DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0179
INSCRIPTIONS ON CORINTHIAN VASES 159
the Corinthian town Peiraion—pbpa£o®bm bs?ombm (nepaei6dei> t^e?) it is
again likely that e (e<) is equivalent to iota. The town in question was probably
the Peiraion on the Isthmus (at or near the modern Perachora); Kretschmer
takes it to have been the harbour south-east of Corinth, but his references
show that he has confused the two places.1
Zeta may be discussed in connexion with Xi, for on three pinakes2 the
regular Corinthian sign for xi, i, is used as the first letter of Zeus. On no. 5,
in aivFaiv, we have x for xi; this is a regular form in Laconia, not known,
I believe, from any other Corinthian inscription. The xi on no. 2 is damaged,
and may have been of the normal form.
The Corinthian Zeta was doubtless i,3 and the occurrence of 1 in place of 1 is
a curious phenomenon, best explained by a theory suggested by Kretschmer
and elaborated by Drerup (see note 2). According to this, it is supposed that in
the pinakes just mentioned the sign i retains its old Phoenician value as a sibi-
lant, and that here it is equivalent to double sigma. The same use of 1 in Zeus
recurs on a very early inscription at Thera.4 About 600 b.c., however, 1 is
held to have lost this early value at Corinth, and to have acquired the value of
xi under Ionian influence. This suggestion may well contain the true solution
of the problem, but it must be modified in detail. In the first place, the two
pinakes from Penteskouphia on which i is used in an unusual sense are cer-
tainly a great deal later than Drerup and Larfeld believe; pi. 30,12 is certainly
later than the middle of the sixth century (cf. p. 112, note 5), and the other
fragment is probably contemporary; the third pinax is at least no earlier than
the end of the seventh century. There is, then, no question of a general change
'about 600 b.c.' but it may well be that in votive pictures, like those of the
pinakes, archaisms of writing as well as of style persisted at a very late period
(cf. p. 113, note 3). Further, let us note that 1 is established as xi before the
end of the seventh century (nos. 5 and 8).5 The theory is somewhat
weakened by these modifications, as they show that all the examples of the
use of 1 for zeta at Corinth are later than the earliest examples of its use as xi;
it is none the less possible that the former is the earlier usage and that it is to
be explained as Drerup suggests.
Theta is generally indicated by ® or ©; the first is the commoner form,
but the other occurs on early and late vases (nos. 5, 38, 39,48); both forms are
used on no. 17. A rare form <d is used on a bronze weight from Attica (see
1 There were various forms of the name: cf. Kret- Roehl, I.G.A. 10, 66); Eph. Arch. 1885, pi. 8, 1 (cf.
schmer p. 34. The inscription is painted on an p. 142, note 1 above): ibym. On these see Kret-
ordinary pinax from Pente Skouphia (Berlin F 838; schmer, A.M. 1897, 343 ff.; Drerup, Musee Beige,
I.G. iv, 46, 329; needlessly emended by Blass, v, 143; Larfeld, Handbuch, i, 350 ff., 356.
S.G.D.I. iii, p. 66). 3 A.D. ii, pi. 29, 19.
2 A.D.ii,pl.29,i3 (cf. Jahrbucb.1897,20): ibi...; 4 Kretschmer, A.M. 1896, 432; cf. Drerup and
A.D. ii, pi. 30, 12 (cf. Jahrbuch 1897, 13): ibym Larfeld in the passages cited above.
(given as ibym by Furtwangler, no. 490, and 5 In no. 1, its value is uncertain.
the Corinthian town Peiraion—pbpa£o®bm bs?ombm (nepaei6dei> t^e?) it is
again likely that e (e<) is equivalent to iota. The town in question was probably
the Peiraion on the Isthmus (at or near the modern Perachora); Kretschmer
takes it to have been the harbour south-east of Corinth, but his references
show that he has confused the two places.1
Zeta may be discussed in connexion with Xi, for on three pinakes2 the
regular Corinthian sign for xi, i, is used as the first letter of Zeus. On no. 5,
in aivFaiv, we have x for xi; this is a regular form in Laconia, not known,
I believe, from any other Corinthian inscription. The xi on no. 2 is damaged,
and may have been of the normal form.
The Corinthian Zeta was doubtless i,3 and the occurrence of 1 in place of 1 is
a curious phenomenon, best explained by a theory suggested by Kretschmer
and elaborated by Drerup (see note 2). According to this, it is supposed that in
the pinakes just mentioned the sign i retains its old Phoenician value as a sibi-
lant, and that here it is equivalent to double sigma. The same use of 1 in Zeus
recurs on a very early inscription at Thera.4 About 600 b.c., however, 1 is
held to have lost this early value at Corinth, and to have acquired the value of
xi under Ionian influence. This suggestion may well contain the true solution
of the problem, but it must be modified in detail. In the first place, the two
pinakes from Penteskouphia on which i is used in an unusual sense are cer-
tainly a great deal later than Drerup and Larfeld believe; pi. 30,12 is certainly
later than the middle of the sixth century (cf. p. 112, note 5), and the other
fragment is probably contemporary; the third pinax is at least no earlier than
the end of the seventh century. There is, then, no question of a general change
'about 600 b.c.' but it may well be that in votive pictures, like those of the
pinakes, archaisms of writing as well as of style persisted at a very late period
(cf. p. 113, note 3). Further, let us note that 1 is established as xi before the
end of the seventh century (nos. 5 and 8).5 The theory is somewhat
weakened by these modifications, as they show that all the examples of the
use of 1 for zeta at Corinth are later than the earliest examples of its use as xi;
it is none the less possible that the former is the earlier usage and that it is to
be explained as Drerup suggests.
Theta is generally indicated by ® or ©; the first is the commoner form,
but the other occurs on early and late vases (nos. 5, 38, 39,48); both forms are
used on no. 17. A rare form <d is used on a bronze weight from Attica (see
1 There were various forms of the name: cf. Kret- Roehl, I.G.A. 10, 66); Eph. Arch. 1885, pi. 8, 1 (cf.
schmer p. 34. The inscription is painted on an p. 142, note 1 above): ibym. On these see Kret-
ordinary pinax from Pente Skouphia (Berlin F 838; schmer, A.M. 1897, 343 ff.; Drerup, Musee Beige,
I.G. iv, 46, 329; needlessly emended by Blass, v, 143; Larfeld, Handbuch, i, 350 ff., 356.
S.G.D.I. iii, p. 66). 3 A.D. ii, pi. 29, 19.
2 A.D.ii,pl.29,i3 (cf. Jahrbucb.1897,20): ibi...; 4 Kretschmer, A.M. 1896, 432; cf. Drerup and
A.D. ii, pi. 30, 12 (cf. Jahrbuch 1897, 13): ibym Larfeld in the passages cited above.
(given as ibym by Furtwangler, no. 490, and 5 In no. 1, its value is uncertain.