The Italic People of Ancient Apulia: New Evidence from Pottery for Workshops, Markets, and Customs 9781107041868, 2014006690

Table of contents :
Cover
Half title
Frontispiece
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of Illustrations
List of Contributors
Preface
Introduction
I. Time and Place: History and Geography
1. Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia
Geography, Geology, and Land Use
Ethnography, Anthropology, and Material Culture
Religion
Political Organization: Cities and Territories
Social Organization
Burials
Weapons and Warfare
Attic Imports
The Ethnicity of the Artisans
The End of the Native Apulian Cultures
2. Iapygians: The Indigenous Populations of Ancient Apulia in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E.
Literary Evidence for the Indigenous Populations of Apulia
Ethnicity and Geography
Myths of Origins
Relations between Apulians and Greeks
Epigraphic Evidence
Messapia
Peucetia and Daunia
Conclusions
Appendix: Greek and Latin Sources
Ethnic Denominations and Territorial Distribution of Indigenous Populations in Apulia
Origins of the Different Populations
Political Organization
Society, Social Figures, and Practices
Presence of Greeks in Indigenous Contexts
Political Relations of the Iapygian Peoples with the Greeks
II. Pottery Production: Red-Figure Workshops
3. Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras: New Contexts and Problems of Interpretation
Taranto and Apulian Red-Figure Pottery
Functions
Overview of Settlement and Sanctuary Contexts
The Chora
Tombs and Grave Goods
Other Contexts in the Necropolis: Pits, Dumps, and Wells
Functions of Pottery in Burial Deposits
Semata and Vessels for the Burial Ceremony
Production Contexts
Via Leonida 52
Via Umbria and Isolated Evidence
Perspectives for the Location and Identification of Tarentine Workshops
4. Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto: The Evidence from the Necropoleis along the Coast Road
5. Hands at Work in Magna Graecia: The Amykos Painter and His Workshop
III. Pottery in Context: Italic Sites
6. Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts
7. The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts: A Comparison of Several Necropoleis
Bitonto
Rutigliano
Conversano
8. Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa: Images, Assemblages, and the Creation of a Social Hierarchy
The Archaeological Evidence
The Piccolo Vimini Tomb
Tomb 8/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni
Tomb 1/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni
Conclusions
9. Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts
Funerary Rituals in Messapia
Methodology and Analysis of Finds
Distribution Patterns and Quantitative Analysis of the Findings
Vase Shapes and Distribution
Functions and Shapes of the Vases
Important Sites
Vaste
Egnazia
Rudiae
Conclusions
IV. Pottery Interpreted: Approaches to Pottery Studies
10. “Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery
Attic Imitations of Native (Italic) Shapes
History of the Kantharoid Shape in Lucania and Apulia
Function of Kantharoid Vessels as Wine Vases
Evidence of Native Wine Culture before Greek Colonization
Italiote Imitation of Native Shapes
Function
Imagery on Italiote Imitations of Native Shapes
Production Patterns
Selection of Shapes by Native Markets
Addendum
11. Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery
Technique and Chemical Analysis
New Analyses of Apulian Red-Figure (and Related) Pottery
Results: Lucanian Red-Figure
Other Techniques of Chemical Analysis
Petrology
Conclusions and Suggestions
12. A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia
V. Pottery as Art: Collections
13. Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections
South Italian and Attic Vases in Eighteenth-Century Collections: General Overview
Apulian and Lucanian Vases in Some Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Collections
Collections Formed in the North of Italy
Collections Formed in Central Italy
Collections Formed in Southern Italy
Some Possible Conclusions
Appendix of Types of Tombs
Works Cited
Index

Citation preview

THE ITALIC PEOPLE OF ANCIENT APULIA New Evidence from Pottery for Workshops, Markets, and Customs The focus of this book is on the Italic people of Apulia during the fourth century B.C.E., when Italic culture seems to have reached its peak of affluence. Scholars have largely ignored these people and the region they inhabited. During the past several decades, archaeologists have made significant progress in revealing the cultures of Apulia through excavations of habitation sites and un-plundered tombs, often published in Italian journals. This book makes the broad range of recent scholarship – from new excavations and contexts to archaeometric testing of production hypotheses to archaeological evidence for reconsidering painter attributions – available to English-speaking audiences. In it, thirteen scholars from Italy, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Australia present targeted essays on aspects of the cultures of the Italic people of Apulia during the fourth century B.C.E. and the surrounding decades. (Supplemental images are available at www.cambridge.org/apulia.) T. H. Carpenter is Charles J. Ping Professor of Humanities and Distinguished Professor of Classics at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. He is author of numerous books and articles on Greek and South Italian iconography. K. M. Lynch is Associate Professor in the Classics Department at the University of Cincinnati. She is author of The Symposium in Context, which won the 2013 Wiseman Prize from the Archaeological Institute of America. She is a specialist in Athenian pottery and its export to the Western and Eastern Mediterranean. E. G. D. Robinson is a senior lecturer in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sydney. His fieldwork has been conducted in Puglia (I Fani, Alezio) and Basilicata (Tolve). His principal research interest is cross-cultural contact in South Italy.

Map of Apulia

THE ITALIC PEOPLE OF ANCIENT APULIA New Evidence from Pottery for Workshops, Markets, and Customs

Edited by

T. H. CARPENTER Ohio University

K. M. LYNCH University of Cincinnati

E. G. D. ROBINSON University of Sydney

32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107041868  C Cambridge University Press 2014

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2014 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data The Italic people of ancient Apulia : new evidence from pottery for workshops, markets, and customs / [edited by] T.H. Carpenter, K.M. Lynch, E.G.D. Robinson. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-107-04186-8 (hardback) 1. Puglia (Italy) – Antiquities. 2. Italic peoples – Italy – Puglia – History. 3. Pottery, Italic – Italy – Puglia. 4. Vases, Red-figured – Italy – Puglia. 5. Material culture – Italy – Puglia. 6. Excavations (Archaeology) – Italy – Puglia. 7. Grave goods – Italy – Puglia. 8. Human geography – Italy – Puglia – History – To 1500. 9. Social archaeology – Italy – Puglia. I. Carpenter, Thomas H. II. Lynch, Kathleen M. III. Robinson, E. G. D. DG55.A65I83 2014 937ʹ.75–dc23 2014006690 ISBN 978-1-107-04186-8 Hardback Additional resources for this publication at www.cambridge.org/apulia Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations

page ix

List of Contributors

xiii

Preface Introduction

xv 1

I. TIME AND PLACE: HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY

11

1. Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia Alastair Small

13

Geography, Geology, and Land Use Ethnography, Anthropology, and Material Culture Religion Political Organization: Cities and Territories Social Organization Burials Weapons and Warfare Attic Imports The Ethnicity of the Artisans The End of the Native Apulian Cultures

13 18 20 20 23 23 27 28 32 32

2. Iapygians: The Indigenous Populations of Ancient Apulia in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. Mario Lombardo

36

Literary Evidence for the Indigenous Populations of Apulia Ethnicity and Geography Myths of Origins Relations between Apulians and Greeks Epigraphic Evidence Messapia Peucetia and Daunia Conclusions

37 37 40 43 46 47 50 51 v

vi

efh

Contents

APPENDIX: Greek and Latin Sources Ethnic Denominations and Territorial Distribution of Indigenous Populations in Apulia Origins of the Different Populations Political Organization Society, Social Figures, and Practices Presence of Greeks in Indigenous Contexts Political Relations of the Iapygian Peoples with the Greeks

53 53 57 60 62 64 64

II. POTTERY PRODUCTION: RED-FIGURE WORKSHOPS

69

3. Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras: New Contexts and Problems of Interpretation Didier Fontannaz

71

Taranto and Apulian Red-Figure Pottery Functions Overview of Settlement and Sanctuary Contexts The Chora Tombs and Grave Goods Other Contexts in the Necropolis: Pits, Dumps, and Wells Functions of Pottery in Burial Deposits Semata and Vessels for the Burial Ceremony Production Contexts Via Leonida 52 Via Umbria and Isolated Evidence Perspectives for the Location and Identification of Tarentine Workshops

4. Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto: The Evidence from the Necropoleis along the Coast Road Francesca Silvestrelli 5. Hands at Work in Magna Graecia: The Amykos Painter and His Workshop Martine Denoyelle III. POTTERY IN CONTEXT: ITALIC SITES Bice Peruzzi 6. Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts Ada Riccardi 7. The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts: A Comparison of Several Necropoleis Angela Ciancio Bitonto Rutigliano Conversano

72 74 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 83 86 88 96

116

131 133

152 153 155 156

egh

Contents

8. Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa: Images, Assemblages, and the Creation of a Social Hierarchy Marissa Corrente The Archaeological Evidence The Piccolo Vimini Tomb Tomb 8/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni Tomb 1/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni Conclusions

9. Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts Maria Teresa Giannotta Funerary Rituals in Messapia Methodology and Analysis of Finds Distribution Patterns and Quantitative Analysis of the Findings Vase Shapes and Distribution Functions and Shapes of the Vases Important Sites Vaste Egnazia Rudiae Conclusions

IV. POTTERY INTERPRETED: APPROACHES TO POTTERY STUDIES 10. “Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery Fabio Colivicchi Attic Imitations of Native (Italic) Shapes History of the Kantharoid Shape in Lucania and Apulia Function of Kantharoid Vessels as Wine Vases Evidence of Native Wine Culture before Greek Colonization Italiote Imitation of Native Shapes Function Imagery on Italiote Imitations of Native Shapes Production Patterns Selection of Shapes by Native Markets Addendum

11. Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery E. G. D. Robinson Technique and Chemical Analysis New Analyses of Apulian Red-Figure (and Related) Pottery Results: Lucanian Red-Figure Other Techniques of Chemical Analysis Petrology Conclusions and Suggestions

168 169 169 175 178 180 186 187 188 189 190 194 195 197 198 200 205

211 213 213 214 216 216 217 224 226 227 229 233 243 247 249 257 259 260 261

vii

viii

efh

Contents

12. A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia T. H. Carpenter

265

V. POTTERY AS ART: COLLECTIONS

281

13. Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections Maria Emilia Masci

283

South Italian and Attic Vases in Eighteenth-Century Collections: General Overview Apulian and Lucanian Vases in Some Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Collections Collections Formed in the North of Italy Collections Formed in Central Italy Collections Formed in Southern Italy Some Possible Conclusions

284 286 287 287 290 296

Appendix of Types of Tombs

303

Works Cited

305

Index

339

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

I.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Frontispiece: Map of Apulia Map showing Apulian peoples and drove roads of South Italy Map of the physical geography of Apulia Basentello valley survey showing sites of the fourth century B.C.E. Apulian red-figure column krater by the Sisyphus Painter Monte Sannace Botromagno chamber tomb Canosa, Varrese hypogeum Gravina, Strada S. Stefano Tomb 25 (1993) Apulian red-figure column krater by the Prisoner Painter Wheel-made painted pottery Inscribed bronze herald staff from Brindisi Coins of Arpi, Salapia, Canusium, Rubi, Azetium, Cailia, Valesium, Ugentum Hypothetical reconstruction of Tarentine anathema from the Peucetians at Delphi Attic or Italiote pottery fragment with a map from Soleto Inscription of Artos Atotios from Ruvo Tarentine and Messapian alphabets Messapic funerary inscription of a priestess of Damatra from Valesio Votive inscription to Aprodita on an altar from Ceglie Messapica Map of Classical Taras Funerary deposit from Tomb 9, Pezza Petrosa Sketch of context sheet of a pit at the corner of via D’Al` o Alfieri and via Leonida Drilled skyphoi Map of the structures at via Leonida 52 Fragments from via Leonida 52

page ii 3 15 17 19 21 24 25 27 29 31 39 41 43 48 48 49 50 51 75 77 79 81 83 85 ix

x

efh

List of Illustrations

3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Pottery fragments from Contr. Vaccarella, at the corner of via Umbria and Medaglie d’Oro Pottery fragments from the Maritime Arsenal Metaponto. Schematic location of funerary areas Pelike by the Meidias Painter. Tomb 428 Lekythos. Tomb 428 Pseudopanathenaic amphora by the Karneia Painter. Tomb 376 Hydria. Tomb 250 Lebes gamikos and lekythos by the Anabates Painter. Tomb 546 Pseudopanathenaic amphora. Tomb 549 Pseudopanathenaic amphora. Tomb 713 Hydria, Amykos Painter Bell krater, Amykos Painter Chous, Amykos Painter Nestoris, Amykos Painter Column krater, Amykos Painter Volute krater, Amykos Painter Pseudopanathenaic amphora, Amykos Painter Bell krater by the Amykos Painter from Turi Early Apulian skyphos from Turi Funerary assemblage from Turi Funerary assemblage from Ruvo Bell krater by the Amykos Painter from Ruvo Local imitation of an Attic black-figure cup from Ruvo Funerary assemblage from Ruvo Bell krater by the Anabates Painter from Ruvo Bell krater from the Chevron Group from Ruvo Volute krater by the Baltimore Painter Bell krater from Conversano Tomb 5–1992 Conversano, Tomb 9–1992, funerary assemblage Column krater from Conversano Tomb 9–1992 Bell krater from Conversano Tomb 1–1987 Conversano, Tomb 7–1992, funerary assemblage Volute krater from Conversano, Tomb 1–1991 Volute krater from the funerary assemblage of Tomb S. Bartolomeo Amphora from Conversanto Tomb 10–1958 Aerial view of Canosa The Piccolo Vimini Tomb, Canosa Apulian red-figure vases from the Piccolo Vimini Tomb Tomb 8/08, Canosa Plan of Tomb 8/08, Canosa

87 89 99 101 103 105 107 108 109 110 119 120 121 122 123 125 127 135 136 137 140 141 142 143 144 145 147 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 170 171 173 176 177

egh

List of Illustrations

8.6 8.7 9.1 9.2

Plan of Tomb 1/08, Canosa Bell krater, skyphos, and lekythos from Tomb 1/08, Canosa Manduria, Tomb 515/1958. Funerary assemblage Messapia. Map showing quantitative distribution of Apulian red-figure vases 9.3 Messapia. Distribution map showing chronological phases 9.4 Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes 9.5 Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes (420–375 B.C.E.) 9.6 Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes (375–340 B.C.E.) 9.7 Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes (340–300 B.C.E.) 9.8 Vaste. Tomb III 1959. Funerary assemblage including a bell krater by the Hoppin Painter 9.9 Bell krater by the Snub-nose Painter from Rudiae 10.1 Table of the development of the family of vases with two tall vertical handles in South Italy 10.2 Early Lucanian kantharoid 10.3 Lucanian nestoris by the Amykos Painter 10.4 Lucanian nestoris by the Palermo Painter 10.5 Lucanian nestoris by the Brooklyn-Budapest Painter 10.6 Typology of the red-figure nestorides 10.7 Apulian column krater 10.8 Apulian kantharos 11.1 Plot of the principal components analysis of results for Apulian red-figure samples 1–49 11.2 Plot of the elemental scores for the PCA in Figure 11.1 11.3 Close-up photographs of Apulian red-figure 11.4 Schematic geological map of southern Italy 11.5 PCA of samples 1–59 11.6 Red-figure miniature hydria 11.7 CVA of the groups 11.8 PCA of Lucanian red-figure in the Nicholson Museum 11.9 PCA of Apulian Group 1 and Metapontine red-figure in the Nicholson Museum 11.10 PCA of the data reported for Apulian and Lucanian red-figure pottery in Thorn and Glascock 2010 12.1 Apulian calyx krater by the Tarporley Painter from Ruvo 12.2 Apulian volute krater by the Painter of Lecce 3544 from Ruvo 12.3 Attic volute krater by the Pronomos Painter from Ruvo 12.4 Apulian volute krater by the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos from Ruvo 12.5 Apulian volute krater by the Iliupersis Painter from Ruvo

179 181 188 189 191 192 193 194 195 199 203 215 218 219 220 221 223 225 231 249 250 251 253 254 255 257 258 259 260 267 269 271 272 273

xi

xii

efh

List of Illustrations

12.6 12.7 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6

Apulian volute krater by the Iliupersis Painter from Ruvo Apulian volute krater by the Darius Painter from Ruvo Drawing of an Apulian pelike attributed to the McDaniel Painter Drawing of a lost Apulian pelike assigned to the circle of the Varrese Painter Drawing of an Apulian amphora attributed to the Group of Vatican Z 16 Drawing of an Apulian volute krater attributed to the Helmet Painter Drawing of an Apulian volute krater attributed to the Foggia Group Attributions of 141 vases belonging to 27 collections dated between 1680 and 1765

275 277 289 291 293 295 297 299

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

T. H. Carpenter is Professor of Classics and Director of the Ping Institute for the Teaching of the Humanities at Ohio University. His recent scholarship focuses on South Italian pottery and its iconography in archaeological contexts. Angela Ciancio is a member of the office of the Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia at Bari where she directs excavations and manages many sites in Peucetia. Her research is focused on pre-Roman Peucetia and vases from grave assemblages. Fabio Colivicchi is an Associate Professor of Classics at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is interested in pre-Roman Italy – both central and southern – with an excavation at Caere and publications on the role of wine and drinking vessels in Apulia. Marissa Corrente is a member of the office of the Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia at Bari, for which she directs excavations and manages sites in Daunia. She is a specialist in the material culture of northern Apulia with a focus on tomb assemblages. Martine Denoyelle is Scientific Advisor to the Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art in Paris, and has published on both Athenian and South Italian pottery. She is particularly interested in the use of archaeological context to refine attribution studies. Didier Fontannaz is a Researcher at Universit´e de Lausanne. He is preparing a study of early red-figure production and iconography at Taranto. Maria Teresa Giannotta is a Senior Researcher with the Consiglio Nazonale delle Ricerche, Instituto per I Beni Archeologici e Monumentali. Her research examines the use of South Italian and imported pottery in tombs as well as the decoration of the tombs themselves.

xiii

xiv

efh

List of Contributors

Mario Lombardo is a Professor at the Universit`a del Salento in Lecce, and his scholarship focuses on the political history of South Italy and cultural contact between Greek colonists and local cultures. Kathleen Lynch is an Associate Professor at the University of Cincinnati. Her research places exported Greek pottery, especially figured wares, back into their original contexts in order to understand their social function and meaning among their non-Greek users. Maria Emilia Masci is a Research Fellow at Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, LARTTE. Her research examines private collections of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, and she has contributed to several programs for digital access to archaeological data. Bice Peruzzi is a Visiting Assistant Professor at Grand Valley State University. Her research focuses on burial assemblages as a mean to understand cultural exchanges and the construction of local identity in Central Apulia. Ada Riccardi is a member of the office of the Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia at Bari where she directs excavations and manages sites in the area of Ruvo di Puglia. Her research considers burial practice and grave assemblages in Peucetia. E. G. D. Robinson is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, and his scholarship focuses on South Italian ceramics, their imagery and reception, and the use of archaeometric analysis. Francesca Silvestrelli is a Researcher at the Universit`a del Salento in Lecce. She is best known for her publications on the production and iconography of ceramics from the Greek colonial site of Metaponto. Alastair Small is an Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He has conducted excavations and surveys at a number of sites in Peucetia, including Gravina in Puglia, and his research interests include the interaction between Italic centers and their Greek and Roman neighbors.

PREFACE

On a late winter day in 2007 in Sydney Ted Robinson and Tom Carpenter sat in the sun at an outside table at the university talking about Apulian archaeology. They knew well the important and even exciting work done by archaeologists, largely Italian, in Apulia and Lucania and were frustrated that so few people in the English-speaking world are at all aware of it. Most classicists know something about the history and perhaps the archaeology of the Greek colonies in South Italy (Magna Graecia), but few know anything at all about the native people who inhabited most of the vast area of Apulia and Lucania. Likewise, few know of the recent archaeological work at Taranto and Metaponto – or the new perspectives on South Italian pottery that have been developing. Even fewer know about the advances made by archaeologists during the past three or four decades in revealing the cultures of these people – Greeks and natives – and in understanding better the interactions between them. They talked about how they might address this gap and came up with the idea of a symposium to which they would invite top scholars in the fields of Apulian and Lucanian studies to give papers on a range of subjects, which would then be followed up with a publication in English of the revised versions of the delivered papers. Grand as the idea was, the problems of financing and organizing such a conference were daunting. They approached Kathleen Lynch, whose interest in Attic pottery from archaeological contexts was moving her research toward the non-Greek cultures of Italy. Kathleen agreed that the topic had potential to be a Semple Symposium, one of a series of international symposia on developing and influential areas of Classical studies sponsored by the Classics Department of the University of Cincinnati and funded by the department’s Louise Taft Semple Fund. She proposed the topic to the Classics faculty, who graciously approved, as did the Semple Fund trustees, which made the possibility of a symposium a reality. Thus, this volume originated as the Semple Symposium, “Beyond Magna Graecia: New Developments in South Italian Archaeology, The Contexts of Apulian and Lucanian Pottery,” at the University of Cincinnati, November 12–14, 2009, xv

xvi

efh

Preface

organized by Kathleen Lynch (University of Cincinnati), Tom Carpenter (Ohio University), and Ted Robinson (University of Sydney). The stated objective of the conference was to introduce the American archaeological audience to important discoveries and new approaches to the study of Apulian and Lucanian pottery. During conference planning, the organizers already had in mind a vision of the complementary book that would extend the subject’s reach beyond the conference to Anglophone audiences throughout the world. As the introduction describes, we hope that this overview of new developments in the field of South Italian pottery will provide a sound introduction to the topic and its problems, and a better understanding of the evidence. The Louise Taft Semple Fund at the University of Cincinnati, Department of Classics, is intended, as its deed states, “for the sole purpose of promoting the study of the Classics, such term to be interpreted in its broadest sense.” The fund provides the resources to host periodic international symposia on topics of growing importance to the field of Classics in addition to support for the Burnam Classics Library, the single best library in North America for Classical research; a variety of research projects undertaken by faculty, including archaeological excavations; the Tytus Visiting Scholars program; and a thriving graduate program of the highest caliber. The vibrant Classics community at the University of Cincinnati contributed to the success of the conference and to the preparation of this volume in numerous ways, and we highlight only a few here. The organizers wish to thank Classics Department Heads William Johnson and Peter van Minnen and Classics faculty for their encouragement and support. We especially appreciate the advice of William Johnson and Kathryn Gutzwiller, who hosted the two most recent Semple Symposia. Former Classics coordinator Laura Deller helped with travel and catering arrangements. The conference would not have been possible without the outstanding organizational assistance of Classics graduate students Emilia Oddo and Bice Peruzzi. They contributed to the planning, logistics, and hosting of the event, not to mention translation of texts and orientation information for our Italian colleagues. Many others in the graduate student community provided welcome assistance at all stages, and here we mention only Allison Emmerson, Emilia Oddo, Bice Peruzzi, and Jed Thorn, who translated written texts for the conference and volume, and Bill Weir, who drove participants between venues. Bice Peruzzi also wrote the introduction to Section III of this book, and Chris Cloke was our first reader, reading the text from cover to cover and offering editorial advice. Desiree Gerner checked for accuracy all of the entries in the works cited, and Kathleen Kidder proofread the Greek in Chapter 2. Senior Research Associate John Wallrodt designed the Web site that accompanies this book (www .cambridge.org/apulia).

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the Greek colonists in Magna Graecia, but there is almost nothing in English about the Iapygians, the Messapians, or the Peucetians, the Italic (non-Greek) people who inhabited Apulia, the vast region of southern Italy that stretches from the tip of the heel up along the Adriatic to the bulge of the Gargano and inland to the Bradano river. Ancient authors were aware of the often fraught interactions between Italic peoples and Greek colonists. Herodotus (7.170) could write that the greatest slaughter Greeks ever experienced was when the combined forces of Greeks from Taras and Rhegium were defeated by the Iapygians of Messapia in 473 B.C.E.1 Thucydides (7.33.4) could write of an alliance between Athens and Artas, a chieftain of the Messapians in 413 B.C.E. Pausanias, in his Description of Greece (10.10.6 and 10.13.10), tells of two fifth century B.C.E. monuments at Delphi set up by the Tarentines to celebrate victories, one over the Messapians, the other over Opis, king of the Iapygians, who was an ally of the Peucetians. The Italic people of Apulia, however, left no writings of their own and thus they have essentially vanished from history. Our knowledge of them today depends largely on evidence from archaeology, much of which has come to light during the past half century. These Italic people are the principal subject of this book, and the red-figure pottery they often placed in their tombs serves as a “text” in our explorations. During the sixth and much of the fifth century B.C.E., most of their figuredecorated pottery was imported from Greece, mainly from Attica. But during the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., red-figure workshops were established at the Greek colony at Metaponto in Lucania and soon thereafter in Apulia. By the early fourth century B.C.E., these local productions, Lucanian and Apulian, had all but replaced the imported wares. While the earliest South Italian red-figure pottery was based on Attic models, images soon appeared that demonstrate the adaptation and modification of traditional forms for local purposes, and it is from WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

1

2

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

these new images that we can find signs of a people expressing their own sense of identity. The Italic people of Apulia and the region they inhabited have been largely ignored by scholars writing in English and are absent from curricula at most British and American universities. Most published sources are in Italian. The purpose of this book, then, is to use archaeological evidence to provide English-speaking audiences with a greater understanding of these people, offering a broader view of the cultural geography of southern Italy, and to point to the potential for further study of the region’s material culture. Throughout much of the twentieth century, non-Italian scholarly interest in southern Italy focused principally on the Greek colonies and colonists. In his influential book The Western Greeks, published in 1948, T. J. Dunbabin did not include a single reference to an Italic site and wrote, “I am inclined to stress the purity of Greek culture in the colonial cities and find little to suggest that the Greeks mixed much with Sikel or Italic peoples, or learnt much from them.”2 Today there is still little evidence to assess whether or what the Greeks learned from the Italic people, but Dunbabin’s larger message here is a dismissive one. The culmination of this celebration of the Greekness of Magna Graecia was surely the spectacular 1996 exhibition I greci in occidente (The Western Greeks) at the Palazzo Grassi in Venice. The 800-page catalogue of the exhibition does, at least, include some 40 pages that refer to the non-Greek (anelleniche) people in Magna Graecia.3 During the past several decades, however, archaeologists have made significant progress in revealing aspects of the Italic cultures of Apulia through the excavation of habitation sites such as Monte Sannace and Gravina and the study of unplundered tombs at sites such as Bitonto and Rutigliano, Ruvo and Conversano. Much of the work has been conducted by or under the auspices of Italian archaeologists4 and has been published in Italian journals, which are often difficult to access outside of Italy.5 In what follows here, essays by prominent archaeologists involved with current research at significant sites have been translated into English. The particular focus of the book is on Apulia in the fourth century B.C.E., when the Italic culture there seems to have reached its peak of affluence. Though Greek terminology for the names of the Italic peoples of Apulia is not consistent, as Alastair Small and Mario Lombardo note in their essays, three distinct archaeological cultures are recognized to have developed by the seventh century B.C.E.: the Messapians to the south, the Daunians to the north, and the Peucetians between them. These designations will be used throughout this volume (Fig. I.1, WF 001). Tombs are our richest source of evidence because of the Italic customs of furnishing burials with assemblages of objects, which could in some cases include bronze vessels and armor, and gold and amber jewelry, in addition to plain and figure-decorated pottery. In their essays Angela Ciancio, Ada Riccardi, Maria Teresa Giannotta, and Marisa Corrente demonstrate ways that funerary assemblages from different parts of Apulia can reflect a region’s “ideological heritage, its social structure, its artistic traditions and its commercial relationship with neighboring communities.”6

Introduction

I.1. Map of Apulian peoples and drove roads of South Italy. Courtesy of Alastair M. Small.

From the eighteenth century to the present, Apulian tombs have been a major source of antiquities, particularly red-figure vases acquired by many museums in Europe, Australia, and the United States. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the majority of these objects were uncovered by local landowners or treasure hunters who discovered that there was a lucrative market for the goods. Sold to collectors, few of the objects in museums have any find-place associated with them, and for those that do, the reference is typically only to a general area such as Apulia, or a site such as Ruvo or Ceglie del Campo. Rarely was there any indication of funerary assemblages – objects found together in the same tomb. Much of the South Italian collection at the British Museum, for example, derives from the objects accumulated by two avid collectors, Sir William Hamilton, British Envoy to the Court of Naples from 1764 to 1798, and one of his successors as Envoy in Naples from 1833 to 1856, Sir William Temple, brother of the Prime Minister Lord Palmerston. The provenances of the Hamilton vases are not recorded, while the majority of the objects from the Temple collection are listed as coming from a site in Apulia located in the vicinity of the modern city of Ruvo di Puglia. Unfortunately, this area of southern Italy continued in recent times to provide fertile grounds for modern tomb robbers (tombaroli), who usually filtered their illegal finds through Switzerland to various antiquities markets. Virtually none of the more than 1,000 Apulian red-figure vases sold at auctions by Christie’s and Sotheby’s between 1988 and 1999 has a known provenance, though it is certain that almost all of them came from Italic rather than Greek tombs.7 The absence

egh

3

4

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

of find spots and, even more, of tomb contexts seriously reduces the value of these objects as evidence that can be used in attempts to understand the culture of the people who chose to bury them in their tombs. A particular focus of this book is on Apulian figure-decorated pottery with known find spots, which can be established either through controlled excavations or as a result of creative archival research for pots from early collections. The distribution of the pottery can reveal important distinctions between the people and the character of specific sites. Moreover, the figure decoration on it can serve as a kind of language that defines values and interests of the people who possessed it and, over time, it can show ways these values and interests could change. As Maria Emilia Masci shows in her essay, Greek figure-decorated pottery, often misnamed Etruscan even into the nineteenth century, could be found in Italian collections as early as the sixteenth century, but it was only after the middle of the eighteenth century that interest in it spread to the rest of Europe. The increased interest was, in no small part, the result of the avid collecting of Sir William Hamilton, the publication of his collection managed by Baron d’Hancarville (Pierre Franc¸ois Hughes), and the sale of his first collection to the British Museum in 1772. Although there were some mainland Greek vases in the collection (Corinthian, Attic black- and red-figure) the majority of the vases were South Italian, coming from the regions around Naples. One third of the vases in Hamilton’s second collection were lost at sea, and those that reached Britain were sold to Thomas Hope in 1801.8 More than half of the second collection also consisted of vases made in southern Italy. By the end of the eighteenth century, collections of vases had been established in many parts of Europe, but few of these vases carried with them knowledge of their find spot or find context.9 The rich finds of Attic vases from the excavations initiated at Vulci in 1828 by Lucien Bonaparte changed the focus for many collectors from southern Italy to Tuscany and from South Italian to Attic pottery;10 however, less than a decade later, a German scholar could write that Ruvo di Puglia in Apulia, where the preponderance of the vases found were South Italian, had become a new center for the discovery of vases comparable to what Vulci had been.11 In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries “South Italian might be said to have enjoyed a greater prestige with collectors than Attic,”12 but by the end of the nineteenth century tastes had changed and Attic red-figure became the gold standard by which other styles were judged. American collections quickly developed after the founding of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston in 1870, and in both museums the vast majority of the figure-decorated vases are Attic. In Germany, Britain and the United States the interests of Classical scholars and archaeologists turned to Greece and Rome, and after the unification of Italy (Risorgimento) and the establishment of Rome as the capital of the new country in 1871, southern Italy was all but forgotten. The interest of scholars and collectors in Attic figure-decorated pottery was stimulated by the work of Sir John Beazley at Oxford who adopted the Morellian technique used to identify hands of Renaissance painters to trace “the development

Introduction

of Attic vase painting (black-figure, red-figure and white-ground) in terms of individual artists – master and pupil, colleagues and rivals who learned from and influenced one another.”13 For more than fifty years, starting with an article in 1910, Beazley published articles, reviews, and books refining his definitions of painters and groups, culminating in his monumental works, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (1956) and Attic Red-figure Vase-painters (1963), in which more than 100,000 vases were attributed on the basis of style. During much of the twentieth century mainstream scholars in Britain were particularly disdainful of South Italian painting. Beazley wrote in 1932, “when we turn to the big Apulian vases of the second half of the [fourth] century, we note the slickness of hand, and we can put up with a square inch or so here and there: but it is really time that vase-painting ceased.”14 Arthur Lane never even mentioned South Italian pottery in his influential 1948 book Greek Pottery. The Cambridge archaeologist R.M. Cook could write in 1960 “judged by Attic standards . . . the South Italians are heavy or vulgar or dull” and “the style starting as second-rate Attic, soon takes its own road or rut” and famously, “its availability, the many theatrical scenes it exhibits, and perhaps their stronger stomachs made it popular with an earlier generation of scholars. Now it is neglected” – in the 1972 edition he added the clause “except by a few specialists.”15 The parts of the English-speaking world where appreciation of South Italian pottery seems never to have flagged are New Zealand and Australia. This is in no small part the result of the work of Dale Trendall, a New Zealander who studied with Beazley and adopted the Morellian technique for the attribution of South Italian hands. Trendall made the study of South Italian pottery his life’s work, starting with an article in 1934 on an Apulian volute krater, and he continued to publish works on the various fabrics of southern Italy for six decades, including such fundamental works as Red-figured Vases of Lucania, Campania and Sicily (LCS) and Red-figured Vases of Apulia (RVAp). His focus remained attribution, for which archaeological context was of little use. But unlike the general neatness of Beazley’s Attic groups and hands, the relationships between South Italian workshops are much more complex and resist simple descriptions, as Martine Denoyelle demonstrates in her essay where she combines stylistic analysis with considerations of provenance provided by modern research. A revival of interest in South Italian pottery, particularly amongst American collectors, was marked by the 1982 exhibition at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond titled “The Art of South Italy: Vases from Magna Graecia,” which included 161 vases from American collections.16 The exhibition coincided with a huge surge in the number of Apulian vases sold on the antiquities market, which continued on through the nineties, and, as one scholar has noted, “it can hardly be a coincidence that this occurred at the same time as the appearance of Trendall’s The Red-figured Vases of Apulia.”17 As with Attic vases, the attribution of a South Italian vase to a specific painter or workshop could often substantially increase its sale price at auction. Unfortunately, market interest also coincided with a surge of illegal excavations and more vases without archaeological context.

egh

5

6

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Substantial amounts of fifth-century Attic red-figure pottery have been found at more than forty Italic sites in southern and central Apulia as well as at the Greek colony Taranto, though the numbers decline for Taranto after ca. 475 B.C.E. as they increase at Italic sites.18 At least some elements of the Italic populations of settlements such as Ruvo di Puglia, Ceglie del Campo, and Gravina were exposed to a wide range of Attic images by the mid-fifth century B.C.E. if not before, and it is clear that these vases came to the settlements directly from Greece rather than via Taranto. These Italic people had developed a taste for and understanding of the language of Attic imagery, which made them particularly receptive to the Apulian vases that replaced them. Red-figure vases were first produced in southern Italy during the third quarter of the fifth century, and from early on there appear to have been two workshops that “seem to have worked in close cooperation and either style reflects the influence of the other.”19 The earlier of the two styles is usually called Lucanian, and it is soon followed by the second, usually called Apulian. The earliest Lucanian and Apulian vases are very close to Attic vases in style, technique and shape, and it seems likely that the workshops were established by immigrants from Athens.20 But it is important to note that while the Attic technique and style were adopted, the language of the imagery was, from the start, different. Unlike Attic vases, Apulian red-figure was rarely exported far; by one estimate only about 1 percent of Apulian vases have been found outside of Apulia,21 and from early on Apulian and Lucanian painters seem to have been well aware of the tastes and needs of their markets. The traditional view of South Italian pottery has been that “until about the beginning of the last third of the fifth century B.C.E. the Greek colonists in South Italy and Sicily had been content to import their red-figure pottery from Athens; thereafter they began to supplement these imports with vases of local manufacture.”22 The implication is that South Italian vases were made by Greeks for Greeks; however, some recent studies have raised questions about the accuracy of this view. A majority of Apulian red-figure vases with provenances have been found in tombs at Italic sites, with relatively few large vases coming from the Greek cities of Metaponto and Taranto. The prevalence of Apulian vases at Italic sites led some scholars at the beginning of the nineteenth century to conclude that they were produced at Italic sites, with Ruvo di Puglia and Ceglie del Campo as favorite possibilities. The argument was that because so many of the vases are found at Italic sites and so few are found at Greek sites, it makes sense to assume they were made where they were found.23 This view was strongly advocated by some Italian scholars, sometimes driven by nationalistic ideologies, while others, notably British scholars, saw Taranto, the one Greek colony in Apulia, as a much more likely home for Apulian potters and painters. As one scholar wrote, “the claim of Taranto lies principally in the fact of her importance and prosperity during the early part of the life of the industry.”24 For most of the twentieth century the consensus has been that Apulian vases were made only in Taranto, at least until the latter part of the fourth century.

Introduction

Excavations at the Greek city of Metaponto in Lucania in 1973, which revealed several kilns and pits with wasters, some of which could be attributed to Early Lucanian painters, demonstrate conclusively that the Greek city was a center of production for at least some Early Lucanian vases.25 In her essay, Francesca Silvestrelli discusses pottery from recent excavations at Metaponto. For Taranto there is as yet little published archaeological evidence to support the conclusion that all Apulian red-figure prior to the 330s was produced there; however, as Didier Fontannaz demonstrates, the issue is more complex than it is for Metaponto. Apulian vases found in Tarentine tombs are generally few and small; however, enormous numbers of red-figure fragments have been found at many sites in the city. These phenomena may point to different funerary cultures, whereby the Tarentines used large red-figure vases as markers on top of tombs rather than placing them in tombs as was common with many Italic people.26 Few of the Tarentine fragments are included in Trendall’s lists, but recent reorganization of the storerooms at Taranto has made the fragments more accessible for scholarly research. Recent archaeometric studies presented here by Ted Robinson show that the question of production may be even more complex than has been suggested in the past. The chemical analysis of clay allows some vases to have been made in Taranto but also points to the possibility that some early vases may have been produced at other sites as well. In any case, it is clear that some shapes, including the volute krater and the column krater, were produced almost exclusively for Italic markets, as Fabio Colivicchi discusses in his essay. Until about 375 B.C.E. Lucanian and Apulian vases are often found together at sites in Apulia, but after that Apulian red-figure becomes the dominant style. More than 10,000 Apulian vases were catalogued by Trendall and his colleague, Alexander Cambitoglou, and a large percentage of those have been assigned to specific painters or workshops.27 Almost from the beginning of its production, Apulian red-figure pottery can be divided into two groups, usually called plain style and ornate style. The figure decoration on plain style vases, often bell or column kraters, is usually limited to three or four figures, while the imagery on ornate vases, often calyx or volute kraters, is, as implied by the name, much more elaborate and can have a dozen figures. Find contexts for Early Apulian vases, both plain style and ornate, seem to indicate that they were a commodity aimed at elite strata of the Italic populations, but after the middle of the fourth century there was an explosion into what Angela Ciancio calls “the first craft production for the masses” and a significant decline in quality. However, as Marissa Corrente discusses, even during the second half of the century some potters/painters continued to produce vases for elite populations, often very large ones featuring complex scenes from Greek myth. As noted earlier, from the start Apulian imagery can be very different from its Attic antecedents. The imagery on Apulian column kraters is a case in point. The market for the shape in Apulia seems to have been amongst the Peucetians; of those with a known context, all have been found in Peucetian tombs, and none has been found in a Greek context. Warriors are the most common figures on them,

egh

7

8

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

usually in departure/return scenes that follow the Attic model.28 But the majority of the warriors wear distinctive Italic (non-Greek) clothing, and before the middle of the fourth century, figures wearing that clothing rarely appear on other Apulian red-figure shapes (Fig. 1.3 (WF005). The Italic elements in the scenes can consist of clothing (short belted tunics or loin cloths), Italic utensils (trozzella, nestoris), and Italic armor.29 The shape and the technique come from Attic models, as does the treatment of the human form, but the meaning of the scene is distinctly Italic and designed for an Italic market. The Apulian use of male nudity is another significant departure from Attic iconography. For both Attic and Apulian painters, nudity was the appropriate “costume” for heroes. On Attic pots mortal male nudes often appear together in athletic and sympotic contexts, but they are almost never shown in the presence of respectable women. On Apulian vases, however, male nudes are commonly shown with women in a variety of different generic scenes where the nudity seems gratuitous. Surely the implication is not that Apulian women regularly consorted with nude youths. In other words, it is unlikely that the images have any correlation with an experienced reality. Yet depictions of nude youths clearly had a meaning for Apulian audiences quite different from what they meant in Athens.30 The degree to which vase painters were influenced by the theater is another significant difference between Attic and Apulian imagery. Greek tragedy, in one way or another, was a powerful source of inspiration for some Apulian vase painters, but Attic painters seem not to have been much affected by it. Arguments about the nature of its influence on Apulian painters have raged for decades. Some have seen hints in the imagery of actual productions, while others have argued that the inspiration came only from texts. A recent moderate view suggests that we should think of the images as being “informed by the plays.”31 In any case, the fact is that most of the Apulian vases that clearly depend, to one degree or another, on tragedies have been found in Italic tombs in Peucetia and Daunia. This implies a level of sophistication amongst some parts of the Italic populations that has not been recognized in the past. Tom Carpenter, in his essay, suggests that productions by Greek theater companies might even have taken place during the fourth century B.C.E. in the rich Italic settlement of Ruvo di Puglia. The overwhelming emphasis in the study of South Italian vases through the twentieth century was on attributing them to painters according to style, an approach traditionally called “connoisseurship.” The contributions of Trendall amplified this focus, but since so few South Italian vases had known find spots or even regional provenances, the field seemed limited to these stylistic approaches. Ongoing publication of scientifically excavated tombs allows scholars to examine the imagery on multiple vases in a funerary assemblage and to consider it in the broader context of the burial itself, as Marissa Corrente demonstrates. At the same time, archival work such as that conducted recently by Andrea Montanaro on Ruvo and Didier Fontannaz at Taranto will allow the reconstitution of older tomb groups and the recovery of some contexts.32 It is from such work that new insights into the cultures and identities of the Italic people of Apulia will develop.

Introduction

Along with introducing English-speaking audiences to current research on South Italian archaeology and pottery, this volume aims to illustrate the usefulness of this evidence for addressing a variety of research questions. Key themes in contemporary archaeology – identity, ethnicity, status, social change, memory, expressions of power – can all be investigated using the rich archaeological data emerging from the area. For example, many tomb contexts are well preserved, as several chapters here demonstrate. The study of burial practices, which reflect the living as much as the dead, can provide insight into social and political changes over time as well as subtle status differences within communities. Identity, an area of study that asks how individuals actively define themselves within a society, is reflected both in burial practice and assemblage makeup and in the iconography of the vases. Both are intentionally selected, and thus project a constructed message. It is also not unusual for tombs to contain heirloom vases or other objects. Charting the frequency of these antiques may reveal periods when status required displaying one’s genealogy and memory of family achievements prominently. New salvage and planned excavations in the cities of southern Italy add incrementally to the picture of settlements, and more than ever before it is possible to compare habitation and sepulchral use of objects. The complex relationship between colonial Greek sites and Italic peoples, reflected in the borrowing and appropriation of imagery and style, also provides a new arena for post-colonial studies. This volume strives to encourage scholars and students alike to explore the research potential that southern Italy offers. Notes 1. See also Diodorus Siculus 9.52. 2. Dunbabin 1948, vi. 3. G. Pugliese Carratelli 1996, an English translation of the massive catalogue of the 1996 exhibition, I greci in occidente at the Palazzo Grassi in Venice. 4. Important exceptions are the work done by the British School at Rome, particularly at Botromagno (Gravina). See Small 1992 and for the University of Texas excavations at Metaponto, see Carter 1998a. See also the publications of the Accordia Research Institute at the University of London. 5. Since 1981, the journal Taras has included an annual survey of archaeological work in Apulia, though the reports tend to lag by two to three years. Since 1961, the superintendent of archaeology for Puglia has included a brief review of the year’s significant archaeological work in AttiTaranto, the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia at Taranto. 6. See Riccardi in Chapter 6 of this volume. 7. Nørskov 2002; Elia 2001. 8. Tillyard 1923, 1–3. 9. Nørskov 2002, 27–80; Jenkins and Sloan 1996, 40–64. 10. Dennis 1883, 447–8. See recently Nørskov 2009. 11. Braun 1836, 162. 12. Trendall 1982, 15. 13. Robertson 1985, 19; Kurtz 1985. 14. Beazley and Ashmole 1932, 64–5. 15. Cook 1972, 191–94.

egh

9

10

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

16. Mayo 1982. It is worth noting that very few of the vases in the Virginia catalogue have a provenance indicated. 17. Nørskov 2002, 266–9. Volume 1 of RVAp appeared in 1978, Volume 2 in 1982. 18. Mannino 2004; Di Bari 1981. 19. Trendall 1989, 18. 20. MacDonald 1981. 21. RVAp xlvii. 22. Trendall 1989, 17. 23. See Macchioro 1911 and Wuilleumier 1929, 1931. 24. Moon 1929, 48. 25. D’Andria 1975. 26. Lippolis 1994c. 27. Some 1,500 Lucanian vases are known. Most have been attributed to painters and workshops by Dale Trendall in LCS. 28. Carpenter 2003, 10–16. 29. Frielinghaus 1995. 30. Carpenter 2011. 31. Taplin 2007, 25. 32. Montanaro 2007.

PART I

TIME AND PLACE: HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY

CHAPTER ONE

POTS, PEOPLES, AND PLACES IN FOURTH-CENTURY B.C.E. APULIA Alastair Small

Geography, Geology, and Land Use Apulia is the southeasternmost region of Italy, lying between the Apennine mountains and the Adriatic sea (Fig. 1.1, WF 002). It has its own characteristic geology that distinguishes it scenically from the rest of Italy, and these characteristics, in turn, define land use and the location of settlements. The northeast sector of the region is dominated by the massif of Monte Gargano, mostly 600–1,000 m high (the highest point is Monte Calvo, at 1,055 m), which rises spectacularly above the plain of the Tavoliere to the south. It is formed of cretaceous limestone, so porous that the rainfall is easily absorbed into the bedrock. There is therefore little or no river formation, and except where pockets of soil have accumulated in depressions in the plateau, the terrain is unsuited for agriculture. It was and still is largely given over to forest, and is of only marginal interest in the story of Apulia in the fourth century B.C.E. To the south and west of the Gargano is the vast stretch of the Tavoliere, the largest plain in peninsular Italy, consisting of Pliocene sands and gravels which slope down almost imperceptibly from the pre-Apennines towards the sea. The plain is crossed by several rivers descending from the Apennines, which have brought down sediments eroded from the mountains and left them as alluvial deposits around the edges of the watercourses and at the margins of the land, pushing out the shoreline and creating lagoons when they failed to reach the sea. The land is potentially fertile, and with modern irrigation systems much of the plain is intensively cultivated, especially for vines and market produce. In premodern times, without irrigation, the land was best suited for cereal cultivation and, above all, for winter pasturage of sheep. The plain ends to the south at the River Ofanto, one of the longest rivers of peninsular Italy, which rises deep in the Apennine mountains: its valley provides a natural corridor of access into the interior. WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

13

14

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

To the southeast of the Ofanto river rises the plateau of the Murge, another massif of cretaceous limestone which, as in the Gargano, is so porous that the rainfall is absorbed into the bedrock, and issues in the form of rivers only along its western scarp. It is highest at its northwestern edge, where it reaches a maximum height of 686 m at Torre Disperata. From there it steps down in a series of terraces towards the Adriatic. The western half of the massif is a rock-strewn wilderness, suitable only for grazing sheep, but nearer the sea it is overlaid with Pliocene marine deposits. The land here is ideally suited for growing olives. Vast areas have been planted with olive trees since the 1950s, but in antiquity the principal produce is more likely to have been grain. The plateau extends southward into the peninsula of Salento, but here the geology is complicated by the presence of some earlier limestone formations, and the landscape is more varied, though still without river formation. Olive cultivation here has a longer history, and many of the olive trees visible today are of great antiquity. Olive oil was produced in large quantities in Roman times,1 and it is known that the cultivated olive was grown in Salento in the pre-Roman period, though the scale of the production is uncertain.2 To the southwest of the Murge, between the scarp of the plateau and the Apennine mountains, is the Fossa Bradanica, a broad geological trough which forms a natural route of communication between the Tavoliere and the plains on the south (Ionian) coast (WF 003). Its Pliocene soils are of varying quality, but the best are ideally suited for growing barley and durum wheat. Finally, there is the coastal strip along the north side of the Ionian Gulf consisting largely of alluvial plain formed by the sediments brought down from the Apennines by a series of rivers. At the eastern end of the strip was the Greek city of Taras (Latin Tarentum, modern Taranto), founded around the end of the eighth century B.C.E. by colonists sent out from Sparta. The city occupied a narrow promontory between the Ionian Gulf and the lagoon of the Mar Piccolo, and so controlled the best natural harbor on this coast of Italy. To the west, just beyond the borders of Apulia, lay the Greek city of Metapontion (Latin Metapontum, modern Metaponto) which was founded by colonists from Achaea on the south shore of the Gulf of Corinth some time toward the end of the seventh century B.C.E. Its territory included some excellent agricultural land, which the Metapontines subdivided into allotments on which they founded small farms to exploit the land more effectively.3 A number of routes led inland from these Greek cities to the Apulian communities in the interior, notably one that passed through the Fossa Bradanica along the valleys of the Bradano river and its tributaries, connecting Metaponto with the non-Greek communities in the mountains and in the Tavoliere. The climate of Apulia tends to extremes. In the whole of the region most of the rainfall is concentrated in the winter and spring. The wettest months are November and December; the driest is July. In Foggia, in the center of the Tavoliere, the temperature in the summer frequently exceeds 40 degrees centigrade, and in winter may fall below zero. These conditions were well suited for the cultivation

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.1 : Map showing the physical geography of Apulia (author).

of barley and durum wheat and they determined the kind of stock raising that could be practiced, for in spring the countryside turns vivid green and there are excellent pastures for animals, whereas in summer it is dry and brown and little grazing is to be had. In the mountains, however, the converse was true: the mountain pastures would be covered by snow in the winter, but in the summer they would be available for grazing flocks. The conditions were ideally suited for transhumance; the seasonal migration of shepherds and their flocks between the mountains and the plains. This was the normal routine, regularized by the Aragonese King Alfonso the Magnanimous for taxation purposes in the middle of the fifteenth century, which continued until the practice was abolished in the land reforms of the 1950s. In the eighteenth century more than a million sheep were pastured in the Tavoliere in the winter, and returned to the mountains along designated drove roads (tratturi) (Fig. I.1, WF 001).4 The Romans, too, had a system of drove roads (calles), and since the trails used for flocks inevitably follow the natural routes of communication, the tratturi of the fifteenth century probably followed much the same routes as the Roman calles.5 But did they go back to the fifth century B.C.E.? It has sometimes been supposed that long-distance transhumance would have been impossible at that time when the mountains were controlled by supposedly hostile Oscan-speaking tribes. But transhumance was a practice that benefited the peoples at both ends of the drove trails, and it could be regulated by agreements between autonomous communities.6

egh

15

16

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Recent field survey in the Basentello valley supports the idea that some transhumance between communities was already practiced in the first millennium B.C.E., before the Roman conquest. As the map (Fig. 1.2, WF 004) shows, the main east–west tratturo linking the sheep grazings on the Murge with those in the Lucanian Apennines crosses the valley near the mid-point of the survey area. The dots indicate find-spots of black-gloss pottery sherds, most of which can be dated between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the third centuries B.C.E., and they are graded according to the density of the sherds. Except for a few isolated pieces of pottery, to be expected if the drove road was in use, the greater concentrations of sherds that indicate settlement are all at a distance of 2 km or more from the line of the road. The gap in the pattern of settlement is likely to imply that a wide area on either side of the drove road was reserved to provide pasture for transhumant sheep. There is, moreover, plenty of evidence to show that weaving was an important economic activity in Apulia in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. It is common to find loomweights in contexts of this period in sites from all over the region. More than 500 were found in the excavations of the British School at Rome on Botromagno in the 1960s,7 and though many of these come from contexts of the second century B.C.E., a significant number are likely to date to before the Roman conquest. Since spindle whorls are rare on the site, it would seem that the wool woven on Botromagno was spun elsewhere. There are indications, therefore, that the weaving was well organized, and it is likely that Botromagno, which lay at the intersection of two major drove roads, was a center of the industry. The site also lay on the route across the Murge to Taranto (the route later taken by the Via Appia). At Taranto there was an important wool market in the fourth century B.C.E.,8 and it is likely, therefore, that many of the textiles made on Botromagno and at neighboring sites such as Monte Sannace, where numerous loomweights have been found, was marketed in Taranto. The main winter destination of many of the transhumance routes is likely, however, to have been the Tavoliere, where the weaving industry was particularly well developed. This is shown by the representations of weavers at work incised on stelae of the seventh or early sixth century B.C.E. found in and around several sites at the north end of the plain. These extraordinary monuments were erected by the Daunian inhabitants of the area, probably as grave-markers. They are lightly incised with stylized representations of a wide variety of human activities, and so are a wonderful source of information on the culture of these people. In one of these tableaux, which occurs with minor differences on several stelae, a woman is shown seated on a high-backed chair with her hands outstretched towards a vertical frame. A strip, sometimes shown patterned, hangs down from the top of the frame on either side. A smaller female attendant stands on the opposite side of the frame, assisting in the action. It has been convincingly argued that the vertical object is a two-beam loom, and that the patterned strip represents the cloth being woven by the two women.9 In this type of loom the warp threads were attached to the beams at the top and bottom of the loom, which kept them taut without

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.2. The Basentello valley survey, showing the sites of the fourth century B.C.E. Those named go back to the Early Iron Age. Courtesy of Carola M. Small.

the use of loomweights. The attendant operates the rods that separate the warp threads while the weaver (shown on a larger scale as more important) passes the bobbin with the weft thread back and forth. The two-beam loom was technically more advanced than the warp-weighted loom. It used to be thought that it was introduced into Italy and the Roman west in the Roman imperial period, but the stelae show that it was already used in the settlements at the north end of the Tavoliere in the late seventh century B.C.E. It likely implies that wool was being woven there at the level of a craft industry for export beyond the community. Textiles, like grain, leave few archaeological traces, and yet they were both essential commodities that could be produced more easily in Apulia than in most other parts of the ancient world. I have suggested that the textiles manufactured on Botromagno may have been sold in Taranto, but there was also a string of

egh

17

18

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

small harbors on the Adriatic coast through which such commodities could be exported (Frontispiece).

Ethnography, Anthropology, and Material Culture The region was known to the Greeks of the fifth century B.C.E. as ’Ιαπυγία (Iapygia), and the inhabitants as ’Ιάπυγες (Iapygians).10 That is the term used by Herodotus (7.170), who narrates a myth of their descent from Cretans of the time of Minos, and it was probably the term used by the indigenous peoples of themselves.11 It passed through Oscan into Latin, ending as Apulia after a series of morphological changes (Iapudia, Apudia).12 Within the Iapygian ethnos there were various subdivisions that are reflected in the Greek sources,13 although there are many inconsistencies between them. By the middle of the third century B.C.E. a view had emerged that Iapygia was divided among three peoples – the Daunians in the north, the Peucetians in the center, and the Messapians in the south. This division is found in Polybius (III.88), and has come to be accepted as authentic, although some sources treat the Iapygians and Messapians as synonymous, and several writers of the Roman period refer to other names (Apuli in the north, Poediculi14 in the center, Sallentini15 and Calabri in the south) as alternatives or additions to those found in earlier writers. The discrepancies perhaps indicate that the subethnic structures were unstable, and the earlier units had fragmented. Before the Roman conquest, these Iapygian groups all shared a common language, Messapic, which was probably related to the Illyrian tongue spoken on the other side of the Adriatic.16 It would have been unintelligible to the other peoples of the Italian peninsula. The language is best attested in Salento, the home of the Messapian subdivision of the Iapygian ethnos, where there are several hundred inscriptions in Messapic, written in the Greek alphabet, mainly in the third and second centuries B.C.E.17 Most are brief epitaphs recording the name of the deceased, or simple dedications giving the name of the divinity to be propitiated. Only a few consist of more than half a dozen words, and the interpretation of them is disputed. In Daunia and Peucetia linguistic evidence is much less abundant and consists mainly of single names, many of them inscribed on loomweights. The Iapygian peoples could also be distinguished by their dress. The Daunian stelae of the archaic period show that aristocratic men and women in the seventh century B.C.E. wore highly ornate costumes and much jewelry. The custom continued throughout the classical period, as we can see on representations of Apulians on red-figure vases,18 mainly from central Apulia, which show young warriors with long hair falling down onto their shoulders who wear highly patterned short tunics with elaborate fringes (Fig 1.3, WF 005). They are frequently attended by young women dressed in long tunics belted at the waist, with a conspicuous overfold, who invariably wear a head-band or diadem, sometimes represented as studded with jewels. Such tunics were also worn by Greek women, but other

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.3. Apulian red-figure column krater by the Sisyphus Painter showing young Apulian warriors C The Trustees of the British Museum). wearing local dress. British Museum F 174 (

representations, of which the best known is on the Tomb of the Dancers from Ruvo (now in Naples Museum),19 show that on ritual or ceremonial occasions the women of central Apulia wore a distinctive form of mantle over their heads that left the headband visible above the brow. They have large earrings, and rouge on their cheeks. The burial rituals of the Iapygian peoples were also significantly different. Whereas other Italic peoples banished adult burials to the fringes of their settlements, the Iapygians buried their dead both outside and inside their settlements (Fig. 1.4, WF 006). The traditional custom, found throughout Daunia and Peucetia, was to lay out the corpse in the fetal position with the legs drawn up towards the chest (rannicchiato), symbolizing perhaps the rebirth of the soul in the womb of Mother Earth. This remained the normal practice until near the end of the

egh

19

20

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

fourth century B.C.E. when extended burial with the body lying on its back began to take its place; and even then the transition was gradual, with contracted burial continuing in some places well into the second century B.C.E.20 By contrast, the Messapian peoples in the Salentine peninsula laid out their dead in the extended position as was the normal custom among other Italic peoples at this time – except where cremation was practiced.

Religion Religious cult has left remarkably few traces in Iapygian material culture. There are no temples datable before the period of Romanization, and few deposits of terracotta votives. Such evidence as there is for cult practices comes mainly from Messapia.21 A few names of divinities can be made out from inscriptions, which show that some Iapygian deities were assimilated to gods of the Hellenic pantheon, with names such as Zis (Zeus), Aprodita (Aphrodite), and Damatira (Demeter). Several cave sanctuaries have been identified on the coast. The best known is the Grotta Porcinara at Leuca, which was visited both by Messapians and by Greek mariners who inscribed their vows on the walls of the cave.22 There was a simple ash altar at the entrance where sacrificial offerings were burnt. Some rural sanctuaries are known, including one at Monte Papalucio near Oria where excavation has revealed other ash altars with carbonized remains of various fruits and cereals,23 as well as piglets, reminiscent of the Eleusinian cult. There were also numerous artifacts dedicated as votives, including pottery, metalwork, and jewelry. Several other shrines have been identified inside Messapian cities, at Cavallino, Egnazia, Rudiae, and Vaste, all on a small scale, and probably intended for the cults of the families who owned the property on which they were situated. In Peucetia the evidence is still thinner. There was a small rural sanctuary at Madonna delle Grazie near Rutigliano, attested by votive offerings,24 but no remains of urban sanctuaries are known, even though large areas of Monte Sannace and Botromagno have been excavated. It is likely, therefore, that the Peucetians had no civic cults that required public buildings. There is rather more evidence in Daunia, where sanctuaries have been identified at Tiati (Teanum Apulum), Luceria (predating the Roman colony), Lavello, and Canosa,25 but they had no conspicuous buildings before the period of Romanization.

Political Organization: Cities and Territories By the time Apulian red-figure pottery began to develop in the latter part of the fifth century, the subethnic units were losing their relevance and the Iapygian peoples were developing the structures and institutions of cities. The origins of this process can be traced back to the sixth century B.C.E. when the large but thinly occupied settlements founded at the beginning of the Iron Age (around the beginning of the first millennium B.C.E.) began to take on a more structured form, with buildings erected on substantial stone socles and sometimes laid out on rectilinear plans. A

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.4. Monte Sannace: (A) wall circuits; (B) semi-chamber tombs. Reproduced courtesy of A. Ciancio, Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia.

hierarchy of settlements emerged, and by the fourth century B.C.E. the largest had developed into major centers with the administrative capacity and the resources of manpower to undertake great public projects, primarily of fortification. The fact that so many of them committed vast resources of manpower to laying out city walls is a clear reflection of the dangers of the time. One of the biggest and best studied of these walled cities is Monte Sannace, the largest Peucetian settlement in central Apulia, which was fortified soon after the middle of the fourth century with two wall circuits (Fig. 1.4, WF 006). One (I on the plan), 1,400 m. long, enclosed the acropolis; the other (II), 1,700 m long, encompassed the lower part of the city to the west. These fortifications were strengthened still further in the third century by the construction of two more walls (circuits III and IV). The walls of Botromagno are less well preserved, but a trench cut across their remains illustrates their construction well.26 Where the topography was suitable, they were built below the brow of the hill like great terrace walls, but in such a way that the defenders on the hilltop could step directly onto the wall-head. The face of the wall consisted of massive squared stone blocks, tied at intervals into the hillside by cross walls. As in the case of nearly all the fortification walls in Apulia in this period, some of the blocks were marked with Greek (or Messapic) letters, such as the K (kappa) and M (mu) still visible in the wall-face. They are probably quarriers’ marks referring to tallies of blocks produced by laborers working in the quarry who may well have been slaves or prisoners of war. In areas where there was no suitable stone, massive earthworks would be erected instead. This was the case at Arpi, the largest Daunian settlement in the Tavoliere, where air photography has revealed almost the full extent of the rampart, and even

egh

21

22

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

many details of the internal organization of the city, especially the rather haphazard network of roads. The area enclosed by the walls was immense, measuring 4.6 km in the longest dimension.27 The vast areas contained within such walls were not all densely populated. At Botromagno, for example, the fortifications enclosed a distinct spur of the north side of the hill where occupation was very thin. It was necessary to leave large reserved spaces to accommodate refugees from the countryside who could take shelter with their flocks and cattle inside the defensive circuits in time of danger. By the fourth century B.C.E. a distinct hierarchy of settlements had emerged. At the top there was a small number of large fortified settlements that probably regarded themselves as autonomous city-states, each of which controlled a territory in which there might be numerous smaller settlements of varying antiquity and size. Recent field survey in the Basentello valley has revealed just such a hierarchy of settlement in the fourth century B.C.E. within an area of ca. 100 square km, most of which must have fallen within the territory of Botromagno (Fig. 1.2, WF 004).28 The Basentello river to the west of the settlement is likely to have formed the limit of the territory in this direction, but the other boundaries are completely uncertain. Within the survey area there were three settlements of village size (ranging from ca. 2 to ca. 13 hectares), all of which had been founded in the Early Iron Age. Two of them were already in decline in the fourth century, but one, on the plateau of San Felice, was still densely occupied.29 The remaining settlements are all new foundations of the fourth or third centuries B.C.E.: small farms or clusters of farms founded in the open countryside. Their existence probably implies a coordinated attempt by the city-state to colonize the land – comparable in a way to the massive schemes of land settlement that the Romans were imposing elsewhere in the peninsula at this time, but without centuriation. The inhabitants of the new settlements must have been able to farm the land more effectively, but they would have needed the protection of the city walls if there was a threat of war. The name of the community – the Sidini – is revealed by a few bronze coins of the late fourth or early third century B.C.E. with the legend ΣΙΔΙΝΝ, at least two of which have been found on or near Botromagno (WF 007b).30 So few of the coins are known that they can have had little or no use as instruments of trade, but they had a symbolic value as political propaganda in a time when all the Apulian communities were under threat from various quarters. It is significant that the Apulian city that minted most coins in this period was Ruvo (WF 007a), famous now for its fine Attic and Apulian red-figure vases, and for the precious gold-work found in its rich graves that were ransacked in the nineteenth century.31 In the sixth century B.C.E. its culture had been Daunian, but by the late fifth century it had been drawn into the cultural milieu of the Peucetian cities to the south, and like them had become intensively hellenized. The symbols on some of its coins allude to the sources of its wealth, notably the spike of barley on the reverse of a silver diobol minted sometime between ca. 325 and 275 B.C.E.32 To the right of

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

the barley there is a cornucopia, and to the left, the legend ΡΥ (rho upsilon), the first two letters of the city’s name, Rubi – or more probably of the Rubini, assuming that the name of the community was based on that of its principal city.

Social Organization A passage in Thucydides (7.33) suggests that at least some of these communities were ruled by powerful individuals in the late fifth century. In 413 B.C.E. the Athenian general Demosthenes, on his way to Sicily to reinforce the Athenian expedition against Syracuse, stopped at the Choirades islands in the Gulf of Taranto to take on board 150 javelineers supplied by Artas, a potentate (δυνάστης) of the Messapians, with whom he renewed an old treaty of friendship. The number of javelineers he supplied hardly suggests that he was a tribal ruler of the whole Messapian people, so more probably he was a dynast holding power either as an autocrat or as a dominant member of an oligarchy, in one or other of the Messapian cities.33

Burials The archaeological evidence suggests that the settlements were dominated by an elite who expressed their power and wealth in the magnificence of their burials. The grandest form of grave in the late fifth and much of the fourth century was the so-called semichamber tomb (tomba a semicamera), which was used in some (but not all) communities in Peucetia and Messapia.34 It was constructed of large blocks of squared stones, and roofed with long rectangular stone slabs, sometimes resting (strangely) on wooden beams. Some were plastered and painted on the inside. They were not intended to be reused for they had no entrance corridor, and access was only from above. They were not, therefore, designed for family burials, although they doubtless asserted the power of the family of the dead. In some settlements, clusters of semichamber tombs occupied prized locations in or near the center of the settlement. At Monte Sannace, for example, three large semichamber tombs were constructed inside the courtyard of a house that had been built in the archaic period in the center of the acropolis (Fig. 1.4, WF 006).35 The tombs had been robbed, but there were still traces of painted decoration on their walls, and remains of some of the grave goods were found inside them. A fourth tomb was subsequently inserted in one of the rooms. It is doubtful if the building was occupied for domestic purposes at this time, but the whole context of the building and the tombs asserted the importance of the dynasty that presumably controlled the city. It also suggests that the cult of the dead was important in the religious life of the community.36 These tombe a semicamera were designed for individual burials, but around the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. new types of tomb intended for family burials came into vogue, expressing still further the hereditary power of the dominant families. They began as relatively simple chamber tombs that could accommodate

egh

23

24

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

1.5. Botromagno chamber tomb excavated in 1966. Apulian red-figure pottery found in the fill of the dromos show that it was finally sealed c. 340 B.C.E. Photo courtesy of the British School at Rome Photographic Archive (negative wp-9018).

several burials, especially if earlier human remains were moved into the compartment at the rear of the tomb once the flesh had decayed and the skeleton could be disarticulated – as was the normal practice. They were approached by an entrance corridor (dromos) that led rapidly down below ground to the door of the tomb, which would be blocked by a large stone slab. There is a good example on Botromagno, excavated in 1966 (Fig. 1.5, WF 008). It had been robbed twice – first in antiquity, and again apparently in 1919 – so nothing remained of its contents, but a few fragments of Apulian red-figure found in the fill of the dromos show that it was finally sealed in about 340 B.C.E.37 At Canosa, and to a lesser extent at Arpi in Daunia, and at Vaste, Rudiae, and Lupiae (Lecce) in Messapia, these chamber tombs developed in the late fourth and third centuries B.C.E. into much larger hypogea in which the entrance corridor led to several interconnected chambers that could be added progressively as need arose. Many were looted in the nineteenth century. One of the most important, however, the Varrese hypogeum (Fig. 1.6, WF 009), was excavated unofficially in 1912 by one of the landowners in whose property it stood. Most of the material

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.6. Canosa, Varrese hypogeum. Adapted from Nachod 1914, fig. 19.

was recovered and has ended up partly in the National Museum at Taranto and partly in the Provincial Museum at Bari. It includes many fine examples of Apulian red-figured pottery of the last half of the fourth century, loosely associated with pottery in the local Canosan style. There was also some armor found in one of the chambers on the east side: a cuirass with anatomical details and the remains of a belt and of a long spear head.38 Another type of tomb, the cave tomb (tomba a grotticella), was essentially a cave excavated in the bedrock, approached by an entrance corridor, without the walls and roofs of stone slabs found in the chamber tombs and hypogea. The type appeared first in Daunia, at Ascoli Satriano, around the middle of the fifth century B.C.E., and spread over much of north and central Apulia during the fourth century. The earliest examples were designed for single burials equipped with a large number of grave goods, but like the chamber tombs the caves were made larger during the late fourth and third centuries so as to accommodate the burials of whole families, and they might have a monumental entrance with moulded lintel stones. The type can be illustrated by several examples recorded on or below Botromagno.39 Most have been robbed, but one (Strada S. Stefano no. 25), excavated by the Superintendency in 1993, was intact (Fig. 1.7, WF 010).40 It was marked by a small tumulus above the dromos, surmounted by a roughly

egh

25

26

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

cut stone pillar (cippus). Inside the chamber there were two L-shaped benches, separated by a projecting pier of rock: on one, the bones of a single individual had been heaped in a corner together with an alabastron, leaving several pots, including a matt-painted volute krater with Medusa heads in the volutes, isolated at the far end of the bench; on the other, there was the still-articulated skeleton of a second individual in the center, and the disarticulated remains of three others piled up in the corners. Various grave goods including an amphora were loosely associated with them. Several of the pots had been intentionally broken. The discovery of an intact tomb such as this is of great importance for understanding the burial practices. It was evidently the normal custom to lay out the dead on the funerary couch until the flesh had decayed, and then to gather up the bones so as to leave the space available for the next burial. The remains of several individuals and their grave goods might be mingled together, so that it is impossible to be confident that grave goods from a chamber tomb that may have held multiple burials were associated with a single individual or even a single generation. Tombe a grotticella could only be constructed in areas where there was suitable rock, and they are therefore unevenly distributed in Apulia. They are not found, for example, at Monte Sannace, Rutigliano, or Ruvo, where the limestone is much harder than the Gravina tufo. This is, however, a topic that needs more careful investigation. The great majority of burials throughout the period of Apulian red-figure, however, consisted of single inhumations in simple pits, in cists made of stone slabs, in roughly cut stone sarcophagi, or in recesses carved out of the living rock. They presumably represent a lower order of society than the more monumental tombs of the types just described, but they too are frequently provided with numerous grave goods. It is often impossible to know whether particular grave goods were envisaged as providing for the needs of the dead in the after-life, or were items that had been used in the funerary ritual and were then buried in the grave as taboo objects that should not be used again in the world of the living. The problem is raised in acute form by the recent publication of a group of ninety-four burials from Rutigliano.41 The volume presents a well-organized catalogue of all the objects found in the burials, followed by an excellent typological study of the artefacts by several scholars, and concludes with a brief report on the osteology by a specialist team. There is, however, no discussion of the implications of the osteological analyses for the interpretation of the grave goods, with the result that some problems emerge that must puzzle the reader. Tomb 83, for instance, contained the remains of a single adult who is said by the osteologists to have been male. His grave goods included two rings, two spherical bone objects pierced for suspension, four fibulae, a cluster of silver threads, and numerous beads, twenty-three of them of amber.42 Conversely, the individual buried in Tomb 84, said by the osteologists to have been female, was accompanied by twenty-two pots, two or three fibulae, and a bronze spear. It is unfortunate that the basis for the gender classification is not specified, and so cannot be debated, but this is not the only instance in which

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.7. Gravina, Strada S. Stefano Tomb 25 (1993). Plan of the burial chamber. Reproduced courtesy of A. Ciancio, Soprintendenza per I beni archeologici della Puglia.

osteological anlaysis has produced results that do not fit with our conventional assumptions about gender roles and the function of grave goods.43 Such cases demonstrate the need for more anthropological analyses if we are to understand the role of burials in this culture.

Weapons and Warfare Although females may sometimes have been buried with weapons, arms and armor are principally found in male burials at Rutigliano, and this, it seems safe to assume, was the more normal custom. The weapons and armor consigned to a tomb are likely to have displayed the social and economic status of the dead man, recorded his military prowess, and symbolized his heroic status in the afterlife. Probably only the richest could afford the full panoply of hoplite armor that was found in a semichamber tomb of the late fourth century B.C.E. at

egh

27

28

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Conversano.44 It included a splendid bronze helmet shaped like a Phrygian cap with crest and hinged cheek pieces – a type of helmet introduced from Macedonia that is represented fairly frequently on Apulian red-figure vases of the last half of the fourth century B.C.E.45 He also had a double cuirass, a belt, a crescent-shaped bronze sheet to protect his lower abdomen, and greaves. The only item of defensive armor lacking is his shield, which may have been too big to go inside the tomb. Apulian warriors of lower status fought with much less body armor. The commonest item found in male burials is the bronze belt. Helmets and greaves are much rarer, and breastplates are exceptional. The most common weapon is the thrusting spear of varying size and weight, followed by the javelin. In some burials, especially at Lavello, there are two or more spears, or (more rarely) a spear and a javelin.46 Swords are rarely found. It seems probable that each warrior equipped himself as best he could. The evidence of the grave goods matches the images on Apulian red-figure vases reasonably well. Some of the warriors depicted wear leather helmets and jerkins, but most have very little defensive armor other than a shield. They are frequently shown with two spears, or with one spear left in the hand after the other has been thrown at the enemy. The scenes of combat shown in these red-figure vase paintings were not just displays of the military expertise in which the youth of these communities were trained. They are realistic battle scenes in which much is at stake, including the fate of the wounded prisoner whose arms have been bound at the wrists on a column krater by the Prisoner Painter (Fig. 1.8, WF 011).47 He plainly awaits the outcome of the fight going on between the two warriors on the right side of the pot, in which it seems likely that his comrade will suffer a similar fate. This was therefore a battle in which prisoners were taken for ransom or to be sold into slavery. In these combats the warriors on both sides are represented as indigenous Apulians, which would seem to suggest that relations between the various Apulian communities were unstable, and that they were frequently involved in conflict.

Attic Imports Although some aspects of the burials of this period in Apulia show a society that was tenacious regarding its own traditions – its own modes of fighting, dress, and burial – others exhibit a refined taste for Greek painted pottery and a good understanding of Greek myth and cultural images. Attic black-figure pottery had already been imported in some quantity into Peucetia in the last half of the sixth century B.C.E., but the demand for red-figure vases was greater, and by the middle of the fifth century an impressive number of Athenian pots, some of them of the highest quality, was reaching south and especially central Apulia.48 They continued to arrive throughout the last half of the fifth century, apparently little affected by the development of skilled workshops that began producing red-figure pottery around 440 B.C.E. at Metaponto and a little later at

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

1.8. Apulian red-figure column krater by the Prisoner Painter showing battle scene with wounded C The Trustees of the British prisoner whose arms have been bound. British Museum F 173 ( Museum).

Taranto. The Peucetians evidently had an appetite for pottery from both Attica and Magna Graecia. Athenian red-figure pots did not, however, arrive in equivalent numbers in either Taranto or Metaponto, and it is most probable, therefore, that the Attic imports into Peucetia and Messapia came through the Apulian Adriatic ports rather than through the Greek cities on the Ionian Gulf. The Athenian involvement in Apulia in this period is reflected in Thucydides’ reference to the old treaty of friendship which was renewed with Artas, potentate of the Messapians, who contributed the javelineers to the Athenian expedition in 413 B.C.E., but their interest is unlikely to have been only in mercenaries. The large number and high quality of the Attic vases collected by the Jatta family in and around Ruvo in the nineteenth century49 suggests that this Peucetian city was the most important center in Apulia for Athenian commerce. Athens, being short of arable land, was perpetually in need of grain, and the ear of barley on the coins of Ruvo suggests that the Athenians were attracted to the city primarily as a source of grain. After the end of the fifth century the importation of Attic red-figure vases fell off markedly.50 That might be because the failure of the Athenian expedition against Syracuse in 411 B.C.E. caused the Athenians to cut back drastically in their operations in the west, or, more probably, because the decline in the quality of Athenian red-figure vase painting in this period led to a fall in the demand. The

egh

29

30

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Apulian peoples could now get better red-figure pieces more conveniently, and probably more cheaply, from workshops in southern Italy than they could from Athens. The very large number of burials that contain Apulian red-figure pots show that the taste for them extended far below the ranks of the local aristocracy, though on the whole there is a correlation between the quality and size of a pot and the size and magnificence of the tomb. In Peucetia and Messapia the standard tomb-furnishings of the period might include a variety of wares, some of them of Greek type (red-figure, Gnathia and overpainted wares, and simpler black-gloss pottery) but also locally made painted and plain wares and even cooking-pots.51 In many burials of the late fifth and fourth centuries the local painted wares predominate. They were made and painted on the fast potter’s wheel that had been introduced in the late sixth century. Some of the shapes, such as the Messapian trozzella or the Peucetian kantharos (which spread from Peucetia into Daunia in the mid-fourth century), evolved out of the handmade geometric forms of the previous period. Others, such as the stamnos, were adopted from the Greek repertoire and then developed independently of their Greek models. Others again follow Greek prototypes closely, such as the one-handled cups which spread throughout Apulia and remained virtually unchanged for 300 years (Fig. 1.9, WF 012). Kraters, at first bell kraters and column kraters, then volute kraters with gorgon heads in the volutes, were also made in imitation of Greek models. They were particularly popular in Peucetia where they were frequently deposited in burials of the fifth and fourth centuries, presumably as cheaper alternatives to their red-figure equivalents. Volute kraters continued to be made in some Peucetian and Daunian centers well into the third century, outlasting their red-figure prototypes. They were made specifically for burial: some of the latest pieces had hollow bases and could not have held wine, although they could have been used as funnels for libations. The decorative scheme on the wheel-made painted pots was usually simple, consisting of a pattern of bands in a matt or slightly lustrous dark brown paint, sometimes alternating with bands in red.52 Rows of vegetal patterns were also popular on some shapes, especially kantharoi, kalathoi, and kraters. They were derived from the strings of vegetal ornaments found on red-figure pottery. A few more ambitious Apulian potters painted figured scenes. The earliest were in a black-figure technique inspired at first by Corinthian and then by Attic prototypes of the sixth century B.C.E.,53 but in the early fifth century, when Attic potters had changed from the black-figure to the red-figure technique, they resorted to a silhouette style enlivened with linear decoration in reserved areas. They must have been intended for an elite clientele, because several show hunting scenes or other representations of animals of the chase.54 Deer were especially popular: they feature, for example, on a stamnos of the early fifth century together with the word ΓΝΟΘΙ (γνῶθι / know) which has several layers of meaning that relate to the Greek symposium of the time.55 Other themes are derived from red-figure pottery, such as the tableau of the return of a cavalryman on a lekythos found in a tomb of the late fourth century B.C.E. in the Accurso necropolis at Gravina.56

egh

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

Jugs

One-handled cups

Kantharoi

1 Valesio (Messapia) 4 Botromagno (Peucetia) 2 6

Botromagno (Peucetia)

Rutigliano (Peucetia)

3 Ordona (Daunia)

5 Ordona (Daunia)

Column krater

7

Arpi (Daunia)

Stemmed dish

9 8 Rutigliano (Peucetia)

0

5 cm

Botromagno (Peucetia)

1.9. Wheel-made painted pottery. Adapted from: De Juliis 1992, no. 21 (7); 2006, tav. 26a, cat Dd 4.7 (6); 373, tav. 24a; cat 68.4 (8); Iker 1984, fig. 155.7 (3); fig. 146.2 (5); Saunders and Taylor 1992, 263, fig. 5.115 (9); Whitehouse et al. 2000, 175, fig. 104 (2); 173, fig. 100 (4); Yntema 2001, 66, Form C11.79 (1).

31

32

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The Ethnicity of the Artisans One wheel-made painted pot, said to have been found in a tomb on Botromagno, has been signed by the potter, who added an inscription that is of enormous interest for what it says about the cultural milieu in which these pots were made.57 It is a globular pyxis, decorated with a broad black band that covers most of the wall of the pot. The band has been overpainted in white with three zones of olive and myrtle fronds. Below these, on the same broad band, is an inscription in Greek.58 The first six words can be translated: “Morkos made (the pot), Pyllos taught him, Morkos Pyllos.” Then follow the first thirteen letters of the alphabet, and the words “Morkos dedicated to Gnaiva.” The inscription seems to imply that Morkos was an apprentice who was learning not only the potter’s craft, but also the alphabet under the instruction of Pyllos. The inscription is in Greek, but the names Morkos and Pyllos are of Messapic type, and Gnaiva is Oscan. The pot symbolizes the ethnic and cultural mix that characterized central Apulia in the fourth century B.C.E. A roof tile (imbrex) found at the Contrada Molinello near Montescaglioso on the fringes of Metapontine territory is stamped on the outside in Greek with ΔΑΖΙΜΟΣ ΚΕΡ/ΑΜΕΥΣ ΧΑΙΡΕ – meaning “Dazimos the potter, greetings.”59 The artisan’s name is Messapic, so he was presumably a native Apulian, although he addresses the passer-by in Greek. These relatively humble objects suggest that the use of Greek was common among the Apulian artisan class, even if their proficiency in the language may have been limited. Some of the artisans working in the interior of Apulia are more likely to have been ethnic Greeks, such as Herakleides, who stamped an imbrex tile found on the site of San Felice near Gravina some time before the end of the third century B.C.E.60 Such evidence suggests that artisans were able to move easily between Greek and native Apulian communities in southeast Italy.

The End of the Native Apulian Cultures The hellenization of Peucetia and to a lesser extent of Messapia, which is so evident in the material culture of the mid-sixth to the end of the fourth century B.C.E., came about in the context of recurrent warfare with the Tarentines.61 In the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. the military problems were aggravated by the Oscan-speaking Samnites and Lucanians, who spilled out from their homelands in the Apennine mountains, overran part of Apulia, and threatened the security of the Greek cities. The Tarentines responded by employing a series of mercenary generals to lead a coalition of Greek cities against them. One of these, Alexander of Molossus, the brother of Olympias, Alexander the Great’s mother, is specially interesting because of the impact of the war on the material culture of Apulia. He campaigned widely in southern Italy from 333 until 330 B.C.E. when he was defeated and killed by a coalition of the Oscan-speaking tribes. According to the meager sources, his campaign began well, with many initial successes in the field.

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

He operated first in Apulia, where he concluded a treaty of friendship with the Poediculi62 in which he must have recognized the autonomy of some of their cities. This can be inferred from the first coins issued by Ruvo – silver obols that display the frontal head of Helios on the obverse, borrowed from the king’s own coinage.63 In Daunia he captured the port of Sipontum, which served the northern part of the Tavoliere, and thereby opened up this area to Greek and Macedonian influence.64 The consequences can be seen especially clearly at Arpi, where a vigorous late red-figure workshop sprang up, and where the architecture of the tombs and houses of the third century reflects Macedonian influence.65 At Timmari on the Apulian/Lucanian border a rich cremation burial of the third quarter of the fourth century reflects strong Macedonian influence. It may have been the tomb of one of Alexander’s officers.66 After settling matters in Apulia, Alexander turned against the Lucanians and Bruttians (in modern Calabria). In 332 B.C.E., when he launched a campaign against the Lucanians from Paestum, they called on their Samnite kinsmen for help. Consequently Alexander came into contact with the Romans, who were engaged in their own war on the Samnites’ western flank. He concluded a treaty of friendship with them.67 In 326 B.C.E., however, after Alexander’s death, the Romans made a treaty of alliance with the Apulians against the Samnites, and so replaced the Tarentines as the principal external influence in Daunia.68 In 320 B.C.E. they besieged Luceria, which had been occupied by a Samnite army, and in 314 B.C.E. they established a Latin colony on the site.69 The cultural outcome of these events is illustrated by the votives found in a deposit in the localit`a Belvedere at Lucera.70 They included inter alia antefixes of Etrusco-Campanian type, and anatomical votives alien to the Apulian tradition. The Romans had no taste for Apulian red-figure pottery, which was never imported into Rome, and they probably had little respect for the culture of which it was such a conspicuous part. In Magna Graecia the old rituals of the symposium were falling into disuse, giving way to new modes of dining and consuming wine. It was the Romans who now provided the role models for the aristocracy of their allies to emulate, and soon after the end of the fourth century B.C.E. the production of Apulian red-figure pottery came to an end. Notes 1. Brun 2004, 171. 2. A few olive pits were found in the Archaic/Hellenistic sanctuary at Monte Papalucio near Oria: Ciaraldi 1997, 220. 3. Carter 2006, 91–149. 4. The best account is still by Henry Swinburne (1790 vol. I, 214 ff). 5. Gabba and Pasquinucci 1979. 6. Skydsgaard 1974, 7–36. For a dissenting view: Giardina 2000, 216–24 (only limited local transhumance). 7. Tatton-Brown 1992, 218–26. 8. Morel 1978, 102 note 23. Cf. Wuilleumier 1939, 219–21.

egh

33

34

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

9. This identification was proposed by M.-L. Nava (1980 I, 34, 159 no. 748). The social and cultural implications of it are pursued by D’Ercole (2000, 327–49) and Roth (2007, 71–6). 10. Antiochus (in Strabo 6.3.2) held that the name included all the peoples of the region as far as Daunia. 11. Whatmough 1968, 260. 12. De Juliis 1988, 15. 13. See the discussion by Mario Lombardo in this book. 14. The Poediculi inhabited central Apulia (Pliny NH 3.100). They were perhaps an offshoot of the Peucetians, though some sources equate them: Strabo 6.3.7 cf. 6.3.1. See the following on Alexander of Molossus. 15. The Sallentini are recorded in the Fasti Triumphales for 281 and 267 B.C.E. 16. Helbig 1876. 17. Ribezzo 1978; De Simone and Marchesini 2002. 18. Trendall 1971. 19. Gadaleta 2002. 20. Lo Porto (1975, 642) reports the burial “semi-rannicchiato” of a young woman with grave goods that included a denarius of C. Rennius, 138 B.C.E., in a tomb at Altamura. 21. Lamboley 1996, 431–54. 22. D’Andria 1978. 23. Ciaraldi 1997. 24. Ciancio and Radina 1983. 25. Tiati and Lucera: Antonacci Sanpaolo 1999; Lavello: Tagliente 1991; Canosa: Dally 2000. 26. Hassall et al. 1992, 59–71. 27. Bradford 1957; Mazzei and Guaitoli 2003. 28. Preliminary note in Small and Small 2002. 29. Small and Small 2007 (interim publication). 30. Mangieri 1995, 12–13 and 63 nos. 24–26. 31. Montanaro 2006. 32. Rutter et al. 2001, 91 no. 807. 33. See also Mario Lombardo (Chapter 2 of this book) on this episode (with a slightly different interpretation). 34. Depalo 1989; Lamboley 1996, 367. 35. Ciancio 1986. 36. On the cult of the dead in Messapia, see Lamboley 1996, 450–4. 37. Brooks et al. 1966, 137–8 and pl. 25; Small 1992, 30. 38. Nachod 1914, 286–9; Andreassi 1992; Corrente 2004. 39. Ward-Perkins et al. 1969, 126–40; Whitehouse et al. 2000, 185–95. 40. Curzio 1997, 267–71. 41. De Juliis 2007b. 42. Ibid. pp. 226–8. The grave also contained a Peucetian urn of the sixth century B.C.E. 43. Venturo (2001) reports a burial at Altamura in which “male” objects were associated with a burial said by osteologists to have been female. The objects were perhaps intended for another individual whose reinterred remains were found outside the tomb. 44. Chieco-Bianchi Martini 1964, 161–4. 45. Adam 1982. 46. Giorgi et al. 1988, 65 tomb 47, 108 Tomb 222, 116 Tomb 243, 123 Tomb 270A, 134 Tomb 296. 47. RVAp I 4/73; Herring 2006.

Pots, Peoples, and Places in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

Mannino 1997; Ciancio 1998. Sichtermann 1966; Andreassi 1996. Mannino and Roubis 2000. In Daunia, the hand-made “subgeometric” wares lasted well into the fourth century: Yntema 1990, 265. There is no comprehensive study of this wheel-made painted pottery. See, however, De Juliis, 1977, 56–71 (“Subgeometrico daunio III”); Yntema 1990, 333–45; Saunders and Taylor 1992; Riccardi 2007. Examples in Mayer 1914, esp. taf. 30; D’Andria 1988, figs. 680–68. Hunting scenes feature on many Daunian stelae (Nava 1980). Faunal analyses indicate that venison constituted a small but significant proportion of the diet in central Apulia in the Hellenistic period (e.g., at Botromagno in the fourth century B.C.E.: Watson 1992; at Gravetta near Lavello: Sublimi Saponetti 1991; at Monte Sannace: Giove 1989) as it had done earlier in the Early Iron Age (at Botromagno: Dobney 2000). Small 2004. It comes from a burial at Santo Mola near Gioia del Colle. Andriani and Laricchia 2007, 146–50, Tomb 16. Santoro 1978, 226–34, pls IX–XIII. The pot is discussed also by Mario Lombardo in this volume. ΜΟΡΚΟΣ: ΕΠΟΙΕ ΠΥΛΛΟΣ: ΕΔΙΔΑΣΚΕ ΜΟΡΚΟΣ ΠΥΛΛΟΣ Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν / ΜΟΡΚΟΣ ΕΘΗΚΕ ΓΝΑΙFΑΙ. Lo Porto 1988, 402–3 and Fig. 16. The use of chaire, frequently seen in epitaphs, might suggest that the tile is a grave marker, but the fact that the inscription is stamped rather than inscribed implies that it was made in multiple copies, and so is unlikely to come from a burial. Small 2006, 331–2. See Chapter 2 in this volume (Mario Lombardo). Justin 12.2.12. Rutter et al. 2001, 91; Taliericio Mensitieri 2003, 420–1. Livy 8.24.4. The text (Sipontum Bruttiorum) is confused, but there can be little doubt that Sipontum in Daunia is meant: see Grelle 1995, 55. Mazzei 1995. Canosa 2007. Livy 8.17.9–10; Justin 12.2.12. Livy 8.25.3. Livy 9.13.6–9; 9.26.1–5. D’Ercole 1990; Antonacci Sanpaolo 1999.

egh

35

CHAPTER TWO

IAPYGIANS: THE INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS OF ANCIENT APULIA IN THE FIFTH AND FOURTH CENTURIES B.C.E. Mario Lombardo The focus of this book is not on the Greek poleis of South Italy but rather on indigenous populations as “contexts” of production and/or purchase of Apulian pottery. Accordingly, this chapter will focus mainly on native contexts, that is, on Iapygians in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., looking at features and developments in their society and in their external relations, especially with the Greek colony of Taras, which could have enabled them to become purchasers and users, and even producers, of Apulian vases. The geographic limits of the territory involved in the production and/or circulation of Apulian pottery were defined by Trendall and Cambitoglou and recently restated by several other scholars.1 According to their definitions, the area includes all of modern Apulia and part of northeastern Basilicata (mainly the Melfese). This area corresponds roughly to ancient Iapygia (or Apulia), which, according to Greek and Roman literary tradition as well as in the archaeological record, was occupied by three Iapygian peoples: the Messapians to the south (roughly the Salentine Peninsula), the Peucetians in central Apulia, and the Daunians to the north, including the Melfese, now in Basilicata2 (Fig. I.1 WF 001). I begin with a brief review of issues raised by the Apulian vases themselves about “indigenous contexts” for the purchasers, users, and even producers of this class of pottery.3 First, in considering the geographical and chronological distribution of Apulian pottery, it is important to distinguish between the subregional areas (Messapian, Peucetian, and Daunian), and even within each of these to be as precise as possible (e.g., coastal from inland Peucetian sites). In fact, the distribution of finds seems to show an increasingly significant role played first by the central and, later, by the northern Apulian areas.4 The question arises from distributional data: What can we infer about the different indigenous contexts as purchasers, and even as producers, of Apulian pottery?

WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

36

Iapygians

Second, some forms such as the nestoris and the volute krater are overwhelmingly present in indigenous contexts, as are vases with clear iconographic elements of indigenous character (dress or funerary practices). All of this points to the possibility of indigenous workshops and/or of precise indigenous orders to Greek workshops. Third, the archaeological contexts (houses, sanctuaries and, mainly, necropoleis) and the social distribution (more or less reserved for the aristocracies) of Apulian figured vases within the indigenous communities pose questions about the social function of the vases (daily life versus ceremonial use) and about the social aims (e.g., as indications of privilege or prestige) to which their purchase and use responded. Last, but not least, the presence of strong Greek cultural features (more or less clear references to Greek mythology, tragedy, comedy) in the painted decoration of vases destined for indigenous centers or else found largely on indigenous sites5 raises questions about the forms and levels of linguistic and cultural “acculturation” of indigenous peoples or, at least, of indigenous elites.6 All these questions have to do more or less directly with the historical issues regarding the relations of the indigenous populations of Apulia specifically with Taras and more generally with the Greeks. They particularly concern the means of reception and even absorption of Greek linguistic and cultural elements by native communities, or at least by native elites. One can try to answer these questions mainly, if not exclusively, through the analysis of information offered by the vases and their contexts.

Literary Evidence for the Indigenous Populations of Apulia I am not a scholar experienced in pottery studies, but rather a historian of the ancient world and more particularly of ancient southern Italy. Thus, my chapter is intended as a sort of historical introduction to the subject of the book, which attempts to illustrate the native Iapygian contexts of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. by looking at developments that could have enabled them to become contexts of production, purchase, and use of Apulian vases. Furthermore, and even more significantly, most of the historical issues mentioned earlier about Apulian pottery are controversial. Thus, in order to avoid circular arguments, it is important to try to characterize the indigenous populations and their development, leaving out of the argument information that can only be inferred from the vases themselves. We shall focus here mainly on literary, epigraphic, and numismatic sources, taking into account when necessary topographical and archaeological data about settlements and funerary practices.

Ethnicity and Geography I begin with literary sources and the information they offer on ethnic denominations and territorial distribution of indigenous populations in Apulia. Iapygians

egh

37

38

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

(Iapyghes) and Iapygia (Iapygh`ıa) are the ethnic names used in Greek sources beginning with the sixth century B.C.E. Milesian historian Hecataeus (Appendix to Chapter 2, #1) to refer generally to the indigenous populations who dwelt in the hinterland of the Greek colony of Taras, that is, in the region corresponding to modern Apulia. According to Greek tradition, the Iapygians were divided into three distinct populations: the Messapians (Messapioi) in the southern part of the region, extending from Leuca (Iapygian Cape) as far as Cailia and Egnatia; the Peucetians in western and central Apulia, from the river Bradano as far as the Murge and the Ofanto (Aufidus) river; and the Daunians further north, as far as the Gargano Peninsula. This is the picture clearly offered in a passage by the Hellenistic writer Nicander (App. #2): Sons of Lycaon the autochthonous were Iapyx and Daunios and Peucetios. Having assembled an army, these men reached the Adriatic coast of Italy, and having expelled the Ausonians who inhabited the land, settled there. Most of the army consisted of Illyrian settlers who had joined the expedition under the leadership of Messapios. They divided the army and the territory into three portions and called the three groups after the name of the leader of each of them, Daunians, Peucetians and Messapians. The region which extends from Taras as far as the tip of Italy became the land of the Messapians, where lies the town of Brindisi. The adjoining region in the hinterland of Taras became the land of the Peucetians, and yet more inland the Daunians occupied most of the coastal region. To the whole people they gave the name of Iapygians.

A similar picture, at least as concerns Iapygia and Iapygians, figured already in the fourth century B.C.E. Periegesis of Pseudo-Scylax (App. #3), where Iapygia extends from the Iapygian Cape as far north as Mount Orion (the Gargano Peninsula), as well as in the fifth century B.C.E. Histories of Herodotus (App. #4), who says that Iapygia and its peoples extended far north of the line from Taras to Brundisium. The same geographic description also figures in other Hellenistic sources, such as Polybius (3.88.4). The pictures given by the Augustan Geographer Strabo and by Pliny the Elder writing in the first century C.E. are somewhat different from these. In effect, Strabo explicitly states (App. #5) that the names of Messapia-Messapioi, Iapygh`ıaIapyghes, Peuketia-Peuketioi, and Daunia-Daunioi were exclusively Greek denominations, while the natives called themselves and their region(s) with other names. As regards the southern area of Apulia, “the natives, dividing it in two parts, call one (around the Iapygian Cape) the country of the Salentinoi, and the other the country of the Kalabroi.” Such a distinction can be traced back to the fourth to third century B.C.E. I should add that Kalabria figures in a fragment of the early Hellenistic Tarentine writer Rhinton (fr. 1 Kaibel), while the Sallentini figure in third century B.C.E. Roman triumphs regarding what, in Roman sources, were labeled as bellum Tarentinum and bellum Sallentinum (e.g., cfr. Florus, Epit. I 13 and I 15; Fasti Triumphales Capitolini, II, 17 and II, 20). Thus, with the help of Roman

Iapygians

2.1. Inscribed bronze herald staff from Brindisi, now in Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. Images from Lombardo 1999, figs. 9–11, assembled by Giovanni Boffa in the Laboratory of study and digital treatment of literary, epigraphic and numismatic sources (LabLENS), Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Salento.

sources, we are able to be more precise about the territories occupied by the two peoples: the Salentine region corresponded roughly to the southern and Ionian part of the Peninsula, from Otranto to Leuca and from Leuca to Manduria, while Kalabria corresponded to the Adriatic coastal region from Otranto to Egnatia with its hinterland.7 As regards the region of central and northern Apulia, Strabo goes on to say that “Above these latter (that is the Calabri) on the north are the Peuketioi and also those peoples who in the Greek language are called Daunioi, but the natives give the name of Apulia to the whole country that comes after that of the Calabri, though some of them, particularly the Peuketioi, are also called Poidikloi.” We can compare this information with that offered by other Greek and Latin sources from Pliny (App. #8 and 9) to the Roman geographers.8 We should stress that, for all these peoples, we lack any information from epigraphic documents written in epichoric languages about local ethnic denominations.9 We have only civic denominations documented by inscriptions on heralds’ staffs (kerykeia), such as the fifth century B.C.E. kerykeion of the Brendesinoi (Fig. 2.1, WF 013)10 and the more recent one of the Gnathinoi,11 both written in the Greek alphabet. Inscriptions on fourth and third century B.C.E. coin issues (Fig. 2.2, WF 014)12 provide some further evidence, as most of them give ethnic or personal names inscribed in Greek (e.g., ΑΡΠΑΝΝ).

egh

39

40

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Leaving aside the question of their precise names, the tripartite division of the native populations of ancient Apulia attested in Greek and Latin tradition finds important support in the archaeological record, which testifies, at least after the settlement of the Laconian colony of Taras, to a process of cultural differentiation that brought into existence (at least) three different regional contexts in northern, central, and southern Apulia. I refer mainly to ceramic productions, about which I need not go into detail, as well as to settlement patterns and funerary practices.13

Myths of Origins Returning to the ancient sources, we may note that they offer plentiful information, even if obviously external and frequently with their own interests when not outrightly biased, about the ancient peoples of Apulia, especially concerning aspects of their cultural identity and of their history. To begin with, we find a number of tales about the origins of these peoples and their centers. For example, at least from the fifth century B.C.E., as regards the Iapygians, the Sallentini, and several of their cities (Brundisium, Hydrous-Otranto, Lupiae-Lecce, Hyria-Oria or Vereto, and so on), the sources refer mainly to a noble and ancient Cretan origin and to famous heroes of Greek mythology, such as Minos, Daedalus, Theseus, and Idomeneus. One may cite Herodotus (App. #10), Antiochus of Syracuse (App. #11), and Strabo (App. #14 and 15), amongst many other sources.14 In later texts of the Hellenistic and Roman period we also find traditions combining Cretan and Illyrian origins, especially for the Messapians, as we have seen in the passage of Nicander, to which we may add other passages from Varro (Ant. III, fr. VI M.) and later sources, and for the Peucetians (Pliny, App. #9); perhaps the elaboration of such traditions is to be connected with the increasing awareness of the similarities in language toponomastics and onomastics, between the two sides of the Adriatic Sea.15 The origin of the Messapians was attributed to a Boeotian eponymous hero of whom we know very little, while about the origins of the Calabrians we know nothing.16 The Peucetians, when they are not included among the Iapygians of Cretan descent, are credited with even earlier origins. According to ancient historiographers such as Pherecydes of Athens cited by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (App. #12 and 13), they were of Arcadian origin, descended from Peucetius, son of Lykaon and brother of Oenotrus, with whom he “had crossed the Ionian Gulf ” many generations before Minos and the Trojan War settling “above the Iapygian Promontory.” We have no story about the origins of the Daunians, but many tales connect them and their eponymous king Daunus with the Greek hero Diomedes. The tradition seems to have taken root in Daunian society at least in the Hellenistic period: a passage in Appian (App. #17) tells us that in the Daunian town of Arpi there was in the time of Hannibal an aristocratic family that alleged to be descended from Diomedes, the mythic founder of the city.17 For the Messapians, at least, it is possible to trace the construction of these myths of origin, which testify to a perception of their cultural identity as characterized by hellenizing features. However, it is doubtful whether we can ascribe such a

Iapygians

2.2 Monetary issues of Arpi, Salapia, Canusium, Rubi, Azetium, Cailia, Valesium, Ugentum. Images courtesy of LabLENS archive, University of Salento.

construction to the Messapians themselves, as was proposed some years ago by Giuseppe Nenci,18 or to their Greek partners.19 To this we shall return.

Political Organization If we turn to the forms of political organization ascribed in ancient sources to the native populations of Apulia, we find references to two different types. On one hand we have several references to figures of kings and dynasts. Even if we omit the sources that refer to mythical kings, there is Opis, the “Iapygon basileus (king of the Iapygians), who came to be an ally to the Peucetians,” who, according to Pausanias (App. #18), was shown being killed in battle by the Tarentines on the second of their dedications consecrated at Delphi in the first half of the fifth century B.C.E. (Fig. 2.3, WF 015). We can also recall the dynast´es (chieftain) Artas who in 413 B.C.E. had furnished the Athenians with one hundred and fifty javelineers described by Thucydides as “Iapygians belonging to the Messapian tribe” (App. #19). According to Athenaeus (Deipn., III, 108–109), who describes him as basileus, he was mentioned also by the Attic comic poet Demetrius and by the Hellenistic antiquarian Polemon of Ilium. We can further cite “the king of the Daunians and the king of the Peucetians” mentioned by Strabo (App. #20) as allies of the Tarentines in a war against the Messapians, perhaps in the fourth century B.C.E.,20 and the “rex Apulorum,” whose capital was Brindisi. It was with this king that Alexander the Molossian, according to Justin (App. #22), made a treaty of peace and friendship in the fourth century B.C.E. after having declared war against him. Finally, Strabo (App. #15) mentions

egh

41

42

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

the still visible royal palace (basileion) of one of the dynasts in Uria between Taras and Brundisium, while in another passage the geographer refers to the polis of Brindisi as the seat of a king (basileuomene) at the time of the colonial conquest of its territory by the Laconian colonists founding Taras (App. #21). On the other hand we have a number of references to poleis, from those of Iapygh`ıa and Chandane mentioned by Hecataeus (App. #1), to Hyrie and the other poleis founded by the Iepyghes Messapioi according to Herodotus (App. #10); from the Messapian towns mentioned by Livy (App. #23) with reference to the conquests of Alexander of Epirus, to the thirteen poleis which once existed in the country of the Iapygians, according to Strabo (App. #14). Several other poleis (or oppida) are mentioned by Strabo or by Pliny the Elder with reference to Iapygia, as are several in the lands of the Poediculi, the Apulians, and the Dauni (some examples here in App. #6, 7, 9). We hear of archaic Karbina, conquered by the Tarentines, according to Clearchus (App. #27), and of the numerous Iapygian, Messapian, Peucetian, or Daunian poleis mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium (e.g., Acra, Amazones, Argyrippa, Barion, Brentesion, Elp`ıa, Kanysion, Larina, Mandyrion, Rhodai, Sallent`ıa, Sipo` us). On the whole, these references to poleis appear to be more reliable, being supported not only by the epigraphic and numismatic evidence referred to earlier (kerykeia and coin inscriptions),21 but also by the archaeological evidence, which bears witness to the existence, already in the archaic period, of a number of fortified settlements of considerable size with monumental buildings (like Cavallino and Oria in Messapia or Monte Sannace in Peucetia). Their number increases spectacularly in the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. when we can detect dozens of such settlements with differing distributive and dimensional patterns in the different subregional areas, sometimes exhibiting signs of hierarchical organization.22 Considering the fact that all the aforementioned kingly figures, from Opis to Artas, from the kings of Daunians and Peucetians to the rex Apulorum of Brindisi, are cited in sources that refer to military matters, it is possible to hypothesize that the Messapians and the Peucetians, and probably also the Daunians, had experienced, with local peculiarities, forms of political organization essentially based on generally autonomous local districts that each had at least a nucleated settlement. These territorial districts resembling in some way Greek poleis could be governed by dynasts emerging from restricted aristocracies based on familial ties or by aristocratic elites. On some occasions, and especially in times of war, they could unite in larger ethnic groups, adopting the “royal” figure of a common political and military leader. They recall in their behaviour what Strabo (6.1.3) says about the Lucanians: “At all other times – he says – their government was democratic – that is, every community governed herself autonomously – but in times of war they were wont to choose a king from those who held magisterial offices.”23 The information provided by our sources about society and social figures and practices offers several interesting references. In an important passage probably dating back to the Hellenistic historian Clearchus, Athenaeus (App. #24) tells us of the Iapygians who embraced extreme luxury and arrogance, and above all

egh

Iapygians

mm 1000

500

0

1

2

3

4

5m

2.3. Reconstruction of the Tarentine anathema from the Peucetians at Delphi. Image from Lombardo, 1999, fig. 26.

of their hegemones, or elites, who “made their houses more beautiful than the temples . . . and in utter contempt of deity, looted the statues of the gods from the temples.” Thus they provoked an exemplary punishment by the god who rained down fire and copper, depriving them of all the good things they had formerly enjoyed and inducing them to crop their hair and to clothe themselves in mourning garb. Herodotus (App. #25) mentions the presence among archaic Iapygians of slaves, albeit ones who were eventually released. Pseudo-Aristotle refers to a sanctuary of Artemis among the “Peucetini” (App. #26) and Clearchus and Strabo (App. #27 and 14) tell us of sanctuaries and rich temples in Messapian towns, information confirmed not only by archaeological evidence, for example at Oria,24 but also by Messapian inscriptions, dedicatory altars, and other offerings to Damatra, Aprodita, Zis, and other gods25 and by cultic evidence in Peucetia.26 The Tarentine fourth century B.C.E. philosopher Aristoxenus mentioned the Messapians and the Peucetians together with Lucanians and Romans among the followers of Pythagoras (App. #28). Finally, some of these passages testify to the occasional presence of Greeks in indigenous contexts, such as the rich Tarentine exile Gillus living in a coastal community of southern Messapia (App. #25), or the Syracusan king Agathokles in Peucetia (App. #26). Their presence is confirmed, as we shall see, by finds of Greek inscriptions in both Messapian and Peucetian contexts.

Relations between Apulians and Greeks If we accept that all these references to the origins of Iapygian peoples or to features of their organization and society directly or indirectly express perceptions and/or representations of those peoples by their Greek partners, we can infer significant information about the issue most relevant for our theme, the relations between the

43

44

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

peoples of Apulia and the Greeks. Most of the ancient traditions on the founding of Taras present the settlement of Laconian colonists in Iapygia as a very violent and traumatic event for indigenous populations. Indeed, Antiochus (App. #11) and other sources mention a Delphic oracle that assigned to the Tarentine colony the fate of being “a bane for Iapygians.” Since it is probable that those foundation stories as well as that oracle were created or reelaborated in late archaic times, when we hear of several victories and conquests of indigenous towns by Tarentines,27 it is safer to begin with the historical background based on more reliable evidence. This late archaic situation was probably preceded by a long-lasting period of good relations between Taras and her neighbors,28 a period that had seen the reception by these neighbors of many cultural features such as the Tarentine Greek alphabet, as we shall later see in detail. As I have noted, Herodotus and Clearchus (App. #10 and 27) inform us about the conquest of several Iapygian poleis by the Tarentines, while Pausanias (App. #29 and 18) describes two splendid votive monuments dedicated at Delphi by Tarentines in the first decades of the fifth century B.C.E. for victories over Messapians and Peucetians (and Iapygians) and made out of the spoils taken from them. But Herodotus, together with Diodorus (App. #30), also mentions a great and bloody victory – “the greatest slaughter of Greeks ever heard of,” around 470 B.C.E. by the Iapygians, Messapians, and their allies over Taras and its allies, the people of Rhegium on the Sicilian Straits. This victory put an end to the period of Tarentine conquests and according to Aristotle (App. #31) even provoked a radical change in the governance of the Tarentine polis with the introduction of democracy. Clearchus, for his part, has the sacrilegious conquest by the Tarentines of the Iapygian polis of Carbina followed by divine vengeance in the form of a mass slaughter by means of lightning of all those who had taken part in the expedition. It is possible, then, to assume that the Tarentine barbaros polemos – as some thirty years ago Giuseppe Nenci defined this long period of war29 – was concluded by a decisive Iapygian victory that put an end to an expansionist policy of Taras toward its indigenous neighbours but also diminished the intense intercultural exchange that had characterized the archaic period.30 In fact, an interruption or at least a substantial reduction in contacts and exchanges with Taras is registered by the archaeological record of the indigenous settlements in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. But on the other hand we can detect in the archaeological record and in our literary sources the development of good economic and political relations with other Greek centers such as Athens and Thurii. I refer here to the imports of Attic figured pottery in Messapian and Peucetian centers, especially on the Adriatic coastal strip.31 There is also a wellknown passage in Thucydides, which is echoed in other sources as well, about the palai`a philia (the ancient amity) that existed in this period between the Athenians and the Messapian dynast´es Artas, and which was renewed in 413 B.C.E. (App. #19). Additionally the bronze herald staff, said to be dated to the late fifth century B.C.E., shows intercultural exchange by its inscriptions “the public herald staff of the Thurini” and also as “the public herald staff of the Brendesini” (Fig. 2.1, WF 013).32

Iapygians

For the first half of the fourth century B.C.E., the literary sources offer very little information about the relations between Iapygians and Greeks. This period is dominated by the Adriatic policy of the Elder Dionysius of Syracuse, and then by the rule of the Pythagorean philosopher Archytas over Taras and the Second Italiote League, and by Archytas’ alliance with the Younger Dionysius about 367 B.C.E. Though some sources tell us of several victories by Archytas, about which we do not have any information (Aristox., fr. 48 W.; cf. fr. 30 W.), it is in the context of this alliance that we can probably read the note of Diodorus Siculus (App. #32) about the foundation by Dionysius the Younger of two poleis on the shores of Apulia, “because he wished to make safe for navigators the passage across the Ionian Sea; for the barbarians who dwelt along the coast were accustomed to put on in numerous pirate ships and render the whole shore along the Adriatic Sea unsafe for merchants.” We do not know whether Diodorus refers to the barbarians who dwelt along the Illyrian coast of the Otranto Channel, as is more likely, or (also) to those dwelling along the Italian coast. It is probable, however, that those foundations, even if we don’t know where they were, imply a certain degree of accord between Taras and Dionysius and an interest in Adriatic traffic on the part of Taras.33 This interest is clearly witnessed in a passage in Polybius (App. #33), where the Hellenistic historian underlines that Taras “is also very favourably situated with respect to the harbours of the Adriatic even at the present day, and was still more so formerly. For from the extremity of Iapygia, as far as Sipontum, everyone coming from the opposite coast to put in to an Italian harbor, crossed to Tarentum and used that as an emporium for the exchange and sale of merchandise, the town of [Roman] Brundisium having not yet been founded.”34 This, in turn, seems to imply a scenario of intensive relations between Taras and its indigenous neighbors, which may find confirmation in the increasing diffusion of Apulian Pottery in indigenous contexts of Apulia. With the death of Archytas and the traumatic end of the Dionysian tyranny in Sicily, both in the fifties of the fourth century B.C.E., the circumstances changed considerably, as is testified by Strabo (VI 3.4). We hear of war in the forties between Taras and the Messapians (and also the Lucanians) that led the Tarantines to call for help from the Spartan king Archidamus III, who fought for about four years in Italy (from 342 to 338 B.C.E.) only to reach an inglorious defeat and death at the hands of the Messapians near Manduria, according to Plutarch (App. #35), or by the Lucanians, according to Diodorus (16.88). Then, only a few years later, in 334–333 B.C.E., the Tarentines had to call for help from the Epirote king Alexander of Molossos, uncle of Alexander the Great, against the Messapians and the Lucanians. This new climate of fear toward the Iapygians was echoed by the Hellenistic poet Callimachus (App. #36). The expedition of Alexander ended poorly for the king but well for relationships between the Greeks and the Iapygians. After two years of wars and partial successes including the conquest of several Apulian towns as far as Sipontum in northern Apulia (Livy, App. #23), Alexander was ultimately killed by the Brettii in northern

egh

45

46

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Calabria in 331 B.C.E. Nevertheless, Alexander had in the end forged treaties of alliance and friendship between Taras and the Iapygian peoples, both the southern Apuli (that is Messapians or Calabri) and the Poediculi (that is the Peucetians of central Apulia) (Justin, App. #22). The very positive consequences of this policy, particularly for Taras, can be observed both in the archaeological record and in historical sources, which show an overall expansion in urban and rural settlement and in prosperity of the whole Apulian region in the last third of the fourth century B.C.E.35 In addition, Diodorus informs us (App. #37) of the extraordinary novelty represented by the participation of the Messapians in the Tarentine call for help to the Spartan “Condottiero” Cleonymus in 303 B.C.E. in war against the Lucanians and the Romans. About two decades later, not only the Messapians but also the other indigenous peoples of southern Italy, with a few exceptions such as the Daunians of Arpi, supported the Tarentines’ appeal to Pyrrhus against the Romans. Not by chance Rome had already taken root in northern Apulia, founding Luceria (313 B.C.E.) and then Venusia (298 B.C.E.). We know what the outcomes and the consequences were of the ensuing war with Pyrrhus (280–272 B.C.E.), bringing all the indigenous peoples of Southern Italy that had fought against it under the submission of Rome. The last of them to submit were the peoples of southern Apulia, and that required another war, the bellum Sallentinum. Two years of warfare and of Roman triumphs – in 267 B.C.E. “de Sallentineis” and the next year “de Sallentineis Messapieisque” (Fasti Triumphales Capitolini, II, XX) – resulted in the Roman conquest of Brundisium, whose magnificent natural harbor was to become with the foundation of a Latin colony in 243 B.C.E. and the subsequent completion of the Via Appia from Taras to Brundisium, the most important naval base for Roman expansion toward the Balkan Peninsula and Eastern Mediterranean. Before concluding this section, I should say a few words about the problem of the war “per`ı Herakleias” noted by Strabo (App. #20). It was a strange war in which the Tarentines allied with “the king of the Daunians and the king of the Peucetians” against the Messapians. This piece of information has proved to be very difficult to understand and to place in a plausible historical context. Some scholars, such as Jean-Luc Lamboley,36 have proposed to read it in the context of the Italian expedition of Alexander of Epirus. But there are too many uncertainties, and it is even possible that the text of Strabo is corrupt, as Nenci suggested some years ago when he proposed to read the two Iapygian kings as allies of the Messapians and not of the Tarentines.37

Epigraphic Evidence I turn now to the epigraphic evidence concerning the issues discussed earlier and will focus on three aspects in particular: (1) the presence of Greek inscriptions in the different native contexts of Apulia; (2) the appearance and the diffusion of “epigraphic literacy” in those contexts; and (3) their implications for the question of permeability towards Greek culture.

Iapygians

Messapia In Messapia, we can find the presence of Greek inscriptions in the late archaic age: from the foot of a bronze hydria found at Valesio with a feminine name inscribed in Achaean alphabet (WF 016)38 to the probable dedication to Demeter on a pottery fragment from the thesmophoric sanctuary of Monte Papalucio at Oria,39 to mention only two. To these we should add some archaic inscriptions found on Messapian sites whose epigraphic and linguistic attribution to Greeks or Messapians is uncertain; for instance, the archaic inscriptions on the trozzella in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek with pictures of the duel between Aeneas and Diomedes and of Capaneus thunder-struck by Zeus in front of the gates of Thebes.40 Also relevant here is the archaic clay pyramid from Cavallino inscribed with a dedication “tai Arzeriai”41 and the later (fifth to fourth century) and somewhat problematic fragment of a black-gloss Attic or Italiote vase that features what purports to be a map of the southern Salentine peninsula with the name of Taras and shortened names of a number of indigenous settlements (Fig. 2.4, WF 017) found by Th. Van Compernolle in 2003 in excavations at Soleto.42 A similar picture comes from the discovery of Greek inscriptions in Peucetia, where we have the interesting, if problematic, archaic inscription of Archesilavos in the Achaean alphabet from Gioia del Colle-Monte Sannace,43 two inscribed bronze fibulae of the middle fifth century B.C.E. from Valenzano,44 the very interesting inscription of Morkos from Gravina dating to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century,45 a fourth century B.C.E. inscription with a Greek alphabetary from Altamura,46 and the later inscription of Artos Atotios from Ruvo with its mixed Greek and Peucetian language (Fig. 2.5, WF 018).47 Nothing similar has yet come from northern Apulia. But the most important epigraphic testimonia for our topic are those offered by the appearance of “epigraphical literacy” in native contexts of Apulia. First of all, the creation of the Messapian alphabet clearly reveals a debt to the Tarentine alphabet, as can be seen from a comparison of the two alphabets (Fig. 2.6, WF 019). Furthermore, it was not merely a passive borrowing, but a borrowing accompanied by a clever adaptation of the Greek alphabet to the requirements of the Messapian language, which was not related to the languages of the Italic family, such as Latin or Oscan, but rather to Illyrian language.48 Accordingly, the Messapians eliminated some letters that were not needed, such as the hypsilon, and added some other signs that were required, such as that in the form of a trident. Considering that the most ancient of the known Messapian inscriptions date to the middle of the sixth century B.C.E.,49 we can confidently place this process of borrowing and adapting between the last decades of the seventh and the first decades of the sixth century B.C.E., a period that also saw other creative borrowings by the Messapians, such as in the field of funerary practices. The practice was introduced of inhuming the dead in earth-cut tombs and of accompanying them with vases and other offerings, which adapted the Greek practice to the peculiarities of their own society and culture, such as locating the tombs within their settlements,

egh

47

48

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

2.4. Attic or Italiote fragment of a map from Soleto. Taranto, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Image from Lombardo 2011, figs. 3–4.

2.5. Inscription of Artos Atotios from Ruvo. Image courtesy of the LabLENS archive, University of Salento.

Iapygians

2.6. Tarentine and Messapian alphabets. Image created by Giovanni Boffa, LabLENS, University of Salento.

egh

49

50

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

2.7. Messapic funerary inscription from Valesio of a priestess of Damatra. Brindisi, Museo Archeologico “Francesco Ribezzo.” Image courtesy of LabLENS archive, University of Salento.

disposing of the dead in a crouched position and, above all, reusing the same tomb, evidently conceived as a family grave, for subsequent depositions.50 Returning to epigraphic documents, the epigraphic practices in the whole of the Messapian region are extraordinarily widespread. We have a distribution map of more than six hundred preserved Messapian inscriptions according to find sites, periods, contents, and function (WF 020). One can immediately see the ubiquitous distribution of those inscriptions, but Messapian inscriptions are also found dating down at least to the end of the second century B.C.E., well after the Roman conquest and the start of Romanization. This is a significant sign of the resistance and persistence of aspects of the traditional epichoric identity and practices. Another point is the fact that most of Messapian epigraphic documents are funerary inscriptions (WF 021), with a more limited number of votive inscriptions (WF 022) and a few other types.51 That means that Messapians specialized in the use of epigraphic writing mainly for drawing up brief funerary or cult documents. Consequently, we know very little of the Messapian language – only some verbal or nominal forms, such as ligave = dedicated or tabara = priestess – though we have a substantial knowledge of Messapian onomastics, and here, too, we can see a strongly conservative trend in onomastic formulas (praenomen plus familial name) as well as in the forms of the names themselves, which do not show significant borrowings from Greek onomastics.52 On the other hand, such borrowings are clear in the names of gods attested in Messapian inscriptions, among which figure deities such as Damatra (Fig. 2.7, WF 023), Aprodita (Fig. 2.8, WF 024), Artamis, and Zis, more or less clearly of Greek origin, together with local gods such as Thaotor.53

Peucetia and Daunia The picture offered by the diffusion of epigraphic practices in native languages in Peucetia and in Daunia is quite different. First, epichoric inscriptions at Peucetian

Iapygians

2.8. Votive inscription to Aprodita on an altar from Ceglie Messapica. Brindisi, Museo Archeologico “Francesco Ribezzo.” Image courtesy of LabLENS archive, University of Salento.

(and Daunian) sites are attested only from the fourth century B.C.E. onward (WF 025).54 Second, the alphabet of these Peucetian inscriptions of the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. appears to differentiate itself from the Messapian with formal features more strongly dependent on its contemporary Greek model, the alphabet of the koin´e, with its Ionian and Athenian roots.55 Third and finally, the diffusion of epigraphic practices is much more limited, especially in northern Apulia, where it is not only restricted to a few centers – Ruvo, Canosa, Arpi, Vieste, and few others – but even in these sites we find only a few inscriptions, often consisting of very brief texts incised or stamped on little clay pyramids, while most public inscriptions, such as those on coins, are in Greek.56

Conclusions In conclusion, two important methodological points are important to stress. First, we must avoid looking at the information reviewed in this chapter from a combined perspective, so to speak, trying to draw an immediate parallel between the political relations between Taras and the indigenous populations and that of their intercultural relations. Furthermore, we have to take into account other possible Greek agents and partners in such cultural relations, such as Athens or Metapontum, and we must consider that cultural relations and even cultural borrowings can be primed, even in contexts of conflict, by the need to acquire new tools for improving lifestyles and for competing with antagonists or enemies. Second, and even more important, we must avoid thinking of the process of cultural exchange between Greeks and indigenous populations, and even of the cultural borrowing by the natives, as a unilateral process of transmission, reception, and diffusion of Greek cultural elements prompted by a presumed superior level or prestige of Greek culture. Recent research and discussion in anthropological, archaeological, and historical fields have taught us to reject such an approach to the problems of intercultural exchange and to rebut in particular the notion of “hellenization” with all its colonialist and diffusionist overtones.57 It is important to remember that native Apulian communities were

egh

51

52

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

always independent from Taras, and that in the Greek language the verb hellenizein is not a transitive verb – the Greeks then couldn’t conceive of the idea of Hellenizing anyone – but rather indicates the behavior of those who, not being Greeks, tried to speak Greek or to look Greek.58 Thus we should think in terms not of hellenization, but of hellenizing phenomena looking primarily and fundamentally at the indigenous contexts in which these phenomena manifest themselves as the result of specific exigencies, requirements, and needs on the part of the indigenous communities, and especially of their elites, who had the means and the power to act as protagonists initiating such cultural borrowing. Think, for example, of the reception of Greek cults, such as those of Asclepius or Cybele, in Rome.59 The problem, then, is not of evaluating the greater or lesser permeability of the indigenous contexts to Greek cultural influence. Rather we must consider the needs and the aims in external and more importantly in domestic relations, which induced, or even urged, the indigenous elites to take and develop their borrowing initiatives to the end of showing, strengthening, or even basing their prestige and power within their communities, or of better positioning themselves with their external, Greek and non-Greek, counterparts. Such initiatives could, in different local and historical contexts, find a number of different ways of being fulfilled and take a number of different forms and manifestations. It is from this point of view that we must look to the literary and epigraphic information reviewed in this chapter and to the archaeological evidence about the indigenous populations of Apulia. Finally, I would add a few general observations. First, there is enough evidence, at least for Messapian and Peucetian contexts, for a lasting presence of Greekspeaking figures inside the native communities from the late archaic age onwards. This includes the inscriptions of Archesilauos, Morkos, Asika, and Aristeles and sometimes figures of surely high social level, like the Tarentine exile Gillos, who ransomed the Persians captured by Iapygians in 515 B.C.E. Such figures could assuredly have acted as powerful agents of linguistic and cultural contact and exchange and of cultural lending and borrowing. Nonetheless, the fundamental role in instigating significant cultural borrowing was probably not theirs. Furthermore, we can see that the phenomena of reception and diffusion of alphabetic writing and of epigraphic literacy manifest themselves in the Messapian context much earlier and in a much more pronounced way than in Peucetian and Daunian contexts, where they are documented only from the fourth century B.C.E. and in a more limited form. We can observe the same precocious receptivity in Messapian contexts as regards other borrowings, such as the Greek thesmophoric cult of Damatra.60 On the other hand, as noted in the field of alphabetic writing and epigraphic literacy, the Messapians did not limit themselves to mere borrowing but adapted the alphabet to their exigencies and used it in peculiar ways, as they did with other borrowings: funerary practices, cults, settlement planning, and so on. Moreover, they show a very conservative attitude in the field of epigraphic literacy (the Messapian alphabet and the Messapian language were used until about 100 B.C.E.), as in other fields that raise significant issues of identity, such as onomastics or

Iapygians

funerary practices. One gets the feeling that the Messapians succeeded in borrowing many cultural elements from the Greeks, but also in adapting and integrating them into their cultural traditions and practices. In the course of time the Messapian communities experienced substantial vicissitudes, not only through their relations with the Tarentines and then the Romans, but also in the history of their internal social and political developments. For example, we can observe a spectacular increase in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. in the number of tombs inside and outside the walls which, by then, enclosed almost all Messapian towns.61 Nonetheless, one has the impression of a substantial stability in their social and cultural identity, a stability which probably allowed them, and especially their elites, to borrow many significant Greek cultural elements without giving rise to explicit and exhibited hellenizing behavior. The picture appears to me to be much less clear as regards Daunia and Peucetia. Assuredly, especially for Peucetia, some significant forms of Greek presence and of cultural exchange date back to the archaic age. However, it is important to observe that the borrowing of alphabetic writing and of epigraphic literacy dates only to the fourth century B.C.E. and presents features that appear without meaningful forms of adaptation. Greek language and Greek ethnics are “exhibited” in the inscriptions on Daunian and Peucetian coin issues. Perhaps the existence in Daunian and Peucetian communities of sharper differences and contrasts in their economic, social, and political assets gave rise to the need, on the part of their restricted aristocratic elites, to assess or strengthen their role and their power inside their communities by adopting and exhibiting much more hellenizing behavior in the form of pretended descent from a Greek hero, as in the case of Dasius of Arpi, or in the form of Greek ethnics on their coin issues, or else in the form of commanding, purchasing, and exhibiting at their funerals, many Greek or hellenizing figured vases, first Attic, and then Italiote and Apulian.

APPENDIX: GREEK AND LATIN SOURCES

Ethnic Denominations and Territorial Distribution of Indigenous Populations in Apulia 1. Hecataeus. frr. 86–89 Jacoby ᾿Ιαπυγία· δύο πόλεις. Μία ἐν τῇ ̓Ιταλίᾳ καὶ ἑτέρα ἐν τῇ ̓Ιλλυρίδι, ὡς ̔Ηκαταῖος Iapygia: two cities. One in Italy and the other in Illyria. So Hecataeus.62 ̓Ελεύτιοι· ἔθνος τῆς ̓Ιαπυγίας. ̔Ηκαταῖος Εὐρώπῃ Eleutians: people in Iapygia. So Hecataeus in “The Europe.” Χανδάνη· πόλις ̓Ιαπυγίας. ̔Ηκαταῖος Εὐρώπῃ ἐν δὲ Χαvδάνη πόλις. Μετὰ δὲ Πευκαῖοι. Chandane: city in Iapygia. So Hecataeus in “The Europe”: “Then comes the city of Chandane, thereafter the Peukaians.” Πευκετίαντες· ἔθνος τοῖς Οἰνώτροις προσεχές, ὠς ̔Ηκαταῖος ἐν Εὐρώπῃ. Peuketiantes: people contiguous to the Oenotrians. So Hecataeus in “The Europe.”

egh

53

54

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

2. Nicander, fr. 47 Schneider, apud Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses, XXXI Λυκάονος τοῦ αὐτόχθονος ἐγένοντο παῖδες ᾿Ιάπυξ καὶ Δαύνιος καὶ Πευκέτιος. οὗτοι λαὸν ἀθροίσαντες ἀφίκοντο τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αδρίαν· ἐξελάσαντες δὲ τοὺς ἐνταυθοῖ οἰκοῦντας Αὔσονας αὐτοὶ καθιδρύθησαν. ἦν δὲ τὸ πλέον αὐτοῖς τῆς στρατιᾶς ἔποικον, ᾿Ιλλυριοὶ Μεσσάπιοι. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸν στρατὸν ἅμα καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐμέρισαν τριχῇ καὶ ὠνόμασαν ὡς ἑκάστοις ἡγεμόνος ὄνομα εἶχε Δαυνίους καὶ Πευκετίους καὶ Μεσσαπίους, τὸ μὲν ἀπὸ Τάραντος ἄχρι πρὸς τὴν ἐσχατιὰν τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας ἐγένετο Μεσσαπίων, ἐν ᾗ πόλις ᾤκηται Βρεντέσιον, τὸ δὲ παρὰ τὴν γῆν ἐντὸς τοῦ Τάραντος ἐγένετο Πευκετίων, ἐνδοτέρω δὲ τούτου τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἐπὶ πλέον ἐγενέτο Δαυνίων, τὸ δὲ σύμπαν ἔθνος ὠνόμασαν ᾿Ιαπύγων. Sons of Lycaon the autochthonous were Iapyx and Daunios and Peuketios. Having assembled an army, these men reached the Adriatic coast of Italy, and having expelled the Ausonians who inhabited the land, settled there. The most part of the army consisted of Illyrian settlers who had joined the expedition under the leadership of Messapios. They divided in three portions the army and the territory, and called the three groups, after the name of the leader of each one of them, Daunians, Peuketians and Messapians. The region which extends from Taras as far as the tip of Italy became the land of the Messapians, where lies the town of Brindisi. The region adjoining it in the hinterland of Taras became the land of the Peuketians, and yet more inland the Daunians occupied the most of the coastal region. To the whole people they gave the name of Iapygians. 3. Pseudo-Scylax, Periegesis, 14 ΙΑΠΥΓΙΑ. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν Λευκανίαν ᾿Ιάπυγές εἰσιν ἔθνος μέχρι ᾿Ωρίωνος ὄρους τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τῷ ᾿Αδρίᾳ. Iapygia. Next after the Lucanians there are the Iapygians as far as the Mount Orion in the Adriatic Gulf. 4. Herodotus, Historiae, IV, 99, 2–5 ὡς εἰ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς ἄλλο ἔθνος καὶ μὴ ᾿Αθηναῖοι νεμοίατο τὸν γουνὸν τὸν Σουνιακόν, μᾶλλον ἐς τὸν πόντον [τὴν ἄκρην] ἀνέχοντα, τὸν ἀπὸ Θορικοῦ μέχρι ᾿Αναφλύστου δήμου· . . . Τοιοῦτο ἡ Ταυρική ἐστι. ῝Ος δὲ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς ταῦτα μὴ παραπέπλωκε, ἐγὼ δὲ ἄλλως δηλώσω· ὡς εἰ τῆς ᾿Ιηπυγίης ἄλλο ἔθνος καὶ μὴ ᾿Ιήπυγες ἀρξάμενοι ἐκ Βρεντεσίου λιμένος ἀποταμοίατο μέχρι Τάραντος καὶ νεμοίατο τὴν ἄκρην. It is as though some other people, not Attic, were to inhabit the heights of Sunium from Thoricus to the township of Anaphlystus, did Sunium but jut farther out into the sea. . . . Such a land is the Tauric country. But those who have not coasted along that part of Attica may understand from this other way of showing: it is as though in Iapygia some other people, not Iapygian, were to dwell on the promontory within a line drawn from the harbour of Brentesion to Taras.

Iapygians

5. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 1 (C 277) ᾿Επηληλυθόσι δ’ ἡμῖν τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ̓Ιταλίαν μέχρι Μεταποντίου, τὰ συνεχῆ λεκτέον. Συνεχὴς δ ̓ ἐστὶν ἡ ̓Ιαπυγία· ταύτην δὲ καὶ Μεσσαπίαν καλοῦσιν οἱ ῞Ελληνες, οἱ δ̓ ἐπιχώριοι κατὰ μέρη τὸ μέν τι Σαλεντίνους καλοῦσι τὸ περὶ τὴν ἄκραν τὴν ̓Ιαπυγίαν, τὸ δὲ Καλαβρούς. ̔ Υπὲρ τούτους πρόσβορροι Πευκέτιοι τέ εἰσι καὶ Δαύνιοι κατὰ τὴν ̔Ελλάδα διάλεκτον προσαγορευόμενοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπιχώριοι πᾶσαν τὴν μετὰ τοὺς Καλαβροὺς ᾿Απουλίαν καλοῦσι, τινὲς δ ̓ αὐτῶν καὶ Ποίδικλοι λέγονται, καὶ μάλιστα οἱ Πευκέτιοι. Now that I have traversed the regions of Old Italy as far as Metapontium, I must speak of those that border on them. And Iapygia borders on them, the Greeks call it Messapia, also, but the natives, dividing it into two parts, call one part (that about the Iapygian Cape) the country of the Salentini, and the other the country of the Calabri. Above these latter, on the north, are the Peucetii and also those people who in the Greek language are called Daunii, but the natives give the name Apulia to the whole country that comes after that of the Calabri, though some of them, particularly the Peucetii, are called Poedicli also. 6. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 7 (C 282–283) ῎Ετι δὲ τοῖς τῆς ̔Ηλλάδος καὶ τῆς ᾿Ασίας διαίρουσιν εὐθύπλοια μᾶλλόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τὸ Βρεντέσιον, καὶ δὴ καὶ δεῦρο πάντες καταίρουσιν, οἷς εἰς τὴν ̔Ρώμην πρόκειται ὁδός. Δύο δέ εἰσι, μία μὲν ἡμιονικὴ διὰ Πευκετίων, οὓς Ποιδίκλους καλοῦσι, καὶ Δαυνίων καὶ Σαυνιτῶν μέχρι Βενεουεντοῦ, ἐφ’ ᾗ ὁδῷ ̓Εγνατία πόλις, εἶτα Καιλία καὶ Νήτιον καὶ Κανύσιον καὶ ̔Ερδωνία· In the case of those who sail across from Greece or Asia, the more direct route is to Brentesium, and, in fact, all who propose to go to Rome by land put into port here. There are two roads from here: one, a mule-road through the countries of the Peucetii (who are called Poedicli), the Daunii, and the Samnitae as far as Beneventum; on this road is the city of Egnatia, and then, Celia, Netium, Canusium and Herdonia. 7. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 8 (C 283) Παραπλέοντι δ’ ἐκ τοῦ Βρεντεσίου τὴν ᾿Αδριατικὴν παραλίαν πόλις ἐστὶν ἡ ̓Εγνατία, οὖσα κοινὴ καταγωγὴ πλέοντί τε καὶ πεζεύοντι εἰς Βάριον· ὁ δὲ πλοῦς νότῳ. Μέχρι δεῦρο μὲν Πευκέτιοι κατὰ θάλατταν, ἐν τῇ μεσογαίᾳ δὲ μέχρι Σιλουίου· πᾶσα δὲ τραχεῖα καὶ ὀρεινή, πολὺ τῶν ᾿Απεννίνων ὀρῶν κοινωνοῦσα, ἀποίκοι δ’ ᾿Αρκάδας δέξασθαι δοκεῖ· . . . τὴν δὲ συνεχῆ Δαύνιοι νέμονται, εἶτα ῎Απουλοι μέχρι Φρεντανῶν. ᾿Ανάγκη δὲ Πευκετίων καὶ Δαυνίων μηδ ̓ ὅλως λεγομένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, πλὴν εἰ τὸ παλαιόν, ἁπάσης δὲ ταύτης τῆς χώρας ᾿Απουλίας λεγομένης νυνί, μηδὲ τοὺς ὅρους ἐπ’ ἀκριβὲς λέγεσθαι τῶν ἐθνῶν τούτων· διόπερ οὐδ’ ἡμῖν διισχυριστέον περὶ αὐτῶν. As one sails from Brentesium along the Adriatic seaboard, one comes to the city of Egnatia, which is the common stopping-place for people who are travelling either by sea or land to Barium and the voyage is made with the south wind.

egh

55

56

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The country of the Peucetii extends only thus far on the sea, but in the interior as far as Silvium. All of it is rugged and mountainous, since it embraces a large portion of the Apennine Mountains and it is thought to have admitted Arcadians as colonists. . . . The adjacent country is inhabited by the Daunii and then come the Apuli, whose country extends as far as that of the Frentani. But since the terms “Peucetii” and “Daunii” are not at all used by the native inhabitants, except in early times, and since this country as a whole is now called Apulia, necessarily the boundaries of these tribes cannot be precisely described either, and for this reason neither should I myself make positive assertions about them. 8. Pliny, Naturalis Historia, III, 99 Conectitur secunda regio amplexa Hirpinos, Calabriam, Apuliam, Sallentinos, CCL sinu qui Tarentinus appellatur ab oppido Laconum . . . Graeci Messapiam a duce appellavere et ante Peucetiam a Peucetio Oenotri fratre in Sallentino agro. Adjoining this district is the second region of Italy, embracing the Hirpini, Calabria, Apulia and the Sallentini with the 250-mile bay named after the Laconian town of Taranto . . . The Greeks called it Messapia from their leader Messapus, and previously Peucetia from Peucetius the brother of Oenotrus, and it was in the Sallentine territory. 9. Pliny, Naturalis Historia, III, 102–104 Brundisio conterminus Poediculorum ager. Novem adulescentes totidemque virgines ab Illyris XII populos genuere. Poediculorum oppida Rudiae, Gnatia, Barium, amnes Iapyx a Daedali filio rege, a quo et Iapygia Acra, Pactius, Aufidus ex Hirpinis montibus Canusium praefluens. Hinc Apulia Dauniorum cognomine a duce Diomedis socero, in qua oppidum Salapia . . . Sipountum, Uria, amnis Cerbalus, Dauniorum finis, portus Aggasus, promunturium montis Gargani, . . . Dauniorum praeter supra dicta coloniae Luceria, Venusia, oppida Canusium, Arpi, aliquando Argos Hippium Diomede condente, mox Argyrippa dictum. Adjacent to Brindisi is the territory of the Poediculi, whose twelve tribes were the descendants of nine youths and nine maidens from the Illyrians. The towns of the Poediculi are Ruvo, Egnatia, and Bari; their rivers are the Iapyx, named from the son of Daedalus, the king who also gives his name to the Iapygian Point, the Pactius and the Aufidus, which runs down from the Hirpini mountains and past Canosa. Here begins Apulia, called Apulia of the Daunii, who were named after their chief, the father-in-law of Diomedes; in Apulia is the town of Salpi . . . Sipontum, Uria, the river Cervaro marking the boundary of the Daunii, the harbour of Porto Greco, the promontory of Monte Gargano . . . and the Daunians, including, beside the places mentioned above, the colonies of Lucera and Venosa and the towns of Canosa and Arpi, formerly called Argos Hippium when founded by Diomedes, and afterwards Argyrippa.

Iapygians

Origins of the Different Populations 10. Herodotus, Historiae, VII 170 Λέγεται γὰρ Μίνων κατὰ ζήτησιν Δαιδάλου ἀπικόμενον ἐς Σικανίην . . . ἀποθανεῖν βιαίῳ θανάτῳ. ᾿Ανὰ δὲ χρόνον Κρῆτας θεοῦ σφέας ἐποτρύναντος πάντας . . . , ἀπικομένους στόλῳ μεγάλῳ ἐς Σικανίην πολιοκρέειν ἐπ’ ἔτεα πέντε πόλιν Καμικόν . . . Τέλος δὲ οὐ δυναμένους οὔτε ἑλεῖν οὔτε παραμένειν λιμῷ συνεστεῶτας, ἀπολιπόντας οἴχεσται. ̔ς δὲ κατὰ ̓Ιηπυγίην γενέσθαι πλέοντας, ὑπολαβόντα σφέας χειμῶνα μέγαν ἐκβαλεῖν ἐς τὴν γῆν· συναραχθέντων δὲ τῶν πλοίων (οὐδεμίαν γάρ σφι ἔτι κομιδὴν ἐς Κρήτην φαίνεσθαι), ἐνθαῦτα ῾Υρίην πόλιν κτίσαντας καταμεῖναί τε καὶ μεταβαλόντας ἀντὶ μὲν Κρητῶν γενέσθαι ̓Ιήπυγας Μεσσαπίους, ἀντὶ δὲ εἶναι νησιώτας ἠπειρώτας. ᾿Απὸ δὴ ̔ Υρίης πόλιος τὰς ἄλλας οἰκίσαι τὰς Ταραντῖνοι χρόνῳ ὕστερον πολλῷ ἐξανιστάντες προσέπταισαν μεγάλως ὥστε φόνος ῾Ελληνικὸς μέγιστος οὗτος δὴ ἐγένετο πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, αὐτῶν τε Ταραντίνων καὶ Ρηγίνων. For Minos (it is said), having gone to Sicania . . . in search for Daedalus, there perished by a violent death; and presently all the Cretans . . . were bidden by a god to go with a great host to Sicania, where for five years they beleaguered the town of Camicus . . . ; but since they could not take it nor remain there for the famine that afflicted them, they left it and departed away. But when they were at sea off Iapygia, a great storm caught and drove them ashore; and their ships being wrecked, and no way left of returning to Crete, they founded there the town of Hyria, and lived in it, changing from Cretans to Messapians of Iapygia, and from islanders to dwellers on the mainland. From Hyria they made settlements in those other towns, which a very long time afterwards the Tarentines tried to destroy, but suffered great disaster thereby; so that none has ever heard of so great a slaughter of Greeks as was made of the Tarentines and Rhegians. 11. Antiochus, fr. 14 Jacoby apud Strabo, VI 3, 2 τὸν δὲ Φάλανθον ἔπεμψαν εἰς θεοῦ περὶ ἀποικίας· ὁ δ’ ἔχρησε· Σατύριόν σοι δῶκα, Τάραντά τε πίονα δῆμον οἰκῆσαι, καὶ πῆμα ᾿Ιαπύγεσσι γενέσθαι.

῟Ηκον οὖν σὺν Φαλάνθῳ οἱ Παρθενίαι, καὶ ἐδέξαντο αὐτοὺς οἵ τε βάρβαροι καὶ οἱ Κρῆτες οἱ προκατασχόντες τὸν τόπον. Τούτους δ’ εἶναί φασι τοὺς μετὰ Μίνω πλεύσαντας εἰς Σικελίαν καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐκείνου τελευτὴν τὴν ἐν Καμικοῖς παρὰ Κωκάλῳ συμβᾶσαν ἐπάραντες ἐκ Σικελίας, κατὰ δὲ τὸν ἀνάπλουν δεῦρο παρωσθέντας. . . . ̓Ιάπυγας δὲ λεχθῆναι πάντας φασὶ μέχρι τῆς Δαυνίας ἀπὸ ̓Ιάπυγος, ὃν ἐκ Κρήσσης γυναικὸς Δαιδάλῳ γενέσθαι φασὶ καὶ ἡγήσασθαι τῶν Κρητῶν (The Spartans) sent Phalanthus to the temple of the God to consult the oracle with reference to founding a colony; and the God responded: “I give you Satyrion both to take up your abode in the rich land of Taras and to become a bane to the Iapygians.”

egh

57

58

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Accordingly, the Partheniae went thither with Phalanthus, and they were welcomed by both the barbarians and the Cretans who had previously taken possession of the place. These latter, it is said, are the people who sailed with Minos to Sicily, and, after his death, which occurred at the home of Cocalus in Camici, set sail from Sicily; but on the voyage back they were driven out. . . . But all the people as far as Daunia, it is said, were called Iapyges, after Iapyx, who said to have been the son of Daedalus by a Cretan woman and to have been the leader of the Cretans. 12. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae, I .13, 1. Φέρε δὴ καὶ τὸ γένος ὅθεν ἦν τὸ τῶν Οἰνώτρων ἀποδείξωμεν, ἕτερον ἄνδρα τῶν ἀρχαίων συγγραφέων παρασχόμενοι μάρτυρα, Φερεκύδην τὸν ᾿Αθηναῖον, γενεαλόγων οὐδενὸς δεύτερον . . . Οἰνώτρου καὶ Πευκετίου μιμνήσκεται λέγων ὧδε· καὶ Οἴνωτρος, ἀφ’ οὗ Οἴνωτροι καλέονται οἱ ἐν ̓Ιταλίῃ οἰκέοντες, καὶ Πευκέτιος, ἀφ’ οὗ Πευκέτιοι καλέονται οἱ ἐν τῷ ̓Ιονίῳ κόλπῳ. Now let me also show the origin of the Oenotrian race, offering as my witness another of the early historians, Pherecydes of Athens, who was a genealogist inferior to none . . . he mentions Oenotrus and Peucetius, in these words: “And Oenotrus, after whom are named the Oenotrians who live in Italy, and Peucetius, after whom are named the Peucetians who live on the Ionian Gulf.” 13. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae, I 11, 2–4 ᾿Απανέστη δὲ τῆς ̔Ελλάδος Οἴνωτρος οὐκ ἀρκούμενος τῇ μοίρᾳ· δύο γὰρ καὶ εἴκοσι παίδων Λυκάονι γενομένων εἰς τοσούτους ἔδει κλήρους νεμηθῆναι τὴν ᾿Αρκάδων χώραν. Ταύτης μὲν δὴ τῆς αἰτίας ἕνεκα Πελοπόννησον Οἴνωτρος ἐκλιπὼν καὶ κατασκευασάμενος ναυτικὸν διαίρει τὸν ̓Ιόνιον καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Πευκέτιοι τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἷς. Εἵποντο δὲ αὐτοῖς τοῦ τε οἰκείου λαοῦ συχνοί, πολυάνθρωπον γὰρ δὴ τὸ ἔθνος τοῦτο λέγεται κατ’ ἀρχὰς γενέσθαι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ̔Ελλήνων ὅσοι χώραν εἶχον ἐλάττω τῆς ἱκανῆς. Πευκέτιος μὲν οὖν, ἔνθα τὸ πρῶτον ὡρμίσαντο τῆς ̓Ιταλίας, ὑπὲρ ἄκρας ̓Ιαπυγίας ἐκβιβάσας τὸν λεὼν αὐτοῦ καθιδρύεται, καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ οἱ περὶ ταῦτα τὰ χωρία οἰκοῦντες Πευκέτιοι ἐκλήθησαν. Oenotrus left Greece because he was dissatisfied with his portion of his father’s land for, as Lycaon had twenty-two sons, it was necessary to divide Arcadia into as many shares. For this reason Oenotrus left the Peloponnesus, prepared a fleet, and crossed the Ionian Gulf with Peucetius, one of his brothers. They were accompanied by many of their own people – for this nation is said to have been very populous in early times and by as many other Greeks as had less land than was sufficient for them. Peucetius landed his people above the Iapygian Promontory, which was the first part of Italy they made, and settled there; and from him the inhabitants of this region were called Peucetians. 14. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 5 Εὐάνδρησε δέ ποτε καὶ τοῦτο σφόδρα τὸ χωρίον σύμπαν καὶ ἔσχε πόλεις τρισκαίδεκα, ἀλλὰ νῦν πλὴν Τάραντος καὶ Βρεντεσίου τἆλλα πολισμάτιά ἐστιν·

Iapygians

οὕτως ἐκπεπόνηνται. τοὺς δὲ Σαλεντίνους Κρητῶν ἀποίκους φασίν· ἐνταῦθα δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱερὸν πλούσιόν ποτε ὑπάρξαν. The whole of the (Messapian) district was once extremely populous; and it also had thirteen cities; but now, with the exception of Taras and Brentesium, all of them are so worn out by war that they are merely small towns. The Salentini are said to be a colony of the Cretans. The temple of Athene, once so rich, in their territory. 15. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 6 ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ἰσθμῷ μέσῳ Οὐρία, ἐν ᾗ βασίλειον ἔτι δείκνυται τῶν δυναστῶν τινος. εἰρηκότος δ’ ῾Ηροδότου ῾Υρίαν εἶναι ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιαπυγίᾳ κτίσμα Κρητῶν τῶν πλανηθέντων ἐκ τοῦ Μίνω στόλου τοῦ εἰς Σικελίαν, ἤτοι ταύτην δεῖ δέχεσθαι ἢ τὸ ᾿Ουερητόν. Βρεντέσιον δ’ ἐποικῆσαι μὲν λέγονται Κρῆτες οἱ μετὰ Θησέως ἐπελθόντες ἐκ Κνωσσοῦ, εἴθ’ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας ἀπηρκότες μετὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιάπυγος (λέγεται γὰρ ἀμφοτέρως)· At the middle of the isthmus, there is Uria, in which is still to be seen the palace of one of the chieftains. . . . Brentesium, they say, was further colonized by the Cretans, whether by those who came over with Theseus from Cnossus or by those who set sail from Sicily with Iapyx (the story is told both ways). 16. Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses, XXXVII 1–4 Διομήδης μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν ̓Ιλίου . . . πλέων εἰς ῎Αργος ὑπὸ χειμῶνος εἰς τὸν ̓Ιόνιον ἐκφέρεται πόντον. ̓Επεὶ δὲ παραγενόμενον αὐτὸν ἔγνω Δαύνιος ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ τῶν Δαυνίων, ἐδεήθη τὸν πόλεμον αὐτῷ συμπολεμῆσαι πρὸς Μεσσαπίους ἐπὶ μέρει γῆς καὶ γάμῳ θυγατρὸς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ. 3. Καὶ Διομήδης ὑποδέχεται τὸν λόγον. ̓Επεὶ δὲ παραταξάμενος ἐτρέψατο τοὺς Μεσσαπίους καὶ ἔλαβε τὴν γῆν, ταύτην μὲν Δωριεῦσιν ἔνειμε τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ· δύο δὲ παῖδας ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς ἔσχε τῆς Δαυνίου, Διομήδην καὶ ᾿Αμφίνομον. Τελευτήσαντα δ ̓ αὐτὸν κατὰ γῆρας ἐν Δαυνίοις ἐκτέρισαν οἱ Δωριεῖς ἐν τῇ νήσῳ καὶ ὠνόμασαν αὐτὴν Διομήδειαν. After the seizure of Troy, Diomedes . . . sailing towards Argos, was driven by the storm towards the Adriatic Sea. When Daunios, the king of the Daunians was acquainted with his arrival, he asked him to fight as his ally in the war against the Messapians, promising him as reward a part of the territory and the hand of his daughter in marriage. Diomedes accepted the proposal of the king and, having entered the field, put to rout the Messapians and received the land, which he distributed among his Dorian comrades. He got two sons from Daunios’ daughter, Diomedes and Amphinomos. He died of old age in the country of Daunians and the Dorians made him the funeral on an island that they called Diomedeia. 17. Appian, Annibaike, 31 ᾿Αργύριππα δ’ ἐστὶ πόλις ἐν τῇ Δαυνίᾳ, ἣν Διομήδης ὁ ᾿Αργεῖος λέγεται κτίσαι. καί τις ἔκγονος εἶναι τοῦ Διομήδους νομιζόμενος, Δάσιος, ἀνὴρ εὐμετάβολός τε τὸ φρόνημα ῾ καὶ οὐ Διομήδους ἄξιος, Ρωμαίων περὶ Κάννας τὴν μεγάλην ἧτταν ἡττημένων, ῾ ἀπέστησε τὴν πατρίδα πρὸς τοὺς Λίβυας ἀπὸ Ρωμαίων.

egh

59

60

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

There is a city called Arpi in Daunia which is said to have been founded by Diomedes, the Argive. Here a certain Dasius, who was said to be a descendant of Diomedes, a very fickle-minded person, quite unworthy of such an ancestor, after the terrible defeat of the Romans at Cannae drew his people over to the Carthaginian side. Plin., N.H., III, 102–104 (supra, n. 9)

Political Organization Kings and Dynasts 18. Pausanias, Graeciae Periegesis, X 13, 10 Ταραντῖνοι δὲ καὶ ἄλλην δεκάτην ἐς Δελφοὺς ἀπὸ βαρβάρων Πευκετίων ἀπέστειλαν· τέχνη μὲν τὰ ἀναθήματα ̓Ονάτα τοῦ Αἰγινήτου καὶ Καλύνθου τε ἐστίκωσι ἔργου † 1 εἰκόνες δὲ καὶ πεζῶν καὶ ἱππέων, βασιλεύς ̓Ιαπύγων ῎Ωπις ἥκων τοῖς Πευκετίοις σύμμαχος. Οὗτος μὲν δὴ εἴκασται τεθνεῶτι ἐν τῇ μάχῃ, οἱ δὲ αὐτῷ κειμένῳ ἐφεστηκότες ὁ ἥρως Τάρας ἐστὶ καὶ Φάλαντος ὁ ἐκ Λακεδαίμονος, καὶ οὐ πόρρω τοῦ Φαλάντου δελφίς· The Tarentines sent yet another tithe to Delphi from spoils taken from the Peucetians, a non-Greek people. The offerings are the works of Onatas the Aeginetan and Kalynthos (?), and consist of statues of footmen and horsemen – Opis, king of the Iapygians, come to be an ally to the Peucetians. Opis is represented as killed in fighting, and on his prostrate body stand the hero Taras and Phalanthus of Lacedaemon, near whom is a dolphin. 19. Thucydides, Historiae, VII 33, 3–4 ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης καὶ Εὐρυμέδων . . . ἐπεραιώθησαν ξυμπάσῃ τῇ στρατιᾷ τὸν ᾿Ιόνιον ἐπ’ ἄκραν ᾿Ιαπυγίαν· καὶ ὁρμηθέντες αὐτόθεν κατίσχουσιν ἐς τὰς Χοιράδας νήσους ᾿Ιαπυγίας, καὶ ἀκοντιστάς τέ τινας τῶν ᾿Ιαπύγων πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν τοῦ Μεσσαπίου ἔθνους ἀναβιβάζονται ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς, καὶ τῷ ῎Αρτᾳ, ὅσπερ καὶ τοὺς ἀκοντιστὰς δυνάστης ὢν παρέσχετο αὐτοῖς, ἀνανεωσάμενοί τινα παλαιὰν φιλίαν ἀφικνοῦνται ἐς Μεταπόντιον τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας. But Demosthenes and Eurymedon . . . sailed with all their forces across the Ionian Sea to the Iapygian promontory. Proceeding from there, they touched at the Choerades, which are islands of Iapygia, and took on board their ships some Iapygians’ javelin-men, one hundred and fifty in number, belonging to the Messapian tribe; and after they had renewed an old alliance of friendship with Artas, who being a chieftain there had furnished them with the javelinmen, they arrived at Metapontum in Italy. 20. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 4 (C 281) Πρὸς δὲ Μεσσαπίους ἐπολέμησαν (οἱ Ταραντῖνοι) περὶ ̔Ηρακλείας, ἔχοντες συνεργοὺς τόν τε τῶν Δαυνίων καὶ τὸν τῶν Πευκετίων βασιλέα.

Iapygians

In their war against the Messapians for the possesion of Herakleia, they had the cooperation of the king of the Daunians and the king of the Peucetians. Strabo, VI 3,6 (basileion at Oria) (supra, n. 15) 21. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 6 (C 282) ὕστερον δὲ ἡ πόλις (sc. Brentesion) βασιλευομένη πολλὴν ἀπέβαλε τῆς χώρας ὑπὸ τῶν μετὰ Φαλάνθου Λακεδαιμονίων. But later the city (of Brundisium), which was ruled by a king, was deprived of a lot of its territory by the Spartans colonists with Phalanthus. 22. Justin, Pompei Trogi Philippicarum Epitoma, XII 2, 5–12 Igitur cum in Italiam venisset (Alexander) primum illi bellum cum Apulis fuit quorum cognito urbis fato brevi post tempore pacem et amicitiam cum rege eorum fecit. Erat namque tunc temporis urbs Apulis Brundisium, quam Aetoli secuti . . . Diomeden condiderant; . . . Gessit et cum Bruttiis Lucanisque bellum multasque urbes cepit; cum Metapontinis et Poediculis et Romanis foedus amicitiamque fecit. Having arrived in Italy (Alexander, the king of Epirus) firstly moved war against Apulians. But, little time after, having been acquainted with the fate of their capital, entered into arrangements of peace and friendship with their king. In those times the capital of Apulians was Brindisi, which had been founded by Aetolians led by Diomedes . . . On the contrary, he made war against Bruttians and Lucanians, and seized many towns; but he made arrangements of alliance and friendship with Metapontines, Pediculi (i.e. Peuketians) and Romans.

Poleis: Hecataeus frr. 86 and 88 (supra, n. 1) Herodotus. VII 170 (supra, n. 10) 23. Livy, ab Urbe condita, VIII 24, 4–5 Cum saepe Bruttias Lucanasque legiones fudisset, (Alexander Epirotes) Heracleam Tarentinorum coloniam ex Lucanis, Sipontum Apulorum Consentiamque Bruttiorum ac Terinam, alias inde Messapiorum ac Lucanorum cepisset urbes et trecentas familias inlustres in Epirum, quas obsidum numero haberet, misisset, haud procul Pandosia urbe, imminente Lucanis ac Bruttiis finibus, tres tumulos aliquantum inter se distantes insedit. Having repeatedly defeated the Bruttian and Lucanian levies; having taken Heraclea, a Tarentine colony, from the Lucanians, and Sipontum belonging to the Apulians, and the Bruttian towns Consentia and Terina, and after that other towns of the Messapians and Lucanians; and having sent to Epirus three hundred illustrious families, to be held as hostages, he took up station not

egh

61

62

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

far from the city Pandosia, which looks down upon the borders of Lucania and Bruttium, on three hills that stand some little distance apart from one another. Strabo, VI 3, 5 (supra, n. 14)

Society, Social Figures, and Practices 24. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, XII 522F–523B ᾿Ιαπύγων τε αὖ τὸ γένος ἐκ Κρήτης ὄντων κατὰ Γλαύκου ζήτησιν ἀφικομένων καὶ κατοικησάντων, οἱ μετὰ τούτους λήθην λαβόντες τῆς Κρητῶν περὶ τὸν βίον εὐκοσμίας εἰς τοῦτο τρυφῆς, εἶθ’ ὕστερον ὕβρεως ἦλθον ὥστε πρῶτοι τὸ πρόσωπον ἐντριψάμενοι καὶ προκόμια περίθετα λαβόντες στολὰς μὲν ἀνθινὰς φορῆσαι, τὸ δὲ ἐργάζεσθαι καὶ πονεῖν αἰσχρὸν νομίσαι. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς αὐτῶν καλλίονας τὰς οἰκίας ποιῆσαι τῶν ἱερῶν, τοὺς δ’ ἡγεμόνας τῶν ̓Ιαπύγων ἐφυβρίζοντας τὸ θεῖον πορθεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ τῶν θεῶν ἀγάλματα, προειπόντας μεθίστασθαι τοῖς κρείττοσιν. Διόπερ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ βαλλόμενοι πυρὶ καὶ χαλκῷ ταύτην διέδοσαν τὴν φήμην. ̓Εμφανῆ γὰρ ἦν μέχρι πόρρω κεχαλκευμένα τῶν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ βελῶν· καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνων μέχρι τήμερον ἐν χρῷ κεκαρμένοι καὶ πένθιμον στολὴν ἀμπεχόμενοι ζῶσιν, πάντων τῶν πρὶν ὑπαρξάντων ἀγαθῶν σπανίζοντες. So, again, the Iapygians. They were natives of Crete who had come to look for Glaucus and settled there; but their successors, forgetting the Cretan discipline of life, went so far in luxury, and then later in arrogance, that they became the first to rub cosmetics on their faces and assume false fronts attached to their hair; and while they wore gaily colored robes, they regarded working and toiling at a trade as too disgraceful. Most of them made their houses more beautiful than the temples, and the leaders of the Iapygians, in utter contempt of deity, looted the statues of the gods from the temples, giving notice to their betters to go elsewhere. Wherefore they were struck from the heavens with fire and copper, and handed on to posterity the report of it. For in evidence there were shown for a long time afterward copper specimens of the missiles from the sky; and all the survivors from those times to the present day live with hair close-cropped, clad in mourning garb, and lacking all the good things they had formerly enjoyed. 25. Herodotus, Historiae, III, 138, 1 ᾿Αναχθέντες δὲ ἐκ τῆς Κρότωνος οἱ Πέρσαι ἐκπίπτουσι τῇσι νηυσὶ ἐς ᾿Ιηπυγίην, καί σφεας δουλεύοντας ἐνθαῦτα Γίλλος ἀνὴρ Ταραντῖνος φυγὰς ῥυσάμενος ἀπήγαγε παρὰ βασιλέα Δαρεῖον. (ca. 515 B.C.E) The Persians then put out from Croton; but their ships were wrecked on the Iapygian coast, and they themselves made slaves in the country, until one Gillus, a banished man of Taras, released and restored them to Darius.

Iapygians

26. Pseudo-Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultationibus, 110 (840b) ᾿Εν δὲ τοῖς Πευκετίνοις εἶναί φασιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἱερόν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν διωνομασμένην ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς τόποις χαλχῆν ἕλικα ἀνακεῖσθαι λέγουσιν, ἔχουσαν ἐπίγραμμα “Διομήδης ᾿Αρτέμιδι”. Μυθολογεῖται δ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐλάφῳ περὶ τράχηλον περιθεῖναι, τὴν δὲ περιφῦναι, καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εὑρισκομένην ὑπὸ ᾿Αγαθοκλέους ὕστερον τοῦ βασιλέως Σικελιωτῶν εἰς τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερὸν ἀνατεθῆναί φασιν. Among the Peucetini they say that there is a temple of Artemis, in which is dedicated what is called the bronze necklace, bearing the legend “Diomedes to Artemis.” The story goes that he hung it about the neck of a deer, and that it grew there, and in this way being found later by Agathocles, king of the Siceliots, they say that it was dedicated at the temple of Zeus. 27. Clearchus, fr. 48 Wehrli, apud Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, XII 522 D-F. Ταραντίνους δέ φησι . . . δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς τρυφῆς εἰς ὕβριν ποδηγηθέντες ἀνάστατον μίαν πόλιν ̓Ιαπύγων ἐποίησαν Κάρβιναν, ἐξ ἧς παῖδας καὶ παρθένους καὶ τὰς ἐν ἀκμῇ γυναῖκας ἀθροίσαντες εἰς τὰ τῶν Καρβινατῶν ἱερὰ καὶ σκηνοποιησάμενοι γυμνὰ πᾶσι τῆς ἡμέρας τὰ σώματα παρεῖχον θεωρεῖν· καὶ ὁ βουλόμενος καθάπερ εἰς ἀτυχῆ παραπηδῶν ἀγέλην ἐθοινᾶτο ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τὴν τῶν ἀθροισθέντων ὥραν, πάντων μὲν ὁρώντων, μάλιστα δὲ ὧν ἥκιστα ἐκεῖνοι προσεδόκων θεῶν. Οὕτω δὲ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἠγανάκτησεν ὥστε Ταραντίνων τοὺς ἐν Καρβίνῃ παρανομήσαντας ἐκεραύνωσε πάντας. Καὶ μέχρι καὶ νῦν ἐν Τάραντι ἑκάστη τῶν οἰκιῶν ὅσους ὑπεδέξατο τῶν εἰς ᾿Ιαπυγίαν ἐκπεμφθέντων τοσαύτας ἔχει στήλας πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν· ἐφ’ αἷς καθ’ ὃν ἀπώλοντο χρόνον οὔτ’ οἰκτίζονται τοὺς ἀποιχομένους οὔτε τὰς νομίμους χέονται χοάς, ἀλλὰ θύουσι Διὶ Καταιβάτῃ. (Clearchus . . . ) says . . . that after the people of Tarentum . . . later, blindly led by luxury into outrage, uprooted Carbina, a city of the Iapygians, made the boys, girls, and women in their prime gather in the temples of Carbina, and there got up a spectacle, exposing their bodies naked for all to gaze at by day; and anyone who wished, leaping like wolves upon a herd into this wretched group, could feast his lust on the beauty of the victims there gathered. Yet while all were looking on, they little suspected that the gods were looking on most of all. For the divine powers were so angry that they blasted with a thunderbolt all the Tarentines who had committed this outrage in Carbina. And even to this day each of the houses in Tarentum has as many columns outside the front doors as it harbored members of the band dispatched to Iapygia; at these columns, on the anniversary of their destruction, the people neither make lamentation for the departed nor pour the customary libations in their honour, but sacrifice to Zeus the Thunderer. Strabo VI, 3,5 (supra, n. 15) 28. Aristoxenus, fr. 17 Wehrli, apud Porphyrius, Vita Pythagorae, 22 Προσῆλθον δ’ αὐτῷ, ὡς φησὶν ᾿Αριστόξενος, καὶ Λευκανοὶ καὶ Μεσσάπιοι καὶ Πευκέτιοι καὶ ̔Ρωμαῖοι.

egh

63

64

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Among his (that is of Pythagoras) followers, according to Aristoxenus, were the Leucanians, the Messapians, the Peucetians, and the Romans.

Presence of Greeks in Indigenous Contexts Herodotus III, 138, 1 (supra, n. 25) Pseudo-Aristoteles, De mirabilibus auscultationibus, 110 (840b) (supra n. 26)

Political Relations of the Iapygian Peoples with the Greeks Barbaros polemos: Tarentine Triumphs and Final Iapygian Victory Clearchus fr. 48 W. (supra, n. 27) 29. Pausanias, Graeciae Periegesis, X 10, 6–8 Ταραντίνων δὲ οἱ ἵπποι οἱ χαλκοῖ καὶ αἰχμάλωτοι γυναῖκες ἀπὸ Μεσσαπίων εἰσίν, ὁμόρων τῇ Ταραντίνων βαρβάρων, ᾿Αγελάδα δὲ ἔργα τοῦ ᾿Αργείου. The bronze horses and captive women dedicated by Tarentines were made from spoils taken from the Messapians, a non-Greek people bordering on the territory of Tarentum, and are works of Ageladas the Argive. Pausanias, X, 13 (supra, n. 18) Herodotus VII 170 (supra, n. 10) 30. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, XI 52, 1–5 Επ’ ἄρχοντος δ ̓ ᾿Αθήνησι Μένωνος ̔Ρωμαῖοι μὲν ὑπάτους κατέστησαν Λεύκιον Αἰμίλιον Μάμερκον καὶ Γάιον Κορνήλιον Λέντουλον, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ̓Ιταλίαν πόλεμοι ἐνέστη Ταραντίνοις πρὸς τοὺς ̓Ιάπυγας· περὶ γὰρ ὁμόρου χώρας ἀμφισβητούντων πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἐπὶ μέν τινας χρόνους διετέλουν ἁψιμαχοῦντες καὶ λεηλατοῦντες τὰς ἀλλήλων χώρας, ἀεὶ δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς διαφορᾶς συναυξομένης καὶ πολλάκις φόνων γινομένων, τὸ τελευταῖον εἰς ὁλοσχερῆ φιλοτιμίαν ὥρμησαν. Οἱ μὲν οὖν ̓Ιάπυγες τήν τε παρ’ αὑτῶν δύναμιν παρεσκευάζοντο καὶ τὴν παρὰ τῶν ὁμόρων συμμαχίαν συνέλαβον, καὶ τοὺς σύμπαντας ἤθροισαν ὑπὲρ τοὺς δισμυρίους· οἱ δὲ Ταραντῖνοι πυθόμενοι τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἠθροισμένης δυνάμεως, τούς τε ῾ πολιτικοὺς στρατιώτας ἤθροισαν καὶ Ρηγίνων συμμάχων ὄντων πολλοὺς προσελάβοντο. Γενομένης δὲ μάχης ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ πολλῶν παρ’ ἀμφοτέροις πεσόντων, τὸ τελευταῖον οἱ ̓Ιάπυγες ἐνίκησαν. When Menon was archon in Athens, the Romans chose as consuls Lucius Aemilius Mamercus and Gaius Cornelius Lentulus, and in Italy a war broke out between the Tarantini and the Iapygians. For these peoples, disputing with each other over some land on their borders, had been engaging for some years in skirmishes and in raiding each other’s territory, and since the difference between them kept constantly increasing and frequently resulted in deaths, they finally went headlong into out-and-out contention. Now the Iapygians not only made ready the army of their own men but they also joined with

Iapygians

them an auxiliary force of their neighbours, collecting in this way a total body of more than twenty thousand soldiers; and the Tarantini, on learning of the great size of the army gathered against them, both mustered the soldiers of their state and added to them many more of the Rhegians, who were their allies. A fierce battle took place and many fell on both sides, but in the end the Iapygians were victorious. 31. Aristotle, Politica, V 1303a Συμβαίνει δ’ ἐνίοτε τοῦτο καὶ διὰ τύχας, οἷον ἐν Τάραντι ἡττηθέντων καὶ ἀπολομένων πολλῶν γνωρίμων ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιαπύγων μικρὸν ὕστερον τῶν Μηδικῶν δημοκρατία ἐγένετο ἐκ πολιτείας. Sometimes this is also brought about by accidental occurrences, as for instance at Tarentum, when a great many notables were defeated and killed by the Iapygians a short time after the Persian wars, a constitutional government was changed to a democracy.

Second Half of the Fifth Century: Blocked Relations with Taras, but Good Relations with Athens and Thurii Thucydides, Historiae VII, 33 (supra, n. 19)

First Half of the Fourth Century and Archytas 32. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, XVI, 5, 2–3 Πρὸς Καρχηδονίους διαδεδεγμένος τὸν πόλεμον πρός τε τούτους εἰρήνην συνέθετο καὶ πρὸς Λευκανοὺς ὁμοίως διαπολεμήσας ἀργῶς ἐπί τινα χρόνον καὶ ταῖς τελευταίαις μάχαις ἐπὶ τοῦ προτερήματος γενόμενος ἀσμένως πρὸς αὐτοὺς κατελύσατο τὸν πόλεμον. Κατὰ δὲ τὴν ᾿Απουλίαν δύο πόλεις ἔκτισε βουλόμενος ἀσφαλῆ τοῖς πλέουσι τὸν ̓Ιόνιον πόρον ποιῆσαι· οἱ γὰρ τὴν παρὰ θαλάττιον οἰκοῦντες βάρβαροι λῃστρίσι πολλαῖς πλέοντες ἄπλουν τοῖς ἐμπόροις παρεσκεύαζον πᾶσαν τὴν περὶ τὸν ᾿Αδρίαν θάλατταν. (Dionysius the Younger) since he had inherited the war with the Carthaginians, he made peace with them and likewise pursued war listlessly for some time against the Lucanians, and then, in the latest battles, having had the advantage, he gladly brought to a close the war against them. In Apulia he founded two cities because he wished to make safe for navigators the passage across the Ionian Sea [i.e., today’s Otranto Channel]; for the barbarians who dwelt along the coast were accustomed to put out in numerous pirate ships and render the whole shore along the Adriatic Sea unsafe for merchants. Aristoxenus. fr. 17 W. (supra, n. 28) 33. Polybius. Historiae, X, fr. 1 ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Σικελίας καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ̔Ελλάδος φερομένους ἐπί τινα τόπον τῶν προειρημένων κατ’ ἀνάγκην ὁρμεῖν ἐν τοῖς τῶν Ταραντίνων λιμέσι, καὶ τὰς

egh

65

66

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

ἀμείψεις καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας πρὸς πάντας τοὺς κατέχοντας ταύτην τὴν πλευρὰν τῆς ̓Ιταλίας ἐν ταύτῃ ποιεῖσθαι τῇ πόλει . . . Τέτακται δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατὰ τὸν ̓Αδρίαν λιμέναι εὐφυῶς καὶ νῦν μέν, ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἦν πρὸ τοῦ. ᾿Απὸ γὰρ ἄκρας ̓Ιαπυγίαι ἕωι εἰς Σιποῦντα πᾶς ὁ προσφερόμενος ἐκ τῶν ἀντιπέρας καὶ καθορμισθεὶς πρὸς τὴν ̓Ιταλίαν εἰς Τάραντ’ ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ὑπερβολήν, καὶ ταύτῃ συνεχρῆτο τῇ πόλει πρὸς τὰς ἀλλαγὰς καὶ μεταθέσεις οἷον [εἰ] ἐμπορίῳ· οὐδέπω γὰρ συνέβαινε τότε τὴν τῶν Βρεντεσίνων ἐκτίσθαι πόλιν. [S]o that those traveling either from Greece or from Sicily to any of the aforesaid places must of necessity anchor in the harbors of Tarentum, and make that city the seat of their exchange and traffic with all the inhabitants of this side of Italy. . . . Tarentum is also very favorably situated with respect to the harbors of the Adriatic even at the present day, and was still more so formerly. For from the extremity of Iapygia, as far as Sipontum, everyone coming from the opposite coast to put in to an Italian harbour crossed to Tarentum and used that as an emporium for the exchange and sale of merchandise, the town of Brundisium having not yet been founded.

The “Condottieri”: From war to peace and friendly relations 34. Strabo, Geographia, VI 3, 4 (C 280) ἴσχυσαν δέ ποτε οἱ Ταραντῖνοι καθ’ ὑπερβολήν, πολιτευόμενοι δημοκρατικῶς . . . . ̓Εξίσχυσε δ’ ἡ ὕστερον τρυφὴ διὰ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν. . . . · ἐκ δὲ τούτου καὶ χεῖρον ἐπολιτεύοντο. ἓν δὲ τῶν φαύλων πολιτευμάτων τεκμήριόν ἐστι τὸ ξενικοῖς στρατηγοῖς χρῆσθαι· καὶ γὰρ τὸν Μολοττὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον μετεπέμψαντο ἐπὶ Μεσσαπίους καὶ Λευκανούς, καὶ ἔτι πρότερον ᾿Αρχίδαμον τὸν ᾿Αγησιλάου καὶ ὕστερον Κλεώνυμον καὶ ᾿Αγαθοκλέα, εἶτα Πύρρον, ἡνίκα συνέστησαν πρὸς ̔Ρωμαίους. And one time the Tarantini were excedingly powerful, that is, when they enjoyed a democratic government. . . . But later, because of their prosperity, luxury prevailed . . . and in consequence of this they also were poorly governed. One evidence of their bad policies is the fact that they employed foreign generals; for they sent for Alexander the Molossian to lead them in their war against the Messapians and Lucanians, and, still before that, for Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus, and, later on, for Cleonymus, and Agathocles, and then for Pyrrhus, at the time when they formed a league with him against the Romans. Livius VIII, 24 (supra, n. 23) Justinus, XII, 2 (supra, n. 22) 35. Plutarch, Vita Agidis, 3, 2 ῎Ην γὰρ ᾿Αγεσιλάου μὲν ᾿Αρχίδαμος ὁ περὶ Μανδόριον τῆς ̓Ιταλίας ὑπὸ Μεσσαπίων ἀποθανών.

Iapygians

The son of Agesilaos was Archidamos who died near Manduria in Italy killed by the Messapians. 36. Callimachus, Aetia, fr. 613 Pfeiffer ῾Ο ᾿Αδρίας παράκειται ἄχρι τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιαπύγων, οἵ εἰσιν ἐν ᾿Ιταλίᾳ. Μέμνηται δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ Καλλίμαχος οὕτως· “᾿Ιηπύγων ἔγχος ἀπωσάμενοι”. The Adriatic Sea extends as far as the land of Iapygians who dwell in Italy. Callimachus too makes mention of them saying: “Having fought back the spear of the Iapygians.” 37. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, XX 104, 1–2 Κατὰ δὲ τὴν ̓Ιταλίαν Ταραντῖνοι πόλεμον ἔχοντες πρὸς Λευκανοὺς καὶ ̔Ρωμαίους ἐξέπεμψαν πρεσβευτὰς εἰς τὴν Σπάρτην, αἰτούμενοι βοήθειαν καὶ στρατηγὸν Κλεώνυμον. . . . ὁ μὲν Κλεώνυμος . . . συντόμως κατέπλευσεν εἰς Τάραντα. ̓Ενταῦθα δὲ μισθοφόρους ἀθροίσας ἄλλους οὐκ ἐλάττους τῶν προτέρων κατέγραφε καὶ τοὺς πολιτικοὺς πεζοὺς μὲν πλείους τῶν δισμυρίων, ἱππεῖς δὲ δισχιλίους. Προσελάβετο δὲ τῶν τε κατ’ ᾿Ιταλίαν ῾Ελλήνων τοὺς πλείστους καὶ τὸ τῶν Μεσσαπίων ἔθνος. In Italy the people of Tarentum were waging war with the Lucanians and the Romans and they sent envoys to Sparta asking for assistance and for Cleonymus as general . . . Cleonymus . . . sailed at once to Tarentum. After collecting there other mercenaries no less in number than those previously enrolled, he also enlisted more than twenty thousand citizens as footsoldiers and two thousand as mounted troops. He won the support also of most of the Greeks in Italy and of the tribe of the Messapians. Notes 1. RVAp, Lippolis 1996a; Denoyelle et al. 2005; Taplin 2007. 2. Lombardo 1992. 3. Lippolis 1996a; Denoyelle et al. 2005; Todisco 2010b; Carpenter 2003; 2009; Robinson 1990a; 2004. 4. Gadaleta 2010. 5. Cf. Roscino 2010. 6. Carpenter 2003; 2009; Robinson 2004; Giuliani 1995; Taplin 2007; Todisco 2010a. 7. Lombardo 1991, 45. 8. Lombardo 1992; De Juliis 1988; Grelle 2010; Mazzei 1984. 9. Cf. the corpus of Messapian inscriptions recently edited by De Simone and Marchesini 2002. 10. IG XIV 672; Lombardo 1991, 71; Lamboley 1996, 67; Ampolo 2006, 184. 11. IG XIV 685; Lombardo 1991, 71; Lamboley 1996, 23; Ampolo 2006, 184. 12. In general, Siciliano 1989; 1991; 1995; Rutter et al. 2001, 76–107; Parente 2000. 13. De Juliis 1988; 2010; D’Andria 1988; 1990; 1991; Mazzei 1984; 1992; Greiner 2003; Todisco 2010b. 14. Lombardo 1991, 56. 15. Lombardo 1991, 59–61. 16. Lombardo 1991, 61–3.

egh

67

68

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

Grelle 1995. Nenci 1978. Lombardo 1991, 59. Lamboley 1983. Lombardo 1991, 68. On all of these aspects: De Juliis 1988; 2010; D’Andria 1988; 1990; 1991; Lamboley 1996; Burgers 1998; Mazzei 1984; Greiner 2003; Todisco 2010b. Lombardo 1991, 73. D’Andria 1990, 67 ff; Semeraro 1997, 189. Santoro 1989; Mastronuzzi 2008. Greiner 2003; Todisco 2010b. Lombardo 2002, 265. Lombardo 1991, 84; 2002, 256–9. Nenci 1976. Lombardo 1991, 90–6; 2002, 259, 266. Mannino 2004. Lombardo 1991, 96–9. Lombardo 2004. Lombardo 1989b. Lombardo 1991, 100–3. Lamboley 1983. Nenci 1976. Pagliara 1983, 65. Pagliara 1983, 76. Santoro 1978; D’Andria 2004, 23; Aversa, forthcoming. De Simone and Marchesini 2002, 193; Lombardo 2005, 85. The fragment was the subject of a conference in Montpellier in 2005, the proceedings of which have yet to be published. LSAG, 262, n. 35; Santoro 1994, 202; Aversa, forthcoming. LSAG, 281, n. 11–12; Ferrandini Troisi 2010, 137. SEG LIV, 955; Santoro 1994, 130 ff; Ferrandini Troisi 2010, 134; Todisco 2010c, 275. SEG XLVI, 1313bis; Ferrandini Troisi 2010, 134 ff; Todisco 2010c, 275. De Simone and Marchesini 2002, 416; Ferrandini Troisi 2010, 138. De Simone 1989. De Simone and Marchesini 2002, 6. Lombardo 1994. Cf. Iacono 2007–2008. Marchesini 1998. Untermann 1964; De Simone 1982. De Simone 1982; 1991; Santoro 1989; Lombardo 1991, 78. See the documents from Peucetian and Daunian centers collected in De Simone and Marchesini 2002. Santoro 1994. Here too I refer to the epigraphical documents collected in De Simone and Marchesini 2002 and the numismatic evidence in Parente 2000 and in Rutter et al. 2001. Gallini 1973; Veyne 1979; Hall 2004a; Lombardo 2006. Lombardo 2006, 17. Gallini 1973; Veyne 1979. De Simone 1982; Mastronuzzi 2008. Lombardo 1994; Iacono 2007–2008. Translations are by the author and from the Loeb Classical Library.

PART II

POTTERY PRODUCTION: RED-FIGURE WORKSHOPS

The complex interactions between the Tarentines, who occupied the only Greek polis in Apulia, and the Italic people affected both groups in significant ways, particularly during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., as Mario Lombardo has discussed in Chapter 2. Some changes are well documented, such as the political effects on Taranto after their defeat by the Iapygians in 473 B.C.E, but the cultural impact of those changes is more difficult to observe. For this we need to rely on archaeological evidence, and here figure-decorated pottery can be an invaluable tool. The current view on the origin of South Italian red-figure pottery, accepted by most scholars, is that the earliest South Italian workshops were established in Metaponto, a Greek polis in Lucania just across the Bradano River from Apulia. Archaeological evidence from kilns has conclusively shown the existence of early Lucanian red-figure workshops at Metaponto. The production of a second style of South Italian red-figure pottery, called Apulian, soon followed and from the start its workshops were influenced by Lucanian painters. Most scholars today see Taranto as the sole production center of Apulian red-figure, though the evidence is ambiguous and less conclusive than it is for Metaponto, at least until 330 B.C.E., after which Italic centers such as Ruvo di Puglia and Canosa probably produced it as well. The ambiguous evidence for production of vases at Taranto, combined with the fact that from the very start Italic sites provided the principal markets for large, elaborately decorated Apulian vases, makes identifying the location of Apulian workshops a significant issue in understanding interactions between Greeks and Italics. Some vase shapes, such as the volute krater and the column krater, appear almost exclusively at Italic sites, and imagery (dress and accoutrements) on some vases found at those sites refers exclusively to Italic people. The implications of assuming that production of these vases was entirely in Greek hands for over a century until c. 330 B.C.E. need to be addressed. In what follows in Part II, Didier Fontannaz presents the complex evidence for Taranto as a production center of Apulian red-figure. Then Francesca Silvestrelli and Martine Denoyelle illustrate 69

70

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

how mutable the Lucanian workshops were and how they often intertwined with Apulian workshops. Fontannaz, Silvestrelli, and Denoyelle devote considerable attention to the attribution of vases to painters and workshops, primarily on the basis of style, and a word should be said about the importance of attribution for the study of the corpus of more than 20,000 Apulian and Lucanian vases we have, which were produced over a period of 150 years. In the 1930s A.D. Trendall adopted a technique, pioneered by J.D.Beazley for the study of Athenian figure decorated vases, to identify the hands of South Italian painters. Trendall then spent most of his career studying vases and assigning them to painters and groups of painters. Apulian and Lucanian painters did not sign their works, so the names Trendall assigned to them were invented by him and a few other scholars. For example, he named one major painter, the Tarporley Painter, after the stately home in which the name vase had been housed, and he named the Amykos Painter after a figure from myth who appears on a vase now in Paris. In his great works, LCS and RVAp (with Alexander Cambitoglou), he used these attributions as the basis for organizing the corpus of Lucanian and Apulian vases and thus established a rough chronology of the development of Apulian and Lucanian vase painting. These attributions now allow archaeologists to study trade patterns, as Angela Ciancio, Ada Riccardi, and Maria Teresa Giannotta discuss in Part III. They also allow studies of particular iconographic interests shown by specific painters and by patrons at specific sites. Today when new vases or fragments are uncovered, scholars can assign them to painters, fitting them into the chronological framework and sometimes helping to flesh out individual painter “personalities.” As important as attributions are for the use of vases by archaeologists, however, the process of attributing them is not a science; thus, modifications to Trendall’s work are inevitable, necessary, and often controversial, as Martine Denoyelle demonstrates.

CHAPTER THREE

PRODUCTION AND FUNCTIONS OF APULIAN RED-FIGURE POTTERY IN TARAS: NEW CONTEXTS AND PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION Didier Fontannaz Archaeological context has regained its rightful place in studies of South Italian pottery, especially of Apulian red-figure, in the last two decades.1 Studies of necropoleis have provided new arguments for the chronology, distribution, and meaning of this class of figured pottery in the funerary rites of southern Italy. This return of archaeology to a field that had been dominated by art historical perspectives has highlighted the diversity of cultural situations in Apulia and foregrounded the issue of the interactions between Italiote and Italic populations. Opinions on the localization of the production centers of Apulian red-figure have fluctuated dramatically since the nineteenth century.2 Although today there is a revived interest in the role of indigenous populations, this should not lead to a new ethnocentrism, since the field already faces a strong and long-lasting Athenocentrism regarding the western Greek cities and the native populations. As with reflections on cultural transfers and m´etissages in other fields of the humanities, it is necessary to take into account all relations between the various cultural actors (Tarentines, Peucetians, Messapians, Daunians, Metapontines, Athenians),3 even if one is mainly interested in only one of these actors. While this volume looks beyond Magna Graecia, there are still many points to clarify within the Greek colonies that first produced South Italian red-figure pottery. For some colonies, such as Heraclea and Thurii, we are yet to see the same level of excavation, publication, and synthesis that is available for Metaponto, Taranto, or even Locri. In addition, the western Greek cities are not an undifferentiated whole, to be contrasted with the native cities, which themselves offer notable variations. More than ever, a synthesis of archaeological data, site by site, is desirable to clarify the functions of red-figure pottery, the diffusion of the workshops’ products, and the differences in the distribution of shapes and iconography that can be noted WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

71

72

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

at a local and regional scale. Some issues are only revealed by comparing native and Greek preferences (for example, vases with depictions of naiskoi, discussed in what follows here). Each level of contextualization, from the archaeological to the broad cultural context, contributes information to an overall synthesis. I propose, on the basis of my ongoing research on unpublished Tarentine contexts covering all phases of Apulian red-figure pottery, to present some evidence of its production and functions in the Laconian colony and to reflect on the implications. This question is part of the broader issue of the identity of “Tarentine” red-figure pottery, which obviously requires a diversity of perspectives. No corpus has so far been put together for such an analysis.4

Taranto and Apulian Red-Figure Pottery The modern city of Taranto, built on the ancient Laconian colony of Taras, offers the largest concentration of red-figure pottery in southern Italy. Compared to other sites, the record at Taras contains many more red-figure fragments and “minor” vases. Several studies, from the end of the nineteenth century onwards, have already traced the history of the hypotheses that the Greek colonies were the centers of “Apulian” production.5 A. Furtw¨angler’s hypothesis of the birth of South Italian red-figure pottery in Thurii, linked to the arrival of Athenian craftsmen, has now been abandoned in favor of Taranto as the originator of the “Early Apulian” style,6 while Metaponto has provided the clearest evidence of production of “Early Lucanian style” pottery.7 Other candidates, such as Heraclea, whose craft products are close to those of Taras, need to be examined more closely. A. D. Trendall, who reestablished Taranto as one of the principal centers of production on the basis of generic provenances, only considered some of the pottery from Taranto, although he knew of the large quantity of material found there. He believed, incorrectly it now appears, that it was impossible to recover archaeological contexts concerning many of the early excavations.8 Many misconceptions persist concerning the archaeological record of Taranto, and the secondary literature on the site has often contributed to misunderstandings.9 While the archaeological contexts are far from fully published, a great deal of evidence is already freely available, as the catalogues of Taranto published in the late 1980s and the topographic syntheses on the city and on red-figure pottery from the necropoleis have amply shown.10 This research has been made possible by the recent reorganization of the storerooms of the Archaeological Superintendency and Museum of Taranto, which now offers access to more than a century of archives and context records. Similarly, analysis of the quantitative data on red-figure pottery at the various Italian sites requires a thorough evaluation of the qualitative factors that have affected the archaeological record. In a time when we want statistics and numbers to say it all (and there is still an enormous amount of basic quantitative work to be done), we should recall the obvious: Taranto and Metaponto (for example) have completely different levels of preservation of their Classical levels, just as the grave goods in Peucetian Rutigliano are not quantitatively comparable to those of

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

Taranto, for they belong to completely different funerary cultures. The qualitative evaluation of each cultural situation is therefore crucial to comparing the quantitative data for the distribution of the workshops. Despite the publication of many new excavation finds, some studies still rely on Trendall’s lists, without attempting to update the corpus or retrieve all the new data from archaeological contexts. The synthesis of old and new archaeological material and their integration with stylistic classifications remain necessary preliminary steps to interpretation, but this step is often neglected or of doubtful validity. That Taras was a center of production of red-figure pottery is indisputable considering the data now available. The key issues today concern a more precise definition of the chronology, typology, and functions of pottery produced, the identification of workshops active in Taranto, and their relationship with other centers of production. Such questions, dealing with the identity of the “producers,” are essential to making progress on the issue of the reception of “Apulian” vases and their images. The tradition of Greek colonial pottery production at Taranto dates back to the Archaic period. The structures and archaeological evidence relating to these production activities are important evidence for the argument that the Laconian colony met all the necessary conditions for the emergence of red-figure production.11 Growing evidence of vases from the same Early Apulian workshops in Taranto and in Peucetian necropoleis shortly after the middle of the fifth century B.C.E. shows that this production had from the very beginning met the demands both of Tarentine and Italic clients, whose preferences can be seen in the choice of shapes and iconography.12 Vases attributed to the Painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl, the “first Apulian” painter, whose inscriptions are written in Doric dialect, have been found in the urban center of Taras as well as in the chora at Saturo and in Peucetian necropoleis (WF 027a,b).13 The Sisyphus Painter (WF 027c), the Hearst Painter, and the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos are all represented in Taranto, as well as in Peucetia, through (some still unpublished) krater fragments.14 The term “Apulian,” common in archaeological literature for red-figure pottery produced at Taranto, is as inappropriate as “Lucanian” for the pottery produced in the kerameikos of Metaponto.15 These conventional labels actually characterize styles, but production sites and chronology are more complex.16 Certainly redfigure pottery produced at Taranto for Tarentines has not yet been properly studied. The Apulian style of the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. is a mixed style (m´etiss´e), made in several regions and resulting from interactions between Tarentines, Peucetians, and Daunians. Kiln evidence confirms that pottery of “Apulian” style was also produced at Metaponto at the end of the fourth century B.C.E.,17 while the analysis of the composition of the clay and of the distribution of vases shows that other workshops appeared during the fourth century B.C.E. in Peucetian and Daunian settlements, but it is still impossible to determine with precision the location and the period of activity of all of these workshops in the absence of evidence comparable to that of Taranto or Metaponto.18 The production of red-figure was undoubtedly maintained at Taras throughout the

egh

73

74

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

fourth century B.C.E., which corresponds to the peak in the number of tombs discovered in the necropolis.

Functions Beyond a “funerary” function generally assigned for Apulian red-figure, archaeological contexts demonstrate a diversity of uses. Other clues to function appear in the iconography of the vases themselves, such as images of vases painted onto vases.19 The difficulty of interpreting the function of the Tarentine material lies in the disparity of evidence that urban archaeology has revealed. The stratigraphic situation is complex: the classical settlement stretched to the southeast over the archaic necropolis and some areas of the chora close to the city.20 Destruction and urban redevelopment in the Hellenistic, Roman, and modern eras have severely damaged the archaeological record for the earlier period. A function for a vase cannot be assigned based only on its discovery in either the settlement or necropolis areas since, for example, in the necropolis votive deposits and production dumps have been found alongside funerary offerings. In the various functional areas, vase use may, of course, have been similar (wine consumption, libations, etc.). An additional complication is that the location of old finds was not always precisely recorded: they are often situated only according to the location of modern streets.21 I propose first to give an idea of the typology of contexts and structures in which red-figure pottery has been found in Taranto, and then to discuss the interpretation of its funerary functions.

Overview of Settlement and Sanctuary Contexts Red-figure pottery has been discovered virtually everywhere in Taranto, although rarely in clear stratigraphic or primary deposition. The urban area of Taranto in the Classical Period, under the modern Citt`a Vecchia and the Borgo Nuovo (Fig. 3.1, WF 026, in green in the online image) has not yet been the object of systematic research in the general inventory of the Taranto Museum, so that we cannot specify the quantity of red-figure pottery and its functions in this area.22 The possibility of finding stratigraphic evidence with deposits or structures of the Classical period still in situ seems very limited in this area of intense occupation.23 Nevertheless, some fragments from wells and sanctuary contexts located on the city’s acropolis have been published.24 The so-called “Trinity” sanctuary in Taranto has delivered a few fragments of lebetes gamikoi similar to those found in the Aphrodite sanctuary at Saturo.25 There were also some sacred areas situated within the necropolis.26 Two krater fragments of the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. were discovered at via Cavour 28 (Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #1), in a layer sealing an area previously used as a quarry.27 Some residual fragments were also discovered at the bottom of wells located in the Borgo Nuovo (Fig. 3.1, WF 026, in red in the online image),28 in a much smaller quantity than in the wells discovered in the necropolis area.

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.1. Map of Classical Taras. Housing/settlement area of the acropolis and Borgo Nuovo (gray). The area to the east inside the walls is principally dedicated to the necropolis. Light gray circles and squares indicate the location of kiln and clay production contexts of all periods. Medium and dark gray circles and squares indicate wells and pits with Early Apulian red-figure pottery (D. Fontannaz, adapted from Lippolis 2002). 1. Via Cavour 28. 2. Pit-dump, at the corner of via D’Al` o Alfieri and via Leonida, 10-14.05.1959. 3. Well 2, Corso Italia, 1992. 4. Well 111, via G. Giovine, 8.04.1952. 5. Via Leonida 52. 6. Pit-dump, at the corner of via Leonida and via Dante, 28.04.1934. 7. Well 1, via Crispi, between via Dante and viale Virgilio, 13-17.01.1956. 8. Well, at the corner of via Umbria and Medaglie d’Oro, 13-16.07.1965. 9. Maritime Military Arsenal, probable location of red figure finds of the excavations in 1910s.

The Chora Before treating the assemblages of the urban necropolis, it is worth pointing out published data from the territory, some of which relate to rural housing and some to areas on the border between the chora and Peucetian and Messapian territories, the latter being particularly interesting from the point of view of cultural exchanges. A few fragments that can be assigned to the Early Apulian phase (one by the Black Fury Group) were discovered in A. Cocchiaro’s survey of these border zones.29 Some necropoleis of the chora clearly adopted the same “burial ritual system” as in the city (Fig. 3.2, WF 028).30 Syntheses of other data on the chora are under way;31 at present the most significant evidence comes from the so-called “Spring sanctuary” of Saturo. Located 17 km southeast of the city, it is the oldest sanctuary of the territory, and is now attributed mainly to Aphrodite.32 Some exceptional fragments were discovered in the bothroi of the sanctuary – the contexts are themselves remarkable for

egh

75

76

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

South Italian red-figure – in particular the votive hydria of the “Early Lucanian” Palermo Painter, which shows an extraordinary scene of Orpheus and Eurydice at the gate to the underworld. Other Early Apulian fragments amply illustrate the importance of this evidence with respect to the fragmentary and scattered material of the urban center.33 As in other sites,34 the few contexts presented here tend to demonstrate that red-figure pottery had – like all wares – both ritual and “daily-life” functions. Pottery from the Saturo sanctuary with ritual or votive functions, and skyphoi or kraters to serve wine, demonstrate that South Italian red-figure pottery did not originally have a strictly funerary function as a grave good.

Tombs and Grave Goods The many tombs in the urban necropolis are the only primary and “closed” assemblages of red-figure pottery in the city.35 The systematic inventory and publication of the tombs and the research of the Superintendency of Taranto, along with the works of Daniel Graepler and Andreas Hoffmann, have suggested, on the basis of the analysis of a highly standardized “burial kit” of vase shapes used over a long period, a chronological seriation of the grave goods. Unfortunately, these results are only partially published as of today,36 but these studies have clarified the necessity of studying red-figure pottery in relation to other categories of material and to “funerary ideology” for a better understanding of its symbolic functions. The seriation has provided points of comparison with the relative chronology of stylistic classifications, which are subjective, and has allowed the repositioning of some painters.37 Horizontal stratigraphy situates the end of the production of red-figure in Taranto around 270 B.C.E. following a decrease of grave goods from the last quarter of the fourth century, and the progressive replacement of red-figure by Gnathia ware. It does not, however, solve all of the chronological problems of Early Apulian workshops, which are poorly represented in the graves. However, Early Apulian red-figure has been discovered in other contexts of the necropolis, which I will discuss in the following.38 Prior to the beginning of production of red-figure in the middle of the fifth century B.C.E., grave goods had almost disappeared – often only one lekythos accompanies the deceased; this absence has been attributed to the repercussions of the Iapygian defeat of the Tarentines in 473 B.C.E. and a transition to a democratic regime.39 Hoffmann has studied the timing of the reappearance and increase in grave goods that led to a standardized “burial kit” in the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. In his opinion, from the early evidence, the grave goods are arranged and respond to a structure of relatively well-assigned social roles; but aristocratic groups did not lead the way, as has often been thought.40 Initially grave goods (including red-figured pottery) were limited mainly to characterizing social groups such as children, teenagers, and unmarried people; gradually the grave goods allude to an expanded range of social roles.41 As in other Greek colonies, some shapes seem to have been gender-specific.42

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.2. Tomb 9, from Pezza Petrosa (Chora of Taras). From the CD of AttiTaranto 41 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

Tombs that have yielded red-figure pottery reflect the variety of grave types in Taranto.43 Many tombs without grave goods probably belong to the fifth century B.C.E., and only forty graves have been identified dating to the period between 470 and 400.44 Of these, two are chamber tombs; this tomb-form is unusual in a Greek city, and at Taranto these are the only examples dating between the Archaic and much richer Hellenistic period.45 The most common type of grave containing red-figure pottery is the fossa grave, and inhumation is by far the most common burial practice.46 There are few cases of cremations in red-figure vases, whose iconography, on each occasion, seems very specific.47 In the fourth century B.C.E., graves typically contain only small vases, usually combining a cup with two horizontal handles (such as a skyphos) with a trefoil oinochoe (cf. Fig. 3.2, WF 028).48

Other Contexts in the Necropolis: Pits, Dumps, and Wells There are many other unpublished archaeological contexts from the area of the necropolis (Fig. 3.1, WF 026, to the east of the green zone). They consist mainly of the contents of wells and pits, as well as a number of sporadic finds for which there is only a generic Tarentine provenance. Taken together, they supply useful new evidence for early stages of the Apulian style and the type of material deposited outside the graves, even if the very fragmentary nature of the red-figure pottery makes it difficult to integrate the material into the lists of painters and groups

egh

77

78

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

in RVAp. The quality of the documentation for these assemblages varies.49 For the older contexts, some stratigraphic information can generally be retrieved from sketches or descriptions (Fig. 3.3, WF 029), but the positions of the objects within the layers was not systematically recorded. These wells and pits are mostly secondary deposits with large quantities of various wares, often including Attic and Early Lucanian red-figure along with pieces of the Apulian style from the midfifth century to the late fourth century B.C.E. In addition, there was an important quantity of material excavated during the construction of the Maritime Arsenal in the 1910s (for the location, see Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #9). There are no records for these excavations, and some of the finds made their way outside Italy; pieces can be identified, for example, in the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam and the Museum of the University of Heidelberg.50 The pits scattered throughout the necropolis area have various sections and depths. Often referred to as scarichi (dumps), they usually contain large quantities of very fragmentary pottery, including red-figure. The stratigraphy of the fills, in certain cases mixed with votive material such as miniature vases, sometimes allows us to distinguish successive deposits, such as in the pit-dump excavated between the 10th and the 14th of May, 1959 (Fig. 3.3, WF 029, cf. Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #2). Some of the older finds are categorized only as “discovered in the earth” or “sporadic.”51 The precise location of the find is often lost, as the excavators have not observed or recorded the stratigraphic relationships with surrounding structures. Some of this material probably came from primary deposits outside the tombs, originally part of the funerary rites conducted at the graveside. Many wells were used in archaic Taranto for water supply to craft workshops or agricultural areas immediately adjacent to the city. Some of those areas were later converted into cemeteries, and the wells were then often used as dumps. The wells I have examined usually have a circular or quadrangular stone cover. They were mostly dug into rock and could reach a maximum depth of 5.5 m; some have an interior coating to improve impermeability. The archaeological record of the wells is highly variable. The excavation of the fills was mostly stratigraphic (i.e., not in artificial spits), although the relative position of the objects within the layers was not always recorded.52 The functions of red-figure pottery, the evidence of terracotta or small votive vases, and material related to production activities (such as kiln firing supports) are the main criteria for differentiating the origin of the fills, though various types of material sometimes coexist in the same fills.53 The archaic material at the bottom of the wells is often related to the drawing of water. The stratigraphic units (US) formed from successive layers sometimes include homogeneous chronological or typological groups, and sometimes also contain medium and large shapes of red-figure pottery that are not generally found amongst the grave goods.54 Some wells revealed sets of pottery dating between the last quarter of the fifth and the first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E., with only very minor quantities of later material. As E. Lippolis noted after the excavation of the new Tribunal (1970–1990), some groups of graves are family plots arranged

egh

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

90

100

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120130 140 150

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.3. Sketch on a context sheet of a pit with “thousands” of votive miniature vases cut by another pottery deposit at the corner of via D’Al` o Alfieri and via Leonida, 10-14.05.1959 (IG 116167-116597). (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia.)

around the wells,55 which are then interpreted as maintenance structures.56 These wells are clearly not primary bothroi in the strict religious sense, since the vases are not complete. The deposits seem generally to have been the result of the cleaning up of the external grave offerings (semata or votive gifts), or even of the cleaning out of the tombs (grave goods, bones) as the necropolis area was maintained or reorganized in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.57 Whether the deposits had a consecrated character remains difficult to determine. The case of a well excavated in 1992 in Corso Italia is worthy of mention (Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #3). It was sealed by a grave of the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. and was filled with many fragments of figured pottery and coarse ware (mostly drinking vessels), ranging from the late fifth to the beginning of the fourth century B.C.E.58 This is one of the only contexts where fragments of the first generation of Apulian painters, such as the Painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl, have been found (WF 027b).59 It also represents an important context for the chronology of the Arn` o Painter, who is considered as “Early Lucanian” but who seems to have been active in Taras (see another piece assignable to the painter, WF 031e).60 The well contained a little Attic pottery and a few larger shapes together with a large number of of systematically and carefully drilled skyphoi, which may have ritual implications (Fig. 3.4, WF 030).

Functions of Pottery in Burial Deposits External deposits at the tombs have been observed in the more systematic excavations of the necropoleis of Metaponto and Locri. J. C. Carter has created a typology, and D. Elia rightly pointed out that the same type of red-figure pottery could

79

80

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

fulfill various functions such as a krater, which may be a ritual vessel and/or a grave marker.61 The few examples of external deposits observed in situ in Taranto imply a similar ambiguity (a review of recent finds would certainly bring new evidence), and the secondary deposits suggest the same conclusions.

Semata and Vessels for the Burial Ceremony It has been assumed that the primary function of the vases discovered in the necropolis wells or in sporadic contexts was as semata (literally “signs”), objects originally placed on a grave to mark its location.62 The hypothesis is based on some primary contexts, on the absence of kraters among the grave goods, and on the iconography of the “visit to the tomb” that was mainly intended for native clients. The “monumental” aspect of some vases, especially the calyx kraters found in large numbers in certain assemblages, and their elaborate iconography of developed Ornate style render the grave-marker theory plausible. The apparent absence of Apulian red-figure monumental shapes at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. in Taras has been explained by their replacement by stone volute kraters, pelikai, or amphorae, which have been discovered in the necropolis.63 Several vases in primary depositions document semata in Taranto: a huge calyx krater showing Oedipus and the Sphinx was found on the cover of a tomb whose only grave goods were small vessels;64 also, a krater was found associated with a hydria and a pelike from a chamber tomb of the late fifth century B.C.E.65 A famous bell krater bearing a scene interpreted as Electra at the grave of Agamemnon has small, regular holes around its base, a characteristic of vessels found outside the tomb: its iconography is one of the only examples of the visit to the grave found in Taranto. It shows a number of vases grouped around a grave monument (most of them figured), and in a way illustrates its own function.66 Well 111 on via G. Giovine (location Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #4, content WF 031a-e) is a good example of the concentration of large krater fragments.67 Its chronology is relatively homogeneous (first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E.; only four vases belong to Middle Apulian and three to late Apulian). It contained fragments of at least twenty-six red-figured kraters, six skyphoi, and two pelike. The artistic quality of the kraters is variable. Some pieces are in Atticizing style, and others are by painters of the Ornate style associated with the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos.68 Other unpublished fragments come from more modest workshops, such as that of the Lecce Painter (WF 031a). The Early Lucanian style pottery from this context seems to fulfill the same function as the Apulian pottery (WF 031c and probably WF 031d). All iconography is mythological or Dionysiac, and none evokes the grave. The continuity of the use of large calyx kraters at Taranto throughout the fourth century B.C.E. is remarkable; most come from pits or other deposits in the necropolis. I present here a few examples assignable to identified hands from Early to Late Apulian: fragments of calyx kraters by the Lecce Painter (WF 032a) and the Painter of the Long Overfalls with Dionysiac scenes (WF 032b), a very

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.4. Drilled skyphoi, without inventory number, Corso Italia (SIP), well 2, 31.01.1992. Unpublished (D. Fontannaz).

large shape attributable to the Lycurgus Painter with an Eros in a luxuriant floral composition (see WF 033a),69 and a Late Apulian example with a Dionysiac scene (WF 033b).70 However, not all vases of medium size found in secondary depositions in the necropolis can be interpreted with certainty as the remains of a sema. D. Elia, in his review of the rites around the tomb in western Greek cities, has demonstrated the variety of uses for such vases. Krater sherds were sometimes buried in or over the grave;71 kraters, hydriai, and other forms also played a role in meals, libations, or rites around the tomb before becoming grave markers or being broken after the ceremony. The burial of kraters in graves is very poorly documented in Taranto, but there seem to be two examples of the practice (one krater shows the death of Orpheus).72 The many drilled skyphoi are related to libation or show that the objects were defunctionalized after their ritual use (Fig. 3.4, WF 030).73 Thus figured vases played an important role during the burial ceremony and/or as grave markers for the living. In both cases, the different circumstances and time of reading the image on the vase imply a different function and meaning of the images during the funerary rites. Elia has emphasized in particular the concrete and then symbolic connection the krater established between the deceased and the living through the rite and then as a sema, as if the end of the ceremony transformed the status of the image. The various “funerary” functions deduced from the archaeological context therefore have a bearing on the interpretation of the images.

Production Contexts The identification of red-figure pottery workshop activity at Taranto should not be limited solely to the study of structures or dumps associated with ceramic

egh

81

82

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

production. Other evidence, such as the styles and grouping of “hands” (the distribution of which sometimes indicates the epicenter of the production) and chemical clay analysis, can also contribute. I will here, however, concentrate on the archaeological contexts in Taranto for pottery production. This overview is also limited by the unpublished character of the material, which requires a more accurate description and general integration. The complex stratigraphic situation of Taranto will probably never reveal a clearly defined craft area, the development of which can be studied over a long period, as in the kerameikos at Metaponto. Mostly we are dealing with sectors that have been disturbed, and it is not uncommon to observe (as in the Ospedale Civile area) material from production dumps, votive deposits, and deposits apparently stemming from the cleaning-out of tombs, all in the same area of the necropolis.74 I will here discuss the better-recorded contexts, and then a few more isolated examples, while insisting that the evidence for production can be identified only in relation to its specific topographical context. Recent syntheses have listed the contexts and structures used at various stages of craft clay production in the colony (evidence from all periods in yellow, Fig. 3.1, WF 026). From the time of archaic Greek colonial pottery production through to the production of Roman wares, the archaeological evidence shows a strong ceramic craft tradition.75 One of the two densest areas of clay-working lies at the eastern end of the settlement, between the Ospedale Civile and via Oberdan. The other includes via Giusti towards the north of via C. Battisti. The first provides particularly interesting evidence for local pottery production over a long period of time. Taking into account the more recent discoveries, the production contexts extend from the seventh to the first century B.C.E., especially in the area around via Leonida and the Ospedale Civile. For the Archaic period, local imitations of Corinthian pottery,76 Ionian cups, and pithoi were found in the extraordinary excavation of the Genio Civile in 2000.77 The rest of the evidence for pottery production is scattered within the area of the necropolis.78 The activity of red-figure pottery workshops has not yet been precisely located. The remains of kilns, the most durable evidence of clay-working, are not always linked with contexts (dumps with discard pieces or wasters) that allows us to identify the product. Only the excavation at via Leonida 52, situated between the settlement and the necropolis area, is an articulated complex where red-figure pottery could have been produced along with various other categories of classical pottery.79 Test pieces, wasters, production discards, kiln firing supports, and other objects related to the firing process of pottery sometimes appear in wells or pits, and considered in their topographic context, give some indications of the areas where ceramicists worked in classical Taranto. J. K. Papadopoulos has published production evidence from the Athenian Agora, and his study has obtained remarkable results for the topography of the city in the Iron Age.80 As in Taranto, the material was discovered in wells, some of which were later converted into dumps.81

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.5. Map of the structures at via Leonida 52 with location of some stratigraphic units. (Modified from Dell’Aglio 1996.)

The publications on the kerameikos of Metaponto also give an idea of the organization of colonial pottery production over a long period; the evidence is particularly good for the period of red-figure pottery, which was produced alongside other categories.82

Via Leonida 52 The structures and deposits excavated at via Leonida 52 indicate production of coarse, banded, black-glazed wares, and probably red-figure pottery (Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #5).83 The results I present here come from a study of part of the inventoried material. Observations are therefore only partial, and constitute preliminary evidence that will be expanded through the analysis and quantification of the entirety of the archaeological evidence.84 The excavation in the winter of 1987– 1988 revealed a kiln and an adjoining service room that included a well (Fig. 3.5, WF 034).85 Further to the east, several dumps and pits of various shape show that the area was used between the late fifth and the middle of the third century B.C.E.86

egh

83

84

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Wasters or discard pieces of black-gloss pottery, cups with horizontal handles, banded ware, coarse ware, and mortars have been found in the area.87 Molds and various items used for working and firing clay, including firing supports and (bastoncelli),88 have also been discovered. The date when the production complex went out of use seems to be indicated by Gnathia pottery discovered in the most recent layers of the wells. Red-figure pottery was found in several structures of the complex, but in much smaller quantities than the other types. The fill of the kiln’s stoke-hole revealed a few open shapes, especially owl skyphoi, one of which is overfired (WF 035a,b).89 The fill of the well in the service room, excavated by successive spits, has yielded a good concentration of figured sherds, several of which have firing flaws.90 The skyphos IG 198568, made by an Early Apulian painter near the Hearst Painter, has a cracked base (WF 039a). The skyphos IG 198570, assignable to painters conventionally called the “Intermediate Group,” is a discard piece, from which the gloss has almost completely disappeared (WF 035c).91 There are also a few fragments of closed shapes (oinochoai, pelikai, perhaps amphorai). Most redfigure shapes attested in the area are skyphoi, which were clearly produced in large numbers by the same workshop in black-gloss.92 While not all of the red-figure fragments can be attributed to painters, they all undoubtedly belong to the late fifth and early fourth century B.C.E., and two krater fragments can be assigned without hesitation to the Hoppin Painter (WF 039b).93 The immediate vicinity of the kilns has not produced obvious discard pieces, although it should be noted that many fragments excavated in the kerameikos of Metaponto do not exhibit obvious firing defects either.94 There are several fragments of closed shapes, for example, pelikai of large dimensions and a small group of krater fragments, remarkable for the use of added colors, assignable to the Sarpedon Painter, whose products are not known outside Taranto (WF 036a,b). The fill of a pit to the southeast of the kiln (US 18, Fig. 3.5, WF 034) offered the highest concentration of evidence related to red-figure pottery production. Two fragments that I published, and about which I expressed some doubts, seem now to be decisive evidence for production in light of Papadopoulos’ publication.95 The pieces have draw-holes, which indicate that they were used for testing the various stages of the firing process inside the kiln. These fragments, test pieces that were probably reused or cut from vases broken during drying, were undoubtedly made on the site, and they are not the only examples found in Taranto (see further WF 038c,d).96 The fragment with a unique rosette composition is the clearest test piece, demonstrating some firing defects (WF 038b), while the Early Apulian fragment (near the Sarpedon Painter) with a charioteer (WF 038a) has no defect. Another piece from the same stratigraphic unit shows a head in silhouette, painted onto the interior of a sherd from a closed shape. It was originally published by A. D’Amicis, and is undeniably evidence of a painter practicing (Fig. 3.6, WF 037).97 Other fragments exhibit firing defects: a thick, closed-shape fragment, again attributable to the Sarpedon Painter, is cracked on the surface (WF 036a).

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.6. Fragment of a closed shape. IG 51709. Test-piece with a head painted in silhouette technique. From via Leonida 52. US 18 (D. Fontannaz).

Finally (US 33bis, Fig. 3.5, WF 034, to the east of the kiln) produced a concentration of closed vessel fragments of Middle Apulian style, although none seems to be a discard piece. In the absence of a significant concentration of products from the hands of one or two artisans, as we find in Metaponto, the inventoried material from the kiln does not allow us to specify the activity of a particular painter, but it can be dated to the first half of the fourth century B.C.E. One might think of the Sarpedon Painter and other Early Apulian red-figure painters of the second generation, such as the Intermediate Group. It might support the idea of collaboration between painters usually assigned to the Ornate style and those of the Intermediate Group, grouped around the same potter in an articulated workshop. The study of the rest of the material will perhaps confirm this initial hypothesis. The immediate surroundings of via Leonida 52 have produced pits which are only partially published, but which could be related to the same production area (see Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #2 and #6). Among them is a dump, discovered in 1934, at the corner of via Leonida and via Dante.98 There is no precise description of the structure from which the forty-two red-figure fragments came, and most of them are not inventoried.99 Amongst them are two test pieces with draw-holes.100 The first (WF 038c), with a centaur, is close to the Early Ornate style, like that of the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos (use of brown diluted glaze for details). The second seems to belong to the Middle Apulian style (WF 038d). The “hands,” more

egh

85

86

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

homogeneous in this assemblage, seem not much later than those encountered in via Leonida, also datable to the first half of the fourth century B.C.E. Cracks, defects, and over- and misfired areas can be seen on a bell krater and some skyphoi. An Attic calyx krater found in the same context might indicate that evidence from external deposits of graves is present.101 A well in via Crispi (no. 1, 13–17.01.1956, Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #7), to the west of the Ospedale Civile, contained little Apulian red-figure pottery but presents evidence of terracotta figurine production, such as molds. The rim of an Early Apulian skyphos fragment (IG 102878) carries a meander pattern that was apparently drawn as a practice exercise, while another unpublished fragment by the Arn` o Painter (IG 102876) shows traces of misfiring. The rest of the material is rather heterogeneous and does not clearly demonstrate that this was indeed a production dump. Other interesting dumps were found in the same area.102

Via Umbria and Isolated Evidence I will not dwell here on the second craft area in via Giusti,103 but look rather at an isolated find that illustrates the difficulty of interpreting the contexts. The fill of a well located further south, in the necropolis at the corner of via Umbria and via Medaglie d’Oro (Fig. 3.1, WF 026 #8), is one of the most controversial contexts.104 Various kiln firing supports were found there, many of which bear painted or graffito inscriptions.105 Some fragments of a large red-figure krater, which were assigned to the Circle of the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos, come from the same well fill. They have been associated with production activity, although part of the argument was based on the interpretation of peculiarities in the rendering of the figure of Athena as defects, which must now be rejected.106 The same context contained fragments of red-figure pottery showing traces of ancient restoration, a pestle (impastatoio) for clay working, miniature votive vases, and a few terracotta figurines, including one of the Artemis Bendis type. Fragments of human bones and Gnathia pottery show that material also comes from cleaning in the necropolis, and this fact appears to be corroborated by the presence of fragments of larger kraters that may have fulfilled the function of semata. A famous volute krater, a very rare shape in Taranto, showing the theft of the Palladion, was found after illegal excavation at the site.107 Elsewhere I have proposed that it is a discard piece thrown into a dump:108 it is, however, intact and might come from another context, like the large kraters that represent Perseus showing the Gorgon’s head to satyrs or a Gigantomachy. The mythological representation in a sanctuary could, however, constitute an interesting clue to the function of the volute krater, which is exceptional in a Greek (as opposed to an Italic) context.109 The kiln firing supports of glazed type are the most remarkable evidence for production (Fig. 3.7, WF 040a-c). The lid-shaped supports may have been used in red-figure production, according to the parallels proposed by F. Cracolici at the

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.7. (A) IG 124042 and 124041. Lid-type support, with painted inscription “LYKONOS”. Diam. 17 cm; height 6 cm. (B) IG 124044-46. Small supports with the inscription “LY-”. min. width 5,6 cm; min. height. 1.3 cm / max. width 6 cm; max. height 2,7 cm. (C) IG 124038. Support, ring-type with inscription “LY-”. Diam max. 11.3; height max. 4 cm. Taranto, Contr. Vaccarella, at the corner of via Umbria and Medaglie d’Oro, 13-16.07.1965 kiln firing supports (D. Fontannaz).

kerameikos at Metaponto (type IV A2) and his analysis of the Tarentine contexts including via Leonida 52.110 One cannot know with certainty whether these supports were used for black-glazed or red-figure pottery. They attest, according to Cracolici, the proximity of Taranto’s and Metaponto’s craft traditions, but they are not sufficient to demonstrate the activity of a Metapontine potter in Taranto. The modest dimensions of supports seem to indicate the production of smaller shapes. The name and abbreviations of the same name on many examples are

egh

87

88

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

the most interesting evidence, and probably indicate the name of the owner of the workshop himself.111 Nearby, other assemblages offer elements of plausible production evidence.112 The off-center location of the context in relation to the two areas indicates that other pottery workshops were scattered in the rest of the necropolis, to meet the particular requirements of funerary rites. Such a dispersion of workshops, which grew in more open conditions than the kerameikos of Athens or even Metaponto, could explain a certain heterogeneity of the earlier phases of Tarentine red-figure production. Finally, let us come back to a decontextualized fragment from the Maritime Arsenal with a group of people inside a naiskos, a type of scene that is rare but not completely absent at Taranto (Fig. 3.8; WF 041a cf. WF 041b).113 I have previously noted the unfinished look of the fragment, which I suspected to be a discard product. The sketched features of the horse show that it is a preparation for the application of added color onto the reserved area of the clay. It is also necessary to take into consideration that the added colors might have completely disappeared due to a particularly corrosive soil or improper restoration, but other fragments from the same lot have preserved their added colors, cf. WF 041b. In any case, it remains an element to consider for evidence of Tarentine pottery production.

Perspectives for the Location and Identification of Tarentine Workshops The archaeological evidence for production activity, although it is more substantial than it used to be, does not on its own offer decisive conclusions for understanding the organization of the production of red-figure pottery in Taranto. At best we now have convincing clues suggesting its location at via Leonida 52 in conjunction with other classes of pottery, along with some isolated and still incomplete evidence in the necropolis. I have shown here, through a few contexts, representative fragments of a few important workshops identified by Trendall that are attested in Taranto from the second half of the fifth century to the end of the fourth century B.C.E. Without a complete analysis of their distribution, we can only offer tentative conclusions about the activity of some of these workshops in Taranto. Whether painters of the Metapontine style (“Early Lucanian”) worked at Taranto is still uncertain. Adaptation to Tarentine demands does not necessarily mean that the painters were working in the colony. If the question remains open for the Creusa or Dolon Painters, the Arn` o Painter (WF 031e) and the Palermo Painter are good candidates for having spent at least parts of their careers in Taranto.114 The Tarentine origins of part of the so-called Intermediate Group, which was supposedly composed of painters active in different Greek colonies on the basis of style and distribution,115 finds a confirmation in via Leonida 52. The first generations of “Apulian” painters are now much better attested in the unpublished Tarentine contexts, from the Painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl (WF 027a,b) to the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos, through the Hearst and

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

3.8. From the Maritime Arsenal, 1913? IG 277164, fragment of a closed shape with a rider, a man and people inside a naiskos. Unfinished.

Sisyphus Painters116 (WF 27c). The production evidence at via Leonida 52 is principally related to this early phase, probably the second and third generations of painters (in the first half of the fourth century B.C.E.). The Truro, Hoppin (WF 039b), and Lecce Painters (WF 031a,b and WF 032),117 comprising a very homogeneous stylistic group whose products have mostly been found in Messapia, is the workshop best represented in the Laconian colony, which confirms its local activity. The excavation in via Leonida 52 now offers interesting evidence for the Sarpedon Painter, whose products are absent from recorded assemblages outside Taranto. The results presented in this volume by Ted Robinson (Chapter 11) on these early phases, although they show variations in clay composition between workshops considered as Tarentine, seem to confirm similarities between these latter groups. In any case, the adjective “Tarentine” seems therefore completely justified for some of the Early Apulian hands and groups. Middle and Late Apulian styles are not well represented in via Leonida or in other production contexts currently known. The question of Tarentine, native, or traveling workshops is still open. There is, however, in Taras, a long continuity in the use of large calyx kraters, from the Long Overfalls (WF 032b) and Lycurgus Painters (WF 033a) until Late Apulian (WF 033b). Fragments by the workshops of the Underworld and Darius Painters also present specific shapes adapted to Tarentine funerary rites (calyx kraters), often different from those of

egh

89

90

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

the native settlements (e.g., large skyphoi).118 Volute kraters and naiskos iconography, allegedly designed only for native sites, have also been found in Taranto (WF 041a,b). This evidence might be the clearest sign of an indigenous influence on the Greek clients, who may have adopted this iconography only at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. Before we can produce a more precise and realistic overview of all the Tarentine workshops and their organization, much work is still to be done. We still know much more about the painters than about the potters. Only by recovering and verifying the archaeological data, attributing the unpublished material, presenting the results with transparency, and reflecting on the interpretation of archaeological contexts will we be able to establish a solid base for further research, particularly in iconography and iconology. The post-Trendall era is only at its beginning. Notes 1. I thank Enzo Lippolis, Antonietta Dell’Aglio, Giuseppe Andreassi, and Teresa Cinquantaquattro for the opportunities they gave me to study and publish Tarentine material. The “IG” abbreviation corresponds to the numbers of the general inventory of the National Archaeological Museum of Taranto. On the contextualization of South Italian red-figure pottery and a new methodological framework, see Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 27–32; for Apulian red-figure pottery, see Lippolis 1996d and Denoyelle et al. 2005. 2. See Lippolis 1996b. 3. On “cultural transfers,” see the definition and general reflections by Joyeux 2002. The quantity of material, its exceptional state of preservation, and many recent excavations have certainly played a role in the new interest in native sites. 4. My Ph.D. dissertation under the supervision of prof. Claude B´erard is on the Early South Italian red-figure pottery of Taranto: Arch´eologie des images: production et r´eception de la c´eramique proto-italiote de Tarente (450–350). The contexts I present here are selected from twenty-seven wells and twenty other deposits from Taranto studied for my dissertation. 5. Oakeshott 1979; Villard 1990; and Lippolis 1996b. The last, in particular, focused on the ideological and nationalist character of scholarly assignment of the production centers. 6. Lippolis 1996d, 380, Mannino 1996, 363. 7. D’Andria 1975; Silvestrelli 2000; 2005. 8. Quoted by Hoffmann 2002, 9. RVAp I, e.g., 3–4, on the early stages of production. 9. M. Schmidt’s 2002 synthesis would have been more complete were it better grounded in primary data, while J. Thorn’s 2009 (180–1) hypothesis concerning early red-figure production areas in native settlements might have been much more tempered with the inclusion of additional recent works on Taranto and a knowledge of the local situation. 10. Lippolis 2002; Hoffmann 2002. 11. On the archaic production of Taranto, see Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009; Lippolis 1996a. 12. Robinson 1990b, Lippolis 1996b. 13. By cross-dating the closed Peucetian assemblages and using stylistic parallels, the painter seems to have begun activity in the middle of the fifth century or shortly after, around 440 B.C.E. See Denoyelle and Iozzo, 2009, 121–2. The characteristic pottery of the native settlements does not seem to have been imported into the colony. It is hard to imagine that the small red-figure shapes that were popular in

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

14.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36.

Tarentine grave assemblages, but rare in the native settlements, were imported to Taranto. On the Early Apulian workshops, see RVAp, 3–43. For the Hearst Painter and the provenances of his works, see Fontannaz 2005, 137. For the Sisyphus Painter, see the fragment of a krater IG 227227 from the Arsenal with a woman fleeing to the left and with a hole from an ancient repair (here WF 027c). For the Painter of Birth of Dionysos: unpublished krater fragments IG 111491 and 111472 from a pit at the corner of via Pacuvio and via Cugini, excavated July 18, 1958. See De Juliis 1988, 102–3. For the terminology of pottery of the Lucanian style, see Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 99–117, who prefer the adjective “Metapontine” for the begininng of the production. Like Thorn 2009, we should also criticize the use of the term “Tarentine” for all the pottery discovered in Apulia in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. See D’Andria 1975, 424–7. Robinson 1990b. However, the imagery of the vase on the vase, which is another interesting contextualization to be compared to archaeological evidence, requires reflection in the wider context of imagery. For an example of such iconography, see in this volume the contribution by F. Colivicchi (Chapter 10). On this issue, see Lippolis 2002. Information relative to Tarentine finds amongst the older records is generally limited to the district of the city (contrada), the name of the nearby streets, and the date of the find. The material appears in many cases as residual in the colonial settlement area, as it is at Thurii. See the remarks of Dell’Aglio 1996, 51, on the destruction of ancient occupation levels by modern constructions. Hoffmann 2002, 128. Lippolis et al. 1995, 69–70; Hoffmann 2002, 128. For the contexts of urban Tarentine sanctuaries, see Lippolis et al. 1995. Costamagna 1983, 109, no. 22. E.g., the well in via Nitti (September 17, 1960), located in an area where eleven other wells produced no relevant material. Besides archaic pottery, five Apulian krater fragments and one Early Apulian fragment with an inscription naming Artemis were found. The same context also produced a Gnathia krater and the rim of a skyphos with a typical dedication (HIAR-). Cocchiaro 1981, pl. XXIV and XXVI. Graves from the late fourth to the early third century in Pezza Petrosa, illustrated in the CD of AttiTaranto 41 (graves 9, 18, and 23), table 31. Guaitoli 2002. On the Spring sanctuary and the Attic pottery, Lippolis et al. 1995, 83–7; Lippolis 2009. On the hydria and Early Apulian fragments from the same site, mainly limited to the first half of the fourth century, see Fontannaz 2008. A new fragment completing Kerberos can now be added to the pieces already published. (I thank A. D’Amicis for the information.) For other dwelling and sanctuary contexts, see Mazzei 1996, 403; Hoffmann 2002, 125–9; Denoyelle et al. 2005, 15–16. On the “funerary culture” of Taras, see the synthesis by Graepler 2002. On the classical necropolis, see Giboni 1997. Graepler 1997; Hoffmann 2002; 2005, whose catalog includes approximately 550 closed assembages.

egh

91

92

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

37. The Thyrsus Painter, for example, clearly belongs to the Early Apulian, as is confirmed by cross-dating the vases discovered at Paestum: Hoffmann 2005, 23–4; Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 30. 38. On this question, see Fontannaz 2005. Dating problems still remain: A. Hoffmann took into consideration Trendall’s attributions without any reexamination. A successful seriation of the Peucetian archaic grave goods and pottery by Greiner 2003 should be extended to the fifth and fourth century and provide a basis for the chronology of pottery not stratified in Taranto, in particular the workshops of the Middle and Late Apulian red-figure. 39. See Lippolis 1994c, 133, for the parallel with Athens and the passing of sumptuary laws (discussed by F. Frisone in AttiTaranto 41, 2002, 300–4). On the phases of development of the grave goods defined by seriation, see Hoffmann 2002, 59–69. Just before the birth of the Apulian pottery, tombs in Taranto generally contained very few grave goods: Giboni 1997, 42. 40. Lippolis 1994c, 140; Giboni 1997, 41. 41. On the first phases of the necropolis, see Hoffmann 2002, 59–64, and in particular 63–4. 42. Although there are a number of exceptions. On shapes indicating gender, social status or age, see Hoffmann 2002, 79–115; his observations are based on a structural analysis of grave goods and on the typology of the tombs, with no osteological analysis to provide sex determinations for the deceased. 43. On grave typology based on more than 11,000 contexts, see Maruggi 1994. 44. Graepler 2002, 208. 45. See Lippolis 1994c, 140; Maruggi 1994, 77–8. One of them is a reuse of a more ancient grave: Patera 1986. 46. For the grave typology, see Maruggi 1994. 47. Such is the case of multiple sarcophagi, Maruggi 1991. See also D’Amicis 1994 for single cremation. 48. On the Hellenistic phases of the necropolis, see Lippolis 1994a and Graepler 1997; 2002. 49. The evidence comes mostly from excavations between the years 1950 and 1970 (partly inventoried material from the major urban extension of the modern city of Taranto) and then until the 1990s (in general noninventoried material). 50. A fragmentary krater with the Calydonian Boar-hunt exists in three fragments: two from the Arsenal (one is published in Macchioro and Bendinelli 1913, 135, fig. 2 now IG 227129) and one in the Museum of Amsterdam (unpublished fragment AP 2605). It is the only vase from Taranto assignable to the Tarporley Painter (whose location of activity remains problematic). 51. E.g., Lippolis 1997a, 140, 146. 52. The recording sheets have become systematic and comprehensive only since the 1960s. Dell’Aglio 1994, 16–17. On the fill of a Hellenistic well in the settlement area see Prazzoli 1996. 53. For example, the fossa grave in via Leonida 52 with an Apulian pelike, Dell’Aglio and Russo 1988, 130, pl. XXXV, 2. 54. They have only been the subject of occasional publications, e.g., Lo Porto 1970, 381; Lippolis 1997a, no. 137, 143, 159. 55. Lippolis 1994a, 57, fig. 36. 56. This is not common in other western Greek necropoleis: Lippolis 1994d, 55–6. 57. Lippolis 1994b; 2002; Dell’Aglio 2001b. 58. Dell’Aglio and Lippolis 1992; Fontannaz 2002. 59. Fontannaz 2002, pl. XXIV. 60. On this painter, see Denoyelle 1993.

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

61. See the categories defined by Carter 1998b, 115–17. For Locri, see Elia 2003. 62. For the origin of this assumption and on semata: Lippolis 1994d. See also Hoffman 2002, 15, who presents but does not develop the idea (see his first catalog of presumed semata, 284–7). For examples of grave markers in the necropolis of Pantanello at Metaponto, see Carter 1998a, 124. 63. See Lippolis 1994d, 112. 64. Tomb 15 of 6.1.1956, Rione Italia, at the corner of via Emilia and via Marche. Lippolis 1997a, no. 162.4. The heavily restored vase cannot be assigned to any painter (however classified in RVAp I, 38, 2/19). 65. See Patera 1986, 37–43, mentioned also in Fontannaz 2005, 126, note 15. Such semata were in the chamber tomb (not outside), but on a sarcophagus. They function like “signs” around the tomb. 66. Bell krater by the Sarpedon Painter, IG 4605, Lippolis 1994a, 40, fig. 19. 67. Well 111, Contr.Vaccarella, via G. Giovine. 8.4.1952. Lippolis 1996a, cat. no. 354; Lippolis 1997a, cat. no. 143; on the assemblage, see Maggialetti 2007, 289–91. 68. On the attributions of some of the vases of this context see Fontannaz 2005, 142. The Atticizing style of the Argonaut fragments IG 54943 and 54946 (RVAp I, 37, 2/16 and 2/17) are comparable to IG 12570 (without context but perhaps from the same deposit, RVAp I 2/15): Lippolis 1996a, 353; detail in Fontannaz 2005, fig. 12–13. For the mostly complete krater IG 52230, which I have attributed to the “Kyknos Painter” (a hand partially identified by Trendall) see Fontannaz 2005, 142. On the unique iconography of this vase, see Schmidt 2002, 360–1, and Maggialetti 2007. 69. Without inventory number, well 66, 2.24.1954, Contr. Vaccarella, via Abruzzo. 70. IG 116581, from the corner of via D’Al` o Alfieri and via Leonida, 5.10–14.1959. This is not the only fragment of a Late Apulian calyx krater from the necropolis. 71. Elia 2003. 72. Hoffmann 2002 mentions two kraters, 528.3 and 528.4, but the assemblage 528 unfortunately does not appear in the catalog at the end of volume. See also the krater T. 318.1 (IG 123768). Only the cover of the second grave seemed to be intact. 73. For parallels, see Carter 1998a, 121 ff. 74. See Dell’Aglio 1996, 65. 75. On craft and pottery production evidence at various periods in Taranto: Dell’Aglio 1996; 2001a; Lippolis 1996a, passim.There is much more production evidence for the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 76. On the production of imitations of Corinthian pottery and other Tarentine archaic productions, see Denoyelle and Iozzo, 2009, 67–74 with bibliography; and Lippolis 1996a, passim. 77. Dell’Aglio 2001a, 180–184 with previous bibliography. 78. Dell’Aglio 1996; 2001a. Again, the evidence may be related to sanctuaries. 79. Dell’Aglio 2001a, 178. 80. Papadopoulos 2003. 81. Papadopoulos 2003, 1–6. 82. D’Andria 1975; Cracolici 2003; Silvestrelli 2000; 2005. 83. Dell’Aglio 1996; 2001a. Production evidence for Gnathia pottery is still wanting. The theory that proposed ceramic production in the area of via C. Battisti has recently been rejected, with the deposits reinterpreted as restructuration dumps: Dell’Aglio 2002, 187. 84. On the excavation of via Leonida 52, see Dell’Aglio and Russo 1988; 1989 and Dell’Aglio 1996, 53, no. 9 and under no. 16, 56–7. Verifications with excavation notebooks still have to be done. 85. Dell’Aglio and Russo 1989. The well fills correspond to the US 1012 and 1112. 86. Fills: US 33, 47, 49–51.

egh

93

94

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

87. For the publication of the first pieces of pottery from via Leonida 52, see Dell’Aglio 1996, 68–71; Lippolis 1996a, 329–32. 88. On the use of these “bastoncelli” as test-pieces, see the remarks of Papadopoulos 2003, 265–6. 89. IG 196264 and 196266. These shapes are found throughout the area of the necropolis. 90. US 1012 seems to fit with the gradual filling and abandonment of the area. Red-figure pottery is attested in spits 6 to 19, with the highest concentration located in spit 14 (around 60 inventoried pieces), where the material was also associated with kiln firing supports. In addition, fragments from several spits can be partially restored (e.g., the skyphos IG 198568, with joining fragments from the spits 12 and 15). 91. Some vase-painters of the Intermediate Group, classified in the Lucanian style, were active in Taranto, see Barresi 2005. This piece from via Leonida could be attribuated to the Schwerin Group (see LCS, 67–70). For the secondary decoration, see LCS 77, 352 and 353. For the same figure on a similar skyphos with dedication at Saturo, see LCS Add. II, 694; Lippolis et al. 1995, 248–9, K.15. Two other skyphoi belong clearly to the “Intermediate Group”: IG 197187 and 198569 (US 1012). 92. On the discard pieces of black-gloss pottery, see Lippolis 1996a, 329. 93. IG 199396, US 1012, spits 10–12. 94. US 47. 95. Fontannaz 2005, fig. 9 and 10. Papadopoulos 2003 offers many examples of test pieces ranging from Iron Age to the Hellenistic period. On the Classical period and red-figure pottery, see examples 229–40 (from Athens) and 259–69 (from Magna Graecia and elsewhere). 96. Fragments without inventory number: Carceri Vecchie, corner of via Dante and via Leonida, 4.28.1934. 97. IG 51703: D’Amicis 2002. 98. Dump, 4.28.1934, inv. IG 50454/50360. Not far from this context, elements relating to a sacred place were found: arulae (altars), terracotta figurines, and figured acroteria: Lippolis et al. 1995, 107, h.1. 99. “Sparsi nella terra” does not usually indicate a pit. 100. Fragments without inventory number: contr. Carceri Vecchie, corner of via Dante and via Leonida, 4.28.1934. 101. IG 52399, Lippolis 1997a, no. 146.1; ARV2 1337, 4 (near the Pronomos Painter). 102. See the pit from via D’Al` o Alfieri, at the corner of via Leonida, 1.12.1939: partially published by Bernab` o Brea 1940, 444–9 (with Attic and Early Apulian red-figure pottery). Also from the corner of via D’Al` o Alfieri and via Leonida, and excavated 5.10– 14.1959, a krater fragment (here WF 033b); the section of the excavation is reproduced here in Fig. 3.3 (WF 029). 103. The excavations in via Fratelli Mellone in 1971 produced a series of bell-shaped kiln firing supports, each bearing an inscription; the other finds were related to Gnathia pottery. On this area, where a hypogeum of Hellenistic period was found, see Lippolis et al. 1995, 108–10. 104. 7.13–16.1965. On this subject, see Lippolis 1997b; Schmidt 2002; Fontannaz 2002; 2005; and Cracolici 2003. 105. Lippolis 1996a, 356; Cracolici 2003, 99–100 (with previous bibliography). The inscriptions are LY- and LYKONOS. Smaller kiln firing supports with different inscriptions were found in the excavation of Sacro Cuore di Ges` u, via Fratelli Mellone, in 1971, associated with red-figure pottery (ring-type, IG 212403–408). 106. Lippolis 1997b, 371; Fontannaz 2002 (with details of the fragments in question, pl. XXV). It is simply an element of black decoration with added white color (belt of Athena) and not a mistake of the vase-painter. 107. IG 127081, “Atto di immisssione” 691, no.17235.

Production and Functions of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery in Taras

108. Fontannaz 2002. 109. Fragments of volute krater were found in a sanctuary context of the chora of Metaponto (personal comm. from F. Silvestrelli). 110. Cracolici 2003, 99–100, with the various types: bell, ring, and lid-shaped. See the same lid-shaped support in via Leonida, Lippolis 1996a, 68–9, no. 22 and 23. 111. The study of Apulian red-figure has so far concentrated purely on the painters, rather than the potters. 112. A pit found in via Umbria in 1960 revealed several fragments of perforated firing supports similar to those of via Leonida 52. A fragment of red-figure pottery is overfired and another could be a test piece used for painting practice: Dell’Aglio 1996, no. 6–7, 68–9. 113. IG 227164, Fontannaz 2002, pl. XXVI. On naiskos iconography, see Hoffmann 2002, plate 32.4 and the recent article of M. S¨ oldner (2009). 114. At least four unpublished kraters from Taranto are attributable to the Arn` o Painter: IG 111467, 111481, 54952, and 102876. The Saturo hydria by the Palermo Painter (see Fontannaz 2008), like other pieces from the necropolis, may indicate activity at Taranto. No piece attributable to this painter had a Metapontine provenance. 115. Barresi 2005. 116. WF 27c, krater fragment IG 227227 by the Sisyphus Painter, Arsenal (“1913?”); a woman is fleeing a dragon (myth of Cadmos?); we can see on the broken rim an ancient mend that might indicate a primary, non-funerary context. 117. RVAp I, 102–33. 118. Fontannaz (forthcoming): fragments of a large lekanis and a big skyphos assignable to the Underworld Painter, IG 212411 and 212413 (Sacro Cuore di Ges` u, 1971).

egh

95

CHAPTER FOUR

RED-FIGURE VASES FROM METAPONTO: THE EVIDENCE FROM THE NECROPOLEIS ALONG THE COAST ROAD Francesca Silvestrelli In 1891 Michele Lacava, a pioneer of the archaeological investigations at Metaponto and author of an important book on the ancient city, wrote, “unfortunately the graves of Metapontion have almost all been violated . . . and violated repeatedly since ancient times, so that there is very little evidence found. From the little which was recovered, it is confirmed that at Metapontion there are not excellent vases, as we would expect from such an important city.”1 The “excellent vases” whose absence he laments would have been, of course, similar to those found in more or less contemporary excavations of indigenous sites such as Anzi, Armento, or Timmari. Several lines later, he goes on to say “to my knowledge, there are no museums in possession of beautiful Metapontine vases.”2 If we examine the finds from the excavations carried out at Metaponto and published up until the late 1960s,3 it is evident that the statement made by Lacava remained for a long time fully justified. The Soprintendenza della Basilicata was created in 1964, and the work at Metaponto of the first Superintendent, D. Adamesteanu, laid the basis for a radical change in the situation: research undertaken from that moment onwards has progressively transformed Metaponto into a privileged case study for investigations on red-figure pottery. Although a large part of the material brought to light still remains unpublished, what is known is of particular interest. Extensive excavations of sites in the chora, which led to the publication, by the Institute of Classical Archaeology of the University of Texas at Austin directed by J.C. Carter, of the Pantanello necropolis and of the minor clusters of Saldone and Sant’ Angelo Vecchio have already supplied a large amount of information on figured wares in rural necropoleis.4 Recent research continues to add new evidence to this outline. In the BradanoBasento transect of the chora field survey, fragmentary red-figure vessels have been recognized at 34% of the 256 sites occupied during the period of red-figure pottery production; their homogeneous spatial distribution in the survey study area WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

96

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

seems to confirm its diffuse consumption throughout the chora.5 Figured fragments come from sites with clusters of tombs but also from sites where only the presence of farmhouses has been inferred, raising the possibility of other spheres of consumption beyond the funerary one. This suggestion is also supported by the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic farmhouse known as Fattoria Stefan, where excavations yielded figured pottery possibly used in the domestic sphere.6 In addition, use within a sanctuary can be hypothesized for at least some of the more than 300 fragments of figured pottery found by the excavation in the Pantanello area.7 Contexts of the asty (the city of Metaponto) furnish evidence of a different nature: the impressive output of material from the kerameikos excavated by F. D’Andria, with its workshops manufacturing red-figure and other pottery between the end of the fifth and the second half of the fourth century B.C.E., provides valuable information about local production;8 evidence from other types of contexts is, on the other hand, virtually unknown: there are fewer than twenty published fragments from urban sanctuaries, and nothing is known from residential areas, not yet extensively explored. Funerary areas that are part of the urban necropoleis of Metaponto have been detected on the northern, southern, and western sides of the ancient city;9 the most important concentration of burials can be found in the western area, in proximity of the intersection between the Strada Statale 106 and 175, where tombs have been excavated in large numbers from the end of the 18th century to the present day (Fig. 4.1, WF 042).10 The range of information we possess is nonetheless limited by the small number of published burials and by the large number of tombs plundered both in the past and in modern times11 or destroyed by agriculture and other uncontrolled activities.12 Furthermore, the number of published tombs containing figured pottery is still very limited.13 Consequently, the evidence from the new tombs excavated by the Soprintendenza of Basilicata under the direction of Antonio De Siena between 2005 and 2007 makes an extremely important contribution to our knowledge.14 The investigations were undertaken as part of a project necessitated by the widening of the “Jonica,” the coastal road (Strada Statale 106), along which the most important funerary areas of the urban necropolis have been found, such as Casa Ricotta, Crucinia, Casa Teresa, Tavole Palatine, and San Salvatore (Fig. 4.1, WF 042).15 Excavations made along a 25 km segment running from the Bradano River to the modern town of Scanzano found seventeen distinct areas with burials; ten can be attributed to the urban necropolis16 while seven are located in the chora.17 Funerary areas seem to be organized in nuclei, probably belonging to family groups, each originating from a single burial of an adult (either male or female) around which successive depositions are clustered.18 These areas yielded altogether 760 tombs ranging in date from the last quarter of the sixth to the third century B.C.E.;19 funerary assemblages are preserved in 562 of the 760 tombs. From the middle of the fifth to the end of the fourth we have 288 burials with preserved funerary assemblages. Red-figure pottery of local

egh

97

98

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

production was found in 69 tombs, which produced 100 vases (not including fragments coming from layers outside the tombs). Almost all the burial areas yielded tombs containing red-figure pottery, but in very low numbers.20 There are many research trajectories and even more questions arising from the new evidence, not all of which can be dealt with immediately: the study of the necropoleis began in 2009 and is ongoing. The present contribution is therefore merely a preliminary presentation and will consider only the evidence from the second half of the fifth to the first decades of the fourth century B.C.E.21 There are thirty-seven tombs with red-figure pottery dating between the midfifth and the first quarter of the fourth century; fourteen are located in funerary areas of the chora (Propriet`a La Torre and Corrado) and twenty-three have instead been found in urban necropoleis (Ex-Oleificio-De Donno, Grieco-Giasi, MutinatiGallotta, Riccardi-Tarulli, Vitelli-Ninno, and Venezia). These last help to fill a gap in the documentation concerning urban necropoleis as burials that can be dated to this period and were previously scarcely known.22 All of them are single depositions yielding fifty-one figured vases in all. Almost half of the tombs have just a single figured vase, with eighteen burials having two or three vases. The range of shapes in funerary assemblages of the Jonica between the middle of the fifth and the first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. is composed of pelikai; hydriai; pseudopanathenaic amphorae; skyphoi of type A, B, and C (all decorated with owls); squat lekythoi; and lebetes gamikoi. The selection of shapes is consistent with what is already known for Metapontine necropoleis both in the asty and in the chora. The presence of pseudopanathenaic amphorae, previously attested only by fragments found outside the tombs, is a new development, but certainly not an unexpected one; the funerary use of this shape is very well known.23 In contrast, the presence in tomb 415 at Propriet`a La Torre, in the chora, of a bell krater by the Pisticci Painter is worthy of note.24 Its peculiarity is enhanced by the Dionysian imagery, which stands in marked contrast to what is known from the rest of the necropoleis, where the range of subjects chosen in this period is of a different nature. Kraters were seldom part of Greek funerary assemblages, although fragments of vessels of this shape are frequently recovered in deposits of many Greek cemeteries,25 where they were used either as grave markers or in rites performed at the tomb.26 We might wonder whether the choice of both shape and iconography could be explained by a different origin of the adult male buried in this tomb. The presence of the krater is not the only unusual feature of this cluster; children were buried in small tombs placed in a distinct and separated area, a type of spatial organization not found elsewhere.27 Identification of the relationship between vase shape and gender is limited by the still incomplete determination of the sex of the deceased.28 In the tombs of the Jonica, the only shape certainly associated with both male and female burials (apart from the bell krater) is the pelike. The same pattern can be identified in the Pantanello necropolis, where squat lekythoi (usually a form found only in female graves) occur also in male burials. The new figured vases brought to light can be ascribed to the Pisticci Painter, to the Cyclops Painter, to the Amykos Painter, and to their successors and pupils.

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

4.1. Metaponto. Schematic location of funerary areas (adapted by M. Limoncelli from Rocchietti 2002, pl. 1; Tagliente 2006, fig. 732; De Siena 2007, fig. 7; Osanna 2008, pl. XVII.3 and XIX.2; Greco 2009).

egh

99

100

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The largest group of vessels can be assigned to the Creusa, Dolon, and Anabates Painters; a few vases which have a similar style and morphology to products of this workshop still cannot be attributed with certainty and need further study. A few vases bear similarities with the Tarporley Painter and his workshop. Confirming trends already identified for Metaponto, the frequency of Attic imports is low. Two squat lekythoi can be attributed to the Painter of the Louvre Maiden, already attested in the rural necropolis of Pantanello;29 of particular interest is the pelike from tomb 428 Propriet`a Giasi by the Meidias Painter with the representation of the marriage of Herakles and Hebe, which is one of the most important Attic vases of any period found in the Achaean colony (Fig. 4.2, WF 043).30 The new evidence does not alter the general picture of Attic imports in Metaponto, where, beginning from the second quarter of the fifth century, a substantial decline appears to have taken place.31 Nonetheless it should be emphasized that our data come from published material and include only blackand red-figure vessels, without reference to other products, such as patterned lekythoi and black-gloss pottery. A more detailed study would probably increase the number of imports, giving a less dramatic picture. Four vases can be attributed to the Pisticci Painter.32 In addition to the already mentioned bell krater from tomb 415 Propriet`a La Torre, we have a hydria from tomb 475 Propriet`a Vitelli with a pursuit scene; a second hydria from tomb 697 Propriet`a Tarulli33 represents a domestic scene (WF 044). The lebes gamikos from tomb 597 Propriet`a Mutinati34 (WF 045a,b) with Eros pursuing a woman and, on the reverse, two women, was found in a cappuccina tomb of an infant. The lebes is quite uncommon in the work of the Pisticci Painter and only three other examples, all from burials in the Metapontine chora, are known.35 It is therefore possible that this shape, which plays an important part in Metapontine funerary assemblages from the central decades of the fifth century B.C.E. onwards,36 was mainly produced for local consumption. The vases can be connected to works of the Developed Style (440–420 B.C.E.), already represented in Metapontine tombs of the chora.37 The Cyclops Painter, a contemporary of the Amykos Painter, was working within the Pisticci Painter workshop. Their contiguity is confirmed by common elements in style that we can identify, especially in the early part of his career, marked later by the influence of the Amykos Painter.38 Tomb 296 from Propriet`a Corrado, a funerary area located in the chora, has yielded a pelike and a lekythos that can both be attributed to the Cyclops Painter.39 The shape of the pelike, with its large neck, globular body, and reserved foot, bears a resemblance to the one adopted by the Amykos Painter, as does the three-figure composition. Details in drapery and anatomy allow the vase to be attributed to the Cyclops Painter.40 The squat lekythos from the same tomb represents Eros with straightened parallel arms and bent legs, and recalls the athletes found on a small number of Attic vases dating between the second quarter of the fifth and the first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. portrayed on the point of starting a race or, in an alternative interpretation, ready to jump.41 It is likely that the vase from Metaponto represents Eros jumping, as suggested by a bell krater by the Amykos Painter with Eros suspended in air,

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

C Ministero per i Beni e le 4.2. Pelike by the Meidias Painter. Propriet`a Giasi, tomb 428 ( Attivit`a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della BasilicataSoprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

which seems to depict the following moment of the sequence.42 In front of him is a woman in the typical pose of one of the Amykos and Cyclops Painters’ stockfigures.43 The motif of Eros as an athlete is not a Metapontine invention; it appears on a lekythos by the Eretria Painter,44 where the palaestra location is stressed by the presence of a pilaster. On the Cyclops Painter’s squat lekythos a rare Attic image is accepted in a version (Eros as an athlete) known to us only by one example, while the slight rotation of the hand has turned the stock-figure into a judge echoing

egh

101

102

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

the main series of these athletic images. The final result is an original representation and a very good example of how Metapontine painters made use of Attic models. A second lekythos probably produced within the same workshop is part of the funerary assemblage of the previously mentioned tomb 428 from Propriet`a Giasi, (Fig. 4.3, WF 046).45 The shape has elements in common with the Attic EAM lekythoi in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, dated to 430– 420 B.C.E.,46 with which it shares the type of foot and the general proportions, although not the rim, which is thick and with a continuous internal profile similar to the one used for cylinder lekythoi of Metapontine manufacture. Subsidiary decoration, and especially the kyma frieze with eggs filled in black, emphasizes the general Atticizing flavor of this vase which is nonetheless of probable Metapontine production. The lekythos represents a woman (probably a bride) seated on a stool, attended by a maid holding a long fan; in front of the woman is a kneeling Eros. The fan,47 which will later become a very frequent attribute in representations connected to the woman’s world, is rarely found in Lucanian vases and makes a precocious appearance here shortly after its adoption (which occurred around 440 B.C.E.) in Attic imagery; its character as a status symbol underlining the social status of the woman represented on the vase was probably still very clear at the end of the fifth century B.C.E. at Metaponto as Athens. The scene bears resemblance to a hydria attributed to the Washing Painter.48 The vase is close to two squat lekythoi recently discovered by J.C. Carter49 and attributed to the Cyclops Painter. The adoption of iconographic schemes derived from the Washing Painter is evident in this case as well. Nonetheless, the models followed in the lekythos from tomb 428 seem to depend also on other sources of inspiration, such as the Meidias Painter, echoed in the kneeling Eros, which creates a correspondence between the imported pelike (Fig. 4.2, WF 043) and the local vessel. The influence of Athenian vase painting of the last decades of the fifth century B.C.E. can also be detected in a lekythos by the Dolon Painter found few years ago in the urban necropolis.50 Many elements, such as the three-quarter faces, find comparisons in the calyx krater with Odysseus and Teiresias;51 the sphendonai, the richly decorated garments of one of the women, the drawing of the hair in distinct locks, the general calligraphic taste that characterizes the vase, and technical devices such as the armlets made in added clay all recall Attic red-figure pottery of the late fifth century B.C.E.52 To the workshop of the Dolon Painter can also be attributed some kantharoid vases derived from the Attic Group of Bonn 94 representing Perseus,53 which confirm the plurality of models used by the atelier. As already suggested by the vases from tomb 19 of Site 736 of the chora, the Attic influence in Metapontine figured ware is not limited to the very beginning of production,54 but continued once the tradition had been completely established and was probably one of the sources contributing to its enrichment and continuous development. These recent discoveries open up new lines of research that should be pursued by studying not only red-figure vases but also other elements of local craftsmanship. For example, the analysis of

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

C Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit` 4.3. Lekythos. Propriet`a Giasi, tomb 428 ( a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Basilicata-Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

egh

103

104

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

black-gloss wares whose production took place in the same workshops where red-figure pottery was manufactured is certainly of interest. If we consider its morphologic repertoire between the second quarter of the fifth century B.C.E. and the second half of the same century we observe the progressive adoption of shapes (such as plates, bolsals, concave-convex bowls and others) derived from the Attic tradition. It is interesting to note that, with the present state of our knowledge, imports of black-gloss pottery of the second half of the fifth century seem to be even more unusual than those of painted pottery. Shapes are not the only elements imitated; far more interesting is the adoption of a complex system of stamped decoration applied, in Metapontine workshops, to kylikes, lekythoi, and lebetes gamikoi, which represents one of the most outstanding innovations of the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. The most common decorative pattern consists of a chain of palmettes organized in one or two rows. While the single elements can be compared to contemporary Attic stamped decoration, the final result is, on the whole, original. It seems likely that, in comparison with the previous period, the number of craftsmen involved in the production of red-figure pottery around 430–420 B.C.E. increased and the painters who worked in close proximity to the Amykos Painter or who must have been educated by him were many. The Metapontine location of this workshop has been confirmed by the recovery, in a salvage excavation, of three fragmentary vases discarded because of firing problems.55 It is very unfortunate that this important discovery, which would have given us significant information on the internal organization of the workshop, took place outside a controlled archaeological excavation. As a consequence, the reconstruction of the sphere of influence of this painter has to be based mainly on stylistic elements.56 The Amykos Painter is attested by a pelike from tomb 231 Propriet`a Giasi (WF 047a,b) belonging to an adult male. It represents a draped woman wearing widesleeved chiton, himation, and diadem handing a strigil to a youth leaning on a staff.57 In addition some other vases can be connected to painters working under his influence.58 Of particular interest is the pseudopanathenaic amphora from tomb 376, a primary cremation found at Propriet`a La Torre.59 The vase, depicting a pursuit,60 resembles vessels attributed to the Karneia Painter (Fig. 4.4, WF 048),61 whose activity, at least in part, took place at Metaponto, as confirmed by the recovery of a fragmentary bell krater from the Metapontine kerameikos.62 A pseudopanathenaic amphora from tomb 358 Propriet`a La Torre63 and a fragmentary pelike from tomb 125 of propriet`a Corrado (WF 049), both representing on the obverse two couples in conversation, can probably be attributed to the early phase of the Palermo Painter, as shown by the faces in profile, the drawing of the eyes and of the hands with elongated fingers, and details such as the diadem with three spikes.64 The two vases are of particular interest since they are the first by this painter to be found at Metaponto,65 where his apprenticeship probably took place. The pelike from tomb 379 of Propriet`a La Torre can be placed among the works of the early phase of the Brooklyn-Budapest Painter (WF 050a,b),66 previously

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

C 4.4. Pseudopanathenaic amphora by the Karneia Painter. Propriet`a La Torre, tomb 376 ( Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit`a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Basilicata-Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

attested in the area only by one vase from Pisticci.67 The vase depicts a standing youth with a mantle around his shoulders holding a branch and a strigil with a hole in the handle.68 The woman at the center of the composition holds a sash and a basket.69 On the extreme left is a youth, leaning on a staff, who seems to have just written the word ΤΕΡΜΝ on a pilaster. This is a variation on a series of scenes with inscribed pilasters70 that also include, with a different inscription, a number of vases by the same painter.71 This pelike was used as a cinerary vase for a cremation, a rare ritual possibly associated with individuals of high social status.72 A hydria found in the fossa burial no. 250 of Propriet`a Giasi73 is at present difficult to connect to a specific painter (Fig. 4.5, WF 051). Details in garments, anatomy, and subsidiary decoration (such as the type of ivy74 ) show a certain Creusan character without finding precise comparisons.75 Some other elements, as the position of the ivy chain on the neck and the checkered meander,76 unusual in Metapontine pottery,77 betray an Attic derivation. The scene is focused on a youth with a staff seated on a chair (diphros) clasping hands with a woman leaning on a pilaster. The gesture,78 which appears frequently in Attic funerary reliefs of the late fifth century B.C.E. alluding to the leave-taking,79 can also be found in nuptial scenes.80 That this image is to be interpreted as a nuptial scene

egh

105

106

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

is suggested both by the presence of the maid holding the basket81 and by the unusual position of Eros. The gesture of a handshake, probably alluding to the conubium and emphasizing the unity and the special relation of the couple, appears rarely in nuptial scenes depicted in South Italian pottery82 but is given to Paris and Helen on a bell krater by the Anabates Painter.83 The iconography on the hydria seems to be an original creation of the Metapontine painter possibly derived from Attic models and reinvented with results that, to my knowledge, have only remote echoes in Apulian vase painting.84 The first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. saw the local workshops of redfigure pottery in full activity, with the Creusa, Anabates, and Dolon Painters operating in the local kerameikos, where discards deriving from their work were found in large quantities.85 The evidence from these contexts has confirmed the link between the three artisans, previously established by A.D. Trendall through elements of style.86 M. Denoyelle has proposed to connect the Parasol Painter, considered Apulian by Trendall,87 with this workshop. The Choephoroi Painter seems to have collaborated with the Creusa Painter on a bell krater now in Madrid,88 and both this and the more general connections with the Dolon Painter place the beginnings of this artisan within the Dolon-Creusa-Anabates atelier.89 The Creusa Painter is well represented in the tombs of the Jonica, which yielded four vases that can be attributed to him. A squat lekythos that can be compared to works of the Intermediate Style (WF 052a,b,c) was found in the female fossa tomb no. 369 at Propriet`a La Torre. The scene represents four figures clustered in two groups. On the right, a maid with a peplos opened at the side90 offers a basket to a woman seated on a diphros;91 the second group is composed of a standing woman92 holding a wreath, originally overpainted in white, with Eros.93 The other three vases94 are all pelikai, the best-attested shape amongst the discards found in the kerameikos and in the general production of the painter. The Anabates Painter, the third artisan present in the dumps of the kerameikos (with a very limited quantity of discards) seems to have had a minor output by comparison with his two colleagues and his repertoire is characterized by a reduced number of shapes.95 Four vessels can be attributed to him.96 Until now only one vase (a hydria from Crucinia, tomb 9) was known from Metaponto.97 As with the hydria, the pelike from tomb 334 Propriet`a La Torre98 can be ascribed to the beginning of his activity; the fat draped youths and the garments of the woman find many comparisons with the vases of the so-called Wavy-Border Group.99 A close stylistic proximity can also be established with a bell krater from the Ipogeo dei Vimini at Canosa found in association with two skyphoi attributed by M. Denoyelle to the Dolon Painter.100 The lebes gamikos and the squat lekythos from the fossa tomb no. 546 at Propriet`a Mutinati (Fig. 4.6, WF 053) resemble vases from the beginning of his maturity and are probably contemporary with the fragments found in the kerameikos. These new vases enlarge the morphologic repertoire of this painter, and support new evidence to strengthen his connection with the Dolon Painter, already suggested by Trendall. Noteworthy, for example, is the connection that

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

C Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit` 4.5. Hydria. Propriet`a Giasi, tomb 250 ( a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Basilicata-Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

can be established in the morphology of the squat lekythos, which is similar to specimens decorated by the Dolon Painter.101 Of particular interest is the lebes gamikos with a hoplite race and, on the other side, a Nike holding a phiale. In Attic black- and red-figure vases the race-in-armor is especially popular during 500–480 B.C.E., though it also occurs in a few examples in the Classical period, while on panathenaic amphorae it is attested until the last quarter of the fifth century B.C.E. Apart from four vases by the Pisticci Painter,102 the subject is unknown in South Italian red-figure pottery, emphasizing a certain originality that characterizes the iconography adopted by this painter. To the Dolon Painter we can attribute a hydria representing a woman with a mirror and basket and a youth leaning on a staff found in tomb 255 Propriet`a Giasi103 (WF 054), which is close to the hydria from Pantanello,104 and two pelikai,105 a shape not frequently decorated by the painter. Shape and subsidiary

egh

107

108

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

C 4.6. Lebes gamikos and lekythos by the Anabates Painter. Propriet`a Mutinati, tomb 546 ( Ministero per i Beni e le Attivit`a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Basilicata-Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

decoration make the connection of the pseudopanathenaic amphora from tomb 549 at Mutinati106 with the Creusa-Dolon workshop evident (Fig. 4.7, WF 055a,b).107 Nonetheless, the massive bodies, the almost quadrangular heads, and the posture of some of the figures, such as the Eros, the woman with the box, or the bearded man, are reminiscent of the early works of the Choephoroi Painter.108 We might hypothesize that he took part in the decoration of the amphora. An additional two vases should be addressed here. Tomb 301 Propriet`a Giasi (WF 056a,b), belonging to a woman, has yielded a pelike that can be compared in terms of shape, subsidiary decoration, the posture of the feminine figure on the right, and especially the draped youths with their characteristic pi-shaped folds, with a pelike from Saldone, attributed by Trendall to the Late Phase of the Tarporley Painter.109 A pseudopanathenaic amphora from tomb 713 Propriet`a Tarulli can be connected to the previous vase through the draped youths on the reverse (Fig. 4.8, WF 057). The cursive drawing of the faces dominated by the very large eyes resembles vases near the Painter of Lecce 686, connected to the late phase of the Tarporley Painter Workshop.110 Nonetheless, at least one of the vases cited by Trendall to support this link (a pseudopanathenaic amphora from Pisticci found with a vase by the Creusa Painter)111 can be better understood if located in the sphere of the Dolon Painter.112 It seems likely that these vases were produced in connection with the workshop of the Dolon Painter. In summary, this very preliminary analysis of the red-figure vases found in the necropoleis along the Jonica confirms, as already suggested by the evidence from

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

C Ministero per i Beni e 4.7. Pseudopanathennaic amphora. Propriet`a Mutinati, tomb 549 ( le Attivit`a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della BasilicataSoprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

the chora, that figured pottery production at Metaponto was not just oriented toward export, but was also aimed at local consumption. Although a large part of the output of the workshops was distributed to the indigenous world,113 it is likely that Metapontine red-figure pottery was also tailored to reflect the cultural sensibilities of the local elite both of the polis and of the chora, an element which no doubt contributed to the success, proliferation, and development of Metapontine production. Another important point to be emphasized is that the imitation of Attic models was not limited to the very beginning of the production but continued until the early fourth century B.C.E.114 Beginning during the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., these relationships are revealed not just through the acquisition of the objects themselves, but especially through the adoption of techniques, iconographies, and elements of style,115 though never passively so and often with very original results. The study of iconography is still at the beginning. The rarity of mythological subjects can be confirmed but, as we have seen, there are noteworthy exceptions,

egh

109

110

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

C Ministero per i Beni e le 4.8. Pseudopanathenaic amphora. Propriet`a Tarulli, tomb 713 ( Attivit`a Culturali-Direzione Regionale per i Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della BasilicataSoprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata).

such as the pelike by the Meidias Painter from tomb 428 (Fig. 4.2, WF 043), to which can also be added the lebes gamikos and the lekythos from tomb 100 of Torre di Mare. Nonetheless, most of the vases present genre scenes, as already exemplified by the Pantanello sample, and scenes of pursuits, conversation, or courtship confirm their popularity. A fragmentary lebes gamikos from tomb 125 Propriet`a Corrado portrays a mother sitting on a diphros holding a child to her chest, an image popular at Athens in the last decades of the fifth century B.C.E., but seldom attested in southern Italy. Apart from the bell krater from tomb 425, Dionysiac scenes do not occur until the very end of the period considered here. The painters attested in the tombs from the Jonica funerary areas are consistent with the picture delineated by Trendall. The presence of vases that employ stylistic features usually classified as Apulian provide new evidence for a relationship between the Tarporley Painter and the Dolon Painter, and for the more general problem of the contacts between the two schools. The superficial analysis of technical features of both clay and glaze do not allow for the separation of these vases from those certainly produced locally and further archaeometric research is needed. With these vases we are in the closing part of the first quarter of the fourth

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

century B.C.E. In the traditional reconstruction this is a very important moment, when the deep-rooted productive system upon which red-figure was based seems to have come to an end. The available evidence from the Pantanello necropolis apparently supports this interpretation. However, new and still unpublished vases from the Jonica also invite caution. Red-figure pottery that is Apulian in style and partially in shape,116 but with technical characteristics often consistent with those usually attributed to Metaponto, continues to be deposited in tombs.117 The identification of the ateliers in which these vases were produced, their eventual relationship with the preceding tradition and with the succeeding workshops, which will be established in the asty in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. – in essence, the comprehension of the configuration of patterns of Metapontine production and consumption between the second quarter and the end of the fourth century – is a study that can no longer be delayed. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

Lacava 1891, 106. The assertion is endorsed also by Moon 1929, 48. Lacava 1891, 107, note 1. Galli 1926–1927; Sestieri 1940; Lo Porto 1966. See also Lo Porto 1981. Burn 1998; Carter 1998b, 429–47. Silvestrelli 2011b, 305 and fig. 8.2. Preliminary results of the study of Fattoria Stefan, not yet completed, are given in Silvestrelli 2011a. For a first analysis of the finds, see Jircik 1983 and Silvestrelli 2011a. D’Andria 1975; 1980; Silvestrelli 1996; 2000; 2004; 2005; Signore 1996; Cracolici 2003. De Siena 1992, 126; some evidence suggests the possible presence of a Hellenistic monumental necropolis on the dunes bordering the Eastern side of the city. This funerary area was probably obliterated with the construction of the harbor in the third century B.C.E. Tombs located in the Eastern area were also seen by the duc de Luynes (de Luynes and Debacq 1833, 3): “Au de-l`a de la route de Tarente sont plusieurs tombeaux ouverts et sans importance.” Lacava 1891, 104–10. On the topography of the Metapontine urban necropoleis, see De Siena 2008, 1–4, with ample bibliography. Lacava 1891, 106, for a description of the different types of plundering and their chronology. On the destruction caused in the necropoleis between 1930 and 1950 by the quarrying of gravel for the construction of new roads, see Giardino and De Siena 1999, 332. Rocchietti (2002, 130) points out that figured vases appear only in the 10% of the 280 tombs whose funerary assemblage was known at the moment of the publication of the book; they mostly date to the Archaic and Early Classical period, when they occur in the 50% of the burials. For the fourth century, on the contrary, the evidence suggests a consistent decrease in the use of figured pottery; percentages in the chora remain instead unchanged. See also Denoyelle 2002a, 104. The excavation was done principally by Lara Cossalter, scientific coordinator of the project, and by Cesare Raho, Eloisa Vittoria, and Paola Iannuzziello. I am deeply grateful to Antonio De Siena to have involved me in the first part of the study of the necropolis, and to Lara Cossalter for all the information she shared with me about the excavation. I am also deeply grateful to the staff of the Archaeological Museum of Metaponto for the extraordinary efforts in supporting this research. In particular,

egh

111

112

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

my warmest thanks go to Vita Quattromini, who (together with Alessandro Pesare) restored the funerary assemblages, to Nunzia Armento, who took the photographs, to Giulia Gioia, author of the drawings, and to Grazia Pinto, who curated the material. Preliminary results of the excavations are given by A. De Siena in Tagliente 2006, 731–5 (Propriet`a Venezia and Propriet`a Giasi in the urban necropolis and localit`a Casinello, in the chora); De Siena 2007, 435–45 (Propriet`a Giasi in the urban necropolis and Propriet`a La Torre, Corrado, and Bonaventura, in the chora); Osanna 2008a, 925–9 (Propriet`a Mutinati, urban necropolis); Greco 2009, 798–802 (Propriet`a Mutinati-Gallotta Touch-Down and Ex-Oleificio). A funerary area located in the southern necropolis (not considered here) was excavated in 2003 and 2004 at Torre di Mare, Propriet`a Andrisani. The tombs, organized along an east–west axis possibly corresponding to a road and clustered in nuclei probably corresponding to familiar groups, date from late seventh/early sixth century to the beginning of the third century B.C.E.: Nava 2004, 958–63; 2005, 327–30. Propriet`a Grieco-Giasi; Propriet`a Riccardi-Tarulli; Propriet`a Vitelli-Ninno; Propriet`a Mutinati-Gallotta Touch-Down; Propriet`a Venezia; Propriet`a Ragni-Del Donno; Propriet`a ANAS; AGIP; Ex-Oleificio; Svincolo SS 175–106. Propriet`a La Torre; Propriet`a D’Alessandro; Propriet`a Corrado; Propriet`a Martino; Localit`a Casinello; Propriet`a Vitelli; Propriet`a Bonaventura. Tagliente 2006, 436–7. De Siena 2007, 439–41 (Propriet`a La Torre). Osanna 2008b, 928–9 (Propriet`a Mutinati). Some of the funerary areas were established after the creation of the division lines of the end of the sixth and beginning of the fifth century B.C.E. and the clusters seem to be located along the channels, probably in connection with roads: Osanna 2008b, 928, and Greco 2009, 800. Information about the quantification of tombs and types of burial has been kindly provided by Lara Cossalter, to whom I express my gratitude. The figured pottery from the second quarter to the end of the century will be studied by L. Cossalter. See the observations by A. De Siena in Nava 2005, 330. Lohmann 1979, 145–7. Neils 2001. De Siena 2007, 440, pl. XIII, 1. See, most recently, Elia 2003, 146–7, for a detailed discussion of the problem and a list of the evidence. The only bell krater possibly part of a funerary assemblage from Metaponto was found at contrada Ricotta: Galli 1926–1927, 63–4, figs. 4–5. For evidence of kraters in possible funerary areas of the Metapontine chora, see Silvestrelli 2011b, 306–7. Elia 2003, 153. De Siena 2007, 440. The anthropological evidence is the object of research in progress by Renata Henneberg, Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Texas at Austin, and Anatomical Sciences and BACARU, University of Adelaide (Australia), who has kindly provided the preliminary information quoted here. Tomb 338 Propriet`a La Torre. For Pantanello: Burn 1998, 612, T330–8. The funerary assemblage is presented by De Siena 2007, 441–2, pl. XIV, 1–2. Giudice 2007, 338–9. Mannino 1996, 363–4; 2008, 431–5. A fragmentary bell krater by the same painter representing a woman with sakkos has been found in layers covering tomb 372 at Propriet`a La Torre. Associated through context with a type B glaux probably from the same atelier and a patterned lekythos that approaches the Beldam Painter Workshop. The funerary assemblage is shown by A. De Siena in Osanna 2008a, 928, pl. XX, 2.

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

35. Pantanello, tomb 95: Burn 1998, 616, and tomb 354: Ibid., 622–3; Pisticci, Casinello, tomb 125: Tagliente 2006, 735, pl. VI, 2. 36. Hall 1998, 566–7. 37. LCS Suppl. 3, 1/7a, pl. 1.1 from Sant’ Angelo Vecchio, attributed by Trendall to the Early Phase but considered by M. Denoyelle to be later in consideration of the imitation of hydriai by the Washing Painter: CVA Louvre 38, 16. 38. See M. Denoyelle, Chapter 5 in this volume. 39. Attribution suggested by M. Denoyelle. 40. See especially LCS 1/88 pl. 7, 3–4 and 90, pl. 7.5. 41. Maffre 1972, 339–58. 42. For the vase, see A. Riccardi, Chapter 6 in this volume. 43. LCS 31, (ii). For the Cyclops Painter, see bell krater at Christchurch, University of Canterbury 18: LCS 1/90, pl. 7.5. 44. Lezzi-Hafter 1988, no. 295. 45. H. 23.7. Diam. rim 6.8. Diam. max. body 16.34. Diam. foot 12.4. The tomb belonged to a young woman. 46. Lezzi-Hafter 1988, 212, no. 232, fig. 71, pl. 158. 47. Miller 1997, 198–206. Baggio 2004, 184. 48. New York, Metropolitan Museum 22.139.25: ARV2 1309.151 (430–420 B.C.E.). 49. Tomb 19, Site 736. The funerary assemblage is published by L. Burn in Carter and Prieto 2011, 1065–74. For a preliminary presentation, see Nava 2000, 687, pl. LIII, 2 and Carter 2006, 106, fig. 3.19–21; 183–5, fig. 4.61–64. 50. Torre di Mare, tomb 100: De Siena 2007, 442, pl. XIV, 3. 51. Paris, Cabinet des M´edailles, LCS Suppl. 3, 3/D19. 52. For this technique and its development in Athenian workshops of the last decades of the fifth century B.C.E., see Lezzi-Hafter 2008. 53. Todisco and Sisto 1998, 574–7. 54. For a general picture of the relations between Athens and Southern Italy, see Lippolis 2008b. 55. D’Andria 1975, 447–52. 56. See M. Denoyelle, Chapter 5 in this volume. 57. Between the couple is a tendril. For a similar subject see LCS 1/156, pl. 13.5. Two draped youths (B+D1) decorate the reverse of the vase. 58. Pelike from tomb 385 propriet`a La Torre (inv. 326710) representing a youth with staff holding a ball by a standing woman. Pelike from tomb 759 propriet`a Gallotta with seated youth leaning on a staff in front of whom is a standing woman moving to right and, on the obverse, two draped youths (A+D1). A third pelike was found in tomb 390, propriet`a La Torre, and represents Eros hovering above the ground on the obverse and a running woman on the reverse. 59. On this burial rite, rarely occurring at Metaponto and in its chora before the end of the fourth century B.C.E., see Carter 1998a, 103–8 and Carter 2006, 227. 60. H. 38 cm. Diam. Rim 12. Diam. Foot 11. Similar composition of the obverse on a pseudopanathenaic amphora from Ruvo LCS 1/219. On the reverse, three draped youths (A1+C+D1). 61. For the dotted meander, see bell krater from the Louvre, Denoyelle 2002b, 608, no. 1. Youth with staff: bell krater at Matera, Rizzon Collection, ibid. 608, no. 6; his anatomy can be compared to the one adopted for male figures in the column krater at the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, ibid. 609, no. 10. 62. Denoyelle 2002b, 609 no. 8. Silvestrelli 2005, 115, fig. 3. 63. De Siena 2007, 440–1, pl. XIII.3, with illustration of the grave goods. 64. On the painter see LCS 51–4 (especially 52 for the characterization of the style); LCS Suppl. 3, 19–20; C´eramique de la Grand-Gr´ece, 8–11; Ancient Voices, 39;

egh

113

114

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

65. 66. 67.

68. 69.

70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84.

85.

86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

Fontannaz 2008, 46–7. The amphora has many elements in common with the bell krater LCS 266. Known provenances include Taranto: Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 108. See furthermore Fontannaz 2008 for a hydria from Saturo. Rim diam. 18. Diam. of foot 15.8. The grave goods from the tomb are presented by A. De Siena in Osanna 2008a, 929, pl. XXIII, 2. Metaponto, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, pelike from tomb 2 of Pisticci, Santa Maria del Casale, already attributed to the painter by A.D. Trendall in the drafts of the unpublished fourth Supplement to Lucanian vases. I thank I. McPhee of the Trendall Archive at Melbourne (Australia) for the information. From the same tomb is a second pelike (inv. 297056) with youth with strigil and woman with phiale, by the same hand. LCS Suppl. 3, 4/BB 4. For the garments see LCS Suppl. 3, 4/BB 22 and especially 4/BB 47. For the sash, see 4/BB12. For the cassette LCS Suppl. 3, 4/BB 18 and 62. A similar couple is represented also in LCS Suppl. 3, 4/BB 57. Moret 1979, 3–13, 235. Ibid., 235–9. Nava 2002, 741–2, pl. LXIX, 1 presents a hydria by the Amykos Painter used as a cinerary from San Salvatore, Propriet`a Fuggiano, tomb 15. Osanna 2008b, 929, pl. XXIII, 3. LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C22, C24 and lid from the kerameikos, deposit no. 1 in D’Andria 1975, 406, no. 193. See, for the drawing of the profile of the youth with the down-turned lip LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C38 and C103, and, for the anatomy, C106. A similar one is in Lezzi-Hafter 1988, pl. 26a. For a comparable meander see the lekythos from tomb 100, Torre di Mare by the Dolon Painter (above, note 51). For Apulian examples, where this type of meander is somewhat more common, see RVAp I, 1\10 and 12 (Painter of the Berlin Dancer). On the gesture and its possible meanings, see Johnston and McNiven 1996, 27–30, with ample bibliography. Reeder 1995, 160. Attic loutrophoros of the last quarter of the fifth century B.C.E.: Baggio 2004, 99–100, fig. 33. Similar figures, already present in wedding scenes depicted on Attic pottery (Oakley 1995, 69), are frequent in South Italian representations: Baggio 2004, 141–2. Baggio 2004, 210–12. Bell krater once New York Market, Royal Athena Galleries, SLJ 430. Sotheby’s Dec. 10–11, 1992, no. 290, color illustration on p. 143. H. 28. The vase had already been attributed to the Anabates Painter by A. D. Trendall. I am grateful to I. MacPhee of the Trendall Archive for the information. Pelike attributed to the Lycurgus Painter: Baggio 2004, 210, fig. 80. See also the pelike RVAp Suppl. 1, 3/115b (imitator of the Tarporley Painter) with youth seated on diphros and Eros flying from his hand; in front, a woman. D’Andria 1975, 375–418 (dump no. 1) and 443–4 (dump no. 8). Most of the fragments can be connected to the Dolon Painter, whilst the Creusa and Anabates Painters are less often represented: see Silvestrelli 1996 and 2005. LCS Suppl. 3, 33–4. CVA Louvre 25, 38–9. LCS 5/598, pl. 60. 1–2. Trendall 1953, 125; LCS, 118–9. For the dress, see Wavy-Border Group (Anabates Painter) and, by the Creusa Painter, LCS Suppl. 3, 3/ C34 and C42.

Red-Figure Vases from Metaponto

91. Very similar is the woman sitting on a rock on the fragment LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C19; see also the skyphos from Pulsano: LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C33. 92. Variously dressed, women of this type occur in Creusa Painter vases. See the hydria LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C18, and the maenad offering an animal C 22. 93. The same scene but with a youth instead of Eros and with the woman seated is on LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C64; See also the figures in the Toledo krater LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C 22. 94. The first was found in Tomb 588 Propriet`a Mutinati, and represents a woman holding sash and basket and youth with kerykeion. The second from tomb 477 Propriet`a Vitelli. It depicts Eros seated on a rock and a woman with phiale and oinochoe. The last vase is a pelike from the fossa tomb 338 Propriet`a La Torre belonging to a young woman aged 18–20; it is close to vessels placed by Trendall in the Standard Phase (LCS Suppl. 3, 3/C 15, C 44, C 52, C62, C 66, C78, C83, C 86). 95. LCS Suppl. 3, 38–40. 96. To the three vases here illustrated can also added a pelike from tomb 712 of Propriet`a Tarulli, representing Eros handing a duck to a seated woman holding a parasol. 97. LCS Suppl. 3, 3/A4. 98. Fossa burial; the deceased is an adult male. 99. LCS Suppl. 3, 38–9. 100. LCS Suppl. 3, 3/A8. De Juliis 1990, 50–51, nn. 46–47. 101. LCS Suppl. 3, 3\D57. Silvestrelli 2008, fig. 1.17. See also the kantharoid vase from the market (Christie’s 6/7/1994, no. 379; Charles Ede XVII, 1996, no. 7), which is a shape otherwise only decorated by the Dolon Painter (Ceglie del Campo, tomb of via G. Martino: Mannino 1996, 367 and 369; kantharoid vase from the market: Sotheby’s Antiquities, 14 Dec., 1987, no. 172. Mannino 1996, 370 note 28). 102. CVA Louvre 25, 15–16, tav. 1. 103. Rim diam. 12.5. Foot diam. 11.5. H. 24.4 104. Burn 1998, 614, 5, T51–1. 105. Tomb 536 Propriet`a Mutinati, with woman and Eros and tomb 548, Propriet`a Mutinati (possibly a male deposition), with a maid giving a box to a woman with mirror; between the couple, a pilaster. A sash is hanging behind. 106. The funerary assemblage from the female fossa tomb was presented by A. De Siena in Osanna 2008a, 928, pl. XXI, 2. 107. LCS Suppl. 3, 3/D17. Anthemion below the handles: kerameikos, deposit no. 1, inv. 29059. The draped youths on the reverse are very similar to those on the pelike. 108. For the bearded man on the right, see LCS 5/598. 109. RVAp I, 3/32a. Carter 1998b, 442. 110. RVAp I, 56–9. 111. RVAp I, 3/51. 112. M. Denoyelle, personal communication. 113. See, for the Creusa-Dolon workshop, Silvestrelli 2008. For Peucetia: Gadaleta 2010, 317–21. Messapia: Mannino 2005. 114. On the problem of Attic influence in southern Italy, see Lippolis 2008b. 115. Denoyelle 2008, 343. 116. See the oinochoe from tomb 791, Ex-Oleificio with Dionysos and Ariadne: Greco 2009, 801–2. 117. See, for example, the pelike from tomb 14 at Propriet`a Giasi: Tagliente 2006, 733, pl. IV, 3.

egh

115

CHAPTER FIVE

HANDS AT WORK IN MAGNA GRAECIA: THE AMYKOS PAINTER AND HIS WORKSHOP Martine Denoyelle

This chapter considers recent developments in the connoisseurship of South Italian vases and the impact that archaeological excavations have had on the interpretation of workshop relationships by focusing on the Amykos Painter and his associates. The universe of South Italian vase painters is complex, and mapping it clearly is difficult. Before beginning my work on the early South Italian workshops, I spent many years studying Attic pottery, especially red-figure, which seems to me essential training for understanding the application of Sir John Beazley’s methodology for the study of the style, and secondly, to be able to adapt this methodology – through the work of A. D. Trendall – to the specific phenomena of South Italian pottery. The comparison with Attic pottery is a good starting point, however, since Athens was obviously the model, both artistic and commercial, for the first generation of red-figure South Italian potters, and even influenced the later course of development of the workshops.1 When we study Attic black-figure and red-figure pottery, we see a nearly continuous phenomenon, ranging from the early Archaic until the beginning of the Hellenistic period, issued from one and only one city, Athens. The result is that, with the help of Beazley’s classifications, we can study and characterize the whole production and interpret it as a testimony of Athenian cultural or economic history. But within the panorama of ancient Greek pottery production, this long-lasting and uniform scheme is a remarkable exception, and whether in Boeotia, Laconia, North Greece, East Greece, or Magna Graecia, more often pottery production appears and disappears in a limited span, sometimes lasting only the life of a family workshop. This shows, amongst other things, that the existence of workshops is linked to the social communities for which they were working and to the needs of customers, whether religious or funerary or both. Due to its geographical and historical character, the world of Magna Graecia, where colonial cities founded by people from all parts of Greece lived side by WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

116

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

side – and sometimes together with the native Italic people – offers an atypical frame for the development of pottery workshops. Thus, study of locally made figured vases requires particular attention to specific artistic features, such as eclecticism or the tendency to adapt to foreign tastes, that make categorization more difficult. There are traps and surprises that arise each time one approaches a new vase, and even an awareness of the importance of the cultural and archaeological contexts is not always enough to avoid misunderstandings. Metaponto, where the earliest workshops in southern Italy start in the mid-fifth century B.C.E., provides an excellent demonstration of the intersection of workshops, markets, and cultural contexts. The archaeological situation at Metaponto, however, as we can see from publications of the excavations of the necropoleis,2 provides an exceptionally coherent frame for the study of the vases. Not only are we able to study the distribution of shapes and painters in the Greek necropoleis in comparison with the distribution at indigenous sites in the hinterland, but the data from the kerameikos can also be used to confirm the production site of the group of painters that A.D. Trendall had already placed together in the Lucanian section of Red-figured Vases of Lucania Campania, and Sicily on the basis of style.3 Thanks to decades of archaeological activity and connoisseurship, Metapontine red-figure vases are some of the best documented in all of Magna Graecia. We know that, even if material remains from his kiln have not been found, the Pisticci Painter is most probably the first to have produced in this area, followed by the Cyclops and Amykos Painters, who develop, from their initial work with this very Atticizing master, a different language, much more personal than and somewhat liberated from Attic influence. With about two hundred and fifty vases now attributed to his hand, the Amykos Painter, whose activity is to be dated between ca. 430 and 410 B.C.E., was called by Trendall “the most important of the early Lucanian artists.”4 His vases have been found from the Ionian coast (Metapontine territory, Policoro-Heraclea) to sites in Daunia, Peucetia, and Messapia, but they also reached Calabria and Sicily (Thourioi, Syracuse, and Camarina), Campania and Etruria (Marzabotto), and Albania (Apollonia).5 He is thought to have learned his art from the Pisticci Painter, and then developed into a period of maturity at the end of which, perhaps under Tarentine influence, he decorated vases of larger dimensions with ambitious compositions.6 His influence has been detected on several minor painters such as the Big-Head, Vaste, and Arn` o Painters (to which I shall return shortly), as well as on Metapontine painters of the next generation, such as the Dolon and Brooklyn-Budapest Painters. The identity of the painter would seem to be secure; however, the examination of his corpus on the basis of Trendall’s lists and plates, far from helping to individuate clearly this important personality, raises disturbing questions and doubts because of the heterogeneity of some stylistic features,7 many even easily distinguishable through the illustrations in LCS. Trendall’s Amykos Painter, in fact, appears to be a puzzle comprising several hands, some of them already identified as companions or followers, but some others not belonging to the workshop or

egh

117

118

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

even to the same production center. It seems worthwhile to try to demonstrate why the Amykos Painter, although seeming so familiar to our eyes, is in fact not well constructed, to show how we can reconstruct a new Amykos Painter and better define his workshop, and to suggest what consequences this may have on the study of early Metapontine red-figure production and diffusion. This approach, I should underline, does not represent a deconstruction of Trendall’s work, but a critical homage to his vast and pioneering work, in which he has set the foundation that enables us today, with the progress of archaeology, to go further. The beautiful hydria in the Cabinet des M´edailles of Paris, the name-vase of the painter (Fig. 5.1, WF 058),8 is the starting point for the discovery of the Amykos Painters’s style. On the shoulder, the scene is centered on the three-dimensional figure of the giant Amykos – particularly striking with his melancholic face in three-quarter view – attached to a rock surrounded not only by the Argonauts and Medea but also by some satyrs and maenads, who are favorite characters of the painter’s repertoire. In the lower register, satyrs circle the body of the vase in an animated procession towards the god Dionysos, who stands under the vertical handle. Viewing the whole vase allows us to appreciate the peculiar composition in two registers separated by a thick frieze of carefully drawn palmettes and lotus flowers. Several monumental hydriai of this type, all decorated following the same scheme, are by the same hand.9 He has adapted a type of composition created by Attic painters and already treated by the Pisticci Painter, but has given it a very personal flavor and has recreated it on hydriai and nestorides.10 This type of transposition is typical of the creative process of the early South Italian painters, and it has a precise purpose. Although mythological or narrative scenes are rare in the work of the Amykos Painter, his two most personal and elaborate ones – the capture of Amykos and the suicide of Kanake – decorate the shoulders of tworegister hydriai. As for the figure style, his round heads, slender-bodied satyrs, and the peculiar arrangement of women or old men’s drapery, with a hand on the hip and the arm covered by the drape, are typical. On the shoulder of the name-vase hydria, the pilot of the ship Argo near the Boreades also has a very typical stance for the painter, adapted from the Polycleitan canon but with the arms too long and both feet flat on the ground. That the Amykos Painter is a Metapontine craftsman is confirmed by finds from the Metaponto kerameikos; the fragments of a hydria with two registers show in its friezes very similar features to those on the back of the name-vase and the same palmette at the root of the vertical handle.11 The scene on the body shows youths pursuing women, a theme that recurs on some of the painter’s bell kraters. The proximity to the Amykos hydria was noted by the first editor of the fragments, Francesco D’Andria. On the basis of the characteristic features of these two vases, one can refine the identification of the painter’s style and figurative repertoire with a nucleus of closely associated vases. He decorates kraters and medium size vases, such as hydriai, pelikai, and amphorai, as well as choes and skyphoi. In terms of quantity, his favorite shape is the bell krater, very often decorated with silens and maenads, with “genre scenes” involving youths, women, or warriors, or with athletes in the company of draped women, the so-called “Palaestra Group.”

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

5.1. Hydria, Amykos Painter. Paris, Cabinet des M´edailles 442 (courtesy of the Biblioth`eque Nationale de France).

The general aspect of these figural encounters is very repetitive, often involving draped women shown in profile and nude youths shown in three-quarter view, one or the other holding a strigil or aryballos; but their apparent banality must not obscure the fact that this is a type of visual language very different from that of the Attic model. The coarse type of draped women seen in full profile, for instance, would be, from an Attic perspective, used only on the B side of some vases,12 although here they are like the female equivalent of the traditional draped youths, the drawing of the folds and borders being nearly the same (as well demonstrated on Fig. 5.2, WF 059). When one has become familiar with these workshops, one sees that this is far from being a misunderstanding of Attic practices or of the value of such stock figures; early South Italian painters knew well the traditions of Attic red-figure, and particularly in Metaponto the workshops had a strong tradition of Atticizing imitations. Instead, as will be the case with the highly codified series

egh

119

120

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

5.2. Bell krater, Amykos Painter. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 81453 (courtesy Laboratorio Fotografico della Soprintendenza archeological di Napoli e Caserta).

of funerary naiskos scenes produced later in Taranto, both the technical treatment of the figures – coarse or elaborated, over-painted or in red-figure, two or threedimensional – and the accessories that they are holding contribute to the meaning of the scene. It is also interesting to note that the Amykos Painter’s draped women may hold a strigil like the men, whether they face an athlete or Eros himself, making one think that athletic excellence amongst the clients of the Metapontine workshops may not have been reserved for men only. This is an illuminating example of how the regional cultural context explains the composition of these scenes,13 and this approach merits further study but always in close relationship with the study of funerary archaeology and ideology. Returning to the style of the Amykos Painter, once we have established his main characteristics and identified the first nucleus of his work, it is worthwhile to examine Trendall’s list in detail to understand why one has difficulties finding these characteristics on some of the vases attributed to the same hand. Some of the vases – for instance, the bell krater in Naples (Fig. 5.2, WF 059) – do not raise any concerns, since they are linked independently with one or more of the features of this nucleus. A chous in the Ashmolean Museum of Oxford (Fig. 5.3, WF 060),14 where the profiles of the two youths are similar to those of some figures on the shoulder of the Amykos hydria, clearly illustrates the most elegant and fluid side of his drawing. It is an accurately drawn work, where the study of the louterion and the chair reveals his interest in the third dimension, rarely developed on the mass of his vases but present also on the Amykos hydria. A nestoris once in Boston and now in Potenza,15 which belongs to the same period as the name-vase (Fig. 10.3, WF 128), points to another dimension of the painter. It demonstrates his ability, much earlier than his Tarentine colleagues, to

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

5.3. Chous, Amykos Painter. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1965.136 (courtesy Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford).

adapt his shapes and motives to the indigenous tradition – although he was not the only one to do this at that time, as we shall see. The nestoris features, for the most part, stock figures of his repertoire but includes an indigenous warrior in his typical clothing. It is followed a little later by another type of nestoris with two registers, with the usual scenes of pursuit in the lower registers and occasionally a scene with indigenous warriors in the upper zone.16 On an example in the British Museum,17 a very unusual type of frieze appears, consisting of concentric ovals

egh

121

122

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

C The Trustees of the British 5.4. Nestoris, Amykos Painter. London, British Museum F 177 ( Museum).

separated by groups of trussed leaves (Fig. 5.4, WF 061), which is improperly called a rope pattern by Gisela Schneider-Herrmann in her study on the Apulian and Lucanian nestorides.18 The concept of the design is totally alien to the language of Greek red-figured vases. It occurs three other times during the period,19 notably on a nestoris by the Dolon Painter also from Metaponto about thirty years later. It is obviously an element borrowed from Messapian and Peucetian motifs; the concentric circle isolated or linked in a frieze is part of the traditional repertoire of indigenous matt-painted pottery.20 A hydria from Canosa in Bari with two registers is the last example of a vase that should be considered strictly by the hand of the Amykos Painter. On the shoulder appears the suicide of a heroine, perhaps inspired by the story of Kanake, related by Euripides in his lost tragedy, Aiolos.21 Again there is a characteristic treatment of the main figure, a dying woman lying on a bed with a sword in her hand, whose three-dimensional aspect makes one think of a sculptural model.

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

5.5. Column krater, Amykos Painter. Altenburg, Lindenau Museum 276 (Staatliche Lindenau Museum).

The comparison of the Canosa hydria group with some other vases attributed by Trendall to the same hand shows that the distinction has not been clearly established between the Amykos Painter and the Cyclops Painter. The Cyclops Painter is an important artist of the same generation whose style evolves considerably from his earliest vases, which reflect his apprenticeship with the Pisticci Painter. On his early works, and even on later vases such as the eponymous calyx krater in the British Museum,22 the drapery of the reverse figures is still very rigid and schematic, and his figures are much more slender, with smaller heads, than the ones by the Amykos Painter, from whom he is easily distinguishable. But at a time when he probably began to collaborate with this master, his whole style softened and the influence of the Amykos Painter is revealed by many small details, such as the heads that become more round, the poses, and the drapery. Nevertheless, differences remain, particularly the treatment of the buttocks, well marked, or the typical triangular shape of the right arm under the mantle of some draped figures (Fig. 5.5, WF 062). These features are repeated and developed on a group of vases all attributed to the Amykos Painter, which include column kraters, bell kraters, nestorides, and pelikai and demonstrate that one has obviously to move toward the Cyclops Painter’s corpus. It might be appropriate to name it the “Altenburg Group,” from the location of the very typical column krater in Fig. 5.5, WF 062).23 It is thus necessary, while we are removing some vases from the Amykean corpus in order to reassign them to the Cyclops Painter, to reevaluate the Altenburg Group’s role and importance in the workshop. It is not an easy task, since questions still remain about the mature phase of this painter. As already noted by Trendall,24 there is a close stylistic relationship between the Cyclops and Palermo Painters, and also between the Palermo and Amykos Painters.25 But the nature of these relationships has not been resolved for every

egh

123

124

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

vase, as, for instance, with two nestorides with very similar features, both attributed in the third supplement of LCS26 to the Amykos Painter. The one on the left may instead be placed comfortably in the “Altenburg Group,” that is, the Cyclops Painter under Amykean influence, while the other one, which points more towards the Palermo Painter, is better placed among his works. I shall not dwell here on a sense I have had for years that the Cyclops and Palermo Painters are but one individual at two different times, because it would take too long to demonstrate. For the moment it will suffice to work on clarifying their distinctive visual language, style, and production patterns in order to go on tracking the Amykos Painter. Finally, one of the vases that contributes most to confusion over the Amykos Painter is one of his most famous, the volute krater in Ruvo with the representation of Phineus and the Argonauts (Fig. 5.6, WF 063), that Trendall places in LCS among “the Late vases,” commenting: “this is the most ambitious, but not the most successful vase of the painter.”27 As I have already noted several times elswehere, and my opinion is shared, I think, by other scholars,28 this krater is in no way an Amykean work, not even, I think, a Metapontine work, but it belongs to the first Tarentine phase of the Ornate Style. At the least, it is linked with some small vases of the Reggio Group found in the Taranto necropolis and with the Policoro Painter. But it is worth understanding why it has been placed in the Amykos painter’s “Late vases,” a section that includes, by the way, several vases that are to be reattributed to Amykean followers. The attribution is not Trendall’s, but by No¨el Moon-Oakeshott in her 1929 article on the early South Italian vase-painters, although Trendall mentions this nowhere in his commentary.29 In this article, she attempts to create groups of painters on the basis of style. She was a pupil of Beazley, and she gave names to several early South Italian red-figure painters with a list of vases for every painter. Her list of vases attributed to the Amykos Painter shows already a mixing with works by the Cyclops and Palermo Painters. On the Ruvo krater she offers this commentary: “[the Amykos Painter] could indeed rise above mediocrity, for he painted also the well-known volute krater with Phineus and the Harpies, though even there we do not escape mean little faces and constricted joints.” This statement fits closely with the idea expressed later by Trendall: “an ambitious vase, but even so, not successful.” In this case, the reason Trendall failed to place the Ruvo krater correctly may be because he had not questioned the previous attribution. In fact he had not himself constructed the Amykos Painter, but had proceeded like a sculptor, by removing material, but without touching the core of the painter.30 Trendall’s approach to the Amykos Painter may be owed to an implicit respect for Beazley, through his pupil. The processes of connoisseurship are as much based on psychological environment as on the agency of eyes. However, one can confidently place the krater elsewhere: first, because this shape is not typical for this workshop, being exceptional for all of Metapontine production,31 and especially so with its rare type with imitation metal handles; second, because the disposition of the figures on different levels and the notations of landscape are also alien to Metapontine production of this time.

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

5.6. Volute krater, Amykos Painter. Ruvo, Jatta Museum 1095.

The next problem has to do with the pupils and followers of the Amykos Painter. The importance of the Amykos Painter as a workshop master and as creator of styles is greatly enhanced if one also adds the painters of a series of misattributed vases that show various stages of apprenticeship or imitations of his work to the few followers identified by Trendall. First comes the BrooklynBudapest Painter, who obviously began his career in the Amykos workshop. An early but misattributed bell krater in the Pushkin Museum, where the reverse is

egh

125

126

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

essential for identifying his hand, comes from a very early stage of his career.32 Then, there is the painter of side A of the famous Karneia krater in Taranto, whose personality I have explored at length elsewhere.33 A series of bell kraters formerly attributed to the Amykos Painter show the Karneia Painter’s typical treatment of the reverse youths, which, once identified, can be related to some fragments found in the Metaponto kerameikos, confirming that he worked there too, at least for a while. Several vases must also be reattributed to the Vaste Painter, a not very gifted follower already identified by Trendall,34 in particular the well-known two-register amphora in Naples with the departure of Bellerophon. Several vases by the Arn` o Painter35 had also been misplaced among the Amykos Painter’s late vases, where Trendall described a tendency to draw “flat-face” heads. But the anatomical style of the Arn` o Painter, once identified, is very distinctive and so is the drawing of his faces. A last hand, not previously identified although it has a few affinities with the so-called Big Head Painter, is to be found on an amphora in Naples (Fig. 5.7, WF 064) and on a few bell kraters.36 It seems to be a rustic pupil, but he closely followed the models established by the workshop master. So, to attribute or unattribute misplaced vases is a very satisfying activity when supported by various types of cross-checked evidence, but some results may appear fragile, and furthermore, there is a point where the question arises: how should one best organize these observations in order to transmit them usefully to the research community? In other words, and this is the question already raised in a 2001 symposium in Naples, how do we construct the post-Trendall era? How to replace, or rather update, Trendall’s enormous work? Isn’t this work, despite its inevitable weaknesses, a more stable support for scholars and students than a series of articles and papers in which the painters are redesigned, the vases reassigned? An archaeologist who finds some South Italian vases in an excavation would surely prefer to consult the volumes of RVAp or LCS in the nearby university library to try classifying them rather than collect various updates in symposia papers or periodicals. This is a real methodological problem inherent to the practice of connoisseurship, all the more when it tries to be tuned into other fields of archaeology. Redesigning a workshop and emphasizing the diffusion of its products might be important for archaeological discussions of production and the study of commercial exchange and roads. In that case, for instance, we would be able to see better how many painters were trained in the span of about 20 years in this Metapontine workshop, and how some peculiar types of shapes and iconography were created and diffused. Reassessment will lead indeed to more structured information on the role played by the workshop and not only, as Trendall noted, in the development of Lucanian red-figure but also, in my opinion, in the location of red-figure workshops in various places of Magna Graecia and beyond. We have seen, for instance, that there were some Etruscan provenances for the Amykean vases; in fact, this is mostly true for the Arn` o Painter, whose identification with the Etruscan Perugia Painter, which I have attempted to demonstrate in a recent article, leads to the proposition that the first red-figure workshops in Etruria may have been created

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

5.7. Pseudopanathenaic amphora, Amykos Painter. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 82264 (courtesy of the Ministero per I Beni e le Attivit`a Culturali – Soprintendenza Speciale per I beni archeologici de Napoli e Pompei).

by craftsmen trained in the colonies of the Ionian coast, and in this case, probably Metaponto.37 A similar situation is worth exploring for the birth of some western workshops, such the Locri Group, or for some Sicilian Painters, such as the mysterious

egh

127

128

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Santapaola Painter, whose one calyx krater was found in Lipari (WF 065).38 There are some striking stylistic links with the painter of the amphora in Naples (Fig. 5.7, WF 064), and even if one cannot confirm an attribution, the similarities clearly imply an artistic exchange between the two. This kind of investigation helps us to explain that – as I have tried to suggest in a recent Convegno of Taranto39 – the birth of red-figure workshops in Magna Graecia and elsewhere is not to be reduced to an Athenian setting up a workshop here or there, as was thought for a long time. It is much more complex and involves internal phenomena and transfers, as for instance the training role of some distinctive workshops. I speak here only of Metaponto because at this period it is the most obvious case, but Taranto or Paestum must have also been first rank schools for “foreign” vase-painters. At the end of the fifth century B.C.E., the Amykos Painter’s workshop in Metaponto with its productivity, its technical quality, its adaptability, its large diffusion, and the number of painters that had been trained there may well have been one of the main sources from which redfigure spread. This would explain some Amykean qualities in various regional workshops, at first sight totally independent from Metaponto. So to reduce the Amykos Painter’s corpus is not to deprive him of his importance; on the contrary, it is to make it clearer. But as no one today is able to devote, as Trendall did, an entire life to South Italian workshops, it would be worthwhile to form an international collaboration for all those who work on this subject. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Cf. Denoyelle 2008; Lippolis 2008b; Mannino 2008; Mugione 2008. D’Andria 1980; Silvestrelli 1996; Carter 1998b; Cracolici 2003. LCS 81–106; LCS Supp. 3, 33–4. Trendall 1989, 20; Cf Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 105–6. LCS Supp. 2, 157, 247a. LCS 47–9. Cf. Jirc`ık 1990, 61: “the development of the Amykos painter as an artist is puzzling in many respects.” CabM´ed. 442; LCS 1/136, pl. 12, 1–2. LCS 1/137; 1/221–223; Taranto inv. 76084, from Botromagno tomb 2 (Lippolis 1996a, 407, 347.11). Cf. Oakley 1984; for a two- row calyx krater by his hand, cf. the fragments LCS Supp. 3, 13, 135c, with satyrs and maenads in the upper row, and youths pursuing women in the lower. D’Andria 1975, fig. 79; LCS Supp. 2, 12, n° 136a. Or on cups and small vases, but not on kraters. S¨ oldner 2007 for an interpretation. Cf. also Fontannaz 2005, 137, note 68. Oxford 1965.136; LCS 42, n° 191, pl. 15, 6. LCS Supp. 2, 156, n° 137b, pl. XXX, 1; Schneider Herrmann 1980, fig. 43; Godart and DeCaro 2007, n° 48. Louvre K 539; Schneider Herrmann 1980, fig. 45; CVA, Louvre, 25, pl. 9–11. LCS 1/216, pl. 17, 2; Schneider Herrmann 1980, fig. 48. Schneider Herrmann 1980, 52. For Trendall, LCS 103, this term instead is used to describe a frieze of short oblique strokes, typical for the Dolon Painter.

Hands at Work in Magna Graecia

19. On the neck of the Apulian volute krater by the Sisyphus Painter in Ruvo, RVAp 1/52, pl. 5, 1; on the nestoris Richmond 81.71, LCS Supp. 3, 15, 188a, pl. II, 2–4; on the nestoris in the British Museum F 176, LCS 103, n° 540; Schneider Herrmann 1980, fig. 48 by the Dolon Painter. 20. Especially in Messapia, cf. Yntema 1990, fig. 50, 24, and 80. 21. LCS 1/221, pl. 18. 22. LCS 1/85, pl. 8, 1–2; Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 102–4. 23. Altenburg, Staatliche Lindenau Museum 276 ; LCS 1/176. 24. LCS 52. 25. LCS 51–52. 26. LCS Supp. 3, 390, n° 188a, pl. II, 2–4 and 188b. 27. LCS 1/243, pl. 19. 28. Denoyelle 2002b, 589, note 6; Denoyelle 2008, 344; Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 124; cf. also Jircik 1990, 45–51. 29. Moon 1929, 30–49; Trendall knew this study very well, and he quotes it as “important,” for instance, in AJA 66 (1962) 350. 30. Cf. McPhee 1998, 505. 31. LCS 48. 32. LCS 1/119; CVA, Moscow, Pushkin Museum, 3, pl. 1. 33. Denoyelle 2002b. 34. LCS 60–1. 35. Denoyelle 1993. 36. Naples 82264; LCS 1/246, pl. 20, 1 (Amykos Painter, late vases); bell kraters: cf., for instance, Sotheby’s New York, Sale cat., Dec. 14, 1993, n° 80. 37. Denoyelle 1993. 38. Bernab` o Brea and Cavalier 1997, 12–13, fig. 1. 39. Denoyelle 2008.

egh

129

PART III

POTTERY IN CONTEXT: ITALIC SITES Bice Peruzzi

The four papers in this section analyze the presence of Apulian red-figure pottery in funerary contexts among the three “archaeological cultures” of Apulia: Daunia (Corrente), Peucetia (Ciancio, Riccardi), and Messapia (Giannotta). Because of the continuity of life in this region many ancient settlements and sanctuaries still remain buried underneath modern towns, so the most numerous and best preserved examples of Apulian red-figure come from necropoleis. Moreover, the Apulian populations did not leave any written accounts, and we have to turn to archaeology to investigate their society and culture. Burials, with their emphasis on social stratification and classifications for age, gender, and status, provide excellent evidence to address cultural questions. For example, the three tombs analyzed by Marisa Corrente in her paper can be used as a case study to illustrate the creation of a social hierarchy in Canosa during the fourth century B.C.E. Artifacts could be used to communicate emotional states, group affiliations, rank, ownership and authorship, and religious and political beliefs to the rest of the community. In other words, a specific form of tomb, a funerary ritual, or the inclusion of specific items in the assemblage of grave goods could be interpreted as the material signal of the deceased’s affiliation with a particular social group or his or her adherence to specific values or customs.1 The intent to transmit a message becomes even clearer when we consider redfigure pots. While sometimes still obscure to us, the iconography of these vases must have projected a message that the ancient Italic population understood. As Franc¸ois Lissarrague noted in 1987, images are not isolated entities, but rather the product of a precise cultural system: the iconographic codes that regulated these representations must have been known by the painter and the public, and it is this shared iconographic knowledge that made the images understandable and meaningful for both producer and consumer alike.2 Moreover, Apulian red-figure vases were made largely for the local market and for local tastes; this argues for a very strong connection between iconography and public, especially compared to Attic wares that were exported all around the Mediterranean. We must not forget, however, that objects in a tomb have been intentionally placed there by 131

132

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

someone during funerary rituals. Clothes, ornaments, and other grave goods are used as strategic representations of the deceased’s personality, but, as they are usually chosen specifically by the survivors, they communicate the mourners’ “interpretation of the dead person’s former self-representation.”3 The four papers that follow illustrate the variability of burial practices in the different areas of Apulia. Tombs in all three regions seem to have received a standard pottery assemblage made up of a combination of indigenous forms and shapes adopted from the Greek tradition. The number, shapes, and iconographies of the vases included in the tombs, however, seem to be different from north to south. Apulian red-figure vases seem to occur almost exclusively in a repertoire that can be found in the Greek drinking set; this has been used by all authors as evidence of the occupant’s participation in communal feasting, and perhaps in a drinking ritual that echoed the Greek symposium. Although these four papers present only a selected number of tombs, their results are very encouraging. As Angela Ciancio notes, interest in the archaeology of Apulia has been sparked only in the last few decades, and most of the final publications of the main necropoleis have appeared only in the last ten years.4 We hope this marks the beginning of a new and exciting era of Apulian archaeology, and that the recovery of new data (or new interpretations of existing material) will allow material culture to give voice to the Italic populations, illuminating the broader questions of the relationship between material culture and the construction of Daunian, Peucetian, and Messapian identities. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Wobst 1977, 323, 327–8. Lissarrague 1987, 268–9. Parker Pearson 2000, 9. For example, Monatanaro 2007; De Juliis 2007b; some sites still await complete publications, as at Rutigliano where only 100 of the tombs have been published so far.

CHAPTER SIX

APULIAN AND LUCANIAN POTTERY FROM COASTAL PEUCETIAN CONTEXTS Ada Riccardi

In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of figuredecorated vases known to have been found at Peucetian sites. This rise is due in part to the accumulation of new finds that have come to light in the course of systematic excavations but primarily through the practice of “preventive archaeology” implemented for decades in several areas of the province of Bari known for their high archaeological value. Additionally, many of the new provenances have arisen from work carried out in the storerooms of the Soprintendenza. The goals of such work have been the recovery of previously excavated archaeological contexts, as well as the restoration and documentation of finds that have long been neglected, and the work continues. The organizing principle of this work is topographic, particularly in the case of those settlements that have yielded an enormous number of funerary contexts. The analysis of this material could only take shape in the wake of an exhaustive, diachronic survey of the documented artifacts.1 Limiting the scope of investigation to the sites that lie in the coastal zone north of the Murge we can nonetheless find a wealth of material of great interest, in terms of its quality, its function, and its significance in the funerary sphere. The role of the material in burial assemblages offers a direct reflection of the community’s ideological heritage, its social structure, its productivity, and its commercial relationships. An emblematic example can be found in material from the settlement that extends into the modern city of Turi, southeast of Bari, positioned roughly equidistant from the better known centers of Rutigliano and Monte Sannace. The finds in this area have arisen primarily from urban rescue excavations linked to the expansion of the modern settlement; they have been concentrated particularly in the southeastern zone of the city, which has yielded habitation layers from the First Iron Age to the Archaic period, roughly fifty burials datable between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C.E., and remains of domestic structures from the Classical period.2 WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

133

134

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The presence of imported material is rather limited in the burial assemblages, with vases of local and colonial production tending to predominate. Red-figure pottery is attested in a somewhat meager number of contexts, uncovered primarily in a settlement zone on via Castellana Grotte, investigated 1990–1991.3 Of the tombs unearthed at the site, only three contained figured vases. Among these, Tomb 4 has yielded new and interesting examples of Early South Italian red-figure. The tomb on via Castellana Grotte, which contained a male burial of some importance, is of the sarcophagus type, its walls painted red, and with an external storage compartment (ripostiglio) near its southern end. This compartment contained an early Lucanian bell krater attributed to the Amykos Painter with a courtship scene on its obverse and three draped youths on its reverse (WF 066a).4 In the courtship scene (Fig. 6.1, WF 066b), a nude youth, leaning on a spear, looks to the right toward a woman who holds onto a long leafy branch fixed in the soil. Between them an Eros facing the woman bursts into the scene. His pose is quite unusual, with wings joined behind the shoulders, arms held back, fingers fanned out, and legs raised and flexed behind him. Stylistically, the drawing is quite consistent with works attributed to the hand of the master himself. A typical feature is the mode of rendering the male anatomy and the hair, consisting of a compact mass from which sprouts a dense series of ringlets disposed along the cheeks and the nape.5 The features of the woman and her hair, gathered in a knot at the back of the head (chignon) and held back by a hairband with a dotted border, are wholly analogous to the female figure represented on a krater in the Museo Civico of Barletta,6 while the position of the left arm and the drawing of the drapery find parallels in the women depicted on a skyphos and a krater attributed to the Amykos Painter.7 The pose of the young warrior recalls an analogous male figure depicted in mirror image on a pelike in the British Museum,8 while the body of the Eros, characterized by an accentuated plasticity and by an accurate rendering of musculature, assumes a particular dynamism in contrast to the static poses of the two flanking figures. These latter figures can be situated within the repertory of images utilized by the Amykos Painter in scenes of various subjects, depicted primarily on bell kraters. The figure of Eros appears often in such scenes, in equally standardized poses – quite distinct from the image on the krater from Turi, which seems to be connected to the master’s more mature work. More complex scenes appear on his monumental vases,9 with figures viewed from various perspectives, in bold poses, and characterized by a greater degree of dynamism, such as the pose encountered in the Eros of Tomb 4, designed to highlight the startling speed of the god’s intervention, sealing the union between man and woman. Two large Early Apulian skyphoi were included in the same burial assemblage with the krater. On the first, the same scene of conversation between two youths is repeated on both sides, which are nearly identical (WF 067).10 Suspended in the background are a strigil, a sponge, and perhaps an aryballos, which allude to the setting of the palaistra. Similar scenes, composed of men in conversation, recur often in Attic vase painting, and it is from these that the vast series of draped youths reproduced

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

6.1. Bell krater by the Amykos Painter from Turi. Bari, inv. 43798 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia, storeroom).

by Apulian and Lucanian painters are descended. In the example from Turi, the attempt to follow Greek prototypes is clear from the selection of the vegetal motifs that constituted the accesory decoration, to the rendering of the faces, to the positioning of the figure to the right – drawn directly from Attic models and reproduced faithfully by the “pioneers” of the Apulian school.11 A different and less capable hand was responsible for the second skyphos, which presents on side A the figure of an athlete with his head depicted in profile and his body in three-quarter view (Fig. 6.2, WF 068).12 His powerful legs are parted, his left arm is outstretched, while his right arm is held back, and he grips a strigil in his hand. The summary execution of the musculature and the face reappears in the depiction of the draped youth on side B. The man is viewed from an angle with his face in profile to the left. His right arm, which he uses to lean on a short staff, emerges from his himation. Under the handles appear decorative schemes that are oddly irregular: the palmette within a lyre with flanking leaves painted on one side is reproduced on the opposite side in different dimensions, with the addition of a decorative element that was only roughly sketched. A few examples of locally produced vases were found with the three figured vases together with fifteen or so black-gloss vases that mimic shapes of Attic

egh

135

136

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

6.2. Early Apulian skyphos from Turi. Bari, inv. 43800 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia, storeroom).

origin and were circulated primarily during the period c. 425–375 B.C.E. A bronze strigil was found in the ripostiglio together with the pottery, while the sarcophagus itself contained an iron lancehead and a bronze patera of the type with a handle terminating in the protome of a goose, previously documented in contexts of the fifth century B.C.E., primarily at Rutigliano (Fig. 6.3, WF 069, 70).13 The significance of this burial is remarkable in light of the discoveries yielded by Turi up to this point. First, this was the only sarcophagus tomb found in the entire excavated zone. Moreover, among the sarcophagus tombs found in other zones at Turi, this tomb represents the only painted example and the only one equipped with a ripostiglio, which serves to link the tomb typologically to the more opulent burials uncovered in the nearby necropolis of Rutigliano–Purgatorio.14 The markedly masculine character of the assemblage helps to define the deceased as a member of a conspicuous indigenous group that has adopted ideologies and behaviors of hellenic origin – foremost among them participation in the symposion. The reference to athletic activity, which is substantiated by the inclusion of the strigil, is reinforced in the scenes painted on the two skyphoi, while affiliation with a military class, indicated by the lance that accompanied the deceased, is also expressed through the figure of the young warrior painted on the krater. In this funerary assemblage – not particularly rich compared to other elite indigenous assemblages – the three figured vases that came from different production zones document an infrequent association between a principal vase of Early Lucanian production and Early Apulian examples of lesser importance. This circumstance demonstrates the ability of the Peucetian elite to tap into different sources of supply and to effect conscious selections, adapted to the economic prosperity and the cultural values of every single patron. The bell krater selected for the warrior of Turi, though situated by its form and subject within the mid-level productions of the Amykos workshop, is noteworthy

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

6.3. Funerary assemblage from Turi. Bari, inv. 43799 in tomb group (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

because of the insertion in its principal scene of a figure of Eros that was foreign to the usual run of iconographic schemes. The two skyphoi belong, in contrast, to lower-quality production, which in the Early Apulian workshops were linked to works of higher quality that were executed by the master painters and aimed at a more exacting and culturally elevated market.15 Between the end of the fifth century B.C.E. and the beginning of the fourth, the settlement of Turi, which had already assumed a certain degree of importance in the Archaic period,16 appears to have been integrated, on a par with better known Peucetian settlements,17 in the commercial networks through which indigenous clients were able to acquire figured pottery produced in the colonies of the Ionian coast. These were the same networks that transmitted the majority of the blackgloss pottery found in funerary contexts. Within the span of a few years, in the first half of the fourth century B.C.E., the occurrences of figured pottery at the settlement seem to undergo a drastic reduction, a development that corresponds to a general decrease in the quantity

egh

137

138

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

of burial evidence throughout the century. Only 10% of the burials uncovered during the course of controlled excavations date to this period, and of these only three have yielded red-figure pottery. In the settlement zone of Via Castellana, in a child-burial of the initial decades of the fourth century B.C.E. (Tomb 3), twelve indigenous and black-gloss vases were uncovered, along with a single figured example (WF 071), a small two-handled cup with owls on both sides,18 of a type well documented in Peucetian contexts, alongside the more common owl skyphoi.19 The remaining examples are Late Apulian. Tomb 2, found in the same area, contained a child’s-assemblage of the last quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. that included three figured vases of small dimensions (WF 072). The skyphos and the two lekanis lids decorated with female heads are stylistically related to the productions of painters linked to the activity of the Darius and Underworld Painters,20 with the closest parallels to be found in the TPS and Winterthur Groups.21 The examples can be situated, in any case, within the vast serial production that, as Trendall noted, is difficult to assign to well-defined spheres of production on the basis of its own characteristics, including repetitiveness of iconographic themes and mediocre quality of execution. Similar evidence comes from one last funerary assemblage – the only one of importance among the fourth century B.C.E. burials of the necropolis, found by chance in 1977 on Via Castellana (Tomb 1) in a plot adjacent to the site investigated during the 1990s (WF 073). In this case the percentage of red-figure vases seems high compared to that of other types of pottery. In addition to the large vases with figured scenes (krater and hydria), the tomb yielded plates, lekanides, and other small vases, mostly repetitive in their forms and completely homogeneous in their iconography. The composition of the assemblage is typical of contexts of the last quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. Two single examples of traditional indigenous wares and a mesomphalic patera with plastic decoration are accompanied by the usual black-gloss shapes, two Gnathia vases, and four net-lekythoi of varying forms and quality of execution. Among the red-figure vases, the krater and the hydria are both related to the activity of the Patera Painter. The krater’s primary side presents a prenuptial scene of an exchange of gifts.22 To the left a standing woman, richly adorned and wearing a chiton, holds in her right hand a long leafy branch, offering with her left hand a wreath to a seated youth. The youth, naked, sits on a himation while offering the woman a patera and holding a branch with berries in his left hand. A second branch, sprouting from the soil, separates the two figures, while other vegetal elements, a patera, and three suspended fillets occupy the remaining fields.23 The reverse of the krater depicts two draped youths, one of whom offers a wreath to the other, who leans on a staff.24 On the hydria the same iconographic theme is rendered with more accuracy and greater dynamism.25 The running woman with the long fluttering chiton, who holds a patera in her right hand, looks back toward the youth to whom

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

she offers an open cista with fluttering fillets. The youth advances toward her, holding a branch with his left hand and a situla in his right.26 The two examples fall within the less careful production of the Patera Painter, an artist to whom Trendall attributed a considerable number of vases; the majority of these vases with known provenance have been found in Peucetia.27 Alongside the large vases were two plates decorated with female heads, the appearance of which – individually or in pairs – seems to be a constant in Peucetian burial assemblages of the late fourth century B.C.E.28 Both the plates and the other smaller, similarly decorated vases can be attributed to artists linked to the activity of the Gioia del Colle Painter and of the circle of the Darius and Underworld Painters, which Trendall divided into numerous groups and subgroups on the basis of stylistic considerations. Among the examples from Turi, one of the plates exhibits characteristics similar to those found on vases attributed to the Chur Painter, though the drawing is not far removed from other examples attributed to the Chevron and TPS Groups.29 Two skyphoi belonging to this last group, from the assemblage of Tomb 188 of Salapia,30 appear to have been executed by the same hand that decorated the second plate of Tomb 1/1977.31 The tomb’s other small vases show similar affinities with the TPS Group,32 except for one of the lekanides,33 which exhibits closer links with vases attributed to the Group of B.M. F 465 and Winterthur Group.34 Leaving to one side Trendall’s subdivisions, which were often created on the basis of rather insignificant criteria, the examples decorated with female heads can be situated within a broad vein of production, whose market extended to other settlements of the same general area, above all in the territory of Rutigliano.35 The krater and the hydria can be linked to the activity of a different workshop of the same period, whose products appear to be more concentrated in the centers of northern Peucetia. Without any doubt the presence in this one context of examples assigned to different workshops is completely understandable in a time characterized by a marked increase in contacts and in the circulation of goods. This same evidence leads one to believe, however, that the selection of objects for burial was conscious and careful in the case of the two most representative vases, while based more on accessible supply lines in the case of the lesser vases. A further consideration regarding the vases attested at Turi concerns the iconographic selection. To date there is no evidence of funerary scenes or scenes with mythological or literary themes. “Genre” scenes and erotic scenes seem to have met the demands of a local clientele, that was not very culturally advanced, and which adapted to the offerings of an industry that was becoming more and more standardized in its production, preferring undemanding or serially produced subjects. Shifting the focus to the settlements further north, the site of Ruvo has, without any doubt, yielded some of the richest and most valuable evidence for red-figure pottery in Peucetia. The majority of this evidence has no archaeological context, having emerged from nineteenth century excavations and entered – in the luckier cases – well known collections that remain intact today.36 In addition to the enormous number of decontextualized vases from Ruvo, several intact funerary

egh

139

140

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

6.4. Funerary assemblage from Ruvo, Tomb A. Bitonto, Museo Archeologico della Fondazione De Palo – Ungaro.

assemblages have recently been recovered. Thanks to these it is now possible to go beyond the level of mere stylistic analysis of the figured finds, and to evaluate their function and significance in relation to other associated artifacts, to contemporary trends in production, or to the specific characteristics of their owners.37 One recently published tomb from Ruvo (Tomb A) offers several points to consider in this regard.38 The fossa grave contained a young warrior in supine position with three cups intentionally placed on his body near the pelvis and the remaining elements disposed around it.39 The singularity of this burial rite – never attested in the Peucetian necropoleis of the Archaic and Classical periods – and the results of the anthropological analyses lead one to suspect that this is a high-ranking individual of Samnite origin, buried, however, in a marginal area to the south of the ancient settlement, near the road that leads to Gravina. The Samnites were another Italic culture whose homeland lay in central Italy to the north of Daunia. The assemblage (Fig. 6.4, WF 074) includes several metal objects that allude to the gender and military rank of the deceased (strigil, lance), as well as to the preparation and consumption of food (grater, spit, knives). The ceramic service included a few vases of indigenous production (banded ware, stile misto, cooking ware) and numerous black-gloss examples, dated primarily between the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth centuries B.C.E. The outstanding element of the assemblage is a bell krater by the Amykos Painter with a pursuit scene

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

6.5. Bell krater by the Amykos Painter from Ruvo. Bitonto, Museo Archeologico. Bari inv. 38321 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

composed of three figures – one male, at center, and two females fleeing from him (Fig. 6.5, WF 075).40 The drawing of the anatomy, hair, and drapery is typical of the more ordinary output of the master, in which undemanding themes and compositions tending toward symmetry are repeated, particularly accentuated in this case by the exaggerated extensions towards the center of the garments and the female limbs. In addition to the krater, the burial included two other figured vases: an Attic red-figure lekythos of the late fifth century B.C.E. and a local imitation of an Attic black-figure cup.41 A female profile head has been sketched in the tondo of the cup (Fig. 6.6, WF 076), the work of an artist of limited experience, probably the same hand responsible for the similar depiction found on a cup from Gravina– Botromagno – also associated with Attic pottery and a krater by the Amkyos Painter.42 The provenances of the two black-figure examples – Ruvo and Gravina – seem to be very significant when one considers the known presence of Samnite peoples in the territory of Gravina alongside the topographical and anthropological data of the Ruvo tomb. This scenario also provides further evidence for the existence of contacts and exchanges between the two Peucetian settlements, even

egh

141

142

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

6.6. Local imitation of an Attic black-figure cup from Ruvo. Bitonto, Museo Archeologico. Bari inv. 38331. (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

if it is not possible to identify with absolute certainty the workshop location of these two highly singular vases. On the other hand, with respect to the diffusion of Early Lucanian pottery, it seems entirely plausible that the territory of Gravina, which has yielded various products of the Amykos workshop, had acted as an intermediary between the area of Metapontine production and northern Peucetia, a sphere in which Ruvo must have assumed the role of primary market. Ruvo seems to maintain this primary role in the following decades, when the Peucetian market is permeated by vases produced at Metaponto by the second generation of Lucanian artists.43 A new find relative to this phase comes from the burial assemblage of Tomb 1/1993 found on the eastern periphery of Ruvo within a settlement zone of the Hellenistic period. The tomb, of the sarcophagus type, was reused several times and was partially disturbed by the construction of a more recent house. Two inhumations were found inside the tomb, one anatomically intact and the other pushed toward one end, while the remains of another individual were found outside the sarcophagus; a bronze strigil found nearby in a higher layer could perhaps belong to them. The vases of the assemblage are chronologically heterogeneous, and their placement within the sarcophagus does not permit secure associations with the individual inhumations (Fig. 6.7, WF 077). The only red-figure example is a bell krater by the Anabates Painter depicting a cavalryman, armed with spear and shield, who advances toward a Nike, arriving in flight to crown him (Fig. 6.8, WF 078).44 Scenes

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

6.7. Funerary assemblage from Ruvo, Tomb 1/1993 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia, Bari, storeroom).

featuring the crowning of victors recur with some frequency in vases attributed to this painter, executed in a highly personal style that is easily recognized in the krater from Ruvo, which can be attributed to his hand beyond doubt. Diagnostic elements can be found in the drawing of the horseman and his horse, and in the presence of the Ionic column at the margin of the scene.45 The same can be said of the Nike figure and the rendering of her face, hair, and drapery,46 even though in the Ruvo example the disposition of the figure – particularly of the wings – seems to have been dictated by the need to make the most of the remaining surface of the vase, which is occupied primarily by the cavalryman. The red-figure krater, datable to the first decades of the fourth century B.C.E., was accompanied by plain, banded, and glazed wares, with shapes appearing at times in duplicate or triplicate with only slight morphological variations. The majority of these can be situated within the products circulating between the middle of the fourth and the beginning of the third centuries B.C.E.,47 and it is to this period that the depositions of the two individuals inside the tomb should be dated. The krater must be related to the first deposition – the one found outside the tomb – and perhaps also the strigil and a large banded lid. This last artifact has no clear link with the surviving ceramic assemblage; it was probably connected with a vase that was removed from the burial site at some point after the original deposition. The association of this assemblage with a male burial is

egh

143

144

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

6.8. Bell krater by the Anabates Painter from Ruvo. Bari, inv. 57884 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia, storeroom).

strongly suggested by the scene painted on the krater, which alludes to the military status of the deceased, celebrating his deeds and his victories in battle. The strong symbolic content of the vase must not have been lost on the later users of the tomb, inducing them to reutilize the krater as the principal element in the more recent assemblages – an element through which membership of the highest social class could be affirmed (or perhaps flaunted). In any event, the presence of the krater by the Anabates Painter in the original context reflects the desire of the Peucetian elites to furnish themselves with “prestige” vases – works of accomplished artists – perhaps tapping into the Metapontine workshops to a greater extent than has been previously recognized. Recent studies and finds, mainly in relation to the vases by artists of the second generation, have led to the identification of further examples, such as the recently published krater by the Creusa Painter from Tomb 29/1978 of Rutigliano (WF 079).48 This information offers the potential for a reevaluation of the number of examples and of the range of diffusion of these artifacts in Peucetia. At Ruvo, however, for the same chronological period we lack new evidence for Apulian red-figure pottery. Recent excavations have yielded only Late Apulian examples, one of which is part of the assemblage of Tomb 2/1997, found at the western edge of the habitation zone (WF 080).49 The grave, of sarcophagus type, contained the remains of an adult in a poor state of preservation, next to

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

6.9. Bell krater from the Chevron Group from Ruvo (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia, storeroom).

which were found some iron fibulae. The ceramic assemblage, quite extensive, seems again not to be chronologically homogeneous. The majority of the vases are concentrated in the last three decades of the fourth century B.C.E.; however, there are also pieces datable between the end of the fifth and the middle of the fourth centuries B.C.E., such as an imitation Corinthian kothon, the Attic-type skyphoi, and black-gloss cups. The oldest examples could belong to an earlier deposition, the presence of which is suggested by a bronze belt of type Suano 2b, datable to the same period, found in fragments outside the sarcophagus. This could therefore represent (yet again) a partial reuse of the original burial assemblage in a more recent funerary context, with the exclusion, in this case, of an element of great value – the bronze belt. This exclusion could have been wholly accidental, or, more probably, it could have been the result of a conscious decision, dictated by the need to adjust the new assemblage for the purposes of a female burial. The only red-figure vase found inside the sarcophagus belongs to the assemblage of this last burial – a bell krater decorated on both sides with isolated images, framed in panels with wave motifs below (Fig. 6.9, WF 081a,b). This example is associated with the production of the Chevron Group, which has been well

egh

145

146

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

documented in south-central Peucetia and the Bradano River valley.50 Side A presents a running male figure, characterized by a rather summary treatment and a poor sense of proportions. The young man has his windswept himation resting on his left arm and carries a cista and a wreath in his hands. Side B depicts a female head with thick, curly hair held by a band wound twice around it. She wears a radiate stephane, helix-shaped earrings, and a necklace with two strands, while a window and vegetal elements are depicted in the remaining field. Based on the subject and the style of the figures, the Ruvo krater shows clear affinities with various examples attributed by Trendall to different groups and subgroups.51 These groups, however, were distinguished on the basis of criteria that were often artificial, for the purpose of “systematizing” a huge number of vases that are substantially uniform in themes and quality of execution. The numerous possible attributions to such groups reveal how difficult it can be – and often how misleading it can be – to try to attribute many of the examples of this type to hands or to specific workshops, since they are indicative of a production system that was characterized by an ever-growing body of craftsmen who shared a common body of knowledge and skills. The establishment of this new “industrial” organization designed for serial production reflects the demands of a lower-middle-class market interested in acquiring figured vases “as such,” often in single examples, to be exhibited in funerary settings as an element of distinction, overlooking the quality and perhaps ignoring, in certain cases, the symbolic content of the images. The upshot of this trend was an increasingly broad diffusion of examples similar to the krater of Tomb 2/1997, decorated with isolated figures, often devoid of any specific narrative intent. These vases seem rather to have been configured as quotations from a rich and well-established repertory of images, the significance of which tends by this time to be lost. Some figured examples from the assemblage of the recently published Tomb B at Ruvo point in similar directions (WF 082).52 The tomb was a rock-cut fossa, partially damaged by agricultural activity, which contained the remains of an older warrior buried between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third centuries B.C.E. The man was wearing a bronze belt that had seen frequent repairs in antiquity, and he was furnished with three daggers, a strigil, and the usual metal cooking equipment (tripods and spits). The ceramic service, rich and articulated, includes different types of vases, largely belonging to Daunian production of the early Hellenistic period. The larger vases, which included a volute krater by the Baltimore Painter, a pair of pseudopanathenaic amphoras, and an unhandled loutrophoros, are consistent with the typical groupings of large red-figure vases often encountered in Daunia. In the case of Tomb B, however, the amphoras and the loutrophoros were executed in tempera, imitating the decorative syntax and iconographic motifs of red-figure versions of the same shapes. The use of this technique can be traced to the workshops of Arpi, active during the final decades of the fourth century B.C.E. The two gilt examples, which feature the unusual addition of red painted decoration (pelvis and patera),

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

6.10. Volute krater by the Baltimore Painter. Bitonto, Museo Archeologico. Bari, inv. 57825 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

belong also to Daunian production, as do the vases in polychrome and scialbato technique. This context features a substantial number of red-figure examples but, with the exception of the krater, they are vases of small or medium dimensions, decorated with the usual female heads, or with figures of satyrs, erotes, and women. They are the work of craftsmen linked to the activity of the Baltimore Painter and of other contemporaneous artists, who shared their skills and experience in an industrial organization that increasingly favored collaborations and exchanges.53 The presence of these vases – completely in keeping with the character of the serial production discussed earlier – corresponds to another step in the progressive exhaustion of red-figure production, a process that was marked by a drastic reduction of the dimensions of vases, as well as by an increase in the number of examples per funerary assemblage. This phenomenon arose from the goal of

egh

147

148

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

“self-celebration” that was typical of the hellenized Italic communities of the period, which led primarily to the privileging of quantity over quality. At the same time, however, in the case of Tomb B the phenomenon was expressed through the selection and inclusion of a “masterwork” – the krater of the Baltimore Painter decorated with funerary scenes (Figs. 6.10, WF 083).54 On its principal side, the vase depicts a naiskos surrounded by four individuals making offerings. Within the naiskos is a horseman, armed with a spear and wearing a short tunic held at the waist by a belt. He holds his horse by the reins. The oftrepresented theme of the “return of the warrior” is executed here in an atmosphere of accentuated serenity, while the reciprocal exchange of glances between man and animal lends a certain intensity to the scene. The depiction clearly alludes to the military status of the deceased and to the glories and victories he recorded during his lifetime. The selection of the subject represented on the krater cannot, therefore, be considered random, nor can the preference accorded to a work of the Baltimore Painter, one of the major artists of the era, whose activity can probably be placed at the neighboring settlement of Canosa. The vases of known provenance attributed to the Baltimore Painter’s workshop have been found primarily at Arpi, Canosa, and Ruvo, with rather scarce attestations in the central part of Peucetia, where, in contrast, the surviving examples are dominated by pieces in private collections. A new example, though extremely fragmentary, was found recently at Ceglie del Campo, a site that has yielded few other vases linked by Trendall to the Baltimore Painter.55 This recent find is a krater with only part of its principal side preserved. The surviving fragments reveal a funerary scene, preserving the lower-right part of a naiskos, within which the deceased is represented with the attributes of a cavalryman (WF 084). Only parts of the legs of this person have been preserved, while in the background the rear hooves and the tail of his horse can be seen. The pose of the horseman, the pictorial technique, and the drawing style exhibit clear links with the figures painted on the krater from Tomb B of Ruvo, and the same can be said of another fragment with the image of a seated woman, probably one of the people making offerings around the funerary monument. The krater came from a large tomb with walls plastered and painted in pink, partially destroyed and previously looted.56 The few skeletal fragments found on the floor of the tomb do not permit a reliable analysis, but it is probable that the burial had accommodated more than one deposition, given the presence of objects commonly associated with the feminine sphere among the surviving elements of the assemblage. Among these were a mirror and a bronze patera, fragments of terracotta figurines in scialbato technique, and fragments of black-gloss, Gnathia, and red-figure vases; this last material included a kernos with winged female heads – another vase that can be linked to the influence of the Baltimore Painter.57 The finds from Ceglie provide, therefore, further evidence of the wide circulation of vases that characterized the final period of activity of the Apulian workshops. The phenomenon concerns above all serial production, although the presence

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

of the krater could indicate a broader diffusion of the large vases with funerary subjects executed by the Baltimore Painter himself. These examples, homogenous in their decorative syntax, themes, and iconographic motifs, must have appeared in response to the demands of the Peucetian market, in an ideological and cultural climate that tended to favor the celebration and glorification – even beyond measure – of the figure of the deceased. In conclusion, the data stemming from analysis of the examples recently brought to light allow for a revised perspective of the distribution of figured vases in Peucetia. The hypotheses formulated by Trendall – based primarily upon the study of decontextualized material – appear to have been confirmed only in part. Ongoing research is facilitating the identification of new networks of diffusion and broader zones of distribution – evidence of a well-structured industrial and commercial system that was more complex than previously thought. Translated by Jed Thorn Notes 1. I refer specifically to the finds made between 1979 and 1985 at Rutigliano (Purgatorio and Bigetti districts) and at numerous contexts brought to light in the last twenty years at Ceglie del Campo and Carbonara di Bari, in the area of ancient Kail`ıa. 2. The finds have been brought to light over the course of a century, most of them having been uncovered since the 1970s. For the older finds, see: Mayer 1914, 168, 367–8; Gervasio 1921, 61–6; 1932. For the more recent excavations: De Juliis 1979, 427, pl. 22, 2; 1981a, 375–6; 1981b, 473, pl. 62, c–d; Riccardi 1989b; 1990; 1991; 1992; 1996; 2002–2003b; 2004–2005. 3. Riccardi 1991; 1992. 4. Bari, inv. 43798. 5. See, e.g., the hair of the Eros on a krater in Brussels: LCS 49, pl. 21, 5. 6. LCS 1/125, pl. 10, 2. 7. LCS 1/264, pl. 21, 6; 1/113, pl. 10, 1. 8. LCS 1/187, pl. 15, 5. The composition of the figures on side B is very similar to that on a krater in Cambridge, Massachusetts: LCS 1/155, pl. 13, 4. 9. LCS 29, 32, 36, 44–5, 47–9, pls. 12, 18–20; Ciancio 2005, 47–8. 10. Bari, inv. 43799. 11. RVAp 9–14, pl. 4, 2. 12. Bari, inv. 43800. 13. Tarditi 1996, 101–5, 171–2. Similar examples have been found at other Peucetian centers, as well, and some can be seen among the metallic objects of the Jatta collection at Ruvo. 14. Lo Porto 1977; 1978, pl. 61, 1. 15. Barresi 2005, 149–53. 16. As evidenced by finds of burial assemblages with Corinthian and Attic black-figure pottery (Gervasio 1921, 61–6; 1932, 283–92; Forti 1974, 149, pl. 9, fig. 31), and of Late Archaic terracotta architectural ornaments (Riccardi 1989a, 152). 17. Particularly Monte Sannace and Rutigliano–Purgatorio, geographically near Turi and sharing a common culture. 18. Bari, inv. 43771. 19. See, e.g., the well known assemblage found at Ceglie del Campo on Via Martino: Andreassi and Radina 1988, 324–5. An analogous situation to that of Tomb 3/1991

egh

149

150

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45.

is encountered in another child burial of the end of the fifth century B.C.E. (Tomb 4/1980, unpublished), found at a site slightly to the north, along the road leading to Monopoli. In this case also, of the thirty-five deposited objects, figured pottery is documented only by a small cup with owls. Another example – a small lekythos with a female head in profile – comes from Tomb 1/1980 (unpublished, from the same site), which contained more than thirty finds, along with two individuals buried during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. Bari, inv. 43749–43751. For the skyphos: RVAp 661, pl. 247, 5. For the lekanides: RVAp 697, pls. 258, 11; 259, 3. Taranto, inv. 140491. See also the very similar scene painted on a krater in the British Museum: RVAp 742, pl. 274, 5. For the physiognomy of the figures, see: RVAp 733, pl. 271, 4; 735, pl. 271, 5. The same placement of the figures and the same rendering of the drapery can be seen on a bell krater in Brooklyn: RVAp 745, pl. 276, 2. Taranto, inv. 140488. Two completely analogous figures are depicted on a krater in Munich: RVAp 730, pl. 269, 4. A similar male figure appears on an example in Malibu: RVAp 742, pl. 274, 3. RVAp 721–46; RVAp Suppl. 2: 231–5. This association appears in contexts from Ruvo (Riccardi 2008, 42, fig. 59; 46–51); Bitonto (Riccardi 2003, figs. 35, 44; Riccardi 2008, 27–9); Ceglie (Miroslav Marin et al. 1982, 104, 113, pl. 11; 119–34, pl. 16; 172–8, pl. 26, 2); Rutigliano–Azetium (Riccardi 2000, 149–151); Rutigliano–Purgatorio (De Juliis 2007a, 81–5, 99–106, 231– 6); Conversano (Chieco–Bianchi Martini 1964, 104–11, figs. 4, 9; 113–20, figs. 12, 19); and Monte Sannace (Scarf`ı 1961, 151–80, figs. 9, 13; 180–210, figs. 30, 39; 256–74, figs. 92, 99; 274–98, figs. 108, 118). Taranto, inv. 140486; RVAp II: 671, pl. 250, 5; 654, pl. 242, 8; 657, pl. 243, 12; 664, pl. 248, 4–5. RVAp 666, pl. 248, 10–11. Taranto, inv. 140485. RVAp 661, 663, pl. 247, 5, 8–9. Taranto, inv. 140478. RVAp 690–3, pl. 256. RVAp 697, pl. 259, 3. Products of this type have been found in the necropoleis of Azetium (Riccardi 2000, 149–51), Bigetti (Riccardi 2001, 55–58), and Purgatorio (De Juliis 2007a, 431–461). Among the best known of these are the Jatta collection, housed in the Museo Nazionale of the same name, and the Lagioia and Caputi collections, both published recently: Sena Chiesa 2004; Sena Chiesa and Slavazzi 2006. Roughly seventy burials have been uncovered since the 1980s, more than half of which still contained at least a portion of their burial assemblages. Riccardi 2004; Riccardi 2008, 41–6, 51–2. Riccardi 2008, 44, figs. 61–2. Bari, inv. 38321. Bari, inv. 38331. From Tomb 1/1967 (Ciancio 1997, 187–9). The shape and the external decoration are identical to the Ruvo example, while the image painted on the interior is very similar, although in this case the profile head is male. For the activity of the Creusa, Dolon, and Anabates Painters in the kerameikos of Metaponto, see Silvestrelli 2005, 117–21, with bibliography, and Chapter 4 in this volume. Bari, inv. 57884. LCS 1/502, pl. 47, 3; 1/507, pl. 48, 5; 1/510 pl. 49, 1.

Apulian and Lucanian Pottery from Coastal Peucetian Contexts

46. LCS 1/501, pl. 47, 1; 1/504, pl. 48, 3. 47. The vases can be dated mostly to the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. The most recent elements are a banded brocchetta, a lamp, a guttus, a small black-glazed cup, and a brown-glazed kantharos. 48. Formerly attributed to the Amykos Painter: Ciancio 2007, 406–9. 49. Riccardi 1998. 50. RVAp 646–60. See also Lippolis 2007, 442–5. 51. For the male figure: RVAp 653, pl. 242, 2 (vases linked stylistically to the Chevron Group); 657, pl. 244, 3 (Malibu Painter). See also the krater from Tomb 12/1978 of Rutigliano: De Juliis 2007a, 448, fig. 77. For the female head: RVAp 654, pl. 242, 8 (vases linked stylistically to the Chevron Group); 655, pl. 243, 3 (Magnini subgroup); 657, pl. 243, 12 (Malibu Painter). For a similar hairstyle, see RVAp 682, pl. 252, 12 (vases linked stylistically to the Group of Zurich 2660). 52. Riccardi 2004; Riccardi 2008, 46–52. 53. For the oinochoe: RVAp 877, pl. 336, 6; 879–80, pl. 338, 1–4. The kantharos: 876–7, pls. 335, 6, 336, 3–6; 883, pl. 339, 2, 4. The rhyton: 876–7, pl. 336, 3–6. The lekanides: 837, pl. 315, 3; 937, pl. 369, 2–3. The skyphoi and plates: 886–7, pl. 340, 2, 4, 6. 54. Bari, inv. 57825. 55. RVAp 887–8. Trendall assembled these examples in the Ceglie Group, considering them in part the fruit of the collaboration between the Baltimore Painter and the Stoke-on-Trent Painter. It is interesting to note the similarity between the female heads depicted on the secondary sides of the two amphorae of the group and those painted on the plates and skyphoi of Tomb B of Ruvo (see note 53). 56. Tomb 1/2003: Riccardi 2002–2003a. 57. RVAp 934–937, pls. 368, 2–4, 369, 4.

egh

151

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE DIFFUSION OF MIDDLE AND LATE APULIAN VASES IN PEUCETIAN FUNERARY CONTEXTS: A COMPARISON OF SEVERAL NECROPOLEIS Angela Ciancio The second half of the fourth century B.C.E. coincides with the phase of major diffusion (both in distribution range and quantity) of Apulian red-figure ceramics in funerary assemblages in Peucetia. The increase in their use as a part of funerary ritual occurred, however, along with other phenomena, including conservatism in style and iconography as well as standardization and serialization of production, which complicate the study of this phase. Trendall’s traditional system of stylistic reading,1 while providing a valuable classification model and a useful outline of sequencing, does not adequately deal with the numerous problems that remain unsolved regarding this last and most complex phase of Apulian red-figure pottery. The absolute chronology of the pottery continues to be in doubt, and certain developments still cannot be placed in time. Furthermore, we lack clearly identified areas of production as well as the locations of workshops, and our understanding of the relationships between the various production groups is limited. Solving these problems, in my opinion, remains fundamental to understanding fully the production of Apulian pottery in the fourth century B.C.E., especially its implications for the economy and society of the region. Neither the organization of production nor the systems of distribution of this class of material are well understood, despite the fact that the final phase of Apulian red-figure represents the first craft production for “the masses” in antiquity. Such knowledge is the starting point for understanding not only the stylistic and artistic aspects of the material, but also for analyzing the market activities that developed in the region at the end of the fourth century B.C.E., which reflect the principal processes of social transformation and cultural evolution during the period.

WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

152

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

The observation and assessment of several phenomena – such as the fluctuation of production and consumption, the increased demand for figured pottery and the growing number of consumers, the multiplication of workshops and affiliated production sites related to middle class social development, and the associated impoverishment of the iconographic language and of the expressive and communicative needs of the consumer – if carried out at each indigenous center, might highlight the existence of diverse needs, various territorial and demographic situations, and distinct evolutionary processes. On the other hand, such an undertaking might demonstrate the presence of a social and cultural reality that was largely similar throughout the region. There is a need, repeatedly pointed out by scholars,2 to evaluate the analysis of styles using different tools and methodologies, beginning with the systematic study of find contexts from comparable necropoleis. In the territory of Peucetia there is a real possibility of making concrete comparisons because in recent years there has been a general promotion of archaeological study in the region, including at some of its most important sites (Ginosa, Rutigliano, Bitonto, Ruvo, Monte Sannace, Conversano, Valenzano, Noicattaro). These studies augment the published data relating to the area’s necropoleis. The progress achieved and the degree of analysis at each site is different, and in all cases the publication of material is far from exhaustive. Nevertheless it is possible to proceed in an experimental manner with the comparative analysis of several necropoleis (or, to be more accurate, sectors of necropoleis), selected from those which are contemporary with each other, which are similar in their structural characteristics and contextual aspects, and for which we have reached a similar level of knowledge. This analysis should focus on data useful for reconstructing the consumption patterns of figured ceramics, for identifying the possible relationships between groups of consumers and groups of manufacturers, and for recognizing any dissonances or inconsistencies in the data. The cases that I will consider here are: Bitonto, the necropolis on the via Traiana; Rutigliano, the necropolis of Purgatorio; and Conversano, the northwest necropolis. These three funerary centers of Peucetia are quite close to one another (Frontispiece), are situated in a fairly homogenous landscape (the first hills off the Adriatic coast in central Puglia), and are culturally consistent. Nevertheless, the evidence from these sites indicates different and specific circumstances for each.

Bitonto The necropolis along the so-called via Traiana at Bitonto has been the focus of recent study and publication.3 Between 1980 and 1999, seventy-five tombs were excavated, twenty-one of which had already been looted. In the period from 2000 to 2003, twenty-six tombs were recovered. In total, therefore, the sample consists of 101 tombs, eighty of which contained funerary assemblages. Of those eighty tombs, 22 (27.5%) date from the sixth to the fifth century B.C.E., while 58 (72.5%) date from the fourth to the third century B.C.E.

egh

153

154

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

From the second group of tombs, only two may be placed with certainty in the first half of the fourth century B.C.E., more precisely to the period between 370 and 350 B.C.E. (Tombs 14/1981 and 6/2003), while a third (Tomb 12/1981) is of a slightly later date. In these three examples figured vases are not numerous, and kraters, which were common in the earlier tombs, are not always present. In Tomb 23 there is only one important example of figured ware, a pelike attributed to the Varrese Painter,4 which is accompanied by a small lekythos with a female head. Similarly, in Tomb 6 there is only a single figured piece, an oinochoe, with a scene of the hunt/courtship, assigned to the Diogenes Painter.5 The two tombs likely belonged to females. Among the assemblage from Tomb 14, the grave of a warrior,6 the only figured ceramics were two vases typical of a symposium set, specifically a krater attributed to the Group of the Diogenes Painter,7 decorated with the figure of a herowarrior pouring a libation near an altar and being crowned by Nike, and an oinochoe attributed to the circle of the Dresden Painter8 depicting an athlete. Of the remaining assemblages in the second group, those datable to the fourth century with figured ceramics can all be assigned to the twenty-year period from 330 to 310 B.C.E. Altogether, the contexts of this period document the increased use of figured vases and the growing numbers of them deposited in tombs. Forms become repetitive, the krater consistently appears as the most important figured component, and it bears repeating that the images represented on the vases have a generic and conventional quality and now lack any connection with the role of the deceased in the living community and his possible expressive needs. This happens alongside another phenomenon, already attested in the preceding period, but at a much smaller scale, consisting of the reuse of tomb structures for additional depositions. This activity, which becomes more common as the fourth century progresses, certainly stems from economic motivations but was facilitated by the generic nature of the iconography used in funerary assemblages. Furthermore, from this stylistic examination, evidence for the production pattern of the figured vases emerges clearly: the settlement associated with the necropolis at Bitonto used, in their funerary assemblages, ceramics from the workshop of the Patera Painter,9 almost to the exclusion of all others. The kraters of Tomb 3/198110 and Tomb 3/200211 can be assigned to this workshop, as well as the volute krater and a large part of the rest of the assemblage of figured vases from Tomb 4/1981 (two amphorae, a hydria, a situla, two rhyta).12 The remaining examples from Tomb 4/1981,13 the krater from Tomb 2/1983,14 the other figured vases from Tomb 3/1981 (oinochoe, pelike, skyphos),15 and the krater and figured vases from Tomb 7/200316 have already been attributed by Trendall to associates or dependants of the workshop of the Patera Painter (Group of the Amphora Painter, Group of Lecce 875, Copenhagen Group, Painter of S`evres 1). The Apulian figured pottery documented at Bitonto confirms, therefore, the existence of a link between the productions of the Patera Painter and of the other groups previously cited, which form a large group of ceramics that all seem to relate to a single production center of the Patera Painter and Baltimore Painter.

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

The vases of that group, as is well known, were distributed especially in northern Peucetia, and were used by the communities in that territory. The woman (according to anthropological analysis) buried in the Tomb 4/198117 also relied on the Patera Painter/Baltimore Painter production center for her whole funerary assemblage: the outstanding volute krater, likely a work of the chief of the workshop, along with other vases of secondary importance. The tomb stands apart from the others in the necropolis due to the quality, quantity, and variety of materials, including metal tools associated with ritual cooking and distribution of meat, and to the more complex development of the tomb structure itself, a plastered semichamber. The principal scene painted on the volute krater consists of a pair of warriors inside a naiskos.18 This scene, apparently unconnected to the life of the deceased, is a testimony to the conventional value that was now associated with this type of image on the main figured example placed in the tomb.

Rutigliano The second case I will examine is Rutigliano, a sector of the large necropolis at Purgatorio, which was excavated between 1976 and 1980. In all, 367 tombs were found here, covering a chronological span from the Archaic period through the entire fourth century B.C.E. Published in 2007, the assemblages come from a portion of the southern section of the necropolis, the area where most of the tombs dating to the fourth century B.C.E. were located (ninety-two tombs, approximately a quarter of the total).19 Tombs were already placed here in the Archaic period, although at that time they tended to concentrate in the northern sector of the necropolis. In the course of the fourth century the overlapping of earlier tombs and the reuse of tomb structures in the southern sector of the necropolis becomes marked, thus making the dating of the material more difficult. During the fourth century B.C.E. the use of figured ceramics increases, but as at Bitonto, the change becomes clearer after mid-century.20 In fact, 77 percent of contexts that contain Apulian red-figure vases date to the second half of the century. These are mostly serially produced works of medium or low quality. The documented forms are numerous: kraters, amphorae, pelike, hydria, oinochoe, olpe, phiale, skyphos, cups, jugs, plates, lekanis, lebes gamikos, lekythos. All of them are sometimes duplicated, except the kraters, which were deposited as single examples, even in the case of reused tombs. There are no elements of excellence or distinction in the group, reflecting a social reality of an undifferentiated middle class society. The contexts from the years 370–350 B.C.E. contain a few figured pieces, representing products essentially from two groups. The first is the workshop of the Tarporley Painter and his affiliates, among them the Diogenes Painter, to whom is assigned the principal group of red-figure pottery contained in a single complex (Tomb 45).21 The second is the Circle of the Painter of Karlsruhe B 9, to which the figured examples from Tomb 78 are assigned.22

egh

155

156

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

After the middle of the century examples are attested from the workshop of the Ilioupersis Painter and the Circle of the Hoppin Painter (Tomb 11, 46, 48, 75), but the largest group, dated around the year 330 B.C.E., presents numerous figured examples of the middle level that are related to two broad but separate production groups: the Circles of the Darius and Underworld Painters, and the Chevron Group, which is connected to the T.P.S. Group. Later, in contexts dating to the last twenty years of the century, the vases, which are increasingly serial and conventional, can be related to the products of the workshop of the Painter of Gioia del Colle and the Chevron Group, representing this group’s latest examples.23 Regarding the general characteristics of their assemblages, the funerary contexts at Bitonto and at Rutigliano-Purgatorio are quite similar. In both cases, there was an explosion in demand for figured products, which reached its zenith around the year 330 B.C.E. and demonstrated the development of the middle class in the two territories and the growth in its needs. Nevertheless, although the workshops serving the two necropoleis prior to the middle of the century are analogous, essentially those related to the workshop of the Diogenes Painter, it is clear that by the middle of the century their customers were different: the community associated with the Rutigliano–Purgatorio necropolis relied on a different production center for the acquisition of figured ceramics for funerary use than did the community that used the Bitonto necropolis, and it frequented locations that were further inland in Peucetia, such as, for example, Monte Sannace.

Conversano Turning to Conversano, another important location in Adriatic Peucetia, my analysis is concentrated on evidence from the northwestern necropolis, which, due to the research conducted in the last twenty years, is the most plentiful and relevant.24 The abundant documentation of the excavations from the years 1987– 2008 and the recent publication,25 of which I present a summary of here, make the necropolis particularly useful for a comparative study. At Conversano, the rare archaeological testimony for the archaic and classical phases is contrasted with the massive presence of evidence dating to the Hellenistic period. This evidence does not come from the central and highest area of the city, inside the circuit of the megalithic city walls (which most likely corresponds with the area of earliest habitation in Peucetia) but from the zone of expansion outside the walls (extra moenia). This expansion was carried out in the course of the fourth century B.C.E. Settlement centers were interspersed with groups of tombs, and following the typical system of indigenous habitation in the period,26 they developed from the northwest to the southeast, along existing roads that connected the settlement centers of the region to the Adriatic coast. In particular, one road, an inland branch of the coastal road known as via Minucia, leads northwest to the territory of Rutigliano, by means of which one can reach the coast. In the second half of the fourth century B.C.E., with the growth

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

of the center of Azetium in the territory of Rutigliano, the importance of this road grew along with the city, so that the necropoleis, the houses, and the workshops of the Hellenistic settlement cluster along it. The necropolis in question developed in this area, along the road leading to Rutigliano. Seventy-two tombs have been excavated, including only those finds made in regular excavations carried out in 1958,27 and leaving out the chance finds and the less reliable records of other finds in the area that have since gone missing.28 The sample reflects the funerary ritual and the structural typology typical of Peucetian tombs of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The body is buried in a contracted position and the tombs are in the form of sarcophagi, trenches dug into the earth or into bedrock, stone caskets, or with masonry walls, the latest type. The most complex and refined tomb type, the large semi-chamber tomb, is attested in only one case (Tomb 10/1958; see the following). The reuse of tombs for later depositions is common: burials are placed inside the same structure, with associated grave goods arranged haphazardly, or vases and metal objects are removed from inside the grave and deposited outside in the area immediately adjacent to the tomb, together with piles of disarticulated human bones. The evidence collected so far allows us to define the period of use for this necropolis from the beginning of the fourth through all of the third century B.C.E. Of the seventy-two tombs recovered, two were found intact but without grave goods, probably dating to the final occupation period of the site, while nine have recovered grave goods that date to the third century B.C.E. The remaining tombs (over 80% of the total) date to the fourth century B.C.E. and include nearly all of the assemblages with figured ceramics. Although the phenomenon of reuse complicates the interpretation and chronological classification of the contexts, it is clear that the group of tombs dated to the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E., at least as regards their primary deposition, is numerically rather small. There are seven tombs in this group, of which two contain only achromatic and black-gloss vases, while five feature red-figure examples (Tombs 2/1987, 9/1958, 5/1992, 4/1991, and 8/1958) (WF 085). The earliest of the figured vases were found in Tomb 2/1987. They are of Lucanian production and date to the years 380–360 B.C.E., a krater of the Creusa Painter and a skyphos of the Intermediate Group.29 The other four assemblages contain examples of Apulian production that are connected to the workshop of the Tarporley Painter and his affiliates.30 The krater in Tomb 9/1958, with an original and unusual Dionysian subject, seems similar to the style of the Schiller Painter.31 On side A, Dionysos, with a satyr standing behind him, sits in front of a woman who extends a trigonon decorated with ribbons, while on side B two young athletes stand in front of a woman who holds out an aryballos.32 The bronze belt and iron weapons that rested next to the vase inside the sarcophagus seem to identify the deceased as a male warrior. The krater from Tomb 5/1992 (Fig. 7.1, WF 086) and that from Tomb 4/1991 seem related to the circles of the Painter of Karlsruhe B 9 and of the Diogenes Painter,33 while the example from Tomb 8/1958 shows similarities with

egh

157

158

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

7.1. Bell krater from Conversano Tomb 5–1992. Gioia del Colle (Bari), Museo Archeologico 2769 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

vases attributed to the Painter of the Long Overfalls.34 In all the assemblages, a red-figure krater is accompanied by pelikai and oinochoai that belong to the group of the Truro Painter.35 At least another eight tombs belong to a slightly later phase, dating from 350 to 340 B.C.E. In fact, the materials of the assemblages all date to that period, including the figured vases. The products are of medium quality, usually decorated with conventional images such as Dionysiac and marriage scenes. These can be attributed to the workshop of the Ilioupersis Painter and to the large group of artists directly related to him.36 Among the products of the Group of Geneva 2754 and the Chrysler Group we are able to place the small column krater from Tomb 9/1992 (Fig. 7.2 and Fig. 7.3, WF 087–088), that of Tomb 1/1987 (similar to the Painter of Louvre K 12) (Fig. 7.4, WF 089–090), and the example from Tomb 1/1988. Among those vases linked to the workshop of the Ilioupersis Painter and the circle of Hoppin Painter, it is possible to place the amphora and the hydria with a scene of offering at a column and at a stele from Tomb 7/1992 (Fig. 7.5, WF 091),

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

7.2. Conversano, Tomb 9–1992, funerary assemblage (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

a tomb with a particularly rich and diverse assemblage. Beyond the two figured vases already mentioned, there was a small column krater with a scene of three people on the principal side (a warrior in Apulian costume, sitting between Nike and a woman who honors him) (WF 092). In its composition and in particular in the depiction of the figures, the image is similar to examples assigned by Trendall to the Verona Painter, an artist who seems identifiable among the numerous followers of the Diogenes Painter.37 The remaining contexts date to the twenty years from 330 to 310 B.C.E. and present an abundant and diverse collection of figured ware, which can be subdivided into two large production groups. The first group consists of vases of average quality and expressiveness, attributable to two large workshops, that of the Circle of the Darius Painter and the Underworld Painter,38 and the Chevron Group.39 The same groups are also documented, as we have seen, at the contemporary and nearby necropolis of Rutigliano–Purgatorio. To the Circle of the Darius Painter and the Underworld Painter belongs the krater from Tomb 1/1958 from the Como Group,40 as does the hydria from Tomb 5/1958 from the B.M. Centaur Group.41 The pelike by the Painter of Zurich 2661 and the lekane by the Painter of the

egh

159

160

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

7.3. Column krater from Conversano Tomb 9–1992. Gioia del Colle (Bari), Museo Archeologico 2948 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

Kassel Cup, also from Tomb 5, along with the two kraters from Tomb 3/195842 are assigned to artists within the Chevron Group. The second group is defined by the workshop of the Baltimore Painter and his associates.43 The assemblages of Tomb 2/197944 and 1/1991 (WF 093), which are notably rich and diverse, contain entire sets of vases from this production center. In both cases, the most important pieces of the service consist of a volute krater with a naiskos scene on the principal side, a pair of amphorae, a hydria, and a large phiale (Fig. 7.6, WF 094–095). Additionally, a small volute krater with a naiskos scene, found in the more modest assemblage of Tomb 3/1979,45 has been assigned to the same production environment as the Patera Painter and the Baltimore Painter, the Stanford-Conversano Group.46 The numerous other figured vases of small size that are present in all contexts (plates, lekanai, skyphoi), however, were serially produced. They are typically linked to the workshop of the Gioia del Colle Painter and to the Darius Painter and Underworld Painter,47 but

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

7.4. Bell krater from Conversano Tomb 1–1987. Gioia del Colle (Bari), Museo Archeologico 1829 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

because of their generic quality they might have been made in any workshop, at a secondary level of production quality. Because a significant group of vases can be attributed to the Baltimore Painter and his collaborator and affiliates, which are all essentially concentrated in three tomb assemblages, the necropolis at Conversano is different from the contemporary sector of the nearby necropolis at Rutigliano–Purgatorio, where vases of this group are not yet attested. Nevertheless, similarities can be found within the rich and varied contexts from Bitonto (see the assemblage of Tomb 4/1981, discussed earlier), and those that come from the territory of Ruvo48 and Canosa,49 the area in which, based on the particular concentration of vases there, the workshop of the Baltimore Painter is believed to have been located. It should be remembered that this type of evidence is not new to the territory of Conversano. A tomb discovered in 1956 in a zone adjacent to the city (localit`a S. Bartolomeo)50 contained a funerary assemblage of particular importance, dating to the last quarter of the fourth century B.C.E., with the usual elements of a red-figure ceramic service (volute krater, a pair of amphorae, hydria, and large phiale) (Fig. 7.7, WF 096), which has been attributed to the highest production quality of the workshop of the Baltimore Painter. In addition to these, within the assemblage were other figured vases attributed to workshops associated with the Stanford-Conversano Group.51

egh

161

162

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

7.5. Conversano, Tomb 7–1992, funerary assemblage (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

In the last ten years of the fourth century B.C.E., therefore, the figured ceramics used in funerary contexts came to Conversano from production centers that responded to the desire for different vase types, reflecting diversified needs and means. The contexts here, indeed, suggest the existence of economic and social differentiation within the society. In this case, the growth in consumption of figured ceramics did not lead to the approval and indiscriminate development of an intermediate level of expression: within the local community, in fact, there was a recognizable group of buyers with more specific representational and cultural needs, who encouraged the workshops to create more sophisticated, consistent, and therefore desirable, work. Within this lively and dynamic social and cultural setting, we can place the bestknown finds from the northwestern necropolis at Conversano, those of Tomb 10, which was in the first group of tombs excavated in 1958.52 The tomb, as stated earlier, was distinguished from the others by its larger and more substantial structure; this is the one example described by the excavator as belonging to the semichamber type. However, nearby Tomb 12, which was found partially destroyed, in my opinion was probably of the same type and had similar dimensions.53 Tomb 10 contained an exceptional funerary assemblage, extraordinary even beyond the territory of Peucetia. It contained a complete set of arms for a warrior:

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

7.6. Volute krater from Conversano, Tomb 1–1991. Gioia del Colle (Bari), Museo Archeologico 2642 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

Phrygian helmet, an anatomical bivalve cuirass, a pair of shin guards, and a belt, all of which were in bronze, together with a curved sword, a spear, and an iron knife. In addition, it contained a terracotta group of the chariot of Nike and figured vases representing a nucleus of exceptional examples of red-figure dating to the last quarter of the century. All together, the elements of the assemblage identify the deceased as a princeps and a military leader, a significant person both economically and socially when compared with the average individuals who make up the bulk of those interred in this necropolis.

egh

163

164

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

7.7. Volute krater from the funerary assemblage of Tomb S. Bartolomeo (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

The precious armor was not worn by the deceased at the time of his burial, but was placed in an external compartment (ripostiglio) adjacent to the tomb. This circumstance suggests the significance of the parade of arms, which would have been deposited when the tomb was closed at the conclusion of the funerary ceremony, making clear the rank of the deceased and his importance within the society. Whether these were the spoils of war or purchased, either from central Magna

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

7.8. Amphora from Conversano Tomb 10–1958. Gioia del Colle (Bari), Museo Archeologico 20883 (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

Graecia at Taranto, or from Greek Alexandria, the intrinsic value of the objects remains clear, as well as the significance of their deposition as a sign of financial resources and distinction, following the Greek cultural and ideological model. A similar message of distinction comes from the figured ceramics deposited in the tomb, vases of monumental dimensions with complex iconography and themes, in several cases following versions otherwise unknown, demonstrating a different, higher, level of communication and testifying to an alternative, more exclusive, production sector. The ceramic material, which is unfortunately fragmentary and incomplete (Fig. 7.8, WF 097–098), represents the most sophisticated work from the workshop of the Darius Painter.54 Along with similar examples, judged as such by the complexity of their representations and by their subjects

egh

165

166

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

drawn from mythology and tragic literature, they were used by the hellenized aristocracy of north-central Peucetia and of Daunia, from centers such as Gravina, Altamura, Ruvo, Arpi, and Canosa. The best preserved of the monumental amphorae from Conversano bears the somewhat rare iconography of Herakles fighting the Amazons, or a representation of Hippolyte spontaneously giving her belt to the hero, a scheme that appears on a small number of late Apulian figured vases concentrated in the territory of Canosa, which are assigned to a workshop connected to the activity of the Baltimore Painter.55 The evidence from the necropolis at Conversano constitutes, therefore, further confirmation of the link between the red-figure vases of high quality created by the Baltimore and the Darius Painters. They allow us to analyze, at least in part, the range of distribution of these products, and the fact of their scarce presence in Adriatic Peucetia.56 In conclusion, the evidence now available for the territory of Peucetia highlights two aspects of the late Apulian distributive system in this region. The distribution of conventional figured products of medium to low quality results in a large and widespread homogenization of material culture, caused by the explosion in demand and consumption by average individuals. This suggests the emergence of less centralized artisan groups, who focused on serial production of this type of vase, responding to the specific needs of individual places and communities. As regards, however, the products of workshops oriented toward more challenging and sophisticated work that was intended for the limited, commissioned consumption of the wealthy elite, their distributive range, as we now understand it, is more scattered. Important examples from two workshops, the Baltimore and Darius Painter, are found at Conversano. The situation is similar at Altamura, Gravina and Canosa, but this type of work is not attested at Rutigliano, Bitonto, or other Peucetian centers that were also of some importance in the period, such as Monte Sannace and Ceglie del Campo. The presence of examples in central Apulia, moreover, makes less certain the hypothesis that these workshops were located only in areas with a high concentration of examples, causing us, at least in certain areas, to reconsider the role of Taranto and the continuity of Apulian pottery production in the Italiote polis in the last quarter of the fourth century. Translated by Allison Emerson Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

RVAp 1978, 1982, and suppl. Lippolis 1996d, 378; Lippolis and Mazzei 2005. Riccardi 2003, 2008. Riccardi 2003, 58, 101, fig. 34, 154. Riccardi 2008, 17, 66, fig. 8, 26. Riccardi 2003, 89–93, 134–9. RVAp, 6/178a. Riccardi 2003, 136. RVAp, 721–47. RVAp, Suppl. 2, 23/149a. Riccardi 2008, 71–2.

The Diffusion of Middle and Late Apulian Vases in Peucetian Funerary Contexts

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

Riccardi 2003, 104. Riccardi 2003, 148–51. Riccardi 2003, 140–1. RVAp, Suppl. 2, 24/332a–333a. Riccardi 2008, 78–80. Riccardi 2003, 58, 102–4, 148–61. Riccardi 2003, fig. 155. De Juliis 2007b. Lippolis 2007, 431–4. Ciancio 2007, 417. Ciancio 2007, 422. Lippolis 2007, 438–46. L’Abbate et al. 1990. Ciancio and L’Abbate 2013. Ciancio et al. 2009, 307–8. Chieco-Bianchi Martini 1964. L’Abbate 1979, 24–36. Mazzei 1996, 413–17. RVAp, 44 ff. RVAp, 64–8. Chieco-Bianchi Martini 1964, 137–8, fig. 44–5. RVAp, 102 ff. RVAp, 79–81. RVAp, 560–3. RVAp, 185 ff. RVAp, 253–4. RVAp, 559 ff. RVAp, 650 ff. RVAp, 584. RVAp, 603. RVAp, 603. RVAp, 856–99. Depalo 1987, 84–99. Depalo 1987, 99–102. Depalo 1987, 101–2. RVAp, 646–720. Riccardi 2008, 35–6, 48–9. Corrente 2005, 72–6. L’Abbate 1979, 170–2. RVAp, 758–9. Chieco-Bianchi Martini 1964, 148–64. Ibid., 166. RVAp, 18/54–55. Corrente 2005, 75–6. Mazzei 1996, 403.

egh

167

CHAPTER EIGHT

RED-FIGURE VASES IN FOURTH-CENTURY B.C.E. CANOSA: IMAGES, ASSEMBLAGES, AND THE CREATION OF A SOCIAL HIERARCHY Marissa Corrente This chapter explores the development of social complexity in the Ofanto River valley during the fourth century B.C.E., using pottery from three elite tombs as evidence.1 The Ofanto, known in ancient times as the Aufidus River, flows 170 km through northern Apulia into the Adriatic Sea. The most important socioeconomic center in this area seems to have been the Daunian site of Canosa (Roman Canusium), which occupied the edge of the Murge plateau, dominating the Ofantine valley. Canosa is well known in archaeological literature, at least from the end of the nineteenth century when some exceptional finds entered various private collections and European museums;2 however, archaeological research in this area has always been unsystematic at best, and our knowledge of this site is rather uneven. Owing to continuous occupation in this region and the chaotic growth of the modern city with little or no concern for ancient structures, the pre-Roman settlement remains mostly buried underneath the modern town. The ancient city survives only in areas that remained unoccupied during the Roman period or that were turned into agricultural fields in Late Antiquity.3 We also know very little about ceramic production at Canosa. The pottery found in funerary contexts in the area documents the presence of several specialized pottery workshops, with a large, serialized output – to the point that scholars often talk of a full-fledged industry.4 However, we still have no evidence for ceramic technology or production facilities.5 Moreover, due to illegal excavations, mechanized agriculture, and the mining of limestone banks for construction material, our hopes of finding a kerameikos in Canosa are decreasing every day. We have to turn to tombs, then, to investigate the community of people living in Canosa. As anthropologists such as Huntington and Metcalf 6 and archaeologists such as D’Agostino7 have shown, the “Archaeology of Death” is a very useful tool for understanding the hierarchy and composition of a society. The objects chosen WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

168

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

for an assemblage of grave goods and the adoption of different funerary rituals can give us important information about the status, gender, age, and identity of the dead individual. However, we must remember that ideological and symbolic choices are behind the selection of tomb types and grave goods, which are meant to project a strategic representation of the deceased’s personality and status.8 Moreover, any attempt at reconstructing distribution patterns or statistical analysis from Canosa’s necropolis is inevitably hindered by the disparity between the small number of funerary contexts that we know and the incredible quantity of material without provenance, in particular Apulian red-figure pottery, in museums and private collections.9 Some interpretative problems can be overcome by using as a point of comparison the robust interpretative models from other contemporary sites, particularly in the area of Melfi,10 which has received better studies. Other aspects (distribution trends, settlement pattern, and chronology), however, can still be known only from selected and marginal contexts from the entire region.11 This chapter presents three very significant funerary complexes found in Canosa during salvage excavations, all datable to the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. (Fig. 8.1, WF 099). From the analysis of these hypogeal tombs, it is possible to shed light on contemporary developments in the community, chronological and topographical changes of the settlement pattern,12 and other anthropological and socioeconomic aspects of ancient Canosa.

The Archaeological Evidence Excavations in the necropolis of Canosa started at the end of the nineteenth century when Massimo Mayer13 observed in 1889 that the ancient settlement and the necropolis were not noticeably separated. Rather, following a local custom, houses and tombs seemed to coexist next to each other, perhaps in an effort to reinforce the ties between the living family and the deceased ancestors.14 This disposition makes the internal organization of the necropolis particularly difficult to understand. It seems that tombs were often grouped around roads and in particular around the axes of the modern via Lavello, via Imbriani, and via De Gasperi, which seem to be all part of the same road system.15 In the fourth century B.C.E. there was a dramatic demographic increase in the population of Canosa, and all the tombs from this period were positioned around the east side of the plateau and arranged almost in a semicircle. Even more importantly, during this century we see a decrease in the number of fossa, cassa grotticella, and chamber tombs. This change has been connected by de Juliis16 with the hellenization of Daunia. The chamber tombs, or hypogea, seem to have been reserved for a limited part of the population, and from the composition of the grave good assemblages it seems they belonged to a warrior elite.17

The Piccolo Vimini Tomb The “Piccolo Vimini” tomb is a hypogeum found in 1991 during a rescue excavation in the industrial area next to the modern via Moscatello. It was considered

egh

169

170

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

8.1. Aerial view of Canosa (author).

for a long time an isolated entity within the landscape;18 however, a recent sewage renovation project revealed a well-defined settlement associated with the tomb.19 This settlement was formed by several units with solid tufa block foundations, a drainage system made of clay pipes, and cobblestone pavements. The excavators were not able to discover the internal organization of the units, but the consensus is that the construction of this complex had required a conspicuous investment in terms of labor and money. The elite character of this settlement and the richness of the Piccolo Vimini tomb suggests that the Moscatello area was an upscale neighborhood, somewhat similar to the nearby area of Toppicelli.20 The Piccolo Vimini tomb, in dimensions and floor plan, belongs to a type of hypogeum common in the first half of the fourth century B.C.E., with a short access dromos, rectangular plan, and vaulted ceiling (Fig. 8.2, WF 100). The tomb has suffered damage in recent times from building activity and from a small clandestine excavation in the northeastern corner. Two individuals were buried in the Piccolo Vimini. Burial A was found in a rectangular pit on the northern

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

8.2. The Piccolo Vimini Tomb, Canosa (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

side of the chamber. Some bones are missing, so it is possible that the skeleton was originally buried somewhere else, and then moved into the pit at a later stage. Burial B, on the other hand, was placed directly on the tomb floor with its lower limbs flexed along the southern side of the chamber. Its position is mostly known from organic traces of darker earth. This second burial is in a very poor state of preservation, and only portions of the long bones and disconnected fragments of the skull have been found. The grave assemblage (WF 101a,b) included several prestige metal artifacts: a fifth century B.C.E. bronze griff-phiale with kouros handle,21 a bundle of iron spits,22 a spear, a knife, a bronze cauldron,23 a bronze strigil, a bronze oinochoe, and a two handled large bronze bowl,24 which contained a red-figure skyphos25 and iron pincers.26 The rest of the assemblage consisted of a staggering number of ceramic vessels (104) in local wares, Apulian red-figure, black-gloss, and overpainted style. The Apulian red-figure vases (Fig. 8.3, WF 102) included a bell krater attributed to the Schiller Painter, a pelike attributed to the Painter of Bologna 498, and a trefoil oinochoe27 influenced by his school. In addition, there was also a skyphos, whose profile resembles those Attic skyphoi imitating Corinthian ware, and an owl skyphos of a type widely diffused in the Melfi area during the first half of the fourth century B.C.E.28 The Apulian red-figure vessels can be associated with well-known workshops. Several elements make the attribution of the krater (WF 103) to the Schiller Painter29 rather straightforward: the subject of the Dionysiac procession and the pose of the two running satyrs on the main side, for example, are among the painter’s favorites. Moreover, details on side A of the vase, such as the cloak falling over the arms of the figure on the right and the attribute of the satyr on the

egh

171

172

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

left, connect this vase to what Trendall defines as the mature production of the Schiller Painter. The beautiful pelike depicting two figures flanking a stele can be confidently attributed to the Painter of Bologna 498 (WF 104).30 Particularly distinctive of this painter’s style is the female figure holding the mirror,31 as are the edges of the drapery falling on the arm of the male figure, and the double folds of the himatia of the figures on side B. The trefoil oinochoe finds parallels in the style and iconography of another vessel of the same shape, now in a private collection,32 attributed by Trendall to the Group of Sydney 71. In particular, the elongated form of the body of the running woman and the thick folding of her chiton seem to connect the two vases. The attribution of the skyphos is much more difficult. The nervous lines of the figures recall the Tarporley Painter, but other iconographic elements are closer to the production of the Painter of Lecce 686.33 The other ceramic classes in the Piccolo Vimini tomb include three subgeometric ollae (belonging to De Juliis’ Daunian Subgeometric II and III34 ), five cooking pots, three unpainted vases, ten banded pots, eight brown or red painted pots, forty-eight black-gloss vases, and nineteen overpainted vessels. Cooking ware35 included a small, closed ritual pot, very common throughout Apulia, and two carinated pans with their lids. The undecorated ceramics included a two-handled olla, an askos, and a stemmed plate. This limited number of undecorated vessels is a sign of a strong preference for traditional Daunian shapes with geometric and “mixed” decoration. Among the banded and mixed style ceramics, in large part one-handled small cups, the banded bell krater is notable. Production of this shape within the territory of Canosa36 is documented only in Cannae and Lavello, while it had a greater diffusion in northern Daunia, from Ascoli Satriano, San Severo, Casone, and Salapia. The krater from the Piccolo Vimini tomb is fully painted in red, except for a central band and a line on the interior of the lip. This particular decoration seems to recall more closely vessels from Peucetia, rather than the contemporary Daunian examples, which have vegetal motifs. The group of black-gloss vases in the Piccolo Vimini tomb37 consists of three gutti and a large number of banquet vessels. The first guttus had a lion spout and a lid, which finds a parallel in another tomb in Canosa, the Vimini hypogeum (see the following). The second guttus featured a medallion with a gorgoneion similar to the gutti from tomb 745 in the Lavello-Casino necropolis38 and from tomb 84/10 in Cannae-Antenisi.39 The third guttus was in the shape of a knucklebone (astragalos); this type is found at the same sites, and it is also known from two examples in the collection of the Museo Nazionale Jatta di Ruvo.40 Among the sympotic vessels, there were two skyphoi, eight kylikes, six twohandled cups, sixteen miniature olpai, and a small-scale round mouthed oinochoe. The kylikes41 have a low foot, a diameter of about 16 cm, a carinated rim, and stamped decoration of either four or five linked palmettes on the floor. In shape and decoration, the kylikes are very similar to the series of stamped vessels present in Lucania, Peucetia,42 and Daunia. More interesting is their large presence in

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

8.3. Apulian red-figure vases from the Piccolo Vimini Tomb (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

the Piccolo Vimini tomb, in comparison to other contemporary tombs. The high number of black-gloss kylikes (together with all the other drinking vessels) denotes the importance of communal drinking during funerary rituals. The miniature olpai43 seem, instead, to refer to another moment of the funeral. This shape is present in many contemporary funerary contexts from Daunia and Peucetia, but only in Canosa we do see it repeated so many times in a single tomb. This repetition might be a way to mark various moments of a ritual within or outside the burial chamber, possibly a farewell toast.44 In addition to the sympotic set, there are also twelve tableware shapes, which include an equal number of salt cellars and one-handled cups. Overpainted pottery makes up another important class of material present in the Piccolo Vimini tomb (WF 105). These are black-gloss vessels that were decorated with motifs in added red paint.45 It is interesting to notice that all the overpainted vases in the assemblage (fifteen drinking vessels and four roundmouthed oinochoai) share stylistic elements and must have been produced by a single workshop. Among the overpainted vessels, the four kylikes46 seem to comprise a homogenous set. Although there are slight differences in their profiles, all four of these vessels have red decoration overpainted on stamped palmettes. The production of kylikes with overpainting and stamping is extremely limited; the only potential comparisons are four vessels from Canosa acquired by the Museo Archeologico Provinciale di Bari47 and some examples from Lavello.48 The painted motifs were essentially of two types: a swan painted with a large wing opened upward,49 or the top of a column with Ionic capital. Moreover, all four vessels have similar secondary decoration – a motif of olive buds grouped in clusters and leaves – which seems to have been a signature element for the painter. From the analysis of the pottery shapes, the attribution of the red-figure vases, and the comparisons with other similar tombs50 in Canosa, it seems that the Piccolo Vimini hypogeum can be dated to the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E.

egh

173

174

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The grave goods were placed along the back wall of the chamber. The metal vessels were the closest to the wall, then the three subgeometric ollae, and finally the two kraters. The other vessels were placed in the remaining spaces, partially on top of the larger ollae and kraters. An array of personal objects was also found around burial B. A spear was next to the lower legs of the deceased and a bronze strigil and the knife were next to the skull. From the analysis of the grave goods, their position, and chronology, it seems that they were all deposited in one single action; this means that they must have been part of one single assemblage. It seems possible, then, that the Piccolo Vimini hypogeum belonged to the individual identified as B, and that the person buried in pit A was a predeceased ancestor. The association with an ancestor would in fact increase the status of individual B within a society that not only focused on the exaltation of the achievements of the single individual but also on the idealized representation of the family and social group. In this light, the presence of a small black-gloss cup along the edge of the pit containing burial A, far away from all the other grave goods, can be explained. Its placement could be an indication of a libation ritual paid to the individual buried in A. Similarly, other vases in the assemblage, such as the series of miniature olpai and the set of a griffin-handled phiale and bronze oinochoe, suggest the possibility of libation rituals during the funeral. The rest of the assemblage illustrates the deceased’s participation in communal activities such as feasting and, possibly, point to the existence of a funerary banquet.51 While the vessels from the local tradition might, in fact, be connected to the consumption of vegetables and grains, the presence of the cauldron, spits, and tripod are a clear indication of the deceased’s affiliation to a social class that partook in the preparation, distribution, and shared consumption of meat. Likewise, the presence of the two kraters, a large number of drinking vessels, and containers for pouring and storing liquids52 point toward the existence in Canosa of communal drinking rituals, perhaps connected with the political life of the community. While it is not possible to equate these rituals with the Greek symposion with certainty, the presence of shapes of the Greek drinking set and the iconography of the red-figure vases tells us that the local elite must have understood and adopted some values of Greek culture. The presence of two kraters within a single assemblage, one decorated with a band motif, the other Apulian red-figure, is particularly interesting. The Piccolo Vimini tomb is one of the first attestations, together with tomb 8/08 from via Piano San Giovanni, of a practice that will become rather common in this area in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. The two vessels may have had different functions. The banded krater53 seems to have been used mainly in sympotic rituals. This example was located close to the red-figure pelike,54 and in its interior were stored five black-gloss and overpainted kylikes, two small olpai, and one small one-handled cup (WF 106). Three other kylikes seem to have fallen from their original location at the mouth of the krater. Other vessels (small olpai, kantharoi,

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

and skyphoi) were placed in a radial pattern around the banded krater, underlining the centrality of this vase. The function of the red-figure krater seems to have been different.55 It has only one miniature kantharos inside, which emphasizes the exceptional symbolic value of the red-figure krater. Because of its essential associations, this vase can be interpreted as a tribute bestowed by just one mourner, perhaps by the most important member of the family, to either of the individuals buried inside the Piccolo Vimini tomb.

Tomb 8/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni While the Piccolo Vimini tomb is an expression of Canosa’s society in the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E., two tombs from via Piano San Giovanni illustrate the development of a social hierarchy within the community just a few years later. Via Piano S. Giovanni is an area in the northeastern periphery of Canosa, where recent excavations have brought to light a small necropolis used from the Archaic period to the fourth century B.C.E. Tombs 1/08 and 8/08 were built one in front of the other, basically on the same axis, and divided only by a small rectangular space. This particular arrangement suggests that these two tombs, and the plot of land where they were built, belonged to a single family unit. If this assessment is true, it could also mean that in the mid-fourth century B.C.E. Canosa had a land tenure model with formalized rules about long-term occupation and transmission of heredity. Both tombs are also characterized by similar funerary rituals, as both occupants were semicremated. Semicremation was rather common in the Ofanto river valley, as illustrated by other hypogea in Canosa.56 Although, some aspects of this funerary practice are still not completely clear, scholars agree that it was not related to gender, age, or status.57 Tomb 8/08 was a hypogeum with a stepped dromos, a rectangular burial chamber with a bench along the back wall (Fig. 8.4, WF 107), and an ogival vault.58 Inside the chamber a semicremated adult individual was buried in a dorsal recumbent position with flexed legs. Although osteological analyses have not yet occurred, the funerary assemblage suggests that the occupant was a female. A necklace of glass paste beads, a bronze pendent, and five fibulae have been recovered on the body, and a bronze toilet implement was among the rest of the grave goods. The ceramic assemblage included three geometric ollae (De Juliis’ Daunian III style59 ), two red-figure vases, three overpainted vessels, eleven black-gloss vases, five cooking pots, and eight pots in the local banded style. The black-gloss vases included some of the shapes already seen in the Piccolo Vimini tomb (kylix, skyphos, kantharos, one-handled cup, and miniature olpe). Similarly, the overpainted pottery was represented by a repertoire of shapes (kantharoid vessel,60 shape 2 oinochoe, and shape 8 oinochoe) mirrored in a tomb from the via Moscatello and other funerary contexts in Canosa. However, it is notable

egh

175

176

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

8.4. Tomb 8/08, Canosa (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

that the overpainted vases found in tomb 8/08 received less careful treatment of the surfaces and were painted in a cursory manner. All of these characteristics seem to point toward a workshop that produced vessels of relatively low quality, especially compared with those found in the Piccolo Vimini tomb. More interesting are the vessels in local banded style, some of which were never previously found in Canosa’s cemeteries, and afterward have a very limited diffusion. These shapes include the amphora with globular body and banded decoration and the trefoil mouthed oinochoe in mixed style of a type present in Ordona and Minervino Murge.61 The ceramic assemblage of tomb 8/08 was grouped in three places inside the burial chamber. The first group was formed by pottery placed above and next to the bench in the southeastern corner of the chamber. This group included a geometric olla, a stamnos, a brown slipped plate, three cups, four pouring vessels, and six drinking vessels. From the function of these shapes, this first group seems to be connected with purifying rituals and food and drink offerings, which would also explain the presence of a thymiaterion62 just to the left of the skull. The second group of ceramics was carefully arranged to the right of the entrance. The main vase of the group was a red-figure bell krater associated with a couple of geometric ollae, an amphora, and an impasto olla.63 The bell krater featured a generic Dionysiac subject: a nude youth holding a thyrsus and a woman holding a phiale (WF 108). Although it is difficult to assign the vessel to a specific workshop, the composition of the main scene and a few elements of the cloaked figures on side B help to establish its chronology. Because of some similarities to the style of

egh

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

177

–55

19 30

33

31.32.34

20 27

21 22 23 16 15 11 10

18 17 29 12

9

–281

–57 8

24 14 25 26 41

2

4

3

6

28

7

–52

–278 35 36

5

1

40

38

39

37

–68

0

50

8.5. Plan of Tomb 8/08, Canosa (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

the Group of the Vienna Pelike 401364 and elements that recall examples of the Painter of Athens 1714,65 the krater most likely belongs within the initial phase of Middle Apulian production. The third group of pottery, placed in the northwest corner next to the feet of the deceased, (Fig. 8.5, WF 109), was composed mostly of shapes related to food preparation and consumption, as illustrated by one stamnoid olla with lid and three plain impasto pans. Next to the knees, in a quite isolated position at the center of the tomb, a small red-figure lekythos with a running hare was found (WF 110). This vessel belongs to the series of small perfume containers painted with subjects generally connected to erotic and nuptial activities.66 Its closest comparison is another vessel painted by the same painter and with similar subject from the Accurso necropolis at Gravina Botromagno. The similarities between the Piccolo Vimini hypogeum and this tomb from Piano S. Giovanni seem to illustrate that by the mid-fourth century B.C.E. the funerary assemblage in Canosa had become a standardized set: a composite mix of local wares and shapes adopted from the Greek tradition in a repertoire that emphasized communal drinking and feasting. It also seems that some wares, previously reserved for only a part of the community, were now available for use by nonelite individuals. However, we have to wonder whether the presence of similar shapes in the two tombs implies necessarily that the vases were used in the same way.67 For example, the black-gloss skyphos from the southwestern corner of tomb 8/08 seems to be more closely connected to food offering rituals than

100 cm

178

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

communal drinking. This vase was found filled with organic remains of a yellowish color, which have been recognized as the mineralized fruits of the Rosaceae Sorbus domestica (rowan tree). We do not know what an offering of rowans meant, but the relationship between container and contents is certainly more complex than expected.68

Tomb 1/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni I will conclude with an analysis of tomb 1/08 from Via Piano San Giovanni, just across from tomb 8/08. Tomb 1/08 contained the skeletons of two semicremated adult individuals (Fig. 8.6, WF 111). The skeleton on the right side of the tomb (A) belonged to a male; it seems that its bones had been disturbed and moved around, possibly when the tomb was open to accommodate the second burial. The skeleton on the left side (B) is in a better state of preservation. It is very probable that it was a female, because of the presence of two fibulae placed on its chest and a spinning tool among the grave goods. The ceramic assemblage for burial B consisted of three items: a large, undecorated askos; a one-handled cup with banded decoration on the lower wall; and an incense burner, which might have been used for the purification rite. The grave goods belonging to burial A included a bronze bowl and spit. A spear was buried outside the chamber in accordance to the practice of depositing weapons in the vestibule of a hypogeum, common also at Minervino and Ordona. The presence of this spear might be symbolic of the warrior status of the deceased, serving almost as a shorthand representation of the entire panoply. The ceramic grave goods were placed either near the deceased’s head or in the northeastern corner. The assemblage was composed of three geometric ollae, three Apulian red-figure vases, eight black-gloss vessels, five overpainted vases, five cooking pots, a lamp, and fourteen vessels of local production, including a column krater decorated with “mixed” style. The red-figure vases (Fig. 8.7, WF 112) are represented by a late owl skyphos, a bell krater, and a small lekythos decorated with a running dog.69 The bell krater, with a very conventional Dionysiac scene, evokes the style of the Judgment Painter.70 It is ascribed to the painter’s later phase, because of the banal iconography and the more cursory drawing. The identification is based on the details of the faces, with the typical eyes with small pupils, the arched eyebrows, the small nose, and the characteristic chin. A few elements, such as the pose of the seated female figure and the neat lines of the chiton, connect this krater to the one in Ruvo published by Trendall.71 The black-gloss and overpainted vases are present with the same repertoire of shapes as those of tomb 8/08 and the Piccolo Vimini tomb. The only exception is a shape 6 black-gloss oinochoe. This is a shape usually limited to the area of Melfi and is attested, for example, in a rich burial of the necropolis of Piano Carbone in Banzi.

egh

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

179

35 22

55

25 24

20 21

31

27

33

32

39

42

40

41

38

23

16

48 38

17 37 49-50 sotto 37

28 12 19 15 11 14 10 13

29

18

43

34 54

44.45.46 30

47

26 9 53

8

7

–270

6

1

2 3

5

52

4

51

0

50

8.6. Plan of Tomb 1/08, Canosa (author).

Among the local pottery there are some new shapes. For example, there are two small, dark-painted olpai, which demonstrate the diffusion of this new type within Daunia during the mid-fourth century B.C.E., and a red painted trefoil oinochoe with a ring at the base of the neck, which seems to be a late imitation of an Attic ring-collar vessel of the first half of the century.72 The column krater in mixed style represents a shape that is not popular in the area of the Ofanto River. There are no close comparisons in northern Daunia, while the vegetal bands and the ornamental schemes find parallels in Peucetian sites.73 Certain exchanges of goods and ideas with Peucetia can be confirmed also by the presence in this tomb of a clay cauldron with moveable ring handles – clearly an imitation of a metal prototype, which is common in Rutigliano, Conversano, Ceglie, and Bitonto.74 From the analysis of the grave goods, tomb 1/08 from the via Piano San Giovanni can be dated around the middle of the fourth century B.C.E., as indicated in

100 cm

180

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

particular by the association between the black-gloss guttus and lamp, which becomes commonplace during the second half of the century.

Conclusions There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of the three tombs presented in this chapter. In the first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. Canosa did not have a central necropolis; small groups of tombs coexisted with residential areas in the landscape (Moscatello, Toppicelli, Piano San Giovanni). It is possible that different kin-based groups buried their dead near their homes in an effort to reaffirm their ties with their dead ancestors. An increase of social complexity is visible from the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E., when we see the appearance of the first social markers in the site’s funerary assemblages. The presence of the spear75 in grave good assemblages defined some male burials as warrior graves. However, as the number of weapons is so very limited it is possible that it was not the military prowess of the individual that was being praised, but rather his status within the social group. Female burials seem to be definable, instead, by the presence of fibulae and other ornaments, as documented by the burials of tombs 1/08 and 8/08 of Piano san Giovanni. Male and female burials have similar ceramic assemblages, with vases identical in their function and shape. It is worth wondering whether this pottery was used for the same purposes by both genders and whether its presence in a tomb meant that the deceased actually partook in rituals of communal feasting, in particular the symposium. This latter possibility is certainly suggested by the widespread presence in tombs of small drinking vessels in association with one or two kraters; however, it is also possible that these assemblages were meant only to allude to the symposium in order to show that the deceased belonged to a certain social group. If this is true, the presence of so many sympotic vessels in the Piccolo Vimini tomb can also be explained as a symbolic participation of the extended family group in the ritual. Similarly, the presence of so many miniature olpai in the same tomb can be explained by ritual needs rather than being just an expression of wealth. The central sympotic vessel from these three tombs was a medium-sized red-figure bell krater. Comparison with data from the Soprintendenza’s Archives has shown that red-figure bell kraters, datable to the Early and Middle Apulian periods, were a very common shape in Canosa and were equally distributed throughout the site,76 although an abundance have been found in the northern sector.77 The distribution pattern seems to illustrate that the consumption of red-figure pottery was not limited to the elite, and a large part of the population could have had access to these vases. Moreover, the absence of elaborate vases decorated with complex epic or mythological themes and the absolute predominance of mid-sized plain style vases in the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. seem to reflect the choices of certain social groups who were not necessarily marked by extraordinary levels of wealth.78

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

8.7. Bell krater, skyphos, and lekythos from Tomb 1/08, Canosa (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

It seems that until the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. the stable nature of the economy of the region had guaranteed a certain prosperity to a wide portion of the population and that the tombs from Piano S. Giovanni are an expression of this society. In the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. we see a new development in social organization with the ascent of a few elite families, such as those buried in the Varrese tomb, in the Tomb of the Hoplite, and in the Monterisi Rossignoli hypogeum. The creation of such pyramidal hierarchy is suggested in the grave goods assemblages, the adoption of new pottery types, and the necessity for more complex products with sophisticated, often mythological, scenes. The

egh

181

182

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

monumental vessels of the Late Apulian period became, then, the perfect symbol for the funerary ideology of the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. that emphasized the status of a limited oligarchy. Translated by Bice Peruzzi and Emilia Oddo Notes 1. The introductory paragraphs (pp. 168–69) were added by the editors to provide background in the English translation for the evidence presented in this chapter by Dr. Corrente. 2. Just to give an example, the name vase of Darius Painter was found in Canosa. 3. Volpe 2006, 559–87. 4. De Juliis 1994, 353–4; De Juliis 1997. 5. For problems related to production and for aspects of typology, see Cuomo Di Caprio 2007. 6. Huntington and Metcalf 1979. 7. D’Agostino 2000. 8. Parker Pearson 2000, 9. 9. For data on the presence of Apulian vases on the antiquarian market, see Carpenter 2009, 32. 10. Bottini 1984, 27–33. 11. See, in this regard, the study focused on the center of Forentum-Lavello: Giorgi et al. 1988; Bottini and Fresa 1991. 12. For distributive analysis of Daunia using the methodology of settlement archaeology and the “paesaggio fisico,” see Pecere 2006, 177–213. 13. Mayer 1898, 197. 14. Cassano and Corrente 1992, 145–8. 15. Ibid., 145. 16. De Juliis 1992b, 149. 17. Cassano and Corrente 1992, 145–8. 18. It was named “Piccolo Vimini” for its similarities with the so-called “Vimini hypogeum,” an elite tomb found in 1980 in the area of via Piano San Giovanni in Canosa. For a preliminary report of the Piccolo Vimini tomb, see Corrente 1991, 245–7; Corrente 2005, 65–7. On the Vimini tomb, see De Juliis 1990; De Juliis 1992b, 350–81. 19. Construction work on the modern road during summer 2009 revealed that the buildings continue. 20. For Canosa-Toppicelli, see Corrente 2009, 395–8. 21. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40219; for chronology and typology, see Canosa 2007, 108–12. 22. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40211. 23. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40210. 24. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40201. The presence of the pincer inside the vessel corroborates the hypothesis that it was used for serving cooked meat that had been boiled in the cauldron. 25. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40192. 26. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40202. 27. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40191. 28. Giorgi 1988a, 226–7. 29. RVAp, 63–9. 30. RVAp, 60–1.

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

31. For the meaning of mirrors as symbols of seduction and beauty, and on their religious and magic implication, see Cassimatis 1998; on the preference for scenes of seduction on pelikai in Apulian contexts, see Baggio 2004, 219–20. 32. RVAp, 3/110. 33. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40193. 34. These are examples that can be attributed, according to the classification of De Juliis (1977) to Shape 1 of the Daunian Subgeometric II and to Shape 1 of the Daunian Subgeometric III. On the basis of the classification of Yntema (1990) the ollae belong to the South-Daunian Subgeometric II B, which can be dated between 475 and 350 B.C.E. See also De Juliis 1991, 893–913. 35. Osanna 2008b, 363–5; Masiello 2007, 335–42. 36. Labellarte and Rossi 1992, 562–5, no. 3. 37. Giorgi 1988b, 186–205; Palmentola 2007, 463–522; Blundo 2008, 382–6. 38. Bottini and Fresa 1991, 99, no. 13, fig. 252. 39. Labellarte and Rossi 1992, 562–7, no. 17. 40. See Fresa 1991a, type 4, 69 no. 9 for a comparison from tomb 600 of the acropolis of Lavello, and one from tomb 719 in Lavello-San Felice. This shape is very rare, so it is possible that there was only one workshop producing vessels based on Attic models. 41. For this pattern, see Martinelli 1988, 206–12, nos. 1–4. 42. Palmentola 2007, 494–5 (type 5: delicate class). This type of kylix is present in Peucetia between the second half of the fifth and the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. See Blundo 2008, 383, for comparisons from Salapia. 43. De Juliis 1990, 120–2. 44. Corrente 2005, 70–1. 45. De Juliis 2002; De Juliis 2007a, 527–40. 46. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. nos. 40161–63, 40173. The swan painted on the kylix inv. no. 40162 has the same form and style as on a pot published in Schauenburg 2001, 38, fig. 186–7. 47. Bari, Museo Archeologico Provinciale, inv. nos. 3611–3614 painted with open palmettes, with a dolphin on a wave motif, and with an owl and a lizard. 48. Giorgi et al. 1988, 234–6, discusses the swan motif and the possibility of attributing it to the same painter of the vases in tomb 94 from Lavello-Casino and those in tomb 7 from Monte Sannace-Scarfi. The motif of the swan with open wings in silhouette returns in a tomb of Salapia (Lippolis 2008a, 387–400, tomb 10, fig. 27), while a kylix with impressed palmettes and decorated with a feline in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples has been recently attributed by Andrea Montanaro to a semichamber tomb in Ruvo (Montanaro 2007, 378–81, nos. 55.20–22). 49. The selection of elements typical of a watery, lake environment may refer to purifying rites of the dead. The comparison (Ugolini 1983, 468–70) with imagery on the foot of an Archaic louterion from the sanctuary of San Biagio della Venella in Metaponto, which is decorated with the characters of a hierogamia framed by an owl, a lizard, an aquatic bird, and a plant, seem to me very meaningful. The figurative repertoire of the kylikes could also reflect cultural aspects as shown by the reference to temple architecture in the example with an Ionic capital. 50. In particular, see the Vimini tomb; De Juliis 1990. 51. We do not know the when the funerals took place among the local populations. Yet, the perideipnon might have happened outside the tomb, and the tomb might have played a role in the creation of social identities. 52. On the meaning of the symposium in the Greek world, see Murray 1988, 139–57; 2009, 524–43. 53. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40214. 54. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40190.

egh

183

184

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

55. Canosa, Palazzo Sinesi, inv. no. 40215. 56. For example, the Vimini tomb, found in 1980 in the same area of Piano S. Giovanni. 57. The rites of semicremation and inhumation coexisted in the Ofanto area from the end of fifth century B.C.E. This duality in burial practices cannot be completely explained in terms of social hierarchy (role/rank) or gender/age. A possible explanation is the infiltration of Samnite ethnic components in the Daunian population. See Corrente 2003, 94–110. 58. For comparanda, see the Vimini Tomb; De Juliis 1990. 59. The palmettes on the flaring rim are also found on examples from the Varrese tomb. See De Juliis 1992b, group Varrese, ollae nos. 1–3 (245–6). 60. For the function of kantharoid vessels in Italic tradition, see Colivicchi 2006b, 117–30. 61. Vessels no. 2 and 3 of the tomb MS.5 from Minervino Murge date to the early fourth century B.C.E., Lo Porto 1999, 97. 62. A lack of evidence for burning suggests it was not used as incense burner. 63. These include an oinochoe in mixed style, a small black-gloss olpe, a cup, and an undecorated one-handled cup. 64. RVAp, 206–10. 65. RVAp, 210–18. 66. The most generic scheme shows a nude youth with a mirror in front of a woman; however, on the lekythos from tomb 84/10 from Canne Antenisi the female counterpart is not represented; Labellarte and Rossi 1992, 567, no. 92; Colivicchi 2006b, 287–90. 67. The idea of interpreting the assemblage as evidence of participation in the symposium, in my opinion, is based on an interpretation formed from our biased preconceptions. 68. The analyses were done by F. Solinas and G. Colaianni of the Laboratorio di Archeobotanica e Paleoecologia dell’Universit`a del Salento. On the species, see Borgongino 2006, 135. The rowan, rich in pectic and tannic substances, if fermented could be used in the preparation of alcoholic drinks. See the ancient sources, in particular, Verg. G. (III 376–382): “et pocula laeti fermento atque acidis imitantur vitea sorbis” and Columella, Rust. (XII, 16.3) speaking about the ways to preserve the fruits in mulled wine or in wine juice. Additional evidence for the association of vessels and paleobotanical remains in funerary contexts come from a tomb on the Via Fornari. Laboratory analysis has identified seeds of sorbus/pyrus, endocarps of Olea europea, two fragments of seeds of vitis vinifera, with carbonized olive wood and mountain ash within a stamnos covered by a lid. In this case, beyond documenting a broad spectrum of the main crops, grapes and olives, the presence of carbonized wood indicated ceremonies of purification with fire. The remnants of this purification fire were collected and conserved in the closed container within the burial chamber. We could therefore distinguish various moments of the ritual performed both outdoors and inside the tomb and a particular vessel used above all as a container for the remains of the offering. 69. See Franco 2003 for the association of animal imagery and gender. 70. RVAp, 261–5. 71. RVAp, 10/22. 72. See Palmentola 2007, 471–5. 73. The krater, with a typical, mid-fourth century B.C.E. slender profile, is decorated with vegetal motifs on the neck, around the handles, and on the lower body. The rest of the surface is fully painted. For the finds in Peucetia, see Riccardi 2007, 369. 74. See Masiello 2007, 340. 75. It could also be identified as pilum as it has a long and narrow blade; for comparison, see the burial on the right in chamber B of the Vimini tomb (De Juliis 1990, 81, no. 48). 76. On the distribution of Apulian vases in the centers of Daunia, Peucetia, and Messapia, see Robinson 1990b, De Juliis 2004, 145–9.

Red-Figure Vases in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Canosa

77. These attributions are based on data from the Historical Archive of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici in Taranto. 78. The presence of red-figure vases could reflect a situation similar to that observed by Reusser (2002, 119–23) in his analysis of Etruscan funerary contexts, in which Attic vases are present even in tombs of nonelite social status.

egh

185

CHAPTER NINE

APULIAN POTTERY IN MESSAPIAN CONTEXTS Maria Teresa Giannotta

In the last few decades, the research and systematic excavations of several sites in the Salento, directed by the University of Lecce, foreign universities, and the Soprintendenza per Beni Archeologici della Puglia, have noticeably enriched our knowledge and partially changed our interpretation of the Messapian world.1 The results of these excavations have given us useful tools for the reconstruction of the settlement patterns, funerary rituals, local craft production, and trade and import networks. Messapia was characterized by a complex system of settlements.2 Typically, inside a circuit of fortified walls, a settlement was organized in scattered small groups of houses and nearby spaces intended for burials, cult activities, craft production, and agriculture. In the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. there was a noticeable demographic increase and development of many urban settlements. Apulian red-figure vases, like Attic and Lucanian, are present in Messapia especially in funerary contexts, while they rarely appear in cult contexts, such as the sanctuary of Monte Papalucio a Oria.3 Sometimes small fragments can be found in settlements in strata dated to the third and second century B.C.E., but scholars believe these fragments come from the destruction of fourth century B.C.E. tombs.4 Unfortunately, find spots are only rarely mentioned in the publication of single vases, especially in the great catalogues of attributed vases by Trendall and Cambitoglou,5 where only ten findspots are provided for a few dozen vases.6 My first goal then, is to resolve the problem of the provenance of these vases, in order to offer a more ample and up-to-date picture of the Messapian contexts where Apulian red-figure has been found. In fact, more than 400 pieces can be identified from more than twenty sites. The second goal is to understand the significance of these vases by looking at their precise topographic and functional contexts in the Messapian cultural milieu and in relation to the Hellenic world. WF refers to Web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the Web site are in color.

186

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

Funerary Rituals in Messapia An awareness of funerary rituals in Messapia is necessary for an understanding of the presence of some of these Apulian red-figure vases in funerary contexts. Besides the inclusion of tombs inside the settlement, other features set the inhumation burials of Messapia apart from those in the Greek world and also from those of the indigenous populations of central and northern Apulia.7 The most important characteristic, from our point of view, is the reuse of tombs.8 This funerary practice is clearly visible from the excavation of the site of Melliche in the ancient center of Vaste.9 There the same tomb was reused for several burials, probably by the same family group. The earlier inhumations, with their grave goods, were removed each time and reburied in secondary depositions inside or outside the same tomb. This practice is documented from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period and is attested at all sites in Messapia. It is a practice that needs to be taken into account when the materials from “old” excavations are studied. In fact, when a tomb was excavated prior to the 1980s, all the artifacts were collected together, without taking into account the individual depositions, and often without even collecting the skeletal remains. During systematic excavations, however, the presence of anthropological remains of one or more individuals was at least noted, as for example in the excavations at Manduria between the 1950s and 1960s.10 The finds from a tomb with more than one deposition, then, constitute a “complex,” a group of grave good assemblages as in the case of tomb 515 from Manduria (Fig. 9.1, WF 113).11 This points to another peculiar aspect of the Messapian world: the simplicity of the grave good assemblages. In contrast with other indigenous populations of southern Italy, Messapian grave good assemblages comprise a limited number of vases and/or personal objects.12 There are, however, exceptions to this general picture, such as the monumental semicamera tombs found at Ugento, Cavallino, and Oria,13 and also at Mesagne and Muro Tenente,14 all datable between the fifth and fourth century B.C.E. The presence of bronze vases and Greek imports inside these tombs highlights the relative richness of their assemblages, which has led scholars to believe that these tombs belong to Messapian elites.15 In the last decades of the fourth and during the third century B.C.E. social elites seem to be distinguished by painted chamber tombs.16 Messapian funerary assemblages include vases and objects that, from their shape and function, are considered “indicators” of specific social roles.17 Kraters, weapons, and strigils characterize male assemblages,18 while female assemblages are characterized by the olla in the archaic period and later by a typical Messapian vase called a trozzella.19 Grave assemblages for children are characterized by the presence of small vases, terracotta figures, and tintinnabula, beside some specific shapes such as the baby-feeder.20 Last, vases for food offerings (lekanides, plates, cups, and small cups) and containers for perfumes and ointments (lekythoi and unguentaria) can be found in all assemblages.

egh

187

188

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

9.1. Manduria, Tomb 515/1958. Funerary assemblage (Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia – Archivio fotografico).

Methodology and Analysis of Finds The observations that follow here are based on study of materials that are either published or displayed in the museums of the Salento (WF 114a,b). An attempt has been made to trace a find spot for each vessel discussed. Those materials with certain provenances are catalogued by site. Data about the appearance, context, and bibliography were collected for each vase in order to create maps, graphs, and tables of quantitative and thematic distribution. The methodology used here follows the model applied by Ted Robinson, on a larger regional scale, that had as a goal the identification of workshops of Apulian figured pottery outside the polis of Taranto.21 The published vases are, for the most part, included in the monumental work of Trendall and Cambitoglou, from which the division into three periods (Early, Middle, and Late) and the classification into workshops, groups, and painters are used here. The revision and updating of the data about the provenance of the Messapian material has allowed the recovery of important information about the production and circulation of vessels by some of the painters, workshops, and groups.

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

9.2. Messapia. Map showing quantitative distribution of Apulian red-figure vases.

Distribution Patterns and Quantitative Analysis of the Findings The sample of contexts here is generally heterogeneous, strongly influenced by the history of the archaeological research in the area, and by the continuity of life of many ancient settlements. To counterbalance this heterogeneity, at least partially, recent studies on the diffusion of Greek pottery in Messapia have correlated the finds with the level of reliability of the data concerning the context.22 The findings of funerary assemblages have been grouped in three categories, depending on the degree of stratigraphic definition: “good,” “poor,” and “not classifiable.” From this point of view, the finds of Apulian pottery at the sites of Cavallino, Ceglie Messapica, Mesagne, Rocavecchia, and Vaste belong to the first group while most of the others belong to the last two categories. Some 420 vases have been classified, coming from twenty-five sites indicated in the distribution map (Fig. 9.2, WF 115).23 Most of these sites correspond to ancient Messapian centers; however, in

egh

189

190

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

some cases the modern names are derived from a small settlement or a farm, as for example Alessano, Montesardo, Ortelle, and Veglie. Apulian pottery is widespread in the entire Messapian region. However, the southern part and the Ionic side seems to have been only marginally interested in it; most sites on the distribution map are represented by a single vessel. The only two exceptions are Vaste, a site that has been the subject of systematic research and publications, and Ugento, one of the largest Messapian centers. In contrast, the sites on the Adriatic side to the north of Vaste show a higher number of finds, while those in the “isthmus” area, between Taranto and Brindisi, have numbers of finds that can be defined as moderate, between eleven and twenty vases. The sites of Egnazia and Rudiae must be considered as exceptional cases, which will be examined in detail. The distribution map (Fig. 9.3, WF 116) of the provenance of Apulian redfigured vases, subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late, shows a rather homogenous distribution of the relevant sites in all three periods. Nineteen sites are documented for the Early Apulian,24 fourteen sites for the Middle Apulian,25 and twenty for the Late Apulian.26 Apulian pottery from all three phases is present in only twelve sites,27 which correspond to ancient settlements of large and medium size.28 Noteworthy, however, is the almost complete absence of Apulian red-figure vases from Muro Leccese and from Nard` o, two Messapian towns of significant size and importance.29 Vases are attested in almost equal numbers for the Early (99 vases) and Middle (100) periods, while this number becomes more than double in the Late period (233), when the numbers from Egnatia increase noticeably.

Vase Shapes and Distribution In Messapia seven shapes of Apulian pottery are present in significant numbers. These shapes are: the krater (more than 130 vases), the pelike (circa 100), the lekythos (circa 70), the oinochoe (circa 40), the skyphos (circa 30), the hydria (circa 20) and the epichysis (a little more than 10). Other shapes are represented by only one example; among these are the alabastron, anforetta, candelabrum, kalathos, plate, and stamnos. The distribution of shape, with the exception of those from Rudiae, reflects the description already given for the general distribution of vases (Fig. 9.4, WF 117). In fact, for the sites in the southern area and on the Ionic side of the region (with the exception of Ugento and Vaste), only one shape is documented. For the sites on the Adriatic side and in the isthmus area the number of shapes varies between four and five, while all the main shapes are present in the sites of Egnazia and Rudiae. Interesting results emerge when the number of vessels per shape in the different chronological phases is analyzed. For Early Apulian (Fig. 9.5, WF 118), the shapes present were krater, pelike, lekythos, oinochoe, skyphos, and hydria. These shapes are mostly represented by a single vessel per site. In this period the krater is the most common shape (present at seventeen sites) and it is also the one shape represented by the highest number of vessels. In most sites only one krater has been found

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

9.3. Messapia. Distribution map showing chronological phases.

(Carovigno, Ceglie Messapica, Lecce, Montesardo, Nard` o, Rocavecchia, Soleto, Ugento, and Vereto). The number of kraters per site is higher in the “isthmus” area (Oria, Manduria, Mesagne, Brindisi), where there are between two and five, while six kraters have been found in Valesio. In the southern part of the region, in this period, only one other shape, the hydria, is present at the sites of Vaste and Ugento with a single example at each. The presence of pelikai (three from Cavallino and one from Egnazia) and oinochoai (one from Cavallino) is sporadic. The site of Rudiae is the only place where all the shapes are present, represented by between two and five vessels. Moreover, neck amphoras30 are present there and are not found anywhere else. The high number of kraters (more than twenty) is likewise noteworthy. For Middle Apulian (Fig. 9.6, WF 119), the shapes remain mostly the same, as does the total number of vessels. There is, however, a noticeable decrease in the

egh

191

192

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

9.4. Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes.

number of kraters (about forty) and an increase in the number of pelikai (from seven to eighteen) and other shapes. There is also a more limited distribution, especially in the southern part of the region and on the Ionic side, with the complete disappearance of Apulian red-figure vases in some settlements, such as Montesardo, Vereto, Veglie, and Nard` o. In Middle Apulian, the distribution of kraters seems to be more sporadic. In particular, the shape is absent from some important centers such as Vaste, Manduria, Brindisi, and Mesagne. On the Adriatic side of the region there is a decline in the number of examples at Valesio, an increase in centers such as Rocavecchia and Lecce, and finally the appearance of them at Egnazia and Muro Tenente. At Rudiae all the shapes are still present but, in contrast with the previous phase, the skyphos and the oinochoe are represented by only one vessel, while

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

9.5. Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes (420–375 B.C.E.).

pelikai and lekythoi are more numerous; the number of kraters remains almost the same. For Late Apulian (Fig. 9.7, WF 120), as already noted, there is a noticeable increase in the total number of vessels (circa 230), but more than half of them (circa 120) come from the two sites of Egnazia (circa 65) and Rudiae (circa 55). In both centers, all shapes are present in large numbers. Moreover, in this phase there is an increase in the number of shapes present at some sites on the Adriatic side (Brindisi and Valesio) and in the “isthmus” area (Oria and Mesagne), although shapes are often represented by only one vessel. South of Rocavecchia a scarcity of finds extends across the entire region, with the exception of the site of Vaste. Moreover, the number of kraters decreases even more to slightly more than twenty vases (half of the number of those in the previous phase). The most common shape seems to be the pelike, both for the

egh

193

194

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

9.6. Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes (375–340 B.C.E.).

general number of examples (over sixty) and for its ubiquity, since it is present in almost all sites in the region.

Functions and Shapes of the Vases The analysis of the morphology and function of Apulian red-figure pottery found in Messapia gives some rather interesting results. For the most part, the vases can be divided into two groups by function: vases for feasting and vases for toilette. In Table 9.1 the different shapes present in the various sites have been divided by function. The group of vases for feasting includes, primarily, shapes connected with wine consumption. Vases for mixing are the most common (kraters and large skyphoi), followed by those designed to hold wine (pelikai) and those to pour (oinochoai); drinking vessels are rare, represented exclusively by skyphoi of the Corinthian type.

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

9.7. Messapia. Map showing distribution of shapes (340–300 B.C.E.).

The most common type of krater is the bell krater, followed by a small number of calyx kraters,31 while the column krater32 and the volute krater are extremely rare.33 Among the toilette vases, lekythoi are the most common and are present in the two principal variants, ovoid and squat; while shapes like lekane and alabastron, grouped in Table 9.1 under “others,” are rather rare.34

Important Sites Vaste, Egnazia, and Rudiae, for different reasons, represent exceptions to the general picture of Messapia; Vaste because all the materials found there have been published and provide a representative example of the presence of Apulian redfigure vases in a site of medium size and importance; for Egnazia and Rudiae, far

egh

195

196

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Table 9.1 MESSAPIA: RVAp SHAPES Feasting

Toilette

Transport

Alessano

1

Alezio

1

Brindisi

1

Carovigno

1

3

2

Ceglie Messapica

5

1

29

3

1

3

1

5

3

3

7

Lecce Manduria

1

1

1

Cavallino

Egnazia

1

Mesagne

3

2

1

8

1

9

4

1

13

1 1

2 1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

Muro Maurizio

2

Muro Tenente

3

Nard` o

2

2

6

2

1

Ortelle

3

4

2

1

1

Rocavecchia

2

4

8

Rudiae

8

27

51

1

1

1

10

Soleto

4 4

1

7

1

15

5 20

2

Valesio

1 12

1

7

1

Veglie

1

Vereto

1

Total

2

1

Oria

Vaste

2

3

Montesardo

Ugento

Others

Lekythos

Skyphos

Oinochoe

Skyphos LS

Pouring Drinking Volute krater

Column krater

Calyx krater

Mixing

Bell krater

Pelike

Hydria

Provenence

and Storage

110

145

3

2

3

1

46

1 5

8

73

3

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

more vases than is typical for the area have been found there. All three sites merit a closer look.

Vaste As shown in the general distribution map, twenty-five Apulian red-figure vases were found in Vaste: eight kraters,35 ten pelikai,36 five lekythoi,37 one hydria,38 and one oinochoe.39 The pelikai and the lekythoi are, for the most part, Late Apulian and belong to the groups of smaller vases associated with the Gioia del Colle Painter and the Circle of the Darius and Underworld Painters.40 These are all vases normally decorated with female heads. On larger vases with more complex representations, usually featuring two or more characters, there are images connected with the divine sphere and in particular Dionysiac subjects, in addition to genre scenes. Of particular interest are the kraters, because they can be used as social indicators. Seven of them are Early Apulian bell kraters, while the only calyx krater is Late Apulian. According to Trendall two kraters are the work of the Hoppin Painter,41 two of the Lecce Painter,42 and one of the Vienna Painter.43 To these, should be added the three vases in the recent publication of the excavation of the necropolis of Fondo Aia. The first is attributed to the Circle of the Tarporley Painter, the second to the Barletta Painter, and the last to the Circle of the Darius Painter.44 As for represented subjects, the most interesting ones are the Dionysiac scenes45 such as the figures on a very fragmentary calyx krater.46 On side A is a rare representation of the torture of Marsya in front of Apollo and female figures, probably other deities or Muses. The krater47 attributed to the circle of the Tarporley Painter includes two noteworthy images: on side A Dionysus and Ariadne are seated between a maenad and a young satyr; on side B there is a female figure (Ariadne?) seated on a rock, between two draped youths. Genre scenes such as offerings to the deceased and courting scenes can be found on the other kraters.48 The data about the find spots of individual vases are of variable reliability. No context is known for the kraters of the Lecce Painter housed in the Castromediano Museum in Lecce.49 For the two kraters by the Hoppin Painter (Fig. 9.8, WF 121), contextual information was recorded at the moment of the chance discovery of the tombs.50 The other four kraters come from the systematic excavation of the two necropoleis at the sites of Melliche and Fondo Aia.51 Skeletal analysis52 indicates that the kraters belong to burials of adult males. However, to understand fully the meaning of the krater in funerary rituals it is necessary to analyze the data in the context of the internal dynamics of the two necropoleis. The necropolis at the site of Melliche was used by an aristocratic family group for about a century and a half starting in the second quarter of the fifth century B.C.E.53 The eleven tombs and twelve “funerary deposits” represent a total of forty-six individuals, of which not more than fourteen are adult males.54 In the funerary assemblages of this necropolis only six red-figure kraters are present; of

egh

197

198

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

these, three are Attic,55 two are Lucanian, and one is Apulian. Chronologically they span six generations. The necropolis in Fondo Aia was used between the first half of the fourth and the beginning of the second century B.C.E. by a group composed for the most part of adult males (more than twenty-three) with strong indications that they were warriors.56 In a period that includes about eight generations, eight kraters are present; of these, three are Apulian red-figure, and five are Gnathia.57 The three Apulian red-figure kraters belong to the earliest use of the necropolis, two from the mid-fourth century B.C.E. and one from in the second half of the century. The limited extent of the evidence from Vaste obviously does not allow firm conclusions, but it points to an area of great interest for future research. The presence of figured vases in general, and kraters in particular, in funerary contexts at a site such as Vaste is indicative of an elite population. In particular, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that, as with the trozzella in female assemblages,58 the krater was reserved for only one individual of the “family” per generation. The evidence from the necropolis of Fondo Aia is particularly interesting because it shows that the decrease in numbers of Apulian red-figure kraters cannot be considered the result of a change in the funerary rituals. Rather, it points to a change in the pottery production that includes, from the middle of the fourth century B.C.E., the appearance and the proliferation of pottery with overpainted decoration on black background known as Gnathia pottery.59 The hypothesis that these vases were produced in the same workshops in Taranto that produced Apulian red-figure seems valid.60

Egnazia As already shown by the analysis of the distribution of vases, Egnatia and Rudiae constitute exceptions because of the high number of vases and variety of shapes found at these sites. Seventy-three vases and more than ten shapes have been catalogued from Egnazia, belonging for the most part to the Late Apulian period. Forty-one of these vases are housed in the Museum of Lecce, though information about their find spots is lacking. Notes, albeit incomplete, exist for only two find contexts. The first one refers to an assemblage of materials, now housed in the Museum of Brindisi. These vessels were found at Egnazia in 1939, inside a tomb. This group includes four Apulian red-figure vases, two of which are small in size and belong to children’s burials.61 Two vases were published by Trendall without provenance: a lekythos attributed to the Truro Painter and a hydria belonging to the group of smaller vases associated with the circle of the Darius and Underworld Painters.62 The second group comprises the materials found in 1952 in a semicamera tomb used repeatedly during the fourth century B.C.E. The artifacts (WF 122), belonging to several assemblages, include more than twenty-one Apulian red-figure vases,63 some of which have been attributed by Trendall. These include a hydria of the Ginosa Group, a calyx krater belonging to the Gioia del Colle Group, two pelikai

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

9.8. Vaste. Tomb III 1959. Funerary assemblage including a bell krater by the Hoppin Painter (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per I Beni Archeologici e Monumentali, Lecce).

that give the Egnazia Group its name, a pelike, and a squat-lekythos of the Group of Zurich 2657.64 The hydria belongs to Middle Apulian; all the others are Late Apulian. The anomalous and abundant evidence from Egnazia can be seen in the light of its geographical position as a border town influenced to some degree by neighboring Peucetia and its funerary rituals. This explains the high number of Apulian red-figure vases from a single assemblage, a typical feature of Peucetian burials, and also the presence of shapes that are “rare” and “unfashionable” in Messapia: oinochoe shape 1, kantharos, lebes gamikos, rhyton, and plate.65 Lastly, the higher concentration of evidence in the later period of Apulian red-figure has to

egh

199

200

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

be considered in the context of the historical development of the town and its harbor.

Rudiae The evidence from Rudiae, a Messapian town thought to be the motherland of the Latin poet Ennius, is even more interesting. The largest number of Apulian red-figured vases in Messapia is from this site, 146 from a total of 420. The number of Early and Middle Apulian vases is almost the same, 45 and 44 vases respectively, while it rises to 57 in Late Apulian. All of the shapes common in the region are present in finds from Rudiae. Among those forms (Table 9.2) the krater is most common (56 vessels), followed by pelike (27), lekythos (20) and oinochoe (15). The remaining shapes (skyphos, hydria, and epichysis) are represented by fewer than ten examples each. An analysis of the shapes by periods shows that the krater is dominant in Early and Middle Apulian (twenty-seven and twenty-three vessels), when other shapes seem to be represented by fewer than five vessels. During the Late Apulian period, however, there is a decrease in the number of kraters (fewer than ten), which is the same as the number of skyphoi and hydriai, and less that the number of pelikai, lekythoi, and oinochoai. The decrease in the number of red-figure kraters has to be seen in light of the increase in the number of Gnathia kraters at the same site and time.66 The vases, found for the most part during occasional excavations in the necropolis at the beginning of the last century, are almost all housed in the Sigismondo Castromediano Museum in Lecce.67 Most have been attributed and published by Trendall, but often without any indication of provenance. However, provenance is consistently indicated in the CVA of the Lecce Museum.68 From Early Apulian there are a few vases attributed to the Sisyphus Group (three kraters by the Painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl), to the Tarporley Group (a pelike by the Lecce 686 Painter), and to Group A of followers of the Tarporley Painter (a krater by the Painter of Sydney 64.48).69 Decidedly more consistent is the presence of the vases attributed to the painters of Group B of the Followers of the Tarporley Painter. In fact, thirty-three vases are attributed to eight painters and one group.70 A little more than half of these vases seem to be the work of two painters: nine are attributed to the Truro Painter, and seven to the Hoppin Painter. Of these two artists, the first painter decorates all shapes with the exception of kraters, while the second seems to prefer kraters, the only shape on which his work is found. For Middle Apulian at Rudiae the bell krater seems to remain the preferred shape. Among the painters of this period are the followers of the Plain Style of Tradition A, who paint almost exclusively kraters.71 Of the followers of the Plain Style of Tradition B, only the Thyrsos Painter is present with three pelikai and one krater.72 To the production called opera minora, fewer than a dozen vases

egh

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

201

Table 9.2 Vase Shapes

Painter of Sydney 46.48

1

Ch.5 Fells. of Tarporley (B)

Lecce Painter 614

1

Hoppin Painter

7

Painter of Lecce 681

1

Bucrane Group

3 1

1

1

1 2

1

Lecce Painter

3

Painter of Sydney 64

1

3

Painter of large egg patterns

3

Leesen Painter

1

Ch.6 Fells. of Tarporley

Dijon Painter

1

Ch.7 Early ornate

Felton Painter

Ch.9 Fells. Plain Style Tr (A)

Painter of Geneve 2754

1

Painter of Lecce 669

1

Chrysler Painter

1

Avignon Painter

1

Painter of Athens 1680 Middle Apulian (375–330 B.C.)

2

1

Painter of Stockholm 1999

1 1

1

Thyrsus Painter

3

Ch.11 Opera Minora Monash Group

1

Waterspout Group

Lekythos

Ch.4 Fells. of Tarporley (A)

Ch.10 Fells. Plain Style Tr (B)

Oinochoe

P. of Lecce 686

Schlaepfer Painter

3

3

Ch.3 Tarporley Group

Truro Painter

Skyphos

Early Apulian (420–375 B.C.)

Ch.1 Sisyphus Group P. of the Berlin Dancing Girl

Krater

Pelike

Hydria

RUDIAE: RVAp

1

1

Group of Lecce 727

1 1

Group of Dresden Amphora

2

Associated Vases

1

1

(continued)

202

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Table 9.2 (continued)

Ch.12 Snub-nose P. and Assoc.

Late Apulian (330–300 B.C.)

3

Painter of Lecce 660

2 1

1

Chiesa Group

2

Vienna Painter

1

Schulman Painter

3

Dion Group

2

Bochum Painter

1

Pittsburgh Group

1

Ch.18 Circle of Darius Painter (A)

Egnazia Group

Ch.19 Circle of Darius Painter (B)

Hydriai with 2 Figures

Ch.20 Circle of Darius Painter (C)

Group of Vatican Z 16

1 1 1

Group of Zurich 2659

1

Como Group

1

Flat-head Painter

1

Group of Vienna 751

1

Forl`ı Group

1

Ch.21 Smaller Vases B.M. Centaur Group (A)

6

Liverpool Group

1

Ch.22 Smaller Vases Chevron Group (A)

1

Group of Zurich 2661

1

Group of Vatican Z 3

1

Monopoli Group Otago Group Ch.23 Patera P. and Assoc.

Trieste Owl Group

Ch.30 The end of R-F. Style

Mattinata Painter

1 3 1 1

Lekythos

Skyphos

Krater

Snub-nose Painter

Ch.13 Varrese P. and Varrese Painter Assoc. Ch.14 Fells. of Snub-nose and Varrese Painters

Pelike

Hydria

RUDIAE: RVAp

Oinochoe

Vase Shapes

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

9.9. Bell krater by the Snub-nose Painter from Rudiae. Lecce, Museo Provinciale 609 (courtesy of Museo Provinciale Sigismondo Castromediano di Lecce).

are attributed to four groups.73 Lastly, kraters of the Snub-nose and the Varrese Painters and their followers and associates are present (Fig. 9.9, WF 123).74 For Late Apulian there is a sharp decrease in the number of kraters, while the Centaur Group, the B.M. Group, and Otago Group are prominent.75 A preference of some painters for specific shapes is also clear; the first group paints only oinochoai, and the second only pelikai. A skyphos attributed to the Egnazia Group76 (WF 124) is a good example of the production of this period. The observation that in Rudiae the high number of vessels, shapes, and painters is equally distributed in the three periods of production suggests that the settlement played the role of a true “central place” in the Messapian region, or at least in the southern part of the region. This role appears clear from the table of distribution of the Early Apulian vases (Table 9.3) produced by the Hoppin-Lecce Group77 who, as Ted Robinson noticed, seem to be present almost exclusively in Messapia.78 The provenance of the vases by the Painter of Lecce 614 , an artistic

egh

203

204

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Table 9.3

1 The Lecce Painter 614 2 The Hoppin Painter

1 1

1

2

1

3 2

14

1

Bucrane Group

3

The Pt of Stockholm 1999

1

4 The Truro Painter

1 1

1

1

1

The Iris Painter and Associated

1

3

6 The Rohan Painter 1

4 1

9

5 The Lecce Painter

Total

Vereto

Vaste

2

1

3 The Painter of Lecce 681

Valesio

Soleto

Rudiae

Oria

Mesagne

Manduria

Lecce

Carovigno

RVAp Chapter 5. The Hoppin – Lecce Group

Brindisi

Messapia: Provenience

10 2

7

1

1

1

2

The Painter of Sydney 64

4

4

The Painter of Large Egg Patterns

3

3

The Leesen Painter

1

1

Total

1

1

1

2

1

1

33

2

4

4

1

51

personality whose work deeply influenced the production of other painters of the Group,79 is worth noting in this context. Four vases have been attributed to him, three of which were surely found in Messapia: two from Valesio, including the name vase (WF 125), and one from Rudiae.80 Vases by the Hoppin-Lecce Group are present at eleven sites, most with only one vase and thus with only one painter81 (Table 9.3). At Manduria and Lecce there are two vases by the same painter,82 at Oria two vases by two painters,83 at Vaste four vases by two painters,84 and at Valesio four vases by three painters.85 More complex is the evidence in Rudiae where there are more than thirty vases representing the work of ten painters or groups. The examples from Rudiae are then almost double the total from the other ten sites in Messapia. Vases have

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

been found at Rudiae by all the painters of the Hoppin-Lecce Group attested in Messapia with the exceptions of the Rohan and Iris Painters, both smaller personalities among the associates and followers of the Lecce Painter.86 From the distribution of the products of the most prominent personalities of the Group, several observations can be made. The painters represented in Messapia by the higher number of vases seem to be the Hoppin Painter (fourteen vessels), followed by the Truro Painter (ten) then by the Lecce Painter (seven).87 Vases by the Hoppin Painter are present at six sites, while those by the Lecce Painter are at five. From Rudiae there is a high number of vases attributed to the two painters (seven vessels by the first painter, three by the second).88 Even more significant from the perspective of the localization of the workshops is the fact that Rudiae is the provenance of all the Messapian examples, with the exception of one vase from Valesio, attributed to the Truro Painter.89

Conclusions The data presented in this chapter, which emerged mostly from the study of published Apulian red-figure vases, constitute the documentary basis for more advanced research in various directions; for example, the localization of the workshops in the region.90 In relation to the primary goal of this work, that is, to individuate and catalogue the presence of Apulian red-figure vases in Messapian contexts, several points emerge: 1 In Messapia there is evidence for Apulian red-figure vases in all periods of its production and in all parts of the region. 2 Apulian red-figure vases are present in Messapia almost exclusively in funerary contexts. 3 The relatively low total number of vases suggests that Apulian red-figure was likely a pricy commodity, reserved for a small circle of Messapian elites. 4 Among the shapes present in Messapia, the krater (almost always bell kraters) is the most prevalent shape during the first half of the fourth century B.C.E. The krater is included in only some adult male grave assemblages. From the results of the analysis of the necropolis of Vaste, it seems that this shape was limited to the most important individuals, one per generation in each “family” or “group” necropolis. The krater is usually found together with a small vase for pouring and/or one for drinking, usually a skyphos in black-gloss. Such vases constitute a functional set for ritual or ceremonial drinking of wine, a prerogative of only a few individuals. The first Gnathia kraters appear in funerary contexts in Messapia starting in the second quarter of the fourth century, then during the second half of the century, they completely supplant Apulian red-figure kraters. A clear example can be found in the necropolis Fondo Aia in Vaste, discussed earlier. 5 Rudiae is the most important center for both quantity and quality of evidence. It seems to have played the role of a “central place”; however, the evidence raises some important questions for the study of this pottery in general and, in particular, for the study of the role and function of this center.

egh

205

206

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Should Rudiae be seen as a simple distribution center or was it a production site? Several hints point to the second possibility. First, as scholars now widely agree, black-gloss workshops were present in some Messapian centers. Considering the importance of the center, Rudiae was clearly among them. Second, Rudiae was a production center for Gnathia pottery, which in Messapia had the same funerary function as Apulian red-figure vases.91 It would not be surprising if, similarly to what we know about the organization of workshops in Magna Graecia, such as those in Metaponto,92 there were workshops that produced Apulian red-figure vases, Gnathia pottery, and black-gloss vases in an important Messapian center such as Rudiae. This hypothesis seems even more relevant if we think that the production of Gnathia pottery probably started in Taranto in the same workshops which produced Apulian red-figure vases.93 We can see that since the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. all the classes mentioned here are present in Messapian grave good assemblages.94 Translated by Bice Peruzzi Notes 1. Discussion of the archaeological problems: D’Andria 1988 and 1991. For the settlements of Oria and Valesio, see Yntema 1993 and 2001; for Cavallino, see D’Andria 2005. 2. D’Andria 1991, 393–477; Burgers 1998. 3. An ample discussion of the evidence is in Lippolis and Mazzei 2005, 15–18 and Carpenter 2003, 1–24; 2009, 30–2. For the presence of Apulian red-figured vases in the funerary contexts at Taranto, see Hoffmann 2005. For the distribution of the Lucanian red-figured vases in Messapia, see Mannino 2005. For the sanctuary of Monte Papalucio, see D’Andria 1990, 239–306 (general discussion), and 302 nr. 254 (figured pottery); Semeraro 1997, 176–200; and Mannino 2006, 109–14. 4. Yntema 2001, 121. 5. In RVAp the provenance is specified for only about 20% of vases, see Carpenter 2009, 32. 6. Sites in RVAp: Alezio, Brindisi, Egnazia (or Torre d’Agnazzo), Latiano, Lecce, Manduria, Mesagne, Oria, Pat` u, Roca, Rudiae, Ugento, Valesio (or Torchiarolo and San Pietro Vernotico), Vaste (Poggiardo). In the following notes, for each site the vases with provenance in RVAp are listed. 7. Giannotta 1994, 89–106; 1997b, 172–4. 8. Giannotta 1994, 89–90. 9. Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 65–152; other contexts in Giannotta 1994, 85–100; 1997c: 169–78; 1998, 153–86; Melissano 1995, 229–58; and Delli Ponti 1996, 99–214. 10. Alessio et al. 2001, 62–4. 11. Found on June 3, 1958, in Contrada Scegno, it contained the remains of at least three burials (Scheda di Rinvenimento, Archivio Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici, Taranto) and also contained two late Apulian vases: a hydria (Taranto 113129) from the Circle of the Darius and Underworld Painters, (B) group of hydriai with standing and seated figures (RVAp 19/44–51); a pelike (Taranto 113130) from the Cleveland Group (see, especially, RVAp 26/14 for the Eros figure) belonging to the group of vases associated with the Patera and Ganymede Painters. 12. Giannotta 1997b, 175. 13. See, respectively: Lo Porto 1970–1971 (Ugento); 1994 (Cavallino); and 1990, 107–16 (Oria).

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19.

20. 21. 22. 23.

Cocchiaro 2006, 34–49. D’Andria 1988, 666; Semeraro 1997, 358–62; Mannino 2006, 253–65. D’Andria 1988, 710–11; Lamboley 1996, 368–73. Synthesis by Giannotta 1997a, 21–2, and more in-depth discussion by Melissano 2005, 71–5. For male grave good assemblages, see Giannotta 1997c, 179–83; for the presence of Attic pottery in the fifth century B.C.E., see Mannino 2006, 255–60. From fourth century B.C.E. beside the krater there are shapes with similar functions like the large skyphos. The vessels have two overhanging handles with discs and recall the amphora and Greek nestoris. For the role of the trozzella in female grave good assemblages see Giannotta 1998, 174–8; Giannotta and Melissano 2010, 292, 307–8. For fifth century contexts, see Mannino 2006, 260–1. See Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 105–9 (tomb 555), 133–5 (tomb 636), 151–2 (tomb 769); and D’Andria 1999, 45–8. Robinson 1990b, 179–93. Semeraro 1997, 413–14; funerary context in Mannino 2006, 215–17. Alessano: Bernardini 1957, 406, fig. 15. Alezio: RVAp. 22/19. Brindisi: RVAp 10/125 (Museo di Taranto 6421) and Mannino 2006, fig. 18 with two Apulian red-figure vessels: a calyx krater (RVAp 5/66 no provenance) and a skyphos (6415). Mannino 2006, fig.14, krater, pelike, lekythos, and skyphos (Museo di Taranto 6534, 6531, 6524 and 6533). Carovigno: RVAp 21/304; CVA Lecce 2: 8, tavv. 12,4 and 13,6; Sciarra 1976, 36. Cavallino: CVA Lecce 2: 14, tavv. 24,11 and 25,7; Lo Porto 1994, 58, 74–5; figs. 7, 12, and 19. Ceglie Messapica: Cocchiaro 1987, 53–4, tav. XXVI; Conte 2003, 36, 63–4, 66, 107– 9. Egnazia: To the same settlement belong the findings from Torre d’Agnazzo. Sciarra 1976, 35, fig. 224 (four vases); RVAp 17/17, 18/139, 18/141, 18/385, 24/315, 26/349, 27/124, 27/201, 29/77, 29/410–12, 29/567–8; RVAp 12/28g; Donvito 1988, 110, figs. 77, 79, and 80; Cocchiaro 2000, 6 fig. 5 (21 vases). Francavilla Fontana: Sciarra 1976: 35 fig. 227 (no provenance). Lecce: RVAp. 5/49 and 14/96; CVA Lecce 2: 29, 30–31 tavv. 49,11 and 51,2; Bernardini; 1959, 96–97 cf. Giardino 1994, 177 nr. 161 and Lippolis 1996d, 383 krater RVAp 5/18 with wrong provenance (Taranto). Manduria: RVAp. 5/20, 5/32, 5/239, 11/202, 4/114; Forti 1965, tav. XVa; Giannotta 1997a, 19, 21, and 23; 1998, 177 fig. 4. Mesagne: RVAp. 5/203; Giardino 2007, 548, with bibliography, F0004, 585 F0005, 593 F0022, 608 F0052, 614 F0063, 619 F0072; Cocchiaro 1988, 87; 1989a: 12, 28. Montesardo: CVA Lecce 2: 16 tav. 27,9. Muro Maurizio: Settlement in the territory of Mesagne; Apulian vases in Nitti 1983, nos. 41 and 43. Muro Tenente: To the same settlement belong the findings from Latiano, RVAp. 14/176 (da Mesagne), 14/257; Giardino 2007, 598 F0031. In the museum of Latiano, 8 unpublished vases are showcased (an oinochoe, three pelikai, three lekythoi, and a lid). Nard` o: D’Amicis and Tempesta 2009, 78–9 nr. 44 (krater 9089 Lecce, Museum). Oria: RVAp 5/270, 6/140, 14/177; 5/49a; CVA Lecce 2: 22, 25, 31 tavv. 38,2, 41,9, 51,5; Forti 1979, 17 fig. 2; Lo Porto 1990, tav. 36; Cocchiaro 1989b, 126–30, 133–5, figs. 7 and 9; Maruggi 2001, 24, 57, 59–60, and 64. Ortelle: Giannotta 1994, 97–98 figs. 9–10. Rocavecchia: The site is known also by the name of Roca or Melendugno; CVA Lecce 2: RVAp 8/155, 12/18, 18/122, 20/249; Bernardini 1934, 186–9 (13 vases), fig. 4; 1956, 40, 45 figs. 23, 27, 28 (four vases); Lamboley 1996, 192, 193 (two vases). Rudiae: The site is known also by the modern name of Rugge; RVAp 1/13, 5/94, 5/213, 5/285, 5/286–7; for the vases in the Lecce Museum CVA Lecce 1, IV Dr: 3–4, tavv. 1 and 2; 3,1–4; 4,1–3; 5,1–2; also CVA Lecce 2: 8–18, 20–32, 33–34; tavv. 11,5–6; 12,7–8; 13,1–5 and 7; 15,2, 4 and 7; 16,3 and 6, 17,1–3 and 5; 18,1–3 and 6; 19, 2–3 and 5; 20,2 and 5–6; 21,1–7; 22,2–7; 23,3 and 5; 24,1–8 and 10; 25, 4–5 and 7–8; 26,1–12; 27,1–6, 8,10 and 12; 28,4 and 6; 29,1–2; 30,1– 6; 31,1–2 and 4–9; 35,1–6; 36,2–4, 6–8 and 10–13; 37,1–9 and 11–12; 38,1, 3–5,7 and

egh

207

208

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

24.

25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34.

35. 36.

37. 38. 39.

12–13; 39,2,4,11 and 14; 40,1–3, 6–8, 11, 14 and 21; 41,2–3, 7, 10–11 and 13; 42,1–2, 4– 5 and 7; 43,3 and 6; 46,4–8; 49,3, 5,7–10, 14–16 and 18–20; 50,1–4, 6, 9 and 16; 51,3–4, 7–9 and 13–15; 54,2–3, 6 and 9; 55,11 and 12; 56,4–6 and 8–10. Bernardini 1955, 101–2, figs. 40–41. Soleto: CVA Lecce 2: 10, 22, tavv. 17,4 and 38,6; the first from Vaste in RVAp 5/264. Ugento: RVAp 1/18; CVA Lecce 2: 17, 20, tavv. 28,2 and 5; 36,9; Pizzurro 2002: figs. 23–25 (three vases); D’Amicis and Tempesta 2009, 38 nr. 12. Valesio: Name of the ancient settlement; to the same settlement belong the findings from Torchiarolo and from San Pietro Vernotico; RVAp 5/52, 5/171, 4/209a, 9/90, 11/35a, 11/185, 11/208, 14/175. For the provenance cf. CVA Lecce 2: 9, 11, 17, 20, 24; tavv. 14,4; 16,7; 14,5; 15,3;19,1; 28,3; 36,11; 40,16; 55,8 and 56,9 (cfr. RVAp 5/2, 5/3, 5/52, 5/177, 5/238 and 20/229). See Sciarra 1976, 60, figs. 508–509 (RVAp 6/203); Cocchiaro 1994, 122, fig. 7; Lo Porto 1995, 28–30, nrr. 3–5, figs. 15–18; Lippolis 1996c, 54–6 nrr. 18 and 21. Vaste: To the same settlement belong the findings from Poggiardo; RVAp 5/10, 5/38, 6/176a, 10/92a, 22/96a, 22/339a; CVA Lecce 2: 9–10, tavv. 14,1 15,1,5 and 8; Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 101–2, 119–20; Delli Ponti 1996, 106, 108, 110–12, 116, 146, 184, 207–8 (nine vases); Giannotta 1997c, 169–70, 165–6, 171–2 (three vases); Melissano 1995, 244, 247, 256–8 (one vase). Veglie: RVAp. 14/14a. Vereto: RVAp. 5/82, from Pat` u, the name of the modern town. Brindisi, Carovigno, Cavallino, Ceglie Messapica, Egnazia, Lecce, Manduria, Mesagne, Montesardo, Nard` o, Oria, Rocavecchia, Rudiae, Soleto, Ugento, Valesio, Vaste, Veglie, and Vereto. Brindisi, Ceglie Messapica, Egnazia, Lecce, Manduria, Mesagne, Muro Maurizio, Muro Tenente, Oria, Rocavecchia, Rudiae, Ugento, Valesio, and Vaste. Alessano, Alezio, Brindisi, Carovigno, Cavallino, Ceglie Messapica, Egnazia, Francavilla Fontana, Lecce, Manduria, Mesagne, Muro Tenente, Oria, Ortelle, Rocavecchia, Rudiae, Soleto, Ugento, Valesio, and Vaste. Brindisi, Ceglie Messapica, Egnazia, Lecce, Manduria, Mesagne, Oria, Rocavecchia, Rudiae, Ugento, Valesio, and Vaste. D’Andria 1991, 443–9. Ibid., 447. RVAp 1/13. RVAp 5/66 (from Brindisi in Mannino 2006, 39, fig. 14); RVAp 17/17 from Egnazia; two from Oria in Maruggi 2001, 59–60 and 64; RVAp 5/4 (from Rudiae CVA Lecce 1: pl. 3, 3–4); 5/61 (from Rudiae in CVA Lecce 2: 17); RVAp 5/213 from Rudiae; D’Amicis and Tempesta 2009, 76–77 nr. 41 from Rudiae; RVAp 18/109 (da Valesio in CVA Lecce 2: 17); lastly one vessel from Vaste, Delli Ponti 1996, 184. RVAp 14/87 and 12/63 (from Egnazia and Rudiae in CVA Lecce 2: 17). From Mesagne, see Cocchiaro 1989a, fig. 6, attributed to the Underworld Painter or to the Circle of the Underworld Painter. Lekanides from Egnazia RVAp 29/77 and 26/349 with provenance in CVA Lecce II: 32; lekanis lid in the Museo of Latiano 329; stamnoi, alabastron from Rudiae CVA Lecce 2: 27, pls. 46, 4–5 and 6–8; 56, 8. RVAp 5/10, 38, 200, 201, 6/176a; Delli Ponti 1996, 143 nr. 97, 156 nr. 128, 184 nr. 200. RVAp 10/92a, 22/69a, 22/339a; Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 101–2 nr. 123; Giannotta 1997c, 159–60 nr. 3; Delli Ponti 1996, 108 nr. 12, 109–10 nr. 15, 116 nrr. 28 and 29, 146 nr. 99. Delli Ponti 1996, 106 nr. 5, 207–8 nr. 284; Giannotta 1997c, 165–6 nr. 18 and 171–2 nr. 35; Melissano 1995, 247–57. Dated to the beginning of the fourth century, attributed to the Intermediate group from Semeraro (Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 119–120). In the Lecce Museum (7909), attributed to the Lecce Group 727, in Delli Ponti 1996, 146 nr. 98.

Apulian Pottery in Messapian Contexts

40. Specifically they have been attributed to the Saffron Walden Painter (RVAp 22/69a), the Group of Zurich 2662 (RVAp 22/339a), the Group of Como C62 (see Giannotta 1997c, 171–172, nr. 35) and the Monopoli Group (see Delli Ponti 1996, 116 and Giannotta 1997c, 165–6). 41. RVAp 5/10 and 38. 42. RVAp 5/200–201. 43. RVAp 6/176a. 44. Vases in the Lecce Museum (7908, 7847, and 7791), attributed by Delli Ponti 1996: 143–5 nr. 97, 156 nr. 128 and 182–4 nr. 200. 45. For example, the krater by the Hoppin Painter (RVAp 5/38), the two kraters by the Lecce Painter (RVAp 5/200–201), and the krater by the Barletta Painter (Delli Ponti 1996, 156). Dionysus recalls theater and theatrical representations in the indigenous world, see Carpenter 2009, 32–5. 46. Delli Ponti 1996, 182–4 nr. 200. 47. Ibid., nr. 97. 48. See RVAp 5/38 (Hoppin Painter) and RVAp 6/176a (Vienna Painter). 49. CVA Lecce 2: 9–10. 50. Both in the Taranto Museum, the first (6341, RVAp 5/10) from a tomb discovered in 1915: Giannotta 1998, 169–72; the second (116138 RVAp 5/38) from a warrior tomb discovered in 1959: Giannotta 1997c, 153–8. 51. For the excavation reports of the two necropoleis, see respectively Giannotta and Semeraro 1990: 65–152 and Delli Ponti 1996: 99–214. The Vienna Painter krater comes from tomb 588 at Melliche (Giannotta and Semeraro 1990: 144–5), the one attributed to the Circle of the Tarporley Painter from tomb 10/1968, the one by the Barletta Painter from tomb12/1968 and, last, the one attributed to the Circle of the Darius Painter, from tomb 15/1968 of Fondo Aia (Delli Ponti 1996, 142–50, 156–68, 182–9). 52. Analysis conducted by Marshall Becker of the finds from Melliche excavations, see Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 66; for the find from the necropolis in Fondo Aia, conducted by Mallegni 1981, 175–96, cf. Delli Ponti 1996, 142 and 182–3. 53. D’Andria 1988, 685; Giannotta 1997c, 180. 54. Lamboley 1996, 383; Giannotta 1997c, 179–80. 55. See Giannotta and Semeraro 1990: 68 (nr. 50), 78–9 (ripostiglio 567 nr. 69), 86–8 (tomb 569 nr. 99), 95 (tomb 547 nr. 105), 139–40 (tomb 597 nr. 213), 142–5 (tomb 588 nr. 219). 56. Giannotta 1997c, 181–3. 57. Delli Ponti 1996, figured kraters 142–5 (nr. 97, tomb 10/1968), 156 (nr. 128 tomb 12/1968), 182–184 (nr. 200 tomb 15/1968); kraters in Gnathia pottery 126–8 (nr. 58 tomb 7/1968), 150–2 (nr. 112 tomb 11/1968), 169–72 (nr. 168 tomb 13/1968), 197–9 (nrr. 248–9 tomb 2/1970). 58. Giannotta 1998, 177–8. 59. Pottery studied by Forti 1965, Webster 1968, Green 1968; for Tarantine production, see D’Amicis 1996, 433–45; for the evidence from Messapia, see Giannotta 1996, 453–67. 60. D’Amicis 2005, 164 with bibliography; in the RVAp, 336, is highlighted the close connection between Gnathia decoration and the Varrese Painter’s use of added colors on the figure. 61. Tomb III of 9–10 agosto 1939 (Archivio della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici di Taranto, 52823–52841) in the Brindisi Museum; figured vases: oinochoe, lekythos, bell krater, and hydria in smaller size (52838, 52840, 52841, 52823). Sciarra 1976, 36 fig. 224. 62. RVAp 5/159 (lekythos) and 21/350 (hydria) without provenance. 63. Cocchiaro 2000, fig. 5; 2001 (182–4) recalls the other four figured vases.

egh

209

210

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

88.

89.

90. 91. 92. 93. 94.

In order, RVAp 14/116, 17/17, 18/138–139, 18/381, and 18/385. Respectively, RVAp 29/567–568; 29/410–412; 26/114; 27/201, 18/260, and 27/124. Giannotta 1996, 454–60. CVA Lecce 1 and 2. Vases with provenance, circa fifteen in RVAp: 1/13, 5/94, 5/213, 5/282, 5/285–7, 21/158, 21/169–70, 21/178, 21/170, 21/190, 26/114, 30/71; cfr. CVA Lecce 1 and 2. In order, RVAp 1/21, 26, 36, and 1/13 (neck-amphora); 3/67 and 4/193. In order, RVAp 5/4, 13, 31, 47–8, 51, 57, 61, 70, 72, 77–8, 94, 105, 142–3, 157, 157–68, 170, 188, 193–4, 205, 213, 276, 280, 282, 284–7, and 289. RVAp 9/39, 52, 60, 108, 123, 177, and 9/163 (hydria). RVAp 10/93–94, 101, and 200. RVAp 11/39, 54, 81, 86, 90, 147, 153, and 240. RVAp 12/13, 16, 19, 47, and 63; 13/80 and 125, 14/146–7, 160, 163, 180, 186, 193, 196, 210, and 218. RVAp 21/147, 158, 169–70, 178, 190 from the first group; 22/782, 785, and 787 of the second group; see Robinson 1990a, 192. RVAp 18/182. Chapter 5 RVAp, 102–33. Robinson 1990a, 187, fig. 9. See RVAp 5/1–4: 102–3. Kraters in the Lecce Museum, from Valesio CVA Lecce 2: 9, tav. 14, 4 and 5; from Rudiae CVA Lecce 1, tav. 3, 3–4. RVAp 5/66 da Brindisi, 5/204 from Carovigno, 5/203 from Mesagne, 5/ 270 da Oria, 5/82 from Vereto. From Manduria RVAp 5/20 and 32; from Lecce RVAp 5/18 (from Taranto, incorrect) see Bernardini 1959, 96–7 and Lippolis 1996d, 383; RVAp 5/49. RVAp 5/49a and RVAp 5/270. RVAp 5/10, 38, 200, and 201. RVAp 5/2, 3, 52, and 171. See RVAp, 127–32. For the personalities of the painters, see RVAp, 103–11 (Hoppin P.), 115–22 (Truro P.), and 122–7 (Lecce P.); for the vases in the Lecce Museum, see the respective provenances in CVA Lecce 2. Vases by the Hoppin Painter RVAp 5/13, 31, 47, 48, 51, 57, and 61 (provenance in CVA Lecce 2, 8, 11, 16, 14, 17 and Bernardini 1955, 78); vase of the Lecce Painter RVAp 5/194, 205 (provenance in CVA Lecce 2, 8 and 9), 5/213 (Museum of Taranto, 20935). RVAp 5/105, 142–3, 157, 167–8, 170, 171 (from Valesio), 188, and 193 (provenance in CVA Lecce II, respectively 20, 23–24, 29, 18, and 25). However, according to Lippolis (1996d, 378–80, end note 7),the high percentage of unpublished material from Taranto makes the localization of workshops on the basis of the vases’ provenances less sure. Robinson 1990a, 192–3. Giannotta 1996, 455 and 459–60. D’Andria 1975, 354–452. D’Amicis 1996, 433; 2005, 164. For example, the grave good assemblage in Tomb 588 from Vaste, Giannotta and Semeraro 1990, 142–8.

PART IV

POTTERY INTERPRETED: APPROACHES TO POTTERY STUDIES

An underlying assumption in all of the chapters of this volume is that pottery is a principal resource for the exploration of the Italic people of Apulia. Choices of pottery shape and decoration, in particular, reflect cultural activities and beliefs. Where the previous sections have provided historical and geographical contexts for Apulian red-figure pottery and have discussed the distribution of the wares and the location of workshops, the following three chapters demonstrate ways that the objects themselves can contribute to an understanding of a people. r Shape: Colivicchi considers the choice of shapes of pots, their antecedents, and their uses by the Italic people of Apulia. r Archaeometry: Robinson reviews scientific techniques for examining the composition of the clay used in producing the pots with an eye to establishing the location of the various potteries in Greek or Italic settings. r Iconography: Carpenter uses sophisticated imagery on pots from one site to suggest a surprising degree of familiarity with Greek myth and literature amongst Italic people.

211

CHAPTER TEN

“NATIVE” VASE SHAPES IN SOUTH ITALIAN RED-FIGURE POTTERY Fabio Colivicchi

Scholarly interest in vases of native shape produced by Lucanian and Apulian red-figure workshops has recently increased due to expanding research on the relationships between Greek colonies and the native populations of southern Italy. The study of the circulation of vase shapes in different contexts and areas has become a promising new field of research.1 This paper reviews the history of the native (Italic) forms and their Attic and Italiote imitations and discusses the archaeological and iconographic evidence for their use.

Attic Imitations of Native (Italic) Shapes Athenian imitations of native (Italic) shapes preceded the Italiote production of them and most likely had a direct influence on them.2 Known findspots point to coastal Peucetia and especially the area around Ruvo as the primary target for Attic imitations, which are limited to a few specific shapes. A mid-size vase by a follower of the Altamura Painter3 and a group of smaller vases that Beazley named the Class of Bonn 94 are similar in shape.4 The presence of relief mask appliqu´es at the junction of the handle and rim on the latter is clear evidence for the influence of metal prototypes. The Athenian vases are reproductions of a most distinctive local ceramic vase shape, which they imitate both in shape and size, although locally the smaller versions were more frequently produced than the mid-sized. The smaller local vases, the so-called kantharoid vases, are the model for the Attic Class of Bonn 94 vases; the medium-sized local ones, usually called “anforette,” inspire the vase by the follower of the Altamura Painter. Two more unusual vases can be added to this number: two Attic vessels that resemble Daunian jugs find their best comparison in a small vase of unknown provenance in the museum of Ruvo.5 The geographic distribution of Attic imitations of local forms is generally consistent: coastal Peucetia and perhaps part of WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

213

214

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

southern Daunia, an area that in the fifth century B.C.E., and especially in the second half, was a prime market for Attic figured pottery. However, another related mid-sized Attic vase of unknown provenance is distinguished by two horizontal handles, a feature rarely found in the local pottery of coastal Peucetia but common in the North Lucanian hinterland, where such a shape is usually called a nestoris.6

History of the Kantharoid Shape in Lucania and Apulia The kantharoid shape reproduced by the Attic imports is an open vase with tall, vertical handles that already had an extremely long history among the local cultures of Apulia and Lucania (Fig. 10.1, WF 126). It was introduced into southeastern Italy in the first half of the eighth century B.C.E. from the east coast of the Adriatic, where it was a popular shape.7 In this period, trans-Adriatic models were very influential in southeastern Italy,8 and some specimens of this shape were imported from Illyria, as proved by the earliest finds at Otranto9 on the Adriatic coast of Salento, where relationships with the other shore were especially intense and regular. After it was adopted, this shape developed progressively over a vast area extending from central and southern Apulia to the valleys of the Agri and Sinni and the Tyrrhenian coast. Its typological evolution was parallel, but not identical, in the different regions. In southern Apulia it developed into a midsized vase with articulated neck, from which originated the typical trozzella with disks on the handles,10 while in Peucetia it kept a continuous body profile, and dimensions varied from medium to small.11 Peucetian vases may also have disks or other plastic ornaments on the handles. These disks are considered imitations of a feature found on Greek metal vases, especially “Rhodian” oinochoai,12 and may be regarded as indirect evidence for the existence of metal versions of these shapes that set the model for the ceramic production but have survived only in exceptional cases.13 In the mountain inland district home of the so-called “Northern Lucanian” culture the typology is the same as in Peucetia, but vases of medium and sometimes large size were more frequent and developed additional horizontal handles, probably because the vertical ones were impractical for carrying vases that must have been fairly heavy when full. This is the shape that is customarily defined as a nestoris in archaeological literature.14 These shapes have usually been considered separately, both as the subject of detailed typologies of the kind favored by archaeologists and in narrowly regional studies that are frequently found in the scholarship on native southern Italy. If a broader perspective is adopted, and one focuses on the basic morphological features instead of details and decorative style, it is evident that there is a family of related shapes of common origin and parallel development. From this point of view, the blatant inconsistencies of modern terminology are revealing. There are actually no criteria other than size to distinguish a “kantharoid” or a “small kantharoid olla” from an amphora, which is in turn difficult to distinguish from a nestoris, since vases without horizontal handles and disks are also frequently defined as nestorides because they share the same features other than the

egh

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

Tyrrhenian Lucania

Agri and Sinni Basins

North Lucanian District

Inland Peucetia

Coastal Peucetia

8th c. 7th c. 6th c. 5th c. 4th c. 3rd c.

10.1. Table of the development of the family of vases with two tall vertical handles in South Italy (author).

additional handles. Two tall, vertical handles; a flaring rim; a fairly large mouth; and a round, oval, or biconical body are the typical and distinctive features that are consistently found in all vases and make them such a strictly related family. The changing elements are the plastic decoration on the handles, the shape of the foot, and the additional handles. The vases of this small and well-defined system must have had a related function. If the mid-size and large vases were most likely containers of a liquid, the small ones may have been drinking vessels. Both medium and small vases may also have been used as pouring vases.15 On the grounds of the strong internal consistency of the system, it may well be assumed that the contents they held were one and the same. It is not only possible to follow the gradual typological development of these native shapes and their diffusion in the different areas of southern Italy, but also to see that they play the same role in the archaeological contexts where they are found, mostly tombs. They are the main – or the only – element of the set of grave goods in the earliest funerary assemblages and retain this role for centuries, as long as there are recognizable archaeological signs of the local cultures in this part of southern Italy. They also show an exceptional continuity, being produced without any major change throughout the whole history of the native peoples of

215

Messapia

216

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

southern Italy. Their morphology is extremely conservative and their decoration and technology are also very resistant to Greek-inspired innovations. The vases of this system are often the only distinctly “native-looking” object in the grave assemblages of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. Therefore, the Athenian vases are copies of no ordinary shapes.

Function of Kantharoid Vessels as Wine Vases There is additional evidence to help identify the function of these native, kantharoid vessels. The Albanian and Epirote kantharoids, from which the southern Italian ones derive, were likely wine vases, as suggested by their consistent association with Corinthian oinochoai in the necropolis of Vitsa.16 This identification is confirmed by the funerary contexts of southern Italy and especially of Peucetia and the North Lucanian district, where two vases are found in the majority of the tombs: a large-mouth jar – an olla, or more rarely an amphora or a nestoris – and a “kantharoid” vessel.17 This is the basic set of vases, frequently complemented by a small jug, to which other objects may be added such as bronze ornaments or weapons, and, especially from the sixth century B.C.E. on, ceramic vases of typical Greek shape. The larger vase was gradually replaced over time by a column krater, and there are a number of locally made hybrid vases where the features of the olla blend with those of the krater.18 The strict relationship between the two primary vases of the set is confirmed by the many cases in which the kantharoid was found inside the olla or the krater.19 If we identify the larger container as a wine vase, this is sound evidence for assuming that the other vase associated with it was a wine vase as well.20 The two elements of the “ritual set” are never both replaced by Greek shapes. In rare cases when the smaller vase is replaced by an Ionian cup, which is further confirmation of its function as a drinking vessel, the larger one keeps its local typology.21 It has frequently been suggested that large ollae found in southern Italian tombs were containers for water or cereals,22 but their substitution with kraters makes this quite unlikely. An object used by a culture, especially for ritual practices that are inherently conservative, will only be replaced by an unfamiliar foreign one if their functions are similar. A Greek wine vase may well have replaced a local ritual vase for wine, but it is hard to accept that it had replaced a vase for water or cereals.23

Evidence of Native Wine Culture before Greek Colonization If kantharoids and other related shapes are wine vases, this is evidence for a local wine culture before Greek colonization, since dedicated vase shapes for wine were adopted in Apulia by the early eighth century B.C.E. at the latest. This wine culture would be different from the Greek “colonial” one, and it would not follow the rules of the Greek symposion. The relationship between the vases for local and Greek wine in funerary contexts confirm this. Greek sympotic vases were adopted early by the native culture, especially in some areas, but their basic set of ritual vases remained unchanged. The set was partially hellenized when one of the two

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

vessels was replaced by a Greek shape, but it remained recognizable and could not be confused with the set of multiple vases needed for a symposium. Some graves contain two sets: one consisting of the two vessels of local ritual use and one consisting of the various Greek forms for sympotic-style wine mixing and communal drinking. The two sets are frequently found in different parts of the grave apart from each other, providing further confirmation of their different functions.24 This separation finds an interesting comparison in Roman culture where the wine used for cult practices had to be locally produced, and imported Greek wine, though greatly appreciated as a drink, was deemed unsuitable because it had not been produced following the specifications of the priests and it was mixed with water, spices, and other substances.25 Similar requirements of strict control over the origin and preparation of food and beverages offered to the gods are quite common in both ancient and modern religions. It is likely that in southern Italy this applied to the specific containers of the offerings as well. Their distinctive shape was probably considered a sort of visual warranty of their contents. Classical archaeologists, unlike their colleagues who study the Bronze Age, have long assumed that wine was introduced into Italy by the Greek colonists and stress the role played by wine and its consumption as a cultural indicator, used by the Greeks to distinguish themselves from the barbarians.26 For the Greeks it was not the knowledge of wine that made the difference, but the way it was consumed. This is indirectly confirmed by the Odyssey (Book 9), where the opposition of Odysseus and Polyphemos is also the opposition of the “uncivilized” wine produced from wild vines that is known to the Cyclops and the “civilized,” tempered, wine of the Greek hero. It is disrespect for the rules of civilized consumption of wine that destroys the Cyclops, who drinks without mixing it with water, a custom that is as barbarian as his horrific meal of human flesh. It is, of course, a poetic narrative, but it reflects the views of the Greeks during the period of early colonization in the West. The Greeks were fine with even the wildest of peoples, the Cyclops, having a local wine, but of course it was different and inferior to theirs. A further piece of evidence can be added. According to the lexicon of Hesychius,27 the Messapians celebrated a festival of vine pruning, the most important practice for proper grape production.28 This had a non-Greek name, Bisbaia, after bisbes, the sickle they used to prune the vines. The very existence of a native technical vocabulary for viticulture is strong evidence for its early and independent origin. If it had been introduced from Greece, its technical words would be borrowed from Greek.

Italiote Imitation of Native Shapes The Athenian initiative to imitate local forms was followed and in part accompanied by products of early Italiote workshops. A small group of three kantharoids, probably early Lucanian, are so similar to the Attic imitations that they can be regarded as copies29 (Fig. 10.2, WF 127). One of them was found at Ceglie, in the same Peucetian area targeted by the Attic kantharoids. They are decorated with

egh

217

218

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

10.2. Early Lucanian kantharoid. Taranto, Museo Nazionale inv. 8274 (permission of Ministero per I Beni e le Attivit`a Culturali – Soprintendenza ai Beni Archeologici della Puglia).

very similar scenes: Theseus running with the head of Medusa on one side, running Nike or a gorgon on the other. Another early kantharoid can be ascribed to the Lucanian Anabates Painter.30 A vase of the Intermediate Group from Ruvo,31 instead, looks similar to models from central and western Lucania,32 but comparisons can also be made to vessels from nearby Canosa.33 A good number of added-red kantharoids of a type that is close to the Attic imports were also produced from the last quarter of the fifth century B.C.E.34 and are found at numerous sites in Peucetia and Daunia. The class seems to originate from Metaponto, where some fragments of such vases, together with kantharoids, were found in pottery dumps in the potter’s district.35 They are rarely found in the city cemeteries.36 As proposed by Ted Robinson, these vases were primarily produced for native consumers, as was a good part of the early Lucanian red-figure pottery, whose circulation pattern is the same.37 E. M. De Juliis has suggested that a parallel production was active in Peucetia, while the southern Daunian one would start later.38 According to him,39 the Peucetian workshops and not Metaponto would be responsible for the production of kantharoids and kantharoi of the Saint-Valentin type. Such a distinction is neither necessary nor likely, since it would require us to assume that the kantharoids found at Metaponto were imports from

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

10.3. Lucanian nestoris by the Amykos Painter. Potenza, Museo Archeologico Nazionale della Basilicata “Dinu Adamesteau” (permission of Ministero per I Beni e le Attivit`a Culturali – Direzione Regionale per I Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Basilicata).

Peucetia. Even if the fragments from the potters’ dump from Metaponto are not clearly misfired pieces, this evidence for production on site is still strong. It is well known, instead, that vases of a closely related native shape, the nestoris, were actually produced at Metaponto in the same period and possibly in the same workshops, since it seems that potters commonly produced a range of different classes of ceramics alongside each other.40 The workshop of the Amykos Painter is in fact responsible for the production of the first red-figure nestorides. Trendall attributes six nestorides to the painter,41 but a close stylistic analysis has led Martine Denoyelle to reassign two of these to the Palermo Painter.42 They all belong to the so-called shape 143 that closely imitates native vases of the north Lucanian and Bradano areas. These early vases are also consistent in shape and size, with the exception of the example formerly in Boston,44 which has handles with conical apexes and crossbars and is smaller than the others (Fig. 10.3, WF 128).

egh

219

220

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

10.4. Lucanian nestoris by the Palermo Painter. Potenza, Museo Archeologico Nazionale della Basilicata ‘Dinu Adamesteau’ (permission of Ministero per I Beni e le Attivit`a Culturali – Direzione Regionale per I Beni Culturali e Paesaggistici della Basilicata).

Since the ex-Boston vase has been dated to the later phase of the painter,45 it cannot be considered an early experiment before the development of the standard typology.46 The lower bodies of the two vases attributed to the Palermo Painter47 are decorated with geometric and floral patterns that recall the decoration of native pottery (Fig. 10.4, WF 129). Similar patterns are found on other vases likely made in Metaponto for the native market.48 Shape 1 is also produced by the closely related Dolon and Creusa Painters, with four examples.49 The Brooklyn-Budapest Painter introduced new types (Fig. 10.5, WF 130), the so-called shapes 2 and 3, imitating vases that originally descended from the same models, but had had a peculiar development in the territory that was formerly Oenotrian (Fig. 10.1, WF 126).50 Here the vase with tall vertical handles was introduced51 from the neighboring Apulian cultures along with bichrome decoration that is typical of the Peucetian hinterland and the North Lucanian district.52 The earliest vases are close to the Apulian models of the late eighth century B.C.E.,

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

10.5. Lucanian nestoris by the Brooklyn-Budapest painter. Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts (Archivio Scala).

but later, especially in the sixth century B.C.E., the rim became smaller and the neck grew taller and distinct from the body. Such features, together with shorter handles, make the Oenotrian vases easy to distinguish from their Peucetian and north Lucanian counterparts.53 The so-called Oenotrian kantharos is probably the most typical object of the material culture of this area from the seventh century B.C.E. until its disappearance at the end of the sixth century B.C.E. From it a medium and large size vase developed, the so-called krater-kantharos,54 whose production continued throughout the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. with late subgeometric, banded, and floral decorations. The vase represented in the wall

egh

221

222

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

paintings of the Tomb of the Diver at Poseidonia, which most likely belongs to a resident alien, is actually an Oenotrian krater-kantharos.55 This shape is typical of the Tyrrhenian area, but is also found, less frequently, in the Agri and Sinni basins. The fourth century B.C.E. krater-kantharos56 is a new model of the nestorides introduced by the Brooklyn-Budapest Painter (Fig. 10.5, WF 130),57 who was trained in Metaponto but later probably moved to Herakleia, at the mouth of the Sinni River. While shape 3.2 is an accurate copy of the vases that were current in the Tyrrhenian region and the Agri and Sinni basins, shape 3.1, with horizontal handles, and shape 2, with horizontal handles and disks on the vertical ones, blend features of Oenotrian, Peucetian, and North Lucanian origin (Fig. 10.6, WF 131). Between the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. the ethnic and cultural picture of southern Italy changed substantially due to a so-called Lucanization process,58 which was not contained within archaic tribal boundaries, and occurred across a vast area extending from the Tyrrhenian coast to the former Oenotrian and north Lucanian territories, marginally affecting Peucetia and Daunia as well. As a result, different ceramic traditions tended to merge and blend. In the case of the nestorides, the common origin and function of the shapes made the process easier. After the first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. the production of Apulian red-figure nestorides began, while the Lucanian workshops focused on new shapes. Six vases of shape 1 are ascribed to the Choephoroi Group,59 two to the Roccanova Painter,60 and one to a follower of the Painter of Naples 1959.61 Shapes 2 and 3, on the other hand, are by far the favorite ones, and their production reached its peak in this period. Even if the figures are smaller than for the Middle and Late Apulian serial productions, it should be noted that nestorides of shape 2 and 3 are the most common medium and large vases of the late Lucanian phase. Such a trend is likely the result of the success of the Apulian red-figure workshops, whose products quickly replaced the Lucanian ones in Peucetia and the Bradano area. The Lucanian workshops turned to another area where other types of nestorides were in higher demand, and the typology changed accordingly: shapes 2 and 3 made up the bulk of later production, while shape 1 diminished. The relocation of some workshops to the native hinterland of Lucania62 is probably responsible for the increased number of nestorides: 12 vases are attributed to the Roccanova Painter,63 31 to the Painter of Naples 1959 and workshop,64 and 50 to the Primato Painter and workshop.65 The coincidence of production and consumption areas indicates that the potters were meeting a relatively high and steady demand for vases of this native shape. In the earlier phase the production of nestorides of any type had been scanty. A couple of late Lucanian kantharoids were also probably produced for this Lucanian area.66 The Apulian red-figure nestorides all belong to shape 1,67 the same as the earliest Lucanian ones that they replace, being intended for the same market.68 Like the Lucanian examples, there are few Apulian nestorides of the first phase: four vases by followers of the Tarporley Painter69 and seven by the Varrese Painter and

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

10.6. Typology of the red-figure nestorides (from Colivicchi 2004).

workshop.70 Their typology is somewhat variable, with details that are found on just one or two vases and do not become standard features. Their quality is fairly high, and features borrowed from metalware, such as relief masks and vertical ribbing on the body, are found on some of the best products. In the late Apulian phase there is a small increase of production and typology is standardized.71

egh

223

224

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Late Apulian workshops with a special connection to Peucetia also produced red-figure versions of the smaller native vase. These are both accurate reproductions of the local kantharoid in its fourth century B.C.E. typology72 and hybrids of local kantharoid and Greek skyphos.73 Examples of the former type were found at Altamura, Timmari, and Montescaglioso,74 and of the latter at Ruvo.75

Function The function of nestorides and related shapes may be clarified thanks to vase paintings where such vases are shown in use. These scenes are found on two Lucanian nestorides and on a series of twenty-six Apulian column kraters.76 The represented vases find close comparison to the native shapes used in Peucetia, the Bradano valley, and the north Lucanian district, with tall vertical handles, separated rim, and body with continuous profile. There is variability in size – from small to medium to large – in decoration – geometric, floral, figured, or allusive of a metal object – and in accessory features, namely handle decoration and the presence of horizontal handles. Such variability is also found in the actual native vases. These scenes are a valuable source of information in many respects. Their iconography is strikingly consistent, almost exclusively featuring young men, frequently represented as warriors, with women presenting offerings to them (Fig. 10.7, WF 132). In the rare cases where older men are present, they are not the recipients of the offerings. The women usually hold the vases and offer their contents. When the native vase is smaller, it is handed directly to the men, when is large, its contents are transferred into a smaller vessel, such as a phiale or a Greek type kantharos. In the rare cases where a man holds the native vase, it is always the small-sized one, and he seems about to drink from it. Additional figures such as Nike or prisoners may be depicted to stress that the warrior is a victorious one. Attic scenes of arming and departure, also imported in Apulia, were probably used as a model,77 but in the majority of Apulian cases the scene represents a warrior’s return.78 The only exceptions are two scenes with a procession of men and women,79 and one with a man lying on couch between a standing man and a standing woman.80 In one case the native vase is, instead, on a column.81 In the iconography, the native vessel is clearly intended for use by native people. In the majority of scenes the figures wear indigenous costume. Other representations where there is no specifically native costume or feature are still best interpreted as “native” as opposed to “Greek.” Archaeological evidence from offerings in native graves demonstrates that vase images with no specifically “native” character were used by indigenous consumers apparently without raising any “identity issue.” Furthermore, in the specific case of warrior representations on vases, recent research has shown that they are virtually absent in the Greek poleis,82 most likely because of the different role played by the military in Greek urban society.83 The young, “heroically nude,” armed man should not be considered a “Greek” figure as opposed to the native warrior, but a more neutral representation that is specifically intended for natives.

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

10.7. Apulian column krater. Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts (Archivio Scala). Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici della Puglia – Archivio fotografico.

The represented vases clearly work as a system. They share basic features and are used in the same scenes in which they play different but complementary roles: container vase, when large or medium; pouring vase, when medium; drinking vase, when small. The liquid contained is clearly the same, most likely wine, as proposed earlier. In scenes where more vases are used, the native shape served just one function while other shapes replaced the native ones for related functions; namely, the column krater can replace the large container, oinochoai can assume the pouring function, and phialai are the usual choice to replace the small kantharoid drinking vessels. This picture is in agreement with the Peucetian funerary assemblages of the fourth century B.C.E. where the ritual set does not consist entirely of native shapes, and other shapes of Greek origin, column kraters and

egh

225

226

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

oinochoai, usually complete the system. Phialai are also a frequent find in such contexts,84 while they are uncommon in the Greek colonies other than in sanctuaries. What can be stressed is that the vase for the final consumption of the liquid can be replaced by shapes of high ceremonial function only, and not by the usual sympotic cups. The consistency of the representations and the confirmation found in the archaeological record clearly show that the workshop where these vases were produced had detailed information about the native models and full understanding of their function.85 Women and men play a very different role in these scenes. Women keep, prepare, and give, while men receive and consume. The involvement of both sexes in the use of wine, even if different and complementary, explains why kantharoids and nestorides are found in tombs of both males and females, and why even Greek wine vessels are frequently found in burials of native women.86 The offering also assumes a strong erotic character in vases where the woman is represented about to unveil herself in the highly significant gesture of anakalypsis.

Imagery on Italiote Imitations of Native Shapes The subjects painted on red-figure nestorides provide further clarification of their meaning.87 Once again, the “warrior’s return” is one of the main subjects, and in three cases there is a battle scene, in one case in the presence of a woman. Even more common are scenes of erotic pursuit,88 abduction, and seduction. Quite frequently one or more characters are replaced by figures from the world of Dionysos or Aphrodite, the gesture, position, and role of which are the same as those of their human counterparts. The presence of divine or semidivine figures connected with seduction, sexuality, and fertility elevates such scenes and makes their message more clear and effective. In most cases only the male element is substituted with a Dionysiac figure or an Eros. Such a trend is also found in many Greek contexts, and is explained as an effort to picture a wedding in a reassuring and encouraging way to women, for whom it meant an especially disruptive transition.89 The rare mythical representations deal with coming of age and related values from both the male and the female perspective and particularly with marriage and the respect of rules and roles on which a well-ordered society is founded.90 It is interesting to note that the themes represented on the Italiote vases of native shape are totally consistent with the decoration of their Athenian forerunners: on the amphora a warrior pursuing a woman, probably Menelaos and Helen,91 and a “warrior’s departure”; on the nestoris a young man pursuing a woman, perhaps Peleus and Thetis, and a woman sitting on a chair between kalathoi and female assistants with mirror and plemochoe; on the two vases of Daunian shape several pursuit scenes featuring Boreas, Eos, and Kephalos, possibly Menelaos and Helen and Achilles and Troilus, and a komos; on the smaller kantharoids there are women with alabastra, boxes, sashes, and torches, running women, women pouring libations, maenads, satyrs, and more rarely young men, sometimes with athletic equipment.

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

Marriage seems to be the most plausible context to make sense of all the aspects of the evidence. It is a basic ceremonial act in which young men and women interact with each other, all the values and concepts mentioned here are stated, and the roles that both the groom and the bride are going to play are represented. In native societies of southern Italy the most distinguishing male role is that of warrior, which explains the focus on military victory in the representations. Victory is the proof that the young man is ready for his new role of husband and father.92 The idea that young men are supposed to prove themselves in order to be deemed worthy husbands is very common among many cultures. For indigenous southern Italy a passage of Strabo is especially relevant.93 It records the annual marriage of the ten best Samnite youths and the ten best maidens, where the bride had the unusual privilege of breaking the marriage if the husband was not able to maintain the standard of excellence. The word aristos does not refer exclusively to military excellence, but in this case the basic importance of war in Samnite society and the number ten, also used in Samnite procedures of recruitment, seem to be evidence of a strong relationship between military activities and marriage amongst the Osco-Sabellian peoples of central and southern Italy.94 The bride’s offering of local wine in its ancient and traditional containers may well have been an especially important rite of the wedding ceremony, as in the Greek and Roman world.95 Of course indigenous wine and its specialized containers may have also had other functions, such as in cultic rituals, funerary cult, or the celebration of victory, but their role in the most important passage to adulthood for both males and females is probably the main reason for the regular presence of these native shapes in the tombs of men and women, where they mark the full-grown status of the deceased.96 They are also found in some tombs of preadults, most probably as a “compensation,” by giving the young dead the marks of a status never reached in life.97

Production Patterns The last and most important issues to be addressed are the reasons for the production of the red-figure nestorides and related shapes, where they were produced, and for whom. There is no doubt that workshops located in Greek colonies, namely that of the Amykos Painter and then of the Dolon and Creusa Painters at Metaponto, were responsible for the introduction of the nestoris into red-figure production. The known provenance contexts,98 though few, confirm that these shapes were used in native sites, while there is no sound evidence for their regular use in the Greek cities. The exception is a vase from the sanctuary of Pantanello, an area of the territory of Metaponto where there is evidence for residents of native origin.99 At least in the early phase of their production, they were made in Greek cities for natives. One suggestion is that the production of a native shape was a purely commercial enterprise to increase the success of Italiote vases on the native market, as has been proposed for the Athenian imports.100 This explanation

egh

227

228

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

is ruled out by the pattern of their production. Italiote nestorides, like their Attic forerunners, remained rare until the mid-fourth century B.C.E., sometimes one-of-a-kind, of good or high quality, with all the features of “special commissions.” Demand must have been small and unsteady. Such a production had no purely commercial justification and seems mainly to answer occasional cultural needs. Because of their probable function and their production pattern, red-figure nestorides may have been produced by colonial Greek workshops as gifts for special occasions, namely mixed marriages and similar practices, such as guestfriendship, which were especially important for building relations with their native neighbors. On the grounds of what we know about the structure of the native societies of Apulia and Lucania, marriage would have been the most effective way to establish lasting political alliances and develop economic interests. In the case of the Athenian-made vases of Peucetian and south Daunian shape, they were produced during a phase of strong diplomatic and military involvement by Athens in southern Italy and Adriatic Apulia, when alliances with the native elite were eagerly pursued. During the Sicilian expedition Demosthenes renewed a palai`a phil`ıa with the Messapian chieftain Artas, who gave the Athenians 150 warriors.101 In that same climate mythical traditions developed that sanctioned the syngheneia between Athenians and the native peoples of Apulia, such as those that ascribed to Theseus the foundation of Brundisium.102 For the Greek poleis of the Ionian Gulf the native elites of Apulia and Lucania were even more important, and the establishment of mutual relationships was a primary need. We may well assume that a network of family bonds connected the Greek ruling classes not only to each other but also to their native counterparts. This practice is well-attested in mainland Greece, where members of the Greek ruling class frequently established marriage alliances with the elites of areas of the non-Greek world where they had specific interests.103 Intermarriage has been assumed especially in the early phases of the colonies and in one direction, native women marrying Greeks, but there is no reason to rule it out in later phases and in the other direction. The evidence is not great or clear, but here we may mention the formal intermarriage regulations between Greek Selinous and Elymian Segesta,104 and the poem by Sappho on her beloved Atthis, who had left to get married in Sardis where she was “standing out among the women of Lydia.”105 Even more interesting is the fragment of Sophokles’ Tereus (fr. 585 Radt), where Procne laments the sorrows of women, who are forced to leave their houses and get married to foreigners and barbarians. If this is the case, at least some of the red-figure nestorides might be the archaeological evidence for Greek brides who joined native families, a case of cohabitation that would be especially productive from the point of view of the cultural processes connecting the Greeks and the natives.106 The relocation of red-figure workshops to native sites, especially in the Lucanian hinterland, partially changed the pattern of the phenomenon: not occasional production for export, but for the local market and supported by a relatively

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

steady demand. This caused an increase in production and the standardization in typology and decoration. Other distinctly native shapes are quite uncommon in southern Italian redfigure. In the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., pottery production, especially in Peucetia, was largely hellenized from the point of view of both shapes and technology, and the “typically native” shapes were reduced to the bare minimum. The exceptions known to me are two ollae, a shape that is, as mentioned earlier, the counterpart of the kantharoid in the traditional set of ritual vases. The earlier one, attributed to the Dolon Painter,107 finds close parallels in the types that were current in Peucetia, and is decorated with the usual scene of young warriors and women. The second one is attributed to the Baltimore Painter and is distinguished by two small dishes set on the top of the handles.108 This shape was originally produced in all areas of native Apulia,109 but in the fourth century B.C.E. had almost disappeared. To my knowledge the only area where it survived was southern Messapia.110 The location of the workshop of the Baltimore Painter is usually identified as being in southern Daunia.111 Therefore this unique vase would be a “special commission” whose areas of production and destination were both out of Greek territory, and it was possibly used for cementing relationships between Apulian elites of different districts. Its decoration is very close to the themes found on nestorides and related vases, with the typical blend of Victory and Eros.

Selection of Shapes by Native Markets Focusing on copies of typical native shapes in red-figure production is a narrow and insufficient approach, though. One might miss the actual importance and extent of the influence of the native market on Lucanian and Apulian red-figure. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the shapes in use in the native context were originally Greek. However, we can compare the overall selection of shapes found in Greek and native contexts and look for differences not only in typology, but also the frequency of occurrence of vase shapes and the role they play in the ceramic assemblages of the two areas. The column krater is a very special case.112 We may well ask ourselves if in the fourth century B.C.E. this is still a Greek vase. This shape had a long history in native Apulia, and especially in Peucetia. Column kraters were still a very important part of native pottery production while they had disappeared in Athenian production by the beginning of the fourth century B.C.E.,113 and they are virtually absent in the fourth-century contexts at Taras, Metaponto, and Herakleia.114 Such an outdated vase was produced expressly for the native – and chiefly Peucetian – consumers, for whom it was still a vital and requested one. This is confirmed by its absence in other areas of southern Italy and by the fact that the Lucanian workshops produced it in the early phase only, when their production was largely exported to Peucetia, and abandoned it when Apulian products took over that market. Almost all of the known findspots of Italiote red-figure column kraters are in native territory and especially in Peucetia, both coastal and inland.

egh

229

230

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The painted scenes are a further confirmation that the column krater was a native vase no less than the nestoris. The vast majority of red-figure vase images with representations of figures in native costume are found on column kraters. According to the data collected by H. Frielinghaus,115 227 specimens were decorated with such scenes, while all other shapes together account for only 55 vases, mainly volute kraters (16), nestorides (11), and kantharoids (6). This means that slightly less than half of the overall production of Italiote column kraters was decorated with figures of natives. The very high percentage of warrior representations on them is also significant. Such a special connection between the column krater and the native world is also confirmed by scenes where this vase is represented in use together with kantharoids or in the hands of people in native costume.116 Other shapes of Greek origin that were actually in use in the Greek cities but seem to acquire new importance and play a totally different role in native contexts are a different case. This is probably because they were considered suitable substitutes for local shapes that they resembled not only in function but also in appearance. This is probably the case of the so-called Apulian kantharos. The Greek kantharos is a specialized vase for the highest ceremonial functions, used for offerings to the gods and the heroes, and for ritual acts. This makes its production rare, and its quality is frequently very high.117 In the Apulian school, and particularly in the Late Apulian phase, there is an unusually large production of such kantharoi, and it became one of the most popular shapes (Fig. 10.8, WF 133). The shape is also replicated by pottery vases imitating gold and silverware found in elite tombs of Peucetia and southern Daunia.118 When the find context of the red-figure kantharoi is known, they were found in rich tombs of the same area, usually in multiple examples, together with an equal number of oinochoai,119 while they are not a part of the usual set of grave goods at Taras and the other Italiote poleis.120 Because of the exceptional importance of the kantharoid shapes in funerary contexts of native Apulia, the new and unprecedented role played by the Greek-style kantharos may well be ascribed to its being a natural substitute for the traditional local vases. They shared many basic features, above all the distinguishing tall vertical handles, and both were wine vases for ritual and ceremonial purposes. In the second half of the fourth century B.C.E., especially in the most hellenized contexts, such a substitution would have been acceptable, as is also proved by several scenes with figures in native costume where this Greek shape is used in the same way as the local kantharoids and sometimes alongside them. A silver kantharos of this shape, that attests to the metal vases that were imitated by the Apulian potters, was found in the princely tomb of Monte Pruno, where it served the function of a drinking cup in a set of metalware including a bronze nestoris.121 It may also be pointed out that native Apulia had previously been exceptionally receptive of imported Greek kantharoi of a different type. A very high number of Attic kantharoi of the Saint-Valentin type and their Italiote imitations were found in Peucetian territory.122 They are, in comparison, virtually absent in the cemeteries of Taras and Metaponto. Among applied-red pottery, also used chiefly

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

10.8. Apulian kantharos. Baltimore, Walters Art Museum 48.2764 (image in the public domain – http//art.thewalters.org/detail/9627).

in the same area, similar kantharoi played a major role along with reproductions of native kantharoids and small oinochoai.123 Therefore, we may well assume that the late Apulian kantharoi were the continuation of the ancient local tradition of vases with two tall vertical handles, even if they were disguised as Greek vases. The same substitution of native forms may occur in other shapes, such as the native oinochoe with a round mouth. At Taras, Metaponto, and Herakleia the usual types of oinochoai have a trefoil mouth, while in Daunia the large number of small oinochoai with round mouths, including red-figure ones, far exceeds those in Greek contexts. A special type with lid is found at Canusium and in the area under Canusian influence.124 Such vases likely played the same role as the jugs with a round mouth that are a common feature of Daunian funerary assemblages. Similarly, the large red-figure askoi found in the tombs of Ruvo and southern Daunia were substitutes for local askoi, which together with jugs made up the basic ritual set in graves of this district. At least some of them were locally made and their later production seems to have a strong connection with the typical

egh

231

232

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Canusian polychrome vases.125 Less numerous, but no less interesting, are the large dinoi found in some of the most outstanding tombs of southern Daunia and Peucetia.126 Such an ancient shape may have been produced by Italiote redfigure workshops also because of its resemblance to native ollae. They were placed on high stands, like the reproduction of native ollae by the Dolon Painter. And the list may continue. The phenomenon of substituting a closely comparable Greek shape for a local one developed chiefly in the Late Apulian phase. It has been frequently suggested that red-figure workshops, and namely those that were more involved in the production of kantharoi, round mouth oinochoai, and askoi, were active in the native territory and especially at Ruvo and Canusium.127 The success of such substitutes might also explain the relatively small numbers of nestorides and kantharoids in the Late Apulian phase. Our still incomplete overview will close with a special case, that of the stamnos, a shape produced by the Apulian workshops in small quantity and over a long period, from the late fifth to the end of the fourth century B.C.E.128 This is not originally a Greek shape, and it was produced to imitate vases that were common in native Apulia. This time, though, the model is not a strictly local one, but rather it is the Etruscan bronze stamnos. Such vases were imported into Apulia, especially southern Daunia and Northern Peucetia. At Canusium both bronze and red-figure stamnoi were found.129 More generally, metalware was especially influential as a model for red-figure vases and was especially influential in native Apulia. Distinctly metallic features are frequently found on pottery vases for that market, and some shapes, such as the large Apulian paterae130 and the situlae, were developed after bronze prototypes that circulated among the local elites. It is important to note that all the shapes we have been discussing have to do with the native wine of Apulia and Lucania. Nestorides, kantharoids, and ollae are the traditional set, to which the column krater was added as a substitute for the olla. Then, more traditional Greek shapes are accepted as additions and substitutes, and the whole set may take on a deceivingly Greek appearance. But these were not symposion vases. They are all wine containers with a strong ritual and ceremonial character: kantharoi, phialai, askoi,131 and we may add rhyta,132 drinking horns133 and situlae.134 The stamnos also seems to be related to religious practices.135 The rituals of native ancestral wine for which these vases were used were clearly a basic and deeply felt feature of the native cultures, and might have played even the role of “emblems of identity,”136 as suggested also by the coin of Ruvo with nestoris, jug, and drinking horn.137 The impact of natives’ needs on the shape selection of Apulian and Lucanian red-figure production is therefore a more complex phenomenon than one might expect. It is not only about “special commissions” made on particular occasions and close imitations of distinctly native vases. Its quantitative importance is instead relevant if we take into account the hundreds of column kraters, which in

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

the fourth century B.C.E. were practically native shapes, and the massive production of apparently Greek shapes, that acquire new importance as substitutes for native vases. We may not be too far from the truth if we say, paradoxically, that not a small part of the Lucanian and Apulian red-figure production is actually made up, directly or indirectly, of native vases.

Addendum Massimo Osanna has kindly informed me of the first results of a research project of the University of Basilicata using chemical tests to detect traces of the original contents of vases from native sites of the region.138 A wine-specific marker has been found in subgeometric kantharoids and nestorides from sixth century B.C.E. burials, in an impasto pithos from a seventh century B.C.E. dwelling, and even in a closed shape of the first half of the eighth century B.C.E. Recent tests have been conducted on Messapian trozzelle by Dr. Giuliana Bianco of the University of Basilicata for an ongoing research project of Queen’s University supported by the Soprintendenza ai Beni Archeologici delle Puglia. These tests confirm that the form was used as a wine container. Notes 1. Some examples of studies dedicated to vase shapes of South Italy are Hoffmann 1966; Schneider Herrmann 1977; 1980; Cassimatis 1993; Sisto 2001; 2006b; 2006a. 2. On the relationship between Athenian and South Italian workshops, see, e.g., Mannino 1996; Lippolis 1996b, 357–61; Mugione 2000; Denoyelle 2008, 339–49; Pontrandolfo 2007, 333 and n. 27 on nestorides and Attic kantharoids. See also the recent overviews Carpenter 2003; 2009. On the development of Italiote red-figure versions of native shapes, see also Torelli 2004, 190–2. 3. Trendall 1990, 217–30, 223; Todisco and Sisto 1998, 572, section B.I, with bibliography; Colivicchi 2006a, 117. 4. ARV2 1167, 8, 1361–2; Robinson 1990a; Todisco and Sisto 1998, 574 ff., section B.II.1– 29; Mannino 1996, 370, n. 28; Colivicchi 2004, 28 ff.; 2006a. 5. Jentoft-Nilsen 1990; Todisco and Sisto 1998, 578 ff., section C.I-II; 595, fig. 22, with bibliography. 6. Todisco and Sisto 1998, 581 ff., section D.I., with bibliography; most nestorides were found in the hinterland of Basilicata, but one was found at Rutigliano (Sisto 2006b, 368, no. 28). Furthermore, red-figured versions of this shape were found at Ruvo, Pomarico, and in the territory of Metaponto, and a Gnathia specimen perhaps at Monte Sannace (see n. 98). 7. See, for Albania, Prendi 1984; on Epirus see esp. Vokotopoulou 1986, 234 ff.; on Macedonia, see Andronikos 1969, 183 ff., 211 ff. 8. On the relationships between the two shores of the Adriatic in the Early Iron Age, see D’Andria 1988, 655 ff.; Peroni 1984; Kilian 1984. See also Bianco 1996a; Bianco 1999b, 137–82. 9. D’Andria 1984. 10. On the earlier vases, see Yntema 1990, 49, 65, 88, 99 ff. (form 14); 65 (form 7A); De Juliis 1997, 22, fig. 14, 25, fig. 19, 26, fig. 20, 57, fig. 57–58; De Juliis et al. 2006, 101 ff., 128 ff., 158. On the trozzelle, see Yntema 1974; 1990, 334 ff.; De Juliis 1997, 63 ff.;

egh

233

234

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

Yntema 2001, 99; De Juliis et al. 2006, 160 ff. P. Palmentola in De Juliis et al. 2006, 87 ff., 101 ff. argues for the local development of the matt painted shape from impasto models of the same period and downplays the Albanian model. Her proposal is based on the assumption that: (1) impasto vases were the models for matt-painted wares of the same period; (2) the admittedly identical vases that were used on the other side of the Adriatic did not have any role in the appearance of the same shape in southern Apulia; (3) typical Albanian decoration is less common on this shape than on the small jugs, the Albanian origin of which is undeniable. As for (1) and (2), the shape appears in Apulia in the same period both in impasto and matt-painted pottery, so it would make more sense if both classes had adopted the shape from a common model that had a long tradition on the other side of the Adriatic and was imported into Apulia exactly during this phase; as for (3), the evidence is small and its interpretation controversial: only one of the originally Albanian decorative patterns might be less frequent – but not absent – on said shape than on jugs, while others are common to both. Furthermore, a number of fragmentary items have been classified by Palmentola as small amphorae or jugs precisely because of the assumption that Albanian patterns are less common on the former shape. The risk of a circular argument is clear. Yntema 1990, 156, 167, 177, 163, 198, fig. 182, 202, 209 (form 14); De Juliis 1995, 31 ff. (vaso cantaroide); De Juliis 1997, fig. 35, 70, 76a; Yntema 1990, 177 (form 24), 202 (form 8 C); De Juliis 1995, 27 ff. (anfore tipo 2). E.g., Schneider Herrmann 1980, 21–6; E. De Juliis in De Juliis et al. 2006, 160. A bronze trozzella from Monopoli: Andreassi 1987, 625–72, 661; a bronze nestoris from Monte Pruno (see infra n. 121); a bronze kantharoid from Baragiano: A. Russo in Russo and Di Giuseppe 2008, 51 and 520, no. 58; a fragmentary kantharoid from Lavello: Bottini 1982, 55 ff. The earliest specimens, of impasto, may date to the first half of the eighth century. B.C.E.: M.R. Salsano in Greco 1988, 37, t. 2, found inside a matt-painted olla. The two vases are ascribed to Latial or Campanian model by Bianco 1999b, 137–82, 170. For the subgeometric and later productions, see Yntema 1990, 187 (forms 14 olla/olletta and 24 nestoris); 314, form 14; 338, fig. 323–4; Setari 1998–1999, 76 (ollette subgeometriche tipi 1 e 3), 78 (kantharos a vernice bruna), on the transition from the earlier “ollette” to the later “kantharoi” 109; Russo 2008, 76 ff. A list of subgeometric, banded, and floral nestorides is published in Sisto 2006b, 363 ff.; to which add: Russo and Di Giuseppe 2008, 516, no. 18, t. 35 (without horizontal handles). Colangelo 2009, 14–15, tombs 69, 71; Tardugno 2009, 53–64, fig. 1A; Scalici 2012, 111–31.On the nestoris and its diffusion, see also Pontrandolfo Greco 1982, 101; Horsnæs 2002, 66, n. 177; Colivicchi 2004, 27 ff.; Sisto 2006b; Scalici 2009, 43 ff. On the function of the subgeometric “kantharoid,” see De Juliis 1995, 31 f.; Colivicchi 2004; Colivicchi 2006a. On the shape in the later added red pottery, see De Juliis 2002, 132 ff., n. 21, who still does not consider it a drinking vase because of the kantharoi and other shapes of Greek origin present in the added red class, which would be better suited for drinking. It should be pointed out that since this shape is much earlier than the introduction of the Greek ones, its function must be investigated in the context of the Iron Age pottery of Apulia and its selection of shapes. Vokotopoulou 1986, 234 ff. Colivicchi 2004, 34 ff. On the olla-krater, see De Juliis 1995, 31 ff. Small 2004, 267–85, 269 considers this shape a development of the Attic stamnos, but the features that may recall it are actually found in local ollae. This development took place both in the subgeometric pottery and in the banded and floral wares of Peucetia, which eventually replaced it.

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

On the latter class, see De Juliis 1997, 78 ff. On the replacement of ollae with column kraters in “north-Lucanian” pottery, see Setari 1998–1999, 109. See, e.g., Gervasio 1921, 81 (inside krater); Berloco 1967, 95–6, fig. 4 (two miniature specimens inside two kantharoid amphoras), 97 (inside olla); Berloco 1969, 93–103 (inside olla-krater); Ciancio 1985, 49 (inside krater); Ward-Perkins et al. 1969, 100–57, tomb S 23 (inside olla); Canosa 1986, 171–82, 173–4, tav. 56b = De Juliis 1995, 58–9, tomb 28 (inside olla); Venturo 1995, 69–70, tav. XXV, tomb 23 (inside olla); Ciancio 1997, 141, 147, t. 158 (inside olla), 150, 162–3, t. 22 (inside olla), 158, 172–3, t. 50 (inside olla); Venturo 1997, 51–2, tav. X, tomb 53 (inside olla); 1999, 58 (inside Attic krater). On the North Lucanian distict, see Lissi Caronna 1980, 119–297, 140–2, t. 29 (inside olla); 1983, 215–352, 242–3, t. 60 (inside olla); Greco 1991, 24–7, t. 30 (inside olla); Lissi Caronna 1990–1991, 192–4, t. 70 (inside olla); 323–5, t. 3 Moles (inside olla-krater). Lippolis in Dell’Aglio and Lippolis 1992, 210, has already suggested that ollae found in tomb groups of Peucetia may have been wine containers. M. Osanna 1988, 277–8, has also considered this option for the large vases found in the tombs of Lavello, and has pointed out their association with jugs and Ionian cups in some tomb groups. Holloway 1970, 47, has identified ollae as “wine decanters” because small subgeometric jugs are frequently found inside them. Wine production in Daunia has been proposed by Yntema 1979, 34 n. 63, on the basis of not especially compelling evidence; contra Bottini 1982, 100 and n. 27. The native kantharos is considered a wine vase also by Sica 2004, 217–51. On the krater as a substitute for the olla, see also Tagliente 1999, 391–418, 404, who nonetheless considers it simply the consequence of the diffusion of Greek wine, an exotic and formerly unknown drink. Brooks et al. 1966, 131–50, sarcophagus burial 1, infant; Ward-Perkins et al. 1969, t. S 21, double adult burial; Venturo 1994, 93–4, fig. XXXIV, t. 17; Ciancio 1997, 144–5, t. 151, with small jug inside olla, 166–8, t. 47, infant. Water container: De Juliis 1973, 285–399, 393 ff. Cereals: Bailo Modesti 1980, 190 ff.; Pontrandolfo Greco 1982, 48, 69; Bottini 1982, 85; 1989, 161–80, 162 ff.; Osanna 1988, 277; Tagliamonte 1996, 108 ff. The large nestorides of the North Lucanian tombs have also been considered water containers: Collina 1985–1988, 85; Johannowsky 1994, 495; Sisto 2006b, but never with a real discussion. It appears that the actual reasons for such an assumption are two: (1) the unusual number of handles, which superficially recalls the Greek hydria; (2) the prejudice that a native shape could not contain wine, which would be typically Greek. This is instead the interpretation of E. Setari (1998–1999, 109), who considers the ollae found in burials containers of water or cereals, and explains their substitution with kraters in some tombs of Ripacandida as the result of the diffusion of the practice of the symposion. La Geni`ere 1968, fig. 26, 4, fig. 27, 1; Bottini 1979, 77–94, 85 ff.; Bottini 1981, 183–288, 250, figs. 51–52, t. 24; Pontrandolfo Greco 1981, 151 f.; 1982, 102 f. Gras 1983, 1067–75; de Cazanove 1988, 245–65; 1991, 177 ff.; Coarelli 1995, 196– 213. In the last few years, also thanks to the contribution of archaeobotanical analyses, the notion that vines and wine were known in Italy well before Greek colonization is finally finding acceptance among classical archaeologists. For Magna Graecia, see AttiTaranto 49 (2011), in particular, papers by G. Fiorentino, J.-P Brun, J.-C. Sourisseau, and A. Small. Hesychius, Lex., β 629, s.v. Βίσβες. The introduction of vine pruning in Latium was ascribed to Numa, the mythical father of Roman religion, and only vines that had been previously pruned were used to

egh

235

236

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

29.

30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51.

52.

produce the wine for the gods. Plin., HN 14.88; 119 ff.; also see Plut., Num. 14; Schol. Bern. VE 2.70; Piccaluga 1962. ARV2 , 1361, nos. 1–2; Sotheby’s Antiquities, Dec. 14, 1987, 42, no. 172; Andreassi and Radina 1988, 325, no. 697; Todisco and Sisto 1998, 577, B II.30–32. These vases are probably by the workshop of the Dolon Painter, see Silvestrelli 2005. Silvestrelli, Chapter 4 in this volume. LCS 340, Schwerin Group; Montanaro 2007, no. 45. On the classification of this vase, see Barresi 2005, 148. See especially the banded and black kantharoids found at Satriano (Holloway 1970, 55, no. 51, pl. 7; 58, no. 68–69, pl. 8) and Baragiano (Russo and Di Giuseppe 2008, 545 f., t. 22, nos. 204–6; 553 ff., t. 57, no. 281). See, e.g., E. Ricchetti 1992, 240–2, no. 22, small banded kantharoid. De Juliis 2002, esp. 132 ff., with bibliography. The earlier specimens may have relief masks at the lower joint of the handles. Silvestrelli 2005, with previous bibliography. See Carter 1998b; Silvestrelli, Chapter 4 in this volume, with bibliography. Robinson 1990a; Robinson 1996; more cautious, De Juliis 2002, 185 ff. “in attesa di nuovi dati piu’ certi.” Production in the Peucetian area is not unlikely, but the purely geographical criterion followed by De Juliis (2002) to distinguish the area supplied by Metapontum (Bradano basin and district of Melfi) from the one served by local Peucetian workshops (Adriatic Peucetia) is not especially sound given the large number of red-figure vases from Metaponto in the latter area. De Juliis 2002, 188 n. 14. Silvestrelli 2005. Sisto 2006b, 373 f., nos. 1–6, with bibliography; nos. 1 and 3 have been recently returned to Italy by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Denoyelle 1998, 21; Denoyelle, Chapter 5 in this volume. On the typology of nestorides LCS, 29 f.; Schneider Herrmann 1980, 17 f.; Trendall 1989, 10, fig. 11. Sisto 2006b, 373, no. 1, with bibliography. Denoyelle 1998, 21. As in Sisto 2006b, 385. Sisto 2006b, 373, no. 2–3. Denoyelle 1998, 22; Silvestrelli 2005; Sisto 2006b, 386. Sisto 2006b, 374 ff., nos. 7–10. On the close relationship between the workshop of the Amykos Painter and that of the Dolon Painter, see Silvestrelli 2005, 118 ff. The nestoris LCS Suppl III, 3/D31 = Sisto 2006b, no. 10, has been attributed by Denoyelle 1998, 35, to the Creusa Painter, who worked closely with the Dolon Painter, probably in the same workshop. Sisto 2006b, 375–7, nos. 11–22, with bibliography. At Sala Consilina this shape appears alongside many other innovations between the end of phase II and the beginning of phase III (end of the eighth to the first quarter of the seventh c. B.C.E.), La Geni`ere 1968, 96, 102; Bailo Modesti 1981, 96; Pontrandolfo Greco 1982, 43–4; Yntema 1990, 125–30. On the Apulian origin of the Oenotrian kantharoi see La Geni`ere 1968, 96–7; Yntema 1990, 130. An isolated impasto vase of the Early Iron Age (Ruby 1995, 77–9, fil. 104, type B 41) is compared by the editor to Villanovan small amphoras. On the diffusion of shapes and decoration patterns from the lower Bradano area in the Oenotrian pottery, see Tagliente 1996, 79–81; a more cautious approach is found in Yntema 1990, 128–30. On the importance of the lower Bradano area in the seventh century B.C.E. and the

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

53.

54.

55.

56.

57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62.

63.

diffusion to Lucania and Northern Apulia of decoration patterns and techniques that had been originally developed here, see Bottini 1986, 157–66, 161–3. Bianco (1999a, 385) instead suggests that the innovations came from the Tyrrhenian coast. The development of the Oenotrian kantharos is well illustrated by the series of finds of Sala Consilina (La Geni`ere 1968, 96–8, 102, 128, 137, 153, 156). See also Pontrandolfo Greco 1982, 43–4, 65, 82–3; Yntema 1990, 125–30, figs. 105–107, 134, fig. 116. S. Bianco (1999a, 385) has proposed that this shape developed from unspecified Tyrrhenian models. Funerary libations of wine are also suggested by the pierced Ionian cups found in the Oenotrian burials of Palinuro (Fiammenghi 1985, 12, fig. 6). This shape is also called “Palinuro-Krug” (Naumann and Neutsch 1960, esp. 135 ff.), which is a misleading name since it is not specific to this site. Also see La Geni`ere 1968, 137, 153 ff.; Yntema 1990, 134, fig. 122; Donnarumma and Tomay 2000, 52 ff.; La Torre 2001, 36 ff. Some specimens are also found at Guardia Perticara (t. 192), San Martino d’Agri (Russo and Vicari Sottosanti 2009, 5), and Garaguso (Hano et al. 1971, 431, tomb X; Orlandini 1971, 273–308, pl. XXIX; Morel 1974, tombs N and X, figs. 7–8; Nafissi 1985, figs. 283–285), together with some large kantharoi that may have also developed from the Oenotrian kantharos. These are also found at other sites such as Armento (Russo Tagliente 1995, 18, fig. 15), Guardia Perticara (Nava 1999, 692, tav. LXXX, 2; LXXXIII, 1) and Alianello (Bianco 1996a, 147 ff., 2.11) and Roccanova (Tocco Sciarelli 1980, 452, pl. VI, 4). For the fifth c. B.C.E. krater-kantharoi see La Geni`ere 1968, t. XVIII Valle Pupina, pl. 26, 4; t. IV Pantanello pl. 27, 1. On the important implications of this identification, see Colivicchi 2004, 54 ff. See also Robinson 2011. The tomb had been previously ascribed to an Etruscan resident on the basis of the wall painting. According to Sisto 2006b, 387, the object represented may be a pottery vase with floral decoration. On the basis of the colors, it looks more like a metal vessel with a crown around the neck. On the origin of the nestorides of shapes 2 and 3, see Colivicchi 2004, 57 ff.; Sisto 2006b, 387. For some fourth century B.C.E. krater-kantharoi see, e.g., Bottini 1998, 63 ff., Rivello – Serra Citt`a, South cemetery, tomb 4, first quarter of the fourth century B.C.E.; a Gnathia version was found in the kiln site of Pignataro (ibid. 89, no. 1); Russo Tagliente 1995, 20 ff., fig. 18, t. 2 Piano Laghi, banded and floral specimen from Armento, early decades of the fourth century B.C.E. One red-figure Lucanian nestoris of shape 2, probably a local production, was found in tomb 74 of Buccino/S.Stefano, a male burial of the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. (on display in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Buccino). This site belongs to the “North Lucanian” cultural area but is at the frontier of the former Oenotrian territory. A.D. Trendall (LCS 105 f.) proposed that the painter migrated to Lucania, possibly Anzi. On Lucanization, see, e.g., Pontrandolfo Greco 1982, esp. 93 ff.; Pontrandolfo 1996b; Torelli 1996, 128 ff.; Russo 2008. Sisto 2006b, 377, nos. 23–28, with bibliography. The work of the Choephoroi Painter shows similarities to the workshop of the Creusa Painter and there are relations with the Dolon Painter as well. His formation most likely took place in Metaponto. Sisto 2006b, 378, nos. 37–38, with bibliography. Sisto 2006b, 381, no. 76, with bibliography. The relocation was proposed by Trendall (LCS 131; 142; 159; 179; Trendall 1989, 58 ff.) and has been confirmed by recent tests (E.G.D. Robinson, Chapter 11 in this volume). On the location of the workshop of the Roccanova Painter, see Pontrandolfo Greco 1982, 112; Bianco 1994, 131; Pontrandolfo 1996a; Horsnæs 2002, 64; on the Primato Group, see Greco and Guzzo 1992, 76; Horsnæs 2002, 64 f. Sisto 2006b, 378 f., no. 37–38 (shape 1), 39–50 (shapes 2 and 3), with bibliography.

egh

237

238

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

64. 65. 66. 67.

68.

69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

79. 80.

81. 82. 83. 84.

85.

Sisto 2006b, 379–81, nos. 51–81, with bibliography. Sisto 2006b, 381–85, nos. 82–131, with bibliography. LCS 185, no. 1123, Primato group; LCS 186, no. 1130 “Barbarized descendants.” A. D. Trendall identified different types of Apulian nestorides, but, as pointed out by Schneider Herrmann 1980, 36, and Sisto 2006b, 395, these are only variants of the Lucanian shape 1. The products of the workshops responsible for the introduction of the shape in Apulian red-figure pottery were largely exported to Messapia (Robinson 1990b, 188), but in this case the intended market must have been different. These are nestorides, not trozzelle, because of their profile without separated neck. Furthermore, Apulian nestorides have not been found in Messapia and are absent in the museums and collections of the area. Sisto 2006b, 389, nos. 1–4, with bibliography. Sisto 2006b, 390, nos. 6–11, 13, with bibliography. Sisto 2006b, 391–94, nos. 14–38, with bibliography. RVAp 21/331; 21/360; 22/766a; 26/74. Some of these vases belong to the Liverpool Group, which, though stylistically Apulian, might have actually been produced in Metaponto (Robinson 1990b, 191). RVAp 24/116; 24/131–132; 24/331; 25/176–178. Berloco 1966, 188 ff., t. 1, April 13, 1964; Lo Porto 1972–1973, 190, pl. 42, 1–2, fig. 3 = RVAp 21/360, from Montescaglioso, t. 12; RVAp 26/442, from Timmari. RVAp 21/409; Montanaro 2007, nos. 34.16 and 18; nos. 179.11–12. Colivicchi 2004, 44 ff.; Sisto 2006b, 398 ff.; Sisto 2006c, with bibliography. Carpenter 2003, esp. 13 ff. In some cases, where the warrior is wearing his armor in the presence of his family, the Attic model of departure scene is clear, but in the majority of cases the scenes are better explained as a warrior’s return. Ex Berlin: RVAp I, 51, 3/42; Schneider Herrmann 1980, 39; Sisto 2006b, 399, no. 5; London, Market: RVAp 438, 4/202 a; Sisto 2006b, 399, no. 8. Louvre K 121: Trendall 1971, 16, fig. 32; Schneider Herrmann 1980, p. 40, fig. 107; Frielinghaus 1995, 118 f., 222, Ga3; in Sisto 2006b, 398, n. 138, the vase is considered of uncertain classification. Louvre K 521: RVAp 251, 207; Frielinghaus 1995, 222, Gb 2; Sisto 2006b, 401, no. 20. Exceptions are extremely rare. See, e.g., a pelike with woman and warrior from the territory of Metaponto (see Silvestrelli, Chapter 4 in this volume). See Colivicchi 2009. On the phiale as an exceptional drinking vase, reserved for gods and heroes: see the many examples in Dentzer 1982, e.g., pl. 21, fig. 114; in Etruria, phialai are frequently used by the heroicized dead depicted in tomb paintings (e.g., Steingr¨aber 1985, no. 11, t. del Triclinio; no. 32, t. Golini I; no. 47, t. delle Bighe; no. 50, t. della Caccia e della Pesca; no. 77, t. delle Leonesse; no. 81, t. dei Leopardi; no. 82, t. del Letto Funebre; no. 84; no. 103, t. della Pulcella; no. 109, t. degli Scudi) and later by the banqueting figures on urns and sarcophagi. On the phiale and its function, also see Bottini 2002; Tsingarida 2009. In the closing lines of her article, Sisto (2006b, 403–5) argues that the potters had an incomplete understanding of the use of native vases. The native vessels originally used as water vases may have been mistakenly identified as wine vases by the Apulian red-figure painters and represented as such in the scenes with indigenous figures. Considering all the evidence discussed here and the unnecessary complexity of the proposal, what stands against such a point of view is basic common sense: first, assuming that the Greek workshops had scarce information on their close neighbors

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

86. 87. 88. 89.

90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

96.

97.

98.

is highly unlikely, especially in light of vast recent research that has clearly highlighted the degree of interaction between Greeks and natives in southern Italy; second, both the red-figured vases of native shape and the other vases with scenes representing natives using such shapes were intended for indigenous consumers, who would have noticed immediately any inaccuracy; third, it is unlikely that such a gross misunderstanding lasted for about a century without any clarification from the intended consumers. It is worth noting that in a previous contribution (2006c, 415) M. A. Sisto had accepted the identification of the nestoris and similar vases as wine vessels. See esp. Herring et al. 2000. For a closer analysis of the scenes, see Colivicchi 2004, 37 ff.; Colivicchi 2006a, 126 ff. For the meaning of these scenes, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1987; on the pursuit scenes on Lucanian red-figure vases, see S¨ oldner 2007. See, e.g., the Lokrian pinakes, where the actual wedding ceremony is never directly represented and is replaced by the mythical abduction of Kore by Hades or by an idealized “young abductor” (Sourvinou-Inwood 1973; Torelli 1976). See Colivicchi 2004, 39 ff. with bibliography. The subject is identified in LIMC IV (1988), s.v. Helene (L. Kahil), no. 287; compare also no. 285. Also see Colivicchi 2006b. Strab., 5.4.12. As pointed out by Guzzo 1996, 59 ff. See also Mele 1993, 145 ff. On wine and the Greek marriage see Pind. Ol. 7. 1 ff.; V´erilhac and Vial 1998, 303 ff. There are representations of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis where the hero offers a kantharos of wine to the gods who are coming, e.g., on the Franc¸ois vase (ABV 76, 1) and a dinos by Sophilos (Williams 1983, fig. 26). Kantharoi are also very frequently represented on Lokrian pinakes, whose imagery is strongly focused on marriage. Sisto (2006b) claims that the nestorides are typical of male adults, especially warriors. This conclusion is not supported by her list of 39 burial contexts with native nestorides, of which seven tombs may be ascribed to males and three to women, which is not an overwhelming majority, while all the rest are not identifiable. Her list includes neither the tombs with red-figure nestorides nor those with the other related shapes, such as the Peucetian and north-Lucanian kantharoids and amphorae. From those contexts it would be even more evident that such shapes were anything but exclusive to male burials. On compensation in tombs of preadults see Bottini 1990; Lohmann 1992. On wine and its offering to preadults in South Italy see M. Osanna in Fabbri et al. 2000–2001, 65. From Viggiano: four Lucanian nestorides of shape 2 (Nava 1998) figs. 13, 15; Nava 2002, 752 ff., pl. 75.2 female and male burials; Nava 2002, 684 ff., pl. 43.1, t. 58; male burial; pl. 42.2 and 44.2, t. 52, male burial); from Anzi: two Lucanian nestorides of shape 1 (Sisto 2006b, 377, nos. 27–28); three Lucanian nestorides of shape 2 (Sisto 2006b, 376, no. 21; 381, no. 75; 384, no. 113); from Roccanova: two Lucanian nestorides shape of 2 (Sisto 2006b, 378 f., nos. 40 and 50); from Barrata: one Lucanian nestoris shape 3 (Mutino 2006); from Pomarico: one Lucanian nestoris of shape 3 (Sisto 2006b, 384, no. 117) and one Apulian nestoris (Sisto 2006b, 394, no. 36); from Ruvo: one small nestoris with two horizonal handles, perhaps Intermediate Group (Sisto 2006b, 391, no. 12); from Civita di Tricarico: fragments of at least one nestoris of uncertain shape (1 or 2) (Pouzadoux 2008, 363 f.); from Metaponto: one Lucanian nestoris of shape 1 (see infra, n. 99). According to Montanaro (2007, 744, no. 166.11; 873 no. 302.3; 902, no. 322.19) two Lucanian nestorides of shape 3 (Sisto 2006b, 378, no. 34; 384, no. 120) and an Apulian nestoris (Sisto 2006b, 392, no. 17) were found at Ruvo in the

egh

239

240

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

nineteenth century, but the evidence for the proposed identification is not explicitly mentioned. A black-gloss nestoris of shape 2 was allegedly found “in the territory of Timmari” and a black-gloss nestoris of shape 1 may be perhaps from Monte Sannace (Sisto 2006b, 397, with bibliography). Also see the black-gloss nestoris of shape 2 from Montemurro (Bottini 1997, 83 ff., t. 8, female burial). One red-figure Lucanian nestoris of shape 2 was found in tomb 74 of Buccino/S.Stefano, a male burial of the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. (on display in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Buccino). 99. Jircik 1983, 33, rim of nestoris shape 1 from the Collecting Basin. This is an early piece, probably by the Amykos Painter. Burials in contracted position, the typical ritual of the Apulian peoples, were found at Pantanello alongside the usual supine inhumations (Carter 1998b, 64–6). 100. Todisco and Sisto 1998, 606–8. 101. Thuc. 7.33.3–4; on the passage see Lombardo 1989a, 7–38; Cataldi 1990, 78 ff. 102. Fantasia 1972; Nenci 1978, 52; Strab. 6.3.6; Luc., Civ., 610–612; Mythographus Vaticanus Secundus, 125B; Commenta Bernensia Luc., 2.609–10 (ed. H. Usener, Leipzig 1869); Adnotationes super Lucanum 2.612 (ed. I. Endt, Leipzig 1909). 103. For instance, Miltiades and the father of Thucydides were both married to women of Thrace, where they had strong connections and interests. 104. Thuc. 6.6; see also Diod. 12.82.3 ff. The relations between Segesta and Selinous were very close, in spite of some boundary conflicts. Thucydides (6.2.6) mentions regular intermarriage between the two cities. On Greek–Sikel intermarriage, see Hall 2004b, esp. 40–1. 105. Sappho fr. 96. 106. Herring 2005. 107. LCS 102, no. 538; LCS suppl. I, 60, D 27; Schneider Herrmann 1980, 29, fig. 42; the vase is also published by Montanaro 2007, 554, no. 116.9, who attributes it to Ruvo and a work of the Amykos Painter without any explanation. 108. Cambitoglou et al. 1986, 224–8 ; Frielinghaus 1995, 205, Bb 10; Chamay and Courtois 2002, no. 84. 109. Messapia: Yntema 1990, 337 fig. 320; De Juliis et al. 2006, 155 f.; Peucetia: De Juliis 1995, 30 olla tipo 3; Daunia: De Juliis 1977, pl. I, 7, forma I (olla) tipo 7, 28, pl. xciii A. 110. De Juliis et al. 2006, 156, types D and E. The best comparison for the red-figure olla is type E3b. 111. See infra n. 127. 112. On the special connection between this shape and the native market, Carpenter 2003, 10–16; Robinson 2004, 195; Carpenter 2009, 32. 113. The last ones were produced by the Meleager Painter and were exported especially to Spina. It may be a production intended for the Etruscan market, where the shape was still used, as in Peucetia. 114. A rare exception is a fragment found in the survey of the Metapontine (Silvestrelli 2011b, 326, no. 63). 115. Frielinghaus 1995. 116. Sisto 2006c, 414 ff. 117. A dedicated study on this shape is badly needed. See, e.g., Hoffmann 1989; Tomei 2008. 118. De Palma 1992, 302–9, nos. 18–24; Montanaro 2007, 717, no. 164. The shape was also replicated in polychrome pottery (Cassano 1992, 214, nos. 7–8) and white-slip (Cassano 1992, 401, no. 81; Montanaro 2007, no. 21; 717, no. 164). 119. E.g., Cassano 1992, 226 f. nos. 9–12, hypogeum Scocchera A; 274 ff., nos. 37–45 and 290 ff. nos. 109–120, hypogeum Varrese; 394 ff., nos. 53–56, ipogeo di via Legnano;

“Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery

415, no. 94–95, ipogeo di via Mercadante; 422 f., no. 27–30, ipogeo di via Esquilino; 450, no. 24; 464 f. nos. 128–132 and 476 nos. 52–55 tomb 2 of Vico San Martino; 578, no. 2 tomba C of Barletta; Montanaro 2007, no. 54; 744, no. 166; 756, no. 167; no. 322; no. 384; Canosa 2007; Corrente and Maggio 2008, 73–93, fig. 13. Beside Peucetia, and especially Ruvo, red-figure kantharoi are common at Canusium and environs, at the southern border of the Daunian territory. Here cups with two tall handles were already common (De Juliis 1977, 49, “attingitoio biansato” types 1–3; Osanna 1988, 163 f., shape p; Cassano 1992, 79, no. 2; 94, no. 4; 97, no. 2; 353, no. 8; on the two-handled shapes in Daunia, see also Colivicchi 2004, 51), probably because of the interaction with the Peucetian culture, while in the rest of Daunia one-handled cups are the rule, and red-figure kantharoi are quite uncommon. Therefore, red-figure Apulian kantharoi are found only in the areas where there was a tradition of similar native shapes. 120. The only exception is tomb 1 of viale Virgilio at Taras, a very unusual multiple burial that, together with nearby tomb alpha, has been considered a public burial for citizens who died at war. D’Amicis et al. 1991, 54–6; Lippolis 1994b, 61–6; Maruggi 1994, 101–6. 121. Schneider Herrmann 1980, 34 ff.; Cipriani et al. 1996, 97, no. 39.23; about the kantharos, see esp. Holloway 1980. 122. See, e.g., De Juliis 2002, 130 f., n. 9–10. 123. Robinson 1990a; Robinson 1996; De Juliis 2002, 127 ff. 124. See, e.g., Cassano 1992, 269–72, nos. 24–33; 288–90, nos. 102–108; 393, nos. 49–50; 464, nos. 126–127; 477, nos. 60–62. The occurrence of this specific shape in Daunia is also noted by Robinson 1990a, 193 n. 57. 125. On the origin of the shape and its red-figure production as an export model, Robinson 2004, 193 ff.; on the connection to the Canusian polychrome askoi, see esp. Corrente 2003, 141 ff. Askoi of Listata ware are fairly common at Ruvo as well. See Montanaro 2007, nos. 159.1 and 362.3, and many others still unidentified, called “vasi egiziani” in the nineteenth century reports. 126. E.g., the Varrese Hypogeum (R. Cassano in Cassano 1992, 272, no. 35) and a tomb of Ruvo (Montanaro 2007, 715, no. 163.5). RVAp 8/67; 8/135; 12/151; 13/14; 15/33; 18/72; 18/106; 18/223; RVAp suppl. I 18/71d. At Ruvo is also an Attic vase which is a sort of hybrid of volute krater and olla (Todisco and Sisto 1998, 603 ff E.II). A dinos of the Locri Group, the only known specimen in Sicily, was found at Selinous, tomb 54 of Manicalunga (LCS Suppl. II 163, no. 375c; LCS suppl. III 30, no. 375c; Kustermann-Graf 2002. 127. The workshops of the Baltimore Painter and of the White Saccos Painter (including the Kantharos group) are located at Canusium by most of the scholars on the basis of the distribution pattern of their products, while the workshops of the Patera, Ganymede, and Amphora Painters would be in the Ruvo area (RVAp 450, 484, 958; also see Robinson 1990b). 128. Sisto 2001; Sisto 2006a. An Attic red-figured stamnos might have been found at Ruvo (Sisto 2006a, n. 38). 129. Bronze: De Juliis 1992b, 361, no. 52 ; 372, no. 44; red-figure: R. Cassano, in Cassano 1992, 272, no. 34. 130. Schneider Herrmann 1977. 131. On the function of the askos as a wine container, see Robinson 2004, 196. 132. See Hoffmann 1966 and 1989. 133. On the drinking horn as a typical container for nonsymposiastic wine consumption, usually by outsiders such as foreigners and satyrs, see, e.g., Radici Colace and Falcone 2003. See also supra, n. 117.

egh

241

242

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

134. Schauenburg 1981. 135. On the special relationship between these shapes and some specific aspects of the Dionysiac cult, see, e.g., La Geni`ere 1987. 136. As proposed by Herring 1995. In this article the Messapian trozzelle are said to be common to almost all burials, which is incorrect, since in Messapia they are found in tombs of adult women only. For a possible explanation for such custom, see Colivicchi 2004, 48 ff. 137. Rutter et al. 2001, 91, no. 810, with bibliography. 138. For the first interim report, see Pepe et al. 2009, 233–6.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

ARCHAEOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF APULIAN AND LUCANIAN RED-FIGURE POTTERY E. G. D. Robinson

Many important questions about cultural interaction in southern Italy could be resolved if we had a reliable, scientific method for the attribution of ceramic vessels to specific production centers. As yet we do not. This chapter will discuss those attempts that have been made so far, the techniques that have been used, and the factors which may have confounded the analyses to a significant extent. It presents, in summary form, some new data on the analysis of Apulian and Lucanian redfigure pottery in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, and offers suggestions for future research. *** In a recent, wide-ranging discussion of archaeometric analyses of pottery of Greek type in Italy, Jones and Buxeda i Garrig´ os have noted that “the field is still at the data gathering stage, specifically establishing compositions associated with regional and local productions.”1 The database so far is small and the approach has been piecemeal, with a “failure to bridge the gap between the archaeological expectations of the analysis and the quality of information derived from the analysis.”2 This is a fair assessment for Apulian and Lucanian red-figure, both highly complex productions, about which an enormous amount is still unknown when it comes to their places of manufacture. The earliest archaeometric studies of Apulian and Lucanian, such as that by Prag and his collaborators, were quite inconclusive.3 The researchers clearly hoped that the production centers would simply declare themselves through the different chemical compositions of pottery collected at a number of sites, but this hope did not take into account the (apparently) relatively low levels of consistent variation amongst southern Italian clays, the possibility of individual centers using a variety of clays, and the complexity of the pottery itself.4 This last factor is perhaps the most crucial: there is very little point in publishing analyses of South Italian WF refers to Web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the Web site are in color.

243

244

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

pottery without a careful description and illustration of the objects analyzed, since detailed study of the form, technical characteristics, and style of vessels is necessary to fully contextualize them. If the objects being analyzed are properly classified they can be associated with a wider population of vessels that may have been made in the same place. Members of the broader stylistic groups will probably have distribution patterns that should be studied alongside the archaeometric results. And of course other scholars should have the opportunity to check the objects being analyzed. A full characterization of the object of analysis (i.e., what is it, precisely, that is being analyzed?) should be a basic tenet of scientific method. Unfortunately, the publication of the appropriate level of detail about archaeological samples is not normally possible in scientific journals, and the utility of a number of recent publications has been significantly reduced by its absence.5 This is part of the much-discussed and difficult relationship between archaeology and the physical sciences. The point will not be labored here, except to say that in collaborations in the field of South Italian pottery, not only the physical analysis but also the statistical analysis tends to be left in the hands of scientific collaborators, and this is unfortunate. It is clear that the archaeometry of South Italian pottery is never likely to be straightforward, and archaeologists will be obliged to explore their data in a detailed fashion if they are to make sense of it. A great deal of important information is denied us by the uncertainty about production centers: information concerning the relationships between the Greek colonies, the processes of interaction with the Italic inhabitants, and the level of production in the Italic centers of southeastern Italy. This paper does not supply many clear answers, but some important conclusions can be drawn from the analyses presented in the following. The vessels analyzed are part of the collection of the Nicholson Museum, Sydney.6 Descriptions of the Apulian red-figure vases are brief, since full details (including line drawings) are available in the recently published fascicule of the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.7 Illustrations of all vases analyzed are available on the Web site. The collections of the Nicholson Museum do not constitute an ideal sample, since none of the vases has an archaeological context, having arrived in Sydney from 1860 onwards via the antiquities market. For testing hypotheses about centers of production, this random sample is not optimal: a number of stylistic groups that would be very desirable to analyze for the testing of hypotheses about production centers are not present in the collections of the Nicholson Museum. It is hoped that the results of this study will pave the way for further work in which the vessels analyzed have a more rational basis in archaeological problems. Chemical analyses of pottery have normally had as their principal focus questions of trade and exchange. In southern Italy the questions are a little different; indeed, even the basic terminology is more complex. Hall has recently asked “how Greek were the early Western Greeks?”8 and this question is no less pressing in the periods after the initial wave of Greek colonization in the late eighth and early

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

seventh century B.C.E. Jones and Buxeda i Garrig´ os have stated that ceramics are “predictably . . . both effective and sensitive” indicators of Greek identity in the West,9 but the question is not always straightforward. What identity are we to ascribe to the artisans working in Ruvo and Canosa in the later fourth century B.C.E., making Apulian red-figure vases? These sorts of problems go right back to beginning of Greek colonization in Italy, and beyond.10 While Greeks may have established the industries making Geometric pots at Pontecagnano, Veii, and elsewhere, the ethnic identity of the producers becomes almost instantly ambiguous.11 Running through discussions about Greek pottery in southern Italy, one senses that ideas about the relative merits and capabilities of mainland Greeks, colonial Greeks, and indigenous Italians are at work, often at an unstated level. While the average quality of the ceramics produced by these three groups, in terms of potting, decoration, and firing, can usually be arranged hierarchically, there are many exceptions. Anyone who looks carefully at tomb groups containing Attic and local figured and black-gloss pottery from the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. in Apulia will immediately see that there was no impediment to the production of ceramics in southern Italy that match the high-quality Attic pottery from the technical point of view. The execrable quality of much of Attic red-figure pottery made in the fourth century is not much remarked upon.12 When comparing it to contemporary Apulian red-figure, the arguments must switch from technical quality to aesthetics to keep the hierarchy intact: Apulian red-figure is “baroque” and “over-decorated.” The context of production will inevitably affect what is produced in a ceramic workshop. The kerameikos at Athens is the best-documented production context for the Classical period, but it is a poor model for South Italy.13 Athens, with its long tradition of the manufacture of high-quality ceramics and of export to far-distant markets, had a virtual monopoly on the production of red-figure pottery in mainland Greece, and a huge industry developed. In southeast Italy, two neighboring Greek cities (Taranto and Metaponto) established significant red-figure industries in the fifth century and production probably occurred, at least sporadically, at Policoro as well. In the fifth century, at least, production was on a much smaller scale than in Athens and the vases rarely traveled outside the immediate region. But craftsmen had the possibility of transferring their activities, on a temporary or permanent basis, between the Greek colonies or to towns of the neighboring Italic people to serve these important markets. Such movement clearly occurred in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E., for example, Apulian vase painters to Metaponto, Canosa, Ruvo, and even further afield.14 This study asks whether those events can be verified on the basis of clay chemistry, and whether movement of craftspeople is plausible much earlier in the fourth century, or even the fifth. Thorn has recently questioned the exclusive association of Early Apulian production with Taranto, pointing out the lack of evidence for the production in the city and picking up on some of Trendall’s

egh

245

246

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

more unfortunate language. While admitting that locating Early and Middle Apulian red-figure workshops in Taranto is “in many respects . . . logical,” he sees colonialist mentalities at work in the assumption that all Early and Middle Apulian red-figure was produced there.15 It is certainly reasonable to ask for a more explicit statement of the reasons for Taranto’s perceived role. The arguments are complex and will have to take into account style, provenances, archaeological contexts, script and dialect of inscriptions, and the like, and some progress is made in this volume.16 I cannot make all the arguments here, but should at least set down my assumptions. Classical Taranto was a city by most measures, and by far the largest center in Apulia; it was a significant port in the Mediterranean trade network, and shows evidence of urbanism and advanced manufacturing (including black-gloss ceramics) from the Archaic period onwards. Its residents spoke Greek. If these are criteria that might have favored the establishment of an industry producing red-figure pottery, probably by immigrant Greeks, then it is fair to observe that the Italic centers of Apulia generally satisfied very few of them in the period when Apulian red-figure was first produced. This is why it has seemed logical to many, myself included, that Taranto was the center of Apulian red-figure production from ca. 440 B.C.E., and thereafter for almost a century. Italic centers prospered in the fourth century, grew in size, acquired many urban features, and were drawn more fully into Mediterranean trade; by the mid-fourth century B.C.E. almost all of their traditional ceramic styles had been abandoned in favor of black-gloss wares.17 The conditions were right for the establishment of red-figure workshops in Italic centers in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E., and their existence is widely recognized. On the other hand, it is certainly true that a single artisan trained in red-figure techniques could, with a little local assistance, have set up a workshop anywhere in Apulia. None of the criteria mentioned earlier is an essential precondition for the production of red-figure, and a substantial market for red-figure pottery existed in non-Greek Apulia right from the start of production, especially in Peucetia. And we must not underestimate the potential for Greek craftsmen to work at Italic sites. To mention but one example, the importance of which has generally been neglected: in the Naples Museum is a pyramidal clay votive inscription of the sixth century B.C.E., with a dedication to Herakles in the Late Archaic Achaean alphabet. It was made by the kerameus Nikomachus and was found at San Mauro Forte on the upper reaches of the Cavone River.18 Presumably, this craftsman (potter? coroplast?) made his way up into the mountains of Basilicata from Metaponto. Other sixth century B.C.E. ceramicists probably made the same journey to decorate the famous “palaces” of the area with architectural terracottas.19 The new analyses presented in the following are not inconsistent with Taranto’s claim to be the principal producer of Early and Middle Apulian red-figure, although one does have to accept the usage of two distinct types of clay there. The claim is far from being “scientifically” proven, and a range of other possibilities remain.

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

Technique and Chemical Analysis Chemical analysis to determine the place of production relies fundamentally on the so-called provenance postulate, famously enunciated in 1977: That there exist differences in chemical composition between material sources that exceed, in some recognisable way, the differences observed at a given source.20

The principle often functions well for substances that cannot easily be changed by human action, particularly when the sources are internally consistent in terms of chemical composition. A classic example for the western Mediterranean is the sourcing of obsidian, which by now is regarded as a straightforward exercise.21 At the other end of the spectrum is the sourcing of metal objects produced in antiquity. Not only is there often a great variety of chemical compositions present in individual ore bodies, but there are substantial changes made to the raw materials during smelting, alloying, and of course often the melting down of objects from different sources to create new objects, and this subject remains intensely controversial.22 Somewhere in the middle is pottery. On the one hand, there is of course natural variation in the composition of clay sources in southern Italy (although there is not as much as one would wish, and certainly not as much as there is, for example, in Greece). On the other hand, human behavior has a considerable effect on the eventual chemical composition of a vase: a potter has to select clays from a variety of local sources, to purify them, often to mix them together and temper them. Ethnographic studies have shown that even in a small community there can be considerable variety in the approach of potters to the preparation of clays, dependent particularly on the intended function of the vessels, but also on all sorts of other factors including, frequently, family tradition.23 We certainly can’t assume that the choices made by potters were always what we would understand as rational. Further human “noise” may be added during firing, as it has been demonstrated that both the temperature and the atmosphere of firing can also affect the chemical composition of pottery;24 and postdepositional effects can certainly also affect clay chemistry.25 But while all of these effects can be something of an inconvenience for the establishment of clearly defined groups in chemical analysis, we should probably rather be seeing the factors introduced by the technology of production as an opportunity: an object of study and a source of information.26 In the Mediterranean, chemical “fingerprinting” has established control groups, most often through the analysis of ceramics whose place of production is thought by researchers (usually on the basis of morphological and stylistic traits) to be known with certainty. Ideally, some material will be included from ancient kiln sites, although it should be noted that such material is usually present near a kiln because it failed during firing, and an unusual composition may have had something to do with that failure.27 A fuller picture of the range of clay composition around a site will come from a program of sampling of the local

egh

247

248

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

clay beds; this is relatively rare in Greece, and still almost unheard of in southern Italy.28 But the variety of clays around some sites, and the widespread levigation, mixing, and tempering of clays by ancient potters means that the comparison of raw clays with ancient pottery is rarely straightforward.29 A variety of techniques has been used to analyze the chemical compositions of ancient ceramics.30 Amongst the most common are atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), optical emission spectroscopy (OES), X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), neutron activation analysis (NAA), proton induced X-ray and gammaray emission spectrometry (PIXE-PIGME), and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry/optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-MS/OES).31 These techniques differ, from a practical point of view, in a number of ways. One is in terms of the size of the sample needed for analysis, and this consideration can be quite important when dealing with fine ceramics. When selecting samples, vessels that are rich in information are normally sought: the more information one has about the object itself (form, decoration, style) and about its context, the richer the possibilities of interpretation will be when the results of the chemical analysis become available. In practice, this often means that the ideal samples are also those most highly prized by excavators and museum curators: whole vessels from undisturbed burials, or prized sherds from secure excavation contexts. In other words, the ideal objects from which to take samples for chemical analysis will probably be precisely those from which authorities are most reluctant for samples to be taken. Techniques of analysis that require only very small samples should be preferred for work on red-figure pottery. The techniques also differ in terms of their power. The power of an analytical technique is usually measured in three basic ways: sensitivity (the ability to detect elements at very low concentrations), precision (the ability to record similar readings for the same sample, repeatedly analyzed), and accuracy (the relationship between the measurements of elements and the actual concentrations of these elements).32 Analytical power is also a function of the number of elements that can be measured. Statisticians have recently questioned the need for even greater analytical power,33 and it is true that some production centers can be distinguished on the basis of one or two elements. By now we know enough about the compositions of, for example, Attic and Apulian fine pottery of the Classical period that a “weak” technique could be used for a study which seeks to distinguish between them. But for distinguishing between the clays of southern Italy, it is becoming clear that powerful techniques will be more likely to produce results concerning provenance and potter behavior. The analytical techniques measure combinations of major, minor, and trace elements. Wilson and Pollard contend that trace elements are likely to be the most useful in ceramic provenancing, since they are more variable in clay sources and less likely to be affected by the behavior of potters, while major and minor elements are more likely to influence the performance characteristics of the pot.34 Since it is rare, in ceramic analysis, that groups can be distinguished using one or two variables, multivariate statistical analysis is usually utilized.35 Most commonly

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

11.1. Plot of the principal component analysis (PCA) of results for Apulian red-figure samples 1–49.

used are principal component analysis (PCA), cluster analysis, and discriminant analysis. In the first two types, no a priori assumptions are made about the group membership of any sample. In the various forms of discriminant analysis, however, the researcher assigns each sample to a group (using archaeological criteria or information derived from a PCA or cluster analysis) before the analysis begins. There is disagreement amongst statisticians about the treatment of data generated by archaeometric analysis, particularly concerning whether and how data should be “normalized.”36

New Analyses of Apulian Red-Figure (and Related) Pottery The analyses presented here were carried out using PIXE-PIGME at the Lucas Heights Research Facility in Sydney.37 Statistical analysis was carried out using the MV-ARCH package,38 using PCA and canonical variates analysis (CVA).39 The methodology and full results are laid out elsewhere.40 The first statistical analysis concentrates on Apulian red-figure in the Nicholson Museum (samples 1–49), leaving aside for the moment any vessel that, on the basis of the stylistic group to which it belongs, is likely to have been made in Ruvo or Canosa. A PCA reveals two major groups, which have been labeled Group 1 and Group 2 (Fig. 11.1, WF 134). A plot of the elements that contribute to that pattern reveals that Group 1 is high in iron, titanium, and aluminum, while Group 2 has high concentrations of calcium and strontium (Fig. 11.2, WF 135).41

egh

249

250

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

11.2. Plot of the elemental scores for the PCA in Figure 11.1.

The situation therefore mirrors quite closely that which was reported in a pilot study on Apulian pottery using the same techniques,42 and should not surprise anyone who has examined Apulian red-figure pottery first-hand. While it can be quite difficult to gauge the clay color of unbroken or restored Apulian red-figure vases, since they are almost invariably slipped on their surfaces, when a freshly broken edge is visible some dramatic differences can be observed. In the Nicholson Museum’s collection, for example, a fragment from a volute krater or amphora by a painter near the Lycurgos Painter has a rich orange clay throughout (7.5YR 6/6, Fig. 11.3a, WF 136), while a fragment from a hydria attributed to the Sarpedon Painter has a pale buff clay (10YR 8/3, Fig. 11.3b, WF 136), with a thick coating of orange clay on the exterior surface. If concentrations of iron and calcium are the most significant determinants of eventual clay color, it is clear that firing conditions can also play an important role: the sherds illustrated in Figs. 11.3b and 11.3c (samples 29 and 37) have almost identical concentrations of iron and calcium, and are adjacent in Fig. 11.1, WF 134, yet have quite different core colors.43 J. R. Green had already observed these different clay types for Apulian Gnathia pottery in 1977.44 A recent study of Apulian red-figure from Monte Sannace has documented the same phenomenon, distinguishing between a “classic” Attic technology and one which introduced a fine red engobe between a coarse-textured clay body and the black glazed layer.45 The restricted number of samples analyzed in the Monte Sannace study left the impression that Apulian red-figure moved

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

11.3. Close-up photographs of Apulian red-figure. (A) bell krater fragment by the Parasol Painter (sample no. 1); (B) hydria fragment by the Sarpedon Painter (sample no. 29); (C) volute krater fragment by the Darius Painter (sample no. 37); (D) Early Ornate hydrai fragment (unattributed, sample no. 32). Color images available as WF 136.

from one technique to the other in the course of the fourth century B.C.E., but that is clearly not so. While the pioneers of Apulian red-figure seem to have used exclusively the “classic” Attic technique, a number of Early Apulian painters decorated vases made from pale clay: the Group of Sydney 71 (sample 25), the Truro Painter (26 and 28), the Painter of Sydney 64 (27), the Sarpedon Painter (29), and the Felton Painter (30–31). And it is equally clear that vases made solely from orange clay persisted into Late Apulian, for example, a painter close to the Gioia del Colle Painter (sample 18), the Painter of the Truro Pelike (23), and a painter close to the Underworld Painter (24). Can either (or both) Groups 1 and 2 be associated with Taranto as a production center? Within each chemical group, there is a remarkable level of coherency in the stylistic groups present. Looking at Early Apulian, for example, vases of the Sisyphus Group, The Tarporley Painter, and Plain Style Followers A and C (10 samples in total) are entirely restricted to Group 1. On the other hand, Early Ornate style vases and vases attributed to the Hoppin-Lecce Group (6 samples in total) are entirely restricted to Group 2.46 The recorded provenances of Early Apulian pottery are generally weighted quite heavily toward non-Greek regions of southeastern Italy, and a number of vessels

egh

251

252

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

(on the basis of their shape and/or decoration) were clearly made especially for those markets.47 But there is one area of Early Apulian production that is found overwhelmingly in Taranto and that produced many fewer shapes and scenes that were popular in non-Greek areas: vases of the Early Ornate style.48 Vases painted by the Sarpedon Painter, for example, have never been found outside of Taranto.49 Since all Early Ornate vases are restricted to Apulian Group 2 (pale clay), it seems safe to associate that group with Tarentine production. An identical conclusion was reached by Thorn and Glascock in their recent neutron activation analysis study of Early Apulian and Lucanian pottery (for which see further in the following).50 But if Group 2 was made in Taranto, where was Group 1 (orange clay throughout) made? The products of the painters and groups represented in Group 1 are overwhelmingly found outside of Taranto, especially in Peucetia, and these painters produced many shapes and scenes that were clearly designed for the Italic market. So if Group 1 was not produced in Taranto, Peucetia would be its logical home. However, there is no reason why Taranto itself has to be excluded as the source. Other major pottery-producing centers in the ancient Mediterranean exploited a wide variety of clays, most famously Corinth.51 If we consult a geological map (Fig. 11.4, WF 137) of southern Italy, ancient Taranto clearly had immediate access to both iron-rich Plio-Pleistocene clays as well calcium-rich clays of the Outer Apulia Platform.52 Why Tarentine potters chose to use calcium-rich clays for red-figure is uncertain. They were required, it seems, to give such vases a slip of iron-rich clay, presumably to ensure that the black gloss would adhere successfully, and perhaps also for aesthetic reasons: even Attic potters normally sought to intensify the redness of the reserved areas of their vases with miltos. Calcareous clays are generally less plastic and more difficult to work than the noncalcareous variety, but they have the advantage of being less likely to crack during drying and firing, and perhaps there were other technical advantages, or it was simply a matter of the proximity of different workshops to clay beds. Thorn and Glascock found precisely the same type of calcareous clay amongst some of the Early Apulian vases they analyzed with neutron activation analysis.53 They assumed that Early Apulian red-figure made from other types of clay (the majority of the production) was non-Tarentine. They may be right, but it would be quite odd if the Tarentines had totally ignored the iron-rich clays readily available to them, especially since they are precisely the type of clays exclusively used for the production of red-figure in Athens and Metaponto, the two red-figure industries that predate Apulian. I think it more likely that Early Ornate Apulian was a distinct and relatively small part of production in Taranto, and that they sometimes chose to use, for unknown reasons, a different type of clay. Some light is thrown on the question by the addition of a further nine samples of red-figure and Gnathia vases that are unlikely to have been made in Taranto: nos. 50–53 were probably made in Canosa; the volute-krater no. 54 is attributed to the Amphorae Group, probably made in Ruvo; and nos. 55–58 are all Gnathia

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

11.4. Schematic geological map of southern Italy, after Laviano and Muntoni 2007, fig. 5.

vessels connected in style to the Laurel Spray Group and thus probably made in Ruvo and/or at other sites in Peucetia.54 Figure 11.5, WF 138, combines data from all of these samples. The vessels presumed to have been made in Canosa and Ruvo group separately (for the most

egh

253

254

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

11.5. PCA of samples 1-59, with “provincial” Apulian red-figure and Gnathia pottery.

part) from those assumed to have been made in Taranto. The “provincial” samples are distinguished by low concentrations of nickel and high concentrations of silica and potassium. What is interesting in Figure 11.5 is that a further two vessels in the Nicholson Museum emerge from the PCA as probably made in Ruvo or Canosa: no. 34 (a red-figure miniature hydria) and no. 49 (a fish-plate). While the manufacture of a late fish-plate in central/northern Apulia is not surprising,55 the presence of the miniature hydria (Fig. 11.6, WF 139) amongst the Ruvo/Canosa samples is, since on the basis of its style its date should be well before the creation of the large red-figure industries in central/northern Apulia in the second half of the fourth century. The vessel was omitted from the fascicule of the CVA devoted to Apulian pottery in the Nicholson Museum because it could not easily be placed within the Apulian series;56 it is certainly not Attic, since samples of Attic redfigure were analyzed in the course of this study and have a completely different chemical composition. The vessel is presumably evidence for sporadic attempts to make red-figure pottery in central/northern Apulia around the middle of the fourth century, using Apulian and perhaps Attic models. The Lampas Painter was probably another such painter, working in Canosa before the major redfigure industries were established in central/northern Apulia in the second half of the fourth century,57 and it would certainly be worthwhile analyzing other stylistically eccentric products grouped together with the Lampas Painter to see if further Apulian red-figure pottery is likely to have been produced outside Taranto before the middle of the fourth century B.C.E.58

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

11.6. Red-figure miniature hydria, Nicholson Museum inv. 98.68 (sample no. 34).

In Figure 11.5, WF 138, there is another small group of three vessels that seem to have a distinct chemical composition: two “provincial” Gnathia vases (nos. 55 and 57) and a red-figure chous attributed to the BM Centaur Group (no. 21). With this latter vessel we begin to run up against some of the problems of the stylistic classification found in Trendall and Cambitoglou’s Red-Figured Vases of Apulia.59 Production of Apulian red-figure by this stage (second half of the fourth century B.C.E.) included thousands of small pots decorated with single figures or heads. The distinction on the basis of style of the work of so-called “major personalities” in this period, such as the Darius Painter, is probably justified, and indeed can help us to understand more about single vessels if they are put into the context of an individual’s output. The grouping together of vessels as the BM Centaur Group may, on the other hand, conceal considerably more than it reveals, especially if details of clay, slip, shape, and provenance are not taken into account.

egh

255

256

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

The possibility that this BM Centaur Group was not made in Taranto was already raised in 1990, on the basis of the provenances of attributed vessels, although at that time it was included along with a number of other groups whose findspots tended towards southern Apulia (Messapia).60 Treating the BM Centaur Group alone, and keeping in mind the doubts expressed earlier about stylistic groups of this type, the provenances are quite suggestive. No vessels have come from Taranto or northern Apulia (Daunia), and two vessels in collections formed in Ruvo are the only examples from the northern part of central Apulia (Peucetia). Provenances are centered around southern Peucetia (seventeen) and Messapia (six, of which five were found at Rudiae).61 I would propose, therefore, that evidence for a production-center making redfigure and Gnathia vessels in the second half of the fourth century B.C.E. somewhere in southern Peucetia has been discovered by PIXE-PIGME. The likelihood of such workshops in this area has always seemed high.62 We are now able to allocate samples in the Nicholson Museum to at least two non-Tarentine groups: southern Peucetia (nos. 21, 55, 57) and Ruvo/Canosa (nos. 34, 39, 50–54, 56, 58). To test the robustness of those groups, a discriminant function analysis (using the resubstitution method) was carried out, which correctly assigned every sample to these proposed groups, except for no. 9 (a bell krater by the Lecce Painter (which is reassigned from Apulian Group 1 to Group 2).63 The plot of a canonical variates analysis appears in Figure 11.7, WF 140, and it is of interest also for the negative evidence it supplies about the production centers of Apulian red-figure. If clays of the Ruvo/Canosa area and of southern Peucetia are distinctive, it is noteworthy that none of the Early and Middle Apulian vases analyzed in this study seem to have been made from those clays (with the exception of the eccentric miniature hydria, no. 34). So, if any Early/Middle Apulian pottery was indeed made outside Taranto, it does not seem to have been made in the Ruvo/Canosa area, nor in whatever center is represented by the southern Peucetian Group. If one insists that the vases of Apulian Group 1 were not produced in Taranto, the possible locations for the workshop have now shrunk rather dramatically. A site in Eastern Peucetia, using the clays of the Bradano Trough (for which see the following), might just be possible, but does not seem very likely: Gravina would be the most logical candidate, although Early South Italian red-figure is not notably abundant at the site, and at least as much Early Lucanian as Early Apulian red-figure has been found there.64 I prefer the status quo, that is, that the overwhelming majority of Early and Middle Apulian pottery was made in the largest settlement in Apulia: Taranto. If true, two distinct clays were used, and a significant proportion of red-figure production there was made with the Italic export market in mind. It is certain that precisely the same market was being supplied by Early Lucanian painters, whose production in Metaponto can in some cases be proven on the basis of kiln refuse. It is to Lucanian red-figure than I now turn.

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

11.7. CVA of the groups defined in figure 11.5, with group centroids marked by crosses.

Results: Lucanian Red-Figure The Nicholson Museum also contains a number of Lucanian red-figure vessels, most of which are assumed to have been made in Metaponto (nos. 59–69), although two samples come from the much-disputed Intermediate Group (nos. 63 and 65) and a third is unattributed but may belong in the same stylistic area (no. 64).65 A further three Lucanian red-figure vessels are attributed to groups which, on the basis of shapes, style, findspots, and technical characteristics, are presumed to have been made outside Metaponto (nos. 70–72). The results of the PIXE-PIGME analysis conforms with these expectations (Fig. 11.8, WF 141): a tight group of vessels presumably made in Metaponto (nos. 59–69), with three outliers attributed to the Primato Painter Group (nos. 70–71) and the Sydney Painter (no. 72). The clays of Metapontine fine-wares are iron-rich and usually fire to a red-orange color, rather like Apulian red-figure pots of Group 1. They are now much better characterized with the publication of several volumes on the survey project in the chora of the city.66 Keith Swift has commented on a peculiarity of local finewares which one frequently observes in Lucanian red-figure, but which is extremely rare in Apulian: the presence of a gray core. Although this may be mistaken for irregular or misfiring, it may be an indication of a strictly controlled firing program with time/temperature phases necessary to produce the well-sintered, relatively high-quality, semi-lustrous slips typical of Metapontine black-gloss; such a program may not always have allowed a

egh

257

258

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

11.8. PCA of Lucanian red-figure in the Nicholson Museum (permission of the Nicholson Museum).

sufficiently long oxidizing phase necessary to fully oxidize the cores of the thicker parts of the vessels, particularly the junctions of foot ring bases, but would have had no bearing on the external appearance of the fired vessels.67

When samples of Apulian Group 1 and Lucanian red-figure in the Nicholson Museum were analyzed together, there was no clear distinction between them (Fig. 11.9, WF 142), and the very low degree of variation that is described by the first principal component (24%) is an indication of the relative homogeneity of the clay chemistry. There is one small subgroup that may be significant: samples 1 (Parasol Painter classed by some as Lucanian), 3 and 8 (Tarporley Painter), 63 (Minniti Group), and 65 (near Schwerin Group), although it is worth noting that another sample attributed to the Tarporley Painter (no. 2) groups with the main cluster. Put bluntly, PIXE-PIGME analysis can find no difference in the compositions of those Early/Middle Apulian vases made from iron-rich clays, and Early Lucanian vases. It makes no sense to argue that both were produced in the same place, since we know that some of the Lucanian painters were working in Metaponto (from kiln-refuse), yet Early Apulian vases are practically unknown in Metaponto and its chora, or even in the Italic sites in its hinterland.68 It is much more likely that very similar raw materials were available at both Metaponto and Taranto, and that they were prepared in a very similar fashion. Early South Italian red-figure was a new type of ceramic production for the region, and the first potters and painters of red-figure, immigrants from Attica or

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

11.9. PCA of Apulian Group 1 (diamonds) and Metapontine red-figure (circles) in the Nicholson Museum (triangles).

Attic-trained, presumably brought with them similar preferences for clay-types and methods for refining and mixing their raw materials.

Other Techniques of Chemical Analysis Thorn and Glascock recently published an analysis of samples from fifty-six objects, mainly Early and Middle Apulian and Lucanian red-figure pottery, using neutron activation analysis.69 NAA measures large numbers of trace elements, and has considerable potential for distinguishing the clays of Taranto and Metaponto since the argument is often made that trace elements (rather than the major and minor elements measured by PIXE-PIGME) are more likely to distinguish clay sources.70 Thorn and Glascock identify three groups, of which their Group 2 clearly corresponds with Apulian Group 2 distinguished earlier by PIXE-PIGME analysis: calcium-rich, iron-poor clays favoured by Early Ornate painters and the Hoppin-Lecce school.71 Thorn and Glascock’s Groups 1 and 3 both contain mixtures of Apulian and Lucanian red-figure. I have reanalyzed the data in a PCA (Fig. 11.10, WF 143),72 from which their Group 2 (calciumrich, iron-poor clay) emerges clearly; the rest of the samples (iron-rich) show Apulian and Lucanian pottery intermingled in much the same way as they were in my PIXE-PIGME analysis (Fig. 11.9, WF 142). Their conclusion73 that significant quantities of Early Apulian red-figure were produced outside Taranto is valid if one disallows the possibility of more than one clay type in use in Taranto.

egh

259

260

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

11.10. PCA of the data reported for Apulian and Lucanian red-figure pottery in Thorn and Glascock 2010, Table 3: Apulian red-figure (diamonds) and Lucanian red-figure (triangles). The samples within the ellipse are precisely the same as Thorn and Glascock’s Group 2.

Petrology Ceramic petrology looks at pottery as if it were a transformed geological sediment. Mineral and rock inclusions in pottery can, under favorable circumstances, be compared with distinctive regional geology. Identification of inclusions is typically done by looking at thin sections of ceramics through a polarizing microscope, but the technique is rarely applied to fineware fabrics such as red-figure pottery, since they generally contain very few inclusions.74 Recent intensive study of Metapontine finewares by Keith Swift gives little indication that the approach is likely to be useful for Apulian and Lucanian red-figure: there are no mineral inclusions that are diagnostic of Metapontine fabrics, with the majority appearing to consist of quartz and probably also feldspars. Most inclusions visible microscopically are extremely fine. . . . From the perspective of ceramic petrology, there is little to distinguish fabrics from within this zone, and this is particularly the case with the fine-grained fabrics of Archaic fine ware and Classical- and Hellenistic-period black gloss. Lacking sizable diagnostic rock fragment inclusions, the fine-ware fabrics from the region are difficult to distinguish on petrological grounds from those produced elsewhere in southern Italy.75

The geology and geomorphology of the Metaponto region has been described in detail by Folk and Abbot;76 it is dominated by the so-called Bradano Trough,

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

characterized by Late Pliocene and Pleistocene marine clays. Its eastern boundary passes through Taranto, and the formation continues westward until one meets the southern extension of the Apennines in Calabria. Thus Swift can state that “fabrics produced elsewhere in the Bradano Trough – for example in the chora of Herakleia or the area just to the northwest of Taranto – are likely to be petrologically indistinguishable from those produced in the Metapontine chora.”77 The same, alas, is probably true for clay chemistry. Pottery produced at sites using clays from the Bradano Trough, famous for their quality and still widely used today for the production of bricks, tiles, and vessels, is likely to be very similar in terms of its chemical composition. These clay deposits, abundant at Metaponto, are also found in the vicinity of Taranto, and it would have been very strange if the potters of Taranto had ignored them.

Conclusions and Suggestions Archaeometry provides few simple answers to questions about Apulian and Lucanian red-figure. Unfortunately, the two principal Greek settlements (and a number of important Italic ones) lie in a zone where clays have formed from essentially the same rocks. These clays are at least chemically distinguishable from those of the Ruvo/Canosa area and, it seems, from parts of southern Peucetia. Other techniques of chemical analysis, such as ICP-MS/OES, detect some additional trace elements and may be worth trying, but the possibility of distinguishing ceramics made in centers with access to Bradano Trough clays on the basis of chemistry has receded quite dramatically. An expanded program of analyses using PIXE-PIGME or NAA could still be useful, especially if it targeted those stylistic groups dated before 350 B.C.E., which are furthest from the mainstream in terms of their style, forms, and provenances: the Lampas Painter and related vases, the Snub-nose and Varrese Painter workshops, and so on. Petrology may also be useful, perhaps not for the centers in the Bradano Trough, but for distinguishing productions more towards the Adriatic. Beyond clay mineralogy, other elements such as grain-size and sorting, and patterns of voids in clay, may conceivably distinguish between craft traditions and supply another perspective on workshop links. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Jones and Buxeda i Garrig´ os 2004, 109. Ibid., 108. Prag et al. 1974. The promised follow-up study using neutron activation analysis never appeared: Prag 1985. E.g., Castellano et al. 1996; Mangone et al. 2008; Rotunno et al. 1997. I am grateful to curator of the period, A. Cambitoglou, for permission to extract the samples. Cambitoglou and Turner 2008. Hall 2004b. Jones and Buxeda i Garrig´ os 2004, 83.

egh

261

262

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

10. E.g., the identity of people making Mycenaean-type pottery in LBA South Italy: Vagnetti et al. 2006 (with previous bibliography); Buxeda Garrig´ os et al. 2003; Jones et al. 2005. 11. Pontecagnano: Bailo Modesti and Gastaldi 1999; Veii: Descoeudres and Kearsley 1983. 12. Producers in Athens seem to have been well aware of issues of quality in their production of black-gloss pottery for export, e.g., Morel 2000; Buxeda Garrig´ os et al. 1999 found very poor-quality Attic black gloss exported to Spain. 13. Lippolis 1996a for production within the Greek colonies. 14. E.g., Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 97 ff. 15. Thorn 2009, 175. 16. See Fontannaz, Chapter 3 in this volume. 17. Purcell 1994; 2005. 18. Guarducci 1967, 556; Pugliese Carratelli 1996, 685, no. 100. 19. Osanna et al. 2009 for Satriano and Serra di Vaglio. 20. Weigand et al. 1977. It should be noted that “provenance” is not an unambiguous term; archaeologists in South Italy most frequently meet it in the sense of “findspot.” A rather perverse use of the term has come into vogue in the antiquities market, where an object’s existence in a private collection can count as a “provenance,” so that a veneer of respectability can be given to a recently looted object: Nørskov 2002. 21. E.g., Williams-Thorpe 1995. Analysis of marble and other stones has also produced excellent results, for much the same reasons. 22. E.g., Budd et al. 1995; 1996; Knapp 2000. 23. Gosselain and Livingstone-Smith 1995; Gosselain 1998; Vaughan 1995, 267; Whitbread 2001. 24. Schwedt et al. 2006, with previous bibliography on the question. The possibility that treatment of ceramics after excavation (washing and scrubbing, sometimes in detergent or other chemicals) might affect their chemical composition needs also to be kept in mind. 25. There is a review of recent work on postdepositional changes in pottery in Tite 2008, 225–7. 26. E.g., Day and Kilikoglou 2001. Very useful information about historical processes has flowed from the archaeometric analysis of ceramics in Late Bronze Age Calabria: Buxeda Garrig´ os et al. 2003. 27. Wilson and Pollard 2001, 512. Imported material may also be present at kiln sites: at Metaponto, Attic red-figure sherds were present amongst the kiln debris, and they had perhaps been used to test the temperature and atmosphere of the kilns: D’Andria 1980. Robinson (forthcoming) for variations in composition of material from the Metaponto kilns, probably due to overfiring and postdepositional effects. 28. E.g., Whitbread 1995 for Greece and Levi 1999 for South Italy. 29. E.g., Kilikoglou et al. 1988. 30. The petrographic analysis of thin sections of ancient pottery is not discussed here, since the technique is not generally as useful for the very fine-grained ceramics analyzed in this paper as it is for coarser pottery with more inclusions. Day and Kilikoglou 2001; Day et al. 1999 for interesting recent studies using both petrography and chemical analysis; Whitbread 1995. Pollard and Heron 2008b for a recent survey on ceramic analysis. 31. See Table 1 in Jones and Buxeda i Garrig´ os 2004 for a more detailed explanation of the techniques, and their strengths and weaknesses. Jones 1986; Glascock 1992; Ciliberto and Spoto 2000; and Pollard and Heron 2008b for further detail on the techniques. 32. Bishop et al. 1990. 33. Baxter and Jackson 2001.

Archaeometric Analysis of Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery

34. Wilson and Pollard 2001, 508; of the techniques described earlier, NAA and ICP detect large numbers of trace elements. 35. Baxter 1994; 2001; 2008; Baxter and Buck 2000; Neff 1992. 36. E.g., Buxeda Garrig´ os et al. 1999; Aitchison et al. 2002; Baxter and Freestone 2006. 37. The collection of samples used in this study was made possible by grants from the Australian Foundation for Studies in Italy and the University Research Grants Scheme of the University of Sydney. Analysis was carried out at the ion beam facility of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Lucas Heights, Sydney, with the aid of a grant from the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering. A number of ANSTO staff were involved in the analyses, but I am particularly grateful to Dr. Rainer Siegele for reprocessing and calibrating the data from all of the various sessions, and for discussing the results with me. Dr. Peter Grave organized the preparation of the samples at the Electron Microscope Unit of the University of Sydney, added samples of Ohio Red Clay and conveyed the samples through the process of analysis. I am grateful to him for the many discussions about archaeometry we have had over the years. 38. Wright 1992. 39. CVA is a type of discriminant analysis, and can be thought of as a PCA where groups are the unit of study, rather than objects. 40. Robinson (forthcoming). 41. Sodium, potassium, and rubidium account for much of the variability on the second principal component, suggesting that postdepositional changes may be contributing to the pattern, for which see the following. 42. Grave et al. 1996–1997, figs. 3–4, groups β and γ. 43. An added peculiarity amongst the fragments in the Nicholson Museum: an Early Ornate hydria fragment in which an original, orange-coated vessel has apparently failed during potting and been integrated into the body of a new vessel with its orange coating still intact (Fig. 11.3d). 44. Green 1977, 559–63. 45. Mangone et al. 2008. 46. Sample no. 9 (a phlyax bell-krater by the Lecce Painter) is an exception, belonging to Group 1, but this vessel has an unusual chemical composition: see the following. 47. Carpenter 2003. 48. RVAp chapters 2 and 7; Robinson 1990b, 185; Carpenter 2003, 6–7. 49. Fontannaz, Chapter 3 in this volume. 50. Thorn and Glascock 2010. 51. Whitbread 2003, with previous bibliography. 52. Consultation of the Carta Geologica d’Italia 1: 100,000, Foglio 202 (Taranto) reveals deposits within and around Taranto of “Argilla del Bradano” (Bradano Clay). 53. Thorn and Glascock 2010: Group 2. 54. Green 2001, 61–3. I am grateful to J. R. Green for his opinion on the attribution of these Gnathia vessels. 55. The fish-plate is attributed to the Group of Karlsruhe 66/140 (McPhee and Trendall 1987, 127 ff.), a group that has stylistic links to the Darius and Baltimore Painters according to McPhee and Trendall, so Canosan manufacture would not be surprising. McPhee and Trendall call the whole group “Tarentine,” which would imply that the (Canosan) Baltimore Painter influenced vase painting in Taranto. 56. The problem is reminiscent of that encountered by Barresi as he considered the Mesagne Painter and the “Lucanian” Intermediate Group more generally. He noted the many vases “messi da parte perch`e contemporaneamente troppo ‘attici’ nello stile per essere inseriti nelle liste di Trendall e troppo ‘provinciali’ nella realizzazione per essere

egh

263

264

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

62.

63.

64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

negli elenchi di Beazley”: Barresi 2005, 146. I was able to visit Trendall before his death and work in his library and photo archive, and was struck by several filing cabinets full of “unattributable” red-figure vases. I certainly concur with Barresi “sulla necessit`a di considerare in modo adeguato queste produzioni che, a mio avviso, rappresentano uno degli aspetti pi` u interessanti delle prime esperienze ceramografiche occidentali” (ibid., 146). And such vases are by no means restricted to the earliest red-figure productions in South Italy. RVAp 283–6; Corrente 2005. Other such groups in RVAp chapter 10: the Group of Boston 00.348, the Berkeley Group, the Dechter Group. Lippolis and Mazzei 2005; Mazzei 1996; Hoffmann 2002; Denoyelle 2005. Robinson 1990b, 192. Vases with a likely or certain provenance of southern Peucetia: 17 (Conversano 1, Rutigliano 2, Bari 1, Bari Museum 1, Bari private collections 7, Monopoli private collection 3, Pulsano private collection 1, Irsina museum 1); northern Pecuetia 2 (Jatta Museum 1, HA collection 1); Messapia: 6 (Rugge/ Rudiae 5, Lecce Museum 1). In Robinson 1990b, the possibility of workshops in the region as early as the Snubnose and Varrese Painter Groups was proposed, on the basis of the provenances and shapes of vessels of that group. I have previously remarked on the upsurge in phlyax vases on the antiquities market shortly after the emergence of several wealthy collectors with an interest in the theater, and wondered whether some of the new theatrical vases may not be skillful forgeries (Robinson 2004, 212). The eccentric chemical composition of sample no. 9 in this study, a phlyax bell-krater attributed the Lecce Painter and acquired in 1988, may bode ill for its authenticity. E.g., Ciancio 1997. Recently on the Intermediate Group: Barresi 2005. Carter and Prieto 2011. Lanza Catti et al. 2011, 175. In the Pantanello necropolis, for example, Early Lucanian red-figure is plentiful but Early Apulian red-figure is unknown: Carter 1998b. This situation is repeated in the urban necropoleis of Metaponto. Thorn and Glascock 2010. E.g., Ibid., 96; Pollard and Heron 2008b, 101. Thorn and Glascock 2010, Figure 2, and list of vases in Table 3. Using data from Ibid., Table 1. Samples 4–6 and 9 were discarded since Glascock and Thorn believe they may have been contaminated (p. 783); the terracotta moulds were not included; elements Ni and Zr were discarded since some samples had missing values. Thorn and Glascock 2010, 794. Whitbread 1995. Lanza Catti et al. 2011, 175–6. Abbott 2011; Folk 2011. Swift 2011, 455.

CHAPTER TWELVE

A CASE FOR GREEK TRAGEDY IN ITALIC SETTLEMENTS IN FOURTH-CENTURY B.C.E. APULIA T. H. Carpenter During the past two decades a number of scholars have begun to examine the diffusion of tragedy and comedy both in the Attic demes and abroad. As Easterling notes, the fact that other cities were attracted by Athenian drama is not new – what is new is the realization that the process began so early.1 Csapo and Taplin have demonstrated that some scenes on South Italian pots from the first half of the fourth century B.C.E. refer to Athenian comedy.2 Dearden has examined the actual processes by which plays could have reached Magna Graecia, and Csapo has shown that by the last quarter of the fifth century B.C.E. “theatre had advanced far enough to provide the material conditions for the emergence of a self-sustained acting profession.”3 In short, it is entirely possible that before the end of the fifth century B.C.E. there were troupes of actors traveling outside of Greece with repertoires of tragedies and comedies. There has been general agreement amongst most scholars that by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. Attic tragedies were performed at Taranto and other Greek cities in South Italy such as Metapontum.4 Some scholars have even referred to the Tarentines as “addicted to theatre” or theater-mad.5 There is, however, no hard evidence to support these assertions.6 The site of the theater at Taranto has not yet been identified, and the earliest reference to it is from the second century B.C.E. (Polybius 8.30.7). Taplin rightly points to a passage in Plato’s Laws (659B) where Plato contrasts the Attic custom of judging in theater with “the custom in Sicily and Italy as practiced in these days.”7 This would seem to confirm the fact that there were theater productions in Magna Graecia in the fourth century B.C.E., but this is as close as we get to hard evidence. In fact, the claims for theater at Taranto are based largely on the assumption that the scenes on many Apulian vases were inspired by theater and that those vases were made in Taranto for a Greek market. WF refers to Web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the Web site are in color.

265

266

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

My point here is, of course, not to argue that there were no productions of tragedy in Taranto in the fourth century; rather, it is to point to the precarious nature of the assumption and to note that the evidence used to argue for theater productions in Taranto is, in fact, as effective for an argument that performances took place in Italic (non-Greek) settlements. Current evidence shows that Italic people of Apulia, particularly Peucetia in central Apulia, provided a principal market for large Apulian red-figure vases with complicated depictions of myth on them, many of which have been associated with theater. In what follows here I will review the evidence for familiarity with theater productions in Italic settlements and will attempt to build a case for some sort of performance of tragedies at Ruvo di Puglia, a rich settlement in Peucetia, where the evidence is strongest. Ruvo, probably the ancient Rubi, is 90 km northwest of Taranto and 15 km from the Adriatic coast. Little is known about the settlement itself since its site seems to lie beneath the modern city and therefore cannot be fully excavated.8 Since the eighteenth century, however, Ruvo has been known for its extraordinarily rich tombs, which have been the source of Attic and Apulian vases and armor in museums throughout Europe. Recent publications of tomb goods from Ruvo have included rich collections of gold and amber jewelry as well as armor and vases.9 Evidence from these tombs shows that Greek imports were arriving in Ruvo by the seventh century B.C.E. but that the site’s greatest period of prosperity was from the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. on through the fourth. Rich finds of armor in tombs point to what is usually termed a “warrior aristocracy.” A useful introduction to this discussion is provided by the scene on an Apulian calyx krater in New York from soon after 400 B.C.E, which, we now know, comes from a tomb at Ruvo di Puglia (Fig. 12.1, WF 144).10 In that scene three comic actors are engaged in a dialogue, with their actual words as inscriptions in Attic dialect projecting out from their mouths.11 One of the actors is on a stage in front of an elaborate door, while the other two stand on the ground in front of it. Oliver Taplin has written that the words of the dialogue confirm that the image is “as scene-specific as it could possibly be” – “it is something close to a snapshot of a moment in the theatre” and that the “enjoyment of the painting is incomplete without recollection of the play.”12 To understand the scene the viewer had to have been familiar with theatrical performances, otherwise the stage and the padded comic costumes and masks would have made little sense. This is true whether or not one accepts Taplin’s conviction that the painter clearly intended the viewer to recognize a specific play – even a specific moment of a specific play.13 The New York vase stands at the beginning of a series of depictions of the comic stage that appear on South Italian vases during the first half of the fourth century B.C.E.14 Some fifty Apulian kraters with comic scenes are known,15 and of those the provenance is known for about half. Of those with known provenances, more than half come from Italic sites in Apulia, which implies that some inhabitants of Italic settlements were familiar with theatrical productions. Robinson is surely

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

12.1. Apulian calyx krater by the Tarporley Painter from Ruvo. New York, Metropolitan Museum C Metropolitan Museum of Art: Art Resource, NY). of Art 24.97.104, RVAp 3/7 (

right when he sees as inescapable the conclusion that some vase painters “knew that the purchasers in some indigenous centres were familiar with and would appreciate characters from the comic stage.”16 I should note here that there has been a tendency, particularly among Englishspeaking scholars, to assume that the Italic people who obtained the Apulian vases did not understand the imagery on them but rather valued them because of the shape or for the status it gave them.17 This pejorative view of the Italic people is without foundation; it depends on hostile comments by Greek authors and sometimes on parallels with natives in modern colonial contexts. The fact that volute kraters, which included many of the most complex images, were made primarily for the Italic people of Peucetia demonstrates that the imagery was not superfluous, and the many Greek inscriptions suggest that the people obtaining the vases were literate in Greek.18 At least seven Apulian kraters with comic scenes on them are known to have come from tombs at Ruvo,19 and six of those include depictions of a stage on which actors perform; two include Greek inscriptions. The stages themselves demonstrate that the painters intended the viewer to think of performances. The vase painters were clearly familiar with the type of stage they included in the scenes, sometimes showing precise constructional details such as the pegs holding together the steps.20 All of the stages are made of wood, and most consist of platforms supported by columns or square posts. There are minor variations in the depictions (e.g., number and nature of columns, inclusion of drapery below the platform, inclusion of a door on the stage), but the painters are more likely to

egh

267

268

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

be showing a type rather than a particular stage. The differences, however, imply that there was certainly more than one. The stages in the comic scenes have usually been described as “a simple, impromptu type of structure which could readily be erected out of doors as required.”21 In general, the implication has been that these were temporary structures carried about by troupes of actors who set them up for their performances. However, a more recent study has shown this view to be unlikely.22 The average theater was more than 20 feet (6.1 m) wide and up to 6 feet (1.83 m) high. The wood of which they were constructed would have been much too heavy for a troupe of actors to cart around. Rather, the stages should probably be seen as parts of more permanent theaters, perhaps such as the one the Athenians used to set up for performances in the Agora before the theater of Dionysos was built.23 The New York krater from soon after 400 B.C.E. is the earliest of the comic vases from Ruvo, and the others are spread across the first half of the fourth century B.C.E. The simplest explanation for the occurrence of these vases is that there was a theater of some sort at Ruvo where comic plays were produced. This would imply that a portion of the Italic people at Ruvo and nearby settlements understood Greek well, and, as I will argue, there is reason to think that this was the case. As Robinson has suggested, the possibility also exists that residents of Ruvo traveled to Athens.24 To return to the New York vase, one further detail of the imagery needs to be addressed. To the far left a naked youth stands on a rise, apparently watching the comic production. The youth is labeled TRAGOIDOS, tragic actor. Beazley suggested that the simplest way to explain the presence of this youth is to take the word literally assuming that the scene refers to a dramatic festival, like the Great Dionysia at Athens, that included both tragic and comic performances.25 As he writes, “the tragic actor, his own performance over or still to come, watches the comedians.”26 Whatever the specific meaning of the youth labeled “tragic actor,” the presence of the inscription implies that the audience at Ruvo knew what a tragedy was and was well aware of some sort of link between tragic and comic performances. The occurrence of the comic scenes on vases in which actors appear on wooden stages points convincingly to a sophisticated understanding of comic performances amongst at least a portion of the Italic people of Ruvo and nearby settlements by the early fourth century B.C.E. A scene on a mid-century volute krater from Ruvo reinforces this idea.27 In a funerary scene on the obverse, a youth stands in a naiskos, while above him hang a comic mask and a kantharos (Fig. 12.2, WF 145). Trendall describes the scene as “actor in a naiskos,” but if so, he is a local actor. Naiskos scenes rarely appear in Greek contexts and seem to have been designed specifically for Italic markets, particularly those in Peucetia. The scene implies that the deceased, a resident of Ruvo, chose to celebrate his life as a comic actor. A scene on perhaps the most famous vase to have been found at Ruvo, the Pronomos krater, implies that Italic residents of Ruvo were also familiar with a satyr chorus such as would have appeared in the performance of a satyr play.28

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

12.2. Apulian volute krater by the Painter of Lecce 3544 from Ruvo. Lecce, Museo Provinciale 3544, RVAp 15/69 (Courtesy Museo Provinciale Sigismondo Castromediano di Lecce).

(Fig. 12.3, WF 146) The vase, an Attic volute krater, was one of more than a dozen Attic vases found in a semi camera tomb at Ruvo in 1835 along with a rich array of gold jewelry.29 Standing 75 cm tall, it dates to the end of the fifth century B.C.E. Greek inscriptions name fifteen of the twenty-one figures on the obverse. That the scene on the obverse of the vase refers to the theater and, at least in part, to a satyr play is clear. At the center of the scene on the shoulder, a named Dionysos reclines on a kline with a woman, presumably Ariadne. On three sides of the couple actors, including a named Herakles and a Papposilenos, hold masks as do members of a satyr chorus, most of whom wear furry satyr-shorts to which a tail and an erect phallos are attached. Most of the satyr-actors are given unremarkable names.30 Directly below the couple sits an ornately dressed youth named Pronomos who plays a double aulos. To the left of Pronomos is a naked,

egh

269

270

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

seated youth named Demetrios with a papyrus roll who represents an author, while to the right another naked youth, named Charinos, holds a lyre. Pronomos is the one name on the vase that can be reasonably linked to a contemporary Greek, a late fifth century Theban aulos player mentioned in a variety of later sources.31 The assumption that the celebrated Theban and the aulos player on the vase are one and the same has led some to refer to the depiction on the vase as a “portrait” or to suggest that “the vase picture is based upon a votive dedicated to Dionysos by Pronomos himself on the occasion of a particularly outstanding musical success.”32 These interpretations posit that the scene on the vase is directly related to a specific, prize-winning production written by a Demetrios with music by Pronomos, and the play is often identified as an otherwise unknown Hesione largely on the basis of oriental tiaras worn by the unnamed king and woman.33 Webster saw the vase as a “special order for a party after the play.”34 There is no small degree of circularity to these arguments since the existence of the play (and even the playwright) is derived from the vase itself. How and why the vase ended up in a tomb at Ruvo is a vexed question for those who hold to the position that the scene on the obverse celebrated music by Pronomos for a theatrical production in Athens. Webster writes “we do not know how the vase found its way to Ruvo in South Italy not far from Taranto, which was a great theatrical center,” though elsewhere in the same book he argues that “the vase via the second hand market must have reached Ruvo, where the general relevance of Dionysos and drama made it a suitable piece of tomb furniture.”35 As mentioned earlier, Ruvo is, in fact, more than 90 km overland from Taranto. Transportation of a vase this size would have been difficult and expensive. Furthermore, as Trendall has noted, “Most of the Attic prototypes which provided models for the earliest South Italian volute kraters have been found in Ruvo.”36 In fact, as I have shown elsewhere, the volute krater was a shape that had a particular appeal to the people of Peucetia and there is no record of any late fifth century B.C.E. Attic volute kraters having been found in Taranto.37 Present evidence would also suggest that there was no market for such large vases in Athens, since no large contemporary volute kraters or parts of them have been found in Attic contexts.38 Furthermore, from the same tomb were six small Attic kantharoi of the Class of Bonn 94.39 The shape of the kantharoi may be inspired by an Apulian shape; however, the painting, as Beazley noted, is by an Attic painter. Almost all of the Attic vases of this class have been found at Ruvo, which suggests they were made specifically for the Peucetian market.40 If so, this would imply that from the start the Pronomos vase may have been made with a Peucetian market in mind. If, then, we assume that the vase was made for export and shipped by sea from Attica to an Apulian port, such as Bari, the argument for very specific Athenian connections in the imagery lose strength, and the scene can be understood in more generic terms. Dionysos is the subject – the central image – on both sides of the vase. On the reverse he and Ariadne (?) are accompanied by satyrs and maenads, while on the obverse the couple is surrounded by actors. The imagery on the vase is less about theater than it is about Dionysos. It may be our own academic interest

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

12.3. Attic volute krater by the Pronomos Painter. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico inv. 81673 (H 3240) ARV 1336.1 (after Furtw¨angler and Reichhold, pls. 143–5).

in theater that has allowed us to miss the Dionysiac point of the scene and to be too literal in our interpretations of it.41 Pronomos, as the name of the most celebrated aulos player of his day, could have become a kind of generic name for auletes. If this is the case, the question arises, what did the inhabitant of Ruvo who obtained the vase need to know to make sense of the scene on the obverse? Without a fairly sophisticated knowledge of theater productions, much of the imagery on the obverse could only strike the viewers as bizarre, though the care with which the scene was constructed would convince them that there was a meaning they should know. In short, for this scene to make any sense at all, the viewers have to know not only what a satyr play is, but also what a satyr production looks like.42 They have to know something about theater costumes and masks, about the place of music in theatrical productions, and they have to understand the connection between Dionysos and the theater. Csapo has argued that “the most likely route by which visual images of Attic drama came to Southern Italy was dramatic performance by local or traveling troupes of actors.”43 Thus, the Pronomos vase has nothing to do with Greek Taranto, and the possibility that such a troupe of actors performed at Italic Ruvo should be entertained.44 Having argued that some residents of Ruvo were familiar with productions of comedies and satyr plays, I now turn to tragedy to explore the possibility that some sorts of tragic productions were staged at Ruvo from soon after the beginning of the fourth century B.C.E. As already mentioned, images on Apulian red-figure vases are central to the discussion. Tragic masks that appear in scenes on vases found at Italic sites point to a familiarity with that form, and complex narratives on large funerary vases show that residents of Ruvo were familiar with myths shaped by tragic poets.

egh

271

272

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

12.4. Apulian volute krater by the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos from Ruvo. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico inv. 82922 (H 2411) RVAp 2/8 (after Furtw¨angler and Reichhold, pls. 175–6).

In a complex depiction of a sacrifice to Dionysos from a tomb at Ruvo, c. 400 B.C.E., by one of the early Apulian painters, a frontal mask of a woman is suspended between a dancing maenad and a seated satyr45 (Fig. 12.4, WF 147). A young, naked Dionysos reclines above while below him preparations are made for the sacrifice of a goat in front of a bearded statue of the god. This is one of the earliest of more than thirty Apulian vases on which female masks appear, all from the first half of the fourth century B.C.E.46 While the mask may point to the god’s association with the theater, it can only do that if the viewer understands the place of the mask in performances. For more than a century, energetic attempts have been made to show that some Apulian vases have scenes on them that “illustrate” Greek tragedies.47 Recently Oliver Taplin has written a balanced survey of the subject. He is convinced that the viewers of these vases were also viewers of the plays and has cautiously concluded that the “vases are informed by the plays.” At the same time he continues to look for vestiges of actually performances in some of the images.48 I do not find convincing the argument that there are visual hints to actual productions in the Apulian images; however, I do believe that a painter’s use of a distinctive version of a myth as specifically shaped by a playwright can point to familiarity on the part of his audience with the tragedy itself. Here I will focus on three scenes on

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

12.5. Apulian volute krater by the Iliupersis Painter from Ruvo. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico inv 82113, (H 3223) RVAp 8/3 (after Furtw¨angler and Reichhold, pl. 148).

vases from Ruvo that depict myths explicitly crafted by Euripides. In each case the context in which the vase was found is significant. Two of the vases are by the Iliupersis Painter, whose works date from the second quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. According to Trendall, he was “an artist of the highest importance” who established the canon for decoration of monumental vases, particularly the volute krater.49 His innovations include the introduction of the naiskos and stele in funerary scenes and of medallions within volutes creating the “mascaroon” volute krater. As mentioned earlier, the volute krater rarely appears in Greek contexts in South Italy but rather seems to have been a particular favorite in Peucetia. Of the fourteen volute kraters attributed to him, only six have known provenances, and in each case that provenance is Ruvo. Three of those six have Greek inscriptions. It seems reasonable to suggest that from the start the Iliupersis painter saw Peucetia, and in particular Ruvo, as a principal market for large vases. If this is so, he must have known that his audience had a broad understanding of Greek myth. More important for our purposes here, he must have assumed that his audience in many cases was familiar with versions of myth clearly informed by tragedy. A well-known Apulian volute krater (62.6 cm h) by the Iliupersis Painter with a depiction of the myth of Iphigenia in Tauris was found in 1836 in a rich semicamera tomb at Ruvo (Fig. 12.5, WF 148).50 Most of the contents of the tomb, including about thirty Apulian vases, some found still hanging from nails

egh

273

274

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

in the plastered walls of the tomb, went to the Museo Archeologico in Naples. Eight of those vases can be confidently identified, including a calyx krater with another depiction of Iphigenia in Tauris.51 On the obverse of the krater, Orestes sits on an altar, Pylades stands to the left, and Iphigenia approaches holding a temple key followed by an attendant with a golden oinochoe and an offering tray on her head. All three of the main figures are named. Above them Apollo and Artemis sit looking at each other and to their right a temple is partially hidden by a hill. There can be no doubt but that the scene refers to myth developed by Euripides in his Iphigenia in Tauris. Cropp, in his recent edition of the play, has argued that “earlier Attic tragedy probably never mentioned Iphigenia’s survival or being immortalized” and that “in extending and combining the myths of Iphigenia and Orestes, Euripides was building especially on Aeschylus’ Oresteia and improving on it.”52 Without knowledge of Euripides’ narrative, the scene could mean little to a viewer. The question is, how could the resident of Ruvo in whose tomb this was found have known details of the narrative so clearly implied in the image? For example, why does Orestes look so sad and pensive, why does Pylades look so puzzled. What is Iphigenia saying? Why is she followed by an attendant? What is the building behind the hill? What are Apollo and Artemis doing there? The fact that another part of the Euripidean narrative, where Iphigenia gives a letter to Pylades, appears on a vase by a different painter from the same tomb suggests that the subject was of particular interest to the deceased. There is nothing in the depiction on the krater that points to a performance and Cambitoglou is probably right in thinking that most vase painters “seem to have intended to depict episodes of the legend rather than scenes of the play and in so doing followed the stylistic conventions of their respective schools.”53 But this begs the question. It does not exclude the possibility that knowledge of the narrative for either the vase painter or the deceased came from a performance of some sort. In short, there are two possibilities for knowledge of Euripides’ version of the myth: a text or a public performance of some sort. But which is more likely? The same questions hold for another volute krater by the Iliupersis Painter showing the death of Neoptolemos at Delphi, also found in a tomb at Ruvo but at a considerable distance from the first54 (Fig. 12.6, WF 149). In the center a wounded Neoptolemos, named, kneels on an altar, his sword drawn, while Orestes, also named, cowers behind the omphalos and a youth with a spear attacks. Above is a temple, to the left of which a priestess with a temple key moves off to the left, and to the right, Apollo, named, sits with his bow by a large palm tree. As scholars have long noted, elements of the scene correspond to the account of Neoptolemos’ death as told by a messenger in Euripides’ Andromache (1085– 1165). There Neoptolemos on the altar of Apollo draws his sword and defends himself from attackers who have been provoked by deceptive words from Orestes. According to most accounts, Neoptolemos was killed at Delphi, but Orestes’ involvement in his death is almost certainly a Euripidean invention.55 To make any sense of the scene on the vase the viewer had to be familiar with the complexities

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

12.6. Apulian volute krater by the Iliupersis Painter from Ruvo. Vicenza, Banca Intesa 111 (239), RVAp 8/4 (after Annali dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 1868, pl. E).

of the Euripidean version. Most of the details in the scene are parts of a repertoire of details found in other scenes, but this fact has no impact on the narrative the painter has constructed from them. Again the question arises, how did the Italic resident of Ruvo who obtained this vase know the details of the plot? That it was inspired by the tragedy seems clear, but, again, was that inspiration through text or performance? A scene on a very large volute krater (142 cm) from Ruvo by the Darius Painter from two or three decades after the Iliupersis Painter’s vases demands an awareness of another Euripidean tragedy, his Hypsipyle (Fig. 12.7, WF 150). The Darius Painter is one of the most accomplished Apulian vase painters and one of the most innovative in his use of myth.56 The scene on the krater is of particular interest because it certainly refers to Euripides’ Hypsipyle, but it does not attempt to depict a specific moment from a narrative. Rather, as Trendall has written of such scenes, they give “the painter’s visual impression of the drama as a whole, with the principal characters, those deities who may be involved, directly or indirectly, in the plot, and perhaps even the speaker of the epilogue which brought the play to a conclusion and often foretold of future developments.”57 Eleven of the surviving seventeen figures on the krater are named and all but two of them are accounted for in the surviving text, most of which comes from a fragmentary papyrus roll from Oxyrhynchus published by Grenfell and Hunt

egh

275

276

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

in 1908. In Euripides’ play, Hypsipyle, daughter of Thoas, king of Lemnos, and granddaughter of Dionysos has somehow come from Lemnos as nursemaid to Opheltes/Archemoros, son of Lykourgos, king of Nemea, and his wife Eurydike. When the boy is killed by a snake, Eurydike holds Hypsipyle responsible, and it is only through the intervention of Amphiaraos that she is saved. Euneos and Thoas, Hypsipyle’s lost sons by Jason, reappear at Nemea and participate in the new games, founded in memory of the dead boy. Accounts of the death of Archemoros, central to the plot of the tragedy, are known from other sources;58 however, Hypsipyle’s involvement in the story is likely to have been a Euripidean invention. As Cropp has recently noted, “Euripides’ plot was innovative in bringing Hypsipyle from Lemnos to replace the mother (of Archemoros) or a pre-existing nurse figure.” Poetry prior to Euripides “locates Hypsipyle herself consistently in Lemnos.”59 In his image, the Darius Painter demonstrates a thorough understanding of the myth as Euripides reshaped it in his tragedy. But for the viewer of the vase without knowledge of the Euripidean version, the imagery would be impenetrable. The Darius Painter’s depiction has little or no action and rather stands as a kind of summation of the Euripidean myth as a whole. To summarize, the scene with Iphigenia in Tauris is based on a play by Euripides in which he seems to have invented a new story about Iphigenia, Orestes, and Pylades, and the scene makes little sense without knowledge of that plot. Elements of the plot are depicted on at least seven other Apulian vases, but this is the earliest and most demanding of the viewer.60 It refers to an identifiable moment in the actual play. The scene depicting the death of Neoptolemos at Delphi reflects a version recounted by the messenger in Euripides’ Andromache. The involvement of Orestes in the death is a Euripidean invention and, as Allan has noted, its effect in the play “was most likely a coupe de theater.”61 In Euripides’ later tragedy, Orestes, where the death of Neoptolemos is discussed, there is no hint that Orestes is involved. The scene with Hypsipyle is based on a plot that seems to be another Euripidean invention. There is very little action in the scene; rather, it displays all the principal characters and deities involved in the plot. None of these scenes, or any other scenes for that matter, proves that tragedies were performed in Apulia during the fourth century B.C.E. They do show, however, that detailed versions of myths first shown in plays by Euripides were well known amongst Italic residents in non-Greek settlements such as Ruvo. The preceding discussion is obviously based on the assumption that some significant group of people at Ruvo knew Greek well, so a word should be said about inscriptions on Apulian vases, which suggest that the Greek known by those people may have been more Attic than the Doric that was spoken in Taranto. Wachter, explaining why he didn’t include South Italian vase in his study of nonAttic Greek vase inscriptions, wrote that they “are so heavily dependent on Attic vase painting and on the culture of classical Athens in general that this material should not be tackled without a previous treatment of the Attic corpus.”62 Taplin notes of inscriptions on Apulian pots that the “Attic dialect is there from the start

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

12.7. Apulian volute krater by the Darius Painter from Ruvo. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeo¨ logico inv. 81934 (H 3255) RVAp 18/42 (after Wiener Vorlegebl¨atter f¨ ur archeologische Ubungen, 1889, pl. XI.2a).

and is remarkably consistent.” Two exceptions are the repeated use of Doric alpha instead of Attic eta in the names Hermes = Hermas and Orestes = Orestas.63 In addition, the peculiar Western Greek form for “heta” to represent the “h” sound often appears in names on Apulian vases. Taplin sees this as a sign that the painters were approaching the names from hearing rather than reading them, and thus “a possible indication that they knew the plays from performance, not texts.” Another possibility is that the regular occurrence of Attic dialect points to closer cultural links between Athens and settlements in Peucetia than has traditionally been recognized. This is a subject that needs further exploration. I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that there were Italic people at Ruvo by the beginning of the fourth century B.C.E. who understood well the subtleties of myths crafted by Greek tragedians. But the question remains, how did they know these versions – through texts or through performances?

egh

277

278

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Luca Giuliani has recently written of Apulian imagery that “the close proximity between image and text is a new phenomenon that finds no parallel in Attic vase painting of the sixth and fifth centuries.”64 He attributes this change to the emergence of written texts in the late fifth and early fourth century B.C.E. He notes that “we understand the Apulian images only because we know the text: had we not the text, we should be at a loss” and concludes that the painters were interested in “the myths as transmitted by the texts, and not the production of theatre.”65 Giuliani’s argument that painters tended to draw on texts rather than on performances for their imagery is a strong one. There is clear evidence that texts of Euripidean tragedies were available in Athens by the end of the fifth century B.C.E., and there is no good reason to think that they could not have traveled.66 But the assumption that painters relied on texts of tragedies for their imagery does not necessarily imply that the patrons who obtained the imagery also read the texts. Experience of a performance could as well have made them receptive to the imagery. A modern analogy may be useful here. Few filmgoers today read the script of a film before or after having seen a screening of it, yet, as most of us have experienced, they often comment on plots, cinematic techniques, and performances afterwards, and often in some considerable detail. A detail in a poster for a film can bring back moments of it long after the viewing. I see no reason to think that imagery on a vase could not function in the same way. As I mentioned earlier, I chose Ruvo for this discussion because of the wealth of finds from tombs there, but I do not intend that my conclusions be limited to one place. The evidence I have presented for theater at Ruvo is circumstantial, and no single piece serves as the proverbial smoking gun. Rather its impact is cumulative, and I believe it points to a familiarity amongst the people of Ruvo with tragedies as well as with some forms of theatrical productions. Where complex imagery on vases such as those by the Iliupersis Painter points to a familiarity with specific tragedies, the presence of stages, satyr costumes, and masks on numerous vases points to a familiarity with the accoutrements of performance as well. In just what form a tragedy might have been performed is at present impossible to say,67 but well-documented trade connections with Athens make the suggestion that troupes of Attic actors performed at Ruvo a possibility that must be seriously entertained.68 Notes 1. Easterling 1994 where she explores possible references on the poet’s part to places where a production might be staged. 2. Csapo 1986; Taplin 1993. 3. Dearden 1999, 226–7; Csapo 2004, 55. See also Easterling 1994, 79. 4. Csapo 2004, 67; Taplin 2007, 14. 5. Green 1994, 56; Kossatz-Deissman 1978, 5 (Theaterbesessenheit). 6. Giuliani 1996, 73, has gone so far as to say “we do not really know whether Attic tragedies of the fifth century were ever performed in the fourth century Apulia.”

A Case for Greek Tragedy in Italic Settlements in Fourth-Century B.C.E. Apulia

7. Taplin 2007, 9. 8. Miroslav Marin 1981; Lo Porto 1981; Di Palo 1987; Sichtermann 1966; Depalo and Labellarte 1987; De Juliis 2001. 9. Giove et al. 1996; Montanaro 2006; 2007. 10. New York 24.97.104, RVAp 3/7. Montanaro 2007, 910, #324.5. Originally in the collection of Alessandro Pizzati. 11. For a discussion of the inscriptions, see Beazley 1952, 193–5, and Csapo 1986, 391. 12. Taplin 1993, 31–2. 13. A scene on another vase from two or three decades later (Boston 69.695, RVAp 4/25) seems to represent a different moment from the same play. With reference to both the Boston and the New York vases, Csapo 2010, 51, writes, “the easiest conclusion is that artists and consumers knew their comedies from local performances.” 14. Trendall 1995, 128. 15. For a list of vases see: Trendall 1967; 1995, note 17; Green 1989, 75–7; 1995, 146–9. 16. Robinson 2004, 200. 17. E.g., Green 1991. 18. Harris 1989, 5: “In some cultures non-writing readers, those possessed of one skill but not the other, have made up a broad stratum.” Small 1992, 12: at Gravina “it is probably that Greek became increasingly widespread there in the course of the fifth and fourth centuries. See also Small 2004. 19. Bari 4073, RVAp 10/45; Berlin F 3047, RVAp 7/67; St. Petersburg 299, RVAp 5/260 and 1661, RVAp 6/97; Milan AO.9.284, RVAp 1/123; Ruvo 901, RVAp 4/46; New York 24.97.104, RVAp 3/7. 20. New York, Fleischman F 93, RVAp Supp. Ii 1/24. Getty 96.AE.29. Returned to Italy in 2007, see Godart and DeCaro, 2007, 170–1, #45. 21. RVAp li. Trendall 1967 identifies three main types of stage and describes them in developmental terms, the more elaborate being Type 3, but this development does not fit within a chronological development. 22. Hughes 1996, 106. 23. Ibid., 104. See also Billig 1980. See Camp 1986, 46, for theater in the agora. 24. Robinson 2004, 197, sees this as “so highly probable as to be regarded as certain.” 25. Several scholars have recently noted that theater productions outside of Athens need not have been associated with festivals of Dionysos. See Kowalzig 2008; Scullion 2002; Easterling 1997. 26. Beazley 1952, 194. Marshall 2001 sees the figure of tragodos as “paratragic” and concludes that the upper register is used to provide metatheatrical information about the principal scene. 27. Lecce 3544, RVAp 15/69. See Robinson 2004, 200–1. 28. Naples 81673 (H 3240), ARV 1336.1. Taplin and Wyles 2010. 29. Montanaro 2007, 492–522, Tomb 110, one of three rich tombs close by each other and excavated at the same time. 30. For a recent discussion of the names, see Junker 2003. 31. Wilson 2010. 32. Page 1981, 330; Bulle 1934, 27–9. See also Beazley 1955, 313. 33. Trendall and Webster 1971, 29; Simon 1971 identifies the play as Omphale. For a recent discussion of Demetrios and his role in the scene, see Hall 2010. 34. Trendall and Webster 1971, 3. 35. Ibid., 29 and 3–4. 36. Trendall 1990, 220. 37. Carpenter 2003, 8–10. Early on E. Braun 1836, 115, noted “quanto alle forme, nei sepolcri di Ruvo, si trovano con preferenza anfore a volute ed mascheroni.” 38. See Gaunt 2002.

egh

279

280

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

39. For the Class of Bonn 94, see ARV 1167–8, 1360–2. The vases are: Naples 3151, ARV 1167.119; Naples 3160, ARV 1168.124; Naples 3085. ARV 1168.125; Naples 3157, ARV 1362.5; Naples 3079, ARV 1362.6; Naples 3168, ARV 1362.7. See Colivicchi, Chapter 10 in this volume. 40. Todisco and Sisto 1998, 574–7, 591–3; Robinson 2004. 41. Pickard-Cambridge 1988, 363, where Lewis and Gould “are even less confident about the truth of the universally held opinion that the Pronomos vase refers to a satyr play.” 42. Three youths with satyr shorts and masks also appear on an early Apulian bell-krater in Sydney (47.05, RVAp 3/15). It comes from the Hamilton collection, but the precise provenance is unknown. 43. Csapo 1986, 391. 44. Dearden 1999, 240, suggests that a rich resident of Ruvo could have seen a satyr play on a visit to Athens, commissioned the vase as a permanent record of the event, and brought it home with him. Though there is no evidence for it, the idea of a native from Ruvo traveling to Athens is an attractive one; however, the idea of commissioning a depiction of a satyr play seems unlikely to me. 45. Naples 82922 (H 2411). Montanaro 2007, 645–8, tomb 152. 46. Trendall 1988. 47. Vogel 1886; S´echan 1926; Trendall and Webster 1971. Trendall 1988, 137, refines his use of the word “illustrations,” noting that it “was not intended as a synonym for ‘representations,’ but rather used with reference to the type of scene which often appears on South Italian vases and which provides an excellent pictorial ‘illustration’ of a particular play, though not a representation of its actual performance.” 48. Taplin 2007, 25. 49. Trendall 1989, 79; RVAp 186–92. 50. Naples 82113 (H 3223) RVAp 8/3; Montanaro 2007, 357–80, Tomb 55. 51. Moscow 504, RVAp 18/8, CVA Pushkin 2, pl. 5. 52. Cropp 2000, 45 and 36. 53. Cambitoglou 1975, 66. 54. Vicenza, Banca Intesa 111 (239), RVAp 8/4. Found south of Ruvo on the property of Giuseppe Caputi, Montanaro 2007, tomb 340. The tomb from which the Iphigenia at Tauris vase comes was north of the city, just outside the walls (Montanaro tomb 55). 55. E.g. Pindar, Nemean 7, 34–47, Paean 6, 117–20; Allan 2000, 28–30. 56. Naples 81934 (H 3255) RVAp 18/42. 57. RVAp Suppl. 2, 145. 58. Aeschylus, Nemea TrGF F 149a; Bacchylides 9.12. 59. Cropp 2003, 135. 60. See LIMC V, 713–16. The subject also appears on a late Attic red-figure calyx krater found at Spina (Ferrara 3031, ARV 1440.1) c. 390. 61. Allan 2000, 36, note 120. 62. Wachter 2001, 1. 63. Taplin 2007, 42. 64. Giuliani 2001, 33–4. See also Giuliani 2003, 243–5. 65. Giuliani 2001, 37. 66. E.g., Aristophanes, Frogs line 52 (405 B.C.E.), where Dionysos speaks of reading Euripides’ Andromeda (412 B.C.E.). Xenophon, Anabasis 7.5.14 tells of “quantities of written books in chests confiscated by Thracians from wrecked ships.” 67. Dearden 1999, 226–7. 68. For some recent reflections on the issue, see Taplin 2012, 247–50.

PART V

POTTERY AS ART: COLLECTIONS

Find spots for many South Italian vases from early collections are unknown. However, archival and historical research on the history of collections can identify clusters of vases likely to have been found together or nearby. In turn, a study that combines information from modern excavations and these archival studies can provide clues to the original contexts of vases in early collections. As excavations increase in number and publication, and the distribution of pots by attributed painters from known contexts grows, scholars can hypothesize an original provenance for attributed, but unprovenanced, pots in collections. Maria Emilia Masci’s paper does just this: through a careful study of archival documents and patterns of distribution for attributed painters, she is able to propose findspots for pots that entered into private collections in the eighteenth century.

281

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

APULIAN AND LUCANIAN RED-FIGURE POTTERY IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY COLLECTIONS Maria Emilia Masci In 1953, A. D. Trendall published his catalogue of South Italian and Etruscan vases in the Vatican Museum.1 In his subsequent publications he devoted as much attention to the provenances of vases from old collections as he did to the provenance of vases from excavation sites when they were known. In fact, exact findspots of South Italian vases are known for only a few, and many pieces stored in our museums come from old collections for which no findspots were recorded. The investigation of the history of collecting can bring to light different kinds of information useful not only for the history of art and the history of archaeology, but also for the purely archaeological study of materials. It can indirectly contribute to identifying the provenances of some antiquities, and in identifying “groups of materials” that can be assigned to the same context. Our libraries and archives are rich sources for ancient figured pottery, with old books, manuscripts, correspondences, prints, and drawings dated back several centuries. From texts it is possible to derive data on the creation of collections, the antiquarian market, old excavations, and the first studies of painted ceramics. Images in these documents, in many cases, offer the possibility of identifying some of the vases and of reconstructing their history or, when they remain unidentified, of attributing them to fabrics, workshops, and painters, thus contributing to the assembly of important data on the materials circulating in a given period of time. By comparing and joining information drawn from this emerging field of archival research with the growing data that come out from recent excavations in southern Italy, we can further develop our understanding of South Italian pottery fabrics. Trendall understood this possibility from the very beginning of his career: his publications are rich with citations of old books and collections, and it was not by chance that he studied the Vatican vases in such detail. The collection of the Vatican Library was the best known collection of ancient vases during the eighteenth century. It became the exemplum on which a large number of such collections were formed during that century, and its fame WF refers to web figures that can be accessed at www.cambridge.org/apulia. Many of the images on the web site are in color.

283

284

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

contributed to new interest in this genre of antiquities, which until that time had been considered less valuable than ancient gems, coins, statues, and inscriptions, which were favored for both their material and for their strict connection with ancient literature, which was the main source for the knowledge of antiquity during the Italian Renaissance. The Vatican collection was formed by Pope Clement XII in 1733, joining some vases owned by the Vatican since the sixteenth century with the major group of vases purchased in 1730 from the collection of the Cardinal Filippo Antonio Gualtieri. His collection itself had been derived, for the most part, from the collection formed in Naples by the jurist Giuseppe Valletta in the end of seventeenth century.2 During the decades following the creation of the Vatican collection, numerous other collections of figured pottery were born, thus increasing the prices of such antiquities along with promoting the growth of studies on ancient vases: they came into fashion, and rapidly acquired historical value, contributing to the delicate transition from antiquarianism to archaeological science that occurred in the Age of the Enlightenment.

South Italian and Attic Vases in Eighteenth-Century Collections: General Overview The presence of ancient figured vases displayed in the palaces of noblemen and of some clergymen is documented starting in the fifteenth century, when Giorgio Vasari donated some ancient vases to Lorenzo de’ Medici.3 In the following century, some vases are known to have been in the possession of Cosimo I de’ Medici in Florence, Marco Mantova Benavides in Padova, the Grimani family in Venice, Ulisse Aldrovandi in Bologna, and the Cardinal da Carpi in Rome.4 From a letter of Alessandro Gregorio Capponi we know that some vases were stored in Vatican rooms by the sixteenth century.5 During the seventeenth century some figured vases were in the Venetian collection Vendramin and in Rome, in the collections of Giovan Pietro Bellori and of the Chigi, Barberini, and Massimi families.6 Painted pottery was soon appreciated because it was testimony for ancient painting and provided mythological subjects treated by Greek and Latin sources. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the presence of figured vases in the collections dated between the fifteenth and the first half of the seventeenth centuries could be interpreted as the expression of their collectors’ precise interests: vases were often found together with other antiquities and donated to people fond of antiquarianism as curiosities. They were often placed in palaces as fine furniture or displayed in the galleries together with other more precious antiquities, on the top of shelves or cabinets, in order to give to the rooms where collections were displayed an atmosphere of antiquity. It is not until the end of seventeenth century that we can properly speak about “collections of painted pottery.” In fact, it is at this historical moment when we can first identify the beginning of the slow process that brought recognition of the “collecting of vases” as a defined collecting genre. This process, which started

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

with the previously mentioned Valletta collection, seems to have been completed with the formation of the Vatican Library collection, as Winckelmann pointed out in this concise passage: The collection that is in the library of the Theatines at Santi Apostoli in this city [Naples] was owned by a well-known Neapolitan jurist, Giuseppe Valletta, who was also the owner of the large and beautiful collection of such vessels in the Vatican library.7

The recent rapid development of studies on the collecting of antiquities has produced much data on various figured pottery collections, so that today we can affirm that most of the vases circulating during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were Apulian.8 They were often flanked by Attic and Lucanian vases, attributed to workshops and painters for the most part known to be found in Apulian sites. In the same collections, Campanian, Paestan, and Etruscan vases were represented in low percentages. The great majority of the vases originally displayed in the Vatican Library were South Italian and more than half of this collection can be assigned to Apulian workshops. This is probably due to the fact that pieces available on the antiquarian market during that period came from Apulian sites. Even if the reason for the prevalence of Apulian vases in the first known collections can be reasonably attributed to the fact that ancient necropoleis in Apulia were the first to be discovered, this cannot be a convincing explanation for collections formed after the twenties of the same century, when some Campanian sites were well known and excavated, as is testified by various sources.9 The collectors’ preference for Apulian vases, which persisted during the first four decades of the eighteenth century,10 can also be explained by the consolidation of a diffuse taste for a baroque style and by a general tendency to emulate some big and famous collections, such as the one at the Vatican. In the following period we record a progressive increase in collecting of Campanian and Attic ceramics. The Apulian and Campanian fabrics seem to be equally distributed in collections dated between the 1740s and the 1760s, while the quantity of Attic vases is slightly higher.11 From such statistical data, we can infer that around the middle of the century, Attic vases were found both in Campania and in Apulia: which explains the numeric growth of Attic vases in the collections of this period. A notorious example of a typical collection formed in the second half of the sixties is the first collection assembled in Naples by Sir William Hamilton, published in four volumes by D’Hancarville12 and sold to the British Museum in 1772. The English ambassador formed this collection soon after his arrival in Naples in 1764, with the acquisition en bloc of some previously existing collections (the Porcinari and the Mastrilli collections were acquired in 1766), and by purchasing entire lots of vases directly from the excavations at some Campanian sites and from different antiquaries. Considering the various fabrics of the vases published in D’Hancarville’s catalogue confirms the distribution trend previously described, showing, in comparison, a progressive increase of Attic vases during the 1760s.13

egh

285

286

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

A clear taste for Attic vases seems to have been well defined in the last decades of the eighteenth century; the best known collection formed in this period belonged again to Sir William Hamilton. This collection was assembled during the 1790s in Naples, and published in four volumes by Tischbein and Hamilton himself, with comments by the Count Italinski.14 The fifth volume of the same work remained unedited. Eight of the twenty-four cases containing the vases of this collection were lost during their transport to England in December 1798, when the HMS Colossus was wrecked and sunk.15 Attic vases comprised more than half of Hamilton’s second collection; Campanian vases are also well represented, while there were only a few Apulian pieces.16 From such data we can easily deduce that at the end of the century, vases were excavated for the most part in Campanian sites. This is also confirmed by Sir William Hamilton in his Introductory Remarks to the first volume of the catalogue, where he mentions the names of the places where he knew that tombs containing ancient vases were found: Nola, S. Agata dei Goti, Trebbia, S. Maria di Capua, adding that some other vases were found in Apulia. At this time Campanian and Apulian sites were both well known and excavated. Thus, the growing preference for Attic vases can only be explained by the taste of collectors. There is also another important element to be considered, which is explained by Hamilton in the postscript of the first volume of his catalogue. There he writes about having obtained definitive proof demonstrating the Greek origin of vases, which consisted of some vases found in 1791 by Tilson, Bernes and Graves, in a tomb located on the Greek island of Milos. By comparing the Greek vases with the pieces in his collection, Hamilton found that they had the same shapes, material, glaze and style of decoration. The so-called “question of origins” that animated the scholarly discussions starting in the seventeenth century, and grew worse in the following century, was all but concluded after the edition of Winckelmann’s Geschichte, where he affirmed the Greek origin of vases found in southern Italy. The inscriptions and signatures painted on the vases were accepted as evidence of this thesis by many Neapolitan and Sicilian scholars, refuting the tradition of Tuscan scholarship, which asserted that vases were all Etruscan.17 For this reason, inscribed vases were considered more valuable than others, and at the end of the eighteenth century collectors preferred Attic and Campanian vases, because most vases with inscriptions were found in Campania.

Apulian and Lucanian Vases in Some Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Collections After delineating a general picture of vase collecting up to the end of the eighteenth century, we can define a period of time between 1680 and 1765 in which Apulian pottery was predominant over other fabrics. Apulian vases were frequently accompanied by a few Lucanian examples, generally dated between 430 and 370 B.C.E. It is possible to identify some Apulian and Lucanian vases collected in this period

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

and to assign them to workshops and painters. By comparing such data with information on the findspots of vases attributed to painters, we can make some conjectures about the original contexts of vases in some of oldest collections. The research published in the three volumes of Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis by Giovan Battista Passeri between 1767 and 1775, and in two other unpublished volumes of the same work, provide altogether a corpus of prints and drawings representing 470 vases belonging to 59 different collections dated between the end of the seventeenth century and the 1760s.18 Of these vases, 146 are Apulian and 15 are Lucanian, and they were found in 27 collections located in various Italian cities.

Collections Formed in the North of Italy In the north of Italy, some Apulian vases were displayed in the collections formed by the Grimani family in Venice in the sixteenth century, and by Antonio Vallisneri in Padova in the early seventeenth century. Most of the Apulian vases in the Grimani collection can be attributed to the circle and followers of the Tarporley Painter and to the Snub Nose Painter, (Fig. 13.1, WF 151) while all the Apulian vases in the Vallisneri collection can be assigned to Middle Apulian workshops. One Lucanian vase attributed to the Anabates Painter was owned by Giuseppe Peralta, who assembled his collection in Milan in the 1730s.19

Collections Formed in Central Italy In the Central Italy, most Apulian vases were in collections located in Bologna, various cities of Tuscany, Perugia, and Rome.

Bologna Some Apulian vases, for the most part assigned to the circle of the Varrese Painter and the circle of the Gioia del Colle Painter, were exhibited in the collection of the Institute of Sciences and Arts in Bologna, inaugurated in 1712, thanks to the donation of Luigi Ferdinando Marsili (WF 152).20 The Institute also owned three Lucanian vases, attributed to the Amykos, Cyclops, and Creusa Painters. From the attributions of both Apulian and Lucanian vases owned by the Institute of Bologna, it is possible to hypothesize a common provenance for them from central Apulia, more precisely from the area of Gioia del Colle. Also in Bologna, another Apulian vase attributed to the Prisoner Painter was owned by the Marquis Guido Bentivoglio around the middle of the eighteenth century.

Florence, Lucca, Pisa, Siena, and Perugia In the eighteenth century, the Medici Museum, located in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, exhibited the antiquities accumulated by various members of the Medici family starting with Lorenzo the Magnificent in the fifteenth century, who owned

egh

287

288

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

some vases found in the territory of Arezzo. At least two Apulian vases were in the Medici collection at the time of Cosimo I, around c. 1570.21 From their representations chosen by Filippo Buonarroti in the 1720s for the edition of Etruria Regali written by Thomas Dempster, it is possible to identify a group of five Apulian vases that were exhibited at that time in the Medici Museum. One of them, an Apulian bell krater now lost, was previously in the collection of the Prince of Brandeburg, and originally in the collection of Giovanni Pietro Bellori in Rome.22 Two of the Medici vases are assigned to the Tarporley Painter, one to the Sisyphus Painter, another to the circle of the Darius and Underworld Painters, and the fifth to the associates of the Painter of Copenhagen 4223. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest a provenance for those materials from the region of the gulf of Taranto, and perhaps from sites around Bari and Ruvo. During the 1740s Anton Francesco Gori, one of the best known scholars of the Tuscan antiquarian school, collected drawings of vases from all his correspondents, drawings which formed the basis of the plates of Passeri’s work. Gori assembled in Florence his collection, containing thirty-seven vases, and we know from his correspondence that most of his vases, both acquisitions and donations, came from the Neapolitan market. Most of his vases were Campanian, but he also had one Apulian pelike assigned to the Snub-nose circle, and two Lucanian bell kraters assigned to the Pisticci and Amykos workshop and to the Painter of British Museum F 162 (his eponymous vase).23 From these attributions, it is possible to argue that such vases could have reached the Neapolitan market from the central Apulia. During the same period of time, the Marquis Vincenzo Riccardi and the Marquis Alberico Albergotti also exhibited in their Florentine collections some red-figure vases. At least two of the Riccardi vases were Apulian and can be assigned to the Darius and Underworld circle and to the followers of the Dijon Painter. Albergotti owned two Apulian bell kraters, both attributed to the followers of the Tarporley Painter, and a Lucanian hydria assigned to the workshop of the Pisticci and Amykos Painters.24 From their representations in Picturae Etruscorum, it is possible to identify other Apulian vases that were located in three Tuscan collections during the 1740s. The Fiorentini family in Lucca possessed at least a patera attributed to the circle of the Darius and Underworld Painters; in the Gallery of the Botanic Garden in Pisa (the so-called “Giardino dei Semplici”) two pelikai were exhibited that can be assigned to the Circle of the Varrese Painter (Fig. 13.2, WF 153) and to the followers of the Snub-nose and Varrese Painters; in the collection of the Vecchietti family, located near Siena, there were two column kraters attributed to the Varrese circle and one epychisis assigned to the school of the Patera and Ganymede Painters.25 In Perugia, during the first half of the century, the Ansidei family owned some South Italian vases. Amongst them, it is possible to identify an Apulian pelike attributed to the imitators of the Tarporley Painter, which was first represented in the Etruria Regali.26

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

13.1. Drawing: lead pencil, sepia ink, ochre watercolor. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum B 126, Apulian pelike attributed to the McDaniel Painter. Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana, MS 294, p. 325. Once in Venice, Museum Grimani, then in Heidelberg in the collection of Gerog Frederich Kreuzer. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Oliveriana.

egh

289

290

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Rome Other Apulian and Lucanian vases were found in the Roman collections of the Barberini family, of Cardinal Niccol` o del Giudice, of Monsignor Ludovico di Costanzo, of Francesco Ficoroni, and of the Vatican Library. The first nucleus of the Barberini collection vases was donated in 1640 by Camillo Melzi, Archibishop of Capua, as attested by a letter addressed by Melzi to Luca Holstein, now in the Vatican Library. Before 1736, when the antiquarian Francesco Ficoroni reorganised the Barberini collection, it contained twelve figured vases. From its representation in the Passeri’s work it is possible to identify only one Apulian vase belonging to this collection: a pelike attributed to the Underworld Painter, now in the Vatican Museum.27 In 1733 Alessandro Gregorio Capponi displayed in the cabinets of the Vatican Library some vases that had been in the Vatican since the sixteenth century and the vases that Pope Clemens XII acquired from the collection of Cardinal Gualtieri, most of which derived from the Valletta collection. In 1734 Gori obtained the drawings of 76 Vatican vases, some of which were published in the Picturae Etruscorum by Passeri, while others remained unpublished in the following two volumes of that work. Of the depicted vases forty-eight are Apulian and can be divided into three main groups on the basis of their attributions: the first group includes vases assigned to the early ornate style and to the followers of the plain style tradition (RVAp I, chap. 1–10, WF 154); the second joins vases assigned to the circles of the Darius, Underworld, and Gioia del Colle Painters (RVAp II, chap. 18–22); the third group comprises Late Apulian vases assigned to the associates and followers of the Patera and Baltimore Painters (RVAp II, chap. 28 and 30). Moreover, a few vases are assigned to the followers of the Tarporley Painter, to the circle of the Varrese and Snub-nose Painters, and to the Lycurgus Painter. The four Lucanian vases stored in the Vatican Library can be dated to before 375 B.C.E. and could have been found in central Apulia.28 During the 1730s Cardinal Niccol` o del Giudice assembled a good collection of vases composed of Apulian, Attic, and Campanian pieces. From the drawings collected by Gori it is possible to identify three Apulian vases attributed to the circles of the Sisyphus, Dijon, and Varrese Painters.29 The collection of Monsignor Ludovico di Costanzo dates to the same period, and, for the most part, is composed of Campanian vases. It has been possible to identify only one Apulian vase belonging to this collection, an Apulian amphora attributed to the Group of Vatican Z 16 (Fig. 13.3, WF 155).30 In the 1740s Francesco Ficoroni, one of the best known Roman antiquaries, who sold antiquities to the major collectors of the time, owned in his private collection at least three Apulian vases assigned to the Middle and Late Apulian periods.31

Collections Formed in Southern Italy In the south of Italy, the majority of vase collections were located in Naples. We can also find Apulian and Lucanian vases in the Sicilian collection of the Biscari

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

13.2. Drawing: sepia ink. Apulian pelike, now lost, assigned to the circle of the Varrese Painter. Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana, MS 294, p. 340. Once in Pisa in the Gallery of the Botanic Garden (Giardino dei Semplici). Courtesy of the Biblioteca Oliveriana.

egh

291

292

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Museum in Catania and in the collection of Pasquale Rossi in Brindisi, the only one known Apulian collection for this period.

Naples In 1726 the Girolamini acquired the Valletta library and the forty-five vases that remained in the collection. The Girolamini Library, built in 1736, still preserves some of the vases, a few of them migrated to other collections, and others are now dispersed. In 1735 Giacomo Antonio del Monaco, librarian of the Girolamini, sent some drawings to Gori representing eleven vases. All of them, except one Campanian lekythos, are Apulian. Three of these vases are attributed to the Helmet Painter, (Fig. 13.4, WF 156) one to the followers of the Group of Taranto 7013, and others are assigned to the early ornate style and to the followers of the plain style tradition, with an evident parallel with the Vatican collection.32 In the 1720s and 30s Matteo Egizio, one of the best known epigraphists and numismatists of the time, who knew Giuseppe Valletta and used to study in his library, formed a collection of antiquities in which there were some vases, which then passed to famous collections such as the one formed by Giovanni Carafa and the collection of the Count of Lamberg. From the plates of Passeri’s books we know only four vases owned by Egizio: three of them are Attic and one is the Lucanian name-vase of the Painter of the British Museum F 162, which then passed to Gori.33 During the 1730s the collection of the Theatines’ Library was also formed, located in the center of Naples, near by the Girolamini Library. We know only two vases owned by the Theatines, both of Apulian fabric: one is the famous Cawdor vase, assigned to the circle of Louvre K 67 Painter; the other one is a lost bell krater attributed to the circle of the Snub-nose Painter.34 In the same period, Francesco Enrico de Grassi, Count of Pianura, had in his collection at least one Apulian rhyton attributed to the White Sakkos and Kantharos Group, and a Lucanian pelike assigned to the Creusa Painter. Both of the vases then passed to the Biscari Museum.35 During his travel in Italy in 1738 and 1739, Count Frederick de Thoms assembled his collection of antiquities which he then exported to Leyden. He probably bought all his vases in Naples. Amongst them, we know from the drawings sent to Gori, were two Apulian vases, assigned to the followers of the Varrese and Snub-nose Painters and to the associates of Darius Painter.36 Sir William Hammond, English Consul until 1726, also formed his collection of vases in Naples, which was later exported to London, when he returned to England in the 1740s. He sent the drawings of at least thirteen vases to Gori, some of which were in his possession, while others were in the dal Tufo collection and in other Neapolitan collections. Only one of these vases was Lucanian.37 Between 1740 and 1755 Felice Maria Mastrilli assembled in Nola, and then transferred to Naples, one of the most famous collections of vases, reproduced in a manuscript catalogue known by the name of “Spiega” now preserved in the

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

13.3. Drawing by Angelo sepia ink colored with red and black watercolor. Bologna, Museo Civico, PU 531, Apulian amphora attributed to the Group of Vatican Z 16. Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana, MS 294, p. 355. Once in Rome in the collection of Monsignor Ludovico di Costanzo, then in the old collection of the University of Bologna. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Oliveriana.

egh

293

294

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Getty Research Institute, which has been carefully studied by Claire Lyons. He also sent the drawings of some vases to Gori. The Apulian vases owned by Mastrilli can be assigned to three main groups: the first one comprises vases produced by the followers of the Tarporley Painter, mainly by the circle of the Dijon Painter; in the second group, which is the larger one, there are Middle Apulian vases assigned to the circle of the Varrese and Snub-nose Painters; the third group, slightly less numerous than the second one, has vases attributed to the circles of the Gioia del Colle, Darius, and Underworld Painters. Moreover, a few vases are assigned to Late Apulian workshops.38

Sicily: Catania In Sicily Ignazio Patern` o Castello, Prince of Biscari, created the Biscari Museum in Catania, inaugurated in 1758. It contained figured vases, most of which were acquired by the Prince during his travel in Italy in 1750. In the Biscari Museum we find three Apulian pelikai previously in the Girolamini collection and two vases from the de Grassi collection. Other Middle-Apulian and Lucanian vases were probably acquired by the Prince of Biscari on the Neapolitan market.39

The Rossi Collection in Brindisi This excursus ends with the collection of Pasquale Rossi in Brindisi, the only collection of vases known to be located in Apulian territory during the period under consideration.40 Rossi was twice Archbishop Vicar in Brindisi during the 1750s. We know from a manuscript preserved in the De Leo Library of Brindisi that he owned a famous collection of inscriptions found in Mesagne. His collection of coins and medals is noted in the travelbook written by Johan Hermann von Riedesel, who met him.41 The drawings of thirty-five vases belonging to the collection of Pasquale Rossi are preserved in the two unedited volumes of Passeri’s Picturae Etruscorum in the Oliveriana Library in Pesaro.42 Although the Rossi collection of painted vases is quite unknown, as it has only been possible to retrieve small bits of information about it, nevertheless it must have been a prestigious collection at the time, as some of its vases then passed into famous collections. In fact, thanks to drawings of them, it has been possible to identify and to trace back the history of some Rossi vases: an Apulian calyx krater attributed to the Painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl (WF 157), a painted stamnos in the Gnathia style and an Attic calyx krater assigned to the Marlay Painter passed together to the second Hamilton collection, and then to the Hope collection.43 An Attic oinochoe attributed to the Bowdoin Painter passed to Vienna, into the collection of Count Arthur von LambergSpringenstein and then to the Royal cabinet.44 Finally, thanks to their publication in the recent catalogue about the La Malmaison collection, it has been possible to identify three other Rossi vases, which passed to the collection of the Empress Josephine and then to the Durand collection: an Apulian bell krater attributed to the Painter of Athens 1714, an Apulian volute krater assigned to the Foggia Group

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

13.4. Drawing by Francesco Vitale: red and black ink, white lead. Naples, Biblioteca dei Girolamini, 3. Apulian volute krater attributed to the Helmet Painter. Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana, MS 295, p. 415. Once in Naples in the collection of Giuseppe Valletta. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Oliveriana.

egh

295

296

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

(Fig. 13.5 WF 158), and an Attic column krater of the Florence Painter.45 The Rossi collection was composed for the most part of Apulian and Gnathian style vases. It also included Campanian, Paestan, Lucanian, and Attic pieces. Most of the Apulian vases housed in this collection can be clustered into two main groups: the first group contains vases of the plain style tradition assigned to the followers of the Athens 1714 and Hoppin Painters; the second group joins vases attributed to the circle and followers of the Varrese and Snub Nose Painters. A few other vases belong to the early Apulian style (Painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl and Tarporley circle) and to the Darius-Underworld circle. Only one Apulian vase is assigned to the circle of the Patera and Baltimore Painters. On the basis of those attributions, it is possible to suppose that the Rossi vases were found in the territory of the gulf of Taranto, in sites such as Ginosa and Montescaglioso; in the region of Bari at Ceglie, Rutigliano, and Conversano, as far as at Gioia del Colle; and perhaps also nearby Brindisi and Lecce and in other sites in the South, such as Rugge. The Lucanian vases collected by Rossi are attributed to the circle of the Creusa and Dolon Painters, (WF 159) whose production is attested at Manduria, Rugge, Ruvo; and to the manner of the Roccanova Painter, whose vases are generally found in internal Lucania.46

Some Possible Conclusions The research conducted on these twenty-seven collections and the identification of some of the collected pieces based on their representations in the drawings joined by Gori and in the plates of Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis edited by Passeri, allows us to bring together a large corpus of vases known to have been excavated during the late sixteenth and the first half of the eighteenth century. It has been possible to identify 146 Apulian vases and 15 Lucanian vases in total. The examination of those pieces has led to the identification of the current location and, consequently, to the reconstruction of the history for most of the vases, while others remain unidentified at the moment. Of the Apulian vases, 86 have already been attributed by Trendall and by other scholars. It was possible to assign attributions to circles and workshops for another 55 vases on the basis of their representations in the prints and drawings,47 while five other vases remain unattributed. By examining the 141 attributed Apulian vases, it is possible to delineate a general view of Apulian materials circulating in the investigated period, which is here illustrated in the bar graph of Figure 13.6 (WF 160). Vases can be divided into the following nine groups on the basis of their attribution and using as a reference the chapters of RVAp. Sysiphus Group (RVAp, chap. 1): 1. Tarporley Painter, Group and followers (RVAp, chap. 3–5); 2. Iliuopersis Painter and early ornate style (RVAp, chap. 7, 8); 3. Followers of the Plain-style tradition (RVAp, chap. 9, 10);

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

13.5. Drawing: red and black ink. Paris, Louvre K 73, Apulian volute krater attributed to the Foggia Group. Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana, MS 295, p. 413. Once in Brindisi in the collection of Pasquale Rossi, then Paris, La Malmaison in the collection of the Empress Jesephine and later in the Durand collection. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Oliveriana.

egh

297

298

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

4. Snub-nose Painter and Varrese Painter, associates and followers (RVAp, chap. 12–14); 5. Lycurgus Painter and Gioia del Colle Painter, circle of (RVAp, chap. 16, 17); 6. Darius Painter and Underworld Painter, circle (RVAp, chap. 18–20, 22); 7. Amphorae Group (RVAp, chap. 24); 8. Patera Painter and Baltimore Painter, associates and followers (RVAp, chap. 28, 30). The graph shows two main peaks, with identical numbers of pieces (33 vases in each group), the works assigned to the Snub-nose Painter’s associates and followers (group no. 5) and to the Darius and Underworld circle (group no. 7). Two other important peaks are represented by the vases attributed to the Tarporley Painter, Group, and followers (group no. 2) and to the Patera and Baltimore Painters’ associates and followers (group no. 9), with 19 pieces in both of the groups. Vases attributed to those workshops are commonly found in central Apulia, from the gulf of Taranto to the surroundings of Bari; in the North, in the valley of the Ofanto river, and in the South, near Lecce. The most frequent attributions are to the Ilioupersis Painter, to whom are assigned two vases in the Vatican Library and one pelike in the Biscari Museum.48 All of these vases could come from the Valletta collection. Three other vases, two in the Vatican Library and one in the Di Costanzo collection, are assigned to the Vatican Z 16 Group.49 Three of the Girolamini vases, coming from the Valletta collection, are attributed to the Helmet Painter.50 Finally, the Group of Taranto 7013 and associates accounts for four vases: one of them was in the Girolamini collection and three were in the Vatican Library. Amongst them, there is the name-vase of the Group, the so-called “Lasimos vase.”51 The few individual Lucanian vases in the examined collections are mainly attributed to the workshop of the Pisticci and Amykos Painters, to the Intermediate Group, and to the circle of the Creusa and Dolon Painters. Vases assigned to such productions can be found in Apulian sites. Thus, it is probable that, at least until the middle of the eighteenth century, Lucanian sites had not yet been discovered. This paper has provided the collection biography for numerous vases that entered private collections in the eighteenth century. Reassembling the collections through archival work permitted us to see patterns of style and workshop that relate to the origin of the vases. Two principles lie behind this study: the first is that the date of collection creation can be tied to areas known to be under archaeological exploration at that time. Second, the attributions of vases shown to have entered a collection at the same time can also be tied to sites or regions where other products of the painters have been found in controlled excavations. Thus, even if no original provenance was recorded or if it was lost in the history of a vase’s journey from one collection to another, this chapter has shown that there are ways to recover with some confidence original provenance. Regrettably, this mode of study cannot, however, restore vases to their original tomb

egh

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

299

Attributions of Apulian Vases, Calculated for 141 Vases 35

33

33

Quantity of Vases

30

25

19

19

20

16 15

10

5

8

7

4 2

0 Sysiphus Gr. (RVAp, 1)

Tarporley P. Gr. and followers (RVAp, 3-5)

Iliuopersis P. Followers of and early Plain style ornate sl. tradition (RVAp, 7-9) (RVAp, 9-10)

Snub-nose P. and varrese P., associates and followers (RVAp, 12-14)

Lycurgus P. Darius P. and Amphorae Gr. Patera P. and and di Gioia Underworld P., (RVAp, 24) Baltimore P. associates del Colle P., circle (RVAp, circle (RVAp, 18-20, 22) and followers (RVAp, 28, 30) 16-17)

13.6. Attributions of 141 vases belonging to 27 collections dated between 1680 and 1765.

contexts, although some interrelated vases may have once been part of a single assemblage. Notes 1. Trendall 1953–55. This is his third monograph, edited after Trendall 1936 and 1938. Trendall published the catalogue of the Vatican vases fourteen years before LCS and twenty-five years before the first volume of RVAp. 2. For these and further information on the Vatican Library collection, see Masci 2008, 18–20 and 50–6; Pietrangeli 1985, 25–7; for the Gualtieri collection see Fileri 2001; for the Valletta collection, see Masci 1999; Iasiello 2003, 201–8. 3. Vasari 1568 (the “Giuntina” edition), 297. 4. About the vases owned by Cosimo I de’ Medici, see Marzi 1996; for the Grimani and Mantova Benavides collections and for other collections in Veneto, see Favaretto 2001, 1993, 1990, 1984; information on the vases owned by Ulisse Aldrovandi and by the Cardinal da Carpi is given in Mauro 1556; see also Gasparri 1994. 5. Part of this letter is transcribed in Masci 2008, 148, document no. 73. 6. On the Vendramin vases, see Favaretto 1984; on the Bellori vases, see L. de Lachenal in Borea and Gasparri 2000, 522–3; information on the Chigi, Baberini, and Massimi collections is transcribed in Masci 2008, 131–2, documents no. 1, 2, 3 and 140, document no. 46. 7. Winckelmann 2006 chap. 4, § 4, para 9; 175. For the confusion between the Library of the Theatines and the one of Girolamini (where some of the Valletta vases are still preserved) in this passage, see Masci 1999, 562, and no. 15. 8. On the collections of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, see for the Veneto: Favaretto 1991 and 1986; on the Valletta collection in Naples,

300

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15. 16.

17.

see Masci 1999; Iasiello 2003; for 40 vases pertaining to the collections Abela, Barberini, Bellori, Mantova-Benavides, and Valletta dated in the late seventeenth century, see Masci 2008, 110, fig. 9. In the late seventeenth century only a few sources record the discovery of vases in Campanian sites. Starting from 1725–1730 more intensive excavation activities are documented in Capua, Cumae, Sant’Agata dei Goti, Nola, and Avella. See Masci 2007; 2008, 102. From the examination of 204 vases pertaining to 28 collections formed between 1710 and 1739, 49% of the vases were Apulian, 23% Attic, 17% Campanian, 5% Lucanian, 5% Etruscan, and 1% Paestan. The percentages are deduced from the vases represented in the three edited volumes of Passeri 1767–1775 and in the IV and V unedited volumes of the same opera preserved in Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana (BOP), MS 294 and 295, pertaining to the following collections: Arrigoni, Bacci, Bocchi, Capponi, Creoli, de Grassi, de Thoms, del Giudice, di Costanzo, Ficoroni, Fiorentini, Franchini, Frederick, Grimani, Guarnacci, Medici, Paolozzi, Passeri, Peralta, Sani, Vecchietti, Vettori, Institute of Bologna, Libraries of Girolamini, Santi Apostoli, San Marco, Vatican Library, Imperial Library of Wien. See Masci 2008, 110–11, fig. 10. The distribution of the different fabrics calculated from 219 vases in 24 collections dated between 1740 and 1769 is the following: 36% Attic, 25% Campanian, 24% Apulian, 4% Etruscan, 4% Paestan, 3% Lucanian, 2% Siceliote, 1% Corinthian, 1% Gnathia style. Percentages are calculated on the vases represented in the edited and unedited volumes of Passeri’s opera (see no. 10) pertaining to the collections: Ansidei, Benincasa, Bentivoglio, Cattaneo, Chiappini, Cocchi, Gori, Hammond, Mastrilli, Paciaudi, Plaucio, Presbitero of Bari, Riccardi, Rossi, Rovegno, Triancini, Museums of the Accademia Etrusca, of the Collegium of Gesuites in Palermo, of the Botanic Garden in Pisa, museums Biscari, of San Martino and S. Nicola, Museum Kircheriano. See Masci 2008, 111, fig. 11. The preference for Attic vases seems to be particularly preponderant in the collection of Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Noia: see Lyons 1997 and 2002. D’Hancarville 1766–1767. On this work and on the first Hamilton collection, see: Sch¨ utze and Gisler Huwiler 2004; Jenkins and Sloan 1996; Griener 1992; Ramage 1990, 470. The examination of the vases represented in D’Hancarville 1766–1767 permits a calculation of the distribution of fabrics in the first Hamilton collection approximately as follows: 42% of the vases can be assigned to Attic fabric, 25% to Apulian and Daunian workshops, 15% are Campanian, 7% Etruscan, 4% Lucanian, 3% Corinthian, 2% Paestan, and 2% are in the Gnathia style. If compared with the percentages here shown in no. 11, the first Hamilton collection reflects the same trend as the twenty-four examined collections dated between 1740 and 1769, and shows a growing concentration of Attic vases at the end of the examined period. Tischbein and Hamilton 1791–1795. See in particular Smallwood and Woodford 2003, Introduction, where previous bibliography is cited. The tables published in Tischbein and Hamilton 1791–1795 permit the following distribution of fabrics for the vases in the second Hamilton collection: 58% of the vases are Attic, 22% Campanian, only 10% are Apulian, 8% Paestan, and 2% Lucanian. Winckelmann 1764, chap. IV, §IV, paras 9–10, for an English translation see Winckelmann 2006, 175–6. In this passage Winckelmann resumes the whole debate that involved the Tuscan and South-Italian scholars during the first half of the eighteenth century and demonstrates that he knew very well publications edited by Sebastiano Paoli, Salvatore Maria di Blasi, and other South-Italian scholars, as he cites the same arguments for demonstrating the Greek origins of vases. On the “question of origins” see Masci 2008, 31–6; Masci 2007, 216–18; Lyons 1997, 229–33.

Apulian and Lucanian Red-Figure Pottery in Eighteenth-Century Collections

18. Passeri 1767–1775, and BOP, MS 294, 295 (see earlier no. 10). The research is edited in Masci 2003 and Masci 2008. 19. For all these and the following information, see Masci 2008, 70, 71, 88, 89, 95, 96 and catalogue no. 15, 51 (Padova, Museo di scienze archeologiche ed arte, MB 141), 64 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 14), 126, 158 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 18), 292 (Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum, B 126: here in Fig. 13.1), 321, 341, 352 (Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum, B 127), 397, where previous bibliography is cited. Moreover, for the Grimani collection, see no. 4; for the Vallisneri collection see Favaretto 1984, 159–64. 20. On the Marsili collection, see Ducati 1930; Gasparri 1994, 212. For the vases in the Institute of Bologna, see Masci 2008, 73–4, catalogue no. 18, 78, 89, 196, 323, 345, 363, 398, 422 (Bologna, Museo Civico, PU 549; PU 548; PU 588; PU 287; PU 598; PU 592; PU 429; PU 502; PU 564: (WF 152)). 21. For this information, see earlier notes no. 3 and 4. 22. The five vases of the Medici Museum are represented in: Dempster 1723–1724, heading of books I, II, VI and Pl. no. 10–11, 30–35. For the history of the vase originally in the Bellori collection, see Borea and Gasparri 2000, 522–3, no. 54; Beger 1696, vol. III, 391. The other four Apulian vases are now in Florence, National Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 4048, 1946, 1917, 4041. For all the five Apulian vases owned by the Medici family, see Masci 2008, no. 72, 74, 178, 227, 367. 23. For this information, see Masci 2008, 67–9, catalogue no. 111, 232 (London, British Museum, F 43 and F 162), 414 and passim; for the Gori collection see also Cagianelli 2006. 24. For both this collections and the related vases, see Masci 2008, 43, 44, 90, 91 and catalogue no. 137, 170, 306, 320, 350. For the Riccardi collection, see also Gasparri 1994, 214; G. de Juliis 1981. 25. Masci 2008, 65–7, 96 and catalogue no. 134, 169, 247, 308, 309 (here in Fig. 13.2, WF 153), 443. 26. Dempster 1723–1724, heading of book VII; Masci 2008, 44–5 and catalogue no. 85 (Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 17958). 27. For this information and the related bibliography see Masci 2008, 46–7, catalogue no. 19 (Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 18127) and documents no. 1, 2. On the Barberini collection, see also: Gasparri 1994, 195; Faedo and Frangemberg 2005. 28. Masci 1999, 564–70 and Masci 2008, 50–6, catalogue no. 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 20, 58, 79, 80, 86, 90, 103, 104, 110, 113–115, 121, 124, 125, 136, 180, 181, 209, 259, 294, 300, 301, 322, 325, 342, 348, 349, 351, 353–358, 362, 364, 366, 423, 424, 428 (Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 17200; 18255; 18106; 18105; 17941; 17223; 18100; 22633; 18256; 18132; 18094; 18095; 17949; 18142; 17950; 17957; 18074; 18103; 18062; 18063; 18064; 18098; 18119; 17163; 18275; 37000; 18131; 18066; 57455; 18030; 18075; 17952; 18059; 18055; 17961: here in WF 154; 18037; 18047; 18143; 18082; 18101; 18056; 18139; 17945; 18049; 18099; 18097), 21, 183, 186 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 69; K 67; K 66) and documents no. 26, 38, 75, 176. 29. Masci 2008, 61–2 and catalogue no. 99, 116 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 121; K 7), 331. 30. Masci 2008, 61–3 and catalogue no. 324 (Bologna, Museo Civico, PU 531: here in Fig. 13.3, WF 155). 31. For these and for more information, Masci 2008, 64–65 and catalogue no. 258, 419, 427; Masci 2003, “Ficoroni I-LXXV”. 32. Masci 2008, 48–49, catalogue no. 27, 50, 73, (Catania, Museo Civico, MB 4225; MB 4392; MB 4359) 135, 182, 184, 185, 211, 392, 393 (Napoli, Biblioteca dei Girolamini, 1; 5; 4; 2; 8; 3: here in Fig. 13.4, WF 156) and Masci 1999, 570–4. 33. Masci 2008, 62–4 and catalogue no. 232 (London, British Museum, F 162), where previous bibliography is cited.

egh

301

302

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

34. Masci 2008, 48–9, catalogue no. 206, 242 (London, Soane’s Museum, 101 L: the Cawdor vase). On the history of the Cawdor vase, see Masci 2002. 35. Masci 2008, 60, catalogue no. 32, 87 (Catania, Museo Civico, 2443.2 ; 4381). 36. Masci 2008, 60–1, catalogue no. 38, 344 (Paris, Cabinet des M´edailles, 907; 934). 37. On the Hammond collection, Masci 2007, 221, 222; see also Masci 2008, 71–3 and catalogue no. 111 (London, British Museum, F 43). 38. On the Mastrilli collection and on the “Spiega” see: Lyons 1992; Franzoni 2002, 38; Masci 2008, 75–9, catalogue no. 54, 217, 235 (London, British Museum, F 269), 303, 304 (London, British Museum, F 314), 347, 360, 361, 365, 383, 408 (London, British Museum, F 297), 409, 410, 412 (Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 18043), 425 (Hope 231), 430, 432, 441, 469, documents no. 241–260, where the texts of the “Spiega” are transcribed. 39. On the Biscari Museum, see Libertini 1930; Masci 2008, 80–1 and catalogue no. 26–8, 32, 50, 73, 87, 370 (Catania, Museo Civico, MB 4004; MB 4225; MB 4402; 2443.2; MB 4392; MB 4359; 4381). 40. On Pasquale Rossi and his collection of vases, see Masci 2008, 90–3. 41. For this information, see: Biblioteca Arcivescovile de Leo, MS. D/13 (Ferdinando Epifanio. Miscellany), letter C: Antiquorum Inscriptionum Messapiae; von Riedesel 1771, 235: “Ich habe in Brindisi zwei M¨anner, welche Kenntnis in der Alterthumern haben, angetroffen: Don Pasquale Rossi, Bicarius on der Domkirche, und Don Ortensio Leo, eine Privatperson.” 42. BOP, MS. 294 and 295. See earlier no. 10. 43. For the three mentioned vases, see Masci 2008, catalogue no. 382 (Providence, Rhode Island School of Design Art Museum, 22.215: here in Fig. 13.4, WF 157); 338 (Hope 337); 385 (St. Louis City Art Museum, 2.29), where previous bibliography is cited. 44. For this vase and previous bibliography, Masci 2008, catalogue no. 390 (Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, IV 394). 45. Descamps-Lequime et al. 2008, 185, no. 81 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 9); p. 72, no. 13 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 73: here in Fig. 13.5, WF 158); p. 180, no. 69 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, G 352), where the provenance from the Rossi collection is not known. See also Masci 2008, catalogue no. 314, 391, 316, where only Louvre G 352 is identified and the disposition of the three vases in the La Malmaison collection is not known. The reconstruction of the complete history of these three vases is here indicated for the first time, thanks to the crossing of such information. 46. For the Apulian and Lucanian Vases owned by Rossi, Masci 2008, catalogue no. 279, 280, 289, 290, 312, 313, 314 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 9), 315, 317–319, 340, 343, 378, 379 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 129), 382 (Providence, Rhode Island School of Design – Art Museum, 22.215), 386, 387, 388, 391 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 73), 458. 47. Masci 2008, “indice delle attribuzioni,” 210–11. 48. Masci 2008, catalogue no. 2, 20, 28 (Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 17200 and 18256; Catania, Museo Civico, MB 4402). 49. Masci 2008, catalogue no. 322, 324, 354 (Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 18075; Bologna, Museo Civico, PU 531; Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 18143). 50. Masci 2008, catalogue no. 184, 185, 392 (Napoli, Biblioteca dei Girolamini, 4; 2; 3). 51. Masci 2008, catalogue no. 21, 180, 182, 186 (Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 69; Citt`a del Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, 18275; Napoli, Biblioteca dei Girolamini, 5; Paris, Mus´ee du Louvre, K 66: the Lasimos vase). Probably all of these vases were previously in the Valletta collection.

APPENDIX OF TYPES OF TOMBS

The following is a description of the most common types of tombs found in Apulia and Lucania. Usage of these terms is not always entirely consistent, and the distinction between particular types (e.g., cassa and semicamera tombs) is, to a certain extent, a matter of opinion.

Tomba a Fossa A simple “trench” grave, dug into the earth or bedrock, depending on the local geology. The size and shape of these tombs varies widely, from rectangular to circular and various irregular forms; a deep circular grave is sometimes known as a pozzo (well) tomb. A tomba a fossa is most often covered with a slab of unworked stone, but coverings of smaller slabs, pebbles, and wood are also attested.

Enchytrismos A burial inside a large ceramic container, usually an impasto pithos. The form is almost universally reserved for neonates, and can be found in cemeteries (usually close to an adult fossa grave) or underneath the floors of houses.

Tomba a Sarcofago The sarcophagus, box-shaped, is cut from a single piece of stone, and closed with a carefully cut slab. Sarcophagi are sometimes painted red inside, or given a band of red paint. Outside the sarcophagus, usually on one of the short sides, a ripostiglio is frequently found. This is a smaller, often square receptacle, its function being to contain part of the grave goods. Ceramics are generally found in the ripostiglio, and more personal items inside the sarcophagus itself. Sarcophagi were frequently reused, often repeatedly, with earlier depositions pushed to the side or buried alongside the sarcophagus in small pits.

303

304

efh

The Italic People of Ancient Apulia

Tomba a Cassa (Sometimes Called a Cista Litica) A “box” tomb, its walls and roof formed by carefully worked slabs of stone. The tomba a cassa tends to replace the tomba a sarcofago in the fourth century BC. Being generally larger, they were less often furnished with a ripostiglio, and earlier burials were less likely to be moved outside the tomb when new depositions were made.

Tomba a Semicamera “Semichamber” tombs can be considered as enlarged versions of the tomba a cassa. They are usually rectangular and constructed of slabs or blocks, and are always entered from above. Such tombs are often plastered and painted, sometimes with figured decoration, the Tomb of the Dancers at Ruvo being a notable example.

Tomba a Grotticella These “little caves” were underground chambers, excavated in a circular, oval, or subrectangular form. The ceilings were not normally high enough to accommodate a person standing upright. Grotticelle were normally entered from a dromos, a sloping passage sometimes provided with stairs; more rarely they were entered through a shaft (pozzetto). These tombs were closed with slabs of stone, which were quite easily moved; many were used over long periods, presumably as family crypts, with second and third chambers sometimes added.

Tomba a Camera Chamber tombs are larger and more regular than the tombe a grotticelle; they are known from Taranto already in the Archaic period. Carved from stone and sometimes partly constructed from blocks, they were entered from a dromos and are restricted to zones where the geology is favorable: where there was stone close to the surface that was soft enough to carve. The most spectacular, multichambered examples are to be found in Daunia (especially Canosa and Arpi), but chamber tombs are sprinkled around South Italy, at sites such as Gravina, Ruvo, Egnazia, and Rudiae. They are frequently plastered and painted with figures, and may have sculptural decoration as well.

WORKS CITED

Abbreviations CVA = Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum LCS = A. D. Trendall, The Red-Figured Vases of Lucania, Campania and Sicily (Oxford, 1967) LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae RVAp = A. D. Trendall and A. Cambitoglou, The Red-Figured Vases of Apulia (Oxford 1978–82) Other abbreviations for books, series and journals are those used by the American Journal of Archaeology Abbott, J.T. 2011. “Geomorphology and Geoarchaeology of the Metapontino.” In The Chora of Metaponto 3: Archaeological Field Survey, Bradano to Basento, edited by J.C. Carter and A. Prieto, 31–70. Austin: University of Texas Press. Adam, A.-M. 1982. “Remarques sur une s´erie de casques de bronze, ou Tarente et les barbares dans la deuxi`eme moiti´e du IVe s. av. J.-C.” ME´FRA 94:7–32. Aitchison, J., C. Barcel´ o-Vidal, and V. Pawlowsky-Glahn. 2002. “Some comments on compositional analysis in archaeometry, in particular the fallacies in Tangri and Wright’s dismissal of logratio analysis.” Archaeometry 44:295–304. Alessio, A., M.T. Giannotta, and G. Quarta. 2001. “Tombe dipinte di Manduria. Dati archeologici e analisi petrografiche.” Taras 21.2:61–78. Allan, W. 2000. The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ampolo, C. 2006. “Diplomazia e identit`a culturale delle comunit`a: la testimonianza dei caducei.” In Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico, VIII-III sec.a.C., edited by C. Ampolo, 181–9. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale. Andreassi, G. 1987. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Puglia nel 1986.” AttiTaranto 26:625–72. 1992. “L’ipogeo varrese.” In Principi imperatori vescovi: duemila anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 238–40. Venice: Marsilio. 1996. Jatta di Ruvo. La famiglia, la collezione, il museo nazionale. Bari: Adda. Andreassi, G., and F. Radina, eds. 1988. Archeologia di una citt`a. Bari dalle origini al X secolo. Bari: Edipuglia. Andriani, R. and F. Laricchia. 2007. Gravina-Botromagno: la necropoli di Accurso: scavi 1972. Bari: Mario Adda. 305

306

efh

Works Cited

Andronikos, M. 1969. Bεργίνα. 1. τo νεκρoταφείoν των τύμβων. Vol. 1. Athens: Archaiologik¯e Hetaireia. Antonacci Sanpaolo, E. 1999. “L’archeologia del culto tra Luceria e Tiati: le forme del simbolismo del stipe del Belvedere.” In Lucera. Topografia storica, archeologia arte, edited by E. Antonacci Sanpaolo, 29–51. Bari: Adda. Aversa, F. Forthcoming. “Aspetti e momenti dell’interazione culturale nel Golfo di Taranto alla luce di alcuni documenti epigrafici.” In Identit`a e contatto. Greci e non Greci nel Golfo di Taranto tra colonizzazione e romanizzazione, edited by M. Lombardo and F. Frisone. Galatina: Congedo. Baggio, M. 2004. I gesti della seduzione. Tracce di comunicazione non-verbale nella ceramica greca tra VI e IV secolo a. C. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 2008. “Il mondo al femminile nel repertorio figurativo apulo. La prospettiva degli oggetti.” In Vasi, immagini, collezionismo. La collezione di vasi Intesa Sanpaolo e i nuovi indirizzi di ricerca sulla ceramica greca e magno greca. Atti delle giornate di studio (Milano 2007), edited by G. Sena Chiesa, 285–310. Milan: Cisalpino. Bailo Modesti, G. 1980. Cairano nell’et`a arcaica. L’abitato e la necropoli. Naples: Istituto universitaro orientale, Seminario di studi del mondo classico. 1981. “Il periodo arcaico.” In Storia del Vallo Diano I, edited by B. D’Agostino, 85–122. Salerno: Pietro Laveglia. Bailo Modesti, G., and P. Gastaldi, eds. 1999. Prima di Pithecusa. I pi` u antichi materiali greci del golfo di Salerno. Catalogo della Mostra, 29 Aprile 1999, Pontecagnano Faiano, Museo Nazionale dell’Agro Picentino. Naples: Arte Tipografica. Barresi, S. 2005. “I vasi del Gruppo Intermedio e la prima fase della ceramografia italiota in ambito ionico: proposta di analisi e brevi considerazioni.” In La c´eramique apulienne: bilan et perspectives; actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples, edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 143–53. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. Baxter, M.J. 1994. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2001. “Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology.” In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, 685–94. New York: John Wiley. 2008. “Mathematics, Statistics and Archaeometry: The past 50 years or so.” Archaeometry 50(6):968–82. Baxter, M.J., and C.E. Buck. 2000. “Data handling and statistical analysis.” In Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, edited by E. Ciliberto and G. Spoto, 681–746. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Baxter, M.J., and I.C. Freestone. 2006. “Log-Ratio Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeometry.” Archaeometry 48(3):511–31. Baxter, M.J., and C.M. Jackson. 2001. “Variable Selection in Artefact Compositional Studies.” Archaeometry 43(2):253–68. Beazley, J.D. 1952. “The New York ‘Phlyax-Vase.’” AJA 56:193–95. 1955. “Hydria Fragments in Corinth.” Hesperia 24:308–15. Beazley, J.D, and B. Ashmole. 1932. Greek Sculpture and Painting to the End of the Hellenistic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beger, L. 1696. Thesaurus Brandenburgicus selectus: sive Gemmarum et numismatum Graecorum, in Cimeliarchio Electorali Brandenburgico, elegantiorum series, commentario illustratae. 3 vols. Coloniae Marchicae: Typis et impensis electoralibus, excudit Ulricus Liebpert.

Works Cited

Berloco, T. 1966. “Reperimenti e scavi archeologici nel territorio di Altamura.” Altamura 8:179–205. 1967. “Ritrovamenti archeologici nel territorio di Altamura.” Altamura 9:93–8. 1969. “Tomba a pozzetto con corredo di ceramica di tipo geometrico-peuceta.” Altamura 11:93–103. Bernab` o Brea, L. 1940. “Taranto. Rinvenimenti nella necropoli dal 12 novembre 1938 a 31 maggio 1939.” NSc 1:426–505. Bernab` o Brea, L., and M. Cavalier. 1997. La ceramica figurata della Sicilia e della Magna Grecia nella Lipari del IV sec.a.C. Milan: Oreste Ragusi. Bernardini, M. 1934. “Melendugno. Scavi a Roca.” NSc 10:182–99. 1955. La Rudiae Salentina. Lecce: Salentina. 1956. “Gli scavi di Rocavecchia dal 1945 al 1954.” Studi Salentini 1:20–65. 1957. “Penisola salentina. Alessano.” NSc 11:404–7. 1959. Lupiae, Lecce: Centro di Studi Salentini. Bianco, S. 1994. “La necropoli di contrada San Brancato di S. Arcangelo (PZ),” Studi di Antichit`a 7:111–136. ed. 1996a. Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale. Naples: Electa. 1996b. “L’et`a del Ferro tra Agri e Sinni.” In Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale, edited by S. Bianco, 31–6. Naples: Electa. 1999a. “Gli Enotri delle vallate dell’Agri e del Sinni tra VII e V secolo a.C.” In Storia della Basilicata, edited by D. Adamesteanu, 359–90. Bari: Laterza. 1999b. “La prima et`a del Ferro.” In Storia della Basilicata, edited by D. Adamesteanu, 137–82. Bari: Laterza. Billig, E. 1980. “Die B¨ uhne mit austauschbaren Kulissen” OpAth 13:35–83. Bishop, R. L., V. Canouts, P. L. Crown, and S. P. DeAtley. 1990. “Sensitivity, Precision and Accuracy: Their Roles in Ceramic Compositional Data Bases.” AmerAnt 55: 537–46. Blundo, A.G. 2008. “Ceramica a vernice nera.” In Salpia vetus. Archeologia di una citt`a lagunare, le campagne di scavo del 1967–1968 e 1978–1978, edited by E. Lippolis and T. Giammateo, 382–6. Venosa: Osanna. Borea, E. and C. Gasparri, eds. 2000. L’idea del bello. Viaggio per Roma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori. Rome: de Luca. Borgongino, M. 2006. Archeobotanica: reperti vegetali da Pompei e dal territorio vesuviano. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Bottini, A. 1979. “Una nuova necropoli nel Melfese e alcuni problemi del periodo arcaico del mondo indigeno.” AION 1:77–94. 1981. “Ruvo del Monte (Potenza) – Necropoli in contrada S. Antonio: scavi 1977.” NSc 35:184–288. 1982. Principi guerrieri della Daunia del VII secolo. Le tombe principesche di Lavello. Bari: De Donato. 1984.” La documentazione archeologica del Melfese.” In La civilt`a dei Dauni nel quadro del mondo italico: Atti del XIII Convegno di studi Etruschi e Italici, Manfredonia 21–27 giugno 1980, 27–33. Florence: Olschki. 1986. “Il mondo indigeno della Basilicata nel VII sec.a.C.” In Siris-Polieion: fonti letterarie e nuova documentazione archeologica edited by A. De Siena and M. Tagliente 157–66. Galatina: Congedo. 1989. “Il mondo indigeno nel V secolo a.C. – Due studi.” Bollettino Storico della Basilicata 5:161–80.

egh

307

308

efh

Works Cited

1990. “Banzi: una tomba infantile e le Antesterie,” PP 45:206–20. 1991. “Armi e strumenti.” In Forentum II: L’acropoli in et`a classica, edited by A. Bottini and M.P. Fresa, 97–112. Venosa: Osanna. 2002. “Tra Oriente e Occidente: un gruppo di recipienti metallici da Lavello,” Ostraka 11:81–91. Bottini, A. and M.P. Fresa, eds. 1991. Forentum II: L’acropoli in et`a classica. Venosa: Osanna. Bottini, A., M.P. Fresa, and M. Tagliente. 1990. “L’evoluzione della struttura di un centro daunio fra VII e IIII secolo: l’esempio di Forentum.” In Italici in Magna Grecia: lingua, insediamenti e strutture, edited by M. Tagliente, 233–64. Venosa: Osanna. Bottini, P., ed. 1997. Il Museo Archeologico dell’Alta Val d’Agri. Lavello: Alfagrafica Volonnino. ed. 1998. Greci e indigeni tra Noce e Lao. Catalogo della mostra di Rivello. Lavello: Alfagrafica Volonnino. Bradford, J.S.P. 1957. “The ancient city of Arpi in Apulia.” Antiquity 26:167–9. Braun, E. 1836. “Scavi: regno di Napoli.” BdI 161–9. Brooks, R.T., A.M. Small, and J.B. Ward-Perkins. 1966. “Trial excavations on the site of Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia.” PBSR 34:131–50. Brun, J.-P. 2004. Arch´eologie du vin et de l’huile de la pr´ehistoire `a l’´epoque hell´enistique. Paris: Errance. Budd, P., A. M. Pollard, B. Scaife, and R. G. Thomas. 1995. “Oxhide ingots, recycling and the Mediterranean metals trade.” JMA 8(1):1–32. Budd, P., R. Haggerty, A. M. Pollard, B. Scaife, and R. G. Thomas. 1996. “Rethinking the quest for provenance.” Antiquity 70:168–74. Bulle, H. 1934. Eine Skenographie. Berlin: de Gruyter. Burgers, G.-J.L.M. 1998. Constructing Messapian Landscapes: Settlement Dynamics, Social Organization and Culture Contact in the Margins of Graeco-Roman Italy. Amsterdam: Gieben. Burn, L. 1998. “Figured Pottery.” In The Chora of Metaponto: The Necropoleis, edited by J.C. Carter, 592–640. Austin: University of Texas Press. Buxeda Garrig´ os, J., M.A. Cau Ontiveros, and F. Gracia Alonso. 1999. “Caracterizaci´ on arqueom´etrica de la cer´amica ´atica del palacio-santuario de Cancho Roano (Zalamea de la Serena, Badajoz).” Trabajos de Prehistoria 56:157–68. Buxeda Garrig´ os, J., R.E. Jones, B. Kilikoglou, S.T. Levi, Y. Maniatis, J. Mitchell, L. Vagnetti, K. Wardle, and A. Andreou. 2003. “Technology transfer at the periphery of the Mycenaean World: the cases of Mycenaean pottery found in central Macedonia (Greece) and the plain of Sybaris (Italy).” Archaeometry 45(2):263–84. Cagianelli, C. 2006. “La collezione di antichit`a di Anton Francesco Gori.” AttiFir 71:100–167. Cambitoglou, A. 1975. “Iphigeneia in Tauris: The question of the influence of the Euripidean play in the representations of the subject in Attic and Italiote vasepainting.” AntK 13:56–66. Cambitoglou, A. and M. Turner. 2008. CVA. Australia. The Nicholson Museum, The University of Sydney. The red figure pottery of Apulia. The Nicholson Museum Fascicule 1. Sydney: Nicholson Museum. Cambitoglou, A., C. Aellen, and J. Chamay. 1986. Le Peintre de Darius et son milieu. Vases grecs d’Italie m´eridionale. Exposition de c´eramiques italiotes, Gen`eve avril–aoˆ ut 1986. Geneva: Association Hellas et Roma.

Works Cited

Camp, J. 1986. The Athenian Agora, Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London: Thames and Hudson. Canosa, M.G. 1986. “Il materano.” In Siris Polieion: fonti letterarie e nuova documentazione archeologica, edited by A. De Siena and M. Tagliente, 171–182. Galatina: Congedo. 2007. Una tomba principesca di Timmari. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Carpenter, T.H. 2003. “The Native Market for Red-Figure Vases in Apulia.” MAAR 48:1–24. 2009. “Prolegomenon to the study of Apulian red-figure pottery.” AJA 113(1):27–38. 2011. “Dionysos and the Blessed on Apulian Red-Figure Vases.” In A Different God: Dionysos in Ancient Polytheism, edited by R. Schlesier, 253–261. Berlin: De Gruyter. Carter, J.C. 1998a. “Burial Rites and Tomb Types.” In The Chora of Metaponto: The Necropoleis, edited by J.C. Carter, 57–113. Austin: University of Texas Press. ed. 1998b. The Chora of Metaponto: The Necropoleis. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2006. Discovering the Greek Countryside at Metaponto. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Carter, J.C. and A. Prieto, eds. 2011. The Chora of Metaponto 3: Archaeological Field Survey, Bradano to Basento. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cassano, R., ed. 1992. Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa. Venice: Marsilio. Cassano, R. and M. Corrente. 1992. “La Necropoli.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 145–8.Venice: Marsilio. Cassimatis, H. 1993. Le l´eb`es `a anses dress´ees italiote `a travers la collection du Louvre. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. 1998. “Le miroir dans les repr´esentations funeraires apuliennes.” MEFRA 110(1):297–350. Castellano, A., A. D’Innocenzo, C. Pagliara, and F. Raho. 1996. “Composition and Origin of Iapygian Pottery from Roca Vecchia, Italy.” Archaeometry 38(1):59– 65. Cataldi, S. 1990. Prospettive occidentali allo scoppio della guerra del Peloponneso. Pisa: ETS. Chamay, J. and Ch. Courtois. 2002. L’art premier des Iapyges. C´eramique antique d’Italie m´eridionale. Naples: Electa. Chieco-Bianchi Martini, A.M. 1964. “Conversano (Bari). Scavi in via T. Pantaleo.” NSc 18:100–76. Ciancio, A. 1985. “Tombe arcaico-classiche nei territori di Noicattaro e di Valenzano, Bari. Scavi 1978–1981.” Taras 5:45–107. ed. 1986. Tombe a semicamera sull’acropoli di Monte Sannace. Scavo e restauro. Fasano: Schena. 1997. Silb´ıon: una citt`a tra greci e indigeni. La documentazione archeologica dal territorio di Gravina in Puglia dall’ottavo al quinto sec a.C. Bari: Levante. 1998. “Il commercio attico.” In Andar per mare. Puglia e Mediterraneo tra mito e storia, edited by R. Cassano, 62–3. Bari: Adda. 2005. “Recenti acquisizioni di ceramica italiota da Gravina in Puglia.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, Actes de la Table ronde de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 47–57. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard.

egh

309

310

efh

Works Cited

2007. “Ceramica a figure rosse apula (antica e media).” In Rutigliano I: La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio, scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II, 2, edited by E.M. De Juliis, 407–430. Taranto: Scorpione. Ciancio, A, and V. L’Abbate, eds. 2013. Norba – Conversano: archeologia e storia della citt`a e del territorio. Bari: M. Adda. Ciancio, A. and F. Radina. 1983. “Madonna delle Grazie (Rutigliano) Campagna di scavo 1979.” Taras 3:7–61. Ciancio, A., F. Galeandro, and P. Palmentola. 2009. “Monte Sannace e l’urbanizzazione della Peucezia.” In Verso la citt`a: Forme insediative in Lucania e nel mondo italico fra IV e III sec. a. C: Atti delle giornate di Studio, Venosa, 13–14 maggio 2006, edited by M. Osanna, 307–26. Venosa: Osanna. Ciaraldi, M. 1997. “Oria, Monte Papalucio: i resti vegetali delle offerte di et`a arcaica ed ellenistica.” In Metodologie di catalogazione dei beni archeologici, edited by F. D’Andria, 211–28. Lecce and Bari: Edipuglia. Ciliberto, E., and G. Spoto, eds. 2000. Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Cipriani, M., F. Longo, and M. Viscione, eds. 1996. Poseidonia e i Lucani. Naples: Electa. Coarelli, F. 1995. “Vino e ideologia nella Roma arcaica.” In In Vino Veritas, edited by O. Murray and M. Tecus¸an, 196–213. London: British School at Rome. Cocchiaro, A. 1981. “Contributo per la carta archeologica del territorio a Sud-Est di Taranto.” Taras 1.1:53–75. 1987. “Ceglie Messapico (Brindisi), via Trappeto del Capitolo.” Taras 7.1–2: 137–8. 1988. “Mesagne (Brindisi).Via Alto Adige.” Taras 8.1–2:143. 1989a. Nuovi documenti dalla necropoli meridionale di Mesagne, Fasano: Grafischena. 1989b. “Rinvenimenti recenti a Oria.” In Atti del IX Convegno dei Comuni Messapici, Peuceti e Dauni. Oria, 24–25 novembre 1984, 117–38. Bari: Tipografica. 1994. “Tutela e conoscenza di Valesio.” In Scritti di Antichit`a in memoria di Benita Sciarra Bardaro, edited by C. Marangio and A. Nitti, 115–34. Fasano: Schena. 2000. Tombe a camera di Egnazia. Valenzano: C.D.S. 2001. “Vasi e non solo. Corredi funerari di Egnazia dal Museo di Taranto.” Taras 21.1:182–4. 2006. “Le necropoli.” In Museo del territorio “Ugo Granafei,” edited by A. Cocchiaro, A. Galiano, L. Giardino, A. Zingariello, 34–49. Lecce: Jump Consulting. Colangelo, L. 2009. “Le necropoli arcaiche di Torre Satriano. Distributione delle tombe e rituale funerario.” Siris 10:7–19. Colivicchi, F. 2004. “L’altro vino. Vino, cultura e identit`a nella Puglia e Basilicata anelleniche.” Siris 5:23–68. 2006a. “ Kantharoi attici per il vino degli Apuli.” In Il greco, il barbaro e la ceramica attica. Immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni, vol. 3, edited by F. Giudice and R. Panvini, 117–30. Rome: L’Erma Bretschneider. 2006b. “Lo specchio e lo strigile. Scambio di simboli e scambio fra i sessi.” In L’image antique et son interpretation, edited by F.-H. Massa-Peirault, 317:277–300. ´ cole franc¸aise de Rome. Rome: E 2009. “Warriors and citizens. Models of self-representation in native Basilicata.” In Verso la citt`a: Forme insediative in Lucania e nel mondo italico fra IV e III sec. a.

Works Cited

C: Atti delle giornate di Studio, Venosa, 13–14 maggio 2006, edited by M. Osanna, 69–88. Venosa: Osanna. Collina, R. 1985–1988. “Materiali da una necropoli di Buccino.” Apollo 6:33–118. Conte, I. 2003. Collezioni e Archeologia. Ceglie Messapica: Associazione Culturale Cinquedicembre. Cook, R.M. 1972. Greek Painted Pottery. 2nd ed. London: Methuen. Corrente, M. 1991. “Canosa di Puglia, Toppicelli.” Taras 11.2:245–47. 2003. Canusium. L’ipogeo dei serpenti piumati. Canosa di Puglia: Serimed. ed. 2004. 1912. Un ipogeo al confine. La Tomba Varrese. Canosa di Puglia: Serimed. 2005. “Produzione e circolazione della ceramica a figure rosse a Canosa e nel territorio: i dati delle recenti scoperte.” In La c´eramique apulienne Bilan et perspectives, Actes de la Table ronde de Naples (30 nov.–2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 59–76. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. 2009. “La formazione della citt`a di Canusium.” In Verso la citt`a: Forme insediative in Lucania e nel mondo italico fra IV e III sec. a. C: Atti delle giornate di Studio, Venosa, 13–14 maggio 2006, 391–413. Venosa: Osanna. Corrente, M. and L. Maggio. 2008. “La Daunia Vetus oggi. Aspetti della cultura di Minervino Murge e di Ascoli Satriano dall’et`a del Ferro all’et`a ellenistica.” In Storia e archeologia della Daunia in ricordo di Marina Mazzei, edited by G. Volpe, M.J. Strazzulla, and D. Leone, 73–93. Bari: Edipuglia. Costamagna, L. 1983. “Taranto: Indagini archeologiche nell’area di piazza Garibaldi.” Taras 3:101–123. Cracolici, V. 2003. I sostegni di fornace dal kerameikos di Metaponto. Bari: Edipuglia. Cropp, M. J. 2000. Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 2003. “Hypsipyle and Athens.” In Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social Life of Myth, Word and Images in Ancient Greece, edited by E. Csapo and M. Miller, 129–45. Oxford: Oxbow. Csapo, E. 1986. “A Note on the W¨ urzburg Bell-crater H 5697 (Telephus Travestitus).” Phoenix 40:379–92. 2004. “Some Social and Economic Conditions Behind the Rise of the Acting Profession in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC.” In Le Statut d’acteur dans l’antiquit´e grecque et romaine, edited by C. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet, and S. Milaweizi, 222–248. Tours: Presses universitaires Franc¸ois-Rabelais. 2010. Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theater. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Cuomo Di Caprio, N. 2007. Ceramica in Archeologia. Vol.2: antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Curzio, S. 1997. “Testimonianze archeologiche dall’ampliamento e ristrutturazione della strada S. Stefano – S. Angelo (scavi 1993–1995).” In Silb´ıon: una citt`a tra greci e indigeni. La documentazione archeologica dal territorio di Gravina in Puglia dall’ottavo al quinto sec a.C., edited by A. Ciancio, 267–77. Bari: Levante Editori. D’Agostino, B. 2000. “Arch¨aologie der Gr¨aber: Tod und Grabritus.” In Klassiche Arch¨alogie: Eine Einf¨ uhrung, edited by A.H. Borbein, T. H¨ olsher, and P. Zanker, 313–31. Berlin: Reimer. D’Amicis, A. 1994. “I sistemi rituali: l’incinerazione.” In La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica tra VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1., edited by E. Lippolis, 148–73. Taranto: La Colomba. 1996. “La ceramica sovraddipinta policroma: Taranto.” In I Greci in Occidente. Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 433–45. Naples: Electa.

egh

311

312

efh

Works Cited

2002. “Discussione.” In Taranto e il Mediterraneo, AttiTaranto 41:296–8. 2005. “Ceramica apula a figure rosse e sovraddipinta: rapporto di produzione e cronologia.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, Actes de la Table ronde de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 163–71. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. D’Amicis, A. and A. Tempesta. 2009. “Catalogo delle opere in Mostra”, In La musica nella Japigia di Aristosseno, 22–104. Lecce: Officine Grafiche di MoviMedia. D’Amicis, A., A Dell’Aglio, E. Lippolis, and G. Maruggi. 1991. Vecchi scavi, nuovi restauri. Taranto: Scorpione. D’Andria, F. 1975. “Scavi nella zona del Kerameikos (1973).” In Metaponto I, NSc Suppl. 29:355–452. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. ed. 1978. Leuca. Galatina: Congedo. 1980. “I materiali del V sec. a.C. nel ceramico di Metaponto e alcuni risultati delle analisi sulle argille.” In Attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata, 1964–1977. Scritti in onore di Dinu Adamesteanu, 117–45. Matera: Meta. 1984. “Documenti del commercio arcaico tra Jonio ed Adriatico.” AttiTaranto 24:321–77. 1988. “Messapi e Peuceti.” In Ital`ıa omnium terrarum alumna, edited by G. Pugliese Caratelli, 653–715. Milan: Scheiwiller. ed. 1990. Archeologia dei Messapi. Bari: Edipuglia. 1991. “Insediamenti e territorio: l’et`a storica.” AttiTaranto 20:393–478. 1999. “Dall’et`a del Ferro al periodo romano.” In L’infanzia e le sue storie in Terra d’Otranto, edited by A. Semeraro and E. Albano, 37–57. Lecce: Conte. 2004. “Lo Zeus nella trozzella di Copenhagen.” In Klaohi Zis. Il culto di Zeus a Ugento, edited by F. D’Andria and A. Dell’Aglio, 23–28. Cavallino: Moscata Associati. ed. 2005. Cavallino: pietre, case e citt`a della Messapia arcaia. Brindisi: Progettipercomunicare. D’Ercole, M.C. 1990. La stipe votiva del Belvedere a Lucera. Rome: Bretschneider. 2000. “Immagini dall’Adriatico arcaico. Su alcuni temi iconografici delle stele daunie.” Ostraka 11(2):327–49. D’Hancarville, P.F.H. 1766–1767. Antiquit´es ´etrusques, grecques et romaines tir´ees du cabinet de M. Hamilton, 4 vols. Naples: Franc¸ois Morelli. Dally, O. 2000. Canosa, localit`a San Leucio. Untersuchungen su Akkulturationsprozessen vom 6. bis zum 2. Jh. v. Chr. am Beispiel eines daunischen Heiligtums. Heidelberg: Verlag Arch¨aologie und Geschichte. Day, P.M. and B. Kilikoglou. 2001. “Analysis of ceramics from the kiln.” In A Late Minoan IA Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production, edited by J.W. Shaw, 111–55. Hesperia Supplement 30, Princeton: ASCSA. Day, P.M., E. Kiriatzi, A. Tsolakidou, and V. Kilikoglou. 1999. “Group Therapy in Crete: A Comparison Between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Minoan Pottery.” JAS 26:1025–36. de Cazanove, O. 1988. “Jupiter, Liber et le vin latin.” RHR 205: 245–65. 1991. “θεός ἐν ἀσκῷ. Osservazioni sui meccanismi di trasmissione della figura di Dionysos all’Italia centrale arcaica.” In Dionysos, mito e mistero. Atti del convegno internazionale, Comacchio, 3–5 novembre 1989, edited by F. Berti, 171–84. Ferrara: Liberty House. De Juliis, E.M. 1973. “Ordona (Foggia). Scavi nella necropoli.” NSc 27:285–399. 1977. La ceramica geometrica della Daunia. Florence: Sansoni.

Works Cited

1979. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Puglia.” AttiTaranto 18:419–37. 1981a. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Puglia – 1980.”AttiTaranto 20:353–79. 1981b. “Turi (Bari).” StEtr 49:473. 1988. Gli Iapigi. Storia e civilt`a della Puglia preromana. Milan: Longanesi. 1990. L’ipogeo dei Vimini di Canosa. Bari: Edipuglia. 1991. “L’olla daunia con labbro ad imbuto: Origine, forma e sviluppo.” ArchCl 43:893–913. 1992a. “La ceramica listata.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 245–248. Venice: Marsilio. 1992b. ”L’ipogeo dei vimini.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 350–381. Venice: Marsilio. 1992c. La tomba del vaso dei Niobidi di Arpi. Bari: Edipuglia. 1994. Dauni vasi. EAA Secondo supplemento 1971–1994, 353–54. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1995. La ceramica geometrica della Peucezia. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1997. Mille anni di ceramica in Puglia, Bari: Edipuglia. 2001. “Ruvo di Puglia.” In Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche XVII, 158–78. Pisa: Scuola normale superiore. 2002. La ceramica sovraddipinta apula. Bari: Edipuglia. 2004. “Origine della ceramica italiota a figure rosse e sua diffusione in Puglia.” In Miti greci. Archeologia e pittura dalla Magna Grecia al collezionismo, edited by G. Sena Chiesa and E. A. Arslan, 145–9. Milan: Mondadori Electa. 2007a. “Ceramica sovraddipinta.” In Rutigliano I. La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio. Scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II, 2, edited by E.M. De Juliis, 527–40. Taranto: Scorpione. ed. 2007b. Rutigliano I. La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio. Scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II, 2. Taranto: Scorpione. 2010. “La Peucezia: caratteri generali.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L. Todisco, 151–68. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. De Juliis, E.M., F. Galeandro, and P. Palmentola. 2006. La ceramica geometrica della Messapia. Bari: La Biblioteca. De Juliis, G. 1981. “Ricerche d’archivio. Appunti su una quadreria fiorentina: la collezione dei marchesi Riccardi.” Paragone 32.375:57–92. de Luynes, H. and F.J. Debacq. 1833. M´etaponte. Paris: Renouard. De Palma, G. 1992. “La ceramica dorata.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 302–309. Venice: Marsilio. De Siena, A. 1992. Da Leukania a Lucania. La Lucania centro-orientale fra Pirro e i GiulioClaudii. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato. 2007. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2006.” AttiTaranto 46:407–63. 2008. “Osservazioni su alcune tombe monumentali arcaiche della necropoli occidentale.” BdA 143:1–14. 2009. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2008.” AttiTaranto 48. De Simone, C. 1982. “ Su Tabaras (Femm. -A) e la diffusione di culti misteriosofici nella Messapia.” StEtr 50:177–97. 1989. “Gli studi recenti sulla lingua messapica.” In Ital`ıa omnium terrarum parens, edited by C. Ampolo, 651–8. Milan: Libri Scheiwiller.

egh

313

314

efh

Works Cited

1990. “La lingua messapica oggi: un bilancio critico.”AttiTaranto 20:297–322. De Simone, C., and S. Marchesini. 2002. Monumenta linguae messapicae 1–2. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Dearden, C. 1999. “Plays for Export.” Phoenix 53:222–48. Dell’Aglio, A. 1994. “La documentazione d’archivio e la bibliografia.” In La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica dal VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1., edited by E. Lippolis, 15–37. Taranto: La Colomba. 1996. “Taranto. L’argilla.” In I Greci in Occidente. Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 50–79. Naples: Electa. 2001a. “La forma della citt`a: Aree e strutture di produzione artigianale.” AttiTaranto 41:171–193. 2001b. “La proschoros tarentina.” AttiTaranto 41:19–42. Dell’Aglio A. and E. Lippolis. 1992. Ginosa e Laterza. La documentazione archeologica dal VII al III secolo a.C. Scavi 1900–1980. Catalogo del Museo nazionale archeologico di Taranto, II, 1. Taranto: La Colomba. Dell’Aglio, A. and G. Russo. 1988. “Via Leonida 52.” Taras 8:129–130. 1989. “Via Leonida 52.” Taras 9:212–13. Delli Ponti, G. 1996. “Vaste – Poggiardo: La necropoli del Fondo Aia.” Studi di Antichit`a 9:99–214. Dempster, T. 1723–1724 Thomae Dempsteri de Etruria Regali libri VII. Nunc primum editi curante Thoma Coke. 2 vols. Florence: Apud Joannem Cajetanum Tartinium, & Sanctem Franchium. Dennis, G. 1883. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. London: J. Murray. Denoyelle, M. 1993. “Sur la personnalit´e du Peintre d’Arn` o. Un point de jonction entre Grande-Gr`ece et Etrurie” RA 1:53–70. 1998. CVA France, 38. Mus´ee du Louvre, 25. Paris: De Boccard 2002a. “Il mito greco in Occidente: Metaponto ed Herakleia.” In Immagine e mito nella Basilicata antica, edited by M.L. Nava and M. Osanna, 104–12. Venosa: Osanna. 2002b. “Style individuel, style local et centres de production: retour sur le crat`ere des ‘Karneia.’” MEFRA 114:587–609. 2005. “L’approche stylistique: bilan et perspectives.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 103–12. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. 2008. “La ceramica. Appunti sulla nascita delle produzioni italiote.” AttiTaranto 47:339–50. Denoyelle, M., and M. Iozzo. 2009. La c´eramique grecque d’Italie M´eridionale et de Sicile. Productions coloniales et apparent´ees du VIIIe au IIIe si`ecle av. J.-C. Paris: Picard. Denoyelle, M. and F Silvestrelli. 2013. “From Tarporley to Dolon: The Ramifications of a Reattribution for the ‘New York Goose Vase’ (Early South Italian Vase-painting),” Metropolitan Museum Journal. 48:59–71. Denoyelle, M., E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, eds. 2005. La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000). Naples: Centre Jean B´erard.

Works Cited

Dentzer, J.-M. 1982. Le motif du banquet couch´e dans le proche-orient et le monde grec du VIIe ´ cole franc¸aise de Rome. au IVe si`ecle avant J.-C. Rome: E Depalo, M.R. 1987. Conversano: rinvenimenti archeologici in via Japigia. In Storia e cultura in Terra di Bari. Galatina: Congedo. 1989. “Le necropoli della Peucezia nel IV secolo a.C. Elementi di continuit`a e modifiche.” In Archeologia e territorio. L’area peuceta, edited by A. Ciancio. Gioia del Colle. Depalo, M. and P. Labellarte. 1987. “Ruvo di Puglia, Recenti scoperte in area urbana.” In Epigrafia e Territorio Politica e Societ`a. Temi di antichit`a romane, 2:107– 32. Descamps-Lequime, S., C. Bastien, and M. Denoyelle, eds. 2008. De Pomp´ei `a Malmaison, les Antiques de Jos´ephine. Paris: R´eunion des Mus´ees Nationaux. Descoeudres, J-P., and R. Kearsley. 1983. “Greek Pottery at Veii: Another Look.” BSA 78:9–53. Di Bari, V. 1981. La ceramica attica a figure rose in Puglia nel V secolo A.C., alcuni aspetti del problema commerciale.” RendLinc 36:197–210. Di Palo, F. 1987. Dalla Ruvo antica al Museo Archeologico Jatta. Fasano: Schena. Dobney, K. 2000. “The faunal remains from the Early Iron Age levels.” In Botromagno. Excavations and Survey at Gravina in Puglia 1979–1985, edited by R.D. Whitehouse, J.B. Wilkens, and E. Herring, 45–52. London: Accordia Research Institute. Donnarumma, R., and L. Tomay. 2000. “La necropoli di San Brancato di Tortora.” In Nella terra degli Enotri. Atti del convegno di studi, Tortora 18–19 aprile 1998, edited by G.F. La Torre and A. Colicelli, 49–59. Paestum: Pandemos. Donvito, A. 1988. Egnazia, dalle origini alla riscoperta archeologica. Fasano: Schena. Ducati, P. 1930. “Le anticaglie di L. F. Marsili.” In Memorie intorno a Luigi Ferdinando Marsili: pubblicate nel secondo centenario della morte per cura del Comitato Marsiliano. Bologna: Zanichelli Dunbabin, T. 1948. The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily and South Italy from the foundation of the Greek colonies to 480 B.C. Oxford: The Claredon Press. Easterling, P. 1994. “Euripides Outside Athens: A Speculative Note.” Illinois Classical Studies 19:73–80. 1997. “From Repertoire to Canon.” In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, edited by P. Easterling, 211–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elia, D. 2003. “L’offerta di sostanze alimentari liquide presso la tomba e l’uso rituale del cratere nelle necropoli greche d’Occidente.” Orizzonti 4:146–54. Elia, R. 2001. “Analysis of the Looting, Selling, and Collecting of Apulian Red-Figure Vases: a Quantitative Approach.” In Trade in Illicit Antiquities: the Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage, edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew, 145–53. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Fabbri, M., M. Mazzei, M. Osanna, and T. Virtuoso. 2000–2001. “Sacrificio e banchetto funebre nella Daunia preromana: l’area sacra di Ausculum,” Siris 3:23–105. Faedo L. and T. Frangemberg, eds. 2005. H. Tetius. Aedes Barberinae ad Quirinalem descriptae 1642. Descrizione di Palazzo Barberini al Quirinale; il palazzo, gli affreschi, le collezioni, la corte. Hieronymus Tetius. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale. Fantasia, U. 1972. “Le leggende di fondazione di Brindisi e alcuni aspetti della presenza greca nell’Adriatico.” AnnPisa 3(2):115–39. Favaretto, I. 1984. “I vasi italioti: la ceramica antica nelle collezioni venete del XVI secolo.” In Marco Mantova Benavides. Il suo museo e la cultura padovana del Cinquecento.

egh

315

316

efh

Works Cited

Atti della Giornata di Studio nel IV Centenario della morte, edited by I. Favaretto, 158–92. Padova: Accademia patavina di scienze lettere ed arti. 1986. “Le ‘Antichit`a profane’ di Giovanni Grevembroch: Disegni dall’antico nella Venezia del XVIII secolo.” AquilNost 57:597–616. 1990. Arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni venete al tempo della Serenissima. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 1991. “Raccolte di antichit`a a Venezia al tramonto della Serenissima: la collezione dei Nani di San Trovaso.” Xenia 21:77–92. 1993. “Collezioni di antichit`a a Venezia nel Cinquecento e la formazione dello Statuario Pubblico.” In Tesori di scultura greca a Venezia. raccolte private del ‘500 al Museo Archeologico, edited by I. Favaretto and G. Traversari, 10–34. Venice: Cartotecnica veneziana. 2001. “Ceramiche antiche nelle collezioni venete. Lo stato del problema e il punto sulla questione.” Hesper`ıa 14:157–69. Ferrandini Troisi, F. 2010. “Le iscrizioni greche e messapiche.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L Todisco, 131–140. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Fiammenghi, C.A. 1985. “La necropoli di Palinuro, Elementi per la ricostruzione di una comunit`a indigena del VI sec.a.C.” DialArch s. III(2):7–16. Fileri, E. 2001. “La stanza delle terrecotte del museo del cardinale Gualtieri.” ArchCl 52(2):343–84. Folk, R.L. 2011. “Geologic Background of the Metapontino.” In The Chora of Metaponto 3. Archaeological Field Survey, Bradano to Basento, edited by J.C. Carter and A. Prieto, 3–30. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fontannaz, D. 2002. “Discussione. ”AttiTaranto 41:419–21. 2005. “La c´eramique proto-apulienne de Tarente: probl`emes et perspectives d’une recontextualisation.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Deyonelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 125–42. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. 2008. “L’entre-deux-mondes. Orph´ee et Eurydice sur une hydrie proto-italiote du sanctuaire de la source `a Saturo.” AntK 51:41–72. Forthcoming. “La c´eramique italiote `a figures rouges.” In Archaeology of Apulia, in honour of M. Mazzei, edited by D. Graepler. Rome: DAI. Forti, L. 1965. La ceramica di Gnathia. Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli. 1974. “Note sulla ceramica geometrica della Peucezia.” Archivio Storico Pugliese 27:123–60. 1979. “I pi` u recenti studi sulla ceramica messapica.” Archivio Storico Pugliese 32:3–25. Franco, C. 2003. Senza ritegno. Il cane e al donna nell’immaginario della Grecia antica. Bologna: Il Mulino. Franzoni, C. 2002, “Atlante.” In I Greci. Storia Cultura Arte Societ`a, Vol. 4, edited by S. Settis. Torino: G. Einaudi. Fresa, M.P. 1991a. “Ceramiche a vernice nera.” In Forentum II: L’acropoli in et`a classica, edited by A. Bottini and M.P. Fresa, 69–78. Venosa: Osanna. 1991b. “Osservazioni sulla composizione dei corredi.” In Forentum II: L’acropoli in et`a classica, edited by A. Bottini and M.P. Fresa, 135–44. Venosa: Osanna.

Works Cited

Frielinghaus, H. 1995. Einheimische in der apulischen Vasenmalerei: Ikonographie im Spannungsfeld zwischen Produzenten und Rezipienten. Berlin: Verlag Dr. K¨ oster. Gabba, E., and M. Pasquinucci. 1979. Strutture agrarie e allevamento transumante nell’Italia romana (IIIo – Io sec. a.C.). Pisa: Giardini. Gadaleta, G. 2002. La tomba delle danzatrici di Ruvo di Puglia. Naples: Loffredo. 2010. “La ricezione locale: pittori e forme della ceramica italiota nei centri indigeni.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L. Todisco, 317–26. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Galli, E. 1926–1927. Metaponto. “Esplorazioni archeologiche e sistemazione dell’area del tempio delle Tavole Palatine.” AttiMGrecia 1:63–79. Gallini, C. 1973. “Che cosa intendere per ellenizzazione. Problemi di metodo.” DialArch 7: 175–91. Gasparri, C. 1994 “Collezioni archeologiche.” In Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale, Suppl. 2, vol. 2, 192–225 Gaunt, J. 2002. “The Attic Volute-krater.” Ph.D. diss., New York University. Gervasio, M. 1921. Bronzi arcaici e ceramica geometrica nel Museo di Bari. Bari. 1932. “Thurii e Thuriae.” Japigia 3:283–92. Giannotta, M.T. 1994. “Tombe messapiche da Vaste e Ortelle.” Studi di Antichit`a 7:85– 100. 1996. “La ceramica sovraddipinta policroma: l’area messapica.” In I Greci in Occidente. Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 453–68. Naples: Electa. 1997a. “I corredi funerari. Le classi ceramiche: importazioni e produzioni locali.” In Oltre le Mura. Aspetti della societ`a messapica dagli scavi Degrassi a Manduria 1955–1960, 19–23. Manduria: New Grafica. 1997b. “Ricerche sulle necropoli messapiche di et`a ellenistica. Vaste: vecchi rinvenimenti e nuove problematiche.” In Metodologie di Catalogazione dei Beni Archeologici, Beni Archeologici, Conoscenza e Tecnologie, Quaderno 1.1, edited by F. D’Andria, 167–77. Lecce-Bari: Martano – Edipuglia. 1997c. “Una tomba di guerriero del IV secolo a.C. e la necropoli extra-urbana di Vaste – Fondo Aia.” Studi di Antichit`a 10:153–85. 1998. “Una tomba rinvenuta a Vaste nel 1915 e il ruolo della trozzella nei corredi funerari messapici.” Studi di Antichit`a 11:169–78. Giannotta, M.T. and V. Melissano. 2010. “Forma, tipo e produzione: primi risultati dallo studio delle trozzelle di Manduria.” In Il dialogo dei saperi. Metodologie integrate per i Beni Culturali I, edited by F. D’Andria, D. Malfitana, N. Masini, and G. Scardozzi, 291–310. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche. Giannotta, M.T., and G. Semeraro. 1990. “Vaste – Fondo Melliche – necropoli.” In Archeologia dei Messapi, edited by F. D’Andria. Bari: Edipuglia. Giardina, A. 2000. L’Italia romana. Storie di un’identit`a incompiuta. Rome: Laterza. Giardino, L. 1994. “Per una definizione delle trasformazioni urbanistiche di un centro antico attraverso lo studio delle necropoli: il caso di Lupiae.” Studi di Antichit`a 7:137– 203. 2007. L’urbanistica di Mesagne in et`a messapica e romana. Archivi e GIS per una ricostruzione della storia della citt`a e del suo territorio. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo. Giardino, L. and A. De Siena. 1999. “Metaponto.” In La citt`a greca antica. Istituzioni, societ`a e forme urbane, edited by E. Greco, 329–63. Rome: Donzelli.

egh

317

318

efh

Works Cited

Giboni, G. 1997. “La necropoli in et`a classica.” In Atleti e guerrieri: tradizioni aristocratiche a Taranto tra VI e V sec. a.C. Catalogo del Museo Archeologico di Taranto 1.3, edited by E. Lippolis, 39–46. Taranto: La Colomba. Giorgi, M. 1988a. “Ceramica a figure rosse.” In Forentum I. Le necropoli di Lavello, edited by M. Giorgi, S. Martinelli, M. Osanna, and A. Russo, 225–7. Venosa: Osanna. 1988b. “Ceramica a vernice nera.” In Forentum I. Le necropoli di Lavello, edited by M. Giorgi, S. Martinelli, M. Osanna, and A. Russo, 186–205. Venosa: Osanna. Giorgi, M., S. Martinelli, M. Osanna, and A. Russo, eds. 1988. Forentum I. Le necropoli di Lavello. Venosa: Osanna. Giove, C. 1989. “Studio preliminare dei relitti faunistici.” In Monte Sannace: gli scavi dell’acropoli (1978–1983), edited by A. Ciancio and F. Radina, 271–2. Galatina: Congedo. Giove, T., R. Rubino, M. Esposito, eds. 1996. La Magna Grecia nelle collezioni del Museo Archeologico di Napoli. Naples: Electa. Giudice, G. 2007. Il tornio, la nave, le terre lontane. Ceramografi attici in Magna Grecia nella seconda met`a del V sec. a.C. Rotte e vie di distribuzione. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Giuliani, L. 1995. Tragik, Trauer und Trost. Bildervasen f¨ ur eine apulische Totenfeier. Berlin: Staatliche Museen. 1996. “Rhesus between dream and death: on the relation of image to literature in Apulian vase-painting.” BICS 41:71–86. 2001. “Sleeping Furies: Allegory, Narration and the Impact of Texts in Apulian Vase Painting.” Scripta Classica Israelica 20:17–38. 2003. Bild und Mythos: Geschichte der Bilderz¨ahlung in der griechischen Kunst. Munich: C.H.Beck. Glascock, M.D. 1992. “Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics.” In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, 11–26. Madison: Prehistory Press. Godart, L., and S. DeCaro, eds. 2007. Nostoi Capolavori ritrovati: Roma, Palazzo del Quirinale, Galleria di Allesandro VII, 21 dicembre 2007–2 marzo 2008. Rome: Segretariato generale della Presidenza della Repubblica. Gosselain, A., and A. Livingstone-Smith. 1995. “The Ceramics and Society Project: An Ethnographic and Experimental Approach to Technological Choices.” In The Aim of Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in Archaeology, edited by A. Lindahl and O. Stilborg, 147–60. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien. Gosselain, O.P. 1998. “Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball.” In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M.T. Stark, 78–106. Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution. Graepler, D. 1997. Tonfiguren im Grab. Fundkontexte hellenistischer Terrakotten aus der Nekropole von Tarent. Munich: Biering und Brinkmann. 2002. “La necropoli e la cultura funeraria.” AttiTaranto 41:195–218. Gras, M. 1983. “Vin et soci´et´e `a Rome et dans le Latium `a l’´epoque archa¨ıque.” In Modes de contacts et processus de transformation dans les soci´et´es anciennes. Actes du Colloque ´ cole franc¸aise de Rome. de Cortone, 24–30 mai 1981, CE´FR 67, 1067–75. Rome: E Grave, P., E.G.D. Robinson, M. Barbetti, Z. Yu, G. Bailey, and R. Bird. 1996–1997. “Analysis of South Italian Pottery by PIXE-PIGME.” MeditArch 9/10:113–25. Greco, C. 2009. “Attivit`a della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata.” In Cuma. Atti Taranto 48:787–824.

Works Cited

Greco, E., ed. 1988. Satriano 1987–88. Un biennio di ricerche archeologiche. Potenza: Soprintendenza archeologica della Basilicata. Greco, E. and P. G. Guzzo, eds. 1992. Laos II. La tomba a camera di Marcellina. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archelogia della Magna Grecia. Greco, G. ed. 1991. Serra di Vaglio. La casa dei pithoi. Modena: F.C.Panini. Green, J.R. 1968. “Some Painters of Gnathia Vases.” BICS 15:34–50. 1977. “More Gnathia Pottery in Bonn.” AA:551–63. 1989. “Theatre Production: 1971–86.” Lustrum 31:7–95. 1991. “Notes on Phlyax Vases.” NumAntCl 20:49–56. 1994. Theatre in Ancient Greek Society. London: Routledge. 1995. “Theatre Production: 1987–1995.” Lustrum 37:7–202. 2001. “Gnathia and Other Overpainted Wares of Italy and Sicily: A Survey.” In C´eramiques hell´enistiques et romains, III, edited by E. Geny, 57–103. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Greiner, C. 2003. Die Peuketia. Kultur und Kulturkontakte in Mittelapulien vom 8. bis 5. Jh. V. Chr. Remshalden: Verlag B. A. Greiner. Grelle, F. 1995. “La parabola della citt`a.” In Arpi: L’ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli, edited by M. Mazzei, 55–72. Bari: Edipuglia. 2010. “La Puglia centrale nel mondo antico: profilo storico.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L. Todisco, 115–130. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Griener, P. 1992. Le antichit`a etrusche greche e romane di Pierre Hugues D’Hancarville. La pubblicazione delle ceramiche antiche della prima collezione Hamilton. Rome: Edizioni dell’Elefante. Guaitoli, M. 2002. “Il territorio e le sue dinamiche. Osservazioni e spunti di ricerca.” AttiTaranto 41:219–252. Guarducci, M. 1967. Epigrafia Greca I-III. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Guzzo, P.G. 1996. “Cronache dall’impero.” In Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale, edited by S. Bianco, 69–78. Naples: Electa. Hall, E. 2010. “Tragic Theatre: Demetrios’ Rolls and Dionysos’ Other Woman.” In The Pronomos Vase and its Context, edited by O. Taplin and R. Wyles, 159–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, J. 1998. “Grave Goods.” In The Chora of Metaponto. The Necropoleis, edited by J.C. Carter, 563–590. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2004a. “Culture, Cultures and Acculturation.” In Griechische Archaik. Interne Entwicklungen – Externe Impulse, edited by R. Rollinger and C. Ulf, 35–50. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 2004b. “How ‘Greek’ were the early Western Greeks?” The Chora of Metaponto. The Necropoleis, edited by J.C. Carter, 563–90. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hano, M., R. Hanoune, and J.-P. Morel. 1971. “Garaguso (Matera). Relazione preliminare sugli scavi del 1970.” NSc 25:424–38. Harris, W. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hassall, M., J. du Plat Taylor, and A. Small. 1992. “The Fortifications.” In An Iron Age and Roman Republican Settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia – excavations of 1965–1974, edited by A.M. Small, 1:59–71. London: British School at Rome. Helbig, W. 1876. “Studien u ¨ ber die ¨alteste italische Geschichte. 1. Ueber die Herkunft der Iapyger.” Hermes 11:257–90.

egh

319

320

efh

Works Cited

Herring, E. 1995. “Emblems of Identity. An Examination of the Use of Mattpainted Pottery in the Native Tombs of the Salento Peninsula in the 5th and 4th Centuries B.C.” In Settlement and economy in Italy, 1500 B.C.–A.D. 1500. Papers of the 5th Conference of Italian Archaeology, edited by N. Christie, 135–142. Oxford: Oxbow. 2005. “Sleeping with the enemy. Mixed residency patterns pre-Roman South Italy.” In Papers in Italian archaeology, 6. Communities and settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period. Proceedings of the 6th conference of Italian archaeology held at the University of Groningen, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, the Netherlands, April 15–17, 2003, edited by P. Attema, A. Nijboer, and A. Zifferero, 292–301. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2006. “Age, time, nudity, ethics and economics. Conventions in the work of the Prisoner Painter.” In Across Frontiers: Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Cypriots. Studies in honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway, edited by E. Herring, I. Lemos, F. Lo Schiavo, L. Vagnetti, R. Whitehouse, and J. Wilkins, 225–35. London: Accordia Research Institute. Herring, E., R.D. Whitehouse, and J.B. Wilkins. 2000. “Wealth, Wine and War. Some Gravina Tombs of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.” In Ancient Italy in Its Mediterranean Setting. Studies in Honour of Ellen Macnamara, edited by D. Ridgway, F.R. Serra Ridgway, and M. Pearce, 235–56. London: Accordia Research Centre. Hoffmann, A. 2002. Grabritual und Gesellschaft. Gef¨assformen, Bildthemen und Funktionen unteritalisch-rotfiguriger Keramik aus der Nekropole von Tarent. Rahden: Leidorf. 2005. “Risultati di una ricerca sistematica dei contesti tombali di Taranto contenenti ceramica apula a figure rosse.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.–2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 19–25. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. Hoffmann, H. 1966. Tarentine Rhyta. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 1989. “Rhyta and kantharoi in Greek ritual.” Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum, 4:131–166. Holloway, R.R. 1970. Satrianum. The Archaeological Investigations Conducted by Brown University in 1966 and 1967. Providence: Brown University Press. 1980. “Le canthare d’argent de Roscigno (Monte Pruno, Salerne).” In E´tudes sur orf`evrerie antique – Studies in Ancient Jewelry, edited by T. Hackens, 64–76. Louvain: Universit´e catholique. Horsnæs, H.W. 2002. “The Cultural Development in North Western Lucania, c. 600– 273 B.C.” AnalRom Suppl. 28. Hughes, A. 1996. “Comic Stages in Magna Graecia: the Evidence of the Vases.” Theatre Research International 21.2:95–107. Huntington, R., and P. Metcalf. 1979. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Rituals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iacono, F. 2007–2008. “Burial and Society in the non-Greek Salento.” Accordia Research Papers 11:95–118. Iasiello, I.M. 2003. Il collezionismo di antichit`a nella Napoli dei Vicer`e. Naples: Liguori. Jenkins, I., and K. Sloan, eds. 1996. Vases and Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and his Collection. London: The British Museum Press.

Works Cited

Jentoft-Nilsen, M. 1990. “Two Vases of South Italian Shape by an Attic Painter.” In Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology, Sydney 9 – 14 July 1985, edited by J.-P. Descœudres, 243–9. Canberra: Humanities Research Center; New York: Oxford University Press. Jircik, N. 1983. “A Note on the Red-figure pottery from Pizzica.” In The Territory of Metaponto, 1981–1982, edited by J.C. Carter, 32–33. Austin: Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Texas at Austin. 1990. “The Pisticci and Amykos Painters: the beginnings of Red-figured vase painting in ancient Lucania.” Ph.D. diss., The University of Texas at Austin. Johannowsky, W. 1994. “Atena Lucana.” EAA Supplement II, 494–6. Johnston, S.I., and T.J. McNiven. 1996. “Dionysos and the Underworld in Toledo.” MusHelv 53:25–36. Jones, R.E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. Athens: British School at Athens. Jones, R.E., and J. Buxeda i Garrig´ os. 2004. “The identity of early Greek pottery in Italy and Spain: an archaeometric perspective.” In Greek identity in the western Mediterranean: papers in honour of Brian Shefton, edited by K. Lomas, 83–114. Leiden: Brill. Jones, R.E., S.T. Levi, and M. Bettelli. 2005. “Mycenaean Pottery in the Central Mediterranean: Imports, Imitations and Derivatives.” In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Italian School of Archaeology, Athens, 14–18 April 2004 edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, 539–45. Li`ege and Austin: Aegeum. Joyeux, B. 2002. “Les transferts culturels. Un discours de la m´ethode.” Hypoth`eses 1:149–62. Junker, K. 2003.“Namen auf dem Pronomoskrater.” AM 118:317–35. Kilian, K. 1984. “Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia durante l’et`a del Ferro.” AttiTaranto 24:237–88. Kilikoglou, V., Y. Maniatis, and A.P. Grimanis. 1988. “The effect of purification and firing of clays on trace element provenance studies.” Archaeometry 30:37–46. Knapp, A.B., 2000. “Archaeology, science-based archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age metals trade.” EJA 3:31–56. Kossatz-Deissmann, A. 1978. Dramen des Aischylos auf westgriechischen Vasen. Mainz: von Zabern. Kowalzig, B. 2008. “Nothing to do with Demeter? Something to do with Sicily! Theatre and Society in the Early Fifth Century West.” In Performance, Iconography, Reception, Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, edited by M. Revermann and P. Wilson, 128–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kurtz, D.C. 1985. “Beazley and the Connoisseurship of Greek Vases.” Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 2:237–50. Kustermann-Graf, A. 2002. Selinunte, Necropoli di Manicalunga. Le tombe della contrada Gaggera. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino. L’Abbate, V. 1979. Norba e i centri antichi nel territorio di Conversano. Bari: Societ`a di storia patria per la Puglia. L’Abbate, V., A. Ciancio, and F. Radina. 1990. Museo Civico di Conversano, La Sezione Archeologica. Guida all’archeologia del sud-est barese. Fasano: Schena. La Geni`ere, J. de 1968. Recherches sur l’ˆage du fer en Italie m´eridionale. Sala Consilina. Naples: Institut franc¸ais.

egh

321

322

efh

Works Cited

1987. “Vases de L´en´eennes.” MEFRA 99:43–61. La Torre, G.F. 2001. “Il mondo enotrio di VI e V secolo a.C.” In Il mondo enotrio tra VI e V sec.a.C. Atti dei seminari napoletani (1996–1998), edited by M. Bugno and C. Masseria, Quaderni di Ostraka, I,1: 29–75. Naples: Loffredo. Labellarte, M. and F. Rossi. 1992. “Canne Antenisi.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 557–74. Venice: Marsilio. Lacava, M. 1891. Topografia e storia di Metaponto. Naples: A. Morano. Lamboley, J.-L. 1983. “Tarente et les Messapiens. A propos de Strabon VI, 3,4 (C 281).” MEFRA 95:523–33. ´ cole franc¸aise 1996. Recherches sur les Messapiens, IVe –IIe si`ecle avant J.-C. Rome: E de Rome. Lanza Catti, E., F. Silvestrelli, K. Swift, A. Tubelli, and E. Vittoria. 2011. “Archaic and Black-Gloss Fine Ware.” In The Chora of Metaponto 3. Archaeological Field Survey, Bradano to Basento, edited by J.C. Carter and A. Prieto, 143–270. Austin: University of Texas Press. Levi, S.T. 1999. Produzione e circolazione della ceramica nella Sibaritide protostorica. 1, Impasto e dolii. Florence: All’insegna del giglio. Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1988. Der Eretria-Maler: Werke und Weggef¨ahrten. Mainz: von Zabern. 2008. “Clay, Gold, and Craft: Special Techniques in Three Vases by The Eretria Painter and Their Apotheosis in Xenophantos.” In Papers on Special Techniques in Athenian Vases: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Connection with the Exhibition ‘The Colors of Clay: Special Techniques in Athenian Vases” at the Getty Villa, June 15–17, 2006, edited by K. Lapatin, 173–86. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Libertini, G. 1930. Il Museo Biscari. Milan/Rome: Bestetti e Tumminelli Lippolis, E., ed. 1994a. La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica dal VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1. Taranto: La Colomba. 1994b. “Il problema topografico.” La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica dal VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1., edited by E. Lippolis, 41–66. Taranto: La Colomba. 1994c. “I sistemi rituali: l’inumazione” In La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica dal VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1., edited by E. Lippolis, 131–47. Taranto: La Colomba. 1994d. “La tipologia dei semata.” In La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica dal VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1., edited by E. Lippolis, 109–28. Taranto: La Colomba. ed. 1996a. Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia. Naples: Electa. 1996b. “La ceramica a figure rosse italiota.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 357–61. Naples: Electa. 1996c. “Dioniso e il suo culto nelle immagini della ceramica apula.” In Il tralcio e la vite. La cultura della vite e del vino nell’arte, nella societ`a, nei luoghi di lavoro, edited by A. Marinazzo, 45–57. Brindisi and Lecce: Museo Archeologico Provinciale. 1996d. “Lo stile proto-apulo e apulo antico e medio.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 377–93. Naples: Electa. ed. 1997a. Atleti e guerrieri: tradizioni aristocratiche a Taranto tra VI e V sec. a.C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto 1.3. Taranto: La Colomba. 1997b. “Taranto e la politica di Atene in Occidente.” Ostraka 6:359–78.

Works Cited

2002. “Taranto: forma e sviluppo della topografia urbana.” AttiTaranto 41:119– 69. 2007. “Ceramica a figure rosse apula tarda.” In Rutigliano I. La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio. Scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II, 2., edited by E.M. De Juliis, 431–61. Taranto: Scorpione. 2008a. “La ceramica sovraddipinta.” In Salpia vetus: Archeologia di una citt`a lagunare; le campagne di scavo del 1967–1968 e del 1978–1979, edited by E. Lippolis and T. Giammateo, 387–400. Venosa: Osanna. 2008b. “Modelli attici e artigianato artistico in Magna Grecia.” AttiTaranto 47:351–403. 2009. “Offerte di ceramica attica nel santuario di Afrodite a Saturo.” In Ceramica attica da santuari della Grecia, della Ionia e dell’Italia. Atti convegno internazionale Perugia 14–17 marzo 2007, edited by S. Fortunelli and C. Masseria, 425–37. Venosa: Osanna. Lippolis, E., and M. Mazzei. 2005. “La ceramica apula a figure rosse: aspetti e problemi.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 11–18. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. Lippolis, E., S. Garraffo, and M. Nafissi. 1995. Taranto. Culti Greci in Occidente, 1. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Greci Lissarrague, F. 1985. “La libation: Essai de mise au point.” In En Gr`ece ancienne: Image et Rituel, edited by F. Lissarrague, 3–16. L’Arbresle: La Tourette. 1987. “Voyages d’images: Iconographie et aires culturelles.” REA 261–9. 1995. “Un ritual de vin: La libation.” In In Vino Veritas, edited by O. Murray and M. Tecus¸an, 126–44. London: British School at Rome. Lissi Caronna, E. 1980. “Oppido Lucano (Potenza). Rapporto preliminare sulla seconda campagna di scavo, 1968.” NSc 34:119–297. 1983. “Oppido Lucano (Potenza). Rapporto preliminare sulla terza campagna di scavo (1969).” NSc 37:215–352. 1990–1991. “Oppido Lucano (Potenza). Rapporto preliminare sulla quarta campagna di scavo (1970). Materiale archeologico rinvenuto nel territorio del comune.” NSc 1:185–488. Lo Porto, F.G. 1966. “Metaponto. Scavi e ricerche archeologiche.” NSc 20:136–231. 1970. “Topografia antica di Taranto.” AttiTaranto 10:343–383. 1970–1971. “Tomba messapica di Ugento.” AttiMGrecia 11–12:99–152. 1972–1973. “Civilt`a indigena e penetrazione greca nella Lucania orientale.” In MonAnt serie miscellanea 1,3:150–250. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. 1975. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Puglia.” AttiTaranto 15:635–45. 1977. “Recenti scoperte archeologiche in Puglia.” AttiTaranto 16:725–45. 1978. “La documentazione archeologica in Puglia.” AttiTaranto 17:495–504. 1981. “Metaponto (Matera). Nuovi scavi nella citt`a e nella sua necropoli.” NSc 35:289–391. 1981. “Testimonianze archeologiche ruvestine.” In Atti del VI Convegno dei Comuni Messapici, Peuceti e Dauni, Ruvo di Puglia 15–16 giugno 1974, 13–19. Bari: Grafica Bigemme. 1988–89. “Metaponto (Matera) – Rinvenimenti nella citt`a antica e nel suo retroterra ellenizzato.” NSc 42–43:299–441.

egh

323

324

efh

Works Cited

1990. “Oria I. Ritrovamento di tombe nel rione Maddalena.” Studi di Antichit`a 6:101–117. 1994. “Due nuove tombe scoperte a Cavallino.” Studi di Antichit`a 7:47–84. 1995. “Bronzi, vasi attici e protoapuli inediti da tombe messapiche.” Studi di Antichit`a 8:15–31. 1999. “Corredi di tombe daunie da Minervino Murge.” MonAnt: Serie Miscellanea 6,2. Lohmann, H. 1979. Grabm¨aler auf unteritalischen Vasen. Berlin: Mann. 1992. “Das Motiv der mors immatura in der griechischen Grabkunst.” In Kotinos. Festschrift f¨ ur Erika Simon, edited by H. Froning, T. H¨ olscher, and H. Mielsch, 103–13. Mainz: von Zabern. Lombardo, M. 1989a. “Oria e il mondo messapico: Orizzonti attuali dell’indagine storica.” In Oria e il mondo messapico. Atti del IX convegno dei comuni messapici, peuceti e dauni, Oria 24–25 novembre 1984, 7–38. Bari: Editrice Tipografica. 1989b. “La via istmica Taranto-Brindisi in et`a arcaica e classica: problemi storici.” In Salento. Porta d’Italia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Lecce 27–30 novembre 1986, 167–92. Galatina: Congedo. 1991. “I Messapi: aspetti della problematica storica. ”AttiTaranto 30:35–109. ed. 1992. I Messapi e la Messapia nelle fonti letterarie greche e latine, Galatina: Congedo. 1994. “Tombe, necropoli e riti funerari in Messapia: Evidenze e problemi.” Studi di Antichit`a 7:25–45. 2002. “Πημα Iαπυγεσσι. Rapporti con gli Iapigi e aspetti dell’identit`a di Taranto.” AttiTaranto 41:253–90. 2004. “Il Canale d’Otranto tra il IV e il III secolo.” In La pirateria nell’Adriatico antico, edited by L. Braccesi, 49–60. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 2005. “Testimonianze di scrittura.” In Cavallino: pietre, case e citt`a della Messapia arcaica, edited by F. D’Andria, 84–87. Ceglie Messapica: Progetti per communicare. 2006. “I paradossi dell’ellenizzazione da Pirro ad Annibale: ideologie e pratiche ellenizzanti nell’Italia meridionale di fronte all’espansione romana.” Pallas 70:15–26. Lyons, C. 1992. “The museo Mastrilli and the culture of collecting in Naples, 1700– 1755.” Journal of the History of Collections 4(1):1–26. 1997. “The Neapolitan context of Hamilton’s Antiquities Collection.” Journal of the History of Collections 9(2):229–39. 2002. “The Duke of Noia’s Classical Antiquities.” In Essays in Honor of Dietrich von Bothmer, edited by A. J. Clark, J. Gaunt, and B. Gilman, 195–202. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. Macchioro, V. 1911. “Per la storia della ceramografia italiota.” RM 26:187–213. Macchioro, V., and G. Bendinelli. 1913. “Spigolature vascolari nel museo di Taranto.” Neapolis 1, 1913:132–41. MacDonald, B.R. 1981.“The Emigration of Potters from Athens in the late Fifth Century B.C. and its Effect on the Attic Pottery Industry.” AJA 85:159–68. Maffre, J.-J. 1972. “Deux p´elikai attiques `a figures rouges trouv´ees `a Thasos.” BCH 96:327–61. Maggialetti, M. 2007. “Tra Atene e Sparta. Mito e politica sul cratere apulo Taranto, MN 52230.” Ostraka 16:289–310. Mallegni, F. 1981. “Analisi antropologica e paleopatologica degli inumati di Poggiardo.” Studi di Antichit`a 2:175–96.

Works Cited

Mangieri, G.L. 1995. La collezione numismatica Pomarici-Santomasi: 2500 anni di storia. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane. Mangone, A., L.C. Giannossa, A. Ciancio, R. Laviano, and A. Traini. 2008. “Technological features of Apulian red-figured pottery.” JAS 35(6):1533–41. Mannino, K. 1996. “Gli ateliers attici e la nascita della produzione figurata.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 363–70. Naples: Electa. 1997. “Le importazioni attiche in Puglia nel V sec. a.C.” Ostraka 6(2):389–99. 2004. “I vasi attici di et`a classica nulla Puglia anellenica: Osservazioni sui contesti di rinvenimento.” In I Greci in Adriatico, vol. 2, edited by L. Braccesi and M. Luni, 333–55. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 2005. “I contesti della ceramica proto italiota in Messapia.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 27–38. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. 2006. Vasi attici nei contesti della Messapia (480–350 a.C.). Bari: Edipuglia. 2008. “Dalle importazioni attiche alle produzioni italiote: la documentazione dell’area apulo-lucana. ”AttiTaranto 47:425–43. Mannino, K. and D. Roubis. 2000. “Le importazioni attiche del IV secolo nell’Adriatico meridionale.” In La c´eramique attique du IVe si`ecle en M´editerran´ee Occidentale, edited by B. Sabattini, 67–76. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. Marchesini, S. 1998. “Confini e frontiera nella grecit`a d’Occidente: la situazione alfabetica.” AttiTaranto 37:173–212. Marshall, C.W. 2001. “A Gander at the Goose Play.” Theatre Journal 53:53–71. Martinelli, S. 1988. “Decorazione impressa eseguita a stampo.” In Forentum I. Le necropoli di Lavello, edited by M. Giorgi, S. Martinelli, M. Osanna, and A. Russo, 206–12. Venosa: Osanna. Maruggi, G.A. 1991. “Viale Virigilio.” In Vecchi scavi. Nuovi restauri. Mostra Taranto dal 14 marzo 1991, edited by A. Dell’Aglio and E. Lippolis, 64–84. Taranto: La Colomba. 1994. “La tipologia delle tombe.” In La necropoli: Aspetti e problemi della documentazione archeologica dal VII al I sec. a. C. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto III.1., edited by E. Lippolis, 69–106. Taranto: La Colomba. 2001. “Repertorio dei rinvenimenti.” In Oria e l’archeologia, Percorsi di una ricerca, edited by G.A. Maruggi, 27–75, Oria: Italgrafica. Marzi, M.G. 1996. “Dagli archivi fiorentini notizie sul collezionismo di ceramica apula nel XVI secolo.” In Venezia. L’archeologia e l’Europa: Venezia 27–30 giugno 1994, edited by M. Fano Santi. RdA Suppl. 17:131–6. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Masci, M.E. 1999. “La collezione di vasi antichi figurati riunita da Giuseppe Valletta: Identificazione parziale dei pezzi raccolti e ricostruzione della dispersione.” AnnPisa series 4, 4:555–93. 2002. “Il vaso Cawdor: Da Napoli a Londra. Appunti sul collezionismo napoletano all’epoca del ‘grand tour.’” Napoli nobilissima, series 5, 3(1–2):7–20. 2003. Documenti per la storia del collezionismo di vasi antichi nel XVIII secolo. Lettere ad Anton Francesco Gori (Firenze, 1691–1757). Naples: Liguori. 2007. “The Birth of Ancient Vase Collecting in Naples in the Early Eighteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Collections 19(2):215–24. 2008. Picturae etruscorum in vasculis. La raccolta vaticana e il collezionismo di vasi antichi nel primo Settecento. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

egh

325

326

efh

Works Cited

Masiello, L. 2007. “Ceramica da fuoco.” In Rutigliano I. La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio. Scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II,2, edited by E.M. De Juliis, 335–423. Taranto: Scorpione. Mastronuzzi, G. 2008. “Il culto di Demetra in Messapia.” In Demetra. La divinit`a, i santuari, il culto, la leggenda (Atti del I Congresso internazionale, Enna, 1–4 luglio 2004), edited by C.A. Di Stefano, 137–53. Pisa-Rome: Fabizio Serra. Mauro, L. 1556. Le antichita de la citta di Roma [ . . . ] per Lucio Mauro [ . . . ] Et insieme anco di tutte le statue antiche che per tutta Roma in diuersi luoghi e case particolari si veggono raccolte e descritte, per M. Vlisse Aldrovandi. Venetia: appresso Giordano Ziletti, all’insegna della Stella. Mayer, M. 1898. “Vasi dipinti scoperti in tombe della necropolis canosina.” NSc 1898:195–218. 1914. Apulien vor und w¨ahrend der Hellenisierung mit besonderer Ber¨ ucksichtigung der Keramik. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner. Mayo, M., ed. 1982. The Art of South Italy: Vases from Magna Graecia. Richmond: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Mazzei, M., ed. 1984. La Daunia antica dalla preistoria all’alto medioevo. Milan: Electa. 1992. “ La Daunia dal V al II secolo a.C.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 585–96. Venice: Marsilio. ed. 1995. Arpi: L’ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli. Bari: Edipuglia. 1996. “Lo stile apulo tardo.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, edited by E. Lippolis, 403–6. Naples: Electa. Mazzei, M. and M. Guaitoli. 2003 “Arpi.” In Lo sguardo di Icaro: le collezioni dell’Aerofototeca Nazionale per la conoscenza del territorio, edited by M. Guaitoli, 185–93. Rome: Campisano. Mazzei, M., and E. Lippolis. 1984. “Dall’ellenizazione all’et`a tardo repubblicana.” In La Daunia antica dalla preistoria all’alto medioevo, edited by M. Mazzei, 185–252. Milan: Electa. McPhee, I. 1998. “Arthur Dale Trendall 1909–1995.” ProcBritAc 94:500–17. McPhee, I., and A.D. Trendall. 1987. Greek Red-Figured Fish-Plates. Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst. Mele, A. 1993. “Conclusione.” AION 15:142–9. Melissano, V. 1995. “Nuovi dati sulla topografia di Vaste.” Studi di Antichit`a 8(1):229– 55. 2005. “Cavallino e la Messapia nel quadro dell’archeologia di genere.” In Cavallino Pietre, case e citt`a della Messapia arcaica, edited by F. D’Andria, 71–75. Ceglie Messapica: progettipercomunicare. Miller, M. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miroslav Marin, M. 1981. “Problemi topografici dell’antica citt`a di Ruvo.” In Atti del VI Convegno dei Comuni Messapici Peuceti e Dauni, Ruvo di Puglia 15–16 giugno 1974, 121–267. Bari: Grafica Bigemme. Miroslav Marin, M., R. Moreno Cassano, A. Fornaro, and M. Chelotti. 1982. Ceglie Peuceta I. Bari: Dedalo. Montanaro, A.C. 2006. Gli ori di Ruvo di Puglia tra greci ed etruschi. Bari: Adda. 2007. Ruvo di Puglia e il suo territorio. Le necropoli. I corredi funerari tra la documentazione del XIX secolo e gli scavi moderni Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Works Cited

Moon, N. 1929. Some Early South Italian Vase-Painters: with a Brief Indication of the Later History of Italiote Vase-Painting.” PBSR 11:30–49. Morel, J.-P. 1974. “Garaguso (Lucania). Traditions indig`enes et influences grecques.” CRAI 370–95. 1978. “La laine de Tarente (De l’usage des textes anciens et histoire ´economique).” Ktema 3:93–110. 2000. “La c´eramique attique `a vernis noir du IVe si`ecle: position des probl`emes.” In La c´eramique attique du IVe si`ecle en M´editerran´ee occidentale. Actes du colloque international organis´e par le Centre Camille Jullian. Arles, 7–9 d´ecembre 1995, edited by B. Sabattini, 11–21. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. Moret, J.-M. 1979. “Un ancˆetre du phylact`ere: le pilier inscrit des vases italiotes.” RA 3–34 and 235–58. Mugione, E. 2000. Miti della ceramica attica in Occidente. Problemi di trasmissioni iconografiche nelle produzioni italiote. Taranto: Scorpione. 2008. “Le produzione di ceramiche a figure rosse nell’area tirrenica e ionica: dalla ricezione di moduli stilistici e iconografici della ceramica attica all’elaborazione di linguaggi autonomi.” AttiTaranto 47:405–24. Murray, O. 1988. “Death and the Symposion.” AnnArchStorAnt 10:139–57. 2009. “The culture of the symposion.” In A Companion to Archaic Greece, edited by A.K. Raaflaub and H. van Wees, 524–43. Chichester; Malden: Wiley Blackwell. Mutino S. 2006. L’insediamento preromano di Barrata: Storia di un recupero nel territorio potentino. Bari: Edipuglia. Nachod, H. 1914. “Gr¨aber in Canosa.” RM 29:260–96. Nafissi, M. 1985. “Le genti indigene: Enotri, Coni, Siculi e Morgeti, Ausoni, Iapigi, Sanniti.” In Magna Grecia. Il Mediterraneo, le metropoleis e la fondazione delle colonie, edited by G. Pugliese Carratelli, 189–208. Milan: Electa. Naumann, R., and B. Neutsch. 1960. Palinuro Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen II. Nekropole, Terrassenzone und Einzelfunde. RM Ergh. 4. Heidelberg: Kerle. Nava, M.L. 1980. Stele Daunie I. Florence: Sansoni. 1998. “Azione di tutela e rischio archeologico in Basilicata,” Bollettino di Archeologia 53–54:99–109. 1999. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 1998.” AttiTaranto 38:689–717. 2000. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 1999.” AttiTaranto 39:675–726. 2002. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2001.” AttiTaranto 41:719–65. 2003. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2002.” AttiTaranto 42:653–717. 2004. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2003.” AttiTaranto 43:933–1000. 2005. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2004.” AttiTaranto 44:313–86. Neff, H. 1992. “Introduction.” In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, 1–10. Madison: Prehistory Press. Neils, J. 2001. “Panathenaics in the West.” In Panathena¨ıka: Symposion zu den Panathen¨aischen Preisamphoren, Rauischholzhausen, 25.11. – 29.11.1998, edited by M. Bentz and N. Eschbach, 125–30. Mainz: von Zabern. Nenci, G. 1976. “Il βάρβαρoς πόλεμoς fra Taranto e gli Iapigi e gli αναθηματα tarentini a Delfi.” AnnPisa 6:719–38. 1978. “Per una definizione della ‘Ιαπυγία,’” AnnPisa 8:43–58. Nitti, A. 1983. “Il Museo Archeologico di Mesagne.” Quaderni del Museo Civico Archeologico “Ugo Granafei” di Mesagne 7. Mesagne: Museo Civico “Ugo Granafei.”

egh

327

328

efh

Works Cited

Nørskov, V. 2002. Greek Vases in New Contexts: the collecting and trading of Greek vases. An aspect of the modern reception of antiquity. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 2009. “The Affairs of Lucien Bonaparte and the Impact on the Study of Greek Vases.” In The World of Greek Vases edited by V. Nørskov, L. Hannestad, Isler-Ker´enyi, and S. Lewis, 63–76. Rome: Quasar. Oakeshott, N. 1979. “From Lenormant to Trendall.” In Studies in Honour of Arthur Dale Trendall, edited by A. Cambitoglou, 1–7. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Oakley, J. 1984. “Double-register calyx kraters. A study in workshop tradition.” In Ancient Greek and related pottery. Proceedings of the international vase symposium, Amsterdam 12–15 April 1984, edited by H.A.J. Brijder, 119–127. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. 1995. “Nuptial Nuances. Wedding Images in Non-Wedding Scenes of Myth.” In Pandora: Women in Classical Greece, edited by E.D. Reeder, 63–73. Baltimore and Princeton: Princeton University Press. Orlandini, P. 1971. “Aspetti dell’arte indigena in Magna Graecia.” AttiTaranto 11:273– 308. Osanna, M. 1988. “Ceramica con decorazione geometrica.” In Forentum I. Le necropoli di Lavello, edited by M. Giorgi, S. Martinelli, M. Osanna, and A. Russo, 158–65. Venosa: Osanna. 2008a. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2007.” AttiTaranto 47:911–44. 2008b. “Ceramica da fuoco.” In Salpia vetus. Archeologia di una citt`a lagunare; le campagne di scavo del 1967–1968 e del 1978–1979, edited by E. Lippolis and T. Giammateo, 363–377. Venosa: Osanna. ed. 2009. Verso la citt`a: Forme insediative in Lucania e nel mondo italico fra IV e III sec. a. C: Atti delle giornate di Studio, Venosa, 13–14 maggio 2006. Venosa: Osanna. Osanna, M., L. Colangelo, and G. Carollo, eds. 2009. Lo Spazio del Potere. La residenza ad abside, l’anaktoron, l’episcopio a Torre di Satriano. Atti del secondo convegno di studi su Torre di Satriano (Tito, 27–28 settembre 2008). Venosa: Osanna Edizioni. Page, D. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams: epigrams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and other sources, not included in “Hellenistic epigrams” or “The Garland of Philip.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pagliara, C. 1983. “Materiali iscritti arcaici del Salento (II).” AnnPisa, 13:21–89. Palmentola, P. 2006. “Un gruppo di kylikes a figure e a decorazione nera.” ArchCl 57: 321–36. 2007. “Ceramica a vernice nera-coppe ioniche.” In Rutigliano I. La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio. Scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II, 2, edited by E.M. De Juliis, 463–522. Taranto: Scorpione. Papadopoulos, J.K. 2003. Ceramicus redivivus. The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora. Hesperia Suppl. 31, Princeton: ASCS. Parente, A.R. 2000. “ Dazos e Pullos sulle monete di Arpi e Salapia.” NumAntCl 29:235– 49. Parker Pearson, M. 2000. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Passeri, G.B. 1767–1775. Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis, nunc primum in unum collectae, explicationibus et dissertationibus inlustratae, 3 vols. Romae: Ex typographio Johannis Zempel Sumptibus Venantii Monaldini Bibliopolae Patera, A. 1986. “Tomba a camera tarentina.” Taras 6:31–64.

Works Cited

Pecere, B. 2006. “Viewshed e Cost Surface Analyses per uno studio dei sistemi insediativi antichi: il caso della Daunia tra X e VI sec. a. C.” Archeologia e Calcolatori 17:177–213. Peroni, R. 1984. “Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia nell’et`a del Bronzo.” AttiTaranto 24:199–236. Pepe, A., G. Bianco, and A. Tamburo. 2009. “Identificazione di tracce di vino all’intero di reperti archeologici mediante l’impiego di teciche analitiche avanzate.” In Lo spazio del Potere. La residenza ad abside, l’anaktoron, l’episcopio a Torre di Satriano. Atti del secondo convegno di studi su Torre di Satriano (Tito, 27–28 settembre 2008), edited by M. Osanna, L. Colangelo, and G. Carollo, 233–6. Venosa: Osanna. Piccaluga, G. 1962. “Numa e il vino.” Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 33:99–103. Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1988. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pietrangeli, C. 1985. I Musei Vaticani. Cinque secoli di storia. Rome: Quasar. Pizzurro, A. 2002. Ozan. Ugento dalla Preistoria all’Et`a Romana. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo. Pollard, A. M., and C. Heron. 2008a. “Chapter 2: Analytical Techniques Applied to Archaeology.” In Archaeological Chemistry, edited by A.M. Pollard and C. Heron, 19– 74. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. 2008b. “Chapter 4: The Geochemistry of Clays and the Provenance of Ceramics.” In Archaeological Chemistry, edited by A. M. Pollard and C. Heron, 98–143. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. Pontrandolfo Greco, A. 1981. “Il vallo di Diano nel V sec.a.C.” In Storia del Vallo di Diano 1, edited by B. D’Agostino, 149–79. Salerno: Laveglia. 1982. I Lucani. Etnografia e archeologia di una regione antica. Milan: Longanesi. Pontrandolfo, A. 1996a. “La ceramica lucana a figure rosse.” In Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale, edited by S. Bianco, 206–14. Naples: Electa. 1996b. “Per un’archeologia dei Lucani.” In Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale, edited by S. Bianco, 171–81. Naples: Electa. 2007. “Le produzioni ceramiche.” In Atene e l’Occidente. I grandi temi: Le premesse, i protagonisti, le forme della comunicazione e dell’interazione, i modi dell’intervento ateniense in occidente: Atti del convegno internazionale Atene 25–27 maggio 2006, edited by E. Greco and M. Lombardo, 325–44. Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. Pouzadoux, C. 2008. “La c´eramique `a figures rouges.” In Civita di Tricarico, 1. Le quartier de la maison du monolithe et l’enceinte interm´ediaire, edited by O. de Cazanove, 349–71. ´ cole franc¸aise de Rome. Rome: E Prag, A.J.N.W. 1985. “Neutron Activation Analysis of Black-glaze Pottery: A Report on Work in Hand.” In Ancient Greek and Related Pottery. Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam 12–15 April 1984, edited by H.A.G. Brijder, 54–8. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. Prag, A.J.N.W., F. Schweizer, J.L.W. Williams, and P.A. Schubiger. 1974. “Hellenistic glazed wares from Athens and Southern Italy: Analytical techniques and implications.” Archaeometry 16:153–87. Prazzoli, S. 1996. “Taranto: la documentazione del pozzo di via C. Nitti.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia edited by E. Lippolis, 333–6. Naples: Electa. Prendi, F. 1984.“Alcune considerazioni sulla ceramica dipinta ‘devolliana’ della tarda et`a del Bronzo e del Ferro Antico in Albania.” AttiTaranto 24:181–97. Pugliese Carratelli, G., ed. 1996. The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean. London: Thames and Hudson.

egh

329

330

efh

Works Cited

Purcell, N. 1994. “South Italy in the Fourth Century BC.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol 6, The Fourth Century B.C., edited by D.M. Lewis, J. Boardman, S. Hornblower, and M. Ostwald, 381–403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005. “Colonization and Mediterranean History.” In Ancient colonizations: analogy, similarity and difference, edited by H.R. Hurst and S. Owen, 115–39. London: Duckworth. Radici Colace, P., and D. Falcone. 2003. “Bere Greco bere barbaro. Coppe e stili di vita nell’immaginario dell’altro.” In Il greco, il barbaro e la ceramica attica. Immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Catania-Caltanissetta-Gela-Camarina-Vittoria-Siracusa, 14–19 maggio 2001, Vol. 4, edited by F. Giudice and R. Panvini, 143–51. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Ramage, N.H. 1990. “Sir William Hamilton as Collector, Exporter, and Dealer. The Acquisition and Dispersal of His Collections” AJA 94:469–80. Reeder, E., ed. 1995. Pandora. Women in Classical Greece. Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery in association with Princeton University Press. Reusser, C. 2002. Vasen f¨ ur Etrurien: Verbreitung und Funktionen Attischer Keramik im Etrurien des 6. und 5. Jhrs v.Chr. Zurich: Akanthus. Ribezzo, F. 1978. Corpus inscriptionum Messapicarum, a cura e con introduzione di Ciro Santoro; premessa di Mauro Spagnoletti. Bari: Edipuglia. Riccardi, A. 1989a. “Fase IIb. L’edificio tardoarcaico (seconda met`a VI-met`a IV sec. a.C.)”. In Monte Sannace. Gli scavi dell’acropoli (1978–1983), edited by A. Ciancio, E. M. De Juliis, A. Riccardi, and F. Rossi, 132–54. Galatina: Congedo. 1989b. “Turi (Bari), Francese.” Taras 9:200–1. 1990. “Turi (Bari), via C. Colombo.” Taras 10(2):360. 1991. “Turi (Bari), via Castellana Grotte.” Taras 11(2):269–70 1992. “Turi (Bari), via Castellana Grotte.” Taras 12(2):266. 1996. “Turi (Bari), trav. Via Noci.” Taras 16(1):54–5. 1998. “Ruvo di Puglia (Bari), via Oberdan.” Taras 18(1):47–8. 2000. “L’insediamento di Azetium.” Bollettino di Numismatica 34–35:145–59. 2001. “Le ricerche nel territorio a sud est di Rutigliano; La capanna della prima et`a del Ferro; Le strutture dell’abitazione arcaica-classica; Abitazione e necropoli: le fasi di occupazione; La necropoli.” In Un luogo della Peucezia. Le scoperte archeologiche in contrada Bigetti, edited by A. Damato, 20–62. Palo del Colle: Liantonio. 2002–2003a. “Bari-Ceglie del Campo, zona 167.” Taras 23:79–80. 2002–2003b. “Turi (Bari), via Castellana Grotte.” Taras 23:84. ed. 2003. Gli antichi Peucezi a Bitonto: documenti e immagini dalla necropoli di via Traiana. Catalogo del Museo Archeologico della Fondazione De Palo Ungaro I. Bari: Edipuglia. 2004. “Le indagini archeologiche dell’ultimo ventennio nel territorio di Ruvo”. In Miti greci. Archeologia e pittura dalla Magna Grecia al collezionismo, edited by G. Sena Chiesa and E. A. Arslan, 127–8. Milan: Electa. 2004–2005. “Turi (Bari), periferia sudest.” Notiziario delle attivit`a di tutela della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Puglia, n. s., I, 1–2:123–4. 2007. “Ceramica a fasce e di stile misto.” In Rutigliano I. La necropoli di contrada Purgatorio. Scavo 1978, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto, II, 2, edited by E.M. De Juliis, 351–85. Taranto: Scorpione.

Works Cited

ed. 2008. Donne e guerrieri da Ruvo e Bitonto. Le scoperte del III millennio. Catalogo del Museo Archeologico della Fondazione De Palo-Ungaro II. Bari: Edipuglia. Ricchetti, E. 1992. “Ceramica a fasce.” In Principi, imperatori, vescovi. 2000 anni di storia a Canosa, edited by R. Cassano, 240–2. Venice: Marsilio. Robertson, M. 1985. “Beazley and Attic Vase Painting.” In Beazley and Oxford: Lectures Delivered in Wolfson College, Oxford, 28 June 1985, edited by D. Kurtz, 19–30. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Robinson, E.G.D. 1990a. “Between Greek and Native. The Xenon Group.” In Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology, Sydney 9 – 14 July 1985, edited by J.-P. Descœudres, 251–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1990b. “Workshops of Apulian Red-Figure outside Taranto.” In Eumousia: Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of Alexander Cambitoglou, edited by J.-P. Descœudres, 179–93. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. 1996. “La ceramica sovraddipinta monocroma: vasi dei Gruppi Xenon e del Cigno Rosso.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia edited by E. Lippolis, 447–52. Naples: Electa. 2004. “Reception of Comic Theatre Amongst the Indigenous South Italians.” In Festschrift in Honour of J. Richard Green (Mediterranean Archaeology volume 17), edited by C.D. Barker, L.A. Beaumont, and E.A. Bollen, 193–212. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. 2011. “Identity in the Tomb of the Diver at Poseidonia.” In Communicating Identity in Italic Iron Age Communities, edited by M. Gleba and H.W. Horsnæs, 50–72. Oxford: Oxbow. Forthcoming. “Chemical Analyses of South Italian Pottery.” Meditarch 24. Rocchietti, D. 2002. Aree sepolcrali a Metaponto. Corredi ed ideologia funeraria fra VI e III secolo a.C. Potenza: Consiglio Regionale della Basilicata. Roscino, C. 2010. “Iconografia della ceramica italiota in Peucezia: repertorio, temi, funzioni.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L. Todisco, 327–36. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Roth, U. 2007. Thinking Tools. Agricultural slavery between evidence and models. London: Institute of Classical Studies. Rotunno, T., L. Sabbatini, and M. Corrente. 1997. “A Provenance Study of Pottery from Archaeological Sites Near Canosa, Puglia (Italy).” Archaeometry 39(2):343– 54. ´ cole Ruby, P. 1995. Le cr´epuscule des marges. Le premier ˆage du fer `a Sala Consilina. Rome: E franc¸aise. Russo, A. 2008. “Un popolo guerriero. I Lucani nella Basilicata nord-occidentale.” In Felicitas temporum. Dalla terra alle genti. La Basilicata settentrionale tra archeologia e storia, edited by A. Russo and H. Di Giuseppe, 115–33. Potenza: Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Basilicata. Russo, A., and H. Di Giuseppe, eds. 2008. Felicitas temporum. Dalla terra alle genti. La Basilicata settentrionale tra archeologia e storia. Potenza: Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Basilicata. Russo, A., and M.A. Vicari Sottosanti. 2007. “Tra Enotri e Lucani: le necropoli del V e IV secolo a.C. di San Martino d’Agri.” Bolletino storico della Basilicata 23:23–78.

egh

331

332

efh

Works Cited

2009. “Tra Enotri e Lucani: le necropoli del V e IV secolo a.C. in localit`a Tempa Cagliozzo di San Martino d’Agri (PZ).” www.fastionline.org/ docs-FOLDER-it-2009-139. Russo Tagliente, A. 1995. “Armento. Archeologia di un centro indigeno,” Bollettino di Archeologia 35–36:1–198. Rutter, N.K., A.M. Burnett, M.H. Crawford, A.E.M. Johnston, and M. Jessop Price. 2001. Historia Numorum, Italy. 2nd ed. London: The British Museum Press. Santoro, C. 1978. “La situazione storico-linguistica nella Peucezia preromana alla luce di nuovi documenti.” In Studi storico-linguistici in onore di Francesco Ribezzo, edited by C. Santoro and C. Marangio, 219–330. Mesagne: Museo Civico Archeologico “Ugo Granafei.” 1989. “Il lessico del ‘divino’ e della religione messapica.” In Atti del IX Convegno dei Comuni Messapici, Peuceti e Dauni, Oria 24–25 novembre 1984, 139–80. Bari: Societ`a di Storia per la Puglia. 1994. “La situazione storico-linguistica della Peucezia preromana alla luce di nuovi documenti. In Studi linguistici vari, edited by M.T. Laporta and C. Santoro, 123–246. Galatina: Congedo. Saunders, S., and J. du Plat Taylor. 1992. “Wheel-made painted ware.” In An Iron Age and Roman Republican Settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia – excavations of 1965–1974, vol. 2, edited by A.M. Small, 13–41. London: British School at Rome. Scalici, M. 2009. “Ruvo del Monte. Le necropoli in loc. S. Antonio. Nuovi dati e prospettive di ricerca.” Siris 10:37–51. 2012. “La necropoli ad ovest dell’anaktoron di Torre di Satriano.” In Lo spazio del Potere. La residenza ad abside, l’anaktoron, l’episcopio a Torre di Satriano. Atti del secondo convegno di studi su Torre di Satriano (Tito, 27–28 settembre 2008), edited by M. Osanna, L. Colangelo, and G. Carollo, 111–31 Venosa: Osanna. Scarf`ı, B. M. 1961. “Gioia del Colle. Scavi nella zona di Monte Sannace, le tombe rinvenute nel 1957.” MonAnt 45:145–332. Schauenburg, K. 1981. “Zu unteritalischen Situlen.” AA 1981:462–88. 2001. Studien zur unteritalischen Vasenmalerei. Vol. 3. Kiel: Ludwig. Schmidt M., 2002. “La ceramica. ”AttiTaranto 41:343–64. Schneider Herrmann, G. 1977. Apulian Red-figured Paterae with Flat or Knobbed Handles. BICS, Suppl. 34. London: Institute of Classical Studies. 1980. Red-Figured Lucanian and Apulian Nestorides and their Ancestors. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. Sch¨ utze, S., and M. Gisler Huwiler, eds. 2004. The Complete Collection of Antiquities from the Cabinet of Sir William Hamilton. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schwedt, A., H. Mommsen, N. Zacharias, and J.B.I. Garrigos. 2006. “Analcime crystallization and compositional profiles. Comparing approaches to detect postdepositional alterations in archaeological pottery.” Archaeometry 48(2):237–51. Sciarra, B. 1976. Brindisi. Museo archeologico provinciale. Bologna: Edizioni Calderoni. Scullion, S. 2002. “‘Nothing to do with Dionysus’: Tragedy Misconceived as Ritual.” CQ 52:102–37. S´echan, L. 1926. E´tudes sur la trag´edie grecque dans ses rapports avec la c´eramique. Paris: Champion. Semeraro, G. 1997. ἐν νηυσί:Ceramica greca e societ`a nel Salento arcaico. Lecce and Bari: Martano and Edipuglia.

Works Cited

Sena Chiesa, G., ed. 2004. La collezione Lagioia. Una raccolta storica dalla Magna Grecia al Museo Archeologico di Milano. Milan: Comune di Milano. Sena Chiesa, G., and F. Slavazzi, eds. 2006. Ceramiche attiche e magnogreche. Collezione Banca Intesa. Milan: Mondadori Electa. Sestieri, P.C. 1940. “Metaponto. Campagna di scavi (marzo– aprile 1939).” NSc Ser. 7, Vol. 1:51–122. Setari, E. 1998–1999. “Produzioni artigianali indigene: La ‘fabbrica’ di Ripacandida.” Siris 1:69–119. Sica, M.M. 2004. “Una nuova tomba arcaica da Satriano di Lucania (PZ).” Bollettino Storico della Basilicata 20:217–51. Sichtermann, H. 1966. Griechische Vasen in Unteritalien: Aus der Sammlung Jatta in Ruvo. T¨ ubingen: Wasmuth. Siciliano, A. 1989. “Monetazione della Peucezia.” In Storia di Bari. Vol. 1. Dalla preistoria al Mille, edited by F. Tateo, 164–71. Bari: Laterza. 1991. “Le zecche della Messapia.” AttiTaranto 30:224–54. 1995. “La monetazione di Arpi.” In Arpi: L’ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli. edited by M. Mazzei, 73–80. Bari: Edipuglia. Signore, M.G. 1996. “Rilievi fittili con recumbente dal ceramico di Metaponto.” Studi di Antichit`a 9:299–35. Silvestrelli, F. 1996. “L’officina dei pittori di Creusa, Dolone e dell’anabates.” In Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia edited by E. Lippolis, 400–2. Naples: Electa. 2000. “Il kerameikos di Metaponto. Impianti artigianali e modi di produzione dall’et`a arcaica all’ellenismo.” Ph.D. diss., Universit`a Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan. 2004. “L’archeologia della produzione in Italia meridionale. Il caso di Metaponto.” In Metodi e pratica della cultura materiale. Produzione e consumo dei manufatti, edited by E. Giannichedda, 107–16. Bordighera: Istituto internazionale di studi liguri. 2005. “Le fasi iniziali della ceramica a figure rosse nel kerameikos di Metaponto.” In La c´eramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, actes de la table ronde organis´ee par l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Puglia et le Centre Jean B´erard de Naples (30 nov.-2 d´ec. 2000), edited by M. Denoyelle, E. Lippolis, M. Mazzei, and C. Pouzadoux, 111–23. Naples: Centre Jean B´erard. 2008. “La distribuzione della ceramica a figure rosse dei Pittori di Creusa, di Dolone e dell’anabates.” In Le perle e il filo. A Mario Torelli per i suoi settanta anni, 279–300. Venosa: Osanna. 2011a. “Figured Pottery from Pantanello and the Farmhouses in the Metapontine Chora.” In The Study of Ancient Territories: Chersonesos and South Italy, Report for 2008–2011, 15–16. Austin: The University of Texas Institute of Classical Archaeology. 2011b. “Figured Ware.” In The Chora of Metaponto 3. Archaeological Field Survey, Bradano to Basento, edited by J.C. Carter and A. Prieto, 303–36. Austin: University of Texas Press. Simon, E. 1971. “Die Omphale des Demetrios.” AA 76:199–206. Sisto, M.A. 2001. “Forma e decorazione figurate dello stamnos dalla Grecia alla Magna Grecia.” AnnBari 44:35–78. 2006a. “Forma e decorazione figurata dello stamnos dalla Grecia alla Magna Grecia.” In Il greco, il barbaro e la ceramica attica. Immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni, Vol. 3. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di

egh

333

334

efh

Works Cited

Studi, Catania-Caltanissetta-Gela-Camarina-Vittoria-Siracusa, 14–19 maggio 2001, edited by F. Giudice and R. Panvini, 151–63. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. 2006b. “Nestorides.” Ostraka 15:363–406. 2006c. “Vasi su vasi. Nestorides e crateri a colonnette in Magna Grecia.” In Iconografia 2005. Immagini e immaginari dall’antichit`a classica al mondo moderno. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Venezia 2005, Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 26– 28 gennaio 2005, edited by I. Colpo, I. Favaretto, and F. Ghedini, 411–17. Rome: Quasar. Skydsgaard, J.E. 1974.“Transhumance in Ancient Italy.” AnalRom 7:7–36. Small, A.M., ed. 1992. An Iron Age and Roman Republican Settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia – excavations of 1965–1974. London: British School at Rome. 2004. “Some Greek Inscriptions on Native Vases from South East Italy.” In Greek identity in the western Mediterranean: papers in honour of Brian Shefton, edited by K. Lomas, 267–85. Leiden: Brill. 2006. “Impressions of ethnic identity: Hellenistic tile stamps in South Italy.” In Across frontiers: Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Cypriot. Studies in honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway, edited by E. Herring, I. Lemos, F. Lo Schiavo, L. Vagnetti, R. Whitehouse, and J. Wilkins, 327–37. London: Accordia Research Institute. Small, A.M., and C.M. Small. 2002. “The Basentello Valley survey (Apulia, Basilicata).” In New Developments in Italian Landscape Archaeology. Theory and methodology of field survey; Land evaluation and landscape perception; Pottery production and distribution. Proceedings of a three-day conference held at the University of Groningen, April 13–15, 2000, edited by P. Attema, G.-J. Burgers, E. van Joolen, M. van Leusen, and B. Mater, 83–6. Oxford: Archeopress. Small, C.M., and A.M. Small. 2007. “Archaeological field survey at San Felice in Apulia.” Mouseion 7(2):101–22. Smallwood, W., and S. Woodford. 2003. CVA, Great Britain 20, British Museum 10: Fragments from Sir William Hamilton’s Second Collection of Vases Recovered from the Wreck of HMS Colossus. London: British Museum Press. S¨ oldner, M. 2007. ΒΙΟΣ ΕΥΔΑΙΜΝ: zur Ikonographie des Menschen in der rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei Unteritaliens. Die Bilder aus Lukanien. M¨ ohnsee: Bibliopolis. 2009. “Naiskoi f¨ ur Menschen. Eine heroisierende Fiktion im unteritalischen Vasenbild.” In Mensch – Heros – Gott. Weltentw¨ urfe und Lebensmodelle im Mythos der Vormoderne, edited by C. Schmitz and A. Bettenworth, 35–51. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1973. “The Young Abductor of the Locrian Pinakes,” BICS 20:12–21. 1987. “A Series of Erotic Pursuits: Images and Meanings,” JHS 107:131–53. Steingr¨aber, S. 1985. Catalogo ragionato della pittura etrusca. Milan: Jaca Book. Sublimi Saponetti, S. 1991. “I resti animali di Gravetta (Lavello, PZ).” In Comunit`a indigene e problemi della romanizzazione nell’Italia centro-meridionale (IV° – III° sec av.C). Actes du Colloque international, Rome 1er – 3 f´evrier 1990, edited by J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts, 105–8. Brussels: Institut Historique Belge de Rome; Turnhout: Diffusion, Brepols Publishers. Swift, K. 2011. “Archaic to Late-Republican Transport Amphorae.” In The Chora of Metaponto 3. Archaeological Field Survey, Bradano to Basento, edited by J.C. Carter and A. Prieto, 455–88. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Works Cited

Swinburne, H. 1790. Travels in the Two Sicilies in the Years 1777, 1778, 1779 & 1780. 4 vols. 2nd ed. London: J. Nichols for T. Cadell and P. Elmsley. Tagliamonte, G. 1996. I Sanniti: Caudini, Irpini, Pentri, Carricini, Frentani. Milan: Longanesi. Tagliente, M. 1991. “L’acropoli di Lavello ed i suoi monumenti.” In Forentum II: L’acropoli in et`a classica, edited by A. Bottini and M. P. Fresa, 17–26. Venosa: Osanna. 1996. “La ceramica enotria.” In Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale, edited by S. Bianco, 79–88. Naples: Electa. 1999. “La Basilicata centro-settentrionale in et`a arcaica.” In Storia della Basilicata, edited by D. Adamesteanu, 391–418. Bari: Laterza. 2006. “L’attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata nel 2005.” AttiTaranto 45:725–54. Taliericio Mensitieri, M. 2003. “La documentazione numismatica.” AttiTaranto 43:401– 31. Taplin, O. 1993. Comic Angels: And Other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-Paintings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. Pots and Plays: Interaction between Tragedy and Greek Vase-Painting of the Fourth Century B.C. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. 2012. “How was Athenian Drama played in the Greek West?” In Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by K. Bosher, 226–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taplin, O., and R. Wyles, eds. 2010. The Pronomos Vase and its Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarditi, C. 1996. Vasi di bronzo in area apula. Produzioni greche ed italiche di et`a arcaica e classica. Galatina: Congedo. Tardugno, M. 2009. “Atena Lucana: una necropoli indigena ai margini del Vallo di Diano.” Siris 10:53–64. Tatton-Brown, V. 1992. “Loomweights, bobbins and spindle-whorls.” In An Iron Age and Roman Republican Settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia – excavations of 1965– 1974, edited by A.M. Small, 218–26. London: British School at Rome. Thorn, J.M. 2009. “The invention of ‘Tarentine’ Red-Figure.” Antiquity 83:174–83. Thorn, J.M., and M.D. Glascock. 2010. “New evidence for Apulian Red-Figure Production Centres.” Archaeometry 52(5):777–96. Tillyard, E. 1923. The Hope Vases: A Catalogue and a Discussion of the Hope Collection of Greek Vases with an Introduction on the History of the Collection and on Late Attic and South Italian Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tischbein, J.H.W., and W. Hamilton. 1791–1795. Collection of Engravings from Ancient Vases mostly of pure Greek Workmanship discovered in sepulcres in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies but chiefly in the neighbourhood of Naples during the course of the years MDCCLXXXIX and MDCCLXXXX, now in the possession of Sir W. Hamilton with remarks on each vase by the collector. 4 vols. Naples: Royal Academy of Painting. Tite, M.S. 2008. “Ceramic Production, Provenance and Use: a Review.” Archaeometry 50(2):216–31. Tocco Sciarelli, G. 1980. “Aspetti culturali della Val d’Agri dal VII al VI secolo a.C.” In Attivit`a archeologica in Basilicata 1964–1977. Scritti in onore di Dinu Adamesteanu, 439–65. Matera: META. Todisco, L., 2010a. “I culti in et`a tardoclassica ed ellenistica.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L. Todisco, 265–70. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider.

egh

335

336

efh

Works Cited

ed. 2010b. La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009). Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider. 2010c. “La societ`a indigena tra oralit`a e scrittura in et`a tardoclassica ed ellenistica.” In La Puglia centrale dall’Et`a del Bronzo all’Alto Medioevo. Archeologia e Storia. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Bari, 15–16 giugno 2009), edited by L. Todisco, 271–7. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Todisco, L., and M. Sisto. 1998. “Un gruppo di vasi attici e il problema delle ‘special commissions’ in Italia meridionale.” MEFRA 110:571–608. Tomei, D. 2008. “I kantharoi greci a figure nere e rosse.” Ostraka 17:111–80. Torelli, M. 1976. “I culti di Locri.” AttiTaranto 16:147–84. 1996. “Per un’archeologia dell’Oinotria.” In Greci, Enotri e Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale, edited by S. Bianco, 123–31. Naples: Electa. 2004. “Principes indigeni e classi dirigenti italiote. Per una storia della committenza dei vasi apuli.” In Miti greci. Archeologia e pittura dalla Magna Grecia al collezionismo. Catalogo della mostra, Milano, 3 ottobre 2004 – 16 gennaio 2005, edited by G. Sena Chiesa and E. Arslan, 190–2. Milan: Electa. Trendall, A.D. 1936. Paestan Pottery: A Study of the Red-Figured Vases of Paestum. London: British School at Rome. 1938. Fr¨ uhitaliotische Vasen. Bilder griechischer Vasen 12. Leipzig: Verlag Heinrich Keller. 1953. “The Choephoroi Painter.” In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson II, edited by G.E. Mylonas, 114–26. St. Louis: Washington University. 1953–55. Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano. Vasi italioti ed etrusch a figure rosse. 2 vols. Citt`a del Vaticano: Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie Pontificie. 1967. Phlyax Vases. 2nd ed. BICS Supplement 19. London: Institute of Classical Studies. 1971. Gli indigeni nella pittura italiota. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. 1982. “Vase-Painting in South Italy and Sicily.” In The Art of South Italy: Vases from Magna Graecia, edited by M. Mayo, 15–21. Richmond: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. 1988. “Masks on Apulian Red-Figured Vases.” In Studies in Honour of T.B.L. Webster II, edited by J. Betts, J.T. Hooker, and J.R. Green, 137–61. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. 1989. Red Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily. London: Thames and Hudson. 1990. “On the Divergence of South Italian from Attic Red-figure Vasepainting.” In Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology, Sydney 9–14 July 1985, edited by J.-P. Descœudres, 217–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995. “A Phlyax Bell-krater by the Lecce Painter.” In Classical Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney edited by A. Cambitoglou and E.G.D. Robinson, 125–31. Mainz: von Zabern. Trendall, A.D., and T.B.L. Webster. 1971. Illustrations of Greek Drama. London: Phaidon. Tsingarida, A. 2009. “A la sant´e des dieux et des hommes. La phiale, un vase `a boire au banquet ath´enien?” In Images Mises en Forme. Metis 9, edited by M.-C. Villaneuva-Puig, ´ cole des Hautes E ´ tudes en Sciences Sociales. 91–109. Paris: E Ugolini, D. 1983. “Tra perirrhanteria, louteria e thymiateria. Note su una classe ceramica da S. Biagio della Venella (Metaponto).” MEFRA 95:449–72.

Works Cited

Untermann J. 1964. “Die Messapischen Personennamen.” In Die Sprache der Illyrier, II, edited by H. Krahe, 153–213. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Vagnetti, L., R.E. Jones, S.T. Levi, and M. Bettelli. 2006. “Circolazione a vasto raggio di ceramiche protostoriche: il caso della ceramica micenea.” In La ceramica in Italia quando l’Italia non c’era. Atti della 8a Giornata di Archeometria della Ceramica (Vietri sul Mare, 27–28 aprile 2004), edited by B. Fabbri, S. Gualtieri and M. Romito, 11–21. Bari: Edipuglia. Vasari, G. 1568. Le Vite de’ pi` u eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori. Firenze: Giunti. Vaughan, S.J. 1995. “Observations from an Aegean Perspective on the Relationship between Archaeology and Science as Reflected in the Study of Ancient Pottery.” In Klados. Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream, edited by C. Morris, 261–70. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies. Venturo, D. 1994. “Altamura (Bari), Casal Sabini,” Taras 14:93–4. 1995. “Altamura (Bari), Casal Sabini.” Taras 15:69–70. 1997. “Altamura (Bari), Casal Sabini.” Taras 17:51–2. 1999. “Altamura (Bari), via La Carrera.” Taras 19:58. 2001. “Rassegna archeologica.” Altamura 42:221–38. V´erilhac, A.-M., and C. Vial. 1998. Le mariage grec du VIe si`ecle av.J.-C. `a l’´epoque d’Auguste. BCH suppl. 32. Paris: Boccard. Veyne, P. 1979. “L’hell´enisation de Rome et la probl`ematique des acculturations.” Diog`ene 106:3–29. Villard, F. 1990. “L’art: C´eramique et peinture.” AttiTaranto 28:177–97. Vogel, J. 1886. Scenen Euripideischer Trag¨odien in Griechischen Vasengem¨alden. Leipzig: Veit. Vokotopoulou, I. 1986. Bίτσα: τα νεκρoταφεία μιάς μoλoσσικής κώμης. Aρχαιoλoγικόν Δελτίoν. Δημoσιεύματα, suppl. 33. Athens: Tameio Archaiologik¯ on Por¯ on kai Apallotriose¯ on. Volpe, G. 2006. ”Citt`a apule fra destrutturazione e trasformazione: i casi di Canusium ed Herdonia.” In La citt`a italiane tra la tarda antichit`a e l’alto medioevo: Atti del Convegno di Studi, Ravenna, 26–28 febbraio 2004, edited by A. Augenti, 559–87, Florence: all’Insegna del Giglio. Wachter, R. 2001. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ward-Perkins, J.B., M.A. Cotton, H.B. Vander Poel, E. Macnamara, J. du Plat Taylor, A. Carter, A.J.N.W. Prag, and A.M. Small. 1969. “Excavations at Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia: Second Interim Report, 1967–68.” PBSR 37:100–57. Watson, J. 1992. “Chapter VIII. The mammals.” In An Iron Age and Roman Republican Settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia – excavations of 1965–1974, vol. 1, edited by A.M. Small, 93–120. London: British School at Rome. Webster, T.B.L. 1968. “Towards a Classification of Apulian Gnathia.” BICS 15:1–33. Weigand, P.C., G. Harbottle, and E.V. Sayre. 1977. “Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A.” In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson, 15–34. New York: Academic Press. Whatmough, J., R.S. Conway, and S.E. Johnson. 1968. The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whitbread, I.K. 1995. “Appendix 3. The collection, processing and interpretation of petrographic data.” In Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study, edited by I.K. Whitebread, 365–396. Athens: British School at Athens. 2001. “Ceramic petrology, clay geochemistry and ceramic production: From Technology to the Mind of the Potter.” In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited

egh

337

338

efh

Works Cited

by D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, 449–459. Chichester and New York: John Wiley. 2003. “Clays of Corinth: The Study of a Basic Resource for Ceramic Production.” In Corinth 20: The Centenary, 1896–1996 (Corinth volume XX), edited by C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis, 1–13. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Whitehouse, R.D., J.B. Wilkins, and E. Herring. 2000. Botromagno. Excavations and Survey at Gravina in Puglia 1979–1985. London: Accordia Research Institute. Williams, D. 1983. “Sophilos in the British Museum.” In Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum, 1:9–34. Williams-Thorpe, O. 1995. “Obsidian in the Mediterranean and the Near East: A Provenancing Success Story.” Archaeometry 37(1–2):217–48. Wilson, L., and A.M. Pollard. 2001. “The Provenance Hypothesis.” In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, 507–17. Chichester and New York: J. Wiley. Wilson, P. 2010. “The Man and the Music (and the Choregos?).” In The Pronomos Vase and Its Context, edited by O. Taplin and R. Wyles, 181–212, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winckelmann, J. 2006. History of Art in Antiquity. Translated into English by F. Mallgrave. Los Angeles: Getty. Wobst, H. 1977. “Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange.” In For the Director: Research Essays in honor of James B. Griffen, edited by C. Cleland, 317–42, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Wright, R.V.S. 1992. MV-ARCH: a multivariate statistical package for Archaeology (3.0 ed.). Sydney. Wuilleumier, P. 1929. “Questions de c´eramique italiote.” RA 30:185–210. 1931. “Questions de c´eramique italiote.” RA 33:234–51. 1939. Tarente des origines `a la conquˆete romaine. Paris: de Boccard. Yntema, D. 1974. “Messapian painted pottery. Analysis and provisory classification.” BABEsch 49:3–84. 1979. “Background to a South-Daunian crater.” BABesch 54:1–43. 1990. The Matt-Painted Pottery of Southern Italy: A General Survey of the Matt-Painted Pottery Styles of Southern Italy During the Final Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Galatina: Congedo. 1993. In Search of an Ancient Countryside. The Amsterdam Free University Field Survey at Oria, province of Brindisi South Italy (1981–83). Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. 2001. Pre-Roman Valesio. Excavation of the Amsterdam Free University at Valesio, Province of Brindisi, southern Italy. Vol. 1. The Pottery. Amsterdam: Institute of Archaeology, Free University.

INDEX

AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectrometry), 248 Achaean alphabet, 47, 246 Aeschylus, 274 Agathokles, 43 Albergotti, Marquis Alberico, 288 Aldrovandi, Ulisse, 284 Alexander of Molossus, 32–33, 41–42, 45–46 Alfonso (Aragon), 14–16 amber jewelry, 2, 266 anakalypsis, 226 Ansidei collection, 288 Antiochus, on origins of different populations, 40, 44, 57–58 Antoninus Liberalis, on origins of different populations, 59 Aphrodite sanctuary at Saturo, 74, 75–76 Appian, on origins of different populations, 40, 59–60 Apulia Attic imports, 28–30 fall-off of red-figure imports, 29–30 common language in, 18 dress of, 18–19 end of native Apulian cultures, 32–33 ethnicity of artisans, 32 ethnography, anthropology and material culture, 18–20 figure-decorated pottery workshops established in, 1–2 geography and geology of, 13–14 iconography as different from Attic antecedents, 6, 7–8 land use in, 13 map of physical geography of, 15f political organization, 20–23

fortified settlements, 20–22, 42 hierarchal settlements, 22–23 political relations with Greeks, 46, 61 religion, 20 assimilation of Hellenic pantheon, 20 cave sanctuaries, 20 rural sanctuaries, 20 social organization, 23 stock raising in, 14–16 weapons and warfare, 27–28 weaving at, 16–18 wheel-made painted pottery, 31f. See also archaeological sites archaeobotanical analysis, 235n26 archaeological sites Altamura, 34n20, 34n43, 47, 224 Anzi, 96 Armento, 96, 111–112n14, 237n54 Arpi, 21–22, 24, 40, 146 Ascoli Satriano, 25, 172 Athens, Agora, 82, 267–268 Azetium, 156–157 Bari, 288, 296 Basentello Valley, 16, 17f, 22–23 Bitonto, 153–155, 179 customer preferences, 156 female tomb, 154, 155 reuse of tombs, 154 warrior tomb, 154 Brindisi (Brundisium), 46, 228 Apulian pottery, 191, 192, 193, 296 bronze herald’s staff, 39f, 39, 44 Canosa (Canusium), 14–15, 170f changes in tomb types, 263n55 female burials, 180

339

340

efh

Index

archaeological sites (cont.) funerary assemblage as standard set, 177–178 Piccolo Vimini tomb, 169–171, 175, 182n18 placement of tombs, 169 sanctuary at, 20 Tomb 1.08 in via Piano S. Giovanni, 178–180 Tomb 8.08 in via Piano S. Giovanni, 175–176, 176f, 178 Varrese hypogeum, 24–25, 25f weapon in tombs as social marker, 180 Carovigno, 190–191 Cavallino, 20, 187, 189 Ceglie del Campo, 6, 179, 296 Ceglie Messapica, 189 Conversano, 157–161, 162–166 dating of tombs, 157, 158 princeps/military leader tomb, 162–165, 165f, 166 semi-chamber tombs, 157, 162 Corinth, 252 Egnazia, 20, 190, 195–197, 198–200 Gioia del Colle, 47, 287, 296 Monte Sannace, 21, 21f, 23, 250–251 Gravina, 6, 27f, 30, 47, 177 Botromagno, 9n4, 16, 30, 32, 177: cave tomb, 25–26; chamber tomb, 24f, 24; fortification walls, 21, 22 Lavello, 20, 28, 172 Lecce (Lupiae), 24, 190–191, 192 Lipari, 128 Locri, 71 Luceria, 20, 46 Manduria, 191, 192, 296 Mesagne, 187, 189, 191, 192, 294 Metaponto, 14, 73, 97, 117 Attic influences, 100, 102–104, 105, 109 excavations of chora, 96–97, 98 Early Lucanian vase production, 1–2, 7, 28–29, 83, 104 kiln evidence for Apulian-style pottery, 73 origin of South Italian red-figure pottery, 69, 72 Montesardo, 190–191, 192 Montescaglioso, 224 Muro Tenente, 187, 192 Nard` o, 190–191, 192

Nemea, 276 Ordona, 176, 178 Oria, 43, 187, 193 Ortelle, 189–190 Otranto, 214 Pantanello, 96, 227, 264n68 Rocavecchia, 189, 190–191, 192 Rudiae, 190, 195–197, 200, 205 evidence of cult practices, 20 hypogeum, 24 Rugge, 296 Rutigliano, 155, 156 customer preferences, 156 dating of tombs, 155 evidence of cult practices, 20 Ruvo di Puglia, 6, 139–144, 296 armor in tombs, 266 funerary assemblage from, 140f gold from tombs, 266, 269 Tomb 1/1993, 142–143, 143f, 144 Tomb 2/1997, 144–145, 146 Tomb of the Dancers, 18–19, 304 warrior fossa Tomb A, 140f, 140–142 warrior fossa Tomb B, 146–149 Salapia 139, 172 Saldone, 96 Sant’ Angelo Vecchio, 96 San Mauro Forte, 246 Saturo, 74, 75–76, 95n114 Soleto, 47, 190–191 Taranto (Taras), 6, 88–89, 252 as likely home for Apulian potters and painters, 6 moulds and firing supports (bastoncelli), 84, 86–87 necropolis, 74 production contexts, 81–86, 88, 90 perspective for location/identification of workshops, 88–90 pits, dumps, wells, 77–78, 79 semata and vessels for burial ceremony, 80–81 settlement and sanctuary contexts, 74–76 standardized “burial kit”, 76 test pieces with draw holes and wasters, 84, 85 Tiati (Teanum Apulum) 20 Thurii, 71, 72, 91n22 Timmari, 96, 224 Ugento, 187, 190–191 Valenzano, 47

egh

Index

Valesio, 47, 191, 192, 193, 203–204 Vaste, 189, 190, 192, 195–198 evidence for cult practices, 20 evidence for funeral rituals, 187 evidence for social classes, 197–198 Fondo Aia necropolis, 197, 198 Melliche necropolis, 187, 197–198 Veglie, 189–190 Venusia, 46 Vereto, 190–191, 192 Vulci, 4 archaic clay pyramid from Cavallino, 47 archeometric analysis of Apulian and Lucanian red-figure pottery, 243–261 assumptions of Taranto center for Apulian production, 7, 246 chemical fingerprinting, 247–248 conclusions and suggestions, 261 context of production issues, 245–246 differences among most common techniques, 248–249 human behavior effects, 247 identity of artisan issues, 244–245 Lucanian red-figure results, 257–258, 258f, 259 multivariate analysis, 248–249 Neutron Activation Analysis, 252, 259, 260f new analyses of Apulian red-figure (and related) pottery, 249–256 Apulian Group 1 clays (orange), 249, 251: provenance of, 252, 253f, 256 Apulian Group 2 clays (pale), 249, 251, 252, 259: provenance of, 252, 256 Canonical Variates Analysis of, 249, 256, 257f close-up photographs of Apulian red-figure., 250, 251f PCA of samples, 252–254, 254f, 255–256 provincial Gnathia vases, 255 red-figure chorus attributed to BM Centaur Group, 255–256 plot of elemental scores for the PCA, 249, 250f plot of PCA results for Apulian red-figure samples 249f, 249 reasons to use calcareous clays, 252–253 Nicholson Museum sample used for, 244, 259f non-Tarentine groups, 256 OES (Optical Emission Spectroscopy), 248 petrology, 260–261

PIXE-PIGME (Proton Induced X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Emission Spectrometry), 248, 249, 257, 258f, 261 power of techniques, 248 present state of field of archeometric analysis, 243–244 provenance postulate, 247 sample size, 248 technique and chemical analysis, 247–259 trace elements, usefulness of, 248, 259 XRF (X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry), 248 Archesilauos, 52 Archidamus III, 45 Archytas, 45 Aristeles, 52 Aristotle, on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 44, 65 Aristoxenus, on society, social figures, and practices, 43, 63–64 armor, 2, 8 hoplite, 27–28 race-in-armor motif, 107 in tombs at Canosa, 25 in tombs at Conversano, 162–166 in tombs at Ruvo, 266. See also warriors; weapons Artas (potentate of Messapians), 23, 29, 41 alliance with Athens, 1, 228 Asika, 52 astragalos (knucklebone), 172, 183n40 Athenaeus on Artas, 41 on society, social figures, and practices, 42–43, 62 Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS), 248 Atthis, 228 Attic pottery classic technique, 250–251 as continuous phenomenon in Athens, 116 Etruscan funerary context of, 185n78 images directly from Greece, 6 influence on Metaponto, 100, 102–104, 105, 109 wedding scenes on, 114n82 band motif at Canosa, 174–175, 176 at Casone, 172 at San Severo, 172 Barberini collection, 284, 290

341

342

efh

Index

barley, 14–15 Baron d’Hancarville (Pierre Franc¸ois Hughes), 4 Bellori, Giovan Pietro, 284, 288 bellum Sallentinum, 46 belts, bronze from Conversano, 157 from Ruvo, 145, 146 Benavides, Marco Mantova, 284 Bentivoglio, Guido (Marquis), 287 Bianco, Giuliana, 233 Bisbaia (sickle), 217 black-figure pottery Attic imports at Peucetia, 28 Corinthian, 30 provenance of, from warrior tomb in Ruvo, 141–142 black-gloss pottery from Canosa, 172, 175 Metapontine, 102–104, 257–258 oinochoe from Melfi, 178 from Soleto with inscriptions, 47 from Via Castellana, tomb 1, 138 Bonaparte, Lucien, 4 bothroi, 75–76 Bradano-Basento transect, 96–97 Bradano Trough, 256, 260–261 Brandenburg, Prince of, 288 burials. See tombs and burials Calabrians, origins of, 40 calles (drove roads), 15 Callimachus, on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 45, 67 Cambitoglou, Alexander, 7, 36, 274 Campanian vases, 288, 290 candelabrum, 190 Canonical Variates Analysis (CVA), 249, 256, 257f Capponi, Alessandro Gregorio, 284, 290 Caraga, Giovanni, 292 Casa Ricotta, 97 Casa Teresa, 97 Castello, Ignazio Patern` o (Prince of Biscari), 294 Cawdor vase, 292 cereal containers in burials, 235n23 chemical fingerprinting, 247–248 Chigi collection, 284 child burials, 149–150n19, 187, 198 chitons, 104, 138–139, 172, 178

cinerary vase, 105 clay pyramids, inscriptions on, 51 Clearchus on poleis, 42, 43, 44 on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 64–65 on society, social figures, and practices, 63 Clement XII (Pope), 284, 290 Cleonymus, 46 Cluster Analysis, 248–249 collections, of Apulian and Lucanian red-figure pottery in 18th century, 283–299 Apulian and Lucanian vases in late 17th/early 18th century collections, 286–296 Apulian vases, 285 archival evidence for, 283 Attic vases, 285 preference for, 286 attributions of 141 vases belonging to 27 collections, 1680 to 1765, 299f Campanian vases, 285 preference for, 286 collections formed in central Italy, 287–290 Bologna, 287 Florence, Lucca, Pisa, Siena and Perugia, 287–288 Rome, 290 collections formed in southern Italy, 290–296 Catania, 294 Naples, 292–294 Rossi collection in Brindisi, 294–296 collections formed in the north of Italy, 287 conclusions about, 296–299 groups on basis of attribution and RVAp, 296–298 Etruscan vases, 285 Hamilton collection first collection, 286, 300n13 second collection, 286, 300n13, 300n16 Lucanian vases, 285 Paestan vases, 285 South Italian and Attic vases, from 15th to end of 17th century, 284 South Italian and Attic vases, general overview, 284–286 Vatican Library collection, 284, 285 collections, overview of, 281 communal drinking, evidence of, 172

egh

Index

Condottieri, 66–67 connoisseurship approach, 8 Contrada Scegno, burials at, 206n11 Corinth, clay at, 252 Corinthian pottery, 30, 82, 145, 171, 194, 216 Cosimo I (Florence and Tuscany), 288 CVA (Canonical Variates Analysis), 249, 256, 257f da Carpi (Cardinal), 284 Daunia Apulian-style pottery from, 73 evidence of cult practices in, 20 hunting scenes on stelae from, 35n54 Iapygians, of ancient Puglia, 18, 50–51, 53. See also archeological sites; Daunians Daunians, 2 burials, 19–20 geographic distribution of, 18, 38 language of, 18 origins of, 40 de Grassi, Francesco Enrico (Count of Pianura), 292 De Leo Library (Brindisi), 294 del Giudice, Niccol` o (Cardinal), 290 del Monaco, Giacomo Antonio, 292 Delphi, Tarentine monuments to celebrate victories, 1, 44 Demetrius, on Artas, 41 Demosthenes, 23, 228 Dempster, Thomas, 288 de Thoms, Frederick (Count), 292 D’Hancarville (Baron), 285, 300n13 diadems, at Metaponto, 104 di Costanzo, Ludovico (Monsignor), 290 Diodorus Siculus, 44, 45, 46, 64–65, 67 Dionysius Halicarnassus, on origins of different populations, 40, 58 Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse, 45 Dionysius the Younger, 45 Discriminant Function Analysis, 248–249, 256 Doric dialect, 73 drove roads (calles), 15 duc de Luynes, 111n9 Dunbabin, T. J., 2 Durand collection, 294–296

Early Ornate style vases Apulian vases, 290, 292 use of pale clay in, 251, 252, 259. See also painters and groups, Attic; painters and groups, South Italian Egizio, Matteo, 292 Empress Josephine collection, 294–296 erotes, 147 erotic pursuit, abduction, seduction, 226 ethnicity/distribution of indigenous populations in Apulia, Greek and Latin sources on, 53–56 Etruria Regali (Dempster), 288 Etruscan funerary context, Attic vases present in, 185n78 Etruscan Kyknos Painter 93n68 Etruscan Perugia Painter, 126–127 Euripides Aiolos, 122 Andromache, 274–275, 275f Iphigenia in Tauris, 273f, 273–274 Hypsipyle, 275–276, 277f Orestes, 276 productions in Ruvo di Puglia by, 272–278 fans, 102 Fattoria Stefan (farmhouse), 97 female heads at Ceglie del Campo, 148 of Circle of Darius and Underworld Painters, 139, 197 of Darius Painter, 138 on Late Apulian pottery at Vaste, 197 at Rutigliano, 139 at Ruvo, 145–146, 147 of Underworld Painter, 138 of Varrese Painter, 154 Ficoroni, Francesco, 290 Fiorentini collection, 288 firing supports (bastoncelli), at Taranto, 78, 82, 84, 86–88 food preparation/consumption pottery, 177 Fossa Bradanica, 14 Franc¸ois vase, 239n95 Gallery of the Botanic Garden (Pisa; Giardino dei Semplici), 288 gender roles, associated with grave goods, 26–27 Geschichte (Winckelmann), 286 Girolamini Libary, 292

343

344

efh

Index

Gnathia pottery, 91n28, 94n103 archeometric analysis of, 255 decoration connection to Varrese Painter, 209n60 Laurel Spray Group from Ruvo, 252–253 progressive replacement of red-figure by, 76 at Rudiae, 200 at Vaste, 198 at Via Castellana, 138 at Via Leonida 84 at Via Umbria, 86 gold jewelry, 2, 266, 269 Gori, Anton Francesco, 288, 290, 292, 294 graffiti on firing supports, 86 Greek and Latin Sources on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 53–56 for origins of different populations, 57–58, 60 for political organization, 60–62 kings and dynasts, 60–61 poleis, 61–62 for political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 64–67 and Barbaros polemos, 64–65 and Condottieri, 66–67 first half of 4th century and Archytas, 65–66 second half of 5th century, 65 for presence of Greeks in indigenous contexts, 64 for society, social figures, and practices, 62–64 Greeks, in indigenous contexts, 64 Greek theater, in Italic settlements in 4th century B.C.E. Apulia, 265–278 early beginnings of, 265 influence on vase painters, 8 in Ruvo di Puglia, 266–278 comic productions, 268 construction of stages for performances, 267–268 depiction of death of Neoptolemos, 274–275, 275f, 276 depiction of Hypsiplye, 275–276, 277f depiction of myth of Iphigenia in Tauris, 273f, 273–274, 276 evidence for Greek literacy, 267, 268 frontal mask, 272f, 272 funerary scene, 268, 269f

Hesione, 270 naiskos scenes, 268 Pronomos krater, 269f, 268–269, 270–271, 271f satyr play, 269–270, 271, 280n41, 280n44 tragic productions, 271–278 Grimani collection, 284, 287 Grotta Porcinara, 20 Gualtieri, Filippo Antonio (Cardinal), 284, 290 Hamilton, William, 3, 4, 285–286 Hamilton collection first collection, 286, 300n13 second collection, 286, 294, 300n13, 300n16 Hammond, William, 292 Hecataeus on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 37–38, 53 on poleis, 42, 61 Heraclea, 71, 72 Herodotus, 1, 18 on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 38, 54 on myths of origins, 40 on origins of different populations, 57 on political organization of poleis, 42, 44, 61 on presence of Greeks in indigenous contexts, 64 on slaughter of Greeks in Taras, 44 on society, social figures, and practices, 43, 62 Hesychius, 217 Holstein, Luca, 290 Hope, Thomas, 4 Hope collection, 294 Hughes, Peirre Franc¸ois (Baron d’Hancarville), 4 hunt/courtship scene, 154 hunting scenes Calydonian Boar-hunt, 92n50 as evidence of social class, 30 scene attributed to Diogenes Painter, 154 on stelae from Daunia, 35n54 Iapygians, of ancient Puglia, 1 Attic or Italiote pottery fragment with a map from Soleto, 48f Daunia, 18, 50–51, 53

egh

Index

defeat of Greeks from Taranto and Rhegium by, 1, 44 dress and funerary practices of, 37 epigraphic evidence for, 46–51 geographic boundaries of, 36 Greek cultural features in vases of, 37 language of, 18 literary evidence for, 37–43 ethnicity and geography, 37–40 inscribed bronze herald staff, 39f, 39, 44 inscription of Artos Atotios from Ruvo, 47, 48f origin myths, 40–41 political organization, 41–43 reception/diffusion of alphabetic writing, 52–53 Tarentine and Messapian alphabets, 49f votive inscription to Aprodita from Ceglie Messapica., 51f Messapia, 47–50 methodological issues, 51–52 numismatic sources, 39, 41f permeability toward Greek culture, 51–52 Peucetia, 18, 50–51 political organization, 41, 43f relations with Greeks, 1, 43–44, 46 social function of vases, 37 sub-regional areas, 36 Tarentine monument at Delphi to celebrate victory over, 1 urban and rural settlement expansion, 46 War with Pyrrhus, 46. See also Apulia and sites ICP-MS/OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry/Optical Emission Spectroscopy) xx, 248, 261 impasto pottery, 233–234n10, 234n14, 303 imports Attic, at Apulia, 28–30 Attic, red-figure vases at Metaponto, 100 Attic black-figure, at Peucetia, 28 fall-off of red-figure, at Apulia, 29–30 of figure-decorated pottery from Greece, 1 incised stelae, 16–17 inhumation, 26, 184n57 inscriptions in Achaean alphabet, 47, 246 on black-gloss Attic/Italiote vase, 47 on bronze herald staff from Brindisi, 39f, 39, 44

on clay pyramids, 51 in Doric dialect, 73 graffiti on firing supports, 86 Greek, from Altamura, 47 Greek, from Peucetia, 47 at Messange, 294 on pilasters, 105 Institute of Sciences and Arts (Bologna), 287 intermarriage, 228 Iron Age, 20 Italic sites, overview of, 131–132 Italinski (Count), 286 Jatta family, Attic vases collected by, 29, 149n13, 150n36 Justin on Alexander of Molossus, 41–42 on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 46, 61 Kalabria figures, 38 Karbina people, 42 kerameikos at Athens, 245 kiln sites firing supports at Taranto, 78, 82, 84, 86–88 imported material present at, 262n27 at Metaponto, 7, 69, 73 at Taranto, 82, 83, 84–85 knucklebone (astragalos), 172, 183n40 komos, 226 kyma frieze, 102 Lacava, Michele, 96 La Malmaison collection, 294–296, 302n45 Lamberg (Count), 292 Laws (Plato), 265 libation rituals, 174 Livy on political organization of poleis, 42, 61–62 on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 45 loomweights at Botromagno, 16 Lorenzo the Magnificent, 287–288 Lucania (Greek colony) figure-decorated pottery workshops established in, 1–2 production of red-figure vases in, 6 vases collected by Rossi, 296 water containers from, 235n22 Lucanization process, 222

345

346

efh

Index

Madonna delle Grazie sanctuary, 20 male nudity, Apulian vs. Attic use of, 8 marriage intermarriage, 228 mixed, and gifts of red-figure nestorides, 228 nuptial scene on bell-krater by Anabates Painter, 106 nuptial scenes at Metaponto, 105–106 prenuptial gift exchange scene, 138 wedding scenes, 114n82, 226–227, 239n95 Marsilli, Luigui Fernando, 287 mass craft production, 152 Massimi collection, 284 Mastrilli, Felice Maria, 285, 292–294 Mastrilli collection, 285, 292–294 matt-painted pottery, 233–234n10, 234n14 Mayer, Massimo, 169 Medici, Cosimo I de’, 284 Medici, Lorenzo de’, 284 Medici Museum, Apulian vases exhibited at, 287–288 Melzi, Camillo (Archbishop of Capua), 290 Messapia evidence of cult practices at, 20 Iapygians of ancient Puglia at, 47–50 archaic inscriptions of, 47 epigraphical literacy of, 47–50 epigraphic documents, distribution of, 50 funerary/votive inscriptions of, 50 Greek-speaking figures in native communities, 52 permeability toward Greek culture, 51–52 reception and diffusion of alphabetic writing and epigraphic literacy, 52–53 stability in social and cultural identity, 53 local painted wares for tombs in Peucetia, 30 sanctuaries and temples at, 43. See also archeological sites Messapian contexts, of Apulian pottery, 186–206 conclusions of, 205–206 distribution patterns and analysis of findings, 189–190 chronological phases, 190, 191f Early Apulian, 190–191, 193f Late Apulian, 193–194, 195f

map of, 189f Middle Apulian, 191–193, 194f vase shapes and distribution, 190–192, 192f, 194 funerary rituals, 187 assemblages as indicators of social roles, 187 reuse of tombs, 187 simplicity of assemblages, 187 tombs of elites, 187 Manduria funerary assemblage, 187, 188f methodology and analysis of finds, 188–195 provenience, 204t settlement patterns, 186 Messapians, 1, 2 burials of, 20 geographic distribution of, 18, 38 language of, 50 myths of origins of, 40–41 Tarentine monuments at Delphi to celebrate victory over, 1 Messapic funerary inscription of a priestess of Damatra from Valesio, 50f metal object sourcing, 247 m´etiss´e (mixed style), 73 Miltiades, 240n103 mint, at Ruvo, 22–23 mirrors, 171–172, 184n66 mixed marriages, 228 Monte Gargano massif, 13 Monte Papalucio, rural sanctuary at, 20, 47, 186 Monterisi Rossignoli hypogeum, 181 Moon-Oakeshott, Noel, 124 Morellian technique, 4–5 Morkos, 32, 52 Murge plateau, 14 MV-ARCH package, 249 myths and legends Achilles, 226 Agamemnon, 80 Amazons, 166 Aphrodite/Aprodita, 43, 74, 75–76, 226 Apollo, 197, 274 Ariadne, 197, 269, 270 Artemis, 43, 86, 91n28, 274 Bellerophon, 126 Boreas, 226 Calydonian Boar-hunt, 92n50 Cyclops, 217

egh

Index

Damarta, 43 Dionysiac, 118, 197, 209n45, 226, 269–270 Electra, 80 Eros, 106, 134, 136–137, 226 as athlete, 100–102 kneeling, 102 pursuing female, 100 Euneos, 276 Eurydice, 276 Gigantomachy, 86 Gorgon, 86 Hebe, 100 Helen, 106, 226 Herakles, 100, 166, 246 Ipigenia, 273f, 273–274, 280n54 Jason, 276 Kanake, 118 Kephalos, 226 Kerberos, 91n33 Marsyas, 197 Medea, 118 Medusa, 26, 217–218 Menelaos, 226 Muses 197 Neoptolemos, 274 Nike, 107, 142, 143, 163 Odysseus, 102 Oedipus, 80 Opheltes/Archemoros, 276 Orestes, 274, 276 Orpheus, 81 Palladion, 86 Paris, 106 Peleus, 226 Perseus, 86, 102 Polyphemos, 217 Procne, 228 Pylades, 274 Sphinx, 80 Teiresias, 102 Theseus, 228 Thetis, 226 Thoas, 276 Troilus, 226 Zis 43 NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis), 248, 252, 259, 260f naiskos iconography, 88, 90, 119–120, 148 “native” (Italic) vase shapes, in south Italian pottery, 213–233

association with native wines of Apulia and Lucania, 232 Attic imitations of native shapes, 213–214 and cementing of military alliances, 1, 228 and elites, 229 geographic distribution of, 213–214 history of kantharoid shapes, 214–217 classification issues, 214–215 development of vases with two tall vertical handles, 214–215, 215f, 216, 220 evidence of native wine culture before Greek colonization, 216–217 function as grave goods, 215–216 function as wine vases, 216 typology of, 214–215 imagery on, 226–227 imitation of native shapes, 217–227 function of, 224–226 iconography of, 224, 226–227 production patterns, 227–229 recent research on, 233 selection of shapes by native markets, 229–233. See also vase shapes neonates, tomb style for, 303. See also child burials Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), 248, 252, 259, 260f new Tribunal (1970–1990), excavation of, 78–79 Nicander on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 38, 54 on myths of origins, 40 Nikomachus, 246 Northern Lucanian culture, nestoris shape of, 214 Numa, 235–236n28 nuptial scenes, at Metaponto, 105–106. See also marriage obsidian sourcing, 247 Odyssey (Book 9), 217 OES (Optical Emission Spectroscopy), 248 Ofanto, duality in burial practices in, 184n57 ointment containers (unguentaria), 187 olive bud and leaves motif, 173 olive cultivation, 14 onomastic formulas, Messapian language, 50 Opis (king of Iapygians), 1, 41 Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES), 248

347

348

efh

Index

Oresteia (Aeschylus), 274 Orestes (Euripides), 276 origins of different populations, 57–58, 60 Ornate style, 7, 80, 124 Osco-Sabellian peoples, 227 overpainted pottery from Piccolo Vimini tomb, 173 from Tomb 8/08 in via Piano S. Giovanni, 175–176 painters and groups. See also painters and groups, Attic; painters and groups, South Italian painters and groups, Attic Altamura Painter, 213 Beldam Painter, 112n33 Bonn 94, Class of 213, 270 Bonn 94, Group of, 102 Bowdoin Painter, 294 Eretria Painter, 101 Florence Painter, 294–296 Marlay Painter, 294 Meidias Painter, 100, 101f, 102, 110 Meleager Painter, 240n113 Mesagne Painter, 263–264n56 Pronomos Painter, 268–269, 269f, 270–271, 271f, 280n41 Washing Painter, 102 painters and groups, South Italian Altenburg Group, 123 Amphorae Group, 154, 241n127, 252 Amykos Painter, 98–100, 104, 117–118, 119f, 119, 120f, 121f, 122f, 120–122, 123f, 123–124, 125f, 125–126, 127f, 128, 134, 135f, 141f, 140–141, 219f, 219, 240n99, 287, 288 Anabates Painter, 98–100, 106–107, 108f, 114n83, 114n85, 142–143, 144f, 218, 287 Arn` o Painter, 79, 86, 88, 117, 126–127 Athens 1714, Painter of, 176–177, 294, 296 Baltimore Painter, 146–147, 147f, 148–149, 151n55, 154–155, 160–161, 229, 241n127, 263n55, 290, 296 Barletta Painter, 197, 209n45, 209n51 Berlin Dancing Girl, Painter of, 73, 79, 88–89, 90–91n13, 200, 294, 296 Big-Head Painter, 117, 126 Birth of Dionysos, Painter of, 73, 80, 86, 91n14, 272f, 272 Black Fury Painter, 75

B.M. Centaur Group, 159, 203, 255–256 B.M. F 162, Painter of, 292 B.M. F 465 Group, 139 Bologna 498, Painter of, 171–172 Brooklyn Budapest Painter, 104–105, 117, 125–126, 220, 221f, 222 Ceglie Group, 151n55 Chevron Group, 139, 145f, 145–146, 156, 159–160 Choephoroi Painter, 106, 108, 222, 237n59 Chrysler Group, 158 Chur Painter, 139 Cleveland Group, 206n11 Como Group, 159 Copenhagen 4223, Painter of, 288 Copenhagen Group, 154 Creusa Painter, 88, 98–100, 105, 106, 114n85, 144, 157, 236n49, 237n59, 287, 292, 296 Cyclops Painter, 98–100, 102, 103f, 117, 123, 287 Darius Painter, 89–90, 138, 156, 159, 160–161, 165–166, 182n2, 197, 206n11, 209n51, 255, 275–276, 277f, 288, 292 Darius and Underworld Painters, Circle of, 139, 197, 198, 288, 290, 294, 296 Dijon Painter, 288, 290, 294 Diogenes Painter, 154, 155, 157 Dolon Painter, 88, 98–100, 102, 106–108, 109f, 110f, 114n85, 229, 236n49, 237n59, 296 Dresden Painter, 154 Egnazia Group, 198–199, 203 Felton Painter, 251 Foggia Group, 294–296, 297f Ganymede Painter, 241n127, 288 Geneva 2754, Painter of, 158 Ginosa Group, 198–199 Gioa del Colle Painter, 139, 156, 160–161, 197, 198–199, 251, 287, 290, 294 Hearst Painter, 73, 88–89, 91n14 Helmet Painter, 292, 295f Hoppin-Lecce Group, 203–205, 251, 259 Hoppin Painter, 84, 89, 156, 158–159, 197, 199f, 200, 209n45, 296 Ilioupersis Painter, 156, 158–159, 273f, 273–274, 275f, 276 Intermediate Group, 84, 88, 94n91, 106, 157, 218, 263–264n56 Judgment Painter, 178

egh

Index

Kantharos Group, 292 Karlsruhe B 9, Painter of, 155 Karneia Painter, 104, 105f, 126 Kassel Cup, Painter of, 159–160 Lampas Painter, 254, 261 Lecce Painter, 80, 89, 197, 209n45, 256, 264n63 Lecce 614, Painter, 203–204 Lecce 686, Painter, 108, 172, 200 Lecce 875, Group of, 154 Liverpool Group, 238n72 Long Overfalls, Painter of, 80, 89, 157–158 Louvre K 67, Painter of, 292 Louvre Maiden, Painter of, 100 Lycurgus Painter, 80–81, 89, 114n84, 290 McDaniel Painter, 289f Metcalf Painter, 168 Otago Group, 203 Palaestra Group, 118 Palermo Painter, 88, 95n114, 104, 123–124, 219, 220 Parasol Painter, 250, 258 Patera Painter, 138, 139, 154–155, 160, 163f, 241n127, 290, 296 Pisticci Painter, 98–100, 107, 117, 118, 123, 288 Policoro Painter, 124 Primato Painter, Group of, 222, 257 Prisoner Painter, 28, 29f, 287 Roccanova Painter, 222, 296 Reggio Group, 124 Santapaola Painter, 128 Sarpedon Painter, 84, 89, 250, 251, 252 Schiller Painter, 157, 171 Schwerin Group, 94n91, 258 S`evres 1, Painter of, 154 Sisyphus Painter, 19f, 73, 91n14, 95n116, 200, 251, 288, 290 Snub Nose Painter, 203f, 203, 261, 287, 290, 292, 294, 296 Stanford-Conversano Group, 160 Stoke-on-Trent Painter, 151n55 Sydney Painter, 257 Sydney 46.68, Painter of, 201 Sydney 64, Painter of, 251 Sydney 71, Group of, 172, 251 Taranto 7013, Group of, 292 Tarporley Painter, 70, 92n50, 100, 108, 114n84, 155, 157, 197, 200, 209n51, 222, 251, 258, 287, 288, 290, 296

Thyrsus Painter, 92n37 TPS Group, 138, 139, 156 Truro Painter, 89, 158, 198, 200, 251 Underworld Painter, 89–90, 138, 156, 160–161, 197, 206n11, 290 Varrese Painter, 154, 203, 209n60, 222, 261, 264n62, 287, 288, 290, 291f, 292, 294, 296 Vaste Painter, 117, 126 Vatican Z 16, Group of, 290, 293f Verona Painter, 159 Vienna 4013, Group of, 176–177 Wavy-Border Group, 106 White Saccos Painter, 241n127, 292 Winterthur Group, 138, 139 Zurich 2657, Group of, 198–199 Zurich 2661, Painter of, 159–160 palaistra scene, 134 palmette motif, 104, 118, 183n48, 184n59 Passeri, Giovan Battista, 287, 288, 290, 292, 294 Pausanias, 1, 41, 44, 60, 64 Peralta, Giuseppe, 287 petrology, 260–261 Peucetia and Peucetians, 1, 2 evidence of cult practices in, 20, 43 Greek inscriptions from, 47 Iapygians, of ancient Puglia, 50–51 Greek speaking figures in native communities, 52 Hellenizing behavior, 53 language, 18 political organization, 41, 43f Pherecydes, 40 phialai, 232, 238n84 Piccolo Vimini tomb. See also Canosa, Piccolo Vimini tomb at Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis (Passeri), 287, 288, 290, 294 pilasters, inscribed, 105 pilum, 184n75 pincers, iron, in Piccolo Vimni tomb, 171–175 PIXE-PIGME (Proton Induced X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Emission Spectrometry), 248, 249, 257, 258f, 261 Plain Style Apulian vases, 290, 296 difference from Ornate Style, 7. See also painters and groups, Attic; painters and groups, South Italian

349

350

efh

Index

Plain Style Followers of Tradition A, Middle Apulian bell krater attributed to, 200 of Tradition B, Middle Apulian pottery attributed to, 200 use of orange clay by, 251 Plato, 265 Pliny on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 38, 39, 56 on myths of origins of Peucetians, 40 on poleis, 40 Plutarch, 45, 66–67 Poediculi, 34n14 poleis, Greek and Latin sources for political organization, 61–62 society, social figures, and practices, 62–64 Polemon of Ilium, on Artas, 41 political organization, Greek and Roman sources for, 60–62 political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks blocked with Taras, but good with Athens and Thurii, 65 first half of 4th century and Archytas, 65–66 Greek and Roman sources for, 64–67 Polybius, 18, 45, 65–66, 265 polychrome vases, 146–147 Porcinari collection, 285 pottery studies, overview of approaches to, 211 preventive archaeology, 133 Principal Components Analysis (PCA), 248–249 Proton Induced X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Emission Spectrometry (PIXE-PIGME), 248, 249, 257, 258f, 261 provenance, usage of, 262n20 Pseudo-Aristotle on presence of Greeks in indigenous contexts, 64 on society, social figures, and practices, 43, 63 Pseudo-Scylax, on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 38, 54 purification, 178, 184n68 Pyllos, 32 Pythagoras, 43

race-in-armor motif, 107 red-figure vases Attic technique with different imagery in southern Italy, 6 drastic reduction of dimensions of vases, 147 exports of Apulian red-figure, 6 first production in southern Italy, 6 serial production of, 147 red-figure workshops, overview of, 69–70 relief mask appliqu´es, 213 Riccardi, Vincenzo, 288 ripostiglio (contains part of grave-goods of sarcophagus), 136, 303, 304 Rocchietti, D., 111n13 roof tile (imbrex), 32 Rosaceae Sorbus domestica (rowan tree), fruits of as offering, 178 rosette compositions, Via Leonida 52, 84 Rossi, Pasquale, 294–296 Rossi collection, 296 Sallentini figures, 38, 40 Samnites, 140, 227 Sant’ Angelo Vecchio, 96 Santapaola Painter, 128 Sappho, 228 satyr play, 269–270, 271, 280n41, 280n44 satyrs, 86, 147, 280n41 scialbati vases, 146–147, 148 Second Italiote League, 45 semata (signs) and vessels for burial ceremony, 80–81 large krater fragments in Well 111, 4th century B.C.E., 80 monumental vases, 80 vases in primary depositions, 80 sheep grazing, 14 Sicily, 294 Sidini, 22 spears, 25, 28, 134, 142, 148, 171–175, 178 sphendonai, 102 Spiega catalogue, 292–294 spindle whorls at Botromagno, 16 sponge, 134 Stephanus of Byzantium, 42 Strabo on ethnicity/distribution of indigenous in Apulia, 38, 55–56 origins of different populations, 40, 58–59 on political organization, 41–42, 43, 46

egh

Index

on political organization of Lucanians, 42 on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 66 on Samnite marriage, 227 strigils, 134, 136, 142, 146, 171–175 bronze, in Piccolo Vimni tomb, 171–174, 175 from Metaponto, 104, 105, 119 swan motif, 173, 183n46, 183n48 swords, 28, 122, 162–163, 274 syngheneia, 228 Tavole Palatine, 97 Tavoliere plain, 13 Temple, William, 3 terracotta figurine production, at Taranto, 86 Theatines’ Library, Apulian vases in, 292 Thucydides, 1 on intermarriage between Segesta and Selinous, 240n104 on kings and dynasts, 23, 29, 41, 60 on political relations of Iapygian peoples with Greeks, 44, 65 tintinnabula, 187 Tischbein, J.H.W., 286 Tomb of the Diver at Poseidonia, 221–222 tomb of the Hoplite, 181 tombs and burials, 2–4, 19–20, 23–26, 27, 77–78, 79, 100, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 175, 187, 263n55, 303–304 cremation, 20, 77, 104, 105 inhumation, 26, 77 reuse of tombs, 142, 145, 154, 157, 187 semicremation, 175, 178, 184n57. See also tombs, types of tombs, types of cappuccina tomb of infant, 100 enchytrismos, 303 hypogeum, 24–25, 25f, 94n103, 178, 180, 181, 182n18 pozzo (well), 303 sarcophagus, 303 ripostiglio (square receptacle for grave goods), 136, 303, 304 tomba a camera (chamber tomb), 23–24, 24f, 77, 304 tomba a cassa (cista litica), 304 tomba a fossa (trench grave), 77, 140–142, 146–149, 303 tomba a semicamera (semichamber tomb), 21f, 23, 157, 162, 187, 198–199, 304

tomba a grotticella (cave tomb), 25–26, 304 Torre di Mare, Propriet`a Andrisani, 112n15 trace elements, usefulness in analysis, 248, 259 tragodos, figure of as “paratragic,” 279n26 transhumance, 14–16 tratturi (drove roads), 15, 16 Trendall, A. D., 7, 8, 10n27, 36 and Apulian red-figure pottery classification, 152 on artisans working at Metaponto kerameikos, 106 attribution scheme of, 70 issues with reassessment of attribution scheme of, 126–127 on painter’s visual impression of drama, 275 on Taranto, 72 on use of “illustrations” vs. “representations,” 280n47 two-beam loom, 16–17 Valleta collection, 284–285, 290 Valletta, Giuseppe, 284, 292 Vallisneri, Antonio, 287 Varrese hypogeum, 24–25, 25f Vasari, Giorgio, 284 Vase Shapes, 2, 187, 190–192, 192f, 194–195, 196t, 200, 201–202t alabastron, 26, 190, 195 Albanian kantharoids, 216 amphora, 126, 191, 290 anforetta, 190, 213 aryballos, 119, 134, 157 askos, 231–232 baby-feeder, 187 bowl, 171–175 cauldron, 171–174, 175, 179 chous, 120, 121f, 255–256 dinos, 232 discs, 207n19, 214 drinking horn, 232 Epirote kantharoids, 216 epichysis, 288 fish-plate, 263n55 griff-phiale, 171–175 guttus, 172 hydria, 47, 80, 95n114, 105–106, 107f, 118, 122, 159, 191, 198–199, 206n11, 250, 254, 255f, 263n43, 288 jug, 213–214

351

352

efh

Index

Vase Shapes (cont.) kalathos, 190 kantharoid, 102, 213, 214–215, 215f, 215–216, 218f, 217–219, 220, 270 kantharos, 175 Apulian, 175–176, 230, 231f, 231 Greek, 213, 230, 270 krater-kantharos, 221–222 Oenotrian, 221–222, 237n53 Peucetian, 30 St. Valentin, 218 krater, 30 calyx, 80, 86, 89, 197, 198–199, 266, 267f, 268, 294 column, 7–8, 19f, 29f, 30, 69, 123f, 123, 158, 160f, 198–199, 224, 225f, 229–230, 288, 294–296 bell, 30, 80, 106, 114n83, 119, 120f, 120, 125–126, 134, 135f, 140–141, 141f, 142–143, 144f, 145f, 145–146, 158f, 160f, 161f, 171, 172, 176–177, 181f, 197, 199f, 200, 203f, 203, 256, 264n63, 288, 292, 294 volute, 30, 37, 69, 86, 90, 124, 125f, 146–147, 147f, 148, 149, 160, 163f, 164f, 239n95, 252, 268–269, 269f, 270, 271f, 271, 272f, 272, 273f, 273–275, 275f, 275–276, 277f, 280n41, 292, 295f, 294–295, 296, 297f kylix, 104, 172, 173, 174 lebes gamikos, 74, 100, 104, 106–107, 108f lekane, 195 lekanis lid, 138 lekythos, 102, 103f, 104, 108f, 177, 181f, 198 EAM lekythos, 102 squat, 106, 138, 198–199 nestoris, 37, 122f, 120–122, 214, 219f, 219–220, 221f, 222, 223f, 223, 228, 233n6, 237n56, 238n67, 240n99 oinochoe, 154, 158, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175–176, 178, 179, 214, 231, 232, 294 olla, 171, 172, 177, 229, 235n20, 235n23 olla-krater, 234–235n18 olpe, 172–173, 174, 175, 179 one-handled cup, 30, 172, 173, 174, 175 Palinuro-Krug shape, 237n54 patera, 136, 138, 232, 288 pelike, 80, 100, 101f, 104–105, 108, 110, 113n58, 114n67, 134, 154, 158, 171–172, 191, 198–199, 200, 206n11, 251, 288, 289f, 290, 291f, 292, 293f

phialai, 232, 238n84 plate, 139 pseudopanathenaic amphora, 104, 105f, 107–108, 109f, 110f, 126, 127f rhyton, 232, 292 ring-collared vessel, Attic, 179 salt-cellar, 173 situla, 232 skyphos, 81f, 84, 86, 94n91, 134, 135, 136f, 138, 171, 172, 181f owl-skyphos, 84, 138, 171, 178 stamnos, 30, 190, 232, 234–235n18, 294 stamnoid olla, 177 trozzelle, 8, 30, 47, 187, 214, 233, 242n136 unguentarium, 187 vases painted onto vases, 74, 91n19 Vecchietti collection, 288 vegetal motifs, 135, 172, 184n73 Venetian collection Vendramin and in Rome, 284 venison, 35n54 von Lamberg-Springenstein, Arthur, 294 von Riedesel, Johan Hermann, 294 warrior assemblage, 162–163 warriors departure and return themes, 30, 134, 224, 226 fossa Tomb A at Ruvo, 140–142 fossa Tomb B at Ruvo, 146–149 hero-warrior krater attributed to Group of Diogenes Painter, 154 tomb at Bitonto, 154. See also armor; weapons weapons iron, at Conversano, 157 lances, 28 spears, 25, 28, 134, 142, 148, 171–175, 178 spears, bronze, 26 swords, 28, 122, 162–163, 274 and warfare at Apulia, fourth century B.C.E., 27–28. See also armor; warriors weaving, at Apulia, fourth century B.C.E., 16–18 wedding scenes on Attic pottery, 114n82 on Italiote imitation of native shapes, 226–227 of Peleus and Thetis, 239n95 wheat, 14–15

egh

Index

wheel-made painted pots, decorative scheme on, 30 Winckelmann, Johann, 284–285, 286, 300n17

Xenophon, on written books in wrecked ships, 280n66 XRF (X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry), 248

353