DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0016
■ " ' An**' I
x PREFACE
subject shown in fig. 45b), and a fragment which gives the first exact parallel
to the floral pattern on the cornice of the Megarian Treasury at Olympia (fig.
112b), a significant find in view of what we know as to the origin of the revet-
ments of this class. Besides the vases there were many votives of which only
a few can be mentioned here. Among the bronzes there were fragments of
a large hammered griffon-protome, identical in type with the early examples
from Olympia; a running 'Nike' which belongs to the class typified by R.M.
1923-4, 427, fig. 22, but is earlier than that example; a Gorgon, likewise from
a large vase; various animals, an Eros from a late archaic caryatid-mirror, and
a Herakles of about 500-490 B.C. Further, several classes of bronzes the
Corinthian origin of which has already been suggested, were represented: the
Argive-Corinthian reliefs by a characteristic example with seated sphinxes
(see pp. 222 ff.); the 'tongue-pattern' vases by a handle with a snake and with
gorgoneia on the rotelles (see pp. 215 ff.); and the very early engraved vases by
a fragment of the same fabric as the phiale from Olympia mentioned on
p. 271, note 1. There were also a good many plainer vases, the majority
phialai. It is clear that here we have at last the nucleus of a series which
cannot be other than Corinthian.
In addition to the bronze there was a good deal of ivory: spectacle-fibulae,
some circular seals of seventh-century date, couchant animals (these three
classes all closely paralleled among the ivories from Artemis Ortheia at Sparta).
It had always seemed curious that Corinth had produced practically no ivory
—and it is now evident that this was due to chance. Lastly, there was a very
remarkable number of scarabs and other imported Egyptian objects, sixty in
all; in these it is not fanciful to see concrete evidence of the connexion with
Egypt which was already indicated by literary sources.
There are, of course, other recent finds which cannot be discussed here.
The literature which has appeared since my manuscript was completed is
dealt with, though in summary fashion, in the first appendix. Of the earlier
literature, as I have already said, there is not very much which is primarily
concerned with the special problems of this book—the relative and absolute
chronology of Corinthian vases, the precise definition of the Corinthian
category in this and other departments. By this, however, I do not mean to
imply that I am not well aware of the debt which I owe to previous re-
searches. Particular acknowledgements will be found scattered through the
text; here I will mention only one or two outstanding works—Pfuhl's detailed
analysis of the Corinthian style, Buschor's admirable survey of the subject,
the few paragraphs in Beazley's chapter in the 'Cambridge Ancient History',
vol. iv, and some of the many studies which border on my own—Rumpf's
Chalkidische Vasen, Thiersch's Tyrrhenische Amphoren, Neugebauer's
articles on bronze-work, Langlotz's Friihgriechische Bildhauerschulen,
Koch's and Mrs. Van Buren's studies of architectural decoration. Johan-
x PREFACE
subject shown in fig. 45b), and a fragment which gives the first exact parallel
to the floral pattern on the cornice of the Megarian Treasury at Olympia (fig.
112b), a significant find in view of what we know as to the origin of the revet-
ments of this class. Besides the vases there were many votives of which only
a few can be mentioned here. Among the bronzes there were fragments of
a large hammered griffon-protome, identical in type with the early examples
from Olympia; a running 'Nike' which belongs to the class typified by R.M.
1923-4, 427, fig. 22, but is earlier than that example; a Gorgon, likewise from
a large vase; various animals, an Eros from a late archaic caryatid-mirror, and
a Herakles of about 500-490 B.C. Further, several classes of bronzes the
Corinthian origin of which has already been suggested, were represented: the
Argive-Corinthian reliefs by a characteristic example with seated sphinxes
(see pp. 222 ff.); the 'tongue-pattern' vases by a handle with a snake and with
gorgoneia on the rotelles (see pp. 215 ff.); and the very early engraved vases by
a fragment of the same fabric as the phiale from Olympia mentioned on
p. 271, note 1. There were also a good many plainer vases, the majority
phialai. It is clear that here we have at last the nucleus of a series which
cannot be other than Corinthian.
In addition to the bronze there was a good deal of ivory: spectacle-fibulae,
some circular seals of seventh-century date, couchant animals (these three
classes all closely paralleled among the ivories from Artemis Ortheia at Sparta).
It had always seemed curious that Corinth had produced practically no ivory
—and it is now evident that this was due to chance. Lastly, there was a very
remarkable number of scarabs and other imported Egyptian objects, sixty in
all; in these it is not fanciful to see concrete evidence of the connexion with
Egypt which was already indicated by literary sources.
There are, of course, other recent finds which cannot be discussed here.
The literature which has appeared since my manuscript was completed is
dealt with, though in summary fashion, in the first appendix. Of the earlier
literature, as I have already said, there is not very much which is primarily
concerned with the special problems of this book—the relative and absolute
chronology of Corinthian vases, the precise definition of the Corinthian
category in this and other departments. By this, however, I do not mean to
imply that I am not well aware of the debt which I owe to previous re-
searches. Particular acknowledgements will be found scattered through the
text; here I will mention only one or two outstanding works—Pfuhl's detailed
analysis of the Corinthian style, Buschor's admirable survey of the subject,
the few paragraphs in Beazley's chapter in the 'Cambridge Ancient History',
vol. iv, and some of the many studies which border on my own—Rumpf's
Chalkidische Vasen, Thiersch's Tyrrhenische Amphoren, Neugebauer's
articles on bronze-work, Langlotz's Friihgriechische Bildhauerschulen,
Koch's and Mrs. Van Buren's studies of architectural decoration. Johan-