No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Droop Cups and the Dating of Laconian Pottery
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
Extract
It has been thought desirable that, as I was perhaps mainly responsible for the dates originally suggested for the Laconian vase series and repeated in the final publication of the Orthia Sanctuary, I should give my view on Professor Ure's suggestion that these should be modified.
My view is that they must be modified to some extent, if Professor Ure's evidence is sound, which I have no reason to doubt, but much less than he appears to suggest. I do not think it is necessary to put the end of Laconian IV back from 500 B.C. to 560 B.C., but its beginning we must put back from 550 B.C. by about twenty years.
The dates originally suggested for Laconian IV (550–500 B.C.) and Laconian V (500–425 B.C.) are certainly contradicted by the date (560 B.C.) now assigned by Professor Ure to a grave at Rhitsona which contained one of the group of Attic cups that copy, as Professor Ure agrees with me in thinking, the form of stem usual in the Laconian V kylix.
- Type
- Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1932
References
page 303 note 1 BSA. XIV, 40 and 46.
page 303 note 2 Artemis Orthia, 113.
page 303 note 3 Ure, JHS. LII, 71.
page 303 note 4 Ibid. 57.
page 303 note 5 JHS. XLIX, 270–1.
page 303 note 6 Artemis Orthia, 109.
page 303 note 7 Yet the clue was at that time distinctly unobtrusive. For, though it should perhaps have been seen that the date originally suggested ( Burrows, and Ure, , BSA. XIV, 265 and 306Google Scholar) for the grave now dated at 560 B.C. by Professor Ure, viz. ‘a little after’ 550 B.C., would not quite fit in with the dates put forward for Laconian IV, yet it is only the new date that presents a blatant discrepancy.
page 303 note 8 JHS. XXX, 9.
page 303 note 9 Artemis Orthia, 17 and 109.
page 303 note 10 Ure, loc. cit. 57.
page 304 note 1 Ure, loc. cit. 71.
page 304 note 2 It is true that while I thought the imitations belonged to the latter part of the sixth century, I was of opinion (JHS. XXX, 27) that the channels were probably one of the later developments of Laconian IV. But that opinion was not founded on any definite evidence.
page 304 note 3 JHS. XXX, 14, Fig. 6.
page 304 note 4 Artemis Orthia, 79, Fig. 52. My note-books, being full of notes on what was positively there, are naturally silent on the point, which is a negative one.
page 304 note 5 It is conceivable that the greater frequency of the dedications (which must be assumed to account for the same quantity of deposits being accumulated in less time) may be due to encouragement given to the cult by the building of the new shrine.