This article was downloaded by:[New York University]On: 8 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 778793215]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mediterranean Historical ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713636259

What Travelled with Greek Pottery?Robin Osborne

Online Publication Date: 01 June 2007

To cite this Article: Osborne, Robin (2007) 'What Travelled with Greek Pottery?',Mediterranean Historical Review, 22:1, 85 — 95

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09518960701539208URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518960701539208

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

What Travelled with Greek Pottery?Robin Osborne

During the sixth and fifth centuries very large amounts of Athenian black- and red-figure

were transmitted round the Mediterranean. The nature of the exchange relationsunderlying this pottery distribution have long been a topic for discussion. This paper picksup on earlier arguments that Athenian potters responded to very specific orders from

Italian markets and that Italian markets consumed voraciously whatever Athenianpotters produced, and investigates what sort of information flowed along the network

created by the exchange of pottery. By looking at the find contexts of Athenian potteryoutside Athens, and at the images found on that pottery, I argue that in almost all

circumstances Greek pottery presupposes rather than transmits cultural knowledge, and sois testimony to a pre-existing network, not an agent in creating new networks.

Keywords: Trade; Pottery; Greek History; Etruscans; Mediterranean

During the sixth and fifth centuries BC very large amounts of Athenian black- and red-figure pottery were transmitted round the Mediterranean. The nature of the exchange

relations underlying this pottery distribution have long been a topic for discussion,and in two earlier papers I have argued both that Athenian potters responded to very

specific orders from particular Italian markets, and that, taken as a group, Italianmarkets consumed voraciously whatever Athenian potters produced, with the

iconographic initiative resting at least predominantly with the Athenians.1 In thispaper I sidestep the issue of the direction of that initiative, and revisit the question ofwhat types of pots ended up in which places, to investigate what sort of information

flowed along the network created by the exchange of pottery. Building on work byother scholars designed primarily to answer slightly different questions, I ask: did

Corinthian and Athenian pots export a lifestyle and an outlook on life? By looking onthe one hand at the find contexts of Greek pottery outside mainland Greece, and on the

ISSN 0951-8967 (print)/ISSN 1743-940X (online)/07/010085-11

q 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09518960701539208

Correspondence to: Robin Osbourne, Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge

CB3 9DA, UK. Email: ro225@cam.ac.uk

Mediterranean Historical Review

Vol. 22, No. 1, June 2007, pp. 85–95

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

other at the images found on that pottery, I ask whether Greek pots served to constructa network of shared cultural practice and knowledge, or were simply parasitic upon, a

(changing) cultural koine.In the physical sense, all sorts of things travelled with Greek pottery and, vice versa,

Greek pottery travelled with all sorts of things. One of the things that has become clearfrom the excavation of wrecks is that some ships carried only small amounts of

pottery, their main cargo being something quite different, while other ships carriedvery significant amounts of pottery. The Giglio wreck, dated to shortly after 600 BC,

yielded just fifty pieces of fine pottery; whereas the Pointe Lequin 1A wreck, dated toca. 515 BC, is estimated to have had 800 Attic cups, 1,600 ’Ionian’ cups, and 150further fine vessels, mostly Attic.2 Some fine pottery seems to have travelled with

transport amphorae from the same origin, others to have circulated independently ofcommercial amphorae. Rouillard has suggested that Corinthian and Etruscan fine

pottery and amphorae seem largely to travel together, but noted that SOS amphoraedisappear from the picture when Attic fine pottery begins to be exported in quantity.3

Again, we have very direct confirmation from a wreck of the way fine pottery andamphorae from the same origin travelled together in the Ecueil de Miet wreck with 100

Etruscan amphorae and bucchero kantharoi.4

But I am only marginally concerned here with the physical sense. What I am reallyinterested in is what consumers outside the place of production gained when they

acquired fine Greek pottery. Did they simply acquire the kudos of owning an exoticitem, or did they acquire some form of social or cultural knowledge? Did acquiring a

particular type of drinking vessel mean also assuming certain drinking habits? Or didthe use of an imported perfume vessel affect habits of bodily hygiene or social

intercourse? Or did a vessel with figured decoration afford knowledge of the life of theimaginary (whether that be the imaginary of myth or the imaginary of warrior or

athletic or gender ideology)? Was there a network of those who ‘knew’ Greek, not inthe sense of knowing the Greek language (though language acquisition cannot be

entirely divorced from these questions), but in the sense of knowing, and being able toreplicate by behaviour or in discourse, Greek culture?At one level these are unanswerable questions. For most Greek artefacts found

abroad we are never going to know whether the person into whose hands, by whatevermeans, they came knew what they were for or what they embodied in cultural terms.

When pots shaped specifically for use in the symposium end up in graves, this does notmean that those who acquired them were unaware of their original intended use.

When vessels showing warriors end up in a warrior grave, it is safe enough to assumethat those who put them there realized that what they showed were warriors, but one

cannot infer from this that they knew anything about hoplite warfare, let alone deducehow they themselves fought.5 Acquiring a pot with an image of the sacrifice ofPolyxena did not mean that the owner could relate the story of the burial of Achilles.

But if these questions cannot be answered at the level of the individual consumer or,often, at the level of the individual artefact, this does not rule out altogether reasonably

secure answers. Patterns of assemblage give a fair idea of the company that Greek pots

86 R. Osborne

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

kept in their new homes, and images produced by non-Greeks showing Greekartefacts, while hardly qualifying as snapshots, provide some fairly strong contextual

information. Context also offers some clues about the interpretation of figuralimagery, while the reproduction of such imagery by those who acquired it often reveals

their degree of understanding. While it is impossible to show what was always the case,we can have some idea of what was sometimes the case.

I begin with issues of shape. Shape is a particularly good indicator of lifestyle, sincesome styles of life are impossible without suitable shapes of pot. For instance, the

presence of aryballoi does not necessarily indicate that Greek athletic activity ispresent, but their absence is more telling, simply for the reason that one cannot oiloneself in the gymnasium using an amphora or a cup. When a full repertoire of

sympotic shapes is found in a given context (above all kraters and cups), we can reckonthat there is at least some chance that the institutions of the symposium have also

arrived. In the absence of kraters, some sign is needed that large open vessels of someother kind were available for the mixing of wine before one leaps from the presence of

drinking vessels to the presence of the symposium. Consequently, the fact that atEnserune between 600 and 450, 93 per cent of the Greek material consists of cups, and

most of the fine Etruscan wares of the sixth century consist of kantharoi, is insufficientevidence for sympotic practice there—indeed, it might be taken to indicate theopposite.6 What is more, the pattern of ceramic imports at the Greek settlement at

Massalia is not so very different; here again, cups and Etruscan kantharoi dominate thesixth-century assemblage.7 Literary sources going back to the Aristotelian Constitution

of Massalia record the Greek settlers as bringing the vine and the olive to the south ofFrance, but it is far from clear whether they also brought the symposiumwith them, or

whether they themselves adopted the drinking practices of the local population.8 Earlyimports to the Greek settlements were dominated by Etruscan amphorae and

bucchero kantharoi, but when local ceramic production was developed—the so-calledPseudo-Ionic and grey monochrome wares—most local products took the form of

cups and shapes derived from the native repertoire.9 Equally, to import a krater doesnot mean using it for mixing wine. Higher up the Rhone valley we find a differentpattern of Greek ceramic imports, with the krater a significant presence, along with

some exceptionally fine cups. There is some reason to believe, however, that kraters ingeneral—like the great bronze Vix krater—were markers of elite status, rather than

functional vessels for mixing wine and water in a sympotic context.10 Similarly, at LosNietos in Spain, excavations have uncovered eight fourth-century red-figure kraters

along with amphorae, but no cups.11 In various Spanish contexts the chous seems tohave become a libation vessel,12 and there are indications that in Andalusia the use of

Greek vases for ritual purposes was a reflection of their prestige status, not theacquisition of Greek habits.13

How does this compare with what we can deduce about the use of perfume vessels,

exported above all from Corinth a century earlier? Roughly half of all knownCorinthian seventh-century pottery has been found in Greek settlements abroad or in

native Italian cemeteries. For the earlier part of the century (i.e., Protocorinthian)

Mediterranean Historical Review 87

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

the cemeteries of Greek settlements abroad themselves account for more than half ofall known Corinthian pots; for the second half of the century, those cemeteries remain

the largest single source, but Italian native cemeteries have become larger consumers ofCorinthian pots than cemeteries on the Greek mainland or in the Aegean.14

In themselves, the number of finds tells us little about usage. The pots in question arepartly sympotic (jugs, cups) and partly perfume vessels (aryballoi, alabastra). Residue

analysis supports the idea that the aryballoi were not simply vessels for perfume, butthey were vessels sold with perfume in them, in some cases apparently rather pungent

perfume. Depositing such vessels in graves by Greek settlers abroad might merely marka conservative repetition of the practices of the cities from which they originated, butthe variety of funerary practices attested in the Greek settlements of Sicily, and the

numerous ways in which they differ from the practices of ’mother cities’, suggests thatwhen we get perfume vessels it is most likely because they played an active role in

funerary ceremonial.15 There is, of course, nothing about the shape of the aryballos oralabastron itself which demands its funerary use. The use of such vessels in cemeteries

by the native population of Italy cannot have been learned from the pots alone, butmust have been either a product of observation of what the Greeks did with those pots

or a result of these pots providing new and convenient containers for what the Italianpeoples already employed in funerary ritual.If for many sites in the western Mediterranean one can only guess how the imported

pottery was employed, in Etruria the situation is clearer. From the seventh century on,one finds Etruscan graves that combine drinking vessels of both Greek and of Etruscan

type and origin; indeed, a scene on a sixth-century bucchero vase shows both anEtruscan kantharos and a Greek kotyle being used, both by seated men.16 Greek

sympotic vases — kraters, amphorae, jugs, and kylikes — are found too, along with alyre player, in Etruscan tomb paintings of the end of the sixth and middle of the fifth

century.17 Terracotta architectural reliefs from Etruria and Rome similarly includesympotic scenes. These show the playing of the aulos and the kithara, drinkers

reclining, kraters, and servants ladling or bringing jugs to refill their drinking cups. Butthey also show reclining women sharing couches with men. We appear to have all thepractices of the Greek symposium, but in a different social framework.18 This is further

emphasized by the peculiarity of the symposium scenes painted on stamnoi (a shapewhich seems to have been particularly made for the Italian market19) by an Athenian

workshop, which seems to have been one of few to adapt its imagery to what it took tobe Etruscan taste: Alan Shapiro has drawn attention to the way in which the ’Perizoma

Group’ not only shows athletes in very un-Greek loincloths, but shows womenreclining at sympotic couches along with men.20

What consideration of pot shapes and functions suggests, therefore, is that Greekpots did not carry Hellenized practices. Simply acquiring Greek pots made for aparticular use did not mean acquiring that pattern of use. Non-Greek peoples often

took an interest only in such pots as they could employ to do, and do better, theactivities in which they were already engaged; in so far as they acquired pots to do

something different, it is because they had taken over the different practice from

88 R. Osborne

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

observation of Greek settlers, not because the pots themselves carried that practicewith them. Even those of Greek origin and descent, it appears, sometimes adjusted to

local patterns of behaviour, rather than insist on acquiring the material commoditiesthat would enable them to carry on behaving as they had in the places from which they

came.If little Greek cultural learning travelled with pot shapes, what about the imagery on

pots? Should we imagine that those who acquired figured pottery were paying closeattention to the imagery and learning from it a wealth of mythological stories and

social practices? It has been tempting for scholars sometimes to suggest, for instance,that the careful labelling not only of human figures but also of objects on the Francoisvase was an educative matter.21 But a moment of reflection suggests that this will not

work. Putting known names next to figures works well as a way of teaching reading tothose to whom the name means something, but whose reading abilities are limited.

But it makes no sense at all to those for whom the name once deciphered will meannothing. In this sense, the Francois vase might have been a great educational tool for

Greeks new to writing, but it was a useless tool for those used to reading Etruscan, butwho want to learn to read Greek. Only someone with prior knowledge of the stories

shown on the vase would have found the writing helpful.In fact there is quite good reason to think that Greek mythology was sufficiently

familiar to Etruscans already in the seventh century for the sophistication of the

Francois vase to be enjoyed, either by those who could or those who could not readGreek. The evidence for this claim is partly archaeological. The Etruscan pithos which

Anthony Snodgrass has shown to be closer to the literal description of the blinding ofPolyphemos than any extant representation on archaic Greek pottery constitutes good

evidence that Etruscan artists did not derive their knowledge of Greek myths from theiconography of Greek pottery.22 Similarly, the Medea named on an Etruscan relief-

decorated bucchero olpe from the second half of the seventh century does not share aniconography with the Medea of Greek art.23 Another example dating from the sixth

century is the figure of Troilos on sixth-century Etruscan pottery and in the Tomb ofthe Bulls in Tarquinia, Italy, in which Spivey and Stoddart have shown convincinglythat there are features of the iconography that are not found in any Greek version, but

which can be explained from features of the story as told which surface in later literaryversions.24 But there is even more powerful linguistic evidence. All the names of Greek

gods and heroes in Etruscan derive from the Doric dialect of Corinth. Philologistssometimes refer to this as the ’Demaratean layer’, and, whatever we make of the history

of Demaratus, this linguistic evidence is evidence that the Etruscans learnt myth(in the seventh century) from the telling of stories, not from looking at pictures.25

This independence of knowledge of myth from pictures of myth on pottery is not aphenomenon limited to Etruria. Greek settlements in Sicily and southern Italy rarelyproduced figured pottery in the Archaic period, and when they did they seem to have

done so by importing (at least initially) potters trained elsewhere (as with Chalkidianpottery; and compare the hydriai from Etruscan Caere). But the seventh-century

polychrome pottery from Megara Hyblaea shows originality both in its shapes and

Mediterranean Historical Review 89

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

in its iconography.26 While from the eighth century on there are certainly cases ofpotters setting up in Sicily and Italy to produce look-alikes of pottery made on the

Greek mainland, as soon as that pottery turns itself to figurative decoration it beginsdistinctly to diverge.

There is, of course, plenty of evidence for intelligent and discriminatingemployment of imported Greek vases in accordance with their iconography. Most

straightforward are the cases where vases with scenes of warfare are deposited in thetomb of a warrior. Juliet de la Geniere has discussed one example from Certosa,

Clemente Marconi another from the Contrada Mose cemetery at Akragas.27 Butneither this nor the peculiar enthusiasm of particular places for particular scenes(for instance the dominance by Vulci of the market for black-figure hydriai with

fountain scenes28) shows that the pots themselves were transmitting Hellenic culture—these cases may demonstrate, in de la Geniere’s words, ‘l’hellenophilie des Etrusques’,

but there is no reason to believe that they generated it.It is particularly interesting in this context to see what emerges from Shanks’s

analysis of seventh-century Corinthian pottery in the west.29 Shanks has shown thatthe Corinthian pots from Greek settlements abroad and from Italian native cemeteries

are slightly less inclined to have figured decoration than those found in cemeteries andparticularly in sanctuaries on the mainland and in the Aegean. He has also shown thatthe sorts of figures found in the west are distinct both from those on pots from

cemeteries in the mainland and Aegean and from those from sanctuaries there in thefirst half of the seventh century, but that in the second half they become very close to

mainland and Aegean cemeteries, though remaining distinct from sanctuaries.30 Thedifference of potentially greatest significance in the early seventh-century pots is

the absence of people from the pots in Greek and native cemeteries in Sicily and Italy.This suggests that those carrying the vases began cautiously concentrating on pots

whose decoration they thought translated most readily. As they discovered that themarket was voracious they gave up being discriminating.

My major conclusion should have become clear. Pottery did not, as far as I can see,serve in any significant fashion to spread Greek cultural knowledge or values, and itdid not of itself create a network of people linked by shared cultural knowledge and

experience. Of course Greek pots will have excited curiosity. We can expect that manypeople on seeing some Greek pot shapes for the first time will indeed have asked what

that pot was for. Similarly, the scenes on pots will have excited questions both aboutstories and about Greek life. But all the evidence favours the hypothesis that while pots

might reinforce knowledge and habits already acquired, it was people behaving in aparticular way who were required to spread habits, and it was stories and histories

passed on by word of mouth, or by text, that were required to spread knowledge.This conclusion goes along, I think, with the view that individual markets might be

particularly discriminating, and that far from trade being ‘down-the-line’ it was

mostly ‘directed’, with merchants setting out, whether on the basis of orders or simplyon the basis of their knowledge of the market they were serving, with goods that had

been selected to meet particular local taste.31 That taste was not, in my view,

90 R. Osborne

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

particularly highly selective—overall anything Greek potters produced seems to havefound its way to an export market somewhere—but it was preformed.32 What had

formed it was no doubt in part past experience of Greek pottery, but it was alsocultural habits acquired independently of any pottery. The common Greek culture of

the central Mediterranean in the period from ca. 700 onwards may have beenreinforced by Greek pottery exports, but it was not significantly shaped by them.

There are implications here for the question, ignored so far in this paper, of who it wasthat carried the Greek pottery to non-Greekmarkets. Nothing about the impact of Greek

pots demands that those who sold them on knew about their use or their decoration.There are reasons for thinking that, at least in the eighth and seventh centuries, Corinthianpottery may have been carried around the Mediterranean by Phoenicians as well as by

Greeks.33 The distribution of pottery shapes, including shapes of seventh-centuryCorinthian pottery, argues against the pots being carried by opportunist traders who

reckoned to pay only one, profitable, visit, which is the Homeric picture of thePhoenicians, but it has long been clear that that Homeric picture is an ideological

construct, not re-telling of historically familiar experience.We should expect that a lot ofnon-Greeks, as well as many Greeks, travelled with Greek pots.

I conclude that very little cultural baggage travelled with Greek pottery in theArchaic period. But not none. What the above conclusion overlooks is that what Greekpots gave those who bought them a taste for was things that looked like Greek pots.

However much local pot production may differ in detail from Greek painted pottery,there is no doubt at all that Etruscan black- and later red-figure vases broadly imitate

the shapes and decorative schemes of Athenian black- and red-figure pottery.34

Nikosthenes’ enterprise of imitating Etruscan shapes, although not without some

short-term success (he disposed of as many Etruscanizing pieces as Attic), inspired noemulators. This suggests that his fellow potters in the Kerameikos regarded his

imitating Etruscan shapes to be as misguided as the Perizoma group’s attempt toproduce an Etruscan iconography, and for much the same reason — that they knew

the Etruscan market voraciously to consume all Greek iconography and equallyvoraciously to purchase pots that were of the traditional Athenian shapes.35 And whatis demonstrated in some detail by Etruscan potters is manifest in a simpler way in the

various imitations of cups produced at various times and places in the central andwestern Mediterranean. Whether what they used those pots for bore any relationship

to what Greeks of the mainland and Aegean used pots of the same shape for or not,both Greeks and non-Greeks acquired a taste for pots that had a broadly Greek look to

them. In the end, the network created by Greek pottery as it travels is a network ofaesthetic preferences.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Christy Constantakopoulou and Katherina Panayopoulou for their invitation to themost hospitable conference at Rethymnon in May 2006, and to the two sympathetic and helpfulreaders who substantially reinforced the final product.

Mediterranean Historical Review 91

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

Notes

[1] Osborne, ‘Pots’; ‘Why Did Athenian Pots Appeal?’ (with useful corrections of detail inPaleothodoros, ‘Pourquoi les Etrusques achetaient-ils?’). The conclusions about voracitysquare with those offered independently by Reusser, Vasen fur Etrurien.

[2] Long et al., ‘Les epaves archaıques’, 205, base this estimate upon the recovery of a minimumnumber of 1265 ‘Ionian’ cups and more than 500 Attic cups of various sorts (along with 68transport amphoras. See also Stissi, ‘Modern Finds’, 354; Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks, 192, 323.

[3] Rouillard, ‘Le vase attique’, 332; for the complex pattern of fine pottery and transportamphoras in archaic wrecks see Long et al., ‘Les epaves archaıques’, 229. It is not the case that noAthenian pottery, other than transport amphoras, is exported in the late eighth and first half ofthe seventh century, but the quantities are small. For Megara Hyblaea, see De Angelis, MegaraHyblaea and Selinous, 89–90.

[4] Hesnard, ‘Nouvelles recherches’, 237.[5] Compare the discussions in Marconi, ‘Images’; and Osborne, ‘Images’.[6] Dubosse, ‘Enserune’. Open vessels similarly predominate at Saint-Pierre-les-Martigues:

Campenon, ‘La ceramique grecque’.[7] Gantes, ‘La physionomie’.[8] Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 576; Justin 43.3–4. See Dietler, ‘Driven by Drink’; ‘The Cup of

Gyptis’.[9] Dietler, ‘The Cup of Gyptis’; ‘The Iron Age’, 278–79, 303.[10] Dietler, ‘The Cup of Gyptis’, 98: ‘In the highly stratified societies of the Hallstatt area,

Mediterranean imports were valued primarily for their diacritical symbolic value indistinguishing elite consumption rituals . . . In the less politically centralized and sociallystratified societies of the Lower Rhone basin, wine was valued as an additional element in thetraditional arena of commensal politics by which prestige was competed for.’ The classic surveyof the evidence is Shefton, ‘Zum Import und Einfluss’.

[11] Olmos, ‘Usos’, 428.[12] Ibid., 433.[13] Cabrera, ‘Comercio’.[14] Shanks, Art and the Early Greek State, fig. 4.2.[15] Shepherd, ‘The Pride of Most Colonials’.[16] Gran-Aymerich, ‘Vases grecques’, 449.[17] Spivey, ‘Greek Vases in Etruria’, 135–37, discussing the Tomba dei Vasi Dipinti and the Tomba

della Nave.[18] Menichetti, Archeologia del potere, 96–98.[19] Philippaki, The Attic Stamnos.[20] Shapiro, ‘Modest Athletes’, 330–33. For suggestions that some Dionysiac imagery on stamnoi

relates to Etruscan rather than Athenian festivals, see de la Geniere, ‘Vases des Leneennes?’ and‘Images attiques’; and, for counter-arguments, see Osborne, ‘The Ecstasy’.

[21] De la Geniere, ‘Quelques reflexions’, 417: ‘Quant a l’abondance exceptionnelle des episodes dela legende grecque qui couvrent le reste du vase, elle repond a l’appetit d’erudition d’une societeriche et permeable; et pour le cas ou l’usage du grec n’y serait pas parfaitement maıtrise, lepeintre a parfois indique le nom des objets representes.’

[22] Snodgrass, Homer and the Artists.[23] Rizzo, ‘Un incunabulo’.[24] Spivey and Stoddart, Etruscan Italy, 99.[25] I owemy knowledge of the philology to Albio Cassio. On this phenomenon, see de Simone, ‘Per

la storia’, 497–501, 517–88 and, more generally, Die griechischen Entlehnungen. For theexception of Odysseus, see Malkin, The Returns, 161.

[26] De Angelis, Megara Hyblaia, 57–61; Massa-Pairault, ‘Megarica’, 110–19.

92 R. Osborne

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

[27] De la Geniere, ‘Quelques reflexions’, 420; Marconi, ‘Images’.[28] De la Geniere, ‘Quelques reflexions’, 419.[29] There are limits to the robustness of Shanks conclusions because his data set does not include

fragmentary material and a number of important sites are not represented at all in his data.Nevertheless, it is currently the only such study that is published and it is his data from whichI derive my claims here. For what can be achieved with more thorough analysis of the material,see Cooper, Winged Figures in Corinthian Vase-Painting.

[30] Shanks, Art and the Early Greek State, figs. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6.[31] That is the view argued in Osborne, ‘Pots’.[32] That is the view argued in Osborne, ‘Why Did Athenian Pots Appeal?’.[33] Morris and Papadopoulos, ‘Phoenicians’.[34] On Etruscan pottery, see Beazley, Etruscan Vase Painting; Spivey, The Micali Painter; Martelli,

La Ceramica degli Etruschi.[35] On Nikosthenes, see Tosto, The Black-Figure Pottery Signed [NIKOSTHENESEPOIESEN].

References

Michel Bats et al. Marseille grecque et la Gaule (Etudes Massalietes 3). Lattes, 1992.Beazley, John D. Etruscan Vase Painting. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947.Cabrera, Paloma. ‘Commercio, intercambios, esferas de interaccion: el commercio griego en la

Penınsula iberica’. In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modes d’emploi, edited by M.-C.Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris: Documentation francaise,1999.

Campenon, Christine. ‘La ceramique grecque de Saint-Pierre-les-Martigues, L’apport des fouillesrecentes: quelques remarques preliminaires’. In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modesd’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris:Documentation francaise, 1999.

Cooper, Catherine. Winged Figures in Corinthian Vase-Painting: A Contextual Approach to the Useof Iconography on Corinthian Pottery in the GreekWorld, Ph.D. diss., King’s College London,2007.

De Angelis, Franco. Megara Hyblaia and Selinous: The Development of Two Greek City-States inArchaic Sicily. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 55, 2003.

De la Geniere, Juliette. ‘Vases des Leneennes?’. Melanges de l’Ecole francaise de Rome Antiquite 99(1987): 43–61.

———.‘Images attiques et religiosite etrusque’. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greekand Related Pottery, edited by J. Christiansen, and T. Melander. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet;Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek; Thorvaldsens Museum, 1988.

———.‘Quelques reflexions sur les clients de la ceramique attique’. In Ceramique et peinturegrecques: modes d’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A.Rouveret. Paris: Documentation francaise, 1999.

De Simone, Carlo. Die griechischen Entlehnungen in Etruskischen. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: O. Harrasowitz,1968–70.

———.‘Per la storia degli imprestiti greci in etrusco’. Aufstieg und diedergang der romischen Welt I,no. 2 (1972): 491–521.

Dietler, Michael. ‘Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case ofEarly Iron Age France’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9. (1990): 352–406.

———.‘The Cup of Gyptis: Rethinking the Colonial Encounter in Early Iron Age Western Europeand the Relevance of World-Systems Models’. Journal of European Archaeology 3 (1995):89–111.

Mediterranean Historical Review 93

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

———.‘The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial Encounters, Entanglements, and

Transformations’. Journal of World Prehistory 11 (1997): 269–357.

Dubosse, Cecile. ‘Enserune: les arrivages de ceramiques fines grecques et etrusque (600–450 av. J.-C.’.

In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modes d’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig,

F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris: Documentation francaise, 1999.

Gantes, Lucien-Francois. ‘La physionomie de la vaisselle tournee importee a Marseille au VIe siecle

av. J.-C.’. In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modes d’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig,

F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris: Documentation francaise, 1999.

Gran-Aymerich, Jean. ‘Vases grecs et vases etrusques: les services mixtes’. In Ceramique et peinture

grecques: modes d’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and

A. Rouveret. Paris: Documentation francaise, 1999.

Hesnard, Antoinette ‘Nouvelles recherches sur les epaves preromaines en baie de Marseille’.

In Marseille grecque, edited by M. Bats et al. Aix-en-Provence: ADAM editions: Universite de

Provence, 1992.

Long, L., J. Miro, G. Volpe. ‘Les epaves archaıques de la pointe Lequin (Porquerolles, Hyeres, Var).

Des donnees nouvelles sur le commerce de Marseille a la fin du VIe siecle et dans la premieres

moitie du Ve s. av. J.C.’. In Marseille grecque, edited by M. Bats et al. Aix-en-Provence: ADAM

editions: Universite de Provence, 1992.

Malkin, Irad. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1998.

Marconi, Clemente. ‘Images for a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and Their Public’. In Greek

Vases: Images, Contexts, and Controversies, edited by C. Marconi. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004.

Martelli, M., ed. La Ceramica degli Etruschi. La pittura vascolare. Milan: Istituto Geografico de

Agostini, 1987.

Massa-Pairault, Francoise. ‘Megarica en hommage a Georges Vallet’. In La colonisation grecque en

Mediterranee occidentale. Actes de la rencontre scientifique en hommage aa Georges Vallet.

Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1999.

Menichetti, Mauro. Archeologia del potere. Re, immagini e miti a Roma e in Etruria in eta arcaica.

Milan: Longanesi, 1994.

Morris, S. P., and J. K. Papadopoulos. ‘Phoenicians and the Corinthian Pottery Industry’.

In Archaologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, Veroffentlichungen der Joachim

Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften e.V. Hamburg, Vol. 87. Edited by R. Rolle, K.

Schmidt, and R. Docter. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1988.

Olmos, Ricardo. ‘Usos y transformaciones de la ceramica griega entre los iberos: los siglos Vy IVa.C.’.

In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modes d’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig,

F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris: Documentation francaise, 1999.

Osborne, Robin. ‘Pots, Trade and the Archaic Greek Economy’. Antiquity 70. (1996): 31–44.

———.‘The Ecstasy and the Tragedy: Varieties of Religious Experience in Art, Drama, and Society’.

In Greek Tragedy and the Historian, edited by C. B. R. Pelling. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

———.‘Why Did Athenian Pots Appeal to the Etruscans?’. World Archaeology 33, no. 2 (2001):

277–95.

———.‘Images of a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and Their Public’. In Greek Vases:

Images, Contexts, and Controversies, edited by C. Marconi. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004. 41–54.

Paleothodoros, Dimitrios. ‘Pourquoi les Etrusqueses achetaient-ils des vases attiques?’. Les etudes

classiques 70. (2002): 139–60.

Parker, Anthony J. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. BAR

International Series 580. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1992.

Philippaki, Barbara. The Attic Stamnos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Reusser, Christoph. Vasen fur Etrurien. Verbreitung und Funktionen attischer Keramik im Etrurien des

6. und 5. Jahrhuderts vor Christus., 2 vols. Zurich: Akantus, 2002.

94 R. Osborne

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] At:

18:2

7 8

July

200

8

Rouillard, Pierre. Les Grecs et la peninsule Iberique du VIII aue IVe siecle av, Jesus-Christ. Talence:Universite de Bordeaux III; Paris: Diffusion, De Boccard, 1991.

———.‘Le vase attique: de sa recolte a sa cartographie’. In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modesd’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris:Documentation francaise, 1999.

Rizzo, Maria A. ‘Un incunabulo del mito greco in Etruria’. Annuaris della Scuola Archeologica diAtene delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 66–67 (1988–89): 7–47.

Shanks, Michael. Art and the Early Greek State: An Interpretive Archaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1999.

Shapiro, Alan H. ‘Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscans on Attic Black-Figure Vases’.In Not the Classical Ideal, edited by B. Cohen. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000.

Shefton, Brian B. ‘Zum Import und Einfluss mediterraner Guter in Alteuropa’. Kolner Jahrbuch furVor- und Fruhgeschichte 22 (1989): 207–20.

Shepherd, Gillian. ‘The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial and Religion in the Sicilian Colonies’.In Ancient Sicily, edited by T. Fischer-Hansen. Acta Hyperborea 6. (1995): 51–82.

Snodgrass, Anthony M. Homer and the Artists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Spivey, Nigel. The Micali Painter and His Followers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.———. ‘Greek Vases in Etruria’. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by N. Spivey and T. Rasmussen.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Spivey, Nigel, and Simon Stoddart. Etruscan Italy: An Archaeological History. London: Batsford, 1990.Stissi, Vladimir. ‘Modern Finds and Ancient Distribution’. In Ceramique et peinture grecques: modes

d’emploi, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, and A. Rouveret. Paris:Documentation francaise, 1999.

Tosto, Vincent. The Black-Figure Pottery Signed [NIKOSTHENESEPOIESEN]. Amsterdam: AllardPierson Museum, 1999.

Mediterranean Historical Review 95