HESPERIA 69, 2000 GR AF FI T I, WA/IN E Pages 3-90 S E L ING, HIEA ND T RE U SE O F AM PH ORAS IN THE ATHENIAN AC O RA, CA. 430 TO 400 B.C. ABSTRACT Graffition transportamphoras ofthe 5thcentury B.C. recordvolume,weight, price,and abbreviations that may refer to thejar's contents. The graffitioften appearin the southeastcorner of the Agoraexcavations. While someprice marksmay have been appliedoutside Athens, manygraffiti resulted from retailpractices in the Agora,such as refillingjars from local suppliers,de- cantingfrom jars in the shop,and selling different products such as honeyor meat.Most of the graffitidate between 430 and400 B.C. Politicaland eco- nomicconditions at this time encouragedthe use of graffition an unprec- edentedscale. 1. Reviews of AgoraXXI are fairly Of the manyclasses of evidencefrom antiquity artifacts with writing should representativeof the general acceptance "speakfor themselves"the most clearly.As the massivevolume of epi- of the interpretationsof these graffiti: graphicand philologicalscholarship makes very clear,however, speaking Oliver (1977) has some criticismsof the interpretationsof other classes of and being understoodare two very differentphenomena. The same gap graffitibut writes that "Langis at her betweenthe evidenceand our understanding holds true for graffiti on pot- best. when she edits the commercial tery.The graffition 5th-centurytransport amphoras from the Athenian and tax notations,which areworth- Agora,the topic of this article,have been thoughtby manyto speakclearly while" (p. 210). Of the reviewsI have in comparisonwith more debated scratchings.'Reexamination of this seen, onlyJohnston (1978a) takes issue highlightsdifficulties with the previouslyaccepted in- with the interpretationsof the am- material,however, phora graffiti.Others, who do suggest differentreadings for other graffiti, reproducedhere by permissionof the people, but especiallyfrom the do not comment on the numerical American School of Classical Studies, anonymousHesperia reviewersand notations (e.g.,Jordan 1978; Oiko- Agora Excavations.The plans were from discussionswith Carolyn Koehler, nomides 1986 and 1988). preparedby RichardAnderson. This Molly Richardson,Lynn Snyder,and My researchon amphorasfound articledeveloped graduallyout of my Malcolm Wallace.Thanks are also in the Athenian Agora, including the dissertation(Lawall 1995), a subse- due to the funding agencies and graffiti discussedhere, has been facil- quent paperdelivered at the 1997 institutions that supportedperiods of itated by permissionsfrom T. Leslie Annual Meeting of the Archaeological researchin Athens: the University ShearJr. and John McK. Camp II. Institute of America (abstractin AJA of Michigan, the Universityof The graffiti drawingsare by the author, 102 [1998], pp. 401-402), and a much Manitoba, the Social Sciences and preparedfor publicationwith the assis- shorterversion initially submitted to Humanities ResearchCouncil of tance of Craig Mauzy (all graffiti are Hesperiain December 1998. Improve- Canada,the Solow Art and Architec- illustratedat scale 1:1). The photo- ments over the course of the article's ture Foundation,and the M. Aylwin graphs areby Craig Mauzy and are life are due to feedbackfrom various Cotton Foundation. American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org MARK L. LAWALL terpretations, and in doing so reveals many new aspects of daily life in the Figure 1. The Agora ca. 400 B.C. with Athenian Agora. findspotsof 5th-centurycommercial Any difficulties remaining in the interpretation of graffiti from the graffition amphoras Agora are not for lack of scholarly interest. Ever since LucyTalcott's publi- cation of "Attic Black-glazed Stamped Ware and Other Pottery from a Fifth Century Well" in 1935, graffiti on pottery at the Agora have re- ceived frequent attention.2 Mabel Lang stands out in this regard, having published two majorstudies, "Numerical Notation on Greek Vases"in 1956 and Graffiti and Dipinti in 1976, and a volume in the Agora PictureBook series.3 Lang's publications offered readings and interpretations of hundreds of markings, including many numerical marks that are likely to be related to buying and selling in the Agora. These marks often appearon transport amphoras, and Lang suggested that some such graffiti resulted from re- cording the measured capacity of the jars for their reuse.4Lang read other, far less frequent numerical marks as price labels; rarerstill for the 5th cen- tury are notations of weight. Virginia Grace and Malcolm Wallace both connected the appearanceof the many volumetric markings to uncertain- ties arising from a change in the standard Chian amphora capacity,from 7 to 8 Chian choes, to become commensurate with 7 Attic choes. Grace saw this change as being in accordancewith the Athenian Standards Decree.5 This mid- to late-5th-century decree dictated the use of Athenian stan- dard measures (including standards for coinage) among all members of the Delian League.6 These earlier studies thus associated the graffiti not only with specific actions related to the sale of the amphoras but also with a specific historical circumstance. This picture, however, was developed with minimal attention to the contexts of the graffiti:which amphora types carrywhich sorts of graffiti? What are the dates of the markedjars? Where are the graffiti found in the Agora? Inquiry along these lines reveals very clear patterns. First, not only Chian jars but many amphora types carry graffiti. Second, although such graffiti do appearsporadically throughout the 5th century B.C., most nume- rical markings on amphoras appearin the last third of the century. Finally, while examples have been found across the Agora, most amphora graffiti were excavated in the southeast corner (Figs. 1-2). These patterns are difficult to reconcile with either the postulated use of graffiti in checking the capacity of jars for personal reuse or the pro- posed implications of the Standards Decree. If graffiti were applied when confirming amphora capacities, then marked amphoras should be distrib- uted across the Agora, wherever amphoras were found in large numbers. This is not the case. Moreover, the connection to the Standards Decree 2. Talcott 1935, pp. 495-496, 515- 5. Grace and Savvatianou- Lewis 1987, Mattingly 1993 and 516. Petropoulakou1970, pp. 359-360; 1999; for the intentions and impacts 3. Lang 1956; AgoraXXI; Lang Grace 1979b, pp. 121-122. Wallace of the decree see Finley 1973, pp. 168- 1974. Other comments on Agora (1984, pp. 12-13; 1986, p. 88) accepts 169; Mattingly 1981; Schonhammer graffitiinclude Talcott 1936, pp. 344 the change in Chian capacityand 1993, p. 190; and Figueira 1998, and 352; Boulter 1953, pp. 99-101; its relationshipto the graffiti,but whose discussion of the goals of the and Rotroff and Oakley 1992, expressesuncertainty as to the precise Athenians emphasizes,even more so especiallypp. 27-28, 35-37, figs. 21- role of the StandardsDecree. than that of Lewis (1987), the range 22. 6. For discussionsof the date of of dates of copies of the decree. 4. Lang 1956, pp. 23-24. this decree,see, among many others, GRAFFITI, WINE SELLING, AND REUSE OF AMPHORAS 5 AAjjCD E FIGIHKI KLIMIN PPQ RiSIT *400 8 1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. A 2 ORAENCVAI.S 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ATtENS3 PLAN SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF 4 5th CENTURY B.,C. AMPHORAS 4 WITH GRAFFITI5 6 N7:-3 7 7 8 / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8 9 KOLONOS/9 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11 ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 12 ()KAPELEIA 12 163: 17 17~~~~~~~~~........131104-105/NW-MA 19 20 A2021:1 20~~~~~~~FFA 21Section NNtio21AD5:1J 26~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 29~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lt9 31' 20 40 80 80 10 20~~~~~~~~~~~1:7 S tin RCAA2 __ 200 _________________________________Section__D 1 12 Qa Rl13:1 is16.OmN 13~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I' 0~~~~~~~ 13 R13:4 R13:5 10OmN (PART OF) SECTION PP -PP' 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ---SURVIVING CLASSICAL WALLS VA ~~~~~~~~~~~RESTOREDCLASSICAL WALLS -SURVIVING WALLS RESTORERESTOEDWALLSWALS LBUILDING PRECEDING LIBRARY OF PANTAINOS CONJECTURAL WALLS I ~ 120.00OmL 5 10 20 40m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i.~ DNM0.R 0 ~~~~~~~0 0 1 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C DJW B. DINSMORJR.197 5 R.C.A. 2000 Figure 2. Restored plan of the kapeleionarea around well R 13:4, with other late-5th- and early-4th-century wells GRAFFITI, WINE SELLING, AND REUSE OF AMPHORAS 7 and Chian amphoras raised the expectation of a limited period of uncer- tainty and, therefore, of intense markingjust after the initial promulgation of the decree (perhaps ca. 449 B.C., perhaps ca. 425 B.C.). Instead, roughly thirty-five years are indicated by the range of dates for the amphoras car- rying the marks.7Furthermore, a connection to the decree might prompt the expectation that the marks would appear primarily on those amphora types whose capacities changed in accordance with the decree. It is still a matter of debate as to which, if any, types were modified,8 but the fact that volumetric graffiti are not limited to specific types casts doubt on this ele- ment of the interpretation as well. Finally, while some commentators ar- gue that the decree was meant to facilitate collection of taxes, tribute, and other payments, whether in money or other products,9the graffiti indicate instead some sort of difficulty arising in later-5th-century sales in Athens. If such contexts of the graffiti requireus to question, or even abandon, earlier explanations, new interpretations are needed. The following