30104452

8/13/2019 30104452

1/20

A Forger of Graffiti

Author(s): P. Corbett and G. WoodheadSource: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 50 (1955), pp. 251-265Published by: British School at AthensStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30104452.

Accessed: 17/11/2013 16:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British School at Athensis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of

the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30104452?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30104452?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa

8/13/2019 30104452

2/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI(PLATES0-53)

A RECENT number of this Annual (BSA XLVIII 191 ff.) included an account of a lengthygraffito, which was tentatively interpreted as a product of the political ferment in Athens in411 B.C.1 The graffito was on a fragment of a fish-plate, and round the rim was a secondinscription, part of a dedication, the latest possible date for which appeared to be c. 435 B.C.;however, the evidence at present available indicates that plates of this form were not producedbefore the fourth century.2 This discrepancy was pointed out, but as the content andexecution of the graffito seemed to exclude the likelihood of forgery, the only remainingexplanation appeared to be that the evidence for the chronology of Attic pottery had beenmisinterpreted; more specifically, that fish-plates were in fact already being made in thethird quarter of the fifth century, and that the shape remained stable, without any perceptiblevariations for over forty years. A conclusion of this kind would have far-reaching implications,since the dating of buildings or objects in an excavation often has to be inferred from thepottery discovered with them; accordingly when further material came to light which provedbeyond all doubt that the graffito concerned must be rejected as a forgery, it was felt that thesubject is of sufficiently general concern to warrant a detailed exposition.The new evidence consists of the series of inscribed sherds which are published in catalogueform at the end of this article; in the discussion wnich follows they will be referred to by theircatalogue numbers. A convenient starting point is provided by the collection of pieces (nos.1-23) from the Forgeries Cupboard of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities inthe British Museum. Even a brief study of the illustrations will show that they are all by thesame hand (PLATES 50-52); some of the letter forms are varied-theta is sometimes crossed(sometimes indeed rectangular) and sometimes has a bar; sigma has three bars in someinstances, four in others-but certain characteristics recur unchanged, in particular the lop-sided omegasand mus, the use of + as an interpoint, and, most striking of all, kappa with ahorizontal lower bar.3 On one sherd (20), the letters are rather larger than usual, but similarletters occur on another piece (i9), together with others of the smaller size; and the unusualname XdapavGpogrovides an additional link between 20 and the rest, for it recurs on 3. Yetalthough the handwriting is constant, a good proportion of these graffiti bear the names of anumber of different people, as potters or as dedicators. Moreover, many of the sherds canbe dated with reasonable precision; they cover a considerable range of time, running from

We should like to acknowledge with gratitude the generous assistance of all those who have put much of this material,or information about it, at our disposal, and to express our particular thanks to Miss L. H. Jeffery, Madame S. Karouzou,Professor K. Kiibler, Professor E. Vanderpool, Dr. C. T. Seltman, Mr. Lucas A. Benachi, the authorities of the GreekHigh School in Alexandria, and the Trustees of the British Museum. We are especially indebted to Professor W. Peek,who most kindly supplied us with his notes and photographs of nos. 29-31 ; we have had the benefit of his advice through-out, and he has acknowledged his agreement with our conclusions.We regard it as not unreasonable to suppose that more sherds by the same hand remain scattered in public or privatecollections without their authenticity being so called into question, and it may be expected that our catalogue will forma substantial nucleus, to which additions will from time to time be made.1 See now SEG XII 562.2 A summary of the evidence will be found in an appendix at the end of the catalogue.

3 Ancient examples of this form can be found; e.g. HesperiaVII 235, and 234, fig. 64, Group D; XIX, pl. III, 4.They are comparatively rare, and the majority of writers and stone-cutters seem to have preferred to give the lower bar adefinite downward slant.

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.127 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:30:22 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/13/2019 30104452

3/20

252 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEADthe middle of the fifth century (17) to the second half of the fourth (6 and 7), so that theycould not all have been inscribed in antiquity by the same man. A furtherpoint is that onmost signed vases the name of the potter or painter is written in paint; incision is favouredby some-the most obvious instance is Hieron, who frequently incised his signature on thehandle of a cup-but this incision, like the incised lines in black-figuredrawing, was normallyexecuted before firing; 4 the group of sherds we are consideringincludes no fewer than eightexamples of the formula, so-and-so i.roiEaEv, ll of which show every sign of having beenscratched into fired clay. The shapes of the eight different vases from which these fragmentscome can be identified; they were all plain black vases of the second quarter of the fourthcentury or later. Potters' signatures are rare on vases without pictures at any period; splentiful on unfigured Little Master cups, of course, but that is a different matter from plainblack. Signatures become increasingly rare on figured Attic vases towards the end of thefifth century, and die out completely soon after400 B.C.,6 so that a single example of a potter'sname on an Attic red-figuredvase of, say, the middle of the fourth century would be verysurprising; eight examples on plain black ware are incredible. Four other sherds alsopurportto give the signatureof a potter; here the formula is Epyov ollowed by a propernamein the genitive. This usage is utterly foreign to pottery and is taken from sculpture; eventhere it is comparatively uncommon.' Perhaps the most familiar example is the stele ofAristion,Epyov Apia-roKAuS,which was discovered n 1839; Loewy, writingin 1885,describesit as in the Theseion, though in i893 Conze speaks of it as in the National Museum; 8 nodoubt the transfer took place between the two dates. One thinks inevitably of no. I2,Npyov ApicroK[ On two sherds, 2 and 3, the signature includes the ethnic, 'Aerlvaios;thisusage, though not absolutelyunparalleledon vases, is extremelyunusual.9 It is interestingto note that two of the known exampleswere in private hands in Athens in i875; a furtherspecimen was acquired by the Varvakeion Museum in 1881.10 In seven other instances thewriter was not content with the repetition of a genuine, though unusual, formula; we find'AiJvrleEv nstead of 'A0lvaioS on 4, 5, and 6, which looks like an uncritical echo of thephrase on Panathenaic amphorae, rc-Ov'AfOvrleOv&0?cov, nd is certainly unique; even moreextraordinary is the abbreviation 'AeE, which occurs on three other pieces (7, 8, and 12).Errorsare also to be found in the terminations of some of the names; Navaitorprrrl (5), anoriginal blend of Nxvcio-rpcrrosand NaUralKprrrlS;XCOKp&rs and 'APX'AEuSi i and 4), non-Attic genitives. Erroneous again is the use of the demotic MEhMTErv's a proper name (6).And although the actual execution of the graffitiis deceptively careful, there are a few placeswhere the forgerhas given himself away; on the two fragmentswith incised pictures, 18 and19, the way in which some of the lines stopjust shortof the break, while othersrun down overthe fractured surface, proves beyond all doubt that the incision was carried out after thefragmentshad been reduced to their present size, in other words that neither of the drawingswas ever complete; on 15, which begins ]-roSdvaVrlKE,the surface is pitted just to the leftof the tau,but a tongue of glaze is preservedon which part of one or more of the preceding

* A possible exception is the polychrome phiale in the British Museum, D 8, which is signed by Sotades as potter;the letters are so scratchy and ill-formed that one wonders whether they may not have been incised after firing.5 Cf. Klein, Meistersignaturen211-I14.6 The introduction of potters' signatures on some Panathenaic amphorae from the second quarter of the centuryonward is a special case, which cannot be discussed here.7 See Loewy, Inschriftenriechischer ildhauer, assim,and also Marcad6, Recueildessignaturesdes sculpteurs recs I (1953),passim.8 Die attischeGrabreliefs .9 Cf. the lekythoi with the signature of Xenophantos, ARV 874-5, and some of the signatures of Teisias, Hoppin,Handbook f GreekBlack-figuredVases347-50.Ravet, RA 1875, 173. Collignon, BCH V I78, nos. 8 and 9.


8/13/2019 30104452

4/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 253letters would be visible, if the graffitowere genuine. Nothing of the kind can be seen, andthe presumptionis that the missing part of the name never existed.All these lines of argument lead to the same conclusion, that the twenty-threesherdsforma closely connected group, and that all are false. Four other pieces can be added, nos.24-28 (PLATE 53); the first three show the letter-formsand peculiarities characteristic of themajority of the group discussedabove, while for 28, with its somewhat larger letters, the bestcomparisonis 20o. Finally, and most important, comes a further group of four pieces, 29-32(PLATE 53), the last one being the sherdpublishedin BSA XLVIII 191ff.; all of them are fromfish-plates; all have a lengthy graffitoon the top; only 31 lacks a second inscription roundthe rim. All are by one hand, the same hand as the preceding twenty-eight, showing thesame peculiaritiesof kappa,mu,and omega, nd the same use of a cross as an interpoint, whichcan only be paralleled within the group. The script is more careful, and the alphasaredifferent, with the right-hand oblique strokeprojectingat the top and the bar sloping up fromleft to right, but a glance at the lengthy graffito 23 (also on a fish-plate) shows us the forgerchanging over from one form of alphato the other in the course of his work.Like any other stylistic judgement, the verdict that all the graffiti show the same hand-writing is open to the charge of being subjective. It is thereforereassuring to be able toaugment the evidence that nos. 29-32 are false by the recognition of one of the sourcesfromwhich the forgerdrew in compounding them; the evidence is set out in detail in the catalogue,where it will be seenthat no fewerthan twenty-onewordsor combinations of letters arecommonto the group of four sherdsand a single ancient inscription; 11 the common elements, includingsome words that are out of the ordinary and one very unusual name, cannot be due to purechance; the odds against it would be astronomical. Moreover, no less than five names fromthe list at the end of the inscription occur on three of the sherds already discussed (3, 4, andIo); none of these is particularly common, and once again the correspondence cannot befortuitous. In other words, the same source which provided some of the text for the lengthygraffiti also supplied part of the repertoryof names from which the forger made his selectionfor the signatures;12 the connection between the four fish-plate fragments and the otheritems in the catalogue is thus reinforced. And even the use of + as an interpoint mayperhaps arise from a misunderstandingof part of the same inscription. In the list of nameson the narrow side of the stone, each item is followed by an abbreviateddemotic; in a numberof instances the first or second letter of the abbreviation is a phi, and in this section phi wasengraved in a cruciformshape, with flattened or, to all appearances,non-existentloops. pqnthe form of archaic chi, though unusual, occurs with some frequency in inscriptionsfrom themiddle of the fourth century onwards,13as a simplified variant of the ' flattened' phi. Sincethe two occur side by side in this inscription, a casual observer might easily mistake thesymbol, which, read as a chi, would not make sense, but which none the less recurs after somany of the names, for some kind of punctuation.It remains to consider the circumstances n which the forgerieswere made. Our know-ledge of the history of some of the fragmentsis confined to statements by dealers about theirprovenience; 30 and 31 were purchased in Athens in 1934, and were said to come from Ano

"n IG XII 9, 191. In RevPhil 1939, 139, L. Robert mentioned that ten years previously he had seen in Athens forgedgraffiti based on this inscription, but as no details were given, it was not until the same inscription had been identified asone of the sources of nos. 29-32 that there was any reason to connect them with Robert's account. Robert made use ofthe same evidence in his article concerning the genuineness of our no. 32 in CRAI I954, 494-505, but by the time of itsappearance this MS. was already with the printer.12 It is possible that we can identify another of his sources. Pheidestratos (25) and Smikron (x6, 26) are slightlyunusual names; together with Kephisodoros, they occur on IG II2 742.13 For Attic examples see W. Larfeld, Griechische pigraphik 1x94), 273.


8/13/2019 30104452

5/20

254 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEADLiossia; 32 was said to have been found on the North Slope of the Acropolis. The historiesof three other pieces are such that, if they did not so clearly belong to a group of indisputableforgeries, there would be no reason to suspect them; 27 was published among the fragmentsfrom the Acropolis excavations (though it had no excavation number), while 24 and 25 arestated to be from Naukratis; indeed the Museum numbers on 24 imply that it came to theFitzwilliam Museum with the sherds from the excavation of 1899. There is more ampleinformation about the sherdsin the British Museum; although they were not entered in theregisterof accessionstill 1920, there is a note against the entry, ' Presentedby the Rev. GrevilleChester, 15 Dec. 1899. (from Megara?). All given as examples of forged ostraca.' Chesterwas primarily interested in the Near East; he travelled extensively, acquiring various anti-quities, many of which he gave or sold to the Museum. His account of the sherds s containedin a letter written in Smyrna, 25th November 1889; he had passed throughAthens en route:

'My dear Mr. Murray,'As I knew the interest which is taken in the B.M. in inscribed Greek pottery Ibought a quantity of fragments found amidst the debris thrown down from theParthenon. As I have made no study of Greekpottery this was a stupid thing to do, andGardner declares that all the inscriptionssave 2 or 3 areforged. He has not quite con-vinced me, and anyhow, if false, they are far better done than others executed y himselfandpupils, whereof I saw several specimens at the British School. One objection ofG's was that they were tooperfectand begun at the rightplace,but this is of no conseq.for I selected my bits from a quantity of others ome of which had only a letter or twoa piece.'I also bought a broken plaque, representing a king over whose head is writtenKYPOI, which I and Gardner both suspected, but he does not quite condemn it asmodern. Unfortunately on its way here it got still more broken.'There is no mention of the sherdsamong the Museum reportsof purchasesand donations, so

one may be fairlysure that Murray,too, saw that the graffitiwere false and convinced Chester,who did not trouble to remove them. Some thirty years later the decision appears to havebeen taken to make a proper record of them, but by that time the recollection of the storywas clearly a little blurred,for the reputed provenienceis mis-statedand the plaque, separatedfrom the rest of the batch, had been registeredtwo yearsbefore without any note on its history.The letter establishesthe fact that the graffiti 1-23 were in existence before the end of 1889.An upper limit for the production of some members of the group is given by the history ofthe inscription upon which they were based; IG XII 9, 191, was discovered in Chalcis inI860, transferred o Athens in 1862, and was in the Tower of the Winds for some time beforeEustratiades published it in i869.14 Consequently 29-32, with the probable addition of 3,4, and io, cannot have been forged before i86o, and were probably not made until 1862.15Obviously, the pieces which do not copy the inscription from Chalcis mayhave been madebefore I860, and 24-31, which were not part of Chester's lot, maybe later than 1889, butsome of the graffiti certainly were produced between these two limits, and as the whole groupseems homogeneousit does not appear very likely that the forger'sactivities extended over aprolonged period.As for the place where he worked, the answer is almost certainly Athens. Most of thefragments were bought there (1-23; 27; 29-32); and it is beyond all doubt that two of his

14 AE II 317 f.15 If the connection between IG IP2 1742, and 25, 16, and 26 is accepted, the upper limit for these three is 1875, forthe inscription was found when the Frankish Tower in the Propylaia was demolished in that year.


8/13/2019 30104452

6/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 255productions (18; 28) imitate graffiti from the Acropolis. Unfortunately we cannot decidewhether the Acropolis sherds came from the great excavations of 1885-1900 or from one ofthe many earlier campaigns, but in any case they were not published till 1933, and so couldonly be known to someone on the spot. The inscriptionfrom Chalcis was in Athens; so werethe stele of Aristion, the inscriptionfrom the Frankish Tower and some of the vases signed byTeisias 6 'AOrlvatos-in fact, most of the objects suggested as the originals which the forgercopied. It seems clear from the mis-spellingsand mistakes that he was not a scholar, or atleast not a sound one; on the other hand, he knew ancient Greek and was familiar withgenuine antiquities. Indeed, he probably picked up his knowledge by direct observation ofthe originals, and not from books; for example, he transferswords and formulae correct inthemselves, like 'AOi'lvrOEVr Epyov followed by the genitive, to contexts where they areout of place. His knowledgeof the name .xapavGpoS,owever, is less easy to explain; he mayhave visited Corfu and while there noted down details of minor antiquities, but a moreplausible hypothesisis that he took the name from a publication, either from CIGor from oneof Mustoxydis' two works; if so, he must have had access to an academic library or havemoved in circles where such books were available. The fact that one of his productionsappeared among the genuine finds from the Acropolis, whether as a plant or by mischance,and that two others copy Acropolis finds, invites the supposition that he was actually con-nected with the excavations; one thinks perhaps of some occupant of a minor post, clerk ortechnician, it might be. If so, the provenience given for Chester's sherds might be correctafterall; great quantitiesof plain black potterywere discovered on the Acropolis, and nothingwould be easier for the forger than to supply himself with the raw material for his work.Genuine finds certainly were abstracted from the excavation and sold to travellers andcollectors; some if not all of the graffitimay well have been manufacturedin an attempt totake advantage of this illicit traffic.One final problem remains, that the two sherds in Cambridge are said to come fromNaukratis. At first sight the statement is hard to reconcile with the fact that they belong toa group of forgeries which were probably made in Athens, but certain points are perhapssignificant. D. G. Hogarth, who was in charge of the excavations at Naukratisin 1899,hadbeen at the British School at Athens in 1886-8, and was there as Director from 1897 to 1900;C. C. Edgar, who published the pottery and graffiti from the excavation, was at the Schoolfrom 1895 to 1898. Either man could very well have acquired the sherdsin Athens, withoutnecessarily believing them authentic. Few people are entirely successfulin preventing oddsand ends from accumulating on their desk; it needs only a little mis-directedtidiness from anassistantfor one's private curiositiesto be irretrievablyconfused with genuine material in thesame room. We shall probably never know the full history of these two sherds; the versionsuggested above does not pretend to be more than a possibility, and one can think of alter-natives. In any case this aspect of the matter is comparatively unimportant beside theessential fact that the two graffiti, together with all the others in the group, are undoubtedlyforged.

CATALOGUE 16i. Fragment from the wall of a bowl. PLATES 50 and 51. British Museum, 1920.2-23.2.Maximum dimension, 0o075 m. Sufficient of the rim has survived to show that it turned out

16 The texts are transcribed in conventional type. The character of the letters appears plainly in the photographsand needs no description. It may, however, be worth remarking that theta is written as a circle with a horizontal strokeexcept in nos. 7, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 3ob, and 32b, where it consists of a cross within a circle or rectangle; sigma has threebars except in nos. 2, 3, 4, 14, and 23, where it has four (14 in fact contains one example of each type); pi throughout hasa short right-hand stroke.


8/13/2019 30104452

7/20

256 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEADfairly sharply. There is a reservedline at the lowest point of the outside which is preserved.For bowls of this kind, see HesperiaII 317, fig. 3, A 7, and Olynthus III, pl. 219, nn. 755 and756; the present example belongs to the second or third quarterof the fourth century.Graffito: on the outside, ]2 + IXOTEAHIEHOIEXENon the inside, HIEPONTEEAEENA[.Both inscriptionsrun parallel to the wheel-marks.2. Fragment of a light cup-kotyle. PLATE 50. British Museum, 1920.2-23.22. Maxi-mum dimension, 0-o61 m. Part of the foot and undersideare preserved. There is a scrapedline just above the junction of the wall and foot; the resting surface is reserved; on theunderside are the remains of two neat zones of glaze. The profileof the foot is rather coarse;in the interior is part of a rouletted circle. The form of the foot indicates a date in the firsthalf of the fourth century, while the roulettingshows that the vase can hardly be earlier thanthe beginning of the second quarterof the century. For the characteristicsof the shape, andthe history of its development see HesperiaXVIII 323, on no. 39.Graffito: round the inner face of the foot, ]KAHI+ EHOIEXEN;in the outer zone of glaze, ]NAIOX+ [.

3. Fragment of a plate. PLATES50 and 51. British Museum, 1920.2-23.16. Estimateddiameter of the foot, oi i8 m. All the rim is lost, but about half of the floor and foot havesurvived. Glazed all over; the underside rises to a cone at the centre. On the top are twolinked palmettes, with part of a third; the outer border of the impresseddesign is four circlesof rouletting. This variety of plate was currentduring the fourth century, fromthe end of thefirst quarter onward; see HesperiaXVIII 325-6, on no. 41, and OlynthusXIII, pls. 226-30.The form of the present example and the character of the palmettes suggest a date aroundthe middle of the century.Graffito: on the top, running in an arc parallel to the rouletting,KTHXIKPATHXAMEINOKPATOYX[

running in the arc of a circle round the underside,XAMANAPO2AOENAIOI EnOIEXE[.The only recorded instance of the name Samandros appears to be an inscription on Corfu,which was published by A. Mustoxydis, IllustrazioniCorciresi1 (1814), 103, and repeatedwith the addition of an illustrationin his Delle CoseCorciresi (1848), 320. It was republishedby Boeckh, CIG 1913, from Mustoxydis and from a drawing by Broendsted; and finallyrepeated in IG IX I, 938. Broendsted, who is a reliable witness, left Greece in 1813.

KT-rcOTKpT-rrls,f. IG XII 9, 191, C, 17. 'AI.JEVOKp&Trqs,bid.C, 42.4. Fragment of a bowl. PLATE50. British Museum, 1920.2-23.18. Diameter of foot,o0-o7 m. Just over half of the foot is preserved, with most of the floor. Glazed all over,except for a reservedgroove in the restingsurface; the undersiderises to a cone in the centre.On the top are six cross-linkedpalmettes, surrounded by rouletting. It is not possible todecide whether the bowl from which this fragment comes had a rim that curved inward andoverhung the interior (as OlynthusXIII, pl. 219, 768) or one that turned outward like no. Iabove. The form of the foot and the underside show that its date cannot be earlier than the

end of the first quarter of the fourth century, and the poor quality of the glass suggests thatit may in fact be after the middle of the century.


8/13/2019 30104452

8/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 257Graffito: running in a circle round the underside,

AHMITI[O APXEAEY_E1TOIEIEN GENEGENacrossa chord of the circle, EYrIOAIl.After the graffito had been inscribed, a cross was scratched on the fragment with one armpartly obliterating the sigma in trOiEcrEVnd the other arm damaging other letters of thesame word. ATilptros: cf. IG XII 9, I91, B, 25; C, 25, 45. EfrrroAts: bid. C, 40.'APXEAEuS:n IG XII 9, 191, C, 43, the form 'ApXEAEOSccurs.5. Fragment of bowl or one-handled cup. PLATE50. British Museum, 1920.2-23.14.Diameter of the foot, c. o-o6o m. About half the foot, and rathermore than half the floor, arepreserved. Glazed all over, except for a reservedgroove in the restingsurface; the undersiderises to a cone at the centre. The glaze has fired chestnut. The form of the foot and under-side show that the fragment belongs at the earliest to the end of the first quarter of the fourthcentury.Graffito: running in a semicircle round the underside, NAY.IlTPATHE EHOIE[acrossthe diameter of the semi-circle, AGENEEEN.

6. Fragment of a bowl. PLATE50. British Museum, 1920.2-23.20. Diameter of foot,o'o65 m. All the heavy ring-foot has survived, with a little of the wall. The broad resting-surface is reserved; the glaze in the underside has fired orange brown. Elsewhere the glazeis dark brown, streaky, and rather dull. In the interior are four palmettes, set cruciform.For the form of the foot, compare HesperiaXVIII 329, fig. 5, 155. The character of thepalmettes indicates a date in the second half of the fourth century.Graffito: running in a circle round the resting-surface,MEAITEYI HOIEZENrunning in a circle round the underside, AOENEGEN.

7. Fragment of a bolsal. PLATE 50. British Museum, 1920.2-23.19. Maximumdimension, o0o55 m. About a quatter of the foot and floor is preserved. Glazed all overexcept for a reservedgroove in the resting-surface; the undersiderises to a cone at the centre.On the top are two impressed palmettes, with the remains of a third; two rouletted circlesform the outer border of the impressedornament. The form of the palmettes suggests thatthe date of the fragment is the third quarter of the fourth century. For the history of theshape, see HesperiaIV 504-5 and XVIII 331, 77-Graffito: running in the arc of a circle round the underside, AIONY 2iOTTOIE[acrossthe diameter of the circle, AGE[.

8. Fragment of a small bowl. PLATE 0. British Museum, I920.2-23.I3. Diameter offoot, o-o46 m. All of the foot has survived. Glazed all over except for a reservedgroove inthe resting-surface; the underside rises to a low cone at the centre. The form of the foot andunderside show that the fragment cannot be earlier than the end of the first quarter of thefourth century.Graffito: running in a circle round the underside, OEPENIKO1ErTOIEZENacrossthe diameter of the circle, AGE.

OEpiVlKOSs presumably a slip for QcEpiV1KOS,ut the confusion occurs on Acropolis dedi-cations; cf. IG 12 684 and 685 (Raubitschek, Dedications 283, 302). For the name cf. Graefand Langlotz II I547.s


8/13/2019 30104452

9/20

258 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEAD9. Fragment of a bell-krater. PLATE51. British Museum, I920.2-23.6. Maximumdimension, o-o77 m. The fragmentis the left-hand stem of one handle. The angle at whichthe handle sprang from the body and the curve of the stem suggest that the vase was madein the early part of the fourth century.

Graffito: at the foot of the stem, EPFONAPIETEDX.io. Part of the handle of a cup-kantharos. PLATE51. British Museum, 1920.2-23.3.Maximum dimension, 0-082 m. Enough survives to show in the interior the unmistakableinward curve of the cul of the vase just before its junction with the lip. Glazed all over.Too little of the wall of the fragment has survived to allow an exact dating, but the shape isunknown before the end of the first quarter of the fourth century.

Graffito: along the stem of the handle, EPFON+ APIYTfINOY.'Apio-rcov;cf. IG XII 9, 191, C, 41.I I. Fragment of a plate. PLATES50 and 51. British Museum, 1920.2-23.17. Maximumdimension, o-o96 m. Glazed all over. About a third of the foot is preserved,with a strip of

the floor. On the upper surface is part of a rouletted circle; the glaze has fired chestnut inplaces. The fragment comes from a plate of the same form as no. 3, and will be of much thesame date.Graffito: around the inner face of the foot, EPFON KEQDIlOAOPOYO[on the top, ]ON + IEKPATEYIANEOEKENHIE[.Krlcpa68copos; cf. interalia, IG II2 1742, 16.

12. Fragment of a bolsal. PLATE51. British Museum, 1920.2-23.21. Maximumdimension, 0-056 m. About a quarter of the foot and floor is preserved. Glazed all overexcept for a reserved groove in the resting-surface; the underside rises to a low cone at thecentre. On the top is part of a palmette and its enclosing circle of rouletting. For the shape,compare no. 7; the palmette suggestsa date around the middle of the fourth century.Graffito: running roughly in the arc of a circle round the underside, EPFON+ APIXTOK[across the diameter, AO[.

13. Fragment of an oinochoe. PLATE51. British Museum, 1920.2-23-7. Maximumdimension, o-o62 m. Part of the handle is preserved,with the lower root and a little of theinterior, which is unglazed; the exterior is glazed all over. The handle is oval in section;the vase clearly had a fairly pronounced shoulder, from which the handle sprang. Two redlines ran round the vase just below the level of the handle. The presence of these lines sug-gests that the date can be no later than the middle of the fifth century.Graffito: running upward along the handle, APIXTOMENE AN[AOENAIIQDTEIPA[.17

14. Fragment. PLATE51. British Museum, 1920.2-23.9. Maximum dimension, 0-053m. Part of a handle, oval in section, with the inner face flattened. Glazed all over exceptfor a narrow strip at one end; this reserved area is doubtless accidental.Graffito: running along the handle, AQPOAllA + AN[IEPON AOENAX.

" An unusual dedication, perhaps a reminiscence of the seat in the Theatre of Dionysus, IG II2 5063.


8/13/2019 30104452

10/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 25915. Fragment of an oinochoe, probably of shape III. PLATE52. British Museum,1920.2-23.10. Maximum dimension, 0-o95 m. Part of the handle is preserved, with a littleof the interior, which had a glaze wash. The handle has a central rib, but is not symmetrical;it is glazed all over.

Graffito: on one side of the rib, running upward along the handle,HIEPON[ ]NAIA 18on the other side, running downward, ]TOE ANEEEKEN.

16. Fragment. PLATE52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.8. Maximum dimension, 0o062m. Part of a handle; rather flat in section, with a low central rib. Glazed all over.Graffito: on one side of the rib, running along the handle, IEPONAGENAXon the other side, running the opposite way, ]OEKENIMIKPON.XI.iKpcov;cf. interalia, IG II2 1742, 66.

17. Fragment of a skyphos. PLATE52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.1. Maximumdimension, o0o69 m. Part of the lower wall of a skyphos of Corinthian type. Just abovethe foot is a reserved zone with single-line rays that do not cross; the rest of the fragment isglazed. For a vase of the same form as that from which our fragment comes, and contem-porary with it, see HesperiaXXII, pl. 29, 23; for the history of the shape, ibid. 72 on no. 26.Graffito: just above the reservedzone, EYOYAIKOMIKPO[.

18. Fragment. PLATE52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.4. Maximum dimension, o-o89m. From the shoulder of a large closed vase, perhapsan amphora. The interior is unglazed;on the exterior, the left foot and part of the drapery of a figure moving to the right. Thedrawing has been incised after firing; the ground line is high up on the shoulder of the pot;it is not set horizontally,but curvesupward to the right, and it stops shortjust before the breakat the right. Two of the lines of the drapery stop shortjust before the break; another runson over the fractured surface. Clearly the drawing was scratched on after the vase wasbroken; the style, too, is not ancient.Graffito: below the ground line of the picture, ]+ IEPOIYEXTEXAOENAX.

Compare Graef and Langlotz, II 1374; ] . IEPO1 YEE: AOEN[ , a fragment obviouslyseen by the forger. Until ProfessorPeek (ibid.13') showed that the seventh letter is a peculiarform of tau,it was read as upsilon. It was so understoodby the forger, who perhaps took theresult for a mis-spelling of iEpco0U'vrq;learly he then felt troubled by the resulting lack of adefinite article before 'AOrlvaS,nd supplied the deficiency.I9. Fragment. PLATE52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.5. Maximum dimension, 0-095

m. From the wall of a large open vase, perhapsa bell-krater. Glazed inside and out. Partof the left foot and draperyof a figurefacing to the right. The drawing has been incised afterfiring; one of the lines of the drapery stops shortjust before the break; three other lines runon over the fractured surface on the klft, and so does the nu below the figure's foot. Theisolated group of hanging folds is an impossibility. The drawing was scratched on after thevase was broken; the style is not ancient.Graffito: below the hanging drapery, AOENAbelow the ground-line in larger letters, ]NAIAX H[.

18 For the formula cf. IG 12460 (on bronze) and Raubitschek, Dedications386 (on stone).


8/13/2019 30104452

11/20

260 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEAD20. Fragment of a bell-krater. PLATE 52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.11. Maximumdimension, 0-082 m. Part of the foot. The form of the foot seems more developed than thelatest examples found at Olynthus (e.g. OlynthusXIII, pl. 38, 29; pl. 41, 34; pl. 48, 38); itis thereforeto be dated in the third quarterof the fourth century.

Graffito: upside down, along the face of the lowest member of the foot,EAMANAPOX NE)[upside down round the top of the lowest member of the foot, ]N AGENAIA.On Samandros,see no. 3.

21. Foot of a kantharos or cup-kantharos. PLATE 52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.15.Diameter, o-o43m. The broken stemof the foot hasbeen paredoff smooth with a knife. Thereis a groove in the resting-surface,but the fragment is glazed all over. It is hard to date thefragment precisely,as so little is left of the stem, but it can hardlybe earlierthan such examplesas HesperiaXXIII, pl. 24, i and j, which belong to the third quarter of the fourth century.Graffito: running in a circle round the interior of the foot, APlTOAAMOZin the centre of the circle, E.22. Fragment. PLATE 52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.I12. Maximum dimension,o-o96 m. From near the rim of a large open vase, perhaps a calyx-krater. Glazed all over.Graffito: ]1: APIETOAAMO[in larger letters, AE[.The apparent tail on the rho s accidental, being one end of a long scratch.

23. Fragment of a fish-plate. PLATE52. British Museum, 1920.2-23.23. Maximumdimension, 0-126 m. Estimateddiameter, 0-260 m. About an eighth of the rim is preserved,with part of the top. There is a reservedgrooveround the edge of the top, in which are tracesof a red wash. On the underside are two layers of glaze; a thick red one, over which is athinnerblackone, shadingoff into chestnut in places; on the top the greater part has fired red.Graffito: in radial lines,

P[OAIA[or TAFENOY [5 TATOYA.[XAMENOX.OYNTO2THN TI[FENOMENO El[KEYEIKAIEN TAI[io KA EN THI TTOAEIKAI TON AHMON. [KAA - AE KENT[KAI EN TOlI NAOI -1[NOX.S1 AE KA TA EA[

15 AIONYXIO[TON ET[AO[


8/13/2019 30104452

12/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 26124. Fragment of a black-figuredskyphos. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum 99 N 140.CVAII, pl. 20, 7. Said to be from Naukratis. CHC Group (Beazley, SomeAttic Vases n theCyprusMuseum 23). End of the sixth century or beginning of the fifth.

Graffito: in the band of glaze below the figures,]ITPATOX+ ANEOEKEN HIEPON+ [25. Fragment of a Panathenaic amphora. PLATE 53. Cambridge, Museumof ClassicalArchaeology, NA 239. Said to be from Naukratis. Maximum dimension, o0o85m. Fromthe shoulder of the vase. Part of Athena's shield is preserved; the blazon is a gorgoneion.On the extreme left of the fragment is part of the first letter of the prize inscription, -r[cSv'AeilvqeEv&e0cov]. There is a dull patch in the glaze around the El of Pheidestratos,butapart from this there is no evidence that the rim of the shield had a line of red or white dots.White was used for the Gorgon's face and ears; over this a series of black dots was placedalong the brow to represent curls or locks of hair; two more dots formed the pupils of theeyes, and a band of black glaze was used to limit the contour of each ear. In many places,where the glaze overlay the white, it has broken away. In some areas there is a thick layerof glaze, which has fired red, and above it a much thinner layer, which varies from reddish-brown to black; in other areas, although the two layers can still be distinguished, both areblack. To judge from the gorgoneion, the fragment is of approximately the same date as avase in Naples by the Achilles painter (AJA XLVII 448, 3)-Graffito: running along the rim of the shield, ]OY2 + QDEIAETPATOX[in the reservedbackground,runningparallel to the edge of the shield, AYXlAEMO[.

aE1OcaTrpcraros;f. IG II2 1742, IOI.26. Fragment of a black-figured cup. PLATE 53. Alexandria, The Greek High School.Part of the interior, with the central medallion; a cock, facing to the left. The cup is one ofa considerable number of poor black-figured cups produced in the first quarter of the fifthcentury; compare, out of many possible examples, CVALouvreX III He, pll. 15-16.Graffito: running in a circle round the medallion,

IMIKPONANEOEKENHIEPONTEIA[ ]AI IKTEPAI.The name, Smikron,which occurs also on no. 16 above, is not particularlycommon.27. Fragment of an amphora. Graef and Langlotz, Die AntikenVasenvon derAkropoliszu Athen, pl. 91, 1417-

Graffito: above the picture,O

.AENAIA ..NEP/EHNKA .EAITAIEfQZANOA/AE)lNTON

As a result of the present investigations Professor Peek also suspects nos. 1371, I474, I493,and I543-28. Foot of a vase. PLATE3. Cambridge: Dr. Charles Seltman. Purchased at thesame time as no. 32. From a cup, type A? Underside reserved, with two circles of glazeand a dot.


8/13/2019 30104452

13/20

262 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEADGraffito: running in a circle round the interior of the foot,

EM)AHAIE))EPFON))AeENAIA.Compare Graef and Langlotz II 1354: ]EN))AnAP+E(v))) EPFON) AGENAIA.The forgerhas failed to grasp that in the original other syllables must have preceded theinitial EN. He misread nu as mu; possibly he took the left arc of the lunate interpoint forthe fourth stroke of the letter. He also misread rhoas iota in d'rrapXiv, nd omitted the chi;he may perhaps have taken it for an interpoint, of the kind he himself favoured, and regardedit as superfluous.29. Fragment of a fish-plate. PLATE 53. Once Empedocles collection, now Athens,National Museum. Part of the top and rim are preserved.

Graffito: on the top, in radial lines, ]hA[.. O+- TH[XAN KAI -[FIPOXTHN VnO[5 TOE KAITAE[TOYX$OPOY[IEEITOYTQ[NOMENO[PIXIXThNIo APA KAI.[EINAITA[TOYX IN . [TONAE[nTANT.

i5 MOY[KA[Round the rim, ]=XEAEOX. IG XII, 9, '91, A.1.4 rrp6briTv rro[ 1. 37 wp6gSriv rr6AXv.1. 9 ]ptXioTv I. 58 TrvpptXirov.30. Fragment of a fish-plate. PLATE53. Halle, Professor Peek. Length, 0o092 m.Breadth, 0-032 m. Height of rim, o-oI9 m. Part of the top and rim are preserved.

Graffito: on the top, in radial lines,U[ (ProfessorPeek reads H).AN[TONAMY[5 TAFT[rPAGE[NYfZXI[ANTIXTO[EQHBONA[


8/13/2019 30104452

14/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 263io AEEIAHM[HE+ lAOE[aNlOXHE[APEYZ+ EFIA[or Mez KAIATTAN[i5 KAFAGAEN[AEIKAIEN[

AfQTnAIE[ATrNTE.r.[Round the rim, ]ONOI ANEOE[

1. Io AEISTJPI[1.13 apEvS1. 6 ypaqE[1. 7 vuwam[1. 8 &vT1'rTo[1.9 piPAy)v1. 15 KYayaeaEV

IG XII 9, 191, C.1. 22 AsE~i8ipos.Not a common name.1.48 ]8apEOs.191, A.1. 53 YP&pa.1. 52 6pyVCGam.1.58 avT1STrovrTCov.1.47 T)')VqC cov.1.55 KCY6ace, .

31. Fragment of a fish-plate. PLATE 53. Halle, Professor Peek. Length, 0o070 m.Breadth, 0-o37 m. Part of the top and rim are preserved.Graffito: on the top, set radially,

]TI[]QNT[]TAIME.[LfNTUN AH[5 KAITQNEIA[EN TETTAPX[TIANTATAK[. ONTDUN E[OPOYXKAITOY[zo XPONOXAnOAO[EN Tll IEP~ lTH[HN MH KATA[IlQNTAI TA[KAITAIAY[15 . PAKAIAN[]OTI. [

1.6 iv -rETrrTap[1. io Xpovos&arro8o1.II v -rA)tEpCAt

IG XII 9, 191, A.1. 7 iv Tnrrcapaw.1. 17 Xp6vosd&rroSoeil-rco.1.46 avTCOti3pCl,see also no. 32, 11. 19-20.


8/13/2019 30104452

15/20

264 P. CORBETT AND G. WOODHEAD32. Fragment of a fish-plate. Cambridge,Dr. Charles Seltman. Maximum dimension,

o-I6 m.; estimated diameter, c. 0-228 m. BSA XLVIII (1953), I9I f.The graffitois repeated here for ease of reference. On the top, set radially,

I[nP[OXA[ENA[5 KAIT[EXTAIA[1ON ME[NYONTI[HN + EAEX[io NYMcDQ I[IDNEYTONA[

NONI-ANTA[Ol TIPOBOYAOI[KEIMENA AYN[15 AIAAYIQNTAI[EPfAZOMENOII[ZAN THE V-OAEUI[ATOYI OPKOYXKAI[

eEN TMIIEPOTO[20 ANNOX + MOAAA[AITAIKENT~I A[ETIYHOIXANTEI[..] nAYTQlTEKA[]IIAPAeA[25 ].EXN[ARound the rim: ]TATOI ANEeEKE.

1.8 wovTCO[L.13 oi rrpopouvXo1.14 KEIPEVai. I5 Siavacovrait1. 16 Epya30pEovos1. i7 -rrSTrroECAo1. 18 ]a rous 6pKUov11.19-20 eEVTCAlEpCo o[1. 22 irTT1kTqp1'avTES

IG XII 9, 19I, A.1. 54 -nroPlv6VOrov.. 35 ol -rp6pouAoI.1.45 o(u)yKEilpEVa.1. 40 BcaWoaAovrat.1., 8 ypya3oPivotS.1.39 -ti S Tr6XEcoS.i. 55 rrap -rosO6pKOUS.1. 46 v T"rilep -roO A-rr6XXcovos.1. 53 i.nrlypl 3[


8/13/2019 30104452

16/20

A FORGER OF GRAFFITI 265APPENDIX: THE DATE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FISH-PLATE

Fish-plates were found at Olynthus; they also occur in the excavations of the AthenianAgora in contexts of the second quarter of the fourth century and later. There are no fish-plates in those deposits of pottery from the Agora which have as their lower limit the lastquarter of the fifth century. The evidence for the intervening period is scanty, but there area few groups of pottery in the Agora museum which seem to belong to the period from theend of the fifth century to the first quarter of the fourth. They include a certain number offish-plates, some of them lighter and a little more elaborate than the variety currentfrom thesecond quarter of the century onward. These are presumably early examples of the shape;the evidence suggests that they were produced some time in the first quarter of the fourthcentury, but it is conceivable that some of them are to be dated slightly earlier,just before400 B.C. The only evidence for an earlier development is the red-figured example whichSchefold (UKV II) dated ' around 430 B.C.', but there seems no good reason to put it so early.Though the vase came from a tomb, none of the associated material is illustrated or evenmentioned in the report, so that it is not dated by its context; we are not well supplied withpictures of fish by Attic artistsfor comparison,but one may compare with the dolphin anotheron a calyx-krater by the Upsala painter (Oxford, ProfessorMynors) of the middle of the firsthalf of the fourth century. P. CORBETTG. WOODHEAD


8/13/2019 30104452

17/20

B.S.A. L. PLATE 50.

3a 4

2

5

8 7

IIaIa6

AFORGER

OFGRAFFITI.

SHERDS

INTHEBRITISH

MUSEUM.

SCALE

2:3.


8/13/2019 30104452

18/20

B.S.A. L. PLATE 51.

3b9

13 4

12

iibb o

AFORGER

OFGRAFFITI.

SHERDS

INTHE

BRITISH

MUSEUM.

SCALE

2:3.


8/13/2019 30104452

19/20

B.S.A. L. PLATE 52.

16 2218

21

20

'5 '9

'7 23

AFORGER

OFGRAFFITI.

SHERDS

INTHEBRITISH

MUSEUM.

SCALE

2:3.


8/13/2019 30104452

20/20

B.S.A. L. PLATE 53.

26

25

AFORGER

OFGRAFFITI.

25CAMBRIDGE,

MUSEUM

OFCLASSICAL

ARCHAEOLOGY.

26ALEXANDRIA.

28CAMBRIDGE.

29ATHENS,

NATIONAL

MUSEUM.

30,31HALLE,

PROFESSOR

PEEK.

25,29,30,31:SCALE

ABOUT

2:3.

30104452

Documents