A Fake Or Not a Fake . . . an Ancient Practical Joke?

0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:41 Pagina 47

BABESCH 83 (2008), 47-60. doi: 10.2143/BAB.83.0.2033097.

A Fake or not a Fake . . . An Ancient Practical Joke?

J.M. Hemelrijk

Abstract1

The alabastron New York 1981.11.7, here discussed, was first published by Dietrich von Bothmer and shortly after- wards by myself.2 These publications are not easily accessible and both are somewhat sketchy and concise. The alabastron forms an extremely puzzling case: there are manifest indications that it should be declared a fake, yet other aspects forbid such a condemnation. I do not know of any other, equally contradictory, vase. After a short introduction dealing with other alabastra that are related in fabric to the Caeretan hydriae, I discuss the most glaring absurdities in the painting of the bottle and then quote Bothmer’s arguments in defence of its genuineness. Finally I give a more detailed description of its paintings in relation to the figure scenes of the Caeretan hydriae.

INTRODUCTION faced. This very long lapse of time is in itself a reason for suspicion; besides, the possible faker It has always been a mystery why the painters of might have known that such alabastra were good the Caeretan hydriae (the Eagle and the Busiris candidates for the production of a ‘Caeretan’ fake. Painter) never produced figure scenes on other Further, my suspicion was raised because the vases than hydriae. It is well known that the scholar who discovered, published and for some workshop turned out Nikosthenic amphorae time owned the alabastron was Bothmer himself. (without figures, see CH 59, pl. 20) and I have I had heard that some art dealer was engaged in suggested that certain alabastra were also among a sort of rivalry with him to produce a forgery the products of the atelier (see CH 152 with note that would deceive Bothmer.4 I regard him as one 408). Their (tentative) attribution was based on of the very best experts in the field and am inclined clay and texture, which are very like those of the always to believe him in matters of this kind. But hydriae; I gave two examples in CH (pl. 148d - I also believed that, in this particular field (the here fig. 1a - and pl.149a); these are very tall, slen- Caeretan hydriae), I might possibly be a better der ones (resp. 26.8 and 31.7 cm) without lugs. judge. Their lips are thin, their decoration is colourful We shall now turn to our alabastron. and they are painted with three solid broad bands decorated with white and red stripes. Their clay New York 1981.11.7. has a warm colour; their shape and appearance is Condition and description (figs. 2-3) very different from the one we are to discuss (figs. Height 17.7 cm; maximum diameter 6 cm; upper 2-3). They are found in Etruria. frieze (without border lines) 5.1 cm, lower frieze An alabastron in the Bryn Mawr collection (fig. 5 cm. Unbroken. Colour of clay similar to that of 1b)3 is closer, but its lip is thin and painted black the Caeretan hydriae but the paint is less black, a inside and out (except for its edge); its neck is little browner. longer and also painted solid, its shoulder is slen- Mouth flat, small opening (fig. 2e), thick lip, short der and its body is less swelling than that of our neck; sloping shoulder, body expanding down- alabastron. It is provided with the usual lugs, and wards with a soft curve (somewhat like a narrow decorated with three sets of a narrow band be- bag filled with water). Round lugs (painted, outer tween two lines. All this is neat and precise; the edges reserved). vase is far more refined than the bottle under Surface not well-preserved, in many places worn, investigation (figs. 2-3). also the black paint of the figures and the orna- Since the first discovery of a Caeretan hydria ments. Repainted and many incisions redrawn.5 in 1838 (CH 195) no other shape painted with Hardly any paint preserved on mouth and lip, ornaments and figures was known in this fabric but neck black with a reserved collar (figs. 2a-e). until, after almost 150 years, this alabastron sur- Shoulder: pendant rays (as on the Nikosthenic

47 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:41 Pagina 48

amphorae, CH pl. 20, but less accurate). The bot- tom is decorated with a rosette that has a solid black heart drawn with compasses, and the leaves were painted with the help of templates or rulers (fig. 2f). Originally the leaves were alternately red, white and black on thinned black, but the colours are lost (two black leaves border on each other).6 The bands around the body (all black) are remi- niscent of those around the Nikosthenic amphorae of CH pl. 20, but they are untidy (figs. 2a-d).

Compared to the figures on the hydriae, the fig- ures in the friezes A (above) and B (below) are in a miniature style (5 cm, while the figure friezes of the hydriae usually are between 11.5 and 13 cm high; see CH 5, table B). This smallness is unex- pected and even surprising in a product of a workshop that is known for its ample shapes and grand paintings (usually they are about 42 cm high; the hydria no 19, ‘Amsterdam Horse-tamer’ holds 11-12 litres, when filled to the top of the shoulder).

Fig. 1a. Alabastron, Fig. 1b. Alabastron, Ella Allard Pierson Riegel Memorial Museum, Museum, inv. no Bryn Mawr, inv. no P. 84. 338. Museum photo, Museum photo, length Fig. 1c. Caeretan hydria, CH no 25, ‘Pholos’, Market length 26.8 cm. 18.4 cm. Switzerland? Photo Archäologisches Institut, Zurich.

48 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:41 Pagina 49

erally unknown; it remained unpublished until 1982 (in 1983 Bothmer published the alabastron).8 In other words, I believed that the (supposedly modern) painter had seen the hydria around 1970 (before it was generally known) and that, therefore, he could use it as a model: for the time being, his picture would seem wholly original, just as the second frieze, the one with the chorus of girls, for which there is no parallel on the hydriae. The figure scenes A and B contain shocking mistakes and surprising absurdities, so much so that, at first sight, one feels forced to condemn the piece as a forgery. The most striking abnormalities Fig. 1d. Same hydria, photo author. are the following.

The painter of our bottle was well-acquainted Scene A (figs. 2a-j) with the style of both painters, but he was not consistent in keeping them apart: the figures in This imitates the scene on no 25 (figs. 1c-d; CH pl. frieze A imitate the style of the Busiris Painter, 92-93). Here the figures are a bit crammed; the those in frieze B follow that of the Eagle Painter. frieze was too low for the ambitious plan of the In the upper frieze he copied, rather faithfully, the painter:9 all figures bend their knees and Heracles hydria no 25 ‘Market, Pholos’ (figs. 1c-d).7 This seems almost in Knielauf. The movements are seemed suspect to me: no 25 had come to light much more violent than on our alabastron, where only shortly before (some time in the late sixties all figures are upright. In most other respects, or seventies of the last century) but was still gen- however, the two scenes are very similar.

Fig. 1e. Detail of ‘Pontic’amphora, Munich 838; after L. Hannestad, The Followers of the Paris Painter, 1976, pl. 3.

49 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 50

Figs. 2-3. Alabastron Metropolitan Museum New York, inv. no 1981.11.7, length 18.1 cm. Figs. a-d: after Hemelrijk, Alabastron figs. 1-4. Figs. 2e-3i: photos author.

2a. Obverse. 2b. View from right. 2c. Reverse. 2d. View from left.

2e. Mouth and shoulder. 2f. Rosette on bottom.

50 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 51

2g. Frieze A. Heracles (enlarged). 2h. Frieze A. Centaur I (enlarged).

2i. Frieze A. Centaur 2 (enlarged). 2j. Frieze A. Centaur 3 (enlarged).

51 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 52

Fig. 3a. Frieze B. Girl B1 (enlarged ca 9:5). Fig. 3b. Frieze B. Girl B2 (enlarged ca 7:5).

Fig. 3c. Frieze B. Girl B3 (enlarged ca 7.5:5). Fig. 3d. Frieze B. Girl B4 (enlarged ca 4:1).

52 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 53

Fig. 3e. Frieze B (enlarged ca 2:1). Fig. 3f. B6 (enlarged ca 9:5).

Fig. 3g. Goose of B6 (enlarged ca 4.3:1).

53 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 54

2g); this seems to show that it cannot have been entirely modern. At any rate, the painter, modern or ancient, destroyed the meaning of the scene: a fierce fight with the centaurs.11 Note that, just as his counterpart on no 25, the centaur opposite Heracles attacks with a tree; this tree was also repainted (fig. 2a) and cleaned by Bothmer: fig. 2h. In short, it seemed to me that the mistake of the funny Christmas tree in Heracles’ hands proved that the painter was a modern ignoramus. However, it now seems possible to me, that this painter was misled by another well-known picture of the Pho- loe centaurs, a purely Etruscan product: on an amphora by the ‘Pontic’ Amphiaraos Painter (fig. 1e).12 Here we see a similar tree between the two great opponents, though it is in a natural position, standing upright.

Scene B (figs. 3a-i)

There is no scene on the hydriae that can have Fig. 3h. Detail of B4 (enlarged). served as a model for the chorus of girls in the lower frieze B,13 but in East Greek vase painting there are plenty of rows of dancing (or rather, slowly moving) girls holding hands, headed by a flautist.14 Therefore, it is a safe subject for a forgery: its model was, no doubt, a scene similar to the one on a neck of a Chiot krater in London (Walter- Karydi, Samos VI.1, no 700 pl. 100). However, the first and the last girl of the row ought to carry a wreath, but our girl no 2 is empty-handed (figs. 2b, 3b), while at the end of the row, the painter made another astonishing mistake - or rather: ís it a mistake? Is it not rather a wilful introduction of a funny oddity? The last girl in the row (girl no 6, figs. 3a, f-g) holds a struggling goose by the neck in her left hand;15 the poor beast is nearly choking and wildly flapping its powerful wings. It is well-drawn (though the wing feathers are very badly incised; they were probably retraced, though they look wholly modern),16 but its feet should have been webbed and ought not to look like oversized, blobby talons (figs. 3a, g). It need Fig. 3i. Detail of B5 (ca 2:1). not be said that the bird is wholly out of place here, at the end of a row of dancing girls. The first shocking mistake10 (or is it a wilful I found that there were more such suspect joke?) is that Heracles is not shooting an arrow details; therefore, before I had had the opportu- with his bow (as in figs. 1c-d) but is holding a nity to inspect the bottle my self (in the spring of small tree upside down in his left hand, while his 1985), I made my doubts clear to Bothmer in a let- right hand is empty. The tree was badly repainted ter of Nov. 11, 1981. Bothmer replied, Nov. 17, (fig. 2a), but even after Bothmer cleaned that part 1981 (I italicize what seems decisive to me): of the bottle (see note 5) it remained visible; it ‘I fully understand your temptation to con- seemed as if its paint had protected the surface demn the vase, but it is not quite so easy to dis- from being worn like the rest of the surface (fig. miss it. For one thing, I do not know any forgery

54 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 55

that uses modern glaze and modern paint side by DETAILED DISCUSSION side... it is either one or the other.17 The worn glaze (that had been restored) is consistent with the While reading this paper one should keep in worn surface of the vase itself. There are prelimi- mind that the figures of the alabastron are very nary sketch lines that I have never seen in a fake, small (less than 5 cm) and those of the hydriae and there is a glaze smear (back of leg of third more than twice as large; besides, nearly all pic- girl [my no 4, here figs. 2c, 3d, but there are tures of the alabastron printed here are enlarged. more such smears, see below] that is not This may impair the value of the detailed com- known from modern work [this I doubt]. Lastly parisons made below. the great variation in the glaze itself, from dilute to There are indeed, as Bothmer remarked, heavy black, and the scumbled underglaze in those numerous traces of preliminary sketching as Kees areas that were covered with opaque added colours. Neeft kindly pointed out to me.20 Now for details.... The beard of Herakles is really quite short...... There is, or was, much Frieze A (figs. 2-3) added color [and then he sums up the scumbled underglaze on the rosette under the base, fig. 2f]. In this frieze the painter imitated the style of the There is also some actual red preserved in the Busiris Painter with considerable success, copy- hair and beard of Herakles and the centaur fac- ing the scene of the hydria no. 25, ‘Market Pholos’, ing him [figs. 2g-h]. The hair of the third centaur figs. 1c-d (but compare also fig. 1e). [fig. 2j] may have been white (incised lines) [this should be red]. The equine hooves of the second Heracles (figs. 2a, g). Centaur also had color (white?) [fig. 2i].... Hair and beard once red, as was the lion skin The flesh of the dancing girls [frieze B, fig. 3] (repainted black). His beard is re-incised and was white. The glaze on the garments of the made far too long (the shorter one is still visible, second and fourth [my B3 and B5] is scumbled fig. 2g). and must have been underglaze for red [figs. I suspect that the chiton may have been coloured 3c, e]. There is still some white on the bird [fig. (it is white on the model-hydria, figs. 1c-d). Hera- 3g]. The top layer of clay on top of the mouth cles’ skirt looks very unauthentic: it is too long is restored (fig. 2e). and the stiff incisions do not tally with the style I asked the vendor who has had the alabastron and repertory of the hydria painters (but the inci- for close to twenty years [!!!!]18 whether it had sions seem heavily retraced).21 We have spoken of been found with the Hirschmann hydriai [CH the tree in Heracles’ hand; he clearly holds it in nos 25, 29] and he said that it came from his left hand: the end is visible above his fist (fig. another source and may have come from Vulci 2a).22 [this seems very doubtful to me].’ As on the hydria (fig. 1c) the skull of the lion I do agree with the observation that it seems has slipped from Heracles’ head and hangs back- excluded that a modern potter would use both wards; apparently, the modern restorer did not the ancient technique of black ‘clay-paint’ and understand this (rather unusual) detail and tried modern black; also that he would paint thinned, to scrape it off (fig. 2g), but without success. streaky underpaint for his red and white as the The knot in the tail of the lion skin (fig. 2g) is, ancients did (figs. 3 a, g, i) and then painted only as it were, the signature of the workshop (CH pls. slight traces of these colours over it. Besides, there 33d, 55f, 82a, 92b; p. 80 etc., especially184); the is the fact of the preliminary sketch lines (see painter copied it faithfully. Heracles’ quiver is below) and the typical colourful treatment of the omitted as is his bow (compare fig. 1c: here the girls, their skins and garments etc. quiver is painted black and incised against the In short, I felt forced - though very unwillingly red of the lion skin). Not all contours are incised - to agree that it is nearly impossible to regard the and there are no incisions in his feet. bottle as a fake. I believe it may indeed have been painted by one of the Etruscan pupils, perhaps Centaur 1 (figs. 2a, b, h) the Pretty-ivy-painter, known from the ornaments We have seen (note 5) that Bothmer removed the (CH 91-93). second arm, a false restoration, still visible in fig. This means that, by studying the alabastron 2a. A comparison of fig. 2b and 2h shows that more carefully, we can learn what kind of mis- Bothmer must also have cleaned part of his tree. takes or perhaps wilful mockery a not ungifted Head incisions modern. Hair and beard once pupil in a pottery workshop may produce.19 red; tail (incised on the right leg of centaur 2, figs.

55 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 56

2b, i) once coloured, and probably also the hooves Busiris Painter (more clearly than in the other cen- of his hind legs (but there is no trace of colour taurs): note his hair style (with forelock combed left). over the forehead) and the swift and sketchy inci- This centaur consists of a bearded man (with sions in his beard, breast, calves etc. He has human feet but without genitals!) attached to the dropped his tree and is fleeing, but he looks body and hind legs of a horse (again without gen- round (unlike centaur 3 on the hydria, fig. 1d). In itals). Such a sexless centaur is unknown on the fig. 2j we see two of his front legs (with feet, not hydriae, where all have both human and equine hooves), whereas, on the hydria no 25, only one genitals (CH 121). Besides, they never have human hoof with calf is shown (fig. 1d); besides, he is not feet, only hooves, though their front legs are looking round. human. The Eagle Painter marks the human but- tocks in the equine shoulder, as on our alabastron Frieze B (figs. 2a-d; 3a-i) (figs. 2a, h), but the Busiris Painter does not: his centaurs look therefore more ‘natural’ (figs. 1c-d). In this frieze the painter closely imitated the style In such respects the ‘Pontic’ scene of fig. 1e seems of the Eagle Painter, down to details like feet, ears closer! etc. but the figures are tiny compared to those of He attacks with a tree like centaur 1 on the the hydriae. hydria (figs. 1c-d), but his breast is turned towards As has been said above, in East Greek ware us. Therefore, the tree should pass in front of his there are plenty of rows of dancing girls holding head. This mistake (of showing the front in stead each other by the wrist and confronted (or of the back) is very common on the hydriae (CH headed) by an (often female) flautist; but no such pls. 43b; 44a, b, d; 90d; 104b; 105a). His knee and scene is found on the hydriae.23 human buttocks are marked more or less accord- The proportions of some of the girls seem ing to the style of the Eagle Painter, like those of unusual, but strange proportions are also found centaur 2. The hind legs of centaur 1 are stretched in the work of the Eagle Painter, especially when stiffly backwards (fig. 2b), like those of the other the available space forced him to change them two (figs. 2c, i-j; and also those on the Pontic vase, (see CH 116): when the place to be filled by the fig. 1e), whereas the hind legs of centaur 1 on the figures was too spacious, he drew very thick fig- model hydria (figs. 1c-d) are firmly fixed on the ures, as, e.g., CH pl. 30b, no 3, ‘Louvre Hermes’; ground to lift the prancing forepart. and when it was too narrow and high, he painted very slender, tall bodies, as in CH pl. 31 (which is Centaur 2 (figs. 2c, i) the obverse of the same vase, no 3!). The tall flute Beard and tail once coloured (his hair is heavily player of no 15, ‘Copenhagen Sacrifice’, fig. 4c, is scratched, rather like the lion’s scalp of fig. 2g). also tall and slender (CH pl. 67c). Hooves perhaps white (like those of centaur 1 in The skin of all six girls was white, their hair fig. 1c). Equine body long. Human genitals, but black (compare figs. 4a-d). The dresses were black no equine ones. or coloured (B1, B3, B5; figs. 3a, c, e), or perhaps He attacks with a tree in the usual way, roots bi-coloured (as in fig. 4c). The heads of the girls forward, while his back is turned towards us (he are like those of the early work of the Eagle Paint- is not shown frontally, as centaur 1 is). I am not er, figs. 4a-e (details of nos 5, 15 and 12),24 but some sure that his human torso was black: perhaps it skulls are too pointed and high (figs. 3 a, e, i). may have been red, like the first centaur on the B1, the woman playing the pipes, whose cheeks ‘Pontic’amphora, fig. 1e, which is also partly black are puffed up by blowing and whose hands are and partly red. (On the other hand, centaur 1 on rather badly drawn (figs. 2a, 3a), may be com- the hydria is wholly black, fig. 1c). Behind him we pared to her counterpart on no 15, figs. 4c, e (CH see the tree dropped by centaur 3: in fig. 1d, this pl. 67c, 68b).25 The flute was once coloured (red as tree is more to left, touching Heracles’ foot. on the hydria). Her dress is difficult to understand but a comparison with the other flute playing girl Centaur 3 (figs. 2c-d, i-j) may help (fig. 4c). Her sleeve is just visible at her Hair and beard once red; tail (crossing behind the elbow; the himation covers both shoulders but left human leg of centaur 2) also once coloured how low it hangs down is unclear; possibly it (white?). This centaur seems to have four human descended no further than her waist, where she feet (!), its equine body is short, as on the hydria seems to wear a belt; the skirt must then be part (fig. 1d). His human legs are very heavy. In this of her tunic. Both garments were coloured; the figure all incisions follow exactly those of the tunic (or chiton) may have been red (on fig. 4c it

56 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 57

Fig. 4a. Detail of girl on Caeretan hydria CH no 5, ‘Vienna Hephaestus’ (enlarged; after CH pl. 39a). Fig. 4b. Detail of dancing girl on no 12, ‘Louvre Tityus’ (enlarged ca 2.6:1; after CH pl. 59c).

Fig. 4c. Woman playing pipes on no 15, ‘Copenhagen Sacrifice’ (1;1; after CH pl.67c).

Fig. 4d. Same girl as fig. 4b (size 7:8; after CH pl. 59c).

57 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 58

dered: there is a timid attempt in Maia on no 3 (‘Louvre Hermes’, CH pl. 29b, 30b) and a more natural rendering on ‘Leda’ of no 31 (‘Louvre Leda’, CH pl. 112b-c, p. 48 fig. 37), but in general this detail is, rather unexpectedly, ignored. The more noteworthy is the pronounced bosom of B4 (figs. 2c, 3d). A similar rendering seems visible in B3 (fig. 3c), but this probably is a blob of paint made by mistake and cut off by the contour inci- sion defining the chest. On B2, fig. 3b, there is a similar blob of paint at the level of the breast and comparable ones, or slighter stains, are remark- Fig. 4e. Tracing of fig. 4c and woman in front of her ably frequent in this frieze: at the shoulder of B2, (after CH 138, fig. 72). above and below her left arm, in front of B3, at the breast of B5 etc.28 is black, but that is impossible here) and the man- Most incisions on this alabastron are rather tel white. All this is guess work and only valid if heavily drawn, e.g. B1 (figs. 2a, 3a) (but we should we accept that the painter was a contemporary not forget that the figures in our pictures are and pupil of the masters acquainted with the enlarged). On the hydriae contour incisions play colours they loved to use. an important role in defining the figures (figs. 1c-d). The drapery of the other girls seemed at first In frieze A some contours are not incised, espe- sight suspect to me: they wear the usual long cially parts of the of Heracles figure (fig. 2g). In tunics, but only the upper part is shown. Their frieze B most are, though not all: for example, the himation seems slung round the lower part of back of B4 (fig. 3d) and her feet (fig. 2c). The feet their body up to about their waist (figs. 3b-c), in of the other girls are outlined with loving care some cases up to the breast (figs. 3d-e); only the (figs. 3a-f); note the hook-shaped markings of the himation of the sixth girl (fig. 3f), is draped in the ankle bones which look like ‘signatures’ of the usual manner, around her right shoulder (see figs. Eagle Painter. 2a-d). All this is awkward and, to my knowledge, Summarizing, many of us would by now be unknown on Greek vases, though one of the bare- inclined to accept the bottle as a genuine by-prod- bottomed dancing girls on no 12, (fig. 4d; ‘Louvre uct of our workshop. Still, the dating is a bit con- Tityus’, CH Pl. 59) we see similar folds running troversial: the style of frieze B is that of the early from the breast to the waist.26 Eagle Painter, about 520 BC. The figures of frieze These mantles should, if the painter followed A (figs. 2g-j) need not be later, but the supposed the usage of the hydriae, differ in colour from the model of this frieze, the hydria of figs. 1c-d, can chitons (see fig. 4c); but their shape is very differ- hardly be so early (rather 510 BC or a little later).29 ent from those on the hydriae. Are we to believe that the alabastron imitates an The two ends of all these himatia hang down earlier version of this Pholos scene, also painted from the forearm. On the Caeretan hydriae they by the Busiris Painter? It is true that almost every are sometimes provided with a wide border, scene depicted by the masters of the hydriae may sometimes of a different colour.27 This may have (or perhaps mùst) have been repeated many times, been the case on B2, B3 (figs. 3b-c) and others, but but in this case I was firmly convinced that the all colours are lost. Yet, both tunic and mantle of alabastron was made in direct imitation of the B5 (fig. 3e) have a thinned underpaint, which Pholos hydria of figs. 1c-d. means that they were coloured red or white; if Having reached the end of this rather long dis- one may guess, the intention was to paint the cussion, I hope it will not be regarded as ‘much ado tunic red and the mantle white with a coloured about nothing’. The study of this close imitation of border hanging from the lower arm. All this, the two very different hands of the Masters of the however, is pure guess work. hydriae may help us to reconsider the limitations The extraordinary bird (a goose judging from of the technique of modern forgeries, and to its beak and head; figs. 2a, 3g) reminds us of the become aware of the possible misleading playful- bird flying in front of the Zeus-bull on the hydria ness of Etruscan apprentices in a Greek workshop. no 13 ‘Rome Europa’ (CH pl. 62a); both are white Still I would not be surprised if some doubt (body) and black (wings). remained in the mind of some readers. At the On the hydriae female breasts are hardly ren- time, I proposed to test the vase with thermol-

58 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 59

uninescence, but Bothmer found it unnecessary. 10 In Alabastron I wrote: ‘Such an astonishing stupidity is Even now, many years later, I would not dare to only possible on a modern forgery, or may be ascribed (pace the Etruscologists) to an Etruscan imitator or foretell its result! pupil with little understanding of Greek myth.’ 11 Bothmer gives a curious description: ‘two branches are NOTES held by the centaur with both hands, in greeting rather than attack’. 12 1 In this paper the hydriae are indicated by their number Munich 838: L. Hannestad, The Followers of the Paris in the catalogue of CH (see abbreviations) together with Painter, Copenhagen 1976, 54, pls. 2-3. 13 their denomination which consists in the city/museum See CH 162 for the somewhat unexpected absence of and their subject; e.g. no.19, ‘Amsterdam Horse-tamer’. such female choruses on the hydriae. 14 Abbreviations: Chiot, Clazomenian, e.g. E. Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeich- CH: J.M. Hemelrijk, The Caeretan Hydriae, Mainz am nung der Griechen, Munich 1923, figs. 142-144, but they Rhein 1984. are lacking in East Greek ware produced in Etruria, CHII: J.M. Hemelrijk, Three Caeretan Hydriae in Malibu including the Campana dinoi and the Northampton and New York, in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum amphorae (which are often believed to have been pro- 6, Malibu 2000, 87-158. duced in Etruria, but see my article in BABesch 82, 2007, Bothmer 1983: von Bothmer, Echoes from Egypt, in H. 365-421). This frieze on the alabastron, if genuine, is the de Meulenaere/L. Limme (eds.), Artibus Aegypti, Studia first close link of the Caeretan hydriae with the Clazo- in Honorem Bernardi v. Bothmer, Brussels, 1983. menian repertory. 15 Alabastron: J.M. Hemelrijk, An alabastron produced by For birds carried by the neck, see Alabastron note 4: the the workshop of the Caeretan hydriae, in Atti del Mistress of Animals (or rather: of Birds) often holds Secondo Congresso internazionale Etrusco, Florence, May birds by the neck in prehistoric Greece, and this is 26-June 2, 1985, II, Rome 1989, 729-732. found later too, but never in a dance or in a peaceful 2 Bothmer 1983, 18-19, figs. 13-16. A more detailed pub- scene, except for an East Greek (‘Carian’) jug in the col- lication followed in Alabastron. See further CH 201 and lection Dierichs (Funde aus der Antike, Sammlung Die- CHII note 51. I thank Cees Neeft and Vincent Tosto for richs, Kassel, 1981, 40 no 9) on which a negro or Pygmy their detailed notes they sent me in the eighties of the hops about with a crane in each hand (is it certain that last century from the U.S. the figure is male?). 16 3 I am grateful to the authorities of the Bryn Mawr col- The incisions of the wings are very like those of the lection for the permission to study it and to publish a sphinxes on no 32, ‘Louvre Leda’ (CH pl. 113), which photograph. Gift of Mrs Lincoln Dryden. Probably from also seem to have been retraced. 17 Italy. Height 18.1 cm, max. diam. 6.6 cm. The colour of With ‘modern glaze’ Bothmer seems to refer to a mod- the surface is very like that of the Caeretan hydriae, ern imitation of the ancient clay paint that is fired black with similar tiny particles of ‘mica’. The upper part has in the reducing phase of the firing; such ancient black fired reddish, a very common defect of the hydriae. The areas are often restored with modern black paint. lugs are flattish; they are painted. There are bits of fired Bothmer seems to imply that the ancient technique of clay inside, serving as stones for swinging the oil reducing clay paint to black during firing is also used around. for producing modern forgeries. 18 4 Actually, I have seen photographs of vases that were/ If this is correct, the alabastron must have been dis- are in Bothmer’s collection which seemed suspect to me covered about 1964 or so. 19 but were said to be genuine by Bothmer. For the (Etruscan) employees or apprentices in the 5 In a letter of October 19, 1981 Dietrich v. Bothmer writes: shop, painters and, possibly, potters, see CH passim. No ‘Please observe that the second arm of the centaur less than two and probably more extra hands can be greeting Herakles on A is a false restoration that I have recognized in the ornaments, CH 91-96 and 101-112. 20 since removed.’ This arm is still visible in fig. 2a. I thank Kees Neeft for information about the numerous 6 These rosettes are very like those on the neck of no 1, traces of preliminary sketching, which von Bothmer ‘London Battle’, CH 103, fig. 59b-c and pl.1a-b; the observed (see above): in the skirt of Heracles, the hind leaves of all other rosettes have black borders round a leg of centaur 1, the human buttock of centaur 2 and his red or white core (CH figs. 58e, 59f, pls. 1c-d; 4; 5, nos equine buttock; the left foot of centaur 3 and his lifted 7-8). left arm. 21 7 For good colour photographs see M. Cristofani e.a., Die But compare Heracles’ skirt on no 11, ‘Louvre Etrusker, Geheimnisvolle Kultur im antiken Italien, Cerberus’, CH pl. 55-56. 22 Stuttgart/Zurich [no date], 11 (detail of B), 187, text by In his letter Bothmer seemed to suggest that the tree is M. Martelli on p. 190. also held by the foremost centaur, but this is not the 8 H.P. Isler published the Pholos hydria in 1982: Greek case. 23 Vases from the Hirschmann collection, Zurich 1982, 28-31, Klazomenian: see note 14; Walter-Karydi, Samos VI 1, 96. In a joint article in BABesch 52-53 (1977-1978) 1-30, nos 919, 965 pl. 127. A very close parallel for the scene with Stella Lubsen, we mentioned the vase on p. 7 on our alabastron seems the slender amphora(?) found speaking about Heracles with the words ‘and two in on Samos and published by A.E. Furtwängler, AM 95 Switzerland’. (1980) 188-197, Beil. 1 and pls. 54-55: the technique, 9 The lotus palmette under it is vigorous and has left too however is wholly different (colourful painting on a little space for the frieze above it: ornaments were fin- whitish background without incisions). The flautists of ished before the figure painter started painting. In this these choruses are often believed to be male; in many case the Busiris Painter painted both; apparently he did cases this is a mistake. 24 not plan the vase carefully enough, but this is common CH pls. 29, 30, 37-40, 52-53, 59-60. 25 on the Caeretan hydriae (CH 116). Satyrs play the pipes on nos 4 and 14, CH pl. 5b and 65b-c.

59 0821-07_Babesch_83_03 23-09-2008 15:42 Pagina 60

26 Similar strange folds are seen on the Chiot krater men- sus of no 5, the same god of no 9 and no 14 and also, for tioned above: Walter-Karydi, Samos VI 1 no 700, pl. 100. example, Oineus on no 17 (CH 15, fig. 5; 21, fig. 9; 28, 27 The two Caeretan masters had no great interest in, nor fig. 17; 31, fig. 22, pls. 37a, 49a, 65a, 72c). sufficient mastery of drawing himatia of females: often 28 Comparing this detail of B5 in figs. 2d and 3e we notice they only drew the long end or edge that hung from that here too (and elsewhere in frieze B) Bothmer has the shoulder on the off-side, omitting the rest, a very been cleaning the vase: figs. 2a-d were made before that curious defect, that does, however, not spoil the qual- time! ity of the picture: see the fine lady ‘Leda’ of no 31, CH 29 See CH 157-159; I will before long return to the dating 48, fig. 37 and the very stiff Europa of no 10, CH 22, fig. and other problems of the hydriae in a forthcoming 10 etc. (see for drapery CH 129). On males, however, paper about them. the himation is long and, thrown over the left shoulder, its ends hang down on that side: the broad border is painted in a different colour and sometimes there are ZOMERDIJK 16 two colours in different parts of these mantles: Diony- NL-7946 LZ WANNEPERVEEN

60