22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
In his work Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens Sir John Beazley proposes a more detailed study of the shapes of vases in order to obtain a better knowledge of the relations between potters and painters. By this article, written in honour of his sixty-sixth birthday, I hope to contribute to the discussion of the problem.
It is well known that the development of Greek vase-shapes follows a regular course, from heavy and plump forms to slender and more elegant ones. The illustrations in Richter and Milne, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, will confirm this opinion, and Miss G. Richter maintained it lately in her Attic Red-figured Vases 1946, 18. The chronology of vases of the fourth century B.C. depends mainly upon this development (Buschor, FR III, 152; Schefold, Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen, passim), R. Zahn calls it a rule (FR III, 204), and W. Technau used this rule as a firm starting-point when dealing with the chronology of the works of Exekias.
Old rules tend to lose their efficacy if they are not periodically endowed with new vigour, and thus enabled to keep their activity throughout the next stage of development. In the field of Attic vase-shapes one of the most decisive renewals of this kind took place about 510 B.C. at the time of the fall of the tyranny and the institution of the Kleisthenic democracy. A new impetus revealed itself not only in the invention of new shapes, such as the stamnos, the pelike, and the kalpis (Beazley, ABS 24), but also in the modification of long-established forms.
1 Thanks are due to the Trustees of the British Museum, of the Louvre, the Museum für antike Kleinkunst in Munich, and the Martin von Wagner Museum in Würzburg for their kind permission to publish vases of their respective collections. I am also very much indebted for information and invaluable help to P. Corbett, who kindly revised the manuscript, to B. Ashmole, P. Devambez, H. Diepolder, S. Heinemann, R. Lullies, and A. Scrinzi.
2 The chronology of Exekias is far from being certain. Among the amphorae Faina 78 is early, judging by the great breadth of body (compare London B 197; CV 3, III He, pl. 38, 1), and by the handle, which is a prototype of the usual form. Faina 77 and the great amphora in the Vatican are more slender, though still ample in outline (the published photographs of the latter are misleading). Faina 187 has a foot similar to those of the two preceding amphorae, but is perceptibly more slender and leads on to late works such as Louvre F 206. This may be contemporary with the Andokidean amphora London B 193.
Distorted photographs are always misleading in comparing the shapes of vases. Usable pictures are obtained if: (a) the lens is on the same level as the greatest diameter of the vase (as suggested by E. Homann-Wedeking), and (b) the distance measures six times the largest dimension (height or width).
3 Compare the tall krater by Exekias, (Hesp. VI, 1937, 468 and 471Google Scholar, figs. 1–2; AJA XLII, 1938, pl. 26B) with the broader Euphronian version (Berlin 2180; Blümel, , Sport der Hellenen, 77Google Scholar).
4 Furtwängler describes the vase as perfectly preserved. There is a large hole in the interior of the foot, round, and carefully pierced through. This is no rarity; other vases with similar holes are listed below, and there are certainly many more examples. The diameter of the holes varies from 1 to 4 cm.: Amphora by Lydos, Berlin F 1685; Timagora-hydria Louvre F 38 (the hole less carefully made); an amphora in Cassel: A, chariot. B, battle (the hole has been closed inside by a large round bronze plaque, outside by a small irregular plaque, fastened by a rivet); amphora Würzburg 264 (the hole also closed); hydriae Berlin F 1901 and F 1907 (the hole of the latter closed by a—modern?—scrap of burnt clay); neck-amphora Berlin F 1850; amphora Berlin F 2160; Sisyphos krater Munich 3268. As far as the proveniences are known these vases come from Italian tombfinds. They may have been used for libations at the burial, and restored immediately afterwards in order to keep the food for the deceased.
5 Other workshops, too, produced amphorae of a similar slender shape: Northwick Park (ARV 3, 15: Andokides painter); Würzburg 267 (ARV 5, 5: manner of the Andokides painter); Würzburg 268; Vatican (Albizzati 345); Orvieto, Museo Civico 578: Market, (Coll. Hirsch, 1921, pl. 5, no. 143. ABS 42: Antimenes painter)Google Scholar; Munich 1412 (Beazley, , JHS LIV (1934) 91Google Scholar: painter of the Würzburg neck-amphora 182. CV 1, pl. 41, 4, pl. 44 and 47, 2).
6 We must go back to the Exekias-amphora in the Vatican to find a similar foot.
7 Cf. Buschor, , Vasenmalerei 152.Google Scholar
8 I do not know how to reconcile this chronology with the chronology proposed by Byvanck, A. W., Mnemosyne 4th ser. I, 1948, 164–67.Google Scholar Cf. Trendall, , Handbook io the Nicholson Museum (1948) 286.Google Scholar
9 The question whether Menon has to be named here uncertain, and cannot be decided without a thorough knowledge of the big amphora in Philadelphia.
10 For the knowledge of the following vases I owe much to discussion with Prof. Diepolder.
11 The two b.f. amphorae of the Dikaios painter in Bologna and Agrigento (ARV 29, 8 and 9) do not belong to the Eukleo-group.
12 Careful observation of the foot is no less important for amphorae than it is for cups.
13 The lip of amphorae of the Eukleo-group shows strongly the influence of Andokides. The handles, on the contrary, are of quite a different make.
14 The painters thus gained a panel of considerable height.
15 At the very beginning of the development the right proportions were not yet established.
16 Würzburg 508; the whole upper part and the handles are modern (Beazley, , der Kleophradesmaler 23Google Scholar).
17 I hope to discuss the question in another article.
18 This is evident not only from the figures, but also from details of shape, e.g. the foot (Munich 1694, Beazley, , JHS XLVII (1927) 88 no. 56Google Scholar: Antimenes painter); foot and back handle (London B 343, CV 6, III He pll. 94, 3 and 95, 3—by the same potter Louvre F 290, Beazley, , JHS LIV (1934) 91Google Scholar; Painter of Munich 1703. Id., JHS XLVII (1927) 86 n. 54. Lower part of the body and fillet modern; the foot from a skyphos); the mouth (Frankfurt, , Beazley, , ABS 42Google Scholar: Antimenes painter).
19 Curiously enough the bad potter who made the hydria for the Nikoxenos painter in London (E 160, ARV 148, 16) was one of the few potters of hydriae who were interested in this difficult problem.
