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.712Ant. Denkm. i. pl. 46, 4 = J.H.S. iv. pl. 31.
5.Brit. Mus.813Ibid. pl. 46, 3 = J.H.S. iv. p. 20, fig. 15.
6.Brit. Mus.913Ibid. pl. 46, 5 = J.H.S. iv. p. 19, fig. 14.
7.Louvre1011Bull. de Corr. Hell., 1890, pl. 6.
8.Louvre113Ibid., 1892, p. 240.
9.Louvre121Ibid., 1895, pls. 1–2, p. 71.
10.Louvre132Ibid., 1895, p. 80.
11.Berlin18Ant. Denkm. i. pl. 44.
12.Berlin29Ibid. pl. 46, 2.
13.Vienna1510Ibid. pl. 45.
14.Smyrna1414Ibid. pl. 46, 1.
15.Constantinople37Mon. dell’ Inst. xi. pl. 53 = J.H.S. iv. p. 8 ff.
16.Constantinople44, 5Ibid. pl. 54 = J.H.S. iv. p. 2 ff.
17.Constantinople5—Röm. Mitth. 1888, p. 163.
18.Constantinople66Revue 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 market18–20—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.