HEPHAISTOS Kritische Zeitschrift zu Theorie und Praxis der Archdologie, Kunstwissenschaft und angrenzender Gebiete 10 1991 KLARTEXTVERLAG - BREMEN semeHugh Bowden THE CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK PAINTED POTTERY: SOME OBSERVATIONS The chronology of Greek painted pottery has become a subject of controversy within the normally restrained world of Classical Archaeology. This paper is an attenpt to Clarify some of the areas of dispute, and to make a few suggestions as to where the subject might be directed in future to provide more light and less heat The first thing is to make clear what is in dispute. Classical archaeologists are blessed with Titerary texts which ought to provide the kind of detailed information about events which appear in the erchaeological record that other archaeolagists lack, Literature might provide answer to questions of cultural influence, social customs and so on; if nothing else it should provide exact chronological information about the foundation and destruction of sites. In reality it is not that simple There are two problems with literary evidence, first it does not provide clear answers - there is clear literary evidence from as early as the fourth century BC for ‘the view that Massalia was founded c. 600 8C, and equally clear evidence from at least as far back that it was founded in c. 545 BC - and second it is read very superficially, In wnat follows I am making a plea for archaeologists to treat Iiterary evidence with the same care that they treat their sites. The chronology of Protecorinthian and Corinthian pottery, which is the basis of the shronology of all Archaic Greek pottery, was worked out by Humfry Payne nearly sixty years ago. The latest large-scale wark on Corinthian pottery (Anyx 1988) nas a chapter on chronology that concludes by more or less endorsing Payne’s dates. Payne used pottery from the Greek colonies in Sicily, associating the earliest Finds with dates worked out from Thucydides vi. 3-5. I shall come on to discuss the non-literary evidence for dating pottery later, but it is fair to say that it is this literary evidence that Ties behind the chronology of archaic pottery at present generally, but not universally, accepted. But Thucydides’ usefulness, and hence Payne”s dates, are not as good as they should be Anyone reading Thucydides will discover that he does not give absolute dates (see fig. 1). He dates the colonies relative to each other, and one chronological sequence, dependent mainly on Syracuse, is only loosely connected to another sequence concerned with Megara Hyblaie. It is from the statement in this second sequence, that50 Bowden Megara Hyblaia was conquered after 245 years, that an absolute series of dates can be constucted: thus on that one figure depends the absolute chronology of Greek painted pottery. We are, I think, persuaded ty the preciseness of Thucydides” figures to believe in their correctness. Furthermore we are persuaded by claims made within the text of Thucydides objectivity and reliability. This 1s unwise. In Books vi and vit Thucydides describes what he sees as Athens” attenpt to conquer Sicily. It is not Fanciful to suggest that the aim of the books is to emphasise Athenian folly over everything else, and one way of doing this is to emphasise the number, power and antiquity of the Greek cities in Sicily. That is not to suggest that Thucydides provides false figures, but that these figures are not simple data that can be extracted from the text and used wherever they might come in useful: they have a context, and to ignore that is as bad as to base an explanation of a complex site on a handful of unstratified sherds. If we are to use literary evidence, we must be aware of literary criticism. On the whole, Herodotos has received less attention from archagolagists than Thucydides. His reputation as a story-teller means that his testimony is always suspect. Thus his statements about Naukratis, Smyrna and Cyrenaica are all either ignored or adapted to Fit @ chronology drawn from his more prestigious successor However, if we look at how Herodotos might have constructed the past, we might wonder Why more use is not made of his information. The narrative of Herodotas is not linear, but is is tied together by stress on the intercourse between many leading nent, and supported by accounts of the activities of dynasties complete with reign- lengths. Figure 2 shows a simplified picture of this structure - many more Tines could be drawn in, involving other characters. Where there is external evidence for reigniength, as in Eqypt2, it appears to support Herodotos. Heradotos” past has a coherence that makes each statement Fit into a carefully devised position, and allows ‘the author to return to events in later books. Whereas Thucydides’ account of the Sicilian colonies might be regarded as marginal, because it is introduced at the beginning of @ story and then dropped, Heradotas” infarmation about the foundation of Naukratis, or the sack of Sayrna, or the Greek expansion in Cyrenaica, is part of 3 network the whole of which supports the parts. Herodatos does not give exact dates, but he provides clear chronological limits: Naukratis must be founded early in Anasis” reign, since the prostitute Rhodopis flourished there under masis (11. 134- 135); Old Smyrna was sacked by Alyattes after his Median war (1. 16.2); the settlement of Cyrenaica led to the fall of the Pharoah Apries (ii. 161; iv. 159). We can translate such statements into absolute dates; however, the pottery that the excavators have associated with these events is in each case some 30-50 years too early, according to the Thucydidean chronology This is not always seen as an insuperable problem. A look at the Cambridge Ancient 1 On which see Gould 1989 2 see Loyd 1983.Chronology SL History 111.3 (2nd Edition, 1983) might persuade you that everything I have said so far hes been irrelevant; there, on page 91, you will find A.J. Graham's statement that "Greek painted pottery 1s now well dated independently of the literary foundation dates for the colonies." Figure 3 shows the evidence Graham musters to support his claim. The round-cornered boxes are the bedrock af that support, and they make it clear that: - Early Protocorinthian pottery was put into a grave at Pithecoussai at sone point after 718 BC; - Attic Middle Geometric II pottery was used in Samaria before 722 BC: - Attic Late Geometric pottery may have been used in Hama before 720 BC; - Middle Wild Goat IL pottery was used at Mesad Hashavyanu before 609 6C (probably) Only the first of these statements can be put foward with any confidence, because in the other cases we are dealing with 2 very few sherds found in rather poor contexts Furthermore, three of the four points are within four years of each other, and provide Tittle guidance for how quickly pottery styles might have developed afterwards. The usefulness of the evidence from Hana and Samaria depends on the assumption that they were completely abandoneé for centuries after they were sacked by Sargon Il - the existence of even the smallest squatter camp in the period after ‘the destruction would render the evidence from them highly questionable. Having soid all that, this evidence does not provide a means to judge between Herodotos and Thucydides as sources for chronology: it fits both schemes more or less = it fits neither very well, It has been suggested that the Bocchoris scarab from Pithecoussai provides not merely an upper limit but also a loner one for the pottery found with it - it is suggested that the scarab, having come from Egypt to Italy, showed only a few years wear, and thus must have deen buried between 718 and 700 8¢ This is simply wishful thinking, and 1t does Anyx no credit that he is scornful in his attempt to enforce his view: "an incorrigibly skeptical critic mignt stil! maintain that the scarab provides only a terminus post quem" (Amyx 1988, 416). So they ought. We are left with the problem that literary evidence offers conflicting results, and other evidence does not help to resolve the conflict. At the moment, weight is given to the chranology established by Payne, based on Thucydides, and a11 archaeological data that does not conflict with it is taken as confirming it, while ony that does conflict ist explained away. An example of which is Boardnan’s rewriting of the stratigraphy of Tarsus, which he himself describes as. an ungracious attempt to upset from 3 library chair and from a position of utter ignorance of the site and no first-hand experience of the Finds, the conclusion of those who spent years in the trenches and pottery rooms. (Boardnan 1985, 12) Thus also, Herodotos is called in to support the dating of several Greek sites in Cyrenaica to c. 630 BC (Boardman 1966), when he specifically says that Cyrene was the only Greek colony there for the first 56 years of Greek settlement, until the end of the reign of Apries in Egypt (iv. 159.1).3 The methodology of this approach is not acceptable. It is maintained on the whole,52 Bowden because of the convenience of numerical dates and an unwillingness to accept that there is a problem. In its place we could do worse than borrowing the system used by Herodotos. Artefacts and site levels can be identified by its relationship with other artefact and levels, both within a site and between sites. In this way it fs possible to build up a framework that is purely archaeological. This is obviously not a new sdea, but its application to Classical Archaeology is Tong overdue. Such 2 framework would require vertical supports as well as horizontal linkages, just as Herodotos” chronological structure 1s supported ay the descriptions of dynasties, complete with reiga-lengths. In an archaeological model these are provided by the typologies of regional pottery styles. The direction of Corinthian, Attic and various East Greek styles is well established, but here we run into a problem. The rate of development is difficult to judge - how Tong does Attic Middle Geometric Tost? When does Early Corinthian replace Transitional Corinthian? In answering these questions, the tendency has been to rely on literary dates - most obvious is again Payne’ s Corinthian chronology. If we exclude literary evidence, and if our-non-literary fixed points are so few and unreliable for the Archaic period, this becones a real problem. It means that classical archaeologists are going to have to ask some questions that have not previously been thought about. As well as asking when Protocorinthi an evolved into Early Corinthian, we are going to have to ask why. This involves questions about the status of pottery and its producers: were they artists responding to the zeitgeist or low status workmen working to order? What was the value of the pots - were they “treasured as wonders" (Beazley 1985) or “saleable ballast” (6111 1987)? What does “orientalising influence" mean, and how did it work? (a question raised by Robin Osborne). It is only by answering these and other questions that we can begin to construct a reliable archaeological chronological framework. Unless we do this, then historians who interrogate what they think is the “archaeological evidence” will simply see a crooked reflection of their awn material This is not intended as a negative paper. The subject of chronology is important. It ay be suggested that discrepancies of 40 years are not particulary significant, but in Archaic Greece they might be 1 went to end by illustrating this point by telling two stories based on the same evidence. The Archaic ond Early Classical mainland Greek pottery from Naukratis hes been catalogued by M. Venit. The site was excaveted over a century ago, and the stratigraphical evidence is generally regarded as useless. Venit has dated el] the 3 Supporters of a very low chronology have also been willing to pick and chose between the literary evidence, as for example Francis and Vickers” difficulties with the Siphaian treasury and the sack of Smyrna which they associate with Harpogus rather than Alyattes, (Francis and Vickers 1983, Vickers 1985, Francis and Vickers 1985)Chronology 53 material she could, using the traditional chronology for Corinthian, Attic and Laconian pottery, and this graph is based on her work. The .graph works in S-year steps, by spreading sherds proportionally over the period to which they are dated- so five sherds assigned to the second quarter of the sixth century would be shovn as one sherd for each of the five-year periods between 575 and 550. The pottery comes From many parts of the site, but where the original location is known it is mostly From the various sanctuaries. Most of the material therefore is from dedications, and ought thus to reflect the fortunes of the city reasonably well Figure 4 illustrates the traditional story found in the text-books, which goes something like this: Naukratis was founded soe tine near the end of the seventh century. It was flourishing by the time that Amasis “gave it to the Greeks" in Herodotos’ phrase, in around 565 BC the first dotted line . The idea that a ruler Inight give something to people who are already happily using it perhaps appears less surprising now than it might have done a few years ago. Perhaps we may take Herodotos as refering to an early privatisation. However that may be, there is a dramatic fall in the pottery at about 525 BC, which just happens to be when the Persians invaded Egypt under Cambyses. The connection is obvious and the explanation attractive An Egypt under the Persians, the vagaries of Greek politics, and a growing civic consience, combined to dull’ the brilliance of her cosmopolitan life - almost the difference between the Shanghai of before and after the Second World War. (Boardman 1980, 132). But what if the pottery is about forty years later in date, what story can tell then? Simply to shift the dates on the graph by 40 years is rot a particularly rigorous method, but it is simple, and results in figure 5. This version of the story goes Tike this: the site appears to have taken off dramatically inc, $65 8C, that is near the start of Anasis” reign. The invasion of $25 leaves little impression on the archaeological record, presumably because Greeks accompanied the Persians to Egypt to trade. The great decline now comes at around 485, which happens to be the time that Xerxes put down an Egyptian revolt and reduced the country to @ condition of worse servitude than it had ever been in the previous reign. This is a very different version of events from the traditional story, but 1t happens to be Herodotos’ version (cf. Hat. 141, 139; vid. 7) A shift in the dating of pottery can make a great difference to the story it tells, with relevence for our understanding of Greek relations with Egypt and Persia amongst other things. How can we chose betwen them? It will not do to say as Snodgrass does, that archaeology and history simply ask different questions (Snodgrass 1983), There are points where literature, history and archaeology meet, and we would do well to take them seriously54 sowlen Thucydides' dates for the Sicilian Colonies NAXOS fesse ‘SYRACUSE fessor LEONTINOL [7 TroTnes) me carana THAP SOS te Stn year aT foundnionof Syracuse yf ae Sac M{ axrai fen KASMENAI MEGARA HYBLAIA 00 years afer they ter ches ean sted LNT anarina | KAMARINA, 08 years afer nie hr foundation AKRAGAS. Figure 1. SELINUS| hen hey had been ving here or 25 yarchronology Herodotos's Chronological Structure e10ces cyces [eae 3 ARDYS sav ry prRoRres | MecHus ELUS Ee 8 fens | GY : 55 Sire , aon = huvarre la — ST ee camel ASTYAGES APRIES 25. RKESI- a : aa. ‘ apse a a \ 2. * oan oe Q wees mS 1. Periander sends Coreyreans to Alyattes 2 Slythians occupy Media under Kyaxazes, bu are stopped by Psammetichos 3 Alyaites fights Cyaxares 4. Cyrus defeats Astyages 5. Gyrus defeats Croesus 6, Cambyses conquers Egypt a year after the death of Amasis 7. Greek expansion in Cyrenaica under Battus the Fortunate leads to the overthrow of Apres by Amasis. FED vents which might show in the archaeological recon [A The sack of Smyma £8 The foundation of Naukzatis C. The foundation of many Greck sites in Cyrenic clang Tora Figure 2.56 Unraveling a Factoi Greek Painted Pottery Bowden : Fixed Points in the Chronology of "Greek painted pottery is now well dated independently of the literary foundation dates for the colonic: Ad. Graham, CAH, 11.3 (1965) “The chronology of he panied potery can now be regarded as TT Cook, BSA Thave ken Payne's Independently esublished.” Ixiv (1983) 13-1 | chronology for ‘asl Graham, HS xci (1971) Prowcoratian 35-47 J. Boardman iS Dory (1968) = 15 Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (1968) ec Mina "Rave wed Kenyon’ dates." iy Plat Taylor, Lea xi (1989) 85 0.1 Pottery at Mesad Hashavyany must predate the destruction Samaria: "The deposits ofthis perio (V) are to seanty for rch to be deduced from the poten Level V being close to ‘or oquaied with VI" K. Kenyon, a Sebsale i (1957) ‘Widdle Geoneteic 1 pottery found in 1eved| Vat Samaria (if the “Tr would bo havandous to iterpret the teary cevidencsin a way which would make i necessary totring down the lower limit of te early Corin tian style toa date Df the eite by Nacho in 609 B¢ siderably after 585 BC." of J. Navan, LEE ti (1 - fv. Nave Lb xli (1962) 27-32) | Sacre ae (1988/3) 1-34 Pottery found with a scarab of Bocchoris in PAtnecoussas| mast nave been buried after 7a Bc atracigrapny is relic able) most predate the| sack of 722 BC. For a critical discussion of the evidence from Hama, Samaria, see E.D. Francis and M. Vickers, Hama" Levant xvii Figure 3, “Hima proves a clear terminus ante quem foe all Greck import, since the city lay desolate Alter the sack ofthe Neo-Hiuis city by Sargon Min 720 BC." cf, Pu Rils Hana 13 (1948) Late Geometric Pottery found at Hama ought to be earlier than 720 BC ~ but this pottery was not found in a strat~ ifted deposit. (1985) 131-238. Payne, Necrocorinthia ( 1931) ‘THUCYDIDES Mesad Hashavyahu an "Greek Geometric pottery atchronology Greek Pottery from Naucratis: the traditional story os eo sot sherds 45 2s_| Figure 4. datos BCfrom Naukratis: an alternative view Greek Pottery 70 | 6s 60 sherds 45 40 10 Figure 5.cronology 89 Bibliography DAA. Amyx (1988) Corinthian vase paining of the Archaic period J. Beazley (1945) ‘The Brygos tomb at Capua! AVA xlix 153-158 J. Boardman (1965) ‘Tarsus, Al Mina and Greek chronology’ JHS.Ixxxv 5-15 J. Boardman (1966) ‘Evidence for the dating of Greek settlements in Cyrenaica’ ABSA Ini 149-156 J. Boardman (1980) The Greeks Overseas? E.D. Francis and M. Vickers (1983) ‘Signa priscae artis : Eretria and Siphnos' JHS iii 49-67 E.D. Francis and M, Vickers (1985) ‘Greek geometric pottery at Hama’ Levant xvii 131-138 D.WI. Gill (1987) "METRU-MENECE: an Etruscan painted inscription on a mid-fifth ‘century BC red-figure cup from Populonia' Antiquity Ixi 82-87 J. Gould (1989) Herodotus A.B. Lloyd (1983) ‘The late period, 664-323" in B.G. Trigger, BJ. Kemp, D. O'Connor, A.B. Lloyd Ancient Egypt: a social history 279-348 A.M. Snodgrass (1983) ‘Archaeology’ in M. Crawford ed. Sources for ancient history M. Veni (1984) Greek potery from the mainland found in Egypt (unpublished PAD esis) M. Vickers (1985) Persepolis, Vitruvius and the Erechtheum Caryatids' RA 1985 3- 28 Hugh Bowden Kings’ College London