The Tyrrhenian Amphora, London BM 1897.0727.

2: how well did Athenian vase painters

know their market?

Degree: M.Phil. (Classical Archaeology)

Subject: Greek Vases
Candidate
Examination no.: 630587
Word Count: 4949
I. INTRODUCTION

This essay discusses the form and decoration of an Attic black figure ‘Tyrrhenian

amphora’ attributed to Timiades Painter (ca. 570/65-550 BC), and now in the British

Museum.1 Once believed to be manufactured in Etruria, Tyrrhenian amphorae are now

understood as having been made in Attica for export mostly to the Etruscan coastal cities

Caere and Vulci during the second and third quarters of the 6th century.2 The vase in

question is said to be from Italy, but nothing more specific about its findspot is known.

As about 88 percent of surviving Tyrrhenian amphorae with known provenance (56 of 64

total) were found in Etruria, this vase will nevertheless be considered as evidence for

Attic potters’ and painters’ awareness of the demands of the Etruscan buyer.3

Early Tyrrhenian amphorae were among the first Attic vases sold en masse in the

Etruscan marketplace, a phenomenon which continued until a drastic decline in both

number and quality in the middle of the 5th century.4 The success of these imports in

Etruria between ca. 575-450 BC reflects how well local tastes and preferences were

understood. Amphorae had never been widely produced by Corinthian workshops in

1
London, BM 1897.0727.2, height: 39 cm; diameter: 24 cm; see: ABV 97.27; Para 37; Add2 26; first
published by Walters (1898), 285, pl. 15. Subsequent scholarly bibliography on this vase is extensive; see:
Add2 entry. Painter attribution by von Bothmer (1944), 166, fig. 5. The painters of the ‘Tyrrhenian Group’
fall into two categories; for the Timiades Painter and his ‘early Tyrrhenian’ circle (ca. 570/65-550 BC),
distinct from his ‘late Tyrrhenian’ successors (ca. 550-530 BC), see: Kluiver (1995), 79-81; Kluiver (1996),
30-1.
2
Thiersch (1899) first identified them as Attic. Though Carpenter (1984) challenged this identification,
more recent petrography analysis proves Thiersch’s conclusion was correct; see: Kluiver (1992), 75-6.
3
According to von Mehren (2001), 46, most of the 88% were found in Caere or Vulci. Of the remaining
12%, or 8 of 64, three remained in Athens, two were found in Rhodes, and one each was found in Megara
Hyblaea in Sicily, Tharros in Sardinia, and Naukratis in Egypt; see: Curry (2000), 81-4. Three additional
vases attributed to the painters of Tyrrhenian amphorae, a volute krater fragment and two pyxis sherds, all
of which have been found in Ionia, have been discussed by Tuna-Nörling (1997).
4
Arafat and Morgan (1994), 120-1.

1
earlier periods, but the eventual predominance of this shape was the result of Athenian

potters anticipating and filling a void in the market. 5 While this argument has been

generally accepted, one scholar has attempted to downplay the importance of painted

decoration to the Etruscan buyer, suggesting instead that one would have been happy to

possess just about any piece of figure-decorated Attic pottery.6 After a description of the

London vase, this essay will move to a discussion of the Etruscan origins of several Attic

pottery shapes, and how the production of Tyrrhenian amphorae seems to have responded

to a specific desire for neck amphorae at the two sites from which most have been

recovered, Vulci and Caere. Later it will examine the painted figural, non-figural, and

textual decoration (that is, dipinti) of some Tyrrhenian amphorae in light of what is seen

on other Attic vases found in Etruria. The resulting interpretation will argue against the

suggestion that Etruscan market demand did not drive the supply of specific images on

imported Athenian pottery.

II. DESCRIPTION

The vase in question is typical of Tyrrhenian amphorae [fig. 1]. It is an ovoid neck

amphora with an echinus mouth, single roll handles, and a conical foot. 7 Painted

decoration is organised within multiple friezes covering both sides. There is also a lotus

palmette chain around the neck, rays on the lower body, a red and black tongue motif on

the upper shoulder, and black slip covering the lip, foot, and handles of the vase. The

figure scenes on Tyrrhenian amphorae vary widely, but mythological images tend to

5
Boardman (1974), 36.
6
Osborne (2001).
7
Boardman (1974), 36-7, figs. 57-62; Ginge (1988), 205.

2
emphasize the violent and even bloody moments of the Epic cycle – while non-specific

and non-mythological scenes on other vases of this type are similarly sanguine, ranging

from fighting hoplites to athletic contests, wedding processions, banqueting, komoi, and

lovemaking.8 The organisation and the tenor of this amphora’s painted decoration are no

exception. Two lower friezes contain animal motifs running all the way around the vase:

below are bulls and panthers, and above are griffins, lions, bulls, and a single swan. The

uppermost frieze, which is bisected by the handles, has two differently decorated sides.

Side A is decorated with the sacrifice of Polyxena [fig. 2], an episode not from Homer

but described in Euripides’ play Hecuba, which was first performed in Athens in 424

BC.9 The artist has helped the viewer by labeling figures’ names by dipinti. One sees the

climactic moment in the event, in which the Trojan princess bleeds from the neck over

the tomb of Achilles while armed Achaeans look on. Her body is shown rigid, wrapped

tightly in a shroud with face downward, and held aloft horizontally by three warriors:

Amphilochos, Antiphates, and Aias Iliades. Euripides’ text describes Polyxena

approaching the pyre herself, and so this scene must refer to an earlier version of the

story. 10 But as in the play, here Neoptolemos is given the honour of performing the

sacrifice. The artist shows the son of Achilles holding the head of Polyxena by the hair,

and, instead of cutting a neat slit, the grieving son plunges his knife deep into her throat,

causing a stream of blood to gush out. Diomedes and Nestor stand watching on the left,

8
Mayer-Emmerling (1982), 118-58; von Mehren (2001), 46; von Mehren (2002).
9
For the description of the sacrifice, see: Euripides, Hecuba lines 520-82.
10
Polyxena appears in other ancient literary sources testifying to varying traditions; e.g., in the Cypria she
is mortally wounded at the fall of Troy by Diomedes and Odysseus and buried by Neoptolemus (fr. 27
Davies); by the 1st century AD another tradition arose that Achilles had been in love with her (Hyginus,
Fab. 110).

3
while Phoinix, to the right, turns away from the gruesome event. Several painterly effects

enhance the scene. Polyxena’s shroud is decorated with small crosses and the funerary

mound of Achilles bears a checker pattern. The adornment of the shroud could refer to

the custom of richly dressing victims of human sacrifice in Athenian tragedy, although

sacrificial scenes are exceptionally rare in Attic vase painting. 11 Moreover, added color in

the scene reinforces the narrative; Polyxena is clearly represented as a woman by her

whitened flesh, while red is added to illuminate both the blood streaming from her neck

and the fire beneath her.

The decoration of side B does not relate to a specific mythological episode, but instead

comes from daily life. Here the viewer sees three naked youths and one bearded adult

male dancing between two human-sized cockerels [fig. 3]. The composition is roughly

symmetrical. Two of the three youths stand on either side of the group, holding what

appear to be garlands behind the roosters’ heads. The presence of these birds supported

the attribution to the Timiades Painter, as many varieties of hybrid ‘cock-monsters’ have

been assigned to his hand, including the ‘panther-cock’, ‘boar-cock’, and ‘girl-cock’.12 In

this case, within an erotic scene involving young and old men, the presence of roosters is

unsurprising. They are often shown given as gifts from adult men (erastai) to beautiful

11
Suggested by Connelly (1996), 62. von Mehren (2002), 50 states that this is the only clear depiction of
the physical sacrifice of Polyxena in Attic pottery, although a similar scene on a fragment of a Protoattic
krater (ca. 650-630 BC) now in Boston has been interpreted to show that of either Polyxena or Iphigenia;
see: Vermeule and Chapman (1971).
12
von Bothmer (1944), 164, nos. 4, 6, 7.

4
youths (eromenoi) in courtship scenes in Attic black and red figure vase painting.13 Such

scenes fit well within the visual cultures of both Athens and Etruria, as will be discussed.

III. ATTIC VASES AND THE ETRUSCAN MARKET I: SHAPE

III.a. Etruscan shapes in Attic pottery

Scholars now recognize that several shapes produced by Attic potters in the 6th century

imitated shapes in the prevailing Etruscan ceramic fineware, Bucchero [fig. 4]. It could

be that the original inspiration for both Attic and Bucchero shapes were Etruscan metal

wares, which rarely survive due to the reusable value of their material. 14 Given the

general absence of metal vases from the archaeological record, the search for similarities

between the local ceramics and those imported from Athens is more instructive.

The earliest Attic shape learned from Etruscan pottery was the carinated kantharos, which

was first developed in Bucchero in ca. 650-625 BC before first appearing in Attic black

figure imitations in ca. 580 BC [fig. 5].15 This shape corresponds closely to ‘Type 3g’

[fig. 6] in Rasmussen’s classification of Bucchero types, with a tall flaring foot leading to

a narrow stem and high handles.16 Toward the end of the century ‘Nikosthenic’ amphorae

(ca. 530-510 BC) appeared, named after the signature of the potter Nikosthenes.17 Many

13
Dover (1978), 91-2.
14
Spivey (1991), 140.
15
Rasmussen (1985), 33-4; Brijder (1988).
16
Rasmussen (1979), 106-7, fig. 174.
17
According to Boardman (1974), 64, this signature is the most common in all Attic black figure pottery,
and so it is likely that he was a zealous workshop owner who signed many things painted, and even potted,
by others.

5
of these have survived, such as one attributed to Nikosthenes himself (also known as

‘Painter N’ in classification studies), believed to be from Caere and now in the Louvre

[fig. 7].18 This shape is close to Bucchero ‘Type 1g’ [fig. 8], which has been found most

often also at Caere, and which is characterized by a flaring foot, two horizontal ridges

beneath the shoulder, and large looping handles above the shoulder which flare out the

same width as the slender body.19

Attic kyathoi also began to appear in Etruria in ca. 530 BC. Early examples come from

Nikosthenes’ workshop, such as a white ground dipper by his collaborator Psiax found in

Vulci [fig. 9].20 The closeness in shape between Psiax’s cup and the Bucchero ‘Type 1h’

kyathos [fig. 10] is apparent, although the Attic version has a more rounded body and no

flaring ridge at the apex of the handle.21 One scholar has even suggested that kyathoi

were an originally Attic shape imitated by Etruscan potters.22 In fact, kyathoi were first

produced in Etruria in the middle of the 7th century and the many types found there attest

to continuous experimentation and refinement of the shape long before Attic imitations

appeared.23

18
Paris, Louvre F 100; see: Boardman (1974), 64-5 fig. 150. For the most exhaustive modern study of
pottery from Nikosthenes’ workshop, see: Tosto (1999), 17ff.
19
Rasmussen (1979), 74-5, fig. 23; Tosto and van der Woude (1984).
20
Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Mus. 436; see: Boardman (1974), 106, figs. 171.1, 2.
21
Rasmussen (1979), 113, fig. 195.
22
Eisman (1972), 77-104.
23
Rasmussen (1979), 110-16; Tosto (1999), 100-2.

6
The ‘tall kyathos’ variant, also known as the ‘one handled kantharos’, differs from the

conventional Bucchero kyathos [fig. 11] in its rounded body, mounting on a flaring

pedestal foot, and the presence of a knob rather than a flaring ridge on the handle.24 Some

earlier versions of this shape without the flaring foot (e.g., ‘Type 4a’) seem to have been

influenced by the form of Protocorinthian skyphoi [fig. 12].25 However, the pedestal form

was not produced in Bucchero until ca. 550 BC. Within about 40 years, Attic potters of

the Perizoma Group began to make their own attempts at this shape for export to Etruria

with a much taller stem and foot and a rounded handle, such as one from Vulci [fig. 13].26

They, like the painters of Tyrrhenian amphorae, understood not only the preferred shapes

of the Etruscans but also the differences in traditionally Greek cultural activities

performed in Etruria. This is why one sees athletes wearing loincloths and women

reclining in symposia on the stamnoi and tall kyathoi of the Perizoma Group, to match

the social and recreational conventions of where these vases were bought.27

These types make it clear that certain Attic pottery workshops in the 6th century copied,

to varying degrees of closeness, Bucchero shapes that were popular within Etruria.

Tyrrhenian amphorae differ in that their form does not appear to derive from the

repertoire of Etruscan ceramics. Bucchero amphorae, such as the ‘Type 1g’ predecessor

24
Rasmussen (1979), 117-8, fig. 203.
25
Rasmussen (1979), 115, fig. 208.
26
Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 355; see: Boardman (1974), 112, fig. 220.
27
McDonnell (1993); Shapiro (2000). Perizoma Group stamnoi often show athletes in the main body
scenes and reclining women on the shoulder, e.g., one attributed to the Michigan Painter (ca. 525-500 BC),
now Oxford, Ashmolean Mus. 1965.97A; see: McDonnell (1993), fig. 2. Another vase attributed to this
artist, however, shows the mixed-gender symposium in the body: Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Mus. L
326; see: Shapiro (2000), 330.

7
of Attic Nikosthenic wares, tend to have rounder bodies.28 The shape of Tyrrhenian vases

is instead closer to contemporary Athenian amphorae. In the second quarter of the 6th

century, this shape became more ovoidal, developing an echinus mouth and foot as well

as more rounded handles.29 This change is visible in another Attic neck amphora sold in

the Italian peninsula, attributed to the Group of the Dresden Lekanis (ca. 575-550 BC)

and found in Tarentum (modern Taranto).30 The inspiration for the shape of Tyrrhenian

amphorae must have come from within Attic workshops and not Etruria.31

III.b. Tyrrhenian and other neck amphorae

Nevertheless it is clear that the Tyrrhenian Group responded to a general demand for

neck amphorae in Etruria. Although this shape never appears in symposium scenes on

Attic vases, the walls of at least four tombs discovered in Tarquinia bore painted scenes

in which neck amphorae appear beside sympotic revelers.32 This could indicate that some

imported Attic neck amphorae were used in Etruscan symposia.33 On the other hand, this

shape could have served a variety of functions for an Etruscan buyer. Greek transport

amphorae surely first arrived in Etruria as shipping containers for wine and olive oil,

28
Rasmussen (1979), 68-75, pls. 1-6.
29
Alexandridou (2011), 21.
30
Taranto, Mus. Arch. Naz. 20885; see: Boardman (1974), fig. 32.
31
Ginge (1988) sees the similarity in shape between Tyrrhenian and the so-called ‘Pontic’ amphorae, which
are now agreed to have been produced in Etruria, as evidence that Tyrrhenian vases were also made in
Etruria.
32
1) Tomba Cardarelli (ca. 510-500 BC); see: Moretti (1966), 95, 100-1. 2) Tomba delle Bighe (ca. 480
BC); see: Weege (1916), 119-20, fig. 7. 3) Tomba della Caccia e Pesca (ca. late 6th century); see: Weege
(1921), p. 63, fig. 58; 4) Tomba dei Vasi Dipinti (ca. 500 BC); see: Weege (1921), pl. 68. For the absence
of the shape on symposium scenes in Athenian vases, in which only pointed amphorae are shown, see:
Johnston (1984), 210-1.
33
Johnston (1984), 210 is correct to note that is difficult to tell from the Tarquinian paintings whether the
vases depicted are imported or of local manufacture.

8
presumably in the fairly utilitarian, but still painted, Attic ‘SOS’ amphorae which appear

scattered across the region between the late 8th and first half of the 6th centuries.34 Attic

olive oil was an especially sought-after commodity in the ancient world. One cannot

assume, however, that high quality figure-decorated amphorae exported from Athens,

such as the Tyrrhenian vases, were made for the shipment or even the long-term storage

of this product.35 That characteristic is only possible for vases coated on the inside with a

liquid-proof resin, and with narrow mouths to prevent spillage, such as SOS and

Panathenaic amphorae. But almost all Tyrrhenian amphorae found in Etruria were

eventually placed in tombs. It cannot be known whether these vessels were bought

strictly to fill tombs or if they had longer lives within the buyer’s homestead beforehand,

unless there are visible repairs using bronze supports, the Etruscan practice which

differed from the Athenian convention of reinforcing breaks with lead pieces. 36 The

evidence of numerous bronze repairs made to Attic neck amphorae found in tombs within

the modern Campanian town Nola, also known as ‘Nolan amphorae’ (ca. 500-450 BC),

suggests that familiar Attic pottery types were used elsewhere in Italy in a domestic

setting prior to their tomb deposition.37

One 2002 study demonstrates the distribution of Attic vases in a representative selection

of Etruscan tombs. Here one can see the prevalence of black figure neck amphorae and

related shapes at the two most important sites for the export of Tyrrhenian amphorae,

34
Johnston (1978). Transport amphorae appear less frequently in Etruria than in other eastern
Mediterranean areas; see: Whitbread (1995), 1-29.
35
As does Boardman (1974), 36.
36
Discussed, e.g., by Williams (1996), 251-2.
37
Johnston (1984), 210.

9
Vulci and Caere [tab. 1].38 At Vulci neck amphorae account for about nine percent (9 of

99) of the total Attic black figure vases. The date of the two Panathenaic amphorae is not

given; if they postdate the emergence of the red figure technique in ca. 525 BC (as this

shape carries black figures into the Hellenistic period), then the percentage of neck

amphorae would represent a larger proportion of vases acquired from Athens earlier in

the 6th century. 39 The evidence from Caere provides a fuller picture. Neck amphorae

found there constitute almost 13 percent (40 of 314) of the total number of Attic black

figure vases. This ratio does not include the three specifically Tyrrhenian amphorae that

were found. Both sets of data suggest that Attic neck amphorae were in considerable

demand at the two sites from which most of the Tyrrhenian examples with known

provenance originate. The decision of the Timiades Painter and his fellows to produce

neck amphorae for sale to Etruscans in Vulci and Caere must have been based on some

understanding that that the shape was well liked in those cities.

IV. ATTIC VASES AND THE ETRUSCAN MARKET II: DECORATION

IV.a. Figure scenes

The main figure scenes of Tyrrhenian amphorae draw widely from the corpus of

mythological as well as real life images. One popular subject is the Labors and (good)

deeds of Herakles. There are known examples depicting him both in conflict, with the

likes of the Lernaean Hydra, the Kerynitian Deer, and the Amazons, as well as in the

midst of freeing a friend such as Prometheus or Deianeira, who would later become his

38
Reusser (2002), 49-51 (Vulci), 55-7 (Caere).

39
Boardman (2001), 58.

10
wife.40 But the appearance of Herakles is certainly not unique to Tyrrhenian amphorae.

Herakles was visible everywhere in ancient Greek life. One recent study describes

Herakles a ‘role model’ for Greek merchant-adventurers who set up emporia and apoikiai

across the eastern Mediterranean, given the extent of his travels according to legend.41

This was no less true in colonial southern Italy, where Herakles was honoured with a

Doric temple at Akragas (modern Agrigento) on Sicily. 42 The Greek hero was most

widely visible in Etruria through his ubiquitous appearances on Attic black figure vases.43

Rather than adopt him as their own, the Etruscans modified his character to create a new

heroic personality called Hercle, whose identity and iconography was closely related but

not identical. Another scholar argues that Hercle had been even more central to the visual

culture of the Villanovan Etruscans than Herakles was for the Archaic Greeks, citing the

former’s appearances in various 6th century terracottas from across central Etruria and on

the ‘Gobbi Krater’ found at Caere (ca. 590-580 BC). 44 But as Hercle appears in the

Etruscan archaeological record before the profusion of his Greek equivalent in scenes on

imported Attic vases, it is possible instead that Attic vase painters chose to depict

Herakles with Hercle – and thus, an Etruscan buyer – in mind.

To return to the amphora in London, where one sees on side A the sacrifice of Polyxena;

human sacrifice was a distasteful concept for the ancient Greeks, and so Polyxena’s

40
von Mehren (2001), 46-50.
41
Stafford (2012), 156-60.
42
Ortolani (2004), 51-4.
43
Boardman (1974), 221-5.

44
Wiman (2013), 22.

11
death, like Iphigenia’s, is predictably infrequent in Attic vase painting. A greater quantity

of later red figure vases, both Attic and Apulian, show the moments before the event, but

the sacrificial bloodshed is usually avoided. 45 For an Etruscan audience, however,

depictions of, or allusions to, violence were seemingly less problematic. 46 Tyrrhenian

amphorae are decorated with such scenes as Achilles’ ambush of Troilos at the

fountainhouse [Fig. 14], Achilles’ and Hector’s subsequent fight for Troilos’ body [fig.

15], and Achilles’ duel with Memnon [fig. 16].47 Some scholars have suggested that the

Etruscan taste for such scenes relates to the turbulent relations between Italic peoples

during the westward colonial expansion of the Greek world between the 8th and 6th

centuries.48 They cite as one of the earliest examples of this preference the ‘Aristonothos

Krater’ (ca. 650 BC) found in Caere, which shows Odysseus and his comrades blinding

the Cyclops Polyphemos on one side and a naval battle on the other. 49 The painted tombs

of Tarquinia also suggest a taste for bloodshed among the élite of that city; a well-known

example is the ‘Tomba degli Auguri’ (ca. 520 BC), which shows a scene from a ‘Phersu

game’, in which a man whose head is veiled under an orb is savagely bitten by a dog.50

No such scenes appear among the much smaller number of discovered painted tombs

45
Mylonopoulos (2013), esp. pls. 2a-b, 3a-b, 4a, 7a-b, 8a-b. Plates 6a-b illustrate the so-called ‘Polyxena
sarcophagus’ (ca. 520-500 BC), now in the Çanakkale Museum, a rare exception which shows the slitting
of the victim’s throat in a similar manner to the London amphora, although here in a much more ungainly
manner with flailing limbs and exposed breasts.
46
von Mehren (2002).
47
Achilles’ ambush of Troilos at the fountainhouse: Munich, Antikensammlungen 1436; see: von Mehren
(2002), 39, fig. 1. Achilles’ and Hector’s fight for Troilos’ body: Munich, Antikensammlungen 1426; see:
von Mehren (2002), 44, fig. 3. Achilles’ duel with Memnon: Paris, Louvre E 854; see: von Mehren (2002),
48, fig. 5.
48
Torelli (1996), 568-72; Dougherty (2003), 40-2.
49
Rome, Musei Capitolini; see: Dougherty (2003), 40-2, figs. 1, 3.
50
Steingräber (1985), n. 42.

12
from Caere and Vulci, so overlap with the violent imagery of Tyrrhenian amphorae

cannot be traced – regardless, the unknown findspot of the London amphora prevents

local comparison. Instead one can make only tentative suppositions about the meaning of

Polyxena’s sacrifice to an Etruscan buyer. But the more violent nature of mythological

scenes on Tyrrhenian amphorae, in view of evidence from other media, suggests that

Attic vase painters were responding to a specific preference in the Etruscan market for

scenes of conflict and gore – and also non-consensual as well as consensual sex, which

had never before been depicted in this medium but later became a popular decorative

theme in Athenian pottery workshops, especially on drinking cups.51

The main scene on side B, which shows four males dancing between two oversized

roosters, fits more loosely within what is known of upper class Etruscan culture during

the 6th century. Similar scenes are common in Tarquinian tomb painting, often in

association with images of drinking or banqueting.52 Again, such a rich tradition of tomb

painting did not exist in Vulci or Caere, although one much later tomb unearthed at the

latter site shows naked male servants fetching wine for banqueters.53 This juxtaposition is

familiar from some Attic ‘Siana cups’ exported to Southern Italy, such as one attributed

to the C Painter (ca. 575-550 BC) [fig. 17], but does not appear on Tyrrhenian

51
Sutton (2009), esp. 78.
52
E.g., Tomba Cardarelli (ca. 510-500 BC), see: Steingräber (1985), n. 53; Tomba dei Leopardi (ca, 480-
470 BC), see: Steingräber (1985), n. 81; Tomba della Nave (ca. end of the 5 th century), see: Steingräber
(1985), n. 91; Tomba Querciola I (also known as ‘Tomba della Caccia al Cinghiale’, ca. 400-350 BC), see:
Steingräber (1985), n. 106; Tomba dei Vasi dipinti (ca. 500 BC), see: Steingräber (1985), n. 123.
53
Tomba del Triclinio (also known as ‘Tomba delle Pitture’, ca. end of the 4 th century), see: Steingräber
(1985), n. 11.

13
amphorae. 54 Though the Etruscans bought so many Attic vases depicting acts of

pederasty and homoeroticism, there is very little evidence to suggest that they themselves

embraced these elements of Greek culture in practice.55 The unknown provenance of the

London amphora also blocks comparisons to similar material from the buyer’s city. At

the very least, given the widespread dissemination of similar Attic vase scenes across

Etruria in the Archaic period, the Etruscan who owned this vase would surely have

appreciated the combination of one old and three young men dancing naked together in

the company of two giant roosters as an erotic image.

IV.b. Floral and animal motifs

Most Tyrrhenian amphorae feature a chain of lotus palmettes encircling the neck. Some

painters from the Tyrrhenian Group also used this motif to fill bands covering lower parts

of the vase’s body, usually just beneath the main figural scene. This tendency can be

observed in both the early and late phases of the group, on some vases made by, for

example, the Goltyr Painter (ca. 565-550 BC) and his contemporary the Castellani Painter

(ca. 560-545).56 Others preferred to reserve the area below the main band in black [fig.

15]. In general, however, almost all surviving Tyrrhenian amphorae are also decorated

with animal friezes, containing real specimens – including panthers, lions, boars, bulls,

horses and riders, goats, roosters, and swans – as well as imaginary creatures: sphinxes,

griffins, and the ‘cock-monsters’ of the Timiades Painter. The presence of animals must

54
Taranto, Mus. Naz. I.G. 4339; see: Smith (2010), 66-8, pl. 11b.
55
Spivey (1991), 133.
56
Goltyr Painter: Paris, Louvre C 10507; see: Kluiver (1995), 74, n. 93, fig. 45. Castellani Painter:
Civitavecchia, Mus. 1706; see: Kluiver (1996), 8, n. 157, fig. 13.

14
have been inspired by Corinthian pottery, which appeared in Caere and Vulci beginning

in ca. 625 BC. The only significant artistic difference between Attic and Corinthian

animal friezes is that the latter usually contain fill elements in the background.57 Such

Attic vases must have appealed to Etruscan buyers accustomed to animal friezes but who

also wanted neck-amphorae. The application of familiar animal motifs to an in-demand

shape could be one reason that Athens eclipsed Corinth as the leading exporter of figure-

decorated pottery to Etruria in the middle of the 6th century.

IV.c. Dipinti

A further decorative feature of many Tyrrhenian amphorae are painted inscriptions. In the

case of the London amphora, these are perfectly legible. If the vase’s Etruscan buyer did

read Greek, its inscriptions could have helped him recognize the narrative behind the

scene. But, according to one study, of the roughly half of surviving Tyrrhenian amphorae

bearing at least one inscription, over three quarters bear nonsensical text, often
58
incorporating non-Attic scripts such as Euboean. Nonsense inscriptions do appear

elsewhere on Attic black figure vases, though certainly not at the frequency of the

Tyrrhenian Group.59 Of the remaining fourth, some, such as those by Kyllenios Painter,

show intelligible text marked by errors of spelling and letter formation.60 On the basis of

the painters’ imperfect to highly suspect Greek, and given the inclusion of non-Attic

letterforms, that study and others have suggested that Tyrrhenian amphorae were not

57
Amyx (1988), 375-95.
58
Carpenter (1983), 288-91.
59
Immerwahr (1990), 27, 31.
60
Carpenter (1983), 290.

15
made in Athens.61 It is now clear that petrographic analysis disproves this interpretation,

showing that they are of Attic clay.62 Another scholar, trusting the literacy of Athenian

craftsmen, proposed long ago that incomprehensible text could have been added

intentionally by the painter to confuse his Etruscan buyer, by virtue of his lesser

command of the Greek language – or his presumed state of drunkenness at the

symposium. 63 This suggestion is also unsustainable, as the disappearance of nonsense

inscriptions from Attic vases in the early 5th century is rightly seen as an effect of rising

literacy rates.64 Textual errors and nonsense on these amphorae in particular are more

likely a symptom of the varying rates of literacy within this group of artists. However,

among an Etruscan clientele probably largely unable to read Greek, these inscriptions

would have carried ‘snob value’ for the buyer who could then show his unknowing

friends his apparent grasp of Greek culture through the object.65

V. CONCLUSION

Attic potters and painters of the 6th century BC were acutely aware of what their buyers

in Etruria wanted. Their sense of market forces informed the production of certain

popular shapes, some of which were learned from Bucchero, as well as the choice of

figural and non-figural decoration that covered them. Certain Attic schools, such as the

Tyrrhenian and the Perizoma Groups, were particularly responsive to customer demands,

61
Carpenter (1983), 288-91; Ginge (1988), 204-5.
62
See: n. 2 above.
63
Smith (1936), 25.
64
Boardman (1975), 213; Harris (1989), 52.
65
Boardman (1974), 36.

16
which explains in part the survival of their wares in the archaeological record. By

addressing the question of how well Athenian artisans knew their market, this essay

provokes the more interesting question of simply how they came to know their market.

That question may be impossible to answer fully. Next to nothing has been preserved

about their lives, so one is unlikely ever to understand exactly how the potters and

painters came to understand the preferences of their Etruscan patrons. It is likely that they

had agents working on their behalf on the Italian peninsula, in the manner of the

merchant Sostratos of Aegina, who was successful enough to have his name preserved by

Herodotus. 66 This process doubtless indicates a complex international trading system.

Future studies into this transmission of goods and preferences across distinct cultural and

linguistic boundaries in the Archaic period and later should be encouraged.

66
Hdt. 4.152.3; discussed by Shapiro (2000), 337.

17
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexandridou, A. (2011), The early black-figured pottery of Attika in context (c. 630-570
BCE), Leiden.
Amyx, D.A. (1988), Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, Berkeley.
Arafat, K. and Morgan, C. (1994), ‘Athens, Etruria, and the Heuneburg: Mutual
Misconceptions in the Study of Greek-Barbarian Relations’, in I. Morris (ed.),
Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge, 108-
34.
Boardman, J. (1974), Athenian Black Figure Vases, London.
Boardman, J. (1975), Athenian Red Figure Vases, London.
Boardman, J. (2001), The History of Greek Vases, London.
von Bothmer, D. (1944), ‘The Painters of “Tyrrhenian” Vases’, AJA 48, 161-70.
Brijder, H.A.G. (1988), ‘The Shapes of Etruscan Bronze Kantharoi from the Seventh
Century B.C. and the Earliest Attic Black-Figure Kantharoi’, BABesch 63, 103-
14.
Carpenter, T. (1983), ‘On the Dating of the Tyrrhenian Group’, OJA 2, 279-203.
Carpenter, T. (1984), ‘The Tyrrhenian Group: Problems of Provenance’, OJA 3, 45-56.
Carpenter, T. (1991), Art and Myth in Ancient Greece, London.
Connelly, J.B. (1996), ‘Parthenon and Parthenoi: A Mythological Interpretation of the
Parthenon Frieze’, AJA 100, 53-80.
Curry, M. (2000), ‘The Export of Attic Black-Figure Pottery in the Early Sixth Century
BC’, in G.R. Tsetskhladze, A.J.N.W. Prag, and A.M. Snodgrass (eds.), Periplous:
Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman,
London, 80-8.
Dougherty, C. (2003), ‘The Aristonothos Krater: Competing Stories of Conflict and
Collaboration’, in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), The Cultures within Ancient
Greek Culture, Cambridge, 35-56.
Dover, K. (1978), Greek Homosexuality, London.
Eisman, M.M. (1972), Attic Kyathos Painters, Ph.D. thesis: University of Pennsylvania.
Ginge, B. (1988), ‘A New Evaluation of the Origins of Tyrrhenian Pottery: Etruscan
Precursors of Pontic Ceramics’, in T. Christiansen and M. Melander (eds.),
Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery,
Copenhagen. August 31-September 4 1987, Copenhagen, 201-210.
Harris, E. (1989), Ancient Literacy, Cambridge, MA.
Immerwahr, H. (1990), Attic Script: A Survey, Oxford.
Johnston, A. (1978), ‘The “SOS” Amphora’, ABSA 73, 103-41.
Johnston, A. (1984), ‘The Development of Amphora Shapes, Symposium and Shipping’,
in H.A.G. Brijder (ed.), Ancient Greek and related pottery: proceedings of the
International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam 12-15 April, 1984, Amsterdam, 208-
11.
Kluiver, J. (1992), ‘The “Tyrrhenian Group”: Its Origin on the Neck-Amphorae in the
Netherlands and Belgium’, BABesch 67, 73-109.
Kluiver, J. (1995), ‘Early “Tyrrhenian”: Prometheus Painter, Timiades Painter, Goltyr
Painter’, BABesch 70, 55-103.
Kluiver, J. (1996), ‘The Five Later “Tyrrhenian” Painters’, BABesch 71, 1-58.

18
Mayer-Emmerling, S. (1982), Erzählende Darstellungen auf ‘tyrrhenischen’ Vasen,
Frankfurt.
McDonnell (1993), ‘Athletic nudity among the Greeks and Etruscans: the evidence of the
“Perizoma Vases”’, in Spectacles sportifs et scéniques dans le monde étrusco-
italique: actes de la table ronde organisée par l'Équipe de recherches étrusco-
italiques de l'UMR (CNRS, Paris) et lÉcole française de Rome, Rome, 3-4 mai
1991, Rome, 395-407.
Mylonopoulos, I. (2013), ‘Gory Details? The Iconography of Human Sacrifice in Greek
Art’, in P. Bonnechere and R. Gagné (eds.), Sacrifices humains: perspectives
croisées et représentations = Human sacrifice: cross-cultural perspectives and
representations, Liège.
von Mehren, M. (2001), ‘Two Groups of Attic amphorae as export ware for Etruria: the
so-called Tyrrhenian Group and Nikosthenic amphorae’, in C. Scheffer (ed.),
Ceramics in Context, Stockholm, 45-53.
von Mehren, M. (2002), ‘The Trojan Cycle on Tyrrhenian Amphorae’, Acta Hyperborea
9, 33-58.
Moretti, M. (1966), Nuovi monumenti della pittura etrusca, Milan.
Ortolani, G. (2004), La Valle dei templi di Agrigento, Rome.
Osborne, R. (2001), ‘Why did Athenian Pots Appeal to the Etruscans?’, World
Archaeology 33.2, 277-95.
Rasmussen, T. (1979), Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria, Cambridge.
Rasmussen, T. (1985), ‘Etruscan Shapes in Attic Pottery’, AK 28, 33-9.
Reusser, C. (2002), Vasen für Etrurien : Verbreitung und Funktionen attischer Keramik
im Etrurien des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts vor Christus, 2 vols., Zurich.
Schäfer, A. (1997), Unterhaltung beim griechischen Symposion, Mainz.
Shapiro, H.A. (2000), ‘Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscans on Attic Black-
figure Vases’, in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the
construction of the other in Greek art, Leiden, 315-37.
Smith, H.R.W. (1936), Corpus vasorum antiquorum: United States of America:
University of California, Cambridge, MA.
Smith, T.J. (2010), Komast Dancers in Archaic Greek Art, Oxford.
Spivey, N. (1991), ‘Greek vases in Etruria’, in T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey (eds),
Looking at Greek Vases, Cambridge, 131-50.
Stafford, E. (2012), Herakles, London.
Steingräber, S. (1985), Etruskische Wandmalerei, Stuttgart.
Sutton, R.F. (2009), ‘Lovemaking on Attic Black-figure Pottery: Corpus with Some
Conclusions’, S. Schmidt and J.H. Oakley (eds.), Hermeneutik der Bilder:
Beiträge zu Ikonographie und Interpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei, Munich,
77-91.
Thiersch, H. (1899), ‘Tyrrhenische’ Amphoren: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der
altattischen Vasenmalerei, Leipzig.
Torelli, M. (1996), ‘The Encounter with the Etruscans’, in G.P. Caratelli (ed.), The
Western Greeks, London, 567-76.
Tosto, V. (1999), The black-figure pottery signed Nikosthenesepoiesen, 2 vols.,
Amsterdam.

19
Tosto, V. and van der Woude, A. (1984), ‘Construction and Shape of the Nikosthenic
Neck-Amphora’, in H.A.G. Brijder (ed.), Ancient Greek and related pottery:
proceedings of the International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam 12-15 April,
1984, Amsterdam, 160-3.
Tuna-Nörling, Y. (1997), ‘Attic Black-Figure Export to the East: The "Tyrrhenian
Group" in Ionia’, in J.H. Oakley, W.D.E. Coulson, and O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian
Potters and Painters, Oxford, 435-446.
Vermeule, E. and Chapman, S. (1971), ‘A Protoattic Human Sacrifice?’, AJA 75, 285-93.
Walters, H.B. (1898), ‘On Some Black-Figured Vases Recently Acquired by the British
Museum’, JHS 18, 281-301.
Weege, F. (1916), ‘Etruskische Gräber mit Gemälden in Corneto’, JdI 31, 105-68.
Weege, F. (1921), Etruskische Malerei, Halle.
Whitbread, I.K. (1995), Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological
Study, Athens.
Williams, D. (1996), ‘Refiguring Attic-Red Figure: A Review Article’, RA 2, 227-52.
Wiman, I.M.B. (2013), ‘Etruscan environments’, in J.M. Turfa (ed.), The Etruscan
World, London, 11-28.

20
LIST OF FIGURES

1. London, BM 1897.0727.2. After: British Museum Online Catalogue.

2. Side A; London, BM 1897.0727.2. After: Carpenter (1991), fig. 23.
3. Side B; London, BM 1897.0727.2. After: Schäfer (1997), pl. 13.2.
4. Development of Attic vase types from Etruscan Bucchero. After: Spivey (1991), 139,
fig. 57.
5. Attic Carinated kantharos, ca. 580 onwards. After: Rasmussen (1985), fig. 1.
6. Bucchero kantharos, Rasmussen ‘Type 3g’. After: Rasmussen (1979), fig. 174.
7. Paris, Louvre F 100. After: Boardman (1974), fig. 150.
8. Bucchero amphora, Rasmussen ‘Type 1g’. After: Rasmussen (1979), fig. 23.
9. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Mus. 436. After: Boardman (1974), fig. 171.1, 2.
10. Bucchero kyathos, Rasmussen ‘Type 1h’. After: Rasmussen (1979), fig. 195.
11. Bucchero ‘tall kyathos’. After: Rasmussen (1979), fig. 203.
12. Procorinthian skyphos. After: Rasmussen (1979), fig. 208.
13. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 355. After: Boardman (1974), fig. 220.
14. Munich, Antikensammlungen 1436. After: von Mehren (2001), fig. 1.
15. Munich, Antikensammlungen 1426. After: von Mehren (2002), fig. 3.
16. Paris, Louvre E 854. After: von Mehren (2002), fig. 5
17. Taranto, Mus. Naz. I.G. 4339. After: Smith (2010), pl.11b.

LIST OF TABLES

1. Distribution of Attic black figure pottery in a sample of graves from Vulci and Caere.
Data from: Reusser (2002), 49-51 (Vulci), 55-7 (Caere).

21
FIGURES

Fig. 1. London, BM 1897.0727.2.

22
Fig. 2. Side A; London, BM 1897.0727.2.

Fig. 3. Side B; London, BM 1897.0727.2.

23
 Left Fig. 4. Development of Attic
vase types from Etruscan Bucchero.

Below Left Fig. 5. Attic Carinated

kantharos, ca. 580 BC onwards.

Below Right Fig. 6. Bucchero

kantharos, Rasmussen ‘Type 3g’.

24
Fig. 7. Paris, Louvre F 100. Fig. 8. Bucchero amphora,
Rasmussen ‘Type 1g’.

Above Left and Middle Fig. 9. Above Right Fig. 10. Bucchero
Wurzburg, Martin von kyathos, Rasmussen ‘Type 1h’.
Wagner Mus. 436.

25
 Left Fig. 11. Bucchero ‘tall
kyathos’.

Below Fig. 12. Procorinthian

skyphos.

Fig. 13. Paris, Cabinet des

Médailles 355.

26
 Left Fig. 14. Munich,
Antikensammlungen 1436.

Above Fig. 15. Munich,

Antikensammlungen 1426.

Fig. 16. Paris, Louvre E

854.

27
 Fig. 17. Taranto, Mus. Naz. I.G. 4339.

TABLES

VULCI CAERE

Neck Amphorae 9 Lekythoi 59

Belly Amphorae 9 Drinking Cups 51
Panathenaic Amphorae 2 Neck Amphorae 40
Indeterminate Amphorae 15 Belly Amphorae 11
Hydriae 7 Tyrrhenian Amphorae 3
Lekythoi 11 Nikosthenic Amphorae 3
Oinochoai 2 Ps.-Nikosthenic Amphora 1
Kylikes (at least) 37 Indeterminate Amphorae 6
Kyathoi 5 Olpai 29
Skyphoi 2 Oinochoai 28
TOTAL: (at least) 99 Skyphoi 19
Mastoid Cups 19
Bowl Skyphos 1
Kyathoi 20
Column Kraters 9
Indeterminate Krater 1
TOTAL: 314

Tab. 1. Distribution of Attic black figure pottery in a sample of graves from Vulci and Caere.

28