helenización temprana en roma y etruria

8/14/2019 Helenizacin temprana en Roma y Etruria

1/25

"Demaratus": A Study in Some Aspects of the Earliest Hellenisation of Latium and Etruria

Author(s): Alan BlakewayReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 25 (1935), pp. 129-149Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/296595.

Accessed: 28/10/2011 13:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/296595?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/296595?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs


2/25

"DEMARATUS"A S'T'UDY IN SOME ASPECTS OF THE EARLIEST HELLENISATION OF LATIUM AND ETRURIA

By ALAN BLAKEWAY(Plates xx-XXII)

I. THE PERIOD BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF CUMAEThe firstcommercial ontact of the Greekswith Etruria scertainlyearlierthan the foundation of the Greek colony at Cumae.1 Vulci,Chiusi, Terni, Bisenzio, Vetralla, Capodimonte, Leprignano, Veii,

Falerii,Tarquinia,Cerveteri,haveproducedevidenceof the importa-tion of Greekpottery of a style considerably arlierthan that of thecontents of the earliestGreekgravesof that colony.The generalconclusionswhich can be derived from this evidencefor the historyof Greekcommercewith the Western Mediterraneanhave been discussedelsewhere; it is the particular ignificanceof itas evidencefor the earliestHellenizationof Italy that I wish to con-sider here.This pre-Cumaeanmaterialfalls into four main classes

A. Imported Greek Geometric pottery;B. Local Geometric pottery made and painted by GreekcraftsmenC. Local Geometric pottery of Barbarian workmanship,imitatingGreekmodelsboth in shapeandin decoration;D. Local Geometric pottery of Barbarianshape and work-manship,but with painted decorationderived, but notstrictly copied, from Greek Geometric designs.

'The traditional date of the foundation ofCumae, in so far as it can be treated as serioushistorical evidence at all, can only refer to somewestward movement of the Greeks in the period ofmigrations. Eusebius' (Jerome's) words, 'Mvcenain Italia condita vel Cumae,' perhaps indicate aconfusion of the tradition that Cumae was theoldest Greek colony in Italy and Sicily with thatof the migration of Halesus and the Argives toFalerii and Alsion. An archaeological ternminuspost quem for the foundation of the Greek colonyis provided by the presence of two Greek geometriccups (Monumenti Antichi xxii, pl. xviii, nos. 7 and 9)in the graves of the native settlement which gaveplace to the Greek colony. These cups can hardlybe earlier than c. Son a.C., and consequently thefoundation of the Greek colony must be placedafter that date. (Gabrici's archaeological chronology

has been completely discredited by the work ofJohansen, Les vases sicyosniens). A terminusante quemis provided by the contents of the earliest colonialgraves at Syracuse. Protocorinthian pottery of theglobular-Aryballus period is comparatively commonin the Greek graves at Cumae, while at Syracuse it isconfined to the earliest tombs. (Nos. 223, 3i2, 466,N. d. Scavi, i895.) A date for Cumae in theperiod c. 775 to c. 750 B.C. seems to be indicated,and this agrees well enough with Strabo's statementthat Cumae was the oldest Greek colony in Sicilyand Italy (Strabo 243). The first Greek settle-ment in Pithecusae (Strabo, 247; Livy, viii, zz) wasprobably earlier, as Livy indicates, but there isas yet no archaeological evidence in support of thisavailable from Ischia.2 Annual of the British Schoolat Athens, I933/4-


3/25

I30 ALAN BLAKEWAYClass A is not a large one. There are two Boeotian or CycladicGeometric vases from Vulci ; 3 one Cretan from Terni, 4 and one fromVetralla; 5 one Cycladic (?) from Leprignano 6 one, possibly two,Corinthian from Veii; 7 one of uncertain fabric from Falerii8 andseveral, including one Cretan (?), from Tarquinia. 9 There are alsoseveral vases including Cretan, Creto-Cypriot, Cypriot and Cycladicprobably from Cerveteri. 10That Greek imports should have penetrated (up the Tiber Valley?)to the inland communities at Veii, Leprignano, Falerii, Vetralla andTerni is in itself sufficiently striking testimony to the extent ofthis early Greek commerce with Etruria (and far more remark-

able than the greater quantity of material from the coastalcities), but these imports are far less valuable as evidence ofHellenisation than the vases of classes B, C and D. For trade,even if extensive, may well convey little but the most superficialelements of civilisation.Class C has a double significance. It proves beyond questionthe direct influence of contemporary Greek art on many of theninth- and eighth-century potters of Etruria, and it shows that theyattained a far greater degree of success in the copying of Greek formsand decoration than that reached by the contemporary Hellenisingpotters of Sicily. The conjecture is perhaps justified, not merelythat the Etruscan craftsmen were more quick to learn, but also thatthe Hellenising influence was far stronger than in Sicily. 11The main characteristics of this class are as follows. Shape anddesign are imitations of Greek originals varying from careful copiesto badly turned and even hand-made vases with careless, simplified,and often misunderstood, Geometric patterns, which neverthelessbetray the Greek model. Clay and paint are local: that is to say,they are of the same character as that of vases which are utterlyun-Greek in shape and decoration, and which are generally admittedto be Etruscan. Clay varies from an unpurified granular yellow,through cream-coloured, to chalky white. Paint is commonly darkbrick-red, sometimes black and chocolate-brown, and is nearlyalways matt. Firing is often imperfect. The number of vases

3 P1. xx, nos. AI, A2. Montelius, La civilisa-tion primitive en Italie, pl. 26o, nos. 5 and 6.Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 4, note 2, recognised thefirst as Boeotian or Cycladic.4 N. d. Scavi, I9I6, P. 2 I7, fig. z6. Recognisedas a Cretan import by Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 4,note 2.5 P1. xxi, no. A3. N. d. Scavi, I9I4, P- 333, fig- 24-

Recognised as a Cretan import by Payne, Necro-corintbia, p. 4, note 2.6 (Tomb CVII.) No. I 5265 in the Villa Giulia.

Cf. Dugas, Delos, xv, pl. xxvii, nos. 24 and 3I.I Tombs 779 and 785 in the Villa Giulia.8 Villa Giulia, No. 5642.9 Montelius, op. cit., pl. 290. One vase is illus-trated in pl. xxi, no. A5 ('The Warrior's Tomb).

1 0 These vases are in the Cerveteri room in theLouvre under the general heading of ' Vases destyle geometrique trouves en Italie.' No. i8,a Cycladic Geometric amphora, pl. xx, no. A4(Pottier, Vases antiquesdu Louvre, pl. xxix, D. i8), iscertainly from Cerveteri, and so also is one of theCretan examples.11 So far as our evidence goes, the importationof Greek Geometric pottery to Etruria antedatesits importation to Sicily by a period of at least fiftyvears. In Sicily there seems to have been a longgap between the last Mycenaean import and thearrival of the first Greek Geometric vases at aboutthe end of the ninth century. The Greek importsto Sicily of a date before the foundation of Syracuseare also far fewer than those to Etruria in the sameperiod. SeeBSA, I933-4, P. 170 ff.


4/25

"' DEMARATUS " 131in this class is large, and the following are merely representativeexamples. 12

No. CI, from Chiusi (pl. xxi, no. CI). Albizzari, Jasi antichidipinti del Vaticano, pl. iii, 43. Clay, yellow, granular and friable;paint, red-brown, matt. For the Greek original compare Dugas,De'losxv, pl. xxix, S7. Both shape and drawing are but little worsethan some Greek originals.No. C2, from Chiusi (pl. xx, no. C2). Albizzati, op. cit., pl. ii, 37PClay, creamy-yellow, granular and friable; paint, brick-red (matt)and chalky white. This vase is an excellent example of the averageproduct of Class C. It is a careful though barbarising imitation ofimports such asnos. AI and A2. (Compare the rim frieze of concentriccircles with the shoulder frieze of no. AI, the metopes of birds withpendant, hatched, triangle-filling ornament with the handle zone ofno. AI, and the wavy lines of the lower belly with the similar ornamentof nos. AI and A2.) The barbarised birds with over-emphasisedeyes, the clumsy hatching of the triangles, the girdle of concentriccircles, vigorous but awry, and the uneven wave pattern of the lowerbelly, all indicate the painstaking but unskilled Barbariancopyist.No. C3, from Bisenzio. Montelius, pl. 255, no. II. (A poordrawing. The shorter lines in the handle zone should be zigzagand not straight as in Montelius.) Clay, cream-coloured; paintSred, matt. Less ambitious and more competent work than the last.The Greek original was possibly Cycladic.No. C4, from Bisenzio. MA xxi, 424, fig. IO. Clay and paintas in the last.No. C5, from Leprignano. No. 225 (Contrada Le Saliere) in theVilla Giulia. Clay, friable yellow; paint, brick-red, matt. ThisOenochoe is very closely modelled on a Greek Geometric originalof the general type Payne, ProtokorinthischeVasenmalerei,pl. 2, butwithout twisted handle and with simple metopes of zigzags on neckand shoulder. The drawing is fairly good.No. C6, from Territorio Falisco. MA xxii, 4I9, fig. I55. VillaGiulia, No. S666. Clay, creamy-yellow, friable; paint, chocolate-brown, matt. The drawing is slovenly.No. C7, from TerritorioFalisco. MA xxii, fig. I58. Clay, yellow,granular ; paint, chocolate-coloured, matt. Slovenly drawing.Compare for the Greek original, Dugas, Delos xv, pl. xxvii, no. 30.13

12 The more successful vases of this class are, ofcourse, more easily recognisable as local than as Bar-barian. For example, the drawing of no. C8 (pl. xx) isin no way inferior to that of many Greek Ge6metricvases. It may be that I have included in Class Ccertain vases which are the work of Greek hands andshould have been placed in Class B, but the existenceof this last class seems to me to be of such greathistorical importance that I do not want to run therisk of bringing it into disrepute by including in itany members of dubious origin.

13 Other examples of Class C :-N. d. Scavi,I928, pl. ix, Capodimonte. (The drawingof some

of these examples might well be pure Greek work,but the local hand is betrayed by the barbarisingshapes.) Op. cit., I914, p. 320, fig. I3 and p. 312,fig. 6, Vetralla. (For the Greek model of the latter,cf. Dugas, Delos xv, pl. xxvii, no. 31. Sedulousbut heavy-handed imitation.) Corpus VasorumAntiquorum, Musie Scheurleeri, ' Style Italo-Geometrique,' IVb-IVc, pl. i, I. 'Rome.' P1. xx,no. C8. (Either a Cretan import or local workclosely modelled on a Cretan original.) Nos. 4432and 4433 in the Villa Giulia, Falerii. (Verycareless work.) N. d. Scavi, I907, p. 231T, fig. 33,Tarquinia.


5/25

132 ALAN BLAKEWAYClassD, which is a large one, can be dealt with very briefly. It is

only important n so faras it illustratesEtruscancapacity for adapta-tion (as opposedto imitation)of Greek artisticelements.No. Di, from Vulci (pl. XXI,no. Di). Gsell, Vulcipl. i, no. 3.The shape-a ' Lydion I14-iS unknown to the Greek Geometricpotter and only appears n the Greekrepertoryafter c. 6oo B.C. as anacquisition from Lydia. In Etruria the pure ' Lydion' shape israre 5-I knowonly one otherEtruscanexample, romCerveteri ?)1-but barbarisations f the shapeare fairlycommon. 7 The shape sthen Etruscan,or at least non-Greek at this period), and the vase s aninteresting amalgamof Greek Geometric and Etruscanart: for thepainted decorationalmost certainly derivesfrom a Greek Geometricoriginal.No. D2, fromVetralla,N. d. ScaviI9I4, P. 334,fig. 23. The shape,certainlynot Greek, s probablya degenerationof the ' Lydion ' type.The painted decorationderivesfrom GreekGeometric art.Class B consists of vases, the characteristicsof whose clay andpaint are precisely he sameas those of the vasesof ClassesC and D.There can thus be little doubt that they were manufacturedn Italyand, more specifically, n Etruria. 8 Boldly stated, the evidence forthese vases havingbeen madeby Greekcraftsmenconsists n the factthat there is nothing, apartfrom clay and paint, to distinguish hemfrom Greek imports,and that both shapesand drawingare in everywaycharacteristic f Greekworkof the ninth andeighth centuriesB.C.No. Bi, from Falerii. VillaGiulia,No. 4442. Cup with perfectGreek Geometric shape and decoration. Clay, white and exactly

14 There is, so far as I know, no example of aLydian ' Lydion' dating from as early as the eighthcentury B.C., but the resemblance of this earlyEtruscan example to the Lydian vases of theseventh (?) and sixth centuries is very striking indeed,and makesverytempting the hypothesis that both theeighth-century Etruiscan, and the seventh-sixth-century Lydian examples, derive from a commonLydian archetype.If this hypothesis is correct there is thus someslight additional evidence of Lydian (not merelyOriental) commercial contact with Etruria at leastas early as the eighth century B.C. [I am, of course,not concerned with the theory of the Lydianorigin of the Etruscans. The literary traditioncan only be made to agree with the archaeologicalevidence by doing violence to its implied chronology,and the bulk of the archaeological evidence initself only supports Oriental (and Greek), as opposedto the more specific Lydian, importation (and-perhaps immigration) in the ninth and eighthcenturies B.C.]a5This does not, of course, include importedL'ydia ' of the sixth century such as the LaconianIII ' Lydion' from Orvieto at Philadelphia andthe late sixth-century Lydian ' Lydion' fromCerveteri in the Villa Giulia.

16No. I3 in the Cerveteri Room in the Louvre.

17 E.g. Montelius, op. cit., pl. 2I4, nos. 5 and 6,from Chiusi, pl. 206, no. 25, pl. 207, nos. I and 9,pl. 210, no. 4, from Pitigliano, pl. 291, no. 5 fromTarquinii and N. d. Scavi, 19I4, p. 323, fig. i6 fromVetralla.

18 The possibility of this class having been madeby Greeks at Cumae is excluded for the followingreasons:-(a) Class B is of earlier date than the foundationof the Greek colony at Cumae: that is to sav,vases of the style of Class B have not been foundin even the earliest graves of Greek Cumae,while late examples of Class A (which is con-temporary with Class B) have been found in theBarbarian settlement which was supplanted bythe Greek colony.(b) Cumaean clay, as known to us from the lateeighth- and seventh-century pottery of thatcolony, is different from that of any of theexamples of Class B.There remains the possibility that these vaseswere manufactured in the Greek settlement atIschia, which may have antedated the mainlandcolony at Cumae, but this possibility is practicallyexcluded, for at least some members of the class,by the fact that their clay is characteristic of thepart of Etruria in which they were found.


6/25

"DEMARATUS" 133similar to that of Villa Giulia, Nos. 4503 and i585, which are un-doubtedly of Barbarian manufacture. Paint, brick-red, matt, andagain exactly similar to that of Nos. 4503 and 1585.No. B2, from Tarquinia (Poggio di Selciatello-Sopra). Hydriaof cream-coloured clay decorated with shoulder panels containingGeometric birds with herringbone filling ornament in brick-red paint.Both clay and paint are the same as those of two cups from the sametomb which are poor examples of Class C. The shape of this vase isGreek, and so also the drawing of the birds and the filling ornament. 19No. B3, from Falerii (pl. xxi, no. B3). Villa Giulia, No. 48I5(Montelius, pl. 32x, no. ii. A poor drawing). When I first sawthis vase (in 1930) 1 thought that it was a Geometric Protocorinthianimport (cf. Johansen, pl. ii, i and 2), and as such it is recorded inPayne, ProtokorinthischeVasenmalerei,p. 9, note i. A further inspec-tion of the vase in iQ3f has convinced me that it is local. The clay isnot of the distinctively Protocorinthian type, being more yellow andgranular, unpurified and of less uniform consistency. Both clay andpaint (which is of poor quality though not matt) have close parallelsin vases of Class C from the neighbourhood, and as both shape anddrawing are of the purest and most characteristic Corinthian styleit is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have in this vase the workof a ninth-century Corinthian potter working at Falerii.This class, implying as it does the presence of Greek craftsmen inEtruria at least as early as the ninth century B.C., is by far the mostimportant as evidence of the character of this early Hellenisation.It is, of course, impossible to estimate exactly the contribution of theseGreek [tOLXoL to the development of Etruscan civilisation in this andin the following period, but it must be admitted that they provide amore satisfactory explanation of the Hellenisation of Etruscan Artin the ninth, eighth and seventh centuries than the theory of nativegenius working on imported models. In fact, it is probably they whoare largely responsible for the great capacity for the imitation of Greekproducts shown by some of the ninth- and eighth-century pottersof Etruria, as well as for the efflorescence of Graeco-Etruscan art inthe seventh century. For Etruscan art (unlike that of most otherBarbarianpeoples) thus not only enjoyed the benefit of Greek influenceboth early in its own history and at a time when Greek art was not sofar advanced beyond that of Etruria as to sterilise the native genius,but also learnt its lessons, in part at least, from Greek craftsmen work-ing in Etruria, and not merely from the chance models imported byGreek commerce.Further conjecture as to the cultural influence of these Greek?ii'otOL would perhaps be barren, but at the same time it is hard tobelieve that they were all mere potters, or that the Hellenism conveyed

19The drawing of this vase in Randall-Maclver,Yillanovans and Early Etrssscans,pl. xi, no. 12, givesbut a poor idea of its shape and practically no ideaof the essentially Greek character of the drawing,.


7/25

134 ALAN BLAKEWAYby them was confincd to the making and painting of pots. In fact,it is perhaps unnecessaryto look further afield than these pre-Cumaeanimmigrants to Etruria for the origin of the Etruscan alphabet. 2 0Etruria thus received not only its first Greek imports but also itsfirst Greek immigrants before the foundation of Cumae. Because ofthe change in the character of Greek artistic influence which takesplace in the years c. 734 to c. 690 B.C., it is worth emphasising thatin this earliest period the Greek influence is not confined to any onepart of the Greek world. The Greek imports of this period came fromCorinth, Crete, the Cyclades, Cyprus and Boeotia (?), and (partly,no doubt, because of the comparative uniformity of Greek Geometricart) it is impossible to distinguish any one dominant influence.So far as our archaeological evidence goes, this earliest Greekinfluence seems to have been almost as strong as the Oriental in itseffects on Etruscan art. If indeed there was any large-scale Orientalimmigration in this and the preceding period, the art brought with ithad no overwhelming or immediate effect on that of Etruria. Withthe major historical problem of the origin of the Etruscans I am notconcerned; but it is necessary for me to point out that the theory oflate Lydian immigration has done much to obscure (if not to conceal)the important early Greek contribution to Etruscan civilisation.Greek influence on Etruria is, in fact, not confined to the seventhcentury and later: it begins almost as soon as the civilisation ofEtruria (on one theory) passed from the Villanovan to the Etruscanculture, that is to say, it almost coincides in time with the firstappearance of non-Italian imports and influence. 2 1

20 The rival claims of the pre-Cumacan Greekimmigrants to Etruria and of the Greek settlers atCumae to be the transmitters of the alphabet toEtruria are discussed below, p. 138 f.21 I have purposely avoided attempting a full

chronological classification of these pre-CumaeanGreek influences in Etruria because we lack as yet adetailed authoritative chronological classification ofGreek Geometric art earlier than c. 800 B.C. fromthe hands of any Greek archaeologist of the firstrank. I am, however, forced to attempt a roughsketch of their chronology because of Schachermeyr'sstatement that the first appearance of Greek mer-chants in the Tyrrhenian sea and of Greek Geo-metric pottery in Etruria can be dated from theperiod c. 8zo to c. 800 B.C.Schachermeyr's great work, Etruskische Fruhges-chichte, is not only far the most convincing ex-position of the theory of Oriental origins but alsomakes far fuller use of the Greek archaeologicalmaterial than any of its predecessors. It is withfull appreciation of the value of that work that Iventure on the following criticism of this conclusion,a criticism which is in part based on archaeologicalevidence not available to Schachermeyr.The publication of the material from ArkadesAnnuario, x-xii) and the series of burials in theGeometric tombs at Cnossos, excavated by Payne,

Brock and myself in 1933 and I935, have providedus with a continuous stylistic series which makes thestylistic dating of Cretan Geometric by fifty-yearperiods reasonably secure. This is also true ofCorinthian and, to a lesser degree, of Argive Geo-metric, thanks to the temple deposit of Hera Akraiaat Perachora and the woik of Payne. Unfortunatelywe are not nearly so sure of our ground with CycladicGeometric; but the publication of Delos, xv andthe context of Cycladic exports at Perachora,Cnossos, Locri, Lentini and Finocchito (for the lastthree places see BSA, 1933/4, pp. I76-I80, I84-I9I)make the dating of these fabrics much easier thanit was six years ago. It is on the basis of this newknowledge that the following chronological attribu-tions of the earliest Greek influences of the pre-Cumaean period have been made.Four vases of Class A from Cerveteri,the Cycladicamphora (Pottier, pl. xxix, D. ig) and threeCretan Oinochoai (nos. i6 and 17 and one unnum-bered in the Cerveteri room in the Louvre) arecertainly not later than c. 850 B.c. and may verywell be much earlier.One vase of Class B (no. 2) from Tarquiinia(Poggio di Selciatello-Sopra. Tomb i6o-56. Ex-cavations of 1905), whether judged by its placein the stylistic development of Greek Geometricart, or by the early ' Second Benacci' character


8/25

" DEMARATUS" 135II. FROM THE FOUNDATION OF CUMAE TO THE END OF THE

SEVENTH CENTURYThe succeedingperiod in the history of the earliest Hellenisationof Etruriaadmits of a chronologicaldivision nto four sections.

(I) From the foundation of Cumae to that of Syracuse,c. 775-50 to 734 B.C.(2) From the foundation of Syracuseto that of Gela, 734to 690 B.C.(3) From the foundation of Gela to c. 640 B.C.(4) From c. 640 B.C. to c. 600 B.C.These divisionsare mainly dictated by the basesfor an absolutechronologyprovided by the foundationdatesof Syracuseand Gela,22the terminationof the Protocorinthian tyle in c. 640 B.C. 23 and thetermination of the Early Corinthian style in c. 6oo B.C. 24C. 775 to c. 750 B.C. 2 5 the Greeksplantedtheir firstcolonyin theWest at Cumae. The far-reachingeffects of the plantation of thiscolony on the civilisation of Etruria and Latium have often beenover-emphasised, nd before attempting an estimate of its undoubtedhistorical mportance it is necessary to exclude some of the more

sweeping historicalgeneralisationswhich have been put forward.of the cemetery, can hardly be later than the firsthalf of the ninth century.One vase of Class C, pl. xx, CS, from ' Rome,'which betrays strong Cretan influence (C VA, MuskeScheurleer, i, IVb-IVc, pl. i, I), and f our vasesfrom Capodimonte(N.d.Scavi, 1928, pl. ix) implythe importation of Greek originals of mid-ninthcentury date.One vase of Class B, pl. xxi, B3, from Falerii is inthe Protocorinthian style of the period c. 85o toc. 800 B.C.It will be noticed that these earliest Greekinfluences are confined to sites whose Etruscanfoundation Schachermeyr dates to his first Etruscanimmigration in the year c. i0oo to c. 950 B.C., orto sites (with the possible significant exception ofFalerii) penetrated by the Etruscans before theirsecond migration, which he dates c. S 0 to c. Soo B.C.In fact, his error as to the date of the first appearance*of Greek influences in Etruria does not affect histheory of a double wave of Etruscan immigration.But the error is nevertheless a serious one for anestimate of the cultural origins of Etruscancivilization.Greek influence on Etruscan civilization andindividual Greek immigration into Etruria begin,then, not later than the first half of the ninthcentury B.c.; Greek importation perhaps evenearlier. How far this throws any light on thetraditions of Greek Heroic Migrations to the West,such as Evander and the Arcadians at Pallanteum(Livy, i, 6, 7. Ovid, Fasti i, 47I ; v, 99.Dionysius, i, 3I-33. Vergil, Aeneid viii, 355), theThessalians at Caere (Dionysius, i, I6. Pliny, NHiii, I8. Strabo, 220, 226. Servius, ad Aen.

Viii, 479; x, I83) and Tarquinii (Justin, xx, I),and Halesus and the Argives at Falerii (Dionysius,i, 17. Ovid,Fasti ix, 73. Catoap.Pliny,NH iv, 8.Servius, ad Aen. vii, 695. Steph. Byz. s.v.(Justin, xx, i, Chalcidians) ) and Alsion (SiliusItalicus, viii, 476), I must leave to those who aremore competent than I to weigh the historicalvalue of semi-mythical tradition. Certainly localpatriotism and antiquarian philhellenism can nolonger be regarded as adequate explanations of everyRoman tradition of a Greek origin for an Italiancity. Compare Strabo 2I4, on the Greek origin ofSpina, with the discoveries (N.d.Scavi, 1927) inthe swamp district of Comacchio.

22 For the chronological value of the foundationdates of Syracuse and Gela and the contents of theearliest colonial graves from those sites, see Johansen,Les vases sicyoniens, pp. 179-I85.23 For the chronology of the end of the Proto-corinthian style see Payne, Necrocorinthia, pp.

2I-27.24 For the chronology of the end of the EarlyCorinthian style see Payne, Necrocorinthia,pp. 55-57.The foundation date of Marseilles, 600-598 B.C.(Pseudo-Scymnus, zo09ff.;Eusebius),and the archaeo-logical evidence from that site (Jacobsthal, ' Gallia

Graeca,' Prihistoire, ii, fasc. i) give strong generalconfirmation of Payne's chronology at this point.There is very little pottery earlier than MiddleCorinthian, and that little can be accounted for byAristotle's indication (fr. 503 R - Athenaeus,576a) that the Phocaeans had traded with theneighbourhood before founding their colony.25 For the date see p. I29, note I.


9/25

136 "DEMARATUS"In the firstplace,we have seen that the beginningsof the Hellenisa-

tion of Etruria can neither be dated nor deduced a priori from thefoundation of Cumae. As long as Eusebius'date was still held tobe valid, and before the demolition of Gabrici's archaeologicalchronology, such a view was perhaps enable; but it is now certainthat the Greek mainland settlement at Cumae is not earlierthanC. 800 B.C. (probably not earlier than c. 775 B.c.) and that Greekimports and influences found their way to Etruria before that date.Secondly,whatever may be the truth as to the route by whichGreek influences reached Rome in the period of her newly wonindependence n the fifth centuryB.C., 26 there can be little doubt thatthe earliest Greekimports and influencesreached her either directlyup the Tiber valley or indirectlyfrom Etruria. The two maps (figs.17 and I8) show clearly that, as far as our present knowledgeofthe archaeological viidence or the ninth, eighth and first half of theseventh centuriesgoes, Greekgoodshad penetrated no furtherinlandfrom Cumae than Teanum. The valleysof the Liris and Tolerusshow not the slightest sign of the importationof Greek goods in thisperiod, and indeed the whole territorybetweenTeanum andSatricumand Norba has, asyet, producednothingGreekearlier han c. 6oo B.C.,and but little earlier than the fifth century. It was thereforenot overland from Cumae that Rome received her firstlessons in Hellenism. Indeed it is almost impossible to maintainsuch a theory of the period before she was politicallyand culturallysevered from Etruria. It is true that there is only one doubtfulexample2 of a Greek import to Rome of a date which is certainlyearlierthan the foundationof Cumae,but the distribution of Greekimportsto Etruriaof that periodseemsto indicatethat some of themhad passedup the valleyof the Tiber. The geographyof the neigh-bourhoodmakesthe use of any other route to Falerii and Terni soimprobableasto amountto a practical mpossibility. Greekimportsthen probably passed up the Tiber and through Rome before thefoundationof Cumae, and it is difficult to believe that her earliestcertain Greekimportsof the end of the eighth century B.C. followedany other route.Thirdly, the foundationof Cumaedid not lead to any immediateincrease n Greektradewith Etruriaorin the Hellenisationof Etruscanart. That foundation was in fact the naturalconsequence(not the

26 It is a fact of which the historical significanceis but seldom appreciated that there is lesc evidenceof Greek trade with Rome in the fifth than in thesixth and even in the seventh centuries B.C. WhileRome was under Etruscan rule she was worththe attention of Greek merchants the declinewhich followed the winning of her independencetemporarily destroyed her value as a market forGreek goods. (It is possible that the immediatecause of the falling off in Greek trade with Rome

at the end of the sixth century B.C. was Rome'sfirst treaty with Carthage(of late sixth centurydate?), but this explanations made improbable ythe fact that the Carthaginian-Etruscanllianceofthe time of the battle of Alaliaseems to have hadlittle effecton Greekcommercewith Etruria.)

27 The doubtful example is no. C 8, said tobe from Rome. For the distribution of pre-CumaeanGreek imports and influences see Map(fig. 17).


10/25

70'- 4-0 rr0 80 10080 # 60 80 7*0

- .lo: 9n'8

} < R d o Ci * r r txf

40

FIG 17 MAP SHWN THDSRIBUTINOF GREE IMPRT TOITL ANDq SIIYBFR 3 c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I2e'Amaoo o&hql , ? l CvT > \ arrnr7zmt~~~~~~~~~~~~Cu~*l

FG. 17 MA SOIN T__E DITIBTO OFGEK'PRST iTY ANDt SIIYBFR .75BC


11/25

138 "'DEMARATUS"cause) of a long period of commercial intercourse, and its commercialeffect on Etruscan civilisation is not marked till the third quarter ofthe eighth century by an increase of Greek imports (probably in partdue to other causes), which include a certain amount of the local Greekpottery of Cumae. It is even possible that Cumae actually checked(temporarily) individual Greek immigration into Etruria by providinga Greek home in Italy for individual Greek emigrants. 2 8Yet Cumae's contribution to the Hellenisation of Latium andEtruria was nevertheless a great one. We cannot doubt that a Greek'Xtson Italian soil had more to give and to teach than the individualGreek immigrants of the preceding period, even if its lessons have,from their very nature, left little or no trace on the archaeologicalremains of Etruscan culture. Fortunately, for one, and perhapsthemost important, of Cumae's early contributions the archaeologicalevidence is clear enough: the earliest known Latin inscription derivesdirectly from the early seventh-century alphabet of Cumae, and theearliest known Etruscan inscriptions, though perhaps showing theinfluence of non-Cumaean (= pre-Cumaean?) alphabets, derive mainlyfrom a Cumaean source. 2 9The earliest known Greek inscriptions from Cumae are (a) theTataie inscription on the Protocorinthian Aryballus in the BritishMuseum.30 This vase is dated by the chronology of Johansen andPayne to the end of the first quarter of the seventh century. It istherefore probable that the incised inscription which it bears is notlater than c. 650 B.C. (b) The beginnings of two alphabets incised onthe base of a Protocorinthian conical Oenochoe in Naples 31 of roughlythe same date as the last vase and so also probably not later thanc. 650 B.C. These two inscriptions are the only examples of theseventh-century alphabet of Cumae that we possess, and it is by acomparison of them (and of them only) with the earliest inscriptionsfrom Etruria and Latium that the q.uestion of the Cumaean originof the Etruscan and Latin alphabets must be decided. Neitherthe sixth-century inscriptions on ' Chalcidian ' vases,32 nor the sixth-and fifth-ccntury inscriptions from Euboea33 nor even the sixth-

28 There is, perhaps, less archaeological evidenceof Greek craftsmen working in Etruria after c. 775-750 B.C. than would be expected from the evidenceof their activity in the previous period. See,however, below, pp. I44-I47. There is plentifulevidence of their work at Cuinae.

2 9 There is nothing new in this conclusion, butas the evidence for it has often been confused by theadmission of irrelevant and partially relevantma'terial and by faulty dating of the inscriptionsconcerned, I have stated my case for it in full.

3 ? Johansen, pl. xv, no. 5. Facsimile of theinscription in Roehl, Inscriptiones Graecae Anti-quissimae, no. 524, see pl. iii, no. z.31 MA, xxii, p. 36I.32' Chalcidian ' vases can be dated to the

period c. 575 to c. 525 B.C. See Rumpf,Chalkidische Vasen. In a recent paper (CaliforniaPublications in Classical Archaeology i, 3) Smithargues for the manufactureof these vases by asettlement of Greek potters at Caere. I am notconvinced by his arguments for Caere, but theevidencebe collectsmakesa very good case or theirmanufacture at some Chalcidian colony in theWest. If further evidence becomes available insupportof this view, the inscriptions n these vasesmay form a valuableseriesof documents or com-parison with sixth-century Etruscan and Latininscriptions,but even so they can throw but littlelight on the problemof the originof their alphabets.

3 3Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae, nos. 37z-376.


12/25

C 11~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ 6 L, I

~~~~7auia *C *&leras7 +

Caer'' *R2f

I . V u _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7ea:num.I

*iuey,ua. vmCCumat *k7de detScrno. Bpunm

Ca.- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~% )TJQUIocrot.'

FIG. 8. MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CORINTHIAN IMPORTS TO ITALY ?1ANDSICILY FROM 735Oc650B.yrac.se.

FIG. I8. MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CORINTHIAN IMPORTS TO ITALY AND SICILY FROM C. 735TO C. 650 B.C..


13/25

I40 ALAN BLAKEWAYcentury inscription rom Cumae34are reallyrelevant to the problem.In the sameway, of the EtruscanandLatin inscriptions he only reallyrelevantevidence s that of the inscriptions n the cupfrom the Tombadel Duce,35 on the stele of Aules Feluskes36 and on the fibula ofPraeneste.3 7The Tomba del Duce is dated by Schachermeyr . 710 to C.700B.C.Low as this date is in comparison with earlier estimates, 38 it stillseemsto me too high. The datableobjects of this tomb are:

(a) The Protocorinthian cup 39 of the Sub-geometric classwhich belongs to the periodc. 725 to c. 675 B.C.(b) The Bucchero cups, which are directly influenced byProtocorinthianart.Of these by far the most important for chronologicalpurposes s that of whichthere is a drawing n Montelius,pl. i86, no. 6; for the Protocorinthianmodel of thisvasecan hardlybe earlier han c. 700 B.C.(c) The silver cup which, if it is not Protocorinthianworkofthe period c. 700 to c. 675 B.C., iS directly inspiredbyProtocorinthianart of that period.(d) The bronze statuettes of humanfigureson the tops of thetwo bronze' candelabra.'Unless we supposethat the plastic art of Etruriawas inadvance of that of Greece-an assumptionfor whichthere is absolutely no warrant-it is very difficult todate these figuresearlier han c. 700 B.C.(e) The bronzeandsilver chest. Montelius, pl. i88, I A-C.Whateverthe originof this beautifulpiece of work,whichhas affinitieswith both Cretan and Argive-Corinthianbronze reliefs, I find it hardto believe that it is earlier

than 700 B.C. and shouldbe far more inclinedto placeit c. 675 to c. 650 B.C.If these conclusionsare acceptedthe burial cannot be earlier hanc. 675 B.c. and the inscription can hardly be earlierthan the firstquarterof the seventh century.There is no other criterion of date for the stele of Aules Feluskesthanthe styleof its drawing.0 The axe is certainlynot Greek41 andc

34 op. cit., no. 525.35Montelius,La civilisationprimitive, pl. i86,io a-d.36 Montelius, op. cit., pl. I89, no. II.

37 P1. xxii, no. i. Memoirs of the AmlericanAcademnyn Rome,ii, pl. 3, nos. 3-5. Rom.Mitt.,1887, p. 37. Montelius,op. cit., pl. 370, no. 3.38 E.g. Randall-MacIver,A little after8oo B.c.'He fails to recognise the Protocorinthiancup(which he describesas Geometric)which appears

in pl. 2I of Z'illanovans and Early Etruscans, andalso the Protocorinthian influence on the Buccherocups on the same plate.3 9 Johansen, p. 89. To this must probablv beadded the Oenochoe, from which the paint hasdisappeared.

40 The tomb in which the stele was found hadbeen completely plundered.41 Probablv native Etruscan. Compare the axefrom Poggio Pepe, N. d. Scavi, I895, pp. 3-o-6.


14/25

" DEMARATUS" 14Ithe filling ornament is barbarised, but the helmet, crest, shield,blazon (?), poise of the warrior and whole character of the drawingbetray immediate Greek influence and justify a dating by com-parison with Greek art in general, and in particular with examples ofthat art known to have been exported to the West. By this test thestele cannot be earlier than the Chigi Vase period and might be muchlater. The third quarter of the seventh century is in fact the earliestpossible date for the inscription.There is, unfortunately, no trustworthy evidence that thePraeneste fibula formed part of the furniture of the BernardiniTomb42 and so, apart from epigraphic stylistic comparison with theletters of more easily datable inscriptions, the style of the fibula canbe our only guide as to its date. This is, at the best, unsatisfactory, 4 3but a rough indication of its period can perhaps be obtained by acomparison with (a) the fibula from the Tomba del Duce,44 (b) thefibula which undoubtedly comes from the Bernardini Tomb, 4 5(c) the fibula from the Pania tomb at Chiusi, 46 all of which are of thesame general type. The Praeneste fibula is certainly more developedthan that from the Tomba del Duce, probably more so than thatfrom the Bernardini tomb, 47 and possibly less so than that from thePania tomb. This last tomb can be dated as later than c. 650, andprobably earlier than c. 625 B.c. by its Protocorinthian and Italo-Protocorinthian contents,48 and a rough upper limit of c. 675 toc. 650 B.C., with the slight probability that it belongs to a period laterthan c. 650 B.C., is the unsatisfactory best than can be done by thismethod for the chronology of the Praeneste fibula. Fortunatelyepigraphic comparison leads to a more secure result.We are dealing then with two Greek inscriptions from Cumae,probably of the mid-seventh century, one Etruscan inscriptionof roughly the same date, 49 and one Etruscan and one Latininscription, perhaps of the second half of the century. From acomparison of the alphabets of these inscriptions we obtain thefollowing results.(i) The resemblance of the letters of the Praeneste fibula to thoseof the Tataie Aryballus is too remarkable to be accidental (seepl. xxii). Such slight differences as there are can all be explained

42 Rom. Mitt., 1887-43 The chronology of Greek and Italian fibulae isstill most uncertain and cannot be compared withthat of Greek vase painting and sculpture.44 Montelius, La civilisation primitive, pl. 188, 3.45 Montelius, op. cit., pl. 370, 4 a and b.46 Montelius, op. cit., pL. 224, 5 a and b.4 Fragments of a Protocorinthian cup of theSub-geometric class are assigned to the Bernardinitomb by Curtis (Ml'emoirsf the AmericanAcademyat Romne, I919). (See also Johansen, p. 183.)Randall-MacIver (Villanovans and Early Etruscans,

p. 219) suggests that the evidence for this is doubt-ful. The gold cup (Montelius, pl. 370, 5) clearlyderives from Protocorinthian work of the earlvseventh century, and the bronze relief (Montelius,367, 6) from Greek Daedalic sculpture of the sameperiod. The Bernardini Tomb thus cannot beearlier than c. 700 to 675 B.C.

48 The Italo-Protocorinthian vases of this tombdeiive from Protocorinthian of Payne's Late Pro-tocorinthian and Transitional styles (Necro-corintbia, pp. I6-34.) The Greek imports areTransitional, i.e. of c. 640 to c. 6z5 B.C. date.4 9 Perhaps earlier.


15/25

142 ALAN BLAKEWAY

by differences n the technicalprocessof incision. The Praenestefibulawas carefully ncisedby its makerwith a fine pointed toolon a narrow, tapering, metallic surface on which the engravinginstrumentwas apt to slip and scratch. The Tataie Aryballuswascrudely ncisedby its owner with a broad-pointed nstrumenton a convex terracottasurface iable to chip. In all essentials healphabets are very similar.50 There can thus be little doubtthat the earliest known Latin inscription derives its alphabetdirectly from the mid-seventhcentury alphabetof Cumae, andfurtherthat it can be dated with somedegreeof probability o thesecond half of the seventh century. 1

(ii) The two Etruscaninscriptionsalso closely resemblethat of theTataie Aryballusand are certainlyrelated to it, but the degreeof relationship s not clear. Chronologically, he alphabet of theAules Feluskes nscriptionmight well be the daughterof that ofthe Tataie Aryballuswhile the alphabetof the Tomba del Ducecould only be an elder (?) sister.This simple solution is made improbable, f not impossible, bythe fact that both the Etruscaninscriptionscontain the letterSan, which is unknown o the Cumaeanalphabetat any period,whilethe Tomba del Duce inscriptionhas a form of Koppawhichis likewise not found in that alphabet. We are left with thepossibilities 2 (a) that the seventh-centuryCumaeanand Etruscanalphabetsboth derivedfrom an earlieralphabetof Cumae, whichcontainedthe letter San, (b) that the Etruscanalphabetreceivedat a very early period letters from a Greekalphabet which wasnot Cumaean.There is little to choosebetween hesealternatives. The Cumaeanalphabet, n so far as it is knownto us, shows signsof progressiveChalcidianisation,and it is probable enough that the originalalphabetof the colony wasasmixed and fluid aswere the originalsettlers. On the other hand it is equally possible that thenon-Cumaean letters are survivors of those introduced intoEtruria by Greeks in the pre-Cumaean period, and that theEtruscanalphabetof the seventhcentury,thoughnot of Cumaeanorigin, had been heavily Cumaeanised. The alternatives arerepresented n the followingtable.5? See pl. xxii, ia and za; za is the Maniosinscription written in the letters of the TataieAryballus.51 Not later. For, if it were of sixth-century date,it would presumably show the influence of thsixth-century ' Chalcidian' alphabet. Further,there is, so far as I know, no example of a fibula ofthis type in a sixth-century context.52There is, of course, the third possibility thatthe Etruscan alphabet, though deriving in the mainfrom that of Cumae, was also influenced by other

Greek alphabets not beforec. 775-50 B.C. (i.e. afterthe foundation of Cumae). I find it difficultto believe that such a peculiarity as the letterSan, and suich an irregularity as the form ofthe Etruscan Koppa could find their way intothe Etruscan alphabet at the same time as, andin spite of, the strong Cumaean influence. Sanand the irregular Koppa are intelligible as survivals.They are unintelligible as by-blows.

5a3For the mixed origin of the settlers at Cumaesee Pseudo-Scymnus, z38; Strabo, 243 and 247;Dionysius, vii, 3; Livy, Viii, 22.


16/25

"DEMARATUS 143A BProto-Cumaean Alphabet ? Pre-Cumaean Greek Alphabets(containing San) (containing San)

Cumaean Alphabet

Cumaean Alphabet Ftruscan Alphabet Etruscan Alphabet Cumaean AlphabetTataie Aryballus Tomba del Duce Tomba del Duce Tataie Aryballus

Latin Alphabet Latin AlphabetPraeneste Fibula 4 Praeneste FibulaEtruscan Alphabet Etruscan Alphabet +4' Stele of Aules Feluskes Steleof Aules FeluskesVI Century Alphabet of Cumae VI Century Alphabet of Cumae(= Chalcidian) (= Chalcidian)

Againstthe first alternative t can be urged that it is improbablethat the earliestknown Etruscaninscriptionshould be more closelyconnected with the conjectural Proto-Cumaean alphabet than isthe earliestknown Cumaean nscription,andon behalf of the second,that we knowthat Greek mmigration o Etruria ook place before thefoundation of Cumae, that the Greek alphabet was certainly inexistence by c. 800 B.C.54 and that a Greek graffito had reachedSicilybeforec. 734 B.C. 5 5 There is thus a slightbalanceof probabilityin favourof the secondalternative,namely,that the Greekalphabetwas first introduced into Etruria in the pre-Cumaeanperiod andheavilyCumaeanised fter the foundationof that colony,but, whateverthe truth as between these alternatives, here can be no doubt thatCumaeplayedby far the mostimportantpartin the earlydevelopmentof the Etruscanand Latin alphabets.To the period c. 775-50 to 734 B.C. may also be assignedthebeginningof a strainof Cretan nfluenceon Etruriawhich, though notfar-reachingn its effects, persists nto the seventh century, and is ofsome importance.Crete had sharedin the trade with Etruriain the pre-Cumaeanperiod, 6 but there is no reasonto believe her sharea large one orparticularlynfluential n its effecton Etruscanart ; it is not till afterthe foundationof Cumae that her influence becomesmarked. Thereareno fewer than eleven Cretanimportsfrom the earliest graves atGreekCumaeas well as a certainnumberof vases of Creto-Cycladic

54-That the Greek alphabet was in existence inthe ninth and eighth centuries B.c. is (pace RhysCarpenter) proved by (a) the Hymettus Geometricinscriptions (Blegen, A7A, 1934, IO); (b) the6s vPP 6p%X-orrv inscription on the Dipylon jug;(c) possibly (the evidence is, I think, doubtful),the newly discovered inscriptions at Corinth(Stillwell, A7JA, x933, 605). (a) and (b) show notmerely that Greek writing was in existence in the

ninth and eighth centuries but also that it wasalreadyusedfor frivolouspurposes.55 Bulletinodi Paletnologiataliana, xx, pl. iii, 8.BSA, 1933,/4, p. I9I. From Finocchito. Thegraffito s found on a vase which belongs to a classunrepresented n the Greek colonial graves inSicily; it may even be older than the foundationof Cumae,wherethe class s likewiseunrepresented.I6For importssee p. I30, and notes 4, 5, Io, andfor vasesof ClassC, p. 13I, note 13.


17/25

I44 ALAN BLAKEWAYtype of the second half of the eighth century. In Etruriaactualimportsfrom Crete of this and the followingperiod do not seem tohave survived,58 but there is good evidence of their effect, uponEtruscanart. Two instances of immediate influence, the ' Kessel-untersatz' from the Barberini omb, and the bowl from Capena,firstpointed out by Kunze in his work on Cretan bronze reliefs,59 arebeyond question; andit is possible hat, amongthe whole complexofOrientalisingnfluenceswhich went to makeup the style of Etruscanmetal-workof this and the following period, the Cretan was notunimportant. 6 0That Cretan influence on Etruscan art lasted into the seventhcentury is shown by Rumpf'swork on the wall-paintingsof Veii, inwhich he has provedthe strong influenceof the art of Crete on theearliest Etruscan frescoes, but this influence does not seem to havelastedlong, andprobablywas soonswampedby that of Corinth, whichdominates nearly the whole of Etruscan painting throughout theseventh century. 61In the years c. 735 to 690 B.C. Corinth won for herself the domina-tion of Greekpottery marketsof the western Mediterraneanwhichshe retained or overahundredyears.62 This Corinthiancommercial

57 MA, vol. xxii, pl. xxxvi, 2, xl, 2, xl, 7, xli, 6,xiii, 4, xliv, 5, xlix, 2, p. 471, fig. 172; vol. xiii,pp. 272, 273 and 274; Cretan imports. For anexample of Creto-Cycladic, see MA, xxii, pl. xxxv, 2.58 See, however, Kunze, Kretiscbe Bronzereliefs,p. 270. ' Kesselattaschen ' from Praeneste andVetulonia.r 9 Kunze, op. cit., pp. 236-237.6? The problem of the origin of much of theOrientalising metal-work of Etruria of the late-eighth and early-seventh centuries is still unsolved ;but since Poulsen's Der Orient und die friihgriechiscbeKunst the wholesale attribution of all examples andof all the varieties of style to the Phoenicians andimmediate Phoenician influence has becomeimpossible. The silver bowls of the Amathus bowltype from the Bernardini and Regolini-Galassitombs (Montelius, pl. 367, 3, 8a and 8b; pl. 368, 5;pl. 369, 7a and b; pl. 338,1-5), and the example of amore primitive type from the Tomba del Duce(Montelius, pl. 187, ioa and b) are probablyPhoenician imports, but the influences on such workas Montelius, pl. 367, ia-c, 6; pl. 364, 7, 8, I2;pl. 365, I 3a; pl. 369, I, 8; pl. 370, 6, 7 (fromPraeneste); pl. 332, 9, ioa-b; pl. 336, ioa-b;pl 339, 10-I7; pl 340, 5a-d, 7; pl. 34I, I-I5b;pl. 335, I, 2, 5, 8 (from Cerveteri); pl. i88,Ia-c; pl. 179, 2; pl. I93, 1-5; pl. I94, iia-b;pl. 2OI, 1-5; pl. 2o2, 6a-b (from Vetulonia);pl. 266, 8b-c; pl. 267, 4; pl. 26i, ia-b (fromVulci); pl. 217, ia-b (from Chiusi); pl. 294, I,ioa-b, I I; pl. 295, 3 (from Tarquinia) ; pl.327, 13 (from Falerii); pl. I73,4 (from Cortona)are obviously very complex.Kunze's discoveryis exceedingly important asshow-ing how the strongly 'Assyrian ' type of the Barberini'Kesseluntersatz' came to Etruria not direct from theOrient but through the medium of Cretan art.

61 To those artistic influences may perhaps beadded the introduction to Rome, and possiblyalso to Etruria, of the Cretan god F 0-XxavoSeeRose,YRS,XXIII, 1933, 48-5o and6z.62 During the period c. 735-690 to c. 600-575 n.C.I know of no site in the western Mediterranean,Greek or Barbarian, whose Greek pottery importsare not mainly Corinthian. In the Annual ot theBritish School at Athens, I933/4 I have discussedthe possible implications of this fact for the historyof the first wave of Greek colonisation in Sicilyand Southern Italy, and for the relations of Corinth,Chalcis, Eretria and Megara at the end of theeighth, and for Corinth and Miletus at the end ofthe seventh centuries B.C. The distribution of

Corinthian exports to western sites in the periodc. 734 to c. 650 B.C. is shown in the map on p. 139(fig. i8). For the period c. 650 to c. 550 B.C. see thelist in Payne, Necrocorintbia, pp. I88-9. Of thedistribution of Italian imitations of Protocorinthianand Corinthian, I can only say that I do not know ofany seventh-century site in Etruria where this fabricis not well represented. For the rarity of otherGreek fabrics in the Western Mediterranean duringthe years c. 735-690 to c. 600 B.C., see BSA, p. 204,note I. The little East Greek pottery exported toEtruria in this period is only enough to mark the con-trast with the large quantities of Corinthian.Indeed, as a generalisation, it can be said that in thisperiod Corinthian imports are far more numerous onall Etruscan sites than those of all other Greek statesput together. Statistics as to the number ofCorinthian vases found on any given site are seldomavailable, and when available of dubious value.For Protocorinthian see Johansen, pp. I8-19,88-90, but to his lists must be added many vasesdiscovered since the publication of Les vasessicyoniens and a few corrections made by Payne.


18/25

4 "DEMARATUS I45supremacy, which was almost unchallenged till c. 625 B.C., is nowheremore clearly marked than in Etruria. Not only do Corinthianimports fill the Etruscan markets, but Corinthian artistic influence isthe dominating characteristic in Etruscan vase painting (if not in allEtruscan art)63 throughout the whole seventh century.A full study of Italian painted vases of the late eighth and seventhcentury, that is to say, of the fabrics known to archaeologists asCumaean, Etrusco-Protocorinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian, hasnever been made. Much of the vast quantity of material remainsunpublished, and the subject in itself is not one likely to attract a purearchaeologist, primarily interested in stylistic groups and art-history.Unfortunately it is the minute stylistic classification of such anarchaeologist that the material urgently needs before it can be used asan accurate series of historical documents. It is because of the lack ofsuch a classification that the conclusions which follow are preliminary,rough and incomplete.

The material falls into three main classes(i) Cumaean pottery, a ' provincial' offshoot of Proto-corinthian, made by Greeks at Cumae.

(ii) Etruscan pottery of Barbarian workmanship imitatingProtocorinthian and Corinthian models (directly orindirectly) both in shape and decoration. (CompareClass C of the pre-Cumaean period.)(iii) Pottery painted in Etruria by Greek craftsmen. (Com-

pare Class B of the pre-Cumaean period.)Cumaean pottery as known to us from the finds at Cumae containsat least one example of the work of a Corinthian craftsman of the firstrank who worked, and probably settled, at Cumaei, 64 but in the mainit can best be described as a Greek ' provincial' fabric, inferior inevery way to the best products of Corinth of this period, but none theless characteristically Greek. The clay and paint of the true6 5examples of this class found at Cumae are distinctive. Clay, which isfar less pure and more coarse than Protocorinthian, varies, accordingto the intensity of the firing, from greyish brown to reddish brown;paint is generally brownish black with a grey metallic lustre but, ifh-eavily fired, becomes matt red.Vases of this class were undoubtedly exported to Etruria and arewell represented at Tarquinia, but the class is often unjustifiably

The greatest quantities of Protocorinthian andCorinthian in Etruria come from Tarquinia,Cerveteri and Vulci. The last two places 'haveprobably produced more Corinthian vases thanany other Italian sites ' (Payne, p. I89).63 Both Etruscan metal-work and Etruscanrelief bucchero of the seventh century often show

signs of the immediate influence of Argive-Corinthian bronze-work.64 Payne, ProtokorintbiscbeV7asenrnalerei,. 24.65 Johansen includes as Cumaean two Cretanimports to Cumae. MA, xxii, pl. xliv, 5 andxlix, Z.


19/25

146 ALAN BLAKEWAYenriched by the inclusionof vases of Classiii (and even of Class ii),in spite of markeddifferencesn their clay.Class i, which is by farthe largestand whose membersvaryfromexceedinglycarefulcopies (often describedas Cumaeanor Corinthianimports)to mere travestiesof Greekmodels,probablycontainsseveraldifferent fabrics, which a close stylistic study might disentangleandpossibly ocalise n differentpartsof Etruria. 6 Indeed, that there areseveralfabrics seems certainfrom the markeddifferencesof the clayin vases of this class, quite apart from the very varied degrees ofcompetencein the painting. 7Classiii is generally completely ignored and even the possibilityof its existenceseldommentioned. Superficiallyhis is not surprising.If we werecertain that all so-calledCumaeanexportsto Etruriawere,in fact, made at Cumae, there would be nothing for this class tocontain. My reasons for believing in its existence are as follows.There have been found at Falerii at least three vasesoften assumedto be Cumaean,whose clay and paint differ distinctively from thenormalCumaean ypes andstronglyresemble hoseof the localpotteryof the district. In every other respect these vases would pass asCumaean,that is to say, Greekwork. Further, I suspect that thisclass is also representedamong the ' Cumaean vasesfrom Tarquiniaand Cerveteri,though the differences n clay and paint are not somarkedas in the Faleriiexamples.It would certainly be extremely hazardous to postulate theexistence of a large classof vases made by Greekpotters in Etruriaon the evidence of three vases from Falerii, and a suspicionof thelocal origin of someof the so-called Cumaeanvases from Tarquiniabut the fact remains that there is evidence of the local work of atleastone Greek,if not Corinthian, potter at Falerii in the first'halfof the seventh century,and that there is at least a possibility that aminute study of so-called Cumaeanexportsto other partsof Etruriawould yield furtherexamples. 8

66 By far the best short sketch of this class duringthe period c. 640 to c. 550 B.C. iS the incidentaldiscussion of Payne. (Necroccrinthia, pp. 206-20a.)It is indicative of what might be accomplished bya comprehensive and detailed study that Payne inhis incidental treatment has isolated the work oftwo painters in the ' dot-rosette ' group. (Necro-corinthia, p. 206.)67 This class also contains a certain number ofhybrids with drawing derived from Corinthian vase-painting and shapesfrom East Greek imports such asMontelius, pl. 344, no. 3, but most of the examplesof this type belong the sixth century.6 8 The Class iii examples from Falerii are VillaGiulia, nos. 4942, 4971, 4742. No. 4942: clay, dirtywhite; paint, dark brick-red. (The clay and paintof this vase are very similar to those of Villa Giulia,nos. 5012, 5013, 5014, which are undoubtedly ofFaliscan workmanship. Nos. 5013 and 5014 areillustrated in Montelius, pl. 326, nos. 9 and I.)

No. 497I. Clay, chalky white; paint, darkbrick-red. (The clay and paint of this vase areexactly the same as those of Villa Giulia, nos. 4432and 4433, which are the crudest possible examples ofFaliscan work.)No. 4742. Clay, chalky white; paint, dirtybrownish-black. This vase might be a Cumaeanimport as far as its paint is concerned, but the clayis indistinguishable from that of no. 4742.No. 479i, apart from clay and paint, comparesvery favourably with the Protocorinthian imports

to Falerii. (Villa Giulia, nos. 5oo6 bis, Montelius,pl. 326, 8, and the two examples numbered 5oo8 inJohansen, pl. xix, I.) The drawing and shape aremore competent than those of thc average Cumaeanproduct, and the vase is very possibly the work of atrue Corinthian craftsman.The large amphorae and Oenochoai from Faleriiin the Villa Giulia are mainly of Faliscan work-


20/25

"c DEMARATUS I47The historical conclusions that can be derived from the archaeo-

logical evidence we have so far considered may be summarised asfollows. Greek commerce with Etruria and Greek influence uponEtruscan art begins not later than the early ninth century B.C. Beforethe middle of that century Greek craftsmen had worked (and.settled ?) in Etruria. These first Greek influences were nearly,if not quite, as strong as the Oriental in forming Etruscan materialcivilisation.The first introduction of the Greek alplhabet to Etruria probablyantedates the foundation of Cumae, but it was the Cumaean alphabetof the early seventh century which both strongly influenced theEtruscan and gave birth to the Latin version. Before the foundationof Cumae, Etruria derived her earliest Greek imports and artisticinfluences from many parts of the Greek world ; after that foundationa strain of Cretan influence can be detected which persists into theseventh century, but from the end of the eighth century to the endof the seventh, Corinthian goods dominate the Etruscan markets andCorinthian influence Etruscan art.The commercial and artistic domination of Corinth is importantnot only for the cultural history of Etruria but also for an estimateof the value of the literary evidence for the origin of the Tarquindynasty at Rome.According to a tradition which is asold asthe sourcesof Polybius, 6 9Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was the son of Demaratus, a Corinthianwho had migrated to Etruria. This Demaratus, according to laterversions of the tradition, 7 0 was a member of the Bacchiad aristocracywho, encouraged by the success of his first merchant venture inEtruria, henceforward specialised in the Etruscan trade wherein heacquired great wealth. When the Bacchiads were overthrown and

Cypselus seized the tyranny at Corinth he collected what possessionshe could and migrated to Etruria, where he had many friends. FromCorinth he brought with him a large number of workmen, of whomPliny names the craftsman Ecphantus and the potters Eucheir,Diopus and Eugrammus. He settled at Tarquinii, married anEtruscan wife of noble descent and by her had two sons of whomthe younger eventually became Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, Kingof Rome.The sceptical and higher critical attitude towards this traditionbegotten by J. Perizonius, suckled by L. de Beaufort and raised tomanship with a few Cumaean imports and perhapsone example which is both local and Greek.Of the possibility of the existence of vases ofClass iii from Tarquinia and Cerveteri, I can onlysay that not all the Cumaean vases from Tarquiniaand its neighbourhood are of the same clay, andthat at least two Oenochoai from Cerveteri inthe Louvre are in shape and decoration charac-

teristically Greek though made from the same clayas undoubtedly Barbarian vases. For Greeks atCaere in the seventh and sixth centuries see Strabo,.zzo, z26.6 9 Polybius, vi, z, io.I 0 Dionysius, iii, 46. Cicero, De Re publica ii,.

19-20. Livy, i, 34, iv, 3. Strabo, 2z9 and 378-Pliny, NH xxxv, i6 and xxxv, I 2z.


21/25

148 ALAN BLAKEWAYpower by B. G. Niebuhr at the beginning of the last century, andstill, unfortunately, very much alive, is familiar to every one.Briefly tated, t consists n the sweepingconclusion hat the Corinthiandescent of the Tarquins was invented by the Greeks in order toestablish a close connection with Rome,71 and that the wholenarrative s historicallyworthless.If we examine this conclusionin the light of the archaeologicalevidence we are forced at least to modify it 7 2, if not to reject it entirely.The archaeological vidence demands that, if we suppose he Greekorigin of the Tarquinsto be a Greekinvention,we mustalso supposethat the inventor knew hat Corinthian rade with Etruria flourishedin the seventh century and that Corinthians,and more specificallyCorinthian craftsmen and potters, had settled in Etruria in thatperiod. He knew, in fact, that if the father of Tarquinwas to have aGreek origin he must be a Corinthian,a Corinthianmerchant,andmigrateto Etruriawith Corinthiancraftsmenand Corinthianpottersin his train. How such banausiceconomic details came to be sowell preserved n popularknowledgethat they could be used by ahistorianof a date not earlier han the fourth centuryto lend veri-similitudeto his invention, s very difficult, f not impossible, o under-stand. The survival of such accurate and yet paltry detailswithout their being attached to the true story of the migrationofsomegreat Corinthian o Etruria(preserved n the lost worksof someearly Greekwriter) is, I think, almostimpossible.Some great Bacchiad did then migrate to Etruria, taking hiscraftsmen with him in the middle of the seventh century. Thismuch we can accept as reasonablysecure. For I take it that noone would suppose,afterexamining he archaeological vidence, thatthe banausicdetails of Demaratus' mercantile and pottery manu-facturing activities are also inventions which, by a miraculousco-incidence, fit the archaeologicalacts.Whether this great Bacchiadwas, in fact, the father of LuciusTarquinius,kingof Rome, or whetherthis link between the house ofTarquin and the Corinthianemigreis an invention, it is impossibleto say. I do not doubt for one moment that the history of theTarquindynastyhas been richlyembellishedby ready-madeepisodes-from he history of Greece. The Demaratusstory could have beenadapted to Roman needs by the mere manipulationof a pedigree:-therewashere no needto borrowa Greekstory,renamethe charactersand dressthem for the Romanstage ; but the storyis not impossible.The Tarquin dynasty certainly represcntsan Etruscan domination

7 1 It is even said that the story is chronologicallyiimpossible. So, indeed, it is, if Beloch's reconstruc-tion of the house of Cypselus is accepted; but not.otherwise. Of Pais' interpretation of the Tarquins,,all that need be said has been well said by Ure

(Origin of Tyranny, pp. 236-240). The theory ofthe Tarquin story as ' Herodotus translated intoLatin ' does not really affect the Demaratustradition.72 cf. Busolt, C 1 2, 640.


22/25

C' DEMARATUS ") 149of Rome and an Etruscan ruler might well have Greek blood in hisveins. The point is of little significance. The blood of a king maydo but little to influence the culture of a people. It is more im-portant that Rome's subjection to Etruria at this period meantsubjection to a people half-Hellenised and in constant contact withGreek influence.


23/25

JRS vol. xxv (1935) PLATE XX

A1. A2.

C 2

C8 A L

IMPORTED GREEK AND LOCAL GEOMETRIC POTTERY FOUND IN LATIUM AND ETRURIA: A I (.985 m. HIGH) ANDA 2 (.93m. HIGH), FROM VULCI, IN THE ALTE MUSEUM, BERLIN. A 4 (.28 m. HIGH), FROM CERVETERI, IN THE


24/25

JRS vol. xxv (1935) PLATE xxr

Cl.D1 .

B 3.

A3 A5.

IMPORTED GREEK AND LOCAL GEOMETRIC POTTERY FOUND IN ETRURIA: A 3 (.20 m. HIGH), FROM VETRALLA,IN MUSEO CIVICO, VITERBO. A 5 (.124 m. HIGH), FROM TARQUINIA, IN THE ALTE MUSEUM, BERLIN. B 3 (.31 m.


25/25

JRS vol. xxv (I935) PLATE XXII

)f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~pr -04 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

z0

Qo0

co

,r - ** * ' > r~~~~~,4 fr E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p

wff %~~~~~~~\\>-Pf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ciO

WN.S,s'Q~~~~~~~rN

@ *.A

helenización temprana en roma y etruria

Documents