¹ For a summary of evidence about the ancient city see IG xii. 9, 165 f.; Geyer, F., Topographie und Geschichte der Insel Euboia 33 ff.Google Scholar

² Briefly mentioned in BSA xlvii (1952) 12, n. 73. Wartime exploration in Chalcis is reported in AA 1942, 140 and JHS lxiv (1944) 90.

³ For the Mycenaean pottery of Chalcis see Hankey, V., BSA xlvii (1952) 49–95.Google Scholar She mentions Protogeometric and Geometric sherds from the Vromousa cemetery north-east of Chalcis (ibid. 51, 76 ff., nn. 54–58) which I have not seen. Early pottery has been found in other sites in Euboea, but nothing important has yet been published (cf. PAE 1941–4, 39; AA 1943, 309).

⁴ Eretria 8, fig. 13b; Desborough, V. R. d'A., Protogeometric Pottery (hereafter PGP) 199Google Scholar.

⁵ Cf. the fragment from Eretria, , PAE 1952, 159, fig. 4, 2Google Scholar, and the class described in PGP 194 f.

⁶ PGP 180–94.

⁷ Eretria pl. 1, A 18; PGP 199.

⁸ Sherds in the British School at Athens include two fragments of skyphoi with concentric semicircles; on one they are pendent and the type seems to be that of the other fragments mentioned here, though the fabric is somewhat coarser and more brown; on the second they apparently rise from the painted lower part of the wall. There are also Geometric or archaic scraps from the same site. For Kerinthos see Geyer, op. cit. 96–98; Pernier, L., Ann iii (1916–1920) 273–6.Google Scholar

⁹ PGP 199.

¹⁰ See Geyer, op. cit. 35, and the map in RE s.v. Chalkis, 2079.

¹¹ Eretria 2 f., figs. 3, 5; pl. 1, A 9–16, 22–24, B 1–9.

¹² Eretria 2, pl. 1, A 1–2, and see below.

¹³ Cf. Eretria 2 f., fig. 1, 10.

¹⁴ Cf. Eretria 12; AM lviii (1933) 68 f.

¹⁵ Eretria 2.

¹⁶ ADelt iv (1918), 39, fig. 7, 11. Hansen, H. reports more Geometric in Skyros (Studies presented to D. M. Robinson i. 63).Google Scholar The island is said to have been settled by Chalcidians, Ps.-Skymnos 579–86.

¹⁷ Eretria 7 f., fig. 9; pl. 2, B 6, 7, 14–18. Cf. Hankey, op. cit. 83, n. 57.

¹⁸ Groups A and B Eretria 16 ff.

¹⁹ To the group I compiled in Eretria 17, n. 80 add an example in Heidelberg (known to me from a photograph in the German Institute at Athens). Ibid. no. 9 is now Athens NM 18553.

²⁰ (a) 1954.516; cream-white, the wavy lines on lip and lower body and in the lozenges; a dull reddish stripe below the handle-zone; within, two reserved lines in the lip over slip.

(b)1954.520.7; within, two reserved lines in the lip over slip, one over the clay ground.

(c)1954.391.5; within, four thin reserved lines in the lip.

(d)1954.520.6; within, one reserved line in the lip over slip, one over the clay ground; a groove below the handle-zone; for the profile cf. Eretria 5, fig. 6, 4 and 6 (the figures are misnumbered).

There are other Euboean fragments from Al Mina in the London Institute of Archaeology. I am indebted to Miss J. du Plat Taylor for the opportunity to study them. 55.1827 is from a cup with the characteristic dotted oval filled by a cream line (as Eretria pl. 1, B 20, 21, 23, 27; PAE 1952, 162, fig. 10), and there are two fragments from the lip of a cup with a white wavy line outside and reserved lines showing the cream slip within. In Cambridge is a fragment decorated as Plate 2 a, (a) (Mus. Class. Arch, AL 241).

²¹ But cf. PAE 1952, 161, fig. 9 right. For (c) cf. AJ xvii (1937), pl. 14, 1 centre right (Al Mina: Oxford 1954.392.2), and Eretria pl. 1, B 17.

²² There is a group of locally-produced cups from Al Mina of this period which combine Cypriot and Euboeo-Cycladic decoration and technique. The dating of the ‘Cypriot’ Level 8 at Al Mina is problematic. Many of the earliest Greek sherds are labelled Level 8, and it may be that the earliest levels are too confused for any particular groups of vases to be attributed safely to a phase associated with the Assyrian occupation of Al Mina at the end of the eighth century.

²³ EADélos xv, pls. 27–32 passim.

²⁴ Cf. Eretria 2, n. 8.

²⁵ e.g. Samos, (AM lviii (1933)Google Scholar, Beil. 20–22 passim) and Chios.

^25a Mr. R. M. Cook has drawn my attention to three fragments in Cambridge (Mus. Class. Arch, AL 238–40) closely akin to Delos Geometric group Ad. These are of the early seventh century.

²⁶ Robertson, C. M., JHS lx (1940) 18 f.Google Scholar, fig. 8b–c, and many fragments in Oxford (see below); Eretria 2 f., fig. 1, 6–9 and 11; pl. 1, A 6–7; cf. pl. 3, A 21.

²⁷ Cf. the skyphos, EADélos xv, pl. 31, Ae 93, ‘tout à fait exceptionnel dans notre série’. Also the kotyle with birds in Thera, , AM xxviii (1930), Beil. 32, 5.Google Scholar Attic imitations seldom have the rows of wire-birds, are better executed, and never slipped, cf. Young, R. S., Hesp Suppl. ii. 146 ff.Google Scholar Dr. G. Buchner tells me that this type of imitation of Protocorinthian is most common in the early graves of the Euboean colony Pithekoussai, but in a local fabric. The wealth of pendent-semicircle skyphoi on Delos (Rheneia) and dearth of these kotylai, both of them classes we have reason to believe Euboean, may be significant. Euboean influence and interest in Delos and other islands of the Cyclades may well have lessened considerably towards the end of the eighth century.

²⁸ (a) 1954.427 (Level 8); two white lines within the lip.

(b)1954.431; a white line within the lip and a reserved band lower in the bowl.

(c)1954.426.15; three white lines within the lip; a paler, buff fabric, more like Protocorinthian.

(d)1954.426.3; three white lines within the lip.

(e)1954.418.5 (Levels 6–7).

(f)1954.426.7 (Levels 6–7); two white lines within the lip. Other patterns on lip fragments include butterfly ornament and hatched maeander hooks. Some fragments have isolated white lines also lower in the bowl, and white lines over the black at the base of the wall.

²⁹ Eretria 2, pl. 1, A 1–2. Cf., from Al Mina, Oxford 1954.419.2, and Robertson, op. cit. 19, fig. 8d.

³⁰ On Protocorinthian kotylai, e.g. Weinberg, S., Corinth vii. 1, 40, nos. 162–3Google Scholar; 49, no. 176, and cf. 67, nos. 261–77. Oxford 1954.455, from Al Mina, imitates such kotylai, with a dotted circle (freehand) in the handle-zone, a line below and a line within the lip, and rays at the base.

³¹ Three white lines within the lip of Eretria pl. I, A I, and an isolated line lower in the bowl of a similar kotyle. I do not know how commonly the lines appear on the other kotylai from Eretria.

³² The stories of the foundation of Posideion by Amphilochos belong, with those of Mopsos, to the period of the Late Mycenaean ventures in the east. For Mycenaean at Alalakh and Sabouni see Woolley, C. E., Alalakh 369 ff.Google Scholar, A Forgotten Kingdom 178 f., JHS lxviii (1948) 148. Woolley has suggested that the earliest years of Al Mina's history have been lost with the washing away of part of the site; but, although there might have been a Mycenaean port serving Alalakh somewhere near Al Mina, there is no scrap of evidence from Al Mina, Sabouni, or Alalakh, or for that matter from any Near Eastern site other than those on the Asia Minor coast, for Greek imports or occupation in the period immediately prior to that of the pendent-semicircle skyphoi.

³³ See above, p. 2 and n. 8.

³⁴ Desborough has given us an exhaustive study of the vases in PGP 180–94. Chalcis and Kerinthos in Euboea may be added to the list of provenances, and Emporio in Chios.

³³ AM liv (1929) 159.

³⁶ x. 448.

³⁷ PGP 194.

³⁸ Dunbabin, T. J. suggested this in The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours (JHS Suppl. Paper 8) 30.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks 445 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the other hand Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R.'s ‘by 800 B.C., and possibly earlier’ (Iraq xviii (1956) 166)Google Scholar has no warrant; cf. Robertson, , JHS lx (1940) 21.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Discussed by Desborough, op. cit. 182, 294.

⁴² Van Beek, G. W., Basor cxxxviii (1955) 34–38Google Scholar; Riis, P. J., Hama ii. 3, 113 f.Google Scholar

⁴³ This would entail drastic changes in the admittedly insecure dating of Cypriot pottery in this period.

⁴⁴ Hanfmann, G. M. A. in The Aegean and the Near East (Studies presented to Hetty Goldman) 173–5Google Scholar, and cf. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology xli (1953) 30. W. F. Albright reaffirms confidence in an early date for the skyphoi, the Tell Abu Hawam level, and Greek vase chronology in The Aegean and the Near East 163, n. 68. If the fragment Larisa am Hermes iii, pl. 57, 4 (cf. PGP 193, 221) is the earliest Greek pottery on that site, it should have arrived quite late in the eighth century, although it might have come at any time during the period of native occupation which preceded the Aeolic settlement. It should be remembered that, inasmuch as the pendent-semicircle skyphoi do not fit very tidily into the clear sequence of Protogeometric and Geometric Greek pottery, their dating has no very great relevance to general chronology, whatever its interest in particular contexts. See also now Desborough, in JHS lxxvii (1957) 216–19.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ AJ xvii (1937), pl. 14, 1 is labelled Levels 5–7, i.e. seventh century and later; this applies only to the sherds illustrated in the lower half of this block, but it also applies to all the sherds illustrated ibid. pl. 14, 2 and labelled as of Levels 8–10, i.e. eighth century. The latter heading applies only to the sherds in the upper half of ibid. pl. 14, 1 (with one exception: the duck). This can be verified from Robertson's, C. M. publication in JHS lx (1940) 2 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and I have been able to check many of the sherds illustrated in AJ from such of the originals as are now in Oxford. The drawings, with their misleading captions (and upside down), were reproduced by Säflund, G. in SE xii (1938), pl. 5Google Scholar, and some of them appear in Woolley, C. L., A Forgotten Kingdom pls. 19b, 20a.Google Scholar It is, apparently, this confusion which has led Säflund to down-date Protocorinthian and much else by nearly a century; see Historia vi (1957) 16–18.

⁴⁶ There is one vase in Samos which seems out of place and could perhaps be Euboean. It is the footed crater, AA 1937, 207 f., fig. 2. The foot is distinctive, but it is found in other wares (Rhodian geometric, Rumpf, A., MuZ pl. 2, 5Google Scholar; Theran, Buschor, E., Griechische Vasen 59 f., figs. 69, 71Google Scholar; Argive, , Perachora i. 65 f., pl. 12, 5Google Scholar; Corinthian, , Hesp xvii (1948), pl. 77, C 25).Google Scholar In general the type with cylindrical upper part and flaring toe is met in various fabrics including Eretrian, (AE 1903, 18, fig. 10Google Scholar, and cf. CVA Cambridge ii, pl. 494, 7–8; Eretria 19, pl. 4; Beazley, J. D., Development 6—as AtticGoogle Scholar; that the lid belongs is proved by the use of the same multiple brush on it and the body of the vase).

⁴⁷ BSA xxxiii (1932–3) 170–208; JRS xxv (1935) 129–49.

⁴⁸ Åkerström, A., Der geometrische Stil in Italien (1943)Google Scholar, on which see Dunbabin, , JRS xxxix (1949) 137–41Google Scholar and The Western Greeks 466–70; Cook, R. M., JHS lxv (1945) 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar f. Bérard, J., La Colonisation grecque ² (1957) 278 ff.Google Scholar, reviews later archaeological finds in the west.

⁴⁹ Blakeway, op. cit. 183, n. 4, hazarded a guess which has much to recommend it.

⁵⁰ Slight at Metapontion, see Dunbabin, , The Western Greeks 33Google Scholar, and cf. Bérard, op. cit. 49, 67.

⁵¹ Cf. Eretria.

⁵² For the Cumae jug, which has been thought Cycladic, see Brock, J. K., BSA xliv (1949) 78.Google Scholar It is clearly akin to Cycladic, but it cannot be readily assigned to any known class. Now that we are beginning to learn more of local seventh-century workshops in the west (especially in Sicily), the likelihood of its being of western manufacture becomes even more attractive.

⁵³ Naxians probably participated in Sicilian Naxos. Andros falls within the Euboean sphere.

⁵⁴ This is a subject to which I hope to return in detail. Relations in the Bronze Age may also have been close; note the Euboean finds of ‘frying-pans’ of Cycladic type, Mylonas, G. E., AJA xxxviii (1934) 272–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Finds of early pottery on Corcyra may prove enlightening, cf. JHS lxxvi (1956), Suppl. 20, fig. 17, 1956, 69 f. Robertson noted ‘Cycladic’ influence on some Ithacan vases and cites a Euboean cup from Eretria, as a parallel, BSA xliii (1948) 65.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Buchner, G., RM lx/lxi (1953–1954) 37–55, pls. 14–17Google Scholar; Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia 1954, pl. 4.

⁵⁷ There is, however, much about the spouted crater from the grave with Nestor's cup (JHS lxxvi (1956), Suppl. 61, fig. 14 centre) to remind one of fragments from Eretria. Dr. Buchner has shown me photographs of recent finds which have a more distinct Eretrian or Euboean appearance; see also n. 27.

⁵⁸ The animated horsemen on the sherd RM lx/lxi (1953–4) 52, fig. 3, recall a little the looser Eretrian style, as Eretria 18, fig. 19.

⁵⁹ Blakeway, op. cit. pl. 34, 88 and Π, and p. 200. On the absence of ‘pre-colonizing’ pottery in Sicily see Villard, F. and Vallet, G. in Mél. d'Arch. et d'Hist. lxviii (1956) 7–27.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ On Greek influence in Etruria see Blakeway, , JRS xxv (1935) 129–49.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Åkerström, op. cit. 69–73, pls. 17, 4 and 6; 18.

⁶² For the cylindrical feet splaying at the toes see n. 46.

⁶³ e.g. AE 1903, 19 f., figs. 11, 12; Eretria pl. 4, B 2.

⁶⁴ In the west they recur on a locally-produced crater from Chiusi, Åkerström, op. cit. pl. 27, 6.

⁶⁵ For the tooth pattern on the neck of the vase shown in Åkerström, op. cit. pls. 12, 1; 17, 4 and 6 (cf. pl. 14, 3; 15, 7), compare the Eretrian, vases, AE 1903, 27, fig. 16Google Scholar; Eretria 10, fig. 14, pl. 2, B 16.

⁶⁶ Åkerström, op. cit. pls. 12, 1–2 (and cf. 4); 24, 1–3; pls. 24–25 for the metope style in Etruria.

⁶⁷ Cf. Ure, P. N., Sixth and Fifth Century Pottery from Rhitsona pls. 10, 11.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Cf. Hesp iii (1934) 435; ours is an early type.

⁶⁹ We may recall here the tentative identification of a sanctuary of the Dioskouroi Kabeiroi near Chalcis (comment in Hemberg, B., Die Kabiren 244 f.)Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Cf. Bruns, G. in Wolters, P., Das Kabirenheiligtum pls. 13, 14 and passim.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid. 113 ff.

⁷² Cf. CVA Reading i, pl. 40, 5 and references in the text, pp. 60 ff.

⁷³ I am indebted to Miss V. R. Grace for the following description of them:

Second half of the second century B.C.

Late second century B.C.

⁷⁴ Rumpf, (MuZ 55)Google Scholar reports the find of ‘Chalcidian’ by the late G. Welter, but the excavator told me that he had found a kiln and pottery—Chalcidian, not ‘Chalcidian’. The lekane mentioned by Rumpf (ibid. 55, n. 2) appears in Eretria pl. 13, B.F. 16, and is probably Attic.

⁷⁵ Mr. J. M. Cook kindly allows me to mention this find which he will publish.

⁷⁶ Though Smith, H. R. W. (The Origins of Chalcidian Ware 103)Google Scholar declares that such a find would ‘embarrass’ the theory of a western origin.

⁷⁷ Rumpf, A., Chalkidische Vasen pls. 188–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Courbin, P. suggests that it inspired the Attic kantharos shape in black-figure (BCH lxxvii (1953) 339 ff.).Google Scholar The Etruscan shape might easily have been inspired by East Greek cups and Chian chalices (two fine examples from Vulci), which have tight feet with splaying bases in the seventh century; and the chalices have straight walls. The Attic shape might have much the same ancestry. The kantharos on a high, narrow base is known now in Cycladic Geometric (from Kimolos, , AM lxix/lxx (1954–1955), Beil. 57–58).Google Scholar Finally, we can only guess at the shapes of metal vases current in the seventh century; cf., however, the bronze skyphos with a conical foot from Perachora (Perachora i, pl. 58, 2).

⁷⁹ Cf. Dunbabin, , The Western Greeks 252, n. 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ CRAI 1951, 285 and cf. REA lviii (1956) 42 ff.

⁸¹ Lippold's arguments for the influence of ‘Chalcidian’ drawing on Attic are shrewd but not conclusive (Jdl lxvii (1952) 78–92).

⁸² Bloesch, H., Formen attischer Schalen 28 f.Google Scholar; Villard, F., REA xlviii (1946) 180.Google Scholar

⁸³ Campbell, M. T., Hesp vii (1938) 561Google Scholar, fig. 3, 29 and p. 563. Cf. Payne, , NC 330.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. Eretria 42 f., no. 16.

⁸⁵ Eretria pl. 1, A 18 and p. 8, fig. 13b; PGP 199.

⁸⁶ PAE 1952, 159, fig. 4, 2.

⁸⁷ PGP 165; cf. H. Hansen, , Studies presented to D. M. Robinson i. 63.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ PAE 1952, 162, fig. 10; cf. 1955, 37, fig. 37 left (= BCH lxxx (1956) 298, fig. 13).

⁸⁹ The photographs are by Alison Frantz. It was confiscated at Chalcis in 1897. Height, 21·0; length of animal, 31·0; overall length, 32·5. (All measurements are in centimetres.)

⁹⁰ Kerameikos v. 1, 245, pl. 144, inv. 1311 (gr. 50).

⁹¹ BM 1921.11–29.2. I am indebted to Mr. R. V. Nicholls for drawing my attention to the piece, and to Mr. R. A. Higgins for notes and a photograph of it.

⁹² e.g. Sieveking-Hackl, , Die königliche Vasensammlung zu München pl. 42, 981–2.Google Scholar An unpublished early Attic black-figured vase from Vari also reflects the shape.

⁹³ From Stamatakis's excavations for the Archaeological Society, 1874; height 20·7; pink fabric with red-brown paint. There are three stripes just inside the lip, and the back of the handle is painted; the foot is hollow. There appears to be no added colour.

⁹⁴ Berlin 2664 (F. 58). My illustration is taken from Boehlau, J., Jdl ii (1887) 54, fig. 16.Google ScholarIbid. 53 f., no. 11, the vase is discussed, and see Furtwängler, A., Beschreibung der Vasensammlung 10 f., no. 58Google Scholar: ‘Mehrere der horizontalen Linien sind mit dunkelroter Farbe direkt auf den Thongrund aufgesetzt, ebenso einiges Detail der Bilder (an der Blume).’ I have not seen the vase. F. records its height as 38·5. The drawing appears also in Ohnefalsch-Richter, M., Kypros, the Bible and Homer pl. 89, 8.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Height 20·3; it is completely hollow. Pink-buff fabric with few impurities; a painted line inside the top of the bowl.

⁹⁶ e.g. CVA Berlin i, pls. 28–33.

⁹⁷ e.g. Kinch, K. F., Vroulia pl. 15Google Scholar; London BM WT 220; Larisa am Hermos iii, pl. 61. Cf. the stand on the Fikellura sherd, CVA Cambridge ii, pl. 497, 10, and BSA xxxiv (1933–4), pl. 6. Their bronze prototypes in the Near East are discussed by Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., Iraq xviii (1956) 152 f.Google Scholar; and cf. Robertson, C. M., BSA xliii (1948) 46–49.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Payne, , NC 276Google Scholar, no. 116, fig. 119.

⁹⁹ Eretria 29, and n. 163.

¹⁰⁰ Gardner, P., Ashmolean Vases 2Google Scholar, no. 20. Height 12·0; pink-buff fabric with a very little mica. The red bands on neck and body and on alternate tongues overlie the greyblack paint. The outer dots of the rosettes on these bands are cream-white, their hearts black. A double-moulded handle.

¹⁰¹ 1887.3412 (Gardner, op. cit. no. 18, fig. 4); the third oenochoe (1887.3403, ibid. no. 19) is Late Geometric, with a recumbent goat on the neck. The three in no way form a group, and are related only by general shape and alleged provenance.

¹⁰² Young, R. S., AJA xlvi (1942) 49 f.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Cook, J. M., BSA xxxv (1934–1935) 168, n. 2, 187, 195Google Scholar; Young, op. cit. 56. Both appear on vases of the group in the Kerameikos: Kübler, K., Altattische Malerei 21, fig. 13; cf. 66, pl. 60.Google Scholar Würzburg 56 (Langlotz, E., Griechische Vasen in Wüzburg pl. 4)Google Scholar has black-and-white style ornament and must be quite late. Oxford 1935.226 has plain black tongues on the shoulder. A. Greifenhagen quotes a late example in Leipzig (I 2327; in AA 1935, 415). For Eretrian white rosettes on red bands see Eretria pl. 2, B 8; pls. 5–7, C 3,4, 12.

¹⁰⁴ E.g. Johansen, F., Les Vases sicyoniens pls. 23, 1Google Scholar; 28, 2; and cf. the Attic Phaleron amphora, AJA xlvi (1942) 34, fig. 18, and oenochoe in Boston, Fairbanks pl. 65, 558.

¹⁰⁵ NM 135; height 294, diameter at lip 22·7. Pale orange-buff fabric; painted a streaky brown within. Four red bands. The proportions and decoration of the kantharos from Rhitsona, , BSA xiv (1907–1908), pl. 10Google Scholarb may be compared.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. the bronze skyphos with a foot cited in note 78.

¹⁰⁷ These vases recall much of earlier Eretrian polychromy. The strange animals within Boston 97.363 (Fairbanks pl. 56, 531) are second cousins to the Eretrian creatures on the Group D amphorae. Boston 24.7 (Fairbanks pl. 57, 534) has details of decoration, as well as an unusual shape, which put it rather apart from the typical Boeotian bird-kylikes. It might, I suppose, be a Euboean imitation, and the clay has white inclusions, which are found in some Euboean vases.

¹⁰⁸ NM 16306; height to shoulder 11·3. Pink fabric with a pale surface and very little mica. Single handles. Red for the belly band (overlying two black lines), at the junction of bowl and foot, and for the pairs of vertical lines on the foot. The frieze immediately above the red belly band carries a zigzag.

¹⁰⁹ Height 11·0, diameter 22·0. A good pink-buff fabric. On the lid: red circles on the black border, and red and white hoops on the central disk. Red bands above and below the body frieze; on them a metope pattern of triple lines and blobs in white. Red over black for the dogs' necks, bird's centre part, and alternate leaves over the bird; red outlines the crosses in the field and filling flecks Unpainted beneath; the lid has a shallow flange.

¹¹⁰ Height 11·0, diameter 19·5. Painted within; a red band at the edge of the in-turned lip; alternate red and black bands on both sides of the feet; on the base alternate red and black hoops, four in all, and a black central disk, the hoops being divided by thin black lines. Red for the lions' and dogs' bellies and necks, the bird's wing panel and alternate feathers. Red outlines the black crosses of the filling. On the outside dogs are to be distinguished from lions by their bellies; compare within. I mentioned the vase in Eretria 28, n. 162, when, from an indistinct photograph, it seemed a tripod and Attic.

¹¹¹ Listing some ‘Melian’ finds in Eretria 24, n. 136 I omitted the famous fragments in Palermo from Selinus with part of an artist's signature (MA xxxii (1927) 303 ff., pls. 79–81). This omission was deliberate, but should be explained, as the piece has been called ‘Melian’ by all since the excavator, who had only the ‘Melian’ vases to compare for grave-amphorae of this type. The fabric of the Selinus fragments is quite un-‘Melian’ and seems probably local (Prof. A. Åkerström concurs with this opinion). The drawing is quite un-‘Melian’; details need not be pressed. If a home or source of influence must be sought for it, one might look to Crete. Strangely enough, many motifs are closely paralleled on the Lemnian vases (della Seta, A., AE 1937, 629 ff.).Google Scholar But one then has to reckon with the inscription, which does point to the Cyclades (but not to Melos, and not to all the Cyclades, Miss Jeffery tells me), so we may be dealing with a western imitation of, or derivative from, an undefined island ware. A fragment from Gela might be worth consideration as ‘Melian’ (MA xvii (1906) 248, fig. 185 bis; Dunbabin, , The Western Greeks 472 takes it for Rhodian).Google Scholar I am not sure that the fragments from Aetos in Ithaca, , BSA xlviii (1953) 344Google Scholar, fig. 34, 1071, need be ‘Melian’.

¹¹² AJA xlv (1941) 64 ff.; cf. Eretria 40, nos. 2, 3.

¹¹³ CVA iii, pl. 146, 3, 5–7.

¹¹⁴ Height 11·9. Pink-buff fabric; brown paint. Slightly hollowed under foot.

¹¹⁵ See Haspels, E., ABL 3–6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ EADélos no. 637, pl. 52. Cf. too the buds on the Amphora, Gorgon (AJA xlv (1941) 65, fig. 3)Google Scholar and white sepals on the Wedding Amphora (Eretria pl. 9 a–b, lid). On these vases ibid. 40 (no. 3), 45, and on the motif ibid. 35 f., 45 f.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Payne, , NC 155 f.Google Scholar Closest are the kotylai, Hesp xv (1946), pl. 66, 312; CVA Fogg Museum pl. 5, 17–18; CVA Heidelberg i, pl. 16, 6; Athens NM 16307; with alternate red and black buds and no links; there are no lotus sepals in the friezes.

¹¹⁸ Said to be from Thebes. Diameter 18·0; two suspension holes pierced in the flange of the foot. The profile is akin to Feytmans, D., L' Ant. classique xvii (1948) 184Google Scholar f., pl. 2, D, with the base ring at the edge of the floor of the plate. A red fillet, and broad bands on the wings; red rosettes with white dots on either shoulder and the second flounce of the skirt; white dots on the breast and across each of the lower two skirt flounces; white face, arms, and feet. The arms are bent across the body, the left hand being before the belt, the right dropped somewhat lower.

¹¹⁹ Exceptionally on the Amasis Painter's alabastron (Karouzou, S., The Amasis Painter pl. 11 and p. 10).Google Scholar Also on a late black-figured amphora on the London market (Eustace, 1956).

¹²⁰ No provenance. Diameter 10·0. Pink-buff fabric; grey-black paint: unpainted outside. Two suspension holes. Boston 77.223 (Fairbanks pl. 51, 543), from Larymna in Boeotia, may be related, and cf. Lullies, R., Eine Sammlung griechischer Kleinkunst pl. 15, 46.Google Scholar The Late Corinthian phialai have a quite different decorative scheme, cf. Payne, NC nos. 1349–51.

¹²¹ Cf. the treatment of the lotus petals on many Late Corinthian quatrefoil or cinquefoil aryballoi, but there is no colour contrast.

¹²² In this context an amphoriskos from Leontinoi deserves note. It is illustrated by Orsi, P. in RM xv (1900) 89Google Scholar, fig. 31, and I am indebted to the authorities of Syracuse Museum for notes about it. The black and red unlinked-bud frieze on the body is, so far as I know, not met otherwise on Late Corinthian amphoriskoi, though it, and the red and black bands below it, closely reflect the scheme met on some small Late Corinthian kotylai (see above, n. 117). It stands rather apart from the general run of Corinthian amphoriskoi, and the appearance of this rather Euboean decoration in a Chalcidian colony is worth remark, even though it does not prove anything about the vase's origin.

¹²³ Diameter 143. Pink-buff fabric, the surface dis coloured; dull paint. Two suspension holes. The profile as Feytmans, op. cit. pl. 2, D, with the floor rising saucerwise and an attenuated base ring. White chest and face for the sphinx, white-red-white for the wings. Five crudelypainted hoops painted beneath the plate, and another within its small foot (diameter 4·7). Just outside the foot runs a groove. Published in JHS xi (1890) 41 f., fig. 7.

¹²⁴ e.g. Eretria pls. 2, B 8; 3, B 1; 4, B 6; 8, D 10; 14, B.F. 5; and the skyphos-bowls described ibid. 7 (top); the ‘kothon’ (Plate 5g), and the foot from Chalcis (Plate 1 g, 53).

¹²⁵ Cf. Hesp vii (1938) 560.

¹²⁶ AJA xlv (1941) 65, figs. 3, 4.

¹²⁷ See Eretria 30 ff. I have more to say of the Attic shape in the publication of the Attic pottery from Old Smyrna.

¹²⁸ Height 11·6. Buff fabric; brown paint. Single handles, under one of which are two oblique strokes. Around the neck is a row of white blobs, on the lip black blobs. The neck is painted within, the foot hollow and unpainted.

¹²⁹ Beazley, J. D., ABV 655Google Scholar, nos. 32–35; add one in Eleusis.

¹³⁰ Height to rim 17·0. Buff fabric; black paint fired reddish on the lid. On the flat part of the lid are two broad hoops with a line of blob-leaves between them. Blobs on the flat rim of the vase.

¹³¹ Cf. P. Jacobsthal, Greek Pins figs. 209–34.

¹³² Cf. Eretria 41, pls. 9, 10, 14 (B.F. 5).

¹³³ NM, Empedocles Collection E 273; height 10·0, diameter of the lip 3·3, of the foot 48. Pinkish-brown fabric with a red surface. The lid has a deep flange.

¹³⁴ NM 16327; height 5·5, diameter 8·5. Pinkish-brown fabric with a dusky surface and dull black paint. Faded white blobs on each bud. Hollow foot with a broad painted band within. A painted band within the lip and broad disk on the floor of the vase. Mrs. A. D. Ure drew my attention to the vase and to her reference in CVA Reading i. 58, where the museum number should be corrected.

¹³⁵ Height 7·2. Pink fabric. There is, perhaps, added colour on the lotuses. There was a similar miniature kothon on the Athens market in 1957.

¹³⁶ CVA Reading i, pl. 16, 7.

¹³⁷ Mrs. A. D. Ure tells me of Cassel T 503, one in Laon and another in Göttingen. von Bothmer, D. adds one on the Paris market, AJA lix (1955) 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁸ CVA i. 47, pl. 40, 1, 3; Eretria 44, no. 18, whence a faulty transcription was copied into SEG xii, no. 401. Mr. D. M. Lewis pointed out the references to me.

¹³⁹ Beazley, J. D., Greek Vases in Boston ii. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Vanderpool, E., Hesp xv (1946) 330, no. 318, pl. 67.Google Scholar The gloss of its paint is perhaps too good for Eretria. I mention two Agora bowls with Eretrian affinities in Eretria 28, n. 162.

¹⁴¹ CVA Athens i, pl. 19, 7; Haspels, , ABL 92Google Scholar; cf. Eretria 28. Vanderpool, op. cit., thought it could be a predecessor of the Agora vase. Pfuhl had speculated that it might be Eretrian (MuZ i, xi).

¹⁴² A good general discussion by Geyer, F. in Topographie und Geschichte der Insel Euboia 55–57.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ which does not necessarily imply that it was founded in the same place.

¹⁴⁴ The malarial character of the ground led to the abandonment of Eretria in later times until the new township of Nea Psara was founded.

¹⁴⁵ AA 1922, 316.

¹⁴⁶ Pre-Greek, Early Helladic finds in the lower town are not relevant here. Kourouniotes figured one EH vase (AE 1903, 10, fig. 5), and more recent finds have been reported and illustrated (PAE 1952, 160, fig. 5).

¹⁴⁷ Bursian, C., Geographie ii. 420 f.Google Scholar, n. 1. Cf. Lolling, H. G., AM x. (1885) 352–4Google Scholar; Stauropoullos, D. S., AE 1895, 155–63.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Attic late black-figure, Papabasileiou, G. A., Περὶ Τάφων pl. 19Google Scholar, 1 (Haspels, , ABL 216Google Scholar, Edinburgh Painter no. 12).

¹⁴⁹ Wallace, W., Hesp xvi (1947) 134Google Scholar; Philippson, A., Die griechischen Landschaften i. 2, 608.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Kourouniotes, K., AE 1900, 5 ff.Google Scholar; IG xii. 9, p. 161.

¹⁵¹ IG xii, Suppl. 553, 20.

¹⁵² Above, n. 32.

¹⁵³ See above, p. 9; Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation 224 f.Google Scholar; Dunbabin, , The Western Greeks 11 and 38Google Scholar: ‘The cities of Euboia drew for the man-power of their colonies on the Cyclades and perhaps Boeotia, and probably carried the Boeotian and Cycladic vases common in the west in the eighth century, rare after the Lelantine War distracted both Khalkidians and Eretrians from the western colonial areas.’ With this I would agree, with the proviso that any Cycladic or Boeotian vases which there may be in the west cannot yet be distinguished from what is probably Euboean.

¹⁵⁴ Albright, W. F. in The Aegean and the Near East (Studies presented to Hetty Goldman) 162Google Scholar: ‘toward the end of the ninth century or more probably in the first half of the eighth’. On the earliest Greek inscriptions see Boardman, , BSA xlix (1954) 183–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Cf. Carpenter, R., AJA xlix (1945) 456.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Useful tables of comparative Semitic and early Greek alphabets, including the Etruscan abecedaria, in Lorimer, H. L., Homer and the Monuments 130 f.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Strabo 447 speaks of Kadmos with Arabes in Euboea; perhaps a confusion with Abantes. And cf. Day, J., AJA xlii (1938) 125.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ If the Gephyraeans are a Euboean family, one would prefer, in view of their name, to think of them as Chalcidian rather than as Eretrian. In fifth-century Athens a one-time Euboean family might understandably prefer an Eretrian ancestry to a Chalcidian one, Chalcis having been humbled by Athens a generation earlier, Eretria heroically martyred by the Persians.

¹⁵⁹ 448; cf. Schol. ad Thuc. i. 15.

¹⁶⁰ Comm. in Hes. 36 (quoted by Proclus); Mor. 153. Lines of Theognis (891–4) which have been associated with the war mention the plain, but neither Chalcis nor Eretria are named, only Kerinthos, another Euboean state. Will, E. (Korinthiaka 391–404)Google Scholar is more optimistic, reconciles Theognis with ‘probabilities’, and brings the main conflict into the sixth century. The other evidence may be circumstantial, but it does at least mention Chalcis and Eretria and on the whole points to an earlier date. Bradeen, D. W. in TAPA lxxviii (1947) 223 ff.Google Scholar gives a useful account of the sources. His explanation of Euboean alliances (p. 236) is, however, weak as Samos and Aegina could hardly have been trade rivals in Egypt before the second half of the seventh century, which is when the archaeological evidence shows that the Greeks had reopened regular trade with Egypt. The Eubo-ean-Ionian venture at Al Mina gives the ground for the alliances and allows a much higher date for them. Forrest's, W. G. account in ‘Colonisation and the Rise of Delphi’ (Historia vi (1957) 160–75)Google Scholar develops and modifies Burn's and Blakeway's attitude to the date of the war and the allies involved; the remarks on the dating are important.

¹⁶¹ Strabo 447; the plain Chalcis. See A. Philippson, op. cit. i. 2, 605 f., 673.

¹⁶² Strabo 447; Davies, O., Roman Mines in Europe 244.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Partial abandonment of the site is possible. This might explain the apparent absence of seventh-century pottery, and the presence of what might be plausibly called Chalcidian in Etruria.

¹⁶⁴ Quoted in Plut. Thes. 5 where the Abantes are called

¹⁶⁵ CQ xxxv (1941) 97–109, and cf. Bonnard, A., Das Altertum iii (1957) 13Google Scholar; Forrest, op. cit. 163 f.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. Lorimer, H. L., BSA xlii (1947) 114, 121Google Scholar; Homer and the Monuments 208.

¹⁶⁷ I give some reasons in Eretria 7; it is illustrated ibid. pl. 3A, and in AE 1903, 13 f., fig. 7.

¹⁶⁸ Benton, S. has pointed out in BSA xlviii (1953) 340Google Scholar that a charged shield needs to be a hoplite shield, i.e. one which has a top and bottom and cannot be inverted.