Greek Vases: From Artistic Personalities to Archaeological Contexts

Author(s): Tyler Jo Smith

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Vol. 116, No. 3 (July 2012), pp. 549-554
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.116.3.0549

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.116.3.0549?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW ARTICLE

Greek Vases: From Artistic Personalities to Archaeological Contexts

TYLER JO SMITH

The Early Black-Figured Pottery of Attika in greater scheme of classical studies is sometimes awkward and
Context (c. 630–570 BCE), by Alexandra Alexan- unpredictable. Although Greek vases are rife with depictions
of gods and heroes, it is all too often assumed they are mere
dridou (Monumenta Graeca et Romana 17). Pp. snapshots of antiquity and that their decorated surfaces exist
252, pls. 60. Brill, Leiden 2011. $212. ISBN 978- in large part to illustrate the stories better known to us from
90-04-18604-0 (cloth). ancient texts. It is also presumed that their iconography and
artistic merit make them accessible and comprehensible to a
The Codrus Painter: Iconography and Recep- wider group of enthusiasts, and, as a result, they become the
ready targets of simplistic visual interpretation.
tion of Athenian Vases in the Age of Pericles,
Yet as any specialist in vase painting knows, such attitudes
by Amalia Avramidou. Pp. xiii + 237, figs. 27, pls. 90, make about as much sense as the assumption that Aristo-
tables 4. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison phanes is just as good in translation or that Homer can be
2011. $65. ISBN 978-0-299-24780-5 (cloth). read without a cursory knowledge of dactylic hexameter.
Greek vases produced in the city of Athens and elsewhere
are a language unto themselves. Like other visual forms of
The World of Greek Vases, edited by Vinnie Nør-
other cultures and traditions, they possess an internal struc-
skov, Lise Hannestad, Cornelia Isler-Kerényi, and Sian ture, grammar, and vocabulary.2 While there are numerous
Lewis (AnalRom Suppl. 41). Pp. 248, figs. 138. Qua- ways to “read” the ancient Greek vase, and it is fair to say
sar, Rome. €38. ISBN 978-88-7140-420-2 (paper). that no particular way is better than another, there remain
a few unwritten rules: Beazley’s lists are an indispensable
reference framework; the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum vol-
Athenian Potters and Painters. Vol. 2, edited by
umes are primary sources of facts and (these days) of good
John H. Oakley and Olga Palagia. Pp. 366, figs. 357, illustrations; the vase is the sum of its parts and should be
pls. 32. Oxbow, Oxford 2009. $140. ISBN 978-1- viewed holistically rather than selectively; fragments are as
84217-350-3 (cloth). useful and valid as whole specimens; excavation pottery and
museum-quality objects each have their place in the schol-
arly enterprise. At the same time, no one, not even the most
TonArt: Virtuosität antiker Töpfertechnik,
dyed-in-the-wool connoisseur, is under the illusion that vases
by Martin Bentz, Wilfred Geominy, and Jan Marius alone hold all the answers. Indeed, one of the most frustrat-
Müller. Pp. 247, figs. 331. Michael Imhof Verlag, ing aspects of all Greek vase scholarship is the utter silence
Petersberg 2010. €39.95. ISBN 978-3-86568-610- of the ancient sources on the subjects of vase production,
7 (cloth). techniques, and craftsmen.3
The five books under review here (two monographs,
two conference proceedings, and a single exhibition cata-
Ancient Greek vases are a challenging and complex sub- logue) exemplify both the challenges and the complexity of
ject. With their detailed imagery, elegant forms, utility, and Greek vase scholarship and demonstrate that these figure-
wide distribution, the decorated vessels of archaic and clas- decorated ceramic objects are at once visual and material,
sical Greece constitute a significant and substantial category art and artifact, beautiful and ugly, tactile and portable. They
of archaeological evidence. The information they provide also show that the merit of vases as archaeological data is
about mythology and daily life is unparalleled in the whole rarely overlooked in current publications and scholarship.
of ancient art. Integral to the pursuits of both the classical The notable amount of overlap among the bibliographies
archaeologist and the ancient art historian, Greek vases have and the recurrence of authors exposes a certain “preaching
for quite some time been considered equal to sculpture, to the choir” aspect to this intriguing and distinct disciplin-
architecture, and other arts.1 Their importance for both rela- ary subfield. Although the books are produced in several
tive and absolute chronology is notable. But their place in the countries, by different publishers and in various formats,

1 2
Whitley (2001, 3–16, 23–5) and Snodgrass (2007) situate See Stansbury O’Donnell (2011, esp. 57) for the analogy
the different types of evidence, including vases, within the of “learning a foreign language.”
3
larger field of classical archaeology. Sparkes 1996, 64–8; Schreiber 1999, xi–xii.

549
American Journal of Archaeology 116 (2012) 549–54

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
550 TYLER JO SMITH [AJA 116
one can easily detect the existence of a distinct group of pottery of this period.7 However, a great deal also must be
pottery lovers whose newest research is key to the discipline. taken on trust by the reader. Ancient textual citations that
Alexandridou’s The Early Black-Figured Pottery of Attika in might have lent credibility, not to mention a more classi-
Context is based on a recent Oxford doctoral thesis and as cal dimension, are distinctly lacking. Unsurprisingly, metal
a result is thorough, detailed, and systematic. It seems only prototypes and Etruscan audiences receive their expected
lightly revised from its original form and includes a catalogue mention. The most inventive, and perhaps most important,
of data, tables, maps, and a list of painters, each as an ap- aspect of the discussion on shape comes at the end, where
pendix following the main text. From the outset, the author the author tacks on a section devoted to burial customs and
defends her approach as an archaeological one, pulling most the (offering) “trench-phenomenon of the Attic [sic] country-
of her 1,532 catalogued examples from known provenances side” (38). The next chapter on painters begins with brief
(sometimes excavated sites rather than secure findspots). Her comments on workshops and production and the unproven
reason for this choice, itself commendable, is simple: most assumption that potting and painting of this generation of
vases of these years come from known contexts. A few extras vessels were undertaken by the same person.8 Accepting
without proper context have been added to the catalogue, a the attributions of other scholars, Alexandridou presents
choice justified by the critical points each one makes about the major painters and groups of early black-figure by style,
shape or decoration. The relevant sites are located in Ath- subjects, and the shapes they decorate. Again, the best is
ens (Agora, Acropolis, Kerameikos), Attica, Aegina, central saved for last—in this instance, a few pages on the “mobil-
Greece, the Greek Islands, and northern Greece, as well as ity” of artists (46–7). Artistic evidence suggests that potters
western Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Black Sea area. of Cycladic and Corinthian origins lived, worked, or at the
The book’s introduction offers a useful if somewhat abbre- very least influenced, Attic production at an early stage. As
viated history of the study of early black-figure that touches elsewhere in the book, bold statements are made without
on collecting, early discoveries, classification, terminology, appropriate supporting documentation; for example, the
and attributions. Coverage of the “post-Beazleyan” era is author states that “[t]he Anagyrous Painter learnt his craft
missing some fundamental bibliographic references,4 and in an Athenian workshop before moving to Vári” (47).
despite the overture “that pottery can be used as a tool for The dominance of the animal frieze, another gift from
the reconstruction of social history” (4), there is no men- Corinth, makes for a relatively small number of early Attic
tion of Bérard’s City of Images or other works of the school black-figure vases with mythological or daily-life scenes. Alex-
that pioneered such a methodology.5 That being said, the andridou asserts that, despite the scant evidence, one is still
details provided on the history of vase collecting extend be- able to trace iconographic developments. Her presentation is
yond the expected dose of William Hamilton and the Grand divided thematically by heroes, Trojan Cycle, deities, mytho-
Tour and look instead at the 19th and 20th centuries. The logical figures, generic scenes, animals, and protomes. Where
book’s four main chapters are divided by shapes, painters, possible, examples from outside Attica (namely Corinth) are
iconography, and distribution, respectively. The claim that introduced, and occasionally the opportunity is snatched to
such an exercise will “provide an overview of archaic Attika incorporate other arts. The conclusion reached by the author
through its decorated pottery” (1) is overly ambitious. How- is an important one: early sixth-century B.C.E. black-figure
ever, the end result goes a long way toward uncovering the vases make a “clear break” with the seventh century (80).
types of questions that are possible to ask of decorated pottery This break is manifest in shape and scale, technique and
based on careful observation of individual objects or groups. subject. Although the author does not elaborate on these
Lacking here is any attempt at theoretical, archaeometric, shifts, she creatively ties specific figures, themes, or objects
or statistical analysis, although these types of analyses are to specific contemporary developments. Thus, the appear-
more commonly applied outside classical archaeology.6 This ance of Hermes Psychopompos is linked to funerary ritual,
is primarily a survey written without any particular agenda. and representations of the armed Athena increase following
The chapters on shapes (ch. 2) and painters (ch. 3) repre- the reorganization of the Panathenaic Games.
sent two of the more traditional ways that Greek vase special- The final chapter revisits the archaeological contexts (do-
ists package information. Shapes are categorized according mestic, religious, funerary) that have interested the author
to supposed function in light of the forms themselves and throughout and itemizes the distribution of catalogued finds
their archaeological contexts. Much evidence is derived from both inside and outside Attica. It seems likely that the author
excavation reports or other shape studies, and there are sin- has had access to unpublished excavation material in Greece.
cere efforts to insert the forms into known social and cultic Outside Greece, however, her survey is inevitably based on
rituals such as symposia and funerals. The author detects published finds, and some areas are more comprehensive in
the “prominence of ‘Korinthianising’ characteristics” (38) their coverage than others. In the end, readers may be won
among her sample; Dunbabin, Payne, Amyx, and many oth- over to the ceramic approach if they will allow themselves to
ers previously recognized the same prominence in Athenian accept the limited and sometimes frustrating nature of the

4
Smith 1999; Brijder 2003; Oakley 2009. Studies of black- Minoan ceramics of western Crete.
7
figure, some directly relevant to Alexandridou’s research, Payne 1931, 190–204; Dunbabin 1950; Amyx 1988, 678–
have been overlooked (e.g., Kluiver 2003). 79; see also Beazley 1986, 12–13; Boardman 2001, 44–50.
5 8
Bérard 1989; see also Oakley 2009, 615. Mee (2011, 129–49) traces pottery production and spe-
6
Orton et al. (1993) introduces a range of possibilities. cialization in Greece from the Neolithic through Hellenistic
Nodarou (2011) applies an integrated methodology to Early periods.

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2012] GREEK VASES 551
evidence (i.e., too much material is either poorly published spiration, beginning with one another. We are encouraged
or not published at all). to view the Codrus Painter as belonging to a circle of paint-
What is most laudable about this book is that it revisits ers as friendly and interactive as an evening reading group
black-figure at its awkward beginnings and attempts to attack or a local book club. Part of the reason for this is the fresh,
the same data set from several different angles at once. A crisp style in which the book is written. Despite what might
few general criticisms should be mentioned. Too often the seem to some an esoteric or narrow topic, this is something
author relies on older bibliographic material or is selective of a page-turner.
and misses out on some key sources. Most off-putting are the Six chapters are devoted to the iconography of the Codrus
Greek spellings used in places where English words are read- Painter and are sorted broadly by mythology, divine assem-
ily available and standard (e.g., “Plutarkhos,” “autokhthony,” blies, other myths, Dionysos, departures, and athletes. The
“Korinthos,” “sarkophagoi”). “Attika” is used for the book’s painter’s interest in the nude human body is evident across
title yet sometimes appears as “Attica” in the main text. The the board and is one of the more defining features of his
illustrations are too few and vary in quality. On a more posi- work. The Athenian creative framework for these images is
tive note, placed along with other recent studies dealing crucial, and special consideration is given to autochthony,
with Athenian black-figure, the topic at its chronological tradition, and propaganda. Thus, the author combines tra-
extremes is now better treated than at any time in the past.9 ditional methods and readings of the images with a more
Avramidou’s The Codrus Painter also derives from doc- cutting-edge look at politics, society, and the economy. Her
toral research, but the scholarly concept and writing style commitment to iconography is purely interdisciplinary, and
are entirely different. The focal point of discussion is the there is ample use of ancient textual sources and terminology.
Codrus Painter, a red-figure artist of the second half of the She presents the examples and their underlying issues on a
sixth century B.C.E. who specialized in drinking cups. The cup-by-cup basis. In other words, a specific vessel, such as the
painter was named by Beazley for the cup that depicts the Theseus cup, is chosen, described, and then used to explore
mythical Athenian king Codrus; it is decorated all around myth, history, symbolism, reception, and the consumer. This
with warriors departing (Bologna, Museo Civico Archeo- cup was discovered in the necropolis of Vulci, and although
logico, inv. no. PU 273).10 The distinct personality of this Avramidou would like to posit a purely Etruscan explana-
painter and some of his contemporaries, as well as the his- tion next to her purely Athenian one (and readily admits
torical and political framework for his artistic production, the difficulty of doing so), she takes a slight risk: “Theseus
makes him an ideal choice for a case study. Both the artist- also functioned as a model for the deceased to follow in the
based exploration and the catalogue raisonné seem rather labyrinth of the afterlife” (39). Ultimately, she argues for a
old-fashioned, but in fact there is a great deal of novelty and “double semantic function” in this instance (70).
ambition in this book. The author tackles the history of re- The Etruscans return elsewhere in the book, such as in
search on the Codrus Painter and engages early on with the the section on the Divine Banquet cup in the British Mu-
problems that complicate artist attribution for this painter’s seum, where native beliefs and practices are considered in
work and indeed for Greek vase painting in general. By way relation to Athenian iconography. In fact, the “Etruscan
of introduction, she grapples with the dating of the Codrus factor” is the subject of an entire chapter (ch. 12) because
Painter’s oeuvre and seems especially indebted to Beazley this export market was the primary destination for the Co-
for guidance. Her research is incredibly up-to-date and even drus Painter’s works. Avramidou’s summary of scholarship
incorporates the mass tombs discovered during the excava- on Etruscan importation of Attic wares airs a critical debate
tions of the expanded Athens Metro. The main chapters seem between decoration and form that has driven many discus-
to clump into three groups: those dealing with the painter sions of Etruria and other import destinations, such as the
and his workshop, those concerned with iconography, and Black Sea area. In general, this author’s privileging of the
those dealing with outside comparisons. individual object defines her own attitude to vases, but it
In her three chapters on style, attribution, and contem- should not be met with skepticism by scholars thinking this
porary artists, Avramidou reveals her discerning eye and is all trees and no wood. Her tactic works well considering
patience with the material. This author is intent on un- the artist, material, and time period covered.
derstanding the market for these objects as well as the ar- There has been no shortage of conferences dedicated to
chaeological contexts in which they have been found. She Greek vases over the past few decades, and two more pub-
exercises the necessary amount of caution when it comes lished proceedings can now be added to the stack. Though
to reconstructing master and pupil relationships between seemingly related in their themes, the differences between
painters “based on chronological order” and “according to these two volumes are many. The World of Greek Vases com-
art-historical methods of later periods” (29). Her attention prises 13 papers presented in Rome in 2005. The contribu-
to neck bones, shoulders, ribs, and spines is admirable, while tors come from Europe, North America, and the United
not at all derivative. She disagrees with past attributions of Kingdom, and all the papers are published in English. The
Beazley and Boardman and questions several others. Re- stated mission of the four editors is to represent a variety of
gardless of topic, she continually reminds us that individual approaches as well as new research and future directions. In
painters did not exist in a vacuum; rather, they were the a relatively brief space, each of these goals is easily achieved.
products of a certain time, place, and visual culture. What The introductory essay, which must have launched the
is more, they may have drawn on many sources for their in- festivities in Rome, is Isler-Kerényi’s “The Study of Figured

9 10
E.g., Borgers 2004; Hatzivassiliou 2010. ARV 2 1268, no. 1.

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
552 TYLER JO SMITH [AJA 116
Pottery Today.” She begins after the death of Beazley in return to subjects found in the first Athenian Potters and Paint-
1970, questioning the ways the discipline has evolved since ers proceedings, making for an even nicer sequel.
his compilation of painters and potters ground to a halt. The contributors to both the conference and the volume
Her observation that the “focus of research has gradually were carefully chosen to cover the many facets of vase-painting
changed” (13) seems the inevitable outcome of developments scholarship: artists, workshops, shapes, ornament, subject
in archaeological theory, scientific analysis, and cultural his- matter, chronology, export trade, excavation assemblages,
tory that would have occurred even if there had been no At- context, and relationships with other regions. Each one is
tic Black-Figure Vase-Painters or Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters.11 not treated equally, and iconography receives the most atten-
Despite the obsession with Beazley’s classification system tion. The rich array of departures reveals how much visual
and its incomplete state (which is also inevitable because of analyses of Greek art have matured. Some authors are more
new discoveries), what becomes evident in the papers pub- text based (Böhr and Böhr, Langridge-Noti, Tiverios), oth-
lished in this volume, as in the other books under review, is ers more archaeological (Avramidou, Bentz, Lynch, Maffre,
that Beazley and his lists are here to stay. With that in mind, Padgett, Rotroff); some incorporate other art forms (Lemos,
it is sensible that Isler-Kerényi also confronts the relation- Sutton, Williams) or politics or myth (Mommsen, Shapiro),
ship between vases and classical studies, a pairing Beazley while others are nothing short of imaginative (Kratzmueller,
himself would obviously have approved.12 The other essays Lezzi-Hafter, Neils). As with past vase conferences, there con-
in the volume have more pointed concerns, among them tinues to be much interest in workshops, production, markets
archaeological context (Stissi, Paleothodoros), history of the (Fritzilas, Kathariou, Lynch), and chronology (Giudice and
discipline (Nørskov, Bellelli), iconography (Ekroth, Hatzi- Giudice), and there is noticeably less attention granted to
vassiliou, Lewis, Kistler), production and trade (Morgan, painters and shapes (Tugusheva, Lyons). A few themes that
Elia), and politics and society (Neer, Schmidt). By neces- recur throughout must be indications of more recent gen-
sity, some are more archaeological than others, most are eral trends: emotions and symbolism (Kefalidou, Kreuzer,
concerned with Athens, and there is very little in the way of Lezzi-Hafter, Matheson) and ritual and daily life (Bundrick,
comparison with other arts. The opening of Stissi’s paper Pipili, Tiverios, Valavanis, Zarkadas).
on function, form, and context—certainly one of the best Two contributions may be singled out for their originality
of the bunch—begins with a modern grave in Amsterdam and therefore their greater relevance to classical archaeology.
and reminds us that Greek art in general could benefit from Kavvadias and Lagia combine osteology and ceramic analysis
more cross-cultural comparisons. Despite the large number in their discussion of graves excavated at Piraeus Street in
of editors, some cited references are missing from the bib- Athens during the late 19th century. White-ground lekythoi
liographies that conclude each chapter, and some entries are listed in detail according to grave, and the correspond-
therein are not in correct alphabetical order. The book is ing skeletal material follows. The importance of this method
otherwise nicely produced, well illustrated, and affordable. should not be underestimated.14 Classical archaeologists have
The authority with which each chapter is composed makes latched onto the importance of human remains and what
this a standard reference and demonstrates that, at least in the can potentially be learned about health and demography.
world of Greek vases, conference volumes make a statement Combined discussions such as this one, where graves are pre-
as significant and sound as articles in peer-reviewed journals. sented comprehensively beginning with their topographical
Much more ambitious in scale and scope is Athenian Potters positions and ending with their contents and occupants, are
and Painters, volume 2, which derives from the international bound to represent the future of funerary archaeology in the
conference of the same name held at the American School Mediterranean. The second essay, Lynch’s “Erotic Images
of Classical Studies at Athens in 2007. Like its predecessor,13 on Attic Vases: Markets and Meanings,” is mentioned for
this volume is composed of papers by both well-established two reasons. First, Lynch asks a simple set of questions that
and younger scholars who gathered to share recent research. in themselves represent the state of this field: “Who used
Many of the invitees had prior or existing connections to Greek vases and when? How did the context of their use . . .
the host institution. Most chapters are in English, but a few affect the meaning of the imagery on the vases?” (159). Her
are in Greek or German. The honoree for the occasion was interest in this question originates from long-standing re-
Michalis Tiverios, professor at Aristotle University of Thes- search on an assemblage of figure-decorated vessels from the
saloniki, who himself offered a fascinating paper on votive Athenian Agora.15 Second, and much less expected, is her
pottery from Eleusis. The choice to look solely at Athenian incorporation of two modern cultural analogies chosen to
material meant that other areas of Greek vase scholarship help elucidate the “relationship between producer and con-
(e.g., South Italy, East Greece) were largely left out of the sumer of images . . . in a commercial market” (162). Her two
lineup. Klinger’s essay on images of women and deer from object and cultural comparisons could not be more distant
Corinth and Athens and Papadopoulos’ on the Agrinion or different: 18th-century Chinese export ceramics and late
Group are notable exceptions. All in all, there is little to 19th-/early 20th-century French postcards. Such compara-
complain about here. New and unpublished material is in- tive evidence may be of only marginal interest to the typical
troduced; a great range of evidence and several techniques Greek vase expert, but it is a reminder that classical art and
are represented; and some chapters (i.e., Kreuzer, Sutton) archaeology, and indeed classical studies in general, may

11 13
See Kurtz (1985) on Beazley’s career and contribution. Coulson et al. 1997.
14
See Smith (2005) on the Beazley Archive. Parker Pearson 2008, 5–20.
12 15
Rouet 2001, 75–92. Lynch 2011.

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2012] GREEK VASES 553
no longer be able to afford the isolated comforts of home. Works Cited
Has the time finally come to join a more global discourse?
The exhibition entitled TonArt: Virtuosität antiker Töpfer- Amyx, D. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period. 3
technik was organized at the University of Bonn with the aim vols. California Studies in the History of Art 25. Berkeley:
of introducing museum visitors to the techniques of ancient University of California Press.
pottery production. Although much space is reserved for Beazley, J.D. 1986. The Development of Attic Black-Figure. Rev. ed.
decorated Greek wares, there are examples of Mycenaean, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cypriot, Etruscan, and South Italian ceramics, and a vast Bérard, C. 1989. A City of Images: Iconography and Society in An-
date range (prehistoric–Hellenistic) is represented. The cient Greece. Translated by D. Lyons. Princeton: Princeton
color illustrations are generous and of the highest publica- University Press.
tion quality. Some of the drawings are particularly helpful Boardman, J. 2001. The History of Greek Vases: Potters, Painters,
and instructional; one showing the three stages of firing an and Pictures. London: Thames & Hudson.
Attic vase overlays a chart of temperature fluctuations and Borgers, O. 2004. The Theseus Painter: Style, Shapes and Iconog-
firing lengths. A large percentage of the book is apportioned raphy. Allard Pierson Series 16. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson
to purely technical matters. Beginning with raw materials Museum.
and clay compositions, the catalogue proper picks up with Brijder, H.A.G. 2003. “The Study of Attic Black-Figure Vases
handmade and wheelmade products. Along the way, read- over the Past Thirty Years.” In Griechische Keramik im kul-
ers are provided with cultural background and a well-chosen turellen Kontext: Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in
bibliography. The main summaries and catalogue entries Kiel vom 24.–28.9.2001 veranstaltet durch das Archäologische
are separated by technique: black-figure, red-figure, white- Institut der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, edited by
ground, polychrome, metals and copies, stamped vessels, B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner, 13–22. Münster: Scriptorum.
moldmade vessels, appliqué, and glass. Another large chap- Cohen, B. 2006. The Colors of Clay: Special Techniques in Athenian
ter deals with production and ancient repairs. Vases. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.
The highlight of the exhibition was the Bonn workshop Coulson, W.D.E., J.H. Oakley, and O. Palagia, eds. 1997.
display, an assemblage of more than 450 fragments of a single Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings. Ox-
technique (Attic red-figure) and shape (bell krater) discov- ford: Oxbow.
ered in the Kerameikos in Athens and housed in Bonn since Dunbabin, T.J. 1950. “An Attic Bowl.” BSA 45:193–202.
the early 20th century. In the catalogue, the Bonn pottery— Hasaki, E. 2006. “The Ancient Greek Ceramic Kilns and Their
which consists mainly of sherds—is featured under a large Contribution to the Technology and Organization of the Ce-
concluding section on workshops, where the extraordinary ramic Workshops.” In Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αρχαίας Ελληνικής
group of Corinthian votive plaques showing potters at work Τεχνολογίας, edited by P. Tassios and C. Palyvou, 221–27.
and other ceramic and inscriptional evidence for produc- Athens: National Chamber of Commerce.
tion have also been included. The publication is a welcome Hatzivassiliou, E. 2010. Athenian Black Figure Iconography Between
supplement to existing ones concerned with potting and 510 and 475 B.C. Tübinger Archäologische Forschungen
painting technology and confirms a palatable interest in this 6. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
area and for Greek vase painting in particular.16 Kluiver, J. 2003. The Tyrrhenian Group of Black-Figure Vases: From
As indicated by each of these publications, Greek vases the Athenian Kerameikos to the Tombs of South Etruria. Stud-
support a healthy and thriving field that, at present, shows ies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 1.
signs neither of wear nor of slowing down. It is reasonable to Amsterdam: Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society.
say that its “schools” and research methods are not as well- Kurtz, D.C., ed. 1985. Beazley and Oxford: Lectures Delivered in
defined as they were only a decade ago,17 and that a wide- Wolfson College, Oxford, 28 June 1985. Oxford University
spread focus on provenance has taken hold. A confusion Committee for Archaeology Monograph 10. Oxford: Ox-
that persists is terminology. Words such as “vases,” “pots,” ford University Committee for Archaeology.
“pottery,” and “ceramics” have become interchangeable and, Lynch, K.M. 2011. The Symposium in Context: Pottery from a Late
thus, more or less devoid of any specific meanings. Such a Archaic House near the Athenian Agora. Hesperia Suppl. 46.
trend is most unhelpful, and a quick glance at Beazley’s lists Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
verifies that the difference between a pot and a cup is more Mee, C. 2011. Greek Archaeology: A Thematic Approach. Chiches-
than one of form, function, or taste. Some painters and/or ter, England, and Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
potters specialized in their goods, and it is their artistic per- Meyer, E.A., and J.E. Lendon. 2005. “Greek Art and Culture
sonalities that must be spared the backhoe. With so much Since Art and Experience in Classical Greece.” In Periklean Ath-
interest in process, workshop, and context, this really should ens and Its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives, edited by J.M.
not be a problem. Barringer and J.M. Hurwitt, 255–72. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Nodarou, E. 2011. Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consump-
mcintire department of art tion in Early Minoan West Crete: An Analytical Perspective. BAR-
university of virginia IS 2210. Oxford: Archaeopress.
charlottesville, virginia 22903 Oakley, J.H. 2009. “Greek Vase Painting.” AJA 113(4):599–627.
tjs6e@virginia.edu Orton, C., P. Tyers, and A. Vince. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology.

16 17
Cohen 2006; Hasaki 2006. Cf. Oakley 2009; see also Meyer and Lendon 2005.

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
554 T.J. SMITH, GREEK VASES
Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge and New and Perspectives, edited by R.F. Docter and E.M. Moormann,
York: Cambridge University Press. 387–90. Allard Pierson Series 12. Amsterdam: Allard Pier-
Parker Pearson, M. 2008. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. son Museum.
Texas A&M University Anthropology Series 3. College Sta- ———. 2005. “The Beazley Archive: Inside and Out.” Art
tion: Texas A&M University Press. Documentation 24:22–5.
Payne, H. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Snodgrass, A. 2007. “What is Classical Archaeology? Greek Ar-
Archaic Period. Oxford: Clarendon Press. chaeology.” In Classical Archaeology, edited by S.E. Alcock and
Rouet, P. 2001. Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases: Beazley and R. Osborne, 13–29. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.
Pottier. Translated by L. Nash. Oxford Monographs on Clas- Sparkes, B.A. 1996. The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pot-
sical Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. tery. London and New York: Routledge.
Schreiber, T. 1999. Athenian Vase Construction: A Potter’s Analy- Stansbury O’Donnell, M.D. 2011. Looking at Greek Art. Cam-
sis. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum. bridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, T.J. 1999. “Remembering Black-Figure: Old Methods, Whitley, J. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge
New Applications.” In Proceedings of the XVth International World Archaeology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
Congress of Classical Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12–17, 1998: University Press.
Classical Archaeology Towards the Third Millennium. Reflections

This content downloaded from

176.58.136.109 on Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:47:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms