DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4760#0042
INTRODUCTION. 37
class to be next discussed (B 60-74). The most natural explanation seems to
be Duemmler's, that they are the product of Asiatic Greeks, most probably the
Phocaeans, who would have introduced Egyptian characteristics from their
association with Naucratis, and who would have imported the fabric into Italy.
Of this style of pottery B 59 is a fairly typical example. B 58 is, however,
not quite in the same style, still its peculiarities of ornamentation are sufficient
to justify its being included in this class. It is in technique an imitation of
the Cyrenaic vases, but the shape is ugly, and the designs awkwardly arranged,
while the drawing, as in the Sphinxes and Gorgoneion, is very rude.
Ihe exaggerated tongue-pattern on the lip, shoulder, and foot, is exactly
characteristic of the Caeretan hydriae. Instances of a connection with the
Cyrenaic group are seen on vases from Asia Minor on the one hand, while on
the other hand the Etruscans must have been familiar with the Cyrenaic ware ;
moreover they have left us striking evidence of their skill in painting on terra-
cotta, in the panels from Caere in the Etruscan Saloon.
See Helbig in A?m. dell' Inst. 1863, p. 210 ffi, and Bull, dell' lust. 1883, p. 4; Brunn,
Problemc, p. 28 ff. ; Arndt, Studlen, p. 11 ; Dumont, Ce'r. Grecques, p. 264 ff. ; Duemmler, Rom.
Mittheil. 1888, p. 165 ff. ; E. A. Gardner in /. ff. S. x. p. 131 ; Bull, dc Corr. Hell. 1892,
P- 240 ff.; and Baumeister, p. 1969.
ETRUSCAN IMITATIONS (B 60-74).
Without going so far as Brunn and Arndt, it is possible to attribute a
air number of vases to an Etruscan origin. In this group the favourite subjects
are Pegasos (generally between two youths), and Dionysiac scenes (with Satyrs
Ionic type); other mythological subjects are rare (see the Gigantomachia of
■o 62). With regard to secondary ornamentation, the tongue-pattern, so common
or> the Caeretan hydriae, is almost unknown ; ivy-leaves and sprigs shooting up
10m the ground, and maeander and chevron patterns are very common. A
ndness for white accessories is noticeable ; and a special peculiarity of the
t>ioup is the emphasizing of the lines on the backs and legs of animals,
S' on the Pegasos, B 62 and B 65. The hair is generally wavy and
oating behind ; the faces are rudely drawn, with receding foreheads. B 60-
3 are direct imitations of the Caeretan hydriae ; B 64 is a remarkable
rnphora, with the characteristic Caeretan band of large palmettes and lotos-
owers round the body ; the drawing of the figures resembles that of the later
anathenaic amphorae, and the lines of the drapery are freely rendered. B 65
n 73-4 are typical examples of this "roup ; the rest are extremely rude, and
Probably late.
These vases are of the type discussed by Duemmler in Rom. Mittheil.
°> P- 174 ff., and several designs are there repeated (cf. B 62 with fig. 3 on
Plate facing p. 180, and B 73 with fig. 9 ibid.).
class to be next discussed (B 60-74). The most natural explanation seems to
be Duemmler's, that they are the product of Asiatic Greeks, most probably the
Phocaeans, who would have introduced Egyptian characteristics from their
association with Naucratis, and who would have imported the fabric into Italy.
Of this style of pottery B 59 is a fairly typical example. B 58 is, however,
not quite in the same style, still its peculiarities of ornamentation are sufficient
to justify its being included in this class. It is in technique an imitation of
the Cyrenaic vases, but the shape is ugly, and the designs awkwardly arranged,
while the drawing, as in the Sphinxes and Gorgoneion, is very rude.
Ihe exaggerated tongue-pattern on the lip, shoulder, and foot, is exactly
characteristic of the Caeretan hydriae. Instances of a connection with the
Cyrenaic group are seen on vases from Asia Minor on the one hand, while on
the other hand the Etruscans must have been familiar with the Cyrenaic ware ;
moreover they have left us striking evidence of their skill in painting on terra-
cotta, in the panels from Caere in the Etruscan Saloon.
See Helbig in A?m. dell' Inst. 1863, p. 210 ffi, and Bull, dell' lust. 1883, p. 4; Brunn,
Problemc, p. 28 ff. ; Arndt, Studlen, p. 11 ; Dumont, Ce'r. Grecques, p. 264 ff. ; Duemmler, Rom.
Mittheil. 1888, p. 165 ff. ; E. A. Gardner in /. ff. S. x. p. 131 ; Bull, dc Corr. Hell. 1892,
P- 240 ff.; and Baumeister, p. 1969.
ETRUSCAN IMITATIONS (B 60-74).
Without going so far as Brunn and Arndt, it is possible to attribute a
air number of vases to an Etruscan origin. In this group the favourite subjects
are Pegasos (generally between two youths), and Dionysiac scenes (with Satyrs
Ionic type); other mythological subjects are rare (see the Gigantomachia of
■o 62). With regard to secondary ornamentation, the tongue-pattern, so common
or> the Caeretan hydriae, is almost unknown ; ivy-leaves and sprigs shooting up
10m the ground, and maeander and chevron patterns are very common. A
ndness for white accessories is noticeable ; and a special peculiarity of the
t>ioup is the emphasizing of the lines on the backs and legs of animals,
S' on the Pegasos, B 62 and B 65. The hair is generally wavy and
oating behind ; the faces are rudely drawn, with receding foreheads. B 60-
3 are direct imitations of the Caeretan hydriae ; B 64 is a remarkable
rnphora, with the characteristic Caeretan band of large palmettes and lotos-
owers round the body ; the drawing of the figures resembles that of the later
anathenaic amphorae, and the lines of the drapery are freely rendered. B 65
n 73-4 are typical examples of this "roup ; the rest are extremely rude, and
Probably late.
These vases are of the type discussed by Duemmler in Rom. Mittheil.
°> P- 174 ff., and several designs are there repeated (cf. B 62 with fig. 3 on
Plate facing p. 180, and B 73 with fig. 9 ibid.).