It is now time to turn, by way of supplementing our account of Ionic pottery, to the history of the art of painting in general among these peoples, so far as it is illustrated by literary records and by existing monuments other than the vases. That the latter do afford us considerable information on the subject of painting in Ionia is amply shown in the foregoing pages; but there is yet another group of monuments which the material of which they are made would alone entitle to inclusion in this work, apart from the valuable illustration they afford of certain aspects of Ionic pottery.
In the light of modern researches, we are prepared to find in Ionia a great centre for the art of painting in the archaic period. That this region inherited the characteristics of Mycenaean art has already been so abundantly shown that we need not hesitate to believe that, among other branches of art, that of fresco-painting was firmly established in the Asiatic colonies. The art of which Crete, Mycenae, and Tiryns have furnished such remarkable examples is hardly likely to have died out. Hence it need excite no surprise when we read that as early as about 700 B.C. Kandaules, the king of Lydia, purchased for its weight in gold a picture painted by Bularchos representing a battle of the Magnetes.[1176] That such an elaborate subject should have been treated at this early date, when the vase-painter had not emerged from his earliest limitations, is, if we may accept Pliny’s account, a most remarkable proof of advanced art. Saurias of Samos is also mentioned as an early painter,[1177] who “invented silhouette drawing,” and Philokles the Egyptian, who “invented linear drawing,” was probably a Naucratite, and his “inventions” may be reflected in the outlined paintings on white ground which have been described above. Lastly, we read that about 515 B.C. Mandrokles of Samos painted a picture which represented Dareios watching his army crossing the Bosphoros,[1178] and Kalliphon of Samos, probably a contemporary, painted scenes from the story of Troy.[1179]
Combining these traditions with what we also know of Ionic painting from the pottery, we should expect to find that its characteristic form was that of figures in black silhouette or outline on a ground covered with white slip; and, further, that the subjects treated were by no means of an elementary character, but comprised elaborate battle-scenes or groups of warriors, and even historical themes. Now, these conditions are exactly fulfilled in the group of terracotta sarcophagi excavated during the last twenty years at or in the neighbourhood of Clazomenae, on the Gulf of Smyrna. It is practically certain that all have come from this district,[1180] and no attempt has ever been made to connect them with any other site. Further, we have already seen that there are reasons for attributing some of the vase-fabrics to this place, or at least for connecting them closely with the sarcophagi; and thus there are good grounds for regarding Clazomenae as one of the principal centres of Ionian art.
The sarcophagi which have come to light up to the present number over twenty, inclusive of fragments, but very few are anything like complete. There are fine specimens at Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and Constantinople, with paintings round the flat rims; but all are overshadowed by the magnificent example recently acquired by the British Museum,[1181] which is absolutely complete, with a massive gabled cover, and decorated over almost every inch of its surface with subjects or ornamental patterns. Its dimensions are: body, 7 ft. 6 in. by 3 ft. 9 in. by 2 ft. 9 in.; cover, 8 ft. by 4 ft. by 2 ft. The only undecorated portions are the central panels on the sides of the coffin and the bottom, but in some other parts the designs are largely worn away. It is made of a coarse brick-like clay of very hard consistency, which is completely covered, except on the bottom, with a thick white slip to receive the paintings. The figures are painted throughout in black silhouette, without any method of reproducing inner details except by traits réservés, i.e. by leaving them unpainted on the white ground; but the greater part has been imperfectly fired, so that the black has become bright red.
On the long sides of the interior are representations of funeral games, such as contests with spears and a chariot-race; the shorter sides have groups of warriors on horseback and on foot. The chariot-races are also repeated along the flat rim of the coffin, the exterior and the space above the interior designs being ornamented with bands of egg-and-dart moulding and the typical Ionic pattern of maeander interspersed with stars, which we have already met with in the pottery (p. 360). The main designs on the cover are in two rows, those on one side having almost entirely disappeared; on the complete side the upper band represents an episode from the story of Dolon, the lower an ordinary scene of combat.[1182] The gable-ends have groups of Centaurs and horsemen, and along the lower edges of the cover, underneath, are further scenes from the Doloneia, groups of Sphinxes and Sirens, and bands of ornamental pattern (rosettes, maeander, etc.). Of the many minor details of interest in these paintings this is not the place to speak; but they have been fully discussed by Murray (op. cit.), especially peculiarities of armour and costume.
It is possible that the battle-scenes on this and other sarcophagi may, as Murray and S. Reinach[1183] have suggested, have some bearing on the question of the painting by Bularchos already mentioned. It would, at all events, help to explain the selling of the painting for its weight in gold, if we may regard it as painted on terracotta; but it is not safe to say more than that the sarcophagi confirm the story to the extent of showing the popularity of such subjects in early Ionian art.
Many of the motives on the British Museum sarcophagus are found repeated again and again throughout the series, especially the battle-scenes; groups “heraldically” composed, such as a warrior between two chariots or horsemen, or pairs of Sphinxes (Plate XXVII.), or animals confronted, are of constant occurrence. There are also various minor motives constantly repeated, such as helmeted heads of warriors (Plate XXVII.),[1184] pairs of horses, one looking up, the other down (this being a convenient position for silhouettes), or dogs running under the horses.
M. Joubin,[1185] considering the group of sarcophagi as a whole, recognises a triple development in form, technique, and decoration, enabling him to divide them into three classes. In regard to technique we observe throughout a remarkable combination of two methods, the details of figures being expressed either by outlining or by leaving in the colour of the clay, as in the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite vases (see p. 331 ff.), or by lines of white paint laid on the black. The latter method, which is not unknown on the vases (see p. 347), was no doubt used in place of incising, which would have been a difficult matter in the hard clay.[1186]
In the oldest group, then, the usual method is that of outlining or “reserving” on the clay; the second group may be regarded as transitional[1187]; and in the third group, which in style answers to the Caeretan hydriae and later Ionic fabrics, the use of white for details, and even of purple, is general. But it is noteworthy that, for the groups of animals at the bases of the sarcophagi or elsewhere, the old “Rhodian” method of the earlier examples is retained. This, it may be remarked, is in accordance with a principle by which an older technique tends to survive in subordinate decoration, just as on R.F. vases friezes of animals or ornamental patterns are frequently painted in the old black-on-red method.[1188]
Sarcophagus From Clazomenae (British Museum).
In the decoration the development is in the direction of scenes with human figures, in preference to friezes of animals and floral patterns; the compositions advance from single figures to large groups, and accessory figures are introduced, like the dogs under the horses. Finally, we have the long friezes of figures which are so characteristic, for instance, of the British Museum sarcophagus. Mythological scenes, except the Doloneia, are conspicuously absent; battles, chariot-races, and hunting-scenes have the preference, as well as the heraldic groups of animals.
Nor is the development confined to the main decoration; it may be traced both in the form of the sarcophagi and in the subordinate ornamentation.[1189] The older examples approach more to the human form, with a shouldered opening at the top indicating the place for the head; but towards the end of the series the rectangular form predominates—the opening enlarges, and the upper edge projects over the lower. The British Museum example and one in Constantinople[1190] are very elaborate, with mouldings and carefully-considered architectural proportions. The origin of the form is doubtless to be traced to the Egyptian mummy-cases, or perhaps to Chaldaean sarcophagi; but the Cretan cinerary urns (p. 145) are also on the same plan, and may have formed an intermediary link.
In point of date the sarcophagi seem to extend over the greater part of the sixth century. We have seen that some present the same characteristics of painting as the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite fabrics; others fall more into line with the Caeretan hydriae and Ionic B.F. pottery. In any case the sarcophagi form our best standard for determining the sequence and relation of the Ionic fabrics, and at the same time furnish an argument for regarding Clazomenae as one of the principal centres of Ionic pottery. M. Reinach is of opinion that none are later than about 540 B.C., at which time the people of Clazomenae, menaced by the invading power of Persia, migrated to the neighbouring islands. But one or two instances of advanced technique seem to point to a later date.
The list of Clazomenae sarcophagi as at present known is as follows[1191]:—
| Reinach’s List. | Joubin’s List. | |||
| 1. | Brit. Mus. (1895) | — | — | Terracotta Sarcophagi, pls. 1–7. |
| 2. | Brit. Mus. (1900) | — | — | — |
| 3. | Brit. Mus. (1902) | — | — | Plate XXVII. of this work. |
| 4. | Brit. Mus. | 7 | 12 | Ant. Denkm. i. pl. 46, 4 = J.H.S. iv. pl. 31. |
| 5. | Brit. Mus. | 8 | 13 | Ibid. pl. 46, 3 = J.H.S. iv. p. 20, fig. 15. |
| 6. | Brit. Mus. | 9 | 13 | Ibid. pl. 46, 5 = J.H.S. iv. p. 19, fig. 14. |
| 7. | Louvre | 10 | 11 | Bull. de Corr. Hell., 1890, pl. 6. |
| 8. | Louvre | 11 | 3 | Ibid., 1892, p. 240. |
| 9. | Louvre | 12 | 1 | Ibid., 1895, pls. 1–2, p. 71. |
| 10. | Louvre | 13 | 2 | Ibid., 1895, p. 80. |
| 11. | Berlin | 1 | 8 | Ant. Denkm. i. pl. 44. |
| 12. | Berlin | 2 | 9 | Ibid. pl. 46, 2. |
| 13. | Vienna | 15 | 10 | Ibid. pl. 45. |
| 14. | Smyrna | 14 | 14 | Ibid. pl. 46, 1. |
| 15. | Constantinople | 3 | 7 | Mon. dell’ Inst. xi. pl. 53 = J.H.S. iv. p. 8 ff. |
| 16. | Constantinople | 4 | 4, 5 | Ibid. pl. 54 = J.H.S. iv. p. 2 ff. |
| 17. | Constantinople | 5 | — | Röm. Mitth. 1888, p. 163. |
| 18. | Constantinople | 6 | 6 | Revue des Études Gr. 1895, p. 161. |
| 19. | ? | 16 | — | J.H.S. iv. p. 15. |
| 20. | ? | 17 | — | J.H.S. iv. p. 20. |
| 21–3. | In the market | 18–20 | — | See Revue des Études Gr. i.e. |
To which may be added:—
| 24. | Brit. Mus., from Kameiros | — | — | Terracotta Sarcophagi, pl. 8. |
We have seen in the course of this chapter the gradual evolution of Ionic vase-painting, from the time of lingering Mycenaean influences down to the period when it ceased to have any existence as a separate style, and having reached the same point of development as Attic vase-painting, was soon merged in the latter. It is probable, however, that this was largely due to political circumstances, which put an end to Ionic art and industry generally about the close of the sixth century. The conquest of Ionia by Harpagos in 545 B.C. was the event which led to this result, and consequently to the dispersion of Ionic artists, partly into Greece, partly into Italy. The migration of the Phocaeans in particular caused an influx of Ionian culture into the semi-barbarous regions of Italy, and contributed to the production of the imitative vase-fabrics to which allusion has been made.
M. Pottier, in summing up the rôle played by Ionian Greece in the history of art, regards it as the principal agent of transmission of culture between the East and Europe, and thus the true civiliser of Europe, influencing both Doric Greece and Etruscan Italy. Thus we may see in Ionia the parent of modern civilisation.
1082. See M. Pottier’s excellent résumé in his Louvre Cat. ii. p. 486 ff.
1083. Bronzefunde von Olympia, p. 45: cf. Olympia, iv. p. 109.
1084. Gaz. Arch. 1879, p. 208: cf. Athenaeus, v. 210 B, and Pottier, Louvre Cat. ii. p. 487.
1085. Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1890, p. 378. The painting on a white slip marks an important development, and a rupture with all previous styles (ibid.).
1086. Pottier, Louvre Cat. i. p. 129 ff.; Ann. dell’ Inst. 1883, p. 179; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 161 ff.; Böhlau, Ion. u. ital. Nekrop. p. 73 ff.
1087. Böhlau, p. 52 ff.
1088. Ath. Mitth. 1887, p. 226.
1089. Rev. Arch. xxv. (1894), p. 26.
1090. Böhlau, p. 86 ff.
1091. Pottier, ii. p. 277.
1092. Böhlau, i.e.; Pottier and Reinach, Nécropole de Myrina, p. 505.
1094. Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion, i. p. 310.
1095. Stephani, Comptes-Rendus, 1870–71, pl. 4 = Reinach, Répertoire, i. p. 34.
1096. Naukratis I., II.; J.H.S. x. p. 126 ff.
1099. See Monuments Piot, i. p. 45.
1101. See Pottier, op. cit. p. 503.
1102. See Röm. Mitth. 1887, p. 180.
1103. See generally Pottier, Louvre Cat. i. p. 129 ff. A list of Rhodian vases is given in Ann. dell’ Inst. 1883, p. 179.
1104. For fragments found in Cyprus see J.H.S. xii. p. 142; B.M. Excavations in Cyprus, p. 104, fig. 151.
1105. Cf. examples in Cases 43–4 in the First Vase Room, Brit. Mus.
1106. See generally Riegl, Stilfragen, p. 160.
1107. Il. xvii. 60 ff.: see Chapter XIV. The vase is published by Salzmann, Nécropole de Camiros, pl. 53; Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig. 784.
1108. Ath. Mitth. 1891, p. 118: cf. Jahrbuch, 1891, p. 263, and Berl. Phil. Woch. 1895, p. 201.
1109. The latest supporter of this view is Böhlau (Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop. p. 73 ff.).
1110. Böhlau, op. cit. p. 53 ff.
1111. Böhlau regards this pattern as “Mycenaean,” on the ground that it does not follow the lines of the vase.
1112. Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, pl. 21, fig. 188, and Mon. Antichi, vi. pl. 11, figs. 30, 34.
1113. See Böhlau’s list, op. cit. p. 53 ff.
1114. i.e. p. 79.
1115. Pottier, Louvre Cat. ii. p. 524; Naukratis I. p. 50; Böhlau, i.e.
1117. E 659 = Monuments Piot, i. pl. 4, p. 43.
1118. Op. cit. p. 85.
1119. Op. cit. p. 89 ff.
1120. Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1884, pl. 7; Pottier, Louvre Cat. ii. p. 274.
1121. See examples in B.M. (Second Vase Room, Cases 24–5). The B.M. also possesses similar vases found in the Troad.
1122. Ath. Mitth. 1887, p. 223.
1123. J.H.S. viii. p. 68 ff.
1124. Stephani, Compte-Rendu, 1870–71, pl. 4, p. 178; Reinach, i. 34.
1125. Böhlau, Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop. p. 125.
1126. Kyrene (1890), p. 17 ff.
1127. Baumeister, iii. p. 1664, fig. 1728; Reinach, Répertoire, i. p. 81; and see bibliography in De Ridder’s Catalogue, i. p. 98. It is a matter for much regret that no satisfactory publication of this vase has as yet been made. The best is in Babelon’s Cab. des Antiques de la Bibl. Nat. pl. 12.
1128. I.e. Σιλιφιόμαχος.
1130. The list is as follows: B.M. B 1–7; Bibl. Nat. 189–92; Louvre E 660–72; Petersburg 183; Munich 737 and 1164; Vienna 140; two each in the Vatican, Florence, and Würzburg (Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 26 in Dumont’s list); one in Brussels (Gaz. Arch. 1887, pl. 14); Anzeiger, 1898, p. 189 (Berlin); Dumont-Pottier, i. pp. 301, 305, Nos. 17 and 32; Louvre E 667 = Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1893, p. 238; Jahrbuch, 1901, pl. 3, p. 189, and see ibid. pp. 191, 193; Böhlau, Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop. p. 125 ff.; and a doubtful example in B.M. B 58. For an exhaustive bibliography of the subject, see Pottier in Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1893, p. 226.
1131. J.H.S. x. p. 126.
1132. Other examples of Naucratite wares have been found in Rhodes (J.H.S. loc. cit.), Cyprus (J.H.S. xii. p. 142), and at Athens on the Acropolis (Ath. Mitth. 1889, p. 341).
1133. These fragments will be fully illustrated in colour in the forthcoming vol. i. of the B.M. Catalogue of Vases.
1134. Cf. A 763 in B.M. = Naukratis II. pl. 5, 1.
1135. A 762. Other good examples are A 764, 790, 792.
1136. A 985 = J.H.S. viii. pl. 79.
1137. One Melian; B 1025 and 10229 (with Corinthian inscriptions); B 10213, 10227, 10232 (Daphniote), etc.
1138. See generally Tanis II. (Fourth Mem. Egypt Expl. Fund), pp. 48 ff., 61 ff., pls. 25–31; Jahrbuch, 1895, p. 35 ff. and Ant. Denkm. ii. pl. 21; B.M. Cat. of Vases, ii. p. 41; Endt, Ion. Vasenm. p. 18.
1139. ii. 30, 107.
1140. ii. 154.
1141. Jahrbuch, 1895, p. 35 ff.; Endt, Ion. Vasenm. p. 18.
1142. Ath. Mitth. 1898, p. 51: and cf. Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1892, p. 256.
1143. B.M. B 104–6.
1145. B.M. B 107–15.
1146. See Böhlau, Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop. p. 65. He derives this pattern through the medium of the “Fikellura” vases.
1147. B.M. B 116–25.
1148. This is also occasionally found at Naukratis, and appears on a fragment from Mytilene in the British Museum (B 99) of Daphniote style.
1149. Jahrbuch, 1897, p. 55.
1150. See Zahn in Ath. Mitth. 1898, p. 50.
1151. Cf. the Xanthos reliefs, Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpt. i. No. 86.
1152. See Endt, Ion. Vasenm. p. 17, and cf. coins of Methymna.
1153. Cf. Endt, Ion. Vasenm. pp. 5, 13 ff., who points out the similarity in subject and decoration, as also in details of colouring, armour, etc., with the other groups.
1154. Revue des Études Grecques, 1895, p. 182.
1155. Vienna 217–18; Louvre E 696. For list of subjects see Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1892, p. 254.
1156. B.M. B 10314 for instance.
1157. Cf. Louvre E 739. Also found at Daphnae as a shield-device (B.M. B 1152), and on coins of Clazomenae (see Endt, p. 24).
1158. Cf. Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1892, p. 259.
1159. Röm. Mitth. iii. (1888), p. 159 ff.; now in B.M.
1160. Op. cit. p. 172.
1161. It is found also on the sarcophagi (cf. Terracotta Sarcophagi in B.M. pls. 1, 2), on the quasi-Ionic vase, Gerhard, A. V. 205, and on B.M. B 379 (see below).
1162. Cf. for instance Mon. dell’ Inst. xi. 53–4.
1163. Ath. Mitth. 1898, pl. 6, p. 38 ff.
1164. Vol. II. Frontisp.; Reinach, ii. 124.