A Study of Ancient Greek Inscriptions on Attic Vases - Florida State ...

The Florida State University
College <strong>of</strong> Arts and Sciences
Lingering Words:
A <strong>Study</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ancient</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> <strong>Inscriptions</strong> on Attic Vases
By
Kathleen E. Clifford
A Thesis submitted to the
Department <strong>of</strong> Classics
In partial fulfillment <strong>of</strong> the
Requirements for the degree <strong>of</strong>
Master <strong>of</strong> Arts
Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2007
Copyright © 2007
Kathleen E. Clifford
All Rights Reserved

The members <strong>of</strong> the Committee approve the thesis <strong>of</strong> Kathleen E. Clifford defended on
April 19, 2007.
_________________________________
Laurel Fulkerson
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Directing Thesis
_________________________________
Christopher Pfaff
Committee Member
_________________________________
James Sickinger
Committee Member
The Office <strong>of</strong> Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List <strong>of</strong> Figures
Abstract
iv
vi
Introduction 1
1. Signatures 7
2. Kalos <strong>Inscriptions</strong> 15
3. Bubble <strong>Inscriptions</strong> 26
4. Captions, Labels, Toasts, and Comments 32
5. Nonsense <strong>Inscriptions</strong> 40
Conclusion 47
Appendix A 49
References 64
Biographical Sketch 68
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
1. Red-figure aryballos by Douris, 500-470 BCE
(ARV 2 447.274) 50
2. Red-figure cup by Douris, 500-480 BCE
(ARV 2 431.48) 50
3. Red-figure cup by Euphronios, 520-500 BCE
(ARV 2 16.17) 51
4. Transcription <strong>of</strong> a red-figure amphora by The Kleophrades Painter,
500-490 BCE (ARV 2 193) 51
5. Red-figure cup by The Eleusis Painter, ca. 480 BCE
(ARV 2 314.2) 52
6. Detail <strong>of</strong> psykter by Smikros, 510-500 BCE
(BAdd 395) 52
7. Red-Figure cup by The Thalia Painter, late 6 th century BCE
(ARV 2 113.7) 53
8. Red-figure cup by The Eleusis Painter, late 6 th to early 5 th century BCE
(ARV 2 315.2) 53
9. Red-figure bellkrater attributed to The Orestes Painter, ca. 450 BCE
(ARV 2 1113.10) 54
10. Panathenaic amphora by The Euphiletos Painter, ca. 530 BCE
(ABV 322.1) 54
11. Panathenaic type amphora, 500-490 BCE
(ABV 671) 55
12. Red-figure cup by Oltos, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 58.53) 55
13. Black-figure amphora by Exekias, 550-530 BCE
(ABV 145.13) 56
14. Red-figure cup by Euthymides, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 21.1) 56
15. Black-figure oinochoe by The Athena Painter, 500-450 BCE
(Para 183.22 bis) 57
16. Transcription <strong>of</strong> a red-figure cup by Oltos, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 58.51) 57
17. Red-figure pelike by The Pioneer Group, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 1594.48) 58
18. Black-figure amphora by The Leagros Group, 530-500 BCE
(Boardman 212) 58
19. Black-figure dinos by Sophilos, ca. 580 BCE
(ABV 39.16) 59
20. Red-figure psykter by Oltos, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 54.7) 59
21. Detail <strong>of</strong> a Panathenaic amphora from The Burgon Group, ca. 560 BCE
(ABV 89.1) 60
iv

22. The François Vase, 570 BCE
(ABV 76.1) 60
23. Red-figure psykter by Euphronios, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 16.15) 61
24. Red-figure hydria by Phintias, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 23.7) 61
25. Red-figure alabastra from the group <strong>of</strong> The Paidikos Alabastra, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 99.7) 62
26. Red-figure psykter by Euthymides, 530-500 BCE
(ARV 2 28.11) 62
27. Red-figure amphora by Euthymides, late 6 th century BCE
(ARV 2 26.1) 63
28. Red-figure amphora in the manner <strong>of</strong> Euphronios, 490 BCE
(ARV 2 18.1) 63
29. Black-figure cup from a private collection in Athens, ca. 540 BCE 64
v

ABSTRACT
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this thesis is to study ancient <strong>Greek</strong> inscriptions on Attic vases.
First, the categories <strong>of</strong> inscriptions are clearly defined. Second, various theories
pertaining to those categories <strong>of</strong> inscriptions are debated as to their validity. Third, the
information that the inscriptions provide on the culture, potters and painters <strong>of</strong> ancient
Athens is discussed. This thesis will provide a foundation <strong>of</strong> current information that the
student or scholar can reference and build upon when beginning their study on ancient
<strong>Greek</strong> inscriptions.
vi

INTRODUCTION
<strong>Ancient</strong> inscriptions on Attic vases provide scholars with a wealth <strong>of</strong> knowledge.
They provide information on the culture <strong>of</strong> ancient Athens and on the craftsmen who
produced the vases. The very fact that the inscriptions were painted on vases and sold by
craftsmen in order to provide their livelihood adds to the value <strong>of</strong> the inscriptions. We
are then able to observe the scenes and inscriptions one particular group believed
important, and possibly the society as a whole considered important. It was the larger
society who purchased and at times commissioned the vases from the craftsmen. The
craftsmen would have been careful enough to paint scenes and inscriptions attractive to
future customers. The glimpse inscriptions give into ancient Athens makes them an
exciting aspect <strong>of</strong> vases to study, and helps scholars to gain greater understanding <strong>of</strong> a
culture divided from our own by thousands <strong>of</strong> years.
The abundance <strong>of</strong> the excavated vases is just as exciting because it provides a
continuous timeline. This timeline is constructed through comparison <strong>of</strong> styles and
variations in inscriptions. Attic vases are a securely dated group <strong>of</strong> antiquities. This
allows scholars to follow changes in how objects and people are painted and changes in
how letters are constructed. The large quantity <strong>of</strong> vases is perhaps the reason why there
is a large quantity <strong>of</strong> scholarship dedicated to the study <strong>of</strong> Attic vases. Even with the
large amount <strong>of</strong> scholarship written, there are still differing theories on certain aspects <strong>of</strong>
the vases, namely on the inscriptions accompanying the scenes.
While vase making was a well-developed field in ancient Greece before the eighth
century BCE, inscriptions on vases do not appear until the later eighth century BCE. 1
The craftsman had a variety <strong>of</strong> techniques available for placing an inscription on a vase.
<strong>Inscriptions</strong> could be painted, incised, or even stamped. Most inscriptions were placed on
vases before firing and were painted. This means that most inscriptions were placed on
the vases during production, and were placed by the person responsible for the overall
decorative scheme. The inscriptions placed on a vase after firing were most likely
1 Cook 1997, 241.
1

written by a merchant or purchaser and were typically incised. 2 Therefore, the
inscriptions placed on the vase before firing have more in common than those placed
after, since we can attribute pre-fired inscriptions to the workshop. Scholars can usually
recognize whether a merchant bought the vase for dedication or a wealthy patron bought
the vase for use at his symposium. The location where the vase was found along with the
objects it was discovered with help to explain context, which helps to further the
information for that specific vase. However, when comparing vases in general, it helps to
have as much in common as possible between each vase and it is hard to tell whose hands
might have incised the vase once sold. Once a vase leaves the workshop the number <strong>of</strong>
common factors dwindle. Therefore our focus must be on inscriptions placed before the
vase is fired. This provides the same foundation for each inscription, namely the
workshop, and allows us to recognize the differences between the inscriptions
themselves. The inscriptions then fall into eight categories: signatures, kalÒw
inscriptions, bubble inscriptions, captions, labels, toasts, comments and nonsense
inscriptions. Some <strong>of</strong> these categories have a larger inventory <strong>of</strong> vases than the others.
Pre-fired inscriptions were executed with black glaze, red slip, or white slip
applied with a fine point. Sometimes the inscription’s color is a golden brown, which is
the result <strong>of</strong> the painter using a diluted black glaze. 3 The placement <strong>of</strong> the inscription
was at the whim <strong>of</strong> the painter. The majority <strong>of</strong> inscriptions were written from left to
right. However, there are many examples <strong>of</strong> retrograde inscriptions, written from right to
left. 4 Most <strong>of</strong> the time the angle <strong>of</strong> the inscription was subjective as well, that is the
painter placed the inscription wherever the scene on the vase allowed for one. 5
The exception occurs on lip cups, created in the 560’s BCE. 6 Here the inscription
was considered an integral part <strong>of</strong> the decoration program. The inscription lies between
the terminal palmettes with each letter in a neat row. Since the inscription had to fill a
fixed amount <strong>of</strong> space the letters are <strong>of</strong>ten spaced farther apart or a longer inscription is
2 Cook 1997, 241.
3 Noble1966, 68.
4 Clark et al. 2002, 100.
5 Folsom 1976, 6.
6 Cook 1997, 242.
2

written. It is possible that scholars know that Tleson was the son <strong>of</strong> Nearchos more from
a need to fill space than from the painter’s desire to honor his father. 7
The theories discussed in the following chapters mostly deal with the inscriptions
and what they say about the culture <strong>of</strong> ancient Greece. <strong>Inscriptions</strong> that survive on Attic
vases are more securely dated than any other inscriptions that survive and are more
numerous. 8 <strong>Inscriptions</strong> can be used as evidence for the date when the <strong>Greek</strong>s adopted
their alphabet and can be used for mapping local letter varieties and development. 9 When
the origin <strong>of</strong> the painter is known, his inscriptions can be studied to understand that area’s
specific dialect. When a dialect can be determined in an inscription, the painter’s origin
can be determined and in a larger sense migration patterns can be studied. For instance,
the vase painter called the Polyphemus Painter was an Attic vase painter, but wrote in an
Aegean dialect. 10 This leads scholars to believe that the Polyphemus Painter migrated
from the islands to Athens.
An example <strong>of</strong> the avenues inscriptions lead scholars down can be found on an
aryballos discovered in an Athenian tomb (Figure 1). The painter <strong>of</strong> the aryballos was
Douris, known from his signature on the vase. Another inscription on the aryballos tells
the name <strong>of</strong> the owner, Asopodoros. The ownership inscription is unique in its own right
since nearly all ownership inscriptions are incised after firing. This ownership inscription
was painted on the aryballos before firing. A detail within the inscription, however, is
what caught the renowned scholar J.D. Beazley’s eye. The character v was used for the
impure dipthong <strong>of</strong> the genitive instead <strong>of</strong> the o. Beazley observes that the character v
was rarely found on Attic vases before the classical period and believes that the origin <strong>of</strong>
the character may come from a draft the customer gave to Douris. The character also
appears on another one <strong>of</strong> Douris’ vase paintings in a line <strong>of</strong> poetry written on a scroll
held by a schoolmaster (Figure 2). This occurrence may be due to Douris copying a draft
as well. 11 This is an example <strong>of</strong> the results from tracking variations in inscriptions. The
trained eye can catch anomalies, which can lead to increased knowledge about the culture
7 Cook 1997, 242.
8 Cook 1997, 241.
9 Cook 1997, 241.
10 Cook 1997, 241-242.
11 Kurtz 1989, 58.
3

in general. The anomaly <strong>of</strong> the pre-fired ownership inscription marks out the special
interest the commissioner <strong>of</strong> the vase took in the production <strong>of</strong> his commission, which in
turn possibly explains the occurrence <strong>of</strong> the v; as theorized above. Had it not been for
the v appearing on the schoolmaster’s scroll we would not have suspected that the
inscription came from an original draft. Hence, the ownership inscription gives scholars
an insight to the degree with which owners could be involved in the production <strong>of</strong> their
commissioned works, and the scroll inscription gives scholars an insight to possible
inspirations <strong>of</strong> artists for inscriptions.
Before 490 BCE, inscriptions on vases were written in Attic script. After 480
BCE, inscriptions began to include Ionic script. 12 This is a clear break and helps in
dating vases. Since the vase inscriptions were not <strong>of</strong>ficial and not controlled by the
government, Ionic forms appeared in vase painting long before they appeared in <strong>of</strong>ficial
stone inscriptions. 13 In other cultures such as Egypt, and even in other time periods such
as the Hellenistic and Roman periods, there is extensive evidence <strong>of</strong> various forms <strong>of</strong>
writing. Scholars are able to compare and contrast book script, legal script, monumental
script, et cetera. In ancient Athens, painted inscriptions on vases provide the only
complete source <strong>of</strong> writing for comparison through the years. The vases are securely
dated through stylistic analysis <strong>of</strong> their figural representations. Painted inscriptions have
been analyzed through numerous books, a result <strong>of</strong> the fact that the vases form a
continuous timeline. The painted inscriptions, while they may follow their own rules, are
the handiwork <strong>of</strong> individuals and are therefore the closest scholars have to papyrus
writing. 14 They are the epitome <strong>of</strong> everyman’s language because everyday craftsmen
wrote the inscriptions. 15 These inscriptions were not controlled in a direct way by
government influence.
The earliest inscription dates to the eighth century BCE. The next appearance <strong>of</strong>
an inscription dates to around the seventh century BCE. At this time in ancient Greece
no real distinction between public and private inscriptions exists. It is not until the fifth
century BCE that a notable distinction between public and private inscriptions develops
12 Richter 1959, 315; Folsom 1976, 6.
13 Richter 1946, 21.
14 Immerwahr 1990, I.
15 Snodgrass 2000, 33.
4

due to the appearance <strong>of</strong> Ionic script in painted inscriptions. This is followed by a proper
cursive, which appears in the early fourth century BCE. 16 When studying the writing
styles through different periods <strong>of</strong> time, it is noticeable that old styles can coexist with
new styles, even when used on the same vase. While a style may be advanced for its
period, the individual letterforms may be old-fashioned. 17 Immerwahr concludes that
ancient Greece was non-literate in the first quarter <strong>of</strong> the first millennium BCE from the
fact that no inscriptions are earlier than the third quarter <strong>of</strong> the eighth century BCE
despite the abundance <strong>of</strong> pottery. 18 Once the third quarter <strong>of</strong> the eighth century begins
writing can be found in many places in ancient Greece. This happens not just in formal
situations, but also in informal situations. 19
The following chapters are focused on inscriptions painted before the firing
process. The inscriptions are separated into categories and analyzed on the basis <strong>of</strong> their
characteristics. The various theories about their purpose expressed by scholars are
presented in each chapter as well. When studying inscriptions on vases, it came to my
attention that while there are many books on the various aspects <strong>of</strong> vases (their
production, function, decoration and inscriptions), there was no work simply on
inscriptions that provided definitions for the various categories <strong>of</strong> inscriptions and pulled
together the theories <strong>of</strong> scholars into one work. There are works that catalogue every
inscription known and give great attention to the details <strong>of</strong> the inscriptions. These works,
however, do not analyze the inscriptions they list. The following chapters attempt to give
up-to-date definitions, examples, and theories in each category <strong>of</strong> inscriptions. While the
study focuses on Attic vases, the first vase mentioned in the study is the Pithecousae
vase. This vase is mentioned because it marks the beginning <strong>of</strong> inscriptions within the
whole <strong>of</strong> ancient Greece. However, the painters in Athens used inscriptions more
frequently than any other area in ancient Greece. In no other area is there such a
complete and continuous record that is securely dated. With such a well-documented
timeline <strong>of</strong> vases we can study progressions and fads. This study will provide a basic
16 Immerwahr 1990, I-II.
17 Immerwahr 1990, II.
18 Immerwahr 1990, 7.
19 Immerwahr 1990, 16.
5

foundation where student or scholar can see definitive definitions for the categories <strong>of</strong>
inscriptions, and compare or contrast the various theories on each category.
6

CHAPTER 1
SIGNATURES
<strong>Inscriptions</strong> that belong to the signatures category are important because they are
the only secure source for the names <strong>of</strong> potters and painters. At times the potter, painter,
or both are named on a vase. The ancient <strong>Greek</strong> literary sources are vocal when naming
architects, sculptors and mural painters, yet there is no mention <strong>of</strong> potters or vasepainters.
20 The practice <strong>of</strong> signing vases, however, was sporadic and there is still
uncertainty among scholars as to how a vase was chosen to receive a signature. Through
analysis <strong>of</strong> style scholars can link vases to a single artist, but many <strong>of</strong> these artists are
given pseudonyms since they did not provide a signature. The artists who did sign their
vases did so rarely. In fact, many <strong>of</strong> the potter’s and painter’s names known to us today
are known from a single signature, even though the name may be linked stylistically to
many vases. 21 Of a collection <strong>of</strong> ninety-seven potter names, forty-two are known from a
single vase. For painter’s names, seventeen out <strong>of</strong> forty-three are known from a single
vase. 22 The artist’s motives and standards for signing vases remain a mystery to scholars.
Many <strong>of</strong> the best works go unsigned, while some <strong>of</strong> the poorer examples are signed. 23
An example is the artist Myson who, as Richter informs us, is known from a second-rate
column krater found on the Acropolis, while his masterpieces—an amphora in the Louvre
and a krater in the British Museum—went unsigned. 24 In our modern society this
inconsistency may seem contrary to the natural desire to gain personal credit for an
achievement, but Beazley believes there may be other factors involved. The first factor
he lists is fashion. Signatures are popular during certain periods and rare during others.
A change in taste could account for the popularity or rarity in different periods, since the
form <strong>of</strong> the inscription itself did not change. Another factor could be the artist’s
temperament. While some did not sign at all, others signed their works occasionally, and
20 Clark et al. 2002, 143.
21 Kurtz 1989, 54.
22 Kurtz 1989, 54.
23 Kurtz 1989, 54.
24 Richter 1946, 16.
7

still another, Nikosthenes, signed constantly. The artist Douris regularly signed his work
at first, then ceased later in his career. 25 Two more factors may have been the artist’s
mood at the moment or the relationship <strong>of</strong> the signature to the vase. The latter factor is
significant when considering the Little Master cups. 26 Here inscriptions are integral to
the decoration. As a part <strong>of</strong> the artistic program, an inscriptional space was provided
between the two terminal palmettes. In the eyes <strong>of</strong> the painter, preserving the
inscriptional space was so important that at times a mock inscription, called a nonsense
inscription 27 , was placed in that space in order to maintain the tradition. Therefore, there
is a chance that the artist would sign a Little Master cup simply for the purpose <strong>of</strong>
decoration.
The statistics suggest that recognition was not the motive behind the signatures.
Out <strong>of</strong> about nine hundred artists that have been recognized through stylistic comparison
only around forty have left us their real names. Less than one percent <strong>of</strong> the known vases
have signatures. 28 The identified potters’ names, according to Folsom, are thirty in the
Archaic period, four in the early Classical period, eleven from 475 BCE to 400 BCE and
only one from the fourth century BCE. 29 This is a surprising amount considering the
large quantity <strong>of</strong> vase and vase fragments excavated every day. Signatures are the most
frequent during the second half <strong>of</strong> the sixth century BCE and the first half <strong>of</strong> the fifth
century BCE. 30 The signatures reach their peak around 500 BCE and are rare once again
by the end <strong>of</strong> the fifth century BCE. 31 Statistically, there are roughly twice as many
potter signatures as painter signatures, and there are more names on red-figure vases than
black-figure vases. 32 Beazley believes the higher percentage <strong>of</strong> potter names points to the
importance <strong>of</strong> the potter’s role over the painter’s role. The simple fact remains that a
potter can exist without a vase-painter but a vase-painter cannot exist without a potter. 33
25 Kurtz 1989, 54.
26 Kurtz 1989, 54.
27 Nonsense inscriptions will be discussed in a latter chapter.
28 Boardman 2001, 128.
29 Folsom 1976, 6.
30 Arias 1962, 15.
31 Cook 1997, 244.
32 Clark et al. 2002, 143; Boardman 1975, 213.
33 Kurtz 1989, 55.
8

The Attic workshops were not the first to add a signature to a vase. Rather the
oldest signature comes from Ischia and dates to the first half <strong>of</strong> the seventh century
BCE. 34 The signature ends in …inos and appears on a krater. The krater seems to have
been made locally in a Euboean style. More than a generation later an aryballos imitating
a Protocorinthian style was signed with the name Pyrrhus in the Euboean alphabet. It
was not until the 580’s BCE that the first Corinthian signs his name, Timonidas. The
Attic painter Sophilos, who is a contemporary <strong>of</strong> Timonidas, is the first to sign in a long
line <strong>of</strong> Attic signatures. 35
At times the patronymic <strong>of</strong> the potter or painter was included in the signature.
This appears to happen when the father was in the same pr<strong>of</strong>ession, though it is not
certain that this is always the case. 36 The more information the painter and potter give us,
the more insight we are able to gain into their personal lives and their personalities. For
instance, a family <strong>of</strong> potters with the names Bachhios and Kittos existed in the forth
century BCE and left their signatures on extant vases. From their signatures, along with
their patronymic, we are able to connect the family with existing records. These records
show that the family was awarded as competition winners, granted citizenship at Ephesus
for giving services to the community, and received a decent burial in Athens. 37 Through
connecting family names scholars are able to trace certain painters and reconstruct parts
<strong>of</strong> their lives. Without the patronymic, clues may help with reconstruction but the
information would still be conjecture since two or more people can exist with the same
name. The likelihood that two or more people with the same name and the same father’s
name is a smaller percentage.
A specific formula was used when signing vases. The potter’s name was
followed by the <strong>Greek</strong> word §po€esen, which is translated as “made it”. This <strong>Greek</strong>
word may have also followed the name <strong>of</strong> the workshop owner’s name according to
theories that will be discussed later in the chapter. The painter’s name however was
followed by the <strong>Greek</strong> word grapsen, which is translated as “painted it”. Therefore,
34 Cook 1997, 243.
35 Cook1997, 244.
36 Boardman 2001, 141.
37 Boardman 2001, 141.
9

DoËriw §po€esen means “Douris made it” and 'Ex°kiaw §grãpsen means “Exekias
painted it”. Examples exist <strong>of</strong> double signatures that name both the potter and the painter
involved in the execution <strong>of</strong> the vase. In these cases the potter is mentioned before the
painter, usually as “X made it, Y painted it”. As pointed out by Noble, the double
signatures recognize the sequence <strong>of</strong> the work. Noble also believes that the double
signatures recognize the equal importance <strong>of</strong> the potting and the painting. 38
When
considering this, we may refer to the statement above made by J.D. Beazley about the
greater importance <strong>of</strong> the potter since the potter could exist without the vase-painter.
While the order <strong>of</strong> the double signature, potter then painter, may just relate the order <strong>of</strong>
the production <strong>of</strong> the vase, it may also relate the importance <strong>of</strong> one task above the other
as viewed by the ancient <strong>Greek</strong>s. The appearance <strong>of</strong> twice as many potters’ signatures as
compared to painters’ signatures also supports the recognized importance <strong>of</strong> the potter as
opposed to the painter.
Even with something as simple as signatures, however, it is possible to have
unclear areas and misunderstandings. There is hardly an unclear area with signatures
containing grapsen. The painter <strong>of</strong> the vase used this <strong>Greek</strong> word in his signature and
no scholars today dispute that fact. The problem comes when researching the <strong>Greek</strong>
word §po€esen. While the word is translated literally as ‘made’, there is discrepancy as
to what the word ‘made’ entails. J.D. Beazley’s 1921 article explains one <strong>of</strong> the three
theories believed in regards to what §po€esen really means. The theory states that the
man whose name goes before §po€esen is actually the designer <strong>of</strong> the vase, or the head <strong>of</strong>
the business, rather than the man who literally made the vase. The designer then gives
the painter his plans for the vase and the painter executes the design. 39
The example he
gives is the Geryon Cup in Munich that bears the signatures Chachrylion epoiesen,
Euphronios egrapsen (Figure 3). In regards to the theory presented this signature would
mean that Chachrylion simply designed the vase and Euphronios was responsible for its
execution. Beazley believes there is a lack <strong>of</strong> logic in this argument. He states that if we
were to compare various vases that one man ‘made’ (epoiesen) there should be some
continuity between the designs, if in fact one man were solely responsible for the designs.
38 Noble 1966, xii.
39 Beazley 1921, 233.
10

This becomes a problem since comparison between §po€esen signatures does not reveal
any continuity in design. There is, however, continuity when comparing the various
works <strong>of</strong> an artist who signed grapsen even when that artist painted for different
potters. Therefore, as Beazley states, the “style <strong>of</strong> Epiktetos” has a definite meaning, but
the “style <strong>of</strong> Nikosthenes” (a potter who signed with §po€esen frequently) means
nothing. Each §po€esen group has significant dissimilarities, while each grapsen
group can be linked in style. 40
The second theory states that the man’s name appearing before §po€esen was the
workshop owner. According to this theory the signature would really be a trademark. If
there was one specific head <strong>of</strong> the workshop then it seems natural that he might insist on
advertisement. 41 The large number <strong>of</strong> potter signatures compared to painter signatures
could be used as evidence for this theory. The glitch comes when taking into account
that signatures occur on a very small percentage <strong>of</strong> the excavated vases. The paucity <strong>of</strong>
signatures more likely implies that they were a fad rather than a marketing ploy. As aptly
pointed out by Richter, if the signature was in fact a trademark then there would be
reason to believe that all the vases would carry one. Richter also points to the fact that
when a sculptor signs he utilizes the same word as when the potter signs, which lends
added plausibility to the next theory. 42
Simply put, the third theory states that the person who signed with §po€esen was
the actual person who made, or rather shaped, the vase. The third theory appears to be
the one that most scholars support. One alternative, however, is to support all three.
There are scholars who believe that the word meant a variety <strong>of</strong> things at different times.
Slight confusion occurs when scholars find a vase that a potter only signed with §po€esen
but comparisons show the potter to be the painter as well. The cases where this happens
are rare, but it is instances like this when the question <strong>of</strong> what §po€esen really meant is
once again raised. The <strong>Greek</strong> word in this case implies that the whole production <strong>of</strong> the
vase, making and painting, was under the supervision <strong>of</strong> one craftsman. This indicates
40 Beazley 1921, 233.
41 Cook 1997, 244 and 245.
42 Richter 1946, 17.
11

that a workshop owner who oversaw the development <strong>of</strong> a vase, even when he may not
have had a physical hand in forming the vase, could have used the word.
The only confusion that may occur with the grapsen signatures is when the
same name appears on different vases but the painting is obviously by different hands.
For example, certain vases exist with the signature <strong>of</strong> Epiktetos, a prominent vase painter,
but the scenes were executed in the recognizable style <strong>of</strong> the Kleophrades Painter. 43 One
such vase is in the Oesterreichisces Museum in Vienna. Klein transcribed the signature
on this vase as an Epiktetos signature (Figure 4). 44 On account <strong>of</strong> this transcription,
many scholars attributed the vase to the earlier Epiktetos, despite the fact that the scenes
did not match his style. In fact the style had undertones <strong>of</strong> Euthymides’ style. Beazley
suggests that Euthymides possibly influenced Epiktetos for this particular amphora, but
Richter brings up a very interesting question in response to this theory. She asks why a
great artist such as Epiktetos, whose style was already well defined, would chose to adopt
another artist’s manner so late in his own career. Richter also points to the fact that
Euthymides had no influence over any <strong>of</strong> Epiktetos’ other known works. 45 It is Richter’s
suggestion that we look toward the Kleophrades Painter as the artist for this amphora. At
the time that this amphora was executed, the Kleophrades Painter was at the beginning <strong>of</strong>
his career as opposed to Epiktetos, who was approaching the end <strong>of</strong> his career. The early
work <strong>of</strong> the Kleophrades Painter is also known to bear a strong resemblance to the work
<strong>of</strong> Euthymides. Even the dimensions <strong>of</strong> the amphora in question here are more in line
with the “monumental style” <strong>of</strong> the Kleophrades Painter, than the “dainty” style <strong>of</strong>
Epiktetos, who preferred cups and plates. 46
The signature on the amphora discussed above was later reexamined and found to
be a nonsense inscription rather than the signature <strong>of</strong> Epiktetos. 47 Therefore, the entire
debate about the authorship <strong>of</strong> the amphora was instigated by a wrong transcription <strong>of</strong> the
inscription. The end result was the same, however, since other evidence exists to show
43 Richter 1946, 18; Richter 1936, 100-115.
44 Richter 1936, 109; Klein 1887, 108.
45 Richter 1936, 109.
46 Richter 1936, 111.
47 Richter 1936, 112.
12

that the Kleophrades Painter was indeed named Epiktetos. 48 A pelike exists in Berlin with
the signature <strong>of</strong> Epiktetos that was at one time attributed to the earlier Epiktetos, even
though the manner <strong>of</strong> painting did not match his previous work. Beazley analyzed the
pelike and attributed it to the Kleophrades Painter. 49 The time periods in which each
painter worked were in very close proximity. Epiktetos was active in the early archaic
period (ca. 530-500 BCE) and the Kleophrades Painter was active during the late archaic
period (ca. 500-475 BCE). While there are some instances <strong>of</strong> fraud in ancient signatures,
in this instance Richter believes that there can be no question <strong>of</strong> fraud based on the fact
that the Kleophrades Painter does not attempt to copy Epiktetos’ manner. 50
Instead the
general conclusion now is that there were two artists names Epiktetos. The second
Epiktetos continues to be labeled as the Kleophrades Painter to avoid the confusion <strong>of</strong>
calling him Epiktetos II.
Some <strong>of</strong> the craftsmen were skilled in both areas <strong>of</strong> pottery and painting. When
one man is both potter and painter the signature is <strong>of</strong>ten in the form <strong>of</strong> grapsen
képo€esen, translated “so and so made and painted it”. 51 An artist with the skill <strong>of</strong> both
potter and painter seems to have been a rarity, as can be tentatively concluded from the
sparse numbers <strong>of</strong> these specific signatures. Exekias was one such skilled worker who
applied this signature to his vases. In Attic red-figure, Douris, Myson, and Epiktetos are
the only artists preserved who used this type <strong>of</strong> signature. 52
Then there are the craftsmen
who change roles over the years. Euphronios began his career as a painter, but finished
his career as a potter. 53
His earlier signatures are those <strong>of</strong> a painter, while his later
signatures as a potter are obviously painted by a hand other than his own. 54 There are
various theories for why Euphronios changed roles in the course <strong>of</strong> his career. Some
believe that Euphronios may have started out as an artist but ascended to the distinction
<strong>of</strong> a potter either through obtaining greater skills as a potter or through obtaining his own
workshop. Scholars generally believe that the potter was esteemed above the painter due
48 Richter 1936, 112.
49 Richter 1936, 112; Arias 1962, 328.
50 Richter 1936, 115.
51 Richter 1946, 16.
52 Richter 1946, 17.
53 Noble 1966, xii; Arias 1962, 16.
54 Arias 1962, 16.
13

to the necessity <strong>of</strong> having potters in the industry, and that potters were most likely the
owners <strong>of</strong> the workshops rather then the painters. These two aspects could have made a
painter desire to rise to the position <strong>of</strong> a potter. The second theory for Euphronios’
change is a change in his eyesight. This would make the painting <strong>of</strong> a vase almost
impossible but the forming <strong>of</strong> a vase still within a reasonable grasp. 55 Whatever the
reason was for the change in occupation, the change itself was documented through
Euphronios’ signatures.
The signatures allow scholars to observe the freedom <strong>of</strong> the relationships between
potters and painters. Oltos’ signature can be found on the vases <strong>of</strong> four different potters
and Epiktetos signed with at least six different potters. The same observation can be
applied in reverse. Through stylistic comparison it is revealed that Kachrylion made cups
for at least ten different painters. 56
No definite reason has been uncovered to explain what prompted an artist to sign
his name. Pride in their work does not allow for the fact that many <strong>of</strong> the best works go
unsigned. If it were for advertisement purposes then an artist would have made an effort
to sign as many works as possible. One theory has been to identify the work and the
artist when the vase was sold in a foreign market. However, many <strong>Greek</strong> vases
excavated in Italy have not been signed while many excavated in Athens have. 57 The
necessity <strong>of</strong> an inscription, <strong>of</strong>ten a signature, on the Little Master cups suggests that
fashion played a great deal in the decision to sign. 58 Scholars may never know,
especially since the literary sources are silent on the subject. Whatever motives the artist
had for signing, signatures are priceless for the very reason that the literary sources are
silent. The signatures provide some names <strong>of</strong> the potters and painters involved in vase
production and without names there could have been little hope for finding further
information on the industry.
55 These are theories discussed in Kurtz 1989, 55.
56 Kurtz 1989, 55.
57 Richter 1946, 18.
58 Boardman 2001, 129.
14

CHAPTER 2
KALOS INSCRIPTIONS
While §po€esen and grapsen signatures allow scholars an insight into the lives
<strong>of</strong> ancient <strong>Greek</strong> potters and painters, kalÒw inscriptions give an insight into the lives <strong>of</strong>
the ancient Athenian aristocratic youth. KalÒw inscriptions are love or praise
inscriptions singling out a young man in society. More than two hundred different names
<strong>of</strong> individuals have been found. 59 The <strong>Greek</strong> word kalÒw corresponds to the English
word beautiful or handsome. However, in the context used on the vases there is a general
agreement among scholars that the word bears a connotation more along the lines <strong>of</strong>
“sexy”, describing the more erotic or homosexual charms <strong>of</strong> the youth. 60
KalÒw inscriptions fall mostly between the dates <strong>of</strong> 550 and 450 BCE. 61 There
are three types <strong>of</strong> kalÒw inscriptions and the forms are very simple. The majority <strong>of</strong> the
inscriptions are in the form <strong>of</strong> “[name <strong>of</strong> Athenian] kalÒw”. For example, Leãgrow
kalÒw would translate into “Leagros is beautiful”. There are examples where only the
word kalÒw appears with no name, as well as times where the praise is generic and
simply names “a boy”, ˜ pa›w kalÒw (“the boy is beautiful”). 62 For added emphasis the
words na€xi (yes) or kãrta (very) sometimes occur in the inscription. 63 The placement
<strong>of</strong> these inscriptions seems random, and <strong>of</strong>ten does not have any noticeable connection
with the scene depicted on the vase. Boardman compares these inscriptions with modern
graffiti. 64 In one main regard modern graffiti and kalÒw inscriptions differ. Someone
other than the original artist places modern graffiti on an object, but the same artist who
painted the scene on the vase also placed the inscription on the vase. However, both
modern graffiti and kalÒw inscriptions do not have any real connection with scenes
59 Folsom 1976, 6; Cook 1997, 245.
60 Clark et al. 2002, 100; Cook 1997, 245.
61 Clark et al. 2002, 100.
62 Boardman 1974, 201; Clark et al. 2002, 100.
63 Richter 1946, 15.
64 Boardman 1974, 201; Shapiro 2004, 2.
15

depicted on the same surface. Modern graffiti is then the closest example we have in our
culture to compare with these ancient inscriptions. A small subgroup <strong>of</strong> kalÒw
inscriptions could plausibly be identified with a youth on the vase due to proximity, and
to these Beazley gave the term “tag-kalÒw”. 65
Individual names occurred for a very short period <strong>of</strong> time; namely five to ten
years. This is largely due to the fact that youths were praised, not mature adults. A pa›w
is no older than fourteen or fifteen; once past this age they were no longer praised. The
exception to the rule was Leagros, whose name continued to appear well beyond the time
he became a mature adult. Circumstances exist where a kalÒw name will appear in the
records <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the Athenian state after the proper interval <strong>of</strong> time it would take
for a boy to transition from being a pa›w to a leader. 66 This is convenient for the
archaeologist since a timeline can then be put in place for that individual. However,
these identifications must still be in question unless the patronymic is given as well, or
there are particular characteristics about the name. 67 The reason for this caution is that
more than one boy can have the same name. It is less likely that two boys with the same
name would have different fathers with the same name or possess the same particular
characteristics in their name. Without the patronymic or particular characteristics,
scholars could be associating a pa›w with a recorded leader based on their similar names,
but in reality the pa›w and the leader are two different individuals.
Many scholarly works seem to question the extent <strong>of</strong> the involvement <strong>of</strong> the youth
in the inscription process. Boardman believes that the painter did not necessarily have to
be familiar with the youth, but instead could have been simply acknowledging a favorite
youth at that time. 68 Webster states that the youth was in some sense the patron <strong>of</strong> the
painter even though the youth may not have been either the purchaser or the recipient. 69
There seems to be no set formula for who used a name or when and where a name is
used, which adds to the confusion. Some painters used several kalÒw names while other
65 ARV 2 1559.
66 Cook 1997, 245.
67 Arias 1962, 334.
68 Boardman 1974, 201.
69 Webster 1972, 21.
16

painters seem to have used only one. 70 Webster’s theory is that the occurrence <strong>of</strong> the
same name on vases by different painters indicates that the different painters may have
worked in the same workshop. If this proved true we would gain an understanding <strong>of</strong> the
general structure <strong>of</strong> a workshop and we would be able to link painters to workshops
through the kalÒw names, which is more information than we currently have on ancient
workshops. An interesting byproduct <strong>of</strong> his research is his theories on the patronage <strong>of</strong>
the painters. While Webster warns that one should expect to find patrons loyal to one
workshop as well as patrons who use several, he believes that there is sufficient evidence
from the kalÒw inscriptions to indicate that steady patrons were the tendency. 71 If one
can trace patronage due to the occurrence <strong>of</strong> certain names, then this would indicate that
the patron picked the name on the vessel, and not the painter. This is certainly a
possibility, but it is also a possibility that the names were picked due to the fact that a
certain boy was more popular than all the others at the time. In this case either the
painter or the patron could have picked the name and the occurrence <strong>of</strong> a name several
times would be due to popularity and not patronage or workshops. These theories
assume that the patron and the purchaser were one and the same person. If, however, the
youth himself was the patron <strong>of</strong> the painter, but not the purchaser, then patronage would
be the deciding factor in the decision to use a name. A patron can support a painter,
through money or verbal support, without being a purchaser <strong>of</strong> their art. The painter may
have then felt indebted to the patron and praised them in their work through a kalÒw
name.
Whether praising a boy who was a patron or simply praising the popular boy <strong>of</strong>
the day, a pa›w belonged to the upper class. Generally, the activities <strong>of</strong> the boys depicted
were considered upper class activities. The great number <strong>of</strong> these depictions may suggest
that the painters had a familiarity with the upper class. 72 Some <strong>of</strong> the boys named in
kalÒw inscriptions are labeled with their names in scenes <strong>of</strong> parties and athletic events.
For almost every individual named more than a few times in kalÒw inscriptions, there is
70 Boardman 2001, 149.
71 Webster 1972, 24-25.
72 Boardman 2001, 148.
17

also one or more occurrence <strong>of</strong> the same name without kalÒw. 73
As Shapiro points out,
pa›w names appearing without the <strong>Greek</strong> word kalÒw are different from the names
appearing with it because the former are connected to the scenes, but the latter are not.
The names without kalÒw are connected with an athlete or a youth depicted, while the
inscriptions with kalÒw seem to have no connection with any person depicted and lack a
connection with the subject <strong>of</strong> the scene.
On rare occasions the female form kalÆ appears rather than kalÒw. In these
cases the women praised were most likely courtesans. 74 Literature reveals the tendencies
<strong>of</strong> the ancient <strong>Greek</strong>s to focus on the beauty <strong>of</strong> boys rather then women. In Plato, for
instance, Kritias informs Sokrates <strong>of</strong> the new ‘beauties’ (per‹ t«n kal«n). 75 The
preference <strong>of</strong> boys over women is evident in the preference <strong>of</strong> kalÒw inscriptions over
kalÆ inscriptions; surviving vases indicate a ratio <strong>of</strong> kalÒw to kalÆ inscriptions <strong>of</strong>
about 20:1. 76 Even more rare than a woman being praised was a god or hero being
praised in a kalÒw inscription.
An interesting sub-group <strong>of</strong> kalÒw inscriptions consists <strong>of</strong> those that praise a
group <strong>of</strong> vase-painters and potters known as the Pioneers. Their vases seem to reflect a
subversive kind <strong>of</strong> role-playing whereby the usually elitist term kalÒw is applied to nonelite
craftsmen. Scholars, such as Shapiro, have been able to link kalÒw names to
aristocratic youth and believe that in general these inscriptions were elitist. 77 By adding
kalÒw to their own names, the painters place themselves in the role <strong>of</strong> an aristocrat just
as much as if they had painted themselves in an aristocratic scene. 78 In so doing they
invert the social norms <strong>of</strong> class structure and make light <strong>of</strong> them. The inverting <strong>of</strong>
traditional roles is not uncommon. There are examples <strong>of</strong> women being depicted as
athletes, thus inverting traditional gender-roles. When closely inspected, the very
inscription is a contradiction <strong>of</strong> social norms. A kalÒw inscription did not simply praise
73 Shapiro 2004, 2.
74 Boardman 2001, 149.
75 Plato Charmides 154A; Richter 1946, 16.
76 Clark et al. 2002, 100.
77 Shapiro 1980; Shapiro 1982; Neer 2002, 118.
78 Neer 2002, 118.
18

an aristocrat, but a youthful aristocrat. It is unlikely, however, that the painters or potters
were young enough to fall into the age range <strong>of</strong> a pa›w. A play on the word pa›w may be
their intended irony. Another meaning <strong>of</strong> the word is ‘slave’. 79 Knowing the two
connotations that this word embodies, the painters could have been expressing the
dichotomy <strong>of</strong> their lives. They were praised for their artwork and solicited by the elites
to produce specific works and yet at the same time they were tradesmen. On the other
hand, some scholars believe that the artist’s self-praise may result from a simple business
plan. Neer writes that an artist’s name appearing in a kalÒw inscription could be spoken
by anyone who knew how to read and, as a result, the name would circulate. 80 The artist
then would have an efficient way to advertise his abilities. The possibility <strong>of</strong> an artist
trying to advertise was explored in the signature chapter; there the argument was that it
was highly unlikely that signatures were used for advertisement, since many <strong>of</strong> the best
works went unsigned. While names <strong>of</strong> artists quite <strong>of</strong>ten appear on statue bases, the main
reason we are familiar with artists from the ancient world is because their names
appeared in literature. The citizens <strong>of</strong> ancient Athens may have known who the painters
were through verbal recognition, but advertisement <strong>of</strong> one’s abilities appears to have
been culturally unacceptable. The possibility remains that in spite <strong>of</strong> cultural censure <strong>of</strong>
advertisement, some artists chose to advertise. Perhaps the artists thought that
advertisement on lesser works, or even disguising advertisement as a kalÒw inscription,
might escape the notice <strong>of</strong> the general public. In this case, Neer’s theory works, but the
more prevalent belief amoung scholars is that advertisement was not the motive for either
signatures or kalÒw inscriptions naming painters.
The most famous and widely used kalÒw name was Leagros. His name occurs
not only twice as <strong>of</strong>ten as the other names but also over a longer time span. 81 Leagros is
first mentioned around the year 520 BCE. This date puts his birth circa 535 BCE. The
inscriptions, however, continue until he was past the age <strong>of</strong> thirty. The name does not fit
the typical kalÒw inscription since the use <strong>of</strong> his name does not stop once he was grown.
Not all <strong>of</strong> the inscriptions with the Leagros name follow the typical kalÒw formula. One
79 Neer 2002, 118.
80 Neer 2002, 118.
81 Shapiro 2004, 3.
19

inscription found on a red-figure cup painted by the Eleusis Painter in circa 500-480
B.C.E. adds in a second-person verb (Figure 5). The inscription reads ‘Leagros. You are
handsome’ (L°agrow e‰ kalÒw) adding a more personal touch. The picture depicted
with this inscription shows King Busiris and his Egyptian subjects being attacked by
Herakles. One possibility was that the painter <strong>of</strong> the inscription meant to imply that
while the Egyptians are ugly, Leagros is beautiful, especially since Athenian painters
<strong>of</strong>ten caricatured the Egyptians. 82 Approximate numbers for the occurrence <strong>of</strong> Leagros
are fifteen times without the word kalÒw and at least sixty times with it. 83 The majority
<strong>of</strong> the scenes in which the name Leagros appears without the word kalÒw involve
drinking and the symposium. A portrait exists <strong>of</strong> the famed Leagros on a psykter painted
by Smikros (Figure 6). Here Leagros is shown as an object <strong>of</strong> Euphronios’ affection.
Shapiro theorizes that this may be a play on the fact that Leagros was at first praised
almost exclusively by Euphronios. 84
The large number <strong>of</strong> Leagros inscriptions leads Shapiro to a very interesting
theory. 85 He believes that the inscriptions transcended the man Leagros and became a
metaphor for a young aristocratic playboy. The vast number <strong>of</strong> sympotic scenes with
which the name is connected helps to support this theory. In a red-figure cup by the
Thalia Painter, the name Leagros shows up in a toast written over the head <strong>of</strong> a youth
engaged in the act <strong>of</strong> masturbation (Figure 7). Another example cited by Shapiro is a
red-figure cup by the Eleusis Painter (possibly Onesimos) in London where a man is
engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman and the name Leagros hugs his body starting
at the feet and continuing to the head (Figure 8). As if continuing with the inscribed
name, the word kalÒw issues from the man’s mouth. The types <strong>of</strong> men depicted in
relation to the name Leagros tend toward heavy drinking and sexual promiscuity. Due to
these reasons, Shapiro believes that the name Leagros may have been associated with
certain behavior and used metaphorically much like the name Casanova is used in our
culture today. Traditionally, kalÒw inscriptions have no connection with the scenes they
82 Shapiro 2004, 8.
83 Shapiro 2004, 3.
84 Shapiro 2004, 7.
85 Shapiro 2004, 7-9.
20

accompany. The Leagros inscriptions, however, already break tradition by appearing
long after Leagros would have been considered a pa›w, and therefore cannot be studied
as a traditional kalÒw inscription. Shapiro takes into account this break in tradition and
by connecting the inscriptions with the scenes, produces a plausible theory.
Little is known <strong>of</strong> the real life <strong>of</strong> Leagros, but there is more known about him than
about most <strong>of</strong> the other individuals distinguished as kalÒw. He was the son <strong>of</strong> Glaukon
and may have been one <strong>of</strong> the generals <strong>of</strong> Athens. Leagros dedicated a statue to the
twelve gods in the agora around 480 BCE, just before the invasion <strong>of</strong> the Persians. 86
Leagros was at one point a candidate for ostracism, as evidenced by the fact that eightysix
sherds with his name incised on the surface were found during an excavation in the
Kerameikos. 87 This indicates that Leagros was a man <strong>of</strong> influence and power. After
thwarting a revolt by Thasos, the Athenians attempted to set up a colony called Ennea
Hodoi (later renamed Amphipolis) on the Thracian mainland. The local Thracian tribe,
however, attacked and decimated the Athenian forces, which were then commanded by
Sophanes and Leagros. 88 We know from records that Sophanes was killed in the battle,
but the records are silent on the fate <strong>of</strong> Leagros. There is a good chance that he was
killed as well. A son remained whose name was Glaukon. This Glaukon also appears in
kalÒw inscriptions. Glaukon was born in circa 490 BCE and followed in his father’s
footsteps by becoming a general in circa 441/440 BCE. 89 This places the Glaukon kalÒw
inscriptions in the date range <strong>of</strong> 475 to 465 BCE.
Certain names that appear both on the vases and in the historical record have been
used by some scholars to refine the chronology <strong>of</strong> Athenian painted pottery. For
example, dates can be assigned to the vases with the names Leagros and Glaukon based
on the appearance <strong>of</strong> their names in the historical record. The proper number <strong>of</strong> years is
subtracted from the dates <strong>of</strong> the historical record to obtain the dates for when each would
be considered a pa›w. The same is true with Miltiades, victor at Marathon in 490 BCE,
86 Shapiro2004, 6.
87 Shapiro 2004, 6.
88 Shapiro 2004, 6.
89 Boardman 1975, 213.
21

whose name may appear on a vase much earlier than that event, namely 520-510 BCE. 90
The name Megakles appears on a bell-krater attributed to the Orestes Painter as well as a
number <strong>of</strong> other vases (Figure 9). Megakles is then mentioned as a victor at the Olympic
games in 436 BCE. 91
However, for absolute chronology it is unwise to rely on the names
found on various vases. Unless the patronymic is named along with the youth’s name, it
is uncertain that the individual mentioned on the vase is the same individual mentioned in
the records. It is possible that the Miltiades mentioned on the vase was the same who
appeared in the Battle <strong>of</strong> Marathon in 490 BCE. The vase with the name inscribed,
however, is dated to the last years <strong>of</strong> the sixth century BCE when the Miltiades known
from the record was in the Thracian Chersonese. 92 Thus certainty in the matter is
impossible. Without the father’s name a scholar can never really be certain <strong>of</strong> the
identity <strong>of</strong> the kalÒw name.
Although not completely useful for absolute chronology, many scholars agree
that the inscriptions are useful for relative chronology. Since generally a name appeared
for only a limited time span, different painters and vases using the same name are likely
to be contemporary. 93
The name would secure the date rather than establish it. KalÒw
names, therefore, do help a little with chronology.
The kalÒw inscriptions can be found on almost every vase type. The most rare
types to carry the inscriptions are the Panathenaic amphorae and the white-ground
lekythoi. The main reason for this is that the inscription does not fit the context for which
these vases were made. The artistic program for a Panathenaic amphora was rooted deep
in tradition, and although the art and times <strong>of</strong> Greece evolved, the Panathenaic amphora
did not. Rarely was something added or removed. On one prize amphora the name
Euphiletos was added in a kalÒw inscription (Figure 10). The inscription can be found
written around Athena’s shield. 94
The likelihood <strong>of</strong> the name belonging to the winner <strong>of</strong>
the event this amphora was given for is slim. The prize vases were made beforehand,
which means that the painter would have had to know the winner <strong>of</strong> the event before the
90 Richter 1946, 16.
91 Mannack 2001, 108.
92 Herford 1919, 77.
93 Boardman 1974, 201.
94 Webster 1972, 63.
22

event took place. Webster suggests that Euphiletos had a special connection with that
particular festival, possibly in an administrative role. 95 This would suggest that
Euphiletos was not in the age-range <strong>of</strong> a pa›w and the painter simply ignored the social
norms when naming him kalÒw. The other possibility is that this inscription is the one
addition that makes this particular “Panathenaic amphora” an imitation. While all the
other components <strong>of</strong> the traditional Panathenaic amphorae are present, this added
inscription goes completely against tradition. Perhaps the vase was made after the
Panathenaic games and given as a present in commemoration <strong>of</strong> a win at the games. Or
perhaps the vase painter purposely added this inscription, recognizing that kalÒw
inscriptions on other vases have no real connection with the artistic program <strong>of</strong> the vase
and felt that this vase should be no different. The kalÒw inscription would then work
like the graffiti discussed earlier.
A different amphora has the appearance <strong>of</strong> a Panathenaic amphora but on closer
inspection reveals itself as an impostor. On this amphora there is a kalÒw inscription
with the name Nikon, which is inscribed under the horses’ legs in a picture <strong>of</strong> a racing
chariot (Figure 11). 96
The traditional inscription on the Panathenaic amphorae stating
‘from the games at Athens’ is missing, revealing that this particular amphora was not
awarded at the games. Other than the missing inscription the amphora is identical with
all other prize amphorae. This amphora may have also been made after the race in
commemoration and Nikon may have been the true winner <strong>of</strong> the event. Since these
specific amphorae are rooted deep in tradition, the appearance or absence <strong>of</strong> an
inscription automatically alerts the scholar that the vase is most likely an imitation.
Less than a handful <strong>of</strong> kalÒw inscriptions exist on white-ground lekythoi. This
presumably reflects the notion that these inscriptions were not appropriate for the
funerary context <strong>of</strong> these vases. 97 The painter’s consideration <strong>of</strong> the context <strong>of</strong> these
specific vases indicates that the painters were not as haphazard in their placement <strong>of</strong> the
kalÒw inscriptions as they might appear to be from other categories <strong>of</strong> vessels. The
painter’s seemingly random placement <strong>of</strong> kalÒw inscriptions within the scenes <strong>of</strong> other
95 Webster 1972, 63.
96 Webster 1972, 63.
97 Commented on in Arias 1962, 360.
23

vessels may have been misleading as a whole. While they may have chosen to ignore the
artistic program <strong>of</strong> a vase, it seems that the painters did not ignore the context <strong>of</strong> a vase.
The purpose kalÒw inscriptions serve remains shrouded in mystery. One theory
states that they indicate ownership. 98 Webster attempts to connect different vases, which
have the same kalÒw name, thematically. He does this under the assumption that the
name in the inscription is actually the person who owned or ordered the vase, and the
themes on the vases reflect that individual’s interests. 99 His main example is Onetorides
who, like Leagros, was praised as kalÒw when he was a youth and seems to have been
praised past the normal time frame. Webster believes that in the case with Onetorides,
kalÒw takes on a connotation <strong>of</strong> ‘made to order by Onetorides’ rather than ‘Onetorides is
beautiful’. One <strong>of</strong> the vases, a kylix-krater with his name inscribed on it, was found on
the north side <strong>of</strong> the Acropolis and is believed by the excavators to be a dedication, not a
symposium vase. 100 The majority <strong>of</strong> the vases featuring Onetorides’ name were made by
Exekias and possibly were special orders. From the themes found on the vases
Onetorides supposedly owned, Webster pr<strong>of</strong>iles a man who was probably one <strong>of</strong> the
Athenian knights, who was interested in the heroes Herakles and Achilles, and who
encouraged Exekias in his artwork. Webster deduces that Onetorides was a knight from
the prevalence <strong>of</strong> horses painted in the scenes and that he liked Herakles and Achilles
simply from the number <strong>of</strong> times those heroes appear with his name. This conclusion is,
<strong>of</strong> course, beyond pro<strong>of</strong> since there is nothing to verify that Onetorides was in fact the
owner <strong>of</strong> the vases. There is in general no clear evidence indicating who picked the name
for a kalÒw inscriptions. Moreover, many vases were sold in the public market and even
ended up in foreign countries where the names would have no significance. 101 This is not
to say that there may never have been cases where a kalÒw name was a sign <strong>of</strong>
ownership. The main problem with Webster’s theory, and example, is that it seems to try
to make the evidence fit into a theory instead <strong>of</strong> letting the evidence speak for itself.
There is not enough evidence to support this claim.
98 Webster 1972, 64-66.
99 Webster 1972, 65-67.
100 Webster 1972, 65.
101 Cook1997, 246.
24

The general character <strong>of</strong> the kalÒw inscriptions is easy enough to identify. The
inscriptions acknowledged some favorite youth <strong>of</strong> the day and praised him for their
beauty. Nonetheless many questions still remain unanswered. There is the question <strong>of</strong>
why the names <strong>of</strong> most men who truly gained significant power were not praised as
kalÒw. When a search is made for Kimon or Perikles, none can be found. 102 A simple
answer may be that these illustrious men were not beautiful or favorites when they were
young. Still another question is why there was such a quick rise and decline <strong>of</strong> the
kalÒw inscriptions. They appear at a time when extensive writing had already been
taking place in black-figure, and disappear right before what may be considered the
height <strong>of</strong> literacy. 103 There are also questions surrounding patronage and why some
painters were loyal to only one name while other painters pr<strong>of</strong>essed an interest in several.
Boardman makes an interesting point when he says that the inscriptions cannot be
dismissed as flippantly amorous since they appear on vases that have a more serious
content, such as vases painted by Exekias with scenes <strong>of</strong> battle, as opposed to scenes <strong>of</strong>
dance, athletics, and symposium. As was noted above, however, these inscriptions are
similar to graffiti in so far as they do not have a connection to the artistic program <strong>of</strong> the
scene in which they appear. If, therefore, the kalÒw inscriptions do not need to relate to
the scene, it should not seem odd that they appear in “serious” scenes as well as jovial
scenes.
Still, with all the mystery and unanswered questions surrounding kalÒw
inscriptions, they <strong>of</strong>fer great insight and information on the culture <strong>of</strong> ancient Athens.
Their form is simple, praising the young aristocrats <strong>of</strong> the day with one or two words, and
their consistency lies in the random placement in and apparent isolation from the artistic
program. These inscriptions allow us to explore relationship dynamics between the
craftsmen and the upper class. They raise questions on patronage and the ancient
workshops. A glimpse is given into the personalities <strong>of</strong> the painters as they role-play
through their inscriptions. Perhaps the greatest information gleaned is to learn that the
painters did consider the context <strong>of</strong> the vase when painting the inscriptions, as evidenced
102 Shapiro 2004, 1.
103 Shapiro 2004, 1.
25

y the Panathenaic amphorae and the lekythoi. KalÒw inscriptions are truly a treasure
for the scholar <strong>of</strong> ancient Athens.
26

CHAPTER 3
BUBBLE INSCRIPTION
Perhaps the most interesting and certainly the most rare inscriptions are bubble
inscriptions: inscriptions issuing from the mouth <strong>of</strong> a painted character on a vase in order
to indicate speech. The majority <strong>of</strong> the time one character speaks a line, sometimes just a
word or two. On the rare occasion, a conversation occurs between characters, an
example <strong>of</strong> which is discussed below. The earliest bubble inscription appears on an
amphora by Exekias in a scene depicting Achilles and Ajax playing a game, dated to ca.
550-530 BCE. The latest known bubble inscription appears on a black-figure oinochoe
by The Athena Painter depicting Odysseus, and is dated to circa 450 BCE. Between the
appearance <strong>of</strong> the earliest and latest examples there was a rapid rise in popularity <strong>of</strong>
bubble inscriptions, and then a steady decline. 104 Even during the height <strong>of</strong> its popularity
the bubble inscriptions were a rare occurrence. In fact bubble inscriptions occur on less
than one figured scene in a thousand. 105
The sharp rise and decline in the popularity <strong>of</strong> bubble inscriptions is rarely
mentioned without accompanying questions and theories. Snodgrass mentions two
possible reasons for this phenomenon. He notes that the rise and decline <strong>of</strong> the bubble
inscriptions parallels the rise and decline <strong>of</strong> the Athenian black figure technique. 106
There is a slight difference in technique when painting an inscription in black figure and
painting an inscription in red figure. The difference does not seem so great, however, as
to cause a significant change in the production <strong>of</strong> such inscriptions. Simply a different
color in paint was needed to make the inscription stand out. The second theory seems
more plausible. Snodgrass believes that a cultural reason rather than a technical reason is
the cause <strong>of</strong> such a rise and decline. 107 The Pioneers included bubble inscriptions in their
scenes more than any other group. This may be the reason why the height <strong>of</strong> activity for
104 Snodgrass 2000, 22.
105 Snodgrass 2000, 25.
106 Snodgrass 2000, 31.
107 Snodgrass 2000, 32.
27

the Pioneers corresponds with the height <strong>of</strong> bubble inscriptions, circa 530-480 BCE. The
resulting conclusion from this is that the bubble inscriptions were mostly an artistic
expression by a specific group <strong>of</strong> artists.
Most bubble inscriptions appear on vases destined for the symposium. Cups and
various other drinking vessels form the largest group, followed by kraters and other winemixing
bowls, then vases involved in the dispensing and cooling <strong>of</strong> wine. 108 Sympotic
vessels account for just under two thirds <strong>of</strong> the total vessels with bubble inscriptions. The
reasons why the artists chose these types <strong>of</strong> vases for bubble inscriptions more so than
any other types are not clear. The scenes painted on the vases <strong>of</strong>ten reflect the events
occurring at the symposium. And therefore the inscriptions <strong>of</strong>ten imitate real lines heard
at the symposium. For instance, Oltos depicted two hetaerae on one <strong>of</strong> his red figured
cups (Figure 13). From one <strong>of</strong> the hetaerae an inscription emerges saying ‘p›ne ka‹sÊ’
(‘you drink too’). It is reasonable to assume that the choice <strong>of</strong> the scene and the
inscription was affected by the purpose <strong>of</strong> the vessel.
Snodgrass introduces an interesting theory based on the fact that the most bubble
inscriptions relate to the symposium and imitate real situations and speech. 109 <strong>Ancient</strong>
Greece was an oral society and, at the time <strong>of</strong> the inscriptions, was possibly just
becoming a literate society. Many scholars comment on the preference <strong>of</strong> literate ancient
<strong>Greek</strong>s to read aloud. This was most likely due to two types <strong>of</strong> writing found in ancient
Greece called scriptio continua and boustrophedon. Words written in scriptio continua
run together. With boustrophedon, every line is written in the opposite direction than the
preceding line. Reading the letters aloud gave the ear a chance to recognize the words.
Part <strong>of</strong> the desire to read the words aloud may have also arisen from the fact that ancient
Greece was still an oral society and tradition compelled a vocal reading. Hence came
Snodgrass’ theory that a drinker would read the bubble inscription on his cup aloud,
which would then elicit a response from his neighbor and cause an “impromptu and
involuntary exposition <strong>of</strong> the scenes to which they [the inscriptions] belonged.” 110 This
would then lead our symposium participant, as Snodgrass conjectures, to identify and talk
108 Snodgrass 2000, 26.
109 Snodgrass 2000, 26-28.
110 Snodgrass 2000, 27.
28

about the heroes depicted, describe and identify the boys and hetaerae depicted, and
perhaps even read aloud the potter’s and painter’s signature. Whatever the inscriptions
may have incited, the complex reality <strong>of</strong> art imitating life must not be lost on the scholar.
The depictions were <strong>of</strong> the activities being performed before the participant’s eyes. The
inscriptions only reiterated the events. If the drinker did speak the inscriptions aloud,
then he would only be expressing what was already being said at the symposium.
Not all bubble inscriptions match real events. A small percentage, five <strong>of</strong> twentytwo,
belong to mythical scenes. The earliest <strong>of</strong> these mythical scenes is the one
mentioned above depicting Achilles and Ajax playing a board game (Figure 14). This
scene appears on an amphora dating between 550 and 530 BCE in the black figure style
and was painted by Exekias. Achilles speaks the word ‘tessara’ (‘four’), while Ajax
speaks the word ‘tr€a’ (‘three’). They are still armed and ready to fight, possibly
alluding to their participation in the Trojan War or indicating a break between battles.
The position <strong>of</strong> the inscriptions is indicative <strong>of</strong> spoken words, for they emit from the
mouths <strong>of</strong> the figures. Most scholars believe that Achilles and Ajax are each calling out
their own score for the game. However, another possibility is that they are arguing over
the score. Achilles would be saying that the score is four, but Ajax would be arguing that
the score is in fact three. These bubble inscriptions would then be considered a
conversation, which is a rare occurrence on vases. In fact there is only one other
conversation known to appear on a vase, and this will be discussed below. If the bubble
inscriptions on this Exekias vase are indeed a conversation, then this would be the earliest
conversation found to date.
On a red figure cup by Euthymides circa 530-500 BCE, Herakles enters Olympus
exclaiming ‘(Z)eÊ file’ (‘dear Zeus’ or ‘hail Zeus’) (Figure 15). Herakles is greeting
Zeus, his father. The hero Odysseus figures in the next mythical scene, which appears on
an oinochoe by the Athena Painter dating between 500 and 450 BCE (Figure 16).
Odysseus faces the Sirens while tied to a mast. He yells to his companions ‘lus(o)n’
(‘let me go’). In the Odyssey, Odysseus’ companions were instructed to tie him to the
mast <strong>of</strong> the ship and no matter how desperate his cries were, they were not to untie him.
Odysseus then had his crew put wax in their ears to keep them from hearing the Sirens’
29

songs. 111 The image on this vase is the artist’s depiction <strong>of</strong> the story he had heard. The
inscription adds dimension and brings the story to life.
The next mythological scene is not always identified as a bubble inscription.
Theseus and a maiden are painted on a red figure cup executed by Oltos in circa 530-500
BCE (Figure 17). According to Immerwahr, the roundel inside the cup shows a maiden
rescued by Theseus from a labyrinth. 112 The words ‘xa›re sÊ’ (‘rejoice you’) appear
between Theseus and the maiden. According to Immerwahr, the words are a comment by
the painter. The painter was either telling Theseus to rejoice at his accomplishment or
simply greeting the hero. It should be noted, however, that the position <strong>of</strong> the words in
close proximity to the mouth <strong>of</strong> Theseus is consistent with bubble inscriptions; this
suggests, therefore, that Theseus is in fact telling the maiden to rejoice at their success in
exiting the labyrinth.
The one or two words that bubble inscriptions contribute do not help to explain
the scenes on the vases. Take, for example, the Odysseus vase mentioned above. The
bubble inscription ‘untie me’ would work just as well for a war captive as it would for the
story <strong>of</strong> Odysseus. The true meaning <strong>of</strong> the scene is found in the scene itself. All the
components work together in the picture to suggest the intended moment. A viewer
would see a ship on the seas, with a man tied to the mast. His surrounding crew and the
Sirens would complete the picture and call to mind Odysseus. Therefore, the picture is
made up <strong>of</strong> many motifs that add up as clues to the meaning <strong>of</strong> the whole. The
contribution the bubble inscription makes to the scene is to show the viewer the specific
moment in the event. It also adds life to the picture, which adds another dimension. In
the case <strong>of</strong> the symposium depictions, the scene and the inscription seem equal in
importance, but the inscription is actually more <strong>of</strong> an embellishment to the scene. The
red figure cup by Oltos mentioned above shows one hetaera playing an instrument while
another holds out a cup. The inscription, translated as ‘you drink too,’ does not explain
the scene and does not alone add significance to the scene. The viewer can tell without
the inscription what the scene depicts and can safely assume that it is a symposium scene.
111 Homer The Odyssey, 12.161-185.
112 Immerwahr 1990, 61.
30

Bubble inscriptions are rare, and most express a single thought through simple
grammar. However, conversations between characters on vases do exist. The closest
thing to a conversation depicted in the vases already mentioned is the Achilles and Ajax
vase. Both <strong>of</strong> the characters speak, but the scene is not typically considered a
conversation because it is believed that the characters are addressing the game and not
each other. However, it is possible that Ajax and Achilles could be arguing over the
score, which would then classify their comments as a conversation. This idea was
explored above in the discussion focused on that vase. The conversation would be very
simple, involving one-word comments.
There is one known instance <strong>of</strong> a conversation involving more than one word
comments. It appears on a red figure pelike by the Pioneer Group, possibly the work <strong>of</strong>
Euphronios, dating to circa 530-500 BCE (Figure 18). The scene depicts the sighting <strong>of</strong>
the first swallow. The youth comments, ‘fidoÁ xelidÒn’ (‘look, a swallow’). A man then
replies, ‘nØ tÚn ‘Hrakl°a’ (‘by Herakles, you are right’). Another boy acknowledges
the swallow by saying, ‘aÍth€’ (‘there it is’). In the field the words ‘ar ≥dh’ (‘spring
is here’) appear. 113 The nature <strong>of</strong> the conversation flows like real speech when each
comment is read one after the other. The sighting <strong>of</strong> the first swallow was an important
event in ancient Greece. Not only did it signify that spring had arrived, but it also helped
the farmer recognize the appropriate time for pruning vines. 114 The purpose <strong>of</strong> this type
<strong>of</strong> vase does not seem to have a connection to the discourse between the characters (a
pelike was used for the storage <strong>of</strong> oil, probably perfumed rather than culinary). 115 Most
likely, the owner was the link between the purpose <strong>of</strong> the vase and the subject <strong>of</strong> the
scene. If the vase was commissioned, then the importance <strong>of</strong> this event to the owner’s
life could be why he picked the scene. The owner could also have dictated to the painter
what the scene should depict and what the characters should say. If he desired to show a
confirmation <strong>of</strong> the sighting as well as the initial sighting, then a conversation would
naturally follow.
113 Richter 1958, 15.
114 Hannah 2001, 142.
115 Boardman 1974, 186.
31

A second pelike gives an interesting twist on bubble inscriptions. It dates to same
period as the previous one, 530-500 BCE and belongs to the Leagros Group. Depicted in
black figure is an oil merchant selling his oil to a customer (Figure 19). As he dispenses
the oil, he says ‘Œ ZeË pãter a‡ye ploÊsiow gen [o€µan]’ (‘Father Zeus, would that I
might get rich’). 116 It is a very interesting inscription, because, instead <strong>of</strong> emitting from
the character’s mouth, the inscription runs from his midsection to the buyer’s midsection.
I have established that a bubble inscription typically emits from the characters mouth in
imitation <strong>of</strong> spoken words. It is highly unlikely that a merchant would ask Zeus to make
him rich in front <strong>of</strong> the buyer, but it is possible that the merchant would say a prayer for
such a thing to himself while making the sale. Therefore, I believe that the words
emitting from the midsection <strong>of</strong> the merchant may be indicative <strong>of</strong> the words coming
from inside. 117
The rarity <strong>of</strong> bubble inscriptions only adds to their interest. They give charm and
life to a scene, which may have contributed to their quick rise in popularity. Their steady
decline may have been due to the fact that they did not contribute meaning to the scenes.
The conscious effort <strong>of</strong> the painter to position the inscription near the mouth <strong>of</strong> the
character shows an eagerness to stay faithful to real life and eliminate ambiguity as much
as possible. This consciousness is even evident in the painting <strong>of</strong> the oil merchant, where
an inner thought was distinguished from a spoken thought by the position <strong>of</strong> the
inscription. The bubble inscriptions appeared on symposium vases more than any other
type <strong>of</strong> vase. There the inscriptions and scenes would mirror activities at the symposium.
Though they possessed charm and attempted to reflection real life, in the early fifth
century, bubble inscriptions disappeared.
116 Boardman 1974, 201; Richter 1946, 15.
117 Interestingly, there was a belief in ancient Greece that the seat <strong>of</strong> intellect was in the
heart and not in the brain. Therefore, it would not have been unusual that a inner thought
would be painted as coming from the mid-section. Aristotle and the Stoics were
supporters <strong>of</strong> this theory (Tieleman 2002, 260).
32

CHAPTER 4
CAPTIONS, LABELS, TOASTS, AND COMMENTS
The four categories discussed in this chapter are captions, labels, toasts, and
comments. Captions, toasts, and comments are rare, but labels are fairly prevalent. The
function <strong>of</strong> these inscriptions are simple and therefore do not raise many theories. Most
<strong>of</strong> the theories come from speculation as to what the painter really meant to say in the
inscription. Despite the lack <strong>of</strong> controversy, their contribution is just as great and at
times they are just as enigmatic as the previous categories.
Captions are inscriptions that help to identify the subject <strong>of</strong> a scene, the action in a
scene, or the function <strong>of</strong> a vase. A black-figure dinos executed by Sophilos in circa 580
B.C.E., with the caption ‘Games <strong>of</strong> Patroklos’ written by the scene, is an example <strong>of</strong> a
caption used to identify the subject <strong>of</strong> a scene (Figure 20). 118 This particular vase is the
oldest depiction <strong>of</strong> funerary games in which we can identify the story behind the funeral
games. 119 This would not have been possible without the inscription. Sophilos depicts a
scene <strong>of</strong> a chariot race being watched by spectators sitting in stands. The spectators
sitting on the left watch the horse race and the spectators sitting on the right focus either
on another part <strong>of</strong> the race or on another event. Sophilos even had a spectator turn from
watching the event before him to watch the horse race. On account <strong>of</strong> the stands, an
ancient viewer could easily believe this depiction to be a contest at one <strong>of</strong> the
contemporary games or festivals. In fact, the stands would have ruled out the funeral
games <strong>of</strong> Patroklos since they are an architectural structure and do not fit with the
impromptu games held in Troy. 120 This fact illustrates an important characteristic <strong>of</strong>
captions, which is that when a caption is missing, the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the scene is left to
the viewer and the viewer may miss the intended message <strong>of</strong> the artist. In this dinos,
Sophilos made sure that the viewer knew what he wished to depict by titling his scene.
Unfortunately, captions are rarely found.
118 Boardman 1974, 201.
119 Roller 1981, 108.
120 Roller 1981, 109.
33

The caption group not only identifies subjects <strong>of</strong> scenes but also provides
descriptions <strong>of</strong> the action occurring in the scenes. On a psykter by Oltos in New York,
athletes train in the palaestra (Figure 21). 121 One athlete is shown swinging his jumping
weights accompanied by the commentary ‘èloʵenow e‰si’ (‘he is going to jump’).
Unlike the caption on the dinos, the caption here was probably unnecessary. The
jumping weights would have signaled to the viewer the intended action. Perhaps the
artist wanted the viewer to know the precise moment he was painting; the moment right
before the athlete jumped. In comparing the dinos and the psykter, the reality becomes
clear that captions were placed on the vase at the whim <strong>of</strong> the painter. One caption is
necessary to explain the scene and the other is not. The decision to include a caption was
up to the painter, whether the caption was necessary or not, and the lack <strong>of</strong> captions for
scenes that need explanation highlight this fact.
One class <strong>of</strong> captions, which describe the function <strong>of</strong> the vase, occurs on the
Panathenaic amphorae. The caption reads ‘t«n ÉAyÆnhyen êylvn’ (‘a prize from
Athens’) (Figure 22). 122 This caption can be called a formula since the form <strong>of</strong> the letters
does not change with time. In the fourth century BCE some <strong>of</strong> the Panathenaic amphorae
were inscribed with the name <strong>of</strong> the archon. The archon’s name was written in the
modern style <strong>of</strong> writing as opposed to the antiquated style <strong>of</strong> the caption. 123 Tradition
was <strong>of</strong> the utmost importance in the making <strong>of</strong> the Panathenaic amphorae. This is clearly
shown by the caption, which used traditional lettering regardless <strong>of</strong> the time period or
developing forms <strong>of</strong> letters. We saw in the previous chapter on kalÒw inscriptions that a
Panathenaic amphora bore a kalÒw inscription praising the youth Nikon. However, this
was not an <strong>of</strong>ficial Panathenaic amphora because it was missing the traditional caption
found on all the amphorae awarded as prizes. If the Panathenaic amphorae had not
required a strict tradition in regard to inscriptions, then the Nikon vase would have
possibly passed for a true Panathenaic amphora. The caption, or rather the absence <strong>of</strong> the
caption, proved imperative for establishing the validity <strong>of</strong> the amphora.
121 Richter 1958, 49; Richter 1946, 15.
122 Cook 1997, 243.
123 Cook 1997, 243; Clark et al. 2002, 127.
34

Labels described scenes as well, but in a more specific sense than the captions; by
labeling individuals and objects involved in the scene rather than what the scene
portrayed in general. The first appearance <strong>of</strong> a label dates to the second quarter <strong>of</strong> the
seventh century BCE. 124 The use <strong>of</strong> labels varied but they generally appear in the archaic
and early classical periods <strong>of</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> history. The majority <strong>of</strong> labels belong to single
figures or objects. There are, however, examples <strong>of</strong> groups <strong>of</strong> figures that are labeled. 125
This occurs when the groups <strong>of</strong> figures are considered as one entity and therefore are
labeled as one. For example, the seven against Thebes could be labeled individually by a
name appearing near each figure, or together as one entity under the label Seven Against
Thebes. Either way the labels would be describing that specific group. Other than the
presence <strong>of</strong> mind in the painter to place the label next to the figure he wished to imply,
there was no regard to the position, angle or direction <strong>of</strong> the inscription. The label
remained at the mercy <strong>of</strong> the space around the figure.
When mythological scenes became popular, it is possible that a need arose for
labels to identify the main players involved in the scene. 126 The majority <strong>of</strong> figures
labeled were gods or heroes, each <strong>of</strong> whom had a complex iconography and could <strong>of</strong>ten
be recognized from one <strong>of</strong> their attributes. The iconography then rendered the labels
useless. Nonetheless, many characters whose identities are clear appear with a label
while other characters that seem more ambiguous to the scholar are lacking a label. The
painter may have wanted to label only the important characters and therefore only labeled
the most obvious characters because they were integral to the story being told. The
unimportant characters then received no label. This would be unproblematic to the
ancient <strong>Greek</strong> who might readily recognize the unimportant character, but to the modern
scholar <strong>of</strong> ancient Greece the unimportant characters are unidentifiable. The painter may
have also felt a sense <strong>of</strong> duty to label the more important characters in an attempt to show
respect by drawing attention to that character from the others. Rarely does a label help
scholars to identify a new character. 127 As a whole, the use <strong>of</strong> labeling is considerably
inconsistent, and therefore unreliable as evidence. We find that, like the kalÒw
124 Cook 1997, 242.
125 Cook 1997, 242.
126 Cook 1997, 243.
127 Cook 1997, 243.
35

inscriptions with chronology, the labels can only be used as supporting evidence for
identifying characters.
The best example <strong>of</strong> labeling on a vase is the François Vase, which was made by
Ergotimos and painted by Kleitias in circa 570 BCE (Figure 23). This vase boasts one
hundred twenty-nine inscriptions. It has five figured bands; the upper four are mythical
and labeled and the lowest is an animal frieze. On the handles there are two scenes and
the lower <strong>of</strong> the two are inscribed. The lower handle scene inscriptions identify Ajax
carrying the body <strong>of</strong> Achilles. 128 Immerwahr believes that the inscriptions are there not
only to clarify the scenes but to also act as an independent narrative. The labels give the
impression that the story is being told in words, and therefore the story can be heard as
well as seen. The excessive amount <strong>of</strong> inscriptions on the vase seems to take clarity and
narrative to a heightened level. Nothing escapes the notice <strong>of</strong> the painter and everything
on the vase seems to have an inscription. Even objects such as the hydria are labeled.
The vase attracts attention today on account <strong>of</strong> its free use <strong>of</strong> inscriptions. While other
vases may have used inscriptions to the same extent, this is the only one found to date.
Though excessive, the inscriptions are by no means perfect. There are errors in the
words, which could simply be due to misspelling. However, the errors suggest to
Immerwahr that a model was available, whether text or another vase, and the scenes were
copied from this model onto the vase. 129 This may be possible, but variations in spelling
occur throughout all vase inscriptions, so it is difficult to prove Immerwahr’s theory
without first finding the model. Without the model to compare and contrast the spelling
<strong>of</strong> the words to the labels on the vase, there is no concrete way to establish that the
misspellings are due to copying. Even if a model were available to the painters,
misspellings could occur if the painters saw the model but copied it from memory. Since
the society as a whole was a largely oral society and texts were <strong>of</strong>ten read aloud, some
artists could have spelled words by the way they sound. This would create discrepancies
in spelling constantly.
With toasts, the painter either addresses the viewer or specifically names an
individual he wishes to toast. A hetaera named Smikra gives a famous toast to the
128 Immerwahr 1990, 24.
129 Immerwahr 1990, 25.
36

popular Leagros on a psykter painted by Euphonios (Figure 24). She states ‘t‹n tãnde
latãssv, L°agre’ (“this one’s for you, Leagros”). 130
On a hydria by Phintias a
hetaera playing kottabas toasts the painter Euthymides; ‘so‹ thnd€, EÈyuµ€dh’ (“this
one’s for you, Euthymides”) (Figure 25). 131 Then there are the generic toasts such as
prosagoreÊv (“I greet you”), which occur on a series <strong>of</strong> alabastra and vases that were
executed in a style similar to the Pasiades Painter and the Euergides Painter (Figure
26). 132 Most toasts occur on lip cups where the reserved space on the exterior <strong>of</strong> the rim
allowed for the use <strong>of</strong> an inscription. 133
In fact, the tradition to use that space on lip cups
for an inscription may have been the motivating factor for the painter to inscribe a toast.
The toast would then be similar to the signatures discussed above in that they fulfilled a
need to occupy space.
Comments by the painter are found on few vases. At times these comments are
directed towards the figures on the vase. In one scene showing Theseus wrestling with a
man, the painter, Euthymides, adds the phrase “well done” (‘eÔge, na€ki’), as a
complement to Theseus’ skills at wrestling (Figure 27). 134
On the red figure cup by Oltos
mentioned in the previous chapter, Immerwahr believes the painter is addressing Theseus
as he emerges from the labyrinth (Figure 17). The painter’s comments could also be
aimed at the viewer or even at another painter. For example, an amphora painted by
Euthymides carries the inscription ‘…w oÈd°pote EÈfrÒniow’ (“as never Euphronios”)
(Figure 28). 135
Scholars have presented various interpretations <strong>of</strong> this phrase. Beazley
mentions an old interpretation that this was an envious cry from Euthymides showing his
jealousy <strong>of</strong> his rival Euphronious. 136
Beazley, however, believes that the comment came
as a result <strong>of</strong> a friendly rivalry between the two artists. Boardman mentions a recent
theory that the competition between the artists was about dancing or reveling. 137
This has
been theorized because the comment appears in a scene depicting dancing and reveling.
130 Shapiro 2004, 8.
131 Kurtz 1989, 47.
132 Richter 1946, 15.
133 Cook 1997, 245.
134 Immerwahr 1990. 73.
135 Kurtz 1989, 47.
136 Kurtz 1989, 47.
137 Boardman 2001, 147.
37

We have seen in previous chapters that the inscriptions’ meanings do not necessarily
have to connect with the scene in which they are found. This is true <strong>of</strong> the kalÒw
inscriptions that have no apparent connection. Although consideration has been given to
the theory that the competition between Euthymides and Euphonious was about dancing
or reveling, scholars have tended to come back to the idea that the competition was about
painting skills, alluding to the fact that the figures Euthymides paints on this particular
amphora show an excellent understanding in foreshortening. 138
Euphronious himself aims a comment at another painter in an inscription. The
comment can be found on an amphora dating to ca. 490 B.C.E (Figure 29). On the vase,
Herakles is shown with his club raised and the Amazon Barkida aims at him with her
bow. Herakles stands on a base that bears an inscription, ‘doke› Sµikr“ e‰nai’ (“It
seems to Smikros to be”). Beazley concludes that there is a piece <strong>of</strong> the inscription
missing on side B, and he therefore translates the inscription “It seems to Smikros [that
Herakles is beautiful]”. 139 Ohly-Dumm, suggests that the correct interpretation is
“[Herakles] seems to be [like this] to Smikros”. 140 According to Schmidt, the translation
means, “It seems to Smikros that he is [Herakles]”, whereas Simon, understanding
smikros to be an adjective and not a proper name, translates the inscription as “[Herakles]
seems to be small [to the Amazon]”. I consider the best to be Neer’s interpretation
simply because it does not try to add or take away from the original inscription. From the
literal translation, “It seems to Smikros to be,” Neer theorizes that “it” refers to Herakles
and that the verb “to be” should take on the connotation <strong>of</strong> “to exist.” The inscription
would then be translated as, “Herakles seems to Smikros to exist.” Neer arrives at this
translation from noticing the base that Herakles is standing on, which Furtwängler
observed as well. 141 The base is a statue base indicating that Herakles is in fact a statue.
The inscription is even written using interpuncts, which is a stonecutter’s device. 142
Barkida, however, is depicted as a real character. This means that Barkida is making a
mistake by taking aim at Herakles. Simon points to the fact that Herakles foot is lifted
138 Arias 1962, 326.
139 ARV 2 1619.
140 Ohly-Dumm 1974, 25-26.
141 Neer 2002, 120; Furtwängler et al. 1904-1909, 2:8.
142 Neer 2002, 120.
38

<strong>of</strong>f the base, which leads Simon to the conclusion that Herakles is one <strong>of</strong> the famous
automata made by Daidalos. 143 When Euphronios says that Smikros believes Herakles
exists, he is accusing Smikros <strong>of</strong> making the same mistake that Barkida makes.
Euphronios’ statement compliments his own skills as a painter by implying that his
painting looks so real, it fooled Smikros. 144 In reality, Smikros was probably not fooled
into thinking that the painting was a real man, but the toast fulfills its original purpose <strong>of</strong>
bringing attention to the artist’s skills in painting.
These comments are wonderful for building personalities for the vase-painters.
They allow us to see the competitive side <strong>of</strong> their nature. Euthymides’ assertion that his
painting was better than anything Euphronios ever painted suggests that the artists were
familiar with each other’s work and tried to surpass each other’s skills. Both
Euthymides’ and Euphonios’ comments reveal the painters’ opinions <strong>of</strong> themselves; they
were confident and believed themselves to be superior painters. The comments do not
come across as mean-natured. It is possible that the community <strong>of</strong> vase-painters fostered
positive competition and sought each other’s high opinion. In fact, Euphonios’ comment
seems to be in jest, and it is easy to imagine that the comment developed from a remark
Smikros made about his painting. The signatures were vital for piecing together events in
the lives <strong>of</strong> these vase-painters, but the comments are vital for piecing together the
personalities <strong>of</strong> the men responsible for the painted scenes.
The simplicity found in the form and function <strong>of</strong> these inscriptions could at times
lead to an understatement in their importance. Upon closer investigation, however, the
inscriptions are very informative. Captions can identify scenes that would otherwise be
misinterpreted, and can even help to authenticate the Panathenaic amphorae through their
presence or absence. Although labels do not help us to identify new figures <strong>of</strong>ten, they
do help the painter to draw attention to specific figures. The toasts help to fill an
inscriptional space, much like the signatures, but they also make the scene more personal
to the viewer, especially in the cases where the viewer is addressed and not just another
figure in the scene. The comments are helpful in establishing the painter’s personality.
There was no traditional format the painter had to follow when writing a comment and so
143 Simon 1992, 95.
144 Neer 2002, 122.
39

the painter freely wrote what he intended to say, and thus revealed a little <strong>of</strong> his
personality in the process. The information these inscriptions provide is priceless when
cultivating an understanding <strong>of</strong> ancient Greece and specifically <strong>of</strong> the community <strong>of</strong>
vase-painters. They are, therefore, rarely overlooked when studying Attic inscriptions.
40

CHAPTER 5
NONSENSE INSCRIPTIONS
Imitation inscriptions, called nonsense inscriptions, began to appear at the
beginning <strong>of</strong> the second quarter <strong>of</strong> the sixth century BCE, possibly as a result <strong>of</strong> the rise
in popularity <strong>of</strong> vase inscriptions. In form they look like inscriptions, but they are not.
Nonsense inscriptions do not communicate any real thought. While some nonsense
inscriptions imitate a series <strong>of</strong> words, others are simply a string <strong>of</strong> letters. 145 Athens was
most likely the place <strong>of</strong> origin since they are not common on Corinthian vases. 146 In fact,
Immerwahr believes that when nonsense inscriptions become popular on Corinthian
vases in the sixth century BCE it was in imitation <strong>of</strong> the Attic tradition. 147
As noted above in the previous chapters, inscriptions that appear on vases are an
addition to the scene rather than a defining characteristic. The inscriptions do not <strong>of</strong>fer
any real clues to the actions taking place in a scene but they do add another dimension to
the story. The inscriptions give the illusion that the story is being told in words along
with the picture. This can be seen most clearly in the François Vase, where every object
is identified with a word. 148 The objects exist not only in sight but also in sound. The
use <strong>of</strong> nonsense inscriptions is therefore easy to understand. They preserve the illusion,
even though the inscriptions themselves do not communicate anything. The nonsense
inscriptions are then a comment on the status <strong>of</strong> inscriptions as a whole. <strong>Inscriptions</strong>
must have possessed a certain value for a painter to feel compelled to copy the
practice. 149
On certain types <strong>of</strong> vases the inscription is an important part <strong>of</strong> the decoration
program. This is true on Little Master cups, where there is a designated space for an
inscription. Here a nonsense inscription may have replaced an inscription simply to
145 Immerwahr 1990, 44.
146 Immerwahr 1990, 44.
147 Immerwahr 1990, 44.
148 Immerwahr 1990, 45.
149 Boardman 1974, 200.
41

preserve fashion. 150 In fact the tradition was so strong that there are examples where an
inscription is indicated by rows <strong>of</strong> painted dots. 151 The vase painter working with this
specific type <strong>of</strong> vase may have felt the pressure to include an inscription on account <strong>of</strong>
the strong tradition even if he was not literate. Necessity and tradition would then be the
motivating factor for writing a nonsense inscription or a row <strong>of</strong> dots instead <strong>of</strong> a desire to
display one’s own literacy.
A common theory for the occurrence <strong>of</strong> nonsense inscriptions is that painters
utilized them in order to give the impression that they were literate. 152 This motive,
however, would only work with non-literate viewers. Examples exist where sense and
nonsense inscriptions appear on the same vase, written by the same hand. In these cases,
Immerwahr believes that the painter was literate and inscribed the scene with nonsense
inscriptions because he felt it was necessary to include an inscription, even though there
was no precise information to impart. 153 Snodgrass points out that this theory assumes it
is easier to write random letters rather than letters that form real words. 154 The most
probable theory comes from Boardman. He believes that the co-existing sense and
nonsense inscriptions suggest a mixture <strong>of</strong> copying and imagination. 155 The painter
would copy a vase and its inscriptions, and he would perhaps feel that more inscriptions
were necessary. For these inscriptions, he would use his imagination to form words or
string <strong>of</strong> letters, since it is likely that he himself was unable to form words out <strong>of</strong> letters.
<strong>Inscriptions</strong> can be connected through similar handwriting and letterform. This is
also true <strong>of</strong> nonsense inscriptions. The later workshops, especially the ones that
produced the vases <strong>of</strong> the Leagros Group, as well as the ones that produced the blackfigure
lekythoi, show similar tendencies in their nonsense inscriptions. 156 For painters,
the use <strong>of</strong> a nonsense inscription could have been a ‘trade-mark’, a defining characteristic
much like the Nikosthenes signatures and the Kleophrades Painter’s ‘kalÚw e‰’. 157 There
150 Boardman 1974, 200.
151 Noble 1966, 68; Immerwahr 1990, 44.
152 Clark et al. 2002, 100.
153 Immerwahr 1990, 45.
154 Snodgrass 2000, 30.
155 Boardman 1974, 201.
156 Immerwahr 1990, 45.
157 Immerwahr 1990, 45.
42

are examples <strong>of</strong> painters who repeat nonsense formulae. One such example is the Sappho
Painter’s lilislis, loloslos, etotot, et cetera. 158 Tracking these tendencies is just as
important for scholars as tracking them in sense inscriptions. Both can lead to the
identification <strong>of</strong> a painter, link vases, and provide information on the development <strong>of</strong>
letterforms.
Although the Kleophrades Painter was known for his phrase ‘kalÚw e‰’, he was
also known to have used nonsense inscriptions frequently. Nonsense inscriptions are
especially characteristic <strong>of</strong> his early works. The amphora in Vienna discussed in the
above chapter on signatures bears some nonsense inscriptions. Richter was able to “read”
the words ISTE; GEIOG (retr.); ΩE; EIS; IOI. 159 The inscriptions below the athletes on
this same vase, which were at first interpreted as signatures, were later discovered to be
nonsense inscriptions. As stated before, this did not change the conclusion that the
painter was indeed the Kleophrades Painter and that his real name was Epiktetos. The
nonsense inscriptions only added another piece <strong>of</strong> evidence to the conclusion since the
Kleophrades Painter used nonsense inscriptions and this amphora is considered to be one
<strong>of</strong> his early works. The artist, although possibly illiterate, was aware <strong>of</strong> the use for
different inscriptions, as evidenced by his imitation <strong>of</strong> what might be considered a more
specific use for an inscription, a signature. In fact, he imitated it so well that it fooled
modern scholars for some time. The nonsense inscriptions were then occasionally
effective in imitating inscriptions and in fooling the viewer.
At times it is possible to recognize the specific type <strong>of</strong> inscription the painter is
imitating, such as the Kleophrades Painter’s imitation <strong>of</strong> a signature. A black-figure cup
in a private collection provides an especially interesting example <strong>of</strong> an inscription
imitation (Figure 30). 160 Between the terminal palmettes there are three busts on each
side. On side A, two male busts are on either side <strong>of</strong> a female bust, and on side B all
three busts are female. The left male and the middle female (side A) face each other. In
front <strong>of</strong> each face a nonsense inscription forms an arch upwards. The inscription in front
<strong>of</strong> the man reads ‘ONENOIEN’ in retrograde while the inscription in front <strong>of</strong> the
158 Boardman 1974, 200.
159 Richter 1936, 105.
160 Vanderpool 1945, 436.
43

woman reads ‘KNIONI’. Nothing is mentioned about the possible function <strong>of</strong> the
inscriptions in the article that published the vase, but I believe that these inscriptions
could be imitating bubble inscriptions. As noted above, bubble inscriptions emerge from
the area around the mouth and at times curve toward the character in which they are
addressing. The position <strong>of</strong> the characters’ heads call to mind conversations. This may
be a coincidence since two out <strong>of</strong> the three busts would naturally have to face each other
given the manner in which they were painted. Once they were painted, however, the
artist could have easily envisioned the two facing one another in conversation.
Immerwahr observes that the Attic nonsense inscriptions originate during the
excitement <strong>of</strong> the modernized script that came into use around the time <strong>of</strong> the François
Vase (570-550 BCE). 161 In fact, all the inscriptions seem to have had a pronounced
popularity around the middle to end <strong>of</strong> the sixth century BCE (namely 550-530 BCE).
Literacy in ancient Greece was steadily growing since the seventh century BCE, and with
the institution <strong>of</strong> Athenian democracy, literacy became an important possession for the
citizens <strong>of</strong> Athens. This was on account <strong>of</strong> the fact that a certain degree <strong>of</strong> literacy was
needed to participate in the Athenian government. The system required ordinary citizens
to maintain membership lists, voters’ rolls, and military records. 162 Vote or lot
determined what <strong>of</strong>fices the citizens held, and there was a large turnover for the
positions. 163 Laws and decrees <strong>of</strong>ten contained the stipulation that their texts were to be
engraved in stone and publicly displayed “so that everybody who wished could see.” 164
Solon set up the first laws for the general public to read in 594/3 BCE, just over twenty
years before the François Vase. 165 Literacy was also promoted by a system <strong>of</strong> schools
teaching reading and writing, which is evidenced in the fifth century BCE. 166 The system
<strong>of</strong> schools was more than likely for the upper class, but the presence <strong>of</strong> such institutions
shows a movement towards literacy, even if it was among one section <strong>of</strong> the society. In
the previous chapters it was noted that the vases are the closest to informal, everyday
161 Immerwahr 1990, 44.
162 Burn et al. 1982, 79.
163 Burn et al. 1982, 79.
164 Burn et al. 1982, 79.
165 Goody et al. 1975, 42.
166 Goody et al. 1975, 42.
44

script in existence in ancient Greece. Unlike various contemporary cultures, the ancient
<strong>Greek</strong>s did not have a large amount <strong>of</strong> preserved material for comparison between
<strong>of</strong>ficial, legal, or everyday script. The vases are a continuous dateable source <strong>of</strong>
individual script, and are pro<strong>of</strong> that the craftsmen were learning to write.
The rise <strong>of</strong> literacy in ancient Greece may be the contributing factor to the rise in
popularity <strong>of</strong> inscriptions on vases. At a time when the majority <strong>of</strong> the populace was
becoming familiar with letterforms and literacy was a desired attribute, it would be only
natural that the painters would want to show <strong>of</strong>f their newfound knowledge. The desire
to want to show <strong>of</strong>f this knowledge may have even lead some to want to give the
impression that they had obtained that knowledge, even if they had not actually done so.
The painters could have only fooled the illiterate with nonsense inscriptions, but at this
time the illiterate population could have been larger than the literate. The society, after
all, was growing in literacy and the majority <strong>of</strong> the people probably still had to learn to
read and write. The desire to include an inscription on a vase could have also rendered
the literacy level <strong>of</strong> the intended viewers less important. As noted above, inscriptions do
not typically define the scenes painted on vases. Scholars <strong>of</strong>ten comment on how the
inscriptions appear where they are not needed and are excluded where they are needed.
The ancient painters were most likely aware that the inscriptions added only another
dimension, not definition. The craftsmen had to be familiar with letterforms on a certain
level or else they would have not been able to write. Even a general knowledge <strong>of</strong> letters
was needed for commissioned works or copying. The letters were important, not
necessarily what the letters spelled or the message they conveyed. Nonsense inscriptions
strive for an appearance <strong>of</strong> literacy. When the same light is shed upon sense inscriptions,
one can easily perceive a desire to portray literacy because the sense inscriptions did not
add definition to the scene. The inscriptions as a whole may have simply been a natural
progression <strong>of</strong> a culture increasing in literacy.
The Panathenaic amphorae contain a standard inscription discussed in previous
chapters, which translates into ‘a prize from Athens’. Here is an inscription that scholars
have used as possible evidence for a basic ability to read in the wider male population,
45

especially in cases <strong>of</strong> short text. 167 Since it has been shown that inscriptions played a
relatively small role in the scene, it is more likely that the amphorae inscriptions do not
evidence any literacy in the general populace. Athletes received these amphorae as a
prize at the Panathenaic games. It was not necessary for the athlete to read in order to
receive the prize. The amphora was recognized by the general populace as a prize from
the Panathenaic games, but this was simply on account <strong>of</strong> the total image based on size,
shape, color, and decoration by which such vases were immediately recognizable. 168 The
painters <strong>of</strong> the inscriptions were presumably literate, or at the very least familiar with
letterforms, but the recipient <strong>of</strong> the vase did not necessarily have to be literate.
The very fact that the painters were writing inscriptions shows that there was a
movement towards literacy in ancient Greece. This is certainly not evidence that the
entire male population was literate, but it is evidence that the literacy movement was not
restricted to the upper class. The majority <strong>of</strong> inscriptions were painted between 550 and
530 BCE. 169 This was not long after Solon first displayed his laws for everyone to read
circa 594 BCE. The François Vase was produced between 570 and 550 BCE. The
amount <strong>of</strong> time between Solon’s laws and an explosion in the number <strong>of</strong> inscriptions on
vases suggests a movement towards literacy with growing momentum. The sudden boom
in inscriptions, I believe, was due to an enthusiasm in newfound literacy. A desire to
show their acquired knowledge led craftsmen to paint inscriptions. When literacy
became more commonplace and was no longer new, inscriptions were recognized for
what they were, simply an addition to the scene. After 530 BCE, the number <strong>of</strong>
inscriptions steadily declines. There was no more need to display newfound knowledge.
Having outlived their usefulness, the inscriptions began to disappear, with rare revivals
by later painters.
The rise in literacy in ancient Greece is supported by evidence outside <strong>of</strong> vase
inscriptions. The inscriptions, however, emphasize the rise in literacy. This may not
have been as clear had only sense inscriptions survived. Scholars have theorized that
nonsense inscriptions were painted on vases to either fill in space where the painter felt
167 Hannah 2001, 184.
168 Hannah 2001, 173.
169 Snodgrass 2000, 31.
46

an inscription should be or to give the impression that the painter was literate. These are
valid theories that can lead to a further conclusion when the sharp rise and steady fall <strong>of</strong>
the inscriptions is considered. If there was such a desire to fill a space or portray the
knowledge <strong>of</strong> literacy that painters would write a nonsense inscription, then there had to
have been a movement in literacy within the culture laying the foundation for the
painter’s desire. The nonsense inscriptions stress that there was such a movement. In
fact, nonsense inscriptions show that the desire to be or appear literate surpassed the
reality <strong>of</strong> literacy. Instead <strong>of</strong> first learning to read and write, and then writing an
inscription on a vase, the painters chose to imitate literacy through nonsense inscriptions.
The use <strong>of</strong> nonsense inscriptions suggests an attitude that the appearance <strong>of</strong> literacy was
more important to some than actually becoming literate. Of course, nonsense inscriptions
could have been a temporary practice while the painter became literate. Hence, nonsense
inscriptions provide a very candid insight into the culture, along with an ability to show
scholars changes and variations in letterforms.
47

CONCLUSION
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this thesis was to provide current information and theories on
inscriptions found on Attic vases that students or scholars could build upon. Through
comparing the categories <strong>of</strong> inscriptions we can continue to alter old theories or ideas on
inscriptions to reflect new information. For instance, it was previously believed that the
placement <strong>of</strong> an inscription was random or haphazard, but it becomes clear that this was
not the case. The painters were aware <strong>of</strong> the context and use <strong>of</strong> the vase and placed
inscriptions accordingly. The kalÒw inscriptions are extremely rare on lekythoi, and
bubble inscriptions are place near the mouth <strong>of</strong> a figure to indicate spoken words. Even
with labels, which were written wherever space allowed, the painter still placed the
inscription within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the figure in order to minimize confusion.
An exciting outcome <strong>of</strong> this thesis rests in the realization that these inscriptions
provide insight into the culture and craftsmen <strong>of</strong> ancient Greece; we gain more than
philological evidence from them. Two facets <strong>of</strong> the craftsmen’s lives are presented
through the study <strong>of</strong> inscriptions: their involvement with society as a whole and their
involvement within the community <strong>of</strong> potters and painters. The craftsmen appear to have
been actively involved in their society. They comment on the beautiful boys <strong>of</strong> their day,
and were at times awarded as competition winners, as was the case with the Bachhios and
Kittos families. The nonsense inscriptions especially show their desire to be apart <strong>of</strong> the
community. Athens considered itself the center <strong>of</strong> art and learning, and had a
government that started relying more and more on a literate body to run their democracy.
The craftsmen’s desire to join this community and movement <strong>of</strong> literacy was so great that
the appearance <strong>of</strong> literacy became more important at times than the acquisition <strong>of</strong>
literacy. When seeking recognition in their society, the evidence suggests that the potters
or painters did not do this through their signatures. Instead, they probably relied on
verbal recommendations. The potters and painters did, however, recognize and make
light <strong>of</strong> social norms, as seen in their role-playing through kalÒw inscriptions.
The potters’ and vase-painters’ involvement within their own community <strong>of</strong>
craftsmen reveals various social dynamics. Here, we find a type <strong>of</strong> hierarchy exposed by
48

their sense <strong>of</strong> order, which appears when both the potter’s and painter’s signatures are
present. The potter’s signature always precedes the painter’s signature, as discussed in
the previous chapter. This shows their recognition <strong>of</strong> the order <strong>of</strong> vase production and,
therefore, the importance <strong>of</strong> one job over the other. In the comments, a competitive
nature is revealed in the painters. They appear to have been familiar with each other’s
work, and strove to become the best painter.
The potters and painters <strong>of</strong> ancient Athens were living in a culture on the verge <strong>of</strong>
political power and academic superiority, and their inscriptions reflect that culture.
Through the evidence for their lives, revealed by the inscriptions, we see that the potters
and painters were acutely aware <strong>of</strong> the world around them. The painters’ attention to
detail in their figures attest to their awareness <strong>of</strong> the physical world around them, but the
inscriptions attest to their awareness <strong>of</strong> their culture’s tendencies and growths. The study
<strong>of</strong> inscriptions, therefore, is no longer simply about its connection to the vase or scene,
but also about the men behind the production <strong>of</strong> the vase.
The categories <strong>of</strong> inscriptions and their standards have long been defined and are
rarely disputed. Controversy comes when the meaning or motive behind an inscription is
unclear. This thesis provides the building blocks for further study; specifically
previously presented ideas and theories gathered into one location. Scholars and students
can then expand upon the existing theories and possibly reveal new information on
inscriptions and the lives <strong>of</strong> the craftsmen.
49

APPENDIX A
Figure 1 (ARV 2 447.274)
Red-figure Aryballos by Douris
Athens 15375
500-470 B.C.E.
(Richter et al. 1936, fig. 106)
Figure 2 (ARV 2 431.48)
Red-figure cup by Douris
Berlin 2285
500-480 B.C.E.
(Pfuhl 1926, fig. 65)
50

Figure 3 (ARV 2 16.17)
Red-figure cup by Euphronios
Munich 2620 (J. 337)
520-500 B.C.E
(Swindler 1929, fig. 246)
Figure 4 (ARV 2 193)
Transcription <strong>of</strong> a red-figure amphora by The Kleophrades Painter
Vienna 3723 (ex. Oest. Mus. Inv. 1091)
500-490 B.C.E.
(Richter 1936, fig.13)
51

Figure 5 (ARV 2 314.2)
Red-figure cup by The Eleusis Painter
Berlin inv. 3239 and Villa Giulia
Ca. 580 B.C.E.
(Beazley 1933, pl. Y fig. 10)
Figure 6 (BAdd 2 395)
Detail <strong>of</strong> psykter by Smikros
(Portrait <strong>of</strong> Euphronios wooing Leagros)
Louvre G58
510-500 B.C.E.
(Frel 1983, fig. 10.6)
52

Figure 7 (ARV 2 113.7)
Red-figure cup by The Thalia Painter
Berlin inv. 3251 and Florence IB49
Late 6 th Century B.C.E.
(Boardman 1975, fig. 112)
Figure 8 (ARV 2 315.2)
Red-figure cup by The Eleusis Painter
London E 816
Late 6 th to early 5 th Century B.C.E.
(Vorberg 1968, pl. 16)
53

Figure 9 (ARV 2 1113.10)
Red-figure bellkrater attributed to The Orestes Painter
Louvre A258
Ca. 450 B.C.E.
(Pottier 1897, pl. 9 A258)
Figure 10 (ABV 322.1)
Panathenaic Amphora by The Euphiletos Painter (name-vase)
London B 134
Ca. 530 B.C.E.
(Beazley 1964, pl. 93,2)
54

Figure 11 (side a and b) (ABV 671)
Panathenaic type amphora
500-490 B.C.E.
(Hampe et al. 1985, pll. 16-17)
Figure 12 (ARV 2 58.53)
Red-figure cup by Oltos
Madrid 11267 (L. 151)
530-500 B.C.E.
(Pfuhl 1926, fig. 29)
55

Figure 13 (ABV 145.13)
Black-figure amphora by Exekias
Vatican 344
550-530 B.C.E.
(Immerwahr 1990, pl. 7 fig, 29)
Figure 14 (ARV 2 21.1)
Red-figure cup by Euthymides
Berlin 2278
530-500 B.C.E.
(Perrot 1914, fig. 285)
56

Figure 15 (Para 183.22 bis)
Black-figure oinochoe by The Athena Painter
Stockholm, Medelhausmuseum
500-450 B.C.E.
(Boardman 1974, fig. 286)
Figure 16 (ARV 2 58.51)
Transcription <strong>of</strong> a red-figure cup by Oltos
London E 41
530-500 B.C.E.
(Perrot 1914, fig. 228)
57

Figure 17 (ARV 2 1594.48)
Red-figure pelike by The Pioneer Group
Leningrad 615
530-500 B.C.E.
(Neer 2002, fig. 27)
Figure 18 (Boardman 212)
Black-figure amphora by The Leagros Group
530-500 B.C.E.
(Boardman 1974, fig. 212)
58

Figure 19 (ABV 39.16)
Black-figure dinos by Sophilos
Athens 15499
Ca. 580 B.C.E
(Lydakis 2004, fig. 60)
Figure 20 (ARV 2 54.7)
Red-figure psykter by Oltos
New York 10.210.18
530-500 B.C.E.
(Richter et al. 1936, pl. 4 fig. 3)
59

Figure 21 (ABV 89.1)
Detail <strong>of</strong> a Panathenaic Amphora from The Burgon Group
London B130
Ca. 560 B.C.E.
(Swindler 1929, fig. 233)
Figure 22 (ABV 76.1)
The François Vase
Black-figure volute krater by Kleitias
Florence 4209
570 B.C.E.
(Beazley 1964, pl. 23)
60

Figure 23 (ARV 2 16.15)
Red-figure psykter by Euphronios
Leningrad 644 (St. 1670)
530-500 B.C.E.
(Buschor 1940, fig. 112)
Figure 24 (ARV 2 23.7)
Red-figure hydria by Phintias
Munich 2421 (J.6)
530-500 B.C.E.
(Boardman 2001, fig. 118.1)
61

Figure 25 (ARV 2 99.7)
Red-figure alabastra from the group <strong>of</strong> The Paidikos Alabastra
London 1902.12-18.2
530-500 B.C.E.
(Walters 1921, fig. I.5)
Figure 26 (ARV 2 28.11)
Red-figure psykter by Euthymides
Turin 4123
530-500 B.C.E.
(Boardman 1975, fig. 36)
62

Figure 27 (ARV 2 26.1)
Red-figure amphora by Euthymides
Munich 2307 (J. 378)
Late 6 th Century B.C.E.
(Robertson 1959, p. 91)
Figure 28 (side a and b) (ARV 2 18.1)
Red-figure amphora in the manner <strong>of</strong> Euphronios
Louvre G 107
490 B.C.E.
(Neer 2002, figs. 57-58)
63

Figure 29
Black-figure cup from a private collection in Athens
Ca. 540 B.C.E.
(Vanderpool 1945, fig. 3)
64

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arias, P.E. A History <strong>of</strong> 1000 Years <strong>of</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Vase Painting. New York: Harry N.
Abrams, INC, 1962.
Beazley, J.D. “The New Corpus <strong>of</strong> Attic Red-figured Vases with Signatures,” The
Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs. Vol. 39, No. 224 (1921): 230-235.
Beazley, J.D. Attische Vasenmaler Des Rotfigurigen Stils. Tübingen: Verlag Von J.C.B.
Mohr, 1925.
Beazley, J.D. <strong>Greek</strong> Vases in Poland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928.
Beazley, J.D. Campana Fragments in Florence. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Beazley, J.D. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Vols. I and II. New York: Hacker Art
Books, 1963.
Beazley, J.D. The Development <strong>of</strong> Attic Black-Figure. Berkley: University <strong>of</strong> California
Press, 1964.
Beazley, J.D. Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to
Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Beazley, J.D. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
Boardman, J. Athenian Black Figure Vases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Boardman, J. Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1975.
Boardman, J. The History <strong>of</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Vases: Potters, Painters, and Pictures. London:
Thames & Hudson, 2001.
Burn, L. and R. Glynn. Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2 , and
Paralipomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Buschor, E. <strong>Greek</strong> Vase-Painting. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, 1940.
Carpenter, T.H. Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2 , and
Paralipomena, 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Clark, A.J., Elston, Maya, and Hart, Mary Louise. Understanding <strong>Greek</strong> Vases:
A Guide to Terms, Styles, and Techniques. Los Angeles: Getty Publications,
2002.
65

Cook, R.M. <strong>Greek</strong> Painted Pottery. London: Routledge, 1997.
Denoyelle, M. “Autour du Cratère en Calice Louvre G110, Signé par Euphronios,” in
Euphronios Peintre: Actes de la Journée d’Etude Organisée par l’Ecole du
Louvre Et le Département des Antiquités Grecques, Étrusques et Romaines du
Musée du Louvre, 10 Octobre 1990. Ed. Martine Denoyelle, Paris: La
Française,1992.
Folsom, R.S. Attic Black-Figured Pottery. New Jersey: Noyes Press, 1975.
Folsom, R.S. Attic Red-Figured Pottery. New Jersey: Noyes Press, 1976.
Frel, J. “Euphronios and His Fellows,” <strong>Ancient</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Art and Iconography. Ed. W.G.
Moon, Madison: University <strong>of</strong> Wisconsin Press, 1983.
Furtwängler, A. and K. Reichhold. Griechische Vasenmalerei, Serie I and II. Munich:
F. Bruckmann, 1904-1909.
Gardiner, E.N. Athletics <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Ancient</strong> World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.
Goody, J. and I. Watt. “The Consequences <strong>of</strong> Literacy,” Literacy in Traditional Societies.
Ed. J. Goody, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Hannah, P.A. “TON AYENEYEN AYLON: A Case <strong>Study</strong> in the History <strong>of</strong> Labels,”
Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the <strong>Greek</strong> and Roman World.
Ed. Janet Watson, Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Hampe, R. and E. Simon. Griechisches Leben im Spiegel der Kunst Mayence.
Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1985.
Herford, M.A.B. A Handbook <strong>of</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Vase Painting. London: Longmans, Green &
Co., 1919.
Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. A.T. Murray and G.E. Dimock. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1995.
Hoppin, J.C. Euthymides and His Fellows. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.
Hoppin, J.C. A Handbook <strong>of</strong> Attic Red-figured Vases. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1919.
Immerwahr, H.R. Attic Script: A Survey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
Klein, W. Die Griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen. Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn,
1887.
66

Kurtz, D.C. <strong>Greek</strong> Vases: Lectures by J.D. Beazley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Langlotz, E. Griechische Vasenbilder. Heidelberg: Verlegt Bei Edmund Van König,
1922.
Lydakis, S. <strong>Ancient</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Painting and its Echoes in Later Art. Los Angeles: Getty
Publications, 2004.
Mannack, T. The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-Painting. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Neer, R.T. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting: The Craft <strong>of</strong> Democracy,
Ca. 530-460 BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Noble, J.V. The Techniques <strong>of</strong> Painted Attic Pottery. London: Faber & Faber, 1966.
Ohly-Dumm, M. “Euphroniosschale und Smikrosscherbe,” Münchener Jahrbuch der
Bildenden Kunst. 25 (1974): 7-26.
Perrot, Georges and C. Chipiez. Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité, Vol. 10. Paris:
Librairie Hachette et C ie , 1914.
Pfuhl, E. Masterpieces <strong>of</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Drawing and Painting. London: Chatto and Windus,
1926.
Plato. Charmides. Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1914.
Pottier, E. Vases Antiques du Louvre. Paris: Librairie Hachette & Co., 1897.
Richter, G.M.A. The Craft <strong>of</strong> Athenian Pottery. New York: The Metropolitan Museum
<strong>of</strong> Art Press, 1924.
Richter, G.M.A. and M.J. Milne. Shapes and Names <strong>of</strong> Athenian Vases. New York:
The Metropolitan Museum <strong>of</strong> Art Press, 1935.
Richter, G.M.A. “The Kleophrades Painter,” American Journal <strong>of</strong> Archaeology. Vol.
40, No. 1 (Jan., 1936): 100-115.
Richter, G.M.A. and L.F. Hall. Red-Figured Athenian Vases in The Metropolitan
Museum <strong>of</strong> Art, Vols. I and II. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936.
Richter, G.M.A. Attic Red-Figured Vases: A Survey. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1946.
Richter, G.M.A. Archaic <strong>Greek</strong> Art Against Its Historical Background. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1949.
67

Richter, G.M.A. A Handbook <strong>of</strong> <strong>Greek</strong> Art. London: The Phaidon Press, 1959.
Robert, C. Archaeologische Hermeneutik. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1919.
Robertson, M. <strong>Greek</strong> Painting. Geneva: Editions d’Art Albert Skira, 1959.
Roller, L.E. “Funeral Games in <strong>Greek</strong> Art,” American Journal <strong>of</strong> Archaeology.
Vol. 85, No. 2 (Apr., 1981): 107-119.
Shapiro, H.A. “Hippokrates son <strong>of</strong> Anaxileos,” Hesperia. Vol. 49, No. 3 (1980):
289-93.
Shapiro, H.A. “Kallias Kratiou Alopekethen,” Hesperia. Vol. 51, No.1 (1982): 69-73.
Shapiro, H.A. “Leagros the Satyr,” <strong>Greek</strong> Vases: Images, Contexts, and
Controversies. Ed. C. Marconi. Boston: Brill, 2004.
Simon, E. “Euphronios und die Etrusker,” in Euphronios und Seine Zeit. Ed. I.
Wehgartner. Berlin: Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 1992: 90-103.
Snodgrass, A. “The Uses <strong>of</strong> Writing on Early <strong>Greek</strong> Painted Pottery,” in Word and Image
in <strong>Ancient</strong> Greece. Eds. N.K. Rutter and B.A. Sparkes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2000: 22-34.
Swindler, M.H. <strong>Ancient</strong> Painting: From the Earliest Times to the Period <strong>of</strong> Christian Art.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929.
Tieleman, T. “Galen on the Seat <strong>of</strong> the Intellect,” Science and Mathematics in <strong>Ancient</strong>
<strong>Greek</strong> Culture. Ed. C.J. Tuplin and T.E. Rihll. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002.
Vanderpool, E. “An Unusual Black-Figured Cup,” American Journal <strong>of</strong> Archaeology.
Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 1945): 436-440.
Vorberg, G. Ars Erotica Veterum:Das Geschlechtsleben. Hanau: Müller and
Kiepenheuer, 1968.
Walters, H.B. “Red-Figured Vases Recently Acquired by the British Museum,” The
Journal <strong>of</strong> Hellenic Studies. Vol. 41, Part 1 (1921): 117-150.
Webster, T.B.L. Potter and Patron in Classical Athens. London: Methuen &Co. Ltd,
1972.
68

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author, Kathleen E. Clifford, attended The Florida State University and
earned her Bachelor <strong>of</strong> Arts and Master <strong>of</strong> Arts in Classical Archaeology. She has
interned at The British Museum in the Education Department and participated in
excavations in Umbria, Italy.
69