No CrossRef data available.
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.
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
With Humfry Payne's photographs, now in the British School at Athens, are preserved a number of his drawings. Many of these are unpublished. A selection of them may form a useful supplement to those included in Necrocorinthia and Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei, and a suitable tribute to offer to Payne's friend and master. I am grateful to Mrs. Leonard Russell and to the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens for permission to publish these drawings.
The notes on the vases are brief, because the drawings speak for themselves. I have added a few notes on the painters of some of the vases, and in doing so have drawn extensively on Payne's writings and notes, both published and unpublished. Most of the vases illustrated belong to the middle and third quarter of the seventh century, but I have added a few figures from later vases because of their human interest.
Plate XXVIII, a. Aegina F 51a, from the harbour temple (so-called Temple of Aphrodite) at Aegina. Welter, Aigina, 37, fig. 35, top r. Conical oinochoe fr. Lion 1. There was another frieze above. Very fine; pale green clay. MPC II; towards 650.
Plate XXVIII, b. Aegina F 104, from the harbour temple. Conical oinochoe fr. Lion l.; in front, hind leg of another animal. MPC II.
1 I am also indebted to the Director of the British School for help in the selection of the drawings, to Mr. G. H. Deeley and Dr. R. J. Hopper for photographs of some of the drawings, and to Mr. H. N. Newton, photographer to the Ashmolean Museum, for others; and to Messrs. I. Papadimitriou, J. L. Caskey, the Trustees of the British Museum, P. Devambez, L. Bernabò-Brea for permission to publish the vases in Aegina, Corinth, London, Paris, and Syracuse. I am further indebted to Dr. W. Kraiker for information about the Aegina sherds, which he will shortly publish, and for valuable discussion.
2 Details of fabric from Payne's notes.
3 Cf. Akurgal, E., Späthethitische Bildkunst I, 39 ff.Google Scholar On p. 42 and n. 14 Akurgal points out that the form of ear on nos. 1 and 2 is a new, assyrianising feature not found at Corinth before these vases. Cf. ibid., 77.
4 Not known on Greek lions before this period; see Kunze, , Kretische Bronzereliefs, 186 f.Google Scholar For Anatolian forerunners see Akurgal, op. cit., 54.
5 Kraiker tells me of another fragment showing a naked boy and part of the altar.
6 See p. 68. Polychrome technique of the priest, and of a male figure on an unpublished fragment of 10, in the same paint as used for male flesh on the Chigi vase; lions on 9 comparable with those on the Chigi vase and on NC, no. 41 (PV, pl. 26. 2).
7 See NC, 29, n. 2, where Payne says that it is not known in the Protocorinthian period. It is made popular by the Sphinx Painter and the Palermo Painter.
8 ‘Found in Aigina in a βόθρος near the temple of Aphrodite.’
9 Details of fabric from Payne's notes.
10 For the close relation of this to Protocorinthian art cf. Benton, Sylvia, BSA XL, 78.Google Scholar
11 For felines with vertically set eyes see BSA XLV, 194; none of the other instances is like this.
12 The tuft recalls the lion with the wart on his nose on the earliest Lydian coins (see E. S. G. Robinson, inf., p. 159 f.). I can find no closer parallel.
13 BSA XLIII, 58.
14 But not impossible; the hare on the shield of a falling warrior on the aryballos in Berlin, VS, pl. 32, is not a courageous animal. Cf. Lorimer, H. L., BSA XLII, 85.Google Scholar
15 Athen. 512 f.; see Furtwängler, Roscher I, 2145; Bowra, , Greek Lyric Poetry, 113Google Scholar; Montuoro, P. Zancani, ‘Il tipo di Eracle nell'arte arcaica’, Rend. Linc. 1947, 211 ff.Google Scholar; Rumpf, , Chalkidische Vasen, 143 f.Google Scholar On the Cypriot Herakles with lion's skin and club, see Dussaud, R., Syria XXV, 1946–1948, 205 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the related question of the replacement of bow or sword by club as Herakles' usual weapon see Amandry, P., Mon. Piot XL, 40.Google Scholar
16 No example earlier than the cup by Epiktetos, , ARV, 48Google Scholar, no. 39, is known to me.
17 See Massow, von, AM 1916, 101 f.Google Scholar; Luce, AJA 1924, 296 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Payne, , NC, 129 f.Google Scholar; Buschor, , AJA 1934, 128 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for other early Centauromachies, some of which may illustrate the Pholoe story, see Demargne, P., BCH 1929, 117 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dugas, C., REG 1943, 5 ff.Google Scholar To the list of early representations in NC, 129, may be added four Corinthian vases: a fragmentary MPC II pyxis lid from Perachora, a TR alabastron in Florence, an EC aryballos in London, published in BMQ., 1935, pl. 3a, and the EC column-krater Corinth VII, i, pll. 38–9; and an Argive relief pithos, AH II, pl. 63. 1–3 (cf. Buschor, loc. cit.); and an Attic krater from Vari, , AA 1939, 227–8Google Scholar, fig. 1. Sixth century representations: Cretan clay reliefs in Oxford and Paris, Knoblauch, , Studien zur archaisch-griechische Tonbildnerei, 120Google Scholar, nos. 30–33.
18 See Lorimer, H. L., BSA XLII, 94 ff.Google Scholar
19 But cf. the aryballos Louvre E 429, PV pl. 14. 1; VS, pl. 26. 1. This may be later than Payne allows, in dating it to the beginning of the second black-figure style. The panther looks more developed than is likely at this period, and has a descendant on the LPC oinochoe in London, NC, no. 32, pl. 10. 7–8 (cf. n. 33).
20 Langlotz, E., Gnomon X (1934), 419 f.Google Scholar; Byvanck, A. W., Mnemosyne IV (1937) 205Google Scholar; Audiat, J., REA 1938, 173 fr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Hopper, R. J., BSA XLIV, 180 ff.Google ScholarVillard, F., Mèl. Arch. Hist. 1948, 7 ff.Google Scholar, proposes to lower Payne's dates somewhat, but not for Langlotz's reasons.
21 Miss L. H. Jeffery has expressed the opinion that the Chigi Painter might have learnt his letters at Troezen or Calauria.
22 NC, 272, 299. S. Weinberg's suggestion of an eighth century date for an olpe fr. in Corinth, (Corinth VII. i, pl. 18, 132)Google Scholar is rightly corrected by Hopper, op. cit., 241. Cf. F. Villard, op. cit., 17 f., who also stresses the fact that the olpai of the Chigi Group stand at the head of the development of the shape at Corinth.
23 Loc. cit.
24 Athens, from Argive Heraeum, K 14 and 15 (MPC?).
Delphi 2348 (LPC: near Perachora Painter?).
Leiden, Brants, pl. XII. 9 (see Robertson, , BSA XLIII, 38Google Scholar, on no. 148).
Ithaca, Aetos, , BSA XLIII, pl. 11Google Scholar, no. 221.
Aegina F 49+: see above p. 64.
g and m above.
Other TR olpai not mentioned by Hopper:
Leiden, Brants, pl. XII. 8.
Aegina F 159 (near Sphinx Painter).
New York 96. 18. 38 (late TR; Sphinx Painter).
New York 96. 18. 4.1.
25 Description from Payne's notes.
26 Cf. NC, 97: ‘The achievement of a single artist, or a small circle of artists.’
27 Rome, Villa Giulia, from Veii: NS 1930, pll. 2–3; PV, pl. 26. 1, 5.
28 See NC ix, 342.
29 Corinth VII. i, pll. 20–1, no. 142.
30 See Robertson, M., BSA XLIII, 45.Google Scholar
31 Corinth VII, i, pl. 30, no. 218.
32 Perhaps by the same hand, a fr. of an olpe (?), Syracuse, from the Athenaion of Syracuse, , MA XXV, 553–4Google Scholar, fig. 139, bottom centre.
33 To this group belong:
NC, nos. 31, 47 and 48; no. 32 (perhaps by the same hand, the pyxis lid, Syracuse, NC, no. 52 B); BSA XLIV, pl. 17. 10, from Siphnos; NC, no. 33, and the oinochoe from Corinth, , Corinth VII, i, pl. 25, 186Google Scholar, associated by Weinberg; and the TR vases MC nos. 156, 157, the Amsterdam frr., CVA Schleurleer II, pl. 7. 3–4, and perhaps, as Kübier suggests, Athens, Kerameikos, , AA 1933, 276Google Scholar, fig. 12. An oinochoe from Perachora belongs to this group, and goes with NC, no. 32. Other Perachora vases of different shapes are related to the group, but less closely. Cf. also above p. 65, on PL. XXVIII, h, NC, no. 35.
The ancestor of the group is, I suspect, the painter of the aryballos Louvre E 429, VS, pl. 26. 1; PV, pl. 14. 1 (see n. 19). Its descendants are many; as well as the TR olpai already mentioned, grouped round Oxford 1879. 100 (NC, no. 156), the Painter of Vatican 73 is, as Payne points out, derived from the Group of Vatican 69; the Sphinx Painter also, the other main painter of oinochoai and olpai at this period, is related, though less closely (of NC, no. 157, Payne says in a manuscript note ‘near Sphinx Painter, but earlier’). Another group of TR olpai, the Group of Vatican 78 (see Beazley in Beazley, and Magi, , Raccolta Guglielmi, I, 9Google Scholar, on pl. 1. 2) uses Chigi technique. Most TR olpai are thus descended from one or other of the main group of LPC olpai.
34 NC, 277 ff.; BSA XLIV, 241 f.; see also nn. 24, 33, and BSA XLIII, 45 ff. nos. 221–4 (Ithaca).
35 See NC 18, 29, n. 2; for the ‘Corinthian’ rendering of the eye-socket see above p. 64.
36 Cf. NC, 29, n. 1.
37 NC, 67 ff.; cf. now Akurgal, , Späthethitische Bildkunst I, 76 ff.Google Scholar