Copyright by Sarah Anne James 2010 The Dissertation Committee for Sarah Anne James certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Hellenistic Pottery from the Panayia Field, Corinth: Studies in Chronology and Context Committee: Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, Co-Supervisor Jennifer Gates Foster, Co-Supervisor Adam T. Rabinowitz Steven J. Friesen Guy D. R. Sanders The Hellenistic Pottery from the Panayia Field, Corinth: Studies in Chronology and Context by Sarah Anne James, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December 2010 Dedication For my mother. Acknowledgements First and foremost I must acknowledge Corinth‟s director Dr. Guy Sanders, who gave me permission to study material from deposits in the Panayia Field, the South Stoa and various other sites throughout the city. I am deeply indebted to him both for providing the impetus for this project and for his knowledgeable guidance and infinite patience during the course of my research. I must also thank Corinth‟s assistant director Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst for her ever cheerful assistance and support with even the smallest problems and Corinth‟s multi-talented architect James Herbst for his help with the architecture of the Panayia Field and database management. I am also very grateful to Guy Sanders and Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst for facilitating this research through the skills of the photographers, draftspeople, conservators, pot menders and excavators who work at Corinth. I would like to especially thank Nicol Anastasatou, Takis Notis and Tasos Kakouros for their careful work in conserving and mending the material from the Panayia Field deposits. I would also like to thank those who meticulously excavated the deposits, in particular Panos Kakouros (who dug four of the seven Panayia Field deposits), and those supervising and recording the excavations, including Jen Palinkas, for their hard work and diligence. In regard to other deposits in Corinth, I owe the deepest thanks to Dr. Charles Williams and to Drs. Ian McPhee and Elizabeth Pemberton. Mr. Williams very generously allowed me to study and include two Hellenistic deposits from the area East of the Theater (Deposits 28 and 29), which form part of the low end of the Panayia Field chronology. I am also hugely indebted to Drs. Ian McPhee and Elizabeth Pemberton for allowing me to use the quantified data from drain 1971-1 before the publication of their volume (Corinth VII.6). This data helped to anchor the high end of the Panayia Field v chronology. In addition, both Drs. McPhee and Pemberton very kindly shared their vast knowledge of Classical and Hellenistic ceramics with me in the early stages of my research, for which I am truly grateful. I must also thank the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for granting me the Homer and Dorothy Thompson fellowship (2007-2008) and to the University of Texas at Austin, who awarded me the Livingston fellowship (2008-2009). This research would not have been possible without such financial support. Corinth is not an isolated place, and I have benefitted immensely from my contact with those scholars who also work there. I would like to thank Drs. Nancy Bookidis and Kathleen Slane for answering specific questions and for their general support. I am also grateful to Dr. Martha Risser and Dr. Mark Lawall, who consulted on the foundation deposit and the amphoras of the Panayia Field deposits respectively. I also owe many thanks for past kindnesses to Drs. Joseph Shaw and Margaret Miller, who guided me as an undergraduate and graduate student at the University of Toronto. I am also grateful to Drs. Tim Gregory and Daniel Pullen for bringing me into the Corinthia for the first time and for their continued encouragement. More recently, I am very grateful to my committee for their enthusiasm, support and guidance. Finally, I thank my husband Dimitri Nakassis for enduring my long absences and always welcoming me home. Also many thanks are due to my parents, who have supported me through every stage of my academic career. I am also grateful to those who were always ready to talk shop at the end of the day, in particular Alicia Carter, Scott Gallimore, Mark Hammond, Theodora Kopestonsky and Thanos Webb. vi The Hellenistic Pottery from the Panayia Field, Corinth: Studies in Chronology and Context Publication No._____________ Sarah Anne James, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2010 Supervisors: Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, Jennifer Gates Foster The new chronology of Corinthian fine ware presented in this dissertation is based on pottery from the recently discovered Hellenistic deposits (dated from the 3rd to 1st c. B.C.) in the Panayia Field. This new Panayia Field chronology was created by first quantifying the pottery in each deposit and then seriating the deposits in order to plot the initial production and use-life of individual ceramic shapes. The results substantially revise the previous chronology of Corinthian Hellenistic pottery published in Corinth VII.3, which has long been acknowledged as problematic by scholars of the period. One key aspect in which the Panayia Field chronology differs from its predecessor is in the recognition that pottery production resumed in Corinth after the sack of the city in 146 B.C. The evidence for a post-146 B.C. or interim period ceramic industry and its products are discussed in detail. vii Using the new Panayia Field chronology, the South Stoa and numerous previously excavated deposits at Corinth are re-assessed. Arguably, the most important Hellenistic structure in Corinth, the South Stoa, now appears to have been begun in the 290s rather than the 330s B.C. Attempts are also made to address the cultural and economic history of Hellenistic Corinth for the first time. For instance, the adoption of certain shapes into the local ceramic assemblage illustrates the influence of the Hellenistic koine on Corinthian culture. At the local level, the continued production of ceramic kraters in the late 3rd to early 2nd c. B.C. and their findspots seem to suggest that metal vessels were more commonly used in public spaces. In terms of trade, the data on imported fine ware and amphoras from more than 60 deposits clearly demonstrate the flow of goods through the city and Corinth‟s role in the trade networks of the Hellenistic period. This analysis reveals a strong connection to Athens during the Macedonian occupation, increasing contact with Italy and the Aegean beginning in the late 3rd c. B.C. and the continuity of Corinth‟s economic contacts into the interim period. viii Table of Contents List of Charts........................................................................................................ xiii Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology ...............................................................1 Hellenistic Corinth ..........................................................................................2 History of Scholarship on Hellenistic Corinth ................................................3 The Panayia Field ...........................................................................................7 Methodology .................................................................................................13 Chapter 2: Corinthian Hellenistic Fine Ware .........................................................27 Introduction ...................................................................................................27 Fabrics ...........................................................................................................31 Decoration .....................................................................................................36 Organization of Production ...........................................................................42 Chapter 3: Drinking Vessels ..................................................................................47 Introduction ...................................................................................................47 Classical Shapes ............................................................................................51 One-handled cup (Cat. Nos. 1-8) .........................................................51 Kotyle (Cat. Nos. 9-11) ........................................................................54 Attic type skyphos (Cat. No. 12-22) ....................................................55 Hellenistic Shapes .........................................................................................60 One-piece kantharos (Cat. Nos. 23-33) ................................................60 Cyma kantharos (Cat. Nos. 34-51) ......................................................62 Articulated kantharos (Cat. Nos. 52-65) ..............................................66 Calyx kantharos (Cat. No. 66) .............................................................68 Corinthian molded rim kantharos (Cat. Nos. 67-70) ...........................70 Hexamilia cup (Cat. Nos. 71-75) .........................................................71 Corinthian Banded Cup (Cat. No. 76) .................................................73 Carinated rim kantharos (Cat. Nos. 77-78) ..........................................74 Moldmade bowl (Cat. Nos. 79-92) ......................................................75 ix Conclusions ...................................................................................................83