Artists' Signatures on Archaic Greek Vases From

154

TEN

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS

Sarah Bolmarcich and Georgina Muskett

The quest to defi ne individual, artistic personalities in ancient Greek art is not new; a large number of books and articles on the subject exist. This chapter, however, focuses on a particular type of evidence related to the “individual” in ancient Greek art: the craftsman’s signature. While discus- sions of signatures in mosaic, on statue bases, or in other media have borne interesting fruit, in this study we will focus on signatures found on Athenian pottery. 1 As a body of evidence Attic pottery is preserved in substantial quantities, is well-recorded, and represents a discrete data set. By setting these parameters, we hope to be better able to answer the questions of why Attic vases in particular were signed and what these signatures may suggest about the role of the individual craftsman in Greek art and history. While the incomplete nature of the archaeological record must render tentative any conclusions drawn on the basis of the number of signatures preserved, we do believe that enough evidence exists to allow us to suggest trends and to off er some conclusions, however speculative, about signed Athenian pottery. Thus, our aims in the present chapter are twofold. First, we will present a current consideration of artists’ signatures, those of both painters and potters, which appear on Athenian pottery from the early sixth century to the mid- fourth century b.c.e. Second, we will explore why signatures appeared on vases at all, and why it was appropriate (and possible) for an individual to express his identity in this manner in the fi rst place. 2

154 155

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 155

HISTORY OF SIGNED VASES

The Database Using Immerwahr’s fundamental Corpus of Attic Vase Inscriptions ( CAVI ), we have compiled a database of 1039 signatures. This small corpus of signatures is vital to our attempt to isolate and examine the material evidence related to ancient individuals. 3 While several dozen non-Attic signatures are known (and to which we will make occasional reference), we have limited our database, for the purposes of this study, to Attic vases. 4 We have also added signed vases miss- ing from CAVI to our catalogue and have corrected a number of Immerwahr’s errors and duplications with the hopes that our database will be valuable to scholars working on the study of signatures on Attic pottery. 5

Potters and Painters Generally a painter signed his name followed by some form of the verb “painted” ( ἔγραψεν, or egrapsen ), while a potter (or the painter signing for him) used the verb “made” (ἐποίησεν , or epoiesen ). 6 The subject of epoiesen could indicate the person who made the vessel or under whose direction it was made, or the name of the manager of a workshop. 7 Often these inscriptions occur alone, at other times with an egrapsen inscription. Egrapsen or megrapsen ( μἐγραψεν) might have indicated “created the original design” and/or “drew.” The same person might sign as both potter and painter, although this is rare. 8 At other times, it is clear that potter and painter were diff erent persons and one or both of them signed distinctly, as on the famous François Vase; without the presence of signatures, it would be tempting to identify potter and painter as the same individual. 9 Signatures also permit reconstruction of the personnel active in Athenian pottery workshops and emphasize the close family links within the workshops. The trade of potter (and occasionally painter) can pass from father to son, although no other relationships are noted. 10 The most striking example of this phenomenon is the family of Nearchos; he was an accomplished potter and painter as indicated by his signature as both painter and potter on a kantharos fragment. 11 Two slightly later potters, the highly prolifi c Tleson and Ergoteles, proudly sign themselves “son of Nearchos,” suggesting they were brothers. 12 Other “dynasties” of potters include the fam- ilies of Nikias and Amasis, with occasional instances of other patronymics. The most remarkable instance of a family of potters extends three genera- tions, and includes Ergotimos, his son Eucheiros, and an anonymous grandson, who signs one vessel as “son of Eucheiros.” 13 The only surviving instance of a painter who used a patronymic in his signature was Euthymides, although his father, Pollias, is not fi rmly known as either painter or potter. (It is possible, 156

156 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

however, that Euthymides’ father may have been the sculptor Pollias, who was responsible for several statue bases found on the Athenian Akropolis, where an individual named “Polias” dedicated a painted clay plaque attributed to Euthymides.) 14 Family traditions in the craft are known as late as the second half of the fourth century. Two potters named Kittos and Bakchios, known from a later fourth century inscription in Ephesos, are named as the sons of Bakchios, who is known from a funerary inscription as a prize-winning potter; the similarity of names makes it plausible that all three were members of the same family. 15 In addition to family associations, Neer’s study of “potter- portraits” and inscriptions naming painters and potters within the early-fi fth- century circle of “Pioneers” in Athens also allows the discussion of potential working relationships. 16 Neer suggests two groupings/workshops, one including Euphronios, Smikros and Kachrylion, and another, Euthymides, Sosias and Phintias. 17 In addition, Cohen has noted a possible link among Oltos, Euphronios and Euxitheos. 18 Not all known painters or potters signed all their work, of course, and some seem never to have signed their vases at all. It should also be noted that even when multiple vases in the oeuvre of a painter or potter are signed, they need not necessarily be signed by the same person. Hands can vary widely within an artist’s body of work, both in signatures and in other types of vase inscriptions. 19 The variations are obvious, even to the untrained eye. The signatures of Sakonides, for instance, are not all by the same hand. 20 Likewise, the signatures of Pamphaios vary widely from cup to cup. 21 Immerwahr suggests that the person responsible for the signature may not even be the potter, as orthodoxy holds, but rather the painter, who may have been copying models for his inscriptions.22 If Immerwahr is correct that signatures were painted from models provided to the artists, it suggests that potters or painters and their workshop had a great deal of control over what they chose to present on their pot and, perhaps, how much eff ort they expended in meeting market forces. This would be particularly true of potters whose work is usually signed, such as Nikosthenes, Tleson, and Pamphaios, all of whom had a large presence in Etruria. While this particular issue cannot be explored in depth here, at minimum the lack of consistency among artists’ hands and the fact that not all works of a particular artist were signed demon- strate the innate mutability of signatures. There is much that we cannot know.

Chronology From the time of the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet in Greece in the eighth century b.c.e., pottery was a vehicle for text.23 The earliest known Attic inscription is a graffi to on an oinochoe found in the Dipylon cemetery in Athens. 24 Signatures appear later in the Archaic period, becoming common in Athens only after the mid- sixth century. Their use continues throughout the 157

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 157

Table 10.1. Chronological Breakdown of Signed Vases 600

400

200

600–575575–550550–525525–500500–475475–450450–425425–400400–375375–350350–325 Number of Signed Vases

Classical period until the early fourth century, after which only a few vessels were signed. The earliest known painted inscription with a signature appears on a bowl dating from 720 to 700 b.c.e., found at Pithecusae on Ischia. As will be discussed later, the signature is clearly part of the decoration.25 The earliest extant signed Attic vases, both the work of Sophilos and using both the verbs egrapsen ( ἔγραψεν) and epoie (ἐποίε ), date from 600 to 575 b.c.e. 26 The practice quickly caught on. From 575 to 500 b.c.e. , CAVI lists thirty such vases. It would appear, then, that Attic vase painters and potters may have come later to the idea of signing their wares than did non- Attic artists. As time passed, the practice of signing one’s work became increasingly popular among Attica’s vase painters and potters. Table 10.1 demonstrates this. From two signatures between 600 and 575 b.c.e. , and thirty between 575 and 550 b.c.e., the numbers soar to 449 between 550 and 525 b.c.e. After that, a slow decline begins from 525 to 500 b.c.e. , when there are 252 signed pottery vessels known, to 500 to 475 b.c.e. , from which period 172 signed vases are extant. After 475 b.c.e. , a very steep decline begins, with thirty-six vases from 475 to 450 b.c.e. , twelve from 450 to 425 b.c.e. , fi fteen from 425 to 400 b.c.e., two from 400 to 375 b.c.e., and one each in the periods 375–350 b.c.e. and 350– 325 b.c.e. Even given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, the trend is a powerful one: artists who signed their work did so almost entirely in the Archaic period.

Find- spots Only about half the extant signed Attic vases have a secure provenance. Table 10.2 gives a short breakdown of fi nd- spots for Greek vases throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions. Of the 568 vases with known fi nd- spots, 71 percent, or 405, were found in Italy, Sicily, and the Western Mediterranean; 158

158 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

Table 10.2. Known fi nd-spots of signed vases (see also Appendix A)

Area Total Mainland Greece 132 Athens/ Attica/ Euboia/ Saronic Gulf 115 Italy, Sicily, and Points West 405 Etruria 359 Italy (excluding Etruria) 34 Sicily 11 Western Europe 1 Aegean Islands (excluding Ionia) 14 Egypt and Northern Africa 18 Naukratis 14 Ionia, Asia Minor, and the Black Sea Region 9 Overall 568

all but 46 of those (63 percent of vases with known fi nd- spots) came from Etruria. 27 Appendix A off ers a more complete list of fi nd- spots with break- downs by city or site as well as region. Athenian motives for exporting signed vases to Etruria will be discussed below. Large numbers of signed Attic vases were found in Etruria, at Cerveteri, Vulci, Orvieto, Tarquinia, and Chiusi, most often in tombs. 28 It should be remembered, however, that Greek painted pottery found in Etruria was not necessarily produced solely for the tomb; for instance, an extremely large cup, dedicated by an Etruscan, was found in a sanctuary to the Dioskouroi.29

ASPECTS OF SIGNED VASES

Economic/Historical From Tables 10.1 and 10. 2, it is clear that a “typical” signed Attic vase is likely to have been created between 550 and 525 and was probably discovered in Etruria. While non-Attic signed vases are far fewer in number than those produced in Athens, the typical non-Attic signed vase will fall into one of two groups: earlier, seventh- and eighth-century vases, usually found not in mainland Greece but in the Aegean islands or the Greek colonies in Sicily and Magna Graecia, or later, sixth-century vases, typically Boiotian or Corinthian, with the Boiotian vases typically found within Boiotia itself, and usually in a religious context.30 The presence of two such distinct groups among non-Attic vases may shed some light on signatures on Attic vases. Most non-Attic vases of the fi rst group pre- date the beginning of signatures on Attic vases ca. 600; most of those in the second group post- date the fi rst signed Attic vases by several decades. Infl uence is hard to determine but, as noted above, later Corinthian vases may have been infl uenced by the reception of signed Attic vases. Whether the earliest 159

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 159

non- Attic vases infl uenced the signatures on Attic vases is much more diffi cult to determine, but we submit that they do off er an interesting look into the economics of signed Attic pots. Several of these earlier non-Attic vases are found in Sicilian colonies, particularly the Euboian colonies and Megara Hyblaea, i.e., they are Chalcidian and Doric in origin – also the origin of many of the Greek colonies in Sicily and Magna Graecia. Athens, famously, did not colonize in the West, and may only have founded some very small colonies for trade purposes in the East. The motives for Greek colonization are much debated, but economic moti- vations were certainly important. Perhaps the Athenians sought to make up for their defi cit in colonization by extending their trade networks as far as possible and embracing locally attractive commodities like signed vases.31 Overall, in the Sicilian and Italian Greek colonies, very few signed Attic vases have been found: only eleven in Sicily as a whole and ten among the Greek colonies in Italy. Other sites in Italy where signed Attic vases have been found may have acquired them via Etruria, and this may be true of the Greek colonies as well. The number of vases found is so scanty that it seems the Athenians may not have found a Western market for them outside of Etruria. The lack of signed vases from the Black Sea area, an area in which the Athenians also had a signifi cant economic (if not colonial) presence, suggests that they may well have focused on Etruria as a market for specifi c goods, i.e., signed vases. Attic vases began to be exported in large quantities from Attica around 600. 32 The best market for them was clearly Etruria. While Beazley believes that the Etruscan market and its interests did not infl uence Attic vases in any way, Spivey has examined why Attic vases appealed so much to the Etruscans, and has argued that it was largely because of their subject matter, e.g., symposia, a subject that is also refl ected in wall-paintings in Etruscan tombs. 33 This does not, as Spivey points out, mean that Attic vase painters specifi cally tailored the scenes on their vases to their Etruscan clientele (as Nikosthenes adapted his vase shapes for the Etruscans), only that the two cultures shared a fond- ness for similar iconography. Other scholars hold that that Attic and Etruscan culture simply had similar, parallel interests, while Lewis takes Spivey’s argument even further by suggesting that the Etruscan market actually determined the Attic product. 34 We believe that the high incidence of signatures on Attic vases in Etruria indicated the desires of that particular market. If the Etruscan market also appeared interested in particular vase- shapes, and painters like the Codrus Painter targeted Etruria, it is not a stretch to think they might also be especially interested in inscribed vases.35 Perhaps painters and potters used their names as a kind of brand mark, a sign of quality. But not all artists signed their vessels. Makers’ or owners’ marks are also visible on a number of the vases. Little is known of the Etruscan language, 160

160 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

10.1. Black- fi gure lip- cup, signed by Phrynos as potter. London, British Museum B 424. Photo: © Trustees of the British Museum.

but the Archaic Etruscan alphabet employed a version of the Greek alphabet. Although the two languages diff ered, Greek letters would not have been unfa- miliar to Etruscan audiences. 36 An Etruscan looking at a Greek vase might not be able to read the artist’s signature, but he would be able to recognize that it was an inscription. Etruscan art generally does not display inscriptions, so the Greek inscriptions may have been novel and especially appealing to the market. In fact, of all the vases in the database, 268 have other writing on them beyond an artist’s signature, most commonly kalos inscriptions (which praised the beauty of a youth), captions identifying fi gures in the scene, or nonsense-inscriptions. One hundred twenty-two signed vases with at least one additional inscription on them beyond the signature were found in Etruria. Twelve of the twenty-two vases with nonsense-inscriptions were found in Etruria.37 This suggests that, to some degree, the signature may have simply been regarded as a part of the decoration of a vase. Two facts support this. One is that many signed vases do not have elaborate painted scenes, but simply a potter’s signature. Usually, these are kylikes, in which the signature is placed in the handle zones, thus creating a primitive “design” (cf. Fig. 10.1). Kalos and nonsense inscriptions are also found with the same placement on cups. Although these plain cups do not off er representa- tions of the symposiastic scenes so beloved by the Etruscans, the shape of the vessel belongs to the world of feasting celebrated in Etruscan tomb paintings. This, combined with a presumed Etruscan inability to read the inscriptions, suggests that the Etruscans, while interested in the scenes the vases represented, might also have been interested in the signatures as a facet of vase design. 161

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 161

There is a steep drop in signed vases after 475 and the end of the Persian Wars, a decline that was refl ected in regional pottery imports in general. 38 This may be due to events in Etruria. In ca. 500 b.c.e., Etruscan dominance of the northern Italian peninsula began to fade, giving way to the Greek colonies of southern Italy and Rome. It may be that when the major market for signed vases began to vanish, so too did interest in them at Athens. Although it has been suggested earlier that other signed vases in the West came to their ulti- mate destinations via Etruria, and there are a fair number of signed Attic vases found in Attica itself, it seems probable that Etruria was the major market for signed vases. With its political and economic decline, Athenian vase artists slowly began to abandon the practice of signing their wares.

ARTISTIC APPROACH

Particular Types of Signed Vases Signatures are found on Athenian vessels with all forms of surface treat- ment: black- fi gure, red- fi gure, and occasionally white- ground, as well as monochrome vessels. Signatures are usually painted, although incised signatures are also found. 39 The vessel shapes of dinoi, kraters, pelikai and amphorae lent themselves perfectly to displaying signatures when the vessel was in use, whether in a practical sense, or displayed as an off ering in a sanctuary or tomb. Indeed, a particular shape’s ability to display a signature may be among the reasons very early kraters and dinoi – specifi cally – where signed in the fi rst place (Fig. 10.2 ).40 Signatures can also be well displayed on all variations of amphorae, usually appearing on the body (sometimes twice), but occasionally on the neck or foot of the vessel. Some Panathenaic amphorae were signed, with nine extant examples in the database, from throughout the period of production of this type of vessel ( Fig. 10.3). A very early example, dating to 560– 550 b.c.e., signed in a very prominent location on the shoulder, is the only known instance of Nikias’s signature without a patronymic, and perhaps indication of a special nature of this commission. 41 There are almost eighty signed Nikosthenic amphorae, the majority of which are decorated in the black- fi gure technique and signed by Nikosthenes as potter (Fig. 10.4 ), with a few red-fi gure examples signed by Pamphaios as potter.42 If one function of the signature was to increase the value of decorated pottery, then frequency of signatures on many Nikosthenic amphorae and other vessels produced by his workshop is not surprising. The largest category of signed vessel includes cups of various types, although the position of the signature varies enormously. As noted above, most charac- teristically, the inscription is in the handle zone, between a pair of palmettes, sometimes with an additional motif in the lip zone, above the usual handle 162

10.2. Black- fi gure dinos, signed by Sophilos as painter. London British Museum 1971.11–1.1. Photo: © Trustees of the British Museum.

zone decoration ( Fig. 10.1). 43 Sometimes, the painter has added an exhortation to the user, such as Sakonides encouraging the drinker to “rejoice and drink this”; another cup signed by Phrynos as potter greets the user on both sides of the vessel.44 The use of an inscription as an essen- tial part of the overall design is also shown by the occasional inclusion of a meaningless inscription, often termed a “nonsense inscription,” between the palmettes. The most striking extant example of this is a cup signed by Tlempolemos as potter, now in Berlin: on one handle zone is a perfectly legible inscription that names Tlempolemos as maker, while a nonsense signature appears in the handle zone on the opposite side of the vessel.45 Signatures on a cup’s foot are similarly immediately visible, but do not impinge in any way on the decoration of the vessel, 10.3. Panathenaic amphora, signed by Nikodemos as potter. J. Paul Getty Museum 93.AE.55. although, as Lissarague observes, the artis- Photo: J. Paul Getty Museum. tic eff ect of the signatures on two cups,

162 163

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 163

10.4. Black- fi gure Nikosthenic amphora, signed by Nikosthenes as potter. J. Paul Getty Museum 68.AE.19. Photo: J. Paul Getty Museum.

clearly made as a pair, is enhanced by one of the signatures reading from left to right whereas the other reads from right to left. 46 In other cases, the signatures were placed on parts of the vessel not normally visible when set on a fl at surface, but clearly seen when the cup was either raised to the mouth for drinking or suspended by one of its handles, either in domestic usage or as a dedication in a sanctuary. Signatures beneath the handle are favored by several workshops, such as that of Brygos (Fig. 10.5 ).47

HARMONY OR DISCORD? A review of the entries in the database suggests that the incorporation of signatures into an overall artistic scheme was tackled with more success in some workshops than it was in others. In some instances, the signature is an important design element and, to modern Western taste, provides an aesthetically pleasing eff ect. The signatures are very carefully presented, with neat lettering that does not detract from the painted scene. In the case of circular fi elds, such as the tondo in the interior of a cup, or a plate, it is common for painters to exploit the available area in a graceful and stylish manner by signing around the central design. Excellent examples are found on plates signed by Epiktetos as painter; typical examples depicting a satyr holding fl utes and a banqueter both exhibit signatures that are curved around the tondo. 48 In the case of cups, the signatures sometimes occur alone, with a kalos inscription, or with names of characters. A good example is a cup on which Douris signs as painter on the left- hand side of the tondo, with a kalos inscription on the right- hand side. In this instance, the signature of the potter, Python, is relegated to the base. 49 An 164

164 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

10.5. Red- fi gure cup, signed by Brygos as potter. J. Paul Getty Museum 86.ΑΕ .293. Photo: J. Paul Getty Museum.

inventive and amusing manner of signing a cup exterior is demonstrated by Nikosthenes, who exploits the exterior design of several eye cups by adding his signature as an additional eyebrow. 50 Modern expectations might hold that the most pleasing artistic eff ect would occur when the signature is kept clear of any painted scene, and does not impinge on the overall composition. This is not always the case, however, as exemplifi ed by an amphora signed twice by Amasis as potter: on Side A, the signature, together with the name of Dionysos, appears above a depiction of the deity with two maenads, well clear of the main composition. 51 On Side B, the signature is placed between standing fi gures of Athena and Poseidon, without disrupting the overall composition. On rare occasions, a signature enhances the narrative, as is apparent in the case of a symposium scene in which the signature of Epiktetos appears at the same level as the faces of the symposiasts. The fi rst part of the name appears in front of the open mouth of one of the men, whereas the rest of the signature appears split between the faces of those present, giving an impression of the singing and talking in a sympotic context.52 Accordingly, it is apparent that on many of the pots, the signature is an integral part of the overall artistic conception, and perhaps an artistic genre 165

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 165

in itself, although this does not fully explain the reasons for the inclusion of signatures. 53

SIGNATURES AS EXPRESSIONS OF INDIVIDUALITY The inclusion of signatures on Greek painted pottery could be motivated by pride in an Attic potter or painter’s individual’s skill and artistry. 54 In the fi rst half of the fourth century, competition between potters is unequivocally attested by the epitaph of the potter Bakchios, which indicates competitions involving the decoration of pottery, plausibly Panathenaic amphorae.55 In addition to the use of signatures as advertisements, and to increase the value and profi tability of the vessels, signatures could also be viewed as a manifestation of artistic expression as an integral element of Archaic Greek society. Even if signatures sometimes refer to workshops rather than individuals, the fact that the names of individuals appear on the ceramic vessels, rather than a collective name, is signifi cant. 56 Our research suggests the existence of a large number of signed vases depicting symposium scenes that could be interpreted as a celebration of the owner’s success as an individual having achieved the status necessary to participate in symposia. Accordingly, it would be understandable that the person responsible for the vessel’s creation, whether painter or potter, would wish to celebrate his individual achievement by including a signature. Scenes that detail myths also celebrate the individual achievements of heroes like Theseus, Heracles, or Peleus, or various divinities, again perhaps infusing the artist with a desire to celebrate his own individuality. Is there any concrete evidence of the expression of artistic identity? A small corpus of extant signatures suggest that, in addition to the normal format for signatures (discussed in more detail above), both painters and potters occasionally emphasized artistic ownership of a particular vessel. An excellent example is a signature by Euphronios – “Euphronios painted this” – on fragments of a scene showing Herakles and the Nemean Lion. The painting of the head of the lion is a true tour de force , and seems to fully justify the emphatic nature of the signature.57 In addition, the form of other signatures that declare “Exekias – ” or “Nearchos made me well” indicates that some painters believed that their own vessels were either made or painted in an accomplished manner.” 58 Neer suggests that some inscriptions by Kachrylion and Epilykos may be signatures expressing pride rather than kalos names; we would add a further example by Epilykos.59 A famous inscription on an amphora, signed by Euthymides as potter, trans- lated as “As never Euphronios” (h ὸς οὐδέποτε Εὐφρόνιος) is an excellent, if unusual, expression of identity.60 If interpreted as meaning that Euthymides’s achievement surpassed anything Euphronios was capable of, it is a perfect illustration of a celebration of the accomplishment of an individual painter, or an 166

166 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

individual workshop. 61 Although this interpretation is attractive, it may not be correct. As Vickers and Gill observe, the inscription, on the opposite side of the vessel from the maker’s signature, may not be a continuation of the signature, but rather might be part of a more general dialogue among the three men depicted on this side of the pot. Accordingly, it is plausible that the Euphronios named on the vessel was not the same individual as the known painter and potter. In this case, the inscription may not necessarily be an indication of rivalry between individual artisans or workshops. Perhaps the three men represent a meta-audience discussing the quality of vase-painting? 62 A further manifestation of individual identity are “potter-portraits,” seemingly a phenomenon of the late sixth century, which assign the names of attested painters and potters to individual fi gures on eight known vessels. 63 Only one of the images is a self-portrait, a fi gure named as “Smikros” on a vessel signed by Smikros as painter. As Neer observes, the positioning of the fi gure and inscription leaves no ambiguity in the association. 64 Further, nine inscriptions on vessels, including the amphora discussed above that bears the inscription “As never Euphronios,” name painters (all working in the red- fi gure technique) and potters generally known as “The Pioneers.”65 None of the painters and potters is actually depicted, but the symposiasts depicted on the vessels appear to be hailing them. 66 It should be noted, however, that very little is known about the social status of the painters and potters, the exception being a vessel on which Lydos adds the information that he is a slave. 67 It remains to be considered whether a signature necessarily corresponds to an individual hand or whether it denotes the name of the workshop owner (or owners) or the main artisan responsible for the vessel. Comparisons with artistic works produced in much more recent times can be of great assistance here, although it should be noted that such approaches do not take account of the diff erent ways in which Greek painted pottery was used within ancient Athenian society. 68 Nevertheless, analogies between workshop practices in societies separated by time might be valid. The application of this approach to ancient Greek art is not new. Several scholars have used paintings dating from the early Italian Renaissance and Northern European paintings of the same date to further their research. Furthermore, attribution studies have tradition- ally followed the same framework as those used for attributing unsigned works of the Italian Renaissance. 69 Accordingly, comparison with the workshops of the late fi fteenth century c.e. might be able to shed light on the subject of epoiesen ( ἐποίησεν ), which, as previously indicated, could indicate the person who made the vessel, the person under whose direction it was made, or the name of the manager of a workshop. Artistic developments in the late fi f- teenth century c.e. saw a new emphasis on the individual artist rather than on the materials used in the commission. 70 The earliest attested example of this is a contract signed by Filippino Lippi, which specifi ed that he would 167

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 167

paint frescos himself rather than assigning the work to one of his workshop assistants; previous contracts did not indicate the individual artist who would actually undertake the work. 71 Additionally, it should be noted that modern artistic signatures do not always refer to an individual artist. For example, in the workshops of several “old masters,” the individual who signed the work undertook the most skilled aspects of a commission, leaving the more junior members of the workshop to undertake background areas. Parallels may be drawn with practices in the Italian Renaissance. Raphael’s popularity in Rome in the early part of the sixteenth century led to many commissions which he was only able to fulfi l by employing assistants, and by delegating the mechani- cal transfer of fi nished cartoons to walls or panels. 72 More recently, artists such as Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Damien Hirst have worked within extensive studios, where works were and are undertaken with the help of assistants com- pleting the fi nal designs. 73 Another crucial aspect of this discussion relates to chronology. The earliest known signed vessels were decorated with extremely complex narrative scenes, accompanied by a large number of named characters. But signatures could allow artists to lay claim to other innovations. For example, Exekias is credited with being the fi rst potter to develop the Type A amphora, and the reason for the double signature as painter and potter on the vessel in the Vatican Museums showing Ajax and Achilles playing dice could be one of several: to claim “ownership” of the new shape; to claim “ownership” of the scene showing Ajax and Achilles dicing, which was not drawn from any known liter- ary source (the composition is so striking that it was imitated by several other painters); to show pride in his expertise with the burin, since the incision on the vessel is a real tour de force. 74 Turning to the non-Greek viewers of Greek painted pottery – the Etruscan élite who acquired these vessels – the desire of individuals to associate themselves with the material culture of a society that is perceived to be exotic and accordingly desirable is by no means restricted to sixth- and early-fi fth- century Etruria. Indeed, there are more recent parallels for the use of “nonsense” inscriptions on pottery, which were never designed to be read by the owner or viewer of the vessel, but were seemingly added to enhance the overall aesthetic eff ect and add to the exotic nature of the item. Such an instance can be seen in the production of Chinese pottery imitations by Delft potteries during the mid-seventeenth century c.e. fueled by the disruption of exports from China because of civil war. Several Delftware factories were involved in the production of this style of pottery, producing a variety of shapes in which panels of either fi gured or fl oral designs alternated with panels with imitations of Chinese characters. One such example is a candlestick, imitating the typical shape of a Dutch candlestick of the period, made at the Delftware factory De Grieksche A between 1680 and 1690.75 On this example, typical fl oral 168

168 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

motifs copied from Chinese porcelain appear either side of panels contain- ing imitations of Chinese characters. The entire raison d’être for the Chinese- inspired Delftwares was the desire of the local population in the Netherlands for Chinese porcelain, a desire that might be similar to the Etruscan population’s desire for Attic pottery. Additionally, we would suggest that the practice of combining an existing local shape with Chinese exotica presents a strong analogy to the production of the workshop of Nikosthenes, which used local Etruscan shapes decorated with exotic Athenian iconography and script, although the latter sometimes consists of mere imitations of Greek characters and, accordingly, is meaningless. 76

CONCLUSIONS One key to understanding the motives underlying the use of signatures on Greek painted pottery is taking a holistic approach to the topic, and evaluating the myriad factors that have been preserved in the archaeological and historical record. Our research indicates that there is some evidence to support the use of signatures as important elements in the decorative schemes of vessels. Indeed, in the case of lip cups, a signature, or other form of inscription, was an integral part of the decoration. As we see in any overview of the artistic output of a society over the course of one hundred and fi fty years (restricted to one medium), marked variations occur in the degree of artistic and technical skill exhibited in design and calligraphy respectively. This seems to contradict the opinion that the purpose of a signature was to express pride in the vessel. While this is apparent in many cases, we have also noted the presence of signatures on work which is less than careful. This argument certainly does not explain the presence of unsigned vessels displaying a high degree of artistic and technical expertise, whether in terms of design or execution. Accordingly, there is an argument to be made that signatures were added purely as incentives to customers. The large numbers of vessels signed by Nikosthenes and Pamphaios might suggest that Athenian pottery workshops were driven by a desire to cater primarily to an export market, where the consumers would pay more for a signed vessel.77 But this conclusion can be queried on two counts: fi rstly, many vessels produced by Nikosthenes and his associates were not signed, but were attributed on stylistic grounds; and sec- ondly, many non-signed vessels of unquestionably high quality, such as many works attributed to the highly talented, but resolutely anonymous, Berlin Painter, were found in Etruscan contexts, perhaps indicating that a signature was an “optional extra,” whether it was ordered by a customer, or used as a marketing ploy overseas. Added to this, as noted above, it is apparent that the Etruscan market was in decline itself from the start of the fi fth century, with associated problems in Athens. Plague in 430– 429 would have led to a 169

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 169

general depletion of population, including artisans employed in the pottery workshops. 78 In addition, a number of potters left Athens for workshops at a variety of sites, including Thurii, Taras, Olympia, and Corinth.79 This trend would almost certainly have been more noticeable during the Peloponnesian Wars, which would have impeded shipments of pottery from Athens.80 The primary cause of the decline would have been the weakness of the Etruscan market, which was already experiencing a notable decline in imports and exports by the late fi fth century. Yet these events may have aff ected the production of signed vases as well, since there is strong evidence that a combination of events resulted in a general decline in the production of high-quality fi gured ware in Athens. 81 This might be refl ected in the rise of workshops in the Greek colonies of southern Italy and Sicily, which prior to 450– 425 had imported red- fi gure pottery from Athens, but thereafter began to make their own.82 If painters and potters, particularly Nikosthenes and Pamphaios, were primarily motivated to add signatures to their wares by a spirit of entrepreneur- ship, there were certainly other individuals and workshops with diff erent motives. High-quality pottery bearing a signature gives great pleasure to the owner, who has undoubtedly paid a high price for the vessel, and indicates his sophisticated artistic tastes. This would apply to a broader audience than just the Athenian owners of signed vessels who would have been knowledgeable about the myths and legends displayed on the pot or would have understood its use it in the symposium, or both. If such a vessel were owned and viewed by an Etruscan, he might be particularly keen to acquire vessels decorated with images which would serve in his own society; the addition of the exotic elements of inscriptions (including signatures) would be a means of indicating the family’s ability to forge contacts, even if purely economic, outside Etruria. The Etruscan clients’ seeming preference for the use of signed vessels, particularly cups decorated with symposium scenes, can be interpreted in two primary ways. First, such vessels represent the normal output of Athenian workshops. Their survival in Etruscan tombs as opposed to domestic contexts in Athens, Attica, and the Greek colonies is an inevitable consequence of their diff erential preservation in the archaeological record. The preponderance of cups is eas- ily explained by the production of “drinking sets” for symposia, i.e., a single krater accompanied by a correspondingly larger number of cups. Indeed, the discovery of sets of cups that bear the same maker’s marks suggests the production of batches of vessels exported together.83 Second, symposium scenes are a refl ection of the banquets depicted on the walls of Etruscan tombs. Accordingly, the iconography would have a strong relevance to the Etruscan users of the vessels, although they probably would not be able to read and understand the signatures, nor appreciate the meaning and signifi cance of the kalos inscriptions or the named individuals. 170

170 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

The question remains as to whether signatures represent the name of the person who was actually undertaking the work, or whether the “artistic personality” that was preserved was the “master” potter or painter who owned the workshop. Parallels with later practice suggest that the latter might be the case, at least in terms of the more routine elements of decoration, which could be applied mechanically. 84 This does not detract from the value of the study of signatures, however, and the holistic approach taken here indicates that signatures on Greek vases can shed much light on the production and distribution of these important artistic products.

APPENDIX A: KNOWN FIND-SPOTS FOR SIGNED GREEK VASES

Place Number found Total Mainland Greece 132 (6) 132 Athens 98 (80) Akropolis 2 Agora 11 Cape Kolias 1 Kerameikos 1 Piraeus 1 Stadiou St. 1 Theater of Dionysos 1 Attica (incl. Euboia, Aigina) 17 (4) Aigina 2 (1) Aphaia Sanctuary 1 Brauron 1 Eleusis 5 Euboia 2 (0) Chalkis 1 Eretria 1 Petreza 1 Var i 1 Velanideza 1 Corinth 4 (2) Forum 1 N Cemetery 1 Delphi 2 Isthmia 2 Kavala 1 Menidi 1 Pharsalos 1 Tanagra 5 Thebes 1 Italy, Sicily, and Points West 405 405 Etruria 359 (17) Adria 2 Bolsena 1 171

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 171

Place Number found Total Bomarzo 1 Capua 10 Cerveteri 78 Chiusi 16 Eastern Etruria 1 Falerii 3 Marzabotto 1 Orvieto 27 Populonia 2 Tarquinia 20 Toscanella 1 Vulci 179 Italy 34 (9) Cumae 2 Leporano 2 Locri 2 Nola 3 Olbia 1 Paestum 1 Poggio Sommaville 1 Rome 2 Saraceno 1 Sorrento 2 Suessula 1 Tarentum 5 Todi 2 Sicily 11 Agrigento 3 Gela 5 Himera 1 Megara Hyblaea 1 Selinus 1 Spain 1 Medellin, Badajoz 1 Aegean Islands (excluding Ionia) 14 14 Marion, Cyprus 4 Rheneia 1 Rhodes 4 Camiros 2 Ialysos 1 Lindos 1 Samothrace 2 Thasos 2 Egypt and Northern Africa 18 18 Egypt 16 (1) Naukratis 14 Saqqara 1 (continued) 172

172 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

Appendix A (continued)

Place Number found Total Meroe 1 Cyrene 1 Teucheira 1 Ionia, Asia Minor, and the Black Sea Region 9 9 Asia Minor (excluding Ionia) 4 Gordion 1 Sardes 1 Tralles 1 Turkey 1 Black Sea 3 Berezan 1 Kerch 1 Leuke 1 Ionia 2 Old Smyrna 1 Samos 1 Overall 568

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the staff s of the British and Fitzwilliam Museums for allowing us the opportunity for private study of the vases. The University of Texas at Austin generously funded Bolmarcich’s research work at these museums and the Research Fund of the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool kindly granted funds to Muskett for the rights to reproduce Figs. 10.3– 10.5 . Sophie Padel-Imbaud (Louvre, Paris) and Cornelia Weber- Lehmann (Ruhr Universität, Bochum) kindly clarifi ed some details for our database. The Getty Museum and the British Museum granted the rights to use Figs. 10.1 – 10.5 . All errors that remain are ours.

NOTES

1 For example, signatures in mosaic: Martin (Chapter 5 ) this volume, with bibliography. Signatures on statue bases: Keesling 2003a , with bibliography. Signatures on coins: Paff ord ( Chapter 6) this volume, with bibliography. 2 Osborne (2009 and 2010) has recently presented research on signatures on sculpture and painted pottery. Our research was conducted and completed without knowledge of Osborne’s research; our conclusions remain unchanged. 3 Vickers and Gill (1994 , 159) calculate that signatures appear on less than 1 percent of all known vessels. 4 See Wachter 2001 , 9–17, 29–30, 142–143, 168–169, 171–172, 201, 211, 279. An important caveat, of course, is that CAVI (by Immerwahr’s own admission, see 1998 – 2001, 2348) is incomplete. That said, CAVI does remain the most comprehensive catalogue of vase inscriptions available and it provides a good basis for our work here. 5 E.g. , the database enabled rapid identifi cation of possible links between a potter and several painters. Scholars requiring access to the database should contact the authors of this chapter. 173

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 173

6 There is only one instance of the verb “potted,” a black-fi gure dish with a stand from Peristeri in Attica, which is signed as potted and painted by Oikopheles, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AN G.243 (V.189). 7 Robertson (1992 , 4) prefers the term “epoiesen inscriptions” rather than “potter signatures.” Although the former takes account of the two possible interpretations of “epoiesen,” in this article we have opted to use the traditional term “potter signatures.” 8 E.g. , two known vessels signed by Exekias as painter and potter: 1. Black- fi gure neck amphora showing Herakles and the Nemean lion, from Vulci, Berlin 1720; 2. Black- fi g- ure Type A amphora showing Achilles and Ajax, from Vulci, Rome, Vatican Museums 344. Similarly double- signed vessels are known for Nearchos, Epiktetos, Douris, and Myson. 9 François Vase: Black-fi gure volute krater showing a range of mythological scenes, from Chiusi, Florence, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale 4290. Signatures: Cf. Hemelrijk 1991 , 253– 254, who cites the cases of Hieron and Makron, and Python and Douris. 10 Compare Hemelrijk 1991 , 255– 256. The corpus of signatures on painted pottery is extremely valuable in this respect, as other evidence to enable the reconstruction of family relationships of painters and potters is elusive, although Davies 1971 , 28 notes that the potter Andokides may have been a client of the better-known family. 11 Nearchos: Eight instances in the database. Kantharos fragment: Athens, National Archaeological Museum i.611. 12 Tleson: An extraordinary total of one hundred and one signatures noted on the database. Ergoteles: Three instances on the database, and two instances without the patronymic. 13 Nikias: On one instance, Nikias signs himself “son of Hermokles of the deme Anaphylystios.” Amasis: Sixteen signatures noted on the database, with four signatures by Kleophrades “son of Amasis.” Other patronymics: One signature by “Hieron son of Medon”; the former should not be confused with the earlier, and much more prolifi c, potter of the same name, and the latter is not recorded as either painter or potter. Indeed, Robertson 1992 , 152 regards the patronymic as suspect. Two signatures, both on early Panatheniac amphorae, by Hypereides “son of Androgenos.” Ergotimos: Six defi nite (and one possible) instances of signatures as potter. Eucheiros: Three signatures as “son of Ergotimos” (and two without the patronymic); a signature as “son of Ergotimos” is also plausibly Eucheiros, but could be another brother. 14 Euthymides: Neils (Chapter 3 ) in this volume, with bibliography. 15 Robertson 1992 , 293– 294. See also Chronology , in this chapter. 16 Neer 2002 , 92– 93. 17 Workshop Grouping: Neer 2002 , 92–93. Euphronios: Eight signatures as painter and twenty- four as potter on the database, including a red- fi gure cup from Vulci, Munich 2620, signed by Euphronios as painter and Kachrylion as potter. Smikros: Three signatures as painter on the database. Kachrylion: Thirty signatures as potter in the database. Euthymides: Five signatures as painter and three as potter on the database. Sosias: Two signatures as potter in the database. Phintias: Four signatures as painter and fi ve as potter in the database. 18 Cohen 2004 , 59, n.19. 19 Immerwahr 1990 , 171. 20 Immerwahr 1990 , 51. 21 Immerwahr 1984 . 22 Immerwahr: Cook 1997 , 245. Inscriptions: Immerwahr 1990 , 174. 23 Signatures on vessels have attracted scholarly interest since the discovery of the fi rst signed pottery vessel, a work of Taleides (signing as potter) found at Agrigento sometime before 1801c.e. (Black-fi gure amphora, New York, Metropolitan Museum 47.11.5). The corpus of signatures has increased since then. Signatures are rare on non-Attic painted pottery. Indeed, only two names of Corinthian pot painters have survived, Timonidas and Chares, the latter serving as a prime example of signatures not being confi ned to works of technical excel- lence (Corinthian Pot Painters: Cook 1997, 244 also notes the signature of Milonidas, who signed a plaque as painter. Timonidas: Wachter 2001 , 55– 57, no. COR27, fl ask from Kleonai, 174

174 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

signed by Timonidas as painter. Chares: Wachter 2001, 70– 71, no. COR57, pyxis, fi ndspot unknown, signed by Chares as painter). In addition, signatures were not popular in the red- fi gure workshops in southern Italy active in the fi fth and fourth centuries. Inscriptions on South Italian red-fi gure are largely confi ned to the identifi cation of specifi c fi gures on a few pots. Only two South Italian painters, Asteas and Python, both working from Paestan workshops, signed their wares. 24 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 192. Osborne and Pappas 2007 , 133, fi g. 5.1 . 25 Osborne and Pappas 2007 , 135– 137, fi g. 5.3 . 26 Fragments of a black-fi gure krater, signed by Sophilos as potter, from Menidi, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2035.1, 2. Fragments of a black-fi gure dinos, signed by Sophilos as painter, from the Athenian Akropolis, Athens, Akropolis i, 587. 27 The overall total number of Greek vases manufactured is, obviously, unknown. It is esti- mated that surviving Attic painted pottery represents about one-quarter of all pots made (Johnston 1991 , 208). Nor is the exact number of Attic vases found in Etruria known: over 3000 painted vases were found in the Vulci excavations of 1828–1829 (Cook 1997 , 281), but this is a small percentage of the original number in existence, as the excavation team destroyed some of the vases to enhance the value of those that remained (Whitley 2001 , 25). 28 Although this does not preclude an earlier domestic use; as Osborne (2001 , 291) observes, some of the pots found in Etruscan tombs show signs of repair, suggesting use in a domestic context prior to their eventual funerary use. 29 Red- fi gure cup, signed by Oltos as painter and Euxitheos as potter, from Tarquinia, Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale RC6848. 30 See Wachter 2001 , 9– 17, 29– 30, 142– 143, 168–169, 171– 172, 201, 211, 279. 31 Salmon 2000 . 32 Osborne 1996 , 225. 33 Etruscan markets: Beazley 1989 , 62; cf . Boardman 2001 . Etruscan tombs: Spivey 1991 . See also Osborne 2001. 34 Other scholars: Arafat and Morgan 1994 , 120; Isler-Kerenyi 2003 , 40–47. Lewis: Lewis 2003 . A prime example is the inclusion of women in symposium scenes on Attic vases (188– 190). 35 Arafat and Morgan 1994 , 115– 116; Osborne 2004 , 78– 79; Avramidou 2006 : 566. 36 Bonfante 2002 : 5, 14, 52. 37 A good example of a nonsense-inscription is on a cup signed by Xenokles from Orvieto. In handle zone A is Xenokles’ signature; in handle zone B: Χεσνοιε( σ) ενο, a mock inscription that combines Xenokles’ name and the verb ποιέω. Plain lip cup, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 06.1021.155. 38 Arafat and Morgan 1994 , 120– 121. 39 Catalogued by Cohen 1991 . 40 Krater: Fragments of a black-fi gure krater, signed by Sophilos as potter, from Menidi, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 2035.1, 2. Dinoi: Fragments of a black-fi gure dinos, signed by Sophilos as painter, from the Athenian Akropolis, Athens, Akropolis i, 587; black- fi gure dinos with stand, signed by Sophilos as painter, fi ndspot unknown, London, British Museum 1971.11–1.1; fragment of a black-fi gure dinos, signed by Sophilos as painter, from Pharsalos, Athens, National Archaeological Museum 15, 499. 41 Shoulder signature: Panathenaic amphora, signed by Nikias as potter, fi ndspot unknown, New York, Metropolitan Museum 1978.11.13. Nikias: A Nikias signs himself “son of Hermokles of the deme Anaphlystios” and is plausibly the same individual. 42 Red- fi gure Nikosthenic amphorae, both signed by Pamphaios as potter, both from Etruria, Paris, Louvre G 2 and G 3. 43 Palmettes: E.g. , Black- fi gure lip- cup, signed by Nearchos as potter, fi ndspot unknown, New York, Metropolitan Museum 61.11.2. Lip zone: Black-fi gure lip- cup, signed by Tleson, son of Nearchos, as potter, fi ndspot unknown, New York, Metropolitan Museum 56.171.34. 175

ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES ON ARCHAIC GREEK VASES FROM ATHENS 175

44 Sakonides: Black-fi gure lip- cup, signed by Sakonides as painter, from Vulci, Munich 2165. Cup greeting the user: fi gure lip- cup, signed by Phrynos as potter, from Vulci, London, British Museum B 424. 45 Black- fi gure lip- cup, signed by Tlempolemos as potter, from Vulci, Berlin, Staatliche Museen 1763. 46 Decoration: E.g. , fragmentary red-fi gure cup, signed by Kleophrades, son of Amasis, as potter, from Tarquinia, Paris, Cabinet de Médailles 535. Lissarague: Lissarague 1994 , 24–25. Reading right to left: Red- fi gure cups, signed by Douris as painter and Python as potter, from Cerveteri, Vienna 3694 and 3695. 47 E.g. , red- fi gure cups, signed by Brygos as potter: 1. Find-spot unknown, Malibu 86. ΑΕ .293 (fi g. 7); 2. From Cerveteri, Paris, Louvre G 151. 3. From Vulci, Paris, Louvre G 152. 48 Satyr holding fl utes: Red- fi gure plate, from Vulci, Paris, Cabinet de Médailles 509. Banqueter: Red- fi gure plate, from Vulci, Paris, Cabinet de Médailles 510. For the importance of circular frames in numismatic praxis, see Paff ord ( Chapter 6) this volume. 49 Red- fi gure cup, fi ndspot unknown, Paris, Louvre G 121. 50 Mask: Neer 2002 , 41. Signature: E.g. , black-fi gure eye cup, fi ndspot unknown, Malibu 86.AE.170. 51 Black- fi gure amphora, from Vulci, Paris, Cabinet de Médailles 222. 52 Lissarague 1994 , 15–16. 53 Cf. Sparkes 1991, 112. 54 For discussion of the use of the term “individual” in the context of Ancient Greek literature, see the contributions to Pelling 1990, especially Gill’s discussion of “characterization” and “personality” (Gill 1990, 2– 9). 55 Pottery competitions: IG II2 6320. Robertson 1992 , 293–294. Panathenaic amphorae: Beazley 1943 , 456– 457. The only known example of a signature by Bakchios appears on a Panathenaic amphora, Athens, Kerameikos PA 157. 56 A possible exception being Glaukytes and Archikles who both sign as potters on a black- fi gure band cup from Vulci, Munich 2243. A black-fi gure cup from Orvieto, Berlin 1801, signed by both Anakles and Nikosthenes as potters is less secure; as the script is diff erent from other signatures by Anakles and Nikosthenes, Boardman suggests it may be an ancient forgery (Boardman 1991a, 236). 57 Fragments of a red-fi gure calyx krater, fi ndspot unknown, Paris, Louvre G 110. Described in great detail by Neer 2002 , 44– 48. 58 Exekias: Black-fi gure lip cup, fi ndspot unknown, signed in both handle zones by Exekias as potter, Paris, Louvre F 54. Nearchos: Black- fi gure lip cup, fi ndspot unknown, signed on each side by Nearchos as potter, Bern. Excellent illustration of inscriptions, Jucker 1977 , pls.54.1–2 and 55.3– 4. 59 Neer 2002 , 243 n.175. Kachrylion: Red-fi gure cup, from Orvieto, signed by Kachrylion as potter, Florence 91, 456. Epilykos: Red- fi gure cup, fi ndspot unknown, signed by Epilykos as painter, Paris, Louvre G 10. Epilykos further example: Fragments of a red- fi gure cup, fi ndspot unknown, signed by Epilykos as painter, Paris, Louvre G 12. 60 Red- fi gure amphora, signed by Euthymides as potter, from Vulci, Munich 2307. See also Neils (Chapter 3 ) in this volume. 61 Neer 2002 , 51. 62 On the debate, see Boardman 1975, 29– 30, Vickers and Gill 1994 , 98 and Neer 2002, 227, n.74. 63 Potter portraits: Neer 2002 , Chapter 3 passim. Eight known vessels: Catalogued by Neer 2002 , 133. 64 Smikros: Red-fi gure stamnos, fi ndspot unknown, Brussels, Musées Royaux A 717 and New York, Metropolitan Museum 1985.60.1. Neer: Neer 2002 , 89. 65 Inscriptions: Catalogued by Neer 2002 , 89. “As never Euphronios”: Red-fi gure amphora, signed by Euthymides as potter, from Vulci, Munich 2307. 176

176 SARAH BOLMARCICH AND GEORGINA MUSKETT

66 Neer 2002 , 91. 67 Canciani 1978 . 68 Compare Marconi 2004 , ix. 69 Italian Renaissance and northern European paintings: References summarized in Cohen 2004 , 66, ns. 48– 49. Italian Renaissance: Marconi 2004 , ix. 70 Sabini 1995, 260. 71 Baxandall 1972 , 8– 14. 72 Henry and Plazzota 2004 , 56. 73 Andy Warhol: www.moma.org/ collection/ artist ( s.v. “Andy Warhol”). Jeff Koons: “Jeff Koons on his Serpentine show, his inspirations and his studio system works,” The Art Newspaper 204 (July/August 2009). Damien Hirst: “Revealed: the art Damien Hirst failed to sell,” The Art Newspaper 194 (September 2008). 74 Black- fi gure amphora, from Vulci, signed by Exekias as potter and painter, Rome, Vatican 344. Comprehensively summarized by Moore 1980 , 418– 421. 75 Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum BK-1958- 22. 76 Similarly, a number of Byzantine churches in Greece have fake Arabic lettering in their icons and mosaics; see Walker 2008 , n. 7 , for discussion and bibliography. Our thanks to R. B. Schroeder for the reference. 77 An analogous argument has been made that the production of Attic pottery with erotic imagery was specifi cally directed towards the Etruscan market (Lynch 2009 , 161). 78 MacDonald 1981 , 166; Trendall 1989 , 17. 79 MacDonald 1981 , 164. 80 MacDonald 1981 , 166. 81 Imports and exports decline: MacDonald 1981 , 161. Athens: MacDonald 1981 , 168. 82 Trendall 1989 , 17. 83 Johnston 1991 , 222–225. 84 Hemelrijk 1991 , 240–241.