¹ Poucet, J., ‘Le Latium protohistorique et archaïque’, AntCl 47 (1978) 573.Google Scholar

² See de Agostino, A. in NSc 1963, 78 ff.Google Scholar (also on previous digs in the area and on the events that led to the systematic excavations from 1961 onward). For the preliminary campaign in 1960 see NSc 1976, 185 ff.

³ NSc 1963, 77 ff.: campaigns 1961–2; NSc 1965, 49 ff.: campaign 1963; NSc 1967, 87 ff.: campaign 1964; NSc 1970, 178 ff.: campaigns 1965–6; NSc 1972, 195 ff.: campaigns 1967–9; NSc 1975, 63 ff.: campaigns 1970–1; NSc 1976, 149 ff.: campaign 1972. The speed with which these reports were presented may account for the errors and inaccuracies that exist in a number of descriptions and illustrations (differences one might notice between them and those given in the following are intentional)—a minor inconvenience considering that this still remains the only excavation of a major Villanovan cemetery which has been fully published.

⁴ ‘Proposta per una suddivisione in fasi’, NSc 1965, 53 ff. (original English text in Ridgway, D. and Ridgway, F. R. (eds.), Italy Before the Romans (1979) 95 ff.).Google Scholar

⁵ See StEtr 13 (1939) 85 ff.; 28 (1960) 11 ff.

⁶ ‘Considerazioni sulla cronologia delle facies arcaiche dell'Etruria’, StEtr 35 (1967) 323 ff. (original English text in Ridgway, op. cit. 107 ff.).

⁷ GGP 355; La Rocca, E., MEFRA 90 (1978) 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Minor changes to her subdivision were proposed by B. d'Agostino and R. Peroni at the Incontro di studi sugli inizi della colonizzazione greca in Occidente held in Naples and Ischia early in 1968: see DialAr 3 (1969) 55, 58. As regards her absolute chronology, the only serious objection was put forward by Gierow, P. G., ‘Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Iron Age Culture of Latium’ in Scripta Minora (Papers of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund), 1977–1978 3 (1977) esp. 24 ff.Google Scholar According to him Close-Brooks's dating of the two first phases should be lowered by about 20 50 years. On the other hand, G. Colonna considers them about a decade too low: cf. CLP 29 (see also ibid. 56).

⁹ Cf., for example, Jovino, M. Bonghi, Note di archeologia romana ed italica dalla prima età del ferro alle guerre sannitiche (1974) 76 ff.Google Scholar; Colonna, G., ‘Preistoria e protostoria di Rome e del Lazio’ in Popoli e civiltà dell' Italia antica 2 (1974) 283 ff.Google Scholar and esp. 300, 306; M. Zuffa, ‘La cultura villanoviana’, ibid. 5 (1976) 197 ff; La Rocca, E., ‘Due tombe dell'Esqilino’, DialAr 8 (1974–1975) 86 ff.Google Scholar; Bedini, A., ‘L'ottavo secolo nel Lazio’, PdP 32 (1977) passim and esp. 284–5.Google ScholarDelpino, F., La prima età del ferro a Bisenzio (MemAccLinc ser. 8, 21/6, 1977)Google Scholarpassim bases his sequence on the Veian chronology, and even for the Villanovan phases in Bologna, Veii provides an important chronological fixed point: see Govi, C. Morigi and Tovoli, S., ‘La tomba Melenzani 22’ StEtr 47 (1979) 3 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In Ridgway, op. cit. 112.

¹¹ ‘“Coppe cicladiche” da Veio’, StEtr 35 (1967) 311 ff. (original English text in Ridgway, op. cit. 113 ff.). Although the term ‘Cycladic cup’, going back to Vallet, G., Rhégion et Zancle (1958) 33 ff.Google Scholar, is less misleading than ‘tazza tipo Osta’ (coined, if I am not mistaken, by Bonghi Jovino, op. cit. 83) it seems preferable to use the descriptive name ‘chevron skyphoi’.

¹² In StEtr 35 314 he points out that the Veian skyphoi imitate an Attic type which does not exist before c. 800 B.C. and rightly observes that any estimate of the time-lag between the creation of the prototype and its imitation in the province and finally the latter's arrival in Italy remains purely hypothetical. Nor is Ridgway unaware (ibid. 317) of the problem raised by the skyphos Villa Giulia inv. 60498 (see p. 35 below, no. 10). In his review of Gjerstad, E., Early Rome IV: 1–2 (1966)Google Scholar and of P. G. Gierow, The Iron Age Culture of Latium, I: Classification and Analysis (1966); II: Excavation and Finds, I: The Alban Hills (1964) which appeared in JRS 58 (1968) 239 Ridgway remains noticeably cautious: ‘As a working hypothesis, it is at least worth considering that these skyphoi … may not be later than the first third of that [sc. eighth] century.’

¹³ StEtr 35 esp. 319 ff.

¹⁴ See DialAr 3 (1969).

¹⁵ Ibid. e.g. 52 (F. Villard).

¹⁶ Ibid. 10 (W. Johannowski).

¹⁷ Cf. ibid. 56 (B. d'Agostino); (W. Johannowski); 52 (F. Villard).

¹⁸ See e.g. Coldstream, J. N., Geometric Greece (1977) 223Google Scholar; Ridgway, D., The Etruscans (University of Edinburgh, Dept. of Archaeology: Occasional Paper no. 6, 1981) 14.Google ScholarSnodgrass, A. M., The Dark Age of Greece (1971) 91 2Google Scholar leaves the question open while Bonghi Jovino has as yet not substantiated her claim that they were made in Cumae (op. cit. [n.9]).

¹⁹ See, e.g., GGP 355; Snodgrass, op. cit. 417; Ridgway, StEtr 35, and, more cautiously, Frederiksen, M. in Ridgway, D. and Ridgway, F. R. (eds.), Italy Before the Romans (1979) 286.Google ScholarTorelli, M., in Roma arcaica e le recenti scoperte archeologiche. Giornate di studio in onore di U. Coli (1980) 7Google Scholar classifies them as Middle Geometric I, dated to the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C.; both are obviously lapsus calami.

²⁰ My list owes much to Ridgway's (StEtr n. 13), but while his main aim was to show the wide distribution of the type this survey attempts to differentiate between chevron skyphoi from various centres. Based almost entirely on published material it does not strive for completeness; there can be no doubt that a systematic search through museums and their store-rooms would enrich the picture to a great extent—hopefully without completely discarding this preliminary sketch.

²¹ A brief characterization of Attic chevron skyphoi has been given by Coldstream, J. N., AA (1963) 202–3.Google Scholar

²² The colour definitions given in parentheses are based on Munsell, Soil Color Charts (1954).

²³ To define a shape by its ratio rather than by such terms as ‘tall’, ‘pointed’, ‘squat’, etc. simply aims at improving the clarity and objectivity of the description. (For the same reason, the size of a vase has been established by means of a measuring tape, its colours defined on the basis of standard colour charts.) Such a quantified description has also the advantage of allowing numerical analysis (see Kearsley, R. A., ‘The Pendent Semicircle Skyphos’, M.A. thesis, Sydney University, 1979Google Scholar). The three elements selected for use (diameter mouth, diameter foot, and height) are those felt to be most influential in determining the total profile of a vase. To these must obviously be added a description of individual features such as the lip or the foot.

It goes without saying that this method is no more secure from measuring errors than the traditional one (a measuring error of 0·2 cm would result in a change of c. 10–15 Per cent in the ratio of a skyphos, depending on its size).

²⁴ For simplicity's sake we adhere to the chronological system proposed by Coldstream in GGP—despite some reservation towards its subdivision of Geometric pottery into three main phases instead of four (see Kahane, P. P., ‘Entwicklungsphasen der attisch-geometrischen Keramik’, AJA 44 (1940) 464 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id. ‘Ikonologische Untersuchungen zur griechischgeometrischen Kunst’, AntK 16 (1973) 115 n. 6; and also the observations made by Maass, M., Die geometrischen Dreifüsse aus Olympia (OlFor 10, 1978) 105 n. 2)Google Scholar, and towards its absolute dating which is probably about 10–20 years too high (see Eretria 5 50 ff.). Thus: MGI = c. 850–800; MG II = 800 750; LGI = c. 750–730/720; LG II = c. 730/720–700.

²⁵ With horizontal lines also above the chevrons. I have no firsthand knowledge of this piece and from the published photograph it is hard to tell whether there is a star next to the preserved handle attachment or not.

²⁶ The height of this skyphos is 7·5, not 5·2 cm.

²⁷ AM 81 (1966) 8 no. 6 Beil. 13,5 (hs 109).

²⁸ Cf. for this so-called Aetos 666-type: GGP 101; Neeft, C. W., ‘Corinthian fragments from Argos at Utrecht’, BaBesch 50 (1975) 104, 108–9, 114–15, 122 table viiGoogle Scholar; Eretria 6 14 table i: ‘chevrons 2’. Its generally accepted dating to the third quarter of the 8th cent, is not based on the ‘sequenza cronologica di Itaca’ (pace La Rocca, E., DialAr 8 (1974–1975) 88 n. 12Google Scholar), but on its occurrence in the Greek colonies in South Italy and Sicily. As Neeft has pointed out, the few examples found in the West come from the earliest colonies (in particular Pithekoussai, Megara Hyblaea, Villasmundo) which suggests that the type was ‘going out of fashion ca. 730 B.C.’ (loc. cit. 114).

²⁹ A possible exception is a skyphos found in 1897 during W. Dörpfeld's Areopagus excavations. The vase itself is now lost, but a sketch by Zahn has been published by Smithson, E. Lord, ‘A Geometric Cemetery on the Areopagus: 1897, 1932, 1947’, Hesperia 43 (1974) 338 AR I 8 pl. 69b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar According to her the tomb in which it was found should be assigned to the MG I period. However, this raises problems not only for the skyphos in question which, to judge by Zahn's measurements as well as by his drawings, would fit best into our group A II (handle-zone decoration: scheme (e)), but also for the ‘proto-kotyle’ AR I–9.

³⁰ Corinthian chevron skyphoi have recently been studied by Neeft, loc. cit. 97 ff. (see esp. 105 ff. and 121 with table v, but note that no. 6 could just as well belong to a kantharos similar to GGP pl. 18g and that nos. 7–16 and 32–6 are ‘proto-kotylai’, to use Coldstream's term, GGP 98, to which a fragment from Incoronata, Orlandini, P., AMSMG N.S. 15–17 (1974–1976) 177 ff.Google Scholar, and several sherds from Otranto, Salento arcaico pl. 12, can be added).

³¹ According to information kindly provided by J. R. Green.

³² According to Corinth 13 24 grave 20 is later than grave 17 which contained an amphora that looks contemporary with Attic LG I: see GGP 96. I am grateful to Keith De Vries for drawing my attention to the fact that the skyphos captioned 18–7 on pl. 8 in Corinth 13 is in reality 20–2, already illustrated on pl. 6 (with the correct caption).

³³ See above, n. 28.

³⁴ Cf. Eretria 6 table i, form 2.

³⁵ It is with considerable reluctance that I have resorted to the collective term ‘Cycladic’ to designate this third group of chevron skyphoi. This is not, however, the place to discuss their precise provenance (which I believe is Paros).

³⁶ In the absence of any description of its fabric the attribution of this skyphos to the Cyclades remains tentative; both shape and decoration are in its favour.

³⁷ A number of Cypriot vases were found in the same tomb, but since the chronology of Cypriot pottery depends on Greek imports as much as does that of the Italic Iron Age, they are of no relevance in this context.

³⁸ Cf. the overall proportions of Cy I and A I, Cy II/III and A II, Cy IV and A III respectively.

³⁹ Cf. Eretria 5 16–17 (all fragments belong to groups 5a, 6a, or 6b, but nos. 4, 5, and 11 are completely blackened).

⁴⁰ One fillet: nos. 2–5, 7, and 10. Two or more: 1, 6, 8–9, 11–15.

⁴¹ Regrettably, the publication of ten fragments from Lefkandi (Lefkandi 1 41 nos. 413–18 pl. 21; 55 nos. 751–4 pl. 26) does not include profile drawings, nor a description of their interior decoration. From the photographs one of them (no. 413) appears most likely to be of shape E I and has therefore been incorporated here (no. 2).

⁴² Murray, A. S., Smith, A. H., and Walters, H. B., Excavation in Cyprus (1900) 110 fig. 160, 3Google Scholar; Gjerstad pl. 6,2. In a paper which came to my notice long after having attributed this piece to Eretria I find Coldstream has also considered it to be of Euboean origin (‘Geometric Skyphoi in Cyprus’, RDAC 1979 257).

⁴³ See on these excavations the preliminary report in AntK 24 (1981) 77.

⁴⁴ The fragments nos. 4–6 were found in the same deposit, together with several more of identical shape and decoration and with a number of sherds belonging to other, also Atticizing skyphoi (in particular of the ‘multiple zigzags’ and ‘meander’ types: see Lefkandi 1 41 pl. 21, nos. 409–11 and 420–6 respectively for similar Euboean pieces, GGP pl. 3e and k for their Attic models).

⁴⁵ For a preliminary report on these excavations see Bérard, C., AntK 14 (1971) 61–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Among the more relevant pieces found in the same deposit (together with nos. 10, 11, and 13) is the kotyle E/8 41.1: see Eretria 6 table i, form 5/birds 2.

⁴⁷ See Schefold, K., Führer durch Eretria (1972) 97.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Nos. 8 and 9 were found in a ‘bothros’ amongst a great quantity of pottery ranging from early to late LG. For the absolute chronology the most reliable clues are provided by several Corinthianizing kotylai belonging in their majority to form 3/hour-glass 1 (Eretria 6 table i).

⁴⁹ See n. 46.

⁵⁰ Cf. the preliminary reports in BCH 104 (1980) 657 and AntK 24 (1981) 85–6.

⁵¹ Among the fragments found in the same deposit the most noteworthy are sherds belonging to a lekane of the type FK F/5 011.1: Eretria 5 41 n. 102 Beil. 5.

⁵² See Bérard, C., ‘Note sur la fouille au Sud de l'Hérôon’, AntK 12 (1969) 74Google Scholar for a preliminary report on the excavations in this area. The pre-Classical pottery found here makes up a large proportion of the final publication of the Archaic pottery from Eretria I am preparing (to appear in the ‘Eretria’ series).

⁵³ For details see the final publication (n. 52).

⁵⁴ Cf. Schefold, op. cit. 108 ff. on this area. The pre-Classical pottery found here will be included in the general publication of the Archaic pottery (see n. 52). Note that according to the new grid-system (introduced in 1980: see AntK 24 (1980) 71 fig. 1; 79) the square in which this excavation took place is no longer called F/5 but now F/6 (!).

⁵⁵ For details see the final publication (n. 52).

⁵⁶ See Eretria 5 22 Beil. 8.

⁵⁷ Such an amalgam of Attic, Corinthian, and Cycladic elements is characteristic not only of chevron skyphoi in Euboea: see Eretria 5 57.

⁵⁸ Cf., for example, Eretria 5 43, 46; Eretria 6 14, 15.

⁵⁹ See Fortetsa 40, 93 and Boardman, J., BSA 55 (1960) 165.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For an Eteocretan ‘chevron skyphos’ (sit venia verbo) see GGP pl. 57c.

⁶¹ So already GGP 251 n. 6.

⁶² Note that none of the parallels listed by P. Hommel is a chevron skyphos.

⁶³ Hommel's dating of the skyphos to c. 700 B.C. seems somewhat low: both the amphora (IstMitt 9–10 38–9 n. 6, fig. 1) and the oinochoe (ibid. 57 pl. 58,1) found with it suggest a date closer to the middle of the 8th cent.

⁶⁴ See GGP 120, 125.

⁶⁵ See for the problem in general Stern, W. B. and Descœudres, J.-P., ‘X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Archaic Greek Pottery’, Archaeometry 19 (1977) 73 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Popham, M., Hatcher, H., and Pollard, A. M., ‘Al Mina and Euboea’, BSA 75 (1980) 151 ff.Google Scholar, and for the Veian skyphoi in particular Ridgway, D., ‘Composition and Provenance of Western Geometric Pottery: A Prospectus’ in Papers in Italian Archaeology I: The Lancaster Seminar (BAR Suppl. ser. 41 i, 1978) 121 ff.Google Scholar (David Ridgway informs us that logistic difficulties at the British School at Rome have effectively prevented any activity there on the lines indicated in his Lancaster paper. A set of samples from Pithekoussai has been awaiting thin-section analysis in the School since September 1977. In litt. Dec. 1981.)

⁶⁶ The skyphoi are inventoried as belonging to the National Museum of the Villa Giulia at Rome, but they are now stored in the Forte Sangallo at Cività Castellana, together with most of the finds from the Quattro Fontanili and the Grotta Gramiccia cemeteries in Veii.

⁶⁷ A feature which is not conveyed very clearly in the drawing, Ridgway pl. 57e.

⁶⁸ See already Blakeway, A., ‘Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Commerce with Italy, Sicily and France in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.’, BSA 33 (1932–1933) 196 n. 1Google Scholar; Vallet, G., Rhégion et Zancle (1958) 34.Google Scholar

The vessels of this fabric form a distinctive group and are probably all products of one single workshop. Unlike the ‘normal’ local ware of Villanovan tradition they are made of well-levigated clay and turned on the fast wheel, and their decoration is painted, not incised. Their resemblance to Greek and more particularly Euboean pottery is such that some of the better pieces are almost indistinguishable from imported vases (and the distinction becomes more difficult still if one tries to judge from photographs rather than from the vessels themselves). On the other hand, the group includes a stand the type of which has recently been shown to be of indigenous origin (Colonna, G., in MEFRA 92 (1980) 591 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar) as well as several askoi of a kind unknown in Greece: characterized by a tube-like, footless body which directly recalls a skin, it is most probably a South Etruscan, possibly a Veian creation (for a Tarquinian example see CVA Tarquinia 3 pl. 28). The conclusion seems thus inescapable: the group must be the product of a potter who came to Veii from Greece (and most probably from Euboea) and who adopted, in course of time, some native features.

Most of his vases were found in Veian tombs (belonging in their majority to phase IIB). In addition to the favourite skyphos the following shapes are represented:

Krater, : e.g. NSc 1975, 103 fig. 25Google Scholar (but note that the rim decoration is rendered incorrectly: in reality, it is drawn with a 15-fold multiple brush and features 15 vertical chevrons in a central field framed on eíther side by 15 vertical lines); 136 fig. C.

Jug, : e.g. NSc 1975, 159 fig. 60Google Scholar (for the type see p. 38 above, no. 16).

Olpe, : e.g. NSc 1965, 188 fig. 89Google Scholar (GG HH 10b).

Lekane, : e.g. NSc 1967, 253 fig. 101Google Scholar (HH 6–7, 11).

Askos: e.g. Civ. Castellana inv. 36543, from Grotta Gramiccia t. 881 (unpubl.); Villa Giulia inv. 58651, from Veii, Macchia della Comunità t. iii (NSc 1930, 50 fig. 2; Akerström 87 fig. 36).

Kotyle: e.g. an imitation of a Corinthian ‘Aetos 666-kotyle’: Brown, W. L., The Etruscan Lion (1960) pl. viaGoogle Scholar (it comes from Grotta Gramiccia t. 871, not 815 as La Rocca, E., PdP 32 (1977) 394 n. 76 seems to imply).Google Scholar

Mug: e.g. NSc 1965, 213 fig. 102 (II 9–10, i).

Stand: Civ. Castellana inv. 36553b from Casale del Fosso t. 884 (MEFRA 92 (1980) 584–5 figs. 1–2).

But the workshop's success finds its clearest expression in the fact that some of its vases were exported to several Etruscan and Latial sites:

Rome: askos from Esquiline t. xiv, CLP pl. 21c;

Castel di Decima: askos t. 133, DialAr N.S. 2 (1980) 116 pl. 14,16;

Bisenzio: skyphos Villa Giulia inv. 57022/4, Åkerström pl. 11,3 and MemLinc ser. 8, 21/6 (1977) fold-out fig. 4, no. 67;

Bologna: see StEtr 47 (1979) 3 ff.

⁶⁹ Found in 1966, excavations property Vouri, K.: cf. Tsirivakos, I., ADelt 22 B1, 1967 (1968) 265 6.Google Scholar For other finds from the same deposit see Eretria 5 44 n. 148 pl. 1; 45 n. 152 pl. 3. No inv. Ht 6·5; diam. mouth 11·5; diam. foot (reconstr.) 5·5. Fabric: see Eretria 5 16 group 1. Recomposed from three fragments, about half the vessel preserved. Inside glazed except for three encircling fillets on the rim. Outside: large dots between encircling bands on the rim; metopal decoration in the handle zone, with meander motif in the central panel (only partly preserved).

⁷⁰ See, e.g., Coldstream, J. N., Geometric Greece (1977) 223Google Scholar and, above all, Torelli, M. in Roma arcaica e le recenti scoperte archeologiche. Giornate di studio in onore di U. Coli (1980) 7–8.Google Scholar

⁷¹ StEtr 35 (1965) 329 n. 33. Close-Brooks seems to suggest that the tomb ZAA 7 must be assigned to the earlier part of IIA. If this were the case, it would constitute the only real discrepancy between the chronology of the chevron skyphoi and the relative sequence of her phases. But to judge from its contents, the tomb in question is much more likely to belong to the end of IIA or even to the beginning of IIB.

⁷² It has sometimes been claimed that they can be dated to the first quarter of the 8th cent. on the grounds of Pithekoussai's foundation date (see, e.g., DialAr 3 (1969) 44; CLP 29). However, the argument proves fallacious both factually and methodologically. In brief, it goes as follows: since there are no chevron skyphoi known from Pithekoussai, the foundation date of which is generally believed to be about 775 B.C., the Veian chevron skyphoi must be pre-775 B.C. Apart from risking, like every conclusio e silentio, being invalidated by new discoveries (which, in this case, has indeed already happened: see Ridgway, Foundation 48 ff.), the argument fails to take into account the nature of the alleged foundation date.

As is well known, there is no direct literary indication as to the actual date of the colony's establishment on the island of Ischia (see for this and the following Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks (1948) 6 ff.).Google Scholar Although we are told that it was the first Greek colony in the West, founded before Cumae (for which no foundation date is given either) and Syracuse (going back to 733 B.C. according to Thucydides), its foundation date relies, in terms of absolute chronology, upon the archaeological evidence. And archaeologically there is, according to the excavators themselves, little if anything discovered so far that should be placed before the middle of the 8th cent. (see, e.g., Ridgeway, D., ‘The First Western Greeks’ in Hawkes, C. and Hawkes, S., Greeks, Celts and Romans (1973) 12–13, 23Google Scholar; id., The Etruscans (Univ. of Edinburgh, Dept. of Archaeology; Occasional Paper no. 6, 1981) 21; also Neeft, C. W. as quoted by Ridgway, Foundation 49 n. 21).Google Scholar At the same time, they have spelled out the reason why they maintain that the foundation must nevertheless go back to c. 775 B.C. (see, e.g., Athenaeum 57 (1979) 465; Ridgway, Foundation): ‘such a large centre, fully diversified by 750 could not have appeared overnight’ (Ridgway, The Etruscans 21). Admittedly, this hypothetical foundation date of c. 775 B.C. has much in its favour (pace Bartoloni, G. and Cordano, F., ‘Calcidesi ed Eretriesi nell'Italia centrale e in Campania nel secolo VIII a.C.’, PdP 33 (1978) 321 n. 1)Google Scholar—as long as it is not confused with the archaeologically established date which remains, of course, c. 750 B.C. If one were to argue that the lack of chevron skyphoi in Pithekoussai puts them earlier than its foundation, one would obviously have to use the archaeological date (750) as the terminus ante quem, not the hypothetical higher date.

⁷³ Loc. cit. (n. 6 above) 328–9.

⁷⁴ Gjerstad, E., Early Rome IV: 1 (1966) 327.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ GGP 370 n. 7.

⁷⁶ Op. cit. (n. 4 above) 120.

⁷⁷ See n. 75. The fabric corresponds to Eretria 5 16 group 2c.

⁷⁸ RDAC 1979. Unfortunately, his paper presented to the Colloque sur la céramique grecque du VIII^e siècle in the Centre Jean Bérard in Naples, 1976, was not available to me. Cf. also Eretria 5 44.

⁷⁹ Further north, a skyphos from Tarquinia, (NSc 1907, 231 fig. 33Google Scholar; Åkerström 74–5 fig. 30) is closely related to the group and appears to be from the same workshop as a skyphos of identical decoration found in the temple of Apollo at Eretria (see the forthcoming publication of the Geometric pottery by J.-R. Gisel and L. Kahil in the Eretria series). Local imitations, possibly made by Euboean expatriates (cf. n. 68) have been found in Narce (Villa Giulia inv. 5666: MonAnt 22 (1913) 410 fig. 155) as well as in Veii (Civ. Cast, no inv.: NSc 1972, 255 fig. 42; according to the fabric of Tarquinian rather than Veian manufacture).

⁸⁰ E/8-V.142: cf. forthcoming publication of the Geometric pottery (see above n. 79).

⁸¹ See p. 22 above, nos. 7, 10, 11, 13; cf. also n. 46.

⁸² Zagora 1 59 fig. 55.

⁸³ For the fabric cf. Eretria 5 17 group 7.

⁸⁴ For my distinction between ‘skyphos’ and ‘cup’ see Eretria 5 44–5.

⁸⁵ See, e.g., NSc 1968, 94 fig. 13; GGP 104, 108.

⁸⁶ Young, R. S., Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Century Well in the Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 2, 1939) 150–1 fig. 106: C 37.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Rim/wall fr. Ht 3·8; diam. mouth (reconstr.) c. 13. Fabric: see Eretria 5 17 group 7c. Worn. Inside painted all over.

⁸⁸ Cf. n. 85.

⁸⁹ The bothros in which it was found contained pottery that can roughly be dated to the end of the 8th and the first half of he 7th cent. on grounds of Attic imports (Mesogeia Ptr., SOS-amphora fr.).

⁹⁰ Lefkandi 1 59 no. 25 pls. 38, 60; for the dating see also 73–4. For the Attic prototype cf. Kerameikos 5,1 pl. 98.

⁹¹ For an early Attic example see, e.g., Young, R. S., ‘Graves from the Phaleron Cemetery’, AJA 46 (1942) 28–9 gr. 56, no. 2 fig. 5 (late 8th cent.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹² For the kotylai cf. Eretria 6 table 1: ‘Loose Sigmas 1, 2’. For the skyphoi see, e.g., NSc 1940, 483 t. 59 fig. 49 and BSR 21 (1953) 37 fig. 5, F 1; 39 ff. (both c. 700 B.C. and probably among the earliest examples).

⁹³ Délos 15 56 no. 30 pl. 27e.

⁹⁴ Cf. its shape with Eretria 5 Beil. 7: Vouri 2 and Rhodos inv. 11624.

⁹⁵ Eretria 3 33 pl. 15, nos. 61, 63; for the chronology see 22 ff.

⁹⁶ See already Kerameikos 5, 1 145 n. 116; the number of Italic pieces has since grown considerably. Probably of Tarquinian manufacture: Tarquinia R.C. 1771 (CVA 3 pl. 26, 1–2); R.C. 2159 (ibid. pl. 26,3); R.C. 3871 (ibid. pl. 26,4); Rome, Villa Giulia 57.031/9 (from Bisenzio, Olmo Bello cemetery: MemLinc ser. 8, 21/6 (1977) pl. 12e); Viterbo, Mus. Civico 57.457 (ibid. pl. 12f); Civ. Castellana inv. 60668 (from Veii: NSc 1963, 182 fig. 69; 272 fig. 133d). Veian workshop: Civ. Castellana inv. 60499 (from Veii: NSc 1963, 149 fig. 47) and without inv., from Veii Q.F. tomb C 16 (NSc 1975, 159 fig. 60). Several examples from La Rustica (see CLP 157 pl. 26A) and Castel di Decima (see, e.g., DialAr N.S. 2 (1980) pl. 14,15) may be Tarquinian imports.

⁹⁷ Cf. nn. 45–6.

⁹⁸ Cf. above, discussion of chevron skyphoi.

⁹⁹ No inv., FK 614.1. Ht 7·1; diam. mouth (reconstr.) c. 13. Four rim and wall frr. of which only two illustrated. Inside painted all over except for a reserved fillet on the mouth.

¹⁰⁰ The proposed dates could be slightly too high, depending on the period of time that elapsed between the production and circulation of the pottery in Greece and its burial in Veii. For the problem, which is not, of course, limited to this case, see, e.g., Eretria 5 50 n. 236; Poucet, loc. cit. (n. 1 above); and n. 12 above.

¹⁰¹ There is overlapping also between IIB and IIIA, the beginning of which can hardly be placed after c. 720 B.C. Among the earliest Greek pottery found in IIIA tombs are the following, all datable to the last quarter of the 8th cent.:

Civ. Castellana inv. 35840 (Grotta Gramiccia, t. 821): Corinthian soldier-bird kotyle (see for the type Eretria 6 table I: birds 2/form 5).

Civ. Castellana inv. 37859 (Grotta Gramiccia, t. 1090): Corinthian hour-glass kotyle (see for the type Eretria 6 table I: hour-glass 2/form 6).

Rome, Mus. Pigorini inv. 68055 (Vaccareccia, t. viii): Corinthian skyphos of the Thapsos class (see Palm, J., ‘Veian Tomb Groups’, OpArch 7 (1952) 64 no. 11 pl. 18Google Scholar; GGP 425).

¹⁰² Save for one or two, the c. 1200 tombs excavated in the Grotta Gramiccia cemetery between 1913 and 1916 are still unpublished. I was able to study a number of the groups thanks to the generous permission of Dottssa P. Pelagatti.

¹⁰³ Her thesis, ‘The Pendent Semi-circle Skyphos’, was submitted to the University of Sydney in 1979. It is hoped that it will be published in the near future (B.I.C.S. Supplement series).

¹⁰⁴ Drawing and description by J.-P. Descœudres.

¹⁰⁵ Unfortunately, this piece could not be located in the museum at Cività Castellana or in the Villa Giulia.

¹⁰⁶ Syracuse, National Museum inv. 78407. Ht 6·1; diam. mouth 12·2; diam. foot 5·6; ht of lip 1·4. Fabric: see Eretria 5 16, 2c. Recomposed from several fragments, both handles and part of one side missing. Shape: very similar to that of the Veian skyphos: here no. 18 (Fig. 43). Inside painted all over. Exterior: two sets of six semicircles, intersecting on both sides of the vessel. Lip, handle, and lower portion of the vase painted. Context: a violated tomb in the cemetery at Villasmundo dated to the 8th cent. Bibl.: Voza, G., ‘L'attività della Soprintendenza alle antichità della Sicilia Orientale, parte II’, Kokalos 22–3 (1976–1977) 570 pl. cviii 1Google Scholar; Romeo, R. (ed.), Storia della Sicilia 1 (1979) pl. 33.Google Scholar (Description by J.-P. Descœudres).

¹⁰⁷ A fragment found in the S. Omobono area at Rome may represent a fourth example: La Rocca, E., DialAr 8 (1974–1975) 91–2 no. 1 fig. AGoogle Scholar; id., PdP 32 (1977) 386 ff. figs. 2–3; id. in CLP 369 no. 124,2 pl. xxiB. According to La Rocca it belongs to a concentric circle skyphos, but it could equally come from a pendent semicircle skyphos (so already Frederiksen, M., AR (1976–1977) 43–4).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ PGP 194; Eretria 6 18 19 (with further references).

¹⁰⁹ Boardman, J., ‘Early Euboean Pottery and History’, BSA 52 (1957) 7.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ GGP 354 ff.; Ridgway, D., ‘The Western Greeks’ in Hawkes, C. and Hawkes, S., Greeks, Celts and Romans (1973) 6 ff.Google Scholar; Eretria 6 18–19. On Euboea as a prime source of the pendent semicircle skyphoi see Boardman, loc. cit., and Lefkandi 1 301.

¹¹¹ On this see already Desborough, V. R. d'A., AA (1963) 204–5Google Scholar; GGP 157; Boardman, J., DialAr 3 (1969) 104, 119Google Scholar; Ridgway, D. and Dickinson, O. T. P. K., ‘Pendent Semicircles at Veii: A Glimpse’, BSA 68 (1973) 192Google Scholar; and most recently Dickinson, O. T. P. K. in JHS 101 (1981) 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹² PGP 180 94.

¹¹³ GGP 151 7, 310 13.

¹¹⁴ Lefkandi 1 28 9, 32, 37 8, 42 3 (with O. T. P. K. Dickinson), and 297 ff.

¹¹⁵ The typology is based on a catalogue of over 200 pieces of which approximately three-quarters were classified.

¹¹⁶ Although the six Types or classes are well defined they do not also form groups which are related stylistically by their decoration. It was obvious from the outset that the individual elements comprising the decoration were neither numerous nor complex enough to permit any meaningful stylistic analysis. Furthermore, a cursory survey revealed that even among pots which appeared to be close in date according to contextual evidence, there is not necessarily any definitive similarity in the decoration. Conversely it occasionally happens that skyphoi with no other apparent sign of relationship look very much the same in decoration. Despite these observations, however, after the skyphoi had been classified according to their shape, the occurrence of some elements of the decoration fell into a pattern and may be diagnostic as chronological indications (see M.A. thesis, ch. 5, 116–32).

¹¹⁷ Owing to the limitations of space all the information here, and for the succeeding Types, represents only a small proportion of that utilized in my ‘The Pendent Semi-circle Skyphos’.

Delphi 5909. Fig. 38. Ht 12·0; diam. mouth 15·7–16·4; diam. foot 6·5; th 0·4. Light dull brown clay (7·5 YR 6/3) with brown slip (7·5 YR 5/3). Brownish-black paint (5 YR 3/1), turning to brownish-orange (5 YR 6/6) in patches. Lip, not offset but a slight ridge at point where the lip joins the body, ht 2·0; foot, ht 0·4. Exterior: two sets of seven semicircles, not intersecting and containing in the centre an hour-glass motif. Interior: painted except for a reserved band on the lip. Context: unknown. Unpublished (mentioned in PGP 190–1).

¹¹⁸ Tenos B79 (Kardiani). Fig. 39. Ht 9·3; diam. mouth 12·6; diam. foot 5·4; th 0·3. Fine, rather soft clay, light yellow-orange (7·5 YR 8/4) with a slightly darker slip. Micaceous. Black paint, often streaky. Lip, offset, ht 1·7; foot, ht 0·;7. Exterior: two sets of seven semicircles, intersecting. Interior: painted, except for a reserved band on the lip and a small reserved circle in the centre. Context: unknown. Publ.: GGP pl. 32e (under the number A1485).

¹¹⁹ Volos K 1357 (Kapakli 59). Fig. 40. Ht 10·1 10·6; diam. mouth 15·0–15·5; diam. foot 5·7; th 0·5. Yellow-beige clay (10 YR 8/3), rather soft and micaceous. Black paint. Lip, offset, ht 1·2; foot, ht 0·6. Exterior: two sets of eight semicircles, intersecting on only one side of the vase. Interior: painted. Context: Multiple burials, 10th–8th cent. B.C. Publ.: Verdelis, N. M., Ὁ Πρωτογεωμετρικὸς Ῥυθμὸς τῆς Θεσσαλίας (1958) pl. 9 no. 59.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Mykonos 756 (Delos 8). Fig. 41. Ht 8·4; diam. mouth 13·0; diam. foot 5·3; th 0·4. Pale orange clay (7·5 YR 7/6) with a very few traces of slip. Mainly black paint with patches of brownish-orange (5 YR 6/6). Lip, offset, ht 1·1; foot, ht 0·7. Exterior: two sets of ten semicircles, intersecting. Interior: painted except for a reserved band on the lip and a reserved circle in the centre. Context: Purification Trench, Rheneia. Publ.: Délos 15 xxvi, 8.

¹²¹ Mykonos 24 = A 1465 (Rheneia). Fig. 42. Ht 8·0; diam. mouth 12·5; diam. foot 4·7; th 0·4. Orange clay (7·5 YR 7/8) with pale orange slip (7·5 YR 7/6). Brownish-red paint (2·5 YR 6/8). Lip, offset, ht 1·5; foot, ht 0·8. Exterior: two sets of thirteen semicircles, intersecting. Interior: painted except for a reserved band. Context: mixed burial groups, date uncertain. Publ.: PGP pl. 25B.

¹²² Coldstream, J. N. in Karageorghis, V. et al. , Excavations at Kition IV: The Non-Cypriote Pottery (1981) 17 no. 2 pls. 16,2, 18,1.Google Scholar

¹²³ One of the most recent Type 5 skyphoi to be published is from Kition; ibid. 18 no. 3 pls. 16,3, 18,5.

¹²⁴ Lefkandi 1 27–44, 279–302.

Type 1: Lefkandi 1 pl. 30,9 (but see ibid. 29).

Type 2: ibid. pl. 30,8.10.11.12 (moulds deposit); pl. 31,4–9 (pit fill).

Type 3: ibid. pl. 31,10 (pit fill).

Type 4: ibid. pl. 33,1.2.7–14.16.18–26.

Type 5: ibid. pl. 33,3.17. (Although pl. 33,28 is identified as a Type 5 fragment (ibid. 37 n. 19) it is classified here as Type 6. On the other hand, pl. 33,17 must belong to Type 5.)

A discussion of the origin of the psc skyphos is found in the M.A. thesis on pp. 120–8.

¹²⁵ Lefkandi 1 36, 43 4. This stratigraphic evidence for absolute chronology is all the more valuable because of the paucity of reliably dated contexts for the psc skyphoi prior to the excavations in Lefkandi. The nature of other sources of absolute chronology from both the Aegean and the Near East are discussed in chapter 7 of the M.A. thesis (pp. 146–57).

¹²⁶ Although poorly represented in the pit fill material, the indication that Type 3 is contemporary with Type 2 is strengthened by the contents of Palia Perivolia T 21 where a single complete Type 3 skyphos is associated with an imported Attic pyxis dated ‘well-down in EG II’ (Lefkandi 1 351). See also ibid. 36–7 for the probable extension of the pit fill into early MG I, and 353 for an Attic MG I pyxis in Skoubris T 59, where three Type 2 skyphoi also occur.

¹²⁷ The presence of some local Làte Geometric fragments in the levelling material (ibid. 41 and pl. 20,446–50; pl. 43,61–2) is evidence for the continuation of this deposit beyond 750. Confirmation is supplied by the independent terminus ante quem for Type 5 of 722 at Hama (Riis, P. J., Sukas I: The North-East Sanctuary and the First Settling of the Greeks in Syria and Palestine (1970) 148–52)Google Scholar, and two local fragments of this type occur in the levelling material at Lefkandi (Lefkandi 1 pl. 33,3.17).

¹²⁸ The following ranges are formed from all the skyphoi used in the classification but not necessarily discussed here. For full details see chapters 4 and 5 of the M.A. thesis (pp. 101–32).

¹²⁹ A computerized numerical analysis of forty-five skyphoi was carried out with results that confirmed the typology and gave significant insights into the nature of chronological and geographical links between the Types (chapter 6 of the M.A. thesis, pp. 133–45).

¹³⁰ See Popham, loc. cit. (n. 65) 157. A visual study of the fabric of as many psc skyphoi as possible was made during the course of the thesis. For a discussion of the results see pp. 91–100.

¹³¹ There are relatively few examples in the pit at Lefkandi (Lefkandi 1 301) and among the numerous skyphoi published from the cemetery only two appear to belong to Type 3 (ibid. pl. 136—PP.T21,10; pl. 146—PP.T39B,5).

¹³² Only two appear among the many psc skyphos fragments published from the levelling material (ibid. 301, pl. 33,3–17). Coldstream, op. cit. (n. 70) 90 has already pointed out this phenomenon.

¹³³ Khaldeh: National Museum, Damascus. Ht 6·3; diam. mouth 12·0; diam. foot 5·4. Lip, offset, ht 1·2; foot, almost flat. Exterior: two sets of seven semicircles, intersecting. Context: Tomb, dated late 9th-late 8th cent. on the basis of the local pottery. Publ.: Saidah, R., ‘Objets grecs d'époque géométrique découverts récemment sur le littoral libanais (à Khaldé près de Beyrouth)’, IX^e Congrès International d'Archéologie Classique (1969) 197 fig. a.Google Scholar

Kouklia. Ht 7·0; diam. mouth 12·3; diam. foot 5·0. Pink clay with a light brown slip. Streaky paint. Lip, offset, ht 1·2; almost flat base. Exterior: two sets of seven semicircles, intersecting. Interior: painted, except for a reserved line on the lip. Context: tomb, c. 700 B.C. Publ.: Karageorghis, V., ‘Une tombe de guerrier à Palaepaphos’, BCH 87 (1963) 267 fig. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁴ For full references for all these fragments see ‘The Pendent Semi-circle Skyphos’ 113–14. The fragments from Al Mina are here published by kind permission of the Visitors of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and of the Trustees of the British Museum. In addition to this material, there is a further skyphos which should probably be added to Type 6: Amathus inv. 77.1261 (Aupert, P. et al. , BCH 102 (1978) 957 fig. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Its context was a mixed deposit, but it contained no material earlier than Late Geometric.

¹³⁵ London 1955.4.22/2 (Al Mina). Fig. 44. Ht 4·4; w 5·5; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 13; th 0·3–0·4. Pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/4) with small white inclusions and a few flecks of mica. Brownish slip (7·5YR 7/5). Paint outside mainly brown-black (5YR 2/1) with dark brown arcs (5YR 4/2), streaky. Inside, brownish-red (2·5YR 5/6). Lip, not offset, ht 1·5. Exterior: seven arcs of one set. Blobs of paint have been dropped on the surface. Interior: painted except for a reserved line on the lip. Context: level IX. Publ.: Robertson, M., ‘Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia IV: The Early Greek Vases’, JHS 60 (1940) 3 fig. 1a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eretria, Mus. no. inv. Fig. 45. From the Temple of Apollo (see nn. 45–6). Unpublished.

Oxford 1954.271/6 (Al Mina). Fig. 46. Ht 4·5; w 4·5; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 12; th 0·3–0·4. Pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/4) with brownish slip (7·5YR 7/4). Brownish-red paint (2·5YR 5/6) on both inside and outside. Lip, offset, ht 1·0. Exterior: Part of one set of seven semicircles and the glaze below. Interior: painted except for a reserved band on the edge of the lip. Context: levels IX–VIII. Publ.: BSA 75 (1980) 152 fig. 1,5; pl. 14a.

Eretria, Mus. no. inv. Fig. 47. From the Temple of Apollo (see nn. 45–6). Unpublished.

London 1955.4.22/11 (Al Mina). Fig. 48. Ht 4; w 3·5; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 11; th 0·3–0·4. Pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/4) with a few white inclusions. Surface, brownish pale orange (7·5YR 7/4). Mainly brownish-black paint (5YR 2/1) on both outside and inside; arcs reddish-brown (5YR 5/7). Lip, offset, ht 1·1. Exterior: five arcs of one set and two of the other, intersecting. Interior: painted except for a narrow reserved band on the lip. Context: levels IX–VIII. Publ.: Robertson, loc. cit. 3 fig. 1k.

Oxford 1954.271/5 (Al Mina). Fig. 49. Ht 2·5; w 4; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 12; th 0·3. Pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/4) with brownish slip (7·5YR 7/4). Brownish-black paint (5YR 2/1) on both inside and outside, with some arcs reddish-brown (5YR 5/6). Lip, offset, ht 1·2. Exterior: four arcs of one set and two of the other, intersecting. Interior: painted except for a thin reserved band on the edge of the lip. Streaky. Context: level VIII. Publ.: BSA 75 (1980) 152 fig. 1,3; pl. 14a.

¹³⁶ Karageorghis, V. and Kahil, L., ‘Témoignages eubéens à Chypre et chypriotes à Erétrie’, AntK 10 (1967) 133–5.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ The remaining fragment (Eretria FK 1643.19—unpublished) was found in a bothros with material of the late 7th and early 6th cent. The presence of three Type 6 fragments in the levelling material at Lefkandi is not inconsistent with this since the presence of other Late Geometric pottery (see n. 127) does indicate the deposit probably extends some way beyond 750 B.C.

Despite the frequency of Assyrian records in this period, there is still great difficulty in assigning absolute dates to archaeological horizons at many Near Eastern sites. The lack of a detailed chronology for the local pottery makes precise inter-site comparison for chronological purposes almost impossible. For a full discussion of the contexts of the fragments from Tarsus and Tell Abu Hawam see the M.A. thesis pp. 149–52.

¹³⁸ Eretria: Eretria 5 45 n. 152; Andriomenou, A., ‘Γεωμετρικὴ καὶ ὑπορεωμετρικὴ κεραμεικὴ ἐξ Ἐρετρίας’ AE (1975–1976) 210 fig. 1,18.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ An imitation of the same shape but with different decoration has also been found at Al Mina: see Eretria 6 8 no. 7. The stratification of the psc skyphos fragments at Al Mina is in accordance with this typological interpretation. The fragment Fig. 44 was the only one examined that was marked simply level IX. Three of the more developed variety (Figs. 46–9) were marked VIII, and the rest levels IX–VIII.

¹⁴⁰ Those listed here are only a selection of the material discussed in the M.A. thesis (pp. 148–9).

¹⁴¹ London 1955.4.22/9 (Al Mina). Fig. 50. Ht (complete) 5–9; w 9; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 13; th 0·4–0·3. Pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/4) with one or two flecks of mica. Light yellow-orange (7·5YR 8/4) slip. Paint outside mainly dull reddish-brown (5YR 4/3) with arcs lighter (5YR 5/4); inside, streaky dark brown (5YR 3/2). Lip, not offset, ht 1·0. Almost flat base. Exterior: five arcs of one set. Interior: painted except for a thin reserved line on the lip. Context: unknown. Publ.: Robertson, loc. cit. 3 fig. 1h.

Oxford 1954.271/10 (Al Mina). Fig. 51. Ht 2·8; w 3·2; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 13; th 0·3. Light pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/3) with a few dark inclusions. Dark yellow-beige slip (10YR 8/4). Mainly reddish-brown to bright reddish-brown paint (5YR 5–4/8) on the outside and the inside. Lip, not offset, ht 1·0. Exterior: six arcs of one set. Interior: painted except for a reserved band on the edge of the lip. Context: unknown. Unpublished.

¹⁴² See Eretria 5 25 FK 418.2.

¹⁴³ Oxford 1954.271/16. Ht 1·7; w 4·7; diam. mouth (reconstr.) 15; th 0·3. Pinkish-orange clay (2·5YR 7/6) with small white inclusions. Light beige slip (10YR 7/3). Dark brown (5YR 4/2) to reddish-brown (5YR 5/6) paint on the outside and yellowish-brown (10YR 5/6) on the inside. Lip, not offset, ht 1–5. Inside painted except for a reserved band on the edge of the lip. Exterior: five arcs of one set. Context: unknown. Publ.: BSA 75 (1980) pl. 14a; but profile on p. 152 fig. 1,2 inaccurate. Cf. DialAr 3 (1969) 219 fig. 13a.

¹⁴⁴ Oxford 1954.271/7. Ht 1·5; diam. mouth indet.; ht lip 0·5. Light pinkish-brown clay (5YR 7/3) containing no mica. Brown slip (5YR 6/4). Inside painted save for a reserved band on the lip, with groups of vertical bars. Exterior: seven arcs of one set preserved. Context: level VIII. Unpublished (see M.A. thesis fig. 27g pl. 12a–b). Cf. the slightly earlier example from Eretria, Eretria 5 41 n. 102, and a later one from Tarsus, ibid. 52.

¹⁴⁵ This is very much in contrast to the Euboean Type 4 of the first half of the century which does appear in the Near East but is predominantly from Euboean Lefkandi, Andros, and Tenos. Although it is possible that a chronological factor is at work in the apparent scarcity of Type 6 at Lefkandi, since occupation of the site declines after 750, such an explanation does not fit the situation at Eretria where Late Geometric material is abundant.

¹⁴⁶ To the best of my knowledge I have examined all the psc skyphos fragments from Al Mina that are in England and only one fragment (Robertson, loc. cit. fig. 1d) can now be assigned a date earlier than 750. The fragment belongs to Type 4—apart from it all Al Mina fragments appear to be LG.

¹⁴⁷ Such a possibility has already been suggested by Dickinson, loc. cit. (n. 111) 192; Boardman, loc. cit. (n. 111) 119; and Graham, A. J., ‘The Foundation of Thasos’, BSA 73 (1978) 70.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Of the twenty-five fragments examined from Al Mina, the clay of about half contained small white and dark-coloured grits. Mica was occasionally present, although always in small quantities. By way of contrast, none of the eight psc fragments from Eretria which are Type 6 and which occurred in clear LG contexts had either grits or mica in the clay. Furthermore at Eretria none at all of the nine psc fragments has a slip while all but two of the fragments from Al Mina were slipped before the decoration was applied. Similarity between the fragments of the two sites is present in the decoration, however. It is characterized by a streaky and sloppy appearance with arcs that overlap each other untidily, or are incompletely painted. They convey the impression that by the time Type 6 skyphoi were being produced, whether at home or abroad, lack of care and interest in the decoration heralded the closeness of their demise as much as the radical alteration in their shape.

¹⁴⁹ La Rocca, loc. cit. (n.7).