , Greek Pottery, pl. 13 A.Google Scholar For rays, cf. W. 118. It is possible that the kotyle NC pl. 2, should be restored with another frieze, and taller than Payne had made it. Cf. the meander hooks in 689 and see note.

¹⁹⁰ Surely R. 302 (R. pl. 17) is orientalising and well into the seventh century.

¹⁹¹ Cf. Cumae pl. XLV 3 and our angular oinochoe 1026 (Plate 56).

¹⁹² Most of these are bright red, some are yellow: later kotylai tend to be darker and coarser.

¹⁹³ Cf. the pattern on 696 and see Robertson's note (R. p. 17, n. 2) for references to this pattern.

¹⁹⁴ See Robertson on R. 32 (R. p. 17).

¹⁹⁵ Cf. the man running behind a lion, Kraiker, , Aigina pl. 17, 254.Google Scholar For the hare, see on the Hound Painter oinochoe 965 (Plate 55).

¹⁹⁶ They stop at the line, see photograph Plate 42.

¹⁹⁷ See Robertson's drawing (R. p. 15, fig. 6).

¹⁹⁸ Cf. W. 118.

¹⁹⁹ The rays are not late.

²⁰⁰ Probably earlier than Young's C. 8, see above.

²⁰¹ Later than Young's C. 8.

²⁰² Cf. Young 144, C. 25.

²⁰³ For rays cf. W. 179.

²⁰⁴ Kahane, pl. XXII 4 is Middle Geometric by Corinthian rules.

²⁰⁵ Cf. W. 44.

²⁰⁶ Perachora I 61, pl. 13, 8 and 9, pl. 123, 1. See p. 262 above.

²⁰⁷ See BSA XXXI 28, fig. 17; JHS LXX 18 ff.

²⁰⁸ BSA XXXIX, pl. 6, 25 and 26. I now consider these vases Protogeometric in style, see BSA XLIV 307 ff.

²⁰⁹ See above, p. 262: see 717–723.

²¹⁰ See p. 287 below for new kantharoi at Delphi. T. J. Dunbabin comments that there is none from the temple of Hera Limenia, which rather suggests that they did not survive the Geometric period.

²¹¹ Cf. 650 above for similar Tall Cups.

²¹² R. 44. This vase is probably later than the earliest Tall Pyxides and certainly later than the earliest kotylai, which Robertson places with them. It is at the height of the fine style. See R. pl. 4.

²¹³ R. 45 (R. p. 20) is not a kantharos but a flat-bottomed oinochoe, cf. W. 141, belonging to the second Bf. style.

²¹⁴ Four vases of identical seventh-century style have handles of types 3, 5, 6. They are 747, 748, R. 333 (R. pl. 21) and R. 334.

²¹⁵ Cf. BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 3, from Delphi, which is earlier.

²¹⁶ I fear at my instigation: see the ‘two-handled mugs’ at Polis, BSA XXXIX 19Google Scholar, no. 5, fig. 7. It is a bad reconstruction. Contrast our 714, from which the later kantharoi are descended.

²¹⁷ E.g. W. 113.

²¹⁸ E.g. 663 Fig. 7.

²¹⁹ I apologise for the ‘Uncertain’ category which is a confession of weakness.

²²⁰ BSA XXXI 17. For the cross-hatched patches cf. nos. 733 and R. 357 (R. pl. 23).

²²¹ See p. 271 above.

²²² E.g. Polis, Geometric 2. BSA XXXIX 19.

²²³ Cf. W. pl. 1.

²²⁴ Earlier in style, though possibly not in time, than W. 44. More like Attic kantharoi, and the fabric may be Attic. Corinthian Early Geometric is strongly under Attic influence and perhaps derived from it. I am now doubtful of the reconstruction of BSA XXXIX 18, fig. 7, 5 (Polis).

²²⁵ On this and the following vases, ‘white’ could be ‘reserved’ I am doubtful.

²²⁶ No exact parallel, but cf. the shape of Protogeometric kantharoi, Kerameikos IV, pl. 21. A large Middle Geometric kantharos from Delphi (Weinberg, , AJA 1941, 33, fig. 3Google Scholar), has similar, drooping handles, and the general shape, though probably later, is not unlike. See also BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 1.

Robertson (op. cit. 105) derives the leaves on the rim from the local Protogeometric, and claims the vase as Ithacan. But many other fabrics had such bars, notably Corinthian kantharoi in Ithaca, whereas they are absent from all Ithacan kantharoi in Ithaca except R. 319 (R. pl. 21), which is later. Cf. W. 45, W. 47.

²²⁷ Cf. W. 75 for the painting.

²²⁸ Cf. the handle of R. 47 (R. pl. 4), which is Early or Middle Geometric and exactly like a mug at Delphi, , BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 1.Google Scholar 716 is earlier than the kantharos loc. cit 3.

²²⁹ Very close to a kantharos with round handles at Delphi, , BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 1.Google Scholar

²³⁰ The shape of the body is like 717.

²³¹ They are like Perachora I 61, pl. 13, 9; see pl. 123, 2. The author compared a kantharos in Dresden, which is in an early Tall Cup style—small panels in a wilderness of lines. See p. 266 above. Both in Ithaca and Perachora there are verticals by the handles: but see 727.

²³² Cf. a kantharos in Dresden, , AA 1892, 162Google Scholar, no. 24. Cf. also 650 and 679 and p. 266.

²³³ Cf. R. 319 (R. pl. 21), which is neater and has a detached reserved line.

²³⁴ For pattern cf. R. 309 (R. pl. 18).

²³⁵ Not shown.

²³⁶ For the pattern cf. Thera, , AM 1903, Beil. XXIV I, HI 11Google Scholar: an Attic Late Geometric oinochoe. Another in the Ashmolean, 1934, 301, and the tall necks 982–3, Plate 58, below.

²³⁷ By ‘inscribed’ I mean with one or more lines drawn inside the outline.

²³⁸ Cf. our krater 802, JHS LXX 99.

²³⁹ Cf. BSA XXXIII, pl. 4, 43.

²⁴⁰ Cf. 914 (Fig. 15).

²⁴¹ Cf. the shape of R. 326 (R. pl. 18), which is Ithacan and looks later; it has a dotted St. Andrew's cross on the handles.

²⁴² Cf. the krater 798 (Plate 49) and the Syracusan krater (see p. 295).

²⁴³ See p. 287 above and cf. R. 333 (R. pl. 21).

²⁴⁴ It is against my principles to guess at shapes, but I have had to stretch a point here and in a few other vases, in order to illustrate them. The shape is nearly certain.

²⁴⁵ Cf. Kahane, pl. XXVI 3. 749–53 are so similar in technique and style that they are probably all the same shape.

²⁴⁶ Cf. 750 and the Protogeometric drinking vase P. 134 (Fig. 6).

²⁴⁷ The style of the painting of both patterns is like that of the oinochoe 891 (Fig. 24).

²⁴⁸ See 642, 892, 894 ff.

²⁴⁹ Cf. pattern on handles of 763, better seen on R. 330 (R. pl. 20). That kantharos has the same rim pattern as 756.

²⁵⁰ Cf. bird on tall-necked oinochoe 1020 (Plate 58).

²⁵¹ For the round handles cf. R. 357 (R. pl. 23).

²⁵² For contrast of thick and thin lines, cf. pear-shaped aryballos R. 236 (R. pl. 12) and R. 313 (R. pl. 20) with fighting birds. For the incised serpent and thick and thin lines, cf. R. 171 (R. pl. 10).

²⁵³ See R. 330 (R. pl. 20). See p. 287.

²⁵⁴ For R. 45 see p. 325 below. Cf. W. 116. 764 may be Corinthian.

²⁵⁵ Cf. Kraiker, Aigina, pl. 11, 180Google Scholar, said to be a kantharos.

²⁵⁶ Cf. ibid. pl. 8, 133. Both vases are more likely to be kantharoi than cups, and certainly they have little in common with the plain cup VS pl. 9, 4 to which Kraiker compares 133.

²⁵⁷ Handles like VS pl. 2, 4 which has lines all the way down.

²⁵⁸ See W. 157, VS pl. 9, 4.

²⁵⁹ Cf. the kyathos R. 52 (R. pl. 4), which has short fat rays and very fine painting.

²⁶⁰ This time it is certainly ‘white’.

²⁶¹ J. M. Cook pointed out to me the likeness to certain Argive kantharoi from Mycenae, which he is publishing. See p. 42. The Argive vases have higher lips. The line below the handle is not now in added white, as on the Argive vases: it looks like scratching. Many were found with the Late Corinthian kotylai. See p. 258.

²⁶² BSA XXXIII 45. The author has restored no. 55 with a violently pinched-in handle. Contrast the round handle at Polis, , BSA XXXIX 21 fig. 10, 4.Google Scholar

The shape will not, however, be of local origin as Desborough suggests (Protogeometric Pottery 275); see W. 12 on W. pl. 1.

²⁶³ See p. 266; some may be late.

²⁶⁴ See p. 327 below.

²⁶⁵ Cf. Perachora I, pl. 11, 2.

²⁶⁶ Deeper than Perachora I, pl. 11, 1, but looks like it. Beer-mug shape.

²⁶⁷ See VS pl. 10, 2–5.

²⁶⁸ Kyathoi took their tall lines, which Payne mentions (Perachora I 60), from the decoration of kantharoi.

²⁶⁹ Cf. BSA XXXIX 19, pl. 10, 10.

²⁷⁰ Its quality is like that of R. 70 and R. 166.

²⁷¹ E. 194, Plate 65.

²⁷² For the style of painting cf. 813 (Fig. 20). For birds looking back, cf. VS pl. XXII 2 d.

²⁷³ Cf. R. 44 (R. pl. 4); also Perachora I, pl. 13, 7.

²⁷⁴ Cf. the tall oinochoe neck R. 484 (R. pl. 33).

²⁷⁵ Cf. VS pl. X 3.

²⁷⁶ For connections with new kraters at Delphi, see nn. 40, 226.

²⁷⁷ A new join shows that it was dark below, and thus upside down on R. pl. 4. It had groups of poor wavy lines above the tangential circles. Kraiker, , Aigina pl. 8, 121Google Scholar should be of about the same date. R. 59 is a lovely orange colour, like 865a (Plate 53).

²⁷⁸ It has a red potter's mark and a Corinthian-shaped foot. Cf. the shape of 796.

²⁷⁹ Cf. the kraters of Marmariani, BSA XXXI, pl. IX.Google Scholar There the Geometric influence shows chiefly in the shape, but I think it really exists (see JHS LXX 19).

²⁸⁰ Robertson noticed this resemblance, but he dates the orientalising style so high that it did not disturb his sequence. In mine the first had to go last.

²⁸¹ See p. 274.

²⁸² Arias, BCH LX, pl. XIGoogle Scholar, A. The CVA photographs of these vases (CVA Syracuse, pls. 1–3) are misty.

²⁸³ Arias op. cit., pl. XIII. Note the likeness of the pl. XIII 1 to the rim of W. 116, and to many kantharos rims in Ithaca.

²⁸⁴ E.g. W. 119.

²⁸⁵ E.g. R. 376 (R. pl. 25), R. 362, R. 363 (R. pl. 24).

²⁸⁶ E.g. the toe of the dinos 808.

²⁸⁷ See our 663, W. 278, and several unpublished examples in Corinth Museum.

²⁸⁸ Vroulia pl. 18, 9; pl. 38, 6, found with Late Corinthian pottery. C. W. Clairmont kindly called my attention to this decoration on cups at Antioch and Beirut, which he dates to the beginning of the sixth century.

²⁸⁹ See p. 264 above on a seventh-century trade route past Ithaca.

²⁹⁰ T.J. Dunbabin gives me a reference to an unpublished stand, Perachora II, pl. 69, 2239.

²⁹¹ Cf. W. 36; cf. also Kerameikos IV, pl. 54, inv. 1266 (Protogeometric).

²⁹² Cf. W. 73, 74. The patterns are very close to ours. Cf. also the oinochoai 881, 882 (Plate 15). With this and the other Corinthian Middle Geometric kraters, cf. those from Delphi, BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 1Google Scholar).

²⁹³ Cf. base of W. 74.

²⁹⁴ Cf. Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 8, 121Google Scholar with a handle like 787.

²⁹⁵ I would place it between W. 36 and 73. Note similar lines on the base of W. 36. See Robertson's section of R. 371.

²⁹⁶ Cf. R. 55 (R. fig. 13), which is lost.

²⁹⁷ Paint, clay, shape and decoration are similar to G. 1069 in Corinth Museum. The shape is like R. 378 (R. pl. 24: similar dimensions, H. 0·21 m. D. 0·23, 0·082 m.). The decoration and the clay are like R. 437 (R. pl. 29).

²⁹⁸ Cf. BCH LX, pl. XI, a. 798 is, of course, earlier. Cf. the foot of the Syracuse vase and R. 392 (R. pl. 26). Cf. 745 (Plate 46).

²⁹⁹ Cf. the pattern on the oinochoe 925 (Plate 55).

³⁰⁰ Cf. the heavy curling-over rim, and the rim of the krater at Syracuse. BCH LX, pl. XI, a.

³⁰¹ The shape is like W. 135, even to the fillet below the off-set. Notice the fillet on the Syracuse krater mentioned above.

³⁰² Cf. 794.

³⁰³ See JHS LXX 9. For the broad lines on the foot, cf. the foot of the big krater BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 1.

³⁰⁴ See pp. 265, 296 above, and 340 below.

³⁰⁵ The general impression of the decoration recalls that of the vases with two-piece handles from Fusco at Syracuse mentioned above (e.g. BCH LX, pl. XI, b).

³⁰⁶ Cf. the oinochoe 965 (Plate 55), below; and the dinos Ann. X–XII 164.

³⁰⁷ Robertson thought the stand was Corinthian, but all the patterns are Cretan and likely to be later than their Corinthian models. See the drawings Robertson, pp. 46, 48.

³⁰⁸ There is a Late Protocorinthian oinochoe (967) and a conical oinochoe (1022) in a similar fabric.

³⁰⁹ Cf. Tiryns I, pl. XV.

³¹⁰ Cf. the decoration of an open vase at Polis, , BSA XXXIX, pl. 7, 35.Google Scholar

³¹¹ Cf. the style of 1015 (Plate 56) and the shape of R. 171 (R. pl. 10).

³¹² Not illustrated, BSA XXXIX 10, no. 16. See Blegen, Korakou fig. 88.

³¹³ Cf. R. 363 and see p. 295. The only other kicking foot looks late in fabric, and has ridges on it, like the ridges on the orientalising neck R. 409, see R. pp. 73, 74, fig. 44; and see 950e, and Fig. 33.

³¹⁴ See Robertson, pp. 18, 19, fig. 10. See also his references.

³¹⁵ For the shape of the handle cf. W. 47, which is Early Corinthian Geometric.

³¹⁶ Kerameikos I, pl. 50.

³¹⁷ Op. cit. IV, pl. 20.

³¹⁸ Cf. W. 37, with a depressed rim.

³¹⁹ NC 7.

³²⁰ R. 70, as Robertson notes, is in extremely fine technique, and from the same set as R. 166. It is difficult to put them before 725 B.C. (see R. pls. 5 and 10).

³²¹ E.g. R. 113 (R. pl. 6) seems earlier than R. 112.

³²² On R. 115 and R. 393, see p. 298; on R. 384, see p. 304.

³²³ See Persson, , Asine 323.Google Scholar

³²⁴ See 821.

³²⁵ R. 71 (R. pl. 5) is from the same dinner-set as a tall-necked oinochoe like 971, Plate 62 (not catalogued).

³²⁶ This is probably the shape of Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 8, 150Google Scholar, there called a kotyle.

³²⁷ Cf. NC pl. 22, 5. The lid has become domed again. In the sixth century the lekane supersedes it.

³²⁸ These leaves are in groups of eight, the others undivided.

³²⁹ For the technique cf. 715 (Plate 45), R. 331 (R. pl. 21), which I believe also to be Early Geometric and imported, see p. 287; for R. 384 (R. pl. 24), to which Robertson compares it, see p. 304.

³³⁰ Cf. the Protogeometric lids Kerarneikos IV, pl. 20.

³³¹ There is a pyxis with the early chevrons: it has a flat rim and a narrow neck: shape of 833.

³³² They have the effect of a quatrefoil, cf. the hydria 867 (Plate 53).

³³³ The technique is also like that of the kantharos-pyxis R. 387, which I believe to be Corinthian. See p. 299.

³³⁴ Cf. the shape of the orientalising lid R. 399 (R. pl. 23).

³³⁵ Cf. the lid of a Tall Pyxis, in Thera, , AM XXVIII, pl. XXXV 3Google Scholar; VS pl. XI 4. Ours is finer.

³³⁶ Cf. Caskey and Amandry, , Hesperia XXI, pl. 52, 174.Google Scholar

³³⁷ Cf. the lid VS pl. XI 2; Perachora I, pl. 25, 7, dated by Payne to the seventh century. Good photo in Lane, , Greek Pottery pl. 11, BGoogle Scholar, where the date suggested is too early; for the bars, cf. 1061 (Plate 62).

³³⁸ Cf. W. 121, said to be of the last quarter of the eighth century. The fabric is not unlike that of the lekane 817 (Plate 51).

³³⁹ Cf. R. 394, 395 (R. pl. 26).

³⁴⁰ See on 868 below.

³⁴¹ See no. 817a above.

³⁴² For R. 399, see p. 300.

³⁴³ These lids belong to the Black and White Style, see p. 264.

³⁴⁴ Cf. Perachora I, pl. 23, 8, for the goose; for hounds and goose, see VS pl. XLV 1; cf. also the kotyle 705. We have quite a fine Middle to Late Protocorinthian kennel and many of the hounds have been drawn: see Fig. 40.

³⁴⁵ E.g. W. 35, 58; our 860, 861.

³⁴⁶ Cf. the height of 864.

³⁴⁷ Hesp. Suppl. II 22.

³⁴⁸ Olynthus XIII P 1, pl. 1, is of this type. It must be Eretrian, under Corinthian influence (see Boardman, , BSA XLVII 42, pl. 4, b 2)Google Scholar, and has nothing to do with Cyprus. It is probably seventh century, whatever may or may not have been found inside it. An Eretrian vase in Olynthus is interesting. On loops see note 427.

³⁴⁹ Cf. VS, pl. XIII 2.

³⁵⁰ Cf. VS, pl. XIII 4.

³⁵¹ The pieces do not join, but have been placed by their distance above the group of three reserved lines below the handle. The patch joins on one side. Cf. the reserved patches on a three-handled jar at Polis, which I have suggested (BSA XXXIX, pl. 4, 13) may be under Geometric influence.

³⁵² Compare W. 35, and also CVA Athens I, pl. 3, 1, which has a similar zig-zag on the neck and a reserved line below the handle.

³⁵³ The black-and-white effect, but not the shape of body, is like that of a closed vase recently found at Delphi, , BCH LXXIV, pl. XXXIX 4.Google Scholar

³⁵⁴ Cf. loc. cit. top, and our oinochoe.

³⁵⁵ Contrast R. 125 (R. pl. 8).

³⁵⁶ For the shape cf. VS pl. 13, 2; contrast the shape of Kraiker, Aigina, pl. 8, 116.

³⁵⁷ Kerameikos IV, pl. 24, inv. 2092.

³⁵⁸ VS pl. XIII 4.

³⁵⁹ CVA Athens I, pl. 4.

³⁶⁰ CVA Athens I, pl. 2, 10.

³⁶¹ Cf. Kraiker, Aigina, no. 116. It is probably from a hydria, not from an amphora. The handles are about at the same angle as 867, and the shape of the neck is similar. The necks of amphorae with handles on the shoulder, have a sharp off-set. See above p. 303.

³⁶² See Robertson on R. 458 (R. p. 77). There is a pink Corinthian-looking sherd with this motive and very fine painting: for it, cf. the style of 815 (Fig. 16). The birds are probably sketched in R. 67 (R. fig. 3). Robertson compares the birds of R. 64 (R. pl. 3), who appear to be scattering bird-seed: evidently part of a dinner-set.

³⁶³ For the mullet, cf. the bottom of the oinochoe R. 171 (R. pl. 13), which has a hydra on the shoulder (R. pl. 10), like ours: another on the neck of 926 (Plate 20). Mullet are also to be seen on R. 495, see our 1021, and of course there are many at Cumae. See also the hydra on the handle of R. 494 (R. pl. 34).

³⁶⁴ Our 852, Fig. 16, R. 400 (R. pl. 23). See also the plate R. 559 (R. pl. 42). Cf. the lid at Cumae, , MA XXII, pl. XLII 1.Google Scholar All the vases mentioned for comparison have very fine groups of lines, all may be Corinthian.

³⁶⁵ BSA XXXIII 28.

³⁶⁶ See no. 886 (Plate 51).

³⁶⁷ See p. 317 below.

³⁶⁸ See Payne NC fig. 10, and our 966.

³⁶⁹ The hangover W. 130 also belongs to the second half of the eighth century; see p. 266 above.

³⁷⁰ This division is purely for convenience.

³⁷¹ These friezes are always divided both on this and on other shapes, by two or more lines. The Punta del Tonno sherd (Δρᾶγμα 461, no. 1) has only one line.

³⁷² Not illustrated.

³⁷³ See VS pl. VII; W. 129; see n. 427 below; also Dunbabin and Robertson, above p. 174.

³⁷⁴ 951, 952, Fig. 28.

³⁷⁵ See p. 264. Perhaps this jug is Chalcidian, from Chalcis.

³⁷⁶ Cf. Cumae, pl. XLVI 2.

³⁷⁷ See below p. 317, also above, no. 696.

³⁷⁸ See unpublished vases at Nauplia. Robertson compares the three-handled mug R. 358 (R. pl. 23). Argos was also fond of three handles.

³⁷⁹ Cf. W. 33. For a vase of Attic fabric at Corinth cf. W. 45.

^379a There was a table covered with miscellaneous sherds from vases of this type or a little later.

³⁸⁰ Cf. the painting of the meanders in pyxis 818 (Plate 50), or of the meander hooks on W. 70.

³⁸¹ Cf. 877, Fig. 19.

³⁸² Cf. the clumsy shape of 869 above; 882 (R. 444) is neater.

³⁸³ Cf. the handle of W. 70. The shoulder decoration is like W. 73.

³⁸⁴ See no. 616a and cf. Perachora I 54 and 58.

³⁸⁵ Cf. the kantharos 732 (Plate 46).

³⁸⁶ Cf. R. 63 (R. pl. 3).

³⁸⁷ This kind of bird occurs in Corinth on a Middle Geometric amphora, T 2412, P 1338.

³⁸⁸ This pattern occurs on a Middle Geometric vase in Corinth Museum.

³⁸⁹ The drawing and fabric are like those of the Middle Geometric krater 789 (Plate 48).

³⁹⁰ Meander-hooks in a wilderness of lines bring us to the Tall Cup style and we see that this shape, too, is lengthening out.

³⁹¹ I use this word in its more popular sense, the card players' diamond. Robertson calls them lozenges. I keep that word for a rounded figure, Robertson's ‘mandorla’.

³⁹² This is an early instance of metopes on the shoulder, not yet very obvious. Of course it is a poor vase, and it may be later than it looks.

³⁹³ Technique matches the cup 634.

³⁹⁴ The technique and style are like those of Tall Cups; see 642 (Plate 41).

³⁹⁵ Many of these necks may belong to the seventh century, cf. the neck of Lane, , Greek Pottery, 13A.Google Scholar Geometric style continues, see p. 264. See also diamond-chain on a Late Geometric pyxis, Lane, op. cit. pl. 7B.

³⁹⁶ We have already met these on cup 644 (Fig. 7). They appear on an obviously orientalising neck 930, with rays at the foot. The technique of them all is much alike.

³⁹⁷ Cf. cups 648–50, similar technique.

³⁹⁸ This pattern is a favourite on local kantharoi, 741, 745 (Plate 46).

³⁹⁹ For the shape and the shoulder pattern cf. R. 131 (R. pl. 8).

⁴⁰⁰ Cf. the pattern of W. 102.

⁴⁰¹ Cf. the neck of W. 105 for the pattern.

⁴⁰² For the shape, cf. Hesperia 1948, pl. LXXV C 4. Vases like 908–10 may have inspired small dumpy oinochoai from Finocchito, Åkerström, pl. 2.

⁴⁰³ Like the paint of kantharos 745.

⁴⁰⁴ There is the same curious system at the back of R. 440 (R. pl. 30).

⁴⁰⁵ Cf. the pattern on aryballoi found in a Geometric tomb in Rhodes, , Clara Rhodos VI–VII, 46 and 49Google Scholar, tombs VIII and X. The context of Tomb X is orientalising. Cf. the pattern on the front of the Jug, Griffin, JHS XLVI, pl. VIII.Google Scholar

⁴⁰⁶ Compare the next and also R. 452 (R. pl. 28).

⁴⁰⁷ Cf. R. 308 (R. pl. 18), R. 473 (R. pl. 33) or R. 476 (R. p. 79).

⁴⁰⁸ This pattern occurs on the cut-away neck R. 427 (R. pl. 27); also on kantharoi; cf. R. 329 (R. pl. 20). See also 1006.

⁴⁰⁹ Cf. the neck of a primitive-looking oinochoe, found in grave XXII at Gumae, with Orientalising and fine Geometric globular oinochoai, MA XXII 235, fig. 79.

⁴¹⁰ Fragments of similar vases W. pl. 15. 923 fits into the Corinthian sequence between R. 131 and 136 (R. pl. 8).

⁴¹¹ Cf. aryballoi with broad bands of the early seventh century, which are like this oinochoe in shape, e.g. R. 236 (R. pl. 12). Cf. 927.

⁴¹² Cf. 927.

⁴¹³ Cf Cumae 334, fig. 135, 8; pl. XXXVIII 2. Ours has no dots and a more arrow-like head. Cf. R. 171 (R. pl. 10), which has broad bands at the foot like 925; also the hydria 868, see Plate 53, p. 304 above.

⁴¹⁴ For solid circumscribed rays, cf. R. 456 (R. pl. 31). The birds on the latter are like those on Cumae aryballoi, and are probably seventh century. See p. 263.

⁴¹⁵ For the ‘S's’, cf. Cumae, pl. XLI 5. The rays are like those of R. 467 (R. pl. 31), the big oinochoe with the deer, which must belong to the second quarter. It no doubt had tall rays below. There is part of a base, with solid rays and incised diamonds, which would suit. See 950c, Fig. 33.

⁴¹⁶ Cf. style of 886, but these wavy lines are in groups. The rays were probably pretty long. It is similar in style to 943 (Plate 55), and also to 930a. See also the plate 1058, Plate 62.

⁴¹⁷ Shape between R. 131 and 136 (R. pl. 8): later than 923.

⁴¹⁸ Compare the square and rectangular dicing with loops, on the big kotyle R. 303 (R. pl. 17); similar dicing on a pyxis from Afrati, containing a round quatrefoil aryballos, Ann. X–XII 151; cf. also the handle of an oinochoe from Cumae, VS pl. VIII 6; for the diamonds cf. Lane, , Greek Pottery, pl. 13A.Google Scholar The Rhodian jug opposite is jazz too.

⁴¹⁹ Cf. the rays round the neck of the ‘Griffin’ oinochoe R. 142 (R. pl. 9); cf. also the rays on local, tall-necked oinochoai, e.g. 1000 ff.

⁴²⁰ Compare the little z's on the stand R. 225 (R. fig. 32).

⁴²¹ Cf. AM XXVIII, Beil. XXXIV 3, from Thera, Corinthian amphoriskos with small rays on the shoulder and oblique diamonds on the neck; cf. also an early Attic amphora, CVA Berlin I, pl. 3.

⁴²² For fabric and colour, cf. the plate 1065, R. 265 (R. pl. 15, our Fig. 33).

⁴²³ Cf. R. 304 (R. pl. 17) for the fabric. There must have been four dotted diamonds (the orientalising ornament that appears on Delian hydriai otherwise painted in Protogeometric style) in the reserved frieze of this kotyle.

⁴²⁴ Cf. Cumae, pl. XLVII 1.

⁴²⁵ See Cumae, pl. XLI 2.

⁴²⁶ ibid., pl. XXXVI 3.

⁴²⁷ For this and the following, cf. the shoulder and base of the Griffin oinochoe, R. 142 (R. pl. 9); for the body, see Lane, , Greek Pottery, 13A.Google Scholar The neck was probably like 926 in shape. The rays at the foot of the Würzburg vase are early. Cf. also Kraiker, Aigina, no. 212; also BCH LXXVI, 336, fig. 10, from Megara Hyblaea.

Corinthian loops are to be distinguished from others by the wonderful certainty of the drawing. Contrast Lane's oinochoe with Δρᾶγμα 461, 3, with Olynthus XIII, pl. 1, P 1, or R. 382 (R. pl. 25). See also p. 307. Dunbabin and Robertson (above p. 174) attribute this vase to the Cumae Group (no. 8). The group must have lasted a long time, for these rays are much more developed than Cumae Group no. 1 (Cumae pl. XXX).

⁴²⁸ Cf. R. 136 (R. pl. 8); for the loops, cf. Lane, loc. cit.

⁴²⁹ Cf. our kotyle 690 (Plate 43), which is certainly Corinthian. All these vases may be Corinthian, cf. R. 464 (R. pl. 32). Even R. 463 (R. pl. 32), bad as it is, is like a vase found at Corinth, W. 156.

⁴³⁰ Cf. 929 (Fig. 29), which was long thought to belong. The technique is like the aryballos R. 247 (R. pl. 14), and the designs have the same elements. Similar inscribed diamonds in added white appear on Shear's, krater, AJA XXXIV 411.Google Scholar See also the inscribed diamond in added white on the neck of R. 135 (R. pl. 8). For long circumscribed rays at the foot, cf. Caskey, and Amandry, , Hesperia XXI, pl. 50, 65.Google Scholar

⁴³¹ Cf. Délos XVII, pl. VIII, B b 1.

⁴³² Compare the wings of the cockson aryballoi PV, pl. 6. For horizontal wavy lines, cf. Cumae pl. XLI 1, 3, orientalising globular oinochoe; cf. also this design on bird kotylai. 1036 may also belong.

⁴³³ Robertson pointed out to me that this was probably a hare, and J. M. Cook that the other creature is certainly a lion. There are three kotylai probably by this painter (ref. under Kraiker, Aigina no. 252). For the large hare, cf. our 696 and note the too small deer by this painter (Aigina 48). Our creature is roaring with tongue out. Cf. Kraiker's lid no. 263, pl. 20, another work by this hand. The incised leg on that lid may belong to another large hare.

⁴³⁴ Cf. the dinos 808 (Fig. 13).

^434a Cf. W. 181.

⁴³⁵ Cf. W. 133 and 166.

⁴³⁶ See below no. 971.

⁴³⁷ See above p. 264. Hence Etruscan conical necks.

⁴³⁸ E.g. 987. See also under 1025.

⁴³⁹ Connections with Protocorinthian vases have been stressed by Robertson. The long rays on the body of 1002 (Plate 21) are particularly close to those on R. 162 (R. pl. 9).

⁴⁴⁰ This vase looked hideous in small pieces, but now it has been picked out for commendation by more than one of the modern artists who have visited the museum.

⁴⁴¹ The shape of the body, but not of the lip, is like W. 48. The general appearance is like the large oinochoe W. 56. The neck seems earlier than that of the conical oinochoe W. 76.

⁴⁴² Cf. W. 76.

⁴⁴³ KR 168 in the Corinth Museum is exactly like 971, except that it is bright red like W. 73, not golden-brown. For Italian contacts see p. 264 above and p. 327 below.

⁴⁴⁴ For the shape, cf. T2455, P1425, in Corinth Museum. The shape fits in with R. 171 (R. pl. 10), which is perfectly Corinthian. 972 may be under Attic influence, cf. the shape of BSA XXXIII, pl. 23, 14, from Canale.

⁴⁴⁵ Same ‘dinner-set’ as R. 71 (R. pl. 5).

⁴⁴⁶ Cf. 985, Plate 19.

⁴⁴⁷ For fabric, cf. the kantharos 734, Plate 47.

⁴⁴⁸ See on p. 317 above.

⁴⁴⁹ Cf. the decoration of the next. These are longer and thinner.

⁴⁵⁰ Cf. the grooves on the necks of the big oinochoai 913, 914 (Fig. 15).

⁴⁵¹ Cf. also R. 473 (R. pl. 33). This is smaller and has more lines.

⁴⁵² Contrast the Ithacan sacral trees R. 510 (R. pl. 37), and R. 534 (R. pl. 39). For the octopus on the handle cf. VS pl. 3, 5.

⁴⁵³ Robertson thought that his vase with linear style, R. 519, might not be early in the sequence, but its shape seems to derive rather well from our bulbous Geometric vase 972.

⁴⁵⁴ For a ray almost the length of the vase, cf. the oinochoe of the Cumae Group, R. 138 (R. pl. 9), also 1002.

⁴⁵⁵ Cf. the handle of 992.

⁴⁵⁶ For the ovals, cf. the oinochoe R. 138 (R. fig. 21, p. 35), of the Cumae Group, no. 5 (see above n. 447). For the diced pillar, cf. the birds beside one on R. 526 (R. p. 87), which does not belong to this vase.

⁴⁵⁷ Cf. R. 162 (R. pl. 9); for the handle-pattern contrast the clumsy drawing of the kantharos-handle 762 (Plate 47).

⁴⁵⁸ Cf. the whirligig on the oinochoe 956, Fig. 14.

⁴⁵⁹ Cf. 919 (Plate 57) and see on 919 above.

⁴⁶⁰ Perachora I, pl. 14, 3 and p. 63.

⁴⁶¹ The vase illustrated Tiryns I, pl. XV 9, was found in a Late Geometric grave (26).

⁴⁶² The conical oinochoe figured by Johansen, , VS 23Google Scholar, may not come from Athens and has nothing to do with Argos. There are others like W. 76 in the Corinth museum.

⁴⁶³ It seems likely that Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 16, 290Google Scholar, and certainly pl. 36, 481, 482, belong to the first quarter of the seventh century. Payne's, remark, NC 13Google Scholar, n. 7, refers to necks, not to whole vases. Kraiker 482 should go with 178, ibid. pl. 8, which is classified too early.

⁴⁶⁴ See the thick lines on the neck of Perachora I, pl. 24, 4; they are much thicker than those on the body; cf. our 1015.

⁴⁶⁵ This vase is linked with the large oinochoai by the ‘s's’ within the rays; and with cups by detached dotted diamonds.

⁴⁶⁶ Cf. VS, pl. VIII 6.

⁴⁶⁷ Cf. Kraiker, , Aigina 218, pl. 15Google Scholar, also VS, pl. VIII 6. The line on the right is the break, not the shape of the vase.

⁴⁶⁸ Cf. the neck VS, pl. VIII 6.

⁴⁶⁹ Cf. W. 200; also fabric of 808, 967.

⁴⁷⁰ See JHS LVIII, pl. XIX.

⁴⁷¹ For the stag and the high-flying eagle, cf. Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 26, 339.Google Scholar

⁴⁷² Cf. R. 33 (R. pl. 14). Cf. also Kraiker, Aigina no. 339.

⁴⁷³ Cf. NC pl. 10, 3, a siren, no. 47.

⁴⁷⁴ Cf. Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 28, 349Google Scholar, but there are fewer rosettes.

⁴⁷⁵ See JHS LVIII, pl. XIX. Dunbabin, T. J. quotes MusHelv VII (1950), 39.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁶ See also Buschor, Griechische Vasen 30.Google Scholar

⁴⁷⁷ Cf. the Little Jug W. 106, the kotyle W. 110.

⁴⁷⁸ See BSA XXIX pl. 9. For a double handle on a bottle, cf. Ann. X–XII 435, TR 226.

⁴⁷⁹ See p. 306 on R. 432.

⁴⁸⁰ Kerameikos I, pl. 27, Inst. 507.

⁴⁸¹ AE 1933, 87, no. 89.

⁴⁸² Perhaps Kraiker, , Aigina, pl. 8Google Scholar, 118 might belong to a bottle.

⁴⁸³ Robertson reminds me of the plastic rider on R. 557 (R. pl. 41). He seems to me to be later, about the middle of the seventh century, and always recalls to me the Syracuse, rider MA XXV, pl. XVII.Google Scholar

⁴⁸⁴ Cf. Cumae, pl. XLV 3; also the kotyle 691 (Plate 42).

⁴⁸⁵ Cf. conical oinochoe 1015 (Plate 56).

⁴⁸⁶ Cf. those found in the Kerameikos, Kübler, , Altattische Malerei, 61.Google Scholar There are plenty of serpents on Corinthian and Ithacan vases, but not in Crete. For dots in zig-zags, cf. W. 102. For wavy lines joined by tangents, cf. the large Corinthian Late Geometric aryballos no. 1050 (Plate 57). Wavy lines are hardly found at all in Crete.

⁴⁸⁷ Stubbings, , BSA XLII, pl. XV 6 and 8Google Scholar, from Attica.

⁴⁸⁸ BSA XXXIII 47.

⁴⁸⁹ AE 1932, pl. 11, 169; pls. 12 and 13.

⁴⁹⁰ Δρᾶγμα 461, fig. 2.

⁴⁹¹ Especially the first mentioned. It will not, of course, prove Pareti's pleasant theory of the foundation of Tarentum in 800 B.C. by users of belated Mycenaean, pottery (La Tomba Regulini-Galassi 25, 486).Google Scholar The Mycenaean sherds from Punta del Tonno are early thirteenth century (see Furumark, quoted in Δρᾶγμα 468 ff.). There are many more. As for the hand-made allegedly Protogeometricising pottery found in the Borgo Nuovo, it has no identifiable Aegean connections: see Mayer, , Apulien, pls. 3 and 4Google Scholar, but Lord William Taylour showed me a photograph of one Ithacan Protogeometric sherd.

⁴⁹² E.g. 1027, cf. W. 106.

⁴⁹³ See p. 226.

⁴⁹⁴ The rest of the inside is unpainted. Cf. W. 106.

⁴⁹⁵ The body is like AE 1932, pl. 169, except that light-on-dark has become dark-on-light.

⁴⁹⁶ Cf. also W. 106 and Perachora I, pl. 2, 4.

⁴⁹⁷ See p. 341 below and cf. 1034.

⁴⁹⁸ It may be trefoil-shaped, but it is rather like that of the large aryballos 1050 (Plate 57). Different shape of body and neck.

⁴⁹⁹ See under 650 for other references. Shape of neck not unlike R. 414 (R. fig. 44).

⁵⁰⁰ See 646 (Plate 41) and 645 for other references.

⁵⁰¹ Od. VII 100. Two inscriptions at Epidauros mention a fire-bearer to Herakles, , AE 1894, 50Google Scholar, nos. 10, 11.

⁵⁰² Cf. Od. XI 25 ff. The Cimmerians' land was always in darkness.

⁵⁰³ Délos XVII pl. X 4 and 7; found in the Artemision. Dugas' suggestion of a portable stove is no better than his predecessor's ‘vase support’. See 1037 below, and p. 259 above. On rhytons of other shapes, see Eilmann, R., AM LVIII 127.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁴ Cf. R. pl. 38. Fig. 26 is Miss Petty's drawing. The vase may be from Corinth.

⁵⁰⁵ Op. cit., pl. 39, 1 or the aryballos in Boston, , PV pl. 5, 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁰⁶ One cannot date a derivative vase strictly with its source, but the nut-cracker chins and noses of the sphinxes are derived from profiles like those on the lion-fight and centaur aryballoi PV pls. 10, 11, and not from the sweeter faces that come after. The preliminary reports of this vase are listed by McDermott, The Ape in Antiquity, and all the previous errors and some new ones appear in his text. I re-affirm (1) the style is not Protocorinthian; (2) the alphabet is not Corinthian but Achaean (R. pls. 38, 39, p. 89). D. von Bothmer suggested the helmet.

⁵⁰⁷ On R. 225 see 807 above.

⁵⁰⁸ See R. pl. 40.

⁵⁰⁹ Cf. little snakes on a handle, Cumae pl. XXXIX 1. For double axes as a filling ornament cf. Kraiker, , Aigina 481, pl. 36.Google Scholar For swastikas as a filling ornament, cf. Cumae pl. XXXVII.

⁵¹⁰ Cf. neck of a lekythos in a grave (no. 32) at Cumae, ibid. pl. XL 7.

⁵¹¹ It has been suggested that 871, Plate 44, was a local effort to make an aryballos.

⁵¹² W. 48 is described as having a flat lip, so I should call it an aryballos.

⁵¹³ Oxford AE 278, NC 6.

⁵¹⁴ Cumae, pl. XLIII 3 and 5.

⁵¹⁵ See Caskey, and Amandry, , Hesperia XXI; pl. 50, 144Google Scholar is surely a globular aryballos.

⁵¹⁶ Payne, JHS XLVI, pl. 8.Google Scholar See also Lane, Greek Pottery, pl. 15.Google Scholar On dinoi in Ithaca see pp. 265, 296, 297.

⁵¹⁷ VS pl. 14, 8.

⁵¹⁸ Cf. Cumae, pl. XL 2, grave 32. Blakeway claimed this aryballos for Crete; it is certainly of Corinthian style. Grave 32 is late, because it contains a jazz conical oinochoe with pointed solid rays round the neck. For the handle, cf. also Kraiker, , Aigina no. 51, pl. 3.Google Scholar This sherd is said to be Attic, but all the patterns are Corinthian. Can the shape be a life-size plastic tripod-lebes, the ring-handle being broken off, leaving the handle-strap?

⁵¹⁹ Perachora I, pls. B and 123, 15.

⁵²⁰ Kraiker's designs are solid enough, but they look early. Unfortunately no sections are given, Aigina pl. 16, 247.

⁵²¹ Dinos 808. Late Protocorinthian, oinochoe 966, conical oinochoe 1022.

^521a Perachora I, pl. 123, 16. It is surprising that this shape is as early at Perachora.

⁵²² Cf. 829, Fig. 9.

⁵²³ Cf. the wheel on Peraehora I, pl. 14, 7. On the other side swastikas.

⁵²⁴ This plate has much in common with Kraiker, Aigina pl. 16, 247Google Scholar; cf. the bars on 844a (Plate 51).

⁵²⁵ For the rays, cf. an ivory spectacle fibula at Syracuse, MA XXV 499.Google Scholar

⁵²⁶ For the shape, cf. Perachora I, pl. 123, 16, and p. 63: for the scales cf. those on the eagle R. 599 (R. pl. 45).

⁵²⁷ Robertson's date; see the next.

⁵²⁸ See R. p. 92. Cf. the coarse-painted plain lines on R. 467 (R. pl. 31) and see pp. 264 ff. above.

⁵²⁹ Ann. X–XII 130, from Afrati.

⁵³⁰ See R. pl. 44 and fig. 51.

⁵³¹ Cf. Lamb, , BSA XXXV, pl. 36dGoogle Scholar, found at Kato Phana in Chios.

⁵³² The best parallels are unpublished in Mykonos. Perhaps middle of the seventh century. See Rubensohn, O., AM XLII 85Google Scholar; Launey, M., Études Thasiennes 116 ff.Google Scholar Launey dates these sherds, and with them his temple, too high.

⁵³³ For the shape cf. Vroulia, pl. 46, 1.

⁵³⁴ J. M. Cook's identification.

⁵³⁵ Barnett, R. on Mazzarino, S., JHS LXX 104Google Scholar and JHS LXVIII 24.

⁵³⁶ See Barnett, , JHS LXVIII 4.Google Scholar

⁵³⁷ NS 1895, 173.

⁵³⁸ JHS LXVIII, pl. VIII a.

⁵³⁹ AA 1948, fig. 3.

⁵⁴⁰ E.g. Truhelka. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen Bosnien und der Herzegovina (WMBH) IX, pl. XLIV from Donja Dolina. There are many in the Ashmolean from Hallstatt.

⁵⁴¹ BSA XLII 76 ff., ‘The Hoplite Phalanx’. E. Miraux would have done well to consult this work before he wrote Les poèmes homériques, even if he dislikes archaeological argument. It might have preserved him from talking of Chalkis making long bronze swords at the end of the eighth century, or of Spartans making iron panoplies in the middle of the seventh.

⁵⁴² See pp. 265, 296, 297 above.

⁵⁴³ Iliad XVIII 370 ff.

⁵⁴⁴ BSA XXXV 114.

⁵⁴⁵ BSA XLII, pls. 19 and 22. See also a vase from Eretria (Kourouniotes, , AE 1903, 14Google Scholar). Boardman, BSA XLVII, pl. 3, A and p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁴⁶ See the prostrate lion's head on the shield of the fallen warrior on the vase PV pl. 23, 4.

⁵⁴⁷ The object perished. I believed it to be a greave but the drawing is inconclusive; belts: E.243, 243a, Fig. 35.

⁵⁴⁸ SirMyres', John map, Who were the Greeks? 275Google Scholar, fig. 11, should not have a dot on Corfou.

⁵⁴⁹ See R. p. 122. Miraux, op. cit., announces himself as insusceptible to archaeological argument, and I cannot hope that he will read this paper, but if he could bring himself to thumb through my plates he might come to see that the close connection between Ithaca and Corinth, which he announced, was, in the eighth century, between Corinth and Ithaca–Thiaki and not Leukas–Ithaca.

⁵⁵⁰ Cf. Barnett, , Iraq II, pl. XXVI 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁵¹ Perachora I, pl. 51, 3.

⁵⁵² See Benton, , JHS LXX 21Google Scholar, Class II.

⁵⁵³ Bossert, , Altanatolien 847Google Scholar, from Çerablus (Charchemish). Cf. also ibid. 1178, of Urartian style.

⁵⁵⁴ See Casson, , BSA XXVI, pl. V.Google Scholar

⁵⁵⁵ AA 1948, 35, fig. 3, 22.

⁵⁵⁶ See nos. E. 205–208, Plate 66 and Robertson, E. 183, 184 (R. pl. 49).

⁵⁵⁷ Cumae, pl. XLIII 3 and 5; cf. pp. 265 ff. above.

⁵⁵⁸ Aryballos no. 1053, Fig. 19; see pp. 265, 331.

⁵⁵⁹ Olympia IV 416, pl. XXIII.

⁵⁶⁰ Benton, , JHS LXXII 119.Google Scholar

⁵⁶¹ AJ I 199 ff., pls. VI and VII.

⁵⁶² Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, pl. 39.

⁵⁶³ Cumae, pl. XXX. There are many handles of this type at Aetos among local Tall-necked Oinochoai; three are recorded, 996, 999, 1010, but there were many more; one on a vase of the style of 970 is probably earlier than the others. Cf. also BCH LXXVI 338, fig. 12, perhaps a hydria, and perhaps not from Corinth. See p. 306.

⁵⁶⁴ E.g. R. 129 (R. pl. 8), R. 171 (R. pl. 10); 900–902, Plate 59, also 971, Plate 62. See also p. 317 above.

⁵⁶⁵ Schwarzfigurige Etruskische Vasen 13. The evidence from Aetos shows that conical necks are not ungreek, as Dohrn would have it.

⁵⁶⁶ R. 414, 415 (R. pl. 27 and fig. 44); 1033, Plate 16; 1034, Fig. 13.

⁵⁶⁷ JdI XLIV 213, fig. 20, British Museum no. 86. 3–12. 2. There are three oinochoai and a round-mouthed dipper. The oinochoe is later than the Barberini vase; the handle, though still hammered, has an engraved palmette. The group is not homogeneous, the handle of the dipper is cast and zoomorphic. I am grateful to Professor Ashmole for discussing the group with me.

⁵⁶⁸ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome III, pl. 44. The two kotylai rims are eighth rather than seventh century, the kotyle handle has bars and not the seventh-century decoration of horizontal lines. The base is not from a kotyle but from a conical oinochoe like so many at Aetos: date about 700 B.C. (e.g. R. 177, 178, R. pl. 11).

⁵⁶⁹ E.g. Olympia IV 656, pl. XXXVI.

⁵⁷⁰ MrAmandry, chid me (BCH LXXIX 39)Google Scholar for calling Polis Bronze 15 male (BSA XXXV pl. 16). It may be a woman, but if so, we must take heroff the tripod, and has she not a beard? Homann-Wedeking, in giving a ninth-century date (Grossplastik 21), does not mention that I now suggest a date in the second quarter of the eighth century. See the next note. Male dancers on the Analatos Hydria are very close to our bronze; at least I have always supposed them to be male (BSA XXXV, pl. 39).

⁵⁷¹ See JHS LXX 21.

⁵⁷² JHS LVIII 226; here Plate 64.

⁵⁷³ See Filow, , Trebenischte 34.Google ScholarCf. Fiala, , WMBH VI 68Google Scholar, from Sanskimost. For Robertson E. 14, cf. AO pl. LXXXIII g.: the lower part does not belong (my photograph, and my error). Robertson E 15 is also of this type which was also popular in Illyria. The double-pin from Sanskimost was found on the breast. See also ibid. VIII 28.

⁵⁷⁴ Hallstatt 1492, pl. XXI.

⁵⁷⁵ Wace, , Chamber Tombs, pl. IX and p. 94, 7 g.Google Scholar

⁵⁷⁶ BSA XXXV 64, fig. 14, pl. 10.

⁵⁷⁷ ibid. 73. Cf. the finding of nickel in a bronze from Olympia, ibid. 132.

⁵⁷⁸ Iliad XVIII 474 ff.

⁵⁷⁹ Od. I 181 ff.

⁵⁸⁰ BSA XXXV 137, ‘Aules’ for Aetos.

⁵⁸¹ Cf. Kerameikos IV, pl. 38.

⁵⁸² Cf. Olympiasche Forschungen I, pl. 62 h.

⁵⁸³ Kerameikos IV 27, grave 28, M 34, pl. 38.

⁵⁸⁴ Hall, , Vrokastro 105c, d.Google Scholar

⁵⁸⁵ Olynthos X 411.

⁵⁸⁶ Wace, and Thompson, , BSA XVIII 27Google Scholar, 5 from the Pyres, and so Geometric.

⁵⁸⁷ Olympische Forschungen I 146 ff.

⁵⁸⁸ Ibid., pl. 56.

⁵⁸⁹ Kerameikos I, grave 17, pl. 76; ibid. IV, grave 34, M 8, pl. 38.

⁵⁹⁰ Archaeologists who concentrate on decorative motives forget that simple motives can recur independently. Miss Lorimer has often told us that Geometric spears were flung. No modern thrower would consider this weapon stream-lined. These spearheads may be connected with Etruria. There is a pair in the Ashmolean Museum from Viterbo and one in the Villa Giulia from Narce.

⁵⁹¹ WMBH IX, plates.

⁵⁹² My arrangement of the small finds has differed a little from Robertson's. The Aetos terracottas are being published separately by Mr. R. V. Nicholls. I have tried to illustrate beads, and as beads are best photographed together, I have listed them together except those of bone and bronze.

⁵⁹³ At Corinth, , Hesp. XVI 214Google Scholar; see also Davidson, G. R., Corinth XII 130.Google Scholar For our animal, cf. the François Vase (FR pls. 11, 12), NC no. 1073 (a horse) and no. 1173 (like ours). Note the Altar Painter's liking for large single figures, which is more characteristic of Middle than of Late Corinthian vases. For Broneer's lion (op. cit. pl. 51), cf. the Chimaera of Payne's Chimaera Painter, NC pl. 30, 8. The stylistic order of lions is Chimaera Painter, Broneer's lion, the lion on a Caeretan hydria AD II pl. 28. The donkey on that hydria is like our donkey.

The artist could have found models for our beast on the Paxoi Islands, where donkeys hold carnival all Easter, all loose, all together, clattering down the village street inthe darkness, braying to their God.

⁵⁹⁴ T. J. Dunbabin kindly showed me the Perachora altar. It has smaller animals and a different decoration.

⁵⁹⁵ See other stone beads M.1, M.51, M.52.

⁵⁹⁶ The scale of Miss Petty's drawing is 2: 1.

⁵⁹⁷ See Thompson, d'Arcy, Glossary of Greek Fishes 223.Google Scholar. ῾Pόμβος may also appear on r.f. fish plates, cf. L. Lacroix, Plats à Poissons. B. Buchanan points out to me the frequency of representations of flat fish in Egypt. Curiously enough his reference, Petrie, , Scarabs, pl. XXXIX 42Google Scholar, has scales reminiscent of seventh-century Greece. See also Petrie Amulets no. 257a. The Nilotic fish are not quite so flat as ours, perhaps they are Nile perch.

⁵⁹⁸ These should have been listed with the other compound fibulae:see E.229 below.

⁵⁹⁹ Similar decoration on a lion in Sparta (AO, pl. CLII 3).

⁶⁰⁰ The lion might be by the same hand as Hogarth, , Ephesus, pl. XXX 7 and 11Google Scholar from Kamiros. The sphinx is rather more determined than the centaur op. cit. pl. XXXI 13. The straight wing is unusual among our seals, and so is the lion. Cf. also Lamb, , BSA XXXV 153, pl. 33, 1–4.Google Scholar It was found in a Late Geometric deposit at Kato Phana in Chios.

⁶⁰¹ Not unlike AO, pls. CXLIV and CXLVI 2. The photograph in AO is upside down.

⁶⁰² See references in BSA XL 54.

⁶⁰³ For the position of the legs cf. AO, pl. CLV 4 and the head is as neat as ibid. CLXVII 1. The hair is different. Cf. the winged runner on a seal from Perachora, (JHS LXVIII, pl. IV)Google Scholar and on a Protocorinthian aryballos of the second Bf. style (PV, pl. 20).

⁶⁰⁴ R. C 1 (R. pl. 48, p. 115), where see references. Note also a plastic aryballos at Sparta, AO, pl. XLIII 4, probably of Corinthian clay. The author's story of a snake and a lost head is not clear. The baby's left arm clasps his mother's right shoulder, his head is against her other cheek, his tail curls up below on his left. She is sitting on her tail and holds the middle of it. The group would tend to be less peaceful if she found she was sitting on a snake. McDermott (The Ape in Antiquity), trying so hard to find a Protocorinthian monkey, has missed the real one. Furtwängler, , Aegina, pl. 112, 4Google Scholar, must be another family group. The creatures cannot be of different species as Furtwängler thought.

⁶⁰⁵ Barnett, R., JHS LXVIII, pl. VGoogle Scholar, from Perachora.

⁶⁰⁶ See Blegen, , AJA XLIII 440Google Scholar, fig. 23, 2.

⁶⁰⁷ See p. 338 above.

⁶⁰⁸ See also M.63–79, beads.

⁶⁰⁹ Cf. Olympia IV, no. 235. Kunze, E. and Schleif, Hans, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, 1940/1941, pl. 32, 1.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁰ BSA XXXIII 60–1, figs. 42–3.

⁶¹¹ BSA XXXIX, pl. 18, 1.

⁶¹² See JHS LXX 21, pl. IV, b.

⁶¹³ See loc. cit.

⁶¹⁴ Cf. Olympia IV, pl. XIII 205 a (stag), 208 (rabbit).

⁶¹⁵ JHS LXX, pl. V, b.

⁶¹⁶ Op. cit. V e. Cf. Attic horses on vases at the turn of the century (Cook, , BSA XXXV, pl. 47Google Scholar); also the horses of the Dioskouroi, , JHS LXX, pl. Vd.Google Scholar

⁶¹⁷ Cf. the hounds on kotyle 696, Fig. 10 and also Fig. 40. See Olympia IV 413, pl. XXIII.

⁶¹⁸ Rope decoration: cf. the handle with bull's head and double ropes at both sides, Olympia IV, pl. XXIX 572, also 571. Siamese bulls: Olympia IV, pl. XXV 477.

⁶¹⁹ VS, pl. XXXVII 5.

⁶²⁰ PV, pl. 12.

⁶²¹ NC, pl. 14.

⁶²² Levi, Ann. X–XII, figs. 147, 236, 291, 412; also the spouted dinos fig. 420.

⁶²³ Lane, , BSA XXXIV 125Google Scholar, fig. 13.

⁶²⁴ PAE 1911, 272 from the shrine of Apollo Tyritas.

⁶²⁵ See Benton, , BSA XXXIX 52 ff.Google Scholar

⁶²⁶ Moortgat, A., Bronzegerät aus Luristan, pl. V ff.Google Scholar

⁶²⁷ See NC, fig. 10. Drawn by N. Bruce.

⁶²⁸ It is flat behind and the surface decoration is rounded. See p. 341 above. The bronze vases Perachora I, pl. 61 have simple handles, but are probably later; ibid. pl. 68, 17, may be early.

⁶²⁹ Cf. Perachora I pl.62, 6, also the ‘Warrior Grave’ (AA 1934, 240, figs. 26, 27) in the Kerameikos at Athens.

⁶³⁰ BSA XXVI, pl. V. Cf. Olympia IV, no. 416, pl. XXIII, with horse protomes. See pp. 265, 340 above.

⁶³¹ BSA XXXIII 61; cf. Kerameikos IV 30, M 115. Desborough thinks Heurtley op. cit. pl. 6, 84 is of Attic style. The clay is Attic, not Corinthian as Desborough suggests Protogeometric Pottery 277.

⁶³² Perachora I, pl. 17.

⁶³³ BCH XLV 378, 379.

⁶³⁴ Perachora I 173, pl. 74, 9. A favourite at Sparta, AO pl. LXXV.

⁶³⁵ This pin seems to be Payne's orientalising type A, most like Perachora I, pl. 74, 13. The disk is thinner and therefore probably a little earlier than Robertson, E.24.

It was labelled by Miss Lorimer as found below the pavement (see BSA XXXIII 36), but note the confusion of the stratification, for a complete Protogeometric pilgrim-flask was found higher than the pin.

⁶³⁶ Fiala, , WMBH VI 168 at Sanskimost.Google Scholar

⁶³⁷ Casson, , BSA XXVI 24 and pl. II.Google Scholar

⁶³⁸ Délos XVIII 276. References are given there to other kinds of pins.

⁶³⁹ Filow, , Archaische Nekropole 34.Google Scholar Silver. Dunbabin quotesalso gold pins, AJA LIV 124, fig. 3 c, but we need not accept the description ‘hair-pin’ or the date there given: a sixth or seventh century date is more likely.

⁶⁴⁰ Kerameikos IV, pl. 39, M 2. For Mouliana, , see AE 1904, 30Google Scholar, and see Hall, Vrokastro.

⁶⁴¹ Cf. Furtwängler, , Aegina, pl. 115Google Scholar, third row, right. The drawing pl. 116, 21, is not satisfactory.

⁶⁴² Unfortunately this has no context.

^642a Les Fibules grecques et orientales 199, nos. 6, 7, 8.

⁶⁴³ Cf. Orsi, , MA II (1893), pl. II 11Google Scholar, found in tomb 23 (Cozzo Pontano). Note the Mycenaean sword pl. II 18. Cf. Blinkenberg, op. cit., fig. 27, I. 12 a, from Kydonia.

⁶⁴⁴ Cf. Perachora I, pl. 72, 10.

⁶⁴⁵ Cf. Blinkenberg, op. cit., fig. 164, VII. 3 a.

⁶⁴⁶ Blinkenberg lists this as an Italian type, XI. 4, but he gives quite a long list of finds in Greece, and there is now a silver one, Perachora I, pl. 84, 18. The type is also found at Syracuse, , NS 1895, 149Google Scholar with a pear-shaped aryballos.

⁶⁴⁷ See Perachora I 170. See also C. 52, Plate 64.

⁶⁴⁸ Cf. AO pl. LXXXII, a, b, f.

⁶⁴⁹ Orsi, , NS 1895, 165.Google Scholar Note the long clasp. Cf. also 41, fig. 28 bis and fig. 30. Another was found with a vase of the second Bf. style, ibid., 61 ff., tomb CDXXVII.

⁶⁵⁰ BSA XXIII 21 ff. See also AO, pl. XXXIII h, g, where they are unlikely to be sub-Mycenaean. Cf. WMBH I 85, fig. 69, from Glasinac.

⁶⁵¹ Cf. MA XV, pl. XI 3. Sporadic find on the Esquiline; cf. also E.35 (R. pl. 50).

⁶⁵² Cf. E.38, 39 (R. pl. 50).

⁶⁵³ See E.93 (R. pl. 50), cf. Olympia IV, pl. XXIV 433.

⁶⁵⁴ See E.97 (R. ibid.).

⁶⁵⁵ Gallus, and Horvth, , Un peuple cavalier préscythique en Hongrie, pl. II 1, pl. VI 3, pl. XVIII 8.Google Scholar Some of these objects are in the Ashmolean. No doubt these pendants were used in different ways in different places, but Aetos has a large interest in horses.

⁶⁵⁶ Cf. the silver aryballos F.3.

⁶⁵⁷ Cf. Furtwängler, , Aegina, pl. 116, 54 and 69Google Scholar, Perachora I, pl. 79, 24, there said to be parts of earrings. Kleobis has coils, no doubt of metal, at the end of his curls. See FdeD IV, pls. I and II.

⁶⁵⁸ Cf. Olympia IV, pl. XIX.

⁶⁵⁹ Cf. Robertson E. 176 (R. pl.50).

⁶⁶⁰ May be of the common Italian type, MA XV, pl. XXIV 24.

⁶⁶¹ BSA XXVI, pl. IV (Macedonia).

⁶⁶² Cf. Olympia IV, pl. XXIV 440–53.

⁶⁶³ On prehistoric bronze moulds, see Coghlan, , Man, Nov. 1952, no. 245.Google Scholar

⁶⁶⁴ See also the bead M.59.

⁶⁶⁵ See M.53–58 for gold beads.

⁶⁶⁶ Dunbabin compares the silver cone from Perachora, op. cit. 184, pl. 84, 13. They may be earrings.

⁶⁶⁷ Cf. Cumae (text) 90, fig. 37, 12, from Prehellenic tombs.

⁶⁶⁸ Olympiasche Forschungen I 147, pl. 57; iron, ibid. 152, pl. 59 c.

⁶⁶⁹ Cf. ibid. 154, pl. 62 h.

⁶⁷⁰ Cf. ibid. pl. 57 a.

⁶⁷¹ Cf. Perachora I 189, pl. 86, 16–19. See note on currency or token dedications.

⁶⁷² Cf. bronze handles, Perachora I 164, pl. 69, 10, where reference is made to a situla in New York.

⁶⁷³ In BSA XLIII 9 ff.

⁶⁷⁴ The drawings are the work of Miss Audrey Petty: I have to thank Miss Benton for the photographs.

⁶⁷⁵ See Stratification, p. 258, and also p. 264.

⁶⁷⁶ Cf. NC 324, for evidence on the dating of these kotylai.

⁶⁷⁷ Ure, , Sixth and Fifth Century Pottery from Rhitsona 23.Google Scholar Our example is larger than the vases in Ure's Glass IIA, but may be contemporary with them.

⁶⁷⁸ JHS XXXI 75, fig. 75. Cf. AE 1912, 117.

⁶⁷⁹ Cf. 1022 and W. 200.

⁶⁸⁰ Cf. 705, Fig. 10 above.