Although this arrangement is probably broadly correct, some of the distinctions are perhaps overly precise, and some allowance may need to be made for differences between workshops and between the mannerisms of individual potters. Certainly C-1939-117 (Fig. 5, left), 118 (Fig. 5, right), and 119 are likely to belong to the second half of the sixth century. All three have the broad bands on the body that are characteristic of this shape in the sixth century, but the profiles differ, so that they may represent the work of three different potters or workshops. C-1939-117 has the same unusual form (and banding) as C-1937-1017: they may even come from one workshop. C-1939-118 and 119 are more normal, with ring-foot, groove separating shoulder from neck, slightly flaring neck, and horizontal rim painted red. C-1939-118 has an ovoid body but that of 119 is considerably squatter, rather like C-1937-997. The remaining vases from well 1939-1 probably date to the first half of the fifth century. C-1939-115 (Fig. 6, bottom left) and 120 go together, as Bentz saw, in terms of fabric, paint and shape, as do 113 and 114 (Fig. 6, top), which have the same polished surface as C-1937-2469. Generally, in these vases, the body is increasingly ovoid, the shoulder less rounded, the lower wall straighter; the neck becomes taller in relation to the body; the ridge or drip-ring between neck and shoulder is now omitted; and
[End Page 47]
the handle is increasingly concave on its upper surface. Most significant is the base, for the ring of the foot is broad and barely offset from the underside (false ring-foot), that of 115 and 120 representing almost a return to the type of foot used in Early Corinthian for such vases as C-1962-569.19 The two bands on the body are now thinner and closer together than on oinochoai of the sixth century. The increasing height of the neck in relation to the body is emphasized in 116 (Fig. 6, bottom right), which Bentz is probably right in considering the latest Corinth oinochoe from this well, and the tall ovoid body has a flatter shoulder than before. A new feature on 116 is the addition of a band on the inside of the neck, just below the rim.
The third quarter of the fifth century seems to have been a crucial time in the development of the Corinth oinochoe, at least to judge from
[End Page 49]
the evidence provided by such deposits as well 1934-10 ("Pease Well"), which was filled, perhaps on a single occasion, with pottery mainly of the years 460–420. Among the fragmentary vases were three certain one-handled oinochoai: C-1934-949 (Fig. 8, top left), C-1934-950, and C-1934-1193 (Fig. 8, bottom). Of these three, only the first preserves the complete profile (minus handle and most of the base), but enough remains of the other two to show that all three were similar to C-1975-135 in body and neck, and the partially preserved handles of C-1934-950 and 1193 retain the type used for C-1975-135. Whether the feet were treated in a similar manner is uncertain.20 The rim is now broader (ca. 1 cm) than that of C-1975-135, which would be appropriate if these three vases are indeed a little later in date, from the third quarter of the fifth century. In her publication of this well, Pease classes the more fragmentary oinochoe C-1934-951 (Fig. 8, top right) with 949, but a close examination of the profile shows that significant differences exist: 951 has a much lower neck and a slightly outturned rim, rounded rather than flat on top. Nor is it certain whether 951 had one or two handles. Whatever the case, 951 is a bridge between the one-handled form represented by C-1934-949 and contemporary two-handled oinochoai such as C-1975-307 (see below, p. 55 and Fig. 14, top).21
As we will see (below, pp. 56–57), well 1934-10 contained at least as many, if not more, two-handled as one-handled Corinth oinochoai. This is symptomatic of a decline in the production of the one-handled Corinth oinochoe in favor of the two-handled version. Although the presence of one-handled oinochoai in well 1934-10 indicates that the version was
[End Page 50]
still in production during the third quarter of the fifth century, it is not clear when the form disappeared from the repertory of the Corinthian potter. In this context, we must consider the jug C-1937-410 (Fig. 9, left), which comes from well 1937-1 and so should be dated to the last quarter of the fifth or the first quarter of the fourth century. This vessel certainly had only a single handle and, although the attachment at the rim is not preserved, the handle would have been difficult to grasp unless it rose high. But the globular shape and low, outturned rim are unusual if we compare examples from pit 1975-1 and well 1934-10. Presuming that the pot is Corinthian, it represents something of an anomaly at the end of the series.22 Although no other complete examples of the one-handled oinochoe that are certainly later than ca. 420 have been inventoried at Corinth, there are, however, some sherds from contexts of the last quarter of the fifth and the early fourth century. For example, drain 1937-1, the pottery of which belongs mainly to the first quarter of the fourth century, included the rim and high-swung handle of a one-handled oinochoe (L-1937-3-1). A rim and high handle (L-1972-55B-1; Fig. 9, right) from a similar vase and the rim of a possible second example come from lot 1972-55B, in which the bulk of the pottery belongs to the fourth century, but isolated pieces from this context are as early as the first half of the fifth.23 To be sure, these and other instances may all be dismissed as heirlooms or as earlier pieces that have strayed into deposits that contain mainly later material, but we cannot completely rule out the possibility that the occasional one-handled oinochoe was still potted in the late fifth or even in the early fourth century.
The earliest extant Corinth oinochoe with two handles is today in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, inv. no. 1976.223 (Fig. 10).24 The ring-foot is broad, with a sloping edge; the bulbous body has a relatively low point of greatest diameter; the neck is low, flaring, and ends in a flat rim; and two flattened oval handles are set opposite each other. The edges of the foot and the mouth are black, and a broad band on the body acts as the ground for a scene of two confronting padded dancers on each side. In terms of shape, and indeed in overall dimensions, the vase is very close to the earliest form of the one-handled Corinth oinochoe, especially C-1932-134 (Fig. 2), which is also decorated with padded dancers.25 As we have noted, Amyx and Lawrence consider C-1932-134 to be Early Corinthian, and on grounds of style, Amyx has suggested a date for the New York oinochoe of "ripe EC/early MC," so perhaps ca. 610–585 on his chronology.26 Although the New York oinochoe may not be quite as early as the earliest preserved Corinth oinochoai with one handle, nevertheless it clearly shows that the two-handled variety was introduced not much later than the one-handled form, if not at the same time—on present evidence possibly within the EC period, in the last quarter of the seventh century.27
[End Page 52]
Despite the emergence of the two-handled oinochoe in Corinthian pottery during the late seventh or early sixth century, examples from the sixth and first half of the fifth century are uncommon, and it is not possible to trace a general development in shape.28 The earliest example from the American excavations in Corinth is C-1937-2056 (Fig. 11), which was found in well 1937-3 and should, therefore, belong to the second half of the sixth century.29 This is the first of Edwards's "short-lived experiments."30 The foot here takes the form of the bases of most of the one-handled Corinth oinochoai from the same context, a simple disk, very slightly concave underneath. The body is globular and not unlike C-1939-119 in profile. The slightly flaring neck ends in a rounded lip.31 The high-swung handles are not set opposite one another as on the earlier New York oinochoe but about 100° apart, and are approximately oval in shape. The decoration has been abraded, but seems to have consisted of one or two horizontal bands above and below the greatest diameter, and, unusually, a short vertical wavy or zigzag line on the shoulder, perhaps a last remnant of the shoulder decoration of earlier Corinth oinochoai.32
[End Page 53]
Before we examine the Classical series of Corinthian decanters, we need to look at a two-handled oinochoe that is something of an anomaly, namely, C-1967-129 (Fig. 12). It shares with C-1937-2056 from the Campbell Well a slightly concave base, and flattened oval handles (2.4 cm wide) set about 100° apart. But there are basic differences: the body is biconical; the neck broad and low; the rim is everted, flat on top and rounded at the edge; and, in particular, the low handles do not rise above the rim. A little above the greatest diameter, a broad black band is flanked by two narrower purplish-red lines. The vase has no definite context, but one may conjecture that it perhaps came from well 1936-10. In her article of 1937 publishing the pottery from well 1934-10, Pease discussed a number of decanters from contemporary deposits, noting that "from the aforementioned well at S:11 [well 1936-10], South Basilica, came two vases with two handles on the same side of the vase. They are squatter; one is unglazed, the others [sic] glazed in the 'conventionalizing' style."33 The squat shape and "conventionalizing" decoration of red and black lines suggest that C-1967-129 may be the missing decanter from this well. If this is correct, the pottery from well 1936-10 would suggest a date in the first three quarters of the fifth century.34 Otherwise, the only means of dating is the combination of black and red bands. This is a form of "conventionalizing" decoration which is used on a variety of shapes from the middle of the sixth to the second half of the fourth century.35 A date in the second or third quarter of the fifth century for C-1967-129 would be appropriate for both the putative context and the decorative motifs.36 In any case, this unusual jug may be an experiment, utilizing the low biconical body of a trefoil broad-bottomed oinochoe, or may even be an imitation of a non-Corinthian form.37
The next stage in the development of the two-handled oinochoe is represented by C-1975-307 (Fig. 14, top) and L-1975-132-23 (Fig. 14, bottom), which were found with the one-handled oinochoai C-1975-135 and 308 in pit 1975-1, and may be dated about 480–440. C-1975-307 and L-1975-132-23 must again be the products of a single potter. C-1975-307 has flanged handles set about 80° apart, a little closer than on C-1939-22, but still looping above the mouth. The false ring-foot is similar to the feet of the one-handled oinochoai C-1939-113, 114, and 116, of the second quarter and middle of the fifth century. The real change, in respect to the slightly earlier C-1939-22, has come about in the upper half of the vase: there is a continuous curve from the simple outturned rim through an almost nonexistent neck to a concave shoulder that passes into the convex lower body. The result is a squatter vase with smaller mouth in relation to the greatest diameter.41 L-1975-132-23, of which only one handle remains, was probably a two-handled oinochoe. Apart from the rim, which is not preserved, the shape is the same as that of C-1975-307, even to the form of the base. The decoration of bands is also the same on the two vases, so far as one can tell. The form of body that we see in these two vases was not entirely new, but was a development from the shape represented by the one-handled oinochoai C-1937-1017 (Fig. 4, center left) and C-1939-117 (Fig. 5, left), from the last half of the sixth century.
[End Page 55]
The most important evidence for the two-handled oinochoai during the third quarter of the fifth century comes from well 1934-10. There are at least six fragmentary examples: C-1934-946 (Fig. 15, top left), 947 (Fig. 15, top right), 948, 1194, 1195 (Fig. 15, bottom), and 1196.42 The first four have a body that derives from the type represented by C-1975-307, although the neck is more pronounced, but the point of maximum diameter is lower and clearly articulated (Edwards's "shoulder stop") at the junction of shoulder and body, at least in the case of 946 and 947; in 948 and 1194 the transition is more gradual.43 The bases of 946, 947, 1195, and 1196 are similar to that of C-1975-307, except that in the case of 1196, the broad groove offsetting the false ring-foot from the underside has been reduced almost to an incised line. The lip is still outturned but is now flat or slightly concave on top, not unlike the lip that we find on certain one-handled oinochoai (C-1934-950, 1193) from the same deposit. The main change, however, has come in the form of the handles: they are still set apart approximately 80° (C-1934-946, 1194) to 100° (C-1934-947), but instead of being concave on the outer surface, with flanged edges, they are now convex, with central rib;44 furthermore, the handles now rise
[End Page 56]
only to the level of the rim, or a very little above. This low handle, with slight variations, will remain the preferred type from now on. The syntax of bands remains unchanged, but some variation occurs in the area of the mouth: the band on the rim may pass across the handles (946, 1194), or stop (947, 948), leaving a reserved space, and the band on the inside of the neck may be included (946, 948) or omitted (947, 1194). These changes produce Decanter type I, in Edwards's typology.45 Now, Edwards considered that the earliest examples of his Decanter type II also came from this deposit, namely, C-1934-1195 (Fig. 15, bottom) and 1196.46 In both cases, however, only the base and lower body remain. The type of base and the profile of 1195 suggest that it comes from an oinochoe like C-1934-947 (i.e., Decanter I). On the other hand, as Edwards maintained, 1196 certainly has a flatter shoulder and squatter body, but as the squatter body came to be used, as we will see, with rims of various types, it is really not possible to be certain how the missing parts should be reconstructed.
In summary, we may say that the Classical series of two-handled oino-choai begins in the first half of the fifth century, perhaps in the second quarter. At first there is some diversity of shape, as illustrated by C-1939-22 and C-1975-307, but the interconnection of the two-handled and the one-handled forms is quite clear, thus confirming the relationship suggested by Lawrence, and later by Bentz.47 By the third quarter of the fifth
[End Page 57]
century, as evidenced by well 1934-10, production of the two-handled oinochoe was increasing, and the one-handled variety was losing favor. It is not possible to know what may have stimulated this change, but one may perhaps conjecture that it was connected with increasing wealth in Corinth after the Persian Wars and with consequent changes in sympotic fashion in the city.48 There is also ample evidence demonstrating that, during the second and third quarters of the fifth century, there was considerable experimentation by the Corinthian potters with the introduction of remodeled or new shapes as well as new modes of decoration. It was at this time that the old forms of Corinthian transport amphorae, types A and B, were re-worked, and a new type, AΕ, introduced.49 This was also the time of the Outline Style, the Sam Wide vases, and the earliest Corinthian versions of white-ground, red-figure, and stamped black-glaze pottery.50
In one important context of the third quarter of the fifth century, the lower filling in well 1981-2, the forms represented by C-1975-307 (Fig. 14, top), on the one hand, and C-1934-946 and 947 (Fig. 15, top), on the other, are found together. L-1981-71-9 preserves part of the high flanged handle and rounded outturned lip (Diam. 9–10 cm) of an oinochoe like C-1975-307. On the other hand, L-1981-71-8 (Fig. 16) comes from an oinochoe like C-1934-946 and 947, with low handle ridged on the upper side; but at the junction of shoulder and neck, we have the unusual addition of a groove between two ridges.51 In addition, the lot has also produced a downturned rim (L-1981-71-12) which may come from an example of Edwards's Decanter II. It is clear, therefore, that during this period of transition for the Corinth oinochoe, the potters were experimenting with many elements of the shape. Thus, the earlier flat rim may be downturned, or downturned and thickened, and it is not surprising that forms of rim that are transitional between Edwards's Decanters I and II (see Fig. 17) are found in other deposits of the third and fourth quarters of the fifth century.52
[End Page 58]
At the same time that these new types of rim evolve, the body of the decanter begins to become even squatter. From lot 7193, connected with Building II and dating ca. 425–375, L-7193-4 (Fig. 18, top) preserves a thickened rim and retains a good part of the body.53 The profile may be compared with that of C-1934-946 (Fig. 15, top left), but the shoulder is a little flatter and the body must have been squatter. In fact, the general shape was similar to the more complete jug C-1931-66 (Fig. 18, bottom left), classed as a Decanter II by Edwards and dated ca. 425, although it cannot be placed more closely than ca. 425–325 from its context.54 Here the rim is downturned, although not thickened. The handles have the ridged form of C-1934-946 but are set closer together (now about 50° apart) and join the base of the rim, so not looping as high. The false ring-foot resembles the earlier C-1975-307 and C-1934-946, but the body is noticeably squatter and less tall. Very similar to C-1931-66 in the form of the rim and handles are L-7193-5 and L-2568-1 (Fig. 18, bottom right), the latter from the Vrysoula deposit (channel 1964-1) and datable to the last quarter of the fifth century.55
From this discussion, it will be apparent that the development of the two-handled Corinth oinochoe in the last half of the fifth century was more complex than previously thought: different types of rim were in use at one time; there was a shift to a ribbed handle, gradually attached lower on the rim; and the body became increasingly squatter. It should also be noted that some of these elements—the thickened rim used for type II decanters and the ribbed handle found on both types I and II—were also used for imitation blisterware amphorae of the last half of the fifth and first half of the fourth century, which may well have been made in the same establishments.56
[End Page 59]
By the last quarter of the fifth century, the two-handled jug must have become one of the major forms, if not the major form, of fineware pouring vessel in Corinth.57 For the late fifth and first quarter of the fourth century, perhaps the two most important deposits are well 1937-1 and drain 1937-1. The pottery from well 1937-1 belongs to the last quarter of the fifth century and to the first quarter of the fourth, and includes two fragmentary two-handled oinochoai: C-1937-451 (Fig. 19) and C-1937-454. C-1937-451 preserves a complete profile, but many parts are missing, and it is not clear whether the base was flat or not. Of 454, only the upper half remains, which does at least show that the vase was substantially larger than 451. Both 451 and 454 have the thickened, downturned rim characteristic of Edwards's Decanter II, slightly convex on the outer face, and undercut in the case of 454. The handles are strongly ridged, and rise just
[End Page 60]
above or just below the level of the mouth, but they are now set closer together (about 50° apart, like those of C-1931-66) than on the jugs from well 1934-10. Quite distinctive is the indentation on the inside of the neck just below the rim. There is now a continuous curve from upper neck to foot, and the body of 451 is low and squat. Both 451 and 454 have bands on the outer edge of the rim that cross the handle-attachments, and on the inside of the neck, and 451 has two bands on the body, one at the point of greatest diameter, the other just below the lower handle-attachments, the two bands closer together than in the oinochoai from well 1934-10.
The pottery from drain 1937-1 is largely contemporary with that of well 1937-1 but may continue into the early second quarter of the fourth century. From the drain, nine decanters have been inventoried (C-1937-240 to 248); C-1937-242 (Fig. 20, top) and C-1937-243 (Fig. 20, bottom) illustrate the examples.58 All display the same distinctive characteristics in shape, fabric, and potting, so that they must come from a single workshop, as Kazazis, Morris, and McNiven pointed out in an unpublished study of the pottery from the well and drain.59 The squat body is similar to that of C-1937-451 from well 1937-1; the false ring-foot is like that used earlier for C-1975-307 and C-1934-946, but the groove separating the narrow outer ring from the slightly convex underside of the base is broader and deeper. The edge of the overhanging rim may be straight or slightly concave, not convex as in C-1937-451, although the same shallow indentation on the inside of the neck is present in all. The handles attach to the bottom of the rim, like those of C-1937-451 and 454, but they do not curve up as much, are set slightly closer together (ca. 45° apart), and, most significantly, they do not have a central rib but are flanged, rather like the earlier type represented by C-1975-307. The syntax of bands, different from that on the examples from well 1937-1, is standard on all nine decanters from the drain: a broad band on the edge of the foot; a broad band below the point of greatest diameter; two narrower bands on the shoulder; a band (not broken by the handles) on the edge of the rim; and two bands on the inside of the neck.
Edwards had no evidence for his Decanter type I between the third quarter of the fifth century and the Hellenistic period. It is now clear, however, that types I and II were both in use during the last quarter of the fifth century and the first quarter of the fourth, along with rim forms
[End Page 61]
that may be regarded as transitional between the two types. From drain 1937-1, in addition to the nine type II decanters, there are two rims (L-1937-2-35, L-1937-3-3) that are slightly convex on top and outturned, illustrating the transition from type I to II. Other deposits reveal the same situation. C-1972-92 (Fig. 21, top) must be approximately contemporary with the oinochoai from well 1937-1. It has the same low, squat body and tall, narrow neck as C-1937-451, a type II decanter, and the organization of bands is similar. The base is flat, the underside slightly concave. Most importantly, however, the everted rim of C-1972-92 is a thickened version of the type I decanter as represented by C-1934-947 (Fig. 15, top right).60 Moreover, the ribbed handles, set about 50° apart, rise somewhat above the level of the mouth and do not attach at the bottom of the rim as do those of the type II decanter.61 The same combination of type I and II rims is found in pit 1972-1, where the pottery covers the fourth century down to ca. 320 or a little later. C-1972-117 (Fig. 21, bottom left) and L-1972-63-6 have rims of type I, developed from the C-1934-946 type. At least three other oinochoai from the deposit (L-1972-63-5 [Fig. 21, bottom right], L-1972-63-7, and one unlotted) had the more downturned and thickened rims of type II, and to judge from the potting and banding of L-1972-63-5 and 6, the same potter was producing decanters with
[End Page 62]
type I and II rims. The handles of all four pots are ridged and set about 50° apart. Three additional, uninventoried bases in the deposit, together with C-1972-116, are flat, the underside slightly concave.62 It thus seems that types I and II, with their variations, represent alternate types of rim for flat-based, squat-bodied decanters from the third quarter of the fifth century into the fourth century, possibly through the second quarter.63
Oinochoai of all three of Edwards's types are found in lot 1978-53, an important fill, connected with the destruction of Building III, that seems to have been dumped during the last quarter of the fourth century. L-1978-53-6 (Fig. 22, top left), although missing much of the body and neck, is clearly an example of type I. It has a false ring-foot marked off by a shallow groove; a body less squat than in type II; handles oval in section,
[End Page 63]
What, briefly, are the characteristics of the type III decanter? If we look more closely at C-1937-2521 (Fig. 23) and 2662, C-1953-60, and C-1931-238, we see that, where the base is preserved, it is flat or slightly concave underneath. The body now is less squat, with a higher maximum diameter, so that the lower wall is more diagonal. The neck is taller and narrower, as is the mouth, to which a thin strip of clay is added to form a "collar rim," to use Edwards's evocative term. The handles are now taller, join at the bottom of the rim, and their central rib is less emphasized. They are usually placed about 50–60° apart (50° for C-1937-2521 and 2662, 60° for C-1931-238). Two bands continue to be applied in glaze on the body just above or below the maximum diameter and on the shoulder, as well as on the edge of the collar rim and on the inside of the neck, but not on the edge of the base.
Of all the pre–South Stoa deposits, drain 1971-1 is the richest in two-handled oinochoai (see Fig. 24). On the basis of handles and distinctive shoulders, this one deposit contained at least 18 decanters. Since the pottery from this drain includes shapes suitable for the storage, preparation, and serving of wine, along with the preparation and eating of food, and must come from one or more establishments with dining facilities, the quantity of decanters clearly demonstrates the significance of the shape in dining in the second half of the fourth century. Disk-feet with concave underside and rounded or tooled edge are used for all identifiable bases. The body, where preserved, is that normal for a decanter of type III, but the neck may be straight and cylindrical (C-1971-236 [Fig. 24, bottom left], L-7079-210) or may flare out toward the top (L-7079-206 [Fig. 24, top], 211). There may be a tendency for the flaring neck to be associated with the undercut collar rim (L-7079-206, 211) and for the straight neck to go with the fused collar rim (C-1971-236, L-7079-210). Of the two forms of rim, the strongly undercut is the more common, and one wonders
[End Page 65]
whether the fused form, in which the rim is joined to the upper neck, is not a slightly later development. Although the collar rim, whether undercut or fused, is thus the predominant form, there is at least one belated example (L-7079-208) of a thickened type II rim. Of most interest, however, is L-7079-209 (Fig. 24, bottom right), which preserves a complete profile except for the lower wall and base. The flat shoulder and diagonal lower wall give a more pinched shape to the body, the ridged handles again rise to the level of the mouth as in earlier decanters of type I, and the outturned rim is not fused or undercut like the normal type III but looks like an unusually thickened form of type II. The two bands on the body are broader than usual and close together at the point of greatest diameter, and the band on the inside of the neck is also unusually wide. It is possible that L-7079-209 may represent the latest form of decanter in the drain, perhaps datable to near the end of the fourth century.67
The construction of the huge South Stoa, and the introduction of new shapes, especially forms of kantharoi, along with "West Slope" decoration, mark the beginning of the Hellenistic period archaeologically at Corinth. Of the decanters classed as Hellenistic by Edwards,68 C-1931-280 (Fig. 25, left) is closest to the form favored in the later fourth century. However, it has a more diagonal shoulder and generally a rather biconical body; and three, not two, bands on the body, rendered in a thin brown slip. The handles (55–60° apart) have also lost the central rib. The clay is rather coarser, has fired harder, and is a greenish yellow (2.5Y 8/4–6), unlike the fabric of jugs in the fourth century. The vase comes from well 1931-8, but the context is unhelpful, and a date anywhere from the late fourth century (i.e., before the construction of the South Stoa) to the later third is theoretically possible.69 Certainly the vase has more in common with late fourth-century decanters than with those of the Hellenistic period from Corinth.
Although the old form goes out of fashion, two-handled jugs continued to be made at Corinth at least during the third century and possibly down to 146, but in quite different forms and certainly in significantly reduced numbers. Some variation in shape is noticeable, but essentially we see the reintroduction of a plainer, more utilitarian type; and the shape is now made in cooking ware, at times with an indented base. These two-handled jugs of the Hellenistic period do not seem to have been primarily vessels for pouring wine at the symposion, but there is no Corinthian shape that clearly takes up this function. Edwards noted the absence at Corinth of decorated jugs in the Hellenistic period and pointed out that the fineware jugs were few in number and mainly of small size.71 He suggested that "in simpler households the need for larger wine pitchers may have been supplied by examples in coarse ware . . . or by such shapes in cooking ware," and this may be correct, but he was understandably hard put to explain
[End Page 67]
this phenomenon. This situation seems to mirror the virtual disappearance of the krater from the ceramic repertory at Corinth and in other mainland Greek centers during the Hellenistic period.72 It may be conjectured that, after Alexander's conquests, which seem to have increased the availability of metalwork in Greece, metal vases took the place of the ceramic krater and oinochoe at the symposion, but, as Susan Rotroff has argued, the evidence perhaps points to a more radical change in drinking customs.73 The symposion and the sympotic krater were closely connected with male society in the independent poleis of the Classical period. The Macedonian hegemony, which brought an end to the independence of city-states such as Corinth, may well have initiated, or at least hastened, profound social, as well as political and economic, change.
The change from the decanter of the Classical period is especially marked in the remaining Hellenistic vessels to be discussed here. C-1975-283 (Fig. 26) is made from a fine, pale brown clay and is quite thin-walled (ca. 3–5 mm). It has a stretched biconical body that passes into a tall, narrow neck, and a broad projecting rim with rounded edge. The handles, which are flattened ovals and set about 50° apart, join the top of the neck, pushing up the rim a little. The jug has a very narrow ring-foot with nippled underside. This form of base is replicated on a contemporary Corinthian lagynos, C-1981-113.74 The modest decoration is quite different from that of the earlier series of two-handled jugs: on the neck are two horizontal grooves about 8 mm apart; and the upper part of the neck, the lip, and the tops of the handles have been dipped in a brown to light red slip. C-1975-283 came from the fill of well 1975-5. The pottery in the well goes down to the
[End Page 68]
middle or the third quarter of the third century, so the jug probably belongs to the first half or, at most, the first three quarters of the third century.
Now, C-1947-314 came from the fill of well 1936-12. Unfortunately, the pottery covers the whole period from the late fourth century to 146. Edwards, however, dated this vase to the first half of the second century, on the basis of its resemblance to the two-handled jug C-1947-829 (Fig. 27, bottom left), from well 1947-3 in the Southeast Building, a context that he felt belonged to the time of the destruction of Corinth. This deposit has recently been published fully by Irene Romano, who argues that the principal filling was probably dumped in the late second or early first century B.C.77 While most of the pottery belongs to the first half of the second century, much of it is earlier. Therefore, we cannot rule out an earlier date, in the third century, for C-1947-829 and also C-1947-314. In
[End Page 69]
fact, such a date is strongly suggested by the context of C-1981-45. This also came from a well, 1981-2, in the excavations east of the Theater. The upper fill (lot 1981-70), which included C-1981-45, clearly belongs to the first half of the third century. Therefore, it may be that all three of these two-handled jugs are to be dated to the first half of the third century. Certainly, the broad similarity of potting between C-1947-314 and C-1981-45 may indicate that they were produced in the same workshop.
Another deposit east of the Theater, manhole 1981-6, has produced at least three two-handled jugs in typical cooking ware: C-1981-115 (Fig. 28, top), L-1981-108-2 (Fig. 28, bottom), and L-1981-108-3.
[End Page 71]
Unfortunately, the context provides no closer dating than ca. 300–146. All three vessels are wheelmade and thin-walled.81 Both of the illustrated vases have a simple flaring lip and narrow strap or flattened oval handles, set about 50° apart, that rise from the shoulder to join the rim. The body is globular but is clearly offset by a jog from the tall, conical neck. The most unexpected feature is the strong indentation of the bottom of each of the three oinochoai. This feature indicates that these vases are really two-handled versions of the Hellenistic round-mouthed pitcher.82 Edwards noted that the round-mouthed pitcher was employed over the fire for boiling, in addition to its primary function in collecting and carrying water. There is no certain evidence of secondary burning on the three two-handled jugs from manhole 1981-6, but it is difficult to see why they would be made in cooking ware unless they were intended to be used over a fire or at least to hold heated contents.
A high-handled, round-mouthed jug, with black neck and band on the body, began to be manufactured in Athens from about 600 B.C.83 Sparkes and Talcott assert that it was adopted from Corinth, being an adaptation of the one-handled Corinth oinochoe, but as Lawrence has rightly remarked, the earliest Athenian form is quite different, particularly in details of body and neck, from the Corinthian, so that the connection is by no means assured.84 It is, however, true that there is a closer relationship between the two shapes from the second half of the sixth century, as Lawrence points out, and this is particularly so toward the end of the Athenian series in the first half of the fifth century. This can be seen if Agora P 16506 is compared with C-1939-116 (Fig. 6, bottom right) or C-1975-135 (Fig. 7, top).85 One-handled Corinth oinochoai, then, may have been occasionally reaching Athens, although I am unaware of any specific imports.
It is also in the first half of the fifth century, about 480–470, that two-handled jugs appear at Athens in the hands of symposiasts, on two cups painted by Douris or a follower.86 An exceptional shape clearly caught the eye of the painter, and was recorded. Now, there is no evidence for the manufacture of ceramic two-handled jugs in Athens at so early a date, so that the originals must have been of metal or, if they were clay, they must have been imported, whether from Corinth or another center.
During the fifth and the fourth century, particularly the latter, the two-handled jug was a common shape in many Greek centers throughout the Mediterranean, often in quite individual forms.87 It is unnecessary to explore these variations in this place, but I would like to consider a little further the particular connection between Corinth and Athens. During the Classical period, Corinthian pottery, both fine ware and coarser domestic ware, reached Athens in considerable quantity.88 Typical Corinthian two-handled jugs were exported to Athens and elsewhere in Attica during the last quarter of the fifth and the first quarter of the fourth century.89 But, toward the beginning of the fifth century, potters in Athens had introduced their own peculiar type of round-mouthed jug, characterized by
[End Page 73]
a convex upper body which meets the flaring lower wall in a sharp junction, and by a single double-handle that curves high above the rim. At some time during the third quarter, a second handle was added to create a distinctive two-handled jug with a mushroom-shaped body—the so-called "mushroom jug"; this vessel is only common in the last quarter of the fifth century and early in the fourth.90 As P. E. Corbett remarked: "The introduction of the second handle may of course have been an independent Athenian invention, but published examples from Corinth antedate the earliest known Athenian ones."91 If Corbett was right in suggesting that a second handle was added to the Athenian shape through the influence of the Corinthian imports, it was only the idea of adding a second handle, not its form, that was adopted, for the double handles of the Athenian vase are quite distinct from the ribbed or flanged Corinthian type. Since the Attic mushroom jug ceases after the early fourth century, it may be that, with the probable dislocation in the Athenian Kerameikos brought about by the difficult last years of the Peloponnesian War and the city's defeat, decanters based upon the Corinthian model and imported from various centers succeeded in ousting the local variety from the marketplace during the first decades of the fourth century.92
However, influence went both ways. One two-handled Corinth oinochoe, C-1936-1116 (Fig. 30), from well 1936-10, is rather unusual in shape. It has a very broad flat base, a biconical body with low maximum diameter, two double handles set 90° apart, and a strongly everted rim almost flat on top and horizontally grooved. Given the general shape of the body, and the use of double round handles, one can only agree with Edwards that this is an adaptation of the Attic two-handled "mushroom jug," but with the junction of upper and lower body less sharp, the base flat in conformity with common Corinthian practice, and the mouth modified to produce a more sinuous profile.93 The pale brown clay and the brilliant surface polish enhance the Atticizing impression.94 The context would favor a date for the Corinthian decanter in the third quarter, or perhaps early in the last quarter, of the fifth century.95 Thus, once the two-handled variety of the Attic mushroom jug had been introduced, perhaps in the third quarter of the fifth century, the new shape soon came to the notice of a potter in Corinth, who tried a local version—although there is no evidence that it had any successors.
[End Page 74]
Metal versions of the two-handled jug do not occur until the fourth century. The examples all come from the area of ancient Macedon. Tomb B at Derveni has provided an elegant jug with goat-head finials at the base of the handles.96 However, the high-swung handles and the form of the body are quite unlike the ceramic decanter made in Corinth. Much closer is a bronze oinochoe in Thessaloniki (inv. no. 7438) from a tomb at Stavroupolis.97 These metal vases doubtless owe their existence to the popularity of the shape in the second half of the fourth century and to the prestige value of metalware from the reign of Alexander. However, there is no evidence at present to suggest that the shape was produced in metal before the fourth century or that these metal vases exerted any specific influence upon the development of the Corinthian ceramic jugs.
It is important, however, to give some consideration to changes in shape, particularly in the position of the two handles, between the late seventh century and 146. While handles set 180° or even 90° apart would allow the jug to be passed between two symposiasts sharing a couch, handles only 45–55° apart, as is the norm in the fourth century, would have been impractical for such a purpose. Experience may have shown that, given the capacity of these vessels and the weight of the wine, especially when the jug was full, it was safer to employ two handles placed close together. Perhaps one might also conjecture, from the number of two-handled jugs in the fourth century, that each drinker received his own jug of wine, so that there was no longer any necessity to pass the vessel. There is also the change in the first half of the fourth century to a taller neck and narrower mouth. This was noted by Edwards, who associated the change (from his type II to type III) with the shift, in the second quarter of the fourth century, from the "old broad forms of drinking-cup" to the calyxkantharoi and deep forms with narrower mouth. He surmised that this development required a jug which provided "a more concentrated and more precisely directed flow of wine."106 Yet experiment shows that types I and II are both suitable for use with the more restricted drinking-vessels of the second half of the fourth century. The Classical series of two-handled Corinth oinochoai comes to an end, as we have noted, by the early third century. The two-handled jugs of the Hellenistic period may have been used not for the consumption of wine, but simply as water pitchers or, at times, even over a fire for boiling and to hold heated contents.
Through a careful examination of archaeological deposits from the American excavations at Ancient Corinth, it has been possible to present, more completely than hitherto, the typological development of the so-called "Corinth oinochoe," both in its one- and two-handled varieties. Both these versions seem to have been introduced during the last quarter of the seventh century. A continuous series of one-handled oinochoai can be traced for some 200 years, well into the third quarter of the fifth century, when the form is replaced by the two-handled version, although some one-handlers may have been produced for another 25 years. The two-handled oinochoe was rarely produced at Corinth during the sixth century, but a clear sequence can be followed from the second quarter of the fifth century. The establishment of such a sequence provides one indicator of gradual change in Corinthian drinking customs after the Persian Wars. During the fourth century, the two-handled oinochoe is the most common form of fineware jug in the Corinthian repertory, and its primary purpose was doubtless for the pouring of wine. However, with the rise of Macedon and the loss of Corinthian political independence, change occurs in sympotic habits at Corinth. By the early third century, the old two-handled wine-jug disappears, and a simpler form, made in fine ware and coarse ware, is introduced, a form that does not seem to have been common, may not have been intended primarily as a wine-jug, and may not have outlasted the third century.107
[End Page 76]
Fabrics and Workshops
Some of the Classical decanters may be grouped on the basis of fabric and surface finish. These will be called Fabrics A, B, C, and D. Fabrics A and C certainly represent distinct workshops, to judge from features of the shape of the vases, as well as the potting. It is perhaps likely that the other fabrics represent the output of discrete workshops, but this cannot be proved conclusively. Vases are listed chronologically within each fabric.
Fabric (Workshop) A
These four vases come from a single deposit, pit 1975-1, and probably date about 480–440. C-1975-135 and 308 are one-handled oinochoai; 307 is two-handled, 132-23 probably similar. All four vases are made from a fine clay. In the case of C-1975-307 and L-1975-132-23, the fabric is paler (10YR 7/4), but is closer to 7.5YR 7/6 for the other two. In the core, the clay may fire a pale brown, even a light red, and it is not impossible that the surfaces have been given a thin wash of a pale clay. The quality of the potting, particularly the treatment of the bases, suggests that all four vases come from a single workshop.
|C-1964-273||last half of fifth|
|L-2568-1, 2||last half of fifth|
|L-1972-98-20, 21, 24||last half of fifth|
|C-1931-66||last quarter of fifth?|
|L-5152 (frr. of three decanters with type II rims)||last quarter of fifth and early fourth|
|L-1972-92 (frr. of two type I decanters and one type II)||late fifth–early fourth|
|L-7193-4, 5, 7||late fifth–first quarter of fourth[End Page 77]|
|L-1972-63-5, 6(?)||fourth to ca. 320, probably first half|
|C-1978-39 (+ a ridged han-|| dle and body sherds of at least one more decanter) fourth to ca. 320|
|C-1937-2662||fourth to ca. 320|
|L-7079-206, 210, 211||fourth to ca. 320|
seventh to last quarter of third
The oinochoai in this group are carefully potted from a relatively fine fabric that is bright orange (5YR 6–7/8) in the core but lighter on the outer surface (7.5YR 6–7/8), with a few small to medium white and dark inclusions. The surface is given a thin slip, cream to light brown (closest to 10YR 8/6). The earliest probably belongs to the third quarter of the fifth century, the latest to the last quarter of the fourth. They all have a broad squat body, and ridged handles (where preserved), but the forms of rim and base vary over time.
Fabric (Workshop) C
C-1937-240 to 248
late fifth–second quarter of fourth
The fabric is fine and moderately hard, a pale brown (closest to 10YR 7/6) in the core but darker on the surface, which has been smoothed and perhaps covered with a thin wash. The distinctive features of the shape and decoration of all these vases, detailed above, indicate that they were produced in one workshop, probably during the first quarter of the fourth century.
|C-1972-92||late fifth–early fourth|
|C-1972-116||fourth to ca. 320, probably first half|
|C-1972-117||fourth to ca. 320, probably first half|
|C-1937-2521||fourth to ca. 320|
|C-1953-60||fourth to ca. 320|
|C-1971-236||fourth to ca. 320|
|L-7079-207||fourth to ca. 320|
|C-1931-280(?)||seventh to last quarter of third, probably late fourth–early third|
The fabric is fine, white or greenish white (10YR 8/2 to 2.5Y 8/2), moderately hard in the earlier vases (C-1972-92, 116, 117), but soft in the later. The surface is coated with a fine wash that fires a pink or light red (7.5YR 7/4) to pale yellow (10YR 8/6). The decorative bands can be a brownish black but tend, especially in the later vases, to thin out to a reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/8). The earliest, C-1972-92, must be dated ca. 400, the latest, C-1971-236 and L-7079-207, to the third or fourth quarter of the fourth century. The bases are flat where preserved and the handles ridged, but the bodies and rims vary. If C-1931-280 belongs, its late date may account for the grittier fabric and thicker wall.
[End Page 78]
Since almost all of these jugs have been broken and mended, measurement of capacity has been done with a very fine sand. C-1931-280 was sufficiently intact to be measured with water as well as fine sand—the difference in capacity proved negligible. Usually two, sometimes three, measurements, were made, and the average recorded. Since it was necessary to use 80 and 600 ml measures, the results can only be considered accurate ±10 ml. In some cases, the insides were slightly plastered, which has certainly affected the measurement.
We do not know whether, in the Archaic and Classical periods, Corinth possessed its own system of capacities or employed the Attic or Aiginetan systems. At this stage, with measurements for so few vessels, it would be unwise to draw any conclusions from the data in the following list.
[End Page 79]
[End Page 80]
Only the maximum dimension is given, except in the case of the height at the maximum diameter. The figure in parentheses in the first column below indicates the height to the top of the handle or handles. All measurements are in centimeters. I have excluded fragments for which only one of the five listed dimensions is preserved. The arrangement is approximately chronological.
[End Page 81]
[End Page 82]
Deposits and Lots
Deposits precede lots. The order within each series is chronological.
Well 1931-8. New Museum, well Z. Corinth VII.3, p. 210, deposit 42. Edwards's date: early seventh century to the last quarter of the third century.
|C-1931-238||Corinth VII.3, p. 62, no. 305.|
|C-1931-280||Corinth VII.3, p. 62, no. 306. Fig. 25|
Well 1931-14. Asklepieion, well (votive deposit V) north of the Temple of Asklepios. Pottery covers the period ca. 425–325/300.
|C-1931-66||Corinth XIV, p. 135, no. 60, pl. 50; Fig. 18|
Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 300.
Well 1932-4. Temple E, northwest corner, grid 93:J. Published in Boulter 1937, and Corinth VII.1, pp. 60–71. Date: last quarter of the seventh century.
|C-1932-134||Amyx and Lawrence 1996, p. 19, Fig. 2|
no. 61, pls. 16, 17; Boulter 1937,
p. 230, fig. 33.
Well 1934-10 (well at E–K:30–37, "Pease Well"). Forum Southwest, grids 72–73:K. Corinth VII.3, p. 201, deposit 10; Corinth VII.4, p. 17, deposit 3; Bentz 1982, p. 10, deposit 11; Corinth VII.5, p. 9, deposit 22. Much of the pottery was published by M. Z. Pease (Pease 1937), but see now Pemberton 2003, pp. 168–169, 171. The well seems to have been filled on a single occasion, ca. 420, at the same time as the South Basilica wells S:11 (well 1936-10) and K:14 (well 1936-6) (Corinth VII.3, p. 201, deposits 11 and
[End Page 83]
12). Pease (1937, p. 257, n. 3) suggested that the vases might come from a nearby potter's workshop. Although some pieces from the deposit are earlier than 460 (e.g., C-1934-1077: Pease 1937, p. 272, no. 21), it is clear that the pottery generally belongs to the period ca. 460–420.
|C-1934-946||Pease 1937, p. 293, fig. 25; p. 294, Fig. 15|
no. 151; Corinth VII.3, p. 58, no. 283,
pls. 11, 49.
|C-1934-947||Pease 1937, p. 294, no. 152; Fig. 15|
Corinth VII.3, p. 58, no. 282.
|C-1934-948||Pease 1937, p. 294, no. 153;|
Corinth VII.3, p. 58, no. 284.
|C-1934-1194||Corinth VII.3, p. 58, no. 285.|
|C-1934-1195||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 298. Fig. 15|
|C-1934-1196||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 299.|
One- or Two-Handled
|C-1934-951||Pease 1937, p. 294, no. 149. Fig. 8|
Well 1936-10. South Basilica, "Well at S:11," grid 43:B. Corinth VII.3, p. 201, deposit 11, where the pottery is dated "5th century to 420 B.C." See the discussion in Corinth VII.5, pp. 8–9, deposit 21.
Well 1936-12. South Stoa, shop XVIII. Corinth VII.3, pp. 230–231, deposit 109. The pottery from the lower fill, including C-1947-314, dates from the last quarter of the fourth century to 146.
|C-1947-314||Corinth VII.3, p. 58, no. 286, pls. 11, 49. Fig. 27|
Well 1937-1 (lot 1937-1). Forum South Central, "well at b–c:18–19." For the location, see Morgan 1937, pl. XII:2 ("Vth c. Well"). Corinth VII.3, pp. 216–217, deposit 79; Corinth VII.4, pp. 18–19, deposit 4; Corinth VII.5, p. 9, deposit 27. Edwards, in Corinth VII.3, p. 216, dates the pottery "ca. 425 through the first quarter of the 4th century B.C."; Herbert, in Corinth VII.4, p. 18, "late 5th–early 4th century." In an unpublished study of the pottery from well 1937-1 and drain 1937-1, Kazazis, Morris, and McNiven conclude that both contexts were probably filled about 375.
[End Page 84]
|C-1937-451||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 287, pls. 12, Fig. 19|
49; Pemberton 1970, p. 295, pl. 73.
|C-1937-454||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 288.|
Drain 1937-1 (lots 1937-2, 3). Forum South Central, "drain at b–f:19–20" and "drain at V–X:10–12." The location is given in Morgan 1937, pl. XIII:2. Corinth XII, pp. 17–18, deposit XI ("late fifth century"); Corinth VII.3, p. 217, deposit 80 ("4th century B.C., first quarter into second quarter"); Corinth VII.4, pp. 19–21, deposit 5 ("first to second quarter of the 4th century B.C."); Corinth VII.5, p. 9, deposit 28. See Kazazis, Morris, and McNiven n.d. In my opinion, the pottery belongs mainly to the first quarter of the fourth century, with some as late as ca. 370–360.
|C-1937-240||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 293.|
|C-1937-241||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 292.|
|C-1937-242||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 290. Fig. 20|
|C-1937-243||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 291, Fig. 20|
pls. 12, 49.
|C-1937-244||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 294.|
|C-1937-245||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 289.|
|C-1937-246||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 296.|
|C-1937-247||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 295.|
|C-1937-248||Corinth VII.3, p. 60, no. 297.|
Pit 1937-1 (lot 1937-36). Forum Southwest, "pit at N–O:21–23," grids 52–53:K–L. The pit is marked as "wine cellar B" in Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 166, fig. 5, with brief mention on pp. 154 and 163 in connection with the drain (drain 1971-1) between Buildings I and II. There are joins between the pottery in this pit and in drain 1971-1. The deposit is discussed in Corinth VII.3, p. 222 (deposit 90), where Edwards puts the original filling in the "early third quarter of the 4th century." Herbert, in Corinth VII.4, pp. 23–24 (deposit 10), considered pit 1937-1 and drain 1971-1 together, settling upon a lower limit of 330–320. See also Corinth VII.5, p. 9, deposit 30. Reconsideration by myself and Elizabeth Pemberton of the chronology of Corinthian black-glaze skyphoi has suggested that Edwards's date should be lowered at least to ca. 320, if not later.
|C-1937-2521||Corinth VII.3, p. 62, no. 302, Fig. 23|
pls. 12, 49.
|C-1937-2662||Corinth VII.3, p. 62, no. 303.
[End Page 85]
Well 1937-3 ("Campbell Well"). Forum South Central, "well at I–J:24–25," grid 53:J. The location of the well is given in Morgan 1937, pl. XIII:2 ("VIth c. Well"). Much of the pottery was published in Campbell 1938. See also Corinth VII.3, p. 198, deposit 3; Bentz 1982, pp. 8–9, deposit 7; Corinth VII.5, p. 8, deposit 8. The top of the well seems to have some pottery of the second half of the fifth century, but the oinochoai all belong to the main fill, which may be dated ca. 550–480.
|C-1937-976||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 145; p. 592, fig. 18.|
|C-1937-997||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 146; Fig. 4|
p. 592, fig. 18.
|C-1937-1017||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 147; Fig. 4|
p. 592, fig. 18.
|C-1937-1060a–c||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 148. Not enough remains to be sure that
this vessel had only one handle.|
|C-1937-2469a–c||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 151; Fig. 4|
p. 592, fig. 18.
|C-1937-2470||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 149; Fig. 4|
p. 592, fig. 18.
In the lot:
- Two joining fragments from the neck and shoulder of a jug like 2469. Jog at base of neck, accentuated with red band. Two red bands above point of greatest diameter, at least one on inside of neck. Diam. (neck) 7.4.
- Fragment of a broad rim (glazed red) and neck of a jug like 2470, but no ridge at base of neck. Diam. (rim) 10.1; W. (rim) 1.4.
|C-1937-2056||Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 150; Fig. 11|
p. 592, fig. 18; Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44.
Well 1939-1. Museum West, "well at K:23." Corinth VII.3, p. 200, deposit 8; Bentz 1982, pp. 7–8, deposit 6; Corinth VII.5, p. 8, deposit 19. The pottery ranges from the second quarter of the sixth century to the early third quarter of the fifth, although the majority belongs to the first half of the fifth (Bentz's chronology).
|C-1939-113||Bentz 1982, p. 391, no. D6-59.|
|C-1939-114||Bentz 1982, p. 391, no. D6-58. Fig. 6|
|C-1939-115||Bentz 1982, pp. 390–391, no. D6-57. Fig. 6|
|C-1939-116||Bentz 1982, p. 391, no. D6-60. Fig. 6|
|C-1939-117||Bentz 1982, p. 389, no. D6-54. Fig. 5|
|C-1939-118||Bentz 1982, pp. 389–390, no. D6-55. Fig. 5|
|C-1939-119||Bentz 1982, p. 390, no. D6-56.|
|C-1939-120||Bentz 1982, p. 391, under no. D6-57. [End Page 86]|
Bentz (1982, p. 391) mentions fragments of "at least four more Corinth oinochoai" in the lot.
|C-1939-22||Bentz 1982, pp. 391–392, no. D6-61; Fig. 13|
Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44.
Well 1940-1. New Museum East, well A. Corinth VII.3, p. 208, deposit 36. The pottery covers the period from the last quarter of the fifth century to about 250.
|C-1940-413||Weinberg 1948, p. 234, no. E16, pl. 86; Fig. 25|
Corinth VII.3, p. 62, no. 301, pls. 12, 49.
Well 1940-2. New Museum East, well at N–O:24–25. See Weinberg 1948, pp. 214–229 ("Group D"), and Corinth VII.2, pp. 15–16, no. 10. Date: last quarter of the seventh and first quarter of the sixth century.
|C-1940-87||Weinberg 1948, p. 217, no. D7, pl. 78; Corinth VII.2, p. 29, no. 71, pl. 12.
Well 1947-1. A pit or unfinished well ("pit at B–C:21–22," grid 30:V) along the east side of the Southeast Building. The pit is mentioned by Weinberg in Corinth I.5, p. 4, and is represented on plan I by a circular cross-hatched area. Weinberg dates the filling of the "well" ca. 500–490. See also Bentz 1982, p. 9, deposit 8; Corinth VII.5, p. 8, deposit 10. The Attic black-figure is published in Brownlee 1989, p. 379, no. 87; 1995, pp. 350–351, nos. 180–182; p. 372, no. 270; p. 373, nos. 274, 277; p. 374, no. 282. The pottery covers mainly the second half of the sixth century and the early fifth (to ca. 480), concentrating in the last quarter of the sixth and the early fifth.
Well 1947-3. Southeast Building, well at N:20. Corinth VII.3, p. 211, deposit 46. The pottery has been published by Romano (1994), who dates the principal filling to the late second or early first century B.C.
|C-1947-829||Corinth VII.3, p. 143, no. 749, pls. 34, Fig. 27|
63; Romano 1994, p. 80, no. 46, pl. 22.
"Grave" 1953-6. A rectangular cutting, possibly a reused grave, connected with Building III ("Tavern of Aphrodite"). Part of deposit 88 in Corinth VII.3, pp. 219–220. Edwards places the lower date for the pottery early in the third quarter of the fourth century, but it may go down to 320 or later, the terminal date for pit 1937-1 and drain 1971-1.
|C-1953-60||Corinth VII.3, p. 62, no. 304.[End Page 87]|
Well 1962-5 ("Anaploga Well"). Lawrence in Corinth VII.2, pp. 63–167, esp. pp. 78–80 for the Corinth oinochoai. Date: Late Protocorinthian to Late Corinthian I.
|C-1962-395||Corinth VII.2, pp. 105–106, no. An 34, pl. 60. Fig. 3|
|C-1962-569||Corinth VII.2, p. 143, no. An 223, pls. 59, 109.|
Channel 1964-1 (Vrysoula Classical deposit). Published in Pemberton 1970. See also Corinth VII.5, p. 9, deposit 23. Date: ca. 450–410.
|C-1964-161||Pemberton 1970, p. 294, no. 93, pl. 72.|
|C-1964-273||Pemberton 1970, p. 294, no. 94, pl. 72.|
|L-2568-1|| Fig. 18||
Drain 1971-1 (lot 7079). Drain between Buildings I and II, filled with a large quantity of pottery, some terracottas, and other objects. For the context and a selection of the pottery, see Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 154–163, pls. 24–27. The deposit is briefly discussed, and older literature provided, by Risser in Corinth VII.5, p. 9, deposit 32. The pottery belongs mainly to the second and third quarters of the fourth century, with a terminal date of 320–300.
|C-1971-236||Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 156, no. 22, pl. 25.
Pit 1972-1 (lot 1972-63). Forum Southwest, grid 60:D, Building III, oval pit against the west side of the west wall of the well room. The pottery covers the fourth century down to the last quarter (see Pemberton 1997a, p. 73, n. 29). Williams and Fisher 1973, pp. 23–25. The deposit contained at least seven decanters.
|C-1972-116||Williams and Fisher 1973, p. 18, pl. 8.
|C-1972-117||Williams and Fisher 1973, p. 18, pl. 8.
[End Page 88]
Pit 1975-1 (Amphora Pit deposit). Forum West, grids 71–72:D. Williams and Fisher 1976, pp. 104–107: "a shallow, rectangular pit 2.50 m. east–west by 1.75 m. north–south." Pottery lot 1975-132. Williams suggests that the "more complete examples of fine wares range in date between the decade before and the decade after 450 B.C.," but it may be preferable to be more conservative and say that the pottery belongs mainly to the second and early third quarters of the fifth century, and, even then, a few pieces seem to be earlier.
|C-1975-135||Williams and Fisher 1976, p. 105, Fig. 7|
no. 19, pl. 19.
|C-1975-308|| Fig. 7|
Well 1975-5. Centaur Bath, room 5. For the position of the well, its chronological significance, and a selection of the contents, see Williams 1977, p. 43, fig. 2; pp. 55–56; pp. 68–70, nos. 3–14. The pottery goes down to the middle or the third quarter of the third century.
|C-1975-283||Williams 1977, p. 68, no. 4, pl. 24. Fig. 26|
Well 1981-2. East of Theater. Williams and Zervos 1982, pp. 120–124. The well had two distinct fillings, the lower (lot 1981-71) of the third quarter of the fifth century, the upper (lot 1981-70) of the first half of the third.
|C-1981-45|| Fig. 27|
|L-1981-71-8|| Fig. 16|
Manhole 1981-4. East of Theater. Grids 94–95:BE. Lot 1981-81. Although there is some earlier material, the pottery is mainly datable to the later first century.
Manhole 1981-6. East of Theater. Grids 94–95:BE. One of the access shafts of a Hellenistic cistern: Williams and Zervos 1982, pp. 124–125. Lot 1981-108. The pottery dates to the period ca. 300–146.
Cistern 1987-1. East of Theater, Building 7. Grids 94:AS–AT. Silt in the bottom of the cistern. For the context, see Williams and Zervos 1988, p. 127. Lot 1987-44. The pottery dates to the third century and the first quarter of the second.
|C-1987-78||Williams and Zervos 1988, Fig. 27|
pp. 126–127, no. 25, pl. 41.
Lot 5152. Sacred Spring South, fill of floors 14 and 15, sealing altar 1 and floor 16. The pottery goes down to ca. 400 or a little later. For the deposit, see Williams 1969, p. 56; Corinth VII.5, p. 20.
Lot 7193. Forum Southwest, grid 55:G, Building II, room 2, cobble layer. The pottery covers the late fifth century and the early fourth, perhaps into the second quarter. For Building II and its chronology, see Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 165–171.
One- or Two-Handled
L-7193-4 Fig. 18
Lot 1972-54. Sacred Spring Central, phase 3 gravel fill, grids 54–55:X. The pottery from this lot includes Attic red-figure (C-1972-74 and 143) and Corinthian red-figure (C-1972-72), and the coin 72-347. It seems to date to the end of the fifth and to the first quarter of the fourth century. For the phases of the Sacred Spring, see Williams 1971, pp. 10–24; and for the supplementary excavation in 1972, see Williams and Fisher 1973, pp. 27–32.
One- or Two-Handled
[End Page 90]
Lot 1972-55B. Sacred Spring Central, grids 53:W–Y, fill beneath racecourse. The pottery comes from a dumped fill and covers a broad spectrum from the first half of the fifth century (e.g., the Attic red-figure fragment C-1972-60) to the last quarter of the fourth (skyphoi).
Lot 1972-84. Forum Southwest, grids 61:C–D, Building IV, robbing trench on line of east wall. For the context (destruction of Buildings III and IV), see Williams and Fisher 1973, pp. 25–26. For the pottery, see McPhee 1997, p. 100, no. 1; p. 119, no. 43; Pemberton 1997a, p. 52, no. 7; Corinth VII.4, p. 45, no. 61, pl. 12. The deposit includes pottery of the fourth century to ca. 320–300.
Lot 1972-92. Forum Southwest, grid 61:D, Building IV, pit below floor. For black-glaze from this deposit, see Pemberton 1997a, p. 53, no. 25, fig. 3 (L-1972-92-1); pp. 57–58, no. 50, fig. 5, pl. 28 (C-1972-156); p. 72, fig. 14 (L-1972-92-8). The pottery belongs to the late fifth and early fourth century, roughly contemporary with well 1937-1. The deposit contained at least eight decanters.
|C-1972-92||Williams and Fisher 1973, p. 18, Fig. 21|
no. 18, pl. 8; Pemberton 2003,
p. 178, fig. 10:9.
Lot 1972-98. Sacred Spring, phase 3, grids 53:WX, XY; 54–55:W; gravel fill above robbed stairs. Corinth VII.4, p. 21, deposit 6; Pemberton 1997a, p. 85; Corinth VII.5, p. 21. The gravel fill was brought in during the reconstruction of the area in phase 3. The pottery from lot 1972-98 includes Attic red-figure (C-1972-69 and 181), Corinthian red-figure (Corinth VII.4, nos. 3, 23, 122) and black-glaze (Pemberton 1997a, p. 55, no. 34; p. 85), and the coins 72-365 and 72-366. The latest material belongs to the last quarter of the fifth century, perhaps ca. 410. The deposit contained at least six decanters.
L-1972-98-19 Fig. 17
L-1972-98-20 Fig. 17
[End Page 91]
Lot 1978-44. Forum Southwest, grids 61–62:B–C, Building IV, closely packed stone fill in cellar, partly comprising destruction debris. The pottery belongs mainly to the first half of the fourth century, the latest pieces dating ca. 350. See also Pemberton 1997a, p. 74, n. 37. The deposit contained fragments of at least 13 decanters.
Lot 1978-53. Forum Southwest, grid 60:C, south of the southwest corner of Building III. For the excavation, see Williams 1979, pp. 125–126, 129. The pottery, connected with the destruction of Building III, belongs mainly to the first three quarters of the fourth century, the latest pieces perhaps going into the last quarter. The deposit produced a minimum of eight decanters.
Agora = The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton
XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C., 1970.
XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, 1997.
Amyx, D. A. 1958. "The Attic Stelai, Part III," Hesperia 27, pp. 163–310.
Amyx, D. A., and P. Lawrence. 1996. Studies in Archaic Corinthian Vase Painting (Hesperia Suppl. 28), Princeton.
Anderson-Stojanovic, V. R. 1997. "A Third Century B.C. Deposit from the South Slope Cistern in the Rachi Settlement at Isthmia," Δ' Επιστημονιχη Συναντηση για την Ελληνιστιχη Κερα, Athens, pp. 13–19.
Bentz, J. L. 1982. "Pottery at Ancient Corinth from Mid-Sixth to Mid-Fifth Century B.C." (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati).
Bothmer, D. von. 1985. The Amasis Painter and His World: Vase-Painting in Sixth-Century B.C. Athens, Malibu.
Boulter, C. 1937. "A Pottery-Deposit near Temple E at Corinth," AJA 41, pp. 217–236.
———. 1953. "Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century from a Well in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 22, pp. 59–115.
Brownlee, A. B. 1989. "Attic Black Figure from Corinth: II," Hesperia 58, pp. 361–395.
———. 1995. "Attic Black Figure from Corinth: III," Hesperia 64, pp. 337–382.
Buitron-Oliver, D. 1995. Douris: A Master-Painter of Athenian Red-Figure Vases, Mainz.
Campbell, M. T. 1938. "A Well of the Black-Figured Period at Corinth," Hesperia 7, pp. 557–611.
———. 1946. "Late Corinthian Pottery" (diss. Bryn Mawr College).
Corbett, P. E. 1949. "Attic Pottery of the Later Fifth Century from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 18, pp. 298–351.
Corinth = Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
I.5 = S. S. Weinberg, The Southeast Building, the Twin Basilicas, the Mosaic House, Princeton 1960.
VII.1 = S. S. Weinberg, The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery, Cambridge, Mass., 1943.
VII.2 = D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence, Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well, Princeton 1975.
VII.3 = G. R. Edwards, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery, Princeton 1975.
VII.4 = S. Herbert, The Red-Figure Pottery, Princeton 1977.
VII.5 = M. K. Risser, Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery, Princeton 2001.
XII = G. R. Davidson, The Minor Objects, Princeton 1952.
XIII = C. W. Blegen, H. Palmer, and R. S. Young, The North Cemetery, Princeton 1964.
XIV = C. Roebuck, The Asklepieion and Lerna, Princeton 1951.
XVIII.1 = E. G. Pemberton, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery, Princeton 1989.
XX = C. K. Williams and N. Bookidis, eds., Corinth, the Centenary: 1896–1996, Princeton 2003.
CorVP = D. A. Amyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, Berkeley 1988.
Frasca, M., F. Fouillard, and P. Pelagatti. 1996. "Monte Casasia (Ragusa)—Campagne di scavo 1966, 1972–73 nella necropoli indigena," NSc, ser. 9, 5–6 (1994–1995), pp. 323–583.
Hopper, R. J. 1949. "Addenda to Necro-corinthia," BSA 44, pp. 162–257.
Kazazis, D., S. Morris, and T. McNiven. N.d. "A Study of the Pottery from Drain 1937-1 and Well 1937-1," Hill House Library, Corinth Excavations, Ancient Corinth.
Koehler, C. G. 1981. "Corinthian Developments in the Study of Trade in the Fifth Century," Hesperia 50, pp. 449–458.
LCS = A. D. Trendall, The Red-Figured Vases of Lucania, Campania, and Sicily, Oxford 1967.
[End Page 93]
McPhee, I. 1983. "Local Red Figure from Corinth, 1973–1980," Hesperia 52, pp. 137–153.
———. 1997. "Stemless Bell-Kraters from Ancient Corinth," Hesperia 66, pp. 99–145.
———. 2004. "Classical Pottery from Ancient Corinth: The A. D. Trendall Memorial Lecture 2003," BICS 47, pp. 1–21.
Morgan, C. H. 1937. "Excavations at Corinth, 1936–37," AJA 41, pp. 539–552.
Palinuro II = B. Neutsch and R. Naumann, Palinuro, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen II: Nekropole, Terrassen-zone, und Einzelfunde (RM-EH 4), Heidelberg 1960.
Pease, M. Z. 1937. "A Well of the Late Fifth Century at Corinth," Hesperia 6, pp. 257–316.
Pemberton, E. G. 1970. "The Vrysoula Classical Deposit from Ancient Corinth," Hesperia 39, pp. 265–307.
———. 1985. "Ten Hellenistic Graves in Ancient Corinth," Hesperia 54, pp. 271–307.
———. 1997a. "Corinthian Black-Glazed Pottery with Incised and Stamped Decoration," Hesperia 66, pp. 49–97.
———. 1997b. "Athens and Corinth: Workshop Relations in Stamped Black-Glaze," in Athenian Potters and Painters, ed. J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, Oxford, pp. 407–421.
———. 1999. "Wealthy Corinth: The Archaeology of a Classical City," in Proceedings of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, 1998, ed. B. Bennett, Canberra, pp. 138–165.
———. 2003. "Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from Corinth and Its Athenian Connections," in Corinth XX, pp. 167–179.
Perachora II = T. J. Dunbabin, ed., Perachora, the Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia: Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930–1933 II: Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs, and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia, Oxford 1962.
Pierobon, R. 1979. "Lagynos: Funzione e forma," RStLig 45, pp. 27–50.
Rhomiopoulou, K. 1989.
vol. 3, Athens, pp. 194–218.
Risser, M. K. 2003. "Corinthian Archaic and Classical Pottery: The Local Style," in Corinth XX, pp. 157–165.
Romano, I. B. 1994. "A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth: Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146–44 B.C.)," Hesperia 63, pp. 57–104.
Rotroff, S. 1996. The Missing Krater and the Hellenistic Symposium: Drinking in the Age of Alexander the Great, Christchurch.
Shear, T. L., Jr. 1975. "The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1973–1974," Hesperia 44, pp. 331–374.
Stavropoulou, P. 1938. ArchEph, pp. 1–31.
Steiner, A. 1992. "Pottery and Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the Sacred Spring," Hesperia 61, pp. 385–408.
Themelis, P., and G. Touratsoglou. 1997. Athens.
Todisco, L. 1995. "Eracle bagnato," in Modi e funzioni del racconto mitico nella ceramica greca, italiota, ed etrusca dal VI al IV secolo a.C., Salerno, pp. 137–157.
Vatin, C. 1969. Médéon de Phocide, Paris.
Vatin, C., P. Bruneau, C. Rolley, and T. Hackens. 1976. Médéon de Phocide V: Tombes hellénistiques, objets de métal, monnaies, Paris.
Weinberg, S. S. 1948. "A Cross-Section of Corinthian Antiquities (Excavations of 1940)," Hesperia 17, pp. 197–241.
Williams, C. K., II. 1969. "Excavations at Corinth, 1968," Hesperia 38, pp. 36–63.
———. 1971. "Corinth, 1970: Forum Area," Hesperia 40, pp. 1–34.
———. 1977. "Corinth, 1976: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 46, pp. 40–81.
———. 1978. "Corinth, 1977: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 47, pp. 1–39.
———. 1979. "Corinth, 1978: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 48, pp. 105–144.
Williams, C. K., II, and J. E. Fisher. 1972. "Corinth, 1971: Forum Area," Hesperia 41, pp. 143–174.
———. 1973. "Corinth, 1972: The Forum Area," Hesperia 42, pp. 1–32.
———. 1976. "Corinth, 1975: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 45, pp. 99–162.
Williams, C. K., II, and O. H. Zervos. 1982. "Corinth, 1981: East of the Theater," Hesperia 51, pp. 115–163.
———. 1988. "Corinth, 1987: South of Temple E and East of the Theater," Hesperia 57, pp. 95–146.
———. 1991. "Corinth, 1990: Southeast Corner of Temenos E," Hesperia 60, pp. 1–58.
Zimmerman Munn, M. L. 2003. "Corinthian Trade with the Punic West in the Classical Period," in Corinth XX, pp. 195–217.
For his generous permission to study and to publish this material, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the excavator, Charles K. Williams II, Director Emeritus of the Corinth Excavations. I would also like to thank Nancy Bookidis, former Assistant Director, for her invaluable assistance and patient advice; G. D. R. Sanders, current Director, for his keen interest in this project; and Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst, Curator, for her kind help in Corinth. Both Williams and Sanders kindly read a draft of this article. Much of the initial research was done with the collaboration of Elizabeth Pemberton, and I am very grateful to her. The photographs are, as always, the essential contribution of I. Ioannidou and L. Bartzioti. The drawings of the profiles, unless otherwise noted, were made by myself or Pemberton, and inked by Claudia Sagona.
The excavation of the area of Buildings I and II is reported in Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 150–173.
For additional information on the Corinthian oinochoai discussed in this article, see Appendixes 1–4.
There is no definite evidence for water pipes associated with this channel. For drain 1971-1, see Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 154–163, with a selection of pottery and other finds from the drain on pls. 24–27.
The pottery from drain 1971-1 is being studied by myself and E. Pemberton with the kind permission of C. K. Williams II. The figurines will be published by Richard Mason; the coins, originally published by Joan E. Fisher, are being reexamined by Orestes Zervos.
See Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 156, no. 22, pl. 25 (C-1971-236). For "decanter," see Corbett 1949, p. 334, and Corinth VII.3, p. 57; for "mushroom jug," see Amyx 1958, pp. 208–211, and Agora XII, p. 67.
Corinth VII.3, pp. 57–62, 143.
Corinth VII.2, pp. 78–80. See also Corinth VII.1, pp. 62–63, no. 231, and p. 77, nos. 332, 333 (where Weinberg uses the term "round-mouthed oinochoe"); Hopper 1949, p. 237; D. A. Amyx in CorVP, p. 484; and Amyx and Lawrence 1996, p. 19, no. 61, and p. 32, no. 112. For the chronology of Corinthian pottery of the Archaic period, I have followed CorVP, p. 428. For the Anaploga Well and other deposits mentioned in this article, see Appendix 4.
See also the remarks in Hopper 1949, p. 237, and Corinth VII.2, p. 79. I ought to stress that, from its inception, the Corinth oinochoe was not intended to be a water pitcher but a tableware wine-jug: see Corinth VII.2, p. 67, on the nature of the potters' dump in the Anaploga Well.
C-1962-569: Corinth VII.2, p. 143, no. An 223, pls. 59, 109. C-1932-134: Amyx and Lawrence 1996, p. 19, no. 61, pls. 16, 17, with earlier literature. C-1940-87: Corinth VII.2, p. 29, no. 71, pl. 12.
Of course, as Lawrence noted, in this early phase there is considerable variation in detail; C-1962-544, for example, has a rounded rim and a double handle derived from the trefoil oinochoe: Corinth VII.2, p. 137, no. An 197, pl. 59.
See, in particular, Corinth VII.2, p. 101, no. An 4, pl. 61.
For a general discussion of the archaeological evidence for Corinthian attitudes toward wealth and its display in the fifth and fourth centuries, see Pemberton 1999.
A brief discussion of some examples from this period will be found in Campbell 1946, pp. 178–182.
The pottery seems to have been dumped at one time: Campbell (1938, p. 557 and n. 2) believed that it came from a house in the area.
In the context pottery is the fragment of a rim from a similar jug, but slightly larger and without a ridge.
A fragment of a shoulder with the base of a strap handle, stored in the context pottery, may belong to C-1937-1060.
There is some resemblance in the profile of the body to early forms of the Attic chous (e.g., Bothmer 1985, pp. 156–157, no. 34), but the continuous profile and globular body of C-1937-1017 perhaps represent an internal development, a combination of elements derived from earlier examples of the Corinth oinochoe (see Corinth VII.2, pp. 103, 108, 109, nos. An 21, An 50, An 55, pl. 109). It is not possible to be sure whether C-1937-976, which also has a disk-foot, was similar in profile of body to 997 or 1017.
Part of a second oinochoe similar to 2469 is kept in the lot.
Bentz 1982, pp. 46–49.
Corinth VII.2, p. 143, no. An 223, pl. 109. It needs to be emphasized that I use the term "false ring-foot" rather differently from Susan Rotroff in Agora XXIX, fig. 1:11.
Pease (1937, p. 294) speaks of a "false ring foot with ring indented on the bottom," but only C-1934-949 preserves any of the underside, and even here not enough remains to be sure of the form. Pease must have had in mind the feet of the two-handled oinochoai from the same deposit: C-1934-946, 947, 1195, and 1196.
The fragment C-1934-1192, which was not considered by Pease but comes from a high-handled oinochoe like C-1934-951, with a similar low neck and convex shoulder, may also provide a bridge between the two varieties of Corinth oinochoe. The lip, however, is not rounded like that of 951, but flat (W. 0.6 cm), and the one preserved handle is not concave or flanged but has a new arrangement, a central rib on the upper side like the two-handled oinochoai from the same deposit. One cannot be sure whether the vase had one or two handles, although the existing handle, which rises quite high above the mouth, perhaps favors the former possibility.
The fired clay of C-1937-410 is not definitely Corinthian: it is slightly gritty, with some surface mica, 10YR 7/6–8.
Lot 1972-55B also contains two rims of type I decanters (L-1972-55B-2 and 3) and one rim of a type II (L-1972-55B-4). Lots 7193 and 1972-54, both of the late fifth and first quarter of the fourth century, also have rims (L-7193-6, L-1972-54-1 and 2) that may come from one-handled oinochoai, but where no trace of a handle remains, one cannot always differentiate the rim of a one-handled oinochoe from that of a two-handled decanter of Edwards's type I.
Mentioned by Amyx (CorVP, p. 484, n. 165), and briefly discussed in Amyx and Lawrence 1996, p. 32. A photograph of the vase is published in McPhee 2004, p. 17, fig. 13. I am most grateful to Joan Mertens for providing a photograph and a profile.
Amyx and Lawrence 1996, p. 19, no. 61, pls. 16, 17; Corinth VII.1, pp. 62–63, no. 231, pl. 32.
C-1932-134: Amyx and Lawrence 1996, p. 19 ("Early Corinthian"); Lawrence in Corinth VII.2, p. 79 ("very late in EC development"). The New York oinochoe: Amyx in CorVP, p. 484, n. 165 ("ripe EC/early MC").
The New York oinochoe does not, unfortunately, have a definite provenance, but is said to have come from "Asia Minor," which may be merely a misleading description supplied by the dealer.
Campbell (1946, pp. 182–183) has a few brief comments.
Campbell 1938, p. 596, no. 150; p. 592, fig. 18. The neck and lip are too vertical in the plaster restoration and need to be turned out a little, as is apparent from the full profile preserved between the handles.
Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44.
The same form of neck and lip occurs on two other round-mouthed oinochoai from this well: C-1937-996, which is glazed black, and C-1937-2057, which is unglazed. Campbell 1938, pp. 583–584, no. 70, fig. 12 (C-1937-996); p. 598, no. 156, fig. 22 (C-1937-2057: the high handle is a restoration in plaster and may be incorrect; the handle may have been low).
The fabric of C-1937-2056 is probably, but not certainly, Corinthian: it is soft, closest to 10YR 8/2–3 in color, with a grainy texture (small to medium gray and white grits and a few specks of mica). Campbell (1946, pp. 182–183) takes the vase to be Corinthian, as does Edwards in Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44.
Pease 1937, p. 294. Edwards, in Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44, inferred that the second vase was "of the same form as the first," but that does not necessarily follow.
See Corinth VII.3, p. 201, deposit 11, where the pottery is dated "5th century to 420 B.C."
For "conventionalizing" pottery, see now M. K. Risser in Corinth VII.5, passim.
Red applied onto the clay, not onto a band of glaze, suggests a date after the sixth century: Corinth VII.5, p. 23. Similar red and black (or gray) bands are common on the bodies of deep lekanai in the second half of the fifth and first half of the fourth century.
Compare, for example, for the general shape, a fragmentary decanter from Monte Casasia in Sicily: Frasca, Fouillard, and Pelagatti 1996, p. 480, no. 600, fig. 157.
Bentz 1982, pp. 391–392, no. D6-61.
Bentz 1982, pp. 48–49, 391–392.
This is also Edwards's date: Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44.
See Appendix 3 for dimensions.
C-1934-1192, considered above under the one-handled type, may come from a two-handled jug. It combines the rim and ribbed handle of the other two-handled oinochoai from the same deposit with the high-swung handle used for the earlier two-handlers C-1939-22 and C-1975-307.
For the term "shoulder stop," see Corinth VII.3, p. 55.
The rib is more pronounced on C-1934-946 and 947 than on 948 and 1194, and this feature, combined with the fact that 948 and 1194 are closer in profile of body to C-1975-307, may indicate that 946 and 947 are a little later in date.
Corinth VII.3, pp. 57–58, nos. 282 (C-1934-947), 283 (C-1934-946), 284 (C-1934-948), and 285 (C-1934-1194), pl. 11.
Corinth VII.3, p. 60, nos. 298, 299.
Corinth VII.2, p. 80; Bentz (1982, p. 49) suggested that C-1939-22 was "transitional" between the one- and two-handled varieties.
The far-flung trading connections of Corinth in the mid-fifth century are demonstrated archaeologically by the Punic Amphora Building and its contents: see Williams 1978, pp. 15–20; Koehler 1981, pp. 449–450; and especially Zimmerman Munn 2003.
See Koehler 1981, pp. 454–458.
See also McPhee 2004, pp. 3–8, and the general comments of Hazel Palmer in Corinth XIII, pp. 119–120. Outline Style: Corinth XVIII.1, pp. 129–134. Sam Wide Group: Corinth XVIII.1, pp. 134–136; Corinth VII.5, pp. 160–172; Risser 2003, pp. 161–164. Corinthian white-ground: Corinth XIII, pp. 141–143; Steiner 1992, pp. 391–399. Corinthian red-figure: Corinth VII.4; Corinth XVIII.1, pp. 136–138; McPhee 1983. Corinthian black-glaze: Pemberton 1997a and 1997b. See also Risser's comments on "conventionalizing" decoration and shapes in Corinth VII.5, pp. 5–6, and Risser 2003.
L-1981-71-10 and 11, which may belong to one vase, perhaps provide the false ring-foot (Diam. 11.2 cm) and flat, projecting rim (Diam. 9 cm) of a second oinochoe of this type.
Lot 1972-98 in the Sacred Spring, of which the latest pottery belongs to the fourth quarter of the fifth century, produced fragments of at least six probably two-handled Corinth oinochoai. One fragment (L-1972-98-19; Fig. 17, left) preserves a handle and rim of type I similar to C-1934-946 (Fig. 15, top left) except that the handle is a flattened oval without central ridge. Three other rims, L-1972-98-20 (Fig. 17, center), 21, and 22, have the more thickened form of type II. The fragmentary oinochoe C-1968-196 (Fig. 17, right), from the Sacred Spring and probably to be dated in the last quarter of the fifth century, has a type II rim, but simply downturned and not thickened, yet the same deposit has thickened rims from five different oinochoai. The ridged handles of C-1968-196, set about 45° apart, are more like the handles of C-1934-947 than the broader handles of C-1937-451 (see Fig. 19, below). The deposit from which C-1968-196 came, lot 5152, has fragments of at least seven decanters, including four different bases, three flat underneath, the other with a false ring-foot.
L-7193-7, a fragment of a false ring-foot, may go with L-7193-5.
From well 1931-14. Edwards's date: Corinth VII.3, p. 60. On the basis of shape, a date in the last quarter of the fifth or the first quarter of the fourth century would seem reasonable.
A second two-handled jug from the Vrysoula deposit, C-1964-161 (Pemberton 1970, p. 294, no. 93, pl. 72), goes more closely with L-7193-4 in the thickened rim and in the positioning of the handles about 60–70° apart. It, too, seems to form a bridge between the handles of C-1934-947 from the Pease Well and the broader handles with more pronounced ridge (e.g., C-1937-451; Fig. 19) from well 1937-1.
The earliest such amphora may be C-1964-281 (Pemberton 1970, p. 301, no. 143). Others, from well 1937-1, are mentioned in Corinth VII.3, p. 145 with n. 10. Another example of fifth-century date is stored in lot 1972-98.
See Pemberton's discussion in Corinth XVIII.1, pp. 15–17. There are surprisingly few types of oinochoe at Corinth in the Classical period: a broad-bottomed oinochoe; types of trefoil oinochoe, usually of small size; and some Corinthian imitations of Attic oinochoai decorated in red-figure or black-glaze. Plainware or blisterware pitchers, such as C-1975-305, from a deposit of ca. 460–440, or C-1990-61 (Williams and Zervos 1991, p. 35, no. 36, pl. 12), of 400–350, and jugs in cooking ware (e.g., C-1990-62: Williams and Zervos 1991, p. 36, no. 39, pl. 12) may have been used instead, as Pemberton (Corinth XVIII.1, pp. 15–19) has conjectured. The situation is similar in the Hellenistic period, when there is again a noticeable absence of fineware oinochoai.
In addition to the rim and handle of a probable one-handled oinochoe, there are fragments (rims, a ridged handle, and body sherds) of at least two other oinochoai stored in lot 1937-3, and the rim of a third in lot 1937-2.
Kazazis, Morris, and McNiven n.d., p. 28: "That so many jugs were discarded as a group suggests a single, major source for the pottery in this deposit, as is also suggested by the huge number of skyphoi. The source for these two groups was probably the same, perhaps a tavern or eating establishment nearby."
Another example of this type of rim, L-1937-3-2, comes from drain 1937-1.
The deposit from which C-1972-92 comes, lot 1972-92, includes another two rims from type I decanters, along with five of type II (at least one simply downturned, the others thickened).
Lot 1972-54 from the Sacred Spring, with pottery of the last quarter of the fifth and the first quarter of the fourth century, has two flat rims (L-1972-54-1 and 2) that come either from one-handled oinochoai or type I decanters such as C-1934-947; one rounded type I rim (L-1972-54-3) resembling C-1972-92; and five thickened downturned rims (L-1972-54-4 to 8) of type II. Another lot (1972-55B) from the area of the Sacred Spring preserves two flat rims (L-1972-55B-2, 3) of type I, and one (L-1972-55B-4) of type II, but the deposit is less useful, covering a broad chronological range.
That the thickened and down-turned rim of type II is, however, the main type in the first half of the fourth century is shown by some of the fourth-century fills, connected with Buildings I–IV, below the colonnade of the South Stoa, deposits that are particularly rich in fragments of two-handled oinochoai. Lot 1978-44, for example, with material of the first and second quarters of the fourth century, has one rim (L-1978-44-15) of a type I decanter, one (L-1978-44-18) that might be compared with C-1972-92, and at least six (L-1978-44-8 to 13) representing various forms of type II, but nothing resembling the typical collar rim characteristic of Edwards's Decanter type III.
In terms of lip and neck, they are like L-1972-98-19 (Fig. 17, left), and one has to wonder whether they do not date to the second half of the fifth century.
Lot 1978-53 also preserves fragments of three other decanters of type II, two with rims similar to C-1978-39, the third (L-1978-53-9) with a more projecting, thickened lip slightly grooved on the outer edge. The lot also contains fragments from the body and ridged handle of an oinochoe (type unknown) in the same fabric as C-1978-39.
In any case, the profile of the body and the potting of C-1953-60 show that the decanter must come from the same workshop as C-1937-2521. The context of C-1931-238 is unhelpful, for it provides a date only before the end of the third century.
Another deposit (lot 1972-84), closed at the same time as drain 1971-1 and connected with the destruction of Buildings III and IV, has fragments (L-1972-84-4 and 5) with thickened rims somewhat like that of L-7079-209, together with a regular fused rim (L-1972-84-3) and type II rims (L-1972-84-1 and 2).
Corinth VII.3, pp. 61–62.
Edwards's dating, the first quarter of the third century, seems to be based upon his concept of shape development.
Pemberton 1985, p. 293, n. 73. Cistern 1940-1 is Edwards's deposit 37 (Corinth VII.3, p. 208).
Corinth VII.3, pp. 49–50. See also the comments in n. 57, above. The lagynos, both in local and imported versions, is found at Corinth, but cannot be said to be common: see Williams and Zervos 1982, p. 123, no. 22, pl. 39, for a Corinthian example; and Corinth VII.3, p. 50, n. 34, for importedChian lagynoi.
Corinth VII.3, p. 45.
Rotroff (1996, esp. p. 27) envisions occasional lavish banquets hosted by wealthy members of society at which metal kraters would have been used "to enhance the spectacle and further display the benefactor's wealth." She suggests that, when the ordinary Athenian "did get together with friends, wine was perhaps served in small jugs to each drinker, to mix to his own taste in his cup or a small krater designed to serve only one or two drinkers." See also Rotroff in Agora XXIX, pp. 14–15.
Williams and Zervos 1982, p. 123, no. 22, pl. 39.
10YR 8/3 in the case of C-1981-45, but a little browner (10YR 7/4), with more grits, in C-1947-314.
Corinth VII.3, p. 58.
Romano 1994, pp. 57–62. Romano regards the context as a manhole rather than a well.
In Corinth VII.3, p. 143, Edwards classifies C-1947-829 within his cooking ware, but the fabric is different from regular cooking ware. One cannot be absolutely certain that it is Corinthian. The fabric is heavier than that of C-1947-314 and C-1981-45, moderately hard, in a red clay (2.5YR 5/8 in the core) but reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) at the surface, with frequent small white and dark grits and mica specks.
C-1987-78 is wheelmade, hard, and strongly ridged on the interior, and the fabric is a pale gray to light brown (7.5YR 7/4–6), with numerous small to large grits, mainly dark but also white, and mica specks. It appears to be of Corinthian manufacture.
Anderson-Stojanovic 1997, pl. 8:d.
The core is a light red (2.5YR 5/8), with many small to medium grits, mainly white, but the surfaces of C-1981-115 and L-1981-108-3 have fired a dark gray inside and outside in a reducing atmosphere.
E.g., Corinth VII.3, p. 143, no. 747, pl. 34; Corinth XVIII.1, p. 70, no. 646, fig. 23. Edwards (Corinth VII.3, p. 141) suggested that the indented base was intended to allow the jug, when full of water, to be carried more easily on the head, but perhaps it was thought also to provide more strength in the lower part of the vessel.
Agora XII, pp. 64–65, pls. 8, 9.
Agora XII, p. 65; Lawrence in Corinth VII.2, p. 78, n. 22.
Agora P 16506: Agora XII, p. 247, no. 153, pl. 8.
Florence V 48, ARV2 432, no. 58; and Harvard 1959.124, ARV2 438, no. 140; Buitron-Oliver 1995, pp. 86–87, nos. 1 and 13, pls. 117 and 127. Sparkes and Talcott, in Agora XII, p. 66, noted the existence of these two cups.
Corinthian vases reached Medeon in Phokis, and it may be that a two-handled jug from tomb 9 at Medeon, dated ca. 300–250, is a Corinthian import, but all the other illustrated decanters from the site seem local: see Vatin 1969, p. 83, fig. 91; and Vatin et al. 1976, p. 36 (on no. 41.2). The two-handled jug was popular in Italy and Sicily. It is even represented on a well-known Sicilian red-figure olpe of about 340–330 in St. Petersburg: LCS, p. 604, no. 104, pl. 237; Todisco (1995, pp. 145–146), in a reinterpretation of the scene, briefly discusses the jug in the hands of the old crone; see also McPhee 2004, pp. 18–21.
Noted in Agora XII, pp. 36–37, 190, n. 18. See also Boulter 1953, pp. 93–94. For general remarks on ceramic connections between Corinth and Athens, see Pemberton 2003.
Attica: Stavropoulou 1938, pp. 25–26, fig. 29:b. The Athenian Agora: P 10941 (Agora XII, p. 248, no. 169, fig. 3, pl. 9), dated ca. 425–400. Sparkes and Talcott list two other decanters, P 9375 and P 19459 (Agora XII, p. 248, nos. 168 and 170) as Corinthian, but examination of fabric and shape shows that neither is Corinthian. They are imitations of Corinthian-type decanters from one or more centers unknown. It should be noted that Corinthian two-handled decanters are found at other sites in the Corinthia, e.g., Perachora (Perachora II, p. 318, no. 3329, pl. 128).
For the Attic series, see Agora XII, pp. 66–67, nos. 162–167, fig. 3, pl. 9. Corbett (1949, pp. 334–335, under no. 92) dates the earliest examples of the two-handled variety to the third quarter of the fifth century, but in Agora XII, p. 247, this seems to be modified to ca. 425–400. The popularity of the shape in Athens in the period ca. 430–380 is demonstrated by well U 13:1 in the Agora, which included at least 27 Attic mushroom jugs (Shear 1975, pp. 355–361, pl. 81:h).
Corbett 1949, p. 334.
Sparkes and Talcott (Agora XII, p. 67) claim that "the majority of examples of this shape [Corinthian variety] from the Agora are imports from Corinth," but this seems incorrect. Of all the examples listed in Agora XII, p. 248, nos. 168–174, and discussed on p. 67, only no. 169 is certainly Corinthian; see above, n. 89.
Edwards in Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44. The Attic mushroom jug is banded; the Corinthian adaptation is undecorated, relying for effect upon potting and surface finish.
The fabric, 10YR 7/6, seems definitely to be Corinthian.
"Third quarter of the 5th century," according to Edwards in Corinth VII.3, p. 57, n. 44.
Themelis and Touratsoglou 1997, p. 75, no. B34, pl. 85.
Rhomiopoulou 1989, p. 216, pl. 58:a.
Amyx 1958, pp. 208–211.
See, e.g., Frasca, Fouillard, and Pelagatti 1996, p. 480.
Amyx 1958, p. 210 with n. 80. The difficulties involved in interpreting the literary sources for "lagynos" are brought out clearly in Pierobon 1979 (see esp. p. 46, n. 86, on "myke" and "lagynos").
In this regard, I ought to point out that it has not yet been possible to have any form of residue analysis done on any of these jugs.
Corbett 1949, p. 334, under no. 92.
Corinth VII.3, p. 57.
It should be noted that other suggestions have been made: Neutsch, in Palinuro II, p. 124, proposes, on the basis of modern analogies, that the vase was used for cooking over a fire. While this is possible for some of the Hellenistic two-handled jugs, it cannot have been the function of those of the Archaic or Classical periods.
This remark is based upon experiments with C-1931-280. The flat-shouldered jugs of the fourth century would produce the same effect.
Corinth VII.3, p. 61.
This depends upon whether C-1981-102 is Corinthian or not.