Paleothodoros Etruscan Black Figure

MEDI TERRANEA
Rivista annuale
fondata da
Francesco Roncalli
diretta da
Filippo Delpino
*

Comitato scientifco
Maria Giulia Amadasi Mara Eugenia Aubet
Sandro Filippo Bond Dominique Briquel
Giovannangelo Camporeale
Giovanni Colonna Carlo de Simone
Dieter Mertens Annette Rathje
David Ridgway Francesco Roncalli
Redazione
Laura Ambrosini Vincenzo Bellelli
Massimo Botto Ida Oggiano
Giorgia Rubera (Segretaria)
*

Mediterranea is an International Peer-Reviewed Journal.
The eContent are Archived with Clockss and Portico.
MEDI TERRANEA
quaderni annuali dell
i sti tuto
di studi sulle ci vi lt i tali che
e del medi terraneo anti co
del consi gli o nazi onale delle ri cerche
gi
quaderni di archeologi a etrusco- i tali ca
vi i i 201 1
pi s a roma
fabri zio serra edi tore
mmxi
Amministrazione e abbonamenti
Fabrizio Serra editore
Casella postale n. 1, Succursale n. 8, i 56123 Pisa,

tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, fse
@
libraweb.net
I prezzi ufciali di abbonamento cartaceo e/o Online sono consultabili presso
il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.net
Print and/or Online ofcial subscription rates are available at Publishers website
www.libraweb.net
I pagamenti possono essere efettuati tramite versamento su c.c.p. n. 17154550
o tramite carta di credito (American Express, Visa, Eurocard, Mastercard)
*
Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa: n. 21/08 in data 1 ottobre 2008
Direttore responsabile: Filippo Delpino
*
Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, ladattamento, anche parziale o per estratti,
per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo efettuati, compresi la copia fotostatica, il microflm,
la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc., senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta della
Fabrizio Serra editore
, Pisa Roma
Ogni abuso sar perseguito a norma di legge.
*
www.libraweb.net
issn 1827-0506
issn elettronico 1970-2191
LA CERAMICA A FIGURE NERE DI TIPO ATTICO
PRODOTTA IN ITALIA
volume i i
a cura di
vi ncenzo bellelli
SOMMARI O
la ceramica a figure nere di tipo attico prodotta in italia
volume ii
Vincenzo Bellelli, Al di qua e al di l della stele. Una nuova lettura dellanfora
eponima del gruppo campano della Festa Campestre 11
Dimitris Paleothodoros, A Complex Approach to Etruscan Black-Figure Vase-
Painting 33
Alessandro Palmieri, Vasi-cinerario etruschi a fgure nere dallEtruria meri-
dionale 83
Giulio Paolucci, I Gruppi Vaticano 265 e Monaco 883 riuniti e rivisitati 151
Maurizio Pistolesi, Su un vaso a fgure nere atticizzanti da Aleria 197
Marta Scarrone, Neues zur Jenseitsreise bei den Etruskern 215
Manuela Wullschleger, Achille e Troilo su unhydria etrusca inedita: alcune
osservazioni sullimagerie del Pittore del Vaticano 238 241
Abstracts 267
Recapiti dei collaboratori 271
Norme redazionali 273
Introduction
ince Winkelmanns times, the ap-
preciation of Etruscan art has always
been measured through Greek lenses:
the closer to Greek art a class of Etru -
scan works of art looks, the higher the
qualitative judgment it receives in schol-
arly discussions.2 Besides, given that the
techniques that were used for the deco-
ration of Etruscan painted pottery were
borrowed directly from Greece, this par-
ticular craft was held in very low esteem
and it was often dismissed as derivative,
imitative, inferior or insignifcant, if
mentioned at all.3 This attitude is exem-
plifed in Beazleys famous statement:
The Etruscans were gifted artists, but
clay vases were not their forte.4 This
and similar severe judgements left aside
certain more Greek-looking vases (the
Caeretan hydriae and the Pontic am-
phorae), that had always been singled
out as artistic achievements of some im-
portance.5
A favourable turn, however, occurred
since the 1920s, when Italian scholars re-
jected Winkelmanns views on the
provincial and subordinate character of
Etruscan art and marked it as the frst
original Italian art.6 Yet, this view did
not afect the evaluation of painted pot-
tery. At best, scholars adopt a sympa-
thetic attitude towards Etruscan black-
fgure vases that display an original
touch of Etruscan spirit in terms of
their highly idiosyncratic style and mo-
1 I would like to thank Vincenzo Bellelli and Fi -
lippo Delpino for inviting me to participate in this
important collection of studies in Mediterranea.
Special thanks are due to Federica Wiel-Marin, for
her invaluable information on unpublished fnds
from Tarquinia. Thanks are also due to Maurizio
Pistolesi and Natacha Lubtchansky, for their help.
Above all, I would like to thank Christos Zapheiro-
poulos, for improving my English and for many
useful critical remarks.
2 Winkelmann 1764, p. 22, famously com-
pared the crooked Etruscan art to the straight
Greek art.
3 Martha 1889, pp. 485-486, 487, the frst histo-
rian of Etruscan art, is indicative: Les potiers in-
dignes se mirent fabriquer de faux vases grecs
pour profter de la vogue dont jouissaient les vrais
; la tentative ne fut pas heureuse, et je doute que
jamais il aient russi faire quelque chose de com-
parable aux plus mdiocres productions de la cra-
mique grecque Il est vident que les trusques
nont jamais t, en fait des peintures cramiques,
que de maladroits apprentis. Compare Ducati
1927, p. 297: Nella ceramica dipinta etrusca la ripro-
duzione dei modelli ellenici ci appare inabile e gofa
Tutto sciatto e volgare, sia nei vasi in cui il
carattere jonico, sia in quelli in cui il carattere at-
tico; Riis 1953, p. 79: The Etruscan painted pottery
of the archaic period has not the originality of the
bucchero, and as a rule its usually careless simili-
Greek style and technique do not bear closer in-
spection.
4 Beazley 1947, p. 1.
5 E.g. Pfuhl 1923, 183; Riis 1953, p. 80.
6 Harari 1992.
A COMPLEX APPROACH TO ETRUSCAN
BLACK FI GURE VASE- PAI NTI NG
1
Dimi tris Paleothodoros
For Giorgos and Lenia
S
notonous iconography.1 At the same
time, Etruscan vase-painting is recog-
nized as an important vehicle for the dif-
fusion of Greek civilization in Italy.2
While not inherently mistaken or
inaccurate, such statements gave birth
to generalizations regarding Etruscan
black-fgured vases that were based on
aesthetic comparisons with Greek im-
ports. Moreover, crucial aspects of the
study, like the mechanisms of produc-
tion and distribution, or the use and the
role of pots in the life of the local com-
munities, have been neglected.
Due to the low reputation of Etr-
uscan black-fgure in contemporary
scholarship, no recent comprehensive
treatment of the fabric is available,3 as
opposed to the situation of other Italian
black-fgure schools, like the chalcidian
and the campanian.4 As a result, any
study of the subject needs frst to draw
an accurate picture of the situation, and
then to evaluate whatever fnds are born
out from a complex analysis of raw data.
Equal attention should be paid both
towards the traditional art-historical
method of connoisseurship, as well as to
contextual readings, which are more in
accord with recent trends in scholarship
that use painted vases as a means to in-
vestigate important facets of ancient so-
cieties. The present study is a prole-
gomenon to a general survey of Etruscan
black-fgured vase painting and it is
based on a database of 1600 fgured vas-
es.5 Although undoubtedly incomplete
(for sure, there are many more unpub-
lished or unnoticed vases), this cata-
logue is at the moment by far the most
extensive database of Etruscan black-
fgure vases.6
1 Mansuelli 1966, p. 77: Thus, though it
reached an average level very far from that of its
models, Etruscan black-fgure pottery at the end of
the 6
th
century was not infrequently capable of ex-
pressing itself in a language its own laying particu-
lar stress on the black silhouette, little impaired by
grafto fnishing and efectively representing
schemes in movement; Brendel 1978, p. 194:
Clearly the Etruscan vases were the products of a
provincial craft, but many also display a vitality of
their own; they represent something more that a
mere extension of Greek art into Italy It follows
that the contribution which the Etruscan black-fg-
ured vases were capable of making was to Etr-
uscan, not to Greek art. in regard to form as well
as themes, these vases were very much a part of
the Etruscan ambience. In turn, they also helped to
build this ambience. Ridgway 1989, p. 344: It
could be that the world is at least ready to accept
that these anhellenic features represent the worth,
not the weakness, of the Archaic Etruscan Micali
Painter. For a more sympathetic attitude towards
Etruscan black-fgure, see Scheffer 1984 and
Small 1991-1992.
2 Brendel 1978, p. 153: What must be stressed,
rather, is the general importance which accrued to
painted vases at this time as the prime vehicles for
the distribution of Greek myths in Etruria; Spivey
1996, p. 24: Artists, therefore, where at the cutting-
edge of acculturation in Etruria.
3 Dohrn 1937, a thorough study of the 6
th
cen-
tury production, is outdated. More recent studies
are very brief, for all their clarity: Scheffer 1984,
Rizzo 1987 and 1988; Gaultier 2000, pp. 430-437.
4 Chalcidian: Iozzo 1994. Campanian: Fal-
cone, Ibelli 2007 and the important review-article
of Bellelli 2009.
5 The data will be available on-line in March
2011, as part of the icar project (Internet Database
of Figured Scenes in Pre-Roman Italy). Small vases
decorated with geometric or foral patterns are
omitted.
6 Dohrn 1937 has a little more than 300 vases;
Beazley 1947, pp. 11-23, made numerous additions;
Cal 1936, p. 429, counted 400 vases, pontic ones
excluded; Small 1987, pp. 127-135, used 523 vases
(pontic, Micali school, other groups that were in-
cluded in Dohrn 1937 and caeretan hydriae); Os-
borne 2001 used only Beazley 1947 and Spivey
1987a, while Osborne 2004 takes into account
Hannestad 1974 and 1976 as well.
34 dimitris paleothodoros
History of Studies
The frst publications of genuine Etr-
uscan black-fgured vases appeared in
the 18th century. Among the earliest
known vases are included the name-
piece of the group of Vatican 265 (Fig.
1a-b), housed in the Biblioteca Vaticana
since 1732 and an oinochoe of possible
Caeretan origin, kept in the Museo
Kircheriano in 1746. Both vases were il-
lustrated in drawings by Passeri.1 This
was a time when all vases found in
Etruria were considered to be Etru -
scan. Nevertheless, since Alesio Sim-
macho Mazocchi pointed out in 1754
that the inscriptions on black- and red-
fgured vases excavated in various parts
in Italy are Greek, scholars started to
estimate that these vases might have
been Greek in origin.2 Winkelmann
himself wrote in 1764 that the vases
that had up until then been called Etr-
uscan were in fact the products of
Greece and Magna Graecia.3
1 Vatican 17656 (265; Albizzati 1924, p. 93, fg. 36
and pl. 27) and 17682 (Albizzati 1924, p. 80 and pl. 21;
caeretan origin: Gaultier 2003, p. 32): Passeri 1767-
1775, iii, pl. 246-247 and ii, pl. 200 respectively; See
Masci 2008, pp. 490, no. 228 and 451, no. 188.
2 See Jahn 1854, pp. i-xxi; Vickers 1985-1986;
von Bothmer 1987; Cook 1997, pp. 275-311. See
Burn 1997, on the role of Lord Hamilton in estab-
lishing the view that the vases were made in Athens
and Masci 2007, for antecedents among scholars
from the Kingdom of Two Sicilies.
3 Winkelmann 1764, cap. iv, iv.
Fig. 1 a-b. Neck-amphora in Vatican. After Passeri 1764-1775, iii, pl. 246.
b a
a complex approach to etruscan black figure vase-pai nti ng 35
It was not until the excavations at Vul-
ci, during the 1820s, that the distinct
character of Etruscan black-fgured pot-
tery, as opposed to Greek imports, was
acknowledged by eminent authorities
such as Eduard Gerhard, Giuseppe Mi-
cali and Jean de Witte.1 In the years to
come, the fervent activity of excavation
at Tarquinia, Vulci, Chiusi, Orvieto and
Bisenzio brought to light several Etru -
scan black-fgured vases, that were
made in a style usually described as
decadent or rotten.2
Gradually, however, under the domi-
nant doctrine of Panionism, less and less
was conceded to the Etruscans, until a
signifcant setback in Etruscan pottery
studies occurred in the later part of the
19
th
century, when the best specimens of
Etruscan black-fgure were considered
as Ionic or Etrusco-Ionic. Dmmler in
1887 coined the term Pontic group,
pointing to a workshop in the Black Sea
area as the source for the earliest group
of black-fgure; others preferred to place
this Ionian workshop in Aeolis in Asia
Minor.3 Only a small part of what was
then considered as Ionic vase-painting,
namely the lesser shapes of the Pontic
Group or the vases by the Micali Painter
and his followers, was admitted as Etru -
scan, yet as inferior products of imita-
tors who had settled themselves in
Italy.4
It was the catalogue of the Munich
vases, published by R. Hackl and J.
Sieveking in 1912, that made the unitary
character of Etruscan black-fgure abun-
dantly clear.5 For the frst time, scholars
were able to study an appreciable num-
ber of Etruscan painted vases of the
sixth and the ffth century, arranged by
shape and style. Nevertheless, despite
this step of progress, the terms Etru -
sco-Ionic or Italian-Ionic did not dis-
appear.6
Meanwhile, interest on the classifca-
tion of Etruscan painted pottery grew
as a result of the infuence of the posi-
tivist and objective approach of vase
study that was proposed by J. D. Beazley
in 1910.7 Ducatis and Dohrns mono-
1 Micali 1832 and 1844. In his Rapporto Vol-
cente (1831, p. 124, n. 57), Gerhard used the term
anfora etrusco-egiziana for a pontic amphora in
the Candelori collection (Munich 837: Hannestad
1974, p. 44, no. 1, pl. 1-2). When the learned Belgian
scholar Jan De Witte published the sale catalogue of
the second collection of captain Durand, the local
character of the most representative schools of Etr-
uscan black-fgured pottery, the so-called pontic
group and the Micali Painter were clearly estab-
lished: De Witte 1836, pp. 90-91, no. 273, 119, no. 339,
129, no. 373, 145, no. 396, 440, 196, no. 576 and 278, no.
868 (style et fabrication trusques).
2 See e.g. Fiorelli 1876, p. 6: anfora di stile
transcurato e di fabbrica locale (writing on Tar-
quinia RC 1881: Ginge 1987, pp. 61-63, no. 29, pl. 51-
52, 94): anfora di un stile imitativo, quanto ar-
caico altrettando trascurato (Pasqui 1885, p. 472,
regarding Tarquinia RC 5709: Ginge 1987, p. 50, no
17, pl. 22). Helbig 1893, p. 113: anfora di pessima
fabbricazione locale (regarding Tarquinia RC
8219: Ginge 1988-1989, pp. 80-81, no. 7, pl. 16-17);
Helbig 1896, p. 21: unanfora a fgure nere rozza-
mente dipinte che sembra di fabbricazione locale
(regarding Tarquinia RC 6884: Ginge 1987, pp. 47-
48, no. 20, pl. 37-39).
3 Dmmler 1887, pp. 178-187. Aeolis: Endt 1899,
pp. 39-54; Phocaea or Cyme: Walters 1905, p. 360.
Their Italic origin was suggested by Furtwngler
1885, p. 217.
4 Dmmler 1888, pp. 179-180; Endt 1899, pp.
55-56. 5 Sieveking and Hackl 1912.
6 E.g. Klein 1910, on the fnest specimens of lat-
er black-fgure; Waldhauer 1923, p. 173, on vases
from the Micali school. Etrusco-ionic is used as
late as the 1960s, i.e. in De Marinis 1961, p. 92. For
the weaknesses of the concept of etrusco-ionic
pottery, see Mingazzini 1930, p. 167.
7 Rouet 2001.
graphs1 and a series of articles in Studi
Etruschi by both Italian2 and German
scholars,3 opened the path for Beazleys
opus magnum on Etruscan Vase-Painting
which formed a basis for all subsequent
studies on black-fgure, despite the fact
that it mainly dealt with Etruscan red-
fgure.4
At the aftermath of wwii, a broad
system of classifcation was reached,
based on Beazleys revisions to Dohrns
groups: Pontic vases were put at the
head of the Etruscan black-fgured
school, around 550 B.C., to be followed
soon by the Ivy-Leaf and La Tolfa
Groups in the third quarter of the sixth
century. The Micali, Orvieto and Lotus-
Bud Groups covered the period of the
last two decades of the sixth and the frst
decade of the ffth century, while the
rest of the production, the so-called
Later Groups, was arranged in small,
rather insignifcant groupings. In the
last 60 years, virtually all the stylistic
groups distinguished by Dohrn and Bea-
zley have been revised and expanded
and new groups have been recognized.
Meanwhile, monographs, exhibitions
together with entire CVA fascicules and
Museum catalogues specifcally devoted
to Etruscan black-fgure vases do con-
stantly appear.5
Distribution
It may sound as a paradox, but no sys-
tematic survey of the general distribu-
tion of Etruscan black-fgure has ap-
peared yet.6 In that section, I seek to
emend this omission. (Table 1)
There are ffty-eight fndspots for a to-
tal of 780 vases. In other words, we have
more or less trustful records for only 48,
6 % of the vases in our catalogue. This
percentage is highly consistent with
what is known for other wares predom-
inantly present in Italy (i.e. chalcidian,
Attic black- and red-fgure). The over-
whelming majority of the vases that do
not have a recorded provenance have
been unearthed at Vulci, during the
1820s and the 1830s, and, to a lesser de-
gree, at major sites like Cerveteri, Tar-
quinia, Orvieto, Chiusi and Bisenzio. In
other cases, scholars have omitted the
reference to provenance. Thus, it is al-
most certain that a more profound
study of archival material will reveal
many more records of acquisitions of
vases with known pedigree.
Unless any new, surprising fnds alter
1 Ducati 1932; Dohrn 1937, with addenda and
corrigenda in Dohrn 1938.
2 Cal 1936; Minto 1940, pp. 367-372; Magi
1941, 1942, 1943 and 1950-1951; Giglioli 1948-1949.
3 Herbig 1933; von Mercklin 1937, pp. 359-374,
pl. xxxiv-xl.
4 Beazley 1947; see also Beazley, Magi 1939,
pp. 76-85.
5 Hannestad 1974 and 1976; Spivey 1987a;
Werner 2005; Rizzo, Spivey 1988; Ginge 1987;
Cappelletti 1992; Gaultier 1995 and 2003. Of
course, iconographic studies not cited here form an
important sector of specialized studies on Etruscan
black-fgure.
6 For a brief discussion, see Paleothodoros
(forthcoming). My arguments are in sharp contrast
with Spivey 1987a, p. 72, who claimed that the data
of provenance are too sparse, and the geo-political
factors too obtrusive, to construct a purely spatial
interpretation of the distribution of any group of
Etruscan black fgure. When the distribution of
the production of a single workshop is studied, it is
mainly used as an indication of its localisation:
Lund and Rathje 1988, pp. 352-354 (the Pontic
workshop); Paolucci 1999, pp. 287-288 (the Groups
of Munich 883 and Vatican 265); Gaultier 2005 (the
Lotus-Bud Group); Rallo 2009, pp. 757-758 (the La
Tolfa Group).
a complex approach to etruscan black fi gure vase-pai nti ng 37
Site Sixth Century Fifth Century Total
01 Acquaviva 1 1
02 Allumiere 1 1 2
03 Arezzo 1 2 3
04 Bagnoro 1 1
05 Bettole 1 1
06 Bisenzio 1 9 10
07 Bolsena 1 1
08 Capena 2 2
09 Castel Campanile 1 1
10 Castiglione della Pescaia 1 1
11 Cerveteri 85 33 118
12 Cetona, Camporsevoli 5 18 23
13 Cetona, St. Margherita 3 3
14 Chianciano Terme 4 15 19
15 Chiusi 9 41 50
16 Cortona 2 2
17 Costa Murata, Pellicia 1 1
18 Fallerini 12 12
19 Ferrone 5 11 16
20 Fiesole 1 1
21 Gravisca 2 2
22 Ischia di Castro 1 1
23 Montalto di Castro 3 3 6
24 Montepulciano 1 1
25 Monterano 2 2
26 Umbria 1 1
27 Orbetello (?) 1 1
28 Orvieto 21 70 91
29 Parrano 8 8
30 Pescia Romana 2 2 4
31 Perugia 3 3
32 Pienza 1 1
33 Pitigliano 2 2
34 Poggio Gulivo 1 1
35 Populonia 2 1 3
36 PortErcole 1 1
37 Rosellae 5 5
38 San Lorenzo al Fiume 1 1
39 Sarteano 1 3 4
40 Saturnia 1 5 6
41 Tarquinia 29 47 76
42 Tolfa 4 4
43 Tolle 5 18 23
44 Tuscania 1 3 4
45 Veii 2 2
46 Viterbo 3 3
47 Volterra 1 1
48 Vulci 153 86 239
49 Adria 1 1
50 Alria 2 2
51 Bologna 2 2
52 Falerii 1 1 2
53 Genova 1 1
54 Narce 1 1
55 Nola 1 1
56 Sala Consilina 1 1
57 Timpone Motta 1 1
58 Ullastret 1 1
Unknown 503 324 827
Total 863 742 1605
Table 1. Distribution of Etruscan Black-Figured Vases.
the general picture, it can be safely as-
sumed that Etruscan black-fgured vases
were designed to meet exclusively local
needs, in sharp contrast to Etrusco-
corinthian or bucchero wares which en-
joyed a wide distribution in the Mediter-
ranean. Only a handful of Etruscan
black-fgured pots travelled outside
Etruria proper: there is a fragmentary
cup by the Micali Painter from Ullastret
in Spain;1 to the south, we note a pontic
oinochoe from the sanctuary of Athena
at Francavilla Marittima near Sybaris in
Magna Grecia,2 a pontic lydion allegedly
from Nola in Campania,3 a lekythos
from Sala Consilina in Lucania;4 in the
Faliscan area, there is a neck-amphora
very close to the Micali Painter from
Narce,5 a pair of amphorae of the La
Tolfa Group from a tomb at Capena6
and two amphorae from Falerii Veteres;7
in the northern part of Italy, we mark the
presence of a neck-amphora of the
Group of Munich 892 and of an unat-
tributed olpe from Bologna (along with
a handful of patterned vases),8 a frag-
mentary vase from near Adria,9 and an-
other one from Genova;10 lastly, there is
an oinochoe by the Kyknos Painter and
fragments of a second pot of the same
shape from Alria in Corsica.11 Prove-
nances reported by art-dealers or collec-
tors should be treated with the greater
circumspection: some are demonstrably
false, for instance Olbia on the northern
coast of the Black Sea,12 or Melos in the
Cyclades,13 while others more probably
refer to the place where the vases were
acquired, rather than to their original
fndspot.14
1 Ullastret 3664: Bruni 2007, pl. 24a.
2 Sybaris 79.AE.111.617: Van Der Wielen, Van
Oumeren, De Lachenal 2007, p. 283, fg. 3.1.
3 Paris, Cab.Md.183: Hannestad 1976, p. 66,
no. 81.
4 Paris, Petit Palais 431: Plaoutine 1941, pl. 3.1,
4.3-6.
5 Civit Castellana (ex Villa Giulia 5200): Rizzo,
Spivey 1988, p. 102, fg. 197, no. 78, pl. viii.3-4.
6 Gttingen Acc.Inv. iii 5 and iii 6: Bentz 2001,
pl. 36-37.
7 263- Giulia 18597), neck-amphora by the Lotus-
Bud Group: Giglioli 1948-1949, pl. 15.1-2; Villa Giulia
539, small neck-amphora by the Micali Painter: Riz-
zo, Spivey 1988, p. 86, fg. 147, no. 42.
8 For fnds in Bologna and the Po valley area, see
Govi 2005; add the olpe once in the Scheurleer coll.,
inv. 764, which is said to be from Bologna:
Scheurleer 1927, pl. 3.5.
09 Prof. Maurizio Harari, pers. comm.
10 Cited by Bruni 2007, p. 105, n. 26 (Micali
Painter).
11 Jehasse 1973, pl. 21, no. 1892 and 2281b.
12 Such a case is the provenance of the hydria St.
Petersbourg B 3146, by the Kyknos Painter (Spivey
1987a, p. 42, no. 2). According to Waldhauer 1923,
p. 170, the hydria had been purchased by the Russian
Archaeological Commission in 1903 from an art-
dealer at Olbia in the Black Sea, who claimed that the
vase was found locally. However, in Beazley, Magi
1939, p. 77, n. 3, it is said that the hydria is to be identi-
fed with the one found in a tomb at the Polledrara
necropolis of Vulci (Gsell 1891, pp. 81-82). A second
vase published by Waldhauer 1923, pp. 174-175, the
column-krater Moscow ii 1 b 1119, once belonged to
the Samokvasov collection which was allegedly
formed up by objects found in Russia. An Italian
provenance is more probable. Vases from the Vogell
collection (now in the Warsaw National Museum),
were also said to come from the Black Sea area in
Cramer 1908, p. 9, pl. 1 and 2.4 (a pontic stemmed
plate: Hannestad 1976, p. 65, no. 73 and an amphora
by the Ivy-Leaf Group: Werner 2005, pl. 22, no.
4.6/6.2). Bronze objects and etrusco-corinthian pots
are reportedly found in the Black Sea Area. See Bel-
lelli, Cultraro 2006, with earlier bibliography.
13 Louvre CA 1901: Gaultier 2003, pp. 44-45, pl.
10-13.
14 Note the lekythos published by Williams
2005, pp. 355 and 357, fg. 8-9, reportedly found in
the Forum Romanum; a column-krater in Berlin
(Spivey 1987a, 28, no. 184, pl. 31a-b) by the Micali
Painter was allegedly found at Rome, porta di
S.Giovanni, in 1884 (Furtwngler 1885, no. 4024).
a complex approach to etruscan black fi gure vase-painting 39
It is questionable whether any of these
fnds should be regarded as evidence for
trade: rather, they must have travelled
along with their owners, since they
appear in areas that were colonized by
the Etruscans or with strong Etruscan
presence.1
The most important fndspots are the
major central and southern Etruscan
cities,2 frst and foremost Vulci (239)
followed by Cerveteri (118), Orvieto (91),
Tarquinia (76) and Chiusi (50). The scar -
city of fnds from Veii cannot be consid-
ered an anomaly: this city was not a
consumer of imported painted pot-
tery either.3 Nor do the major Etruscan
cities in the northern part of Etruria use
any appreciable numbers of Etruscan
black-fgured pots: the numbers of vases
from Vetulonia,4 Populonia5, Corto -
na,6 Volterra,7 Perugia,8 Fiesole9 and
Arezzo10 vary from one to three, but
Rosellae receives a little more (fve vas-
es).11
Approximately 30% of the vases with
known provenance were found in one of
the cemeteries at Vulci (239). Whenever
tomb-contexts are known (which is, un-
fortunately, the case only for a minority
of vases), Etruscan black-fgure appears
side by side with attic vases.12 There are
1 I take the fnds from Bologna and Corsica as ev-
idence for the presence of emigrants from Southern
Etruria: see Paleothodoros (forthcoming).
2 I have included vases in the Campana and the
Castellani collections among the fnds from Cervet-
eri, vases from the Guglielmi, Feoli, Candelori, Fos-
sati, Campanari, Canino collections among those
from Vulci, while I assume that most of the fnds in
the Faina Museum at Orvieto have been found local-
ly (unless of course they have been acquired from
the Canino collection: see Della Fina 1989, p. 164,
no. 10).
3 See Small 1994, pp. 55-56. There is a fragmen-
tary olpe from the votive deposit at Campetti
(Vagnetti 1971, p. 116, pl. lxii), an oenochoe from
the cistern at Portonaccio (moretti sgubini 2001,
pp. 79-80). A small neck-amphora decorated with
patterns is mentioned by Bruni 1989, p. 91.
4 A fragmentary stamnos from tomb 1 in Cas-
tiglione della Pescaia near Vetulonia (Curri 1977, p.
463, pl. lxxb). Note also a pontic globular cup from
Pogio Pelliccia, Costa Murata (Talocchini 1981, p.
115, pl. 24c-d).
5 I have notes for three vases, a pontic lydion
from Casone (Bruni 1996, p. 233, fg. 1), an olpe of
the 5
th
century from Porto Baratti (Minto 1930, p.
352, fg. 7), and a fragmentary stamnos by the Micali
Painter (Bruni 1996, p. 245, fg. 9; ibid. for vases dec-
orated with patterns).
06 Neck-amphora of the Orvieto Group from S.
Martino La Rota presso Farnete (Magi 1950-1951, pp.
375-377, fg. 1-2).
07 A cup from the sanctuary on the acropolis
(Bonamici 2003, pp. 264-265, pl. xxix.1); perhaps also
a similar cup in the Guarnacci Museum, inv. 1508
(Paolucci 2000, 123, fg. 15).
08 A neck-amphora from the tomb 172 (Cenci-
aioli 2002, pp. 56 and 68, fg. 10) and the fragmen-
tary closed vessel from the Ipogeo dei Volumni
(Galli 1921, p. 145, fg. 106), both in the Palazzone
necropolis. An amphora in Deruta (inv. 255) is from
near Perugia: Roncalli 1999, pp. 46-49, no. 45.
09 Louvre E 758, a column krater acquired in 1823
from the Durand collection (Pottier 1901, pl. 56).
10 Two amphorae from a tomb excavated in the
19
th
century: Bocci Pacini 1979, pl. vii and ix re-
spectively. One should also consider the case of an
amphora in the old arretine collection of Mons.
Maggi, published in drawings by Inghirami 1833, pl.
clxxxvi: Side A has two satyrs dancing and side B
two draped males, the one with a pilos-hat:
Dionysos and Hephaistos?
11 Laviosa 1960, pp. 330-331, fg. 28-29 (kantharos
of Orvietan fabric); Grosseto 1651 (Bocci 1965, p.
116, pl. 30: amphora, Orvieto Group); unpublished
vases in the Grosseto Museum include another
fragmentary amphora from the Orvieto Group
(inv. 344: Schwarz 1989, p. 178, no. 39), two frag-
mentary amphorae, perhaps belonging to the
Group of Vatican 265, a small neck-amphora with
foral decoration and a skyphos with patterns.
12 See the tombs published in Gsell 1891, pp. 81-
83, De Puma 1986, p. 35 sg., (t. vc 10); Rizzo 1981,
Rizzo, Spivey 1988, pp. 77-79, Moretti Sgubini,
Ricciardi 2001, pp. 220-228 and Moretti Sgubini
2002.
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Pontic 20 1 1 2
Ivy 4
La Tolfa 2 30 2
Banditaccia 3
Micali 1 1 1 1 1 25 5 4 8 3
Other 6
th
1 1
Followers 1 5 1 6 7 5 6
Lotus Bud 17 1 1
Uprooter
Orvieto 2 3 1
Waterbird
Pyxis
Ancilla 1 1 8 1 4 24 5
Mun. 892 1 1 2 2 1
Jerusalem 1 2 1 3
Fallerini 2 1 4
Other 5
th
1 1 2 10 4 2 3 3 5 1
Total 1 2 3 1 1 10 1 2 1 1 118 23 3 19 50 2 1 12 16 1 2
Table 2a. Distribution of Etruscan Black-Figured Vases (numbers refer to the sites in Table 1).
Group 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Pontic 1 1 5 1 9
Ivy 1 2 1 4
La Tolfa 1 2
Banditaccia
Micali 1 1 13 2 2 1 1 10
Other 6
th
1 4
Followers 1 1 1 1 18
Lotus Bud 1 1
Uprooter
Orvieto 32 8 3 2
Waterbird 2 2 7
Pyxis 1
Ancilla 1 17 1 1 2 1 2 1 8
Mun. 892 1 2 1 2
Jerusalem 6 1 1
Fallerini
Other 5
th
1 1 2 1 8 1 1 1 9
Total 1 6 1 2 1 1 91 8 4 3 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 4 6 76
Table 2b. Distribution of Etruscan Black-Figured Vases (numbers refer to the sites in Table 1).
some notable exceptions, however, espe-
cially in cases where the custom of pri-
mary cremation into a pit was used.
These pit-tombs that cluster in the local-
ity Pellicone of the Osteria necropolis,
were particularly well furnished with
Etruscan black-fgure vases, almost to
the exclusion of any other ceramic fnds.1
In general, there are signifcant num-
bers of vases from the Pontic and the
Micali groups, and lesser so from the Ivy
Group. No vase from the La Tolfa Group
is recorded. Fifth-century vases are
much fewer (Table 2c). As far as shapes
are concerned (Table 4), neck-ampho -
rae and amphorae account for about
46% of the total (98 + 13). Hydriae (25 ex-
amples), oinochoe (27 examples) and ky-
athoi (22 exampes) are popular enough,
while the stamnos is clearly underrepre-
sented (9 examples). Other shapes are
rare. This is quite extraordinary in the
case of the kylix (4 examples), a shape
that seems to have been extremely pop-
ular at Vulci, as far as imports of Attic
black-fgure and red-fgure attest.
Satellite sites within the assumed polit-
ical sphere of Vulci are also supplied with
the products of Etruscan black-fgured
workshops: Bisenzio received ten vases.2
1 See Moretti Sgubini, Ricciardi 2005.
2 1. Brooklyn 29.2, neck-amphora near the Mi-
cali Painter (Edlund 1986, p. 436, fg. 4a-b). 2. Co-
lumbia Univ. PI 53, neck-amphora of the Bisenzio
Group (Edlund 1980, pp. 37-39, pl.21-23, no. 51). 3.-4.
Rome, Villa Giulia 57186 and 57184 small neck-am-
phora and column-krater from Olmobello t. 84, of
the Bisenzio Group (Pallottino 1980, pp. 94, pl.
116 and 92, pl. 112). 5. Rome, Villa Giulia 57185, unat-
tributed column-krater from the same tomb as the
Group 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Unkn. Total
Pontic 1 71 1 1 185 300
Ivy 1 13 47 73
La Tolfa 2 38 77
Banditaccia 1 4
Micali 1 4 1 67 1 1 1 1 191 349
Other 6
th
2 51 60
Followers 1 31 1 1 81 168
Lotus Bud 1 29 51
Uprooter 1 7 8
Orvieto 2 35 88
Waterbird 2 2 1 16
Pyxis 6 7
Ancilla 4 1 2 5 35 125
Mun. 892 1 1 3 1 15 34
Jerusalem 6 4 25
Fallerini 2 1 4 14
Other 5
th
2 3 44 1 1 1 97 206
Total 4 23 4 3 3 1 239 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 827 1605
Table 2c. Distribution of Etruscan Black-Figured Vases (numbers refer to the sites in Table 1).
Saturnia six,1 Pescia Romana four,2 Tus-
cania four3 and Montalto Castro six.4
Other neighbouring sites receive one
or two vases each.5
Cerveteri is the second best con-
sumer of Etruscan black-fgured pot-
tery. One cannot fail to notice the great
preponderance of neck-amphorae (70-
58 %) among the fnds. We are dealing
with a situation that is in sharp contrast
to what seems to be happening at Vulci
where the neck amphora accounts for
less than half of the fnds but at the
same time is consistent with what can
be observed in the other major sites
(Tarquinia [65%], Chiusi [64%] and less
so at Orvieto [56%]; in the latter, howev-
er, stamnoid amphorae and stamnoi are
unusually popular: 16 examples, almost
17%) (Table 4). Finds start from the ear-
lier phase of the pontic workshop and
are predominant during the sixth centu-
previous (Pallottino 1980, p. 92, pl. 113). 6. Flo-
rence 73342, column-krater by the Group of Munich
892 (Magi 1942, pp. 555-556, fg, 3-4; Scwharz 1983,
p. 125, no. 8). 7. An unpublished stamnos in Bisenzio
by the Ancile Painter (mentioned by Pistolesi 2007,
p. 74). 8. A column-krater used as a cinerary urn,
now dispersed (described by Helbig 1886, p. 25, n.
3). 9-10. Two small neck-amphorae in the Villa Giu-
lia Museum (Amorelli 1960, pp. 385-6; attributed
by Szilgyi 1981b, p. 59, to the painter of Budapest
51.385). Bisenzio is also rich in Attic black-fgure vas-
es (at least a hundred of vases are listed in Reusser
1993, 81-82), but has no red-fgure at all. Recent fnds
are reported in Berling 2005.
1 1. The earliest Etruscan black-fgured vase
from Saturnia is the Arezzo dinos which belongs to
the Ivy-Leaf Group: Cherici 2003. Other fnds in-
clude: 2.-3 Two neck-amphorae from the Micali
group and the Group of Vatican 265 in Grosseto
(once Florence 80675 and 80677 respectively) from
the Sterpeti necropolis, t. 7 (Donati 1989, pl. 29-30,
96, fg. 34, no. 12 and pl. 31 no 13; note also a small
neck-amphora with foral decoration: id., p. 101, pl.
32, no. 19). 4.-5. The amphorae Berkeley 8/2125 and
2126 from the Waterbird Group from tomb 6 of the
Mancinelli excavations of 1898 (Schwarz 1984, p.
77, no. 62-63). 6. The curious amphora Florence
80639 from a chamber tomb in Campo delle Cal-
dane in Pian di Palma (Donati 1989, pl. 66, no 16).
2 1-3. Three small neck-amphorae from the Mi-
cali Group in Florence: 71005 (Spivey, Rasmussen
1985, p. 5, fg. 9), 71006 (Spivey 1987a, p. 20, no. 116, pl.
21b), 71003 (neck: dogs running to the right; body: fo-
ral decoration); along with one decorated with pat-
terns, they come from the same tomb. 4. The neck-
amphora Florence 70997 (Magi 1942, p. 555, pl. 49.1-2;
Schwarz 1983, 125, no. 2: the Group of Munich 892).
3 1-2. A pair of amphorae from the Waterbird
Group (from t. 12: Moretti Sgubini 2005, pp. 226
and 243, fg. 15a). 3. An olpe by the Micali painter
(Tuscania 75352, from loc. Ara del Tufo: Rizzo,
Spivey, pp. 74-75, fg. 114, no. 26). 4. A fragmentary
neck-amphora attributed to the Group of Munich
883 (from a tomba a buca excavated in 1993 in the
Scalette Necropolis, area 2: Moretti Sgubini 2005,
p. 244, fg. 16a; Costantini, Ricciardi 2005, p. 251,
no. 1).
4 1. Berlin F 1674, neck-amphora near the Ivy-Leaf
Group (Szilgyi 1988, p. 142, no B 5.13). 2. Vulci 43544
(formerly Rome, Villa Giulia), hydria by the Micali
Painter (Spivey 1987a, p. 22, no. 135, pl. 19b). 3. Chian-
ciano Terme, Terrosi 30, neck-amphora by the
Group of Munich 892 (Paolucci 1991, p. 59, no. 90). 4.
Berlin F 2158, unattributed kyathos (Greifenhagen
1981, p. 272, fg. 27-30, no. 18). 5. The neck-amphora
Florence 4166, by the Ancile Painter (Group of Mu-
nich 883). 6. The unpublished kyathos Florence 4170.
The last two vases have been acquired (along with a
small neck-amphora [Florence 4080] decorated with
patterns and two dozens of attic black- and red-fg-
ured vases) in 1830 from a dealer who claimed that
they had been excavated in a cemetery near Montal-
to di Castro: Marzi 1988-1989, pp. 26, fg. 3a-b, no 3
and 28, no. 13 respectively.
5 Ischia di Castro: pontic globular cup (De Ruyt
1964-1965, p. 74, fg. 10). Orbetello: neck-amphora in
Orbetello Antiquarium (Santangelo 1954, p. 24,
fg. 14). PortErcole: Orbetello, Antiquarium 26,
neck-amphora by the Orbetello Group (Mangani
1977, fg. 1-5). Pitigliano: Florence 4139, hydria by the
Micali Painter (Spivey 1987a, p. 21, no. 126, pl. 22a-b,
23a, 40a). A fragmentary amphora by the Micali
Painter in a private collection at Pitigliano is men-
tioned in Bruni 2007, p. 100, n. 6, no. 7. Castel Cam-
panile: Baltimore 48.7, neck-amphora by the Micali
Painter (Spivey 1987a, p. 10, no. 27, pl. 5).
ry, with substantial numbers of vases
from the Pontic, the La Tolfa and the
Micali Group (Table 2a). A local partic-
ularity is the custom of placing a pair of
amphorae from the La Tolfa Group in
the same tomb.1
The case of Tarquinia is interesting,
because there we have fnds from
tombs, but also from sacred and residen-
tial areas.2 Finds from the necropolis,
where the neck-amphora is predomi-
nant with almost 70% of the total, do
not entirely match the range of shapes
that are present in the Civita plateau
(four oinochoai), or in the emporion of
Gravisca (two chalices).3 Virtually all
the important groups of Etruscan black-
fgure are present at Tarquinia, despite
the fact that the city itself was not a pro-
ducer.
Ferrone is exceptional among south
Etruscan sites of middle and small size,
for the abundance of its fnds (16),4 but
this may account for nothing else than an
unusually intensive excavation activity.
Other sites around the Tolfa mountains
are less wealthy in local painted wares:
Tolfa receives four vases of earlier date,5
while Allumiere adds two more.6 More
to the south, fnds are scarce outside ma-
jor sites. Three amphorae from a private
collection now housed at Viterbo were
probably found locally.7
At Orvieto, early fnds date to the
third quarter of the sixth century: fve
pontic vases are among the earliest
fnds,8 along with one or two from the
Ivy-Leaf Group.10 However, the of
the vases from this site date to the 5
th
century. Among them, amphorae large-
ly prevail. An exceptional fnd comes
from a tomb at Parrano, a site in the
frontier between Orvieto and Chiusi: it
contained eight fgured vases from the
1 In tombs bl 291, bl 324, ma 424, ma 450: see
Rizzo 1994; compare also the pairs of amphorae
Florence 92194 and 92195 (Zilveberg 1986, p. 58, no.
4-5), as well as Basel Z 398 and 399 (Reusser 1988,
pp. 50-51, no. E 67-68), Louvre E 721 and St. Peters-
bourg 569 (Zilveberg 1986, p. 59, no. 19), as it was
frst observed by Gaultier 1995, p. 39. The custom
was also performed with pairs of amphorae of oth-
er wares: see the t. ba Autostrada 115 (attic black-fg-
ure) t. bf 599 (Corinthian); fnds are displayed at the
Cerveteri Museum. Note also the twin amphorae
from a tomb at Capena discussed above, p. 39, n. 6.
Did the pair of pontic amphorae in New York,
found in the same tomb (von Bothmer 1955-1956),
come from Cerveteri as well?
2 Pallottino 1937, col. 277-284; Ginge 1987 and
1988-1989; Bonghi Jovino 1999, pl. 135, 136 and 140.
3 Boldrini 1994, p. 133, no. 238-239.
4 Rendeli 1996; Brocato 2000.
5 Tolfa, neck-amphora from the necropolis of
Pian Conserva (Zilveberg 1986, p. 59, no. 16); Naso
1993, pp. 101, no.15, fg. 24 (pontic oinochoe Karl-
sruhe B 2588) and 107, no. 19, fg. 28 (Karlsruhe B
2592, amphora by the La Tolfa Group); Chianciano
Terme, Terrosi 29, neck-amphora by the Micali
Painter (Paolucci 1991, p. 117, fg. 106).
6 Fragments of closed vessel (hydria or ampho-
ra) by the Micali Painter from Bandita Grande, t. 1
and unpublished olpe from t. 3 (Zifferero 1996).
7 Viterbo 337/220, 337/212 and 337/228 (Emil-
iozzi 1994, pl. 99-102, no. 199-201: two by the Ancile
Painter Group of Munich 883 and the third by the
Group of Munich 892). Note also the olpe Viterbo
57161/8, attributed to the Painter of the Crottala-
Dancer (Gaultier 2003, p. 61, no. 14). An ampho-
ra with waterbirds was found at Poggio Giulivo
near Viterbo: Barbieri 2002, pp. 46, fg. 57a-c and
51, fg. 63.
8 1-2. Orvieto, inv. 463 and Orvieto, Faina 2665,
pontic amphorae by the Paris Painter (Hannestad
1974, p. 48, no. 30-31, pl. 9b and 22-23). 3-4. Orvieto,
Faina 2486 and 2487, chalices by the Amphiaraos
Painter (Cappelletti 1992, pp. 66-69, no. 17-18). 5.
New York 06.1021.46, globular cup with horizontal
handle by the Tityos Painter (Greifenhagen 1981,
p. 273, fg. 31-32, no 17).
9 The cylindrical stand New York L 65.112
(Werner 2005, p. 33, pl. 34) and perhaps also the
neck-amphora Orvieto, Faina 2710 (Cappelletti
1992, pp. 72-73, no. 19).
Orvieto Group (a krater, three am-
phorae, two stamnoi and an oinochoe),
which formed, along with black-glazed
cups, a full sympotic set.1
At Chiusi, it does not seem that Etr-
uscan black-fgure was much appreciat-
ed before the later part of the sixth cen-
tury: the earliest fnds seem to be a late
pontic oinochoe2 and a neck-amphora
from the earlier phase of the career of
the Micali Painter.3 Fifth century vases
account for more than 80% of the total
number.
Substantial numbers of Etruscan
black-fgured pottery appear in a series
of sites where excavations, whether sys-
tematic or not, have been particularily
intensive. Most noticeable are the sites in
the area around Chiusi and the Cetona
mountains, namely Chianciano Terme4
(19), Sarteano (4),5 Cetona-Camporse-
voli6 (23), Cetona-St. Margherita7 (3), Fal-
lerini8 (12) and Tolle9 (22). Thanks to the
fervent publishing activity of Guilio
Paolucci, these fnds are now well pub-
lished.10 Most, but by no means all of
these fnds, date to the 5
th
century. The
preponderant form is the neck-ampho-
ra, mainly because in numerous cases it
was used as an ossuary.
Contexts
More than 99% of the Etruscan black-
fgured vases that have come down to us
were discovered in tombs. Detailed in-
formation is available for about 130
tomb-contexts with Etruscan black-fg-
ured vases from thirty diferent sites. An
unusually high number of them, two
dozens, are recorded at Cerveteri alone.
This is undoubtedly due to the fervent
activity of excavations there during the
20
th
century.11 Numerous cases are also
reported at Vulci, thanks to post-wwii
excavations, at Tarquinia, Ferrone and
Tolle.12
1 Bruschetti 2005 (who reports that the fnds
are in the Perugia Museum; however, I was able to
study them at the Civico Museo of Orvieto in Sep-
tember 2007).
2 Edinburgh 1872.23.6 (Moignard 1989, pl.
56.1-3).
3 Chiusi R 74/15835 (Spivey, Rizzo 1988, pp. 64-
65, fg. 81-82, no 3). There are seven more vases by the
Micali Group from Chiusi. See below, p. 57, n. 3.
4 Paolucci 2000, 2001, 2007c, pp. 64-65, no. 10-17;
Paolucci, Rastrelli 1999.
5 A fragmentary amphora by the Micali Painter
from t. ii of the Pianacce necropolis (Paolucci
2007a, pp. 15, 17-18, fg. 6-7), a fragmentary amphora
by the Ancile Painter Group of Munich 883 and a
stamnos by the Jerusalem Painter from t. 30 in loc.
Palazzina (Minetti, Rastrelli 2001, pp. 82-84) and
an unpublished amphora used as a cinerary urn
from Martignana (mentioned by Paolucci 1999, p.
287, n. 49). 6 Paolucci 2007b.
7 Paolucci 2004.
8 Paolucci 2007b and 2007c, pp. 66-67, no. 20-27.
9 Paolucci 2003, 2007a, 2007c, pp. 63-64, no. 3-9
and 2009.
10 One or two vases arrive in other communities
around Chiusi. Pienza, inv. 198, neck-amphora by the
Ancille Painter group of Munich 883 (Monaci 1965,
pp. 462-463, pl. xcixd, no. 359). Montepulciano: un-
published fragmentary hydria in the Museum of
Chiusi with eyes on the shoulder and a tree on the
body. Bettole: neck amphora once in the collection
of Prof. Giuli of Siena (Greifenhagen 1981, pp. 270-
1, no 17, fg, 26, for the fndspot, see Paolucci 1993, p.
110, n. 10). Acquaviva: neck-amphora of the Group of
Munich 892 mentioned by Paolucci 2007a, p. 17.
11 Ricci 1955 (bd 109, 208, 349, 353 and a tomba a
pozzetto inside tumulus ii); Rasmussen 1979 (ma
110, 171 and 250), Gli Etruschi e Cerveteri (bd 154, bd-
l 290, 291, ma 211); Rizzo 1989, pp. 7-10 (nr 86), Riz-
zo 1994 (nr 218, ma 176, 183, 424, 450, 567, BD 234);
Bagnasco Gianni 2002 (bl 237). A tomb from
Cerveteri allegedly contained fve vases from the
Micali Group: Jucker 1991, no. 297-301. Other
tombs contain only small neck-amphorae decorat-
ed with patterns: bd-r 9, 343, 426, 430, MA 250.
12 Vulci: above, p. 40, n. 12. Tarquinia: above, p.
a complex approach to etruscan black figure vase-painting 45
The situation described above led in-
evitably to the assumption that the Etru -
scan painted pots were used only in
funerals.1 It is true that fnds outside
cemeteries are very scant: besides a
handful of fragmentary vases from ur-
ban contexts at Rosellae,2 there are a few
vases found at sanctuaries (Gravisca,
Volterra, Veii3 and perhaps also the Civi-
ta in Tarquinia4). The contrast with attic
pottery, which is omnipresent in both
secular and sacred contexts in a great
variety of Etruscan sites, is sharp.5 A
notable feature among fnds from sanc-
tuaries is the absence of storage vessels,
which otherwise dominate funerary
contexts, to the proft of jugs (fve
38, n. 2. Ferrone: Rendeli 1996 (t. fe 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 15, 17, 18); Brocato 2000 (t. 19, 46). Tolle:
Paolucci 2007a; Paolucci 2009. I will deal with
this material elsewhere.
1 I.e. Spivey 1996, pp. 126-127: the vases were
largely or ultimately intended for deposition in
tombs. Note however Mansuelli 1966, p. 77: The
stylistic repertory of black-fgure pottery is in gen-
eral very diferent from that of funerary painting,
and one can exclude any connection between the
two classes .
2 See the vases cited above, p. 40, n. 11.
3 Gravisca: the pontic chalices 72/10465-6 and
72/4061: Boldrini 1994, p. 133, nos. 238-239. Volter-
ra: Bonamici 2003, pp. 264-265, pl. xxix.1. Veii:
above, p. 40. See also the oinochoe from Timpone
Motta cited above, p. 39, n. 2.
4 See the fragmentary oinochoai Tarquinia
3/88, 47/2 (Pontic group), 2/33 and 31/55 (Micali
group): Bonghi Jovino 1999, pl. 135, 136 and 140.
5 See Reusser 2002, pp. 64-100 and 146-147, table 2.
Fig. 2. Drawing by L. Schulz from the Tomba dei Vasi Dipinti, Tarquinia.
oinochoe and one olpe) and drinking
vessels (two chalices and a kylix). How-
ever, iconographic evidence does not
support the conclusion that the vases
had only funerary use. The twin lidded
neck-amphorae stored in a kylikeion on
the Tomb of the Painted Vases, are prob-
ably Etruscan (Fig. 2), a fact that points
to them being used in aristocratic sym-
posia, along with Attic eye-cups.1
Shapes
In Table 3, eighteen diferent vase-
shapes are listed, which amount for 95,
5% of the vases in our sample. Another 3
% is made up of fragments, mostly of
closed vessels. Marginal shapes or shapes
represented with very few examples
(stands, foculi,2 krateriskoi,3 eggs,4 ol-
1 That the amphorae are Etruscan, was frst no-
ticed by Small 1994, p. 38: The larger shapes, such
as 2 black-fgure amphoras that fank the silver
krater on the sideboard in the tomb of Painted Vas-
es, are more Etruscan than Attic in their shapes.
The iconography is comparable to vases by the Mi-
cali Painter: to the left, a master of horses; to the
right, a riotous band of satyrs. Wiel-Marin 2005,
p. 10, mentions Caeretan hydriae for the handle or-
nament of the amphora to the right.
2 Paolucci 1993.
3 Paolucci 1992.
4 A fragmentary egg-shaped cup by the Tityos
Painter in Munich: Sieveking, Hackl 1912, p. 152,
fg. 199. An egg decorated with patterns has been
found in a tomb at Marzabotto; there is an inaccu-
Table 3. Shapes of Etruscan Black-Figured Vases, arranged according to painters and groups.
NA: neck-amphora. A: amphora. St: stamnos (including also the stamnoid amphora). H: hydria (including
miniature ones). Oi: oinochoe. Ol: olpe. Cu: Cup (kylix). Gl: globular cup with one or two handles. Ka: kan-
tharos. Ph.: phiale. Ch.: chalice. Pl.: plate and stemmed plate. Ky: kyathos and stemmed kyathos (or one han-
dle-kantharos). Kr.: column-krater. D.: dinos. Le.: lekythos. Ly.: lydion. Oth/fr.: other shapes or fragments.
Group Na A St H Oi Ol Cu Gl Ka Ph Ch Pl Ky Kr D Le Ly Oth/fr Total
Pontic 66 6 56 5 6 28 3 2 54 27 19 1 1 16 10 300
Ivy 6 49 8 5 2 3 73
Tolfa 73 1 1 1 1 77
Banditaccia 1 3 4
Micali 168 21 58 19 11 9 10 31 3 20 349
Other 6
th
4 15 3 1 10 1 2 3 7 2 2 6 4 60
Followers 92 2 5 24 12 9 1 1 2 11 3 1 5 168
Lot. Bud 30 1 1 5 9 5 51
Uprooter 8 8
Orvieto 43 15 8 1 1 3 1 16 88
Waterbird 6 10 16
Pyxis 7 7
Ancilla 90 17 1 4 1 6 6 125
Mun. 892 22 2 2 1 4 1 2 34
Jerusalem 15 7 3 25
Fallerini 1 13 14
Other 5
th
77 2 14 13 24 12 3 3 3 1 30 11 2 10 206
Total 700 78 82 105 141 53 42 28 9 4 61 41 103 38 4 8 23 85 1605
Site Na A S H Oi Ol Pl Cu Ky Ka Ch Gl Ph Sk Kr D Le Ly O.-Fr Tot.
Acquaviva 1 1
Allumiere 1 1 2
Arezzo 2 1 3
Bagnoro 1 1
Bettole 1 1
Bisenzio 5 1 4 10
Bolsena 1 1
Capena 2 2
Castel C. 1 1
Castiglione 1 1
Cerveteri 70 5 3 11 8 1 2 7 1 4 1 5 118
Camporsev. 21 2 23
St. Margh. 2 4
Ch. Terme 11 2 1 4 1 19
Chiusi 32 8 2 1 2 2 2 1 50
Cortona 1 1 2
C. Murata 1 1
Fallerini 5 1 1 3 2 12
Ferrone 10 3 1 1 1 16
Fiesole 1 1
Gravisca 2 2
Ischia 1 1
Montalto 2 1 1 2 6
Montepulc. 1 1
Monterano 1 1 2
Umbria 1 1
Orbetello 1 1
Orvieto 50 3 16 6 3 1 2 1 2 7 91
Parrano 2 2 3 1 8
P. Romana 4 4
Perugia 2 1 3
Pienza 1 1
Pitigliano 1 1 2
P. Giulivo 1 1
Populonia 1 1 1 3
PortErcole 1 1
Rosellae 4 1 5
S. Lorenzo 1 1
Sarteano 3 1 4
Saturnia 3 2 1 6
Tarquinia 50 5 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 76
Tolfa 3 1 4
Tolle 19 1 1 2 23
Tuscania 1 2 1 4
Veii 1 1
Viterbo 3 3
Volterra 1 1
Vulci 98 13 9 25 27 1 12 4 22 2 12 7 1 3 3 239
Adria 1 2
Alria 2 2
Bologna 1 1 2
Falerii 2 2
Genova 1 1
Narce 1 1
Nola 1 1
S.Consilina 1 1
Timpone M 1 1
Ullastret 1 1
Table 4. Correlating Shape and Distribution.
lette, high-handled jugs,1 aryballoi and
pyxides) are listed along with fragments
(1, 5%).
The most important shape in the
whole repertory is the neck-amphora
(43, 64% - 700 examples, including vari-
ants like the pontic ovoid amphora, the
nicosthenic amphora, the pointed am-
phora, as well as numerous vases under
20 cm. of height that are usually de-
scribed as small neck-amphorae or
anforette). The neck-amphora is con-
sidered a shape with a special appeal to
the Etruscans because of its likeness to
ancient forms of impasto cinerary
urns;2 it is also an extremely popular
shape among Attic imports in Etruria.
Related shapes are also well represent-
ed, like the one-piece amphora, usually
of Attic shape (4,86%-78 examples)
even if its production is mainly confned
to two workshops, the Ivy-Leaf3 and
Waterbird Group , the stamnos and the
closely related stamnoid amphora4 (5,
11%-82 vases).
Thus far, we dealt with shapes that
have been equally strongly represented
in the repertory of Athenian imports in
Etruria. On the other hand, the two
other very important Greek vase-
shapes used in Etruria, the kylix and the
krater, are very poorly represented in
the repertory of Etruscan black-fgure
potters (2, 61%-42 examples and 2, 37%-
38 examples, respectively).
Kylikes appear in three distinct mo-
ments: frst, a restricted number of ex-
perimental lip-cups that directly copy
Athenian prototypes (in shape as well as
in the type of decoration) appears in the
repertory of the pontic workshop and its
imitators;5 second, a group of cups of
type C, usually without outside decora-
tion, that belong to the output of the Mi-
rate drawing in Montelius 1895, vol. i, pl. 109, no.
20. Vincenzo Baldoni of the Bologna University,
who studied the important vase-context where the
egg belonged, thinks that the vase is Attic. The
style of decoration makes me think of Etruscan
patterned vases from the Orvieto Group.
1 The shape is found twice in the Ivy Painters
repertory (Munich 981 and 982; Werner 2005, pl. 1,
no. 1.1.1 and 1.1.2); there is a variant of the shape
with ovoid body and high handle painted by an im-
itator of the Micali Painter (Munich 983: Sievek-
ing, Hackl 1912, p. 149, fg. 192-193). It is common
enough in bucchero, especially in the area of Vulci:
Rasmussen 1979, pp. 145 and 186.
2 de la Genire 1987; Spivey 1991. Rafaella
Bonaudo actually prepares a study of the Etruscan
black-fgured neck-amphora.
3 Werner 2005, pp. 35-37 (the ancestry is traced
back to examples by Amasis).
4 The stamnos is a shape of Etruscan inspira-
tion, but its appearance in Etruria at the end of the
6
th
century is probably due to its re-introduction by
Greek potters. See Isler-Kernvi 1976 (where its
ancestry is traced back to Villanovan stamnoid olle
used as cinerary urns); contra, Spivey 1987a, pp. 70-
71. The stamnoid amphora is probably a purely Etr-
uscan shape, but one developed after Greek or
Greek-like prototypes: Camporeale 1970, pp. 24-25,
n. 1 (who prefers the term amphora tout court).
5 A frst nucleus has been put together in Kunze
1934, 114-115, who argued for their Italian origin. The
expanded list runs as following: 1. Munich 530
(Sieveking, Hackl 1912, pl. 18). 2. Munich 992
(Sieveking, Hackl 1912, pl. 44). 3. Civitavecchia
1290 (Hannestad 1976, p. 56, no. 16). 4. Gotha AV
66 (Szilgyi 1988, p. 140, no B 5.6.). 5. Basel Market
(by the Amphiaraos Painter, showing a sphinx on
the tondo and illustrated in www.auktioncahn.ch).
6. A recently published cup on loan to the Smith
College Museum of Art (Celia and Walter Gilbert
Collection), with two riders (a man and a woman)
on the tondo (Houser 2004, p. 91, no. 44: Am-
phiaraos Painter). Imitations include Hamburg
1969.16 (Hoffmann 1969, p. 357, no. 43) and two
cups in the New York Market, one with a woman
running painted on the tondo (once in the Borows-
ki collection: Christies 12.6.2000, no. 145) and the
other with a frontally drawn chariot and a bird
(Christies 4.6.1999, no. 72).
cali Painters workshop,1 and third, an
even poorer version of the late-archaic
type C-cup of the Athenian Kerameikos,
that belong to a workshop active in the
area of Chiusi.2 The three groups are
seemingly unrelated. The other impor-
tant Greek drinking cup, the skyphos is
quite common in Etruria, as far as pat-
terned decoration is concerned,3 but fg-
ured examples are virtually inexistent.4
The gap left by the absence of the kylix
is only partly flled by local forms of
drinking vessels, notably chalices on
stemmed feet of varied height (3,80%-
61),5 kyathoi of the so-called attic shape
(2, 56%-41), and stemmed kyathoi (a form
usually called a one-handled kantharos)
(3, 24%-52).6 Globular cups with one hor-
izontal or with one horizontal and one
vertical handle (1,74%-28), a shape known
also from versions in bucchero, but also
from a few examples in Chalcidian pot-
tery,7 are popular only in the developed
phase of the Pontic workshop and after-
wards they disappear altogether. Kan-
tharoi properly speaking (9), the drink-
ing cups with low foot and two vertical
handles, do not appear in signifcant
numbers, despite the fact that the shape
was among the most popular ones in
bucchero production of the 6
th
century.
Phialai are also extremely rare (4).
Oinochoai (8, 79%-141) and olpai8
(3,24%-52) appear in signifcant num-
bers, as it would have been expected for
shapes which were indispensable for the
banquet service. The oinochoe with
ovoid body surmounted by a distinct
neck, a faring trefoil mouth and disc
handles, is a variant that is encountered
very often within the production of the
pontic workshop (56) and the Ivy-Leaf
Group (8).9
The only variant of the krater that is
present in the Etruscan black-fgured
repertory is the column-krater, a shape
that was extremely popular since the
frst half of the sixth century, both in
Corinthian imports and in Etrusco-
corinthian imitations.10 In the second
half of the century the shape was almost
entirely passed over by Etruscan potters:
the Painter of the Banditaccia komasts is
exceptional in decorating three exam-
ples.11 The column-krater remains un-
1 Bruni 2007. See also Bentz 2009, pp. 83-84,
no. 1. 2 See below, p. 69, n. 1.
3 Beazley 1947, p. 23 (Group of Vatican 246);
Santoro 1989 (fnds from Cerveteri and other sites
in Southern Etruria). Note that skyphoi without fg-
ured decoration are very popular in Campanian
black-fgure as well: Falcone, Ibelli 2007, pp. 28
and 35.
4 See an example from Ferrone (Tolfa 62775:
Rendeli 1996, p. 163, pl. 67, fg. 116, fe 20.8) and an-
other in the New York Market, allegedly from Vulci
(once in the Norbert Schimmel collection; Sothebys
16.12.1992, no 43: perhaps a fake, according to Spivey
1987a, p. 31-32).
5 The chalice, a native shape exceedingly popu-
lar in bucchero, is almost absent outside the pontic
group, where 54 examples belong.
6 Szilgyi 2005, pp. 361-362.
7 There are two globular cups with one handle
and conical foot by the Inscription Painter, one in
Brussels and the other in the Goulandris Museum
in Athens: see Boardman, Robertson 1979, p. 19,
pl. 30.1-3.
8 For Etruscan black-fgured olpe, see Gaultier
2003, pp. 51-52. The term applies to two very difer-
ent shapes, the olpe of attic shape, most notably
known from the repertory of the Micali Painter and
the Lotus-Bud Group, and a squat jug painted by
the Silen Painter, also rendered in bucchero and
bronze (see Hannestad 1976, p. 47; Stibbe 1977, pp.
8 and 10).
09 For the shape, see Amyx 1962, p. 122. Ivy-
Group: Werner 2005, p. 35.
10 de la Geniere 1988.
11 Villa Giulia 74967, from the Pesciotti coll.:
Rizzo 1994, p. 15, fg. 58-59; Louvre S 4179 and E 566,
Cp 3208, from Cerveteri: Gaultier 2003, pl. 1-5.
popular with the Micali Painter and his
followers, but it is constantly decorated
in all the important workshops of the
ffth century. The presence of three col-
umn-kraters among the ten Etruscan
black-fgured vases that are recorded
from Bisenzio might be explained by the
local custom of using kraters as ossuar-
ies in tombe a buca.1 Dinoi are not
popular at all: I know of only four Etr-
uscan black-fgured examples.2
Hydriae (6,55%-105 vases), frst fol -
lowing Corinthian prototypes and later
copying or adapting Attic models, are
popular at Vulci, to the expense of
kraters. The reason is probably that the
hydria was locally used as a mixing
bowl, as it is plainly shown by the excep-
tional presence of imported Attic black-
fgured hydriae.3 In other areas, the role
of the mixing bowl was played by metal
vessels.4
Plates, either in the usual 6
th
century
variant with high stemmed foot (1,68%-
27),5 common within the pontic group,
or in the simple, atticizing form used by
the Micali Painter (14),6 are not very pop-
ular in painted fgured versions. Per-
fume-pots are extremely rare: the lydion
(1, 43%-23) appears only within the pontic
workshop and its imitators,7 the
lekythos (8) is decorated only occasional-
ly;8 there is a single example of a painted
1 See above, p. 42, n. 2 and below, p. 69, n. 3.
2 One dinos belongs to the Pontic Group
(Hannestad 1976, p. 63, no. 58, pl. 30-31), two more
belong to the Ivy-Leaf Group (Bonn 502: Werner
2005, pl. 29, no 5.6.1; Arezzo, from Saturnia: see
above, p. 43, n. 1) and the fourth to the La Tolfa
Group (Rome, Villa Giulia 50600: Zilveberg 1986,
p. 60, no. 37; it is considered to be Ionian by Rizzo
1987, pp. 307-308, no 121).
3 Reusser 2003, p. 173. For a detailed discussion,
see Brunori 2006.
4 Van Der Meer 1984, p. 303.
5 I have not had the opportunity to consult T.
Garvers doctoral dissertation on Etruscan Stemmed
Plates (London 1980).
6 Statistics are somehow distorted, given the
fact that all 10 plates attributed to the Micali Painter
presumably belong to a single tomb-context:
Spivey 1987a, p. 9, no. 16-26 (but these are 11 num-
bers!). An interesting tomb-context with six Attic
red-fgured plates signed by Epiktetos has been ex-
cavated in 1829 at Vulci (Paleothodoros 2009, pp.
51-54); more than 20 red-fgured plates by the Bryn
Mawr Painter, allegedly from a tomb at Cerveteri,
were confscated by the Italian authorities fve years
ago (photos in Archeo 254, 4, aprile 2006, pp. 15
and 58-59).
7 I have notes for 23 Etruscan black-fgured lydia:
Populonia, inv. R 76/443, is probably by the Paris
Painter: Bruni 1995, p. 233, fg. 1. Munich 1003, from
Vulci, has been attributed to the Amphiaraos
Painter: Hannestad 1976, p. 55 no. 11. The remain-
ing are unattributed examples from the pontic
workshop (Berlin F 1677 and F 1678 from Vulci and
Tarquinia, Toronto 210 and 211 from the Petroncini
collection, Paris, Cab. Md. 183 from Nola, Bonn
inv. 25 and inv. 566, Cortona 2204, Vatican G 88:
Hannestad 1976, pp. 65-66, 71-73, no. 75-76, 81, 107-
108, 113, 122-123, 132, pl. 44a). Others have been ex-
cluded from the production of the pontic work-
shop (Halle 217, Amsterdam, Berlin F2111, Rome,
Capitolini 81; Munich 1004 and 1005, two in the mar-
ket, Erlangen i 1172; Hannestad 1976, pp. 79-81,
nos. 1-2, 6; Szilgyi 1988, p. 139, no. B5.3; Sievek-
ing, Hackl 1912, p. 156, fg. 203-204; Lund, Rathje
1988, 367, no. 19; Hesperia Art Bulletin 34, no. A5
[classed with Attic]; Drger 2007, pp. 141-2, pl. 59.1-
4). A lydion in Tbingen (inv. 675809) is attributed to
the Angular Painter of the La Tolfa Group by
Gaultier 1987b, p. 216, no 1, pl. 61.14 and 64.25.
8 The shape is Attic. I have listed eight Etruscan
black-fgured lekythoi, all diferent in shape and
style: 1. The earliest one is a piece whose where-
abouts are unknown (above, p. 39, n. 14). 2. A second
example, once in a private collection, is attributed
by Gaultier 1987b, p. 217, no. 6, pl. 59.7-8 and 65.35,
to her Angular Painter; however, the authenticity of
the piece has been questioned (Rizzo 1987, p. 41, n.
57). 3. Tarquinia 864 is an insignifcant piece, deco-
rated with herons: Ginge 1988-1989, p. 85, no 11, pl.
24-25. 4. A vase of similar shape, once in the collec-
tion of Leo Mildenberg (put in auction in Phoenix
Art S.A. in 2006), decorated with dolphins. 5. An un-
published fragmentary lekythos from Tarquinia,
aryballos, which might belong to the La
Tolfa Group.1 Pyxides are absent, with
the exception of a small group of vases
with calyx-shaped bowl on a high foot
and a domed lid, which form up a single
stylistic group and copy a distinctly Attic
shape known as the nicosthenic pyxis.2
Workshops
Attributions to painters and stylistic
groups still play a paramount role in the
study of Etruscan black-fgured pottery.
This is inevitable, inasmuch as the clas-
sifcation of Etruscan black-fgure, es-
pecially of later date, is still hotly debat-
ed. One of the main reasons for this
unfortunate situation is that the bulk of
the vases from the Munich Antiken-
sammlung, as well as all the negatives of
the vase collection were destroyed in
1944, during an allied bomb raid. The
student of Etruscan black-fgure is im-
mediately faced with enormous dif-
culties in assessing the material, which
is poorly published or inadequately doc-
umented; most scholars work from
photos, not with the original pieces at
hand. As a result, scholars propose dif-
ferent systems of classifcation that are
mutually exclusive and thus create a
great confusion.3
Another reason that makes attribu-
tion studies invaluable is that they
arouse interest to individual artistic per-
sonalities, and thus ofer a motivation
for publication and for the study of pre-
viously unknown vases. A classic exam-
ple is the Jerusalem Painter. Prior to
1992, when Marina Martelli identifed
this painter, only four of his vases were
published. At the moment, the list of
works of this highly original artistic per-
sonality amounts to 25, mostly thanks to
Giulio Paoluccis important contribu-
tions in the feld.4
Tobias Dohrns groundbreaking
study in 1937 was nevertheless disap-
pointing in defning the origin of specifc
Etruscan workshops: the Pontic group
was attributed to Tarquinia, whatever
we call today the Micali Group, as well as
the La Tolfa and Lotus Bud Groups were
all three localised at Cerveteri, the Work-
shop of the Painter of the Vienna 318
Stamnos was localised at Orvieto and an
obscure group of pyxides at Chiusi. This
remarkably inaccurate picture emerged
from stylistic comparisons with other
series of artefacts from Etruria, especial-
known to me thanks to the generosity of Federica
Wiel-Marin, who send me photos of the vase. 6. A
fragmentary lekythos from Cerveteri, tomb bl 237,
listed in Bagnasco Gianni 2002, p. 145, no. 4. 7. An
atticizing lekythos at Paris, Petit Palais 431 (Plaou-
tine 1941, pl. 3.1, 4.3-6). 8. A lekythos in a private col-
lection, belonging to the Orvieto Group (Jucker
1991, no. 303). A lekythos in the Market (www.auk-
tioncahn.ch) is said to belong to the etrusco-
corinthian group of Anforoni Squamati.
1 Cerveteri, from ma t. 171: Rasmussen 1979, p.
45, no 39, fg. 338; Rallo 2009, p. 766.
2 See Lyons 2009, passim, and p. 179, no. 82-88 for
the Etruscan examples.
3 One needs only to look at the example of a
group of later vases at the outskirt of the Micali
group: Spivey 1987a, p. 44, made up a small nucleus
of vases around the Pomerance hydria with two
handles, called the Pomerance group. Almost si-
multaneously, Gaultier 1987a gathered a long list of
vases to make her Painter of the Crottala Dancer,
whose career also includes such famous pieces as the
Wrzburg 799 amphora and the neck-amphora
Chiusi 577, as well as the majority of vases by the
Pomerance Group. At the same time, some of the
pieces of the latter group have been attributed by
Cherici 1986 (non vidi) to his Arezzo Painter.
4 Martelli 1992, p. 346. For a consolidated list,
see Paolucci 2007a, p. 27.
ly with Tarquinian wall-paintings.1 Of
course, it did not stand the test of time:
already in 1938, P. J. Riis proposed to apply
the principle of the distribution of fnds
from specifc groups of pots in order to
localise workshops and individual
painters.2 It is a legitimate inference, in
the absence of excavations of ceramic
workshops, to assume that the work-
shops should have been situated in pre-
cisely those places where the fnds are
better represented. Thus, Riis was able to
correct Dohrns suppositions and to pro-
pose to localise the Pontic, Ivy and Micali
groups at Vulci, while he accepted that
the La Tolfa Group should be placed at
Cerveteri and the group of the Vienna
Stamnos at Orvieto.
All stories of Etruscan black-fgure
place the pontic group at the beginning
of the development of the fabric. Schol-
arship on pontic vases grew steadily
from the end of the 19
th
to the beginning
of the 21st century.3 There have been
three momentous instances in that peri-
od: frst, the isolation of the group by
Dmmler in 1887, then the important
monographs devoted to the pontic
group by Lise Hannestad in 1974 and
1976, who arranged the vases stylistically,
recognized the fve major painters (Paris,
Amphiaraos, Tityos, Silen and Bibl. Nat.
178), established the localisation of the
group at Vulci and pointed to the eclectic
nature of the style. The third and last
breach of previously established ortho-
doxies occurred in 2005, when Dyfri
Williams published a remarkable hydria
from Italy (perhaps from Vulci), which
he placed at the head of the production
of pontic vases.4 Scientifc analysis
proved that the hydria is from the same
fabric as the pontic vases belonging to
the British Museum. Thus, a strong case
has been made for attributing the inven-
tion of the black-fgured technique to an
artisan (called the Eyre Painter) who was
in close contact with Attic black-fgured
workshops that were active near 560-550
BCE. Two more vases by the same
painter have been recognized; unfortu-
nately, their context is unknown.5
If Williams hypothesis is accepted,
then the entire framework of the study
of Etruscan black-fgure pottery is shak-
en. First and foremost, we will get rid of
the commonly held assumption that
the Paris Painter (the earliest and most
important member of the pontic
group, as it was until recently known)
was an immigrant from Eastern
Greece, whose style got gradually bar-
barised, after he settled in Etruria. The
weakness of this scheme was already
apparent to a handful of scholars who
1 Dohrn 1937, pp. 81-82, 128, 136, 139 and 140. For
the relationship between tomb-paintings at Tar-
quinia and pontic vases, see Giuliano 2001, p. 87: Il
pittore della Tomba dei Tori dipende solo ed esclu-
sivamente dalla ofcina di ceramograf attivi proba-
bilmente a Vulci Non quindi da escludere che da
Vulci alcuni ceramograf si recassero saltuariamente
a Tarquinia, gi nel terzo venticinquennio del VI
secolo, per iniziare la decorazione delle tombe di -
pinte .The idea that the Micali Painter was active
at Cerveteri is still maintained by scholars (Ananich
et alii 2008, p. 24) who ought to know better.
2 Riis 1938, pp. 69-71.
3 Important studies on pontic vases include:
Dmmler 1887; Endt 1899, pp. 39-66; Ducati 1932;
Mingazzini 1935; Hannestad 1974 and 1976;
Stibbe 1977; Rizzo 1981 and 1984; Gaultier 1995,
pp. 28-36; Williams 2005.
4 London 1998.1-14.1: Williams 2005, pp. 353-355,
fg. 1-5 and passim.
5 Williams 2005 attributed to the Eyre Painter
a neck-amphora once in Freiburg Market and a
lekythos known only from photos in the possession
of Dietrich von Bothmer.
wrote some decades ago; one of the
best specialists on Ionian black-fgure
classes argued that the Ionic contribu-
tion to the Etruscan black-fgure work-
shops was quite limited in extent.1
However, the temptation to link the es-
tablishment of the earliest school of
imitations of Greek pottery with an al-
leged massive exodus of artisans from
Ionia was great and it is apparent even
in recent studies.2 From now on, schol-
ars will be free to appreciate the emer-
gence of Etruscan black-fgure in its
true dimensions, namely as a result of
the strong infuence of attic pottery im-
ports, which grew important around
560 BCE. Other infuences, namely
Corinthian, are numerous, but they ac-
count to nothing more than the situa-
tion in Attica, where corinthianizing
pots were still produced at that time.
Today we have records for 270 pontic
vases. In ancient times, this group en-
joyed a wide distribution all over
Etruria.3 None of the vases by the Eyre
Painter has a recorded provenance.
About 50 vases are attributed to the Paris
Painter. The provenance of 30 is known:
9 are from Vulci, 11 from Cerveteri, 5
from Tarquinia, two from Orvieto, one
from Populonia; two fragmentary chal-
ices that perhaps belong to the produc-
tion of the Paris Painter are from Gra -
visca.4 Twenty two vases have been
attributed to the Amphiaraos Painter,
but we know the fndspot for only 14
among them: 11 are from Vulci, two
from Orvieto and one from Tolfa.5 Thir-
1 Cook 1989. See also Amyx 1962, p. 131: East
Greek infuences, once strongly claimed and still
nostalgically sough, tend to be evanescent or illuso-
ry; Brendel 1978, p. 153: The artist (i.e. the Paris
Painter) unknown by name but certainly Etruscan
by style . Giuliano 2001, p. 87, also thinks that
the Paris Painter was an Etruscan from Vulci. Cau-
tion about the extent of links between pontic vases
and Ionia has been expressed already by Mingazz-
ini 1930, p. 171, who believes that whatever ionism is
found on pontic vases is the result of Attic infu-
ence. Compare also Mingazzini 1935, pp. 75-76.
2 Pfuhl 1923, p. 184 (immigrants from Ionia);
Beazley 1947, p. 1, makes the Paris Painter an immi-
grant from Greece; see also Spivey 1996, p. 120:
Some of these artists appear to have been Greek im-
migrants, such as the various painters connected
with the gaudy mid 6
th
century style known as pontic,
and probably also the painters of the Ivy Leaf and La
Tolfa Groups; Riis 1966, p. 71: the style seems to
indicate that at least the founder of the workshop
was an Ionian Greek; Hemelrijk 1984, p. 188 (Ionian
immigrant of second generation); Cristofani 1985,
p. 93 (educazione greco-orientale); Torelli 1985,
p. 112 (immigrant from northern Ionia); Rizzo 1987,
p. 31; Dohrn 1989, p. 637: vasai e pittori ionici
scacciati dallAsia Minore dai Persi hanno fondato
botteghe di ceramiche in Etruria, grazie alla liberal-
it degli indigeni ed alle qualit umane degli immi-
granti . Haynes 2000, p. 163; Gaultier 2000, p.
431: Eastern Greek by culture, if not by origin ;
Boardman 2001, p. 76: probably from East
Greece. Nowadays, the trend is to locate in Asia Mi-
nor even the production of groups of black-fgured
vases that have been almost unanimously thought of
as the work of immigrant Ionians: Martelli 1981
and Marangou 1995, pp. 110-113 (Northampton
Group); Hemelrijk 2007 (Campana dinoi).
3 For a new addition, see Rizzo 2009. A superb
pontic amphora with a hero and a woman attacked
by two lions has been confscated in Geneva by Ital-
ian authorities (a photo is published in Archeo,
254, 4, aprile 2006, p. 15).
4 Vulci: Hannestad 1974, pp. 44 s., no. 1-3, 14, 17,
19-20, pl. 1-2, 10-11; Hannestad 1976, p. 82; Rizzo
1981, 14-15, no. 1. Cerveteri: Hannestad 1974, pp. 44-
48, no. 4, 5, 11, 16, 22, 29, 31, 33, pl. 20-21; Hannestad
1976, p. 82; Gaultier 1995, pp. 29-31, pl. 14.1-4 and
15.3-4. Tarquinia: Hannestad 1974, pp. 46-49, no. 13-
15, 17, 21, 37, pl. 9, 12 and 19; Ginge 1987, pp. 18-23, no.
1-3, pl. 1-8. Orvieto: Hannestad 1974, p. 48, no. 30-
31, pl. 7c, 22-23. Populonia: Bruni 1995, p. 233, fg, 1.
Gravisca: Boldrini1994, p. 133, no. 238-239.
5 Vulci: Hannestad 1976, pp. 54-5, no. 1, 2, 6, 9-
11, 14, 16, 88, 119 and 131, pl. 2-5 and 8-9; Rizzo 1981,
pp. 19-20, no. 2-3. Orvieto: Hannestad 1976, p. 54,
no. 3-4. Tolfa: Hannestad 1976, p. 55, no. 8, pl. 7.
ty-eight vases belong to the Tityos
Painter and his following (10 with known
provenance): seven are from Vulci, one
from Cerveteri, one from Orvieto and
one from Ischia di Castro.1 There are six
vases by the Painter of Bibl. Nat. 178 and
another six that bear strong relation to
his style; among these vases, all three
with known provenance come from Vul-
ci.2 Of the 32 vases by the Silen Painter,
only eight have a known provenance:
fve are from Vulci and three from
Cerveteri.3 Then comes a large group of
unattributed pontic vases (almost 130
vases): 31 are from Vulci, 6 from Cervet-
eri, 4 from Tarquinia, two from Orvieto,
one from Costa Murata near Vetulonia,
one from Montalto di Castro and one
from Francavilla Marittima.4
One thing that immediately strikes
our attention is the unusually high pro-
portion of vases by the Paris Painter
found at Cerveteri. This fact led John
Lund and Annette Rathje to hypotheti-
cally identify a caeretan phase in the ca-
reer of the Paris Painter.5 According to
Franoise Gaultier, this reconstruction
of the facts leaves room for a precocious
start of the painters activity at Cervet-
eri, before moving to Vulci where the
pontic workshop was defnitely estab-
lished.6 But this theory is based on very
shaggy ground, since the number of
vases that arrived at Cerveteri is not that
superior to those from Vulci: if only a
tomb containing three or four vases by
the Paris Painter is discovered at Vulci,
the situation will be turned over.
In tables 2 and 3, thirty more early
black-fgured vases are included under
the heading pontic, vases that are
more or less connected stylistically to
genuine pontic. One comes from Vulci
and one from Tarquinia.7
The Ivy-Leaf Group is unanimously
considered to be Vulcian in origin.8 The
1 Vulci: Hannestad 1976, pp. 57-59, no. 20-21, 25,
27, 32, 35, pl. 12-14 and 80; Rizzo 1981, pp. 20-21, nos.
5-6; Rizzo 1983, pp. 48-49, fg. 1-9. Cerveteri:
Hannestad 1976, p. 60, no. 39, pl. 22a. Orvieto:
Hannestad 1976, p. 60, no. 40. Ischia di Castro: De
Ruyt 1963-1964, p. 74, fg. 10. An oinochoe once in
the New York market is either from Cerveteri or
from Vulci, as is reported in the sale catalogue
(Sothebys 23.6.1989, no. 150).
2 Hannestad 1976, pp. 60-61, no. 43-45, 47, pl.
25-27.
3 Vulci: Hannestad 1976, pp. 61, 63, 65 and 69,
nos. 48-49, 63, 66 and 95, pl. 38-39. Cerveteri:
Hannestad 1976, pp. 62 and 64, nos. 57, 68 and 70,
pl. 37; Hannestad 1974, pl. 31-32.
4 Vulci: Hannestad 1976, pp. 66-79, nos. 78, 80,
82-87, 89, 90, 94, 97, 102, 109-111, 114, 117-120, 122, 127,
132, 145, 146, 156, pl. 45-46, 48; Rizzo 1981, pp. 20, no.
1 and 4, 22-23, nos 7-9, 32-35, nos 1-3; Beazley and
Magi 1939, p. 75, no. 87; Hornbostel 1980, pp. 235-
247, no. 134; De Puma 1986, p. 35, pl. 11b-c; Szilgyi
1997, pp. 280-2, no. 163. Cerveteri: Hannestad 1976,
pp. 71, no. 104-108, pl. 44a; Beazley 1947, p. 12. Tar-
quinia: Hannestad 1976, p. 66, no. 75, pl. 44a; Gin-
ge 1987, pp. 25-26, no. 5, pl. 11 and 105; Lund and
Rathje 1988, p. 367, no. 6; Bonghi Jovino 1999, pl.
135 and 136. Chiusi: Moignard 1989, pl. 56.1-3. Costa
Murata: above, p. 40, n. 4. Montalto di Castro:
Marzi 1988-1989, 27, no. 3. Timpone Motta di Fran-
cavilla Maritima: above, p. 39, n. 2.
5 Lund and Rathje 1988, 354. See also Del
Chiaro 1990, p. 52. One wonders what is the point
in Jannot 1984, p. 290: Produite sans doute Vulci,
mais adoptant en partie des gots et les habitudes
crtaines, la cramique pontique tmoigne dune
intraction troite entre Caer et Vulci.
6 Gaultier 1996, p. 29.
7 See Dohrn 1963; Hannestad 1976, pp. 81-83.
Gaultier 1995, p. 53, grouped some 6
th
century vas-
es in the Group of Louvre CA 1870. Vulci: Munich
921 (Sieveking and Hackl 1912, 131, fg. 154-156, pl.
32). Tarquinia: Tarquinia RC 7946 (Ginge 1987, pp.
23-5, no 4, pl. 9-10, 94).
8 First identifed by Hauser 1896, p. 178 and
Bhlau 1900, pp. 98-99, n. 1. For a list of works, see
drukker 1986. Werner 2005, for all its merits, does
vases in this group combine a strongly
atticizing style with local iconography. It
is not easy to detect points of contact
with works from the Pontic workshop.
Finds from Vulci include eight vases, plus
one in the neighbourhood of the group;
four other vases come from Tarquinia,
two from Cerveteri, one from Tolle and
one or perhaps two from Orvieto; a fne
dinos belonging to the Group was ex -
cavated at Saturnia; since ancient times,
the dinos was associated with an alien
lid that belongs to the pontic Group.1
The distribution of vases by the
Painter of Munich 833, who is a later
member of the Ivy Group, is compara-
ble: two vases are from Vulci (one being
found in tomb 170 of the Osteria necrop-
olis at Vulci) and one from Cerveteri.2
The Micali Painter and his following
constitute the most interesting and most
voluminous chapter in the history of Etr-
uscan black-fgure. Deservedly, it is also
the most thoroughly studied and docu-
mented Group in recent scholarship.3
Still, despite a monograph and a series of
articles of importance, it remains yet to
be determined whether the leading
painter of the group enjoys a close con-
nection with his followers, within a sin-
gle workshop, or rather that their rela-
tionship has been quite loose. Nigel
Spivey studied the distribution of 200
vases listed in his monograph on the
painter; a little more than 20 years later,
the list has almost doubled. It cannot be
doubted that the painters clientele was
frst and foremost residing at Vulci prop-
er, where no less than 67 vases by the
master or his closer followers have been
unearthed.4 Important numbers of fnds
not update the list established by Drukker. No
4.4/4.2 (London Market): now Kiel b 520.1973
(Prange 1993, pl. 48). No. 4.4/6.18 (London Mar-
ket): later New York Market (Sothebys 12.6.1993, no
318). No. 4.8./6.1 (Kurashiki, Ninagawa Museum):
now New York Market (sold in the Christies,
4.6.2008). Add: 1. Basel market, amphora (A: sphinx.
B: siren. Kunstwerke archaischer Zeit, HAC Katalog 9,
January 1998, no 37). 2. Orvieto, Faina 2710, ampho-
ra (A: Dionysos; woman and satyr playing pipes. B:
two cocks. Cappelletti 1992, pp. 72-73, no 19). 3.
Chianciano Terme, amphora from Tolle (t. a buca,
no. 14. A: three cocks to the right. B: boar: Paolucci
2007a, pp. 30-31; Paolucci 2009, p. 665, fg. 9-10). 4.
Once Berne Market, amphora (A: Pegasus. B: cock.
Illustrated in the sale catalogue of Elsa Block-Di-
ener, Antiquits, Berne; probably this is the same
vase as the one mentioned by Rizzo 1994, pp. 7 and
19, n. 92). 5. Rizzo 1994, p. 18, n. 59, mentions anoth-
er amphora in the market (A: sphinx. B: grifn),
which I have not traced. Gaultier 1995, p. 49, pro-
posed to identify the Painter of the Arezzo
Wrestlers, who was active within the Ivy-Leaf
Group, but the idea has not gained any support.
1 Vulci: Drukker 1986, pp. 40-42, no. 1-3, 10, 11,
26, 34, 35, 44 and 49. Tarquinia: Drukker 1986, pp.
40, 42, no. 16, 32, 47; Ginge 1987, 27-30, nos. 6-8, pl.
12-14 and 93. Cerveteri: Drukker 1986, p. 42, no. 38
and 47, fg. 13-14. Orvieto: above, p. 44, n. 8. Tolle: p.
146, n. 8. Saturnia: above, pp. 43, n. 1.
2 Szilgyi 1971, p. 10, no. 1 (Vulci) and 3 (Cervet-
eri). The Vulci amphora: Rizzo 1987, p. 33, fg. 47;
Werner 2005, pl. 5, no 33.
3 A frst nucleus was put up by Dmmler 1888.
The painter was frst studied by Beazley in Beaz-
ley, Magi 1939, pp. 77-83; Dorhn 1937, distin-
guished three diferent hands, but afterwards reject-
ed his scheme in favour of Beazleys. Spivey 1987a
is an important monograph, but leaves out too
many vases and is very sketchy as to the relations of
the Micali Painter with his followers. Note also
Spivey 1988a; Gaultier 2003, pp. 33-53 and Bruni
2007. For addenda, see also Bentz 2009.
4 Spivey 1987a, pp. 7, no 3, 8, no 4, 9 and 11, 9, no.
13, 10, no. 31 and 36, 11, no. 40, 12, no. 49, 13, no. 50-53
and 60, 14, no. 62-64, 15, no. 75-76 and 79, 16, no. 85
and 89, 19, no. 102-106, 20, no.110, 112 and 117, 21, no.
118-120, 122-123, 22, no. 130-131, 134 and 136, 23, no.
140-142 and 146, 24, no. 150, 26, no. 170-171 and 173, 27,
no. 176-178, 28, no. 182, 32, no. i, iii and iv; a fragmen-
tary hydria mentioned by Spivey 1987a, p. 34; three
amphorae close to the painter (Dohrn 1937, pp. 153,
no. 207 and 218 and 155, no. 275a); an amphora, a hy-
also appear at Cerveteri (25)1 and less so
at Tarquinia (10),2 Chiusi (8)3 and Orvi-
eto (13).4 Other fndspots include sites
around Vulci (Bisenzio, Castel Cam-
panile, Montalto di Castro, Pescia Ro-
mana, Pitigliano and Tuscania),5 but also
a whole spectrum of sites, to the north
(Populonia)6 and north-east of Vulci
(Chianciano Terme,7 Tolle,8 Cetona-
Camporsevoli,9 Sarteano10 and Bolse-
na),11 to the south and south east (Fer-
rone, Tolfa, Allumiere),12 in the Tiber-
tine region (Falerii, Narce)13 and outside
Etruria proper (Genova, Ullastret).14
The distribution of the large group of
vases that I group under the heading
The Followers of the Micali Painter, is
generally consistent with the picture that
emerged from the study of the vases of
the Micali Painter himself: besides Vulci
(31),15 Tarquinia (18)16 is now the most
dria and a kyathos from a tomb at Osteria (Moretti
Sgubini, Ricciardi 2001, pp. 220-235), two neck-
amphorae and a hydria from the Osteria cemetery
(see Moretti Sgubini 2002, pp. 97-98, 100-102 and
102-104); a cup and a stamnos in private collections
in Prato, attributed by Bruni 2007, pp. 108-9, no. 7,
pl. 28a-b and 101, n. 6, no. 30 respectively; a neck-am-
phora from the Guglielmi collection: Szilgyi
1997, p. 283-286, n 164.
1 Spivey 1987a, pp. 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 26, no. 91, 97,
100.i-iv, 104, 129, 154, 157, 169; the lost oinochoe once
in the Campana coll. mentioned in Spivey 1987a, p.
30; Spivey 1988b, p. 599, fg. 10-11; Jucker 1991, no.
297-301; Gaultier 2003, pp. 47-8, pl. 18.1-4, 19.1-2 and
49-51, pl. 24.1-4; Lambrugo 2004, p. 25, fg. 14-15;
Bentz 2009, pp. 83-85, no 1-2 (cup and kyathos);
Dohrn 1937, p. 253, no. 205; cup in the Market attrib-
uted by Bruni 2007, p. 107, no. 5, pl. 26a.
2 Spivey 1987a, pp. 10, no. 28, 34-35, 13-14, no. 61,
17, no. 96; Ginge 1987, pp. 45-47, 50-2, 55-56, no. 17-19,
22, 23 and 25, pl. 23-26, 34-38 and 42-44; Ginge 1988-
1989, p. 82, no. 8, pl. 18-19; Warden 2004, pp. 155-156,
no.43 (hydria).
3 Spivey 1987a, pp. 7, no. 1, 13, no. 54-56, 17, no.
98, 131, no. 127 and 25, no. 164; Falconi Amorelli
1996, pp. 113-126, fg. 1-4.
4 Orvieto: Spivey 1987a, pp. 13, no 58, 20, no. 111,
22, no. 142, 23, no. 138 and 30-31; Cappelletti 1992,
pp. 80-98, no. 21-27 and 128-137, no. 40-43. See also a
neck-amphora from Umbria: Spivey 1987a, p. 19,
no. 108.
5 See above, p. 42, n. 2 and 43, n. 1-5, for refer-
ences.
6 See the stamnos mentioned above, 40, n. 5.
7 Amphora in Chianciano Terme (once Flo-
rence 73723) and stamnos from t. 14 in via Morelli
(Paolucci 2007c, pp. 64-65, no. 11 and 15); perhaps
also two neck-amphorae from the Cinelli collection
(Paolucci 2007c, p. 63, no. 1-2).
8 Paolucci 2007a, pp. 40-49, 36-38 and 94-99;
Paolucci 2007c, pp. 63, no. 6 8 and 64, no. 9;
Paolucci 2009, p. 662, fg. 2-3.
09 Paolucci 2007b, pp. 19-20, fg, 11-13, 22, fg. 16
and 82-84, pl.24, no. 144-145.
10 Sarteano: above, p. 45, n. 5.
11 London 1938.3.18-1, neck-amphora from near
Bolsena: Spivey 1987a, p, 26, no. 166, pl. 27b.
12 Ferrone: Rendeli 1996, pp. 57, pl. 20-21, fg.
107, no. FE 7.10 and 134, pl. 55, no. FE 15.15; Brocato
2000, p. 418, no. 14. Tolfa and Allumiere: above, p.
44, n. 5-6.
13 See above, p. 39, n. 7 and 5.
14 Above, p. 39, n. 10 and 1.
15 Spivey 1987a, pp. 36, no. 3 (Kapemukathesa
group), 37, no. 2, 38, no. 7, 9, 10 and Beazley, Magi
1939, p. 81, no. 18 and 20 (Group of Florence 80675).
Beazley, Magi 1939, p. 79, no. 50; Spivey 1987a, p.
44, no. 7 (Kaineus Painter); Spivey 1987a, p. 42, 2, 4
and 5 (The Kyknos Painter); Spivey 1987a, p. 39, no.
1, 2 and 6 (Orbetello Group); Beazley, Magi 1939,
pp. 81, no. 24, 82, no. 34 and 36; the hydria Berlin F
2157 (Beazley 1947, p. 13); an amphora at Vulci from
the Mancini excavations of 1962 (Moretti Sgubini
2002, pp. 97-98); a kyathos in Philadelphia attributed
by Szilgyi 1981b, p. 59, to the Group of Budapest
51835; Dohrn 1937, pp. 153, no. 228, 154, no. 233 and
251, 155, no. 252, 274-275, the neck-amphora Munich
882 (Dohrn 1938, p. 289), the one-piece amphorae
Wrzburg ha 25 (L 799; Bronson 1966, pp. 28-34, pl.
10-13; cf. also above, p. 52, n. 3) and Berlin F 2154
(Bronson 1966, pp. 24-28, pl. 5-10), which are at the
outskirts of the Micali Group; a stamnos in Copen-
hagen, Ny Carlsberg hin 524 (Gaultier 2003, p. 61,
no. 15: the Painter of the Crottala Dancer).
16 Dohrn 1937, pp. 155, no. 270 and 177, no. 290;
Beazley 1947, p. 15, no. 5-6; Ginge 1987, pp. 47-50,
58-65, no. 20-21, 26-32; a kyathos by the Painter of
important client. The other important
cities receive just a few vases: Cerveteri
(6),1 Orvieto (1)2 and Chiusi (5).3 Finds al-
so appear in numerous other sites, near
Vulci (Bisenzio, Pescia Romana, PortEr-
cole, Saturnia),4to the north (Castiglione
della Pescaia, Arezzo),5 to the north-east
(Chianciano Terme, Tolle),6 to the south
(Ferrone, Tolfa)7 and outside the extent
of Etruria proper (Aleria and Bologna).8
In conclusion, we detect the strong pres-
ence of vases from the Micali group
alongside an axis of communication that
connects Vulci to Volsinii and Chiusi, and
a second, smaller wave of exports that
goes towards the south (Cerveteri, Tar-
quinia and the Tolfa mountains).
The La Tolfa Group belongs, in all
probability, to Cerveteri:9 this is plainly
shown by both fndspots (32 vases from
Cerveteri)10 and stylistic afnities with
the Caeretan hydriae.11 Other prove-
nances include Tolfa (2), Ferrone (2),
Capena (2) and Tarquinia (2).12 There-
fore, it is difcult to accept the assertion
of Gaultier that one of the painters of
Budapest 51.835 mentioned by Szilgyi 1981b, p. 59;
two fragmentary oinochoai from the excavations at
Civita (Bonghi Jovino 1999, pl. 135-136); a fragmen-
tary olpe (?) from the tomba del Topolino (Wiel-
Marin 2005, p. 14, fg. 3a-b; other fragments are now
added) and an unpublished fragmentary lekythos
cited above, p. 51, n. 8.
1 Hamburg 505, neck-amphora from the Kape-
mukathesa Group (Spivey 1987a, pp. 36, no. 1);
Gaultier 2003, pl. 27.1-2 (Louvre S 6117) and pl. 53
(Louvre E 772); a fragmentary amphora in Bonn
(dohrn 1937, p. 156, no. 283); the kyathos Louvre E
763 mentionned by Szilgyi 1981b, p. 59 (close to the
Painter of Budapest 51.835); a neck-amphora from
the Orbetello Group (Rizzo 1994, p. 11, fgg. 37-40).
2 Orvieto, Faina 2440, small neck-amphora
(Cappelletti 1992, p. 99, no 28).
3 1. The neck-amphora Palermo 5613 (Falconi
Amorelli 1996, p. 119, 121, fg. 5-5a). 2. The amphora
Chiusi 577 (Gaultier 1987a, pp. 89-90, no 9). 3. A
lost neck-amphora (Dohrn 1937, p. 154, no. 236). 4.
An unpublished (?) neck-amphora in the Siena Mu-
seum with a fle of dogs on the shoulder and run-
ning lions on the body, once in the Bonci-Casuccini
collection. 5. A stamnos in Chiusi (Pistolesi 2007,
pp. 78-79, no. 66).
4 Cited above, 42, n. 2, 43, n. 1-2 and 5.
5 Cited above, 40, n. 4 and 10.
6 Chianciano Terme: a neck-amphora from t. 18
and three olpe from t. 14 of the Morelli necropolis
(Paolucci 2007c, 64, fg. 10 and 65, no. 16-17), a neck-
amphora (once Florence 73724) by the Bisenzio
Group (Paolucci 2007c, pp. 19, fg. 3 and 64, fg. 10);
a fragmentary amphora from t. 14 (Paolucci, Ras-
trelli 1999, pp. 48 and 121, fg. 4a) and another from
t. d from the Pedata Necropolis (Rastrelli 1986, p.
144, no. d2). Tolle: Chiusi 229, amphora cited by
Paolucci 2003, p. 332, n. 7.
7 Ferrone: Rendeli 1996, pp. 87, pl. 35-36, no. fe
10.16 and fe 10.18 (t. 10); 133, pl. 55, no. fe 15.12-13 (t.
15); Brocato 2000, pp. 270-273, fg. 247-254 and 277-
278, 284, fg. 279-281 (t. 19). Tolfa: above, p. 44, n. 5.
08 Cf. above, p. 39, n. 8 and 11.
09 See recently Zilveberg 1986; Gaultier
1987b and 1995, pp. 37-48; Rallo 2009, pp. 761-766,
for a list of works including all previous attribu-
tions. Sannibale 2003, p. 82, is surely wrong when
he afrms that the Group is localised at Vulci in pre-
vious scholarship.
10 Zilveberg 1986, pp. 8-60, nos. 3-6, 9, 15, 19, 25,
27-30, 32-37, 40, 41, 44, 46-47, 57-58, 60-64 and 66; per-
haps also Gaultier 1995, p. 38, no. 12-13.
11 Points of comparison between the La Tolfa
Group and the Caeretan hydriae have been thor-
oughsly analysed in Dohrn 1937, p. 32 and Hemel-
rijk 1984, p. 190.
12 Tolfa: Zilveberg 1986, pp. 58, 60, nos. 16 and
38. Ferrone: Zilveberg 1986, p. 59, no. 17; Rendeli
1996, pl. 2, fg. 101, no. fe 1.11 and pl. 27, fg. 104, no.
FE 9.9 (fragments published by Brocato 2000, p.
172, fg. 129-130, cat. 13, no. 19, join); Capena: above,
p. 39, n. 6. Tarquinia: Zilveberg 1986, p. 60, no. 43;
Gaultier 1995, p. 38, no. 14-15. Zilveberg 1986, at-
tributed eight vases to the workshop of the La Tolfa
Painter. One is from Cerveteri (p. 60, no. 53) and an-
other from Orvieto (p. 60, no. 47); for the rest, the
provenance is not recorded. Five undecorated am-
phorae attributed to the La Tolfa Group are listed
by Rallo 2009, pp. 764-766: one is from Tarquinia,
three from Ferrone, while the last is of unknown
provenance.
the La Tolfa Group (her Painter of the
Angular Faces) was working in the dec-
oration of tombs at Tarquinia, especial-
ly the Tomb of the Bulls.1 Antonia Ral-
los suggestion that the neck-amphorae
were used for to store Caeretan wine is
interesting, but it cannot be proven, in
the absence of archaeometric analysis.2
A new painter, the one of the Ban -
ditaccia Comasts, was recently identi-
fed by Maria Antonietta Rizzo and
Franoise Gaultier: at the moment, his
output numbers only four vases; to
judge from the distribution of his vases
(three from Cerveteri, one of unknown
provenance), the painter must have been
active at Cerveteri, at about the same
time as the La Tolfa Group.3
The painters of the La Tolfa group
had a strictly local clientele in mind.
But the same cannot be argued for the
other important Caeretan workshop,
the so-called Lotus-Bud Group. Shirley
Schwarzs attempt to merge the group
into a big Orvietan workshop4 was not
accepted by other scholars, who pre-
ferred to locate the activity of the
Group at Vulci.5 It was not until
Franoise Gaultier realized that the ma-
jority of the vases attributed to the
group have been found at Cerveteri
(ten)6 that the localisation of the Lotus-
Bud Group has been frmly established
there. Finds also include vases from Fa-
lerii Veteres (1), Tarquinia (1) and Cam-
porsevoli (1);7 a painter who was active
within the group, the Painter of the
Dancing Satyrs, has been recognized by
Janos Szilgyi and studied by Gaultier:8
seven of his vases are from Cerveteri,
one from Orvieto9 and another one, an
unpublished olpe in the Chianciano
Terme Museum, is from tomb 14 of
the Morelli necropolis at Chianciano
Terme. The vases by the so-called Up-
rooter Painter were once thought to be
Attic,10 but recent stylistic analysis have
pointed to their probable Etruscan ori-
gin; due to their type of foral ornament
of the neck they are linked to the am-
phorae by the Lotus-Bud Group: one of
the nine fgured vases of the group is
said to be from Vulci;11 the rest are of
unknown provenance.
The Orvieto Group was frst isolated
by Cal in 1936. Antonio Minto, Gio -
vannangelo Camporeale and Shirley
Schwarz expanded the group to a great
extent since then, so that today it has a
little less than 90 vases; this fgure also
includes pieces that are considered Orvi-
etan in origin, but are stylistically difer-
ent.12 It has been clear from the start
1 Gaultier 1987b.
2 Rallo 2009, p. 758.
3 Rizzo 1994, pp. 14-15, fg. 53-57 and 58-59;
Gaultier 2003, pl. 1.1-2, pl. 2-5.
4 Schwarz 1984 and 1989, pp. 175-177 and 179-180.
5 Gaultier 1987a; Bruni 2002, pp. 23.
6 Gaultier 2003, pp. 65, no. 3, 66, no. 11-14, 28,
32; 80-81, pl. 48-49 and 82, pl. 52; perhaps also the
vase listed by Schwarz 1989, p. 180, no. 9. See in
general Gaultier 2005.
07 Gaultier 2003, p. 65, no. 4 and 19; Paolucci
2007b, pp. 87-88, 168, pl. 26, no. 151.
08 Szilgyi 1981a; Gaultier 2003, p. 65. See also
Martelli 2004, who believes that our painter was
trained in Athens.
09 Cerveteri: Gaultier 2003, pp. 65, no. 1 and 73-
82, pl. 38-51; Orvieto: the olpe Berkeley 8/920 (Ron-
calli 1991, pp. 249-250, no 5.9).
10 Attic Beazley 1956, pp. 589 and 709; Beazley
1971, p. 294. See Gaultier 2003, p. 71, for a summary
of the opinions about the origin of the group and
for addenda.
11 Munich 1645: Beazley 1956, pp. 589, no 1, 709;
Wnsche 2003, p. 409, no 113.
12 Cal 1936, superseding Dohrns Maler des
Wiener Stamnos 318 (1937, p. 137; see Dohrn 1938,
that the Orvieto Group, probably the re-
sult of the activity of two or three dis-
tinct artistic personalities, displays some
very distinct characteristics, in style,
potting and subject matter, which ren-
der any attribution to it a relatively easy
task. The vast majority of vases with
known provenance are from Orvieto
(32).1 Finds from Camporsevoli (2),
Chiusi and nearby (3), Tolle (2), Cortona
(1), Parrano (8), Rosellae (3) and Tar-
quinia (2)2 prove that the appeal of the
fabric outside the political and econom-
ical sphere of Volsinii and Chiusi was
rather limited.
Brigitte Ginge excluded from the
main branch of the Orvieto Group a
number of neck-amphorae and one-
piece amphorae each displaying one or
two very poorly drawn waterbirds. Gin-
ge felt that the Waterbird Group should
be located in either Vulci, or Orvieto,
but this view was objected by F. Serra
Ridgway, who had pointed out that,
since the majority of the fnds are
housed in the Tarquinia Museum, the
most likely seat for the workshop is Tar-
quinia itself.3 Indeed, seven out of 15
amphorae of the Group with known
provenance are from Tarquinia, while
Vulci, Saturnia, Tuscania and Orvieto
receive two amphorae each.4 Finds
seem to circulate along an axis that runs
from Tarquinia to Orvieto: Vulci would
be a likely candidate for the localisation
of the workshop, but the overall quality
of the paint and the style point rather to
Orvieto; at least some of the activity of
the Group must have taken place there.
The group of pyxides has been locat-
ed at Chiusi by Dohrn. This seems hard-
ly likely: a single vase has been found at
either Tarquinia or Orvieto; the latter is
the most likely candidate, since the
shape of the so-called nicosthenic pyxis
is at home there, as regards both buc-
chero and attic imports.5
It is time now to turn to a more ob-
scure area of study, the so-called Later
Groups. Beazley recognized various
small groups of later black-fgured vas-
es, which consisted of two or three
members of the Munich collection, plus
some other stray fnds. Since the Mu-
nich collection is no more available for
384-385); Minto 1940; Camporeale 1970, pp. 24-28;
Schwarz 1984, pp. 55-61, 74-77 and Schwarz 1989,
pp. 167-175, 177-179.
1 Beazley 1947, p. 20 (two fragments); Schwarz
1989, pp. 177-178, no. 1-3, 5-9, 15-18, 20-21, 28-30, 32-36,
41-43, 46-47, 59-61 and 179, 59-61 and A.
2 Camporsevoli: Paolucci 2007b, pp. 17, fg. 6
and 89-90, 168, pl. 26, no. 155. Tolle: Schwarz 1989,
p. 178, no. 24 and Paolucci 2007a, pp. 32-35. Chiusi:
Schwarz 1989, p. 178, no. 22-23; near Chiusi: neck
amphora Toronto 219 (Schwarz 1989, p. 178, no.13);
Cortona: above, p. 40, n. 6; Parrano: above, p. 45, n.
1. Rosellae: above, p. 40, n. 11; Tarquinia: two neck-
amphorae, one in New York (Richter 1911, p. 31,
fg. 4; Schwarz 1989, p. 178, no. 12) and the other in
Tarquinia (inv. RC 5285: Ginge 1987, no 12, pl. 18;
Schwarz 1989, 178, no. 25).
3 Ginge 1987, p. 34; Serra Ridgway 1988. In a
later study, Ginge seriously considers the possibility
that the group was located at Tarquinia (1988-1989,
p. 64-65).
4 Tarquinia: Ginge 1987, no. 10- 11, 13-17. For a list
of other vases, see Ginge 1988-1989, p. 64, n. 11 (two
from Vulci, two from Orvieto and two Saturnia).
Add a pair of amphorae from Tuscania (cited above,
p. 43, n. 3), and a neck-amphora in the market (once
in the Borowski coll: Christies 12.6.2000, no. 136). A
neck-amphora with waterbirds from Poggio Giuli-
vo, is not from the same fabric (above, p. 44, n. 7).
5 Bonn 1012, fr. of lid from Orvieto (Dohrn
1937, p. 158, no. 308) or Tarquinia (Camporeale
1984, p. 94, n. 19). Lyons 2009, p. 168, believes that
the pyxides and the lids in Heidelberg belong to a
single fnd from Orvieto.
study, scholars had to rely for stylistic
analysis exclusively on early photos and
drawings. Surely, this situation is not an
ideal one.
In a series of articles that were written
during the 1980s, Shirley Schwarz made
a brave attempt to solve the riddle, by fo-
cusing upon three important groups of
later black-fgured vases, namely the
groups of Munich 883, Munich 892 and
Vatican 265.1 For all its weaknesses, this
work brought considerable progress in-
to the feld, since it became apparent for
the frst time that the Etruscan black-fg-
ure production of the 5
th
century was
not simply the chaotic sum up of ob-
scure and insignifcant pieces that it was
thought to be.
The group of Munich 883 was initially
put together by Beazley around the
eponymous neck-amphora from Vulci
(Candelori collection) and three vases of
unknown provenance. This fortuitous
decision proved to be quite unfortunate,
for it dictated the view that the group
was actually located at Vulci, a view es-
poused by Schwarz.2 Beazley dissociat-
ed the name-piece of the group of Mu-
nich 892 from the caeretan workshop of
the Lotus-Bud Group, where it was as-
cribed by Dohrn; Schwarz constructed
an important group of vases, which she
proposed to locate at Vulci. Stylistically,
it stands close to the Group of Munich
883. The Painter of Vatican 265 was
another construct by Beazley: the name-
piece is one of the best known Etruscan
black-fgured vases, frst published by
Passeri back in 1767. It was grouped to-
gether with two neck-amphorae from
Chiusi and one from Orvieto.3 Along-
side the three main groups, Schwarz
placed an appreciable number of vases
that stand in equal distance from the
Groups of Munich 883 and 892, or the
Groups of Munich 883 and Vatican 265.
Moving a step further, Marina Martel-
li drew the logical conclusion that the
three groups actually form part of a sin-
gle workshop, which should be placed at
Orvieto, as fndspots seemed to indicate.
Following the same line of thought,
Giulio Paolucci, who has a frsthand
knowledge of early 5
th
century vases as
an excavator, argued instead that the dis-
tribution of the fnds points to Chiusi
and its vicinity as the seat of the activity
of this important three-legged work-
shop. Giovanni Colonna noted that
there might be a diference in dating be-
tween the Group of Munich 892, where
incisions are more abundantly used, and
the other two groups, but he accepted
that they were produced at the same
workshop. Ultimately, Maurizio Pistole-
si combined the stylistic analysis with
the study of the distribution of fnds and
concluded that his Group of Munich
892, now considerably expanded in com-
parison to Schwarzs list, should be
located at Vulci, or another south-Etr-
uscan centre.4 At the same time, Pistole-
si argued elsewhere that the Groups of
Munich 883 and Vatican 265 could be
possibly merged into one workshop,
1 Schwarz 1983 and 1984.
2 Beazley 1947, p. 21, no. 1-4; Schwarz 1983, pp.
127-134; Schwarz 1984, pp. 61-66.
3 Beazley 1947, p. 21, no. 1-4; Schwarz 1983, pp.
66-70.
4 Dohrn 1937, p. 290; Beazley 1947, p. 18;
Schwarz 1983, pp. 122-127; Martelli 1992, p. 343;
Paolucci 1993, p. 110 and Paolucci 1999, pp. 287-
288, followed by Govi 2005, p. 46; Colonna 1997,
198, n. 8; Pistolesi 2004.
whose head was the so-called Ancile
Painter, a name coined by Giovanni
Colonna, from the Latin name of a pe-
culiar 8-like shield illustrated on a fa-
mous amphora in Dresden.1
Given the present state of our knowl-
edge on the subject, it is better to keep
separate the two stylistic groups recog-
nized by Pistolesi: the workshop of the
Ancile Painter has quite a substantial
production, its vases being distributed
all over Etruria. My view of the group is
even more expanded than that of Pis-
tolesi; it counts 125 vases, with the addi-
tion of previously unattributed vases of
the 5
th
century.2 Most vases have been
found in (24) and near Chiusi (Sarteano,
Bettolle, Cetona-Camporsevoli and St.
Margherita, Fallerini, Chianciano Ter -
me, Tolle, Pienza);3 a particularly strong
presence of the group is detected at
Orvieto (17);4 neighbouring sites also re-
ceive small numbers of vases (Perugia,
Rosellae and San Lorenzo al Fiume di
Macerata).5 Coastal and southern sites
are also included in the distribution of
vases of the group: there are fve from
Vulci and several stray fnds from its ter-
ritory (Tuscania, Montalto, Saturnia,
Bisenzio);6 there are also 8 vases from
Tarquinia and 2 from Viterbo.7
Judging from the distribution of the
vases that belong to the Group of Mu-
nich 892, this group apparently belongs
to a diferent area than the Ancile
Painters workshop, since southern and
coastal sites prevail:8 there are three vas-
1 Pistolesi 2001-2002, summing up the conclu-
sions of his unpublished Tesi di Laurea; see also Pis-
tolesi 2007; Colonna 1997. For the inscription on
the Dresden amphora, augmented recently by frag-
ments from Fallerini in the Grossi collection, now
housed at Chianciano Terme, see Colonna,
Paolucci 2004 (the script points to the area Orvi-
eto-Vulci-Tarquinia).
2 I have incorporated the four vases of the
group of New York 517 (Beazley 1947, p. 21), which
should probably merge with Lubtchanskys Mas-
ter of the Outline Technique (1996), where two
more vases are added, a pointed amphora in the
Vatican and a neck-amphora in the old University
collection of Bologna (the latter alreadly accepted
by Pistolesi 2001-2002, p. 161, n. 17, who thinks that
it was found at Vulci).
3 Chiusi: Schwarz 1983, pp. 127, no. 7, 11, 12, 13,
15, 129-130, no. 28-29, Schwarz 1984, p. 69, no. 4, 5,
12 and 13; Magi 1943, p. 526, pl.44.3-4; Rastrelli
1991, p. 58; Spivey 1987b, p. 83; Falconi Amorelli
1996, pp. 122-124, fg. 6-7; Paolucci 2000, p. 232, n.
52; Pistolesi 2007, pp. 72-4, no. 64-65, lost oinochoe
from the Group of New York 517 (Beazley 1947, p.
22, no. 3); Chiusi, amphora from S. Vincenzo: Ioz-
zo, Galli 2003, p. 62, fg. 92; the stamnos Chiusi
65467; a lost neck-amphora once in the collection of
Federigo Sozzi: Blanck 2005, p. 905, fg. 3, no. 8. Ce-
tona-Camporsevoli: Paolucci 2007b, pp. 14, 23, fg.
16-17, fg. 6, 168, no. 149, 150, 152 and 169, no. 156. Fal-
lerini: Paolucci 2000, p. 121, fg. 6-8; Paolucci
2007b, pp. 19, fg. 9-10, 24, fg, 18, 143-145, no. A2-A3,
B1-B2, pl. 1-3; also the Dresden amphora cited
above, n. 191. Chianciano Terme: Paolucci, Ras-
trelli 1999, pp. 18, 20, 111, no. I 2 and 48, 121, fg, 4b;
Rastrelli 1986, p. 91, no. B9; Lubtchansky 1996,
fg. 1-3, 9-10 and 12. Tolle: Paolucci 2003, pp. 332-333,
Paolucci 2007a, pp. 22, fg. 14-16, 50-57, 93. Cetona-
St. Margherita, Sarteano, Pienza and Bettole:
above, p. 45, nn. 5-10.
4 Schwarz 1983, pp. 125, no. 17, 127, no. 6, 9, 10,
128, no. 17, 18, 129, no. 23-24; Schwarz 1984, pp. 64,
no. 6, 9, 10, 65, no. 17, 18, 23-24, 68, no. 2, 69, no. 5-6,
8 and 9; Cappelletti 1992, pp. 138-140, no. 44;
Bentz 2001, pl. 45.1-2; Minto 1940, 367-368 (three
amphorae from the Cannicella necropolis).
5 Rosellae: above, p. 40, n. 11. San Lorenzo:
Stopponi 2005. Perugia: 40, n. 8.
6 Vulci: Schwarz 1983, pp. 125, no. 15 and 127, no.
1; Schwarz 1984, pp. 64, no. 1 and 69, no. 7; Sievek-
ing, Hackl 1912, pl. 40, no. 935; Lubtchansky
1996, p. 22, fg. 6. Tuscania, Montalto, Saturnia and-
Bisenzio: above, p. 42, n. 2, 43, n. 1, 4 and 5.
7 Tarquinia: Ginge 1987, pp. 69-72, no. 33-34, 76-77,
no. 38 and 82-87, no. 44-48. Viterbo: above, p. 44, n. 7.
8 I have expanded the group of Munich 892 even
further than Pistolesi 2004 did, by adding two ol-
pai that, both in style and decoration, belong with
es from Vulci, one from Bisenzio, one
from Pescia Romana, one from Montal-
to di Castro, one from Viterbo, two
from Tarquinia, two from Cerveteri,
one from Acquaviva, two from Cetona-
Camporsevoli, one from Chiusi, one
from Tolle and one from Bologna.1
In tables 2 and 3, under the heading
Other vases of the 5
th
century, I list all
the remaining Late Groups that had
been recognized by Beazley, together
with a substantial number of vases that
remain unattributed or are known to
me only from descriptions. The bulk of
these vases have been found at Vulci
(44).2 There are also fnds from Orvieto
(8), Cerveteri (9), Tarquinia (9), Chiusi
(5), Ferrone (5); Camporsevoli (4), Fall-
erini (3) and Veii (3);3 numerous other
sites receive one or two vases each.4
Some of the aforementioned late sty-
listic groups deserve further examina-
tion, since they received some attention
in the recent past and their contents have
expanded since: the Group of Munich
912, that comprised a stamnos from Vulci
and two oinochoe (one from Vulci), may
now be augmented by a stamnos passed
in the market showing a winged horse
on the main side and a horse on the
the olpe in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg H 150
(Schwarz 1983, p. 125, no. 12): 1. Chiusi, from Chiusi
(two athletes; Galli, Iozzo 2003, p. 45, fg. 53). 2.
New York Market (once Basel, Borowski. Two war-
riors arming: Christies 12.6.2000, no. 147). Add also
the amphorae: 1. Great Gatsby Antiques and Auc-
tions (once in the collection of F.W. von Bissing,
decorated with courtship scenes on both sides.
http://www.gatsbys.com/cgi-bin/view_detail-
sOG.cgi?category=22anditem_id=EMS-0028). 2.
Erlangen, inv. I 831 (A/B: satyr and maenad dancing:
Drger 2007, pl. 57.1-5. 3-4. The two amphorae in
Tarquinia mentioned below, p. 63.
1 Schwarz 1983, 125, no. 2 (Pescia Romana), 3
(Viterbo), 4 and 10 (Vulci), 8 (Bisenzio); Schwarz
1984, p: 65, n. 81 and Rizzo 1994, p. 12, fg.41-43
(Cerveteri); Paolucci 2007b, pp. 20-21, fg. 12-13
(Camporsevoli); Paolucci 2007a, pp. 100-107
(Tolle); GINGE 1987, pp. 72-74, no. 35-36 (Tarquinia);
Paolucci 1991, p. 59, no. 90; Paolucci 2007c, p. 66,
no. 19 (Montalto); the olpe from Chiusi mentioned
above, p. 62, n. 8; an amphora from Acquaviva, at-
tributed by Paolucci 2007a, p. 17; an amphora from
Vulci Osteria, loc. Pellicone (Moretti Sgubini
2002, pp. 100-102); Bologna: see above, 39, n. 8.
2 Spivey 1987b, p. 84, fg. 8; Beazley 1947, 22, 1
and 3, 22, no. 1-2 (middle), 22, no. 1-2 (middle), 22,
no. 1-2, 22, no. 1-2, 23, no. 1-2; Szilgyi 1988, p. 150,
no. B 5.30; the lost vase mentioned in Ginge 1987, p.
113; Reusser 1988, no. E 77-78; Bielefeld 1960, pl.
131.1-2 and 3; Munich 876, 879, 880, 888, 889, 912a,
931, 934, 961, 962, 963, 966 and 970 (Sieveking,
Hackl 1912, pl. 38, 40 and 43; Szilgyi 1997, p. 287,
no. 165; Falconi Amorelli 1968, pp. 233-235, no. 7-
10; Wehgartner 1983, pl. 46.2, 4 and 5-6; Micali
1844, pl. 37.1; Furtwngler 1885, no. 2155.
3 Orvieto: Bentz 2001, pl. 40-42 (cf. also below, p.
64, n. 8); Cappelletti 1992, pp. 101-5, no. 30-32, 112-
114, no. 35. Cerveteri: Pottier 1901, pl. 56; Ricci 1955,
col. 684-685 (unpublished neck-amphora used as an
ossuary in t. 208); Gaultier 2003, 84-86, pl. 54-55,
56.1-2, 3 and 4-5; Lambrugo 2004, p. 66, fg. 47; Gli Etr-
uschi e Cerveteri, p. 200, no. 24-25. Tarquinia: Spivey,
pp. 83-4, fg. 7; Ginge 1987, pp. 74-84, no. 37, 39, 40, 42
and 43; two lost kyathoi mentioned by Ginge 1987,
113. Chiusi: Beazley 1947, p. 22, no. 3; Micali 1844,
pl. 35.1; Pistolesi 2007, pp. 75-76, no. 68; an unpub-
lished small neck-amphora (A, B: woman dancing).
Ferrone: Rendeli 1996, pp. 105, pl. 42, no. fe 11.16,
153, no. fe 18.3 and 163 pl. 67, no. fe 20.8; Brocato
2000, pp. 267, fg. 236-237 and 222, 224, fg. 188 and 191.
Fallerini: Paolucci 2007b, pp. 16, 17, fg. 6-7 and 32,
144, pl. 2, no. A2; perhaps also a lost neck-amphora
excavated in the 18
th
century and used as an ossuary,
mentioned in Paolucci 2007b, p. 11. Cetona-Cam-
porsevoli: Paolucci 2007b, pp. 16, 18-20, fg. 9-10, 22
and 89, no. 153. Veii: cited above, p. 40, n. 3.
4 Allumiere (p. 44, n. 6), Arezzo (p. 40, n. 10),
Bisenzio (p. 42, n. 2), Chianciano Terme (Paolucci,
Rastrelli 1999, pp. 83-85, 135, no II.7), Fiesole (p. 40,
n. 9), Montalto di Castro (p. 43, n. 4), Montepul-
ciano (p. 45, n. 10), Orbetello (p. 43, n. 5), Perugia (p.
40, n. 8), Populonia (p. 40, n. 5), Saturnia (p. 43, n. 1)
and Tolle (mentioned in Paolucci 2003, pp. 332-333,
n. 8). Outside Etruria: Sala Consilina, Adria and
Alria (above, p. 39, n. 4, 9 and 11 respectively).
obverse;1 the Group of Munich 878, that
was made up of two neck-amphorae
from Vulci, was augmented by a neck-
amphora from Budapest; Stefano Bruni
added to it an oinochoe of unknown
provenance and three small neck am-
phorae with foral decoration. The
group can be further expanded with the
addition of two neck-amphorae, one in a
Japanese collection and the other now
lost.2 The group of Munich 886 has three
vases, two amphorae and a stamnos
from Vulci.3 Antonio Minto and Maria
Teresa Falconi Amorelli attributed four
coarse neck-amphorae from Orvieto
and Vulci to the group of Munich 891,
where Munich 890 also belongs; one of
the Orvieto amphorae, however, be-
longs to the Ancile Painter -Group of
Munich 883; the same applies also for the
other two fragmentary amphorae.4 Two
small neck-amphorae at the Faina Muse-
um and a kyathos in the market with
satyrs and maenads stand very close to
Munich 891.5 Beazley included in the
Group of Munich 872 two of the Munich
vases from Vulci; an amphora in Harrow
and an important amphora from t.19 at
Riserva del Ferrone should be added
now.6 Two amphorae and a column-
krater in the Faina Museum are made by
the same modest Orvietan artisan.7 A
group of four carefully drawn vases
found at Orvieto (probably of local man-
ufacture), were painted by a painter who
was making abundant use of incision.8
Lastly, three amphorae in very curious
style (found respectively at Vulci, Tar-
quinia and Saturnia) have been attrib-
uted by Nigel Spivey to a single painters
output.9
Moreover, in tables 2 and 3, I kept sep-
arate two interesting groups of late vas-
es, namely the amphorae and stamnoi
by the Jerusalem Painter already men-
tioned10 (the majority of vases being
found at Orvieto, Chiusi and its envi-
rons11) and the coarse cups type C, with
1 Beazley 1947, 22, no. 1-3; Sothebys 14.12.1987, no
316. An olpe seized by the Guardia di Finanza (and
illustrated in Bellelli 2009, p. 116, fg. 10), might al-
so be considered as member of the group: it shows
a horse turned to the right.
2 Beazley 1947, p. 22, no. 1-2 (Munich 878 and
877); Bruni 1989, p. 91 (Tarquinia, Veii and Florence
4081; the oinochoe seized by the Guardia di Finan-
za, id., no. 110); Budapest 50.908 (Szilgyi 1981b, pl.
19.1-3, 20.1-2; Szilgyi 1988, pp. 150-151, no. B 5.31);
Tokyo, Bridgestone Museum (Mizuta 1991, pl. 13.6-
8); Inghirami 1821, pl. iv (lost amphora with two
youths dancing on either side).
3 Beazley 1947, 22, no. 1-2 (Munich 886 and 885);
Szilgyi 1988, p. 150, no. B5.30 (Berlin F 2156).
4 Beazley 1947, 22, no. 1-2 (Munich 890 and 891:
both from Vulci); Falconi Amorelli 1968, p. 234,
pl. lxviii (amphora from Vulci); Minto 1940, p. 367-
368, pl.31a-b (one amphora with Amazonomachy
the other with satyrs and maenads).
05 Orvieto, Faina 2724 and 2438: Cappelletti
1992, pp. 104-105, no. 31-32; Forum Ancient Coins am
33500, once in the collection of A. Malloy: www.fo-
rumancientcoins.com.
06 Harrow School HA 20 (Gaunt 2005, pp. 34-
35, pl. 38: the attribution is mentioned in a letter by
Beazley); Tolfa 125847 (Brocato 2000, pp. 267, fg.
236-237 and 288, fg. 288; see Paleothodoros 2009,
p. 55, for the attribution).
07 Cappelletti 1992, pp. 104-105, no. 31-32 and
111-112, no. 35.
08 Gttingen Hu 749a, b, c and d: Bentz 2001, pl.
40.2-4, 41, 1-3, 42,1-4 and 5-6. The artisan might be
called the Dolphin Painter, after the pair of dol-
phins fanking a curious palmette on the neck of
Gttingen Hu 749b.
09 Spivey 1987b, pp. 83-84, fg. 7-9.
10 Above, p. 52, n. 4.
11 Orvieto: Paolucci 2007a, p. 27, no. 12, 15 and
18; Bentz 2001, pl. 43.4-6. Chiusi: Paolucci 2007a,
pp. 13 and 27, no. 16-17. Tolle: Paolucci 2007a, pp. 58-
75 (t. 131) and 76-87 (t. 155); Paolucci 2003, pp. 332-3,
fg. 1-3, 334-335, fg. 5-6 and 336, fg. 7-9 (two neck-am-
phporae and a stamnos from the collection Mieli-
Servadio). Cetona-Camporsevoli: Paolucci 2007a,
decoration normally confned to the in-
side, for which I have coined the name
The Fallerini Group, after the fndspot
of four vases; other fnds include two
cups from Chiusi, one from Cortona,
two from Tolle and one from Volterra.1
Most, if not all of these cups, are painted
by the same painter, whose place of ac-
tivity was undoubtedly the town of
Chiusi.
Scientifc analysis has been helpful in
confrming the conclusions that had al-
ready been established by the stylistic
analysis and the study of the distribu-
tion of Etruscan black-fgured vases: a
project undertaken by the Laboratorio
di Analisi non Distruttive e Archeome-
tria of the University of Rome La
Sapienza, has confrmed the similarity
in the chemical composition of clays be-
tween vases from the etrusco-corinthi-
an Rosette Painter (securely localized at
Vulci) and an amphora by the Micali
Painter. Similarly, an amphora from the
La Tolfa Group has been linked to a
Caeretan hydria.2 Archaeometric analy-
sis in the Laboratory of the British Mu-
seum has revealed that the Eyre hydria
in the British Museum belongs to the
Pontic group.3
In conclusion, we detect three impor-
tant regional traditions in the produc-
tion of Etruscan black-fgure vases. The
frst tradition appears of course at Vulci,
where, near the middle of the 6
th
century,
the Pontic workshop was established un-
der the guidance of a painter who had a
good knowledge of Attic black-fgure
pottery. This led directly to the Micali
Painter and his workshop, who dominat-
ed the production of Etruscan black-fg-
ure for the last two decades of the sixth
century and the frst quarter of the ffth.
Meanwhile, a workshop specialized in
the production of one-piece amphorae,
more open to infuence from Attica (Ivy-
Leaf Group), but aiming at a clientele
with an understanding of local iconogra-
phy, appeared at Vulci, during the third
quarter of the 6
th
century. Around the
middle of the third quarter of the sixth
century the La Tolfa Group appeared,
which bears some connection to the
Caeretan hydriae. The Banditaccia
Painter is an elder contemporary, seem-
ingly unconnected to the former group.
Later, at the end of the 6
th
or rather at the
beginning of the 5
th
century, another sty-
listic group, the Lotus Bud Group, had al-
so been established at Cerveteri. At
about 490/480 BCE, a prolifc decorator
of atticizing vases started his career at
Cerveteri, the Painter of the Dancing
Satyrs. In the ffth century work contin-
ued at Vulci with a large number of
painters who followed more or less in the
tradition of the Micali Painter. The
Group of Munich 892 should probably
be counted among them.
Inland cities got involved in the pro-
duction of Etruscan black-fgured vases
at the end of the 6
th
century. At least one
workshop was located with certainty at
pp. 27, no. 20 and 16, 18, fg. 8. Cetona-St. Margheri-
ta: Paolucci 2004, p. 17 and pl.V; Chianciano
Terme: Paolucci 2001, p. 208, no. 2, fg. 1-2.
Sarteano: Paolucci 2007a, p. 27, no. 29. Near Peru-
gia: Roncalli 1999, pp. 46-49, no. 45.
1 Fallerini: Paolucci 2000, pp. 112, fg.2 and 120,
fg. fg. 3-5; Chiusi: Paolucci 2000, p. 123, fg. 15; Pis-
tolesi 2007b, pp. 77-78. Tolle: Paolucci 2007a, pp.
92-93. Cortona: see above, p. 40, n. 6. Volterra: see
above, p. 40, n. 3.
2 Felici et alii 2008, pp. 346-353.
3 The results are mentioned in Williams 2005,
p. 354.
Orvieto (Orvieto Group) and probably
two or three more (the Group of the
Chiusine Pyxides, the Jerusalem Painter
and the more gifted Dolphin Painter),
while others were probably established
at Chiusi and its territory (the Ancile
Painter & the Fallerini Group). The two
cities were part of a unifed state under
the Porsennas during the later part of
the 6
th
century and probably during a
good part of the early 5
th
century.1 If the
Group of Munich 892 is earlier (as it was
suggested by Colonna) and located in a
diferent area (as it was argued by Pis-
tolesi), but at the same time very close in
style (as it was afrmed by Paolucci and
Govi), then a plausible scenario might
involve the movement of painters from
Vulci or another South Etruscan centre
to the north-east, sometime in the frst
quarter of the 5
th
century. A similar, ear-
lier movement might have involved a
member of the Waterbird Group, which
has strong links with the Orvieto
Group, but the distribution of the fnds
points to an area of production more to
the south.
Greek vs Etruscan vases
The Etruscans did indeed have
their own standard, and it was not Greek.
It was not even Greek-plated.
Greek is Greek and Etruscan is Etruscan.
Small 1991-1992, p. 63.
The existence of Etruscan black-fgure is
in itself a paradox. The fabric came in ex-
istence around the middle of the 6
th
cen-
tury, in a period that was dominated by
the vastly superior numbers of artistical-
ly more competent imported Athenian
vases.2
To explain this paradox, scholars gen-
erally recur to the hypothesis that Etr-
uscan pots were destined to meet the
needs of a less wealthy fringe of urban
populations that could not aford to pur-
chase imported wares.3 Such statements
are routinely repeated in scholarship, al-
though no concrete evidence has ever
been brought forth in their favour. In
fact, the mere observance that many
more tombs were furnished with Attic
rather than with Etruscan vases, as well
as the mere fact that the majority of
tomb contexts furnished with Etruscan
black-fgure also contained superior
numbers of Attic or other Greek vases,
are sufcient evidence to rule out the
idea that the Etruscan vases were con-
fned to the poor and the Attic to the rich.
Another way to solve the paradox is to
assume that the Etruscan black-fgured
vases did not in fact compete with Attic
imports. It has been argued that the vas-
es were exchanged between leading
families in the context of occasions such
as marriages and the cementing of polit-
ical and military alliances rather than
commercial transaction.4 This view be-
trays a tendency to romanticize small
scale societies, according to which trade
1 On the relationship between Orvieto and
Chiusi, as witnessed by archaeological fnds, see
Paolucci 1999. On Lars Porsennas Orvietan ori-
gin, see Colonna 2001, pp. 30-31, with references.
2 Attic vases in Etruria: Paleothodoros 2002,
for an overview of earlier literature; Reusser 2002
is the best treatment.
3 For instance Haynes 2000, p. 247, wrote about
the Micali Painter: he seems to have worked main-
ly for the funerary needs of a less wealthy class than
the opulent aristocrats, who preferred imported
work of Greek manufacture.
4 Barker, Rasmussen 1990, p. 212.
is an antisocial form of human contact
to be restricted to dealings with foreign-
ers, in contrast to gift-exchange, which
is an ideal social form of communica-
tion.1 Nothing, however, recommends
this argument: the complex organisa-
tion of workshops like the Pontic one
and the vast distribution of fnds even in
places where there is no ceramic pro-
duction at all (Tarquinia), cannot be ac-
commodated with a system of gift-ex-
change among elites. Of course, the
possibility that a highly prestigious mas-
terpiece like the amphora London B 64
(for which Barker and Rassmussen
made their statement that was cited
above), was ofered to its owner in a spe-
cial occasion, cannot be ruled out.2
A more realistic argument runs as fol-
lows: people living in isolated or inland
settlements used Etruscan fgured vases
simply because Attic pottery was not
available there.3 This is consistent to the
old, familiar view that the infltration of
attic imports in inland and remote sites
of Etruria was limited, since the activity
of Greek traders was largely located to
the emporia that were situated along the
coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea. As a result,
the presence of Attic vases in peripheral
cemeteries depends on redistribution
from the towns and it was not always dic-
tated by economic factors.4 Yet, this the-
ory is simply not true, as Reussers semi-
nal study has recently taught us, thanks
to a careful collection of data.5 For the
student of Etruscan black-fgure, fnds
are numerous precisely in those sites
(Vulci, Cerveteri, Tarquinia, Orvieto and
Chiusi) that receive the overwhelming
majority of Attic imports. Etruscan vas-
es are supplementary to Attic vases, and
not their sub stitutes.
However, it would be a mistake to link
too rigidly the distribution of Attic im-
ports and Etruscan vases. Generally
speaking, the distribution of Etruscan
black-fgure does not match the pattern
established for the trade of attic imports,
i.e. from the emporia dependent on im-
portant cities of southern and central
Etruria (Vulci, Tarquinia and Cerveteri)
to the interior (Chiusi and Orvieto). Vas-
es from Vulci might well circulate all
over Etruria and Vulci itself, while its
hinterland may as well receive imports
from Orvieto, Cerveteri and Chiusi. But
the same does not apply to Cerveteri,
where we do not encounter vases from
either Chiusi or Orvieto; neither to
Chiusi and Orvieto, where products
from Cerveteri are very rare. Tarquinia
is exceptional, because all Etruscan
black-fgure vases from this site are prob-
ably imported (Table 2b). Thus, it is
surely signifcant that every single im-
portant group of Etruscan black-fgure
is represented with fnds, although the
Pontic Group, the Micali Painter and his
later followers get the lions share.
Again, products from Cerveteri are not
very popular, but, in contrast, we have
1 Appadurai 1998, p. 81.
2 London B 64, from Vulci: Beazley 1947, p. 2,
pl. 2-2A; Spivey 1987a, p. 19, no. 102, pl. 18a-b. See
van der Meer 1986, for a full description of its
complex iconography.
3 Spivey 1987a, p. 74: The vases are in demand
where Attic might be difcult or expensive to
come by.
4 I.e. Rendeli 1989, p. 565 and 575-576.
5 Reusser 2002, I, pp. 204: Attische Vasen sind
in Etrurien nicht nur auf stdtische Zentren
berschrnkt, sondern fnden sich hufg auch in
kleineren Orten, Siedlungen und sogar Bauern-
husern.
some vases from Orvieto and Chiusi,
with the addition of the remarkable case
of the Waterbird Group, the localisation
of which remains unknown. Nor do the
numbers of Etruscan black-fgured vas-
es in an area depend on the fuctuation
of the number of imports: Vulci and
Cerveteri have many more vases in the
6
th
than in the 5
th
century, while the situ-
ation is diferent in Tarquinia, Chiusi and
Orvieto. Attic imports are less impor-
tant in the frst quarter of the ffth centu-
ry at Vulci, Cerveteri and Orvieto, while
the same period saw the rise of imports
at Tarquinia and Chiusi.1
Another interesting story is revealed
from the study of the distribution of Etr-
uscan black-fgured vases: a number of
inland sites with a more or less notable
presence of Etruscan black-fgured vases
(Ferrone, Tolle, Chianciano Terme, Cet-
ona, Bisenzio and Pitigliano) (see Table
2) do not use Attic red-fgure at all, al-
though the imports of Attic black-fgure
there do not seem to be afected at all.
For the moment, we cannot argue for
sure whether this is due to chronological
reasons or rather to the fact that Attic
red-fgure was more expensive.2 On the
other hand, an asymmetry in the use of
Etruscan and Attic vases has also been
observed in areas like the locality Pelli-
cone within the Osteria cemetery at Vul-
ci, where Etruscan black-fgure is more
popular than imports,3 or even within a
single family like the twin tombs A
2/1998 and A 9/1998 at Vulci, where an
adult man and an adult woman were
buried. While the man took with him in
the tomb two attic red-fgured cups and
a commercial amphora, the woman pre-
ferred three vases by the Micali Painter
and a bronze oinochoe; attic black-fg-
ured and bucchero vases appear in both
contexts.4 This evidence encourages us
to believe that the choice of putting one
or more Etruscan vases into a tomb was
not dictated by economic factors, but it
was principally ideological.
A notable percentage of published
tomb-contexts containing Etruscan
black-fgured vases are formed by the so-
called tomba a buca, a widespread type of
a secondary cremation within a ceramic
container, most usually an Attic ampho-
ra, and less often an Etruscan fgured
vase, a plain krater or an impasto urn,
put inside a squared-of hole in the
ground. Etruscan black-fgure vases are
used in a number of cremations, most
notably at Cerveteri,5 Vulci,6 Tarquinia,7
1 For an overview, see Meyer 1989, p. 54. His sta-
tistics, however, are solely based on Beazleys index-
es of provenance (1956, 1963 and 1971) and are mis-
leading. For Tarquinia, we rely to the data collected
from the studies mentioned below, in n. 69, n. 5.
There is a constant rise in imports from 550 to 475
but then numbers fall (contrary to the data collect-
ed by Meyer) Orvieto: Ambrosini 2005, p. 335 (the
peak of imports arrives during the 3rd quarter of the
6
th
and then numbers diminish until they fall spec-
tacularily in the 3rd quarter of the 5
th
; again, this is
against the conclusions of Meyer). Rendeli 1989,
traces the relative importance of individual sites in
respect to the total number of imports and is not
helpful for our purposes.
2 See Paleothodoros 2007.
3 See above, p. 42, n. 1.
4 See Moretti Sgubini, Ricciardi 2001. For an
interpretation, see Paleothodoros 2009, pp. 48-51.
5 Tombs ba 208, 209, 348, 349 and 353 and a tomba
a pozzetto inside tumulus ii: Ricci 1955: in the frst
case, the ossuary is a stamnos, while in all other cas-
es is a neck-amphora.
6 Tomba a buca 2001: Moretti Sgubini et alii
2002, pp. 63-68 (neck-amphora). See in general
Moretti Sgubini, Ricciardi 2005, p. 525.
7 Helbig 1878 (noting the presence of three
tombs of the same type with attic amphorae), Hel-
Tuscania,1 Tolle2 and Bisenzio.3 Scholars
used to attribute a marginal social or eth-
nic role to the owners of these tombs,
but recent studies propose a diferent ex-
planation, namely that the owners of
these tombs were, in most cases, young
males and females just before adult-
hood.4 For our purpose, though, it is im-
portant to underline here the fact that, in
terms of the ritual that was employed,
Greek and Etruscan painted vases seem
to be interchangeable.
There is a great diference in the range
of shapes between Etruscan black-fgure
vases and Attic imports. The situation in
Tarquinia, where there has been an un-
usually high percentage of published
fnds, might sufce to illustrate this
point. In table 5, I have collected the
available data for a comparison among
wares imported to Tarquinia between
550 and 450 BCE, more specifcally Attic
black-fgure, Attic red-fgure, Etruscan
black-fgure and Etruscan pseudo- red-
fgure of the frst half of the 5
th
century.5
big 1893, pp. 113-115, Helbig 1896a, p. 21 and Helbig
1896b, pp. 184-186. See also Palmieri 2005b (note
however that the interpretation of the images on
the neck-amphora Tarquinia rc 1042 as a military
march plus a homosexual initiatic ordeal with
ephebic connotations is not acceptable).
1 Mentioned above, p. 43, n. 3.
2 Paolucci 2007a, t. 14, 34, 97 and 447; Paolucci
2009 (all cases are amphorae).
3 Helbig 1886, 26, n. 1 (a group of three tombe
a buca, one with a local column-krater, the other
two with Attic examples).
4 See the discussions in Cataldi 2005 and
Palmieri 2005a.
5 I draw data from Furtwngler 1885, Pallot-
tino 1937, coll. 266-296, Beazley 1956, 1963 and 1971,
Iacopi 1955 and 1956; Campus 1981, Tronchetti
1983, Pierro 1984, Ferrari 1988 and Bruni 1993.
Data are not complete, since I left aside vases exca-
vated recently (expecially in the Civita plateau), as
Shape Attic BF Attic RF Etruscan BF Praxias Group Total
Neck-Amphora 59 3 50 1 113
Amphora 58 2 5 1 66
Pelike 2 3 5
Stamnos 2 5 2 1 10
Hydria 2 1 2 5
Oinochoe 18 1 19
Olpe 7 1 8
Kyathos 7 2 9
Kantharos 1 2 3
Lekythos 29 2 31
Mastoid 13 1 14
Skyphos 11 1 12
Cup 68 80 1 149
Krater 8 16 3 27
Other 2 10 2 14
Total 288 122 72 5 487
Table 5. Attic and Etruscan Pottery from Tarquinia (fnds from the Civita are not included).
It is interesting to observe the enor-
mous diferences in the range of shapes
between Attic black-fgure and Attic
red-fgure, while Etruscan black-fgure
fnds are more consistent with the for-
mer; Etruscan imitations of red-fgure
do not match with the pattern of any of
the other three. Taken as a whole, im-
ports of painted pottery in Tarquinia re-
veal that the inhabitants of the town re-
lied for storage on black-fgured vases,
Attic and Etruscan, whereas for drink-
ing vessels they relied on Attic black-
and then red-fgured (cups, skyphoi,
mastoid cups). Neck-amphorae, am-
phorae and pelikai amount to 37% of
imports, cups to 30%, lekythoi to 6,4%,
oinochoai and olpai to 6,1%; kraters to
5,6% and hydriae only to 1%. Etruscan
black-fgured neck-amphorae and am-
phorae amount to 76,4% of the total
number of vases of this ware, but there
are few drinking vessels (two kyathoi,
two kantharoi, a kylix, a mastoid cup
and a globular cup). Leaving aside the
question of dating, it seems clear that
the two fabrics, Attic black-fgure and
Etruscan black-fgure, were matched to-
gether, while Attic red-fgured procured
drinking vessels and kraters.
In general, closed forms largely dom-
inate Etruscan black-fgure, whereas
drinking vessels and kraters are largely
underrepresented (Tables 3 and 4).
There can be little doubt that for drink-
ing vessels the Etruscans largely relied
on imports.
Conclusion: Iconography matters
Etruscan black-fgure vases were neither
cheap substitutes of Attic imports, nor
artefacts that operated outside the eco-
nomic sphere. Their use and role ren-
dered them indispensable and their
presence desirable in the same contexts
along with Attic imports. Since the dis -
tribution of Etruscan black-fgured vases
is so much confned within the limits of
Etruria, it follows that they must have
met the interests of the local population
in a way that Attic imports were not able
to. At the same time, this role was not
important to populations outside Etru -
ria proper, so that these vases did not
arouse any interest at all abroad.1
We can form an idea of the main difer-
ences between Attic and Etruscan vases
by studying funerary assemblages where
both classes of material appear. Greek
images are used for their narrative quali-
ties and their powerful symbolism
(death as marriage in stories of abduc-
tion, e.g. Peleus and Thetis; death as a
step towards immortality in the story of
Ariadne and Dionysus; the Labours of
Herakles as a triumph over death; eroti-
ca as a commemoration of the pleasures
of mortal life and a prospect for eternal
feasting in the afterlife), while Etruscan
images are more directly concerned with
the commemoration of the dead (hunts,
military marches, armed dances, fghts)
well as unattributed fnds in museums other than the
National Museum of Tarquinia and the Museums in
Berlin. I omitted from my lists other imports (e.g. la-
conian, Fikellura, chalcidian etc.), since their num-
ber is very low.
1 Campanians, of course, had their one black-
fgured production. Bellelli 2009, pp. 109-115, is
surely right in concluding that Campanian black-
fgure need not be connected to one of the Etr-
uscan black-fgured workshops; whatever afnities
are found, are probably due to a common Attic ma-
trix as a source of infuence.
and the creatures that belong to the
realm of the Netherworld (winged dae-
mons, predatory animals and oriental
monsters).1 Both fabrics, however, share
the predilection for centaurs2 and
satyrs.3 Depictions of Greek mythologi-
cal narratives on Etruscan pots are im-
portant for the study of the degree of
hellenization or for the mechanisms of
re-interpretation and banalisation of
Greek themes developed by the Etr-
uscans in the 6
th
and 5
th
century, but do
not count for much, in statistical terms.4
Nor does Etruscan mythology make any
signifcant appearance at all.5
Greek vases were admired as products
of a technically accomplished craft of a
culturally superior civilization (which
does not preclude the fact that they also
played signifcant roles in rituals), where-
as Etruscan vases were used for their abil-
ity of directly addressing issues of life and
death that were of major importance to
their owners. Since the number of Etr-
uscan black-fgured vases is clearly inferi-
or to the number of vases imported from
Attica in Etruria6, the latters role must
have been considered more important;
but the formers contribution was not
negligible either. This might explain why
Etruscan fabric survived until about the
middle of the 5
th
century, virtually out -
living all Greek schools of black-fgure.7
1 In t. A/2 1998 at the Osteria necropolis (Vulci),
three Etruscan vases with lions, sirens and sphinx
appear side by side with Attic pots showing Herak-
les dragging Kerberos of Hades, Ariadne banquet-
ing with Dionysos like an Etruscan matron would
do with her husband and maenads: see above, p.68,
n. 4, for references. In t. 19 at Riserva del Ferrone,
Attic pots with scenes of abductions and women
dancing, are combined with Etruscan amphorae
showing a dead woman at her funerary couch and
in a fasmatic condition: Paleothodoros 2009, pp.
54-56. In tomb-group 10 from Ferrone, three Etr-
uscan vases with sirens, birds and sphinx appear
with two attic kyathoi (one with a fght, the other
with a dionysiac scene), a lip-cup without fgured
decoration and a hydria with women fetching wa-
ter. In tomb 26 at Orvieto (Crocifsso del Tufo), a
deceased male was accompanied by three vases: an
attic red-fgured cup showing an erotic scene, an
earlier attic cup with sirens, and a local amphora
showing on each side a demon of death with
hooked nose: Bizzarri 1962, pp. 148-149, no. 22; Pa-
leothodoros (forthcoming). This is probably the
earliest appearance of Charun in vase-painting.
2 See Scheffer 1984,pp. 232-233. For monsters,
lions, centaurs and satyrs, see Spivey 1988a, pp. 15-
19; Oloffson 1996.
3 Paleothodoros 2004-2007.
4 Hellenization: Hampe, Simon 1964. Banalisa-
tions: Camporeale 1964 (the frst of a number of re-
lated studies). I counted 144 scenes of Greek myths
or divine gatherings without narrative value. Fur-
thermore, there are 183 scenes of the dionysiac thia-
sos, 46 with centaurs and 340 with monsters (sphin-
xes, sirens, chimerae, grifns, androcephalous bulls
and other composite monsters of oriental stock. An-
imal friezes where one or two monsters appear
along with birds, beasts of pray and felines, are not
included), and 69 with winged deities and other dae-
monic creatures of Etruscan favour. On many more
vases appear animal friezes and scenes from secular
human contexts.
5 For some possible identifcations, see Massa-
Pairault 1999, pp. 80-84 and Bruni 2002.
6 Scheffer 1984, p. 231, succinctly observed that
there are probably more Greek vases with Ne-
mean lions than there are Etruscan black-fgured
vases altogether. In Tarquinia, Attic vases are six
times more than Etruscan [Table 5]; at Cerveteri,
there are 108 tomb-contexts with 653 Attic vases
that are listed by Reusser 2002, pp. 55-65, compared
to 24 tombs from the same site containing Etruscan
black-fgured vases, mentioned above (p. 45, n. 11).
7 Only Boeotian blackfgure continues till
about the middle of the 5
th
century of even a bit lat-
er. Corinthian comes to an end at 550 BCE; Lacon-
ian at about 510; Chalcidian at the end of the 6
th
century; Clazomenian at the 490s; Samian ended
near the close of the 6
th
century; by 480-470, attic
black-fgure was extinct as well (except for Pana-
thenaic amphoras, of course). One reason for the
decline of black-fgure fabrics designed for export
to the west was the extraordinary success of Attic
red-fgure in Italian markets: see Paleothodoros
2007, p. 167.
List of works cited
Albizzati 1924: C. Albizzati, Vasi antichi di-
pinti del Vaticano, Roma, 1924.
Ambrosini 2005: L. Ambrosini, Circolazione
della ceramica attica nellagro falisco e volsi-
niese: un confronto, AnnFaina, xii, 2005,
pp. 301-336.
Amorelli 1960: M.-T. Amorelli, Due anfo-
rette etrusche a fgure nere nel Museo di Villa
Giulia, StEtr, 21, 1960, pp. 385-387.
Amyx 1962: D. A. Amyx, A Pontic Oinochoe in
Seattle, in Hommages Albert Grenier, i,
Brussels, 1962, pp. 121-134.
Ananich, Guilerini, Bruschetti (a cura
di) 2008: Capolavori Etruschi dallErmitage.
Catalogo della mostra (Museo Archeolo-
gico di Cortona, 6 settembre 2008-11 gen-
naio 2009), a cura di E. Ananich, P. Guile-
rini, P. Bruschetti, Cortona, 2008.
Appadurai 1998: A. Appadurai, Commodi-
ties and the Politics of Value, in Interpreting
Objects and Collections, edited by S.M. Pear-
ce, London & New York, 1998, pp. 76-91.
Bagnasco Gianni (a cura di) 2002: Cerveteri.
Importazioni e contesti nelle necropolis (=
Quaderni di Acme 52), a cura di G. Ba-
gnasco Gianni, Milano, 2002.
Barbieri 2002: G. Barbieri, La necropoli
etrusca di Pogio Giulivo presso Viterbo,
OpRom, 27, 2002, pp. 7-77.
Barker, Rasmussen 2000: G. Barker, T.
Rasmussen, The Etruscans, Oxford, 2000.
Beazley 1947: J. D. Beazley, Etruscan Vase-
Painting, Oxford, 1947.
Beazley 1956: J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-Figu-
re Vase-Painters, Oxford, 1956.
Beazley 1963: J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figure
Vase-Painters, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1963.
Beazley 1971: J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena.
Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters
and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters2, Ox-
ford, 1971.
Beazley, Magi 1939: J. D. Beazley, A. Ma-
gi, La Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi nel Mu-
seo Gregoriano Etrusco, Citt del Vaticano,
1939.
Bellelli 2009: V. Bellelli, Nel mondo dei
vasi campani a fgure nere. A proposito di un
libro recente, Oebalus, Studi sulla Campa-
nia antica, 4, 2009, pp. 93-129.
Bellelli, Cultraro 2006: V. Bellelli, M.
Cultraro, Etruria, Peninsola Balcanica ed
Egeo Settentrionale, AnnFaina, xii, 2006,
pp.197-251.
Bentz 2001: M. Bentz, Corpus Vasorum Anti-
quorum Deutschland Bd. 73, Gttingen Ar-
chologisches Institut der Universitt, Bd. 2,
Mnchen, 2001.
Bentz 2009: M. Bentz, Der Micali-Maler in
Bonn, in Etruria e Italia Preromana. Studi in
onore di Giovannangelo Camporeale, i, Pisa-
Roma, 2009, pp. 83-89.
Berling 2005: I. Berling, Vulci, Bisenzio
e il Lago di Bolsena, in Dinamiche di Sviluppo
delle citt nellEtruria meridionale. Veio, Cae-
re, Tarquinia, Vulci. Atti del xxiii Conve-
gno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici (Roma, Ve-
io, Cerveteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania,
Vulci, Viterbo, 1-6 ottobre 2001), i, Pisa-
Roma, 2005, pp. 560-564.
Bielelfeld 1960: E. Bielelfeld, Corpus Va-
sorum Antiquorum Deutschland Band 19, Al-
tenburg, Staatliches Lindenau-Museum,
Mnchen, 1960.
Bizzarri 1962: M. Bizzarri, La necropoli di
Crocifsso del Tufo in Orvieto i, StEtr, 30,
1962, pp. 1-151, pl. i-xvi.
Blanck 2005: H. Blanck, Antichit chiusine in
vendita, in AEIMNHTO. Miscellanea di
studi in memoria di Mauro Cristofani, Pro-
spettiva, Suppl., Firenze, 2005, pp. 902-908.
Boardman, Robertson 1979: J. Boardman,
M. Robertson, Corpus Vasorum Antiquo-
rum Great Britain 15, Castle Ashby, Northam-
pton, Oxford, 1979.
Bocci 1965: P. Bocci, Catalogo della ceramica
di Rosellae, StEtr, 33, 1965, pp. 107-190.
Bocci Pacini 1979: P. Bocci Pacini, Postilla
su Arezzo arcaica, StEtr, 47, 1979, pp. 53-
64, pl. vii-xv.
Bhlau 1900: J. Bhlau, Die Jonischen Augen-
schalen, am, 25, 1900, pp. 40-99.
Boldrini 1994: S. Boldrini, Gravisca 4. Le
ceramiche ioniche, Bari, 1994.
Bonamici (a cura di) 2003. Volterra. LAcropoli
e il Suo Santuario, Scavi 1987-1995, ii, a cura
di M. Bonamici, Pisa, 2003.
Bonghi Jovino (a cura di) 1999: Tarquinia, a
cura di M. Bonghi Jovino, Roma, 1999.
von Bothmer 1955-1956: D. von Bothmer,
Two Etruscan Vases by the Paris Painter, bm-
ma, 13, 1955-1956, pp. 127-132
von Bothmer 1987: D. von Bothmer, Greek
Vase-Painting: Two Hundred Years of Con-
noisseurship, in Papers on the Amasis Painter
and his World, edited by M. True, Malibu,
1987, pp. 184-204.
Brendel 1978: O. Brendel, Etruscan Art,
Harmondsworth, 1978.
Brocato 2000: P. Brocato, La necropoli etru-
sca della Riserva del Ferrone. Analisi di una
comunit arcaica dei Monti della Tolfa, Ro-
ma, 2000.
Bronson 1966: R. Bronson, Three Master-
Pieces of Etruscan Black-Figure Vase-Pain-
ting, ArchClass, 18, 1966, pp. 23-40, pl. v-
xvi
Bruni 1989: S. Bruni, Oinochoe etrusca a fgu-
re nere, in Il Patrimonio disperso. Reperti ar-
cheologici sequestrati dalla Guardia di Finan-
za. Catalogo della mostra (Piombino
1989), a cura di A. Romualdi, Roma, 1989,
p. 91.
Bruni 1993: S. Bruni, Ceramiche etrusche so-
vradipinte del V sec. a.C. dal territorio chiusi-
no: il Gruppo Vagnonville. Una proposta di de-
fnizione, in La civlit di Chiusi e del suo
territorio. Atti del xvii convegno di studi
etruschi ed italici (Chianciano Terme, 28
maggio-1 giugno 1989), Firenze, 1993, pp.
271-295.
Bruni 1996: S. Bruni, Appunti sulle ceramiche
etrusche a fgure nere di Populonia, Rasse-
gna di Archeologia, 13, 1996, pp. 231-256.
Bruni 2002: S. Bruni, Nugae de Etruscorum
Fabulis, Ostraka, xi.1, 2002, pp. 7-28.
Bruni 2007: S. Bruni, Ullastret e il pittore di
Micali, StEtr, 72, 2007, pp. 97-116, pl. 24-
28.
Brunori 2006: S. Brunori, Vulci e le idrie at-
tiche a fgure nere, Ostraka, xvi.2, 2006,
pp. 249-278.
Bruschetti 2005: P. Bruschetti, Corredo
con ceramica orvietana arcaica da una tomba
di Parrano, in AEIMNTO. Miscellanea
di studi in memoria di Mauro Cristofani,
Prospettiva Suppl., Firenze, 2005, pp.
451-480.
Burn 1997: L. Burn, Sir William Hamilton
and the Greekness of Greek Vases, Journal of
the History of Collections, 9, 1997, pp.
241-252.
Cal 1936: A. L. Cal, Una fabbrica orvieta-
na di vasi etruschi nella tecnica a fgure ne-
re, StEtr, 10, 1936, pp. 429-439.
Camporeale 1964: G. Camporeale, Saghe
greche nellarte etrusca arcaica, PdP, 19,
1964, pp. 428-450.
Camporeale 1970: G. Camporeale, La col-
lezione Alla Querce. Materiali Archeologici
Orvietani, Firenze, 1970.
Camporeale 1984: G. Camporeale, La cac-
cia in Etruria, Roma, 1984.
Camporeale (a cura di) 1985: La collezione
Costantini, a cura di G. Camporeale, Firen-
ze, 1985.
Campus 1981: L. Campus, Materiali del Museo
Nazionale di Tarquinia, II. Ceramica attica a
fgure nere. Piccoli vasi e vasi plastici, Roma,
1981.
Cappelletti 1992: M. Cappelletti, Museo
Claudio Faina di Orvieto. Ceramica etrusca f-
gurata, Perugia, 1992.
Cataldi 2005: M. Cataldi, Sulle tombe a bu-
ca di Tarquinia , in Dinamiche di Sviluppo
delle citt nellEtruria meridionale. Veio, Cae-
re, Tarquinia, Vulci. Atti del xxiii Conve-
gno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici (Roma, Ve-
io, Cerveteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania,
Vulci, Viterbo, 1-6 ottobre 2001), Pisa-Ro-
ma, i, pp. 395-413.
Cenciaioli 2002: L. Cenciaioli, Aspetti e
considerazioni su Perugia arcaica e il suo ter-
ritorio, AnnFaina, ix, 2002, pp. 49-70.
Cherici 1986: A. Cherici, Monumenti ar-
cheologici di provenienza arretina, Atti e
Memorie dellAccademia Petrarca di lette-
re, arti e scienze, N.S. 48, 1986, pp. 26-29.
Cherici 2003: A. Cherici, Il dinos etrusco a f-
gure nere del Museo Archeologico di Arezzo.
Una breve note su Saturnia, AnnFaina, X,
2003, pp. 483-497.
Colonna 1997: G. Colonna, Lanfora etrusca
di Dresda col sacrifcio di Larth Vipe, in Amico
Amici. Gad Rausing den 19 maj 1997, Kristian-
stad, 1997, pp. 195-216.
Colonna 2001: G. Colonna, Porsenna, la Le-
ga Etrusca e il Lazio, in La Lega Etrusca. Dal-
la Dodecapoli ai Quindecim Populi. Atti della
Giornata di Studi (Chiusi 9 ottobre 1999),
a cura di M. Iozzo, Pisa-Roma, 2001, pp.
29-35
Colonna, Paolucci 2004: G. Colonna, G.
Paolucci, Rivista di Epigrafa Etrusca. Ager
Clusinus: Camporsevoli, StEtr, 70, 2004,
pp. 332-334.
Cook 1989: R. M. Cook, East Greek Infuences
on Etruscan Vase-Painting, PdP, 44, 1989,
pp. 161-173.
Cook 1997: R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Potte-
ry, 3rd edition, London & New York, 1997.
Costantini, Ricciardi 2005: S. Costanti-
ni, L. Ricciardi, Contatti tra Tuscania e
lArea Orvietano-Volsiniese: Alcuni Materiali,
AnnFaina xii, 2005, pp. 245-268.
Cramer 1908: M. Cramer, Griechische Alter-
tmer Sdrussischen Fundorts aus dem Besit-
ze des Hern A. Vogell, Karlsruhe, Kassel, 1908.
Cristofani (a cura di) 1985: Dizionario della
Civilt Etrusca, a cura di M. Cristofani, Fi-
renze, 1985.
Curri 1977: C. Curri, Scavi e scoperte. Tosca-
na. Castiglione della Pescaia (Grosseto),
StEtr, 45, 1977, pp. 460-462.
De Marinis 1961: S. De Marinis, La tipologia
del banchetto nellarte Etrusca arcaica, Roma,
1961.
De Puma 1986: R. D. De Puma, Etruscan
Tomb-Groups. Ancient Pottery and Bronzes in
Chicagos Field Museum of Natural History,
Mainz, 1986.
De Witte 1836: J. De Witte, Descriptions des
Antiquits et dObjets dArt qui composent le
cabinet du feu M. Le Chevalier E. Durand,
Paris, 1836.
Del Chiaro 1990: M. A. Del Chiaro, An
Etruscan Funerary Naiskos, QTic , 19,
1990, pp. 51-58.
Della Fina 1989: G. M. Della Fina, Per una
storia della collezione Faina. Un acquisto del
1876, StEtr , 55, 1989, pp. 153-166.
Dohrn 1937: T. Dohrn, Die schwarzfgurigen
etruskischen Vasen aus der zweiten Halfte des
sechsten Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1937.
Dohrn 1938: T. Dohrn, Die etruskischen
schwarzfgurigen Vasen, StEtr , 12, 1938,
pp. 279-290, pl. lii-lvi.
Dohrn 1963: T. Dohrn, Etruskische Amphora
in Basler Privatbesitz, ak, 6, 1963, pp. 62-
65, pl. 24-25.
Dohrn 1989: T. Dohrn, Vasi a fgure nere
fabbricati in Etruria, in Secondo Congresso In-
ternazionale Etrusco, (Firenze 1985), Atti, Fi-
renze, 1989, pp. 637-643.
Donati 1989: L. Donati, Le tombe da Satur-
nia nel Museo archeologico di Firenze, Firen-
ze, 1989.
Drger 2007: O. Drger, Corpus Vasorum
Antiquorum Deutschland Bd. 84, Erlangen,
Antikensammlung der Friederich-Alexander-
Universitt 2, Mnchen, 2007.
Drukker 1986: A. Drukker, The Ivy Painter
in Frisland, in Enthousiasmos. Essays on
Greek and Related Pottery presented to J.
Hemerlijk, edited by H. A. G. Brijder. Am-
sterdam, 1986, pp. 39-48.
Ducati 1927: P. Ducati, Storia delArte Etru-
sca, i, Firenze, 1927.
Ducati 1932: P. Ducati, Pontische Vasen, Ber-
lin-Leipzig, 1932.
Dmmler 1887: F. Dmmler, Uber eine Clas-
se griechischer Vasen mit Schwarzen Figuren,
rm, 2, 1887, pp. 171-192.
Dmmler 1888: F. Dmmler, Vasenscherbe
aus Kyme in Aolis, rm, 3, 1888, pp. 159-180.
Edlund 1980: I. E. M. Edlund, The Iron Age
and Etruscan Vases in the Olcott Collection at
Columbia University, New York, TAPhS,
Vol. 70, Part 1, Philadelphia, 1980.
Edlund 1986: I. E. M. Edlund, Native and
foreign elements in the artistic fauna of black-
fgured vase-painting in Central Italy, in Ital-
ian Iron Age Artefacts in the British Museum,
edited by J. Swaddling, London, 1986, pp.
431-437.
Emiliozzi 1974: A. Emiliozzi, La Collezione
Rossi Danielli nel Museo Civico di Viterbo,
Roma, 1974.
Endt 1899: J. Endt, Beitrge zur jonischen Va-
senmalerei, Prague, 1899.
Falcone, Ibelli 2007: L. Falcone, V. Ibel-
li, La ceramica campana a fgure nere. Tipo-
logia, sistema decorativo, organizzazione delle
botteghe, Pisa-Roma, 2007.
Falconi Amorelli 1968: M.-T. Falconi
Amorelli, Vasi etruschi a fgure nere e a f-
gure rosse provenienti da Vulci, ArchClass ,
20, 1968, pp. 230-237, pl. 71-84.
Falconi Amorelli 1996: M.-T. Falconi
Amorelli, Ceramica etrusca a fgure nere, in
La collezione Casuccini. Ceramica attica,
etrusca e falisca, edited by E. Paribeni, Ro-
ma, 1996, pp. 113-126.
Felici, Fronterotta, Piacentini, Vendi-
telli 2008: A. C. Felici, G. Fronterot-
ta, M. Piacentini, M. Venditelli, Ap-
pendice, ArchClass, 59, 2008, pp. 347-356.
Ferrari 1988: G. Ferrari, Materiali del Mu-
seo Nazionale di Tarquinia, xi. Vasi Attici a
Figure Rosse del periodo arcaico, Roma, 1988.
Fiorelli 1876: G. Fiorelli, Scavi. Gennaio
1876. Corneto-Tarquinia, NSc,1876, pp. 3-7.
Furtwngler 1885: A. Furtwngler, Be-
schreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiqua-
rium, 1, Berlin, 1885.
Galli 1921: E. Galli, Perugia. Il Museo fune-
rario del Palazzone allIpogeo dei Volumni, Fi-
renze, 1921.
Gaultier 1987a: F. Gaultier, Le Peintre de
la Danseuse aux Crotales. Recherches sur les
ateliers de cramique de Vulci dans la premire
moiti du Ve sicle av. J.-C., mefra, 99,
1987, pp. 63-93.
Gaultier 1987b: F. Gaultier, Dal Gruppo
della Tolfa alla Tomba dei Tori: Tra Ceramica
e Pittura Parietale, in Studia Tarquiniensia,
Milano, 1987, pp. 209-218, pl. 58-65.
Gaultier 1995: F. Gaultier, Corpus Vasorum
Antiquorum, Muse du Louvre, Fascicule 24,
France Fascicule 35, Paris, 1995.
Gaultier 2000: F. Gaultier,Painted Pottery
of the Archaic Period, in The Etruscans, edi-
ted by M. Torelli, London, 2000, pp. 421-
437.
Gaultier 2003: F. Gaultier, Corpus Vaso-
rum Antiquorum, Muse du Louvre, Fascicule
26, France Fascicule 39, Paris, 2003.
Gaultier 2005: F. Gaultier, Cramiques
fgures noires de Cerveteri: la production du
dbut du cinquime sicle, in Dinamiche di
Sviluppo delle citt nellEtruria meridionale.
Veio, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci. Atti del xxiii
Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici (Ro-
ma, Veio, Cerveteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tu-
scania, Vulci, Viterbo, 1-6 ottobre 2001),
Pisa-Roma, 2005, ii, pp. 639-644.
Gaunt 2005: J. Gaunt, Corpus Vasorum Anti-
quorum Great Britain, Fasc. 21, Harrow Scho-
ol, Oxford, 2005.
Gerhard 1831: E. Gerhard, Rapporto intor-
no i vasi volcenti, Annali dellInstituto di
Corrispondenza Archeologica, 3, 1831,
pp. 5-233.
Giglioli 1948-1949: G. Q. Giglioli, Quattro
vasi inediti nel Museo di Villa Giulia a Roma,
StEtr, 20, 1948-1949: 243-249, pl. xiv-xv.
Ginge 1987: B. Ginge, Ceramiche etrusche a
fgure nere, (Materiali del Museo Archeolo -
gico Nazionale di Tarquinia), xii, Roma,
1987.
Ginge 1988-1989: B. Ginge, Etruscan Black
Figured Vases in the Archaeological Museum
of Tarquinia: Addenda, Annali della Fac-
colt di Lettere e Filosofa. Universit di
degli Studi di Perugia. Studi Classici , 26,
n.s. xii, pp. 61-85, pl. 1-25.
Giuliano 2001: A. Giuliano, Osservazioni
sulle pitture della Tomba dei Tori a Tarqui-
nia, in Scritti Minori, Xenia Antiqua, Mono-
grafe 9, Roma, 2001, pp. 69-94 (= StEtr,
33, 1969, pp. 3-26).
Gli Etruschi e Cerveteri: Gli Etruschi e Cerveteri.
Catalogo della mostra (Milano 1980), Mi-
lano, 1980.
Govi 2005: E. Govi, Ceramiche etrusche fgu-
rate dal sepolcreto della Certosa di Bologna,
StEtr, 69, 2005, pp. 43-70, pl. 8-10.
Greifenhagen 1981: A. Greifenhagen,
Zeichungen nach italischen Vasen im dai
Rom, ArchAnz, 1981, pp. 259-305.
Gsell 1891: S. Gsell, Fouilles dans la ncropo-
le de Vulci, Paris, 1891.
Hampe, Simon 1964: R. Hampe, E. Simon,
Griechische Sagen in der frhen etruskischen
Kunst, Mainz/Rhein, 1964.
Hannestad 1974: L. Hannestad, The Paris
Painter, an Etruscan Vase-Painter, Copenha-
gen, 1974.
Hannestad 1976: L. Hannestad, The Follo-
wers of the Paris Painter, Copenhagen, 1976.
Harari 1992: M. Harari, Etruscan Art: from
diference to duality (and beyond), Accordia
Research Papers, vol. 3, edited by H. Bla-
ke, London, 1992, pp. 101-106.
Hauser 1896: F. Hauser, Eine Sammlungen
stilproben griechischer Keramik, jdi, 11,
1896, pp. 177-197.
Haynes 2000: S. Haynes, Etruscan Civiliza-
tion. A Cultural History, London, 2000.
Helbig 1878: W. Helbig, Scavi di Corneto,
Bullettino dellInstituto di Corrisponden-
za Archeologica, 1878, pp. 177-178.
Helbig 1886: W. Helbig, Scavi di Capodi-
monte, rm, 1, 1886, pp. 18-36.
Helbig 1893: W. Helbig, Corneto-Tarquinia.
Nuovi scavi nella necropoli, NSc, 1893, pp.
113-115
Helbig 1896a: W. Helbig, Corneto-Tarqui-
nia. Scavi nella necropoli tarquinisese durante
lanno 1895, NSc, 1896, pp. 14-21.
Helbig 1896b: W. Helbig, Nuovi scavi nella
necropoli tarquiniese, NSc, 1896, pp. 180-
185.
Hemelrijk 1984: J. M. Hemelrijk, Caeretan
Hydriae, Mainz/Rhein, 1984.
Hemelrijk 2007: J. M. Hemelrijk, Four New
Campana Dinoi, a New Painter, Old Que-
stions, BABesch 82, 2007, pp. 365-421.
Herbig 1933: R. Herbig, Verstreute etruskische
Denkmler in deutschen Sammlungen. I. Etru-
skisch-schwarzfgurige Vasen in Heidelberg,
StEtr, 7, 1933, pp. 353-363, pl. xv-xx.
Hoffmann 1969: H. Hoffmann, Erwerbun-
gsbericht des Museums fr Kunst und Gewerbe
Hamburg, 1963-1969, aa, 1969, pp. 318-377.
Hornbostel (Hrsg.) 1980: Aus Grbern
und Heiligtmern, Die Antikensammlung
Walter Kropatcheck, Hrsg. W. Hornbostel,
Mainz/Rhein, 1980.
Houser (ed.) 2004. From Myth to Life: Images
of Women from the Classical World, ed. C.
Houser, Northampton (Mass.), 2004.
Iacopi 1955: G. Iacopi, Corpus Vasorum Anti-
quorum Italia 25, Tarquinia, Museo Naziona-
le i, Roma, 1955.
Iacopi 1956: G. Iacopi, Corpus Vasorum Anti-
quorum Italia 26, Tarquinia, Museo Naziona-
le ii, Roma, 1956.
Inghirami 1821: F. Inghirami, Monumenti
etruschi o di Etrusco nome, Fiesole, 1821.
Inghirami 1833: F. Inghirami, Pitture di Vasi
Fittili, Fiesole, 1833.
Iozzo 1993: M. Iozzo, Ceramica calcidese.
Nuovi documenti e problemi riproposti (=At-
ti e Memorie della Societ Magna Grecia,
iii, 2), Roma, 1993.
Iozzo, Galli (a cura di) 2003: Museo Archeo-
logico Nazionale, Chiusi, a cura di M. Iozzo,
F. Galli, Chiusi, 2003.
Isler-Kernyi 1976: C. Isler-Kernyi,
Stamnoi e stamnoidi, QTic, 5, 1976, pp. 33-
52.
Jahn 1854: O. Jahn, Beschreibung der Vasen-
sammlung Knig Ludwigs in der Pinakothek
zu Mnchen, Mnchen,1854.
Jannot 1984: J.-R. Jannot, Les reliefs archa-
ques de Chiusi (cefr 71), Rome, 1984.
Jehasse 1973: J. & L. Jehasse, La ncropole pr-
romaine dAlria (Gallia, Suppl. 25), Lyon,
1973.
Jucker (ed.) 1991: Italy of the Etruscans, ed I.
Jucker, Mainz, 1991.
Klein 1910: W. Klein, ber eine Gruppe joni-
scher Vasen, jai, 13, 1910, pp. 150-166, pl.
v-viii.
Kunze 1934: E. Kunze, Ionische Kleinmeister,
am 59, 1934, pp. 81-122.
de la Genire 1987: J. de la Genire, Ri-
tuali funerari e produzione di vasi, in Tarqui-
nia: ricerce, scavi e prospettive, a cura di M.
Bonghi Jovino, C. Chiaromonte Trer, Mi-
lano, 1987, pp. 203-208.
de la Genire 1988: J. de la Genire, Les
acheteurs des cratres corinthiens, bch, 112,
1988, pp. 83-90.
Lambrugo 2004: C. Lambrugo, Il mondo de-
gli Etruschi, Museo Archeologico di Milano,
Guida alla Sezione Etrusca, Milano, 2004.
Laviosa 1960: C. Laviosa, Rusellae: relazio-
ne preliminare della seconda campagna,
StEtr, 28, 1960, pp. 289-337.
Lubtchansky 1996: N. Lubtchansky, Le
Matre du Dessin au Trait. Lamphore aux ca-
valiers victorieux du Muse grgorien tru-
sque, Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Ponti-
fcie Bollettino, 16, 1996, pp. 5-41.
Lund, Rathje 1988: J. Lund, A. Rathje, Ita-
lic Gods and deities on Pontic Vases, in An-
cient Greek and related pottery. Proceedings
of the Symposium (Copenhagen 1987),
edited by J. Christiansen, T. Melander, Co-
penhagen, 1988, pp. 352-368.
Lyons 2009: C. Lyons, Nicosthenic Pyxides
between Etruria and Greece, in Athenian Pot-
ters and Painters 2, edited by J. Oakley, O.
Palagia, Oxford, 2009, pp. 166-180.
Magi 1941: A. Magi, Anfore etrusche a fgure
nere del R. Museo Archeologico di Firenze,
StEtr, 15, 1941, pp. 317-321, pl. 36-39
Magi 1942: A. Magi, Anfore etrusche a fgure
nere del R. Museo Archeologico di Firenze,
StEtr,16, 1942, pp. 553-556, pl. 47-49.
Magi 1943: A. Magi, Vasi etruschi a fgure nere
della collezione Vagnonville del R. Museo Ar-
cheologico di Firenze, StEtr, 17, 1943, pp.
523-526, pl. 42-44.
Magi 1950-1951: A. Magi, Anfora etrusca a f-
gure nere del Museo archeologico di Firenze,
StEtr, 21, 1950-1951, pp. 375-377.
Mangani 1977: E. Mangani, Due anfore della
scuola del Pittore di Micali a Orbetello, Pro-
spettiva, 2, pp. 41-46.
Mansuelli 1966: G.A. Mansuelli, Etruria
and Early Rome, London, 1966.
Marangou 1995: L. Marangou, Ancient
Greek Art from the Collection of Stavros S.
Niarchos, Athens, 1995.
Martelli 1981: M. Martelli, Un askos nel
museo di Tarquinia e il problema delle presen-
ze nord-ioniche in Etruria, Prospettiva, 27,
1981, pp. 2-14.
Martelli 1992: M. Martelli, Festa Etrusca,
in Kotinos. Festschrift fr Erika Simon, Hrsg.
A. Froning, Mainz, 1992, pp. 342-346.
Martelli 2004: M. Martelli, Unanfora ca-
pitolina del Pittore dei Satiri Danzanti, Bol-
lettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, 18,
pp.7-14.
Martha 1889: J. Martha, Lart trusque,
Paris, 1889.
Marzi 1988-1989: M. G. Marzi, Un gruppo di
vasi delle collezioni granducali nel Museo Ar-
cheologico di Firenze, Prospettiva, 53-56,
1988-1989, pp. 25-29.
Masci 2007: M. E. Masci, The birth of
ancient vase-collecting in Naples in the early
eighteenth century. Antiquarian studies,
excavations and collections, Journal of
the History of Collections, 19, 2007, pp.
215-224.
Masci 2008: M. E. Masci, Picturae Etrusco-
rum in Vasculis: La raccolta Vaticana e il col-
lezionismo di vasi antichi nel fne Settecento,
Roma, 2008.
Massa-Pairault 1999: F.-H. Massa-Pai-
rault, Mito e miti nel territorio volsiniese,
AnnFaina, 6, pp. 77-109.
von Mercklin 1937: E. von Mercklin,
Etruskische Keramik im Hamburgischen Mu-
seum fr Kunst und Gewerbe ii, StEtr, 11,
1937, pp. 359-385, pl. xxxiv-xlv.
Meyer 1989: J. C. Meyer, Roman History in
Light of the Import of Attic Vases to Rome and
Etruria in the 6
th
and 5
th
Centuries B.C.,
arid, 1989, pp. 47-68.
Micali 1832: G. Micali, Monumenti per servi-
re alla storia degli antici popoli italiani, Fi-
renze, 1832.
Micali 1844: G. Micali, Monumenti inediti a
illustrazione della vita degli antichi popoli ita-
liani, Firenze, 1844.
Minetti, Rastrelli 2001: A. Minetti, A.
Rastrelli, La necropoli della Palazzina nel
Museo civico archeologico di Sarteano, Siena,
2001.
Mingazzini 1930: P. Mingazzini, Vasi della
collezione Castellani, Catalogo, Roma, 1930.
Mingazzini 1935: P. Mingazzini, Review of
P. Ducati, Pontische Vasen, Leipzig 1932,
Gnomon, 11, 1935, pp. 68-76.
Minto 1930: A. Minto, Populonia. Scavi e sco-
perte fortuite nella localit di Porto Baratti du-
rante il 1924-1925, NSc, 1930, pp. 346-373.
Minto 1940: A. Minto, Vasi dipinti della ne-
cropoli di Cannicella (Orvieto), StEtr, 14,
1940, pp. 367-375.
Mizuta 1991: A. Mizuta, Corpus Vasorum An-
tiquorum Japan 2. Schwarzfgurig unf Rotf-
gurig in Japanischen Sammlungen, Tokyo,
1991.
Moignard 1989: E. Moignard, Corpus Vaso-
rum Antiquorum Great Britain 16, The Natio-
nal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, Oxford,
1989.
Monaci 1965: M. Monaci, Catalogo del Museo
archeologico Vescovile di Pienza, StEtr, 33,
1965, pp. 425-468.
Montelius 1895: O. Montelius, La civilisa-
tion primitive en Italie depuis lintroduction
desmtaux, Stockholm, 1895.
Moretti Sgubini (a cura di) 2001: Veio, Cer-
veteri, Vulci. Citt etrusche a confronto. Cata-
logo della mostra (Roma 2001), a cura di A.
M. Moretti Sgubini, Roma, 2001.
Moretti Sgubini (a cura di) 2002: Vulci: Sco-
perte e riscoperte. Nuovi dati dal territorio e
dai depositi del Museo. Catalogo della mo-
stra, a cura di A. M. Moretti Sgubini, Mon-
talto di Castro, 2002.
Moretti Sgubini 2005: Tuscania e Orvieto,
AnnFaina, 12, 2005, pp. 213-244.
Moretti Sgubini, Ricciardi 2001: A. M.
Moretti Sgubini, L. Ricciardi, Necropo-
li dellOsteria. Il complesso delle tombe dei Va-
si del Pittore di Micali (A 2/1998) e del Kotta-
bos (A 9/1998), in Moretti Sgubini (a cura
di) 2001, pp. 220-230.
Moretti Sgubini, Ricciardi 2005: A. M.
Moretti Sgubini, L. Ricciardi, Usi fune-
rari a Vulci, in Dinamiche di Sviluppo delle
citt nellEtruria meridionale. Veio, Caere,
Tarquinia, Vulci. Atti del xxiii Convegno di
Studi Etruschi ed Italici (Roma, Veio, Cer-
veteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania, Vulci,
Viterbo, 1-6 ottobre 2001), Pisa-Roma,
2005, ii, pp. 523-530.
Moretti Sgubini, Ricciardi, Maneschi
Eutizi, Tocci 2002: A. M. Moretti Sgu-
bini, L. Ricciardi, L. Maneschi Eutizi,
A. M. Tocci, Necropoli dellOsteria, Pogetto
Mengarelli. Tomba a buca 2001, in Moretti
Sgubini (a cura di) 2002, pp. 63-68.
Naso 1993: A. Naso, Scavi sui Monti della Tol-
fa nel secolo xix: documenti e materiali, Ar-
chClass, 45, 1993, pp. 55-117.
Oloffson 1996: M. St. Oloffson, Celebra-
tion or Death ? Aspects of a New Amphora
from the Micali Painters Workshop and the
Iconography of Etruscan Black-Figured Vases,
OpRom, 21, 1996, pp. 107-118.
Osborne 2001: R. Osborne, Why Did Athe-
nian Pots appeal to the Etruscans? Archaeolo-
gy and Aesthetics, World Archaeology,
33.2, 2001, pp. 277-295.
Osborne 2004: R. Osborne, The Anatomy of
a Mobile Culture: The Greeks, their Pots and
their Myths in Etruria, in Mobility and Travel
in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the
Middle Ages, edited by R. Schlesier, U. Zel-
lmann, Mnster, 2004, pp. 23-36.
Paleothodoros 2002: D. Paleothodo-
ros, Pourquoi les Etrusques achetaient-ils des
vases attiques?, Les tudes Classiques, 70,
2002, pp. 139-160.
Paleothodoros 2004-2007: D. Paleotho-
doros, Dionysiac Imagery in Archaic Etru-
ria, EtrSt, 10, 2004-2007, pp. 187-201.
ros, Commercial Networks in the Mediterra-
nean and the Difusion of Early Attic Red-f-
gured Pottery (525-490 BC), Mediterranean
Historical Review, 22.2, 2007, pp. 165-181.
ros, Iconographic analysis and Archaeologi-
cal Contexts: Case Studies from Greece and
Etruria, in The World of Greek Vases, edited
by L. Hannestad, V. Norskv, C. Isler-
Kernyi, S. Lewis, Roma, 2009, pp. 45-62.
Paleothodoros (forthcoming): D. Paleo -
thodoros, Etruscan Black-Figure in Con-
text, in Proceedings of the 17
th
International
Congress of Classical Archaeology, Rome,
September 2008.
Pallottino 1937: M. Pallottino, Tarqui-
nia, Monumenti Antichi Lincei 36, Roma,
1937.
Pallottino 1980: M. Pallottino, Il Museo
Nazionale di Villa Giulia, Roma, 1980.
Palmieri 2005a: A. Palmieri, Le incinerazio-
ni tarquiniesi di VI e V secolo a.C., in Papers
in Italian Archaeology vi. Communities and
Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Me-
dieval Period. Proceedings of the 6
th
Confe-
rence of Italian Archaeology held at the
University of Groningen, Groningen In-
stitute of Archaeology, The Netherlands,
April 15-17, 2003, edited by P. Attema, A.
Nijboer, A. Ziferero, Vol. i, bar is
1452, Oxford, 2005, pp. 208-215.
Palmieri 2005b: A. Palmieri, Lanfora del Pit-
tore di Micali RC 1042 del Museo di Tarquinia:
un caso di special commission?, Mediterra-
nea, ii, 2005, pp. 107-132.
Paolucci 1991: G. Paolucci, La collezione
Terrosi nel Museo Civico di Chianciano Terme,
Chianciano Terme, 1991.
Paolucci 1992: G. Paolucci, Su un gruppo di
foculi etruschi con decorazione ornamentale di-
pinta in nero. A proposito di alcuni frammenti
da Chianciano Terme, aion, 14, pp. 77-93.
Paolucci 1993: G. Paolucci, Due krateri-
skoi etruschi a fgure nere dal Camporsevoli
sul Monte Cetona, aion, 15, pp. 109-117,
pl. 12-17.
Paolucci 1999: G. Paolucci, Il confne setten-
trionale del territorio di Orvieto e i rapporti con
Chiusi, AnnFaina, vi, 1999, pp. 281-295.
Paolucci 2000: G. Paolucci, Nota su una ky-
lix a fgure nere da Chianciano Terme, Oc-
nus, 8, 2000, pp. 119-126.
Paolucci 2001: G. Paolucci, Due nuove anfo-
re del Pittore di Gerusalemme da Chianciano
Terme, ArchClass, 52, 2001, pp. 207-221.
Paolucci 2003: G. Paolucci, Nel Museo di
Siena, nuovi vasi del Pittore di Gerusalemme,
ArchClass, 54, 2003, pp. 331-339.
Paolucci 2004: G. Paolucci, Due tombe tar-
do-arcaiche da Cetona nel Museo Archeologico
di Perugia, RdA, 28, 2004, pp. 17-21, pl. v-
viii.
Paolucci 2007a: G. Paolucci, Immagini etru-
sche. Tombe con ceramiche a fgure nere dalla
necropoli di Tolle a Chianciano Terme, Mila-
no, 2007.
Paolucci 2007b: G. Paolucci, La collezione
Grossi nel Museo Civico di Chianciano Terme,
Roma, 2007.
Paolucci 2007c: G. Paolucci, Catalogo. Se-
zione Immagini Etrusche, in Tesori dal Silen-
zio. Arte e Spiritualit a Chianciano Terme
dagli Etruschi allet moderna. Catalogo del-
la mostra (Roma, Museo Nazionale di Ca-
stel SantAngelo 11 gennaio-4 marzo 2007),
a cura di G. Paolucci, S. Reali, Bisenzio-
Prato, 2007, pp. 62-68.
Paolucci 2009: G. Paolucci, Tombe a bu-
ca con ossuari etruschi a fgure nere da
Tolle, in Etruria ed Italia preromana. Studi in
onore di Giovannangelo Camporeale, ii, Pisa-
Roma, 2009, pp. 661-666.
Paolucci, Rastrelli 1999: G. Paolucci, A.
Rastrelli, Chianciano Terme I. Necropoli
della Pedata (tombe 1-21), Necropoli di Via
Montale (tombe 2-4), Roma, 1999.
Pasqui 1885: A. Pasqui, Prima relazione sugli
scavi eseguiti nellantica necropoli tarquiniese
in contrada Monterozzi, dal 2 novembre 1882
al 12 magio 1883, NSc, 1885, pp. 437-473.
Passeri 1767-1775: G. B. Passeri, Picturae
Etruscorum in Vasculis, Roma, 1767-1775.
Pfuhl 1923: E. Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung
der Griechen, Mnchen, 1923.
Pierro 1984: E. Pierro, Materiali del Museo
Nazionale di Tarquinia, vi. Ceramica ioni-
ca non fgurata e coppe attiche a fgure nere,
Roma, 1984.
Pistolesi 2001-2002: M. Pistolesi, Contribu-
to alle collezioni del Museo Guarnacci. Ce -
ramica etrusca a fgure nere della collezione
chiusina, Quaderno del laboratorio uni-
versitario volterrano, vi, 2001-2002, pp.
157-162.
Pistolesi 2004: M. Pistolesi, Sui vasi etru-
schi a fgure nere atticizzanti: il Gruppo di
Monaco 892, AH, i, 2004, pp. 99-114,
pl. 9-16
Pistolesi 2007: M. Pistolesi, Ceramica etru-
sca a fgure nere atticizzante, in Materiali di-
menticati, memorie ricuperate, a cura di M.
Iozzo, Chiusi, 2007, pp. 71-76.
Plaoutine 1941: N. Plaoutine, Corpus Vaso-
rum Antiquorum France 15, Palais des Beaux
Arts de la Ville de Paris (Petit Palais), Collec-
tion Dutuit, Paris, 1941.
Pottier 1901: E. Pottier, Vases antiques du
Louvre, Paris, 1901.
Prange 1993: M. Prange, Corpus Vasorum
Antiquorum Deutschland Bd. 64, Kiel, Kun-
sthalle, Antikensammlung, Bd. 2, Mnchen,
1993.
Rallo 2009: A. Rallo, Addenda al Gruppo La
Tolfa, in Etruria e Italia Preromana. Studi in
Onore di Giovannangelo Camporeale, II, Pisa-
Roma, 2009, pp. 749-766.
Rasmussen 1979: T. Rasmussen, Bucchero
Pottery from Southern Etruria, Cambridge,
1979.
Rastrelli (a cura di) 1986: Le necropoli etru-
sche di Chianciano Terme, Catalogo della Mo-
stra, a cura di A. Rastrelli, Montepulciano,
1986.
Rastrelli 1991: A. Rastrelli, Museo Ar-
cheologico di Chiusi, Roma, 1991.
Rendeli 1989: M. Rendeli, Vasi attici da
mensa in Etruria. Note sulle occorrenze e sulla
distribuzione, mefra, 101, 1989, pp. 545-
579.
Rendeli 1996: M. Rendeli, La necropoli del
Ferrone, Roma, 1996.
Reusser 1988: Ch. Reusser, Antikenmuseum
Basel und Sammlung Ludwig. Etruskische
Kunst, Basel, 1988.
Reusser 1993: Ch. Reusser, Una tomba vi-
sentina nel Museo Archeologico di Chiusi.
Considerazioni sulla fase arcaica di Bisenzio,
Prospettiva, 70, 1993, pp. 75-86.
Reusser 2002: Ch. Reusser, Vasen fr Etru-
rien. Verbreitung und Funktionen Attischer
Keramik im Etrurien des 6. und 5. Jahrhun-
derts vor Christus, Zrich, 2002.
Reusser 2003: Ch. Reusser, La cramique at-
tique dans les tombes trusques, in Le vase grec
et ses destin. Catalogue de lExposition (Mu-
se Royal de Mariemont 28 mai-28 seprem-
bre 2003 et Avignon, Muse Calvet, Mars-
Juin 2004), Mnchen, 2003, pp. 166-178.
Ricci 1955: G. Ricci, Necropoli della Banditac-
cia, Zona A del Recinto, MonAnt, 42,
1955, coll. 202-1047.
Richter 1911: G. M. A. Richter, Department
of Classical Art. The Accessions of 1910, bm-
ma, 6, 1911, pp. 30-36.
Riis 1938: P. J. Riis, Tyrrhenica, Copenhagen,
1938.
Riis 1953: P. J. Riis, An Introduction to Etruscan
Art, Copenhagen, 1953.
Rizzo 1981: M. A. Rizzo, Corredi con vasi pon-
tici da Vulci, Xenia, 1, 1981, pp. 13-48.
Rizzo 1983: M. A. Rizzo, Contributo al reper-
torio iconografco della ceramica pontica,
Prospettiva, 32, 1983, pp. 48-59.
Rizzo 1987: M. A. Rizzo, La ceramica a fgure
nere, in La ceramica degli Etruschi. La pittura
vascolare, a cura di M. Martelli, Novara,
1987, pp. 31-42.
Rizzo 1988: M. A. Rizzo, La ceramografa
etrusca tardo-arcaica, in Rizzo, Spivey
1988, pp. 29-38.
Rizzo 1989: M. A. Rizzo, Una nuova hydria
ceretana ed altri prodotti della ceramografa
arcaica dEtruria, BdA, 56-57, 1989, pp.
1-16.
Rizzo 1994: M. A. Rizzo, Percorsi ceramogra-
fci tardo-arcaici ceretani, Prospettiva, 73-
74, 1994, pp. 2-20.
Rizzo 2009: M. A. Rizzo, Una nuova anfora
pontica del Pittore di Paride, in Etruria e Italia
Preromana. Studi in Onore di Giovannangelo
Camporeale, II, Pisa-Roma, 2009, pp. 793-
797.
Rizzo, Spivey 1988: Un artista etrusco e il suo
mondo, il pittore di Micali, a cura di M. A.
Rizzo, N. Spivey, Roma, 1988.
Roncalli (a cura di) 1991: Antichit dellUm-
bria a New York, a cura di F. Roncalli, Peru-
gia, 1991.
Roncalli (a cura di) 1999: Museo regionale
della Ceramica di Deruta. Ceramica greca,
italiota ed etrusca. Terrecotte, lucerne e vetri,
a cura di F. Roncalli, Milano, 1999.
Rouet 2001: Ph. Rouet, Approaches to the
Study of Attic Vases. Beazley and Pottier, Ox-
ford, 2001.
de Ruyt 1964-1965: F. de Ruyt, Sagi e scoper-
te della Missione Belga nella necropoli etrusca
di Castro (Viterbese, Agosto 1964), RendPon-
tAcc, 37, 1964-1965, pp. 63-81.
Santangelo 1954: M. Santangelo, LAnti-
quarium di Orbetello, Roma, 1954.
Sannibale 2003: M. Sannibale, Anfora etru-
sca a fgure nere del Gruppo la Tolfa, in LAc-
qua degli Dei. Immagini di Fontane, vasella-
me, culti salutari e in grotta, Montepulciano,
2003, pp. 80-82.
Santoro 1989: P. Santoro, Alcuni frammenti
di ceramica etrusca arcaica provenienti da
Caere, in Secondo Congresso Internazionale
Etrusco (Firenze 26 Magio-2 Giugno 1985), Fi-
renze, 1989, pp. 961-966.
Scheffer 1984: Ch. Scheffer, The Selective
Use of Greek Motifs in Etruscan Black-Figu-
red Vase Painting, in Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposion on Greek and Related Pot-
tery, Amsterdam 1984, edited by H. A. G.
Brijder, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 229-233.
Scheurleer 1927: G. W. L. Scheurleer,
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Pays Bas 1, La
Haye, Muse Scheurleer 1, Amsterdam, 1927.
Schwarz 1983: S. Schwarz, A Vulci Vase in
the Getty Museum, in Greek Vases in the Getty
Museum 1, Malibu, pp. 121-134.
Schwarz 1984: S. Schwarz, Etruscan Black-
Figure Vases in the US National Museum of
Natural History, rm, 91, 1984, pp. 47-77, pl.
35-42.
Schwarz 1989: S. Schwarz, Orvieto Vases in
the Getty Museum, Greek Vases in the Getty
Museum 4, Malibu, 1989, pp. 167-180.
Serra Ridgway 1989: F. R. Serra Ridgway,
Etruscan Vases, cr, 39, 1989, pp. 341-344.
Sieveking, Hackl 1912: J. Sieveking, R.
Hackl, Die Knigliche Vasensammlung zu
Mnchen, Mnchen, 1912.
Small 1987: J. P. Small, Left, right and center:
direction in Etruscan Art, OpRom, 16,
1987, pp. 125-135.
Small 1991-1992: J. P. Small, The Etruscan
View of Greek Art, Boreas, 14/15, 1991-
1992, pp. 51-65.
Small 1994: J. P. Small, Scholars, Etruscans,
and Attic painted vases, jra, 7, 1994, pp.
34-58.
Spivey 1987a: N. Spivey, The Micali Painter
and his Followers, Oxford, 1987.
Spivey 1987b: N. Spivey, Review of B. Ginge,
Ceramiche etrusche a fgure nere, Roma, 1987,
Prospettiva, 50, 1987, pp. 82-84.
Spivey 1988a: N. spivey, Il Pittore di Micali, in
Rizzo, Spivey 1988, pp. 11-21.
Spivey 1988b: N. Spivey, The Armed Dance in
Etruria, in Ancient Greek and related pottery.
Proceedings of the Symposium (Copen-
hagen 1987), edited by J. Christiansen, T.
Melander, Copenhagen, 1988, pp. 592-603.
Spivey 1991: N. Spivey, Greek vases in Etruria,
in Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Ra-
smussen, N. Spivey, Cambridge, 1991, pp.
131-150.
Spivey 1996: N. Spivey, Etruscan Art, Lon-
don, 1996.
Spivey, Rasmussen 1986: N. Spivey, T.
Rasmussen, Dioniso e i pirati nel Toledo Mu-
seum of Art, Prospettiva, 44, 1986, pp. 2-8.
Stibbe 1977: K. Stibbe, Pontic Vases in Oxford,
MededRome, 10, 1977, pp. 7-11.
Stopponi 2005: S. Stopponi, Unanfora etru-
sca a fgure nere dal Lago di Fiastra, in
AEIMNHTO. Miscellanea di studi in
memoria di Mauro Cristofani, Prospettiva,
Suppl., pp. 496-505.
Szilgyi 1971: J. G. Szilgyi, Le Peintre de
Munich 833, bmhba, 37, 1971, pp. 19-23
Szilgyi 1981a: J. G. Szilgyi, Impletae
Modis Saturae, Prospettiva, 24, 1981, pp.
2-24.
Szilgyi 1981b: J. G. Szilgyi, Corpus Vaso-
rum Antiquorum Hongrie, Fascicule 1, Buda-
pest, Muse Hongrois des Beaux Arts, Fascicu-
le 1, Budapest, 1981.
Szilgyi 1997: J G. Szilgyi, Ceramica etrusca
a fgure nere e a vernice nera, in La Raccolta
Giacinto Guglielmi. Parte I. La Ceramica, a
cura di F. Buranelli, Roma, 1997, pp. 280-301.
Szilgyi 2005: J. G. Szilgyi, Due kyathoi, in
AEIMNHTO. Miscellanea di studi in
memoria di Mauro Cristofani, Prospettiva,
Suppl., pp. 361-377.
Szilgyi et alii 1988: J. G. Szilgyi et alii,
Etruskische schwarzfgurigen Keramik, in Die
Welt der Etrusker. Archologische Denkmaler
aus Museen der sozialistischen Lander. Staa-
tliche Museen zu Berlin, Haupstadt der DDR
Altes Museum, vom 4. Oktober bis 30. Dezem-
ber, Berlin, 1988, pp. 137-152
Talocchini 1981: A. Talocchini, Ultimi
dati oferti dagli scavi vetuloniesi, Pogia Pel-
licia Costa Murata, in LEtruria Mineraria.
Atti del xii Congresso di Studi Etruschi ed
Italici (Firenze-Populonia-Piombino, 16-
20/7/1979), Firenze, 1981, pp. 99-138.
Torelli 1985: M. Torelli, LArte degli Etru-
schi, Roma-Bari, 1985.
Tronchetti 1983: C. Tronchetti, Materiali
del Museo Nazionale di Tarquinia v, Ceramica
attica a fgure nere. Grandi vasi. Anfore, peli-
kai, crateri, Roma, 1983.
Vagnetti 1971: L. Vagnetti, Il deposito votivo
di Campetti a Veio. Materiali degli scavi 1932-
1950, Firenze, 1971.
Van Der Meer 1984: L. B. Van Der Meer,
Kylikeia in Etruscan Tombs, in Greek and Re-
lated Pottery. Proceedings of the Sympo-
sium, edited by H. A. G. Brijder, Amster-
dam, 1984, pp. 298-304.
Van Der Meer 1986: L. B. Van Der Meer,
Greek and Local Elements in a Sporting Scene
by the Micali Painter, in Italian Iron-Age Arte-
facts in the British Museum. Papers of the
Sixth British Museum Classical Collo-
quium (London 1982), edited by J. Swad-
dling, London, 1986, pp. 439-445.
Van Der Wielen, Van Qumeren, De La-
chenal (a cura di) 2007. La dea di Sibari e il
santuario ritrovato. Studi sui ritrovamenti del
Timpone Motta di Francavilla Maritima. I1.
Ceramiche di importazione, di produzione co-
loniale e indigena (i), Bollettino dArte,
Volume Speciale, a cura di F. Van der Wie-
len, Van Qumeren, L. De Lachenal, Roma,
2007.
Vickers 1985-1986: M. Vickers, Imaginary
Etruscans: changing perceptions of the Etru-
scans since the ffteenth century, Hephai-
stos, 7-8, 1985-1986, pp. 153-167.
Waldhauer 1923: O. Waldhauer, A Black-
Figured Hydria of the Polygnotan Period,
jhs, 43, 1923, pp. 170-175, pl. vi.
Walters 1905: H. B. Walters, History of
Ancient Pottery, London, 1905.
Warden (ed.) 2004: Greek Vase Painting.
Form, Figure and Narrative. Treasures of the
National Museum in Madrid, edited by P. G.
Warden, Meadows Museum of Fine Arts,
Dallas, 2004.
Wehgartner 1983: I. Wehgartner, Corpus
Vasorum Antiquorum Deutschland 51, Wr-
zburg, Martin-von Wagner Museum, 3, Mn-
chen, 1983.
Werner 2005: I. Werner, Dionysos in Etru-
ria. The Ivy-Leaf Group, Stockholm, 2005.
Wiel-Marin 2005: F. Wiel-Marin, Vasi
reali e vasi rafgurati nelle tombe dipinte di
epoca arcaica, in Pittura parietale, pittura va-
scolare. Ricerche in corso tra Etruria e Cam-
pania, a cura di F. Gilotta. Napoli, 2005,
pp. 9-17.
Williams 2005: D. Williams, The beginnings
of the so-called Pontic Group and other Ital-
ian black-fgure fabrics, in AEIMNHTO.
Miscellanea di studi in memoria di Mauro
Cristofani, Prospettiva, Suppl., pp. 352-
360.
Winckelmann 1764: J. J. Winckelmann,
Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums, Dresden,
1764.
Wnsche (Hrsg.) 2003: Herakles Hercule.
Ausstellungkatalog, Staatliche Antiken-
sammlungen Mnchen, Hrsg. R. Wn-
sche, Mnchen, 2003.
Zifferero 1996: A. Zifferero, Scavi e Sco-
perte, StEtr, 61, 1996, pp. 425-426.
Zilveberg 1986: M. Zilveberg, The La Tol-
fa Painter: Fat or Thin?, in Enthousiasmos,
Essays on Greek and Related Pottery present-
ed to J. M. Hemelrijk, edited by H. A. G.
Brijder, Amsterdam 1986, pp. 49-60.
composto i n carattere dante monotype dalla
fabri zi o serra edi tore, pi sa roma.
stampato e ri legato nella
ti pografi a di agnano, agnano pi sano ( pi sa) .
*
Ottobre 2011
(cz 3 fg 22)

Paleothodoros Etruscan Black Figure

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Paleothodoros Etruscan Black Figure

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MEDI TERRANEA

Casella postale n. 1, Succursale n. 8, i 56123 Pisa,

Potrebbero piacerti anche