-
KERAMOSCERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH
KER
AM
OS C
ERA
MIC
S: A C
ULT
UR
AL A
PPRO
ACH
BLGNKLTR SANAT YAYINLARI
BLGNKLTR SANAT YAYINLARI
Alexandra Alexandridou
Silvia Amicone
Galya D. Bacheva
Marco Camera
Hseyin Cevizolu
Jane E. Francis
Massimo Frasca
Vincenzo Di Giovanni
Alessandra Granata
R. Gl Grtekin-Demir
Yasemin Polat
Lars Heinze
Petya Ilieva
Jan Kindberg Jacobsen
Carmelo Colelli
Gloria Mittica
Sren Handberg
Kleopatra Kathariou
Seval Konak Tarakc
Alexandra Ch. J. von Miller
Bekir zer
Anna Petrakova
Girolamo F. De Simone
Caterina Serena Martucci
Gaetana Boemio
Serena DItalia
Ahmet Adil Trpan
Zafer Korkmaz
Makbule Ekici
Fsun TLEK
Onur Zunal
List of Authors
9786058573048
Proceedings of the First International Conference at Ege
UniversityMay 9-13, 2011
zmir
Edited byR. Gl Grtekin-Demir, Hseyin Cevizolu, Yasemin Polat and
Grcan Polat
with the collaboration ofJanine Elaine Su
Muharrem Kayhan
sponsored by
-
Proceedings of the First International Conference at Ege
UniversityMay 9-13, 2011
zmir
Edited byR. Gl Grtekin-Demir, Hseyin Cevizolu, Yasemin Polat and
Grcan Polat
with the collaboration ofJanine Elaine Su
KERAMOSCERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH
BLGNKLTR SANAT YAYINLARI
Muharrem Kayhan
-
KERAMOSCERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH
Edited byR. Gl Grtekin-Demir, Hseyin Cevizolu, Yasemin Polat and
Grcan Polat
ISBN: 978-605-85730-4-8
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or
reproduced in any mannerwithout written permission from the
publisher except in the context of reviews.
Book Design byMustafa Horu
Edition 2015
Bilgin Kltr Sanat YaynlarSat/Proje: Selanik 2 cad no: 68/10
Kzlay-Ankara
Telefon: 0(312) 419 85 67Web: www.bilginkultursanat.come-mail:
[email protected]
-
FOREWORD / VORWORT
Im Rahmen der Lehre und Forschung an der Edebiyat Fakltesi der
Ege niversitesi belegt die antike Keramikforschung seit Jahrzehnten
einen hervorragenden Platz. Mit Gven und Tomris Bakir sowie deren
Kollegen und Schlern entstand ein Studienzentrum zur Erforschung
antiker Keramik mit sichtbarer Breitenwirkung. Daraus erfolgte
nicht zuletzt die Idee, 2011 in zmir einen Kongress zu
organisieren, der vornehmlich der Keramikforschung Kleinasiens und
dessen strukturellem Umfeld gewidmet sein sollte: Keramos.
Ceramics: A Cultural Approach. Ein guter Teil der Beitrge, die im
Rahmen dieses Symposiums vorgetragen wurden, findet nun einen
wrdigen Platz in dieser Publikation.Wenn auch bereits zahlreiche
Verffentlichungen zur Keramik antiker Stdte der westlichen
Kleinasiatischen Kste von Troja bis zur Halikarnass-Halbinsel
vorliegen, bot diese Veranstaltung die Chance, verschiedene Aspekte
der Kera-mik-Forschung in Kleinasien punktuell auf den neuesten
Stand zu bringen, und bisher unbekanntes Material aus den in den
letzten Jahren an vielen neuen Orten der Trkei durchgefhrten
Ausgrabungen kennen zu lernen. So konnten lokale Eigenheiten aus
verschiedenen Problemperspektiven errtert werden, ob von
kleinasiatischen Fundpltzen oder von vorgelagerten Inseln
(Lemnos).In dieser Verffentlichung werden spt-und subgeometrisches
Gefe aus karischem Gebiet (Mengefe-Region/Milas) vorgelegt,
Herstellungszentren von archaischem Luxusgeschirr (insbesondere
Karien/ Bozburun Halbinsel)) nachge-gangen, Essgewohnheiten und
Ernhrung anhand von lokalem Tafel-und Kochgeschirr behandelt
(Gordion), unter-schiedliche Fundkeramik aus neuen Grabungspltzen
Westkleinasiens (Panayrda/Ephesos) prsentiert. In bedeuten-den
ionischen Zentren werden ungewhnliche Bestattungskonzepte
beobachtet, und zur Schrfung zeitlicher Abfolgen,
Fundvergesellschaftungen bearbeitet (Klazomenai). Archaische
Keramiktraditionen weniger bekannter, inlndischer Fundorte (z.B.
Tabae) werden auf die lokale Bevlkerungsstruktur zurckgefhrt,
whrend sptklassische bis frhhel-lenistische, lokale Produktionen
und deren attische Beeinflussung behandelt werden (Iasos,
Priene).Bei archaischer und hellenistischer Keramik aus Kalabrien
und Sizilien werden strukturelle Fragen aufgeworfen, die fr das
Verstndnis kleinasiatischer Waren hilfreich sein drften. So ist die
Auswertung kultureller Interaktionsele-mente von Bedeutung: auf
welcher Weise sich z.B. Bildformen der Keramik der frhen
griechischen Kolonisten auf die Produktionen der
inlndisch-sikulischen Werksttten auswirkten. Ferner ergeben die
Vergleiche, die bei der frhen grauen Keramik ber
unteritalisch-sizilische Fundkomplexe zu ziehen sind, dass enge
Beziehungen, via Euba, zu Kleinasien bestanden. Fr die in
mittelhellenistischer Epoche weit exportierte sog. Magenta Ware
wird Syrakus als eines der Produktionszentren vermutet, whrend fr
die Erforschung von Ernhrung und Essgewohnheiten in Campa-nien des
3.-5. Jh. n.Chr., Form-Typologie, Waren-Verteilung, technische
Eigenheiten und Fundvergesellschaftungen als stellvertretende
Indizien zur Bewertung hinzugezogen werden.Was die Sptantike
betrifft, so wird die Herkunftsproblematik der in kilikischen
Fundpltzen stark vertretenen sptr-mischen C-Ware (sog. phokische
Ware) ebenso behandelt wie die Bandbreite der sptantiken Keramik
von Kyme und ihre Aussage fr Handel und Rang.Die Beitragsvielfalt
schliet mit Untersuchungen zur attischen Keramik und deren Exporten
ab. Es sei hierbei auf einen Beitrag zu einem berlegenswerten
ikonographischen Wandel von der sptprotoattischen zur
frharchaischen, atti-schen Keramik und deren sozio-historischen
Bedeutung hingewiesen, ferner auf die Tpfer-und Malerhnde sowie die
Organisation in der Werkstatt des Jenaer Malers und schlielich auf
eine Neubetrachtung der rotfigurigen Keramik aus Fundpltzen des
Bosporanischen Reichs.Obgleich ein Teil der beim Kongress
gehaltenen Vortrge fr die Publikation nicht bercksichtigt werden
konnten, bietet die vorliegende Verffentlichung eine bunte Palette
wichtiger Beitrge, fr deren umsichtige Vorlage den Heraus-gebern
bestens gedankt sei.
Andreas E. Furtwngler
-
Rosa Maria Albanese
Paul Arthur
Carolyn Aslan
Andrea M. Berlin
Iulian Brzescu
Beate Boehlendorf-Arslan
Andreas E. Furtwngler
John H. Oakley
Sarah Japp
Ivonne Kaiser
Michael Kerschner
Lori Khatchadourian
Rosina Leone
Kathleen Lynch
Sarrah Morris
Yasemin Polat
Marcus Rautman
G. Kenneth Sams
Gerald Schaus
Udo Schlotzhauer
Grazia Semeraro
Evangelia Simantoni-Bournia
Kaan enol
Alexandra Villing
TABULA GRATULATORIA
-
ContentsGR
_______________________________________________________________________________
7
INTRODUCTION
__________________________________________________________________
8
APPROACHING EARLY ARCHAIC ATTICA:A CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF ITS EARLY
BLACK-FIGURE POTTERY PRODUCTION __ 11Alexandra Alexandridou
FOURTH-CENTURY BC BLACK AND RED GLOSS POTTERY FROM IASOS:A
TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH
___________________________________________________ 25Silvia
Amicone
COOKING AND DINING IN LATE PHRYGIAN GORDION
_________________________ 40Galya D. Bacheva
Sikelo-geometric pottery between indigenous tradition and Greek
influences
_____________________________________________________________
50Marco Camera
KLAZOMENIAN SARCOPHAGUS OR BATHTUB?THE USE OF BATHTUBS IN BURIAL
CONTEXTS ___________________________________ 61Hseyin Cevizolu
LATE ROMAN C WARE/PHOCAEAN RED SLIP POTTERY FROM THE CILICIA
SURVEY PROJECT (MISIS), TURKEY ____________________________ 73Jane
E. Francis
GREY WARE IN SICILY, BETWEEN EAST AND WEST
________________________________ 83Massimo Frasca
ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY FROM THE NORTH-EAST AREA AGORA AT
KYME (ALAA, TURKEY). A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
_______________________ 92Vincenzo Di Giovanni
MAGENTA WARE FROM SICILIAN FUNERARY CONTEXTS
_________________________ 104Alessandra Granata
BETWEEN LYDIA AND CARIA: IRON AGE POTTERY FROM KALE-I TAVAS,
ANCIENT TABAE _____________________________________________ 115R.
Gl Grtekin-Demir, Yasemin Polat
-
Between adoption and persistence: Two regional types of pottery
from late classical and early Hellenistic Priene
______________________________ 137Lars Heinze
G 2-3 WARE COSMETIC VASES RECONSIDERED: BETWEEN MYCENAEAN AND
ARCHAIC GREECE IN THE NECROPOLIS OF HEPHAISTIA ON LEMNOS ____
146Petya Ilieva
POTTERY WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION AT THE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE OF TIMPONE DELLA MOTTA BETWEEN 800 AND 650 BC:A
CASE STUDY FROM NORTHERN CALABRIA, SOUTHERN ITALY _________________
158Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Carmelo Colelli, Gloria Mittica, Sren
Handberg
THE JENA DEPOSIT UNDER GLASS: INVESTIGATING THE PRODUCTION OF A
CERAMIC WORKSHOP IN LATE CLASSICAL ATHENS ________________________
166Kleopatra Kathariou
SOME REMARKS ON NEWLY DISCOVERED GRAVES AT KLAZOMENAI
___________ 173Seval Konak Tarak
Archaic Pottery from PanayIrda, Ephesos: new evidence and first
results __ 184Alexandra Ch. J. von Miller
ARCHAIC POTTERY OF COASTAL CARIA:FINDS FROM A CREMATION BURIAL
AT BYBASSOS _______________________________ 197Bekir zer
A Cultural approach to the study of Late Athenian red-figure
pottery from the Bosporan kingdom: advantages and disadvantages
________________ 208Anna Petrakova
Pottery as A proxy indicator for diet change in Late Antique
Campania ___ 218Girolamo F. De Simone, Caterina Serena Martucci,
Gaetana Boemio and Serena DItalia
A GROUP OF BAND DECORATED CERAMICS FROM THE MENGEFE DISTRICT IN
THE CARIA REGION
____________________________________________________________
229Ahmet Adil Trpan, Zafer Korkmaz, Makbule Ekici
LATE ROMAN CERAMICS OF THE DEL HALL SETTLEMENT IN THE EAST
CILICIA PLAIN
_______________________________________________________ 238Fsun
TLEK
EAST GREEK KOTYLAI FROM KLAROS
_____________________________________________ 243Onur Zunal
Figures
_____________________________________________________________________________
255
-
GR
Ege niversitesi Arkeoloji Blm, kurucu retim yeleri ve onlarn
yetitirdii akademisyenlerin, dier alanlardaki almalarnn yan sra
seramik konusunda yrtt aratrmalaryla da tannmaktadr. Seramik
konusunda stle-nilen bu misyonu, gelenee dnmesini mit ettiimiz bir
sempozyum ile gelecek nesillere aktarmay hedefledik. Sem-pozyumun
ismi nemliydi ve amaca uygun bir balk olmalyd. ok dndk... Sonunda
mleki kili anlamna gelen ve ayn zamanda mlekilik sanatnn
kurucusunun ismi olan KERAMOS, bu grevi stlendi. 9-13 Mays 2011
tarihleri arasnda Ege niversitesinde gerekleen ilk sempozyuma,
KERAMOS Seramik: Kltrel Yaklam ad altnda genel ierikli bir balk
koyarak, hem sempozyumun geni bir bilim adam kitlesine ulamasnn,
hem de be gn boyunca farkl konularn tartlmasnn nn atk. Sempozyumda
Trkiye, ngiltere, talya, Romanya, Alman-ya, Avusturya, Avusturalya,
Amerika, Kanada, Yunanistan, Rusya, Bulgaristan, Hollanda, Fransa
ve Ukrayna gibi dnyann drt bir yanndan gelen farkl uluslara mensup
bilim insanlar tarafndan sunulan 43 szl, 15 poster bildiri,
sempozyumun amacna ulatnn en nemli gstergesi olmutur.
Sempozyumda yer alan antik dnyann ok kltrl yapsnn incelendii
sunumlar ve tartmalar, bu tip uluslararas sempozyumlarn bilim dnyas
iin ne derece nemli ve gereksinim olduunu bir kez daha ortaya
koymutur. Konunun duayenleri ile gen bilim insanlarnn bir araya
getirilerek deneyimlerin, yeni aratrmalarn ve yeni grlerin
payla-lmasna olanak tanyan KERAMOS, seramik konusunda alan ve
alacak olan yeni neslin ufkunu geniletmeyi grev edinmitir. zellikle
benzer konularda alan, her birisi olaya farkl yaklam ve bak as
kazandran bilim insanlarnn ayn at altnda bulunmalar, konunun
derinlemesine tartlmasn ve yeni grlerin ortaya kmasn beraberinde
getirmi ve getirecektir.
Sempozyuma gsterilen ilgi ve olumlu geri dnler, arkeoloji
dnyasndaki bu gereksinime bir kez daha tanklk etmi ve KERAMOS
sempozyumunun srekliliini kanlmaz hale getirmitir. Bu kapsamda 4
ylda bir zmir Ege ni-versitesi ev sahipliinde yaplmas planlanan
KERAMOS sempozyumunun, seramik konusunda daha zel konular balk
olarak belirleyerek, arkeoloji dnyasna daha fazla katk yaparak
srdrlmesi amalamaktadr.
R. Gl Grtekin-DemirGrcan PolatYasemin Polat
Hseyin Cevizolu
-
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Archaeology at Ege University is renowned for
its research in various areas, especially for its expertise in
ceramic studies. Originally these studies were carried out by the
founders of the department and are presently continued by their
students, who are now members of the academic staff. We therefore
decided to support this tradition of encouraging the next
generation of research with the organization of an international
conference. The conference name was important and needed to serve
our intentions. We thought carefully about this for a period of
time Finally, the title KERAMOS, which was a constant, was
designated to fulfill our mission, and will be retained for future
conferences. The Greek word Keramos is derived from its meaning,
potters clay, and was also the name of the founder of ceramic art.
The international conference KERAMOS. Ceramics: A Cultural
Approach, held between May 913, 2011 at Ege University, gathered
scholars studying ceramics either within the field of Classical
Archaeology or in related research areas, and gave them the
opportunity to share ideas in a variety of arenas. Participating
scholars represented various countries, including Australia,
Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the
Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom
and the United States. 43 oral and 15 poster presentations were
featured. The discussions and contributions during the conference,
which analyzed the multicultural structure of the ancient world,
have once again proven how essential this type of international
conference is for the scientific world. KERAMOS hopes to help
extend the horizons of young scholars studying or planning to study
ancient ceramics by bringing them together with established
scholars to share experiences, recent research and new
perspectives.
Due to the great interest in, positive feedback on and
professional dialogue resulting from the first Keramos Conference,
we have all realized how imperative such institutionalized
opportunities are to the world of archaeology. Therefore, we aim to
promote this type of institution with a quadrennial Keramos
Conference, to be housed at Ege University under diverse themes and
topics, in order to promote ceramic studies.
R. Gl Grtekin-DemirGrcan PolatYasemin Polat
Hseyin Cevizolu
-
Acknowledgements
It would hardly have been possible to realise the conference and
the production of the present proceedings without the support,
cooperation and help of many individuals, colleagues and
institutions. During the preparations of this organisation and this
book, we have very much enjoyed working with them, and we would
like to take opportunity to thank them for their efforts and
contributions. Andreas Furtwngler, Mehmet Gkdemir, Muharrem Kayhan,
Ayegl Seluki, zcan Atalay, Nuran ahin, Recep Meri, Akn Ersoy, akir
akmak, Kamil Okyay Sndr, Archaeological Museum of zmir, mit Yolcu,
Stefan Schneider, Nesrin etiner, Onur Knalba and Gral Porselen,
Umut Devrim Eryarar, Mehmet Soydan, Yavuz Tat, Kahraman Yaz, Seil
okoullu, mit Gngr, Ergn Karaca, Onur Zunal, Aye elebi, Deniz Arkan,
Rabia Akta ldr, Evren Aar, Ece Sezgin, Gencay ztrk, Beste Tomay,
Hamde Cesur, Melis obanolu, Uur Candar, Ece entrk, Erturul Kra,
Sinem akr, Hazal Falay, zer Erdin, Sena Ylmaz, Dilan Koarsoy, Deniz
Irmak, Nimet Kaya, Buse Acar, Nihan Aydomu and the staff members of
Faculty of Letters of Ege University are thanked for much-valued
assistance, support and their kind efforts during the organisation
of the conference. We thank the members of the scientific committee
and reviewers for their scholarly expertise and professional
advice, which helped us to improve the content of the present
volume.
-
zmir / Smyrna Agora / May 13, 2011
-
137
KERAMOSCERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH
Between adoption and persistence: Two regional types of pottery
from late classical and early
Hellenistic Priene
Lars Heinze
Institut fr Archologische Wissenschaften der Goethe-Universitt
Abt. 1: Vorderasiatische und Klassische Archologie
Grneburgplatz 1 - Hausfach 146 60629 Frankfurt am Main
[email protected]
Abstract:
By shifting the main focus from Attic and Atticizing pottery
towards some non-Atticizing vessel types, this paper seeks to
rebalance the Attic-dominated impression that is created through
the pottery of the fourth century BC published to date from Asia
Minor. Two case studies of regional types of pottery shapes from
late Classical and early Hellenistic Priene will be presented here:
one a hemispherical, handleless type of drinking bowl rarely found
outside of Priene, the other a distinct type of lopas that is quite
common in southern Ionia and probably Caria. Persistent regional
pottery traditions like these demonstrate that, even though a
certain pottery koine has been established for most fine and coarse
wares throughout the eastern Mediterranean during the Classical
period, a substantial regional character managed to prevail in
Priene well into the third century BC as part of what might be
considered as an aspect of cultural identity.
Over recent decades the import of Attic fine pottery and its
impact on the local markets of Asia Minor in the Classical period
has received considerable attention.1 This, of course, is on the
one hand due to the high recognizability of this class of pottery,
which makes it apparently easier to distinguish from the regional
production of fine wares and therefore less problematic to single
out for publication. On the other hand this type of pottery is
generally of more importance for excavations because of the
precise
1 For Ionia see e.g. Ephesos: Gasser 1990; Scherrer and Trinkl
2006; Kerschner et al. 2008. Phokaia: Tuna-Nrling 2002. Old-Smyrna:
Cook 1965. Klazomenai: Tuna-Nrling 1996.
-
138
Lars Heinze
chronological scheme that underlies it,2 whereas non-Atticizing
and coarse pottery is considered to be difficult or nearly
impossible to date with precision. Therefore Attic imports, as well
as the regional Atticizing pottery from Asia Minor, are more likely
to be published, thereby further contributing to the aforementioned
disequilibrium between the published Attic imports and the regional
pottery that it usually accompanies.3
One aim of this study therefore is to counterbalance our
Attic-centred notion regarding the pottery of fourth-century BC
Asia Minor. To that end two small case studies will be presented
here. The material stems from a variety of late Classical and early
Hellenistic assemblages that are part of my ongoing PhD research
about the earliest stratified contexts from Priene. The first
example is a regional type of drinking bowl that frequently occurs
alongside Attic imports and their regional and local imitations.
The other case study, a distinct type of lopas, was chosen to
illustrate the even less frequently documented sphere of cooking
and cuisine in Asia Minor from this period.
Bowls with grooved rim
Simple hemispherical bowls4 with one or occasionally two grooves
underneath the outside of the rim (Fig. 13) are frequently part of
the material record in Prienian contexts of the fourth and third
centuries BC. They continue to be regularly found in contexts of
the second century, although in these cases it is yet not certain
whether they are to be considered as earlier contamination. While
the upper part of this type of vessel is well documented, it has so
far not been possible to reconstruct a complete profile out of the
securely closed deposits of the fourth and early third centuries
BC. The accompanying material nevertheless clearly indicates that
these vessels commonly possessed very simple ring feet, also
documented by vessels from unstratified (Fig. 4) or later
contexts.5
The Prienian bowls presented in this study all derive from
deposits in the northern part of the Agora that were excavated just
south of the Bouleuterion. The context can only be dated through
the pottery itself, which indicates that the filling was closed
around 300 BC.6 The bowls all have a common hemispherical shape.
(Fig. 1) bears twin grooves on its rim, a feature that is only
rarely present on the Prienian bowls
2 For the black-glazed pottery this scheme is, significantly,
based on the pottery found during the American excavations on the
Athenian Agora and the series of excellent monographs and essays
that were published over the last decades, most notably Sparkes and
Talcott 1970 and Rotroff 1997.
3 This tendency is even more distressing considering the general
lack of completely published assemblages of the Classical and early
Hellenistic periods from western Asia Minor, rare exceptions being
e.g. Troy/Ilion: Berlin 1999; Berlin 2002. Chios: Anderson et al.
1954. Didyma: Wintermeyer et al. 2004. Halikarnassos: Vaag et al.
2002.
4 The German name used for this shape is Becher. The decision to
translate this into English as bowl rather than beaker is based on
the desire to better indicate the functional relationship of these
vessels to later Hellenistic handleless drinking cups like the so
called Megarian bowls.
5 The almost completely preserved PR 06 K001, illustrated in
(Fig. 4), was found during work near the southern city wall and
must therefore be considered as not stratified. The surface on the
inside of the bowl is badly preserved; minor traces of reddish slip
near the rim indicate that at least this part was covered. In
contrast, a well-preserved bowl from a later context (PR 08 K015,
found in the sanctuary of the Egyptian Gods) bears a notably
narrower, yet still ordinary ring foot.
6 The dating is based on the accompanying fine wares, above all
the Attic imports and the Atticizing local and regional pottery.
The containing vessels (e.g. cup-skyphoi, skyphoi, kantharoi,
bolsals, bowls with in- and outturned rim) are all consistent with
the range of shapes common in Athens during the second half of the
fourth century BC. As a result there is no indication that any of
these early deposits date much later than ca. 300 BC. For further
details regarding the chronology and content of these deposits I
direct readers to my forthcoming PhD thesis.
-
139
Between Adoption and Persistence: Two Regional Types of Pottery
from Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Priene
of the fourth and early third centuries. The slip in all cases
is of a dull red, frequently with the tendency to peel off easily
from the ceramic body. The larger fragments regularly indicate that
the slip was only partially applied; only (Fig. 3) might be
considered as a candidate for a completely covered bowl of this
type.7 The remaining bowls show a partial slip that is either
applied with a brushsince the range that was covered on the inside
and outside varies drasticallyor potentially by dipping. The latter
seems to become more common in the third century BC, when irregular
slip running down the outside of the vessel occurs more frequently
among the fine wares.8
Examining only the preserved rim profiles, these simple
hemispherical bowls could easily be mistaken for a certain type of
regional skyphos resp. skyphoid bowl, as they are well documented
in Hellenistic contexts from nearby Ephesos.9 There, drinking
vessels of this type frequently occur in poorly dated contexts of
the third and second centuries BC. They generally show West Slope
decoration and bear either bolster or vertical handles, but are
regularly handleless as well. The chronology of these vessels is
vague and mostly based on stylistic and typological arguments. Some
specimens may be dated as early as 300 BC, but since they are also
present in second-century contexts it is assumed that the life span
of this shape lasted well into the second century BC.10
Other late Classical or early Hellenistic comparative pieces for
this type of simple hemispherical bowl from outside Priene are
surprisingly sparse. This could in part be due to the fact that
this period is drastically underrepresented in the material record
throughout excavations in Ionia and the surrounding area, as stated
above, and that non-Atticizing pottery of unclear strata is often
avoided in the publication process. One of the rare exceptions
known to me is an early Hellenistic assemblage from the Kofina
Ridge on Chios, where a good profile of a completely glazed bowl of
this type has been published.11 Another possible candidate is
published from Halikarnassos,12 but the rim fragment (there
attested as a possible bolsal) is too poorly preserved to be sure
about the original form.
A connection between the skyphoid vessels from Ephesos and the
handleless bowls with grooved rim from Priene based on the
similarity of their profiles is fairly likely. Nevertheless, the
Prienian bowls are already regularly represented in contexts of the
second half of the fourth century BC; therefore, given the current
status of publication, these can be dated to slightly earlier than
those found at Ephesos so far.
7 This is further strengthened by the fact that the red slip is
of a significantly higher quality and more carefully applied to the
body of the vase.
8 The same is observed by S. I. Rotroff for the Hellenistic
pottery from Sardis (Rotroff and Oliver 2003, 24).9
Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991, 37, nos. B 41B 79; Gassner 1997, 6165, nos.
166186. 10 Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991, 44; Gassner 1997, 39. 60. The
idea that these vessels within such contexts are residual from
the
fourth century BC can be dismissed, not only because many of
them bear West Slope decoration, but also because the con-text
contained almost none (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1991, 14) or only a few
(Gassner 1997, 3738) sherds datable to the fifth and fourth
centuries BC.
11 Anderson et al. 1954, pl. 10 (a), no. 157. The bowl is part
of the middle fill of well H, dated roughly from the late fourth to
the early third century BC. The glaze alternates from bright red to
black on the outside; likewise, the upper part of the inside of the
rim is red, while below that it is black again. The fabric, as
Anderson states, differs significantly from otherwise known vessels
from this assemblage, thus indicating that it is most likely not of
Chian origin. A similar bowl, no. 124, de-rives from the lowest
part of well H, dated by the excavators to the third quarter of the
fourth century. It shows no signs of grooves, but has an accurate
application of brown glaze, most likely applied with a brush.
12 Vaag et al. 2002, 86, no. A6. Another context contained a
skyphoid (?) bowl with West Slope decoration (Vaag et al. 2002,
198, no. K63).
-
140
Lars Heinze
Furthermore, none of the hundreds of bowls documented to date in
Priene have shown any trace of West Slope decoration, although this
alone can not be regarded as a secure chronological distinction
between the Ephesian and Prienian vessels, since West Slope
decoration is generally not very common within the fine pottery
that was produced in Priene even during the third century BC.13
Finally, the bowls from Priene were always handleless14 and
therefore are to be placed in a slightly different drinking-vessel
tradition from the vessels of Ephesos, which, with their elaborate
feet and often present handles, seem to be more of a hybrid between
Attic skyphoi and the type of bowl found in Priene and Chios. It
might therefore be assumed that already in the later fourth century
BC handleless drinking bowls of the type found in Priene functioned
as an archetype for what became fashionable in Ephesos during the
third century. The similarities between the locally produced
Ephesian skyphoi and the Prienian bowls thus may have appeared as a
result of the merging of imported Attic skyphoi bearing West Slope
decoration and this regional type of drinking bowl in Ephesian
workshops during the early third century BC, a developement that
surprisingly was never adopted in Priene itself.15 Naturally all
these assumptions must be considered as highly speculative until we
know more about the regional pottery from southern Ionia in the
late fourth and early third centuries.16
Lebes type lopades from southwestern Asia Minor
The stout shape of the lopas was, according to Attic
chronology,17 developed during the late fifth century BC to serve
as an addition to the deeper cooking pot commonly referred to as a
chytra. Its use may have varied from stewing to frying; it is also
frequently associated with the preparation of certain types of fish
dishes.
The lopas type most common in Priene in fourth- and
third-century deposits (Fig. 58)18 differs significantly from those
found in mainland Greece and broader Asia Minor (hereafter refered
to as common type). While Sparkes and Talcott demonstrated that
this common type of lopas found on the Athenian Agora derives from
a certain type of lidded chytra, the dominant type of lopas found
in Priene, equipped with two high-swung handles attached to almost
horizontal shoulders, instead
13 Even imported Attic West Slope pottery is considerably rare
in the few Prienian contexts from the third century BC. As far as
can be deduced in the absence of a detailed study on West Slope
decoration in early Priene, this decorative scheme became a more
common element of locally produced pottery only during the second
century BC in what is then labelled West Slope succession style
(Westabhangnachfolge-Stil), cf. forthcoming: Fenn 2007.
14 Admittedly, almost none of the fragments from the earliest
contexts are large enough to securely demonstrate that they did not
possess handles. Anyway, this assumption can be made with a high
degree of certainty due to the sheer number of fragments recorded
over the last 12 years from various parts of the excavation (in
total more than 400 specimens) without finding any traces of
handles.
15 During the recent excavations, not one presumed Ephesian
import of such a skyphoid vessel has been securely identified in
Priene, indicating that the taste for drinking vessels could differ
considerably even within a close sphere of influence such as that
of southern Ionia.
16 In the case of nearby Ephesos, results from the recent
excavations on the Panayr Da, soon to be published by I. Kowalleck,
will be of great importance for understanding pottery developments
from the fourth to the third century BC in this region.
17 For a general overview, see Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 227228.
Further Athenian development after the fourth century BC is
displayed in Rotroff 2006, 178186.
18 (Fig. 57 and 9) derive from the same contexts as the bowls
with grooved rim, thus roughly dating to the second half of the
fourth or the early third century BC (see footnote 6), (Fig. 8)
belongs to a deposit from the western residential area which,
according to its pottery, can be dated from the second half of the
fourth to the first half of the third century BC.
-
141
Between Adoption and Persistence: Two Regional Types of Pottery
from Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Priene
closely resembles the shape of the lebes (resp. dinos). Unlike
the common type, these Prienian lopades19 (hereafter refered to as
lebes type) were not suited for lids placed on a flange inside of
the rim, butas indicated by a series of lids with identical fabric
and matching diameter found in Priene (Fig. 9)were covered by lids
with a slightly downturned rim that projected over the upturned rim
of the lopas. This feature, together with the high-swung handles,
seems to be the only significant difference between the common and
the lebes type of shallow cooking pot. In regards to functionality,
they are apparently to be used in an identical way.
As seen from the selection of lopades presented here, there is a
certain variability in the shoulder shape of the lebes type. While
some are evenly rounded, others show a more squat shoulder profile.
It is not yet possible to postulate a particular evolutionary path
for these variations. Even though it can be speculated that the
general development moved from a rounded to a more incurved and
compact shoulder, there are some specimens from third- and
second-century contexts that could serve as counterexamples for
this presumed tendency.20
A small series of these lopades stands out because of their
chromatic slip. (Fig. 8) is the best preserved of the three
inventoried specimens to date, all of which belong to the variant
with a rounded shoulder. Instead of being upturned, the rim of
these lopades is formed by a deep revolving groove or is slightly
thickened. Why this small series of cooking pots has a coloured
slip is as yet unknown. It is conceivable that this was merely a
side effect that occured while the potter applied a condensing wash
or slip to the surface, especially since the slip is also present
on the inside of the pot. But it should not be ruled out that this
coloured slip may also have had a decorative function. It must
further be pointed out that these vessels were definitely used for
cooking rather than as common household lebetes (given that the
bottoms are not preserved), since at least two specimens show clear
traces of soot in the lower part of the body, as well as underneath
the handles.
The lebes type of lopas described above can be found in contexts
spanning from late Classical to early Imperial times, and seems to
be mostly common in southwestern Asia Minor, namely the region of
southern Ionia21 and occasionally further to the south.22 Find
spots outside of this region remain
19 Lopades of this type occur in two main fabric groups: a
predominantly brownish fabric, tempered amongst others with mica
schist (Fig. 8) and a hard fired, reddish to reddish brown fabric
that includes quartz and volcanic rock (Fig. 56, 9, possibly also
Fig. 7). From a geological point of view the first fabric could be
of local or regional origin; the second, however, points to a yet
unknown cooking ware production centre accountable for a high
percentage of cooking pots found in late Classical and early
Hellenistic Priene. It might as well be the same fabric described
in several other places (e.g. Vaag et al. 2002, 4547; Coldstream
1999, 329).
20 The lebes type of lopades from a late Hellenistic context in
the sanctuary of Athena Polias (forthcoming: Fenn 2007) display
good examples of drastically bent and compact shoulder profiles,
while at least one well-preserved lopas that was found in the
second century BC destruction layer of Priene (Wiegand and Schrader
1904, fig. 540, 2) still bears a fairly rounded shoulder
profile.
21 Ephesos: Gassner 1997, 103, nos. 370372 (not dated);
Ladsttter et al. 2003, 37. 67, no. K261, pl. 22 (ca. 100 BC).
Priene: Wiegand and Schrader 1904, 423, no. 71 (second century BC);
Fenn 2007 (first century BC/first century AD). Didyma: Wintermeyer
1980, 133, no. 71, pl. 57 (fourth/third century BC); Wintermeyer at
al. 2004, 79, nos. L 1.1L 1.7 (only L 1.1 from a dated context:
second/first century BC). Milet: Voigtlnder 1982, 85, nos. 258259
(uncertain date).
22 Iasos: Gasperetti 2003, 152, fig. 4950, pl. 95 (second/first
century BC). Halikarnassos: Vaag et al. 2002, 139, no. G36 (before
300 BC); related to this shape, but not illustrated are B47, D35,
E12 and F24, all consisting of red burnished ware (Vaag et al.
2002, 47). Knidos: According to the unpublished documentation of
coarse pottery compiled with the help of participating students
from Frankfurt am Main at the Knidos excavations during the early
1990s.
-
142
Lars Heinze
exceptional,23 but should be kept in mind for future
investigations into this shape. One rather astounding discovery is
a series of four lopades found in a destruction layer of the
so-called Bau Z in Athens.24 These specimens all derive from a
single room of this building and are assigned to the third phase of
the building, dating to the last quarter of the fourth century
BC.25 Due to the remarkably detailed record of cooking pots from
Attica, this series of lebes type lopades clearly stands out as an
unusual and alien shape. One might then speculate about the reason
behind their presence here. A clue might reside in the function of
the building, with interpretations ranging from guesthouse to
working facility or even a brothel.26 Without deciding on a
specific function, the suggestions all offer scenarios that involve
foreigners, especially of female gender, who may have spent a
significant period of time in the building while using their
accustomed set of cooking devices.27 Based on the current spatial
distribution of the lebes type of lopas one might cautiously
speculate that the inhabitants of this part of the building at the
time of the third destruction phase may have come from southwestern
Asia Minor.
Conclusion: pottery and regional identity The use of pottery as
an indicator for identities has only recently become popular within
Classical Archaeology.28 The rare use of pottery to this end is
definitely due to the fact that the term identity has a wide
variety of associations and levels29 which are impossible to
separate, each being heavily laden and problematic in and of
themselves. Identity must therefore to be treated with the greatest
care and employed only within a restricted definitional framework
when applied to ancient pottery. It will, in the following
discussion, be used in the sense of cultural identity, meaning a
sum of intentionally or unintentionally produced and consumed
objects, formed by or deriving from certain patterns of behaviour
or performative acts among a certain community.
23 Yet-unpublished specimens may in the future substantially
correct this picture. A single lopas of this type can be found,
among many others of the common type, in the fourth century pottery
published from Thasos (Blond 1985, 333334, fig. 50, no. 322). G.
Ate was kind enough to let me have a look at some of the Classical
and Hellenistic pottery from surveys conducted in the hinterland of
Pergamon, among which I was able to identify one lebes type of
lopas. This specimen, with its distinct red fabric and burnished
surface, nevertheless was clearly an exception to the rest of the
cooking pots known from that time and region. I owe thanks to C.
Beestman-Kruyshaar for the valuable information that cooking pots
of this shape sporadically do occur in particular contexts in New
Halos (see Beestman-Kruyshaar 2003, 85, nos. P79P82, fig. 6.1), but
are otherwise definitely not common among the material record of
the city (oral communication). In Knossos a lebes type lopas of a
hard gritty red clay was among the published fragments from an
unstratified deposit (Coldstream 1999, 329, no. R38, fig. 3). While
in the catalogue the lopas is considered to be local, on geological
grounds its typical fabric seems to be alien to the Knossos area
(Coldstream 1999, 323). The shape itself, in any case, didnt make
it into the Knossos pottery handbook (Coldstream et al. 2001) and
therefore apparently is not very common here either.
24 Knigge 2005, 189, nos. 584587, fig. 49, pl. 112.25 Knigge
2005, 7778.26 Hartmann 2002, 250 (with further references).27 The
great estimation for a certain quality standard amongst cooking
pots is clearly demonstrated by the high percentage of
imported cooking pots at several sites, including Priene (cf.
forthcoming: Fenn 2007; for Athens see Rotroff 2006, 3649).
Therefore, cooking pottery should not only be considered as a
common trade commodity, but also as valuable personal property that
might have accompanied its owners in the course of relocations.
28 One recent example is the conference in Berlin, Keramik als
Identittsmarker? Mglichkeiten und Grenzen der Interp-retation, held
from 2123 October 2011. I was able to make a detailed presentation
on this during a conference on Lo-kalitt und regionale Verankerung
der griechischen Polis, held in Marburg by the research programme
Die hellenistische Polis als Lebensform (SPP 1209) from 1617 June
2011.
29 e.g. ethnic identity, national identity, political identity,
cultural identity, to name only a few that are commonly used in
archaeology.
-
143
Between Adoption and Persistence: Two Regional Types of Pottery
from Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Priene
In general, two levels of identity must be differentiated, a
self-constructed identity and an unconscious one. An example of the
first variant may be the common use of Attic drinking vessels
during the symposion, as attested by the huge amount of imports
found in fourth-century BC Priene. It is commonly accepted that
this wide consumption of Attic pottery is accompanied by the
adoption of a certain Attic lifestyle.30 The frequent presence of
hemispherical grooved-rim bowls alongside these imports, here given
as an example of a persistent pottery element within the regional
drinking culture, may therefore be considered in two possible ways:
either they are part of a drinking set that deliberately serves as
an alternative to the Atticized style of the symposium or they were
used as casual drinking vessels in a more private atmosphere. As
different as the possible interpretations are, both cases would
imply decisions made on the part of the consumer. One would be a
disinclination towards the Attic taste (and a certain
socio-political background possibly connected to it?) and the other
a more practical choice, in that a most likely cheaper alternative
was used when there was nobody around to impress with Attic fine
plates.
By contrast, the cooking pots used in the Prienian kitchen
cannot be categorized in such a way. These pots were certainly not
visible to guests and since, as noted earlier, their functional
aspects are identical to otherwise available types of stewing pots,
the decision in favour of a particular type must be based on other
factors. While it is clear that buying a cooking pot is not,
strictly speaking, an unconscious actaspects of price, usability
und durability have to also be consideredit can nevertheless be
regarded as a commodity whose purchase is motivated by external
factors deriving from traditional or otherwise confirmed
habits.
I would describe both the bowl and the lopas as what might
carefully be called pottery-based cultural identity, since both are
clearly part of a narrower or broader regional material culture. To
what extent the material aspects of drinking and cooking habits may
be connected to the regional identities of a subnational or even
ethnic variety can at the moment only be the subject of
speculation. The incorporation of a handleless drinking bowl like
the one found in Priene might in this case reveal some residue of
Achaemenid drinking culture, which involved the regular use of
drinking bowls without handles, while the shapes themselves clearly
appear to be of a narrower regional character. The lopas and its
presence in a region that might vaguely be associated with southern
Ionia and Caria might on the other hand be connected to an area
that preserved some traces of Carian identity well into the fifth
and fourth centuries BC.31 The ever-tempting equation pots = people
nevertheless turns out to be false in this case, since the
citizenry of fourth- and third-century BC Priene are definitely not
Carians. But the two regions, Ionia and Caria, are definitely bound
together through many aspects of their ceramic material culture.
What this resemblance of the pots implies for the people living in
this region nevertheless needs to be clarified through future
research into both the pots and the people.
30 For the distribution of Attic pottery in general see Fless
2002, 1223. The phenomenon of the incorporation of Attic and
Atticizing vessels into the drinking culture of fourth-century BC
Asia Minor with a focus on Achaemenid Ilion is discussed in Berlin
and Lynch 2002, notably 174175.
31 Topographically the southern part of Ionia belongs to Caria.
Herodotus also stated that the Ionian dialect spoken in the Ionian
cities of Priene, Miletos and Myouswhich are situated in Cariawas
different to the rest of Ionia (Herodotus 1.142). On this topic in
general see Mastrocinque 1979. For a recent analysis of the
first-discovered written Carian testi-mony from Miletos see Herda
and Sauter 2009. In Priene, nevertheless, there have not yet been
clear material indications of a recognizable sub-Carian presence in
the city of the fourth and third centuries BC.
-
144
Lars Heinze
BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson, J. K., Boardman, J. and Hood, M. S. F.1954
Excavations on the Kofin Ridge, Chios, The Annual of the British
School at Athens 49, 123182. Beestman-Kruyshaar, C.2003 Pottery,
in: H. R. Reinders and C. Wietske (eds.), Housing in New Halos. A
Hellenistic town in Thessaly,
Greece, Lisse.Berlin, A. M.1999 Studies in Hellenistic Ilion:
The Lower City. Stratified Assemblages and Chronology, Studia
Troica 9,
73157.Berlin, A. M.2002 Ilion Before Alexander: A Ritual Deposit
of the Fourth Century B.C., Studia Troica 12, 131165.Berlin, A. M.
and Lynch, K. M.2002 Going Greek: Atticizing Pottery in the
Achaemenid World, Studia Troica 12, 167178.Blond, F.1985 Un remblai
thasien du IVe sicle avant notre re, Bulletin de correspondance
hellnique 109, 281344.Coldstream, J. N.1999 Knossos 195161:
Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from the Town, The Annual of the
British School at
Athens 94, 321351Coldstream, J. N., Eiring, L. J. and Forster,
G.2001 Knossos Pottery Handbook: Greek and Roman, British School at
Athens Studies 7, London.Cook, J. M.1965 Old Smyrna: Fourth-Century
Black Glaze, The Annual of the British School at Athens 60,
143153.Fenn, N.2007 Untersuchungen zu Herkunft und Produktion
hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Keramik in Priene
(unpublished PhD dissertation, Goethe-Universitt,
Frankfurt).Fless, F.2002 Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware:
Erwerb und Gebrauch attischer Vasen im mediterranen und
pontischen Raum whrend des 4. Jhs. v. Chr., Internationale
Archologie 71, Rahden.Gasperetti, G.2003 Osservazioni preliminari
sulla ceramica romana di Iasos di Caria: Materiali dal quartiere a
sud del
teatro, in: C. Abadie-Reynal (ed.), Les cramiques en Anatolie
aux poques hellnistique et romaine: actes de la table ronde
dIstanbul 2224 mai 1996, Varia Anatolica 15, Paris.
Gasser, A.1990 Die korinthische und attische Importkeramik vom
Artemision in Ephesos, Forschungen in Ephesos 12, 1,
Vienna.Gassner, V.1997 Das Sdtor der Tetragonos Agora:
Kleinfunde und Keramik, Forschungen in Ephesos 13, 1, 1,
Vienna.Hartmann, E.2002 Heirat, Hetrentum und Konkubinat im
klassischen Athen, Campus historische Studien 30, Frankfurt.Herda,
A. and Sauter, E.2009 Karerinnen und Karer in Milet: Zu einem
sptklassischen Schsselchen mit karischem Graffito aus
Milet, Archologischer Anzeiger 2009, 2, 51112.Kerschner, M.,
Kowalleck, I. and Steskal, M.2008 Archologische Forschungen zur
Siedlungsgeschichte von Ephesos in geometrischer, archaischer
und
-
145
Between Adoption and Persistence: Two Regional Types of Pottery
from Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Priene
klassischer Zeit: Grabungsbefunde und Keramikfunde aus dem
Bereich von Koressos, Ergnzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des
sterreichischen Archologischen Institutes in Wien 9, Vienna.
Knigge, U.2005 Der Bau Z, Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen 17, Munich.
Ladsttter, S., Rogl, C., Giuliani, A., Bezeczky, T.,
Czurda-Ruth, B. and Lang-Auinger, C.2003 Ein hellenistischer
Brunnen in SR 9C, in: C. Lang-Auinger (ed.), Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos:
Funde und
Ausstattung, Forschungen in Ephesos 8, 4, Vienna.Mastrocinque,
A.1979 La Caria e la Ionia meridionale in epoca Ellenistica,
Problemi e ricerche di storia antica 6, Rome.Mitsopoulos-Leon,
V.1991 Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt von Ephesos: Keramik
hellenistischer und rmischer Zeit, Forschungen in
Ephesos 9, 2, 2, Vienna.Rotroff, S. I.1997 Hellenistic Pottery:
Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material,
The Athenian
Agora 29, Princeton, NJ.Rotroff, S. I.2006 Hellenistic Pottery:
The Plain Wares, The Athenian Agora 33, Princeton, NJ. Rotroff, S.
I. and Oliver Jr., A.2003 The Hellenistic Pottery from Sardis: The
Finds through 1994, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis:
Monographs 12, Cambridge, MA.Scherrer, P. and Trinkl, E.2006 Die
Tetragonos Agora in Ephesos: Grabungsergebnisse von archaischer bis
in byzantinische Zeit ein
berblick. Befunde und Funde klassischer Zeit, Forschungen in
Ephesos 13, 2, Vienna.Sparkes, B. A. and Talcott, L.1970 Black and
Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Century BC, The Athenian
Agora 12, Princeton, NJ.Tuna-Nrling, Y.1996 Attische Keramik aus
Klazomenai, Saarbrcker Studien zur Archologie und alten Geschichte
11,
Saarbrcken.2002 Attische Keramik aus Phokaia (Eski Foa) ,
Archologischer Anzeiger 2002, 1, 161 231.Vaag, L. E., Nrskov, V.
and Lund, J.2002 The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the
Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum, Vol. 7.
The Pottery: Ceramic Material and Other Finds from Selected
Contexts, Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 15, 7,
Aarhus.
Voigtlnder, W.1982 Funde aus der Insula westlich des Buleuterion
in Milet, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 32, 30137.Wiegand, Th. and
Schrader, H.1904 Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und
Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895 1898, Berlin.Wintermeyer, U.1980
Didyma: Katalog ausgewhlter Keramik und Kleinfund, Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 30, 122160.Wintermeyer, U., Bumke, H. and Jhrens,
G.2004 Die hellenistische und frhkaiserzeitliche Gebrauchskeramik:
auf Grundlage der stratifizierten Fundkeramik
aus dem Bereich der Heiligen Strasse, Didyma 3: Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1962, 2, Mainz.
-
293
Between Adoption and Persistence: Two Regional Types of Pottery
from Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Priene
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
Lars Heinze
Fig. 1: Hemispherical bowl with double-grooved rim (Priene, Bu
6.7; inv. no. PR 01 K016)
Fig. 2: Hemispherical bowl with grooved rim (Priene, Bu 6.10;
inv. no. PR 01 K053)
Fig. 3: Hemispherical bowl with grooved rim (Priene, Bu 7.7;
inv. no. PR 07 K220) Fig. 4: Hemispherical bowl with grooved rim
(Priene,
unstratified; inv. no. PR 06 K001)
Fig. 5: Lebes type lopas (Priene, Bu 6.7; inv. no. PR 01
K018)
Fig. 6: Lebes type lopas (Priene, D2 / 22.4; inv. no. PR 02
K457)
-
294
Lars Heinze
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
5 cm
1
8
6
5
2
7
9
4
3
Fig. 7: Lebes type lopas (Priene, Bu 7.4; inv. no. PR 07
K010)
Fig. 8: Lebes type lopas with chromatic slip (Priene, D2/22.4;
inv. no. PR 02 K486)
Fig. 9: Lid, presumably of a lebes type lopas (Priene, Bu 6.9;
inv. no. PR 01 K094)