In his Presidential address to the Hellenic Society in 1914, Walter Leaf expressed the hope that a study of the history of ancient Corinth might be undertaken. He directed special attention to the economic history, to be interpreted mainly from the material remains of Corinth and of Corinthian industry. This task has not yet been carried out. Much has been written on Corinthian art and industry, but the historical conclusions of these archaeological studies remain still to be drawn. The Corinthians, more than other Greeks, had an individual way of life, recognised by their contemporaries, which can be used as a point from which to survey the Greek world; it is expressed by Herodotus in a single phrase, ἤκιστα δὲ Κορίνθιοι ὄνονται τοὺς χειροτέχνας. The economic approach should therefore be especially suited to the history of Corinth. But before this interpretation can be written, we must acquire a solid body of fact about Corinthian history and economic life, drawing chiefly on the material remains. What follows is the first chapter of such a study, dealing with the beginnings and early history of Corinth down to about 750 B.C. Most of my conclusions are not new, but I hope that some of the arguments are. The basis is the archaeological evidence uncovered by the Americans at Corinth, by Payne at Perachora.

Little serious archaeological work has been carried out in Greece during the war years. The Greek Archaeological Service has been obliged to give all its attention to the conservation of sites and works of art, a task carried out with courage and devotion in often very difficult circumstances. The foreign Schools have been able to carry out little work. The many military works carried out by the occupying forces have had a less rich harvest of antiquities than might have been expected. In many cases little information is available beyond the bare fact that excavations were carried out or finds made; no Greek experts were present and the finds were not handed over to the Greek Archaeological Service.This article describes new finds only. It does not cover the damage done by acts of war to monuments and museums, which will be described elsewhere. It does include excavations and finds of 1939–40, which have not yet been reported in JHS, and summarises a number of Greek publications of the war years.I am indebted for information to P. Amandry (on whose articles in BCH lxiv–lxv (1940–1), 231 ff. and lxvi–lxvii (1942–3), 320 ff. this article is largely based), to J. M. Cook and T. W. French, who collected much of the material, to A. D. Keramopoullos and the members of the Greek Archaeological Service of which he is head, who have given information and assistance at every point. I have also made use of the articles in AA 1940, 121 ff.; 1942, 99 ff.

The only ancient topographer to mention the Heraion of Perachora calls it an oracle. Strabo's words are: ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταξὺ τοῦ Λεχαίου καὶ Παγῶν τὸτῆς ᾿Ακραίας μαντεῖον ῾῾Ηρας ὑπῆρχε τὸ παλαιόν Commenting on this passage Payne says: ‘No trace of this aspect of the cult has yet been found’. I suggest that it has been found, though not recognised, and may explain a puzzling feature of the site revealed by the excavation.

No abstract

Johansen in Vases Sicyoniens and Payne in Necrocorinthia and Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei isolated a number of artistic personalities, but this was, or seemed at that stage, incidental to their main object, the ordering of Protocorinthian and ‘Corinthian’ pottery by phases of chronological development. Payne left further work on painters in manuscript notes, and we and others have done something in the same line, but so far there has been no attempt to see the whole development of the style in terms of artistic personalities influencing one another (which after all it was), as has been done by Beazley for Attic red-figure and blackfigure, and by J. M. Cook for Protoattic. If such a view can be achieved it modifies the necessarily rather schematic (even Procrustean) division into chronological phases, and gives a more organic view of the development. For the ‘Corinthian’ period it is a somewhat dispiriting task, though even there we believe that it would be worth doing, if only to help our understanding of the interrelation of Corinthian and Attic. In this article, however, we are concerned only with Protocorinthian, whose general level is very high, and the principal artists of superlative quality; the isolation of painters here needs no apology.Earlier work on these lines was impeded by the fact that the miniature side of Protocorinthian has been so much better preserved and published than the parallel and contemporary ‘big style’. The balance has recently been partly righted by Kraiker's publication of material from Aigina; and the other most important body of Protocorinthian pottery—the votive deposit from the Temple of Hera Limenia at Perachora—has already been prepared for publication by Dunbabin. We have made full use of the Perachora material in this article, and the substantiation of some of our conclusions will have to await the appearance of Perachora II. There is a third, unpublished, collection of Protocorinthian ‘big style’ vases in Berlin, from Aigina.