Of the Master’s Genius and Patrices
Exploring the Invention of Attic Plastic Vases
p. 63-74
Résumés
Chaque fois que l’on étudie des vases grecs des époques archaïques et classiques, nous avons tendance à nous concentrer sur la maîtrise d’un individu, d’un potier ou d’un peintre. Dans le cas des vases figuratifs ou des vases plastiques fabriqués en série, cependant, l’artisan individuel et ses compétences se démarquent rarement. Ici, l’art réside dans la création du modèle et du moule d’origine. L’artisanat et l’art (modelage à la main) se situent au début du processus de production : on forme un prototype d’argile (patrix) à partir duquel un ou plusieurs moules sont fabriqués, qui sont la base de la production de masse. L’avantage d’utiliser des moules est que le produit obtenu et sa qualité deviennent prévisibles et que des compétences limitées sont nécessaires pour façonner le vase plastique final. En d’autres termes, une création inventive devient reproductible. Nous avons utilisé la modélisation 3D et la correspondance assistée par ordinateur pour identifier les répliques dans un groupe de vases figurés attiques, en nous concentrant en particulier sur les vases attiques à tête. Jusqu’à présent, nous avons prouvé qu’il existe une relation étroite entre les vases individuels, d’une part parce qu’ils ont été fabriqués en utilisant les mêmes moules, d’autre part parce que le concept original a été réutilisé plusieurs fois pour créer des séries de deuxième et troisième génération. Cet article se concentre sur la relation entre les créateurs de prototypes d’argile faits à la main et les ateliers de poterie athéniens. La création d’un prototype (patrix) nécessite une certaine aptitude à manipuler l’argile et un esprit artistique pour amener une idée sous la forme d’un objet tridimensionnel. Ces capacités sont souvent attribuées aux coroplathes. Nous pouvons contester ce point de vue en examinant de près la relation entre les différents domaines du travail manuel à Athènes au début de l’ère classique. En d’autres termes : les coroplathes étaient-ils les véritables créateurs des vases plastiques attiques ?
Whenever Greek vases of Archaic and Classical times are under consideration we tend to focus on the mastery of an individual, a potter or a painter. In the case of mass produced figural or plastic vases, however, the individual craftsman and his skills rarely stand out. Here the artistry lies in the creation of the original model and mould. Craftsmanship and artistry (hand modelling) stand at the beginning of the production process: a clay prototype (patrix) is formed from which one or several moulds are made, which are the basis for mass production. The advantage of using moulds is that the resulting product and its quality become predictable and that limited skills are necessary to shape the final figurine/vase. In other words, an inventive creation becomes replicable. We used 3D modelling and computer aided matching to identify replicas in a group of Attic figural vases, focusing especially on Attic head vases. So far, we have proved that there is close relation between individual vases, on the one hand because they were made by using the same moulds, on the other hand because the original concept was reused several times to create second and third generation series. This paper focuses on the relationship between creators of hand-made clay prototypes and the Athenian pottery workshops. The creation of a prototype (patrix) needs a certain ability in handling the clay and an artistic spirit for bringing an idea into the form of a three dimensional object. These capabilities are often attributed to coroplasts. We may challenge this view by closely investigating the relationship between various fields of handwork in Athens of the beginning classical era. In other words: Were coroplasts the actual creators of Attic plastic vases?
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Athènes, atelier, coroplathe, vase-tête, sculpture
Keywords : Athens, workshop, coroplast, head vase, sculpture
Texte intégral
1In this contribution we focus on Greek productions of Attic mould made vases of late Archaic and early Classical times. It will be more of a theoretical approach than a practical one. The material group presented here does not fit in seamlessly into the main focus of the conference. Nevertheless, Attic plastic vases could not have been produced at all without a significant contribution from hand-made labour: processing the clay, creating the models, creating the moulds, and the finishing with the use of moulds and the conclusive firing. We intend to discuss below who the craftsmen were and of the nature of the relations that were established between Attic workmen, especially between the vases and the figurines workshops. In other words: were coroplasts the real creators of Attic plastic vases?
1. Preliminary comments on the material group of Attic plastic vases
2In the broader historical and cultural contexts, plastic vases were made during the late 8th to the 6th century first on the islands and in Asia Minor, later in Corinth, for instance in animal and vegetal shapes – humans are rare –, in the form of aryballoi and alabastra.1 In Athens, the awakening of interest in figural mould-made plastic vases occurred as late as in the late 6th century. Nevertheless, the Athenian workmen were already familiar with the use of moulds and not only for casting. They produced figurines and reliefs using moulds since the geometric period; by the late 6th century they also decorated vases with plastic attachments made from moulds.2
3Initially, the Athenian plastic vases were small and mostly used as containers for scented oil, comparable to their predecessors from Corinthian and East Greek productions. As they became larger, the vessels were usually converted into drinking and serving vessels.3 Initially the kylikes and rhyta were the dominant shapes of Attic plastic vases, later followed by kantharoi and oinochoai. We will focus especially on the latter group in this paper.4 Human, mostly female, heads are the most popular subjects.
4In the 4th century this group of vases in the form of a head lost its relevance. New shapes became popular in which the body of the vase is almost a three-dimensional clay sculpture: “A typical example looks like a terracotta figurine”5. The shape of the vase is more often a lekythos. The topics treated also changed dramatically during this period; the sphere of Aphrodite with her entourage and topics of the female environment are especially popular, also mythological scenes occur6, the vases in the shape of a female head got rare7. To emphasize the aspect of a statue, many vases got a base, comparable to the plinth of a sculpture.8
5In Athens, the production of plastic vases in the form of human heads first appears in the late 6th century.9 We owe their classification to the fundamental paper of Sir John Beazley, written in 1929. He categorized the vases in the form of human heads in 24 groups, according to the stylistic development of the face, based on an art historic methodology.10 Numerous vessels have been published since then, but Beazley’s groups are still relevant.
6In the following we are going to focus on objects representing two of the Beazley’s groups in particular, the Vienna Class and the Cook Class, and to discuss the beginning of the trend and their protagonists in the late Archaic times.
2. Patrix – matrix/mould: the initiation of a serial production
7The vast majority of the Attic pottery was thrown on the potter’s wheel. When producing head vases,11 potters used the same technique only for the upper part of the vessel, the vase neck. The body of the vessel, the head, was made using two moulds, one for the face and another for the back of the head. The handle is hand-made. All components are glued together using slip.12 Finally, some details such as the eyes and eyebrows are painted by hand.13 After the final decoration the vase is fired in the kiln. As a result the plastic head vases were the first mass produced items in Attic pottery production and further kinds followed in later centuries. The advantages of using a mould are that the resulting product is predictable and that limited skills are necessary to shape the vase.14
8The production process relates the head vases partly to terracotta figurines, the chaîne opératoire is similar.15 The aim of this production method is theoretically to achieve a series of almost identical objects. Minor deformation can occur during the drying or firing process, the reworking process of the still wet surface and minor differences in the manually applied painting of the face may also lead to deviations. The same deficits were often observed in the production of figurines.16
9Apart from the additional red figure painting which decorates some pots, the use of moulds made the production process of the plastic vases repeatable and enabled the employing of even unskilled or semi-skilled workers. But an absolute essential for starting the first series was a gifted and also skilled person, who created the patrix, the master model, from which the matrix resp. the mould could be taken.17 The throwing on the wheel like the painting were specific skills which needed talent and training. Both differ significantly from the modelling of a patrix by hand.18
10It is of specific importance that the patrix is made without any undercutting. The mould, the negative/matrix, cannot copy regions with undercutting when it is taken from the positive/patrix. The use of moulds may result in a series of almost identical vases, which was already stated by Beazley in the case of some vases.19 In some specific head vases of Beazley’s groups we can demonstrate that the vases were very probably made from the same pairs of moulds; the surface deviation in the comparison based on 3D models and comparison algorithms is less than 1 mm (fig. 1).20
Fig. 1 – Attic head vases of the Vienna Class.

a: Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum IV 999 (© Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum); b: Comparison of two vases attributed to the Vienna Class. Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2001 and Munich, Antikensammlungen SH 2747 (© University of Graz).
11If the moulds were broken, the patrix is lost21 and when a workshop, nevertheless, wanted to continue a series – possibly due to the high demand – an already existing vase was copied by re-moulding.22 We were able to prove that this process had been used for the head vases attributed to the Cook Class, in which the height of vases often differs significantly (fig. 2). At least three generations are attested (fig. 3).23
Fig. 2 – Attic head vases of the Cook Class, 3D models without texture. Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2191, F 2192, F 2193, F 2194, F 2195

(© University of Graz).
Fig. 3 – Visualization of three generations in the Cook Class (27 samples)

(© University of Graz, models: P. Bayer).
12New moulds became necessary due to various reasons. Various methods are possible to obtain a new mould (a derivate from the first), which is almost identical to the original in motif: to draw a new mould from the patrix, if it is still available,24 to copy an original mould or to copy an object which was made by the use of the original mould. In the case of the two latter procedures, a copy from an available mould is less attractive than a copy from an available object.25 The re-moulding from an already existing vase includes double shrinking nevertheless, the shrinking of the clay of the mould and of the final product during drying and firing; we detected a reduction of about 10% in the Cook Class.26
13We may exclude plaster moulds for the productions of the Classical period because those came in use much later.27 Furthermore, to my knowledge, no plastic vase shows the characteristic clay beads which derive from the air bubbles in a plaster mould. This means that all stages of the production are based on clay management.
14To my knowledge, no patrix and also no mould of a head vase of the 5th century28 has been found in Athens. The patrices are also especially rare in other regions but they do exist.29
15One of the rare examples is a patrix of an Apulian rhyton (see in this volume Jeammet, fig. 5, p. 55).30 The development and production processes of rhyta were similar to those for the head vases discussed above, they are also made using a pair of moulds. The only difference is that one mould is used for the left side of the head and one for the right, whereas the human faces of the plastic vases are without joints and there is one mould for the face and one for the back of the head.31
16The Apulian patrix is crudely finished off at the rear; at the point on the neck where the wheel-thrown mouth would be added (fig. 4). The antlers and the ears were also omitted. Instead of these short pegs mark the points where one would expect them.32 Patrices and also moulds have to avoid undercutting to allow a clear separation of patrix and mould and to remove the positive from the mould.
17An example closer to our head vases could be a small head in Munich (fig. 5a). It could be a patrix and is most probably the prototype for a figurine. In the catalogue of Munich Friedrich Hamdorf wrote: “Der Kopftypus ist in der Koroplastik bisher nicht nachgewiesen, – ein in dieser experimentellen Epoche des Strengen Stils nicht weiter befremdliches Phänomen”.33 It is worth mentioning that this type does not occur in plastic positives so far, but neither does it have a convincing equivalent in the plastic vases. The characteristic design of the surface without undercutting and the flat surface on the back of the head for the addition of a final tuft (fig. 5b) underline Hamdorf‘s interpretation.
Fig. 4 – Apulian rhyton in the form of a deer’s head.

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts 1972.118.150
(© CC0 1.0).
Fig. 5 – a, b: Patrix of a woman with a bonnet.

Munich, Antikensammlungen SL 96
(© Antikensammlungen München, photo: Renate Kühling).
18Let us return once more to the chaîne opératoire: At the beginning of mass production through the use of moulds stands the freely created model, the patrix or master model; then a hollow mould, matrix, was taken from the patrix; the matrix could be used to make numerous copies of the original. As all components of the process were made of clay, the double shrinking results in copies that are always less tall than the patrix (fig. 3).34 Individual craftsmen may have been involved with single steps of the process, the person who prepares the mould can also have created the patrix, but this is not necessarily the case,35 especially if a subject exists in more than one series.
Fig. 6 – Visualization of the chaîne opératoire

(© University of Graz, models: P. Bayer).
3. New inventions at the transition from the Archaic to the Classical period
19The earliest Attic full plastic vases were made in a period which is characterized by inventions and experiments in Attic workshops: new techniques were applied for vase painting in particular – the craftsmen involved are known as “Pioneers”: Intentional red, Six-technique, white-ground, and above all, we must stress the invention of the red figured technique, which will become the most popular technique for the next two centuries.36
20The potters and painters behaved with increasing pride and started to sign their work. The expression epoiesen is generally used by the potter of a vase, whereas – according to the communis opinio – egraphsen is used by the painter, who made the figural decoration.37 Nevertheless, the wording epoiesen connected with a personal name was also used by all kind of craftsmen; we are used to recognizing the ‘individuality’ of the craftsman in his signature. The heydays of such signatures on Attic pottery were the second half of the 6th century B.C., with a significant decline in the following half of the century, until the early 4th century after which only a few vessels were signed: “artists who signed their work did so almost entirely in the Archaic period”.38 In some specific cases the same person works as painter and potter, we refer to such a person as “potter-painter”.
21Family traditions are strong by custom in all kinds of workshops, in some pottery workshops this can be deduced from the signatures.39 But we also know of some “implants” as D. Williams calls those who did not have a family relationship to a kerameion family; nevertheless a personal relationship could exist in such cases.40
4. The Attic head vases and their masters
22When studying Greek pottery, especially the figured pottery, of Archaic and Classical times, we usually analyse the individual hand of a potter or a painter, whether or not the vases are signed. In the case of plastic vases the individual craftsman and his skills are much harder to detect – the only exception could be the initiator(s) of the series who made the master model.
23The issue of who was in charge of creating the master model, which stands at the beginning of the chaîne opératoire, is already a long discussion: Is it a potter, is it a coroplast who is specialized in producing figurines or is it a sculptor who was engaged by the owner of a pottery workshop?41
24Let us start with two samples of the first production years of Attic plastic vases, an aryballos42 and an oinochoe,43 both stored in Berlin: the two vases have a name inscription (comparable to the signed vases mentioned above) in which a male name – Proklees and Charinos – is mentioned in combination with the word epoiesen. Both signatures are incised;44 this was most probable the last step (after all painted decoration is finished) in the production process before drying. The expression epoiesen, generally used by the potter of a vase,45 aims to create the suggestion, that the persons mentioned by their names were responsible for the shape of the vessel as the potter is responsible for the form in the case of wheel-thrown pottery.
25The case of the Berlin oinochoe is perhaps even a little more specific: Due to stylistic evaluation and some decorative details A. Schöne-Denkinger who discussed this vase in detail recently suggested, on the basis of sound arguments, that Charinos was not only the potter but also the painter, he is a “potter-painter”.46 And, M. True already argued following E. Pottier and E. Buschor that Beazley’s Providence Class may be traced to the same Charinos.47
26We should also consider whether there could be a relation between the workshops specialized in the production of female protomes near the northwest corner of the Athenian Agora48 and the production of plastic vases. All use the same chaîne opératoire characterised above. We may apply the generic term, kerameion to all these workshops in which products of clay were produced.
27Considering the education of Greek artists the sources make clear that some of them, especially sculptors, architects, and painters, were not only well educated but were also often relatively rich; both of these factors may be related (partly) to their elite family backgrounds.49 In the case of the craftsmen working with clay the sources are fewer and they do not attest that these workmen were normally held in high esteem,50 with some exceptions. Epilykos who signed as both a potter and a painter is also mentioned in a kalos-inscription.51 On the basis of the personal name which is well attested in the Attic aristocracy, this could be a hint of an aristocratic background – if the name is related to a real person at all.52
28Preserved signatures suggest that the craft and possibly also the workshop were often handed down from father to son over several generations.53 Nevertheless, we can observe that a son/successor stayed in the ‘art business’ but changed the material with which he worked. Some potters and painters were blood relations of famous sculptors, e.g. Euthymides was the son of the famous bronze sculptor Pollias.54 According to D. Williams this specific relationship is “particularly important, especially in terms of innovations”.55
29There is another good example: the potter Nearchos, dedicated a statue to Athena, a beautiful kore.56 Is there a specific relationship between the potter and the famous sculptor Antenor? The dedicator is a member of a potter’s family and his ancestors had produced innovative vessels in Athens already in the first half of the 6th century.57 The dedication of the Antenor kore was made as “a first offering” by the younger Nearchos as mentioned in the inscription; the dedicator explicitly related the dedication to his profession. This may be even more striking in the dedication of ‘showpieces’ which were made on the most recent level of pottery techniques, among these are also plastic vases.58
30The vase paintings of the Pioneers themselves sometimes show an interest in three-dimensional representations. The painters were struggling to overcome the two-dimensional picture of the vase: An example illustrating this is a pelike attributed to the Circle of Euthymides (fig. 7). Two high leaping dancers accompanied by a diaulos player are depicted on both sides. Not only the demonstration of motion but also the fact that the same two dancers are shown in the same position, en face on the one side while their backs are seen on the other, demonstrates an attempt to present three-dimensionality.59 The head of the workshop in which this pelike was made was Euthymides. In his workshop a teacher–pupil relationship is again attested, he is the pupil of the “potter-painter” Phintias.60
Fig. 7 – a, b: Attic red-figure pelike.

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 1973.88
(© Boston, Museum of Fine Arts).
31One of the earliest plastic vases of Attic production is the triple cockleshell aryballos, two are signed by the potter Phintias and two are attributed to him (fig. 8). The vessel’s shape is so close to nature that M. True suggested that “indeed, these domed shells with radiating ribs may have been made in molds taken from real shells61”. This approach, which closely imitates reality, brings us back to the question of how and from whom the production of mould made vases, especially plastic head vases, was started.
Fig. 8 – Attic aryballos.

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts 23.160.33
(© CC0 1.0).
32Let us consider the question of the ‘inventor’ of the Attic plastic vases62 also from the other side. Do we know of painted vases which were not thrown on the wheel, besides the plastic vases discussed here? There is for example, a vessel in the form of an astragal, kept in the Villa Giulia today; it is signed by Syriskos, who also painted it himself.63 That vase is made by an artist who is best known for his painting, but signed here as a potter – again a “potter-painter”. In this specific case the vessel shape is more a sculpture than a conventional vessel and a good comparison to the plastic vases where the sculptural intention is obvious.
33In relation to the invention of the Attic plastic vases in general we must look for a person who is quite familiar with three-dimensional objects and possibly even trained in sculpting.64 The person who creates the master model, the patrix, is an innovative person of knowledge and skill. This person must not only be familiar with the handling of clay65, but must also be capable to generating creative ideas and finally of realizing the concept of a new type of vase, decorated by plastic heads.
Conclusion
34Attic plastic vases have close parallels with figurines; firstly, in the production process by using moulds for the final clay object, and secondly, in the serial production which makes the product a little more predictable. There is also a significant difference: The functionality is the essential element for the vases in contrast to the decorative figurines. Nevertheless, due to the production process and the material they used the work on all these objects is closely linked.
35Both groups of workmen, the coroplasts and the potters, were named kerameus in Athens; obviously the material they handled designated the professional title and not the result of their production. We may add to the generalizing title kerameus also (some of) the designers of the master models, the patrices. The patrix, the handmade model, is made of clay and stands at the beginning of the chaîne opératoire of the mass productions of figurines and plastic vases. For processional reasons its existence is obligatory.
36The late 6th to beginning of the 5th century BC is an extraordinarily rich and diverse era not only in the Athenian pottery workshops but also in the artistic world in general. The potters and painters of that time are especially keen to invent and use new techniques and liked to experiment with new subjects and newly invented shapes. Hence, we call them “Pioneers”. Some of them are known by name through their signatures, others can be identified by the style of the painting or by further characteristic (shape) elements. Some individual artists are related to each other by a teacher-pupil relationship or by family bonds. I briefly showed that all these elements can also be detected in the plastic vases which gained importance in the last decades of the 6th century Athens: the artistic innovative character is challenged by preparing the master model (patrix) and all members of a workshop worked hard in establishing the mass production. Although some vases are signed (i.e. Charinos) most of them still remain anonymous.
Bibliographie
BAPD : Beazley Archive Pottery Database (BAPD), https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/pottery/default.htm
Beazley 1929 : J. Beazley, Charinos, JHS 49, 1929, 38–78
Beazley 1963 : J. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters 2, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1963, (3 volumes), 779 p., 1708 p., 2036 p.
Beazley 1971 : J. Beazley, Paralipomena: additions to Attic black-figure vase-painters and to Attic red-figure vase-painters 2, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971, 680 p.
Bolmarcich, Muskett 2017 : S. Bolmarcich, G. Muskett, Artists’ signatures on Archaic Greek vases from Athens, in: K. Seaman, P. Schultz (éd.), Artists and Artistic production in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017, 242 p., 154–176
Böhm 2014 : St. Böhm, Korinthische Figurenvasen: Düfte, Gaben und Symbole, Regensburg, Schnell & Steiner, 2014, 287 p.
Cohen 1991 : B. Cohen, The literate potter. A tradition of incised signatures on Attic vases, Metropolitan Museum Journal 26, 1991, 49–95.
Cohen 2006 : B. Cohen (éd.), The Colors of Clay. Special Techniques in Athenian Vases, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 2006, 371 p.
Davidson 1943 : G. R. Davidson, D. Burr Thompson, H. A. Thompson, Small Objects from the Pnyx, Princeton, American school of classical studies at Athens, (Hesperia Suppl. 7), 1943, 189 p.
Ebbinghaus 2008 : S. Ebbinghaus, Of Rams, Women, and Orientals: A Brief History of Attic Plastic Vase, in: K. Lapatin (éd.), Special techniques in Athenian vases, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 2008, 242 p., 145–160.
Ebbinghaus 2018 : S. Ebbinghaus, Animal-shaped vessels from the ancient world: feasting with gods, heroes, and kings, Cambridge, Harvard Art Museums, 2018, 402 p.
Gherardelli et al. 2014 : M. Gherardelli, G. Adembri, R. Balleri, S. Di Tondo, Methods and tools for the classification and cataloguing of antique moulds from the collection of the Richard-Ginori factory, Journal of Cultural Heritage 15, 2014, 479–489.
Hamdorf 1996 : F. W. Hamdorf (éd.), Der Hauch des Prometheus, Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, 1996, 216 p.
Hamdorf 1997 : F. W. Hamdorf, Zur Technik der Koroplastik. Einige Beobachtungen an Münchner Terrakotten in : A. Muller, E. Laflı, S. Huysecom-Haxhi (dir.), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. 1 : Production, diffusion, étude, Actes du colloque d’Izmir (2007), Athènes, École Française d’Athènes, (BCH Suppl. 54), 2016, 517 p., 29–38.
Handler 2016 : M. D. Handler, Roman coroplasts in the Athenian Agora, in: A. Muller E. Laflı, S. Huysecom-Haxhi (dir.), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. 1 : Production, diffusion, étude, Actes du colloque d’Izmir (2007), Athènes, École Française d’Athènes, (BCH Suppl. 54), 2016, 517 p., 47–56.
Hedreen 2014 : G. Hedreen, Smikros and Epilykos: Two Comic Inventions in Athenian Vase-Painting, in: J. Oakley (éd.), Athenian Potters and Painters III, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 2014, 272 p., 49–62.
Hedreen 2016 : G. Hedreen, The Image of the Artist in Archaic and Classical Greece. Art, Poetry, and Subjectivity, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2016, 362 p.
Heuer 2014 : K. E. Heuer, Facing West: Athenian Influence on Isolated Heads in Italian Red-Figure Vase Painting, in: J. Oakley (éd.), Athenian Potters and Painters III, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 2014, 272 p., 63–71.
Hoffmann 1960 : H. Hoffmann, Two Deer heads from Apulia, AJA 64, 1960, 276–278.
Hornung-Bertemes, Kassab Tezgör, Muller 1998 : K. Hornung-Bertemes, D. Kassab Tezgör, A. Muller, Fabrication des moules, diffusion des produits moulés, BCH 122, 1998, 91–107.
Huysecom-Haxhi 2016 : S. Huysecom-Haxhi, Création et transformation des images dans la coroplathie ionienne archaique, in : A. Muller, E. Laflı, S. Huysecom-Haxhi (dir.), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. 1 : Production, diffusion, étude, Actes du colloque d’Izmir (2007), Athènes, École Française d’Athènes, (BCH Suppl. 54), 2016, 517 p., 65–78.
Jeammet 2014 : V. Jeammet, Des vases plastiques attiques pour les Athéniens, Metis 20, 2014, 119–143.
Jeammet 2015 : V. Jeammet, Histoire de têtes au féminin. Fonction d’une catégorie particulière en Attique et Béotie (IVe siècle), in : S. Huysecom-Haxhi, A. Muller (dir.), Figurines grecques en contexte. Présence muette dans le sanctuaire, la tombe et la maison, actes du Colloque de Lille (2011), Villeneuve-d’Ascq, Presse universitaire du Septentrion, 2015, 493 p., 53–70.
Mekacher 2003 : N. Mekacher, Matrizengeformte hellenistische Terrakotten, Gollion, École suisse d’archéologie en Grèce, (Eretria XII), 2003, 233 p.
Monaco 2000 : M. C. Monaco, Ergasteria : impianti artigianali ceramici ad Atene ed in Attica dal protogeometrico alle soglie dell’ellenismo, Rome, « L’Erma » di Bretschneider, 2000, 290 p.
Muller 1999 : A. Muller, Les ateliers de coroplathes thasiens. État des connaissances et questions, in : C. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, A. Muller, S. Papadopoulos (éd.), Thasos, matières premières et technologie de la préhistoire à nos jours, Actes du colloque international, Thasos-Liménaria, 26-29 sept. 1995, Athènes, École française d’Athènes et Ministère de la culture hellénique, 1999, 471 p., 279–291.
Murphy, Poblome 2011 : E. Murphy, J. Poblome, Producing Pottery vs. Producing Models: Interpreting Workshop organization at the Potter’s Quarter of Sagalassos, in: Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2011, 168 p., 30–36.
Neils 2017 : J. Neils, Portrait of an Artist: Euthymides, Son of Pollias, in: K. Seaman, P. Schultz (éd.), Artists and Artistic production in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017, 242 p., 23–36.
Noble 1969 : J. V. Noble, Pottery Manufacture, in: C. Roebuck (éd.), The Muses at Work, Cambridge, The MIT press, 1969, 294 p., 118–146.
Oenbrink 1997 : W. Oenbrink, Das Bild im Bilde. Zur Darstellung von Götterstatuen und Kultbildern auf griechischen Vasen, Francfort-sur-le-Main et New York, P. Lang, 1997, 462 p.
Pala 2012 : E. Pala, Acropoli di Atene. Un microcosmo della produzione e distribuzione della ceramic attica, Rome, « L’Erma » di Bretschneider, 2012, 430 p.
Pécasse 2002 : M. Pécasse, Quelques remarques sur les signatures de peintres et l’introduction de la figure rouge, in : Ch. Muller, F. Prost, Identités et cultures dans le monde méditerranéen antique, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002, 398 p., 85–102.
Picón 2007 : C. A. Picón, Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007, 508 p.
Raubitschek 1949 : A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis. A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the sixth and fifth Centuries B. C., Cambridge, Archaeological Institute of America, 1949, 545 p.
Reeder 1978 : E. Reeder Williams, Figurine Vases from the Athenian Agora, AJA 47, 1978, 356–401.
Rotroff, Oakley 1992 : S. Rotroff, J. Oakley, Debris of a public dining in the Athenian Agora, Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, (Hesperia Suppl. 25), 1992, 154 p.
Sanidas 2016 : G. M. Sanidas, La production coroplastique ἐν ἄστει. Questions et approches sur la période classique, in : A. Muller, E. Laflı, S. Huysecom-Haxhi (dir.), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. 1 : Production, diffusion, étude, Actes du colloque d’Izmir (2007), Athènes, École Française d’Athènes, (BCH Suppl. 54), 2016, 517 p., 17–31.
Sapirstein 2013 : P. Sapirstein, Painters, Potters, and the Scale of the Attic Vase-Painting Industry, AJA 117, 2013, 493–510.
Scheibler 2017 : I. Scheibler, Experimente in der dritten Dimension, in: W. Raeck (éd.), Figur und Raum in der frühgriechischen Flächenkunst, Archäologisches Symposion für Hanna Koenigs-Philipp, Liebieghaus Frankfurt am Main im Juni 2008, Wiesbaden, Reichert Verlag, 2017, 118 p., 71–88.
Schreiber 1999 : T. Schreiber, Athenian Vase Construction. A Potter’s Analysis, Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, 1999, 296 p.
Schlotzhauer 2006 : U. Schlotzhauer, Ostgriechische koroplastisch gestaltete Gesichts- und Kopfgefässe aus milesischen Werkstätten, in : R. Biering, V. Brinkmann, U. Schlotzhauer (éd.), Maiandros. Festschrift für Volkmar von Graeve, Munich, Biering u. Brinkmann, 2006, 291 p., 229–256.
Schöne-Denkinger 2016 : A. Schöne-Denkinger, Koroplasten – Töpfer – Maler. Zur Produktion attischer Kopfgefäße und Rhyta, in : N. Eschbach, S. Schmidt (éd.), Töpfer – Maler – Werkstatt: Zuschreibungen in der griechischen Vasenmalerei und die Organisation antiker Keramikproduktion, Munich, C.H. Beck, (CVA Germany Beih. 7), 2016, 189 p., 107–117.
Schöne-Denkinger 2018 : A. Schöne-Denkinger, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Berlin 18, Munich , C.H. Beck, (Deutschland, 103), 2018, 79 p.
Seaman 2017 : K. Seaman, The Social and Educational Background of Elite Greek Artists, in: K. Seaman, P. Schultz (éd.), Artists and Artistic production in Ancient Greece, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2017, 242 p., 12–22.
Shapiro 1983 : A. Shapiro, Epilykos Kalos, Hesperia, 52, 1983, 305–310.
Stroszeck 2014 : J. Stroszeck, Plastic Vases related to Eleusinian cult from the Athenian Kerameikos, Mètis, 2014, 145–162.
Stroszeck 2016 : J. Stroszeck, Koroplasten im Kerameikos. Figurenvasen und neue Terrakotta-Modeln, in: A. Muller, E. Laflı, S. Huysecom-Haxhi (dir.), Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine. 1 : Production, diffusion, étude, Actes du colloque d’Izmir (2007), Athènes, École Française d’Athènes, (BCH Suppl. 54), 2016, 517 p., 33–46.
Trinkl, Riecke-Zapp 2018 : E. Trinkl, D. Rieke-Zapp, Digitale Analyse antiker Kopfgefäße, in : Schöne-Denkinger 2018, 68–73.
Trinkl, Riecke-Zapp, Homer 2018 : E. Trinkl, D. Rieke-Zapp, L. Homer, Face to face – Considering the moulding of Attic head vases reconsidering Beazley’s groups by quantitative analysis, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21, 2018, 1019–1024.
Trinkl (in press) : E. Trinkl, Serial Production in Classical Greece: Attic Figural Vases, in: Proceedings of the AIAC Conference in Bonn (in press).
True 2006 : M. True, Athenian Potters and the Production of Plastic Vases, in: Cohen 2006, 240–290.
Walter-Karydi 1985 : E. Walter-Karydi, Die Themen der ostionischen figürlichen Salbgefäße, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 36, 1985, 7–16.
Williams 2008 : D. Williams, Some thoughts on the Potters and Painters of Plastic Vases before Sotades, in: K. Lapatin (éd.), Papers on Special Techniques in Athenian Vases, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 2008, 242 p., 161–172.
Williams 2009 : D. Williams, From East to West: The Inspiration of Athenian Potters, in: E. M. Moormann, V. V. Stissi (éd.), Shapes and Images : studies on Attic black figure and related topics in honour of Herman A. G. Brijder, Louvain , Peeters, 2009, 234 p., 1–10.
Williams 2016 : D. Williams, Peopling Athenian kerameia: Beyond the Master Craftsmen, in: N. Eschbach, S. Schmidt (éd.), Töpfer – Maler – Werkstatt: Zuschreibungen in der griechischen Vasenmalerei und die Organisation antiker Keramikproduktion, Munich, C.H. Beck, (CVA Germany Beih. 7), 2016, 189 p., 54–68.
Notes de bas de page
1Schlotzhauer 2006; Böhm 2014.
2I.e. Attic black figured loutrophoros with plastic handles in the form of mourners: Athens, Acropolis Museum, Vlastos Collection; Williams 2008, 164 fig. 6. See also the figurine of a girl: Athens, Acropolis Museum 10510. Only two of many examples.
3See the introduction to the chapters “head vases” and “rhyta” in Schöne-Denkinger 2018, 44 f. 60 f.; esp. for animal shaped rhyta cf. Ebbinghaus 2008; Ebbinghaus 2018.
4For Italian ‘followers’, Heuer 2014.
5The back is usually handmade and not taken from a mould; Reeder 1978, 356 with a review of older publications.
6Jeammet 2014; Stroszeck 2016.
7Reeder 1978, No. 60. 62–64. Only Boeotia was a center for head-shaped vessels in the 4th century; Jeammet 2015. Stroszeck 2014 for a specific relation to the Eleusinian cult.
8The use of a base for plastic vases is well attested as early as the plastic vases made by Sotades; below fn. 53.
9True 2006, 241.
10Beazley 1929. Beazley ignored vessels with full figures and also the productions of the 4th century – he focused on vases in the form of human heads. His methodological approach is based on the detailed observations of the artistic production following the art historian G. Morelli. This approach has only limited use for vases made with moulds. Hence, Beazley finds his parallels to the head vases primarily in sculpture and figurines, and explains in Appendix I in Beazley 1963, 1529–1552: “classed here according to the plastic part”; Beazley 1971, 501–505.
11J. V. Noble estimated that “about one or two percent was produced using molds”; Noble 1969, 131.
12For the process of filling the moulds and securing the pair of moulds for drying Hoffmann 1960, 277; Schreiber 1999, 236–241; see also the video “Making a Molded Attic Vase” produced by the Getty Museum. The combination of parts which were made with moulds and parts which were thrown on the potter‘s wheel suggest that the finishing at least was done in a potter‘s workshop, especially when the vases have additional red figured painting. The owner of the workshop oversees the whole process, from the clay to the kiln.
13The kylix Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 68.292 attributed to the Ambrosios Painter. The curators of the Boston Museum clearly recognised a head vases production series in this vase painting: “These clay heads are most likely meant to be plastic (molded) vessels …” (accessed November 2nd 2019). Especially the vase painters of the cups tried often to find new and unprecedented subjects and compositions.
14Trinkl (in press). The standardization of pottery is often related to the filling volume, but this, I would guess, is not an issue in the case of the head vases.
15Coroplasts and potters get even closer i.e. in the Kerameikos: the same mould was used to make plastic vases and freestanding figurines; the use of throwing and mould-making at the same object may underline the close relation between potters and coroplasts; Stroszeck 2016, 36. 39. – In the Hellenistic era, the patrix of a figurine was prepared differently, Hornung-Bertemes, Kassab Tezgör, Muller 1998.
16Different details can be observed also in the groups of head vases: e.g. the woman on a vase of the Basle Class in Munich wears a stephane whereas a comparable head gear is not attested with the other vases in the same class although they were definitely made using the same mould; Trinkl, Riecke-Zapp 2018, Beil. 13, 2.
17A patrix is a good indicator for the location of a workshop; H. Hoffmann calls the patrix a “potter’s tool”; Hoffmann 1960, 278.
18n. 12.
19E.g. for the Epilykos Class Beazley observed identical moulds and “same modeller”; Beazley 1929, 42.
20Trinkl, Rieke-Zapp 2018. – All data will be stored in a repository, which is in the process of being set up at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna: ODEEG, https://odeeg.acdh.oeaw.ac.at/.
21Even big enterprises of modern times can find that moulds are missing, because they are “either lost, damaged or were never available due to the moulds having been modelled outside the factory”; Gherardelli et al. 2014.
22To get a new mould (a derivate from the first), which is almost identical to the original, two methods are possible in principle: to copy the original mould or to copy an object which was made by the use of the master mould. The application of colour and/or attached objects, however, complicates a remoulding process. Muller 1997.
23Trinkl, Rieke-Zapp 2018; Trinkl, Riecke-Zapp, Homer 2018. So far, we do not have an idea who did the re-moulding. This may vary from case to case, but also from the location. I would guess that a re-moulding is done in a workshop different from the workshop which produced the original series. See also Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 115.
24In this case we end up with a parallel series which is very close to the first series.
25In both cases the final product is significant smaller than the original.
26Trinkl, Riecke-Zapp, Homer 2018, 1021. – In relation to the quality of the clay the shrinking can exceed up to 15%/20%, as observed by figurines from Thasos by Muller 1999, 286, or by figurines from Eretria by Mekacher, 2003, 24–62.
27Handler 2016, 50.
28Various kinds of moulds were found in many places in Athens, for figurines, protomes, relief plaques or later plastic vases. A fragmentary bull’s head, found on the Pnyx, could belong to a mould of a rhyton (Athens, Agora PNT 190), a fragmentary female face (Athens, Agora PNT 179) is described as “mould for a head vase” and dated to “probably early fourth century”; Davidson et al. 1943, 158 fig. 70. The latter could continue the groups of plastic vases defined by Beazley.
29See Uhlenbrock and Jeammet in this volume.
30Apulian patrix of a deer’s head. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Arts 10.210.124. Hoffmann 1960; Picón 2007, 165 no. 190.
31Hoffmann mentions that the joint of the two moulds were coated by potash and grease during the production process to avoid from adhering; Hoffmann 1960, 277.
32For a modern mould of an animal shaped vessel. Ebbinghaus 2018, 221 fig. 5.22.
33Hamdorf 1996, 19 fig. 3; Hamdorf 1997, 34.
34Fn 26; the analyzed vases of the Cook Class show less shrinking than we would expect compared to the wheel thrown pottery. The advantage of the 3D model is that also the uniform black back of the heads can be considered properly (fig. 6) and that even fragments can be compared to vessels which survived better or unbroken (fig. 3).
35Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 115: “Anders dürfte der Fall liegen, wenn über längere Zeit hinweg ähnliche Reihen produziert wurden. Hier muss der Hersteller der Patrize und derjenige, der die Abformungen hergestellt und verändert hat, nicht unbedingt derselbe gewesen sein, insbesondere dann nicht, wenn von einem vorhandenen Positiv wieder Matrizen für die nächste Generation abgenommen worden sind”.
36Cohen 2006; esp. True 2006, 241.
37The expression epoiesen may also include the person under whose direction the vase was made, or the manager of the workshop; the epoiesen inscriptions outnumber the egraphsen inscriptions; Pécasse 2002, 93–96 fig. 1.
38See the summary table in Bolmarcich – Muskett 2017, 157 table 10.1.
39Pécasse 2002, 94.
40Williams 2016, 59.
41Noble 1969, 131: “The patrix was made from clay by a sculptor”; Reeder 1978, 374: “It is generally agreed that the head vases and rhyta of the 5th century were made by potters”; Cohen 1991, 76: “potter-coroplast”; 82: “coroplast-potter(-painter)”; True 2006, 247: “the coroplast Charinos” (fn. 44). Stoszeck 2016, 39: “Ein Charakteristikum für einen Teil der Kerameikosproduktion ist die Zusammenarbeit von Töpfern und Koroplasten, die sich auch toreutischer Vorbilder bedienen.” Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 115: “Im Fall von Charinos und Sotades liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass sie zumindest bei den sehr aufwendigen und besonderen Köpfen bzw. Figurengefäßen, die mit ihren Namen versehen sind und keine Vorläufer haben, auch die Patrizen gestaltet haben.” Sanidas 2016, 19, observed that in the beginning “les moules de coroplathes proviennent des contexts d’ateliers de potiers” and that the production of figurines is an additional branch for already well established pottery workshops. And vice versa, A. Muller suggests “pour les étapes difficiles du processus de fabrication de figurine, que le coroplathe a besoin des sculptures et des potiers”; Muller 1999, 284. – The spatial closeness especially in the Athenian Kerameikos facilitates the collaboration across borders of production groups: The same model of a male youth was used for a plastic vase and for a free standing figurine; Athens, Kerameikos T 496 and T 498; Stroszeck 2014. A comparable collaboration can also be observed in Southern Ionian productions, even starting at around 560 B.C.; Huysecom-Haxhi 2016. The close relationship also in the Ionian workshops is described by Schlotzhauer 2006, 239, who creates the word “Keramoplastiker”.
42Attic aryballos. Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2202: Proklees epoise; Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 110 f. fig. 4; BAPD 218356.
43Attic oinochoe. Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2290: Charinos epoisen; Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 111–113 fig. 5–12; BAPD 231221.
44Many years later Charinos epoiesen appears again, in this case the signature is painted: Attic red figure rhyton. Richmond Museum of Art 79.100: Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 111; BAPD 7537.
45Above n. 37.
46Schöne-Denkinger 2016, esp. 111–113; also Williams 2008. True 2006, 247 also considers that “the coroplast Charinos was part of this workshop (author: Euphronios) as well, learning the craft from the older master.”
47True 2006, 247 fig. 7. Beazley 1929, 58 wanted to distinguish the groups.
48Rotroff, Oakley 1992, 33; Monaco 2000, 34.
49Seaman 2017.
50The famous potter relief must be considered as an exception; Athens, Acropolis Museum 1322. The man depicted, most probably a workshop owner, could afford a marble dedication on the Athenian Acropolis comparable to those commemorating members of the aristocracy. Raubitschek 1949, 465: “It is, therefore, safe to assume that the Athenian βάναυσαι, who became wealthy in the course of the second half of the sixth century, gained social standing as well when the democracy was established.” In this case the potter most probably depicted himself. The potter Nearchos chose a more conventional statue of a kore, Athens, Acropolis museum 681, IG I3 628: “Nearchos the potter dedicated (this) as a first offering of his work to Athena. Antenor son of Eumares made the statue”. Cf. also the base of the “kerameus” Mnesiades and Andokides, Raubitschek 1949, No. 225. The painter Onesimos dedicated seven marble perirrhanteria on the Acropolis: Raubitschek 1949, 384–392.
51Attic ianiform amphoriskos. Paris, Louvre CA 986: Epilykos kalos; BAPD 231210; Hedreen 2014 discussed that the name Epilykos is fictional. Nevertheless, the kerameus inscriptions (both egraphsen and epoiesen) need a person behind these products, whatever his name may be. Shapiro 1983, 306, tries to trace the family of Epilykos up to the 7th century.
52Hedreen 2016, 259–261 fig. 57. For “other fictional artisans working in the Kerameikos” cf. Hedreen 2016, 245–261. Hedreen, 2016, 261 goes even a step further and argues that the real name of the fictional Epilykos is Euphronios. True 2006, 242 f., also suggested that Beazley’s Epilykos Class, named according to the kalos inscription, may be related to this famous vase painter. She considers also a relation between Charinos and Euphronios; cf. fn. 46.
53IG I2 Nr. 504. – It was a family business in which women and children were also involved, as D. Williams recently pointed out again thoroughly; Williams 2016. Cf. the analyze of family links between Hegesiboulos I, Hegesiboulos II, and Sotades, which is of specific interest in our context, because he can also be traced to plastic vases; Williams 2008. Cf. also Schöne-Denkinger 2016, 113 f.
54Neils 2017. Pollias also worked for Kriton, the son of Skythes, who is again a famous potter; IG I2 Nr. 504. Kriton possibly inherited the business from his father. – For Skythes cf. Hedreen 2016, 257.
55Williams 2016, 59.
56For the Antenor kore and further dedications of potters to the Acropolis see fn. 50 and 54.
57New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 26.49; BAPD 300770. Nearchos introduced the aryballos, a Corinthian shape, into the Athenian repertoire.
58Pala 2012, 85–89; i.e. Athens, National Museum 1061; BAPD 218378; Athens, National Museum 2077; BAPD 218561.
59Attic red figured pelike. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 1973.88; BAPD 4437; Scheibler 2017, 81. Two different names are added to the figure of the flute player although it should be the same person; this makes the decoration a little inconsistent. – The vase painter’s interest in sculpture is especially illustrated by the depictions of statues in the vase paintings. These are best recognized if the base (plinth) is drawn thoroughly; Oenbrink 1997, 194–197.
60Phintias added the name Euthymides to a youth having music lessons on the hydria, Munich, Antikensammlungen 2421; BAPD 200126. Is this a hint at the good education and also the higher social level, which at least some potters acquired?
61True 2006, 241 Nr. 78. One fragment was found on the Acropolis of Athens, another in Eleusis; cf. also Pala 2012, 213 fig. 120 f.
62Most of the early animal head rhyta “have been linked to the workshop of one master, the potter Brygos”, True 2006, 247.
63Rome, Villa Giulia 866; BAPD 202749. Sapirstein 2013, 503: Sapirstein’s explanation that Syriskos was “occasionally hired as an assistant potter for unusual vase shapes” is less convincing. Why should a talented painter who is specialized primarily in this job be invited to take part in preparing a relatively unusual shape by hand? For an overview of Syriskos cf. Hedreen 2016, 246.
64The Apulian patrix of a deer (see Jeammet fig. 5 in this volume) is fired and “is modeled freehand in layer upon layer of fine clay over a core of the same material”; Hoffmann 1960, 277.
65Also the moulds are made of clay, cf. above fn. 26. The individual’s affiliation to a workshop may depend on the artistic speciality possessed; Williams 2016, 64: “Some specialist potters, such as those who created animal- and human-headed vessels may have been able to move more easily between workshops (e. g. Charinos), but they were presumably never as free as some talented figure-painters who could pick up their box of brushes and transfer to a new establishment.”; Sapirstein 2013. – Based on the material record in the potters’ quarter of Sagalassos E. Murphy and J. Poblome had shown for later contexts that infrastructure and tools in workshops for pottery and figurines are different, although they are “situated on the same street”; Murphy, Poblome 2011.
Auteur
-
Elisabeth Trinkl
University of Graz, elisabeth.trinkl[at]uni-graz.at
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Peupler et habiter l’Italie et le monde romain
Stéphane Bourdin, Julien Dubouloz et Emmanuelle Rosso (dir.)
2014
Archéologie au présent
Les découvertes de l’archéologie préventive dans les médias
Catherine Dureuil-Bourachau
2015
Sarta Tecta
De l’entretien à la conservation des édifices. Antiquité, Moyen Âge, début de la période moderne
Charles Davoine, Maxime L’Héritier et Ambre Péron d’Harcourt (dir.)
2019
Gérer l’eau en Méditerranée au premier millénaire avant J.-C.
Sophie Bouffier, Oscar Belvedere et Stefano Vassalo (dir.)
2019
Le village de la Capelière en Camargue
Du début du ve siècle avant notre ère à l’Antiquité tardive
Corinne Landuré, Patrice Arcelin et Gilles Arnaud-Fasseta (dir.)
2019
Les métaux précieux en Méditerranée médiévale
Exploitations, transformations, circulations
Nicolas Minvielle Larousse, Marie-Christine Bailly-Maitre et Giovanna Bianchi (dir.)
2019
L’Homme et l’Animal au Maghreb, de la Préhistoire au Moyen Âge
Explorations d’une relation complexe
Véronique Blanc-Bijon, Jean-Pierre Bracco, Marie-Brigitte Carre et al. (dir.)
2021