Mario iozzoThe François Vase:

noTes on Technical aspecTs and FuncTion

54

When, in 1981, the report on the most recent res-

toration of the François Vase, carried out in 1973,

was published, Mario cristofani called attention to

a technical detail that led him to further speculation.

When the 638 extant fragments of the vase were

disassembled, several sets of holes were noted, on

and around the handles, the symmetrical arrange-

ment of which, along with the absence of connect-

ing channels, led him to rule out the possibility that

they were the result of an ancient repair.1 nor, cris-

tofani argued, could they belong to one of the mod-

ern restorations, neither to that of Giovanni Gual-

berto Franceschi in 1845 nor to that of pietro zei

following the attack of 1900,2 both because such

an invasive procedure would have been difficult to

achieve and because there would have been some

mention in the technical reports of that time.3 in-

1 Cristofani 1981, 101, with which Hurwit 2002, 5, note 14, concurs.

2 For the vicissitudes of the krater’s restoration, see Milani 1902; Minto 1960, 5–16; Cristofani 1981, 101–111. For the cultural context in chiusi at the time of the discovery and the krater’s first restoration, see Barni / PaoluCCi 1985, espe-cially. 84–86 (G. paolucci).

3 For modern methods of restoration see recently Pfisterer-Hass 1998, 12–22; Kästner 2002, 139–140; Bourgeois / san-trot / Vinçotte 2004, 37–43; Bentz / Kästner 2007.

stead, cristofani hypothesized that the holes were

part of an intentional procedure carried out in an-

tiquity the purpose of which remained obscure but

might have to do with the transport of the krater. it

could have been lifted by means of rings fixed in

the handles, in order to be carried in a pompê, as

is depicted, for example, in the second frieze of the

famous bronze situla from the certosa.4 This would

suggest a primarily ceremonial function for the vase

in the society of archaic chiusi.

direct observation of the vase, together with ongo-

ing discussion with the colleagues who participated

in the symposium at the Villa spelman, inspired me

to re-examine the technical detail of the holes in the

krater and their function.

What Were the Holes For?

The holes are limited to the handles and occur no-

where else on the vase. on handle a/B (Pl. 2, and

Fig. 1), there is the figure of hephaistos on an ithy-

phallic mule who, holding his ergaleia (tools) in his

hand, brings up the rear of the wedding procession,

while the snaky tail of okeanos winds along the

ground. on handle B/a (Pl. 4, and Fig. 2) we see the

horses belonging to the chariot of ares and aphro-

dite and the last group of three Muses: erato, polym-

nis, and the much-discussed stesichore.5 The holes

are placed symmetrically at the base of each handle,

in two groups of four, on either side of large breaks.

They go all the way through, except for one (B/a 6),

4 see recently Bartoloni / Morigi goVi 1995; Morigi goVi 2000, 374, n. 570; Bosi / garagnani / Martini / Morigi goVi / Bartoloni 2001.

5 For the inscriptions and the problems of the spelling, as giv-en by Cristofani 1981 and modified by Pugliese Carratelli 1984, 373–375, see the significant comments by waCHter 1991, 86–113, who also discovered the new inscription (lith)os on the white stone carried by the centaur hasbolos, increasing the total number of the inscriptions to 130; see also HirayaMa 2010, 161–163. For the figure of stesichore: stewart 1983, 56 e 71, notes 7 and 10.

iozzo

For their advice and suggestions in many profitable discus-sions, i thank the following colleagues and friends: andrew clark (encino, ca), Martine denoyelle (paris), nassi Malagardis (paris), Thomas Mannack (oxford), piera Melli (Genova), hans-peter Müller (leipzig), Jenifer neils (cleveland), Michael padgett (princeton), Maria pipili (athens), Maurizio pistolesi (pisa), Brian shefton (†), elisabeth stasinopoulou-Kakarouga (athens), Mich-alis Tiverios (Thessalo niki), Michael Vickers (oxford), François Villard (paris), shelby White (new York), and dyfri Williams (london). i owe particular thanks to Jasper Gaunt (atlanta) for his advice and references generously shared in many discussions of the problem investigated here, profiting from his profound knowledge of volute-kraters. For the calculations of physical re-sistance i wish to thank the department of physics in the engi-neering Faculty in the university of Florence. The examination with fiber optic micro-cameras was carried out thanks to the readiness and cooperation of the national institute of applied optics in Florence. My special thanks go to dr. Guglielmo Fran-çois and to the other descendants of alessandro for having tried to find an image of their ancestor, sadly in vain, because in the 1970s the entire gallery of family portraits was stolen from the castello di Querceto in Greve in chianti, Florence, and never recovered.

55

Technical aspecTs and FuncTion

François Vase: detail of handle a/B with holes (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

François Vase: detail of handle B/a with holes (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

1

2

X

9

(2)

3 4

5

(7)

6

(8)

(1)

Y

10

(W)

2

3 4

(5)

(7)

6

(8)

(1)

(Z)

9 10

56

which in any case turns out to be at the point of

greatest thickness of the entire vase. all the holes

have a diameter of about 0.5 to 0.6 cm. in addition,

on both handles, at the base of the wide strap of the

volute, that is, at the bottom of each metope show-

ing ajax with the body of achilles, two more holes

have been inserted: a/B x–y and B/a (w)–z. These

holes apparently do not go all the way through and

are not horizontally drilled, but rather vertically and

downward. That is, they are directed to the holes

drilled in the horseshoes that support each volute

(a/B 9–10 and B/a 9–10) with which they are con-

nected.

some of the holes (indicated here by numbers in

parentheses) were completely reconstructed by the

restorers in 1973 on the basis of traces of the drill

found in the breaks of the fragments or based on

the hypothesis of a symmetrical arrangement: a/B

(1)–(2) and (7)–(8); B/a (1) and (5). holes B/a 4, 7,

and 8 preserve clear traces of the insertion of lead,

as well as a/B x, in which the metal extended to the

corresponding exit hole a/B 9.

at first, my research took as a point of departure

cristofani’s observations and the idea that at least

some of the holes (such as those on the straps of the

volutes, which apparently do not go through) could

have been made before the firing6 and intended for

the application of a special form of ornamentation,7

6 an example of holes made in a vase before firing is the late corinthian neck-amphora without handles in the British Museum (1873.1–11.8, ex Merlin), with holes on the neck for the strings by which the lid was attached, but also with some holes on the shoulder, made for some unknown pur-pose: Payne 1931, 337, no. 1553, fig. 95; aMyx 1988, 277, no. 7 (with additional bibliography).

7 The insertion of ornamental metallic elements on vases is very rare and denotes some special use, as for instance on trick vases (see bibliography in iozzo 2002, 153–154, under no. 207, pls. XcV–XcVi). attic pyxides with metal handles are another example of this phenomenon (see roBerts 1978, passim; for a good illustration see staïnHaouer 2001, 267, fig. 374). an equally exceptional case is the attic chy-

or perhaps for one of the garlands that are often de-

picted in komos and symposium scenes throughout

attic iconography (Fig. 3).8 i also considered the

possibility that they served a specific purpose in

antiquity, such as securing a lid or a wide strainer

resting on the neck, like the one referred to on the

well-known grave stele of phanodikos from sigeion,9

which mentions a krater set on a hypokraterion and

fitted with an ethmos (strainer). such strainers have

in fact been found on a variety of bronze kraters, es-

pecially volute-kraters, from those of Vix and derve-

ni to those from Trebenishte, now in sofia and Bel-

grade, to those in the ortiz collection in Geneva, in

a private collection in new York, and finally to an

example in the olympia Museum.10

But, in the light of recent research on ancient re-

pairs, which has experienced remarkable growth

thanks, above all, to the availability of technologies

that were not in use at the time of the last restora-

tridion with two pairs of small holes on the rim for the at-tachment of metal handle (as shown by the remains of cas-siterite combined with an unidentified azotized substance), intended for the rings for a small movable handle or for a little chain: louvre cp 3315/F 169; ABV 614, 3, Group of louvre F 166; Malagardis 2005. in this connection it is worth mentioning a large etruscan olla from orvieto with a movable bronze handle: Bizzarri 1966, 20–21, 102, fig. 10. The application of decorative metal elements can also be found on italic impasto ware of the Villanovan and orien-talizing period, decorated with small thin metal rectangles (Bartoloni / delPino 1975; de angelis 2001, 20–21; CaMPo-reale 1977, 222–223) or the lead edging of the griffin’s beaks on the paolozzi cinerary urn in chiusi (iozzo 2000; iozzo / Venturini 2002). a different use of metallic elements is seen on two attic kylikes, one red-figure and the other black-glaze from a celtic tomb in Kleinaspergle, to which small gold leaves were applied (frey 2002, 174–175, fig. 141 (d. Marzoli), 297, nos. 91.5–6; Krausse 2003, 208–210, pl. 33). compare also the application of sheet gold with a repoussé gorgoneion under the foot of an attic band-cup found in an etruscan tomb in orvieto (Bizzarri 1962, 87–8, nos. 311 e 313, figs. 23 b, 28, pl. V c), which disguised the ancient lead repairs.

8 chiusi, Museo archeologico nazionale 62979: ARV2 281, 33; Add.2 208 (Flying angel painter).

9 Jeffery / JoHnston 1990, 366–367, 371, nos. 43–44.10 see the list given by gaunt 2002; for the filter from well no.

63 in olympia see gauer 1991, 255, M 27, pl. 83, 1, figs. 3, 38 and 25, 1.

iozzo

57

tion of the François Vase over thirty years ago, the

series of holes can now be interpreted differently.

all of the holes visible on the vase are the result of

an ancient repair.

in fact, a detailed examination, carried out with the

use of thin strands of fibre optic light and an en-

larging micro camera – which makes it possible to

read perfectly the striations left in the thickness of

the vase by the pointed instruments used to drill the

holes – revealed that all the openings were created

after the firing of the vase, with an instrument that

made slow and inconsistent rotations, that is, a hand

drill of the so-called violin type. This is the drill de-

picted beside epeios, building the Trojan horse, on

a well-known etruscan vase in Florence (Fig. 4).11

11 Florence, Museo archeologico nazionale 96780 (stamnos, or a hydria of special shape): BoCCi PaCini / Maggiani 1985; gaultier 2000, 436–437 (with a short entry by c. zaccagni-no, 609, no. 217).

it is possible to make out that on both handles the

holes in the straps of the volutes are superimposed

on the decoration, namely, on the frieze of small

tongues at the bottom of each metope with ajax

and achilles. on side a/B the hole has even dam-

aged part of ajax’s foot, a clear indication that it was

done well after the vase had been completed.

How to Carry a Krater?

Therefore, the earlier suggestion of rings that were

attached for the lifting and/or the transport of the

vase can be definitely discounted. When empty, the

krater weighs about 22 kilograms12 and, when filled,

12 Today the actual weight of the vase is 21.75 kg, however, this figure includes the weight of the areas restored in plas-ter and resin which in reality have a lower mass weight than the terracotta they replaced.

Technical aspecTs and FuncTion

43

chiusi, Museo archeologico nazionale, inv. no 62979: attic red-figure column-krater attributed to the Flying angel painter (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

Florence, Museo archeologico nazionale, inv. no. 96780: etruscan black-figure stamnos (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

58

would have reached the impressive weight of more

than 100 kilos. Thus, any lifting element would sure-

ly have broken, especially any attachments in soft

lead. it is difficult to imagine that the François Vase

could have been comfortably carried by hand held

in someone’s outstretched arms, as we see in some

representations on a kylix by the euergides painter

in the louvre (a volute-krater),13 for instance, or on

a pelike by the leningrad painter (a column-krater).14

This must be considered mainly a pictorial conven-

tion. it is surely much closer to reality to imagine

more secure methods of transport for a volute-krater

during a komos15 (whether a real-life event or trans-

posed to a mythological context), as are depicted

in many scenes, both attic (Fig. 5)16 and non-attic

(Fig. 6, Faliscan).17

having ruled out the idea of holes drilled in the

François Vase prior to firing, let us examine them as

evidence for an ancient repair. First of all, they occur

exclusively on the handles,18 and there are none in

the walls of the vase. From this we can conclude that

the body of the vase (Pls. 6–7 and Fig. 7) was never

broken before it was deposited in the large chamber

tomb at Fonte rotella, the precise location of which

13 louvre G71: ARV2 89, 21; Add.2 170.14 British Museum e351: ARV2 570, 56; Add.2 261.15 Whether or not the vase is of metal or terracotta, it is very

difficult to imagine how such a large object could have been carried in one’s outstretched arms, and most espe-cially if the vase was of metal with heavy cast elements. For kraters being moved or carried see gHiron-Bistagne 1976, 207–297; lissarrague 1990, 29–31, 39–44 ; Bron 1988; lis-sarrague 1990a.

16 rome, Villa Giulia (formerly in new York, collection of shelby White and leon levy: Von BotHMer 1990, 140–141, no. 107; CarPenter 1995, 158, fig. 8 (Medea Group), on which a reveller carries a volute-krater on his shoulder.

17 Genova, civico Museo di archeologia ligure, inv. no. 81: Melli 2009, figs. 4 and 6, on which a satyr carries a huge volute-krater horizontally (therefore empty) on his shoulder.

18 one must note that apart from the holes on the surface of the volutes, i.e handle a/B x–y and handle B/a (w)–z, which overlap the tongues and the figured scenes of ajax carrying achilles, all the holes are inside the black rectangles at the lower handle attachments.

iozzo

5

6

rome, Museo nazionale etrusco di Villa Giulia (formerly new York, collection of s. White and l. levy): attic black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Medea Group (photo Maggie nimkin)

Genova, civico Museo di archeologia ligure, inv. no 81: Faliscan red-figure calyx-krater (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della liguria)

59

is not known even today.19 Very likely, someone

tried to lift the vase by the handles and they broke

and became detached from the neck, as often hap-

pens with volute-kraters, where we can see how the

strap of the volute usually becomes detached right

at the join with the ‘horseshoe’ beneath it.

in any case, the securing of the ‘horseshoes’ with

lead should have rendered the handles sufficiently

stable that the volutes could probably be reattached

to the rim (where, however, the contact surface was

always very restricted) with some material like glue,

since there are no holes or other traces of repair at

the point where the handles are joined to the rim.

The lead preserved in the holes noted above was

not cast,20 but, following a technique commonly

used in ancient repairs of Greek vases,21 is in the

form of a metal wire the ends of which were either

hammered or, more likely, pressed and fused to the

wall of the vase with a red-hot iron instrument. The

wire technique better explains the absence of join-

ing channels, which are not always present in an-

cient repairs. But the method that was adopted end-

ed up compromising the water-tightness of the vase,

which in turn meant it could not serve its purpose

19 in the spring of 1999, owing to one of the most ‘classic’ ac-cidents that leads to the discovery of a hypogeum, a horse’s hind leg fell into the vault of an etruscan chamber tomb, i carried out a campaign of excavation on a hill of Fonte rotella, during which i found three large hellenistic graves, of the type with a long dromos and small side niches and a room at the end. some stray fragments of attic black-figure little-master kylikes were found: iozzo 2006, 130 (Fig. 8: band-cup with a zoomorphic frieze, dated just a little after the François Vase).

20 a clearly visible example of the function of such cast lead staples is seen on the fragment illustrated by HeilMeyer 1988, 108–109, n. 9.

21 on the techniques af ancient repairs see riCHter 1924, 59, 63; Von BotHMer 1972; ClarK 1988, 27, pls. 27–29; noBle 1988, 175; elston 1990; HeMelriJK 1991; Pfisterer-Haas 1998, 5–11; BoardMan 2001, 161–162; ClarK / elston / Hart 2002, 140–141; Pfisterer-Haas 2002; see also Kaeser 2002, 69–70; BriJder 1996, 51; additional bibliographical refer-ences are collected by iozzo 2000, 114, sub no. 143, note 17; recently nadalini 2004 and Bentz / Kästner 2007.

Technical aspecTs and FuncTion

François Vase: profile and section (drawn by Grazia ugolini, soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

chiusi, Museo archeologico nazionale, inv. no 250873: fragment of an attic black-figure band-cup from Fonte rotella (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

7

8

60

How Was the François Krater Used?

This suggests that the François Vase was conceived

and fashioned by ergotimos as an actual vessel, the

capacity of which was an exact quantity of liquid

corresponding almost twice the standard measure of

his time.28

it is worth recalling athenaues (V 199e) who, al-

though writing in the age of commodus, seemingly

reports facts from antiquity29 and makes reference

to the metretes as a unit of measure in describing

the volume of large gilded kraters used in the sym-

posium (four laconian ones, each containing four

metretai, in other words about 157 liters, and two

corinthian ones, of eight metretai each, approxi-

mately 315 liters). This brings to mind the large exca-

vated bronze kraters: the one from derveni, with its

approximately 79–80 liters closely approaches the

François Vase; the one from Vix contains between

1100 and 1200 liters, not to mention the outsized

dimensions of the kraters dedicated by croisus at

delphi, as reported by herodotus (i 51) or the one

imported to exampaios by the scythians (iV 81).30

We may add another observation that apparently

has escaped the many scholars who inevitably fo-

cused their attention on the iconographical program

of the impressive array of images and the interpreta-

tive puzzle that it presents. The interior surface of

the vase, reddened owing to imperfect firing, shows

amphorae contained, whether oil or wine, see doCter 1991.

28 The most up-to-date studies have shown that panathenaic amphorae did not really hold exactly one metretes, but rather about three liters less, with a total capacity of ap-proximately 36–37 liters: Bentz 1998, 31 ff.. (with earlier bibliography and references to the studies of M. lang, M. Tiverios, M.F. Vos, p. Valavanis, J. neils); recently, summa-rized also by Bentz / BöHr 2002, 74–77. For the capacity of later panathenaic amphorae and for the changes in their unit of measure, see KratzMüller 2003.

29 MattusCH 2003, 219–220.30 sPiVey 2007, especially 243.

unless some material like resin could be spread on

and around the repairs to make the vase water-tight

again.22

This leads us to the vexata quaestio of the function

of the François Vase, that is, whether it was ever re-

ally functional or if it was used exclusively for cere-

monial purposes. our research on some of the tech-

nical issues also provided an occasion to calculate

the volume of the vase.23 Filled to the height of the

offset that marks the beginning of the rim, the vase

has a capacity of about 79 liters.24 This corresponds

almost exactly to two metretai, the unit of liquid

measure in athens traditionally ascribed to solon.25

one metretes corresponds to 39.395 liters, which

equals 24 choes at 3.283 lit ers each, or 288 kotylai

at 0.2736 liters each.26 This means the François Vase

held the equivalent of two archaic sos amphorae

of medium size, that is, those with an average height

of 64 cm. and diameter of 44 cm.27

22 nadalini 2004, 197–198.23 The calculation was done according to the method invent-

ed by rigoir 1981; moreover this was confirmed by tradi-tional mathematical calculation, which gave the very same result.

24 The volume as calculated to the offset of the neck from the shoulder is 62,5 liters, but it is difficult to imagine that in re-ality a vase was filled only to the level of the neck, leaving a significant amount of unused capacity. More likely it was filled to the level of the offset of the rim, even though ath-enaeus, 462d, quotes some verses by Xenophanes of colo-phon who speaks of a krater filled to the rim (mestos) – but this could be simply metaphorical.

25 The reform of the standard units of measure, traditionally attributed to solon, might have been instituted in the first peisistratid period: Hitzl 1996, 24–41; see also Bentz / BöHr 2002, 73.

26 For the liquid units of measure in Greece as calculated by HultsCH 1882, 703, and for the liquid capacity of vases (apart from the kotyle, which is also a unit of measure for solids) see lang 1956; lang / CrosBy 1964, 39–42, 56–59; lang 1976, 55–64; ClarK 1980, 47–49; Kaeser 1992, 65–69; ClarK 1992, 89–90; Bentz / BöHr 2002; see also wallaCe 1986, ValaVanis 1986, VanderMersCH 1994, 111–113, desan-tis 2001, desantis 2001a.

27 JoHnston / Jones 1978, 134–135; see also the bibliography given by reusser in the present volume (notes 4–7) and ni-JBoer 1998, ch. 4.2. For the problem of capacity see most recently iozzo 2009, 72–83. on the problem of what sos

iozzo

61

clear and unequivocal signs of the use of metal

utensils, traces of circular movements with kyathoi

and kykethra of different types, for measuring and

mixing the wine, visible principally on the lower

third of the vase (Fig. 9).31

These two factors, the capacity and the indications

of use, confirm that not only iconographical consid-

erations, but also practical ones link the krater in-

extricably to an athenian symposium. This consti-

tutes yet another support for the view that places the

creation of the François Vase in the socio-political

context of late solonian athens, for which it was

destined in the first instance, as several contributors

to this volume argue on the basis of complex inter-

pretation of the myths depicted, their relationship to

one another, and a detailed study of the inscribed

names.32 in my opinion, The association between

the François Vase and the etruscan world, in par-

ticular the aristocratic society of archaic chiusi,33

will always be secondary, even if this is where the

vase ended up and was used in a burial the funerary

rituals of which expressed the ideology of the local

31 For the marks that demonstrate that drinking vessels were actually used see Kaeser 2002, 69–71.

32 For the reading of the names see the bibliography in note 6 above; for the various interpretations from an athenian perspective see the comments by r. von den hoff in the present volume, with reference (note 26) to the opinions of c. robert, e. simon, u. Kron, a. shapiro, r. Wachter and s. Mills, as well as other scholars’ in this publication such as M. Torelli and J. neils.

33 another problem very often has been raised, namely, why a vase of this high quality was imported to such an inland city such as chiusi. This matter, recently brought up once again by MeniCHetti 1994, 77, is in fact not a real problem, because it stems exclusively from the random character of the pattern of distribution known to us. as a matter of fact, a recent investigation of the Greek imports into chiusi from the late seventh to the end of the sixth century B.C. has demonstrated that the François Vase was not at all an iso-lated case, but rather it is entirely in accord with our rich and diverse overall picture of imported ceramic tableware (just to keep to the same category to which the krater be-longs). Moreover, the krater was preceded in chiusi by not a few prestigious products from the athenian kerameikos and elsewhere (iozzo 2006).

Technical aspecTs and FuncTion

François Vase: detail of interior (photo soprintendenza Beni archeologici della Toscana)

9

principes. recent studies that have interpreted the

vase in an etruscan cultural context34 demonstrate

very well the kinds of values such a sought-after

monument and its anthology of mythological scenes

could have embodied once it had been acquired by

the aristocracy of chiusi. What they have not suc-

ceeded in demonstrating is that ergotimos and Klei-

tias were aware of such meanings and values or that

they intentionally designed their work to suit the re-

quirements of an etruscan point of view.

We need not stay with the traditional interpretation,

which saw in the François Vase a kind of anthology

of athenian propaganda, of its history and its socio-

political and ethical values, expressed by means of

mythological paradigms and, as such, intended to

make a splash in a market that was, for the preced-

ing ten years, increasingly dominated by the prod-

ucts of the athenian kerameikos. and yet, the notion

of the second-hand market35 still has a firmer foun-

34 recently summarized by sCHweizer 2003, and sPiVey 2007, 244–246; in addition, see reusser in the present volume.

35 opinions summarized by reusser in this publication (notes 133–135); PaléotHodoros 2002, 144–145 and sPiVey 2007, 231 and note 10.

62

dation than that of the bespoke, i.e. commissioned

vase,36 even if at first glance the former expression

may sound derogatory (although this could be only

a modern prejudice).

i conclude with a question to which there may never

be an answer, along with some speculative hypoth-

eses. it remains uncertain whether the krater was

used (and the scrapes left on the inside) in Greece

or in etruria, and whether the handles were broken

and repaired in Greece or in etruria. perhaps the

François Vase was made for a symposium given by a

member of an aristocratic family in solonian athens

(possibly for a special occasion, such as a wedding),

then broke and, after being carefully repaired,37 was

sent to etruria, perhaps as an instance of elite-gift

exchange. There it would most likely have had only

the ceremonial function that has often been suggest-

ed, and which may now receive additional confir-

mation from the fact that, after the repair, the walls

of the krater perhaps could no longer be guaranteed

to hold liquid without leaking.

36 recently also Hurwit 2002, 5–6. 37 williams 1996, 251: etruscan repairs are regularly in local

bronze, Greek repairs in attic lead.

Bartoloni / Morigi goVi 1995 g. Bartoloni / Morigi goVi, etruria and situla art: the certosa situla. new perspectives, in swaddling / walKer / roBerts 1995, 159–169

Bentz 1998 M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren. Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.–4. Jh. v. Chr., 18. Beiheft antK, Basel

Bentz 2002 M. Bentz (ed.), Vasenforschung und Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven. Bayerische akademie der Wissenshaften – Beiheft zum cVa i, München

Bentz / BöHr 2002 M. Bentz / e. BöHr, zu den Maßen attischer Feinkeramik, in Bentz 2002, 73–80

Bentz / Kästner 2007 M. Bentz / u. Kästner (eds.), Konservieren oder restaurieren. Die Restaurierung griechischer Vasen von der Antike bis heute, Beiheft zum cVa – deutschland iii, München

Bizzarri 1962 M. Bizzarri, la necropoli di crocifisso del Tufo in orvieto, in StEtr XXX, 1962, 1–154

Bizzarri 1966 M. Bizzarri, la necropoli di crocifisso del Tufo – ii, in StEtr XXXiV, 3–109

BoardMan 2001 J. BoardMan, The History of Greek Vases, london

BoCCi PaCini / Maggiani 1985 P. BoCCi PaCini / a. Maggiani, una particolare hydria a figure nere del Museo archeologico di Firenze, in BdA 30, 49–54

Bosi / garagnani / Martini / Morigi goVi / Bartoloni 2001 C. Bosi / l. garagnani / C. Martini / C. Morigi goVi / g. Bartoloni, la situla della certosa: studio diagnostico finalizzato alla protezione e conservazione, in La Metallurgia Italiana 7/8, 45–51

Bourgeois / santrot / Vinçotte 2004 B. Bourgeois / J. santrot / a. Vinçotte, la question des restaurations du XiXe siècle, in santrot / frère / Hugot 2004, 37–43

BriJder 1996 H.a.g. BriJder, CVA Amsterdam 2, amsterdam

Bron 1988 CH. Bron, le lieu du comos, in CHristiansen / Melander 1988, 71–79

Bruni 2009 s. Bruni (ed.), Etruria e Italia preromana. Studi in onore di G. Camporeale, pisa-roma

iozzo

Works Cited

A

aMyx 1988 d.a. aMyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, Berkeley-los angeles-london

B

Barni / PaoluCCi 1985 e. Barni / g. PaoluCCi, Archeologia e antiquaria a Chiusi nell’Ottocento, Firenze

Bartoloni / delPino 1975 g. Bartoloni / f. delPino, un tipo di orciolo a lamelle metalliche. considerazioni sulla prima fase villanoviana, in StEtr Xliii, 3–45

63

C

CaMPoreale 1977 g. CaMPoreale, irradiazione della cultura vulcente nell’etruria centro-orientale, in La Civiltà Arcaica di Vulci e la sua espansione. Atti X Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Grosseto 1975, Firenze, 215–233

CarPenter 1995 t.H. CarPenter, a Symposion of Gods?, in Murray / teCusan 1995, 145–163

CHristiansen / Melander 1988 J. CHristiansen / t. Melander (eds.), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Proceedings of the Symposium Copenhagen 1987, copenhagen 

ClarK 1980 a.J. ClarK, The earliest Known chous by the amasis painter, in MetrMusJ 15, 35–51

ClarK 1988 a.J. ClarK, CVA Malibu 1, Malibu

ClarK 1992 a.J. ClarK, Attic black-figured olpai and oinochoai, ph.d. new York university 1992, ann arbor

ClarK / elston / Hart 2002 a.J. clark / M. elston / M.l. hart, Understanding Greek Vases, los angeles

Cristofani 1981 M. Cristofani et alii, Materiali per servire alla storia del Vaso François, BdA lXii (1977), serie speciale 1, roma

D

de angelis 2001 d. de angelis, la ceramica decorata di stile “villanoviano” in Etruria meridionale, roma

de la genière 2006 J. de la genière (ed.), Les clients de la céramique grecque. Actes du Colloque de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris 2004, (cahiers du cVa France 1), paris 2006

doCter 1991 r.f. doCter, athena vs. dionysos: reconsidering the contents of sos amphorae, in BABesch 66, 45–50

E

elston 1990 M. elston, ancient repairs of Greek Vases in the J. paul Getty Museum, in GettyMusJ 18, 53–68

F

frey 2002 o.-H. frey, die Fürstengräber vom Glauberg, in Das Rätsel der Kelten, exhibition catalogue Frankfurt 2002, stuttgart, 172–185

G

gauer 1991 w. gauer, Die Bronzegefäße von Olympia, in OlForsch XX, Berlin-new York

gaultier 2000 f. gaultier, le ceramiche dipinte di età arcaica, in torelli 2000, 421–437

gaunt 2000 J. gaunt, The Attic Volute-krater, ph.d. new York university 2000, ann arbor

gHiron-Bistagne 1976 P. gHiron-Bistagne, Recherches sur les acteurs dans la Grèce antique, paris

H

HeilMeyer 1988 w.-d. HeilMeyer, Antikenmuseum Berlin. Die ausgestellten Werke, Berlin

HeMelriJK 1991 J.M. HeMelriJK, a closer look at the potter, in rasMussen / sPiVey 1991, 254–255

HirayaMa 2010 T. HirayaMa, Kleitias and Attic Black-Figure Vases in the Sixth-Century B.C., Tokyo see my review in RA 2011, 377–381

Hitzl 1996 K. Hitzl, die Gewichte griechischer zeit aus olympia, OlForsch XXV, Berlin-new York

HultsCH 1882 f. HultsCH, Griechische und römische Metrologie2, Berlin

I

iozzo 2000 M. iozzo, ossuario “paolozzi”, in Morigi goVi 2000, 307, n. 424

iozzo 2002 M. iozzo, Vasi Antichi Dipinti del Vaticano. La Collezione Astarita nel Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, II, 1. Ceramica attica a figure nere, città del Vaticano

iozzo 2006 M. iozzo, osservazioni sulle più antiche importazioni di ceramica greca a chiusi e nel suo territorio (circa 650/620 – 550/520 a. c.), in de la genière 2004, 107–132, 231–242

Technical aspecTs and FuncTion

64

iozzo 2009 M. iozzo, un nuovo dinos da chiusi con le nozze di peleus e Thetis, in MoorMann / stissi 2009, 63–85

iozzo / Venturini 2002 M. iozzo / g. Venturini, il cinerario paolozzi. nuova lettura dopo il recente intervento di restauro, in Kermes XV, 46, aprile–Giugno, 51–54

J

Jeffery / JoHnston 1990 l.H. Jeffery / a.w. JoHnston, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece2, oxford

JoHnston / Jones 1978 a.w. JoHnston / r.e. Jones, The ‘sos’ amphora, in ABSA 73, 103–141

K

Kaeser 1992 B. Kaeser, Größen und Maße, in Vierneisel / Kaeser 2002, 65–69

Kaeser 2002 B. Kaeser, herstellungs- und schicksalsspuren, nachträge, in Bentz 2002, 69–70

Kästner 2002 u. Kästner, zur Geschichte der Berliner Vasensammlung, in Bentz 2002, 139–140

KratzMüller 2003 B. KratzMüller, inschrift iG ii2 2311 und die ‘nicht-Möglichkeit’ einer hochrechnung der antiken Vasenproduktion anhand der erhaltenen panathenäischen preisamphoren, in sCHMaltz / söldner 2003, 277–279

Krausse 2003 d.l. Krausse, Griechische Keramik nördlich der alpen. Überlegungen zur Funktion der attischen Trinkschalen aus dem Kleinaspergle, in sCHMaltz / söldner 2003, 208–210

L

lang 1956 M. lang, numerical notation on Greek Vases, in Hesperia XXV, 2–13

lang 1976 M. lang, The Athenian Agora XXI. Graffiti and Dipinti, princeton

lang / CrosBy 1964 M. lang / M. CrosBy, The Athenian Agora X. Weights, Measures, and Tokens, princeton

lissarrague 1990 f. lissarrague, The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet. Images of Wine and Ritual, trad. princeton

lissarrague 1990a f. lissarrague, around the Krater: an aspect of Banquet imagery, in Murray 1990, 196–209

M

Malagardis 2005 n. Malagardis / a. tsingarida, CVA Louvre 27, paris

MattusCH 2003 C.C. MattusCH, corinthian Bronze: Famous but elusive, in C.K. williaMs ii / n. BooKidis (eds.), Corinth XX. The Centenary 1896–1996, american school of classical studies at athens, 219–232

Melli 2009 P. Melli, un nuovo vaso del pittore di sommavilla e le importazioni di ceramica etrusca a figure rosse a Genova, in Bruni 2009, 591–598

MeniCHetti 1994 M. MeniCHetti, Archeologia del potere. Re, immagini e miti a Roma e in Etruria in età arcaica, Milano

Milani 1902 l.a. Milani, il Vaso François. del suo restauro e della sua recente pubblicazione, in AeR V, 705–720

Minto 1960 a. Minto, Il Vaso François, Firenze

Moon 1983 w.g. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, Madison, 53–74

MoorMann / stissi 2009 e.M. MoorMann /stissi (eds.), Shapes and Images. Studies on Attic Black Figure and Related Topics in Honour of Herman A.G. Brijder, leuven-paris-Walpole 2009

Morigi goVi 2000 C. Morigi goVi (ed.), Principi etruschi tra Mediterraneo ed Europa, exhibition catalogue Bologna 2000, Venezia

Murray 1990 o. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, oxford

Murray / teCusan 1995 o. Murray / M. teCusan (eds.), In vino veritas, oxford

N

nadalini 2004 P. nadalini, considerazioni e confronti sui restauri antichi presenti sulle ceramiche scoperte a Gela, in PanVini / giudiCe 2004, 193–201

iozzo

65

niJBoer 1998 a.J. niJBoer, From household production to workshops: archaeological evidence for economic transformation, pre-monetary exchange and urbanisation in central Italy from 800 to 40 BC, Groningen

noBle 1988 J.V. noBle, The Techniques of Attic Painted Pottery2, london

P

PaléotHodoros 2002 d. PaléotHodoros, pourquoi les Étrusques achetaient-ils des vases attiques?, in Les Études Classiques 70, 139–160

PanVini / giudiCe 2004 r. PanVini / giudiCe (eds.), TA ATTIKA. Veder greco a Gela. Ceramiche attiche figurate dall’antica colonia, exhibiton catalogue and congress Gela 2004, roma

Payne 1931 H. Payne, Necrocorinthia. A Study on Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period, oxford

Pfisterer-Haas 1998 s. Pfisterer-Haas, Wenn der Topf aber nun ein Loch hat... Restaurierung griechischer Keramik in Antike und Neuzeit, exhibition catalogue leipzig 1998, leipzig

Pfisterer-Haas 2002 s. Pfisterer-Haas, antike reparaturen, in Bentz 2002, 51–57

Pugliese Carratelli 1984 g. Pugliese Caratelli, le epigrafi del Vaso François, in ParPass XXXiX, 373–375

R

rasMussen / sPiVey 1991 t. rasMussen / n. sPiVey (eds.), Looking at Greek Vases, cambridge

riCHter 1924 g.M.a. riCHter, The Craft of Athenian Pottery, new haven

rigoir 1981 y. rigoir, Méthode géométrique simple de calcul du volume des contenants céramiques, in Documents d’Archéologie Méridionale 4, 193–194

roBerts 1978 s.r. roBerts, The Attic Pyxis, chicago

S

santrot / frère / Hugot 2004 M.-H. santrot / d. frère/ l. Hugot (eds.), Vases en voyage de la Grèce à l’Étrurie, exhibition catalogue nantes, paris-nantes

sCHMaltz / söldner 2003 B. sCHMaltz / M. söldner (eds.) Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext. Akten des Symposium Kiel 2001, Münster

sCHweizer 2003 B. sCHweizer, die François-Vase vom Kerameikos in athen bis ins Grab bei chiusi. zur lesung griechischer Mythenbilder im medialen und im Funktionskontext, in sCHMaltz / söldner 2003, 175–178

sPiVey 2001 n. sPiVey, Volcanic landscape with craters, in GaR 54.2, 229–253

staïnHaouer 2001 g. staïnHaouer, To Archaiologiko Mouseio Peiraios, athena

stewart 1983 a. stewart, stesichoros and the François Vase, in Moon 1983, 53–74

swaddling / walKer / roBerts 1995 J. swaddling / s. walKer / p. roBerts (eds.), Italy in Europe: Economic Relations 700 B.C.–A.D. 50, “sixteenth British Museum classical colloquium,” london

T

torelli 2000 M. torelli (ed.), Gli Etruschi, exhibition catalogue Venezia 2000, Milano

V

VanderMersCH 1994 CHr. VanderMersCH, Vins et amphores de Grande Grèce et de sicile, iVe–iiie s. avant J.-c, napoli-paris-Bonn

Vierneisel / Kaeser 1992 K. Vierneisel / B. Kaeser (eds.), Kunst der Schale-Kultur des Trinkens2, exhibition catalogue, München 2000, München

Von BotHMer 1972 d. Von BotHMer, a neck-amphora in the collection of Walter Bareiss, ii. The ancient repairs, in AJA 76, 9–11

Von BotHMer 1990 d. Von BotHMer, Glories of the Past. Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection, new York

W

waCHter 1991 r. waCHter, The inscriptions on the François Vase, in MusHelv 48, 2, 86–113

williaMs 1996 refiguring attic red-figure. a review article, RA, 227–252.

Technical aspecTs and FuncTion