DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0202
i82 LOCAL IMITATIONS AND
neighbourhood of Corinth; it marks the country westward, towards Sicyon,
and south along the gorges which run down to the coast of the Corinthian gulf
from the watershed at Nemea. The several industries which depend upon a
supply of fine clay must have been greatly facilitated by this abundant supply
of raw material. Sicyon, no doubt, had equal access to these supplies; but
the factor which turned the scale in favour of Corinth was undoubtedly her
position on the trade routes which radiated from the Isthmus.
There is therefore ample justification for the view that Corinth was the
centre of the 'Corinthian' industry; in fact, no other explanation of the facts is
possible. It is not generally thought to be so with the second question raised
above. Many writers at different times have expressed the view that there
were dependencies of the Corinthian school in different parts of the Greek
world; a little rashly, perhaps, for the only possible method of distinguishing
local from primary fabrics is to make a systematic comparison of the finds
from different sites. But it is only fair to admit that there is an a priori pro-
bability in favour of the theory of local origins, and I may perhaps add that I
myself began to study Corinthian vases in the expectation that a number of
local fabrics would come to light. Let it be said at once that such fabrics do
exist; but they are fewer, and less important, than many people have thought.
In general, it is true to say that, if we except the vases long recognized as
Italo-Corinthian, the vast majority of the vases hitherto regarded as local
imitations are actually of Corinthian make.1 Many of the actual specimens
enumerated in the catalogue have been put down as local by various writers;
not rest here; in all these cases the style is distinc-
tively Corinthian, and distinctively non-Boeotian.
In like manner a comparison of the 'doubtful'
Attic vases from Boeotia, such as many of those
from Rhitsona, with similar inferior Attic vases
from Rhodes or Sicily, would make it possible to
distinguish local from imported pieces.
There is no need to retail mistaken attributions of
Corinthian vases to local centres at great length.
Much of the imported pottery found in Sicily has
been regarded as local (Orsi, N.S. 1893, 450; Mon.
Ant. xvii, 203), but it is now possible to draw a clear
line of distinction between local and imported pieces.
In Eph. Arch. 1917, 219, some Attic pinakes are
described as Corinthian: for this, cf. p. 190 and ff;
cf. further Dummler, Jahrbuch 1891, 266; Baur,
Centaurs 124, who regards no. 858 (found in Greece)
as Italo-Ionic or Etruscan. What a relief, after this
kind of thing, to recall a real contribution to our
subject, such as the discovery of Miss Eleanor
Rambo that the Chigi vase is Etruscan (Lions in
Greek Art, 13 note 1, with reasons a-f).
1 As an illustration of the length to which a theory
can be pushed I refer to Couve's assertion (B.C.H.
1898, 288) that there are vases of Syracusan fabric
among the finds from Corinth; I need hardly add
that this oracular observation is not substantiated
by any arguments. There is much vague attribu-
tion to local fabrics in some of the older books.
At the present time a frequent mistake is to regard
imported Corinthian vases from Boeotia as local: cf.,
for instance, Winter in A. Anz. 1917, 18; Heine-
mann, Landschaftliche Elemente, 36; Weicker,
Roscher iv, 629; Papaspyridi, Guide, 292; Schaal,
G.V. aus Frankfurter Sammlungen, 26; Scheurleer,
text to C.V.A. i; &c. Now there is no certain in-
stance known of an archaic Boeotian vase exported
overseas (a possible example, to which Professor
Rumpf drew my attention, is Kinch, Vroulia pi. 20,
4, but even here certainty is impossible, as one can-
not judge from the illustration and the vase is lost),
so that the recurrence of these supposedly Boeotian
types in Rhodes, Delos and elsewhere creates a
strong a priori probability that the vases in question
are not really Boeotian work. But the matter does
neighbourhood of Corinth; it marks the country westward, towards Sicyon,
and south along the gorges which run down to the coast of the Corinthian gulf
from the watershed at Nemea. The several industries which depend upon a
supply of fine clay must have been greatly facilitated by this abundant supply
of raw material. Sicyon, no doubt, had equal access to these supplies; but
the factor which turned the scale in favour of Corinth was undoubtedly her
position on the trade routes which radiated from the Isthmus.
There is therefore ample justification for the view that Corinth was the
centre of the 'Corinthian' industry; in fact, no other explanation of the facts is
possible. It is not generally thought to be so with the second question raised
above. Many writers at different times have expressed the view that there
were dependencies of the Corinthian school in different parts of the Greek
world; a little rashly, perhaps, for the only possible method of distinguishing
local from primary fabrics is to make a systematic comparison of the finds
from different sites. But it is only fair to admit that there is an a priori pro-
bability in favour of the theory of local origins, and I may perhaps add that I
myself began to study Corinthian vases in the expectation that a number of
local fabrics would come to light. Let it be said at once that such fabrics do
exist; but they are fewer, and less important, than many people have thought.
In general, it is true to say that, if we except the vases long recognized as
Italo-Corinthian, the vast majority of the vases hitherto regarded as local
imitations are actually of Corinthian make.1 Many of the actual specimens
enumerated in the catalogue have been put down as local by various writers;
not rest here; in all these cases the style is distinc-
tively Corinthian, and distinctively non-Boeotian.
In like manner a comparison of the 'doubtful'
Attic vases from Boeotia, such as many of those
from Rhitsona, with similar inferior Attic vases
from Rhodes or Sicily, would make it possible to
distinguish local from imported pieces.
There is no need to retail mistaken attributions of
Corinthian vases to local centres at great length.
Much of the imported pottery found in Sicily has
been regarded as local (Orsi, N.S. 1893, 450; Mon.
Ant. xvii, 203), but it is now possible to draw a clear
line of distinction between local and imported pieces.
In Eph. Arch. 1917, 219, some Attic pinakes are
described as Corinthian: for this, cf. p. 190 and ff;
cf. further Dummler, Jahrbuch 1891, 266; Baur,
Centaurs 124, who regards no. 858 (found in Greece)
as Italo-Ionic or Etruscan. What a relief, after this
kind of thing, to recall a real contribution to our
subject, such as the discovery of Miss Eleanor
Rambo that the Chigi vase is Etruscan (Lions in
Greek Art, 13 note 1, with reasons a-f).
1 As an illustration of the length to which a theory
can be pushed I refer to Couve's assertion (B.C.H.
1898, 288) that there are vases of Syracusan fabric
among the finds from Corinth; I need hardly add
that this oracular observation is not substantiated
by any arguments. There is much vague attribu-
tion to local fabrics in some of the older books.
At the present time a frequent mistake is to regard
imported Corinthian vases from Boeotia as local: cf.,
for instance, Winter in A. Anz. 1917, 18; Heine-
mann, Landschaftliche Elemente, 36; Weicker,
Roscher iv, 629; Papaspyridi, Guide, 292; Schaal,
G.V. aus Frankfurter Sammlungen, 26; Scheurleer,
text to C.V.A. i; &c. Now there is no certain in-
stance known of an archaic Boeotian vase exported
overseas (a possible example, to which Professor
Rumpf drew my attention, is Kinch, Vroulia pi. 20,
4, but even here certainty is impossible, as one can-
not judge from the illustration and the vase is lost),
so that the recurrence of these supposedly Boeotian
types in Rhodes, Delos and elsewhere creates a
strong a priori probability that the vases in question
are not really Boeotian work. But the matter does