Search

In view of the extensive philological information adduced by Klaus Baer for his suggestions concerning modifications in the Chronology of the Old Kingdom as presented in the chronological tables of the Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd edition, vol. I, part 2, 1971, p. 995, he has chosen to publish his paper in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. Thorkild Jacobsen's paper will be included in a future book on the subject of Ancient Mesopotamian Art and Texts. EDITH PORADA

Presigillata is the generic name given to the Italian red-gloss pottery of the first century B.C. which predates the beginning of Arretine pottery (ca. 30-20 B.C.). Until recently only small quantities of presigillata had been found at Italian sites. Morgantina in Sicily has now produced approximately 200 catalogued examples of presigillata. Over a third of the presigillata from Morgantina comes from deposits closed in the third quarter of the first century B.C., and thus aids greatly in clarifying the chronology of this style of pottery. Morgantina's presigillata also comprises a full range of the different categories of vessels in use in the first century B.C., allowing the presentation of a typology of shapes. This typology should aid in the evaluation of future finds of presigillata. Presigillata is the name which has been given to the Itali n red-gloss pottery of the period preceding ca. 30-20 B.C., the time when the factories of Arretium emerged as the center for fine wares in the western Mediterranean.1 As has been pointed out by others,2 presigillata properly used denotes a period rather than a fabric or a limited number of fabrics. It seems clear that pre igillata developed directly out of the western traditions of black-gloss pottery, but Italian potters must also have been influenced by the red-gloss ware of high quality known as Eastern Sigillata A which was pr duced in the Levant after the middle of the second century B.C.3 'The following abbreviations have been used in this paper: Crawford M.H. Crawford, The Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974). Goudineau C. Goudineau, La ceramique aretine lisse: Fouilles de l'Ecole Franqaise de Rome a' Bolsena (Poggio Moscini) (MelRome, Suppl. 6, Paris 1968). HCC I A.S. Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet I (Oxford 1962). Haltern S. Loeschcke, "Keramische Funde in Haltern," Mitteilungen der Altertumskommission fiir Westfalen 5 (1909) 101-322. Lamboglia N. Lamboglia, "Per una classificazione preliminare della ceramica campana," in Atti del 1. Congresso internazionale di Studi Liguri, Bordighera 1950 (Bordighera 1952) 139-206. Lamboglia, N. Lamboglia, "Ceramica presigillata a "Presigillata" Ventimiglia, a Minorca e in Sicilia," ArchEspArq 24 (1951) 35-41. Lipara L. Bernab6 Brea and M. Cavalier, Meligunis-Lipara II: La necropoli greca e romana nella Contrada Diana (Palermo 1965). Morel J.-P. Morel, Ciramique campanienne: Lesformes (BEFAR 244, Paris 1981). O-C A. Oxe and H. Comfort, Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum (Antiquitas 4, Bonn 1968). Samaria K. Kenyon, B.M. Crowfoot and J.W. Crowfoot, Samaria-Sebaste 3: The Objects from Samaria (London 1957). Stone S.C. Stone, Roman Pottery from Morgantina in Sicily (Diss. Princeton University 1981). Stone, "SPOS" S.C. Stone, "Sextus Pompey, Octavian and Sicily," AJA 87 (1983) 11-22. Tsakirgis B. Tsakirgis, The Domestic Architecture of Morgantina in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Diss. Princeton University 1984). For a general introduction to red-gloss pottery: EAA Suppl. (1970 [1973]) 803-35, s.v. Terra Sigillata (H. Comfort). On presigillata: Lamboglia, "Presigillata" 35-41; Goudineau 58, 318-22. On the rise of the factories of Arretine: Goudineau 336-59. On Arretine, see, most recently: E. Ettlinger, Novaesium IX: Die italische Sigillata von Novaesium (Limesforschungen 21, Berlin 1983). I am greatly indebted to Professors Malcolm Bell and Barbara Tsakirgis for critical discussion of many points in this paper. The conclusions and any errors remain my own. 2 See Lamboglia, "Presigillata" 41; Goudineau 318; M.T.M. Moevs, The Roman Thin-Walled Pottery from Cosa (MAAR 32, 1973) 120-22; M. Beltran Lloris, Ceramica romana: tipologia y clasificacion (Zaragoza n.d.) 67-68. 3 On the derivation of presigillata from the western blackgloss tradition: Goudineau 334, 347; J.-P. Morel, "Ceramiques d'Italie et ceramiques hellenistiques," in P. Zanker ed., Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (G6ttingen 1976) 494-95. For Eastern Sigillata in Sicily: Stone, "SPOS" 12 n. 16, 16-17. On the possible influence of Eastern Sigillata A on presigillata: Goudineau 321-22. Eastern Sigillata A has now been found at Tel Anafa in Israel in a context dated before 120 B.C.: S. Weinberg, "Tel Anafa," IEJ 21 (1971) 101-102; IEJ 23 (1973) 113-17; S. Herbert, "Tel Anafa," IEJ 28 (1978) 271-74. This evidence renders invalid Kenyon's suggestion (Samaria 284-88) that Eastern Sigillata A first appeared in the first century B.C. A definitive study of Eastern Terra Sigillata by Dr. J.W. Hayes is forthcoming in a supplement to EAA: Atlante delleforme ceramiche II.

It is argued in this article: 1) that the rough ancient walls within the post-antique Middle Gate of Acrocorinth, and below the North Bastion, were parts of the retaining walls for a zigzag ramp ascending to the ancient gateway, which always stood more or less on the site of the extant Upper Gate; 2) that there may have been two Hellenistic phases to the extant south tower of the Upper Gate, the first, built entirely of poros ashlars, belonging to the time of Demetrios Poliorketes (with whom Carpenter had associated all the extant remains), the second to the second half of the third century; 3) that the early Hellenistic poros ashlar survives only at the bottom of the flank walls of the tower, the entire west face and the beginning of the flank returns having been rebuilt in hard Acrocorinth limestone, the upper portions of the returns in reused poros blocks; 4) that, as suggested by Scranton, the northwest walls of Acrocorinth may originally have started across the great North Bay from the northeast foot of the northwest cliffs, then ascended to the head of the bay more or less along the line of the footpath leading to the extant North Postern; 5) that the ancient poros wall at the head of the west extremity of the North Bay was not a Late Antique reconstruction, as Carpenter suggested, but rather a part of the early Hellenistic circuit of Demetrios, and that this stretch of wall has remained in situ ever since it was built; and 6) that the ancient gate or postern in the North Bay was always more or less on the site of the extant North Postern.* In 1936, the city-walls of ancient Corinth were described and discussed in detail by Rhys Carpenter and A.W. Parsons. The authors' conclusions with regard to absolute chronology, though modified in certain respects by R.L. Scranton, have been widely accepted as representing in broad outline one of the more dependable sequences in the overall chronology of Greek fortifications.' Corinth 111.2 has in fact proved, and deservedly so, to have been a milestone in the study of Greek military architecture, especially where the authors' conclusions were based on evidence from controlled excavations; after a half century, despite an ever-increasing interest in the subject, the framework of the Carpenter-Parsons-Scranton interpretation has remained essentially unchallenged.2 Yet it would be surprising if some details did not invite reconsideration in the light of more recent work, at least for sectors where the Corinthian remains are ragmentary or the evidence regarding them contradictory or confusing, and especially when, as in the case of the entire circuit of Acrocorinth, evidence from excavations is lacking. T e following pages attempt to clarify the history f the ancient walls guarding the western approaches and the head of the great North Bay of Acrocorinth. My own interest in these walls was rekindled in the fall of 1977 by discussions with Charles K. Williams and the late Colin Edmonson, both of whom challenged my acceptance of some of Carpenter's conclusions, particularly with respect to the history of the ancient West Gate of the fortress. Since that time I have several times reexamined the walls of Acrocorinth, once on my own, once in the company of Charles Williams (both of these occasions early in 1978), and thrice together with my wife, Joan E. Winter (in 1982, 1983, and 1986). I believe that the views here presented, though scarcely conclusive, accord somewhat better than those of my predecessors with the evidence of the ancient remains.3 * A brief summary of this paper was presented at a Conference on Hellenistic fortifications held at Valbonne, France, in December 1982. The following abbreviations are used: Corinth 111.2 R. Carpenter and A.W. Parsons, Corinth III, Pt. 2: The Fortifications ofAcrocorinth and the Lower Town (Princeton 1936). Scranton R.L. Scranton, Greek Walls (Cambridge, Mass. 1941). Corinth 111.2; modification by Scranton 56-57, 85-87. 2 Carpenter-Parsons-Scranton chronology followed without reservation in F.E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (Toronto and London 1971), and also in general by A.W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford 1979) 155, 326. 3 I have benefited greatly from the observations and criticisms of Colin Edmonson and Charles K. Williams (to the latter of whom I am further indebted for accommodation on several occasions in the American School Excavation House at Corinth), and more recently from those of the anonymous referees for AJA. I am grateful to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for the award of Special Research Fellowships in 1977-1978 and 1987-1988; to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and its predecessor, the Canada Council, for a Sabbatical Leave Fellowship for 1983-1984, and for Research Grants in 1977, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, and 1987-1988; and to the University of Toronto for Research Leave Grants for the same years. In all our sojourns in Greece my wife and I have enjoyed the hospitality, facilities, and services of the American Journal of Archaeology 95 (1991) 109 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.24 on Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:44:04 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 110 FREDERICK E. WINTER [AJA 95 III SU RVEYMAP OF AC ROCO R INTH hi~??is~ z 0 1, 1/J

An article recently published in this journal (D. Kagan, AJA 86 [1982] 343-60) proposes to revive a seventh century B.C. dating for the earliest coinages of Aegina, Corinth and Athens, in keeping with the ancient testimonia that connect coinage with Pheidon of Argos and the reforms of Solon. Apart from such testimonia, however, the only chronological argument adduced for this dating is Kagan's contention that coinage began in Lydia and Ionia near the beginning of the seventh century. Here we review the very considerable body of literary, typological, contextual, metallurgical, stylistic and comparative numismatic evidence that bears on the chronology of archaic Aeginetan, Corinthian and Athenian coinage, and conclude that, regardless of when in the seventh century coinage developed in western Asia Minor, it was not introduced at Aegina, Corinth and Athens until the sixth century B.C. Some 20 years ago, D. Kagan defended the ancient historical tradition that the coinage of Aegina was instituted by Pheidon, the relatively obscure tyrant of Argos whose career is most commonly placed in the first half of the seventh century B.C.' Now Kagan has broadened his defense in a paper that argues that the early electrum coins from the Central Basis deposit in the Artemisium at Ephesus were buried around the middle of the seventh century, that the invention of coinage in western Asia Minor consequently goes back to around 700, and that all chronological difficulties are therefore removed for accepting the view, widely held by numismatists and historians until the 1950s, that coinage spread to Aegina before ca. 650 B.C. and thence to Corinth and Athens later in the

The latest pottery evidence from Thera indicates that the Akrotiri settlement was not abandoned until ca. 147o B.C. The pottery assemblages in the so-called LM IB destruction horizon in Crete (at Mallia, Gournia, Pseira, etc.) are also consistent with a date ca. 147o B.C. It is therefore possible to attribute both destructions to a "single-phase" eruption of the Thera volcano. The layer of humus over the Akrotiri ruins represents decayed mud-brick and roofing clay, and is not the product of a period of twenty to thirty years during which the town lay uninhabited prior to the great tephra eruption. The nature of the destructions at various Cretan sites is more consistent with the hypothesis of devastation by natural forces (shock waves, tsunamis, ash fallout) than by invaders. This position is strengthened by the recent finds of Thera ash in LM IB levels in Crete. In this paper I argue against the current view that the LM IB devastations in Crete (at Mallia, Gournia, Pseira, Zakro, etc.) are appreciably later than the destruction horizon on Thera. In my opinion, the latest pottery evidence from Thera makes it necessary to bring the destruction date there well down into the fifteenth century, say to ca. 1470 B.C. If one then follows Schachermeyr in dating the end of LM IB to 1470,1 there seems to be no reason why the Thera eruption could not have played a major part in the devastation of Crete at this time. In recent discussions the chronological problem has been handled in two main ways. I proceed to a critical examination of these treatments before developing my own hypothesis. THE "TWO-PHASE"' ERUPTION HYPOTHESIS I accepted a variant of this hypothesis in my first discussion of the problem, arguing that "the first major fall of pumice on Thera occurred about 1500 B.C. or possibly even a little later," and that the "culminating paroxysm" of the eruption followed after an interval of twenty-five to thirty years, i.e. ca. 1470.2 This view was in accordance with the weighty authority of the German scientist Reck, then regarded as the leading expert on the vulcanology of Thera.3 But after the International Scientific Congress on the Volcano of Thera in 1969 it became clear that the bulk of expert opinion no longer favoured the kind of time sequence for the eruption proposed by Reck: i.e. an initial outpouring of pumice, a quiescent period of some decades, and a final phase of ejection of massive quantities of fine white ash. On the contrary, the experts were now almost unanimous that the various beds of pumice and ash were deposited in a single phase of the volcano's activity.' Significant new data on the sequence of events at Akrotiri were also accumulating year by year from Prof. Marinatos's excavations.5 In particular, Marinatos was able to show that considerable havoc had been caused to the settlement prior to any fall of tephra. He noticed that there had been some attempt to tidy up the debris, and found evidence of some re-occupation of damaged buildings. But, in his view, the period between the initial earthquake and the start of the eruption was short, not ore than two years at most, and possibly as brief as a few weeks.' C. Doumas has filled out this picture of events, adducing evidence for the systematic demolition of damaged buildings by repair gangs using large hammer stones.' Such was the state of the question when Dr. J. Money published his findings based on samples of "soil" taken from the Akrotiri ruins immediately 1 F. Schachermeyr, Die minoische Kultur des alten Kreta (Stuttgart 1964) 46. 2 J.V. Luce, The End of Atlantis (London 1969 = Lost Atlantis, New York 1969) 63-74 (hereafter cited as Atlantis). 3 H. Reck, Santorin: Der Werdegang eines Inselvulkans und sein Ausbruch 1925-28, 3 vols. (Berlin 1936). 4 For a full discussion, see Acta of the Ist. International Scientific Congress on the Volcano of Thera, published by the Archaeological Services of Greece (Athens 1971) (hereafter cited as Acta). 5 S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera I (1968), II (1969), III (1970), IV (1971), V (1972), VI (i973) (Athens) (hereafter cited as Thera I etc.). 6 Thera III, 64. 7 C. Doumas, "The Minoan eruption of the Santorini volcano," Antiquity 48 (1974) Ixo-15 (hereafter cited as Doumas). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.82 on Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:30:47 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 10 J. V. LUCE [AJA 80 below the pumice layer.8 The soil analyses, conducted by Dr. Cornwall of the London Institute of Archaeology appeared to confirm that there had been "a distinct interval between the destruction of the buildings and their burial by the big pumice explosion." Dr. Money has in fact revived the "twophase" chronology in a new form by placing the "generation gap" between earthquake and eruption, and not, as on the earlier view, between phases of the eruption itself. This solution is attractive at first sight, and Dr. Money informs us that it has commended itself to Prof. Page. In my opinion, however, the evidence on which it rests is fundamentally ambiguous, and capable of a different interpretation. The presence of humus in some of the samples (Table I) is taken to indicate that a layer of vegetation grew for some time over the ruins of Akrotiri before they were finally buried under the tephra. For example, Dr. Cornwall's comment on the 4.4 Table i: Analysis of Samples from Thera Sample Alkali-soluble Phosphate as P205 Ferric Iron, Fe2O0 humus (mgs. / gm.) (mgs. / gm.)