UNDERSTANDING STANDARDIZATIONAND VARIATION IN

MEDITERRANEAN CERAMICS MID 2ND TO LATE 1ST MILLENNIUM BC

Edited by

Antonis Kotsonas

PEETERS

Leuven - Paris - Walpole, MA

2014

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

ANTONIS KOTSONASIntroduction: why standardization and variation?

ANTONIS KOTSONASStandardization, variation, and the study of ceramics in the Mediterranean and beyond

JILL HILDITCHAnalyzing technological standardization: revisiting the Minoan conical cup

ARIANNA ESPOSITO, JULIEN ZURBACHTechnological standardization and cultural contact: some methodological considerations and twocase studies

JULIE HRUBYMoving from ancient typology to an understanding of the causes of variability: a Mycenaean casestudy

FRANCISCO J. NÚÑEZ CALVOTyrian potters and their products: standardization and variation in the pottery of the al - Basscemetery

PETYA ILIEVARegional standardization and local variation: the case of the North Aegean G 2-3 ware

FERNANDO PÉREZ LAMBÁN, JAVIER FANLO LORAS, JÉSUS V. PICAZO MILLÁN, JOSÉ MARIA RODANÉS VICENTECeramic variability and social organization in the Early Iron Age settlement of Cabezo de la Cruz(Zaragoza, northeast Spain)

VLADIMIR STISSIStandardization and Greek pottery, a broad view from far above

AMY C. SMITHVariation among Attic fine wares: the case of the Pan Painter’s pelikai

KATERINA VOLIOTIDimensional standardization and the use of Haimonian lekythoi

COLETTE BEESTMAN-KRUYSHAARSize did matter: variability in drinking cups at Hellenistic Halos

List of authors

VII

1

7

25

39

49

59

85

97

115

133

149

169

195

INTRODUCTION

Recent theories about human cognition in ancienttimes emphasise the close interaction betweenmind, body, and matter, and demonstrate the needto overcome the scholarly tradition of Cartesiandichotomies according to which the study ofmaterial objects is regarded as distinct from thatof the mind.1 Visual perception in antiquity oughtto be understood as inextricably intertwined withother sensual modes, such as tactile sensing.2 Closerto our modern realities, the marketing of consumergoods relies heavily on perceptual psychology inorder to penetrate, albeit manipulate, buyers’ be -haviour through such aspects as the height of eyelevel, the ease of tactile handling, and the sensualexperience of objects during purchasing.3 In thispaper, I investigate how the size of Haimonianlekythoi (concerning this name see below) playeda role in people’s encounter with these vessels,and in particular I consider whether size made avisual statement about function.

Although scholars of Attic pottery have lookedinto the mathematical relations underpinning itsproportions, they have done so primarily to em -phasise the aesthetics of symmetry.4 Owing tohasty manufacture, however, the contours of Hai -monian lekythoi are usually asymmetrical. Thecylindrical body leans away from the vertical axis,whilst the foot and neck are off-centre (fig. 1). Sizehas also been discussed in connection with thecapacity of certain Attic shapes, such as amphorae,olpae, and cups.5 Yet no studies exist for lekythoi.In addition, academics have investigated the fig-ural scenes of Greek vases in the context of thethree-dimensional space of each vessel, and in

149

Dimensional standardization and the use ofHaimonian lekythoi

Katerina Volioti

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss evidence of dimensional standardization in 600 Haimonian lekythoi. The heights of theseearly 5th century black-figured oil flasks suggest three discrete classes of vessels: small, medium, and large. Heightis directly proportional to diameter at a ratio of approximately 3 to 1. My findings strengthen the contentionthat these lekythoi were functional vessels, which could explain their wide geographical and social acceptancethroughout Athens and its surroundings, the Greek mainland, and across the Mediterranean basin.*

To Victoria Sabetai, an inspiring teacher of Greek vases

Fig. 1. Two Haimonian lekythoi found in Thessaly.Volos, Athanasakeion Archaeological Museum BE11585(right) and BE11591 (left) (photos by author; publishedwith permission of the 13th Ephorate).

terms of how the vase user’s movements of thearm(s), head, and eyes revealed sections of theiconography.6 By contrast to such modes of seeingthe iconography, the visual appreciation of sizecould also have entailed glimpsing a vessel froma distance and/or the simultaneous viewing ofmore than one lekythos at a time. A key questionthat arises is to what extent size partook in im -printing the Haimonian brand in people’s minds.

Small pieces predominate in the production ofblack-figured pottery during 500-450 BC.7 It issmall shapes in particular that prompt the closeinteraction between people and material objects.For example, ethnographic evidence from Cyprusconcerning the use of ceramic water juglets asconvenience items shows that the physical con-tact with small shapes is easier and preferable tolarge and heavy storage jugs.8 It becomes perti-nent, therefore, to identify how small Haimonianlekythoi were, and what dimensions were mostprevalent. To answer these questions, I shall exam-ine evidence for dimensional standardization. Bystandardization I mean whether Haimonian leky -thoi group into size clusters of small, medium, andlarge vessels, and whether height is proportionalto the maximum width of the lekythos.

Any discussion of Haimonian lekythoi needs totake into account their wide export to Mediter -ranean locations, since trade would have affectedpotters’, traders’, and users’ appreciation of theseceramics. The export of Attic figured pottery waslargely directional, dependent on established con-nections between workshops in Attica and con-sumers in distant places.9 The shape of potteryaffected its distribution to specific destinations.10

Hence, I shall investigate whether size, as a mate-rial attribute of shape, also influenced patterns ofexport.

This paper consists of four sections. First, I dis-cuss Haimonian lekythoi in time and space, em -phasising their wide geographical and socialacceptance. Second, I examine dimensional stan-dardization during the early, middle, and latephases of Haimonian production. Third, I inves-tigate whether size mattered in marketing lekythoiat an increasing distance from Athens. Finally, Iexplore ancient people’s interactions with stan-dardized ceramics.

HAIMONIAN LEKYTHOI IN TIME AND SPACE

Haimonian lekythoi comprise a large early 5th cen-tury group of common decorated pottery foundmostly in burials, but also in deposits of dedica-tory, domestic, industrial, athletic, and commercial

activities.11 As slender shapes with long narrownecks, they were suited to regulating the flow ofliquid contents with a thick consistency, such asculinary and perfumed oil.12 Emilie Haspels namedthe Painter of these lekythoi after Haimon, the lastvictim of the Sphinx of Thebes, although a sphinxappears on just a few of the nearly 2000 lekythoiknown today.13 Despite the practical usefulness ofsmall shapes, Haspels favoured large and finelymade black-figured lekythoi, designating the smallones of secondary artistic merit.14 She paid insuf-ficient attention to small Haimonian and relatedlekythoi calling these ‘schoolwork’, and hence un -classifiable in her typology of painters.15

The scenes on Haimonian lekythoi lack detailand are carelessly drawn, and encompass mostlystandardized depictions of mythological subjects,of chariot processions and races, and of sympo -sia,16 all of which were familiar to ancient view-ers from earlier and contemporary vase iconog-raphy.17 The haste in the throwing and decorationof Haimonian lekythoi and the stylistic overlapswith the shapes and drawings of other lekythospainters have hindered scholars in determiningthe number of distinct Haimonian hands. Here Iuse the term ‘Haimonian’ for lekythoi by variouspotters and painters, irrespective of whether ornot the same person worked on the shape and thedecoration of each piece.

A rescue excavation in Athens in 1984-1985 re -vealed a potters’ quarter at Lenormant-Konstanti -noupoleos Street, to the Northwest of the ancientcity walls, including a large deposit (A8) contain -ing dumped Haimonian pottery.18 Full publication,however, is missing and existing reports mentionHaimonian lekythoi from A8 only in passing. It re -mains questionable whether the Haimonian work -shop at Lenormant-Konstantinou poleos Streetwas sufficiently large to account for the masses ofextant lekythoi. The possible operation of addi-tional Haimonian workshops in other locationswould increase further the anticipated number ofHaimonian hands. As such, it would be reasonableto expect variation rather than standard ization inthe dimensions of Haimonian lekythoi.

The precise dating of any Haimonian lekythos isdifficult, not least because the drawing style doesnot deteriorate with time. Amongst the scholarswho appreciate the diverse shapes of Haimonianlekythoi,19 Ursula Knigge provides the most detailedchronological sequence based on shape (fig. 2).20

Her typology encompasses common (III/2, IV/1,and IV/2) and rare Haimonian shapes (III/1, III/3,and V), and is based on inferences from super-imposed graves in the Athenian Kerameikos as

150

well as on the absolute date (461 BC) of an in -scribed potsherd that had been used as a votingballot to exile the statesman Kimon from Athens.Assemblages from outside Athens, such as at Eleu -sis,21 Corinth,22 and Chalcidice,23 confirm Knigge’schronology for distinct shapes, thus strengtheningthe cross-regional applicability of her sequence.The prevalent dates for each shape are: 500-490 BCfor III/1, 490-480 BC for III/2 and III/3, 480-470 BC

for IV/1, 460-450 BC for IV/2, and 470-450 BC forV. For analytical purposes, I shall associate theseshapes with an early phase of production during500-480 BC (III/1, III/2, and III/3), a middle phasein 480-470 BC (IV/1), and a late one in 470-450 BC(IV/2 and V).

With regard to distribution patterns, Haimonianpottery of different shapes reached locations fur-ther away from Athens than pieces by the related

151

Fig. 2. Ursula Knigge’s types (from Kerameikos 9, table 77).

III/1 III/2 III/3

IV/1 IV/2 V

workshop of the Diosphos Painter.24 Haimonianskyphoi occur in marginal areas of the Mediterra -nean basin,25 whereas mastoid cups, which wererare shapes and hence niche products within theprolific Haimonian œuvre, were almost exclusive -ly exported to Etruria.26 Given the distant and spe-cific connections of the Haimonian workshop(s), afar-reaching trade in lekythoi is unsurprising.

Charlotte Scheffer, having analysed Haspels’and John Beazley’s catalogues of pottery that werepublished up to approximately 1971, concludedthat Haimonian lekythoi circulated primarily at andnear Athens.27 Publication since 1971 has increasedthe number of known lekythoi from Athens. Ad -ditional findspots away from Athens, however,have also emerged, including places in mainlandand northern Greece for which traditional schol-arship has assumed a scarcity of Attic pottery,28

but without acknowledging the major deficienciesin publication.29 Although the vessels found inmainland and northern Greece are still not numer-ous enough to revise conclusively the concentrationat Athens, these findspots are signif icant becausethey pertain, with few exceptions, to small-scalesalvage campaigns. I would, therefore, questionthe assumption that Haimonian lekythoi servedpredominantly an Athenian clientele.

The geographical spread of Haimonian lekythoiis especially wide, extending from the Black Sea toIberia.30 Findspots are known, for example, in AsiaMinor, Crete, Cyprus, the Levant, and Egypt.31 Hai -monian lekythoi occur in major trading outposts,such as Elaious,32 along the Athenian route of grainsupply.33 The trade in these humble ceramics waspotentially complex since it would have been en -tangled with the bulk trade of other goods suchas timber, grain, wine, oil, and foodstuffs carriedin transport amphorae.34 Whilst a thorough exam-ination of the Mediterranean distribution is miss-ing from the literature, scarcity in certain locations,such as the well published cemeteries of Rhodesand Samothrace,35 strongly supports a model ofdirectional trade. Clearly, the inhabitants of vari-ous places chose either to purchase or reject Hai -monian lekythoi, regardless of how common theseceramics were.

The overland trade of these lekythoi, moreover,especially across mountainous terrain, could nothave involved the transport of massive numbersof lekythoi at any one time. Other than humanportage, the transport by means of pack animals,as known from archaeological and pictorial evi-dence,36 would have limited the size of consign-ments to small or medium sized orders such asthose made by a few households. The pattern of

findspots entailing coastal and inland sites, there-fore, could not only have arisen from the eco-nomics of large-scale supply and demand, butalso from the personal preferences and individualtravels by buyers and other users.37

Contrary to scholarly assumptions about leky -thoi being suited for women,38 analysis of skeletalremains confirms that Haimonian lekythoi regu-larly accompanied males.39 Despite their low labourinput, these ceramics were not exclusively des-tined for poor people.40 For example, a large early5th century cemetery of labourers at Laurionyielded only one Haimonian lekythos,41 but a con-siderable number of patterned lekythoi whichwere presumably cheaper than Haimonian ones.If Haimonian lekythoi were associated with lowsocial status in the minds of ancient users, theywould not occur in burials containing metalweaponry or jewellery.42 Although people’s esteemof Haimonian lekythoi undoubtedly varied - de -pending primarily on the local availability ofAttic pottery - the social salience of these vesselsgenerally cut across structural divisions of age,gender, and wealth. An investigation of trade,therefore, also pertains to personal choices affect-ing supply and demand within different regions,regardless of social structure(s). In addition, thewide social acceptance of Haimonian lekythoi isapparent from non-burial findspots.43 The archae-ological evidence is, seemingly, compatible withearly 5th century vase scenes showing the pres-ence of lekythoi in daily-life encounters withindomestic, mercantile, and other settings.44

The data on which this paper is based com-prises 600 Haimonian lekythoi45 with known prov -enances and measurements of height.46 The illus-trations available for each lekythos have allowedme to classify it according to Knigge’s typologyof shapes, and thus date it. All lekythoi are eithercomplete or their fragmentation, such as at thehandle, does not affect their height. I would at -tribute each of the 600 to the Haimonian œuvrerather than to a related painter or class. Each leky -thos bears a figural scene and not just floral orgeometric patterns; it is even harder to ascertaina Haimonian attribution for patterned lekythoi.

I have assembled the 600 lekythoi from diversesources of information. Apart from the 1668 leky -thoi said to be by the Haimon Painter and Group inthe Beazley Archive,47 I have also considered piecesfrom excavation reports which are missing from theBeazley Archive. Omissions include George My -lonas’ monograph for Eleusis,48 Knigge’s volumefor Kerameikos,49 and reports in the ArchaiologikonDeltion. My dataset also includes eight lekythoi from

152

my study of unpublished pottery found in Thes -saly.50

The chronological range and geographical spreadof the 600 pieces are as follows. The shapes of leky -thoi are: five of III/1, 194 of III/2, fourteen of III/3,222 of IV/1, 142 of IV/2, and 23 of V. Hence, rareshapes (III/1, III/3, and V) are included in this data -set. There are comparable numbers of lekythoi forthe early (35.5% of 600), middle (37% of 600), andlate (27.5% of 600) phases of production. The major -ity of lekythoi, approximately two thirds, originatefrom Athens and its surroundings (386, 64.3% of600), including a large number from Kerameikos(271, 70.2% of 386), and just under one third arederived from further away (185, 30.8% of 600).For 29 lekythoi (4.8% of 600), their provenance isvaguely recorded in the literature as ‘Greece’. Giventhe presence of different types of shapes, phases ofproduction, Athenian and non-Athenian prove-nances, I assume that the 600 vessels are indicativeof the ancient temporal and spatial patterns ofmaking and distributing Haimonian lekythoi.

EVIDENCE FOR STANDARDIZATION

On the one hand, early 5th century vase scenesdepict the funerary offering of lekythoi of similarand of different sizes.51 On the other, however, thelarge number of Haimonian lekythoi in certaingraves often comprises groups of lekythoi of sim-ilar size. Pyre hS91 in the Athenian Kerameikoshas yielded twelve lekythoi, all of the same potteras suggested by strong similarities in the details ofshape, and specifically the mouth, cylinder, andfoot (fig. 3).52 Heights indicate one small (13.8 cm),eight medium (~17.0 cm), and three large (~19.5cm) vessels. Is this assemblage a one-off case,because of wholesale buying from a shop near thecemetery of Kerameikos, and/or is it actually typ-ical of the existence of Haimonian size clustersacross time and space?

The heights of the 600 lekythoi range from 10.4cm for a lekythos dating to 470-450 BC and exca-vated in Athens, to 34.8 cm for another vesselfrom 480-470 BC found in Vulci, Etruria.53 Inorder to investigate if there are size clusters I haveplotted the frequency of height values for the ear -ly, middle, and late phases of production (graphs1, 2, and 3). All three graphs show multi-modaldistributions with several peaks and troughs, sothat it is impossible to calculate discrete values forthe small, medium, and large sizes on the basis ofthe mean and standard deviation. Peaks in the fre -quency (local maxima), however, are suggestiveof size clusters.

Graph 1, for 213 early lekythoi, shows two peaksat 16.0 and 17.0 cm, comprising twelve and elevenlekythoi respectively. Another peak appears at 20.0cm, and includes seven lekythoi. In graph 2, show-ing 222 lekythoi that date to the middle phase, fre-quency peaks occur at 17.0 cm (twelve lekythoi)and 19.0 cm (eleven lekythoi). It is justified to com-pare the two phases since they refer to almostequal numbers of lekythoi. Both phases show clus-ters for medium and large sizes, but not for smallvessels. Small Haimonian lekythoi were not abun-dant during 500-470 BC. In the early phase (graph1), the number of medium lekythoi (23, peaks at16.0 and 17.0 cm) is approximately three timesthat for large pieces (seven, peak at 20.0 cm). Inthe middle phase (graph 2), however, the numberof medium (twelve, peak at 17.0 cm) and large(eleven, peak at 19.0 cm) lekythoi is comparable.The increase in large lekythoi during the middlephase can be explained by the appearance ofchimney lekythoi, which have particularly longnecks and mouths.54 Very large lekythoi do notform a cluster, neither in the early nor middlephase. This is unsurprising given the overallscarcity of especially large specimens within theHaimonian œuvre and their usually singularoccurrence in burials.55

153

Fig. 3. Three Haimonian lekythoi of different sizes.Athens, Archaeological Museum of Kerameikos KER8759 (photo by author; published with permission ofthe German Archaeological Institute at Athens and the3rd Ephorate).

Graph 3, for 165 lekythoi of the late phase, showspeaks at 12.7 cm (nine vessels) and at 12.8, 13.2,and 13.3 cm (all formed by eight vessels). A cluster

for small sizes is now evident during this produc-tion phase. By contrast to the earlier two phases,there is no cluster for large sizes. The range from

154

Graph 1. Early phase of Haimonian production (500-480 BC). Frequency of heights for 213 Haimonianlekythoi of type III/1 (five lekythoi), III/2 (194 lekythoi), and III/3 (fourteen lekythoi).

Graph 2. Middle phase of Haimonian production (480-470 BC). Frequency of heights for 222 Haimonian lekythoi, all of type IV/1.

the shortest (10.4 cm) to the tallest (22.0 cm) leky -thos for the late phase is 11.6 cm. This is almosthalf the corresponding range for the middlephase (22.8 cm), indicating that lekythoi during thelate phase were small vessels.

Combining the results of graphs 1, 2, and 3 we candeduce that potters made medium lekythoi mea-suring 16.0 to 17.0 cm during all production phases.The height of large vessels also remained approx-imately the same during the early and middlephase, ~19.0 to 20.0 cm. Despite changes in theshape, the sizes for large and medium pieces re -mained almost constant. Graphs 1, 2, and 3 showseveral intermediary values between peaks, hin-dering the calculation of the precise size range forsmall, medium, and large vessels, and the num-ber of lekythoi for the size clusters in each phase.These intermediary values can be attributed tothe production of similar but not identical sizes.56

For two lekythoi of the same potter, for example,the height and diameter of Volos BE11585 are 21.3and 6.6 cm, whilst those for Volos BE11591 are20.0 and 6.7 cm (fig. 1). During the time-efficientprocess of turning and assembling lekythoi, pot-ters most likely judged height by eye withoutusing a tool. Different potters, moreover, wouldhave conceptualized differently the exact sizes forsmall, medium, and large vessels, as exemplifiedby two assemblages of type IV/1 from the Athe -nian Kerameikos (heights: 13.8, 17.0, and 19.5 cm)and Lechaion, Corinth (heights: 15.3, 17.5-18.1, and20.7 cm).57 These assemblages still show that indi-

vidual potters did not craft heights randomly, butactually followed conventions of small, medium,and large. The next question that arises is howheight affected the size of the vessel. I shall answerthis by considering lekythoi with known measure -ments for both height and diameter.

The maximum diameter, which almost always isthe width of the shoulder, is known for 210 (35%)of the 600 pieces. Each production phase comprisesapproximately one third of 210: 69 (32.9%) for500-480 BC, 75 (35.7%) for 480-470 BC, and 66(31.4%) for 470-450 BC. The sample of 210 is in -dicative of the wide distribution of Haimonianlekythoi, because it is not biased by the prolific oc -currence of lekythoi in the Athenian Kerameikos.58

Findspots far away from Athens include places inthe Black Sea, Cyprus, Libya, and Etruria, but ad -mittedly not Iberia.

For each of the 210 lekythoi, I have divided theheight by the diameter and rounded the result toone decimal place. The frequency graph of theheight-to-diameter ratio shows that the largestconcentrations of lekythoi comprise those with aratio of 3.1 for 500-480 BC, 3.2 for 480-470 BC, and3.0 and 3.1 for 470-450 BC (graph 4). Throughout500-450 BC, the ratios with a frequency of morethan ten lekythoi range from 2.9 to 3.4 and com-prise the majority of vessels, 126 (60%) of 210.Height is, therefore, approximately three times thediameter. Very large vessels also comply with the3-to-1 ratio. The height/diameter ratio for a leky -thos from Thebes, for example, is exactly 3 (31.9

155

Graph 3. Late phase of Haimonian production (470-450 BC). Frequency of heights for 165 Haimonianlekythoi of type IV/2 (142 lekythoi) and V (23 lekythoi).

cm divided by 10.8 cm).59 These findings wouldsuggest that potters adhered to specific propor-tions during production, even for vessels whichdid not fall within size clusters.

A scatter plot of height against diameter for all210 lekythoi shows that diameters range from 3.6to 10.8 cm, and the most prevalent value across alltypes and provenances is 5.5 cm (graph 5). Locallyweighted regression can be used to ascertain therelationship between height and diameter. Forregression, I used the ‘Data Analysis’ function inExcel (appendix for the ‘summary output’). The p-value for the regression coefficient for the diam-eter (p = 1.2E-71) is highly significant in statisti-cal terms (p < 0.001), indicating that the diameteraffects height. Diameter explains 78.6% of thevariability in height (R2 = 0.786). Thus, a linearregression model fits the data well. The diameteris directly proportional to height, as indicated bythe straight trend line across the plotted values(graph 5). The slope of the trend line is 2.97 (2 dec-imal places), confirming a height-to-diameter ratioof approximately 3.

Data points that lie further away from thetrend line, above or below it, indicate diametersfor which heights cannot be predicted by linearregression. The greatest difference in height (14.6cm) amongst the 210 lekythoi appears for diameter6.6 cm, for which the shortest lekythos measures12.4 cm and the tallest is 27.0 cm. This variationis understandable given the different dates andfindspots of these lekythoi. The tall lekythos is of

type III/2 (490-480 BC) and from the AthenianKerameikos, whilst the short one falls under IV/1(480-470 BC) and comes from Selinous, Sicily.60

PATTERNS OF EXPORT

Small objects, as also known ethnographically andarchaeologically, were easily transportable fromplace to place.61 Although the monetary value ofHaimonian lekythoi remains unknown,62 a work-ing hypothesis would be that small pieces wereless expensive.63 If so, the concentration of smallceramics in distant locations would validate scho -larly models of ancient trade which advocate thatboats stopped in several ports to sell their mer-chandise and supplied only cheap leftovers indistant locations.64 It becomes pertinent to askhow the sizes of lekythoi found in faraway placescompare to those from and near Athens.

I assume that merchants set off from Attica andtravelled in northwards, eastwards, southwards,and westwards directions. I exclude the 29 leky -thoi said to be from Greece, given the uncertaintyabout their findspots. The small number of lekythoi(eleven) from the South and East (Argos, Cyprus,Delos, Libya, Lycia, Rhodes, Samos, Smyrna, andTroas) obviates the need for further analysis. Idivide the findspots of 48 lekythoi from the Northand 126 from the West into zones indicating dis-tance from Athens. As shown in figure 4, zones 1,2, 3, and 4 correspond in a northwards directionto Boeotia and Euboea (1), Thessaly (2), Mace -

156

Graph 4. Frequency of height/diameter ratio for 210 Haimonian lekythoi from 500-450 BC.

donia and Thrace (3), and the Black Sea (4). In awestwards direction, zones 1, 2, 3, and 4 encom-pass Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and the Pelo -ponnese, Italy, and Iberia respectively (fig. 4).

Approximately equal amounts of the 386 lekythoifrom Athens and its surroundings65 are represen -ted in the early (129 lekythoi, 33.4% of 386), middle(135 lekythoi, 35.0% of 386), and late (122 lekythoi,31.6% of 386) phases of Haimonian production, in -dicating uninterrupted output. Repeated journeyswould have strengthened commercial and inter-personal relationships amongst producers andtraders, thus leading to further supply and demandover the years. The considerable haste in executingthe scenes on lekythoi of shape IV/2 pertains to abusy, rather than a tailing-off phase (fig. 5). The ear -ly, middle, and late phases comprise 29.2%, 41.7%,and 29.2% respectively of the 48 lekythoi from find -spots to the North; and 42.1%, 42.9%, and 15.1%respectively of the 126 vessels found in the West.The types of shapes for eleven lekythoi from Panti -kapaion in Ukraine and fourteen from Emporionin Spain vary, and also encompass sub-categoriesof III/2 and IV/1.66 Apparently, distant supplythrough trade was continuous over the years, evenwhen accounting for the possible clearing of oldstock from Athens.67

In assessing the sizes of lekythoi from differentplaces, I shall examine the presence of large ves-sels. I consider types III/2 and IV/1, as these in -clude large vessels, and assume that very largelekythoi are taller than 25.0 cm, well beyond the

peaks for large size clusters in graphs 1 and 2. Foreach zone, I calculate the average height and re -cord the maximum height, whilst also counting thenumber of lekythoi measuring more than 25.0 cm(tables 1-2). Based on the averages and maxima forboth III/2 and IV/1, lekythoi from zone 1 to theNorth of Athens (Rhitsona, Tanagra, Thebes, else-where in Boeotia, and Eretria) are the largest,whilst those from zone 1 to its West (Corinth andLechaion) are the smallest.

On present data, it would appear that merchantsdid not supply uniformly lekythoi of similar sizein all regions close to Athens, but responded todemands for large lekythoi in Boeotia and Euboea,and for small ones in Corinth. Likewise, lekythoiof III/2 and IV/1 from zone 2 in the West (Delphi,Naupaktos, Patras, Olympia, and Krestena) aresmaller than those from zone 3 (Vulci, Tarquinia,Ferrone, Capua, Cumae, Metapontion, Neapolis,Nola, Nikoptera, Poseidonia, Pisticci, Panormos,Akragas, Centoripa, Gela, Morgantina, Sabucina,Selinous, and elsewhere in Italy and Sicily), sug-gesting directional trade to meet regional prefer-ences and not random supply by traders sailingwestwards.68 Indeed, the largest vessels in zone 3to the West come from Gela (24.5 cm) and Vulci(34.8 cm), both places customarily importing largeAttic shapes.

The average heights for III/2 and IV/1 fromnorthern zones 3 (Aiani, Mieza, Akanthos, Aphy -tis, Olynthos, Gazoros) and 4 (Pantikapaion andOlbia) are comparable to those from and near

157

Graph 5. Height vs. diameter for 210 Haimonian lekythoi from 500-450 BC.

Athens. Comparable are also the averages fromzone 4 to the West (Ibiza and Emporion), since theaverage of 19.7 cm for III/2 arises from the effectof a relatively large vessel from Ibiza (23.5 cm).Considering the large number of lekythoi fromand near Athens (253 in total) and from the West(102 in total), the occurrence of very large vesselsin these regions is surprisingly low (eight lekythoi,3.2% of 253; one lekythos, 1.0% of 102). By contrast,out of 32 lekythoi to the North of Athens, the con-siderable concentration of very large pieces inBoeotia and Euboea (four lekythoi, 12.5% of 32)69

could imply targeted marketing. The sample fromnorthwards destinations, however, is small andthese findings remain tentative.

Groups of lekythoi of the same potter, whetherof similar or different sizes, also occur far awayfrom Athens, including five lekythoi from grave 43and two from grave 44 at Emporion,70 and a pairfrom grave 136 at Pantikapaion.71 Even when as -suming port hopping en route to distant locations,intermediary stops did not deplete the supply ofgroups. These were apparently favoured by buyersin different places and cannot merely reflect the ex -istence of warehouses storing batches of potteryfrom the same workshop.72 In fact, the presenceof such groups would again suggest directionaltrade, primarily with Athens, involving shipmentsof kiln loads. Lekythoi by the same hand in gravesat Chalcidice,73 for example, would have resultedfrom its attested Athenian connections.74 The dis-

158

Fig. 4. Zones to the North and West of Athens (sketch map by author).

Fig. 5. A hastily painted lekythos of type IV/2 foundin Thessaly. Volos, Athanasakeion Archaeological Mu -seum BE5690 (photo by author; published with per-mission of the 13th Ephorate).

persion of production groups beyond coastal set-tlements, such as at Gazoros in the hinterland ofThrace,75 could indicate trade, exchange, or gift-giving during times other than the spring andsummer months of the sailing season, and furthersupports the high demand for such groups. Buy -ers of Haimonian lekythoi in Athens and beyondcommonly encountered and actively sought morethan one such vessel at a time.

PEOPLE’S ENGAGEMENT WITH STANDARDIZED CERAMICS

Standardization must have had obvious advan-tages for potters, especially the economy of spaceand time, befitting the Haimonian mentality ofhasty manufacture. The size of the initial clay ballthat the potter placed on the wheel76 would haveaffected the size of the finished lekythos. The widthof the cylinder, moreover, could have served as avisual guide for achieving the desired height. Widthwas probably judged against the proportions of thefoot. As a pre-fabricated module,77 the foot wassuited to a prospective small, medium, or largelekythos. Thus, when shaping the clay ball and thefoot, the potter knew what size lekythos to throw.In this sense, standardization was potentially lim-iting as it prescribed the potters’ engagement withthese lekythoi.

It is likely that potters threw sequentially leky -thoi of the same size, achieving through repetitiona large output in little time. Potting and decorat-

ing would have been separate activities, both in -volving large numbers of lekythoi. When decorat-ing lekythoi of the same size, painters need nothave adapted the scale of drawing, thus standard -ization once again ensured speedy output. Potterscould easily economize space by closely stackinglekythoi of the same size for drying and subsequent -ly firing. Notwithstanding the haste involved, theproduction of standardized lekythoi implies thatsome skill was required in the process, thus ques-tioning Haspels’ assumption that hasty lekythoi wereapprentice pieces.78 The existence of standardiza-tion suggests either that a small number of pottersworked over a long period of time in a few largeworkshops or that many geographically dispersedpotters imitated specific dimensions and were thusacquainted with Attic Haimonian lekythoi. Small-scale production, too, could lead to standardizedceramics.79

Merchants could also economize space by stack -ing lekythoi of the same size. No evidence of suchpackaging exists to date from shipwrecks of leky -thoi cargoes and we can only make inferences fromother pottery shapes. Specifically, a late 5th cen-tury shipwreck off Alonnesos revealed a cargo ofsimilarly sized black-glazed bowls stacked insideone another.80

There is no reason, however, to regard standard -ization as only symptomatic of technical and logis-tical practices without considering the usefulnessof finished pieces. My hands-on study of some 200

159

Athens &surroundings

NorthZone 1

NorthZone2

NorthZone3

NorthZone4

WestZone1

WestZone2

WestZone3

WestZone4

No of lekythoi 118 7 0 3 2 8 8 29 3Average height (cm) 17.7 21.2 - 17.9 17.1 15.1 16.9 19.0 19.7Maximum height (cm) 29.9 31.9 - 20.0 18.6 17.0 20.0 24.5 23.5

No of lekythoi of height > 25.0 cm

4 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0

Athens &surroundings

NorthZone 1

NorthZone2

NorthZone3

NorthZone4

WestZone1

WestZone2

WestZone3

WestZone4

No of lekythoi 135 5 7 2 6 16 11 16 11Average height (cm) 18.2 22.9 18.6 17.9 19.0 16.8 17.1 18.6 17.8Maximum height (cm) 27.0 28.0 21.3 19.5 21.4 20.7 19.3 34.8 20.0

No of lekythoi of height > 25.0 cm

4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Table 1. Sizes of type III/2 lekythoi (490-480 BC).

Table 2. Sizes of type IV/1 lekythoi (480-470 BC).

complete and fragmentary Haimonian lekythoi sup -ports the idea that potters endowed them withattributes pertaining to highly functional ceramics.To my knowledge, there are no dummy vesselswith clay blocking the neck aperture.81 The wallsof the lower body are especially thick so that thelow centre of gravity ensured the stability of a tallshape.82 Although several lekythoi wobble owingto an uneven underside, they are not prone to tip-ping over and spilling their contents. On the sur-faces of lekythoi, fissures from air pockets andchips revealing small stones mean that the rawclay was neither properly purified nor kneaded.83

The fissures are, nonetheless, small and do notlead to breakage. On only one of the lekythoi thatI studied did the bursting of an air pocket causea hole, rendering the vessel unsuitable for holdingliquids (fig. 6). In general, Haimonian lekythoi weresturdy, stable, and durable containers so that theirstandardized dimensions were integral to theirfunctionality.

As a functional attribute, standardization impliesthat Haimonian lekythoi were not skeuomorphic.84

Even the shortest lekythos in my dataset measuresmore than 10 cm in height, contrasting, for exam-ple, with miniature Corinthian angular lekythoifrom 475-450 BC which can reach up to 8 cm.85 Al -though Haimonian painters copied other painters,Haimonian lekythoi did not matter merely as car-riers of iconography or as visual mirages of otherpottery.

Vase iconography never shows libations fromlekythoi. In only one scene, on a white polychromelekythos dating to 430-420 BC, is a lekythos heldfrom its handle.86 If vase scenes reflect actual prac-tices, then liquids in lekythoi were not primarilydestined for (funerary) libations. Irrespective ofwhether some Haimonian lekythoi were offered asempty vessels in sanctuaries and burials,87 theseceramics could have contained liquids at somepoint during their lifecycles.

Buyers’ demands for specific amounts of oilsmay also have driven potters to engage with di -mensional standardization, especially since paintedor incised marks indicating liquid measures areunknown for lekythoi.88 No studies exist for esti-mating capacity empirically, by filling black-fig-ured lekythoi with water or dried substances, suchas lentils and rice.89 The capacity of two recentlypublished Haimonian lekythoi in a German collec-tion is 0.59 and 0.50 litres.90 These vessels, however,are large, measuring 27.0 and 23.0 cm in heightrespectively, and cannot lead to generalizationsabout capacity. In addition, for the majority ofHaimonian lekythoi, the thick walls, raised floor,

and pronounced ripples on the inside walls, whichformed when turning the vessel on the wheel,necessitate a consideration of profile drawings orscans by computerized tomography in each andevery case. Such drawings and scans are scarce inthe literature. A recent CVA, for example, docu-ments five Hai monian lekythoi, yet only providesthe profile drawing for one of them.91

Judging from excavated assemblages and vasescenes, people commonly used many lekythoi at atime. It becomes relevant, therefore, to addresshow users also interacted with groups of Haimo -nian lekythoi. To this end, I consider lekythoi of thesame potter, namely production groups. Burialfindspots abound, such as a batch of lekythoi froma grave in Heinrich Schliemann’s premises at thelocation of the German Archaeological Institutein Athens (fig. 7). People must have been accus-tomed to similarly sized vessels, as exemplifiedby the deposition of two lekythoi near one anotheralong the arm of the deceased in sarcophagus B9at Eleusis.92 The non-systematic placement of le -kythoi in relation to the body inside graves,93 how-ever, precludes that pottery pairs were needed forpatterned arrangements. In addition, the offeringof production groups did not merely pertain toincreasing the number of burial gifts,94 but towider social practices as supported by non-burial

160

Fig. 6. A lekythos found in Mieza bearing a holebelow the handle. Veroia, Archaeological MuseumΠ1658 (photo by author; published with permission ofthe 17th Ephorate).

findspots, such as the Korykian Cave near Delphi,which I have discussed in a separate paper,95 andthe Athenian Agora.96

Information about production groups from theAgora is particularly challenging to piece together,owing to partial publication of Haimonian lekythoi.The different sources of dumped debris in the Ago -ra necessitate a separate consideration of each de -posit. Two large wells, E 15:6 and G 6:3 (the Rec-tangular Rock-Cut Shaft), containing pottery frag-ments from households, pottery workshops, and/or pottery sales stores yielded two and three leky -thoi respectively.97 Deposit Q 12:3 (the Stoa GutterWell), filled with debris from a pottery sales store,included six allegedly Haimonian lekythoi whichare possibly the work of one potter.98 Domesticrubbish from pit D 17:2 yielded two lekythoi,99

whereas that from pit D 12:4 included two pairs,each of the same potter.100 The use of productiongroups in daily life was common for variousshapes, including red-figured, black-figured, andplain black drinking cups.101 In D 12:4, the exis-tence of black-glazed skyphoi and cups102 couldimply that the Haimonian lekythoi also formedpart of a dining set.103 The material from the Ago -ra indicates, to some extent at least, the domestic

use of production groups. Arguably, people’s en -counters with similarly sized Haimonian lekythoiduring the funeral could have brought to mind thepresence and use of these vessels in other tempo-ral and spatial settings, including visits to a mer-chant’s shop and dining occasions. If so, thereexisted a continuum in people’s minds about thesocial instances of using specific shapes and sizes.

Within production groups, size would haveprompted the comparative appreciation of lekythoiby the user.104 For groups of similar size, the orga-nization of the space for the ornamental and fig-ural scene is usually the same across different le -kythoi, assisting the eye to perceive the decoration.When lekythoi of similar heights, in particular, wereplaced upright next to one another, they drewpeople’s eye to the details of each piece, sincethese aligned horizontally.105 In other cases, how-ever, even for lekythoi of the same potter, themouth, shoulder, cylinder, and foot can be visual -ly distinct,106 thus prompting different recognitionreactions by the user. Two lekythoi from pyre Bkat Eleusis, for example, exhibit a stepped and adisc foot respectively.107 Moreover, painters some-times endowed lekythoi with related subjects orextracts from the same theme, encouraging view-

161

Fig. 7. Lekythoi from a grave in Heinrich Schliemann’s premises, Athens (photo kept in the German Ar -chaeological Institute at Athens, D-DAI-ATH-Athen Varia 95; all rights reserved; published with permission).

ing(s) across distinct pieces. Two Haimonian le -kythoi of shape III/2 found in the same grave atAthens, for example, reiterate the theme of Dio -nysiac female followers, one showing womendancing, the other women riding ithyphallic don-keys.108 The ancient viewer may have linked thetwo scenes, thus appreciating the lekythoi collec-tively. Thematic relatedness, within and acrossgroups, would have stimulated and engaged hu -man memory either by re-iterating or challenginga user’s familiarity with the iconography.109 Where -as related subjects could be the mere outcome ofpainters decorating lekythoi sequentially, the widedistribution of production groups could indicateconsumer demand for such subjects. Large andfinely-painted red-figured lekythoi of the samepotter are also known to bear related subjects.110

The effect of similarity in size as a physical promptfor users’ interaction with the shapes (and images)may have been the same for both hastily madeHaimonian lekythoi and fine pottery.

CONCLUSIONS

My mathematical analysis of dimensions has con-firmed the small size of the entire corpus of Hai -monian lekythoi. Even large pieces have an averageheight of only 19.0-20.0 cm. While the noise in thisdataset makes it impossible to determine the pre-cise range of heights for small, medium, and largelekythoi, the evidence for standardization is strong.Height forms clusters of small (~13.0 cm), medium(~16.0-17.0 cm), and large (~19.0-20.0 cm) contain-

ers, and is directly proportional to the maximumwidth at a ratio of ~3/1. These findings, overall,suggest that potters, merchants, and users engagedwith conventions of small, medium, and largepieces, as implied by the evidence from pyre hS91in Kerameikos (fig. 3).

Within the context of apparently continuousproduction and export of Haimonian lekythoi dur-ing 500-450 BC, size affected their marketabilityin particular destinations. Both Athenian and dis-tant Mediterranean locations have yielded lekythoiof varied sizes, as well as production groups ofthe same potter. These patterns of export supportdirectional trade, rather than random supply.

Dimensional standardization constituted oneof the functional attributes of Haimonian lekythoi,communicating to vase users that these hastilymanufactured ceramics could hold specific amountsof oils. The habitual practice of using productiongroups in funerary, dedicatory, and domestic so -cial events would have prompted a relational un -derstanding of each lekythos. Users did not onlyappreciate the sameness or difference of lekythoiwithin a production group in terms of small,medium, and large containers, but also encoun-tered the relatedness in the details of shape, in thespatial layout of the figural and ornamental dec-oration, and possibly in the iconographic subjectmatter. Beyond its technical, logistical, and func-tional advantages, standardization clearly had aneffect on ancient people’s perceptual understand-ing of the Haimonian brand.

162

NOTES

* I am grateful to the directors of the 1st, 3rd, 9th, 10th, 13th,17th, and 18th Ephorates in Greece, of the National Ar -chaeological Museum, and of the Archaeological Muse -um of Thessaloniki for allowing me to study materialin their care, and to Ioannis Graikos, Charalambos Int -zessiloglou, Jan Jordan, Kiki Kalliga, Elena Partida, JuttaStroszeck, and Evangelos Vivliodetis for facilitating myvisits. For invaluable discussion my thanks extend, firstand foremost, to Elizabeth Langridge-Noti, KathleenLynch, Victoria Sabetai, and Michalis Tiverios, and to EfiBaziotopoulou, Athina Chatzidimitriou, Georg Gerleig -ner, Eurydike Kefalidou, Eleni Manakidou, John H. Oak -ley, Dimitris Paleothodoros, Vasileios Poulios, CynthiaSchelmerdine, Stefan Schmidt, Mark Stansbury-O’Don -nell, Charis Stoupa, Panos Valavanis, and Winfred vande Put. I am indebted to Emma Aston, Andrew J. Clark,Antonis Kotsonas, Robin Osborne, Amy C. Smith, Geor -gia Volioti and to three anonymous reviewers for com-menting on earlier versions, as well as to BenediktosKapetanakis for advice on the statistics. Any shortcom -ings are mine. This research was supported by an AHRCscholarship, and the F.T. Wainwright and WardmanTravel Awards of the University of Reading.

1 Boivin 2008; Knappett 2012.2 Gibson 1980; Bronner 1982; Howes 2006; Minogue/Gail

Jones 2006.3 Peck/Childers 2003. 4 Hambidge 1920, 124-136; Seki 1985, 99-103.5 CVA Germany 77, Munich 13, 135-136; Bentz 2009; Clark

2009. 6 Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 70-74; 2006, 61-64; 2011, 173-

174. 7 Kurtz 1975, 79; Hatzivassiliou 2010, 7.8 Ionas 2000, 72.9 Osborne 1996; Johnston 2006, 30. 10 Boardman 1979, 38-39; Tiverios 1981, 169; Scheffer 1988,

544; Reusser 2002, 270.11 In this paper, where possible, I give the vase number in

the database of the Beazley Archive, abbreviated as‘BAD’. Non-burial findspots, beyond the AthenianAgora, include the following. Corinth: Corinth 18.1, pl.7.45 (C-65-42); Blair Brownlee 1995, nos. 193, 197-198;Corinth 15.3, 364 nos 2299 (KP 2706), 2301 (KP 2752), pl.124. Olympia: Kunze 1961-1962, 113 pl. 123b. Thebes,Kabeirion: Wolters/Bruns 1940, 83 pl. 38.10-11. Eretria:Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1987, pl. 123a left; BAD 43497.Lindos: Blinkenberg 1931, 640-641 pl. 128.2649-2650.Thorikos: Spitaels 1970-1971, 86 (TC76.7); BAD 7667;van de Put/Docter 2012. Mytilene: Schaus 1992, 370 n.60 (87-P389), pl. 84. Old Smyrna: Boardman 1957-1958,170 nos 111-112, pl. 39. Daskyleion: Tuna-Nörling 1999,46 n. 219 pl. 13. Gravisca: Masseria 2009, 348. Adria:Vallicelli 2004, 12. Metapontion: San Pietro 1991, 21-27nos 1-15. Monte Iato: Isler 1984, 31 pl. 7.5 (K 6750); BAD41233; 1995, 30, pl. 10.6 (K15305); BAD 19730; 1996, 58pl. 11.4 (K 16833); BAD 19717; 1997, 51 pl. 10.6 (K15303);BAD 19723 which actually joins with fragment BAD19730.

12 Scientific analyses of residues are missing (Frère 2008,212) and shape alone need not be prescriptive of con-tents. Three Minoan and Mycenaean closed shapes, forexample, were found to contain pure oil, animal fat, andresidue from resin and brewing (Palaeologou 2002a, n.6; 2002b, n. 30; Andrikou 2002, n. 160).

13 Haspels 1936, 130. The sphinx occurs on 15 (~1%) of the1668 Haimonian lekythoi in the Beazley Archive, accessed29 November 2011. Judging from collections in Greece,hundreds of Haimonian lekythoi remain unpublished.

14 Haspels 1936, 78.15 Haspels 1936, 137, 141.16 I discuss iconographic standardization in my thesis

(Volioti 2012, 121-149).17 CVA Germany 84, Erlangen 2, 56; Volioti 2011a, 146.18 Zachariadou et al. 1985, 39-44; 1992, 53-56; Karagiorga-

163

APPENDIX

Regressional analysis on the values of height and diameter for 210 Haimonian lekythoi

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.886730422R Square 0.786290841Adjusted R Square 0.785263393Standard Error 1.736878656Observations 210

ANOVAdf SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 2308.67273 2308.67273 765.28538 1.24635E-71Residual 208 627.4834725 3.016747464Total 209 2936.156202

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Intercept 0.96196703 0.59240409 1.624 0.105925 -0.20591891 2.12985297X Variable 1 2.970506719 0.10737887 27.66 1.25E-71 2.758816298 3.18219714

Stathakopoulou 1988, 87-96; Baziotopoulou-Valavani1994, endnote 23; Malagardis 1997, 40-41; 2008, 22-23.

19 Ure 1927, 51; Haspels 1936, 241-245; Kurtz 1975, 81, 87.20 Kerameikos 9, 33-37, table 77. We cannot know how mod -

ern typologies correlate with ancient ones (see Hruby2010), since the word ‘lekythos’ described oil flasks ofdifferent shapes (Oakley 2004, 4-5, 37-38).

21 Mylonas 1975a, 38-39, sarcophagus B9. 22 Eliot/Eliot 1968, 357, grave C16.23 Bilouka/Graikos 2009, 245, sarcophagus 260.24 Jubier-Galinier 2003, 85-87.25 Shefton 1999, 463, 466; 2003, 328-329. I am grateful to the

late Professor Brian Shefton for these references.26 Campus 1981, XIV; Malagardis 1997, 39-40; 2008, 16.27 Scheffer 1988, 541.28 For example, see De La Genière 2006, 10.29 Volioti 2009, 157. 30 For example, see Okhotnikov 1990, 31 fig. 8.1; Morgan

1999, 49-50 n. 117 pl. 29.PM-4867/1; Domínguez/Sánchez2001, 65-66.

31 For example, see Tzedakis 1969; Mellink 1975, 353;Gjerstad 1977, pl. 72.7-9; ABV 542.108-9; BAD 305786;305787; Frel 1977, 76 n. 19; BAD 28108.

32 CVA France 42, Musée du Louvre 28, 59 sarcophagus S29.33 Tiverios 2008, 122-123. 34 Osborne 1996. Amphorae could hold legumes, herbs,

and walnuts (Foley et al. 2012). 35 Jacopi 1931, 4; Dusenbery 1998, 515.36 Manakidou 2010.37 Volioti 2011b, 2011c, forthcoming.38 For an excellent critique, see Heinemann 2009, 161-162.39 For example, see Corinth 13, 70, 230 grave 300. 40 Contra Boardman 1974, 146.41 Salliora-Oikonomakou 1985, 116 pl. 41d grave 33; BAD

44000.42 For example, see East Lokris: Onassoglou 1982, 187

pithos 61; BAD 44946, 44947. Thessaloniki: Keramariset al. 2002, 234, 236, 239 grave 15. Serres: Poulios 1995,417-420 graves 19-20.

43 See note 11.44 Haspels 1936, 129-130; van de Put 2011, 190-198. In my

thesis, I discuss 77 early 5th century scenes showinglekythoi (Volioti 2012, 70-75, 466-469 table 2.1).

45 The dataset appears in my thesis. See Volioti 2012, 440-453 table 1.4 excluding nos 35, 48, 330, 343, 344, 346,347, 352, 602, and 610, all of which I have retrospec-tively dissociated from the Haimonian œuvre.

46 I assume all measurements are correct, but acknowl-edge the possibility of random errors and biases by var-ious scholars (see Lee Lyman/VanPool 2009, 488-490).

47 As of November 2011. 48 Mylonas 1975a, 1975b.49 Kerameikos 9.50 Volos K3323,001; K3324.97; K3324.98; K3421.V.b; BE

5690; BE 9734; BE 11585; BE 11591.51 Brunswick, Bowdoin College 1984.23; Hatzivassiliou 2010,

pl. 21.1-2; BAD 361401. Cambridge, Harvard University60.341; Robinson 1932, pl. 15; BAD 207134.

52 Kerameikos KER 8759; Schlörb-Vierneisel 1966, 28 n. 47.53 Leiden ROII17; XVII20; CVA Netherlands 4, Leiden, Rijks -

museum van Oudheden 2, pl. 96.10-1, 105.1-6; BAD1216, 1590.

54 Haspels 1936, 137; Boardman 1974, 149.55 For example, see Kerameikos KER 21039; Kerameikos 9,

80-82 grave S 27.56 High variability could arise from different production

events (Blackman et al. 1993, 74) and/or from the work

of the same potter (Roux 2003, 776).57 Schlörb-Vierneisel 1966, 28 pyre hS 91; Eliot/Eliot 1968,

357 pl. 105.31-4 grave C16.58 Diameters are recorded neither in Kerameikos 9 nor in

Kerameikos 7.2.59 Illinois 22.1.122; CVA USA 24, University of Illinois 1,

pl. 12.1-3; BAD 331372.60 Athens, 3rd Ephorate A 15539; Baziotopoulou-Valavani

2001, 305 n. 306 grave 1099. Palermo, Mormino Collection2262; Giudice et al. 1992, n. D194; BAD 21211.

61 For example, see Wengrow 2008.62 Marks in graffiti that could indicate the price of 2/3 of

an obol (Johnston 2006, 22, 58.95) appear on the under-foot of a lekythos near the Gela Painter.

63 Boardman 1988, 30.64 For example, see Sparkes 1996, 166. 65 The findspots are Agora, Lenormant Street, Akademeia

Platonos, Kerameikos, Acharnai, Aigina, Laurion, Mara -thon, Eleusis, Megara, Nea Makri, and elsewhere inAthens and Attica.

66 Pantikapaion: III/2 disc foot (1), III/2 stepped foot (1),IV/1 flaring mouth (1), IV/1 chimney mouth (5), IV/2short (3). Emporion: III/2 disc foot (1), III/2 stepped foot(1), IV/1 flaring mouth (1), IV/1 tulip mouth (6), IV/1chimney mouth (4), IV/2 short (1).

67 See Dusenbery 1998, 514.68 Volioti 2011c.69 A Haimonian lekythos (III/2) from Nea Kallikrateia in

Chalcidice may also measure more than 25 cm: Bilouka/Graikos 2001, 287 fig. 4.

70 Almagro 1953, 182-183 nos 12-16 pl. 7.1-5 grave 43;BAD 331321, 331448, 331509, 305870, 331446. Almagro1953, 185-186 nos. 8-9 pl. 8.3, 8.5 grave 44; BAD 331510,331511.

71 St. Petersburg, Hermitage P1866.70; P1866.70; CVA Russia11, The State Hermitage Museum 4, pl. 18.1-3, 22.1-3;BAD 29659, 29662.

72 As, for example, at Al Mina: Perreault 1986, 148.73 For example, see 4 lekythoi (IV/2), not necessarily by the

same potter or painter: Bilouka/Graikos 2009, fig. 7.74 Tiverios 2008, 41, 45.75 Poulios 1995, 417-418 grave 19. Both are of type III/3. 76 See Schreiber 1999, 17.77 For a different view, see CVA The Netherlands 9, Allard

Pierson Museum 3, VII.78 Haspels 1936, 141.79 Arnold 1991.80 Hadjidaki 1996, 574, 583, 590 fig. 10. 81 Contra Brückner/Pernice 1893, 190.82 Shepard 1956, 237-238.83 Noble 1988, 165. 84 Volioti 2011b, 267. 85 Gummey Pemberton 1970, 293.86 Tübingen S./27 5368; CVA Germany 54, Tübingen 5, 68

fig. 29 pl. 30.7; BAD 16829.87 Brückner/Pernice 1893, 190-191; Kerameikos 9, 15; Stissi

2009, 28, 36.88 See Agora 10, 56.89 Compare to Anderson-Stojanovi 1987, 117-118. 90 Erlangen I 237; I 171; CVA Germany 84, Erlangen 2, pl.

20.3-4, 20.6-10.91 Athens, Goulandris 813; 426; 425; 796 and Politis 135;

CVA Greece 11, Athens, Museum of Cycladic Art 1, 48-52 pl. 29-31 fig. 19.135.

92 Mylonas 1975a, 39-40 n. 52; 1975b, pl. 198b.50, 52.93 For example, see the graves containing Haimonian leky -

thoi at Corinth (Corinth 13, nos 268, 272, 275, 280, 294-295,

164

297, 299, 300, 302, and 333). 94 See Schmidt 2005, 38. 95 Volioti 2011b.96 Shear 1993; Schmidt 2005, 31; Lynch 2009; 2011.97 For a probable pair from E 15:6, see Agora 23, nos 1192

(P 6138), 1211 (P 6137); Sheer 1993, 440-442. For a pro-duction group from G 6:3, see Vanderpool 1946, 303-304n. 147 (P 2695), its replica (P 2633+P 2671), and n. 148(P 2715+P 2722), pl. 55; Sheer 1993, 445-449.

98 Roberts 1986, 42 nos 173-178 (P 24505, P 24504, P 24500,P 24515, P 24409, P 24467). Although no illustrationsexist for these lekythoi in the literature, a multitude ofother lekythoi of the same potter (see Lynch 2009, 72 fig.72) suggest one hand.

99 Agora 23, nos 1225 (P 18502), 1226 (P 18503); Shear 1993,435-436.

100 Agora 23, nos 1215 (P 25512), 1216 (P 25511), 1220 (P25514), 1221 (P 25518), pl. 87. A future study could revealadditional production groups for nos. 1214 (P 25517),1227 (P 25513), 1228 (P 25516), 1253 (P 25515), which areall small vessels judging from their diameters (3.7 and3.8 cm).

101 Lynch 2011, 79, 105, 110, 125.102 Agora 12, nos 340 (P 25529), 434, 435 (P 25521, P 25523),

455 (P 25524), 741 (P 25531), and plain black lekythos1118 (P 25519).

103 For dining sets that include black-figured lekythoi, seeLynch 2011, 135-140.

104 For the relational materiality of objects, see Knappett 2011.105 For example, see Agora P 10335, P 10331; Boulter 1963,

pl. 36.A2-3.106 See Shepard 1956, 242.107 Mylonas 1975a, 48 n. 66; 1975b, pl. 204b.66-67.108 Alexandri 1972, pl. 80d.109 For the focalization of memory, see Rowlands 1993. 110 For example, sarcophagus 9 at Gela contained a pair of

large lekythoi (height: 39 cm) showing pursuit scenes(Orlandini/Adamesteanu 1960, 161-164). Note further,the related subjects on the vases in the Sotades Tomb(Williams 2006).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABV = Beazley, J.D. 1956, Attic black-figure vase-painters,Oxford.

Agora 10 = Lang, M.L./M. Crosby 1964, Weights, measures,and tokens (The Athenian Agora 10), Princeton.

Agora 12 = Sparkes, B.A./L. Talcott 1970, Black and plainpottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuries B.C. (The AthenianAgora 12), Princeton.

Agora 23 = Moore, M.B./M.Z. Pease Philippides 1986, Atticblack-figured pottery (The Athenian Agora 23), Princeton.

Alexandri, O. 1972, Μ�ναστηρ��υ 12 και Σιατ�στης (�ικ -πεδ�ν Α. 3�τ�υ), ADelt 27, 127-130.

Almagro, M. 1953, Las necrópolis de Ampurias (Monografíasampuritanas 3), Barcelona.

Anderson-Stojanovi , V.R. 1987, The chronology and func-tion of ceramic unguentaria, AJA 91, 105-122.

Andrikou, E. 2002, Askos, in Y. Tzedakis/H. Martlew (eds),Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their time. Birming -ham Museum & Art Gallery 13 July 2002 – 5 January 2003,Athens, 169-170.

Arnold III, P.J. 1991, Dimensional standardization and pro-duction scale in Mesoamerican ceramics, Latin AmericanAntiquity 2, 363-370.

Baziotopoulou-Valavani, E. 1994, Ανασκα%�ς σε αθηναϊκ�

κεραμικ� εργαστ�ρια αρ�αϊκ�ν και κλασικ�ν �ρνων,in W.D.E. Coulson/O. Palagia/T.L. Shear Jr/H.A. Sha -piro/F.J. Frost (eds), The archaeology of Athens and Atticaunder the Democracy: Proceedings of an International Con -ference celebrating 2500 years since the birth of democracyin Greece, held at the American School of Classical Studiesat Athens, December 4-6, 1992 (Oxbow Monographs inArchaeology 37), Oxford, 45-54.

Baziotopoulou-Valavani, E. 2001, From tomb 1099, in L.Parlama/N.C. Stampolidis (eds), Athens: The citybeneath the city. Antiquities from the Metropolitan railwayexcavations, New York/London, 304-312.

Bentz, M. 2009, Masse, Form und Funktion: Die attisch-schwarzfigurigen Halsamphoren, in A. Tsingarida (ed.),Shapes and uses of Greek vases (7th-4th centuries B.C.):Proceedings of the Symposium held at the Université libre deBruxelles 27-29 April 2006, Brussels, 79-87.

Bilouka, A./I. Graikos 2001, N�α Καλλικρ�τεια 2001: Ηανασκα%ικ� �ρευνα στ� Ανατ�λικ Νεκρ�τα%ε�� τ�υαρ�α��υ �ικισμ��, ΑΕΜΘ 15, 279-288.

Bilouka, A./I. Graikos 2009, N�α Καλλικρ�τεια 7αλκι -δικ�ς: Η πρσ%ατη σωστικ� ανασκα%ικ� �ρευνα (1999-2005) στην Ερετριακ� απ�ικ�α των Δικαι�π�λιτ�ν στ�νΘερμα�� Κλπ� , in P. Adam-Veleni (ed.), 20 (ρ�νια.Τ Αρ&αιλγικ� �Εργ στη Μακεδν�α και στη Θρ�κη,Thessaloniki, 239-247.

Blackman, J.M./G.J. Stein/P. Vandiver 1993, The standard -ization hypothesis and ceramic mass production: Tech -nological, compositional, and metric indexes of craftspecialization at Tell Leilan, Syria, American Antiquity58, 60-80.

Blair Brownlee, A. 1995, Attic black figure from Corinth:III, Hesperia 64, 337-382.

Blinkenberg, C. 1931, Les petits objets (Lindos 1), Berlin.Boardman, J. 1957-1958, Old Smyrna: The Attic pottery,

BSA 53-54, 152-181.Boardman, J. 1974, Athenian black figure vases: A handbook,

London.Boardman, J. 1979, The Athenian pottery trade, Expedition

21, 33-39.Boardman, J. 1988, Trade in Greek decorated pottery, OxfJA

7, 27-33.Boivin, N. 2008, Material cultures, material minds: The im pact

of things on human thought, society, and evolution, Cam -bridge.

Boulter, C. 1963, Graves in Lenormant Street, Athens, Hes -peria 32, 113-137.

Bronner, S.J. 1982, The haptic experience of culture, An -thropos 77, 351-362.

Brückner, A./E. Pernice 1893, Ein attischer Friedhof, AM18, 73-191.

Campus, L. 1981, Ceramica attica a figure nere: Piccoli vasi evasi plastici. Materiali del Museo Archeologico Nazionale diTarquinia II (Archeologica 16), Rome.

Clark, A.J. 2009, Some practical aspects of Attic black-fig-ured olpai and oinochoai, in A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapesand uses of Greek vases (7th–4th centuries B.C.): Proceedingsof the Symposium held at the Université libre de Bruxelles27-29 April 2006, Brussels, 89-109.

Corinth 13 = Blegen, C.W./H. Palmer/R.S. Young 1964, TheNorth Cemetery (Corinth 13), Princeton.

Corinth 15.3 = Stillwell, A.N./J.L. Benson 1984, The potters’quarter: The pottery (Corinth 15.3), Princeton.

Corinth 18.1 = Pemberton, E.G. 1989, The Sanctuary of Deme -ter and Kore: The Greek pottery (Corinth 18.1), Princeton.

CVA = Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.De La Genière, J. 2006, Clients, potiers et peintres, in J. De

165

La Genière (ed.), Les clients de la céramique grecque: Actesdu Colloque de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-LettresParis, 30-31 janvier 2004 (Cahiers du Corpus VasorumAntiquorum, France 1), Paris, 9-15.

Domínguez, A.J./C. Sánchez 2001, Greek pottery from theIberian Peninsula: Archaic and Classical periods, Boston.

Dusenbery, E.B. 1998, The Nekropoleis (Samothrace 11),Princeton.

Eliot, C.W.J./M. Eliot 1968, The Lechaion cemetery nearCorinth, Hesperia 37, 345-367.

Foley, B.P./M.C. Hansson/D.P. Kourkoumelis/T.A. Theo -doulou 2012, Aspects of ancient Greek trade re-evalu-ated with amphora DNA evidence, JASc 39, 389-398.

Frel, J. 1977, The Kleophrades Painter in Malibu, GettyMusJ4, 63-76.

Frère, D. 2008, Un programme de recherches archéolo -giques et archéométriques sur des huiles et crèmes par-fumées dans l’antiquité, in L. Bodiou/D. Frère/V. Mehl(eds), Parfums et odeurs dans l’antiquité, Rennes, 205-214.

Gibson, J.J. 1980, Forward: A prefatory essay on the per-ception of surfaces versus the perception of markingson a surface, in M.A. Hagen (ed.), The perception of pic-tures, New York, xi-xviii.

Giudice, F./S. Tusa/V. Tusa 1992, La collezione archeologicadel Banco di Sicilia, Palermo.

Gjerstad, E. 1977, Greek Geometric and Archaic pottery foundin Cyprus, Stockholm.

Gummey Pemberton, E. 1970, The Vrysoula Classical de -posit from ancient Corinth, Hesperia 39, 265-307.

Hadjidaki, E. 1996, Underwater excavations of a late fifthcentury merchant ship at Alonnesos, Greece: The 1991-1993 Seasons, BCH 120, 559-593.

Hambidge, J. 1920, Dynamic symmetry: The Greek vase, NewHaven.

Haspels, E.C.H. 1936, Attic black-figured lekythoi, Paris.Hatzivassiliou, E. 2010, Athenian black figure iconography

between 510 and 475 B.C. (Tübinger ArchäologischeForschungen 6), Rahden.

Heinemann, A. 2009, Bild, Gefäß, Praxis: Überlegungen zuattischen Salbgefäßen, in S. Schmidt/J.H. Oakley (eds),Hermeneutik der Bilder: Beiträge zur Ikonographie undInterpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei (Beihefte zumCorpus Vasorum Antiquorum 4), Munich, 161-175.

Howes, D. 2006, Scent, sound and synaesthesia: Intersen -soriality and material culture theory, in C. Tilley et al.(eds), Handbook of material culture, London, 161-172.

Hruby, J. 2010, Mycenaean pottery from Pylos: An indige -nous typology, AJA 114, 195-216.

Ionas, I. 2000, Traditional pottery and potters in Cyprus: Thedisappearance of an ancient craft industry in the 19th and20th centuries (Birmingham Byzantine and OttomanMonographs 6), Aldershot.

Isler, H.P. 1984, Grabungen auf dem Monte Iato 1983, AntK27, 25-32.

Isler, H.P. 1995, Grabungen auf dem Monte Iato 1994, AntK38, 26-37.

Isler, H.P. 1996, Grabungen auf dem Monte Iato 1995, AntK39, 52-64.

Isler, H.P. 1997, Grabungen auf dem Monte Iato 1996, AntK40, 48-60.

Jacopi, G. 1931, Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro I: Scavinelle necropoli camiresi 1929-1930, Rhodes.

Johnston, A.W. 2006, Trademarks on Greek vases: Addenda,Oxford.

Jubier-Galinier, C. 2003, L’atelier des peintres de Diosphoset de Haimon, in P. Rouillard/A. Verbanck Piérard(eds), Le vase grec et ses destines, Munich, 79-89.

Karagiorga-Stathakopoulou, T. 1988, Δημσια �ργα καιανασκα%�ς στην Αθ�να τα τελευτα�α π�ντε �ρνια,Horos 6, 87-108.

Keramaris, A./S. Protopsalti/S. Tsolakis 2002, Η ανα-σκα%ικ� �ρευνα στη ΒΙ.ΠΕ.Θ. Σ�νδ�υ 2002, ΑΕΜΘ 16,233-240.

Kerameikos 7.2 = Kunze-Götte, E./K. Tancke/K. Vierneisel1999, Die Nekropole von der Mitte des 6. bis zum Ende des5. Jahrhunderts. Die Beigaben, Munich.

Kerameikos 9 = Knigge, U. 1976, Der Südhügel, Berlin.Knappett, C. 2011, An archaeology of interaction: Network per-

spectives on material culture and society, Oxford.Knappett, C. 2012, Materiality, in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeol -

ogical theory today, Cambridge, 188-207.Kunze, E. 1961-1962, Die Ausgrabungen in Olympia.

Laufbahn und Nordwall des Stadions 1958-1961, ADelt17, 107-124.

Kurtz, D.C. 1975, Athenian white lekythoi: Patterns andpainters, Oxford.

Lee Lyman, R./T.L. VanPool 2009, Metric data in Archae -ology: A study of intra-analyst and inter-analyst varia -tion, American Antiquity 74, 485-504.

Lynch, K.M. 2009, The Persian destruction deposits and thedevelopment of pottery research at the Agora excava-tions, in J.McK. Camp II/C.A. Mauzy (eds), The AthenianAgora: New perspectives on an ancient site, Mainz, 69-76.

Lynch, K.M. 2011, The symposium in context: Pottery from aLate Archaic house near the Athenian Agora (HesperiaSupplement 46), Princeton.

Malagardis, N. 1997, ‘Attic vases, Etruscan stories’ – Leséchanges et les hommes. Origine, vie brève et mortd’une forme de vase attique archaïque, in J.H. Oakley/W.D.E. Coulson/O. Palagia (eds), Athenian potters andpainters, Oxford, 35-53.

Malagardis, N. 2008, Introduction: Origine et évolution dugobelet: Chytridion ou «mastoïd»? in N. Malagardis/A.Tsingarida (eds.), CVA France 41, Musée du Louvre 27,Paris, 15-26.

Manakidou, E. 2010, 8μ�ι�ματα και παραστ�σεις αμα��νστα αρ�αϊκ� και κλασικ� �ρνια: 7ρ�σεις και συμ -,�λισμ��, in D. Triantaphyllos/D. Terzopoulou (eds),�Αλγα και �μα9ες στν αρ&α� κ�σμ: Πρακτικ� επι-στημνικ ς συν�στησης, $ρεστι�δα 30 Σεπτεμ+ρ�υ2006, Orestiada, 177-197.

Masseria, C. 2009, Ceramiche attiche dalla necropoli diTarquinia e dall’emporion di Gravisca: Un confronto,in S. Fortunelli/C. Masseria (eds), Ceramica attica di san-tuari della Grecia, della Ionia e dell’Italia (Atti ConvegnoInternazionale Perugia 14-17 marzo 2007), Venosa, 329-368.

Mellink, M.J. 1975, Excavations at Karata -Semayük andElmali, Lycia, 1974, AJA 79, 349-355.

Minogue, J./M. Gail Jones 2006, Haptics in education:Exploring an untapped sensory modality, Review ofEducational Research 76, 317-348.

Morgan, C. 1999, A catalogue of Attic pottery in the col -lection of the Taman Museum, in G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.),Taman Antiquity, St. Petersburg, 12-89.

Mylonas, G.E. 1975a, Τ Δυτικ�ν Νεκρτα*ε�ν της Ελευ -σ�νς, Volume 1, Athens.

Mylonas, G.E. 1975b, Τ Δυτικ�ν Νεκρτα*ε�ν της Ελευ -σ�νς, Volume 3, Athens.

Noble, J.V. 1988, The techniques of painted Attic pottery,London.

Oakley, J.H. 2004, Picturing death in Classical Athen: The evi-dence of white lekythoi, Cambridge.

Onasoglou, A. 1982, Λει,αν�τες: Θ�ση Τριαντα%υλλι�

166

(αγρς Γ. Καρα;σκ�υ), ADelt 37, 181-187.Orlandini, P./D. Adamesteanu 1960, Gela: Nuovi scavi,

NSc 14, 67-246.Osborne, R. 1996, Pots, trade and the archaic Greek econ-

omy, Antiquity 70, 31-44.Okhotnikov, C.B. 1990, u ∂ mpo VI-V . ∂o

. ., Kiev.Palaeologou, E. 2002a, Small stirrup jar, in Y. Tzedakis/H.

Martlew (eds), Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of theirtime. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery 13 July 2002 – 5January 2003, Athens, 32-33.

Palaeologou, E. 2002b, Globular Flask, in Y. Tzedakis/H.Martlew (eds), Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of theirtime. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery 13 July 2002 – 5January 2003, Athens, 58-59.

Peck, J./T.L. Childers 2003, To have and to hold: The in -fluence of haptic information on product judgements,The Journal of Marketing 67, 35-48.

Perreault, J.-Y. 1986, Céramique et échanges: Les importa-tions attiques au Proche-Orient du VIe au milieu du Veav. J.-C. Les données archéologiques, BCH 110, 145-175.

Poulios, V. 1995, Σωστικ� ανασκα%� στ� νεκρ�τα%ε�� τηςαρ�α�ας Γα<�ρ�υ, ΑΕΜΘ 9, 411-422.

Reusser, C. 2002, Vasen für Etrurien (Akanthus crescens 5),Zurich.

Roberts, S. 1986, The Stoa Gutter Well: A Late Archaicdeposit in the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 55, 1-72.

Robinson, D.M. 1932, Illustrations of Aeschylus’ Choe -phoroi and of a satyr-play on hydrias by the NiobidPainter, AJA 36, 401-407.

Roux, V. 2003, Ceramic standardization and intensity ofproduction: Quantifying degrees of specialization,American Antiquity 68, 768-782.

Rowlands, M. 1993, The role of memory in the transmis-sion of culture, WorldA 25, 141-151.

Salliora-Oikonomakou, M. 1985, Αρ�α�� νεκρ�τα%ε�� στηνπερι��� Λαυρ��υ, ADelt 40, 90-132.

San Pietro, A. 1991, La ceramica a figure nere di San Biagia(Metaponto), Galatina.

Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 1987, Αμ�ρυνθ�ς, θ�ση Γερ�νι �Αγ�α Κυριακ�, ADelt 42, 213.

Schaus, G.P. 1992, Archaic imported fine wares from theAcropolis, Mytilene, Hesperia 61, 356-374.

Scheffer, C. 1988, Workshop and trade patterns in Athenianblack figure, in J. Christiansen/T. Melander (eds), Pro -ceedings of the 3rd Symposium on ancient Greek and relatedpottery. Copenhagen August 31 – September 4 1987, Copen -hagen, 536-546.

Schlörb-Vierneisel, B. 1966, Eridanos – Nekropole: Berichteüber die Grabungen 1964 und 1965 südlich derHeiligen Strasse, AM 81, 4-111.

Schmidt, S. 2005, Rhetorische Bilder auf attischen Vasen:Visuelle Kommunikation im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Berlin.

Schreiber, T. 1999, Athenian vase construction: A potter’sanalysis, Malibu.

Seki, T. 1985, Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Gefässformund Malerei attischer Schalen, Berlin.

Shear, L. 1993, The Persian destruction of Athens:Evidence from Agora deposits, Hesperia 62, 383-482.

Shefton, B.B. 1999, The Lancut Group: Silhouette techni -que and coral red. Some Attic Vth century export mate-rial in pan-Mediterranean sight, in M.-C. Villa nuevaPuig et al. (eds), Céramique et peinture grecques: Modesd’emploi. Actes du colloque international, Paris, Ecole duLouvre, 26, 27, 28 avril 1995, Paris, 463-479.

Shefton, B.B. 2003, Contacts between Picenum and theGreek world to the end of the fifth century B.C.: Im -

ports, influences and perceptions, in I Piceni e l’Italiamedio-adriatica. Atti del XXII Convegno di studi etruschi editalici, Ascoli Piceno, Teramo, Ancona, 9-13 aprile 2000,Pisa, 315-337.

Shepard, A.O. 1956, Ceramics for the archaeologist, Washington.Sparkes, B.A. 1996, The red and the black: Studies in Greek

pottery, London.Spitaels, P. 1970-1971, Insula 3: Tower Compound 1, in P.

Spitaels et al. (eds), Rapport préliminaire sur les septiémecampagne de fouilles (Thorikos 7), Ghent, 39-110.

Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. 1999, Pictorial narrative in ancientGreek art, Cambridge.

Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. 2006, Vase painting, gender, andsocial identity in Archaic Athens, Cambridge.

Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. 2011, Looking at Greek art,Cambridge.

Stissi, V. 2009, Does function follow form? Archaic Greekpottery in its find contexts: Uses and meanings,AnalRom 41, 23-43.

Tiverios, M. 1981, Πρ+λ ματα της μελαν�μρ*ης Αττικ ςκεραμικ ς, Thessaloniki.

Tiverios, M. 2008, Greek colonisation of the NorthernAegean, in G.R. Tsetskhladze (eds), Greek colonisation:An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas(Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplemen -tum 193), Leiden, 1-154.

Tuna-Nörling, Y. 1999, Daskyleion I: Die attische Keramik,Izmir.

Tzedakis, G. 1969, Ανασκα%� Φαλασ�ρνης, ADelt 24, 433-434.

Ure, P.N. 1927, Sixth & fifth century pottery from excavationsmade at Rhitsona by R.M. Burrows in 1909, and by P.N. Ureand A.D. Ure in 1921 & 1922, London.

Vallicelli, M.C. 2004, La ceramica a figure nere di Adria: Irinvenimenti da abitato, in C. Reusser/M. Bentz (eds),Attische Vasen in etruskischem Kontext: Funde aus Häusernund Heiligtümern, Munich, 9-16.

van de Put, W.D.J. 2011, Shape, image and society: Trends inthe decoration of Attic lekythoi, PhD dissertation, Univer -sity of Ghent.

van de Put, W.D.J./R. Docter 2012, A lekythos found inhouse 1 at Thorikos (2007 Campaign), in R. Docter (ed.),Thorikos 10 reports & studies, Ghent, 51-56.

Vanderpool, E. 1946, The rectangular rock-cut shaft,Hesperia 15, 265-336.

Volioti, K. 2009, Attic pottery in early Classical Thessaly:A case study from Achaia Phthiotis, Eirene 45, 155-164.

Volioti, K. 2011a, The materiality of graffiti: Socialising alekythos in Pherai, in J.A. Baird/C. Taylor (eds), Ancientgraffiti in context, New York, 134-152.

Volioti, K. 2011b, Travel tokens to the Korykian Cave nearDelphi: Perspectives from material and human mobil-ity, Pallas 86, 263-285.

Volioti, K. 2011c, Haimonian lekythoi from Delphi, Phokisand West Lokris in a geographical context, Pallas 87,243-264.

Volioti, K. 2012, Studies in the materiality and socialisation ofHaimonian lekythoi, PhD dissertation, University ofReading.

Volioti, K. forthcoming, Lekythoi in Thessaly: Any colourso long as it is black?, in A. Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou/D.Paleothodoros (eds), $ι εισαγωγ�ς της αττικ ς μελα -ν�μρ*ης και ερυθρ�μρ*ης κεραμικ ς στη Θεσσαλ�α,Πρακτικ� τυ Διεθν)ς Συνεδρ�υ, Β�λς 3-5 Δεκεμ -+ρ�υ 2010, Volos.

Wengrow, D. 2008, Prehistories of commodity branding,Current Anthropology 49, 7-34.

167

Williams, D. 2006, The Sotades Tomb, in B. Cohen (ed.),The colors of clay: Special techniques in Athenian vases, LosAngeles, 292-298.

Wolters, P./G. Bruns 1940, Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben,Volume 1, Berlin.

Zachariadou, O./D. Kyriakou/E. Baziotopoulou 1985,Σωστικ� ανασκα%� στ�ν ανισπεδ� κμ,� Λ�ν�ρμαν-Κωνσταντιν�υπλεως, AAA 18, 39-50.

Zachariadou, O./D. Kyriakou/E. Baziotopoulou 1992,Ateliers de potiers à l’angle des rues Lenormant et deConstantinople: Rapport préliminaire, in F. Blondé/J.Y.Perreault (eds), Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grecaux époques géométrique, archaïque et classique. Actes de laTable Ronde organisée à l’École française d’Athènes, 2 et 3octobre 1987 (BCH Supplément 23), Paris, 53-56.

168