Kraters And Lekanai

206

figured krater

PI. 22

LC

207

figured krater

PI. 22

LC

208

figured krater

PI. 22

LC

209

figured red-ground krater

PL 22

LC

192

figured red-ground krater

Group 11

PI. 21

LC

379

black glazed krater

PI. 44

LC or later

287

outline style krater

PI. 31

second quarter 5th century

288

outline style krater

PI. 31

second quarter 5th century

289

outline style krater

PI. 32

5th century

290

outline style krater

♦Fig. 33, PL 32

probably mid-5th century

291

outline style krater

PL 32

Classical

299

red-figured bell-krater

PL 33

late 5th century

300

red-figured krater

PL 33

first quarter 4th century

380

lekane

PL 44

Classical

381

lekane

Fig. 2

Classical

382

lekane

PL 44

Classical

383

lekane

PL 44

4th century ?

75

lekane

Group 6

PL 10

earlier 4th century ?

Imported, Attic red figure

334

calyx-krater

PL 38

ca. 510 b.c.

335

column-krater

PL 38

first decade 5th century

336

volute-krater

PL 38

mid-5 th century

337

krater

PL 38

mid-5 th century

338

krater

PL 38

third quarter 5th century

339

bell-krater

PL 38

end of 5th century

340

bell-krater

PL 38

end of 5th century

73

bell-krater

Group 6

Fig. 2, PL 10

second quarter 4th century

74

bell-krater

Group 6

PL 11

mid-4th century

  • Decoration only; see catalogue entry.
  • Decoration only; see catalogue entry.

The inventoried kraters show a variety of styles, shapes, and sizes. It cannot be determined, however, how many of these kraters, Corinthian or Attic, were service vessels in the dining rooms and how many were votives. Fragments of kraters, decorated and plain, were found in Sanctuary strata until the Hellenistic period. It is probable that plain and black-glazed kraters (mostly Corinthian, but a few uninventoried Attic fragments survive) and the banded lekanai served the needs of the diners in the Archaic and Classical Sanctuary. What was used in the Hellenistic period is unclear.16

The Archaic Corinthian examples represent the many forms made by the potters of that period. The handle-plate 204 is quite large; several others of equal size, with inferior decoration, remain unpublished. Few of the 6th-century kraters have more than the typical animal frieze; 205 and 206 are typical of the majority of the krater fragments from the site. The cavalry scene on 209 shows the hand of a more ambitious painter. The chain of dancing women on 192 is a motif found on a number of Archaic fragments in different shapes; it may have reference to cult practices. 379 has a handsome maeander in added red and white; the krater was large, finely made, and probably without wall decoration. It represents the most common 6th-century krater, the plain black Corinthian type, attested by many fragments of feet and rims.

In the 5th century a new decorative technique, outline style, was introduced into the Corinthian repertory. The only example with foot and rim preserved, 287, actually shows a skyphos profile, but the restored dimensions are so great that it is more appropriate to call it a krater.17 A discussion of the technique,

16 In Corinth VII, iii, there are only three examples of Hellenistic kraters; two are fine ware, nos. 188-190, one is of cooking fabric, no. 705. This is another shape not well represented in the later history of Corinthian pottery; see also the hydriai, amphoras, and oinochoai.

17 Another vase that must also have functioned as a krater is the huge late 4th-century skyphos 80, included under that shape because of the distinctive compound-curve profile (Fig. 7).

Fig. 2. Lekane and krater. Scale 1:2

painting style, and date is given in the introduction to the examples. It is tempting to believe that these are special vessels for cult purposes, especially since 287 not only may have had a representation of the abduction of Persephone but also was repaired in antiquity, attesting its importance. Whatever the function, this is a special group of vessels, mostly kraters, limited according to present evidence to use in the Demeter Sanctuary, and made in a relatively short span of time. Although most of them are now so fragmentary that the extant painting is usually indecipherable, the vessels in the original state must have been very handsome.

Banded lekanai represented by 380-383 and 75 are popular from the 6th through the 4th centuries; how far into the Hellenistic period they continue is as yet unclear. There are also many coarse-ware body sherds of all periods, coming from large kraters or lekanai.18

The imported Attic red-figured kraters present a good cross section in both date and quality. There are a few additional fragments of kraters from the second and third quarters of the 5th century, not inventoried because of the poor state of preservation. Thus the numbers of Attic kraters of fairly good quality exceed what might be expected. Whether the Attic kraters were used in the dining rooms or dedicated as votives cannot be determined.19 None has a dedicatory graffito.

18 See the coarse-ware examples 632-634.

19 Fragments from the same krater were found all over the Sanctuary. For example, the fine early calyx-krater 334 came mostly from 0-P:24-26. But one fragment came from N-0:19-20, another from the Lower Terrace, N:27. The findspots of fragments are not always revealing.

V. OINOCHOAI

V. OINOCHOAI

Corinthian

1

conical

Group 1

PI. 4

LPC

2

conical

Group 1

PL 4

LPC

210

conical

PL 22

LPC

211

conical

♦Fig. 26, PL 22

EC

212

broad bottomed

PL 22

MC

213

broad bottomed

♦Fig. 26, PL 22

MC?

275

broad bottomed

PL 29

first or early second quarter 5th century

384

broad bottomed

PL 44

third quarter 5th century

276

broad bottomed

PL 29

late third or early fourth quarter 5th century

277

broad bottomed

PL 29

fourth quarter 5th century

278

broad bottomed

PL 29

second quarter or mid-4th century

279

broad bottomed

PL 30

mid-4th century

214

olpe

PL 22

MC

33

round mouthed

Group 3

PL 6

first quarter 5th century

34

round mouthed

Group 3

PL 6

first to second quarter 5th century

76

blister ware

Group 6

PL 10

early 4th century

77

blister ware

Group 6

PL 10

third quarter 4th century

387

blister ware

PL 44

late third to fourth quarter 4th century

388

blister ware

PL 44

fourth quarter 4th century

386

chous

Fig. 3, PL 44

fourth quarter 4th century

78

beveled (epichysis)

Group 6

Fig. 3, PL 10

late 4th century

385

beveled (epichysis)

PL 44

late 4th or early 3rd century

389

globular

Fig. 3, PI. 45

first half 5th century?

154

globular

Group 8

Fig. 3, PL 18

later 3rd century

155

globular

Group 8

PL 18

3rd century

390

shoulder stop

Fig. 3

early 3rd century?

Imported

310

Attic black figure

PL 34

third quarter 6th century

50

Attic black figure

Group 4

Fig. 3, PL 8

end of 6th or early 5th century

391

Attic, mug

PL 45

second quarter 5th century

79

Attic West Slope

Group 6

PL 10

late 4th century

341

Apulian, epichysis

Fig. 3, PL 38

late third quarter 4th century

  • Decoration only; see catalogue entry.
  • Decoration only; see catalogue entry.

Oinochoai are not well represented in the Sanctuary catalogue. There are few or no examples of some very common types: Archaic and Classical black-glazed jugs, the Classical and Hellenistic olpe forms, round-mouthed types, and so forth are all absent, or almost so, from the above list. They are not, however, missing in the Sanctuary pottery; rim, wall, and foot fragments from these varieties of oinochoai can be found in many Archaic and Classical strata, but in very small pieces, insufficient for publication. The larger the vessel, the less of it seems to be preserved, when vases are deliberately smashed for burial. Some of the fragments attributed to 6th-century pyxides, a shape more popular at that time for figured decoration among the Sanctuary finds, may be from broad-bottomed oinochoai.20 Despite these qualifications, it is important to note that there are far more fragments of drinking vessels than fragments of pourers for those vessels. The relative figures for the published fragments for pouring and drinking vessels found at Perachora are much more equal. The numbers of kotylai, skyphoi, and cups in the Demeter Sanctuary fills are staggering. One wonders if a ritual toast was drunk and then the cup discarded.

The problem is compounded by the absence of large Hellenistic fine-ware pouring vessels. This scarcity cannot be blamed on the topography of the slope of the Sanctuary, nor on the specific location of most of the

20 See Perachora II, pp. 205-206, on the difficulties of distinguishing oinochoe shapes, and the oinochoe from the convex pyxis.

c-^q

Fig. 3. Oinochoai. Scale 1:2

Hellenistic strata in the lower terrace where protective fill was lacking. Edwards notes not only the absence in Corinth of decorated wine jugs, in comparison with the contemporary types in Athens, but also . . the comparatively inadequate small size of most of the present Hellenistic fine-ware pouring vessels. . . ."21 The Demeter Sanctuary is even lacking the varieties of decanters, so popular elsewhere at Corinth.22 Large coarse-ware vessels may have been used, however; fragments were found in almost every area of the Sanctuary.23 One might tentatively suggest that if some ritual involved the use of wine or water, a few service vessels made of coarse or cooking fabric would have been used repeatedly in each dining room. The drinking vessels may have been discarded after each use.

There are few examples of conical oinochoai. The small LPC examples, 1 and 2, from the votive deposit Group 1, have many parallels and are useful in substantiating the date of that group. It is strange, however, that two oinochoai appear in the first extant deposit but do not become an important votive type. Two fragmentary decorated necks, 210 and 211, are later 7th century;24 the 6th-century form is represented only in uninventoried sherds.

Figured oinochoai of the 6th century are also scarce. 212 and 213 are of different sizes, possibly from the broad-bottomed profile. There are many uninventoried fragments from plain glazed examples. The 6th-century pottery, especially from Room D (R:23-24) is so broken and yet so extensive that it was not lo-gistically possible to spread out all the material from this area for mending into representative shapes. Two very small broad-bottomed examples, 515 and 516, published with the miniatures, represent these Archaic forms. The Classical broad-bottomed oinochoai are fairly typical, except for the large size and very elaborate decoration on 275 and 276.25 There are several examples of oinochoai decorated in the Vrysoula style, 277-279; the last shows the continuation of the type into the 4th century.

214 is one of the few decorated 6th-century olpai found in the Sanctuary; there are other small fragments attributable to this shape but too tiny for publication. There are many body and neck fragments of the later glazed and plain varieties of olpe, also too battered.26 Thus the one example of the shape in the catalogue is misleading.

Group 3 contains two examples of the round-mouthed form, 33 and 34. This shape is not so common as the olpe. If popular more as grave offerings than as service vessels, its absence is understandable.27 Blister-ware oinochoai are common. It is the most popular shape for this fabric in the Sanctuary, but aryballoi (97, 475-478) and askoi (98, 200) also appear. Blister ware is very fragile, as the state of preservation indicates. All four belong to the 4th century; no 5th-century examples could be inventoried, although small sherds with fine pumpkin ribs do remain in the context pottery. Fragments of this fabric and shape have been found extensively in the Sanctuary strata, very useful for dating.28

Three 4th-century oinochoai are Corinthian imitations of two foreign shapes. 386 is a chous; there are few Corinthian versions of this popular Attic shape.29 78 and 385 are unusual variants of the epichysis. The Corinthian version is footed, with a flat resting surface under the bevel, in contrast to the South Italian form (341). The Corinthian epichysis may be related to the late (4th-century) versions of the concave Vrysoula

23 See below, under coarse-ware hydriai (Shape Studies, XXVI).

24 There are also two very fragmentary oinochoe handles, with subgeometric decoration, from the conical shape: C-62-345 and C-62-346, lot 1982, P:24.

25 The fragments of 276 came from fill within the Classical Building N-0:22-23, destroyed in the 4th century, with the exception of two fragments, found in M:21, in the foundation trench of wall 36, just to the north of the building. The vessel may have been used in that dining room. 275 came from Building N-0:24-25 (Room L), and so it too may have been a useful item in the dining room.

26 For olpai, see Corinth XIII, p. 133; Corinth VII, iii, pp. 50-53.

21 Corinth XIII, p. 134.

28 Blister-ware shapes and fabrics have been discussed extensively in the following publications: Corinth VII, iii, pp. 144-150; Agora XII, pp. 207-2 -+ Pemberton, Hesperia 39, 1970, pp. 300-301.

29 Unpublished: C-47-871, from well 1947-2 and C-37-167, from drain 1937-1; both belong to the second quarter of the 4th century. The Corinthian examples do not duplicate the more elongated Attic profile; they are shorter in relation to the maximum diameter and have lower necks.

oinochoe. There are also high-shouldered black oinochoai of the same period.30 The latter forms and the epichyseis share the profile of foot and lower wall, the neck and handle forms, and the shoulder ribbing. Both epichyseis can be dated only by style; the poor ribbing has parallels in other shapes. They were probably perfume pots.31

Four undecorated examples complete the Corinthian series of oinochoai. 389 appears to be early 5th century on the basis of the foot, wall profile, and fine surface finish. The closest parallel for the shape, however, is 6th century. If one attached a foot, narrowed the neck, and eliminated the paint of some trefoil oinochoai with convex walls,32 one could approximate this shape. I know of no similar jug in Corinth.

390 has already been published in the series of small trefoil oinochoai with shoulder stop.33 Although this series cannot be traced to a 146 b.c. date, there is another small form that does appear in 3rd- and possibly 2nd-century levels, the globular form of 154 and 155. These belong to the 3rd century, by comparison of the profiles with hydriai in the same period. 154 and 155 have the foot of the small footed oinochoai with dipped glazing of the 5th and 4th centuries.34 The body has become more globular, the mouth a cut-away with pellets; the paint has disappeared. But they are of the same size as the earlier variety. It is conceivable that 389 is an ancestor of 154 and 155.

There are also a few imported oinochoai, all but one of Attic fabric: two decorated in black figure; one 5th-century mug; one neck with West Slope decoration; that is all. The lack of imported examples mirrors the relatively small number of Corinthian oinochoai. The one surprise is the Apulian import, 341.

The first example comes from debris on the floor of a dining room of the later 4th century. The shape is very practical: solid ring foot, high ovoid body, tall neck with a carefully made rim to hold a lid. There are three examples from contemporary, datable contexts, all unpublished: C-71-521, C-37-2517, C-40-415.35 There are a few differences between the examples. 392 and C-40-415 have straighter necks and more sharply articulated rims. Whether these slight changes are indicative of chronological differences in such large vessels is unclear. Also undetermined is the range of the shape. There is a 5th-century version;36 how far into the Hellenistic period this pourer continues is as yet unknown. It may have been succeeded by one of the two following forms.

156 is an example of a Hellenistic wide-necked pitcher. Two examples were found in South Stoa Well XXX, C-47-130 and C-47-131.37 Another was found in 1976, C-1976-114.38 It has a much squatter profile

30 Unpublished: C-31-129, from well 1931-7 and C-37-2502, from pit 1937-1.

31 The context of 78 is the fill for the construction of the Trapezoidal Stoa at the very beginning of the 3rd century (Group 6). The fill contains both votive and dining-room debris. The context of 385, lot 877, contains votive and cult pottery but also has many black-glazed sherds from kotylai and skyphoi, and even some late Corinthian and Attic black-figured fragments. The context of neither epi-chysis proves votive use; the size may be practical for expensive perfume. Small size does not necessarily mean votive function.

32 Discussed in Corinth VII, iii, pp. 50-53. See especially C-47-750 (no. 199, p. 51, pi. 48), from the mid-6th century (well 1947-5).

33 C-65-169 (Corinth VII, iii, no. 275, p. 55, pi. 48).

34 Edwards separates the two forms of oinochoai: Corinth VII, iii, small trefoil, nos. 245-270, pp. 53-54; small trefoil with shoulder stop, nos. 271-278, pp. 54-55. They may be contemporaneous variants.

35 C-71-521, from the Forum drain 1971-1; C-37-2517, from pit 1937-1, with second example in the context pottery; C-40-415, from well 1940-1.

36 In coarse ware, C-34-9:-+[Pease, Hesperia 6, 1937, p. 303, no. 203, fig. 32; well 1934-10) and C-40-67, from well 1940-6, unpublished.

37 Corinth VII, iii, nos. 631, 632, p. 113, pis. 24, 60 (well 1938-1).

38 From the fill in the basin room, referred to in Williams, Hesperia 46, 1977, p. 52 (the underground chamber). The context, lot 1976-101, ranges from the late 4th century to 146 b.c., or later.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Responses

  • essi
    Why were kraters important?
    7 years ago

Post a comment