Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The material here discussed is far from being exhaustive, since it seems to me that a careful study would yield further groups of vases of this class. I use the word ‘groups’ for safety; I am not sure that some of the pieces which I put together were not produced by a single painter.
Some of the vases are attributed according to the style of only a part of their decoration. Thus London F285 is attributed to the Stoke-on-Trent group because of the reverse, which has no stylistic connexion with the obverse and the head of Nike on the neck.
When I mention proveniences I rely on second-hand information, but I notice that vases which I put under the same heading because of their common style are often cited as having been found in the same area. In my classification of the vases according to shapes, when possible I follow Beazley in ARV.
I do not find it easy to decide on the date of these groups in the absence of external evidence or any information on the conditions in which they were found. Stylistically none of them could be earlier than 350 B.C., and as the extensive use of white-gold colour and the clumsiness of the drawing could hardly have appeared earlier than the Darius painter, I should be inclined to place them late in the fourth century.
For a few general remarks on the representation of human heads by themselves in the last phase of Attic, Campanian, Apulian, and Etruscan red-figured vases see Beazley, EVP, p. 10.
2 On the Darius painter see Handbook to the Nicholson Museum, 2nd Edition, pp. 325–6 (Trendall).
3 So named from the plate in that town.
4 Since I wrote this article I added three other vases to the Stoke-on-Trent group: the Kantharoi shape A2 London F445 and London Old Cat. 1661, and the cinochoe shape 1 London 1928. 1–17. 69. About a vase in Paris, the plate Louvre 178 (N2891), I know only from Mrs. A. D. Ure, who kindly writes to me that it is very much like the Stoke-on-Trent plate.
5 Dr. Garscha kindly informs me that the tusks, which are not clear in the Corpus Vasorum reproduction, are painted in white colour.
6 The three hydriai are of the standard Apulian shape, which originates from the Attic red-figured hydria; an unusual variant with a very short, upright foot in two degrees is the small vase Lecce 978, CV II, pl. 41, 10.
7 The fragmentary handles of London F454 are modern; the handles of London F456 are missing.
This, so far as I know, is the only existing type of stemless cup in Apulian red-figure, and must be derived from such Attic stemless cups of the early fourth century B.C. as those in Bonn and London by the Yena painter (ARV, 882, 45–46), that in Salonica (inv. 8. 152, Robinson, , Olynthus V, 261, pl. 118Google Scholar), and those in Archena, which exist only in fragments (Beazley, , Quadernos de Historia Primitiva, 1948, no. 1, pp. 45–8Google Scholar, e–k).
8 I have been able to distinguish two different shapes of Apulian red-figured dishes:
Shape 1 includes vases like Brussels R384, CV IV Db, pl. 5 (Belg. 86), 4; Copenhagen inv. Chr. VIII 34, CV VI, pl. 268, 1; Lecce 836, CV II, pl. 58, 1–2; London F464 and London F460. The handles of the last two vases show that the type is certainly derived from metal dishes like Naples no. 73731, Pernice, , Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji IV, p. 11Google Scholar, figs. 11–12. These vases resemble the metal lavers represented on the Patroclus volute-krater in Naples and the Medea volutekrater in Munich (see also the laver from Locri, NSc. 1913, sup. p. 28Google Scholar, fig. 34, 3), with the difference that the latter have three legs instead of the usual one-piece foot of the former. The similarity would make us think that the clay and metal dishes were, at least in certain cases, used as lavers.
Shape 2 includes vases like Würzburg 869, Langlotz, pl. 244, and is certainly derived from metal dishes like Berlin, Pernice, op. cit. p. 13, fig. 17. The handles recall those of the columnkrater.
9 There are many other types of Apulian red-figured plates, which I find difficult to classify with certitude. Here are some examples:
(a) Taranto, CV I, IV dr, pl. 7, 1 and Taranto, CV I, IV dr, pl. 7, 3 (with this type cf. Catania, , Libertini, , Museo Biscari 803Google Scholar, pl. LXXXVII and Lecce 1709, CV II, IV dr, pl. 56, 15.
(b) The fish-plates Lecce 808–11, CV II, IV Dr, pl. 59, 3–6. This shape is very common. Unusual, if Apulian at all, is the fish-plate Bologna, Pellegrini PU 488, CV III, IV Er, pl. 6, 18, which resembles shape f.
(c) Lecce 653, CV II, IV Dr, pl. 57, 1.
(d) Toronto 460. Robinson and Harcum, pl. LXXXIV and Bologna, Pellegrini PU ‘696–704’, CV III, IV Dr, pl. 34, 6.
(e) Würzburg 870, Langlotz, pl. 245 (see the plate Bologna, Pellegrini VF 570, fig. 141).
(f) Toronto 458, Robinson and Harcum, pl. LXXXIII (see the Attic plate Salonica inv. 38. 448, Robinson, , Olynthus XIII, 72Google Scholar, pl. 91).
10 Scribner saw that this vase and the dish in Toronto are alike in style of drawing.
11 On the shape see Beazley, , EVP, p. 272Google Scholar also Robinson, , Olynthus V, pp. 30–1, pl. 28Google Scholar, and XIII, p. 255, pll. 170–1. This, so far as I know, is the only existing shape of Apulian red-figured askos, with the exception of the interesting variant Lecce 825, CV II, IV Dr, pl. 42, 9.
12 The shape of the Apulian red-figured lekane seems to be essentially always the same; some lekanai have projections on either side of their handles imitating metal technique (cf. Michigan 2611, CV, pl. XXIX, 3 with Wilno, , CV III, pl. 2Google Scholar (Poland 125), 3). The elaborate knob of the lekane Amsterdam, , CV, Scheurleer IV Db, pl. 6Google Scholar (Pays-Bas 92), 4 is unusual and requires further examination.
13 The standard shape of the Apulian red-figured pyxis is that of London 1951. 2–4. t (pl. IV, b). It is spherical, with a characteristic foot and a knob on the lid. Notice, however, that the handle of the pyxis lid Villa Giulia 17615, CV I, IV Dr, pl. 2, 1, is different. The Apulian red-figured lid Oxford 1930. 258 must belong to a vase which corresponds to the Attic pyxis, type D (Beazley, , ARV, p. IXGoogle Scholar); variants of this shape are two pyxides in Taranto, one representing a youth, the other the head of a woman, which I know only from the notes of Sir John Beazley.
14 For the shape see p. 116, n. 30.
15 For the shape see p. 116, n. 29.
16 See for example the heads on London F285, the Stoke-on-Trent plate or the cup London F456.
17 So named from the panathenaic amphora no 3.
18 I know only two types of Apulian red-figured amphora: the panathenaic and the barrel-amphora.
19 Since I wrote this article I added to the group of London F339 the barrel-amphora Geneva 15023 (pl. V, c), which I know from a photograph kindly sent to me by Miss Gustel Bruckner (A, woman's head; B, the like).
20 On the shapes of Apulian red-figured mugs see BSR XIX, p. 40, note 4.
21 Langlotz calls this shape a kantharos, but it seems to me that it is rather connected with the Attic shape that Beazley calls a kantharoid [ARV, p. X; see Poznan, Wielkopolskie Museum inv. 1903. 703, CV III, pl. 4 (Pol. 120), 1 or Cracow University inv. 305, CV II, pl. 10 (Pol. 83), 6]. Sèvres inv. 196, CV, pl. 46 (Fr. 575), 14 and 29 is also connected.
22 On the barrel-amphora London F340, this is double.
23 The plants are omitted on Lecce 865. On the obverse of London F340 this area is decorated with a white-gold palmette and a tongue-pattern.
24 See, for example, London F340 and Würzburg 863 or even Lecce 860.
25 See Lecce 860 and Lecce 865.
26 See Lecce 865, London F340, and Würzburg 863.
27 The nostril is not omitted on Würzburg 863 and on the reverse of London F339; on the latter it is merely a dot.
28 I call the group so because many of the vases attributed to it are kantharoi.
29 For the shape see Caskey, and Beazley, , Boston, pp. 14–15, fig. 13Google Scholar; Caskey, , Geometry, 164Google Scholar; ARV, p. IX. Most of the kantharoi in my list have plastic leaves at the bottom of the handles.
30 Apart from the mugs I know six other different shapes of Apulian red-figured oinochoe, which seem to be derived from Attic prototypes. I call them after Beazley's numbers of corresponding Attic shapes:
(a) Oinochoe, shape 1: Bologna, Pellegrini PU 616, CV III, Dr, pl. 32, 12; CF Lecce II, IV Dr, pli. 47 and 48.
(b) Oinochoe, shape 2: Carlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum B785, CV II, pl. 81, 3.
(c) Oinochoe, shape 3: Taranto CV II, IV Dr, pl. 33, 1; Bologna, , Pellegrini, PU 611Google Scholar, CV III, IV Dr, pl. 32, 7; Brunswick AT309, CV, pl. 40, 1.
(d) Oinochoe, shape 5a: Bologna, , Pellegrini, PU 609Google Scholar, CV III, IV Dr.pl. 32, 15; Sèvres 67, CV, IV Db. pl. 35, 2; Copenhagen inv. 325, CV VI, IV D, pl. 270, 2.
(e) Oinochoe shape 6: Geneva 15021 (Fig. 8).
(f) Oinochoe shape 10a: Bologna, , Pellegrini, PU 617Google Scholar, CV III, IV Dr, pl. 32, 11; Toronto 386, Robinson and Harcum, pl. LXXI (a variant of this is Lecce 672, CV II, IV Dr, pl. 51, 1).
(g) Oinochoe shape 10b: Bologna, , Pellegrini, PU 618Google Scholar, CV III, IV Dr, pl. 32, 14; Lecce 794, CV II, IV Dr, pl. 51, 7.
31 Hafner associated the two Carlsruhe oinochoai.
32 Unless otherwise stated the heads are drawn on the lid.
33 Hafner associated the two Carlsruhe pyxides.
34 Thymiaterion, shape A seems to be most frequent in Apulian red-figure, and should be distinguished from the type of Manchester Museum M.W. 1. 6952 (on loan from the Whitworth Art Gallery), which I call thymiaterion, shape B (see p. 118, Pl. VII, c). The former was rightly connected by Miss Lamb (Cambridge CV I, IV DE, pl. XLVI, 7, text) with the Canosan thymiateria Mayer, , Apulien, p. 306Google Scholar, pll. 39, 1–2 and 40, 4–5. The latter must be derived from such Attic thymiateria as Athens N.M. inv. 2241 (Kourouniotis, in Class. St. Capps, p. 212Google Scholar, fig. 19, a).
On thymiateria in general see Mayer, , Apulien, p. 306Google Scholar, pll. 39, 1–2 and 40, 3–5; Wigand, , BJb. 122, pp. 1–97Google Scholar; Kourouniotis, in Class. Studies presented to Edward Capps, pp. 204–16Google Scholar; Vanderpool, , Hesp. 15, pp. 326–7Google Scholar; Cook, J. M., BCH 1946, p. 100, note 5.Google Scholar
35 I came to know this lid through Professor T. B. L. Webster.
36 Hafner saw the connexion between the two Carlsruhe plates.
37 See Lecce 942 and the vase in Brussels.
38 See the Manchester mugs.
39 On Lecce 942 the line of the lower eyelid joins the line of the upper eyelid at both ends.
40 Langlotz saw the stylistic connexion of this vase with Lecce 970, 861, and 863, but was wrong in connecting it with Lecce 864, which I attribute to the group of London F339.
41 See Brunswick AT307 and AT308, CV, pl. 40, 7 and 11, pl. 40, 8 and 12, and text.
42 For the shape see BSR XIX, p. 40, note 4.
43 So named from the shape of the first two vases of my list.
44 The lids seem to belong.
45 See Trendall, Fruhitaliotische Vasen.
46 See p. 114, note 8.
47 On the subject of the rising of Goddesses see Buschor, Feldmäuse in Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie 1937; Rumpf, , Anadyomene, Jb. 1950–1951Google Scholar; and my forthcoming article ‘Three Attic Vases in the Museum of Valletta’ in JHS 1955.
48 See for example the oinochoe Carlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum B106, CV II, pl. 70, 6.
49 Cf. Carlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum B779, CV II, pl. 70, 1; with Carlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum B79, CV II, pl. 72, 12.
