Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:45:41.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Further note on ΕΠΟΙΕΣΕΝ Signatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Michael M. Eisman
Michael M. Eisman
Affiliation:
Temple University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent issue of this journal (xci [1971] 137–8), R. M. Cook argued convincingly that the term ἐποίεσεν should not be taken to mean the craftsman who threw the vase but rather should be taken as a sign of ownership by the head of the workshop producing the pot. While in agreement with Cook's rejection of ἐποίεσεν as a term referring to the craftsman who threw the vase, I am not altogether satisfied with his alternative proposal. Why was the designation of ownership painted on the vase, and by whom was it painted? Cook's suggestion would have the signature act as a trade name to identify the product. If so, why were so few pots designated in this manner? We would expect that a trade name would almost automatically be placed on all goods emanating from a workshop and that if this became customary in the more prominent workshops it would have been adopted in the lesser ones. In short, why were not all Greek vases so designated—at least in the second half of the sixth and the first half of the fifth century?

The only ἐποίεσεν signature to appear with any frequency or consistency is that of Nikosthenes on the special amphora form which now carries his name. Other workshops do not provide the extensive signatures; however, if we can determine the meaning of the signature in the Nikosthenic shop we will not be far from the use of ἐποίεσεν in other workshops.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 94 , November 1974 , pp. 172
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Most Nikosthenic amphora are signed and almost all of the work of the ‘Painter N’ is signed. Only five kyathoi attributed to ‘Painter N’ and one attributed to Oltos are signed out of about 400 known kyathoi painted by various painters and painter groups working in the Nikosthenic workshop (see Eisman, , Attic Kyathos Painters, [1971] diss. U. of Penn. and AJA lxxiv [1970] 193)Google Scholar. Other shapes which were produced in the workshop have varying percentages of signed to unsigned vases.

2 The ‘normal’ signature can be seen on Louvre F100, Hoppin, op. cit., no. 33 and ABV 216, no. 2. (Hereafter Hoppin will be noted as H with the appropriate Nikosthenic vase number and ABV simply with the page number followed by the vase number.) Contrast the signatures on the following vases with the ‘normal’ signature and with each other: Berlin 1805, H5, 223.65; Berlin 1806, H6, 223.66; Fogg Art Museum (Cambridge) amphora fragment H11,-; London B364, H20, 229.vi; New York 14.136, H26, 232.13; Oxford 215, H27, 216.3; Cab. Med. 258, H29, 232.14; Providence 23.303, H31, 220.34; Tarquinia RC 1076, H14, 223.59.

3 Berlin, 1801, ABV 230Google Scholar, no. x, 1. Other spelling variants can be seen on Athens, Acropolis Collection fr. 1410, HIC, 233.xi.3; London B296, H18, 219.18; Louvre F102, H35, 216.2; Louvre F114, H47, 226.-; Louvre F123, H52, 231.8; Vatican G74, -, 233.19.

4 Athens, Acropolis Collection fr. 1409, H1b, 233.xi.2; Berlin 1801, H4, 230.x.1; Louvre F121, H50, 231.7; Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, -, 231.9; Villa Giulia without number, -, 229.V.

5 Villa Giulia 50580, H59, 233.3.