Consuming Iconographies

ÉTUDES D’ARCHÉOLOGIE 5

POTTERY MARKETS IN THE ANCIENT GREEK WORLD (8th - 1st CENTURIES B.C.)

Proceedings of the International Symposiumheld at the Université libre de Bruxelles

19-21 June 2008

Edited by

Athena Tsingarida and Didier Viviers

Études d’archéologie 5

POTTERY MARKETS IN THE ANCIENT GREEK WORLD (8th - 1st centuries B.C.)

Proceedings of the International Symposiumheld at the Université libre de Bruxelles

19-21 June 2008

Edited byAthena Tsingarida and Didier Viviers

With the contribution of Zosia Archibald, Alain Bresson, Fabienne Burkhalter, Véronique Chankowski, Franca Cibecchini,

John K. Davies, François de Callataÿ, Martine Denoyelle, Raymond Descat, Pierre Dupont, Sandrine Elaigne, Roland Étienne, Alan Johnston, Elisabeth Langridge-Noti, Eleni Manakidou,

Natacha Massar, Thomas R. Patrick, Gary Reger, Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Pierre Rouillard, Elisabeth Trinkl, Athena Tsingarida, Annie Verbanck, Alexandra Villing, Didier Viviers, Dyfri Williams

BruxellesCReA-Patrimoine

2013

Éditeur

CReA-Patrimoine© Centre de Recherches en Archéologie et Patrimoine (CReA-Patrimoine)

Université libre de Bruxelles50, av. F.D. Roosevelt / CP 175B-1050 [email protected] • http://crea.ulb.ac.be

ISBN : 9789461360335Impression : Le Livre Timperman

Cover

Drawing from P. Hartwig, Die griechischen Meisterschalen, Stuttgart, 1893, pl. 17.1, kylix, Baltimore (MD), John Hopkins University D4.

Études d’archéologie 5Études d’Archéologie Classique de l’ULB 7

5

Contents

ForewordAthena Tsingarida and Didier Viviers 7

Abbreviations 9

Introduction. Ceramics and the economic historian: mixed messages and unharmonised agendas John K. Davies 11

I. TRADE AND TRADERS : VALUE, TRANSPORT AND PLACES OF EXCHANGE

Introduction The Greek Vase Trade: some reflections about scale, value and market

Alain Bresson and François de Callataÿ 21

La céramique sur le marché : l’objet, sa valeur et son prix. Problèmes d’interprétation et de confrontation des sources

Véronique Chankowski 25

Greek Potters and Painters: Marketing and Movings Dyfri Williams 39

Consuming Iconographies Elisabeth Langridge-Noti 61

Egypt as a “market” for Greek pottery: Some thoughts on production, consumption and distribution in an intercultural environment

Alexandra Villing 73

Naukratis, Aegina and Laconia; some individuals and pottery distribution Alan Johnston 103

II. MARKET AND PRODUCTS : THE MARKETS OF FINE WARE

IntroductionThe Markets of Fine Ware

Athena Tsingarida 115

Economic Regionalism in Theory and Practice Gary Reger 119

Joining up the dots: making economic sense of pottery distributions in the Aegean and beyondZosia Archibald 133

Corinthian Pottery at Syracuse in the Late 8th and 7th Centuries BCThomas R. Patrick 159

Northern Greek MarketsKaterina Rhomiopoulou 171

Marché régional, importations et imitations de céramiques corinthiennes et attiques à Karabournaki (Macédoine) à l’époque archaïque

Eleni Manakidou 175

Classical Black-Glazed Imports to Western Asia MinorElisabeth Trinkl 189

6

Introduction

Spina : un avant-poste de la céramique italiote en Etrurie padane ?Martine Denoyelle 203

Eléments d’évaluation des échelles de diffusion de la vaisselle de table au IIe siècle avant J.-C. dans le monde hellénistique

Sandrine Elaigne 213

III. MARKET AND PRODUCTS : VASE CONTAINERS

IntroductionRaymond Descat 231

Trafics amphoriques et commerce de vases dans le Pont-Euxin archaïque : quelques aspectsPierre Dupont 233

Le commerce du vin et le commerce de la céramique hellénistique tyrrhénienne en Méditerranée occidentale au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. : le point de vue « maritime »

Franca Cibecchini 237

Les amphores vinaires dans la documentation papyrologique d'époque ptolémaïque : production, prix et capacité

Fabienne Burkhalter 251

Follow the scent… Marketing perfume vases in the Greek worldAnnie Verbanck et Natacha Massar 273

ConclusionsRoland Etienne avec la collaboration de Pierre Rouillard 301

About the contributors 307

9

Abbreviations

ABV = J.D. Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters Oxford, 1956.

Add2 = J.D. Beazley, Addenda: Second Additional References to ABV, ARV2and Paralipomena (compiled by T.H. Carpenter) Oxford, 1989.

AGRP = T. Melander and J. Christiansen (eds), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen, 1988.

APP = J.H. Oakley, W.D.E. Coulson, O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters Oxford, 1997.

APP II = J.H. Oakley and O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters Volume II, Oxford, 2009.

ARV2 = J.D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters Oxford, 1963.

The Athenian Agora III = R.E. Wycherley, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, Princeton (N.J.)1957 [The Athenian Agora III].

The Athenian Agora XII = B.A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C., Princeton (N.J.), 1970 [The Athenian Agora XII].

The Athenian Agora XIV = H. Thompson and R.E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens : the history, shape and uses of an ancient city centre, Princeton, 1972 [The Athenian Agora XIV].

The Athenian Agora XIX = G. Lalonde, M. Langdon, M.B. Walbank, Inscriptions, Princeton (N.J.), 1991 [The Athenian Agora XIX].

The Athenian Agora XXIII = M. Moore, and M.Z. Philippides, Attic Black-Figure Pottery, Princeton, 1986 [The Athenian Agora XXIII].

Bresson, 2007 = A. Bresson, L’économie de la Grèce des cités (fin de Vie-Ier siècle a.C.). I. Les structures et la production, Paris.

Bresson, 2008 = A. Bresson, L’économie de la Grèce des cités (fin de Vie-Ier siècle a.C.). II. Les espaces de l’échange, Paris.

Johnston 1979 = A. Johnston Trademarks on Greek Vases, Warminster.

Johnston 2006 = A. Johnston Trademarks on Greek Vases. Addenda, Oxford.

Le vase grec = P. Rouillard, A. Verbanck-Pierard (eds), Le vase grec et ses destins, Munich, 2003.

Para = J.D. Beazley, Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-figure Vase-painters Oxford, 1971.

Tsingarida, 2009 = A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases (7th – 4th centuries B.C.), Brussels.

61

Most of the papers at this volume address the broad-based canvas of Athenian trade in pottery. However, while I will tackle issues using evidence from these broadly painted canvases, my issues are, in fact, micro-issues of trying to understand the patterns in the proveniences of the vases attributable to the Eucharides Painter for which about 80% have provenience.

The following study suggests that trade from Athens was not “blind”; that is painters and potters, traders and customers all looked at the pottery with which they dealt and made decisions based on what they believed would work in a particular market or situation. Thus, the assumption that there is no relationship between pot, market and iconography is misleading. Since much of the evidence on which I concentrate is known, my goal is to examine the issues from a slightly different perspective and to refocus discussions. My goal is to explain the patterns that I see in the distribution of the Eucharides Painter’s vases, although it is to be hoped that the observations made will be useful within a broader context

My examination below will cover aspects of vase life from workshop production through to the customer with the hope of shedding light on the variability of types of trading. I begin with a brief overview that investigates what we know, or can suggest, of the physical placement, set-up and interactions of pottery workshops. I then turn to three specific case studies that have emerged from my study of vases attributed to the Eucharides Painter. These permit an exploration of the connections between vase iconography, workshop, painter and destination. What I hope to demonstrate is that the normative state of affairs in the Athenian Potters’ Quarter would have been a complex combination of differing experiences, needs and marketing possibilities.

Preparing Products

The first task undertaken in this paper is to consider briefly workshop size and make-up in order to

highlight the smaller clusters of multi-ethnic craftsmen that would have been the norm in ancient Athens where the Eucharides Painter worked. First, a consideration of the literary sources and the archaeological record demonstrate that the Athenian vase-painter would not have worked within a static and purely Athenian-focused idiom1. Here records like those from the Erechtheion are particularly helpful in revealing the diversity embedded in the Athenian work force. These are then supplemented by the signatures of foreign craftsmen and artists on pottery as well as on other media2. Second, ethnographic comparisons have provided support for the idea that potters and painters might well have been mobile between workshops, as seen also in more traditional stylistic painter and potter studies3.

1 See Langridge-Noti forthcoming for an expanded version of these first few sections. L. Hannestad, “The Athenian Potter and the Home Market”, in: AGRP, 222-223 already notes that a single massive group of potters and painters is untenable on the current evidence. See also Hasaki 2002 and C. Jubier-Galinier, A.-F. Laurens and A. Tsingarida, “Les ateliers de potiers en Attique. De l’idée à l’object”, in: Le vase grec, 35-39 figures 7-8 referring to Monaco 2000. Although an Athenian world view may have predominated among Athenian craftsmen, I hope to demonstrate below that there were enough influences both from the inside (metics/slaves) and, as will be seen later, from the outside (buyers/traders) so that the assumption that pots were created solely with Athenian topography or mythology in mind is likely to be mistaken. The multi-ethnic make-up of the potters’ quarter in Athens was already noted by P. Kretschmer, Die griecheschen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach Untersucht, Bertelsmann, 1894, cf. A. Boegehold, “The Nessos Amphora – a note on the inscription”, AJA (1962), 405-406; A. Boegehold, “A New Attic Black Figure Potter”, AJA (1983), 89-90 and Williams 1995, 151-155.

2 For foreigners working in Athens, see Dio. Sic. 11.43.3; Thuc. 7.27.3-5 as well as Boardman 2001, 144, Papadopoulos and Smithson 2002, 187-193 and Williams 1995, 153-157.

3 Peacock 1982 is seminal for using ethnographic work to interpret the archaeological record. H. Blitzer,

Consuming Iconographies

Elizabeth Langridge-Noti

62

I. Trade and Traders: Value, Transport and places of exchange

These studies also support the idea of relative small workshops, again something that is suggested by traditional studies of the vases themselves4. Finally, although both literary and archaeological sources indicate that there was a concentration of potting in the area known as the Kerameikos, there were also workshops in other areas both around Athens and outside the city center that indicate the potential for diverse interaction among workshops and patrons5.

“ΚΟΡΩΝΕΙΚΑ: Storage-Jar Production and Trade in the Traditional Aegean”, Hesperia 59.4 (1990), 675-711; Ionas 2000 and Hasaki 2002 have been particularly useful for this paper. See also J. Oakley, The Achilles Painter, Mainz am Rhein, 1997, especially 96-113 for a prototypical traditional study.

4 Exceptions to the small size of workshops would be groups like that associated with Nikosthenes or the Penthesilea Painter in which the working group of painters and potters is usually thought to be substantially larger, maybe as many as 30 people working at a single time, see I. Scheibler, Griechische Töpferkunst : Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefässe, Munich, 1983, 107-119 and P. Valavanis, “Βάκχιος, Κίττος και παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς. Σκέψεις για τη δομή των αττικών κεραμικών”, in: APP, 85 - 96. Even here, however, there are dissenters, see V. Tosto, The Black-figure Pottery Signed NIKOSTHENESEPOSIEN, 1999 [Allard Pierson Series 11], Amsterdam, 1999. Hasaki 2002, 313 notes that although larger factories do appear in fourth century B.C. oratory (Aesch. 1.97), none of the larger workshops mentioned in the speeches are potteries. K. Vitelli, “Pots vs. Vases”, Antiquity 66 (1992), 552 wonders whether Corinthian aryballoi are not being made under factory-like conditions in service of a particular industry. For this same theme, cf. Massar and Verbanck-Pierard in this volume, 273-298. For small workshops, see Harris 2002, 67-99; J. Davies, Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens, New York, 1981, 44 and R.J. Hopper, Trade and Industry in Classical Greece, London, 1979, 102 who cites Xen. Mem. 2.3.3 and Lysias 24.6 and Peacock 1982, 38.

5 For kiln sites of this period certainly outside the area associated with the Kerameikos, Hasaki 2002, 56; and 57 and Monaco 2000, cat. 238-240. E. Baziotopoulou-Valavani, “Ανασκαφές σε αθηναϊκά κεραμικά εργαστήρια αρχαικών και κλασικών χρόνων”, in: W.D.E. Coulson (ed.), The Archaeology of Athens under the Democracy, Athens, 1994, 47 implies that many of the workshop finds fall outside of the Kerameikos proper, cf. Sabetai 2006, 10-11 n. 9-10 and Monaco 2000. See Williams 1995, 143 and n. 95 for the existence of Kephalos of Kollytos whose father was a potter. Although close to the urban core of Athens, Kephalos’ deme affiliation suggests that he is outside the Kerameikos.

Getting the Goods

This diversity in the make-up of the work force and working conditions suggested by archaeology and literary sources can also be seen when examining the evidence for where goods might have been sold. Considered self-evident by most scholars and supported by existing evidence is the sale of goods through the workshop-home6. Literary sources suggest that areas of the Athenian Agora were certainly set aside for the sale of goods in both temporary and permanent stalls selling both local and imported goods and the possibility of retail shops is supported by archaeology7. However, since foreigners' selling rights were restricted outside the Piraeus markets, foreign goods were presumably sold in many instances by Athenian merchants; a sign that we need to consider further what was being sold and by whom within the Agora and other Athenian markets8. Literary sources also make it clear that the central Agora is by no means the only place in which goods were displayed for sale9. Markets probably

Note also the evidence for potting in the area of the El. Venizelos airport in Athens that is on display in the airport museum.

6 Ionas 2000 notes the association of workshop/ home in 19th and 20th c. traditional potting communities in Cyprus, cf. Boardman 2001, Peacock 1982, Osborne 1996, 39 and 2004, 87 and Williams 1995.

7 For discussion of retail stores in the Agora, see K. Lynch 2005. “Shopping for Pottery”, (unpublished paper, CAMWS 2005), Papadopoulos 2003 and Monaco 2000. E. Vanderpool, “The Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft”, Hesperia 15 (1946), 265-336 believed that the Rock-Cut Shaft in the Athenian Agora did have wasters as well as a range of painter groups but more recently Papadopoulos (2003, 278-79) has suggested that the wasters are better explained as misfired pots that are subsequently sold. For temporary stalls see Harris 2002, 75 and The Athenian Agora III, 185-206. Thanks to M. Stansbury-O’Donnell for reminding me that this could be something that the workshop itself could have set up.

8 See Demosthenes LVII.31 for selling restrictions on foreigners in the Agora. However, The Athenian Agora III, 653 suggests that these restrictions/fines should be understood as placed on foreigners without the right permits. Ar. Acharn. 720ff could be read as permitting foreigners the right to sell or as part of Dikaiopolis’ aberration in setting up a market.

9 We should consider here the Pemberton’s transfer points (E. Pemberton, “Classical and Hellenistic

63

E. Langridge-Noti — Consuming Iconographies

existed at the borders of Athens and certainly existed at the port in Peiraeus10. Although our literary evidence is scanty for all of these markets, what does exist makes it likely that workshops would have seen one, if not all, of these markets as ideal situations to display goods that they hoped would be exported, and that individual workshops were aware that each market might well have catered to a different type of buyer11.

Pottery from Corinth and its Athenian Connections”, in: N. Bookidis and C.K. Williams (eds.), Corinth: The Centeniary, Princeton, 2003 [Corinth XX], 171). Since the known pottery workshops fall outside Corinth’s city center and, indeed, the main excavated area associated with potting falls on the far western edge of the city and away from the main routes down to the port, it seems clear that unless the pottery had an intrinsic value of its own, that merchants and traders would have been unlikely to traipse out to buy these wares and that the positing of some type of retail point is much more economical. See also Papadopoulos 2003, 288 cites Lawall who notes changes in the number of imported amphorae appearing in the Agora post-Persian Wars and wonders if this is connecting to changing routes into the city center.

10 A. Bresson, “Ecology and Beyond: The Mediterranean Paradigm”, in: W.V. Harris (ed.), Rethinking the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2005, 106; against Osborne (1987) 108 for the existence of markets outside of the center of Athens. Inscriptions that note the existence of Agoras: Sounion: IG II² 1180, Eleusis: IG II² 1188, Halai Aixonides: IG II² 1174. See also Sabetai 2006, 10-11 n. 9-10. For further possibilities of where and how one might sell goods, see L. De Ligt, Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: economic and social aspects of periodic trade in a pre-industrial society, Amsterdam, 1993. P.V. Stanley, Ancient Greek market regulations and controls, University of California, Berkeley dissertation, 1976, 144 cites Dem. 23 for the existence of border agoras that help to regulate the flow of imported goods into Athens but at 145 he says that these agoras are not the same as the deme agoras.

11 For differentiation amongst the various Peiraeus markets, see R. Garland, The Peiraeus, London, 1987, 86 and R.J. Hopper, Trade and Industry in Classical Greece, London, 1979, 52. For the Deigma: Polyaen VI.2.2; Suda s.v. deigma; Schol. on Ar. Knights (979); Pollux IX.34; Dem. 35.29 and 50.24; Xen. Vect. iii.2; Isoc. IV.42. For the Hippodamian Agora: Garland, Ibid., 141-42 and Aristotle Pol. 1267 b23; Dem. 49.22; Xen. Hell 2.4.11; Andoc. 1.45; Pholios s.v. Ιπποδαμμεíα.

Emporoi and the average customer

A discussion of where people are buying pots leads directly into the question of who is actually doing the buying, although they are not the same question. Here there is tension that exists between those that are looking through the lense of the pots [focused on the Athenian buyer as being principal] and those who are looking through the lense of economic history [focused on emporoi and larger scale interactions].

The sections above have demonstrated that although some Athenian pottery was consumed by Athenians that much of the pottery being produced in Athens ended up overseas and so was made and displayed in such a way as to take into account the probability of a foreign buyer12. We can supplement this argument by considering further pieces of literary and archaeological evidence. Fourth century B.C. bottomry loan speeches in conjunction with sanctuary dedications going back to the seventh century B.C. make it clear that the naukleroi and emporoi who man the vessels carrying goods around the Mediterranean were an international crew13. The dialogues also confirm what is found in shipwreck excavations that a diverse cargo was preferred and that cargoes underwent changes and exchanges depending on where profit lay. Flexibility in who was doing the trading, what was being traded and how much was being traded is seen both in the legalities that restricted some types of trade like that of the grain trade but also in the ease with which traders

12 Osborne 1996, 33 says that painters would paint pots to attract the attention and critical approval and notice of Athenian passers-by but on 32 he states that potters produce in part for targeted markets; thus, potentially not for Athenians.

13 For this international (Massaliots, Phoenicians, Euboans and Byzantines) composition in the speeches, see Dem 32.4-6; Dem 33.4-5; Dem 34.6-9; Dem 35.10-13 and Dem. 56. A. Johnston, review of I. Scheibler, Griechische Toepferkunst : Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefässe, Munich, 1995, in AJA 89 (1985), 182 notes that we do not know when these loans actually begin so they cannot be taken as a clear indication of exactly HOW trade is being dealt with in Athens. Reed 2003, 73 believes that the loans probably began in the second quarter of the fifth century B.C. For sanctuary dedications, see Johnston 2006, 28 for the Etruscan on Aigina. See also M. Christofani, “Un etrusco a Egina”, St. Etr. 59 (1993), 159-163. A. Johnston, Gravisca: savi nel santuario Greco: le iscrizioni, vol. 15, Bari, 2000, 24, n° 4 and 25, n° 82 for the dedications at Gravisca.

64


made the decision to change course if they found a better, or perhaps, easier and safer, market elsewhere. It is this flexibility that makes absolute patterns within the archaeological evidence impossible to find – there will always be exceptions.

In fact, there are a number of groups of pots that earlier scholarship recognizes to have been directed towards a specific market, by shape, by iconography and, most importantly, by the ability to trace (or to reconstruct) context; what in current marketing terms could be called ‘targeted selling/marketing’14. Among the most obvious examples are Tyrrhenian amphorae and Nikosthenic amphorae that have long been recognized as being directed towards Etruria15. Indeed, in the case of the latter, the distinctive shape was seen from the 19th c. clearly as having its roots in an Etruscan greyware form whose ancestry can be followed back into the 7th century B.C. Nothing in excavated material since then has suggested that these observations were wrong16. Scholars have also looked closely at kyathoi and stamnoi and realized that here too are shapes that were made in imitation of shapes found in the Etruscan west. Indeed, where provenance exists these forms too were most likely to show up in the west, suggesting that the Attic import should perhaps be seen as an exotic, although not necessarily luxurious, alternative to the local form17.

14 Limited support for the idea of targeted marketing can be found in Johnston 2006, 29-30 and Osborne 1996, 39 and 2001, 278. See the Perizoma Group, H.A. Shapiro, “Modest athletes and liberated women: Etruscans on Attic black-figure vases”, in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, Leiden, 2000, 315-337 for how the iconography of the Perizoma Group matches its market.

15 For Etruscan shapes and their metamorphosis into Attic pottery in general, see Osborne 2001 and T. Rasmussen, “Etruscan Shapes in Attic Pottery”, Antike Kunst 28 (1985), 33-39. For stamnoi, see Buitron-Oliver 1995, 319. Whereas, Nikosthenic amphorae are essentially found only in Caere, the kyathoi are found in a number of Etruscan sites (Caere, Vulci, Orvieto, Tarquinia).

16 Moore’s publication of the black-figure pottery from the Athenian Agora that indicate essentially single fragments of these forms, would seem to confirm the fact that these pots were made to go west, see The Athenian Agora XXIII.

17 See Buitron-Oliver 1995, 319; Morgan and Arafat 1994, 114 and Osborne 1996. On the Bronze Age precedents, see J.C. Wright, “Mycenean Table Services and Standards of Etiquette”, in: P. Halstead

If we turn to the other end of the chronological spectrum, Attic pottery of the fourth century B.C., pelikai as well as small vases like lekythoi, are most common in graves in the area of the Black Sea18. Finally, shipwrecks with large quantities of one particular shape such as kylikes, are particularly suggestive of this type of targeting19. Emporoi had brought with them what they believed would sell.

There are also, of course, a number of shapes and specific types of decoration that were made specifically for the ‘home’ market, although it is not always stated strongly as such. White-ground outline lekythoi are one example but lebes gamikoi, loutrophoroi, the small choes and even the small Brauronian krateriskoi can be placed in the same category. All of these forms can be intimately tied to specific Athenian ritual. And for each of these forms, it is worth comment if they show up in quantity elsewhere. For both the exported, as well as for the locally consumed vases, there are, in many cases, broadly recognizable iconographic schema that appear on the individual shape: on white-ground outline lekythoi, funerary scenes; on the lebes gamikos, wedding scenes; on the Tyrrhenian amphorae, complex, often garbled to us, mythological scenes.

Examining Iconography

So having briefly examined some of the issues that lead to particular types of pots ending up in particular places, let us turn to the issue of what a painter chooses to paint and why. Two ideas that have recently been developed within the scholarly literature can help to develop further this complexity. The first is the recognition that a pot is a commodity and, as such, ascribed a potentially fluctuating value by the community within which it is used. It is also ascribed meaning, and again a meaning that might well fluctuate both through time and space

and J. C. Barrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield, 2001 [Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology], 90-104.

18 M. Robertson, The Art of vase-painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge 1992, 267-268 and Fless 2002.

19 See the Pointe Lequin 1A wreck (A.T. Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and Roman Provinces Oxford, 1992, 323, 846) with its ca. 800 Attic cups.

65


and that reflects and reinforces the identity of the individual within a community20. I would stress that these identities and boundaries do not mean purely Athenian ones and that the iconography of a pot thus needs to be readable within differing situations21. The second idea is that of the ‘Middle Ground’; an idea that permits both choice on the Athenian end for perceived needs and desires as well as choice on the receiving end that may not match, indeed may transform, the original uses and meanings of an object or a scene22.

With the foundation laid, specific case studies can be used to explore what this variety might mean in terms of interpreting specific groups of pots within their final archaeological contexts. Each case study is indicative of different choices and different patterns. Thus, each adds further to complexity and variety in how ancient trade worked that was noted above.

Case Study 1 (fig. 1)

The first case study to be used to explore the relationship of maker, purchaser and iconography has its origins in an investigation of the iconography of a kalpis in Basel and a pelike in Chicago both attributable to the Eucharides Painter23. On both of

20 Arafat and Morgan 1994, citing A. Appadurai, “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value”, in: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things, Cambridge, 1986, 3-63.

21 Arafat and Morgan1994, 108; Rystedt, “Athens in Etruria: A note on Panathenaic amphorae and Attic ceramic imagery in Etruria”, in: E. Herring, I. Lemos, F. Lo Schiavo, L. Vagnetti, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkens (eds.), Across Frontiers: Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Cypriots, Studies in honor of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway, London, 2006, 505.

22 I. Malkin, “A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan, and Local Elites in the Bay of Naples”, in : C.L. Lyons and J.K. Papadopoulos (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism, Los Angeles, 2002, 151- 181 developed for the area of Campania a term that was coined by R. White, The Middle Ground, Cambridge, 1991 to explain interaction between Native Americans and European settlers. I was already wrestling with this idea earlier in lectures but I did not express it so eloquently (I discussed the idea of instability in meaning over space rather than static meaning). See Arafat and Morgan 1994, 108.

23 Kalpis, Basel, Antikenmus. and Pelike, Slg. Ludwig

these examples, the sphinx sits on her haunches on a base in the form a simple stele topped by a plinth. She faces to the right but turns her head back to the left. Gesticulating, bearded men draped in himatia, gather around the monument, either sitting next to the monument on either side of it or standing. All carry staffs. Added white marks off the sphinx’s face and also appears on the top step of the base on the Basel kalpis. Neither scene bears any labeling. While this sphinx scene does appear on larger vases such as these two, it is most popular on small white-ground black-figure lekythoi.

BS411 (Langridge-Noti 2003, fig. 2) and Chicago 115.68 (ABV 396.23, Moret 1984, pl. 26.1).

1. Athenian Agora P25511. Courtesy of the Agora Excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

66


Two explanations have been given to explain the iconography of these vases. The traditional explanation is that these are Theban men surrounding the Theban sphinx24. The second is that this scene could be seen as men surrounding a grave marker25. Which interpretation should be chosen; indeed, is choice necessary? In order to explore this possibility of choice in interpretation, one needs to consider:

1. how are the scenes identified; 2. for whom are the vases being made;3. how much can (or do) shape and context affect the type of interpretation given to the scene and, in the background of all of these questions;4. how much influence do either the workshop (painter and potter) and the market (trader and consumer) have on what is produced and where it goes.

To address the first question, we need to consider attributes and labels. A labeled Oidopous does, in fact, appear on red-figure vases from about the 470s – at which time there also appears amongst the unlabeled men in this scene, an unlabeled figure wearing the distinct petasos and cape of a traveler and who is likely to be Oidopous26. Their appearance

24 See Moret 1984; K. Schauenburg, “Zur thebischen Sphinx”, B. von Freytag Loringhoff (eds.), Praestant Interna: Festscrift für Ulrich Hausmann, Tübingen, 1982, 230-235; J. Boardman, “A Sam-Wide Cup in Oxford”, JHS 90 (1970), 194-195 and W. Moon and L. Berge, Greek Vase-Painting in Midwestern Collections, Chicago, 1979, 140 n° 79. All note in some fashion that the scene is ambiguous.

25 E. Langridge-Noti, “Mourning at the Tomb: a reevaluation of the sphinx monument on Attic black-figure pottery” AA (2003.1), 141-155.

26 For vases with inscriptions identifying participants in the scene, see Vatican, Museo Etrusco Gregoriano 16541, ARV² 451.1 dating to 470/60 and attributed to the Oedipus Painter. On uninscribed vases, Oidipous’ identifying characteristics are the petasos, cloak and traveling sandals of the wanderer. Moret 1984 believes a calyx-krater from Metaponto (Metaponto, Museo Civico 126.135-126.146, Moret 1984 n° 68) to be the earliest appearance of Oidopous on an Attic vase. Moret’s date of 490-80 BC is, however, too early for the fragments, which belong closer to 470 BC, stylistically. For other appearances of Oidopous, see Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 1906.2447 (Nolan amphora by the Achilles Painter, ARV² 989.26), London, BM E812.3 (krater fragment, LIMC “Oedipus” n° 20), Princeton, Universiry Art Museum 1964.107 (lekythos), Vienna, Kunsthistorisches 3728 (pelike by Hermonax, ca 460 BC, ARV² 485.24)

in the 470s later than the pieces with which we began, may indicate a perceived need by painters in some circumstances to clarify more closely the identification of the figures and scenes that they paint. This suggests that vase-painters considered either the market for which the vases or being made or, perhaps, the way in which the vases could or would have been marketed in their original conception of the vase-painting itself27. It also suggests that the idea of ‘fixed’ meaning being given to an individual vase representation, a core precept of traditional iconographic studies, needs reconsideration. Post-colonial/post-structuralist studies have begun to re-focus the possibilities of interpretation though with the acknowledgement of multiple viewing audiences and, thus, the potential of multiple interpretations – as a different interpretation/meaning is given to a scene by each different viewer drawing upon their own background28. The interpretation of a scene can change even within the lifetime of an individual vase – as the vase itself is used in different circumstances by different people29. It is worth considering the way in which Athenian figured vases are labeled in this light. First, the labeling of figures begins in earnest about the time

and Paris, Musée du Louvre G 534 (belly amphora from the Polygnotos Group, ARV²1059.130). Moret 1984 notes an overlap in time between the scenes showing men gathered around the sphinx and scenes that show Oidopous and the sphinx. Eventually the scene of Oidopous and the sphinx takes over completely. We should also note here that the iconography of both a krater in Lecce (Mus. Prov. 610, Moret 1984 n° 69 ca 470 BC) and the Lupoli Painter’s lekythos has been connected with grave scenes.

27 P. Hannah, “ΤΟΝ ΑΘΕΝΕΘΕΝ ΑΘΛΟΝ: A Case Study in the History of a Label”, in: J. Watson (ed.), Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World, London, 2001 [Mnemosyne 218], 161-186.

28 Methodologies like that of Reader-Response Theory are key here, see D.E. Hall, Literary and Cultural Theory, Boston, 2001 and Stansbury-O’Donnell, Looking at Greek Art, Cambridge, 2011.

29 See here Malkin 2002 and D. Williams, “The Brygos Tomb Reassembled and 19th-Century Commerce in Capuan Antiquities”, AJA 96.4 (1992), 617-636. The inclusion in the Brygos tomb of vases collected over many years with related imagery suggests deliberate thought of interconnections on the part of the final consumers. For vase biographies, see Papadopoulos and Smithson 2002 and S. Langdon, “Beyond the Grave: Biographies from Early Greece”, AJA105 (2001), 579-606.

67


that the market for Athenian vases begins to grow. From the beginning it is the figures that are labeled rather than the scene that is titled30. The choice to label rather than title implies not just the potential importance of the individual figures to any particular audience but also reveals an innate flexibility in how is a scene is read – we don’t get the name of the story, rather we see the participants and read their stories in whatever way we, as a consumer at any stage along the line, wish.

This leads to a question of the market for the vases in this particular case study. Although the white-ground black-figure lekythoi that form the principal shape group on which the sphinx scene is depicted are found in a number of places around the Mediterranean, a core of them were found in Athens and Attica31. As citizen men in Athens were required to demonstrate their care for their ancestors’ graves, these small lekythoi could perhaps have served as symbolic indicators of that respect towards the ancestral dead32. Indeed, this would

30 The only exception I know is the dinos by Sophilos in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens (ABV 39.16). It is also possible that Panathenaic amphorae might also be seen as an exception.

31 For examples from Athens and Attica: Marathon, Museum M223 (Moret 1984, pl. 32.1-3); Athens, National Museum 18720 (ABV 520.23; Moret 1984, pl. 25); Athens, National Museum 19278 (Moret 1984, pl. 38); Athens, National Museum A15510 (L. Parlama and N. Stampolides (eds.) The City beneath the City, Athens, 2000, no. 336; Athens, Agora Museum P25511 (Para 279; Moret 1984, pl. 27.5); Athens, National Museum 608 (ABV 585; Moret 1984, pl. 36.3); Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität L28 (Moret 1984, pl. 28.1-3); Athens, National Museum TE1056 (Para 208); Athens, National Museum (BArch 351913; Paralipomena 279); Athens, Agora Museum P10273 (ABV 539.12).

32 See Isae. IV.7-8 for claims to inheritance and Isae. VIII.21ff in which where the funeral takes place and who is responsible has a direct bearing on who inherits. Dem. XXIV.105 and 107 states that one could be sued for κακώσις γόνεων if one failed to pay customary honors to parents, grandparents and great grandparents, see also Aeschin. I.13 for κακώσις γόνεων or neglect in performing τα νομιζομένα even if the sons were prostituted by their parents. Dem. XLIII.62ff also notes that burial within a family plot can prove kinship whereas burial outside this plot might be grounds for denying that kinship. Already in Aesch. Cho. of 458 lines 275, 301, Orestes can state that by not participating in the funeral his inheritance is potentially in question. Altars seen in conjunction with a

suggest that the scenes on these small lekythoi could be seen as precursors to the later tomb scenes that dominated the white-ground outline lekythoi, the Athenian funerary vase par excellence. It would suggest that the vase-painter, in creating the scene, was aware of two things: 1) that the white-ground black-figure lekythos had a wide market – this is by no means the only scene found on this shape –and 2) that a lack of labels had the potential to address the widest possibility group of consumers, each able to read the scene in a way best suited to their individual circumstances. That is, flexibility in interpretation was actually what was desired. Within the Athenian context, the viewer could display and view the vases as a visual reminder both to himself or his personal audience what is necessary to be a good citizen. Outside of Athens, the vase could, indeed, be viewed within the context of the Theban sphinx and a widely known mythological story. That is, a painter was aware of the multiple sale possibilities and worked with scene creation by taking this into account.

Case Study 2 (fig. 2-4)

The second case study examines three column-kraters that come from the Valle Trebbe cemetery at Spina33. They display the characteristic stylistic features of the Eucharides Painter in the deep chests with the central flattened triangle and the straight line toes so common to the painter. They are almost identical in size and shape and their decorative motifs are those common on contemporary column-craters. The iconography of these pots, while not identical, shows scenes of courtship and pursuit of young men, by a winged god on inv. n° 2666 and by apparently human, bearded males on the other two. These vases permit us to consider how vases left Athens – whether in batches or individually – whether they were purchased in sets and what type of biography they might have had in moving from Athens to their final resting context. Woven into these considerations is then for whom the iconography is meant and how it might be understood.

stele or a tumulus appear on vases of about the middle of the fifth century BC and suggest that simple funerary and commemorative rituals took place at the grave.

33 Ferrara, Archaeological Museum inv 2666 from tomb 539, inv 2664 from tomb 245 and inv 2639 from tomb 931.

68


Two of these vases show signs of ancient repair suggesting that they were used prior to burial or perhaps were broken on the trip over – their use in the grave in either case indicates that despite the break, a particular pot was still considered capable of functioning34. That is, either it had value during its use life at Spina and was repaired before being buried OR it was repaired after being damaged on the ship and was still considered valuable enough to be sold. The possibility of use before burial may also be supported by the apparent chronological discrepancies noted above seen in the older decorated vs. younger undecorated pottery from some of the published graves and suggests that there was a continuing value given to a decorated foreign pot and a continued rethinking of meaning as a vase began its life outside the grave but ended its life within it35. However, the similarity of the breaks on the two kraters may support the possibility of breakage on the journey over.

34 Craters inv. 2664 and 2639 have ancient mending holes on the lower body of the vase in the same place near the vase foot. I will not here enter into the debate on the absolute monetary value of Greek vases. Indeed, the value that I suggest here and below can stem from perceived luxury, personal heirloom or social status. In all cases though, it is value beyond the immediate use of the vase itself as a storage or serving container.

35 This is probable for one of the Eucharides Painter’s kraters at Spina (inv. 2664), see Gianfrotta 1982, 59-62.

The Spina vases also permit us a glimpse into the concept of ‘set’36. In Spina, the graves, which are single interments, an Attic crater plus drinking vessels of a variety of different forms and different fabrics were clearly a standard part of the tomb furniture37. Thus, there was a ‘drinking set’ that

36 “Matching sets” of pots with identical iconographic and decorative patterning, and, potentially purchased at the same time do not appear to have been desired by ancient buyers. See S. Roberts, “Evidence for a Pattern in Attic Pottery Production CA. 430-350 B.C.”, AJA 77 (1973) 435-437 for the idea of pots made and bought in sets – ie both functional and stylistic sets. For groups formed slowly through at least one generation see the group of decorated vessels found in the Brygos Tomb, Williams 1995. See J. H. Oakley and S. Rotroff, Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora Princeton 1992 [Hesperia Supplement 25], 44 for the set given by Phanokikos of Prokonnesos to the prytaneion of Sigeion: a krater, a stand, and a strainer. They note that although these were probably metal vases, it does indicate that the notion of a FUNCTIONAL set (not a coherent stylistic one) did exist. See futher The Athenian Agora XII, 13 in which a number of painters do both figured and black slip pottery. Thus the potential exists for a multi-technique set to exist, even if we have trouble recognizing it now.

37 This is different than other places in Etruria such as Vulci and Cerveteri where there are multiple interments over a single or more generation. Even if the column-kraters had a use-life prior to being put in the graves at Spina, it is unclear whether the drinking vessels were part of an original service. If there was an original service, it would then imply that by the time the pot arrived in the grave, the ‘set’ was disposable and had been dispersed. See also Small 1994, 45-46 and Spivey 1991, 133.

2. Ferrara inv. 2664. Courtesy of the museo Archeologico Nazionale di Ferrara.



69


was composed for ritual or communal drinking at the tomb itself, although all that can be stated with certainty about the required composition is that in the published graves, imported craters were desirable with column-kraters being the most popular amongst the published vases and that drinking vessels were necessary38. It is also clear though that the sets were not made up nor bought in a single batch since, as we have noted above, the crater in particular can often differ in date by a decade or two from the other pottery in the tombs39. Furthermore, in no excavated case, are two vases by the Eucharides Painter found in a single grave, although the other red-figure in these tombs where his pottery is found is comparable in date. An examination of the published graves suggests that loose ties in iconographic motifs can be found in a number of cases40. This would suggest that the figured pieces in some cases were purchased together as ‘matching’ or that they were later chosen as ‘fitting’ a particular and desired theme for the tomb.

In fact, at Spina, and nearby Bologna, there are other groups of vases of matching sizes and iconography such as the Eucharides Painter’s vases that date though the fifth century and sometimes are split between the two sites, not just different graves within the same cemetery41. This would suggest that the

38 Small 1994, 41 and Nilssen 1999, 7-23. Only a tiny portion of the over 4000 Spina graves are fully published – indeed, those with the ‘prettiest’ Attic pottery – so further examination of the graves may tell against the necessity of an imported serving vessel. Small 1994, 50 has suggested that, for Etruria at least, it was the Attic vase – the foreign fabric – that was important and made the vase ‘prestige’. For social value for the decorated vase, see Arafat and Morgan 1994, 108

39 For example, Gianfrotta 1982 and Nilsson 1999, 15 n. 49.

40 In tomb 931 both crater and cup show scenes that can be associated with courtship and the interaction of youths and men. The cup, attributable to the Dokimasia Painter, is not the only cup by this painter found at Spina. However, the mythological scene (Herakles and Busiris) on the other cup appears to have been thought to work better in another tomb. In tomb 503, scenes on both crater and cup are mythological – the Minotaur on the former, Danae in the chest on the latter. Other tombs that indicate possible considered are tomb 512, tomb 617, tomb 308 (where the scenes appear largely connected to women), tomb 445 and tomb 867.

41 K. Kathariou, Το Εργαστήριο του Ζωγράφου

kraters are arriving in batches from Athens through much of the 5th c. as traders knowingly target Spinan customers; something that could be further explored through the publication of contextualized material42. It might also suggest discerned buying as pots with related motifs might be found together but not necessarily pots attributed to the same painter.

The iconography of these Spina craters themselves is not particularly unusual. Indeed, on two of the three, they are the type of scene that can be referred to as ‘meaningless’ or ‘filler’ scenes. However, we should return to the issue brought up with the sphinx scenes above, but here with a slightly different twist. Is it possible that pursuit and courtship scenes seen on these vases were chosen precisely because of their generic quality…because this was the type of scene that could be understood in a broad Mediterranean context on a form that needed to service a wide range of Mediterranean sites and a wide range of uses funerary and otherwise? The iconography of the Spina vases is ambiguous, what might be referred to as ‘deliberately vague’. In fact, although the imagery of erotic pursuit does appear across the Mediterranean, in the form seen on these Spina vases, the imagery is rather subdued so that interpretations could range from the idea of courtship to the possibility of conversation. I would also wonder though if the unlabeled winged figure often thought to be Zephyros pursuing Hyakinthos on one of the craters, might not be read differently within the mythological context of Etruscan Spina.

It should be reiterated here that the choices of pottery for the graves indicates thought either in sale display (myth scenes together, erotically-tinged scenes together so that they are easily purchased together) or on the part of the consumer. If the latter, it would suggest a basic reading, at least, of the iconography that recognizes connections between scenes and it suggests that we need to consider the possibility of connections in all cases. Again it seems probable that

του Μελεάγρου και η Εποχή του, Thessalonike, 2002, 83-85 for the Meleager Painter. See also as an example, Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico 241 ARV² 524.25 (BArch 205907) and Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina T254cvp ARV² 524.26 (BArch 205908).

42 We should also note here that over the course of the 5th c. certain of the imported shapes changed. There is still lack of agreement as to whether this was on account of a change of practice in Spina or on account of the vases available to be carried from Athens?

70


the painter was thinking of a specific figure or at least a specific type of figure when he painted the vase but that he was aware that the vase’s destination might see the vase differently; that is he was aware that the vase might ‘mean’ differently in its final destination and was willing to leave a certain ambiguity to his mythologically-oriented scene to cover this.

Case Study 3 (fig. 5)

The final case study is a group of black-figure pelikai with unusual scenes of music-playing satyrs43. These vases will permit another look at the idea of batch-buying and how the vases might be distributed if bought in this fashion at Athens but also helps to create a multifaceted view of distribution and display. It also looks northeast and thus with the other two case studies suggests that some of the overall concerns of the market are similar no matter where the vases actually end up. Finally, the use of Dionysiac imagery, albeit unusual imagery, and the pelike shape permits the further exploration of the way in which imagery can be read depending on the context in which the vase is used44.

The pelikai themselves appear at sites from Rhodes up to Samothrace and slightly later up in the Black Sea. Dusinberry has already suggested that these vases may be seen as a batch and, perhaps even one that targets the Aegean as an appropriate market. However, unlike the column-kraters found at Spina, these vases appear to have been bought at Athens with the acknowledgement that their final resting place would not be at a single port, but rather that the form and the iconography might be acceptable at a number of different stops and that at each individual stop, vases were taken off the boat and displayed in hopes of a sale. There are a number of implications here as to the thought that goes into what will be bought and sold and how it might be sold. Where their specific context can be traced, the vases were used in graves.

43 Rennes, Musée des Beaux-Arts et d’Archéologie inv D. 08.2.32 (from Rhodes): CVA 1 pl 14; Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G247 (V 563) (from Rhodes) ABV 396.21; Samothrace Museum 57.565: (ABV 396.23bis); Para 174; St Petersburg: ABV 396.24; Para 173; Samothrace, Museum 51.874: Dusinberry 1998, 4.1.

44 Osborne 2004, 33 suggests that pots with figured scenes were bought and displayed in such a way that they were meant to provoke discussion.

The lack of names for the figures on these pelikai, although the satyrs indicate that the scenes are clearly mythological and one assumes that the painter was thinking of specific figures when he painted the vases, does suggest that some ambiguity in the reading of a scene might well have been desirable as an acknowledgement that viewers from different geographic areas could then read the scenes in ways appropriate for their own use45. That the area of the Black Sea might have been a targeted destination for pelikai with Dionysiac themes is not surprising if one considers the popularity of the late fifth/fourth century pelikai in this area, as is also seen in local imitations of both shape and technique46. That

45 Cf. lekythoi by the Berlin Painter and the Eucharides Painter from Gela (R. Panvini, and F. Giudice, Τα Αττικά : veder greco a Gela: ceramiche attiche figurate dall’antica colonia: Gela, Siracusa, Rodi 2003, Roma, 2004) as well as the Orchard Painter examples above fn. 40.

46 Fless 2002, 84 who notes that 25% of the graves at Pantikipeum contained pelikai.

5. Oxford ANT 1896-1908.6.247. Courtesy of the Dept. of Antiquities: Greece and Rome, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

71


these same vases appear elsewhere in the Aegean suggests that the emporoi believed that the shape, and, potentially, the decoration had selling power elsewhere as well and thus were worth unpacking from the hold at other destinations.

Conclusion

It is perhaps time to tie all of these various strategies together. First it is clear that variety is key. Traders might batch buy as in the case of the column-kraters for the Spina market where all the vases appear to have ended up at a single emporion at the end of the line. Traders might also buy to leave vases along the way much as appears to have been the case with the pelikai in the Aegean and further north. Vase-painters were aware of the different market possibilities for their vases and thus considered what types of scenes might be acceptable both on any particular shape but also in terms of where a particular shape would end up. Indeed, it seems clear that, in most cases, Athenians did not just dump a product on emporoi to take to ‘natives’ or other Greeks who accepted it with unquestioning, open arms. Rather a consideration of the contingencies of any particular market, or possible market, was taken into account in the creation of a particular vase. For each trader, the decision on what to buy would depend on where one was going and what had been successful in previous seasons. One might also assume that on a return trip through Athens, a trader might let a potter or painter know what was successful – or perhaps painters/potters might observe what was successful in a neighboring shop47. In fact, long term relationships between traders and producers must have been difficult ones to create and sustain especially for those involved in long-haul trade where a single trip from east to west and back

47 C. Starr, The economic and social growth of early Greece, 800-500 B.C., Oxford, 1977, 85 suggests that the manufacturer was dependent on the merchant for ideas. Emporoi, in fact, appear to have wanted to come and go from Athens rapidly; amongst other incentives to trade in Athens were the maritime courts where rapid settlement of suits was facilitated. Indeed, a foreigner was required to register as a metic only a short period in Athens (D. Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic, Cambridge, 1977 [PCPhS Supp. Vol. 4], 9-11 suggests after as short a time as a month). This would have meant limited contact between foreign merchants and manufacturers.

might have been all that was possible in a single season48. Thus, as we become more capable of a nuanced examination of contexted material, it is clear that ‘the market’ was a flexible and interactive mechanism that responded to what was desired by buyers whether it be in shape, image or both.

Abbreviations

Arafat and Morgan 1994 = K. Arafat, C. Morgan, “Athens, Etruria and the Heuneburg: mutual misconceptions in the study of Greek-barbarian relations”, in: I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge, 1994, 108-134.

Boardman 1970 = J. Boardman, “A Sam-Wide Cup in Oxford”, JHS 90 (1970), 194-195.

Boardman 1995 = J. Boardman, “Culture and the City”, in: A. Verbanck-Piérard, D. Viviers (eds.), Culture et Cité, L’avènement d’Athènes à l’époque archaïque, Brussels, 1995, 1-14.

Boardman 2001 = J. Boardman, The History of Greek Vases, London, 2001.

Buitron-Oliver 1995 = D. Buitron-Oliver, Douris: a master-painter of Athenian red-figure vases, Mainz am Rhein, 1995.

Dusinberry 1998 = E. Dusinberry, The Nekropoleis Princeton, 1998 [Samothrace 11, Bollingen Series LX].

Fless 2002 = F. Fless, Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware Gewerb und Gebrauch attischer Vasen im Mediterranen und pontischen Raum während des 4. Jhs. v. Chr., 2002 [Internationale Archëologie 71].

Gianfrotta 1982 = P. Gianfrotta, “L'âncora di Kutifluna (ovvero, considerazioni sulla tomba n. 245 di Valle Trebba),” Musei Ferraresi Bollettino Annuale 12 (1982), 59-62.

Hannestad 1989 = L. Hannestad, “Athenian Pottery in Etruria”, ActaArch 59 (1989), 113-130.

48 Reed 2003 reminds us that not all traders are Athenian and would have returned to a different home port at the end of the season, which was, in fact, only essentially five months of the year. See T.J. Figueira, “Karl Polanyi and Ancient Greek Trade”, Ancient World 10 (1984), 25 for the idea of specialist knowledge.

72


Harris 2002 = E.M. Harris, “Workshop, marketplace and Household: The nature of technical specialization in classical Athens and its influence on economy and society”, in: P. Cartledge, E.E. Cohen, L. Foxhall (eds.), Money, Labor and Land: Approaches to the economies of ancient Greece, Milton Park, 2002, 67-99.

Hasaki 2002 = E. Hasaki, Ceramic kilns in ancient Greece: technology and organization of ceramic workshops, Diss. Univ. of Cinncinnati, 2002.

Ionas 2000 = I. Ionas, Traditional Pottery and Potters in Cyprus: the disappearance of a craft industry in the 19th and 20th c., Aldershot, 2000.

Johnston 1979 = A. Johnston, Trademarks on Greek Vases, Oxford, 1979.

Johnston 2006 = A. Johnston, Addenda to Trademarks on Greek Vases, Warminster, 2006

Marconi 2004 = C. Marconi, “Images for a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and Their Public”, in : C. Marconi (ed.), Greek Vases: Images, Contexts and Controversies, Leiden and Boston, 2004, 26-40.

Monaco 2000 = M.C. Monaco, Ergasteria: inpianti ceramic ad Atene ed in Attica del protogeometrico alle soglie dell’ellenismo, Rome, 2000.

Moon and Berge 1979 = W. Moon, L. Berge, Greek Vase-Painting in Midwestern Collections, Art Institute of Chicago, 1979.

Moret 1984 = J. Moret, Oedipe, le Sphinx, et les Thébains: essai de mythologie iconographique, Rome, 1984.

Nilssen 1999 = A. Nilssen, “The Function and Reception of Attic Figured Pottery: Spina, a Case Study”, AnalRom 26 (1999), 7-23.

Oakley and Rotroff 1992 = J. Oakley, S. Rotroff, Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora, Princeton, 1992 [Hesperia Supplement 25].

Osborne 1996 = R. Osborne, “Pots, Trade and the archaic Greek economy,” Antiquity 70 (1996), 31-44.

Osborne 2001 = R. Osborne, “Why did Athenian pots appeal to the Etruscans,” World Archaeology 33 (2001), 277-295.

Osborne 2004 = R. Osborne, “Workshops and the iconography and distribution of Athenian red-figure pottery: a case study,” in: S. Keay and S. Moser (eds.), Greek Art in View: Essays in honour of Brian Sparkes, Oxford, 2004, 78-94.

Papadopoulos 2003 = J. Papadopoulos, Ceramicus Redivivus, Princeton, 2003 [Hesperia Supplement 3].

Papadopoulos and Smithson 2002 = J. Papadopoulos, E. Smithson,“The Cultural Biography of a Cycladic Geometric Amphora: Islanders in Athens and the Prehistory of Metics,” Hesperia 71.2 (2002), 187-193.

Peacock 1982 = D.P.S. Peacock, Pottery in the Roman World: an ethnoarchaeological approach, London and New York, 1982.

Reed 2003 = C.M. Reed, Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge, 2003.

Roberts 1986 = S. Roberts, A. Glock, “The Stoa Gutter Well: a Late Archaic Deposit in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia (1986),1-74.

Robertson 1992 = M. Robertson, The art of vase-painting in classical Athens, Cambridge, 1992.

Sabetai 2006 = V. Sabetai, Athens, Benaki Museum, Fasc. 1, 2006 [Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Greece 9].

Schauenburg 1982 = K. Schauenburg, “Zur thebischen Sphinx”, Praestant Interna: Festscrift für Ulrich Hausmann, Tübingen, 1982.

Small 1994 = J.P. Small, “Scholars, Etruscans, and Attic painted vases”, JRS 7 (1994), 34-58.

Spivey 1991 = N. Spivey, “Greek Vases in Etruria”, in: T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey (eds.), Looking at Greek Vases, Cambridge, 1991, 131-150.

Starr 1977 = C. Starr, The economic and social growth of early Greece, 800-500 B.C., Oxford, 1977.

Stissi 1995 = V. Stissi, “Modern finds and ancient distribution”, in: M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarague, P. Rouillard and A. Rouveret (eds.), Céramique et Peinture Greques Modes d’emploi Paris, 351-355.

Vitelli 1992 = K. Vitelli, “Pots vs. vases”, Antiquity 66 (1992), 550-553. (review Sinopoli Approaches to archaeological ceramics and Rasmussen and Spivey Looking at Greek Vases).

Williams 1995 = D. Williams, “Pottery, Painter and Purchaser,” in: A. Verbanck-Piérard and D. Viviers (eds.), Culture et Cité. L’avènement d’Athènes à l’époque archaïque, Brussels, 1995, 139-160.

Williams 1996 = Williams, D. 1996. “Refiguring Attic Red-Figure: a review article,” RA (996), 227-252.

Documents

Consuming Iconographies