Sie sind auf Seite 1von 22

KERAMOS

CERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH

Proceedings of the First International Conference at Ege University

May 9-13, 2011


zmir
Edited by

R. Gl Grtekin-Demir, Hseyin Cevizolu, Yasemin Polat and Grcan Polat


with the collaboration of
Janine Elaine Su

BLGN

KLTR SANAT YAYINLARI

KERAMOS
CERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH

Proceedings of the First International Conference at Ege University

May 9-13, 2011


zmir

Edited by

R. Gl Grtekin-Demir, Hseyin Cevizolu, Yasemin Polat and Grcan Polat

with the collaboration of


Janine Elaine Su

Muharrem Kayhan

BLGN

KLTR SANAT YAYINLARI

KERAMOS
CERAMICS: A CULTURAL APPROACH
Edited by
R. 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 manner
without written permission from the publisher except in the context of reviews.

Book Design by
Mustafa Horu
Edition 2015

Bilgin Kltr Sanat Yaynlar


Sat/Proje: Selanik 2 cad no: 68/10 Kzlay-Ankara
Telefon: 0(312) 419 85 67
Web: www.bilginkultursanat.com
e-mail: bilgin@bilginkitabevi.com

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 Keramik-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)) nachgegangen, Essgewohnheiten und Ernhrung anhand von lokalem Tafel-und Kochgeschirr behandelt (Gordion), unterschiedliche Fundkeramik aus neuen Grabungspltzen Westkleinasiens (Panayrda/Ephesos) prsentiert. In bedeutenden 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 frhhellenistische, 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 Interaktionselemente 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 Campanien 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 sptrmischen 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, attischen 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 Herausgebern bestens gedankt sei.
Andreas E. Furtwngler

TABULA GRATULATORIA
Rosa Maria Albanese

Rosina Leone

Paul Arthur

Kathleen Lynch

Carolyn Aslan

Sarrah Morris

Andrea M. Berlin

Yasemin Polat

Iulian Brzescu

Marcus Rautman

Beate Boehlendorf-Arslan

G. Kenneth Sams

Andreas E. Furtwngler

Gerald Schaus

John H. Oakley

Udo Schlotzhauer

Sarah Japp

Grazia Semeraro

Ivonne Kaiser

Evangelia Simantoni-Bournia

Michael Kerschner

Kaan enol

Lori Khatchadourian

Alexandra Villing

Contents
GR________________________________________________________________________________7
INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________________8
APPROACHING EARLY ARCHAIC ATTICA:
A CONTEXTUAL STUDY OF ITS EARLY BLACK-FIGURE POTTERY PRODUCTION___11
Alexandra Alexandridou
FOURTH-CENTURY BC BLACK AND RED GLOSS POTTERY FROM IASOS:
A TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH____________________________________________________25
Silvia Amicone
COOKING AND DINING IN LATE PHRYGIAN GORDION__________________________40
Galya D. Bacheva
Sikelo-geometric pottery between indigenous tr adition
and Greek influences______________________________________________________________50
Marco Camera
KLAZOMENIAN SARCOPHAGUS OR BATHTUB?
THE USE OF BATHTUBS IN BURIAL CONTEXTS ____________________________________61
Hseyin Cevizolu
LATE ROMAN C WARE/PHOCAEAN RED SLIP POTTERY
FROM THE CILICIA SURVEY PROJECT (MISIS), TURKEY_____________________________73
Jane E. Francis
GREY WARE IN SICILY, BETWEEN EAST AND WEST_________________________________83
Massimo Frasca
ROMAN AND BYZANTINE POTTERY FROM THE NORTH-EAST AREA AGOR A
AT KYME (ALAA, TURKEY). A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH________________________92
Vincenzo Di Giovanni
MAGENTA WARE FROM SICILIAN FUNER ARY CONTEXTS__________________________104
Alessandra Granata
BETWEEN LYDIA AND CARIA: IRON AGE POTTERY
FROM K ALE-I TAVAS, ANCIENT TABAE______________________________________________115
R. Gl Grtekin-Demir, Yasemin Polat

Between adoption and persistence: Two regional types of pottery


from late classical and early Hellenistic Priene_______________________________137
Lars Heinze
G 2-3 WARE COSMETIC VASES RECONSIDERED: BETWEEN MYCENAEAN
AND ARCHAIC GREECE IN THE NECROPOLIS OF HEPHAISTIA ON LEMNOS _____146
Petya Ilieva
POTTERY WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND TR ANSFORMATION AT THE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE OF TIMPONE DELLA MOTTA BETWEEN 800 AND 650 BC:
A CASE STUDY FROM NORTHERN CALABRIA, SOUTHERN ITALY__________________158
Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Carmelo Colelli, Gloria Mittica, Sren Handberg
THE JENA DEPOSIT UNDER GLASS: INVESTIGATING THE PRODUCTION
OF A CER AMIC WORKSHOP IN LATE CLASSICAL ATHENS_________________________166
Kleopatra Kathariou
SOME REMARKS ON NEWLY DISCOVERED GR AVES AT KLAZOMENAI____________173
Seval Konak Tarak
Archaic Pottery from PanayIrda, Ephesos: new evidence and first results___ 184
Alexandra Ch. J. von Miller
ARCHAIC POTTERY OF COASTAL CARIA:
FINDS FROM A CREMATION BURIAL AT BYBASSOS________________________________197
Bekir zer
A Cultur al approach to the study of Late Athenian red-figure pottery
from the Bospor an kingdom: advantages and disadvantages_________________208
Anna Petrakova
Pottery as A proxy indicator for diet change in Late Antique Campania____218
Girolamo F. De Simone, Caterina Serena Martucci, Gaetana Boemio and Serena DItalia
A GROUP OF BAND DECOR ATED CER AMICS FROM THE MENGEFE DISTRICT
IN THE CARIA REGION_____________________________________________________________229
Ahmet Adil Trpan, Zafer Korkmaz, Makbule Ekici
LATE ROMAN CER AMICS OF THE DEL HALL SETTLEMENT
IN THE EAST CILICIA PLAIN________________________________________________________238
Fsun TLEK
EAST GREEK KOTYLAI FROM KLAROS______________________________________________243
Onur 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 stlenilen bu misyonu, gelenee dnmesini mit ettiimiz bir sempozyum ile gelecek nesillere aktarmay hedefledik. Sempozyumun 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, Almanya, 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 paylalmasna 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 niversitesi 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-Demir
Grcan Polat
Yasemin 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-Demir
Grcan Polat
Yasemin 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

KERAMOS

CERAMICS: 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
l.heinze@em.uni-frankfurt.de

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.
137

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
138

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 context 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, derives 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).
139

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.
140

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.
141

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 Interpretation, held from 2123 October 2011. I was able to make a detailed presentation on this during a conference on Lokalitt 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.
142

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 act
aspects 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 testimony 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.
143

Lars Heinze
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, 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, 321351
Coldstream, 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
144

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, 161231.
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 18951898, 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.

145

Between Adoption and Persistence: Two Regional Types of Pottery from Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Priene
Lars Heinze

22

Fig. 1: Hemispherical bowl with double-grooved rim


(Priene, Bu 6.7; inv. no. PR 01 K016)

11

Fig. 2: Hemispherical bowl with grooved rim (Priene,


Bu 6.10; inv. no. PR 01 K053)

3
1
3

Fig. 3: Hemispherical bowl with grooved rim (Priene,


3
Bu 7.7; inv. no. PR 07 K220)

4 with grooved rim (Priene,


Fig. 4: Hemispherical bowl
unstratified; inv. no. PR 06 K001)

Fig. 5: Lebes type lopas (Priene, Bu 6.7; inv. no. PR 01 K018)

56

66
67

7
Fig. 6: Lebes type lopas (Priene,
D2 / 22.4; inv. no. PR 02 K457)

78
7
293
8

9
5 cm

5
Lars Heinze

5
6

5
76

Fig. 7: Lebes type lopas (Priene, Bu 7.4; inv. no. PR 07 K010)

6
7
8

97
8
Fig. 8: Lebes type lopas with chromatic slip (Priene, D2/22.4; inv. no. PR 02 K486)

5 cm

9
8
5 cm

Fig. 9: Lid, presumably of a lebes type lopas (Priene, Bu 6.9; inv. no. PR 01 K094)

5 cm

294