DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0239
METAL VASES 219
There is a general, but not a very close, similarity of shape; more significant is
the use of the familiar snake-motive at the handles. Beyond this, the later
volute-craters show no feature which is specifically Corinthian—though the
stylization of the gorgoneia is very much in the Corinthian manner—and the
attribution to Corinth stands or falls with that of the other tongue-pattern
vases. As Filow points out, the Trebenischte crater, unquestionably the
finest of all archaic bronze vases, recalls Kallixenos' description of the silver
Corinthian craters with their £<5a vpoaTwa on neck and body.
The patera, Filow pis. 12, 13 (after the former our pi. 46, 6), provides an
easier field for stylistic criticism. I know of no exact analogies, but the con-
temporary patera from Corinth, published for the first time in pi. 46, 5,1 gives
a close parallel, not merely for the type, which is a very common one at this
period, but for the treatment of the figure. And indeed, as Filow points out,
the Trebenischte patera is not a little reminiscent of the Peloponnesian sculp-
tural tradition which begins, for us, with the Apollo of Tenea; most clearly
it recalls the kouros from Olympia in Boston (see p. 238), where we find the
same slim forms, and the same neat modelling. The patera from Corinth
happens to be an inferior piece of work, but the proportions and the style are
somewhat similar; the connexion between this patera and the bronzes attri-
buted by Langlotz to Corinth—especially the youth from Dodona with a
Corinthian inscription (pi. 46, 2) and the woman from Tegea, is obvious
at a glance.2 The oinochoe Filow pis. 10, 11 is, on the whole, less like
Corinthian work than the patera; but that it could not be Corinthian, or that
it is Ionian rather than Corinthian,31 should not care to assert.
So much for the evidence from Trebenischte; it is not decisive, but it
definitely reinforces the conclusions to which the early oinochoe from Corinth
points. What of the other recently discovered evidence ?
Two bronze vases decorated with the tongue-pattern, and each with an
inscription in the Argive alphabet, have recently been published—the one,
a prize-hydria, is in New York, the other, a dinos from Attica, in the British
Museum.4 It might well be thought, though it has not actually been suggested,5
that these inscriptions point to an Argive origin for the tongue-pattern group,
but I do not think this argument could be maintained. For it implies that the
mere use of the tongue-pattern is the basis on which Neugebauer's group is
constructed, and this is far from being the case. The coherence of the tongue-
pattern group, as I understand it, depends on much more than this; on many
details of shape and on secondary decorative motives.6 Before a vase is
admitted, it must have more than the tongue-pattern, which is a favourite
1 De Ridder, Bronzes de la Soc. Arch. no. 67. pi. 14.
2 Vide infra, ch. xvi. 3 Vide supra p. 216. 5 Cf., however, Rumpf, D.L.Z. 1928, 283.
4 Richter, Festschrift fur Amelung, 183; Langlotz, 6 See Neugebauer's very minute and convincing
Bildhauerschulen pi. 34. The dinos, J.H.S. 1926 comparisons in R.M. loc. cit.
There is a general, but not a very close, similarity of shape; more significant is
the use of the familiar snake-motive at the handles. Beyond this, the later
volute-craters show no feature which is specifically Corinthian—though the
stylization of the gorgoneia is very much in the Corinthian manner—and the
attribution to Corinth stands or falls with that of the other tongue-pattern
vases. As Filow points out, the Trebenischte crater, unquestionably the
finest of all archaic bronze vases, recalls Kallixenos' description of the silver
Corinthian craters with their £<5a vpoaTwa on neck and body.
The patera, Filow pis. 12, 13 (after the former our pi. 46, 6), provides an
easier field for stylistic criticism. I know of no exact analogies, but the con-
temporary patera from Corinth, published for the first time in pi. 46, 5,1 gives
a close parallel, not merely for the type, which is a very common one at this
period, but for the treatment of the figure. And indeed, as Filow points out,
the Trebenischte patera is not a little reminiscent of the Peloponnesian sculp-
tural tradition which begins, for us, with the Apollo of Tenea; most clearly
it recalls the kouros from Olympia in Boston (see p. 238), where we find the
same slim forms, and the same neat modelling. The patera from Corinth
happens to be an inferior piece of work, but the proportions and the style are
somewhat similar; the connexion between this patera and the bronzes attri-
buted by Langlotz to Corinth—especially the youth from Dodona with a
Corinthian inscription (pi. 46, 2) and the woman from Tegea, is obvious
at a glance.2 The oinochoe Filow pis. 10, 11 is, on the whole, less like
Corinthian work than the patera; but that it could not be Corinthian, or that
it is Ionian rather than Corinthian,31 should not care to assert.
So much for the evidence from Trebenischte; it is not decisive, but it
definitely reinforces the conclusions to which the early oinochoe from Corinth
points. What of the other recently discovered evidence ?
Two bronze vases decorated with the tongue-pattern, and each with an
inscription in the Argive alphabet, have recently been published—the one,
a prize-hydria, is in New York, the other, a dinos from Attica, in the British
Museum.4 It might well be thought, though it has not actually been suggested,5
that these inscriptions point to an Argive origin for the tongue-pattern group,
but I do not think this argument could be maintained. For it implies that the
mere use of the tongue-pattern is the basis on which Neugebauer's group is
constructed, and this is far from being the case. The coherence of the tongue-
pattern group, as I understand it, depends on much more than this; on many
details of shape and on secondary decorative motives.6 Before a vase is
admitted, it must have more than the tongue-pattern, which is a favourite
1 De Ridder, Bronzes de la Soc. Arch. no. 67. pi. 14.
2 Vide infra, ch. xvi. 3 Vide supra p. 216. 5 Cf., however, Rumpf, D.L.Z. 1928, 283.
4 Richter, Festschrift fur Amelung, 183; Langlotz, 6 See Neugebauer's very minute and convincing
Bildhauerschulen pi. 34. The dinos, J.H.S. 1926 comparisons in R.M. loc. cit.