Potters at Work in Ancient Corinth: Industry, Religion, and the Penteskouphia Pinakes (Hesperia Supplement) 0876615531, 9780876615539

Table of contents :
Contents
Introduction
Excavation Site of the Penteskouphia Pinakes
Manufacture, Function, Iconography, Epigraphy, and Chronology
Catalogue of Scenes of Potters at Work
Scenes of Potters at Work: Iconographical and Epigraphical Analysis
Technology, Workforce, and Organization of Ceramic Workshops
Industrial Religion and Potters’ Anxieties
Conclusions
List of Penteskouphia Pinakes in Ancient Corinth, Berlin, and Paris
Distribution of Themes on Oneand Two-Sided Penteskouphia Pinakes
Combination of Themes on Two-Sided Penteskouphia Pinakes
Concordance of Inventory and Catalogue Numbers
Concordance of Inscribed Catalogued Pinakes with Epigraphical Corpora
Concordance of Inventory Numbers with Epigraphical Corpora
Concordance of IG IV Entries and Inventory Numbers
REFERENCES
General Index

Citation preview

P O T T ER S AT WO R K I N A N C I EN T CO R I N T H

He sp er ia Sup p l ements The Hesperia Supplement series (ISSN 1064-1173) presents book-length studies in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, language, and history. Founded in 1937, the series was originally designed to accommodate extended essays too long for inclusion in the journal Hesperia. Since that date the Supplements have established a strong identity of their own, featuring single-author monographs, excavation reports, and edited collections on topics of interest to researchers in classics, archaeology, art history, and Hellenic studies. Hesperia Supplements are electronically archived in JSTOR (www.jstor.org), where all but the most recent titles may be found. For order information and a complete list of titles, see the ASCSA website (www.ascsa.edu.gr).

Hesperia Supplement 51

POTTERS AT WORK IN ANCIENT CORINTH Industry, Religion, and the Penteskouphia Pinakes

E l en i H asak i w i t h a con t r ib u t ion b y Io ul ia Tz ono u an d Jame s A. H er bst

American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2021

Copyright © 2021 American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey All rights reserved.

Cover illustrations: (front) Penteskouphia pinax showing kiln firing (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 802); photo C. Begall, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; (back) Penteskouphia pinax showing potter at the wheel (Paris, Musée du Louvre MNB 2857); photo H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Name: Hasaki, Eleni, author. Title: Potters at Work in Ancient Corinth : Industry, Religion, and the Penteskouphia Pinakes / by Eleni Hasaki, with a contribution by Ioulia Tzonou and James A. Herbst. Description: Princeton, New Jersey : American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2021. | Series: Hesperia supplements, ISSN 1064-1173 ; v. 51 | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: LCCN 2020014032 | ISBN 978-0-87661-553-9 (paperback) Subjects: LCSH: Terracotta plaques—Greece—Penteskouphia Site. | Potters in art. | Pottery industry—Greece—History—To 1500. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece. | Penteskouphia Site (Greece) | Corinth (Greece)—Antiquities. | Greece—Antiquities. Classification: LCC NK4102.C67 H37 2021 | DDC 738.30938/7—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014032 Printed in the United States of America

For A l a n

C ont ent s

List of Illustrations ix List of Tables xvii Acknowledgments xix Chapter 1 I n t r od uc t ion Chapter 2 E xc avat ion S i t e of t h e P en t e sko up h ia P i nak e s by Ioulia Tzonou and James A. Herbst

1 23

Chapter 3 M an ufac t ur e, F unc t ion , I c ono g rap hy, E p ig rap hy, an d C h r onol o g y 45 Chapter 4 Catal o gue of S c en e s of Pot t er s at Wor k 83 Chapter 5 Sc en e s of Pot t er s at Wor k : Ic ono g rap h ic al and E p ig rap h ic al Analy si s 179 Chapter 6 Tec h nol o g y, Wor k f or c e, an d Or gan i z at ion of C eramic Wor k shop s 227 Chapter 7 Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion an d Pot t er s’ An x i e t i e s 279 Chapter 8 Conc l u sion s 301 Appendix I List of P en t e sko up h ia P i nak e s i n Anc i en t Cor i n t h , Ber l i n , an d Par i s 313 Appendix II Dist r i b u t ion of Th eme s on On e- an d Two -S i ded P en t e sko up h ia P i nak e s 351

viii

Cont ent s

Appendix III Combi nat ion of Theme s on Two -S i ded Pe nt e sko up hia P inake s 359 Appendix IV Concor danc e of Inv entory and Catal o gue Nu mbe rs 365 Appendix V Concor danc e of Ins c r ibed Catal o gued Pi nake s w it h E p ig rap hic al Cor p ora 369 Appendix VI Concor danc e of Inv entory Number s w i t h E p ig rap hic al C or p ora 371 Appendix VII Concor danc e of I G IV Ent r ie s an d Inv en tory Nu mbe rs 377 References 381 Indexes   General Index 401   Index of Museums 413   Index of Ancient Sources 417

il l ust rat ions

FIGURES   1.1.  Region of Penteskouphia and Corinth

3

  1.3.  Pinakes from the Potters’ Quarter of Corinth (Corinth KN-8, KN-18, KN-19)

8

  1.2.  Select sites in the Corinthia

  1.4.  Pinax from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia (Isthmia Museum IM 1251)

  1.5.  Pinax from the Heraion at Perachora (Athens, NAM 16636)

  1.6.  Wooden votive pinax from Pitsa, near Sikyon (Athens, NAM 16464)

  1.7.  Pinax depicting seated Athena, from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2582)

  1.8.  Pinax depicting weavers, from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 2525)

  1.9.  Pinax depicting Hades and Persephone, from Locri Epizephyrii (Reggio Calabria, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 21016 + 60831)

1.10.  Athenian red-figure bell krater (London, British Museum 1847,0806.54 [E 494])

1.11.  Athenian red-figure calyx krater (Berlin, Antikensammlung V.I. 3974)

1.12.  Detail drawing of a nestoris depicting pinakes in a sacred context at the Sanctuary of Artemis Hemera at Lusoi(?), Arcadia (Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 1760)

1.13.  Detail of a South Italian red-figure calyx krater with a depiction of pinakes on the wall of a fountain house (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Monnaies, médailles et antiques 422)

7

8 8 10 10 10 11 12 12 12

12

1.14.  African Red Slip ware jug depicting a potter working at a turntable (New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery 1984.79.2) 16

x

il lust rat ions

1.15.  Collection of 24 watercolor paintings showing potters at work at Chinese porcelain workshops (London, British Museum 1946,0713,0.1.1–24)

18

  2.2.  Area west of Corinth

28

  2.1.  Corinth and the western Corinthia   2.3.  Washburn’s excavation log

  2.4.  Hill’s map locating the Penteskouphia excavation site   2.5.  “Theater-shaped nook” and excavation site

27 29 29 30

  2.6.  Protocorinthian to Middle Corinthian silhouette-style pottery from lot 1233

33

  2.8.  Wheel ruts above the “main road”

38

  2.7.  Pot-bellied figurine (Corinth MF-3456)   2.9.  “Main road”

2.10.  Section of the Hadrianic aqueduct masonry

34 38 38

2.11.  Excavation site from the “beaten path” as it crosses the natural bridge to the south

40

2.13.  Excavation site of the Penteskouphia pinakes

41

2.12.  Wheel ruts in the “beaten path”

40

  3.1.  Corinthian column krater with male and female figures (Paris, Louvre E 634)

47

  3.3.  Corinthian column krater with horseback riders (Paris, Louvre E 633)

47

  3.5.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 761)

49

  3.2.  Corinthian column krater with warriors (Paris, Louvre E 627) 47

  3.4.  Handle plates of a Corinthian column krater (Paris, Louvre E 634) 48

  3.6.  Body proportions of a horse used as a guide to estimate the original sizes of Penteskouphia pinakes with equestrian iconography 49   3.7.  Example of the largest of the Penteskouphia pinakes (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399) 50

  3.8.  Example of the smallest of the Penteskouphia pinakes (Berlin, 50 Antikensammlung F 663 + F 730)

  3.9.  Range of sizes among the Penteskouphia pinakes with scenes of potters at work (n = 97)

51

3.10.  Representative examples of the four basic sizes of Penteskouphia pinakes

51

3.12.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 566)

52

3.11.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 493) 3.13.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 665) 3.14.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 783) 3.15.  Handle plate from the Amphiaraos column krater (once Berlin, Antikensammlung F 1655, now lost)

52 53 53 57

il lust rat ions

xi

3.16.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 460)

58

3.18.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 899)

58

3.17.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 835) 3.19.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 722) 3.20.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 671) 3.21.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 873) 3.22.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 769) 3.23.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 839) 3.24.  Penteskouphia pinax (Paris, Louvre MNB 2859)

3.25.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 595) 3.26.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 797) 3.27.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 848) 3.28.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 849)

58 59 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 61

3.29.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 855 + F 862)

62

3.31.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 894)

63

3.30.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 860) 3.32.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 921)

62 63

3.33.  Distribution of iconographical themes on one-sided and two-sided Penteskouphia pinakes

67

3.35.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 368)

76

3.34.  Corinthian alphabet

3.36.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 662)

3.37.  Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 422 + F 908)

75 76 76

  4.1.  One-sided pinakes showing clay collection (A1–A3) 87   4.2.  One-sided pinax showing potters at the wheel (A4) 88   4.3.  One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A5) 88   4.4.  One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A6) 89   4.5.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A7, A8) 90   4.6.  One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A9) 91   4.7.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A10, A11) 92   4.8.  One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A12) 93   4.9.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A13, A14) 94 4.10.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A15–A17) 95 4.11.  One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A18) 96 4.12.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A19–A21) 97 4.13.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A22, A23) 98 4.14.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A24–A26) 99 4.15.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A27, A28) 100 4.16.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A29, A30) 101 4.17.  One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A31, A32) 102

xii

il lust rat ions

4.18.  One-sided pinakes showing workshop-related scenes (A33, A34) 103

4.19.  Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B1) 105 4.20.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing and fuel collection (B2) 106 4.21.  Two-sided pinax showing clay collection and kiln firing (B3) 107 4.22.  Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B4) 107 4.23.  Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B5) 108 4.24.  Two-sided pinax showing fuel collection (B6) 110 4.25.  Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B7) 111 4.26.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B8) 112 4.27.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B9) 113 4.28.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B10) 114 4.29.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B11) 115 4.30.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B12) 116 4.31.  Two-sided pinakes showing potters at the wheel (B13, B14) 117 4.32.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel and kiln firing (B15) 118 4.33.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B16) 119 4.34.  Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel and kiln firing (B17) 120 4.35.  Two-sided pinax showing potters at the wheel and kiln firing(?) (B18) 121 4.36.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B19) 122 4.37.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B20) 123 4.38.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B21) 125 4.39.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B22) 126 4.40.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B23) 127 4.41.  Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B24, B25) 128 4.42.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B26) 129 4.43.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B27) 130 4.44.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B28) 131 4.45.  Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B29, B30) 132 4.46.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B31) 133 4.47.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B32) 134 4.48.  Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B33, B34) 135 4.49.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B35) 136 4.50.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B36) 137 4.51.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B37) 138 4.52.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B38) 139 4.53.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B39) 140 4.54.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B40) 141 4.55.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B41) 142

il lust rat ions

xiii

4.56.  Side A of two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B42) 144 4.57.  Side B of two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B42) 145 4.58.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B43) 146 4.59.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B44) 147 4.60.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B45) 148 4.61.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B46) 148 4.62.  Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B47, B48) 149 4.63.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B49) 150 4.64.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B50) 151 4.65.  Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B51, B52) 152 4.66.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B53) 153 4.67.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B54) 154 4.68.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B55) 155 4.69.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B56) 156 4.70.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B57) 157 4.71.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B58) 158 4.72.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B59) 159 4.73.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B60) 160 4.74.  Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B61) 161 4.75.  Two-sided pinax showing a workshop-related scene (B62) 162 4.76.  Two-sided pinax showing a workshop-related scene (B63) 163 4.77.  Pinakes with ambiguous scenes (M1, M2) 164 4.78.  Pinakes with ambiguous scenes (M3–M8) 165 4.79.  Pinax with ambiguous scene (M9) 166 4.80.  Pinax with ambiguous scene (M10) 167 4.81.  Pinax with ambiguous scene (M11) 167 4.82.  Pinax with ambiguous scene (M12) 168 4.83.  Pinax with ambiguous scene (M13) 168 4.84.  Pinax with ambiguous scene (M14) 169 4.85.  Pinakes showing ambiguous scenes (M15, M16) 170 4.86.  Pinax showing ambiguous scene (M17) 171 4.87.  Pinax showing ambiguous scene (M18, side A)

171

4.88.  Pinakes showing ambiguous scenes (M19–M21) 173 4.89.  Pinax showing ambiguous scene (M22) 174 4.90.  Pinakes with disassociated scenes (M23–M25) 175 4.91.  Pinax with disassociated scene (M26) 176 4.92.  Pinakes with disassociated scenes (M27–M29) 177 4.93.  Pinax with disassociated scene (M30) 178   5.1.  Types of potter’s wheels depicted on Athenian ceramics and on Penteskouphia pinakes A4, B8–B10 184   5.2.  Comparison of ceramic kilns and metallurgical furnaces

189

xiv

il lust rat ions

  5.3.  Kiln parts depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes

190

  5.5.  Shoulder of an Athenian black-figure hydria (Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 1717)

200

  5.4.  Terracotta model of a potter’s kiln (Corinth KN-181)

  5.6.  Fragment of an Athenian black-figure amphora(?) from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.803)

  5.7.  Fragment of an Athenian black-figure amphora(?) from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.853)

  5.8.  Details of an Athenian black-figure lip cup (Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 67/90)

  5.9.  Fragments of an Athenian black-figure pinax from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2570)

5.10.  Fragments of a black-figure pinax from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2579)

199

200 200 200 201 201

5.11.  Tondo of an Athenian black-figure kylix (London, British Museum 1847,1125.18 [B 432])

201

5.13.  Fragments of an Athenian red-figure cup from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 166)

202

5.12.  Boiotian black-figure skyphos from Abes cemetery in Eastern Locris Exarchos (Athens, NAM 1114-2624 [442]) 202

5.14.  Fragments of an Athenian red-figure skyphos from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 2.470)

202

5.15.  Fragment of an Athenian red-figure amphora(?) from the Pnyx in Athens (Athens, Agora PNP 42)

203

5.17.  Fragments of an Athenian red-figure calyx krater from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 2.739)

203

5.16.  Athenian red-figure calyx krater (Caltagirone, Museo Regionale della Ceramica 1120) 203

5.18.  Tondo of an Athenian red-figure stemless cup (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2542)

5.19.  Tondo of an Athenian red-figure kylix (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8073)

5.20.  Athenian red-figure bell krater (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AN1896-1908.G.287)

204 204 204

5.21.  Shoulder of an Athenian red-figure hydria (Caputi hydria) (Vicenza, Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Collection F.G-00002AE/IS [C 278])

204

5.23.  Two-sided pinakes with inscriptions on both sides

214

5.22.  Selection of inscriptions on the same side as a pottery scene 213 5.24.  Selection of inscriptions on the reverse sides of pottery scenes

5.25.  Signatures of Timonidas on B42 and a Middle Corinthian bottle from Kleonai (Athens, NAM 277)

5.26.  Signature of Milonidas on a Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 511 / Paris, Louvre MNC 212)

219 220 220

il lust rat ions

xv

5.27.  Inscriptions mentioning αὐτοποιεία (B53, Berlin, Antikensammlung F 495 + F 513, Paris, Louvre MNC 209) 221

5.28.  Signature of Chares on a Late Corinthian pyxis (Paris, Louvre E 609)

5.29.  Penteskouphia pinakes with the name Φλέβο̄ν (A6, Berlin, Antikensammlung F 530 + F 558, F 557)

  6.1.  Map of Corinth with known ceramic production sites   6.2.  Plan of kilns from Greek Tile Works   6.3.  East kiln at Greek Tile Works   6.4.  Roman Tile Works

  6.5.  Plan and sections of Roman Tile Works   6.6.  Roman Tile Works   6.7.  Roman Tile Works   6.8.  Kokkinovrysi kiln

  6.9.  Kokkinovrysi kiln, overhead view

6.10.  Plan and section of kiln at Agora Northeast 1936 6.11.  Kiln at Agora Northeast 1936

6.12.  Plan of kiln at Agora South Central 1936 6.13.  Koutoumatza kiln-like feature 6.14.  Koutoumatza kiln-like feature

223 224 230 231 231 232 232 233 233 233 233 234 234 235 235 235

6.15.  Geological map of the region surrounding Ancient Corinth 236 6.16.  Potters’ Quarter, as seen from Acrocorinth

237

6.17.  Clay deposit under a conglomerate shelf near the national highway to Tripolis

238

6.19.  Ancient Greek kiln typology

247

6.18.  Potter’s tools from Figaretto, Corfu

6.20.  Geographical distribution of Archaic kilns in Greece 6.21.  Plan of Archaic pottery workshop at Prinias, Crete 6.22.  Plan of Archaic pottery kilns at Lato, Crete

6.23.  Plan of Archaic pottery kiln at Knossos, Crete

6.24.  Plan of Archaic pottery workshop at Phari, Thasos 6.25.  Sectional drawing of an experimental replica of an ancient Greek ceramic kiln

6.26.  Night firing at the experimental replica of an ancient Greek kiln

245 249 250 250 250 251 253 253

6.27.  Plans and section of perforated floor from a kiln at Gortys, Arcadia

258

6.29.  Clay arms from perforated floors of kilns

259

6.28.  View, plan, and section of perforated floor from a Roman kiln at Istron, Crete 258

6.30.  Kiln with a reused pithos serving as a pot-firing chamber, from an Early Roman pottery workshop at Paroikia, Paros

6.31.  Kiln furniture for stacking pots, from Athens and Corinth

260 264

xvi

il lust rat ions

6.32.  Reconstruction of the three-stage process in the firing of a handle plate of a black-figure Corinthian column krater (Paris, Louvre E 636)

268

6.34.  Middle Corinthian bowl used as test piece, from the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth (Corinth KP-1052)

272

6.33.  Kiln-firing equipment in Renaissance Italy

6.35.  Middle Corinthian kotyle used as test piece, from the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth (Corinth KP-1344)

271

272

  7.1.  Detail of an Athenian red-figure cup (Berlin Foundry cup) (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2294)

284

  7.3.  Shallow bowl from the Nymphaeum at Kafizin, Cyprus (K 9)

286

  7.2.  Stoneworkers’ sanctuary at Flerio, Naxos

  7.4.  Display of wares at a modern pottery workshop at Margarites, Crete

  7.5.  Trees with ceramics and votive glass eyes at a modern pottery workshop in Güvercinler Valley, Üçhisar, Cappadocia, Turkey

285

287 287

  7.6.  Pottery factory in Kantianika (Nea Koroni), Messenia, after World War II

287

  7.8.  Stele shrine and altar from the Shrine of the Double Stele in the Corinthian Potters’ Quarter

291

  7.7.  Penteskouphia pinax showing Amphitrite and a smaller figure, possibly a suppliant (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 787) 289

  7.9.  Artist’s rendition of a ceramic workshop in the Penteskouphia area

292

7.11.  Bronze plaque with Poseidon holding a dolphin (Isthmia Museum IM 3326)

295

7.10.  Artist’s rendition of road traffic in the Penteskouphia area

  8.1.  Corinthian plastic vase showing a figure holding a column krater (Paris, Louvre CA 454) COLOR FIGURES (following page 178)    1.  Selected pinakes (A1, A5, A7, A8, A10, A17)

   2.  Selected pinakes (A19–A21, A23, A25, A27, A30)    3.  Selected pinakes (B1–B3)

   4.  Selected pinakes (B8, B10, B11, B17)    5.  Selected pinakes (B19, B20)

   6.  Selected pinakes (B28, B29, B37, B38)    7.  Selected pinakes (B47–B49)    8.  Selected pinakes (B57, B60)

293

312

tabl e s

1.1.  Distribution of Terracotta Pinakes at Archaic Corinthian Sites 9 3.1.  Sizes of Pinakes with Scenes of Potters at Work

3.2.  Orientation Schemes on Two-Sided Pinakes with Scenes of Potters at Work

51 54

3.3.  Distribution of Iconographical Themes on Penteskouphia Pinakes 66 3.4.  Corinthian Chronology

78

5.1.  Imagery on the Reverse of Pinakes with Scenes of Potters at Work 181 5.2.  Iconography of Kiln-Firing Scenes

187

5.4.  Comparison of Corinthian and Athenian/Boiotian Representations of Potters at Work

198

5.3  Athenian and Boiotian Scenes of Potters at Work

5.5.  Inscriptions on Catalogued Penteskouphia Pinakes

5.6.  Potters’ and Painters’ Signatures on Archaic and Classical Corinthian Ceramics 5.7.  Personal Names on Penteskouphia Pinakes with Scenes of Potters at Work

197

210 222 224

6.1.  Topography of Ceramic Production at Ancient Corinth 229

Ac k now l ed gment s

Select pinakes from the Penteskouphia corpus have appeared in publications on ancient Greek industry, religion, ships and travel, and ceramic production. Several attempts have been made to proceed with the study and publication of the entire corpus, but all have ended, unfortunately, at a very early stage. At times, it seemed that this project would join the list of previous well-intentioned but aborted attempts; that it escaped this fate is the result of much support and patience from many quarters. At the heart of this study lies the leading team at the excavations of Corinth: Director Christopher Pfaff, Director Emeritus Guy D. R. Sanders, Director Emeritus Charles K. Williams II, Associate Director Emerita Nancy Bookidis, who generously shared her expertise and encouraged the completion of this project, Associate Director Ioulia Tzonou, and Architect James Herbst. Ioulia and James welcomed me warmly at Corinth, joined me in adventurous field trips to the Penteskouphia area, and improved this book tremendously with their contribution on the nature of the deposit and the topography of the region. The Assistant to the Associate Director, Manolis Papadakis, diligently processed photographic requests at very short notice, and I thank him warmly. At the Antikensammlung in Berlin, the museum’s director, Andreas Scholl, and his predecessor, Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, have greatly facilitated my work through several requests. I benefited from the curatorial assistance of Ursula Kästner, who went beyond the call of duty, and the indefatigable and meticulous assistant curator, Hans Getter, who kindly extended his working days to accommodate my visits to Berlin. Subsequently, curators Agnes Schwarzmaier and Nina Zimmermann-Elseify aided significantly with remaining questions. Despite everyone’s good intentions, the mounting system for some of the pinakes made it impossible to acquire all the desired photos or drawings. In the Louvre, curator Anne Coulié and her collaborators quickly answered many inquiries and ordered new photographs on short notice. I remain indebted to them. My collaboration with the illustrators Jörg Denkinger and Yannis Nakas has been most rewarding, and I cannot express the extent of my gratitude for their superb skill in deciphering many of the pinakes. Nakas worked tirelessly and with immense skill and patience on multiple versions of the reconstructions.

xx

Ac know l ed gment s

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) has been my intellectual home since my graduate days as a student of archaeology. Its community shaped my life in more ways than one and I am grateful to them. ASCSA Director of Publications Carol Stein has seen the manuscript in various configurations and supported me with her unwavering faith. I would be amiss if I do not acknowledge her predecessors, Charles Watkinson, Andrew Reinhard, and Linny Schenck, who believed strongly in the importance of this work. The initial project editor for this book, Colin Whiting, undertook the Herculean task of preparing this manuscript for production. His organizational skills, astute input, and, quite frankly, his bright outlook on life made what would have been a struggle into a pleasant push to completion. I am fully appreciative of all his help. After Colin’s departure from ASCSA Publications, Destini Price provided great assistance in the layout of the volume. In the long final stretch, Sarah Rous put her love, patience, and outstanding project management skills to work in harnessing all the moving parts and guiding the manuscript to press. I thank them all wholeheartedly. The diligence of copy editor Karen Donohue, as well as the insightful comments of the anonymous reviewers, saved me from several errors. Closer to home, I would also like to thank warmly my unit directors Diane Austin and her predecessor Barbara Mills (School of Anthropology) and Karen Seat (Department of Religious Studies and Classics) at the University of Arizona for steadily helming the ship in sound directions at turbulent times and for their continuous support of this project. Various institutions and colleagues generously provided photographs and permissions for this book: Maria Chidiroglou (Athens, National Archaeological Museum), Costas Davaras, Stella Demesticha, Melanie Emerson, Manuel Flecker (Kiel), Thomas Kiely (London), Yannos Kourayos, Dimitris Kourkoumelis, Aggeliki Kouveli (Athens, Acropolis Museum), Kornelia Kressiser (Bonn), Vassilis Lambrinoudakis, Allard Mees (Mainz), Maria Chiara Monaco, Dario Palermo, John Papadopoulos, Jacques Perrault, Jean Perras (Isthmia), Alexandra Sfyroera, Ulrich Sinn, Bernhard Steinmann (Karlsruhe), Lea Stirling, and Ian Whitbread. This work required extensive visual documentation. I am indebted to a number of institutions for providing vital financial assistance: a Franklin Research Grant from the American Philosophical Society, a Loeb Classical Library Foundation Fellowship, a grant from the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) Publication Subvention Program, and a grant from the Mellon Bank 1984 Foundation all assisted with the costs of traveling to view collections and ordering photos and drawings. Finally, the publication of color figures was made possible by awards through the Provost’s Author Support Fund at the University of Arizona as well as a Kress Publication Fellowship through the ASCSA. Parts of this book were written while I was a Whiting Fellow at Bryn Mawr College and as a Margo Tytus Fellow at the University of Cincinnati. I finished the work as an Ailsa Mellon Bruce Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and as a Senior Fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies at Harvard University. I could not have asked for better learning environments and wonderful colleagues to complete this endeavor.

Ac know l ed gment s

xxi

A number of experts in various fields read earlier drafts or provided helpful advice: I warmly thank Diane Harris Cline, Matteo D’Acunto, George Davis, Jack Davis, David Dawson, Yannis Galanakis, Argyroula Intzesiloglou, Richard Jones, Andromache Karanika, Kyriaki Karoglou, Stella Katsarou, Despoina Kondopoulou, Theodora Kopestonsky, Antonios Kotsonas, Eleni Kotsou, Alexandros Laftsidis, Kenneth Lapatin, Carol Lawton, Albert Leonard, Yannis Lolos, Gloria London, Vassiliki Machaira, Nancy Odegaard, Andrej Petrovic, Seth Pevnick, Konstantinos Raptis, Molly Richardson, Brunilde Ridgway, Martha Risser, Betsey Robinson, David Gilman Romano, Irene Bald Romano, Susan Rotroff, Philip Sapirstein, Marco Serino, Francesca Silverstrelli, Tyler Jo Smith, Ronald Stroud, Robert Sutton, Peter van Alfen, Massimo Vidale, and Angela Ziskowski. Catherine Morgan, Gina Salapata, and Alan Shapiro have generously offered great advice in all stages of the project, and I am greatly indebted to them. My gracious hostess in Berlin, Elke Friedman, helped me with taking measurements of select pinakes. Particular thanks are due to Martin Bentz, who generously shared with me the color images from the Tonart exhibit in Bonn. Karim Arafat kindly allowed me to study, for comparative purposes, the Isthmia pinakes in August 2003. Thanks also to Sarah Bolmarcich and Georgina Muskett for allowing me to use their database of potters’ and painters’ signatures. I am indebted to Rudolf Wachter, who generously allowed me to reproduce his drawings of the Penteskouphia inscriptions. Heartfelt thanks also to Wendy Thomas, who kindly transferred to me the late Helen Geagan’s archives in the fall of 2017. Geagan’s archives contain meticulous notes and a number of new joins. Her work is simply outstanding. I owe Geagan a great debt, and I hope the present work would have pleased her. Asia Del Bonis-O’Donnell, Kendyl Bostic, Melissa Fuller, Grace Gegenheimer, Amber Kearns, Camilla MacKay, Stephanie Martin, Martha Payne, Amy Posch, and Martha Sowerwine diligently assisted with the preparation of the manuscript at various stages. Sasha Russon helped tremendously in the layout of the appendixes. Through it all, my family and friends steadfastly believed in this project, even when I wavered. A tightly knit network of incredibly supportive friends in Tucson and elsewhere offered constant encouragement: John Bauschatz, Alison Futrell, Adam Geary, Steven Johnstone, Nassos Papalexandrou, and Mary Voyatzis. Bryan Burns always offered wise advice and the best sounding board, and I cannot thank him enough. My families in Athens and in Tucson provided a solid foundation of inspiration and love. My late mother, Maria, instilled in me her love of antiquity and education, and my late father, Tzonis, always served as a great model for creativity and hard work. They made great sacrifices to provide me with opportunities they never had. I love and miss them. In Tucson, I cherish my family-in-law: with Dara, Nathan, Natalie, and my late mother-in-law Louise, I have shared love and laughter during highs and lows over family meals on Sundays. I dedicate this book to Alan Rodney May—a small token for his unwavering love and encouragement. Alan has walked through ridges around Penteskouphia, has seen and measured many pinakes with me, and has survived through the project on both sides of the Atlantic. I owe him more than words can say or pinakes can show. We both feel blessed to see

xxii

Ac know l ed gment s

the smiles of our Elina Maria every single day and are filled with gratitude for everything in our lives. In my world of wanderings and wonderings, Alan and Elina effortlessly create a warm feeling of home wherever we are, while they wisely point to true north.

c hap t er 1

Introduction

1. Critias (Elegies 1.12–14) cites Athens as the birthplace of the wheel; an Athenian named Talos is specifically mentioned as its inventor by Diodorus Siculus (4.76).

Corinth was a major ceramic production center during the Archaic period (700–480 b.c.), creating goods that were traded within Greece and around the Mediterranean. Pottery workshops supplied households with their cosmetic, drinking, and storage items, while tile works manufactured roofing tiles for many civic and religious buildings. Corinthian potters shaped their local clays into small perfume bottles (aryballoi and alabastra) and drinking cups (kotylai), or into larger jugs, amphoras, and mixing bowls (kraters). The workshops experimented both technically, by introducing the blackfigure technique, which required advanced firing skills, and artistically, by decorating their pots with distinctive animal and figural scenes. Ancient sources, many from a much later date, often credit the Corinthian region with significant breakthroughs in the ceramic arts during the Archaic period. The Sikyonian potter Butades, apparently working at Corinth, was the first to model portraits from clay and to add terracotta masks to buildings (Plin. HN 35.151–152). The Corinthian Demaratos, along with other modelers in clay, introduced this art to Italy (Plin. HN 35.151–152; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.46; Polyb. 6.11.7; Livy 1.34, 4.3). The outline and silhouette techniques in painting were said to have been invented by two Corinthians, Kleanthes and Ekphantos, respectively (Plin. HN 35.15–16). Pliny credits the Corinthian Hyperbius with the invention of the potter’s wheel (Plin. HN 7.198), a distinction also claimed by the Athenians.1 Finally, although it is not associated with a specific individual, Corinth is also considered the birthplace of the black-figure technique, a method of ceramic decoration that gained popularity in many regional production centers during the Archaic period. Despite the excellent reputation of Corinthian potters in the ancient sources and the abundance of their products in the archaeological record, the locations of their workshops—especially during the Archaic period, the acme of Corinthian ceramics—remain frustratingly elusive. This dearth of excavated remains of pottery workshops at Corinth, however, is mitigated somewhat by the abundance of depictions of potters at work. At Penteskouphia, a relatively obscure site to the west of Corinth, a large group of Archaic terracotta pinakes (plaques) depicting potters at work provides us with a contemporary pictorial account of the technology and

2

c hap t er 1

organization of their workshops. About 100 pinakes show potters digging for clay, forming and decorating vessels on the wheel, and firing their kilns. These pinakes were found with several hundred others at Penteskouphia, not all depicting potters at work. The total assemblage numbers about 1,000 pinakes consisting of 1,200 fragments (see Appendix I); their rich imagery also includes depictions of Poseidon, horseback riders, warriors, and animals. The pinakes are painted in black-figure technique and have images on one or both sides, accompanied by inscribed invocations of Poseidon, personal names, painters’ signatures, and the unique labeling of a pottery kiln as κάμινος. The scenes and inscriptions are painted on very small surfaces measuring, on average, H. 7.2 × W. 10.0 × Th. 0.7 cm.2 Many are pierced, suggesting that the pinakes were meant to be attached to something or suspended. The corpus is fairly uniform in its technical aspects, varying little in size, iconography, and manufacturing technique. Despite its large size, the Penteskouphia corpus has a very narrow chronological range, namely, the first half of the 6th century b.c.; this dating is based mostly on the iconographical style of some representations (figural and animal), filling ornaments, and epigraphical evidence. Overall, dating clues, both internal and external, are limited due to the lack of archaeological context.

T H E S I T E A N D T H E CO R P U S Penteskouphia is known chiefly for its substantial assemblage of Archaic terracotta pinakes; it is not mentioned in any ancient sources, and archaeological evidence from earlier or later periods is scant. The site is located to the west of Corinth (Fig. 1.1). It is bounded on the east by Penteskouphia hill (elevation ca. 400 m), which is known in modern times by a host of names; one of these, the kastraki, refers to a Frankish castle built there in the early 13th century a.d.3 To the west the site is bounded by the village of Penteskouphia, which is situated on a low plateau, and by the end of the 19th century was sparsely populated. It now consists of a single chapel dedicated to Ayios Antonios. To the north the plateau is terraced down to a ravine.4 The ancient Phliasian road passes on the east of Penteskouphia 2. For a comprehensive overview of votive pinakes, from their manufacture to their display and their disposal, see Salapata 2002. For a review of the ancient terminology, see Benndorf 1868, pp. 4–24, esp. p. 12, nn. 51–53; Boardman 1954, pp. 186–187; Salapata 2002, p. 21, n. 34; ThesCRA I, 2004, pp. 293–296, s.v. Pinakes ( J. Boardman, T. Mannack, and C. Wagner); and more recently, Karoglou 2010, pp. 1–10. The ancient Greek term πίναξ (pl. πίνακες) was used for flat terracotta plaques, but it also had several more meanings. It is used in the Penteskouphia excavation reports, however, and thus has been adopted more widely in recent scholarship about the Penteskouphia pinakes

and others of the same type. 3. Corinth III.2, pp. 265–267, figs. 217, 218. The altitude cited for Penteskouphia hill varies in literature, from 322 m (Pritchett 1969, p. 75, fig. 9) to 473 m (Wiseman 1978, p. 83, fig. 105). The altitude of Acrocorinth is 575 m (Salmon 1984, p. 29). Variations of the name include Pente Skouphia, Penteskoufia, and Penteskoufi, or even Penteskuphi; these may have originated as a mispronunciation of the Frankish “Montesquieu,” in connection with the Frankish castle on the hill. It is difficult to establish any connection with similar terms appearing on Late Egyptian papyri, such as the epithet κουφός (empty, light; POxy. 14.1631.16, dated

to a.d. 280); κουφά (jars; e.g., the 2,400 κουφά mentioned in the rental of a pot-

ter’s workshop: P.Cair.Masp. 1.67110, dated to a.d. 565); κουφοκεραμεύς (POxy. 16.1917; dated to a.d. 616–617; POxy. 58.3942, a potter’s contract, dated to a.d. 606); or κουφοκεραμουργός (SB 1.4488, dated to a.d. 635). My thanks to Octavian Bounegru for bringing these papyri to my attention. For an extensive study of these Roman papyri concerning pottery workshops, see Mees 2002, pp. 209–316. 4. For the general location, see Wiseman 1978, p. 83, figs. 105, 107. For the (now rectified) misunderstanding that the pinakes were found in two ravines, see below, p. 32.

Int r od uct ion

Figure 1.1. Region of Penteskouphia and Corinth. J. Herbst

3

4

c hap t er 1

village, leading to Phlious and Kleonai, as does a later Roman road built to service the long Hadrianic aqueduct that originally started at Lake Stymphalos and ended at Acrocorinth (see Figs. 2.1, 2.2).5 Remains of the aqueduct dot the Penteskouphia landscape at various points, especially to the west of Penteskouphia hill. Most of the pinakes were first unearthed by a farmer in 1879.6 The early publications mention that the farmer was from the village of Penteskouphia and that he subsequently sold the pinakes to someone in Nea Korinthos.7 Another large cache of pinakes was found in the same area during a three-day excavation conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) in 1905. No architectural remains contemporary with the pinakes were noted then, and none have since come to light. The specific site where the 1905 cache of pinakes was found is ca. 700 m northeast of the village of Penteskouphia, 2.5 km west of Acrocorinth, about 3.5 km southwest of the Temple of Apollo at Ancient Corinth, and about 3 km from the Corinthian Potters’ Quarter.8 The pinakes found by the farmer in 1879 made their way into museum collections in Berlin and in Paris soon after their discovery, while those excavated in 1905 were taken to the Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth (hereafter, Corinth Museum), where they remain today. In this work it is argued that the farmer’s 1879 looting site largely coincides with the 1905 excavation spot, as there are several joins between the two sets. Furthermore, I adopt the simplest working hypothesis that the ancient use context and deposition site largely coincided with the modern recovery site.9 5. Corinth I.1, pp. 88–89, 106; Wiseman 1978, p. 83, fig. 105; Lolos 1997, pp. 274–275, figs. 1, 2. For Kleonai and its surrounding region, see Marchand 2009. 6. The 1870s saw intense looting in the Corinthia (Andreades 2007, pp. 55–65). The local Athenian newspaper (ΑΣΤΥ, issue 4584, dated November 3, 1906) reported on Washburn’s presentation, at an ASCSA meeting, of the School’s excavation of the Penteskouphia pinakes. Washburn specifically mentions Pavlos Lambros, father of the university professor Spiros Lambros, as the person who originally collected them a few years ago. I thank Yannis Galanakis for bringing this source to my attention. I provide, with his permission, the relevant passages: “Πρῶτος ὡμίλησεν ὁ κ. Ὄλιβερ Οὐῶσμπορν, νεαρὸς ἑταῖρος τῆς σχολῆς, εὔγλωττος καὶ πολυμαθής, περὶ Κορινθιακῶν πινάκων ἤτοι πηλίνων τετραγώνων μικρῶν πλινθίων, τὰ ὁποῖα φέρουν παραστάσεις γραπτὰς καὶ ἐπιγραφάς. Οἱ πίνακες οὗτοι εἶνε τοῦ 7–6 αἰῶνος π.Χ. καὶ εἶνε σπανιώτατοι τόσον ὥστε ἓν μόνον τεμάχιον αὐτῶν ἔχει ἀξίαν 500 τοὐλάχιστον φράγκων. Τὴν πρώτην συγκομιδὴν πινάκων ἐκ

Κορίνθου ἔκαμε πρὸ ἐτῶν ὁ Παῦλος Λάμπρος, πατὴρ τοῦ καθηγητοῦ τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου κ. Σπ. Λάμπρου· ταῦτα εὑρίσκονται σήμερον εἰς τὸ μουσεῖον τοῦ Βερολίνου, ὅπου ἀπαρτίζουν τὴν μόνην συλλογὴν εἰς τὸ εἶδός της. Ὁ κ. Οὐῶσμπορν ὅμως εὗρεν εἰς τὰ ὄπισθεν τοῦ Ἀκροκορίνθου εἰς θέσιν Πεντεσκούφια πολλὰ τεμάχια τοιούτων πινάκων, ὄχι βεβαίως τόσον ἐντελῶν καὶ σημαντικῶν, ὅπως τὰ ἐν Βερολίνῳ, ἀλλὰ σπουδαιοτάτων διὰ τὰς παραστάσεις των. Αἱ παραστάσεις αὐτῶν εἶνε κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον γνωσταὶ ἐκ τῶν παλαιοτέρων ἐκείνων πινάκων, οὐχ’ ἧττον ὅμως πολλαὶ νέαι παρουσιάζονται, μεταξὺ τῶν ὁποίων ἐξέχουσαν θέσιν κατέχουν αἱ παραστάσεις πλοίων καὶ ἄλλων ἐπαγγελματικῶν σκηνῶν π.χ. ἀρτοποιείου κτλ. Διὰ πολλῶν φωτεινῶν εἰκόνων τοῦ ὡραίου ἀμερικανικοῦ προβολέως τῆς Σχολῆς ἔδειξεν ὁ κ. Οὐῶσμπορν τὰς παραστάσεις τῶν συντριμμάτων τούτων, αἱ ὁποῖαι θὰ καταλάβουν περιφανῆ θέσιν εἰς τὴν Γραφικὴν καὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ πολιτισμοῦ.”

7. Rayet 1880, p. 102. This illicit excavation reportedly took place in the spring, although Geagan (1970, p. 31)

refers to “a summer night in 1879.” Springtime rainfall and erosion may have conspired to expose the deposit. 8. PECS, s.v. “Penteskouphia” (R. Stroud); Salmon 1984, p. 4, fig. 2; Whitbread 1995, pp. 110, 264, 327, figs. 4.28, 5.3, 5.33. 9. In more complicated and not necessarily useful scenarios, one could postulate that the 1879/1905 site represents a secondary depositional context, with the ancient use site and primary deposition context in the vicinity, or that the 1905 site is a modern deposition context created by the farmer in 1879, with all ancient use and deposition contexts lying at unknown distances. At present, we cannot determine whether there are additional sites with deposits of pinakes near the 1879/1905 site. In late 2020, Jack L. Davis kindly informed me of this entry in Bert H. Hill’s diaries: “HDW and I to Corinth by 6.50. . . . Talk with Nikolaou who says shall be free to dig down in his land where sarcophagi were found. He says he sold the Π. Σκουφ. tablets” (Hill 1888–1917, entry for March 24, 1908). Archival investigation must be undertaken to identify Nikolaou’s land holdings at that time.

Int r od uct ion

5

With so much uncertainty about their ancient deposition and modern recovery, though, one easily becomes skeptical about the usefulness of discussing whether the pinakes were deposited in a bothros,10 a stips, a fossa, or, as originally suggested by Furtwängler, a favissa.11 In terms of spatial concentration, a group of 1,200 fragments of pinakes could have easily been gathered in antiquity and buried in an area of ca. 1 m3: either in a pit 1 m long × 1 m wide × 1 m deep, or in a shallower one 1.5 m long × 1.5 m wide.12 The largest collection of Penteskouphia pinakes is held by the Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung (formerly the Antiquarium der Königlichen Museen; hereafter, Antikensammlung) in Berlin.13 These pinakes, exceeding 700 in number, were inventoried by two scholars, Furtwängler in 1885 and Pernice in 1897. In modern scholarship, the pinakes inventoried by Furtwängler are cited with the prefix “F,” and those by Pernice with the prefix “I.” Furtwängler inventoried most of the pinakes in Berlin (F 347–F 955 and F 3920–F 3924), providing brief individual descriptions and defining groups based on similar iconography. In the introduction to his catalogue, he mentions “various pottery fragments and other antiquities” without further elaboration, and makes no reference to the circumstances of the initial recovery of the pinakes.14 A few years later, Pernice inventoried additional fragments (I 1–I 186), added some new joins, and offered correct reinterpretations of some scenes.15 The Antikensammlung in Berlin has about 60 pinakes on permanent display. Since the late 19th century, some pinakes have been on longterm loan to German university museums, such as a group of eight at the Akademisches Kunstmuseum in Bonn (F 369, F 377–F 379, F 478, F 531, F 679, F 825) and another group of eight in Göttingen (F 384, F 420, F 520, F 584, F 613 [A18], F 883, F 898, I 3).16 Between 1886 and 1901, about 190 pinakes from Berlin, mostly representations of Poseidon and potters at work, were briefly discussed by Fränkel and illustrated in Antike Denkmäler; these have been routinely reproduced in later discussions.17 10. For a useful survey of the term

βόθρος in ancient Greek sources, see

Ekroth 2002, pp. 60–74: “a bothros was a sacrificial pit, i.e., a hole in the ground into which libations were poured, the most prominent being the blood of the sacrificial victims. Sacrifices could also be burnt in the bothros” (p. 60). According to the LSJ, a βόθρος is a hole, trench, or pit dug in the ground; it can be translated as “hollow,” “grave,” or “ritual pit for offerings to the subterranean gods.” Bothroi are closely associated with cults of heroes, the deceased, the chthonian divinities, and the winds, appearing both in funerary and religious contexts; see also Patera 2012, pp. 193–248. 11. Furtwängler 1885, p. 47. Bouma (1996, pp. 30–55, esp. p. 51), provides a translation of the definitions from Hackens’s (1963) list of votive

depositions corresponding with ancient terms: “favissae, cavities near a temple, originally used as water reservoirs; fossa, a simple pit or hole dug in the soil; bothros, a pit containing the depositions of remains of a sacrifice, deposited immediately after its completion; thysiae, separate depositions of the remains of each single sacrifice; stips, an offering with the sacred character of money or of sacred material comprising money.” Osborne (2004) urges greater attention to the study of votive deposition as part of the “social life of things.” 12. In one experiment, 80 fragments of clay pinakes similar in size to the Penteskouphia pinakes could easily fit in a small banker’s box (L. 0.46 × W. 0.30 × H. 0.26 m). For comparison, pit A (of Classical date) at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on

Acrocorinth (1.70 long × 0.85 wide × 0.50 m deep, with an area of 0.72 m3) contained ca. 90 votives, mostly of miniature size (Corinth XVIII.3, p. 161). 13. Milchhöfer 1882. See below, p. 24, for a more detailed account of the years following the initial recovery of the pinakes. 14. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 47–105, 999–1000. 15. Pernice 1897. 16. CVA, Göttingen 2 [Germany 73], pls. 20, 21 [3663, 3664]. One pinax (F 390) at the Archäologisches Museum in Münster was lost during World War II. 17. AntDenk I [1886], pp. 3–4, pls. 7, 8; II [1893–1894], p. 8, pls. 23, 24; II [1895–1898], p. 6, pls. 29, 30; II [1899–1901], p. 3, pls. 39, 40.

6

c hap t er 1

Very few other pinakes from the Berlin collection have been illustrated or published since then.18 In the 1880s, 16 pinakes were acquired by the Musée du Louvre in Paris (CA 452, MNB 2856–MNB 2859, MNC 206–MNC 216), and received brief treatments in early publications of the museum.19 They are now all on permanent display in the museum, and very good illustrations, along with dimensions, are also available on the museum website.20 The third collection, comprising about 400 fragments, is held in the Corinth Museum (C-1963-100 to C-1963-452 and “ca. 112 (additional) fragments of no artistic value”).21 The Corinthian group consists of pinax fragments collected during the three-day excavation by the ASCSA at Penteskouphia in 1905, as well as stray finds recovered by later visitors to the site. Only a small number of the Corinthian fragments have been published, and none are on display in the Corinth Museum.22 Over 130 years since their initial discovery, then, despite some isolated efforts, this extraordinary group of pinakes has not received comprehensive study or publication, either in its entirety or in any of its thematic subsets. In part this is due to the difficulty of studying an assemblage that is dispersed among three European museums. While there are three separate collections, unequal in the number and quality of preserved fragments, joining pieces of the same pinax are frequently found across them (examples in this study include B6 and B51; see also Appendix I). Because a limited number of select pinakes have been repeatedly illustrated, the variation in size, subject, and quality of painting within the Penteskouphia corpus has never been fully appreciated. Fortunately, however, many of the inscriptions on the pinakes in Berlin and Paris were published in 1882 shortly after their discovery, later reappeared as part of Fränkel’s IG IV volume (1902), and more recently received a thorough treatment by Wachter (2001) as part of his seminal study on non-Attic vase inscriptions.23 The absence of severe surface weathering on the Penteskouphia pinakes may be attributed to their short-term display in a protected area. If anything else was found with them, it was either ignored by the farmer or sold separately from the pinakes. In the contaminated pottery lot associated with the pinakes in the Corinth Museum, there were 42 sherds and two figurines. It is impossible to know whether the original assemblage consisted primarily of pinakes or contained additional artifacts apart from the pinakes that never came to light or lost their original association after being dug by the farmer.

P I NA K E S I N T H E CO R I N T H I A The assemblage of Penteskouphia pinakes occupies a prominent place in the history of Greek pinakes. Corinthian potters created an unusually large number of pinakes within a relatively short period of time and in a rather isolated area. In some cases they drew upon themes from their regular repertoire, but the scenes of Poseidon and of potters at work represent themes that are otherwise conspicuously absent from Corinthian vase painting. Numbering 1,023 pinakes, the Penteskouphia corpus is the largest group of painted, hand-formed terracotta pinakes ever recovered—not only from

18. For more recent photographs, see LIMC I, 1981, pp. 724–735, esp. nos. 1–4, 10–14, 25–27, pls. 576, 577, 579, 580, s.v. Amphitrite (S. KaempfDimitriadou) and LIMC VII, 1994, pp. 446–479, esp. pp. 456–468, nos. 103–117, pls. 359–361, s.v. Poseidon (E. Simon). See also Zimmer 1982a; Kiderlen and Strocka 2005; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010. Palmieri’s 2016 discussion of 200 pinakes, only 25 of which are illustrated, emphasizes pinakes already presented in Antike Denkmäler, with only two dozen or so new additions, mostly from the collection in Corinth. 19. Rayet 1880; Collignon 1886. 20. See www.photo.rmn.fr. Coulié 2013, pp. 131–132. 21. Von Raits 1964, pp. 2–4; see also Washburn 1906; Geagan 1970. 22. Geagan 1970 (especially when fragments join those in Berlin and Paris); Palmieri 2016 catalogues nine fragments from Ancient Corinth: pp. 172, 187, 204–205, 218, 220–222, 225, nos. Cc3, Fc2, Ge25, Gg1, Od2, Oe4, Oe8, Of1, P7. 23. Röhl 1882; IG IV; Wachter 2001, pp. 119–155, nos. COP 1–97.

Int r od uct ion

7

Figure 1.2. Select sites in the Corinthia. J. Herbst

24. All are in preparation for publication by E. Hasaki, K. Arafat, and E. Rompoti. For the Gotsi plot, see Protonotariou-Deïlaki 1971. Two pinakes reportedly from the Gotsi plot are exhibited in the Corinth Museum: MK 9370, depicting a figure upside down in an acrobatic position drinking from a cup on the floor and resting his feet on a short table (tentatively identified in the museum label as Ippokleides, a candidate to marry the daughter of the Sikyonian tyrant Kleisthenes), and MK 9371, depicting a female figure to r. I thank Vassilios Tasinos of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinth for kindly providing this information. 25. Over one hundred moldmade pinakes and three-dimensional body parts, dated to the 4th century b.c., were recovered from the Asklepieion (Corinth XIV, pp. 114–128, pls. 29–46). A small number (20 in total) of unusually small, narrow, rectangular pinakes with carefully inscribed words, often names, were found in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore and published by Stroud (Corinth XVIII.6, pp. 71–80). Both the function (theater tickets?) and the date (Early Hellenistic?) of these rare objects remain tentative.

the Corinthia, but from the entire Greek mainland. Although we cannot possibly know, without further exploration of the area, whether other similar assemblages exist, it seems that most of the Berlin–Paris–Ancient Corinth group has been recovered, especially since the Ancient Corinth material seems to have been presorted (see below, p. 72). The unusually large size of the group, coupled with the presence of unusual themes and a large number of inscriptions, justifies a close analysis of its overall character and of discernible distribution patterns. Pinakes have been found in very small numbers at a few other Corinthian sites, including the Potters’ Quarter and the nearby Gotsi plot at Ancient Corinth as well as at the sanctuaries at Isthmia and Perachora (Fig.  1.2; Table 1.1).24 The unusual quantity and concentration of the Penteskouphia pinakes are especially impressive when compared to the paltry numbers recovered at the four other Corinthian locations, which have been extensively excavated: 38 from the Potters’ Quarter (Fig. 1.3), 15 unpublished terracotta pinakes of Archaic date (depicting horses, warriors, ships, chariots, women, and centaurs), presumably from the Gotsi plot at Ancient Corinth, near the Potters’ Quarter, 17 from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia (Fig. 1.4) and the neighboring Rachi site, and 11 from the Heraion at Perachora (Fig. 1.5). In all, the pinakes from these four sites number 81. This sum excludes the moldmade pinakes from the Sanctuary of Asklepios and the ticket-like pinakes from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.25 The Penteskouphia assemblage, then, in terms of numbers, surpasses by far all other sites in all periods in the Corinthia. The 38 published pinakes from the Potters’ Quarter date mainly to the Middle Corinthian and Late Corinthian periods (see Table 3.5 for Corinthian chronology). Less than half (15) are two-sided, with different themes on each side. The iconographical repertoire includes Herakles, males/figures, animals, and furniture/objects; inscriptions are

8

c hap t er 1

Figure 1.3. Pinakes from the Potters’ Quarter of Corinth (Corinth KN-8, KN-18, KN-19). Scale 1:2. Photos courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 1.4 (left). Pinax from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia (Isthmia Museum IM 1251). Scale 1:1. Photo courtesy Isthmia Excavations

rare.26 Poseidon’s sanctuary at Isthmia yielded 14 pinakes, mostly from the southeastern area.27 All of these are small, one-sided, and mostly in fragmentary condition, dating to the Middle and Late Corinthian periods.28 The iconographic themes include Poseidon, chiton-clad figures perhaps also depicting Poseidon, a sea creature, and a helmeted warrior. Only part of an inscription, possibly addressing Poseidon, survives. Three additional pinakes come from the neighboring site of Rachi: a mold for a horseback rider pinax (IM 457), a moldmade human face or mask (IM 967), and a 26. Corinth XV.3, pp. 239–245, nos. 1320–1357, pls. 55, 56, 112–114, 122. The 38 pinakes came from a large excavated area equivalent to ca. 6,000 m² (ca. 30 × 200 m, as estimated on the folded plan in Corinth XV.3). They were concentrated mainly in the Road Deposit (11 pieces) and well I (12 pieces). Dipinti are preserved on nos. 1335, 1344, 1355, and 1356. For no. 1344 (KN-8; Fig. 1.3), see also Wachter 2001, p. 134, no. COP 34. One pinax from the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth KN-15; Corinth XV.3, pp. 239–240, no. 1320, pls. 55, 112; Amyx 1988, p. 29) measures 0.142 × 0.180 m, is decorated

in black-polychrome technique, dates to the Middle Protocorinthian period, and is attributed to the Aegina Bellerophon Painter. Another painter identified in association with these pinakes is the Chimaera Painter (Corinth KN-55; Corinth XV.3, p. 240, no. 1322, pls. 55, 112); one pinax may be by Timonidas (Corinth KN-46; Corinth XV.3, p. 245, no. 1356, pls. 56, 114, 122). 27. All kept at the Isthmia Archaeological Museum (hereafter, Isthmia Museum). The imagery includes Poseidon (IM 1251); chiton-clad figures possibly also representing Poseidon (IM 1100 + 1186, IM 2412, with a

Figure 1.5 (right). Pinax from the Heraion at Perachora (Athens, NAM 16636). Scale 1:3. Photo © Hel-

lenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/ Archaeological Receipts Fund

partially preserved dipinto Π[οτεδαν], IM 3067 + 1178, IM 3105, IM 3106, IM 7597, IM 8557); a sea creature (IM 2204a, b); a helmeted warrior (IM 7632a, b); and linear decoration (IM 5327, with stippled lines; non vidi). Jean Perras informs me of three other pinakes from the Isthmia sanctuary: IM 255, IM 2197a, b, and IP 9904. Karim Arafat kindly allowed me to illustrate IM 1251 here. 28. This fragmentary preservation may be due in part to the intense plundering that the Isthmia sanctuary suffered in the 1st century b.c. (Mylonopoulos 2003, p. 339).

Int r od uct ion

9

TA B LE 1.1. D I S T R I B U T I O N O F T ER R ACO T TA P I NA K E S AT A RC H A I C CO R I N T H I A N S I T E S Sites

Corinth, Penteskouphia

Corinth, Potters’ Quarter

Corinth, Gotsi plot

Isthmia/Rachi

Perachora

Total

Two-Sided

With Inscriptions

No. of Poseidon Scenes 1

1,023

367

163

350

38

15

3

1

15

5

1

–

17

11

0

5

1 1

1

–

Note: Data from Corinth XV.3, Perachora II, and personal study at the Corinth and Isthmia museums. 1 Poseidon scenes appearing on both sides of a two-sided pinax are counted separately.

moldmade crouching sphinx (IM 1028). Among the 11 pinakes reported from the Heraion at Perachora, the themes include warriors, male and female figures, ships, sphinxes, and a single depiction of Bellerophon.29 In technique, iconography, and general chronological range, the pinakes from these four sites closely resemble the Penteskouphia pinakes. There is also a similar relative frequency of two-sided pinakes and inscriptions at three of the four sites. But this is where the similarities end. Of the four other locations where pinakes are found, two (Isthmia and Perachora) housed well-established sanctuaries. The Potters’ Quarter was primarily an industrial site, but there were a few pockets of religious activity at the stele shrines that dotted the surrounding landscape.30 All were sites with long periods of occupation. Moreover, Isthmia and Perachora were adorned with impressive temples and other auxiliary buildings and experienced considerable regional traffic. The few pinakes at the sanctuaries were heavily outnumbered by the large quantities of votives in clay and other materials. We are of course unable to gauge the quantity of wooden pinakes originally produced and dedicated in the Corinthia.31 The four preserved wooden pinakes from Pitsa, found in the Saftulis cave on the northern side of Mt. Chelydorea near Sikyon, are isolated examples of what must have been a popular type of dedication at sacred sites in the Corinthia and elsewhere (Fig. 1.6).32 29. Perachora II, pp. 235–237, nos. 2267–2276, pls. 79, 80, 163, and p. 371, no. 4013, pl. 154). Five are twosided. No. 2275 is tentatively interpreted as part of a clay decorative band. Six Perachora pinakes are exhibited in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (NAM): NAM 16631 (no. 2271); NAM 16633 (no. 2272); NAM 16634 (no. 2269); NAM 16635 (no. 2273); NAM 16636 (no. 2268, the Bellerophon pinax); NAM 16638 (no. 2267, Early Corinthian, with traces of an inscription [Lorber 1979, p. 30, no. 30; Wachter 2001, p. 119, n. 400]). 30. Williams 1978, 1981. For stele

shrines, see below, pp. 280, 290–291). 31. Isocrates’ scorn (Antid. 2) of the painters of presumably wooden pinakes as opposed to painters of the caliber of Zeuxis or Parrhasios has been frequently cited (Boardman 1954, pp. 186–190; von Raits 1964, p. 18; Karoglou 2010, p. 5). 32. The wooden pinakes are in Athens (NAM 16464–16467). Pinakes 16464 and 16465 are both dated to 540–530 b.c., while 16466 is dated to 525–500 b.c., and 16467 to the third quarter or the end of the 6th century b.c. For the site, see Paus. 7.17; PECS, s.v. Pitsa (R. Stroud); Orlandos

1935; 1965, pp. 201–205, figs. 225–228 (with dates); Lorber 1979, p. 93, no. 154. Their inscriptions are also discussed more recently in Wachter 2001, pp. 156–157, no. COP APP. 1, and SEG XXIII 264a–c. In addition to wooden painted pinakes, there may have been wooden pinakes onto which lead cut-out figures were attached (as the Isthmia bronze cut-out figure of Poseidon, discussed in Chap. 7; see Fig. 7.11). For the famous cut-out bronze figures from the Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Syme Viannou, see Lembesi 1985.

10

c hap t er 1

Figure 1.6 (above, left). Wooden votive pinax from Pitsa, near Sikyon (Athens, NAM 16464). Scale 1:4. Photo G. Patrikianos, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

Figure 1.7 (above, right). Pinax depicting seated Athena, from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2582). Scale ca. 2:3. Photo V. Tsiamis, © Acropolis Museum

Outside the Corinthia, the corpora of pinakes that have been found are simply not comparable, either in numbers or in production methods. For example, from a roughly contemporary context in Athens, there are about 100 painted pinakes from the 6th century b.c. from the Athenian Acropolis (Figs. 1.7, 1.8).33 At the Spartan sanctuary of Agamemnon and Kassandra, about 2,200 moldmade terracotta pinakes have been recovered, dating between the late 6th and late 4th centuries b.c.34 The largest known corpus of terracotta pinakes, over 5,000 in total, comes from Italy, from the Sanctuary of Persephone at Locri Epizephyrii in the 5th century b.c. (Fig. 1.9).35 Both the Spartan and the Locri Epizephyrian pinakes were mass-produced with the use of molds, however, whereas the pinakes from Penteskouphia were formed by hand and feature hand-drawn compositions, often on both sides. 33. For the painted pinakes from the Athenian Acropolis, see Graef and Langlotz I, pp. 242–253, nos. 2493–2592, pls. 101–111; II, pp. 93–95, nos. 1037–1051, pls. 80–82; Schulze 2004; Karoglou 2010, pp. 16–31, nos. 1–117. For the nearly 160 Archaic relief pinakes from the Athenian Acropolis, most with themes of Athena, see Vlassopoulou 2003. Karoglou’s study (2010) also includes pinakes from other Attic sites, including the Athenian Agora (pp. 97–101,

114–118, nos. 118–133, 187–204), Eleusis (pp. 101–110, nos. 134–168), the Sanctuary of the Nymphs (pp. 110–113, nos. 169–182) and Sounion (pp. 113–114, nos. 183–186). More recently, Theodoropoulou-Polychroniadis (2015) presented 26 painted pinakes (pp. 202–211, nos. 147–172) from the Sanctuaries of Athena and Poseidon at Sounion. 34. Salapata 2014, p. 20; see pp. 46–62 for a technical analysis of the Spartan pinakes.

Figure 1.8 (left). Pinax depicting weavers, from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 2525). Scale 1:1. Photo V. Tsiamis, © Acropolis Museum

35. E.g., Reggio Calabria, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 21016 + 60831, measuring 27.0–27.7 × 21.8 × 0.9 cm and dating to 490–480 b.c. (Lissi-Caronna, Sabbione, and Vlad Borrelli 2007, pp. 427–428, pl. 134). For the Locri Epizephyrian pinakes, see Grillo, Rubinich, and Schenal Pileggi 2000–2003; Redfield 2003. A shorter introduction to the corpus, with impressive color photos, can be found in Schenal Pileggi 2011.

Int r od uct ion

Figure 1.9. Pinax depicting Hades and Persephone, from Locri Epizephyrii (Reggio Calabria, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 21016 + 60831). Scale 1:4. Photo courtesy Mini-

stero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo–Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Reggio Calabria

36. Pinakes from the Acropolis Collection of the National Archaeological Museum (with inventory numbers prefaced by Akr.) believed to be Corinthian include NAM Akr. 1.2579 (Karoglou 2010, pp. 69–70, no. 11, fig. 88; see also below, p. 199, and Fig. 5.10). On NAM Akr. 1.2578 (Karoglou 2010, p. 70, no. 13) Wachter makes the attractive suggestion that it was made at Corinth by a Corinthian potter involved in exporting ceramics (2001, p. 33, no. PCO 6). For the Sounion pinax (Athens, NAM 14935/3588), see Staïs 1917, p. 209, fig. 19; Boardman 1954, p. 198; Karoglou 2010, p. 113, no. 183, fig. 125; Theodoropoulou-Polychroniadis 2015, p. 202, no. 147. 37. Women must have assisted

11

Pinakes tend to have a rather localized consumption pattern, within the general area of their manufacture. Occasionally we hear of Corinthian pinakes being dedicated outside the Corinthia, such as the votive pinakes from the Athenian Acropolis and the Athena temenos adjacent to the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Cape Sounion.36 These are called “Corinthian” because their lighter clay resembles that from Corinth; it is difficult to establish, however, whether the clay (not yet tested for its composition), the maker, or the dedicator had any connection with Corinth, or whether the pinakes were manufactured in Athenian or Corinthian workshops. Interestingly, the craft scenes that appear on the Penteskouphia pinakes are absent from the vases that were the regular products of the Corinthian ceramic workshops. As the makers of the Penteskouphia pinakes signed the pinakes both as painter and as potter, and since artisans of different ages and skill levels in the workshop worked on pinakes, the generic term “potter” is used in the present study. Because men formed the core workforce of ancient Greek ceramic workshops, as evidenced in signatures, literary sources, and iconography, I use male pronouns to refer to the potters.37 The visual evidence for the display contexts of pinakes in classical antiquity is well known. No pinakes, however, are depicted on Corinthian or Athenian black-figure vessels, either contemporary with the Penteskouphia pinakes or in later periods. All scenes of displayed pinakes on red-figure vases were produced in Athenian and South Italian workshops; these clearly suggest open-air shrines, with or without architectural features.38 For example, an altar and a tree with hanging pinakes are depicted at a shrine to Chryse on an Athenian red-figure bell krater (Fig. 1.10).39 Two pinakes are shown hanging from a tree near an altar on an Athenian redfigure calyx krater (Fig. 1.11).40 Another depiction of pinakes in a ritual open-air setting, along with an altar, a cult statue of Artemis, and suppliants, appears on a South Italian red-figure nestoris (Fig. 1.12).41 And, finally, pinakes are shown attached to the walls of a fountain house on a South Italian red-figure calyx krater (Fig. 1.13).42 in the making of moldmade objects (perhaps even working in their own residences), or with decoration in the workshop, as the Caputi hydria (see Fig. 5.21) strongly suggests. 38. See van Straten 2000 for discussion and illustrations. A survey of the vase paintings with depictions of pinakes can be found in Karoglou 2010, pp. 10–14, figs. 3–13; see also Kossatz-Deissmann 2005. Many redfigure vases depict pinakes set up near a herm, e.g. LIMC V, 1981, pp. 285–387, esp. p. 301, nos. 92–102, pls. 206–208, s.v. Hermes (G. Siebert). For an example of a columnar shrine, see the marble votive relief from an Attic sanctuary of Herakles (Athens, NAM 2723; van Straten 2000, p. 211, fig. 17).

39. London, British Museum 1847,0806.54 (E 494); Hooker 1950; van Straten 2000, p. 207, fig. 15. 40. Berlin, Antikensammlung V.I. 3974. The krater, dating to the 4th century b.c., depicts Telephos and Orestes at an altar. CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86], pls. 34, 35 [4534, 4535], color pl. 2:2. 41. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 1760. Sinn 1993, p. 89, fig. 5.2 (mistakenly listed as volute krater). 42. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Monnaies, médailles et antiques 422, dated to the 390s b.c., from Pisticci, by the Dolon Painter: Richter 1970, fig. 199; Larson 2001, p. 51, fig. 1.4.

12

c hap t er 1

Figure 1.10 (left). Athenian redfigure bell krater (London, British Museum 1847,0806.54 [E 494]). Scale 1:6. Photo courtesy Trustees of the British Museum

Figure 1.11 (right). Athenian redfigure calyx krater (Berlin, Antiken­ sammlung V.I. 3974). Scale 1:5. Photo courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 1.12. Detail drawing of a nestoris depicting pinakes in a sacred context at the Sanctuary of Artemis Hemera at Lusoi(?), Arcadia, with daughters of Proitos (Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 1760). Not to

scale. Sinn 1993, p. 89, fig. 5.2

Figure 1.13. Detail of a South Italian red-figure calyx krater with a depiction of pinakes on the wall of a fountain house (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Monnaies, médailles et antiques 422). Not to scale. Photo courtesy Biblio-

thèque nationale de France

Int r od uct ion

13

S C EN E S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K : A CO N T EX T UA LI Z ED A P P ROAC H Since the discovery of the pinakes, scholars have been fascinated by their iconography, but the formation processes behind the Penteskouphia deposit have largely gone unexplored. The frequent inclusion in scholarly works of a few Penteskouphia pinakes having iconography associated with Poseidon, pottery making, seafaring, and warfare lends this assemblage a deceptively familiar appearance. Key issues, however, such as the findspot of the pinakes, the character of the assemblage, the formal characteristics of the pinakes, and the distribution of the themes have not been addressed. Anyone who attempts to discuss any subset of the pinakes must be intimately familiar with the entire corpus, including details of manufacture, iconography, chronology, function, production site(s), display contexts, and final deposition, as well as postdepositional history. Stripped of archaeological context because of their haphazard and illicit collection in 1879, the pinakes raise more questions than they answer about their makers, their users, their function(s), and the circumstances of their deposition. Mysteries such as their sudden popularity in Corinth and their short use-life remain equally unaddressed, and therefore unresolved. A contextualized approach to the Penteskouphia pinakes seems a useful way to start untangling their problematic aspects, ancient and modern. The present work aims to elucidate four contexts of the pinakes. First, Ioulia Tzonou and James A. Herbst examine the archaeological context of the pinakes in terms of findspot, relating artifacts, the formation processes of the assemblage, and the surrounding Penteskouphia landscape. Second is the pinakes’ iconographical context, both within the Penteskouphia corpus and when compared with Corinthian vase painting and non-Corinthian (mainly Athenian) imagery of artisans. Third, I look at the technological and organizational context of the pinakes, namely, how the visual record corresponds with the archaeological record of the technology and organization of pottery workshops. Finally, the religious context of the pinakes leads us to explore why the Penteskouphia potters carried out such intense and short-lived production of these pinakes and decorated them with Poseidon or with workshop scenes, when their main production line was devoid of such themes.

Ar c haeol o g ic al C on t e x t Since this is the first systematic publication of a significant portion of the pinakes, a study of the archaeological context of their recovery and the topographical relationship of the findspot to the general Corinthian landscape, especially around the Penteskouphia region, is of the utmost importance for reconstructing the production and use(s) of these objects. In Chapter 2, “Excavation Site of the Penteskouphia Pinakes,” Tzonou and Herbst address the thorny and obscure aspect of the archaeological context of the Penteskouphia pinakes and provide the first systematic study of their findspot, as well as a detailed topographical exploration of the surrounding area. It was important to establish the locations of both

14

c hap t er 1

the farmer’s looting in 1879 and the brief ASCSA excavation in 1905. The original discovery site was not marked, but it is assumed that the ASCSA excavation took place within or near the farmer’s site since there are joins between the 1879 and 1905 groups. Through a careful reading of the excavation notebooks and associated ceramics, as well as in-depth topographical research, the authors identify a small area of 1,200 m2 as the 1905 excavation spot and suggest that the Penteskouphia assemblage found in 1905 was part of the larger assemblage found by the farmer in 1879; further, it was coherent, concentrated, and close to the surface. Thanks to this new topographical documentation, the Penteskouphia landscape, once a barren land, is now better defined through its visible archaeological features, such as a Roman aqueduct and traces of the preRoman road that connected Corinth to Phlious and Kleonai. Interestingly, the Corinthian painter Timonidas signed both a Penteskouphia pinax and a bottle found at Kleonai, corroborating the association between these two sites. Once an untethered group of objects, the Penteskouphia pinakes are now anchored both to their findspot and to the wider landscape west of Corinth.

Icono g rap hic al Cont e x t While this study focuses on the Penteskouphia pinakes with scenes of potters at work, any meaningful study of an iconographic subset of the corpus should first treat the parent assemblage, in this case, a total of 1,023 pinakes. Moreover, the Penteskouphia corpus itself invites further comparison with Corinthian and non-Corinthian vase painting in general. In three chapters I deal with each of these concentric comparative spheres. Chapter 3, “Manufacture, Function, Iconography, Epigraphy, and Chronology,” drawing on the entire corpus, begins with descriptions of the formal characteristics of the pinakes themselves, including the details of their manufacture, size range, features (pierced holes for suspension or attachment), and decoration. Technical considerations, in particular, have been overlooked in most earlier discussions. This panoramic view of the pinakes from Penteskouphia leads to a more nuanced discussion of their functions. The pinax, as a form, should be regarded as a dynamically evolving medium that might have filled a variety of functions during its lifetime. While many pinakes were made to serve as votives, I suggest that some Penteskouphia examples, mainly the two-sided ones, continue a tradition of clay tiles serving as informal sketch pads in workshops. Preliminary drawings made by potters, or even apprentices’ sketches, might provide us with another insight into craft training, from apprenticeship to mastery. In terms of decoration, the pinakes are painted on either one side (the one-sided pinakes), or both sides (the two-sided pinakes); they depict Poseidon, either alone or with Amphitrite, warriors and horseback riders, potters at work, and ships. A few animal and mythological scenes are also represented. The iconographical themes display different distribution patterns when one considers the entire group or the subgroups of one-

Int r od uct ion

15

sided and two-sided pinakes separately. Chapter 3 concludes with a short overview of the epigraphy and of the dating criteria for the corpus. The majority of the dated pinakes (both in the catalogue of this study and of the entire corpus) date to the Middle and Late Corinthian periods, with filling ornaments and letter forms serving as dating clues. The brief but encompassing overview of all Penteskouphia pinakes presented in Chapter 3 is augmented by seven appendixes placed at the end of the study. Appendix I is the first comprehensive list of all the Penteskouphia pinakes currently in the three major museum collections (Corinth, Berlin [with some on loan to German universities], and Paris). This list incorporates all joins that have been suggested by various scholars, and provides dimensions, epigraphic citations, and dates. Appendix II lists the major iconographical themes and shows their distribution on one-sided and twosided pinakes. Appendix III presents the pairings of iconographical themes on two-sided pinakes. Appendix IV provides a concordance of museum inventory numbers and catalogued entries, while Appendixes V–VII supply concordances for the inscriptions on all Penteskouphia pinakes. A clear emphasis is placed on the percentages of certain themes, the presence of inscriptions, and the assigned dates. This statistical approach, always prone to change with new data or reinterpretation of scenes, helps to provide a balanced overview of the entire corpus.

Sc e n e s of Pot t ers at Wor k

43. General discussions of the Penteskouphia depictions of potters at work can be found in Wilisch 1892; Richter 1923, pp. 76–78; Hussong 1928, pp. 12–16, 27–30; Cloché 1931, pp. 40–52, pls. 18–20; Boardman 1954, 1956; Ziomecki 1958; Marwitz 1960; Cook 1961; Burford 1972, pp. 70–72; Duhamel 1978–1979; Zimmer 1982a; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, 2007, 2017; Scheibler 1995, pp. 71–120; Hasaki 2002, pp. 31–47, 434–452, pls. I.1–I.10; Stissi 2002, pp. 454–482, nos. C1– C104 (and some 20 more possible; see below, p. 83, n. 1); Vidale 2002, pp. 237–306; Greiveldinger 2003; Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 9–16; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 31–54, 205–212, nos. Κ1–Κ36; Williams 2009, 2016; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, pp. 112–122; Palmieri 2016, pp. 67–73, 187–206.

Statistical analysis of all iconographic themes on the Penteskouphia pinakes demonstrates that the pinakes with pottery-making scenes have been disproportionately prominent in scholarship, considering their modest overall presence in the corpus. Chapter 4, “Catalogue of Scenes of Potters at Work,” the core of this study, discusses for the first time all of the pinakes that are believed, with various degrees of certainty, to represent potters at work, a total of 97 pinakes with 102 such scenes (A1–A34, B1–B63). This is the first comprehensive analysis based on autopsy of this thematically related but physically dispersed assemblage, drawing on the collections of all three museums. Select Penteskouphia pinakes with imagery of artisans have been frequently illustrated and discussed, but these discussions were not based on autopsy.43 The scenes are presented according to the chronological sequence of production stages, from fuel and clay gathering to vessel forming and decorating, and finally, kiln firing. Additionally, a number of uncertain or misinterpreted scenes are placed at the end of the catalogue (M1–M30). The catalogue includes measurements and other formal characteristics of the pinakes, as well as discussion of the iconographical and epigraphical evidence.

The Im ag ery of A rt isan s

The scenes of potters at work from Penteskouphia constitute the largest set of depictions of any group of craftspeople at work from the ancient Greek world. The Corinthian potters placed snapshots of their daily routine on clay, the medium with which they were most familiar. Given the

16

c hap t er 1

omnipresence of pottery and ceramics in the ancient world, the relative scarcity of scenes of potters at work and, in particular, of kiln remains is noteworthy. In the absence of a handbook on pottery from antiquity (if indeed one was even written), the visual compendium of daily life in a Corinthian pottery workshop preserved on the Penteskouphia pinakes deserves a separate treatment because nothing similar, in size or iconography, has been found in any other sanctuary or potters’ community in the ancient Greek world—not even on the Athenian Acropolis or in the Athenian Kerameikos. The Penteskouphia depictions do not find antecedents, parallels, or later comparanda in the Greek and Roman worlds. If only for that alone, they hold a special place in ancient representational art even beyond Greco-Roman antiquity. Only a few depictions of potters at work survive on Roman pots, such as a jug showing a potter working at a turntable (Fig. 1.14),44 and on the renowned Italian maiolica ceramics of the Renaissance.45 In other cultures within and beyond the Mediterranean, scenes of potters at work appear primarily on nonceramic objects and do not come from production contexts: Egyptian wooden models and wall paintings from funerary contexts, 46 Roman wall paintings in domestic contexts and

44. New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery 1984.79.2; Mackensen 1993, pp. 64–67, fig. 12. The scene, an appliqué decoration, is on an African Red Slip ware jug (Salomonson type I/Hayes type 171) from the first half of the 3rd century a.d. A handful of schematic renderings of kilns/furnaces appear on Late Roman sigillata stamped plates that depict the biblical story of the Three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace. These furnaces look like open firings surrounded by a short wall to contain the fire, rather than potters’ kilns, and therefore are not related in any way to the potters’ world. Bejaoui (1997, p. 23) mentions a fragment in Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum O.039630 (p. 68, no. 20, fig. 20); a fragment in a private collection in Munich (p. 70, no. 21, fig. 21); and a fragment from Carthage (p. 70, fig. 21a). A fragment in the Museo Biscari in Catania (1040; Bejaoui 1997, p. 67, no. 19, fig. 19) is perhaps the closest to an actual representation of a kiln with its conical dome. Four more instances of similar iconography are noted in Salomonson 1979 and Garbsch and Overbeck 1989. Within the religious realm, it may be interest-

ing to note that despite the numerous references to pottery manufacture in Rabbinic literature, there is a dearth of visual representations of potters at work; see Johnston 1974; Vitto 1986. 45. Two maiolica plates at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (a) 1717-1855, a majolica plate by Jacope showing a majolica painter at work, from Cafaggiolo, Italy, dated to ca. a.d. 1510; Rackham [1940] 1977, p. 106, no. 307, pl. 5; Watson 2001, p. 51, fig. 3; (b) 659-1884, a plate showing a potter’s kick wheel with a jug on it, possibly from Deruta, dated to ca. a.d. 1525, with inscription: QVI SE LAVORA DE PIGNIATE (here pottery is made); Rackham [1940] 1977, p. 247, no. 746, pl. 118. 46. More than two dozen ancient Egyptian representations of potters at work, mostly from the second millennium b.c., can be found primarily in tombs as low stone reliefs, wall paintings, and wooden models. The potters are shown wedging clay with their feet, working at the turntable, and firing kilns. See Holthoer 1977, pp. 5–44; Arnold, Bourriau, and Nordström 1993; Nicholson and Shaw 2000; Doherty 2015, pp. 23–38.

Figure 1.14. African Red Slip ware jug depicting a potter working at a turntable (New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery 1984.79.2). Scale 1:2. Photo courtesy Yale University Art Gallery

Int r od uct ion

17

scenes on funerary monuments,47 and in more recent times, 19th-century Chinese watercolor prints (Fig. 1.15).48 Chapter 5, “Scenes of Potters at Work: Iconographical and Epigraphical Analysis,” provides the iconographic commentary for the catalogued pieces. Two-thirds of the Penteskouphia pinakes with pottery-making scenes carry imagery on both sides, with Poseidon or horseback riders commonly paired with a pottery scene. These scenes depict the most important stages of ceramic manufacture, from collecting clay and fuel, to forming a vessel, to tending the kiln. Each stage is reduced to its bare constituents, and is not combined with another stage in any one scene. The different stages of pottery manufacture are not distributed evenly among the depictions; rather, Corinthian potters demonstrated a clear preference for kiln firings, which account for three-quarters of all potterymaking scenes. Given that the black-figure technique of decoration, which relies so heavily on the control of the firing atmosphere inside the kiln, was first developed in Corinth, it is perhaps not surprising that Corinthian potters chose to emphasize the firing stage that distinguished their products among Mediterranean exports in the Middle and Late Corinthian periods. Some steps in the manufacturing process are omitted (such as the purification of clay and the unloading of the kilns), or are only suggested (such as drying), perhaps because they did not lend themselves easily to visual depiction, were too devoid of action, or did not require much skill on the part of the potters. Even with these omissions, the Penteskouphia pinakes with pottery-making scenes provide a fairly complete visual guide to how a ceramic workshop operated—not only in Archaic Corinth, but in most Greek cities from antiquity through recent times. Ironically, however, there is not a single depiction of a potter making a pinax, or using one. Next I consider the iconography of the Penteskouphia scenes of potters at work within the larger context of images of artisans and craftspeople at

47. Potters at the wheel are depicted on two frescoes from Pompeii: the first at Officina Vasaria di Nicanor (II.3.7/9), showing a potter at the wheel in the presence of Vulcan, and a second at Hospitium dei Pulcinella (I.8.10), showing four potters and a female assistant. For the most recent discussion of these two Pompeiian frescoes, see Peña and McCallum 2009, pp. 59–63, figs. 3, 4; Cuomo di Caprio 2017, pp. 131–162. See also Kollig 1988, p. 369, fig. 3. Zimmer (1982b, pp. 199–201, nos. 143–146) discusses the Pompeiian fresco of the potter at the wheel and Vulcan, a funerary relief of unknown provenance (Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts 60.2)

showing a man decorating a pot in the presence of a woman, and a funerary altar carrying the inscription of a Lucius Aurelius Sabinus Doliarius and depicting three dolia (the altar is now lost; originally from the Via Appia; dated to the 1st–2nd century a.d.). Even with the inclusion of two more scenes from funerary stelai with indirect references to pottery, the corpus is very slim and the absence of any depiction of kiln firings is striking, especially if we consider the impressive size, capacity, and operation of Roman kilns for terra sigillata. For sigillata kilns, see Vernhet 1981; Cuomo di Caprio 2017, pp. 346–365. 48. Porcelain manufacturing

processes are shown on 24 watercolors in the British Museum in London (1946,0713,0.1.1–24; bequest by Miss W. M. Giles; average dimensions 39.5 × 51.0 cm). See Clunas 1984, pp. 27–32; Harrison-Hall 2001, pp. 21–23, fig. 3; Rawson 2007, pp. 212–214, fig. 156. For a comparative analysis of these 19th-century export paintings and the Penteskouphia pinakes, see Hasaki, forthcoming. Also created by a nonpotter is the 1774 Chinese treatise The Description of Chinese Pottery and Porcelain compiled by the learned Chu Yen (translated into English by Bushell [1910]). See also Allan 1973 for a 14thcentury Persian treatise on ceramics that deals primarily with recipes for glazes.

Figure 1.15. Collection of 24 watercolor paintings showing potters at work at Chinese porcelain workshops (London, British Museum 1946,0713,0.1.1–24). Not to scale.

Harrison-Hall 2001, p. 23, fig. 3; courtesy Trustees of the British Museum

Int r od uct ion

19

work, both from the Corinthia and beyond. A synthesis of Corinthian and Athenian depictions in handbooks of pottery and art is helpful for filling out the spectrum of the stages of pottery production, since neither set of depictions is complete. The drawback to this approach, however, is that it masks some of the significant differences between the two iconographical sets. The Corinthian set provides not only the most numerous, but so far also the oldest representations of potters at work from Greco-Roman antiquity; the Athenian (and Boiotian) depictions are much fewer, mostly of later date, and are placed mainly on pots and not pinakes. There are iconographic differences as well, even within the potteryproduction scenes. The Penteskouphia plaques emphasize the careful collection of clay and control of the firing, stages that were essential to the distinct yellow color of Corinthian ceramics and to the black-figure technique, an invention of the Corinthian workshops. This promotion of the humble and banausic—but ultimately fundamental—aspects of the potters’ craft was not adopted in the Athenian depictions. These focused instead, perhaps expectedly, on the Athenians’ strengths, the mastery of wheel-throwing and the delicacy of vase painting, thereby privileging the artistic aspirations of their craft. Images from Athenian pottery workshops occasionally display the interaction between potters and customers, while the workshops depicted on Penteskouphia are less crowded places. Moreover, Athenian potters often depict practitioners of other crafts on their pots, while Corinthian pinakes carry depictions of potters exclusively; the prevalence of different stages of production and the indifference to other craft depictions on the part of the Corinthian potters may be attributed to the specific circumstances that led to the creation of these images (Chapter 7). Corinthian and Athenian scenes of potters at work also differ in their depiction of the involvement of deities in their endeavors. The goddess Athena, protector of the city and its craft communities, was frequently shown visiting the Athenian pottery workshops. In contrast, Corinth’s major deity, Poseidon, although often shown and invoked, was never depicted with Corinthian potters on the same side of a Penteskouphia pinax. All in all, it is clear that Athens and Corinth were quite distinct not only in their clay deposits and styles of decoration, but also in their imagery of artisans at work and the incentives for their production. At the end of Chapter 5, a separate section is reserved for the inscriptions, mostly dipinti, that are preserved on 29 catalogued pinakes with pottery-production scenes. They include appellations to Poseidon, personal names of dedicators, painters’ signatures, the unique label κάμινος for a kiln, partial dedicatory formulas, and nonsense inscriptions.

Tec h nol o g ic al an d Or gan i z at ional C on t e x t As no Archaic pottery workshops have been excavated in Corinth, one must turn to the Penteskouphia pinakes to fill this gap in the archaeological record. After the iconographical analysis, the next task is to reexamine the scenes showing wheels, tools, and kilns as visual translations or renderings of the ceramic technology available to Archaic Corinthian potters.

20

c hap t er 1

Chapter 6, “Technology, Workforce, and Organization of Ceramic Workshops” examines all the production stages depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes, in light of archaeological, archaeometric, ethnoarchaeological, and experimental evidence, to complement the iconographic analysis presented in Chapter 5 and to provide a comprehensive understanding of how ancient potters really worked. I discuss the availability and composition of clay deposits in the areas surrounding Corinth as well as the archaeological and experimental evidence for the ancient potter’s wheel and its use. I place special emphasis on ancient Greek kilns, as 75% of all Penteskouphia scenes with potters at work show kiln firings. No Corinthian pottery kilns contemporary with the pinakes have been excavated, which underscores the value of the Penteskouphia depictions. The eight kilns that have been recovered in Corinth—most of which are now backfilled—range in date from the Late Archaic period to Byzantine times. The rectangular plan of half of them offers little help in understanding the Penteskouphia depictions. The Penteskouphia scenes of kiln firings invite a more technical analysis of the construction and function of the ancient Greek ceramic kiln. The kilns, rendered schematically, yet accurately, on the Penteskouphia pinakes, remained unchanged in their basic design throughout Greek antiquity. They belong to the most common type in the ancient Greek world: an updraft, two-chambered, wood-firing kiln of circular plan. Here I provide archaeological, ethnographic, and experimental data to make the Penteskouphia kiln firings come alive in the reader’s mind, while emphasizing the technical expertise that was necessary to control a firing and guarantee a successfully fired load. This discussion firmly establishes the identification of ceramic kilns on the Penteskouphia pinakes and should discourage the few, but tenacious, lingering misinterpretations of these structures as metallurgical furnaces. Fortunately, the dearth of physical evidence for Archaic kilns and workshops at Corinth is offset by evidence elsewhere in Greece. The archaeology of pottery workshops can help us address questions about the technical equipment used in workshops and issues relating to the organizational structure of ceramic production. The depiction of small teams of potters at work on the Penteskouphia pinakes reinforces the archaeological data suggesting that pottery workshops in ancient Greece were small in size, operated on a full-time scale, and were family run. This data, the signatures of potters emphasizing family connections, the imagery, and ethnographic evidence combine to produce a coherent picture of small enterprises operating full time and year-round.

R e l ig io u s Cont e x t In Chapter 7, “Industrial Religion and Potters’ Anxieties,” I move beyond the iconographical and technological issues to address the most elusive aspects of the Penteskouphia pinakes: why they were made and how they were used. Special consideration is given to the unique aspects of the form, some deviations from the standard Corinthian iconographical repertoire, the relative lack of Poseidon cult locations in the Corinthia, and the limited

Int r od uct ion

21

chronological scope of the pinakes. In terms of form, pinakes are generally absent, at least in large numbers, in expected contexts, such as potters’ quarters and the highly visited sanctuaries at Isthmia and Perachora in the greater Corinthia. In terms of iconography, the ubiquitous presence of Poseidon (through depictions or invocations) and an emphasis on pottery-making scenes are unparalleled in the history of Corinthian vase painting. What prompted the Penteskouphia potters to make this radical change, and why is it limited to pinakes? Finally, why is this atypical ritual and artistic behavior so short-lived and locally confined? It is very likely that both the sudden appearance of the ceramic workshop as a theme and the numerous representations and invocations to Poseidon are linked to the severe crisis caused when the Athenian pottery industry disrupted the trading networks that had been established by Corinthian potters, whose products had dominated Mediterranean ports for centuries. From 550 b.c. on, Corinthian pottery exports declined steeply, both in numbers and in quality. Thus the pinakes from Penteskouphia do not merely depict potters at work, but also potters in distress. Herodotus’s claim (2.167) that the Corinthians had less contempt for their artisans than other cities did may be substantiated by the considerable pride that the Penteskouphia pinax makers clearly took in their craft. Free of the stigma propagated by the Athenian philosophers in their discussions of the status of βάναυσοι and τεχνῖται, the Corinthian potters on the slopes of Penteskouphia proudly depicted the technical intricacies—and not just the artistic side—of potting. The pinakes depicting potters at work were made by potters, carried their names, and captured moments of their hard work—as well as, possibly, their business anxiety. This invaluable pictorial commentary on the everyday life of Corinthian potters provides a direct link to the ancient craftsmen themselves. Most importantly, though, the intensive ritual use of the pinakes by the Penteskouphia potters is quite atypical within and outside potters’ communities. Some of the pinakes may have been personalized “responses to specific circumstances,” which Karoglou suggests as one of the main functions of votive pinakes in general.49 These “specific circumstances” may have been the adverse times that the Corinthian potters faced when they lost their dominance in the trade markets. At about the same time, we should remember, the Corinthians began to imitate Athenian vases, covering their formerly prized yellow clay with a red slip to simulate the iron-rich Athenian clay.50 Although the increased ceramic activity in Athens sparked the decline of the Corinthian export business and ultimately dominated consumer markets both at home and abroad, the Corinthian potters left a lasting legacy of their craft by painting scenes of their daily lives.

CO N T R I B U T I O N O F T H I S S T U DY

49. Karoglou 2010, p. 3. 50. Payne 1931, pp. 104–113.

The subset of Penteskouphia pinakes with scenes at potters at work have a dedicated following among pottery specialists—including scholars of Greek iconography and the archaeology of production, scholars of ancient pottery in other Mediterranean cultures, scholars of the ethnoarchaeology

22

c hap t er 1

of traditional potters, and modern studio potters. The modern artisans often discover that they have much in common—in methods, technical equipment, and anxieties—with the potters of Corinth. This work adopts a multidimensional approach, using the methods of archaeology, archaeometry, ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and the studio arts. All of these different lines of evidence paint a coherent larger picture of the organization and technology of ceramic production in ancient Greece and, in some ways, provide the “thousand words” to accompany these invaluable Corinthian pictures of and by ancient potters at work. Extensive typological, stylistic, and archaeometric analyses of Corinthian ceramics (although not yet of the Penteskouphia pinakes) have already been published.51 The Penteskouphia pinakes, as a corpus, can contribute significantly to the study of a wide range of topics, such as iconography, the imagery of artisans, Corinthian topography in general and the topography of ceramic production in particular, the cult of Poseidon, votive pinakes, and the religious practices of craftspeople, whether long-standing traditions or responses to specific adverse conditions. Future studies of the pinakes—either of subgroups or, ideally, of the entire corpus—will, it is hoped, expand on the variety of topics touched on in this study. The expertise of many scholars will ensure that the wealth of information encoded in the pinakes is carefully mined and contextualized within appropriate frameworks. An example is Wachter’s seminal study (2001) of the inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes, which shed new light on them within the context of hundreds of other non-Attic vase inscriptions. Ultimately, it is hoped that such thematic studies, such as the present one on scenes of potters at work, far from fragmenting the information, will expedite a comprehensive publication of the entire corpus. A digital reunification of the three collections in one virtual location will capture some of their original integrity as a corpus and will contribute significantly to reducing the Herculean task of studying the hundreds of objects in their separate collections. Photographic collage, after all, was what allowed von Raits, who noticed joins between fragments in different collections in the 1960s, to recreate the original appearance of some pieces. Along these lines, the present study should serve as a reminder of the importance of a well-excavated and well-recorded context for any group of artifacts. The early looting of most of the Penteskouphia pinakes has considerably impeded both their study and our understanding of their makers and users.

51. Amyx 1988; Whitbread 1995.

c hap t er 2

Excavation Site of the Penteskouphia Pinakes by Ioulia Tzonou and James A. Herbst

Since their arrival in Berlin and Paris in the late 19th century, the Penteskouphia pinakes have generated much art-historical discussion and produced many theories regarding their purpose. The pinakes are often identified as votive offerings to Poseidon that were suspended in an extra­ urban sanctuary setting at the western foot of the Penteskouphia kastraki, a small fortified peak east of the village of the same name.1 Other than a single paragraph in an excavation report,2 relatively little primary evidence has been published about their excavation and the location of their discovery, though the absence of ancient architectural remains at their findspot and in the surrounding area has been frequently noted.3 Lacking a detailed description of how they were excavated, some have made assumptions regarding the nature of the deposit and the excavation. For instance, Wachter assumed that the pinakes formed a waste deposit that was short-lived, and that the excavators removed the entire deposit.4 The tremendous changes in the landscape during the last century, from both natural and manmade causes, have made it imperative to locate and scrutinize the excavation site to eradicate such false impressions.5 This chapter 1. PECS, s.v. “Penteskouphia” (R. Stroud); Boardman 1954, p. 193; von Raits 1964, pp. 33–38; Geagan 1970, p. 32; Bookidis 2003, p. 253. In 2001, Ronald Stroud, having been shown the site by George Kachros, took us to the site and suggested this study. Nancy Bookidis, Eleni Hasaki, Chris Hayward, Leda Kostaki, Betsey Robinson, Guy Sanders, Philip Sapirstein, Ronald Stroud, and Charles Williams II have kindly made comments on our work. Jeannie Marchand showed us the roads and sites near the Corinth-Kleonai border and generously discussed her work in the area. Yannis Lolos helped confirm the location of the Hadrianic aqueduct and offered much assistance regarding its finer points. Vasillis Sakellariou and his family, Thanasis Notis, Takis Notis,

and Menes Arberores led us to ancient features in the area. Gudrun Walter at the German Archaeological Institute at Athens also provided necessary help. All shortcomings remain ours alone. We dedicate this chapter to Ronald Stroud, a loving teacher and charismatic mentor, for sharing his passion and knowledge. 2. Washburn 1906. 3. PECS, s.v. “Penteskouphia” (R. Stroud); Milchhöfer 1882, p. 224; Furtwängler 1885; Geagan 1970, p. 32; Bookidis 2003, p. 253. 4. Wachter 2001, p. 119. 5. In August 2006, for example, earthmovers cleared two large areas of land within the ravine. Little has changed since then. One of these parcels is directly adjacent to and above the pinakes site.

24

c hap t er 2

chronicles the recovery of the pinakes and reassesses the excavation record of the site and its environs.6 A full and up-to-date account of the archaeological record—one that also considers more recent work in the area of Penteskouphia—was needed to provide a solid foundation for conjecture regarding the deposition of the pinakes. Any hypothesis regarding the function or iconography of the pinakes must acknowledge the place and the archaeological context in which they were found. Only once the site location and the archaeological context are established can one make synthetic connections to the area of Penteskouphia. Since no contemporary architectural features can be associated with the pinakes, the emphasis herein falls on the proximity of the site to the network of ancient roads. Specifically, we tie their findspot to a newly proposed course of the ancient road that ran from Corinth leading west to Kleonai and Phlious.

R E COV ERY O F T H E P I NA K E S The modern history of the Penteskouphia pinakes is complicated, spanning three centuries and incorporating many individual efforts. Soon after the pinakes were found, archaeologists recognized their value as more than museum pieces and sought answers about their provenance, context, and function. In Greece, Olivier Rayet and Arthur Milchhöfer separately investigated the circumstances of their recovery. Rayet recounted that a “paysan,” a farmer from the nearby Penteskouphia village, illicitly unearthed over 1,000 fragments of pinakes in the spring of 1879.7 They were secretly sold to a merchant in New Corinth and transported to Athens. From there, they passed into various European collections until they finally reached the Antiquarium der Königlichen Museen in Berlin and the Louvre in Paris.8 In Athens and Corinth, obstinate silence met Rayet’s inquiries into their provenance.9 Milchhöfer, whose account differs somewhat from Rayet’s, implicates more than one farmer in the looting and the selling of the pinakes. He visited the site of the looting and gathered specific facts about the conditions in which the pinakes were unearthed.10 They were found close to the ground surface, covered lightly with soil, tightly piled in a small area, and mixed with a very small number of other antiquities.11 Perhaps because they were found at the bottom of a ravine, Milchhöfer believed that the pinakes had been washed in from above.12 Furtwängler, who first published a substantial number of the Berlin fragments, noted that there were carbonized remains solidly clinging to them, that the fragments were broken in antiquity, and that there were very few joining fragments.13 On the basis of these few details, scholars formulated many ideas about the pinakes, some of which still dominate our conceptions of them. Milchhöfer sought to use the pinakes as a guide to the region, connecting the depictions on them to ancient religion, industry, and the land and sea.14 Because such a large number were uncovered in a small area, Rayet discounted the possibility that they were from a cemetery, and their preservation and quality led him to doubt that they were dumped wasters from a kiln site.15 Scholars recognized the pinakes as votives dedicated by

6. The excavation record is housed in the Corinth Museum. 7. Rayet 1880, p. 102; von Raits 1964, p. 1. 8. Rayet 1880, p. 102; Collignon 1886, p. 24; von Raits 1964, p. 1. 9. Rayet (1880, p. 102) added that if the truth were made public it would unleash a scandal in Athens. 10. Milchhöfer 1882. 11. Milchhöfer 1882; 1883, p. 40; Furtwängler 1885, p. 47. 12. Milchhöfer 1882, p. 224. Later archaeological excavation would disprove this presumption. 13. Furtwängler 1885, p. 47; von Raits 1964, p. 1. 14. Milchhöfer 1882, pp. 222–224. 15. Rayet 1880, p. 103.

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

16. Rayet 1880, p. 103; Furtwängler 1885, p. 47; Collignon 1886, p. 24; Pernice 1897, p. 9. 17. Heermance died of typhoid on September 29, 1905 (Lord 1947, pp. 104, 112, 380). According to an obituary clipped from a Greek newspaper (the header of the paper has been removed and the name of the newspaper is not known), he had left Corinth for Athens six weeks prior to his death. His last notebook entry in Corinth is dated August 18, 1905 (Heermance, n.d.). 18. Corinth NB [Notebook] 45, p. 105. See also p. 4, n. 9 above for an entry on the Penteskouphia pinakes in Bert H. Hill’s personal diary. 19. The 1911 report of the School describes her work on the pottery, though von Raits (1964, pp. 3–4) cites the date of the assignment as 1925. Later, the 1962–1963 report by Henry Robinson, Field Director of the Corinth Excavations, references the recent return of the pinakes to the Corinth Museum “from the ruinous house in Old-Corinth which had once been occupied by Mrs. Walker-Kosmopoulos” (Robinson 1963, p. 46); presumably, the house had been damaged in the August 1962 earthquake. 20. Morgan 1937, p. 552. Several inventoried fragments of pinakes kept in the Corinth Museum are attributed to Scranton and/or Kachros. 21. Corinth NB 156, pp. 57–61. 22. Von Raits 1964; Geagan 1970. 23. Wiseman 1978, pp. 81–83, 99–110. 24. Stroud 1992–1998; Pikoulas 1995; Lolos 1997.

25

potters, and accepted that they had originated in a sanctuary, where they were suspended from trees via strings passed through the functional holes found in the corners of many fragments.16 The overwhelming number of pinakes with representations of Poseidon and dedicatory inscriptions to him suggested a grove sacred to Poseidon. Because architectural remains were lacking and the pinakes were broken in antiquity, with relatively few joining fragments, most believed that the deposit did not indicate the sanctuary proper, but rather a dump from the cleaning of the sanctuary (see below, p. 279). Excavations and related topographical studies conducted later produced evidence to test these hypotheses. The ASCSA became involved with the pinakes 26 years after the looting when it decided to revisit the site. Since the School Director, T. W. Heermance, had just fallen ill and departed for Athens, responsibility for the excavation fell to Oliver M. Washburn, Fellow of the School.17 From August 21 to August 23, 1905, Washburn supervised the excavation of several hundred fragments of pinakes from the site of the initial looting on the northwestern slopes of the kastraki of Penteskouphia. Interest in these unusual objects and their findspot has remained strong ever since. After Washburn, no fewer than a dozen scholars returned to the site, adding to the record through further excavation, topographical work, and study. On June 20, 1908, George W. Elderkin directed a second excavation campaign and declared the site “exhausted” after one day, recovering very few fragments.18 On September 29, 1916, Bert H. Hill created an important and detailed map of the area from Ayioi Anargyroi to the excavation spot. Presumably after a visit to the site, William B. Dinsmoor Sr. amended a sketched map in Washburn’s notebook entries, which he signed and dated October 1, 1916. As early as 1911, Leslie Walker-Kosmopoulos was assigned publication rights to the early pottery of the excavations, including the pinakes. Subsequently, she collected surface material from the area, and she and her heirs maintained possession of the pinakes until after her death.19 In the mid-20th century, George Kachros, head guard and pot mender at the Corinth Museum, visited the area many times and collected fragments of pinakes from the surface at the site. After his explorations, Kachros often imparted new archaeological discoveries to members of the ASCSA. One such discovery led Robert Scranton to excavate a segment of aqueduct in the vicinity of the site of the pinakes on February 16 and 17, 1937.20 Days later, Scranton returned to examine and record the topography.21 In 1948 and 1962, respectively, Agnes Stillwell and Ron Stroud identified fragments of pinakes on the surface during visits to the site. Later, Helen von Raits (later Geagan) wrote a master’s thesis followed by an article on the mythological subjects of the pinakes.22 Since the late 1970s, important topographical work in the western Corinthia has been accomplished. James Wiseman discussed the topography and ancient features of the area, including the site of the pinakes.23 More recently, Stroud located ancient sites southwest of Penteskouphia, Yannis Pikoulas published a study of ancient roads, including the Phliasian road that passes through the area, and Yannis Lolos clarified the line of Hadrian’s aqueduct, which passes by the site of the pinakes on its way toward Corinth.24 Based on these sources and our own observations, we present here a topographical assessment of the findspot of the pinakes.

26

c hap t er 2

F I N D S P O T O F T H E P I NA K E S Our purpose was twofold: first, through a review of the archaeological record, to locate and map the findspot of the pinakes (Figs. 2.1, 2.2), in order to ascertain what precisely can be inferred about their deposition; and second, to consider their place in the Corinthian landscape in light of recent work.25 The testimonies of Washburn and Hill provide the fundamental facts about the findspot. Washburn’s record of the site and his excavation form the basis for discussing the archaeological and topographical context of the pinakes (Fig. 2.3; see transcription below, pp. 43–44).26 He described in detail the way to the site, the site’s placement in the landscape, and specific sight lines to other topographic points of reference. Hill’s map anchors the excavation site and related features to a landscape that has changed drastically since the early 20th century (Fig. 2.4).27 It documents the walking time from Ayioi Anargyroi at Anaploga to Washburn’s excavation site, noting relevant ancient structures and topographical features along the way. The site of the pinakes is located on the lower northwestern slopes of the mountain of Acrocorinth and the Penteskouphia kastraki,28 3.5 km southwest of the Temple of Apollo and about 0.7 km northeast of the early modern stone and mudbrick houses of the agricultural hamlet of Penteskouphia village.29 It lies deep in a V-shaped valley or ravine that cuts between the lower slopes of the kastraki to the east and the plateau of Nikoletto to the west, and runs north toward the butte of Aetopetra.30 According to Washburn’s description and Hill’s map, the walk from Ancient Corinth to the site took between 50 minutes and an hour. Washburn noted prominent features marking the site that still exist today; a shallow “theater-shaped nook” or hollow encompasses the site, near the bottom of the ravine, and is opposite a large rock that projects 25. All features on the illustrations were mapped using a handheld GPS unit overlaid onto the digitized topographical features from the 1:5000 maps of the Geological Service of the Greek Army (ΓΥΣ). Coordinate values for locating features throughout this chapter are given in WGS 84 / UTM zone 34N. 26. The pages of Washburn’s notebook entries were clipped out of the original book and pasted into the notebook of Hill, the Director of Excavations (Corinth NB 18, pp. 196–197). Presumably it was Hill who gathered the pages and titled them “1905 Excavations by O. M. Washburn behind Penteskouphia.” We thank Betsey Robinson for identifying Hill’s handwriting. See also von Raits 1964, pp. 2–3, for a partial transcription. 27. Like Washburn’s entries, Hill’s map had been cut from its original place and pasted into Corinth NB 18, p. 199. He titled it “Finding place of

the PS Tablets down the gully (37) [circled and referring to 37 minutes from Ayioi Anargyroi in Anaploga to the finding place of the tablets]—cf OMW in Excav. Journal 21 Aug 1905 (Cor. Notes #18-p. 196).” He marked the walking time to each significant location or feature along the road, such as Ayioi Anargyroi (marked KD for Kosmas and Damian), gullies, rock cuttings, rubble walls, the aqueduct, the path, and the “main road?,” also noting the visibility of the kastraki from one point. In the lower right-hand corner of the page, he sketched and measured two cross-sections of the aqueduct. He marked the findspot of Washburn’s excavation correctly with reference both to the “gully” (Hill’s word for a ravine, or the ditch at the bottom of the ravine on his map) that runs down toward Aetopetra and to the large projecting rock opposite the excavation, noted as a “flat table off which water falls.” The reference to water remains unexplained.

Figure 2.1 (opposite). Corinth and the western Corinthia. J. Herbst

No other report mentions water falling off a rock in the area and we have never noted this phenomenon in visits to the site during all seasons of the year. Although his map is unsigned, Hill’s personal diary entry for September 29, 1916, makes note of his work in the area and highlights the discovery of the sections of aqueducts (Hill 1888–1917). 28. Washburn (Corinth NB 18) refers to the kastraki as “the Kastelli,” and Wiseman (1978) calls it “Antikastro.” 29. Washburn refers to the village as Tria Spitia; his sketch map indicates the place where Penteskouphia village is today. Most of the houses of the village are abandoned, although a few still provide a summer residence for farmers or field workers. 30. For prehistoric remains on Aetopetra, see Corinth I.1, p. 108; Chatzipouliou-Kalliri 1978; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, p. 62.

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

27

28

c hap t er 2

Figure 2.2. Area west of Corinth. J. Herbst

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

29

Figure 2.3. Washburn’s excavation log. Corinth NB 18, pp. 196–197; courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 2.4. Hill’s map locating the Penteskouphia excavation site. Corinth NB 18, p. 199; courtesy Corinth Excavations

30

Figure 2.5. “Theater-shaped nook” and excavation site, looking east from the “main road.” Photo J. Herbst

c hap t er 2

distinctively at an angle to a height of nearly 5 m (Fig. 2.5).31 The hollow is over 1,200 m2 in area—a vast parcel, considering the excavation’s relatively brief duration and the available labor force—and there is no explicit indication of where the trenches were set within its boundary. However, as the account of the excavation unfolded, Washburn provided more specific evidence.

WA S H B U R N ’ S EXC AVAT I O N R E CO R D

31. The area’s center is located at 662,304E/4,195,114N. Interestingly, Pedley (2005, p. 39) notes that shrines are located at sites “often marked by a natural phenomenon, a mountaintop, headland, tree, cave, spring, grove, or massive boulder.” 32. Geagan 1970, pp. 31–48.

A thorough autopsy of the excavation record and artifacts is crucial for determining the nature of the deposit in which the pinakes were found, their immediate context, and the dates of the deposit and the site. When excavation began on August 21, 1905, Washburn expected the campaign to last a week or ten days, but the paucity of finds, or rather the concentrated nature of the deposit, cut his investigation to three days. He kept his excavation record in the day-journal format that was customary before stratigraphic excavation and standardized descriptions, narrating the work day’s progress and noting interesting artifacts. His descriptions, though sometimes brief, contain much valuable information regarding the archaeological context from which the pinakes were recovered. Essential relationships between his own trenches and neighboring topographical features are enumerated. Inspection of the fragments of the pinakes and associated finds from the excavation also yields important information regarding the deposit and the site. On the first morning, Washburn and three workmen excavated the area previously dug by the farmer, reporting that 150 fragments of pinakes were found. Along with the pinakes Washburn noted Protocorinthian and Early Corinthian pottery, as well as terracotta figurines. Geagan later joined pinax fragments from Washburn’s excavated material with pieces in Berlin, establishing beyond doubt that Washburn had found the farmer’s site.32 The exact locations of Washburn’s trenches and the farmer’s trench within the

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

33. Washburn recorded 22 workmen days. Today a team of three workmen can move 3 m3 of earth in one sevenhour workday. We thank Guy Sanders for this figure. Perhaps the 10½-hour workday that Washburn’s men endured allowed them to move 4½ m3 of earth per team of three. T. W. Heermance’s letter to E. L. Heermance, July 30, 1905, detailed a typical workday for him, Washburn, and their workmen; see Heermance 1902–1905. 34. Washburn 1906, p. 20. A number of pinax fragments from Washburn’s dig are inventoried within the series C-1963-101 to C-1963-452; the pottery is stored as lot 1233 in the Corinth Museum. 35. Rayet 1880, p. 102; von Raits 1964, p. 1. 36. The number of fragments from unexcavated soil is extrapolated from the published total of 351 fragments in Washburn’s excavation report (1906, p. 20), minus the 150 fragments that he recovered on the first day. 37. Corinth NB 156, pp. 57–61.

31

hollow were not included in the notebook entry. The edges of the trenches long ago yielded to erosion and are no longer visible, but it is certain that the excavation could not have covered the entire 1,200 m2 area of the hollow. Based on parallels with modern excavations with workmen, Washburn’s men probably moved a minimum of 22–33 m3 of earth during the three-day excavation.33 This relatively small volume and large area suggest that Washburn concentrated in a much smaller area, which he dug to some unspecified depth. The activity reported on the second day gives some indication of the location of Washburn’s trenches. Excavation with nine workmen concentrated on the areas both above and below the farmer’s old spoil heap where fewer ceramics and fragments of pinakes had been discovered. They then “dug a part of the day to stereo beginning at the ‘river’ and working r. and l. of X’s [the farmer’s] digging.” Reference to the “river” and to the “potami” in the second and third days’ log entries suggest that they were excavating closer to the bottom of the ravine, where there is a narrow, vertical-walled ditch or gully, between 1 and 2 m deep, that was cut by rainwater washing down the ravine faces. By the third and final day, with 10 workmen, the excavated area had completely surrounded the farmer’s looting site from the bottom of the ravine to the “brow of the hill” within the hollow that circumscribes the excavation. As excavation progressed away from the farmer’s site, ceramic finds became fewer and fewer, and no pinakes were excavated at all. Washburn made a final, unsuccessful attempt to uncover more pinakes, digging to the west on the other side of the ravine. Deeper probes to stereo on both the second and third days revealed no pinakes. At that point, Washburn decided that the site was finished and shared a glass of wine with his workmen, having deposited the pinax fragments and other finds in the museum.34 From this concise but informative record we can glean certain archaeological facts pertaining to the deposition of the pinakes. The evidence presented indicates that the fragments were mostly undisturbed in their place of deposition. The quantities retrieved by the farmer and those reported by Washburn suggest that the deposit was concentrated. The largest portion of the deposit, over 1,000 fragments counted by the original French and German reports, was removed by the farmer in 1879.35 Washburn gathered the aforementioned 150 fragments by redigging the farmer’s trenches on the first day; on the second and third days, as he moved into unexcavated soil, he retrieved only another 201.36 His fruitless efforts digging on either side of the farmer’s trench, deeper to stereo, and on the other side of the ravine make it obvious that the deposit converged on the farmer’s trench. Indeed, Milchhöfer’s description of the pinakes found in a dense heap affirms this reading of Washburn’s journal.37 The diminishing returns of excavation higher on the slopes discount the possibility that the pinakes were dumped from the “main road” above and washed down into the ravine: had the deposit originated from the road, 200 m to the east and 70 m upslope, the deposit would have been more dispersed. The massing of the pinax fragments suggests that they were relatively undisturbed in the place where they were deposited. Due to the lack of stratigraphic excavation, it cannot be determined whether the pinakes were found in stratified layers, as they may have been in a sanctuary setting, or were mixed in a single stratum, as they would have been in a dump. Only firsthand excavation could answer that question.

32

c hap t er 2

In spite of their efforts, the excavators of 1905 and 1908 failed to excavate the entire fill. Although Washburn thought the site was finished and Elderkin declared it exhausted, fragments of pinakes were still appearing on the surface. A total of 106 fragments were added to the collection after the 1905 campaign, attributable to later surface collection and possibly to Elderkin’s 1908 excavation, the finds of which were never separately recorded. For instance, Walker-Kosmopoulos collected surface material from Penteskouphia and perhaps another site (see below), finding an unspecified number of fragments, and Scranton mentioned five decorated fragments specifically, while many fragments are attributed to him and/or Kachros. As recently as 2002, fragments were identified within the hollow where the pinakes were excavated.38 It is therefore certain that the two excavation campaigns failed to recover all of the deposit. Nevertheless, Washburn’s excavation record, supported by the findings of Milchhöfer’s investigation, remains the strongest evidence that the deposit of the pinakes was in situ. It is impossible to say, however, whether they were found in their primary place of use, or in a secondary dumped fill (see above, pp. 4–5).

F I N D S P O T S O F S C R A N TO N A N D WA LK ER KO S M O P O U L O S Scranton’s work in the area in 1937 has caused some confusion regarding the location of the pinakes, propagating the erroneous notion of multiple findspots. Several days after completing the excavation of two rectangular manholes connected by a segment of aqueduct (see Fig. 2.2, Kachros’s aqueduct tunnel) at Vayeni, 550 m to the southeast of the site of the pinakes, Scranton returned with Saul Weinberg. They collected fragments of pinakes from the surface, prospected for temple sites without success, and drew a map of the area. Wiseman published Scranton’s map, which recorded two findspots for the pinakes, one correct and one incorrect.39 On his drawing, Scranton correctly marked one area as Washburn’s findspot.40 Then, apparently misreading Washburn’s sketch, which had been modified by Dinsmoor (Fig. 2.3),41 Scranton unaccountably marked a second area as Dinsmoor’s findspot.42 Given that Washburn’s drawing recorded the original excavation site, it is inconceivable that Dinsmoor was referring to another site when adding his labels. We find that Scranton’s map agrees with the sketch by Washburn and Dinsmoor in the placement of the excavation site, but that Scranton’s location of a second findspot should be disregarded.43 Scranton’s notebook log also mentions that Walker-Kosmopoulos remembered finding fragments of pinakes near the kastraki. Scranton himself believed her to be mistaken.44 If her memory was correct, it is in fact a separate and distant 38. After our initial visit to the site with Ron Stroud and Orestes Zervos in 2001, we returned with Yannis Lolos and Eleni Hasaki in 2002 and identified a fragment on the surface. 39. Wiseman 1978, p. 83, fig. 105. 40. The note on his sketch reads, “Place where Washburn found tablets” (same as Wiseman 1978, p. 83,

fig. 105:2). 41. Dinsmoor (Corinth NB 18, p. 196) labeled in black ink over Washburn’s sepia ink sketch the site, the rock, and destinations of the road in either direction. He also placed a north arrow and then signed and dated the amendments. 42. The note reads, “Ledge of rock

reported by Dinsmoor (Exc. Journal 1905, p. 196 loose leaf ) as finding place of Penteskouphi tablets” (same as Wiseman 1978, p. 83, fig. 105:1). 43. Likewise, note 1 (Wiseman 1978, p. 83, fig. 105:1), “A few Penteskouphia pinakes were reported here,” should be disregarded. 44. Corinth NB 156, p. 59.

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

33

Figure 2.6. Protocorinthian to Middle Corinthian silhouette-style pottery from lot 1233. Scale 1:2. Photos I. Ioannidou and L. Bartzioti, courtesy Corinth Excavations

site, since the kastraki is over 1.1 km away, and it bears little relevance to the location of the pinakes excavated by the farmer and by Washburn.45

CO N T EX T C H RO N O L O G Y O F T H E D EP O S I T

45. Indeed, other pinakes have been found nearby, in the Potters’ Quarter, and further afield, at Perachora and Isthmia; see above, pp. 6–9. 46. “Well C” and “South Stoa shop II” were penciled on two sherds. The contamination was perhaps the result of the earthquake that occurred just before the material was returned to the museum in 1963. 47. Kotylai: similar to Corinth KP-107, KP-198, KP-199, KP-282, KP-403, KP-1526, KP-2319a, b (Corinth XV.3, pp. 231–235, nos. 1286, 1268, 1278, 1290, 1285, 1279, 1288, respectively), and KP-740. Aryballoi: similar to Corinth KP-1523, KP-2307 (Corinth XV.3, pp. 227–228, nos. 1249, 1254, respectively). Pyxides: similar to Corinth KP-557 (Corinth XV.3, p. 232, no. 1274). 48. Linear skyphoi: similar to Corinth C-1936-743 (Corinth VII.1, p. 59, no. 213). Kotylai: similar to Corinth C-1936-558 (Corinth VII.1, pp. 39–40, no. 123). 49. Similar to Corinth T-1455, CP-586, C-1964-318 (Corinth VII.5, pp. 60–61, 66, nos. 128, 130, 172, respectively). 50. See Corinth XIII, pp. 156–158; Agora XII, pp. 88–89.

Examination of the associated pottery and other finds presents problems. Contrary to practice today, in which excavated contexts are stored separately, Washburn’s lot was used to store all of the surface and excavation material gathered from the area after the 1905 excavation. Additionally, in 1963, Henry Robinson noted that pottery from two other contexts had contaminated the lot.46 Therefore the associated finds cannot be used to date the deposit. In some cases, the assemblage may only be indicative of the date range that the site was in use. This said, the lot contains 92 badly worn or undecorated pinax fragments and 42 pottery sherds found by Washburn, Walker-Kosmopoulos, Kachros, and Scranton (Fig. 2.6 shows a representative sample of pieces). The main body of material in the lot consists of silhouette-style pottery, principally kotylai, but also fragments of aryballoi and pyxides.47 No complete profiles are present, and while the decoration is fairly well preserved, the fragments are often too small to give a precise date. The date range of the silhouette style is Protocorinthian to Middle Corinthian, with a preference for Middle Corinthian. There is no identifiable Late Corinthian material in the lot, but this may be due to the fact that there are no preserved fragments large enough to secure this identification. Among the Protocorinthian and Early Corinthian are fragments of linear skyphoi and kotylai.48 One Conventionalizing kotyle rim with teardropshaped buds in the handle zone dates to the late 6th to 5th century b.c.49 The only imported fragment in the group is a handle of an Athenian banded kylix of the komast shape (second to third quarter of the 6th century b.c.).50 Finally, fragments of two miniature vessels, a banded lekythos (second half of the 5th to 4th century b.c.) and a hydria (late 5th–early 4th century b.c.) take the date range of the lot from Protocorinthian possibly to the 4th century b.c. Given the circumstances, there is no way of knowing what originally came from Washburn’s excavation. In addition to the pottery, two terracotta figurines provide a date not more specific than 6th or 5th century b.c. These include a seated figure with flat body and broad

34

c hap t er 2

shoulders carrying a disk in the right hand, probably representing a cake,51 and a pot-bellied figurine with exaggerated features (Fig. 2.7).52 Washburn specifically mentioned the latter in his journal; because of the definition of its facial features and hair, it could date as late as the 5th century b.c.53 Due to the problems with the lot described above, and because Washburn was neither digging nor recording stratigraphically, we do not consider the associated material to be an aid in dating the deposit of pinakes. The stylistic assessment of the pinakes as Middle Protocorinthian to Late Corinthian remains intact for dating their creation and use.54 Thus, the pinakes were manufactured by the end of the 6th century b.c., though it is impossible to say how long they were used or when they were discarded. The assemblage of related finds could have been critical for the date range of the use of the site, but the contamination of the lot with material from outside the Penteskouphia area disqualifies it. More relevant is Washburn’s recorded reading of the pottery as being Protocorinthian to Early Corinthian; he was probably discussing the pieces of the silhouette style, which we now know to have continued into the Middle Corinthian period. The 5th-century  b.c. pot-bellied figurine also remains very relevant since it was specifically mentioned by Washburn. With that in mind, we examine archaeological evidence for activity in the immediate area from the Protocorinthian period through the 5th century b.c.55

Figure 2.7. Pot-bellied figurine (Corinth MF-3456). Scale 1:1. Photos I. Ioannidou and L. Bartzioti, courtesy Corinth Excavations

T H E P I NA K E S I N T H E CO R I N T H I A N LANDSCAPE The findspot of the Penteskouphia pinakes is located 2 km southwest of the Potters’ Quarter and the city walls of Corinth.56 Aside from prehistoric activity at Aetopetra, well to the north, and the pinakes themselves, there is nothing earlier than Roman activity documented in the immediate vicinity.57 Certainly, by Roman times, the line of limestone quarries at Tsakiri and Mavrospilies and the stretches of aqueducts indicate that the rich natural resources of the western countryside of Corinth were being exploited.58 51. The seated figure is Corinth MF-5333, similar to KT-6-22 (Corinth XV.2, pp. 45–46, no. III.8). 52. We thank Nancy Bookidis, Sue Langdon, and Theodora Kopestonsky for advice on the figurines. The potbellied figurine, Corinth MF-3456, is published in Corinth XII, p. 35, no. 153, with an erroneous find date of 1911 (the correct date is 1905). It is also referred to in Corinth XVIII.4, p. 128, n. 78. A terracotta horse and head mentioned by Washburn (see below, p. 43) have not been matched in the collection. 53. The figurine follows the “typical Early Classical style of hair,” that is, the hair is rendered “with few broad waves above a low forehead” (Corinth XVIII.4, pp. 42, 61). It is similar to Corinth MF-11065, MF-1969-388,

MF-12861, MF-12877 (Corinth XVIII.4, pp. 90, 92, 104, nos. C73, C87, C188, C189, respectively). 54. Payne 1931, pp. 97, 113; von Raits 1964, p. 6; Geagan 1970, pp. 34, 39; Jeffery 1990, pp. 131–132. Wachter (2001, p. 119) questions whether the deposit extends to the end of the 6th century b.c. See below, pp. 77–81. 55. Later surface material, including Late Roman and Byzantine pottery, is present immediately adjacent to and within the hollow. This is not surprising, given the substantial Roman activity in the area represented by the aqueducts, but its consideration is beyond the scope of this chapter. This material should be quantified and analyzed in an intensive surface-survey project. 56. Wiseman 1978, pp. 82–83;

Pikoulas 1995, p. 33. 57. See above, n. 30. Aetopetra is 1.8 km north-northwest of the site of the pinakes. 58. For the quarries, see Hayward 2003, pp. 19–21. Hayward suggests that individual quarries “remained operational discontinuously over periods of time that spanned centuries” (p. 31). Though it is probable that the quarries were open as early as the Geometric or Archaic period, it is impossible to tell which ones were in use at any particular time. The scale of the quarrying makes it likely that the Romans made great use of this resource. For the aqueducts, see Morgan 1937, p. 552; Landon 1994, p. 347; Lolos 1997. Works by Guy Sanders on Roman and Byzantine kiln and waster sites and by Sanders and

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

35

Other features—such as numerous springs and a lignite clay deposit—are not datable, but are indicative of nearby assets (see Fig. 2.2).59 Without contemporary features associated with the pinakes, architectural or otherwise, hypotheses regarding their placement in the landscape inevitably revolve around the proximity of the pinakes to the network of ancient roads. In what follows, we summarize the course of the Phliasian road from the city walls of Corinth and the site of the Penteskouphia pinakes to the next documented ancient sites in the Longopotamos Valley. In the beginning of the 20th century, at the time of Washburn’s excavation, two routes existed in the vicinity of the pinakes that connected Corinth to the Penteskouphia village. We analyze those two routes and find that the route directly adjacent to the site of the pinakes most likely follows the course of a pre-Roman road contemporary with the pinakes, while a successor to that road was constructed by the Romans further upslope. The Phliasian road passed through the western Corinthia, connecting Corinth to the central Peloponnese. Although its importance relative to other ancient roads has been hotly debated and well documented, it is regarded as a principal route in antiquity, and certainly supported wheeled traffic.60 The ancient road exited the city walls via the Phliasian gate, located west of Anaploga just above the modern road.61 Just beyond the gate, in the second ravine after leaving Anaploga, Wiseman noted the terrace wall of an ancient road (Fig. 2.2).62 This terrace wall is no longer visible, due to a quantity of garbage that has been dumped into the ravine below the modern asphalt road. Wiseman also conjectured that the line of the ancient road closely followed the line of the modern road around the northern and then the western slopes of the kastraki, passing in the vicinity of the site of the pinakes, Vayeni, and Penteskouphia village. From Penteskouphia village, the road ran southwest across the southern end of the fertile Nikoletto plateau, toward the northern slopes of Gerothanasi and the treacherously deep Smyrtorema. It skirted the western slopes of Gerothanasi and descended into the Kakothikas rema, crossing the next known ancient feature, a Classical or Hellenistic stone bridge. This bridge, which was necessary for crossing the steep-sided Kakothikas rema, the greatest natural obstacle in the route between Corinth and Kleonai, has likely collapsed and been covered by eroding soils from the ravine.63 Philip Sapirstein on clays will likely reiterate that the area was rich in industry and exploitable natural resources (Sanders, Yoo, and Sanders, n.d.; Sapirstein 2009; Rodríguez-Álvarez 2019). 59. Whitbread (2003, pp. 10–11) notes some evidence that lignite clay may have been found in the excavations of the Potters’ Quarter, perhaps indicating that local clay mining was contemporary with the pinakes. 60. Sakellariou and Faraklas 1971, p. 21; Pritchett 1980, p. 243; Stroud 1992–1998, p. 243; Bynum 1995, pp. 28–53; Pikoulas 1995, pp. 32–33; Marchand 2002, pp. 27–55. Arguments against the Phliasian road as a primary artery can be found in Salmon 1984,

pp. 3–5, 32–37; Adshead 1986, pp. 3–6. 61. Corinth III.2, pp. 74–76; Wiseman 1978, p. 81; Bynum 1995, p. 34; Marchand 2002, p. 41. Three blocks are visible in situ and several other dismembered blocks are scattered around the site. 62. Wiseman 1978, pp. 82–83, fig. 104. Hill placed this terrace wall on his 1916 map, from which we reconstruct its location on Fig. 2.2. On Hill’s map, the wall is drawn next to the circled number 9, meaning it was nine minutes from Anaploga. 63. Weinberg 1954, p. 131; Wiseman 1978, pp. 82–84; Stroud 1992–1998, p. 240; Bynum 1995, p. 38; Pikoulas 1995, pp. 32–33; Marchand 2002, p. 43. The bridge has been lost for nearly

two decades. Despite numerous visits with Guy Sanders to this now heavily overgrown ravine, we have been unable to locate the bridge. A sketch (Corinth Drawing #000-012) by Robin Rhodes, made after a visit in 1986, has been used to reconstruct the bridge for Fig. 2.1, 400 m south of the modern pipeline that crosses the ravine. If the sketch is accurate, then Stroud’s suggestion that the bridge has been covered by eroded soils is confirmed, because in this area there are indeed massive amounts of cemented marl that have washed into the ravine. We thank Ron Stroud, Robin Rhodes, and Orestes Zervos for sharing their experiences of earlier visits to the Kakothikas rema in search of the bridge.

36

c hap t er 2

Exiting the Kakothikas rema and turning west, parallel to the Smyrtorema, one traveled 1.5 km before the road passed between two hills, each with an ancient site. On the north side of the road is the hill of Kivouria, which has fragments of looted broken sarcophagi on its surface suggestive of a classical cemetery. In addition to the inscribed cover slab, discovered by Stroud and dated by him based on letter style to ca. 600–450 b.c., a burial assemblage of five ceramic vessels dating to the second half of the 4th century b.c. certainly originates from this cemetery.64 On the south side of the road, the hillock of Patima is littered with building material, pottery, and finds of the Classical period, including a perirrhanterion fragment and a fragment of a possible votive column capital, both suggestive of a sanctuary.65 From Kivouria and Patima the road turns south into the Longopotamos Valley, and soon thereafter into the territory of Kleonai.66 In the vicinity of the site of the pinakes, there are two candidates for the route of the ancient Phliasian road, here referred to as the “beaten path” and the “main road.” The route of the “beaten path” (Fig. 2.2:b–c–d– e–f ), known in the first half of the 20th century from the testimonies of Washburn, Hill and Scranton, runs directly adjacent to the deposit of the pinakes, and the route of the “main road” (Figs. 2.2:b–h–g–f, 2.8) is well upslope from the pinakes.67 The length of the “beaten path” is 2 km, and that of the “main road” is 2.9 km. While the “main road” is still unpaved today, it accepts wheeled traffic along its entire length. Its route from its fork with the “beaten path” (Fig. 2.2:b) to the crossroad of Penteskouphia village (Fig. 2.2:f ) is nearly 1 km longer than the “beaten path.” Both routes have the same change in elevation along their respective lengths (from b to f ). A survey of the course of each route and the ancient features nearby indicates which one existed when the pinakes were deposited. The “main road” supports all traffic through the area today. Many of the ancient features clustered along its route date to the Roman period or later, and provide some indication of the road’s date.68 About 700 m west of the fork with the “beaten path” (Fig. 2.2:b), the first ancient features to be encountered are two isolated manholes, south of the road and marked by fig trees growing in them today. The mouths of the manholes are rectangular, and the western 64. See Stroud 1992–1998 for the date of the inscription. For the assemblage, see Weinberg 1954, p. 131, pl. 31:a; Wiseman 1978, p. 82; Bynum 1995, pp. 38, 40. The group is inventoried as C-1939-366 to C-1939-370 in the Corinth Museum. Weinberg published the lebes, C-1939-370. The rest of the vessels include a semiglazed kotyle, similar to Corinth XIII, p. 306, no. D27-a (mid-4th century b.c.), and three round-mouthed oinochoai, one similar to Corinth XIII, p. 284, no. 459-3 (second half of the 4th century b.c.), one similar to Corinth XIII, p. 287, no. 472-3 (late 4th century b.c.), and a blisterware example similar to C-1969-186 (Corinth XVIII.1, p. 154, no. 387, late third to fourth quarter of the 4th century b.c.). Wiseman incorrectly attributed them to

Vayeni. The notebook description places their findspot at 1¾ hour’s walk from Ancient Corinth (Vayeni is only about an hour’s walk), in the same area as the bridge at Kakothika. Corinth NB 272, p. 13, reads: “Penteskouphi Graves. On Oct. 22, 1939, a man called Christos Tzanabaras who lives at Athikia brought 5 vases to the museum. They had been found he said in some graves which were located about 1¾ hr. walk from Old Corinth S.W. of Penteskouphi. At the same place was an ancient bridge spanning a small ρεύμα. G. Kachros investigated the place and reported that there was a small hill which had presumably been the site of an ancient village: that the graves and the bridge did exist.” Kivouria is located at

659,683E/4,192,745N. 65. Stroud 1992–1998, p. 240; Bynum 1995, p. 41. Patima is located at 659,808E/4,192,646N. 66. We thank Jeannie Marchand for taking us to these sites and discussing the area. For opinions on the location of the border between Corinth and Kleonai, see Stroud 1992–1998, p. 240; Bynum 1995, p. 44; Pikoulas 1995, p. 35; Marchand 2002, p. 48. 67. Wiseman (1978, pp. 82–83) points to the “main road” as the likely candidate for the ancient Phliasian road. 68. In addition, Henry Robinson discovered a Byzantine kiln waster site higher in the saddle between the kastraki and the fortifications of Acrocorinth. See also below, pp. 228– 230.

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

37

one preserves rock-cut steps leading down. West of the manholes, where the road begins to turn south around the western slope of the kastraki, there are parallel wheel ruts. These were worn, not cut, into the exposed bedrock, which is level at this point, and cannot be assigned a date. The ruts run for several meters north–south, almost parallel to the modern road (Fig. 2.8). For nearly 500 m beyond the wheel ruts, the slope of the ravine is steep enough—between 20° and as much as 40°—that it was necessary for the builders to cut into the bedrock to secure the roadbed (Fig. 2.9).69 In many places along this stretch, 2–3 m of soil and bedrock were removed to form the ca. 5 m wide roadbed while maintaining an even grade.70 The discovery site of the pinakes is seemingly distant and remote, 200 m west of the “main road” and some 70 m in vertical elevation downslope. Also downslope about 25 m in elevation and 50 to 75 m distant, is the line of the Hadrianic aqueduct traced by Lolos (Fig. 2.10).71 Two places with open sections of the Hadrianic line were marked by Hill in his 1916 map of Washburn’s dig and are still visible today. Further south, the mortar-andrubble vaulting of the aqueduct roof is detectable for significant stretches on the ground surface.72 Finally, at its southern visible limit, the aqueduct’s section is exposed in the wall of the ravine where it has fallen away due to erosion. A second line, Kachros’s aqueduct, exists above the “main road.” It lies further south at Vayeni, about 30 m upslope and 220 m south of the “main road,” with its two rectangular manholes, which perhaps tapped the nearby spring, or originated from Mapsos; this segment of aqueduct might be associated with the two isolated rectangular manholes to the north.73 Kachros’s line of aqueduct may be secondary to the main Hadrianic line, gathering water from other sources, although Scranton thought the two manholes might connect with the main line further northeast. There is little doubt that both lines of aqueduct should be assigned to the Roman period. A little west and still above the road, there are ruined walls close to the modern roadside shrine of Ayios Dimitrios that were identified by Wiseman as a Roman structure, possibly a villa.74 After passing Vayeni, the “main road” follows the natural contours of the Penteskouphia hill, running south-southwest until it intersects the road from Athikia to Penteskouphia village, where it abruptly turns northwest (Fig. 2.2:g–f ).75 The Roman features that cluster along the length of the “main road” are indicative of its construction date, but more interesting is the road’s meandering route, which closely parallels the Hadrianic aqueduct for 2 km 69. Pritchett 1980, p. 169: “on hillsides with a 30° or greater slope, or on slippery surfaces, wheels would not have been able to turn without the furrows [cut wheel ruts]. In this case, since it was constructed on such a steep slope, a leveled road bed had to be cut into the mountain side.” 70. Indicative of the earth removed for the “main road” is that in many places the scarp on the uphill side of the road reaches 2 m. 71. Lolos 1997, p. 279. 72. The earth moving carried out

in August 2006 destroyed much of the vaulting in this area. 73. Lolos (pers. comm.) believes that this line originates from Mapsos, a theory reinforced by the discovery of another portion at Paspali on the southwest slopes of the kastraki in September 2006. A local farmer led us to the site of a covered manhole that he said terminated in a vaulted aqueduct. The manhole had recently been covered with several large ashlars of probable Roman workmanship. 74. Wiseman 1978, p. 82. The loca-

tion of these ruins corresponds very closely to the metochi located on the 1831 map of the Peloponnese by the Expedition scientifique de la Morée, possibly indicating that the structure was a Byzantine church. We thank Penny Wilson and Amalia Kakissis at the British School at Athens for allowing us to examine the map annotated by Findlay, and Guy Sanders for this reference. 75. This portion of the “main road,” Fig. 2.2:g–f, was paved with asphalt in the summer of 2006.

Figure 2.8 (top). Wheel ruts above the “main road,” looking south. Photo

J. Herbst

Figure 2.9 (middle). “Main road,” looking south. Photo J. Herbst Figure 2.10 (bottom). Section of the Hadrianic aqueduct masonry. Photo

J. Herbst

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

76. Lolos (1997, p. 280) explains the necessity of service roads to the construction and maintenance of aqueducts. Pikoulas (1995, pp. 154–157) notes a similar relationship between a service road and an aqueduct near the villages of Platani and Gymno. 77. Part of the road has been paved with asphalt in the last 15 years to facilitate access to Ayia Marina. Ruins of an earlier Ayia Marina chapel lie 100 m east of the modern one that was constructed in 1953. Only the masonry style suggests that the ruins belong to the Ottoman period, and not earlier. The ruined chapel is tucked against a natural terrace below and 90 m north of the “beaten path,” and may not have been visible from it. 78. In August 2006, to gain access and clear land plots close to the site of the pinakes, earth movers reestablished part of the “beaten path” along this stretch. 79. Bynum (1995, p. 37) related searching the area after a fire in the autumn of 1992. Perhaps the trees burned then. 80. At 662,148E/4,194,848N.

39

around the shoulder of the ravine (Fig. 2.2:g–h). In fact, the circuitous route of the road is best explained as following the aqueduct, which had to maintain an even grade and elevation to effectively transport water to Corinth. A service road would have been necessary to transport the masses of stone and mortar that builders used to construct and to maintain the aqueduct.76 Further, the construction of the “main road” is typical of Roman works, which often require significant amounts of engineering and resources. The associated ancient features and its course parallel to the aqueduct suggest that the “main road” was a Roman addition to the landscape, constructed long after the deposition of the pinakes. If we accept that the “main road” was constructed in the Roman period, then the “beaten path” becomes a more likely candidate for the pre-Roman Phliasian road. Along its route the “beaten path” is found in various states of preservation; in some places it has been paved, while in others it has returned to a natural state through abandonment, or has maintained its original status as a dirt path. After it diverges northward away from the “main road” (Fig.  2.2:b), it passes south of a spring located within the churchyard of the modern chapel of Ayia Marina.77 Continuing westward, along the southern edge of the property of a modern house, the “beaten path” becomes a double-track dirt road that disappears into agricultural fields (Fig.  2.2:c), and beyond into the ravine. Today, the double-track road (Fig. 2.2:c–h) continues and joins the path to the “main road.” This segment did not exist before 1937, however, as neither Hill nor Scranton placed it on their maps. Because of abandonment, the next portion of the “beaten path” (Fig. 2.2:c–d) has all but returned to its natural state under the local scrub and vegetation.78 Its course, however, can be restored from the preserved ruins of the still-visible Hadrianic aqueduct that Washburn, Hill, and Scranton mapped alongside the path; all three maps show the aqueduct on the left-hand side of the path (as one travels from Corinth to Penteskouphia village) and then turning south toward the site of the pinakes. The deposit of the pinakes is the only feature with a secure pre-Roman date along the length of the “beaten path.” From the findspot, the three maps show the “beaten path” swinging south of the theater-shaped hollow. The slope is steep enough for the next 30 m that a roadbed must be reconstructed to ensure the passage of wheeled traffic. It is not surprising that evidence is lacking here, as heavy erosion is especially apparent on these slopes. Some 60 m south of the massive rock opposite the site of the pinakes, there exists, however, a natural bridge more than 1.5 m wide that allows easy passage across the ravine (Figs. 2.2:d, 2.11). Further south of the bridge, several burned tree trunks, the remnants of a forest or brush fire, stand to a height of not more than 1.5 m.79 These trunks seem interestingly foreign and romantically suggestive of a grove within the low scrub and loose scree of the ravine. After the bridge, the path of the roadbed is somewhat overgrown, but visible, as it climbs for about 75 m before disappearing again into a field of young olive trees. On the other side of the field, the course appears again as a well-established double-track road (Fig. 2.2:e). Its course weaves for a short distance around the hillocks of a low ridge, but afterward it is oriented mostly southwest toward Penteskouphia village. Two stretches of dry stone terrace walls are located on the left side of the road, but there are no clues as to their date. Further southwest, an outcrop of bedrock in the roadbed preserves one side of a set of worn wheel ruts (Fig. 2.12).80 Again,

40

c hap t er 2

Figure 2.11. Excavation site from the “beaten path” as it crosses the natural bridge to the south. Photo J. Herbst

there is no indication of their date, but the ruts provide testimony that cart traffic once traversed this road. The route of the “beaten path” then winds through a series of prolific springs, at least two of which have been tapped by modern pumps for irrigation of nearby fields. From the last of the modern pump reservoirs it is less than 100 m to the junction with the “main road” at Penteskouphia village (Fig. 2.2:f ). The road then continues southwest directly toward the ancient bridge and the Smyrtorema pass (see Fig. 2.1). To compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two routes, the “main road,” from its fork with the “beaten path” (Fig. 2.2:b) to the cross-

Figure 2.12. Wheel ruts in the “beaten path,” from south. Photo

J. Herbst

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

Figure 2.13. Excavation site of the Penteskouphia pinakes, from west. Photo J. Herbst

41

roads of Penteskouphia village (Fig. 2.2:f ), is nearly 1 km longer than the “beaten path.” Both routes have the same change in elevation along their respective lengths (from b to f ). Unlike the “main road,” which required extensive grading and engineering, the route of the “beaten path,” is consistent with the spirit of Greek engineering and follows a shorter, more direct course along natural, unmodified contours.81 Additionally, not far off the “beaten path” there are two accessible water sources, at Ayia Marina and Penteskouphia village, that would have been useful for watering draft animals. The only water source along the “main road” is 200 m away, at Vayeni. That the pinakes were found in their place of primary or secondary deposition adjacent to the “beaten path” offers confirmation that this route existed from the Middle Protocorinthian period to the 5th century b.c. Since the pinakes formed a concentrated deposit and were not washed in from the upper road, they may have been left as votives or dumped by the side of an ancient route that followed the course of the “beaten path.” The “beaten path” was a viable road that would have supported wheeled traffic at the time when the pinakes were deposited, while today’s “main road” was constructed much later, for the Hadrianic aqueduct (Fig. 2.13).

CO N C LU S I O N

81. Pritchett (1980, p. 196) states, “The ancients traveling on foot and by mules preferred the shorter route.” For a similar conclusion, see also Marchand 2002, p. 40 and n. 28.

The Penteskouphia pinakes were deposited near the end of the 6th century  b.c. by a main artery road that connected Corinth with cemetery and sanctuary sites further south, and beyond to the central Peloponnese. When excavated, they were concentrated in a small area or heap, and appeared to be mostly undisturbed in their place of deposition. The nature of the deposit remains a mystery. Early assessments of the preservation of the pinakes, which had ancient breaks and few joining pieces, led to the conclusion that these votives were useless garbage dumped from

42

c hap t er 2

a sanctuary.82 However, it is clear that excavators failed to retrieve the entire deposit; fragments continue to appear on the surface and continue to be lost to erosion. As long as the deposit is incomplete, little can be inferred from the fragmentary condition of the pinakes. It is possible that erosion removed a portion of an in situ votive deposit, or that the deposit indeed represents a garbage dump from a sanctuary. The pinakes may have broken in their place of use, or perhaps were broken as part of a ritual. Early-20th-century archaeological methods failed to determine whether the character of the deposit was ritual or waste. If, as Furtwängler speculated, the pinakes were already broken and worthless votives at their time of deposition, it is unknown whether they were transported from their place of dedication, though it is unlikely that they were moved far. In spite of the lack of architectural remains, we believe their place of dedication should be in the vicinity of the findspot. The confirmation of an ancient road passing by the site bolsters Schachter’s speculation that a sanctuary of Poseidon at Penteskouphia functioned “to proclaim and exercise control over north–south traffic at this point.”83 It is tempting to imagine Poseidon’s roadside shrine at this place with a grove of trees, water flowing in the streambed below, and the rock towering some meters above—but without further archaeological investigation and evidence, this must be left to the imagination.84 The time that has passed since the work of Washburn, Hill, and Scranton has not been kind to the site where the pinakes were found. The Corinth–Tripolis and Corinth–Patras highways have rendered the area a backwater of interest only to farmers and archaeologists. Processes of erosion and abandonment, along with the construction of new agricultural terraces, continue to alter the site greatly. The testimonies in the Corinth notebooks and the excavation material were critical in confirming the site’s location and providing a date range for its use. The work of many other scholars has enriched our knowledge of Penteskouphia and its environs, but further study of the area is needed to answer some lingering questions. The local chronological gap in the material culture at the site from the 5th century b.c. to the time when the Romans began utilizing the area’s resources could be illuminated by an intensive surface survey of the western Corinthia. Because the early-20th-century excavations did not employ stratigraphic methods, however, only modern excavation could address the remaining issues: whether anything remains of the deposit; if it was stratified over decades or centuries, as in a sanctuary, or dumped in a single action; the composition of the assemblage of associated artifacts, which could in turn suggest the function of the area; and, very importantly, verification of the existence of a road, its location, and proximity to the deposit of pinakes. Any proposal regarding the function or iconography of the pinakes should be consistent with the circumstances in which they were unearthed. 82. Of the corpus kept in the Corinth Museum, 14% of the 456 inventoried fragments have joins or are nonjoining fragments associated with other pinakes in the collection or in Berlin. There are complete pinakes

in the Berlin and Paris collections, but none in Corinth. 83. Schachter (1992, pp. 16, 47) assumed that the road connected Kleonai and the sea. Though paths might have taken one directly north to the

Corinthian Gulf, the principal destination of the road was Corinth. 84. For a discussion of several possible scenarios of primary and secondary depositions, see above, p. 4, n. 9.

Exc avat ion Sit e of t he Pent e sko uphia Pinake s

43

T R A N S C R I P T I O N F RO M CO R I N T H N B 1 8 The following is a transcription of pages 196 and 197 from Corinth NB 18, “Excavations at Corinth: Journal 1903–1907,” by O. M. Washburn, followed by a letter from O. M. Washburn to T. W. Heermance. Italicized notes in square brackets are those of the authors. 1905 Excavations by O. M. Washburn Behind Penteskouphia - Journal Monday August 21, 1905 Left Π. Corinth at about 600 with Peter’s boys Evangellos and George Sakellariou and Katchoules for Pente Skuphia. The place of deposits was easily found. It lies WNW of Penteskuphia castle in a theater shaped nook to the rt. of the beaten path to “τρία σπίτια” and close by it. On the opp. side of the small [struck through with line] reuma is a big rock sticking up out of the ground, at an angle of 45°, to a height of about 5 m. We began digging in the old schutthaufen85 from which we extracted over forty fragments before 9.30 AM. There are many fragments of Old Corinthian vases in the same deposit along with some Protokor. ware. Later in the day we found a terracotta figure, complete except for legs, done in the archaic style, with pot-belly and stub arms.86 150 frgs. of pinakes to-day which were deposited in the museum at night along with the terra-cotta and vase fragments. Later: This place is well down in a reuma which leads down from S. of the Kastelli. The Kastelli does not appear from the spot where the sherds were found but does from across the reuma and a few meters up the hill. From across the reuma also we can see the sea which does not appear from the spot. [Sketch plan with “additions to plan WBD Oct 1, 1916.”] [Partial transcript of O. M. Washburn’s letter to T. W. Heermance dated August 22, 1905; full letter transcribed below.] Tuesday August 22, 1905 Continued excavations with nine men, digging both lower down and higher up than former excavation. Fewer πίνακες were found however and in deep digging we have found as yet none at all. We dug a part of the day to stereo beginning at the “river” and working to r. and l. of X’s digging. Our finds were, beside fragments of πίνακες and vases, a broken terracotta horse, archaic style, and a rather good terracotta head about 1 cm high. Finds all deposited in museum at night. 85. German for “accumulated debris.” 86. A reference to the pot-bellied figurine MF-3456; see above, p. 34; Fig. 2.7.

Wednesday August 23, 1905. Continued work with ten [written over nine] (10) workmen on the same site. Fewer and fewer sherds were found and no pinakes at all as we advanced into territory not previously dug by X. We dug to stereo

44

c hap t er 2 nearly everywhere but found no pinakes anywhere in deep digging. We finished digging at night having completely surrounded X’s place of digging from the “potami” to the brow of the hill and having tried a little on the slope to the W without success. All the ground which promised anything has I think been finished. Sherds were brought to the museum and after a krasi a piece the work was called over. (see next page) [Hill’s map is pasted into the next page. Fig. 2.4.] [Letter from O. M. Washburn to T. W. Heermance filed between pp. 196 and 197] The Widow’s, Παλ. Κορ. 22, viii, 1905, 5:00 a.m. Dear Dr. Heermance: This is just a line to let you know that we have had no difficulty in finding the place of excavation, and are getting results. Last night I turned over to Agginares 150 fragments of πίνακες—most of them small to be sure, but many of them interesting—letters ΒΘΒΚΒ on one, a ship with oars and two sailors on another + eagles and παππάδαις are also coming to light and I suppose four fifths of the sherds are yet to be washed. We are now re-excavating the earth that was turned over before. As soon as we get higher up we are promised ολόκληραις There are many fragments of P.C. and O.C. ware in the heap but all are small so far. We also found a terra-cotta κυρία with distinct signs of being “in anderen Umständen” but without any legs.87 Workmen are the two Skleris boys, Evangelis and George, the pick Katchoules and today we take on Michael Marinis, our friend George Makris—I didn’t engage him—, Mitso and perhaps George Marinis and one other. As the work pans I thought it well to push it. Shall probably be here a week or ten days. Albanakes is coming up for a while today. Hurriedly, OMWashburn

87. A German euphemism for pregnancy. This is another reference to the pot-bellied figurine MF-3456. The figurine is not a pregnant woman since it is rendered without breasts.

c hap t er 3

Manufacture, Function, Iconography, Epigraphy, and Chronolog y

1. Two-sided pinakes (i.e., with scenes on both sides) are sometimes called “double pinakes” or “doublesided” (e.g., Boardman 1954; Karoglou 2010). 2. Karoglou 2010.

This chapter offers a panoramic sketch of the entire corpus of Penteskouphia pinakes in an attempt to reunite for the first time, at least on paper, all the pinakes that are currently dispersed in three countries. This comprehensive treatment is based on personal examination of the pinakes kept in Berlin and Ancient Corinth, as well as visual examination of the Paris pinakes in their museum showcases. The total count is impressive: there are over 1,200 pieces, accounting for a minimum of 1,023 pinakes. The 656 one-sided examples and 367 two-sided ones carry a total of 1,390 scenes.1 The Penteskouphia assemblage as a whole and the subset of pinakes with pottery-production scenes, which forms the core of the present study, display similar physical characteristics, decoration techniques, scene placement, use of inscriptions, and iconographical and chronological range. Treating the scenes of potters at work in this study separately from their parent corpus is warranted, due to their uniqueness in Corinthian iconography, yet it would be misleading to divorce them fully from the entire group. In this chapter, I present the different stages of making and decorating a pinax, using both catalogued and uncatalogued examples to illustrate various technical features. In some cases, I compare the Penteskouphia pinakes with those from the Athenian Acropolis and other sites in Attica to highlight similarities and differences, in terms of physical characteristics and decoration, in the production of pinakes at the two major ceramic production centers of Archaic Greece. The Attic corpus is sizable, roughly contemporary with the Corinthian pinakes, and has recently been published.2 I explore a list of possible functions that a clay plaque can fulfill within and beyond a pottery workshop, from technical aids to votives, paying special attention to the two-sided pinakes. I return to the ritual setting for the votive use of the pinakes in Chapter 7 (see below, pp. 283–293). To best present the data, I have compiled three Appendixes (I–III), where newly obtained data and previously published information, as well as statistics on theme distribution and theme pairings, are available in one place. Appendix I lists the pieces according to inventory number(s) and includes measurements, iconographical themes, epigraphical references, and, when available, assigned dates. Appendix II tabulates the distribution of themes between one-sided and two-sided pinakes, while Appendix III presents the combinations of themes on two-sided pinakes. The sheer size

46

c hap t er 3

of the data set, unattested elsewhere in the Greek world, and the iconographical analysis regarding the distribution and combination of themes, especially on the two-sided pinakes, help to highlight both general patterns and exceptional cases within the assemblage. A more detailed iconographical examination of all Penteskouphia scenes in the context of connoisseurship in Corinthian vase painting and comparative iconographical studies with other Corinthian representational arts lies beyond the scope of this study. It is hoped, however, that the first attempt at a statistical analysis of all scenes on the Penteskouphia pinakes (Appendix II and Table 3.3; Fig. 3.33) will not only help to contextualize the subset of scenes with potters at work within its parent group, but will also provide an important foundation for future in-depth study of other iconographical themes. In terms of epigraphical information, the present study adds only a handful of new examples to Wachter’s masterful treatment of the inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes. In order to facilitate the use of previous publications, I have provided several concordances (Appendixes V–VII). The destruction of the ancient context caused by the looting of the pinakes has impeded a more nuanced treatment of their chronology. While the latest context date of the deposit, as discussed in the previous chapter, places the deposit in the 5th century b.c., stylistic and epigraphical considerations date the majority of the pinakes to the Middle and Late Corinthian periods (see below, pp. 77–81).

T H E M A K I N G O F A P EN T E S KO U P H I A P I NAX Initial publications of the Penteskouphia pinakes kept in Berlin and Paris emphasized their iconography, with very little attention paid to their technical details or formal characteristics, such as dimensions. I now shift the discussion to the production of a pinax, following the manufacturing sequence from forming to firing, and situate both its shaping and its decoration within the context of Corinthian fine-ware pottery workshops, especially those specializing in drinking vessels such as kraters, jugs, and kotylai.3 The Corinthian column krater (κρατήρ κορινθιουργής) is the hallmark shape that Corinthian potters introduced into the pottery market.4 Looking at a small sample of Corinthian column kraters we can readily see the same themes as those prevalent on the Penteskouphia pinakes:5 the Middle Corinthian krater by the Memnon Painter (Paris, Louvre E 634) depicts a 3. Amyx 1988, pp. 365, 383. 4. For the development of the shape, see Bakir 1974; Amyx 1988, pp. 504– 512. For the different types of kraters in ancient Greece, see Kanowski 1984, pp. 67–68. 5. For the forming stages of a column krater, see Schreiber 1999, pp. 129–135. For a brief selection of column kraters from the Middle and Late Corinthian periods whose themes in the top figural register correspond closely to those depicted on the pinakes,

see: Paris, Louvre E 632 (A: padded dancers and revelers; B: stacked kraters and men) and London, British Museum 1867,0508.860 (A: return of Hephaistos; B: fight with chariot) by the Ophelandros Painter; Berlin, Antikensammlung F 1147 (A: duel of Achilles and Memnon; B: horseback riders and flying birds) and Corinth CP-2034 (A: running hoplites between horseback riders; B: horseback riders) by the Memnon Painter; Basel, Antikenmuseum BS 451 (A: departure of chariot; B:

horseback riders) and London, British Museum 1836,0224.248 (A: swan between panthers; B: swan between griffins) by the Athena Painter; from the Late Corinthian period: Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 919.5.144 (A: hoplites with spears between horseback riders; B: horseback riders) by the Hippolytos Painter; Florence, Museo Archeologico 4198 (A: banquet; B: horseback riders with hoplites) by the Sphortos Painter. For relevant bibliography on these kraters, see Amyx 1988, pp. 233–235,

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

47

Figure 3.1 (above, left). Corinthian column krater with male and female figures (Paris, Louvre E 634).

Scale 1:5. Photo courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY

Figure 3.2 (above, right). Corinthian column krater with warriors (Paris, Louvre E 627). Scale ca. 1:5. Photo

courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY

Figure 3.3 (right). Corinthian column krater with horseback riders (Paris, Louvre E 633). Scale ca. 1:5.

Photo courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMNGrand Palais/Art Resource, NY

262, 265–266. Cf. also the handle plates illustrated from the Anaploga well, similar to pinakes in size (Corinth VII.2, pp. 75–76, nos. 315–319, pl. 40). On the genesis of the column krater, see Callipolitis-Feytmans 1977; Holmberg and Pasquier 1984. As an example of an Early Corinthian krater, see the “Eurytios” krater, Paris, Louvre E 635 (A: Herakles banqueting in the house of Eurytios; B: suicide of Ajax), with Bakir 1974, esp. pls. 7, 10, 14–16; Amyx 1988, pp. 147, 378; Coulié 2013, pp. 124–125.

series of draped male figures facing female figures with similar iconography as Poseidon and Amphitrite on the pinakes (Fig. 3.1). The name vase of the Painter of Louvre E 627, a Middle Corinthian krater, carries a scene of warriors on the top frieze (Fig. 3.2). On a third Middle Corinthian krater (Paris, Louvre E 633), a group of horseback riders occupies the top frieze (Fig. 3.3). The average size of a Penteskouphia pinax is similar to that of a handle plate of a Corinthian column krater, placed above the handles and flush with the rim (Fig. 3.4). In these pottery workshops, a pinax could be the repurposed handle plate of a column krater. Situating the pinakes in the workshops that produced column kraters and drinking wares finds further support in iconographic evidence, and,

48

c hap t er 3

indirectly, in epigraphical evidence as well. When a vessel is depicted in a scene of potters at the wheel, it is invariably a sympotic shape, such as a column krater (B9), jug (B8), kotyle (B10), or dinos (B15). Finally, potters specializing in Corinthian kraters frequently inscribed their works. Among all Corinthian ceramics, column kraters and the Penteskouphia pinakes carry the largest number of inscriptions. Finally, Amyx observed close stylistic similarities between the kylikes of the Gorgones Group and the work of Timonidas, a potter working both in pottery and pinakes, and associated him with the production of kylikes.6 When it comes to making a pinax, everyone in the workshop could take a small quantity of clay and flatten it out, but only those with some exposure to vase painting could actually decorate it. The signatures preserved highlight both the decorative aspect (egrapsen signatures) and the more general production aspect (variants of epoiesen signatures).7 In this study, therefore, I use the umbrella term “potter” to refer to the person(s) who formed and painted the pinakes, regardless of their specialized role or level of skill within the workshop. In this way, the intimate connection of a pinax with the entire workforce of the pottery establishment is highlighted. Two distinct types of clay were used for making the pinakes: the yellowish clay typically associated with the Corinthia, which often contains large lime inclusions (Diam. >0.5 cm) that have caused lime spalling on the surface (e.g., A2, B2, B29), and a second type that has a reddish hue and is normally very fine, with minimal inclusions. The Munsell readings for these clays range from 7.5YR 7/4 (pink) to 10YR 7/4 (very pale brown). No scientific analyses have been conducted on the Penteskouphia pinakes to possibly link them with known Corinthian clay deposits.8 Furtwängler, in his preliminary presentation of the Penteskouphia pinakes in Berlin, identified five distinct groups of pinakes, based on the color of the fired clay, the technique used for the decoration, and the level of artistic skill. The color of the fired clay, however, is not a reliable criterion, since the same clay can fire to different hues as a result of temperatures and atmospheres attained inside the kiln. His groups were as follows: Green clay, much of the slip worn off, with clumsy, caricature-like drawing (“Thon grün, der Firnis meist abgefallen, ungeschickte caricaturartige Zeichnung”); Greenish-yellow clay with the beautiful slip shiny yellow brown, and the added red more purple (“Thon grünlichgelb, glatt; der

Figure 3.4. Handle plates of a Corinthian column krater (Paris, Louvre E 634). Scale 1:2. Photo T. Querrec,

courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY

6. Amyx 1988, p. 383: “It does not seem unlikely that one day we shall find kylikes that were painted by Timonidas himself.” 7. For the discussion on potters’ signatures, see below, pp. 218–226. 8. For a scientific analysis undertaken at the Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens of two Corinthian clay types used for the terracotta sculpture from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, see Corinth XVIII.5, pp. 41–42.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

49

Figure 3.5 (left). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 761). Scale 3:2. Photo J. Laurentius,

courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 3.6 (right). Body proportions of a horse used as a guide to estimate the original sizes of Penteskouphia pinakes with equestrian iconography. Markman 1943, p. 144, fig. 4

9. Furtwängler (1885, p. 48); he provides examples only for the last grouping (Antikensammlung F 486 and F 764). 10. F 761: AntDenk II, pl. 29:20; F 541: AntDenk II, pl. 24:27; F 486: AntDenk I, pl. 7:25. 11. Similar traces are found on the underside of some of the Acropolis pinakes, as discussed in Karoglou 2010, p. 43, nn. 72, 73. 12. Other pinakes preserve only one, due to their fragmentary condition (e.g., A23, B11, B21, B61). 13. Salapata 2002, pp. 27–28, fig. 6. On the placement of votives in sanctuaries, see Alroth 1987, 1988. 14. For example, the length of a horse’s head is equal to the length of its neck and to the length between its hoof and the hock. Markman (1943, fig. 2) also includes a helpful drawing of the anatomy of a horse.

schöne glänzende Firnis ist gelbbraun, das aufgesetzte Rot mehr violett”); Warm yellow clay, brown slip often fired red, added red really red; the rosettes as filling ornament are popular; this is the most common type (“Thon warmgelb, der braune Firnis häufig rot verbrannt, das aufgesetzte Rot wirklich rot, Füllung durch Rosetten beliebt; dies die häufigste Art”); Matte clay, less fine and more reddish, often with basic silhouette drawing (“Thon matter, weniger fein und rötlicher; oft die rohe Siluettenmalerei); and Through mixing of clays, a pale red clay with more developed style (“durch ein Beimischung blassrot gemachter Thon, entwickelterer Stil”).9 All Penteskouphia pinakes were hand-formed, except for three moldmade pinakes: Antikensammlung F 761, depicting a lion (Fig. 3.5), F 541, with a scene of horseback riders, and F 486, which features a molding for its top edge.10 When being formed, the pinakes were pressed onto a flat surface. In isolated examples, impressions of wooden surfaces on the reverse of the pinakes suggest the surface on which they were originally formed (A9, B52, B59, B62, B63, F 435, F 701 + F 706 + 2 frr.).11 The pinakes often have thinned edges. In most cases, both sides of the plaque are smoothed, eliminating earlier forming clues, and the edges sharply cut. The pinakes usually have two pierced holes on their short or long sides, for suspension or for some other method of attachment (e.g., A6, A8–A11, A14, A20, A22, B1, B12, B15, B20, B22, B28, B37, B41, B46, B47, B49, B51).12 A few carry one (B8), three (B61), or four (B2) such holes. The placement of pierced holes on a pinax can provide clues about its mode of display, such as hanging or mounting on a surface.13 While this piercing was necessary for their mounting, it also created a structural weakness: most pinakes tended to break around their pierced holes before, during, or after their firing. Only two dozen or so Penteskouphia pinakes are intact or almost intact. The vast majority are fragmentary, although in some cases one can approximate the original size of a pinax depicting a figure or a horse by using the ratio of body proportions (Fig. 3.6; e.g., B9, B10, B20).14

50

c hap t er 3

The size of B2 (H. 7.2 × W. 10.0 × Th. 0.7 cm) can be considered average for the pinakes, but at the extremes we find pinakes as small as B8 (H. 4.2 × W. 5.7 × Th. 0.6 cm) or B37 (H. 8.0 × W. 5.3 × Th. 0.5 cm), and as large as B42 (incomplete, max. dim. H. 23.0 × W. 17.0 × Th. 0.9 cm).15 Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show one very large and one very small pinax at the same scale. Their thickness also varies, ranging between 0.4 and 1.3 cm. In weight, the pinakes range from very light examples, 100 g or less (e.g., B2, B8, B19, B61, M25, F 856, and F 901 weigh 80, 21, 54, 37, 100, 70, and 90 g, respectively), to much heavier ones that weigh almost 500 g (e.g., B42 [later restored in plaster] and F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399). Others, such as F 755 + F 789, with a weight of 220 g, fall somewhere in between. There are four basic size groups among the Penteskouphia pinakes (Table 3.1; Figs. 3.9, 3.10): (1) small, with a surface of less than 40 cm2; (2) medium, with a surface of 41–90  cm2; (3) large, with a surface of 91–140 cm2; and (4) very large, measuring above 140 cm2. More than half of the pinakes with scenes of potters at work fall within the large and very large categories. Two-sided pinakes are only found in medium, large, and very large sizes. Comparing the size of the Penteskouphia pinakes with other pinakes or ceramic flat objects can be useful in visualizing their size: most medium-sized Penteskouphia pinakes are approximately equal to a Corinthian column-krater handle plate (see Fig. 3.4). The height of the scene on a pinax, depending on its size, is comparable to the height of a frieze on an aryballos or kotyle/skyphos, or the height of the figural and animal zones on the main body of Corinthian kraters. For example, A6 measures 4.9 cm in height and 7.8 cm in width. The enlarged images featured in published illustrations often fail to convey the actual size of the pinakes; B8, for example, is as small as a box of matches. The various sizes represented in the Penteskouphia corpus are typical for ancient Greek clay pinakes, as we see in the similar size range among the examples from the Athenian Acropolis.16 They are much smaller, however, than other wooden pinakes or funerary clay pinakes: a medium-sized Penteskouphia pinax is one-sixth the size of the largest votive wooden pinax from Pitsa, and just one-sixteenth of the size of the Athenian black-figure funerary pinakes painted by Exekias.17 Only the largest Penteskouphia pinakes, such as B42, would have been comparable in size to the largest Corinthian wooden pinax from Pitsa (H. 15.0 × W. 33.0 cm; Fig. 1.6).18 The scenes were painted in the black-figure technique, with incised details of the workshop equipment (wheel, kiln) and of the figures (eyes, 15. Other small, completely preserved pinakes include Antikensammlung F 350, F 557 (Fig. 5.29), and F 904 (see Appendix 1). 16. The smallest Acropolis pinax known is Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2535 (H. 2.3 × W. 2.8 × Th. 0.4 cm; Karoglou 2010, p. 71, no. 17). Small: NAM Akr. 2.1037 (H. 6.5 × W. 5.2 × Th. 0.8 cm; Karoglou 2010, p. 91, no. 94); medium: NAM Akr. 1.2497 (H. 7.2 × W. 9.4 × Th. 0.4 cm; Karoglou 2010, p. 69,

no. 9); NAM Akr. 1.2533 (H. 7.4 × W. 6.5 × Th. 0.7 cm; Karoglou 2010, pp. 76–77, no. 39); large: NAM Akr. 1.2544 (H. 10.0 × W. 13.0 × Th. 0.8 cm; Karoglou 2010, pp. 71–72, no. 19); very large: Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 2557-EAM 15126 (H. 16.5 × W. 19.6 × Th. 1.1 cm; Karoglou 2010, p. 78, no. 46); NAM Akr. 1.2574 (H. 15.0 × W. 25.0 × Th. 1.4 cm; Karoglou 2010, p. 84, no. 67). 17. The Exekias funerary plaques

Figure 3.7. Example of the largest of the Penteskouphia pinakes (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399). Scale 1:3. Drawing Ant-

Denk II, pl. 30:18

Figure 3.8. Example of the smallest of the Penteskouphia pinakes (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 663 + F 730). Scale 1:3. Photo courtesy Antiken-

sammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

measure, on average, H. 37.0–38.0 × L. 43.0–44.0 × Th. 2.2–3.4 cm (Mommsen 1997, p. 6). For funerary plaques from Athens, see also Brooklyn 1981. 18. Athens, NAM 16464. Penteskouphia pinax Antikensammlung F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399 (now lost) measured 28.0 × 16.5 cm (see Fig. 3.7); Pernice 1897, p. 12, fig. 1. The pinax from Pitsa is discussed in Payne 1931, p. 153.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

51

TA B LE 3.1 . S I Z E S O F P I NA K E S W I T H S C EN E S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K ( A 1 – A 34; B 1 – B 63 ) Size

Total

Small (140 cm2)

34

Uncertain

3

Complete: A6, B8, B37, B61 Reconstructed: A21

Catalogue Numbers

Complete: A4, A5, A8, A10, A20, B2, B19, B41 Reconstructed: A1, A3, A7, A9, A14, A17, A19, A24, A29, A33, B11, B16, B23–B25, B30, B34–B36, B50, B55, B58

Complete: B1 Reconstructed: A2, A11, A13, A15, A16, A18, A22, A23, A28, A30, B3, B5, B7, B13, B15, B18, B29, B32, B39, B43, B45, B47, B49, B54

Reconstructed: A12, A25–A27, A31, A32, A34, B6, B9, B10, B12, B14, B17, B20–B22, B26–B28, B31, B33, B38, B40, B42, B44, B46, B48, B51–B53, B56, B57, B59, B60

B4, B62, B63

Very large = 35%

Large = 26% Medium = 31% Small = 5%

Figure 3.9. Range of sizes among the Penteskouphia pinakes with scenes of potters at work (n = 97). Scale 1:3.

E. Hasaki

Uncertain = 3%

0

5 cm

Medium Medium

Small Small

Figure 3.10. Representative examples of the four basic sizes of Penteskouphia pinakes (B1, B8, B19, B46). Scale 1:3. Drawings Y. Nakas

Very large Very large

Large Large 0 0

5cm 5cm

52

c hap t er 3

Figure 3.11 (left). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 493). Scale 1:2. Photo courtesy Antiken-

sammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 3.12 (right). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 566). Scale 1:2. Photo I. Luckert, cour-

tesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

lips, locks of hair, musculature). Added colors (white and red) were sparsely used (B1, B18), or at least sparsely preserved. Beyond the scenes of potters at work the additional color purple is used extensively on himatia and chitons of figures, and on winged animals and parts of horses (e.g., F 855 + F 862; Fig. 3.29). In the scenes with horses, where added white was typically used to differentiate between different horses, this absence is puzzling, but perhaps the Penteskouphia potters used white slip more conservatively when it came to pinakes. Another method of decoration, the silhouette technique (use of black slip only with no incisions), was often employed in the entire group and was especially popular for the depiction of kiln scenes (A5, A10, A14, A15, B32). This technique was commonly used for decorating the handle plates and bodies of Middle Corinthian kraters. Some context pottery found at the Penteskouphia site was also decorated in the silhouette technique.19 Finally, some kilns in black-figure scenes are rendered in outline (A28, A30, B36, B58). The slip used in decorating the pinakes fired from black-brown to deep orange-red. Potters seem to have reserved a diluted slip that fired orangered especially for the flames that come out of the stoking channels and the chimneys of the kilns. On most of the pinakes, the slip has not been well preserved, making the identification of scenes and activities challenging. Farnsworth discussed extensively the poor quality of the Corinthian black slip and its tendency to peel off.20 Amyx also pointed out that Archaic slip tends to peel more easily than that on Geometric or Protocorinthian pottery.21 Von Raits remarked that the loss of original decoration on some pieces in Berlin may have been due to excessive cleaning, as evidenced by joining fragments in other collections that preserve their decoration.22 In decorating the Penteskouphia pinakes, the painters usually began by painting the border, either a simple band or pair of lines, or a more complicated design, such as a swirling pattern (B33), a series of dots (B14), a checkerboard (B43), a meander (F 704 / F 715), or an elaborate tongue pattern with alternating colors (e.g., F 493, F 566; Figs. 3.11, 3.12). The tongue pattern is often seen on column kraters of the Middle and Late Corinthian period.23 A puzzlingly incomplete tongue pattern that frames only part of the scene is painted on F 665 (Fig. 3.13). On a small number of the pinakes, even the flat edges around the pinax are covered with slip

19. See above, pp. 32–33. For the silhouette technique in Archaic Corinthian vase painting, see Amyx 1988, pp. 541–543. 20. Farnsworth 1970. Recent analyses show that the clay for the slip contains higher levels of potassium than the clay for the body of the pots (Rodríguez-Álvarez 2019, p. 170), which implies special preparation of the clay slip. 21. Amyx 1988, pp. 537–538. 22. Von Raits 1964, p. 4. 23. Other pinakes with similar border designs include Antikensammlung F 486 (AntDenk I, pl. 7:25), F 488 + F 492 (AntDenk II, pl. 39:2), F 493 (AntDenk I, pl. 7:10), F 882 (AntDenk II, pl. 29:1; Palmieri 2016, p. 174, no. Da4, dated to the Late Corinthian period), F 919, and F 925. The tongue pattern is seen on a Middle Corinthian krater (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 27.116 by the Detroit Painter; Amyx 1988, p. 196, pl. 79); a maeander pattern appears on the Late Corinthian Astarita krater (Vatican Museum, 35525 by the Astarita Painter [name vase]; Amyx 1988, p. 264, pl. 116) and on another Late Corinthian krater (Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 919.5.144 by the Hippolytos Painter; Amyx 1988, p. 262, pl. 115).

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

Figure 3.13. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 665). Scale 1:2. Drawing AntDenk II, pl. 29:7

Figure 3.14. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 783).

Scale 1:2. Photo I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

24. For Acropolis pinakes with similar composition in registers, see Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2497, 1.2498, 1.2499, 1.2505, 1.2553, 1.2554, 1.2561 (Karoglou 2010, nos. 9, 99, 98, 33, 79, 49, 80, respectively); 1.2553 (Karoglou 2010, p. 87, no. 79) in particular is divided by a tongue and floral chain friezes; see also another Attic pinax from Eleusis (Archaeological Museum 28a–c; Karoglou 2010, p. 104, no. 147). 25. For the combination of both arrows and numbers as used in numismatic studies of die axes, see de Callataÿ 1996, p. 10, fig. 1.

53

(A10, A14, A16, B21, B22, B49, B55); other pinakes’ edges carry a series of paint strokes (B43, F 705, F 745 / F 917, F 938) or painted dots (F 699 / C-1963-247). On some two-sided pinakes, a painted border appears on only one side, apparently considered the main side by the potter, and is absent from the other side, which carries the pottery scene (B20, B23, B24, B32, B33, B37, B46, B48, B54, B55, B60). The second stage in the decoration of the pinakes was the composition of the scene. Most scenes from the potters’ workshops are painted in a landscape format, using the wider, horizontal orientation of the pinax, rather than in the narrower, vertically oriented, portrait format. Interestingly, the few scenes with portrait orientation occur primarily on very small, one-sided pinakes (e.g., A14, B37; see Table 5.2). In most cases, a single scene covers the entire pinax, but on a few pinakes, mostly of portrait orientation, the surface is divided horizontally into registers (A14, F 455, F 723, F 732, F 783; Fig. 3.14).24 There are very few examples of overlapping figures, such as pinax B27, where the potter has attempted to show two planes by depicting one man in front of a kiln while another one stokes it. Workers also overlap kilns on B21 and B37. Finally, rosettes and other filling ornaments were used sparingly within the scenes (e.g., M24, F 665 [Fig. 3.13], F 663 + F 730 [Fig. 3.8]). Two-sided pinakes invite closer examination. Their formation and decoration follow the steps outlined above, but the orientation of the two sides is more complicated (Table 3.2). Most commonly, the pinax was simply flipped over along its horizontal axis for decoration of the other side (designated as ↑, 0°/360°, or 12, in numismatic die-axis notation).25 Other possibilities include flipping the pinax along its vertical axis (designated as ↓, 180°, or 6), as well as other more complex orientations, such as flipping the pinax along its vertical axis and further rotating it counterclockwise 90° (designated as →, 90°, or 3), and finally, flipping the pinax along its vertical axis and further rotating it clockwise 90° (designated as ←, 270°, or 9). It is impossible to ascertain whether two-sided pinakes were decorated by a single craftsman or two different ones, but many two-sided examples, especially those with 90° orientation, exhibit a similar level of skill on each side. This suggests that in most cases, but not always, the same individual painted both sides. This varied pattern of orientation indicates that Corinthian pinakes in general, and the two-sided ones in particular, were not considered a main product for sale; their makers felt no need to conform to an established tradition of orientation. The two-sided pinakes with scenes of different orientation may have presented some challenges to visibility if hung, but such considerations would have been less important to their human viewers or divine recipients, given the limited circulation of these pinakes within the intimate landscape of Penteskouphia. It is not always easy to determine whether a potter intended to produce a two-sided pinax from the beginning, or decided to convert a one-sided pinax into a two-sided one. A list of important clues for intentionally made two-sided pinakes includes the following: painted borders on both sides; a ↑ orientation; the same level of skill (or even style) on both sides; and inscriptions on both sides. Conversely, the absence of a border on one side, an unequal level of skill, and more irregular orientations could point to pinakes that became two-sided as an afterthought (e.g., B17, B20,

54

c hap t er 3

TA B LE 3.2 . O R I EN TAT I O N S C H EM E S O N T WO - S I D ED P I NA K E S W I T H S C EN E S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K ( B 1 – B 63 ) Orientation (by Degree and Die Axis)

Orientation Scheme (by Die Axis) Side A

Side B

12 9

12 3

3

6

6

12

6

9

3

9

6

6

6

3

Uncertain

B1, B2, B4–B11, B13–B15, B18, B22, B24, B37–B39, B41–B44, B46–B53, B56–B58, B61–B63

9

B3, B12, B17, B25, B40, B54, B55, B59, B60

12

→ 90° 3

8

B19–B21, B30–B32, B34, B36

6

← 270° 9

8

B23, B26–B29, B33, B35, B45

–

1

B16

9 9

12

6

37

3 3

9

3

↓ 180° 6

Catalogue Numbers

12

12 9

9

↑ 0/360° 12

Total

12

3

B27–B29, B59). Although it is not always easy to determine whether the piercing preceded or followed the decoration, the direction of piercing (as evidenced from the excess of clay) or an incomplete piercing may help to establish which side the potters considered to be the main one. Such clues can suggest which scene was presumably intended to be preeminent (and possibly was painted first), but of course they are not entirely conclusive, and they cannot securely distinguish between intentionally made twosided pinakes and one-sided pinakes that ended up being two-sided. The two-sided versions are often slightly warped, possibly pointing to how the potters held them while decorating them, and then placed them to dry. Some of the pinakes with scenes of potters at work exhibit the aforementioned clues: for example, on B20 and B29, the second hole did not pierce the side with the kiln scene. Six two-sided pinakes are pierced from the side with the non-pottery scene, suggesting perhaps that the pottery scene was executed second (B12, B19, B21, B37, B47, B51). One two-sided pinax is pierced from the pottery scene (B8), making a compelling case that this may have been the main scene. On some two-sided pinakes, a painted border appears on the side with no pottery scene, which was apparently considered the main side by the potter, and is absent on the side that carries

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

55

the pottery scene (e.g., B20, B23, B24, B32, B33, B37, B46, B48, B54, B55, B60). Even when we can establish the sequence of painting, what remains hard to determine is whether both themes were conceived as a set, or the scene painted last was an afterthought both in conception and rendering. In any case, the decision to make a two-sided pinax, whether original or last-minute, was not a lengthy one; the two-sided pinakes were ultimately decorated quickly, so they could be included in the kiln load. The potters placed both one-sided and two-sided pinakes into the same kilns where they fired all other vessels. But how did one place the pinax inside the kiln to minimize breakage and prevent uneven firing of the scenes? While there is no ancient evidence for the placement of pinakes in kilns, recent experimental attempts to produce replicas of Penteskouphia pinakes and fire them in an updraft wood-firing kiln found that the safest way to fire the pinakes evenly was to set them within a larger vessel in an upright position to avoid further warping.26 In antiquity, firing the pinakes upright inside a larger open vessel, such as a Corinthian krater, would have protected them from direct contact with the flames and ensured a balanced firing of both sides Although several two-sided pinakes were successfully fired, displaying similar hues of fired slip on both sides (e.g., B1, B28), we also have examples with uneven firing, where different colors appear on the same side (e.g., B9, B48) or on the two sides (e.g., B26, B47). As a result of their placement inside the kiln, the side that was more exposed to the heat flow went through the three stages of firing (oxidization, reduction, and reoxidization) and attained a black-brown color, while the slip on the side that was not fully exposed was unaffected by the reducing atmosphere and turned red. Both the one-sided and two-sided pinakes were intended to be fired only once, as was the practice for most Greek ceramics.27 The unevenness in firing would result from placing a pinax flat inside the kiln, or when direct contact with another vessel blocked one of its sides.28 26. For the AIA Tucson Greek Kiln Project at the University of Arizona (Figs. 6.25, 6.26), see Hasaki, May, and Keyser, forthcoming. 27. The sharpness of incision on the two-sided pinakes further speaks for a single firing. There is no evidence on the pinakes for “wiggly” incisions made on an already fired piece. 28. Boardman (1954, pp. 192–193) associates the piercing of the two-sided pinakes with their placement inside the kiln, but does not elaborate further on this point. Like Wachter (2001, p. 276) and Salapata (2002, p. 28), I have doubts as to how the material that would have been used to hang the pinakes in the kiln could have withstood the high temperatures attained during firing. 29. Furtwängler 1885, p. 48.

F U N C T I O N S A N D U S E S O F A P I NAX A comprehensive visual analysis of the entire Penteskouphia corpus makes immediately apparent the uneven range of skill among the potters who produced the pinakes. Although modern illustrations feature the best-drawn pieces, in the preliminary publication of the pinakes in the 19th century, archaeologists were already commenting on inconsistencies of skill in design and execution. They did not consider, however, whether stylistic variations might be connected with long-established traditions for the use of a pinax in a workshop setting. Furtwängler noticed that the style of many pinakes was “primitiv” or “caricaturartige,” 29 and Collignon commented about some pieces in the Louvre: Les fragments du Louvre accusent des inégalités d’exécution qui sont sensibles; les différences apparaissent mieux encore si l’on considère toute la série de ces tablettes. Tandis que le plus souvent les peintures sont tracées rapidement, avec la négligence que

56

c hap t er 3

comporte la nature de ces ex-voto de faible valeur, d’autres fois elles sont d’un style soigné, et révèlent des procédés techniques dignes d’attention.30 Some decades later, von Raits echoed these earlier observations when she complained about the poor drawing skills exhibited on some of the pinakes kept at the Corinth Museum.31 She further noticed how pinakes with scenes oriented in the same way are also painted in an “undeniably” similar style, while scenes with different orientation are painted in two “markedly” different styles, suggestive of two artists working on the same pinax.32 A flat, rectangular, clay plaque, of a size that can easily fit within one’s palm, can fulfill multiple functions inside a workshop, serving as a practice board, a thematic sample, a kiln-firing test piece, an apotropaic sign on the exterior wall of a kiln, or a votive pinax. In this section, I use the words “plaque” and “pinax” to help us differentiate between the two contexts, industrial and votive. Our modern concepts of workshop equipment versus votive offering prevent us from exploring more nuanced situations and the possibility of a richer use-life of an artifact. If an apprentice quickly sketched a scene on a plaque and later dedicated it as a pinax, it is methodologically important to explore both phases of this object (plaque/pinax), rather than to focus solely on its final use. If a kiln master routinely used clay plaques as kiln-firing test pieces, or even apotropaic devices on the exterior of a kiln, but occasionally decided to dedicate one of them as a votive, we must consider the technical function that these plaques may have fulfilled before their use as votive pinakes. As is common in many life histories of artifacts, one function does not “fit all” as a descriptor of their entire use-life. Workshop equipment was routinely dedicated in sanctuaries; the clay plaques may have followed a similar journey.33 Baumbach, in his study of the votive offerings at Hera sanctuaries, distinguished between purpose-made votive offerings and secular offerings.34 Rice has also expanded the range of uses that one should consider when examining any artifact, not just a votive: intended (by the makers), actual (in systemic context), final (in context of recovery), and inferred (by archaeologists).35 Similarly, I would argue that the votive function of the Penteskouphia pinakes becomes even more powerful and relevant to the potters if one considers how useful a clay plaque can be in a pottery workshop—especially a Corinthian workshop specializing in figural drinking wares. Although he was not discussing the Penteskouphia pinakes, Boardman also kept two-sided pinakes with different orientations within the potter’s world, suggesting that they were meant to be hung in a place with limited exposure, such as a potter’s shop or kiln.36 As mentioned in the previous section, the dimensions of most pinakes were very similar to those of handle plates for column kraters, and potters of various skills could have been using handle plates to practice on and/ or to display as iconographical samples that would help their customers to specify their preferred themes for a commissioned piece.37 In the case of practice aids, this idle sketching on plaques may have been a perfect way for someone to learn or improve their painting skills. These practice

30. Collignon 1886, p. 29. 31. Von Raits 1964, p. 19: “The varying degrees of neatness of inscription may reflect in part the difference between private and professional work” (my emphasis); p. 21: “for C-63-125 a lack of style is noted, but the animation about the scene wins for it some artistic merit.” 32. Von Raits 1964, pp. 35–36. 33. Rouse 1902, pp. 39–94, esp. pp. 60–64. See also below, p. 294. 34. Baumbach 2004, p. 3. 35. Rice 1996, p. 140. 36. Boardman 1954, pp. 192–193. 37. The Early Corinthian kraters lacked handle plates, but the later series often carry them (Amyx 1988, pp. 505–509).

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

57

Figure 3.15. Handle plate from the Amphiaraos column krater (once Berlin, Antikensammlung F 1655, now lost), with sketch of an incomplete figure. Not to scale. Furtwängler and

Reichhold 1932, pl. 121

sketches, whether successful or not, were most likely recycled prior to firing, which explains their absence in the archaeological record. The potters of the Penteskouphia pinakes felt more compelled to proceed with firing, and ultimately dedicating, these familiar forms. On the handle plate of the red-ground Amphiaraos column krater we find an example of a handle plate being used as a practice surface: an incompletely drawn figure preserved next to the running Gorgon clearly represents an abandoned attempt, since it bears no relationship to the Gorgon (Fig. 3.15).38 Such practice work may be detected on Penteskouphia pinakes that preserve multiple sketches of the same scene on one side (e.g., F  460; Fig. 3.16);39 others depict compilations of figures and objects that have no organic relationship to each other (B40, B61) and do not respect a common groundline.40 “Practice sketchings” can be the explanation for an earlier depiction on a pinax that is irrelevant to the final scene, as if the potter changed his mind, midway through, about the scene to be depicted. In the group of pottery scenes, the best example of a potter changing his mind is on B42, where the potter first made circular incisions possibly for a chariot wheel in landscape orientation, then outlined a large Poseidon in portrait orientation (curiously only the incisions are preserved), and 38. Once Antikensammlung F 1655. Corbett 1965, p. 21. 39. For apprentices’ pieces and preliminary sketches in ancient Greek vase painting, see Richter 1923, pp. 38–39, fig. 44; Corbett 1965; Noble 1988, pp. 103–107; Boss 1992, 1997; Böhr 2002. Corbett (1965) draws a nice distinction between preliminary incision, preliminary sketchings, and idle sketches. As early as the 1930s, Newhall (1931, p. 9, fig. 4) attrib-

uted one skyphos fragment (Corinth KP-1166) from the Potters’ Quarter in Corinth to the work of an apprentice. This view was upheld on the basis of the quality of incision (Corinth XV.3, pp. 249–250, no. 1382, pl. 57), but Papadopoulos (2003, p. 245, n. 64) has since challenged this interpretation. The Protocorinthian Chigi olpe preserves traces of preliminary sketching (Corbett 1965, p. 20). For a sketch on a Hellenistic clay pinax from Pergamon

(Berlin, Antikensammlung TC 8865), see Züchner 1950–1951, p. 203, fig. 36. 40. For a good example of the archaeology of artisans’ sketches beyond the classical world, the group of New Kingdom ostraka from Egypt, see Cooney 2012, with earlier bibliography. Comparable disjointed juxtapositions of figures can be found in medieval sketches, e.g., Evans 1969, pls. 87, 96, 127, 129. For sketches of modern artists, see Rosand 2002.

58

c hap t er 3

Figure 3.16. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 460).

Scale 1:2. Photo courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing AntDenk I, pl. 7:24

Side A

Side B

Figure 3.17. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 835; joins Corinth C-1963-450, not shown). Scale 1:1. AntDenk II, pl. 23:8

Figure 3.18. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 899). Side A

Side B

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

finally settled on a kiln depiction.41 Pinax F 835 / C-1963-450 displays the preliminary drawing of the lower legs of a man facing right, whereas the final composition shows a ship moving to the left (Fig. 3.17). Pinax F 899 features a downward-pointing trident in an unusual position between the legs of a striding male (Fig. 3.18).42 On a lighter note, perhaps Chares, 41. For another example of preparatory circular outlines for a shield, see the Attic red-figure bell krater attributed to the Altamura Painter in London, British Museum 1961,0710.1

(Corbett 1965, pl. IV). 42. Palmieri (2016, p. 180, no. Eb1) dates this pinax to the Transitional– Early Corinthian period (before the Chigi olpe), and notes that the style is

reminiscent of the Aegina Bellerophon Painter; given the fact that it may be a practice piece, however, the quality of drawing may be more indicative of the painter’s skill than of the piece’s date.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

59

Figure 3.19 (left). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 722). Scale 1:2. Photo I. Geske, courtesy

Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 3.20 (right). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 671, side A). Scale 1:2. Photo I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing AntDenk II, pl. 30:10

Figure 3.21. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 873).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Side A

Side B

Figure 3.22. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 769).

Scale 1:2. Photo I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing AntDenk II, pl. 29:5

43. Payne 1931, p. 322.

who signed a Corinthian pyxis and earned Payne’s harsh characterization as the “worst Greek vase-painter who has left his name upon his work,”43 may have often turned to pinakes to improve his painting skills. Other pinakes may have captured studies of (or attempts at) foreshortening: we find wrongly proportioned body parts (e.g., F 722, F 671; Figs. 3.19, 3.20), especially in the depictions of horses or men in anatomically demanding positions (e.g., B55, F 873, F 769; Figs. 3.21, 3.22); drawings

60

c hap t er 3

Side A

Figure 3.23. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 839).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk II, pl. 40:1a, 1b

Side B

Figure 3.24. Penteskouphia pinax (Paris, Louvre MNB 2859). Scale 1:2.

Side A

0

0

Side B

5cm 5cm

in unusual and disproportionate scale, even miniature (B25, B41, F 385, F 839; Fig. 3.23);44 and drawings of grotesque figures or features at different scales (M24, MNB 2859; Fig. 3.24). 44. Antikensammlung F 385 is illustrated in AntDenk II, pl. 24:6. Large-scale faces painted in outline were placed on aryballoi and handle plates of

kraters, but they were primarily female and thought to represent hetairai (e.g., London, British Museum 1865,1213.1, discussed in Lorber 1979, p. 28, n. 167).

Photos H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY; drawing Y. Nakas, after Rayet 1880, p. 107, no. 4

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

61

Figure 3.25. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 595).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Anti­ kensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Side A

Side B

Figure 3.26. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 797). Scale 1:2. Photos J. Laurentius, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 3.27. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 848). Scale 1:2. AntDenk II, pl. 23:12a, 12b

Side A

Side B

Side A

Side B

Figure 3.28. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 849).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Anti­ kensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk II, pl. 23:14a, 14b

Side A

Side B

In other cases, where no composition problems occur, we see that the two-sided pinakes with the same orientation on both sides have identical or similar themes on both sides, and both are painted with the same level of skill; see, for example, F 521 + F 796 + F 876 + fr. / C-1963-443, F 595 (Fig. 3.25), F 797 (Fig. 3.26), F 848 (Fig. 3.27), F 849 (Fig. 3.28),

62

c hap t er 3

Side A

0

5cm

Side B

5cm 0Figure 3.29. Penteskouphia pinax

(Berlin, Antikensammlung F 855 + F 862). Scale 1:2. Photos J. Laurentius,

courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Figure 3.30. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 860). Side A

Side B

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Anti­ kensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk II, pl. 30:29a, 29b

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

Side A

63

Side B

Figure 3.31. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 894).

Scale 1:2. Photos G. Seibt (side A), I. Geske (side B), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk I, pl. 8:16a, 16b

Figure 3.32. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 921).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Anti­ kensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

45. Brownlee 2003, p. 184, pl. 57. 46. The spectrum of drawing skills ranges from the well-drawn depictions of Poseidon (F 357; AntDenk II, pl. 30:17) to the sketchy drawings of the god (F 464; AntDenk I, pl. 7:2).

Side A

Side B

F 855 + F 862 (Fig. 3.29), F 860 (Fig. 3.30), F 894 (Fig. 3.31), F 910, F 921 (Fig. 3.32), F 929 + F 3378, MNC 214, and MNC 215. Silhouette could also be an indicator of unfinished drawing work. A group of fragmentary kotylai and oinochoai, recovered from well I to the west of the Terracotta Factory at the Potters’ Quarter, were abandoned in the silhouette stage, and are thought to have been left unfinished, at a stage where the “artist had painted the figures but never incised them.”45 Another subset of two-sided pinakes have scenes that are oriented differently, with the themes depicted and the artistic skills displayed in their rendering clearly unequal (e.g., B46). This subset may reflect apprentice work, or even afterthoughts. When faced with such two-sided pinakes, must we assume the same function for both sides, or can we also consider that the reverse sides of some of them, which for whatever reason could be spared, served as practice surfaces for novices or just for the “idle sketching” of novices and masters? The composition and the execution of the scenes, as well as the placement and writing style of inscriptions, reflect various (and unequal) levels of skills among the makers of the Penteskouphia pinakes, and suggest that both novices and experienced potters could have used the terracotta pinax for practice sketchings.46 It is conceivable that, in addition to the mature

64

c hap t er 3

potters who produced remarkable pinakes for Poseidon, younger or less talented members of the workshop may have found the pinakes to be a forgiving medium for improving their skills, drawing preliminary sketches on surfaces with the same dimensions as those used in decorating standard Corinthian shapes. That said, not every two-sided pinax should be considered as having a less important reverse side that was used for sketching; there are many two-sided pinakes that carry well-rendered scenes on both sides. Scholars have already suggested, mostly in connection with the Attic pinakes, that pinakes in general could serve as apprentice boards.47 For example, on one side of a pinax from the Athenian Acropolis, the goddess Athena is skillfully painted with the white-ground technique, but on the reverse side she is summarily sketched in outline.48 Karoglou has recently added to the list of such Attic examples.49 Even if it was once used as a practice board, a pinax has the functional flexibility to be transformed into a votive offering—as this Acropolis pinax, which was ultimately dedicated, shows. Some of the Athenian Acropolis pinakes exhibit on their reverse similarly slipshod drawing, but were still considered worthy of being dedicated.50 Another possible function for a clay plaque was as a kiln-firing test piece. Most surviving test pieces from Corinth are parts of vessels, but a small plaque with a hole for easy retrieval from the kiln would have been well suited for this task. One pinax from the Potters’ Quarter painted with zigzags, rows of lines, and other linear decoration may have been used as a test piece inside the kiln.51 Some Penteskouphia pinakes are very small, ranging in size between 4 × 6 cm and 5 × 7 cm, and are pierced on the short side, with warped surfaces. Although comparisons across different chronological periods are dangerous, we should note the similarity of these pieces to plaques used in modern ceramic studios as firing test pieces for different types of glazes.52 Whether a practice board or a firing test piece, a small, flat, clay-slipped plaque was a useful feature in the everyday running of a workshop, and both masters and novices would have used and produced several kinds of clay plaques for different purposes. It is especially significant, then, that the potters would use a form that lay at the heart of their business, but could also be easily transformed into a votive object, to communicate their 47. See, e.g., Beazley 1989, p. 57. 48. Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2590a, b, and Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1927.4602, discussed in Boardman 1954, p. 191, n. 87; 1956, p. 20, fig. 1:b, pl. I:2; Karoglou 2010, pp. 47, 85, no. 72. 49. Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2497, from the Athenian Acropolis (Karoglou 2010, p. 69, no. 9), where on the reverse of a scene with two males and a quadriga, the pinax is divided into two registers, the upper with a panther flanked by two cocks, the lower with two hoplites and a quadriga. The upper register with the animals is covered with a thin unevenly applied brown wash, which implies that

the painter may have wanted to erase this scene. Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2498 (Karoglou 2010, pp. 42, 92–93, no. 99): on side A, out of the five registers, only the top three are filled, and the lower two are left empty; on side B, there is a potter’s signature among splashes of paint; ca. 510 b.c. It has been suggested that the original pinax was broken or damaged before being painted, and that part of it was recycled for scribbling on and was subsequently painted. Eleusis, Archaeological Museum 28a–c (Karoglou 2010, p. 104, no. 147): on side A, duel between two warriors; on side B, four registers with animals (panthers

and a goat). 50. Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2459. Karoglou (2010, pp. 48, 92, no. 98) notes that the pinax was drawn in the same careless manner as the lekythoi produced in the workshop of the Class of Athens 581. 51. On Corinthian kiln-firing test pieces, see below, pp. 271–272. 52. These modern test tiles are also of modest dimensions (on average, 8.0 × 5.5 × 0.7 cm); personal observation at the University of Arizona Ceramics Studio. I thank Ceramics Program Director Aurore Chabot for discussing these pieces with me.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

65

deep concerns about the economic stress on their trade (as I will further discuss in Chapter 7). The proximity of their workshops to the sacred site of Poseidon would have enabled the potters to transfer forms and practices routinely used in their workshops to the religious sphere.

I CO N O G R A P H Y O F T H E P EN T E S KO U P H I A P I NA K E S A N D CO R I N T H I A N VA S E PA I N T I N G While this work focuses on the scenes of pottery manufacture preserved on the Penteskouphia pinakes, it is necessary to briefly survey the main iconographical themes of the entire corpus, keeping in mind that many two-sided pinakes have a pottery-making scene on one side and a different subject on the reverse. In the absence of associated stratigraphy or other contextual evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint which themes enjoyed special popularity in which periods. This study of the iconography of the Penteskouphia pinakes, then, is a statistical analysis, both of the frequency of a theme within the entire corpus and of its distribution between onesided and two-sided subsets (see Appendix II). The large corpus of Penteskouphia pinakes is characterized by a rather limited range of iconographical themes (Table 3.3). Excluding the fragments that preserve no traces of paint or have undecipherable iconography, the themes rank as follows in absolute numbers:53 (1) Poseidon and Poseidonrelated imagery, (2) warriors and other figures, (3) equestrian (horses and horseback riders), (4) animals, (5) potters at work, and (6) miscellanea, a few scenes featuring ships, other activities, and some mythological figures (including Athena, Herakles, and mythical creatures).54 This ranking also holds true among the one-sided pinakes, but on the two-sided ones, warriors and other figures rank first, followed by Poseidon-related themes, equestrian scenes, and animals. The concentration of two-sided pinakes at Penteskouphia is a phenomenon not paralleled elsewhere in the Greek world. The 367 examples account for 36% of the entire assemblage. Even if one compares percentages, and not actual numbers, the two-sided pinakes from Penteskouphia overwhelmingly outnumber their counterparts from the Athenian Acropolis, which account for only 6% of the total there (7 of 115).55 The pairing of each theme with others on the reverse is presented in tabular format in Appendix III; here I highlight the most common pairings (excluding the combinations that include unclear/unidentified themes). Topping the list is potters at work paired with Poseidon, followed by animals on both sides, warriors or figures on both sides, Poseidon and equestrian imagery, and finally, potters at work combined with equestrian imagery. 53. Each scene is assigned to a single category, though it may include elements from others. For example, a warrior riding a horse is counted under the equestrian (horseback riders) category. In the rare cases when a deity is depicted within a pottery-making scene (B42, B51), I count it only as a pottery-

making scene. 54. For a brief discussion of the themes on the Penteskouphia pinakes, see Palmieri 2016 (Poseidon: pp. 49–53, 135–163, 165–167; Amphitrite: pp. 53–55, 114–115, 163–167; Hermes, Athena, and Artemis: pp. 55–57; hunting and war: pp. 57–62; horseback

riders: pp. 62–65; ships: pp. 65–66; artisans: pp. 67–72; mythological themes: pp. 72–78; marginal themes: pp. 78–82). 55. The two-sided pinakes from the Acropolis are Graef and Langlotz I, nos. 2493–2499 (Karoglou 2010, nos. 4, 51, 7, 8, 9, 99, 98, respectively).

66

c hap t er 3

TA B LE 3.3 . D I S T R I B U T I O N O F I CO N O G R A P H I C A L T H EM E S O N P EN T E S KO U P H I A P I NA K E S Scenes on All Pinakes

Themes

Poseidon-related Poseidon

Poseidon and Amphitrite Poseidon and Zeus Amphitrite

Subtotal

Warriors and other figures Warriors

Other figures

Equestrian

Subtotal

Horseback riders Horses

Animals

Potters at work

Subtotal

Miscellaneous (work, mythology, ships) Unclear Total

Total

%

267 3

70

10

Scenes on One-Sided Pinakes Total

%

19%

177

0%

3

5% 1%

55 2

Scenes on Two-Sided Pinakes Total

%

27%

90

12%

0%

0

0%

8% 0%

15 8

2% 1%

350

25%

237

36%

113

15%

67

5%

21

3%

46

6%

16%

87

152

11%

98

7%

169

12%

102

7%

219

71

115 57 378

1,390

5%

66

10% 13%

86

132

12%

36

6%

62

8%

72

11%

34

5%

36

9%

38

4%

26

27%

162

100%

656

5%

35 97

18%

5%

13%

6%

77

11%

4%

31

4%

25%

216

100%

Poseidon imagery was preferred for one-sided pinakes, and therefore it is even more surprising that Poseidon and potters at work represent the most common pairing. Later I will consider whether the combination was a kind of visual shorthand referring to the stress on the Corinthian ceramic industry (see below, pp. 293–300). One should not forget that, due to the fragmentary condition of many pinakes, many scenes may be categorized under a different category than if fully preserved: If one compares depictions of Poseidon on horse with trident (M23) and scenes with horseback riders holding a spear (B1; F 855 + F 862, Fig. 3.29) one easily realizes how fluid some related categories are. Another problem is that a large number of pinakes remain unidentified, and therefore all counts and percentages are skewed. Nevertheless, the statistics are illuminating, and it is also revealing to see how potters combined the limited range of themes on two-sided pinakes, or opted for the same theme on both sides (Fig. 3.33; Appendix III).

Po se i d on and Pos eid on-Rel at ed I mag ery Poseidon, usually alone, but occasionally in the company of Amphitrite, Zeus, and other gods, and a few cases of Amphitrite appearing alone, are the most prevalent of the themes represented on the pinakes. Surpris-

68

734

9%

30%

100%

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

67

250 One-sided

Poseidon-related

⎧ ⎪⎪

⎪ ⎪ ⎩

200

Two-sided

150

⎧ ⎨ ⎩

Warriors/Figures

100

⎧ ⎨ ⎩

Equestrian

50

56. For the one-sided examples, see Furtwängler 1885, pp. 49–66, nos. 347–540. 57. For more references, see RE XXII, 1953, cols. 446–557, s.v. Poseidon (E. Wüst); von Raits 1964, pp. 26–28; LIMC VII, 1994, pp. 446–479, nos. 103–117, s.v. Poseidon (E. Simon). Bulls are often associated with Poseidon; see Isthmia VII, pp. 4–5, nos. 1–7; Cartledge 2000. For the sacred attributes of cults of Poseidon in the Peloponnese, see Mylonopoulos 2003, pp. 361–372. For animals on Corinthian pottery, see Amyx 1988, pp. 665–666 (boar hunts), pp. 666–667 (dogs). 58. See also Arvanitaki 2006, p. 145, n. 191, for the limited presence of Zeus in Archaic Corinthian iconography. In addition to the three Penteskouphia pinakes, Zeus is depicted on two aryballoi (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.12; Rome, Villa Giulia K 40), one kylix (from Perachora, Athens, NAM 2552), and one pinax (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2578), the last dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis.

r cle a Un

/sh ips gy

o lo

at wo rk

/m yth

An im als

Po tte rs

Ho rse s

Fig ure s Ho rse ba ck rid ers

ior s Wa rr

s Am ph itri te

dZ eu an

ido n

Am ph itri te

Po se

nd na ido

Wo rk

E. Hasaki

Po se

Figure 3.33. Distribution of iconographical themes on one-sided and two-sided Penteskouphia pinakes.

Po se

ido n

0

ingly, however, the placement of Poseidon on both sides of a pinax is rare. Oddly enough, only ten pinakes (F 411, F 659 + F 703 + fr., F 752, F 787, F 788, F 843 / C-1963-230, F 902, F 906 / C-1963-191, F 3381, I 140) are identified with varying degrees of certainty as having Poseidon-related iconography on both sides (Appendix III). The total number of Poseidon-related scenes is 350: 237 on one-sided pinakes and 113 on two-sided pinakes.56 Thus they account for 25% of the entire assemblage (first place), 36% of the one-sided category (first place), and 15% of the two-sided category (second place). The pinakes carrying this theme are of various sizes and exhibit varying degrees of painting skill. When potters decided to pair Poseidon with another theme on the reverse of two-sided pinakes, it was primarily potters at work, followed by equestrian themes and other figures. The Penteskouphia pinakes with Poseidon themes depict Poseidon’s sacred attributes, such as his trident (or sometimes scepter) and ship, as well as animals sacred to him, such as the fish, dolphin, sea monster, bull, boar, ram, and horse.57 Also noteworthy is that the horses and birds that appear in the equestrian scenes are not only stock Corinthian vase-painting themes, but also Poseidon’s favorite fauna. Poseidon alone appears in a total of 267 scenes: 177 on one-sided pinakes and 90 on two-sided pinakes. This accounts for 19% of the entire assemblage, 27% of the one-sided group, and 12% of the two-sided group. Scenes with Poseidon and Amphitrite number 70 in total, and are distributed quite unevenly, with 55 on one-sided and just 15 on two-sided pinakes. The Poseidon and Amphitrite scenes account for 5% of all Penteskouphia scenes, 8% of the one-sided and 2% of the two-sided scenes. Amphitrite appears alone on two one-sided pinakes and has a modest number of eight scenes on two-sided pinakes. Poseidon and Zeus appear only on three one-sided pinakes (F 403 + F 405 + F 490 + fr.; F 454 + F 476; F 496 + F 940 + fr.).58 Poseidon is almost always depicted alone, standing, and facing mostly to the right. Except for a few depictions where he is shown nude (e.g., F 443 + F 469 + F 692 + F 696 + fr., F 465 / I 55) or wearing a chlamys (e.g., F 468 + F 949 + fr.) or a short chiton (e.g., F 464), he usually wears a long, elaborate

68

c hap t er 3

chiton, is barefoot or wears sandals (e.g., F 393), has a diadem on his head, and carries a trident or holds a fish, a wreath (e.g., B19), or a scepter. Variations on the trident include a lotus trident (B20, F 838 + fr.), and it sometimes rests on a stand (F 350). Sometimes a fish or dolphin is painted near him, and occasionally he rides a horse (M23, F 540 + F 551 + fr.). His iconographical rendering is not demanding, and the painters could have slightly altered a clothed male figure, one of their stock themes, with the addition of a trident. His divine disposition was immediately recognizable even to the excavators of the Penteskouphia site in 1905, who affectionately called the Poseidon figures on the pinakes παππάδαις (priests; see above, p. 44). When Poseidon is shown in the company of his wife Amphitrite, they often appear in a chariot pulled by two or four horses.59 The association is so strong that even when a chariot is partially preserved with no figures present, I have assigned it to the theme of Poseidon and Amphitrite. On rare occasions Poseidon rides a chariot alone (e.g., F 504, F 505, F 506 / C-1963-171, I 112, I 153). Sometimes the two figures face each other. Zeus and Athena are depicted in the same way as Poseidon and Amphitrite, so only the painted labels next to the figures allow us to differentiate between the two sets of divinities when they are depicted together or alone. Except for these divine duos, very rarely do we see Poseidon as part of a larger assembly of gods.60 Poseidon dominates the group not only iconographically, but also epigraphically. Among the approximately 160 inscribed pinakes in the entire Penteskouphia corpus, 55 (34%) carry inscriptions referring to Poseidon. Most of the inscriptions on the pinakes unequivocally record invocations to the god, many times with the epithet ἄναξ (ruler). In fact, despite the plethora of cultic epithets associated with Poseidon in other areas, the only one associated with him at Penteskouphia is ἄναξ, rarely attested for him elsewhere.61 In Classical tragedies, Poseidon is called ἄναξ πόντιος (ruler of the sea; Eur. Hipp.  44–45) and ἄναξ ἵππιος (ruler of horses; Aesch. Sept. 131), but there is no archaeological evidence for dedications to Poseidon as ἄναξ. In Pausanias (2.1.6), however, Poseidon is mentioned as ἄναξ of Acrocorinth, so the epithet seems to have strong regional associations. For Mylonopoulos, this unusual epithet points to Poseidon’s predominance in this general area in earlier, perhaps even Mycenaean, times.62 Others have seen a chthonic association in this epithet, a link that makes sense when we consider the vital importance of the earth as the provider of clay for the potters.63 The Penteskouphia site, then, may have had a long-standing association with Poseidon. The combination of Poseidon’s iconography with other themes on the Penteskouphia pinakes (whether intentional or not) serves to underscore his multidimensional nature as master of the seas, the earth (and earthquakes), and horses.64 These spheres of influence are already present in the Homeric epics, as we see, for example, in his epithets πελάγαιος, γαιήοχος (Il. 9.183, 13.59, 13.125), ἐνοσίχθων (Il. 7.445), ἐννοσίγαιος (Il. 9.183, 9.362), ἀσφάλιος, and ἵππιος, and in later epithets, such as σωσίνεος (savior of ships; Hymn. Hom. 22.5).65 None of these adjectives are preserved in the inscriptions at Penteskouphia. Poseidon is the most popular figure on one-sided pinakes, and on twosided pinakes he is often paired with scenes that depict kiln firings (see Table 5.1). Themes of potters at work and Poseidon are never combined on the same side of a pinax, but do appear as side A and side B on many

59. LIMC I, 1981, pp. 724–735, esp. pp. 725–727, nos. 1–4, 10–14, 25–27, pls. 576, 577, 579, 580, s.v. Amphitrite (S. Kaempf-Dimitriadou). The fragmentary pinax F 521 + F 796 + F 876 + fr. / C-1963-443, side B [AntDenk II, pl. 40:2a, b]) illustrates best the challenges of assigning fragments of chariots to larger scenes of Poseidon and Amphitrite). 60. Gatherings of gods, as on F 485 + F 765 (AntDenk I, pl. 7:11), require larger pinakes. Interestingly, the close associations between Poseidon, Zeus, and Athena were also noticed by Alroth (1987, p. 17), whose analysis of votive offerings to gods other than the one(s) to whom a sanctuary is dedicated shows that only dedications to Zeus and Athena are attested in Poseidon’s sanctuaries. 61. Mylonopoulos 2003, pp. 204 (n. 381), 375. For a discussion of the 28 epithets connected to the cults of Poseidon in the Peloponnese, see Mylonopoulos 2003, pp. 373–389; for his Peloponnesian cults, pp. 361–372. 62. Mylonopoulos 2003, p. 375. 63. Mylonopoulos 2003, p. 375, citing Dietrich 1974, p. 185, n. 305. 64. Doyen (2011) provides a historical survey of the cult of Poseidon from Mycenaean to Archaic times. See also Bremmer 1987 for Poseidon’s areas of influence. 65. For Poseidon Hippios, see Nadal 2005; Vicent 2007.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

69

two-sided pinakes. Instead of a depiction, the side with the pottery scene sometimes has a brief inscription addressing Poseidon (usually by name alone), or his initial, or a longer dedication to him.66 The pottery-making scenes that carry Poseidon inscriptions are relatively few, and are all related to kiln firing—in particular, the crucial phase when potters inspect the fire during the reduction phase (A5, A9–A11, B22, B36; see below, p. 212). Amid the economic concerns faced by their industry, it became even more important for the potters to invoke Poseidon, in order to ensure a successful firing and profitable sales.

War r ior s an d Ot h er Figur e s In second place among themes on the Penteskouphia pinakes, I have grouped warriors and other figures. In many cases it is not possible to identify figures in this group more precisely because of the fragmentary nature of the pinakes; usually, only the legs of a figure are preserved. Since Poseidon, with only a few exceptions, is clothed and carries a trident, a naked figure with no attributes preserved is unlikely to be Poseidon, and so has been placed in this category.67 This group with 219 total scenes accounts for 16% of all depictions (second place), for 13% within the one-sided pinakes (second place) and for 18% within the two-sided ones (first place).68

War r iors

Warriors, depicted as hoplites with helmets, shields, and spears, are rendered either individually (e.g., F 588, F 589 + F 603 + F604 / C-1963-104) or in duos, facing each other (e.g., F 848, Fig. 3.27; F 849, Fig. 3.28). Warriors riding horses are counted in the horseback riders category. Scenes securely identified as warriors number 21 on one-sided pinakes and 46 on two-sided pinakes, for a total of 67 instances. They account for 5% within the entire corpus, 3% of the scenes on one-sided pinakes, and 6% on two-sided pinakes. They are mostly paired with animals, other figures, and equestrian imagery.

Ot h er Fig ur e s

66. The figure who may be Poseidon in the kiln-firing scene on B42 is most likely an earlier sketch; the two depictions were not meant to be read together. 67. In a few scenes, Poseidon is depicted in a striding pose, naked (F 471 / C-1963-354; F 659 + F 703 + fr.) or with a short chiton (F 711 / F 820 / C-1963-222 / C-1963-227). 68. Totals for each subcategory within this group are provided in Appendix II.

A group of figures, mostly fragmentary males and usually with no attributes to aid in more precise identification, makes up a total of 152 scenes, accounting for 11% of the entire assemblage. Of these, 66 appear on one-sided pinakes (10%) and 86 on two-sided pinakes (12%). Although most female figures are divinities, there are a few female figures that cannot definitely be assigned divine status (e.g., F 682, F 913 + fr.). It is very likely that when complete, these scenes would have belonged to the dominant iconographical groups in the corpus, namely Poseidon or warriors. This large figural group is usually paired with more figures on the reverse, or with scenes of potters at work. Notably, keeping in mind the suggestion that some of the Penteskouphia pinakes also served as practice surfaces, it would be sensible for painters to practice figural forms as frequently as possible.

E q ue st r ian Th eme s Equestrian iconography is the third most common theme on the Penteskouphia pinakes, appearing in a total of 169 scenes. Included in this category are scenes with horseback riders (98) and scenes of horses which

70

c hap t er 3

do not presesrve any figures (71).69 One-sided pinakes carry 72 of these scenes; two-sided the remaining 97. They account for 12% of the entire assemblage, 11% of one-sided pinakes (third place), and 13% of two-sided ones (third place). A single horseback rider or a team of two riders is usually depicted, occasionally accompanied by squires. Sometimes squires pull horses with no riders (e.g., F 557, Fig. 5.29). The riders sometimes are warriors with spears. One or two flying birds can fill the background. Many pinakes preserve only the heads or legs of the horses, but it seems safe to assume that most of the horses depicted would have carried riders. A rare combination of a warrior-driven chariot is also included in this group (F 849, Fig. 3.28). Not only was this theme popular on both one- and two-sided pinakes, but it was also common for potters to place scenes of horseback riders on both sides of a pinax. This prevalence is not surprising; painters of Corinthian kraters had to be competent in drawing both figural and equestrian scenes, both stock themes in the workshop.70 Other themes found on the reverse of equestrian scenes include pottery making, warriors and other figures, mythological scenes, and ships (see Appendix III). It seems that the potters felt free to deploy most of their repertoire in combination with equestrian iconography.

Ani mals Imagery of animals—mainly felines and boars—occupies fourth place in popularity of themes. There are 115 occurrences overall, with 38 scenes appearing on one-sided pinakes and 77 on two-sided ones. This total number of scenes represents almost 9% of the entire assemblage, 6% of one-sided pinakes (fourth place), and 11% of two-sided (fourth place). Potters freely combine animals predominantly with other scenes of animals but also with warriors, pottery making, and Poseidon. Both with the equestrian and animal themes we witness a considerable increase in the proportion of two-sided pinakes. One would perhaps expect more scenes of animals, since they were predominant in the subsidiary zones of Corinthian kraters and other shapes.

Pot t e rs at Wor k The scenes of potters at work are presented in detail in Chapters 4 and 5. A total of 102 scenes appear on 34 one-sided pinakes and on 68 two-sided ones (with five two-sided pinakes carrying pottery-making themes on both sides). These scenes rank fifth both in the entire assemblage (with 7%) and in the subsets of one-sided (5%) and two-sided (9%) pinakes. This theme, like those of animals and warriors, is twice as popular in absolute numbers on two-sided pinakes as on one-sided ones. As the analysis of themes appearing on one-sided and two-sided pinakes indicates, potters preferred to combine pottery-making scenes with Poseidon, equestrian imagery, and animals on two-sided pinakes. A special visual relationship was established between Poseidon and the imagery of potters at work. Very rarely, however, was Poseidon—or any other divinity—displayed alongside the potters on the same side of a pinax.

69. Totals of each subcategory of this group are presented in Appendix II. 70. D’Agostino and Palmieri (2016, p. 166) draw perhaps too strong of a connection between the hippeis class at Corinth “which kept the potters under its protective wing” and the iconography of horseback riders on the Penteskouphia pinakes. Undoubtedly this aristocratic class supported the workshops of fine wares both in retail and in trade, but they must have supported other high status craft industries as well.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

71

M isc el l an eo u s The last group of identifiable scenes includes ships, mythological scenes, and a few work activities for a total of 57 scenes. They account for 4% of the entire assemblage (sixth place), 4% of the one-sided pinakes (sixth place) and 4% of the two-sided (sixth place). The most noticeable pairing is with Poseidon. Ships are depicted in 24 scenes, 11 on one-sided and 13 on two-sided pinakes.71 In maritime scenes, a single ship usually occupies the entire surface. The ship is sometimes commercial and associated with ceramics (e.g., B5), or is sometimes a warship, carrying soldiers (e.g., B6, F 647 + F 656). Floating fish surrounding the ship symbolize the sea. In most cases, however, the scenes are too fragmentary to further decipher their meaning. Scenes of ships are paired with potters at work and equestrian iconography on the two-sided pinakes. A small group of pinakes carry mythological figures and themes other than the ones with Poseidon and/or Amphitrite discussed above. A total of 26 mythological scenes are distributed almost equally between one-sided and two-sided pinakes: 14 and 12, respectively. These include a few depictions of Athena,72 a Minotaur (F 663 + F 730; Fig. 3.8), possible centaurs (F 769, F 774), a rider on a winged horse, presumably Bellerophon riding Pegasos, both being Poseidon’s sons (B48, F 842),73 a figure tentatively identified as Melikertes (F 779, F 914 + 3 frr., I 148, I 149), and a Gigantomachy (F 768, F 834).74 Herakles is also depicted in select scenes with Kekrops (e.g., F 466 + F 766, F 767).75 71. For depictions of ships on the Penteskouphia pinakes, see Palmieri 2009; Hasaki and Nakas 2017. Terracotta ship models are also found at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore; see Corinth XVIII.8, pp. 67–70, nos. 72–76, pl. 15 (Corinth MF-10962, MF-1970‑160, MF-12878, MF-14496, and MF-14419, respectively). For bibliography on ancient Greek ships and their iconography, see Casson 1971, Basch 1987. 72. Depictions on the Penteskouphia pinakes: F 485 + F 765 (Athena with Poseidon and Amphitrite); F 764 (Athena on a chariot); B51 (one unlabeled female figure with a shield on a kiln scene); B37, F 911 (inscriptions only to Athena). This handful of pinakes depicting Athena, compared to the hundreds of Poseidon pinakes, can hardly earn her the title of the “most important deity in the pantheon of Penteskouphia” after Poseidon (D’Agostino and Palmieri 2016, p. 162; see pp. 162–165). For the close association of Athena, Zeus, and Poseidon in cult, see above, p. 68, n. 60. For the

scarcity of depictions of Athena on Corinthian pottery, see Amyx 1988, pp. 619–620. Despite her limited iconographical presence, Athena was prominent in Corinthian ritual life, often with the epithets Chalynitis, Hippia, and Phoinike. The first two of those epithets connect her with horses and horse riding, closely matching Poseidon’s spheres of influence in the Corinthia. Despite an attempt to identify the helmeted goddess on Corinthian coinage as Aphrodite (Blomberg 1996, pp. 67–96), Athena is still the most viable interpretation (Ritter 2001); for a comprehensive review of cults at Corinth, see also Williams 1978, 1981; Blomberg 1996. The importance of Athena at Corinth may need to be reevaluated if the “Apollo Temple” is reassigned to her (Ziskowski 2019). 73. Bellerophon: Arvanitaki 2006, p. 212, n. 24; Isthmia VIII, pp. 340–343. Archaic Corinthian coinage regularly features Athena on the obverse and Pegasos on the reverse: Kraay 1976, pp. 78–85, pls. 13, 14; see also Zis-

kowski 2014; Palmieri 2016, pp. 72–74. 74. LIMC VI, 1992, pp. 437–444, s.v. Melikertes (E. Vikela and R. Vollkommer). Arvanitaki (2006, pp. 143–148, no. Κ 33) discusses F 768 in detail, as well as other scenes. See also Palmieri 2016, pp. 77–78. Payne (1931, p. 143, n. 1) suggested that F 471 may have been part of a Gigantomachy, but Geagan, who associated it with C-1963-354, dismissed this identification (1970, p. 38). 75. Arvanitaki (2006, pp. 134–143, nos. Κ 31, Κ 32) discusses these Herakles/Kekrops scenes at length. For the attribution of M30 to a Herakles scene, see Arvanitaki 2006, p. 214, no. Κ 48. Herakles is also depicted on pinakes from the Potters’ Quarter (e.g., Corinth KN-6 [Corinth XV.3, pp. 242–243, no. 1338, pls. 56, 113; Arvanitaki 2006, pp. 115–119, no. Κ 26]; KN-20 [Corinth XV.3, p. 242, no. 1337, pls. 56, 113; Arvanitaki 2006, pp. 214–215, no. Κ 49]; and possibly KN-8 [Corinth XV.3, p. 244, no. 1344, pls. 56, 114, 122; Arvanitaki 2006, p. 209, no. Κ 46]).

72

c hap t er 3

Interpretations of these scenes are often tentative, as there are rarely labels or strong attributes to anchor their identification. The weak presence of mythological themes on the pinakes stands in stark contrast to the plethora of mythological themes, especially those connected to the Homeric epics, depicted on contemporary Corinthian pottery and on the Attic pinakes.76 In terms of work scenes, seven pinakes depict agricultural activities, such as collecting grapes (F 783; Fig. 3.13, above), or other activities less easily identified.77 One scene appears on a one-sided pinax, and the remaining six on two-sided pinakes.

U ni de nt i f ied In analyzing the distribution of scenes in the Penteskouphia corpus, we must always bear in mind that the picture is woefully incomplete. Over one-quarter of all scenes (378) cannot be identified due to their fragmentary character. Of these, 162 are found on one-sided pinakes, and 216 on two-sided ones. Unidentified scenes make up 27% of the entire assemblage, 25% of the one-sided category, and 30% of the two-sided. A notable 63% of all unclear scenes come from the subgroup recovered from Corinth in 1905 (239 scenes from the total 378), which raises the possibility that this 1905 group of Penteskouphia pinakes is a presorted one.78 Some fragments carry only inscriptions that provide no clues about the original scenes.

Cor i nt hian Vas e Paint ing Finally, it is most informative to compare the overall patterns in the Penteskouphia iconography with both contemporary Corinthian vase painting and other representational arts, whether in clay, such as terracotta figurines and models, or bronze or stone sculpture. The difficulty of matching known Corinthian painters with specific pinakes from Penteskouphia is intristically linked with the chronology of the corpus and will be addressed later (see below, pp. 77–81). Artisans at Corinthian ceramic workshops could paint a two-dimensional depiction of a chariot or a boat on a vessel or pinax and make a three-dimensional rendering of the same theme, like the terracotta models of chariots from the Potters’ Quarter and the models of boats from the Isthmia sanctuary.79 The imagery on the Penteskouphia pinakes ranges from the very common to the quite rare, allowing us to draw some interesting comparisons with vase painting in Archaic Corinth. Scenes with equestrian themes and other animals are stock themes across the Archaic Corinthian representational arts—including pinakes, vase painting, figurines, and models in clay or bronze—and they can be found both at Corinth itself and at Isthmia. Horseback riders, for example, are featured on Corinthian kraters and appear as terracotta figurines in both places.80 The animals represented on the Penteskouphia pinakes are encountered both in vase painting and as clay or bronze figurines, such as the bronze bull figurines at Isthmia.81 The inclusion of horseback riders within a Poseidon-rich iconographical group is, interestingly, paralleled at the Poseidon sanctuary at Isthmia, where one sees a plethora of terracotta figurines of horseback riders, pointing to the integral role that equestrian competitions played in the Isthmian games.82

76. Amyx 1988, pp. 632–644 (epic scenes on Corinthian pottery); Karoglou 2010, p. 57, table 6 (Attic pinakes). 77. For a similar scene at a vineyard, see an Acropolis pinax: Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2560 + AP 165/15124 (Karoglou 2010, p. 88, no. 82). 78. In the Corinthian subset of pinakes excavated in 1905, the percentage of unclear scenes is 59%, while the percentage of unclear scenes in the entire assemblage is 27% (see Appendixes I and II, and Table 3.3). 79. Excavations at the Potters’ Quarter have brought to light over 100 terracotta models of carts dating to the Archaic period (Corinth XV.2, pp. 197–204, class XXXII; Raepsaet 1988; Morgan 1995, p. 335). For the terracotta boat models from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia (Isthmia Museum IM 175, IM 2429, IM 2580, IM 2641), see Isthmia VII, p. 10. 80. For the terracotta figurines of horseback riders at Isthmia, see Thomsen 2015. 81. For an overview of Archaic dedications at the Isthmia sanctuary, see Gebhard 1998; also Isthmia VII, pp. 4–5, nos. 1–7, pls. 1, 2 (metal bulls); pp. 9–10, nos. 34, 35, pl. 7 (bronze dolphins); p. 10, no. 36, pl. 7 (bronze boat with passengers). 82. Isthmia VI, pp. 4–10.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

73

Some of the themes mentioned above, such as Poseidon with Amphitrite, are also attested on pinakes and pottery from the Potters’ Quarter.83 While the cavalcades of horsemen and battle scenes were stock themes for Corinthian fine-ware workshops during the Middle and Late Corinthian periods, Penteskouphia artists were unique in their use of Poseidon iconography. The choice of Poseidon as the Corinthian god par excellence represents a striking deviation, as the god rarely appears on the thousands of preserved examples of Corinthian ceramics. Payne’s contention that those pinakes “which represent Poseidon and Amphitrite, are clearly reproductions in miniature of paintings on a large scale,” is unconvincing, as it is hard to imagine how such large-scale paintings would have had no impact on contemporary vase painting.84 The opposite trend applies to depictions of Artemis (Potnia Theron), Apollo, and Aphrodite, which appear frequently in Corinthian vase painting but are absent from the Penteskouphia assemblage.85 Ceramics with scenes of Poseidon are difficult to find in significant numbers anywhere else in the Corinthia—either in the Archaic period or in later times. In fact, the depictions of Poseidon on the Penteskouphia pinakes are the earliest securely identified depictions of Poseidon in the entire field of Greek art.86 The Potters’ Quarter, a production site, has yielded a single Poseidon scene on a fragmentary krater out of the 2,361 inventoried vessels.87 Poseidon’s panhellenic sanctuary at Isthmia has not provided a single sherd with a secure depiction of Poseidon. Finally, one oinochoe and two alabastra complete the list of known Corinthian depictions of Poseidon.88 Additionally, while there are a plethora of Poseidon inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes, the only vase inscription relating to the god is on a Corinthian krater from Monte Samnace, now at Bari. This krater, dated to the second half of the 6th century b.c. and painted in early red-ground style, shows three horseback riders, each holding a trident and riding on a winged horse.89 One of the riders is labeled Poseidon. A few pinakes from the Potter’s Quarter carry fragmentary scenes possibly associated with Poseidon.90 From his major sanctuary at Isthmia, only a handful of pinakes depict Poseidon.91 In the absence of similar iconography in the Potters’ Quarter or at any other site in the Corinthia, we must assume that the iconographical formula that is so frequently employed at Penteskouphia—as well as 83. E.g., Poseidon and Amphitrite on a pinax (Corinth KN-6; Corinth XV.3, pp. 242–243, no. 1338, pls. 56, 113) and on a plate (Corinth KN-2058; Corinth XV.3, p. 147, no. 747, pl. 104). 84. Payne 1931, p. 113. 85. An Artemis as Potnia Theron may be seen on F 907 + fr. (Palmieri 2016, pp. 213–214, no. L1). 86. Simon 2014, p. 44. 87. Corinth KP-1160 (Corinth XV.3, p. 134, no. 672, pls. 31, 100), and possibly another depiction of Poseidon on krater fragment KP-2119 (Corinth XV.3, p. 131, no. 655, pl. 100). 88. Oinochoe with Poseidon (Paris, Louvre A 438; near the Dodwell

Painter): Payne 1931, p. 315, no. 1124; alabastron (Bonn, Akademische Kunstmuseum 591; related to the Boar-Hunt Painter): Payne 1931, p. 283, no. 374; alabastron with a figure with a trident riding a seahorse (Princeton University Art Museum y1992-1; related to the Boar-Hunt Painter; dated to the Middle Corinthian period): LIMC VII, 1994, p. 462, no. 153, pl. 365, s.v. Poseidon (E. Simon); Amyx 1988, pp. 624– 625; Pevnick 2014a, p. 120, no. 4. 89. Bari, Museo Archeologico di Santa Scolastica 6207. Payne 1931, p. 329, no. 1459; Lorber 1979, pp. 85–86, no. 135, with line drawing; Amyx 1988, p. 583, no. 97; LIMC VII,

1994, p. 462, no. 151, s.v. Poseidon (E. Simon); Pevnick 2014b, p. 15, fig. 2. Payne’s list of inscribed vases includes a total of 75 examples (1931, pp. 158– 169). Lorber (1979) catalogued 154 inscribed Corinthian vases and pinakes, but listed only 10 references to Poseidon (nine on the Penteskouphia examples, and one on the Bari krater). 90. Corinth KN-9, KN-16, and KN-56 (Corinth XV.3, pp. 240–241, 243, nos. 1339, 1326, and 1327, respectively). 91. See p. 8, n. 27, above. See Isthmia VIII, p. 340, for a short review of ceramics and nonceramic objects depicting Poseidon.

74

c hap t er 3

the relationship it suggests between potters and Poseidon as the invoked god—was conceived by and confined to the potters who were working in the immediate area.92 Craft activities, in general, are rarely shown on Corinthian ceramics, appearing only on two handle plates from a Middle Corinthian column krater: on one, two figures are either weavers at a loom or carpenters operating a saw, and on the other, they seem to tread grapes in a boatlike container (Fig. 3.4, above).93 Conversely, some scenes that were popular among vase painters do not appear on the pinakes. For example, the banquet scene, a favorite theme in Corinthian vase painting, especially on kraters, is conspicuously absent.94 This can in part be explained by practical considerations; perhaps it was too challenging to fit such crowded scenes on a small pinax. Still, the differentiation of iconography between pinakes and Corinthian pottery is noteworthy, since other corpora of pinakes, such as those from the Athenian Acropolis, share a greater number of themes with contemporary vase painting.95 This phenomenon may simply be an accident of preservation, but it may also be accounted for in other ways, given the spectrum of functions—from technical to ritual—that plaques/pinakes can fulfill and the circumstances of their creation (see above, pp. 55–65).

EP I G R A P H Y A N D C H RO N O L O G Y E p ig rap hy Inscriptions written in the Corinthian alphabet (Fig. 3.34) appear on 163 Penteskouphia pinakes, about 16% of the entire corpus. These have been treated extensively in two major publications, separated by almost a century. In 2001, Wachter, after personal examination, published a comprehensive study of the inscribed pinakes in Berlin and Paris, expanding, with minor corrections and some additions, on the work done by Fränkel for IG IV in 1902, and earlier by Röhl in the 1870s.96 In 1964, von Raits noted some additional fragmentary and largely illegible examples of inscriptions on the pinakes kept at the Corinth Museum.97 Select Penteskouphia inscriptions are presented by Lorber in his survey of inscriptions on Corinthian vases, and by Amyx in a prosopographical discussion within his larger discussion of inscriptions on Corinthian vases.98 Three Appendixes at the end of this volume 92. Two fragmentary pinakes from the Potters’ Quarter have been tentatively associated with iconography of potters at work (Corinth KP-1152, KN-195; Corinth XV.3, p. 241, nos. 1329, 1331, pl. 55). 93. Paris, Louvre E 634 (Fig. 3.1); attributed to the Memnon Painter. Amyx 1988, p. 234; Bakir 1974, p. 14, no. K32. 94. For the banquet as a theme on Corinthian ceramics, see Amyx 1988, pp. 378, 647. 95. Karoglou 2010, p. 54. The range of sizes for the Acropolis pinakes is

similar to the Penteskouphia ones, so space availability clearly does not account for the difference. 96. The original publication by Röhl (1882, pp. 5–13, nos. 1–114) includes a total of 114 entries, but is difficult to use, as inscriptions are not correlated with inventory numbers. Two decades later, Fränkel listed 136 entries for the Penteskouphia inscriptions (IG IV 210–345). The most comprehensive treatment is by Wachter, who includes 139 pinakes (2001, pp. 119–155, nos. COP 1–97). He does not include the inscriptions on the pinakes at the

Corinth Museum detected by von Raits (1964) or the inscriptions from the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth XV.3, pp. 358– 362, [an appendix by A. L. Boegehold]). Palmieri (2016, pp. 84–105) summarizes previous scholarship on the names appearing on 40 pinakes. See also Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 176–177, for inscriptions on the pinakes with potters at work. 97. Von Raits 1964, pp. 60–61. 98. Lorber (1979) includes only eight inscribed Penteskouphia pinakes (nos. 8, 11, 15, 16, 20, 24–26); Amyx 1988, pp. 603–608.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

75

Figure 3.34. Corinthian alphabet. Amyx 1988, p. 549, table 1

(V–VII) list the inscriptions relating to the pinakes catalogued in Chapter 4, as well as several correspondences between Wachter’s monograph and IG IV. Out of the 163 Penteskouphia inscriptions, the vast majority are dipinti, with only 18 graffiti (Appendixes VI, VII). Two-thirds of all inscriptions appear on one-sided pinakes, and only one-third on the two-sided ones. The inscribed two-sided pinakes mostly carry an inscription on one side only (perhaps the one perceived as primary by the potter); just a few have inscriptions on both sides. Slightly over half of all inscriptions appear in connection with Poseidon-related themes (both on one-sided and two-sided pinakes), strongly suggesting that Poseidon scenes and an inscription were closely linked in the minds of the Penteskouphia potters.99 The remainder of the inscriptions are distributed almost evenly among scenes showing horseback riders, male figures, and people at work. The divine recipient Poseidon and personal names appear most frequently (50 occurrences of each), followed by the name Amphitrite; finally, we see limited use of the names of Zeus, Athena, heroes, horses, and objects.100 Not only were some pinakes hastily drawn, they were also hastily inscribed, as Lorber has already noted, with numerous identical inscriptions on one pinax (e.g., F 368; Fig. 3.35), or an incorrectly placed inscription (e.g., B53).101 In some cases, potters were clearly practicing writing the alphabet (e.g., F 662; Fig. 3.36), while other pinakes carry nonsensical inscriptions, as B61 and F 422 + F 908 (Fig. 3.37).102 This became fashionable in Athenian 99. For the general scarcity of inscriptions to Poseidon, see above, p. 73. 100. After Palmieri 2016, p. 89. 101. On F 368, the inscription “Poseidon” appears twice, once as a dipinto and again as graffito inscribed after the firing. For names repeatedly inscribed on the same vessels (“throwaway” names), see Amyx 1988, p. 602; Wachter 2001, pp. 86–87, nos. COR 77, COR 78 (hydrias, Paris, Louvre E 643, E 642, respectively). 102. For a complete abecedarium,

see the Late Corinthian aryballos in Athens, Kanellopoulos Collection 1319 (Lorber 1979, pp. 55–56, no. 82, fig. 45, pl. 17; Amyx 1988, p. 568, no. 51; Wachter 2001, p. 68, no. COR 51). Wachter (2001, p. 282) discusses only four abecedaria, two of which come from Corinth. Boegehold (1992) discusses briefly all instances of Corinthian abecedaria, including a graffito on a Late Archaic blackglazed Attic lamp found in the Forum West (C-1970‑46), and another on

a Protocorinthian local imitation lekythos from Cuma (Italy) (Naples, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei 128194; Jeffery 1990, pp. 116–117). See also Acropolis pinax Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2571 (Karoglou 2010, p. 71, no. 16, fig. 144), where a painted inscription is placed between black parallel lines. A nonsensical inscription on a pinax from the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth KN-14) is discussed by Boegehold in his appendix to Corinth XV.3 (p. 360, no. 11, pls. 56, 122).

76

c hap t er 3

Figure 3.35 (left). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 368). Scale 1:2. Photo J. Laurentius,

courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 3.36 (right). Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 662). Scale 1:2. Photo I. Geske, courtesy

Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Side A

Side B

Figure 3.37. Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 422 + F 908). Scale 1:2. Wachter 2001,

no. COP 8

pottery in the later part of the 6th century, but in earlier times, may have had some other meaning.103 There are relatively few inscriptions from Corinth dating to the Greek periods, especially Archaic times, whether on vases or in stone; the large corpus from Penteskouphia, then, is especially welcome.104 The grand total of 163 inscriptions on 1,023 Penteskouphia pinakes overshadows the mere 39 inscriptions on the 2,343 inventoried ceramics—mostly vases, but also a few pinakes—from the Potters’ Quarter.105 The Penteskouphia inscriptions almost equal the total number of inscriptions on the thousands of Corinthian vases surviving from the Archaic period, raising questions about the motives that guided Corinthian potters to add inscriptions with such zeal to pinakes, but not to vases.106 According to Wachter’s list, 130 Corinthian vases carry inscriptions; among these, large vessels (such as kraters, hydrias, amphoras, and olpai) carry the majority of inscriptions, 65%, followed by smaller shapes (aryballoi, alabastra, and kotylai), which carry 28%, while other shapes carry 7%.107 The majority of inscriptions are labels of animals and of figures in mythological scenes. The close association of pinakes with 103. Immerwahr 2006. 104. Amyx 1988, p. 548; Corinth VIII.3, pp. 1–2. As Kent notes (p. 1), only 100 Greek-period inscriptions on stone have been found since the excavations began at Corinth more than a century ago. Public display of inscriptions on stone was not a common phenomenon at Corinth prior to the Hellenistic period. Later epigraphi-

cal reports (e.g., Stroud 1972) have not altered the picture considerably. 105. Corinth XV.3, pp. 358–362, appendix I (A. L. Boegehold). 106. Comprehensive treatments of inscriptions on Corinthian vases, with extensive discussion of earlier scholarship, are Amyx 1988, pp. 547–615 (ca. 150 inventoried vessels) and Wachter 2001 (pp. 34–115, nos. COR 1–131,

with some having multiple entries, for a total of 144 vessels with inscriptions). The epigraphical corpus has almost doubled since Payne’s time: Payne (1931, pp. 158–169) listed 75 entries of inscribed Corinthian vases. 107. Wachter 2001, pp. 34–115, nos. COR 1–131. See also the statistical analysis and useful discussion in Osborne and Pappas 2007.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

77

workshops specializing in sympotic vessels, such as kraters or kotylai, is corroborated by the distribution pattern of the inscriptions. Interestingly, Wachter notes that, with a few exceptions, most of the inscriptions were placed on vases that were exported.108 Only a handful of inscriptions are dedicatory in nature, in sharp contrast with the Penteskouphia group, which are predominantly dedicatory.

C hr onol o g y In this section I synthesize the available information on the chronology of the assemblage, taking into consideration context chronology and additional dates proposed on the basis of epigraphy and vase painting. At the outset it is important to note that the development of a Corinthian chronology based on ceramic shapes and decoration has proved challenging, and is far from settled. Amyx has provided a helpful concordance of the subperiods proposed by various scholars, which I have reproduced in part here as Table 3.4.109 Scholarly disagreements aside, with the pinakes we have the additional challenge of lacking a precisely dated archaeological context. The few associated ceramics (42 vessels, mostly kotylai, aryballoi, and pyxides in the silhouette style, two miniature vessels, and two figurines) can only suggest a broad chronological range for the activity at the site from the Middle Corinthian period to the 5th century b.c. (see above, pp. 32–34). The presence of inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes might seem to offer some hope to scholars attempting to date these artifacts in the absence of other context materials. Letter-form parallels, along with analysis of figural decoration and, in limited cases, the style of filling ornaments in the backgrounds of scenes, have been the primary criteria for dating.110 Precise dating of the pinakes on these grounds, however, is still difficult: their letter forms are in many cases inconclusive; their iconography is often unusual, and the vast majority do not contain conventional stylistic dating clues, such as felines, incised palmettes, or other filling ornamentation. A few felines do exist (as in F 722; Fig. 3.19), but the primitive style of sketching does not allow comparison with other well-drawn felines of Middle and Late Corinthian date. Internal clues like the shapes of pots depicted on the pinakes are also of limited usefulness, due to the small scale of the drawings (see above, p. 50). Some scholars have even tried to date them on the basis of the type of ships depicted on them.111 In all, the Penteskouphia pinakes with assigned dates represent about 17% of the entire corpus (Appendix 1). First, Payne placed ca. 30 pinakes within the entire chronological spectrum of Corinthian vase painting, from Transitional to Late Corinthian II.112 Jeffery adopted Payne’s dates when she studied the inscriptions on the pinakes.113 Von Raits dated most 108. Wachter 2001, p. 34. 109. Amyx 1988, pp. 397–434. See also the brief survey of Corinthian vase painting in Coulié 2013, pp. 105–141. 110. Harrison 1996 provides a critical assessment of Corinthian chronology regarding pottery. For a

more recent treatment, especially of the early phases, see Neeft 2012 (I thank A. Ziskowski for this reference). 111. Von Raits (1964, p. 22), e.g., dates the ship scene on C-1963-224 / C-1963-213 to 530–500 b.c. 112. Payne 1931, pp. 97 (Transitional), 101 (Early Corinthian), 104

(Middle Corinthian), 108 (Late Corinthian), 112 (Late Corinthian II). Von Raits (1964, p. 7) notes that “the dates given to a few inscribed pieces in Berlin have been assigned on stylistic rather than epigraphical grounds.” 113. Jeffery 1990, pp. 131–132.

78

c hap t er 3

TA B LE 3.4. CO R I N T H I A N C H RO N O L O G Y Period

Amyx (1988)

Dunbabin, Perachora II (1962)

Late Geometric (LG)

750–720 b.c.

to ca. 725 b.c.

Middle Protocorinthian I (MPC I)

690–670 b.c.

ca. 700–675 b.c.

Early Protocorinthian (EPC)

720–690 b.c.

Middle Protocorinthian II (MPC II) 670–650 b.c.

ca. 725–700 b.c.

ca. 675–650 b.c.

Late Protocorinthian (LPC)

650–630 b.c.

Early Corinthian (EC)

620/615–595/590 b.c. ca. 625–600 b.c.

Transitional (TR)

Middle Corinthian (MC) Late Corinthian I (LC I)

Late Corinthian II (LC II)

630–620/615 b.c.

ca. 650–640 b.c.

ca. 640–625 b.c.

595/590–570 b.c.

ca. 600–575 b.c.

after 550 b.c.

after ca. 550 b.c.

570–550 b.c.

ca. 575–550 b.c.

Note: Based on Amyx 1988, pp. 399, 428; Perachora II, p. 6.

of the pinakes she discussed in the MC–LC range, with two outliers in the Protocorinthian and EC periods.114 Similarly to Jeffery, Wachter listed, without further critique, the dates proposed by previous scholars. A recent attempt to date over 150 pinakes is of limited help, since the dating criteria have not been clearly established, and in some cases pinakes are dated a century or so apart from their previously assigned date without explanation.115 In some cases, the chronological ranges have been too broad to be useful (such as “6th century b.c.,” or “first half of the 6th century b.c.”).116 Of the 43 pinakes with scenes of potters at work that have assigned dates (largely two-sided pinakes where the non-pottery-making scene helps with dating), the distribution of dates is as follows: Early Corinthian (5): B8, B20, B21, B51, B52 Middle Corinthian (11): A3, A7, A33, B1, B6, B19, B26, B29, B42, B59, B62 Middle Corinthian/Late Corinthian/Late Corinthian I (7): A2, A8, A18, B3, B5, B15, B17 Late Corinthian (10): A5, A10, A14, B22, B38, B46 (LC I), B48, B49, B54, B58 Late Corinthian II (3): B9, B10, B40 Different dates (5): A6 (MC or MC/LC), A34 (MC or LC II), B18 (MC or LC II), B47 (MC or LC), B53 (MC/LC or LC II) 6th century (2): A9, A31 114. Von Raits 1964, p. 6. She dated C-1963-210 as Protocorinthian because of the crude rendering of the horseback rider, and C-1963-112 as Early Corinthian (specifically to the Ephebe Painter; Benson 1953, p. 35, no. 47; von Raits 1964, p. 8) on the basis of the rendering of the reins, chests, seats, and elbows. Furtwängler (1885, p. 48) recognized a few pieces as certainly late due to their different style and redder clay. 115. Palmieri (2016), studying a small subset of pinakes with autopsy

examination of only a few in the Corinth Museum, has added dates for previously undated pinakes and modified existing ones with little justification. Many of the changes are between MC and LC, but in a few cases, the redating is quite extreme (e.g., F 755 + F 789, dated by Payne and Amyx to the EC period, but by Palmieri to LC II). Dating criteria are occasionally presented, or in the case of the two-sided pinakes, the date is assigned based on the quality and style of the better-drawn side. The

discussion (pp. 29–48, and in catalogue entries), dispersed in various parts of the study, is sometimes contradictory. Over 50% of the dated pinakes depict Poseidon-related imagery; parallels from other media, often non-Corinthian (such as Attic pottery and sculpture), pose a risk of downdating the pinakes. 116. E.g., Lazzarini (1976), whose main interest was the dedicatory formulas, dates the pinakes that she treats largely to the 6th century b.c., without further refinement.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

79

The clustering in this chronological range (600–550 b.c.) of the pinakes with pottery scenes reflects the prevalent range of dates for the entire Penteskouphia corpus. Two-thirds of the dated pinakes in the present catalogue as well as the majority of the dated pinakes in the entire corpus date to the Middle Corinthian and Late Corinthian periods.117 The handful of exceptions dated to the Transitional and Early Corinthian periods (e.g., B21) have been dated early mainly due to the letter forms in their inscriptions, the filling ornaments, or the shape of a depicted vessel (e.g., B8), but a painter could have been using archaizing elements in later pinakes, or the miniature rendering of a vessel on a pinax of 4 cm height (e.g., B8) might mask the details of the form. Therefore, it may be misleading to widen the chronological spectrum on one end to the Transitional period, or even earlier, and on the other end to Late Corinthian II, in order to include only a small number of outliers. The wider scope prevents us from focusing on the periods with intensification of pinax production and reasons for such flurries of activity. The only reason that Payne attributed some pinakes to the Late Corinthian II period (the period after the middle of the 6th century b.c.) was so that they could serve as filler in a developmental scheme based on figural decoration, in the absence of contemporary vase painting. It is worthwhile to quote his rationale here:

117. In Appendix I, the chronological distribution of the 180 pinakes with assigned dates is as follows: 8% are dated Protocorinthian to Transitional; 11% to EC/EC?; 2% to EC–MC; 23% to MC; 16% to MC/LC; 25% to LC/ LC I; 11% to LC II; and 4% more generally to the 6th century b.c. 118. Payne 1931, p. 111. 119. Payne (1931, p. 112), while discussing F 787 (AntDenk II, pl. 23:16), which has “very primitive folds” and which he dates to after the middle of the 6th century, warns that the pinax “should also belong to this period, but the drawing is so childish that it is difficult to make a definite suggestion as to date.” Later (p. 159) he discusses archaism in writing in votive pictures, which raises doubts about assigning an early date to any Penteskouphia pinax on the basis of early letter forms in the inscriptions.

At this point Corinthian vase-painters seem to have realized that figure-painting was destined to become an Attic monopoly; at any rate, the series of vases which we have been considering comes to an abrupt end, and we have to turn to the pinakes to discover what the style of the second half of the century was like. But it can hardly be maintained that these give a true picture of the possibilities of their time, for they are dominated by a peculiar conservatism which often gives a very archaic appearance to work which is really late, and which cannot have been characteristic of secular painting on a larger scale.118 Payne was correct in assessing that the Late Corinthian II period, as we now know from studies on Conventionalizing Corinthian pottery, had little to no figural work. Late Corinthian II ceramics also display a different clay fabric, which is not evident in our corpus. So in terms of both fabric and decoration we should exclude the Late Corinthian II period from the chronological horizon of the pinakes. They remained, throughout their production, closely associated with workshops of figural pottery. In other words, no workshops producing pinakes can be envisioned after the second half of the 6th century. Therefore, the pinakes were indeed made earlier than the second half of the 6th century, and do not simply display “a peculiar conservatism.” Moreover, as Payne himself has cautioned, scholars have often conflated lack of skill with an earlier date, so that low-skill pieces have often been considered Early Corinthian based on the quality of their drawing rather than on reliable chronological criteria.119 I would suggest that the circumstances were ripe for the popularity of pinakes in the Middle and Late Corinthian periods. First, this was the time when larger vessels such as kraters became more common, with larger surfaces for decoration than were available on the smaller pots of previous periods. Kraters, like the pinakes, adopt a figural frieze for at least part of

80

c hap t er 3

the decoration; they also have handle plates that are almost identical to the Penteskouphia pinakes in shape and size. When kraters first appeared, late in the Early Corinthian period, they typically did not have such handle plates. The shape became a mainstay in Corinthian workshops from the Middle Corinthian period on.120 Second, equestrian and hoplite iconography, which can be found on almost one-fifth of all the pinakes, enters the repertoire of the painters in the Middle Corinthian period. Third, the depictions of horses of the Middle Corinthian period are of higher quality than earlier ones, and we have numerous examples of well-drawn horses on the pinakes (e.g., M23, F 540 + F 551 + fr., F 542, F 543, F 545 / C-1963-313).121 Fourth, the running, circular mode of arranging the decoration on pots in the Transitional and Early Corinthian periods is gradually abandoned for a more static, framed, snapshot arrangement of the scene (as on the pinakes), with strong Atticizing overtones, in the Middle Corinthian period. Many artists who had been active in the Middle Corinthian period continued to produce in the Late Corinthian I period as well. Therefore it would not be surprising if some pinakes that are thought to be Middle Corinthian were produced in the same workshops that continued to produce pinakes that are dated to Late Corinthian I (570–550 b.c.).122 We should consider, for example, the long-spanning career of the Middle Corinthian Medallion Painter, who started his work at the end of the Early Corinthian period and continued to the beginning of the Late Corinthian I period.123 Given the limitations of the evidence, all we can say with confidence is that the pinakes are the products of Corinthian potters in the Penteskouphia region who were active in the first half of the 6th century b.c. Some of their fellow potters in the Potters’ Quarter in Corinth also produced a few terracotta pinakes dating mostly to the Middle and Late Corinthian period.124 Contemporary with many pinakes depicting kiln-firing scenes is a notable cluster of firing test pieces recovered from the Potters’ Quarter in Middle Corinthian contexts. It seems that potters were especially concerned about the successful outcome of a kiln firing in the Middle Corinthian period. Whether through pinakes or other kiln furniture, these potters were continually devising ways to closely monitor the firing and gain more control over the final result (see below, pp. 271–272). Attribution to specific painters’ hands is difficult for the same reasons that dating has been problematic: the pinakes’ fragmentary condition, small size, unusual themes, and lack of large figural scenes where the idiosyncratic preferences of specific painters could be identified. The small surface of the pinakes makes it difficult for a painter to showcase his style, so that even when the scenes are signed by their makers or dedicators, largely 120. For an overview of themes on handle plates, see Bakir 1974, p. 66. 121. Payne (1931, pp. 71–74, fig. 18) notes that horses are rendered more skillfully on the Middle Corinthian than Early Corinthian kraters. 122. Amyx 1988, pp. 387–395. 123. Amyx 1988, p. 382. Other examples include the Scale-Pattern Group of aryballoi and alabastra, with possible LC activity (Amyx 1988,

p. 149); the Herzegovina Painter (Amyx 1988, p. 237); the Winged Lion Painter (who uses “tired formulae inherited from the MC tradition”: Amyx 1988, p. 244); and the Severeanu Painter (Amyx 1988, p. 256). 124. Corinth XV.3, pp. 239–245, nos. 1320–1357. Pinakes were found mostly in deposits with heavy concentrations of Middle Corinthian pottery.

Man ufactur e, Funct ion, Icono g raphy

81

believed to be potters themselves (e.g., A6[?], B42, B53, F 495 + F 513, F 511 / MNC 212, MNC 209; see below, Figs. 5.26, 5.27), not enough of the painter’s style is captured to allow scholars to identify the hands of Penteskouphia painters within the massive corpus of Corinthian vase painting.125 One Penteskouphia pinax (A34, depicting figures) has been attributed by Amyx to the Middle Corinthian column-krater specialist Ophelandros Painter.126 No Corinthian krater has been attributed to the painter Milonidas, known only from his signature on a pinax, and it is doubtful whether scholars would have associated Timonidas’s jug with the Timonidas Penteskouphia pinax, had the painter not signed both of them. Payne assigned two pinakes with Poseidon iconography to the same, unnamed artist of the late 6th century b.c. (Late Corinthian II) based on their similarity with the Lyseas stele (Athens, NAM 30, 550 b.c.).127 The same, unnamed, artist was proposed for pinakes F 349 and F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399.128 Recently pinakes have been assigned to a few Corinthian painters active in the Early Corinthian to Late Corinthian period.129 As for stylistic attribution of other Corinthian pinakes, there is a pinax from the Corinthian Potters’ Quarter which has been assigned to the Chimaera Painter, a specialist of perfume vessels, bowls, and plates.130 Other painters in the Potters’ Quarter who decorated pinakes include the Aegina Bellerophon Painter and possibly Timonidas.131 I will return to the potters and their rare custom of signing pots in Chapter 5 (see below, pp. 218–226). Stylistic attribution to the “hands” of specific painters remains to be undertaken when the entire corpus of the Penteskouphia pinakes is published. Even then, however, the fact that the iconographical repertoire of the Penteskouphia pinakes does not conform to the standard stock themes from the Middle Corinthian and Late Corinthian periods will present a challenge. The iconography of Poseidon or potters at work is rarely found on other ceramics. The figural scenes on the pinakes are not crowded, so we cannot trace the painter’s peculiarities in the rendering of details on animals or figures. Although the painters’ hands are elusive, we are on safer ground concerning the main production line for these painters, who, as we saw earlier in the chapter, specialized in sympotic vessels. 125. The groupings that were previously suggested (Hasaki 2002, p. 40, n. 27) seem to point to similar levels of skill, rather than to specific individuals. 126. Amyx 1988, pp. 233–234. AntDenk II, pl. 24:9; Payne 1931, p. 112; Palmieri 2016, p. 201, no. Ge19. Jeffery (1990, p. 132, no. 20) dates it to the Late Corinthian II period. D’Agostino and Palmieri (2016, p. 170) also suggest that A34 may be by the Ophelandros Painter, based on similarities with grotesque figures found on the Dümmler krater (Paris, Louvre E 632) with the rows of superimposed kraters (see below, p. 198). 127. Payne 1931, p. 112. The pinakes are F 494 (AntDenk II, pl. 24:2; depicting Poseidon and Amphitrite)

and F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399 (Fig. 3.7; depicting Poseidon). Payne attributes the absence of folds in the drapery to local Corinthian tradition and to conservatism typically associated with the iconography of deities. Payne dated the two-sided pinax F 834 (AntDenk II, pl. 29:23; side A: Poseidon and Amphitrite; side B: Athena and giant?) to 510–500 b.c. on the basis of threedimensional folds. 128. Payne 1931, p. 112. 129. Palmieri (2016), while acknowledging that her suggestions do not constitute attributions, has associated some Penteskouphia pinakes with Early Corinthian painters (Wilanow Painter [F 450]; De Young Painter [F 647 + F 656]; Polyteleia Painter

[F 382]); Middle Corinthian painters (London Frauenfest Painter [F 474 + 2 frr.]; Chimaera Group [F 485 + F 765]; Cavalcade Painter [A7, B18, F 475]; Gorgoneion Group [F 855 + F 862]; Basel Hydra Aryballos Painter [M30]); and a Late Corinthian painter (Hippolytos Painter [B46]). On Corinthian potters and painters generally, see Coulié 2013, pp. 133–138. 130. Corinth KN-55; Corinth XV.3, p. 240, no. 1322, pls. 55, 112. 131. Aegina Bellerophon Painter: Corinth KN-15; Corinth XV.3, pp. 239– 240, no. 1320, pls. 55, 112; Amyx 1988, p. 29, dating to Middle Protocorinthian period. Possibly one pinax by Timonidas (Corinth KN-46; Corinth XV.3, p. 245, no. 1356, pls. 56, 114, 122).

c hap t er 4

Catalogue of Scenes of Potters at Work

In the following catalogue, one-sided and two-sided pinakes are treated as two separate groups, with catalogue numbers prefixed with A and B, respectively. I have further subdivided each group into the following categories, which include the three main stages of pottery manufacture depicted on the pinakes. Within each production phase, the two-sided pinakes are arranged first by the theme on side A (e.g., Poseidon, equestrian), and for the numerous kiln firing scenes, I have kept similar activities together to the extent possible. The pairing of themes can also be found in Table 5.1, and detailed analysis of iconographical elements in the kiln scenes is presented in Table 5.2. I conclude the catalogue with some scenes that may be connected with, or are now disassociated from, pottery manufacturing. 1. Clay and fuel collection (A1–A3; B1–B7) 2. Potters at the wheel (A4; B8–B18) 3. Kiln firing (A5–A32; B19–B61 [and opposite sides of B2, B3, B15, B17, B18]) 4. Workshop-related scenes (A33, A34; B62, B63) 5. Ambiguous scenes (one-sided pinakes: M1–M10; two-sided pinakes: M11–M22) 6. Disassociated scenes (one-sided pinakes: M23–M25; two-sided pinakes: M26–M30) For subgroups 5 and 6, Furtwängler (1885), von Raits (1964), and others have suggested that pottery scenes are depicted, but their reasons are vague.1 It seems that any large area with slip or fragmentary, curved lines was uncritically identified as a kiln depiction. Some identifications relied 1. Stissi (2002, pp. 455–482) lists other pinakes which he interprets as scenes of potters at work: Corinth C-1963-281 (no. 98: kiln stoker[?]; here considered a figure); C-1963-300 + C-1963-391 (no. 99: part of kiln to r.; here, unclear); Antikensammlung F 571 (no. C6: A: horses; B: possibly a worker digging for clay; here considered a one-sided pinax depicting a horse). In

the case of several others, he expresses doubt or disassociates them from pottery production. I list them here with the identifications (side A/side B) adopted in this study (Appendix I): C-1963-109 (figure/figure); C-1963-124 (Poseidon/figure); C-1963‑136 (figure/ unclear); C-1963-166 (figure/warrior); C-1963-202 + C-1963-266 (figure[?]/ unclear); C-1963-204 (horseback

rider/figure); C-1963-214 (figure); C-1963-224 / C-1963-213 (ship); C-1963-272 (figure [and tripod]); C-1963-380 (in this study associated with C-1963-145 and C-1963-439 as M22: figures/unclear); F 648 (ship); F 777 (figures); F 795 + F 824 (Poseidon/horses [and squire]); F 837 (unclear/unclear); I 60 (figure [with amphora]); I 133 (figure/figure).

84

c hap t er 4

on the positions of the figures, which were seen as similar to those on other pinakes with secure pottery-making scenes. To disassociate these examples, I provide mostly negative evidence, such as the lack of space for a typically proportioned kiln scene, even if the pinax were complete (e.g., M14), or the lack of adherence to the compositional patterns of pottery-production scenes. Clay: For all of the pinakes, the clay is the typical Corinthian clay with Munsell readings ranging from 7.5YR 7/4 (pink) to 10YR 7/4 (very pale brown). Technique: The standard painting technique is Corinthian black-figure. Depending on the firing conditions and the location of the pinax in the kiln, the paint usually fired from a dark brown to red and orange. I use the term “slip” as equivalent to paint or levigated slip. Only divergences from the standard black-figure technique are noted. Whenever added red color was used to accentuate details on the figures or structures, I have noted it. Inventory numbers: Numbers preceded by F or I belong to the Antikensammlung in Berlin; the P numbers after the Berlin inventory numbers refer to the original inventory numbers assigned to the Penteskouphia pinakes prior to their publication by Furtwängler in 1885. They are included mainly because some P inventory numbers are still left on the pinakes and are visible in photos. Numbers preceded by CA, MNB, or MNC are stored in the Musée du Louvre in Paris. Those preceded by C are at the Corinth Museum. Dimensions and other attributes: All dimensions are in cm. They are not individually labeled, but in each entry are presented in the following order: height (taken vertically to the scene on side A), width (taken horizontally to the scene), and thickness (the maximum thickness of the pinax, which often varies between 0.1 and 0.3 cm when taken at different places). “No original edge” describes fragments that do not preserve any corner or edge of the pinax. Maximum preserved dimensions are provided for fragmentary pieces. In terms of size, “small-sized” refers to pinakes that in complete or reconstructed state cover a surface 141 cm2. In some cases it is difficult to estimate the original size (see Table 3.1 for the groups of different sizes). For complete pinakes and whenever possible, I have also included the weight. Description: The description of the preserved part of the pinax (e.g., “lower l. corner,” “upper r. corner”) for the two-sided pinakes is based on what I consider to be the primary side of the pinax (see below, on piercing, for criteria to establish the primary side). The primary side is called side A, and the reverse, side B. The viewer’s point of view is adopted for right and left. The terminology of kiln parts can be found in Figures 5.3 and 6.25. Similar depictions of objects or figures often occur on other Penteskouphia pinakes that do not have pottery scenes; those used as comparanda are listed in the catalogue with their museum inventory numbers. Orientation: For the orientation of the scenes on two-sided pinakes, I have adopted standard numismatic conventions for die-axis notation, using arrows and numbers (see Table 3.2, where both the arrows and the numerical conventions are supplied). Piercing: I use the term “pierced holes” instead of “suspension holes,” as I am not certain of the manner in which they were displayed (e.g., suspen-

Catal o gue

2. See Wachter 2001, p. xxi, for explanation of these conventions. Illustrations of inscriptions from Wachter 2001 are provided where relevant. 3. For a full bibliographic survey, see above, p. 15, n. 43.

85

sion, attachment). The direction of the piercing is indicated (from side A to B, or from side B to A), whenever it could be ascertained. Often the direction of piercing provides a clue, albeit not conclusive evidence, as to which side the potter regarded as the primary, or which side he painted first. Inscriptions: For the inscriptions, relevant citations of IG IV and Wachter 2001 are provided. Wachter catalogues Penteskouphia inscriptions with a COP prefix, and all other inscriptions on Corinthian vases with a COR prefix. The inscriptions are discussed further in Chapter 5, below (pp. 209–226), and are illustrated together in Figures 5.22–5.25. When two or more inscriptions appear on the same side of the pinax, they are numbered i, ii, iii, etc. (see, e.g., B55). I also indicate when the inscription is written in retrograde. I have adopted Wachter’s readings and conventions.2 Date: Some pinakes have been assigned dates by previous scholars; I supply this information, when available, using the chronology in Amyx 1988 (see Table  3.4): Early Corinthian (EC), 620/615–595/590 b.c.; Middle Corinthian (MC), 595/590–570 b.c.; Late Corinthian (LC) I, 570–550 b.c.; Late Corinthian (LC) II, after 550 b.c. Bibliography: Basic bibliographical references are given at the end of each entry. The primary publications are: Furtwängler 1885, Pernice 1897, von Raits 1964, and Geagan 1970. Although the Penteskouphia pinakes have been featured in many studies on Greek art, pottery, crafts, craftspeople at work, and Greek religion, additional publications are cited only when they offer specific comments or interpretations. I also provide the primary illustration reference for these pinakes in Antike Denkmäler (abbreviated as AntDenk).3 Reconstruction: In some cases, it is possible to estimate, with a fair degree of certainty, the original size of a pinax. My reconstructions take into account structure and iconography. For the overall size of the pinax, I used the range of height:width ratio of 1:1.3 to 1:1.6 as evidenced by the complete Penteskouphia pinakes (e.g., A4, A5, A6, A10, B1, B2, B8, B19, B37, B41, B61), and the position of the pierced holes (assuming that potters tended to place two closely spaced pierced holes at the center on the upper edge). Additionally, I used the iconography of Poseidon and of horses, for which complete examples are available (e.g., Poseidon on B19 and the horse on M23) to approximate body proportions in Poseidon and other figural representations. The proportions of a horse were also used as a guide (Fig. 3.6), a visual aid that was employed already in the first illustration of the pinakes in the Antike Denkmäler (e.g., in associating F 513 with F  952, and F  521 with F  796 and F  876 [AntDenk  II, pls.  40:14, 40:2a, b, respectively]). Finally, the proportional relationship of kiln parts (e.g., the height of the pot-firing chamber roughly equals the height of the combustion chamber, or the overall minimum length of the stoking channel) helped with kiln reconstructions. The reconstructions are aimed both to enhance the readability of the fragmentary scenes and to allow us to assess the extent of the scene, especially if more than one figure or some other object or structure could have been originally present. Abbreviations used: diam. diameter l. left dim. dimensions b.-f. black-figure fr(r). fragment(s) r.-f. red-figure r. right

86

c hap t er 4

O N E - S I D ED P I NA K E S Cl ay Col l ect ion (A 1 –A3 )

A1  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.1; Color Fig. 1

A2  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.1

A3  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.1

Antikensammlung F 639 (P 574). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.8 × 5.8 × 0.5. R. half of medium-sized pinax. Painted border. A naked man holding a pick digs (for clay?) in a cavity with an irregular contour. Slip fired red. The complete pinax may have been similar to B1. Furtwängler 1885, p. 73; Zimmer 1982a, p. 33, pl. III:1; Vidale 2002, p. 240, fig. 42; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no.  Κ12; Palmieri 2016, p. 188, no. Ga2. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:23. Antikensammlung F 638 (P 258). Dim. 7.2 × 6.4 × 0.7. Lower r. corner of large-sized pinax. Approximately one-quarter of original size. Lime spalling on part of the figure’s chest. Painted border. Depiction of a scarp, from which, perhaps, clay is being collected. A naked bearded man, in a kneeling position, digs with a tool held with both hands. The top part of the tool is not preserved, but it is similar in proportion to the small pick held by the man in A1. All slip worn off. Similar to B1 (side A). Dated to the MC–LC I period (595–550 b.c.) (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p.  73; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p.  206, no.  Κ11; Palmieri 2016, p. 188, no. Ga1. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:21.

Antikensammlung F 786 (P 386). Dim. 6.0 × 8.2 × 0.8. Lower half of mediumsized pinax. Two holes are indicated on lower r. and l. corners: only the r. corner is pierced, from painted side; barely visible hole on plain reverse. Painted border. A heavy, naked man facing r. The position of his upper torso and his hands indicates that he is carrying a load on his back. His beard, barely visible below his r. elbow, denotes his advanced age. His genitalia are seen in the anatomically correct position for someone bending at such an angle. For a similar rendering of workers’ genitals, cf. B1. The load may be clay, if the wavy border on the l. side represents a scarp. Most of the slip worn off. Dated to the MC period (595–550 b.c.) (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 82; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 26, 42, fig. 12; Vidale 2002, p. 240, fig. 43; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no.  Κ16; Palmieri 2016, p. 205, no. Gf1. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 24:18.

Pot t ers at t he Wheel (A 4) A4  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.2

Antikensammlung F 640 + fr. (P 259 + P 259a). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.3 × 12.1 × 0.7. Three frr. with some modern plaster between them. Almost intact. Medium-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Traces of added red on jugs and figures. Jugs stored on a shelf and at least three figures engaged in forming pots and related workshop activities. Nine one-handled jugs stand on an upper shelf, probably to dry. Below them, though the slip is very worn, three figures can be seen. From l. to r.: one figure stands on a pile, perhaps foot-wedging a pile of clay; a seated potter facing r. works on a small vessel on a table; a larger man is working on a larger vessel on his wheel. The different parts of the wheel are not clearly visible. The leg of a third stool is preserved in the r. part of the pinax; perhaps a fourth potter was originally depicted.

Catal o gue

A1

A2

0 Figure 4.1. One-sided pinakes showing clay collection (A1–A3). Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske (A1), U. Jung (A2), J. Laurentius (A3), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas (A1 after Zimmer 1982a, p. 33, pl. III:1; A2 after AntDenk II, pl. 39:21; A3 after Zimmer 1982a, p. 42, fig. 12).

5cm

87

0

5cm

A3

0

5cm

88

c hap t er 4

A4

Figure 4.2. One-sided pinax showing potters at the wheel (A4). Scale 2:3.

Photo courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing Vidale 2002, p. 245, fig. 47

A5 The larger size of the potter at the wheel suggests that he is older and more0 skilled than his fellow potters, who may be apprentices and/or younger relatives. The smallest potter, at the table, may be attaching a handle to the pot, an activity often relegated to apprentices. See similar vessels on B5, B57, and F 461. For a similar arrangement of pots on a shelf, see the stacked kylikes on the b.-f. tondo of a kylix in London, British Museum 1847,1125.18 (B 432) (Fig. 5.11). Furtwängler 1885, p. 73; Pernice 1897, p. 26, fig. 15; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 39, 62, pl. 20:2; Vidale 1998, p. 123, no. 4, fig. 3; 2002, pp. 244–245, fig. 47; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no. Κ13; Palmieri 2016, p. 192, no. Gd1.

Kil n Fir ing (A 5–A32) A5  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.3; Color Fig. 1

Antikensammlung F 608 (P 221). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.7 × 11.0 × 0.4. Intact except for upper r. corner. Medium-sized pinax. One pierced hole. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and pot-firing chamber. Flames rise from a vent in the dome and from the stoking channel. A man wearing a hat (pilos?) is standing on top of the stoking channel checking the firing from the chimney with a hooked tool. A second man behind the first seems to be fueling the stoking channel with two long pieces of wood. Scene painted in silhouette technique.

Figure 4.3. One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A5). Scale 2:3. Photo courtesy

5cm Museen zu Antikensammlung, Staatliche Berlin; drawing Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

89

A6 Figure 4.4. One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A6). Scale 1:1. Photo

I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing Wachter 2001, no. COP 48B

Inscription dipinto: Ποτēδν, written horizontally along top border. Wachter (2001, p. 151) notes that the author of the inscription may have been illiterate, both because of the unusual nominative case and the generally sloppy letter forms (including the miswritten nu). Similar to A10, but shows a second worker. Similar in style to A14. Dated to the LC I period(?) (570–550 b.c.) (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p.  70; Zimmer 1982a, pp.  40, 64, fig.  22:1; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 78, no. 3; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no.  Κ4; Palmieri 2016, p. 198, no. Ge11. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:1. Inscription: IG IV 285; Wachter 2001, p. 151, no. COP 84A. A6  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.4

A7  Pinax, one sided

Fig. 4.5; Color Fig. 1

Antikensammlung F 611 (P 224). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 4.9 × 7.8 × 0.8. Almost complete. Small-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. A complete kiln, facing r.; the stoking channel is shown in section. An object (pot?) serves as a chimney. A man is stoking the kiln. Inscription, dipinto: Φλέβο̄ν μʼἀνέθε̄κε, written above and to r. of the figure. Cf. B20, B56 for the use of vessels as chimneys. Similar in style to pinakes F 557, F 530 + F 558 (Fig. 5.29). For the same name, Φλέβο̄ν, see F 557 (IG IV 235) and F 530 + F 558 (IG IV 236). It is perhaps the same individual, since the letter forms are the same in both examples. Dated to the MC period (Lorber 1979, p. 53, no. 75, pl. 17; Jeffery 1990, pp.  126, 131, no.  15, pl.  19:15; Palmieri 2016, p. 194). Palmieri (2016, p.  178, no. Dc4) dates the related F 530 + F 558 to the MC–LC periods. Furtwängler 1885, p. 71; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 78, no. 4; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no. Κ5; Palmieri 2016, p. 194, no. Ge4. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:26. Inscription: IG IV 234; Wachter 2001, pp. 138–139, no. COP 48B. Antikensammlung F 482 + F 627 + F 943 + fr. (P 532 + P 575 + P 533). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.6 × 8.9 × 0.4. Three edges preserved, upper l. quadrant broken off. Medium-sized pinax. In the lower r. corner, kiln facing l. with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome. Flames exit a vent in the dome and perhaps the stoking chamber. This kiln is rudimentarily drawn. At l., legs and lower torso of a naked man painted in black-fired slip. A long T-shaped rod extends toward the fiery vent, perhaps testing the intensity of the heat by the traditional “twig” method (in which the potters gauge both temperature and oxygen levels by timing how long it takes a twig held close to the kiln’s vent to catch fire). Inscription, dipinto: κάμῑνος, placed between the kiln and the man.

90

c hap t er 4

0

5cm

A7

0

A8 Cf. A9, for a man holding a tool in a similar position. 0 Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016, who associates it with the Cavalcade Painter). Given that the Cavalcade Painter is singled out by Amyx (1988, p. 197) as an artist “with extremely fine work, among the best in MC vase-painting,” it is unlikely that this hastily drawn pinax, with its rudimentary kiln rendering, is his work. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 59, 72, 105; Pernice 1897, p. 19, figs. 9, 25; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 79, no. 7; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no.  Κ2; Palmieri 2016, p. 193, no. Ge2. Inscription: IG IV 332; Wachter 2001, p. 150, no. COP 81. A8  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.5; Color Fig. 1

Antikensammlung F 610 (P 223). Dim. 8.5 × 9.2 × 0.4. Almost complete except for small slice missing along l. edge. Medium-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Kiln facing l. with combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney clearly indicated. There is no trace of the stoking channel, though there is enough space to depict it. Flames, rendered in very thin slip, exit a vent in the dome. Very little use of incision. To the l. of the kiln, a man walking r. holds in his l. hand a T-shaped rod that he points toward the loading door of the kiln. A slender pot (an amphora[?], but with no handles) is hanging at l. Most of the slip worn off. Uneven surface with ripple going through the middle. For the shape of the amphora, cf. B1.

5cm

Figure 4.5. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A7, A8). Scale 2:3. Photos courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche 5cm Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

91

A9 0

5cm

Figure 4.6. One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A9). Scale 2:3. Photo

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 10

Dated to the MC–LC period (Kiderlen and Strocka 2005). Furtwängler 1885, p. 71; Kiderlen and Strocka 2005, p. 96, no. 35; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 121, no. 83. A9  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.6

Antikensammlung F 628 + F 666 (P 508 + P 511). Dim. 6.5 × 8.1 × 0.5. L. part (upper, lower, and l. edge) preserved. More than three-quarters of medium-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Painted border. Painted edges. Kiln facing l., with part of stoking channel, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney preserved. Flames exit the stoking channel and the chimney. Most slip, fired black, is worn off. To the l. of the kiln, a bearded man, walking to r., holds horizontally in his l. hand a long, T-shaped rod (cf. A7, in a similar position, and B20). He carries a branch with leaves in his r. hand, probably to be used as fuel (cf. B46). The pointed object above/behind his head may be a strand of hair or part of a pilos. The scene is painted in silhouette technique and most slip is worn off. Inscription, dipinto: Ϙύλ(λ)ᾱς̣ Οὐ .[.]υ̣ [μ’ἀνέθε̄κε ]Ποτ̣ēδᾶ̣[νι ϝ]άν̣α̣κτι, placed to the l. of the figure and between figure and kiln. A comparison between the drawings in IG IV and Wachter 2001 shows how much information has been lost in the course of a century. Dated to the 6th century b.c. (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, pp.  72, 75; Pernice 1897, p.  25; Palmieri 2016, p.  204, no. Ge24. Inscription: IG IV 328; Wachter 2001, p. 127, no. COP 10; Amyx (1988, p. 608, no. 34) believes it is a potter’s dedication. A10  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.7; Color Fig. 1

Antikensammlung F 356 + F 609 (P 8 + P 222). Dim. 11.6 × 8.5 × 0.6. Mostly intact, with central part with r. edge missing. Medium-sized pinax. Two pierced holes on upper corners. Painted edges. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and the lower part of the pot-firing chamber. Flames exit the stoking channel, and the missing top

92

c hap t er 4

0

A10

5cm

0 A11 of the dome. The kiln occupies almost the entire width of the lower half of the pinax. A naked, bearded man facing r. stands on the stoking channel, holding a tool upright. His arms would have been in the (now missing) central part of the pinax. Scene painted mostly in silhouette. Slip fired brown. One of the few kiln scenes presented on the pinax vertically, in a portrait orientation (see Table 5.2). The hastily drawn style of this depiction is similar to A5, but lacks the second man to the l. Inscription, dipinto: Ποτēδν δ’ ē᾿ μι, placed vertically l. of the figure. Wachter (2001, p. 150) interprets it as “Indeed I am Poseidon,” and remarks that the inscrip-

5cm Figure 4.7. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A10, A11). Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas (A10, A11), J. Denkinger (A11); Wachter 2001, nos. COP 83 (A10), COP 84B (A11)

Catal o gue

A12 Figure 4.8. One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A12). Scale 2:3. Photo

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

93

tion is not grammatically correct. He also 5cm suggests (2001, p. 151) that such phrases 0 may belong to prayers or rituals performed during firing. Dated to the LC I period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 50, 70; Geagan 1970, p. 41, fig. 15; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p.  205, no.  Κ1; Palmieri 2016, p.  153, no.  Ae1. Inscriptions: IG IV 287 (F 356), 327 (F 609); Wachter 2001, pp. 150–151, no. COP 83. A11  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.7

A12  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.8

Antikensammlung F 612 (P 225). Dim. 9.2 × 9.8 × 0.8. L. half with lower l. corner. Large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes, with dirt not removed. Pierced from painted side. Painted border. Kiln facing r., with part of the stoking channel, the combustion chamber, the pot-firing chamber, and a part of the dome. The arched loading door and the crescent-shaped spy hole are indicated by incision. A naked male figure holds a hooked tool in his r. hand and climbs with his r. leg onto the pot-firing chamber, while his l. leg is shown to the r. of the stoking channel. Most of the slip worn off. Judging from the location of the holes, there would have been additional, but limited, space for one more figure to the r. Inscription, graffito: Ποτēδν, placed horizontally along the combustion chamber of the kiln. More traces of a dipinto inscription to the r. of the figure along the break; these have not been previously noted. Wachter (2001, p. 151) believes that the pinax was inscribed after the firing. Furtwängler 1885, p.  71. Inscription: IG IV 282; Wachter 2001, p.  151, no. COP 84B. Antikensammlung F 673 (P 410). Dim. 5.3 × 4.8 × 0.8. No original edge. One-quarter or less of very large-sized pinax. Kiln facing r. with a figure approaching the dome from the r. to inspect the firing through the vent. Only a small curve of the pot-firing chamber of the kiln is preserved. Only the upper legs, torso and upper arms of the figure are preserved. He places his l. foot on the lower part of the dome. Slip fired red. Furtwängler (1885, p. 76) misinterpreted this as a dancing figure, but the position is very common in kiln-inspection scenes, such as A11, A16, B17, and B48. Furtwängler 1885, p. 76.

94

c hap t er 4

A13  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.9

A14  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.9

Antikensammlung F 643 (P 262). Dim. 5.3 × 8.3 × 0.8. Lower l. corner. Onethird of large-sized pinax. Faint traces of border on l. and bottom side. A man with one leg in a climbing position holds a short, hooked tool in his l. hand in front of a structure with a very long chimney and the upper part of a pot-firing chamber. Traces of slip near the l. edge. Slip fired red. Furtwängler (1885) wrongly associated this pinax with metalworking, interpreting the structure as an anvil. Furtwängler 1885, p. 73. Antikensammlung F 618 (P 231). Dim. 8.1 × 5.3 × 0.8. Upper l. corner and half. More than two-thirds of medium-sized pinax. One intact pierced hole and one broken one. Painted border and edges. Small pinax divided into two registers. A small part of the stoking channel, the combustion chamber, the pot-firing chamber, and the dome of a kiln facing r. Flames exit the dome through a vent. The head and the upper torso of a man are visible to the r. of the kiln. The figure stands on top of the stoking channel and inspects the kiln with a hooked tool. The kiln rests on the painted line that separates the two registers. The kiln does not abut the vertical border, as is usually the case, but is placed a little further to the r. Scene painted in silhouette technique. The space in the lower register seems unused except for a diagonal line, perhaps intended as part of an X or border motif. For other examples of scenes placed in registers, see B12, B41, and F 783 (Fig. 3.14). Similar in style to A5. Dated to the LC period(?) (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p.  72; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp.  77, 79, 81, no.  9. Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no. Κ8; Palmieri 2016, p. 200, no. Ge16. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 30:15. A15  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.10

A16  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.10

A13

5cm

0

Antikensammlung F 614 (P 227). Dim. 8.8 × 8.0 × 0.7. R. side with upper, r., and bottom edges preserved. About one-half of large-sized pinax. Kiln facing l. Part of stoking channel is shown, along with combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney. Flames exit the chimney. A small man stands on the stoking channel with both hands raised, lifting a T-shaped rod toward the chimney to inspect the firing. A bird at upper l. flies to the r. The man and kiln are rendered in silhouette, and incision is used only on the bird. Much of the slip for the flames is worn off. Added red in the flames and in the wings of the bird, now mostly gone. An additional worker would fit in the reconstructed space. Furtwängler 1885, p. 71. Antikensammlung F 617 (P 230). Dim. 5.5 × 7.5 × 0.7. Lower r. corner. Almost one-half of large-sized pinax. Painted border and edges. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and a small part of the dome. Red flames exit the stoking channel. The legs and the lower torso of a man standing on the stoking channel are also shown. One of his legs rests on the stoking channel and the other on the dome. He wears a short chitoniskos, parts of which are emphasized with added red. He holds a hooked rod away from the kiln. To the l. of the stoking channel a thin slanted line is preserved, perhaps part of a stoking tool held by a (now lost) second figure. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72.

A14

0 One-sided pinakes show5cm Figure 4.9. ing kiln firing (A13, A14). Scale 2:3.

Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

95

A15

A16

5cm

0

5cm

0

Figure 4.10. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A15–A17).

Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

A17 A17  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.10; Color Fig. 1

Antikensammlung I 79. Dim. 4.6 × 5.3 × 0.9. Lower edge. Approximately one-third of medium-sized pinax. Painted border. Surface is weathered. 0 5cm Kiln worker standing on stoking channel. Part of the stoking channel and beginning of the pot-firing chamber of a kiln facing l. Flames exit the stoking channel. Some are longer, and may represent the end of a stoking rod or piece of

96

c hap t er 4

Figure 4.11. One-sided pinax showing kiln firing (A18). Scale 2:3. Photo

courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing Y. Nakas

A18 fuel held by a second figure0(now lost) to the l. The leg of a person standing on the 5cm stoking channel is depicted. Slip fired orange-red and thickly applied (cf. A21, A23). Pernice 1897, p. 44. A18  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.11

A19  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.12; Color Fig. 2

A20  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.12; Color Fig. 2

Antikensammlung F 613 (P 226). On permanent loan to Göttingen University (Originalsammlung des Archäologischen Instituts und Sammlung der Gipsabgüsse antiker Skulpturen). Dim. 4.5 × 7.0 × 1.1. Lower l. corner with pierced hole. Perhaps one-quarter of large-sized pinax. Painted border. The stoking channel of a kiln facing l. is partially preserved; at the opening of the stoking channel flames are painted with slip. Deep incisions mark the vertical and horizontal edges of the stoking channel. To the l. a man stands on one stout leg while he raises the other one in an effort to climb onto the stoking channel. His lower body is well preserved, but of his upper body only the arms and waist are partially preserved. He holds a hooked tool. The stoking channel of the kiln is unnaturally large compared to the size of the man next to it, rendering his attempt to climb on the stoking channel futile. Perhaps the painter planned his composition poorly, running out of space to depict a correctly sized human figure, or perhaps some humor was intended. Furtwängler 1885, p. 71; CVA, Göttingen 2 [Germany 73], p. 44, fig. 8, pl. 20 [3663]:3, 4 (where the pinax is dated generally to the first half of the 6th century b.c.). Antikensammlung F  620 (P  234). Dim. 6.7  × 6.0  × 0.6. Lower r. corner. Approximately one-half of medium-sized pinax. Painted border. Slip on r. edge. Kiln facing l. with its stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome. A set of three vertical lines joined on top by a horizontal one form the chimney. Flames, in the form of dotted lines in added red or thin slip, rise from a vent in the dome and from the stoking channel. A set of horizontal and vertical lines protruding from the lower part of the pot-firing chamber may represent shelves or nails for placing or hanging apotropaic devices (cf. B38). To the l. of the kiln, the arm of a man is shown holding a rod. The slip on the kiln is fired brown. For a similar rendering of the chimney, see A22. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 122, no. 86. Antikensammlung F 623 (P 237). Dim. 7.0 × 7.9 × 0.8. L., bottom, and r. edges. More than three-quarters of medium-sized pinax. One pierced hole in upper l. corner.

Catal o gue

97

A20

5cm

0

A19

0 pinakes Figure 4.12. One-sided showing kiln firing (A19–A21).

Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger (A19), Y. Nakas

5cm

0

A21

5cm

On the r. part of the space, kiln facing l. The stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney are preserved. On the firing chamber, the loading door is incised as a rectangular opening, and not with its usual arched outline. Flames exit the chimney and the stoking channel. No trace of a kiln worker to the l. of the kiln, although there is ample space for one, and it is unclear whether the presence of a kiln worker was originally intended or not. Cf. A31 for another example of rectangular loading door. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 122, no. 85. A21  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.12; Color Fig. 2

A22  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.13

Antikensammlung I 77. Dim. 4.6 × 4.8 × 0.5. Lower r. corner. Approximately one-third of small-sized pinax. Kiln facing l. with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber and part of the dome. Slip fired bright orange is thickly and uniformly applied (cf. A17, A23). Darker red slip to the l. of the stoking channel represents exiting flames. Pernice 1897, p. 44. Antikensammlung F 622 + fr. (P 236 + fr). Dim. 9.7 × 5.4 × 1.1. Two joining frr. R. side. More than one-third of large-sized pinax. One pierced hole on the upper r. corner. Pierced from painted side. Kiln facing l. with combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney (indicated with three vertical lines). Flames exit the chimney. Brown slip, now almost completely worn off, covered the kiln. The flames are painted with thin slip fired red. To the l. of the flames is part of a hooked tool, held by a (now lost) man approaching from the l. Similar to A19 in the rendering of the chimney. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72; Pernice 1897, p. 25.

98

c hap t er 4

A22 0

5cm

A23 A23  Pinax, one-sided

0 Fig. 4.13; Color Fig. 2

A24  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.14

Antikensammlung I 74. Dim. 8.0 × 5.0 × 0.7. Three joining frr. Part of r. side with upper, r. and lower edges preserved. Approximately one-third of large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes in upper r. and lower r. corners. Painted border on three sides and double border on the r. side. Kiln facing l., with parts of the combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and a vent. Stylized, thickly painted flames exit a vent in the dome. Slip fired red, worn off in several areas (cf. A17, A21). Pernice 1897, p. 44. Antikensammlung F 626 (P 240). Dim. 3.9 × 3.4 × 0.6. Lower l. corner preserved. Approximately one-fifth of medium-sized pinax. Painted border. Kiln facing r. with parts of the combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome preserved. The loading door (drawn with an arched outline) and a spy hole within it are indicated with incision. Slip fired unevenly, mostly red, and mostly worn off. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72.

Figure 4.13. One-sided pinakes 5cm showing kiln firing (A22, A23).

Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

A24

0

99

0

5cm

A25 5cm

2:3

A26 Figure 4.14. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A24–A26).

Scale 1:2, except where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger (A24), Y. Nakas

0

5cm

A25  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.14; Color Fig. 2

A26  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.14

Antikensammlung I 76. Dim. H. 11.0 × 4.9 × 0.6. R. side. One-third of very large-sized pinax. Painted border. Kiln facing l., with parts of stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney preserved. Flames exit the chimney. Thin slip was unevenly fired into different hues of red and brown. The flames are made with even thinner slip. The combustion chamber is covered with thicker slip. To the l., the remains of a hook presumably held by a (now lost) worker. The hook is only partially preserved. There is space for an additional worker in the now-lost part of the pinax. Pernice 1897, p. 44. Antikensammlung I 78. Dim. 6.0 × 3.8 × 0.6. Lower l. or r. corner. Less than one-sixth of very large-sized pinax. Painted border. Large surface of dark black slip, with a partially preserved incised rectangle. Reconstructed as a kiln facing l. with parts of the combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and loading door preserved. Slip badly worn off. Orientation of pinax

100

c hap t er 4

A27 0

5cm

A28 difficult to establish. It is presented as lower r. corner of a kiln facing l., but it could also be the lower l. corner of a kiln facing r., although the placement of the loading door may be too low (cf. A30). 5cm 0 Pernice 1897, p. 44. A27  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.15; Color Fig. 2

A28  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.15

Antikensammlung I 75. Dim. 10.2 × 4.7 × 0.7. Lower and upper edges. Two joining frr. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. One pierced hole. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and pot-firing chamber. To the l. of the kiln Pernice (1897, p. 44) mentioned a figure, but there are no traces of it, if it once existed. Black slip, unevenly applied, now worn off. Pernice 1897, p. 44. Antikensammlung F 635 (P 245). Dim. 6.7 × 4.4 × 0.6. Upper l. corner with pierced hole. Approximately one-fifth of large-sized pinax. Painted border. Kiln facing r., with parts of pot-firing chamber, loading door, spy hole, and dome preserved. Flames exit a vent in the dome. Kiln is drawn in outline. No incision used. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73.

Figure 4.15. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A27, A28).

Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

0

A29

Figure 4.16. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A29, A30).

A30

5cm

Scale 2:3. Photo I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

101

0

A29  Pinax, one-sided

5cm

Fig. 4.16

Antikensammlung F 634 (P 244). Dim. 4.9 × 5.2 × 0.7. L. edge. Approximately one-third of medium-sized pinax. Painted border. Kiln facing r., with parts of the combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and loading door with a semicircular outline. Slip fired red, mostly worn off. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73. A30  Pinax, one-sided (possibly two-sided)

Fig. 4.16; Color Fig. 2

Antikensammlung I 80. Dim. 3.6 × 4.9 × 0.4. Lower edge. Approximately one-fifth of large-sized pinax. Kiln facing l., with short stoking channel and the pot-firing chamber, including the loading door. Kiln is drawn in outline. Flames exit the stoking channel. At top l., traces of slip belonging perhaps to a figure holding a rod, engaged in an unclear activity (stoking the fire?). On the reverse, traces of painted border. Unclear whether it originally framed a scene or not. Cf. A28, B19, B32, B36, B58 for other kilns rendered in outline. Pernice 1897, p. 44. A31  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.17

Antikensammlung F 615 (P 228). Dim. 10.0 × 8.9 × 0.9. Lower r. corner with pierced hole. Approximately one-half or one-third of very large-sized pinax. Raised edges of the pinax preserved. A man stands in front of a bell-shaped structure, probably a kiln since the stoking channel, a chimney, and a rectangular opening for the loading door are visible. Behind him, more incisions outlining a figure or undetermined objects of rectangular shape. The outlines of the figure and the structure were rendered with deep incisions while the clay was still wet. Within the area of the pot-firing chamber there is a fainter incision, which may be a preliminary drawing before the sharp incisions were made. There is a faint incision inside the loading door for a circular spy hole as well, but it is not clear if it is intentional. The technique and the resulting lines are distinctive, as is the posture of the man. Payne (1931, p. 117) identified the figure as a sculptor (or a metalsmith working at the furnace). Slip mostly worn off, but the lower part of the kiln is clearly fired red. For a similar rectangular loading door, cf. A20. Dated to the 6th century b.c. (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 71; Palmieri 2016, p. 193, no. Ge1. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 24:19.

102

c hap t er 4

1:2

A31 0

5cm

2:3

A32 A32  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.17

Corinth C-1963-255. Dim. 4.9 × 4.3 × 0.6. Two joining fragments with no 5cm 0 edges preserved. Less than one-sixth of very large-sized pinax. Parts of two figures facing l. The figure on the l. is standing, probably on top of the stoking channel of a kiln. Only his arm, waist, and part of his clothed lower half are preserved. He wears a short chiton with a meander design on its hem. Only the head of the figure behind him is preserved. He seems to be leaning forward, possibly to stoke the kiln. Similar iconography appers on A5, B28, B29, and B38. Unpublished.

Wor kshop-Rel at ed Sc ene s (A 33, A34) A33  Pinax, one-sided (possibly two-sided)

Fig. 4.18

Corinth C-1963-409. Dim. 4.5 × 5.8 × 0.8. Upper edge with pierced hole. One-third of medium-sized pinax.

Figure 4.17. One-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (A31, A32).

Scale as indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (A31); P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations (A32); drawings AntDenk II, pl. 24:19 (A31); Y. Nakas (A32)

Catal o gue

103

1:1

A33 F 672

5cm

0 F 770

F 684

Not to scale

1:3

A34 0

Figure 4.18. One-sided pinakes showing workshop-related scenes (A33, A34). Scale as indicated. Photos

P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations (A33); G. Seibt, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (A34); drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 62

5cm

A man walking to r. holds in his extended l. hand a hooked tool like that used by kiln workers (cf. B23, B37). Facing him, part of a taller figure looking l. and holding a similar tool(?) or a staff in his r. hand. Inscriptions, dipinti (unpublished): (i) μεμ; (ii) θ, placed along the top border. The θ is in a second line and traces of another letter next to θ. Palmieri (2016) reconstructs ἀνε]θε̄κ̣ε. Von Raits (1964) misinterpreted the figure to the r. as a kiln with an owl on top. Dated to the MC(?) period (Palmieri 2016). Von Raits 1964, pp. 30 (n. 25), 58, 61; Geagan 1970, p. 41; Palmieri 2016, p. 205, no. Gg1. A34  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.18

Antikensammlung F 672 + F 684 + F 770 (P 409 + P 515 + P 381). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 10.0 × 13.2 × 1.4. Three joining fragments of upper

104

c hap t er 4

l. part of pinax with l. and upper edges. Approximately one-quarter of very large-sized pinax. Upper parts of two figures facing r. The one to the l. is bearded and holds a stick in his l. hand. Part of his torso is drawn in outline. From the second figure only the head, torso, r. hand and upper thighs are preserved. The slip on the face of the second figure is worn off. Inscriptions, dipinti: (i) Φύσϙο̄ν̣ (?), placed to the l. of the bearded figure (retrograde); (ii) [Ἀ]ρνε̄́σιος, placed to his r. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016, p. 201; attributed to the Ophelandros Painter). Others have dated it to after the middle of the 6th century b.c. (LC II): Payne 1931, p. 112; Jeffery 1990, p. 132, no. 24. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 76, 80; Pernice 1897, p. 29, fig. 22; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no. Κ14; Palmieri 2016, p. 201, no. Ge19. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 24:9. Inscription: IG IV 322, Wachter 2001, pp. 143–144, no. COP 62. The name Physkos is attested (fully or partially) in two pottery graffiti from the Sanctuary of Herakles in Thebes (Aravantinos 2014, pp. 175–176, nos. 34, 35). I thank N. Papazarkadas for this reference.

T WO - S I D ED P I NA K E S Cl ay and Fuel Col l ect ion (B1– B7) B1  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.19; Color Fig. 3

B2  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.20; Color Fig. 3

Antikensammlung F  871 (P  340). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 10.4  × 13.2 × 0.6. Intact except for small chip missing in lower r. corner. Large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side B to A. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Horseback rider and bird. A horseback rider, facing r., holds a spear in his r. hand. In the upper l. corner, above the horse’s tail, a bird is flying r. Four rosettes decorate the background on the lower half of the pinax, filling the space between the legs of the horse. Slip more worn away on this side than on side B. Side B. Four naked men engaged in collection and hauling of clay from a clay outcrop. Three men, two bearded adults and one unbearded younger man (assistant), excavate clay from the underside of a cliff. The fourth man is on top of the cliff in the upper l. corner of the pinax. His younger age is indicated by his unbearded face and his smaller size. Despite his long hair, the depiction of his genitals confirms that he is male; cf. A3. An amphora, probably holding water, is suspended in the middle of the scene. The scene appears to represent a chain of action, from r. to l.: the man at the far r. digs out the clay, his assistant collects the clay lumps in a basket, and the third man passes a full basket to the fourth man above. A good example of misfired red slip and areas of added red slip. For extracting clay from outcrops, cf. A1, A2, and B4. For the misinterpretation of the scene as mining ore, see above, pp. 188–189. Dated to the MC period (Payne 1931, p. 73). Palmieri (2016, p. 189) provides parallels from the MC Chimaera Group. Furtwängler 1885, p.  96; Whitbread 1995, p.  340, fig.  5.40; Vidale 2002, pp.  238–239, fig.  41; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p.  208, no.  Κ29; Palmieri 2016, pp. 189–190, no. Gb1. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:5, 7. Louvre MNB 2858. In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.2 × 10.0 × 0.7. Weight: 80  g. Two joining frr. Intact except for minor chipping on the upper l. corner. Medium-sized pinax. Four pierced holes, one on each corner of the pinax. The

Catal o gue

0

Side A

5cm

Figure 4.19. Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B1). Scale 1:2. Pho-

tos courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas, after AntDenk I, pl. 8:5, 7

105

B1

0

Side B

5cm

pinax is noticeably warped in the l. half, due perhaps to the joining of the two fragments. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome. No chimney is defined on the dome, though robust flames exit both the vent and the stoking channel. It appears that the stoking channel may have been overloaded with wood. To the l. of the kiln, a nude, bearded male is shown. He walks in long strides toward the kiln, holding up a hooked tool in his r. hand. Side B. A bearded man, wearing a loincloth, faces r. He fells a tree, brandishing a large double ax (πέλεκυς) in his hands (which are not preserved due to the cavity). The size and shape of the ax make it more suitable for felling trees than for collecting clay. Lime spalling in the center of the pinax. Inscriptions, dipinti: side A: Σόρ̣δις, written vertically to the l. of the figure; personal name, perhaps of a workman (Wachter 2001, p. 145); side B: ᾽Ονύμο̄ν, written vertically to the l. of the figure. One of the five pinakes (with B3, B15, B17, and B18) that depict scenes of pottery production on both sides. For the iconography of side B, cf. B1 and B5. For other examples of axes (pickaxes or double axes), see Orlandos 1955, pp. 38–58. Rayet 1880, pp. 105–106; Payne 1931, p. 117, fig. 41; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77–78, 81, no. 2; Greiveldinger 2003; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 209, no. Κ36; Palmieri 2016, pp. 194–195, no. Ge5. Inscriptions: IG IV 316 (side B), 318 (side A); Amyx 1988, pp. 607–608, 650, nos. 26, 37; Wachter 2001, p. 145, no. COP 65.

106

c hap t er 4

crust

1:1 Side A

Figure 4.20. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing and fuel collection (B2). Scale 1:2, except where indicated.

Side A

00

5cm 5cm

B2

00

5cm 5cm

Side B

B3  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.21; Color Fig. 3

B4  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.22

Antikensammlung F 892 (P 356). Dim. 6.0 × 5.6 × 0.8. Approximately onethird or one-quarter of large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Lower r. corner. A bearded man faces a scarp of stones or clay with his arm raised. He is probably engaged in clay quarrying, either digging with a very blunt tool or striking off projecting chunks with a club. Most slip is worn off. Side B. Upper r. corner. Kiln facing l., with upper part visible (pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney). Flames exit chimney, which is indicated with two vertical lines. A man with a hooked rod in his r. hand is standing on top of a stoking channel. Only his arms and one leg are preserved. Slip fired red, with thin slip for flames. One of the five pinakes (with B2, B15, B17, and B18) that depict scenes of pottery production on both sides. Dated to the MC–LC period (Kiderlen and Strocka 2005). Furtwängler 1885, p. 99 (side B wrongly interpreted as a large fish); Pernice 1897, pp. 39–40, fig. 35 (side B); Kiderlen and Strocka 2005, p. 92, no. 33; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 119, no. 79; Palmieri 2016, pp. 188–189, no. Ga3. Corinth C-1963-196. Dim. 4.2 × 4.0 × 0.5. Original size difficult to estimate. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. A man facing r. holds a pickax, possibly to dig for clay. The slip is mostly worn off of the pickax. Side B. Lower l. corner. Difficult to ascertain whether or not it is a kiln; there are no traces of a loading door. Slip almost totally worn off. Inscriptions, graffiti on both sides (unpublished). Side A: [- - -][μ]ναμον. Side B: [. . .]ε[. 3. .]μ̣. For side A, the inscription is difficult to interpret. Stissi (2002, p. 478, no. C96) read the end of a name and the beginning of the dedicatory formula, νας ἀ[νέθεκε], but there is insufficient space to the right of the inscription for such a long addition. Von Raits 1964, pp. 30 (n. 30), 49, 60.

Photos H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY; drawings Y. Nakas, after Rayet 1880, pp. 105–106, no. 2; Wachter 2001, no. COP 65b

Catal o gue

Side A

0

0

107

5cm 5cm

B3

Figure 4.21. Two-sided pinax showing clay collection and kiln firing (B3). Scale 1:2. Photos J. Laurentius, cour-

0

0

5cm 5cmSide B

tesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

Side A

Figure 4.22. Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B4). Scale 2:3.

Photos P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations; drawings Y. Nakas

Side B

B4

00

5cm 5cm

108

c hap t er 4

Side A

00 B5  Pinax, two-sided

Side B

B5 5cm 5cm

Figure 4.23. Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B5). Scale 2:3.

Fig. 4.23

Antikensammlung F 831 (P 303). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 10.0 × 7.2 × 0.8. Approximately one-half of large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑. All slip badly worn off on both sides. Side A. The r. half of a ship with a high-curving stern (aphlaston) sailing r., with spears and stylides. The sails are tightened around the vertical mast. On the upper border of the pinax, seven one-handled jugs, two of which are partially preserved, are shown. They do not seem to be attached to any horizontal sail. Instead, they appear to be a border motif. On the lower r. corner, a small fish represents the sea under the hull of the ship. Side B. On the r. part of the preserved piece, a male figure wearing a long chiton, himation, and travelers’ boots faces r. He extends his r. hand as if to hold a staff or trident. It may be Poseidon, although the footwear of Poseidon on the pinakes is more typically sandals (e.g., F 393, F 394 + F 421, F 458, F 468 + F 949 +

Photos I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensamm-

5cm 00 5cmdrawings lung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; Y. Nakas, after AntDenk I, pl. 8:3a, 3b

Catal o gue

109

fr., F 474 + 2 frr.) than boots, and it is unusual to combine Poseidon imagery with sirens and secondary scenes. To the l. of him is a much smaller, stooping man facing l. and holding a pickax. He is shown with a deformed back (a hump). A curved line to his r. represents a cavity in which he works, perhaps to extract clay. Above the laborer and the cavity, a siren with a male bearded head is shown flying r. It is not clear if the siren is connected with the apotropaic protection of the clay quarry, with whatever scene was originally to the r. of the larger figure, or with the ship scene on side A. The main figure could be the owner of a clay quarry or pottery workshop at Corinth, a middleman, or perhaps even a ship owner, arranging for the transportation of clay on the ship shown on side A. If the reconstructed size of the pinax, based on the ship on side A, is correct, there is space for one more person on side B. Chatzidimitriou (2005, p. 207) suggests that the main figure is Poseidon. Another possible interpretation of the worker is that he is a boatbuilder, carving the hull of the ship. Ships are frequently depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes (see above, p. 71). The pots on side A are similar to those on A4 and B57. See also the nonpottery scene on F 461, where Poseidon holds a similar jug. For the ship, cf. B58. For other depictions of figures and birds, see B41. Dated to the MC–LC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p.  90; Weisgerber 1976, p.  43, fig.  6; Gropengiesser 1977, p. 592, fig. 13; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 39, 60, fig. 18:2; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no. Κ23; Palmieri 2016, p. 186, no. Fb1. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:3a, 3b. B6  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.24

Antikensammlung F  601 (P  209), I 173, Louvre MNC 211, Corinth C-1963-203, C-1963-250 + C-1963-251. Much of the central part not preserved. Dim. F 601: 2.8 × 4.6 × 0.7; I 173: 4.2 × 6.1 × 0.6; MNC 211: 6.0 × 5.4 × 0.7; C-1963-203: 5.7 × 6.9 × 0.6; C-1963-250 + C-1963-251: 7.1 × 5.3 × 0.4. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. The joining of the frr. has been done only by photo collage, by Geagan (1970), and the fragments remain in their respective collections. The size suggested by Geagan seems too large. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Upper l. and lower r. corners. Warship facing r. with parts of two men, two shields, and a group of spears preserved; space for two additional shields. A hybrid human creature with outstretched arms and a fish tail is depicted at lower r. of ship. Side B. Upper r. and lower l. corners. Two figures stand opposite each other. From l. to r.: feet and lower part of the long garment of a figure (possibly a female deity, Athena or Amphitrite?); to r. a naked man facing l. is holding a large ax above his head (most likely for cutting wood rather than digging for clay). Part of his l. arm and his legs are preserved. The exact nature of this representation and the relationship of the figures to each other are so uncertain that the pieces may not, in fact, belong together. Inscription, dipinto: side A: [.  .  .]. άγαθος (retrograde). Wachter (2001, no. COP 67) discusses extensively the previous interpretation of Φάλαθος (mythical founder of Tarantas) and presents his suggestion of the name Παντάγαθος as the dedicant of the pinax. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 70; Collignon 1886, pp. 28–29, fig. 7; von Raits 1964, p. 58, pl. V; Geagan 1970, pp. 41–42, 48, no. 16, fig. 16; Palmieri 2016, pp. 183–184, no. Fa3. For bird devices on the boats, see Wachsmann 1996; 1998, pp. 178–197. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 29:18 (only F 601, side A). Inscription: IG IV 341; Wachter 2001, p. 146, no. COP 67.

MNC 211

C-1963-251 F 601 C-1963-203

I 173

C-1963-250

MNC 211

MNC 211

C 63-251

ca. 1:1

C-1963-251

C 63-251

F 601 F 601

C-1963-203 C 63-203

C-1963-250 I I173 173

Side A

C 63-250

I 173

C 63-250

MNC 211

5cm

0

0

MNC 211

C 63-251

C 63-250

C-1963-251

C 63-251

FF601 601

C-1963-203

C 63-203

Figure 4.24. Two-sided pinax showing fuel collection (B6). Scale 1:2,

C-1963-250

Side B

C 63-250

except where indicated. Photos Geagan 1970, p. 48, fig. 16a; I. Geske (I 173), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 67

I 173 I 173

B6 0

5cm

5

Catal o gue

111

Side A

Figure 4.25. Two-sided pinax showing clay collection (B7). Scale 1:2.

Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing Y. Nakas

B7

0

B7  Pinax, two-sided

5cm

Side B

Fig. 4.25

Antikensammlung F 714 (P 447) + F 854 + F 872 (P 341). Dim. 10.1 × 10.2 × 0.8. Three joining frr. Approximately one-half of large-sized pinax. Most slip worn off. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. Warrior with a spear on horseback. Side B. Lower l. corner. Two figures facing l. Along the l. edge of the pinax a wavy border represents a feature of the landscape, perhaps a clay bed. A bearded man facing l. has a small pickax, raised over his shoulder, preparing to strike a blow. To the r. are preserved the traces of the head, hands, and upper torso of another figure facing l. The pickax, its angle, and the lumpy border show that the man is not felling trees for fuel (as in B2), so most likely he is digging for clay (cf. wavy representations of outcrops in A1, A2, B1, B3–B5). Furtwängler 1885, p. 77, 94, 96; Pernice 1897, p. 31.

Pot t ers at t he Wheel (B8–B18) B8  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.26; Color Fig. 4

Louvre MNB 2857. In permanent exhibition. Dim. 4.2 × 5.7 × 0.6. Weight: 21 g. Intact. Small-sized pinax. One pierced hole placed on the short side of the pinax. The scenes on both sides are in landscape orientation. Pierced from side A to B. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Painted border. A long-haired, beardless potter wearing a short-sleeved chitoniskos sits on a stool. He faces l. and leans into his work at the wheel. The stool is shown lower than the level of the wheel. In his l. hand he holds a long tool

112

Side A

c hap t er 4

B8

(a brush or a point) to paint or incise horizontal bands on the pot, while with his 0 0 wheel. Two sets of vertical lines 5cm r. hand he slowly rotates the are5cm incised on the wheelhead and two on the central post. A one-handled jug is placed on top of a lump of clay (he either works “off-the-hump” or uses a hollow cylinder of clay to support the base of the jug). In the upper l. corner two slightly larger jugs hang by their handles, each suspended on a stick. Flat objects (slabs of clay?) are stacked in a pile in the lower l. corner. Matson (1972, p. 214) notes that assistants shaped clay into loaves and placed them within easy reach of the potter. In the upper r. corner behind the potter, two horizontal lines protrude (if intentional, perhaps they represent shelves to dry more pottery). Slip fired red in places and worn off mostly around the border and on the lower half of the pinax. The jugs hanging by their handles are perhaps thoroughly dried and ready to be fired, or already fired and ready for sale. They have already been incised or painted with the same horizontal decoration that the potter is applying to the vessel on the wheel. They could also simply hold water for the workers. The vessel on the wheel could be interpreted as an aryballos, due to its small size in comparison to the potter, but in most potting scenes there is a visual consistency between vessels being worked on and the finished vessels depicted. Payne (1931, p. 117, n. 2) interpreted it as an EC aryballos and hence dated the pinax very early. The pinax is small, and it is difficult to determine whether the painter was aiming for correct internal scaling of figure and pot, or for the clearest legibility of the scene as a whole. In contrast to the potter’s wheels depicted on pinakes B9 and B10, this wheel’s vertical axle is trapezoidal, not rectangular. Side B. Depiction of a boar facing l. Two incised crosses as filling ornament are placed at the lower l. corner and the upper r. quadrant above the boar. Slip fired red. Dated, perhaps wrongly, by Payne (1931) to the EC period, on the basis of the assumed shape of the vessel formed on the wheel; Palmieri (2016, p. 191) similarly assigns a Transitional to EC date.

Side B

Figure 4.26. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B8). Scale 1:1.

Photos H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY; drawings Y. Nakas, after Rayet 1880, pp. 106–107, fig. 3

Catal o gue

113

Side A 0

5cm

0

5cm

Figure 4.27. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B9). Scale 1:2.

Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Side B 0

B9

5cm

Rayet 1880, pp. 106–107, no. 3, fig. 3; Richter 1923, pp. 67–68, fig. 62; Vidale 1998, pp. 122–123, no. 2, fig. 3; 2002, pp. 245–246, fig. 48; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 209, no. Κ35; Palmieri 2016, p. 191, no. Gc4. B9  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.27

Antikensammlung F 868 (P 337). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.8 × 15.2 × 0.7. Two joining frr. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower l. corner. Two horses facing r. Parts of the tails, the lower parts of the rear legs, and one set of the front legs are preserved. Similar to B10. Side B. Lower r. corner. A potter works on a pot on the wheel. Only the lower body of the potter facing r. and sitting on a stool (δίφρος) is preserved. Two horizontal incisions on his r. leg may belong to clothing or footwear. Closely spaced vertical incisions decorate the horizontal edge of the stool, perhaps representing caning. The potter is working on a column krater on the wheel. The T-shaped wheel has the characteristic horizontal wheelhead and vertical axle. The outline of the turntable is incised. The potter rotates the wheelhead with one hand (r.?), and holds a long brush with the other, with which he paints a wide horizontal band

114

Side A

c hap t er 4

B10

5cm alternately painted and unpainted.0To 0 has parallel bands on the krater. The krater the l. of the potter the feet of a second figure facing r. can be seen standing on a small pedestal or step. Zimmer (1982a) suggested that the second figure may be Poseidon, but there are no traces of a trident touching the ground, nor of any other of Poseidon’s attributes. The second figure could be an overseer or a fellow worker. It is unlikely that a second potter is depicted, as there is no indication of a second wheel. For the position of the seated potter, cf. B11, B12, B14. On the upper half of the original pinax there could have been space for a shelf, similar to the one on A4. Dated to the LC II period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 96; Payne 1931, p. 117, n. 2; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 29, 39, 61, fig. 19:2; Vidale 1998, pp. 122–123, no. 3, fig. 3; 2002, pp. 248, 288, figs. 49, 73; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 208, no. Κ27; Palmieri 2016, p. 190, no. Gc1. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:18 (side B).

B10  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.28; Color Fig. 4

Antikensammlung F 869 + F 716 (P 338 + P 449). Dim. 7.5 × 8.6 × 0.6. Two joining fragments. Approximately one-quarter of very large-sized pinax. Side A fired red; side B fired black. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower l. corner. Lower border preserved. Two horses facing l. The lower parts of their front legs are preserved. Similar to B9. Side B. Lower r. corner. A potter works on a conical vessel (kotyle) on the wheel. Only the potter’s hands are preserved. The vessel is being turned out of a cone of centered clay in the “off-the-hump” technique. The scene is restricted to a small area. The wheel is short, which suggests that a seated potter would have had to lean forward considerably. There is ample space for additional figures in the scene and even a shelf with vases on the top half. Wrongly interpreted by Furtwängler (1885) and Zimmer (1982a) as a stand for a dinos. For other possible instances of throwing “off-the-hump,” see the potting scenes on a b.-f. lip cup from Etruria (Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 67/90; Fig. 5.8) and in the b.-f. tondo of an Athenian kylix (London, British Museum 1847,1125.18 [B 432]; Fig. 5.11). Dated to the LC II period (Palmieri 2016).

Side B

Figure 4.28. Two-sided pinax showing potter 5cm at the wheel (B10).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

115

Side A

0

5cm

0

5cm

Figure 4.29. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B11).

Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

0

B11

Side B

5cm 0 5cm Furtwängler 1885, p. 96; Payne 1931, p. 117, n. 2; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 29, 39, 61, fig. 19:1; Vidale 1998, pp. 122–123, no. 1, fig. 3; 2002, pp. 242–243, fig. 45; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p.  208, no.  Κ28; Palmieri 2016, pp.  190–191, no.  Gc2. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:17 (side B).

B11  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.29; Color Fig. 4

B12  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.30

Antikensammlung F 870 (P 339). Dim. 8.0 × 8.2 × 0.7. Approximately onehalf of medium-sized pinax. One pierced hole. Pierced from side A to B. Painted border on both sides. Most slip worn off on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. R. half. Horseback rider facing r. Side B. L. half. On the l., a standing figure faces r. To r., a second person sits on a stool, leaning forward, perhaps to work on the wheel. The stool is noticeably taller than the wheel. The standing person raises his hand in a gesture of ordering; he may be holding something in his other hand. Furtwängler 1885, p. 96. Antikensammlung F  814 (P  288). Dim. 6.6  × 11.0  × 1.0. Approximately one-half or one-third of very large-sized pinax. Painted edges. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side A to B. Slip fired red. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Upper half. Painted border. Upper part of Poseidon facing r. and holding trident in l. hand. Side B. Lower half. The pinax has three registers. The lowest register simply has solid squares painted around the pierced holes. In the middle register, from

m

116

Side A

c hap t er 4

0

5cm

B12

0

5cm

r. to l., is a rectangular object, a seated figure facing l., and a second figure facing l. who sits on a stool and is occupied with a wide-bellied vase in front of him (on a potter’s wheel). The upper register has remains of an unclear scene possibly including a striding figure. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 87–88. B13  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.31

Antikensammlung F 641 (P 260). Dim. 7.4 × 7.5 × 1.0. Lower edge. Approximately one-half or one-third of large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Two men. On the l., the r. half of a man whose nose, arm, torso, genitals, and r. leg are preserved handing a skyphos(?) with his r. hand to the man on his r. This second man is bearded and seems to be either sitting or standing behind a worktable. The stool/table is carefully indicated with vertical paint strokes and incisions. The seated man is shown in an unusual frontal position. He extends both his arms to his r., as if to hand over completed vessels to another worker who would in turn set them up to dry or transport them to the kiln. Alternatively, the figure shown may be engaged in giving or taking something, in an unclear activity. Crudely rendered incisions. Slip much diluted and worn off. Similar combination of seated figures and standing figures as in B9, B11. Side B. A dolphin and a small fish are depicted, possibly in connection with a (now lost) Poseidon. Their outlines are incised, but the slip is mostly worn off. Furtwängler 1885, p. 73; Pernice 1897, p. 26.

Side B

0

Figure 4.30. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B12).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

5cm

Catal o gue

117

Side A 5cm

0

Side A 0

Side B

0

5cm

0

B13

5cm

5cm

Figure 4.31. Two-sided pinakes showing potters at the wheel (B13, B14). Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas 0

5cm

B14

Side B

B14  Pinax, two-sided

0

5cm

Fig. 4.31

Antikensammlung F 886 (P 349). Dim. 8.3 × 7.8 × 1.2. Approximately onequarter of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border on bottom edge and dots of slip as a border along r. edge (cf. B15). Two figures walking to the l. wearing chitoniskoi. They are preserved from the waist down. Parts of their chitoniskoi are accidentally fired red. Close to their torsos, two lines, one slanted, one horizontal, may represent rods. Side B. Lower l. corner. A figure facing r. sits on a stool. Slip fired red. L. half of pinax is battered; any original decoration is no longer visible, and there are no traces of slip. There is space for an assistant, as in B11. Furtwängler 1885, p. 98.

m

118

c hap t er 4

Side A

Side B

B15

Figure 4.32. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel and kiln firing 0 5cm (B15). Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung F 885 (P 348). Dim. 7.8 × 4.2 × 0.9. Approximately oneAntikensammlung, Staatliche 5cmMuseen zu third of large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes are placed on the short side of the 0 Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas pinax, although the scenes on both sides are in landscape orientation. It is interesting that the scenes on both sides are slanted, and not parallel to the bottom edge. Pierced from side A to B. Orientation: ↑. Side A. R. part. Painted border. A seated figure facing r. places both hands on a large cylindrical object on a stand. Possibly a potter working on a dinos on the potter’s wheel. Richter (1923, p. 68, fig. 63) suggests that the potter is joining sections of the dinos. The stool on which he sits is not preserved. In lower r., an object that is difficult to interpret (possibly a pile of clay, as in B8). The entire scene is placed on a diagonal groundline (floor?), below which are dots of slip (cf. B14). Slip fired unevenly brown. Side B. L. part. Two men are shown. On l., a small figure facing r., probably an apprentice or helper. To his r. a second, larger man walks to the l., raising a T-shaped rod with both hands, perhaps stoking the kiln in the lost part of the pinax. He turns his head to the r. in an expression of surprise. In the lower l. corner is a circular object in outline, perhaps a heap of wedged clay or fuel (cf. B8). Slip fired unevenly brown. One of the five pinakes (with B2, B3, B17, and B18) that depict scenes of pottery production on both sides. Dated to the MC–LC period (Kiderlen and Strocka 2005) or the first half of 6th century(?) (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 98; Pernice 1897, p. 39; Vidale 2002, p. 243, fig. 46; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 208, no. Κ31; Kiderlen and Strocka 2005, p. 94, no. 34; B15  0Pinax, two-sided

5cm

Fig. 4.32

Catal o gue

119

Side B

Figure 4.33. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel (B16). Scale 2:3. Photos P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations; drawing Y. Nakas

Side A

0

5cm

B16

Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 119, no. 80; Palmieri 2016, p. 191, no. Gc3. For a collection of all dinoi and stands represented on Corinthian vase painting, see Amyx 1988, pls. 133, 134. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:14a, 14b. B16  Pinax, two-sided (possibly one-sided)

Fig. 4.33

Corinth C-1963-195. Dim. 4.2 × 4.2 × 0.7. One-third of medium-sized pinax. One (or two?) pierced holes. Orientation: uncertain. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. Lower part of a figure walking l. striding in front of a stool or table, possibly in association with a now-lost potter sitting in front of a wheel (cf. B14). Side B. Scene is unclear as all paint has worn off. Von Raits indicated that a female figure may be seen here. Von Raits 1964, pp. 30 (n. 29), 49, pl. III:7. B17  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.34; Color Fig. 4

Antikensammlung F 632 + F 887 (P 242 + P 350). Dim. 10.8 × 5.6 × 0.8. Two joining frr. Upper and lower r. corners. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. Slightly warped. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Painted border. A man in profile, seated on a δίφρος (stool), is touching his forehead with a finger of his r. hand. Perhaps he is a potter working at the wheel, since potters working at the wheel are usually depicted seated. This interpretation remains problematic, as the figure holds one hand away from the vessel, and because potters working at the wheel are typically shown to the l. of the wheel. Side B. Kiln facing l. with the beginning of the stoking channel, combustion chamber, part of the pot-firing chamber, and the dome. The arched loading door and the circular spy hole are indicated with incision. Flames exit a vent in the dome. The outline of the kiln is incised. On top of the stoking channel, the legs of a man ready to climb onto the dome. There would have been space for an additional worker behind him. Slip on the kiln and the man mostly worn off. One of the five pinakes (with B2, B3, B15, and B18) that depict scenes of pottery production on both sides.

120

0

c hap t er 4

5cm

Side A

Side B

5cm

0

B17

0

5cm

Dated to the MC–LC I period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73, 98; Pernice 1897, p. 25; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 205–206, no. Κ9; Palmieri 2016, pp. 201–202, no. Ge20. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 40:21a, 21b. B18  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.35

Antikensammlung F 891 (P 355). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 4.7 × 6.7 × 0.7. Approximately one-quarter of large-sized pinax. One pierced hole. Painted border on both sides. Pierced from side A to B. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Upper r. corner. A standing man and seated woman are preserved from the waist up. The man on the l. is elderly, as indicated by his beard and by his white hair (white slip is worn off ); he is naked and his ribs are indicated with incisions. He holds onto a rope that loops over the top border. He turns his head to the l., away from his companion, perhaps to address a third person or to look at an activity or scene in the (now lost) l. half of the pinax. The woman on the r. faces l., wears a sleeveless peplos, and holds a circular object in her hands. She may be kneading a ball of clay. Her face and arms are painted in outline; they may have originally been covered with white slip. She is drawn in larger scale than the male figure. It is unclear what the interaction between these two figures is and what the rest of the pinax would have originally depicted. I provide two reconstructions for side A. One follows an older reconstruction by Hussong (1928, p. 15, fig. 3), but the composition is rather problematic both in regards to the position and activity of the male figure and to the size of the wheel. The second reconstruction features

Figure 4.34. Two-sided pinax showing potter at the wheel and kiln firing (B17). Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy

Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas, after AntDenk II, pl. 40:21a, 21b

0

Catal o gue

Side A

0

5cm

Figure 4.35. Two-sided pinax showing potters at the wheel and kiln firing(?) (B18). Scale 2:3. Photos J. Laurentius,0courtesy Antikensammlung,5cm Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas 0

0

5cm

5cm

B18

0

0

5cm

00

5cm 5cm

5cm

121

Side B

Scheibler’s suggestion (1995, p. 76) that the male figure may be treading clay on the floor. Side B. Upper l. corner. A man faces r. holding a rod in his r. hand (it could also be the hand of a second figure, but the available space is probably too narrow to accommodate one). He stands in front of a round, partially preserved, structure, perhaps a kiln, or the rear part of an animal. It is also possible that the figure holds a brush like the fan or brush on an Athenian r.-f. cup by the Triptolemos Painter (Antikenmuseum der Universität Leipzig T509; ARV 2 1647; dated to 525–475 b.c.). Zimmer (1982a) and Vidale (2002) believe that the man on side A is shown treading clay with his feet, while balancing himself with the help of the rope. A depiction on a b.-f. pelike shows an elderly man in a similar position pulling a jug with water out of a well (Berlin, Antikensammlung V.I. 3228; dated to 525–475 b.c.; illustrated in Sparkes 1975, pl. XIV:e). It has been argued that the woman’s attire may point to her lower social status (slave?). Tyler Jo Smith (pers. comm.) has suggested a punishment scene with whipping, similar to a Corinthian alabastron in Windsor, Eton College Museum of Antiquities ECM.2315-2017 (Smith 2010, fig. 3D) or a Corinthian column krater in New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 41.162.79 (Smith 2010, fig. 5D). Possibly one of the five pinakes (with B2, B3, B15, and B17) that depict scenes of pottery production on both sides. Dated to the LC II period (Payne 1931, p. 112). Palmieri (2016, p. 192) dates it to the MC period, using comparanda from the Cavalcade Painter. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 98–99; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 27, 29, 33, pl. III:2; Vidale 2002, p. 241, fig. 44; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 140 (n. 711), 208, no. Κ32; Palmieri 2016, pp. 192–193, no. Gd2. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:6a, 6b.

122

c hap t er 4

Side A

5cm

0

0

5cm

Figure 4.36. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B19). Scale 2:3. Photos

Side B

0 5cmn Fir ing (B19 –B61) Kil

B19  Pinax, two-sided

H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY; drawings Y. Nakas, after Rayet 1880, pp. 104–105, no. 1

B19 5cm

Fig. 4.36; Color Fig. 5

Louvre MNB 2856. In permanent exhibition. Dim. 11.2 × 6.5 × 0.6. Weight: 54 g. Intact. Medium-sized pinax. Two pierced holes on upper side. Pierced from side A to B. Painted border on both sides. Slip fired red on both sides. Orientation: →. Side A. Poseidon, facing r., holds a trident in his l. hand and a wreath in his r. hand. Side B. On upper r. corner, additional hole next to existing one, not completely pierced. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing

Catal o gue

123

Side B

Side A 0

5cm

Figure 4.37. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B20). Scale 1:2. Photos

J. Laurentius (side A), I. Geske (side B), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

B20 0 chamber, and dome. The loading door and spy hole are5cm clearly indicated within the pot-firing chamber. Kiln drawn in outline. Dots of slip represent flames exiting the stoking channel and a vent in the dome. At l. a naked man stokes the kiln with a long rod. Slip fired red, partially worn off on the figure. Orlandos (1958, p. 6, fig. 1) misinterpreted the structure as a metallurgical furnace (see below, pp. 188–189). The drawing of this scene is clearly an afterthought, since the pierced holes are placed with respect to the scene of Poseidon on the other side. Inscriptions, dipinti: side A: (i) Ποτĕιδν, descends vertically l. of Poseidon; (ii) Ἴγρ̣ο̄ν μʼἀνέθε̄κε, placed to the r. of Poseidon (retrograde). For the same name, Ἴγρο̄ν, see F 373 + F 415 + F 423 (IG IV 230; Wachter 2001, p. 135, no. COP 38A). Wachter (2001, p. 135) tentatively identifies Ἴγρο̄ν as a foreigner due to the obscurity of the name and the unusual spelling of Poseidon. Dated to the MC period (Payne 1931, p. 117, nn. 1, 2; Wachter 2001, p. 135). Palmieri (2016, p. 194) associates it with the Liebieghaus Group of the MC Period. Rayet 1880, pp. 104–105, no. 1; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77–78, no. 1. Amyx 1988, pp. 606, 608 (the inscription is incorrectly listed in table IV, no. 18, as a pinax from the Louvre Museum with no inventory number; its inventory number is listed as no. 45, with the name ΧΙΡΟΝ); Jeffery 1990, p. 131, no. 20; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 208–209, no. Κ34; Palmieri 2016, pp. 193–194, no. Ge3. Inscriptions: IG IV 231; Wachter 2001, p. 135, no. COP 38B.

B20  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.37; Color Fig. 5

Antikensammlung F 802 (P 280). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 11.9 × 10.6 × 0.6. Approximately two-thirds of very large-sized pinax, preserving three edges. Two pierced holes on short side. Pierced from side A to B, but one is not pierced all the way through. Orientation: →. Side A. Upper part. Painted border. Poseidon facing r., wears a short chiton, and holds a slanting lotus-shaped trident in his r. hand. Side B. R. part of kiln facing l., with the stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, loading door, dome, and chimney. A vessel is placed on the

0

124

c hap t er 4

chimney, perhaps to improve draft. The loading door is indicated with incision. Flames exit the chimney. A man wearing a pilos climbs on a ladder to inspect the firing from the r. side of the kiln. He is holding a stoking rod and a hooked tool, one in each hand, awkwardly rendered. To the l. of the kiln, tree branches(?) are shown. Slip fired red, well preserved. For vessels serving as chimneys, cf. A6, B56. For another depiction of a tree, see F 783 (Fig. 3.14). Furtwängler’s (1885, p. 85) interpretation of the feature to the l. on side B as the tail and leg of a lizard is difficult to accept. Dated to the EC period (615–590 b.c.) (Palmieri 2016) because of similarity to B8, but the dating of B8 to the EC period is problematic. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 85–86; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 78, no. 5; Vidale 2002, p. 249, fig. 50; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no. Κ17; Palmieri 2016, p. 203, no. Ge22. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:4 (side B); II, pl. 23:17 (side A). B21  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.38

B22  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.39

Antikensammlung F 691 + F 808 + fr. (P 425 + P 286a). Dim. 15.1 × 11.2 × 0.8. Two joining frr. and a third joined with plaster. Approximately one-half of very large-sized pinax. Painted border on both sides and edges. One hole in upper l. corner, small and not completely pierced through. Pierced from side A to B. Orientation: →. Side A. Upper l. corner. Poseidon, occupying the r. half of the pinax, faces l. and holds a trident. A sizable fish looking upward occupies the l. half of the pinax. Slip fired red. Side B. Lower r. corner. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney. Small flames exit the stoking channel and the chimney. The loading door of the dome and the spy hole are indicated with incision. Deep incisions emphasize the outline and other parts of the kiln. The kiln drawing is very small compared to the amount of painting surface available. A man strides to the l. away from the kiln holding a bucket/bowl (or lekane?) (cf. B28). His lower body is covered by the stoking channel of the kiln. In the nonjoining fragment, traces of red-fired slip. Most slip is worn off. For other scenes in miniature style, cf. B25, B36, B41. Inscription, graffito (unpublished): side A: Π, placed in front of Poseidon’s face. There is insufficient space to write the name out in full. The mark may be incidental rather than an intentional letter. Dated to the EC Period (Palmieri 2016). This dating, based only on side A (Poseidon), seems too early. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 76, 86; Pernice 1897, pp. 30, 36; Palmieri 2016, p. 149, no. Ad1. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 30:2 (side A). Antikensammlung F 667 + F 803 (P 404 + P 281). Dim. 10.0 × 11.8 × 1.0. Upper part with both corners. Approximately two-thirds of very large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side A to B. Painted border on both sides and edges. Most slip worn off. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Poseidon, facing r., holds a trident in his l. hand. Side B. The upper part of the dome of a kiln facing r. Flames exit a vent in the dome. To the r. of the kiln, the arm of a man holding a hooked tool. Inscription, dipinto: side A: Ἀ̄σο̄πόδο̄ρος e̓̆μὲ ἀνέθ[ε̄κε], written vertically l. of Poseidon. Inscriptions, graffiti: side B: (i) Ποτ(ē)δ(ν) e̣ (?), placed in the middle of the pinax; (ii) Π. ?, placed under the l. pierced hole and a vertical stroke that is not very deep and may not be part of the inscription. The jagged line of the single letter (Π) may imply that it was incised after firing.

Catal o gue

125

Side A

5cm

0

Side B

Figure 4.38. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing0(B21). Scale 1:2. Photos 5cm

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas (side A after AntDenk II, pl. 30:2)

B21 0

5cm

Wachter (2001, pp. 133, 273–274) believes that Ἀσωπόδορος may have been a Boiotian working at Corinth, due to the popularity of the name in Boiotia and the format of the dedication. Dated to the LC period (Payne 1931, pp. 108, 158; Lorber 1979, pp. 75–76, no. 118, fig. 50; Jeffery 1990, p. 131, no. 20 [575–550 b.c.]). Similarly, Palmieri (2016, p. 204) dates it to the LC I period. Furtwängler 1885, p.  86; Geagan 1970, pp.  41, 47, no.  8; Palmieri 2016, pp. 203–204, no. Ge23. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 30:9 (side A). Inscriptions: side A (F 667): IG IV 218; Wachter 2001, pp. 132–133, no. COP 29; side B: IG IV 225; Wachter 2001, pp. 132–133, no. COP 29. For the name on side B, see Amyx 1988, p. 606, no. 7.

126

c hap t er 4

Not to scale

Side A 0

5cm

0

5cm

5cm

0

5cm

Not to scale

Side B 0

B23  Pinax, two-sided

5cm

B22

0

0

5cm

Fig. 4.40

Antikensammlung F 809 (P 286). Dim. 5.0 × 5.4 × 0.7. Approximately onefourth of medium-sized pinax. Orientation: ←. Side A. Upper edge. Painted border. Poseidon, facing r., holds a trident. Only the head of Poseidon and tip of the trident are preserved. Side B. L. edge. Kiln facing r., with only part of the pot-firing chamber, but showing the loading door, dome, and chimney. Flames exit the chimney. The arched outline of the loading door is indicated with incision. To the r. of the dome, the end of a hooked tool held by a (now lost) kiln worker. Inscription, dipinto: side A: Π[οτēδν], placed under the trident. Furtwängler 1885, p. 87. Inscription: IG IV 292; Wachter 2001, pp. 147–148, no. COP 73N.

Figure 4.39. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B22). Scale 1:2, except

0 5cm where indicated. Photos I. Geske (side A), I. Luckert (side B), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas (side A after AntDenk II, pl. 30:9); Wachter 2001, no. COP 29

5cm

Catal o gue

B23

0A Side

5cm

Figure 4.40. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B23). Scale 2:3. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 73N

127

0

5cm

Side B

B24  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.41

B25  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.41

Antikensammlung F 773 + F 812 (P 384 + P 298b). Dim. 6.6 × 6.9 × 0.6. Two joining frr. Lower half of medium-sized pinax, with l., r., and bottom edges preserved. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. Legs of a male wearing a chlamys facing r. holding a staff; possibly Poseidon with trident. Most slip gone. Side B. Lower l. corner. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and pot-firing chamber. The legs of a figure climbing on the stoking channel are also visible. Slip fired red and worn off in spots. This pinax is unusual in using the portrait orientation of the pinax to depict the scene, instead of the landscape orientation (see Table 5.2). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 80, 87; Pernice 1897, p. 33. Antikensammlung F 805 (P 283). Dim. 7.5 × 6.5 × 0.6. L. edge. Approximately one-third of medium-sized pinax. Slip fired red and brown on both sides. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Painted border. Torso of a figure wearing a long chiton and holding a vertical staff, possibly Poseidon with a trident. Side B. Kiln-firing scene painted in miniature scale. Kiln facing r., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and pot-firing chamber partially preserved. A tiny incision indicates the spy hole. A chimney with tapering sides is preserved. Flames exit the chimney. A man is standing on top of the stoking channel holding a very curved tool in his r. hand. To the r. of him, two figures are shown approaching the kiln. Of one, only the head is preserved. The other, larger, figure holds a circular object, perhaps a wreath, in his hands. Above the kiln is a set of three short horizontal paint strokes. The portrait instead of landscape orientation is unusual. The entire scene is ca. 0.04 m high, and the figures are rendered in a very hasty way. It is unclear whether or how the large remaining surface of the pinax was decorated. For a similar miniature style, cf. B21, B36, B41. The combination of a megalographic scene (Poseidon on side A) with a miniature scene (potters at work on side B) attests to the range of skills present in the painter(s) associated with the making of this pinax. Inscription, dipinto: side A: [. . .]μ̣ι̣ελ̣ . σν . θ .[. . .], placed vertically to the l. of figure. Furtwängler 1885, p.  86. Inscription: IG IV 337; Wachter 2001, p.  155, no. COP 95.

0

128

c hap t er 4

Side A

5cm

0

0

0

B24

5cm

5cm

0

Side B

5cm

Not to scale

Side A

0

Side B

B25 5cm

0 Two-sided pinakes 5cm Figure 4.41. showing kiln firing (B24, B25). Scale 2:3, except where indicated. Photos J. Laurentius, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 95

0

Catal o gue

129

0

5cm

Side B

5cm

0

Side A0

5cm

Figure 4.42. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B26). Scale 1:2. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

B26 B26  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.42

B27  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.43

Antikensammlung F 637 + F 819 (P 247 + P 293). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 12.5 × 6.1 × 0.6. Almost one-half of very large-sized pinax. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ←. Side A. R. part and lower r. corner. L. of painted border are the hands and part of the torso of a male figure facing r. and holding a vertical staff; probably Poseidon with trident. Side B. Lower part and lower r. corner. Partial scene of two workers firing a kiln. On the r. half of the pinax, kiln facing l., with stoking channel and combustion chamber. A man stands to the l. of it, with only his r. leg and part of his l. foot preserved. His other leg is presumably on top of the stoking channel. He is most likely checking the progress of the fire from the dome. A second man is shown behind him (to the l.) holding two stoking rods (or possibly two branches for fuel). Only his l. leg and part of his r. foot are preserved. There is no more space available for more workers. This pinax is interesting for the attempt to depict multiple layers of depth. For the composition of the kiln scene, cf. A5. Dated to the MC period, based on the lower legs of the two men on side B (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73, 88; Pernice 1897, pp. 25–26; Payne 1931, p. 117, n. 2; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 80–81, no. 14; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no. Κ10; Palmieri 2016, pp. 197–198, no. Ge10. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 40:9 (side B). Antikensammlung F 810 (P 290). Dim. 6.2 × 8.5 × 0.7. Approximately onefourth or one-fifth of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ←. Side A. R. edge of central part. Middle section of a draped male figure, possibly Poseidon, wearing a chiton and facing r. He appears to be holding a staff, possibly a scepter or trident (or even a fish?). Side B. Lower edge. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel. Further l. a man wearing a pilos peers into the channel, leaning down unusually low to stoke the kiln (cf. B51). A heap of embers overflows the stoking channel. Preserved in front of the stoking

5

130

c hap t er 4

Side A 0

5cm

Side B

B27 channel, torso and upper legs of another figure walking to l.; he extends his arm to hand something to or communicate with a third man whose hand reaches from beyond the break. Most of the slip on the walking figure is worn off, and it is unclear what was being done over the stoker’s head. Slip also worn off from the other0figures. Furtwängler 1885, p. 87; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 206–207, no. Κ18; Palmieri 2016, p. 195, no. Ge6. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 23:7a, 7b. B28  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.44; Color Fig. 6

Antikensammlung F 811 (P 298). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 8.8 × 9.6 × 0.7. Approximately one-half of very large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes preserved. Pierced from side A to B. Painted border on both sides. Slip fired brown on both sides. Orientation: ←. Side A. Upper half with both corners. Borders only on long sides. Poseidon, facing r., holds a trident in his r. hand. Side B. L. half with both upper and lower corners. A very small part of the stoking channel of a kiln facing l. survives. Flames exit it. A bearded naked man with a stoking rod in his r. hand faces r. To the l. of him a much smaller (younger?) naked boy has his l. hand extended while with his r. hand he holds a bucket/bowl (lekane?); cf. B21. Their extended arms indicate oral discourse. To their r., lower leg of a third man standing on the stoking channel and wearing a chitoniskos(?). Inscription, dipinto in added red slip: side A: Ἀριστόφιλ̣ο̣ς̣[. . . ?], descends vertically to the l. of Poseidon’s back (retrograde). For the name, see Amyx 1988, p. 605, no. 4. Furtwängler 1885, p. 87; Zimmer 1982a, p. 39, fig. 21:2; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 80–81, no. 17; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no. Κ19. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 23:15a, 15b. Inscription: IG IV 306; Wachter 2001, p. 132, no. COP 28.

Figure 4.43. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B27). Scale 1:2. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

5cm

Catal o gue

131

Not to scale

0

5cm

Side A

0

5cm

Figure 4.44. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B28). Scale 1:2, except

where indicated. Photos I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 28

Side B 0

B29  Pinax, two-sided

B28

5cm

0

Fig. 4.45; Color Fig. 6

Antikensammlung F 816 (P 297). Dim. 10.0 × 6.5 × 0.8. Approximately onehalf of large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes on l. half of the pinax. Pierced from side A to B (one hole not pierced all the way through). Orientation: ←. Side A. Upper l. corner. Poseidon, facing r., wears a chiton and holds a trident in his r. hand. Behind him are small animals (a feline, a bird, and part of a third animal). Payne (1931, p. 77) identifies a monkey, “the only animal that appears on a pinax but not on Corinthian pottery!” Slip fired brown; lime spalling behind Poseidon’s head. Side B. Upper l. corner. In the upper l. corner, a disproportionately large owl flying to the r. The upper part of a bearded man to r., wearing a perizoma and holding a rod in his hand; he is probably stoking the kiln. To the r. another bearded worker, wearing a pilos, is standing on a higher level than the first figure (most likely on the stoking channel of the kiln) and has his hands raised, possibly holding a hooked tool to inspect the firing. Slip fired red. For the same style, especially in the rendering of the pilos, see B27 and F 654 + F 781 / I 82 (a one-sided pinax with a ship scene; AntDenk II, pl. 29:24). An owl is also depicted on B40 and on F 756. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 88; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no. Κ20; Palmieri 2016, p. 199, no. Ge13. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 23:13a, 13b.

5

132

c hap t er 4

Side B

5cm Side A

0

5cm

5cm

0

B29

0

Side B

Figure 5cm4.45. Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B29, B30).

0 B30

Side A

B30  Pinax, two-sided

0

5cm

Fig. 4.45

Corinth C-1963-231. Dim. 4.2  × 4.0  × 0.9. Approximately one-fifth of medium-sized pinax. Orientation: →. Side A. R. edge. Painted border. Backside of figure wearing chiton (Poseidon?) looking r. Side B. Bottom edge. A man facing l. bends forward holding a staff in his hands; his position is that of a worker stoking a kiln. Only the l. leg and the l. arm of the figure are preserved. Von Raits 1964, pp. 30 (n. 27), 38 (n. 18), 52; Palmieri 2016, p. 204, no. Ge25.

Scale 2:3. Photos courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (B29); P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations (B30); drawings Y. Nakas

0

Catal o gue

133

Not to scale

0

5cm

Side A

Side B

Figure 4.46. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B31). Scale 1:2, except

where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 66

0

5cm

Not to scale

B31 B31  Pinax, two-sided

0

5cm

Fig. 4.46

Antikensammlung F 804 (P 282). Dim. 6.2 × 8.4 × 1.0. Approximately onefourth of very large-sized pinax. One pierced hole. Painted edges. Orientation: →. 0 Side A. Upper l. corner. Painted border. The head and upper torso of Poseidon facing r. with outstretched arms. Side B. Lower r. corner. A man facing l. is involved in an unclear activity, possibly stoking a kiln. The presence of a kiln to his l. is assumed by the traces of a leg and calf of a second man who is shown on a higher level, presumably standing on the stoking channel of the (now lost) kiln. Most slip worn off from the first figure; added red on the second.

5cm

134

c hap t er 4

Side B

Side A

B32

Figure 4.47. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B32). Scale 2:3. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staat5cm zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas liche Museen

0

Inscriptions, dipinti: side A: υιϙ, placed vertically to the l. of Poseidon; side B: 0 Στίπο̄ν, placed vertically to the l. 5cm of preserved figure (retrograde). Personal name (perhaps a workman’s name, according to Wachter 2001, p. 146). Furtwängler 1885, p. 86; Pernice 1897, p. 35. Inscriptions: IG IV 319; Amyx 1988, p. 608, table IV:38; Wachter 2001, pp. 145–146, no. COP 66. B32  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.47

B33  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.48

Antikensammlung F 807 (P 285). Upper r. corner. Dim. 4.2 × 6.3 × 0.7. Approximately one-sixth of large-sized pinax. One hole barely piercing through from side A to B. Orientation: →. Side A. Painted border. Poseidon, facing r., with only half of face preserved. He holds a fish, partially preserved. Near the r. edge, a small line is preserved, perhaps from a slanted staff or trident (cf. B20). Side B. Kiln facing l., with pot-firing chamber, loading door, dome, and chimney. Flames exit the chimney. The kiln is painted in outline, but the loading door is painted in silhouette. Furtwängler 1885, p. 86. Antikensammlung F 806 (P 284). Dim. 5.6 × 7.3 × 1.2. Approximately one-fifth of very large-sized pinax. Slip fired brown and worn off on both sides. Orientation: ←. Side A. Lower l. corner. Painted border on the l., elaborate swirling pattern on the bottom. Figure facing r., wearing a long chiton (Poseidon?). Only the lower legs and feet are preserved. Side B. Upper r. corner. Kiln facing l., with part of the pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney preserved. Blazing flames in diluted slip exit the chimney. Slip fired brown. If the pinax were complete, there would be space for one or two workers to the l. of the kiln. Furtwängler 1885, p. 86.

Catal o gue

135

Side B

0

5cm 0

5cm

Side A

0

5cm

B33

Not to scale

Side A

0Two-sided pinakes Figure 4.48. showing kiln firing (B33, B34).

5cm

Scale 2:3, except where indicated. Photos J. Laurentius (B33), I. Geske (B34), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 43

B34

0

5cm

Side B

136

c hap t er 4

Side A

Side B

B34  Pinax, two-sided

Figure 4.49. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B35). Scale 1:1. Photos

B35

0

Fig. 4.48

Antikensammlung F 414 (P 519). Dim. 4.7 × 5.5 × 0.7. Approximately onefourth of medium-sized(?) pinax. Painted edges. Orientation: →. Side A. Upper r. corner. Painted border. Poseidon, facing r., holds a trident and extends his r. hand. His head and upper torso are preserved. Much of the slip (fired black and reddish) is worn off. Side B. Upper r. corner. Pot-firing chamber of a kiln facing l. The loading door and spy hole are indicated with incised lines (double lines for the loading door, with semicircular outline). Vertical strokes with slip (now mostly gone) depict flames on the chimney. Very worn, black-fired slip. Inscription, graffito: side A: Ξενϝοκλε̑ς̣[ μ’ἀνέθε̄κε . . .], written vertically to the r. of Poseidon. Wachter (2001, p. 137) believes it may have been a dedication. Furtwängler 1885, p. 54; Pernice 1897, p. 14. Inscription: IG IV 315; Wachter 2001, p. 137, no. COP 43. B35  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.49

Antikensammlung I 123. Dim. 4.6 × 4.4 × 0.7. One-quarter of medium-sized pinax. Orientation: ←. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. Traces of the feet and chiton of a male figure (Poseidon?). Incised underside of the foot. Side B. Lower r. corner. Kiln facing l., with part of the pot-firing chamber and its loading door indicated by incision. Most of the black slip worn off. Pernice 1897, p. 45.

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

5cm

Catal o gue

137

Not to scale Not to scale

Side A

5cm 0 Figure 4.50. Two-sided pinax show-

ing kiln firing (B36). Scale 2:3, except where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 23

B36 B36  Pinax, two-sided

0

5cm

Side B

Fig. 4.50

Antikensammlung F 845 (P 547). Dim. 5.2 × 3.7 × 0.5. Approximately onefifth of medium-sized pinax. Orientation: →. Side A. L. edge. Head and upper part of a bearded man facing r. (Poseidon?) Side B. Lower edge. Painted border. Kiln facing r., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and part of pot-firing chamber. The structure is painted in outline. Flames are shown inside the stoking channel (cf. B50). This kiln representation, only 2 cm high, is one of the smallest on the Penteskouphia pinakes. When complete, the pinax would have had ample space to the left of the kiln, but little to the right of the kiln, for the inclusion of a kiln worker. For miniature style, see B21, B25, B41. Inscriptions: side A (graffito): Δᾱ̆μο[. . .], placed to the r. of figure; side B (dipinti): (i) [. . . Π]οτει[δ(ϝο̄)νι ϝάνακτι?]; (ii) [. . .]ο̣ (?), placed to the r. of the kiln. Wachter (2001, p. 131) interprets the inscriptions as perhaps names of workmen. Side B may be a partially preserved dedication to Poseidon. Furtwängler 1885, p.  92. Inscriptions: IG IV 271; Wachter 2001, p.  131, no. COP 23. B37  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.51; Color Fig. 6

Antikensammlung F 619 + F 826 (P 232 + P 299). Dim. 8.0 × 5.3 × 0.5. Two joining frr. Intact. Small-sized pinax. Slightly warped. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side A to B. Slip on edges worn off. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Painted border. A female figure facing l., probably Athena (and not Amphitrite), depending on the reading of the label in front of her. Most slip worn off. Side B. Intact kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, potfiring chamber, and dome. Flames exit a vent in the dome. A man holding a hooked tool in his l. hand is raising his l. leg to climb on top of the stoking channel to inspect the firing. The artist has not estimated the relative proportions well, so the foot of the kiln worker does not reach the top of the stoking channel, and instead is shown in front of it. Brown slip unevenly applied and mostly worn off from the figure. Inscription, dipinto: side A (F 826): Ἀθε̄ν̣[αί]ᾱς ē̓μί, placed vertically to the l. of the figure.

0

138

c hap t er 4

Not to scale Side A

Side B

B37

0

Wachter (2001, p.  142) believes that the goddess invoked is Athena, not Amphitrite as reconstructed by Fränkel in IG IV 296: Ἀφιτ[ρίτ]ας e̓μί. The space available argues in favor of a shorter name, so Athena seems a better suggestion. For catalogued pinakes in portrait orientation, see Table 5.2, below. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72, 89; Pernice 1897, p. 25; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 121, no. 84; Palmieri 2016, pp. 200–201, no. Ge17. Inscription: IG IV 296; Wachter 2001, p. 142, no. COP 59. B38  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.52; Color Fig. 6

Antikensammlung F 827 (P 300). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 8.4 × 9.6 × 1.2. Approximately one-half of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑.

Figure 4.51. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B37). Scale 1:1, except

where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 59

5cm

Catal o gue

Side A

Figure 4.52. Two-sided pinax show5cm 0 ing kiln firing (B38). Scale 1:2. Photos I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

139

B38

Side B 0

5cm

Side A. Lower edge. Painted border. A figure facing r. (Amphitrite?) wearing a long chiton with incised meander design (cf. F 484). The surface of the r. part is broken off. There is space for an additional figure, possibly facing the existing one (cf. B39). Side B. Lower edge. Kiln facing r., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, loading door, and spy hole. Flames and fuel are depicted at the mouth of the stoking channel. The loading door (with semicircular outline) and the spy hole are indicated by incision. A small jug is hung on the kiln. A man, preserved from the chest down, is standing on top of the stoking channel. He is probably holding a hooked tool, judging by the position of his arm. Another man (to the r., but now lost) is stoking the fire with a T-shaped rod. For the shape of the jug on side B, cf. F 461. Dated to the LC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 89; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 33–34, 37, pl. IV:2; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 80–81, no. 16 (mislabeled as F 843); Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no. Κ22; Palmieri 2016, p. 199, no. Ge14. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:22 (side B). B39  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.53

B40  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.54

Antikensammlung F 890 (P 353) + F 1111x. Dim. 5.8 × 7.8 × 0.6. Approximately one-half of large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. Two standing clothed figures face each other (most likely Poseidon and Amphitrite). Side B. Lower l. corner. Kiln facing r., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber and dome. To the r. of the kiln, a male figure, wearing a short chiton, with a tool in his hands, leans toward the stoking channel. Behind him, part of a second figure with a protruding hand holding an object (cup or bowl?). Slip is mostly worn off. Furtwängler (1885, p. 98) interpreted this scene as sails of ship. For iconography similar to side A, see B40 and F 477 + F 479 (AntDenk II, pl. 24:10); for side B, cf. A5, B21, B27, B28. Furtwängler 1885, p. 98; Pernice 1897, p. 39, fig. 34. Antikensammlung F 683 + F 757 + F 829, F 822 (P 427a + P 496 + P 302, P 296). In permanent exhibition. Dim. F 683 + F 757 + F 829: 8.0 × 8.2 × 0.9; F 822: 7.2 × 6.1 × 0.9. Approximately one-half of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Lower l. corner and central part of pinax. On F 683 + F 757 + F 822, a figure facing l.; only part of the himation is preserved. On F 829, a figure facing r.; only the lower part of the chiton and feet are preserved. Possibly Poseidon and Amphitrite or Poseidon and Zeus.

140

c hap t er 4

Side A

0

Side B

5cm

5cm

0

B39

0

0

Side B. Lower r. corner and central part of pinax. Kiln facing r., with part of the pot-firing chamber and dome. An owl stands on the dome. An ithyphallic figure in much smaller scale (a clay figurine?) stands on the (now lost) stoking channel of the kiln. A man, shown in disproportionately larger scale than the kiln, approaches the kiln from the r. He wears a chitoniskos and has an underdeveloped r. leg. Inscriptions, dipinti: side B: (i) [. . . ca.. .7 . . ?]φοκα, above owl; (ii) κ̣άμ̣[ῑνος?], placed horizontally to the r. of ithyphallic figure on the kiln; (iii) Λόκρις, placed in front of the figure. Fränkel (IG IV 313) suggested that these fragmentary words may be names of kiln daimons, similar to the ones evoked in the poem entitled “Kiln” (see below, pp. 215–216). Wachter (2001, pp. 144–145, no. COP 63) suggests κάμινος for (ii). Cf. B38 and B39 for facing figures. For another depiction of a disproportionate leg, as on side B, see F 468 + F 949 + fr.). For owls, see B29 and F 756. Dated to the LC II period (Payne 1931, pp. 112, 160; Jeffery 1990, p. 131, no. 24). Palmieri (2016, p. 202) dates it to the LC I–II period. Furtwängler 1885, p.  89; Pernice 1897, p.  30; Pernice 1898; Payne 1931, p.  112; Zimmer 1982a, p.  42, fig.  14; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p.  79, no.  10; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 206, no. Κ15; Palmieri 2016, p. 202, no. Ge21. For deformed feet, especially on komos dancers, see Seeberg 1971, pp. 74–75. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:12 (side B). Inscription: IG IV 313; Wachter 2001, pp. 144–145, no. COP 63.

Figure 4.53. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B39). Scale 2:3. Photos 5cm

J. Laurentius, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Pernice 1897, p. 39, fig. 34 (side A); J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas (side B)

5cm

Catal o gue

757 F F 757

FF 683 683

3

141

757 FF757 FF 683 683

FF 829 829

F 822

F 822 Side A

FF 829 829

F 822 0

F 822 5cm

B40

0

5cm

F 822 Side B

Figure 4.54. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B40). Scale 1:2, except

where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas (side B after Zimmer 1982a, p. 42, fig. 14); Wachter 2001, no. COP 63

Not to scale

B41  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.55

Antikensammlung F 900 (P 362). Dim. 9.5 × 6.0 × 0.9. Almost intact except for one upper corner. Medium-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side A to B. Orientation: ↑. Side A. In the center, a warrior with his arms outstretched and wearing a helmet, corselet, and greaves. To his l., a smaller male figure (a second warrior?) wearing a short mantle. In the upper r. corner, a miniature horseback rider facing l., similar to the horseback rider on F 552 (illustrated in AntDenk II, pl. 24:1). A

F 822

142

c hap t er 4

Side A

B41

Side B

Figure 4.55. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B41). Scale 1:1. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk I, pl. 8:20 (side A); J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas (side B)

Catal o gue

143

similar miniature figure standing on a horizontal line in the upper part of a pinax is shown on F 837 (illustrated in Pernice 1897, p. 36, fig. 27). Below the horseback rider is a bird. In the lower r. corner, a wavy line (snake?). Slip is worn off. Side B. From top to bottom: a very elongated animal facing r., with its head missing, perhaps a feline; below it a second animal facing r., almost identical to the first; and along the bottom, a miniature scene 0.01 m in height depicting a kiln facing r., with strong flames exiting the dome, and two workers approaching it from the r. The man closest to the kiln holds a hooked tool over the vent of the dome. Slip is worn off. For miniature style, see also B21, B25, and B36. Inscriptions, dipinti: side A: (i) αοοιετ; (ii) α̣βοιετθριλοβαββ. Nonsensical strings of letters, placed along bottom edge and in r. part of the pinax. For nonsense inscriptions, cf. B43, B61. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 100–101. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 8:20 (side A). Inscription: IG IV 340; Wachter 2001, p. 153, no. COP 90A. B42  Pinax, two-sided

Figs. 4.56, 4.57

Antikensammlung F 846 (P 312). Dim. 23.0 × 17.0 × 0.9. Several frr. More than three-fourths of very large-sized pinax. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower l. corner and lower half. A hunter, with short belted chiton, staff, and quiver, walking to r. accompanied by his hunting dog on his l. side. Side B. Lower r. corner and lower half. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome. The loading door (with semicircular outline) and a crescent-shaped spy hole are emphasized with incision. Short flames exit a vent in the dome (cf. B34). Roughly circular incisions near the loading door made with the help of a compass can be seen upon close examination. These incisions may represent an earlier, unfinished attempt to portray a circular object, perhaps a chariot wheel for a scene in landscape orientation. Partly covered by the kiln, an imposing male figure is shown facing r., wearing an elegant chiton, and holding a rod (scepter or trident?). The figure could be Poseidon. This figure is probably an earlier sketch, as he seems unconnected to the scene. The slip on the figure is almost completely worn off, while it is preserved on the kiln itself. Inscription, dipinto: side A: Τῑμο̄νίδᾱς ἔγραψε Βίᾱ, placed in the middle of the pinax, between figure and dog. Inscription, graffito: side A: [. . .]ἀνέθε̄κε το̑ι Ποτēδα̑νι, placed on the l. border of the pinax. The name Timonidas appears also on a bottle from Kleonai (see below, p. 221), and it is believed that both objects were signed by the same individual (Amyx 1988, p. 383; Wachter 2001, pp. 129–130). When complete, this would have been one of the largest pinakes, possibly surpassing 30 cm in height; for the size, cf. F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399, measuring 28.0 × 16.5 cm (see Fig. 3.7), and the wooden pinakes from Pitsa, the largest of which measures 15.0 × 33.0 cm (see pp. 9, 50). For the long iconographical history of dogs in Corinthian vase painting from the Protocorinthian to Late Corinthian times, see Amyx 1988, pp. 666–668. Another scene of a man accompanied by a dog is also present on a three-dimensional openwork terracotta plaque, perhaps from a piece of furniture, where a man pets his dog (London, British Museum 1873,0915.10). Dated to the MC period ( Jeffery 1990, pp. 126, 131, no. 15, pl. 19:15; Palmieri 2016, p. 182). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 92–93; Pernice 1897, p. 37, fig. 28; Bechtel 1917, p. 579; Payne 1931, pp. 104, 161; Lorber 1979, p. 38, no. 41, fig. 28, pl. 10; Amyx 1988, pp. 201, 552, 564, 604, 606, 608, nos. 2, 28, table IV:40; Palmieri 2016, pp. 181–182, no. Ed1. Original illustrations: AntDenk I, pl. 8:13, 15 (not in the same scale). Inscriptions: IG IV 245; Wachter 2001, pp. 129–130, no. COP 18.

144

c hap t er 4

B42 B43  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.58

B44  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.59

Antikensammlung F 709 + fr. (P 442). Dim. 6.6 × 7.3 × 0.8. Approximately one-quarter of large sized pinax. Checkerboard border along bottom edge on both sides. Painted r. edge with a double line in thin slip. Orientation: ↑(?). Side A. Lower l. corner. The leg of a man (warrior?) facing r. No traces of garment in this fr. Added red. Slip fired red. Side B. Lower r. corner. Kiln(?) facing l., with part of its loading door(?) indicated by incision (cf. A26, B35). Slip fired brown. The chosen orientation places the border motif along the bottom on both sides. The kiln could also face r. in a landscape orientation of the scene with enough space available for the depiction of kiln workers. Inscription, dipinto: side A: [. . .]οσ̣φ or [. . .]ομ̣φ written vertically to the l. of figure. Wachter lists it as a nonsense inscription. Furtwängler 1885, p. 77; Pernice 1897, p. 31. Inscription: IG IV 323; Wachter 2001, p. 153, no. COP 88. Antikensammlung F 607 (P 216). Dim. 3.2 × 5.1 × 0.6. Approximately onesixth of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑.

Figure 4.56. Side A of two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B42).

Scale 1:2. Photo courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing Y. Nakas, after AntDenk I, pl. 8:13

Catal o gue

Figure 4.57. Side B of two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B42).

Scale 1:2. Photo courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

145

B42 Side A. L. edge. Lower torso and upper part of legs of a male striding r. (possibly warrior; greaves indicated by incision). Original size estimated by comparison with warriors on F 588 and F 589 + F 603 + F 604 / C-1963-104. Slip fired brown-orange, now very worn off. Side B. R. edge. An area covered with slip (kiln?) with loading door and spy hole indicated with incision. The fragment is too small for secrue identification. Most slip, fired red, is worn off. Furtwängler 1885, p. 70; Pernice 1897, p. 25. B45  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.60

Antikensammlung I 141. Dim. 5.0 × 4.0 × 0.4. Edge preserved. Original size difficult to estimate (possibly large-sized pinax). Orientation: ←(?). Side A. The head and arm of a man facing r. Incision used for his eye. Side B. A large surface painted black; possibly remains of a kiln facing l. or r. depending on the orientation of the pinax; for similar undifferentiated slipped areas that belong to kiln depictions, see A7, A8, A10, and A16. Pernice 1897, p. 46.

146

c hap t er 4

Not to scale 0

Side0A

5cm

5cm

B43

B46  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.61

B47  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.62; Color Fig. 7

Antikensammlung F 863 + F 877 + F 879 + fr. (P 331 + P 428 + P 343). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 8.0 × 19.0 × 0.7. Upper half with both l. and r. corners. Approximately one-half of very large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side A to B. The surface of side B bears imprints of the original forming surface (a wooden board?). Orientation: ↑. Side A. Painted border. Two horseback riders riding r. Bird in upper l. corner. Several areas of misfired red slip. Side B. Kiln facing l., with pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney. Lotusshaped flames, drawn in outline, exit the chimney. A disproportionately large man l. of the dome strides to the r. holding a hooked instrument in his l. hand and a branch with leaves in his r. hand (green wood for accelerating a reducing atmosphere in the kiln?). For the branch, cf. A9. Branches are also depicted on two other Penteskouphia pinakes, F 455 and F 774 (AntDenk II, pl. 30:13). Dated to the LC I period (Palmieri 2016; attributed to the Hippolytos Painter with comparanda from the Potters’ Quarter). Furtwängler 1885, p. 95; Pernice 1897, pp. 37–38, figs. 31, 32; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 80–81, no. 13; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no. Κ24; Palmieri 2016, p. 179, no. Dd2. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 23:2a, 2b. Antikensammlung F 865 + 2 frr. (P 334). Dim. 10.9 × 8.0 × 0.6. Seven joining frr. More than two-thirds of large-sized pinax. Two pierced holes. Pierced from side A to B. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. L. part with upper and lower l. corners. A horseback rider wearing a chitoniskos is moving to the r.; a miniature ithyphallic figure, facing r., stands on the tail of his horse, and is tentatively identified with horse-frightening daimon Taraxippos (Paus. 6.20.15–19; see Kiderlen and Strocka 2005, p. 90). Added red on the horse and the ithyphallic figure. Side B. R. part with upper and lower r. corners. Kiln facing l., with the stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney (a reused pot). Flames exit the chimney. The loading door is emphasized with incision. To the l. of the kiln, a person faces r. Only his head and his extended l. arm are preserved.

0

0

5cmSide B

5cm

Figure 4.58. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B43). Scale 1:2, except where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 88

Catal o gue

147

Side A

0

5cm

Side B

Figure 4.59. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B44). Scale 2:3. Photos

5cm

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

0

B44

5cm

Contrary to many similar depictions, he does not carry a tool; perhaps he carried one in his r. hand in the missing part of the pinax. There would not have been sufficient space for another figure when the pinax was complete. Dated to the MC period (600–570 b.c.; Kiderlen and Strocka 2005) or LC Period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 95; Pernice 1897, pp. 38–39, fig. 33; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 79, 81, no. 8; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no.  Κ25; Kiderlen and Strocka 2005, p. 90, no. 32; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 120, no. 82. Palmieri 2016, p. 176, no. Db1. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 23:11 (side A). B48  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.62; Color Fig. 7

Antikensammlung F  878 + F  909 (P  342 or 354 + P  369). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 6.8 × 14.0 × 0.8. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑.

148

c hap t er 4

Side B Side A

B45

5cm

0

5cm

0

0

liche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

0

5cm

0

Side A

Figure 4.60. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B45). Scale 2:3. Photos 5cm I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staat-

5cm

0

5cm

0

Figure 4.61. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B46). Scale 1:2. Photos

Side B

0

B46

5cm

J. Tietz-Glagow, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

5cm

Catal o gue

149

Side A 5cm

5cm

0

5cm

0

Side B

Side A

5cm

0

B47

Figure 4.62. Two-sided pinakes 0 showing kiln firing (B47, B48).

5cm

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Luckert (B47), I. Geske (B48), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

0

Side B

5cm

B48

5cm A bearded rider is 0 Side A. Upper edge and upper l. corner. Painted border. holding a spear and riding on a winged horse (perhaps a mythological depiction of Bellerophon on Pegasos?). Side B. Upper edge and upper r. corner. Two male figures facing r. attend a kiln facing l. The very top of the dome of a kiln is depicted in outline. Flames exit a vent in the dome. The head, hands, upper torso, and upper legs of the figure closest to the kiln are preserved. He holds a hooked tool in his r. hand to inspect the firing. The anatomical rendering of this naked figure is among the best in the corpus of kiln pinakes. To the l. is the head of a second man who holds a T-shaped rod. The depiction of both tools in one scene speaks to the specialized nature of each kiln-firing activity. For the rendering of the figures, cf. B20, B38, and B40. Dated to the LC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 97, 102; Zimmer 1982a, p. 40, fig. 22:2; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 79, no. 12 (only F 909 is illustrated); Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 208, no. Κ30; Palmieri 2016, p. 206, no. Ha1. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:21 (side B).

150

c hap t er 4

Side A

Side B

0

5cm

0

5cm

0

B49

0

B49  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.63; Color Fig. 7

B50  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.64

Antikensammlung F 546 + F 866 (P 162 + P 335). Dim. 9.6 × 11.3 × 0.9. Two joining frr. Approximately two-thirds of large-sized pinax. One pierced hole in upper corner, one fragmentary in lower corner. Slip fired red on A, brown on B. Painted border and edges. Orientation: ↑. Side A. L. part with upper l. corner. The border consists of a thick band in diluted slip; on top of it slanted strokes are painted in thicker slip. The rear part of a horse with rider facing r. Light incisions used. Most slip is worn off. Side B. R. part with upper r. corner. Kiln facing r., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and partial pot-firing chamber and dome. Strong flames exit the stoking channel moving horizontally and upwards. A bearded man holding a T-shaped stoking rod in his r. hand stands on top of the stoking channel. His l. arm is raised toward the vent of the dome, possibly holding a hooked tool as in B20. A set of two incisions on the waist and incisions on his arms indicate that he wears a short-sleeved garment. Dated to the LC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 66, 95; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 39, 62, fig. 20:1; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 80, no. 15; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no. Κ3; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, pp. 119–120, no. 81; Palmieri 2016, p. 200, no. Ge15. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:13 (side B). Antikensammlung F 867 (P 336). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 5.0 × 4.4 × 0.6. Lower edge. Approximately one-quarter of medium-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑.

Figure 4.63. Two-sided pinax show5cm ing kiln firing (B49). Scale 1:2. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas, after Zimmer 1982a, p. 39, fig. 20:1

5cm

Catal o gue

Side A

Figure 4.64. Two-sided 0 0 pinax showing kiln firing (B50). Scale 2:3. Photos

I. Geske (side A), J. Laurentius (side B), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

5cm 5cm

151

B50

Side B

0 0

5cm 5cm

Side A. Horse facing r. Rear leg and tail preserved. Side B. Kiln facing l., with the stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome. Unusual depiction of the flames burning inside and outside the stoking channel of the kiln. A rather small, nude male figure climbs above the stoking channel, on the pot-firing chamber. Only his lower half is preserved. The placement of his feet on the pot-firing chamber is anatomically challenging. Traces of slip to his r., perhaps of held object. See B36 for similar depiction of flames inside the stoking channel. Furtwängler 1885, p. 95; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 79, no. 11; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 207–208, no. Κ26; Palmieri 2016, p. 201, no. Ge18. B51  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.65

B52  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.65

Antikensammlung F 801 (P 278), Corinth C-1963-452, Antikensammlung F 517 (P 140). Dim. F 801: 11.0 × 9.8 × 0.9; Corinth C-1963-452: 11.3 × 10.5 × 0.8; F 517: 6.9 × 6.2 × 0.7; combined dims. 11.0 × 19.6. Five joining frr. with three edges. Joins noted by von Raits. Approximately three-fourths of very large-sized pinax. Two suspension holes, only one pierced through. Pierced from side A to B. Slightly warped. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Poseidon and Amphitrite riding a quadriga facing r. Slip is worn off from the front legs of the horses. Side B. Two figures attending a kiln firing. Kiln facing l., with part of the stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, and dome. The rectangular loading door and spy hole are indicated with incision. A female figure wearing a long chiton stands on top of the stoking channel, perhaps looking away from the kiln. The shield held with her l. hand and the spear held in the r. hand suggest that the figure may be Athena. To the l. of the kiln a man leans to stoke the fire with a long tool. His head, torso, and an arm are preserved. For the bending position of the figure, cf. B27. Behind him are traces of a seated figure, and closer to the l. edge are more traces of paint. Most of the slip of the stoking channel and of the figure is worn off. If the pinax were complete, there would be space for more kiln workers. Dated to the EC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 85. For the unsettled issue of whether Athena is depicted here, see Ritter 2001, p. 148, n. 2; Geagan 1970, p. 42; Palmieri 2016, p. 213, no. Ib1. Antikensammlung F 800 (P 277). Dim. 10.7 × 7.4 × 1.0. Lower edge. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. Side B preserves the striations from the original forming surface for the pinax. Orientation: ↑.

152

c hap t er 4 F 801

C-1963-452

C-1963-452

F 517

F 517

F 517

F 801

Side A F52 801 C-1963-4

F 517

F 517

0

F 801 5cm

C-1963-452 C-1963-452

C-1963-452 0

F 517

F 801

1963-452

C-1963-452 Side B

F 801

C-1963-452 0

5cm

Side A

B51

B52 0

5cm

Figure 4.65. Two-sided pinakes showing kiln firing (B51, B52).

Scale 1:2. Photos I. Ioannidou (B51), 5cm Exca0 (B51), courtesy Corinth L. Bartzioti vations; I. Geske (B51, B52), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger (B51), Y. Nakas

Side B

Catal o gue

Side A 0

5cm

Figure 4.66. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B53). Scale 1:2. Draw-

ings J. Denkinger (side B), Y. Nakas (side A after AntDenk II, pl. 29:10)

153

B53

Side B 0

5cm

Side A. Painted border. Two horses pulling a chariot. Poseidon (and Amphitrite?) must have been depicted in the lost part of the pinax. Side B. The dome and the stoking channel of a kiln facing r. The slip is hastily brushed on (cf. B60). A figure (disproportionately smaller than the kiln) wearing a long chiton stands on the stoking channel with a tool (probably hooked) in his l. hand, and leans over the dome to inspect the firing. The face of the figure does not survive to determine its sex, but the singular occurrence of a female worker on the Penteskouphia kiln pinakes makes it highly probable that the figure is male. It is possible that the longer garment indicates higher status, possibly referring to the owner of the workshop. Palmieri (2016, p. 212) argues that the figure is Athena, as on B51, but the lack of attributes makes the identification difficult in this case. The slip is applied more carefully on side A than on side B. Inscription, graffito (unpublished): side B: [Ποτ]ε̄δά, scratched on the lower part of the kiln. Dated to the EC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 85; Palmieri 2016, pp. 212–213, no. Ia1. B53  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.66

Antikensammlung F 524 + F 694 (P 149a + P 505). Dim. 7.0 × 6.5 × 0.9. Two joining frr. Approximately one-fifth of very large-sized pinax. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. The front legs and shoulders of a quadriga. Added red on the horses’ shoulders. A horse-drawn chariot with Poseidon is reconstructed here. Side B. Lower l. corner. Kiln facing r., with part of stoking channel, combustion chamber, loading door, and spy hole. Incisions used for loading door and spy hole. The loading door appears too close to the edge, not centrally located in the upper firing chamber. Incised line for the border. Most slip worn off. If the pinax were complete, there would be enough space for one or two kiln workers approaching the kiln with a tool. Inscription, dipinto: side A: [‒⏕‒ μʼ ]ἀνέθε̄κε Ποτῑδϝο̄̄νι ϝάνατ(τ)ι αὐτό ποκʼᾱ[. . .], in cursive form to the r. of the horses in the lower r. corner. The κ in ποκʼᾱ creates a problem in the interpretation of the last part of the sentence, whether it is an adjective, a noun, or part of another sentence, now lost. For other variants of autopoieia, see F 495 + F 513 and MNC 209 (Fig. 5.27). Dated to the LC II period by Jeffery (1990, pp. 131–132, no. 24); Palmieri (2016, p. 221) dates it to the MC–LC period.

154

c hap t er 4

Side A

5cm

0

Side B

5cm

0

B54

0

Figure 4.67. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B54). Scale 2:3. Photos

5cm

Furtwängler 1885, pp.  65, 77; Pernice 1897, p.  22; Palmieri 2016, p.  221, no. Oe7. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 29:10 (side A). Inscription: IG IV 222; Wachter 2001, pp. 123–125, no. COP 2A. B54  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.67

Corinth C-1963-126. Dim. 4.8 × 5.8 × 0.6. Approximately one-quarter of large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Upper r. corner. Painted border. The heads of two horses face r. The outline and some details of the horses are incised. Most of the slip, fired brown, is worn off. Side B. Lower r. corner. Kiln facing l. with combustion chamber and pot-firing chamber. The loading door with arched outline is incised. The slip is fired red in parts and is mostly worn off. The reconstructed size of the pinax allows for one worker. Dated to the LC period (von Raits 1964; Palmieri 2016). Von Raits 1964, pp. 12 (n. 40), 30 (n. 24), 35 (n. 17), 38, 41–42, pl. III:4a, 4b (4b is drawn upside down); Palmieri 2016, pp. 221–222, no. Oe8.

P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations; drawings Y. Nakas

5c

Catal o gue

155

Not to scale

Side A

0

Side B

0

Figure 4.68. Two-sided pinax show5cm ing kiln firing (B55). Scale 1:1, except

where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas; Wachter 2001, no. COP 78

5cm

0

B55

0 B55  Pinax, two-sided

5cm

Fig. 4.68

Antikensammlung F 555 (P 170). Dim. 4.5 × 5.1 × 0.7. Approximately onefourth or one-third of medium-sized pinax. Painted edges. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. A man (squire?), shown with his back to the viewer, holds the reins of two horses. Only the front legs, shoulders, and heads of the two horses are preserved. Red-orange slip much worn. The painter seems to have misjudged the amount of available space, as the r. hand of the man overlaps the painted border. Crudely rendered incisions. Side B. Lower l. corner. Kiln facing r., with the (extremely) long legs of a figure standing on its stoking channel. The painter may have miscalculated the area available to him, leaving no space to depict the full size of a stoking channel. Painted in bright red-orange slip, now mostly worn off.

156

c hap t er 4

Side A 0

5cm

B56

0

Inscriptions, graffiti: side A: (i) Δεύς, placed horizontally under the horses; (ii) Λσιπ(π)ος, placed vertically between the legs of the figure and partially overlapping with the figure. Stissi (2002, p. 456) believes that we have here the names of a hoplite and his groom, Λσιπ(π)ος. There is not enough space for a longer name, such as the [Ἀχ]ιλ〈λ〉εύς proposed by Amyx (1988, pp. 606–607, nos. 7, 22). Furtwängler 1885, p. 67; Pernice 1897, p. 24; Palmieri 2016, p. 177, no. Dc2. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 7:23 (side A). Inscriptions: IG IV 314; Amyx 1988, pp. 606–607, nos. 7, 22; Wachter 2001, p. 149, no. COP 78. B56  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.69

B57  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.70; Color Fig. 8

Antikensammlung F 631 (P 241). Dim. 3.2 × 4.4 × 0.5. Upper edge. Approximately one-sixth or less of very large-sized(?) pinax. One pierced hole. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Partially preserved bird flying to the l. with incisions on its wings. Most slip is worn off. Perhaps the original scene was one of horseback riders, as birds are common in these scenes (e.g., B1, B46). Side B. The upper part of the dome of a kiln is preserved in dark black slip. The neck of a vessel with two handles, probably an amphora, is placed upside down to function as a chimney. Flames exit this vessel in the form of a triangle. Added red used for the flames. With a hypothetical horseback rider theme on side A, there is enough space to depict one or more kiln workers. Cf. A6, B20, for vessels reused as chimneys. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73. Antikensammlung F 893 (P 357). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 9.8 × 5.9 × 0.6. Approximately one-third of very large-sized pinax. Orientation: ↑. Pierced from side A to B. Side A. L. part of the pinax with lower l. corner. Painted border on bottom. A man facing r., rendered in small scale, is standing to the l. of a boar also facing r. The man is squeezed against the l. edge of the pinax. Only the rear part of the animal, including one leg, is preserved. Palmieri (2016) interprets the small scale of the figure as possibly indicative of a genius or daimon, but slaves and grooms are also shown in smaller scale, especially in scenes of riders on horseback. Side B. R. part of the pinax with lower r. corner. A vertical section of the interior of a kiln, showing the combustion chamber, a columnar support for the perforated floor, the perforated floor itself, the pot-firing chamber, and the chimney

5cm

Side B

Figure 4.69. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B56). Scale 1:2. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

cm

Catal o gue

0

157

5cm

Side A

Figure 4.70. Two-sided 5cm pinax show0 ing kiln firing (B57). Scale 1:2. Photos

J. Laurentius (side A), I. Geske (side B), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas, after Hofmann and Bohm 1965, pp. 230–231, figs. 146–149

5cm

0

Side B

B57 0

5cm

opening. The columnar support divides the combustion chamber into two areas: to the r., a drinking cup is shown lying on its side. To the l., small bulbs of slip must be fuel stoked into the combustion chamber through the stoking channel (not preserved here, but present in restorations of the pinax). Inside the pot-firing chamber as many as 11 vessels, primarily one-handled jugs, but also one amphora, are randomly stacked. For the shape of the jugs, cf. A4, B5, and F 461. On the top, near the chimney, two sherds preserving a handle have been interpreted as firing test pieces. No pot is used for the chimney. For another Corinthian test piece in the form of a handle, see Corinth KP‑1344 (Corinth XV.3, p. 250, no. 1385, pl. 57). For a similar scene of a boar and a figure, see F 918 + 3 frr. Furtwängler 1885, p. 99; Hofmann and Böhm 1965, pp. 230–231, figs. 146– 149; Zimmer 1982a, pp. 33, 37, pl. IV:1; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77, 80–81, no. 18; Vidale 2002, pp. 250–252, figs. 52:a, b; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 208, no. Κ33 (wrong orientation); Palmieri 2016, pp. 195–196, no. Ge7. Early publications (e.g., Perrot and Chipiez 1911, p. 348, fig. 185; Marwitz 1960, col. 230, fig. 98; Duhamel 1978–1979, p. 51, fig. 1:d) misinterpreted the depiction as a plan of a kiln, or a horizontal, rather than a vertical, cross-section; see discussion below, pp. 188–189. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:19a, 19b. B58  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.71

Antikensammlung F 616 (P 229). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 5.9 × 6.1 × 0.5. Approximately one-third of medium-sized pinax. Painted border on both sides. Orientation: ↑.

0

158

c hap t er 4

Side A

00

5cm 5cm

B58

00

Side A. Lower l. corner. The l. half of a ship? Most slip is worn off. Side B. Lower r. corner. Kiln facing l., painted in outline, with stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome, and chimney preserved. Flames exit both the chimney and the stoking channel. The loading door is depicted unusually low, as a loop touching the groundline, but this seems to fit the overall poor rendering of proportions on the pinax. The pot-firing chamber is disproportionately low and small in comparison with the height and length of the stoking channel. A very long-legged man rests his l. foot on the stoking channel; he holds a hooked tool to inspect the firing. The entire figure is disproportionately larger than the kiln. A krater is depicted behind him, held by a second figure (now lost). Three lines on the upper r. corner above the kiln may represent a rough outline of the workshop in the background, or they could be accidental. Dated to the LC period (6th century b.c.) and associated with the Fine Silhouette Group (Palmieri 2016). Cf. Other pinakes in outline: A28, A30, B19, B32, B36. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 71–72; Zimmer 1982a, p. 39, fig. 21:1; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 77–78, 81, no. 6; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no. Κ7; Palmieri 2016, p. 197, no. Ge9. Original illustration: AntDenk I, pl. 8:12 (side B). B59  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.72

Antikensammlung F 889 (P 352). Dim. 6.7 × 4.6 × 1.1. Approximately onesixth or less of very large-sized pinax. Painted border. Side B bears slight striations from the original forming surface for the pinax. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Lower edge. The stoking channel of a kiln facing l. is partially preserved. Flames exit the stoking channel and they are painted in thin slip fired red. To the l. of the stoking channel, the hand of a figure stoking the fire with a rod, or raking out ash and debris.

Side B

5cm 5cm pinax showFigure 4.71. Two-sided ing kiln firing (B58). Scale 2:3. Photo I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

159

Side A

5cm

0

Side B

B59

Figure 4.72. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B59). Scale 2:3. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

0

5cm

160

c hap t er 4

Side A

Side B

5cm

0

0

5cm

0

B60

Side B. Upper edge. A man with his arms extended is depicted in larger scale; below his feet, the heads of figures in smaller scale. Perhaps a scene on a ship, as on F 647 + F 656 (AntDenk II, pl. 29:12; Hasaki and Nakas 2017, p. 69, fig. 3:a), or perhaps the painter changed his mind about the final scene depicted. Most slip worn off. The scale of figures on each side is considerably different; side B may have had two registers. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 98; Palmieri 2016, p. 196, no. Ge8. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:17a, 17b. B60  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.73; Color Fig. 8

Antikensammlung F 763 + fr. (P 585). Dim. 7.4 × 10.9 × 0.7. Approximately one-quarter of very large-sized pinax. Painted edge. Orientation: ↓. Side A. Upper r. corner. Painted border of two bands. Scene difficult to interpret. Only incisions survive, perhaps belonging to an animal (bull?) and a rosette (cf. B62 for red dots on a sea monster). Slip, fired red, is mostly worn off.

5cm

Figure 4.73. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B60). Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

161

Figure 4.74. Two-sided pinax showing kiln firing (B61). Scale 1:1. Photos

H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY

Side A

B61

Side B

Side B. Lower r. corner. Kiln facing l., with stoking channel, combustion chamber, and pot-firing chamber. The arched loading door is indicated with incision. The slip is hastily brushed on. Possible leg of a man standing in front of the stoking channel is preserved (cf. B26). Furtwängler 1885, p. 78; Pernice 1897, p. 32. B61  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.74

Louvre MNC 216. In permanent exhibition. Dim. 8.5 × 4.8 × 0.5. Weight: 37 g. Intact. Small-sized pinax. Three pierced holes on upper edge. Pierced from side A to B. Orientation: ↑. Side A. On the top half, a tall, thin, pillar-like structure (cf. A13). On the bottom half of the pinax, the plan of a kiln in black slip showing the combustion chamber and the stoking channel. A series of letters surrounding these depictions on three sides. Side B. An irregular X is painted across the entire surface. Inscription, dipinto: side A: scattered letters (nonsense inscriptions). For side A, see Wachter’s (2001, p. 153) attractive suggestion that the plan of a kiln is depicted. For nonsense inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes, see p. 212 with n. 92, below. Inscription: Wachter 2001, p. 153, no. COP 90C.

Wor kshop-Rel at ed Sc ene s (B62 , B63 ) B62  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.75

Antikensammlung F 813 (P 287). Dim. 4.8 × 5.3 × 0.6. Original size difficult to estimate. One pierced hole. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower l. corner. Two men facing each other. The man on the l. sits on a low stool. Only his lower body is preserved. He holds a stick in his hand. Only the hands of the man on the r. are preserved. He is either seated, or standing but

162

c hap t er 4

Side A

0

Side B

5cm

0

0

5cm

5cm

B62

rendered in a smaller scale. He holds an aryballos in his l. hand. Because of the angle of the knees of the man on the l. and the absence of any traces of a potter’s wheel on the available surface, it is unlikely that he is forming a vessel on the wheel. Side B. Lower r. corner. The lower leg of a figure holding a trident and riding an animal, presumably Poseidon riding a sea monster (Melikertes?). The skin of the animal is rendered with dots in added red, now mostly worn off. Striations from original forming surface of the pinax on side B, which was probably intended to be the back side. Most slip worn off. Dated to MC Period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 87; Pernice 1897, p. 36; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 205, no. Κ6; Palmieri 2016, p. 162, no. An2. For other depictions of a sea beast (ketos) in Corinthian vase painting, see Amyx 1988, pp. 392–393. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:16a, 16b. B63  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.76

Antikensammlung F 884 (P 347). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 4.2 × 5.0 × 0.9. Upper edge. Original size difficult to estimate. Orientation: ↑(?). Side A. Three transport amphoras (with long necks and pointed toes) are shown standing upright: one is almost complete, one is missing the base, and a very small part of the third is shown. They may represent the fired or unfired products of a ceramic workshop specializing in amphoras (cf. A4 with jugs placed on a shelf ).

Figure 4.75. Two-sided pinax showing a workshop-related scene (B62). Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, courtesy

Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk II, pl. 39:16a, 16b; Y. Nakas

5cm

cm

m

5cm

0

Catal o gue

163

Side A

Side B

0

0

5cm

5cm

Figure 4.76. Two-sided pinax showing a workshop-related scene (B63). Scale 1:2. Photos J. Laurentius, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

0

B63

0

0

5cm

0

5cm

0

5cm

5cm5cm

5cm 0 Side B. A warrior wearing a helmet and holding a lance marches to r. Striations present on the surface. Both portrait and landscape reconstructions of the scene are provided here. The portrait version is more minimalistic, while the landscape version is based on the horizontal placement of several pots on the upper parts of A4 and B5. In the landscape version, there is space for an additional warrior to the r. The amphoras depicted here, with their longer neck and more ovoid body, resemble Corinthian type A transport amphoras. For an excavated example from the first half of the 6th century (Corinth C-1953-222; H. 0.65 m; max. Diam. 0.46 m), see Brann 1956, pp. 365–366, no. 59, pl. 58. Furtwängler 1885, p. 98.

164 A M B I G U O U S S C EN E S ( M 1 – M 22 )

c hap t er 4

M1  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.77

M2  Pinax, one-sided (possibly two-sided)

Fig. 4.77

Antikensammlung F 642 (P 261). Dim. 7.9 × 4.9 × 0.6. L. edge. Original size difficult to estimate. Painted border. An alabastron and traces of slip fired red. Furtwängler (1885, p. 73) tentatively associated it with a workshop scene. Furtwängler 1885, p. 73. Corinth C-1963-422. Dim. 6.3 × 3.7 × 0.4. R. side with upper and lower corners preserved. Original size difficult to estimate. One pierced hole. Almost all the area is covered with a red-fired slip. Von Raits (1964, p. 58) suggested that the scene was a depiction of the pot-firing chamber and stoking channel of a kiln facing l. The overall shape of the slipped area and limited space for flames or a chimney make the identification problematic. On the reverse, there is ghost paint with light incisions. It is unclear whether paint and incisions are intentional or accidental. Von Raits 1964, pp. 30 (n. 24), 58. M3  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.78

M4  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.78

M1

Antikensammlung F 624 (P 238). Dim. 5.5 × 4.3 × 0.7. Possibly lower edge. Original size difficult to estimate. Three lines, closely-spaced together, starting straight and curving towards the upper l.: on one end three sets of two short strokes perpendicular to these lines, and on the other end, winglike features (or perhaps the tail of a dolphin). To the r. a bird flying to l. Most slip worn off. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72. Antikensammlung F 625 (P 239). Dim. 4.0 × 3.8 × 0.5. Upper edge. Original size difficult to estimate. Painted border and edge. On the l., a bird flying r. Next to it, strokes in slip fired red are preserved. They are depicted in a manner similar to flames exiting a kiln. A slanted line goes through the strokes, possibly a tool held by a figure coming from the r. An incision may indicate the eye of a figure. Thin slip fired brown. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72. M5  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.78

M6  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.78

Antikensammlung I 92. Dim. 5.5 × 7.5 × 1.0. Lower edge. Originally thought to be a kiln facing r. with parts of the stoking channel, combustion chamber, and pot-firing chamber. The stoking channel is unusually elongated, and the overall proportions of the other kiln parts render the identification problematic. The presence of a bird above the elongated slipped area is also unusual for a kiln scene. Pernice 1897, p. 44. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 40:17. Antikensammlung F 629 (P 516). Dim. 10.0 × 7.0 × 0.9. Upper l. corner. Scene difficult to interpret; circular incision preserved in upper slipped area. Unlikely to be the rear end of an animal as no tail is present. Perhaps a different kind of animal to l. with its eye indicated. If it represents a leg of a male to r., the figure would be at a very large scale and bending forward. Furtwängler (1885, p. 72) misinterpreted the scene as a kiln to l. with short stoking channel.

M2 Figure 4.77. Pinakes with ambiguous scenes (M1, M2). Scale 2:3. Photos

I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (M1); P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations (M2)

Catal o gue

M3

0

165

5cm

M6 M5

M8 Figure 4.78. Pinakes with ambiguous scenes (M3–M8). Scale 2:3. Photos

P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations (M3); I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (M4–M8); drawings J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas (M3, M4); AntDenk II, pl. 40:17 (M5)

M4 0

5cm

M7

Inscription, dipinto: side A: Δέρις, or Δε̑ρις, written in the free space to the l. of the scene. Furtwängler 1885, p. 72; Pernice 1897, p. 41, n. 3; Amyx 1988, p. 606, no. 10. Inscription: IG IV 308; Wachter 2001, p. 145, no. COP 64. M7  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.78

M8  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.78

Antikensammlung F 636 (P 246). Dim. 9.9 × 4.7 × 0.8. No original edge. Two sets of curved parallel lines, with a row of dots in the center between them. Perhaps part of a figure’s garment, a ship, or the outer rim of a shield (cf. F 588 and F 589 + F 603 + F 604 / C-1963-104; AntDenk II, pls. 30:27 and 24:24, respectively), although the arc is too wide for a shield. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73; Pernice 1897, p. 41, n. 3. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 40:11. Antikensammlung F 633 (P 243). Dim. 3.9 × 7.0 × 0.9. Upper l. corner. Approximately one-sixth of original size. One pierced hole. Pierced from side with painted scene. A semicircular area covered with slip (perhaps part of the dome or the potfiring chamber of a kiln). A wavy line in brown slip runs horizontally just below the top edge, like a border motif, or possibly a snake. Furtwängler 1885, pp. 72–73.

166

c hap t er 4

M9  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.79

M10  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.80

M11  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.81

Antikensammlung F  941 (P  525). Dim. 4.8  × 5.0  × 0.7. Upper r. corner. Original size difficult to estimate. At the bottom, the tops of flames, possibly emerging from a kiln. Inscriptions, dipinti: side A: (i) [.  .  .]ς μʼἀνέθε̄κε, written along top edge; (ii) [. . .]ι̣δᾱς, written vertically along l. break. Furtwängler 1885, p.  105. Inscription: IG IV 240; Wachter 2001, p.  140, no. COP 52.

M12  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.82

M13  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.83

Antikensammlung F 456 + F 815 (P 91 + P 289). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 10.8 × 8.5 × 0.7. Approximately one-third of original size. Orientation: ↑. Side A. L. edge. Lower part of a clothed figure (Poseidon?) to l. with extended hand holding a vertical staff (trident?). Slip fired red. Side B. R. edge. A person is on hands and knees on a horizontal surface. A leg attached to this surface, perhaps a table, is preserved. To the r. a second man is looking l. at the first figure. Slip fired red. Given the scale of the figures, it is possible that side B was divided into registers; alternatively, large areas may have been left undecorated. Furtwängler 1885, p. 88. Corinth C-1963-353. Dim. 7.2 × 5.4 × 0.8. Orientation: uncertain. Side A. Lower r. corner. A male nude figure walks to l., bending forward slightly. Only the part below his neck is preserved. He is holding a thin rod in his hands. Side B. Scene unclear. Von Raits 1964, p. 57.

0

Antikensammlung F 817 (P 291). Dim. 5.6 × 4.3 × 0.7. Approximately onequarter of original size. Orientation: ↑. Side A. R. edge. Painted border. Torso and hands of Poseidon facing r., holding a trident in l. hand. To his r., the upper part of a dolphin. Added red on Poseidon. Side B. L. edge. A small figure walks to r. on a platform, holding a perforated object (grate?) by its two handles. The perforated object seems to be folded and has a pair of handles on top. The platform is supported by a vertical beam. It is noteworthy that the artist chose a portrait orientation to depict this busy scene. Given that less than one-quarter of the pinax is preserved and that the figure is depicted in relatively small scale, the scene may have originally been divided in registers. The drawing in the AntDenk shows a ladder to the l. of the figure in the background, but during my personal examination of the pinax, no traces of slip in that area were visible. There is some paint to the right of the perforated object. Chatzidimitriou suggests that the perforated object is a basket with charcoal and lists the pinax under scenes of potters at work. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 88; Chatzidimitriou 2005, p. 207, no. Κ21; Palmieri 2016, pp. 149–150, no. Ad3. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 23:4a, 4b.

5cm

Corinth C-1963-193. Dim. 5.5 × 3.8 × 0.7. No edges preserved. Orientation difficult to ascertain. Von Raits’s suggestion that this is a kiln scene is doubtful. Perhaps a fish looking downward, or part of a figure. Inscription, dipinto (unpublished): four letters from a dedicatory inscription, [ἀ]νέθε̄[κε], placed vertically to the l. of painted area. Von Raits 1964, pp. 49, 60, 63.

M9 Figure 4.79. Pinax with ambiguous scene (M9). Scale 1:1. Photo I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger

Catal o gue

167

Figure 4.80. Pinax with ambiguous scene (M10). Scale 1:1. Photo P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations; drawing Y. Nakas

M10

Side A

Figure 4.81. Pinax with ambiguous scene (M11). Scale 2:3. Photos I. Luckert, courtesy Antikensammlung,00 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk II, pl. 23:4a, 4b; Y. Nakas

5cm

0

Side B

M11 5cm 5cm

00

5cm 5cm

168

c hap t er 4

Side A

0

Side B

M12 0

5cm

Side A

M14  Pinax, two-sided

0

5cm

M13

5cm

0

Figure 4.82. Pinax with ambiguous 5cm scene (M12). Scale 1:2. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings Y. Nakas

Figure 4.83. Pinax with ambiguous scene (M13). Scale 2:3. Photos P. Del-

Side B

latolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations

Fig. 4.84

Corinth C-1963-147. Dim. 4.0 × 5.2 × 0.4. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. L. leg and part of the r. foot of male figure facing l. Side B. Lower l. corner. Von Raits (1964) believed it was part of a kiln with flames. Although there is space for a fully depicted kiln, it would be one with a disproportionately high stoking channel, and the flames are few and placed in an unusual location.

Catal o gue

Side A

0

Figure 4.84. Pinax with ambiguous scene (M14). Scale 2:3. Photos P. Dellato-

las, courtesy Corinth Excavations; drawings Y. Nakas

5cm0

169

M14

0

5cm

5cm0

Side B

5cm

Inscription, dipinto: side A: [. . .] μαπ or αδος [. . .]. Some letters in thin slip placed vertically between the legs of the figure. Dated to 6th century b.c. (Palmieri 2016). Von Raits 1964, pp. 30 (nn. 26, 27), 34 (n. 10), 43–44, 60, pl. V:4a, 4b; Palmieri 2016, p. 225, no. P7. Inscription: von Raits 1964, p. 60. M15  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.85

M16  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.85

Corinth C-1963-185 + C-1963-424. Dim. 4.2 × 5.3 × 0.4. Three joining frr. Lime spalling. Orientation: uncertain. Side A. Lower l. corner. Legs of a nude male walking r. Vertical strokes are shown before his raised r. leg. To the r. of him, a black-slipped area. If this represents a kiln, as von Raits (1964) suggested, the vertical strokes may represent flames exiting the stoking channel. Most of the slip is worn off, which makes identifying the scene even more challenging. Side B. Lower r. corner. Von Raits (1964) suggested that the tail of a sea animal may be depicted. Alternatively, it could have been the bent arm of a man, but the pinax would cut off him at the waist. Inscription, graffito (unpublished): side A: The letter Ε is partially preserved above the area with the black slip. Von Raits 1964, p. 64. She originally associated it with C-1963-145 (part of M22) but later abandoned that association. Corinth C-1963-125. Dim. 5.2 × 5.4 × 0.4. Orientation: uncertain. Side A. Lower r. corner. Ship with two sailors. Mast and vertical sails, and seven partially preserved oars. The r. end is decorated with an X pattern with knots depicted (fishnet?). No incision used. Very hasty, unskillful drawing. Von Raits (1964, p. 21) calls the pinax “remarkable for its lack of style.” Slip mostly fired red.

170

c hap t er 4

Side A

0

Side A

Side B

M15

0

5cm

Side B

M16

Side B. A round structure and part of a possible hand touching it. Von Raits (1964, p. 41) suggested a kiln scene. The difficulty in orienting the scene makes any interpretation highly speculative. The confined space could support a kiln, although an incised or painted loading door would be expected in a kiln depiction. Perhaps part of an animal or ship. In half the area the slip is fired red, and in the other half, brown. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016). Von Raits 1964, pp. 21 (n. 16), 35 (n. 17), 41, pl. V:1; Palmieri 2016, p. 187, no.  Fc2. M17  Pinax, two-sided

5cm

Fig. 4.86

Corinth C-1963-237, C-1963-387. Dim. C-1963-237: 3.0  × 4.0  × 0.6; C-1963‑387: 3.3 × 2.9 × 0.7. Two nonjoining frr. No original edge. Orientation: uncertain.

Figure 4.85. Pinakes showing ambiguous scenes (M15, M16).

Scale 1:1. Photos P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations; drawings Y. Nakas

Catal o gue

171

C-1963-387

C-1963-237

Side A C-1963-387

C-1963-237

Figure 4.86. Pinax showing ambiguous scene (M17). Scale 1:1. Photos

Side B

M17

P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 4.87. Pinax showing ambiguous scene (M18, side A). Scale 2:3.

C-1963-297 C-1963-151

Photos P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations

M18 Side A. C-1963-237: Flame-like strokes of paint. If the orientation suggested by von Raits is correct, it cannot be a kiln, since the wavy incisions (flames?) are pointed downward, instead of up.  C-1963-387: Wavy incisions, and one “eye” incised. Perhaps part of the head of a horse. Side B. C-1963-237: Only some incisions preserved (part of a figure’s garment?). C-1963-387 does not preserve a trace of slip on the reverse. Although the fragments do not join, von Raits suggested their association due to their similar thicknesses and surface treatments. Von Raits 1964, p.  53. She had originally associated these pieces with C-1963-439, but that was later joined with C-1963-380 as part of M22. M18  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.87

Corinth C-1963-297, C-1963-151. Dim. C-1963-297: 5.5  × 5.4  × 0.7; C-1963-151: 6.8 × 4.4 × 0.7. Two nonjoining frr. One edge. Orientation: uncertain. Side A. Lower part of figure facing l. The figure wears a long garment ending with a hem and sandals. Side B. Traces of paint. Scene is unclear.

172

c hap t er 4

Von Raits (1964, pp. 61, 66) recorded some letters from an inscription on C-1963-151 (side A), but I could not discern these in 2010. Von Raits (1964, p. 66) loosely associates these fragments. M19  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.88

M20  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.88

M21  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.88

M22  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.89

Antikensammlung I 172. Dim. 6.2 × 4.9 × 0.6. No original edge. Approximately one-quarter or less of original size. Orientation: ↓(?). Side A. The leg of a man flanked by two birds with their wings closed facing l. The one to the l. of the figure is larger than the one to the r. Added red on wings of the birds. Perhaps a hunter is depicted. Side B. A scene previously interpreted as a kiln facing l. with part of the stoking channel, pot-firing chamber, and beginning of dome preserved. Three horizontal lines exit from a curved surface, perhaps the dome. A depiction of a horse is also possible. Slip fired red. Pernice 1897, p. 48. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:19 (side A). Corinth C-1963-102. Dim. 3.7 × 5.8 × 0.7. No original edge. Orientation: unclear. Side A. A series of incisions, and slip mostly worn off. The scene is too fragmentary to interpret. Part of buttock and upper legs of a soldier? The orientation of the scene is also uncertain. If the pinax is oriented with the longer flat break at the top, von Raits (1964) suggested a stoking channel of a kiln with fuel in it and part of the interior of the pot-firing chamber. Could it be a vertical cross-section of a kiln? There is simply not enough evidence to corroborate this suggestion. Side B. Part of the face and shoulder of a bearded male facing l. (possibly Poseidon?). Only the incised outline of the figure is preserved, with few traces of slip. Dated to the MC period by von Raits (1964, p.  9), using as comparanda Perachora II, p. 198, no. 1970. Von Raits 1964, pp. 9, 39. Antikensammlung I 179. Dim. 4.9 × 5.5 × 0.7. A corner preserved. Original size difficult to estimate. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower part of figure to r. and vertical staff in front of it. Difficult to identify theme. Side B. Area covered with red slip. Difficult to identify theme. Pernice 1897, p. 48. Corinth C-1963-380 + C-1963-439, C-1963-145. Dim. C-1963-380 + C-1963-439: 5.2 × 7.3 × 0.7; C-1963-145: 4.7 × 2.4 × 0.5. Three frr., two joining. One corner. One pierced hole, partially preserved. Orientation: unclear. Side A. C-1963-145: Figure to r.; C-1963-380 + C-1963-439: Figure to l. Von Raits (1964) associated it with a kiln scene, but there is little evidence to corroborate this identification. Side B. C-1963-145: Unclear (figure?); C-1963-380 + C-1963-439: Unclear. Inscription, graffito (unpublished): C-1963-145, side B: Ε. Von Raits 1964, pp. 6, 64. She originally associated C-1963-145 with M15 but later abandoned this association.

Catal o gue

Side A

Side A

Side A

Figure 4.88. Pinakes showing ambiguous scenes (M19–M21).

Scale 1:1. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (M19, M21); P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations (M20)

173

M19

M20

M21

Side B

Side B

Side B

174

c hap t er 4

C-1963-380

C-1963-145

C-1963-439 Side A

C-1963-380

C-1963-439 C-1963-145

Side B

M22 D I S A S S O C I AT ED S C EN E S ( M 23 – M 30 )

M23  Pinax, one-sided

Figure 4.89. Pinax showing ambiguous scene (M22). Scale 1:1. Photos

P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations

Fig. 4.90

Antikensammlung F 539 + F 630 (P 157 + P 529). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 9.5 × 13.8 × 1.4. Mostly intact, except for lower l. and r. corners. Poseidon to r. shown holding a trident while riding a horse in a two-horse team. Inscriptions, dipinti: (i) Ποτēδν; (ii) Εὐρυμδε̄ς μ’ ἀνέθε̄κε. Dated to the MC period (Payne 1931, p. 104; Jeffery 1990, p. 131, no. 15; Palmieri 2016, p. 160, who attributes it to the Klyka Painter). Furtwängler 1885, pp. 65–66, 72; Pernice 1897, p. 23, fig. 14; Palmieri 2016, pp.  160–161, no.  Am1. Original illustration: AntDenk  I, pl.  7:21 (only F  539). Inscription: IG IV 227; Wachter 2001, p. 134, no. COP 35.

Catal o gue

175

1:2

M23

M24 Figure 4.90. Pinakes with disassociated scenes (M23–M25). Scale 2:3,

except where indicated. Photos I. Luckert (M23), J. Laurentius (M24, M25), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk I, pl. 7:21 (M23); AntDenk II, pl. 39:20 (M24); J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas (M25)

M25 M24  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.90

Antikensammlung F 621 + fr. (P 235). In permanent exhibition. Dim. 7.2 × 8.8 × 0.7. Almost complete except for top r. quadrant. One pierced hole. A warship is shown facing l. Part of its stern, two oars, the keel, and the entire prow are preserved. The background is filled with rosettes. Mistakenly thought by Furtwängler (1885) to be a ladder leaning against a kiln. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016). Furtwängler 1885, p. 72; Pernice 1897, p. 25; Palmieri 2016, p. 184, no. Fa4. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:20.

176

c hap t er 4

Side A

Figure 4.91. Pinax with disassociated scene (M26). Scale 2:3. Photos I. Geske, Side B

courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

M26

M25  Pinax, one-sided

Fig. 4.90

M26  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.91

Antikensammlung F 785 (P 365). Dim. 7.9 × 6.0 × 0.5. Almost intact except for lower l. corner. Two pierced holes. Painted border. Some of the lines of the border seem to be outlined with pencil (in the 19th century a.d.?), but they are indelible, so perhaps they are soft incisions. A komast(?) stands in front of a biconical object, possibly a dinos on a stand. Vertical and wavy incisions decorate the object. Above this object some more unintelligible traces of slip. It was misinterpreted as a kiln due to its resemblance to the structure (once identified as a kiln) on the b.-f. skyphos known as Robinson’s kiln skyphos (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Art Museums 1960.321; see below, pp. 208–209). For similar positioning in a komos scene, with a komast in front of a dinos/ krater, see: a MC plate, Athens, NAM 951, Smith 2010, pl. 2:C; a Corinthian pyxis, ca. 580 b.c., Antikensammlung V.I. 4856; a Laconian cup, Taranto, Museo Nazionale 20909. Dated to the MC period (Palmieri 2016; attributed to the Pholoe Painter, and later than the Anaploga Painter). Furtwängler 1885, p. 82; Palmieri 2016, p. 218, no. Od3. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:9. Antikensammlung F  881 (P  345). Dim. 7.8  × 8.2  × 0.6. Two joining frr. Original size difficult to estimate. Faces of edges painted with dots. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Lower r. corner. Painted border. A man wearing a chitoniskos striding to l. He seems to be holding a long staff. Between his legs a biconical object,

Catal o gue

177

1:1 Side A

M28

Side B

Side A

Side A

Side B

M27

Figure 4.92. Pinakes with disassociated scenes (M27–M29). Scale 2:3, except where indicated. Photos I. Geske, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawings AntDenk II, pl. 39:1a, 1b

Side B

M29

perhaps a krater on a stand. Possibly a scene from funerary games. One rosette and part of a second fill the background. Most slip worn off. Cf. the MC plate (Athens, NAM 951) that depicts a padded dancer near a dinos with a stand. Side B. Lower l. corner. Painted border on l. edge; elaborate wide border along lower edge with long snake and incised blobs. Lower part of horseback rider to l.; in front of him against the l. edge, the lower half of a naked figure, perhaps a squire. Furtwängler 1885, p. 97; Pernice 1897, p. 39. M27  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.92

Antikensammlung F 828 + fr. (P 301). Dim. 6.4 × 7.1 × 0.8. Upper portion of pinax, with edges and one upper corner preserved. Two pierced holes. Painted border on both sides. Slip is worn off on both sides. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Amphitrite. Side B. With only one fragment available, Furtwängler (1885) believed it was a man in front of a kiln. The joining fragment establishes the identification of a squire facing r., holding the reins of a horse in one hand. The horse is depicted with frontal body and head turning r. The lower legs of the squire and horse are not preserved. Inscriptions, dipinti: side A: (i) Ἀ( μ) φιτρḗτᾱν to the r. of figure; (ii) Ϝιό[λ̣ᾱς ? . . . ?]. Dated to the EC period (Payne 1931, p. 101; Palmieri 2016, p. 164) or to 625–600 b.c. ( Jeffery 1990, p. 131, no. 11).

178

c hap t er 4

Side A

M30

Furtwängler 1885, p. 89; Pernice 1897, p. 36; Palmieri 2016, pp. 163–164, no. Ba2. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 39:1a, 1b. Inscription: IG IV 295; Wachter 2001, p. 135, no. COP 37. M28  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.92

Antikensammlung F 830 (P 525). Dim. 2.7 × 2.1 × 0.9. Upper edge. Orientation: ↑. Side A. Painted border. Rear part of a female figure (Amphitrite?) facing r. Only her head, bearing a diadem, and her shoulder are preserved. Her face is rendered in outline and may originally have been covered with white slip. Side B. A tiny fragment showing a circular area on the l. covered with slip. To the r., a little area with wavy lines, and an oblong area covered with slip and bearing some incision. It is unlikely that this is a representation of a kiln since it appears too high up on the pinax. Wachter (2001, p. 150) also rejects the kiln interpretation. Painted in the style of the painter Timonidas; cf. B42. Inscriptions, dipinti: side B: (i) [. . .]νος; (ii) [. . .]κραυ̣[. . .], placed on edge. Furtwängler 1885, p.  90. Inscriptions: IG IV 335; Wachter 2001, p.  150, no. COP 82. M29  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.92

M30  Pinax, two-sided

Fig. 4.93

Antikensammlung F 644 + F 678 (P 263 + P 415). Dim. 5.3 × 11.0 × 0.8. Original size difficult to estimate. Orientation: unclear. Side A. Lower l. corner. Two legs of a piece of furniture ending in lion paws; legs of a figure (Poseidon?) walking r. Furtwängler (1885) considered this a kiln scene, but expressed doubt about the identification. Side B. Intersecting lines. Difficult to orient the scene. Furtwängler 1885, p. 73. Antikensammlung F 645 + fr. (P 264). Dim. 7.2 × 8.9 × 1.1. Original size difficult to estimate. One pierced hole. Orientation: uncertain. Side A. Upper r. corner. Back of head of large male figure (Poseidon, Herakles, or Zeus?) facing l. with short hair and raised l. arm holding a small, rectangular object (thunderbolt?). Purple on chiton; black band of incised decoration across shoulder. Side B. Upper l. corner. Part of a snake. Dated to the MC–LC I period (Palmieri 2016; associated with the Basel Hydra Aryballos Painter). Furtwängler 1885, p. 73; Pernice 1897, pp. 26–27; Arvanitaki 2006, p. 214, no. Κ 48; Palmieri 2016, p. 210, no. He1. Original illustration: AntDenk II, pl. 40:8 (side A).

Side B

Figure 4.93. Pinax with disassociated scene (M30). Scale 2:3. Photos J. Laurentius, courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; drawing J. Denkinger, Y. Nakas

A1

A8

A5

A10

A7 Color Figure 1. Selected pinakes (A1, A5, A7, A8, A10, A17). Scale 2:3,

except where indicated. Photos Zimmer 1982a, p. 33, pl. III.1 (A1), G. Seibt (A7), J. Schubert (A8), I. Geske (A10, A17), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

1:1

A17

A20

A19

1:1

A21

A23

A25

1:1

A27

A30 Color Figure 2. Selected pinakes (A19–A21, A23, A25, A27, A30).

Scale 2:3, except where indicated. Photos J. Schubert (A19, A20), I. Geske (A21, A23, A25, A27, A30), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

B1

Side A

Color Figure 3. Selected pinakes (B1–B3). Scale 2:3, except where indi-

cated. Photos H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/ Art Resource, NY (B2); J. Schubert (B3), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Side B

B2

B3

1:1

1:1 Side A

Side B

B8

B10

Side A

B11

Side B

B17 Color Figure 4. Selected pinakes (B8, B10, B11, B17). Scale 2:3, except where

indicated. Photos H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/ Art Resource, NY (B8); I. Geske (B10, B11, B17), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

2:3 Side B

Side A

B19

1:1

B20 Color Figure 5. Selected pinakes (B19, B20). Scale as indicated. Photos

H. Lewandowski, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY (B19); C. Begall (B20), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

B28

B37

2:3

B29

B38

Color Figure 6. Selected pinakes (B28, B29, B37, B38). Scale 1:1, except

where indicated. Photos I. Geske (B28), G. Seibt (B29), J. Schubert (B37), Zimmer 1982a, pl. IV.2 (B38), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Side A

B47

B48

Side B

1:1

B49

Color Figure 7. Selected pinakes (B47–B49). Scale 2:3, except where

indicated. Photos I. Geske (B47), J. Schubert (B49), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Side A

B57

B60

Side B

Color Figure 8. Selected pinakes (B57, B60). Scale 1:1. Photos Zimmer

1982a, pl. IV.1 (B57), I. Geske (B60), courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

c hap t er 5

Scenes of Potters at Work: Iconographical and Epigraphical Analysis

1. For tiles, see Roebuck 1995; for terracotta sculpture, see Bookidis 2000; Corinth XVIII.5. 2. Excellent discussions of all these stages of pottery production can be found in Rye 1981; Noble 1984, 1988, pp. 15–36; Rice 1987, pp. 113–167; Sparkes 1991, pp. 8–17; Scheibler 1995, pp. 72–107; Schreiber 1999, pp. 9–27; Henderson 2000, pp. 109–141; Boardman 2001, pp. 139–152, 282–290; Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 191–224; Cuomo di Caprio 2007, 2017.

This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the iconography of the pinakes presented in the previous chapter, according to the distinct stages of pottery manufacture that they depict. I then compare these Corinthian scenes with Athenian representations of potters at work before examining the associated inscriptions. Ninety-seven Penteskouphia pinakes (A1–A34, B1–B63), mostly two-sided, carry a total of 102 depictions of potters at work. These scenes, which account for 7% of the entire Penteskouphia corpus, rank fifth among all Penteskouphia iconographical themes. A set of 30 pinakes (M1–M30), one-sided and two-sided examples carrying a total of 47 scenes, constitutes a group of scenes, some possibly associated with pottery production iconography and some that should be disassociated from the potter’s world. The pottery scenes depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes were painted in pottery workshops that specialized in wheel-thrown, decorated, vessels. Not surprisingly, no scene shows a potter working on a pinax, as pinakes were an occasional by-product of these workshops and not their primary production line. No pinax depicts the production of terracotta tiles or sculptures, for which Corinth had a strong reputation in antiquity.1 The Penteskouphia scenes represent schematically, yet accurately, the major phases of pottery production and the potter’s most indispensable tools, such as his wheel and his kiln. The basic stages of manufacturing of all ceramic objects—vessels, sculptures, or construction materials—include collecting the raw materials (clay, temper, and fuel), purifying the clay, forming the products, drying them (and decorating if necessary), and finally, firing.2 In a singular example (B5), pots are depicted in connection with a ship scene, possibly alluding to the post-manufacture task of trading the ceramics. Of the manufacturing stages, the Penteskouphia scenes depict the collecting of clay and fuel, the forming of vessels, and the firing of the kilns. There is not, however, an equal distribution of scenes for each manufacturing stage. Ten (10% of all scenes of potters at work) show potters collecting clay and fuel, 12 scenes (12%) show the potter forming or decorating a vessel on the wheel, and 76 scenes (74%) show potters tending their kilns. Four scenes (4%) described as workshop-related are difficult to attribute

180

Chap t er 5

to a specific manufacturing stage. Only five pinakes (B2, B3, B15, B17, B18) seem to have scenes related to ceramic production on both sides; even among these, when the scene is preserved enough for secure reading, it is interesting to note that potters chose a different stage of production for each side, so despite the popularity of kiln-firing scenes, we have no examples of pinakes with such scenes on both sides. Different stages are not combined on one side (with the possible exceptions of A4 and B18, which may show clay wedging and work at the wheel), and time between different phases of manufacture is never compressed. References to time or sequence of events on the pinakes are, in general, elusive. For some phases, the actual timing would have been impossible to depict accurately; for example, entire firings, or at least their later phases, must have taken place at night, so as not to lose valuable daylight working hours, and to enable the kiln attendants to track the progress of the firing by “deciphering” the flames against the night sky (see also p. 273). Some stages are not rendered visually on the pinakes at all—such as loading and unloading the kilns—perhaps because these activities were not considered sufficiently challenging or interesting, or were not easy to summarily depict on the small surface of a pinax. As for the space where these activities took place, whether outdoors, inside, or in a semicovered area, there are a few clues on the pinakes themselves. Allusions to the landscape consist of scarps in the clay-collecting scenes (A1, A2, B1, B3, B4, B5, B7) and a few branches of what is presumably a tree in the kiln firing scene on B20.3 Some straight lines behind the kiln on B58 may represent the outlines of workshop buildings. In this respect, pinakes continue the long tradition in Greek vase painting of avoiding depictions of landscape, or referring to it only summarily.4 In terms of human and divine presence, all figures on the Penteskouphia pottery scenes are male, with the exception of a female on B18.5 Athena (possibly depicted on B51 and tentatively on B52) is the only divinity placed on the same side of the pinax as a scene of pottery production. A closer look at the depictions on the reverse of pottery-making scenes reveals some interesting patterns. The primary themes on the reverse side of the pinakes showing potters at work are as follows, in order of frequency (Table 5.1): Poseidon and Amphitrite, depicted either alone or together (26 pinakes); equestrian imagery (12); warriors and other figures (10); potters at work (5); animals (3); ships (3); and two mythological scenes (one with Bellerophon, the other with a possible depiction of Athena).The combination of potters at work and Poseidon was obviously a popular one; this is somewhat unexpected if we consider that Poseidon was an overall infrequent choice for two-sided pinakes, despite his prominence on the one-sided pinakes (see above, Table 3.3). It is also immediately apparent that the Penteskouphia potters were generally reluctant to cover both sides of a pinax with craft scenes. 3. Similar branches with widely spaced leaves were also carried by a centaur on the Middle Corinthian kotyle by the Pholoe Painter (Paris, Louvre MNC 677; Amyx 1988, pp. 184, 381–382, pl. 70:1). See also a

tree with similarly painted branches in the jug signed by Timonidas (Athens, NAM 277; further discussed below, p. 221; Fig. 5.25). 4. For depictions of architecture on vase paintings, see Pedley 1987;

for nature, Hurwit 1991; in general, Hedreen 2001, pp. 18–19, n. 56, with earlier bibliography. 5. For the limited involvement of women in crafts, see Brock 1994; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 151–153.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

181

TA B LE 5.1. I M AG ERY O N T H E R EV ER S E O F P I NA K E S W I T H S C EN E S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K ( B 1 – B 63 ) Primary Theme

Number of Scenes (% of Total)

Poseidon

21

Poseidon-related Poseidon and Amphitrite (or Zeus; and chariot scenes)

Catalogue Numbers B12, B19–B36, B53, B62

4

B39, B40, B51, B52

1

B38

Horseback riders

7

Horses

5

B1, B7, B11, B46, B47, B49, B56

Amphitrite Equestrian

Subtotal

Subtotal

Warriors and other figures Figures

Warriors/hunters Potters at work Animals Ships

Mythology Unclear Total

Subtotal

26 (41%)

12 (19%) 5 5

10 (16%)

B9, B10, B50, B54, B55

B14, B16, B45, B57, B59 B41–B44, B63

5 (8%)

B2, B3, B15, B17, B18

3 (5%)

B5, B6, B58

3 (5%) 2 (3%) 2 (3%)

63 (100%)

B8, B13, B60 B37, B48 B4, B61

After analyzing the depictions of individual stages of production, I compare Corinthian representations of potters at work as a whole with non-Corinthian (mainly Athenian) imagery of potters and artisans, both to highlight their similarities and, most importantly, to underscore their differences. Finally, at the end of the chapter, I provide a commentary on the inscriptions placed on pinakes with scenes of pottery manufacture. Twentynine such pinakes catalogued in this study carry dipinti and graffiti that include dedications to Poseidon (and occasionally to Athena, Amphitrite, and Zeus), personal names, potters’ signatures, a label for a kiln, and a few nonsense inscriptions. In terms of chronology, the pinakes with scenes of potters at work—like the parent corpus—cluster primarily in the Middle and Late Corinthian periods (see above, pp. 77–81). The pictorial evidence presented in this chapter should be read alongside the textual, archaeological, ethnographic, and experimental data for each stage of pottery manufacture presented in Chapter 6. Admittedly, the presentation of all data for each manufacturing stage in one place would have its advantages, but the significance of the Penteskouphia pinakes for the study of depictions of craftspeople in ancient Greece warrants a separate iconographic discussion.

182

Chap t er 5

C L AY A N D F U EL CO LLE C T I O N A total of 10 scenes depict clay and fuel collection (clay: A1–A3, B1, B3–B5, B7; fuel: B2, B6), making this the third most commonly depicted stage of ceramic production, after kiln firings and potters at the wheel. There are seven such scenes on two-sided pinakes and three on one-sided pinakes. Three pinakes with this theme carry inscriptions: B2 (personal name), B4 (traces of letters), and B6 (partial personal name) (see below, Table 5.5). The clay-collecting scenes consist primarily of a single man, often naked, digging for clay. Quite exceptional is pinax B1, which has one of the most heavily populated scenes associated with pottery production, depicting four people of different ages engaged in the collection of clay. It is noteworthy that in most scenes the people directly involved in digging the clay are bearded (A2, B1, B3, B7), a clear indication of their more advanced age and, presumably, the value of accumulated experience in locating suitable clay and temper sources for different types of ceramic products.6 Two scenes (B2, B6) relate to fuel collection. Pinax B2 depicts a clothed man felling trees that were presumably to be used for fuel in the kilns.7 The difference in the axes held by the figures (a small pickax for clay collectors [A1, B1, B4, B5, B7], a larger ax for fuel collectors [B2, B6]) is helpful in the correct identification of these scenes; on B6, for example, the figure is only partially preserved, but we can see that he is wielding a large ax.8 On two pinakes (B2, B3), scenes of clay or fuel collection on one side are combined with kiln firings on the other. These pinakes, along with three others (B15, B17, B18), are the only five pinakes that show potters at work on both sides. Indeed, the correct selection and combination of clay and fuel contribute greatly to a successful firing; the pairing of these scenes, then, provides a welcome confirmation of the interdependence of the various phases of pottery manufacture. Figures and landscapes are the typical elements of the clay-collecting scenes. The men depicted on the pinakes use small axes to dig clay from scarps (A1, A2, B1, B3–B5), which are indicated by an undulating line.9 The painter depicts the clay bed with a wavy contour line or with a curved thick line. The scarps shown on the pinakes imply that the potters collected their clay from within the slopes of the neighboring hills, exploiting clay beds just below the conglomerate beds on the surface (see below, pp. 236–239). Operations below ground could be, and in fact were, confused with underground mining activities; this most likely led to the long-held misinterpretation of these scenes as depictions of workers mining for metal ores. A mere suggestion by Furtwängler in 1885 was rekindled in 1976 by 6. Plato (Tht. 147) underscores the importance of the selection of the right clay for making different objects: “there is one clay for image-makers, another for potteries, and another for oven makers.” 7. For further discussion of fuel, see below, pp. 265–266. 8. For axes used in woodworking (including felling trees), see Orlandos

1955, pp. 38–58, esp. p. 42, fig. 43. 9. Such undulating lines are also used on the lower level of pinakes for indicating the sea (e.g., Antikensamm­ lung F 780), but in these cases, the addition of sea animals (dolphins, fish) makes the scenes easily legible. Similar depictions of cavernous landscapes are found in contemporary Corinthian vase painting, such as the centauromachy

scene with the centaur Pholos on a Middle Corinthian kotyle, Paris, Louvre MNC 677; see Coulié 2013, p. 138, fig. 122; LIMC VIII, 1997, pp. 671– 721, esp. Pholos on pp. 706–710, kotyle on p. 693, no. 252, pl. 445, s.v. Kentauroi and Kentaurides (M. Leventopoulos). My thanks to Betsey Robinson for bringing this vase to my attention.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

183

Weisgerber, who considered the landscape scenes to be depictions of mining for ore, but conceded, curiously enough, that the kilns on the pinakes were ceramic kilns and not metallurgical furnaces.10

WO R K I N G AT T H E W H EEL A N D P O T T ERY SHAPES

10. Furtwängler 1885, p. 70; Weisgerber 1976. 11. For an extensive discussion of the textual and archaeological evidence on the potter’s wheel, see below, pp. 239–244. 12. Vandiver and Koehler 1986; Whitbread 1995. 13. I use the term “kotyle” instead of “skyphos.” Scholars have used differences in base profile to distinguish between the two; see Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 155, n. 18. 14. Schreiber 1999, p. 36, fig. 3:9.

On 12 pinakes (a single one-sided and 11 two-sided), males are shown working on wheels (A4, B8–B18), making this the second most frequently depicted phase of the manufacturing process.11 No inscriptions accompany these scenes, depriving us of the opportunity to have both the depiction of a potter and his name on a pinax. Still, these scenes provide invaluable information about workshop equipment and the process by which ceramics were formed. The wheel was central to this process; even workshops specializing in vessels that were sectionally built, such as Corinthian transport amphoras, could make use of a wheel in the last stages of forming of the vessel.12 Most scenes show (or at least preserve) only one potter working at the wheel. On A4 and B12, several potters are shown either working by themselves on the wheel or involved in some other auxiliary activity. On B9 and B11 workers accompany those working at the wheel. In some scenes the potter is shown at the moment of forming the vessel with his hands (A4, B10, B12, B15). On B10, the kotyle is clearly in the early stages of forming, as its two horizontal handles have not yet been attached. The pinakes show that the Corinthian potters sometimes placed in the center of their wheels truncated cones of clay from which they formed the small vessels (e.g., B8, a one-handled jug/pitcher; B10, a kotyle).13 This is a technique commonly known as “off-the-hump,” in which the potter needs to center the lump of clay on the wheelhead only once, and can throw several pots from that one hump, saving himself a considerable amount of time.14 Considering the extensive repertoire of Corinthian miniature vessels, this forming technique must have been popular with the local potters. Work on the wheel was not limited to the forming of a vessel; often the wheelhead was used for other activities that required turning the vessel slowly. Pinax B9 shows the potter using a long brush to paint the bands on a column krater as it rotates on the wheel. Such brushes were associated with the painting of large surfaces; they were used, for example, by the painter who is working on a bell krater on a vase at the Oxford Ashmolean Museum, and by the painters depicted on the Caputi hydria who are working on kraters and a large kantharos (see below, Figs. 5.20, 5.21, respectively, and pp. 196–205). On B8 the potter holds a tool to decorate (paint or incise) a one-handled jug or pitcher. The wheel can serve multiple functions: a potter can spin it quickly to pull up the walls of a vessel, spin it slowly to shave off extra clay, use it as a resting surface to attach handles, or turn it as a band wheel to decorate the pot. Ancient Greek depictions of potters at the wheel preserve examples of all these uses, with the exception of the trimming of a vase. The type of wheel depicted is the hand wheel, a simple device with a vertical element (the axle) supporting the horizontal element, the wheelhead, which tends to be of considerable width and thickness in order to

184

Chap t er 5

maintain its momentum. In Athenian depictions, potters frequently receive help with spinning the wheel from assistants, but such assistance is entirely absent from the Corinthian pinakes. The need for an assistant to turn the wheel may not have been so great for small shapes like kotylai and jugs. The making of a krater might have required an assistant, but the one Penteskouphia scene with a krater (B9) shows not the shaping of the vessel, but a later stage, when the potter applies slip with a brush. The wheel is knee-high, and when the potters are throwing (or decorating) a larger vessel, they sit almost upright in relation to the wheel (B9, B14[?]). In other cases, potters are shown leaning slightly over it, so that they can get closer to the vessels (B8, B10–B12). According to Vidale’s estimations of the sizes of the hand wheels represented on Athenian vases and pinakes as well as the Penteskouphia pinakes (A4, B8–B10), their diameter ranges from 0.90 to 1.00 m, their height from 0.35 to 0.65 m, and their thickness from 0.10 to 0.12 m (Fig. 5.1).15 Although any such estimations are only approximate, they provide a useful point of reference. In all depictions involving a wheel, the potter is not actually touching the wheel itself to spin it. We cannot, therefore, determine if the wheel was turning counterclockwise, as has been argued for Athenian depictions of potter’s wheels and corroborated by the underside marks on Athenian pots.16 It is not unreasonable, however, to assume for the Corinthian wheel a counterclockwise motion, a direction that is almost universal in pot-making cultures across time and space.17

Fig ur e s The potters working at the wheel are all male and clothed. Since the heads of the figures are not preserved in most of the representations, it is not possible to determine the men’s ages. Even those whose faces are preserved lack beards, an indication of age and experience often used in scenes of clay extraction and kiln firings. Pinax B18 partially preserves the only nondivine female among the scenes of potters at work. She wears a peplos, her face and arms are drawn in outline, and she holds something resembling a ball of clay. She is reconstructed sitting on a stool. The potters sit on stools (δίφροι) at some distance from the wheels (A4, B8, B9, B11–B14, B17; reconstructed on B10).18 These stools are so 15. Vidale (1998, 2002, pp. 288– 295) reconstructs the wheel dimensions on specific pinakes as follows: A4: Diam. 1.00 m; H. 0.65–0.70 m; Th. 0.20–0.22 m; upper Diam. of support 0.30–0.32 m; lower Diam. of support 0.20 m; B8: Diam. 0.87 m; H. 0.66 m; Th. 0.07–0.08 m; B9: Diam. 0.85–0.90 m; H. 0.50 m; Th. 0.10–0.12 m; B10: Diam. 0.90 m; H. 0.35 m; Th. 0.10 m; Diam. of support 0.18–0.20 m. The suggested wheel diameters for the latter three examples

seem too wide. For a composite figure of all scenes and their assigned dimensions, see Hasaki 2019, p. 299, fig. 7. 16. Schreiber 1983. 17. Hamer and Hamer 2004, p. 384. 18. For discussion of ancient terms for stools and chairs, see Richter 1966, pp. 30–44 (δίφρος), 45–53 (κλισμός). Δίφροι, κλισμοί, and tables were standard pieces of furniture in most craft workshops; see Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 160–163.

Figure 5.1. Types of potter’s wheels depicted on Athenian ceramics and on Penteskouphia pinakes A4, B8–B10. Not to scale. After Vidale 2002, pp. 289, 292, 299, 300, figs. 73–76

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

185

closely associated with pottery-making scenes, and so seldom appear in other Penteskouphia pinakes, that a few scenes were included in this study mostly on the basis of stools (e.g., B11, B13, B14).19 On B13 no wheel is depicted, but two men pass a vessel from one to the other, an activity that may be connected to finishing the details of the pot, or to putting the pots away to dry. The piece of furniture on B13 may represent a taller stool or a work table.

Int e r ior S pac e Working on the wheel usually takes place indoors or in a semicovered location, since a shady place has obvious advantages both for the comfort of the potter and for preventing the pot from drying too quickly. The Penteskouphia pinakes allude to an interior space, or at least a temporarily covered space, with pots set on a shelf, presumably to dry (A4), or hung against the wall for storage after firing (B8).

Shap e s

19. For an exception, see M29, where the legs of the table are shaped like lion’s paws. 20. Amyx (1988) discusses shape development: kotyle, pp. 457–459; krater, pp. 504–511; oinochoe, pp. 479–491. See also Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 47–49.

In the scenes in which pots are being made, only three shapes are represented: the kotyle, the one-handled jug/pitcher (oinochoe), and the column krater, all hallmarks of the Corinthian repertoire and all sympotic vessels typical of Archaic Corinthian pottery production.20 The one-handled jug/pitcher appears quite often on the pinakes, with examples placed inside the kiln (as on B57) or on a shelf behind the potters (A4), hung on the wall (B8), or framing the top border above the sails of a ship (B5). Similar jugs are also held by figures on the Penteskouphia pinakes, including Poseidon (F  461). Amphoras are also quite popular, such as the one in the center of the kiln load on B57, the toe amphora on the clay-collecting scene B1, the two transport amphoras on pinax B63, and the amphora held by a figure on the fragmentary pinax I 60. A potter decorates a krater on B9 and may work on a dinos on B15, and in two other instances (B28, B58), kraters or perhaps lekanai (open bowls) are shown held by figures approaching the kiln. With the exception of B57, where two different, but similarly sized, vessels are depicted, pinakes show either a single example of a shape, or several of the same shape (A4). Depictions of vessels are not limited to scenes of potters working at the wheel. Vessels are also shown hung on a kiln (B38), or are recycled as chimneys on the domes of the kilns, to create a better draft (A6, B20, B56). It was most likely the case that the necks of defective or otherwise dispensable amphora-type storage vessels were broken away and reused as chimneys. An open vessel is also depicted in the combustion chamber of a kiln (B57), either an aid for better combustion or a leftover from an earlier firing. The depiction of an aryballos held by a figure on B62 concludes the list of shapes shown. All of the pottery shapes depicted on the pinakes are rendered on a small scale and fairly quickly sketched, therefore depriving us of the opportunity to use the shape development as an internal clue for a more precise dating of the pinakes.

186

Chap t er 5

Ani mals The uncommon depiction of a male-headed siren on a pinax with a claycollecting scene (B5) merits further discussion.21 Its meaning and its placement above the clay collector are highly problematic. The commonly assumed apotropaic character of sirens would not have been out of place in a community of potters, for whom locating the right clay sources was vital to the survival of their craft. In some ethnographic studies, students of pottery-making cultures were not allowed to follow the potter to the clay extraction sites, suggesting that secrecy of the potter’s craft starts already with the protection of clay beds.22 Ultimately, though, it is not clear whether the male siren is associated with the clay-collecting scene, and the figure may have been an afterthought, as it is squeezed in a very small area. Alternatively, it may be associated with the scene to the right, which is fragmentary and difficult to interpret. A few pinakes with potters at work are paired with scenes of animals on the reverse, mainly bulls, boars, and a bird (see Table 5.1); there is also a rare example of a sea monster in the mythological scene on B62.

K I LN F I R I N G The stage of production most frequently depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes is undoubtedly the firing of the kiln (A5–A32; B19–B61 and opposite sides of B2, B3, B15, B17, B18), with a total of 76 scenes (28 on one-sided pinakes and 48 on two-sided with no pinax showing kiln firing on both sides). Among these, 13 pinakes carry inscriptions on the side with the kiln scenes: 6 are on one-sided pinakes, while the remaining 7 are on two-sided (see below, Table 5.5). On A7, a welcome inscription labels the structure as κάμινος, leaving no doubt as to its identification as a kiln (see below, pp. 214–218). The kiln scenes are drawn in a standardized manner, with certain common visual elements: a single circular kiln is shown in profile, with worker(s) stoking the channel, or checking the fire at the dome, or doing both (Table 5.2). Other kiln-related activities, such as using a spy hole and loading/unloading the kiln, are omitted. The compositions represent a wide spectrum of drawing skill, ranging from experienced painters to others less skilled, and even to novices. Because of variations in skill and iconographical preferences, no two kiln scenes look alike. This degree of individualization suggests that the theme was widely favored by several Penteskouphia workshops, and was not the monopoly of one or two establishments. The kiln scenes, which depict single or multiple attendants, working as stokers or fire controllers, require the wider, horizontal (landscape) orientation of the pinax rather than the narrower, vertical (portrait) orientation; still, a few examples of vertical orientation do exist (Table 5.2). As a result of the more crowded composition, kiln scenes rarely appear on small pinakes, but are abundant on medium, large, and very large pinakes (see above, p. 50). Scenes with portrait orientation occur primarily on smaller pinakes (e.g., A14, B37). The kilns are normally placed in the lower right-hand corner of the pinax, with the stoking channel of the kiln facing left; in some exceptions,

21. Amyx (1988, p. 661) refers to these sirens as “goateed” sirens or “long-chinned” sirens, even naming one Corinthian painter “the Goateed-Siren Painter” after his predilection for this facial rendering on the sirens. See also the discussion in Gropengiesser 1977. The Attic counterpart may be found in the male sirens painted by the Androsiren Painter (ABV 18.1–2). 22. Potters on Cyprus refused to disclose the location of their clay beds (London 1989b, p. 36; 2016, p. 71). For secrecy in traditional Greek crafts on Crete, see Herzfeld 2004, pp. 37–89; for secrecy in crafts in general, see Long 2001.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

187

TA B LE 5.2 . I CO N O G R A P H Y O F K I LN - F I R I N G S C EN E S Iconography

Total

Pinax or ientat ion (al l ot hers l andsc ap e) Portrait

Uncertain

9 3

Catalogue Numbers

A10, A14, B22, B24, B25, B37, B40, B41, B42

Kil n r ender ing and dir ect ion

A13, B43, B45

Drawn in outline

4

Facing left

49

Facing right

22

Direction uncertain

1

Several parts preserved (e.g., stoking channel, combustion chamber, pot-firing chamber, dome/chimney)

47

A5–A11, A15, A19–A21, A23, A25, A27, A29–A31, B2, B3, B17, B19–B21, B23–B26, B32–B34, B36–B40, B42, B46, B47, B49–B53, B57, B58, B60, B61

11

A12–A14, A16, A24, A26, B35, B43, B44, B54, B55

8

A13, A14, A22, A28, B22, B46, B48, B56

Arched loading door

24

Rectangular loading door

3

A11(S), A24(S), A26, A28(S), A29, A30, B2(S), B17(S), B19(S), B20(S), B21(S), B23, B32, B34(S), B35, B38(S), B42(S), B43, B44, B47, B53(S), B54, B58, B60

Exiting chimney/vent only

26

Exiting stoking channel only

11

Kil n ar c hit ect ur e

Only pot-firing chamber preserved Only dome with chimney/vent preserved

Fl ame s

Exiting chimney/vent and stoking channel

A28, A30, B36, B58

A5, A7–A10, A13, A15–A23, A25–A27, A30, A31, B2, B3, B17, B19–B21, B24, B26–B29, B32–B35, B37, B42–B44, B46–B48, B50, B51, B54, B57–B60 A6, A11, A12, A14, A24, A28, A29, A32, B22, B23, B25, B30, B31, B36, B38– B41, B49, B52, B53, B55 B56

A20, A31, B51(S)

A6–A8, A13–A15, A22, A23, A25, A28, B3, B17, B20, B22, B23, B25, B32– B34, B37, B41, B42, B46–B48, B56 A16–A18, A21, A30, B28, B36, B38, B49, B50, B59

9

A5, A9, A10, A19, A20, B2, B19, B21, B58

General inspection

7

A19, A30, A31, B18, B21, B24, B47

Chimney/vent

23

Stoking channel

9

Wor kers insp ect ing f ir ing One wor ker

Chimney/vent and stoking channel

Mult ipl e wor kers

1

Stoking channel

2

Chimney/vent and stoking channel

13

A7(H), A9(T), A10, A11(H), A12(H), A13(H), A14(H), A15(H), A17, A21(H), A22(H), A25(H), B2(H), B3(H), B17(H), B20(H), B22(H), B23(H), B37(H), B46(H), B50(H), B52, B55 A6, A8(T), A18, B15(T), B19(T), B30(T), B40, B51, B59(T) B49(H, T)

B27(T), B58(H, V)

A5(H), A16(H, T), A32, B25(H), B26(T), B28(T, V), B29(T), B31, B38(H, T), B39(T), B41(H), B48(H, T), B59(T)

Note: Abbreviations used in this table: H = with hooked tool; S = with spy hole; T = with T-shaped rod; V = with vessel.

the kilns face right (Table 5.2). One can only wonder whether a left-facing kiln indicates a right-handed painter, and a right-facing kiln, a left-handed one. Very rarely is the kiln more centered within the pinax (A14, B20).

188

Chap t er 5

The Penteskouphia kilns are shown entirely above ground, whereas in most excavated kilns the combustion chamber and stoking channels are built partly or entirely below ground.23 With no indication of the topographical contour, we cannot ascertain whether all of the kilns depicted were indeed built on flat or inclined ground. In most cases, the kilns are depicted with firing in progress. The combustion of the fuel takes place in the combustion chamber, and the heat moves upward through the perforated clay floor to the pot-firing chamber that holds the pots to be fired. The activities of primary interest to the painters of the pinakes are the stoking of the kiln and the checking and controlling of the firing from the chimney; these tasks are crucial to control of the draft and even distribution of the heat.

Ear l i e r Mis int er p r e tat ions of Ki l n S t ruc t ur e s The design and function of the structures depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes have been contested in the past due to misinterpretation of the iconography, limited archaeological evidence, and lack of familiarity with pyrotechnological structures. Both their true function and their correct internal arrangement are now firmly established: they are ceramic kilns with a single stoking channel, rendered schematically but overall correctly. As early as the 1920s, Richter was convinced that the structures depicted on the pinakes were undoubtedly ceramic kilns, but it required an article by Ziomecki in 1958 to cast away any lingering doubts, and to prove that the size of the kilns and the equipment used by workmen during the kiln firings on the pinakes are typical of ceramic kilns.24 Another misconception has arisen even since the structures were accepted as kilns; some scholars, misinterpreting the vertical cross-section on B57, have mistakenly assumed that all Greek kilns, even at such an early date, featured double stoking channels, that is, two stoking channels separated internally by a wall.25 Early scholars had disassociated the structures from ceramic production, linking them instead with metalworking. The minelike depictions in scenes of clay collection (A1, A2, B1, B5, B7) and the distortion of the name of a kiln attendant from Σόρδις into Σίδηρος (iron) on B2 were sufficient evidence for some scholars to identify the entire series of pinakes discussed in this study as metalworking scenes depicting the extraction of ores and their smelting in metallurgical furnaces.26 Others suggested that the deformed leg of the figure labeled Λόκρις on B40 might reflect the close ties between the depicted metalworker and the divine protector of bronzesmiths, Hephaistos, with his physical deformities.27 Corinthian bronze was much admired in antiquity, so it is perhaps not surprising that earlier scholars were eager to associate the Penteskouphia structures with the furnaces that manufactured the mysterious bronze alloy; to date, a mine for metal ores, a foundry working with the “Corinthian bronze,” and its exact chemical composition remain elusive.28 Some deposits associated with metal workshops have been unearthed (such as the Vrysoula Classical deposit), but extensive archaeological remains of metalworking establishments, especially from the Archaic period, have yet to be discovered in the Corinthia.

23. Ziomecki (1958, p. 157) believes that this false depiction is due to artistic conventions that lead to a better understanding of the structure. 24. Richter 1923, p. 76; Ziomecki 1958. 25. See n. 33, below. Double stoking channels are more common in largesized Roman and Byzantine kilns to ensure a homogeneous stoking of the entire kiln. See Hasaki and Raptis 2016 for examples. 26. Inscription: IG IV 318; Wachter 2001, p. 145, no. COP 65. Orlandos (1958, p. 6, fig. 1) still misinterpreted the kiln on B57 as a metallurgical furnace (an error that persisted in the later French edition, Orlandos 1966, p. 99, fig. 66). Decades later, White (1984, p. 114, fig. 118) insisted on interpreting the scene on B1 as workers extracting ore. 27. Korres 1971, p. 243. For other references to craft-related deformities, see Burford 1972, p. 72. Seeberg (1971, pp. 74–75) discusses the deformed legs of komasts. 28. Salmon (1984, p. 128) emphasizes that “there were no mines of any kind in the Corinthia.” Mattusch (2003) discusses the meager evidence for some casting pits to the north of Temple G, a Late Protocorinthian metal establishment at Sacred Spring West, a foundry at the Gymnasium, and some shallow pits in the Forum. For the composition, see Jacobson and Weitzman 1992.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

189

a

b

c

d

Figure 5.2. Comparison of ceramic kilns (a, b) and metallurgical furnaces (c, d): (a) B19; (b) B2; (c) Athenian black-figure oinochoe (London, British Museum 1846,0629.45); (d) Athenian red-figure cup (Berlin Foundry cup) (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2294). Not to scale. Drawings (a) after Rayet 1880, p. 105, no. 1; (b) after Rayet 1880, p. 106, no. 2; (c, d) Forbes 1967, p. 15, fig. 10

As no ceramic kilns or metallurgical furnaces have come to light from Archaic Corinth, direct comparison of their remains is not possible; contemporary vase depictions and later examples, however, can serve this purpose just as well. The technical and operational differences between ceramic kilns and metallurgical furnaces are as pronounced as their different sizes and shapes. Even the vase painters were aware of these major differences: the juxtaposition of the Penteskouphia kiln scenes with the Athenian vase depictions of metallurgical furnaces, once used to bring out the similarities, can only illustrate the opposite (Fig. 5.2).29 A metallurgical furnace does not require a stoking channel, has no internal division between fuel and ore, is generally of a small diameter (less than 1 m) in order to maintain the higher temperatures needed, and uses charcoal as the preferred fuel. In external appearance, internal arrangement, size, fuel choice, and temperature goals, therefore, the two structures are more dissimilar than similar.30

K il n S t ruc t ural Parts

29. Forbes 1967, p. 15, fig. 10; Schwandner, Zimmer, and Zwicker 1983. 30. Hasaki 2012b. 31. Hasaki 2002, pp. 70–101.

In this section I treat the iconographical rendering of the different parts of the kilns shown on the Penteskouphia pinakes, while in the following chapter I complement the iconographical data with archaeological, textual, ethnographic, and experimental evidence. Proceeding from the bottom up, the parts most often preserved in the existing fragments are: the stoking channel, the combustion chamber, the pot-firing chamber with the loading door (and a spy hole), and the chimney or vent (Fig. 5.3).31 Pinax B57 accurately depicts the interior arrangement of the kiln, providing a vertical cross-section of the combustion chamber below, the central support of the perforated floor, the floor itself, the pot-firing chamber with its load, and

190

Chap t er 5

a

a

f

e English

French

b

b

c1 c2

c1 c2

f

German

Italian

a

chimney

chimnée

Abzug

camino

b

pot-firing (kiln ware) chamber

chambre de caisson

Brennraum

camera di cotura

c1

perforated floor/eschara

sol à orifices/ plancher à claire-voie

Lochtenne

griglia

c2

ventholes

trous de sol

Feuerdurchlässe

fori di ventilazione

d1

combustion chamber

chambre de combustion

Feuerkeller/ Hoelle/ Heizraum

vano/camera di combustione

d2

central pillar

pilier central

Mittelpfeiler

pilastro centrale

e

stoking channel/corridor

tunnel d’alimentation

Schürkanal/ Feuerraum/ Schüroffnung/ Schürhals

corridio di alimentazione

f

loading door

porte de chargement

Einsetzöffnung

porta di carico

Latin

e d2 d1 d2

Ancient Greek

laboratorium

d1

Modern Greek

κανθός

καπνοδόχη

δώματα

θάλαμος όπτησης

εσχάρα κυψελίδες/ κυψέλαι furnus/ hypocaustum

θερμαγωγές οπές θάλαμος θέρμανσης πεσσός/ στήριγμα διάδρομος πυροδότησης

praefurnium

the narrow chimney at the top. Pinax B61 may represent the plan of a kiln, with its long stoking channel and the circular combustion chamber. Given the limited surface area of the pinakes, the kilns depicted can range in height from as small as 1 cm (B41) or 2 cm (B36) up to 12 cm (B42), with an average height of 6–8 cm. The sketchy rendering of the kilns on the Penteskouphia pinakes should not be expected to provide photographic documentation of all parts of the kiln, but most depictions are generally accurate. The proportions of the different parts of the kiln to one another and to the workers, as well as the use of perspective, are often incorrect. There are examples of both detailed and more careless representations of kilns. Thus, there are very short kilns with stoking chambers that are too long and too high (e.g., A7, B47, B52); chimneys that are too small for their large kilns, or vice versa, and renderings of figures that are too small to be attending their very large kilns, or vice versa (e.g., A5, B2, B22, B37, B38, B46, B50, B58).

είσοδος του θαλάμου όπτησης

Figure 5.3. Kiln parts depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes, with multilingual key. Kiln exterior adapted from B2 and cross-section from B57. Drawing Y. Nakas

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

191

S t oking Ch an n el

The stoking channel, as shown on the pinakes, projects from the kiln and varies in length and height to better regulate the control of the draft.32 Most depictions show it from its long side, as a solid tunnel, but in B36 and B50 the painter provides almost an almost vertical cross-section of it, enabling us to see the flames inside. Pinax A6 is also an unusual depiction of the stoking channel; it seems as if there are no sidewalls, only an arched top, and it allows us to see the entire length of the kiln stoker’s rod. Most kiln attendants are depicted standing on the channel, preparing to approach the vent or chimney of the kiln, or while they are climbing onto it. The workmen around the kiln usually hold a T-shaped rod for stoking the kiln, a hooked tool for inspecting the firing from the chimney, or both (Table 5.2). The stoking channel, a single corridor that fuels the core of the kiln, was never divided into two areas, as was thought by Winter, Marwitz, and Cook, who misinterpreted the vertical section on pinax B57 and postulated the existence of “double-stoking” kilns.33 Winter and Marwitz actually went so far as to suggest that only half of the stoking channel was used to stoke fuel into the fire, while the other half was kept sealed.34 Such an arrangement would actually impede the stoker from distributing the fuel evenly throughout the combustion chamber, thereby obstructing efficient draft intake and heat circulation, but such challenges, all too familiar to professional potters, are less obvious to scholars who rely solely on drawings to reconstruct original function.

C om b u st ion Ch a m ber

32. Cuomo di Caprio 1984. 33. Winter [1957] 2003, 1959; Marwitz 1960; Cook 1961. Cook later changed his mind (1997, pp. 234–236). This pinax was misinterpreted by Perrot and Chipiez (1911, p. 348, fig. 185) and interpreted as a horizontal section by Richter (1923, p. 76) and Duhamel (1978–1979, p. 51, fig. 1:d). Marwitz (1960, col. 230, fig. 98), rotating the pinax clockwise, interpreted it as a combination of a horizontal section of the pit (the right half of his reconstruction) and a vertical section of the firing chamber (the left half ), seeing in it a double stoking channel. 34. Winter [1957] 2003, 1959; Marwitz 1960, col. 231. 35. Marwitz 1960, col. 231; Noble 1988, pp. 102, 152; Sparkes 1991, p. 22; Cook 1997, pp. 234–237. 36. For the use of the spy hole, see below, p. 262.

The combustion chamber, at the base of the kiln, is circular in plan and is best thought of as the continuation of the stoking channel. It is an area that is mostly depicted with solid paint, as we can only see its exterior or—as on B61—its circular footprint; the exception is B57, which shows the interior space of the combustion chamber with blobs representing ash accumulation and with a drinking vessel placed in it sideways.

Po t -Fir ing Ch a m ber

Moving up through the columnar support and the perforated floor, also depicted on B57, we reach the pot-firing chamber. In many cases, the loading door to the pot-firing chamber is indicated with an arched or rectangular outline (Table 5.2). The loading door is an opening through which potters stack the pots in the lower part of the firing chamber. Once the stacking is finished, the loading door is filled in with sherds, stones, and clay mortar; at the end of the firing, the potters dismantle it in order to unload the kiln. Inside this outline of the loading door is often depicted a smaller one, which is a spy hole that the potters used to check on the progress of the firing and to remove test pieces. When both the loading door and the spy hole are depicted, we can distinguish them fairly easily.35 They are clear visual clues for identifying a kiln depiction on Penteskouphia fragments that are particularly worn or fragmentary (e.g., B44, B53), since the rest of the kiln can be just an undifferentiated area covered with slip.36 When only one of these elements is shown, interpretation is more difficult. Sometimes the single opening has been thought to be the spy hole. I believe, however, that given the small scale of the pinakes, the seam of the larger loading

192

Chap t er 5

door is the feature more likely to have been depicted, if the painter had to choose between the loading door or the much smaller spy hole. In any case, both loading doors and spy holes were integral parts of pottery kilns in antiquity, just as they are today in traditional workshops.37

D ome and C hi mne y

The walls of the upper part of the pot-firing chamber slope inward to create a domed roof. Often the potters would place a pot in the middle of this dome to serve as a chimney (A6, B20, B56). Some other pinakes show distinct chimneys with flaring sides, but it is not clear whether a vessel has been recycled to serve as a chimney (A19, A22, B33, B57).38 In cases where there is no chimney, it is not clear if its omission reflects a simple oversight, schematic rendering due to artistic license, or the actual absence of a chimney. The kiln on A7, unless it is an example of poor drawing, may represent an undomed, open-topped kiln that is covered only by some loosely placed sherds. Blazing flames, in many examples, come out of the top vent (whether a differentiated chimney or a generic dome vent), and occasionally from the stoking channel, or sometimes from both (e.g., A5, A19, A20, B2). The flames exit the kiln through a single opening in the dome, and not the several openings featured in some traditional kilns in modern Greece.39 The rendering of flames on the pinakes ranges from a series of dots (B19), to tongues (A22), to a jagged outlined shape (B17), to a lotus-like arrangement (B46).40 In most cases, the use of diluted slip made the flames turn red, regardless of the firing atmosphere inside the kiln in which the pinakes were fired. On B59, both thick and diluted slips were used for the flames. A closer examination of the size of the chimney may provide clues as to what types of vessels were fired. A real chimney would have produced a strong draft, which would have been needed in workshops producing decorated pottery (e.g., kotylai or kraters), where higher temperatures were required. As discussed above, the terracotta pinakes were produced in workshops whose main products included decorated wares. On the other hand, kilns with simple vents may have been firing only unslipped coarse wares, such as the amphoras or lekanai shown on the Penteskouphia pinakes; these could be fired at lower temperatures than glossed wares (below 850°C), since no sintering of the gloss was required.

Ap ot r opaic and Div ine P r ot ec t ion of t h e Fi r i ng Pots or other objects are sometimes depicted as attached to the exteriors of kilns. On B38 we can see a jug hanging from a nail on the shell of the pot-firing chamber. Pinax B40 shows a kiln with a small ithyphallic figure standing on the stoking channel. On the same pinax the fragmentary names 7 of [. . . ca. . . . . ?]φοκα and κ̣άμ̣[ῑνος?] have been thought to be names of kiln daimons, similar to those mentioned in the Κάμινος poem.41 Unfortunately, both the Penteskouphia daimons and the poem’s daimons are otherwise unattested in ancient sources. In an attempt to protect their kiln load from the evil eyes of business competitors, and/or to harness kiln daimons, potters placed apotropaic figures on their kilns. These were usually satyr masks or ithyphallic figures designed to ward off evil, a practice also adopted by the smiths who used a βασκάνιον ἐπικάμινον (“furnace amulet”) to protect their furnaces.42

37. Psaropoulou 1990, p. 221 (Lesbos). 38. Peña (2007, pp. 319–352) discusses extensively the many reuses of modified vessels in geotechnical, hydrogeological, and funerary contexts. 39. Blitzer (1990, p. 695) records three smoke holes/vents (φανούρια) in the Messenian kilns. Perhaps smoke holes were more beneficial in larger kilns. 40. Zeus’s thunderbolt in Gigantomachy scenes is depicted in a similar manner (e.g., Antikensammlung F 768; Arvanitaki 2006, pp. 143– 148, no. Κ 33). Arvanitaki (2006, p. 146, n. 196) discusses the close association between fire and flowers (πυρὸς ἄνθος), especially lotus, in ancient Greece. 41. Pernice 1897, p. 30; IG IV 313; Wachter 2001, pp. 144–145, no. COP 63. On the poem, see below, pp. 215– 216. 42. Poll. Onom. 7.108: Πρὸ δὲ τῶν καμίνων τοῖς χαλκεῦσιν ἔθος ἦν γελοῖά τινα καταρτᾶν ἤ ἐπιπλαττεῖν ἐπὶ φθόνου ἀποτροπῇ ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ βασκάνια ὡς καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης· πλὴν εἴ τις πρίαιτο δεόμενος βασκάνιον ἐπικάμινον ἀνδρὸς χαλκέως (Richter 1923, p. 96); see Faraone 2018, pp. 132–133. Daimons of metallurgy are omnipresent under various names, such as Daktyloi, Telchines, Kabeiroi, Kouretes, and Korybantes. See discussions in Blakely Westover 1998, 1999; Blakely 2006, pp. 13–54.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

193

The apotropaic protection of the kilns is widely attested in other periods and places. A theatrical mask serving a similar function could be hung on the kiln to ward off evil, as is depicted on the Athenian black-figure hydria in Munich (see below, Fig. 5.5; Table 5.3). Craftspeople could also paint apotropaic figures on the walls of furnaces or kilns, such as the small Silenos painted in silhouette on the walls of a furnace depicted on a Classical Athenian red-figure column krater found at Sabucina, Sicily.43 The potters at Pizzica, near Metapontum, placed a relief with a sizable phallus next to the stoking channel of a Hellenistic kiln, in an obvious attempt to protect their kiln against evil in a more permanent manner.44 The apotropaic tradition continues to this day in traditional potters’ communities (see below, p. 262). In terms of divine protection, Poseidon and potters at work enjoy a special visual relationship: the makers of the Penteskouphia pinakes would either invoke Poseidon, by placing a dedicatory inscription on the same side as a craft scene, or paint a depiction of him on the reverse. Perhaps the inscribed name of Poseidon was sufficiently protective to guarantee a successful firing and keep away any evil spirit. Although the pairing of scenes of potters at work with depictions of Poseidon (and Amphitrite) on opposite sides of a pinax was the most popular combination, as has been mentioned, the potters would not combine Poseidon and a pottery-making theme on the same side of a pinax.45 The presence of Poseidon as protector of the kiln has been claimed for the towering figure on B42, which is partially covered by the kiln. Closer analysis of the pinax suggests that the figure was originally meant to be portrayed alone, holding a vertical staff (trident?). If one of the attributes is a shield, the identification as Poseidon becomes somewhat problematic. In any case, the painter changed his mind and painted a kiln partially covering the earlier figure, which was abandoned at the stage of incision. The unlabeled female figure who stands on the stoking channel of the kiln depicted on B51, holding a shield in her hands, may be Athena, perhaps in her role as Ergane.46 A figure wearing a long garment on B52, if female, could also be Athena, eager to check on the progress of the firing or the fired 43. Caltanissetta, Museo Archeologico 20371 (S810), 470–460 b.c., attributed to the Harrow Painter; Vidale 2002, pp. 159–164, fig. 17:a–c; see Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 69 (nn. 260, 261), 215, no. Χ19, for more references of depictions of satyrs placed on shields or vases. 44. Carter 1983. In the fill of a kiln excavated in Europos, Kilkis, in northern Greece, two terracotta figurines with grotesque features were interpreted by the excavator as apotropaic devices (Valla 1990–1995; Savvopoulou and Valla 1992; Hasaki 2002, p. 433, no. 363). The apotropaic iconography continued into Roman times, as seen in the two plaster relief phalli next to the stoking channel of a kiln in the Via di

Nocera pottery workshop in Pompeii (I.20.2–3; Peña and McCallum 2009, p. 68). 45. The figures on A5 and A10, which carry inscriptions to Poseidon, cannot represent Poseidon himself, as recently suggested (D’Agostino and Palmieri 2016, pp. 159–160). The figures diverge significantly from Poseidon’s standardized iconography throughout the corpus. 46. If the figure on B51 is indeed Athena, it is the only instance in which Athena is featured alone on a Penteskouphia pinax, and not in her usual role as a participant in larger divine assemblies in non-pottery scenes, as on F 485 + F 765 and F 764 (see above, p. 71, n. 72). For Athena Ergane in

general, see LIMC II, 1984, pp. 961– 964, s.v. Athena Ergane (P. Demargne); also Karoglou 2010, p. 57. For the cult of Athena Ergane in Athens, see Di Vita 1952–1954; Consoli 2004. On the role of Hephaistos and Athena as protectors of fire and of the arts (known as ἔφοροι πυρός), see Korres 1971, with review of ancient texts. See also Smith 2009, pp. 16–26. For the presence of these gods in depictions of artisans from Athens, see Ziomecki 1975, pp. 135–141; Vidale 2002, pp. 69–88. Interestingly, female deities may have been present for pyrotechnological activities, as symbolic protection, but in ethnographic literature, mortal women are largely prohibited from approaching furnaces (Blakely 2006, pp. 99, 106).

194

Chap t er 5

kiln load. Athena’s presence, and presumably her protection, may have been originally intended on B40, where an owl, one of Athena’s attributes, stands on the pot-firing chamber of the kiln, perhaps a manifestation of Athena herself. A female deity who may be Athena or Amphitrite appears on B6. Finally, a fragmentary inscription on B37 may refer to Athena, although most scholars prefer Amphitrite. No pottery scene, however, includes an invocation to Athena.

Ki l n Wor kers All kiln workers are male; if the female figures on B51 and B52 are not Athena, they are female relatives of the workshop. The age of the kiln workers is difficult to determine in most cases, but, of course, bearded men must be adults (A9, A10, B2, B28, B49). Clothed figures appear on a few pinakes (A16, B28, B40, B52). The workshop scenes, along with those showing horseback riders and warriors, belong to a small group of iconographical themes that allow the depiction of naked bodies, whereas Poseidon is almost always depicted clothed in a long chiton (see above, pp. 67–68). Nudity, in both the Corinthian and the Athenian representations of craftspeople at work, may be related to their lower social status. In this context, even the downward-pointing αἰδοῖα, or genitalia (A3, B1), could serve as a visual clue to the workers’ degraded status, as Himmelmann argued.47 The close proximity of naked workmen to kilns that belch flames both from the chimney and from the stoking channel might strike us as very risky.48 Picolpasso’s representations of potters working at the kiln centuries later, however, show the same indifference to the menacing force of the fire.49 If we assume that the scenes are painted with a certain degree of artistic liberty, then it is possible that the kiln workers never approached the kiln when the flames were at their most intense, but instead chose more opportune moments to approach the chimney. This compression of multiple moments is part of the synoptic narrative technique in ancient Greek vase painting. Scenes in which no flames exit the chimney or the stoking channel may depict the moment when the kiln worker is about to cover the kiln for its reduction phase, or to start the slow unloading of the kiln. Sometimes the kiln workers wear a distinguishing head covering: a tight hat, namely, a pilos or its equivalent, often with a sturdy, narrow rim (A5, A9, B20, B27, B29). No scene of Penteskouphia potters collecting clay or at the wheel features a figure wearing a pilos. The quality of the headgear closely reflects the overall quality of drawing, so clumsily rendered hats are worn by poorly drawn figures (A8). This tight head covering is a visual marker primarily for bronzesmiths, a fashion set by their protector god Hephaistos, but is otherwise absent from other scenes of potters at work in Greek antiquity.50 Except for the figures on B5 (a man with a hump on his back, carrying a load, presumably of clay) and B40 (a man with a slight hump and with an underdeveloped right leg, approaching a kiln), the figures on the pinakes do not seem to have any of the obvious bodily deformities for which metalworkers were heavily criticized in ancient sources (e.g., Arist. Poet. 1278). Some deformities may also be attributed to the painter’s struggle to depict various postures with anatomical correctness.51 The figures are usually depicted either standing in front of the kiln or trying to climb on it; although they are naked, they refrain from the daring

47. Himmelmann 1994. 48. Noble 1988, p. 196; Papadopoulos 2003, p. 16, with scholars’ concerns that potters would have suffered firstdegree burns. 49. Picolpasso 1548, ii.100, illustrated in Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 13–14, figs. 11, 12. 50. For the pilos, see RE XX, 1950, cols. 1330–1333, s.v. πῖλος (R. Kreis-von Schaewen); for depictions of He­phaistos wearing a pilos, see LIMC IV, 1988, pp. 627–654, esp. nos. 4, 15, 110, pls. 386, 387, 390, s.v. Hephaistos (A. Hermary and A. Jaquemin); Brommer 1978. Pipili (1999) distinguishes two types of pilos: one worn by city workers and one worn by workmen in the countryside in depictions of workmen in Attic vase painting of the 6th and 5th centuries b.c. The best-known example may be the Berlin Foundry cup (see below, p. 283), where both the furnace attendant and a bronzesmith wear a pilos. Other figures who usually wear the pilos in Greek iconography are Odysseus and travelers. A pilos is also seen on a figurine (thought to be Hephaistos) found in the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth KT-23-1; Corinth XV.2, pp. 138–139, no. 8; Ziskowski 2012, p. 218). Another example comes from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore (Corinth MF-1973‑113; Ziskowski 2012, p. 219, fig. 4). The wardrobe of Attic craftspeople and farmers is further discussed in Chatzidimitriou 2014. 51. Deformed figures often appear in Corinthian vase painting; Ziskowski (2012) discusses a possible connection between depictions of deformed figures and an implicit reference to the Kypselids in the Archaic period. See also Garland 1995, pp. 29–35, for sedentary craft practioners such as leather-makers, blacksmiths, and potters as prone to disabilities.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

195

positions associated with furnace workers, satyrs, foreigners, or defecators in Athenian vase paintings.52 A few pinakes (all two-sided, with one exception) show male figures assisting with the activity depicted: stoking, inspecting, stoking and inspecting, or general assistance with firing (see Table 5.2). They are often depicted at a smaller scale than the other figures and must have been the younger male apprentices of the workshop, most likely members of the extended family of the potters.53 Kiln workmen climbing on the kiln’s stoking channel are also shown at smaller scale, but this is for practical reasons of scene composition rather than an indicator of age or status. Other than in the kiln scenes, assistants actively engaged in the task at hand appear only in scenes depicting the collection of clay (B1); they are conspicuously absent from scenes in which the potter works at the wheel. As for the identity of the figures, it is not possible to determine what exactly their role was in the workshop, whether potter, painter, or other worker. Except for a few figures who are labeled (A6, B2, B31, B40), most figures have no inscriptions next to them. It is plausible that those inscriptions name the workmen depicted, but no depiction preserves any portrait-like element; some of the workers were perhaps not native Corinthians (B19), and one may be from Boiotia (B22), judging by the letter forms in the inscriptions. In the cases where the pinakes were made with the intention to be dedicated by their maker, these inscribed names could refer to a potter who is also a dedicator (see below, pp. 209–226, 281–283).

Animal s The presence of birds is another indication of the outdoors. Birds are shown on nine occasions, usually in flight: four in kiln-firing scenes (A15, B29, B40, and B41) and five on the reverse of scenes associated with potters at work (B1, B29, B41, B46, and B56). On A15 the bird flies from left to right, perhaps adopting the same auspicious direction as victorious warriors to signal the successful outcome of the kiln firing. The birds in kiln scenes often fly in the same direction as birds depicted in scenes of horseback riders in Archaic Corinthian vase painting.54 Alternatively, their direction of flying may simply flow along with the rest of the scene, which is generally from left to right. Owls also appear, usually perched on twigs and with their faces turned towards the viewer (B29), or standing on the kiln itself (B40).55 52. Neils 2000, p. 78. See the infamous posture of the furnace attendant on the Berlin Foundry cup (see below, p. 283). 53. A smaller scale was also used for the squires of horseback riders on the Penteskouphia pinakes (e.g., F 855 + F 862; Fig. 3.29). 54. Birds appear in a scene with cavalry on F 855 + F 862 (Fig. 3.29). In scenes not related to ceramic production, birds fly in the opposite direction, right to left, following the general direction of the scene (e.g., F 587, F 755 + F 789, F 907 + fr.). For bird iconography in

Corinthian vase painting, see Amyx 1988, pp. 669–670. Non-pottery scenes have a larger repertoire of animals, such as the depiction of rabbits on F 855 + F 862 (Fig. 3.29) and a fox on F 784 + fr. 55. Owls are present in Corinthian iconography both on terracotta pinakes (e.g., Penteskouphia pinax Louvre MNC 209: an owl stands on the reins of a chariot) and on vessels (e.g., an Early Corinthian aryballos, Corinth KP-38; Corinth XV.3, p. 94, no. 428, pl. 91). See also Amyx 1988, p. 670. For the association of Athena and owl, see Meillier 1970.

196

Chap t er 5

CO R I N T H I A N A N D AT H EN I A N R EP R E S EN TAT I O N S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K Corinthian and Athenian scenes of potters at work regularly appear together in textbooks on ancient Greek pottery, but the two groups could not be more dissimilar, in terms of quantity, medium used, scene composition, use of inscriptions, divine invocation, and context of use (Figs. 5.4–5.21; Tables 5.3, 5.4).56 The iconography of potters and painters at work on Attic vases and pinakes was masterfully surveyed in the early 20th century by Beazley.57 The latest treatments of the topic do not alter the picture he created, although they add information about the lives of ancient workmen. The Penteskouphia pinakes offer a wealth of comparative material from Corinth; not only do they constitute the largest and oldest coherent assemblage of images of potters at work from Greek antiquity, they also carry inscriptions and potter’s signatures.

Q uant i t y The Athenian examples have long been known and have established the normative picture of artisans at work, but it is rarely pointed out that the depictions of potters at work number only 18, on 17 objects, with one vase carrying two scenes (Fig. 5.8; Table 5.3)—that is, about one-sixth of the number of the Penteskouphia depictions of potters from Corinth. A handful of disassociated or lost depictions from the ancient Greek and Roman world have been strongly disputed and ultimately disqualified as scenes of potters at work.58 Corinth provides 103 examples: 102 Penteskouphia scenes and one terracotta kiln model. Despite this plethora of Penteskouphia scenes, we should bear in mind that pottery-making scenes are only the fifth most popular theme in the corpus.59 56. See, e.g., the surveys in Noble 1988, pp. 15–76; Sparkes 1991, pp. 8–27. 57. The Athenian and related imagery of potters at work has been extensively studied: Richter 1923, pp. 64–83; Cloché 1931; Metzler 1969, pp. 138–139, n. 5; Roebuck 1969; Ziomecki 1975, pp. 23–27, 147–157, and nos. 1–6, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 28, 32, 33; Beazley 1989; Vidale 1998; 2002, pp. 237–306; Stissi 2002; Jubier-Galinier, Laurens, and Tsingarida 2003; Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 191–224; Chatzidimitriou 2005, pp. 205–212, nos. Κ1–Κ53; Williams 2009, 2016; Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, passim. See also a black-figure lekythos from Gela (Museo Archeologico 36086) dated to 510–500 b.c. and attributed to the Gela Painter (De Miro 1999); Stissi 2002, esp. appendix II, pp. 443–494.

58. A small list of misinterpreted scenes of potters at work includes: (1) a black-figure skyphos (Thasos, Artemision 59.1494, 59.2706, 59.3070) attributed to the Theseus Painter; misinterpreted by Maffre (1999) as a pottery workshop scene, due to its similarities with the so-called Robinson’s kiln skyphos, but we should now associate it with agricultural activities, as with Robinson’s skyphos discussed below, pp. 208–209; for agricultural activities on vase paintings, see Fritzilas 2006; (2) two gems of dubious authenticity; formerly in a private collection, now lost (Richter 1923, pp. 78–79, figs. 81, 82); on one, a man is painting the handles of a small amphora while a jug and a kylix are placed on top of a small, rounded structure with an opening in the front. On the other, a potter with the aid of two sticks is placing a hydria on top of a domelike structure

described as a kiln with an opening in the front; (3) a graffito at the Bibliothèque des Arts Décoratifs, Paris (not located in recent inquiries); a person near a domed structure; Duhamel 1978–1979, p. 51, fig. 1:e; (4) a Roman lamp from Pozzuoli; Duhamel 1978– 1979, p. 51, fig. 1:g. I do not consider here the “potter-portraits” of the Pioneers’ vases from Archaic Athens. Neer (2002, pp. 87–134) has rather convincingly argued that the labeled potters on the Pioneers’ vases in Athens should be regarded as “potter-portraits,” but their presence primarily in banquet scenes, and not in workshop scenes, makes this identification problematic. For two of these vases with representations of Σμίκρος, see also Ziomecki 1975, p. 37, fig. 9, and p. 151, nos. 16, 17. 59. For a detailed discussion of the distribution pattern of the iconographical themes, see above, pp. 65–72.

TA B LE 5.3. AT H EN I A N A N D B O I O T I A N S C EN E S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K Vessel/Provenance/Artist

Style

Date (b.c.)

Museum

Hydria from Vulci; Leagros Group

blackfigure

520

Munich, Staatliche Antiken­ sammlungen und Glyptothek 1717

ABV 362.36

5.5

blackfigure

540–530

Athens, NAM Akr. 1.803

Graef and Langlotz I, p. 98, no. 803, pl. 49

5.6

540–530

Athens, NAM Akr. 1.853

Ve ssel For ming, Decorat ing, and Fir ing

Ve ssel For ming

Amphora(?) fr. from the Athenian Acropolis

Amphora(?) fr. from the Athenian Acropolis; manner of Exekias

blackfigure

Lip cup from Etruria; two scenes

blackfigure

550

Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 67/90

Pinax from the Athenian Acropolis

blackfigure

510

Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2570

Pinax from the Athenian Acropolis, made of yellow, possibly Corinthian, clay

blackfigure

500–490

Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2579

blackfigure

ca. 500

London, British Museum 1847,1125.18 (B 432)

Kylix tondo; unknown provenance Skyphos from Abes cemetery in Eastern Locris Exarchos

blackfigure

Cup frr. from the Athenian Acropo- redlis; Euergides Painter figure Skyphos frr. from the Athenian Acropolis

Amphora(?) fr. from the Pnyx in Athens

redfigure

400–390 510–500 450

Athens, NAM 1114-2624 (442)

Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 166

Publication

ABV 147.7; Graef and Langlotz I, p. 103, no. 853, pl. 56

CVA, Karlsruhe 3 [Germany 60], pl. 24 [2969]

ABV 353; Graef and Langlotz I, pp. 250–251, no. 2570, pl. 107; Karoglou 2010, pp. 95–96, no. 110 Graef and Langlotz I, p. 252, no. 2579, pl. 109; Karoglou 2010, pp. 69–70, no. 11

CVA, British Museum 2 [Great Britain 2], pl. 22 [80]:5a

Figure

5.7 5.8 5.9

5.10 5.11 5.12

ARV 2 92.64; Graef and Langlotz II, pp. 12–13, no. 166, pl. 6

5.13

Athens, NAM Akr. 2.470

Graef and Langlotz II, p. 43, no. 470, pl. 38

5.14

Athens, Agora PNP 42

Talcott et al. 1956, pl. 8:104

5.15

redfigure

ca. 425

redfigure

500–450

Caltagirone, Museo Regionale della Ceramica 1120

CVA, Caltagirone, Museo della Ceramica 1 [Italy 76], pp. 115– 117, pls. 57, 58 [3618, 3619]

5.16

redfigure

470–440

Athens, NAM Akr. 2.739

ARV 2 1092.76; Graef and Langlotz II, p. 69, no. 739, pl. 62

5.17

Stemless cup tondo from Corneto; redDish Painter/followers of Douris figure

470–460

Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2542

ARV 2 803.60; CVA, Berlin 1 [GDR 3], pl. 20 [131]:4, 5

5.18

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8073

ARV 2 342.19

5.19

ARV 2 1064.3; CVA, Oxford 1 [Great Britain 3], pls. 24 [116]:2, 25 [117]:7

5.20

Calyx krater from S. Luigi necropolis, Caltagirone

Ve ssel For ming and Decorat ing Calyx krater frr. from the Athenian Acropolis; Painter of the Louvre Centauromachy

Wor king on t he Pot

Decorat ing

Kylix tondo; unknown provenance; in the manner of the Antiphon Painter

redfigure

480

Bell krater; unknown provenance; Komaris Painter

redfigure

ca. 430

Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AN1896-1908.G.287

ca. 460

Vicenza, Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Collection F.G.-00002A-E/IS (C 278)

Hydria/kalpis from Ruvo; “Caputi” hydria; once held in the Torno Collection in Milan; Leningrad Painter

redfigure

ARV 2 571.73; CVA, Milan, Collezione “H.A.” 2 [Italy 51], pl. 1 [2272]; Kehrberg 1982; La cité des images, p. 8, fig. 1

5.21

198

Chap t er 5

TA B LE 5.4 . CO M PA R I S O N O F CO R I N T H I A N A N D AT H EN I A N / B O I O T I A N R EP R E S EN TAT I O N S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K Number of scenes Medium Date

Context

Consumption

Icono g rap hy

Clay and fuel collection

Corinth

Athens and Boiotia

predominantly pinakes: 102 scenes on pinakes, 1 kiln model

predominantly pots: 16 scenes on 15 pots, 2 scenes on pinakes

votive/industrial

sanctuary/votive

102 (and 1 kiln model)

Archaic local yes

18

Archaic and Classical local and exports no

Vessel forming/decorating and kiln firing

yes

Depiction of other crafts on ceramics

rare

frequent

invocation

presence

yes

no

Combination of stages

Divinity mostly depicted Divine assistance

Vessel specialization

Potters/painters’ signatures and other inscriptions

no

Poseidon yes

yes

yes

Athena yes

Me di u m The potters of both Penteskouphia and Athens used their own medium to portray the processes of their craft. In this respect, they resemble another group of craftspeople, namely, the sculptors who chose stone to depict their production processes.60 In Corinth, depictions of the potter’s craft are limited to the Penteskouphia pinakes studied in the present work and a terracotta kiln model recovered in the Potters’ Quarter (Fig.  5.4).61 The kiln rests on a thin, rectangular plinth, and the stoking channel, combustion chamber, and perforated floor, which has no interior support underneath, are preserved intact. The upper firing chamber does not survive. Stillwell dismissed the model as faulty, on the basis that “the second door on the side for putting in the vases, which appears on the pinakes, is not represented here.”62 The representation is correct, however, since only the lower (combustion) chamber is preserved on the model and the loading door belongs to the upper (firing) chamber, which is lost. Aside from these artifacts, we have only indirect references to the world of potters, as in banquet scenes that regularly involve the display and use of many vessels. In the case of the symposium scene on the Middle Corinthian Dümmler krater, the name vase of the Ophelandros Painter (Paris, Louvre E 632), the potter may have depicted the stacked kraters in a manner similar to how they were stacked inside the kiln during firing.63 Overall, it seems that Corinthian potters took more pride in displaying their finished vessels than in revealing the secret aspects of their craft. While we cannot ignore it, we cannot explain the marked reluctance of the potters to place scenes from their own work environment on both sides

60. For additional examples of craftspeople depicted in the medium in which they normally work, see the bronze figurine of a helmet smith (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 42.11.42; Ziomecki 1975, p. 112, fig. 44). 61. Corinth KN-181 (H. 3.2 × L. 5.5 × W. 4.8 cm; L. of stoking channel 3.0 cm); Corinth XV.2, pp. 208–209, no. 33.7, pl. 45; Papadopoulos 2003, p. 205, fig. 3.9. A horizontal section of this model is illustrated in Duhamel 1978–1979, p. 50, fig. 3. 62. Corinth XV.3, pp. 208–209. 63. Smith 2010, pp. 23 (n. 71), 34 (n. 7); Payne 1931, p. 317, no. 1178; Amyx 1988, p. 233, no. 1, pl. 102:1a; Vidale 2002, pp. 257–258, fig. 56. Steinhart (2007, p. 215) sees a potter’s workshop in which two komasts are entertaining the workers with song and dance. D’Agostino and Palmieri (2016, p. 170) adopt an alternative interpretation put forward by previous scholars who see a punishment scene.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

199

Figure 5.4. Terracotta model of a potter’s kiln (Corinth KN-181).

Scale 2:3. Photos P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations

of a pinax, or to employ this theme on their pottery. The over 100 workrelated depictions on the Penteskouphia pinakes are not paralleled in the entire Corinthian corpus of pots, and just two fragmentary pinakes from the Potters’ Quarter are tentatively associated with pottery production.64 Not a single depiction of a pottery workshop, securely identified as to theme or Corinthian origin, is preserved in the massive corpus of Corinthian vase painting. If the Penteskouphia assemblage had not surfaced, Corinthian pottery—an otherwise rich corpus that has served many purposes in the study of Archaic and Classical ceramics—would have provided no iconographical clues about pottery manufacture. Moreover, our knowledge of Corinthian potters would have been limited to three, Timonidas, Chares, and Echekles, who all signed as painters. The pinakes add two more names of painters (Timonidas and Milonidas), as well as three signatures with no name preserved. Given the rarity of potters’ and painters’ signatures in Corinthian vase painting, this is a welcome addition. Athenian potters, on the other hand, placed their craft depictions primarily on vases, with an almost equal distribution between smaller cups and larger vessels (Table 5.3). Pinakes are less common, with only two examples from the Athenian Acropolis (Figs. 5.9, 5.10).65 One of these (Fig. 5.10) is tentatively identified as Corinthian due to its pale clay. If this is indeed the case, we must ask whether a finished Corinthian pinax was imported into Athens, or whether imported Corinthian clay was shaped into a pinax by an immigrant Corinthian or local Athenian potter, to be subsequently dedicated on the Acropolis.66 Pinakes are not depicted on Corinthian or Athenian black-figure pots, although contemporary black-figure pinakes were dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis. 64. Corinth KP-1152, KN-195; Corinth XV.3, p. 241, nos. 1329, 1331, pl. 55). 65. Karoglou 2010, p. 59. 66. Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2579; Karoglou 2010, pp. 69–70, no. 11, fig. 88. Another pinax (Athens, NAM

Akr. 1.2578; Graef and Langlotz I, pp. 251–252, no. 2578, pl. 109; Beazley 1989, p. 40; Karoglou 2010, p. 70, no. 13) that was previously thought to be Corinthian due to the pale clay and drawing style, is now considered Attic by most scholars (see above, p. 11, n. 36).

200

Chap t er 5

Figure 5.5. Shoulder of an Athenian black-figure hydria (Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 1717). Not to scale. Photo R. Kühling, courtesy Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek München; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.6. Fragment of an Athenian black-figure amphora(?) from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.803). Scale 1:1. Photo E. Gala-

nopoulos, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

Figure 5.7. Fragment of an Athenian black-figure amphora(?) from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.853). Scale 1:3. Photo E. Gala-

nopoulos, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.8. Details of an Athenian black-figure lip cup (Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 67/90).

Scale 1:1. Photos T. Goldschmidt, courtesy Badisches Landesmuseum; drawings Y. Nakas

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

Figure 5.9. Fragments of an Athenian black-figure pinax from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2570). Scale 1:2. Photo © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

Figure 5.10. Fragments of a blackfigure pinax from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2579). Scale 2:3. Photo © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.11. Tondo of an Athenian black-figure kylix (London, British Museum 1847,1125.18 [B 432]). Not

to scale. Photo courtesy Trustees of the British Museum; drawing Y. Nakas

201

202

Chap t er 5

Figure 5.12. Boiotian black-figure skyphos from Abes cemetery in Eastern Locris Exarchos (Athens, NAM 1114-2624 [442]). Scale ca. 1:5, except Not to scale

where indicated. Photos © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.13. Fragments of an Athenian red-figure cup from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 166). Scale ca. 1:3. Photo

© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/ Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.14. Fragments of an Athenian red-figure skyphos from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 2.470). Scale 2:3. Photo © Hellenic

Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawing Y. Nakas

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

203

Figure 5.15. Fragment of an Athenian red-figure amphora(?) from the Pnyx in Athens (Athens, Agora PNP 42). Scale 1:1. Photo C. Mauzy, courtesy Agora Excavations; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.16. Athenian red-figure calyx krater (Caltagirone, Museo Regionale della Ceramica 1120).

Scale 1:5, except where indicated. Photo courtesy Museo Regionale della Ceramica di Caltagirone; drawing Y. Nakas

Figure 5.17. Fragments of an Athenian red-figure calyx krater from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 2.739). Not to scale. Photo E. Gala-

nopoulos, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawing Y. Nakas

Not to scale

204

Chap t er 5

Figure 5.18 (left). Tondo of an Athenian red-figure stemless cup (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2542). Scale 2:3.

Photo I. Geske, courtesy Antikensamm­lung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

Figure 5.19 (right). Tondo of an Athenian red-figure kylix (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8073).

Scale 1:3. Photo © Boston Museum of Fine Arts

Figure 5.20. Athenian red-figure bell krater (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AN1896-1908.G.287). Scale 1:4. Photo © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

Figure 5.21. Shoulder of an Athenian red-figure hydria (Caputi hydria) (Vicenza, Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Collection F.G-00002A-E/ IS [C 278]). Not to scale. Photo courtesy Archive, Art, Culture, and Historical Heritage Head Office Department, Intesa Sanpaolo

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

205

Dat e an d Tec h n iq ue The interest in depicting scenes of pottery production at Penteskouphia lasted for one or two generations, but for a much longer period at Athens. Most of the Athenian depictions are later chronologically than the Corinthian ones, clustering between the second half of the 6th century b.c. and the first half of the 5th century b.c.67 The Attic examples began to appear just before the Penteskouphia images, and their production spiked, according to Karoglou, around 550–530 b.c.68 The majority of the Athenian depictions are in the red-figure technique, whereas all Corinthian depictions are in black-figure.

S tag e s Dep ic t ed

67. Ziomecki 1975, pp. 19–23; Beazley 1989, p. 39; Karoglou (2010, p. 51) notes that all votives by artisans on the Acropolis date after 525 b.c., with a noticeable clustering around 510 b.c. It is attractive to associate this popularity with the increasing pride of the working classes during the establishment of democracy. 68. Karoglou 2010, p. 44, table 1. A small number of pinakes date to 690– 590 b.c., and another to 590–470 b.c., but the spike in activity is placed at 550–530 b.c. 69. The terracotta model from Panticapeum is better understood as a model of a baking oven, in the tradition of the numerous Boiotian oven models, and not of a kiln, as it was originally interpreted (Kobylina 1974, p. 48, pl. 57:8; repeated in Uhlenbrock 1990, p. 18, n. 37). 70. Beazley (1989, p. 40) argues that the workshop specialized in pithoi, and not in amphoras.

Iconographically speaking, there are considerable differences between Corinthian and Athenian depictions of potters at work. The Athenian depictions emphasize the forming of a pot on the wheel and its decoration; there is no scene exclusively dedicated to clay collecting, and kiln firing, in its rare depictions, is always part of a larger scene of potters at work. For example, the kiln is depicted only once on the Munich hydria, and even then it is combined with other phases of pottery production (Fig. 5.5). Thus the potter’s world is glimpsed almost exclusively through the scenes of working at the wheel, and does not encompass the wider spectrum of activities shown on the Penteskouphia pinakes. This emphasis is perhaps to be expected, since Athens boasted of being the birthplace of the wheel and of fine decorated pottery (Critias, Elegies 1.12–14). Vessels often show similar vessels being formed on the wheel: a krater depicts a scene in which a krater is formed, a kylix shows a potter forming a kylix on the wheel, and so on. The focus on the technical rather than artistic aspect of Corinthian pride may explain why Corinthian potters and painters’ signatures are so rare, compared to the considerable number from Athens, though most of these are later. A few Athenian depictions (Figs. 5.20, 5.21) and the single Boiotian scene (Fig. 5.12) include more than one stage of pottery production; the Munich hydria provides the most comprehensive picture, showing as many as three stages (Fig.  5.5). The Penteskouphia potters, by contrast, were reluctant to illustrate more than one stage of pottery manufacture on the same pinax, preferring to depict some stages individually (collecting clay, forming the pot, firing), while omitting other stages entirely (e.g., clay purification, unloading the kiln; see above, p. 180).

K il n I c ono g rap hy Corinthian artists were exceptionally prolific in their depictions of kilns on the flat surfaces of the Penteskouphia pinakes, but never on the curved surfaces of pots. As discussed above, there is only one surviving terracotta kiln model, from the Corinthian Potters’ Quarter (Fig. 5.4).69 From Athens, the only certain depiction of a ceramic kiln appears on the shoulder of the black-figure hydria in Munich, as part of a panorama of all the stages of pot making, from throwing on the wheel to decorating to firing (Fig. 5.5).70

206

Chap t er 5

Even when including the very dubious depictions of kiln-like structures on a few more pots, Athens simply cannot compete with the visual wealth of kilns from Corinth. For reasons unknown, it seems that Athenian potters and painters had a greater interest in depicting the pyrotechnological equipment of their neighbors—the furnaces for metalsmiths, of which 10 representations survive—than their own workshop’s equipment.71

Te c hnic al E q uipm ent Subtle differences can also be noticed in Corinthian and Athenian depictions and use of technical equipment. Athenian potters are shown working on the pots in a variety of stances: they sit on a stool (δίφρος) or in a more elaborate chair (κλισμός), as on the Caputi hydria (Fig. 5.21), or they are shown having just stood up from the stool or forming the pot while standing. The Athenian painters consistently depict the wheel’s axle as thicker and more conical than the slim and straight, pillar-like, Corinthian wheel. The larger size of the wheels shown in the Athenian renderings may have been required to facilitate the turning of large and heavy pots, such as the large storage vessels (one-piece amphoras and hydrias) that are also depicted.

Spac e The depiction of space—whether interior or exterior—is only suggested on the Athenian depictions, as it is on the Penteskouphia scenes. Kylikes, for example, are stacked up on a shelf in the London tondo (Fig. 5.11). Some Athenian vases show both interior spaces and a semicovered exterior, as on the Munich hydria, where an interior, or semicovered, space as well as a courtyard are depicted (Fig. 5.5). Another interior or semicovered area supported by a column is shown on the red-figure calyx krater in Caltagirone (Fig. 5.16). Because kiln scenes are almost never featured in Athenian depictions, the outdoor space is rarely shown. Rather, the Athenians depict more vivid interaction among potters, and between potters and their patrons or customers, as on the Karlsruhe lip cup (Fig. 5.8), rather than scenes of a single workman or a group of workers focused on a task, as on the Penteskouphia pinakes (though B61 may depict producer-customer interaction).

Wor kf or c e and Ins c r ip t ions The iconography shows that the pottery workshop was a male-dominated world in both Corinth and Athens. In many of the Corinthian representations, the male workers are shown nude and outdoors (because of the popularity of clay-collecting and kiln-firing scenes, both outdoor activities), in contrast to clothed Athenians working indoors. Depictions of females in workshop scenes are rare: the woman on the Caputi hydria (Fig. 5.21), tentatively, another female on the Boiotian skyphos (Fig. 5.12),72 and finally, one woman on Penteskouphia pinax B18 allude to the archaeologically invisible, but not insignificant, role that women must have played in the

71. Oddy and Swaddling 1985. 72. Jordan 2000.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

207

ceramic industry, especially in the decoration of pots or the making of moldmade ceramics. The Corinthian artisans preferred to create very individualized compositions, often including their personal names or the names of dedicators on the pinakes (see below, pp. 209–226). None of the Athenian representations carry names of artisans or any other type of inscription, such as labels or dedications.

Dep ic t ion s of Ot h er C raf ts

73. For the late-7th to early-6thcentury aryballos (Corinth CP-2038) with weavers at work at a vertical loom, see McLauchlin 1981. For the LC krater (Corinth C-1972-40) with vertical loom with a row of white dots, see Williams and Fisher 1973, p. 13, no. 13. 74. Payne 1931, p. 317, no. 1182. 75. Ziomecki 1975; Vidale 2002, pp. 237–248, 254–306. Two pinakes from the Athenian Acropolis carry depictions of weavers (Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 2525 [see Fig. 1.8] and Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2531; Graef and Langlotz I, p. 246, nos. 2525, 2531, pl. 104; Karoglou 2010, pp. 72, 73, nos. 23, 26). 76. In her latest study of Greek craftspeople at work in the Archaic and Classical periods, Chatzidimitriou (2005, pp. 212–226) lists 20 scenes of metalsmiths at work, 7 of sculptors at work, 4 of shoemakers, and 10 of carpenters, totaling 41 examples. See also Vidale 2002. Jockey (1998) lists 37 representations of sculptors from Greco-Roman antiquity. For a representation of a cobbler in stone relief from the Athenian Agora, see Camp 2004. Ulrich (2008, pp. 49–50, table 2.1) has compiled a very useful chart of representations of technical processes from Greco-Roman antiquity. 77. Karoglou 2010, p. 63. On the differing preferences of Athenian and Corinthian potters, see also Wagner 2000, 2001.

Representations of other craftspeople at work are treated differently in the Athenian and Corinthian corpora, although both cities featured active artisanal quarters. Corinthian potters chose to depict only potters at work (or activities closely connected to ceramic manufacture, such as felling trees), largely ignoring other crafts. A few representations of weavers at work can be found on a Protocorinthian aryballos and a Late Corinthian krater,73 and depictions of carpenters and men crushing grapes appear on the handle plates of a Middle Corinthian column krater (Paris, Louvre E  634; see Fig.  3.4).74 Tile-making, bronzeworking, and stoneworking, however, are not represented visually at Corinth. This omission does not reflect the general esteem that these practices enjoyed in Corinth; craftsmen were held in high esteem (Hdt. 2.167), and crafts in general, according to Strabo (8.6.23) flourished “more in Corinth and Sikyon.” On the other hand, Athenian potters did represent their fellow craftspeople at work, such as carpenters, shoemakers, metalworkers and their furnaces, and weavers, mostly on pots and sometimes on pinakes.75 Numerically, the scenes of potters at work at Penteskouphia are more than double all Athenian representations of other artisans at work (41 representations).76 The reasons for these two different approaches to fellow craftspeople elude us. If the Corinthian pinakes are products of a climate of anxiety within the potting industry, as argued in Chapter 7 below (pp. 293–300), it is perhaps understandable that there was little interest in depicting other crafts.

God s Invok ed Athenian and Corinthian potters differ in the gods they chose to ask for assistance in their endeavors: Athena was preferred by Athenians, and Poseidon by Corinthians. There are also differences in how the divine connection is indicated, whether through dedicatory inscriptions or through depictions of the god’s presence in craft scenes. The goddess Athena, in some cases, appears next to potters and painters on Athenian vases, but no inscriptions invoking her are found on vessels with pottery-making scenes. Meanwhile, Poseidon, though often invoked in inscriptions, is never depicted alongside the workers on the Penteskouphia pinakes. Regardless of whether Athena or Poseidon assumes the role of potters’ protector, it is interesting to note that pinakes in general are associated with female deities, and in Athens almost exclusively so, whereas the Corinthian pinakes most commonly picture a male deity, Poseidon.77

208

Chap t er 5

U se Cont e x t Most of the Athenian representations of potters at work come from dedications in the highly visible sanctuary of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis, while others were exported to Etruria and presumably come from funerary contexts (Figs. 5.5, 5.8, 5.21). The Corinthian pinakes, on the other hand, come from the isolated and obscure site at Penteskouphia, which definitely lacked the splendor, traffic, and longevity of the Athenian Acropolis. Pinakes with work scenes do not appear in any other contexts—religious, domestic, or funerary—in the Corinthia, with the possible exception of a few questionable representations from the Potters’ Quarter (see above, pp. 7–8). As we have seen, Attic representations of the pottery-making process are scarce. It is possible that Athenian vase painters worried that depicting the firing itself might invite the evil eyes of their competitors, and destroy a kiln load. In a culture where many skilled painters were active, the skill of the kiln worker (who was perhaps the potter himself ) gave the individual workshop its competitive edge, and perhaps fueled the secrecy about the process. We should also not overlook the fact that the functions of the pots carrying the Athenian depictions may have differed from those of the Penteskouphia pinakes. Just as the correct identification of the kiln structures on the Penteskouphia pinakes and the correct orientation of scenes (e.g., on B57) were long matters of debate and confusion in the academic community, the classification of certain Athenian workshop depictions has also been problematic. Some kilns were previously misidentified as metallurgical furnaces, such as the kiln on the Munich hydria (Fig. 5.5), and vice versa, such as the furnace on a lekythos in Providence, previously thought to be a kiln.78 The piece that best exemplifies the difficulties of identifying equipment in work scenes is the so-called Robinson’s kiln skyphos, which has finally (and correctly) been moved out of the potter’s workshop and into the realm of Athenian harvesting festivals.79 The crosshatched conical areas, one on each side of the skyphos, were interpreted as kilns because the other images were thought to be associated with the forming (or decorating) of amphoras.80 The structures depicted on the skyphos are very small compared to the figures, however, in contrast with all other kiln scenes, which show the kilns at a much larger scale than the figures. They are, in fact, too small to fire the large amphoras depicted in the same scene; therefore, the amphoras themselves should not be taken as evidence that 78. Black-figure lekythos, 480– 460 b.c.; Providence, Rhode Island School of Design 25.109. In early scholarship the structure was interpreted as a kiln: CVA, Providence 1 [USA 2], pl. 17 [70]:1; Ziomecki 1975, pp. 40, 43, figs. 11, 12; p. 157, no. 43; Eisman and Turnball 1978, p. 397, fig. 5. Oddy and Swaddling (1985, p. 45) correctly identified it as furnace. 79. Black-figure skyphos,

ca. 500 b.c., Theseus Painter; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Art Museums 1960.321; ABV 520.26; CVA, Baltimore 3 [USA 7], pls. 1, 2 [295, 296]; Ziomecki 1975, p. 151, no. 7. In the scenes often cited as comparanda from the traditional workshops at Solomos (Corinth) or Nabeul (Tunisia) (Lisse and Louis 1956, p. 32, figs. 9, 11) to justify a potter treading the clay, the potter is either on top of the mound of

clay (Nabeul) or outside it (Solomos), but never inside the cone as in the Athenian vase painting. The only time that the potter is “inside” the mound of clay is when the clay layer is very thin and spread out (Lisse and Louis 1956, p. 33, fig. 9 [sic]). 80. Eisman and Turnball (1978) interpreted the scene as clay preparation. See also Boardman 2001, p. 142, fig. 175; Scheibler 1986.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

209

this scene is from a potter’s workshop. The structures on the skyphos do not resemble any other kiln representations, nor can they be paralleled in the archaeological record. The stoking channel, always included in kiln representations, is absent. The closest parallel would be a bonfire; still, the basket, carried by the man who is approaching the conical structure, is difficult to explain if the structure is indeed a kiln. Another possibility is that the conical structures represent piles of clay, thus anchoring the scene, again, to a ceramic workshop. Similar tall piles of stored clay can be seen in traditional workshops, for example, on Crete and on Cyprus.81 The clay in these locations, however, is stored indoors so it can retain its moisture, whereas the scene on Robinson’s skyphos is clearly placed outdoors. The recent association of this scene with Athenian harvesting festivals is gaining ground, and appears to be a better fit for the imagery on the skyphos.82 In this case, the activities could be explained as olive processing and the transferring of oil into large amphoras.83 The structures, then, probably represent gathering areas where olives are pressed. The countryside setting for such activities would easily explain the presence of the branches that frame the composition. Alternatively, one can interpret the scene as grape harvesting, with wine being stored in the amphoras.

INSCRIP TIONS In addition to the depictions of workers, their equipment, and technical installations, 29 pinakes with pottery-making scenes also carry inscriptions (Tables 5.5–5.7; Figs. 5.22–5.27, 5.29).84 To Wachter’s seminal epigraphical study of the Penteskouphia pinakes, based on his personal examination of them, I have added three more inscriptions (A33, B21, B52); still more may await identification, especially among the uncleaned fragments kept at the museums in Berlin and at Ancient Corinth. Some intriguing statistical patterns emerge when we consider, first, the frequency of inscriptions on pinakes with potters at work versus the entire pinakes assemblage, and second, the overall frequency of inscribed Penteskouphia pinakes versus inscribed Corinthian vessels. Inscriptions appear on 30% of the iconographical subset of potters at work; this is substantially higher than the overall percentage of inscribed pinakes (16%) within the entire Penteskouphia assemblage (Appendixes V–VII). At another Corinthian ceramic production center, the Potters’ Quarter, only 40 inscriptions 81. The scene on the skyphos has also been interpreted as one of clay preparation (Jena Painter 1996, p. 18); Vallianos and Padouva 1986, p. 84, fig. 20. Other modern practices show, however, that whenever clay is wedged (pressed on the floor with one’s feet to remove air bubbles), the pile is quite low (hardly taller than 0.30 m), whereas the piles on the skyphos have considerable height. Cf. Hampe and Winter

1965, p. 87, pl. 33:1, for a similar workshop scene at Corigliano in Calabria. For extensive visual documentation of wedging clay in traditional Siphinian workshops, see Voyatzoglou-Sakellaropoulou 2009, pp. 358–387. Papadopoulos (2014) returns to the clay-wedging proposition, citing ethnographic parallels from Solomos, near Corinth. 82. Scheibler 2000, p. 27, pl. 6:3, 4; Fritzilas 2006. Muccigrosso (2012) cor-

roborated the agricultural connection by providing parallels from Egyptian paintings, albeit of a much earlier date 83. Scheibler 1986. 84. See also inscriptions on 10 pinakes with iconography loosely related to, or now disassociated from, pottery production (M6, M9, M10, M14, M15, M18, M22, M23, M27, M28).

210

Chap t er 5

TA B LE 5.5. I N S C R I P T I O N S O N C ATA L O G U ED P EN T E S KO U P H I A P I NA K E S Cat. No.

One-Sided A5

A6

Side A

Inscription

Side B –

Ποτēδν

–

Φλέβο̄ν μʼἀνέθε̄κε

A7

κάμῑνος

A10

Ποτēδν δ’ ē᾿ μι

–

–

A9

Ϙύλ(λ)ᾱς̣ Οὐ .[.]υ̣ [μ’ἀνέθε̄κε ]Ποτ̣ēδᾶ̣[νι ϝ]άν̣α̣κτι

A11

*Ποτēδν; traces of letters of a second inscription

–

(i) Φύσϙο̄ν̣ (?); (ii) [Ἀ]ρνε̄́σιος

–

A33

A34

– –

(i) μεμ; (ii) θ

Two-Sided

Pot t ers at wor k on side s A and B B2

Σόρ̣δις

B4

*[- - -][μ]ναμον

Ὀνύμο̄ν

Pot t ers at wor k on side A B61

*[. . .]ε[. .3 .]μ̣

scattered letters

Pot t ers at wor k on side B B6

–

[. . .]. άγαθος

–

B21

*Π

–

B23

Π[οτēδν]

B19 B22

Ἀ̄σο̄πόδο̄ρος e̓̆μὲ ἀνέθ[ε̄κε]

B25

[. . .]μ̣ι̣ελ̣ . σν . θ .[. . .]

B31

υιϙ

B28

B34

B36

B37

B40

B41

B42

*(i) Ποτ(ē)δ(ν) e̣ (?); *(ii) Π. –

–

–

Ἀριστόφιλ̣ο̣ς̣[. . . ?]

Στίπο̄ν

–

*Ξενϝοκλε̑ς̣[ μʼἀνέθε̄κε . . .]

*Δᾱ̆μο[. . .]

Ἀθε̄ν̣[αί]ᾱς ē̓μί

nonsensical letters

(i) *[. . . Π]οτει[δ(ϝο̄)νι ϝάνακτι?]; (ii) [. . .]ο̣ (?) –

[. . .]οσ̣φ or [. . .]ομ̣φ

B53

[‒⏕‒ μʼ ]ἀνέθε̄κε Ποτῑδϝο̄̄νι ϝάνατ(τ)ι αὐτό ποκʼᾱ[. . .]

B55

–

(i) [. . . . . . . ?]φοκα; (ii) κ̣άμ̣[ῑνος?]; (iii) Λόκρις ca. 7

–

–

(i) Τῑμο̄νίδᾱς ἔγραψε Βίᾱ; *(ii) [. . .]ἀνέθε̄κε το̑ι Ποτēδα̑νι

B43 B52

–

(i) Ποτĕιδν; (ii) Ἴγρ̣ο̄ν μʼἀνέθε̄κε

–

*[Ποτ]ε̄δά

*(i) Δεύς; *(ii) Λσιπ(π)ος

– –

–

Note: All readings are from Wachter 2001, except for A33 (von Raits 1964) and B4, B21, B42 (i), and B52 (my own). Multiple inscriptions on the same side of the pinax are indicated with i, ii, iii. Graffiti inscriptions are indicated with an asterisk (*).

have been recorded out of 2,343 inventoried ceramics, primarily vases.85 If we expand to a regional scope, taking in the Corinthia as a whole, the grand total of 163 inscriptions on all Penteskouphia pinakes exceeds the

85. Corinth XV.3, pp. 358–362, appendix I (A. L. Boegehold).

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

86. Amyx (1988, pp. 547–615) and Wachter (2001, pp. 34–115, nos. COR 1–127) list all dipinti and graffiti inscriptions on vases and offer extensive treatments of the inscriptions on the Penteskouphia and Pitsa pinakes. 87. Corinth KP-1338; Corinth XV.3, p. 360, no. 16, pl. 123. For other Middle Corinthian kotylai, see Corinth XV.3, pp. 116–124, nos. 572–613, pls. 27–29, 96–99. 88. Jeffery 1990, pp. 126–127. 89. Added red for inscriptions is also used on F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112 depicting horseback riders (IG IV 312; Wachter 2001, p. 136, no. COP 39).

211

total number of inscriptions (ca. 130) on all Corinthian vases, raising questions about the motives that led potters to include inscriptions in scenes placed on pinakes, and not those placed on vases.86 It is possible that that the potters of the pinakes felt freer to be more expressive and to inscribe their products, especially if the pinakes were meant to be displayed within their workshops or at a short distance from them. The Penteskouphia pinakes were produced in workshops specializing in symposium shapes, and it is exactly these shapes (kraters, kotylai, and pitchers) that carry the largest number of inscriptions from Archaic Corinth. At the Potters’ Quarter, for example, Corinthian potters placed over half of the inscriptions on kotylai, perhaps displaying both their esteem for the form and the personal attachment of a user to his/her drinking cup. In later times, the potter Echekles proudly signs his name on a kotyle as both producer and dedicant (Ἐχεκλε͂ς ἀν̣έ̣[θεκ]ε ποέσα̣[ς]; Table 5.6).87 To return to the inscriptions on Penteskouphia pinakes with scenes of potters at work, 8 of the inscribed pinakes are one-sided and 21 are two-sided, for a total of 29 pinakes. The 21 two-sided pinakes consist of three subgroups: first, a subgroup of five pinakes carrying inscriptions on both sides (B2, B4, B22, B31, B36), second, a subgroup of three pinakes carrying inscriptions only on the side with the imagery of potters at work (B40, B52, B61), and the third and largest subgroup, the remaining 13, which carry inscriptions only on the reverse of pottery-making scenes, possibly with little or no connection to that imagery. Pinax B2 is unique in that it bears imagery of potters at work, as well as inscriptions, on both sides. With the exception of four examples (A33, A34, B4, B6), all inscriptions appear on pinakes with depictions of kiln firings. Twenty pinakes carry only dipinti (A5, A6, A7, A9, A10, A33, A34, B2, B6, B19, B23, B25, B28, B31, B37, B40, B41, B43, B53, B61), five pinakes carry only graffiti (B4, B21, B34, B52, B55), and four carry both dipinti and graffiti (A11, B22, B36, B42). Since graffiti are relatively rare on the Penteskouphia pinakes, it may be of some importance that half of all graffiti appear on the pinakes with scenes of pottery production. They consist either of complete inscriptions placed in an orderly way along the edge of the pinax (B42 [ii]) or single letters, which may be abbreviations or incomplete inscriptions (B22 [side B, ii]). The inscriptions can be placed vertically along the backs of figures (A9, A10, B2 [both sides], B19 [i], B22 [side A], B25, B37), vertically along the fronts of figures (B19 [ii], B34, B42 [i]), horizontally on the upper part of the pinax (A5), or in a circular arrangement (A6, B53).88 Five inscriptions are written in retrograde (A34, B6, B19 [ii], B28, B31 [side B]). The inscriptions are mostly painted with the same slip as is used for the decoration, but occasionally they are added in a different red-firing slip, the “added red” of the black-figure technique (B28).89 Thematically speaking, the pinakes with pottery-making scenes include the following five types of inscriptions: dedicatory inscriptions, personal names, painters’ signatures, labels, and fragmentary or nonsense inscriptions. Pinax B53 combines, on the same side, a dedication and a potter’s signature. Dedications and personal names are also the two most common

212

Chap t er 5

types of inscriptions in the entire corpus of inscriptions on all Penteskouphia pinakes (see Appendixes V–VII). Dedicatory inscriptions. The inscriptions are formulated in two ways: either the name of the divine recipient is mentioned, in most cases Poseidon, sometimes accompanied by the otherwise unattested invocation ἄναξ, with no mention of the dedicator;90 or we have an ἀνέθεκεν formula with the dedicator’s name, but not always including the divine recipient (“x dedicated [me to Poseidon]”): A5, A6, A9(?), A10, A11, B19, B21, B22 (both sides), B23, B36 (side B), B42, B52, B53. A unique reference to the goddess Athena should also be included here: B37. Personal names. These may be the dedicators who commissioned the pieces, or potters who themselves dedicated the pinakes: A6, A9, A34 (i, ii), B2 (both sides), B6(?), B19 (ii), B22 (side A), B28, B31 (side B), B34, B36 (side A), B40 (iii), B42 (i), B55 (ii). All the personal names are male. The total of 16 names on these 13 pinakes account for one-quarter of all of the personal names that appear in the entire corpus, so there is a disproportionate frequency of names in this group, which accounts for just 9% of the entire corpus.91 Potters’ signatures. B42 (i), B53. Labels. A single example, κάμῑνος, next to a kiln: A7. Fragmentary or nonsense inscriptions. Fragmentary: A33 (i, ii), B4 (both sides), B25; nonsense: B41, B43, B61. A total of eight nonsense inscriptions are preserved on all Corinthian vessels and pinakes; the Penteskouphia pinakes, with a total of six, therefore carry a disproportionally large number of them, perhaps attesting to the more informal character of this medium.92 Below, I examine first the inscriptions that appear alongside scenes of potters at work. In a separate section, for the sake of completeness, I treat the inscriptions that appear on the reverse of such scenes, though they most likely have limited, if any, connections with them.

Insc r i p t ions on t he Sam e Side as S c en e s of Pot t e rs at Wor k The inscriptions that appear on the same sides as the scenes of pottery production are integral to the scenes (Figs. 5.22, 5.23). On 13 pinakes out of the 29 examples, the inscriptions accompany kiln-firing scenes: six on one-sided pinakes and seven on two-sided ones. Among these inscriptions, invocations to Poseidon occur most frequently (A5, A9–A11, B22, B36, B52), most likely emphasizing the need for divine protection of the firing, a critical stage of the manufacturing process.93 The five graffiti on pinakes A11, B22 (i, ii), B36, and B52 all refer to Poseidon; that on A11, scratched across the combustion chamber of the kiln, must have been incised after the firing of the pinax. The orthographic errors in Poseidon’s name on A5 and A10 can perhaps be explained by the low literacy levels of potters and workers.94

90. Mylonopoulos 2003, p. 204, n. 381. 91. Amyx 1988, pp. 605–608. He notes (p. 554) that no names on the Penteskouphia pinakes are “horsey” names with strong aristocratic connotations, since the potters, who, according to Amyx, were mostly the dedicants of these pinakes, were not entitled to these privileged names. 92. For other Corinthian nonsense inscriptions, see Lorber 1979, p. 110; Amyx 1988, pp. 601–602. For the nonsense inscriptions in the corpus of Penteskouphia pinakes, see Wachter 2001, p. 153, nos. COP 87–COP 90A–C. The rarity of nonsense inscriptions on Corinthian vessels is not surprising; Immerwahr (1990, p. 44; 2006, p. 137) has convincingly argued that this was a “distinctly Attic phenomenon” (2006, p. 137) that intensified from the second quarter of the 6th century b.c. onward, especially in black-figure pottery. 93. Verfenstein (2001) compares the dedicatory character of the pinakes to the kletic hymn (or prayer) in ancient Greek literature, in which the dedicator calls or summons a deity for his/her presence and continued assistance. 94. Wachter 2001, p. 151.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

213

1:1

A5

A6

A7

A9

A10

ca. 2:3

A34

A11 Figure 5.22. Selection0of inscriptions on the same side as a pottery scene. Scale 2:3, except where indicated. Drawings Wachter 2001, nos. COP 84A (A5), COP 84B (A6), COP 81 (A7), COP 10 (A9), COP 83 (A10), COP 62 (A34), COP 63 (B40); J. Denkinger (A11)

5cm

ca. 2:3

B40

0

214

Chap t er 5

Side A

Side B

Side B

B2

Not to scale Side A

B22

Side A

Side B

B31

Side A

0

5cm

Side A

Side B

Side B

B4

The remaining inscriptions that appear on the same sides as the pottery scenes include one ἀνέθεκεν (dedicatory) dedication (A6), possibly eight personal names (A6, A9[?]; A34 [i, ii], B2 [both sides], B31, B40 [iii]), and a label for the kiln on A7. Finally, three pinakes have inscriptions that are too fragmentary to interpret (A33, B4, B25).

5cm

B36 Figure 5.23. Two-sided pinakes with inscriptions on both sides.

Scale 1:1, except where indicated. Drawings after Rayet 1880, pp. 105–106, no. 2 (B2); Y. Nakas (B4); J. Denkinger (B22, side B); Wachter 2001, nos. COP 29 (B22, side A), COP 66 (B31), COP 23 (B36)

The Κ ά΄μ ι ν ο ς I nsc r i p t ion

A special note is required on the word κάμινος (kiln), which accompanies the kiln depicted on A7. This inscription, although it appears on a rather small pinax of low artistic quality, is noteworthy as the earliest label for a pyrotechnological structure; it leaves no doubt about what ancient potters in Corinth called the kilns in their workshops. A second occurrence of the word κάμινος is tentatively restored on pinax B40.95

95. Wachter 2001, pp. 144–145, no. COP 63. On M28, Wachter (2001, p. 150, no. COP 82) considers the fragmentary word [. . .]νος to be the ending part of a personal name, rather than an instance of κάμινος.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

215

Such labeling of structures is rare in vase painting, both at Corinth and throughout Greece in general. On the François vase, the fountain house (κρήνη) and the altar (βωμός) are labeled, but it is quite unusual to label a private, nonreligious, and noncivic structure, especially considering the small size of pinax A7.96 In addition to the painted label for the kiln on A7, the best-known occurrence of the word κάμινος to describe a ceramic kiln is in the Κάμινος poem, a pseudo-Homeric work whose composition had previously been assigned dates ranging from the Late Hellenistic period (130–80 b.c.) to Roman times (2nd or 3rd century a.d.), but has more recently been dated to ca. 500 b.c.97 I provide the original text and its translation below: Εἰ μὲν δώσετε μισθὸν ἀοιδῆς, ὦ κεραμῆες, δεῦρ’ ἄγ’ Ἀθηναίη καὶ ὑπέρσχεσθε χεῖρα καμίνου, εὖ δὲ μελανθεῖεν κότυλοι καὶ πάντα κάναστρα, φρυχθῆναί τε καλῶς καὶ τιμῆς ὦνον ἀρέσθαι, πολλά μὲν εἰν ἀγορῆι πωλεύμενα πολλὰ δ’ἀγυιαῖς, πολλὰ δὲ κερδῆναι, ἡμῖν δ’ ἡδέως σφιν ἀεῖσαι. ἢν δ’ ἐπ’ ἀναιδείην τρεφθέντες ψεύδε’ ἄρησθε, συγκαλέω δὴ ἔπειτα καμίνων δηλητῆρας Σύντριβ’ ὁμῶς Σμάραγόν τε καὶ Ἄσβετον ἠδὲ Σαβάκτην Ὠμόδαμόν θ’, ὅς τῆιδε τέχνηι κακὰ πολλὰ πορίζει στεῖβε πυραίθουσαν καὶ δώματα σὺν δὲ κάμινος πᾶσα κυκηθείη, κεραμέων μέγα κωκυσάντων. ὡς γνάθος ἱππείη βρύκει βρύκοι δὲ κάμινος πάντ’ ἔντοσθ’ αὐτῆς κεραμήϊα λεπτὰ ποοῦσα. δεῦρο καὶ Ἠελίου θύγατερ, πολυφάρμακε Κίρκη, ἄγρια φάρμακα βάλλε, κάκου δ’ αὐτούς τε καὶ ἔργα δεῦρο δὲ καὶ Χείρων ἀγέτω πολέας Κενταύρους, οἵ θ’ Ἡρακλῆος χεῖρας φύγον οἵ τ’ ἀπόλοντο τύπτοιεν τάδε ἔργα κακῶς, πίπτοι δὲ κάμινος. αὐτοὶ δ’ οἰμώζοντες ὁρώιατο ἔργα πονηρά. γηθήσω δ’ ὁρόων αὐτῶν κακοδαίμονα τέχνην. ὅς δὲ χ’ ὑπερκύψηι, περί τούτου πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον φλεχθείη, ὡς πάντες ἐπίστωντ’ αἴσιμα ῥέζειν.

If you will pay me for my song, O potters, then come, Athena, and hold your hand above the kiln! May the kotyloi and all the kanastra turn a good black, may they be well fired and fetch the price asked, many being sold in the marketplace and many by the roads, 96. For the inscriptions on the François vase (Florence, Museo Archeologico 4209), see esp. Pugliese Carratelli 1984; Wachter 1991. See also Beazley 1951; Cristofani, Marzi, and Perissinotto 1981; Pedley 1987, p. 69, fig. 8:b. Another labeled fountain appears on a red-figure hydria by Hypsis (Rome, Torlonia Collection 73; ARV 2 30.2). 97. The Suda (s.v. Ὅμηρος) quotes

the poem in its entirety; Poll. Onom. 10.85 quotes line 3. A detailed commentary by M. J. Milne on the epigram can be found in Noble 1988, pp. 186– 196; see also discussions in Richter 1923, pp. 94–95; Cook 1948, 1951. Sparkes (1991, p. 22) accepts a 6thcentury b.c. date, which would make it contemporary with the Penteskouphia pinakes. Faraone (2001) proposed that

(5)

(10)

(20)

(5)

three separate curses for kilns are to be found at its core (lines 11–21). Athena is the protective deity invoked in the epigram. For more recent discussion of the poem, see Leurini 2010. A. C. Cassio (appendix in D’Agostino and Palmieri 2016, pp. 174–176) refutes, on linguistic terms, that the poem is definitely Attic, but concedes that Attica could be one of its composition places.

216

Chap t er 5

and bring in much money, and may my song be pleasing. But if you potters turn shameless and deceitful, I then call upon you the ravagers of kilns both Syntrips (Smasher/Grinder) and Smaragos (Crasher) and Asbetos (Unquenchable) too, and Sabaktes (Shake-to-Pieces) and Omodamos (Lord of the Unbaked), who give the craft many problems. (10) Stamp on stoking tunnel and chambers, and may the whole kiln be churned up, while the potters wail loudly. As grinds a horse’s jaw so may the kiln grind to powder all the pots within it. Come, too, daughter of the Sun, Circe of many spells, (15) cast cruel spells, do evil to them and their handiwork. Here too let Cheiron lead many Centaurs, both those that escaped the hands of Herakles and those that perished. May they hit these pots hard and may the kiln collapse. And may the potters wail as they see the mischief. (20) But I shall rejoice at the sight of their luckless craft. And if anyone peeks in, may his whole face be scorched, so that all may learn to deal justly.98 In addition to providing the general term κάμινος for the entire kiln, the poem also preserves the more detailed term πυραίθουσαν for the stoking channel and the less specific term δώματα to describe, most likely, the combustion and pot-firing chambers.99 The specific names of the kiln daimons—Σύντριψ (Smasher/Grinder), Σαβάκτης100 (Shake-to-Pieces), Ὠμόδαμος (Lord of the Unbaked), Σμάραγος (Crasher), and Ἄσβετος (Unquenchable)—are hapax legomena in Greek literature, although the destructive actions of these daimons (δηλητῆρας, line 8) were all too familiar to the potters. The Archaic word κάμινος retained its meaning in the Classical period, when it appears in the writings of Herodotus: bricks are fired in a kiln (κάμινος) for the fortification wall around Babylon (1.179), and in a Delphic oracle received by Arcesilaus, the ruler of Kyrene, his political opponents, who found refuge inside a tower in town, are likened to amphoras within a kiln (κάμινος) (4.163–164). A cursory overview of ancient sources shows that κάμινος is used to describe structures that vary widely in their construction and operation.101 Bronzesmiths (Eust. Il. 2.182), ironsmiths (Anac. fr. 28), silversmiths and 98. Adapted from Milne’s translation in Noble 1988 and Humphrey, Oleson, and Sherwood 1998, p. 372. 99. It has been argued, less convincingly in my opinion, that πυραίθουσαν may refer to a daimon (Faraone 2001, p. 438, n. 8). 100. Cook (1948, p. 56) prefers Ἄμακτος to Σαβάκτης. Ἄμακτος would then represent the insufficiently kneaded clay, which would cause cracks

in the final terracotta product. 101. Ar. fr. 39; Arist. fr. 259; Callim. Hymn 3.60 (bronze, iron), fr. 115 (with reference to Hephaistos) (Pfeiffer 1949); Nic. Ther. 924; Diod. Sic. 5.27.2; Gal. De methodo medendi 12.185–186 (gold, silver, iron), 12.208; Lucian Dial. D. 8.4; Clem. Al. Strom. 2.18.91; Nonnus, Dion. 29.349 (with reference to Hephaistos). For gold (usually associated with the melting of silver), see

Posidonius in FGrH 2a.87.F116; schol. Thuc. 4.100.2; Strabo 3.2.8, 5.2.6, 5.4.6. For κάμινοι in the Athenian Agora poletai records, see Agora XIX, e.g., pp. 76–77, no. P5; pp. 94–100, no. P20; pp.121–122, no. P28; pp. 129–130, no. P38; pp. 132–133, no. P43. For a full discussion of kiln and furnace terminology in ancient sources see Hasaki 2002, pp. 54–69.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

217

goldsmiths (Plut. Vit. Alex. 51; Palladas of Alexandria, Anth. Pal. 6.61, 14.50), and coin makers all used a type of kiln (κάμινος) for their work. It seems that κάμινος was the generic word for any industrial, pyrotechnic structure, from metallurgical furnaces (for bronze, iron, silver, and gold), to furnaces in mines,102 to lime kilns,103 to hypocausts of baths.104 Occasionally the meaning of κάμινος is narrowed by accompanying adjectives, such as καμινευτική, ὀπτήτειρα, or κεραμεική for the ceramic kiln or ceramic oven.105 Although these kilns must have varied in structure in order to achieve different ranges of temperatures and firing atmospheres, it seems safe to assume that κάμινος refers to a semipermanent or permanent kiln/ furnace structure of some size, which could attain high temperatures. Βαῦνος was another term widely used in ancient sources, but was primarily reserved for metallurgical furnaces; the derogatory term βάναυσοι refers collectively to practitioners of pyrotechnic crafts, whether they operated a βαῦνος or a κάμινος.106 In the 5th century b.c., the Greeks used several words for heat-generating structures, including ἰπνός, κάμινος, κλίβανος, and πνιγεύς.107 The technical nuances of these terms were apparently lost to later generations, and lexicographers listed most of the terms as synonyms.108 Ancient sources also preserve the names of some smaller heating devices, often portable, that were associated with food preparation at lower temperatures, such as ἀνθράκιον, φουρνέλλον, or φουρνάκιον, to name a few.109 In modern times, traditional potters on Rhodes produced a flatbottomed, two-handled stewing pot, called a κλίβανος.110 102. For the κάμινοι in the mines of Laurion, see Crosby 1950, 1957; for example, IG II2 1370, line 2750. 103. Gal. De methodo medendi 12.219; Oribasius, Collectiones medicae 13.Δ.1, where πυρίτης λίθος (chert or flint?) was burned in a κάμινος; Aët. 15.15 (lime kilns are similar to the bronze-smelting furnaces); Epiph. Adv. haeres. 1.347 (lime kilns operating outside the city). 104. For bath furnaces, see schol. Ar. Plut. 535, 951; fr. 720 (Edmonds, FAC); Asterius of Amasea, Homil. 3.12.2; Gal. De methodo medendi 12.438. Another term for bath furnaces is attested in the Late Roman period in Palestine (Gadara), where they were called κλίβανοι (examples in SEG XXX 1687, dated to a.d. 662; SEG XXXII 1502, a.d. 455; SEG XLVII 1990, 6th century a.d.). 105. Dioscorides (De materia medica 5.85, for the smelting of a metallic stone in a metallurgical furnace) and Oribasius (Collectiones medicae 13.Π.2, for myrtle leaves baked inside a pot which in turn was fired inside a ceramic oven). Bricks were also fired in a

κάμινος in Olympiodorus, In Aristotelis Meteora commentaria IV.9.74r. See also Clement of Rome Ad Corinthios 8.2; Ath. 1.50; Didymus the Blind, Fragmenta in Proverbia 29; CALG, p. 173 (Zosimus Alchemista, who mentions a κάμινος φουρνοειδής). 106. For βαῦνος, see specifically Arist. Eth. Nic. 1107b17–20, 1122a30– 32, 1123a19–20; Pol. 1317b41 (among others); Colace and Gulletta 1997, pp. 67–68, s.v. βαῦνος. 107. Richter (1923, p. 96) translates ἰπνός as “potter’s oven” in Hippoc. Epid. 4.20. The word ἰπνός appears in Linear B as i-po-no (Kn 233, the reverse of Uc 160). See Chadwick 1973, pp. 324, 331–334; for an overview of suggested translations of the word (e.g., “dutch oven,” “cooking bowl,” “shallow open dish,” “earthenware bowl used for baking on a hearth”), see Jorro and Adrados 1985, s.v. KN 233. 108. A representative selection of the lexicographic entries (Erotian, s.v. ἰπνός; Hsch. s.vv. βαῦνος, ἰπνός, κλίβανος; Suda s.vv. βαῦνος, ἰπνός, κάμινος, κλίβανος, πνιγεύς) shows how all these terms were used inter-

changeably as synonyms. The φοῦρνος synonym derives from the Latin word furnus and would not have been used in pre-Roman times: Hero of Alexandria, Stereometrica 1.76.1; Geoponica 202. The ancient commentators of Aristophanes always equate his use of πνιγεύς and some derivative adjectives to a κάμινος that operated with charcoal: Suda s.v. πνιγεύς; schol. Ar. Av. 1001; schol. Ar. Ran. 122; schol. Ar. Nub. 96a, c; Sparkes 1962. 109. For portable heating devices, see CALG, pp. 321, 367; Hsch. s.v. ἀνθράκιον. For an in-depth discussion of the terms used in comic poets for cooking vessels, many of which also served as portable ovens, see Chatzidakis 2004. For archaeological examples, see Pisani 2003 for an extensive collection of terracotta models of ovens, primarily from Boiotia. See also Doumas 2004, pp. 409–413, figs. 7–9, for discussion of well-preserved portable ovens from Middle Helladic and Late Helladic contexts at Akrotiri on Thera. 110. Kyriazopoulos 1984, pp. 45–118, esp. p. 47, with illustration on p. 142.

218

Chap t er 5

Returning to the significance of the term κάμινος, it is not surprising that traditional potters in modern Greece still call the kiln το καμίνι, a term derived from the Byzantine word τὸ καμίνιον (pl. τά καμίνια). This survival in the vocabulary of traditional Greek potters emphasizes the strong spirit of conservatism in the language, technology, and organization of pottery production from antiquity to modern times.111

Insc r i p t ions on t he Re v ers e of S c en e s of Pot t er s at Wor k I turn now to the 18 pinakes that are inscribed on the reverse sides of the pottery scenes (Fig. 5.24). Five of these (B2, B4, B22, B31, B36) have inscriptions on both sides, and were discussed in the previous section. Thirteen additional two-sided pinakes bear inscriptions only on the reverse sides (B6, B19, B21, B23, B25, B28, B34, B37, B41–B43, B53, B55). Dedicatory inscriptions predominate, including both the invoked deity, usually Poseidon, and the verb ἀνέθεκεν (B19, B22, B42 [ii], B53, and B37 to Athena). In contrast, the dipinto inscription on pinax A6 gives the name of the person who dedicated it, Φλέβο̄ν, while leaving the divine recipient (presumably Poseidon) unspecified. There are also fragmentary references to Poseidon that preserve only the letter Π (B21, B23), personal names (B6[?], B28, B34, B55 [ii]), and a potter’s signature (B42 [i]), as well as some nonsense or fragmentary inscriptions (B41, B43). The majority of the inscriptions are dipinti, with only seven instances of graffiti (B4, B21, B34, B36, B42 [ii], B55 [i, ii]).

Pot t ers ’ Sig nat ur e s

Unfortunately, despite the wealth of depictions of potters at work on the pinakes, no scene of potters at work preserves a potter’s or a painter’s signature, and nobody declares his profession as κεραμεύς.112 Two Penteskouphia pinakes have egrapsen signatures. First, on pinax B42, Timonidas left his signature in a cursive dipinto (Τῑμο̄νίδᾱς ἔγραψε Βίᾱ) in the center of the pinax between the standing figure and the dog (Fig. 5.25). The reverse of B42 is a kiln scene. Second (F 511 / MNC 212), Milonidas, signing his name as a painter and as a dedicator, placed a cursive inscription (Μιλο̄νίδᾱς ἔγραψε κʼἀνέθε̄κε) in front of a chariot carrying Poseidon and Amphitrite (Fig. 5.26).113 Milonidas, a name not attested elsewhere, may be a patronymic from Milon.114 It may not be coincidental that the inscriptions, both written in cursive form, are strategically placed for maximum visibility. 111. Psaropoulou 1990. Kλίβανος, which is often used in modern Greek archaeological literature to refer to a ceramic kiln, was reserved in ancient times for the domestic oven used for food preparation. 112. As is done on many Archaic dedications on the Athenian Acropolis. See Raubitschek 1949, e.g., nos. 44 (Athens, Epigraphical Museum [EM]

12750), 150 (Athens, Acropolis Museum 3767, 3768, EM 6448), 178 (Acropolis Museum [no inv. no.]), 197 (Acropolis Museum 681), 209 (EM 6334), 210 (EM 6320, 6376, 6392, 6501), 227 (EM 6393). See also Webster 1972, pp. 5–6. The most recent scholarship takes the term κεραμεύς as a reference to the occupation of the dedicator and not to his demotic (Wagner 2000, contra

Vickers and Gill 1994, pp. 94–95). 113. IG IV 244; Wachter 2001, p. 136, no. COP 41. See also Payne 1931, pp. 108, 110; Geagan 1970, p. 34, fig. 2; Lorber 1979, pp. 74–75, no. 114, pl. 33; Amyx 1988, pp. 255, 591, no. 120, pl. 110:1; Jeffery 1990, p. 131, no. 20, pl. 20:20. 114. Amyx 1988, pp. 555, 607, no. 23.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

B6

219

B23

B28 B19

B34

B41

0

0

Not to scale

0

5cm

0

5cm B37

B43 Figure 5.24. Selection of inscriptions on the reverse sides of pottery scenes.

Scale 1:1, except where indicated. Drawings Wachter 2001, nos. COP 67 (B6), COP 73N (B23), COP 28 (B28), COP 43 (B34), COP 59 (B37), COP 90A (B41), COP 88 (B43), COP 2A (B53), COP 78 (B55); Y. Nakas, after Rayet 1880, p. 104, no. 1 (B19)

B53

B55

220

Chap t er 5

B42

1:4

If Timonidas was also the dedicator of his pinax, since the neatly written graffito on the border reads [. . .]ἀνέθε̄κε το̑ι Ποτēδα̑νι, then both painters emphasize equally their roles as producers and as dedicators. A Penteskouphia vase painter could also choose an alternative signature, stating that a pinax was “his own work” (αὐτοποιεία), to denote an even more intimate connection with his work.115 Three Penteskouphia pinakes preserve this term or a close variant, either in full or partially (Fig. 5.27): (1) a pinax depicting a chariot along with the inscription and a kiln firing on the reverse (B53); (2) a pinax depicting Poseidon and Amphitrite in a chariot (F 495 + F 513);116 and perhaps (3) another pinax with a similar chariot scene (MNC 209).117 This type of proclamation must have been a phenomenon limited chronologically to the Archaic period, and geographically mainly to Corinth; aside from a single instance of a fragmentary signature on a black-figure kantharos from the Athenian Acropolis depicting a Gigantomachy, it is not encountered in later periods or other places.118 Potters’ signatures have been tentatively suggested for two more pinakes. Pinax F 422 + F 908 preserves some letters that may refer to an ἐποίεσεν-type inscription. On F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112, with a horse115. Boardman (1954, p. 194, n. 122) included these inscriptions in his discussion of potters’ dedications. Wachter (2001, pp. 123–125, nos. COP 2B, C) offers more alternatives for the completion of αὐτο[. . .]. 116. IG IV 224; Wachter 2001, pp. 123–125, no. COP 2C (one of the three inscriptions on the pinax). 117. IG IV 223; Wachter 2001, pp. 123–125, no. COP 2B. 118. The inscription on the blackfigure kantharos reads ἀνέθηκεν ᾿Αθηναίαι αὑτὸς ποι[ήσας] (Athens, NAM

Akr. 1.2134; ABV 347; Karoglou 2010, p. 59). The inscription of a potter and dedicator on a red-figure krater reads: [Ἀ]θην[αίαι] Ὑγιεί[αι Κ]άλλις [ἐ]ποίησ[ε] καὶ ἀνέθ[ηκεν] (Athens, NAM Akr. 2.1367; ARV 2 1556; Karoglou 2010, p. 59, where she discusses the earlier misinterpretation of the shape and the intent of the inscription). For other artists’ signatures on Acropolis vase dedications, see Athens, NAM Akr. 2.762 (Oreibelos) and 2.806 (Myson); Karoglou 2010, pp. 166–167. See also below, p. 222, n. 126.

Figure 5.25. Signatures of Timonidas on B42 and a Middle Corinthian bottle from Kleonai (Athens, NAM 277). Scale 1:3, except where

indicated. Photos E. Galanopoulos, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/ Archaeological Receipts Fund; drawings (left) Y. Nakas, after AntDenk I, pl. 8:13; (right) Lorber 1979, pl. 10

Figure 5.26. Signature of Milonidas on a Penteskouphia pinax (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 511 / Paris, Louvre MNC 212). Scale 2:3. Geagan

1970, p. 33, fig. 2

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

B53 Figure 5.27. Inscriptions mentioning αὐτοποιεία (B53, Berlin, Antikensammlung F 495 + F 513, Paris, Louvre MNC 209). Not to scale. Draw-

ings Wachter 2001, nos. COP 2A, C (B53, F 495 + F 513); IG IV 223 (MNC 209)

F 495 + F 513

221

MNC 209

back rider scene, the partially preserved name Kanth(aros) is believed to have belonged a potter, since the name is common among communities of both potters and sculptors.119 The two ἔγραψε signatures on the pinakes, three αὐτοποιεία declarations, and two additional tentative suggestions make a total of seven instances of potters’/painters’ signatures on the Penteskouphia pinakes. The two ἔγραψε signatures are featured on the pinakes with potters at work, but not on the side that carries the work imagery. Three additional instances of signatures on Corinthian ceramics—Timonidas on a Middle Corinthian bottle from Kleonai (his second signature),120 Chares on a Late Corinthian pyxis,121 and Echekles on a Classical black-gloss kotyle from the Potters’ Quarter122—round out the very short list of 10 surviving potters’/painters’ signatures in the thousands of examples of Archaic and Classical Corinthian ceramics (Table 5.6; Figs. 5.25, 5.28).The Timonidas signatures on a Penteskouphia pinax and on the bottle from Kleonai underscore the importance of the location of the Penteskouphia site; as discussed in Chapter 2, the pre-Roman road identified near the 1905 findspot of the Penteskouphia deposit led to Kleonai in its eastbound direction (see above, p. 36). It is interesting that potters’ and painters’ signatures appear in both Attica and the Corinthia around the first quarter of the 6th century b.c.: Sophilos, Kleitias, and Ergotimos in Athens, and Timonidas and Milonidas in the Corinthia.123 These Athenian and Corinthian painters joined a small group of other Greek artists who had started signing their works in the 119. F 422 + F 908 (Amyx 1988, pp. 607–608, n. 28, nos. 19, 46; IG IV 237; Wachter 2001, pp. 126– 127, no. COP 8). F 554 + F 582 / C-1963‑112: IG IV 312; Wachter 2001, p. 136, no. COP 39 (Wachter does not discuss the possibility of a potter’s name). 120. Lorber 1979, pp. 37–38, no. 40; Amyx 1988, pp. 201, 383, pl. 84:1a, 1b; Wachter 2001, pp. 55–57, no. COR 27). Amyx and Wachter accept that the

signatures on the bottle and the pinax belong to the same person. 121. Lorber 1979, pp. 56–58, no. 83; Amyx 1988, pp. 388, 569–570, 604, no. 57; Wachter 2001, pp. 70–71, no. COR 57. 122. Corinth KP-1338; Newhall 1931, p. 10; Corinth XV.3, p. 360, no. 16, pl. 123; Amyx 1988, p. 599, no. Gr 21. Found at the north tower of the city wall at the Potters’ Quarter. 123. Jeffery 1990, p. 62.

222

Chap t er 5

TA B LE 5.6. P O T T ER S ’ A N D PA I N T ER S ’ S I G NAT U R E S O N A RC H A I C A N D C L A S S I C A L CO R I N T H I A N C ER A M I C S Name

Inscription1

Dipinto or Graffito

Chares

Χάρε̄ς μʼἔγραψε

Echekles

Ἐχεκλε͂ς ἀν̣έ̣[θεκ]ε ποέσα̣[ς]

Milonidas

Μιλο̄νίδᾱς ἔγραψε κʼἀνέθε̄κε

dipinto

Timonidas

Τῑμο̄νίδᾱς μʼἔγραψ̣ε

dipinto

Timonidas Unknown

Unknown Unknown

dipinto graffito

Τῑμο̄νίδᾱς ἔγραψε Βίᾱ

[‒⏕‒ μʼ ]ἀνέθε̄κε Ποτῑδϝο̄̄νι ϝάνατ(τ)ι αὐτό ποκʼᾱ[. . .]

[. . . ϝ]ά̣νακτι αὐτ̣[ό . . .]

[‒⏕‒ μʼ ἀνέθε̄κε Ποτēδϝ]ο̄νι ϝανακτι αὐτό[. . .]

dipinto

Object

pyxis, Paris, Louvre E 609 (Late Corinthian)

black-gloss kotyle, Corinth KP-1338 (Classical) Penteskouphia pinax F 511 / MNC 212 (Late Corinthian) bottle from Kleonai, Athens, NAM 277

Penteskouphia pinax B42 (Middle Corinthian)

dipinto

Penteskouphia pinax B53

dipinto

Penteskouphia pinax F 495 + F 513

dipinto

Penteskouphia pinax MNC 209

1 Readings for all entries are from Wachter 2001, except the last, which is from Boegehold’s appendix in Corinth XV.3, p. 360, no. 16. Not included are the tentative potters’ signatures on F 422 + F 908 and F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112.

7th century.124 While we have only 10 signatures of Corinthian potters and painters, there are more than 1,039 signatures on Athenian vases of the Archaic and Classical periods.125 Athenian potters and painters extended their habit of signing vases to pinakes, as some of the Acropolis pinakes show.126 In terms of prosopography, Corinthian ceramics provide three names for potters/painters of the Archaic period (Milonidas, Timonidas, and Chares) and one (Echekles) from Classical times. The list is slightly expanded by three Corinthians known from textual sources to have excelled in the ceramic industries: the potter Therikles (Ath. 11.470e–472e), a contemporary of Aristophanes, and the two clay modelers Butades and Demaratos (Plin. HN 35.151–152). In sum, then, a total of seven named ceramic artists represent the entire Corinthian ceramic industry, which would have employed several hundreds of craftspeople over several centuries. 124. Villard (2002) lists seven

ἐποίεσεν-type signatures already in the

7th century b.c., none of which is Attic. For example, a local Late Geometric krater from Ischia (Lacco Ameno, Museo Archeologico di Pithecusae 239083; Wachter 2001, p. 171, no. EUC 1), with a signature not preserving the name: [. . .]. ινος μ’ἐποίε̄σε̣[ν . . . ?] or [. . .]. ινος με ποίε̄σε̣[ν . . . ?]. On signatures of painters, see Siebert 1978; Rebillard 1994 (non vidi); Williams 1995. 125. See Lorber 1979, pp. 109–110, who also addresses the reasons for the paucity of Corinthian potters’ signatures as compared to Athenian. Two signatures placed on pots of Protocorinthian date are not considered in the present study, since the pots are not conclusively of Corinthian origin: (1) the imitation Protocorinthian arybal-

los from Eretria(?) with a signature by Pyrrhos: Πύρ(ρ)ος μ’ἐποίε̄σεν Ἀγασιλέϝο; Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 98.900; Hoppin 1924, p. 3; Lorber 1979, p. 13, no. 10; Jeffery 1990, pp. 83–84, 88, no. 22, pl. 6:22; Sparkes 1991, p. 66, n. 27, fig. IV.2; Wachter 2001, pp. 171–172, no. EUC 3; Hoppin also cites Buck (1910, p. 171, n. 9), who thinks it was made in Boiotia by a Chalkidian potter; and (2) the Protocorinthian jug of unknown provenance with a signature by Kallikleas, Καλ(λ)­ ικλέᾱς ποίᾱσε; Ithaka, Vathy Museum 292; Lorber 1979, p. 12, no. 7; Jeffery 1990, pp. 230–231, 234, no. 2, pl. 45:2; Wachter 2001, p. 169, no. ITH 2. 126. Skythes signed as the vase painter on two pinakes dedicated on the Acropolis (Athens, Acropolis Museum GL 2557-EAM 15126, GL 2586-EAM 15150; Karoglou

2010, pp. 78, 87, nos. 46, 78). Either the same painter Skythes or, most likely, a different Skythes dedicated an unsigned pinax (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2556; Karoglou 2010, p. 82, no. 60). Mikion signed NAM Akr. 2.1051 (Karoglou 2010, p. 96, no. 113). Paseas (NAM Akr. 1.2583; Karoglou 2010, pp. 84–85, no. 69) signed in a peculiar way, “one of the paintings of Paseas.” NAM Akr. 1.2498 (ABV 353; Karoglou 2010, pp. 92–93, no. 99) preserves the unknown potter’s signature on the back side. Potters’ and painters’ signatures on Athenian ceramics gained popularity in the periods after the Penteskouphia pinakes; only 32 of 1,039 signatures date to 600–550 b.c. The signatures represent ca. 200 names, with three times as many epoiesen signatures as egrapsen. See Hurwit 2015, pp. 71–95; Bolmarcich and Muskett 2017.

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

Figure 5.28. Signature of Chares on a Late Corinthian pyxis (Paris, Louvre E 609). Scale 1:2, except where indicated. Photos courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY; drawing Y. Nakas

127. Amyx 1988, p. 604. 128. For the possible phallic connotations of the name Φλέβων, see Pernice 1897, p. 35. 129. Athens, NAM 16464. For the Pitsa pinakes, see above, pp. 9, 50. Karoglou (2010, p. 47) notes that the pinakes from Pitsa and from Pen-

223

Not to scale

A total of 16 personal names appear on the pinakes under study (Table 5.7). It is conceivable that the other personal names placed on the pinakes with kiln depictions could refer either to potters who shied away from officially signing their work as makers, or to other crew members employed at the ceramic workshops. Amyx strongly believed that the dedicators of those pinakes were also members of the potters’ community.127 Although the Penteskouphia pinakes in general preserve a large number of personal names, only one occurs three times: Φλέβων appears on three pinakes, both with and without pottery scenes (Fig. 5.29).128 On A6 and F 557 the dedicatory inscriptions are identical, both in content and placement. A third pinax, F 530 + F 558, preserves an inscription mentioning Φλέβων as a dedicator. No person mentioned on the Penteskouphia pinakes openly discloses his geographical affiliation, in sharp contrast to the dedicator of a pinax from Pitsa, who ensured that his Corinthian origin was included (ḥο Ϙορίνθιος).129 Wachter has postulated a non-Corinthian origin for some of the names, such as Ἀσωπόδορος from Boiotia on B22, and Ἴγρων, a foreigner with spelling mistakes on B19.130 Λόκρις on B40 may be an ethnic clue, but it is difficult to ascertain whether he was a first- or second-generation immigrant. All of these names are otherwise unattested in Corinthian prosopography. teskouphia exhibit the Corinthian drawing style of a time when local vase painting was in decline. 130. Wachter 2001, pp. 273–274. Some misspellings of words (e.g., on F 496 + F 940 + fr. and F 485 + F 765) are also considered as evidence for the presence of foreigners, some from Ath-

ens itself, in Corinth (Wachter 2001, pp. 136–138, nos. COP 42, 44). For the presence of Phoenicians in Archaic Corinth, with little evidence for their active participation in ceramic manufacturing, see Morris and Papadopoulos 1998.

224

Chap t er 5

TA B LE 5.7 . P ER S O NA L NA M E S O N P EN T E S KO U P H I A P I NA K E S W I T H S C EN E S O F P O T T ER S AT WO R K Cat. No.

One-Sided A6

A9

A34

Side A

Names

Side B –

Φλέβο̄ν, a dedicator

–

Ϙύλ(λ)ᾱς̣

–

(i) Φύσϙο̄ν̣ (?); (ii) [Ἀ]ρνε̄́σιος

Two-Sided

Pot t ers at wor k on side s A and B B2

Σόρ̣δις

B6

[. . .]. άγαθος

B22

ˉ , a dedicator Ἀσο̄πόδο̄ρος

Ὀνύμο̄ν

Pot t ers at wor k on side B B19

B28

Ἴγρ̣ο̄ν, a dedicator

–

Ἀριστόφιλ̣ο̣ς̣

–

B31

B34

B36

B40

–

–

–

Στίπο̄ν

–

Λόκρις

–

Ξενϝοκλε̑ς̣ Δᾱ̆μο[. . .]

–

B42

Τῑμο̄νίδᾱς

–

B55

Λσιπ(π)ος

–

Note: Multiple inscriptions on the same side of the pinax are indicated with i, ii.

A6

1:1

F 557

F 530 + F 558

Figure 5.29. Penteskouphia pinakes with the name Φλέβο̄ν (A6, Berlin, Antikensammlung F 530 + F 558, F 557). Scale 2:3, except where indicated.

Photos Lorber 1979, pl. 17 (A6, F 557); courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (F 530 + F 558)

Sc ene s of Pot t ers at Wor k

225

Timonidas’s signature, which is followed by the word Βία, raises the question of the inclusion of an artist’s patronymic. It has been suggested (and almost unquestioningly accepted) that Βία (nom. Βίας) must be the father of Timonidas.131 In fact, Βίας has even been used to complete a fragmentary inscription, Β Ι [. . .] on a pinax from the Potters’ Quarter in Corinth.132 Before considering the possibility of Βίας as a patronymic, however, we should question whether it is even a personal name. Corinthian male names tend to be longer than those from elsewhere in the Greek world.133 The name Βίας, with the exception of the reconstructed instance from the Potters’ Quarter mentioned above, does not appear in Corinthian prosopographical lists, and it is a rare name in Greek antiquity overall.134 It is possible that Timonidas was a foreigner in Corinth, and thus his father’s name would have been a non-Corinthian one. If the inscription is taken to read “Timonidas painted, son of Bias,” it would be a rare example of a patronymic placed at the end of a signature; more common is the placement of the patronymic immediately after the son’s name and before the verb, as in the numerous Athenian Little Master Cups signatures.135 None of the other three Corinthian potters’ inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes mention their patronymics. Whether Βίας was himself a potter and/or Corinthian cannot be determined with the available evidence. The high quality of the drawing contrasts sharply with the hastily composed signature, which is inserted into the scene almost as an afterthought. Perhaps Βία is not in the genitive but in the dative case (with the final Ι missing), which would be translated as “Timonidas painted this for Βίας.”136 Faced with the issues of a rare name, uncertain grammatical case, and unusual placement on the pinax, we might explore whether Βία is best 131. For example, Lorber 1979, p. 13, and nos. 40, 41; Jeffery 1990, p. 88, no. 22, pl. 6:22; Williams 1995, p. 140. The formula “x ἐποίεσεν/ἔγραφσεν, son of y” is indeed attested on the imitation Protocorinthian aryballos possibly from Eretria; see above, n. 125. For another instance of a potter’s name and its patronymic in a very fragmentary inscription, see Corinth XV.3, p. 359, no. 3, pl. 122. 132. Corinth KN-46 (Corinth XV.3, p. 359, no. 5, pls. 56, 114, 122), preserving the leg of a man); Lorber 1979, p. 38, no. 41. 133. Few surviving names of Corinthian potters/painters range in length from five to nine letters in the nominative, and a reconstructed *Βίας has only four letters. Cf. Penteskouphia pinax Louvre MNC 210 (IG IV 239; Wachter 2001, p. 139, no. COP 49) which says [. . .]ογēτονίδᾱς μ’ἀνέθε̄κε. Pérez-Molina’s (1990) index of inscrip-

tions from Corinth and its colonies does not list a single four-letter male name. Female names tend to be shorter than male (e.g., Ἠχώ, Βιώ, Ἠώς, Ἤρα). The list of Corinthian names on Corinthian pots (Amyx 1988, pp. 605–608) contains no four-letter names. Some four-letter names, e.g., Δίον, Φίον, are used as “throwaway” names (Amyx’s term for names with no applied meaning, used for intruders in heroic scenes: Amyx 1988, pp. 552–553). 134. In addition to the pinax from the Potters’ Quarter, there are four more instances: LGPN I, q.v. (on Chios and Thera); LGPN II, q.v. (Attica); and another one from Sparta (Bechtel 1917, p. 572, cited in Amyx 1988, pp. 604–606). 135. For the Little Master Cups, see Beazley 1932. Twenty-two vessels from the Athenian Acropolis have signatures of ἐποίεσεν, ἔγραφσεν, or ἐκεράμευσεν

(Graef and Langlotz II, nos. 5, 6, 63, 64, 103, 107, 146, 147, 176, 326, 435, 451, 528, 553, 594, 762, 806, 833, 873, 1296, 1297, 1302), but none has a patronymic or a formula expressed in the same way as the Timonidas pinax. 136. Wachter (2001, pp. 129–130, no. COP 18) rejects the possibility of a dative case. In several instances, however, Corinthian potters did not follow the grammatical rules to the letter. Whether to interpret the αὐτο͂ on an aryballos from Corinth (C-1954-1) as genitive or dative was a matter of controversy until Wachter (2001, pp. 44–47, no. COR 17) argued persuasively for a genitive. A votive pinax dedicated to Athena on the Athenian Acropolis also does not preserve the iota in the dative form of the name of the goddess (Athens, NAM Akr. 2.594, ca. 400 b.c.; Graef and Langlotz II, p. 54, no. 594, pl. 45).

226

Chap t er 5

interpreted not as a potter’s name, but as a label for the depicted hunting dog (“Force”).137 Xenophon (Cyn. 7.5) offers a list of appropriate names for hunting dogs, including ’Οργή, Χαρά, ’Αλκή, Θυμός, and Λόγχη.138 A short name such as Βίας could be called out easily by hunters. Given that the figure on the pinax is interpreted as a hunter, not a warrior, and the dog could therefore be a hunting dog, the suggestion that we are dealing here with the name of a dog, and not with Timonidas’s patronymic, should not be dismissed. If indeed we have a combination of an artist’s signature and the labeling of an animal, it would match well the example on the Late Corinthian pyxis, where Chares included his signature and also labeled as many as five horses in the scene (Fig. 5.28).139 The common practice of Corinthian painters to label animals, especially horses, is also attested on two Penteskouphia pinakes where horses are labeled.140 Wachter diverges completely from the personal-noun interpretation, suggesting the adjective ἔμβια (“Timonidas painted these animated figures”), since he believes that Β is not the beginning of a second word.141 137. I should also note that Pausanias (2.4.6–7) refers to a sanctuary dedicated to Ἀνάγκη (Need) and Βία (Force) located on the northern slopes of Acrocorinth. 138. My thanks to Steve Johnstone for bringing this reference to my attention. 139. Paris, Louvre E 609; the horses’ names are: Πόδαγρος, Βάλιος, Ὀρίϝο̄̄ν, Ξσάνθος, and Αἔθ̄ν. Wachter 2001, pp. 70–71, no. COR 57. 140. Berlin, Antikensammlung F 565 (Πύρϝος and Ταχύδρο[μος]; Wachter 2001, pp. 149–150, no. COP 79) and F 508 + 2 frr. (Ξάνθ[ος]; Wachter 2001, pp. 140–141, no. COP 56). A horse was named Ϙόραξς, “Raven,” on a Corinthian column krater

(Paris, Louvre E 638; Amyx 1988, p. 574, no. 70; Wachter 2001 pp. 80–82, no. COR 70), a name also assigned to a dog in the Kalydonian boar hunt scene on the Athenian François vase (Wachter 1991, pp. 87, 93). There are also more generic animal labels, such as χοῖρος for a pig (as tentatively reconstructed for a hydria, Vatican Museum 16.438, by Lorber [1979, p. 61, no. 91], though Wachter [2001, pp. 100–101, no. COR 102] suggests κάπρος; see also Amyx 1988, p. 584, no. 102) and όνος for a donkey (panel amphora; Berlin, Antikensammlung F 1652; Amyx 1988, p. 584, no. 101). 141. Wachter 2001, pp. 129–130, no. COP 18.

c hap t er 6

Technolog y, Workforce, and Organization of Ceramic Workshops

The immediacy of the imagery of potters at work on the Penteskouphia pinakes accounts for their popularity in handbooks on ancient Greek ceramics and general surveys of Greek art and archaeology. Yet the small size and fragmentary condition of these objects certainly limits the type and amount of information we can glean from them. I presented the iconographical analysis separately in the previous chapter in order to separate the visual representations on pinakes and vase paintings from the comparisons, interpretations, and inferences from archaeological, archaeometric, experimental, and ethnographic data that I discuss in this chapter. My use of these wide-ranging sources of information is necessarily selective, but it is hoped that the examples chosen will fill in many lacunae in the visual evidence. The archaeological evidence consists of scant remains of potter’s wheel installations and numerous ancient kilns, both in the Corinthia and beyond. Archaic comparanda are preferred when possible, but an equally important consideration is the completeness of a feature regardless of its date. The scope of investigation has been widened both chronologically and geographically, since the two immediate groups for comparison, production loci at Corinth and Archaic ceramic workshops, are very limited. Archaeometric analyses of clays from Corinth provide a wealth of information about the richness and variability of clay resources in the area. They also pose serious challenges when we try to match natural clay deposits with fired ceramics made of purified and enhanced clays, themselves often a mixture of many clays. Finally, the ethnographic record of traditional potters in Greece and Cyprus can be helpful in reconstructing past practices, since the basic potteryforming techniques, tools, and installations of a potter have changed little over the last three millennia before the advent of electricity. Ethnographic analogies do not provide definite answers, of course, but they can help us in generating archaeological hypotheses and extracting richer information from our fragmentory archaeological record. The corresponding sections on pottery manufacturing stages in this chapter and the preceding one should be read together, even when some repetition is unavoidable. When all available sources of evidence are combined, they form a complete and coherent picture of the main stages of pottery production, from the procurement of raw materials to firing. More broadly, they shed light on the technology and organization of pottery workshops in

228

Chap t er 6

ancient Greece, within and beyond the Corinthia, and reveal certain aspects that can be still seen in traditional Greek workshops in more recent times.

T H E A RC H A E O L O G Y O F C ER A M I C P RO D U C T I O N AT A N C I EN T CO R I N T H At the outset of this chapter, it is important to remember how valuable the Penteskouphia pinakes are to the understanding of ceramic production in Corinth. In our search for comparanda to the visual evidence of the pinakes, we have to turn to sites beyond Corinth. The archaeology of ceramic production in Corinth does not match its celebrated place in ancient visual and textual sources and its prominent role in export trade.1 The iconographical abundance of workshop scenes on the Penteskouphia pinakes sharply contrasts with the lack in the archaeological record of ceramic kilns or other workshop features.2 Vessels themselves aside, a list of ancient evidence for potters in Corinth includes the 97 Penteskouphia pinakes, one kiln model from the Potters’ Quarter (Fig. 5.4), eight kilns (dating from the Archaic to the Byzantine period, some in potteries, some in tile works), and eight sites with production debris, such as firing test pieces, kiln furniture, and isolated kiln wasters of deposits or misfired vessels (Fig. 6.1; Table 6.1). The eight kilns represent the two major types, with four rectangular examples (Figs.  6.2–6.9) and four circular examples (Figs.  6.10–6.14). They date from the Archaic (two rectangular kilns at the Greek [East] Tile Works) to the Roman (one rectangular kiln at the West Tile Works; one rectangular kiln at Kokkinovrysi) and Byzantine times (three circular kilns, all in the Agora/Forum, dated to the 11th century).3 The kiln-like feature at Koutoumatza is undated. The most extensively excavated site—and the only one published—is that of the Greek Tile Works, a total uncovered area of ca. 416 m2, including pits and a stele shrine. One of the kilns at the Greek Tile Works has been preserved in a shelter, but all other kiln sites have been subsequently backfilled and remain largely unpublished. The five sites with workshop debris are the S. Tsibouri plot, the Gotsi plot (with 1,000 Protocorinthian aryballoi, a few pinakes, and possibly an additional kiln), the Potters’ Quarter, the Anaploga well, and the Vrysoula deposit in the western part of the city. Amphora and coarse-ware wasters have been found at the site of Hadji Mustafa (100 m north of the fountain), and kiln linings as well as wasters from amphoras and cooking and 1. Arafat and Morgan 1989; Shanks 1999, pp. 43–50; Sanders 2003b. 2. For a list of criteria to identify a pottery workshop in the archaeological record, see Stark 1985; Hasaki 2002, pp. 257–264; 2011, p. 15, table 1. No auxiliary features such as settling basins or any other production-related architectural remains were found at any of the kiln sites listed below. 3. Both the date and the function of some have been questioned. The struc-

ture at South Stoa 1936 is unlikely to have been a kiln (Corinth XI, pp. 19–21, figs. 14, 15). Sanders (2003a) also expresses doubts about the kiln sites at Agora Northeast 1936 and Agora South Central 1936. A circular structure in the Forum originally thought to be a ceramic kiln was later determined to be a bath furnace (Williams and Fisher 1975, pp. 6–7; corrected in Williams and Fisher 1976; Williams 1977). Despite its corrected identification,

the site is still mislabeled as a kiln in a later catalogue of Greek kilns (Seifert 1993, p. 101, no. 54). A structure originally identified as furnace/klibanos (Williams 1984, pp. 73–74) was later identified as an oven in Williams and Zervos 1985, p. 73, pl. 16a, b. For brief discussion of the production sites in Byzantine Corinth and archaeometric analysis of materials from these sites, see White 2009.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

229

TA B LE 6.1. TO P O G R A P H Y O F C ER A M I C P RO D U C T I O N AT A N C I EN T CO R I N T H Site

Dimensions (m)

Rectangul ar Kil ns

Date

Greek Tile Works, east kiln (Figs. 6.2, 6.3)

7.50 × 5.50

Late Archaic– Classical

Greek Tile Works, west kiln (Fig. 6.2)

3.70 × 2.70

Late Archaic– Classical

Roman Tile Works (Figs. 6.4–6.7)

3.80 × 3.80

Roman

References Merker 2006 (with earlier bibliography); Corinth NB 185, 189, 190

Merker 2006 (with earlier bibliography); Corinth NB 185, 189, 190

unpublished; located 43 m to the southwest of the Greek Tile Works; briefly noted in Robinson 1965, p. 144; Corinth NB 276, 277

5.20 × 3.80

Roman

unpublished; Daux 1965, pp. 689–691, figs. 1, 2; Robinson 1965, p. 144, fig. 129:a, b; Sakellariou and Faraklas 1971, p. 147; Corinth NB 276, 277.

Agora Northeast 1936 (Figs. 6.10, 6.11)

Diam. 2.70

Byzantine

Agora South Central 1936 (Fig. 6.12)

Corinth XI, pp. 16–17, figs. 9, 10; Papadopoulos 2003, p. 209, fig. 3.15

Diam. 3.00

Byzantine

Corinth XI, pp. 17–19, figs. 12, 13

Diam. 1.65

Byzantine

Corinth XI, pp. 14–15, fig. 8

Diam 1.70

undated

Kokkinovrysi (Figs. 6.8, 6.9)

Cir cul ar Kil ns

St. John Theologos Church 1937

Koutoumatza(?) (Figs. 6.13, 6.14)

Wor kshop Debr is/Kil n Wast ers Potters’ Quarter

–

Gotsi plot (with possible kiln)

Geometric– Classical

–

Archaic

Vrysoula

Corinth XV.1 Protonotariou-Deïlaki 1971, p. 68, pl. 58:a

Anaploga well

– –

Classical

S. Tsibouri plot

–

Roman

Hadji Mustafa

–

Byzantine

Workshop debris southwest of Acrocorinth

–

Byzantine

Sanders 1995, pp. 229–230, map on p. 234; 2003a, p. 397; 2003b, p. 36

–

Byzantine

Sanders 2003a, p. 397

Asklepieion/ Roumeliotika

Archaic

Corinth NB 249, pp. 165, 167–168; 192–195

Corinth VII.2

Pemberton 1970

Drosogianni 1968, pp. 195– 200

Sanders 2003a, p. 397; 2003b, p. 36

230

Chap t er 6

Figure 6.1. Map of Corinth with known ceramic production sites. Not shown: S. Tsibouri and Gotsi plots. J. Herbst

storage pots have been found at an unnamed site southwest of Acrocorinth (west southwest of the first gate of Acrocorinth). Finally, wasters of glazed Byzantine wares and kiln stacking equipment have been found at a site near the Asklepieion, in the general area of Roumeliotika. The periods represented are Archaic (pinakes, kiln model, production debris, two kilns), Classical (one production debris site), Roman (two kilns, one production debris site), and Byzantine (three kilns, three production debris sites). In this spotty scattering of production sites across time and space, it is easy to overlook the stark fact that no Archaic pottery workshop site with a kiln has come to light yet. The clustering of workshops in the western Corinthian landscape would mesh well with the notion that pottery-production sites in Corinth were perhaps decentralized so that potters could take advantage of their proximity to clay sources as well as access to fuel, water, and farmland.4 This pattern

4. Arafat and Morgan 1989; Morgan 1995, pp. 319, 321.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

231

a

b

0

10 km

Figure 6.2. Plan of kilns from Greek Tile Works: (a) west kiln; (b) east kiln. Merker 2006, p. 6, fig. 3; courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.3. East kiln at Greek Tile Works, from north. Photo courtesy Corinth Excavations

5. Landon 2003, pp. 47, 49, figs. 3.1, 3.2.

of small production loci dispersed in the landscape in small clusters was the prevalent mode of production throughout antiquity, dating back to the early 8th and 7th centuries b.c. The locations of the Corinthian ceramic workshops should also be examined in light of the spatial distribution (or even clustering) of springs along the northern edge of the lower terrace at Corinth. It is clear that ready access to water was a major consideration for Corinthian pottery workshops and especially for tile works, as the latter required efficient ways of processing massive quantities of clay.5

232

Chap t er 6

Late Roman grave 44.176

0

5

10 m

Figure 6.4. Roman Tile Works. Complete plan of trenches. J. W. Shaw, courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.5. Plan and sections of Roman Tile Works. J. W. Shaw, courtesy Corinth Excavations

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

Figure 6.6 (left). Roman Tile Works, from northeast. Photo courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.7 (right). Roman Tile Works, from north. Kiln floor, southern part of area. Photo courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.8. Kokkinovrysi kiln, from south. Photo courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.9. Kokkinovrysi kiln, overhead view, from south. Photo courtesy Corinth Excavations

233

234

Chap t er 6

Figure 6.10. Plan and section of kiln at Agora Northeast 1936. Corinth XI,

p. 16, fig. 9

Figure 6.11. Kiln at Agora Northeast 1936, from south. Photo courtesy Corinth Excavations

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

Figure 6.12. Plan of kiln at Agora South Central 1936. Corinth XI, p. 18, fig. 12

Figure 6.13 (left). Koutoumatza kilnlike feature, from west. Photo courtesy

Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.14 (right). Koutoumatza kiln-like feature, from north. Photo

courtesy Corinth Excavations

235

236

Chap t er 6

Figure 6.15. Geological map of the region surrounding Ancient Corinth. Whitbread 2003, p. 3, fig. 1.1

T H E P O T T ER ’ S C L AY S Ancient potters, much like their modern associates, would start their work by collecting their primary material, clay, from suitable clay beds that had previously been identified within reasonable proximity to their workshops and tested for their qualities. If we take a second look at the clay-quarrying scenes on the Penteskouphia pinakes, we can attempt to decipher whether any specific topographical information about the Corinthian clayscape is encoded in them. Visual analysis of the clays used to make the Penteskouphia pinakes can help us to correlate them with established types of Corinthian clays, but in the absence of petrographic or other archaeometric analysis of the clays used for the pinakes, it is challenging to locate specific clay quarries. It is notoriously difficult to match fired clays with clay deposits and to associate workshop locations with surrounding clay deposits; Corinth, albeit rich in clay, is no exception. The geology of the area presented both advantages and limitations to the potters. Hard limestone pebble conglomerates cap the clay beds in the area; this is evident in how the pinakes depict potters collecting clay in scarps, to avoid digging through hard rock. Penteskouphia hill, to the east of the findspot of the pinakes, is composed of Middle Triassic to Lower Jurassic limestones with a minor shale-sandstone-radiolarite component. These strata are among the oldest formations in the Corinthia (Fig. 6.15).

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

237

Figure 6.16. Potters’ Quarter, as seen from Acrocorinth, with indication of the course for the west city wall. After

Corinth III.2, p. 79, fig. 53

6. For traditional clay extraction techniques used in Messenia, see Blitzer 1990, p. 680, pl. 99:a, b. In other potting cultures (e.g. Djerba in Tunisia), potters dig deep underground galleries for mining clay. See Combès and Louis 1967; Hasaki 2005, pp. 149–151, with earlier bibliography. 7. Isthmia II, pp. 33–46, pls. 15–19, 55–58; Gebhard 2002b. 8. The west chamber of the Theater Cave measures 3.10 × 4.45 m; the east chamber measures 3.86–4.42 × 4.30–4.90 m. 9. Whitbread 1995, p. 340, fig. 5.40. 10. Jones et al. 1986, pp. 173–189; Bynum 1995; Whitbread 1995, p. 341; 2003.

Here, as elsewhere in Greece, the geology determines the range of methods for clay extraction. Clay beds are most readily accessed by surface collection from hill scarps and riverbanks, through pits, or through short tunnels dug into the hills.6 We are not sure how deep into the clay the workmen could dig, or whether they created wide underground clay galleries. Some insight into how Corinthians dug through clay layers may be provided by looking at two large caves, admittedly of nonindustrial character, at the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia: the Northeast Cave and Theater Cave, which are dug into the clay (marl) layer, with dining couches, supports for tables, and other features also cut into that layer.7 The individual areas average ca. 4 × 4 m without any internal support.8 Although the ability to dig these galleries is therefore attested, it is dubious what advantage, if any, these galleries would have offered potters compared to collecting clay from exposed scarps, so readily available in the landscape. Pinax B1 shows potters collecting clay from a scarp where outcrops of clay are exposed on both sides. Many ravines radiate from the northern slopes of Acrocorinth down to the Corinthian shore; the sides of these ravines are often clay scarps with north–south orientations. The topographical contours around the Potters’ Quarter and Anaploga to the east of the Penteskouphia pinax site define a surface reminiscent of the landscape depicted on B1. In fact, the scene has been interpreted as perhaps representing a clay deposit close to the Potters’ Quarter (Fig. 6.16).9 In reality, however, the landscape shown on B1 could depict any area to the northwest or southwest of Acrocorinth, possibly even closer to the findspot of the pinakes than to the Potters’ Quarter, such as an area near the Penteskouphia village. In a recent visit to the area, along the national highway from Corinth to Tripolis, to the South of the Penteskouphia village, this limestone pebble conglomerate scarp with the clay deposit beneath it was visible. (Fig. 6.17).10 It is very likely that the pinakes were produced in a potters’ community located in a favorable clayscape, near the 1905 recovery spot of the pinakes. Regardless of where we place the location of the depicted clay source, the potter has accurately rendered his surrounding natural environment on

238

Chap t er 6

Figure 6.17. (a) Clay deposit under (b) a conglomerate shelf near the national highway to Tripolis. Photo E. Hasaki

the pinax.11 One can easily imagine that he must have visited many of the clay sources himself, and was familiar with the collection processes involved. A firm knowledge of the local topography and of the geological processes that can expose different layers with good clay deposits must have been an important skill for the potters to master, and to pass on to the younger members of their workshops.12 Internal clues about the clays used for the pinakes are scarce. In terms of visual analysis, the Munsell readings for these clays range from 7.5 YR 7/4 (pink) to 10 YR 7/4 (very pale brown) (see above, p. 48). The clays used for the pinakes seem to match in appearance several clay deposits in nearby sites such as Nikoletto (with lignite clays), Anaploga, and the Potters’ Quarter, which have been sampled by Whitbread.13 This means that the makers of the pinakes could use different types of clay that were readily accessible to them. The recovery site of the Penteskouphia pinakes lies within an area of clays that consist mainly of highly calcareous Pliocene marls. These belong to the group of clays characterized as “White Clay of the Corinthian plain” by Farnsworth and as “yellow clays” by Whitbread.14 Quite a few of the Penteskouphia pinakes display lime spalling (e.g., A2, B2, B29), a common occurrence for all clays, especially calcium-rich ones.15 The red clays that belong to the terra rossa type of soils have also been detected halfway between Anaploga and the Penteskouphia village, but were not used in the pinakes.16 No Penteskouphia pinax has been subjected to petrographic or chemical analysis, but even if compositional data were available, it is doubtful that it could point to specific raw clay sources with known fingerprints. Matching modern clay deposits with ancient ceramics is far from straightforward, and has created more questions than answers for archaeometrists and archaeologists alike. There is a marked discrepancy between the chemical and mineralogical compositions of modern clay deposits and those of Corinthian ceramics; this makes it a challenge to locate the clay layers chosen by the ancient potters of the Corinthia, to test the desired qualities in the raw clays, and to reconstruct the steps taken to transform them into workable clays.

11. Albeit from a different cultural and chronological horizon, a modern photo of potters collecting clay at the Hausa village of Tasmaske (Niger) is strikingly similar to the scene on B1; see Gosselain and Livingstone Smith 2005, pp. 35–36, figs. 2, 3. 12. For eustatic and tectonic processes, see Whitbread 2003, p. 3. 13. Whitbread 1995, pp. 314–329. 14. Farnsworth 1970; Whitbread 1995, p. 309; 2003, p. 7, table 1.1. The variety of terms used for the same type of clay can be confusing. 15. Whitbread 2003, p. 7, n. 25. 16. Whitbread 2003, p. 8.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

17. Kilikoglou, Maniatis, and Grimanis 1988. 18. Jones et al. 1986, pp. 173–189; Bynum 1995; Whitbread 1995, pp. 255–346; G. Sanders (pers. comm.). 19. For sampled clays from Penteskouphia, see Whitbread 1995, pp. 264, 319, 331, clays 6 and 20 listed on tables 5.6 and 5.10, mapped on fig. 5.3; Whitbread 2003. RodríguezÁlvarez (2019, pp. 149–156) collected 19 samples from clay beds mostly to the north of Ancient Corinth (see map on p. 367) and analyzed 12 of them for clay shrinkage and porosity (pp. 367–402). The three samples collected from the Penteskouphia ravine (samples CCL 015–017) and two from the Potters’ Quarter (CCL 018–019) turned out to be unsuitable for further analyses. 20. For the “individual workshop” and “nucleated industries” as modes of production, see Peacock 1982, pp. 31–43. Arnold (1985, 2005) also discusses potteries operating in the workshop mode of production. 21. See Bishop, Rands, and Holley 1982 for a list of strategies adopted by potters for the collection of clay.

239

The discrepancy between the compositions of modern deposits and of ancient finished products can be explained in various ways. First, the potters could have mixed clays and added temper to produce a satisfying clay paste; this mixing of clays would have obscured any original distinct geological signatures. Second, clay deposits that have been continuously exploited over a long period of time tend to display great variability in their chemical and mineralogical fingerprints, both vertically and horizontally along the same geological layer. Finally, some clay deposits may have been exhausted in a specific location, or displaced through natural (e.g., seismic) or human intervention. It may be a futile exercise, therefore, to examine clays with continuously varying geological signatures that have been intensively modified, through purification, tempering, and firing in a potter’s workshop, and try to match them with modern clays tested in their natural state.17 The challenge of identifying local clay sources is exacerbated by the paradox that archaeometric analyses of clays extracted near ancient production centers at Corinth have deemed them “unsuitable” or “inferior,” because they have demonstrated poor firing qualities in lab experiments.18 Whitbread, having sampled three sites around the Penteskouphia area, raised doubts about their suitability for use by Corinthian potters.19 About 1.6 km to the northeast of the pinakes’ findspot, however, a Byzantine pottery workshop has been identified through surface finds of wasters at the site (Fig. 6.1; see above, pp. 228–230). The same inconsistency between archaeometric and archaeological evidence is found for the clays from the Potters’ Quarter and the Roman Tile Works, undoubtedly major locations for the Corinthian ceramic industry. What is clear from these known workshop sites is that one cannot rule out the operation of ancient ceramic workshops in areas with modern clay beds deemed “unsuitable”; ancient potters may not have shared our modern perceptions of what constitutes a workable clay. To further support the notion of a required proximity of workshop and clay source, we can add the ethnographic cross-cultural observation that potters tend to locate their workshops within a radius of 5–7 km from clay deposits, and quite often not more than 1 km away. Such estimates are less useful for the densely occupied ceramic centers of the northwestern Corinthia, where potters’ communities constitute nucleated industries operating in the “workshop” mode of production; here, clay beds abound in a total area of ca. 4.5 km2.20 Especially for the tile works at Corinth, this close proximity to clay beds was vital.21

T H E P O T T ER ’ S E Q U I P M EN T The Pot t er’s Wh eel Once the clay is collected and transported to the workshop, there ensues a long process of crushing the lumps of clay, levigating them in basins to remove impurities, and often enriching the purified clay with temper to impart the qualities that are desirable in the finished product. The potter wedges the clay on the floor with his feet until the right consistency is reached, and then it is stored away for future use. Some clays improve with prolonged storage. Right before using the clay on the wheel, the potter or his assistant kneads

240

Chap t er 6

it with his hands to restore flexibility and remove air pockets. None of the Penteskouphia pinakes depict these processes or facilities, with the exception of the severely damaged A4, which may show two workers wedging clay on the floor of the workshop right next to a potter working on the wheel, and B18, where an elderly worker may be treading clay. The second major phase of production is the forming of the object. The Penteskouphia pinakes show potters working only at the hand-operated wheel, but we know that Corinthian workshops employed additional forming techniques, such as molds (e.g., for figurines), and sometimes combined methods, such as hand-building and wheel-finishing, for making utilitarian coarse wares such as amphoras.22 Our evidence for the ancient potter’s wheel is limited to iconographical sources, a few archaeological examples, ethnographic parallels, and experimental replications.23 As no complete wheel apparatus survives, we must rely on vase paintings to estimate its original size, based on the size of its users, and complement this visual evidence with ethnographic and experimental data to hypothesize about the materials used and the assembly of the various parts. We have no sources to inform us about the wheel’s maintenance and durability, the use of any lubricants for better rotation, the use-life of the wheelheads, geographical variations, or the retrofitting of wheels for throwing specific shapes or sizes of vessels (such as small drinking versus large storage vessels). It is possible, though there are no corroborating sources, that workshops built their competitive edge on the particular construction and maintenance of their wheels. The Penteskouphia depictions show the same type of hand-operated wheel as the more numerous Athenian representations of potters working at the wheel, suggesting that this “fast” wheel type was widely used in Greek antiquity.24 Its popularity continued in Roman times, as Pompeiian frescoes suggest.25 Hand- and foot-operated wheels (also known as kick wheels) are the two most popular types of traditional (not electrically powered) wheels.26 Kick wheels consist of an upper, narrower wheelhead and a lower, wider flywheel. The wheelhead and the flywheel are connected to the vertical axle, which, like the hand wheel, ends in a pivot inserted in a socket. The kick wheel is operated only by the potter, who kicks the lower flywheel with his foot and forms the vessel on the upper wheelhead with his hands. The hand-spun wheel is operated by the potter’s hand, often aided by an assistant. Both types of wheels belong to a larger group of rotating surfaces (turntables and roulettes) used by potters to form the entire vessel on one throw, or to assemble in one piece separately wheel-thrown parts.27 Both 22. General discussions of forming techniques can be found in Rice 1987, pp. 128–136, esp. p. 133, fig. 5.9; Schreiber 1999, pp. 9–30; Papadopoulos 2003, p. 220; Roux 2016; Cuomo di Caprio 2017, pp. 117–165. 23. For a recent treatment of archaeological, textual, iconographical, and experimental evidence on the wheel used in the Archaic and Classical periods, see Hasaki 2019. 24. Richter (1923, pp. 4–5) is rather

vague in her discussion of these scenes. See also Vidale 2002, pp. 287–305, esp. figs. 73–76. Some ancient vase depictions show potter’s wheels used by actors or circus performers (e.g., Tampa Museum of Art, Noble Collection 86.83; discussed in Russell 1994, p. 15, no. 2, with earlier references). See recently Pulitani et al. 2017 for an experimental use of the wheel as performance device. 25. Peña and McCallum 2009;

Cuomo di Caprio 2017, pp. 138–139. See also above, p. 17, n. 47. 26. For general discussions of the wheel in ancient societies, see Childe 1954; Rieth 1960. 27. For extensive definitions of the various terms describing turntables, roulettes, and wheels, and for a discussion of the slow vs. fast wheel, see Eiteljorg 1980, pp. 445–449; for terminology for Minoan turntables and wheelheads specifically, see Evely 1988; 2000, pp. 259–322.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

241

are considered fast wheels, meaning that they are capable of generating and maintaining sufficient momentum. Occasionally the potter combines a number of different rotating surfaces—for example, both a turntable and a wheel—to form a single object. Therefore the term “wheel-made” includes objects made (or “thrown”) entirely on the wheel as well as objects initially made with another technique but given their final touches on a wheel (“wheel-finished”).28 As central as they were to the operation of a workshop, potter’s wheels rarely survive in the archaeological record due to the perishable nature of their wooden elements and the remelting of their metal parts. The only clue to the existence of the wheel is often a hollow in a stone that served as a socket for the pivot.29 A handful of archaeological sites provide evidence for wheel installations in prehistoric and historical contexts. In the Neopalatial Artisans’ Quarter at Mochlos, a pivot stone believed to have supported a wheel axle in Building A has been reported.30 At at the potters’ quarter at Gouves (LM IIIB), stone sockets and clay disks have been found together leading to a reconstruction of a hand-operated wheel with a tall axle.31 Those parts of the wheel that were made of clay fare better in archaeological contexts: for example, a large number of terracotta bats or wheelheads have survived from the prehistoric Aegean, mainly from Crete but also from other Aegean islands and the mainland. Evely has published over 100 examples of Minoan disks, ranging in diameter from 0.25 to 0.75 m and in weight from 4 to 10 kg.32 In post–Bronze Age sites, the examples are spaced far apart: two wheelheads from Hellenistic contexts in the Athenian Agora and in ancient Elis, a socket stone from Roman Chalkis, and some ground depressions for wheels in Byzantine Athens.33 In the Athenian Agora, a terracotta wheelhead from a potter’s wheel was excavated in a cistern (EQ 15:3) in a context dated from 150 b.c. to the end of the 1st century b.c.34 It has a smooth upper surface and three concentric rings on its underside. The outer, fourth one is chipped away. Its preserved diameter is 0.41 m, preserved height 0.056 m, and its weight 5.2 kg. The Hellenistic example from Elis 28. Both the fashioning surface and fashioning technique contribute to the making of a vessel, with several combinations possible. Courty and Roux (1995) discuss at length and visually document how later use of the wheel can mask earlier techniques that did not involve the wheel, and how some handbuilding techniques may be mistaken for wheel-throwing. Choleva (2012) also notes that the term “wheel-thrown” denotes a specific throwing technique, and not merely the use of a specific rotating surface. See Roux 2016 for earlier bibliography and a detailed presentation of fashioning techniques requiring and not requiring rotative kinetic energy. 29. Mannoni and Giannichedda (1996, p. 83, fig. 9) suggest that if a wheel was in contact with a wall, one could expect some surface weathering on

that wall. Such cases, however, are rare in the archaeological record, where walls are usually preserved at low heights and almost always lack their original surfaces. 30. For Building A at Mochlos (the Rear Yard and Potter’s Pit), see Soles 2003, pp. 36–38, figs. 4, 7, 18–22, pl. 14. A hole sizeable enough to have supported the pivot stone of a potter’s wheel has been reported from Kommos (Diam. 0.20; D. 0.10 m), although no pivot stone has been identified with certainty; see Van de Moortel 2001, p. 34, nn. 35–37, fig. 29, where more examples of pivot stones (some more securely identified than others) are mentioned, including some from the potters’ quarter at Gouves (LM III). 31. Hadji-Vallianou 1995, 1997. At Gouves, in room XI of Building A, a stone socket of a wheel, a clay disk

(Diam. 0.37 m), a lekane, a pithos, and ceramic stands to paint krateriskoi, among other artifacts, were excavated. The excavator had first reconstructed a foot-operated wheel at Gouves (room similar to that reconstructed at Pitsidia, a LM IB villa southwest of Phaistos), where in room XIX a clay disk (upper Diam. 0.27 m) has been found, along with a number of stone artifacts resembling sockets. The main reason offered for a foot-operated wheel at Gouves was a stone on the floor that could have served as a resting place for the potter’s foot. 32. Evely 1988; 2000, pp. 259–322; Berg 2015. 33. See discussion and illustrations in Hasaki 2019. 34. Agora XXXIII, pp. 132–133, no. 376, fig. 59, pl. 49.

242

Chap t er 6

was found in the gymnasium area, near the canal by the river, in 1961.35 It has a diameter of 0.60 m and has five rings on its underside. No weight is recorded. Scholars have not reconstructed how these wheelheads would have functioned, and the breakage rate of these heavy clay disks may have been considerable. It is unknown whether the concentric rings on the underside would have offered any technical advantages to the potter. In a Roman pottery workshop at Chalkis dated to the 1st–2nd century a.d., a cylindrical stone block with a central hole was interpreted as a pivot stone for a wheel axle.36 Finally, excavations in Byzantine pottery workshops to the south of the Acropolis hill in Athens have recognized shallow circular pits (Diam. 0.50 m) that were interpreted as depressions to accommodate stone sockets for potter’s wheels.37 A stone socket for the insertion of an axle, however, is not conclusive evidence for the presence of a hand-operated vs. a foot-operated (kick) wheel. While no ancient depictions of kick wheels have survived, a single source dated to the 2nd century b.c. mentions a foot-operated wheel: “So a potter sitting at his work, and turning the wheel with his feet, who always lies down in anxiety about his work and every work of his is taken into account” (Sirach [Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus] 38.29; see also below, p. 307). The date of the source does not help us, however. It is not possible to estimate the date for the introduction of the kick wheel or to know whether it was adopted quickly or slowly. We also do not know if potting communities used both types of wheels concurrently. The schematic depictions of potter’s wheels on the Penteskouphia pinakes and in other Greek depictions adequately capture their general form, but leave us in the dark about what materials were used or how the separate parts were joined together. The ancient Greek potter’s wheel must have consisted mainly of one horizontal element on the top (the wheelhead, which could have carried a detachable clay bat) and a vertical element, the axle. To make the wheel turn faster, the axle usually terminates in a pivot, which in turn rotates in a socket carved in a stone. Vidale studied the wheels depicted on 16 ancient pots and pinakes, mainly from Athens and Corinth, and identified two types of hand-operated wheels: a two-part wheel consisting of the wheelhead and the support, and a three-part wheel consisting of the wheelhead, a shorter vertical support, and a pivot fastening the wheel to the ground (see Fig. 5.1).38 Clay and wood could have been used for the construction of the wheel, in addition to the metal for the axle. In the selection of wood, certain types would have been preferred. Here, some ethnographic references to woods considered suitable for potter’s wheels on Crete and in Messenia are informative: for example, some traditional Cretan potters used plane wood for the wheelhead because of its resistance to humidity, and olive wood for the axle because of its flexibility.39 Messenian potters at Vounaria 35. Leon-Mitsopoulou 1994, esp. pp. 167–169, pls. 96, 105. 36. Sampson 1980, 1986, 1987. 37. Saraga 2004, on Byzantine workshops at Makriyianni Street in Athens. 38. Vidale 2002, pp. 288–295. Pulitani et al. (2017) further differentiate the two types according to the central sup-

port: type 1, with a cylinder-like support, and type 2, with an inverted cone-like support ending in a metal axial point. 39. See Voyatzoglou (1973, p. 14) for the choices of the jar makers at Thrapsano on Crete. She also supplies the Cretan terms (in modern Greek) for the different parts of the wheel,

many of which are loans from weavers’ vocabulary (Voyatzoglou 1972, 1973, 1984; Voyatzoglou-Sakellaropoulou 2009). See also Blitzer 1990, p. 691. Psaropoulou (1990, p. 97) also provides terms for wheels used on Patmos (such as ραούλο for the wheelhead, or δάκτυλα for the wheel itself ).

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

243

joined walnut planks to build their wheels in the 1960s.40 It should be noted that this ethnographic evidence applies to kick wheels, where the momentum for the wheel is created in the lower, wider flywheel, and not to hand-operated wheels. The pivot can barely be seen on A4 but is visible on a pinax from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, NAM Akr. 1.2579); the Athenian pinax is made of yellow clay, typically associated with Corinth, but cannot necessarily be taken to represent a Corinthian wheel (Fig. 5.10; Table 5.3; see above, p. 199). In earlier scholarship the size of the ancient Greek potter’s wheel was rarely addressed.41 Earlier estimations of wheel size were based on the relative size of the humans in depictions of the wheel, but this method is problematic. Following Vidale’s size reconstructions for depicted wheels, a Penteskouphia wheelhead (0.90 m in diameter and 0.10 m in thickness) would have easily rotated at approximately 70 rotations per minute (rpm), and therefore the size of the wheel and the attainable rotation would certainly have been sufficient for making “wheel-thrown” vessels.42 The estimated diameter of 0.90  m suggests a rather wide wheel, however, which may have been too uncomfortable to spin, even for a potter with longer arms.43 The ability to attain the required rotation speed depends upon the correct combination of materials and the dimensions of the wheel. Powell, in her study of Egyptian stone wheels, estimated that a fired-clay wheelhead with a diameter of 0.53 m and an overall thickness of 0.03–0.05 m, weighing ca. 15 kg, could attain speeds of an average of 91 rpm.44 The diameter of the wheelhead is an important factor to consider when the potter is solely (or primarily) responsible for spinning it. A heavy wheelhead (a removable clay bat placed on a wooden wheelhead) may revolve at a lower speed, but will maintain its speed for a longer period.45 When the speed is maintained, the potter can shift his focus to the forming of the vessel. A large, heavy wheelhead is ideal for forming large vessels, such as the krater depicted on a rather wide wheel on pinax B9. Smaller and lighter wheels, capable of reaching higher speeds, are better for throwing small vessels, especially when the potter uses the “off-the-hump” forming technique (see above, p. 183). The additional weight of the heavy lump of clay that is used as a base for this technique, however, can result in improved speeds (in a range of 3%–12%) even among heavier wheels, as demonstrated experimentally with the stone wheels from Egypt.46 The construction of the wheel itself also contributes to the maintenance of a desired momentum. In short, the size and weight of the wheelhead needs to be able to both reach and maintain the required speed for the intended shape. 40. Matson 1972, p. 214. Picolpasso (1548, i.18–23; Lightbown and CaigerSmith 1980, vol. 1, pp. 25–30), in the 16th century a.d., only mentioned wood as the material for the wheelhead, but did not recommend specific types. 41. Noble (1988, pp. 21–22) states, with no supporting evidence, that a potter’s wheel was a “heavy sturdily built disk, 2 ft. in diameter. On the underside it has a socket which fitted

over a low fixed pivot.” 42. Childe 1954, pp. 195–196; Foster 1959. 43. An experimental replica of a potter’s wheel built in Tucson, Arizona, measures 0.81 m in diameter, and the wheelhead weighs 27 kg. It has been used several times by professional potters unfamiliar with hand operation; they were able to achieve ca. 120 rpm, but could not maintain the momentum

for long at such high rotation, finding the diameter of the wheel cumbersome. For the results of the wheel experiments, see Hasaki 2019. 44. Powell 1995. 45. Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, pp. 120–125. 46. Powell 1995. The increased speed resulted from the addition of a lump of clay weighing 6–12 kg in the center of the fired wheelhead.

244

Chap t er 6

The efficiency of an ancient hand-operated wheel and the necessity of having an assistant to help with turning it require further discussion. It may be difficult to visualize how a potter could form a vessel while also turning the wheelhead. To better understand this process, we must keep in mind that the wheel does not need to turn at high speed all the time. High speed is necessary only during the first few minutes, specifically when the potter is “pulling” up the body of the vessel, especially for taller shapes. It is during this critical phase that assistants are essential, to ensure that the wheel reaches and maintains a consistent speed. For the remainder of the vessel formation, however, the potter needs a slower rotation, which he can generate himself, and therefore he can both spin the wheel at regular intervals and work on the vessel. A moderate speed allows the potter to complete the forming of most vessels and to shave off extra clay. For larger vessels, however, a seated assistant must spin the wheel, while the master potter stands to reach the taller parts of the vessel. Other practical reasons for having an assistant come into play as well; for example, the dry hands of an assistant can provide better traction for spinning the wheel than the wet, clay-covered hands of the master potter. It is clear that assistants were not required for the entire forming process of a vessel; ultimately, it was the master potter’s dexterity and coordination of various motor skills that guaranteed the high quality of his vessels. It is not surprising that ancient Greek writers, especially the philosophers, often refer to the hard-won skill of the potter at the wheel as a model for other endeavors where patience and gradual learning are essential.47 In addition to the permanent parts of a wheel, removable bats were used to facilitate the removal of the finished form from the wheel. The potter would have attached a bat upon which the vessel was formed and with which it was subsequently removed to dry. A new bat would then be placed on the wooden wheelhead for the creation of a new pot. Bats could have been made of wood or fired clay. Each workshop would have needed several, but none have been identified in the archaeological record. The use of a fired-clay bat on top of a wooden wheelhead would have had several advantages: the ceramic bat, with its considerable weight, would have provided the critical mass necessary for attaining the desired rotation speed. Use of a ceramic bat might allow the wooden wheelhead to last longer, as the wood would not come in direct contact with the wet clay, which could cause warping over time. On the other hand, the lighter weight of a wooden bat could be convenient for some uses, and their perishable material may account for their invisibility in the archaeological record. Alternatively, the entire wheelhead could have been made out of fired (or even unfired) clay, as experimental evidence suggests. 47. Plato (Grg. 514e; Lach. 187b; Prt. 324e), through the proverb “learning the potter’s craft on the pithos,” warns that wise citizens should not skip the first lessons and take hold of the greatest tasks which are properly the last. A potter’s apprenticeship clearly required trial and error,

patience, perseverance, and a gradual accumulation of skills; for further discussion, see Hasaki 2012a. Ancient references to pottery making can be found in Richter 1923, pp. 87–105, and in Humphrey, Oleson, and Sherwood 1998, pp. 371–375. The potter’s skill at the wheel is also used as a

powerful metaphor: see, e.g., Hom. Il. 18.599–601 (comparing the potter to light-footed dancers); Plut. De gen. 20 (comparing the effect of a light touch on the potter’s wheel with the effect of small steering oars on large merchant ships).

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

245

1:2

1:2

Figure 6.18. Potter’s tools from Figaretto, Corfu. Scale 1:1, except where

indicated. Photos D. Kourkoumelis

Ot h er To ol s

48. Richter 1923, pp. 51–53, 84–85; Schreiber 1999, pp. 13–16. 49. Rice 1987, pp. 136–152; Kourkoumelis and Demesticha 1997, esp. pp. 556–562. 50. Kourkoumelis and Demesticha 1997. The Figaretto workshop has been assigned a long period of activity, from Archaic to Hellenistic times. Other tools, including spatulas and molds for terracotta statuettes, were found near a deposit dated to the end of the Archaic period.

As difficult as the potter’s wheel is to find in the archaeological record, even rarer are his other tools. Forming tools are depicted occasionally on the pinakes (a pointed tool on B8 and a long brush on B9).48 The basic toolkit of the ancient potter is almost identical to that of the modern one; it includes scrapers, shapers, severing knives or cutting wires to detach the pot from the wheelhead, and, most important, the potter’s own hands.49 Much of our information about this equipment comes from the important cache of potters’ tools excavated in a ceramic-workshop context at Figaretto on the island of Corfu. Excavators unearthed around 37 pieces, made of bone and wood, clustered in four different locations in contexts dating from the 5th to the 3rd centuries b.c. (Fig. 6.18).50 The bone tools ranged in length from 0.049 to 0.104 m; some were unfinished, waiting to be finished as needed for a specific user (i.e., potter or painter). Some were recycled objects, but others were exclusively made to be used as pottery tools. Other nonspecialized objects, such as pebbles or shells, could easily serve as potter’s tools. Some examples of potters’ tools reported from Minoan sites

246

Chap t er 6

on Crete have similarly nonspecialized forms, and therefore their use by a potter remains hard to prove.51 Due to the fragility, the perishable nature, and the nonspecialized forms of the tools, it is hardly surprising that we are lacking clearly identifiable examples in the archaeological record. Some types of wood are more suitable for shaping tools than others: for example, traditional Siphnian potters prefer to make small shaping tools out of olive or oak wood, as these tend to last longer.52 Ancient potters, like their modern counterparts, probably became very accustomed to their tools, cherishing them and using them for as long as possible. In modern workshops, it is not unusual for the toolkit of an experienced potter to be offered to a mature apprentice as a start-up toolkit.53 In addition to the tools the potters used to form vessels, workshops would have had equipment for the painters: sets of brushes, bowls for paints, and small practice surfaces—made of wood or clay—for informal sketches.

T H E P O T T ER ’ S K I LN The ceramic kilns depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes clearly represent the basic ancient Greek kiln in construction and operation. Although the pinakes preserve a large number of kiln scenes, the renderings are schematic, and hardly constitute a blueprint for a kiln. Most depictions are exterior views of the structures, but there is what appears to be a footprint plan of a kiln on B61 and a perfectly conceived and executed vertical cross-section on B57. The detailed rendering of B57 is perhaps the only cross-section of a two-tiered, industrial structure in ancient Greek vase painting.54 These scenes convey the familiarity of the potters with the structure, whose construction and repair they would have been involved with. Modern scholars have not always shared the ancient potters’ ease in understanding the form and function of kilns. Instead, they have often propagated misconceptions of visual and archaeological evidence. In this section I discuss individual kiln components from bottom to top of the apparatus, using a combination of iconographical, archaeological, experimental, and ethnographic evidence to enhance our understanding of an ancient kiln’s internal construction and overall operation. The Penteskouphia kiln representations are especially valuable for the information they provide about the upper parts of a Greek kiln, which rarely survive in the archaeological record. For the parts not depicted on the pinakes, I turn to the extensive archaeological record of excavated kilns to extract other types of information regarding their internal construction (such as perforated floors and their supports), kiln furniture, and fuel consump51. See Evely 2000, pp. 296–298, for a collection of possible potters’ tools from Minoan sites, especially Mochlos. The potter’s toolkit that Evely illustrates (2000, p. 262, fig. 106) differs little from a modern potter’s toolkit on Cyprus (London 1989b, p. 54, fig. 70; Ionas 2000, pp. 138–148). Another

ancient potter’s toolkit was found in a Late Bronze Age workshop at Lachish in Palestine (Magrill and Middleton 1997, p. 68, fig. 1). From the Roman world, see a selection of tools in Peacock 1982, p. 62, fig. 26. 52. Spathari-Begliti 1992, p. 128; and personal observation on Siphnos

in 2006. 53. Siphnian potter Nikos Lembessis (pers. comm.). 54. My survey of architectural depictions on Greek vase paintings collected in Richter 1970, Pedley 1987, and Brandes-Druba 1994 yielded no comparanda.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion Circular

Rectangular

Ia

IIa

Ib

IIb

Ic

IIc

Id

IId

Ie

Figure 6.19. Ancient Greek kiln typology. E. Hasaki

55. Lists of kilns in ancient Greece were previously compiled by scholars publishing excavated ceramic workshops or kiln sites that they themselves excavated: e.g., Despoini 1982 (on the Classical kilns at Sindos); Papadopoulos 1989 (on a Geometric kiln from Torone); Baziotopoulou-Valavani 1994 (on Athenian Archaic and Classical workshops); Niemeier 1997 (on the Mycenaean kilns in Miletos). From the 58 examples of ceramic kilns in Greece known to Cook in 1961, the list increased to over 200 in Seifert 1993. For a later list of over 450 excavated kilns dated from prehistoric times to the Byzantine period, and their typological arrangement, see Hasaki 2002. More recently, on kilns from the Roman to

247

Ancient Greek Kiln Typology

tion.55 Select ethnographic accounts from traditional potters’ communities in Greece and on Cyprus complete the list of available evidence in these investigations.56 The circular footprint of the Penteskouphia kilns is one of two major ground plans for kilns, the other being rectangular.57 Most typological studies of kilns rely on the shape of the combustion chamber as the main criterion for classification.58 Within both circular and rectangular kilns, there are various subtypes, depending on how the intermediate floor of the pot-firing chamber is supported (Fig. 6.19).59 Regardless of its internal arrangement and operation, the ancient Greek kiln was a two-chambered (or double-chambered), updraft, direct-flame Byzantine periods, see Raptis 2011; Hasaki and Raptis 2016. For an updated list of ceramic kilns in ancient Greece, see also the WebAtlas. For Italian kilns, see the foundational work by Cuomo di Caprio (1971–1972), and more recently by Segbers (2019) on a collection of ceramic workshops in Magna Graecia. 56. For the construction and firing of kilns in Messenia, see Giannopoulou 2010, pp. 93–94, 138–140. For kiln construction and terminology from Cyprus, see London 1989a, 1989b, 2000. 57. Hasaki 2002, p. 305: out of 459 kilns, 50% were circular, 34% rectangular, and 16% too fragmentary to allow shape identification. The high percentage of the rectangular kilns is due to the

larger overall size of this type, which guarantees a better rate of preservation. The distribution pattern remains unchanged, even with the addition of new kilns in the WebAtlas. 58. On classification systems, see for the Italian kilns Cuomo di Caprio 1971–1972; 2017, pp. 361–365, tables 17–18; for the Greek kilns, Hasaki 2002, with review of earlier classification systems; further developed in Hasaki 2006. A similar classification for the Roman and Byzantine kilns was developed independently by Raptis (2006). See also a merging of typologies in Hasaki and Raptis 2016 for the Roman to Byzantine kilns. 59. Hasaki 2002, pp. 139–185 (type Ie called If ); 2006.

248

Chap t er 6

type.60 It was also a “batch” kiln, meaning that a separate firing was necessary for each batch of products to be fired.61 All ceramic objects in ancient Greece, regardless of how they were formed, were fired in this type of kiln. At Corinth both circular and rectangular kins have come to light, most of which date later than the pinakes (see Table 6.1).

Ty p e Ia Kil ns Evidence confirms that the circular kiln, with a central support placed in the middle of the combustion chamber to support the perforated floor above (type Ia), was the most popular type in Greek antiquity, both in Archaic times and in other periods.62 This is the type that is so skillfully rendered in vertical cross-section on B57. It is the best known archaeologically in ancient Greece and throughout the Mediterranean, as potters across different cultures have independently appreciated the kiln’s easy construction and efficient operation. In Greece specifically, this kiln type is attested possibly as early as the Middle Bronze Age, with examples at Kirrha and Eretria, although these kilns need to be studied in more detail.63 Excavated kilns of this type range in size from 1.00 to 3.00 m in diameter, with most examples clustering in the range of 1.00–1.50 m, allowing a loading capacity of ca. 1.00–1.50 m3.64 The three type Ia Byzantine kilns from the Corinthian Agora also fall within the preferred diameter (see Table 6.1). Larger examples of kilns with these supports are typically encountered in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Based on depictions of complete structures and the relative size of the figures attending them, scholars have estimated that the height of the kilns ranged between 2.00 and 2.50 m; the workmen always stand on top of the stoking channel to reach the chimney, sometimes even needing a ladder (B20).65

Ar c haic Kil ns Within the subset of Archaic kilns, it can be confidently said that the depictions of kilns on the Penteskouphia pinakes represent the most prevalent kiln type of the Archaic period, type Ia.66 The small group of Archaic kilns 60. Cuomo di Caprio 1984; 2017, pp. 346–360; Rice 1987, pp. 159–160; 1997; Noble 1988, pp. 150–152. 61. A “continuous” kiln, unlike a “batch” kiln, burns continuously while the products are put in and taken out; these are attested only in modern times: Rehder 2000, pp. 13–24. 62. Hasaki 2002, pp. 154–155, table III.7. The type Ia support was adopted in 73 kilns (ca. 16% of the total number of kilns of all periods; see similar result in recent analysis of the WebAtlas). It outnumbers all other types of supports for the perforated floor of circular kilns examined either individually or

collectively (73 vs. 43 examples of all other types). The less common types of support include one or two thin walls (or, in the case of rectangular kilns, multiple pairs of crosswalls). Type Ia is also popular in Italy (Cuomo di Caprio 1971–1972). For the use of this type of kiln at Bronze Age sites in SyroPalestine, see Killebrew 1996. 63. For the kilns at Kirrha, see Hadjimichael-Skorda 1989, pp. 205–206, plan 10, fig. 122:a; Skorda 2010; Hasaki 2002, p. 409, nos. 104, 105. For the Eretria kiln, see Tuor in Krause 1981, pp. 83–84; Tuor 1981; Hasaki 2002, p. 409, no. 103. An archaeomagnetic

study of the Eretria kiln (De Marco et al. 2014) suggests with 95% probability that the last firing of the structure (whether a pottery firing or a firing event unrelated to pottery production) occurred ca. 1665–1550 b.c. Cook (1984, p. 64) erroneously assumed that the Archaic kiln depicted on B57 constitutes the earliest known example of this type of kiln with a central support. 64. Hasaki 2002, pp. 154–155. 65. Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 77. 66. See the ongoing WebAtlas database for the chronological distribution of ancient Greek kilns; see also Hasaki 2020.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

Figure 6.20. Geographical distribution of Archaic kilns in Greece. J. Herbst

67. All circular, unless otherwise noted. An earlier list of Archaic kilns (Hasaki 2002, pp. 225–229) included: Athens (Herakleidon St.: one rectangular kiln); Skala Oropou (two kilns, one circular, one rectangular); Corinth (Greek Tile Works: one rectangular kiln of Late Archaic–Classical date; Gotsi plot: one kiln of uncertain shape); Aigion (one rectangular kiln of possibly Archaic date; see Papakosta 1985); Eretria (Tamvaka plot: two kilns, one circular, one uncertain); Pherai (two kilns); Thasos (Phari: two kilns); Knossos (one kiln); Lato (Tsoumbekou plot: three kilns); Prinias (six kilns). More recent additions especially

249

numbers 44 examples from 15 sites (Fig. 6.20).67 Along with the prevalent type Ia, we also have single examples of other circular types. A few rectangular kilns exist (the earliest one at Aigion, one at Skala Oropou, one in Athens at Herakleidon St., and one Late Archaic–Early Classical rectangular kiln from Corinth’s Greek Tile Works; see Fig. 6.2). The geographical distribution of Archaic kilns is spotty: three locations on Crete (Prinias: Fig. 6.21; Lato: Fig. 6.22; Knossos: Fig. 6.23), two sites in Attica (Athens and Skala in northern Greece include: Mende (six Late Archaic–Classical kilns; Anagnostopoulou-Chatzipolychroni 2013); Potidaia (one kiln; Kousoulakou 2013); Leukopetra (six kilns, possibly dated to Late Archaic–Early Classical times; Stefani 2013); Methone (two kilns; Besios 2013); Argos (Aspis: six kilns; Sanidas 2013, p. 156, no. VII.C1; Karatza St.: one kiln; Sanidas 2013, p. 156, no. VII.C3). See also a summary in Tsiafaki 2019. Quantifying sites with Archaic kilns is challenging, as some sites have evidence for continuous activity predating or postdating the kilns, or long periods of use. Some other sites thought to have Archaic

kilns are still problematic in the nature of the structures or their dates, but I mention them for the sake of completeness: e.g., Argos (Kavafi St., Foustoukos plot; Sanidas 2013, p. 156, no. VII.C4; the round structure 0.5 m in diameter looks more like a domestic oven inside a room); Sparta (southeast of the east wall of the Acropolis: one kiln; Sanidas 2013, p. 169, no. X.C1; the kiln, originally thought to be Archaic, seems better dated to Late Antique/ Byzantine times, as the other finds and architecture of the site suggest); Patras (Pharai/Vasiliko; Sanidas 2013, p. 171, no. XI.C2; the Archaic date is not supported by any finds at the site).

250

Chap t er 6

Figure 6.21. Plan of Archaic pottery workshop at Prinias, Crete. Rizza,

Palermo, and Tomasello 1992, p. 135, fig. 25

Figure 6.22 (left). Plan of Archaic pottery kilns at Lato, Crete. Ducrey and Picard 1969, p. 794, fig. 1; courtesy École Français d’Athènes

Figure 6.23 (right). Plan of Archaic pottery kiln at Knossos, Crete. After Coldstream and MacDonald 1997, p. 198, fig. 3

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

251

Figure 6.24. Plan of Archaic pottery workshop at Phari, Thasos. Peristeri, Blondé, and Perrault 1986, p. 72, fig. 1

Oropou), three in the Peloponnese (Aigion, Argos, and Corinth), two in central Greece (Eretria and Pherai), and five in northern Greece (Mende, Methone, Potidaia, Leukopetra, and Phari on Thasos [Fig. 6.24]). Most sites have single kilns, but a few have multiple ones (see below, p. 274). Generally, the circular kilns tend to be of smaller size, with an average diameter of 1.40 m.68 A smaller example of a type Ia kiln is at Knossos, 0.65 m in diameter (Fig. 6.23). The largest type Ia kiln with its support 68. In recent gazetteers of kilns (Hasaki 2002, 2006), for the kilns of all periods with preserved dimensions, 41% fall in the 0.27–2.00 m2 range, 33% are 2.00–7.00 m2, and 26% are larger than 7.00 m2. Ranges in internal

diameter of Archaic kilns are as follows: 0.50–0.99 m (11 kilns), 1.00–1.49 m (nine kilns), 1.50–1.99 m (eight kilns), 2.00–2.99 m (three kilns), 3.00–3.99 m (one kiln), above 4.00 m (one kiln). In the WebAtlas, 45% of kilns with

preserved dimensions of all periods are below 2 m. The larger kilns are usually rectangular and of later periods, and are used for firing construction-related ceramics.

252

Chap t er 6

preserved is at Phari on Thasos, and has an interior diameter of 2.80 m with a central support of 1.30–1.40 m in restored diameter.69 An even larger circular kiln at Prinias has a diameter measuring around 2.98 m (3.14 × 2.35 m; Fig. 6.21).70 The central supports are now lost, but certainly must have existed, given the large sizes of these kilns. Rectangular kilns tend to be larger (for example, at Aigion, a rectangular kiln measures 4.50 × 3.90 m).71

Ki l n Ar c hit ec t ur e The ancient Greek kiln consisted of seven major structural parts; from bottom to top, they are the stoking channel, combustion chamber, intermediate perforated floor with its support, pot-firing chamber, loading door often pierced with spy hole, dome, and chimney (Figs. 6.25, 6.26).72 Most of these components were discussed from an iconographical perspective in the previous chapter. As for ancient kiln terminology, our evidence is limited, but A7 confirms that the overall structure was called a κάμινος. In the ancient poem Kάμινος, the stoking channel is called πυραίθουσαν, whereas the other areas of the kiln are summarily described as “chambers” (δώματα).73 It is likely that the poet borrowed these kiln terms from the potter’s technical vocabulary, but the original extent of that vocabulary is now lost to us. Although there is some variation in terminology for ancient kilns in modern scholarship, all variations acknowledge the structural parts I have just mentioned (Fig. 5.3).74 It is possible that in antiquity, as in modern times, kiln parts were called by regionally specific names.75

S toking C hannel

The stoking channel, which can be of various lengths, projects outward from the main circular or rectangular body of the kiln. It is where the fuel is placed and fired. The stoking channel represented a clear advance over the bonfire, which required the potter to have direct contact with the fire when adding or rearranging fuel. The stoking channel sometimes carries an arched roof made of earth, sherds, and stones, held together with layers of mortar; in these cases, it might more appropriately be called a stoking tunnel. The 69. For Phari: Peristeri et al. 1985; Peristeri, Blondé, and Perreault 1986; Seifert 1993, p. 101, no. 48; Lang 1996, p. 130, no. 60, fig. 126; Hasaki 2002, p. 337, nos. 25, 26; Perreault, Blondé, and Peristeri 2013. At the workshop at Prinias and in later examples (such as the Roman workshops at Paroikia on Paros or the Hellenistic kilns at Pherai in Thessaly), the kilns abut previously built walls on one or more sides, but are not surrounded by a permanent stone podium, as is the case with the kiln at Phari on Thasos. 70. For Prinias: Rizza, Palermo, and Tomasello 1992, pp. 119–134; Seifert 1993, p. 101, no. 43 (grouped with the Geometric kilns); Lang 1996, p. 129, no. 29, fig. 63; Hasaki 2002, p. 341,

no. 34. 71. Papakosta 1985. 72. See also Cuomo di Caprio 2017, pp. 353–360. 73. For a detailed discussion of the Κάμινος poem, see above, pp. 215–216. 74. For terminology in Italian dialects, see Cuomo di Caprio 1971–1972. Efforts to standardize the technical terminology are made in Cuomo di Caprio 1978–1979; Thiriot 2003. 75. The perforated floor is called ταβάνι on Lesbos (Psaropoulou 1990, pp. 97, 184) but τηγάνι on Patmos (Hampe and Winter 1962, p. 25). At Thermon (Rhomaios 1916) the workmen called the supporting wall of the perforated floor παππάς and the ventholes of the perforated floor ντουφέκια

(Greek for “shotguns,” as the holes could resemble bullet holes), whereas at Asomatos on Crete the ventholes were called ἀφανοί (Hampe and Winter 1962, p. 25). On Patmos (Psaropoulou 1990, p. 97) the stoking channel is called καμαρωτό or δράκος. Given the resemblance between a honeycomb and this perforated floor, it is likely that Hesychios (s.v. κυψέλαι και κυψελίδες) is referring to the kiln’s perforated floor when he names a part of the furnace κυψέλαι or κυψελίδες. For a different interpretation, see Sparkes 1975, p. 134. Chadzidimitriou (2005, p. 67, n. 246) interprets the κυψέλαι as the spherical vessel placed on top of metallurgical shaft furnaces.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

A B C

253

central column Y-shaped framework perforated floor

Figure 6.25 (left). Sectional drawing of an experimental replica of an ancient Greek ceramic kiln (AIA Tucson Greek Kiln Project). R. Lyng Figure 6.26 (right). Night firing at the experimental replica of an ancient Greek kiln (AIA Tucson Greek Kiln Project). Photo E. Hasaki

frame for the arch must have been made with easily bent branches (such as willow), which would have been encased with layers of clay. Because they were constantly subjected to high heat, the walls of the stoking channel— when they survive archaeologically—display much more vitrification than the walls of the combustion chamber, and have a thicker ash layer. The length of the stoking channel can range from a few centimeters (thus corresponding with the entrance, as described below) to more than one meter.76 Some of the kilns depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes have stoking channels that appear to be extremely long proportionally, but one must be cautious about the accuracy of these representations.77 Regardless of the exaggeration in the scenes, length makes a difference: it is undeniable that a longer stoking channel creates a stronger draft, a welcome optimization especially at sites where the stoking channel is not oriented toward the prevailing winds. A long stoking channel enabled the potter to create high temperatures inside the kiln with less risk to himself, while also ensuring better air circulation. The stoker gradually pushed the ash farther down 76. Matson (1972, p. 218) provides the dimensions of a stoking channel for one of the Messenian kilns as L. 1.00 × H. 0.60 m. 77. Cuomo di Caprio 1984. Living-

stone Smith (2001, p. 993) groups the kiln structures with stoking channels (which he calls fireboxes) separately from those without, drawing attention to the importance of this feature.

254

Chap t er 6

the channel and added more fuel at the entrance, in order to achieve an even distribution of heat within the combustion chamber. Although rarely preserved, stoking channels can be seen in a Classical kiln at Olympia and in a small Hellenistic kiln at Pherai.78 Normally, however, as a protruding part of the kiln, the stoking channel is extremely vulnerable not only to abandonment processes but also to the spatial needs of a workshop; there are examples of stoking channels that were relocated to a different side of a kiln (e.g., the Roman workshop at Paroikia, Paros).79 In some Penteskouphia scenes, a kiln worker is shown holding two stoking rods, one in each hand (A5, B26), to rake and stoke simultaneously on both sides of the central support. It is less likely that the workman was stoking two different channels. Even if the combustion chamber of some rectangular kilns was divided into two areas, the kilns still would have had a single stoking channel.80 Occasionally, and only from the Roman period and later, large rectangular kilns preserve two separate stoking channels, such as the kilns at Keramidario in Evrytania and Kato Vassiliki at Ioannina.81 These double stoking channels can be on the same side or on different sides of the kiln. Greek kilns, however, generally have a single stoking channel with no internal divisions.82 An erroneous earlier interpretation of the image on B57 (based on an incorrect orientation of the pinax) perpetuated the myth of an internally divided stoking channel (see above, p. 191). Long corridors were created by the presence of a dividing wall inside the combustion chamber (as in the east kiln at the Greek Tile Works at Corinth; Fig. 6.3), not inside the stoking channel. At the end of the channel that is farthest away from the kiln, where the kiln worker usually stands to stoke the fire, there is a depression called the stoking pit, which is either intentionally dug or is naturally formed from continuous use over time. This pit often collects the ash from the burned fuel as it overflows from the stoking channel. The few examples of adjacent “twin” kilns (such as in the Classical kiln complex at Sindos), while retaining their individual stoking channels, also feature a common stoking pit that serves the double purpose of saving space in the workshop and facilitating the stoking of both kilns at the same time, if necessary.83 78. For Olympia: Scheibler 1995, p. 102, fig. 93; Hasaki 2002, p. 354, no. 67. For Pherai: Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 1992, 2020; Hasaki 2002, p. 414, no. 192; 2020, p. 292, fig. 9. 79. For the relocated stoking chamber of kiln 6 at Paroikia, Paros, see Hasaki and Kourayos 2012–2013. At the traditional pottery workshop of G. Delamvelas at Margarites near Rethymno on Crete, a kiln stood in perfect condition, but its stoking channel had been temporarily dismantled in order to save space in the workshop (pers. obs., 1998). 80. In this rectangular kiln type (type IIb), the perforated floor is supported by a central oblong wall running

in the same direction as the stoking channel; see Hasaki 2002, pp. 169–171. 81. Petrakos 1989, 1990. An unpublished kiln at Metropoli, Karditsa, has a similar arrangement (C. Intzesiloglou, pers. comm.). See Hasaki and Raptis 2016 for examples from the Roman and Byzantine periods, especially in Thessaloniki. In the Italian typology of kilns, type IId is reserved for rectangular kilns of the Roman period with two stoking corridors and double stoking channels (Cuomo di Caprio 1971–1972, 2007, 2017). 82. Exceptions to the single combustion chamber are rare. In an ancient Greek kiln at Katochi at Vonitsa in the prefecture of Ioannina, the two

chambers seem to be the result of two phases or uses of the kiln, and not of the original design (Zapheiropoulou 1973–1974, p. 536, pl. 358:a). In modern times, Hampe and Winter (1962, p. 83) described a traditional pithos kiln in Klirou on Cyprus; it had two entrances placed symmetrically to create a stronger draft. Two stoking channels appear more often in lime kilns, where the second channel serves for raking out the quickly accumulating ash; for a survey of excavated lime kilns in Greece, see Demierre 2002. 83. See Despoini 1982 for the kilns at Sindos. For examples outside Greece, see, e.g., Marzabotto (particularly a plan in Nijboer 1998, p. 179, fig. 42).

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

255

C om b u st ion Ch a m ber

The combustion chamber is the most commonly preserved part of a kiln in the archaeological record. It can be circular or rectangular in shape. Many kilns appear oval/elliptical in plan, as the original circular shape of a kiln can be slightly distorted after firing due to the effects of the heat on the walls.84 Some kilns were built intentionally with an elliptical plan. When dug into the ground, the walls of the kiln can more easily withstand temperature fluctuations, as better heat insulation is achieved, and it is easier to load the kiln from the ground level. Although this design has definite advantages, it is also common for potters to build the combustion chamber entirely above ground. In this case, they often surround the kiln structure with a square stone podium, which supports the kiln through the constant fluctuations in temperature and provides insulation to retain heat.85 Tile kilns of large size, however, tend to have their combustion chambers dug into the ground (such as those at the Corinthian Greek and Roman Tile Works), so that the pot-firing chamber is not very high off the ground and the potters can load the heavy, unfired tiles into them more easily.86 The combustion chamber is slightly wider than the main pot-firing chamber, and the general ratio of height of the combustion chamber to the pot-firing chamber is 1:1.5.87 The floor of the combustion chamber was simply plastered with clay mortar or was made of tiles, especially in post-Roman periods.88 The walls, which are usually made of stones or slabs (as at Prinias),89 are covered with one or more layers of clay to ensure better heat retention. An example of additional heat insulation is seen at the rectangular kiln at Chalkis, where Corinthian-style pan tiles were used to cover the sidewalls of the combustion chamber.90 In cases where the combustion chamber is dug into the earth, the built walls are omitted and the soil is plastered with clay, as, for example, at the Roman kiln at Nea Philadelpheia near Thessaloniki.91 The intense heat in the combustion chamber produces pronounced greenish vitrification on the walls. The fuel is initially burned at the entrance of the stoking channel/tunnel, and then gradually pushed toward the combustion chamber. Gases from the fuel are concentrated in the combustion chamber. Despite the long duration of the firing, excavations typically recover only a thin layer of ash, if any at all, from the stoking channel and the combustion chamber.92 After each firing, the narrow confines of the combustion chamber must be cleaned out to make space for the new load of fuel. 84. Mayes 1961, 1962. 85. The Phari kiln discussed above (n. 69) is contained within a square stone podium (5.00 × 5.00 m). 86. Rostoker and Gebhard 1981, p. 217. 87. This ratio is adopted by the traditional potters on Crete (Voyatzoglou 1974). Whitbread and Dawson (2015) point out earlier miscalculations of loading capacity in kiln reconstructions where the pot-firing chambers were too low.

88. In Roman kilns in France, the tile-covered floors of the combustion chamber also have drains to keep moisture away from the kiln, so that no fuel is wasted in drying the kiln before the actual firing (Le Ny 1988). No drains to eliminate rainwater are preserved in combustion chambers in Greek kilns. 89. Rizza, Palermo, and Tomasello 1992, pp. 119–134. 90. For the kiln at Chalkis (of Hellenistic or Roman date), see Themelis 1969, pp. 203–204, pl. 211:d. Cf. the

Roman kiln at Aktaiou, Eptahalkou, and Hephaisteion Streets in Athens, where the walls were lined with fired-clay tiles/ slabs (Lygouri-Tolia 1985, pp. 25–27, pl. 11:c; Pariente 1992, p. 841, fig. 10). 91. Misailidou-Despotidou 1998. 92. During several experimental firings of a replica of an ancient updraft kiln in Tucson conducted by the author (see Fig. 6.26), the ash collected after each of the ten 18-hour firings did not exceed, on average, 8 gallons (Hasaki, May, and Keyser, forthcoming).

256

Chap t er 6

Cen t ral Supp ort f or Pe r f orat ed Fl o or

The major feature inside the combustion chamber is the central support feature or system, whose sole purpose is to support the perforated floor that separates the lower combustion chamber from the pot-firing chamber above. It is an important structural feature in both circular and rectangular kilns. The central column is the most common form, but is only one of many options for supporting the perforated floor. Archaeologists use the support system of the perforated floor as the second criterion for the classification of kilns, after the footprint of the combustion chamber. In the cases of a single central support, the column can be roughly circular or rectangular in shape. It is usually made of a combination of clay, stones, broken sherds, and tiles. This core is covered with layers of clay. The columnar support typically measures about one-third of the total interior diameter of the combustion chamber, so in a kiln with a diameter of 1.00–1.50 m, the central column would measure ca. 0.30–0.40 m in diameter. The slender diameter of the column and its long term of exposure after the abandonment of a kiln explain why it is usually not found in the archaeological record.93 The “cold spot” created in the area occupied by the central support is easily remedied by alternating the stoking of the fuel on either side of the support, as traditional potters still do in Messenia; this ensures an even firing.94

P er f orat e d Fl o or

The most distinctive part of an updraft ceramic kiln is the built-in perforated clay floor that divides the pot-firing chamber from the combustion chamber.95 It is the most crucial part of a ceramic kiln, the most laborintensive in its construction, and the most difficult to render visually. The perforated floor may reduce the amount of heat that reaches the firing chamber from the combustion chamber, but its redeeming feature is that it protects the pots from direct contact with the fuel, thus contributing to a more homogeneous surface appearance of the pots. This was a crucial consideration for all pots, but especially for painted ones. We do not know the ancient name for the perforated floor, but it is commonly called the eschara (ἐσχάρα) in modern publications, a term that I will also adopt for convenience.96 The perforated floor, a typical and essential feature of all updraft, two-chambered kilns, is rarely found in situ or complete in the archaeological record, and is only depicted once in ancient representational art: the vertical section on Penteskouphia pinax B57, a unique rendering that required not only advanced freehand painting skills, but an intimate knowledge of architectural drawing. When the floor does survive archaeologically and is not overlooked or misinterpreted, it usually consists of blocks of fired clay that bear ventholes.97 A number of kilns from the 93. Because of the vulnerability of the central support after abandonment, and because of the slow process of identifying a kiln during excavation, it is very likely that many excavated kilns that preserve no support originally had one, but that it left no traces in the archaeological record. 94. Blitzer 1990, p. 696. 95. Although the solid perforated floor is a standardized feature of most Mediter-

ranean kilns, updraft kilns in other cultures use instead a system of interlocking arms upon which the pots stand (see, e.g., Pap­ ousek 1989 on traditional Mexican kilns). 96. The ancient Greek term ἐσχάρα referred more specifically to the grill above the sacrificial altar; for a review of this term in ritual contexts, see Ekroth 2002, pp. 23–59, and for Attic vase iconography, see Ekroth 2001.

97. At the Archaic kiln at Lato, three joining pieces of clay were found that formed a hole of 0.15 m in diameter. The small size of the hole would indicate a venthole, but excavators mistakenly interpreted the fragments as belonging to the chimney of the kiln. The fragments carry on their underside the impressions of perishable material, probably branches (Ducrey and Picard 1969, p. 803).

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

257

Middle and Late Bronze Age, both on the mainland and on Crete, preserve what may be the earliest excavated examples of escharas.98 Another early example of an eschara, this time preserved intact, can be added if we accept the Middle Helladic date for the kiln from the agora at Eretria.99 From later periods, the Roman kilns at ancient Elis, at Kokkinovrysi, Corinth (Figs. 6.8, 6.9), Gortys in Arcadia (Fig. 6.27), Epitalion in Elis, and Istron at the village of Kalo Chorio Mirabellou on Crete (Fig. 6.28) preserve rather complete perforated floors, with the spoke system on their underside still visible.100 As the archaeological examples preserve either the complete floor or fragments of the embedded armature, it may be difficult to visualize how this feature was built. The perforated floor usually consists of two parts: clay or stone arms/bars radiating from the central support out to the sidewalls of the combustion chamber, and the clay packing between the spokes of this star-like armature. The potters also added more clay to level the top surface. The resulting solid mass of clay was subsequently pierced with wooden sticks to make the ventholes that allow the heat produced in the combustion chamber to reach the pots. From an ethnographic example at Asomatos on Crete, we can see how the potters formed the clay bars, constructed the web of bars, filled it with clay, pierced the floor with sticks, and removed the sticks when the floor had sufficiently dried (Fig. 6.29:a).101 The supporting arms are commonly found archaeologically as fragments detached from the wider structure to which they once belonged. They have not been found (or identified), however, in prehistoric and early historical kilns, with the earliest examples attested in the Classical kilns at Sindos.102 A few fragments have come to light in excavations at Kokkinovrysi and the Roman Tile Works at Corinth (Fig. 6.29:b). Large numbers of these arms have been excavated in a cluster of Roman kilns at Sikyon (Fig. 6.29:c).103 Other examples come from Roman kilns at Berbati, Metropoli at Karditsa, and in a Medieval/Byzantine kiln in Nemea (Fig. 6.29:d). The clay arms at Berbati, semicircular in section and measuring ca. L. 0.70 × W. 0.20 × H. 0.11 m, are typical of these kiln features.104 Three supporting arms in 98. From the mainland: (1) the Middle Helladic kiln from Kirrha, near Delphi, at Magoula, Area I, the I. and M. Koureli plot (Hadjimichael-Skorda 1989, pp. 205–206, plan 10, fig. 122:a); (2) the Middle Helladic kilns at the Menelaion at Sparta (Catling 1980, pp. 153–157, fig. 3, pl. 57:a; Touchais 1981, p. 794, fig. 41); (3) the kiln at the Kadmeion at Thebes, dated to the Late Helladic III period (Keramopoulos 1909, esp. p. 61; Davaras 1973a, p. 80, no. Γ1; 1980, p. 124, n. 49). From Crete: kiln V at the Late Minoan I multikiln complex at Gouves, excavated with its eschara intact (Hadji-Vallianou 1997, p. 497, fig. 16). 99. Eretria Archaeological Museum 19558. Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995, p. 98, fig. 72. See above, p. 248, n. 63. 100. Ancient Elis: Karagiorga 1971; Hasaki 2002, p. 353, no. 66 (wrongly

dated as Classical; see Hasaki and Raptis 2016, p. 219, nos. 227–229); Kokkinovrysi: Hasaki 2002, p. 422, no. 343; Hasaki and Raptis 2016, p. 220, no. 278; Gortys: Ginouvès 1953, p. 268, fig. 63; Hasaki 2002, p. 422, no. 337; Hasaki and Raptis 2016, p. 220, no. 295; Epitalion in Elis: Themelis 1968; Hasaki 2002, p. 422, no. 346; Hasaki and Raptis 2016, p. 219, no. 226; Istron, Kalo Chorio Mirabellou: Davaras 1973a, p. 80, no. Β4; 1973b; Hasaki 2002, p. 424, no. 385; Hasaki and Raptis 2016, p. 221, no. 323. 101. Hampe and Winter 1962, pp. 18, 24–25, figs. 16, 20, 21, pls. 2, 3. The Asomatos potters used sticks made of plane trees for making the perforations in the floor. Giannopoulou (2020) provides excellent illustrations of a Cretan potter constructing a kiln at

the Center for the Study of Traditional Pottery, Athens. 102. Despoini 1982, p. 69, fig. 7, from kiln 2; p. 76, fig. 12, from kiln 4. It is not possible to determine whether earlier perforated floors were made in a different way, without the use of clay arms. 103. Lolos 2019. I thank Yannis Lolos warmly for allowing me to illustrate these arms from his ongoing excavations at Ancient Sikyon. 104. A Roman kiln (type IIa) in the D. Dima plot at Asprohoma Prosymnis (Sarri 1998, p. 135, plan 11, plate 69:b). Beyond the Greek world, a number of kiln-fired arms have been found in the Roman workshop site of Scoppieto and extensively published (Bergamini 2011, pp. 343–357; also displayed at the Antiquarium in Baschi).

258

Chap t er 6

a.a b. b

B

A

cc.

d. d

Figure 6.27. Plans and section of perforated floor from a kiln at Gortys, Arcadia: (a) section; (b) top view of perforated floor; (c) view of combustion floor with central column; (d) view of underside of perforated floor. Ginouvès 1953, p. 269, fig. 63; courtesy École Français d’Athènes

Figure 6.28. View, plan, and section of perforated floor from a Roman kiln at Istron, Crete. Davaras 1973b,

p. 113, plan 2

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

a

b

c

d

Figure 6.29. Clay arms from perforated floors of kilns: (a) ethnographic example from Asomatos, Crete; (b) Corinth, no inv. nos., from the Roman Tile Works; (c) Ancient Sikyon, from the ongoing excavations of the Archaeological Society of Athens; (d) Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, arch support S 512‑2‑75. Not to scale. (a) Hampe and Winter 1962, pl. 2:3; (b) courtesy Corinth Excavations; (c) courtesy Y. Lolos; (d) Wright et al. 1990, pl. 97:d

105. Intzesiloglou 1984, p. 147, pl. 47:d, e. 106. Wright et al. 1990, esp. pp. 609–610, 655–656, pl. 97:d, where they are wrongly labeled as stacking supports. Wright et al. (1990, p. 657,

259

Metropoli at Karditsa are Y-shaped with a long stem.105 Most arms have rows of fingertip impressions on their undersides, such as those from Nemea.106 Some variants are made of long stones shaped into arms, such as the schist bars in the Hellenistic workshop at Vamvouri Ammoudia107 and in the Early Roman workshop at Paroikia on Paros.108 The thickness of the perforated floor in preserved examples ranges from ca. 10 to 20  cm, with the diameter of the holes varying between 3 and 10  cm. There are, of course, variations; fragments of the eschara from the Prinias kilns of ca. 700 b.c. are 7 cm thick, and some ventholes fig. 27:c–h) illustrate a selection of fragmentary ring supports, as well as clay sticks from the Medieval–Byzantine kiln site 510, which they interpret as shelves probably protruding from the walls of the firing chamber. This

interpretation, however, still awaits confirmation from other ancient or modern examples. 107. Garlan 1980, p. 741, fig. 29. 108. Kourayos 2004; Hasaki 2010; Hasaki and Kourayos 2012–2013.

260

Chap t er 6

measure 3–6 cm in diameter. More uncommon is the style of the eschara of an Iron Age kiln at Kavousi on Crete, which is perforated only around its perimeter.109 An average circular kiln, 1.30  m in diameter, would have a floor perforated with 30–50 ventholes, so about 20–30% of the surface of the floor would have been pierced.110 The ventholes were arranged in loosely concentric circles in circular kilns, and in rows in rectangular ones. Potters made the ventholes on the perimeter noticeably larger than those in the middle, to compensate for the cooler spots in the combustion chamber; examples of these larger ventholes can be seen in the Roman kiln at Kokkinovrysi (Figs. 6.8, 6.9) and the Byzantine kiln at Agora Northeast 1936 at Corinth (Figs. 6.10, 6.11).111 The perforated floor is a feature exclusive to a ceramic kiln. It is not present in lime kilns, metallurgical furnaces, bath furnaces, or any other firing structures. Therefore, recovery of eschara fragments can securely identify a structure as an updraft ceramic kiln.112

Pot-Fir ing C hambe r and Dome

Above the perforated floor is the second main chamber of the kiln, where the pots are actually placed. It is also commonly called the ware chamber, reflecting the wider spectrum of ceramics to be fired (from pots to tiles). It usually follows the shape of the combustion chamber, so is either circular or rectangular in plan. In its top half, the sides curve inward to produce a domed roof. Its height is usually at least equal to, if not greater than, the diameter of the perforated floor.113 The walls of the pot-firing chamber are usually made of stones mortared together with clay, and then lined with clay on both sides for heat retention. Here the wealth of kiln representations on the Penteskouphia pinakes is especially important for our knowledge of ancient kilns, as archaeological evidence for pot-firing chambers is scarce: only three kilns preserve the bases of the walls of the pot-firing chamber,114 and only one kiln, from Paroikia on the island of Paros, preserves two wall openings that are interpreted as loading doors.115 In the Early Roman workshop at Paroikia, the wider center sections of Archaic pithoi were plastered outside with clay and a few small stones to be reused as pot-firing chambers in small kilns (Fig. 6.30). While no ancient Greek kiln has been excavated with its dome intact, the pot-firing chamber is preserved on almost two-thirds of the kilns on the Penteskouphia pinakes (see Table 5.2). It is usually depicted as a 109. Coulson, Gesell, and Day 1987; Gesell, Day, and Coulson 1988; Day, Coulson, and Gesell 1989; Evely 2000, pp. 301, 305, fig. 121. 110. The same numbers hold true for traditional kilns. Calculations were conducted on a traditional kiln owned by K. Chrysogelos on Thasos that measures 2.10 × 2.80 m and has 30 square ventholes, 0.20 m on each side (Gratsia 1999). Therefore, 1.20 m2/5.88 m2 (or 20%) of the surface is pierced.

111. See also the similarly designed perforated floors of circular kilns in traditional Messenian workshops (Matson 1972, p. 217). 112. The perforated floor should not be confused, however, with the grate bars in the stoking channels of downdraft kilns; see Rhodes 1981, p. 61. Potters stacked fuel on them and collected the accumulated ash from below. 113. Cuomo di Caprio 2007, p. 516. 114. The three examples are a Hel-

Figure 6.30. Kiln with a reused pithos serving as a pot-firing chamber, from an Early Roman pottery workshop at Paroikia, Paros, from west. Scale ca. 1:20. Photo Y. Kourayos,

courtesy Ephorate of Antiquities of the Cyclades, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund

lenistic kiln at Pherai, in the Stamouli plot (Intzesiloglou 1980; 1981, p. 249; Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 1992; Hasaki 2002, p. 414, no. 192); a Roman kiln at the Pneumatikos plot in Chalkis (Themelis 1969, pp. 203–204, pl. 211:d; Hasaki 2002, p. 432, no. 349); a Roman kiln at Istron in Kalo Chorio Mirabellou on Crete (Davaras 1973a, p. 80, no. B4; Davaras 1973b; 1980, p. 119; Hasaki 2002, p. 434, no. 385). 115. Hasaki and Kourayos 2012–2013.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

261

semicircular area solidly covered with slip, corresponding perhaps to the clay mortar that was usually applied as a lining over the core of stones. The fairly nondescript rendering is sometimes embellished by the presence of a few jugs or apotropaic devices hanging on the exterior wall (e.g., B38, B40). The Penteskouphia pinakes depict the pot-firing chamber as a single structural unit, with seamless construction, thereby making it impossible to determine whether the dome was permanent or semipermanent. To visualize how the pot-firing chambers of these kilns may have looked we can compare five circular, once terracotta-domed ovens (for bread?) of Roman date excavated in the area east of the Theater at Corinth.116 Ethnographic studies of traditional workshops in Greece and elsewhere in the Mediterranean have documented several ways in which potters construct the domed roofs of their kilns, and can offer some insight into the roofing methods ancient potters may have used. The upper part of the pot-firing chamber is usually dome-shaped. Potters might build a permanent dome, in which case they can either load the kiln completely through the loading door of the chamber, or fill the upper levels of the chamber with small vessels through an opening in the dome.117 In traditional workshops on Cyprus, the potters adjust the size of the loading door according to the size of pots to be fired, thus leaving the dome untouched.118 A permanent dome enables the kiln to reach higher temperatures without substantial heat loss, while allowing the potter better control over the atmosphere inside the kiln. This would seem to be the most efficient way for ancient Greek potters to have fired the slipped vessels that require three-stage firing. Another way to close up the top of a kiln is to build a temporary dome for each firing. Once the firing is over, the potters partially dismantle it and later rebuild a new dome before a new firing. In this case, the top of the kiln load is loosely protected with broken sherds; then the potters quickly place clay mortar on top of the sherds to build a dome. The newly constructed dome does not delay the firing operation since it can harden quickly in place during the first hours of the firing. This option offers the potters greater flexibility and ease in loading larger vessels, as well as adequate control of the firing atmosphere and temperatures, but it involves an additional time investment for the rebuilding of the dome. Ancient workshops that produced large vessels, mostly plain wares, most likely used this method. Traditional potters often recycle pots in temporary dome constructions, using them as chimneys for their kilns.119 In addition to having permanent or semipermanent domes, kilns can also be fired with only a thin layer of reused sherds or metal sheets loosely 116. In the northwestern rooms of Buildings 1 and 3: Williams and Zervos 1986, pp. 131–138; Williams 2005. In Building 1, the northern oven measures 0.93 m in diameter and the southern oven 1.05 m; in the northwestern room in Building 3, the diameters of the three ovens are 0.67, 0.95, and 1.42 m. 117. For Messenian kilns with per-

manent domes firing pithoi and jugs, see Hampe and Winter 1962, pl. 18; Blitzer 1990, pp. 695–698, pls. 106, 107; Giannopoulou 2010, pp. 93–94, 138–140. See also Hampe and Winter 1962, pl. 45, for a permanently roofed kiln at Klirou on Cyprus; London 1989a, pp. 225, 227; 2000, p. 107. 118. London 2000, p. 107. The kilns

at Kornos have a permanent dome, while the kilns in mountain villages have top-loading domes (London 1989b, pp. 58–64, figs. 77–79). 119. Pots are used as chimneys in kilns at Klirou on Cyprus (Hampe and Winter 1962, pl. 45) as well as in bread ovens and as house chimneys (Ionas 2000, p. 132, figs. 4.22, 4.23).

262

Chap t er 6

covering the stacked vessels. These open-topped kilns are often encountered at workshops that produce coarse or plain vessels.120 Such a loosely covered kiln may be depicted on A7, which shows a kiln with straight walls and no domed roof. The type of the dome may ultimately be related to the size of the kiln; permanent domes can be more easily made for smaller kilns but become difficult to maintain for larger kilns. More flexible ways of covering the kiln load had to be adopted. Regardless of the permanent or semipermanent character of the kiln dome, the pot-firing chamber usually has an opening, the loading door, that the potters use to access the interior to load and unload their wares. The loading door is filled in when the kiln is loaded prior to firing, and then dismantled and the chamber refilled for each firing. The potters can leave a small area of the loading door uncovered in order to use it as a spy hole to monitor the progress of the firing. The loading door is usually placed either at 90° to or opposite the projecting stoking channel to allow easier access during the processes of loading and firing. In ethnographic examples, potters often cover the loading door with apotropaic symbols, such as a cross.121 Within the area of the loading door, potters often build a small spy hole (also called a peep hole) closed with a removable brick. Spy holes are encountered only in the Penteskouphia pinakes and in ethnographic cases. The spy hole allows the potter to visually inspect the progress of the firing, including atmosphere (reducing or oxidizing) and temperature.122 The potters could establish, for example, whether the chamber had reached the “glow” stage at which all pottery is sufficiently fired. The potter could also assess the overall shrinkage of the ware load.123 The small size of the hole ensured that the potters would not suffer any eye injury from escaping flames. Additionally, the spy hole could function as a secondary vent for the gases from the pot-firing chamber, as ethnographic accounts inform us. Although a potter could carefully position a slipped vessel or sherd to examine the progress of slip coloration, it is more challenging to extract test pieces through the small space of the spy hole. The checking of test pieces could best take place from the top of the kiln, as indicated by the small handles placed near the chimney on pinax B57. These test pieces could more reliably inform the potter that even the pots placed the farthest away from the heat source were sufficiently fired. In the poem Κάμινος, the potter is supposed to lean forward toward the kiln (at the vent/chimney) to inspect the progress of firing (lines 22–23: ὅς δὲ χ’ ὑπερκύψηι, περί τούτου πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον φλεχθείη; see above, pp. 215–216). The workers who climb the stoking channels and approach the top vents of the kilns on the Penteskouphia pinakes fit the poem’s description, though none of the depictions show a potter approaching a spy hole, or looking through it. The crown of the dome of the kiln was left open to create a vent to draw the gases upward from the stoking channel through the combustion chamber below. It also allows the flames and gases to escape without jeopardizing the firing. By placing a chimney in this vent, potters could create a better and stronger draft. The cylindrical parts of vessels, such

120. London (1989a, pp. 225, 227) illustrates an interesting arrangement of top-loading kilns on Cyprus, where the outer shell of the pot-firing chamber is a hut-like construction made of upright bark and wooden poles. Under this wooden cone potters had placed sherds, old rooftiles, and metal sheeting. 121. Greek potters make a cross with their fingers on the loading door while the clay is still wet (e.g., Hampe and Winter 1962, pp. 23, 114; Blitzer 1990, p. 697). According to Matson (1972, p. 223), Messenian potters have used garlic eyes, olive branches, and cross signs as apotropaic devices. 122. Papadopoulos 2003, p. 16. 123. I thank David Dawson for this observation.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

263

as necks, could function very well as chimneys, and potters often reused them as such, as the Penteskouphia pinakes indicate (e.g., A6, B20, B56). Although ethnographic parallels from modern Greece and Cyprus show multiple vents on the dome to better control the draft, the Penteskouphia pinakes indicate only one vent, the chimney. As noted above, the spy hole in the loading door could have also functioned as a secondary vent to ensure even distribution of heat, as in traditional Messenian workshops, while also allowing the potter to monitor the progress of the firing.124

S tac k i ng Pinax B57 stands apart iconographically, as discussed earlier, because it shows a vertical section of the interior of a kiln, with a load consisting of jugs, amphoras, and test pieces. The stacking of similarly sized vessels should be noted, even in this schematic rendering. Although this depiction shows a rather disorganized stacking of pots in the kiln, ancient ceramic workshops in reality had a variety of clay furniture to assist them with the stabilization of the pots and their separation from each other in the kiln.125 Ethnographic parallels emphasize the role of the master potter as the stacking master, especially in loading the lower layers of the kiln, to maximize the capacity and ensure the best heat circulation.126 When stacking vessels, potters used simple sherds or specialized kiln furniture. Tripods, teardrop-shaped supports, and rings are ubiquitous at ancient workshops, and continue to be used today with very little alteration in their forms. The Corinthian Potters’ Quarter has provided a number of kiln tripods and balls of clay that could have separated and secured the stacked pots, while workshops of decorated fine wares developed even more specialized supports of rings and tall cylinders (Fig. 6.31a, b).127 For undecorated vessels, stacking pots of the same shape and size either on top of each other (for vessels with narrow rims) or inside each other (for vessels with wide rims) was a common technique, as some cups found in the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth testify. Stacking heavy architectural ceramics presented separate challenges: at the Greek Tile Works, L-shaped supports were used to set in place and separate the larger architectural terracottas (Fig. 6.31c).128 124. Matson 1972, p. 219. An airtight sealing of the dome is to be avoided, according to these Messenian examples. 125. See extensive discussion in Papadopoulos 1992; Hasaki 2002, pp. 91–98. For kiln furniture from Classical Athenian workshops, see Monaco 2000. At a kiln site at Thermon, many small rectangular clay supports, called σαπούνια (soap bars) by the local workmen, were found around the kiln. 126. See Hasaki 2005 for an ethnoarchaeological study of pottery workshops at Moknine, Tunisia.

127. Examples from the Potters’ Quarter, displayed in the Corinth Museum, include balls of fired clay: KN-177, KN-209 (both L. 4.3 × W. 2.2 cm); kiln tripods: KN-203 (H. 9.2 × preserved W. 1.0 cm), KN-204 (H. 2.9 × W. at base of two legs 7.8 cm × L. 4.4 [top] × W. 5.0 cm); lid fragment for holding paint: KN-210 (L. 5.9 × W. 4.5 cm). I thank Ioulia Tzonou for providing the dimensions of these pieces. See Cracolici 2003 for a detailed presentation of kiln furniture from the Kerameikos at Metapontum. 128. At the Potters’ Quarter, the

bodies of stacked cups were found as wasters: Corinth KP-1358 (Corinth XV.3, p. 248, no. 1372, pl. 57); for a pyxis fused with a lid and a kotyle, reflecting their method of stacking, see Corinth KP-1380 (Corinth XV.3, p. 251, no. 1394, pl. 58). For kiln-firing supports at the Greek Tile Works, including those shown in Fig. 6.31c, see Merker 2006, pp. 21–22, 31–32. The Middle Corinthian Dümmler krater (Paris, Louvre E 632, by the Ophelandros Painter) has already been discussed as possibly reflecting stacking practices inside a kiln; see above, p. 198.

264

Chap t er 6

a

1:3

b

1:3

1:2

c

1:3

Figure 6.31. Kiln furniture for stacking pots, from Athens and Corinth: (a) Athens, Agora: teardrop-shaped MC 703, tripod P 204, and cylinders P 17288 and MC 577; (b) Athens: kiln supports from excavations at Odos Lenormant 28/30; (c) Corinth, Greek Tile Works: trapezoidal MF-8726, MF-8727, MF-8728 (two views); pyramidal MF-9527; L-shaped MF-8724, MF-8725. Not to

scale, except where indicated. (a) Papadopoulos 1992, pp. 210, 212, 215, figs. 3, 5, 7; (b) Monaco 2000, pls. 56:a, 46:1, 6, 7; courtesy L’Erma di Bretschneider; (c) photos courtesy Corinth Excavations

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

265

THE POT TER’S F UEL AND THE FIRING PROCESS I move from our discussion of a kiln’s structural parts and furniture to the fuel used, the firing itself, and the involvement of the kiln-firing supervisors. We should remember that kiln firing is one of many methods to fire pottery. Other techniques include bonfires or open firings, simple depressions, and pit firings.129 Compared to pit firing, a kiln structure combines simplicity in design with maximum efficiency in fuel consumption and larger stacking capacity per unit area.130 A kiln is also less susceptible to changes in wind direction or sudden gusts. As a result of this controlled temperature, there is a comparatively lower rate of wasters from kiln firings. The kiln firing is of longer duration than pit firings; it heats up slowly and gradually, and has the ability to hold high temperatures (above 800°C) for a longer time, a phase known as “soaking.” Fuel is depicted on the pinakes either in the form of small blobs of paint placed at the mouth of the stoking channel (B19) or as sticks and branches of wood being carried to the kiln by workers (A5, A9, B38, and possibly A17 and B26). The blobs may represent the burning embers, or ash that the kiln worker is raking out of the combustion chamber to allow for more wood to be added to the kiln. On B2 a man is about to fell trees, presumably for fuel. When wood is used, its dryness is the most important consideration. A long list of factors affect dryness, such as the type of wood (softwood or hardwood), its density, the thickness of the cut pieces, the local climate, and time of its harvesting.131 Olive wood and olive pomace (composed of olive flesh, skin, endocarp, and seeds) has been a preferred and easily available type of fuel in ancient and modern workshops. Theophrastus (On Fire 72) comments that fresh wood, such as the palm tree, is difficult to use as fuel, while olive wood burns more easily and steadily.132 Roman kilns at Leptiminus, Tunisia, used olive pressings, and traditional potters on Cyprus prefer olive wood as fuel for their kilns because it produces less smoke, ash, and fumes.133 Experimental reproductions of ancient kilns have yielded estimates for fuel consumption of 2 m3 (on average) for a kiln with a pot-firing chamber of 1 m3 in capacity.134 Modern calculations are of limited help, as potters, when interviewed about quantities of fuel required to fire their kilns, often respond with how many batches, mule loads, or cart loads are necessary for each firing. Equally unreliable may be the estimates from experimental firings, since the crew almost always has limited experience with wood 129. Livingstone Smith (2001) discusses the thermal profiles for about 80 pit firings. Although the author tries to correct some misconceptions about the efficiency of pit firings (esp. pp. 998–999), it still remains true that when all other variables are the same, circular kilns allow for a bigger and better-stacked load. According to Gosselain (1992, p. 246), an open firing reaches maximum temperature in 22 minutes, whereas an updraft kiln needs 259 minutes (4.5 hours). 130. An extensive comparison between open firing and kiln firing cov-

ers almost thirty aspects including loading capacity, heat insulation, fuel consumption, heat distribution, soaking time, firing loss rates, and level of skill (Cuomo di Caprio 2017, p. 344, table 16). 131. Hoadley 1980; Rehder 2000, pp. 25–37; Hasaki 2002, pp. 104–110. Hardwoods include oak, ash, elm, beech, birch, walnut, sycamore, and chestnut, whereas softwoods include pine, fir, spruce, larch, cedar, and plane. 132. See Varella 1997. Biblical texts mention olive cakes and fruit shells as fuel for the kiln (Vitto 1986, p. 54). 133. Tunisia: Smith 1998; Cyprus:

London 1989a, p. 224. For a recent survey of olive waste as domestic and industrial fuel in the Roman world, with examples of olive pomace used in the stoking channels of kilns from Pergamon, see Rowan 2015. 134. These figures should be viewed with some caution because of the num­ber of factors that can influence such esti­mates. Most traditional potters count their fuel requirements in batches. For quantities of fuel used in ethnographic and experimental firings in the Mediterranean, see Hasaki 2002, p. 105, table II.2.

266

Chap t er 6

firings. Regardless of these limitations, it is clear that each firing of a kiln of 1.00–1.20 m in diameter does not require large amounts of fuel. Animal dung and charcoal were not ideal fuel types for ceramic kilns, the former because of the long duration of a kiln firing, the latter because of its lengthy production period and its high cost.135 Ancient Greek sources mention Athenian city officials, the koprologoi, collecting and disposing of animal dung (koprones) outside the city limits, without referring to any industrial use of dung.136 It is even more unlikely that the depictions of boars on the reverse of kiln firings on Penteskouphia pinakes (B8, B57; possibly B41, B60) point to animal dung as a possible fuel source, as suggested in previous scholarship, due to the small population of such wild animals and the dangerous and time-consuming nature of collecting their dung.137 In an isolated ethnographic case of an Aegean pottery workshop, straw and dry dung were used in the early stage of the firing cycle.138 Animal dung as a fuel source is, instead, prevalent in ethnographic accounts of potters working in arid areas who fire their pots in pits, using dung mostly from domesticated animals such as sheep, goats, and cows. In pit firings, small quantities of fuel are required, the firing event is very short (1–3 hours), and there is limited control over the temperature increase.139 Dung has also been used in experimental pit-firing sessions involving Neolithic-style pottery.140 Although animal dung has high heat transfer, some types of dung are less ideal as fuel.141 Once sufficient fuel was collected, potters began firing the kiln. Only informed speculation can be offered on the question of how the potter started the fire in the kiln. Perhaps the potter used a twig to transfer a flame from a lamp lit in the workshop, or he may have produced it in front of the kiln with flintstones or fire drills.142 The firing of a kiln is a lengthy event, involving different stages. Ethnographic accounts show that different types and sizes of fuel materials are 135. For the use of charcoal in metallurgical furnaces, see Olson 1991; Rehder 2000, pp. 55–100. Richter (1923, pp. 34, 65), while discussing the fuel used for the kiln on Munich hydria 1717 (see Fig. 5.5), tentatively suggested charcoal, along with wood, as possible fuels for ancient kiln operators, but in these early publications, the qualities of different fuels were not fully understood. Varella (1997, quoting CALG, pp. 158, 179) provides a detailed discussion of fuels preferred by different craftspeople; laurel, for example, was the fuel preferred by bronzesmiths. 136. Owens 1983. 137. Cuomo di Caprio 1984; Noble 1988; Rehder 2000, p. 36. Papadopoulos (2003, p. 203, n. 91) suggested that dung was used both as fuel and as construction material. Although not impossible, such uses must have been very limited in

updraft kilns. 138. Psaropoulou 1990. 139. See Johnston 1974, p. 90, for the use of dung in ceramics from Palestine; Sillar 2000 for the use of dung by Andean potters; Tobert 1984 for potters at Darfur, Sudan. See also London 1981 for dung added to ceramics as temper. 140. Vitelli 1994. 141. The fire from buffalo dung, for example, is intense but transient, which means that a potter needs at least twice as much dung as wood to reach the same temperature. The discrepancy becomes crucial in lengthy firings; Wright 1986. 142. For flint-generated fire and fire drills, see Theophrastus, On Fire 1–2, 63 (translated in Humphrey, Oleson, and Sherwood 1998, pp. 38, 39, nos. 2.20, 2.21).

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

267

needed: for the first half hour, twigs, pine cones, or any highly flammable material can be used to start and maintain the fire.143 Following this short introductory phase, and for the next few hours, it is best to use large wood logs that can burn slowly and steadily to ensure a slow increase in temperature. As the hours pass, more and more similarly sized logs are added until high temperatures are reached. In the final phase of the firing, any readily available biomass fuel (e.g., olive pits, twigs, nutshells) can be added to maintain the fire’s intensity, or slightly increase it.144 The temperature range for Greek kilns was restricted by the chemical characteristics of calcareous Greek clays, which severely vitrify at 1050–1100°C, but are more forgiving at temperatures of 850–1050°C. For unslipped wares, the temperatures could be as low as ca. 700°C for an oxidizing atmosphere throughout the firing. For wares covered with levigated slip, the temperature must rise to the range of 850–950°C and undergo three phases (oxidization, reduction, and reoxidization) in order to produce a shiny gloss.145 All temperature estimations for ancient ceramics are based on the modern refiring experiments of ancient sherds in electrical furnaces, and should be referred to and understood only as “equivalent” temperatures.146 Since the Penteskouphia pinakes were made in workshops specializing in fine wares, I focus now on the three-stage single firings of such ceramics. The three-stage firing process used for slipped pottery requires close control of the atmosphere inside the kiln, as well as a high maximum temperature (Fig. 6.32). It consists of the following sequence, or thermal profile: oxidizing (ca. 6–7 hours); reducing (ca. 30 minutes–1 hour); and reoxidizing (through the end of the firing cycle). These three stages are of vastly different duration. The most critical stage is the “soaking” of the vases in high temperatures (ca. 800–950°C) during the brief reduction phase. This three-stage process was used to produce the black-figure, red-figure, and black-gloss ceramics of the Archaic and Classical periods in Greece.147 These pots would have been the result of a single firing that lasted several hours inside an updraft, two-chambered kiln.148 Control of the duration of each stage was crucial. As discussed above, the firing started slowly, with 143. London 1989a, p. 224. 144. Traditional potters at Messenia used olive-wood prunings, oak shavings from the carpenters’ workshops, and various shrubs (Blitzer 1990, p. 696). Matson (1972, p. 219) mentions that the use of vine prunings may contribute to a shorter firing, and that their burning does not result in massive ash accumulation. Potters who used larger pieces of wood had to fire longer. At a workshop producing large jars at Thrapsano on Crete, the potters used twigs from cypress trees at the beginning of the firing, and then added bushes (Voyatzoglou 1973, p. 15). For the preference of olive wood on Cyprus, see above, p. 265. 145. By “levigated slip” I refer to the

refined clay made either of the same or different clay as the pot in its unfired state; the term “gloss” refers to the same slip after it has been fired. I purposely avoid the term “glaze,” extensively used in earlier scholarship, since it does not correspond to the chemical composition of the ancient Greek slip. 146. Tite 1969; Livingstone Smith 2001. These estimates are also an average of the range of temperatures developed in different parts of the kiln during the firing. See, e.g., Mayes 1961, 1962, for temperature fluctuations within a kiln. This problem is also discussed in Schilling 2003 and Whitbread and Dawson 2015. 147. Noble 1988, pp. 148–167; Maniatis, Aloupi, and Stalios 1993

(for the careful selection of clay for the gloss/levigated slip); Schreiber 1999, pp. 9–27; Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 201–214, esp. pp. 210–214. For an informative visual explanation of the changes a red-figure vase undergoes through the different firing phases, see Clark, Elston, and Hart 2002, p. 92, fig. 88; and Bentz, Geominy, and Müller 2010, p. 94, fig. 23. 148. In early-20th-century literature, it was wrongly assumed that ancient Greek ceramics underwent two firings: one for bisque, and one after the slip was applied to the fired vessel. Walton et al. (2013) suggested an additional firing for the relief line on Athenian red-figure ceramics, but their analysis is based on a single sherd.

268

Chap t er 6

CO2 + O2 Carbon dioxide and oxygen

CO + O2 Carbon monoxide and oxygen

CO2 + O2 Carbon dioxide and oxygen

Oxidization

Reduction

Reoxidization

950°C 900°C

600°C

Reduction

Temperature

800°C

400°C

200°C

0°C 0 hrs

2 hrs

4 hrs

6 hrs

8 hrs

10 hrs

12 hrs

14 hrs

16 hrs

18 hrs

Duration

Ferric oxide Fe2O3

Ferrous oxide FeO

Ferric oxide Fe2O3

Figure 6.32. Reconstruction of the three-stage process (oxidization, reduction, reoxidization) in the firing of a handle plate of a black-figure Corinthian column krater (Paris, Louvre E 636). Drawings (above) after Rayet 1880, p. 106, no. 2; (middle) E. Hasaki; (below) Y. Nakas

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

269

the burning of large pieces of wood. This initial slow phase allowed any remaining moisture in the ceramics and in the kiln itself to evaporate, so that the pots would not crack.149 In the middle of the firing cycle, similarly sized pieces of wood were inserted, and once the desired temperature was reached, it was maintained through vigorous stoking, and with the addition of olive pits and other small pieces of fuel. During this stoking cycle, the stoking channel and the vent/ chimney were left uncovered, and oxygen flowed freely through the kiln (the oxidization phase); when the kiln reached the desired temperature, all openings in the kiln, namely, the stoking channel and chimney, were sealed. Blocking out the oxygen-bearing air created a reducing atmosphere inside the kiln (the reduction phase). The temperature continued to be high because the fuel, in order to burn, absorbed the necessary oxygen from the pots. An alternative view of how reduction was achieved in ancient kilns emphasizes how the fuel was stoked in the kiln, rather than whether or not the stoking channel and chimney were sealed. Specifically, in several experimental firings it was noted that if the stokers kept charging the stoking channel with long thin sticks (as the pinakes show), then a mound of glowing embers resulted at the stoking channel, effectively choking the kiln and creating a heavy reduction atmosphere.150 In this case, the reduction was achieved by restricting the available space for air to be drawn into the stoking channel and the combustion chamber. The goal of the “choking” method is the same as that of the sealing method: to reduce the circulation of air. In the choking method, it is vital that the outlets remain open to maintain the draft through the kiln, and hence the temperature.151 Regardless of how the reduction phase was achieved, scholars have suggested that it would have lasted from 10 to 40 minutes, as the temperature dropped by 50°C.152 It was very important that this short phase not be prolonged and that the temperature not be reduced further; otherwise, it would not have been possible to reintroduce oxygen into the kiln and create the much-admired two-color effect produced by slipped and unslipped surfaces. After reduction, the air outlets were reopened and oxygen was allowed to reenter (the reoxidization phase). The temperature gradually decreased during the reoxidization phase and the kiln was left to cool down for a couple of days. For pots that were not covered with levigated slip, only the oxidization phase was required, although a reduction phase may accidentally have occurred as well.While reduction does not happen solely at higher temperatures, higher temperatures definitely speed up the reduction process.153 149. According to Noble (1988, pp. 19–20; also graphs I, II on p. 200), a pot shrinks 9.5% in size, primarily during drying. The pot loses 21% of its weight during drying, through the evaporation of water, and 33% during the firing. These calculations are based on Attic clay, without the addition of sand or other types of temper. For a more technical description of the different types of water contained in clay (e.g., shrinkage, pore, surface-absorbed, interlayer, and crystal lattice), see Rice

1987, pp. 63–67. 150. Dawson and Kent 1999; Whitbread and Dawson 2015. 151. I am deeply grateful to David Dawson for extensive discussions that further clarified my thoughts. He believes that reduction is best described as an overload of the products of combustion, rather than as a starvation of oxygen. He remarked in our correspondence that “not all these gases will be drawn through the kiln, there is too much ‘pressure,’ which is why some

tend to blow back and burn outside the mouth of the firebox. Most will be drawn through but cannot readily burn until they come into contact with the air once they have passed through the top vent, hence the flares.” 152. Winter ([1957] 2003, p. 103) suggested that the reduction phase would last 5–15 minutes, holding a temperature of 880°C. Noble (1988, p. 156) suggested 30–40 minutes. 153. Dawson and Kent 1999, p. 164.

270

Chap t er 6

The Penteskouphia pinakes capture only parts of the active firing event, which usually lasts 9–18 hours, as documented in ethnographic accounts of wood-firing kilns, not including the considerably longer warming-up and cooling-down periods.154 The total heating up, active firing, and cooling down of a kiln could last 2–3 days. An understanding of the three-stage firing process described above helps us to decipher which specific aspects are depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes. The kiln workers are principally shown in three main activities: carrying fuel or vessels to the kiln, stoking the kiln with a T-shaped rod while removing embers, and checking the fire from the vent or chimney in the kiln. For the last activity they either climb on the stoking channel, or approach the kiln directly. They regularly carry a hooked tool (see Table 5.2). In scenes that show figures who hold containers, usually bowls, these may have been used to add water to the kiln to induce a reducing atmosphere (e.g., B28) or to temporarily cool down the overflowing embers.155 Thus, the drinking vessel depicted in the combustion chamber on pinax B57 may have originally held water or some other liquid for such purposes, and was probably gradually pushed further inside the kiln.156 The kiln operator not only had to master the creation of oxidizing and reducing atmospheres inside the kiln, but also, and most importantly, he had to control their duration, and ensure that the pots were exposed to high temperatures for the appropriate amounts of “soaking” time. A man is depicted stoking the kiln with a long rod, usually T-shaped, on several pinakes. A long rod, made of wood or metal, is a standard piece of equipment for kiln workers in traditional workshops.157 The stoking of the kiln with more fuel, especially in high temperatures, causes strong flames to exit through the vent/chimney. It is safe to assume that this represents an advanced stage of the firing, around the reduction phase, as Cuomo di Caprio has already pointed out.158 In the firing inspection scenes, a man is shown climbing or standing on top of the stoking channel to check the progress of the firing from the chimney. Scenes relating to the inspection of the firing are three times more numerous than those in which the worker stokes the fire; interestingly, these common scenes also carry the most invocations to Poseidon (see above, p. 212). In inspection scenes, the man normally holds a hooked staff to pick up pots or sherds as test pieces from the chimney (see Table 5.2), in order to decide how to proceed with the stoking of the kiln and the completion of the firing. While no equipment connected with kiln firing has survived (or been identified) from antiquity, similar equipment has been used in traditional potting cultures in the Mediterranean throughout the last several cen154. Hampe and Winter 1962, 1965; Matson 1972, pp. 219, 223 (for 7- to 10-hour firings in Messenian workshops); Noble 1988, pp. 148–167; London 1989a, p. 224. 155. Dawson and Kent (1999) express serious doubts about the efficacy of the introduction of water,

mainly because there are no ethnographic parallels. 156. Winter [1957] 2003, p. 101; Cook 1961; Noble 1988, p. 152. 157. Cuomo di Caprio (1984) believes that the rod on the Penteskouphia pinakes was wooden, being more affordable for the potters. On

Cyprus they call the wooden stoking rod το κοντάρι, and the metal rod το σίδερο (Hampe and Winter 1962, p. 76). The higher cost for a metal rod would have been counterbalanced by its durability and lower rate of replacement. 158. Cuomo di Caprio 1984.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

271

Figure 6.33. Kiln-firing equipment in Renaissance Italy. Picolpasso 1548, folio 34; courtesy Victoria and Albert Museum, London

turies (Fig. 6.33).159 The iconographic and ethnographic records are our only sources of evidence for the firing tools of ancient Greek potters.160 Firing test pieces have survived in ancient Greek pottery workshops.161 More specifically at Corinth, test pieces have been reexamined by Papadopoulos, who discussed 32 examples, mainly from the Potters’ Quarter and the Vrysoula Classical deposit. They often carry broad strokes on both exterior and interior, with paint running over the broken edges. Interestingly, more than half of the studied Corinthian test pieces come from kotylai and oinochoai and are Middle Corinthian in date, thus coinciding with the general chronological framework of the pinakes in the present study (Figs. 6.34, 6.35).162

159. The kiln-firing equipment of traditional potters in Las Bisbal, Spain (Köpke 1991, p. 285, fig. 10), resembles the toolkit of the Penteskouphia potters. 160. One metal stoking rod, measuring 2.00 m in length, has survived from a 19th-century a.d. kiln in Porto Cheli, excavated by F. Matson ( Jameson 1969; Halieis excavation notebook no. 500). Giannopoulou (2010, p. 74, pl. 186) mentions that the Messenian potters used the dichouli, a pronged iron tool with long wooden handles, to push the fuel into the fire, and a gelberi, a

kind of rake, to remove charcoal from the combustion chamber. For additional terms for tools in ethnographic research, see Voyatzoglou-Sakellaropoulou 2009, pp. 395–400; and Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 9–12. 161. Papadopoulos (2003) provides examples from the Athenian Agora (pp. 210–214), other sites in Athens (pp. 225–244), and South Italy (pp. 259–268). 162. Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 244– 258, no. C1; he also excludes (p. 255) some pieces from the Potters’ Quarter that were previously considered test

pieces or try pieces. On the shapes and dates, see Papadopoulos 2003, p. 358, tables 4.1 (with 17 out of 32 pieces belonging to kotylai and oinochoai), 4.2 (with 17 out of the 32 pieces dating to the Middle Corinthian period). For test pieces from the Vrysoula Classical deposit to the north of the Potters’ Quarter, see Pemberton 1970, p. 302, nos. 146–150, pl. 75. A smaller sample was examined earlier by Farnsworth 1960, and the test pieces from the Potters’ Quarter have been published in Corinth XV.3 (listed within each shape, not grouped separately).

272

Chap t er 6

Farnsworth, in her preliminary study of a small group of Corinthian test pieces (draw pieces) with withdrawing holes, concluded from the color variations observed in the body clay that they were withdrawn at different times.163 The potter had to watch for two critical points: first, that a reducing atmosphere had been attained, and second, that sintering of the slip had been achieved.164 Farnsworth rightly observed that even the drawing of test pieces from the kiln required skill and perfect timing; if the test piece, which had just sintered or was about to sinter, was exposed to the air, this sudden change of atmosphere could result in the fast reoxidization of both pot and slip, and the test piece would provide little help to the potter.165 The test pieces could also have served to test the quality of new batches of slip to be used in subsequent kiln loads. In this way, potters could assess the performance of a slipped vessel while firing was in progress, while also perfecting the quality of the next batch of slip that would be used to decorate vessels in future loads. Test pieces must have been important tools for the kiln master, who placed more than one inside the kiln to allow him to test the progress of the firing at multiple points, and also to give him some flexibility in choosing which ones he could withdraw with the most ease and the least disturbance of the load. It is perhaps not coincidental that the sectional view of a kiln load on B57 depicts two fragments, interpreted as test pieces, near the chimney of the kiln. Those test pieces could indicate both the progress of the firing and the behavior of the slip. Small firing test pieces could also have been retrieved from the spy hole, an opening in the pot-firing chamber that would have informed the potters about the progress of the firing in the middle area and lower half of the chamber and would have complemented the information from test pieces withdrawn from the chimney. As noted above, the small spy hole is too small to have been used for the retrieval of test pieces; rather, it would have served the potter better for visually assessing the progress of the firing, based on the overall “glow” of the pots. Noble’s argument that these scenes represent the “fireman . . . with a hooked stick with which he will pull a cover over the hole causing the fire to smoke and produce a reducing condition in the kiln” is definitely attractive, but in no scene do we see the worker carrying something resembling a cover while he is approaching the kiln.166 Such an activity would likely require the coordination of more workers, and the use of a hooked tool is puzzling.

Figure 6.34 (left). Middle Corinthian bowl used as test piece, from the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth (Corinth KP-1052). Scale 1:2. Photo

P. Dellatolas, courtesy Corinth Excavations

Figure 6.35 (right). Middle Corinthian kotyle used as test piece, from the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth (Corinth KP-1344). Scale 1:2. Photo L. Bartzioti, courtesy Corinth Excavations

163. Farnsworth 1960, p. 72. 164. More recently, Schilling (2003, p. 318) echoed this dual function: “The primary purpose of the test pieces was to show if the engobe had turned the intended black color during the reduction phase of firing, and whether it had yet fused, which would permanently seal in the black color.” 165. Farnsworth 1960, pp. 73–74. 166. Noble (1988, p. 152) echoes Richter’s comment (1923, p. 76) that “the firemen are . . . climbing to the top of the kiln to manipulate the draught hole with a hooked instrument.”

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

273

In addition to retrieving a test piece, a potter can approach the kiln vent with a twig to check the kiln’s temperature at various stages during the firing; this method is well known ethnographically.167 Based on how fast the twig caught fire, the potter could estimate the temperature inside the kiln. Alternatively, depending on how long it took for the twig to catch fire, the potter could have determined whether the reduction phase was finished and it was time to proceed to the reoxidization phase. Lastly, an additional advantage of holding a lighted twig over the vent, especially at nighttime, was that the potter could have seen better whether the pots were fired. Checking the progress of the fire in the kiln from the top is a timehonored practice, as Psaropoulou remarks in her study of traditional potters in the Aegean: In order to check whether his pots have been fired, the potter once again climbs up to the top of the kiln. He removes its cover of sherds and peers into the small opening left for this purpose. If the objects have turned white, they are ready. If they are black, they have been smoked and further fire is necessary.168 167. This method is still practiced today in traditional workshops on Lesbos (K. Kouvlis, pers. comm.). The same “twig” method was used in traditional workshops in Vounaria, Messenia, to test whether the glazed jugs were sufficiently fired (Matson 1972, p. 219). 168. Psaropoulou 1990, p. 17. 169. Voyatzoglou 1973, p. 15. 170. Nighttime firings are mentioned in Biblical texts: “He that brings the earthenware vessel for the sin-offering must spend the night by the kiln (watching over it)” (Mishnah Parah 5.1, Tosefta Parah 5.1; Vitto 1986, p. 54). In ethnographic contexts, Troullou (1991, p. 131) mentions that traditional potters on Siphnos fire their kilns until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.; Giannopoulou (2010, p. 139) provides a similar time frame for the firing of pithoi by the Messenian potters. Tunisian potters at Moknine fire their kilns during the night (Hasaki 2005), and experimental firings of a Greek kiln replica in Tucson were also held from late afternoon to midnight (see Fig. 6.26; Hasaki, May, and Keyser, forthcoming). 171. Hampe and Winter 1962, p. 84, pl. 45:2. It may be that in this specific case the kiln was allowed to cool down. 172. Mayes (1961, p. 11, fig. 3) charted the 42-hour firing and cooling of a Romano-British kiln. The kiln measured ca. 1.30 m in diameter and fired ca. 180 coarse-ware pots.

On Crete, the potters in the jar-makers’ community at Thrapsano interpret the white color for unglazed test-pieces placed on the iron sheets that temporarily cover the top of the kiln as a sign that the firing must end.169 The importance of nighttime as the optimal time for advanced stages of firing cannot be overemphasized. The color of the flames against the dark sky would have been a very reliable guide for the potters to estimate the temperature attained and the atmosphere inside the kiln (see Fig. 6.26).170 While the spy hole enables the potter to check the middle of the kiln load, he also needs to check the status of the firing elsewhere, especially at the top where the heat is considerably lower. Regarding the daringly close contact of kiln workers with the kilns, we can safely assume that the schematic depictions on the Penteskouphia pinakes are not meant to reflect the actual distance between workers and the fierce flames: on pinax B48, for example, the potter is almost touching the fire. This is an attention-grabbing moment, to be sure, but fierce flames come out of the chimney of the kiln only at very specific times (namely, when the fire is stoked), while during the rest of the time the chimney or vent emits only fumes. The clay insulation of the exterior of the dome also diminishes the effect of the intense heat. Surprisingly, experienced potters are able to climb up the kiln; a Cypriot potter at Klirou has been photographed climbing barefoot on the kiln dome to cover the jug that serves as the kiln’s vent with another vessel.171 Finally, as the worker stopped fueling the kiln, the temperature decreased and ultimately the fire died out. It is imperative that a long, slow, cooling phase follow the kiln firing.172 The vent and stoking channel of the kiln (if they were blocked in earlier phases) are also opened gradually. After the cooling phase, the dome was slowly dismantled and the fired products of the upper layers carefully removed. More ceramics were removed via the loading door, which was also dismantled. If pots were removed too quickly, the sudden change in temperature could cause them to crack. As with everything else in the potting process, patience and skill are the two main prerequisites for success.

274

Chap t er 6

WO R K F O RC E A N D S C A LE O F P RO D U C T I O N I N A N C I EN T G R EEK C ER A M I C WO R K S H O P S Moving from the anatomy of ceramic kilns, I can now address the larger picture of the workshop as a production site and its workforce. The scale of production in a workshop can be assessed by the size of its workforce and the number of kilns utilized. The Penteskouphia pinakes convey a consistent message in workshop organization: workshops with one kiln and a small workforce in all scenes of pottery production (clay extraction, potters at the wheel, or kiln scenes). Single kilns fit better in the limited space on the pinakes while also providing an accurate picture of pottery workshops both in Corinth and beyond across the millennia. Most pottery workshops throughout Greek antiquity had only one kiln: of all known kiln sites in ancient Greece, 77% have one kiln, 14% have two, and the remaining 9% have three or more kilns.173 In Archaic times, the period of the Penteskouphia pinakes, while the majority of kiln sites still feature only one kiln, we start seeing the first examples of workshop sites that operated more kilns, signaling perhaps a more intensive mode of production compared to the Geometric period which features exclusively single-kiln sites.174 The Archaic workshops at Skala Oropou (Attica), ancient Mende, Leukopetra, and Phari (Thasos; Fig. 6.24) have two kilns each (see above, pp. 248–252). On Archaic Crete, Lato has three (Fig. 6.22) and Prinias has six (Fig. 6.21). It is not clear whether the potters used all these kilns simultaneously, or sequentially when one kiln fell out of use, or perhaps alternately, to maximize the use-life of their kilns. These workshops have both larger and smaller kilns, suggesting that they were full-time production sites and could undertake the construction, repair, and loading of multiple kilns.175 Multiple kilns in a workshop could either be used to fire multiple sizes of the same shape or different shapes with similar dimensions. As we see on B57, potters opt to fire similarly sized pots together both to achieve better draft distribution and for easier stacking in the kiln.176 The number of kilns in a workshop and their load capacity are closely linked with the size of workforce and the scale of production. The smaller kilns that we see on the pinakes and at excavated sites were more economical in fuel consumption, easy to maintain, and required fewer days to be filled with wares than larger kilns. One potter can normally produce the load for an average-sized kiln of 1.00–1.10 m in diameter in roughly one week, and can go through the drying phase, the firing, and the unloading of the kiln in about a month. A short production cycle—from forming the pots to selling a kiln load—made the best use of the potters’ small capital investment and minimized their risk, in case of a misfired kiln load.177 Therefore, the potter with a smaller kiln could earn income more quickly, and the single-kiln production model is a reliable and low-risk economic model.178 Workshops operating two kilns simultaneously had differing crew sizes, levels of demand, and spatial requirements than workshops operating two kilns alternately. How many people did it take to produce a kiln load? Scenes on the Corinthian and Athenian pinakes and vase paintings consistently portray

173. See Hasaki 2006, 2011. 174. For Geometric kilns in ancient Greece, see Hasaki 2002, esp. pp. 219– 225. 175. The average size of the Archaic kilns (1.40 m in diameter) is approximately 0.5 m larger than that of the Geometric kilns. 176. Mayes (1961, p. 10), in his experimental replica of a RomanoBritish kiln, specifically noted that the range in the size of pots and the varying proportions made loading difficult. 177. Hasaki 2011. 178. Acton 2014, p. 80. Acton (pp. 104–106) argues convincingly that a single-kiln workshop would consider increasing its crew with an additional potter and some assistants only if there were a solid commitment from a buyer to purchase the second kiln load.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

275

crew sizes ranging from three to seven people, whether the activity (forming, firing) takes place within the workshop or away from it. In the multifigural scenes of pottery production on the Penteskouphia pinakes (e.g., A4, B1, B25, B27, B28), the crews do not exceed four to five workers. On the Archaic black-figure hydria at Munich, as many as seven figures are involved in various phases of pottery manufacture under the careful watch of an eighth figure, an elderly man (Fig. 5.5). Their ages span three generations, if the white-haired man is correctly interpreted as the owner of the workshop, and perhaps a retired potter himself.179 On the bell krater at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, three men are involved in work with bell kraters, both decorating and moving them inside the workshop (Fig. 5.20). The Caputi hydria shows as many as four painters working on kantharoi and kraters, one of whom is female (Fig. 5.21). The principle holds even beyond Athens and Corinth; on a Boiotian black-figure skyphos, four figures form, pass around, and stack skyphoi in a workshop (Fig. 5.12).180 Pictorial and archaeological evidence converge to paint a coherent picture where the overwhelming majority of production sites across time and space were small-scale enterprises employing full-time workers and operating year-round, even if production output fluctuated. At these small, family-based workshops, knowledge of the craft was transmitted from father to son or to other male relatives.181 The potters of the Little Master Cups proudly communicated this multigenerational expertise in the prominent placement of their signatures, which often included their patronymic.182 Ceramic workshops maintained their small and efficient crews from antiquity, through the Renaissance, up to modern times. A typical Renaissance Italian workshop that employed two potters, four vase painters, one preparator, two kiln attendants, and one or two people handling the business side has been suggested as adequate to prepare the kiln load, a total of about 10 persons, or a five-person crew per potter.183 Ethnographic studies of traditional workshops in modern Greece and elsewhere in the Mediterranean have suggested that a pottery workshop with four to six active, full-time personnel is the optimum size of a workforce to run a viable enterprise.184 In Messenia, crews of four or five workers (potters and their assistants) manned the workshops at Vounaria, and stationary Koroneika workshops could function with as few as three individuals.185 179. Scheibler 1995, p. 786; Chadzidimitriou 2005, p. 150. 180. Daumas 2000. 181. For a collection of ancient references to family-transmitted crafts, see Burford 1972, pp. 68–123. For craft apprenticeship that took place in the same family-centered model, see Hasaki 2012a. For different apprenticeship models in traditional Cypriot workshops, see Ionas 2000, pp. 195– 208.

182. E.g., the Archaic signatures by Eucheiros, son of Ergotimos; Nearchos with two sons, Tleson and Ergoteles (late 6th century b.c.); Bakchios and two sons, Bakchios and Kittos (4th century b.c.). See Beazley 1932; Webster 1972, pp. 9–11; Williams 1995. Heesen (2011, p. 1) observes that signatures are more common in the first generation (560/55–535/30 b.c.). 183. Lightbown and Caiger-Smith 1980, vol. 2, pp. xxi–xxii; Watson 2001,

pp. 51–55. 184. Arafat and Morgan 1989; Shanks 1999, pp. 43–50. Von Vacano (1979), synthesizing painters’ specialization in specific shapes, visual evidence from the Penteskouphia pinakes, and ethnographic parallels, also argues for small-scale, family-run workshops in Archaic Corinth. 185. Vounaria: Matson 1972, p. 221. Koroneika: Blitzer 1990, p. 679.

276

Chap t er 6

Looking more closely at the assigned duties of workers in traditional Greek workshops can provide a useful guide for reconstructing division of labor in ancient workshops. In these small working units, there is most often a core set of basic responsibilities shared by everyone, while each individual also develops a specialized set of skills. The ethnographic record can be a useful guide, since most of the tasks (collecting clay and fuel, forming pots, and firing kilns) have remained basically unchanged. For example, a typical Cretan workshop of itinerant pithoi-makers employed six workers: the master potter, the second potter, the wheel-turner and kiln operator, the person in charge of working the clay, the fuel collector, and the general assistant.186 The central role of the experienced kiln operator (καμινάρης) is reflected in his pay scale, as he received a share of the proceeds almost equal to that received by the master potter.187 The scenes of kiln firings on the Penteskouphia pinakes often depict more than one figure (see Table 5.2), since continuous attention to the kiln by experienced workers was perhaps the most important factor for success. We cannot tell from the depictions, but one figure may have been more important than the others. Ancient sources do not preserve a specific job title for the kiln overseer, but only an experienced worker would have been entrusted with this task, someone who could “read” the flames exiting the kiln and stoke the fire accordingly. Such a person may have been called καμινευτής, as the term is commonly used for operators of other types of furnaces.188 A model for division of skill for the activities performed in an Archaic Corinthian workshop distinguishes three skill levels (low, medium, and high), and assigns kiln management to the highest skill level, along with that of a potter (throwing closed forms) and that of a vase painter (miniature figure painting).189 Although in that model kiln building and kiln stoking are assigned to the low-skill category, it may be better to integrate all kiln-related activities within the high-skill kiln-management category.

186. Voyatzoglou 1972, 1973, 1974, 1984; Voyatzoglou-Sakellaropoulou 2009. Another six-person team is mentioned at a ceramic workshop at Asomatos, Crete (Hampe and Winter 1962, pp. 20–21). 187. For Crete, see Vallianos and Padouva 1986, p. 18; Voyatzoglou 1972, 1973, 1974, 1984; VoyatzoglouSakellaropoulou 2009, pp. 175–176 (where the share of the second master is listed as 1½). The proceeds earned by the itinerant group of pithos-makers from Thrapsano, Crete, are calculated in shares. Of a total of 27 shares, the μάστορας (the master potter) and the σοτομάστορας (the second master) each receive six shares; the τροχάρης (wheel turner), who also works as the καμινάρης (kiln operator), receives

five; the χωματάς (clay man responsible for acquiring and preparing the soils) and the ξυλάς (the woodcutter) each receive four; and the κουβαλητής (general assistant) receives two. If the general assistant has his own means of transportation, the pool increases to 29 shares and he receives four; the shares for the remaining crew stay the same. A slightly smaller workforce with almost the same task division governs the traditional workshops on Siphnos (Troullou 1991, pp. 133–136): μάστορας (the master potter), μπασπερέτης (potter’s assistant), κοπέλι/λασπάς (general assistant, especially for mixing clay), and κλαδάς/χωματάς (to acquire fuel and clay). 188. At the Classical metallurgical furnaces in the Laurion mines an

Ἰανίβελος was the master furnace operator, the ἀρχικαμινευτής (IG II2 11697: Ἰανίβηλε ἀρχικαμινευτὰ χαῖρε; ca. 350 b.c.; restored in SEG 13.207). A mortgage boundary stone records the salary given to the furnace worker Σίμων, from Paiania (Asklepiakon mine at Soureza in the Legrena Valley in the southern area of Laurion, SEG 32.236; ca. 350 b.c.). In later times, both male and female operators in charge of a bath furnace were called a καμινευτής (Lucian, De sacrificiis 6; Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 1.1.38), καμινεύς (Diod. Sic. 20.63.5), or καμινεύτρια or καμινώ (Aelius Herodianus, quoted in Eust. Od. 18.27; Apollonius the Sophist, Lexicon Homericum, q.v.). 189. Shanks 1999, pp. 48–49.

Tec hnol o g y, Wor kf or c e, and Or ganiz at ion

277

As for the line of production, most workshops seem to have specialized in specific pottery sizes, as suggested by the images depicted on the Penteskouphia pinakes. When a larger part of a workshop is preserved on a pinax, one finds potters working either on small drinking cups (B10) or on larger sizes, such as amphoras (indirectly alluded to on B57), jugs (A4, B8), or kraters (B9). Such size specialization results in more efficient use of the potter’s time, as well as of the workshop space required for clay processing and drying. It also allows efficient stacking of pots inside the kiln. Pinax B57, for example, shows a kiln load consisting of similarly sized vessels (jugs and amphoras). In some cases, however, a workshop would have found it more advantageous to specialize in sets of shapes that ordinarily go together, such as drinking sets consisting of kraters and drinking cups. Studies of Archaic Corinthian pottery have distinguished numerous Middle Corinthian vase painters who worked on such drinking sets. The Medallion Painter, for example, decorated kotylai, kylikes, oinochoai, and column kraters, as well as lekanoid bowls and plates.190 One can argue that shape and size cannot be accurately estimated in scenes as small as those on the pinakes, but these representations, crude as they may be, correspond to what connoisseurship studies have independently concluded about the output of potters and painters. The model of workshop specialization rendered on the pinakes is echoed in the archaeological record. An analysis of the contents of wells around the Potters’ Quarter concluded that those potters tended to specialize either in drinking vessels (kotylai) or in larger symposium vessels such as oinochoai.191 Further investigation is needed to explore whether workshops specialized in shapes of the same function but in different sizes. The predominant production model in ancient Greece, as indicated in multiple lines of evidence, was a single-kiln workshop with small crews of 4–6 persons. This model of craft specialization is labeled variously in scholarship: as “individual workshops” by both Peacock and Costin, “Familien Betrieb” by Scheibler, and “workshop industry” by van der Leeuw.192 The archaeological record provides no evidence for large pottery or tile factories in ancient Greece, and some limited production at the household level could have existed on a small scale, yet neither alters the overall picture of the ancient Greek ceramic industry.193 The family-centered model was adopted for other crafts, such as metal­ working, if one assumes that the crew of six workmen depicted on the Berlin Foundry cup represents the norm in other craft workshops (see below, p. 283). Ancient Greek sources also mention a few large-scale operations, which could even qualify as factories (loosely corresponding to Scheibler’s 190. Amyx 1988, pp. 194–195, 382–383. 191. See Brownlee 2003, p. 183, table 11.1, for well I in the Potters’ Quarter. 192. Van der Leeuw 1977; Peacock 1982; Scheibler 1986; Costin 1991. See Hasaki 2002, p. 267, table VI.3; Hasaki 2011.

193. In 18th-century England, only the pottery factories that used machinery could employ 10–20 workers (Peacock 1982, p. 45). Eisman (1974) suggested that Nikosthenes’ workshop in Archaic Athens employed as many as 20 painters. See also Valavanis 1997. For Nikosthenes’ workshop in particular, Tosto (1999, pp. 195–200) estimates

a workforce of 6–8 people (tasked with potting, painting, and other auxiliary duties) at any one time. Crowded workshops with large crews are not corroborated by recent studies of potters’ output or spatial analysis (Hasaki 2011; Sapirstein 2013 [with online appendix], 2020; Stissi 2016, 2020).

278

Chap t er 6

“Meister Betrieb” and Peacock’s “workshop industry”). Demosthenes (27.9, 21, 31) mentions a κλινοποιός (a couch-making establishment) staffed by 20 slaves and a μαχαιροποιός (a knife- or sword-making establishment) that employed 32–33 slaves. The shield factory of Lysias (Lys. 12.19) employed no fewer than 120 slaves. 194 We do not have the archaeological remains of such factories.

CO N C LU S I O N A comparison of the workshop scenes on the Penteskouphia pinakes with the archaeological remains of ancient workshop establishments underscores the value of these depictions as accurate reflections of how Corinthian potters worked, and how their potters’ quarters differed little from communities of potters elsewhere in the ancient Greek world. Wheels and kilns of types similar to those depicted on the pinakes were common in all potters’ workshops in ancient Greece. Archaeometric, ethnographic, and experimental data have added to our knowledge of how an updraft kiln operated, allowing us to better understand how the Corinthian potters fired their kilns. It is regrettable that no Archaic pottery kiln has been found around Ancient Corinth; all known workshop sites there are later than the middle of the 6th century  b.c. For the time being, details about the world of Archaic Corinthian potters can be gleaned only through their products and the pottery scenes on the Penteskouphia pinakes. These scenes make a strong visual statement that transcends the narrow chronological and geographical boundaries of their production and use. In summary, the ancient epigraphical sources, depictions of pottery production on the pinakes and other objects, and the archaeological, ethnographic, and experimental evidence suggest that the typical ceramic workshop was modest in size, run by a small, family-based workforce, utilized one or two small kilns, and produced vessels similar in size and shape.

194. For the couch-making factory, see Acton 2014, pp. 181–182, 254–256 (discussing it as a luxury furniture enterprise which was very profitable and could operate on such a scale); for the knife/sword-making factory, see Acton 2014, pp. 144–145, 254–256; for Lysias’ shield-making establishment, see Acton 2014, pp. 138–140. Acton estimates that such a workshop could produce ca. 2,000 shields a year and cover 20% of the annual need for shields in Athens, therefore being “a leading competitor in a concentrated industry.”

c hap t er 7

Industrial Religion and Potters’ Anxieties

On s’explique moins facilement la présence de ces objets en un lieu où l’on n’observe ni traces de four à poteries, ni vestiges d’édifices antiques. Il n’est guère vraisemblable que ces tablettes soient des rebuts de fabrication; il est plus légitime de supposer qu’elles ont été suspendues soit aux murs d’un temple de Poseidon, soit dans un bois sacré, et que plus tard elles ont été jetées hors du sanctuaire, comme des objets sans grande valeur, pour faire place à de nouveaux ex-voto.1 Rayet and Collignon’s passage above reflects an uneasiness among early scholars to assign a use context to the Penteskouphia pinakes. They were perplexed by the absence of both ceramic workshops and other architectural remains. Ultimately they envisioned the pinakes as suspended votives on the walls of a temple to Poseidon or on trees in a sacred grove. Over the years, and despite the lack of any architectural remains for a sacred site to Poseidon, the pinakes became intimately linked with a shrine or sacred grove to either Poseidon alone or to both Poseidon and Amphitrite.2 A normative explanation for the assemblage gradually developed, one that suggested regular ritual activity at the sacred site and masked several oddities of such ritual behavior. Although Rayet and Collignon could not associate the pinakes with ceramic production sites or interpret them as production debris, in recent scholarship the pinakes have been increasingly associated with a potters’ community at Penteskouphia that established and maintained this shrine. Potters maintaining a shrine is an attractive idea, but one that lacks comparanda. Ancient sources remain silent regarding potters holding any festivals in the Corinthia or elsewhere for their protector deity, or for celebrating the beginning of the potting season, that would require them to regularly frequent a local shrine.3 1. Rayet and Collignon 1888, p. 145. 2. Furtwängler (1885, p. 47) suggested a sacred grove. See also discussions in Payne 1931, p. 159, n. 1; Boardman (1954, p. 193) implicitly accepts that the pinakes were found in a sacred context (“temenos fence enclosing trees, an altar, and a single

room oikos”). Mylonopoulos (2003, pp. 263–265) discusses groves sacred to Poseidon in the Peloponnese; for Poseidon’s sanctuaries at Geraistos, Kalaureis, and Tainaron, see Schumacher 1993. For the various types of rural sanctuaries, in terms of architecture and material culture, see Baumer 2004. 3. An annual potters’ festival is

recorded in pre–World War II Nabeul, Tunisia, during the summertime. Situated near the sea, the festival included a procession, communal feasting, dance, and music to ensure a good year of production and of maritime trade (Lisse and Louis 1956, pp. 195–196, figs. 86, 87 on p. 196).

280

c hap t er 7

While addressing the key questions of who used the pinakes, where, when, and for what reasons, it is worthwhile to review some fundamental aspects of the Penteskouphia pinakes as a form and as a corpus. In the present study, I have emphasized the flexibility of pinakes/plaques used both within and beyond the workshop, from recycled krater handle plates to practice surfaces, from apotropaic devices on kilns to votives at a shrine. As the Penteskouphia pinakes exhibit strong links to both industrial and religious contexts, can we envision a ritual setting that encompasses this dual character? The contexts of the Corinthian pinakes found outside Penteskouphia may offer some helpful clues: they appear both in religious contexts, as at Isthmia and Perachora, and in industrial contexts, as at the Potters’ Quarter (see above, pp. 7–9). More relevant to our discussion is that industrial and ritual spheres converge at the Potters’ Quarter and the Greek Tile Works, where pockets of worship in the form of stele shrines are preserved within the ceramic workshops. A stele shrine within or in close proximity to the pottery workshops emerges as a viable candidate for a hybrid industrial-ritual context for the Penteskouphia pinakes. Therefore, the Penteskouphia pinakes can best be considered within the context of industrial religion, the rituals maintained by craft practitioners to ensure success at their businesses. In addition to their hybrid industrial and ritual character, I have also highlighted four remarkable oddities about the pinakes: first, the potters at Penteskouphia decorated them with themes such as Poseidon and potters at work that rarely appeared on their vases; second, they inscribed a far greater proportion of pinakes than vases; third, the inscriptions refer mainly to Poseidon, often including an otherwise unattested cultic epithet for him, ἄναξ; and last is the unusual medium itself: pinakes, particularly two-sided ones, in such great numbers are not typical of the Corinthian ritual landscape. These four remarkably unique aspects—rare iconography on a rare form, an unusual frequency of inscriptions, an uncommon cultic epithet for Poseidon, and the form itself—converge in the Penteskouphia group, which we should consider as an extraordinary, short-lived phenomenon, highly localized in the area of Penteskouphia. Strangely, the potters’ obvious zeal for painting Poseidon and invoking him by name on the Penteskouphia pinakes is not answered by any evidence for a cult of Poseidon—or of any other god—in the area. With all these oddities in mind, how can we explain why this site of industrial religion at Penteskouphia, even if it functioned for awhile with normative characteristics, suddenly took such an unusual turn? The Penteskouphia corpus is extraordinarily large, has no precedent, and did not inspire imitations in any other context, religious or otherwise, in the Corinthia. Can we associate it with an extraordinary event, or better, a reaction by the potters’ communities to an imminent threat, the beginning of an impending disaster, or a protracted spell of declining business? Burkert aptly observes that there are always “two primary forces behind offerings: disaster and affluence.”4 I argue that a slowly accelerating disaster was, in fact, operative in the case of the Penteskouphia pinakes: the dramatic decline of trade in Corinthian figural pottery in the face of fierce competition from the Athenian pottery export market may have triggered this extraordinary ritual behavior.

4. Burkert 1987, p. 44; emphasis mine.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

281

Although Rayet and Collignon did not reflect on the reasons why the pinakes would be dedicated to Poseidon, they briefly addressed the disposal of the pinakes outside the sanctuary as that of objects of little value. I hypothesize that their systemic context (where the artifacts participate in a behavioral system) was an informal shrine to Poseidon (possibly with a stele shrine as a focal feature), maintained by the potters’ communities in the vicinity. The formation processes for their deposition remain elusive.5 In this chapter I will discuss each of the components for this hypothesis: the potters’ community, the typical ritual sites for Poseidon in the Peloponnese as well as informal religious architecture in the Corinthia, and the economically strenuous times when Corinthian supremacy was challenged by the rising power of Athens in the maritime trade of ceramics.

T H E P O T T ER S ’ CO M M U N I T Y AT P EN T E S KO U P H I A Est-ce dans quelque nécropole antique, dans le voisinage d’un temple, auprès d’anciens fours à poterie, ou en dehors d’une des portes de l’Acrocorinthe?6

5. Schiffer 1996, pp. 3–4: In archaeological contexts, the artifact interacts only with the natural environment. For this study, I adopt the simplest scenario where the systemic context (use context) is identical (or within short distance) to the ancient deposition context, the 1879 farmer’s dig site, and the 1905 Washburn excavation site. 6. Rayet 1880, p. 102; emphasis mine. 7. Amyx 1988, pp. 603–604. 8. Wachter 2001, p. 134. This association is based on a single inscribed pinax from the Potters’ Quarter (no. COP 34) that Wachter takes as confirmation that the other pinakes came from “the Corinthian potters’ quarter.” 9. Mylonopoulos 2003, pp. 357, 359.

In 1880, Rayet pondered whether the pinakes were found in an ancient necropolis, in the vicinity of a temple, near ancient pottery kilns, or in the area outside one of the gates of Acrocorinth. Rayet’s suggestion of an area of pottery production as the context of the pinakes has been determined in recent decades to be the most likely scenario. Amyx envisioned that “most of the pinakes were dedicated by members of the pottery industry.”7 Wachter also suggested that the pinakes came from a potters’ context, but he places it further east, in the Potters’ Quarter.8 Finally, Mylonopoulos stated that the majority of worshippers were potters, and that a shrine was maintained exclusively by them.9 Pinakes, as votive offerings, tend not to stray far from their general region of manufacture, unlike other categories of ceramic votives. Perhaps the Penteskouphia pinakes may have remained even closer to their production site than normal. While workshops have yet to be located near the 1905 excavation site of the pinakes, it is easy to envision a small but vibrant potters’ community in the area of Penteskouphia in the Archaic period. The general area, northwest and southwest of Acrocorinth, was the preferred location chosen by several other potters’ communities who set up their workshops in the area. In the northwest of Acrocorinth, the Potters’ Quarter, established in Late Geometric times, enjoyed a long period of use down to the Classical period; other sites include Anaploga and Kokkinovrysi. Further to the southwest of Acrocorinth, a Byzantine workshop has been detected to the east of Washburn’s 1905 excavation spot (see above, Fig. 6.1, and pp. 228–230). An extensive archaeological exploration of the Penteskouphia area may bring to light workshop debris, such as misfired pottery, kiln furniture, or large workshop dumps, that still lie undetected. The Penteskouphia quarter could have housed a few workshops, which would have fared well when the figural Corinthian pottery industry did the same, but probably would not have been able to weather changes in consumer taste in the late 6th

282

c hap t er 7

century, due to their lack of diversification. It is logical to link the unparalleled clustering of pinakes at Penteskouphia with this Penteskouphia-based potters’ community, rather than imagining that nearby communities from the Potters’ Quarter or Anaploga walked to Penteskouphia to be the primary practitioners of this ritual behavior. Scholars have therefore emphasized the role of potters in establishing the sacred spot at Penteskouphia. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter  3 above, it appears that the dedicants of the pinakes were, in large part, their makers—craftspeople employed at workshops that produced mainly drinking vessels, such as kotylai and kraters. The potters populated this shrine, at least from the available evidence, with terracotta pinakes, an unusual form of dedication that carried uncommon themes. The ease with which a pinax could be made enabled anyone in a workshop to produce one, and judging from the range of craftsmanship observable on them, everyone from apprentices to seasoned potters turned to this familiar form to express their skill, concerns, or piety—or all three. A small rectangular piece of clay could be repurposed from a workshop testing surface and transformed into a votive pinax. Workshops could also have kept on hand a small number of pinakes specifically made to be used as votives, by the potters themselves as well as by customers.10 Once established, of course, the site could have been visited by anyone, potter or not. Potters from nearby communities or middlemen who were involved in the export of Corinthian ceramics, as well as other travelers, could also have frequented the Penteskouphia shrine during their business visits to the workshops and asked Poseidon to protect their travels either by sea or land.11 Passersby using the road that originally passed from Penteskouphia to Kleonai (see above, p. 36) could also have participated in the local practice, especially since the purchase price of a pinax must have been negligible. Even so, the highly visible local custom of dedicating pinakes did not spark a following elsewhere, among potters or others. Terracotta pinakes outside Penteskouphia maintained a very low visibility.The pottery associated with the Penteskouphia assemblage does not include any imports, another factor in support of the hypothesis that the ritual phenomenon of dedicating pinakes was local. The abundance of inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes provides a more individualized approach to this community: many personal names that could belong to potters and their crews are recorded on the pinakes (twice as many on pinakes showing potters at work as in the remainder of the corpus; see above, pp. 209, 212), and a few people identify themselves explicitly as members of the potters’ community (Milonidas on F 511 / MNC 212; Timonidas on B42; see Tables 5.6, 5.7). The latter come especially from workshops specializing in wheel-thrown fine wares with figural decoration, as evidenced by their egrapsen signatures, which emphasize their role in decorating the vessels. As the pinakes bear only male names, the dedications must have been made by, or on behalf of, men. Although none of the attested names are accompanied by toponymics, it is safe to assume that the dedicators must have lived in the Corinthia and possibly at or near Penteskouphia. By contrast, the dedicant on the pinax from Pitsa (a location in the orbit of Sikyon) felt the need to include his toponymic (“x the Corinthian”). On pinax F 838 + fr., depicting Poseidon on one side and a

10. For production and sale of votives near sanctuaries, see Perachora II, p. 529. 11. Scheibler 1979; 1995, p. 176. For the trade of Greek pottery in general, see Gill 1991; Osborne (1996) discusses the directional, regular, and relatively high-scale trade of pottery in the Mediterranean, especially toward Etruria.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

283

horse on the other, the (unnamed) dedicants provide a vague topographical indication in the inscription Πε̆ραeόθεν νῑϙο̑μες [. . . ?], interpreted by scholars to refer either to a Corinthian harbor Peraia/Peiraeum, possibly Perachora, or to a still-unlocated village (Peraion).12

I N D U S T R I A L R ELI G I O N A N D S H R I N E S O F C R A F T CO M M U N I T I E S By engaging in the ritual of industrial religion, the Penteskouphia potters would have joined several other craft communities across time and space. A brief survey of expressions of industrial piety will help us better understand the pinakes. Although no Corinthian scene on pinakes or on vases shows a pinax in use, our brief exploration of industrial religion can start with an example in Athenian vase painting of pinakes used in an industrial place: the so-called Berlin Foundry cup, a red-figure kylix by the Foundry Painter (Fig. 7.1).13 The cup depicts a total of six black-figure pinakes and protomes, arranged in two rows of four and two. They are hung next to a furnace inside a foundry and are thought to be votives. In the upper row from left to right, there is a pinax showing a figure walking to the right holding a lyre or staff, a female protome (Athena?), a bearded male protome (Hephaistos?), and a pinax showing a male youth striding to the left, holding a hammer or a torch in his left hand. In the lower row, the pinax at left shows an animal, and the pinax at right has a seated draped female figure depicted in profile.14 Mattusch postulated that these pinakes had a prophylactic purpose, “to ensure good fortune in the industrial complex and hazardous procedures of handling and casting molten metal.”15 Turning to archaeological assemblages in Athens, we encounter a set of industrial pyres in the Athenian Agora.16 Rotroff, in her study of these 12. For the inscription see IG IV 329; Wachter 2001, pp. 151–152, no. COP 85. It has been variously interpreted as “We are coming from Peraia” to “We have won a prize from Peraion.” Salmon (1984, pp. 21, 26, n. 99) believes that the term “Peiraion” refers to the entire peninsula from Oenoe to the north and the region of Loutraki westwards. “Peiraeum” implies “from Perachora.” See Sinn 1990 (esp. pp. 67–70) for the Corinthian Περαία as the general settlement area near the Heraion at Perachora. A passage from Xenophon (Hell. 4.5) details how the inhabitants from Πειραιόν took refuge in the Heraion at Perachora when the Spartan King was attacking them (390 b.c.); see Wiseman 1978, pp. 32–33. Wachter considers it to be Περαιόν (a neutral noun), an otherwise unattested village, which takes its name

from the Corinthian harbor with the name Πειραιόν, and he considers it a victor’s inscription, possibly in meter (“we have won [a prize] at Peraion”). In early Penteskouphia publications (e.g., Rayet and Collignon 1888, p. 147) Peiraeum seems to have been confused with Piraeus in Attica. 13. Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2294: Attic red-figure kylix; dated to 490–480  b.c.; attributed to the Foundry Painter; ARV 2 400.1; CVA, Berlin 2 [Germany 21], pls. 72, 73 [1001, 1002]. The kylix shows bronzeworkers working at the furnace and piecing together a large warrior statue and a smaller athlete statue. For an extensive discussion, see Boardman 1954, p. 188; Thompson 1964; Korres 1971; Mattusch 1980; Beazley 1989; Neils 2000; Vidale 2002, pp. 211–236; Smith 2009, pp. 76–80.

14. Smith (2009, p. 78) suggested that if the figure on the top right plaque holds a hammer, the scene is closely connected with metalworking. To this observation one can add that the Berlin Foundry cup depicts no fewer than 10 hammers, closely connected with the hammering processes within a foundry. Even if the figure holds a torch, it is appropriate for a foundry scene; Smith notes that torches were held in the festivals of the fire-related Hephaistos and Prometheus. 15. Mattusch 1980, p. 436. 16. Rotroff (2013, pp. 17–43) examined 70 deposits in the Athenian Agora from the late 5th century b.c. to after the middle of the 3rd century b.c. Pyre offerings typically include miniature cooking pots, saucers, plates, and drinking cups of all sizes, as well as some burned bones and other burned material.

284

c hap t er 7

Figure 7.1. Detail of an Athenian red-figure cup (Berlin Foundry cup) (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2294).

Not to scale. Photo courtesy Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

pyres, made the attractive suggestion that, often found in industrial contexts, they may have played a role in a ritual “enacted to turn away malevolent entities and . . . [were] probably perceived as a species of purification.”17 She contextualizes these pyres within a well-known, albeit inconsistently attested, ritual landscape of industrial apotropaic devices and purification that we know about mainly from (limited) literary, iconographical, and archaeological evidence.18 The Κάμινος poem, the apotropaic βασκάνια, curse tablets, and the pinakes on the Berlin Foundry cup may be isolated instances of a more complex, individualized, and private mode of expressing workers’ concerns or anxieties within an industrial context.19 Along with the tangible remains of these rites, we also have to keep in mind other nontangible means of ritual expression, such as work songs.20 Such expressions may have been subtle and not immediately recognizable by their contemporaries. Secrecy was of the utmost importance in ancient craft communities, and perhaps they concealed their preoccupations about the well-being of their workforce and the financial health of their business with the same zeal with which they guarded their technological knowledge. In terms of formal shrines established by potters or other craftspeople, there is little archaeological evidence. A total of two shrines—one frequented by sculptors on Archaic Naxos and a second frequented by 17. Rotroff 2013, p. 84. 18. Rotroff 2013, pp. 80–85. 19. On the Κάμινος poem, discussed by Rotroff (2013, p. 82) as part of industrial religion, see above, pp. 215–216. See also Smith 2009, pp. 85–89. On curse tablets, see below, p. 307, n. 4. Another example of

industrial religion from the Roman world is found in the Etruscan artisans’ quarter at Cetamura del Chianti, where de Grummond (2011) has associated a black-gloss cup and two fragmentary fine black-gloss paterae inside kiln K (a kiln for bricks, tiles, and loomweights) with propitiatory religious praxis by

the local artisans. See also the magical papyri discussed below, p. 294, nn. 48, 49. 20. See Karanika’s (2014, pp. 133– 159) discussion of work songs or occupational dances mostly performed by women, such as the songs sung during grinding (himaios) or weaving (alinos).

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

a

b

285

g

e d

c f

Figure 7.2. Stoneworkers’ sanctuary at Flerio, Naxos. After Lambrinoudakis and Sfyroera 2010, p. 14, fig. 30

21. Lambrinoudakis and Sfyroera (2010, pp. 14–17) have presented a preliminary report on the excavations at the site. 22. Otos and Ephialtes, also known as the giants Aloadai, were the sons of Poseidon and Iphimedeia, wife of Aloeus: LIMC I, 1981, pp. 570–572, s.v. Aloadai (E. Simon). For the temenos inscription from Melanes (Melanes Archaeological Collection 161), see IG XII.5 56 and SEG XXXII 824. The inscription is tenatively dated to the 4th–3rd century b.c. My sincere thanks to Vassilios Lambrinoudakis and Alexandra Sfyroera for discussing several aspects of the site with me.

potters on Hellenistic Cyprus—invite closer examination. On Naxos, at Flerio near the famous marble quarries at Melanes, where two unfinished kouroi are still in situ, a small sanctuary frequented by the local quarrymen and marbleworkers has come to light (Fig. 7.2).21 The sanctuary included two adjacent one-room cult buildings with flat roofs dating to the 8th and 7th centuries b.c. (Fig. 7.2a, b). In the mid-6th century b.c., a third small building (a naiskos) was added, constructed in ashlar masonry, with a pitched marble roof measuring 3.40 × 4.40 m (Fig. 7.2c). According to the excavators, the site was sacred to a female agricultural deity, as evidenced by dedications of terracotta female figurines, and possibly to two heroes, Otos and Ephialtes, protectors of quarrymen and marbleworkers. An inscribed temenos boundary stone from Melanes, found out of context, mentions a temenos to Otos and Ephialtes.22 As children, Otos and Ephialtes hubristically claimed that they could reach higher than Mt. Olympos, the home of gods, by superimposing one mountain on top of another (Hom. Il. 5.385; Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.4). Their mythological moving of mountains may allude to the work of quarrying; hence their association with quarrymen. A huge, unworked marble block placed in the middle of the Flerio sanctuary acted as an altar, regularly receiving special dedications. Next to the two adjacent buildings were two open-air areas for libations in the form of sacred pyres covered by small circular slabs (Fig. 7.2d, e). The temenos had two entrances (Fig. 7.2f, g), and other buildings at the site were placed in an arc around the small marble naiskos. Many unfinished marble objects in various stages of completion were found there, such as very small statuettes, bowls, and lamps. These were possibly dedications of the marbleworkers.

286

c hap t er 7

Figure 7.3. Shallow bowl from the Nymphaeum at Kafizin, Cyprus (K 9), preserving potters’ signature and title. Not to scale. Mitford 1980, p. 49, no. 63

A second example is the Hellenistic Nymphaeum at Kafizin on Cyprus, four miles southeast of Nicosia.23 This grotto site faces west, with a rock-cut shelf for the reception of offerings located inside the cave. Outside the cave, there extends to the southwest a small natural terrace in which a cistern 10 feet deep was excavated. Excavators discovered several hundred vessels, many of them inscribed, dating to the last quarter of the 3rd century b.c. No pinakes were dedicated at Kafizin, but the shrine housed thousands of vessels, including fine-ware bowls, plates, and skyphoi, Megarian bowls, plain-ware bowls, mortars, loomweights, pans, lekanai, and amphoras. The dedications often included the potters’ signatures. In 76 instances, the title of the craftsman (κεραμεύς) is preserved on the dedication (Fig. 7.3). In addition, the names of 17 potters are preserved on the Kafizin vessels. The dedications were not made only by potters, however; an individual named Onesigaros, presumably the regional temple barber, dedicated hundreds of vessels (as many as 310, each with a dedicatory inscription). References to months in the local calendar allow us to say with some confidence that the Kafizin dedications were placed at the shrine primarily during the late summer or early autumn, a time of intense productivity in the pottery workshops. Potters’ concerns with craft and ritual were not only an ancient phenomenon. Two modern parallels from potters’ workshops can help us better visualize how the Penteskouphia pinakes would have been displayed on trees in a relatively small area and very close to the workshops. A workshop in the potters’ community at Margarites on Crete displays different shapes on the bare branches of its trees to acquaint passersby with its merchandise (Fig. 7.4). Further east in the Mediterranean, in the snowy mountains of Cappadocia in Turkey, a pottery workshop uses the nearby trees not only to advertise its products, but to protect them, setting up approximately

23. Mitford 1980, pp. 3–5, pls. 1, 2. A number of various short campaigns took place on the Hill of Kafizin from 1939 to 1955. Surface finds were collected by inhabitants in the first decades of the 20th century. See Smith 2009, pp. 105–107.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

287

Figure 7.4 (above, left). Display of wares at a modern pottery workshop at Margarites, Crete. Photo E. Hasaki Figure 7.5 (above, right). Trees with ceramics and votive glass eyes at a modern pottery workshop in Güvercinler Valley, Üçhisar, Cappadocia, Turkey. Photo M. Emerson Figure 7.6 (right). Pottery factory in Kantianika (Nea Koroni), Messenia, after World War II. Corinth XV.1, pl. 4:B

100 apotropaic glass eyes, along with some small worry beads and other items (Fig. 7.5). Even partially broken items still hung on the branches. These examples show how modern potters both promote and protect their merchandise while averting the evil eye, whether that of their business competitors or of passersby. A post–World War II photograph of a ceramic workshop in Messenia shows it nestled in the countryside amid many trees (Fig. 7.6); we can easily imagine the Penteskouphia workshops similarly surrounded by groves that could have carried pinakes and other items serving votive, apotropaic, or advertising purposes. We might postulate that a few trees surrounding a couple of pottery workshops on the Penteskouphia slopes could have carried the 1,000 pinakes, a ritual cluster in close association with the pottery workshops that was designed both to promote and protect the potters’ interests. The trees could have carried both intact and fragmentary pinakes, provided that the string and the pierced holes that held them were still in place. It is unclear whether (or how) broken pinakes that were no longer hanging or attached were discarded.

288

c hap t er 7

I N D U S T RY A N D I T S R I T UA L L A N D S C A P E AT CO R I N T H Where would industrial rituals be performed in Corinth by potters or other craftspeople? We can approximate a general setting and possibly some key features in it by integrating the evidence for the ritual settings preferred first for pinakes, then for worship of Poseidon, and finally by Corinthians. Starting with the pinakes, the Corinthian examples are mute. The Penteskouphia pinakes along with Corinthian vases carry imagery of divinities and dedicatory inscriptions, but neither pinakes nor vases display a pinax in its use context: we have no depiction of a figure using a pinax, or a depiction of a pinax at all, from a religious, industrial, or other context. Unlike the Pitsa wooden pinax from the vicinity of Sikyon, which depicts a more formal sacrificial scene, no Penteskouphia pinax depicts a ritual—such as a sacrifice or festival or Frauenfest—that could help us visualize the religious context of these dedications,24 and on only one pinax with Amphitrite do we see a smaller-scale male figure with his hands raised, tentatively interpreted as a suppliant (F 787, Fig. 7.7).25 Among the numerous dedicatory inscriptions (of the ἀνέθεκεν type) on the pinakes, none specifies a ritual locus, be it a ἱερόν, a τέμενος, or a ναός. If we look for physical alteration of pinakes due to use, we can detect no extensive discoloration from ritual burning, but we must keep in mind that they may have been extensively cleaned in conservation, and that Furtwängler mentioned that some pinakes carried traces of burning (“kohlenreste”).26 Even though the Penteskouphia pinakes do not provide much evidence for their use settings, on Athenian and South Italian vase depictions, we often see votive pinakes dedicated in small, informal shrines, often established in groves or by roadsides, which typically leave little permanent evidence. A grove as a preferred setting for pinakes matches perfectly the preferred ritual setting for Poseidon, as surveys of the sites for worship of Poseidon in the Peloponnese have clearly demonstrated. Poseidon was worshipped in small shrines and groves, preferably in wooded or mountainous locations far from the sea.27 A survey of groves (ἄλσεα) in Pausanias’s Periegesis lists six groves for Apollo and four for Poseidon in the Peloponnese.28 Poseidon 24. For the theme of Frauenfest, see Jucker 1963; Amyx 1988, pp. 228–230. Bulls are stock themes of Corinthian vase painting and also markers of livestock wealth, and should not be closely or exclusively associated with sacrifices. 25. The reverse shows a clothed figure to right holding what may be a staff (Poseidon?). Rosettes and miniature depictions of fish and octopuses fill the background. Palmieri (2016, p. 151, no. Ad6) dates F 787 to the Late Corinthian period. 26. Furtwängler 1885, p. 47; von Raits 1964, p. 4. 27. The most comprehensive mod-

ern treatments of the sanctuaries and cult of Poseidon in the Peloponnese are Jost 1985, Voyatzis 1999, and Mylonopoulos 2003. For select sanctuaries of Poseidon in the Peloponnese, see, e.g., Poseidon at Tainaron (Cummer 1978; Günther 1988); Poseidon with Athena Soteira at Asea ( Jost 1985, pp. 195, 200); Poseidon on Mt. Kandreva, with dedications of cut-out bronze pinakes ( Jost 1985, p. 200). In Arcadia specifically, 13 sites in the Mantineian plain had a cluster of cults to Poseidon, either alone or in connection with Zeus, Demeter, Hermes and Herakles, or Athena Soteira ( Jost 1985, pp. 279–

294; Mylonopoulos 2003, pp. 98–103). For non-Peloponnesian sanctuaries, see the sanctuaries of Poseidon with Athena at Cape Sounion and with Amphitrite on Tenos in the Cyclades (Étienne and Braun 1986). At the Tenos sanctuary, Amphitrite becomes associated with Poseidon from the end of the 4th century b.c. on, as a dedicatory inscription to both of them testifies (Étienne and Braun 1986, p. 181). Statues of Amphitrite were attested within the sanctuary, but do not provide evidence for joint ownership of the temenos from the onset. 28. Jacob 1993, p. 35.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

289

Figure 7.7. Penteskouphia pinax showing Amphitrite and a smaller figure, possibly a suppliant (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 787). Not to

scale. Drawing AntDenk II, pl. 23:16b

was clearly more at home in a sacred grove and not in formalized sanctuaries with temples; among his many cultic epithets was τεμενίτης, an epithet for gods whose sanctuaries did not include temples, which only features once in ancient sources.29 The exceptionally formalized setting of his panhellenic sanctuary at Isthmia is only one of the 12 places of Poseidon worship in Corinth and its region that are known through textual or archaeological evidence.30 Poseidon’s cult in the Corinthia must certainly have been strengthened by the establishment of the panhellenic games at Isthmia in 582/1 b.c. under Corinth’s patronage.31 Rituals performed at sacred groves typically leave little archaeological evidence. Pausanias’s description of the annual festival in honor of the Eumenides, who had a temple within a grove near Sikyon, and of the rites associated with the altar of the Fates can help us to visualize a possible dedication setting for the Penteskouphia pinakes. His account also reminds us how ephemeral the dedications in these rituals might have been, accounting for their elusiveness in the archaeological record: On one day in each year they celebrate a festival to [the Eumenides] and offer sheep big with young as a burnt offering, and they are accustomed to use a libation of honey and water, and flowers 29. The single instance of this epithet for Poseidon is included in a Hellenistic calendar of sacrifices from Mykonos (SIG 3 1024, lines 6, 9–10, 200 b.c.). Zeus was also called Temenites on Amorgos: IG XII.7 62, line 37. 30. Mylonopoulos (2003, pp. 145– 210) lists the following seven cult places at Corinth (the remaining five are in the general area of Isthmia). Attested only in literary sources: the cult of Posei-

don Damaios, the so-called Timoleon monument, and statues of Poseidon on the Lechaion road. From archaeological evidence: the Poseidon fountain and the Roman temple of Poseidon on the west side of the Forum. Indirectly, from ancient artifacts: a temple of Poseidon at Lechaion (depicted on a coin of Caracalla) and the sacred spot dedicated to Poseidon at Penteskouphia (assumed for the Penteskouphia pinakes). 31. Isthmia VIII, p. 429. Although

the first temple of Poseidon at Isthmia is dated to ca. 650 b.c., the Isthmian games have conventionally been dated to ca. 582 or 580 b.c. More recently, scholars have disassociated the date for the temple from the date of the formalized games. Gebhard (2002a) has suggested that a formalized version of the games with gymnastic contests should be further downdated to the second quarter of the 6th century, as the stadium construction dates suggest.

290

c hap t er 7

instead of garlands. They practice similar rites at the altar of the Fates; it is in an open space in the grove.32 A small grove would have been sufficient for the display of hundreds of terracotta pinakes, as well as other votives made from perishable materials, such as fabric or wood. If the use site of the pinakes coincides with the area excavated by Washburn’s team, which is estimated to have been over 1,200 m2, it could have easily accommodated an adequate number of trees for hanging the pinakes (see above, p. 29). Most of the pinakes have two pierced holes, and were likely suspended on trees with a leather cord or woolen yarn. The few pinakes with four holes may have been attached to a wooden panel that was either suspended from trees or attached onto a flat surface—perhaps the wall of a small structure or of an informal enclosure.33 A grove may even have featured a stele shrine. A survey of all Corinthian stele shrines lists at least nine and as many as 13 stele shrines in Corinth, located in industrial, commercial, or heavily trafficked areas.34 Most are Classical in date, but some were active in the Archaic period.35 They functioned for a short time, perhaps only a generation or two, but while in use they received regular upkeep and renovations.36 More importantly, each stele shrine received a preferred type of dedication, rather than a wide spectrum of votives: for example, at the Kokkinovrysi stele shrine, the votive offerings were predominantly figurines of dancing groups, alongside a few figurines of horseback riders.37 Other stele shrines have a more diversified assemblage of associated ceramics: at Stele Shrine A at the Potters’ Quarter, miniature vessels were most common (215 examples), followed by vases (120) and figurines (55). At the nearby Aphrodite deposit at the Potters’ Quarter, dating to the late 6th to early 5th century b.c., the focus is again miniatures (53), followed by vessels (15), figurines (15), two lamps, and one inscribed bronze bowl, for a total of 86 inventoried artifacts.38 Kopestonsky effectively captures the nature, location, and function of these stele shrines in the Corinthian ritual landscape. It is worth quoting from her study: Most, if not all of the stele shrines appear to be unroofed and very open. Placed at crossroads, near water sources, over destroyed houses, beside industry, close to cemeteries, or a combination of these locales, a stele shrine is positioned in a transitional space. People regularly passed by, observed, and probably remembered these local monuments. Here, one could request from the local divinities personal things, such as a blessed wedding or a healthy flock, instead of approaching the great Olympians [sic] gods who might be too busy for a lowly peasant. The stele shrines express individual worship not fulfilled by the polis religion. Highly personal and probably familial, these shrines remained important while the people recalled the reason for their founding.39 No stele shrine has been located in the wider Penteskouphia area, but ceramic workshops often housed stele shrines: six stele shrines were established in the Potters’ Quarter (Stele Shrine A, the Shrine of the Double

32. Paus. 2.11.4 (trans. W. H. S. Jones, Cambridge, Mass., 1918). 33. For display options for votive pinakes, see Salapata 2002, pp. 26–31, esp. fig. 6. 34. For an updated discussion of stele shrines at Corinth and elsewhere, see Kopestonsky 2009, pp. 44–79. The distribution map of Corinthian stele shrines in Kopestonsky’s study (fig. 3.1) includes the following: Kokkinovrysi; six from the Potters’ Quarter, noted below; at the Forum: Underground Shrine, Heroon of the Crossroads, stele shrine under Shop XXXIII of the South Stoa; stele shrine at the Greek Tile Works. 35. Bookidis 2003, 2005. 36. Kopestonsky 2009, p. 55. 37. Kopestonsky 2009, p. 21. 38. Kopestonsky 2009, pp. 53–54. For a comprehensive examination of miniature vessels in several Corinthian deposits, including stele shrines, see Pemberton 2020. 39. Kopestonsky 2009, pp. 54–55.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

291

Figure 7.8. Stele shrine and altar from the Shrine of the Double Stele in the Corinthian Potters’ Quarter. Not to scale. Photo courtesy Corinth

Excavations

Stele [Fig. 7.8], Stele Shrine B, the stele shrine in the Altar Room of the Terracotta Factory, the Erosa Shrine, and the Circular South Shrine) and a single shrine was uncovered at the Greek Tile Works.40 Stele shrines therefore mediated between industrial and ritual spheres much the same way that pinakes bridged these two areas. Stele shrines could easily have existed within individual workshops at Penteskouphia as well as within a grove maintained by the potters’ community or next to the road passing through the community leading to Kleonai. A roadside stele shrine near the workshops at Penteskouphia could have been similar to the example at Kokkinovrysi in its liminal aspects: it was located at the periphery of the urban center of Corinth, and marked a boundary between one community and the next, or even one city-state and the next.41 Since stele shrines tend to be linked with a preferred type of dedication, as we saw earlier, if stele shrines did exist at Penteskouphia, then pinakes must have been their dedication par excellence. Potters, pinakes, stele shrines, a grove, and a road could have existed in a complementary and not mutually exclusive manner. The pinakes then would have functioned in a visual continuum, stretching from inside the workshops to the trees in a sacred grove by the road. Stele shrines could have 40. For the stele shrines from the Potters’ Quarter, see Corinth XV.1, pp. 63–76, and Williams 1981. Williams’s first type of shrine is “that set in the open, along a roadway or in a small open-air temenos (Williams 1981, p. 408). He mentions the one-room Erosa Shrine (p. 414, fig. 2), but later emphasizes that stele shrines tended to be short-lived, lasting perhaps a generation (p. 418).

Many figurines dating to the 5th century b.c. were recovered from a small shrine in the Potters’ Quarter (Merker 2003, p. 243; 2006, pp. 112–116). For discussions of deposits of figurines in small shrines in the Potters’ Quarter, see Corinth XV.2, passim, esp. the list of deposits with figurines on pp. 22–23. A shrine was set within the limits of the Terracotta Factory, with a 5th-century b.c. stele found in

the Altar Room (Corinth XV.1, p. 74), again combining the sacred with the industrial spheres. 41. Nixon 2006, p. 8. It is also possible that the sacred site of the Penteskouphia pinakes constituted a regional landmark along the mountainous road to the Sanctuary of Zeus on Mt. Apesas (A. Greiveldinger, pers. comm.). For this peak sanctuary, see Paus. 2.5.3 (connection with Kleonai).

292

c hap t er 7

dotted the landscape, giving it a distinctly Corinthian flavor. Ultimately, as with all sacred locales, the character of the site would have been shaped by those who established and frequented it. I have attempted to capture some of the fluidity in the locations and uses of a Penteskouphia pinax. Hypothetical illustrations can help us to visualize the spectrum of possibilities for the use of a plaque/pinax. In the first, a potter is sketching on a pinax, other pinakes hang on the workshop walls as decorations and advertisements, and others are placed on the kilns as apotropaic devices (Fig. 7.9). Hanging in a tree close to the workshop, a pinax serves as a dedication, or even an advertisement of potters’ services. In this scenario, the pinakes fill a number of different functions, but all in close association with a workshop. It has been suggested that the cluster of pinakes next to the furnace on the Berlin Foundry cup may reflect a makeshift shrine placed next to the furnace to propitiate the daimons watching over the bronze casting (see above, p. 283). Potters, who, as we have seen, worried about daimons of their own during kiln firings, may have maintained similar small pockets of worship within their workshops. In a second hypothesis, next to a road with foot and wheeled traffic, an older man with his child hangs pinakes on a tree, in an intimate moment of dedication that could have been repeated countless times, by countless individuals (Fig. 7.10). The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Some of the Penteskouphia pinakes, especially the two-sided ones, stem from a long tradition of using clay plaques as auxiliary surfaces in workshops for practicing drawing skills or for advertising iconographical themes to potential customers. The one-sided Penteskouphia pinakes, however, belong to the tradition of purpose-made votives. A clearer idea of how the pinakes entered the archaeological record could suggest further possibilities or exclude others. The workshop(s), the

Figure 7.9. Artist’s rendition of a ceramic workshop in the Penteskouphia area. E. Hasaki and Y. Nakas

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

Figure 7.10. Artist’s rendition of road traffic in the Penteskouphia area. E. Hasaki and Y. Nakas

293

grove, and any stele shrines must have operated in close proximity to each other, as it seems more likely that the farmer recovered the pinakes from a concentrated area in 1879.

CO R I N T H I A N P O T T ER S A N D M A R K E T F LU C T UAT I O N These plaques, found out of context in a riverbed, were probably dedicated by potters at a nearby sanctuary of Poseidon in hopes of good results and subsequent profits in their business.42

42. Russell 1994, p. 10.

In the quote above, Russell reiterates the close connection of the pinakes with a sanctuary of Poseidon and a community of potters, but postulates a reason for these dedications: potters aimed to secure a profitable business. I would argue that dedications by craftspeople should not be automatically or solely interpreted as confident prayers for continued success or as celebrations of prosperity, and that the Penteskouphia pinakes can be better explained as anxious pleas by potters in distress. Craftspeople had a variety of reasons for visiting a sanctuary and dedicating a votive: to give thanks for prosperous times, to express uncertainty in their professional direction, or to seek protection for their business during stressful times. Thank offerings tend to be most visible archaeologically,

294

c hap t er 7

as they often include references to a tithe (δεκάτη) or a first-fruits offering (ἀπαρχή).43 In such prosperous times, the dedications by craftspeople would be largely assimilated in style and form with those offered by other worshippers, and craftspeople would avoid self-referential imagery in their dedications.44 Even if they included their profession in a dedicatory inscription, they would not typically provide a specific reason for the dedication.45 Dedications of tools were, however, a distinct type of dedications by craftspeople. At Isthmia, the most prominent sanctuary in the Corinthia, for example, we encounter a significant number of tool dedications. Bronze calipers or compasses were among the most common tool dedications during the Archaic period, along with iron ax-adzes, hammers, and chisels.46 The types of tools do not betray specific professions, as they were indispensable for many practitioners, including potters, painters, masons, carpenters, and sculptors. Their dedicants did not inscribe the tools with their names, their occupations, or the reason(s) for their dedication. The craftspeople at Isthmia thus displayed typical votive behavior: they demonstrated their devotion and reaffirmed their social and economic status by leaving behind votives of high value. Craftspeople’s dedications recorded in epigrams similarly do not provide specific reasons for their dedications.47 In times of uncertainty, craftspeople may have chosen different approaches and different types of sanctuaries to seek divine assistance and guidance. Some epigraphical and papyrological evidence hints at ritualized behavior aimed at ensuring or improving the well-being of a business: the Greek Magical Papyri preserve two examples: (a) a spell for continuous business where the business owner envelops in wax a wax figure of Hermes and a written spell on papyrus and places it in an inconspicuous place;48 and (b) a charm for acquiring business and attracting customers.49 At the oracular sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona, craftspeople expressed their insecurities about their professional future on lead tablets. Dated mostly to the 5th and 4th centuries b.c., the oracular tablets preserve queries relating to the interrelated fields of craft, business, and trade: for example, whether a son should continue the family business, how to ensure the prosperity of the current business, and whether a relocation would be best for taking up a new business.50 Craftspeople’s concerns were concealed in these lead tablets and were not publicly communicated. 43. For a review of literary references to nine terms for offerings, including δεκάτη and ἀπαρχή, see Patera 2012, pp. 19–51. 44. Karoglou 2010, pp. 59–60. 45. Karoglou 2010, p. 51. Acropolis dedications include 38 votives by craftspeople: 29 potters and vase painters (with varying degrees of confidence); the remaining nine are two fullers, a tanner, a builder, a shipbuilder, a scribe, a laundry woman, and two kithara players. 46. Isthmia VII, pp. 119–130. Besides the tools used by craftspeople, the tool dedications also include equipment used by farmers, fishermen, and athletes. Rouse (1902, pp. 39–94, esp.

pp. 60–64) provides a comprehensive account of tithes, first fruits, and kindred offerings, with a special discussion of dedications by farmers and laborers. 47. Similarly, such epigrams do not preserve pleas for the prevention of economic downturn. A review of Day 1994 and 2010 yielded no examples; I thank Joseph Day for confirming that he is not aware of such epigrams. Epigrams amply testify to craftspeople dedicating their equipment in sanctuaries (e.g., Leonidas, Anth. Pal. 6.4: Diophantos dedicating his fishing equipment to Poseidon), but none includes specific economic distress. Kopestonsky (2018) provides a thorough survey of ephemeral votives in sanctuaries.

48. PGM IV 2359–2372; Betz 1986, p. 81. 49. PGM IV 2373–2440; Betz 1986, pp. 81–82. 50. Dakaris et al. 2013, nos. 183A, 2246A (Should I continue my techne?), 450A (Should I change profession?), 567B (Should I continue the family business?), 953A (Should I be a potter?), 2421A (Should I become a cook to pay off debts?), 2650B (Should I keep working on land or should I get sea-borne employment?), 2809B (Should I get employment elsewhere?), 2954A (Should I move for my techne?). I warmly thank Andrej Petrovic for bringing these sources to my attention.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

Figure 7.11. Bronze plaque with Poseidon holding a dolphin (Isthmia Museum IM 3326). Not to scale.

Broneer 1959, p. 333, no. 20, fig. 9

51. Mylonopoulos (2003, pp. 352– 353) emphasizes the absence of terracotta votive offerings to Poseidon in the Peloponnese and notes that most votives were of metal, with its poor rate of preservation. This limited appearance of Poseidon in Corinthian pottery of the Archaic period follows a pattern also observed in Athenian vase painting of the same period. Scheffer (2001) calculated that of an estimated total of 3,420 representations of gods on Athenian pots from the mid-6th to mid-4th century b.c., Poseidon is depicted 102 times; notably, 78 of these are in the

295

If craftspeople experienced prolonged stress in their businesses, how would they communicate their plight to a god and ask for relief ? Would they offer typical dedications at prominent sanctuaries, just as they had done to celebrate their successes, or would they turn to smaller-scale sacred sites, such as their own craftspeople’s shrines, to express these deeper concerns? In other words, is industrial religion better performed at more intimate religious locales that allow workers to share all their uncertainties and concerns about their businesses? It is important to reiterate the special bond that Corinthian potters shared with Poseidon at all times and to explore how and where they would have communicated both their economic prosperity and downturns with him. At Isthmia, as in other sanctuaries of Poseidon in the Peloponnese, dedications with imagery of Poseidon or his related equipment (such as the trident) are predominantly in metal.51 For example, a bronze plaque with an engraved figure of Poseidon holding a dolphin, recovered from the East Temenos Dump at Isthmia, is both typical of a votive that worshippers would dedicate to Poseidon and a powerful reminder that one of the preferred types of dedications to Poseidon (that is, votives rendered in metal) may have been recycled and thus removed from the archaeological record (Fig. 7.11).52 It is worthwhile, however, to note that hundreds of other votives at Isthmia are indeed terracotta figurines, which, while not depicting Poseidon per se, portray themes close to him (such as ships and horseback riders).53 Similarly, Corinthian potters, when business was good, could express their devotion in a variety of votives. But potters’ special connection to Poseidon ran much deeper, in both good times and bad. As “an embodiment of elemental forces,”54 Poseidon’s spheres of influence were fundamental to the prosperity of the potters’ communities. His control of the earth and earthquakes, represented in his epithets ἀσφάλιος (steadfast), γαιήοχος (Earth holder, Earth embracer) and ἐνοσίχθων (Earth shaker), and his power over the seas and the weather would have assured potters access to clay beds, optimal weather for firing, and favorable sailing conditions, all of which were crucial factors for successful production and profitable distribution of goods through maritime trade.55 Poseidon’s earthquakes were both a blessing and a curse for ancient potters: an earthquake could reveal clay beds that were previously unknown, or make existing ones vanish. Recent geological studies of the Corinthian period 550–480 b.c. Overall, Poseidon ranks ninth after gods such as Dionysos and Athena, and even Hermes, in Athenian vase painting. 52. Broneer 1959, pp. 332–333, no. 20, fig. 9; Isthmia VII, no. 294 (IM 3326): bronze sheet, draped male figure holding a dolphin, believed to depict Poseidon or a priest of Poseidon. 53. For the terracotta figures of horseback riders at Isthmia, see Thomsen 2015. I warmly thank Catherine Morgan for this reference. 54. Burkert 1985, p. 62. 55. Von Raits 1964, pp. 26–28. The

epithet γαιήοχος is mentioned in the Homeric Hymn to Poseidon (Hymn. Hom. 22.6). See also Mylonopoulos 2003, p. 360. Agesipolis and the Spartan army, while camping in Argos, sang a paean to Poseidon after an earthquake struck in 388 b.c. (Xen. Hell. 4.7.4; Burkert 1985, p. 138). Craft practitioners and business people would often ask for assistance with business, but it is not clear whether these requests are of a standard preventative nature, or are related to current or impending economic downturn.

296

c hap t er 7

clayscapes have underscored how tectonic activity at Corinth, along with the formation of successive raised beaches, triggers depositional processes that account for the formation of geological terraces and the exposure of clay beds in successive down-faulted terraces.56 Earthquakes could also wipe out an entire potters’ neighborhood, as has been suggested for the end of the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth following a series of earthquakes at the end of the 4th century b.c. Earthquakes in the Corinthia are mentioned in historical sources both in 427 b.c. at Isthmia and in 420 b.c. at Corinth.57 Stillwell, in her study of the Potters’ Quarter in Corinth, mentions an earthquake in 1931 that greatly impacted the Corinthian clayscapes, and reminds us of Poseidon’s transformative powers: At the west side the ledge is not very thick, but at the east it is considerably deeper, in places reaching nearly to the bottom of the ravine. Such a formation makes the hill particularly susceptible to change by earthquake. At the western edge particularly, where parts of several buildings have been lost, it is obvious that the cliff no longer has the same contours that it had in ancient times. In an earthquake in January of 1931 a piece of the cliff fell into the ravine, carrying with it an already excavated wall.58 When Poseidon’s actions were beneficial, the Corinthian potters would have given thanks in his main cult places, likely offering votives in precious metals. If indeed there was a deeply rooted connection between Poseidon and metal, this may explain why Corinthian potters in general shied away from placing Poseidon iconography on their products. Still, if that is the case, how can we explain why a small group of pottery workshops at Penteskouphia deviated briefly (but intensely) from that custom? Penteskouphia potters placed 250 depictions of Poseidon and 55 inscriptions to Poseidon on the pinakes, while only a dozen Corinthian vases feature a Poseidon figure, and only one carries an inscription to Poseidon. Further underscoring the peculiar character of the Penteskouphia pinakes is the presence of the imagery of potters at work, another uncommon theme in Corinthian vase painting. Why would the potters’ community at Penteskouphia have chosen a medium (clay), a form (pinax), and themes (Poseidon and potters at work) that were so atypical in the cult of Poseidon and so divergent from the normal practices of their profession? If the Penteskouphia pinakes were so irregular in all of their aspects, it is unlikely that they only fulfilled the regular functions of pinakes, serving as apotropaic devices on kilns to ward off evil during firing, or as baked prayers inside a kiln for the divine protection of Poseidon.59 I would argue that the Penteskouphia potters, experiencing stressful economic times, turned to Poseidon not to seek routine protection and a successful outcome for their firings, since they were famed for their craft and experience, but to resuscitate their once-robust maritime trade in ceramics throughout the western and eastern Mediterranean markets.60 The potters’ communities producing fine wares at Corinth were at the intersection of these two trajectories: they were experiencing peak economic times, while also facing an increasingly pressing threat from rival Athenian pottery workshops that had begun to dominate the pottery-export market in Greece and the broader Mediterranean. Trade in Corinthian goods, including ceramics, had flourished for almost two centuries, and Corinthian

56. Whitbread 2003, pp. 3–4, fig. 1.3. 57. Thuc. 3.89.1 (Isthmia) and 5.50.5 (Corinth). Merker (2006, pp. 12, 15) discusses the earthquakes of the 5th and 4th centuries b.c. and their impact on the ceramic industries at Corinth, both at the Greek Tile Works and in the Potters’ Quarter. 58. Corinth XV.1, p. 3. 59. Scheibler 1995, p. 176. 60. Salmon 1984, pp. 132–158.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

297

traders had been exploiting to the fullest extent the network of trade routes that had been in place since the second half of the 8th century.61 Led by Kypselos and Periander, Corinth had carefully developed and maintained this network through alliances in the east and colonies in the west.62 Over the centuries, Corinth had achieved a hard-won supremacy at sea, had curtailed piracy, and had dominated the pottery markets; in spite of these many successes, however, the system had begun to collapse by the mid-6th century. In some cases it was a slow process, as several cities in western Greece that were great importers of Corinthian wares had also developed a local industry of imitating them since the Geometric period.63 In the mid-6th century the export landscape changed in both the west and the east, and the Corinthian response ultimately proved ineffective. Faced with the challenge from Athens, as early as the 560s Corinthian figural workshops began to coat their vessels with an orange-red slip in imitation of the richer iron color of Athenian clay. But even this visual trick was short-lived, as the red-ground black figure pots ended up being locally distributed and not exported; in short, visual refinements were not enough to recapture the market both at home and abroad.64 Corinthian pottery began to experience an unavoidable downturn, both in economic and aesthetic terms, as “Corinthian vase-painting declined into the mundane or trivial.”65 Amyx also speaks of the direness of the downturn, portraying it as a sudden phenomenon rather than as a steady decline of the Corinthian industry in Late Corinthian times: And when disaster finally overtook the LC export market, bringing to an end the lavish outpouring of grand vases, this was a sudden collapse of a flourishing industry, and not (as some critics have supposed) the final stage after several decades of steady decline.66 After the mid-6th century b.c., Corinthian painted ceramics declined considerably in quality as wares of standardized size, conventionally decorated with repetitive patterns, became the norm.67 The makers of these Conventionalizing Corinthian ceramics settled for alternating lines and bands, a decorative theme that would last for two centuries; and while some shapes were clearly descendants of earlier black-figure shapes, scholars have noted that they regularly look like apprentice work.68 To some extent, 61. Salmon 1984, p. 291. 62. Salmon 1984, p. 226. For the tyrants in Corinth, see also Parker 2007. For the narrative of identity in Archaic Corinth and the role played by the tyrants’ families, see Ziskowski 2017. The power vacuum created by the death of Periander ca. 585 b.c. and the end of the Kypselid dynasty after the three-year reign of Periander’s nephew Psammetichos may have been a factor in the Corinthians’ inability to respond effectively to the challenge from Athens; see Ziskowski 2010, p. 21, with a review of scholarship on the high and low chronology of the dynasties of Corinthian tyrants.

63. The study of Corinthian imports and Corinthianizing local products in western Greece, although beyond the present scope, can add an interesting perspective to the slow loss of markets in those areas. I am grateful to Catherine Morgan for bringing this aspect to my attention and for providing valuable sources: Arvanitou-Metallinou 1996–1998; Pliakou 1999; Georgiadou and Tzortzatou 2009; Spanodimos 2017. 64. On red-ground pottery, see Salmon 1984, p. 114, n. 67; Corinth IV.2; Jones et al. 1986, p. 176 (footnotes); Amyx 1988, p. 539. Ziskowski (2017, p. 101) discusses this

shift as part of an Atticizing package (shapes, red slip, and scene composition in reserved panels) that Corinthian workshops adopted in the Late Corinthian period. A representative painter promoting this package was the Late Corinthian Dionysios Painter. 65. Williams 1985, p. 29, fig. 33, which depicts a Corinthian red-ground oinochoe (ca. 560 b.c.; H. 0.23 m) with red paint showing Tydeus. 66. Amyx 1988, p. 387. 67. Corinth VII.5, pp. 1–6; Risser 2003. 68. Risser 2003, pp. 159, 164, fig. 9.13.

298

c hap t er 7

by the mid-6th century b.c. Corinthian figural ceramics had come full circle, moving from the unsophisticated Geometric style, to the exquisite polychrome miniature style of the 7th century b.c., followed by the high styles of the Early and Middle Corinthian periods, to the repetitive style of the mid-6th century b.c., and finally returning to the unsophisticated Conventionalizing pottery of the later 6th century b.c.69 Exports of Corinthian pottery in the mid- and late 6th century b.c. consist almost entirely of mass-produced Conventionalizing votive miniatures.70 This Conventionalizing pottery, although somewhat popular in South Italy (and even inspiring local Italian imitations of the originals), never reached the volume of earlier Corinthian fine-ware exports.71 As Athenian imports rose in the years after 575 b.c., Corinthian exports started declining sharply, both eastward and westward, and the Corinthians even discovered a rising competitive market in their own city.72 Salmon postulates that the Aiginetans, who were accomplished traders, may have been responsible for introducing Athenian wares to Corinth and other markets.73 The decline of exports has been repeatedly emphasized in scholarship, but the short-term and long-term consequences of this market shift for the impacted Corinthian workshops have not been fully explored. Weinberg had already noted that “Corinth was no longer an important participant in the international pottery market after the middle of the sixth century.”74 A few decades later, Salmon put it even more strongly: “After c. 575 exports must have been a tiny fraction of what they had been. The position is similar in the Aegean: a rapid decline after c. 575, with a few specialized shapes able to maintain themselves rather longer.”75 Merchants adjusted their ceramic cargoes in all directions. Western Italian markets were lost to Athenian wares, and it seems that both directions of this trade were affected, since exports from the west likewise diminish at Corinth, as the reduced number of Etruscan wares found in the Corinthia testifies.76 Along with this weakened link between Corinth and the west, a change of taste also occurred in the east, perhaps as a result of political turmoil in the middle of the 6th century b.c., a volatile period in Aegean politics. The relationship between Corinth and Samos, a superpower in the northeastern Aegean, began to deteriorate after 550 b.c. This likely further diminished the Corinthian presence in the Aegean.77 Although Corinthian exports were still strong in the Cyclades and the wider Aegean markets, they would soon lose out to Athenian competition.78 A domino effect resulted: merchants traveling across the eastern Mediterranean who detected a change of taste in their eastern markets likely changed the cargo they loaded in the west accordingly.79 69. Salmon 1984, pp. 102–103. 70. M. Risser (pers. comm.); I thank her for her insightful discussions on Conventionalizing Corinthian pottery. 71. Corinth VII.5, pp. 173–177. 72. Salmon 1984, pp. 286–287. See also p. 282, n. 11, above. 73. Salmon 1984, pp. 115–116. 74. Weinberg 1949, p. 264. 75. Salmon 1984, pp. 102, 109, 110. 76. Salmon 1984, p. 256. Athenian

potters had started exporting their version of the Corinthian column krater abroad already in the early 6th century b.c. It seems to have been a shape specially made for export even in the Athenian workshops, as its presence in local contexts was negligible (Alexandridou 2011). 77. Salmon 1984, p. 174. 78. Salmon 1984, p. 303. 79. Ziskowski (2017, pp. 101, 105) rightly cautions us not to adopt uncriti-

cally the “desperation” approach for the downfall of the Corinthian ceramic industry due to Athenian pressure. She assigns agency to the Corinthian potters for developing a new package as “to appear less parochial.” This more dynamic approach is indeed attractive, but the economic reality remains that a large section of the industry specializing in fine decorated pottery lost their Mediterranean markets.

Ind ust r ial Rel ig ion and Pot t ers’ anxie t ie s

80. Corinth XV.2, pp. 197–198, 200. 81. Corinth XV.2, p. 78. Adults and children could have amused themselves by creating unusual pieces. This tradition continues in modern times, as in the crude miniature model of a kiln made by the children of the potters from one workshop at Thrapsano on Crete (Hampe and Winter 1962, p. 5, fig. 4). 82. Pemberton 1998, p. 146. She thinks that these models were ultimately to be dedicated at harbor shrines, as yet unlocated. 83. Cook 1959 (he assigned Corinth half the number of workers as the Attic fine-ware workshops, which he had estimated at 500); Salmon 1984, p. 101. Cook’s early estimates of the populations of the Athenian and Corinthian potters’ quarters do not incorporate evidence from excavations of pottery workshops that have since proliferated. For recent discussions of the size of the Athenian ceramic industry of fine wares, see Sapirstein 2013 and 2020 and Stissi 2020 with earlier bibliography. 84. Morgan 1995.

299

As we have seen, kiln firings are the production phase most frequently shown on the pinakes. The depictions of this step in the process successfully convey the transformational power of firing, which could be fascinating but also stressful, as this phase renders any labor irreversible and any material investment unrecoverable. Kiln firings caused increased anxiety in workshops, but they also saw periods of relative calm, since their long duration allowed staff to have some time off: those actively involved in the firing could take breaks between periods of refueling the kiln, while those not involved in firing the kiln could enjoy more extensive leisure. Kiln firings are always unpredictable, but misfired or unsold kiln loads would have been especially worrisome for Corinthian potters in the mid- to late 6th century, who were already facing unfavorable market conditions. It is perhaps reasonable to suggest that workshop staff of all ages and skill levels produced pinakes during the long kiln firings, seizing this crucial moment to express their concerns in clay and composing invocations to Poseidon to drive the point home. Another odd assemblage from an industrial context could also reflect potters’ preoccupations in prosperous times. At the Potters’ Quarter an unusual group of terracotta models of chariots was found. Those from datable contexts date to the 7th century and early 6th century b.c., but some wheels (most likely from carts as well) continue to later in the 6th century.80 They are thought to have been made for the potters’ own amusement, to exercise their ingenuity rather than to serve as objects for sale.81 Pemberton has put forward the interesting view that these terracotta wheels and carts may refer to the transport of ceramics.82 The high-volume transportation of ceramics and other goods between east and west through the Diolkos would have ensured prosperity in the potters’ communities. One could imagine potters creating chariots like these to celebrate success. Conversely, with the ceramic trade in decline, the same assemblage of carts could have expressed the potters’ concerns that their wares were not being as well distributed as previously. Could these unique cart models from the Potters’ Quarter thus be similar in use to the pinakes from Penteskouphia? Did Corinthian potters routinely channel their concerns about the financial well-being of their businesses into clay creations, of rather unusual character and not produced for sale, which they kept close to them, within or near their workshops? In 1959, Cook hypothesized that the Corinthian pottery industry involved ca. 250 people in the 6th century b.c.83 Although such estimates are of limited value, this figure can nonetheless serve as a rough guide for visualizing the situation on the ground. As this number refers to the total workforce of fine-ware workshops, one may speculate that ca. 40–60 workshops operated at Corinth (if each workshop employed ca. 4–6 people). As Morgan aptly observes, workshops that specialized in figural work, though flexible in their operation, would also have been more quickly impacted by fluctuations in taste; the Potters’ Quarter, on the other hand, with its more diversified production line, was able to withstand the systemic stress and continued to operate into the 4th century b.c.84 One is left to wonder how this group of 250 workers (especially the painters) readjusted their production line and retooled themselves with new potting and painting skills, whether they sought employment in unaffected workshops, or whether they abandoned the ceramic industry altogether. As it happens, while those in the ceramic industry who specialized in figural fine wares were clearly undergoing financial stress, men working in

300

c hap t er 7

other branches of the Corinthian ceramic industry were left relatively unscathed. The workshops producing transport amphoras, figurines, terracotta sculpture, Conventionalizing pottery, rooftiles, mortars, and other cooking wares continued to prosper. Employment opportunities for a vase painter, meanwhile, would have dwindled, and the few workshops who could hire one would have focused on uninspiring, second-rate work. Many of these workshops also relied on multiple techniques, and produced vessels not entirely shaped or thrown on the wheel, such as vessels that were handbuilt or simply wheel-finished. One sees here a differentiated impact on the Corinthian ceramic industry, with the most severe consequences suffered by workshops specializing in decorated drinking and aromatic ceramics. During the first half of the 6th century b.c., Corinthian potters undoubtedly sought increased protection for their commercial sea routes, and would have hoped to obtain it through the divine intervention of Poseidon. It is most likely that the potters called on Poseidon not only for successful firings, but also for safe passage for the ships that sailed the Mediterranean loaded with Corinthian pottery. Ultimately, they invoked him to keep a vibrant and centuries-old Corinthian ceramic industry alive. From their workshops, the Penteskouphia potters must have been able to look at the sea and read the weather, as well as witness the diminished traffic of middlemen and tradesmen through the potters’ quarters. The suggested workshops near the findspot of the pinakes would be only 6.5 km away from the sea, and the potters could theoretically have reached the sea via a network of smaller roads connecting the Penteskouphia area to the northern region. While the Corinthian potters at Penteskouphia were turning to Poseidon as their last hope, and dedicating humble terracotta pinakes, a new trend had started in their rival city, Athens, where, in the second half of the 6th century, newly prosperous potters began to display affluent dedications on the Athenian Acropolis.85 I introduced this chapter with Rayet and Collignon’s suggestions about the use contexts for the Penteskouphia pinakes. A hundred and thirty years later, an alternative scenario may read like this: a potters’ community at Penteskouphia specializing in sympotic vessels established and maintained an informal (stele) shrine to Poseidon close to their workshops. They frequently dedicated pinakes, since they were multipurpose items that were routinely used in their work. As their businesses experienced sustained stress from their Athenian competitors, they used the same shrine and the same medium more intensely to express their anxieties, sometimes even depicting scenes from their work lives. As the community fell apart, so did the shrine. This is a conjectural scenario—but one that places the potters, the ritual behaviors, the pinakes, and the prevailing economic conditions in a more dynamic relationship.

85. Williams 2009.

c hap t er 8

Conclusions

The scenes of potters at work on the Penteskouphia pinakes are crucial for our understanding of the craft and technology of Greek pottery, and, more broadly, they illuminate a number of important aspects of society, religion, and economy in craft communities in ancient Greece. The Penteskouphia corpus of over 1,200 fragments, representing a minimum of 1,023 pinakes, is currently dispersed across three countries (Greece, Germany, and France), with joins across all three collections. The scenes painted on them depict Poseidon, animals, warriors, horseback riders, and potters at work, alongside a few less common themes like ships and mythology. The size of the corpus, the unusual imagery of Poseidon and potters at work, and the abundance of inscriptions, as well as the frequency of two-sided pinakes, make it not only unique in the Corinthia, but also unprecedented and unparalleled elsewhere in the ancient Greek world. Unfortunately, due to the complicated context of the recovery of the pinakes at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, no useful information is available on their original use spot(s) or their function(s), and the motivations that led to the potters’ specific and unusual iconographical choices are lost. The Penteskouphia pinakes, as a corpus, remained unpublished for over 130 years. As a result, misconceptions have arisen about their place of recovery, quantity, and date, as well as the distribution of their iconographical themes. Moreover, formal and stylistic characteristics, such as variations in size and quality of drawing, were never systematically documented. By taking a macroscopic view of the assemblage and a microscopic view of its subgroups, this study aimed to provide some insight into the variety within the corpus and to have clarified some earlier misunderstandings in the scholarship. The subset of pinakes with scenes of potters at work lies at the center of this study; although the theme is infrequent overall (represented on 9% of the known pinakes), it has attracted a disproportionally large amount of interest among scholars of Greek antiquity. This modestly sized group is not only unique iconographically within Corinthian vase painting, but may also hold the key to unlocking the mysteries surrounding the Penteskouphia corpus. Why did the potters at Penteskouphia spend their time producing the pinakes, when they were not top-selling items and were never exported abroad? And why did they decorate them with such intimate scenes from

302

c hap t er 8

their everyday lives at the workshops—scenes that they did not reproduce on thousands of other Corinthian ceramics? The significance of this subset of the Penteskouphia corpus becomes more pronounced when we ponder what would have been lost to us if the assemblage had not surfaced. Without these pinakes, no contemporary imagery of the ceramic workshops in Archaic Corinth would exist, and we would know the name of only one Corinthian vase painter. Any iconographical study of ancient Greek potters at work would be limited to about 20 Athenian depictions, placed mostly on vases dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis, with some exported to Italy. Given that no Archaic pottery kilns have been excavated at Corinth, without these pinakes, we would have been left to gauge the prominence of the Corinthian potting industry only from the grand scale of the export trade and from references in Roman authors, such as Pliny the Elder, who, centuries after the city’s heyday, credited Corinth with the invention of important ceramic techniques, such as clay modeling, and equipment, such as the potter’s wheel (Chapter 1). The Corinthians’ tendency to diverge from the norm should not surprise us, since the region was home to several individuals credited as πρῶτος εὐρετής (first inventor), innovative artists who experimented in major artistic fields, including coroplastic arts and architectural terracottas, and introduced the techniques of linear and silhouette drawing in painting.1 This study has focused on three main areas: the archaeological context of the pinakes, their unusual imagery, and their spectrum of practical and ritual uses both within the workshop and outside it. Ultimately, this corpus has much to say not only about the ceramic craft itself, but also about the economic realities of the Corinthian decorated-pottery trade in the Middle and Late Corinthian periods.

R E CO N S T R U C T I N G T H E P EN T E S KO U P H I A CO N T EX T The lack of archaeological context lies at the heart of any discussion of the Penteskouphia pinakes. Their ancient use context, the 1879 looting spot, and the 1905 excavation site have all remained obscure. The excavators in 1905 recorded in their notebooks that they revisited the site of the Penteskouphia farmer’s 1879 looting, but they did not mark the 1905 spot properly on a map. After a careful topographical examination of archaeological features and a thorough analysis of excavation notebooks, with assistance from the collective memory of many scholars and local residents, Ioulia Tzonou and James Herbst have pinpointed the 1905 excavation site of the pinakes, in a spot ca. 700 m east of Penteskouphia village and about a 50-minute walk from the Temple of Apollo, in close proximity to a pre-Roman road that led from Corinth to Kleonai and Phlious. They characterized the pinakes as a very concentrated assemblage, located close to the ground surface, and argued that they could not have washed in from upslope. In terms of movable material, there are few ceramics associated with this hoard of pinakes: a total of 42 sherds with one Athenian import and two figurines, presented here for the first time (Chapter 2). It is not possible to determine whether the pinakes featured almost exclusively in the original assemblage, or once

1. Kleingünther 1933.

Conc lusions

303

represented a more balanced percentage along with vases and figurines. In the latter case, the pinakes and other material may have been sold separately, meaning that any association between them is likely now lost; or perhaps the associated material (votive or other) has yet to come to light, due to lack of modern exploration of the area. The topographical exploration reported in Chapter 2 and the iconographical analysis presented in Chapter 3 combine to paint a coherent picture. The confidence of the 1905 excavation crew that they were reexcavating the 1879 site where the farmer looted several hundred pinakes, the numerous joins between fragments in the three dispersed collections of pinakes (in Berlin, Paris, and Ancient Corinth), and the preponderance of lower-quality fragments in the Ancient Corinth subset constitute compelling evidence that most of the 1905 finds were left over from the farmer’s illicit digging 26 years earlier. We suggest, therefore, as the most likely scenario, that the Penteskouphia pinakes were unearthed at a single site on two separate occasions, in 1879 and 1905, and that this modern findspot roughly corresponds to the ancient use site. In ancient Greece, pinakes generally did not travel far from the region where they were produced. Dedicants, both locals and visitors, typically offered locally made pinakes at local sanctuaries. Corinthian pinakes have a remarkably low occurrence rate in other Corinthian sanctuaries, and are often found in industrial contexts; likewise, here, it seems that the Penteskouphia pinakes did not travel far from the kilns that fired them. Admittedly, no remains of workshops have come to light at the 1905 excavation site or its immediate vicinity, but this is not surprising, as industrial establishments are commonly—and frustratingly—invisible in the archaeological record of Corinth (Chapter 6). The western slopes of Acrocorinth housed potters’ communities from Archaic to Byzantine times, and could easily have accommodated one more near the Penteskouphia findspot.

R I T UA L S E T T I N G S A N D C I RC U M S TA N C E S I can postulate that potters in a still-unlocated Kerameikos at Penteskouphia turned briefly from their main production line of sympotic fine wares to the simpler, more familiar form of the pinax, which they often used as a clay sketch pad, to make dedications at informal sacred places within or near their workshops. This scenario would conform well to the topographical pattern of distribution of production sites in that general area, as well as to a regional pattern of ritual behavior in the Corinthia of small-scale, localized worship at groves, stele shrines within workshops, and shrines by roadsides or other significant landscape markers, all of which left little or no imprints in the archaeological record (Chapter 7). The Potters’ Quarter and the Greek Tile Works at Corinth included stele shrines and a few pinakes, thereby linking the pinax with both contexts—industrial and ritual—on a local level. The Penteskouphia Kerameikos proposed here may have duplicated and bolstered this symbiotic environment of industrial and ritual functions for the pinakes. In other words, pinakes could have fulfilled a ritual function within an industrial context. Corinthians also tended to populate their informal ritual places with distinct dedications

304

c hap t er 8

for each site, such as the figurines of dancing groups preferred at the Kokkinovrysi stele shrine. Similarly, an informal shrine located in the midst of a potters’ community at Penteskouphia could have featured the pinakes as the dedication par excellence. An informal ritual setting at Penteskouphia would accord well with the evidence on the ground, or rather the lack of it; we have no architectural remains in the area (ritual, industrial, or otherwise) to anchor the pinakes, and we are still in the dark about the circumstances of their deposition. Without an architectural context, the frequently made assertion that a more formal sanctuary to Poseidon was located near the findspot of the pinakes must remain highly speculative. While the informal ritual setting may have been a common feature of the Corinthian landscape, it is worth repeating that the clay pinakes are an unusual dedication, given their scarcity at the extensively excavated sanctuaries of Isthmia and Perachora (Chapter 1). If pinakes were dedicated in the Corinthian sanctuaries, the preferred materials must have been recyclable or perishable: that is, either metal (such as bronze cut-out pinakes hung independently or attached to a wooden board) or wood (prized for its light weight and for the opportunity it afforded painters to showcase their skills in a larger palette of colors). Although votive pinakes were not prominent at Corinthian sanctuaries, clay plaques would have been a versatile surface in any ancient pottery workshop. They could serve multiple uses during the various stages of pottery production: as canvases for practice sketches, test pieces for firing, or effective visual aids in advertising different thematic compositions to potential customers (Chapter 3). All workers, regardless of age, skill, or role, had easy access to clay plaques. The familiar form of the pinax (which could double as a handle plate on a Corinthian column krater) and the physical proximity of the dedication context (whether within or outside the workshop) gave the Penteskouphia potters the freedom to break away from their routine repertoire by decorating the pinakes with uncommon scenes and adding inscriptions with unusual frequency. The Penteskouphia potters labeled structures (e.g., the label κάμινος next to a kiln on A7), addressed Poseidon with a rare cultic epithet (ἄναξ), and added their signatures, using the usual verb egrapsen (“painted”) or the less common term autopoieia (“his own work”). This flurry of inscriptions on the pinakes was a marked deviation from the otherwise sparing use of inscriptions on Corinthian ceramics, but did reflect the local tendency to inscribe column kraters and other sympotic vessels such as kotylai and pitchers, one of the main products of the workshops that produced pinakes. The numbers are telling: the total number of inscriptions on the Penteskouphia pinakes surpasses the total number of inscriptions on all other Corinthian vessels combined (Chapter 5). The unusual imagery of the Penteskouphia pinakes reflects the particular preoccupations of the craftspeople who made them. For example, the plethora of kiln scenes on the pinakes with imagery of potters at work underscores the importance of the firing phase in pottery production: this long-lasting phase transforms the raw material into hard terracotta and tests the skills of the entire workshop at every level, from clay collection, to clay enrichment, to forming and drying of vessels, and finally to careful control of the fire. The accumulated experience of the workshop and its

Conc lusions

305

hard-earned and well-guarded technical knowledge combine to achieve a successful firing. Ultimately, it was the profitable sale of a successful load that set in motion the beginning of a new production cycle. Small-scale, family-run ancient workshops in the Corinthia and elsewhere operated in short economic cycles, from production to retail sale, and could not afford to stockpile inventory. Repeated failure to sell their products would have threatened the sustainability—or even basic operation—of these workshops. Running an enterprise that was so susceptible to failure would have required constant adaptation (such as refining technical mastery, diversifying the product line, and reconfiguring distribution networks), as well as mechanisms for coping with stress (such as performing rituals to ensure divine protection). At Corinth specifically, the potters, in order to cope with their anxieties, would likely have requested help from the city’s protector deity, Poseidon, in obtaining a constant and abundant supply of clay, water, and fuel, as well as in achieving successful firings. Potters would also have turned to Poseidon to provide earthquakes with beneficial effects (the revealing of new clay layers, without the destruction of existing ones), favorable weather, and calm seas—all major factors for the unhindered production and distribution of their wares by land and sea. Many of these requests would not have left an archaeological marker, but some may lie undetected in dedications of tools or other votives at sanctuaries (as at Isthmia), offered in anticipation of a successful result or as a thank-you for fulfilled prayers. Unfortunately, these ex-votos rarely specify the occasion of their dedication, the identity of the dedicant, or his profession. Are the Penteskouphia pinakes simple thank offerings of the type that is ubiquitous in Greek sanctuaries, or do they indicate something else, a more pressing concern? Scholars have focused so much on the uniqueness of these objects and the potters who fashioned them that the real concerns and fears of the potting community, as illustrated by the tablets, have been largely ignored. The usual concerns of the industry, including all the things that can go wrong in making and firing a kiln load, would have been the same for potters of the Middle and Late Corinthian periods as for potters of any other time and place. But what pushed these Corinthian potters of black-figure sympotic wares to turn to the familiar form of the pinax and to exhibit such atypical artistic and ritual behavior, for a short time and in a specific place? In this study I have argued that Corinthian potters dedicated pinakes to Poseidon with scenes of their working lives in the face of the imminent collapse of their pottery-trade markets in the Mediterranean in the mid-6th century b.c. The Corinthians, once the leading exporters of sympotic and cosmetic vessels in the Mediterranean basin, were now seriously threatened by the Athenian industry, which would soon dominate pottery exports in both the west and the east. Therefore, the technical prowess and entrepreneurial finesse exhibited in manufacturing and trading the famed Corinthian figural pots, perfected over generations, quickly became obsolete. How did the Corinthian potters react during this time of intense commercial competition with their Attic rivals? The representations of potters at work on the pinakes, as well as their pleas to Poseidon, may have been produced at the technical and artistic apogee of the Corinthian blackfigure industry, but should not be regarded as celebrations of their potting

306

c hap t er 8

supremacy. Pinakes such as these never filled the highly trafficked local sanctuaries. They may reflect instead a realization that the days of business prosperity were over. The potters and painters of figural pottery would have to reconceptualize their shapes and the complexity of their decoration; ultimately, yielding to the changing tastes and desires of the market, they abandoned their centuries-old tradition of innovation for the unimpressive shapes and repetitive decorative patterns of the Conventionalizing style. The artisans who made black-figure pottery probably sensed the impending market collapse more strongly than their fellow potters of coarse or undecorated wares. For the former group, the rather agitated atmosphere depicted on the pinakes, where we see wildly gesticulating workers climbing onto blazing kilns, may reflect their real-life emotional state. As for the latter, as their plain products were primarily distributed locally, they were largely immune to Athenian encroachment. In contrast to the marble thank offerings dedicated by potters on the Athenian Acropolis in the late 6th and early 5th centuries b.c., the Penteskouphia pinakes were a much more intimate and local phenomenon, not paralleled at other Corinthian sanctuaries in the Archaic period. The question of who these visitors were who frequented the site so often that an assemblage of over 1,000 pinakes was produced may indeed be closely connected to the ritual context and the circumstances for establishing the shrine. The workshops of all pyrotechnological crafts, including clay, metal, and glass, are the best candidates to be called “emotional communities,” a term that features in a recent book on the archaeology of anxiety.2 I consider the potters’ quarters as the “communities of anxiety” par excellence. A Greek poem of the 2nd century b.c. suggests that the most important prayer for a potter concerned his work. In this passage, the author surveys a wide range of professions whose practitioners hold knowledge that benefits society, exalting first the scribe, and subsequently the farmer, engraver, designer, and smith. He concludes with potters, whose shared main concern is the accuracy of their products, not the improvement of the society. Their daily concerns, however, are real: All these rely on their hands, and all are skillful in their own work. Without them no city can be inhabited, and wherever they live, they will not go hungry. Yet they are not sought out for the council of the people, nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly. They do not sit in the judge’s seat, nor do they understand the decisions of the courts; they cannot expound discipline or judgment, and they are not found among the rulers. But they maintain the fabric of the world, And their prayers are about their daily work.3 The generic image of potters described above could easily represent Corinthian potters of the 6th century b.c. As I have argued in this study, these craft practitioners addressed their daily concerns in both informal and formal rituals.

2. Fleisher and Norman 2016, pp. 5–7. 3. Sirach (Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus) 38.31–34 (trans. modified from New Revised Standard Version of the Bible; emphasis mine).

Conc lusions

307

Perhaps, then, the Penteskouphia pinakes should be reframed as something more than another corpus of votive dedications. A more nuanced reading would elevate them to a prime example of ritual behavior within the framework of industrial religion, and one in which potters’ serious concerns under intense circumstances predominate. The study of industrial religion has benefited from the recent scholarly attention given to industrial pyres in the Athenian Agora and adjacent areas of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, a shrine of stone quarrymen and sculptors at Flerio on Naxos in the Archaic period, and a Hellenistic shrine to the Nymphs at Kafizin maintained by temple barbers, weavers, and potters (Chapter 7). In each case, craft practitioners’ concerns—whether common or extraordinary—and their manifestation in a ritual setting figure prominently. This industrial ritual behavior, manifested with varying degrees of permanence or formality and encountered in a variety of contexts, invites us to consider the entire spectrum of motivations behind an artisan’s offering of a dedication. Were dedications made to celebrate good business and health different from those offered after a natural or economic calamity, or to avert a future one? Have such dedications preserved discernible clues for archaeologists to recover their original significance? The constant anxiety about economic viability in craft quarters is effectively and vividly expressed in curse tablets, especially among competing metalsmiths. At present, no curse tablets directly connected to potters have been found, but in the apotropaic toolkit of potters we should probably include incantations such as the unique Κάμινος poem, which may originate from a long tradition of oral prayers that were recited to protect businesses and avert the evil eyes of casual passersby or business competitors.4 Hesiod’s well-known maxim “As potter hates potter, craftsman envies craftsman” (Op. 25–26) does not specify how potters expressed their fierce competitive spirit, but it is probably in this elusive, darker realm of apotropaic behavior in the face of competition and pervasive business anxiety that we can now place the Penteskouphia pinakes. Pinakes and poetry may have served similar functions, providing potters with a means to channel their concerns in a wide spectrum, from the routine uncertainties in their daily operations to the extraordinary collapse of an economic system. Such behaviors, whether they take the form of unspoken thoughts or discrete actions, often do not leave archaeological remains, or lie undetected in the archaeological record. 4. For curse tablets in workshops and in general “agonistic” contexts, see Faraone 1991. A metalworker is mentioned in a curse tablet from the Athenian Agora (IL 1702; Curbera and Jordan 1998; Jordan 2000). The word δαίμονες does not appear in the defixiones until Roman times (Young 1951, pp. 222–223). Potters were usually spared in curse tablets. Only one curse tablet from the Athenian Kerameikos is connected to the potting industry: it lists two pot menders (Demetrios and Demades) among its eight targeted

individuals, but it seems that their profession is listed to provide better identification rather than to attack their businesses (Gager 1992, pp. 162–163, no. 70). For curse tablets against businesses, shops, and taverns, see Gager 1992, pp. 151–174. Eidinow (2007, pp. 191–205) argues that we should question whether in curse tablets that list professionals, the curse is directed specifically at their businesses or instead includes their businesses in order to ensure utmost destruction in all facets of life and livelihood.

308

c hap t er 8

Nevertheless, they must have been common phenomena among workers in industries in which production, distribution, and consumption all had to operate in unison for the enterprise to succeed.

I CO N O G R A P H I C A L A N D T E C H N I C A L CO N S I D ER AT I O N S I have reserved for last considerations of iconography, which virtually monopolized earlier discussions of the Penteskouphia corpus. The iconography of the pinakes served as the point of departure for this study as well, but its unique nature ultimately led us to broaden the scope of inquiry to better understand its idiosyncrasies. The use of select pinakes as standard illustrations in Greek pottery handbooks has lent them a deceptive familiarity that has masked some of the highly unusual aspects of their imagery. The iconographical analysis of the corpus as a whole is both rich and unexpectedly surprising; we find rare themes in unpredictable combinations, different orientation schemes for scenes on two-sided pinakes, and different distribution patterns of themes on one-sided and two-sided pinakes. Although the expected stock themes of warriors and horseback riders are certainly present, it is the scenes of Poseidon and of potters at work that deviate markedly from the common imagery of Corinthian vase painting. Moreover, both of these rare types display different distribution patterns on the one- and two-sided pinakes. As pinakes were not a standard product of Corinthian workshops nor an export item, it is perhaps to be expected that the potters did not feel the need to adopt standardized iconography for their decoration. Targeted iconographical analysis can be misleading if one treats a subgroup in isolation, without assessing its position within the larger assemblage. The scenes of potters at work are definitely not representative of the whole assemblage, but their low frequency invites speculation. Conversely, the dedicatory inscriptions to Poseidon and his numerous representations, mostly on one-sided pinakes, would have misled us into thinking that the pinakes represented regular cultic activity at a shrine to Poseidon. Such a conclusion, however, would have wholly ignored the fact that Poseidon is largely absent on Corinthian ceramics in general. In the subgroup of pinakes carrying scenes of potters at work, 102 scenes from 97 pinakes are catalogued here (Chapter 4), with an additional 30 identified as members of this group with varying degrees of certainty. The potters are shown collecting clay and fuel, working on different shapes on the wheel, and firing the kilns. The kiln-firing scenes are predominant. Yet the Penteskouphia pinakes, while portraying more steps in the pottery manufacturing process than their Athenian counterparts, are far from being a visual compendium of the entire ceramic chaîne opératoire, and were definitely not intended as part of a technical manual on forming a kotyle or a krater. What is depicted on the pinakes is mostly accurate, with allowances for scale. In their immediacy, the depictions resemble snapshots taken by workmen in their workplace, but without capturing the noise, mess, and lively interactions among workers and with customers. We can

Conc lusions

309

only imagine the unpleasant fumes of the kiln firings. No piles of fuel or unprocessed clay are seen, nor are fast-moving workers shown moving dry and fired pots as they load and unload the kilns. Ever since their discovery, the Penteskouphia scenes of pottery workshops have held a prominent place in the iconography of craftspeople from antiquity. The number of such scenes preserved on them is unparalleled in Greco-Roman antiquity and even on a global scale, in Renaissance maiolica workshops in Italy, or 18th- and 19th-century a.d. industrial ceramic centers in China (Chapter 1). In classical scholarship, the Penteskouphia and Athenian scenes often appear together to fully illustrate the stages of pottery manufacture, as there are gaps within each corpus. A closer examination, however, reveals that the two sets of representations could not be more different (Chapter 5). The Corinthian potters also placed their workshop scenes on pinakes, rather than vases, a choice that becomes less surprising if we consider that pinakes were probably ubiquitous in pottery workshops and had many possible uses, from aiding with drawing skills, to monitoring a kiln firing, to thanking the gods. Similar in size to a columnkrater handle plate and easily held within one’s palm, a pinax was a very user-friendly surface, and one to which a worker would naturally turn for a variety of reasons, from practical to ritual. The Penteskouphia pinakes, with their strong emphasis on kiln depictions, differ markedly from the Athenian representations of potters and painters, which highlight the artistic phases of forming and decorating the vessels. The idealization of the manufacturing process was not perhaps a Corinthian aesthetic priority, especially if, as I have argued, the driving force behind these depictions was not commercial success, but rapidly approaching economic disaster. The success of family-run workshops depended first upon control of the kiln firing, which was critical for black-figure wares, and then upon their timely sale. A further difference between Corinthian and Athenian depictions is seen in the visual formulas they use to invoke divine protection. The Penteskouphia potters invoked Poseidon by inscription in their workshop scenes, but did not depict him in their midst; by contrast, the Athenian scenes did include representations of the goddess Athena inside pottery workshops, but never invoked her in inscriptions. The pinakes from Penteskouphia serve as reminders of how much of an ancient pottery workshop’s equipment and toolkit has been lost to us. The Corinthian workshop scenes, preserving numerous complete depictions of potter’s wheels and potter’s kilns, constitute a valuable source of information about the technical side of ceramic production. The fragmentary archaeological evidence for these workshops, augmented by ethnographic, archaeometric, and experimental data on the form and function of wheels and kilns, was found to be compatible with and to complement the iconographical record of the pinakes (Chapter 6). This convergence of various types of evidence makes it difficult to imagine how, for over a century after their modern discovery, the kiln scenes on the Penteskouphia pinakes were associated with the world of metalsmiths and miners rather than that of potters. Ultimately, this was due to a limited understanding of pyrotechnological structures.

310

c hap t er 8

In addition to enriching our technological knowledge, information on the sizes of kilns and of ancient Greek pottery workshops in general sheds light on the organization and specialization in this industry. Ceramic production at Corinth has so far been archaeologically visible only through wasters, kiln supports, and workshop dumps; to date, not a single Archaic pottery-production site has come to light. Despite the standardized and schematic composition of the scenes on the pinakes—lonely potters working at the wheel, or a single attendant carefully monitoring a kiln firing—the pinakes help to fill this void in the archaeological record of Archaic workshop sites in the Corinthia, a region renowned for its ceramic products, which were traded extensively in Mediterranean ports from the 8th to the 6th centuries b.c.

F U T U R E AV EN U E S O F R E S E A RC H In this study of the Penteskouphia pinakes, I have sought to integrate many different types of evidence to counterbalance the isolated examination of specific aspects of them, which is a fundamentally flawed approach that amplifies the risk of perpetuating or producing new misconceptions. While the focus is reserved for the scenes of pottery production, this is the first time that all pinakes and their related epigraphical concordances have been collected in one publication (Appendixes I–VII). It is my hope that soon the entire corpus, despite its daunting size and distribution across three countries, will finally be fully published and visually documented in print and/or online. Archival research to detect sets of ceramics that were acquired by the Antikensammlung in Berlin and the Louvre in Paris at approximately the same time as the pinakes themselves may be a rewarding exercise in the effort to recover any associated ceramics. Using the catalogue of scenes of potters at work as a starting point, I have also sought to place the pinakes within their wider archaeological, ritual, iconographical, and technological contexts. It is hoped that this study will invite other scholars to revisit the assemblage for its wealth of information on Greek ceramic production, technology, and religion, and not simply for use as illustration material. Future studies of the material and its findspot may refine, confirm, or refute some of the ideas presented here. For example, more detailed iconographical analysis, as well as clay fabric analysis, may allow for some refinement in dating the pinakes, and possibly lead to identification of clay sources in the Corinthia. Connoisseurship studies may lead to identification of individual painters for some pinakes. If such attributions become possible, then Timonidas will no longer be the only Corinthian vase painter who, through his signatures, has been associated with both pinakes and vases. We know that potters were active in the general area west of Acrocorinth, despite the absence of excavated fixed structures from ceramic workshops; this study invites us to look beyond archaeological remains for other clues about the existence of workshops, such as kiln wasters, kiln supports, and workshop dumps, but, to date, not a single Archaic pottery kiln site has come to light. Future topographical studies of the Penteskouphia area should include a systematic survey and geomagnetic prospection for the presence

Conc lusions

5. Merker 2006. 6. Paris, Louvre CA 454; Lissarrague 1990, pp. 48–49, figs. 30, 31; CVA, Paris, Musée du Louvre 8 [France 12], pl. 4 [501]; Coulié 2013, pp. 129–130, fig. 116; for its construction, see Merlin 2007. Creating unusual pieces like this may have been a source of amusement for young and old; see above, p. 299, n. 81.

311

of technical installations, kilns, or other evidence of workshops, in order to better localize the production context of the Penteskouphia pinakes. Over a century has lapsed since the last, too-brief archaeological excavation of the findspot; in this era of rapid building and land development, the need for a renewed and extensive exploration of the Penteskouphia region is especially pressing. Such a project should pay particular attention to the area where the pinakes were discovered in 1879 and 1905. It would indeed be wonderful to eventually anchor these representations to the actual workshops they so vividly depict. The small Kerameikos at Penteskouphia postulated in this study may be as elusive architecturally as the one at the Potters’ Quarter, a vast industrial area of about 6,000 m² that was identifiable only through wasters and terracotta molds. Finally, archaeometric analysis of clay sources, coupled with a detailed topographical study of ceramic production and of road networks, could situate this famous Corinthian industry within its geological, technical, and economical landscapes. The Greek Tile Works, a major production site to the north of Ancient Corinth, was excavated just before World War II, in 1939, but not published until 2006.5 About half a dozen kiln sites, mostly of Roman and later times, are known in the Corinthia, but almost all remain unpublished. A sustained program of excavating and studying pottery and tile production centers at Ancient Corinth, especially those of the Archaic period, will begin to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, and will hopefully provide a picture as rich and diverse as the Corinthian ceramics themselves. The pinakes from Penteskouphia were intimately connected with the potters’ world. They were created by potters and for potters in the potters’ quintessential material, clay. Potters used them to practice their skills and to portray their surroundings. Most importantly, however, I have argued here that these pinakes may have carried the potters’ prayers for sustaining the prosperity that the Corinthian pottery industry had enjoyed for over 200 years, but was rapidly losing. The Penteskouphia pinakes did not travel to the ports of the Mediterranean along with the Corinthian oil containers or sympotic wares. They did not even make it to the major Corinthian sanctuaries. Instead, the pinakes remained close to their production places and close to their makers, who preferred to express their business anxiety and vulnerability within familiar confines. The ritual site with the dedicated pinakes was intrinsically linked to the businesses of the potters in the area; ultimately, the demise of their workshops led to the neglect of the sacred site. The contrast between two examples of Corinthian ceramics may illustrate the different mentalities of different times: representing the Corinthian ceramic business at its apex, we have the plastic vessel in the shape of a fat, squatting man holding a column krater, perhaps created as a trickster vase, when business was prospering and spirits were high (Fig. 8.1).6 Compare the figure on B17, who holds his finger on his forehead in a sign of temporary or sustained perplexity. If, as I suggest, he is part of a potting scene, he could represent the other end of the spectrum: the increasing headaches and worries experienced by Corinthian producers of decorated pottery, as the collapse of support networks and Athenian pressure began to take their toll. The terracotta prayers of the Corinthian potters at Penteskouphia, in the end, may not have been heard or answered by Poseidon, but the

312

c hap t er 8

Figure 8.1. Corinthian plastic vase showing a figure holding a column krater (Paris, Louvre CA 454). Not

to scale. Photo T. Querrec, courtesy Musée du Louvre, © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY

Corinthian pottery industry still holds a celebrated place in the history of ancient Greek art, thanks to the thousands of Corinthian ceramics found throughout the Mediterranean. The vibrantly painted kraters, masterfully shaped aryballoi, exquisitely constructed roofs with terracotta tiles, and terracotta sculptures are lasting tributes to the Corinthian mastery of the art of clay. Ironically, the Penteskouphia pinakes, with their exceptional medium and iconography and their restricted use in the Corinthian landscape, serve both to mark the apogee of Corinthian figural-pottery workshops and to signal their impending demise.

appendix i

List of Penteskouphia Pinakes in Ancient Corinth, Berlin, and Paris

This appendix is the first comprehensive list of all known Penteskouphia pinakes. The following pieces of information are provided for each pinax or pinax fragment: Inv. no. (cat. no.): Pinakes with inventory numbers starting with C-1963 are kept at the Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Pinakes with numbers preceded by F or I are kept at the Antikensammlung in Berlin; F numbers were inventoried by Furtwängler (1885) and I by Pernice (1897). City names appearing after some Berlin pinakes indicate university museums where these objects are on long-term loan. Inventory numbers beginning with CA, MNB, or MNC refer to pinakes that are kept in the Musée du Louvre, Paris. Catalogue numbers assigned in this volume appear in boldface. Joining fragments are indicated by “+” while nonjoing but associated fragments, as well as joining fragments held in different collections, are indicated by “/.” Joins indicated within parentheses were suggested by Helen von Raits in an unpublished manuscript that came into my possession after I had completed my autopsy. It was not possible for me to confirm these, but I include them as an aid to future research. Dimensions: Height, width, and thickness are presented as in the catalogue; see p. 84, above. Measurements are in centimeters. Von Raits recorded several instances of associated but nonjoining fragments among the fragments from Corinth. I have retained these associations to aid further examination of the entire corpus, fully aware of their tentative nature. For nonjoining fragments and joining fragments in different collections (indicated by “/”), the first set of dimensions given is for the first piece listed, with the dimensions of the associated fragment(s) listed below. For joining fragments in the same collection (indicated by “+”), a single set of total dimensions is given. One- or two-sided: Classification of pinax as one-sided or twosided. In a few uncertain cases, a question mark is added.

314

appendix I

Side A, Side B: Iconographical themes on each side of the pinax. In my identification of ambiguous scenes, I use the compositional schemes that predominate with a given theme as a guide: for example, figures with beards, bands, or long hair, wearing a long chiton, or holding a trident or fish are identified as Poseidon. Scenes with fragmentary depictions of chariots or Poseidon on a chariot are identified as “Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot),” as this scene predominantly features a chariot. If the chariot preserves one or both deities, it is identified as “Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot).” In animal scenes, I give the specific animal when identifiable. If a scene includes both animals and figures, I indicate this and count it according to which theme is the focus. When a figure is difficult to identify with confidence as Poseidon or a warrior (the two main themes depicting male figures), it is given as “Figure.” The presence of filling ornaments (e.g., rosettes) is omitted from this appendix due to space limitations. Inscriptions/Illustrations: For published inscriptions, I provide references to IG IV, von Raits 1964, and Wachter 2001; for unpublished inscriptions, I simply note that they are present. (See also below, Appendixes V–VII.) Illustrations in the current work are listed as simple figure references. Other illustration references are to Antike Denkmäler, Pernice 1897, and Geagan 1970. Date: Dates assigned to pinakes by various scholars. Chronological periods are abbreviated as follows: PC (Protocorinthian), TR (Transitional), EC (Early Corinthian), MC (Middle Corinthian), LC (Late Corinthian). Scholars’ names are abbreviated as follows: JEF ( Jeffery 1990); KSR (Kiderlen and Strocka 2005); LAZ (Lazzarini 1976); LOR (Lorber 1979); PAL (Palmieri 2016); PNE (Payne 1931); VRS (von Raits 1964); WAC (Wachter 2001). “Painter” (e.g., Polyteleia Painter) is abbreviated as Ptr.

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-101

5.0

4.2

0.7

one

horse

C-1963-102 (M20)

3.7

5.8

0.7

two

unclear

C-1963-103

3.8

3.5

0.7

one

unclear

Cor int h, Ar c haeol o g ic al Museum

C-1963-104

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

figure

Fig. 4.88

MC (VRS)

see F 589

C-1963-105

6.0

4.0

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-106

3.1

3.6

0.8

one

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-107

3.5

4.2

0.6

one

figure

C-1963-108

5.3

3.8

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-109

3.7

6.7

0.8

two

figure

figure

C-1963-110

4.4

4.6

0.5

two

figure

warrior

C-1963-111

3.2

4.8

0.9

two

horse

unclear

C-1963-112

see F 554

C-1963-113

2.4

4.1

0.7

one

horse(?)

C-1963-114

3.8

2.7

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-115

3.7

2.9

0.5

one

Poseidon

C-1963-116

3.3

4.1

0.4

two

figures

C-1963-117

1.8

3.7

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-118

2.9

4.6

0.9

one

animal (bird?)

C-1963-119

8.5

8.1

0.9

two

warrior(?)

figure(?)

C-1963-120

3.9

3.4

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-121

2.2

3.8

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-122

315

unclear

see F 431

C-1963-123

3.9

3.4

0.7

two

animal

animal

C-1963-124

4.4

2.9

0.7

two

Poseidon

figure

C-1963-125 (M16)

5.2

5.4

0.4

two

ship

unclear

Fig. 4.85

MC (PAL)

C-1963-126 (B54)

4.8

5.8

0.6

two

horses

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.67

LC (VRS; PAL)

C-1963-127 / F 895

6.7 5.9

6.4 10.1

1.0 1.0

two

warrior

animal (boar)

AntDenk II, pl. 39:14 (F 895)

C-1963-128

4.2

3.4

0.6

one

figures

C-1963-129

4.3

5.3

0.9

two

horse (and bird)

C-1963-130

5.6

4.7

1.0

one

horses

C-1963-131

3.8

2.5

0.7

two

animal (bird)

unclear

C-1963-132 + C-1963-325

8.9

3.5

0.8

two(?)

Poseidon

horseback rider

C-1963-133

7.6

2.9

0.7

one

unclear

unclear von Raits 1964, p. 60

C-1963-134

6.2

4.5

0.9

two

horse (and rooster)

unclear

C-1963-135

4.4

4.7

0.5

two

warrior(?)

unclear

C-1963-136

5.5

3.6

0.6

two

figure

unclear

C-1963-137

4.7

4.3

0.7

two

Poseidon(?)

figure

C-1963-138

3.8

5.4

0.8

two

figure

animal (boar)

von Raits 1964, p. 60

316 Inv. No. (Cat. No.) C-1963-139

appendix I H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

6.7

5.8

0.8

one

Poseidon

C-1963-141

2.8

4.4

0.8

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

C-1963-142

see I 86 4.7 5.3

0.9 1.0

one

Poseidon

6.7 8.1

C-1963-144

see F 467

C-1963-145

see C-1963-380 3.0

2.6

0.6

one(?)

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-147 (M14)

4.0

5.2

0.4

two

figure

unclear

C-1963-148

3.3

3.5

0.6

two

figure

animal

C-1963-149

5.4

3.9

0.8

two

horse(?)

horses

C-1963-150

4.2

3.4

1.0

one

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-151

see C-1963-297

C-1963-152

see F 955

C-1963-153

4.3

3.1

0.5

one

Poseidon

C-1963-154 / C-1963-290

3.8 3.2

7.1 3.7

1.0 0.8

one

horseback rider

C-1963-155

4.4

5.0

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-156

4.1

3.5

0.6

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-157 (/ C-1963-254)

7.8

3.7

0.8

one

Poseidon

C-1963-158

3.7

4.2

0.6

one

horse

C-1963-159

2.0

5.4

0.4

two

figure

C-1963-160

3.7

3.6

0.8

one

unclear

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

C-1963-161

7.3

2.9

1.0

C-1963-162

3.0

2.4

0.5

one

figure(?)

C-1963-163

4.4

5.4

0.8

two

unclear

C-1963-164

3.6

4.8

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-165

see I 63

C-1963-166

4.0

4.0

0.6

two

figure

C-1963-167

2.2

5.4

0.8

one

horseback rider(?)

C-1963-168

5.1

2.7

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-169

6.0

5.4

0.6

one

horseback rider

4.1

4.0

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-171

Date

figure (and animals)

C-1963-146

C-1963-170

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see F 920

C-1963-140

C-1963-143 / I 115

Side B

5.0

4.0

0.8

one

horse

C-1963-173

5.2

4.4

0.5

one

unclear

von Raits 1964, p. 60

von Raits 1964, p. 61

unclear

animal

warrior

von Raits 1964, p. 60

see F 506

C-1963-172

von Raits 1964, p. 60/ Fig. 4.84

C-1963-174

5.4

4.3

0.8

two(?)

animal(?)

unclear

C-1963-175

1.7

4.2

0.4

two

unclear

unclear

6th century b.c. (PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-176

4.8

4.3

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-177

4.5

3.4

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-178

3.8

4.8

0.8

one

Poseidon

C-1963-179

2.6

4.1

1.0

one

Poseidon(?)

3.9

2.7

0.5

one

horse

C-1963-180 C-1963-181

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

von Raits 1964, p. 60

see F 507

C-1963-182 (/ C-1963-261)

4.5

6.5

0.8

one(?)

warrior

C-1963-183 / C-1963-351

3.2 3.1

4.6 2.8

0.9 1.0

one

animal

C-1963-184

2.3

4.3

0.7

two

figure

horseback rider

C-1963-185 + C-1963-424 (M15)

4.2

5.3

0.4

two

figure

animal

C-1963-186

3.2

6.0

0.6

two

horseback rider

unclear

C-1963-187

3

4.6

0.8

one

figure

C-1963-188

4.8

3.0

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-189

2.7

3.2

0.4

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-190

2.8

4.0

0.7

two

horse

unclear unclear

C-1963-191

317

von Raits 1964, p. 60/ Fig. 4.85

see F 906

C-1963-192

3.8

4.3

0.7

two

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-193 (M10)

5.5

3.8

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-194

2.8

2.5

0.4

two

unclear

unclear figure (female)

Fig. 4.33 von Raits 1964, p. 60/ Fig. 4.22

von Raits 1964, p. 60/ Fig. 4.80

C-1963-195 (B16)

4.2

4.2

0.7

two(?)

potters at work (at the wheel)

C-1963-196 (B4)

4.2

4.0

0.5

two

potters at work (clay collecting)

unclear

C-1963-197

3.7

4.4

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

2.2

3.3

0.6

two

unclear

unclear unclear

C-1963-198 C-1963-199

see F 507

C-1963-200

4.3

3.9

0.8

two

animal (bird)

C-1963-201

4.1

2.8

0.9

one

figure

C-1963-202 + C-1963-266

5.2

4.4

0.6

two

figure(?)

unclear

C-1963-203

von Raits 1964, p. 60

see F 601

C-1963-204

4.5

5.1

0.5

two

horseback rider

figure

C-1963-205 (/ F 853)

3.2

5.6

0.7

two

figure

unclear

C-1963-206

4.2

4.1

0.8

two

figure

unclear

C-1963-207

5.4

2.7

0.7

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-208 + C-1963-376

3.1

4.2

0.6

one

horse

C-1963-209

3.0

2.4

0.6

one

horse

Date

318 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

appendix I

C-1963-210 (/ F 931)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

5.1

2.4

0.4

two

horseback rider

animal

C-1963-211

2.6

3.0

0.8

one

horse(?)

2.0

3.4

0.6

one

animal(?)

C-1963-212 C-1963-213

3.5

3.4

0.4

one

figure

C-1963-215 / C-1963-268

3.0 3.9

3.2 3.4

1.0 0.8

two

horses

C-1963-216

2.6

3.0

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-217

2.9

2.7

0.7

one

horseback rider

C-1963-218

3.3

2.9

0.6

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-219

2.9

3.3

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-220

2.9

3.6

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-221

5.1

4.6

0.6

two(?)

unclear

unclear unclear

3.1

3.8

0.8

two

unclear

C-1963-224 / C-1963-213

3.5 2.6

5.3 2.3

0.4 0.4

one

ship

4.7

0.8

one

Poseidon(?)

4.8

3.2

0.8

two

unclear

2.1

1.9

0.9

one

unclear

C-1963-226 C-1963-227 C-1963-228 C-1963-229 C-1963-230

von Raits 1964, p. 60

see F 507 4.5 see F 711 animal

see F 843

C-1963-231 (B30)

4.2

4.0

0.9

two

Poseidon(?)

potters at work (kiln)

C-1963-232

3.8

4.4

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-233

4.0

4.1

0.6

two

figure

figure

5.1

0.7

one

figure (female)

C-1963-234 C-1963-235

von Raits 1964, p. 60

see F 711

C-1963-223

C-1963-225

unclear

Fig. 4.45

see F 799 5.0

C-1963-236

3.7

3.2

0.4

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

C-1963-237 / C-1963-387 (M17)

3.0 3.3

4.0 2.9

0.6 0.7

two

horse

C-1963-238

2.9

4.5

1.0

one

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-239

4.5

2.0

0.5

one

figure

C-1963-240

2.1

2.2

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-241

2.5

5.6

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-242

3.5

4.7

0.8

one

animal (fish)

C-1963-243

5.6

3.7

0.9

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

C-1963-244 + C-1963-382

6.5

4.0

0.7

one

figure(?)

C-1963-245

4.0

4.1

0.6

two

horses

von Raits 1964, p. 60

unclear

Fig. 4.86

von Raits 1964, p. 61 unclear

Date PC (VRS)

see C-1963-224

C-1963-214

C-1963-222

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.) C-1963-246 C-1963-247

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

3.0

3.3

0.7

one

Poseidon(?)

4.5

2.7

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-249

4.3

4.8

0.7

one

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-250

see F 601

C-1963-251

see F 601

C-1963-252

4.2

3.5

0.5

one

horseback rider

C-1963-253

4.7

4.1

0.6

one(?)

horse (and bird)

C-1963-254 (/ C-1963-157)

3.5

3.0

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-255 (A32)

4.9

4.3

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

C-1963-256 (/ F 581)

2.7

2.8

0.4

one

unclear

C-1963-257

3.5

4.2

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-258

5.0

3.7

0.8

one

Poseidon(?)

3.5

3.3

0.6

one

figure

C-1963-261 (/ C-1963-182)

3.9

3.8

0.8

one

myth (Gorgoneion)

C-1963-262 + C-1963-388 (/ C-1963-311)

3.6

4.9

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-263

3.5

2.6

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-264

3.0

3.0

0.8

two

ship(?)

C-1963-265

3.4

3.4

0.7

one

unclear

0.6

one

ship(?)

C-1963-267 C-1963-268

Fig. 4.17

see F 707

C-1963-260

C-1963-266

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see F 699

C-1963-248

C-1963-259

Side B

319

unclear

see C-1963-202 4.5

4.8

see C-1963-215

C-1963-269

3.8

2.6

0.6

one

animal (bird)

C-1963-270

3.2

2.6

0.5

two(?)

unclear

C-1963-271

2.1

4.1

0.4

one

unclear

C-1963-272

5.3

3.7

0.5

one

figure (and tripod)

C-1963-273

2.0

3.2

0.6

two

unclear

C-1963-274

3.1

4.0

0.5

one

warrior

C-1963-275

3.2

3.5

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-276

3.6

3.7

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-277

2.5

4.4

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-278

3.4

6.0

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-279

1.1

3.6

1.2

one

unclear

C-1963-280

4.3

4.2

0.8

one

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-281

5.1

4.5

0.5

one

figure

C-1963-282 (/ F 385)

3.6

4.5

0.6

one

Poseidon(?)

unclear

unclear

von Raits 1964, p. 61

Date

320

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-283

3.8

4.5

C-1963-284

3.2

4.6

0.7

one

unclear

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-285

3.3

2.8

0.4

two

Poseidon (on chariot?)

unclear

C-1963-286

2.6

3.4

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-287

2.5

2.7

0.5

one

warrior

C-1963-288

1.9

2.7

0.5

one

unclear

5.0

2.1

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-289 C-1963-290

Side B

see C-1963-154

C-1963-291

4.5

4.5

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-292

3.5

3.1

0.5

two

warrior

figure

C-1963-293

3.5

3.9

0.6

one

horseback rider

C-1963-294

5.5

6.6

0.9

one

Poseidon

C-1963-295 / I 28

5.1 4.3

4.0 4.2

0.7 0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-296

4.3

2.7

0.9

two(?)

unclear

unclear

C-1963-297 / C-1963-151 (M18)

5.5 6.8

5.4 4.4

0.7 0.7

two

figure

unclear

C-1963-298

3.7

3.4

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-299

2.3

2.6

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-300 + C-1963-391

5.7

2.3

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-301

3.7

4.6

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-302

2.1

2.3

0.4

two

unclear

C-1963-303

2.0

3.4

0.5

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-304

8.8

5.1

1.1

one

figure

C-1963-305 + C-1963-429

9.4

12.0

0.9

one

unclear

C-1963-306

2.3

2.0

0.5

two

unclear

C-1963-307

2.5

3.4

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-308

2.2

3.5

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-309

2.7

3.2

0.5

one

figure(?)

C-1963-310

2.0

3.2

0.4

one

unclear

C-1963-311 (/ C-1963-262 + C-1963-388)

3.4

4.1

0.6

one

unclear

4.3

2.6

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-312 C-1963-313

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

unclear

figure

see F 545

C-1963-314

3.5

3.5

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-315

3.4

4.7

0.4

one

unclear

C-1963-316

4.3

2.7

0.6

two

unclear

C-1963-317 / I 65

5.5 8.4

5.2 5.0

0.9 0.8

one

warrior

unclear

von Raits 1964, p. 61

von Raits 1964, p. 61/ Fig. 4.87

Date

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-318

4.5

3.6

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-319

2.7

4.7

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-320

2.5

4.0

0.9

one

figure

C-1963-321

3.0

3.1

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-322

2.5

3.1

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-323

3.9

2.6

0.4

one

figure

C-1963-324

4.1

2.5

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-325

Side B

4.6

3.0

0.7

one

animal (bird)

C-1963-327

4.4

3.2

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-328

3.9

3.0

0.9

one

figure(?)

C-1963-329

6.1

3.3

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-330

2.6

4.7

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-331

4.6

4.3

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-332

2.9

1.7

0.7

one

horse(?)

C-1963-333

4.7

2.5

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-334

5.5

5.4

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-335

3.1

2.7

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-336

3.9

3.8

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-337

3.6

2.9

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-338

3.9

3.8

0.7

two

warrior

C-1963-339

3.5

2.2

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-340 + C-1963-365

3.3

6.4

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-341

3.8

3.8

0.7

two(?)

unclear

unclear

C-1963-342

3.7

3.1

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-343

3.2

4.1

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-344

2.5

2.7

0.6

two

horse

unclear

C-1963-345

1.1

3.2

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-346

4.7

2.5

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-347

3.0

6.3

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-348

2.7

3.2

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-349

2.6

2.5

0.6

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-350

3.5

2.6

0.6

two

figure

animal (bird)

unclear

see C-1963-183

C-1963-352

3.1

2.7

0.6

one

figure

C-1963-353 (M13)

7.2

5.4

0.8

two

figure unclear

C-1963-354

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see C-1963-132

C-1963-326

C-1963-351

321

unclear

see F 471

C-1963-355

5.3

6.9

0.8

one(?)

C-1963-356

3.4

7.3

0.8

two

unclear

C-1963-357

5.7

3.3

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-358

2.6

5.6

0.8

one

unclear

unclear

Fig. 4.83

Date

322

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-359

3.0

4.3

0.5

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-360

3.4

2.9

0.7

one

figure

C-1963-361

3.0

3.6

0.7

one(?)

figure

C-1963-362

3.5

4.1

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-363

2.4

3.2

0.6

one

animal (bird)

C-1963-364

3.8

2.8

0.5

one

unclear unclear

C-1963-365

Side B

2.9

3.5

0.5

one

C-1963-367

2.6

3.0

0.4

two

unclear

unclear unclear

C-1963-368

2.5

4.3

0.6

two

Poseidon (on chariot)

C-1963-369

2.1

3.5

0.4

one

unclear

C-1963-370

4.5

3.3

1.1

one

figure

C-1963-371

4.3

2.6

1.1

one

unclear

C-1963-372

1.8

2.7

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-373

5.2

5.1

0.9

one

myth (Gorgon)

C-1963-374 / I 185

6.0 3.3

3.8 4.0

0.6 0.6

two

figure

4.3

4.1

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-376

1.5

4.9

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-378

4.2

3.4

0.8

one

horse(?)

C-1963-379

4.1

4.3

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-380 + C-1963-439 / C-1963-145 (M22)

5.2 4.7

7.3 2.4

0.7 0.5

two

figures

C-1963-381

3.7

5.1

0.4

one

unclear

2.7

2.9

0.7

one

horseback rider

C-1963-384

2.4

3.1

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-385

2.8

2.0

0.7

one

unclear

4.9

1.7

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-387

see C-1963-237

C-1963-388

see C-1963-262

C-1963-389 C-1963-390 C-1963-391

unclear

unclear

see C-1963-244

C-1963-383

C-1963-386

550 b.c. (PAL)

see C-1963-208

C-1963-377

C-1963-382

Date

see C-1963-340

C-1963-366

C-1963-375

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

3.8

2.1

0.5

one

unclear

4.9

2.1

0.5

one

unclear

see C-1963-300

C-1963-392

3.3

2.6

0.5

two

horse(?)

C-1963-393

2.9

3.0

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-394

2.6

2.8

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-395

1.9

3.6

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-396

2.2

1.8

0.5

one

unclear

unclear

remains of inscription/ Fig. 4.89

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-397

2.5

2.8

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-398

2.8

3.8

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-399

4.8

3.6

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-400

1.9

3.1

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-401

3.7

2.1

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-402

7.0

5.1

0.9

one

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-403

4.2

3.8

1.0

one

figure(?)

C-1963-404

2.7

2.4

0.5

two

unclear

C-1963-405

3.2

4.8

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-406

3.2

4.4

0.6

two

Poseidon

C-1963-407

2.7

5.5

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-408

3.4

3.8

0.6

two

unclear

Side B

unclear

4.5

5.8

0.8

one(?)

C-1963-410

3.5

6.8

1.1

one

unclear

C-1963-411

3.4

5.1

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-412

2.6

4.1

1.0

two(?)

unclear

unclear

C-1963-413

5.8

5.5

1.0

two(?)

unclear

unclear

C-1963-414

3.9

3.0

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-415 (/ F 777)

3.2

4.0

0.5

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-416

5.1

6.1

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-417

1.9

3.0

1.2

one

unclear

C-1963-418

4.1

4.6

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-419

2.3

2.8

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-420

2.8

2.0

0.6

one

unclear

4.9

4.1

0.8

two

figure(?)

6.3

3.7

0.6

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-423

2.5

2.5

0.9

one

unclear

C-1963-424

5.7 2.8

3.4 5.1

1.0 1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-426

2.2

2.7

0.5

one

unclear

C-1963-427

3.1

2.3

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-428

3.0

3.0

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-429

von Raits 1964, p. 61/ Fig. 4.18

unclear Fig. 4.77

see C-1963-185

C-1963-425 / I 105

see C-1963-305

C-1963-430

3.3

3.8

0.5

one(?)

unclear

C-1963-431

5.8

6.9

0.9

one

unclear

C-1963-432

3.5

3.5

0.5

two

unclear

C-1963-433

2.2

2.0

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-434

7.3

5.3

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-435

3.5

2.6

0.6

one

unclear

Date

unclear

C-1963-409 (A33)

C-1963-421

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

unclear

potters at work (workshop)

C-1963-422 (M2)

323

unclear

MC(?) (PAL)

324

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

C-1963-436

2.8

1.8

0.6

one

unclear

C-1963-437

5.9

3.3

1.1

one

unclear

C-1963-438

5.7

6.5

0.6

two

figures

C-1963-439

4.1

4.1

0.8

one

unclear

C-1963-440

4.0

6.7

0.7

two(?)

Poseidon(?)

C-1963-441

see I 17

C-1963-442

4.8

3.4

1.0

one

unclear

Date

unclear

unclear

see F 521

C-1963-444

3.6

2.3

0.8

two

unclear

C-1963-445

4.5

3.9

0.7

one

unclear

C-1963-446

3.5

4.5

0.8

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-447

2.8

5.0

0.7

two

unclear

unclear

C-1963-448

3.4

3.0

1.0

one

unclear

C-1963-449

3.6

2.3

1.1

one

unclear

5.4

0.7

one

horseback rider

C-1963-450

see F 835

C-1963-451

see F 915

C-1963-452

see F 801

C-2002-62

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see C-1963-380

C-1963-439a

C-1963-443

Side B

6.6

unclear

Ber l in, Ant ikensammlung F 347

10.0

10.7

0.6

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 24:8

EC (PNE); LC II (PAL)

F 348

11.5

8.7

0.9

one

Poseidon

IG IV 232; COP 40/ AntDenk II, pl. 24:3

LC I (PAL)

F 349

6.1

8.4

0.8

one(?)

Poseidon

IG IV 277; COP 71/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:2

600–575 b.c. (PNE; JEF); MC–LC (PAL)

F 350

6.5

6.5

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 351 (+ I 36)

8.1

11.6

1.1

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 24:11

LC (PAL)

F 352

5.3

7.3

0.8

two

Poseidon

F 353 + F 363

9.7

5.3

0.6

one

Poseidon

F 354

7.9

12.1

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 355

7.4

6.8

0.8

one

Poseidon

IG IV 290; COP 73I

F 356 + F 609 (A10)

11.6

8.5

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 287 + 327; COP 83/Fig. 4.7; Geagan 1970, fig. 15

F 357

10.3

7.6

0.7

two

Poseidon

F 358

2.6

8.1

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 359

6.3

12.3

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 360

4.4

6.6

0.5

one(?)

Poseidon

F 361 + F 441 + fr.

12.0

8.0

0.6

one

Poseidon

4.7

8.4

0.9

one

Poseidon

8.8

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 362 F 363 F 364

see F 353 5.4

unclear

unclear

AntDenk II, pl. 29:6

AntDenk II, pl. 30:17

LC I (PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

325 Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

F 365

3.2

4.5

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 366

6.3

8.8

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399

28.0

16.5

1.3

one

Poseidon

Fig. 3.7; AntDenk II, pl. 30:18; Pernice 1897, fig. 1

LC II (PAL)

F 368

10.0

7.6

0.9

one

Poseidon

IG IV 320; COP 47/ Fig. 3.35; AntDenk I, pl. 7:28

LC II (PNE; JEF; PAL)

F 369 (Bonn 209a4)

10.0

12.6

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 370

6.7

5.5

0.7

one

Poseidon

IG IV 291; COP 73H/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:11

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC; PAL)

F 371 + 2 frr. / F 1107x(?)

8.2 14.0

9.8 11.3

1.2 1.3

one

Poseidon

remains of inscriptions

F 372

see F 367

F 373 + F 415 + F 423

15.3

11.3

0.8

one

Poseidon

IG IV 230; COP 38A

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; WAC); LC I (PAL)

F 374

20.0

13.5

1.3

one

Poseidon

AntDenk I, pl. 7:5

TR (PNE); PC (PAL)

F 375

8.4

5.7

1.2

one

Poseidon

IG IV 284; COP 73B/ AntDenk II, pl. 30:4

LC I (PAL)

F 376 + 2 frr.

6.5

5.6

0.5

one

Poseidon

IG IV 250; COP 53/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:6; Pernice 1897, fig. 2

MC (PNE; PAL)

F 377 (Bonn 209a7)

11.3

5.2

1.1

one

Poseidon

IG IV 283; COP 73A

F 378 (Bonn 209a8)

11.6

7.3

1.1

one

Poseidon

IG IV 258; COP 57I

F 379 (Bonn 209a1)

5.3

5.4

1.0

one

Poseidon

F 380

5.0

8.1

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 381

6.3

6.8

0.6

one

Poseidon

F 382

8.0

4.3

0.7

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 24:13

F 383 + F 419

8.5

8.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

IG IV 309; COP 33

F 384 (Göttingen)

7.1

5.6

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 385 (/ C-1963282)

5.2

4.4

0.6

one

Poseidon

F 386

4.2

9.0

1.0

two

Poseidon

F 387

3.5

5.0

0.8

one

F 388

6.4

6.6

0.8

F 389

4.0

4.1

–

F 391 F 392

F 390 + fr. (Münster; lost)

TR (later than Polyteleia Ptr, PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 24:6

LC (PAL)

Poseidon

AntDenk I, pl. 7:18

EC(?) (PAL)

one

Poseidon

IG IV 217; COP 4/ AntDenk II, pl. 40:7

EC–MC (PAL)

1.1

one

Poseidon

IG IV 274; COP 73D

–

–

one

Poseidon

IG IV 221; COP 16

7.8

3.9

0.6

one(?)

Poseidon

IG IV 317; COP 46

7.8

5.1

0.8

two

Poseidon

unclear

unclear

IG IV 226; COP 31

326

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

F 393

9.1

6.4

1.0

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pls. 24:23, 29:19 (wrongly described as F 662) IG IV 251; COP 57D

F 394 + F 421

8.4

5.9

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 395

4.8

7.0

1.0

one

Poseidon

F 396

9.1

6.5

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 397

8.4

9.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 398

see F 367

F 399

see F 367

F 400

6.1

5.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 401 + F 408

10.0

8.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 402 + F 407

4.8

7.7

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 403 + F 405 + F 490 + fr.

10.2

10.3

1.0

one

Poseidon and Zeus

6.0

4.8

0.6

one

Poseidon

3.0

1.0

one

Poseidon

F 404 + fr. F 405 F 406

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

IG IV 263; COP 75/ AntDenk II, pl. 30:12

4.5 see F 402

F 408

see F 401

F 409

7.4

10.0

0.8

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 24:22

F 410 + F 498

5.6

7.5

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

AntDenk II, pl. 29:8

F 411

8.4

4.6

0.8

two

Poseidon

F 412 + F 417

9.0

9.5

1.1

one

Poseidon

F 413

6.0

5.5

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 414 (B34)

4.7

5.5

0.7

two

Poseidon

8.4

0.9

one

Poseidon

IG IV 279; COP 73C

5.2

0.6

one

Poseidon

IG IV 286; COP 73E

4.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

IG IV 243; COP 51A

9.0

0.8

two

myth (Artemis)

6.5

0.7

one

Poseidon

IG IV 311; COP 32 IG IV 342; COP 96

F 416 F 417 F 418 F 419 F 420 (Göttingen) F 421 F 422 + F 908 F 423 F 424 + F 429

LC (PNE; JEF); EC (PAL)

LC II (PNE; JEF; PAL)

see F 403

F 407

F 415

Date

Poseidon IG IV 210; COP 11

potters at work (kiln)

650–600 b.c. (LAZ; WAC; PAL)

IG IV 315; COP 43/ Fig. 4.48

see F 373 8.6 see F 412 4.8 see F 383 6.9 see F 394 6.1

unclear

IG IV 237; COP 8/Fig. 3.37; AntDenk I, pl. 7:9; Pernice 1897, fig. 3

see F 373 7.8

F 425

6.3

3.6

1.3

one

Poseidon

F 426 + 2 frr.

12.2

9.0

1.0

one

Poseidon

F 427

5.1

6.3

0.8

one

Poseidon

6th century b.c. (LAZ; PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.) F 428 F 429

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

4.0

10

1.0

one

Poseidon

3.5

5.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 431 + F 660 / F 439 / C-1963-122

6.1 4.5 4.9

7.0 6.3 4.7

0.9 0.9 1.0

one

Poseidon

F 432

5.3

5.4

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 433 + F 685

13.0

6.2

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 434

5.9

5.0

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 435

6.0

4.4

0.5

one

Poseidon

F 436

4.3

3.8

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 437

3.6

7.1

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 438

4.3

5.5

0.9

one

Poseidon

7.4

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 440 F 441

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

see F 424

F 430

F 439

Side B

327

Pernice 1897, fig. 19; Geagan 1970, fig. 6

LC (PAL)

IG IV 344; COP 97B

IG IV 343; COP 97A

see F 431 8.0 see F 361

F 442

6.6

3.8

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 443 + F 469 + F 692 + F 696 + fr.

14.7

6.8

0.8

one

Poseidon

Pernice 1897, fig. 4

F 444 + fr.

4.9

6.8

0.8

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 40:5

LC (PAL)

F 445

5.4

7.0

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 446

4.9

5.7

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 447

3.5

3.3

0.6

one

Poseidon

F 448

6.7

4.2

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 449

3.3

3.6

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 450

5.8

7.3

0.7

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 23:1

EC (Wilanow Ptr, PAL)

F 451 + fr.

7.1

4.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 24:14; Pernice 1897, fig. 5

F 452 + 2 frr.

8.3

8.1

0.8

two

Poseidon

F 453

8.2

7.0

0.8

one

AntDenk II, pl. 40:3; Geagan 1970, fig. 9

MC–LC (PAL)

Poseidon

IG IV 214; COP 1C/ AntDenk II, pl. 30:23

LC (575–550 b.c. or later, WAC); EC–MC (PAL)

IG IV 211; COP 3/ AntDenk II, pl. 24:21; Pernice 1897, fig. 6

TR (PNE); 650–625 b.c. ( JEF); PC (LOR); EC–MC (PAL)

F 454 + F 476

17.0

17.0

0.8

one

Poseidon and Zeus

F 455

4.5

5.7

0.6

one

Poseidon

F 456 + F 815 (M12)

10.8

8.5

0.7

two

Poseidon

F 457

8.3

3.3

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 458 (+ F 839)

5.6

9.1

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 459

9.1

5.9

0.9

one

Poseidon

unclear

work

Fig. 4.82 IG IV 275; COP 97F

328

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

F 460 (Freiburg)

8.3

7.9

0.8

one

Poseidon

Fig. 3.16; AntDenk I, pl. 7:24

F 461

5.4

4.0

0.7

one

Poseidon

IG IV 293; COP 73O

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date MC (PAL)

F 462 + fr.

7.9

6.0

1.1

one

Poseidon

F 463

12.8

12.0

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 464

10.5

6.9

0.7

one

Poseidon

IG IV 278; COP 27/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:2

LC (PAL)

F 465 / I 55

10.0 12.2

7.0 10.5

0.9 1.2

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 30:16

MC (PAL)

F 465a

6.0

12.4

1.2

one

Poseidon

F 466 + F 766

8.0

4.7

0.7

one

myth (Herakles)

Geagan 1970, fig. 19

MC–LC (PAL)

F 467 / C-1963144

4.1 3.5

10.7 3.0

1.0 1.0

one

Poseidon

IG IV 259; COP 57J; von Raits 1964, p. 60

F 468 + F 949 + fr.

11.2

9.7

0.7

one

Poseidon

IG IV 229; COP 7/ AntDenk II, pl. 30:31; Pernice 1897, fig. 7

LC (PAL)

F 469

see F 443

F 470 + fr.

10.6

8.0

1.3

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 39:4

MC–LC I (PAL)

F 471 / C-1963354

8.7 5.1

6.3 7.6

0.6 0.7

one

Poseidon

AntDenk I, pl. 7:3; Geagan 1970, fig. 11

LC II (540–520 b.c., PAL)

F 472

3.4

4.6

0.7

one

Poseidon

F 473

7.2

4.8

0.9

one

Poseidon AntDenk I, pl. 7:19; Pernice 1897, fig. 8

MC (London Frauenfest Ptr, PAL)

F 474 + 2 frr.

7.8

6.9

0.7

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

F 475

5.3

5.3

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

IG IV 299; COP 68/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:17

MC (PNE; JEF; Cavalcade Ptr, PAL)

IG IV 246; COP 20/ AntDenk II, pl. 24:10

EC (PNE; LOR; PAL); 625–600 b.c. ( JEF); 620 b.c. (LIMC)

F 476

see F 454

F 477 + F 479

22.0

17.0

1.3

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

F 478 (Bonn 209a5)

9.7

10.5

1.0

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

F 479

see F 477

F 480

9.7

8.8

1.1

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

IG IV 300; COP 69B

F 481

4.6

9.8

0.7

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

IG IV 324; COP 93

F 482 + F 627 + F 943 + fr. (A7)

7.6

8.9

0.4

one

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 332; COP 81/ Fig. 4.5; Pernice 1897, fig. 9

F 483

8.0

8.7

1.0

one

Poseidon

IG IV 242; COP 55

F 484

6.7

6.0

0.9

one

Amphitrite

IG IV 298; COP 69A

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (with other deities)

IG IV 265; COP 44/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:11; Pernice 1897, fig. 10

F 485 + F 765

14.0

21.0

1.1

MC (Cavalcade Ptr, PAL)

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC); 550 b.c. (LIMC); MC (Chimaera Group, PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s

329

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

F 486

8.8

7.0

1.4

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

IG IV 294; COP 70/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:25

LC II (after mid-6th century b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC; PAL)

F 487

9.8

6.9

1.0

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

IG IV 301; COP 6/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:22

LC II (PNE; JEF; PAL)

F 488 + F 492

10.7

7.0

1.2

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

IG IV 281; COP 74/ AntDenk II, pl. 39:2

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC); LC I (PAL)

F 489

10.5

7.0

1.0

one

Poseidon (and warrior)

AntDenk I, pl. 7:20

F 490

see F 403 5.8

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 491

6.0

Side A

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

F 492

see F 488

F 493

11.6

12.0

1.2

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

Fig. 3.11; AntDenk I, pl. 7:10

LC (PAL)

F 494

16.0

20.0

1.4

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

AntDenk II, pl. 24:2

LC II (PAL)

F 495 + F 513

11.0

10.6

1.1

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

IG IV 224; COP 2C/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:1

MC (600–575 b.c., PNE; JEF; PAL)

F 496 + F 940 + fr.

10.4

7.6

1.0

one

Poseidon and Zeus (on chariot)

IG IV 264; COP 42/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:13

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC; PAL); LC I ( JEF)

F 497 + F 527

12.0

15.0

1.0

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

IG IV 280; COP 72/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:13; Pernice 1897, fig. 11

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC); MC–LC (PAL)

F 498

see F 410

IG IV 219; COP 13

6th century b.c. (LAZ; PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:26

MC–LC (PAL)

F 499

5.4

5.1

0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

F 500

5.4

9.1

0.9

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

F 501

11.7

14.5

1.2

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

F 502 + F 516

12.6

11.2

1.1

one

Poseidon (on chariot)

F 503 + I 154

8.0

13.7

0.6

two

Poseidon (on chariot)

F 504

6.9

5.3

1.0

one

Poseidon (on chariot)

AntDenk II, pl. 29:15

F 505

5.6

6.6

1.0

one

Poseidon (on chariot)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:11

MC (PAL)

F 506 / C-1963171

3.3 5.0

4.7 4.0

0.4 0.6

two

Poseidon (on chariot)

unclear

Geagan 1970, fig. 1:a, b

PC (PAL)

F 507 + F 729 + F 739 / C-1963-181 + C-1963-199 + C-1963-225

9.7 (total)

11.0 (total)

0.9

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

unclear

remains of inscriptions; COP 57G; von Raits 1964, p. 60/AntDenk I, pl. 7:4; Geagan 1970, fig. 5

MC(?) (PAL)

F 508 + 2 frr.

7.6

12.1

1.3

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 248; COP 56/ AntDenk II pl. 24:4; Pernice 1897, fig. 12

LC (PAL)

horse

330

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

F 509

9.2

9.0

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 510 + fr.

7.0

12.4

1.1

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:3

F 511 / MNC 212

4.4 8.0

4.4 4.0

0.6 0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 244; COP 41/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:17; Geagan 1970, fig. 2

LC (575–550 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC; PAL)

F 512

10.2

6.3

1.3

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 513

see F 495 10.1

1.0

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 289; COP 73G/ AntDenk II, pl. 40:4

LC II (PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 40:2a, 2b

EC–MC (Dodwell Ptr, PAL)

F 514 + F 515

8.2

F 515

see F 514

F 516

see F 502

F 517

see F 801

Side A

F 518

6.2

9.1

1.0

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 519

4.3

4.6

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 520 (Göttingen)

5.1

5.4

0.5

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

F 521 + F 796 + F 876 + fr. / C-1963-443

11.0 4.6

18.5 3.6

1.2 1.1

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

F 522 / I 51

5.3 5.1

7.0 6.4

1.0 0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 523

5.4

6.0

0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 524 + F 694 (B53)

7.0

6.5

0.9

two

Poseidon (chariot)

F 525

5.2

4.8

0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 526

4.5

4.7

0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 527

Side B

warriors

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

MC–LC (PAL) potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 222; COP 2A/ Fig. 4.66; AntDenk II, pl. 29:10

MC–LC (PAL); LC II ( JEF)

IG IV 247; COP 19

see F 497

F 528

8.8

4.3

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 529

3.8

4.5

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 262; COP 22

F 530 + F 558

7.6

3.6

0.5

one

horse

IG IV 236; COP 12/ Fig. 5.29; Pernice 1897, fig. 13

F 531 (Bonn 209a3)

3.7

5.1

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 252; COP 57C

F 532

3.3

6.2

0.7

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 533

5.4

8.3

1.1

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:25

MC–LC (PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s

331

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

F 534

4.3

4.3

0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 535

5.8

3.6

0.4

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 536 + F 687

7.3

5.5

0.9

one

Poseidon (on chariot)

F 537

6.0

7.7

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 538

17.0

7.6

1.1

one

Amphitrite

AntDenk II, pl. 30:1

LC II (530–520 b.c., PAL) MC (PNE; JEF; WAC; Klyka Ptr, PAL)

Side A

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

F 539 + F 630 (M23)

9.5

13.8

1.4

one

Poseidon (on horse)

IG IV 227; COP 35/ Fig. 4.90; AntDenk I, pl. 7:21; Pernice 1897, fig. 14

F 540 + F 551 + fr.

7.5

9.0

0.5

one

Poseidon (on horse)

AntDenk II, pl. 29:3

LC (PAL)

F 541

8.8

8.7

0.8

one

horseback rider

AntDenk II, pl. 24:27

LC II (PAL)

F 542

9.5

7.9

0.9

one

horseback rider

AntDenk II, pl. 39:10

TR(?) (PAL) LC (PAL)

F 543

4.7

15.2

1.1

one

horseback rider

AntDenk II, pl. 30:21

F 544

8.0

8.1

0.7

one

horseback rider

IG IV 305; COP 92

F 545 / C-1963313

9.7 3.5

7.2 3.6

0.5 0.5

one

horseback rider

F 546 + F 866 (B49)

9.6

11.3

0.9

two

horseback rider

potters at work (kiln) unclear

F 547

5.0

4.4

0.6

two

horseback rider

F 548 + 2 frr.

9.2

14.3

0.9

one

horseback rider

F 549

4.3

3.7

0.7

one

horseback rider

F 550 + F 572

6.4

13.9

0.7

one

horseback rider

F 551

Fig. 4.63; AntDenk II, pl. 39:13

LC (PAL)

IG IV 220; COP 15/ AntDenk II, pl. 24:1

LC (PAL)

IG IV 312; COP 39

EC (VRS)

see F 540

F 552

9.1

11.0

1.3

one

horseback rider

F 553 + F 564

7.5

10.2

0.9

one

horseback rider

F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112

5.9 3.9

7.4 5.7

1.1 1.1

one

horseback rider

F 555 (B55)

4.5

5.1

0.7

two

horses (and squire)

F 556

7.5

4.6

0.6

one

horseback rider (and squire)

AntDenk II, pl. 40:13

LC (PAL)

F 557

4.7

7.4

0.7

one

horse (and squire)

IG IV 235; COP 48A/ Fig. 5.29; AntDenk I, pl. 8:25

MC (600–575 b.c., PNE; JEF; WAC; PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 40:19

MC (PAL)

F 558

IG IV 314; COP 78/ Fig. 4.68; AntDenk I, pl. 7:23

see F 530

F 559 + F 570

8.4

11.1

0.9

one

horse (and squire)

F 560 + F 562

6.0

8.7

0.6

one

horse (and squire)

F 561

5.9

6.7

1.1

one

horse (and squire)

F 562

potters at work (kiln)

see F 560

332

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

F 563

4.4

5.9

0.6

one

horseback rider (and figure)

F 564

Side A

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

see F 553

F 565

6.8

11.0

0.8

one

horseback rider

IG IV 331; COP 79/ AntDenk I, pl. 8:1

LC II (PAL)

F 566

7.9

6.3

0.6

one

horse

Fig. 3.12; AntDenk II, pl. 24:26

MC–LC (PAL)

F 567

4.4

4.2

1.0

one

horse

IG IV 336; COP 54

F 568

5.4

5.0

1.2

one

horses

F 569

4.4

6.9

0.5

one

horses

6.5

0.7

one

horse

F 570 F 571 F 572

see F 559 8.1 see F 550

F 573

6.9

5.0

0.7

one

horse

F 574

6.6

4.7

1.0

one

horse

F 575

6.0

6.1

1.0

one

horse

F 576 / F 579

4.3 5.3

5.4 4.0

0.6 0.6

one

horses

F 577

5.1

5.6

0.9

two

horse

4.8

2.6

1.1

one

horse

F 578 F 579

unclear

see F 576

F 580

4.5

3.4

0.6

one

horse

F 581 (/ C-1963256)

3.4

3.4

0.4

one

horse

horse

F 582

COP 80

see F 554

F 583

8.1

5.4

1.2

one

F 584 (Göttingen)

4.4

3.4

0.7

one

horse

F 585

4.6

4.9

1.2

one

horses

F 586

5.3

4.0

0.8

one

horseback rider

F 587

4.3

7.5

0.8

one

horseback rider

AntDenk II, pl. 30:27

MC–LC (PAL)

F 588

12.0

9.1

0.6

one

warrior

AntDenk II, pl. 24:24

LC (PAL)

F 589 + F 603 + F 604 / C-1963-104

8.5 2.9

8.2 3.4

0.6 0.6

one

warrior

AntDenk II, pl. 30:19

MC–LC (PAL)

F 590

7.5

6.8

1.0

one

warrior

F 591

5.9

3.4

0.6

one

warrior

F 592

6.7

5.6

0.6

one

warrior

F 593 + F 600 / F 606

7.3 4.6

6.2 5.2

0.7 0.7

one

warriors

F 594

7.0

3.9

0.5

one

warrior

F 595

5.1

5.3

0.6

two

warrior

warrior

Fig. 3.25; AntDenk II, pl. 23:9a, 9b

MC (PAL)

F 596

5.3

3.9

0.8

two

warrior

unclear figure

F 597

4.1

4.3

0.6

two

warrior

F 598

6.2

3.2

0.8

one

warrior

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.) F 599 F 600

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

5.2

5.0

0.6

two

warrior

horse

potters at work (clay collection)

IG IV 341; COP 67/ Fig. 4.24; AntDenk II, pl. 29:18; Geagan 1970, fig. 16:a, b

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.59

2.8 4.2 6.0 5.7 7.1

4.6 6.1 5.4 6.9 5.3

0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4

two

ship

F 602

5.5

5.6

0.6

one

warrior

6.6

1.0

one

warrior

F 603

see F 589

F 604

see F 589

F 605

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

see F 593

F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963-250 + C-1963-251 (B6)

F 606

333

7.6

MC (PAL)

see F 593

F 607 (B44)

3.2

5.1

0.6

two

warrior

F 608 (A5)

7.7

11.0

0.4

one

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 285; COP 84A/ Fig. 4.3; AntDenk I, pl. 8:1

LC I(?) (570–550 b.c., PAL)

F 609

see F 356

F 610 (A8)

8.5

9.2

0.4

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.5

MC–LC (KSR)

F 611 (A6)

4.9

7.8

0.8

one

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 234; COP 48B/ Fig. 4.4; AntDenk I, pl. 8:26

MC (PNE; LOR; JEF; WAC; PAL)

F 612 (A11)

9.2

9.8

0.8

one

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 282; COP 84B/ Fig. 4.7

F 613 (Göttingen) (A18)

4.5

7.0

1.1

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.11

F 614 (A15)

8.8

8.0

0.7

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.10

F 615 (A31)

10.0

8.9

0.9

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.17; AntDenk II, pl. 24:19

6th century b.c. (PAL)

F 616 (B58)

5.9

6.1

0.5

two

ship

Fig. 4.71; AntDenk I, pl. 8:12

LC (6th century b.c.; Fine Silhouette Group, PAL)

F 617 (A16)

5.5

7.5

0.7

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.10

F 618 (A14)

8.1

5.3

0.8

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.9; AntDenk II, pl. 30:15

F 619 + F 826 (B37)

8.0

5.3

0.5

two

myth (Athena?)

F 620 (A19)

6.7

6.0

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.12

F 621 + fr. (M24)

7.2

8.8

0.7

one

ship

Fig. 4.90; AntDenk II, pl. 39:20

F 622 + fr. (A22)

9.7

5.4

1.1

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.13

F 623 (A20)

7.0

7.9

0.8

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.12

F 624 (M3)

5.5

4.3

0.7

one

animal

Fig.4.78

potters at work (kiln)

potters at work (kiln)

First half of 6th century b.c. (CVA)

LC(?) (PAL)

IG IV 296; COP 59/ Fig. 4.51

MC (PAL)

334

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

F 625 (M4)

4.0

3.8

0.5

one

animal

Fig. 4.78 Fig. 4.14

F 626 (A24) F 627

3.9

Side A

3.4

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

Side B

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

see F 482

F 628 + F 666 (A9)

6.5

8.1

0.5

one

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 328; COP 10/ Fig. 4.6

F 629 (M6)

10.0

7.0

0.9

one

figure

IG IV 308; COP 64/ Fig. 4.78

F 630

see F 539

F 631 (B56)

3.2

4.4

0.5

two

horseback rider

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.69

F 632 + F 887 (B17)

10.8

5.6

0.8

two

potters at work (at the wheel)

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.34; AntDenk II, pl. 40:21a, 21b

F 633 (M8)

3.9

7.0

0.9

one

unclear

Fig. 4.78 Fig. 4.16

F 634 (A29)

4.9

5.2

0.7

one

potters at work (kiln)

F 635 (A28)

6.7

4.4

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.15

F 636 (M7)

9.9

4.7

0.8

one

unclear

Fig. 4.78; AntDenk II, pl. 40:11

F 637 + F 819 (B26)

12.5

6.1

0.6

two

Poseidon

F 638 (A2)

7.2

6.4

0.7

one

F 639 (A1)

7.8

5.8

0.5

F 640 + fr. (A4)

7.3

12.1

F 641 (B13)

7.4

F 642 (M1)

potters at work (kiln)

6th century b.c. (PAL)

MC–LC I (PAL)

Fig. 4.42; AntDenk II, pl. 40:9

MC (PAL)

potters at work (clay collection)

Fig. 4.1; AntDenk II, pl. 39:21

MC–LC I (595– 550 b.c., PAL)

one

potters at work (clay collection)

Fig. 4.1; AntDenk I, pl. 8:23

0.7

one

potters at work (at the wheel)

Fig. 4.2; Pernice 1897, fig. 15

7.5

1.0

two

potters at work (vessel forming)

7.9

4.9

0.6

one

work (pots)

Fig. 4.77

F 643 (A13)

5.3

8.3

0.8

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.9

F 644 + F 678 (M29)

5.3

11.0

0.8

two

Poseidon(?)

unclear

Fig. 4.92

F 645 + fr. (M30)

7.2

8.9

1.1

two

Poseidon

unclear

Fig. 4.93; AntDenk II, pl. 40:8

F 646

6.2

5.5

0.7

one

ship

F 647 + F 656

7.7

7.1

0.7

one

ship

AntDenk II, pl. 29:12

F 648

8.8

7.3

0.5

one

ship

AntDenk II, pl. 24:17

F 649

4.5

4.0

0.7

one

ship(?)

F 650 + fr.

3.8

10.0

1.2

one

ship

F 651

5.5

4.6

0.6

two

ship

F 652

3.4

3.8

0.6

one

ship

F 653

3.7

4.5

0.6

one

unclear

animals (dolphin and fish)

Fig. 4.31

MC–LC I (Basel Hydra Aryballos Ptr, PAL) LC (PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 24:16; Pernice 1897, fig. 16 figure(?)

EC(?) (De Young Ptr, PAL)

LC (600–550 b.c., PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

Side A

one

ship

F 654 + F 781 / I 82

8.8 9.0

5.5 4.3

F 655

4.8

6.7

1.0

two

ship

F 656

0.9 0.7

One- or Two-Sided

Side B

335 Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

AntDenk II, pl. 29:24

MC–LC (PAL)

unclear

see F 647

F 657

5.5

4.0

0.5

one

figure (female)

Pernice 1897, fig. 17

F 658

4.2

6.0

0.7

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 30:30 AntDenk II, pl. 40:20a, 20b; Pernice 1897, fig. 18; Geagan 1970, fig. 13:a, b

F 659 + F 703 + fr.

15.0

F 660

see F 431

F 661

11.5

6.3

3.3

Poseidon

LC (PAL)

0.8

two

Poseidon

1.0

one

horses

Pernice 1897, fig. 20 MC–LC ( JEF; WAC); MC (PAL)

F 662

9.5

5.9

1.0

one

Poseidon

IG IV 333; COP 86/ Fig. 3.36; AntDenk II, pl. 29:19 (depicting F 393)

F 663 + F 730

5.4

5.8

0.6

one

myth (Minotaur)

Fig. 3.8; AntDenk II, pl. 29:14; Pernice 1897, fig. 21

MC (PAL)

F 664

5.7

8.4

0.7

two

figure

AntDenk II, pl. 23:3

MC–LC (PAL)

F 665 F 666

6.7

4.4

0.6

one

horse

Fig. 3.13; AntDenk II, pl. 29:7

figure

see F 628 IG IV 218, 225; COP 29/Fig. 4.39; AntDenk II, pl. 30:9; Geagan 1970, fig. 8:a, b

F 667 + F 803 (B22)

10.0

11.8

1.0

two

Poseidon

F 668

10.6

7.9

0.8

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 39:6

F 669

10.2

5.6

0.9

one

warrior

AntDenk II, pl. 24:12

F 670

10.7

8.3

1.1

one

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 30:14

two

figure

Fig. 3.20; AntDenk II, pl. 30:10 IG IV 322; COP 62/ Fig. 4.18; AntDenk II, pl. 24:9; Pernice 1897, fig. 22

F 671

5.2

9.2

0.8

potters at work (kiln)

unclear

F 672 + F 684 + F 770 (A34)

10.0

13.2

1.4

one

potters at work (workshop)

F 673 (A12)

5.3

4.8

0.8

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.8

F 674

4.5

6.3

0.7

one

figure

AntDenk II, pl. 29:16

F 675

6.0

7.0

0.8

one

figure

F 676

6.5

7.5

0.7

one

figures

F 677

3.8

4.7

0.5

one

warrior

F 679 (Bonn 209a6)

5.6

3.5

0.8

two

figure

F 680

4.6

9.5

1.0

one

Poseidon

F 681 + F 1116x

9.1

6.8

0.9

one

figure (female)

F 682

8.2

4.8

0.9

one

figure (female)

AntDenk II, pl. 24:7

F 678: see F 644 horse

LC (PNE, LOR; 575–550 b.c., JEF; WAC); LC I (PAL)

EC (PAL)

LC II (after mid-6th century b.c., PNE; JEF); MC (Ophelandros Ptr, PAL)

LC II (PAL)

336 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822 (B40)

appendix I W.

Th.

8.0 7.2

8.2 6.1

0.9 0.9

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (or Poseidon and Zeus)

6.9

1.1

one

figure

F 684

see F 672

F 685

see F 433

F 686 F 687

One- or Two-Sided

H.

3.2

Side A

5.4

5.0

0.7

one

figure

F 689 + F 3379

5.6

6.2

0.6

one

Poseidon

F 690

4.1

7.3

0.9

one

figure

F 691 + F 808 + fr. (B21)

15.1

11.2

0.8

two

Poseidon

F 692

see F 443 8.7

0.9

one

figure

3.9

0.6

one(?)

figure

F 693 F 695 F 696

potters at work (kiln)

3.7

potters at work (kiln)

Date

LC II (after mid-6th century b.c. PNE; JEF); LC I–II (PAL)

remains of inscription/ Fig. 4.38; AntDenk II, pl. 30:2

EC (PAL)

see F 524 4.3 see F 443

F 697

6.3

8.0

0.9

one

figure

7.9

7.3

0.8

one

figure

F 699 / C-1963247

7.0 3.4

5.5 2.3

0.9 0.9

two

warrior

unclear

F 700

4.0

3.0

0.7

two

Poseidon

figures

F 701 + F 706 + 2 frr.

11.0

12.6

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 702

4.2

7.9

0.7

one

figure

AntDenk II, pl. 30:8

IG IV 241; COP 51B/ AntDenk II, pl. 30:28

see F 659

F 704 / F 715

6.6 7.0

4.9 5.7

0.8 0.7

two

figure

F 705

6.2

6.0

0.8

one

figure

F 706

IG IV 313; COP 63/ Fig. 4.54; AntDenk II, pl. 39:12

AntDenk II, pl. 39:3

F 698

F 703

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see F 536

F 688

F 694

Side B

figure

see F 701

F 707 / C-1963259

4.5 2.8

6.3 3.6

0.7 0.6

one

figure

F 708

6.3

7.8

0.8

one

figure

F 709 + fr. (B43)

6.6

7.3

0.8

two

warrior(?)

F 710

3.9

6.8

0.7

one

figure

F 711 / F 820 / C-1963-222 / C-1963-227

3.8 5.8 2.5 4.2

4.6 7.1 3.2 5.4

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

two

Poseidon

F 712

6.6

4.2

1.0

one

figure

F 713

5.0

5.5

0.4

one

Poseidon

F 714 + F 854 + F 872 (B7)

10.1

10.2

0.8

two

horseback rider

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 323; COP 88/ Fig. 4.58 AntDenk II, pl. 30:24

figure

AntDenk II, pl. 23:10; Geagan 1970, fig. 12

potters at work (clay collection)

Fig. 4.25

MC (PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

F 715

see F 704

F 716

see F 869

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

F 717

6.4

3.5

0.8

two

figure

unclear

F 718

4.7

4.4

0.8

two

figure

unclear

F 719

4.6

4.2

0.4

one

figure

F 720

3.2

4.6

0.6

one

figure

F 721

4.1

3.5

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 722

7.2

9.7

1.2

one

animal (panther)

F 723

7.9

3.8

0.8

one

animal (panther)

F 724

8.0

6.9

0.8

one

animal (lion)

F 725

4.2

4.6

0.7

one

animal

F 726

3.9

4.3

0.7

one

animal

F 727

10.3

6.6

0.8

one

animal (bull)

F 728

5.8

4.9

0.6

one

animal (bull)

F 729

see F 507

F 730

see F 663

F 731

5.1

7.4

0.9

one

animal (bull)

F 732

6.5

5.1

0.7

two

animal (bull)

Date

AntDenk II, pl. 24:2

horseback rider

F 733

4.3

6.6

0.8

one

animal (bull)

5.5

4.9

0.9

one

animal (bull)

F 735 + fr.

4.9

7.6

0.6

one

animal (bull)

F 736

4.8

3.1

0.7

one

horseback rider

F 737 (+ F 793)

3.4

5.0

0.6

one

animal (bull)

F 738

4.3

5.5

0.5

two

animal

horse

unclear

AntDenk II, pl. 39:15

see F 507

F 740

6.3

5.7

0.7

two

animal (boar)

F 741

3.6

4.4

0.6

one

animal (boar)

F 742

3.5

6.3

0.8

one

animal (boar)

F 743

4.7

3.3

0.6

two

animal (boar)

unclear

F 744

4.5

11.9

0.8

two

animal (boar)

unclear

F 745 / F 917

3.6 4.6

5.3 6.8

0.9 0.9

two

animal (snake)

animal

F 746 + F 747

2.7

6.8

0.8

two

Poseidon

animal

F 747

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Fig. 3.19; AntDenk II, pl. 24:25

F 734

F 739

337

see F 746

F 748

7.0

3.2

0.8

one

figure

F 749

5.9

4.6

0.9

one

figure

F 750

6.2

5.4

0.6

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 751

4.9

8.0

0.9

one

animals (bulls)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:7

End of 7th century b.c.–beginning of 6th century b.c. (PAL)

338

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

F 752

6.4

2.9

0.8

two

Poseidon

F 753

7.5

4.5

0.6

one

animal (dolphin)

F 754

4.8

5.4

0.8

two

animal (dolphin)

animal (bull)

F 755 + F 789

12.7

10.4

1.1

two

Poseidon

horse (and figures)

F 756

3.6

5.2

1.0

two

animal (owl)

animal

4.4

0.7

two

animal (sphinx)

animal (siren?)

3.7

0.5

one

animal (bird)

F 757 F 758 F 759 F 760

Side B

Poseidon and Amphitrite(?)

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

AntDenk II, pl. 30:20 AntDenk II, pl. 23:18a, 18b; Pernice 1897, figs. 23, 24

LC II (550 b.c., PAL)

Fig. 3.5; AntDenk II, pl. 29:20

PC (Huntsmen Ptr, Aegina Bellerophon Ptr, Ptr of Aegina, PAL)

see F 683 5.6 see I 83a 4.2

F 761

3.7

3.4

1.0

one

animal (lion)

F 762

6.1

6.3

0.5

one

unclear

F 763 + fr. (B60)

7.4

10.9

0.7

two

animal (bull)

F 764

5.0

4.5

0.8

one

myth (Athena)

IG IV 268; COP 77/ AntDenk I, pl. 7:15

MC (PNE); LC (LOR); LC I (PAL); 550 b.c. (LIMC)

F 765

see F 485

F 766

see F 466

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.73

F 767

6.2

4.9

0.6

one

myth (Herakles?)

AntDenk I, pl. 7:22

MC (PAL)

F 768

9.3

6.1

1.1

one

myth (Gigantomachy)

AntDenk II, pl. 29:9

MC (PAL)

F 769

9.9

8.0

1.0

one

myth (centaurs?)

Fig. 3.22; AntDenk II, pl. 29:5

MC (PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:22

LC (PAL)

F 770

see F 672

F 771 + fr.

6.9

9.3

0.8

one

myth (Herakles?)

F 772

5.2

6.5

1.0

two

warrior

figure potters at work (kiln)

F 773 + F 812 (B24)

6.6

6.9

0.6

two

Poseidon

F 774

8.6

4.6

0.8

one

myth (centaur?)

AntDenk II, pl. 30:13 AntDenk II, pl. 24:15

Fig. 4.41 LC (PAL)

F 775

3.2

3.0

0.8

one

myth(?)

F 776

4.7

6.7

0.7

one

myth

F 777 (/ C-1963415)

6.1

5.0

0.5

one(?)

figures

F 778

8.8

5.8

1.0

one

figure (female; and warrior?)

F 779

8.0

9.3

0.9

one

myth (Melikertes?)

AntDenk II, pl. 24:29

MC–LC (PAL)

AntDenk I, pl. 7:26

LC (Altar Ptr, PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 24:5

F 780 F 781 F 782

6.8

5.9

0.6

one

Poseidon (on sea monster)

6.7

0.7

one

myth

see F 654 4.1

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

339

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

F 783

10.2

6.1

1.1

one

figure

Fig. 3.14; AntDenk I, pl. 8:24

F 784 + fr. (/ I 88 / I 114)

12.3

5.6

0.8

one

unclear

IG IV 233; COP 45/ AntDenk I, pl. 8:2; Pernice 1897, fig. 25

F 785 (M25)

7.9

6.0

0.5

one

figure

Fig. 4.90; AntDenk II, pl. 39:9

MC (Pholoe Ptr, later than Anaploga Ptr, PAL)

F 786 (A3)

6.0

8.2

0.8

one

potters at work (clay collection)

Fig. 4.1; AntDenk II, pl. 24:18

MC (595–550 b.c., PAL)

F 787

12.1

11.0

1.0

two

Poseidon

Amphitrite

Fig. 7.7; AntDenk II, pl. 23:16a, 16b

LC (PNE; PAL)

F 788

5.7

4.8

0.8

two

Amphitrite

Poseidon

F 789

Side B

5.8

5.1

0.8

two

Poseidon

horseback rider

F 791

3.8

7.2

0.8

two

Poseidon

horseback rider

F 792

4.6

7.2

0.8

two

Poseidon

horseback rider

F 793 (+ F 737)

3.1

3.2

0.6

two

Poseidon

horseback rider

F 794

5.5

8.9

0.7

two

Poseidon(?)

horseback rider

F 795 + F 824

6.5

8.4

0.6

two

Poseidon

horses (and squire)

6th century b.c. (PAL)

see F 521

F 797

5.8

9.4

0.7

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

warrior

F 798

4.3

3.9

0.9

two

Poseidon(?)

warrior

F 799 / C-1963234

8.4 4.3

6.8 5.0

1.1 1.0

two

Amphitrite (and other females)

F 800 (B52)

10.7

7.4

1.0

two

F 801 / C-1963452 / F 517 (B51)

11.0 11.3 6.9

9.8 10.5 6.2

0.9 0.8 0.7

F 802 (B20)

11.9

10.6

F 803

see F 667

Fig. 3.26; AntDenk II, pl. 23:19a, 19b

EC(?) (PAL)

warrior

Geagan 1970, fig. 17:a, b

EC(?) (PAL)

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

potters at work (kiln)

remains of inscription/ Fig. 4.65

EC (PAL)

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.65

EC (PAL)

0.6

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.37; AntDenk I, pl. 8:4; II, pl. 23:17

EC (615–590 b.c., PAL)

F 804 (B31)

6.2

8.4

1.0

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 319; COP 66/ Fig. 4.46

F 805 (B25)

7.5

6.5

0.6

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 337; COP 95/ Fig. 4.41

F 806 (B33)

5.6

7.3

1.2

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.48

F 807 (B32)

4.2

6.3

0.7

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.47

F 808

Date

see F 755

F 790

F 796

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see F 691

F 809 (B23)

5.0

5.4

0.7

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 292; COP 73N/ Fig. 4.40

F 810 (B27)

6.2

8.5

0.7

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.43; AntDenk II, pl. 23:7a, 7b

340

appendix I

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

F 811 (B28)

8.8

9.6

0.7

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 306; COP 28/ Fig. 4.44; AntDenk II, pl. 23:15a, 15b

F 812

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

see F 773

F 813 (B62)

4.8

5.3

0.6

two

potters at work (workshop)

Poseidon (on sea monster)

Fig. 4.75; AntDenk II, pl. 39:16a, 16b

F 814 (B12)

6.6

11.0

1.0

two

Poseidon

potters at work (at the wheel)

Fig. 4.30

MC (PAL)

F 815

see F 456

F 816 (B29)

10.0

6.5

0.8

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.45; AntDenk II, pl. 23:13a, 13b

MC (PAL)

F 817 (M11)

5.6

4.3

0.7

two

Poseidon

work

Fig. 4.81; AntDenk II, pl. 23:4a, 4b

MC (PAL)

F 818 + F 821

7.3

6.6

0.7

two

Poseidon

work

3.8

0.5

two

Poseidon

work

4.5

1.0

two

figure

unclear

IG IV 288; COP 73F

F 819

see F 637

F 820

see F 711

F 821

see F 818

F 822

see F 683

F 823 F 824 F 825 (Bonn 209a2) F 826

3.3 see F 795 8.0 see F 619

F 827 (B38)

8.4

9.6

1.2

two

Amphitrite(?)

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.52; AntDenk I, pl. 8:22

LC (PAL)

F 828 + fr. (M27)

6.4

7.1

0.8

two

Amphitrite

horseback rider

IG IV 295; COP 37/ Fig. 4.92; AntDenk II, pl. 39:1a, 1b

EC (PNE; PAL); 625–600 b.c. ( JEF)

F 829

see F 683

F 830 (M28) (+ F 852)

2.7

2.1

0.9

two

Amphitrite

unclear

IG IV 335; COP 82/ Fig. 4.92

F 831 (B5)

10.0

7.2

0.8

two

ship

potters at work (clay collection)

Fig. 4.23; AntDenk I, pl. 8:3a, 3b

MC–LC (PAL)

F 832

6.5

9.5

0.8

two

Poseidon

ship

F 833

6.6

5.8

0.6

two

Poseidon

ship

AntDenk II, pl. 29:21

MC (PAL)

F 834

10.9

5.7

0.6

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

myth (Athena and giant?)

IG IV 212; COP 1A/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:23; Pernice 1897, fig. 26

LC II (510–500 b.c. PNE; JEF; PAL)

F 835 / C-1963450

6.2 5.9

4.2 3.6

0.7 0.6

two

ship

horse

Fig. 3.17; AntDenk II, pl. 23:8a, 8b

MC (PAL)

F 836

5.7

5.3

0.5

two

ship

unclear

F 837

4.3

7.4

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

F 838 + fr.

5.0

9.3

0.6

two

Poseidon

horse

IG IV 329; COP 85

Pernice 1897, fig. 27

F 839 (+ F 458)

5.3

8.0

1.0

two

Poseidon

figure

Fig. 3.23; AntDenk II, pl. 40:1a, 1b

F 840

4.0

5.4

0.7

two

Poseidon

warrior

IG IV 276; COP 73L

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s

341

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

F 841

4.0

4.2

0.5

two

Poseidon

figure

F 842

6.6

6.1

0.8

two

Poseidon

myth (Pegasos)

IG IV 310; COP 57K/ Geagan 1970, fig. 18

F 843 / C-1963230

6.3 2.6

6.1 3.0

0.8 0.6

two

Poseidon

Poseidon

AntDenk II, pl. 30:6a, 6b; Geagan 1970, fig. 10:a, b

F 844

5.8

4.7

0.7

two

Poseidon

horse

IG IV 216; COP 14

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 271; COP 23/ Fig. 4.50

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 245; COP 18/ Figs. 4.56, 4.57; AntDenk I, pl. 8:13, 15; Pernice 1897, fig. 28

MC ( JEF; PAL)

F 845 (B36)

5.2

3.7

0.5

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date PC (PAL)

F 846 (B42)

23.0

17.0

0.9

two

figure (hunter and dog)

F 847

6.1

6.6

0.7

two

horseback rider

warrior

AntDenk I, pl. 8:9

EC–MC (PAL)

F 848

5.9

11.6

0.9

two

horseback rider

warriors

Fig. 3.27; AntDenk II, pl. 23:12a, 12b

EC (PAL)

F 849

5.7

6.9

1.0

two

horseback rider (warrior and chariot)

warriors

Fig. 3.28; AntDenk II, pl. 23:14a, 14b

EC (Wellcome Ptr, PAL)

F 850

5.4

4.5

0.5

two

horseback rider

warrior

F 851

9.7

4.3

0.9

two

horseback rider

warrior

F 852 (+ F 830)

6.1

31.0

0.9

two

horseback rider

warrior

F 853 (/ C-1963205)

4.5

4.8

0.7

two

horseback rider

warrior

Fig. 3.29; AntDenk II, pl. 23:6a, 6b; Pernice 1897, figs. 29, 30

MC (Gorgoneion Group; Timonidas, PAL)

F 854

see F 714

F 855 + F 862

9.9

10.7

0.7

two

horseback rider

horseback rider

F 856

5.2

8.0

1.1

two

horseback rider (and squire)

horseback rider (and squire)

F 857

8.6

7.1

0.8

two

horseback rider

horseback rider

F 858

5.4

2.3

0.6

two

horseback rider

horseback rider

F 859

4.8

3.2

0.7

two

horseback rider

horseback rider

F 860

7.1

6.8

0.8

two

horseback rider

horseback rider

F 861

4.2

3.9

0.6

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

horseback rider

F 862

Fig. 3.30; AntDenk II, pl. 30:29a, 29b

see F 855

F 863 + F 877 + F 879 + fr. (B46)

8.0

19.0

0.7

two

horseback riders

potters at work (kiln)

F 864

5.7

3.5

0.6

two

horseback rider

animal (bull)

F 865 + 2 frr. (B47)

10.9

8.0

0.6

two

horseback rider

potters at work (kiln)

F 866

see F 546

F 867 (B50)

5.0

4.4

0.6

two

horse

potters at work (kiln)

F 868 (B9)

7.8

15.2

0.7

two

horses

potters at work (at the wheel)

AntDenk II, pl. 23:2a, 2b; Pernice 1897, figs. 31, 32

LC I (Hippolytos Ptr, PAL)

AntDenk II, pl. 23:11; Pernice 1897, fig. 33

MC (KSR); LC (PAL)

AntDenk I, pl. 8:18

LC II (PAL)

342 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

appendix I

F 869 + F 716 (B10)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

7.5

8.6

0.6

two

horses

potters at work (at the wheel)

Date

AntDenk I, pl. 8:17

LC II (PAL)

F 870 (B11)

8.0

8.2

0.7

two

horseback rider

potters at work (at the wheel)

F 871 (B1)

10.4

13.2

0.6

two

horseback rider

potters at work (clay collection)

AntDenk I, pl. 8:5, 7

MC (PNE; Chimaera Group, PAL)

F 872

see F 714 IG IV 326; COP 61/ Fig. 3.21; AntDenk I, pl. 7:16

Side B

F 873

9.7

9.0

1.0

two

figure

horseback rider

F 874

6.1

5.3

0.9

two

horseback rider

figure

4.2

3.7

0.6

two

horseback rider

figure (and bird)

14.0

0.8

two

myth (Bellerophon on Pegasos?)

potters at work (kiln) Poseidon(?)

F 875 F 876

see F 521

F 877

see F 863

F 878 + F 909 (B48) F 879

6.8

Fig. 4.62; AntDenk I, pl. 8:21

see F 863

F 880

4.8

3.2

0.6

two

horseback rider

F 881 (M26)

8.2

7.8

0.6

two

figure (and krater)

horseback rider

Fig. 4.91 IG IV 303; COP 25/ AntDenk II, pl. 29:1, 4

F 882

4.7

9.8

1.0

two

horseback rider

figures (male and female)

F 883 (Göttingen)

6.4

5.8

0.6

two

horseback rider

warrior warrior

Fig. 4.76

F 884 (B63)

4.2

5.0

0.9

two

potters at work (workshop)

F 885 (B15)

7.8

4.2

0.9

two

potters at work (at the wheel)

potters at work (kiln)(?)

Fig. 4.32; AntDenk I, pl. 8:14a, 14b

F 886 (B14)

8.3

7.8

1.2

two

figures

potters at work (at the wheel)

Fig. 4.31

8.4

0.7

two

work

work figures

Fig. 4.72; AntDenk II, pl. 39:17a, 17b

F 887 F 888

LC (PAL)

LC (PAL)

MC–LC (KSR; 600–550 b.c.?, PAL)

see F 632 4.6

F 889 (B59)

6.7

4.6

1.1

two

potters at work (kiln)

F 890 + F 1111x (B39)

5.8

7.8

0.6

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite(?)

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.53; Pernice 1897, fig. 34

F 891 (B18)

4.7

6.7

0.7

two

potters at work (at the wheel)

potters at work (kiln)(?)

Fig. 4.35; AntDenk I, pl. 8:6a, 6b

MC (Cavalcade Ptr, PAL); LC II (PNE)

F 892 (B3)

6.0

5.6

0.8

two

potters at work (clay collection)

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.21; Pernice 1897, fig. 35

MC–LC (KSR)

F 893 (B57)

9.8

5.9

0.6

two

figure (and boar)

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.70; AntDenk I, pl. 8:19a, 19b

F 894

10.2

6.3

0.6

two

warriors

animal (boar)

Fig. 3.31; AntDenk I, pl. 8:16a, 16b

F 895

see C-1963-127

F 896

6.5

4.2

0.8

two

warrior

animal (boar)

F 897 + fr.

10.6

8.3

1.2

two

figure

horseback rider

F 898 (Göttingen)

5.2

7.9

1.0

two

Amphitrite

animal (boar)

MC (PAL)

TR (PNE); PC (PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s

343

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

F 899

9.1

9.5

0.8

two

figure

unclear

Fig. 3.18; AntDenk I, pl. 7:27

F 900 (B41)

9.5

6.0

0.9

two

warrior (and animals)

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 340; COP 90A/ Fig. 4.55; AntDenk I, pl. 8:20

F 901

5.7

8.5

1.4

two

horseback rider

unclear

F 902

1.1

5.5

0.7

two

Poseidon

Poseidon

F 903

4.8

3.8

0.6

two

warrior

figure

F 904

5.7

7.1

1.0

two

figure

figure

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

F 905

6.7

5.9

0.8

two

warrior

figures

AntDenk I, pl. 7:14

F 906 / C-1963-191

4.4 3.6

4.5 3.4

0.7 0.7

two

Poseidon

Poseidon

Geagan 1970, fig. 14:a–c

F 907 + fr.

6.1

8.2

0.6

two

horseback riders

myth (Artemis)

AntDenk I, pl. 7:8, 12; Pernice 1897, figs. 36, 37

F 908

see F 422

F 909

see F 878

Date

TR (PNE); TR–EC (Aegina Ptr, Bellerophon Ptr, PAL)

EC (PAL)

EC(?) (PAL)

F 910 (+ F 928)

3.1

4.8

0.7

two

myth (Herakles?)

animals (lions)

AntDenk I, pl. 7:7

F 911

4.9

5.8

0.7

two

Poseidon(?)

myth (Athena)

IG IV 267; COP 76

F 912 + I 121

7.6

6.5

0.7

two

warrior

animals (lions)

IG IV 266; COP 58/ Geagan 1970, fig. 7:a, b

F 913 + fr.

6.7

4.9

0.5

two

horseback rider

figure (female)

AntDenk II, pl. 39:11a, 11b

TR(?) (PAL)

F 914 + 3 frr. (/ F 1122)

8.4

7.9

0.6

two

Poseidon

myth (Bellerophon or Melikertes)

F 915 / C-1963451

2.9 4.7

4.2 1.9

1.1 1.1

two

warrior

myth (sea monster)

8.9

5.6

0.8

two

warrior

figure AntDenk II, pls. 23:5a, 5b, 39:8

EC (PAL)

F 916 F 917

see F 745

F 918 + 3 frr.

5.5

3.0

0.7

two

animal (lion and figure)

animal (lion)

F 919

5.6

6.2

0.6

two

animal (lion)

animal (bull)

F 920 / C-1963139

6.0 4.7

5.3 3.0

1.0 1.1

two

animal (lion)

animal (goat)

F 921

10.5

5.1

0.9

two

animal (goat)

animal (panther)

F 922

7.6

5.1

0.8

two

animal

animal

F 923

6.4

4.7

0.8

two

animal (lion)

animal

F 924 + F 930

5.3

6.9

0.9

two

animal (sphinx)

animal (lion)

F 925

5.2

8.1

1.2

two

animal (rooster)

unclear

F 926

5.2

4.8

0.7

two

animal (rooster)

unclear

F 927

6.9

4.1

0.6

two

animal (boar)

animal (bull)

F 928 (+ F 910)

3.7

5.0

0.7

two

animal

animal (lion)

F 929 + F 3378

7.2

5.8

0.6

two

animal

animal

Fig. 3.32; AntDenk II, pl. 30:5a, 5b

AntDenk II, pl. 39:18a, 18b

TR–EC (PAL)

344 Inv. No. (Cat. No.) F 930 F 931 (/ C-1963210)

appendix I H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

3.2

0.6

two

Side A

Side B

horseback rider (and squire)

animal (boar)

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see F 924 5.3

F 932

7.4

8.0

0.7

two

animal

animal

F 933

10.2

6.1

0.9

two

animal (sphinx)

unclear

AntDenk I, pl. 8:8

F 934

5.5

3.5

0.9

two

unclear

unclear

AntDenk I, pl. 8:11

F 935 + F 936

9.1

4.5

0.8

two

horseback riders

unclear

F 936

see F 935

F 937

8.2

2.6

0.8

two

animal

unclear

IG IV 302; COP 91

F 938

6.0

8.3

1.0

two

horseback rider

unclear

IG IV 334; COP 90B

F 939

5.4

4.2

0.6

two

unclear

unclear

IG IV 304; COP 60

F 940

see F 496

F 941 (M9)

4.8

5.0

0.7

one

unclear

IG IV 240; COP 52/ Fig. 4.79

F 942

6.9

6.2

0.6

one

unclear

IG IV 330; COP 94 IG IV 253; COP 57A

F 943

see F 482

F 944

6.5

3.4

0.7

one

unclear

F 945

5.4

5.0

0.7

two

unclear

F 946

6.5

5.1

0.7

one

unclear

F 947

4.9

3.5

1.1

two

unclear

F 948

7.2

6.9

1.1

one

unclear

IG IV 256; COP 57F

unclear

IG IV 215; COP 1D

F 949

Date

unclear

IG IV 273; COP 73M IG IV 213; COP 1B

unclear

MC–LC (WAC)

IG IV 255; COP 57B

see F 468

F 950

3.5

5.4

0.4

one

F 951

3.3

4.5

0.6

one

unclear

IG IV 339; COP 87 IG IV 261; COP 21/ AntDenk II, pl. 40:14

F 952

6.9

5.5

0.8

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

F 953

4.7

4.5

1.0

one

unclear

IG IV 270; COP 73K

F 954

4.6

4.1

0.7

one

unclear

IG IV 254; COP 57E

F 955 / C-1963152

5.2 4.1

4.9 6.6

0.8 0.9

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 238; COP 9; von Raits 1964, p. 60/ Geagan 1970, fig. 3

LC (575–550 b.c.; VRS; PAL)

6.9

0.7

one

unclear

3.1

0.8

two

unclear

unclear

3.3

0.7

two

unclear

unclear

AntDenk II pl. 39:5a, 5b

MC (PAL)

F 1107x F 1110x

see F 371 5.8

F 1111x

see F 890

F 1113

see I 9

F 1115x

7.6

F 1116x F 1122 (/ F 914)

LC (PAL)

see F 681 3.7

F 3378

see F 929

F 3379

see F 689

F 3380

5.2

5.0

0.7

two

unclear

unclear

F 3381

4.5

3.8

0.7

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite

Amphitrite(?) (female with lyre)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

F 3920

4.3

9.3

0.9

one

Poseidon

F 3921

5.6

7.4

0.8

one

Poseidon

F 3922

5.4

6.0

1.0

one

horseback rider

F 3923 / I 54

6.4 4.3

10.1 6.1

0.8 0.6

one

horseback rider

F 3924 + fr.

4.5

5.9

0.7

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

I1

10.4

8.3

1.2

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (on chariot)

I2

6.0

7.4

0.9

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

I 3 (Göttingen)

11.8

6.6

0.8

one

Poseidon

I4

3.8

5.3

0.8

one

Poseidon

I5

2.9

3.8

0.6

one

Poseidon

I 6 + I 15

8.4

7.3

0.8

one

Poseidon

Side B

345 Inscriptions/ Illustrations IG IV 272; COP 73J

ship

IG IV 260; COP 57M

I7

3.8

6.2

0.8

one

Poseidon

I8

5.5

5.0

0.7

one

Poseidon

I 9 + F 1113x

8.3

5.5

0.7

one

Poseidon

I 10

4.7

5.4

1.0

one

Poseidon

I 11

5.2

4.0

1.1

one

Poseidon

I 12

3.0

4.6

0.7

one

Poseidon

I 13

3.0

3.3

0.6

one

Poseidon

I 14

4.2

8.2

0.8

one

Poseidon

I 15

see I 6

I 16

12.8

11.5

1.1

one

Poseidon

I 17 / C-1963-441

4.2 4.7

8.3 8.6

0.9 0.8

one

Poseidon

von Raits 1964, p. 61

I 18

7.9

6.5

1.0

one

Poseidon

IG IV 307; COP 30

I 19

5.3

7.2

1.0

one

Poseidon

I 20

6.2

6.7

1.1

one

Poseidon

I 21

4.1

3.5

1.0

one

Poseidon

I 22

3.6

5.0

1.1

one

Poseidon

I 23

3.7

2.7

0.6

one(?)

warrior

I 24

6.2

5.3

0.8

one

Poseidon

I 25

6.3

3.8

1.0

one

Poseidon

I 26

4.7

5.6

0.9

one

Poseidon

I 27

5.4

4.9

1.1

one

Poseidon

I 28

see C-1963-295

I 29

7.8

6.7

1.2

one

Poseidon

I 30 / I 30bis

6.1 6.2

4.4 5.5

1.0 1.0

one

Poseidon

I 31

5.7

6.7

0.9

one

Poseidon

I 32

5.9

6.8

0.7

one

Poseidon

Pernice 1897, p. 42

Date

346 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

appendix I H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

I 33

7.3

3.8

1.1

one

Poseidon

I 34

5.8

2.9

0.9

one

Poseidon

I 35

5.6

4.8

1.3

one

Poseidon

I 36 (+ F 351)

7.1

5.3

1.0

one

Poseidon

I 37

10.4

11.7

1.3

one

Poseidon

I 38

7.2

4.2

1.0

one

Poseidon

I 39 + I 155

6.9

5.5

0.9

two(?)

Poseidon

I 40

5.9

2.8

0.9

one

Poseidon

I 41

5.0

5.1

0.5

one

Poseidon

I 42

5.3

10.8

1.0

one

horseback rider

I 43

4.5

2.9

0.8

one

horseback rider

I 44

5.1

5.3

0.7

one

horseback rider

I 45

4.9

3.9

0.7

one

horseback rider

I 46

4.3

3.1

0.8

one

horseback rider

I 47

4.4

3.1

0.6

one

horseback rider

I 48

3.7

6.0

1.0

one

horseback rider

I 49

4.4

4.3

0.8

one

horse

I 50 I 51

4.1

4.3

0.5

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

Date

COP 57L

COP 97D horses

IG IV 249; COP 50

see F 522

I 52

6.9

5.3

1.3

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

I 53

4.5

4.2

0.5

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

I 54

see F 3923

I 55

see F 465

I 56

6.3

6.1

0.9

one

horses

I 57

9.3

11.5

0.8

one

warrior

I 58

5.5

3.5

0.6

one

warrior

I 59

4.3

4.6

0.6

one

warrior

I 59a

3.0

3.6

0.6

one

warrior

I 60

5.6

5.7

0.7

one

figure (with amphora)

I 61

7.0

5.2

0.7

one

figure

I 62

4.0

3.2

0.8

one

figure

I 63 / C-1963-165

5.3 5.2

3.9 4.0

0.6 0.6

two

Poseidon

I 64

5.9

8.3

0.7

one

figure

I 65

Side B

see C-1963-317

I 66

5.2

6.7

1.0

one

figure

I 67

6.9

4.0

0.7

one

figure

I 68

4.2

4.2

0.8

one

figure

I 69

4.9

3.0

0.9

one

figure

IG IV 257; COP 57H

figure

LC II(?) (PAL)

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

347 Inscriptions/ Illustrations

I 70

3.7

3.5

0.7

one

figure

I 71

3.9

6.5

0.9

one

figure

I 72

4.7

4.3

0.7

one

figure

I 73

8.0

4.2

0.9

one

figure Fig. 4.13

I 74 (A23)

8.0

5.0

0.7

one

potters at work (kiln)

I 75 (A27)

10.2

4.7

0.7

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.15

I 76 (A25)

11.0

4.9

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.14

I 77 (A21)

4.6

4.8

0.5

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.12

I 78 (A26)

6.0

3.8

0.6

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.14

I 79 (A17)

4.6

5.3

0.9

one

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.10

I 80 (A30)

3.6

4.9

0.4

one(?)

potters at work (kiln)

Fig. 4.16

I 81

10.2

6.7

0.9

one

ship

I 82

see F 654

I 83a / F 759

6.7 5.5

9.4 4.9

0.7 0.7

one

animal

I 83b

7.3

7.5

0.7

one

animal

I 84

7.8

5.5

1.0

one

animal

I 85

7.2

5.6

0.9

one

animal

I 86 / C-1963-142

4.5 3.4

3.2 3.2

0.5 0.5

one

animal

I 87

4.5

3.6

0.6

one

animal

I 88 (/ F 784 / I 114)

6.7

5.2

0.8

one

animal (boar)

I 89

7.0

4.9

0.6

one

animal (boar)

I 90

4.9

4.7

0.6

one

animal (bull)

I 90a

10.4

4.6

0.7

one

animal (boar)

I 91

4.8

4.4

0.5

one

horseback rider

I 92 (M5)

5.5

7.5

1.0

one

animal (bird)

I 93

7.3

6.5

0.6

one

figure

I 94

6.0

5.3

0.6

one

figure

I 95

3.8

3.5

0.6

one

horse

I 96

3.8

7.6

0.9

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

I 97

3.6

3.7

0.7

one

unclear

I 98

4.5

3.3

0.7

one

unclear

I 99

4.1

4.6

1.1

one

unclear

I 100

5.8

6.5

0.5

one

unclear

Fig. 4.78; AntDenk II, pl. 40:17

Date

348 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

appendix I H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

I 101

2.8

3.4

0.8

one

unclear

I 102

4.2

5.2

0.7

one

unclear

I 103

4.0

3.9

1.1

one

unclear

I 104

8.2

6.0

0.9

one

unclear

I 105

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

see C-1963-425

I 106

4.6

4.5

0.6

one

unclear

I 107

5.9

3.7

0.8

one

figure(?)

I 108

7.8

6.9

0.9

one

unclear

I 109

3.8

5.4

1.0

one(?)

unclear Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

I 110

5.2

4.9

0.8

one

I 111

5.9

5.6

0.9

one

unclear

I 112

4.9

8.2

1.3

one

Poseidon (on chariot)

I 113

5.8

7.4

0.6

one

unclear

I 114 (/ F 784 / I 88)

5.6

4.7

0.9

one

unclear

I 115

Side B

Geagan 1970, fig. 4

see C-1963-143

I 116

2.2

3.2

0.8

one

unclear

IG IV 325; COP 26

I 117

3.2

3.5

0.8

one

unclear

IG IV 321; COP 17

I 118

4.1

2.9

0.8

one

unclear

IG IV 269; COP 24

I 119

2.4

4.2

0.5

one

unclear

COP 97E

I 120

7.3

5.6

0.6

two

Poseidon

5.6

0.9

two

Poseidon

animal (boar)

I 121 I 122

horseback rider

see F 912 3.5

I 123 (B35)

4.6

4.4

0.7

two

Poseidon(?)

potters at work (kiln)

I 124

5.3

4.5

1.3

two

Poseidon

unclear

I 125

4.9

5.0

0.6

two

Poseidon

unclear

I 126

4.6

3.6

0.9

two

Poseidon(?)

unclear

I 127

8.4

9.3

0.8

two

Poseidon(?)

unclear

I 128

4.1

6.1

0.8

two

Poseidon

unclear

I 129

8.6

6.3

0.8

two

warrior

figure

I 130

6.7

4.7

0.8

two

figures

unclear

I 131

3.1

4.6

0.7

two

figure

unclear

I 132

3.6

6.6

0.8

two

warrior

unclear

I 133

7.5

7.8

0.7

two

figure

figure

I 134

5.5

5.0

0.7

two

horse (and warrior)

animal

I 135

8.4

5.8

0.9

two

figures

unclear

I 136

4.6

6.5

0.7

two

warrior

unclear

I 137

3.5

3.0

0.5

two

figures

unclear

I 138

6.3

7.0

1.0

two

figures

unclear

I 139

4.6

4.5

0.7

two

figure

unclear

Fig. 4.49

Date

l ist of pent e sko uphia pinake s Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

I 140

4.9

5.8

0.7

two

Poseidon

Poseidon

figure

potters at work (kiln)(?)

I 141 (B45)

5.0

4.0

0.4

two

Side B

I 142

6.0

5.6

0.8

two

figures

unclear

I 143

6.0

5.7

0.7

two

figures

unclear

I 144

3.7

4.0

0.7

two

horseback rider

unclear

I 145

8.5

9.5

0.8

two

warrior

unclear

I 146

10.0

5.0

1.1

two

figures

unclear unclear

I 147

4.4

2.7

0.8

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

I 148

5.1

5.6

0.6

two

myth (riders on non-horses)

unclear

I 149

5.2

3.1

0.6

two

myth (riders on non-horses)

unclear

I 150

6.7

7.6

1.1

two

warrior

horseback riders

I 151

3.9

4.3

0.8

two

horseback rider

figure

I 152

9.0

5.2

1.0

two

horseback rider

ship

I 153

10.0

5.7

1.0

two

Poseidon (on chariot)

unclear

I 153a

10.3

4.7

0.9

two

unclear

unclear

I 154

see F 503

I 155

see I 39

I 156

5.4

6.1

0.7

two

horse

unclear

1.1

two

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

horse

I 157

7.8

4.4

I 158

6.4

5.9

0.7

two

horseback rider

unclear

I 159

4.0

5.1

0.8

two

figure

horse

I 160

3.6

4.6

0.8

two

horse

unclear

I 161

4.8

5.4

0.7

two

horse

unclear

I 162

3.9

3.9

0.5

two

horse

unclear

I 163

2.2

3.7

0.5

two

horseback rider

unclear

I 164

7.2

7.0

0.9

two

animal (boar)

animal

I 165

6.8

6.3

0.9

two

animal (lion)

animal

I 166

3.5

4.7

0.6

two

animal (lion)

unclear

I 167

2.6

4.8

0.8

two

animal (sphinx)

unclear

I 168

7.7

6.5

0.8

two

animal

unclear

I 169

6.7

3.9

0.8

two

animal

unclear

I 170

6.7

5.7

0.7

two

animal (swan)

unclear

I 171

6.4

6.9

0.8

two

animal (lion)

unclear

I 172 (M19)

6.2

4.9

0.6

two

figure(?)

unclear

I 173

see F 601

I 174

5.5

7.2

1.0

two

animal

unclear

I 175

6.6

5.4

0.8

two

unclear

unclear

349 Inscriptions/ Illustrations Fig. 4.60

IG IV 338; COP 89

Fig. 4.88; AntDenk II, pl. 39:19

Date

350 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

appendix I H.

W.

Th.

One- or Two-Sided

Side A

Side B

I 176

6.4

4.7

0.7

two

warrior

unclear

I 177

5.3

4.0

0.9

two

unclear

unclear

I 178

6.0

3.6

0.7

two

unclear

unclear

I 179 (M21)

4.9

5.5

0.7

two

figure(?)

unclear

I 180

4.5

3.2

0.6

two

Poseidon(?)

unclear

I 181

4.9

4.7

0.5

two

unclear

unclear

I 182

3.1

5.8

0.8

two

unclear

unclear

I 183

4.2

4.7

1.0

two

unclear

unclear

3.0

4.8

1.2

two

unclear

unclear

0.7

two

unclear

unclear

0.7

one

Poseidon

I 184 I 185 I 186

Date

Fig. 4.88

see C-1963-374 3.9

3.1

Par is, Musée d u Lo uv r e CA 452

Inscriptions/ Illustrations

7.7

7.3

LC (PAL)

MNB 2856 (B19)

11.2

6.5

0.6

two

Poseidon

potters at work (kiln)

IG IV 231; COP 38B/ Fig. 4.36

MC (PNE; Liebieghaus Group, PAL)

MNB 2857 (B8)

4.2

5.7

0.6

two

potters at work (at the wheel)

animal (boar)

Fig. 4.26

TR–EC (625–600 b.c., PAL); EC (PNE)

MNB 2858 (B2)

7.2

10.0

0.7

two

potters at work (kiln)

potters at work (clay collection)

IG IV 316, 318; COP 65/ Fig. 4.20

MNB 2859

9.1

6.4

1.0

two

warriors

figures

Fig. 3.24

LC I (PAL)

MNC 206

12.0

11.0

1.2

one

Poseidon

IG IV 228; COP 36

LC II (PAL)

MNC 207

9.1

6.0

0.8

one

horseback riders IG IV 297; COP 5

MC (PAL)

LC I (PAL)

MNC 208

6.8

6.4

0.9

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

MNC 209

6.0

7.0

0.5

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite (chariot)

IG IV 223; COP 2B

MC (PAL)

MNC 210

12.1

4.0

0.4

one

Poseidon

IG IV 239; COP 49

6th century b.c. (PAL)

MNC 211

see F 601

MNC 212

see F 511

MNC 213

9.2

10.0

1.0

one

Poseidon and Amphitrite

MNC 214

5.0

7.9

0.7

two

warrior

animal (bull)

MNC 215

6.7

10.0

0.6

two

figures

figure

MNC 216 (B61)

8.5

4.8

0.5

two

potters at work (kiln)

unclear

MC–LC I (Memnon Ptr, PAL)

COP 90C/Fig. 4.74

Appendix I I

Distribution of Themes on One- and Two-Sided Penteskouphia Pinakes

On two-sided pinakes, “A” and “B” have been appended to inventory numbers to indicate sides A and B. For a comprehensive overview of distribution of themes on the Penteskouphia pinakes with totals and percentages of themes and subgroups, see Table 3.3.

Themes

One- or Two-Sided

Total

one

237

Poseid on-Rel at ed All Poseidon-related Poseidon

two

Subtotal one

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

113 350 177

C-1963-106, C-1963-115, C-1963-140, C-1963-143 / I 115, C-1963-146, C-1963-150, C-1963-153, C-1963-157, C-1963-178, C-1963-179, C-1963226, C-1963-238, C-1963-246, C-1963-249, C-1963-258, C-1963-280, C-1963-282, C-1963-294, C-1963-402, F 347, F 348, F 349, F 350, F 351, F 353 + F 363, F 354, F 355, F 358, F 359, F 360, F 361 + F 441 + fr., F 362, F 364, F 365, F 366, F 367 + F 372 + F 398 + F 399, F 368, F 369, F 370, F 371 + 2 frr. / F 1107x, F 373 + F 415 + F 423, F 374, F 375, F 376 + 2 frr., F 377, F 378, F 379, F 380, F 381, F 382, F 383 + F 419, F 384, F 385, F 387, F 388, F 389, F 390 + fr., F 391, F 393, F 394 + F 421, F 395, F 396, F 397, F 400, F 401 + F 408, F 402 + F 407, F 404 + fr., F 406, F 409, F 412 + F 417, F 413, F 416, F 418, F 420, F 424 + F 429, F 425, F 426 + 2 frr., F 427, F 428, F 430, F 431 + F 660 / F 439 / C-1963-122, F 432, F 433 + F 685, F 434, F 435, F 436, F 437, F 438, F 440, F 442, F 443 + F 469 + F 692 + F 696 + fr., F 444 + fr., F 445, F 446, F 447, F 448, F 449, F 450, F 451 + fr., F 453, F 455, F 457, F 458, F 459, F 460, F 461, F 462 + fr., F 463, F 464, F 465 / I 55, F 465a, F 467 / C-1963-144, F 468 + F 949 + fr., F 470 + fr., F 471 / C-1963-354, F 472, F 473, F 483, F 489, F 491, F 502 + F 516, F 504, F 505, F 536 + F 687, F 539 + F 630 (M23), F 540 + F 551 + fr., F 658, F 662, F 668, F 670, F 680, F 689 + F 3379, F 701 + F 706 + 2 frr., F 713, F 721, F 780, F 3920, F 3921, I 3, I 4, I 5, I 6 + I 15, I 7, I 8, I 9 + F 1113x, I 10, I 11, I 12, I 13, I 14, I 16, I 17 / C-1963441, I 18, I 19, I 20, I 21, I 22, I 24, I 25, I 26, I 27, I 29, I 30 / I 30bis, I 31, I 32, I 33, I 34, I 35, I 36, I 37, I 38, I 40, I 41, I 112, CA 452, MNC 206, MNC 210

352 Themes

Poseidon

Poseidon and Amphitrite

appendix II One- or Two-Sided

Total

Subtotal

267

two

one

two

Poseidon and Zeus

Amphitrite

War r iors

Subtotal one

two

Subtotal one

two Subtotal

90

55

15

70

3 0

3

2 8

10

one

21

two

46

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

C-1963-124A, C-1963-132 + C-1963-325A, C-1963-137A, C-1963-192A, C-1963-231A (B30), C-1963-285A, C-1963-368A, C-1963-406A, C-1963-440A, F 352A, F 357A, F 386A, F 392A, F 411A, F 411B, F 414A (B34), F 452 + 2 frr.A, F 456 + F 815A (M12), F 503 + I 154A, F 506 / C-1963-171A, F 524 + F 694A (B53), F 637 + F 819A (B26), F 644 + F 678A (M29), F 645 + fr.A (M30), F 659 + F 703 + fr.A, F 659 + F 703 + fr.B, F 667 + F 803A (B22), F 691 + F 808 + fr.A (B21), F 700A, F 711 / F 820 / C-1963222 / C-1963-227A, F 746 + F 747A, F 752A, F 755 + F 789A, F 773 + F 812A (B24), F 787A, F 788B, F 790A, F 791A, F 792A, F 793A, F 794A, F 795 + F 824A, F 798A, F 802A (B20), F 804A (B31), F 805A (B25), F 806A (B33), F 807A (B32), F 809A (B23), F 810A (B27), F 811A (B28), F 813B (B62), F 814A (B12), F 816A (B29), F 817A (M11), F 818 + F 821A, F 823A, F 832A, F 833A, F 838 + fr.A, F 839A, F 840A, F 841A, F 842A, F 843 / C-1963-230A, F 843 / C-1963-230B, F 844A, F 845A (B36), F 880B, F 902A, F 902B, F 906 / C-1963-191A, F 906 / C-1963-191B, F 911A, F 914 + 3 frr.A, I 39 + I 155A, I 63 / C-1963-165A, I 120A, I 122A, I 123A (B35), I 124A, I 125A, I 126A, I 127A, I 128A, I 140A, I 140B, I 153A, I 180A, MNB 2856A (B19) C-1963-161, C-1963-236, C-1963-243, F 410 + F 498, F 474 + 2 frr., F 475, F 477 + F 479, F 478, F 480, F 481, F 485 + F 765, F 486, F 487, F 488 + F 492, F 493, F 494, F 495 + F 513, F 497 + F 527, F 499, F 500, F 501, F 508 + 2 frr., F 509, F 510 + fr., F 511 / MNC 212, F 512, F 514 + F 515, F 518, F 519, F 520, F 522 / I 51, F 523, F 525, F 526, F 528, F 529, F 531, F 532, F 533, F 534, F 535, F 537, F 750, F 952, F 955 / C-1963-152, I 1, I 2, I 50, I 52, I 53, I 96, I 110, MNC 208, MNC 209, MNC 213 C-1963-141A, F 507 + F 729 + F 739 / C-1963-181 + C-1963-199 + C-1963-225A, F 521 + F 796 + F 876 + fr. / C-1963-443A, F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822A (B40), F 752B, F 797A, F 800A (B52), F 801 / C-1963-452 / F 517A (B51), F 834A, F 861A, F 890 + F 1111xA (B39), F 3381A, F 3924 + fr.A, I 147A, I 157A F 403 + F 405 + F 490 + fr., F 454 + F 476, F 496 + F 940 + fr.

F 484, F 538

F 787B, F 788A, F 799 / C-1963-234A, F 827A (B38), F 828 + fr.A (M27), F 830A (M28), F 898A, F 3381B

C-1963-182, C-1963-274, C-1963-287, C-1963-317 / I 65, F 588, F 589 + F 603 + F 604 / C-1963-104, F 590, F 591, F 592, F 593 + F 600 / F 606, F 594, F 598, F 602, F 605, F 669, F 677, I 23, I 57, I 58, I 59, I 59a C-1963-110B, C-1963-119A, C-1963-127 / F 895A, C-1963-135A, C-1963-166B, C-1963-292A, C-1963-338A, F 521 + F 796 + F 876 + fr. / C-1963-443B, F 595A, F 595B, F 596A, F 597A, F 599A, F 607A (B44), F 699 / C-1963-247A, F 709 + fr.A (B43), F 772A, F 797B, F 798B, F 799 / C-1963-234B, F 840B, F 847B, F 848B, F 849B, F 850B, F 851B, F 852B,

dist r ib ut ion of t heme s Themes

Warriors

Ot her Figur e s

Eq ue st r ian All equestrian Horseback riders

One- or Two-Sided

Total

Subtotal

67

two (cont.)

one

66

two

86

Subtotal one

two

Subtotal one

two

152

353

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

F 853B, F 883B, F 884B (B63), F 894A, F 896A, F 900A (B41), F 903A, F 905A, F 912 + I 121A, F 915 / C-1963-451A, F 916A, I 129A, I 132A, I 136A, I 145A, I 150A, I 176A, MNB 2859A, MNC 214A

C-1963-107, C-1963-128, C-1963-162, C-1963-187, C-1963-201, C-1963-214, C-1963-235, C-1963-239, C-1963-244 + C-1963-382, C-1963-260, C-1963272, C-1963-281, C-1963-304, C-1963-309, C-1963-320, C-1963-323, C-1963328, C-1963-352, C-1963-360, C-1963-361, C-1963-370, C-1963-403, F 629 (M6), F 657, F 665, F 674, F 675, F 676, F 681 + F 1116x, F 682, F 686, F 688, F 690, F 693, F 695, F 697, F 698, F 702, F 705, F 707 / C-1963-259, F 708, F 710, F 712, F 719, F 720, F 748, F 749, F 777, F 778, F 783, F 785 (M25), I 60, I 61, I 62, I 64, I 66, I 67, I 68, I 69, I 70, I 71, I 72, I 73, I 93, I 94, I 107 C-1963-102B (M20), C-1963-109A, C-1963-109B, C-1963-110A, C-1963-116A, C-1963-119B, C-1963-124B, C-1963-136A, C-1963-137B, C-1963-138A, C-1963-141B, C-1963-147A (M14), C-1963-148A, C-1963-159A, C-1963-166A, C-1963-184A, C-1963-185 + C-1963-424A (M15), C-1963-195B (B16), C-1963-202 + C-1963-266A, C-1963-204B, C-1963-205A, C-1963-206A, C-1963-233A, C-1963-233B, C-1963-292B, C-1963-297 / C-1963-151A (M18), C-1963-306B, C-1963-350A, C-1963-353A (M13), C-1963-374 / I 185A, C-1963-380 + C-1963-439 / C-1963-145A (M22), C-1963-421A, C-1963-438A, F 597B, F 651B, F 664A, F 671A, F 679A, F 700B, F 704 / F 715A, F 704 / F 715B, F 711 / F 820 / C-1963-222 / C-1963-227B, F 717A, F 718A, F 772B, F 825A, F 839B, F 841B, F 846A (B42), F 873A, F 874B, F 875B, F 881A (M26), F 882B, F 886A (B14), F 889B (B59), F 893A (B57), F 897 + fr.A, F 899A, F 903B, F 904A, F 904B, F 905B, F 913 + fr.B, F 916B, I 63 / C-1963-165B, I 129B, I 130A, I 131A, I 133A, I 133B, I 135A, I 137A, I 138A, I 139A, I 141A (B45), I 142A, I 143A, I 146A, I 151B, I 159A, I 172A (M19), I 179A (M21), MNB 2859B, MNC 215A, MNC 215B

72 97

169 36

62

C-1963-154 / C-1963-290, C-1963-167, C-1963-169, C-1963-217, C-1963252, C-1963-293, C-1963-383, C-2002-62, F 541, F 542, F 543, F 544, F 545 / C-1963-313, F 548 + 2 frr., F 549, F 550 + F 572, F 552, F 553 + F 564, F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112, F 556, F 563, F 565, F 586, F 587, F 736, F 3922, F 3923 / I 54, I 42, I 43, I 44, I 45, I 46, I 47, I 48, I 91, MNC 207 C-1963-132 + C-1963-325B, C-1963-184B, C-1963-186A, C-1963-204A, C-1963-210A, F 546 + F 866A (B49), F 547A, F 631A (B56), F 714 + F 854 + F 872A (B7), F 732B, F 790B, F 791B, F 792B, F 793B, F 794B, F 828 + fr.B (M27), F 847A, F 848A, F 849A, F 850A, F 851A, F 852A, F 853A, F 855 + F 862A, F 855 + F 862B, F 856A, F 856B, F 857A, F 857B, F 858A, F 858B, F 859A, F 859B, F 860A, F 860B, F 861B, F 863 + F 877 + F 879 + fr.A (B46), F 864A, F 865 + 2 frr.A (B47), F 870A (B11), F 871A (B1), F 873B, F 874A,

354 Themes

Horseback riders

appendix II One- or Two-Sided

Total

Subtotal

98

two (cont.)

Horses

one

two

Animals

Pot t ers at Wor k All potters at work Clay and fuel collection

Subtotal

36

35

71

one

38

two

77

Subtotal one

two

Subtotal one

two

Subtotal

115

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

F 875A, F 880A, F 881B (M26), F 882A, F 883A, F 897 + fr.B, F 901A, F 907 + fr.A, F 913 + fr.A, F 931A, F 935 + F 936A, F 938A, I 120B, I 144A, I 150B, I 151A, I 152A, I 158A, I 163A C-1963-101, C-1963-113, C-1963-130, C-1963-158, C-1963-172, C-1963180, C-1963-208 + C-1963-376, C-1963-209, C-1963-211, C-1963-253, C-1963-332, C-1963-378, F 530 + F 558, F 557, F 559 + F 570, F 560 + F 562, F 561, F 566, F 567, F 568, F 569, F 571, F 573, F 574, F 575, F 576 / F 579, F 578, F 580, F 581, F 583, F 584, F 585, F 661, I 49, I 56, I 95

C-1963-111A, C-1963-126A (B54), C-1963-129A, C-1963-134A, C-1963-149A, C-1963-149B, C-1963-190A, C-1963-215 / C-1963-268A, C-1963-237 / C-1963-387A (M17), C-1963-245A, C-1963-344A, C-1963-392A, F 503 + I 154B, F 555A (B55), F 577A, F 599B, F 664B, F 679B, F 738B, F 755 + F 789B, F 795 + F 824B, F 835 / C-1963-450B, F 838 + fr.B, F 844B, F 867A (B50), F 868A (B9), F 869 + F 716A (B10), I 39 + I 155B, I 134A, I 156A, I 157B, I 159B, I 160A, I 161A, I 162A

C-1963-118, C-1963-183 / C-1963-351, C-1963-212, C-1963-242, C-1963269, C-1963-326, C-1963-363, F 624 (M3), F 625 (M4), F 722, F 723, F 724, F 725, F 726, F 727, F 728, F 731, F 733, F 734, F 735 + fr., F 737, F 741, F 742, F 751, F 753, F 760, F 761, I 83a / F 759, I 83b, I 84, I 85, I 86 / C-1963-142, I 87, I 88, I 89, I 90, I 90a, I 92 (M5)

C-1963-123A, C-1963-123B, C-1963-127 / F 895B, C-1963-131A, C-1963-138B, C-1963-148B, C-1963-163B, C-1963-174A, C-1963185 + C-1963-424B (M15), C-1963-200A, C-1963-210B, C-1963-228B, C-1963-338B, F 641B (B13), F 732A, F 738A, F 740A, F 743A, F 744A, F 745 / F 917A, F 745 / F 917B, F 746 + F 747B, F 754A, F 754B, F 756A, F 756B, F 758A, F 758B, F 763 + fr.A (B60), F 864B, F 894B, F 896B, F 898B, F 910B, F 912 + I 121B, F 918 + 3 frr.A, F 918 + 3 frr.B, F 919A, F 919B, F 920 / C-1963-139A, F 920 / C-1963-139B, F 921A, F 921B, F 922A, F 922B, F 923A, F 923B, F 924 + F 930A, F 924 + F 930B, F 925A, F 926A, F 927A, F 927B, F 928A, F 928B, F 929 + F 3378A, F 929 + F 3378B, F 931B, F 932A, F 932B, F 933A, F 937A, I 122B, I 134B, I 164A, I 164B, I 165A, I 165B, I 166A, I 167A, I 168A, I 169A, I 170A, I 171A, I 174A, MNB 2857B (B8), MNC 214B

34 68

102 3 7

10

F 638 (A2), F 639 (A1), F 786 (A3)

C-1963-196A (B4), F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963-250 + C-1963-251B (B6), F 714 + F 854 + F 872B (B7), F 831B (B5), F 871B (B1), F 892A (B3), MNB 2858B (B2)

dist r ib ut ion of t heme s Themes

Potters at the wheel

Kiln firing

One- or Two-Sided

Total

two

11

one

Subtotal one

two

Workshop

Wor k

Subtotal one

two

Subtotal one

two

My t hol o g y

Ships

Subtotal

1

12 28

48

76

2 2

4 1 6 7

one

14

two

12

Subtotal

26

one

11

two

13

Subtotal

24

F 640 + fr. (A4)

355

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

C-1963-195A (B16), F 632 + F 887A (B17), F 641A (B13), F 814B (B12), F 868B (B9), F 869 + F 716B (B10), F 870B (B11), F 885A (B15), F 886B (B14), F 891A (B18), MNB 2857A (B8) C-1963-255 (A32), F 356 + F 609 (A10), F 482 + F 627 + F 943 + fr. (A7), F 608 (A5), F 610 (A8), F 611 (A6), F 612 (A11), F 613 (A18), F 614 (A15), F 615 (A31), F 617 (A16), F 618 (A14), F 620 (A19), F 622 + fr. (A22), F 623 (A20), F 626 (A24), F 628 + F 666 (A9), F 634 (A29), F 635 (A28), F 643 (A13), F 673 (A12), I 74 (A23), I 75 (A27), I 76 (A25), I 77 (A21), I 78 (A26), I 79 (A17), I 80 (A30)

C-1963-126B (B54), C-1963-231B (B30), F 414B (B34), F 524 + F 694B (B53), F 546 + F 866B (B49), F 555B (B55), F 607B (B44), F 616B (B58), F 619 + F 826B (B37), F 631B (B56), F 632 + F 887B (B17), F 637 + F 819B (B26), F 667 + F 803B (B22), F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822B (B40), F 691 + F 808 + fr.B (B21), F 709 + fr.B (B43), F 763 + fr.B (B60), F 773 + F 812B (B24), F 800B (B52), F 801 / C-1963-452 / F 517B (B51), F 802B (B20), F 804B (B31), F 805B (B25), F 806B (B33), F 807B (B32), F 809B (B23), F 810B (B27), F 811B (B28), F 816B (B29), F 827B (B38), F 845B (B36), F 846B (B42), F 863 + F 877 + F 879 + fr.B (B46), F 865 + 2 frr.B (B47), F 867B (B50), F 878 + F 909B (B48), F 885B (B15), F 889A (B59), F 890 + F 1111xB (B39), F 891B (B18), F 892B (B3), F 893B (B57), F 900B (B41), I 123B (B35), I 141B (B45), MNB 2856B (B19), MNB 2858A (B2), MNC 216A (B61) C-1963-409 (A33), F 672 + F 684 + F 770 (A34) F 813A (B62), F 884A (B63)

F 642 (M1)

F 456 + F 815B (M12), F 817B (M11), F 818 + F 821B, F 823B, F 888A, F 888B

C-1963-261, C-1963-373, F 466 + F 766, F 663 + F 730, F 764, F 767, F 768, F 769, F 771 + fr., F 774, F 775, F 776, F 779, F 782

F 422 + F 908A, F 619 + F 826A (B37), F 834B, F 842B, F 878 + F 909A (B48), F 907 + fr.B, F 910A, F 911B, F 914 + 3 frr.B, F 915 / C-1963-451B, I 148A, I 149A

C-1963-224 / C-1963-213, C-1963-267, F 621 + fr. (M24), F 646, F 647 + F 656, F 648, F 649, F 650 + fr., F 652, F 654 + F 781 / I 82, I 81

C-1963-125A (M16), C-1963-264A, F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963-250 + C-1963-251A (B6), F 616A (B58), F 651A, F 655A, F 831A (B5), F 832B, F 833B, F 835 / C-1963-450A, F 836A, F 3924 + fr.B, I 152B

356 Themes

Unc l ear

appendix II One- or Two-Sided

Total

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

one

162

two

216

C-1963-103, C-1963-105, C-1963-108, C-1963-114, C-1963-117, C-1963121, C-1963-133, C-1963-155, C-1963-156, C-1963-160, C-1963-164, C-1963-168, C-1963-170, C-1963-173, C-1963-176, C-1963-177, C-1963188, C-1963-193 (M10), C-1963-216, C-1963-218, C-1963-229, C-1963-240, C-1963-241, C-1963-248, C-1963-254, C-1963-256, C-1963-257, C-1963262 + C-1963-388, C-1963-263, C-1963-265, C-1963-271, C-1963-275, C-1963-276, C-1963-277, C-1963-278, C-1963-279, C-1963-283, C-1963286, C-1963-288, C-1963-289, C-1963-295 / I 28, C-1963-298, C-1963299, C-1963-300 + C-1963-391, C-1963-301, C-1963-303, C-1963-305 + C-1963-429, C-1963-307, C-1963-308, C-1963-310, C-1963-311, C-1963312, C-1963-314, C-1963-315, C-1963-318, C-1963-319, C-1963-321, C-1963-322, C-1963-324, C-1963-327, C-1963-329, C-1963-330, C-1963331, C-1963-333, C-1963-334, C-1963-335, C-1963-336, C-1963-337, C-1963-339, C-1963-342, C-1963-345, C-1963-349, C-1963-355, C-1963357, C-1963-358, C-1963-359, C-1963-362, C-1963-364, C-1963-366, C-1963-369, C-1963-371, C-1963-372, C-1963-375, C-1963-377, C-1963379, C-1963-381, C-1963-384, C-1963-385, C-1963-386, C-1963-389, C-1963-390, C-1963-393, C-1963-394, C-1963-395, C-1963-396, C-1963397, C-1963-398, C-1963-399, C-1963-400, C-1963-401, C-1963-405, C-1963-407, C-1963-410, C-1963-411, C-1963-414, C-1963-415, C-1963416, C-1963-417, C-1963-418, C-1963-419, C-1963-420, C-1963-422 (M2), C-1963-423, C-1963-425 / I 105, C-1963-426, C-1963-427, C-1963-428, C-1963-430, C-1963-431, C-1963-433, C-1963-434, C-1963-435, C-1963436, C-1963-437, C-1963-439a, C-1963-442, C-1963-445, C-1963-448, C-1963-449, F 633 (M8), F 636 (M7), F 653, F 762, F 784 + fr., F 941 (M9), F 942, F 944, F 946, F 948, F 950, F 951, F 953, F 954, F 1110x, I 97, I 98, I 99, I 100, I 101, I 102, I 103, I 104, I 106, I 108, I 109, I 111, I 113, I 114, I 116, I 117, I 118, I 119 C-1963-102A (M20), C-1963-111B, C-1963-116B, C-1963-120A, C-1963-120B, C-1963-125B (M16), C-1963-129B, C-1963-131B, C-1963-134B, C-1963-135B, C-1963-136B, C-1963-147B (M14), C-1963-159B, C-1963-163A, C-1963-174B, C-1963-175A, C-1963-175B, C-1963-186B, C-1963-189A, C-1963-189B, C-1963-190B, C-1963-192B, C-1963-194A, C-1963-194B, C-1963-196B (B4), C-1963-197A, C-1963-197B, C-1963-198A, C-1963-198B, C-1963-200B, C-1963-202 + C-1963-266B, C-1963-205B, C-1963-206B, C-1963-207A, C-1963-207B, C-1963-215 / C-1963-268B, C-1963-219A, C-1963-219B, C-1963-220A, C-1963-220B, C-1963-221A, C-1963-221B, C-1963-223A, C-1963-223B, C-1963-228A, C-1963-232A, C-1963-232B, C-1963-237 / C-1963-387B (M17), C-1963-245B, C-1963-264B, C-1963-270A, C-1963-270B, C-1963-273A, C-1963-273B, C-1963-284A, C-1963-284B, C-1963-285B, C-1963-291A, C-1963-291B, C-1963-296A, C-1963-296B, C-1963297 / C-1963-151B (M18), C-1963-302A, C-1963-302B, C-1963-306A, C-1963-316A, C-1963-316B, C-1963-340 + C-1963-365A, C-1963-340 + C-1963-365B, C-1963-341A, C-1963-341B, C-1963-343A, C-1963-343B, C-1963-344B, C-1963-346A, C-1963-346B, C-1963-347A, C-1963-347B, C-1963-348A, C-1963-348B, C-1963-350B, C-1963-353B (M13), C-1963-356A, C-1963-356B, C-1963-367A, C-1963-367B, C-1963-368B,

dist r ib ut ion of t heme s Themes

Unclear

Totals

One- or Two-Sided

Total

Subtotal

378

two (cont.)

one

two

656 734

Total 1,390

Inv. Nos. (Cat. Nos.)

357

C-1963-374 / I 185B, C-1963-380 + C-1963-439 / C-1963-145B (M22), C-1963-392B, C-1963-404A, C-1963-404B, C-1963-406B, C-1963-408A, C-1963-408B, C-1963-412A, C-1963-412B, C-1963-413A, C-1963-413B, C-1963-421B, C-1963-432A, C-1963-432B, C-1963-438B, C-1963-440B, C-1963-444A, C-1963-444B, C-1963-446A, C-1963-446B, C-1963-447A, C-1963-447B, F 352B, F 357B, F 386B, F 392B, F 422 + F 908B, F 452 + 2 frr.B, F 506 / C-1963-171B, F 507 + F 729 + F 739 / C-1963-181 + C-1963199 + C-1963-225B, F 547B, F 577B, F 596B, F 644 + F 678B (M29), F 645 + fr.B (M30), F 655B, F 671B, F 699 / C-1963-247B, F 717B, F 718B, F 740B, F 743B, F 744B, F 825B, F 830B (M28), F 836B, F 837A, F 837B, F 899B, F 901B, F 925B, F 926B, F 933B, F 934A, F 934B, F 935 + F 936B, F 937B, F 938B, F 939A, F 939B, F 945A, F 945B, F 947A, F 947B, F 1115xA, F 1115xB, F 1122xA, F 1122xB, F 3380A, F 3380B, I 124B, I 125B, I 126B, I 127B, I 128B, I 130B, I 131B, I 132B, I 135B, I 136B, I 137B, I 138B, I 139B, I 142B, I 143B, I 144B, I 145B, I 146B, I 147B, I 148B, I 149B, I 153B, I 153A, I 153aB, I 156B, I 158B, I 160B, I 161B, I 162B, I 163B, I 166B, I 167B, I 168B, I 169B, I 170B, I 171B, I 172B (M19), I 174B, I 175A, I 175B, I 176B, I 177A, I 177B, I 178A, I 178B, I 179B (M21), I 180B, I 181A, I 181B, I 182A, I 182B, I 183A, I 183B, I 184A, I 184B, I 186A, I 186B, MNC 216B (B61)

Appendix I I I

Combination of Themes on Two-Sided Penteskouphia Pinakes

The following four pages present a table classifying the two-sided pinakes by the themes depicted on each side. The table should be read across facing pages, with themes on side A listed in the lefthand column (on pp. 360 and 362), and themes on side B listed across the top row (on pp. 360–361, repeated on pp. 362–363). Total counts of scenes on side A are presented in the righthand column (on pp. 361 and 363), while total counts of scenes on side B are presented in the bottom row of the table (pp. 362–363).

360

appendix III Theme on Side B

Theme on Side A

Poseidon

Poseidon-Related

No.

Inv. Nos.

PoseidonRelated

Poseidon 6

Inv. Nos.

1

F 788

No. Warriors

F 798, F 840

3 F 521 + F 796 + F 876 + fr. / C-1963-443, F 797, F 799 / C-1963-234 1

0

0

2

C-1963-110, C-1963-166

1

F 880

0

Other Figures 7

C-1963-124, C-1963-137, F 700, F 711 / F 820 / C-1963222 / C-1963-227, F 839, F 841, I 63 / C-1963-165

1

C-1963-141

9 C-1963-119, C-1963-292, F 597, F 772, F 903, F 905, F 916, I 129, MNB 2859

F 595

Inv. Nos.

Inv. Nos.

2

0

Inv. Nos.

No.

Equestrian

Warriors

1

F 3381

0

No.

Other Figures

2

F 411, F 659 + F 703 + fr., F 843 / F 752, C-1963-230, F 787 F 902, F 906 / C-1963-191, I 140

No. Poseidon/ Amphitrite

Poseidon/ Amphitrite

8

F 847, F 848, F 849, F 850, F 851, F 852, F 853, F 883

Equestrian 13

C-1963-132 + C-1963-325, F 503 + I 154, F 755 + F 789, F 790, F 791, F 792, F 793, F 794, F 795 + F 824, F 838 + fr., F 844, I 39 + I 155, I 120 3 F 828 + fr. (M27), F 861, I 157 2

F 599, I 150

6

7

C-1963-109, C-1963-233, F 704 / F 715, F 904, I 133, MNC 215

C-1963-184, F 664, F 679, F 873, F 881 (M26), F 897 + fr., I 159

6

7

C-1963-204, F 874, F 875, F 882, F 913 + fr., I 151

C-1963-149, F 855 + F 862, F 856, F 857, F 858, F 859, F 860

combinat ion of t heme s on t wo-sided pinake s

Animals 2

F 746 + F 747, I 122

1

Potters at Work 20

C-1963-231 (B30), F 414 (B34), F 524 + F 694 (B53), F 637 + F 819 (B26), F 667 + F 803 (B22), F 691 + F 808 + fr. (B21), F 773 + F 812 (B24), F 802 (B20), F 804 (B31), F 805 (B25), F 806 (B33), F 807 (B32), F 809 (B23), F 810 (B27), F 811 (B28), F 814 (B12), F 816 (B29), F 845 (B36), I 123 (B35), MNB 2856 (B19) 5 F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822 (B40), F 800 (B52), F 801 / C-1963-452 / F 517 (B51), F 827 (B38), F 890 + F 1111x (B39)

F 898

6 C-1963-127 / F 895, C-1963338, F 894, F 896, F 912 + I 121, MNC 214 3

C-1963-138, C-1963-148, C-1963-185 + C-1963-424 (M15)

4

C-1963-210, F 864, F 931, I 134

3

Work/Ships

Mythology

F 456 + F 815 (M12), F 817 (M11), F 818 + F 821, F 823, F 832, F 833

F 842, F 911, F 914 + 3 frr.

6

1

1

F 3924 + fr. F 834

0

1 F 915 / C-1963451

F 607 (B44), F 709 + fr. (B43), F 900 (B41) 4

3

0

0

20

Total 81

C-1963-192, C-1963-285, C-1963368, C-1963-406, C-1963-440, F 352, F 357, F 386, F 392, F 452 + 2 frr., F 506 + C-1963-171, F 644 + F 678 (M29), F 645 + fr. (M30), I 124, I 125, I 126, I 127, I 128, I 153, I 180

3

20

F 507 + F 729 + F 739 / C-1963-181 + C-1963-199 + C-1963-225, F 830 (M28), I 147 7

29

C-1963-135, F 596, F 699 / C-1963247, I 132, I 136, I 145, I 176 30

52

C-1963-116, C-1963-136, C-1963-147 (M14), C-1963-159, C-1963-202 + C-1963-266, C-1963-205, C-1963206, C-1963-297 / C-1963-151 (M18), C-1963-350, C-1963-353 (M13), C-1963-374 / I 185, C-1963-380 + C-1963-439 / C-1963-145 (M22), C-1963-421, C-1963-438, F 671, F 717, F 718, F 825, F 899, I 130, I 131, I 135, I 137, I 138, I 139, I 142, I 143, I 146, I 172 (M19), I 179 (M21)

F 846 (B42), F 886 (B14), F 893 (B57), I 141 (B45)

12

Unclear

361

1

C-1963-126 (B54), F 546 + F 866 (B49), F 555 (B55), F 631 (B56), F 714 + F 854 + F 872 (B7), F 863 + F 877 + F 879 + fr. I 152 (B46), F 865 + 2 frr. (B47), F 867 (B50), F 868 (B9), F 869 + F 716 (B10), F 870 (B11), F 871 (B1)

1

F 907 + fr.

22 C-1963-111, C-1963-129, C-1963134, C-1963-186, C-1963-190, C-1963-215 / C-1963-268, C-1963237 / C-1963-387 (M17), C-1963245, C-1963-344, C-1963-392, F 547, F 577, F 901, F 935 + F 936, F 938, I 144, I 156, I 158, I 160, I 161, I 162, I 163

61

362

appendix III Theme on Side B

Theme on Side A

Animals

Potters at Work

Work/Ships

Poseidon-Related

No.

Total

0

Warriors 0

Other Figures 0

Equestrian 2

F 732, F 738

No.

1

Inv. Nos.

F 813 (B62)

No.

0

0

1 F 884 (B63)

0

2

0

C-1963-195 (B16), F 889 (B59)

0

Inv. Nos.

1 F 651

1 F 835 / C-1963-450

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Inv. Nos. No.

Unclear

0

Poseidon/ Amphitrite

Inv. Nos.

No. Mythology

Poseidon

Inv. Nos.

C-1963-102 (M20), C-1963-306

9

3

17

34

35

combinat ion of t heme s on t wo-sided pinake s

Animals 18

Potters at Work 1

Work/Ships 0

Mythology 0

C-1963-123, F 745 / F 917, F 754, F 756, F 758, F 918 + 3 frr., F 919, F 920 / C-1963F 763 + fr. (B60) 139, F 921, F 922, F 923, F 924 + F 930, F 927, F 928, F 929 + F 3378, F 932, I 164, I 165 2

5

F 641 (B13), MNB 2857 (B8)

F 632 + F 887 (B17), F 885 (B15), F 891 (B18), F 892 (B3), MNB 2858 (B2)

0

3 F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963-250 + C-1963-251 (B6), F 616 (B58), F 831 (B5)

1

2

2

0

0

0

Total 38

2

14

C-1963-196 (B4), MNC 216 (B61) 1

0

0

4

10

C-1963-125 (M16), C-1963-264, F 655, F 836

F 888 0

3

6

F 422 + F 908, I 148, I 149 0

0

52

56

C-1963-120, C-1963-175, C-1963-189, C-1963-194, C-1963-197, C-1963-198, C-1963-207, C-1963-219, C-1963-220, C-1963-221, C-1963-223, C-1963-232, C-1963-270, C-1963-273, C-1963-284, C-1963-291, C-1963-296, C-1963302, C-1963-316, C-1963-340 + C-1963-365, C-1963-341, C-1963-343, C-1963-346, C-1963-347, C-1963-348, C-1963-356, C-1963-367, C-1963-404, C-1963-408, C-1963-412, C-1963-413, C-1963-432, C-1963-444, C-1963446, C-1963-447, F 837, F 934, F 939, F 945, F 947, F 1115x, F 1122x, F 3380, I 153a, I 175, I 177, I 178, I 181, I 182, I 183, I 184, I 186

C-1963-163, C-1963-228

39

17

C-1963-131, C-1963-174, C-1963200, F 740, F 743, F 744, F 925, F 926, F 933, F 937, I 166, I 167, I 168, I 169, I 170, I 171, I 174

F 619 + F 826 (B37), F 878 + F 909 (B48)

F 910

Unclear

363

55

9

6

160

367

appendix I V

Concordance of Inventory and Catalogue Numbers

For joins and associations between fragments, see Appendix I. Inv. No.

Cat. No.

Cor int h, Ar c haeol o g ic al Museum C-1963-102

M20

C-1963-125

M16

C-1963-126

B54

C-1963-145

M22

C-1963-147

Inv. No.

Cat. No.

C-1963-424

M15

C-1963-439

M22

C-1963-452

B51

Ber l in, Ant ikensammlung F 356

A10

M14

F 414

B34

C-1963-151

M18

F 456

M12

C-1963-185

M15

F 482

A7

C-1963-193

M10

F 517

B51

C-1963-195

B16

F 524

B53

C-1963-196

B4

F 539

M23

C-1963-203

B6

F 546

B49

C-1963-231

B30

F 555

B55

C-1963-237

M17

F 601

B6

C-1963-250

B6

F 607

B44

C-1963-251

B6

F 608

A5

C-1963-255

A32

F 609

A10

C-1963-297

M18

F 610

A8

C-1963-353

M13

F 611

A6

C-1963-380

M22

F 612

A11

C-1963-387

M17

F 613

A18

C-1963-409

A33

F 614

A15

C-1963-422

M2

F 615

A31

366 Inv. No.

appendix IV Cat. No.

Inv. No.

Cat. No.

F 616

B58

F 691

B21

F 617

A16

F 694

B53

F 618

A14

F 709

B43

F 619

B37

F 714

B7

F 620

A19

F 716

B10

F 621

M24

F 757

B40

F 622

A22

F 763

B60

F 623

A20

F 770

A34

F 624

M3

F 773

B24

F 625

M4

F 785

M25

F 626

A24

F 786

A3

F 627

A7

F 800

B52

F 628

A9

F 801

B51

F 629

M6

F 802

B20

F 630

M23

F 803

B22

F 631

B56

F 804

B31

F 632

B17

F 805

B25

F 633

M8

F 806

B33

F 634

A29

F 807

B32

F 635

A28

F 808

B21

F 636

M7

F 809

B23

F 637

B26

F 810

B27

F 638

A2

F 811

B28

F 639

A1

F 812

B24

F 640

A4

F 813

B62

F 641

B13

F 814

B12

F 642

M1

F 815

M12

F 643

A13

F 816

B29

F 644

M29

F 817

M11

F 645

M30

F 819

B26

F 666

A9

F 822

B40

F 667

B22

F 826

B37

F 672

A34

F 827

B38

F 673

A12

F 828

M27

F 678

M29

F 829

B40

F 683

B40

F 830

M28

F 684

A34

F 831

B5

inv entory and c atal o gue n umbers Inv. No.

Cat. No.

Inv. No.

367 Cat. No.

F 845

B36

I 92

M5

F 846

B42

I 123

B35

F 854

B7

I 141

B45

F 863

B46

I 172

M19

F 865

B47

I 173

B6

F 866

B49

I 179

M21

F 867

B50

F 868

B9

Par is, Musée d u Lo uv r e

F 869

MNB 2856

B19

B10

MNB 2857

B8

F 870

B11

MNB 2858

B2

F 871

B1

MNC 211

B6

F 872

B7

MNC 216

B61

F 877

B46

F 878

B48

F 879

B46

F 881

M26

F 884

B63

F 885

B15

F 886

B14

F 887

B17

F 889

B59

F 890

B39

F 891

B18

F 892

B3

F 893

B57

F 900

B41

F 909

B48

F 941

M9

F 943

A7

F 1111x

B39

I 74

A23

I 75

A27

I 76

A25

I 77

A21

I 78

A26

I 79

A17

I 80

A30

appendix V

Concordance of Inscribed Catalogued Pinakes with Epigraphical Corpora

Cat. No. A5

F 608

Inv. No.

A6

F 611

A9

F 628 + F 666

A7 A10 A11

A33 A34 B2 B4 B6 B19

B21

B22 B23

F 482 + F 627 + F 943 + fr. F 356 + F 609 F 612

C-1963-409

F 672 + F 684 + F 770 MNB 2858

C-1963-196

F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963250 + C-1963-251 MNB 2856

F 691 + F 808 + fr. F 667 + F 803

B40 B41

F 414 F 845

F 619 + F 826

F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822 F 900

B42

F 846

B52

F 800

B43

COP 48B

234

–

–

F 709 + fr.

285

–

–

COP 81

332

–

–

COP 83

287 + 327

–

–

–

–

COP 10 COP 84B COP 62

328

282

322

–

–

p. 61 –

– – –

316, 318 –

p. 60

COP 67

341

–

–

COP 38B

231

–

–

COP 29

218, 225

COP 95

337

–

–

COP 66 COP 43 COP 23 COP 59

–

–

COP 65

COP 28

F 804

B37

Other

COP 84A

F 811

B31 B36

Von Raits 1964

COP 73N

F 805

B34

IG IV

F 809

B25 B28

Wachter 2001

– –

–

–

pers. obs.

292

–

–

306

–

–

319 315 271 296

–

– – – – –

–

– – – – –

COP 63

313

–

–

COP 90A

340

–

–

COP 88

323

–

–

COP 18 –

245 –

– –

– pers. obs.

370 Cat. No. B53

appendix V Inv. No.

F 524 + F 694

B55

F 555

M6

F 629

B61 M9

M10

MNC 216 F 941

C-1963-193

Wachter 2001

IG IV

Von Raits 1964

Other

COP 78

314

–

–

COP 2A

COP 90C

M28

240

–

–

–

–

p. 60

–

–

M27

–

p. 60

C-1963-297 / C-1963-151

M23

–

–

M18

C-1963-380 + C-1963-439 / C-1963-145

–

–

–

M22

–

308

COP 52

C-1963-147

C-1963-185 + C-1963-424

–

COP 64

M14 M15

222

–

– –

–

p. 60 p. 61

–

– –

–

–

–

pers. obs.

F 539 + F 630

COP 35

227

–

–

F 830

COP 82

335

–

–

F 828 + fr.

COP 37

295

–

–

Note: Sources are Wachter 2001, IG IV (1902), von Raits 1964, and personal observation (“pers. obs.”).

Appendix VI

Concordance of Inventory Numbers with Epigraphical Corpora

Wachter 2001

IG IV

Von Raits 1964

Other

C-1963-130

–

–

p. 60

–

C-1963-147 (M14)

–

–

p. 60

–

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

Cor int h, Ar c haeol o g ic al Museum C-1963-132 + C-1963-325 C-1963-149

C-1963-154 / C-1963-290 C-1963-170

C-1963-178

C-1963-185 + C-1963-424* (M15)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

p. 60

p. 60

p. 61

p. 60

p. 60

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

p. 60

–

C-1963-193 (M10)

–

–

p. 60

–

C-1963-201

–

–

p. 60

–

C-1963-196* (B4)

C-1963-215 / C-1963-268 C-1963-216

C-1963-235

C-1963-244 + C-1963-382 C-1963-270

C-1963-291

C-1963-297 / C-1963-151 (M18)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

p. 60

p. 60

p. 60

p. 60

p. 61

p. 61

p. 61

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

p. 61

–

–

–

–

pers. obs.

–

–

p. 61

–

F 348

COP 40

232

–

–

F 355

COP 73I

290

–

–

C-1963-380 + C-1963-439 / C-1963-145* (M22) C-1963-409 (A33)

Ber l in, Ant ikensammlung F 349

F 356 + F 609 (A10)

COP 71

COP 83

277

287 + 327

– –

– –

372

appendix VI Wachter 2001

IG IV

Von Raits 1964

Other

F 370

COP 73H

291

–

–

F 373 + F 415 + F 423

COP 38A

230

–

COP 53

250

–

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

F 368*

F 371 + 2 frr. / F 1107x F 375

F 376 + 2 frr. F 377 F 378

F 383 + F 419 F 388

COP 47 –

COP 73B

COP 73A

COP 16

COP 31

COP 75

COP 43

F 416

COP 73C

F 420

COP 51A

F 434

F 437 F 453

F 454 + F 476 F 457

COP 73E COP 8

COP 32

COP 96

COP 97B

COP 97A COP 1C COP 3

COP 97F

F 461

COP 73O

F 467 / C-1963-144

COP 57J

F 475

COP 68

F 480

COP 69B

F 464

F 468 + F 949 + fr. F 477 + F 479 F 481

F 482 + F 627 + F 943 + fr. (A7) F 483

F 484

F 485 + F 765

–

–

COP 11

F 425

–

–

–

F 412 + F 417

F 424 + F 429*

–

–

217

COP 57D

F 422 + F 908

–

COP 4

COP 33

F 394 + F 421

F 418

pers. obs.

–

COP 46

F 414* (B34)

283

–

–

F 391

F 403 + F 405 + F 490 + fr.

284

–

258

COP 73D

F 392

–

–

COP 57I

F 389

F 390 + fr.

320

COP 27 COP 7

COP 20

COP 93

309

274

221

317

226 251

263

210

315

279

286 243

237

311

342

344 343

214

211

275 293

278

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

– –

–

–

– –

–

259

p. 60

299

–

229

246

300

324

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

– –

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

COP 81

332

–

–

COP 55

242

–

–

COP 44

265

–

–

COP 69A

298

–

–

inv entory n umbers w it h epig raphic al cor p ora Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

F 486

F 487

F 488 + F 492

Wachter 2001

IG IV

Von Raits 1964

Other

COP 6

301

–

–

COP 70

COP 74

F 495 + F 513

COP 2C

F 497 + F 527

COP 72

F 496 + F 940 + fr. F 500

F 507 + F 729 + F 739 / C-1963-181 + C-1963199 + C-1963-225

373

COP 42

COP 13

294

281

224

264

280

219

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

COP 57G

–

p. 60

pers. obs.

F 508 + 2 frr.

COP 56

248

–

–

F 514 + F 515

COP 73G

289

–

–

F 511 / MNC 212 F 524 + F 694 (B53) F 525

F 529

F 530 + F 558

COP 41

222

–

COP 22

262

–

COP 19

COP 12

COP 57C

F 544

COP 92

F 552

F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112 F 555* (B55)

COP 35

COP 15

COP 39

COP 78

F 557

COP 48A

F 567

COP 54

F 565

F 569

F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963250 + C-1963-251 (B6)

–

COP 2A

F 531

F 539 + F 630 (M23)

244

COP 79

COP 80

247

236

252

227

305

220

312

314

235

331

336 –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

COP 67

341

–

–

F 608 (A5)

COP 84A

285

–

–

F 612* (A11)

COP 84B

282

–

–

F 611 (A6)

F 619 + F 826 (B37) F 628 + F 666 (A9) F 629 (M6) F 662

F 667 + F 803* (B22)

F 672 + F 684 + F 770 (A34) F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822 (B40)

F 691 + F 808 + fr.* (B21) F 701 + F 706 + 2 frr.

COP 48B COP 59

COP 10

COP 64

COP 86

234

296

328

308

333

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

COP 29

218, 225

COP 63

313

–

–

–

–

–

pers. obs.

COP 62

COP 51B

322

241

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

374 Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

F 709 + fr. (B43) F 764

F 784 + fr.

F 800* (B52)

appendix VI Wachter 2001

IG IV

Von Raits 1964

Other

COP 77

268

–

–

COP 88

COP 45 –

323

233 –

F 804 (B31)

COP 66

319

F 809 (B23)

COP 73N

292

F 825

COP 73F

F 805 (B25)

F 811 (B28) F 828 + fr. (M27) F 830 (M28)

COP 95

COP 28

COP 37

COP 82

F 834

COP 1A

F 840

COP 73L

F 838 + fr. F 842

F 844

F 845* (B36)

F 846* (B42) F 873* F 882

COP 85

COP 57K COP 14

COP 23

COP 18

COP 61

COP 25

F 900 (B41)

COP 90A

F 912 + I 121

COP 58

F 911

F 937* F 938

F 939*

F 941 (M9) F 942

F 944

COP 76

COP 91

COP 90B COP 60

COP 52

COP 94

COP 57A

337 306

288

295

335 212

329

276

310

216

271

245

326

303 340

267

266

302

334

304

240

330 253

–

–

–

–

–

pers. obs.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

F 945

COP 73M

273

–

–

F 947*

COP 57B

255

–

–

F 950

COP 1D

F 946

F 948

F 951

F 952

F 953

F 954*

F 955 / C-1963-152 F 3921

I 6 + I 15

COP 1B

COP 57F COP 87

COP 21

COP 73K COP 57E COP 9

COP 73J

COP 57M

213

256 215

339

261

270

254

–

– –

–

–

–

–

238

p. 60

260

–

272

–

–

– –

–

–

–

–

–

– –

inv entory n umbers w it h epig raphic al cor p ora Wachter 2001

IG IV

Von Raits 1964

I 13

–

–

–

I 17 / C-1963-441

–

–

p. 61

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

I 18

COP 30

307

I 37

COP 97D

–

–

I 60

COP 57H

257

–

I 117

COP 17

I 33

I 39 + I 155 I 116

I 118

I 119

I 144

COP 57L

MNB 2858 (B2) MNC 206

MNC 208

COP 50

249

COP 26

325

COP 24

COP 97E

269 –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

– –

– –

–

–

–

–

COP 38B

231

–

–

228

–

–

COP 65

316, 318

COP 5

297

COP 36

COP 2B

MNC 216 (B61)

COP 90C

COP 49

223

239 –

–

Pernice 1897, p. 42

338

MNC 209

MNC 210

321

–

Other

COP 89

Par is, Musée d u Lo uv r e MNB 2856 (B19)

–

–

375

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Note: Sources are Wachter 2001, IG IV (1902), von Raits 1964, Pernice 1897, and personal observation (“pers. obs.”). Graffiti inscriptions are indicated with an asterisk.

appendix VI I

Concordance of IG IV Entries and Inventory Numbers

IG IV 210

Von Raits 1964

Wachter 2001

–

COP 3

–

211

212

213

215

216

218, 225 219

221

223

227

228

229

F 834

–

COP 1C

COP 1D

–

COP 4

COP 14

–

COP 29

–

COP 15

COP 13

COP 16

F 388

F 667 + F 803* (B22) F 500

F 552

F 390 + fr.

COP 31

F 392

–

COP 36

MNC 206

–

–

COP 35 COP 7

–

COP 38B

233

–

COP 45

237

F 844

–

231

236

F 950

COP 2C

COP 38A

235

F 453

–

COP 2B

–

234

F 946

COP 2A

230 232

F 454 + F 476

–

–

see 218

COP 1B

–

–

222

226

COP 1A

–

220

225

–

–

217

224

F 412 + F 417

–

214

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

COP 11

–

–

COP 40

COP 48B

–

COP 48A

–

COP 8

–

COP 12

F 524 + F 694 (B53) MNC 209

F 495 + F 513

F 539 + F 630 (M23) F 468 + F 949 + fr. F 373 + F 415 + F 423

MNB 2856 (B19) F 348

F 784 + fr.

F 611 (A6) F 557

F 530 + F 558

F 422 + F 908

378 IG IV 238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

appendix VII Von Raits 1964

Wachter 2001

–

COP 49

–

COP 51B

–

COP 51A

–

COP 18

p. 60 –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

COP 9

F 955 / C-1963-152

COP 52

F 941 (M9)

COP 55

COP 41

COP 20

COP 19

COP 56

COP 50

COP 53

–

COP 57D

–

COP 57A

–

–

–

–

COP 57C COP 57E COP 57B COP 57F

–

COP 57H

–

COP 57J

–

COP 57I

–

COP 57M

–

COP 22

–

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

COP 21

MNC 210

F 701 + F 706 + 2 frr. F 483

F 420

F 511 / MNC 212 F 846* (B42)

F 477 + F 479 F 525

F 508 + 2 frr. I 39 + I 155

F 376 + 2 frr.

F 394 + F 421 F 531

F 944

F 954*

F 947* F 948 I 60

F 378

F 467 / C-1963-144 I 6 + I 15 F 952

F 529

F 403 + F 405 + F 490 + fr.

263

–

COP 75

264

–

COP 42

F 496 + F 940 + fr.

266

–

COP 58

F 912 + I 121

265

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

–

–

–

–

COP 44

COP 76

COP 77

COP 24

–

COP 73K

–

COP 73J

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

COP 23

COP 73M COP 73D COP 97F

COP 73L COP 71

COP 27

COP 73C

F 485 + F 765 F 911

F 764 I 118

F 953

F 845* (B36) F 3921 F 945

F 389

F 457

F 840

F 349

F 464

F 416

ig

IV ent r ie s and inv entory n umbers

IG IV 280

Von Raits 1964

Wachter 2001

–

COP 74

–

281

282

–

283

284

285

286

288

290

292

–

COP 83

294

296

COP 73H

–

COP 73O

–

COP 37

–

298

299

301

303

305

COP 91

–

COP 60

–

308

–

309

–

310

COP 5

–

–

307

COP 59

COP 69B

–

306

COP 70

–

–

304

COP 73N

COP 69A

–

302

COP 73I

–

–

300

COP 73F

–

–

297

COP 73E

COP 73G

–

295

COP 73B

–

–

293

F 612* (A11)

COP 84A

–

291

COP 84B

–

–

289

F 497 + F 527

COP 73A

–

287 + 327

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

COP 72

–

–

379

COP 68 COP 6

COP 25

COP 92

COP 28

COP 30

COP 64

COP 33

F 488 + F 492 F 377

F 375

F 608 (A5) F 418

F 356 + F 609 (A10) F 825

F 514 + F 515 F 355

F 370

F 809 (B23) F 461

F 486

F 828 + fr. (M27)

F 619 + F 826 (B37) MNC 208 F 484

F 475

F 480

F 487

F 937* F 882

F 939* F 544

F 811 (B28) I 18

F 629 (M6)

F 383 + F 419

–

COP 57K

312

–

COP 39

313

–

COP 63

314

–

COP 78

F 555* (B55)

316, 318

–

COP 65

MNB 2858 (B2)

311

–

315

317

318 319

320

–

see 316

– –

–

COP 32

COP 43

COP 46 COP 66

COP 47

F 842

F 424 + F 429*

F 554 + F 582 / C-1963-112

F 683 + F 757 + F 829 / F 822 (B40) F 414* (B34) F 391

F 804 (B31) F 368*

380 IG IV

appendix VII Von Raits 1964

Wachter 2001

322

–

COP 62

323

–

COP 88

F 709 + fr. (B43)

325

–

COP 26

I 116

321

–

324

326

327 328

329

330

331

–

see 287

–

COP 17

COP 93

COP 61

COP 94

F 942

–

COP 85

COP 79

–

COP 86

335

–

339

340

–

COP 90B

–

COP 54

–

–

–

COP 82

COP 95

COP 89

COP 87

–

COP 90A

341

–

COP 67

342

–

COP 96

344

–

343

345

F 873*

–

–

333

338

F 481

F 628 + F 666 (A9)

COP 81

337

F 672 + F 684 + F 770 (A34)

COP 10

–

336

I 117

–

332 334

Inv. No. (Cat. No.)

–

COP 97A

–

COP 97C

COP 97B

F 838 + fr. F 565

F 482 + F 627 + F 943 + fr. (A7) F 662

F 938

F 830 (M28) F 567

F 805 (B25) I 144

F 951

F 900 (B41)

F 601 / I 173 / MNC 211 / C-1963-203 / C-1963-250 + C-1963-251 (B6) F 425

F 437

F 434

Berlin, Antikensamm­ lung no inv. no.

Note: Sources are IG IV (1902), von Raits 1964, and Wachter 2001. Graffiti inscriptions are indicated with an asterisk.

R EF ER EN C E S

Acton, P. H. 2014. Poiesis: Manufacturing in Classical Athens, Oxford. Adshead, K. 1986. Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese: The Transition from Archaic to Classical Politics, Aldershot. Agora = The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Tal­ cott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries b.c., 1970. XIX = G. V. Lalonde, M. K. Langdon, and M. B. Walbank, Inscriptions: Horoi, Poletai Records, Leases of Public Lands, 1991. XXXIII = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares, 2006. Alexandridou, A. 2011. The Early BlackFigure Pottery of Attika in Context (c. 630-570 b.c.e.) (Monumenta Graeca et Romana 17), Leiden. Allan, J. W. 1973. “Abū‘l-Qāsim’s Treatise on Ceramics,” Iran 11, pp. 111–120. Alroth, B. 1987. “Visiting Gods—Who and Why?” in Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas 15), ed. T. Linders and G. Nordquist, Uppsala, pp. 9–19. ———. 1988. “The Positioning of Greek Votive Figurines,” in Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June, 1986 (ActaAth 4º, 38), ed. R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G. C. Nordquist, Stockholm, pp. 195–203.

Amyx, D. A. 1988. Corinthian VasePainting of the Archaic Period (California Studies in the History of Art 25), 3 vols., Berkeley. Anagnostopoulou-Chatzipolychroni, E. 2013. “Υστεροαρχαϊκοί κλίβανοι στην αρχαία Μένδη (Late Archaic Pottery Kilns in Ancient Mendi),” in Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean, pp. 51–68. Andreades, M. X. 2007. Η Κορινθία τον 19º αιώνα 4: 1873–1900, Athens. AntDenk = Antike Denkmäler, 4 vols., Berlin 1891–1929. Arafat, K., and C. Morgan. 1989. “Pots and Potters in Athens and Corinth: A Review,” OJA 8, pp. 311–346. Aravantinos, V. L. 2014. “The Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of Herakles at Thebes: An Overview,” in The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy 4), ed. N. Papa­zarkadas, Leiden, pp. 149–210. Arnold, D. E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge. ———. 2005. “Linking Society with the Compositional Analyses of Pottery: A Model from Comparative Ethnography,” in Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. Actes du XIV ème Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège, Belgique, 2–8 septembre 2001 = Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001, ed. A. Livingstone Smith, D. Bosquet, and R. Martineau (BAR-IS 1349), Oxford, pp. 15–21.

382 Arnold, D., J. Bourriau, and H.-Å. Nordström. 1993. An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 17), Mainz. Arvanitaki, A. 2006. Ήρωας και πόλη: Το παράδειγμα του Ηρακλή στην αρχαϊκή εικονογραφία της Κορίνθου, Thessaloniki. Arvanitou-Metallinou, G. 1996–1998. “Ειδήσεις από τη βόρεια νεκρόπολη της αρχαίας Κέρκυρας,” AAA 29–31, pp. 11–34. Athenian Potters and Painters = J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, eds., Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings (Oxbow Monograph 67), Oxford 1997. Bakir, T. 1974. Der Kolonnettenkrater in Korinth und Attika zwischen 625 und 550 v. Chr. (Beiträge zur Archäologie 7), Würzburg. Basch, L. 1987. Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique, Athens. Baumbach, J. D. 2004. The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in the Peloponnese, Ionia, and Western Greece (BAR-IS 1249), Oxford. Baumer, L. E. 2004. Kult im Kleinen: Ländliche Heiligtümer spätarchaischer bis hellenistischer Zeit: Attika–Arkadien–Argolis–Kynouria (Internationale Archäologie 81), Rahden. Baziotopoulou-Valavani, E. 1994. “Ανασκαφές σε αθηναϊκά κεραμικά εργαστήρια των αρχαϊκών και κλασικών χρόνων,” in The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy. Proceedings of an International Conference Celebrating 2500 Years since the Birth of Democracy in Greece, Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 4–6, 1992 (Oxbow Monograph 37), ed. W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear Jr., H. A. Shapiro, and F. J. Frost, Oxford, pp. 45–54. Beazley, J. D. 1932. “Little-Master Cups,” JHS 52, pp. 167–204. ———. 1951. The Development of Attic Black-Figure (Sather Classical Lectures 24), Berkeley. ———. 1989. “Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens,” in Greek Vases: Lectures by J. D. Beazley, ed. D. C. Kurtz, Oxford, pp. 39–59.

Ref er enc e s Bechtel, F. 1917. Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Halle. Bejaoui, F. 1997. Céramique et religion chrétienne: Les thèmes bibliques sur la sigillée africaine, Tunis. Benndorf, O. 1868. Griechische und sicilische Vasenbilder, Berlin. Benson, J. L. 1953. Die Geschichte der korinthischen Vasen, Basel. Bentz, M., W. A. Geominy, and J. M. Müller. 2010. TonArt: Virtuosität antiker Töpfertechnik, Petersberg. Berg, I. 2015. “Potting Skill and Learning Networks in Bronze Age Crete,” in The Transmission of Technical Knowledge in the Production of Ancient Mediterranean Pottery. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Athens, 23rd–25th November 2012 (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 54), ed. W. Gauss, G. Klebinder-Gauss, and C. von Rüden, Vienna, pp. 17–34. Bergamini, M., ed. 2011. Scoppieto II: I materiali (monete, ceramica a vernice nera, ceramica a pareti sottili, ceramica di importazione africana, anfore, manufatti e strumenti funzionali alla lavorazione dell’argilla e alla cottura, pesi da telaio, vetro, osso lavorato, metalli, sculture, materiale epigrafico), Florence. Besios, M. 2013. “Κεραμικά εργαστήρια Μεθώνης (Pottery Workshops of Methoni),” in Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean, pp. 89–92. Betz, H. D., ed. 1986. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, Chicago. Bishop, R. L., R. L. Rands, and G. R. Holley. 1982. “Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective,” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5, pp. 275–330. Blakely, S. 2006. Myth, Ritual, and Metallurgy in Ancient Greece and Recent Africa, Cambridge. Blakely Westover, S. 1998. “Daimones, Metallurgy, and Cult” (diss. Univ. of Southern California). ———. 1999. “Smelting and Sacrifice: Comparative Analysis of Greek and Near Eastern Cult Sites from the Late Bronze through the Classi-

Ref er enc e s cal Periods,” in Metals in Antiquity, ed. S. M. M. Young, A. M. Pollard, P. Budd, and R. A. Ixer (BAR-IS 792), Oxford, pp. 86–90. Blitzer, H. 1990. “ΚΟΡΩΝΕΪΚΑ: Storage-Jar Production and Trade in the Traditional Aegean,” Hesperia 59, pp. 675–711. Blomberg, P. E. 1996. On Corinthian Iconography: The Bridled Winged Horse and the Helmeted Female Head in the Sixth Century b.c. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas 25), Uppsala. Boardman, J. 1954. “Painted Votive Plaques and an Early Inscription from Aegina,” BSA 49, pp. 183–201. ———. 1956. “Some Attic Fragments: Pot, Plaque, and Dithyramb,” JHS 76, pp. 18–25. ———. 2001. The History of Greek Vases: Potters, Painters, and Pictures, London. Boegehold, A. L. 1992. “Two Graffiti from Ancient Corinth,” Hesperia 61, pp. 409–412. Böhr, E. 2002. “Vorzeichnungen,” in Vasenforschung und Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven (Beihefte zum Corpus vasorum antiquorum 1), ed. M. Bentz, Munich, pp. 43–50. Bolmarcich, S., and G. Muskett. 2017. “Artists’ Signatures on Archaic Greek Vases from Athens,” in Artists and Artistic Production in Ancient Greece, ed. K. Seaman and P. Schultz, Cambridge, pp. 154–176. Bookidis, N. 2000. “Corinthian Terracotta Sculpture and the Temple of Apollo,” Hesperia 69, pp. 381–452. ———. 2003. “The Sanctuaries of Corinth,” in Corinth XX, pp. 247– 259. ———. 2005. “Religion in Corinth: 146 b.c.e. to 100 c.e.,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (Harvard Theological Studies 53), ed. D. N. Schowalter and S. J. Friesen, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 141–164. Boss, M. 1992. “Vorzeichnungen auf Vasen der ‘Pioneer-Group,’” in Euphronios und seine Zeit: Kolloquium in Berlin 19./20. April 1991 anlässlich der Ausstellung Euphronios, der Maler, ed. I. Wehgartner, Berlin, pp. 81–89. ———. 1997. “Preliminary Sketches on Attic Red-Figured Vases of

the Early Fifth Century b.c.,” in Athenian Potters and Painters, pp. 345–351. Bouma, J. W. 1996. “Religio Votiva: The Archaeology of Latial Votive Religion. The 5th–3rd c. b.c. Votive Deposit Southwest of the Main Temple at ‘Satricum’ Borgo Le Ferriere,” (diss. Univ. of Groningen). Brandes-Druba, B. 1994. Architekturdarstellungen in der unteritalischen Keramik, Frankfurt. Brann, E. 1956. “A Well of the ‘Corinthian’ Period Found in Corinth,” Hesperia 25, pp. 350–374. Bremmer, J. N. 1987. “‘Effigies Dei’ in Ancient Greece: Poseidon,” in Effigies Dei: Essays on the History of Religions (Studies in the History of Religions 51), ed. D. van der Plas, Leiden, pp. 35–41. Brijder, H. A. G., ed. 1984. Ancient Greek and Related Pottery. Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam, 12–15 April 1984 (Allard Pierson Series 5), Amsterdam. Brock, R. 1994. “The Labour of Women in Classical Athens,” CQ 44, pp. 336–346. Brommer, F. 1978. Hephaistos: Der Schmiedegott in der antiken Kunst, Mainz. Broneer, O. 1959. “Excavations at Isthmia: Fourth Campaign, 1957–1958,” Hesperia 28, pp. 298–343. Brooklyn, J. P. 1981. “Attic BlackFigure Funerary Plaques” (diss. Univ. of Iowa). Brownlee, A. B. 2003. “Workshops in the Potters’ Quarter,” in Corinth XX, pp. 181–194. Buck, C. D. 1910. Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects: Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary, Boston. Burford, A. 1972. Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society, London. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. J. Raffan, Oxford. ———. 1987. “Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange,” in Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas 15), ed. T. Linders and G. Nordquist, Uppsala, pp. 43–50. Bushell, S. W. 1910. Description of Chinese Pottery and Porcelain: Being a Translation of the T’ao Shuo, Oxford.

383 Bynum, M. R. 1995. “Studies in the Topography of the Southern Corinthia” (diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley). CALG = M. Berthelot and C.-E. Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs, Paris 1888. Callipolitis-Feytmans, D. 1977. “Sur l’origine du cratère à colonnettes,” BCH 101, pp. 235–239. Camp, J. McK., II. 2004. “Athenian Cobblers and Heroes,” in Greek Art in View: Essays in Honour of Brian Sparkes, ed. S. Keay and S. Moser, pp. 129–137, Oxford. Carter, J. C. 1983. “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Pizzica Pantanello, 1974–1976,” in Metaponto II (NSc Suppl. 31), Rome, pp. 407– 490. Cartledge, P. 2000. “‘To Poseidon the Driver’: An Arkado-Lakonian Ram Dedication,” in Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, and A. M. Snodgrass, London, pp. 60–67. Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton. Catling, H. W. 1980. “Sparta: Menelaion,” ArchDelt 35, Β′1 (1988), pp. 153–157. Chadwick, J. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Chatzidakis, P. 2004. “Τα μαγειρικά σκεύη στους αρχαίους Έλληνες κωμωδιογράφους και στη Δήλο,” in ΣΤ′ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική, Βόλος 17–23 Απρίλιου, Athens, pp. 641–654. Chatzidimitriou, A. 2005. Παραστάσεις εργαστηρίων και εμπορίου στην εικονογραφία των αρχαϊκών και κλασικών χρόνων (Publications of ArchDelt 92), Athens. ———. 2014. “Craftsmen and Manual Workers in Attic Vase-Painting of the Archaic and Classical Period,” in Corps, travail et statut social: L’apport de la paléoanthropologie funéraire aux sciences historiques, ed. A.-C. Gillis, Lille, pp. 63–93. Chatzipouliou-Kalliri, E. 1978. “Λείψανα πρωτοελλαδικοῦ καὶ μεσοελλαδικοῦ οἰκισμοῦ στὸ λόφο Ἀετόπετρα: Πρῶτα ἀποτελέσματα δοκιμαστικῆς ἀνασκαφικῆς

384 ἔρευνας,” ArchDelt 33, Α′ (1984),

pp. 325–336. Childe, V. G. 1954. “Rotary Motion,” in A History of Technology I: From Early Times to Fall of Ancient Empires, ed. C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, and A. R. Hall, Oxford, pp. 187–215. Choleva, M. 2012. “The First Wheelmade Pottery at Lerna: WheelThrown or Wheel-Fashioned?” Hesperia 81, pp. 343–381. Clark, A. J., M. Elston, and M. L. Hart. 2002. Understanding Greek Vases: A Guide to Terms, Styles, and Techniques, Los Angeles. Cloché, P. 1931. Les classes, les métiers, le trafic (La vie publique et privée des anciens Grecs 5), Paris. Clunas, G. 1984. Chinese Export Watercolours, London. Colace, P. R., and M. I. Gulletta. 1997. Lexicon vasorum graecorum 2 (Pubblicazioni della Classe di lettere e filosofia, Scuola normale superiore, Pisa 16), Pisa. Coldstream, J. N., and C. F. MacDonald. 1997. “Knossos: Area of South-West Houses, Early Hellenic Occupation,” BSA 92, pp. 191–245. Collignon, M. M. 1886. “Tablettes votives de terre cuite peinte trouvées à Corinthe (Musée du Louvre),” in Monuments grecs, publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France II.18, Paris, pp. 23–32. Combès, J. L., and A. Louis. 1967. Les potiers de Djerba (Publication du Centre des arts et traditions populaires 1), Tunis. Consoli, V. 2004. “Atena Ergane: Sorgere di un culto sull’Acropoli di Atene,” ASAtene 82, pp. 31–59. Cook, R. M. 1948. “Notes on the Homeric Epigram to the Potters,” CR 62, pp. 55–57. ———. 1951. “The Homeric Epigram to the Potters,” CR 65, p. 9. ———. 1959. “Die Bedeutung der bemalten Keramik für den griechischen Handel,” JdI 74, pp. 114–123. ———. 1961. “The ‘Double Stoking Tunnel’ of Greek Kilns,” BSA 56, pp. 64–67. ———. 1984. “The Calke Wood Kiln,” in Brijder 1984, pp. 63–66. ———. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery, 3rd ed., London.

Ref er enc e s Cooney, K. M. 2012. “Apprenticeship and Figured Ostraca from the Ancient Egyptian Village of Deir el-Medina,” in Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice, ed. W. Wendrich, Tucson, pp. 145–170. Corbett, P. E. 1965. “Preliminary Sketch in Greek Vase-Painting,” JHS 85, pp. 16–28. Corinth = Corinth: The Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens I.1 = H. N. Fowler and R. Stillwell, Introduction, Topography, Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., 1932. III.2 = R. Carpenter and A. Bon, The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town, Cambridge, Mass., 1936. IV.2 = O. Broneer, Terracotta Lamps, Cambridge, Mass., 1930. VII.1 = S. S. Weinberg, The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery, Cambridge, Mass., 1943. VII.2 = D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence, Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well, Princeton 1975. VII.5 = M. K. Risser, Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery, Princeton 2001. VIII.3 = J. H. Kent, The Inscriptions, 1926–1950, Princeton 1966. XI = C. H. Morgan II, The Byzantine Pottery, Cambridge, Mass., 1942. XII = G. R. Davidson, The Minor Objects, Princeton 1952. XIII = C. W. Blegen, H. Palmer, and R. S. Young, The North Cemetery, Princeton 1964. XIV = C. Roebuck, The Asklepi­ eion and Lerna, Princeton 1951. XV.1 = A. N. Stillwell, The Potters’ Quarter, Princeton 1948. XV.2 = A. N. Stillwell, The Potters’ Quarter: The Terracottas, Princeton 1952. XV.3 = A. N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, The Potters’ Quarter: The Pottery, Princeton 1984. XVIII.1 = E. G. Pemberton, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery, Princeton 1989. XVIII.3 = N. Bookidis and R. S. Stroud, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Topography and Architecture, Princeton 1997.

Ref er enc e s XVIII.4 = G. S. Merker, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods, Princeton 2000. XVIII.5 = N. Bookidis, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Terracotta Sculpture, Princeton 2010. XVIII.6 = R. S. Stroud, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Inscriptions, Princeton 2013. XVIII.8 = S. Klinger, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Miscellaneous Finds of Terracotta, Princeton 2021. XX = C. K. Williams II and N. Bookidis, eds., Corinth, the Centenary: 1896–1996, Princeton 2003. Costin, C. L. 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production,” Archaeological Method and Theory 3, pp. 1–56. Coulié, A. 2013. La céramique grecque aux époques géométrique et orientalisante (XIe–VIe siècle av. J.-C.), Paris. Coulson, W. D., G. C. Gesell, and L. P. Day. 1987. “Καβούσι,” ArchDelt 42, Β′2 (1992), pp. 581–582. Courty, M. A., and V. Roux. 1995. “Identification of Wheel Throwing on the Basis of Ceramic Surface Features and Microfabrics,” JAS 22, pp. 17–50. Cracolici, V. 2003. I sostegni di fornace dal kerameikos di Metaponto (Beni archeologici: Conoscenza e tecnologie 3), Bari. Cristofani, M., M. G. Marzi, and A. Perissinotto. 1981. Materiali per servire alla storia del Vaso François (BdA, serie speciale 1), Rome. Crosby, M. 1950. “The Leases of the Laureion Mines,” Hesperia 19, pp. 189–312. ———. 1957. “More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 26, pp. 1–23. Cummer, W. 1978. “The Sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, Lakonia,” AM 93, pp. 35–43. Cuomo di Caprio, N. 1971–1972. “Proposta di classificazione delle fornaci per ceramica e laterizi nell’area italiana dalla preistoria a tutta l’epoca romana,” Sibrium 11, pp. 371–464. ———. 1978–1979. “Updraught Pottery Kilns and Tile Kilns in Italy in Pre-Roman and Roman Times,”

Acta praehistorica et archaeologica 9/10, pp. 23–31. ———. 1984. “Pottery Kilns on Pinakes from Corinth,” in Brijder 1984, pp. 72–82. ———. 2007. Ceramica in archeologia 2: Antiche tecniche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine (StArch 144), 2nd edition, Rome. ———. 2017. Ceramics in Archaeology: From Prehistoric to Medieval Times in Europe and the Mediterranean: Ancient Craftsmanship and Modern Laboratory Techniques (Manuali l’Erma 2), Rome. Curbera, J. B., and D. R. Jordan. 1998. “A Curse Tablet from the ‘Industrial District’ near the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 67, pp. 215–218. D’Agostino, B., and M. G. Palmieri. 2016. “Potters, Hippeis, and Gods at Penteskouphia (Corinth), Seventh to Sixth Centuries b.c.,” in The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass, ed. J. Bintliff and K. Rutter, Edinburg, pp. 155–182. Dakaris, S., I. Vokotopoulou, A.-P. Christides, S. Tselikas, and G. K. Papadopoulos. 2013. Τα χρηστήρια ελάσματα της Δωδώνης των ανασκαφών Δ. Ευαγγελίδη (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 285–286), Athens. Daumas, M. 2000. “La représentation d’un atelier de potier du Cabirion de Thèbes sur un skyphos béotien?” in Ἀγαθὸς δαίμων: Mythes et cultes: Études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahil (BCH Suppl. 38), ed. P. Linant de Bellefonds, Athens, pp. 117–123. Daux, G. 1965. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1964,” BCH 89, pp. 683– 1007. Davaras, C. 1973a. “Μινωικὴ κεραμεικὴ κάμινος εἰς Στῦλον Χανίων,” ArchEph 1973, pp. 75-80. ———. 1973b. “Κεραμεικὴ κάμινος εἰς Ἴστρωνα Ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 28, Α′ (1975), pp. 110–115. ———. 1980. “A Minoan Pottery Kiln at Palaikastro,” BSA 75, pp. 115– 126. Dawson, D., and O. Kent. 1999. “Reduction Fired Low-Temperature Ceramics,” Post-Medieval Archaeology 33, pp. 164–178.

385 Day, J. W. 1994. “Interactive Offerings: Early Greek Dedicatory Epigrams and Ritual,” HSCP 96, pp. 37–74. ———. 2010. Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representation and Reperformance, Cambridge. Day, L. P., W. D. E. Coulson, and G. C. Gesell. 1989. “A New Early Iron Age Kiln at Kavousi, Crete,” Tecnologia nell’Antichità 9 (RdA 13), pp. 103–106. de Callataÿ, F. 1996. Les monnaies grecques et l’orientation des axes (Glaux 12), Milan. de Grummond, N. T. 2011. “Ritual Practices at the Sanctuary of the Etruscan Artisans at Cetamura del Chianti,” in The Archaeology of Sanctuaries and Ritual in Etruria (JRA Suppl. 81), ed. N. T. de Grummond and I. Edlund-Berry, Portsmouth, R.I., pp. 69–88. De Marco, E., E. Tema, P. Lanos, and D. Kondopoulou. 2014. “An Updated Catalogue of Greek Archaeomagnetic Data for the Last 4500 Years and a Directional Secular Variation Curve,” Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 58, pp. 121–147. Demierre, B. 2002. “Les fours à chaux en Grèce,” JRA 15, pp. 282–296. De Miro, E. 1999. “Lekythos da Gela con atelier di ceramista,” in ΚΟΙΝΑ: Miscellanea di studi archeologici in onore di Piero Orlandini, ed. M. Castoldi, Milan, pp. 307–312. Despoini, A. 1982. “Κεραμεικοί κλίβανοι Σίνδου,” ArchEph 1982 (1984), pp. 61–84. Dietrich, B. C. 1974. The Origins of Greek Religion, Berlin. Di Vita, A. 1952–1954. “Atena Ergane in una terracotta dalla Sicilia ed il culto della dea in Atene,” Annuario Atene 30–32, pp. 141–154. Doherty, S. K. 2015. The Origins and Use of the Potter’s Wheel in Ancient Egypt (Archaeopress Egyptology 7), Oxford. Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1992. “Εργαστήρια κεραμεικής ελληνιστικής εποχής στην αρχαία πόλη των Φερών,” in Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου για την Αρχαία Θεσσαλία, στη μνήμη του Δ. Ρ. Θεοχάρη, Βόλος 1987, Athens, pp. 437–447. ———. 2020. “Spatial Arrangement, Organization, and Operation of Hellenistic Pottery Workshops in

386 the Ancient City of Pherae,” in Pottery Workshops, Craftsmen, and Workshops, pp. 100–121. Doumas, C. G. 2004. “Οι εφαρμογές της φωτιάς στη Θήρα (Σαντορίνη) της Εποχής του Χαλκού,” in Althellenische Technologie und Technik: Von der prähistorischen bis zur hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prähistorischen Epoche, ed. A. Kyriatsoulis, Weilheim, pp. 405–428. Doyen, C. 2011. Poséidon souverain: Contribution à l’histoire religieuse de la Grèce mycénienne et archaique (Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres 55), Brussels. Drosogianni, F. A. 1968. “Κορινθία,” ArchDelt 23, Β′1 (1969), pp. 195– 202. Ducrey, P., and O. Picard. 1969. “Recherches à Latô,” BCH 93, pp. 792–822. Duhamel, P. 1978–1979. “Morphologie et évolution des fours céramiques en Europe occidentale: Protohistoire, monde celtique et Gaule Romaine,” Acta praehistorica et archaeologica 9–10, pp. 49–76. Edmonds, FAC = J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, Leiden 1957–1961. Eidinow, E. 2007. Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, Oxford. Eisman, M. M. 1974. “Nikosthenic Amphorai: The J. Paul Getty Museum Amphora,” GettyMusJ 1, pp. 43–54. Eisman, M. M., and L. Turnball. 1978. “Robinson’s Kiln Skyphos,” AJA 82, pp. 394–399. Eiteljorg, H., II. 1980. “The Fast Wheel, the Multiple-Brush Compass, and Athens as Home of the Protogeometric Style,” AJA 84, pp. 445–452. Ekroth, G. 2001. “Altars on Attic Vases: The Identification of Bomos and Eschara,” in Ceramics in Context. Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery Held at Stockholm, 13–15 June 1997 (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology 12), ed. C. Scheffer, Stockholm, 115–126. ———. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period (Kernos Suppl. 12), Liège.

Ref er enc e s Étienne, R., and J.-P. Braun. 1986. Ténos I: Le sanctuaire de Poseidon et d’Amphitrite, Paris. Evans, M. W. 1969. Medieval Drawings, London. Evely, R. D. G. 1988. “The Potter’s Wheel in Minoan Crete,” BSA 83, pp. 83–126. ———. 2000. Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques 2 (SIMA 92), Göteborg. Faraone, C. A. 1991. “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, ed. C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink, Oxford, pp. 3–32. ———. 2001. “A Collection of Curses against Kilns (Homeric Epigram 13.7–23),” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Y. Collins and M. M. Mitchell, Tübingen, pp. 435–449. ———. 2018. The Transformation of Greek Amulets in Roman Imperial Times, Philadelphia. Farnsworth, M. 1960. “Draw Pieces as Aids to Correct Firing,” AJA 64, pp. 72–75. ———. 1970. “Corinthian Pottery: Technical Studies,” AJA 74, pp. 9–20. Fleisher, J. and N. Norman. 2016. “Archaeologies of Anxiety: The Materiality of Anxiousness, Worry, and Fear,” in The Archaeology of Anxiety: The Materiality of Anxiousness, Worry, and Fear, ed. J. Fleischer and N. Norman, New York, pp. 1–20. Forbes, R. J. 1967. Bergbau, Steinbruchtätigkeit und Hüttenwesen (Archaeologica Homerica 2, Kap. K), Göttingen. Foster, G. M. 1959. “The Potter’s Wheel: An Analysis of Idea and Artifact in Invention,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15, pp. 99–119. Fränkel, M., ed. 1902. Inscriptiones Graecae IV: Inscriptiones graecae Aeginae, Pityonesi, Cecryphaliae, Argolidis, Berlin. Fritzilas, G. 2006. “Το λίχνισμα και το μέτρημα των σιτηρών στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Ancient Greek Technology, ed. P. Tasios and C. Palyvou, Athens, pp. 394–400.

Ref er enc e s Furtwängler, A. 1885. Königliche Museen zu Berlin: Beschreibung der Vasen­ sammlung im Antiquarium, Berlin. Furtwängler, A., and K. Reichhold. 1932. Griechische Vasenmalerei: Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder III, Munich. Gager, J. G., ed. 1992. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, Oxford. Garbsch, J., and B. Overbeck. 1989. Spätantike zwischen Heidentum und Christentum: Einführung und Katalog (Ausstellungskataloge der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung 17), Munich. Garlan, Y. 1980. “Vamvouri Ammoudia,” BCH 104, p. 741. Garland, R. 1995. The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World, Ithaca. Geagan, H. A. 1970. “Mythological Themes on the Plaques from Penteskouphia,” AA 85, pp. 31–48. Gebhard, E. R. 1998. “Small Dedications in the Archaic Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia,” in Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22–24 October 1993 (ActaAth 8º, 15), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 91–115. ———. 2002a. “The Beginnings of Panhellenic Games at the Isthmus,” in Olympia 1875–2000: 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen; Internationales Symposion, Berlin 9.–11. November 2000, ed. H. Kyrieleis, Mainz, pp. 221–237. ———. 2002b. “Caves and Cults at the Isthmian Sanctuary of Poseidon,” in Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June (ActaAth 4º, 48), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 63–74. Georgiadou, G., and A. Tzortzatou. 2009. “Η πρωτοκορινθιακή και κορινθιακή αρχαϊκή κεραμική της Κέρκυρας: Μια συστηματική προσέγγιση των ευρημάτων από το οικόπεδο του Δικαστικού Μεγάρου Κέρκυρας,” in Η′ Διεθνές Πανιόνιο Συνέδριο, Κύθηρα 21–25 Μαΐου 2006, Athens, pp. 164–181. Gesell, G. C., L. P. Day, and W. D. E. Coulson. 1988. “Excavations at

Kavousi, Crete, 1987,” Hesperia 57, pp. 279–301. Giannopoulou, M. 2010. Pithoi: Technology and History of Storage Vessels Through the Ages (BAR-IS 2140), Oxford. ———. 2020. “Kilns in Pottery Workshops: Diachronic and Comparative Study, Contribution to Archaeological Research,” in Pottery Workshops, Craftsmen, and Workshops, pp. 198–253. Gill, D. W. J. 1991. “Pots and Trade: Spacefillers or Objets d’Art?” JHS 111, pp. 29–47. Ginouvès, R. 1953. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1952: Gortys d’Arcadie,” BCH 77, pp. 263–271. Gosselain, O. P. 1992. “Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Archaeology: What For?” JAS 19, pp. 243–259. Gosselain, O. P., and A. Livingstone Smith. 2005. “The Source: Clay Collection and Processing Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa,” in Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation (BAR-IS 1349), ed. A. Livingstone Smith, D. Bosquet, and R. Martineau, Oxford, pp. 33–47. Graef and Langlotz = B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen, 2 vols., Berlin 1925–1933. Gratsia, E. 1999. “Τρόποι κατασκευής και τυπολογία των νεοτέρων κεραμικών κλιβάνων της Θάσου,” in Thasos: Matières premières et technologie de la préhistoire à nos jours. Actes du colloque international 26–29 septembre 1995, ed. C. KoukouliChrysanthaki, A. Muller, and S. Papadopoulos, Paris, pp. 359–365. Greiveldinger, A. 2003. “Sur l’identité des dédicants des pinakes de Penteskouphia (Corinthe),” in Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext. Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in Kiel vom 24. bis 28.9.2001, veranstaltet durch das Archäologische Institut der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, ed. B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner, Münster, pp. 80–82. Grillo, E., M. Rubinich, and R. Schenal Pileggi, eds. 2000–2003. I Pinakes di Locri Epizefiri: Musei di Reggio Calabria e di Locri 2 (Atti e Memorie

387 della Società Magna Grecia 4.2), 5 vols., Rome. Gropengiesser, H. 1977. “Sänger und Sirenen: Versuch einer Deutung,” AA 92, pp. 582–610. Günther, K. 1988. “Der Poseidontempel auf Tainaron,” AW 19, pp. 58–60. Hackens, T. 1963. “Favisae,” in Études étrusco-italiques: Mélanges pour le 25e anniversaire de la chaire d’Étruscologie à l’Université de Louvain (Recueil de travaux d’histoire et de philologie 31), Louvain, pp. 71–99. Hadjimichael-Skorda, D. 1989. “Κίρρα,” ArchDelt 44, Β′1 (1995), pp. 205–210. Hadji-Vallianou, D. 1995. “Μινωικά κεραμικά εργαστήρια. Μια εθνογραφική προσέγγιση με νέα δεδομένα,” Πεπραγμένα του Ζ′ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ρέθυμνο 1991, Rethymno, pp. 1035–1058. ———. 1997. “Κεραμική τεχνολογία στη Μινωική Κρήτη,” in Αρχαία Ελληνική Τεχνολογία. 1º Διεθνές Συνέδριο, 4–7 Σεπτεμβρίου 1997, Thessaloniki, pp. 487–503. Hamer, F., and J. Hamer. 2004. The Potter’s Dictionary of Materials and Techniques, 5th ed., Philadelphia. Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1962. Bei Töpfern und Töpferinnen in Kreta, Messenien und Zypern, Mainz. ———. 1965. Bei Töpfern und Zieglern in Süditalien, Sizilien und Griechenland, Mainz. Harrison, A. 1996. “Chronological Method and the Study of Corinthian Pottery,” Hephaistos 14, pp. 193–216. Harrison-Hall, J. 2001. Ming Ceramics in the British Museum, London. Hasaki, E. 2002. “Ceramic Kilns in Ancient Greece: Pyrotechnology and Organization of Ceramic Workshops” (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati). ———. 2005. “The Ethnoarchaeological Project of the Potters’ Quarter at Moknine, Tunisia, Seasons 2000, 2002,” in Africa: Nouvelle Série, Séances Scientifiques III, ed. N. Kallala, Tunis, pp. 137–180. ———. 2006. “Ancient Greek Ceramic Kilns and Their Contribution to the Technology and Organization of the Pottery Workshops,” in Proceedings of the Second International

388 Conference on Ancient Greek Technology, ed. P. Tasios and C. Palyvou, Athens, pp. 221–227. ———. 2010. “A Stratigraphy of Meanings: Integrating Antiquities into Daily Life at Paroikia, Paros,” in Archaeology in Situ: Sites, Archaeology, and Communities in Greece, ed. A. Stroulia and S. B. Sutton, Lanham, Md., pp. 373–396. ———. 2011. “Crafting Spaces: Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Spatial Organization in Pottery Workshops in Greece and Tunisia,” in Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond. Acts of the International Colloquium Held at the Danish and Canadian Institutes in Athens, June 20–22, 2008, ed. M. L. Lawall and J. Lund, Aarhus, pp. 11–28. ———. 2012a. “Craft Apprenticeship in Ancient Greece: Reaching beyond the Masters,” in Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice, ed. W. Wendrich, Tucson, pp. 171–202. ———. 2012b. “Workshops and Technology,” in A Companion to Greek Art, ed. T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos, Oxford, pp. 255–274. ———. 2019. “Potters and Their Wheels in Ancient Greece: Skills and Secrets in Communities of Practice,” in Archéologie des espaces artisanaux: Fouiller et comprendre les gestes des potiers. Actes du colloque international de Rennes (27–28 novembre 2014) (Monographies d’archéologie méditerranéene, Hors-série 9), ed. M. Denti and M. Villette, Rennes, pp. 293–314. ———. 2020. “The WebAtlas of Ceramic Kilns in Ancient Greece: A Research Gateway to Hellenistic Ceramic Workshops,” in Pottery Workshops, Craftsmen, and Workshops, pp. 280–313. ———. Forthcoming. “Picturing Potters at Work: Views from the East and the West: The Penteskouphia Pinakes from Archaic Corinth and 19th-Century c.e. Chinese Watercolors from Jingdezhen,” in Craft and People: Agents of Skilled Labour in the Archaeological Record. Proceedings of a Conference held at the British Museum, November 1–2, 2012, ed. C. Hayward.

Ref er enc e s Hasaki, E., and Y. Kourayos. 2012– 2013. “The Early Roman Pottery Workshop, The Classical House, and Geometric Burials at Skiadas Plot, Paroikia, Paros (Cyclades).” ArchDelt 67–68, Α′ (2017), pp. 459– 482. Hasaki, E., A. R. May, and E. Keyser. Forthcoming. “An Ancient Greek Kiln Replica and Experimental Archaeology of Pyrotechnology in the Mediterranean.” Hasaki, E., and I. Nakas. 2017. “Ship Iconography on the Penteskouphia Pinakes from Archaic Corinth (Greece): Pottery Industry and Maritime Trade,” in Ships and Maritime Landscapes. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Amsterdam 2012 (ISBSA 13), ed. J. Gawronski, A. van Holk, and J. Schokkenbroek, Eelde, pp. 66–72. Hasaki, E., and K. T. Raptis. 2016. “Roman and Byzantine Ceramic Kilns in Greece (1st–15th c. c.e.): Continuities and Changes in Kiln Typology and Spatial Organization of Production,” in Archeologia delle produzioni ceramiche nel mondo antico: Spazi, prodotti, strumenti e tecniche, ed. N. Cucuzza, B. M. Giannattasio, and S. Pallecchi, Genoa, pp. 209–229. Hayward, C. L. 2003. “Geology of Corinth: The Study of a Basic Resource,” in Corinth XX, pp. 15–42. Hedreen, G. 2001. Capturing Troy: The Narrative Functions of Landscape in Archaic and Early Classical Greek Art, Ann Arbor. Heermance, T. W. 1902–1905. “Series III: Personal and Family Correspondence, box 2, folder 12: TWH to brother Edgar Laing Heermance (9 July 1902–9 July 1905); 16 letters (including transcripts),” Archives of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. ———. n.d. “Series IV: Miscellaneous, folder 17: Obituaries,” Archives of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Heesen, P. 2011. Athenian Little-Master Cups, Amsterdam. Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials, London.

Ref er enc e s Herzfeld, M. 2004. The Body Impolitic: Artisans and Artifice in the Global Hierarchy of Value, Chicago. Hill, B. H. 1888–1917. “Series V: Personal Papers, Subseries V.3: B. H. Hill’s diaries and personal agendas, box 29: B. H. Hill’s diaries and personal agendas, 1888–1917,” Archives of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Himmelmann, N. 1994. Realistische Themen in der griechischen Kunst der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (JdIEH 28), Berlin. Hoadley, R. B. 1980. Understanding Wood: A Craftsman’s Guide to Wood Technology, Newtown, Conn. Hofmann, H., and P. Böhm. 1965. “Wasserschale im Feuerungskanal eines korinthischen Töpferofens,” in Hampe and Winter 1965, pp. 226–235. Holmberg, E. J., and A. Pasquier. 1984. “Four Corinthian Vases in the Röhß Museum and Some Others,” OpAth 15, pp. 53–66. Holthoer, R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery (The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia 5.1), Copenhagen. Hooker, E. M. 1950. “The Sanctuary and Altar of Chryse in Attic RedFigure Vase-Paintings of the Late Fifth and Early Fourth Centuries b.c.,” JHS 70, pp. 35–41. Hope Simpson, R., and O. T. P. K. Dickinson. 1979. A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age 1: The Mainland and Islands (SIMA 52), Göteborg. Hoppin, J. C. 1924. A Handbook of Greek Black-Figured Vases, with a Chapter on the Red-Figured Southern Italian Vases, Paris. Humphrey, J. W., J. P. Oleson, and A. N. Sherwood. 1998. Greek and Roman Technology: A Sourcebook; Annotated Translations of Greek and Latin Texts and Documents, London. Hurwit, J. M. 1991. “The Representation of Nature in Early Greek Art,” in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Studies in the History of Art 32), ed. D. Buitron-Oliver, Washington, D.C., pp. 33–62. ———. 2015. Artists and Signatures in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Hussong, L. 1928. “Zur Technik der attischen Gefäßkeramik” (diss. Univ. of Heidelberg).

Immerwahr, H. R. 1990. Attic Script: A Survey, Oxford. ———. 2006. “Nonsense Inscriptions and Literacy,” Kadmos 45, pp. 136–172. Intzesiloglou, B. 1980. “Νομὸς Μαγνησίας. Βελεστῖνο,” ArchDelt 35, Β′1 (1988), pp. 269–272. ———. 1981. “Νομὸς Μαγνησίας. Βελεστῖνο,” ArchDelt 36, Β′2 (1988), pp. 249–250. ———. 1984. “Νομός Καρδίτσας,” ArchDelt 39, Β′1 (1989), pp. 147– 148. Ionas, I. 2000. Traditional Pottery and Potters in Cyprus: The Disappearance of an Anicent Craft Industry in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 6), Aldershot. Isthmia = Isthmia: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton II = O. Broneer, Topography and Architecture, 1973. VI = S. Lattimore, Sculpture II: Marble Sculpture, 1967–1980, 1996. VII = I. K. Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952–1989), 1998. VIII = C. Morgan, The Late Bronge Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary, 1999. Jacob, C. 1993. “Paysage et bois sacré: Ἄλσος dans la Périégèse de la Grèce de Pausanias,” in Les bois sacrés. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’École pratique des hautes études (Ve section), Naples, 23–25 novembre 1989 (Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 10), ed. O. de Cazanove and J. Scheid, Naples, pp. 31–44. Jacobson, D. M., and M. P. Weitzman. 1992. “What Was Corinthian Bronze?” Hesperia 96, pp. 237–247. Jameson, M. H. 1969. “Excavations at Porto-Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report, I: Halieis, 1962–1968,” Hesperia 38, pp. 311–342. Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries b.c., rev. ed., Oxford. Jena Painter 1996 = Der Jenaer Maler: Eine Töpferwerkstatt im klassischen Athen: Fragmente attischer Trinkschalen der Sammlung Antiker Kleinkunst der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Wiesbaden 1996.

389 Jockey, P. H. 1998. “Les représentations d’artisans de la pierre dans le monde gréco-romaine et leur éventuelle exploitation par l’historien,” Topoi 8-2, pp. 625–652. Johnston, R. H. 1974. “The Biblical Potter,” The Biblical Archaeologist 37, pp. 86–106. Jones, R. E., J. Boardman, H. W. Catling, C. B. Mee, W. W. Phelps, and A. M. Pollard. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1), Athens. Jordan, D. R. 2000. “A Personal Letter Found in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 69, pp. 91–103. Jorro, F. A., and F. R. Adrados. 1985. Diccionario Micénico 1, Madrid. Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie (Etudes péloponnésiennes 9), Paris. Jubier-Galinier, C., A.-F. Laurens, and A. Tsingarida. 2003. “Les ateliers de potiers en Attique: De l’idée à l’objet,” in Le vase grec et ses destins, ed. P. Rouillard and A. VerbanckPiérard, Munich, pp. 27–43. Jucker, I. 1963. “Frauenfest in Korinth,” AntK 6, pp. 47–61. Kanowski, M. G. 1984. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes, St. Lucia. Karagiorga, T. 1971. “Κεραμεικὸς κλίβανος ἐν Ἤλιδι,” AAA 4, pp. 27–32. Karanika, A. 2014. Voices at Work: Women, Performance, and Labor in Ancient Greece, Baltimore. Karoglou, K. 2010. Attic Pinakes: Votive Images in Clay (BAR-IS 2104), Oxford. Kehrberg, I. 1982. “The Potter-Painter’s Wife: Some Additional Thoughts on the Caputi Hydria,” Hephaistos 4, pp. 25–35. Keramopoulos, A. D. 1909. “Τὸ ἀνάκτορο τοῦ Κάδμου,” ArchEph 1909, pp. 57–122. Kiderlen, M., and V. M. Strocka, eds. 2005. Die Götter beschenken: Antike Weihegaben aus der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Schriften der Archäologischen Sammlung Freiburg 11), Munich. Kilikoglou, V., Y. Maniatis, and A. P. Grimanis. 1988. “The Effect of Purification and Firing of Clays on Trace Element Provenance Studies,” Archaeometry 30, pp. 37–46.

390 Killebrew, A. 1996. “Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel MiqneEkron,” in Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger, Winona Lake, Ind., pp. 135–162. Kleingünther, A. 1933. ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung (Philologus Suppl. 26), Leipzig. Kobylina, M. 1974. Terrakotovye Statuetki, Moscow. Kollig, A. 1988. “Erstmals Töpferscheiben aus Ton im römischen Deutschland,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18, pp. 365–371. Kopestonsky, T. B. 2009. “Kokkinovrysi: A Classical Shrine to the Nymphs at Corinth” (diss. State Univ. of New York at Buffalo). ———. 2018. “Locating Lost Gifts: Terracotta Figurines as Evidence for Ephemeral Offerings,” Journal of Greek Archaeology 3, pp. 245–268. Köpke, W. 1991. “Töpferöfen und Brand in den traditionellen Töpfereien Spaniens, Portugals und Italiens,” in Töpfereiforschung—archäologisch, ethnologisch, volks­kundlich: Beiträge des internationalen Kolloquiums 1987 in Schleswig (Töpferei- und Keramikforschung 2), ed. H. Lüdtke and R. Vossen, Bonn, pp. 273–288. Korres, G. S. 1971. “Ἔφοροι πυρός,” ArchEph 1971 (1972), pp. 234–246. Kossatz-Deissmann, A. 2005. “Darstellungen von Kultorten: Zur Ikonographie sakraler Stätten in der antiken Bildkunst,” in ThesCRA IV, pp. 363–408. Kourayos, Y. 2004. Paros, Antiparos: History, Monuments, Museum, Athens. Kourkoumelis, D., and S. Demesticha. 1997. “Les outils de potier de l’atelier de Figaretto à Corfou,” BCH 121, pp. 553–571. Kousoulakou, D. 2013. “Κεραμικός κλίβανος στην Ποτίδαια (Pottery Kiln in Potidaia),” in Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean, pp. 69–72. Kraay, C. M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Berkeley. Krause, C. 1981. “Eretria: Ausgrabungen 1979–1980,” AntK 24, pp. 70–87. Kyriazopoulos, B. D. 1984. Ελληνικά παραδοσιακά κεραμικά, Athens. La cité des images = La cité des images: Religion et société en Grèce antique, Paris 1984.

Ref er enc e s Lambrinoudakis, V., and A. Sfyroera. 2010. Συντήρηση και ανάδειξη του αρχαίου υδραγωγείου Μελάνων Νάξου, αρχαίου ιερού στις πηγές των Μελάνων και αγαλμάτων στα αρχαία λατομεία της περιοχής, Athens. Landon, M. E. 1994. “Contributions to the Study of the Water Supply of Ancient Corinth” (diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley). ———. 2003. “Beyond Peirene: Toward a Broader View of Corinthian Water Springs,” in Corinth XX, pp. 43–62. Lang, F. 1996. Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung, Berlin. Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore, Oxford. Lazzarini, M. L. 1976. Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica (MemLinc 8.19.2), Rome. Lembesi, A. 1985. Το ιερό του Ερμή και της Αφροδίτης στη Σύμη Βιάννου 1.1: Χάλκινα, κρητικά τορεύματα (Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 102), Athens. Le Ny, F. 1988. Les fours de tuiliers gallo-romaines: Méthodologie; Étude technologique, typologique et statistique; Chronologie (DAF 12), Paris. Leon-Mitsopoulou, B. 1994. “Keramik der klassischen und nachklassischen Zeit aus der Stadt Elis,” in Γ′ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την ελληνιστική κεραμική: Χρονολογημένα σύνολα-εργαστήρια 24–27 Σεπτεμβρίου 1991, Thessaloniki, pp. 159–173. Leurini, L. 2010. “L’epigramma pseudoomerico kaminos: tra realtà di vita e finzione letteraria,” in Il Greco, il barbaro e la ceramica attica: Immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni 1 (Monographie della Scuola di specializzazione in archeologia dell’Università di Catania 1), ed. F. Giudice and R. Panvini, Rome, pp. 69–76. LGPN I = P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, eds., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names I: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Oxford 1987. LGPN II = M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, eds., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica, Oxford 1994. Lightbown, R., and A. Caiger-Smith. 1980. The Three Books of the Potter’s Art: A Fascimile of the Manuscript

Ref er enc e s in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 2 vols., London. Lissarrague, F. 1990. The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual, trans. A. Szegedy-Maszak, Princeton. Lisse, P., and A. Louis. 1956. Les potiers de Nabeul: Étude de sociologie tunisienne, Tunis. Lissi-Caronna, E., C. Sabbione, and L. Vlad Borrelli, eds. 2007. I pinakes di Locri Epizefiri: Musei di Reggio Calabria e di Locri 3 (Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia 4.3), 6 vols., Rome. Livingstone Smith, A. 2001. “Bonfire II: The Return of Pottery Firing Temperatures,” JAS 28, pp. 991–1003. Lolos, Y. A. 1997. “The Hadrianic Aqueduct of Corinth (with an Appendix on the Roman Aqueducts in Greece),” Hesperia 66, pp. 271–314. ———. 2019. “Ανασκαφή Σικυώνος,” Prakt 2019, pp. 112–163. London, G. A. 1981. “Dung-Tempered Clay,” JFA 8, pp. 189–195. ———. 1989a. “Past Present: The Village Potters of Cyprus,” The Biblical Archaeologist 52, pp. 219–229. ———. 1989b. Töpferei auf Zypern: Damals–heute = Traditional Pottery in Cyprus, Mainz. ———. 2000. “Continuity and Change in Cypriot Pottery Production,” NEA 63, pp. 102–110. ———. 2016. Ancient Cookware from the Levant: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective, Sheffield. Long, P. O. 2001. Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Baltimore. Lorber, F. 1979. Inschriften auf korinthischen Vasen: Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur korinthischen Vasenmalerei im 7. und 6. Jh. v. Chr. (AF 16), Berlin. Lord, L. E. 1947. A History of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1882–1942, Cambridge, Mass. Lygouri-Tolia, E. 1985. “Οδός Ακταίου– Επταχάλκου–Εφεστίων,” ArchDelt 40, Β′1 (1990), pp. 25–27. Mackensen, M. 1993. Die spätantiken Sigillata- und Lampentöpfereien von el Mahrine (Nordtunesien): Studien zur nordafrikanischen Feinkeramik des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts (Münchner

Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 50), Munich. Maffre, J.-J. 1999. “Une nouvelle représentation de potiers au travail: Un skyphos attique à figures noires de l’Artémision de Thasos,” in Thasos: Matières premières et technologie de la préhistoire à nos jours. Actes du colloque international 26–29 septembre 1995, ed. C. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, A. Muller, and S. Papadopoulos, Paris, pp. 269–278. Magrill, P., and A. Middleton. 1997. “A Canaanite Potter’s Workshop in Palestine,” in Pottery in the Making: Ceramic Traditions, ed. I. Freestone and D. Gaimster, Washington, D.C., pp. 68–73. Maniatis, Y., E. Aloupi, and A. D. Stalios. 1993. “New Evidence for the Nature of the Attic Black Gloss,” Archaeometry 35, pp. 23–34. Mannoni, T., and E. Giannichedda. 1996. Archeologia della produzione (Biblioteca Studio 36), Turin. Marchand, J. C. 2002. “Well-Built Kleonai: A History of the Peloponnesian City Based on a Survey of the Visible Remains and a Study of the Literary and Epigraphic Sources” (diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley). ———. 2009. “Kleonai, the Corinth– Argos Road, and the ‘Axis of History,’” Hesperia 78, pp. 107–163. Markman, S. D. 1943. The Horse in Greek Art (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 35), Baltimore. Marwitz, H. 1960. “Zur griechischen Vasentechnik,” ÖJh 45, cols. 207–264. Matson, F. 1972. “Ceramic Studies,” in The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing A Bronze Age Regional Environment, ed. W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp Jr., Minneapolis, pp. 200–224. Mattusch, C. 1980. “The Berlin Foundry Cup: The Casting of Greek Bronze Statuary in the Early Fifth Century b.c.,” AJA 84, pp. 435–444. ———. 2003. “Corinthian Bronze: Famous, but Elusive,” in Corinth XX, pp. 219–232. Mayes, P. 1961. “The Firing of a Pottery Kiln of a Romano-British Type at Boston, Lincs.,” Archaeometry 4, pp. 4–18. ———. 1962. “The Firing of a Second Pottery Kiln of Romano-British

391 Type at Boston, Lincolnshire,” Archaeometry 5, pp. 80–86. McLauchlin, B. K. 1981. “New Evidence on the Mechanics of Loom Weights,” AJA 85, pp. 79–81. Mees, A. W. 2002. Organisationsformen römischer Töpfer-Manufakturen am Beispiel von Arezzo und Rheinzabern: Unter Berücksichtigung von Papyri, Inschriften und Rechtsquellen (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Monographien 52), Bonn. Meillier, C. 1970. “La chouette et Athéna,” RÉA 72, pp. 5–30. Merker, G. S. 2003. “Corinthian Terracotta Figurines: The Development of an Industry,” in Corinth XX, pp. 233–245. ———. 2006. The Greek Tile Works at Corinth: The Site and the Finds (Hesperia Suppl. 35), Princeton. Merlin, C. 2007. “Étude de la fabrication du ‘satyre buveur’ CA 454, Musée du Louvre, Paris,” in Konservieren oder Restaurieren: Die Restaurierung griechischer Vasen von der Antike bis heute (Beihefte zum Corpus vasorum antiquorum 3), ed. M. Bentz and U. Kästner, Munich, pp. 137–140. Metzler, D. D. 1969. “Eine attische Kleinmeisterschale mit Töpferszenen in Karlsruhe,” AA 84, pp. 138–152. Milchhöfer, A. 1882. “Griechische Alterthümer im Berliner Antiquarium,” Deutsche Revue über das gesamte nationale Leben der Gegenwart 7.1, pp. 220–226. ———. 1883. Karten von Attika, ed. E. Curtius and J. A. Kaupert, Berlin. Misailidou-Despotidou, V. 1998. “Ο κεραμεικός κλίβανος της Νέας Φιλαδέλφειας,” in Μνείας Χάριν: Τόμος στη μνήμη Μαίρης Σιγανίδου, ed. M. Lilimbaki-Akamati and K. Tsakalou-Tzanavari, Thessaloniki, pp. 161–174. Mitford, T. B. 1980. The Nymphaeum of Kafizin: The Inscribed Pottery (Kadmos Suppl. 2), Berlin. Mommsen, H. 1997. Exekias I: Die Grabtafeln (Kerameus 11), Mainz. Monaco, M. C. 2000. Ergasteria: Impianti artigianali ceramici ad Atene ed in Attica dal protogeometrico alle soglie dell’ellenismo (StArch 110), Rome. Morgan, C. 1995. “Problems and Prospects in the Study of Corinthian Pottery Production,” in Corinto e l’Occidente. Atti del trentaquattresimo

392 convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 7–11 ottobre 1994, Taranto, pp. 313–344. Morgan, C. H., II. 1937. “Excavations at Corinth, 1936–37,” AJA 41, pp. 539–552. Morris, S. P., and J. K. Papadopoulos. 1998. “Phoenicians and the Corinthian Pottery Industry,” in Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt (Veröffentlichung der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft Hamburg 87), ed. R. Rolle and K. Schmidt, Göttingen, pp. 251–263. Muccigrosso, J. D. 2012. “Re-interpreting the Robinson Skyphos,” Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 13, pp. 1–15. Mylonopoulos, J. 2003. Πελοπόννησος οἰκητήριον Ποσειδῶνος = Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes (Kernos Suppl. 13), Liège. Nadal, E. 2005. “Poséidon Hippios: Les chevaux et les cavaliers à travers la céramique,” in Les équidés dans le monde méditerranéen antique. Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, le Centre Camille Jullian et l’UMR 5140 du CNRS, Athènes, 26–28 novembre 2003 (Monographies d’archéologie méditerranéenne, Hors-série 1), ed. A. Gardeisen, Lattes, pp. 111–135. Neeft, C. M. 2012. “Absolute Chronology and Corinthian Pottery,” in La Sicilia in età arcaica: Dalle apoikiai al 480 a.C. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Caltanissetta Museo Archeologico, 27–29 marzo 2008 1, ed. R. Panvini and L. Sole, Caltanissetta, pp. 485–496. Neer, R. T. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting: The Craft of Democracy, ca. 530–460 b.c.e., Cambridge. Neils, J. 2000. “Who’s Who on the Berlin Foundry Cup,” in From the Parts to the Whole: Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, Held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28–June 1, 1996, 1 (JRA Suppl. 39), ed. C. C. Mattusch, A. Brauer, and S. E. Knudsen, Portsmouth, R.I., pp. 75–80. Newhall, A. E. 1931. “The Corinthian Kerameikos,” AJA 35, pp. 1–30. Nicholson, P. T., and I. Shaw, eds. 2000. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge.

Ref er enc e s Niemeier, W.-D. 1997. “The Mycenaean Potters’ Quarter at Miletus,” in ΤΕΧΝΗ: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), ed. R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt, Liège, pp. 347–352. Nijboer, A. J. 1998. From Household Production to Workshops: Archaeological Evidence for Economic Transformations, Pre-monetary Exchange, and Urbanization in Central Italy from 800 to 400 b.c., Groningen. Nixon, L. 2006. Making a Landscape Sacred: Outlying Churches and Icon Stands in Sphakia, Southwestern Crete, Oxford. Noble, J. V. 1984. “An Overview of the Technology of Greek and Related Pottery,” in Brijder 1984, pp. 31–41. ———. 1988. The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery, rev. ed., London. Oddy, W. A., and J. Swaddling. 1985. “Illustrations of Metalworking Furnaces on Greek Vases,” in Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity (BMOP 48), ed. P. T. Craddock and M. J. Hughes, London, pp. 43–57. Olson, S. D. 1991. “Firewood and Charcoal in Classical Athens,” Hesperia 60, pp. 411–420. Orlandos, A. 1935. “The Discovery of Painted Pinakes near Corinth,” AJA 39, p. 5. ———. 1955. Τὰ ὑλικὰ δομῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων 1, Athens. ———. 1958. Τὰ ὑλικὰ δομῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων 2, Athens. ———. 1965. “Pitsa,” in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale 6, pp. 200–206. ———. 1966. Les matériaux de construction et la technique architecturale des anciens Grecs 1, Paris. Orton, C., P. Tyers, and A. Vince. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge. Osborne, R. 1996. “Pots, Trade, and the Archaic Greek Economy,” Antiquity 70, pp. 31–44. ———. 2004. “Hoards, Votives, Offerings: The Archaeology of the Dedicated Object,” World Archaeology 36, pp. 1–10. Osborne, R., and A. Pappas. 2007. “Writing on Archaic Greek Pottery,” in Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient

Ref er enc e s World, ed. Z. Newby and R. LeaderNewby, Cambridge, pp. 131–155. Owens, E. J. 1983. “The Koprologoi at Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries b.c.,” CQ 33, pp. 44–50. Palmieri, M. G. 2009. “Navi mitiche, artigiani e commerci sui pinakes corinzi da Penteskouphia: Alcune riflessioni” in Obeloi: Contatti, scambi e valori nel Mediterraneo antico: Studi offerti a Nicola Parise (Tekmeria 11), ed. F. Camia and S. Privitera, Paestum, pp. 85–104. ———. 2016. Penteskouphia: Immagini e parole dipinte sui pinakes corinzi dedicati a Poseidon (Tripodes 15), Athens. Papadopoulos, J. K. 1989. “An Early Iron Age Potter’s Kiln at Torone,” MeditArch 2, pp. 9–44. ———. 1992. “ΛΑΣΑΝΑ, Tuyères, and Kiln Firing Supports,” Hesperia 61, pp. 203–221. ———. 2003. Ceramicus redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 31), Princeton. ———. 2014. “Ethnography and Archaeology: Robinson’s ‘Kiln’ Skyphos and Corinthian Tile Makers of the 1940s,” in ΕΓΡΑΦΣΕΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΟΙΕΣΕΝ: Essays on Greek Pottery and Iconography in Honour of Professor Michalis Tiverios, ed. P. Valavanis and E. Manakidou, Thessaloniki, pp. 181–189. Papakosta, L. 1985. “Αίγιο,” ArchDelt 40 Β′1 (1990), pp. 120–123. Papousek, D. 1989. “Technological Change as Social Rebellion,” in What’s New: A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation (One World Archaeology 14), ed. S. E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence, London, pp. 140–166. Pariente, A. 1992. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1991: Athènes,” BCH 116, pp. 835–842. Parker, V. 2007. “Tyrants and Lawgivers,” in The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, ed. H. A. Shapiro, New York, pp. 13–39. Patera, I. 2012. Offrir en Grèce ancienne: Gestes et contextes (Potsdamer altertumwissenschaftliche Beiträge 41), Stuttgart. Payne, H. H. G. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period, Oxford.

P.Cair.Masp. = J. Maspero, ed., Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine: Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, 3 vols., Cairo 1911–1916. Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, London. Pedley, J. G. 1987. “Reflections of Architecture in Sixth-Century Attic Vase-Painting,” in Papers on the Amasis Painter and His World, Malibu, pp. 63–80. ———. 2005. Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge. Pemberton, E. G. 1970. “The Vrysoula Classical Deposit from Ancient Corinth,” Hesperia 39, pp. 265–307. ———. 1998. “Wealthy Corinth: The Archaeology of a Classical City,” in Proceedings of the Australian Academy of the Humanities 23, pp. 137–165. ———. 2020. “Small and Miniature Vases at Ancient Corinth,” Hesperia 89, pp. 281–338. Peña, J. T. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record, Cambridge. Peña, J. T., and M. McCallum. 2009. “The Production and Distribution of Pottery at Pompeii: A Review of the Evidence; Part 1, Production,” AJA 113, pp. 57–79. Perachora II = T. J. Dunbabin, ed., Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia: Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930–1933 II: Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs, and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia, Oxford 1962. Pérez Molina, M. E. 1990. Index verborum in inscriptiones Corinthi et coloniarum (Alpha-Omega, Reihe A 117), Hildesheim. Peristeri, K., F. Blondé, and J. Y. Perreault. 1986. “ΘΑΣΟΣ 1986–1987: Δεύτερη και τρίτη ανασκαφική έρευνα του αρχαϊκού αγγειοπλαστείου στη θέση Σκάλας Μαρίων,” AAA 19, pp. 71–80. Peristeri, K., F. Blondé, J. Y. Perreault, and M. Brunet. 1985. “ΘΑΣΟΣ 1985: Πρώτη ανασκαφική έρευνα σε ένα εργαστήρι αγγειοπλαστικής στη θέση Φάρι Σκάλας Μαρίων,” AAA 18, pp. 29–38. Pernice, E. 1897. “Die korinthischen Pinakes im Antiquarium der

393 König­lichen Museen,” JdI 12, pp. 9–48. ———. 1898. “Ein korinthischer Pinax,” in Festschrift für Otto Benn­ dorf, Vienna, pp. 75–80. Perreault, J., F. Blondé, and K. Peristeri. 2013. “Το αγγειοπλαστείο στο Φαρί της Θάσου (The Pottery Workshop at Phari, Thasos),” in Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean, pp. 29–38. Perrot, G., and C. Chipiez. 1911. Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité 9: La Grèce archaique, Paris. Petrakos, V. C. 1989. “Ανασκαφές: Κάτω Βασιλική Αιτωλίας,” Ergon 36, pp. 48–50. ———. 1990. “Ανασκαφές: Κάτω Βασιλική Αιτωλίας,” Ergon 37, pp. 40–43. Pevnick, S. D., ed. 2014a. Poseidon and the Sea: Myth, Cult, and Daily Life, Tampa. ———. 2014b. “Poseidon and the Sea: Myth, Cult, and Daily Life,” in Pevnick 2014a, pp. 13–36. Pfeiffer, R. 1949. Callimachus I: Fragmenta, Oxford. Picolpasso, C. 1548. I tre libri dell’arte del vasaio, Urbino. Pikoulas, G. A. 1995. Οδικό δίκτυο και άμυνα από την Κόρινθο στο Άργος και την Αρκαδία, Athens. Pipili, M. 1999. “Wearing an Other Hat: Workmen in Town and Country,” in Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, ed. B. Cohen, Leiden, pp. 154–179. Pisani, M. 2003. “Vita quotidiana nel mondo Greco tra il VI e il V secolo a.C.: Un contributo per la classificazione della rappresentazioni fittili,” BdA 123, pp. 3–24. Pliakou, G. 1999. “Céramique archaïque d’Ambracie,” In L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité 3: Actes du IIIe colloque international de Chantilly, ed. P. Cabanes, Paris, pp. 39–56. Pottery Workshops, Craftsmen, and Workshops = S. Drougou, ed., Pottery Workshops, Craftsmen, and Workshops: Tenth International Scientific Meeting on Hellenistic Pottery, Athens 2020. Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean = P. Adam-Veleni, E. Kefalidou, and D. Tsiafaki, eds., Κεραμικά εργαστήρια στο Βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (8ος–αρχές 5ου αι. π.Χ). Ημερίδα

394 ΑΜΘ 2010 = Pottery Workshops in

Northeastern Aegean (8th–Early 5th c. b.c.). Scientific Meeting AMTh 2010 (Έκδοση Αρχαιολογικού Μουσείου Θεσσαλονίκης 21), Thessaloniki 2013. Powell, C. 1995. “The Nature and Use of Ancient Egyptian Potter’s Wheels,” in Amarna Reports 6, ed. B. J. Kemp, London, pp. 309–335. Pritchett, W. K. 1969. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography II: Battlefields (University of California Publications: Classical Studies 4), Berkeley. ———. 1980. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography III: Roads (University of California Publications: Classical Studies 22), Berkeley. Protonotariou-Deïlaki, E. 1971. “Κορινθία,” ArchDelt 26, Β′1 (1974), pp. 68–74. Psaropoulou, B. 1990. Last Potters of the East Aegean, Nafplion. Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1984. “Le epigrafi del Vaso François,” PP 39, pp. 373– 375. Pulitani, G., I. Caldana, R. Busato, F. Schiavon, G. Conti, E. Rampazzo, and M. Vidale. 2017. “Performances of (and on) the Greek Potter’s Wheels: An Experimental Project,” Eidola 14, pp. 35–56. Rackham, B. [1940] 1977. Victoria and Albert Museum: Catalogue of Italian Maiolica, 2 vols. Repr. with emendations and additional bibliography by J. V. G. Mallet, London. Raepsaet, G. 1988. “Charrettes en terre cuite de l’époque archaïque à Corinthe,” AntCl 57, pp. 56–88. Raptis, K. T. 2006. “Κλίβανοι–κάμινοι βιοτεχνικών εργαστηρίων (4ος–14ος αι.): Θέματα παραγωγικής τεχνολογίας,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Ancient Greek Technology, ed. P. Tasios and C. Palyvou, Athens, pp. 228–236. ­———. 2011. “L’eredità romana nelle fornaci per la produzione di ceramica in Grecia tra il IV e il XV secolo,” RdA 35, pp. 185–191. Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries b.c., Cambridge, Mass. Rawson, J., ed. 2007. The British Museum Book of Chinese Art, London.

Ref er enc e s Rayet, O. 1880. “Plaques votives en terre cuite trouvées à Corinthe,” GazArch 6, pp. 101–107. Rayet, O., and M. Collignon. 1888. Histoire de la céramique grecque, Paris. Rebillard, L. 1994. “Images parlantes, langage imagé: Les inscriptions peintes sur la céramique attique géométrique, protoattique, et à figures noires: Autour des consécrations de l’Acropole” (diss. Univ. Paris IV). Redfield, J. M. 2003. The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in Greek Italy, Princeton. Rehder, J. E. 2000. The Mastery and Uses of Fire in Antiquity, Montreal. Rhodes, D. 1981. Kilns: Design, Construction, and Operation, 2nd ed., Radnor, Penn. Rhomaios, K. A. 1916. “Ἔρευναι ἐν Θέρμῳ,” ArchDelt 2, pp. 185–186. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago. ———. 1996. “Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins,” Journal of Archaeological Research 4, pp. 133–163. ———. 1997. “Introduction and Overview,” in The Prehistory and History of Ceramic Kilns (Ceramics and Civilization 7), ed. P. M. Rice, Westerville, Ohio, pp. 1–10. Richter, G. M. 1923. The Craft of Athenian Pottery: An Investigation of the Technique of Black-Figured and RedFigured Athenian Vases, New Haven. ———. 1966. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans, London. ———. 1970. Perspective in Greek and Roman Art, London. Rieth, A. 1960. 5000 Jahre Töpferscheibe, Konstanz. Risser, M. K. 2003. “Corinthian Archaic and Classical Pottery: The Local Style,” in Corinth XX, pp. 157–165. Ritter, S. 2001. “Athena in Archaic Corinth: The Creation of an Iconography,” in Athena in the Classical World, ed. S. Deacy and A. Villing, Leiden, pp. 143–162. Rizza, G., D. Palermo, and F. Tomasello. 1992. Mandra di Gipari: Una officina protoarcaica di vasai nel territorio di Priniàs (Priniàs 2; Studi e materiali di archeologia greca 5), Catania. Robinson, H. S. 1963. “Report of the Field Director of the Corinth

Ref er enc e s Excavations,” American School of Classical Studies at Athens, EightySecond Annual Report, 1962–1963, Princeton, pp. 44–47. ———. 1965. “Excavations in Corinth,” ArchDelt 20, Β′1 (1967), pp. 144–145. Rodríguez-Álvarez, E. 2019. “Forming Identities: Technological Choices and Pottery Manufacturers in Ancient Corinth” (diss. Univ. of Arizona). Roebuck, C., ed. 1969. The Muses at Work: Arts, Crafts, and Professions in Ancient Greece and Rome, Cambridge, Mass. Roebuck, M. C. 1995. “Architectural Terracottas from Classical and Hellenistic Corinth,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Greek Architectural Terracottas of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, December 12–15, 1991 (Hesperia Suppl. 27), ed. N. A. Winter, Princeton, pp. 39–51. Röhl, H. 1882. Inscriptiones graecae antiquissimae praeter Atticas in Attica repertas, Berlin. Rosand, D. 2002. Drawing Acts: Studies in Graphic Expression and Representation, Cambridge. Rostoker, W., and E. Gebhard. 1981. “The Reproduction of Rooftiles for the Archaic Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia, Greece,” JFA 8, pp. 211–227. Rotroff, S. I. 2013. Industrial Religion: The Saucer Pyres of the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 47), Princeton. Rouse, W. H. D. 1902. Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the History of Greek Religion, Cambridge. Roux, V. 2016. “Ceramic Manufacture: The chaîne opératoire Approach,” in The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, ed. A. Hunt, Oxford, pp. 101–113. Rowan, E. 2015. “Olive Oil Pressing Waste as a Fuel Source in Antiquity,” AJA 119, pp. 465–482. Russell, P. J. 1994. Ceramics and Society: Making and Marketing Ancient Greek Pottery, Tampa. Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction (Manuals on Archaeology 4), Washington, D.C. Sakellariou, M., and N. Faraklas. 1971. Corinthia–Cleonaea (Ancient Greek Cities 3), Athens.

Salapata, G. 2002. “Greek Votive Plaques: Manufacture, Display, Disposal,” BABesch 77, pp. 19–42. ———. 2014. Heroic Offerings: The Terracotta Plaques from the Spartan Sanctuary of Agamemnon and Kassandra, Ann Arbor. Salmon, J. B. 1984. Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 b.c., Oxford. Salomonson, J. W. 1979. Voluptatem spectandi non perdat sed mutet: Observations sur l’iconographie du martyre en Afrique romaine, Amsterdam. Sampson, A. 1980. “Τὸ κοροπλαστικὸ ἐργαστήριο τῆς Χαλκίδος,” ArchEph 1980 (1982), pp. 136–166. ———. 1986. “Αρχαία Χαλκίδα Ι: Τοπογραφία, Ρυμοτομία,” Ανθρωπολογικά Χρονικά 1, pp. 7–66. ———. 1987. “Ένα κεραμεικό εργαστήριο στη Χαλκίδα στην περίοδο της Ρωμαιοκρατίας,” Ανθρωπολογικά Χρονικά 2, pp. 73–131. Sanders, G. D. R. 1995. “Byzantine Glazed Pottery at Corinth to c. 1125” (diss. Univ. of Birmingham). ———. 2003a. “Recent Developments in the Chronology of Byzantine Corinth” in Corinth XX, pp. 385– 399. ———. 2003b. “An Overview of the New Chronology for 9th to 13th Century Pottery at Corinth,” in VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki 11–16 Octobre 1999: Actes, ed. C. Bakirtzis, Athens, pp. 35–44. Sanders, I., M. Yoo, and G. D. R. Sanders. n. d. “Landscapes of Home and Thereafter; Penteskouphi, Corinth” (unpublished paper). Sanidas, G. M. 2013. La production artisanale en Grèce: Une approache spatiale et topographique à partir des exemples de l’Attique et du Péloponnèse du VIIe au Ier siècle avant J.-C. (Archéologie et histoire de l’art 33), Paris. Sapirstein, P. 2009. “How the Corinthians Manufactured Their First Roof Tiles,” Hesperia 78, pp. 195–229. ———. 2013. “Painters, Potters, and the Scale of the Attic Vase-Painting Industry,” AJA 117, pp. 493–510. ———. 2020. “Productivity of Athenian Vase-Painters and Workshops,” in Reconstructing Scales of Production

395 in the Ancient Greek World: Producers, Processes, Products, People, ed. E. Hasaki and M. Bentz, Heidelberg, pp. 81–96. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 1995. Ερέτρια: Χώρος και Μουσείο, Athens. Saraga, N. 2004. “Εργαστήριο κεραμικής βυζαντινών χρόνων στο οικόπεδο Μακρυγιάννη,” in Αρχαιολογικά τεκμήρια βιοτεχνικών εγκαταστάσεων κατά τη Βυζαντινή εποχή (5ος–15ος αι.): Ειδικό θέμα του 22ου Συμποσίου Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και Τέχνης, Αθήνα 17–19 Μαΐου 2002, ed. K. LoverdouTsigarida, Athens, pp. 257–278. Sarri, E. 1998. “Ασπρόχωμα Προσύμνης: Αγρός Δήμα,” ArchDelt 53, Β′1 (2002), pp. 134–136. Savvopoulou, T., and M. Valla. 1992. “Ευρωπός 1991–1992,” ΑΕΜΘ 6, pp. 433–451. SB = F. Preisigke, ed.,Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten 1, Strassburg 1915. Schachter, A. 1992. “Policy, Cult, and the Placing of Greek Sanctuaries,” in Le sanctuaire grec (EntrHardt 37), ed. A. Schachter and J. Bingen, Geneva, pp. 1–57. Scheffer, C. 2001. “Gods on Athenian Vases: Their Function in the Archaic and Classical Periods,” in Ceramics in Context. Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium on Ancient Pottery Held at Stockholm, 13–15 June 1997 (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology 12), ed. C. Scheffer, Stockholm, pp. 27–37. Scheibler, I. 1979. “Griechische Künst­ lervotive der archaischen Zeit,” MüJb 30, pp. 7–30. ———. 1986. “Formen der Zusammenarbeit in attischen Töpfereien des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,” in Studien zur alten Geschichte: Siegfried Lauffer zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. August 1981 (Historica 2), ed. H. Kalcyk, B. Gullath, and A. Graeber, Rome, pp. 787–804. ———. 1995. Griechische Töpferkunst: Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefässe, 2nd ed. Munich. ———. 2000. “Attische Skyphoi für attische Feste,” AntK 43, pp. 17–43. Schenal Pileggi, R. 2011. I pinakes di Locri Epizefiri, Reggio Calabria.

396 Schiffer, M. B. 1996. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Salt Lake City. Schilling, M. R. 2003. “Appendix: Estimation of Ceramic Firing Temperatures by Means of Thermomechanical Analysis,” in Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 317–335. Schreiber, T. 1983. “The Turn of the Wheel,” in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 1 (Occasional Papers on Antiquities 1), Malibu, pp. 149–153. ———. 1999. Athenian Vase Construction: A Potter’s Analysis, Malibu. Schulze, B. 2004. Die Votivtafeln der archaischen und klassischen Zeit von der Athener Akropolis (Bellerophon 2), Möhnesee. Schumacher, R. W. M. 1993. “Three Related Sanctuaries of Poseidon: Geraistos, Kalaureis, and Tainaron,” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, ed. N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, London, pp. 51–69. Schwandner, E. L., G. Zimmer, and U. Zwicker. 1983. “Zum Problem der Öfen griechischer Bronze­ giesser,” AA 98, pp. 57–80. Seeberg, A. 1971. Corinthian Komos Vases (BICS Suppl. 27), London. Segbers, A. 2019. Töpferhandwerk in der Magna Graecia (Studien zur Wirtschaftsarchäologie 2), Bonn. Seifert, M. 1993. “Pottery Kilns in Mainland Greece and on the Aegean Islands,” RdA 17, pp. 95–105. Shanks, M. 1999. Art and the Greek City State: An Interpretive Archaeology, Cambridge. Siebert, G. 1978. “Signatures d’artistes, d’artisans et de fabricants dans l’antiquité classique,” Ktema 3, pp. 111–131. Sillar, B. 2000. “Dung by Preference: The Choice of Fuel as an Example of How Andean Pottery Production Is Embedded within Wider Technical, Social, and Economic Practices,” Archaeometry 42, pp. 43–60. Simon, E. 2014. “Poseidon in Ancient Greek Religion, Myth, and Art,” in Pevnick 2014a, pp. 37–49. Sinn, U. 1990. “Das Heraion von Perachora: Eine sakrale Schutzzone in der korinthischen Peraia,” AM 105, pp. 53–116. ———. 1993. “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge,” in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, ed. N. Mari-

Ref er enc e s natos and R. Hägg, London, pp. 88–109. Skorda, D. 2010. “Κίρρα: Οι κεραμεικοί κλίβανοι του προϊστορικού οικισμού στη μετάβαση από τη μεσοελλαδική στην υστεροελλαδική εποχή,” in ΜΕΣΟΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΑ: Η ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα στη Μέση Εποχή του Χαλκού = Mesohelladika: La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, 8–12 mars 2006 (BCH Suppl. 52), ed. A. PhilippaTouchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright, Athens, pp. 651–658. Smith, C. A. 2009. “Controlling Miasma: The Evidence for Cults of Greek Craftspeople from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period (6th–2nd c. b.c.e.)” (diss. Washington Univ. in St. Louis). Smith, T. J. 2010. Komast Dancers in Archaic Greek Art, Oxford. Smith, W. 1998. “Fuel for Thought: Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Use of Alternatives to Wood Fuel in Late Antique North Africa,” JMA 11, pp. 191–205. Soles, J. S. 2003. Mochlos IA: Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: The Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Sites, Philadelphia. Spanodimos, C. 2017. “Κόρινθος–Κέρκυρα. Ανιχνεύοντας τη σχέση δύο πόλεων με οδηγό τους τάφους της Αρχαϊκής περιόδου,” in Κερκυραϊκά Χρονικά IA. Πρακτικά Ι′ Διεθνούς Πανιόνιου Συνεδρίου, Κέρκυρα, 30 Απριλίου–4 Μαΐου 2014, pp. 245– 255. Sparkes, B. A. 1962. “The Greek Kitchen,” JHS 82, pp. 121–137. ———. 1975. “Illustrating Aristophanes,” JHS 95, pp. 122–135. ———. 1991. Greek Pottery: An Introduction, Manchester. Spathari-Begliti, E. 1992. Οι αγγειοπλάστες της Σίφνου. Κοινωνική συγκρότηση, παραγωγή, μετακινήσεις, Athens. Staïs, V. 1917. “Σουνίου ἀνασκαφαί,” ArchEph 1917, pp. 168–213. Stark, B. L. 1985. “Archaeological Identification of Pottery Production Locations: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Data in Mesoamer-

Ref er enc e s ica,” in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, ed. B. A. Nelson, Carbondale, pp. 158–194. Stefani, E. 2013. “Κεραμικοί κλίβανοι στη Λευκόπετρα Βερμίου (Pottery Workshops at Lefkopetra of Mount Vermion),” in Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean, pp. 93–118. Steinhart, M. 2007. “From Ritual to Narrative,” in The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama, ed. E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, Cambridge, pp. 196–220. Stissi, V. V. 2002. “Pottery to the People: The Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Decorated Pottery in the Greek World in the Archaic Period (650–480 b.c.)” (diss. Univ. of Amsterdam). ———. 2016. “Minor Artisans, Major Impact?,” in Töpfer, Maler, Werkstatt: Zuschreibungen in der griechischen Vasenmaleri und die Organisation antiker Keramikproduktion (Beihefte zum Corpus vasorum antiquorum 7), ed. N. Eschbach and S. Schmidt, Munich, pp. 47–53. ———. 2020. “From Counting Pots to Counting People: Assessing the Scale of Athenian Pottery Production and Its Impact on Workshop Staff,” in Reconstructing Scales of Production in the Ancient Greek World: Producers, Processes, Products, People, ed. E. Hasaki and M. Bentz, Heidelberg, pp. 97–108. Stroud, R. S. 1972. “Greek Inscriptions at Corinth,” Hesperia 41, pp. 198–217. ———. 1992–1998. “A Corinthian Epitaph,” Horos 10–12, pp. 239–243. Talcott, L., B. Philippaki, G. R. Edwards, and V. R. Grace. 1956. Small Objects from the Pnyx 2 (Hesperia Suppl. 10), Princeton. Themelis, P. G. 1968. “ Ἐπιτάλιον,” ArchDelt 23, Β′1 (1969), pp. 165–171. ———. 1969. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ Μνημεῖα Εὐβοίας,” ArchDelt 24, Β′1 (1970), pp. 189–204. Theodoropoulou-Polychroniadis, Z. 2015. Sounion Revisited: The Sanctuaries of Poseidon and Athena at Sounion in Attica, Oxford. ThesCRA = Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, 9 vols., Los Angeles 2004–2012. Thiriot, J. 2003. “Matériaux pour un glossaire polyglotte des termes techniques rélatifs à l’atelier et au

four de potier medieval en Méditerranée,” in VIIe Congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki 11–16 Octobre 1999: Actes, ed. C. Bakirtzis, Athens, pp. 263–284. Thompson, H. A. 1964. “A Note on the Berlin Foundry Cup,” in Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann (Marsyas Suppl. 1), ed. L. F. Sandler, New York, pp. 323–328. Thomsen, A. 2015. “Riding for Poseidon: Terracotta Figurines from the Sanctuary of Poseidon,” in Bridge of the Untiring Sea: The Corinthian Isthmus from Prehistory to Late Antiquity (Hesperia Suppl. 48), ed. E. R. Gebhard and T. E. Gregory, Princeton, pp. 109–118. Tite, M. S. 1969. “Determination of the Firing Temperature of Ancient Ceramics by Measurement of Thermal Expansion: A Reassessment,” Archaeometry 11, pp. 131–143. Tobert, N. 1984. “Ethno-archaeology of Pottery Firing in Darfur, Sudan: Implications for Ceramic Technology Studies,” OJA 3, pp. 141–156. Tosto, V. 1999. The Black-Figure Pottery Signed ΝΙΚΟΣΘΕΝΕΣΕΠΟΙΕΣΕΝ (Allard Pierson Series 11), Amsterdam. Touchais, G. 1981. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1980,” BCH 105, pp. 771–889. Troullou, A. G. 1991. Η αγγειοπλαστική στο νησί της Σίφνου, Siphnos. Tsiafaki, D. 2019. “Archaic Pottery Workshops in Northern Greece,” in Archéologie des espaces artisanaux: Fouiller et comprendre les gestes des potiers. Actes du colloque international de Rennes (27–28 novembre 2014) (Monographies d’archéologie méditerranéene, Hors-série 9), ed. M. Denti and M. Villette, Rennes, pp. 99–110. Uhlenbrock, J. P. 1990. “The Coroplast and His Craft,” in The Coroplast’s Art: Greek Terracottas of the Hellenistic World, ed. J. P. Uhlenbrock, New Paltz, N.Y., pp. 15–21. Ulrich, R. 2008. “Representations of Technical Processes,” in The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World, ed. J. P. Oleson, Oxford, pp. 35–61. Valavanis, P. 1997. “Βάκχιος, Κίττος και παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς: Σκέψεις

397 για τη δομή των κλασικών κεραμικών εργαστηρίων του 4ου αι. π.Χ.,”

in Athenian Potters and Painters, pp. 85–95. Valla, M. 1990–1995. “Κεραμικός κλίβανος στην Ευρωπό του νομού Κιλκίς,” AAA 13–18, pp. 109–115. Vallianos, C., and M. Padouva. 1986. Τα κρητικά αγγεία του 19ου και 20ού αι. (Boroi 3), Herakleion. Van de Moortel, A. 2001. “The Area around the Kiln, and the Pottery from the Kiln and the Kiln Dump,” in J. W. Shaw, A LM IA Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production (Hesperia Suppl. 30), Princeton, pp. 25–110. van der Leeuw, S. E. 1977. “Towards a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making,” in Ex Horreo: IPP 1951–1976 (Cingula 4), ed. B. L. van Beek, R. W. Brandt, and W. Groenman-van Waateringe, Amsterdam, pp. 68–76. Vandiver, P. B., and C. G. Koehler. 1986. “Structure, Processing, Properties, and Style of Corinthian Transport Amphoras,” in Technology and Style (Ceramics and Civilization 2), ed. W. D. Kingery and E. Lense, Columbus, pp. 173–215. van Straten, F. 2000. “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries,” in Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, ed. R. Buxton, Oxford, pp. 191–223. Varella, E. 1997. “Εγχειρήματα καθορισμού της θερμοκρασίας στην αρχαιοελληνική παρασκευαστική μεθοδολογία,” in Αρχαία Ελληνική Τεχνολογία: 1ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο, 4–7 Σεπτεμβρίου 1997, Thessaloniki, pp. 293–302. Verfenstein, C. D. 2001. “Craftsmen’s Dedications and the Penteskoufia Plaques,” AJA 105, p. 302 (abstract). Vernhet, A. 1981. “Un four de la Graufesenque (Aveyron): La cuisson des vases sigillés,” Gallia 39, pp. 25–43. Vicent, J.-C. 2007. “Recherches sur la personnalité du dieu Poséidon I: Poséidon Hippios à Mantinée et la naissance de la rivière Boyne,” Gerión 25, pp. 249–262. Vickers, M. J., and D. W. J. Gill. 1994. Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery, Oxford. Vidale, M. 1998. “Le diverse nature del tornio da vasaio nelle immagini della

398 ceramica greca (VI–IV secolo a.C.),” Ocnus 6, pp. 117–135. ———. 2002. L’idea di un lavoro lieve: Il lavoro artigianale nelle immagini della ceramica greca tra VI e IV secolo a.C. (Saltuarie dal laboratorio del Piovego 5), Padova. Villard, F. 2002. “L’apparition de la signature des peintres sur les vases grecs,” RÉG 115, pp. 778–782. Vitelli, K. 1994. “Experimental Approaches to Thessalian Neolithic Ceramics: Gray Ware and Ceramic Color,” in La Thessalie: Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975– 1990: Bilans et perspectives. Actes du colloque international, Lyon, 17–22 avril 1990 1, Athens, pp. 143–148. Vitto, F. 1986. “Potters and Pottery Manufacture in Roman Palestine,” BIALond 23, pp. 47–64. Vlassopoulou, C. 2003. Αττικοί ανάγλυφοι πίνακες της αρχαϊκής εποχής (Publications of the Archaeological Bulletin 79), Athens. von Raits, H. A. 1964. “The Pinakes from Penteskoufia” (M.A. thesis, Univ. of Cincinnati). von Vacano, O. 1979. “Überlegungen zur Werkstattorganisation korinthischer Keramikbetriebe,” in Vasenforschung nach Beazley: Bericht vom Symposium des Deutschen Archäologen-Verbandes, Tübingen, 24.–26.11.1978 (Schriften des Deutschen ArchäologenVerbandes 4), Mainz, pp. 35–40. Voyatzis, M. E. 1999. “The Role of Temple Building in Consolidating Arkadian Communities,” in Defining Ancient Arkadia (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 6), ed. T. H. Nielsen and J. Roy, Copenhagen, pp. 130–168. Voyatzoglou, M. 1972. Τὰ πιθάρια στὸ Θραψανὸ τῆς Κρήτης: Ἡ τεχνικὴ καὶ οἱ συντεχνίες τῶν πιθαράδων (Ειδικές Μελέτες 19), Thessaloniki. ———. 1973. “The Potters of Thrapsano,” Ceramic Review 24, pp. 13–16. ———. 1974. “The Jar Makers of Thrapsano in Crete,” Expedition 16, pp. 18–24. ———. 1984. “Thrapsano: Village of Jar Makers,” in East Cretan Whiteon-Dark Ware: Studies on a Handmade Pottery of the Early to Middle Minoan Periods (University Museum

Ref er enc e s Monograph 51), ed. P. P. Betancourt, Philadelphia, pp. 130–142. Voyatzoglou-Sakellaropoulou, M. 2009. Παραδοσιακή κεραμική της νεότερης Ελλάδος, Athens. Wachsmann, S. 1996. “Bird-Head Devices on Mediterranean Ships,” in Tropis IV. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Athens, 28–31 August 1991, ed. H. E. Tzalas, Athens, pp. 539–572. ———. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, College Station, Tex. Wachter, R. 1991. “The Inscriptions on the François Vase,” MusHelv 48, pp. 86–113. ———. 2001. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions, Oxford. Wagner, C. 2000. “The Potters and Athena: Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis,” in Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, and A. M. Snodgrass, London, pp. 383–387. ———. 2001. “The Worship of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis: Dedications of Plaques and Plates,” in Athena in the Classical World, ed. S. Deacy and A. Villing, Leiden, pp. 95–104. Walton, M., K. Trentelman, M. Cummings, G. Poretti, J. Maish, D. Saunders, B. Foran, M. Brodie, and A. Mehta. 2013. “Material Evidence for Multiple Firings of Ancient Athenian Red-Figure Pottery,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society 96, pp. 2031–2035. Washburn, O. M. 1906. “Excavations at Corinth in 1905: Preliminary Report,” AJA 10, pp. 17–20. Watson, W. M. 2001. Italian Renaissance Ceramics from the Howard I. and Janet H. Stein Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia. WebAtlas = Web Atlas of Ceramic Kilns in Ancient Greece, https://atlas​ greekkilns.arizona.edu. Webster, T. B. L. 1972. Potter and Patron in Classical Athens, London. Weinberg, S. S. 1949. “On Corinthian Terracotta Sculpture,” AJA 53, pp. 262–266.

Ref er enc e s ———. 1954. “Corinthian Relief Ware: Pre-Hellenistic Period,” Hesperia 23, pp. 109–137. ———. 1957. “Terracotta Sculpture at Corinth,” Hesperia 26, pp. 289–319. Weisgerber, G. 1976. “Zu den Bergbaudarstellungen der korinthischen Tontäfelchen,” Der Anschnitt 28, pp. 38–49. Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4), Athens. ———. 2003. “Clays of Corinth: The Study of a Basic Resource for Ceramic Production,” in Corinth XX, pp. 1–13. Whitbread, I. K., and D. Dawson. 2015. “Kiln Construction and Use in Greece: Communicating Technical Knowledge,” in The Transmission of Technical Knowledge in the Production of Ancient Mediterranean Pottery. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Athens, 23rd–25th November 2012 (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 54), ed. W. Gauss, G. Klebinder-Gauss, and C. von Rüden, Vienna, pp. 333–349. White, H. 2009. “An Investigation of Production Technologies of Byzantine Glazed Pottery from Corinth, Greece in the Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries” (diss. Univ. of Sheffield). White, K. D. 1984. Greek and Roman Technology, Ithaca. Wilisch, E. 1892. Die Altkorinthische Thonindustrie (Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, neue Folge 15), Leipzig. Williams, C. K., II. 1977. “Corinth 1976: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 46, pp. 40–81. ———. 1978. “Pre-Roman Cults in the Area of the Forum of Ancient Corinth” (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania). ———. 1981. “The City of Corinth and Its Domestic Religion,” Hesperia 50, pp. 408–421. ———. 1984. “Αρχαία Κόρινθος,” ArchDelt 39, Β′1 (1989), pp. 73–74. ———. 2005. “Roman Corinth: The Final Years of Pagan Cult Facilities along East Theater Street,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth:

Interdisciplinary Approaches (Harvard Theological Studies 53), ed. D. N. Schowalter and S. J. Friesen, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 221–247. Williams, C. K., II, and J. E. Fisher. 1972. “Corinth, 1971: Forum Area,” Hesperia 41, pp. 143–184. ———. 1973. “Corinth, 1972: The Forum Area,” Hesperia 42, pp. 1–44. ———. 1975. “Corinth, 1974: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 44, pp. 1–50. ———. 1976. “Corinth, 1975: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 45, pp. 99–162. Williams, C. K., II, and O. H. Zervos. 1985. “Corinth, 1984: East of the Theater,” Hesperia 54, pp. 55–96. ———. 1986. “Corinth, 1985: East of the Theater,” Hesperia 55, pp. 129– 175. Williams, D. 1985. Greek Vases, London. ———. 1995. “Potter, Painter, and Purchaser,” in Culture et cité: L’avènement d’Athènes à l’époque archaique. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université libre de Bruxelles du 25 au 27 avril 1991, ed. A. VerbanckPierard and D. Viviers, Brussels, pp. 139–160. ———. 2009. “Picturing Potters and Painters,” in Athenian Potters and Painters 2, ed. J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia, Oxford, pp. 306–317. ———. 2016. “Peopling Athenian kerameia: Beyond the Master Craftsmen,” in Töpfer, Maler, Werkstatt: Zuschreibungen in der griechischen Vasenmalerei und die Organisation antiker Keramikproduktion (Beihefte zum Corpus vasorum antiquorum 7), ed. N. Eschbach and S. Schmidt, Munich, pp. 54–68. Winter, A. [1957] 2003. “Eine Deutung des korinthischen Töpferofens mit den zwei Kanälen,” Keramische Zeitschrift 9, pp. 14–16. Repr. in M. Thomas and B. A. Greiner, eds., Hiems Fecit: Praktische Untersuchungen zur antiken Keramik. Festschrift zum 100. Geburtstag von Adam Winter, Remshalden 2003, pp. 97–104. ———. 1959. “Die Technik des griechischen Töpfers in ihren Grundlagen,” Technische Beiträge zur Archäologie 1, Mainz, pp. 1–45. Wiseman, J. 1978. The Land of the Ancient Corinthians (SIMA 50), Göteborg.

399 Wright, J. C., J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, E. Mantzourani, S. B. Sutton, and R. F. Sutton Jr. 1990. “The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 59, pp. 579–659. Wright, M. 1986. “Le Bois de Vache: This Chip’s for You,” Saskatchewan Archaeology 7, pp. 25–28. Young, R. S. 1951. “An Industrial District of Ancient Athens,” Hesperia 20, pp. 135–288. Zapheiropoulou, F. 1973–1974. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα Φωκίδος καὶ Αἰτωλοακαρνανίας,” ArchDelt 29, Β′2 (1979), pp. 521–542. Zimmer, G. 1982a. Antike Werkstattbilder (Bilderheft der Staatlichen Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz 42), Berlin. ———. 1982b. Römische Berufsdarstellungen (AF 12), Berlin. Ziomecki, J. 1958. “Przedstawienia pieców na tabliczkach z Koryntu,” ArcheologiaWar 10, pp. 153–163. ———. 1975. Les représentations d’artisans sur les vases attiques (Bibliotheca antiqua 13), Wroclaw. Ziskowski, A. 2010. “The Construction of Corinthian Identity in the Early Iron Age and Archaic Period” (diss. Bryn Mawr College). ———. 2012. “Clubfeet and Kypselids: Contextualizing Corinthian Padded Dancers in the Archaic Period,” BSA 107, pp. 211–232. ———. 2014. “The Bellerophon Myth in Early Corinthian History and Art,” Hesperia 83, pp. 81–102. ———. 2017. “Material Koine: Constructing a Narrative of Identity in Archaic Corinth,” in Material Koinai in the Greek Early Iron Age and Archaic Period. Acts of an International Conference at the Danish Institute at Athens, 30 January–1 February 2015 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 22), ed. S. Handberg and A. Gadolou, Aarhus, pp. 91–108. ———. 2019. “Athena at Corinth: Revisiting the Identification of the Temple of Apollo,” Phoenix 73, pp. 164–183. Züchner, W. 1950–1951. “Von Toreuten und Töpfern,” JdI 65–66, pp. 175–205.

G eneral I ndex

Achilles, 465 Acrocorinth, 68. See also Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore Acropolis (Athens). See under Athens Aegean region, 241; islands in, 273, 298 Aetopetra (Corinth), 26, 34 African Red Slip ware, 1644 Agesipolis, 29555 Agora (Athens). See under Athens Agora (Corinth), 228–229, 248, 260. See also Forum (Corinth) Aiginetans, 298 Aigion, 249, 251–252 Ajax, suicide of, 475 Akrotiri (Thera, Cyclades), 217109 Aloadai, 28522. See also Gigantomachy Aloeus, 28522 alphabet. See Corinthian alphabet altars, 11, 17, 215, 25696, 2792, 285, 289–290. See also dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/ offerings; worship Amorgos (Cyclades), 28929 Amphiaraos krater, 57. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian Amphitrite, 618, 14, 47, 6554, 66–68, 71, 73, 75, 81127, 180–181, 193–194, 218, 220, 279, 288, 289; statues of, 28827 Anaploga (Corinth), 26, 35, 47, 228–229, 237–238, 281–282 Andean potters, 266139. See also traditional potters/workshops animals, in vase painting. See vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in Aphrodite, 73; on Corinthian coinage, 7172

Apollo, 73, 288 apotropaic devices, 56, 186, 192–193, 262, 280, 284, 287, 292, 296, 307; garlic eyes as, 262121; jugs as, 261. See also furnace amulet; ithyphallic figures; prophylactic purpose, of pinakes apprentices/apprenticeship, 14, 56, 5739, 63, 64, 195, 24447, 246, 275181, 282, 297. See also assistants, potters’; novice potters/painters aqueduct, Hadrianic (Corinth), 4, 14, 231, 25, 2627, 32, 37–39, 41 aqueduct, Kachros’s (Corinth), 25, 32, 37 Arcadia. See Gortys; Mantineian plain Arcesilaus (ruler of Kyrene), 216 archaeometry, 20, 22, 227, 2283, 236, 238–239, 278, 309, 311 archaizing elements, on pinakes, 79 Argos, 251; Aspis, 24967; Karatza St., 24967; Kavafi St., 29555 Artemis, 11, 6554; as Potnia Theron, 73 artisans, depictions of: Athenian/Attic, 196–199, 205–209, 242, 274–275, 281; Egyptian, 16 Asbetos, 216 Asea, 28827 ash, 191, 253–255, 260112, 265, 267144 ashlar masonry, 285 Asklepiakon mine. See Soureza Asklepieion (Corinth), 7, 229–230 Asomatos (Crete), 25275, 257, 276186 Aspis. See Argos Asprohoma Prosymnis, 257104 assistants, potters’, 1747, 195, 239–240, 275, 276; turning wheel, 184, 195, 240, 244, 276. See also apprentices/ apprenticeship; novice potters/ painters; wheel operation

402 Astarita krater, 5223. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian Athena, 10, 19, 65, 68, 71, 75, 81127, 180–181, 193–194, 19555, 198, 207–208, 212, 215, 218, 225136, 283, 29551, 309; on Corinthian coinage, 7173; invocations of, 207, 21597 Athena, epithets of: Chalynitis, 7172; Ergane, 193; Hippia, 7172; Phoinike, 7172; Soteira, 28827 Athens, 10, 19, 21, 24–25, 5017, 241, 249, 296, 300; Acropolis, 10–11, 16, 45, 4911, 50, 64–65, 6758, 7277, 74, 75102, 197, 199–202, 20567, 208, 218112, 220, 222, 225135, 136, 242–243, 29445, 300, 302, 306; Agora, 1033, 197, 203, 20776, 216101, 241, 264, 271161, 283, 307; as birthplace of wheel 11, 205; Kerameikos, 16, 3074; pinakes from, 10, 11, 45, 4911, 50, 5324, 64, 65, 6758, 72, 74, 75102, 196, 199, 20568, 20775, 222, 225136, 243, 275. See also artisans, depictions of: Athenian/Attic; pottery shapes, Athenian; vase painters and potters, Athenian; vase-painting techniques, Athenian Athikia (Corinthia), 3664, 37 athletes, equipment of as dedications, 29450 autopoieia. See under inscriptions axes, 182. See also tools/toolkit, potters’ Ayia Marina (Corinth), 39, 41 Ayioi Anargyroi (Corinth), 25, 26 Ayios Antonios (Corinth), 2 Ayios Dimitrios (Corinth), 37 Babylon, 216 barbers. See temple barbers beards, 182, 184, 194, 283 Bellerophon, 9, 71, 180 Berbati, 257 Berlin Foundry cup, 19450, 19552, 277, 283–284, 292. See also pottery shapes, Athenian Biblical texts, 1644, 265132, 273170 boars, 67, 70, 186, 226, 266 boats, 72, 74. See also sails/sailing; ships Boiotia/Boiotian, 19, 195, 197–198, 205–206, 217109, 222125, 223, 275 bonfires, 209, 252, 265 bricks, 216, 217105, 262, 28419 bronze: bowl, 290; casting, 283, 292; casting pits, 18828; Corinthian, 188; cut-out figures, 932, 28827, 304; figurines, 72, 19860; models, 72; pinakes, 288, 304; plaque of Poseidon, 932, 295; sculpture, 72; smelting, 217103;

g eneral index tools, 294; working, 207. See also metal bronzesmiths/bronzeworkers, 188, 194, 216, 266135 28313 brushes, 183–184, 245–246. See also tools/toolkit, potters’ bulls, 67, 72, 186, 28824 Butades (Sikyonian potter), 1, 222 Cafaggiolo (Italy), 1645 calipers. See tools/toolkit, potters’ Cape Sounion. See Sounion, Sanctuary of Poseidon and Athena at Cappadocia (Turkey), 286 Caputi hydria, 1137, 183, 206, 275. See also pottery shapes, Athenian Caracalla, coin of, 28930 carpenters, 74, 207, 267144, 294 cart: loads, 265; models, 7279, 299; traffic, 40, 73; wheels, 299 Carthage, 1644 centaurs. See under vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in ceramic industry. See industry: ceramic/ potting Cetamura del Chianti (Italy), artisans’ quarter at, 28419. See also Etruria/ Etruscan chair (κλισμός), 18418, 206. See also furniture Chalkis, 241–242, 255, 260114 charcoal. See under fuel Cheiron, 216 chert, 217103 Chigi olpe, 5739, 5842. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian Chinese porcelain workshops, 17, 309 Chios, 225134 chisels. See tools/toolkit, potters’ chiton, 8, 52, 67–68, 194; short, 67, 6967 Chryse, shrine to, 11 chthonian divinities, 510 Circe, 216 circus performers, 24024 clay: beds, 182, 186, 295–296; cones of for small vessels, 183; deposits, 19, 20, 35, 48, 227, 236–239, 296; mineralogical characteristics of, 238, 239; quarries, 236; slip (see under slip); sources, 230, 311; wheel parts, 241–244 clay-collecting scenes, 180, 182, 185–186, 205, 206 clays: calcareous/calcium-rich, 238, 267; iron-rich, 21; lignite, 35, 238; white, 238. See also impurities, in clay clay working: kneading, 240; levigation, 239; modeling, 302; wedging, 1646, 180, 20981, 239–240

g eneral index cobbler, stone relief of, 20776 colonies, Corinthian, 225133, 297 communities of anxiety, 306 compasses. See tools/toolkit, potters’ conglomerate, 182. See also limestone: pebble conglomerate context, systemic, 56, 281 Corigliano (Calabria), 20981 Corinth. See Acrocorinth; Aetopetra; Agora; Anaploga; Asklepieion; Ayia Marina; Ayioi Anargyroi; Ayios Antonios; Ayios Dimitrios; Forum; Gotsi plot; Greek Tile Works; Gymnasium; Hadji Mustafa; Heroon of the Crossroads; Kakothikas rema; Kastelli; Kokkinovrysi; Koutoumatza; Lechaion road; Mavrospilies quarries; Nikoletto; Penteskouphia kastraki; Penteskouphia village; Phliasian gate; Potters’ Quarter; Roman Tile Works; Sacred Spring West; Smyrtorema; South Stoa; Temple G; Temple of Apollo; Theater, east of; Tsakiri quarries; Vrysoula deposit Corinthia. See Athikia; Gymno; Kivouria; Longopotamos Valley; Mt. Apesas; Patima; Phliasian road; Platani; Solomos Corinthian alphabet, 74, 75; archaism in, 79119 couch factory, 278 Crete/Cretan, 18622, 209, 241, 242, 246, 249, 25587, 257, 260, 267144, 273– 274, 276, 286. See also Asomatos; Gouves; Istron; Kalo Chorio Mirabellou; Kavousi; Knossos; Kommos; Lato; Margarites; Mochlos; Pitsidia; Prinias; Syme Viannou; Thrapsano Cuma (Italy), 75102 curse tablets, 21597, 284, 307 Cyclades. See Akrotiri; Amorgos; Mykonos; Naxos; Paroikia; Siphnos; Tenos Cyprus, 209, 227, 24651, 247, 261, 265, 267144, 270157, 285. See also Kafizin; Klirou; Kornos daimons, 192, 216, 292. See also kiln daimons dancers. See under vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in dances, occupational, 284. See also work songs Darfur (Sudan), 266 dedicants, 211, 21291, 282–283, 293–294, 303, 305. See also altars; groves, sacred; industrial religion/ rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of;

prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/offerings; worship defixiones, 3074 deformities, 188, 194 Delphic oracle, 216 Demaratos, 1, 222 Demeter, 28827. See also Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore Deruta (Italy), 1645 diadem, 68 dichouli. See under kiln-firing tools die-axis, 53, 54 dining couches, 237. See also furniture Diolkos, 299 Diophantos, 29447 Djerba (Tunisia), 2376 Dodona, Sanctuary of Zeus at, 294 Dolon Painter, 1142 dolphins, 67, 68, 7281, 1829, 295 earthquakes, 2519, 3346, 68, 295–296, 305 Egypt/Egyptian, 16, 5740, 20982, 243 Ekphantos, 1 Eleusis, pinakes from, 1033, 5324, 6449 Elis, 241, 257; Epitalion, 257 Ephialtes, 285 equipment, of pottery workshops, 20, 22, 50, 56, 183, 187–188, 206, 208–209, 230, 239, 245–246, 270, 271159, 294, 302, 309. See also tools/ toolkit, of potters Eretria, 222125, 225131, 248, 24967, 251, 257 eschara. See kiln architecture: perforated floor/eschara ethnoarchaeology, 20–22, 263126 ethnography, 20, 181, 186, 189, 19346, 20981, 227, 239–240, 242–243, 246– 247, 257, 261–263, 265134, 266–267, 270155, 271, 273, 275–276, 278, 309. See also modern potters/workshops; traditional potters/workshops Etruria/Etruscan, 208, 28211, 298. See also Cetamura del Chianti Eumenides, temple of near Sikyon, 289 Europos (Kilkis), 19344 Eurytios krater, 475. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian exports. See trade/exports, of pottery family-centered craft production, 275181, 277, 294. See also workshops, family-based farmers, 306; equipment of as dedications, 29450; wardrobe of, 19450 Fates, altar of, 289–290 festivals, 279, 28314, 288–289; harvesting, 208–209

403 Figaretto (Corfu), 245 figurines, 6, 30, 33–34, 4386, 4487, 72, 77, 19344, 19450, 19860, 240, 285, 290, 29140, 295, 300, 302, 303–304 fingerprints, 238–239 firebox. See under kiln architecture first-fruits offerings, 293, 294. See also votives/offerings first inventor (πρῶτος εὐρετής), 302 fish. See under vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in fishermen, equipment of as dedications, 29450 flames, 52, 55, 180, 191–192, 194, 247, 262, 266, 270, 273, 276 Flerio (Naxos), stoneworkers’ sanctuary at, 285, 307. See also Melanes flintstones, 266 flywheel. See under wheel parts footprint, of kilns, 191, 246–247, 256. See also kiln architecture Forum (Corinth), 75102, 18828, 228, 28930, 29034. See also Agora (Corinth) France, Roman kilns in, 25588 frescoes, Pompeiian, 1747, 240 fuel, 15, 17, 179, 182, 188–189, 191, 230, 246, 252, 254, 255, 256, 260112, 265–267, 270, 271160, 274, 276, 305, 308–309; biomass, 267; buffalo dung, 266; cedar, 265131; charcoal, 189, 217108, 266, 271160; chestnut, 265131; cypress, 267144; elm, 265131; fruit shells, 265132; goat dung, 266; hardwoods, 265; laurel, 266135; nutshells, 267; oak, 265131, 267144; olive pits, 267, 269; olive wood, 265, 267144; palm, 265131; pine/pinecones, 265131, 267; softwoods, 265; spruce, 265131; sycamore, 265131; vine prunings, 267144. See also sticks: as kiln fuel; trees: felling of; twigs, as kiln fuel; wood: as fuel fullers, 29445 funerary contexts, 510, 16, 17, 50, 19238, 208 furnace amulet, 192. See also apotropaic devices furnaces. See metallurgical furnaces furniture, 7, 18418, 278194. See also chair; dining couches; kiln furniture; stool furnus, 217108 garlands, 290 genitalia, 194 geology, 236–239, 295–296, 311 Geometric period, 3458, 52, 222124, 24755, 25270, 274, 281, 297

404 Gigantomachy, 71, 81127, 19240, 220. See also Aloadai glaze, 1748, 64, 267145. See also gloss; slip gloss 192, 267, 28419; sintering of, 192. See also glaze; slip gold, 216101, 217. See also metal goldsmiths, 217 Gortys (Arcadia), 257, 258 Gotsi plot (Corinth), pinakes from, 7, 228, 24967 Gouves (Crete), 241, 25798 graffiti. See under inscriptions grapes, 72, 74, 207, 209 Greek Magical Papyri, 294. See also papyri Greek Tile Works (Corinth), 228, 249, 254–255, 263, 280, 29034, 291, 29657, 303, 311. See also Roman Tile Works; tiles grotesque features, 60, 81126, 19344 grotto, 286 groves, sacred, 25, 3031, 39, 42, 279, 287, 288–291, 293, 303. See also altars; dedicants; industrial religion/rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; trees; votives/offerings; worship Gymnasium (Corinth), 18828 Gymno (Corinthia), 3976 Hadji Mustafa (Corinth), 228, 229 hair, 34, 52, 275 hammers, 283, 294. See also tools/toolkit, potters’ hand-forming/hand-building, 10, 49, 183, 240, 24128, 300. See also wheel, forming techniques hands, as potters’ tools, 183, 240, 244, 245, 306. See also tools/toolkit, potters’ hapax legomena, 216 harbors, 28312, 29982 harvest/harvesting, 208, 209, 265 heat, during kiln firing, 55, 188, 191, 253–257, 260–263, 265–266, 273. See also insulation, of kilns; kiln firing helmets, 69, 19860; helmeted goddess on Athenian coinage, 7172; helmeted warrior, 8 Hephaistos, 465, 188, 19346, 194, 216101, 283 Hera, 56 Herakles, 7, 1138, 475, 65, 71, 216, 28827 herm, pinakes set up near, 1138 Hermes, 932, 1138, 6554, 28827, 294, 29551 heroes, 510, 75, 225133, 285 Heroon of the Crossroads (Corinth), 29034

g eneral index hetairai, 6044 hills, around Penteskouphia, 36, 182, 237 hippeis, 7070 honey, 289; honeycomb, 252 households, 1, 277 hunting, 6554; boar hunts, 6757, 226140; hunters, 226; hunting dogs, 226 hypocausts, 217 imitations: of Athenian pottery, 21, 297; of Corinthian pottery, 222125, 225131, 297, 298. See also pottery shapes, Athenian; pottery shapes, Corinthian imported pottery, 33, 199, 282, 29763, 298, 302. See also trade/exports, of pottery impurities, in clay, 239. See also clays incantations, 307 incisions, 52, 5526, 57, 193 indoors, 185, 206, 209 industrial contexts, 56, 280, 284, 288, 291, 299, 303 industrial pyres, 283–285, 307. See also industrial religion/rituals industrial religion/rituals, 20, 280, 283, 28419, 288, 295, 307. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial pyres; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/offerings; worship industrial sites/areas, 9, 283, 290, 303, 311 industry, 24, 3558, 7070, 246, 277–278, 290, 308; ceramic/potting, 21, 66, 69, 207, 222, 239, 277, 281, 293–300, 302, 305, 3074, 308, 310, 311–312. See also metal; metalworking inscriptions, 2, 6–9, 15, 1645, 1747, 22, 25, 36, 45–46, 48, 53, 5631, 63, 68–69, 7172, 72–77, 79, 179, 181– 183, 186, 18826, 193–196, 206–207, 209–212, 214, 21596, 218, 220, 223, 225, 280, 282, 283, 285–286, 288, 294, 296, 301, 304, 308–309; abecedaria, 75102; autopoieia, 220–221, 304; cursive, 218; demotic, 218112; dipinti, 826, 27, 19, 75, 181, 211, 218, 222; graffiti, 75, 181, 19658, 211–212, 218, 220, 222; labels, 2, 19, 7172, 73, 76, 181, 186, 188, 195, 19658, 207, 211–212, 214–215, 226, 304; nonAttic, 6, 22; nonsense, 19, 75, 181, 211–212, 218; orthographic, 212; patronymics in, 218, 225–226, 275; retrograde, 85, 211; signatures, with epoiesen/egrapsen, 48, 218, 222126,

g eneral index 282, 304; signatures, of painters/ potters/artists, 2, 11, 19–20, 48, 6449, 81, 181, 196, 198–199, 205, 211, 212, 218, 220–222, 225, 226, 275, 286, 304, 310; spelling mistakes/ misspellings in, 223; toponymics in, 282 insulation, of kilns, 255, 265130, 273. See also heat, during kiln firing; kiln firing inventor. See first inventor Ioannina, 254 Iphimedeia, 28522 I-po-no (Linear B), 217107 Ippokleides, 724 iron, 188, 216101, 217, 271160, 273, 294, 297. See also clays: iron-rich; metal; ore ironsmiths, 216 Isthmia, Sanctuary of Poseidon at, 7–9, 21, 3345, 6757, 7173, 72–73, 237, 280, 289, 294, 295, 296, 304, 305; Northeast Cave and Theater Cave at, 237. See also Rachi, pinakes from Isthmian games, 72, 28931 Istron (Crete), 257, 260114 Italy, 1, 271161, 298, 302. See also Cafaggiolo; Cetemura del Chianti; Corigliano; Cuma; Deruta; Locri Epizephyrii; Marzabotto; Metapontum; Pisticci; Pizzica; Pozzuoli; Sabucina; Scoppietto Ithaka, 222125 ithyphallic figures, 192. See also apotropaic devices; phallus/phallic Kadmeion (Thebes), 25798 Kafizin (Cyprus), Nymphaeum at, 286, 307 Kalo Chorio Mirabellou (Crete), 257, 260114 Kalydonian boar hunt, 226140 Kakothikas rema (Corinth), 35–36 Karditsa. See Metropoli Kastelli (Corinth), 2628, 43. See also Penteskouphia kastraki kastraki. See Penteskouphia kastraki Katochi (Vonitsa), 25482 Kato Vassiliki. See Ioannina Kavousi (Crete), 260 Kekrops, 71 Kerameikos (Athens). See under Athens Keramidario (Evrytania), 254 kiln architecture: chimney, 52, 185, 187–192, 194, 248, 252, 25697, 261– 263, 269–270, 272–273; combustion chamber, 185, 188, 189–191, 198, 212, 216, 247–248, 252–257, 260, 262, 265, 269–270, 271160; dome/

domed roof, 185–186, 192, 19658, 252, 260–263, 273; firebox, 25377, 269151; loading door, 189–192, 198, 252, 260, 261–263, 273; perforated floor/eschara, 188–191, 198, 246, 248, 252, 25480, 256–257, 259–260; perforated floor, ventholes in, 25275, 256–257, 259, 260; pot-firing chamber, 85, 188–192, 194, 216, 247, 252, 255–256, 260–262, 265, 272; spy hole, 186, 189, 191–192, 262–263, 272–273; stoking channel, 52, 85, 186, 188–195, 198, 209, 216, 248, 252–256, 260112, 262, 265, 269–270, 273; vent, 56, 189, 191–192, 262– 263, 269–270, 273. See also footprint, of kilns; mortar, in kiln construction; willow, in kiln construction; wood: in kiln construction kiln daimons, 192, 216, 292. See also daimons kiln firing: choking method of, 269; direct-flame, 247; oxidization/oxidizing atmosphere during, 55, 262, 267, 269–270; reduction/reducing atmosphere during, 55, 69, 194, 262, 267, 269–270, 272–273; reoxidization during, 55, 267, 269, 272–273; soaking phase of, 265, 267, 270; three-stage, 55, 261, 267, 270. See also heat, during kiln firing; insulation, of kilns; kilns: experimental; test pieces kiln-firing tools: dichouli, 271160; hooked tool/stick (inspecting), 191, 270, 272; rake (stoking), 271; rod (stoking), 254, 270157, 271160; T-shaped rod (stoking), 187, 191. See also tools/toolkit, potters’ kiln furniture, 80, 228, 246, 263, 265, 281; rings, 263; stacking equipment, 230; teardrop-shaped supports, 263; tripods, 263 kiln label (κάμινος), 2, 19, 181, 186, 212, 214, 215, 304 kiln models: from Potters’ Quarter (Corinth), 196, 198, 205, 228, 230; from Thrapsano (Crete), 29981. See also models kiln (Κάμινος) poem, 192, 215–216, 252, 262, 284, 307 kilns: Archaic, 20, 248–252, 25697, 274175; Byzantine, 3458, 3668, 18825, 218, 228, 230, 242, 24755, 58, 248, 25481, 257, 259106, 260; Classical, 24755, 249, 254, 257; experimental, 55, 246, 253, 25592, 265, 273170, 274176; Geometric, 24755, 25270, 274; Hellenistic, 193, 248, 25269, 254,

405 25590, 260114; Italian, 24755,58, 24862, 25274, 25481; prehistoric, 24755, 248, 257; Roman, 1747, 3458, 18825, 228, 230, 24755,58, 248, 25269, 254, 25588, 257, 259, 260, 265, 273172, 274176, 311. See also lime: kilns kiln stokers, 831, 186, 191, 253, 269 kiln types: circular, 228, 247–249, 256; rectangular, 228, 247–249, 25168, 252, 254–256, 260; two-chambered, 20, 247, 256, 267; updraft, 20, 55, 247, 25592, 256, 260, 265129, 266137, 267, 278; wood-firing, 20, 55, 270 kiln wasters, 24, 3458, 3668, 228, 230, 239, 263128, 265, 310–311 Kirrha (Delphi), 248, 25798 kithara players, 29445 Kivouria (Corinthia), 36 Kleanthes, 1 Kleisthenes, 724 Kleonai, 4, 14, 231, 24, 35–36, 4283, 221, 282, 291, 302 kletic hymn, 21293 Klirou (Cyprus), 25482, 261117, 119, 273 knives. See tools/toolkit, potters’ Knossos (Crete), 249, 251 Kokkinovrysi (Corinth): kiln, 228, 257, 260, 281; shrine, 290, 291, 304 Kommos (Crete), 24130 Kornos (Cyprus), 261118 Koroneika (Messenia), 275 Koutoumatza (Corinth), 228 Kypselids, 19451, 297 Labor force. See workforce ladders, 248 lamps, 75102, 19658, 266, 285, 290 Las Bisbal (Spain), 271159 Lato (Crete), 249, 25697, 274 Laurion mines, 217102, 276188. See also mines; Soureza lead tablets, oracular, 294 Lechaion road (Corinth), 28930 Leptiminus (Tunisia), 265 Lesbos, 19237, 25275, 273167 Leukopetra, 24967, 251, 274 libations, 5, 285, 289. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/offerings; worship lime: inclusions, 48; kilns, 217, 25482, 260 (see also kilns); spalling, 48, 238 limestone, 236; pebble conglomerate, 236, 237 (see also conglomerate); quarries, 34 literacy, 212 Locri Epizephyrii (Italy), pinakes from Sanctuary of Persephone at, 10

406 Locris Exarchos, Abes cemetery, 197 Longopotamos Valley (Corinthia), 35, 36 Loutraki, 28312 lyre, 283 Lyseas stele, 81 Lysias, 278 magic. See Greek Magical Papyri Magoula, 25798 maiolica, 16, 309. See also Picolpasso; Renaissance ceramic workshops manholes, 32, 36–37 Mantineian plain (Arcadia), 28827 marble, 1138, 306; quarries 285 marbleworkers, 285 Margarites (Crete), 25479, 286 marl, 3563, 237; Pliocene, 238 Marzabotto (Italy), 25483 masks, theatrical, 192. See also satyrs masonry, 3977, 285 masons, 294 Mavrospilies quarries (Corinth), 34 Megarian bowls, 286 Melanes (Naxos), 285. See also Flerio Melikertes, 71 Mende (Chalkidiki), 24967, 251, 274 Menelaion. See under Sparta Messenia, traditional potters and workshops in, 19239, 2376, 242, 24756, 25376, 256, 260111, 261117, 262121, 263, 267144, 270154, 271160, 273170, 287. See also Koroneika; traditional potters/ workshops; Vounaria metal: casting, 283; dedications/ votives, 7281, 294–295, 296; pinakes, 304; precious, 296; sheets in kilns, 261–262; stoking rods, 270, 271160; tools, 294; wheel parts, 241–242; workshops, 188, 306. See also bronze; gold; industry; iron; ore; silver metallurgical furnaces, 1644, 20, 183, 188–189, 192–194, 19552, 206–208, 216101, 217, 2283, 25275, 260, 266135, 276, 283, 292 metallurgy, 19242 metalsmiths/metalworkers, 188, 194, 206, 207, 307, 309 metalworking, 188, 277, 283. See also industry Metapontum (Italy), 193; Kerameikos, 263127 Methone, 24967, 251 Metropoli (Karditsa), 25481, 257, 259 Miletos, 24755 mines, 188, 217; miners, 309; mining, 182–183, 237. See also Laurion mines; ore; Soureza

g eneral index miniature paintings/style, 60, 73, 276, 298 miniatures: vessels, 33, 77, 183, 28316, 290; votives, 512, 290, 298 Minotaur, 71 Mochlos (Crete), Artisans Quarter at, 241, 24651 modelers, 1, 222 models: bronze, 72; terracotta, 72, 205, 217109, 299; wooden, 16. See also kiln models modern potters/workshops, 22, 64, 20981, 236, 245, 246, 263, 265, 275, 286–287. See also ethnography; traditional potters/workshops Moknine (Tunisia), 263126, 273170 moldmade ceramics, 1137, 207. See also pinakes: moldmade molds, 240, 24550, 311; for pinakes, 8, 10. See also pinakes: moldmade monopoly, 79, 186 mortar, in kiln construction, 191, 252, 255, 260, 261. See also kiln architecture mortars, 286, 300 Mt. Apesas (Corinthia), 29141 Mt. Chelydorea. See Pitsa Mt. Olympos, 285 Mykonos (Cyclades), 28929 myrtle, 217105 Nabeul (Tunisia), 20879, 2793 Naxos (Cyclades), 284, 285, 307 Nea Korinthos, 4 Nea Philadelpheia (near Thessaloniki), 255 Nemea, 257, 259 nestoris, 11 Nikoletto (Corinth), 26, 35, 238 novice potters/painters, 63, 64, 186. See also apprentices/apprenticeship; assistants, potters’ nudes/nudity, 67, 194, 206 Odysseus, 19450 offerings. See votives/offerings “off-the-hump.” See under wheel, forming techniques olive: branches, 262121; pits, 267, 269; processing, 209; trees, 39; wood, 242, 246, 265 Olympia, 254 Olympos. See Mt. Olympos Onesigaros, 286 oracle. See Delphic oracle; lead tablets, oracular ore, 182–183, 188, 189. See also iron; metal; mines

g eneral index Orestes, 1140 ostraka, from New Kingdom Egypt, 5740 Otos, 285 ovens 1826, 20569, 217, 218111, 2283, 24967, 261, 266 oxidization. See under kiln firing Paiania, 276188 painters. See vase painters and potters, Athenian; vase painters and potters, Corinthian Palestine, 266139; Gadara, 217104; Lachish, 24651; Syro-Palestine, 24862 Panticapeum, 20569 papyri, on potters’ workshops, 23. See also Greek Magical Papyri Paroikia (Paros, Cyclades), 25269, 254, 259–260 Parrhasios, 930 Patima (Corinthia), 36 Patmos, 24239, 25275 Patras, 42, 24969 patronymics. See under inscriptions Pegasos, 71 Peiraeum, 283 Peiraion, 28312 Penteskouphia kastraki, 2, 23, 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, 3668, 37. See also Kastelli Penteskouphia village, 2, 4, 23, 24, 26, 35–36, 37, 39–41, 237–238, 302 peplos, 184 Perachora, 21, 6758, 283, 304; Heraion at, 7, 9, 28312; pinakes from, 7, 9, 3345, 280 Peraia, 283 Pergamon, 5739 perirrhanterion, 36 petrographic analysis, 236, 238 phallus/phallic, 193, 223128. See also ithyphallic figures Pharai. See Patras Phari (Thasos), 24967, 251–252, 25585, 274 Pherai (Thessaly), 24967, 251, 25269, 254, 260114 Phliasian gate (Corinth), 35 Phliasian road (Corinthia), 2–4, 25, 35, 36, 39 Phlious, 4, 14, 24, 302 Phoenicians, in Corinth, 223130 Pholos (centaur), 1829 Picolpasso, 194, 24340. See also maiolica; Renaissance ceramic workshops pilos, 194 pinakes: bronze, 28827, 304; metal, 304; moldmade, 7, 8–9, 10, 49 (see also moldmade ceramics; molds); votive,

22, 11, 14, 21–22, 45, 50, 56, 64, 225136, 280, 281, 282, 283, 288, 29033, 304; wooden, 9, 50, 288, 304. See also Athens: pinakes from; Eleusis, pinakes from; Gotsi plot, pinakes from; Isthmia, Sanctuary of Poseidon at; Locri Epizephyrii, pinakes from Sanctuary of Persephone at; Perachora: pinakes from; Pitsa, wooden pinakes from; Potters’ Quarter: pinakes from; Rachi, pinakes from; Sparta: Sanctuary of Agamemnon and Kassandra, pinakes from; votives/ offerings: Penteskouphia pinakes as piracy, 297 Piraeus, 28312 Pisticci (Italy), 1142 pithoi, 20570, 24131, 24447, 25482; Messenian workshop, 261117, 273170, 276; reused in kiln, 260 Pitsa (Sikyon), wooden pinakes from, 9, 50, 21186, 223, 282, 288 Pitsidia (Crete), 24131 pivot. See under wheel parts Pizzica (near Metapontum, Italy), 193 Platani (Corinthia), 3976 poletai records, 216101 Pompeii, 1747, 19344, 240 porcelain. See Chinese porcelain workshops Porto Cheli, 271160 Poseidon, cult of, 20, 22, 6864, 7172, 280, 28827, 289, 296. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; Isthmia, Sanctuary of Poseidon at; libations; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; Sounion, Sanctuary of Poseidon and Athena at; votives/offerings; worship Poseidon, epithets of: Damaios, 28930; ἂναξ (ruler), 68, 280, 304; ἄναξ πόντιος (ruler of the sea), 68; ἀσφάλιος, 68, 295; γαιήοχος (Earth holder/embracer), 68, 295; ἐννοσίγαιος, 68; ἐνοσίχθων (Earth shaker), 68, 295; ἵππιος, 68; πελάγιος, 68; σωσίνεος (savior of ships), 68; τεμενίτης, 289 Poseidon, invocations of, 2, 19 21, 68–69, 74, 193, 196, 207, 212, 218, 270, 280, 299 Poseidon/Poseidon-related imagery, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13–14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 42, 47, 57–58, 6346, 64–73, 75, 78115, 180–181, 185, 193–194, 198, 207, 212, 218, 220, 270, 279–282, 28522, 288–289, 293–296, 299–301, 304–305, 308–309, 311

407 Potidaia (Macedonia), 24967, 251 Potnia Theron. See Artemis: as Potnia Theron potters. See apprentices/apprenticeship; assistants, potters’; modern potters/ workshops; novice potters/painters; traditional potters/workshops; vase painters and potters, Athenian; vase painters and potters, Corinthian Potters’ Quarter (Corinth), 4, 9, 34, 5739, 63, 72, 73, 7496, 80, 19450, 209–211, 221, 237–238, 239, 263, 271, 277, 281, 282, 290, 296, 299, 311; kiln model from, 198, 205, 228; pinakes from, 7–9, 3345, 64, 7175, 73, 7492, 75102, 76, 80, 81, 199, 208, 225, 280, 303; stele shrines near, 9, 280, 290–291, 303 potter’s wheel. See wheel. pottery shapes, Athenian: amphora, 19658, 197, 200, 20570, 208–209; hydria, 1137, 33, 75101, 76, 183, 193, 19658, 205–206, 208, 21596, 226140, 266135, 275; kantharos, 183, 220, 275; krater, 11, 5841, 183, 197, 205–206, 220118, 275; kylix, 19658, 197, 205–206, 283; lekythos, 6450, 19657, 208; lip cup, 197, 206. See also Berlin Foundry cup; Caputi hydria; imitations: of Athenian pottery; vase painters and potters, Athenian; vasepainting techniques, Athenian pottery shapes, Corinthian: alabastron, 1, 73, 76, 80123; amphora, 1, 76, 83, 183, 185, 192, 206, 226140, 228, 240, 263, 277, 300, 346; aromatic, 300; aryballos, 1, 33, 50, 6044, 6758, 75102, 76, 77, 80123, 185, 19555, 207, 222125, 225131, 136, 228, 312; bowl, 270, 277, 285–286; column krater/Corinthian krater, 46–48, 50, 52, 55–56, 57, 6044, 70, 72–74, 76, 77, 79–80, 81, 183–185, 192, 198, 207, 211, 226140, 243, 263128, 277, 280, 29876, 304, 309, 311, 312, 342; cosmetic, 1, 305; cup, 263, 277; dinos, 48, 185; jug, 1, 14, 46, 48, 81, 1803, 183–185, 192, 222125, 263, 277; komast cup, 33; kotyle, 1, 33, 3664, 46, 48, 50, 63, 76–77, 1803, 1829, 183–185, 192, 211, 221, 263128, 271, 277, 282, 304, 308; kylix, 48, 6758; lekane/lekanoid, 185, 192, 277, 286; lekythos, 33, 75102; miniature, 33, 77, 183, 290, 298; oinochoe, 3665, 63, 73, 75102, 185, 271, 277, 29765; olpe, 76; perfume bottle, 1, 81; pyxis, 33, 59, 77, 221, 226; pyxis lid, 263128; skyphos,

408 33, 50, 5739, 18313; sympotic, 48, 77, 81, 185, 211, 277, 300, 303–305, 311. See also Amphiaraos krater; Astarita krater; Chigi olpe; Eurytios krater; imitations: of Corinthian pottery; vase painters and potters, Corinthian; vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in; vasepainting styles, Corinthian; vasepainting techniques, Corinthian potting industry. See industry: ceramic/ potting Pozzuoli (Italy), 19658 practice surfaces, 246; pinakes as, 56–58, 63–64, 69, 280, 304, 311. See also sketches/sketching prayer, 21293, 294, 296, 305–307, 311. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/offerings; worship Prinias (Crete), 249, 252, 255, 259, 274 Prometheus, 28314 prophylactic purpose, of pinakes, 283. See also apotropaic devices prosopography, Corinthian, 74, 222–223, 225 pyres. See industrial pyres quadriga, 6449 quarries. See under clay; limestone; marble. See also Mavrospilies quarries; Tsakiri quarries quarrymen, 285, 307 Rabbinic literature, 1644 Rachi (Isthmia), pinakes from, 7, 8. See also Isthmia, Sanctuary of Poseidon at reduction. See under kiln firing registers, on pinakes, 53, 6449 religion. See industrial religion/rituals. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/offerings; worship Renaissance ceramic workshops, 16, 275, 309. See also maiolica; Picolpasso reoxidization. See under kiln firing Rhodes, 217 ritual, 510, 11, 21, 42, 45, 7172, 74, 25696, 279–284, 286–291, 294, 300, 302– 308, 311. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/ rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of;

g eneral index prayer; sacrifices; shrines; votives/ offerings; worship Roman Tile Works (Corinth), 239, 255. See also Greek Tile Works; tiles roofs. See kiln architecture: dome/ doomed roof rooftiles, 1, 262120, 300, 312. See also tiles rosettes. See under vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in rotating surfaces, 240–241. See also turntables; wheel roulettes. See rotating surfaces Sabucina (Sicily), 193 sacred groves. See groves, sacred Sacred Spring West (Corinth), 18828 sacrifices, 510, 288, 28929; sacrificial altar, 25696; sacrificial pit, 510. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; shrines; votives/offerings; worship Saftulis cave. See Pitsa sailors, 44 sails/sailing, 185, 295, 300. See also boats; ships Samos, 298 Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore (Acrocorinth), 512, 7, 488, 7171, 19450. See also Acrocorinth; Demeter sand, as temper, 269149. See also temper satyrs, 192, 19343, 195. See also masks, theatrical saws, 74 Scoppieto (Italy), 257104 sculptors, 198, 207, 221, 284, 294, 307 sculpture: Attic, 78115; bronze, 72; terracotta, 488, 179, 300, 312 sea, 24, 4283, 43, 68, 71, 1829, 2793, 2803, 282, 288, 29449, 300, 305; animals, 1829; creatures, 8; monsters, 67, 186 seahorse, 7388 secrecy, in craft communities, 186, 208, 284 shelves, in pottery workshops, 185, 206 shields, 5841, 69, 71, 193; shield factory, 278 shipbuilders, 29445 ships, 68, 24447, 300; on pinakes, 7, 9, 14, 44, 58, 65, 67, 70, 71, 77, 83, 179, 180, 185, 295. See also boats; sails/ sailing shoemakers, 207 shrines, 3031, 279–284, 286, 288, 292–293, 299–300, 306–307; openair, 11; roadside, 37, 42, 303; stele, 9, 228, 280–281, 290–291, 293,

g eneral index 303–304. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/ rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; votives/ offerings; worship sigillata, 1644, 1747 signatures. See under inscriptions Sikyon, 207, 257, 289, 282, 288, 289 Silenos, 193 silver, 216101, 217. See also metal silversmiths, 216 Sindos (Macedonia), 24755, 254, 257 Siphnos (Cyclades), traditional pottery workshops on, 20981, 246, 273170, 276187. See also traditional potters/ workshops Skala Oropou (Attica), 249, 274 sketches/sketching, 14, 56–57, 63–64, 6966, 77, 185, 189, 246, 292, 303, 304. See also practice surfaces sketchpads. See practice surfaces; sketches/sketching slaves, 278 slip: clay, 64; diluted, 52, 192; levigated, 84, 267, 269; sintering of, 192, 272. See also glaze; gloss smelting. See metallurgical furnaces Smyrtorema (Corinth), 35–36, 40 socket. See under wheel parts Solomos (Corinthia), traditional potters at, 20879, 20981. See also traditional potters/workshops songs. See work songs Sounion, Sanctuary of Poseidon and Athena at, 1033, 11, 28827 Soureza (Laurion), Asklepiakon mine, 276188. See also Laurion mines; mines South Italian ceramic workshops, 11, 288, 298 South Stoa (Corinth), 3346, 2283, 29034 spalling. See under lime Sparta, 225; Acropolis, 249; Menelaion, 25798; Sanctuary of Agamemnon and Kassandra, pinakes from, 10 spatulas, 24550. See also tools/toolkit, potters’ spears, 465, 66, 69–70 statues, 11, 28313, 28827, 28930 statuettes, 24550, 285 stele shrines. See shrines: stele sticks: as kiln fuel, 265, 269; as potters’ equipment, 19658, 257, 272. See also fuel; twigs, as kiln fuel stokers. See kiln stokers stoneworking, 207 stool (διφρός), 184–185, 206. See also furniture storage vessels, 185, 206, 230, 240

Stymphalos, Lake, 4 sword factory, 278 Syme Viannou (Crete), Sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at, 932 tablets. See curse tablets; lead tablets; pinakes Tainaron, 2792, 28827 Talos, 11 tanners, 29445 Tasmaske (Hausa village, Niger), 23811 techne, 29449 Telephos, 1140 temenos, 11, 2792, 285, 28827, 29140, 295 temper, 179, 182, 239, 266139, 269149 temple barbers, 286, 307 Temple G (Corinth), 18828 Temple of Apollo (Corinth), 4, 26, 7172, 302 Tenos (Cyclades), 28827 terraces, 35, 39, 42, 231, 286, 295 test pieces, 56, 64, 80, 191, 228, 262, 263, 270–273, 304. See also kiln firing Thasos, 24967, 251, 252, 260110, 274; Artemision, 19658. See also Phari; Vamvouri Ammoudia Theater, east of (Corinth), 261 theater-shaped nook/hollow, 26, 30, 39, 43 theater tickets, 725 Thebes, 25798 Therikles, 222 Thermon, 25275, 263125 Theseus, 19658, 20879 Thessaloniki, 25481, 255 Thessaly, 25269 Thrapsano (Crete): kiln model from, 29981; traditional potters at, 24239, 267144, 273, 276187. See also traditional potters/workshops three-stage firing. See under kiln firing thunderbolt, 19240 tiles, 14, 6452, 179, 255, 256, 28419; production of, 179, 207, 255, 311, 312; tile works, 1, 228, 231, 260, 277. See also Greek Tile Works; Roman Tile Works; rooftiles Tile Works (Corinth). See Greek Tile Works; Roman Tile Works Timoleon, 28930 tithes, 294 tools/toolkit, potters’, 19, 179, 183, 199, 227, 245–246, 309; as dedications, 294, 305; Minoan, 24027, 241, 245–246, 25798; pebbles as, 245; shells as, 245. See also axes; brushes; equipment, of pottery workshops;

409 hammers; hands, as potters’ tools; kiln-firing tools; spatulas toponymics. See under inscriptions torches, 283 Torone (Macedonia), 24755 trade/exports, of pottery, 1, 17, 21, 7070, 77, 179, 208, 228, 2793, 280–281, 282, 293–300, 301–302, 305, 310. See also imported pottery traditional potters/workshops, 21–22, 191, 192, 193, 20879, 209, 217–218, 227–228, 2376, 240, 242–243, 246, 247, 25479, 82, 25587, 256, 260110, 111, 261, 263, 265, 267144, 270–271, 273, 275, 276. See also ethnography; modern potters/workshops trees: felling of, 182, 207, 265; on Penteskouphia pinakes, 180, 182, 265; pinakes displayed on, 11, 25, 286–287, 290, 292. See also fuel; groves, sacred tridents, 58, 66–69, 73, 193, 295 tripods. See under kiln furniture Tripolis, 42, 237 Tsakiri quarries (Corinth), 34 Tunisia. See Djerba; Leptiminus; Moknine; Nabeul tunnels: aqueduct, 32; stoking (see kiln architecture: stoking channel) Turkey. See Cappadocia turntables, 16, 240–241. See also rotating surfaces; wheel twigs, as kiln fuel, 266–267, 273. See also fuel; sticks two-chambered kilns. See under kiln types Tydeus, 29765 tyrants, 724, 29762 unslipped pottery, 192, 267, 269 updraft kiln. See under kiln types Vamvouri Ammoudia (Thasos), 259 vase painters and potters, Athenian: Antiphon Ptr, 197; Bakchios, 275182; Class of Athens 581, workshop of, 6450; Dish Ptr, 197; Ergoteles, 275182; Ergotimos, 221, 275182; Eucheiros Ptr, 275182; Euergides Ptr, 197; Exekias, 50, 197; Foundry Ptr, 283; Hypsis, 21596; Jena Ptr, 20981; Kittos, 275182; Kleitias, 221; Komaris Ptr, 197; Leningrad Ptr, 197; Little Master Cups, potters of, 225, 275; Louvre Centauromachy, Ptr of, 197; Mikion, 222126; Myson, 220118; Nearchos, 275182; Nikosthenes, 277193; Oreibelos, 220118; Paseas,

410 222126; Pioneers, 19658; Skythes, 222126; Sophilos, 221; Theseus Ptr, 19658, 208; Tleson, 275182. See also pottery shapes, Athenian; vasepainting techniques, Athenian vase painters and potters, Corinthian: Aegina Bellerophon Ptr, 826, 5842, 81; Anaploga Ptr, 176; Androsiren Ptr, 18621; Athena Ptr, 465; Basel Hydra Aryballos Ptr, 81129, 178; Bia, 226; Boar Hunt Ptr, 7388; Cavalcade Ptr, 81129, 121; Chares, 58, 199, 221–222, 226; Chimaera Group, 81129, 104; Chimaera Ptr, 81; Detroit Ptr, 5223; Dionysios Ptr, 29764; Dodwell Ptr, 7388; Echekles, 199, 211, 221–222; Ephebe Ptr, 78114; Goateed-Siren Ptr, 18621; Gorgoneion Group, 81129; Gorgones Group, 48; Herzegovina Ptr, 80123; Hippolytos Ptr, 465, 5223, 81129; Kallikleas, 222125; London Frauenfest Ptr, 81129; Louvre E 627, Ptr of, 47; Medallion Ptr, 80, 227; Memnon Ptr, 46, 7493; Milonidas, 81, 199, 218, 221–222, 282; Ophelandros Ptr, 465, 81, 198, 263128; Pholoe Ptr, 1803; Polyteleia Ptr, 81129; Pyrrhos, 222125; Scale-Pattern Group, 80123; Severeanu Ptr, 80123; Sphortos Ptr, 465; Timonidas, 826, 14, 48, 81, 1803, 199, 218, 220–222, 225–226, 282, 310; Wilanow Ptr, 81129; Winged Lion Ptr, 80123. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian; vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in; vase-painting styles, Corinthian; vase-painting techniques, Corinthian vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in: assembly of gods, 68; Atticizing, 80, 29764; banquets, 465, 74, 198; borders, 5223, 53–54; cavalry/equestrian cavalcades, 65–67, 69–73, 80, 180, 19554; cavernous landscapes, 1829; centauromachy, 182, 197; centaurs, 7, 180, 216; chariots, 7, 465, 57, 68, 70, 7172, 72, 181, 19555, 218, 220; checkerboard pattern, 52; dancers, padded, 465, 177; dogs, 6757, 143, 218, 226; dolphins, 67, 68, 1829; felines, 70, 77; filling ornament, 2, 15, 49, 53, 77, 79; fish, 67, 68, 71, 1829, 28825; foxes 19554; Frauenfest, 81129, 288; Gorgons, 57; griffins, 465; hoplites, 465, 6449, 69, 80; horseback riders, 2, 8, 14, 17, 47, 49, 65–66, 69–70, 72, 75, 78114, 831, 194–195, 21189, 290,

g eneral index 295, 301, 308; horses, 7, 3452, 43, 49, 52, 59, 65–71, 73, 75, 80, 831, 85, 216, 220, 226, 282–283; komasts, 18827, 19863; lions, 49, 18519; maeander, 52; octopuses, 28825; rabbits, 19554; rosettes, 49, 288; sirens, 186; sphinxes, 9; squires, 70, 19553; swans, 465; symposium, 198; warriors, 2, 7–9, 14, 47, 65, 69, 70, 831, 180, 194, 195, 226, 283, 301, 308; winged animals 52, 71, 73. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian; vase-painting styles, Corinthian; vase-painting techniques, Corinthian vase-painting styles, Corinthian: Conventionalizing, 33, 79, 297–298, 300, 306; Geometric, 298; Protocorinthian, 826, 30, 33–34, 41, 52, 5739, 75102, 78, 79117, 81131, 18828, 207, 222125, 225131, 228; Transitional, 5842, 77, 79–80, 290. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian; vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in; vase-painting techniques, Corinthian vase-painting techniques, Athenian: black-figure, 11, 49, 193, 19657, 199, 205, 211–212, 267; red-figure, 11, 5841, 193, 205–206, 21596, 220118, 222126, 267, 283; white-ground, 64. See also pottery shapes, Athenian; vase painters and potters, Athenian vase-painting techniques, Corinthian: added colors (red and white), 52; black-figure, 1, 2, 17, 19, 50, 52, 84, 205, 211; outline, 1, 64, 184; polychrome, 826, 298; red-ground, 57, 73, 297; silhouette, 1, 33, 34, 52, 63, 77, 193, 302. See also pottery shapes, Corinthian; vase painting, Corinthian, elements and themes in; vase-painting styles, Corinthian Vasiliko. See Patras Via Appia, 1747 vitrification, 253, 255 votives/offerings, 5, 9, 11, 36, 4913, 56, 64, 6860, 79119, 20567, 273170, 281, 28316, 286, 289, 290, 293, 294–295, 296, 305, 306, 307; Penteskouphia pinakes as, 23, 24, 41–42, 281, 287, 292, 305–307. See also altars; dedicants; first-fruits offerings; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; libations; pinakes; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; worship Vounaria (Messenia), 242, 273167, 275 Vrysoula deposit (Corinth), 188, 228, 271

g eneral index war/warfare, 13, 6554 waste, 23, 42 wasters. See kiln wasters weavers, 74, 207, 24239, 307 wheel (potter’s), 1–2, 1645, 1747, 19, 20, 48, 50, 179–180, 182–185, 194, 195, 205–206, 227, 239, 240–245, 274, 278, 299–300, 302, 308, 309, 310; experimental replica of, 24343. See also rotating surfaces; turntables wheel, forming techniques: “off-thehump,” 183, 243; wheel-finishing, 240, 241, 300; wheel-throwing, 19, 179, 240, 24128, 243, 282. See also hand-forming/hand-building wheel materials: clay, 241–244; metal, 241–242; stone, 243; wood, 241– 244 wheel operation: foot-operated/kick wheel, 1645, 240, 24131, 242, 243; hand-operated, 240–244; wheelturner, 276. See also assistants, potters’

wheel parts: disk, 241–242, 24341; flywheel, 240, 243; pivot, 240–243; socket, 240–242, 24341; wheelhead, 183, 240–245 wheel rotation: counterclockwise, 184; speed of, 240–244 willow, in kiln construction, 253. See also kiln architecture wine production. See grapes women: in craft production, 1137, 1805, 206; on pinakes, 7; prohibited from approaching furnaces, 19346; work songs performed by, 28420 wood: as fuel, 265–269; impressions of on pinakes, 49; in kiln construction, 257, 262120, 270. See also fuel; kiln architecture wooden: kiln equipment, 270, 271260; models (Egyptian), 16; practice surfaces, 246; tools, 245–246; wheel parts, 241–244. See also pinakes, wooden; Pitsa, wooden pinakes from

411 woodworking/woodcutting, 1828, 276187 workforce, 11, 20, 30, 48, 206, 227, 274–275, 276187, 277193, 278, 284, 298–299 workshops, family-based, 20, 275, 278, 305, 309. See also family-centered craft production work songs, 284. See also dances, occupational worship, 279, 280, 288–290, 292, 303. See also altars; dedicants; groves, sacred; industrial religion/rituals; libations; Poseidon, cult of; prayer; ritual; sacrifices; shrines; votives/ offerings worshippers, 281, 295 Zeus, 66, 67, 68, 71, 75, 181, 19240, 28827, 28929, 29141 Zeuxis, 931

Index of Mus eums For the Penteskouphia pinakes, see Appendix 1.

Athens, Acropolis Museum [no inv. no.] 218112 3767 218112 3768 218112 GL 166 197 GL 2525 20775 GL 2557-EAM 15126  5016, 222126 GL 2586-EAM 15150  222126 Athens, Agora MC 577 MC 703 P 204 P 17288 PNP 42

264 264 264 264 197

Athens, Epigraphical Museum 6320 218112 6334 218112 6376 218112 6392 218112 6393 218112 6448 218112 6501 218112 12750 218112 Athens, Kanellopoulos Collection 1319 75102 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 30 81 277 1803, 222 951 176, 177 1114-2624 (442) 197 2552 6758 2723 1138 14935/3588 1136 16464 932, 5018, 223129 16465 932 16466 932

16467 932 16631 929 16633 929 16634 929 16635 929 16636 929 16638 929 1.803 197 1.853 197 1.2134 220118 1.2459 6450 1.2497 5016, 5324, 6449 1.2498 5324, 6449, 222126 1.2499 5324 1.2505 5324 1.2531 20775 1.2533 5016 1.2535 5016 1.2544 5016 1.2553 5324 1.2554 5324 1.2556 222126 1.2560 7277 1.2561 5324 1.2570 197 1.2571 75102 1.2574 5016 1.2578 1136, 6758, 19966 1.2579 1136, 197, 19966, 243 1.2582 10 1.2583 222126 1.2590a, b 6448 2.470 197 2.594 225136 2.739 197 2.762 220118 2.806 220118 2.1037 5016 2.1051 222126 2.1367 220118 AP 165/15124 7277

414 Bari, Museo Archeologico di Santa Scolastica 6207 7389 Baschi, Antiquarium clay kiln arms 257104 Basel, Antikenmuseum BS 451 465 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung F 1147 465 F 1652 226140 F 1655 5738 F 2294 189, 28313 F 2542 197 TC 8865 5739 V.I. 3228 121 V.I. 3974 1140 V.I. 4856 176 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 591 7388 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8073 197 95.12 6758 98.900 222125 Caltagirone, Museo Regionale della Ceramica 1120 197, 206 Caltanisetta, Museo Archeologico 20371 (S810) 19343 Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Art Museums 1960.321 176, 20879 Catania, Museo Biscari 1040 1644 Corinth, Archaeological Museum C-1936-558 3348 C-1936-743 3348 C-1939-366 3664 C-1939-367 3664 C-1939-368 3664 C-1939-369 3664 C-1939-370 3664 C-1953-222 163 C-1954-1 225136 C-1964-318 3349

Index of museums C-1969-186 3664 C-1970-46 75102 C-1972-40 20773 CP-586 3349 CP-2034 465 CP-2038 20773 KN-6 7175, 7383 KN-8 826, 7175 KN-9 7390 KN-14 75102 KN-15 826, 81131 KN-16 7390 KN-18 8 KN-19 8 KN-20 7175 KN-46 826, 81131, 225132 KN-55 826, 81130 KN-56 7390 KN-177 263127 KN-181 19861 KN-195 7492, 19964 KN-203 263127 KN-204 263127 KN-209 263127 KN-210 263127 KN-2058 7383 KP-38 19555 KP-107 3347 KP-195 7492 KP-198 3347 KP-199 3347 KP-282 3347 KP-403 3347 KP-557 3347 KP-740 3347 KP-1052 272 KP-1152 7492, 19964 KP-1160 7387 KP-1166 5739 KP-1338 21187, 221122, 222 KP-1344 157, 272 KP-1358 263128 KP-1380 263128 KP-1523 3347 KP-1526 3347 KP-2119 7387 KP-2307 3347 KP-2319a, b 3347 KT-6-22 3451 KT-23-1 19450 MF-3456 3452, 4386, 4487 MF-5333 3451 MF-8724 264 MF-8725 264 MF-8726 264 MF-8727 264 MF-8728 264 MF-9527 264

Index of museums MF-10962 7171 MF-11065 3453 MF-12861 3453 MF-12877 3453 MF-12878 7171 MF-14419 7171 MF-14496 7171 MF-1969-388 3453 MF-1970-160 7171 MF-1973-113 19450 MK 9370 724 MK 9371 724 T-1455 3349 Eleusis, Archaeological Museum 28a–c 5324, 6449 Eretria, Archaeological Museum 19558 25799 Florence, Museo Archeologico 4198 465 4209 21596 Gela, Museo Archeologico 36086 19657 Isthmia, Archaeological Museum IM 175 7279 IM 255 827 IM 1100 827 IM 1178 827 IM 1186 827 IM 1251 827 IM 2197a 827 IM 2204a, b 827 IM 2412 827 IM 2429 7279 IM 2580 7279 IM 2641 7279 IM 3067 827 IM 3105 827 IM 3106 827 IM 3326 29552 IM 5327 827 IM 7597 827 IM 7632a, b 827 IM 8557 827 IP 9904 827 Ithaka, Vathy Museum 292 222125 Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 67/90 197, 206

Lacco Ameno, Museo Archeologico di Pithecusae 239083 222124 Leipzig, Antikenmuseum der Universität Leipzig T509 121 London, British Museum 1836,0224.248 465 1847,0806.54 (E 494) 1139 1847,1125.18 (B 432) 88, 197 1865,1213.1 6044 1867,0508.860 465 1873,0915.10 143 1946,0713,0.1.1–24 1748 1961,0710.1 5841 London, Victoria and Albert Museum 659-1884 1645 1717-1855 1645

415 Paris, Musée du Louvre A 438 7388 CA 454 3115 E 609 222, 226139 E 627 47 E 632 465, 81126, 198, 263128 E 633 47 E 634 46–47, 7493, 207 E 635 475 E 638 226140 E 642 75101 E 643 75101 MNC 677 1803, 1829 Princeton, University Art Museum y1992-1 7388 Providence, Rhode Island School of Design 25.109 20878

Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum O.039630 1644

Reggio Calabria, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 21016 + 60831 1035

Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 1717 193, 197, 205, 206, 208, 266135, 275

Richmond, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts 60.2 1747

Naples, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei 128194 75102

Rome, Torlonia Collection 73 21596 Rome, Villa Giulia K 40 6758

Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 1760 1141

Tampa, Museum of Art, Noble Collection 86.83 24024

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 27.116 5223 41.11.42 19860 41.162.79 121

Taranto, Museo Nazionale 20909 176

Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1927.4602 6448 AN1896-1908.G.287  183, 197, 275 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Monnaies, médailles et antiques 422 1142

Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 919.5.144 465, 5223 Vatican City, Vatican Museum 35525 5223 Vicenza, Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Collection F.G-00002A-E/IS (C 278)  197 Windsor, Eton College Museum of Antiquities ECM.2315-2017 121

Index of Anc i ent S o ur c e s

Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 131 68 Anacreon, fr. 28 216 Anthologia Palatina 6.4 29447 6.61 217 14.50 217 Apollodoros, Bibliotheca 1.7.4 285 Apollonius the Sophist, Lexicon Homericum 276188 Aristotle Ethica Nicomachea 1107b17–20 217106 1122a30–32 217106 1123a19–20 217106 Poetica 1278 194 Politica 1317b4 217106 fr. 259 216101 Aristophanes Aves 1001, Scholia 217108 Nubes 96a, c, Scholia 217108 Plutus 535, 951, Scholia 217104 Ranae 122, Scholia 217108 fr. 39 216101 fr. 720 217104 Asterius of Amasea, Homiles 3.12.2 217104 Athenaeus 1.50 217105 11.470e–472e 222 Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus 38.29 242 38.31–34 306 Callimachus Hymn 3.60 216101 fr. 115 216101 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis 2.18.91 216101 Clement of Rome, Ad Corinthios 217105

Critias, Elegies 1.12–14 11, 205 Demosthenes 27.9, 21, 31 278 Didymus the Blind, Fragmenta in Proverbia 29 217105 Diodorus Siculus 4.76 11 5.27.2 216101 20.63.5 276188 Dionysius Halicarnassensus, Antiquitates Romanae 3.46 1 Dioscorides, De materia medica 5.85 217105 Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 1.347 217103 Erotian, s.v. ἰπνός 217108 Euripides, Hippolytus 44 68 Eustathius Ad Iliadem 2.182 216 Ad Odysseam 18.27 276188 Galen, De methodo medendi 12.185–186 216101 12.219 217103 12.438 217104 Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 1.1.38 276188 Hero of Alexandria Geoponica 202 217108 Stereometrica 1.76.1 217108 Herodotus 1.179 216 2.167 21, 207 Hesiod, Opera et Dies 25-26 307 Hesychios s.v. ἀνθράκιον 217109 s.v. βαῦνος 217108 s.v. ἰπνός 217108 s.v. κλίβανος 217108 s.v. κυψέλαι και κυψελίδες 25275

418 Hippocrates, Epidemiae 4.20 217107 Homer, Iliad 7.445 68 9.183 68 9.362 68 13.59 68 13.125 68 18.599–601 24447 [Homer], Κάμινος  192, 215–216, 252, 262, 284, 307 Hymnus Homericus 22.5 68 22.6 29555 Isocrates, Antidosis 2 931 Livy 1.34 1 4.3 1 Lucian De sacrificiis 6 276188 Dialogi deorum 8.4 216101 Lysias 12.19 278 Mishnah Parah 5.1 273170 Nonnus, Dionysiaca 29.349 216101 Olympiodorus, In Aristotelis Meteora commentaria IV.9.74r. 217105 Oribasius, Collectiones medicae 13.Δ.1 217103 13.Π.2 217105 Pausanias 2.1.6 68 2.4.6–7 226137 2.5.3 29141 2.11.4 289–290 6.20.15–19 146 7.17 932 Plato Gorgias 514e 24447 Laches 187b 24447

index of anc ient so ur c e s Protagoras 324e 24447 Theaetetus 47 1826 Pliny, Naturalis historia 7.198 1 35.15–16 1 35.151–152 1 35.152 222 Plutarch Alexander 51 217 24447 De genio Socratis 20 Pollux, Onomasticon 7.108 19242 10.85 21597 Polybius 6.11.7 1 Posidonius, FGrH 2a.87.F116 216101 Strabo 3.2.8 216 5.2.6 216 5.4.6 216 8.6.23 207 Suda s.v. βαῦνος 217108 s.v. ἰπνός 217108 s.v. κάμινος 217108 s.v. κλίβανος 217108 s.v. Ὅμηρος 21597 s.v. πνιγεύς 217108 Thucydides 3.89.1 29657 4.100.2, Scholia 216101 5.50.5 29657 Tosefta Parah 5.1 273170 Xenophon Cynegeticus 7.5 226 Hellenica 4.5 28312 4.7.4 29555 Zosimus Alchemista 217105