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.