"Demaratus": A Study in Some Aspects of the Earliest Hellenisation of Latium and Etruria Author(s): Alan Blakeway Reviewed work(s):

Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 25 (1935), pp. 129-149 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

"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 CUMAE

contact of the Greekswith Etruriais certainly The firstcommercial earlierthan the foundation of the Greek colony at Cumae.1 Vulci, Chiusi, Terni, Bisenzio, Vetralla, Capodimonte, Leprignano, Veii, Falerii,Tarquinia,Cerveteri,have producedevidenceof the importation of Greekpottery of a style considerablyearlierthan that of the contents of the earliestGreekgravesof that colony. The generalconclusionswhich can be derived from this evidence for the history of Greek commercewith the Western Mediterranean have been discussedelsewhere;2 it is the particularsignificanceof it as evidence for the earliestHellenizationof Italy that I wish to consider here. This pre-Cumaeanmaterialfalls into four main classes A. Imported Greek Geometricpottery; B. Local Geometric pottery made and painted by Greek craftsmen C. Local Geometric pottery of Barbarian workmanship, imitating Greekmodelsboth in shapeandin decoration; D. Local Geometric pottery of Barbarianshape and workmanship, but with painted decorationderived, but not strictly copied, from Greek Geometric designs.
'The traditional date of the foundation of Cumae, in so far as it can be treated as serious historical evidence at all, can only refer to some westward movement of the Greeks in the period of migrations. Eusebius' (Jerome's) words, 'Mvcena in Italia condita vel Cumae,' perhaps indicate a confusion of the tradition that Cumae was the oldest Greek colony in Italy and Sicily with that of the migration of Halesus and the Argives to Falerii and Alsion. An archaeological ternminus post quem for the foundation of the Greek colony is provided by the presence of two Greek geometric cups (Monumenti Antichi xxii, pl. xviii, nos. 7 and 9) in the graves of the native settlement which gave place to the Greek colony. These cups can hardly be earlier than c. Son a.C., and consequently the foundation of the Greek colony must be placed after that date. (Gabrici's archaeological chronology

has been completely discredited by the work of Johansen, Les vases sicyosniens). A terminusante quem is provided by the contents of the earliest colonial graves at Syracuse. Protocorinthian pottery of the globular-Aryballus period is comparatively common in the Greek graves at Cumae, while at Syracuse it is confined to the earliest tombs. (Nos. 223, 3i2, 466, N. d. Scavi, i895.) A date for Cumae in the period c. 775 to c. 750 B.C. seems to be indicated, and this agrees well enough with Strabo's statement that Cumae was the oldest Greek colony in Sicily and Italy (Strabo 243). The first Greek settlement in Pithecusae (Strabo, 247; Livy, viii, zz) was probably earlier, as Livy indicates, but there is as yet no archaeological evidence in support of this available from Ischia.
2

Annual of the British Schoolat Athens, I933/4-

I30

ALAN

BLAKEWAY

Class A is not a large one. There are two Boeotian or Cycladic Geometric vases from Vulci ; 3 one Cretan from Terni, 4 and one from Vetralla; 5 one Cycladic (?) from Leprignano 6 one, possibly two, Corinthian from Veii; 7 one of uncertain fabric from Falerii8 and several, including one Cretan (?), from Tarquinia. 9 There are also several vases including Cretan, Creto-Cypriot, Cypriot and Cycladic probably from Cerveteri. 10 That Greek imports should have penetrated (up the Tiber Valley?) to the inland communities at Veii, Leprignano, Falerii, Vetralla and Terni is in itself sufficiently striking testimony to the extent of this early Greek commerce with Etruria (and far more remarkable than the greater quantity of material from the coastal cities), but these imports are far less valuable as evidence of Hellenisation than the vases of classes B, C and D. For trade, even if extensive, may well convey little but the most superficial elements of civilisation. Class C has a double significance. It proves beyond question the direct influence of contemporary Greek art on many of the ninth- and eighth-century potters of Etruria, and it shows that they attained a far greater degree of success in the copying of Greek forms and decoration than that reached by the contemporary Hellenising potters of Sicily. The conjecture is perhaps justified, not merely that the Etruscan craftsmen were more quick to learn, but also that the Hellenising influence was far stronger than in Sicily. 11 The main characteristics of this class are as follows. Shape and design are imitations of Greek originals varying from careful copies to badly turned and even hand-made vases with careless, simplified, and often misunderstood, Geometric patterns, which nevertheless betray the Greek model. Clay and paint are local: that is to say, they are of the same character as that of vases which are utterly un-Greek in shape and decoration, and which are generally admitted to be Etruscan. Clay varies from an unpurified granular yellow, through cream-coloured, to chalky white. Paint is commonly dark brick-red, sometimes black and chocolate-brown, and is nearly always matt. Firing is often imperfect. The number of vases
3 P1. xx, nos. AI, A2. Montelius, La civilisation primitive en Italie, pl. 26o, nos. 5 and 6. Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 4, note 2, recognised the first as Boeotian or Cycladic. 4 N. d. Scavi, I 9 I 6, P. 2 I 7, fig. z6. Recognised as a Cretan import by Payne, Necrocorinthia, p. 4, note 2. 5 P1. xxi, no. A3. N. d. Scavi, I9I4, P- 333, fig- 24Recognised as a Cretan import by Payne, Necrocorintbia, 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 illustrated in pl. xxi, no. A5 ('The Warrior's Tomb). 1 0 These vases are in the Cerveteri room in the Louvre under the general heading of ' Vases de style geometrique trouves en Italie.' No. i8, a Cycladic Geometric amphora, pl. xx, no. A4 (Pottier, Vases antiques du Louvre, pl. xxix, D. i8), is certainly from Cerveteri, and so also is one of the Cretan examples. 11 So far as our evidence goes, the importation of Greek Geometric pottery to Etruria antedates its importation to Sicily by a period of at least fifty vears. In Sicily there seems to have been a long gap between the last Mycenaean import and the arrival of the first Greek Geometric vases at about the end of the ninth century. The Greek imports to Sicily of a date before the foundation of Syracuse are also far fewer than those to Etruria in the same period. SeeBSA, I933-4, P. 170 ff.

"' DEMARATUS "

131

in this class is large, and the following are merely representative examples. 12 No. CI, from Chiusi (pl. xxi, no. CI). Albizzari, Jasi antichi dipinti 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 worse than some Greek originals. No. C2, from Chiusi (pl. xx, no. C2). Albizzati, op. cit., pl. ii, 37P Clay, creamy-yellow, granular and friable; paint, brick-red (matt) and chalky white. This vase is an excellent example of the average product of Class C. It is a careful though barbarising imitation of imports such as nos. AI and A2. (Compare the rim frieze of concentric circles with the shoulder frieze of no. AI, the metopes of birds with pendant, hatched, triangle-filling ornament with the handle zone of no. AI, and the wavy lines of the lower belly with the similar ornament of nos. AI and A2.) The barbarised birds with over-emphasised eyes, the clumsy hatching of the triangles, the girdle of concentric circles, vigorous but awry, and the uneven wave pattern of the lower belly, all indicate the painstaking but unskilled Barbarian copyist. No. C3, from Bisenzio. Montelius, pl. 255, no. II. (A poor drawing. The shorter lines in the handle zone should be zigzag and not straight as in Montelius.) Clay, cream-coloured; paintS red, 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 paint as in the last. No. C5, from Leprignano. No. 225 (Contrada Le Saliere) in the Villa Giulia. Clay, friable yellow; paint, brick-red, matt. This Oenochoe is very closely modelled on a Greek Geometric original of the general type Payne, ProtokorinthischeVasenmalerei, pl. 2, but without twisted handle and with simple metopes of zigzags on neck and shoulder. The drawing is fairly good. No. C6, from Territorio Falisco. MA xxii, 4I9, fig. I55. Villa Giulia, No. S666. Clay, creamy-yellow, friable; paint, chocolatebrown, 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, of course, more easily recognisable as local than as Barbarian. For example, the drawing of no. C8 (pl. xx) is in no way inferior to that of many Greek Ge6metric vases. It may be that I have included in Class C certain vases which are the work of Greek hands and should have been placed in Class B, but the existence of this last class seems to me to be of such great historical importance that I do not want to run the risk of bringing it into disrepute by including in it any 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 barbarising shapes.) 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. Sedulous Corpus Vasorum but heavy-handed imitation.) Antiquorum, Musie Scheurleer i, ' Style ItaloGeometrique,' IVb-IVc, pl. i, I. 'Rome.' P1. xx, no. C8. (Either a Cretan import or local work closely modelled on a Cretan original.) Nos. 4432 and 4433 in the Villa Giulia, Falerii. (Very careless work.) N. d. Scavi, I907, p. 231T, fig. 33, Tarquinia.

132

ALAN BLAKEWAY

ClassD, which is a large one, can be dealt with very briefly. It is only importantin so far as it illustratesEtruscancapacityfor adaptation (as opposed to imitation) of Greekartistic elements. No. Di, from Vulci (pl. XXI, no. Di). Gsell, Vulci pl. i, no. 3. The shape-a ' Lydion I14-iS unknown to the Greek Geometric potter and only appearsin the Greekrepertoryafter c. 6oo B.C. as an acquisition from Lydia. In Etruria the pure ' Lydion' shape is rare1 5-I knowonly one other Etruscanexample,from Cerveteri(?) 16 of the shape are fairly common.17 The shapeis -but barbarisations then Etruscan,or at least non-Greek(at this period),and the vaseis an interesting amalgamof Greek Geometric and Etruscanart: for the painted decorationalmost certainly derives from a Greek Geometric
original. No. D2, from Vetralla,N. d. Scavi I9I4, P. 334, fig. 23. The shape,

certainlynot Greek,is probablya degenerationof the ' Lydion ' type. The painted decorationderivesfrom Greek Geometric art. Class B consists of vases, the characteristicsof whose clay and paint are preciselythe same as those of the vasesof ClassesC and D. in Italy There can thus be little doubt that they were manufactured and, more specifically,in Etruria.18 Boldly stated, the evidence for these vaseshaving been made by Greekcraftsmenconsistsin the fact that there is nothing, apart from clay and paint, to distinguishthem from Greek imports, and that both shapes and drawing are in every of Greekworkof the ninth and eighth centuriesB.C. way characteristic No. Bi, from Falerii. Villa Giulia, No. 4442. Cup with perfect Greek Geometric shape and decoration. Clay, white and exactly
14 There is, so far as I know, no example of a Lydian ' Lydion' dating from as early as the eighth century B.C., but the resemblance of this early Etruscan example to the Lydian vases of the seventh (?) and sixth centuries is very striking indeed, and makesverytempting the hypothesis that both the eighth-century Etruiscan, and the seventh-sixthcentury Lydian examples, derive from a common Lydian archetype. If this hypothesis is correct there is thus some slight additional evidence of Lydian (not merely Oriental) commercial contact with Etruria at least as early as the eighth century B.C. [I am, of course, not concerned with the theory of the Lydian origin of the Etruscans. The literary tradition can only be made to agree with the archaeological evidence by doing violence to its implied chronology, and the bulk of the archaeological evidence in itself only supports Oriental (and Greek), as opposed to the more specific Lydian, importation (and -perhaps immigration) in the ninth and eighth

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 from Tarquinii and N. d. Scavi, 19I4, p. 323, fig. i6 from Vetralla. 18 The possibility of this class having been made by Greeks at Cumae is excluded for the following reasons:(a) Class B is of earlier date than the foundation of the Greek colony at Cumae: that is to sav, vases of the style of Class B have not been found in even the earliest graves of Greek Cumae, while late examples of Class A (which is contemporary with Class B) have been found in the Barbarian settlement which was supplanted by the Greek colony. (b) Cumaean clay, as known to us from the late eighth- and seventh-century pottery of that colony, is different from that of any of the examples of Class B.

centuries

B.C.]

a5 This does not, of course, include imported L'ydia ' of the sixth century such as the Laconian III ' Lydion' from Orvieto at Philadelphia and the late sixth-century Lydian ' Lydion' from Cerveteri in the Villa Giulia. 16No. I3 in the Cerveteri Room in the Louvre.

There remains the possibility that these vases were manufactured in the Greek settlement at Ischia, which may have antedated the mainland colony at Cumae, but this possibility is practically excluded, for at least some members of the class, by the fact that their clay is characteristic of the part of Etruria in which they were found.

"DEMARATUS"

133

similar to that of Villa Giulia, Nos. 4503 and i585, which are undoubtedly of Barbarian manufacture. Paint, brick-red, matt, and again exactly similar to that of Nos. 4503 and 1585. No. B2, from Tarquinia (Poggio di Selciatello-Sopra). Hydria of cream-coloured clay decorated with shoulder panels containing Geometric birds with herringbone filling ornament in brick-red paint. Both clay and paint are the same as those of two cups from the same tomb which are poor examples of Class C. The shape of this vase is Greek, and so also the drawing of the birds and the filling ornament. 19 No. B3, from Falerii (pl. xxi, no. B3). Villa Giulia, No. 48I5 A poor drawing). When I first saw (Montelius, pl. 32x, no. ii. this vase (in 1930) 1 thought that it was a Geometric Protocorinthian import (cf. Johansen, pl. ii, i and 2), and as such it is recorded in Payne, Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei, p. 9, note i. A further inspection of the vase in iQ3f has convinced me that it is local. The clay is not of the distinctively Protocorinthian type, being more yellow and granular, unpurified and of less uniform consistency. Both clay and paint (which is of poor quality though not matt) have close parallels in vases of Class C from the neighbourhood, and as both shape and drawing are of the purest and most characteristic Corinthian style it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have in this vase the work of a ninth-century Corinthian potter working at Falerii. This class, implying as it does the presence of Greek craftsmen in Etruria at least as early as the ninth century B.C., is by far the most important as evidence of the character of this early Hellenisation. It is, of course, impossible to estimate exactly the contribution of these Greek [tOLXoL to the development of Etruscan civilisation in this and in the following period, but it must be admitted that they provide a more satisfactory explanation of the Hellenisation of Etruscan Art in the ninth, eighth and seventh centuries than the theory of native genius working on imported models. In fact, it is probably they who are largely responsible for the great capacity for the imitation of Greek products shown by some of the ninth- and eighth-century potters of Etruria, as well as for the efflorescence of Graeco-Etruscan art in the seventh century. For Etruscan art (unlike that of most other Barbarianpeoples) thus not only enjoyed the benefit of Greek influence both early in its own history and at a time when Greek art was not so far advanced beyond that of Etruria as to sterilise the native genius, but also learnt its lessons, in part at least, from Greek craftsmen working in Etruria, and not merely from the chance models imported by Greek commerce. Further conjecture as to the cultural influence of these Greek would perhaps be barren, but at the same time it is hard to ?ii'otOL believe that they were all mere potters, or that the Hellenism conveyed
1 9 The drawing of this vase in Randall-Maclver, Yillanovans and Early Etrssscans,pl. xi, no. 12, gives but a poor idea of its shape and practically no idea of the essentially Greek character of the drawing,.

134

ALAN

BLAKEWAY

by them was confincd to the making and painting of pots. In fact, it is perhaps unnecessary to look further afield than these pre-Cumaean immigrants to Etruria for the origin of the Etruscan alphabet. 2 0 Etruria thus received not only its first Greek imports but also its first Greek immigrants before the foundation of Cumae. Because of the change in the character of Greek artistic influence which takes place in the years c. 734 to c. 690 B.C., it is worth emphasising that in this earliest period the Greek influence is not confined to any one part of the Greek world. The Greek imports of this period came from Corinth, Crete, the Cyclades, Cyprus and Boeotia (?), and (partly, no doubt, because of the comparative uniformity of Greek Geometric art) it is impossible to distinguish any one dominant influence. So far as our archaeological evidence goes, this earliest Greek influence seems to have been almost as strong as the Oriental in its effects on Etruscan art. If indeed there was any large-scale Oriental immigration in this and the preceding period, the art brought with it had no overwhelming or immediate effect on that of Etruria. With the major historical problem of the origin of the Etruscans I am not concerned; but it is necessary for me to point out that the theory of late 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 seventh century and later: it begins almost as soon as the civilisation of Etruria (on one theory) passed from the Villanovan to the Etruscan culture, that is to say, it almost coincides in time with the first appearance of non-Italian imports and influence. 2 1
20 The rival claims of the pre-Cumacan Greek immigrants to Etruria and of the Greek settlers at Cumae to be the transmitters of the alphabet to Etruria are discussed below, p. 138 f. 21 I have purposely avoided attempting a full chronological classification of these pre-Cumaean Greek influences in Etruria because we lack as yet a detailed authoritative chronological classification of Greek Geometric art earlier than c. 800 B.C. from the hands of any Greek archaeologist of the first rank. I am, however, forced to attempt a rough sketch of their chronology because of Schachermeyr's statement that the first appearance of Greek merchants in the Tyrrhenian sea and of Greek Geometric pottery in Etruria can be dated from the period c. 8zo to c. 800 B.C. Schachermeyr's great work, Etruskische Fruhgeschichte, is not only far the most convincing exposition of the theory of Oriental origins but also makes far fuller use of the Greek archaeological material than any of its predecessors. It is with full appreciation of the value of that work that I venture on the following criticism of this conclusion, a criticism which is in part based on archaeological evidence not available to Schachermeyr. The publication of the material from Arkades Annuario, x-xii) and the series of burials in the Geometric tombs at Cnossos, excavated by Payne,

Brock and myself in 1933 and I935, have provided us with a continuous stylistic series which makes the stylistic dating of Cretan Geometric by fifty-year periods reasonably secure. This is also true of Corinthian and, to a lesser degree, of Argive Geometric, thanks to the temple deposit of Hera Akraia at Perachora and the woik of Payne. Unfortunately we are not nearly so sure of our ground with Cycladic Geometric; but the publication of Delos, xv and the context of Cycladic exports at Perachora, Cnossos, Locri, Lentini and Finocchito (for the last three places see BSA, 1933/4, pp. I76-I80, I84-I9I) make the dating of these fabrics much easier than it was six years ago. It is on the basis of this new knowledge that the following chronological attributions of the earliest Greek influences of the preCumaean period have been made. Four vases of Class A from Cerveteri, the Cycladic amphora (Pottier, pl. xxix, D. ig) and three Cretan Oinochoai (nos. i6 and 17 and one unnumbered in the Cerveteri room in the Louvre) are certainly not later than c. 850 B.c. and may very well be much earlier. One vase of Class B (no. 2) from Tarquiinia (Poggio di Selciatello-Sopra. Tomb i6o-56. Excavations of 1905), whether judged by its place in the stylistic development of Greek Geometric art, or by the early ' Second Benacci' character

" DEMARATUS"
II. FROM THE FOUNDATION SEVENTH OF CUMAE CENTURY TO THE END OF THE

135

The succeedingperiod in the history of the earliest Hellenisation of Etruriaadmitsof a chronologicaldivisioninto four sections. From the foundation of Cumae to that of Syracuse, (I) c. 775-50 to 734 B.C. From the foundation of Syracuseto that of Gela, 734 (2) to 690 B.C. From the foundation of Gela to c. 640 B.C. (3) (4) From c. 640 B.C. to c. 600 B.C. These divisions are mainly dictated by the bases for an absolute chronologyprovided by the foundationdates of Syracuseand Gela,22 the terminationof the Protocorinthianstyle in c. 640 B.C. 23 and the terminationof the Early Corinthianstyle in c. 6oo B.C. 24 C. 775 to c. 750 B.C. 2 5 the Greeksplanted their first colony in the West at Cumae. The far-reachingeffects of the plantation of this colony on the civilisation of Etruria and Latium have often been over-emphasised, and before attempting an estimate of its undoubted historicalimportance it is necessaryto exclude some of the more sweeping historicalgeneralisationswhich have been put forward.
of the cemetery, can hardly be later than the first half of the ninth century. One vase of Class C, pl. xx, CS, from ' Rome,' which betrays strong Cretan influence (C VA, Muske Scheurleer, i, IVb-IVc, pl. i, I), and f our vases from Capodimonte (N.d.Scavi, 1928, pl. ix) imply the importation of Greek originals of mid-ninth century date. One vase of Class B, pl. xxi, B3, from Falerii is in the Protocorinthian style of the period c. 85o to c. 800 B.C. It will be noticed that these earliest Greek influences are confined to sites whose Etruscan foundation Schachermeyr dates to his first Etruscan immigration in the year c. i0oo to c. 950 B.C., or to sites (with the possible significant exception of Falerii) penetrated by the Etruscans before their second migration, which he dates c. SI0 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 his theory of a double wave of Etruscan immigration. But the error is nevertheless a serious one for an estimate of the cultural origins of Etruscan civilization. Greek influence on Etruscan civilization and individual Greek immigration into Etruria begin, then, not later than the first half of the ninth Greek importation perhaps even century B.c.; earlier. How far this throws any light on the traditions of Greek Heroic Migrations to the West, such as Evander and the Arcadians at Pallanteum Ovid, Fasti i, 47I ; v, 99. (Livy, i, 6, 7. Vergil, Aeneid viii, 355), the Dionysius, i, 3I-33. Thessalians at Caere (Dionysius, i, I6. Pliny, NH Servius, ad Aen. Strabo, 220, 226. iii, I8.
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 (Silius Italicus, viii, 476), I must leave to those who are more competent than I to weigh the historical value of semi-mythical tradition. Certainly local patriotism and antiquarian philhellenism can no longer be regarded as adequate explanations of every Roman tradition of a Greek origin for an Italian city. Compare Strabo 2I4, on the Greek origin of Spina, with the discoveries (N.d.Scavi, 1927) in the swamp district of Comacchio. 22 For the chronological value of the foundation dates of Syracuse and Gela and the contents of the earliest colonial graves from those sites, see Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens, pp. 179-I85. 23 For the chronology of the end of the Protocorinthian style see Payne, Necrocorinthia, pp.
2I-27.
24 For the chronology of the end of the Early Corinthian style see Payne, Necrocorinthia, pp. 55-57. The foundation date of Marseilles, 600-598 B.C. (Pseudo-Scymnus, zo09ff.; Eusebius), and the archaeological evidence from that site (Jacobsthal, ' Gallia Graeca,' Prihistoire, ii, fasc. i) give strong general confirmation of Payne's chronology at this point. There is very little pottery earlier than Middle Corinthian, and that little can be accounted for by Aristotle's indication (fr. 503 R - Athenaeus, 576a) that the Phocaeans had traded with the neighbourhood before founding their colony. 25 For the date see p. I29, note I.

136

"DEMARATUS"

In the firstplace,we have seenthat the beginningsof the Hellenisation of Etruria can neither be dated nor deduced a priori from the foundation of Cumae. As long as Eusebius' date was still held to be valid, and before the demolition of Gabrici's archaeological chronology,such a view was perhapstenable; but it is now certain that the Greek mainland settlement at Cumae is not earlier than and that Greek B.C. (probably not earlier than c. 775 B.c.) C. 800 imports and influences found their way to Etruriabefore that date. Secondly, whatever may be the truth as to the route by which Greek influences reached Rome in the period of her newly won independencein the fifth century B.C., 26 there can be little doubt that the earliest Greek imports and influencesreachedher either directly up the Tiber valley or indirectly from Etruria. The two maps (figs. 17 and I8) show clearly that, as far as our present knowledge of for the ninth, eighth and first half of the the archaeological eviidence seventh centuriesgoes, Greekgoodshad penetrated no further inland from Cumae than Teanum. The valleys of the Liris and Tolerus show not the slightest sign of the importationof Greekgoods in this period, andindeed the whole territorybetween Teanum and Satricum and Norba has, asyet, producednothing Greekearlierthan c. 6oo B.C., and but little earlier than the fifth century. It was therefore not overland from Cumae that Rome received her first lessons in Hellenism. Indeed it is almost impossible to maintain such a theory of the period before she was politically and culturally severed from Etruria. It is true that there is only one doubtful example2 of a Greek import to Rome of a date which is certainly earlierthan the foundation of Cumae, but the distributionof Greek importsto Etruriaof that period seemsto indicate that some of them had passedup the valley of the Tiber. The geographyof the neighbourhood makesthe use of any other route to Falerii and Terni so improbableas to amount to a practicalimpossibility. Greekimports then probably passed up the Tiber and through Rome before the foundation of Cumae, and it is difficult to believe that her earliest certain Greek imports of the end of the eighth century B.C. followed any other route. Thirdly, the foundation of Cumae did not lead to any immediate increasein Greektradewith Etruriaor in the Hellenisationof Etruscan art. That foundation was in fact the natural consequence(not the
26 It is a fact of which the historical significance is but seldom appreciated that there is lesc evidence of Greek trade with Rome in the fifth than in the sixth and even in the seventh centuries B.C. While Rome was under Etruscan rule she was worth the decline the attention of Greek merchants which followed the winning of her independence temporarily destroyed her value as a market for Greek goods. (It is possible that the immediate cause of the falling off in Greek trade with Rome

at the end of the sixth century B.C. was Rome's first treaty with Carthage (of late sixth century is made improbable by date ?), but this explanation alliance of the fact that the Carthaginian-Etruscan the time of the battle of Alalia seems to have had little effect on Greekcommercewith Etruria.) 27 The doubtful example is no. C 8, said to be from Rome. For the distribution of preCumaeanGreek imports and influences see Map
(fig. 17).

70'-

4-0

rr0

80

100

80

60

80

7*0

. *lo:

9n' i8

<R

8do

X nxf w
Ci

*rfrat

FIG

hql

17

MAP

SHWN ,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j ? l
THDSRIBUTINOF GREE

I2e'Amaoo o&
IMPRT

CvTTOITL

>

ANDq

a orrnr7zmt~~~~~~~~~~~~Cu~*l c SIIYBFR 3

40

FG.

17

MA

SOIN

T__E DITIBTO

OFGEK'PRST

iTY

ANDt SIIYBFR

.75BC

138

"'DEMARATUS"

cause) of a long period of commercial intercourse, and its commercial effect on Etruscan civilisation is not marked till the third quarter of the eighth century by an increase of Greek imports (probably in part due to other causes), which include a certain amount of the local Greek pottery of Cumae. It is even possible that Cumae actually checked (temporarily) individual Greek immigration into Etruria by providing a Greek home in Italy for individual Greek emigrants. 2 8 Yet Cumae's contribution to the Hellenisation of Latium and Etruria was nevertheless a great one. We cannot doubt that a Greek 'Xts on Italian soil had more to give and to teach than the individual Greek immigrants of the preceding period, even if its lessons have, from their very nature, left little or no trace on the archaeological remains of Etruscan culture. Fortunately, for one, and perhaps the most important, of Cumae's early contributions the archaeological evidence is clear enough: the earliest known Latin inscription derives directly from the early seventh-century alphabet of Cumae, and the earliest known Etruscan inscriptions, though perhaps showing the influence of non-Cumaean (= pre-Cumaean?) alphabets, derive mainly from a Cumaean source. 2 9 The earliest known Greek inscriptions from Cumae are (a) the Tataie inscription on the Protocorinthian Aryballus in the British Museum.30 This vase is dated by the chronology of Johansen and Payne to the end of the first quarter of the seventh century. It is therefore probable that the incised inscription which it bears is not later than c. 650 B.C. (b) The beginnings of two alphabets incised on the base of a Protocorinthian conical Oenochoe in Naples 31 of roughly the same date as the last vase and so also probably not later than c. 650 B.C. These two inscriptions are the only examples of the seventh-century alphabet of Cumae that we possess, and it is by a comparison of them (and of them only) with the earliest inscriptions from Etruria and Latium that the q.uestion of the Cumaean origin of the Etruscan and Latin alphabets must be decided. Neither the sixth-century inscriptions on ' Chalcidian ' vases, 32 nor the sixthand fifth-ccntury inscriptions from Euboea33 nor even the sixth28 There is, perhaps, less archaeological evidence of Greek craftsmen working in Etruria after c. 775750 B.C. than would be expected from the evidence of their activity in the previous period. See, There is plentiful however, below, pp. I44-I47. evidence of their work at Cuinae. 9 2 There is nothing new in this conclusion, but as the evidence for it has often been confused by the admission of irrelevant and partially relevant ma'terial and by faulty dating of the inscriptions concerned, I have stated my case for it in full. 3 ? Johansen, pl. xv, no. 5. Facsimile of the inscription in Roehl, Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae, 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 (California Publications in Classical Archaeology i, 3) Smith

argues for the manufactureof these vases by a settlement of Greek potters at Caere. I am not convinced by his arguments for Caere, but the evidencebe collectsmakesa very good casefor their manufacture at some Chalcidian colony in the West. If further evidence becomes available in on these vases supportof this view, the inscriptions may form a valuableseries of documentsfor comparison with sixth-century Etruscan and Latin inscriptions,but even so they can throw but little light on the problemof the originof their alphabets.
3 3Inscriptiones

Graecae Antiquissimae, nos. 37z-

376.

C
6

11~~~~~~~~~ 1

<I

>

~
+

~~~~~~~~~~

L l,

I!
~~~~7auia
*C

*&leras7

Caer''

*R2f

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7ea:num.I
C Cumat
*k7de
detScrno. Bpunm

*iuey,ua.

vm

Ca.- Iocrot.'

~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~%

)TJQU

FIG. 18.

MAP SHOWING

THE DISTRIBUTION

OF CORINTHIAN

FROM IMPORTS TO ITALY ?1AND SICILY TOc650B.yrac.se.

735

FIG.

I8.

MAP SHOWING

THE DISTRIBUTION

OF CORINTHIAN

IMPORTS TO ITALY AND SICILY FROM C.

735 TO

C. 650

B.C..

I40

ALAN

BLAKEWAY

century inscriptionfrom Cumae34are reallyrelevantto the problem. In the sameway, of the Etruscanand Latin inscriptions the only really relevantevidenceis that of the inscriptions on the cup from the Tomba
del Duce,35 on the stele of Aules Feluskes36 and on the fibula of
Praeneste.3 7

The Tomba del Duce is dated by Schachermeyr c. 710 to C.700 B.C. Low as this date is in comparison with earlier estimates, 38 it still seemsto me too high. The datableobjects of this tomb are:
(a) The Protocorinthian cup 3 9 of the Sub-geometric class which belongsto the period c. 725 to c. 675 B.C.

(b) The Bucchero cups, which are directly influenced by Protocorinthianart. Of these by far the most important for chronological purposes is that of which there is a drawingin Montelius, pl. i86, no. 6; for the Protocorinthianmodel of this vase can hardlybe earlierthan c. 700 B.C. (c) The silver cup which, if it is not Protocorinthianwork of the period c. 700 to c. 675 B.C., iS directly inspired by Protocorinthianart of that period. (d) The bronze statuettes of human figureson the tops of the two bronze ' candelabra.' Unless we suppose that the plastic art of Etruria was in advance of that of Greece-an assumptionfor which there is absolutely no warrant-it is very difficult to date these figuresearlierthan c. 700 B.C. (e) The bronzeand silverchest. Montelius, pl. i88, I A-C. Whateverthe origin of this beautiful piece of work,which has affinitieswith both Cretan and Argive-Corinthian bronze reliefs, I find it hard to believe that it is earlier than 700 B.C. and should be far more inclined to place it c. 675 to c. 650 B.C. If these conclusionsare accepted the burialcannot be earlierthan c. 675 B.c. and the inscription can hardly be earlier than the first quarterof the seventh century. There is no other criterionof date for the stele of Aules Feluskes 40 than the style of its drawing. 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,
37

no. II.

Memoirs of the Amlerican Academny in Rome,iii, pl. 3, nos. 3-5. Rom.Mitt., 1887, p. 37. Montelius,op. cit., pl. 370, no. 3. 38 E.g. Randall-MacIver, 'A little after 8oo B.c.'
i.

P1. xxii, no.

He fails to recognise the Protocorinthian cup (which he describesas Geometric) which appears

in pl. 2I of Z'illanovans and Early Etruscans, and also the Protocorinthian influence on the Bucchero cups on the same plate. 3 9 Johansen, p. 89. To this must probablv be added the Oenochoe, from which the paint has disappeared. 40 The tomb in which the stele was found had been completely plundered. 41 Probablv native Etruscan. Compare the axe from Poggio Pepe, N. d. Scavi, I895, pp. 3-o-6.

" DEMARATUS"

14I

the filling ornament is barbarised, but the helmet, crest, shield, blazon (?), poise of the warrior and whole character of the drawing betray immediate Greek influence and justify a dating by comparison with Greek art in general, and in particular with examples of that art known to have been exported to the West. By this test the stele cannot be earlier than the Chigi Vase period and might be much later. The third quarter of the seventh century is in fact the earliest possible date for the inscription. There is, unfortunately, no trustworthy evidence that the Praeneste fibula formed part of the furniture of the Bernardini Tomb42 and so, apart from epigraphic stylistic comparison with the letters of more easily datable inscriptions, the style of the fibula can be our only guide as to its date. This is, at the best, unsatisfactory, 4 3 but a rough indication of its period can perhaps be obtained by a comparison with (a) the fibula from the Tomba del Duce,44 (b) the fibula which undoubtedly comes from the Bernardini Tomb, 4 5 (c) the fibula from the Pania tomb at Chiusi, 46 all of which are of the same general type. The Praeneste fibula is certainly more developed than that from the Tomba del Duce, probably more so than that from the Bernardini tomb, 47 and possibly less so than that from the Pania tomb. This last tomb can be dated as later than c. 650, and probably earlier than c. 625 B.c. by its Protocorinthian and ItaloProtocorinthian contents,48 and a rough upper limit of c. 675 to c. 650 B.C., with the slight probability that it belongs to a period later than c. 650 B.C., is the unsatisfactory best than can be done by this method for the chronology of the Praeneste fibula. Fortunately epigraphic 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 inscription of roughly the same date, 49 and one Etruscan and one Latin inscription, perhaps of the second half of the century. From a comparison of the alphabets of these inscriptions we obtain the following results. (i) The resemblance of the letters of the Praeneste fibula to those of the Tataie Aryballus is too remarkable to be accidental (see pl. xxii). Such slight differences as there are can all be explained
Rom. Mitt., 1887The chronology of Greek and Italian fibulae is still most uncertain and cannot be compared with that 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 the Sub-geometric class are assigned to the Bernardini tomb by Curtis (Ml'emoirs of the American Academy at Romne, I919). (See also Johansen, p. 183.) Randall-MacIver (Villanovans and Early Etruscans,
42 43

p. 219) suggests that the evidence for this is doubtful. The gold cup (Montelius, pl. 370, 5) clearly derives from Protocorinthian work of the earlv seventh century, and the bronze relief (Montelius, 367, 6) from Greek Daedalic sculpture of the same period. The Bernardini Tomb thus cannot be earlier than c. 700 to 675 B.C. 48 The Italo-Protocorinthian vases of this tomb deiive from Protocorinthian of Payne's Late Protocorinthian and Transitional styles (Necrocorintbia, pp. I6-34.) The Greek imports are Transitional, i.e. of c. 640 to c. 6z5 B.C. date. 4 9 Perhaps earlier.

142

ALAN

BLAKEWAY

in the technical processof incision. The Praeneste by differences fibula was carefullyincised by its makerwith a fine pointed tool on a narrow, tapering, metallic surface on which the engraving instrument was apt to slip and scratch. The Tataie Aryballus was crudelyincisedby its owner with a broad-pointedinstrument on a convex terracottasurfaceliable to chip. In all essentialsthe 0 There can thus be little doubt alphabets are very similar.5 that the earliest known Latin inscription derives its alphabet directly from the mid-seventh century alphabet of Cumae, and furtherthat it can be dated with some degreeof probabilityto the second half of the seventh century.51 (ii) The two Etruscan inscriptionsalso closely resemble that of the Tataie Aryballusand are certainly related to it, but the degree of relationshipis not clear. Chronologically, the alphabetof the Aules Feluskesinscriptionmight well be the daughterof that of the Tataie Aryballuswhile the alphabetof the Tomba del Duce could only be an elder (?) sister. This simple solution is made improbable,if not impossible, by the fact that both the Etruscan inscriptionscontain the letter San, which is unknownto the Cumaeanalphabet at any period, while the Tomba del Duce inscriptionhas a form of Koppa which is likewise not found in that alphabet. We are left with the 5 2 (a) that the seventh-century possibilities Cumaeanand Etruscan alphabetsboth derivedfrom an earlieralphabetof Cumae,which containedthe letter San, (b) that the Etruscanalphabetreceived at a very early period letters from a Greek alphabet which was not Cumaean. There is little to choosebetweenthese alternatives. The Cumaean alphabet,in so far as it is known to us, shows signs of progressive Chalcidianisation,and it is probable enough that the original alphabetof the colony was as mixed and fluid as were the original On the other hand it is equally possible that the settlers. non-Cumaean letters are survivors of those introduced into Etruria by Greeks in the pre-Cumaean period, and that the Etruscanalphabetof the seventhcentury,though not of Cumaean origin, had been heavily Cumaeanised. The alternatives are representedin the following table.
5 ? See pl. xxii, ia and za; za is the Manios inscription written in the letters of the Tataie Aryballus.
51 Not later. For, if it were of sixth-century date, it would presumably show the influence of th sixth-century ' Chalcidian' alphabet. Further, there is, so far as I know, no example of a fibula of this type in a sixth-century context.

52There is, of course, the third possibility that the Etruscan alphabet, though deriving in the main from that of Cumae, was also influenced by other

Greek alphabets not before c. 775-50 B.C. (i.e. after the foundation of Cumae). I find it difficult to believe that such a peculiarity as the letter San, and suich an irregularity as the form of the Etruscan Koppa could find their way into the Etruscan alphabet at the same time as, and in spite of, the strong Cumaean influence. San and the irregular Koppa are intelligible as survivals. They are unintelligible as by-blows. 5a3For the mixed origin of the settlers at Cumae see Pseudo-Scymnus, z38; Strabo, 243 and 247; Dionysius, vii, 3; Livy, Viii, 22.

"DEMARATUS A Proto-Cumaean Alphabet (containing San) B ? Pre-Cumaean Greek Alphabets (containing San) Cumaean Alphabet

143

Cumaean Alphabet Tataie Aryballus

F truscan Alphabet Tomba del Duce

Etruscan Alphabet Tomba del Duce

Cumaean Alphabet Tataie Aryballus

Latin Alphabet Praeneste Fibula

4
Etruscan Alphabet Etruscan Alphabet

4'
(= Chalcidian)

Latin Alphabet Praeneste Fibula

Stele of Aules Feluskes

Stele of Aules Feluskes

VI Century Alphabet of Cumae

VI Century Alphabet of Cumae

(= Chalcidian)

Against the first alternativeit can be urged that it is improbable that the earliest known Etruscan inscription should be more closely ' alphabet than is connected with the conjectural ' Proto-Cumaean the earliestknown Cumaeaninscription,and on behalf of the second, that we knowthat Greekimmigrationto Etruriatook place beforethe foundation of Cumae, that the Greek alphabet was certainly in existence by c. 800 B.C.54 and that a Greek graffito had reached Sicilybeforec. 734 B.C. 5 5 There is thus a slight balanceof probability in favour of the second alternative,namely, that the Greek alphabet was first introduced into Etruria in the pre-Cumaean period and afterthe foundationof that colony,but, whatever heavilyCumaeanised the truth as between these alternatives,there can be no doubt that Cumaeplayedby farthe most importantpart in the earlydevelopment of the Etruscanand Latin alphabets. To the period c. 775-50 to 734 B.C. may also be assigned the beginningof a strainof Cretaninfluenceon Etruriawhich, though not far-reachingin its effects, persistsinto the seventh century, and is of some importance. Crete had sharedin the trade with Etruria in the pre-Cumaean period,56 but there is no reason to believe her share a large one or influentialin its effect on Etruscanart ; it is not till after particularly the foundationof Cumae that her influence becomesmarked. There are no fewer than eleven Cretan imports from the earliest graves at Greek Cumae as well as a certain number of vasesof Creto-Cycladic
54-That the Greek alphabet was in existence in the ninth and eighth centuries B.c. is (pace Rhys Carpenter) proved by (a) the Hymettus Geometric inscriptions (Blegen, A7A, 1934, IO); (b) the 6s 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 not merely that Greek writing was in existence in the

ninth and eighth centuries but also that it was alreadyused for frivolouspurposes. di Paletnologia 55 Bulletino Italiana, xx, pl. iii, 8.
BSA,
1933,/4,

p. I9I.

From Finocchito.

The

graffitois found on a vase which belongsto a class unrepresentedin the Greek colonial graves in Sicily; it may even be older than the foundation of Cumae,wherethe classis likewiseunrepresented. I6For importssee p. I30, and notes 4, 5, Io, and for vasesof ClassC, p. 13I, note 13.

I44

ALAN BLAKEWAY

5 In Etruria actual type of the second half of the eighth century. imports from Crete of this and the following period do not seem to have survived,58 but there is good evidence of their effect, upon Etruscan art. Two instances of immediate influence, the ' Kesseluntersatz' from the Barberinitomb, and the bowl from Capena,first pointed out by Kunze in his work on Cretan bronze reliefs,59 are beyond question; and it is possiblethat, amongthe whole complexof Orientalisinginfluenceswhich went to makeup the style of Etruscan metal-work of this and the following period, the Cretan was not

unimportant. 6 0

That Cretan influence on Etruscan art lasted into the seventh century is shown by Rumpf's work on the wall-paintingsof Veii, in which he has proved the strong influence of the art of Crete on the earliest Etruscan frescoes, but this influence does not seem to have lasted long, and probablywas soon swampedby that of Corinth, which dominates nearly the whole of Etruscan painting throughout the
seventh century. 61 In the years c. 735 to 690
B.C.

Corinth won for herself the domina-

tion of Greek pottery marketsof the western Mediterraneanwhich she retainedfor over a hundredyears.62 This Corinthiancommercial
57 MA, vol. xxii, pl. xxxvi, 2, xl, 2, xl, 7, xli, 6, vol. xiii, xiii, 4, xliv, 5, xlix, 2, p. 471, fig. 172; For an Cretan imports. pp. 272, 273 and 274; example of Creto-Cycladic, see MA, xxii, pl. xxxv, 2. 5 8 See, however, Kunze, Kretiscbe Bronzereliefs, p. 270. ' Kesselattaschen ' from Praeneste and 61 To those artistic influences may perhaps be added the introduction to Rome, and possibly also to Etruria, of the Cretan god F 0-Xxavo See Rose,YRS,XXIII, 1933, 48-5o and 6z. 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 imports are not mainly Corinthian. In the Annual ot the British School at Athens, I933/4 I have discussed the possible implications of this fact for the history of the first wave of Greek colonisation in Sicily and Southern Italy, and for the relations of Corinth, Chalcis, Eretria and Megara at the end of the eighth, and for Corinth and Miletus at the end of the seventh centuries B.C. The distribution of Corinthian exports to western sites in the period c. 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 the Of the list in Payne, Necrocorintbia, pp. I88-9. distribution of Italian imitations of Protocorinthian and Corinthian, I can only say that I do not know of any seventh-century site in Etruria where this fabric is not well represented. For the rarity of other Greek fabrics in the Western Mediterranean during the years c. 735-690 to c. 600 B.C., see BSA, p. 204, note I. The little East Greek pottery exported to Etruria in this period is only enough to mark the contrast with the large quantities of Corinthian. Indeed, as a generalisation, it can be said that in this period Corinthian imports are far more numerous on all Etruscan sites than those of all other Greek states put together. Statistics as to the number of Corinthian vases found on any given site are seldom available, and when available of dubious value. For Protocorinthian see Johansen, pp. I8-19, 88-90, but to his lists must be added many vases discovered since the publication of Les vases sicyoniens and a few corrections made by Payne.

Vetulonia. r 9 Kunze, op. cit., pp. 236-237. 6 ? The problem of the origin of much of the Orientalising metal-work of Etruria of the lateeighth and early-seventh centuries is still unsolved ; but since Poulsen's Der Orient und die friihgriechiscbe Kunst the wholesale attribution of all examples and of all the varieties of style to the Phoenicians and immediate Phoenician influence has become impossible. The silver bowls of the Amathus bowl type from the Bernardini and Regolini-Galassi tombs (Montelius, pl. 367, 3, 8a and 8b; pl. 368, 5; pl. 369, 7a and b; pl. 338,1-5), and the example of a more primitive type from the Tomba del Duce (Montelius, pl. 187, ioa and b) are probably Phoenician imports, but the influences on such work as Montelius, pl. 367, ia-c, 6; pl. 364, 7, 8, I2; pl. 365, I 3a; pl. 369, I, 8; pl. 370, 6, 7 (from Praeneste); pl. 332, 9, ioa-b; pl. 336, ioa-b; pl 340, 5a-d, 7; pl. 34I, I-I5b; pl 339, 10-I7; pl. 335, I, 2, 5, 8 (from Cerveteri); pl. i88, pl. 179, 2; pl. I93, 1-5; pl. I94, iia-b; Ia-c; pl. 2OI, 1-5; pl. 2o2, 6a-b (from Vetulonia); pl. 266, 8b-c; pl. 267, 4; pl. 26i, ia-b (from Vulci); 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 discovery is exceedingly important as showing how the strongly 'Assyrian ' type of the Barberini 'Kesseluntersatz' came to Etruria not direct from the Orient but through the medium of Cretan art.

4 "DEMARATUS

I45

supremacy, which was almost unchallenged till c. 625 B.C., is nowhere more clearly marked than in Etruria. Not only do Corinthian imports fill the Etruscan markets, but Corinthian artistic influence is the dominating characteristic in Etruscan vase painting (if not in all Etruscan art)63 throughout the whole seventh century. A full study of Italian painted vases of the late eighth and seventh century, that is to say, of the fabrics known to archaeologists as Cumaean, Etrusco-Protocorinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian, has never been made. Much of the vast quantity of material remains unpublished, and the subject in itself is not one likely to attract a pure archaeologist, primarily interested in stylistic groups and art-history. Unfortunately it is the minute stylistic classification of such an archaeologist that the material urgently needs before it can be used as an accurate series of historical documents. It is because of the lack of such 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 Protocorinthian, made by Greeks at Cumae. (ii) Etruscan pottery of Barbarian workmanship imitating Protocorinthian and Corinthian models (directly or indirectly) both in shape and decoration. (Compare Class C of the pre-Cumaean period.) (iii) Pottery painted in Etruria by Greek craftsmen. (Compare Class B of the pre-Cumaean period.) Cumaean pottery as known to us from the finds at Cumae contains at least one example of the work of a Corinthian craftsman of the first rankwho worked, and probably settled, at Cumaei, 64 but in the main it can best be described as a Greek ' provincial' fabric, inferior in every way to the best products of Corinth of this period, but none the less characteristically Greek. The clay and paint of the true6 5 examples of this class found at Cumae are distinctive. Clay, which is far less pure and more coarse than Protocorinthian, varies, according to the intensity of the firing, from greyish brown to reddish brown; paint is generally brownish black with a grey metallic lustre but, if h-eavily fired, becomes matt red. Vases of this class were undoubtedly exported to Etruria and are well represented at Tarquinia, but the class is often unjustifiably
The greatest quantities of Protocorinthian and Corinthian in Etruria come from Tarquinia, Cerveteri and Vulci. The last two places 'have probably produced more Corinthian vases than any other Italian sites ' (Payne, p. I89). 63 Both Etruscan metal-work and Etruscan relief bucchero of the seventh century often show signs of the immediate Corinthian bronze-work.
64

influence

of

Argive24.

Payne, Protokorintbiscbe V7asenrnalerei, p.

Johansen includes as Cumaean two Cretan imports to Cumae. MA, xxii, pl. xliv, 5 and xlix, Z.
65

146

ALAN BLAKEWAY

enriched by the inclusion of vases of Class iii (and even of Class ii), in their clay. in spite of markeddifferences Classii, which is by far the largest and whose membersvary from exceedinglycarefulcopies (often describedas Cumaeanor Corinthian imports)to mere travestiesof Greekmodels, probablycontainsseveral different fabrics,which a close stylistic study might disentangleand possiblylocalisein differentpartsof Etruria.6 6 Indeed,that there are severalfabrics seems certain from the markeddifferencesof the clay in vases of this class, quite apart from the very varied degrees of competencein the painting.67 Class iii is generally completely ignored and even the possibility this is not surprising. of its existenceseldommentioned. Superficially If we were certain that all so-calledCumaeanexportsto Etruriawere, in fact, made at Cumae, there would be nothing for this class to contain. My reasons for believing in its existence are as follows. There have been found at Falerii at least three vases often assumed to be Cumaean, whose clay and paint differ distinctively from the types and stronglyresemblethose of the local pottery normalCumaean of the district. In every other respect these vases would pass as Cumaean,that is to say, Greek work. Further, I suspect that this classis also representedamong the ' Cumaean' vases from Tarquinia and Cerveteri, though the differencesin clay and paint are not so markedas in the Falerii examples. It would certainly be extremely hazardous to postulate the existence of a large class of vases made by Greek potters in Etruria on the evidence of three vases from Falerii, and a suspicion of the local origin of some of the so-called Cumaeanvases from Tarquinia but the fact remains that there is evidence of the local work of at least one Greek, if not Corinthian,potter at Falerii in the first'half of the seventh century, and that there is at least a possibility that a minute study of so-called Cumaeanexports to other parts of Etruria 68 would yield further examples.
66 By far the best short sketch of this class during the period c. 640 to c. 550 B.C. iS the incidental discussion of Payne. (Necroccrinthia, pp. 206-20a.) It is indicative of what might be accomplished by a comprehensive and detailed study that Payne in his incidental treatment has isolated the work of two painters in the ' dot-rosette ' group. (Necrocorinthia, p. 206.) 67 This class also contains a certain number of hybrids with drawing derived from Corinthian vasepainting and shapes from East Greek imports such as Montelius, pl. 344, no. 3, but most of the examples of this type belong the sixth century. 6 8 The Class iii examples from Falerii are Villa Giulia, nos. 4942, 4971, 4742. No. 4942: clay, dirty white; paint, dark brick-red. (The clay and paint of this vase are very similar to those of Villa Giulia, nos. 5012, 5013, 5014, which are undoubtedlyof Faliscan workmanship. Nos. 5013 and 5014 are illustrated in Montelius, pl. 326, nos. 9 and I.)

Clay, chalky white; paint, dark No. 497I. brick-red. (The clay and paint of this vase are exactly the same as those of Villa Giulia, nos. 4432 and 4433, which are the crudest possible examples of Faliscan work.) No. 4742. Clay, chalky white; paint, dirty brownish-black. This vase might be a Cumaean import as far as its paint is concerned, but the clay is indistinguishable from that of no. 4742. No. 479i, apart from clay and paint, compares very favourably with the Protocorinthian imports to Falerii. (Villa Giulia, nos. 5oo6 bis, Montelius, pl. 326, 8, and the two examples numbered 5oo8 in Johansen, pl. xix, I.) The drawing and shape are more competent than those of thc average Cumaean product, and the vase is very possibly the work of a true Corinthian craftsman. The large amphorae and Oenochoai from Falerii in the Villa Giulia are mainly of Faliscan work-

"c DEMARATUS

I47

The historical conclusions that can be derived from the archaeological evidence we have so far considered may be summarised as follows. Greek commerce with Etruria and Greek influence upon Etruscan art begins not later than the early ninth century B.C. Before the 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 material
civilisation.

The first introduction of the Greek alplhabet to Etruria probably antedates the foundation of Cumae, but it was the Cumaean alphabet of the early seventh century which both strongly influenced the Etruscan and gave birth to the Latin version. Before the foundation of Cumae, Etruria derived her earliest Greek imports and artistic influences from many parts of the Greek world ; after that foundation a strain of Cretan influence can be detected which persists into the seventh century, but from the end of the eighth century to the end of the seventh, Corinthian goods dominate the Etruscan markets and Corinthian influence Etruscan art. The commercial and artistic domination of Corinth is important not only for the cultural history of Etruria but also for an estimate of the value of the literary evidence for the origin of the Tarquin dynasty at Rome. According to a tradition which is as old as the sources of Polybius, 6 9 Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was the son of Demaratus, a Corinthian who had migrated to Etruria. This Demaratus, according to later versions of the tradition, 7 0 was a member of the Bacchiad aristocracy who, encouraged by the success of his first merchant venture in Etruria, henceforward specialised in the Etruscan trade wherein he acquired great wealth. When the Bacchiads were overthrown and Cypselus seized the tyranny at Corinth he collected what possessions he could and migrated to Etruria, where he had many friends. From Corinth he brought with him a large number of workmen, of whom Pliny names the craftsman Ecphantus and the potters Eucheir, Diopus and Eugrammus. He settled at Tarquinii, married an Etruscan wife of noble descent and by her had two sons of whom the younger eventually became Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, King of Rome. The sceptical and higher critical attitude towards this tradition begotten by J. Perizonius, suckled by L. de Beaufort and raised to
manship with a few Cumaean imports and perhaps one example which is both local and Greek. Of the possibility of the existence of vases of Class iii from Tarquinia and Cerveteri, I can only say that not all the Cumaean vases from Tarquinia and its neighbourhood are of the same clay, and that at least two Oenochoai from Cerveteri in the Louvre are in shape and decoration characteristically Greek though made from the same clay as undoubtedly Barbarian vases. For Greeks at Caere 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,. Livy, i, 34, iv, 3. Strabo, 2z9 and 37819-20. Pliny, NH xxxv, i6 and xxxv, I 2z.

148

ALAN BLAKEWAY

power by B. G. Niebuhr at the beginning of the last century, and still, unfortunately, very much alive, is familiar to every one. Brieflystated,it consistsin the sweepingconclusionthat the Corinthian descent of the Tarquins was invented by the Greeks in order to establish a close connection with Rome,71 and that the whole narrativeis historicallyworthless. If we examine this conclusion in the light of the archaeological
evidence we are forced at least to modify it
7 2,

if not to reject it entirely.

The archaeological evidence demands that, if we supposethe Greek origin of the Tarquinsto be a Greek invention, we must also suppose that the inventor knewthat Corinthiantrade with Etruria flourished in the seventh century and that Corinthians,and more specifically Corinthian craftsmen and potters, had settled in Etruria in that period. He knew, in fact, that if the father of Tarquin was to have a Greek origin he must be a Corinthian, a Corinthianmerchant, and migrateto Etruriawith Corinthiancraftsmenand Corinthianpotters in his train. How such banausic economic details came to be so well preservedin popular knowledge that they could be used by a historianof a date not earlierthan the fourth century to lend verito undersimilitudeto his invention,is very difficult,if not impossible, stand. The survival of such accurate and yet paltry details without their being attached to the true story of the migration of some great Corinthianto Etruria(preservedin the lost worksof some early Greekwriter) is, I think, almost impossible. Some great Bacchiad did then migrate to Etruria, taking his craftsmen with him in the middle of the seventh century. This much we can accept as reasonablysecure. For I take it that no evidence, that one would suppose, after examiningthe archaeological the banausic details of Demaratus' mercantile and pottery manufacturing activities are also inventions which, by a miraculouscofacts. incidence, fit the archaeological Whether this great Bacchiad was, in fact, the father of Lucius Tarquinius,king of Rome, or whether this link between the house of Tarquin and the Corinthian emigre is an invention, it is impossible to say. I do not doubt for one moment that the history of the Tarquin dynastyhas been richly embellishedby ready-madeepisodes -fromthe history of Greece. The Demaratus story could have been adapted to Roman needs by the mere manipulationof a pedigree: -therewashereno need to borrowa Greekstory, renamethe characters and dressthem for the Roman stage ; but the story is not impossible. The Tarquin dynasty certainly represcnts an Etruscan domination
7 1 It is even said that the story is chronologically iimpossible. So, indeed, it is, if Beloch's reconstruction 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

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

C' DEMARATUS

")

149

of Rome and an Etruscan ruler might well have Greek blood in his veins. The point is of little significance. The blood of a king may do but little to influence the culture of a people. It is more important that Rome's subjection to Etruria at this period meant subjection to a people half-Hellenised and in constant contact with Greek influence.

JRS vol. xxv (1935)

PLATE XX

A1.

A 2.

C.2

C8
IMPORTED GREEK AND LOCAL GEOMETRIC POTTERY FOUND IN LATIUM AND ETRURIA: A 2

AL
A I (.985 m. HIGH) AND HIGH), FROM CERVETERI, IN THE m. HIGH{), FROM 'ROME,~ (.5 130

(.93 m.

HIGH), FROM VULCI, IN THE ALTE MUSEUM, BERLIN.

A 4

(.28 m.

LOUVRE.

C 2 (.227

m.

HIGH),

FROM CHIUSI,

IN THlE A~LLARD PIERSON

IN THE VATICAN MUSEUJM. C 8 MUSEUM, AMSTERDAM (See

p.

f.)

JRS vol. xxv (1935)

PLATE xxr

Cl. D1 .

B 3.

A3

A5.

IMPORTED GREEK AND LOCAL GEOMETRIC POTTERY FOUND IN ETRURIA: IN MUSEO CIVICO, VITERBO. HIGH), A

(.124

m.

HIGH), FROM TARQUINIA, C I

A 3 (.20 m. HIGH), FROM VETRALLA, IN THE ALTE MUSEUM, BERLIN. B 3 (.31 m.

FROM FALERII, IN THE VILLA GIULIA, ROME.

(.75

In. HIGH), FROM CHIUSI, IN THE VATICAN MUSEUM.

O I (.20 m. HIGH), FROM WULCI

(See pp.

I30-I33)

JRS vol. xxv (I935)

PLATE XXII

r ' )f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p

,4

fr

E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p
O~~~~~~~\\
g 4 r s r>

04

~ ~

,r

~
-

** * ' >

~ r~~~~~~
% z
0

wff

Pf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ciO
WN.S, [s' N Q~~~~~~~rN

@^*.A^<

'<

Ot

5 } lHc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

vz; ?~~~~

Qo
0

t
.d'1

B0>999
? ,

E~~~~~~7K u
7
r5r

co

>

z z.~~~ Zo H~~~

t''1

oz~~~~
?0

.3^1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P