This fascicule, penultimate in the Berlin Antikensammlung series on black-figure, matches the high standard of description, analysis and illustration that has come to be expected of the German CVA in particular. It presents thirteen small neck-amphorae and a lid as well as fourteen hydriae and kalpides, among which are nine new attributions;[1] an appendix lists eleven neck-amphorae and four hydriae lost in World War II or deaccessioned, with photographs where available (Beilagen 20–23) but regrettably without detail or discussion. The co-authors Nina Zimmermann-Elseify (with previous CVA fascicules to her credit) and Laura Puritani worked under some duress: the foreword mentions the constraints imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, with impact both on their research access and on the restoration of two vases, F 1902 and F 1906. The other 25 vases have, however, been superbly cleaned and restored by Bernd Zimmermann and Anke Kobbe. The photographs, most notably the 61 colour plates of outstanding detail and clarity, are by Johannes Kramer; these include two colour-plates with twelve under-foot photographs of graffiti and dipinti (scale unspecified; less than 1:1). Presumably for logistical reasons, a black-and-white under-foot photograph accompanies the text on F 1908, while the underside of F 1895 appears in pl. 34. Jörg Denkinger produced the drawings: profiles (Beilagen 1–19: scaled between 1:1 and 1:4) and within the text 1:1 drawings of two scenes with badly abraded surface, and drawings of all inscriptions set in relation to figures in the scene; these are all valuable in representing what can be observed in close, even perhaps magnified, examination of the vase.
Each entry adheres to the now-standard CVA format: provenance, full measurements (including volume and weight), bibliography, condition, material, shape, ornament, depictions, techniques, graffiti/dipinti, date and attribution (where relevant), followed by notes with extensive comparanda and references. The closely observed descriptions are especially useful for features not readily seen, such as fingerprints, brush-marks and relief lines, as well as some all-but-vanished added-colour details; in a few instances where the distribution of added-white is not comprehensively listed, however, the photographs are sufficient. A minor quibble is the inconsistency in recording the extent of black gloss applied inside vase necks.
The neck-amphorae and hydriae are in separate sections, each opening with an account, particularly directed towards the entries that follow, of the respective shape’s development, iconography, distribution and use, and collection-history, with reference to more extensive discussions of these categories in earlier publications.
The neck-amphorae discussed are all less than 35 cm high, and mainly of standard form. Most are dated between ca. 530 and 475 BC. V.I. 3765 (pls. 1–3) is of particular interest, as a neck-amphora of unusual shape, unusual too in its depiction: a pair of horse-legged satyrs, one an auletes, frame Dionysos on A, while on B two human-legged satyrs, one extremely well-endowed, each bear aloft a krotala-playing maenad. The painter has a distinctive style involving finely detailed incision that prioritises texture and patterning over pictorial exactitude (as is evidenced in the rather confusing layers of the maenads’ drapery). Nevertheless, while acknowledging stylistic similarities to the hydria London 1837,0609.35 (B 302), Zimmermann-Elseify wisely shares Beazley’s hesitation for more specific attribution than the Manner of the Lysippides Painter. Her extensive comparanda point the way for future reconsideration.
Another visually striking vase is F 1865 (pls. 4–6), attributed as Near the Antimenes Painter, which well exemplifies Zimmermann-Elseify’s comment (p. 16) on the recurrent compositional scheme in which two similar figures or groups move in the same direction. In the Gigantomachy on A, although the two immense white feathers adorning one giant’s helmet are a central focal point, the overriding impression is of the battle-drive towards the right, as Athena and Dionysos each overcome an opponent (the latter assisted by lion, dog and serpent). On B are two groups to left: in each a crouching warrior is superimposed over a striding archer,[2] their similar stances emphasising the perception of leftward movement.
A point of interest on F 1863 (pls. 10–11) is the rare inclusion of Hermes on A in the Rape of Kassandra. Athena’s shield-device of a deer is also unusual: Zimmermann-Elseify suggests that to an ancient viewer it could have conveyed the goddess’s outrage at the violation of a vulnerable girl in her precinct (through the animal’s association with Artemis, protectress of virgins).[3]
Two doubleens by the Diosphos Painter both depict lively Amazons on each side. Zimmermann-Elseify notes this painter’s liking of thematic unity (p. 29), particularly evident on F 1839 (pls. 14–15), where the mounted Amazon with second horse and dog on A is almost exactly reversed on B.
Exceptional among the otherwise-archaic vases is a miniature Panathenaic amphora of the Bulas Group: F 1834 (pl. 25.1–4). Contrary to standard practice, Athena Promachos is identified as B; on A is a winged Eros. Illustrated in the same plate (pl. 25.5) is the surviving lid of an amphora lost in World War II, F 1838 (see Beilage 20.1; p. 75).
Attributed to the Manner of the Sappho Painter, the partially preserved V.I. 3334 (pl. 26–27) is a rounded vessel (amphoriskos or possibly aryballos), with a prothesis scene running around it. On the shoulder are remains of a puzzling, two-line inscription, perhaps originally quoting an epigram (Fig. 5).
The final neck-amphora is F 1703 (pls. 28–29), an ovoid amphora of ca. 570–560 BC that is more likely Euboean than Attic. On A is a seated male between Hermes and Athena and a male and a female bystander; on B, panthers and a siren.
While some of the small neck-amphorae in the first section of the fascicule are lesser works and not well-known, the hydriae in the second part are mostly well-published vases, long attributed to notable painters and groups. The earliest is F 1656 (pls. 30–33) by the Polos Painter, featuring Corinthian-influenced bands of animals amid rosettes; the rest are dated between 530 and 470 BC.
Two hydriae by the Antimenes Painter each present points of interest. The Judgement of Paris in the main scene on F 1895 (pls. 34–35) unusually includes a fourth goddess: a wingless Iris, directly behind Hermes; in the predella, Herakles is unconventionally shown charging towards the crouching Nemean Lion, in a prelude to the Liegekampf. On F 1890 (pls. 36–37), the main scene is rather enigmatic: a banqueter reclines, holding a large knife; there are no wine-cups, but a lyre hangs above. On the kline sits a woman holding out a flower, while a dog noses the ground below; a woman and a partially-draped man approach from the left, two nude men from the right. After considering several earlier interpretations from infrequently depicted myth or cult, Puritani leans towards a simple combination of pictorial elements from similarly composed scenes, such as Herakles feasting, Dionysos reclining, and the Ransom of Hektor.
F 1725 (pls. 38–39) has a reserved, flaring lip with rosette ornamentation, and a raised ring on the lower neck. Some hydriae with similar features are associated with the Swing Painter and his Manner, but the rather bleak fountainhouse scene on the body and lion-wrestling Herakles on the shoulder preclude an attribution.
The unattributed F 1906 (pls. 44–45) features on the body a splendid Herakles and Triton, with both names inscribed, along with praise of [Σ]ΤΕΣΙΛΕΟΣ (Fig. 6 a–c). There are in fact not four but five known vases with Triton named: add the fragmentary amphora signed by Exekias, Taranto 179196 (BAPD 8492).[4]
The Leagros Group is well represented. F 1904 (pls. 46–47) presents teasing inscriptions (Fig. 7a–d): on the body, where a woman approaches Dionysos as he mounts a chariot, the blobby letters seem intended to identify Semele and the god, although inscriptions on the shoulder appear meaningless. Two further hydriae exemplify the Leagran trait of cut-off figures at the margins (as noted by Zimmermann-Elseify, p. 62) On the body of F 1901 (pls. 48–49), as a quadriga disappears at the left, Cheiron stands at the right margin to receive young Achilleus: with human forelegs, and horse-body absent, his hybrid identity must be deduced from the contextualising details. On F 1902 (pls. 51–53), the front of a quadriga emerges on the left, as Neoptolemos leads Polyxena to the partly visible tomb of Achilleus on the right (with eidolon flitting above).
Within the Leagros Group, the Acheloos Painter depicted another cut-off Cheiron on the fragmentary hydria F 1900 (pls. 54–55): the main scene is framed by a quadriga-front on the left, and again Cheiron on the right. This time, part of his horse-body is visible, while astonishingly, his human forelegs extend down to the bottom of the palmette-band below the scene, so that he is on a larger scale than the woman and man who approach him. Meaningless inscriptions do not assist interpretation (Fig. 8a–b): Thetis and Peleus (albeit sans Achilleus) have commonly been suggested for the mortals, but the man’s winged boots might rather indicate Hermes, the woman’s torches perhaps Artemis. The youths taming bulls on the shoulder are also unusual: while acknowledging the likely sacrificial implication, Puritani suggests (p. 68) that they might have reminded an ancient viewer of Herakles and the Bull.
The final items in the second section are two small kalpides convincingly attributed to the Painter of the Half-Palmettes by the authors: 33506 (pl. 58), and 33315 (pl. 59).
At the end of the text are the customary nine indices: 1, Concordance of Inventory Numbers, Plates and Beilagen; 2, Findspots; 3, Past Collections and Purchases; 4, Measurements; 5, Technical Features; 6, Subjects; 7, Inscriptions; 8, Potters, Painters and Workshops; 9, Beilagen Drawings.
Fascicule 20 of the Berlin Antikensammlung CVA is a perceptive, carefully written, and beautifully produced volume which will provide scholars with valuable photographic, descriptive, interpretative and comparative information on two groups of black-figure vases, some of which have been little-known hitherto. It is a pity that more detailed information could not have been included in the Appendix of lost and deaccessioned vases. There are a few minor typographic slips, but none misinforms or misleads.[5]
The BAPD is to be congratulated on having already updated its existing records on the vases in the fascicule, including the new photographic records; furthermore, entries on three vases have been newly created post-publication: 33506 (pl. 58), BAPD 9054733; 33515 (pl. 59), BAPD 9054734; F 3998 (p. 76), BAPD 9054735. Two existing vase entries should be added on p. 76: F 1708, BAPD 306534; F 1898, BAPD 41674.
Notes
[1] New attributions are all convincingly supported by comparanda. By Zimmermann-Elseify, the neck-amphorae 1993.215 (pls. 7–8), Michigan Painter and Dot-band Class; F 1884 (pls. 20–21) and V.I. 4982.12 (pl. 22), both Light-make Class; F 1876 (pls. 23–24), Red-Line Painter; the kalpis 33506 (pl. 58), Painter of the Half-palmettes. By Puritani, the neck-amphorae F 1865 (pls. 4–6), Near the Antimenes Painter; F 1877 (pls. 18–19), Group of Oxford 216; V.I. 3334 (pls. 26–27), Manner of the Sappho Painter; the kalpis 33515 (pl. 59), Painter of the Half-palmettes.
[2] On the hoplite and archer combination, add F. Lissarrague, L’autre guerrier: archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l’imagerie attique (Paris 1990) ch. 5, and p. 283, cat. 9.4: A507.
[3] Is it possible that the mysterious länglicher Gegenstand between Aias’ feet may be a blot, appearing elongated only through Kassandra’s superimposed foot?
[4] There is an error in the associated AVI 7591 record, which mentions Exekias but cites an extraneous inscription, omitting reference to both Exekias’s signatures and the name-inscription.
[5] There are, however, recurrent anomalies in referencing A.W. Johnston, Trademarks on Greek Vases (Warminster 1979). Throughout, where Johnston specifically lists a vase, the reference should consistently include both the type, and the catalogue number within the type. Additionally, for F 1895 (pls. 34–35), add Johnston 1979, Type 21A 48 (p. 81). In the entry for F 1892 (pls. 40–41) there is no mention of any graffito, although the vase is listed in Johnston 1979, Type 20A 77 (p. 79). For F 1900 (pls. 54–55), since Johnston does catalogue the vase, a specific reference should be included to Type 2F 16.