THE WORLD OF GREEK VASES

EDITED BY VINNIE NØRSKOV, LISE HANNESTAD,

CORNELIA ISLER-KERÉNYI & SIAN LEWIS

EDIZIONI QUASAR
ROMA MMIX
Analecta Romana Instituti Danici - Supplementum XLI
Accademia di Danimarca, via Omero, 18, I - 00197 Rome

© 2009 Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon srl, Roma

ISBN 978-88-7140-420-2

Published with the support of grants from:

Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond

Carlsen-Langes Legatstiftelse
Elisabeth Munksgaard Fonden
Forskningsrådet for Kultur og Kommunikation

Cover: Corinth. A dump of feasting remains from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore
(after Bookidis & Stroud 1997, plate 27c).
Woman walking towards an altar carrying a phiale. Attic red-figure cup, Akestorides
Painter, 475-425 BC, Cambridge, Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Museum
1927.155 (Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Muse-
ums, gift of E.P. Warren, Esquire, 1927.155. Photo: Junius Beebe).
 The Study of Figured Pottery Today
by CORNELIA ISLER-KERÉNYI
INTRODUCTION
In September 2001 the archaeological institute
at the University of Kiel hosted an international
vase symposion where much new information
was given, but very few attempts were made to
reflect upon the basic issues of our discipline.1 It
was against that background that the idea was
born to plan a seminar to examine the current
state of the study of Greek pottery, more than
thirty years after the death of Sir John Beazley.
When he passed away in 1970 many scholars
asked how his important work should con-
tinue, not only in relation to Attic pottery but
also to the many other groups of pottery closely
connected with Attic. At a seminar in Tübingen
in November 1978 lines of research proceeding
beyond mere attribution and dating were laid
out.2 The next congress, held in Amsterdam
1984, had the significant title Ancient Greek and
Related Pottery, which – though continuing the
traditional hierarchy of Attic pottery in rela-
tion to other production centres – nevertheless
opened up new perspectives.3 Even at this stage
some considered this to go too far and at the
third congress in Copenhagen in 19874 many
voiced the view that future congresses should
focus only on Attic pottery, even if the study
of vases would then run the risk of becoming
an irrelevant pastime of specialists or simply
a service for the art market. Such discussions
may seem incomprehensible to the younger
1. Schmaltz & Söldner 2003.
2. Isler-Kerényi 1979; the same in Italian 1980.
3. Brijder 1984.
4. Christiansen & Melander 1988.
5. Rizza et al. 1990; Oakley et al. 1997; Villanueva Puig et
al. 1999; Crielaard et al. 1996; Rouillard & Verbanck-
participants in our conference: today it is obvi-
ous that pottery is much more than just a part
of the history of ancient art.
Since Beazley’s death his work of classifica-
tion – be it ever so incomplete – has turned out
to be an important instrument for research into
problems of more general cultural history. The
papers from the above-mentioned congresses
and from a number of analogous seminars on
pottery5 clearly indicate that the focus of re-
search has gradually changed. The following
themes can be identified as central: attributions
and chronology, technology, shapes, images and
their interpretation/iconography, find contexts,
and research history.
STATUS QUO
Of the different research fields which I have
just listed, it is obvious that attributions and
chronology remain on the agenda, not only
with regard to pieces from new excavations or
which appear on the market, but also the ma-
terial already included in the lists of Beazley.
This work is necessary and we should appreci-
ate that there are specialists with eyes trained
to take up and continue Beazley’s unfinished
work, and who can elucidate the relationship
between various painters and potters, their dat-
ing, etc. But one cannot help asking why in the
very competent studies of this kind which have
Piérard 2003; Marconi 2004; Bentz 2002; Bentz &
Reusser 2004. Further works focused on vases: Keay
& Moser 2002; Clark & Gaunt 2002. The need for re-
thinking pottery studies is well expressed by the fol-
lowing publications: Rasmussen & Spivey 1991; Mor-
ris 1994.
14 CORNELIA ISLER-KERÉNYI
appeared in recent years – for example, the se-
ries Kerameus6 – the historical perspective is
nearly always missing. We are all aware that
datings of pottery are basically conventional
and can only be provisional. But in fact Attic
vases are among the safest dated artefacts from
classical antiquity. It is a paradox that they are
so little used as historical sources; it is after all
inconceivable that the stormy history of Athens
should have left no traces in the Kerameikos.7
And it turns out that such traces can be found
when looked for.8
As an example I have often wondered how
one can explain the fact that the majority of
Athenian vases of the highest artistic quality
were produced in the years around 480 BC and
exported to Etruria at a time when the Atheni-
ans were forced to leave their city because of the
advancing Persian army and see it destroyed.9
It is difficult to say whether omission of actual
history by so many scholars concerned with at-
tributions and dating is due to excessive cau-
tion or lack of interest in history, or whether it
can be traced back to an unspoken fear of ques-
tioning well-established research conclusions.
That it is rather the latter is suggested by the
way in which specialists treat one of the most
important discoveries about the technique of
the vase-painters, the discovery of the so-called
Linierhaar.10 As early as 1978 Gérard Seiterle
demonstrated by experiment and a little later
in photographic documentation11 that the of-
ten-mentioned relief line which characterizes
Athenian red-figure vases was not drawn by a
brush or a fountain penlike instrument, as was
claimed by Noble at the Amsterdam congress.12
The relief line was made by applying one or more
animal hairs of different length and strength to
6. Edited by John Boardman et al., beginning 1975.
7. So also Boardman 1984, 240-241.
8. Some instances: Neer 2002; Kathariou 2002; Isler-
Kerényi 1977; Isler-Kerényi 1983; Shapiro 1992.
9. Herodot. 8.41 and 50; Thucydid. 1.18.2 and 74.2. Ham-
mond 1982. Athens was evacuated for at least a year
between September 481 and the battle of Salamis (Sep-
tember 480 BC).
10. Another important achievement in the study of tech-
nique is the documentation of preliminary sketches on
vases: Böhr 2002; Boss 1997, 345-351.
11. Seiterle 1979, 34 (with the commentary by Elke
Olshausen p. iii). The same topic richly illustrated: Seit-
the surface of the vase and then removing them.
The brush was used for certain details or for
defining a figure from the black background.
Red-figure vase-paintings thus have nothing
to do with normal drawing and painting.13 The
brush stroke does not express spontaneously
and directly an artist’s personality but is the
result of an extremely sophisticated technique
which demanded special dexterity and probably
long practice. This explains why the real artists
among the vase-painters often kept their char-
acteristic style through several decades. This
technique could also be used by less gifted vase-
painters for mass production of vases.
The discovery of the Linierhaar-technique has
serious consequences: it does confirm Beazley’s
attribution method, but it also makes it possible
to simplify his classification system. Compara-
tively few ‘real artists’, deserving to be called
painters, worked in the workshops of the Kera-
meikos. The majority of the production should
be attributed to a variety of anonymous ‘hands’,
whose identification is less important than de-
fining shapes, ornaments and motifs which dis-
tinguish one workshop from another.14 The ex-
istence of the Linierhaar-technique solves prob-
lems such as the identity of the Andokides and
the Lysippides Painters,15 and of the Kleophon
and Thanatos Painters.16 It explains why Attic
pottery did not encounter serious competition
on the markets of Italy until c. 440 BC when
Attic potters from the Kerameikos settled in
Magna Graecia (Tarentum and Metapontum).17
Our field of research certainly does not benefit
when significant achievements are treated as ir-
relevant for decades.
What are the consequences of the Linierhaar
theory? It confirms, as I said, that Beazley’s
erle 1976; Hemelrijk 1991, 240-241.
12. Noble 1984, 31-41, esp. 35. Also sceptical about Seit-
erle’s discovery: Scheibler 1983, 202 n. 31; Boardman
2001, 286-287.
13. This may be why the problem is not even mentioned by
Williams 1991.
14. See for instance: Lezzi-Hafter 1988; Kathariou 2002.
15. Neer 2002, 225, n. 44.
16. Felten 1971, 48 with pl. 29. Neer’s penetrating remarks
on the style of the Pionieers (Neer 2002, 46-54) are an
indirect corroboration of the existence of this new tech-
nique, albeit not known by the author.
17. Denoyelle 1997, 395-405, esp. 399-404.
 THE STUDY OF FIGURED POTTERY TODAY
classification is an indispensable but prelimi-
nary instrument that must continuously be re-
vised. To some extent it can be supported by the
study of shapes, something that Beazley him-
self pointed out.18 Bloesch’s attempt to identify
individual potters and their relationship with
painters and workshops deserves to be contin-
ued.19 Another promising field which is today
in its very earliest stages is the study of the role
of shape in the circulation of ancient pottery.20
Too little has so far been done on the connec-
tion between shape and image. We know from
experience that the choice of decoration of vas-
es was not accidental: there are subjects which
can be found on several shapes, but most seem
to be predestined for a specific kind of vases.
We get the impression that each shape had its
own repertory of images, even if at first sight it
seems not to correlate in an obvious way with
the function of the shape. Thus we must try to
explain how this repertory came into being.21
As for the hotly debated problem of the ap-
propriate interpretation of the images on vases
we note in recent years an increasing interest
and, fortunately, a growing distance from tra-
ditional positions. We have essentially two ap-
proaches to vase-paintings: we can use them or
we can take them as objects of study in their
own right. For example, we can use them to
answer questions about figures and events of
mythology. The most traditional approach is
found in LIMC. Here the questions are formu-
lated from a purely philological point of view
without taking account of the diversity of vase-
paintings in the context of other visual media
or written records.22 We use them also to elu-
18. Beazley 1944, 42-43: “It will not be enough to note the
general proportions, and the features of the shape: the
eye must become accustomed to perceive minute refine-
ments of curve and line. Then it will be possible not only
to write the history of Attic vases from the point of view
of the potters, but, in the long run, to shed fresh light on
the painters with whom they collaborated.”
19. The prototype remains: Bloesch 1940. On the problem
of identifying the potter: Hemelrijk 1991, 250-252. For
recent useful contributions see for instance Mommsen
2002; Utili 2002.
20. Small 1994, esp. 41; Hannestad 1996, esp. 304. Cfr. also
Reusser 2002, 123-144.
21. Scheibler 1987; Shapiro 1997. Illuminating instances of
recent years are: Batino 2002; Badinou 2003; Mercati
2003; Schmidt 2005 (lekythoi, pyxides, choes, hydriai).
15
cidate questions on cultural issues such as the
position of women, the values of sexuality, the
role of violence in classical society and so on.23
Such an approach can certainly be rewarding,
particularly when the interpretation does not
stop at recording iconographical curiosities but
asks questions of historical or anthropological
relevance. Serious disadvantages are, however,
that the image is isolated from the vase and the
vase itself from the overall pottery production.
To take vase-paintings as objects in their
own right means starting from their special na-
ture as different from wall paintings and other
media, and exploring how images on pottery
communicate.24 This is a very promising field
inasmuch as we can detect a trend to look not
only at the image itself but also at its social con-
text and the practical purpose of the vase. The
most radical approach is a purely visual one: to
look first at the vase as a whole, that is its shape
and therefore its function. At first it is unimpor-
tant whether the vase was ever used for a spe-
cific practical purpose: a sumptuous cup which
was too big or too costly ever to be used for
drinking nevertheless evokes the specific ambi-
ance of the symposium. The shape, that is the
practical or symbolic function, has conditioned
the choice and the composition of the image
and should thus also guide our interpretation.
Furthermore we have to take into account the
other images on the same vase, for instance the
so-called B-side or the inside of the cup.25
Choosing the visual approach to an image on
a vase essentially means trying to understand
its message instead of searching for a specific
answer to a precise question,26 and attempting
22. Critical review: Isler-Kerényi 1990. The same funda-
mental criticism applies to the influential works of Karl
Schefold, most recently: Schefold & Jung 1989.
23. Stähli 1999, esp. chapt. 3 (‘Satyr und Mänade: Entste-
hung und Funktion eines Bildmusters’ 161-231); Lewis
2002; Fischer & Moraw 2005.
24. Snodgrass 1987, esp. 132-169; Bérard et al. 1987;
Shapiro 1994; Goldhill & Osborne 1994; Stansbury-
O’Donnell 1999; Grassigli 1999, esp. 455 f.; Söldner
1999; Hoff & Schmidt 2001; Giuliani 2003; Junker 2005;
Schmidt 2005.
25. Junker 2005, 13-27; Isler-Kerényi 2005, 171-187 (kylix
by Exekias in Munich).
26. Cfr. Lewis 2002, 112: “It is an observation worth repeat-
ing that we can ask of pots only those questions which
they are capable of answering.”
16 CORNELIA ISLER-KERÉNYI
to understand how it was conceived and how it
functioned, whether we are dealing with a mas-
terpiece or a mass-produced vase. A scholar
working with this approach analyses first the
composition, then the individual elements, and
finally the details. The image itself dictates how
it will be categorised and with which other im-
ages it will be compared.27 Its message becomes
one element in a more general discourse, which
can throw light on the place and time of ori-
gin as well as the final function of the vase. It
might also clarify why this particular vase was
decorated with this particular image.28 The sin-
gle figure becomes significant even if it does
not have a known identity: a nameless young
horseman can convey the same message as
Troilos, as does an anonymous fighter instead
of Hektor, a dead warrior instead of Achilles.
An Athenian coming to the Kerameikos in or-
der to buy a vase for a symposium or a burial
to commemorate the virtues of an exceptional
ephebe, or a man who had given his life for the
polis, was probably oriented in exactly this way
by the overall visual impression, and the same
probably applies to the buyer abroad. In this
way the particular image becomes mentally
re-contextualised, and we remain aware of the
connection between shape and image. Another
great advantage of the visual approach is that
simple, quickly painted vases become equally
meaningful as part of a repertory. They too can
contribute new information about mentality,
religion, and history.
Modest, aesthetically worthless images can
become telling when considered in their find
context, i.e. of use in antiquity. We can only
guess how much has been lost for the study of
vases – and unfortunately is still being lost –
through negligence or the wilful destruction
27. A pioneering work was: Lissarrague 1990; Lissarrague
1997.
28. As an experiment in this direction see Isler-Kerényi
1997.
29. Dominguez & Sanchez 2001; Reusser 2002; Fless 2002;
Hoffmann 2002; Schmidt 2003. As to Apulia see for in-
stance: Denoyelle et al. 2005.
30. Dell’Orto & Franchi 1988; Panvini & Giudice 2003; Del-
la Fina 2004.
31. See for instance: Marconi 2004, 27-40; See also several ar-
ticles in Rouillard & Verbanck-Piérard 2003 and in Bentz
& Reusser 2004. On the problem of data from find circum-
stances that are not precise enough: Stissi 1996, esp. 95 ff.
of so many find contexts. Studies dealing with
find contexts have perhaps been the fastest
growing within the discipline in recent years.29
Here, too, much information can be gained: the
vases found on a specific site can tell us about
the history and the social reality of a place. Ex-
pressive of this approach are the initiatives to
re-contextualise vases now dispersed in many
museums around the world, as has been done
for instance through exhibitions in Agrigento,
Gela, Orvieto etc.30 Conversely, observation of
the precise find situation may give us valuable
information about the use and meaning of the
vases.31 Characteristic for all such studies is the
change of focus away from the Kerameikos and
the individual painter towards the customers,
whether in Athens, in Greece, in Italy or in the
Black Sea area.32 This has meant a decisive step
away from the hellenocentric perspective on
ancient pottery and the heavy prejudices which
we have all inherited from our predecessors.33
The importance of the recently initiated re-
search on the history of studies and collecting
is also now becoming clear.34 Here the study of
vases moves closer to the other disciplines of
classical studies, something which brings both
opportunities and challenges.
RESEARCH ON VASES AND CLASSICAL STUDIES
The panorama which I have just presented leads
to two important conclusions. First, that attri-
bution and dating cannot work without taking
technical aspects into consideration, that shape
and images are closely connected, and that the
reconstruction of find contexts is dependent on
research history. One can even claim that only
when all these aspects (and perhaps even more)
32. Cfr. supra n. 28 and Paleothodoros 2002. But see the
articles of Villanueva Puig and Tsingarida on finds from
Athenian cemeteries in Rouillard & Verbanck-Piérard
2003, 63-74.
33. Isler-Kerényi 1999; Donohue 1999; Morris 2000, esp. 37-
76; Lippolis 2005. See also Neer 2002, 28-32.
34. Stissi 1996; Flashar 2000; Rouet 2001; Nørskov 2002
and in this volume; articles of Schiering and Kästner
in Bentz 2002, 123-144; articles of Laurens, Lissarrague
and Denoyelle in Rouillard & Verbanck-Piérard 2003,
195-227; Bellelli 2003; Sena Chiesa & Arslan 2004; Sant-
rot 2004, esp. 16-43; Paleothodoros and Bellelli in this
volume.
 THE STUDY OF FIGURED POTTERY TODAY
are taken into consideration can the vases as a
whole and the individual vase be treated prop-
erly. Ancient pottery is a complex phenomenon,
the study of which does not bear either superfi-
ciality or naivety. Anyone studying single vases
or groups of vases is committed to the utmost
care and precise evaluation of the objective
possibilities, in short to a ‘holistic perspec-
tive’.35 The second conclusion tells us that the
study of pottery is governed today by a steadily
growing interest in cultural history and in this
way is becoming more similar to the other dis-
ciplines within classical studies. This prevents
the danger of drifting into academic sterility,36
and moreover encourages reciprocity between
the disciplines: the results of vase studies will
be noticed and used by historians, philologists,
etc.37
This presents us, researchers of Greek
vases, with a difficult problem: how to define
ourselves and our work. How does today’s ap-
proach differ from that of Beazley and others of
our predecessors? A primary difference is that
we do not see ourselves and our culture as a
continuation and perfection of that of the an-
cient Greeks. Structuralism has shown us how
differently we live, think and feel from a human
being in antiquity. It is no longer possible in the
interpretation of vases to rely on intuition and
sense of style. When attempting to understand
the ancient world we must first of all clarify
the ways in which we are different. As part of,
and an expression of, our own culture we are
confronted with ceramics, which were part of,
and an expression of, another culture.38 We be-
come anthropologists of antiquity. And from
this it follows that we are subject to the double
dilemma of all anthropologists: wanting to un-
derstand from the outside what can only really
be understood from the inside. But in attempt-
ing to penetrate the inner workings of ancient
Greek culture we lose the necessary objectivity,
which we as scholars cannot relinquish.
35. Crielaard et al. 1996, 319.
36. Cf. for example Marconi 2004, x: “… moving beyond style
and connoisseurship, Greek vases represent an immense-
ly rich treasure for studies of Greek cultural history.”
37. Cf. also Dougherty & Kurke 2003, esp. 8.
38. As an instance: Lewis 2002, 128: “The difficulties with
17
Without this objectivity Beazley’ lists and a
large part of what constitutes our knowledge
of the ancient Greek world would never have
come into being. The immense work of Beaz-
ley was only possible because he, like his pred-
ecessors of the nineteenth century, and like his
contemporaries and successors, was convinced
that the more objects and the more data we
had, the closer we could come to seeing the an-
cient Greek world in an objective way. However,
when we understand ourselves as part of and
an expression of a culture which is different
from that of the vases, then we have to make
clear that objects and data are not objective
but the results of their being searched for, and
found under specific historical circumstances
in specific places and not in others. They were
classified and evaluated according to criteria
which correspond to the categories of thinking
of our culture.39 These categories of thinking,
such as art, religion or history are, however, as
we know, not immediately applicable to ancient
(Greek) culture.
When I use the word ‘culture’ I evoke the
idea – also a result of Structuralism – that cul-
tures are systems coherently composed of many
elements, such as ethnos, language, religion
and style. This point of view carries the positive
consequence that it discourages discrimination
against specific cultures and the building of a
hierarchy of cultures. Every culture deserves
to be judged on its own merits. We are differ-
ent from the ancient Greeks, neither better nor
worse.40 In this way evolutionary and teleologi-
cal patterns of thinking, which stem from the
nineteenth century and which also reinforce
the traditional image of ancient art-history in-
cluding the art of ceramics, are discouraged.41
A negative effect, on the other hand, is that
cultures easily become understood as some-
thing static and compact, completely separate
from historical reality. Our experience with our
own culture teaches us first that cultures, like
the interpretation of erotic scenes are a consequence of
cultural difference.”
39. Hoff & Schmidt 2001, 16: “Was wir tun ist mehr Kon-
struktion als Rekonstruktion.”
40. See also Beard 1991, esp. 18-19 and 34-35.
41. Neer 2002, 28-32.
18 CORNELIA ISLER-KERÉNYI
organisms, change over time and second that
no culture is ever monolithic, but consists of
many different, often conflicting subcultures
which create a remarkable diversity of material
evidence including ancient pottery.42 When cul-
tures are not static and compact but conglom-
erates which are subject to change, then one
must also describe phenomena of accultura-
tion, of which the pottery is a very productive
indicator, in a nuanced way.43
CONCLUSION
How should our work continue? As scholars
of ceramics we are confronted with an over-
whelming amount of objects and data, which is
nevertheless full of gaps and hardly possible to
record objectively. We do not even have a clear
idea of how many of the vases actually pro-
duced have survived to be studied by us.44 We
cannot be objective and our image of the an-
cient Greek culture can be questioned. Is there
then any sense in continuing our work?
The easy answer, I suppose, would be no. But
the research of the past decades shows that the
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Badinou, P.
2003, La laine et le parfum. Epinétra et alabastres. Forme,
iconographie et fonction. Recherche de céramique attique
féminine, Louvain.
Batino, S.
2002, Lo skyphos attico. Dall’iconografia alla funzione, Na-
ples.
Beard, M.
1991, “Adopting an approach II”. In: Rasmussen & Spivey
1991, 12-35.
Beazley, J.D.
1944, Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens, (Proceedings of
the British Academy, vol. XXX), London.
Bellelli, V.
2003, “I vasi Egizj del Museo Jatta, gli scavi di Nola e il com-
mercio antiquario nel Regno di Napoli”, Quaderni di archeo-
logia etrusco-italica 29, 71-126.
42. Cfr. Renfrew 1993, esp. 50; Morris 2000; Hall 2002;
Dougherty & Kurke 2003.
production of relevant knowledge is still pos-
sible despite the difficulties. To combine recent
results into a coherent picture is probably pre-
mature, if not impossible. In some aspects the
situation is clearer than thirty years ago, while
in others we are clearly only at the beginning of
a very difficult path. However, beside the many
gaps in our knowledge and a fundamental hesi-
tation we have one incontestable certainty: the
vases themselves, tangible objects which chal-
lenge us to look closely at them and come up
with daring ideas. Because the vases have come
to us after many centuries and vicissitudes, and
as long as they exist, we have a moral obliga-
tion to study them. The alternative is unthink-
able: to forget or to neglect. For that reason we,
like our predecessors, and those who will come
after us, have the obligation to attempt to con-
tribute research that makes sense when we are
confronted with this mass of pieces and data.
To study history is like playing with a kaleido-
scope: everyone who takes the kaleidoscope in
his or her hand sees a different picture. But
as long as the colourful splinters – the ancient
vases – are there, we eagerly look forward to the
next picture.
Bentz, M. (ed.)
2002, Vasenforschung und Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum – Stan-
dortbestimmung und Perspektiven, (Beihefte zum CVA I), Munich.
Bentz, M. & Reusser, Chr. (eds.)
2004, Attische Vasen in etruskischem Kontext. Funde aus
Häusern und Heiligtümern, (Beihefte zum CVA II), Munich.
Bérard, C. et al. (eds.)
1987, Images et société en Grèce ancienne. L’iconographie comme
méthode d’analyse, (Cahiers d’archéologie romande 36), Lausanne.
Bloesch, H.
1940, Formen attischer Schalen, Bern.
Boardman, J.
1984, “Image and politics in sixth century Athens”. In: Bri-
jder (ed.) 1984, 239-247.
Boardman, J.
2001, The History of Greek Vases, London.
43. See for example Hannestad 1996.
44. Kratzmüller 2004.
 THE STUDY OF FIGURED POTTERY TODAY
Böhr, E.
2002, “Vorzeichnungen”. In: Bentz (ed.) 2002, 43-50.
Boss, M.
1997, “Preliminary sketches on Attic red-figured vases of the
early fifth century B.C.” In: Oakley et al. (eds.) 1997, 345-
351.
Brijder, H.A.G. (ed.)
1984, Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, (Allard Pierson Se-
ries 5), Amsterdam.
Christiansen, J. & Melander, T. (eds.)
1988, Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and
Related Pottery. August 31-September 4, 1987, Copenhagen.
Clark, A.J. & Gaunt, J. (eds.)
2002, Essays in Honor of Dietrich von Bothmer, (Allard Pier-
son Series 14), Amsterdam.
Crielaard, J.P. et al. (eds.)
1999, The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and
Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery, Sixteenth to Ear-
ly Fifth Centuries B.C. Proceedings of the ARCHON Internation-
al Conference, Amsterdam 8 - 9 November 1996, Amsterdam.
Della Fina, G.M.
2004, Citazioni archeologiche. Luciano Bonaparte archeolo-
go. Catalogo della mostra Orvieto, Museo “Claudio Faina”,
Rome.
Dell’Orto, L.F. & Franchi, R.
1988, Veder greco. Le necropoli di Agrigento: mostra internazio-
nale, Agrigento, 2 maggio-31 luglio 1988, Rome.
Denoyelle, M.
1997, “Attic or non-Attic? The case of the Pisticci Painter”.
In: Oakley et al. (eds.) 1997, 395-405.
Denoyelle, M. et al. (eds.)
2005, La céramique apulienne. Bilan et perspectives, Naples.
Docter, R.F. & Moormann, E.M. (eds.) 1999, Proceedings of
the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Am-
sterdam 1998, (Allard Pierson Series 12), Amsterdam.
Dominguez, A.J. & Sanchez, C.
2001, Greek Pottery from the Iberian Peninsula. Archaic and
Classical Periods, Leiden-Boston-Cologne.
Donohue, A.A.
1999, “Ideology and historiography in the study of classical
art”. In: Docter & Moormann (eds.) 1999, 155-158.
Dougherty, C. & Kurke, L. (eds.)
2003, The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture. Contact,
Conflict, Collaboration, Cambridge.
Felten, F.
1971, Thanatos- und Kleophonmaler, München.
Fischer, G. & Moraw, S. (eds.)
2005, Die andere Seite der Klassik. Gewalt im 5. und 4. Jahr-
hundert v. Chr., Stuttgart.
Flashar, M. (ed.)
2000, Europa à la grecque. Vasen machen Mode, Munich.
Fless, F.
2002, Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware. Erwerb und
Gebrauch attischer Vasen im mediterranen und pontischen
Raum während des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., (Internationale
Archäologie 71), Rahden Westf.
Giuliani, L.
2003, Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der
griechischen Kunst, Munich.
Goldhill, S. & Osborne, R. (eds.)
1994, Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture, Cambridge.
19
Grassigli, G.L.
1999, “Tra moderno e antico: per un confronto sull’iconologia
archeologica”, Ostraka 8, 447-468.
Hall, J.M.
2002, Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago-
London.
Hammond, N.G.L.
1982, “The narrative of Herodotus VII and the decree of
Themistocles at Troezen”, JHS 102, 75-93.
Hannestad, L.
1996, “The reception of Attic pottery by the indigenous peo-
ples of Italy: the evidence from funerary contexts”. In: Cri-
elaard et al. (eds.) 1999, 303-318.
Hemelrijk, J.M.
1991, “A closer look at the potter”. In: Rasmussen and Spivey
(eds.) 1991, 233-256.
Hoff, R. von den & Schmidt, S. (eds.)
2001, Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit. Bilder im Griechen-
land des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart.
Hoffmann, A.
2002, Grabritual und Gesellschaft. Gefässformen, Bildthemen
und Funktionen unteritalisch-rotfiguriger Keramik aus der
Nekropole von Tarent, (Internationale Archäologie 76), Rah-
den Westf.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1977, Lieblinge der Meermädchen. Achilleus und Theseus auf
einer Spitzamphora aus der Zeit der Perserkriege, (Zürcher
Archäologische Hefte 3), Zürich.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1979, “Beazley und die Vasenforschung. Gedanken zur For-
schungsgeschichte und zur Methode”, Schriften des Deut-
schen Archäologen-Verbandes IV: Vasenforschung nach Bea-
zley, 1-14.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1980, “J. D. Beazley e la ceramologia”, NumAntlCl 9, 7-23.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1983, “Hermonax in Zürich I. Ein Puzzle mit Hermonax-
scherben”, AntK 26, 127-135.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1990, “Review of LIMC”, JRA 3, 205-210.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1997, “Der François-Krater zwischen Athen und Chiusi”. In:
Oakley et al. (eds.) 1997, 523-539.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
1999, “Il cliente etrusco del vaso greco: uno straniero?” In:
Villanueva Puig et al. (eds.) 1999, 445-448.
Isler-Kerényi, C.
2005, Dionysos in Archaic Greece. An Understanding through
Images, (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 160), Leiden-
Boston.
Junker, K.
2005, Griechische Mythenbilder. Eine Einführung in ihre In-
terpretation, Stuttgart-Weimar.
Kästner, U.
2002, “Zur Geschichte der Berliner Vasensammlung”. In:
Bentz (ed.) 2002, 133-144.
Kathariou, K.
2002, To ergastirio tou zografou tou Meleagrou kai he epochè
tou, Thessaloniki.
Keay, S. & Moser, S. (eds.)
2002, Greek Art in View. Essays in Honour of Brian Sparkes,
Oxford.
20 CORNELIA ISLER-KERÉNYI

Kratzmüller, B. Rasmussen, T. & Spivey, N. (eds.)

2003, “Die Inschrift IG II2 2311 und die ‘Nicht-Möglichkeit’
einer Hochrechnung der antiken Vasenproduktion an-
hand der erhaltenen Panathenäischen Preisamphoren”. In:
Schmaltz & Söldner (eds.) 2003, 277-279.
Laurens, A.-F.
2003, “Le vase à lire”. In: Rouillard & Verbanck-Piérard
(eds.) 2003, 195-214.
Lewis, S.
2002, The Athenian Woman: An Iconographic Handbook,
London.
Lezzi-Hafter, A.
1988, Der Eretria-Maler, Mainz.
Lippolis, E.
2005, “La ceramica apula a figure rosse: aspetti e problemi”.
In: Denoyelle et al. (eds.) 2005, 11-15.
Lissarrague, F.
1990, L’autre guerrier. Archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans
l’imagerie attique, Paris-Rome.
Lissarrague, F.
1997, “Le peintre des demi-palmettes: aspects icono-
graphiques”. In: Oakley et al. (eds.) 1997, 125-139.
Lissarrague, F. & Denoyelle, M.
2003, “Les vases grecs, du livre au Musée”. In: Rouillard &
Verbanck-Piérard (eds.) 2003, 215-227.
Marconi, C. (ed.)
2004, Greek Vases: Images, Contexts and Controversies, Lei-
den-Boston.
Marconi, C.
2004, “Images for a warrior. On a group of Athenian vases
and their public”. In: Marconi (ed.) 2004, 27-40.
Mercati, C.
2003, Epinetron, Storia di una forma ceramica fra archeolo-
gia e cultura, Perugia.
Mommsen, H.
2002, “Zur Auswertung von Formfotos und Profilzeichnun-
gen”. In: Bentz (ed.) 2002, 23-36.
Morris, I. (ed.)
1994, Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archae-
ologies, Cambridge.
Morris, I.
2000, Archaeology as Cultural History. Words and Things in
Iron Age Greece, Oxford.
Neer, R.T.
2002, Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting. The Craft
of Democracy, Cambridge.
Noble, J.V.
1984, “An overview of the technology of Greek and related
pottery”. In: Brijder (ed.) 1984, 31-41.
Nørskov, V.
2002, Greek Vases in New Contexts. The Collecting and Trad-
ing of Greek Vases. An Aspect of Modern Reception of Antiq-
uity, Aarhus.
Oakley, J.H. et al. (eds.)
1997, Athenian Potters and Painters, Oxford.
Paleothodoros, D.
2002, “Pourquoi les Étrusques achetaient-ils des vases at-
tiques?”, EtCl 70, 139-160.
Panvini, R. & Giudice, F. (eds.)
2003, Ta attikà. Attic Figured Vases from Gela, Rome.
1991, Looking at Greek Vases, Cambridge.
Renfrew, C.
1993, The Roots of Ethnicity. Archaeology, Genetics and the
Origins of Europe, Rome.
Reusser, C.
2002, Vasen für Etrurien. Verbreitung und Funktionen at-
tischer Keramik im Etrurien des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts vor
Christus, Kilchberg-Zürich.
Rizza, G. & Guidice, F. (eds.)
1990, I vasi attici ed altre ceramiche coeve in Sicilia. Vol. I,
(CronA 29, 1990), Catania.
Rouet, P.
2001, Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases. Beazley and Pot-
tier, Oxford.
Rouillard, P. & Verbanck-Piérard, A. (eds.)
2003, Le vase grec et ses destins, Munich.
Santrot, J. et al.
2004, Vases en voyage de la Grèce à l’Etrurie. Exposition à
Nantes 2004-2007, Paris.
Schefold, K. & Jung, F.
1989, Die Sagen von den Argonauten, von Theben und Troja
in der klassischen und hellenistischen Kunst, Munich.
Scheibler, I.
1983, Griechische Töpferkunst. Herstellung, Handel und Ge-
brauch der antiken Tongefässe, Munich.
Scheibler, I.
1987, “Bild und Gefäss. Zur ikonographischen und funktional-
en Bedeutung der attischen Bildfeldamphoren”, JdI 22, 57-118.
Schiering, W.
2002, “Zur Entstehung und Geschichte der Sammlungen
antiker Vasen an deutschen Universitäten”. In: Bentz (ed.)
2002, 123-131.
Schmaltz, B. & Söldner, M. (eds.)
2003, Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext, Mün-
ster.
Schmidt, S.
2003, “Zur Funktion der Bilder auf weissgrundigen Le-
kythen”. In: Schmaltz & Söldner (eds.) 2003, 179-181.
Schmidt, S.
2005, Rhetorische Bilder auf attischen Vasen. Visuelle Komu-
nikation im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr., Berlin.
Seiterle, G.
1976, “Die Zeichentechnik in der rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei”,
Antike Welt 7.2, 3-10.
Seiterle, G.
1979, “Die Linierhaar-Technik”, Schriften des Deutschen
Archäologen-Verbandes IV: Vasenforschung nach Beazley, 34.
Sena Chiesa, G. & Arslan, E.A. (eds.)
2004, Miti greci. Archeologia e pittura dalla Magna Grecia al
collezionismo, Milan.
Shapiro, H.A.
1992, “Theseus in Kimonian Athens: The iconography of
empire”, Mediterranean Historical Review 7.1, 29-49.
Shapiro, H.A.
1994, Myth into Art. Poet and Painter in Classical Greece,
London-New York.
Shapiro, H.A.
1997, “Correlating shape and subject. The case of the Archaic
pelike”. In: Oakley et al. (eds.) 1997, 63-70.
 THE STUDY OF FIGURED POTTERY TODAY
Small, J.P.
1994, “Scholars, Etruscans, and Attic painted vases”, JRA
7, 34-58.
Snodgrass, A.M.
1987, An Archaeology of Greece. The Present State and Future
Scope of a Discipline, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London.
Söldner, M.
1999, “Erzählweise auf spätklassischen Vasen als Deutungs-
falle. Zur Relevanz ikonographischer Hermeneutik”. In:
Docter and Moormann (eds.) 1999, 393-397.
Stähli, A.
1999, Die Verweigerung der Lüste. Erotische Gruppen in der
antiken Plastik, Berlin.
Stansbury-O’Donnell, M.D.
1999, Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art, Cambridge.
Stissi, V.
1996, “Production, circulation and consumption of Archaic
Greek Pottery”. In: Crielaard et al. (eds.) 1999, 83-113.
21
Tsingarida, A.
2003, “Offrandes pour l’éternité: les vases de la ‘Tombe So-
tadès’ à Athènes”. In: Rouillard & Verbanck-Piérard (eds.)
2003, 67-74.
Utili, F.
2002, “Bemerkungen zu drei attischen Trinkgefässen im
Reiss-Museum in Mannheim”. In: Bentz (ed.) 2002, 37-
42.
Villanueva Puig, M.-C.
2003, “Les vases attiques du VIe et du Ve siècles trouvés en
contexte funéraire à Athènes”. In: Rouillard & Verbanck-
Piérard (eds.) 2003, 63-66.
Villanueva Puig, M.-C. et al. (eds.)
1999, Céramique et peintures grecques. Modes d’emploi,
Paris.
Williams, D.
1991, “The invention of the red-figure technique and the
race between vase-painting and free painting”. In: Rasmus-
sen & Spivey (eds.) 1991, 103-118.