Morgantina Studies, Volume I: The Terracottas

by Malcolm Bell

Overview

The author considers the Morgantina terracottas as representatives of one of the liveliest traditions of the Greek minor arts, and thus he examines questions of stylistic development and influence, workshop traditions, and technique.

Originally published in 1982.

The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780691642338
Publisher:	Princeton University Press
Publication date:	04/19/2016
Series:	Princeton Legacy Library , #117
Pages:	450
Product dimensions:	6.30(w) x 9.30(h) x 1.20(d)

Read an Excerpt

Morgantina Studies, Volume I

The Terracottas

---

By Malcolm Bell III

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright © 1981 Princeton University Press
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-691-03946-6

---

CHAPTER 1

Archaic and Early-Classical Terracottas

1. Terracottas at Early Morgantina

Only about seventy-five of the terracottas found at Morgantina can be assigned to the first phase of the city's existence. Sixty-seven of these, consisting of representative Sikeliote types and a handful of imports from the Aegean, have been included in the catalogue. Our perspective on the early terracottas of Morgantina depends on this scanty group of finds from houses and tombs, and it may well be distorted. The fullest picture of terracotta production at an archaic site has usually been provided by votive deposits found in chthonian sanctuaries, composed of a great variety of offerings — standing and seated goddesses, protomes, animals, fruit, and other figures — all dedicated over periods of many years. Although several archaic naiskoi have been excavated at Morgantina, none has contained terracottas. The early city probably possessed a chthonian sanctuary, but if so, it is yet to be found.

About fifty of the terracottas are made of the local buff clay. Such a small number implies that Morgantina did not support an active coroplast in the sixth and fifth centuries. Some pieces have the characteristic fabric of architectural terracottas and may have been made by the same craftsmen, as a sideline (2a, 9, 17, 18, 50). Perhaps other pieces — especially the homogeneous group of mass-produced protomes found in tombs — were molded by local potters, whose pale buff wares are not unlike some of the early terracottas. All of the mold-made terracottas of the early period depended on archetypes created elsewhere, for there are no first-generation finds. The only unique piece among the early terracottas is the lively and amusing head 19, which was hand-modeled by an artist who has unfortunately left no other traces of his work at the site.

Most of the local terracottas belong to Sikeliote mold series that originated in the coastal cities. A few pieces of coastal manufacture have been found, and such works as these must have served as the archetypes for the local molds (12, 27, 28). These Sikeliote pieces, both locally made and imported, reflect the influence of either the eastern cities or of Gela to the south. The first group belongs mostly to the sixth century, the second to the fifth century. The evidence of the terracottas thus indicates consecutive periods of eastern and Geloan influence — corresponding in a striking way with what has been learned about the early history of the site from excavation and study of the written sources (see the Introduction).

Terracottas imported from the Greek homeland are either Ionian or Corinthian. Ionian plastic vases appear in the first burials of the archaic town toward the middle of the sixth century, and for the next fifty years eastern imports recur sporadically. During this period the influence of the delicate and decorative taste of the eastern Aegean was felt in most corners of the Greek world. The remarkable career of the mold series of the siren 51 demonstrates the diffusion of Ionian products: sisters of 51 traveled to Gela, Perachora, Athens, and Sidon. At Morgantina, Ionian style can also be seen in the maenad antefixes of a still unlocated building at Cittadella and in the elaborate eaves tiles of the naiskos on Farmhouse Hill. Because the strength of the Ionian style was not dependent on the origins or the geographical location of the Sikeliote communities, it is impossible to ascertain from what direction the imports came to Morgantina. Ionian terracottas are as common at Naxos, Katane, Megara, and Syracuse to the east as they are at Gela to the south.

The Ionian imports had a decisive impact on the development of Sikeliote coroplastic art (cf. 1, 8, 21, 32-43). Their influence is felt well on into the fifth century, long after they had ceased to be imported. Yet the Ionian terracottas were not copied indiscriminately; the more frivolous works, like the plastic vases, were of less interest to the local coroplasts than the "serious" subjects, the votive types that could be adapted to local needs. The Sikeliote coroplast was generally occupied in satisfying the demands for votive and funerary offerings, and unlike his counterparts in eastern Greece, he did not serve a large export market.

The role played by Corinthian terracottas in Sicily is less important. Late archaic Corinthian production is represented at Morgantina by a single imported figure (3), but there are several pieces under Corinthian influence (2, 4). Through an analysis of find patterns and local styles, this Corinthian group can be traced to eastern Sicily, probably to Megara (see section 6).

Roughly eighty percent of the catalogued early terracottas can be dated between 550 and 480 B.C. The remaining pieces belong in the second half of the fifth century, most of them in the last third. There is, then, a period that seems to lack terracottas during the middle years of the century. Could this apparent break in production correspond to the capture of Morgantina by the Sikel leader Duketios in 459 (Diod. 11.78)? It seems possible that it does, although the historical date 459 seems somewhat later than the break in production — if we are to judge by the style of the terracottas which belong to the early group. Perhaps the coroplasts were more conservative than we have thought, and consequently our stylistic chronology should be lowered. Yet with so little material to judge by, it would be unwise to force the chronology to agree with the known history of the site.

Many of the early terracottas come from miscellaneous habitation levels of the archaic town at Cittadella; a few were found in the scattered settlements on the Serra Orlando ridge. Although no large sanctuary deposits comparable to those of the Hellenistic period have been discovered, most of the finds from the settlements belong to common chthonian votive types that are probably images of Persephone. Three such figures (6, 26f.) may possibly be associated with sanctuaries; the rest must have come from houses. The other important context of archaic terracottas is funerary. Most of the protomes and plastic vases, as well as one standing goddess (2b), were found in tombs. A few tombs can be dated by their pottery. The most important of these are nos. 9 and 28 in Necropolis II, which contained both local and imported terracottas in several burial groups. All too often, however, the tombs had collapsed, disordering the numerous burials within and diminishing the chronological import of the associated pottery. The chthonian character of these funerary terracottas is patent. Thus it seems that the chief deity of early Morgantina, as of all Sicily, was Persephone, whose domain encompassed both life and death. Her role in the later cults of the city is discussed in chapter five.

2. The Influence of the Eastern Cities

Among the local archaic terracottas, 19 is outstanding. This genial, vigorously modeled head is one of the rare pieces at Morgantina that was made without a mold. The triangular face is tilted upwards; large eyes float in shallow indentations under the low forehead, and the bold chin is cleft. The head of the standing kore 1 is similar, although the features of 19 have greater volume. There is a closer parallel in a smaller head from Grammichele, the shape of whose face is also determined by a low forehead and prominent chin (pi. 143, fig. 3). Both of these heads can be compared to the standing kore from Megara, now in Syracuse. Although the cheeks are fuller, most of the features of 19 and the Grammichele head recur there. The heads of the twins held by the limestone suckling goddess of Megara have a similar triangular shape. In the terracottas the prominent chin and high mouth make the heads seem tilted backwards.

All of these heads are characterized by vigorous modeling and a stylistic freshness that borders on naiveté. The kore from Megara is placed well on in the second half of the sixth century by Quarles van Ufford and Langlotz. The crescent brows are derived from works of Ionian style of the third quarter of the century, a period that is a good deal later than the shape of the face might seem to indicate. The influence of Megara on Grammichele has been noted by Quarles van Ufford and Vallet, and it appears that the archaic coroplasts of this as yet nameless, increasingly Hellenized town depended on Megara for their molds. This group of heads can then be assigned to Megara or her influence. The genial style is more like that of the suckling goddess than of imports; Langlotz has called the goddess a work of popular art (Volkskunst), an apt designation which fits the terracottas.

A later head in Megarian style is 20; the modeling is characteristically full. The head is tilted forwards, the polos set at a raking angle. Similar heads of the late sixth century have been found at Megara and may have been influenced by contemporary limestone sculptures.

In the second quarter of the fifth century, peplophoroi of the severe style first appeared in the Sikeliote coroplast's repertory. They never attained great popularity, and they form only a small part of the overall votive production, which in general remained quite conservative (cf. 5). Although there are several large-scale Sikeliote terracotta and stone peplophoroi, the small votive figures are more closely related to the coroplastic types that Poulsen assigns to Attic production. However, the attributes are local. The pig is most frequent, but there are also occasional oinochoai, baskets, flowers, and pieces of fruit.

The only peplophoros from Morgantina, 6, is derived from Poulsen's first Attic type, where the right hand is placed at the breast and the left is lowered. A complete version from the same mold series is extant, from the sanctuary of the Malophoros at Selinous (pi. 143, fig. 4). A pig was held in the lowered left hand. The piece from Selinous is about fifteen percent smaller than 6 and must come from a later generation. As 6 does not belong to a first generation mold, the archetype for both figures should not be attributed to Morgantina.

The distribution of the Sikeliote peplophoroi suggests that they originated in eastern Sicily. Poulsen's second Attic type, with both hands lowered, occurs at Megara, Kamarina, and Selinous. A fine fragmentary version, holding a pig in the left hand, was found in the Fusco cemetery at Syracuse; the clay is local (pi. 144, fig. 7). A related type, holding an oinochoe in the right hand, is represented at Kamarina and Selinous.

Other peplophoroi of more local style have also been found in the east. The finest come from the inland towns of Grammichele and Kentoripa. Here the pig is held across the overfold in both hands; the motif is adapted from the earlier Sikeliote votive type wearing the chiton (cf. 5). Two other peplophoroi were found at Grammichele; one carries a pig in her right hand and holds a flower to her breast in her left; the other holds a basket in place of the flower. The latter type is also known at Leontinoi. In these figures the initial impulse from the mainland has been absorbed and transformed. Even farther removed from mainland style is a group of figures who hold pieces of fruit or a bird in the overfold; examples have been found at Syracuse, Megara, and Rhegion. The hair of the Syracusan pieces is bound in the lampadion knot, a characteristic fashion of the fourth century.

None of the Sikeliote peplophoroi comes from a dated context. The earliest may be the broad, heavy figures from Grammichele and Kentoripa. The bulky proportions are typical of the first third of the century, and the pig is held by both hands as in the earlier type wearing the chiton. The smooth surfaces of the peplos are quite unlike the drapery of other terracotta peplophoroi, although the linear precision of the folds does reflect the values of the severe style. In their combination of softness and precision these figures are reminiscent of the women of the east pediment at Olympia and should not be dated much later than mid-century. The other Sikeliote figures can be dated by their similarity to Attic types; all appear to be later than 450. The finest of these, the figure from Syracuse (pi. 144, fig. 7), shows the bunching of folds at the kolpos under the overfold, a feature reminiscent of Hippodameia (fig. K) from Olympia and the Kimasos peplophoros. Example 6 from Morgantina and Selinous must be somewhat later because of the finicky, mechanical folds. Even more advanced are the figures from Grammichele, Kamarina, Syracuse, and Megara, where the drooping sides of the overfold are treated with perfect symmetry. These may be as late as the early fourth century.

The absence of peplophoroi at both Gela and Akragas is surprising, since creative workshops were located in both cities throughout the fifth century. This circumstance may be fortuitous; yet both sites have produced a generous selection of contemporary terracottas. From the evidence at hand it appears that the peplophoroi were popular only in the eastern cities under Syracusan influence and at Selinous. The large group from Selinous is likely to be derivative; the blurred features of all the examples from the sanctuary of the Malophoros argue for this conclusion, as does the mold series of 6. Megara hardly existed in the second quarter of the century and cannot be considered as a possible source for the peplophoroi. Syracuse is more likely. The piece from Fusco (pi. 144, fig. 7) proves that at least one first-generation peplophoros was made there. Syracuse may thus be the point of origin for the second-generation pieces from Grammichele, Kentoripa, Leontinoi, Kamarina, Megara, and Morgantina. So little is now known of terracotta production in fifth-century Syracuse that such a claim must be tentative. It is striking that so little of note has turned up in the fruitful excavations of the last seventy-five years, which have provided us with abundant material dating from the later fifth century down to the sack of the city by Marcellus. Nevertheless, one senses that many of the problems of terracotta production in eastern Sicily during this period would be nearer solution if more were known of the Syracusan shops.

An early version of the standing Persephone holding piglet and torch is 7; this was the most popular and long-lived of all Sikeliote votive types. It originated in eastern Sicily, perhaps in Syracuse, toward the middle of the fifth century; the earliest example is from Grammichele. The type is derived from the late-archaic Geloan figure who carries a piglet (cf. 5 and the discussion infra, section 3). The wavy lines of the chiton have straightened out but the old-fashioned low kolpos is retained; the himation is now worn over the chiton. The version represented by 7 is close to the figures from Grammichele and should belong in the second half of the fifth century. The descendants of 7 at Morgantina are numerous (65-84).

In view of the small number of finds it is hazardous to claim strong Megarian influence at early Morgantina. Yet several of the sixth-century terracottas support such a hypothesis. The archaic heads 19(. have their best parallels at Megara. As will be noted below, the Corinthian import 3 and the related figure 4 probably passed through Megara on their way inland; such terracottas are more common at Megara than elsewhere. At Morgantina we can also point to the standing kore 2, which belongs to a Corinthian type found at Megara with some frequency. 29 It thus seems possible that the local coroplasts in the second half of the sixth century were dependent on Megara for their molds or archetypes. As has been noted, there is good evidence for such a situation at Grammichele.30 If indeed this relationship existed for Morgantina, it must have been brought to an abrupt end in 484-483, when Gelon destroyed Megara. Thereafter other sources had to be utilized by the local coroplasts, and for historical reasons these are likely to have been Geloan.

As for east Sikeliote influence at Morgantina in the fifth century, there is only the evidence of the peplophoros 6 and the Persephone 7. Too little is known of Syracusan production in the first part of the fifth century, and even less of Syracuse's relations with Morgantina. The sequence of events that brought the molds or archetypes of these pieces to inland Sicily remains obscure.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Morgantina Studies, Volume I by Malcolm Bell III. Copyright © 1981 Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

• FrontMatter, pg. i
• Contents, pg. vii
• List of Plates, pg. ix
• List of Text Figures, pg. xi
• Editor’s Foreword, pg. xiii
• Preface, pg. xvii
• Abbreviations, pg. xxi
• Introduction and Historical Sketch, pg. 1
• I. Archaic and Early-Classical Terracottas, pg. 9
• II. Late-Classical Terracottas, pg. 22
• III. Early-Hellenistic Terracottas, pg. 41
• IV. Late-Hellenistic Terracottas, pg. 74
• V. The VotiveTerracottas, pg. 81
• Introduction Part I., pg. 115
• Introduction Part II., pg. 161
• Introduction Part III., pg. 200
• List of Contexts, pg. 238
• Concordance, pg. 261
• Index, pg. 263
• 1-19, pg. 269
• 20–40, pg. 290
• 41–60, pg. 311
• 61–80, pg. 331
• 81–100, pg. 351
• 101–120, pg. 371
• 121–150, pg. 391