Abbreviations

Brijder = Brijder, H.A.G., Siana Cups I and Komast Cups (Allard Pierson Series 4. Amsterdam 1983)Google Scholar

Ceramica laconica = Studi sulla ceramica laconica: atti del seminario Perugia, 23–4 febb. 1981 (Archaeologia Perusina 3. Rome 1986)

Diffusion = Les céramiques de la Grèce de l'Est et leur diffusion en Occident. Centre Jean Bérard, Institut Français de Naples, 6–9 juillet 1976 (Paris and Naples 1978)

GGAPC = Gjerstad, E.et al., Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery Found in Cyprus (Stockholm 1977)Google Scholar

LV = Stibbe, C.M., Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten Jahrhunderts vor Chr. (Amsterdam and London 1972)Google Scholar

Pelagatti = Pelagatti, P., ASAtene 33–4 (1955–1956) 7–44Google Scholar ‘La ceramica laconica del Museo di Taranto’

¹ The Lakonia Survey, a British-Dutch collaboration, began in 1983 and has investigated an area of c. 75km² of the Eurotas between modern Sellasia to the north, the Menelaion to the south, and the village of Chrysapha to the east. For a brief preliminary account see Lakonikai Spoudai 9 (1988) 77–88; also AR 1983–4, 27–8; 1984–5, 24–5; 1985–6, 30; 1987–8, 26. Our fragments are referred to in AR 1987–8, 26. The authors are grateful to Dr W.G. Cavanagh and Prof. J.H. Crouwel, directors of the project, for permission to publish this object in advance of the full survey report. They also acknowledge the cooperation received from the Ephoreia of Classical Antiquities in Sparta in carrying out the survey. The drawing was made by Catriona Turner, the photographs by Ron Leenheer. RWVC is primarily responsible for discussion of the pot, DGJS for the inscription. RWVC thanks H.W. Catling, W.G. Cavanagh, J.H. Crouwel, and M. Pipili for reading and commenting on his part of the text.

² The map reference for its exact findspot is 0936/1594 on the grid created for the survey on the Greek Army Geographical Service (GYS) 1:5,000 series of maps.

³ See AR 1984–5, 24; 1985–6, 30; Lakonikai Spoudai 9 (1987) 79; an example of the ithyphallic figurines is illustrated in op cit, 80, fig. 3 (note that the figurine is reproduced at 2:1 rather than 1:2 as the scale incorrectly suggests). The identity of this cult is at present unknown. Its association with male potency and human and animal fecundity is implied by the ithyphallic figurines, and a smaller number of pregnant female figurines, female figurines which emphasize the sexual organs, and animal figurines.

⁴ The Attic series is variously named: ‘ST Cups’.(Shefton, B.B. in Perachora II, 378Google Scholar); ‘Class of Athens 1104’.(Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L., Agora XII, 88–9Google Scholar); ‘Pre-Komast Cups’ and ‘Plain Komast Cups’.(Brijder, 58–63, 88–93).

⁵ Vallet, G. and Villard, F., MEFRA 67 (1955) 13–34Google Scholar (Megara Hyblaia); Hayes, J. in Tocra I, 111–34 and Tocra II, 55–8.Google Scholar Vallet and Villard's classification is concerned with the East Greek series. Hayes' embraces all the series represented at Tocra; where only one or two examples of types, which are anyway unique to Tocra, occur (notably Rhodian Types IV and VII), they might better be treated as variants of existing types. Other systems of classification arranged by site are: Amathus: J.P. Thalman in GGAPC, 70–2. Cyprus: E. Gjerstad in GGAPC, 32–4. Istros: Lambrino, M., Les vases archaïques d'Histria (Bucharest 1938) 81–94Google Scholar; Dimitriu, S. in Histria II (Bucharest 1966) 44–5, 78–85, 95–6Google Scholar; Alexandrescu, P., Histria IV. La céramique d'epoque archaïque et classique (VII^e–VI^e s.) (Bucharest and Paris 1978) 114–9.Google ScholarRhodes: Kinch, K.F., Vroulia (Berlin 1914) 24–6, 142–51, 168–85.Google ScholarSalamis, Cyprus: Y. Galvet and M. Yon in Diffusion, 46–8. Samos H.-P. Isler in Diffusion, 77–81; Furtwängler, A.E., AM 95 (1980) 163–6.Google ScholarTarquinia: E. Pierre in Diffusion, 235–8. Tarsus: Hanfmann, G.M.A. in The Aegean and the Near East. Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman (New York 1956) 167–73.Google ScholarTell Sukas: Ploug, G., Sukas II. The Aegean, Corinthian and Eastern Greek Pottery and Terracottas (Copenhagen 1973) 27–38.Google Scholar The bibliography on these cups is immense. The most recent and thorough study is by Pierro, E., Ceramica ‘Ionica’ non figurata e coppe Attiche a figure nere (Materiali del Museo Archaeologico Nazionale de Tarquinia 6. Rome 1984) 9–67.Google Scholar The following list includes only the more important references, chosen to represent their wide distribution: Samos: Kopeke, G., AM 83 (1968) 257–60, 275–9Google Scholar; Isler, H.-P., Samos IV (Bonn 1978) 92–6, 149–56.Google Scholar Miletos: von Graeve, V., Ist Mitt 23–4 (1973–1974) 85, 97–100Google Scholar; idem in Diffusion, 36. Thera: Dragendorff, H., Thera II (Berlin 1903) 217–8.Google ScholarAthens: Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L., Agora XII, 88–90Google Scholar; Brijder, 58–63, 88–94. Perachora: Shefton, B.B. in Perachora II, 376–8.Google ScholarCorinth: Weinberg, S.S., Corinth VII:I, 67–9Google Scholar; Biegen, C.W. et al., Corinth XIII, 156, 158Google Scholar; Amyx, D.A. and Lawrence, P., Corinth VII. II, 80–1Google Scholar; Stillwell, A.N. and Benson, J.L., Corinth XV.III, 272–3.Google ScholarIsthmia: Clement, P.A. and Thorne, M.M., Hesperia 43 (1974) 408–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarXanthos: Metzger, H., Fouilles de Xanthos IV. Les céramiques archaïques et classiques de l'acropole lycienne (Paris 1972) 43–6.Google Scholar Tarsus: Hanfmann, G.M.A. in Tarsus III. The Iron Age (Princeton 1963) 287–90.Google ScholarAl Mina: Clairmont, C., Berytus II (1954–1955) 107–8.Google ScholarNaukratis: Price, E.R., JHS 44 (1924) 181–2, 188–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSouth Italy: P.G. Guzzo in Diffusion, 107–30 (esp. 123–8). Sicily: CVA Gela 2, 5–8; P. Orlandini in Diffusion, 97; A. Rallo in op cit, 101; Vallet, G. and Villard, F., Megara Hyblaea 2. La céramique archaïque (MEFRA Suppl. i. Paris 1964) 87–8.Google ScholarEtruria: M. Martelli Cristofani in Diffusion, 163–71, 195–204. Marseille: Villard, F., La céramique grecque de Marseille (VI^e–V^e siecle) (Paris 1960) 43–4, 46, 48.Google ScholarSpain: P. Rouillard in Diffusion, 276–81.

⁶ Dupont, P., Dacia 27 (1983) 26–9, 33–6Google Scholar, esp. 40. Jones, R.E. and Boardman, J. in Jones, R.E., Greek and Cypriot Pottery (Athens 1986) 665–71.Google Scholar

⁷ The latter two groups may overlap; it is also probable that Ionian B is composed of material from more than one production centre.

⁸ The most rigorous classification is Brijder, loc cit, with full bibliography up to 1982.

⁹ BG Cups are scarce in the Ionian Cyclades where the Sub-Geometric ‘metope’ cup (eg Délos X, Pl. 55 nos. 665–8) may have taken its place; examples occur on Siphnos (Brock, J.K. and Young, G. Mackworth, BSA 44 (1949) 47 nos. 3–4, Pl. 16, 3)Google Scholar and Andros (Cambitoglou, A., Archaeological Museum of Andros (Athens 1981) 86, 89 nos. 274–9Google Scholar, fig. 42, all Attic imports); surprisingly there are none from Delos. Locally made BG Cups occur on Thera and Melos (unpublished surface sherds); see Tocra I, 116 and Tocra II, 55 for two groups of BG Cups tentatively attributed to East Greece and/or the Cyclades. They are also scarce in most of the Peloponnese and Central Greece: see Gauer, W., OlForsch 8 (Berlin 1975) 182Google Scholar, fig. 27, 1, Pl. 40, 1 and Coleman, J.E., Excavations at Pylos in Elis (Hesperia Suppl. 21. Princeton 1986) 57 no. C132Google Scholar, ill. 11, Pl. 33 for examples from Elis; see Tocra II, 54 no. 2203 for an early fifth century Boiotian BG Cup.

¹⁰ South Italy: production was large-scale and is proven at Sybaris, Metaponton, Siris-Policoro, L'Ancoronata and Termitito (the two latter probably in the territory of Siris); references are most conveniently collected by E. Pierro, op cit, 17–8 with nn. 34–6, 23 with n. 17, 33–6 with nn. 26–7, 45 with n. 8, 53–5 with nn. 8–10, 58 with n. 8, 65 with n. 9; see also articles in Diffusion by Guzzo, Martelli Cristofani, Paribeni, and particularly the remarks of Adamesteanu (312–6) and Villard (323–4). South France: F. Villard, La céramique grecque de Marseille, 61. Spain: P. Rouillard in Diffusion, 283–5. Cyrenaica, : Tocra I, 144 nos. 1453–4Google Scholar, Pl. 94 Tocra II, 67 nos. 2284–8, 2291, fig. 27. Black Sea: Dupont, P., Dacia 23 (1983) 36.Google Scholar

¹¹ Tocra I, 116–7, 125–9 nos. 1307–17, figs. 59–60, Pl. 88; Tocra II, 56 no. 2231. Pelagatti, 23–5, figs. 17–9; 35, figs. 33–4.

¹² I, 128 no. 1314 of Type III may have come Trom Deposit II (c. 590–565); Tocra II, 56 no. 2231 of Type III may have come from Deposit III (c. 565–520/10); none of the other Lakonian BG Cups have a context. Of the bf cups one (no. 933) is from Deposit II, probably four (?940, 946, 949, 2109) from Deposit III. Among the other catalogued pottery 6–7 vases come from Deposit I (c. 620–590), 5–7 from Deposit II, 13–4 from Deposit III. On the grounds of probability most of the BG and bf cups belong to Deposit III, a smaller number to Deposit II.

¹³ Tocra I, 116. It is often found on bf cups where the tondo alone is decorated.

¹⁴ In Stibbc's classification of cup forms, large cups (ie rim diameter of 22 cm. or more) occur only in his Formgruppen IV, VII and VIII (LV, 16–7, 20, 24–5); of the ten classified as large in his catalogue only nos. 16, 23, 191, and 194 match ours for size; fragments of another unpublished large cup come from the recent Menelaion excavations.

¹⁵ Tocra I, 87–8.

¹⁶ LV, 16, 20–1. See remarks of D. Fusaro in Ceramica laconica, 14.

¹⁷ Pelagatti, 23–5, figs. 17–9. A drawing of its profile appears in LV, 21, fig. 4.

¹⁸ The close resemblances in dimensions and shape suggest that our piece had a foot similar to the Tarentine cup. Hayes compares the form of one of the Tocra cups (no. 1307) with this vase (Tocra I, 117 n. 1); the resem blance is not very close.

¹⁹ Our knowledge of sixth century Lakonian pottery is thoroughly uneven and incomplete. Attention has focused on figured vases and pottery from votive and mortuary contexts, whether in Lakonia or elsewhere, at the expense of the rich repertoire of pottery from domestic contexts, including both fine wares and the utilitarian pottery associated with food preparation and storage. It is thus possible for Stibbe (LV, 11) to make the remarkable statement that ‘Ihr (sc the Spartans) normaler Trinkbecher war ohne Zweifel die sog. Lakaina. Diese Form blieb während der ganzen Periode, in der die lakonischen Werkstätten exportierten, in Sparta die Leitform’. while the lakaina is indeed one of the dominant shapes in seventh and sixth century votive assemblages it simply does not appear in domestic contexts. It is hoped that publication of the pottery found during the Lakonia Survey will help to rectify this situation. A study of Lakonian black-glazed pottery has been announced by Stibbe: see Ceramica laconica, 75. A useful publication of a Lakonian domestic assemblage (from northern Messenia) is by Kaltsas, N., AE 1983, 221–37, pls. 81–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ In most cases from sanctuary or shrine sites.

²¹ There is a substantial overlap between BG and bf cups in Stibbe's Formgruppe III; all but one of the bf cups are attributed to the Naukratis Painter and his workshop, raising the possibility that the BG Cups were also made there: see LV, 16. The existence of hybrid cups (ie BG Cups with decorative additions in the tondo or on the rim or in the handle-zone (eg Tocra I, 86 no. 947, fig. 60, Pl. 64) is further evidence for this view. It is possible that Lakonian BG Cups have not always been recognized when found outside Lakonia, thus making their distribution pattern uncertain.

²² I am grateful to H.W. Catling for permission to publish this vase in advance of the final Menelaion report. The drawing is by Elizabeth Catling.

²³ The foot resembles most closely a fragment from Kyrene, tentatively dated Lakonian II, which its publisher suggests belongs to a form which developed from Stibbe's Formgruppe II: Schaus, G.P., The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports. Vol. II. The East Greek, Island, and Laconian Pottery (Philadelphia 1985) 17–8 no. 52Google Scholar, fig. 1. It is equally possible that such a form coexisted with the cups of Formgruppe II.

²⁴ Some of the sherds come from a level which seems to contain mostly Lakonian II pottery with a small admixture of Lakonian III; the others are from a level including material perhaps as late as Lakonian IV. These observations are strictly provisional.

²⁵ Tocra I, 116, 128–9 no. 1316.

²⁶ Tocra I, figs. 59–60 nos. 1307–8, 1313. Also on the two Tarentine cups with decorated tondos: Pelagatti, 23–5, fig. 17^a; 35, figs. 33–4. A reserved band below the handle-zone is common in other series (eg the Attic and some East Greek) but is not normally placed as low as in the Lakonian.

²⁷ Both Lane, (BSA 34 (1933–1934) 122)Google Scholar and Stibbe (LV, 19) see East Greek influence in the Lakonian II cups, as others (eg Payne, NC 310) have seen in Middle Corinthian cups; the resemblances are of a very general kind and in the case of the Corinthian cups it is possible to argue for local development. Stibbe's Formgruppe I does not strictly have a place in the classification of cups; it is a typically Lakonian invention whose production seems to have been parallel rather than antecedent to the earliest proper cups of Formgruppe II: see LV, 15–6, 18–9.

²⁸ The inscription is also illustrated at AR 1987–8, 26, fig. 25.

²⁹ Μεσαπεὺς see apparatus criticus to Jacoby, FGrHist 115 (Theopompos) F 245. For the Latin forms with single s see Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, svv.

³⁰ There is, of course, a certain fluidity in all words related to μὲσος which has an epic form μὲσσος (For dittography in a Laconian graffito see LSAG, 199 no. 7, cited below: Τελέσστας.) Note also the variant reading Μεταπίους (the Locrian tribe) in Thucydides, 3. 100–2; the river Mesapios in Crete (Scylax, 47); the form Μεσάπιοι (= Μεσσάπιοι) in the Etymologicum Magnum sv Εὐβύριων and Μεσάππιος (sic) in Hesychius, sv ̒Ημιλάμιον It is perhaps also worth noting that our graffito confirms the MS reading Μεσσαπέως in Pausanias, 3, 20. 3, as against Μεσσαπεέως suggested by some editors (see Hitzig-Blümner, ad loc) on the basis of the associated place-name Μεσσαπέαι in Theopompus. There is in fact no MS evidence for Μεσσαπεέως.

³¹ Similarly, the Latin names Messapii, Messapus, etc, have a long a; eg Ovid, Metamorphoses 14. 513; Virgil, Aeneid 7. 69b

³² The following evaluation is based on Jeffery's typology of Archaic Laconian letter-forms (LSAG, 183–7).

³³ Jeffery (LSAG, 188) cites a group of texts belonging to 600–575, which have a pronounced tilt to α, ε, and π; but the tilt of our letters is not so emphatic.

³⁴ ibid. 186.

³⁵ SEG 29, 390 (early 6th cent.); cf Boring, C.A., Literacy in Ancient Sparta (Mnemosyne Suppl. 44, Leiden 1979) 10–11.Google Scholar

³⁶ op cit, 96. For literacy as largely the preserve of the Spartiate elite see also Cartledge, P.A.. JHS 98 (1978) 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ No other examples of the cult title are to be found in Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (1911), or in CIG, IG, Bulletin épigraphique, or SEG (with one exception; see n. 40 below). A search of the provisional ‘Ibycus’. database in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, also failed to reveal any new citations (DGJS is indebted to Miss M. Sheldon-Williams for assistance). For similar names see nn. 30 above and 43 below.

³⁸ See most recently Taiphakos, I.G., Peloponnesiaka 12 (1976–1977) 219–22Google Scholar, no. 3 with references to his two earlier articles in Argonautes I (1975) 57; 2 (1975) 55–7. He discusses previous suggested locations for the sanctuary, which has been put in a variety of places on the W side of the plain, none of which seems to have more to recommend it than the others. Here we may remark only that Meyer, E., in Kleine Pauly 3, 1247Google Scholar, wrongly takes Agios Georgios to be the probable location; see Bölte, F., in RE XV, 1166–8Google Scholar, where this suggestion of von Prott's is treated with some scepticism.

³⁹ Cf. the various distances mentioned at 3. 20. 3–7. After visiting Messapian Zeus ‘in the plain’, he turns ‘away from’.(εϰ) Taygetus, ie approx. E, to Bryseai; he then considers the ridge of Taygetus (the peaks of Taleton and Euoras) and continues (after an insignificant lacuna in the text) with the Eleusinion; this has been found at Kalyvia Sochas and excavated (Cook, J.M., BSA 45 (1950) 261–81Google Scholar). 15 stades from this, he says, is the Lapithaion ‘in Taygetus’ (possibly at Anogeia) and nearby the Dereion; 20 stades beyond this is Harplcia (?Xerokambi).

⁴⁰ See n. 38 above; also SEG 29, 390. Taiphakos is probably correct to restore Μεσσαπέος rather than Μεσαπέος in view of the alignment of the letters on the fragment. The restoration of the cult title seems reasona bly certain; it would be unjustified to restore, eg Διοσ[ϰούρων] in line 1, in view of the genit. sing, in line 2. T., somewhat surprisingly, does not discuss the last word, which he reads as φαϱ[. At first sight this suggests a link with Pharis, a settlement somewhere S of Amyklai which was deserted in Paus.'s day (3. 20. 3). However, in T.'s photograph the last letter looks more like gamma or epsilon.

⁴¹ PAE 1962, 113–5. See also Simpson, R. Hope and Dickinson, O.T.P.K., A Gazeteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age, Vol. I. The Mainland and Islands (Gothenburg 1979) 110 no. C8.Google Scholar

⁴² Wide, S., Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig 1893) 20 Bölte in RE XV, 1166–7.Google Scholar The discovery of Geometric, Archaic, and later pottery at Anthochori (see n. 41), the suggested site of the sanctuary, tends to support the existence of a village (χωρίον) perhaps to be identified with Messapeai, which might antedate the establishment of the cult.

⁴³ The place-name Μεσσαπέαι and its cognates are derived by Pape-Benseler from μέσος, ‘middle’, and translated as Werdau (approx. = ‘eyot’). They are taken as characteristic of pieces of land surrounded by water (such as lapygia, the ‘heel’ of Italy, which was the home of the most famous of the peoples who bore the name Messapioi). In the case of the Boeotian Mt Messapion, the proximity of the sea and Lakes Yliki and Paralimni may explain the name. It is not, however, an obvious name for a place in inland Laconia. Could there be a link with the town of Mezapos in the Mani?

⁴⁴ See RE XV, 1207–10, passim, svv. ‘Messapioi (2)’, the Locrian tribe; ‘Messapion’, the Boeotian mountain (cf ‘Messapos (1)’, a Boeotian); and ‘Messapos (3)’, the river in Crete. A woman is described as ‘Messapian’ on a tombstone from Rhodes, (IG XII 1, 517; Hellenistic?)Google Scholar; her ethnic origin is not clear. (We leave aside ‘Messapos (2)’. the Etruscan son of Neptune in Vergil, Aeneid 7, 691.Google Scholar) Cf also n. 30 above.

⁴⁵ Evidence for cult links between Lakonia and Boeotia and Central Greece is collected by Kiechle, F., Lakonien und Sparta (Munich and Berlin 1963) 29–36.Google Scholar In many cases the links are with coastal regions of Lakonia. Their interpreta tion is problematic; Kiechle's is not without difficulties.

⁴⁶ Salmon, E.T., in CHA ¹ IV, 676–7Google Scholar, is justifiably cautious.

⁴⁷ Jeffery (LSAG, 188) includes the Tarentine alphabet with the Laconian, and the Messapian script is often described as ‘Tarentine-Messapian’. (eg LSAG, 283).

⁴⁸ de Simone, C., StEtr 50 (1982) 177–87.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See eg the numerous dedications to zis (Zeus) in Haas, O., Messapische Studien (Heidelberg 1962), and Haas' comments on pp. 16–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ibid. 16; Kleine Pauly 4, 1416; Kaibel, , CGF I.i, 187 fr. 14.Google Scholar