DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0251
DECORATIVE METAL WORK 231
period.1 The dot-rosettes in the field are, of course, no criterion of seventh- (or
even of sixth-) century date; they occur on fifth-century bronzes (cf. fig. 104 e).
It is easier to form a rough idea of the period to which the relief belongs than to
say where it was made; there are, however, certain features which seem to point
to an East-Greek origin. The most striking of these again concerns the figure of
Artemis: it will be seen that she is wearing a long, sleeved chiton; now before
the late archaic period this is unknown in the Peloponnese except as a man's
dress. The lack of articulation in the centaur, and the pronounced tendency
towards curvilinear drawing would seem also to point to the same conclusion.2
The lions vaguely recall those of the much earlier corselet from Olympia,
which may be Cretan, but have no exact parallels, so far as I know.
In the article mentioned on p. 230, note 4, Curtius refers to this relief in
connexion with the gilt silver mirror from Kelermes, in the Kuban,3 which
he holds to be related in some sense to the Protocorinthian tradition. But the
mirror likewise seems to stand apart from the mainland tradition, and the
Greek elements which it contains are mostly Ionian.4 Rostovtzeff tentatively
suggests that it may be the work of a Persian artist; some of its features are
typically Scythian, and seem to point to a 'mix-Hellenic' fabric in the neigh-
bourhood of one of the Black Sea colonies. In any case I think that it betrays
no certain acquaintance with Greek mainland work.
1 I refer to the rendering of the right arm, which is
visible only from the elbow to the hand. The upper
arm is conceived as projecting at right angles to the
body, towards the spectator; we have, in fact, a
scheme in which the third dimension is implied. In
all early works both arms are shown in side view.
2 Professor Beazley remarked to me that the griffons
have an East-Greek look. The eagles in the top row
are a favourite Corinthian type, but occur in the
East, as they do elsewhere, perhaps under Corinthian
influence (p. 76). The long hair of Herakles is a
non-Peloponnesian trait.
3 Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks, pi. 6.
4 Curtius refers to the griffon and sphinxes as very
closely connected with late Protocorinthian, but I
do not think the resemblance to the vase Johansen
pi. 38,4, which he quotes, is strong enough to justify
the supposition of Protocorinthian influence. The
sphinxes, to my mind, are definitely unlike Proto-
corinthian: they have one specifically Eastern
feature, the ending of the hair in a curl which stands
up at the back (this is never found in Protocorinthian
or Corinthian sphinxes), and the proportions of head
are also unlike those of Protocorinthian or Corinthian
work. For the griffon, one might equally compare
Ionian coins such as B.M.C. Mysia pi. 5, 17
(Cyzicus). Other East-Greek motives are the pair
of sphinxes flanking an Ionic column; the startled
goat, looking back: compare Kinch, Vroulia 234,
fig. 118 c, B.M.C. Ionia pi. 3, 2 and various later
coins of Ephesus; the crouching boar: compare
Hogarth, Ephesus pi. 26, 3 and the bronze of
unknown provenance, ibid., 177, fig. 33. The
Artemis flanked by panthers is likewise unknown at
Corinth in the Protocorinthian period, and occurs
on no existing Corinthian work (cf. p. 78). For the
creature below the regardant sphinxes, compare
many Scythian works—notably Rostovtzeff pi. 9, 1:
I know of no Greek parallels. Other foreign motives
are the men attacking a griffon, the bear, the
crouching ram, and the lion of wholly un-Greek style
with a tree behind; the irregular arrangement of the
design in which the central motives are sometimes
separated from the rest, sometimes not, is likewise
entirely un-Greek; so too the indiscriminate flecking
of the animals. The mirror is probably a good deal
later than any Protocorinthian work, and is not
likely to be much earlier than the middle of the sixth
century; of this the group of lion and bull next to
Artemis is decisive evidence.
period.1 The dot-rosettes in the field are, of course, no criterion of seventh- (or
even of sixth-) century date; they occur on fifth-century bronzes (cf. fig. 104 e).
It is easier to form a rough idea of the period to which the relief belongs than to
say where it was made; there are, however, certain features which seem to point
to an East-Greek origin. The most striking of these again concerns the figure of
Artemis: it will be seen that she is wearing a long, sleeved chiton; now before
the late archaic period this is unknown in the Peloponnese except as a man's
dress. The lack of articulation in the centaur, and the pronounced tendency
towards curvilinear drawing would seem also to point to the same conclusion.2
The lions vaguely recall those of the much earlier corselet from Olympia,
which may be Cretan, but have no exact parallels, so far as I know.
In the article mentioned on p. 230, note 4, Curtius refers to this relief in
connexion with the gilt silver mirror from Kelermes, in the Kuban,3 which
he holds to be related in some sense to the Protocorinthian tradition. But the
mirror likewise seems to stand apart from the mainland tradition, and the
Greek elements which it contains are mostly Ionian.4 Rostovtzeff tentatively
suggests that it may be the work of a Persian artist; some of its features are
typically Scythian, and seem to point to a 'mix-Hellenic' fabric in the neigh-
bourhood of one of the Black Sea colonies. In any case I think that it betrays
no certain acquaintance with Greek mainland work.
1 I refer to the rendering of the right arm, which is
visible only from the elbow to the hand. The upper
arm is conceived as projecting at right angles to the
body, towards the spectator; we have, in fact, a
scheme in which the third dimension is implied. In
all early works both arms are shown in side view.
2 Professor Beazley remarked to me that the griffons
have an East-Greek look. The eagles in the top row
are a favourite Corinthian type, but occur in the
East, as they do elsewhere, perhaps under Corinthian
influence (p. 76). The long hair of Herakles is a
non-Peloponnesian trait.
3 Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks, pi. 6.
4 Curtius refers to the griffon and sphinxes as very
closely connected with late Protocorinthian, but I
do not think the resemblance to the vase Johansen
pi. 38,4, which he quotes, is strong enough to justify
the supposition of Protocorinthian influence. The
sphinxes, to my mind, are definitely unlike Proto-
corinthian: they have one specifically Eastern
feature, the ending of the hair in a curl which stands
up at the back (this is never found in Protocorinthian
or Corinthian sphinxes), and the proportions of head
are also unlike those of Protocorinthian or Corinthian
work. For the griffon, one might equally compare
Ionian coins such as B.M.C. Mysia pi. 5, 17
(Cyzicus). Other East-Greek motives are the pair
of sphinxes flanking an Ionic column; the startled
goat, looking back: compare Kinch, Vroulia 234,
fig. 118 c, B.M.C. Ionia pi. 3, 2 and various later
coins of Ephesus; the crouching boar: compare
Hogarth, Ephesus pi. 26, 3 and the bronze of
unknown provenance, ibid., 177, fig. 33. The
Artemis flanked by panthers is likewise unknown at
Corinth in the Protocorinthian period, and occurs
on no existing Corinthian work (cf. p. 78). For the
creature below the regardant sphinxes, compare
many Scythian works—notably Rostovtzeff pi. 9, 1:
I know of no Greek parallels. Other foreign motives
are the men attacking a griffon, the bear, the
crouching ram, and the lion of wholly un-Greek style
with a tree behind; the irregular arrangement of the
design in which the central motives are sometimes
separated from the rest, sometimes not, is likewise
entirely un-Greek; so too the indiscriminate flecking
of the animals. The mirror is probably a good deal
later than any Protocorinthian work, and is not
likely to be much earlier than the middle of the sixth
century; of this the group of lion and bull next to
Artemis is decisive evidence.