HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY

In 1857 Dr. Samuel Birch issued his well-known work on ancient pottery, at that time almost the first attempt at dealing with the whole subject in a comprehensive manner. Sixteen years later, in 1873, he brought out a second edition, in some respects condensed, in others enlarged and brought up to date. But it is curious to reflect that the succeeding sixteen years should not only have doubled or even trebled the material available for a study of this subject, but should even have revolutionised that study. The year 1889 also saw the completion of the excavations of the Acropolis at Athens, which did much to settle the question of the chronology of Attic vases. Yet another sixteen years, and if the increase in actual bulk of material is relatively not so great, yet the advance in the study of pottery, especially that of the primitive periods, has been astounding; and while in 1857, and even in 1873, it was impossible to do much more than collect and co-ordinate material, in 1905 Greek ceramics have become one of the most advanced and firmly based branches of classical archaeology.

It therefore implies no slur on the reputation of Samuel Birch’s work that it has become out of date. Up till now it has remained the only comprehensive treatise, and therefore the standard work, on the subject; but of late years there has been a crying need, especially in England, of a book which should place before students a condensed and up-to-date account of Greek vases and of the present state of knowledge of the subject. The present volumes, while following in the main the plan adopted by Dr. Birch, necessarily deviate therefrom in some important particulars. It has been decided to omit entirely the section relating to Oriental pottery, partly from considerations of space, partly from the impossibility of doing justice to the subject except in a separate treatise; for the same reason the pottery of the Celts and of Northern Europe has been ignored. Part I. of the present work, dealing chiefly with the technical aspect of the subject, remains in its main outlines much as it was thirty years ago; but the other sections have been entirely re-written. For the historical account of vase-painting in Birch’s second edition one chapter of forty pages sufficed; it now extends to six chapters, or one quarter of the work. The subjects on the vases, again, occupy four chapters instead of two; and modern researches have made it possible to treat the subjects of Etruscan and Roman pottery with almost the same scientific knowledge as that of Greece.

A certain amount of repetition in the various sections will, it is hoped, be pardoned on the ground that it was desirable to make each section as far as possible complete in itself; and another detail which may provoke unfavourable criticism is the old difficulty of the spelling of Greek names and words. In regard to the latter the author admits that consistency has not been attained, but his aim has been rather to avoid unnecessary Latinising on the one hand and pedantry on the other.

Finally, the author desires to express his warmest acknowledgments to all who have been of assistance to him in his work, by their writings or otherwise, especially to a friend, desiring to be nameless, who has kindly read through the proofs and made many useful suggestions; to the invaluable works of many foreign scholars, more particularly those of M. Pottier, M. Salomon Reinach, and M. Déchelette, he owes a debt which even a constant acknowledgment in the text hardly repays. Thanks are also due to the Trustees of the British Museum for kind permission to reproduce their blocks for Figs. 75, 109, 118, 125, 128, 131, 138, 185, 191, and 197, to M. Déchelette for permission to reproduce from his work the vases given in Figs. 224, 226, and to the Committee of the British School at Athens for similar facilities in regard to Plate XIV. (pottery from Crete). Lastly, but by no means least, the author desires to express to Mr. Hallam Murray his deep sense of obligation for the warm interest he has shown in the work throughout and for the pains he has taken to ensure the success of its outward appearance.

London, January 1905.

American Journal of Archaeology. Baltimore and Boston, 1885, etc. In progress. (Amer. Journ. of Arch.)

Annali dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica. Rome, 1829–85. (Ann. dell’ Inst.) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire des Vases, vol. i. (1899).

Annual of the British School at Athens. London, 1894, etc. In progress. (Brit. School Annual.)

Antike Denkmäler, herausgegeben vom kaiserl. deutschen Institut. Berlin, 1887, etc. In progress. A supplementary atlas to the Jahrbuch. (Ant. Denkm.)

Archaeologia, or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity. London, 1770, etc. Issued by the Society of Antiquaries. In progress.

Archaeological Journal, issued by the Royal Archaeological Institute. London, 1845, etc. In progress. Numerous articles on Roman pottery, etc. in Britain. (Arch. Journ.)

Archaeologische Zeitung. Berlin, 1843–85. Vols. vii.–xxv. have the secondary title Denkmäler, Forschungen und Berichte. (Arch. Zeit.) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire, vol. i. (1899).

Archaeologischer Anzeiger. Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress; a supplement bound up with the Jahrbuch (new acquisitions of museums, reports of meetings, etc.). (Arch. Anzeiger.)

Archaeologische-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn. Vienna, 1877–97. Now superseded by Jahreshefte. (Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr.)

Athenische Mittheilungen. Athens, 1876, etc. In progress. Organ of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. (Ath. Mitth.)

Berichte der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Leipzig, 1846, etc. In progress. Important articles by O. Jahn, 1853–67. (Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch.)

Bonner Jahrbücher. Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande. Bonn, 1842, etc. In progress. Important for notices of pottery, etc., found in Germany, and for recent articles by Dragendorff and others on Roman pottery (Arretine and provincial wares, vols. xcvi., ci., cii., ciii.). (Bonner Jahrb.)

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Athens and Paris, 1877, etc. In progress. (Bull. de Corr. Hell.)

Bullettino archeologico Napolitano. Naples, 1842–62. Ser. i. 1842–48. New ser. 1853–62. Re-edited by S. Reinach, 1899. (Bull. Arch. Nap.)

Bullettino dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica. Rome, 1829–85. Chiefly records of discoveries in Italy and elsewhere. (Bull. dell’ Inst.)

Classical Review. London, 1887, etc. In progress. Reviews of archaeological books and records of discoveries.

Comptes-Rendus de la Commission impériale archéologique. Petersburg, 1859–88. Edited by L. Stephani. With folio atlas, re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire, vol. i. (1899). (Stephani, Comptes-Rendus.)

Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική. Athens, 1883, etc. (new series). In progress. Plates of vases, 1883–94, re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire, vol. i. (1899). (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ.)

Gazette archéologique. Paris, 1875–89. (Gaz. Arch.)

Hermes. Zeitschrift für classische Philologie. Berlin, 1866, etc. In progress.

Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen Instituts. Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress. With Arch. Anzeiger (q.v.) as supplement and Antike Denkmäler (q.v.) as atlas. (Jahrbuch.)

Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen Institutes. Vienna, 1898, etc. In progress. (Jahreshefte.)

Journal of Hellenic Studies. London, 1880, etc. In progress. With atlas in 4to of plates to vols. i.–viii., and supplementary papers (No. 4 on Phylakopi). (J.H.S.)

Journal of the British Archaeological Association. London, 1845, etc. In progress. A few articles on Roman pottery in Britain. (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc.)

Monumenti antichi, pubblicati per cura della R. Accad. dei Lincei. Milan, 1890, etc. In progress. (Mon. antichi.)

Monumenti inediti dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica. Rome, 1829–85 (with supplementary volume, 1891). Re-edited (the plates of vases) by S. Reinach in Répertoire, vol. i. (1899). (Mon. dell’ Inst.)

Monuments Grecs, publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des Études grecques. Paris, 1872–98. (Mon. Grecs.)

Monuments Piot. Fondation Eugène Piot. Monuments et mémoires publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions. Paris, 1894, etc. In progress.

Museo italiano di antichità classica. 3 vols. Florence, 1885–90. Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire, vol. i. (1899). (Ath. Mitth.)

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, communicate alla R. Accademia dei Lincei. Rome and Milan, 1876, etc. In progress. Important as a record of recent discoveries in Italy and Sicily. (Notizie degli Scavi.)

Philologus. Zeitschrift für das klassische Alterthum. Göttingen, 1846, etc. In progress. With occasional supplementary volumes.

Revue archéologique. Paris, 1844, etc. In progress (four series, each numbered separately). (Rev. Arch.)

Römische Mittheilungen. Rome, 1886, etc. In progress. Organ of German Institute at Rome. (Röm. Mitth.)

Adamek (L.). Unsignierte Vasen des Amasis. Prague, 1895 (Prager Studien, Heft v.).

Amelung (W.). Personnificierung des Lebens in der Natur in den Vasenbildern der hellenistischen Zeit. Munich, 1888. See also Florence.

Anderson (W. F. C.). See Engelmann and Schreiber.

Antiquités du Bosphore cimmérien. 3 vols. Petersburg, 1854, fol. Vases, etc., found in the Crimea. (Re-edited in 8vo by S. Reinach, 1892.)

Arndt (P.). Studien zur Vasenkunde. Leipzig, 1887. Adopts Brunn’s theory of the late Italian origin of black-figured vases.

Athens (National Museum). Catalogue des Vases peints, by M. Collignon and L. Couve. Paris, 1902. With atlas of photographic plates. The fragments from the Acropolis form the subject of a separate catalogue (in preparation).

Aus der Anomia. Collected articles, some relating to vases. Berlin, 1890.

Baumeister (A.). Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums. 3 vols. Munich, 1884–88. Excellent illustrations of numerous vases accompanying the articles, which are arranged alphabetically in dictionary-form. The article Vasenkunde, by Von Rohden, is useful, but now somewhat out of date. (Baumeister.)

Beger (L.). Thesaurus Brandenburgicus selectus. 3 vols. Köln, 1696, fol. Publishes vases belonging to the Elector of Brandenburg (see Vol. I. p. 16).

Benndorf (O.). Griechische und sicilische Vasenbilder. Berlin, 1869–83, fol. Chiefly funerary vases and later fabrics. (Benndorf, Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb.) See also Wiener Vorlegeblätter.

Berlin. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium, by A. Furtwaengler. Berlin, 1885. 2 vols. With plates of shapes.

Bloch (L.). Die zuschauenden Götter in den rothfig. Vasengemälden. Leipzig, 1888.

Blümner (H.). Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1875–86. (Vol. ii. Arbeit in Thon, for pottery and terracottas; vol. iii. for building construction.) Out of date in some particulars, but still exceedingly useful, and fairly well illustrated. (Blümner, Technologie.)

Boeckh (A.) and others. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin, 1828–77, fol. Vol. iv. contains many vase-inscriptions. (Boeckh, C.I.G.)

Böhlau (J.). Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen. Leipzig, 1898, 4to. Indispensable for the study of Ionic vase-fabrics. (Böhlau, Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop.)

Bologna (Museo Civico). Catalogo dei vasi, by G. Pellegrini. Bologna, 1900. (Plates and cuts.)

Bolte (J.). De monumentis ad Odysseam pertinentibus capita selecta. Berlin, 1882, 8vo.

Bonn. Das akademische Kunstmuseum zu Bonn, by R. Kekulé. Bonn, 1872.

Bonner Studien. Aufsätze aus der Alterthumswissenschaft R. Kekulé gewidmet. Berlin, 1890. Collected papers, including several on Greek vases.

Boston. Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman vases in the Museum of Fine Arts. Boston, 1893. By E. Robinson. Now withdrawn, owing to re-numbering and extensive subsequent accessions, for which see Boston Museum Reports (below).

Boston Museum Reports, 1895, etc. In progress from 1896. Issued annually, with full details of new acquisitions, describing many unique specimens. (Boston Mus. Report.)

Böttiger (C. A.). Griechische Vasengemälde. Weimar and Magdeburg, 1797–1800.

—— Kleine Schriften. 3 vols. Dresden, 1837–39.

Bourguignon Collection. Sale Catalogue, 18 March 1901. Paris, 1901. (Best vases not included.)

Branteghem (A. van). See Froehner.

British Museum. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases. Vol. i., by C. Smith, in preparation. Vol. ii., Black-figured vases, by H. B. Walters (1893). Vol. iii., Red-figured vases, by C. Smith (1896). Vol. iv., Vases of the later period, by H. B. Walters (1896). (Referred to as B. M. Cat. of Vases, or B.M. with number of vase.)

—— Designs on Greek Vases, by A. S. Murray and C. Smith. 1894, fol. (Plates of interiors of R.F. kylikes.)

—— White Athenian Vases, by A. S. Murray and A. H. Smith. 1896, fol.

—— Terracotta Sarcophagi, by A. S. Murray. 1898, fol. (The sarcophagi from Clazomenae, Kameiros, and Cervetri; see Chapters VIII. and XVIII.)

—— Excavations in Cyprus (Enkomi, Curium, Amathus). 1900. By A. S. Murray, H. B. Walters, and A. H. Smith.

Bröndsted (P. O.). A brief description of 32 ancient Greek painted vases, lately found at Vulci by M. Campanari. London, 1832, 8vo.

Brongniart (A.). Traité des Arts Céramiques, ou des Poteries considerées dans leur Histoire, leur Pratique, et leur Théorie. 3rd edn., 1877. 2 vols., with Atlas. (Brongniart, Traité.) See also Sèvres.

Brunn (H.). Geschichte der griechischen Künstler. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1859. The second volume has some account of the vase-painters then known.

—— Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei. Munich, 1871, 4to. Theory of Italian origin of B.F. vases.

—— Neue Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei. Munich, 1886.

—— Griechische Kunstgeschichte. 2 vols. (incomplete). Munich, 1893–97. Deals with some of the earlier fabrics.

—— Kleine Schriften. Vol. i. Leipzig, 1898. In progress. See also Lau.

Bulle (H.). Die Silene in der archaischen Kunst. Munich, 1893.

Burlington Fine Arts Club. Catalogue of objects of Greek Ceramic Art (exhibited in 1888), by W. Froehner. (Mostly vases from Branteghem Collection.)

—— Catalogue of Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art, 1903, by E. Strong and others. A revised édition de luxe (1904) with plates.

Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Museum). A Catalogue of the Greek vases in the Fitzwilliam Museum, by E. A. Gardner. Cambridge, 1897. With plates.

Canessa (C. and E.). Collection d’Antiquités, à l’Hôtel Drouot, 11 May 1903, 4to. Paris, 1903. A sale catalogue of an anonymous collection containing several interesting vases.

Canino (Prince Lucien Bonaparte of). Muséum Étrusque de L. Bonaparte, prince de Canino. Fouilles de 1828 à 1829. Vases peints avec inscriptions. Viterbo, 1829, 4to. With atlas of plates, of which only one part was published.

—— Catalogo di scelte Antichità Etrusche trovate negli Scavi del Pr. di Canino, 1828–29. Viterbo, 1829, 4to.

Caylus (A. C. P. de). Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques, grecques et romaines. 7 vols. Paris, 1752–67, 4to. (Vases given in vols. i. and ii.)

Cesnola (L. P. di). Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs, and temples. (With a chapter on the pottery, by A. S. Murray.) London, 1877, 8vo.

Christie (J.). Disquisitions upon the Painted Vases, and their connection with the Eleusinian Mysteries. London, 1825, 4to. (See Vol. I. p. 21.)

Collignon (M.). See Athens, Rayet.

Commentationes philologae in honorem T. Mommseni. Berlin, 1877, 4to. Several useful papers on vases.

Conze (A.). Melische Thongefässe. Leipzig, 1862. Folio plates.

—— Zur Geschichte der Anfänge griechischer Kunst. Vienna, 1870, 8vo. See also Wiener Vorlegeblätter.

Corey (A. D.). De Amazonum antiquissimis figuris. Berlin, 1891, 8vo.

Couve (L.). See Athens.

Daremberg (C.) and Saglio (E.), and subsequently E. Pottier. Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines. Paris, 1873, etc. In progress (to M in 1904). (Daremberg and Saglio.) Special reference should be made to the articles Figlinum, Forma, Lucerna, and those on vase-shapes. The bibliographies are very exhaustive.

Dennis (G.). The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. 2 vols. London, 1878 (2nd edn.), 8vo. Introductory matter on vases antiquated; useful as record of discoveries, etc. (Dennis, Etruria.)

Des Vergers (N.). Étrurie et les Étrusques. 2 vols. and atlas. Paris, 1862–64. Some fine vases published.

Disney (J.). Museum Disneianum, being a description of a collection of various ancient fictile vases in the possession of J. D. (now at Cambridge). London, 1846, 4to.

Dubois-Maisonneuve (A.). Introduction à l’étude des vases antiques d’argile peints. Paris, 1817, fol. (Dubois-Maisonneuve, Introd.)

Dumont (A.). Inscriptions céramiques de Grèce. Paris, 1872, 8vo. (Inscriptions on handles of wine-amphorae.)

—— Vases peints de la Grèce propre. Paris, 1873. (Reprinted from the Gazette des Beaux Arts.)

—— Les Céramiques de la Grèce propre; histoire de la peinture des vases grecs depuis les origines jusqu'au V. siècle avant Jésus-Christ. Illustrations by J. Chaplain. Revised by E. Pottier. 2 vols. Paris, 1888–90. Vol. i., on earlier vase fabrics (now becoming out of date); plates mostly of later vases. Vol. ii., miscellaneous papers (vases, terracottas, etc.). (Dumont-Pottier.)

Endt (J.). Beiträge zur ionischen Vasenmalerei. Prague, 1899, 8vo. (Endt, Ion. Vasenm.)

Engelmann (R.). Bilder-Atlas zum Homer. Leipzig, 1889. Translated by W. F. C. Anderson: Pictorial Atlas to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, London, 1892. (Engelmann-Anderson.)

—— Archaeologische Studien zu den Tragikern. Berlin, 1900. Eranos Vindobonensis (collected papers). Vienna, 1893, 8vo.

Fea (C.). Storia dei vasi fittili dipinti che si trovano nell’ antica Etruria. Rome, 1832. (Dealing with “Etruscan” theory.)

Festschrift für Johannes Overbeck (collected papers). Leipzig, 1893, 4to.

Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu seinem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet (collected papers). Vienna, 1898, 4to.

Fiorelli (G.). Notizia dei vasi dipinti rinvenuti a Cuma nel 1856. Naples, 1857. Plates reproduced in Bull. Arch. Nap. (q.v.).

Flasch (A.). Angebliche Argonautenbilder. Munich, 1870.

—— Die Polychromie der griechischen Vasenbilder. Würzburg, 1875.

Florence. Führer durch die Antiken in Florenz, by W. Amelung. Munich, 1897.

Förster (P. R.). Hochzeit des Zeus und der Hera, Relief der Schaubert’schen Sammlung in .... Breslau. Breslau, 1867, 4to.

—— Der Raub und die Rückkehr der Persephone. Stuttgart, 1873.

Froehner (W.). Choix de vases grecs inédits de la collection du Prince Napoléon. Paris, 1867, fol.

—— Deux peintures de vases grecs de la nécropole de Kameiros. Paris, 1871, fol.

—— Musées de France. Recueil de monuments antiques. Paris, 1873, fol.

—— Collection de M. Albert B(arre). Paris, 1878, 4to. (Sale catalogue.)

—— Collection Eugène Piot, Antiquités. Paris, 1890. (Sale catalogue.)

—— Collection van Branteghem. Brussels, 1892, fol., with plates. (Sale catalogue.)

—— Collection d’antiquités du Comte Michael Tyszkiewicz. Paris, 1898. (Sale catalogue.)

And see Burlington Fine Arts Club, Marseilles Mus.

Furtwaengler (A.). Eros in der Vasenmalerei. Munich, 1875, 8vo.

—— Collection Sabouroff. 2 vols. (the first giving vases). Berlin, 1883–87, 4to. (Also a German edition; the vases now in Berlin.)

—— Orpheus, Attische Vase aus Gela (in 50tes Winckelmannsfestprogr., 1890).

—— Neuere Fälschungen von Antiken. Munich, 1899, 4to.

—— and Loeschcke (G.). Mykenische Thongefässe. Berlin, 1879, obl. fol.

—— —— Mykenische Vasen: Vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete des Mittelmeeres. Berlin, 1886, 4to, with atlas in fol.

—— and Reichhold (C.). Die griechische Vasenmalerei, Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder. Munich, 1900, etc. Text by A. F. and C. R.; plates (separate) by C. R. And see Berlin, Genick.

Gardner (E. A.). See Cambridge, Naukratis.

Gardner (P.). See Oxford.

Gargiulo (R.). Cenni sulla maniera di rinvenire i vasi fittili Italo-Greci. Naples, 1831; 2nd edn., 1843.

—— Raccolta de Monumenti più interessanti del Real Mus. Borb. Naples, 1825–3-. 2 vols. of plates.

Genick (A.) and Furtwaengler (A.). Griechische Keramik. 4to. Tafeln ausgewählt und aufgenommen von A. G., mit Einleitung und Beschreibung von A. F. 2nd edn. Berlin, 1883, 4to.

Gerhard (E.). Antike Bildwerke. Munich, 1828–44. Text in 8vo and plates in fol.

—— Berlins antike Bildwerke. Berlin, 1836, 8vo.

—— Griechische und etruskische Trinkschalen des königl. Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1840, fol.

—— Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder. 4 vols. Berlin, 1840–58. (Gerhard, A. V.) Re-edited by S. Reinach, Répertoire, vol. ii. (1900).

—— Etruskische und campanische Vasenbilder des königl. Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1843, fol.

—— Apulische Vasenbilder des königl. Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1845, fol.

—— Trinkschalen und Gefässe des königl. Museums zu Berlin und anderer Sammlungen. Berlin, 1848–50, fol.

—— Gesammelte akademische Abhandlungen und kleine Schriften. 2 vols. in 8vo and atlas in 4to. Berlin, 1866–68. (Chiefly papers on mythology, illustrated by vases.)

Girard (P.). La Peinture antique. Paris, 1892. Vases as illustrative of Greek painting.

Gori (A. F.). Museum Etruscum. 3 vols. Florence, 1737–43, fol.

Gsell (S.). Fouilles dans la nécropole de Vulci, exécutées et publiées aux frais de Prince Torlonia. Paris, 1891, 4to.

Hancarville (P. F. Hugues, pseud. D’). Antiquités étrusques, grecques, et romaines, tirées du cabinet de M. Hamilton. 4 vols. folio, 1766–67.

Harrison (Jane E.). Myths of the Odyssey in art and literature. London, 1882, 8vo.

—— Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens (with translation from Pausanias, by M. de G. Verrall). London, 1890. Introduction important for vases relating to Attic cults.

—— Prolegomena to Greek Religion. Cambridge, 1903. Numerous vases interpreted with reference to mythology and religion.

—— and MacColl (D. S.). Greek Vase-paintings. London, 1894.

Harrow School Museum. Catalogue of the classical antiquities from the collection of the late Sir G. Wilkinson, by Cecil Torr. Harrow, 1887, 8vo.

Hartwig (P.). Die griechischen Meisterschalen des strengen rothfigurigen Stils. Stuttgart, 1893, 4to, with atlas in fol. Invaluable for a study of cups of R.F. period.

Helbig (W.). Das homerische Epos, aus den Denkmälern erlautert. 2nd edn. Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. (Vases used to illustrate civilisation of Homeric poems.)

—— Les vases du Dipylon et les naucraries. Paris, 1898, 4to.

—— Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos oder Hippias auf einer schwarzfigurigen Schale. Munich, 1898, 8vo.

—— Les Ἱππεῖς Athéniens. Paris, 1902, 4to. And see Rome.

Hermann (P.). Das Gräberfeld von Marion auf Cypern. Berlin, 1888, 4to. An account of the finds by O. Richter and others at Poli, Cyprus. (48tes Winckelmannsfestprogr.)

Heydemann (H.). Iliupersis auf einer Trinkschale des Brygos. Berlin, 1866, fol.

—— Humoristische Vasenbilder aus Unteritalien. Berlin, 1870. (30tes Winckelmannsfestprogr.)

—— Griechische Vasenbilder. Berlin, 1870, fol. (Chiefly vases at Athens.)

—— Nereiden mit den Waffen des Achill. Halle, 1879, fol.

—— Satyr und Bakchennamen. Halle, 1880. (5tes hallische Festprogr.). Numerous other monographs, chiefly Hallische or Winckelmannsfestprogramme. And see Naples.

Hirschfeld (G.). Athena und Marsyas. Berlin, 1872.

Hoppin (J. C.). Euthymides; a study in Attic vase-painting. Leipzig, 1896.

Huddilston (J. H.). Greek Tragedy in the light of vase-paintings. London and New York, 1892.

—— Lessons from Greek Pottery. London and New York, 1902. With bibliography.

Inghirami (F.). Monimenti etruschi o di etrusco nome. Ser. 5. Vasi fittili. Fiesole, 1824, 4to.

—— Galeria Omerica. 3 vols. Fiesole, 1831–36.

—— Etrusco Museo Chiusino. 2 vols. Fiesole, 1832–34, 4to.

—— Pitture di vasi fittili. 4 vols. Fiesole, 1833–37.

—— Pitture di vase etruschi. 4 vols. Florence, 1852–56. (A second edition of the preceding work.)

Jahn (O.). Telephos und Troilos. Kiel, 1841, 8vo.

—— Ueber Darstellungen griechischer Dichter auf Vasenbildern. Leipzig, 1861. (From Abhandl. des sächs. Gesellsch. viii.)

—— Archaeologische Aufsätze. Greifswald, 1845, 8vo.

—— Archaeologische Beiträge.Berlin, 1847, 8vo.

—— Beschreibung der Vasensammlung Königs Ludwigs in der Pinakothek zu München. Munich, 1854, 8vo. (Vasens. zu München.) The Einleitung (Introduction) gives a résumé of the whole subject.

—— Ueber bemalte Vasen mit Goldschmuck. Leipzig, 1865, 4to.

—— Die Entführung der Europa auf antiken Kunstwerken. Vienna, 1870, 4to.

Jatta (G.). Catalogo del Museo Jatta (at Ruvo). Naples, 1869, 8vo.

Karlsruhe. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung der grossherzoglichen vereinigte Sammlungen zu Karlsruhe, by H. Winnefeld. 1887, 8vo.

Karo (G.). De arte vascularia antiquissima quaestiones. Bonn, 1896, 8vo.

Kekulé (R. von, now Kekule von Stradonitz). See Bonn.

Kirchhoff (A.). Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets. 4th edn. Gütersloh, 1887.

Klein (W.). Euphronios; eine Studie zur Geschichte der griechischen Malerei. 2nd edn. Vienna, 1886, 8vo.

—— Die griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen. 2nd edn. Vienna, 1887, 8vo.

—— Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften. 2nd edn. Vienna, 1898.

Knapp (P.). Nike in der Vasenmalerei. Tübingen, 1876, 8vo.

Kopenhagen. De malede Vaser i Antikkabinettet i Kjöbenhavn. Kopenhagen, 1862. Catalogue of the vases, by S. Birket Smith. (Referred to as Kopenhagen, with number of vase.)

Kramer (G.). Ueber den Styl und die Herkunft der bemalten griechischen Thongefässe. Berlin, 1837.

Krause (J. H.). Angeiologie. Halle, 1854, 8vo. (Study of vase-shapes and their names.)

Kretschmer (P.). Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht. Gütersloh, 1894.

La Borde (A. de). Collection des vases grecs de M. le Comte de Lambert. 2 vols. Paris, 1813–28, fol. The vases are now at Vienna. Re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire, vol. ii. (1900).

La Chausse (M. A. de = Caussius). Romanum Museum. Rome, 1690; 3rd edn., 1746.

Lanzi (L.). Dei vasi antichi dipinti volgarmente chiamati Etruschi. Florence, 1806.

Lau (Th.), Brunn (H.), and Krell (P.). Die griechischen Vasen, ihre Formen und Decorationssystem. Plates and text. From originals at Munich. Leipzig, 1877. (Brunn-Lau, Gr. Vasen.)

Lenormant (C.) and De Witte (J.). Élite des monuments céramographiques. 4 vols. Paris, 1837–61, 4to. (Él. Cér.)

Letronne (J. A.). Observations sur les noms de vases grecs. Paris, 1833.

London. See British Museum.

Longpérier (H. A. Prévost de). Musée Napoléon III. Choix de monuments antiques ... Texte explicatif par A. de L. Paris, unfinished, 1868–74, 4to.

Louvre. See Paris.

Lützow (C. von). Zur Geschichte des Ornaments an den bemalten griechischen Thongefässen. Munich, 1858.

Luynes (H. d’A. de). Description de quelques vases peints, étrusques, italiotes, siciliens et grecs. Paris, 1840, fol. The vases are now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Re-edited by S. Reinach, Répertoire, ii, (1900).

MacColl (D. S.). See Harrison.

Macpherson (D.). Antiquities of Kertch, and researches in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, etc. London, 1857, 4to. (Discoveries in the Crimea.)

Madrid (Museo arquelogico nacional). Catalogo del Museo, by A. G. Gutierrez and J. de D. de la Rada y Delgado. Part i. Madrid, 1883, 8vo.

Marseilles. Catalogue des antiquités grecques et romaines du Musée, by W. Froehner. 1897.

Martha (J.). L'Art Étrusque. Paris, 1889, 4to.

Masner (K.). See Vienna.

Mayer (M.). Die Giganten und Titanen in der antiken Sage und Kunst. Berlin, 1886.

Mélanges Perrot. Paris, 1902, 4to. (Collected papers in honour of Perrot.) (Recueil de mémoires concernant l’archéologie classique, la littérature, et l’histoire anciennes, dedié à Georges Perrot.)

Micali (G.). Storia degli antichi popoli Italiani. 3 tom. Firenze, 1832, 8vo. With atlas entitled Monumenti per servire alla storia, etc. Fol.

——— Monumenti inediti a illustrazione della storia degli antichi popoli italiani. Florence, 1844, 8vo, plates in fol. Vases found in Etruria. (Micali, Mon. Ined.)

Milchhoefer (A.). Die Anfänge der Kunst in Griechenland. Leipzig, 1883, 8vo.

Milliet (P.). Études sur les premières périodes de la céramique grecque. Paris, 1891.

Millin (A. L.). Peintures des vases antiques. 2 vols. Paris, 1808–10, fol. The Introduction of Dubois-Maisonneuve (q.v.) was published uniform with this. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to, Paris, 1891. (Millin-Reinach.)

Millingen (F.). Ancient Unedited Monuments of Grecian Art. 2 vols. in one. London, 1822–26. (Millingen, Anc. Uned. Monum.)

——— Peintures antiques de vases grecs, tirées de diverses collections. Rome, 1813, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to, Paris, 1891. (Millingen-Reinach.)

——— Peintures antiques de vases grecs de la collection de Sir J. Coghill. Rome, 1817, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in Répertoire, ii. (1900).

Morgenthau (J. C.). Ueber den Zusammenhang der Bilder auf griechischen Vasen. I. Die schwarzfigurigen Vasen. Leipzig, 1886. 8vo.

Moses (H.). A collection of antique vases, etc., from various museums and collections. London, 1814.

——— Vases from the collection of Sir Henry Englefield. London, 1848.

Mueller (E.). Drei griechische Vasenbilder. Zurich, 1887. 4to.

Müller (K. O.). Denkmäler der Alten Kunst. 1832–69, obl. fol. 2 vols. (2nd re-edited by F. Wiestler).

—— —— Theil ii. 3rd edn., 1877. Text 4to; plates, 1881, obl. fol.

Munich. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung König Ludwigs in der Pinakothek, by O. Jahn. Munich, 1855. With admirable introduction. See also the guide (Führer) published in 1895. A new catalogue by Furtwaengler said to be in progress.

Murray (A. S.). Handbook of Greek Archaeology. London, 1892. (Chaps. i. and ii. deal with vases.) And see British Museum.

Museo Borbonico. Naples, 1824–57. 16 vols., 4to. Illustrations of the collections in the Naples Museum (Real Museo Borbonico). See also Gargiulo.

Museo Gregoriano. Museo Etrusci ... in Aedibus Vaticanis ... Monumenta. 2 vols. (vases in 2nd). Rome, 1842, fol. (Mus. Greg.)

Myres, J. L. See Nicosia.

Naples. Die Vasensammlungen des Museo Nazionale zu Neapel, by H. Heydemann. Berlin, 1872. See also Gargiulo, Museo Borbonico.

Naukratis, I. and II. Third and Sixth Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund, by W. M. Flinders Petrie, E. A. Gardner, etc. London, 1886–88. Plates of pottery found at Naukratis, discussed in text by C. Smith and E. A. Gardner.

Nicosia (Cyprus Museum). A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, by J. L. Myres and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter. Oxford, 1899.

Ohnefalsch-Richter (M.). Kypros, the Bible, and Homer. 2 vols., text and plates. Berlin, 1893. Also a German edition. Useful for collected examples of Cypriote pottery and terracottas. See also Nicosia.

Overbeck (J.). Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und troischen Heldenkreis. 2 vols., text and atlas. Brunswick and Stuttgart, 1853–57. Lists of vases illustrating Theban and Trojan legends. (Overbeck, Her. Bildw.)

—— Griechische Kunstmythologie. Vols. ii.–iv. only published (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Apollo, and myths connected with them). Leipzig, 1871–89. With atlas in fol. (Overbeck, Kunstmythol.)

Oxford (Ashmolean Museum). Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the Ashmolean Museum, by P. Gardner. Oxford, 1893. With coloured plates.

Panofka (T.). Vasi di premio illustrati. Florence, 1826.

—— Musée Blacas. Paris, 1829, fol. Vases mostly in B.M.

—— Recherches sur les véritables noms des vases grecs. Paris, 1829.

—— Antiques du cabinet du comte Pourtalès-Gorgier. Paris, 1834, 4to. (Panofka, Cab. Pourtalès.)

—— Bilder antiken Lebens. Berlin, 1843, 4to.

—— Griechinnen und Griechen nach Antiken skizzirt. Berlin, 1844, 4to.

—— Der Vasenbilder Panphaios. Berlin, 1848.

—— Von den Namen der Vasenbildner in Beziehung zu ihren bildlichen Darstellungen. Berlin, 1849, 4to.

—— Die griechischen Eigennamen mit καλός in Zusammenhang mit dem Bilderschmuck auf bemalten Gefässen. Berlin, 1850.

(And many other pamphlets with publication of vases, chiefly from the mythological point of view, but now out of date.)

Paris (Louvre). Catalogue des vases antiques de terre cuite, by E. Pottier. Paris, 1896, etc. In progress (two volumes issued, dealing with earlier fabrics). With accompanying atlas of photographic plates (2 vols., down to Euphronios).

Paris (Bibliothèque Nationale). Catalogue des vases dans le Cabinet des Médailles, by A. de Ridder. Paris, 1901–02. 2 vols. With plates.

Passeri (J. B.). Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis. 3 vols. Rome, 1767–75, fol.

Patroni (G.). Ceramica antica nell’ Italia meridionale. Naples, 1897. A useful study of Greek and local fabrics of Southern Italy.

Pellegrini (G.). See Bologna.

Perrot (G.) and Chipiez (C.). Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité. (Text by Perrot, plates by Chipiez.) In progress: 8 vols, published in 1882–1904. Vol. iii., Cypriote pottery; vol. vi., Mycenaean; vol. vii., Dipylon. (Perrot, Hist. de l’Art.)

Petersburg. Vasensammlung der kaiserlichen Ermitage, by L. Stephani. Petersburg, 1869. 2 vols.

Pollak (L.). Zwei Vasen aus der Werkstatt Hierons. Leipzig, 1900.

Pottier (E.). Étude sur les lécythes blancs attiques à représentations funéraires. Paris, 1883, 8vo. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises, No. 30.)

—— La peinture industrielle chez les Grecs. Paris, 1898, 8vo.

—— and Reinach (S.). La Nécropole de Myrina. 2 vols. Paris, 1887.

See also Daremberg, Dumont, Paris.

Raoul-Rochette. Monumens inédits d’antiquité figurée. Paris, 1833, fol.

—— Peintures antiques inédites. Paris, 1836, 4to.

Ravestein (E. de M. de). Musée de Ravestein; Catalogue descriptif. 2 vols. Liège, 1871–72, 8vo.

Rayet (O.) and Collignon (M.). Histoire de la céramique grecque. Paris, 1888. (More or less popular, and becoming out of date; well illustrated.) (Rayet and Collignon.)

Reinach (S.). Chroniques d’Orient. Paris, 1891–96. 2 vols. Reprinted from the Revue Archéol. (1883–95). Notes of discoveries, etc.

—— Répertoire des Vases Peints. Paris, 1899–1900. 2 vols. An invaluable re-editing, with outline reductions of the plates, of many publications of vases, with bibliographical notes and explanations appended. See Laborde, de Luynes, Tischbein, etc., and list of periodicals. (Referred to as Reinach, with number of volume and page. In Chapters XII.-XV. the references are all to this publication in preference to the original works.)

See also Millin, Millingen, Ant. du Bosph. Cimm., and Pottier.

Reisch (E.). See Rome.

Ridder (A. de). See Paris.

Riegl (A.). Stilfragen. Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik. Berlin, 1893, 8vo. A valuable study of early vegetable ornament on vases.

Robert (C.). Thanatos. Berlin, 1879, 4to. (39tes Winckelmannsfestprogr.)

—— Bild und Lied. Berlin, 1881, 8vo. On the relation of vase-paintings to the Homeric poems.

—— Archaeologische Märchen aus alter und neuer Zeit. Berlin, 1886, 8vo. Papers on various subjects, more or less controversial.

—— Homerische Becher. (50tes Winckelmannsfestprogr.) Berlin, 1890.

Robert (C). Scenen der Ilias und Aithiopis auf einer Vase der Sammlung des Grafen M. Tyszkiewicz. Halle, 1891, fol. (15tes Hall. Winckelmannsprogr.)

—— Die Nekyiades Polygnot. Halle, 1892. (16tes Hallisches Festprog.; a restoration of the painting on the basis of vases.)

—— Die Iliupersis des Polygnot. Halle, 1893. (17tes Hallisches Festprogr.; dealing similarly with that painting.)

—— Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile und weiteres über Polygnot. (18tes Hallisches Festprogr.) Halle, 1895.

Roberts (E. S.). An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part i. The archaic inscriptions and the Greek alphabet. Cambridge, 1887, 8vo.

Robinson (E.). See Boston.

Roehl (H.). Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae praeter Atticas in Attica repertas. Berlin, 1882, fol. (Roehl, I.G.A.)

Rohden (H. von). See Baumeister.

Rome (Vatican, Museo Gregoriano). Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen in Rom, by W. Helbig and E. Reisch. 2nd edn., 1899. 2 vols. In vol. ii. is given a full description of the best vases (about 250) in this collection; they are quoted as Helbig 1, 2, 3, etc., according to the numbers of the book. See also Museo Gregoriano.

Roscher (W. H.). Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Leipzig, 1884, etc. In progress (down to P in 1904). Many vases published in the later parts.

Ross (L.). Reisen auf die griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres. Halle, 1840–52, 4 vols., 8vo.

—— Archaeologische Aufsätze. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1855–61. With plates in fol.

Roulez (J.). Choix de vases peints du Musée d’antiquités de Leyde. Gand, 1854. Re-edited by S. Reinach, Répertoire, vol. ii., 1900.

Ruvo (Museo Jatta). See Jatta.

Salzmann (A). Nécropole de Camiros. Paris, 1866–75, fol. Plates only.

Schliemann (H.). See Vol. I. p. 269.

Schneider (A.). Der troische Sagenkreis in der älteren griechischen Kunst. Leipzig, 1886.

Schneider (F. J.). Die zwölf Kämpfe des Herakles in der älteren griechischen Kunst. Leipzig, 1888.

Schneider (R.). Die Geburt der Athena. Vienna, 1880, 8vo.

Schöne (R.). Le antichità del Museo Bocchi di Adria. Rome, 1878, 4to.

Schreiber (Th.) and Anderson (W. C. F.). Atlas of Classical Antiquities. London, 1895, obl. 8vo. (Schreiber-Anderson.)

Schulz (H. W.). Die Amazonenvase von Ruvo, erklärt und in Kunsthistorischer Beziehung betrachtet. Leipzig, 1851, fol. See Reinach, Répertoire, vol. ii.

Sèvres Museum. Description méthodique du Musée Céramique de Sèvres, by A. Brongniart and D. Riocreux. Paris, 1845. 2 vols., with atlas of plates.

Sittl (K.). Die Phineusschale und ähnliche Vasen mit bemalten Flachreliefs. Würzburg, 1892.

Smith (A. H.). See British Museum.

Smith (Cecil). Catalogue of the Forman Collection of Antiquities (illustrated). London, 1899. And see British Museum.

Smith (S. B.). See Kopenhagen.

Stackelberg (O. M. von). Die Gräber der Hellenen. Berlin, 1836, fol.

Stephani (L.). See Petersburg and Compte-Rendu.

Strena Helbigiana. (Collected papers in honour of W. Helbig.) Leipzig, 1900, 8vo.

Studniczka (F.). Kyrene, eine altgriechische Göttin. Leipzig, 1890.

Tanis II. Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund (Tell-Nebesheh and Defenneh). London, 1887. By W. M. F. Petrie and F. L. Griffith, with notes on the Daphnae pottery by A. S. Murray.

Thiersch (F.). Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Sammlung des Königs Ludwigs von Bayern. Munich, 1849. From Abhandl. d. k. bayer. Akad., Philosoph.-philol. Classe, vol iv.

Thiersch (H.). Tyrrhenische Amphoren. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der altattischen Vasenmalerei. Leipzig, 1899.

Tischbein (W.). Collection of engravings from ancient vases (the second Hamilton Collection; see Vol. I. p. 17). 4 vols. Naples, 1791–95, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach, Répertoire, vol. ii., 1900. About 100 plates were engraved for a fifth volume, never published.

Treu (W.). Griechische Thongefässe in Statuetten- und Büstenformen. Berlin, 1875, 4to. (35tes Winckelmannsfestprogr.)

Tyszkiewicz (Count M.). See Froehner.

Urlichs (C. L. von). Der Vasenmaler Brygos und die ruland’sche Münzsammlung. Würzburg, 1875, fol.

—— Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte. Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. See also Würzburg.

Ussing (J.). De nominibus vasorum graecorum disputatio. Copenhagen, 1844.

Vienna. Die Sammlung antiker Vasen und Terracotten im k. k. Oesterreichischen Museum für Kunst und Industrie, by K. Masner. Vienna, 1892. With plates.

Vogel (K. J.). Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in griechischen Vasengemälden. Leipzig, 1886.

Vorlegeblätter für archäologische Übungen. Vienna, 1869–91, fol. Plates without text. Series i.–viii. 1869–75, ed. A. Conze (chiefly R.F. kylikes, by Euphronios, Hieron, Duris). Series A-E, 1879–86, ed. O. Benndorf (chiefly R.F. kylikes). Third series, 1888–91 (3 vols.), ed. Benndorf and others (chiefly signed B.F. vases). (Wiener Vorl.)

Wallis (H.). Pictures from Greek Vases. The White Athenian lekythi. London, 1896.

Walters (H. B.). See British Museum.

Watzinger (C). De vasculis pictis tarentinis capita selecta. Darmstadt, 1899, 8vo.

Welcker (F. G.). Alte Denkmäler. 5 vols, and atlas. Göttingen, 1849–64.

Wernicke (K.). Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsnamen. Berlin, 1890.

—— and Graef (B.). Denkmäler der antiken Kunst. Leipzig, 1899, etc. In progress. A new edition of Müller and Wieseler’s well-known work. Text and atlas.

Westropp (H. M.). Epochs of painted vases, an introduction to their study. London, 1856.

Wilisch (E. G.). Die altkorinthische Thonindustrie. Leipzig, 1892.

Winkler (A.). De inferorum in vasis Italiae inferioris repraesentationibus. Breslau, 1888, 8vo.

Winnefeld (H.). See Karlsruhe.

Winter (F.). Die jüngeren attischen Vasen und ihr Verhaltniss zur grossen Kunst. Berlin, 1885.

Witte (J. J. A. M. de, Baron). Description des antiquités et objects d’art qui composent le cabinet de feu M. E. Durand. Paris, 1836, 8vo.

—— Description d’une collection de vases peints et bronzes antiques provenant des fouilles de l’Étrurie. Paris, 1837, 8vo. [Another edition, 1857.]

—— Noms des fabricants et dessinateurs de vases peints. Paris, 1848, 8vo.

—— Études sur les vases peints. Paris, 1865, 8vo. (Extract from the Gazette des Beaux-Arts.)

—— Description des collections d’antiquités conservées à l’Hôtel Lambert (the Czartoryski collection). Paris, 1886, 4to. (Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert.) See also Lenormant.

Würzburg. Verzeichniss der Antikensammlung der Universität Würzburg, by C. L. von Urlichs. 1865–72, 8vo.

Zannoni (A.). Gli Scavi della Certosa di Bologna. 2 vols., text and plates. Bologna, 1876, fol. (An account of excavations at Bologna; many illustrations of tombs and Greek vases.)

Athens. See Martha.

Berlin Museum. Ausgewählte griechische Terrakotten im Antiquarium des königliches Museum zu Berlin, herausgegeben von der Generalverwaltung. Berlin, 1903. See also Panofka.

Blümner (H.). Technologie und Terminologie. See above, p.xxi. Vol. ii. deals with method of working in clay (Thonplastik, p. 113 ff.).

Borrmann (R.). Die Keramik in der Baukunst. Durm’s Handbuch der Architektur, part i. vol. 4. Stuttgart, 1897. On the use of terracotta in classical architecture. See also Dörpfeld.

British Museum. Terracotta Sarcophagi, by A. S. Murray. London, 1898. See above, p. xxii.

—— Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum, by H. B. Walters. London, 1903. See also Combe.

Campana (G. P.). Antiche opere in plastica. Rome, 1842–52, fol. Text incomplete; plates of architectural terracottas of the Roman period.

Combe (Taylor). A description of the collection of ancient Terracottas in the British Museum. London, 1810. Describes the Towneley figures and mural reliefs.

Daremberg (C.), Saglio (E.), and Pottier (E.). Dictionnaire des Antiquités. See above, p. xxiii. The article Figlinum in vol. ii. will be found useful.

Dörpfeld (W.), Graeber (F.), Borrmann (R.), and Siebold (K.). Über die Verwendung von Terrakotten am Geison und Dache in griechischen Bauwerke, (41tes Winckelmannsfestprogr.) Berlin, 1881. (On terracotta in architecture.)

Furtwaengler (A.). Collection Sabouroff. See above, p. xxiv. Vol. ii. contains plates of Tanagra figures, with useful text to each.

Heuzey (L.). Les Figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée du Louvre. Paris, 1883, 4to. Plates, with brief text.

—— Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée du Louvre. Vol. i. Paris, 1891. Deals with archaic terracottas (Rhodes and Cyprus). No more published.

Huish (M. B.). Greek Terracotta Statuettes, their origin, evolution, and uses. London, 1900. (The plates include some doubtful specimens.)

Hutton (Miss C.A.). Greek Terracotta Statuettes. (Portfolio monograph, No. 49.) London, 1899. An excellent résumé of the subject, with good illustrations.

Kekulé (R., now Kekule von Stradonitz). Griechische Thonfiguren aus Tanagra. Stuttgart, 1878, fol.

—— Die antiken Terracotten, im Auftrag des archäologischen Institutes des deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben von R. K. Stuttgart, 1880, etc., fol. In progress.

Vol. i. Terracotten von Pompeii, by A. von Rohden. 1880. Chiefly architectural.

Vol. ii. Terracotten von Sicilien, by R. Kekulé. 1884.

Vol. iii. Typen der griechischen Terrakotten, by F. Winter. 1903. In two parts. A Corpus of all known types of terracotta statuettes, with numerous illustrations and other useful information.

Martha (J.). Catalogue des Figurines en terre cuite du Musée de la Société Archéologique d’Athènes. Paris, 1880, 8vo. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises, Fasc. 16.)

Minervini (G.). Terre cotte del Museo Campano. Vol. i. Naples, 1880. Illustrations of architectural terracottas.

Panofka (T.). Terracotten des königlichen Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1842, 4to.

Paris (P.). Élatée, la ville, le Temple d’Athéna Cranaia. Paris, 1892. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises, Fasc. 60.) Contains some useful information on the subject.

Pottier (E.). Les Statuettes de Terre Cuite dans l’Antiquité. Paris, 1890. (Bibliothèque des Merveilles.)

Pottier (E.) and Reinach (S.). La Nécropole de Myrina. 2 vols., text and plates. Paris, 1887.

Rohden (H. von). See Kekulé.

Schöne (R.). Griechische Reliefs aus athenischen Sammlungen, herausgegeben von R. S. Leipzig, 1872, fol. Illustration and discussion of the “Melian” reliefs (see pls. 30–34).

Winter (F.). See Kekulé.

Artis (E. T.). The Durobrivae of Antoninus identified and illustrated. London, 1828, fol. Plates only; for accompanying text (by C. Roach-Smith) see Journ. of Brit. Arch. Assoc. i. p. 1 ff. Deals with pottery and kilns of Castor and neighbourhood.

Blanchet (A.). Mélanges d’Archéologie gallo-romaine, ii. Paris, 1902, 8vo. (Lists of potteries in Gaul on p. 90 ff.)

Blümner (H.). Technologie und Terminologie, etc. See above, p. xxi.

Brongniart (A.). Traité de la Céramique. See above, p. xxii.

Buckman (J.) and Newmarch (C. H.). Illustrations of the remains of Roman Art in Cirencester, the ancient Corinium. London and Cirencester, 1850, 4to. (Now somewhat out of date.)

Caumont (A. de). Cours d’antiquités monumentales; histoire de l’art dans l’Ouest de la France. 6 vols. Paris and Caen, 1830–41, 8vo, with atlas in oblong 4to.

Choisy (A.). L'Art de Bâtir chez les Romains. Paris, 1873, 4to. (For the use of bricks and tiles.)

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863, etc., fol. In progress. The portions of the published volumes giving the inscriptions on vases, tiles, and lamps, under the heading Instrumentum Domesticum, are invaluable, especially vol. xv. (by H. Dressel) relating to Rome. (C.I.L.)

Déchelette (J.). Les Vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine (Narbonnaise, Aquitaine, et Lyonnaise). 2 vols. Paris, 1904, 4to. An invaluable survey of the pottery of Central and Southern Gaul, with much new material. (Déchelette.)

Fabroni (A.). Storia degli antichi vasi fittili aretini. Arezzo, 1841, 8vo. (On the Arretine wares.)

Guildhall Museum. See London.

Hölder (O.). Formen der römische Thongefässe, diesseits und jenseits der Alpen. Stuttgart, 1897, 8vo.

Koenen (K.). Gefässkunde der vorrömischen, römischen, und frankischen Zeit in den Rheinlanden. Bonn, 1895, 8vo.

London (Guildhall Museum). Catalogue of the Collection of London Antiquities in the Guildhall Museum. London, 1903, 8vo.

—— (Museum of Practical Geology). Handbook to the collection of British Pottery and Porcelain in the Museum. London, 1893, 8vo.

Marini (G.). Iscrizioni antiche doliari, edited by G. B. de Rossi and H. Dressel. Rome, 1884, 4to.

Marquardt (J.). Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer (with T. Mommsen). Bd. vii., Privatalterthümer. Leipzig, 1879–82, 8vo. See p. 616 ff. for Roman pottery.

Mazard (H. A.). De la connaissance par les anciens des glaçures plombifères. Paris, 1879, 8vo. (On the enamelled Roman wares described in Vol. I. p. 129.)

Middleton (J. H.). The Remains of Ancient Rome. 2 vols. London, 1892, 8vo. (On the use of bricks and tiles at Rome.)

Plicque (A. E.). Étude de Céramique arverno-romaine. Caen, 1887, 8vo. (On the potteries of Lezoux.)

Roach-Smith (C). Collectanea Antiqua; etchings and notices of ancient remains, etc. 7 vols. London, 1848–80, 8vo. Useful for records of discoveries of Roman remains in Gaul and Britain.

—— Illustrations of Roman London. London, 1859, 4to.

Steiner (J. W. C). Codex Inscriptionum Romanarum Danubii et Rheni. 4 vols. Darmstadt, etc., 1851–61, 8vo. Contains many inscriptions on pottery and tiles not as yet published in the C.I.L.

Victoria County History of England, ed. by W. Page, etc. In progress. London, 1900, etc. Articles in the first volume of each separate county history, by F. Haverfield, dealing with all known Roman remains. Those of Northants and Hampshire are especially useful and complete.

Wright (T.). The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon. Fourth edn., 1885. Still useful as a summary of Roman Britain, though out of date and inaccurate in many particulars.

Reference should also be made to the Bonner Jahrbücher (see above, p. xix), especially to the treatise by Dragendorff in vol. xcvi., and for German pottery to Von Hefner’s article in Oberbayrische Archiv für vaterlandische Geschichte, xxii. (1863), p. 1 ff.

B.F. = Black-figured vases.

R.F. = Red-figured vases.

B.M. = British Museum.

Reinach = Reinach’s Répertoire des Vases (see Bibliography).

In the cases where particular vases are cited, as in Chapters XII.-XV., the name of the museum is given with the catalogue number attached, as B.M. B 1; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2000, etc. The vases in the Vatican Museum at Rome are quoted as Helbig, 1, 2, 3, etc. (see Bibliography, under Rome).

All other abbreviations will be found in the Bibliography.

Importance of study of ancient monuments—Value of pottery as evidence of early civilisation—Invention of the art—Use of brick in Babylonia—The potter’s wheel—Enamel and glazes—Earliest Greek pottery—Use of study of vases—Ethnological, historical, mythological, and artistic aspects—Earliest writings on the subject—The “Etruscan” theory—History of the study of Greek vases—Artistic, epexegetic, and historical methods—The vase-collections of Europe and their history—List of existing collections.

The present age is above all an age of Discovery. The thirst for knowledge manifests itself in all directions—theological, scientific, geographical, historical, and antiquarian. The handiwork of Nature and of Man alike are called upon to yield up their secrets to satisfy the universal demand which has arisen from the spread of education and the ever-increasing desire for culture which is one of the characteristics of the present day. And though, perhaps, the science of Archaeology does not command as many adherents as other branches of learning, there is still a very general desire to enquire into the records of the past, to learn what we can of the methods of our forefathers, and to trace the influence of their writings or other evidences of their existence on succeeding ages.

To many of us what is known as a classical education seems perhaps in these utilitarian times somewhat antiquated and unnecessary, but at the same time “the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome” have not lost their interest for us, and can awaken responsive chords in most of our hearts. Nor can we ever be quite forgetful of the debt that we owe to those nations in almost every branch of human learning and industry. To take the most patent instance of all, that of our language, it is not too much to say that nearly every word is either directly derived from a classical source or can be shown to have etymological affinities with either of the two ancient tongues. Nor is it necessary to pursue illustrations further. We need only point to the evidences of classical influence on modern literature, modern philosophy, and modern political and social institutions, to indicate how our civilisation is permeated and saturated with the results of ancient ideas and thoughts. The man of science has recourse to Greek or Latin for his nomenclature; the scholar employs Latin as the most appropriate vehicle for criticism; and modern architecture was for a long time only a revival (whether successful or not) of the principles and achievements of the classical genius.

Now, those who would pursue the study of a nation’s history cannot be content with the mere perusal of such literary records as it may have left behind. It needs brief consideration to realise that this leaves us equipped with very little real knowledge of an ancient race, inasmuch as the range of literature is necessarily limited, and deals with only a few sides of the national character: its military history, its political constitution, or its intellectual and philosophical bent—in short, its external and public life alone. He who would thoroughly investigate the history of a nation instinctively desires something more; he will seek to gain a comprehensive acquaintance with its social life, its religious beliefs, its artistic and intellectual attainments, and generally to estimate the extent of its culture and civilisation. But to do this it is necessary not only to be thoroughly conversant with its literary and historical records, but to turn attention also to its monuments. It need hardly be said that the word “monument” is here used in the quasi-technical sense current among archaeologists (witness the German use of the word Denkmäler), and that it must bear here a much wider signification than is generally accorded to it nowadays. It may, in fact, be applied to any object which has come down to us as a memorial and evidence of a nation’s productive capacity or as an illustration of its social or political life. The student of antiquity can adopt no better motto than the familiar line of Terence:

For the very humblest product of the human brain or hand, a potsherd or a few letters scratched on a stone, may throw the most instructive light on the history of a race.

In no instance is this better seen than in the case of Assyria, where almost all that we know of that great and wonderful people is derived from the cuneiform inscriptions scratched on tablets of baked clay. Or, again, we may cite the stone and bronze implements of the primitive peoples of Europe as another instance where “the weak and base things of the world and the things that are despised” have thrown floods of light on the condition of things in a period about which we should have been completely in the dark so long as we looked only to literary records for our information. Nothing is so common that it may be overlooked, and we may learn more from a humble implement in daily use than from the finest product of a poetic or artistic intellect, if we are really desirous of obtaining an intimate acquaintance with the domestic life of a people.

Among the simplest yet most necessary adjuncts of a developing civilisation Pottery may be recognised as one of the most universal. The very earliest and rudest remains of any people generally take the form of coarse and common pots, in which they cooked their food or consumed their beverages. And the fact that such vast quantities of pottery from all ancient civilisations have been preserved to us is due partly to its comparatively imperishable nature, partly to the absence of any intrinsic value which saved it from falling a prey to the ravages of fire, human greed, or other causes which have destroyed more precious monuments, such as gold ornaments, paintings, and statues of marble or bronze. Moreover, it is always in the pottery that we perceive the first indications of whatever artistic instinct a race possesses, clay being a material so easy to decorate and so readily lending itself to plastic treatment for the creation of new forms or development from simple to elaborate shapes.

To trace the history of the art of working in clay, from its rise amongst the oldest nations of antiquity to the period of the decline of the Roman Empire, is the object of the present work. The subject resolves itself into two great divisions, which have engaged the attention of two distinct classes of enquirers: namely, the technical or practical part, comprising all the details of material, manipulation, and processes; and, secondly, the historical portion, which embraces not only the history of the art itself, and the application of ancient literature to its elucidation, but also an account of the light thrown by monuments in clay on the history of mankind. Such an investigation is therefore neither trifling in character nor deficient in valuable results.

It is impossible to determine when the manufacture of pottery was invented. Clay is a material so generally diffused, and its plastic nature is so easily discovered, that the art of working it does not exceed the intelligence of the rudest savage. Even the most primitive graves of Europe and Western Asia contain specimens of pottery, rude and elementary indeed, but in sufficient quantities to show that it was at all times reckoned among the indispensable adjuncts of daily life.

It is said that the very earliest specimens of pottery, hand-made and almost shapeless, have been discovered in the cave-dwellings of Palaeolithic Man, such as the Höhlefels cave near Ulm, and that of Nabrigas, near Toulouse; and pottery has also been found in the “kitchen-middens” of Denmark, which belong to this period. Such relics are, however, so rude and fragmentary, and so much doubt has been cast on the circumstances of their discovery, that it is better to be content with the evidence afforded by the Neolithic Age, of which perhaps the best authenticated is the predynastic pottery of Egypt.^[1]

Abundant specimens of pottery have been found in long barrows in all parts of Western Europe; these are supposed to be the burial-places of the early dolichocephalic races, now represented by the Finns and Lapps, which preceded the Aryan immigration. The chief characteristic of this pottery is the almost entire absence of ornamentation. Neolithic man appears to have been far less endowed with the artistic instinct than his palaeolithic predecessor. Where ornament does occur, it appears to have a quite fortuitous origin: for instance, a kind of rope-pattern that appears on the earliest pottery of Britain and Germany, and also in America, owes its origin to the practice of moulding the clay in a kind of basket of bark or thread. It is also possible that cords of some kind were used for carrying the pots; and this reminds us of another characteristic of the earliest pottery, which, indeed, lasts down to the Bronze Age—namely, the absence of handles.

The baking of clay, so as to produce an indestructible and tenacious substance, was probably also the result of accident rather than design. This was pointed out as long ago as the middle of the eighteenth century by M. Goguet. In most countries the condition of the atmosphere precludes the survival of sun-dried clay for any length of time; moreover, such a material was more suitable for architecture (as we shall see later) than for vessels destined to hold liquids. Thus it is that Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia alone have transmitted to posterity the early efforts of workers in sun-dried clay.

To return to the new invention. The savage conceivably found that the calabash or gourd in which he boiled the water for his simple culinary needs was liable to be damaged by the action of fire; and it required no very advanced mental process to smear the exterior of the vessel with some such substance as clay in order to protect it. As he found that the surface of the clay was thereby rendered hard and impervious, his next step would naturally be to dispense with the calabash and mould the clay into a similar form. These two simple qualities of clay, its plastic nature and its susceptibility to the action of fire, are the two elements which form the basis of the whole development of the potter’s art.

From the necessity for symmetrical buildings arose the invention of the brick, which must have superseded the rude plastering of the hut with clay, to protect it against the sun or storm. In the history of the Semitic nations the brick appears among the earliest inventions, and its use can be traced with various modifications, from the building of the Tower of Babel to the present day. It is essential that bricks should be symmetrical, and their form is generally rectangular. Their geometrical shape affords us a clue to ancient units of measurement, and the various inscriptions with which they have been stamped have elevated them to the dignity of historical monuments. Thus the bricks of Egypt not only afford testimony, by their composition of straw and clay, that the writer of Exodus was acquainted with that country, but also, by the hieroglyphs impressed upon them, transmit the names of a series of kings, and testify to the existence of edifices, all knowledge of which, except for these relics, would have utterly perished. Those of Assyria and Babylon, in addition to the same information, have, by their cuneiform inscriptions, which mention the locality of the edifices for which they were made, afforded the means of tracing the sites of ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria with an accuracy unattainable by any other means. The Roman bricks have also borne their testimony to history. A large number of them present a series of the names of consuls of imperial Rome; while others show that the proud nobility of the eternal city partly derived their revenues from the kilns of their Campanian and Sabine estates.

From the next step in the progress of the manufacture—namely, that of modelling in clay the forms of the physical world—arose the plastic art. Delicate as is the touch of the finger, which the clay seems to obey, almost as if comprehending the intention of the potter’s mind, yet certain forms and ornaments which require a finer point than the nail gave rise to the use of pieces of horn, wood, and metal, and thus contributed to the invention of tools. But modelling in clay was soon superseded by sculpture in stone and metal, and at length only answered two subordinate ends: that of enabling the sculptor to elaborate his first conceptions in a material which could be modified at will; and that of readily producing works of a small and inexpensive form, for some transitory purpose. The invention of the mould carried this last application to perfection, and the terracottas of antiquity were as numerous and as cheap as the plaster casts now sold by itinerants.

The materials used for writing have varied in different ages and nations. Stone and bronze, linen and papyrus, wax and parchment, have all been used. But the Assyrians and Babylonians employed for their public archives, their astronomical computations, their religious dedications, their historical annals, and even for title-deeds and bills of exchange, tablets, cylinders, and hexagonal prisms of terracotta. Some of these cylinders, still extant, contain the history of the Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-pileser and Assurbanipal, and the campaign of Sennacherib against the kingdom of Judah; and others, excavated from the Birs Nimrud, give a detailed account of the dedication of the great temple by Nebuchadnezzar to the seven planets. To this indestructible material, and to the happy idea of employing it in this manner, the present age is indebted for a detailed history of the Assyrian monarchy; whilst the decades of Livy, the plays of Menander, and the lays of Anakreon, confided to a more perishable material, have either wholly or partly disappeared.

The application of clay to the making of vases was made effective by the invention of the potter’s wheel. Before the introduction of the wheel only vessels fashioned by the hand, and of rude unsymmetrical shape, could have been made. But the application of a circular table or lathe, laid horizontally and revolving on a central pivot, on which the clay was placed, and to which it adhered, was in its day a truly wonderful advance. As the wheel spun round, all combinations of oval, spherical, and cylindrical forms could be produced, and the vases not only became symmetrical in their proportions, but truthfully reproduced the potter’s conception. The invention of the wheel has been ascribed to all the great nations of antiquity. It is represented in full activity in the Egyptian sculptures; it is mentioned in the Scriptures, and was certainly in use at an early period in Assyria. The Greeks and Romans attributed it to a Scythian philosopher, and to the states of Athens, Corinth, and Sikyon, the first two of which were great rivals in the ceramic art. But, as will be explained hereafter, it was introduced at a very early stage in the history of civilisation upon Greek soil (see p. 206).

Although none of the very ancient kilns have survived the destructive influence of time, yet among all the great nations baked earthenware is of the highest antiquity. In Egypt, in the tombs of the first dynasties, vases and other remains of baked earthenware are abundantly found; and in Assyria and Babylon even the oldest bricks and tablets have passed through the furnace. The oldest remains of Hellenic pottery in all cases owe their preservation to their having been subjected to the action of fire. To this process, as to the consummation of the art, the other processes of preparing, levigating, kneading, drying, and moulding the clay were necessarily ancillary.

The desire of rendering terracotta less porous, and of producing vases capable of retaining liquids, gave rise to the covering of it with a vitreous enamel or glaze. The invention of glass was attributed by the ancients to the Phoenicians; but opaque glass or enamels, as old as the Eighteenth Dynasty, and enamelled objects as early as the Fourth, have been found in Egypt. The employment of copper to produce a brilliant blue-coloured enamel was very early both in Babylonia and Assyria; but the use of tin for a white enamel, as discovered in the enamelled bricks and vases of Babylonia and Assyria, anticipated by many centuries the rediscovery of that process in Europe in the fifteenth century, and shows the early application of metallic oxides. This invention apparently remained for many centuries a secret among the Eastern nations only, enamelled terracotta and glass forming articles of commercial export from Egypt and Phoenicia to every part of the Mediterranean. Among the Egyptians and Assyrians enamelling was used more frequently than glazing; hence they used a kind of faience consisting of a loose frit or body, to which an enamel adheres after only a slight fusion. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the art of enamelling terracotta disappeared except amongst the Arab and Moorish races, who had retained a traditionary knowledge of the process. The application of a transparent vitreous coating, or glaze, to the entire surface, like the varnish of a picture, is also to be referred to a high antiquity. Originally intended to improve the utility of the vase, it was used by Greeks and Romans with a keen sense of the decorative effects that could be derived from its use.

In Greece, although nearly all traces of the Stone Age are wanting, and little pottery has been found which can be referred to that period,^[2] yet the earliest existing remains of civilisation are, as we shall see later, in the form of pottery; and Greece is no exception to the general rule. But the important difference between the pottery of Asia and Egypt and that of Greece is that only in the latter was there any development due to artistic feeling. Of the Greek it may be said, as of the medieval craftsman, nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. In the commonest vessel or implement in every-day use we see almost from the first the workings of this artistic instinct, tending to exalt any and every object above the mere level of utilitarianism, and to make it, in addition to its primary purpose of usefulness, “a thing of beauty and a joy for ever.” Feeble and rude it may be at first, and hampered by imperfect knowledge of technique or capacity for expression—but still the instinct is there.

There is indeed at first but little in Greek pottery to differentiate it from that of other nations possessing any decorative instincts. As M. Pottier^[3] has pointed out, there is a universal law which manifests itself in nascent art all over the world: “More than once men have remarked the extraordinary resemblance which the linear decoration of Peruvian, Mexican, and Kabyle vases bears to the ornamentation of the most ancient Greek pottery. There is no possibility of contact between these different peoples, separated by enormous distances of time and space. If they have this common resemblance at the outset of their artistic evolution, it is because all must pass through a certain phase, resulting in some measure from the structure of the human brain. Even so at the present day there are savages in Polynesia who, by means of a point applied to the soft clay, produce patterns exactly similar to those found on Greek or Cypriote pottery of fifteen or twenty centuries before our era.” Or to take a later stage of development, the compositions of vase-paintings of the sixth century B.C. are governed by the same immutable laws of convention and principles of symmetry as the carvings of the Middle Ages. Instances might be multiplied ad infinitum; but the principle is universal.

A question that may be well asked by any visitor to a great museum is, What is the use of the study of Greek vases? The answer is, that no remains of Greek art have come down to us in such large quantities, except perhaps coins, and certainly none cover so long a period. Portraying as they do both the objective and subjective side of Greek life, they form perhaps the best introduction to the study of Greek archaeology in general. In no other class of monuments are the daily life and religious beliefs of the Greeks so vividly presented as in the painted vases. Their value to the modern student may be treated under four separate heads: (1) Ethnological; (2) Historical; (3) Mythological; (4) Artistic.

(1) Ethnological.—On this subject we have already touched in this chapter, pointing out that pottery has an exceptional importance, not only as one of the most universal and instructive illustrations of the early developments of a single nation, but for purposes of comparison of one nation with another. Sculpture, painting, architecture, and other arts have a more limited range, and tell us nothing of domestic life or social progress; but the common utensils of daily life, like flint implements or bronze weapons, are of incalculable value for the light that they throw on the subject, and the evidence which, in the absence of historical data, they afford. We have also called attention to the prevalence of universal laws acting on the development of the early art of all nations.

Thus in dealing with the early history of Greece, before historical records are available, we are enabled by the pottery-finds to trace the extent of the Mycenaean civilisation, from Egypt to the Western Mediterranean; we may see Homeric customs reflected in the vases of the Geometrical period from Athens; and in the decorative patterns of the succeeding period we may see signs of close intercourse with Assyria and a knowledge of Oriental textile fabrics. The finds in Rhodes, Cyprus, and the islands off Asia Minor also testify to a continued and extensive intercourse between the mainland of Greece and the Eastern Aegean.

(2) Historical.—The historical value of Greek vases rests partly on the external, partly on the internal evidence that they afford. In the former aspect those of historic times, like those of the primitive age, confirm, if they do not actually supplement, literary records of Greek history. Thus the numerous importations of vases from Corinth to Sicily and Italy in the seventh century B.C. show the maritime importance of that city and the extent of her commercial relations; while in the succeeding century the commercial rivalry between her and Athens is indicated by the appearance of large numbers of Attic fabrics in the tombs of Italy along with the Corinthian; the final supremacy of Athens by the gradual disappearance of the Corinthian wares, and the consequent monopoly enjoyed by the rival state. The fact that after the middle of the fifth century the red-figured Attic vases are seldom found in Sicilian or Italian tombs shows clearly the blow dealt at Athenian commerce by the Peloponnesian War, and the enforced cessation of exports to the west, owing to the hostility of Sicily and the crippling of Athenian navies; and the gradual growth of local fabrics shows that the colonists of Magna Graecia at that time began themselves to supply local demands. Instances might be multiplied.

But the internal evidence of the vases is of even greater value, not only for the political, but still more for the social history of Greece. By the application of painting to vases the Greeks made them something more than mere articles of commercial value or daily use. Besides the light they throw on the Greek schools of painting, they have become an inexhaustible source for illustrating the manners, customs, and literature of Greece. A Greek vase-painting—to quote M. Pottier— is not only a work of art, but also an historical document. Even when all artistic qualities are lacking, and the vase at first sight is liable to be regarded as a worthless and uninteresting production, a closer inspection will often reveal some small point which throws light on a question of mythology, or of costume or armour. Or, again, an inscription painted or even scratched on a vase may be of surpassing philological or palaeographical importance. For instance, the earliest inscription known in the Attic alphabet is a graffito on a vase of the seventh century B.C. (see Chapter XVII.), which of itself would command no consideration; but this inscription is valuable not only as evidence for early forms of lettering, but from its subject-matter. It is true that it need not necessarily be contemporary with the vase itself, as it may have been scratched in after it was made, but this cannot detract from its importance or affect its chronological value.

(3) Mythological.—On this head reference must again be made to the chapters on Subjects, as affording ample evidence of the importance of the vases not only for the elucidation of Greek mythology and legend, but also for religious cults and beliefs. One other point, however, is worth noting here. Our knowledge of Greek mythology, if only derived from literary records, rests largely on the compilations of Roman or late writers, such as Ovid, Hyginus, and Apollodoros. It has been aptly pointed out by a recent writer^[4] that in these authors we have mythology in a crystallised form, modified and systematised, and perhaps confused with Latin elements, and that our popular modern notions are mainly derived from these sources as they have been filtered down to us through the medium of Lemprière’s Dictionary and similar works. But vase-paintings are more or less original and contemporary documents. Granted that it is possible to run to the opposite extreme and accept art traditions to the utter neglect of the literary tradition as derived from Homer and the Tragedians, the fact still remains that for suggestions, and for raising problems that could never have arisen through a literary medium, the evidence of vases is of inestimable value.

In regard to Greek religious beliefs, it should be borne in mind that with the Greeks art was the language by which they expressed their ideas of the gods. It was thus largely due to their religion that they attained supremacy in the plastic art, and their absolute freedom of treatment of their religious beliefs almost eliminated the hieratic and conventional character of Oriental art from their own, with its infinite variety of conceptions. The vase-paintings, almost more than any other class of monuments, reveal the universal religious sentiment which pervaded their life—the δεισιδαιμονία which prevailed even in Romanised Athens. Thus the vases constitute a pictorial commentary on all aspects of Greek life and thought.^[5]

(4) Artistic.—(a) Form. In the grace of their artistic forms the Greeks have excelled all nations, either past or present. The beauty and simplicity of the shapes of their vases have caused them to be taken as models; but as every civilised people has received from other sources forms sanctioned by time, and as many of the Greek forms cannot be adapted to the requirements of modern use, they have not been extensively imitated. Yet to every eye familiar with works of art of the higher order their beauty is fully apparent.

(b) Decoration. It is at first difficult to realise how little we actually know of Greek painting. Our modern museums are so full of specimens of Greek sculpture, either originals or ancient copies of masterpieces, that we feel it possible to obtain an adequate idea of the genius of Pheidias or Praxiteles at first-hand, so to speak. But ancient literature clearly shows that painting was held by the Greeks in equally high estimation with sculpture, if not even higher. Consult the writings of the elder Pliny on ancient art. A considerable space is there devoted to the account of the great painters Zeuxis, Apelles, and Parrhasios, while Pheidias is barely mentioned, and the account of Praxiteles’ works is far from complete. Yet we look in vain through most modern collections for any specimen of Greek painting on fresco or panel.

This is, of course, due to the perishable character of pictures and the destruction of the buildings on the walls of which the great frescoes were preserved. But the fact remains that we have to look in other directions for the evidence we require to find. We have here and there a painted Greek tombstone, a Pompeian fresco, or the decoration of an Etruscan sepulchre to give us a hint; but while the first-named are far too inconsiderable in number to give us any idea of the art of their time, the two latter are merely products of an imitative art, giving but a faint echo of the originals.

Now, in the vases we have, as noted in regard to mythology, contemporary evidence. It must never be forgotten that vase-painting is essentially a decorative art; but, as we shall see later in tracing its historical development, there is always a tendency to ignore the essential subserviency of design to use, and to give the decoration a more pictorial character. Many of the late vases are, in fact, pictures on terracotta. Again, there is a class of fifth-century vases with polychrome paintings on white ground which actually recall the method we know to have been employed by the great master of that century, Polygnotos. And with regard to the late vases we shall hope to show in a future chapter that, like the Pompeian paintings, they often reflect the spirit, if not the exact likeness, of some well-known painting of which we have record.

It is not necessary here to say more of the importance of a study of Greek vases on the several lines that we have pointed out. It is sufficient to say that specialists in all these branches of Archaeology instinctively turn to vases for the main source of their information.

The earliest date at which public attention was directed to the painted vases was the end of the seventeenth century. In those days, it need hardly be said, systematic excavation was a thing quite unknown, while archaeology as a science was non-existent. Beyond a few sculptures which had been handed down at Rome or elsewhere through many vicissitudes, cabinets of gems which had been preserved by cardinals and other dignitaries who employed them for signet-rings, chiefly for ecclesiastical purposes, and some collections of coins of the Renaissance period, there were no specimens of ancient art preserved. During the seventeenth century, however, the fashion arose of making voyages to Italy or Greece, and bringing back any spoils that might attract the notice of the traveller. In this way the collection of Arundel Marbles at Oxford was made, and the nucleus of many of the famous private collections of England formed. But the painted vases, which for the most part lay buried in tombs, escaped notice almost entirely—and, perhaps even where specimens were preserved, they attracted little notice—until with Winckelmann arose a gradual hankering after the possession of artistic treasures and the formation of collections of antiques.

The earliest allusion to be found to painted vases is in the works of La Chausse (Caussius),^[12] and in the Thesaurus of Graevius,^[13] while the oldest existing catalogue is that of the collection of the Elector of Brandenburg, compiled by L. Beger in 1696–1701.^[14] Some few are illustrated in these works, while others were given later by Montfaucon,^[15] Dempster,^[16] Gori,^[17] and Caylus.^[18] Winckelmann published several vases in his Histoire de l’Art (1764) and Monumenti Antichi (1769), and the industrious Passeri in 1767–75 published, besides a supplement to Dempster, three volumes containing coloured engravings of vases in various collections.

Sir William Hamilton, who was for some time English Ambassador at Naples, formed there a considerable collection of Greek and Roman antiquities, mostly painted vases, which had been discovered in various tombs in Southern Italy and Etruria. All these he brought with him to England and sold to the newly instituted British Museum in 1767. A Frenchman named Hugues or D'Hancarville compiled a magnificent work in four volumes^[19] illustrating the vases in this collection, with elaborate diagrams of the shapes; but the representations of the subjects are often marred by the imaginary ornamental borders in which they are framed, while the whole work, like others of the same period, is marked by a tendency to ignore all but the artistic interest, and instead of an accurate reproduction to aim merely at giving a pretty picture.

A second collection of vases belonging to Hamilton was mostly lost at sea, but a record of it has been preserved in Tischbein’s work, Vases d’Hamilton^[20] in four volumes, which is more accurate and useful than that of D'Hancarville. It is believed that many of these vases are now in the Hope collection at Deepdene, which is unfortunately inaccessible to archaeologists.

The Hamilton collection formed, as we have said, the nucleus of the magnificent array of vases in the British Museum. Most of them, it is true, belong to the later period or decadence of vase-painting, and were not only found, but had also been manufactured, in Italy. Although the time for a scientific study and classification was not yet to be for some sixty years, the interest in the subject was decidedly on the increase, and many English noblemen and gentlemen were forming collections, as well as such foreigners as the Duc de Blacas, the Duc de Luynes, and M. Millin. It became the fashion to produce large folio works embodying the contents of these collections in series of coloured illustrations, and thus we have, besides those already mentioned, the imposing publications of Millin,^[21] Millingen^[22], Laborde^[23], and others. On the same lines, but mostly of later date, are the publications of De Rossi^[24], Christie^[25], Moses^[26], Inghirami^[27], Lanzi^[28], Böttiger^[29], Micali^[30], Raoul-Rochette^[31], Stackelberg^[32], and the Duc de Luynes^[33], who published either their own vases, as De Luynes, or some well-known collection like that of the Duc de Blacas, or some particular class of vases: e.g. Micali, those found in Etruria; Raoul-Rochette and Inghirami, those illustrating Homer; and Stackelberg, those found in tombs in Greece Proper. Few of these, it will be seen, were published in England, where neither public patronage nor private enterprise were found prepared to rival the achievements of the Continent.

In most of these works the vases are styled “Etruscan” as a matter of course. Even nowadays it is a very common experience to hear vases spoken of as “Etruscan” or even as “Etruscan urns,” as if every vase was used as a receptacle for the ashes of the dead. This error has lasted, with all the perseverance of a popular fallacy, for over a century, and cannot now be too strongly denounced. But at the beginning of the last century the Etruscan origin of painted vases was most strongly maintained by erudite scholars, chiefly Italians who desired to champion the credit of their own country, and the controversy raged with varying force till Greece was able to substantiate her own case by the numbers of vases that came forth from her tombs to proclaim their Hellenic origin.

The “Etruscan” theory was first promulgated by Montfaucon, Gori, Caylus, and Passeri, between 1719 and 1752; their arguments being based on the plausible ground that up till that time the vases had been found almost exclusively in Etruria. So the term “Etruscan vase” passed into the languages of Europe, and has survived in spite of a century of refutation. But in 1763 Winckelmann, the father of scientific archaeology, conceived the idea that the spirit and character of the vase-paintings were wholly Greek; and he proposed to call them Italo-Greek or Graeco-Sicilian, indicating Magna Graecia as the true place of their manufacture. This was a step in the right direction, and he was supported later by Lanzi, Millin, Millingen, and others (1791–1813). A further attempt was made to define the particular places of their fabric, and Nola, Locri, and Agrigentum were suggested as the most important centres. Meanwhile, the discoveries of vases in Attica, at Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece, and subsequently the publication of Stackelberg’s work, helped to confirm the position of Winckelmann’s followers.

In 1828 came what M. Pottier terms “an objectionable revival of Etruscomania,” with the extensive and marvellously fruitful excavations at Vulci under the direction of the Prince of Canino, Lucien Bonaparte, on whose estates most of the tombs were found. Several thousand vases were the yield of this site, mostly of the best periods of Greek art. This was a great epoch in the history of the study of Greek vases. A flood of fresh light was thrown on the subject by the mass of new material, and a whole new literature arose in consequence. Hitherto vases of the archaic and fine periods had only been known in isolated instances, and the bulk of the existing collections was formed of the florid vases of the Decadence; but now it became possible to fill up the gaps and trace the whole development of the art from the simplest specimens with decorative patterns or figures of animals down to the very last stages of painting.

These discoveries prompted Prince Lucien Bonaparte to revive the theory of Etruscan origin, in which he was supported by D'Amatis and De Fea. It is probable that all three were animated more by patriotic motives than by intellectual conviction. At any rate their arguments appealed but little to scholars, although not a few inclined to take a middle course, and maintained that there existed, not only in Etruria but also in Southern Italy, various local centres of manufacture under Greek superintendence and in close connection with Athens and her influences. These ideas were upheld by Gerhard, Welcker, the Duc de Luynes, and Ch. Lenormant. But the preponderating arguments were to be found on the other side, from Kramer (1837), who attributed all vases but those of the Decadence to an Attic origin, O. Müller, who limited this to the finer examples from Vulci, and Raoul-Rochette, who pinned his faith to Sicily, to Otto Jahn^[34], who may be said to have founded the modern comparative study of Greek ceramics on its present basis (1854).

Jahn pronounced decisively for the Greek origin of all but the later fabrics, and his principles have been adopted by all succeeding archaeologists, with the exception of Brunn, and one or two of the latter’s disciples, who have swung back to the Italian theory in some respects. Up to his time all had been in chaos, and each writer worked on his own particular line without regard to others, both as regards the origin of the vases and the subjects depicted thereon; but Jahn, in his epoch-making catalogue of the vases at Munich, was the first to make a serious and scientific attempt to reduce the chaos to order, not only by adopting a rational system of interpretation, but by systematising and reducing to one common denominator all previous contributions to knowledge.

We may say that the study of Greek vases has passed through three main stages: (1) Artistic; (2) Epexegetic; (3) Historical.

(1) Artistic (1690—1770).—In the first stage, as we have seen, the artistic merit of the vases and the aim of producing a pretty picture were alone regarded. Hence, too, arose the fashion of making copies of Greek vases, and many specimens were produced by Wedgwood^[35], bearing, however, no more than a superficial likeness to the originals.

(2) Epexegetic (1770—1854).—In the second stage it seems to have been suddenly discovered that the figures on the vases were not mere meaningless groups, like the Watteau shepherds and shepherdesses on Dresden china, and many strange theories were at first promulgated as to the purposes for which the vases were made and the subjects thereon depicted. Three main lines of interpretation seem to have been adopted by the writers of this period:—

(a) Passeri, Millin, Lanzi, and Visconti supposed that allusions were made to the life of the deceased person in whose tomb they were found; allegorical representations were given of his childish games, his youthful pastimes, or the religious and social ceremonies in which he took part.

(b) Italynski, in his preface to Tischbein’s work, enunciates the strange notion that they allude to events of Greek and Roman history: for instance, three draped men represent the three chief archons of Athens, or three women conversing, Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus, with her daughter and daughter-in-law, considering whether she should appear as a suppliant before her son. The utterly fantastic and unscientific nature of these explanations was self-evident; the writers of the first group at any rate had a sounder basis for their theories, and on the analogy of the sculptured Greek tombstones might well have been near the truth.

(c) Another theory, which attained great popularity, and was even adhered to partially for some years afterwards by Panofka, Gerhard, and Lenormant, was that the subjects bore allusion to the Mysteries, more particularly the Eleusinian. The vases were regarded as presents given to the initiated, and the reason why their interpretation was so difficult was that they related to the secrets unfolded in those ceremonies. Many attempts were made to unlock those secrets and to show the mystic moral purport of the pictures; but all is the merest guesswork. The height of fantastic explanation is perhaps reached by Christie, whose work is quite worth perusal as a literary curiosity. Panofka, on the other hand, turned his attention to the inscriptions on the vases,^[36] and discerned a symbolical meaning in these, reading into the names of artists rebuses on the subjects over which they were inscribed, e.g. Douris is indicated by Athena with a spear (δόρυ) or Hermaios by a figure of Hermes.

(3) Historical.—The historical or scientific method of studying Greek vases consists mainly in classifying them according to different periods, and within that period to different schools. To these main considerations the artistic merits of the vases and the explanation of the subjects are subordinated. The reason for this is obvious. The artistic and mythological interest of the vases is soon exhausted, and receives no new impetus from new discoveries. Now, with the comparative study of vases this is not the case. Any day may bring forth a new discovery which will completely revolutionise all preconceived theories; hence there is the constant necessity for being “up-to-date,” and for the adjustment of old beliefs to new.

But the historical method is not entirely of modern growth. As long ago as 1767 the first attempt was made by D'Hancarville^[37] to classify vases according to their age. Taking such scanty data as were available, he divided Italian vases into five classes, ranging from “some centuries before the foundation of Rome” down to the reigns of Trajan, the Antonines, and Septimius Severus, which “announc’d the total decadency of the Art.” The earlier vases he sought to fix more precisely by reference to the history of painting as told by Pliny.

The Duc de Luynes, writing in 1832,^[38] hesitates to define the exact age of the various styles, though he arranges them generally in six classes, ranging from the “Doric” or “Phoenician” vases down to barbaric imitations by the natives of Italy. According to him the red-figured vases lasted from the time of Perikles down to that of Pyrrhos. Millingen was content with three periods only, his division^[39] being: (1) ancient style, 700–450 B.C.; (2) fine style, 450–228 B.C.; (3) late style, 228 to Social War. Kramer distinguishes five epochs: (A) Egyptian style, 580–500 B.C.; (B) older style, 500–460 B.C.; (C) severe style, 460—420 B.C.; (D) fine style, 420–380 B.C.; (E) rich style, 380–200 B.C.^[40] Gerhard^[41] surmised that the earliest vases might date from the ninth or tenth century B.C., the fine style extending over the fifth and fourth, while the decadence culminated in the second, and in the first century fictile vases were entirely supplanted by those of metal.

De Witte made a more detailed classification, extending to nine groups, and based rather on technical differences, as several of the groups are contemporaneous; but his classification is essentially a practical one, and may be regarded as forming a sound basis for all succeeding catalogues and treatises, as also for the arrangement of museums.

Jahn in his Introduction is content with four main headings, which for a general classification of a large collection is convenient enough, and has, in fact, been adopted in the Vase Rooms of the British Museum. Under this system the four divisions are: (1) Primitive; (2) Black-figured; (3) Red-figured; (4) Vases of the Decadence. In the Louvre, on the other hand, the arrangement is mainly geographical, according to the sites from which the vases have come.

It is recognised by modern archaeologists,^[42] working on the lines laid down by Jahn in the three main divisions of his Introduction, that in dating and classifying a vase or series of vases three points must be taken into consideration: (1) circumstances of discovery; (2) technique and style; (3) inscriptions (when present). The various questions with which the modern study of vase-paintings has mainly to deal will be fully investigated in subsequent chapters, and it is not necessary to say more on this head. But we trust that sufficient attention has been drawn to the many-sided interests presented by—it is not necessary to say a collection of vases, but—a single vase^[43].

It may be worth while here to turn aside for a moment and study the rise and growth of the various great vase-collections of Europe. We may with pardonable pride regard the British Museum as standing at the head of these collections, possessing as it does the most representative collection of any, if not the largest. Hardly any known fabric is unrepresented, nor the work of any known artist; though here and there another museum may have the advantage—as, for instance, the Louvre in early black-figured fabrics, Naples in vases of Southern Italy (especially the large specimens), or Athens in various fabrics peculiar to Greece, such as the early vases of Thera and Melos, or the marvellous specimens of “transitional” handiwork found on the Acropolis of Athens.

The nucleus of the British Museum collection was, as has been indicated, formed by the vases obtained from Sir W. Hamilton in 1767, supplemented by those of Towneley and Payne Knight (1805–24): these are nearly all vases of the late period from Southern Italy. Between the years 1837 and 1845 a large quantity of fine black-figured and red-figured vases was acquired from the Canino collection, having been found on that estate at Vulci, and in 1836 acquisitions from M. Durand’s sale had helped to swell the number of vases representing that site, including some very fine examples. In 1842 came the Burgon collection, mostly of small vases from Athens and the Greek islands; in 1856 the bequest by Sir William Temple of his collection, formed at Naples, added greatly to the value of the collection of later vases. In 1860–64 large numbers of vases of all periods from 700 B.C. to 400 B.C. were excavated by Salzmann and Biliotti at Kameiros in Rhodes; and from Ialysos in the same island came a number of Mycenaean vases by the generosity of Prof. Ruskin in 1870. Meanwhile, the Blacas collection, purchased in 1867, had added a large number, chiefly of red-figured and Italian vases, and in 1873 many more fine specimens from Capua, Nola, and elsewhere were acquired from M. Castellani. Of late years the chief additions have been from Cyprus, beginning with a few vases from Cesnola in 1876 down to the Turner Bequest excavations in 1894–96, and from the Egypt Exploration Fund’s excavations at Naukratis and Daphnae (1884–86). Other acquisitions have been mostly in the form of isolated purchases, especially of the white lekythi and similar classes; some have come from important collections, such as those of Forman, Tyszkiewicz, and Van Branteghem.

In 1870, when the old Catalogue was completed, the collection must have numbered over 2,000 painted vases, besides 1,000 undecorated; at the present day the total cannot be computed at less than 5,000, of which about 4,000 may be described as painted vases.

The Louvre collection in Paris^[44] started life about a century ago under the first Napoleon, who established a ceramic section about 1797. Other vases were added from the Vatican and Naples; and meanwhile the Royal collection went to form the present Cabinet of Antiquities in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1818 the very limited collection was augmented by 564 vases from M. Tochon, and in 1825 came a magnificent acquisition of about 2,000 vases (mostly painted) from M. Durand. From this time till 1863 the growth was very slow, and the Louvre does not seem to have profited like other museums by the excavations at Vulci. In the latter year, however, another splendid collection of 2,000 painted and 1,400 unpainted vases was acquired from Count Campana, which necessitated the building of new galleries. The early B.F. fabrics, in which the Louvre is so pre-eminently rich, were all in this collection. During the last thirty years the only acquisitions of importance have been representative specimens from Greece and Cyprus; but the total number is now reckoned at 6,000.

The growth of the Berlin collection has been much more slow and consistent.^[45] Its nucleus was derived from the collection of the Elector of Brandenburg described by Beger in 1701. Up to 1830 most of the vases acquired were from Southern Italy and Campania, including 1,348 from the Koller collection in 1828. In 1831, 442 vases and 179 specimens of Etruscan plain ware were acquired from the Dorow collection, and from 1833 to 1867 the activity of Gerhard procured fine specimens from time to time, while 174 were bequeathed by him at his death. When Levezow’s Catalogue was published in 1834, it included 1,579 specimens; the next one by Furtwaengler in 1885 describes more than 4,000. Of late years many valuable specimens have been derived from various parts of Greece.

These three may be regarded as the typical representative collections of Europe; those of Athens, Munich, Naples, and Petersburg are all of great merit and value, but chiefly strong in one particular department—Athens in early vases and Attic lekythi, Petersburg in late red-figured vases, and Naples in the fabrics of Southern Italy. Many of the finest specimens, however, are to be found in the smaller collections in the Paris Bibliothèque, at Florence, Vienna, Madrid, and in Rome. Of late years Europe has found a formidable rival in America, especially in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, which, backed by almost inexhaustible private benefactions, is gradually acquiring a large proportion of the signed vases and other chefs-d’œuvre which from time to time find their way into the market. The Metropolitan Museum at New York, on the other hand, rests its claim to distinction on the possession of General Cesnola’s enormous collections of Cypriote pottery of all periods.

The gradual centralising of vases into public museums is a noteworthy feature at the present day. The private collections formed by so many amateurs at the beginning of the century have nearly all been long since dispersed and incorporated with the various national collections^[46]; and those formed more recently are rapidly sharing the same fate. Hardly a year passes now without seeing the dispersion of some notable collection like those of M. Sabouroff, M. van Branteghem, Colonel Brown (Forman collection), or M. Bourguignon; and almost the only important one that still remains intact is that of Sig. Jatta at Ruvo (consisting almost entirely of South Italian vases). Now that the days are past when it was the custom for rich collectors to publish magnificently illustrated atlases of their possessions, this tendency to centralisation can only be welcomed both by artists and students. For the latter now it only remains to be desired that a scientific and well-illustrated catalogue of every public museum should be available.

We append here a list of the principal museums and collections in Europe, which may form a supplement to that given by Jahn in 1854. The more important ones are printed in heavier type.

I. GREAT BRITAIN.

1. London. British Museum (see p. 24). Catalogue by C. Smith and Walters.

South Kensington Museum (a few isolated specimens; also some from the Museum of Practical Geology Jermyn Street).

Soane Museum (the Cawdor Vase).

2. Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. Catalogue by P. Gardner (1893).

3. Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum. Catalogue by E. A. Gardner (1896).

4. Deepdene (Dorking). Hope Collection. Inaccessible to students. Consists entirely of late vases from Southern Italy.

5. Numerous private collections, among the more important being—

Richmond. The late Sir F. Cook.

Castle Ashby. Marquis of Northampton.

6. Harrow School Museum (a fine “Theseus” Kylix and Krater with Centaurs). Catalogue by C. Torr (1887).

7. Edinburgh.

II. FRANCE.

1. Paris. The Louvre (see p. 25). Catalogue by Pottier (in progress).

Bibliothèque Nationale. Catalogue by A. de Ridder (1902).

Dzialynski Collection. See De Witte, Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert.

2. Marseilles Museum. Catalogue by Froehner (1897).

3. Rouen Museum.

4. Boulogne Museum.

5. Compiègne Museum.

6. Sèvres Museum.

III. BELGIUM AND HOLLAND.

1. Brussels.^[47] See Cat. of Musée de Ravestein. Somzée Collection (now dispersed).

2. Amsterdam. Six Collection.

3. Leyden Museum. See Roulez, Vases de Leyde.

IV. GERMANY.

1. Berlin. Antiquarium (see p. 25). Catalogue by Furtwaengler (1885).

2. Altenburg.

3. Bonn.

4. Breslau.

5. Brunswick.

6. Dresden.

7. Frankfurt. Museum Städel.

8. Gotha.

9. Heidelberg.

10. Karlsruhe. Catalogue by Winnefeld (1887).

11. Leipzig.

12. Munich. Catalogue by Jahn (1854).

13. Schwerin.

14. Würzburg. Antikenkabinet. Coll. Bankó.

V. DENMARK AND SWEDEN.

1. Kopenhagen. Catalogue by Smith (1862).

2. Stockholm.

VI. RUSSIA.

1. Petersburg. Hermitage. Catalogue by Stephani (1869).

Stroganoff Coll.

Pisareff Coll.

2. Dorpat (University).

VII. AUSTRIA.

1. Vienna. Oesterreichisches Museum. Catalogue by Masner (1891). K. K. Kabinet. University.

2. Cracow. Czartoryski Coll.

3. Prague. Pollak Coll.

4. Trieste. Museum.

VIII. SWITZERLAND.

IX. SPAIN.

Madrid.

X. ITALY AND SICILY.

1. Acerra. Spinelli Coll.

2. Adria. Museo Bocchi. Publication by Schöne.

3. Arezzo. Chiefly Roman Arretine ware.

4. Bologna. Museo Civico. Catalogue by Pellegrini (1900). Università.

5. Capua. Campana Coll.

6. Cervetri. Ruspoli Coll.

7. Chiusi. Museum. Casucchini Coll. (but see p. 73).

8. Corneto. Museum. Bruschi Coll.

9. Florence. Museum.

10. Naples. Museo Nazionale. Catalogue by Heydemann (1872).

11. Orvieto. Museum. Faina Coll.

12. Palermo. Museum.

13. Parma.

14. Perugia. Museum.

15. Ruvo. Jatta Coll. Catalogue by Sig. G. Jatta (1869).

16. Taranto. Museum.

17. Terranuova (Gela). Private collections.

18. Rome. Vatican (Mus. Gregoriano). Guide by Helbig. Museo Capitolino. Museo Papa Giulio. Numerous private collections: Hartwig, Torlonia, Castellani, etc., and Deutsches Arch. Inst.

XI. GREECE.

1. Athens. National Museum. Catalogue by Couve and Collignon (1902). Do. (Acropolis Collection). Catalogue in progress. Trikoupis Coll. Other private collections.

2. Eleusis. Museum (local finds).

3. Candia (Crete).

XII. ASIA MINOR.

Smyrna. Various private collections.

XIII. CYPRUS.

Nicosia. Cyprus Museum. Catalogue by Myres and Richter (1899).

Private collections at Larnaka, Nicosia, and Limassol.

XIV. EGYPT.

Cairo. Ghizeh Museum.

XV. AMERICA.

1. Boston. Catalogue by Robinson.

2. New York. Metropolitan Museum. Atlas of Cesnola Collection from Cyprus published.

3. Baltimore.

4. Chicago.

Historical and geographical limits of subject—Description of Greek tombs—Tombs in Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Sicily, Italy—Condition of vases when found—Subsequent restorations—Imitations and forgeries—Prices of vases—Sites on which painted vases have been found: Athens, Corinth, Boeotia, Greek islands, Crimea, Asia Minor, Cyprus, North Africa, Italy, Etruria—Vulci discoveries—Southern Italy, Sicily.

Before dealing with Greek vases in further detail, it may be as well to say something of the circumstances under which, and the localities in which, they have been discovered. And further, we must clearly define the limits of our subject, both historically and geographically.

(1) Historical.—It may seem somewhat paradoxical to doubt whether the primitive pottery found on Greek soil ought, strictly speaking, to be called Greek. In a succeeding chapter we shall have occasion to touch upon the question of the ethnological origin of this pottery, which, in the opinion of some authorities, is not the product of Greeks as we understand the term, but of some Oriental nation, such as the Phoenicians. It is, however, enough for our present purpose that it has been found on Greek soil, and that it forms a stage which we cannot omit from a study of the development of Greek pottery, seeing that its influence can be plainly traced on later fabrics.

Turning to the other limit of the subject, we find that nearly all the latest vases, belonging to the period of the Decadence, were manufactured in Southern Italy or Etruria. But nearly all bear so unmistakably the stamp of Greek influence, however degenerate and obscured, that we can only regard them as made by Greek artists settled in the colonies of Magna Graecia, or at any rate by native workers in direct imitation of the Greeks.

We may roughly define our historical limits as from 2500 B.C., the approximate age of the early pottery of Crete, Cyprus, and Hissarlik, down to 200 B.C., when the manufacture of painted vases came to an end under the growing dominion of Rome. It was formerly supposed that the senatorial edict of 186 B.C., forbidding the performance of Bacchanalian ceremonies in Italy, was the means of putting an end to this industry, but this is hardly borne out by facts; it rather died a natural death owing to the growing popularity of relief-work both in terracotta and in metal (see Chapters XI. and XXII.).

(2) Geographical.—Having defined our historical limits, it remains to consider the extent of Greek civilisation during that period, as attested by archaeological or other evidence. Besides the mainland of Greece and the islands of the Aegean Sea, the whole of Asia Minor may be regarded as in a measure Greek, although practically speaking only a strip of territory along the western coast became really Hellenised, and we shall not be concerned with pottery-finds in any other part of the country.^[48] To the north-east, Greek colonisation penetrated as far as Kertch and other places in the Crimea, known to the ancients as Panticapaeum and the Bosphoros respectively. In the Eastern Mediterranean the island of Cyprus will demand a large share of our attention. Egypt, again, has yielded large numbers of vases, mostly from the two Greek settlements of Naukratis and Daphnae; and farther to the west along the north coast of Africa was the Greek colony of Kyrene, also a fruitful site for excavators.

The rest of the ground is covered by the island of Sicily and the peninsular portion of Italy from Bologna southwards. Greek vases have occasionally turned up in Spain, Gaul (i.e. France and North Italy), as at Marseilles (Massilia), where primitive Greek pottery has been found, and also in Sardinia; but the Western Mediterranean sites are chiefly confined to Southern Italy and Etruria. In fact, till recent years these regions were almost our only source of information on Greek pottery, as has already been pointed out.

Generally speaking, it may be said that all Greek vases have been found in tombs, but the circumstances under which they have been found differ according to locality. We propose in the succeeding section to say something of the nature of the ancient tombs, and the differences between those of Greece, Cyprus, Italy, and other sites.

Of finds on the sites of temples and sanctuaries it is not necessary to say much here; the explanation of such discoveries will receive some attention in Chapter IV., and the individual sites will also be noted in the next section of this chapter. It is a rare occurrence to find complete vases under these circumstances, as they generally owe their preservation to the fact that they have been broken in pieces and cast away as rubbish into holes and pits. The most notable instance is the remarkable series of fragments discovered on the Acropolis at Athens.

Greek tombs are not usually very remarkable in character,^[49] being for the most part small and designed for single corpses; this may possibly account for the comparatively small size of the vases discovered on most Hellenic sites. In the earlier tombs at Athens and Corinth the pottery was found at a very great depth below the soil. The six shaft-graves in the circle at Mycenae are of great size, and contained large quantities of painted pottery; an exact reproduction of the sixth, found by M. Stamatakis in 1878, with its contents, is in the National Museum at Athens. Here also are reproductions of two typical fifth-century Greek tombs containing sepulchral lekythi,^[50] and showing how the vases were arranged round the corpse.^[51]

Rock-graves are seldom found in Greece, the normal form of tomb being a hole or trench dug in the earth, either filled in with earth or covered with tiles (as at Tanagra). The rock-grave is almost exclusively Asiatic, but some fine specimens were found at Kertch in the Crimea.^[52] Some large ones have also been found in Rhodes,^[53] but the most typical form of tomb there is a square chamber cut out of the hard clayey earth, approached by a square vertical shaft and a door. They generally contained single bodies, round which were ranged vases and terracotta figures. Sir A. Biliotti, in his diary of the excavations at Kameiros (1864), also records the finding of tombs cut in the clay in the form of longitudinal trenches, covered with flat stones forming a vaulted roof. Others were merely troughs cut in the surface of the rock and covered with stones and earth. In the shafts of the first type of tomb large jars or πίθοι were often found containing the bones of children (see page 152). Nearly all these tombs have yielded Greek vases of all dates. In the island of Karpathos^[54] Mr. J. T. Bent found tombs containing early pottery, consisting of two or three chambers with stone benches round the sides.

The tombs of Cyprus are especially interesting for two reasons: firstly, that they exhibit types not found elsewhere; and, secondly, that they vary in size and character at different periods of the island’s history. In the earliest tombs of the Bronze Age period (down to about 800 B.C.) we find a very simple type, consisting of a mere oven-like hole a few feet below the surface of the ground, with a short sloping δρόμος leading to it (Fig. 2). These tombs have very rarely been found intact, and in most cases are full of fallen earth, so that exact details of their original arrangement can seldom be obtained. Each tomb generally contained a few exported Mycenaean vases and a large number of local fabric, usually hand-made and rude in character. The rich cemetery of Enkomi is, however, an exception, for here we find large built tombs, with roofs and walls of stone. Sometimes the Bronze Age tombs were in the form of a deep well.^[55]

In the Graeco-Phoenician period (about 700–300 B.C.) the “oven” type of tomb is preserved, but on a larger scale and at a greater depth, and often reached by a long flight of stone steps. These tombs usually contain large quantities of the local geometrical pottery, as many as eighty or a hundred vases being sometimes found in one tomb. At Curium and elsewhere, where the tombs contain Greek painted vases, they are sometimes in the form of narrow ramifying passages.

The tombs of the Hellenistic period are of a very elaborate character, especially those of Roman date, with long narrow δρόμος leading to a chamber some ten by twenty feet or more, round the walls of which are sarcophagi and niches; but these tombs seldom contain any but plain and inferior pottery, the manufacture of painted vases in the island having come to an end, as in the rest of Greece.

Frequently a tomb was found to contain pottery of widely different periods, especially in cemeteries such as Amathus and Curium, where the finds are of all dates, showing that the tombs were used again and again for burials.^[56]

The tombs in the Cyrenaica, which were explored by Mr. Dennis and contained many Greek vases, he describes as follows^[57]: “The great majority of the tombs were sunk in the rock, in the form of pits, from 6 to 7 feet long, from 3½ to 4½ feet wide, and from 5 to 6 feet deep.... Vases were sometimes placed in all four corners of the sepulchre, but this was rare; they were generally confined to two corners, often to one. The most usual place was the corner to the right of the head, and this was the place of honour; for here a Panathenaic vase in the tomb of a victor, a ribbed amphora of glazed black ware, or more commonly an ordinary wine-diota, would be deposited upright, with a number of smaller vases within it, or at its foot, either figured or of black or plain ware, according to the circumstances of the deceased. Occasionally small vases, or sometimes terracotta figures, were placed along the sides of the tomb, between the head and feet of the corpse; but I do not remember ever to have found vases deposited on the breast, or under the arms of the deceased, as was often the case in the Greek tombs of Sicily.”

Mr. Arthur Evans has given an interesting account of the tombs at Gela (Terranuova) in Sicily, from which he has excavated many fine vases for the Ashmolean Museum.^[58] Chronologically the limits of their date can be ascertained, between the foundation of Gela in 589 B.C. and its depopulation by the Carthaginians in 409 B.C., but a few tombs belong to the subsequent period down to 284 B.C., when it was finally destroyed by the Mamertines. In the early graves containing B.F. vases skeletons were found; these tombs were in the form of terracotta cists with gabled covers and tiled floors. The next stage, containing R.F. vases, has vaulted roofs made of two pieces of stone. During this period cremation-pits containing ashes and bones are sometimes found; the burnt bones were placed in kraters and covered with shallow vessels. In these were found white lekythi, in some respects rivalling those of Athens; but the subjects are domestic rather than sepulchral, and they are probably, like many of the B.F. and R.F. vases, local fabrics. Some of the tombs with B.F. vases are in the form of chambers with vaulted cement roofs. In the earlier tombs the disposition was usually as follows: a kylix on the left side of the head, an alabastron under the right arm, and a lekythos under the left (Fig. 3.). The tombs of Selinus, which are all of early date, have been described by a local explorer.^[59]

We next review the types of tombs in Italy from which vases have been obtained. Those at Vulci, and in the Etruscan territory generally, from which the finest and largest vases have been extracted, are chambers hewn in the rocks. The early tombs of Civita Vecchia and Cervetri are tunnelled in the earth; in Southern Italy, especially in Campania, they are large chambers, about two feet under the surface. In D'Hancarville’s work (see p. 17) an illustration is given^[60] of a tomb in Southern Italy, which is constructed of large blocks of stone, arranged in squared masses, called the Etruscan style of masonry, in contradistinction to the Cyclopean. The walls are painted with subjects, the body is laid upon the stone floor, and the larger vases, such as the kraters, are placed round it. The jugs are hung upon nails round the walls. Fig. 4. gives an example of a tomb of this kind from Veii. A full account, with illustrations, of the tombs excavated in the Certosa at Bologna about thirty years ago, has been given by Signor Zannoni.^[61] The tombs of Southern and Central Italy were made upon the same plan, and the same description applies to both sites.^[62]

The most ordinary tombs were constructed of rude stones or tiles, of a dimension sufficient to contain the body and five or six vases; a small one near the head and others between the legs, and on each side, more often on the right than on the left side. An oinochoe and phiale were usually found in every tomb; but the number, size, and quality of the vases varied, probably according to the rank or wealth of the person for whom the tomb was made. The better sort of tombs were of larger size, and constructed with large hewn stones, generally without, but sometimes completed with, cement; the walls were stuccoed, and sometimes ornamented with painted patterns.

In these tombs, which were like small chambers, the body lay face upwards on the floor, with the vases placed round it; sometimes vases have been found hanging upon nails of iron or bronze, attached to the side walls. The vases in the larger tombs were always more numerous, of a larger size, and of a superior quality in every respect to those of the ordinary tombs, which had little to recommend them except their form.

Many of the larger and more important Etruscan tombs have also been described and illustrated by Dennis in his work on Etruria, especially those of Vulci and Corneto, which are famous both for their contents and for the paintings which adorn their walls.^[63] In the basement of the British Museum may be seen large models of Etruscan tombs in which the arrangement is carefully reproduced.

The vases, as we have already mentioned, are often ranged round the dead, being hung upon or placed near the walls, or piled up in the corners. Some hold the ashes of the deceased; others, small objects used during life. They are seldom perfect, having generally either been crushed into fragments by the weight of the superincumbent earth, or else broken into sherds, and thrown into corners. Some exhibit marks of burning, probably from having accompanied the deceased to the funeral pyre. Sometimes they are dug up in a complete state of preservation, and still full of the ashes of the dead.^[64] These are sometimes found inside a large and coarser vase of unglazed clay, which forms a case to protect them from the earth.

Almost all the vases in the museums of Europe have been mended, and the most skilful workmen at Naples and Rome were employed to restore them to their pristine perfection. Their defective parts were scraped, filed, rejoined, and supplied with pieces from other vases, or else completed in plaster of Paris, over which coating the restored portions were painted in appropriate colours, and varnished, so as to deceive the inexperienced eye. But either through carelessness, or else owing to the difference of process, the restorations had one glaring technical defect: the inner lines are not of the glossy hue of the genuine vases, and there is no indication of the thick raised line which follows the original outline in the old paintings. Sometimes the restorer pared away the ancient incrustation, and cut down to the dull-coloured paste of the body of the vase. Sometimes he even went so far as to paint figures in a light red or orange oil paint on the black ground, or in black paint of the same kind on orange ground. But in all these frauds the dull tone of colour, the inferior style of art, and the wide difference between modern and ancient drawing and treatment of subjects, disclose the deception. The calcareous incrustation deposited on the vases by the infiltration into the tombs of water, containing lime in solution, can be removed by soaking the vases in a solution of hydrochloric acid.^[65]

In other cases vases with subjects have been counterfeited by taking an ancient vase covered entirely with black glaze, tracing upon it the subject and inscription intended to be fabricated, and cutting away all the black portions surrounding these tracings, so as to expose the natural colour of the clay for the fictitious ground. When red figures were intended to be counterfeited, the contrary course was adopted, the part for the figures only being scraped away, and the rest left untouched. Vases, indeed, in which the ground or figures are below the surface should always be regarded with suspicion, and their genuineness can only be determined by the general composition and style of the figures, and by the peculiarities of the inscriptions. The latter also are often fictitious, being painted in with colours imitating the true ones, and often incised; indeed, nearly all inscriptions incised after the vase has been baked are liable to give rise to suspicion. The difference of style in the composition of groups, and especially small points in the drawing, such as the over-careful drawing of details, the indication of nails, and various other minute particulars, are also criteria for detecting false or imitated vases. Water, alcohol, and acids will remove false inscriptions, but leave the true ones intact.

Greek vases are not so easy to imitate as terracotta figures, the main difficulty being the black varnish, which can never be successfully reproduced. Acids or alcohol will always remove modern counterfeits, but cannot touch the original substance. Since the discovery in Greece of white-ground vases forgers have had a better chance, and they have often ingeniously availed themselves of genuine ancient vases on which to place modern paintings. But the antique drawing is exceedingly difficult to imitate. In former times Pietro Fondi established manufactories at Venice and Corfu, and the Vasari family at Venice, for fictitious vases,^[66] and many such imitations have been made at Naples for the purpose of modern decoration.

The first to make such an attempt in England was the famous potter Wedgwood, whose copy of the Portland Vase is well known. His paste is, however, too heavy, and his drawings far inferior to the antique in freedom and spirit. At Naples, chiefly through the researches and under the direction of Gargiulo, vases were produced, which in their paste and glaze resembled the antique, although the drawings were vastly inferior, and the imitation could be at once detected by a practised eye. They were, indeed, far inferior in all essential respects to the ancient vases. Even soon after the acquisition of the Hamilton collection by the public, the taste created for these novelties caused various imitations to be produced. Some of the simplest kind were made of wood, covered with painted paper, the subjects being traced from the vases themselves, and this was the most obvious mode of making them. Battam also made very excellent facsimiles of these vases, but they were produced in a manner very different from that of the ancient potters, the black colour for the grounds or figures not being laid on with a glaze, but merely with a cold pigment which had not been fired, and their lustre was produced by a polish. In technical details they did not equal the imitations made at Naples, some of the best of which deceived both archaeologists and collectors.

Sometimes illustrations of vases which never had any real existence have appeared in publications. One of the most remarkable of these fabricated engravings was issued by Bröndsted and Stackelberg in a fit of archaeological jealousy. A modern archaeologist is seen running after a draped woman called , or “Fame,” who flies from him exclaiming, , “A long way off, my fine fellow!” This vase, which never existed except upon paper, deceived the credulous Inghirami, who too late endeavoured to cancel it from his work. Other vases, evidently false, have also been published.^[67]

M. Tyszkiewicz, the great collector, in his entertaining Souvenirs,^[68] gives some interesting illustrations of the methods of Italian forgers of vases, of which he had frequent experience. “The Neapolitans,” he says, “excel above all others in this industry; and it is in ancient Capua, now Sta. Maria di Capua Vetere, that the best ateliers for the manufacture of painted vases are situated.” But “even the famous connoisseur Raimondi, who was considered the master of his art at Sta. Maria—even he could never invent altogether the decoration of a vase so as to make it pass for an antique. Only if this talented artist could get just a few fragments of a fine vase, he was clever enough to be able, by the aid of illustrations of vases in museums or in private collections, to reconstruct the whole subject. He replaced the missing parts, and threw such an air of uniformity over the vase that it was almost impossible to tell what was modern. But if you tried to wash a vase faked up in this manner, in pure alcohol chemically rectified, you would find that the modern portions would vanish, while the ancient paintings would remain. Neither Raimondi nor any one else could ever manage to discover the secret of the ancient potters—how to obtain the background of a brilliant black colour, improperly known as the varnish of Nola. To disguise their failure in this respect, the forgers are obliged, when the vase is entirely reconstructed and repainted, to cover it all over with a varnish of their own invention; but the surface of this varnish, although brilliant, lacks the freshness and brightness of that used by the ancients. Relatively this surface appears dull, and vanishes the moment it is washed with alcohol.”

At Athens also, says M. Tyszkiewicz, laboratories have been established for making vases, of which he was acquainted with three. These forgers excel in turning out the white-ground vases, which, even when antique, cannot resist the action of alcohol. For the same reason they apply gilding to their black-and-red vases, because this also yields to its action. The large prices fetched by the white vases (see below) have stimulated their activity in this direction, and their efforts have not been without artistic merit, though failing in technique.^[69]

On the subject of forgeries in relation to Greek vases the literature is very scanty; but reference may be made to Prof. Furtwaengler’s Neuere Fälschungen von Antiken, which raises some very interesting questions in regard to forgeries, though his conclusions may sometimes be thought rather arbitrary.

We propose now to give a survey of the principal localities in which the fictile products of the Greeks have been discovered, and the excavations which have taken place on these sites. It need hardly be said, however, that it is quite impossible to detail all the places where specimens of common pottery have been found.

We naturally begin with Greece, following the geographical order observed by Jahn,^[81] as the mainland and centre of Hellenic civilisation; and since Athens was not only the principal, for many years the only, centre of the manufacture of Greek vases, but has also been the most prolific source of recent discoveries, it is to Athens that we first turn our attention.

Athens was duly celebrated in ancient times as the chief home of the ceramic industry.^[82] The clay of Cape Kolias is eulogised by Suidas for its excellent qualities, and the extent of the Κεραμεικός, or potters’ quarter, is still visible beyond the Dipylon gate. One of the earliest painted vases found on Attic soil was the famous Panathenaic amphora discovered by Burgon in 1813 outside the Acharnian gate, and now in the British Museum.^[83] The tomb in which it was found also contained remains of burnt bones, a lekythos, and other small vases. The subjects are: on one side Athena brandishing a spear, with the inscription , “I am a prize from the games at Athens”; on the other, a man driving a biga, or two-horse chariot. The date is usually considered to be about 560 B.C. It was rightly identified by the early writers as one of the prize-vases described by Pindar in the passage we have quoted elsewhere (p. 132), and was the means of identifying many other vases similarly painted and inscribed, but found on other sites, as belonging to the same class. A considerable number of vases found on Greek soil, mostly at Athens, were published by Stackelberg in 1837,^[84] but little was done for many years in the way of systematic excavation. The National Museum was opened shortly after the declaration of Greek independence, and assisted by royal benefactions. The law forbidding the export of antiquities has now been in force for many years, but unfortunately has had a bad as well as a good effect, in that the vendors of surreptitious finds are wont to give imaginary accounts of the circumstances of their discoveries, in order to screen themselves.

To give anything like a description of the vases found at Athens would be useless here, where so many classes are illustrated by the finds; it may, however, be worth while to note a few of the most typically Athenian groups of pottery. (1) Earliest in date are the Dipylon vases, which were found outside the gate of that name, and have from their conspicuous character given a name to a whole class. They are, however, fully treated of in Chapter VII. (2) The numerous fragments of vases found on the Acropolis, which can all be dated anterior to 480 B.C., include many exceedingly beautiful and unique specimens of the transitional period of vase-painting, some having black, some red figures.^[85] Although in few cases anything more than fragments have been preserved, yet these fragments are enough to show that the originals were masterpieces surpassing even the finest examples from the Italian cemeteries. They will, it is to be hoped, shortly be made known to the world by means of an exhaustive catalogue. (3) The white lekythi, discussed at length elsewhere (Chapter XI.), besides forming a class by themselves, are specially remarkable as being almost peculiar to Athens. It is not, however, certain that they were not made also at Eretria, where many fine ones have been found of late years; but otherwise none have been found outside Attica, with the exception of a few importations to Cyprus, Locri in Italy, or Sicily. (4) A group of late R.F. vases of the “fine” style, mostly of small size and sometimes with polychrome decoration. The drawing is free and graceful, but tends to carelessness; the subjects are drawn chiefly from the life of women and children. Some of the smaller specimens were no doubt actually children’s playthings.

Elsewhere in Attica vases have not been numerous. Eleusis has yielded some interesting fragments,^[86] including a plaque of about 400 B.C., with an interesting representation of the local deities, found in 1895; at Marathon the grave of the fallen warriors has been recently explored, and was found to contain both B.F. and R.F. vases, but none of particular merit.^[87] The find was, however, important, as illustrating Greek methods of burial. The tombs of Phaleron are important, as having yielded a special class of early vases which are known by the name of the site.^[88] These Phaleron vases combine in an interesting manner the characteristics of the Geometrical and Rhodian or Oriental styles, being akin to the so-called Proto-Corinthian. The beehive tombs at Menidi and Spata and other tombs at Haliki, near Marathon, have yielded Mycenaean pottery of the usual types, and an instructive find of early Geometrical pottery has been made at Aphidna.^[89] There are vases in the museums of Athens and Berlin of various dates, to which the following provenances are assigned: Alike, Alopeke, Hymettos,^[90] Kephissia, Cape Kolias,^[91] Pikrodaphni,^[92] Peiraeus,^[93] Sunium,^[94] Thorikos,^[95] Trakhones,^[96] Vari,^[97] Velanideza, and Vourva, the two latter near Marathon.^[98] Megara^[99] has produced little beyond specimens of a class of late bowls with designs in relief, sometimes known as “Megarian bowls,” but more probably of Boeotian origin (see p. 53).