No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Forger of Graffiti
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
Extract
A Recent number of this Annual (BSA XLVIII 191 ff.) included an account of a lengthy graffito, which was tentatively interpreted as a product of the political ferment in Athens in 411 B.C. The graffito was on a fragment of a fish-plate, and round the rim was a second inscription, part of a dedication, the latest possible date for which appeared to be c. 435 B.C.; however, the evidence at present available indicates that plates of this form were not produced before the fourth century. This discrepancy was pointed out, but as the content and execution of the graffito seemed to exclude the likelihood of forgery, the only remaining explanation appeared to be that the evidence for the chronology of Attic pottery had been misinterpreted; more specifically, that fish-plates were in fact already being made in the third quarter of the fifth century, and that the shape remained stable, without any perceptible variations for over forty years. A conclusion of this kind would have far-reaching implications, since the dating of buildings or objects in an excavation often has to be inferred from the pottery discovered with them; accordingly when further material came to light which proved beyond all doubt that the graffito concerned must be rejected as a forgery, it was felt that the subject is of sufficiently general concern to warrant a detailed exposition.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1955
References
We should like to acknowledge with gratitude the generous assistance of all those who have put much of this material, or information about it, at our disposal, and to express our particular thanks to Miss L. H. Jeffery, Madame S. Karouzou, Professor K. Kübler, Professor E. Vanderpool, Dr. C. T. Seltman, Mr. Lucas A. Benachi, the authorities of the Greek High School in Alexandria, and the Trustees of the British Museum. We are especially indebted to Professor W. Peek, who most kindly supplied us with his notes and photographs of nos. 29–31; we have had the benefit of his advice throughout, and he has acknowledged his agreement with our conclusions.
We regard it as not unreasonable to suppose that more sherds by the same hand remain scattered in public or private collections without their authenticity being so called into question, and it may be expected that our catalogue will form a substantial nucleus, to which additions will from time to time be made.
1 See now SEG XII 562.
2 A summary of the evidence will be found in an appendix at the end of the catalogue.
3 Ancient examples of this form can be found; e.g. Hesperia VII 235, and 234, fig. 64, Group D; XIX, pl. 111, 4. They are comparatively rare, and the majority of writers and stone-cutters seem to have preferred to give the lower bar a definite downward slant.
4 A possible exception is the polychrome phiale in the British Museum, D 8, which is signed by Sotades as potter the letters are so scratchy and ill-formed that one wonders whether they may not have been incised after firing.
5 Cf. Klein, Meistersignaturen 2 211–14.
6 The introduction of potters' signatures on some Panathenaic amphorae from the second quarter of the century onward is a special case, which cannot be discussed here.
7 See Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, passim, and also Marcadé, , Recueil des signatures des sculpteurs grecs I (1953), passim.Google Scholar
8 Die attische Grabreliefs 4.
9 Cf. the lekythoi with the signature of Xenophantos, ARV 874–5, and some of the signatures of Teisias, Hoppin Handbook of Greek Black-figured Vases 347–50.
10 Rayet, , RA 1875, 173Google Scholar. Collignon, BCH V 178, nos. 8 and 9.
11 IG XII 9, 191. In RevPhil 1939, 139, L. Robert mentioned that ten years previously he had seen in Athens forged graffiti based on this inscription, but as no details were given, it was not until the same inscription had been identified as one of the sources of nos. 29–32 that there was any reason to connect them with Robert's account. Robert made use of the same evidence in his article concerning the genuineness of our no. 32 in CRAI 1954, 494–505, but by the time of its appearance this MS. was already with the printer.
12 It is possible that we can identify another of his sources. Pheidestratos (25) and Smikron (16, 26) are slightly unusual names; together with Kephisodoros, they occur on IG II2 1742.
13 For Attic examples see Larfeld, W., Griechische Epigraphik (1914), 273.Google Scholar
14 AE II 317 ff.
15 If the connection between IG II2 1742, and 25, 16, and 26 is accepted, the upper limit for these three is 1875, for the inscription was found when the Frankish Tower in the Propylaia was demolished in that year.
16 The texts are transcribed in conventional type. The character of the letters appears plainly in the photographs and needs no description. It may, however, be worth remarking that theta is written as a circle with a horizontal stroke except in nos. 7, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30b, and 32b, where it consists of a cross within a circle or rectangle; sigma has three bars except in nos. 2, 3, 4, 14, and 23, where it has four (14 in fact contains one example of each type); pi throughout has a short right-hand stroke.
17 An unusual dedication, perhaps a reminiscence of the seat in the Theatre of Dionysus, IG II2 5063.
18 For the formula cf. IG I2 460 (on bronze) and Raubitschek, Dedicàtions 386 (on stone).