The ‘Three Revelers’ Amphora of Euthymides
“As never Ephronios [could do]” wrote painter Euthymides after painting his new amphora (an amphora is a type of Greek vase in this shape). Euthymides had a clear sense of achievement and was indeed proud of his work, boastfully challenging his friend and rival—Euphronios. He would see Euphronios often, as well as other painters in the Kerameikos—the potter’s quarter in Athens. They would be curious to see one another’s new work, sometimes with appreciation, sometimes with a bit of jealousy. In the evenings they often had a good time together at a symposium (a kind of ancient Greek male drinking party). They would drink wine mixed with water, become garrulous, loud and—if drinking went on for too long—they might even start singing and even dancing. Perhaps what is depicted on this amphora is a scene similar to those Euthymides witnessed at one of these long parties. Euphronios indeed was a master potter and painter, and Euthymides knew that and had a full appreciation for his work. He thought however, that his figures seemed much more lively, caught in a split of a moment, in a dancing movement.
The beginnings of red-figure painting
Hector receiving the helmet from Hecube (detail), Euthymides, Three Revelers (Athenian red-figure amphora), c. 510 B.C.E., 24 inches high (Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich)
Euthymides worked mainly between 515 and 500 B.C.E., in a time when artists were exploring the possibilities of red-figure technique, invented in Athens around 530 B.C.E. Both Euthymides and Euphronios belonged to a kind of camaraderie of artists, often dubbed the “Pioneer Group” by art historians—referring to their innovative efforts in the new technique. In the red-figure technique, an artist sketches figures on the red clay of a freshly fashioned vessel, then covers all the background with a slip (a liquid clay), which turns black after final firing. Details, like elements of anatomy, folds of drapery, etc., can be freely added with a thin brush the slip can be darker, sometimes more diluted, brownish, adding even more variety. In the black-figure technique which was used previously, an artist had to fill the figures with slip, and then incise the details with a sharp burin, which was much more difficult to handle. At the time of the “Pioneers,” there is a general trend in Greek art to observe the reality and represent human body more realistically, leaving the more stiff archaic models behind.
Hector departs for war
Coming back again to the “Three Revelers” vase—on one side of his amphora the artist decided to decorate with a mythological scene—a solemn moment of Hector departing for the Trojan war, receiving the helmet from his mother Hecube (above).
Drinking and dancing (detail), Euthymides, Three Revelers (Athenian red-figure amphora), c. 510 B.C.E., 24 inches high (Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich) (photo: Richard Mortel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
On the other side of the vase, which is probably better known, the artist gave way to his keen sense of observation, giving us a glimpse into everyday life. Three rather tipsy men dance around, enjoying their moment during a long symposium. The one on the left still keeps in his hand a kantharos—a wine cup with long handles. Euthymides made an effort to show them neither completely frontally, nor completely in profile, but rather in three quarters view, using foreshortening to convey a vivid, realistic image. The poses are very diversified, the man in the center is represented in a twisted view. The artist brought his keen sense of observation to describing human anatomy and movement. Greek vase painters often give us clear insight into everyday life—allowing us to understand daily habits, details of clothing and customs. Of course, these painted vases cannot be treated as documents, since we would not expect men to be naked at a symposium. However, appreciation for the human body and nudity was a usual part of ancient Greek culture, and it provided a way for the artist to showcase his ability.
Euthymides, Three Revelers (Athenian red-figure amphora), c. 510 B.C.E., 24 inches high (Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich) (photo: Richard Mortel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The vase displays balance and harmony of proportions, with its elegant and graceful shape, and carefully planned pictorial decoration. The main scenes on both sides of the amphora are complemented by a delicate ornament. Despite the beauty of the vase, the potters and painters in ancient Greece did not have the status an artist has in our modern society. Their work was looked upon as a physical labor, not as an activity inspired by the muses. In fact, there was no muse of painting. The decorated vases were produced in large amounts to answer the growing demand of the markets, both in Greece, as well as abroad (especially in Etruria, and in Greek colonies). The Euthymides vase was in fact found in an Etruscan tomb at Vulci in Italy. Many Greek vases survived untouched because the Etruscans buried their deceased in large underground tombs with many everyday objects.
Most of the vases were simply everyday items, although a big, beautifully painted amphora like the one discussed here was also a luxury item, testifying to its owner’s good taste and social standing. Despite their status as craftsmen, the artists around the time of Euthymides had a sense of personal value and achievement, hence the inscription “As never Euphronious [could do]”. Because of the inscription “Euthymides egraphsen” (“Euthymides painted me”) we are sure that he was the painter—and today we definitely think of him as an artist.
J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases, The Archaic Period, a Handbook, 1975.
When the collection of antiquities first began in earnest in the 17th and 18th centuries, the openness of ancient eroticism puzzled and troubled Enlightenment audiences. This bewilderment only intensified after excavations began at the rediscovered Roman towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum.
The Gabinetto Segreto (the so-called “Secret Cabinet”) of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli best typifies the modern response to classical sexuality in art – repression and suppression.
The secret cabinet was founded in 1819, when Francis I, King of Naples, visited the museum with his wife and young daughter. Shocked by the explicit imagery, he ordered all items of a sexual nature be removed from view and locked in the cabinet. Access would be restricted to scholars, of “mature age and respected morals”. That was, male scholars only.
In Pompeii itself, where explicit material such as the wallpaintings of the brothel was retained in situ, metal shutters were installed. These shutters restricted access to only male tourists willing to pay additional fees, until as recently as the 1960s.
Of course, the secrecy of the collection in the cabinet only increased its fame, even if access was at times difficult. John Murray’s Handbook to South Italy and Naples (1853) sanctimoniously states that permission was exceedingly difficult to obtain:
Very few therefore have seen the collection and those who have, are said to have no desire to repeat their visit.
The cabinet was not opened to the general public until 2000 (despite protests by the Catholic Church). Since 2005, the collection has been displayed in a separate room the objects have still not been reunited with contemporary non-sexual artefacts as they were in antiquity.
Literature also felt the wrath of the censors, with works such as Aristophanes’ plays mistranslated to obscure their “offensive” sexual and scatalogical references. Lest we try to claim any moral and liberal superiority in the 21st century, the infamous marble sculptural depiction of Pan copulating with a goat from the collection still shocks modern audiences.
The censorship of ancient sexuality is perhaps best typified by the long tradition of removing genitals from classical sculpture.
The Vatican Museum in particular (but not exclusively) was famed for altering classical art for the sake of contemporary morals and sensibilities. The application of carved and cast fig leaves to cover the genitalia was common, if incongruous.
It also indicated a modern willingness to associate nudity with sexuality, which would have puzzled an ancient audience, for whom the body’s physical form was in itself regarded as perfection. So have we been misreading ancient sexuality all this time? Well, yes.
Black figure vase painting had been developed in Corinth in the 7th century BCE and quickly became the dominant style of pottery decoration throughout the Greek world and beyond. Although Corinth dominated the overall market, regional markets and centres of production did develop. Initially, Athens copied the Corinthian style, but it gradually came to rival and overcome the dominance of Corinth. Attic artists developed the style to an unprecedented quality, reaching the apex of their creative possibilities in the second third of the 6th century BCE. Exekias, active around 530 BCE, can be seen as the most important representative of the black-figure style.
In the 5th century, Attic fine pottery, now predominantly red-figure, maintained its dominance in the markets. Attic pottery was exported to Magna Graecia and even Etruria. The preference for Attic vases led to the development of local South Italian and Etrurian workshops or "schools", strongly influenced by Attic style, but producing exclusively for local markets.
The first red-figure vases were produced around 530 BCE. The invention of the technique normally is accredited to the Andokides Painter. He, and other early representatives of the style, e.g. Psiax, initially painted vases in both styles, with black-figure scenes on one side, and red-figure on the other. Such vases, e.g. the Belly Amphora by the Andokides Painter (Munich 2301), are called bilingual vases. Although they display major advances against the black figure style, the figures still appear somewhat stilted and seldom overlap. Compositions and techniques of the older style remained in use. Thus, incised lines are quite common, as is the additional application of red paint ("added red") to cover large areas. [ 4 ]
The artists of the so called "Pioneer Group" made the step towards a full exploitation of the possibilities of the red-figure technique. They were active between circa 520 and 500 BCE. Important representatives include Euphronios, Euthymides and Phintias. This group, recognised and defined by twentieth-century scholarship, experimented with the different possibilities offered by the new style. Thus, figures appeared in new perspectives, such as frontal or rear views, there were experiments with perspective foreshortening, and more dynamic compositions. As a technical innovation, Euphronios introduced the "relief line". At the same time, new vase shapes were invented, a development favoured by the fact that many of the pioneer group painters also were active as potters.
New shapes include the psykter and the pelike. Large krater and amphorae became popular at this time. Although there is no indication that the painters understood themselves as a group in the way that modern scholarship does, there were some connections and mutual influences, perhaps, in an atmosphere of friendly competition and encouragement. Thus, a vase by Euthymides is inscribed "as Euphronios never [would have been able]". More generally, the pioneer group tended to use inscriptions. The labelling of mythological figures or the addition of Kalos inscriptions are the rule rather than the exception. [ 4 ]
Apart from the vase painters, some bowl painters also used the new style. These include Oltos and Epiktetos. Many of their works were bilingual, often using red-figure only on the interior of the bowl.
The generation of artists after the pioneers, active during the Late Archaic period (circa 500 to 470 BCE) brought the style to a new flourish. During this time, black-figure vases failed to reach the same quality and were pushed out of the market eventually. Some of the most famous Attic vase painters belong to this generation. They include the Berlin Painter, the Kleophrades Painter, and among the bowl painters Onesimos, Douris, Makron and the Brygos Painter. The improvement of quality went along with a doubling of output during this period. Athens became the dominant producer of fine pottery in the Mediterranean world, overshadowing nearly all other production centres. [ 5 ]
One of the key features of this most successful Attic vase painting style is the mastery of perspective foreshortening, allowing a much more naturalistic depiction of figures and actions. Another characteristic is the drastic reduction of figures per vessel, of anatomic details, and of ornamental decorations. In contrast, the repertoire of depicted scenes was increased. For example, the myths surrounding Theseus became very popular at this time. New or modified vase shapes were frequently employed, including the Nolan amphora (see Typology of Greek Vase Shapes), lekythoi, as well as bowls of the askos and dinos types. The specialisation into separate vase and bowl painters increased. [ 5 ]
Early and High Classical
The key characteristic of Early Classical figures is that they are often somewhat stockier and less dynamic than their predecessors. As a result, the depictions gained seriousness, even pathos. The folds of garments were depicted less linear, thus appearing more plastic. The manner of presenting scenes also changed substantially. Firstly, the paintings ceased to focus on the moment of a particular event, but rather, with dramatic tension, showed the situation immediately before the action, thus implying and contextualsing the event proper. Also, some of the other new achievements of Athenian democracy began to show an influence on vase painting. Thus, influences of tragedy and of wall painting can be detected. Since Greek wall painting is almost entirely lost today, its reflection on vases constitutes one of the few, albeit modest, sources of information on that genre of art. Other influences on High Classical vase painting include the newly erected Parthenon and its sculptural decoration. This is especially visible in the depiction of garments, The material now falls more naturally, more folds are depicted, leading to an increased "depth" of the depiction. The overall compositions were simplified even more. Artists placed special emphasis on symmetry, harmony, and balance. The human figures had returned to their earlier slenderness often they radiate a self-absorbed, divine serenity. [ 5 ]
Important painters of this period, roughly 480 to 425 BCE, include the Providence Painter, Hermonax, and the Achilles Painter, all following the tradition of the Berlin Painter. The Phiale Painter, probably a pupil of the Achilles Painter, is also important. New workshop traditions also developed. Notable examples include the so-called "mannerists", most famously among them, the Pan Painter. Another tradition was begun by the Niobid Painter and continued by Polygnotos, the Kleophon Painter, and the Dinos Painter. The role of bowls decreased, although they were still produced in large numbers, e.g. by the workshop of the Penthesilea Painter. [ 5 ]
During the Late Classical period, in the final quarter of the 5th century, two opposed trends were created. On the one hand, a style of vase painting strongly influenced by the "Rich Style" of sculpture developed, on the other, some workshops continued the developments of the High Classical period, with an increased emphasis on the depiction of emotion, and a range of erotic scenes. The most important representative of the Rich Style is the Meidias Painter. Characteristic features include transparent garments and multiple folds of cloth. There is also an increase in the depiction of jewellery and other objects. The use of additional colours, mostly white and gold, depicting accessories in a low relief, is very striking. Over time, there is a marked "softening": The male body, heretofore defined by the depiction of muscles, gradually lost that key feature. [ 5 ]
The paintings depicted mythological scenes less frequently than before. Images of the private and domestic world became more and more important. Scenes from the life of women are especially frequent. Mythological scenes are dominated by images of Dionysos and Aphrodite. It is not clear what caused this change of depicted topic among some of the artists. Suggestions include a context with the horrors of the Peloponnesian War, but also the loss of Athens' dominant role in the Mediterranean pottery trade (itself partially a result of the war). The increasing role of new markets, e.g. Iberia, implied new needs and wishes on part of the customers. These theories are contradicted by the fact that some artists maintained the earlier style. Some, e.g. the Eretria Painter, attempted to combine both traditions. The best works of the Late Classical period are often found on smaller vessels, such as belly lekythoi, pyxides and oinochai. Lekanis, Bell krater(seeTypology of Greek Vase Shapes) and hydria were also popular. [ 6 ]
The production of mainstream red-figure pottery ceased around 360 BCE. The Rich and Simple styles both existed until that time. Late representatives include the Meleager Painter (Rich Style) and the Jena Painter (Simple Style).
The final decades of Attic red—figure vase painting are dominated by the Kerch Style. This style, current between 370 and 330 BCE, combined the preceding Rich and Modest Styles, with a preponderance of the Rich. Crowded compositions with large statuesque figures are typical. The added colours now include blue, green and others. Volume and shading are indicated by the use of diluted runny glossy clay. Occasionally, whole figures are added as appliques, i.e. as thin figural reliefs attached to the body of the vase. The variety of vessel shapes in use was reduced sharply. Common painted shapes include pelike, chalice krater, belly lekythos, skyphos, hydria and oinochoe. Scenes from female life are very common. Mythological themes are still dominated by Dionysos Ariadne and Heracles are the most commonly depicted heroes. The best-known painter of this style is the Marsyas Painter. [ 6 ]
The last Athenian vases with figural depictions were created around 320 BCE at the latest. The style continued somewhat longer, but with non-figural decorations. The last recognised examples are by painters known as the YZ Group.
Artists and Works
The Kerameikos was the potters' quarter of Athens. It contained a variety of small workshops, and probably a few larger ones. In 1852, during building activity in Ermou Street, the workshop of the Jena Painter was discovered. The artefacts from it are now on display in the University collection of the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena. [ 7 ] According to modern research, the workshops were owned by the potters. The names of about 40 Attic vase painters are known, from vase inscriptions, usually accompanied by the words ἐγραψεν (égrapsen, has painted). In contrast, the signature of the potter, ἐποίησεν (epoíesen, has made) has survived on more than twice as many, namely circa 100, pots (both numbers refer to the totality of Attic figural vase painting). Although signatures had been known since circa 580 BCE (first known signature by the potter Sophilos), their use increased to an apex around the Pioneering Phase. A changing, apparently increasingly negative, attitude to artisans led to a reduction of signatures, starting during the Classical period at the latest. [ 8 ] Overall, signatures are quite rare. The fact that they are mostly found on especially good pieces indicates that they expressed the pride of potter and/or painter. [ 9 ]
The status of painters in relation to that of potters remains somewhat unclear. The fact that, e.g., Euphronius was able to work as both painter and potter suggests that at least some of the painters were not slaves. On the other hand, some of the known names indicate that there were at least some former slaves and some perioikoi among the painters. Additionally, some of the names are not unique: for example, several painters signed as Polygnotos. This may represent attempts to profit from the name of that great painter. The same may be the case where painters bear otherwise fanous names, like Aristophanes (vase painter). The careers of some vase painters are quite well known. Apart from painters with relatively short periods of activity (one or two decades), some can be traced for much longer. Examples include Douris, Makron, Hermonax and the Achilles Painter. The fact that several painters later became potters, and the relatively frequent cases were it is unclear whether some potters were also painters or vice versa, suggest a career structure, perhaps starting with an apprenticeship involving mainly painting, and leading up to being a potter. This division of labours appears to have developed along with the introduction of red-figure painting, since many potter-painters are known from the black-figure period (including Exekias, Nearchos and perhaps the Amasis Painter). The increased demand for exports would have led to new structures of production, encouraging specialisation and division of labour, leading to a sometimes ambiguous distinction between painter and potter. As mentioned above, the painting of vessels was probably mainly the responsibility of younger assistants or apprentices. Some further conclusions regarding the organisational aspects of pottery production can be suggested. It appears that generally, several painters worked for one pottery workshop, as indicated by the fact that frequently, several roughly contemporary pots by the same potter are painted by various painters. For examples, pots made by Euphronios have been found to be painted by Onesimos, Douris, the Antiphon Painter, the Triptolemos Painter and the Pistoxenos Painter. Conversely, an individual painter could also change from one workshop to another. For example, the bowl painter Oltos worked for at least six different potters. [ 9 ]
Although from a modern perspective the vase painters are often considered as artists, and their vases thus as works of art, this view is not consistent with that held in antiquity. Vase painters, like potters, were considered as craftsmen, their produce as trade goods. [ 10 ] The craftsmen must have had a reasonably high level of education, as a variety of inscriptions occur. On the one hand, the aforementioned Kalos inscriptions are common, on the other hand, inscriptions often label the depicted figures. That not every vase painter could write is shown by some examples of meaningless rows of random letters. The vases indicate a steady improvement of literacy from the 6th century BCE onwards. [ 11 ] Whether potters, and perhaps vase painters, belonged to the Attic elite has not been satisfactorily clarified so far. Do the frequent depictions of the symposium, a definite upper-class activity, reflect the painters' personal experience, their aspirations to attend such events, or simply the demands of the market? [ 12 ] A large proportion of the painted vases produced, such as psykter, krater, kalpis, stamnos, as well as kylikes and kantharoi, were made and bought to be used at symposia. [ 13 ]
Elaborately painted vases were good, but not the best, table wares available to a Greek. Metal vessels, especially from precious metals, were held in higher regard. Nonetheless, painted vases were not cheap products the larger specimens, especially, were expensive. Around 500 BCE, a large painted vase cost about one drachma, equivalent to the daily wage of a stonemason. It has been suggested that the painted vases represent an attempt to imitate metal vessels. It is normally assumed that the lower social classes tended to use simple undecorated coarse wares, massive quantities of which are found in excavations. Tablewares made of perishable materials, like wood, may have been even more widespread. [ 14 ] Nonetheless, multiple finds of red-figure vases, usually not of the highest quality, found in settlements, prove that such vessels were used in daily life. A large proportion of production was taken up by cult and grave vessels. In any case, it can be assumed that the production of high-quality pottery was a profitable business. For example, an expensive votive gift by the painter Euphronios was found on the Athenian Acropolis. [ 15 ] There can be little doubt that the export of such pottery made an important contribution to the affluence of Athens. It is hardly surprising that many workshops appear to have aimed their production at export markets, for example by producing vessel shapes that were more popular in the target region than in Athens. The 4th century BCE demise of Attic vase painting tellingly coincides with the very period when the Etruscans, probably the main western export market, came under increasing pressure from South Italian Greeks and the Romans. A further reason for the end of the production of figurally decorated vases is a change in tastes at the start of the Hellenistic period. The main reason, however, should be seen in the increasingly unsuccessful progress of the Peloponnesian War, culminating in the devastating defeat of Athens in 404 BCE. After this, Sparta controlled the western trade, albeit without having the economic strength to fully exploit it. The Attic potters had to find new markets they did so in the Black Sea area. But Athens and its industries never fully recovered from the defeat. Some potters and painters had already relocated to Italy during the war, seeking better economic conditions. A key indicator for the export-oriented nature of Attic vase production is the nearly total absence of theatre scenes. Buyers from other cultural backgrounds, such as Etruscans or later customers in the Iberian Peninsula, would have found such depiction incomprehensible or uninteresting. In Southern Italian vase painting, which was mostly not aimed at export, such scenes are quite common. [ 16 ]
Commercial Networks in the Mediterranean and the Diffusion of Early Attic Red-figure Pottery (525 BCE)
This article addresses the question of the existence of a network of informers or middlemen operating between the producers of Attic pottery and their clients abroad. The diffusion of early Attic red-figure pottery (525–490 BCE) in the Mediterranean is examined as a case study, with special emphasis on Italy and the Black Sea region. The hypothesis put forward is that the change from the long-established black-figure technique to the risky and more difficult red-figure technique was dictated by the commercial success of the red-figure ware in Italy, while Greek customers were less eager to acquire red-figure pots. In the appendix, a number of new or relatively less known finds of early red-figure pottery from the Greek mainland and the Aegean islands are listed.
 I would like to thank the organizers of the conference for their invitation and Professors Martin Bentz, Bettina Kreuzer and Jean-Jacques Maffre for invaluable information on unpublished finds from Olympia, Samos and Thasos respectively. Thanks are also due to the anonymous reader, who provided a detailed and critical commentary of my views. All dates are BC, unless otherwise stated. Add 2 = Carpenter Carpenter, Thomas H. 1989 . Beazley Addenda 2 , Oxford : Oxford University Press . [Google Scholar] , Thomas H., Beazley Addenda 2 . ARV 2 = Beazley Beazley, John Davidson . 1963 . Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. , Oxford : Clarendon Press . [Google Scholar] , Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters 2 . CVA = Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Para = Beazley Beazley, John Davidson . 1971 . Paralipomena. Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters 2 , Oxford : Clarendon Press . [Google Scholar] , Paralipomena.
 Stissi Stissi, Vladimir . 1999 . “ Modern Finds and Ancient Distribution ”. In Céramique et peinture grecques. Modes d'emploi. Actes du colloque international. École du Louvre, 26, 27, 28 avril 1995, Edited by: Villaneuva-Puig, M.-C. , Lissarrague, F. , Rouillard, P. and Rouveret, A. 351 – 55 . Paris : La documentation française . [Google Scholar] , ‘Production, Circulation and Consumption’, passim. See also Johnston Johnston, Alan . 1989 . “ Greek Vases in the Marketplace ”. In Looking at Greek Vases, Edited by: Spivey, N. and Rassmussen, T. 203 – 31 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . [Google Scholar] , ‘Greek Vases’. For a general picture of the distribution of attic vases, see Boardman Boardman, John . 1979 . The Athenian Pottery Trade. The Classical Period . Expedition, 21: 33 – 9 . [Google Scholar] , ‘The Athenian Pottery Trade’.
 Boardman Boardman, John . 2004 . The History of Greek Vases, London : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , History of Greek Vases, 79. For the dating of the invention in 525, see Cohen Cohen, Beth . 1978 . “ Attic Bilingual Vases and their Painters ”. Dissertation, University of New York [Google Scholar] , Attic Bilingual Vases, 113, and Pécasse Pécasse, Mariane . 1999 . “ Le trésor de Siphnos et le Peintre d'Andocidès: rapprochement stylistique ou chronologique? ”. In Céramique et peinture grecques. Modes d'emploi. Actes du colloque international. École du Louvre, 26, 27, 28 avril 1995, Edited by: Villaneuva-Puig, M.-C. , Lissarrague, F. , Rouillard, P. and Rouveret, A. 309 – 14 . Paris : La documentation française . [Google Scholar] , ‘Le trésor de Siphnos’, 309–14. For revisions of the established chronological system (which depends on Langlotz Langlotz, Ernst . 1920 . Zeitbestimmung der strengrotifigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik, Leipzig : E. A. Seamann . [Google Scholar] , Zeitbestimmung der strengrotfigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik), see below, note 8.
 On the technical requirements of the red-figure style, see Noble Noble, J. V. 1988 . The Techniques of Attic Painted Pottery, London : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , Techniques of Attic Painted Pottery, 116–21, and the recent account of Cuomo di Caprio Cuomo di Caprio, Ninina . 2007 . Ceramica in Archeologia 2. Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine, Rome : L'Erma di Bretschneider . [Google Scholar] , Ceramica in Archeologia 2, 462–65.
 Williams Williams, Dyfri . 1991 . “ The Invention of the Red-Figured Technique and the Race between Vase Painting and Free Painting ”. In Looking at Greek Vases, Edited by: Spivey, Nigel and Rassmussen, Tobias . 102 – 18 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . [Google Scholar] , ‘The Invention of the Red-Figured Technique’, 103, Robertson Robertson, Martin . 1992 . The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . [Google Scholar] , Art of Vase-Painting, 8–9, and Sparkes, The Red and the Black, 17. Experimental and special techniques: Cohen Cohen, Beth , ed. 2006 . The Colors of Clay. Special Techniques in Athenian Vases, Los Angeles : Getty Museum Press . [Google Scholar] , The Colors of Clay.
 Smith Smith, Cecil . 1893 . Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum, London : British Museum Press . III [Google Scholar] , Catalogue of Vases in the British Museum, III, 1, Cook Cook, R. M. 1997 . Greek Painted Pottery, 3rd ed. , London and New York : Routledge . [Google Scholar] , Greek Painted Pottery, 155, Boardman Boardman, John . 1975 . Athenian Red Figure Vases. The Archaic Period. A Handbook, London : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , Athenian Red Figure Vases, 11. On the other hand, Furtwängler Furtwängler, Adolph . “ Review of P. Hartwig, Die griechischen Meisterschalen der Blütezeit des strengen rotfigurigen Stils, Stuttgart and Berlin, 1893 ”. In Berliner Philologischer Wochenschrift (1894): col. 105–14 and 141–47 [Google Scholar] , in his review of Hartwig's Griechische Meisterschalen, in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift (1894), col. 112 and Lane Lane, A. 1948 . Greek Pottery, London : Faber & Faber . [Google Scholar] , Greek Pottery, 45, traced the origin of the style to the influence of contemporary wall- and panel-painting. Klein Klein, W. 1886 . Euphronios. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Griechischen Malerei, 2nd ed. , Wien : C. Gerlod's Sohn . [Google Scholar] , Euphronios, 31, assumed that the technique evolved from the Gorgoneia of black-figure cups.
 Osborne Osborne, Robin . 1998 . Archaic and Classical Greek Art, Oxford : Oxford University Press . [Google Scholar] , Archaic and Classical Greek Art, 136–37, echoing Villard Villard, François . 1948 . Les vases grecs, Paris : Musée du Louvre . [Google Scholar] , Les vases grecs, 10–11.
 Neer Neer, Richard. T. 2002 . Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting. The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530-460 BCE, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . [Google Scholar] , Style and Politics, 14–23. In this important and innovative study, Neer (186–215) proposed a synchronism between the beginning of activity of the so-called Pioneers and the birth of democracy, resulting from the downdating of the beginning of the career of Euphronios from 520 to 510 BCE. This was an ingenious proposition, based on the study of the early red-figured vases from the Agora wells. But the radical revision of the Pioneer Group is not necessary: Paleothodoros Paleothodoros, Dimitris . 2005 . “ Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting. The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530–460 BCE ”. In Les Études Classiques, Vol. 73, 405 – 11 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002 . no. 4 [Google Scholar] , Review of Richard. T. Neer, 405–11. Other scholars have attempted to revise the established chronology previously: Tölle-Kastenbein Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1983 . Bemerkungen zur absoluten Chronologie spätarchaischer und frühklassischer Denkmäler Athens . Archäologische Anzeiger, : 573 – 84 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Bemerkungen zur absoluten Chronologie’ Canciani Canciani, F. 1986 . “ Considerazioni sulla cronologia della ceramica attica dal tardo arcaismo allo stilo severo ”. In Studien zu Mythologie und Vasenmalerei. Festschrift Konrad Schauenburg, Edited by: Böhr, E. and Martini, W. 59 – 64 . Mainz : Verlag Philipp von Zabern . [Google Scholar] , ‘Considerazioni’ and ultimately Rotroff Rotroff, Susan . Forthcoming . “ Early Red-Figure in Context ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters II Edited by: Oakley, J. and Palagia, O. [Google Scholar] , ‘Early Red-Figure in Context’. Rotroff observed the absence of red-figure vases in the deposits of the Athenian Agora that might be dated, according to the traditional chronological scheme, before 515 BCE. On this basis, she downdated the invention of the red-figure technique by about fifteen years. The argument, based on the ‘visibility’ principle, ignores the stylistic development of the early red-figure technique, since a few very early red-figure vases are indeed found in the Agora: Moore, ‘Attic Red-Figure Painters’, 469 see also below, note 36. The overall situation of the finds from Agora—which are comparable to the finds from the Acropolis, since in both sites earlier vases are rare and red-figure vases are less common than black-figure ones—lend further support to our thesis that the earlier red-figure pottery was much less successful in the home market than abroad. See Hannestad, ‘The Athenian Potter’, 224–27.
 The quotation is from Beazley Beazley, John Davidson . 1951 . The Development of Attic Black-Figure, 1st ed. , Berkeley and LA : University of California Press . [Google Scholar] , Development of Attic Black-Figure, 76. See also Villard Villard, François . 1960 . La céramique grecque de Marseille. Essai d'histoire économique, Paris : Ecole française de Rome . [Google Scholar] , Les vases grecs, 70 Sparkes Sparkes, Brian A. 1990 . Greek Pottery. An Introduction, Manchester and New York : Manchester University Press . [Google Scholar] , Greek Pottery, 98.
 Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, 155, argues that the technique is unrelated to the needs of the market, since the production and export of black-figure vases did not stop after the invention of the red-figure. Contra, Boardman Boardman, John . 2004 . The History of Greek Vases, London : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , History of Greek Vases, 79: ‘The motivation was mainly aesthetic, no doubt, but it also represented a new line for the growing export market, and the response was more immediate in Athens and Italy (Greek and Etruscan) than in the rest of Greece.’
 Cook and Dupont Cook, R.M. and Dupont, Pierre . 1998 . East Greek Pottery, London and New York : Routledge . [Google Scholar] , East Greek Pottery, 89, 94, 101–07 and 108–13. The end of the East Greek vase-painting styles is linked to the troubled events of the Ionian Revolt (499–4), but the decline is apparent already before 500 BCE. Local painted vases have been supplanted by Athenian imports, although the art of painting on clay survived in the decoration of the Clazomenian sarcophagi of the second quarter of the fifth century BCE. Northampton amphorae, Caeretan hydriae and Campana dinoi were painted until about 510–500 BCE. Note that Hemelrijk Hemelrijk, Jan M. 2007 . Four New Campana Dinoi, a New Painter, Old Questions . Bulletin Antieke Beschaven, 82: 365 – 421 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Four New Campana Dinoi’, 377–78, now regards the Campana dinoi and the Northampton group as East Greek products. Laconian and Euboan in Greece, as well as Chalcidian black-figure in South Italy, last until about 500: Boardman Boardman, John . 1998 . Early Greek Vase Painting, London : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , Early Greek Vase Painting, 271.
 The production of Etruscan black-figure diminished in the early fifth century BCE and died out before the middle of that century. Rizzo Rizzo, Maria Antoanetta . 1987 . “ La ceramica a figure nere ”. In La ceramica degli Etruschi. La pittura vascolare, Edited by: Martelli, M. 31 – 41 . Navarra : Istituto Geografico di Agostino . [Google Scholar] , ‘La ceramica a figure nere’, 39. Campanian black-figure derives from later Etruscan: Parise Badoni Parise Badoni, Franca . 1969 . Ceramica campana a figure nere, Florence : Sansoni Editore . [Google Scholar] , Ceramica campana, 133–39. Later Boeotian black-figured vases (other than the highly idiosyncratic cabirian) were crude imitations of contemporary Attic: Maffre Maffre, Jean-Jacques . 1988 . “ Chachrylion, Euphronios et quelque uns de leurs contemporains à Thasos ”. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposion on Greek and Related Pottery, Edited by: Christiansen, J. and Melander, T. 379 – 89 . Copenhagen : National Museum, Ny Carlsberg Glypotek, Thorvaldsens Museum . [Google Scholar] , ‘La collection Paul Cannellopoulos VIII’, 496.
 The earliest copy is an amphora from Orvieto: Cristofani Cristofani, Mauro . 1987 . “ La ceramica a figure rosse ”. In La ceramica degli Etruschi. La pittura vascolare, Edited by: Martelli, M. 43 – 52 . Navarra : Istituto Geografico di Agostino . [Google Scholar] , ‘La ceramica a figure rosse’, 43. Soon, the painters realised that the technique of added red colour was easier to achieve. The inventor of the technique was a native of Greek origin, Arnth Praxias: Szilágyi Szilágyi, J. G. 1973 . “ Zur Praxias-Gruppe ”. In Miscellanea Casimiro Majewski Oblata, Archeologia Polona 15, 95 – 114 . Warsaw : Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences . [Google Scholar] , ‘Zur Praxias-Gruppe’. The signature of Praxias is in lakonian alphabet betraying attic influence. He might be a Tarentine, according to Wachter Wachter, Rudolph . 2001 . Non Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions, Oxford : Oxford University Press . [Google Scholar] , Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions, 194–95. A single find, an Attic red-figure fragment of the 440s with an Etruscan painted inscription, implies the presence of Athenian painters in Etruria, albeit in a very limited number: Gill Gill, David W. J. 1987 . METRU MENEKE. An Etruscan painted inscription on a mid-5th century BC red-figure cup from Populonia . Antiquity, 61: 82 – 7 . [Google Scholar] , ‘METRU MENEKE’.
 Boeotian red-figure first appears after 480 BCE. See the pelike Munich 2347 ( Sparkes Sparkes, Brian A. 1967 . The Taste of a Boeotian Pig . Journal of Hellenic Studies, 87: 116 – 30 . pl. XII–XXI [Google Scholar] , ‘The Taste of a Boeotian Pig’, 123) Lullies Lullies, R. 1940 . Zur böotisch rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei . Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung, 65: 1 – 27 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Zur böotisch rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei’. The establishment of the Lucanian workshop around the middle of the fifth century BCE is attributed to the activity of the Pisticci Painter, who was trained in Athens: Denoyelle Denoyelle, Martin . 1997 . “ Attic or non-Attic? The Case of the Pisticci Painter ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings, Edited by: Oakley, J. H. , Coulson, W. D. E. and Palagia, O. 395 – 405 . Oxford : Oxbow Books . [Google Scholar] , ‘Attic or non-Attic?’, with full bibliography. An independent atticizing school appeared by the end of the second quarter of the fifth century in Campania. One need not infer continuity from the earlier, Campanian black-figure, as was advocated by Hadzisteliou-Price Hadzisteliou-Price, T. 1974 . Aμϕορϵύς τύπου Nola ϵν Σικάγω και Eπανϵξ τασις του Owl-Pillar Group . Archeologike Ephemeris, 168–92: 44 – 57 . Pl [Google Scholar] , ‘Aμϕορ ας τύπου Nola ν Σικάγωι’. On the emigration of Athenian potters, see McDonald McDonald, Brian R. 1981 . The Emigration of Potters from Athens in the Late Fifth Century BC and its Effect on the Attic Pottery Industry . American Journal of Archaeology, 85: 159 – 68 . [Google Scholar] , ‘The Emigration of Potters’, who overemphasizes the effects of the Peloponnesian War upon the Athenian pottery industry.
 I do not intend to present a systematic review of earlier scholarship. For studies until 2001, see Paleothodoros Paleothodoros, Dimitris . 2002 . Pourquoi les Étrusques achetaient-ils des vases attiques? . Les Études Classiques, 70(1–2): 139 – 60 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Pourquoi les Étrusques’. Later publications include the major study by Reusser Reusser, Christoph . 2002 . Vasen für Etrurien. Verbreitung und Funktionen attischer Keramik im Etrurien des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts vor Christus, Vol. I–II, Zürich : Akanthus . [Google Scholar] , Vasen für Etrurien, and two important studies by R. Osborne Osborne, Robin . 2004 . “ The Anatomy of a Mobile Culture: The Greeks, their Pots and their Myths in Etruria ”. In Mobility and Travel in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, Edited by: Schlesier, R. and Zellmann, U. 23 – 36 . Münster : Lit Verlag . [Google Scholar] : ‘The Anatomy of a Mobile Culture’, which is an expanded form of his ‘Why did Greek Pots Appeal to the Etruscans?’, and ‘Workshops’. See also the papers in Giudice and Panvini Giudice, Filippo and Panvini, Rosalba , eds. 2006 . Il Greco, il Barbaro e la ceramica attica. Immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, 14–19 maggio 2001, Catania, Caltanissetta, Gela, Camarina, Vittoria, Siracusa, Vol. II, Rome : L'Erma di Bretschneider . 2003 Vol. III [Google Scholar] , Il Greco, vols II and III, Bentz and Reusser Bentz, Martin and Reusser, Christoph , eds. 2004 . Attische Vasen in etruskischen Kontext: Funde aus Häusern und Heiligtümern, CVA, Vol. 2, Munich : C. H. Beck . Beiheft [Google Scholar] , Attische Vasen, de La Genière de La Genière, J. , ed. 2006 . Les clients de la céramique grecque. Actes du colloque de l'Académie d'Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris, 30–31 janvier 2004, Paris : De Boccard . Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum [Google Scholar] , Les clients de la céramique grecque, and Avramidou Avramidou, Amalia . 2006 . Attic Vases in Etruria: Another View on the Divine Banquet Cup by the Codrus Painter . American Journal of Archaeology, 110: 565 – 79 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Attic Vases in Etruria’.
 Arafat and Morgan Morgan, Catherine . 2004 . Attic Fine Pottery of the Archaic to Hellenistic Periods in Phanagoria, Leiden and Boston : Brill . Colloquia Pontica 10 [Google Scholar] , ‘Athens, Etruria and Heuneburg’, 117. Vases depicted on tombs: see recently Reusser Reusser, Christoph . 2004 . “ La céramique attique dans les tombes étrusques ”. In Le vase grec et ses destins, Edited by: Rouillard, P. and Verbanck-Piérard, A. 167 – 78 . Munich : Biering & Bringmann . [Google Scholar] , Vasen für Etrurien, I, 191–202 and II, 101–18. Vases found in painted tombs: Wiel-Martin Wiel-Martin, Federica . 2005 . “ Vasi reali e vasi raffigurati nelle tombe dipinte di epoca arcaica ”. In Pittura parietale, pittura vascolare. Ricerce in corso tra Etruria e Campania, Edited by: Gilotta, F. 9 – 18 . Napoli : Arte Tipografica Editrice . [Google Scholar] , ‘Vasi reali’. Note that Small Small, Joselyn Penny . 1994 . Scholars, Etruscans, and Attic Painted Vases . Journal of Roman Studies, 7: 34 – 58 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Scholars, Etruscans, and Attic Painted Vases’, 38, has suggested that the painted vases depicted on Etruscan tombs are of Etruscan origin.
 Reusser, Vasen für Etrurien: no less than 80 domestic sites and 40 sanctuaries, as well as the vast majority of tombs from the sixth and fifth century, have yielded amounts of Athenian pottery. For domestic and sacred contexts, see the papers in Bentz and Reusser, Attische Vasen and the publication of the finds from Adria by Wiel-Martin Wiel-Martin, Federica . 2005 . La ceramica attica a figure rosse di Adria. La famiglia Bocchi e l'archeologia, Padova : CLEUP . [Google Scholar] , La ceramica attica.
 The available studies dealing with the statistical aspect of the distribution of attic pottery are not trustworthy. The number of vases from illegal and uncontrolled excavations available in the market, but in reality found in Etruria, is very important. Earlier finds are also poorly recorded. On sampling, see Stissi Stissi, Vladimir . 1999 . “ Production, Circulation and Consumption of Archaic Greek Pottery—Sixth and Early Fifth Centuries BC) ”. In The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC). Proceedings of the ARCHON International Conference held in Amsterdam, 8–9 November 1996, Edited by: Crieelard, J. P. , Stissi, V. and van Wijngaarden, G. J. 83 – 113 . Amsterdam : J. C. Gieben Publisher . [Google Scholar] , ‘Modern Finds and Ancient Distribution’ Paleothodoros Paleothodoros, Dimitris . 2003 . The Pithos Painter . Eulimene, 4: 61 – 76 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Pourquoi les Étrusques’, 140–41 and Morgan, Attic Fine Pottery, 21–23.
 Exceptions should be noted: Hannestad Hannestad, Lise . 1988 . “ The Athenian Potter and the Home Market ”. In Proceedings of the 3 rd Symposium on Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen August 31–September 4 1987, Edited by: Christiansen, Jette and Melander, Torben . 222 – 30 . Copenhagen : National Museum, Ny Carlsberg Glypotek, Thorvaldsens Museum . [Google Scholar] , ‘The Athenian Potter’ and ‘Athenian Pottery at Corinth’ Villanueva-Puig, ‘Les vases attiques’.
 We should also keep in mind that the situation in Italy, Cyprus and Turkey is not necessarily better than in Greece, while in the countries surrounding the Black Sea, things are certainly worse.
 Tuna-Nörling Tuna-Nörling, Y. 2002 . “ Archaische attische Keramik in Ionien ”. In Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, Edited by: Tsetskhladze, G. R. and Snodgrass, A. M. 97 – 129 . Oxford : Archaeopress . [Google Scholar] , ‘Archaische attische Keramik’, 97 (a cup from Old Smyrna), 100 (a cup from Phokaia), 101 (eye-cups, several late-sixth-century cups by Epiktetos and the Wider Circle of the Nikosthenes Painter and an amphora of the earlier fifth century from Clazomenae), 102 (an eye-cup from Miletus, as well as a later cup and an askos postdating the destruction of the city in 494), 102 (cup by the Pithos Painter from the Ephesian Artemision). Daskyleion: Tuna-Nörling Tuna-Nörling, Y. 1999 . Daskyleion I. Die Attische Keramik. Arkeoloji Dergisi Vol. 6, Izmir [Google Scholar] , Daskyleion I, nos. 379–80 and ‘Attic Pottery from Dascylium’, 119, fig. 10 and 122, fig. 22. Xanthos: Metzger Metzger, Herni . 1972 . Fouilles de Xanthos IV. Les céramiques archaïques et classiques de l'acropole lycienne, Paris : De Boccard . [Google Scholar] , Xanthos IV, pl. 74-75, no. 333. Sardis: Snyder Snyder Schaeffer, J. , ed. 1997 . The Corinthian, Attic and Lakonian Pottery from Sardis, Cambridge, Mass. and London : Harvard University Press . Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 10 [Google Scholar] Schaeffer, Corinthian, Attic and Lakonian Pottery, no. Att 126, pl. 42. Gordion: De Vries De Vries, Keith . 1997 . “ The Attic Pottery from Gordion ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings, Edited by: Oakley, J. H. , Coulson, W. D. E. and Palagia, O. 447 – 55 . Oxford : Oxbow Books . [Google Scholar] , ‘Attic Pottery from Gordion’, 448, fig. 4.
 Paleothodoros, ‘The Pithos Painter’, with addenda in Paleothodoros Paleothodoros, Dimitris . 2005–2006 . H Διάδοση της πρ ιμης ϵρυθρόμορϕης κϵραμικής στη Mαύρη Θάλασσα (525-480 π.X.) . Eulimene, 6: 53 – 75 . [Google Scholar] , ‘H διάδοση της πρ ιμης ϵρυθρόμορϕης’, n. 48.
 See now Paleothodoros Paleothodoros, Dimitris . 2004 . Epictétos, Louvain–Namur : Peeters . Collection d'Études Classiques 18 [Google Scholar] , ‘H διάδοση της πρ ιμης ερυθρόμορϕης’, with a list of 80 early red-figured vases, superseding earlier statistics based on Beazley's indexes and listing a very limited number of vases. For a detailed picture of the imports of Athenian vases in a single area of the Black Sea Region, the Taman Peninsula, see Morgan, Attic Fine Pottery, 149–235.
 Johnston and Pandolfini Johnston, Alan and Pandolfini, Maristella . 2000 . Gravisca. Scavi nel santuario greco, 15. Le iscrizioni, Bari : Edipuglia . [Google Scholar] , Le iscrizioni.
 Athens: ARV 2 1625 and Agora P 9414 Moore, Attic Red-Figured and White Ground Pottery, 316, pl. 129, no. 1400. Argive Heraion: ARV 2 71.5. Selinus: ARV 2 47.146. Miletus and Clazomenae: Tuna-Nörling Tuna-Nörling, Y. 2001 . Polyxena bei Hektor Lösung. Zu einem attisch-rotfigurigen Krater aus Tekirdag (Bisanthe/Rhaidestos) . Archäologische Anzeiger, : 44 – 127 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Archaische attische Keramik’, 100 and 101. Sardis: Snyder Schaeffer, Corinthian, Attic and Lakonian Pottery, no. Att 126, pl. 42. Al Mina: ARV 2 43.66, 47.147 and 148. Naukratis: ARV 2 42.53, 43.69, 47.144 Möller Möller, A. 2000 . Naukratis. Trade in Archaic Greece, Oxford : Oxford University Press . [Google Scholar] , Naukratis, 236–7. Marseille: Villard, La céramique grecque de Marseille, 28, pl. 15.1–2.
 See ARV 2 37-52 Cohen, Attic Bilingual Vases, 240–522. Black Sea: Paleothodoros Gex, Kristine . 1993 . Eretria IX. Rotfigurige und weissgrundige Keramik, Lausanne : Payot . [Google Scholar] , ‘H Διάδοση της πρ ιμης ϵρυθρόμορϕης’, 53–75 Hupe Hupe, Joachim , ed. 2006 . Der Achilles-Kult im nördlichen Shwarzmerraum vom beginn der griechische Kolonisation bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. Beiträge zur Akkulturationforschung. Archäologie, Vol. 94, Münster : Scriptorium . [Google Scholar] , Der Achilles-Kukt, pl. 11.2.
 Vases by Cachrylion: ARV 2 107–08. There are two cups from the Black Sea Region: ARV 2 17.20 and ARV 2 108.25. Thasos: Maffre Maffre, Jean-Jacques . 1975 . La collection Paul Cannellopoulos VIII. Vases béotiens . Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 99: 428 – 520 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Cachrylion, Euphronios’, 380, fig. 1 and 382–83, fig. 2–4. There is one from the Artemision of Samos, but without the signature of the potter Chachrylion, who, however, signs a red-figure one from the same site (Bettina Kreutzer, pers. comm.). Corinth: McPhee McPhee, Ian . 1981 . Red-Figured Pottery from Corinth. Sacred Spring and Elsewhere . Hesperia, 50: 264 – 85 . pl. 63–74 [Google Scholar] , ‘Attic Red-Figure from the Forum’, 298–9. Athens: Serbeti, ‘Eρυθρόμορϕη κύλικα από την οδό Λ κκα’ Moore Moore, Mary B. 1997 . Attic Red-Figured and White Ground Pottery, Vol. 30, Princeton : American School of Classical Studies . Excavations in the Athenian Agora [Google Scholar] , Attic Red-Figured and White Ground Pottery, 316, pl. 129, no. 1403 McCamp McCamp, John . 1996 . Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1994–1995 . Hesperia, 65: 231 – 61 . pl. 65–76 [Google Scholar] , ‘Excavations’, 231, pl. 76, no. 36.
 A thorough study of all figured mugs is under preparation by the present author. A total of 230 vases have been collected, mostly dating from the period 510–450 BC.
 M. Bentz Beazley, John Davidson . 1971 . Paralipomena. Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters 2 , Oxford : Clarendon Press . [Google Scholar] , in a personal communication, generously provided a list of nine mugs from Olympia: Four belong to the period under discussion here. Perachora, Isthmia and the Theban Cabirion, see below, note 55. Naucratis: ARV 2 157.80. Cyrene: McPhee McPhee, Ian . 1997 . The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya, Vol. VI, Philadelphia : Pennsylvania University Museum . Part II: Attic Pottery [Google Scholar] , Cyrene VI, pl. 33, nos. 78–80.
 Huber Huber, Kalinka . 1999 . Gravisca. Scavi nel santuario greco 6. Le ceramiche a figure rosse, Bari : Edipuglia . [Google Scholar] , Le ceramiche a figure rosse, 140, nos. 777–79 and 152–53, no. 883 Fortunelli Fortunelli, S. 2006 . “ Anathemata: ceramici attici del nuovo deposito votivo di Gravisca ”. In Il greco, il barbaro e la ceramica attica, Attid el Convegno di Catania, 14-10 maggio 2001, I, Edited by: Giudice, F. and Panvini, R. Vol. I-II, 55 – 63 . Roma : L'Erma di Bretschneider . pl [Google Scholar] , ‘Anathemata’, pl. II c–d. Mugs are rare in Etruria: ARV 2 77.97 (Orvieto), 156.51 (Bologna), 157.73–4 and 78 (Tarquinia). Finds from Campania (ARV 2 156.53, 156.55, 157.77, 158.3, 983.10 [Capua], 156.67 [Cumae], 156.62 and 158.1 [Czartoryski collection], 157.75 [Suessula], S. Italy and Sicily (i.e. ARV 2 152.1, 156.59-60, 63, 67, 157.79bis, 1629.67bis, Add 2 405) are far more numerous.
 Alabastra: Badinou Badinou . 2003 . La Laine et le Parfum, Leuven & Leiden . Epinetra et alabastres. Forme, Iconographie et Fonction [Google Scholar] , La Laine et le parfum, 155–218. The shape is second only to the cup in popularity in Greece: ARV 2 7.4, 8.13, 98.2, 99.3, 99.4, 99.9, 99.10, 100.15, 100.16, 100.23, 100.24, 100.26, 157.87, 157.88. There is a single find from South Russia: ARV 2 7.5. Red-figure lekythoi and aryballoi are very rare before circa 480 BCE outside Attica. Note a lekythos from Thasos ( Maffre Felten, Wassiliki . 1982 . “ Attische schwarzfigurige und rotfigurige Keramik ”. In Ält-Ägina II, 1, Edited by: Walter, H. Mainz : Verlag Philipp von Zabern . [Google Scholar] , ‘Chachrylion, Euphronios’, 386, Fig. 8) and an aryballos from Corinth ( Boulter Boulter, Cedric . 1980 . Fifth Century Attic Red-Figure at Corinth . Hesperia, 49: 295 – 308 . pl. 77–90 [Google Scholar] , ‘Fifth Century Attic Red-Figure’, pl. 77a–b).
 Reusser, ‘La céramique attique’, 173.
 Stamnoi: Rendeli Rendeli, Marco . 1993 . Rituali e immagini: gli stamnoi attici di Capua . Prospettiva, 72: 2 – 16 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Rituali e immagini’. Neck-amphorae: Martelli Martelli, Marina . 2006 . “ Arete ed Eusebeia: le anfore attiche nelle necropolis dell'Etruria campana ”. In Il Greco, il Barbaro e la ceramica attica. Immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, 14–19 maggio 2001, Catania, Caltanissetta, Gela, Camarina, Vittoria, Siracusa Edited by: Giudice, F. and Panvini, R. Vol. II, 7 – 37 . Rome pl. I-IV [Google Scholar] , ‘Arete ed Eusebeia’.
 Osborne Osborne, Robin . 2004 . “ Workshops and the Iconography and Distribution of Athenian Red-figure Pottery: A Case Study ”. In Studies in Honour of Brian A. Sparkes, Edited by: Keay, X. and Moser, S. 78 – 94 . Oxford : Oxbow Books . [Google Scholar] , ‘Workshops’, 78.
 Athens: a single vase from the Agora is placed in the neighbourhood of the workshop of the Andokides Painter: Moore Moore, Mary B. 1997 . “ Attic Red-Figure Painters and the Athenian Agora ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings, Edited by: Oakley, J. H. , Coulson, W. D. E. and Palagia, O. 469 – 72 . Oxford : Oxbow Books . [Google Scholar] , Attic Red-Figured and White Ground Pottery, 139, no. 24 (‘recalls the Andokides Painter more or less vividly’) two more (nos. 164 and 1684) are dated to 520. Some slight pieces, attributed by Beazley to the ‘the manner of the Andokides Painter’, have been removed by Cohen, Attic Bilingual Vases, 511. Indeed, they are primitive but not early, and date to the end of the sixth century. Etruria: ARV 2 3.1, 2, 3, 5 4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 5.14. A single piece has been found at Locri in South Italy: ARV 2 3.6.
 Among ten red-figure vases signed by Nikosthenes, a kantharos, also signed by Epiktetos as painter, was found in the sanctuary of Achilles on the island of Leuke, off Berezan (ARV 2 77.87), a skyphos by the Nikosthenes Painter was found at the Artemision of Thasos (ARV 2 1627.25bis), and the remaining kantharoi, round pyxides and cups all come from Etruria (ARV 2 123).
 Tosto Tosto, Vincent . 1999 . The Black-Figured Vases Signed NIKOSTHENES EPOIESEN, Amsterdam : Allard Piersom Museum . [Google Scholar] , The Black-Figured Vases.
 An alabastron (ARV 2 7.5) and a cup (ARV 2 8.10).
 Ruystedt Ruystedt, Eva . 2006 . “ Athens in Etruria. A note on Panathenaic amphorae and Attic ceramic imagery in Etruria ”. In Across Frontiers. Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Cypriots. Studies in Honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Serra Ridgway, Edited by: Herring, E. 497 – 506 . London : Accordia . [Google Scholar] , ‘Athens in Etruria’, 505.
 The anonymous reader has objected that trademarks are found almost exclusively on pots exported to Etruria, while they are totally absent on vases found in the Black Sea Area. However, Johnston Johnston, Alan . 1978 . Trademarks on Greek Vases, Westminster : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , Trademarks on Greek Vases, 18, notes similarities between trademarks from the Black Sea Area (where they are rare) and Vulci.
 Graffiti: Johnston Johnston, Alan . 1978 . Trademarks on Greek Vases, Westminster : Thames & Hudson . [Google Scholar] , Trademarks on Greek Vases. Other epigraphic data: Johnston Johnston, Alan . 1972 . The Rehabilitation of Sostratos . La Parola del Passato, 27: 416 – 23 . [Google Scholar] , ‘The Rehabilitation of Sostratos’ and Cristofani, ‘Sostratos e dintorni’. Aeginetan merchantmen in the Black Sea Region: Hind Hind, John . 1995/1996 . Traders and Ports-of-Trade (Emporoi and Emporia) in the Black Sea in Antiquity . Il Mare Nero, 2: 113 – 26 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Traders and Ports-of-Trade’.
 Osborne Osborne, Robin . 1996 . Pots, Trade and the Archaic Greek Economy . Antiquity, 70: 31 – 44 . [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] , ‘Pots, Trade and the Archaic Greek Economy’, against Gill Gill, David W.J. 1991 . Pots and Trade: Spacefillers or Objets d'Art? . Journal of Hellenic Studies, 111: 29 – 47 . [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] , ‘Pots and Trade’.
 Finds from the Acropolis and the Agora are numerous. Agora: Moore, Attic Red-Figure and White Ground Pottery Mc Camp, ‘Excavations’, 245–52. Acropolis: Langlotz Langlotz, Ernst . 1925 . Die antike Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen, Berlin : De Gruyter . [Google Scholar] , Die Antike Vasen see also Hannestad Hannestad, Lise . 1992 . Athenian Pottery at Corinth c. 600–470 BC . Acta Archaeologica, 61: 151 – 63 . [Google Scholar] , ‘The Athenian Potter’, 224–26. Kerameikos: Knigge Knigge, Ursula . 1976 . Kerameikos IX, Die Südhügel Berlin [Google Scholar] , Kerameikos IX, pl. 28.1 (cup fragment by Smikros) Archäologische Anzeiger (1987), 498, fig. 24 (skyphos fragment by Epiktetos) Éros grec Éros grec. 1990 . Amours des dieux et des hommes, Athens and Paris : Greek Ministry of Culture . [Google Scholar] , Amours des Dieux, nos. 37, 38 and 47 (two alabastra and a lekythos) add also the unpublished finds from tomb SW 30 (a mug by the Painter of Berlin 2268 and a psykter of early fifth century date) in the Kerameikos Museum. A single vase from the of the Athenian Metro excavations has been published: Serbeti Serbeti, Eleftheria . 2001 . Eργο του αγγϵιογράϕου Eπικτήτου στη συλλογή του Πανϵπιστημίου Aθην ν . Archaiologikon Deltion, 56 A: 153 – 62 . [Google Scholar] , ‘′Eργο του αγγϵιογράϕου’. Note also a child tomb from Ilioupoli with an early red-figure alabastron: Pologiorgi Pologiorgi, Melpomeni . 1995 . Παιδική Tαϕή στην Hλιούπολη . Archaiologiki Ephemeris, 134: 231 – 45 . pl. 63–5 [Google Scholar] , ‘Παιδική Tαϕή στην Hλιούπολη’ other finds: Tzachou-Alexandri Tzachou-Alexandri, O. 1996–7 . Aλάβαστρο του Zωγράϕου του Eυϵργίδου . Archaeologiko Deltion, 51–52, A: 85 – 98 . pl. 29–36 [Google Scholar] , ‘Aλάβαστρο του Zωγράϕου’, 85–98.
 Papaspyridi Papaspyridi, Semni . 1924–1925 . Eλϵυσινιακά Aγγϵία. A. Eρυθρόμορϕα και Λευκά . Archaeologikon Deltion, 9: 1 – 52 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Eλϵυσινιακά Aγγϵία’, 3–11, figs. 1–12 (ten early red-figure plates, skyphoi, cups and alabastra) Kokkou-Byridi Kokkou-Byridi, K. 1999 . Eλϵυσίς. Πρ ιμϵς πυρ ς θυσι ν στο Tϵλϵστήριο της Eλϵυσίνος, Athens : Greek Ministry of Culture . [Google Scholar] , Eλϵυσίς. Πρ ιμϵς πυρ ς θυσι ν, pl. 36 (three vases from the late sixth century) Tiverios Tiverios, Michalis . Forthcoming . “ Aγγϵία-Aναθήματα στο Mϵγάλο Iϵρό της Eλϵυσίνας ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters II Edited by: Oakley, J. and Palagia, O. [Google Scholar] , ‘Aγγϵία-Aναθήματα’.
 Kahil Kahil, Lilly G. 1951 . La céramique grecque de Thasos, Paris : De Boccard . [Google Scholar] , ‘Quelques vases’. Early red-figure is lacking from Piraeus, Sounion, Thorikos, Marathon and Acharnai and in the minor cemeteries of the Attic countryside regularly published through the pages of the Archaeologicon Deltion. Stray finds are reported from Velanideza (ARV 2 110.5), cape Kolias (ARV 2 20), Koropi (ARV 2 157.86). Unspecified finds from Attica: ARV 2 22.4 and 99.7. An Attic provenance is also the most likely for two cups, one belonging to the Wider Circle of the Nikosthenes Painter and a second one having been attributed to the Pithos Painter (Paleothodoros, ‘The Pithos Painter’, 72, no. 102 Sabetai Sabetai, Victoria . 2001 . CVA Thebes, Archaeological Museum, Athens : Academy of Athens . [Google Scholar] , CVA Athens, pl. 53–54).
 Eretria: ARV 2 98.15, 99.5 Gex Gex, Kristine . 1993 . Eretria IX. Rotfigurige und weissgrundige Keramik, Lausanne : Payot . [Google Scholar] , Eretria IX, pl. 56, nos. S178 (psykter) and S179 (column-krater), 59, nos. S194–5 (calyx-kraters), 88, nos. S378–85 (cups) and 99, nos. S450–52 (fragments of pots). Another important find is a deposit including an early red-figure amphora of type A, perhaps from the Andokides workshop: Serbeti Serbeti, Eleftheria . 1997 . “ Attic Pottery from a Deposit in Eretria ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters. The Conference Proceedings, Edited by: Oakley, J. H. , Coulson, W. D. E. and Palagia, O. 491 – 99 . Oxford : Oxbow Books . [Google Scholar] , ‘Attic Pottery’, 494, fig. 5. No finds are reported from Chalkis and Karystos.
 Aegina should be singled out as a very important site in Greece where early red-figure pottery has been unearthed: a cup by Epiktetos picturing Athena (ARV 2 74.51) and a white ground showing Europa on the bull are the earliest noticed attic vases being found in a controlled excavation in Greece. They were excavated by a Bavarian team in 1811 and are cited for the first time in a letter of Wolff to Eduard Gerhard published in the Bollettino di Corrispondenza Archeologica of 1829 (Gerhard, ‘Riposta di Prof. Gerhard’, 118-9, n. 2). Later on, in 1830, the consul of France in Naples, Count Beugnot, settled on the island and excavated many tombs, whose contents enriched his personal collection: see Gerhard, ‘Vasi dipinti dalla Grecia’, 196-7. The cup by Epiktetos, and a fragment by the same painter, are the only red-figure vases from Aphaia dating before 500 BCE: Williams Williams, Dyfri . 1987 . Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel XI. The Pottery from the Second Limestone Temple and the Later History of the Sanctuary . Archäologische Anzeiger, : 629 – 80 . [Google Scholar] , ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel XI’, 630, nos. A1 and A2. Temple of Apollo in Kolona: Felten Felten, Wassiliki . 1982 . “ Attische schwarzfigurige und rotfigurige Keramik ”. In Ält-Ägina II, 1, Edited by: Walter, H. Mainz : Verlag Philipp von Zabern . [Google Scholar] , ‘Attische schwarzfigurige’, 48–49, pl. 21, nos. 271–79. Finds from cemeteries: ARV 2 36.1-2, 223.6.
 Isthmia: Hesperia 24 (1955) pl. 52a, 19 (a mug). Nemea: Hesperia 47 (1978) pl. 20b (cup fragment). Perachora: Dunbabin, Perachora ii, pl. 146, nos. 3831, 3834–6. Acrocorinth: Pemberton Pemberton, Elizabeth . 1989 . Corinth XVIII, Part 1. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. The Greek Pottery, Princeton, NJ : American School of Classical Studies . [Google Scholar] , Corinth XVIII, Part 1, pl. 38, no. 334, pl. 43, no. 368. Corinth: Boulter, ‘Fifth Century Attic Red-Figure’ McPhee McPhee, Ian . 1987 . Attic Red-Figure from the Forum in Ancient Corinth . Hesperia, 56: 275 – 302 . pl. 47–62 [Google Scholar] , ‘Red-Figured Pottery from Corinth’ and ‘Attic Red-Figure from the Forum in Ancient Corinth’ (approximately twenty early red-figure vases). Note also cups in Athens (ARV 2 95.122 and 140.36), Boston (ARV 2 179.1), the Louvre (ARV 2 176.1) and Berlin (ARV 2 176.2 and 177.1), said to be from Corinth. A cup by the Pithos Painter in Nantes is from Hexamilia: Paleothodoros, ‘The Pithos Painter’, 69, no. 16.
 The red-figure vases from Olympia are now studied by Prof. Martin Bentz Bentz, Martin . Forthcoming . “ Attic Red-Figure Pottery from Olympia ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters Edited by: Oakley, J. and Palagia, O. II [Google Scholar] . For an overview, see Bentz, ‘Attic Red-Figure Pottery from Olympia’ (there are only seven early red-figure vases). Argolid: note two cups from Hermione (ARV 2 1543) and an eye-cup from the Heraion (ARV 2 71.5).
 The red-figure vases from the Heraion of Samos will be published by Prof. Bettina Kreuzer in a following volume of the series Samos. Thanks to her generosity, I present here an overview: there are 192 pieces (three of them now in Berlin), mostly dating to the second quarter of the fifth and the first quarter of the fourth century. The earlier finds include a krater by Euphronios, one by Euthymides and four others a stamnos ten cups, among which one might note a cup signed by Chacrylion, one in white ground and another one with coral red there is also an early red-figure plate. A single vase from the Artemision is published: Aρχαιολογικά Aνάλϵκτα ϵξ Aθην ν 13.2 (1980): 314, fig. 9. Finds from tombs are somewhat later in date, and may be safely placed to the second quarter of the fifth century: Deltion 43 B 2 (1988): pl. 289b-291.
 Delos and Rheneia: ARV 2 133.20, 141.57, 143.19 and 172.3.
 ARV 2 80.11, 86b 139.8, 139.9, 139.23, 140.26, 157.71 (Kameiros).
 ARV 2 81.3 and 177.1.
 Tanagra: ARV 2 25.1, 83.9, 83.12, 176.1 Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Athens 1, pl. 2.1, 3, 5 3.1-3. Akraiphia: ARV 2 130.31 and Andreiomenou Andreiomenou, A. 2001 . “ Tο ϵργαστήριον χαλκοτϵχνίας της Aκραιϕίας ”. In Kαλλίστϵυμα. Mϵλ τϵς προς τιμήν της Όλγας Tζάχου-Aλϵξανδρή Edited by: Alexandri, A. and Leventi, I. 469 – 526 . Athens [Google Scholar] , ‘Tο ϵργαστήριον χαλκοτϵχνίας της Aκραιϕίας’, 487, fig. 15, 488–89, n.48 (two cups tentatively attributed to Epiktetos) Rhitsona: ARV 2 140.29 and 302.10. Thebes: ARV 2 85.2 and Thebes 23425 ( Sabetai Sabetai, Victoria . 2006 . CVA Athens, Benaki Museum, Athens : Academy of Athens . [Google Scholar] , CVA Thebes, 1, pl. 73). Kabirion: ARV 2 156.65.
 The absence of early red-figure and of painted pottery in general from Delphi is a well-known fact. Note a white ground alabastron from a tomb of the early fifth century (ARV 2 98.2).
 A cup in Boston (MFA 01.8074) is said to be from Locris (ARV 2 76.74 Paleothodoros, Epictétos, 168, no. 150). There is an unprovenanced cup by the Pithos Painter in the Lamia Museum (Paleothodoros, ‘The Pithos Painter’, 69, no. 18). Atalanti: ARV 2 100.26 and 178.3.
 In Thessaly, red-figure vases of the later sixth and the early fifth century are very rare: a cup by the Euergides Painter in Volos (Add 2 395). Later finds include a fragmentary krater from Krannon by the Syleus Painter (ARV 2 1640), a fragment of a cup of the early fifth century from the sanctuary of Athena Itonia ( Katarrachias Katarrachias, K. and Karafyllis, N. 1992 . Aρχαιολογικά Eυρήματα Φίλιας και Άρνης-Kιϵρίου Karditsa [Google Scholar] et al., Aρχαιολογικά Eυρήματα Φίλιας, 29), three vases of the second quarter of the fifth century from Palaiokastron (Archaeologikon Deltion 28  B2, pl. 284a) and unpublished sherds from a house in Pharsala. A pair of early white-ground lekythoi, dating from about 470–60, have been excavated by Maria Lakaki in Meliboia (Hagiokampos) and are now in the Archaeological Museum of Larissa. I wish to thank the excavator for valuable information on this important find which will be published soon.
 See Tzanakaki Tzanakaki, Katerina . 2006 . “ Eισαγωγ ς αττικ ν ερυθρόμορϕων αγγείων στην Kρήτη ”. In Πεπραγμ να του Θ′ Kρητολογικού Συνεδρίου. Eλούντα 1–6 Oκτωβρίου 2001. Tόμος A5. Aρχαία Eλληνική και Pωμαίκή περίοδος, 82 – 94 . Chania : Philologikos Syllogos ‘Chrysostomos’ . [Google Scholar] , ‘Eισαγωγ ς αττικ ν ϵρυθρόμορϕων’: the earliest finds reported date from the second quarter of the fifth century BCE.
 From Corfu, Kanoni, one may note a cup which may be attributed to the Euergides Painter (Archaeologikon Deltion 29 [1973–4] B3, pl. 457 e ). Unpublished finds from the Mon Repos include red-figure pottery from the second quarter of the fifth century on. Note also two early red-figure cup fragments from Lefkas: Archaeologikon Deltion 48 B1 (1993), pl. 95ζ and 27, B2 (1972), pl. 418a.
 As far as published or exhibited pottery in museums is concerned, finds from Paros, Naxos, Amorgos, Thera, Mytilene, Lemnos, and Nisyros are very rare. On Paros and Naxos, see Bikakis Bikakis, M. H. 1986 . Archaic and Classical Imported Pottery in the Museums of Paros and Naxos . Diss., University of Cincinnati [Google Scholar] , ‘Archaic and Classical Imported Pottery’. Amorgos: Marangou Marangou, L. 2006 . “ Céramique attique à Amorgos: données archéologiques et tradition littéraire ”. In Les clients de la céramique grecque. Actes du colloque de l'Académie d'Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris, 30–31 janvier 2004, Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum, Edited by: de La Genière, J. 69 – 74 . Paris : De Boccard . [Google Scholar] , ‘Céramique attique à Amorgos’. Red-figure vases are very rare in Kythnos, as Prof. Alexandros Mazarakis informs me, and none is earlier than the second quarter of the fifth century BCE. Kimolos: cup by a painter of the later sixth century (Archaeologikon Deltion 21 , B2, pl. 410c). Psara: a mug with satyrs kneeling and holding wineskins that may be provisionally attributed to the Painter of Berlin 2268 ( Vlachopoulos Vlachopoulos, I. , ed. 2005 . Aρχαιολογία του Aιγαίου, Athens : Miletos . [Google Scholar] , Aρχαιολογία του Aιγαίου, 139, fig. 183). Chios: cup by the Pithos Painter (ARV 2 141.70).
 A cup that might be provisionally attributed to Epiktetos or to a painter following him was found in Torone (presented by the excavator, Manthos Besios, in Contacts et échanges technologiques entre Grecs et indigenes à la frontière des territories des colonies grecques (VIIIe–IIe s. av. J.-C.), École Française d'Athènes 15–17 mars 2007). In Akanthos, Sindos, Mikra Karaburun and Hagia Paraskevi the earliest red-figure vases date from the end of the first quarter of the fifth century BCE. In Chalkidiki, early red-figure vases occur in small numbers: ARV 2 140.28 and 56, 141.67 (cups by the Pithos Painter from Vrastina Kalyvia and Olynthos). Argillos: Giroux Giroux, Hubert . 2006 . “ La céramique attique à figures rouges ”. In Les clients de la céramique grecque. Actes du colloque de l'Académie d'Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris, 30–31 janvier 2004, Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum, Edited by: de La Genière, J. 53 – 57 . Paris : La documentation française . 183–87 [Google Scholar] , ‘La céramique attique à figures rouges’, 183–87 (a cup by the Pithos Painter, a late-sixth-century alabastron, a head vase and a fragment by Myson).
 Kahil Kahil, Lilly G. 1963 . “ Quelques vases du sanctuaire d'Artémis à Brauron ”. In Neue Ausgrabungen in Griechenland, Antike Kunst 1 – 29 . Bern pl. 1–16 [Google Scholar] , La céramique grecque de Thasos, pl. XLIV Maffre Maffre, Jean-Jacques . Forthcoming . “ Coupes attiques à figures rouges trouvées à Thasos ”. In Athenian Potters and Painters II Edited by: Oakley, J. and Palagia, O. [Google Scholar] , ‘Chachrylion, Euphronios’ and ‘Coupes attiques’: around 100 red-figure fragments have been found in the French excavations in Thasos. Most finds date to the later part of the sixth century and the beginning of the fifth century. Besides cups (around 20 fragments), there are alabastra, plates and lekythoi. Thrace: Para 336.88bis, alabastron from Galepsos). Bakalakis Bakalakis, G. 1967 . Aνασκαϕή Στρύμης, Thessaloniki : Peeters . [Google Scholar] , Aνασκαϕή Στρύμης, pl. 28, no. 7 (a late-sixth-century sherd from Stryme) Tüna-Nörling, ‘Polyxena bei Hector Lösung’, 44–46 (early-fifth-century krater from Rhaidestos). No early red-figure has been found at Samothrace: Dusenberry Dusenberry, Elsbeth B. 1998 . Samothrace 11. The Nekropoleis. Catalogue of Objects by Categories, Princeton, NJ: : Princeton University Press . [Google Scholar] , Samothrace 11, 513.
Preface to the Second Edition
Publication of a second edition of Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture gives me the opportunity to correct shortcomings noted by reviewers and readers of the first edition, incorporate new findings and update an ever-increasing bibliography, expand treatment of several topics, add more images, restructure the final chapters chronologically, and carry the narrative of ancient sexual ethics down to the Christian era. Students, I hope, will welcome a few features to make the work more user-friendly: for each chapter, the inclusion of a text box containing intriguing facts tangential to the main topic and the addition of discussion prompts and further readings at the end, as well as a glossary at the back defining boldfaced terms employed in the text. Many of these changes were suggested by respondents to electronic surveys conducted by the publisher. I deeply appreciate the thoughtful feedback those participants provided as a teaching tool the book has benefited greatly.
While I have preserved all of the original content, I have rewritten entire portions of text, especially in the introduction, the chapters on classical Athens and the Hellenistic period, and the concluding chapters on imperial Rome. Perceptive reviewers observed that the previous edition was as much about gender as it was about sexuality. Indeed, it is almost impossible to disentangle the two, even conceptually. The introduction has been enlarged, then, by a theoretical explanation of relationships among the terms “sex,” “gender,” and “sexuality” as they will be encountered here. Though finding it hard to cover all the material I wished to include, I have added longer discussions of Aeschines’ speech Against Timarchus, the historical backdrop to Alexander the Great’s conquests, polygamy within the Argead dynasty, and the influence of Egyptian sexual customs and religion upon Greek writings produced in Ptolemaic Alexandria, as all seemed germane to main chapter themes. Finally, I have separated my account of sexual mores under the Caesars into two parts: one chapter on changing elite attitudes, Greek and Roman, toward the human body and the marriage bond, using literature and official public art as my chief witnesses, and the other on conditions and trends affecting the populace as a whole, presenting a fuller context for studying the rise of Christianity and its focus upon sexual denial. Although that last chapter is still eclectic, I believe it is more cohesive, and I trust that in providing detailed economic, legal, and demographic information I have not strayed too far from my goal of showing how an ascetic movement underpinned by eschatology might fit into the big sociological picture.
Because this book is a textbook, I have used commonly transliterated forms of proper names: “Aeschylus” instead of “Aiskhylos.” Exceptions are gods and mythic heroes, as students ought to know both Greek and Roman alternatives, and technical terms: hetairai, not “hetaeras.” Instructors might like to have my reason for supplying what I term “discussion prompts.” Initially I planned to include a set of review questions with factual answers to help students prepare for examinations. That practical notion became unfeasible, however, as I realized that I did not know what a teacher would emphasize in a given chapter and what she might prefer to leave out, depending on the level and size of the course, the length of the instructional period, and the various uses to which an assigned textbook might be put. The prompts I devised instead can function in numerous ways. Because they permit open-ended responses, classmates may debate them in breakout sessions or blog about them. They offer a choice of topics for short writing assignments. In combination with primary sources they can be used for open-book tests. Finally, ingenious students will doubtless be able to recast some of them as pick-up lines. Whatever the situation, prompts, as the noun implies, invite reflection upon personal experiences while one is seeking to grasp the workings of a foreign set of gender and sexual protocols. Whether such a process will render readers more comfortable with antiquity, I do not know. I suspect, though, that it will render them less comfortable with their own habits of thinking, and that is a good thing.
As before, I am indebted to colleagues who generously commented on drafts and offered timely assistance. On the subject of demographic projections Bruce Frier gave invaluable advice. Kristina Milnor sent a chapter of her forthcoming monograph on Pompeian graffiti. Konstantinos Nikoloutsos helped me look at Alexander through the eyes of a queer theorist. Gil Renberg supplied a bibliographic reference that complicated my view of the Warren Cup. On behalf of the Troy Project, C. Brian Rose authorized re-use of a drawing by Nurten Sevinç originally published in Studia Troica (1996). Archaeological illustrator Christina L. Kolb produced a detailed rendering of a much discussed scene on the so-called “Getty Birds” vase. Once more, my apologies if I have overlooked mentioning someone’s scholarly contribution to the finished volume.
My thanks as well to those associated with Wiley-Blackwell who worked hard with me to produce an improved second edition: Haze Humbert, Acquisitions Editor, for commissioning the undertaking and soliciting suggestions from instructors Ben Thatcher, Project Editor, for guiding me through the maze of getting permissions – again Nora Naughton of NPM Ltd, the project production manager Doreen Kruger, the meticulous copyeditor and Elizabeth Saucier, Editorial Assistant, and her marketing staff for the arresting cover design. Finally, my express gratitude once again to Jeff Carnes for preparing an even more complicated index this time around.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Hunt for Hightech - Bart Hess
The article is actually an interview with artist Bart Hess about his project A Hunt for Hightech. His images show mutant skins, breathing shoes, and living furs. Bart Hess worked to find new materials forecasting trends in fashion and culture. Hess explained that he did not try to mimic real animal kingdoms but "create a fantasy world of [his] own." He imagined fantasy animals, ones that could be genetically manipulated. His ideas led to part robotic, part organic animal-like creations. Hess uses materials that are not commonly seen in the fashion world such as blended plastics, metallic's, silicon's and technical foils. Prosthetic technology and genetic manipulation inspired Hess to create this fantasy animal kingdom, future human shapes, and new body forms. He says that his work "is blindly discovering a low-tech prosthetic way for human enhancement.
At first, Hess's art is sort of creepy. But after viewing more of his work on his blog, I was able to at least understand part of his process for coming up with wacky but interesting creations. It seems that you are able to group the suit-like pieces into categories. I like the fact that each piece is not completely random but instead many are simple variations of one idea. (The best way to describe this is grouping the art into adjective categories bubbly, rolly, foamy, and jagged) His work isn't too crazy for me after seeing the similarities. Also, his colors and texture are sort of fun, and mostly all the pieces are visually pleasing (as opposed to a lot of completely random ugly contemporary art).
Bart Hess hopes to impact trends in fashion, product, or architecture with his work. He has some far out ideas about where technology could take his creations. He says "Why kill an animal and re-form the fur into a shape? Why not have the animal already shaped to your body, have it living and breathing around you, like the shoes." Obviously today's technology and ethical environments do not allow these extreme fantasies to become reality. And it is probably unlikely that live animals for clothes will catch on in the fashion world.
Feasting - Celebrating a Very Ancient Tradition
A banqueting scene from an Athenian red-figure cup, showing a reclining reveller and flute-playing boy. Ca. 450 BC, on display in the Louvre at Paris.
Feasting - for most, the term conjures up colourful associations of flavours, aromas and convivial experiences. For us archaeologists, it describes a significant social activity that can be identified across periods and civilisations. In a broader perspective, feasting is a cultural feature that distinguishes virtually all human societies - and one that we all participate in now and then.
I am completing this post on December 31st. Christmas ended a few days ago and the New Year is awaiting. I dare say that most of our readers have celebrated Christmas in some way or another, and nearly all are going to mark the passing of 2014 and the start of 2015. It is not overly speculative to assume that those celebrations did involve and will involve the consumption of food, most likely of special festive dishes, eaten in a formal or semi-formal setting amongst friends and/or family - in one word: feasting.
The 17,500-year-old Palaeolithic cave paintings of Lascaux in France are among the most famous examples of that early form of artistic expression. Typically, they depict groups of animals, many of which would have been hunted by the communities that produced these images. (Image by Prof saxx, Wikimedia Commons.)
By marking such calendar events in the form of a feast, we follow in the footsteps of countless generations before us, all the way back to the dawn of human civilisation. Eating has always been important: after all, it is a key necessity in sustaining our physical existence. But as soon as humans developed a capacity for abstract thought, meals must have started to acquire the plethora of symbolic and social connotations they still often bear.
From the mists of time to early civilisations
For our Palaeolithic ancestors, hunting (rather than gathering) was a group effort. Success, especially in pursuing bigger animals, would have led to the short-term availability of large supplies of meat. It is more than probable that at least the more perishable parts were consumed soon, in a collective meal - the prototype of a feast.
The West Magazines (storerooms) in the Minoan Palace of Knossos on Crete (ca 1,500 BC) could hold a vast amount of olive oil and other supplies. Controlling such resources must have given those running the palace considerable power.
By the later prehistoric periods, the Neolithic and Bronze Age, humankind had learnt to grow food plants and raise domestic animals, leading to more complex agricultural food economies and increasing interdependence between individuals and between groups. Access to food surplus and the ability to dispense them now became a hallmark of power and status. Feasting on marked occasions was one expression of such power, but also of social identity: celebrations involving feasts served to define and underline groups such as families, clans, tribes, even city-states. More often than not, they were framed in a religious context. There is ample archaeological evidence for such feasts, most frequently in form of cooking installations (pits, hearths, cooking vessels etc) and food debris (bones, ashes) - and this is an ancient tradition that never stopped.
Still relevant - when we feast, and why
The makings of a feast: local specialities served at lunch in the Lasithi mountains on our Exploring Crete tour.
Feasting still occurs today, still marking particular events. These include culturally significant calendar dates, such as Christmas, New Year's Day, Thanksgiving or Easter, often carrying religious meanings at least in their origins, and frequently connected with important junctures in the agricultural calendar (winter solstice, harvest time and so on). We also tend to arrange feasts to celebrate those events on our individual lifelines that mark changes in our status, standing and role, e.g. for baptisms or circumcisions, birthdays, coming-of-age, weddings and anniversaries, appointments, retirements and of course funerals. Less personally, feasts can also form part of public events, such as openings or inaugurations. Although most of us are far removed from the distant cultural origins of such practices, their essence has not changed all that much: we express our being part of a group (family, colleagues, friends, co-religionists, compatriots, fellow voyagers) by enjoying food and drink together. Symbolically speaking, we "break our bread" or "share our wine" in communion with our peers.
Late 4th century BC relief showing a funerary banquet. Athens: National Archaeological Museum.
When we explore the Classical World of Greek and Roman civilisation on our archaeological tours, the concept of feasting makes frequent appearances, reflecting its central role in those ancient cultures. On the basis of the material remains of feasting places or feasting equipment, we are able to tell the story of ancient conviviality and its meanings, creating a very tangible link between past and present.
Feasting in ancient Greece
In ancient Greece, feasting took centre stage in public and social life, but especially on two types of occasions.
A sacrificial bull being led as part of the procession depicted in the mid-5th century BC Parthenon Frieze (Acropolis Museum, Athens).
The first was sacrifice to the gods, the public performance and expression of religion par excellence. The heart of any Greek sanctuary was the altar (not the temple - we have described the basic scheme in our post on Knidos), essentially a built platform on which animals (and sometimes other foods) would be sacrificed to the god or gods in question. It is interesting to note what then happened to the remains of the slaughtered beast: its skin, bones and other inedibles were burnt, as the gods were believed to consume the smoke from that sacrificial fire. The muscle-meat and fat, useless to the gods but not to the mortals below, were roasted or boiled and distributed among the congregation.This distribution may appear surprising, but Greek mythology provided a neat explanation.
The 3rd century BC Altar of Hieron at Syracuse on Sicily, the largest known example of its kind. At a length of nearly 200m (650ft), it permitted the simultaneous sacrifice of many animals - providing vast amounts of food for those attending.
As meat was not usually a very common commodity especially for the poor, the sacrificial meal can certainly be seen as a public feast, participation being both a religious and civic duty and a personal boon. Apart from Knidos, we get to show our guests ancient altars at many sites, e.g. at Didyma on Cruising to Ephesus, on Samos when Cruising the Dodecanese, at Aphaia on Aigina on Exploring Athens, at Dion on From the Slopes of Mount Olympus to the Shores of the Aegean and most spectacularly at Syracuse on Exploring Sicily.
The second quintessentially Greek feast is the symposion (or symposium), the more or less formal drinking-and-eating party hosted by a citizen for his friends, peers or guests. This was a common and important event, with a central role in social contacts among the citizenry of one or several city-states.
The andron of house vi 3 at Olynthos in Macedonia (northern Greece). A wonderful 4th century BC pebble mosaic of Bellerophon occupies the centre, but the surrounding space is left undecorated, as it held the klinai (feasting couches). (Image by Christaras A, Wikimedia Commons.)
The private homes of ancient Greeks usually contained a specific space reserved for this event, the andron (literally: the men's room). This was a rectangular room of varying size, its walls preceded by a low parapet to hold the klinai, the couches on which the participants of a symposion reclined. The symposion as we know it was an often long-drawn-out affair, including the drinking of wine, the eating of various foods, sometimes artistic performances and - famously - discussions of politics, philosophy and the like. Hosting symposia and being invited to them was part and parcel of Greek civic identity. The wines and foods served, the guest list and the quality of entertainment and discussion contributed directly to the status of the host. We visit such private andrones e.g. at Priene on From Halicarnassus to to Ephesus or at Olynthos on From the Slopes of Mt. Olympus to the Shores of the Aegean. Symposion equipment can be seen on most of our museums visits - and in Classical museums across the globe - as can images of such events. The world-conquering Macedonians appear to have embraced the symposion idea most thoroughly, in particular the wine-drinking aspect of it, as is attested by both literature and archaeological evidence.
The enormous Andron A at Labraunda, one of the most monumental banqueting houses from all of antiquity.
Interestingly, these formalised feasting rooms eventually also became a feature of public buildings. Official guesthouses for visitors to a city included them, as did many important sanctuaries, in the form of so-called "banqueting houses". The most striking example is probably Labraunda in Caria, where two important 4th century BC rulers, Mausollos (famous for his monumental tomb at Halicarnassus) and his successor and brother Idrieus erected two enormous andrones, as well as a larger number of more modest ones, so as to be able to host a vast number of revellers during important festivals, thus copper-fastening the web of owed favours that gave them their power. The "royal" andrones at Labraunda are so monumental that they used to be mistaken as the sites main temples. They still make for one of the most memorable sights on our tours of Caria. Elsewhere, we see such formalised dining rooms e.g. at Olympia on Exploring the Peloponnese, in the Kerameikos on Exploring Athens or at Morgantina on Exploring Sicily.
Feasting and ostentation in the Roman World
Elaborate wall paintings in a triclinium at the 1st century BC Villa Oplontis on the Amalfi Coast. (image by Miguel Hermoso Cuesta, Wikimedia Commons.)
In Roman times, festive dining became a key feature of upper-class private homes. These ostentatious structures always included large and elaborate spaces given over to the reception and hosting of guests. A key element of those reception areas was the triclinium (literally: room of the three couches), a development of the Greek andron, as well as other banqueting rooms. Often lavishly decorated and equipped, they served as convenient spaces for private get-togethers, but also showed off the owner's wealth and sophistication. In many cases, the decoration, especially the floor mosaic, makes direct reference to themes of food and drink. We visit wonderful examples of these sumptuously luxurious Roman feasting-rooms e.g. at the Terrace Houses of Ephesus, at Pompeii and Oplontis on Cruising the Amalfi Coast, or at Piazza Armerina on Exploring Sicily.
Room with lion mosaic in Terrace House 2 at Ephesus. The limitation of the figural decor to the central zone suggests that couches were meant to be placed around it, and that the space was used for dining and/or feasting.
In all these cases, the feasting spaces and facilities are not just a feature among many: they are central expressions of the culture and lifestyle of those who used them. If we were to endeavour on a phenomenology of human eating habits, feasting would be of paramount importance - tell me how (and where) you feast and I tell you who you are (or want to be).
So, if you feel you've been overindulging over the holidays, rejoice in the fact that you have been involved in a cultural activity second to none in terms of both age and significance. Dropping just a single letter, fasting is, of course, another age-old practice. We certainly don't fast on our tours and cruises, nor do we organise full-blown feasts, but we always take food very seriously, considering it a major way of experiencing the culture, tradition and character of the regions we travel. Local specialities and regional wines are an important element on all of our trips and we offer wine tastings on our tours of Sicily, the Cyclades, Athens, the Peloponnese, Northern Greece and Cappadocia. If you are eager for a fuller exploration of those important and enjoyable aspects of our travels, do take a look at our gastronomic tours in Turkey and Sicily - and at the food-themed posts on this blog.
With that, we at Peter Sommer Travels would like to wish you a very happy New Year - and bon appetit. Perhaps we'll share a meal with you on one of our European escorted tours this year?
2 Cf. Gerhard , E. , Auserlesene Vasenbilder ( Berlin 1840 – 1858 ) i 81 Google Scholar Overbeck , J. , Griechische Kunstmythologie ( Leipzig 1871 – 1889 ) iii 387 .Google Scholar
3 = Gods and heroes in late archaic Greek art (Eng. trans. Cambridge 1992) 71 (cited hereafter from trans.). Cf. Greifenhagen , A. . ‘ Tityos ’ Jb. Bert. Mus. i ( 1959 ) 19 Google Scholar Hani , J. in Duchemin , J. (ed.), Mythe et personnification ( Paris 1980 ) 105 .Google Scholar
4 On (Art.) Eukleia, see now LIMC ii.l, 677 (L. Kahil) Shapiro , H.A. , Personifications in Greek art ( Zürich 1993 ) 70 –8.Google Scholar
5 On ABV 269, 41 (LIMC ii pl. 553, Artemis 1300) cf. Arias , P.E. and Hirmer , M. , A history of Greek vase painting (rev. Shefton , B. , London 1962 ) 318 .Google Scholar
6 Schefold (n. 3) 337 n. 353 also identifies as Arete the figure crowning Heracles on two vases described by Beazley , J.D. ( AK iv [ 1961 ] 56 no. 3, 57 no. 6).Google Scholar
7 Hauser , F. , in Furtwängler , A. and Reichold , K. , Griechische Vasenmalerei ( Munich 1904 – 1932 ) ii 273 n. 1Google Scholar , rejects the ‘abbreviation’ view, but interprets the letters as a slip for cf. Immerwahr , H.R. , Attic script ( Oxford 1990 ) 67 .Google Scholar The hypothesis of Vickers , M. and Gill , D. , Artful Crafts ( Oxford 1994 )Google Scholar —that Attic painted pottery (including its inscriptions) imitates gold- and silverware—might explain how a slip was made (see esp. 164) but cannot prove that a slip was made.
8 The complete list of inscriptions is: (A) (both horizontal, to left of Apollo) (vertical, to right of Ap.) (vert., to right of L.) (horiz., above Art.'s raised right hand) (vert., to right of Art.) (B) (horiz., above the two central figures) (horiz., at top right of scene) (vert., to right of figure on far left) (vert., to right of discus-thrower) (vert., between acontist's legs) (vert., to right of acontist) (vert., to right of spectator on far right) see Immerwahr (n. 7) 66–7. Sotinos and Sosias are the two older spectators goes with Sostratos and Demo-stratos is the recipient of the greeting but it is unclear whether the discus-thrower is Sostratos or Chares, the acontist Chares or Demostratos and neither nor inscriptions need refer to individuals depicted on the vase. On A, the three inscriptions are most probably extra-iconic given their position, it is unlikely that they and the other inscriptions are to be construed as one complete sentence (‘Hail Apollo, son of Leto, hail Aidos!’).
9 But not all: see Roscher, ML v 1043 (O. Waser).
10 Certainly London E 278 (ARV 2 226, 2 LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 36 = Apollon 1070 = Ge 43) Munich 2689 (ARV 2 879, 2 LIMC ii pl. 275, Apollon 1071 = Ge 45 = Leto 45) Louvre G375 (ARV 1 1032, 54 Leto designated ) a rf krater from the Loeb Collection (Munich, Loeb 472 J. Sieveking, Bronzen, Terrakotten, Vasen der Sammlung Loeb [Munich 1930] 61 and pl. 48, LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 38 = Artemis 1368) perhaps also Berlin 1835 (ABV 286, 10: Furtwängler , A. , Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium [ Berlin 1885 ] 331 –2)Google Scholar and possibly those canvassed in nn. 15–16 below). On an Argive-Corinthian shield-band relief of c. 540 in Basle (LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 40) Leto draws her veil just as on the vases.
11 (n. 3) 19–27 cf. Zancani Montuoro , P. and Zanotti-Bianco , U. , Heraion alia Face del Sele ( Rome 1951 – 1954 ) ii 325 –9Google Scholar , Henle , J. , Greek myths ( Bloomington 1974 ) 35 –7.Google Scholar
12 The interpretation which see Ge as practically a fixture in scenes of the pursuit/killing of Tityos goes back to Overbeck (n. 2) iii 383–90, and is well represented by the entries s.v. ‘Tityos’ in Roscher and RE (e.g. K. Scherling in RE vi A 1599: ‘Wenn eine Frau neben T. oder zwischen ihm und Apollon steht, so ist es seine Mutter Ge’) despite rebuttal by Greifenhagen and Henle, it has some more recent adherents (e.g. Neumann , G. , Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst [ Berlin 1965 ] 178 n. 127, 189 n. 280CrossRefGoogle Scholar ). See most recently M. Moore in LIMC iv.1, 175–6, L. Kahil, ibid, vi. l, 260.
13 Greifenhagen (n. 3) 22, against (e.g.) Waser in Roscher, ML v 1047, Scherling in RE vi A 1602 the motif of Antaeus' need to maintain contact with Earth appears to be post-classical: see Gerhard (n. 2) ii 104 Oertel , G. in Roscher , , ML i 362 Google Scholar Furtwängler , A. in Roscher , , ML i 2208 Google Scholar Gardiner , E.N. , JHS xxv ( 1905 ) 282 –4Google Scholar and Olmos , R. / Balmaseda , L.J. in LIMC i . 1 , 810 –11.Google Scholar
14 On one vase (New York 08.258.21, ARV 2 1086, 1: LIMC ii pl. 275, Apollon 1072 = Leto 37) the figure depicted between Leto's children and Tityos in the pose supposedly typical of Ge is named as Leto.
15 The presence of Ge in a version of the pursuit of Tityos is guaranteed by the inscription ΓΕ on a Tyrrhenian amphora in the Louvre (E 864, ABV 97, 33 LIMC ii pl. 274, Apollon 1066 = Ge 10) cf. Moore (n. 12) 175 n.b. Ge does not veil here. Two other vases (Tarquinia RC 1043 [ABV 97, 32 LIMC Ge 11 = Leto 42 = Niobidai 3], Villa Giulia, ABV 121,6 [LIMC iv pl. 97 Ge 12 = Leto 34]) offer more than one female character (besides Art.), and so also permit an identification of Ge as a participant (cf. Moore, loc. cit.) in both, the central female figure, between pursuers and pursued, is veiling, and Greifenhagen ([n. 3] 11, 14) is prepared to allow that this is Ge rather than Leto. Leto's veiling, however, is more easily motivated than Ge's, and on the other vases depicting a veiled woman that figure is clearly Leto. But it is sufficient for our purposes that Leto's veiling should be a regular element of the scene, whereas the very presence of Ge is certain in only one example, and the possibility of her veiling highly uncertain.
16 Henle (n. 11) 37. In only one case (a calyx krater by the Aegisthus Painter, Louvre G 164 [ARV 2 504, 1 LIMC Ge 44 = Leto 44]) is there any difficulty in identifying a single veiled female as Leto (cf. Henle, 175–6 n. 7). The difficulty lies in the strange ‘pin cushion’ object attached to the figure's chest, into which Apollo has apparently shot his arrows some see this as symbolic of the invulnerability of Ge (e.g. Waser in Roscher, ML v 1050), or of Apollo's arrows (untypically) falling to earth (E. Buschor in Furtwängler-Reichold [n. 7] iii 280) but the figure does veil, does stretch out her hand to Apollo, and her position in front of a palm suggests Leto or Artemis. Leto remains a strong possibility (so Greifenhagen [n. 3] 25–7), but the scene is enigmatic. See further Griffiths , A. , JHS cvi ( 1986 ) 65 n. 37Google Scholar and BICS xxxvii (1990) 131–3.
17 Contrast Henle (n. 11) 37. The significance of Leto's veil is reflected in the detail given by Apollonius (i 759–62) and the Suda (s.v. ‘Tityos’ iv 564–5 Adler), that Tityos dragged Leto by the Cf. Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco (n. 11) ii 326.
18 See, e.g. Leningrad 709 (ARV 2 487, 61 Sourvinou-Inwood , C. , ‘Reading’ Greek culture [ Oxford 1991 ] pls 9 – 10 Google Scholar ) Leningrad 777 (ARV 2 502, 11 Sourvinou-Inwood pl. 6) Madrid 11038 (ARV 2 586, 46 Dover , K.J. , Greek homosexuality [ London 1978 ] R750 )Google Scholar London E 64 (ARV 2 455, 9) Paris, Petit Palais 316 (ARV 2 639, 58).
19 See Cairns (n. 1) 15, 98–9 n. 151, 158, 184, 217–18, 231, 292–3, 312, 352 also in CQ 46 (1996).
20 Cf. Her. 1159–62, IT 372–6, Or 459–61 (Cairns [n. 1] 292–3), Pho. 1485–92 P1. Phdr. 237a, Aeschin. i 26 (etc.) on veiling as stage business in tragedy see Shisler , F.L. , AJP lxvi ( 1945 ) 385 .Google Scholar
21 Od. i 333–4, xvi 415–16, xviii 209–10, xxi 64–5 interpreted as a gesture of by Julian Orat. iii 127c-d (cf. North , H. F. , Sophrosyne [ Ithaca 1966 ] 308 Google Scholar n. 143).
22 See Nagler , M. , Spontaneity and tradition ( Berkeley 1974 ) 44 – 72 , 80Google Scholar , who also (47–9) notes the significance of the removal of the at II. xxii 468–72, Od. vi 100 (cf. Seaford , R. in Carpenter , T.H. , Faraone , C.A. [eds.], Masks of Dionysus [ Princeton 1993 ] 177 –21Google Scholar , id. Reciprocity and ritual [Oxford 1994] 333, 350–1). Contrast Studniczka , F. , Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht ( Vienna 1886 ) 125 –7Google Scholar Haakh , H. , Gymnasium lxvi ( 1959 ) 374 –80Google Scholar and Neumann (n. 12) 179 n. 134, who believe that Penelope is unveiling herself in order to appear more attractive to the suitors. Cf. Johansen , K. Friis , The Attic grave reliefs of the classical period ( Copenhagen 1951 ) 41 n. 1Google Scholar , re sepulchral reliefs Galt , C.M. , AJA xxxv ( 1931 ) 373 –93CrossRefGoogle Scholar also the summary of a paper by Mayo , M.E. in AJA lxxvii ( 1973 ) 200 Google Scholar , which appears to have argued that the drawing of the veil always represents unveiling (even in rape scenes). There need be no dispute that the gesture can (be intended to) be attractive to men, since manifestations of (lowering the eyes, blushing, etc., as well as veiling) were attractive to men cf. Redfield , J.M. , Arethusa xv ( 1982 ) 196 .Google Scholar
23 Cf. F. Eckstein, LIMC i.l, 352 also Schulz , R. , ΑΙΔΩΣ (Diss. Rostock 1910 ) 98 –9Google Scholar von Erffa, 57.
24 Cf. the remark of Pliny (xxxv 63) that in his portrait of Penelope Zeuxis pinxisse mores videtur (cited by Carpenter , T.H. , Art and myth in ancient Greece [ London 1991 ] 235 Google Scholar ) Carpenter is no doubt right to say that Zeuxis depicted Penelope as in his fig. 347 (Chiusi 1831, ARV 2 1300, 2) the pose of this seated, veiled Penelope is very similar to that of the Persepolis torso which Eckstein , , JDAI lxxiv ( 1959 ) 137 –57Google Scholar , LIMC i.l, 352–3 (pl. 270, Aidos 1 in LIMC i.2), regards as the Aidos/Penelope discussed by Pausanias against this identification, see Langlotz , E. , JDAI lxxvi ( 1961 ) 72 – 99 Google Scholar cf. Gauer , W. , JDAI cv ( 1990 ) 31 – 65 .Google Scholar
25 On the wedding veil, see Cunningham , M.L. , BICS xxxi ( 1984 ) 9 – 12 Google Scholar Armstrong , D. and Ratchford , E.A. , BICS xxxii ( 1985 ) 1 – 14 Google Scholar Seaford , R. , JHS cvii ( 1987 ) 124 –5Google Scholar Carson , A. in Halperin , D.M. , Winkler , J.J. , and Zeitlin , F.I. (eds.), Before sexuality ( Princeton 1990 ) 160 –4Google Scholar and Oakley , J.H. , Sinos , R.H. , The wedding in ancient Athens ( Madison, Wis. 1993 )Google Scholar passim, esp. 25–6, 30–2, 44.
26 For Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 18) 69 the gesture of veiling is in itself polysemic, but in the particular context of erotic pursuits conveys an allusion to the marriage veil this allusion is certainly present (for the representational schemes ‘marriage’ and ‘abduction’ constantly feed off each other in Greek art), but the basic reason why veiling is common to brides and to the objects of erotic pursuit (as well as to victims of rape, e.g. Leto) is that veiling typically expresses and the normal focus of women's is sexual. For the bride's veiling as expression of her see E. IT 372–6. There, Iphigeneia's is clearly a genuine emotional reaction but it may be naive to assume that reflections of such anxiety in literature and myth are to be understood purely in terms of female psychology, for the bride's at leaving her father (as in the Pausanias passage) and at the thought of her future as a sexual being is also a valuable indication of her loyalty to her and of her innocence, and thus of her eligibility and promise as a wife there may therefore have been a considerable element of cultural role-playing as well as of spontaneous emotion in her attitude. See Jenkins , I. , BICS xxx ( 1983 ) 137 –46Google Scholar cf. Redfield (n. 22) 183–92 King , H. in Cameron , A. and Kuhrt , A. (eds.), Images of women in antiquity ( London 1983 ) 109 –17Google Scholar Foley , H.P. , Ritual irony ( Ithaca NY 1985 ) 86 –9 etc.Google Scholar Seaford (n. 25) 106–30, JHS cviii (1988) 118–24.
27 Sittl , C. , Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer ( Leipzig 1890 )Google Scholar , at least discusses veiling, sees the connexion with (84 and n. 7), and notes the iconographic link between wed ding, abduction, and the ‘marriage of death’ (278–9), but his discussion is brief and unsystematic. In Neumann (n. 12) veiling receives no discussion in its own right, and prima facie similar poses involving the veiling of the head are distinguished on the most tenuous of criteria.
28 For the interaction of ‘marriage’ and ‘abduction’ motifs, see (e.g.) the Meidias Painter's depiction of the rape of the Leucippides (London E 224, ARV 2 1313, 5 Burn , L. , The Meidias painter [ Oxford 1987 ] 16 – 17 Google Scholar , 25 and pls la, 2b–3, 4b–9b) Eriphyle is lifted aloft by Castor, who holds her exactly as Tityos does Leto on the Phintias vase (cf. n. 47 below), but the tugging at her veil is at once a spontaneous response to sexual outrage and a detail which recalls the wedding ceremony the latter is yet more explicitly recalled in Polydeuces' use of a chariot to carry off Hilaeira (who also draws her veil). (On the chariot, cf. Lindner , R. , Der Raub der Persephone in der antiken Kunst [ Würzburg 1984 ]).Google Scholar Cf. Arezzo 1460, ARV 2 1157, 25 (Pelops and Hippodameia), and depictions too numerous to list of the abduction and recovery of Helen in Ghali-Kahil , L. , Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène ( Paris 1955 )Google Scholar and LIMC iv pls 291–359 passim (cf. Rehm , R. , Marriage to death [ Princeton 1994 ] 39 ).Google Scholar On abduction/marriage, cf. van Gennep , A. , The rites of passage (Eng. trans. London 1960 ) 123 –9Google Scholar Webster , T.B.L. , Potter and patron in classical Athens ( London 1972 ) 107 Google Scholar Jenkins (n. 26) Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 18) 65–70 and passim, ead. BICS xx (1973) 12–21 Rehm 36–40. The occurrence of the bridal gesture in other contexts suggestive of is reason to doubt the contention of Oakley and Sinos (n. 25) 30, 36, 44 that it always signifies unveiling in wedding iconography. Like Mayo (n. 22), they refer to ‘the gesture known as the anakalypsis’ (44) but no ancient author uses the term in the sense or the connexion they require.
29 Haakh (n. 22) 375–6 see his pl. xv (= Munich 2415, ARV 2 1143, 2 for the correct interpretation, see G. Davies, Apollo cxl no. 389 [July 1994] 6–7 cf. Würzburg 160, Rumpf , A. , Chalkidische Vasen ( Leipzig 1927 ) no. 14 pls 31–4.Google Scholar
30 See R. Peter in Roscher , , ML iii 3276 –7Google Scholar Langlotz (n. 24) 84–5 North (n. 21) 308–9 Grant , M. , Roman imperial money ( Amsterdam 1972 [ 1 1954]) 159 –61.Google Scholar
31 See Livy x 23, 3–10 (esp. 9) Festus p. 242, Paulus p. 243 Müller cf. Peter , in Roscher , , ML iii 3277 –9Google Scholar Williams , G. , JRS xlviii ( 1958 ) 23 –4Google Scholar Rudd , N. , Lines of enquiry ( Cambridge 1976 ) 42 –3CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hani (n. 3) 107 D'Ambra , E. , MDA1(R) xcviii ( 1991 ) 243 –8Google Scholar , Private lives, imperial virtues (Princeton 1993) 36–9, 56–8, 79 Davies , G. in Marshall , E. , Harlow , M. (eds.), Messages from the past ( Exeter 1996 ).Google Scholar
32 Bf vases typically show the procession, with bride and groom in chariot, and the bride normally draws her mantle on if vases the bride is most often led, veiled but not veiling, see Oakley and Sinos (n. 25) 26–34 (with ill.). Cf. veiling/ motifs in the ‘marriage of death’ on Berlin 1902 (ABV 363, 37) Athens NM 1926 (ARV 2 846, 193) also the grave relief of Myrrhine (Athens NM 4485 Friis Johansen [n. 22] fig. 82). Equally, some representations of Roman Pudicitia depict a veiled rather than a veiling woman Stevenson , S.W. , A dictionary of Roman coins ( London 1964 ) 668 .Google Scholar Some (quasi) wedding scenes are better understood as depicting unveiling rather than veiling (e.g. the Selinus metope showing Zeus and Hera Benndorf , O. , Die Metopen von Selinunt [ Berlin 1873 ] 54 –6Google Scholar and pl. 8 cf. Hera and Zeus on the Parthenon frieze [ Schefold , K. , Die Göttersage in der klassischen undhellenistischen Kunst ( Munich 1981 ) pl. 302 Google Scholar ], where Hera clearly is revealing her attractions to Zeus in what Mark , I.S. [ Hesperia liii ( 1984 ) 303 –4Google Scholar ] regards as an allusion to the ) but (a) unveiling implies previous veiling, to which is still relevant, and (b) this unveiling should not be assimilated to the modest gesture of drawing the himation across the face (see n. 22 above). (On the see Oakley , J.H. , AA ( 1982 ) 113 –18Google Scholar R.F. Sutton in id. [ed.], Daidalikon: studies … Schoder [Wauconda, III. 1989] 357–9 Oakley and Sinos [n. 25] 25–6, 30 Rehm [n. 28] 141–2.)
33 On Mantelknaben and see Sittl (n. 27) 7–8 (to his refs add Aeschin. i 26 [Athens], Xen. Lac. Pol. 3. 4 [Sparta]). Illustrations in Dover (n. 18) R637, 791, 851 (boys), 867 (woman) Kilmer , M.F. , Greek erotica ( London 1993 ) R196 , 322, 576, 622.1Google Scholar (boys), Cl (woman) cf. the muffled boy on Munich 2421 (ARV 2 23, 7) cf. also the progressive unmuffling of the woman undergoing ‘Bacchic initiation’ (Florence 391, ARV 2 769, 4 Oxford 1924.2, ARV 2 865, I C. Bérard [et al.], A city of images [Eng. trans. Princeton 1988] figs 199–200) also the gesture of drawing the veil practised by women encountering strange men (Para. 73, 1 bis. Add. 2 49 Wiirzburg 452 [ARV 2 63, 6 LIMC i pl. 60, Achilleus 35] London F 175 [ Trendall , A.D. , The red-figured vases of Lucania, Campania, and Sicily ( Oxford 1967 ) 103 no. 539Google Scholar LIMC iv pl. 304, Helene 73] Bari 4394 [ Trendall , A.D. and Cambitoglou , A. , The red-figured vases of Apulia ( Oxford 1978 – 1982 ) 17 no. 71Google Scholar , Ghali-Kahil (n. 28) pl. 29]) cf. the shy Maenad on Chiusi 1830, ARV 2 975, 36. See in gen. Gait (n. 22).
34 Op. cit. (n. 12) 134 (on the rf Pen.), 130–52 (in general), with figs 67–9, 71–2, 76. For Neumann these attitudes, in which veiling is a common factor, are distinguished by the position of the hands but he cites no evidence to corroborate the fine nuances he assumes.
35 London E 76 (ARV 2 406, 1 LIMC iii pls 133, 136, Briseis 1, 14 Ach. veiled, Briseis veiled and led Munich 8770 (Para. 341, Add 2 189 LIMC i pl. 104, Achilleus 445) London E 56 (ARV 2 185, 39) cf. LIMC i, Achilleus 439–48, 452–3.
36 Vienna 3695 (ARV 2 429, 26 LIMC i pl. 243, Aias I 81). London E 69 (ARV 2 369, 2: LIMC i pl. 244, Aias I 84).
37 As in the mourning figures in the ‘Penelope pose’ in Langlotz (n. 24) figs 17–23 Kurtz , D.C. and Boardman , J. , Greek burial customs ( London 1971 ) pl. 44Google Scholar see also Friis Johansen (n. 22) 36–7 and fig. 18, figs 25, 79, 83 cf. the ‘weeping women sarcophagus’, Lullies , R. and Hirmer , M. , Greek sculpture ( New York 1960 ) 89 – 90 and pls 207–9Google Scholar also the female mourners of Memnon on the cup, Ferrara 44885 (ARV 2 882, 35).
38 As in the three examples in Haakh (n. 22) pls 16–18 cf. Friis Johansen (n. 22) figs 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 21, 24, 67. On the deceased's veiling/unveiling, cf. Rehm (n. 28) 40 and n. 49.
I’m a veteran cultural journalist and guest lecturer with many pieces in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, major art magazines. I’ve been a cultural contributor on New York Public Radio (WNYC and WQXR) and have provided arts commentary on NPR and public radio stations in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Read More…
Please support the blog (via PayPal) by clicking the “Donate” button, for either a one-time or a recurring (non-tax deductible) donation.
Follow me on Twitter
The Complete Guide to Collecting Art (Knopf)
NY TIMES ARTS & LEISURE
Two Painters: So Alike, So Different (Caravaggio/Hals)
LA TIMES OP-EDS:
Make Art Loans, Not War
Museums Can’t Compete (public collecting endangered)
My columns for HuffPost Arts
ART IN AMERICA:
[Note: The AiA links, alas, are no longer active.]
Refreshing the Smithsonian (the renovated SAAM and NPG)
The Atrium That Ate the Morgan (Renzo Piano’s addition)
Hot Pots and Potshots (controversies over museum antiquities)
Musings on Museums (book review of “Whose Muse?”)