Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:56:23.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Trefoil Style and second-century Hadra Vases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

P. Callaghan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Hellenistic period in the Aegean is one notoriously devoid of firmly established chronological markers with more than local significance and which might be used to divide the cultural material into smaller groupings. This is especially true for pottery. The Aegean basin was parcelled out among numerous ceramic provinces which, though all were obviously heirs to the traditions established in the Classical period, yet managed to interpret any new ideas in their own way and at their own speed. These apparently newly emerged styles were in fact of hoary antiquity. They represent the resurgence of local mores and traditions in pottery manufacture whose existence in the Classical and Archaic periods had been well-nigh overlooked by the excessive concentration on the study of the products of Corinth and Athens. Their re-emergence was occasioned by two factors consequent on the establishment of the Hellenistic kingdoms. The first was the collapse of Attic pottery production as a result of a series of disastrous wars and defeats in the later fourth and early third centuries B.C. The second was the very real prosperity enjoyed by the provincial centres in the newly Hellenised world.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 75 , November 1980 , pp. 33 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Professor R. A. Tomlinson for his help and encouragement during the writing of this paper. Miss Pam Armstrong for reading through the final draft, and my fellow students at the BSA for being willing to live on a diet of trefoils as it neared completion. Sources for the figure drawings: Fig 1, 1: Annuaire du Musée Greco-Romain d' Alexandrie (1935–39) Pl xlviii, 5. Fig 1, 2: C. Edgar, Greek Vases in the Cairo Museum Pl xvi, 26.239. Fig 1, 3 and 5: Guerrini, Vasi di Hadra Pl iii, B, 12 and 14. Fig 1, 4: Edgar, Pl xvii, 26.240. Fig 1, 6: Makedonika 2 (1941–52) Pl xix, top. Fig 1, 7: BCH 95 (1971) 921, fig 265. Fig 1, 8: Boehringer, C.AMUGS V, Pl 2Google Scholar, 1. Fig. 2, 1: adapted from Makedonika 2 (1941–52) Pl xix, bottom. Fig 2, 2: Délos ix. Pl xix. Fig 2, 3: B. Brown Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics Pl xx, 2. Fig 2, 4: Délos xxxi, Pl 125, 1281. Fig 2, 5: Edgar, Pl xvii, 26.240. Fig 2, 6: J. Schäfer Hellenistische Keramik aus Pergamon Pl 34, E69. Fig 2, 7: Délos xxxi Pl 126, 463 + 629.

1 For the first cf. “Macedonian Shields, Shield Bowls and Corinth.” in AAA xi (1978, 1). Henceforth Shield Bowls.

2 For general accounts on Hadra vases see: L. Guerrini, Vasi di Hadra, Cook, B. F., “Inscribed Hadra Vases in the Metropolitan Museum” papers 12 (henceforth IHV) and “A dated Hadra Vase in the Brooklyn Museum”, Brooklyn Museum Annual X (1968–1969) 115–138.Google Scholar

3 See especially IHV.

4 JDAI 65/66 (1950–51) 231ff.

5 Brooklyn Museum Annual X (1968–69) 127 and fig 13; 130 and fig 17.

6 For a short critique of Braunert's system cf. Berytus xiii (1959) 156, n. 145.

7 Brooklyn Museum Annual X (1968–69) 13–16.

8 B. F. Cook continues to work on this aspect of Hadra yases and informs me that his findings will be published in a forthcoming festschrift for Adriani.

9 IHV 9; Brooklyn Museum Annual X (1968–69) 116f.

10 IHV, 7 n. 3; R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery 208

11 BSA lxxiii (1978) 15, no. 42.

12 IHV, 9f; Brooklyn Museum Annual X (1968–69) 116f; BSA lxxiii (1978) 6, no. 12, 8, no. 16, 11, fig 7 no's. 24 and 25.

13 It is hoped that a full description of all the artists, their careers and workshops and their work in both the Hadra and West Slope techniques will appear in the near future. In the meantime one key jug has been published: E. Bielefeld, Eine Fundgruppe griechische Vasen in Deckfarbentechnik, An illustrated olpe by the same hand as Guerrini B, 11 and IHV, no. 2 is of local Knossian type cf. BSA Suppl. 8 E, 12.

14 Basically, Guerrini's groups A and B, but also such vases as C, 2 and C, 7.

15 Guerrini A, 1 and p. 11 for commentary and bibliography.

16 R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery 207; Guerrini, Vasi di Hadra ii and AJA lxx (1966) 329.

17 And there were Cretan mercenaries aplenty in Ptolemaic Egypt cf. G. T. Griffith, Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World 245.

18 p 6313 Hesperia V (1936) 37, fig 37; P 7194 Guerrini Vasi di Hadra A, 10.

19 Though the small number of mercenaries needed to bring over the Athenian hydriae was not beyond the hiring capacity of Hellenistic Athens.

20 Breccia, BSAA viii (1905) 55–71Google Scholar; x (1908) 226–7; Necropoli di Sciatbi x–xi, xlvi, xlix, liv; BSAA xvi (1918) 79–90; BSAA (1930) 117–132.

21 Sciatbi 27.

22 L. Guerrini, Vasi di Hadra groups A and B.

23 AJA lxx (1966) 329f.

24 B. Brown, Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics 13–60.

25 AJA lxx (1966) 325–330.

26 Brooklyn Museum Annual X (1968–69) 127f, figs 13–16.

27 L. Guerrini, op cit A, 5.

28 A Delt xxvi (1971) Chron B2 pl. 513. Dr Lembesis has been kind enough to let me examine this material in detail. The comparisons made here are based on measured drawings and photographs which I was able to obtain through her good offices.

29 The movement in Guerrini from A, 7–8 to the later A, 3 and 5 is obvious, and is made yet more forceful by the fact that all the vases involved were painted by the same hand (not, however. Pylon pace Guerrini).

30 A Delt xviii (1963) Chron. B2 325 and n. 15, Pl 375, a.

31 Guerrini, op cit 13 and B 12–22.

32 For example, AJA lxx (1966) Pl 78, fig 3, which is the product of another workshop (probably situated in the Messara) and W. Horbostel, Kunst der Antike. Schätze aus nordeutschem Privatbesitz. 184, no. 164.

33 For the possibility of very rapid diffusion of ideas cf. Shield Bowls, where it is shown that a relief bowl type was probably invented in Corinth in ca. 149 B.C., and had been copied by other centres before that city's destruction in 146 B.C.

34 A good example of this tendency, even in a major work of art is to be found in the Pergamene painting of Herakles and Telephos C. Havelock, Hellenistic Art 262 (who comments on the style).

34 Délos ix, passim.

35 For example: C. Kraay and M. Hirmer, Greek Coins Pl xviii, pl 132 no. 4070, 4080, 4090; pl 160 no. 514. The Hadra vase, Guerrini, op cit E, 2 must be redated and will be treated in a future paper.

36 CAH VIII, 294.

38 G. Leroux Lagynos nos. 10, 62, 91, 125; Delos xxvii, pl. 44:D 103, D 106, D 108.

39 Délos xxxi, passim.

40 Délos xxix: figs 177, 180, 196–7, 203, 246. Note the style of the diadem on the last; it corresponds to real jewellery types: fig. 1, 7 of this article and n. 74.

41 BCH c (1976) 819, fig 31; Delos xviii, pl xxviii.

42 Délos xviii 59 fig 87 and pl xxvi 183–4, 188.

43 Délos ix, passim.

44 cf. The painting of an inlaid shield at Leukadia, below n. 67.

45 cf. fig 1, 7 and Délos xviii, 313 fig 380 and pl xc, 803, xci 806–7.

46 For example, Délos ix pl's, vii–viii.

47 Ibid pl xix.

48 Ibidpassim and BCH Suppl. 1, 77–109 with bibliography.

49 P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l'époque hellénistique et à l'époque impériale 589ff and especially 597.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid 617ff and BCH Suppl. 1 77–109.

52 P. Bruneau, op cit 619.

53 Délos xxxi “La céramique hellénistique à reliefs. 1. Ateliers Ioniens.”

54 Ibid The workshop of Menemachos is a particularly good control for this type of study since a large amount of material, representing a large and varied production, survives.

55 Shield Bowls.

56 The first bowl to even hint at knowledge of the “Shield Bowl” type is Délos xxxi pl 21, no. 551 which includes whirlygigs of a type found on Macedonian shields in its decorative scheme. The earliest bowls of actual “Shield Bowl” type are to be found on pl 45. The bowls 4304 and 4311 on pl 112 are of early type but cannot be ascribed to any particular atelier.

57 Délos xxxi 3.

58 Ibid pl 11ff.

59 Shield Bowls.

60 E. Schmidt, The Great Altar of Pergamon 8; H. Kähler, Der Grosse Fries von Pergamon 131 ff; especially 144 and 195. A possibly earlier example is a bowl fragment from building phase IX at the Asklepieion AvP XI, 1 pl 45 no. 198 dated, with the whole deposit, to the decade before the destruction of 190 B.C. p. 125ff. The earlier material from under the altar has been lost and the fragments in question come from one of the compartments of the monumental base itself (J. Schäffer, op cit 26) meaning that they could be as late as the completion of this section of the project. The question of the dating of the material from the Asklepieion phases IX and X is complicated by the presence in the material of phase X of a bowl fragment (AvP Xl, 1 pl 49, 256) of very late Shield Bowl type. This would seem, at the least, to call into question the assumption that phase X only lasted into the second quarter of the second century B.C.

61 J. Schäffer, op cit pl 19 Z109.

62 Ibid Z123.

63 F. Kleiner and S. P. Noe, The Early Cistophoric Coinage 15f, 22 and pl I, 1.

64 Boehringer op cit 22–39.

65 Shield Bowls.

66 Makedonika 2 Pl xix top; Archaeology 27 (1974) 257 top.

67 AAA x (1977) 58. Another painted example is from Delos: Delos ix, 148 fig 57.

68 Makedonika ii Pl xviii and xix bottom; Archaeology xxvii (1974) 257.

69 BCH lxxxii (1958) 759 fig 8: parts or fragments of pyxides of this type on top row 4th and 6th from left and 3rd from right (counting in zig zag fashion), the associated pottery is of the third century; Makedonika xiv (1974) 166–169. Pl 1, (a) no. 8. Associated with pottery of the first half of the second century B.C. cf. p. 169 no. 13. AE (1955) 41 fig 19.

70 A Delt xix (1964) Chron. B3 pl 413 b–c. The associated pottery suggests that this pyxis, and probably most of its fellows, belongs to the very end of the Hellenistic period. Two forms intermediate between this type and the simple domed cylindrical pyxis are known. The first has grown a small relief medallion at the top of the dome but retains the simple saucer base cf. R. Hampe et. al., Katalog der Sammlung antiker Kleinkunst des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Heidelbergs II Pl 71. The other example is from the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles at Leukadia whose date has been discussed above. The medallion is much larger than on the Heidelberg piece, more like that on the late type, and the vase is supported by animal feet: Archaeology xxvii (1974) 251. It must date sometime in the four generations after ca. 175 B.C.

71 S. Karouzou, Guide to the National Museum 170 top. Stathathou Collection. B. Segall, Benaki Museum. Katalog der Goldschmiede-Arbeiten 42.44 pl 13–14 no. 36. Note pl 14 top, the trefoil wreath decorating the outer edge of the disc; bottom, the trefoil wreath on Athena's helmet. These features suggest a date no earlier than the second century B.C. For discussion cf. R. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery 170ff.

72 PAE (1961) pl 68, bottom; pl 69, top. S. Dakaris, The Antiquity of Epirus pl 10, top.

73 Makedonika xii (1972) 164, figs 19–20; pl iv. The tomb is dated to about the middle of the second century B.C.

74 A Delt xxiv 24 (1969) Chron. Bl 216. BCH xcv (1971) 921, fig 265. The pottery found with this goldwork includes several Megarian Bowls, thus implying a second century date. An important link is provided between this group and the pyxis covers by the presence of a lunate ornament. This is of almost identical form to one on a necklace from Pelinnaion in Thessaly. Other pieces on the necklace include two small clipeate busts of the same type as the larger medallions, cf. AAA II (1970) 208–212. All the evidence combines to give a date sometime in the second century for the style. The later Macedonian pyxides suggest that the type lasted into the early Roman period.

75 G. Mendel, Musées Impériaux Ottomans. Catalogue des Sculptures Grecques, Romaines et Byzantines. I 258–270. A more detailed photograph of the stele of Dioscourides is published in B. Brown, op cit pl xx, 2.

76 A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Séleucides 167–177.

77 RA. II (1904) 8–9, n. 4 and G. Mendel, op cit 58.

78 This statement may seem to create a problem since the men buried at Sidon were mercenaries from Asia Minor and the Aegean. These areas had been closed to Seleucid recruiting officers after the promulgation of the Treaty of Apameia in 188 B.C. Polybius xxi, 43, 15; Livy 38, 38, 10; Appian Syr. 10. The make-up of the Syrian army at the Daphne review in 165 B.C. (Polyb. xxx, 25, 3ff) shows that the clauses of the treaty were still in effect at that time. Now if Aristidas was recruited after 195 B.C. but before 188 B.C. this would give us a tight control over the chronology of the stelai for, since Antiochus' army must certainly have been disbanded, (and he had no money to pay a large mercenary force anyway) all the garrison from the forbidden areas would have had to have served and died in Sidon between 198–188 B.C. This, surely is straining credulity. It is far more likely that our garrison force belongs to a period after the Apameia clauses had been rescinded. This occurred when Alexander Balas arrived to claim the kingdom (Polyb. xxxiii, 18, 14; Josephus, , Ant. xiii, 58ff.Google Scholar; G.T. Griffith, Hellenistic Mercenaries 168). Demetrius II also broke the interdict (Justin 35, 2; Josephus, Ant. xiii, 86.Google Scholar) These events would give us the circumstances we need for the reintroduction of mercenaries from west of the Taurus to Syria. The style of the stelai demand that they be placed in this latter period: 145–111 B.C.

79 Guerrini, op cit B, 15. See also B, 16 (Fig. 2, 5).

80 For example the dated no's, 2–4, 7, 10 in IHV. This pattern did not die out, merely co-existed with the new type.

81 F. Kleiner and S. Noe, op cit 17.

82 Ibid 16.

83 For example. AJA lxx (1966) pl 79, fig 8 left; Guerrini, op cit C, 3, and the strange A, 9 which has interior detail depicted by reserved areas. This has Delian parallels.

84 Delos ix, pl III, d; Pl IV; VI; IX; XIII etc.

85 UM S.A. Pit 2, primary fill. To be published in a BSA on the Post-Minoan material from above the Unexplored Mansion.

86 It may even be by the same hand. cf. Guerrini, op cit A, 5, Pl. XI.