Analysis of medium-sized pouring vessels

Introduction

This article investigates the artefact variability of Attic Geometric pouring vessels. Macroscopic analysis is conducted on 103 ceramic artefacts in total. These are 84 vessels with complete profiles and 19 incomplete vessels or sherds. The majority of this material (73 artefacts, or 70.9%) comes from Athens, while 30 pieces (29.1%) have been identified by Coldstream (2003b; 2010) as broadly Attic.

The argument

This article argues that, based on metrical features and proportions, the production of pouring vessels became highly standardised only at the beginning of the Late Geometric period. During that time, new shapes, such as neckless trefoil oinochoai and pitchers, appeared alongside standard trefoil oinochoai with necks. Still, all types of pouring vessels were the products of the same chaîne opératoire and followed similar conceptualisations. Late Geometric standardisation is likely to indicate a reduction in the number of ceramic workshops producing pouring vessels, or a conscious shift towards specialisation in the production of such shapes, as a result of increasing consumption demands. The most standardised feature of all pouring vessels is their fabric: all pots have been produced from the same clay, resulting in the same two variants observed in large closed ceramic containers. The use of a single fabric remained unchanged for at least two centuries. The external treatment of elaborately decorated containers shifted towards the gradual abandonment of thick, lustrous coatings after MGII-LGIa, a period that coincided with the generalised use of figurative decoration. Despite this technological change in external treatments, all pouring vessels exhibit similarities, pointing to a chaîne opératoire controlled by a few, highly specialised potters or workshops. Such production units adhered to strict technological traditions and probably clustered at a single production site, particularly after LGIa.

Analysis of metrical features and proportions

The Athenian Agora (supplemented by the Kynosarges burials and the collections of the British School at Athens)

For the analysis of metrical features (metrics) and proportions of pouring vessels, 37 artefacts with complete profiles were selected and analysed. In this assemblage, 29 vessels come from the Athenian Agora, 1 from the Kynosarges burials and 7 from the collections of the British School at Athens. Pottery from Kynosarges and the British School’s collections is examined together with the Agora artefacts due to their broader decorative and stylistic similarities. With regard to its typological variation, the assemblage consists of 23 decorated trefoil oinochoai (9 of which are neck-less) and 6 decorated pitchers, all recorded in Charts 1 and 3. Only 4 vessels with complete profiles come from burial contexts; 27 come from mixed non-burial deposits, while the archaeological context of 7 vessels is unknown. In addition to this study, Chart 2 presents another 17 pieces coming from incomplete or fragmented pottery from the Athenian Agora, including 1 sherd from Kynosarges. These fragments are not used in the analysis of metrical features and proportions; however, they supplement the analyses of fabrics and decorative technology further below.

In the above ceramic assemblage, the typical comparison between rim diameters and net heights that applies to large containers is not applicable. This is because rim diameters cannot be recorded on trefoil oinochoai due to the recessed shape of their lips (or trefoil mouths); still, rim diameters are recorded for pitchers (Chart 1). The only direct comparison between the two typological groups relates to base diameters and net heights, as these features are recorded on both shapes.

Figure 1: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and base diameter. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels from the Agora, Kynosarges, and the British School’s at Athens collections with complete profiles.

Figure 1 shows the correlation between base diameter and net height for the assemblage described above. The scatter graph shows that trefoil oinochoai exhibit greater variability than pitchers, which appear standardised and distinct. All vessels form five clusters with specific typological and chronological properties, and the borderline between oinochoai and pitchers is at 33 cm net height.

Cluster 1 consists of 5 pots with different shapes: standard, broad and neck-less broad trefoil oinochoai. It is the only cluster containing broad oinochoai, which were produced in small heights with narrow bases. No distinct chronological pattern is noted in this group:

Cluster 2 is the densest of all clusters and shows two distinct properties: Firstly, the majority of vessels (12 out of 15) date in the Late Geometric period; secondly, it is the only cluster containing neck-less trefoil oinochoai:

Cluster 3 consists of 6 pots coming from the period between EGII and MGI. This group of standard trefoil oinochoai contains the tallest and widest vessels in the entire assemblage. Vessels' properties resemble those of the cluster with the largest decorated neck-handled amphorae from Kerameikos, and both clusters date in the same period:

Cluster 4 consists of 4 vessels with narrow bases, yet they are relatively tall. According to the shapes and chronological distribution of this group, no distinct pattern can be noted:

Cluster 5 contains every pitcher in the entire assemblage. Such vessels have standard base diameters and heights exceeding 33 cm. They all date in LGII:

Finally, Oinochoe P6401 from the Athenian Agora stands out and must be treated as a loner. This vessel is of average net height; however, it has the narrowest base diameter in the entire assemblage.

The presence of distinct groups of pouring vessels, which not only cluster by typology but also by broader chronological periods, indicates that any further analysis should accommodate two requirements: first, Late Geometric vessels must be examined separately; second, neck-less oinochoai must be treated as a distinct typological class. The analysis of mean proportions across two broader chronological groups, based on the data in Chart 3, shows fluctuations in standard deviation. More specifically, the proportions of neck length to net height and base diameter to net height for oinochoai produced after LGIa are smaller compared to those for oinochoai produced before LGIa. The opposite pattern is noted with regard to the proportion of handle attachment height to net height; however, it must be noted that the Late Geometric mean includes different typological sub-classes. As it is explained further below, once these typological subgroups are separated, Late Geometric pots show homogeneity with regard to all their proportional features:

Furthermore, most mean proportions of Late Geometric pitchers show lower standard deviations compared to those of trefoil oinochoai from the same period:

According to the comparison of standard deviations, trefoil oinochoai between EGII and MGII-LGIa exhibit greater artefact variability compared to those produced after LGIa. Furthermore, the clustering of LG oinochoai in Figure 1 suggests a greater degree of standardisation in their production than in their earlier equivalents. Finally, the most standardised of all pouring vessels is the pitcher.

The possibility of standardisation in the production of Late Geometric pouring vessels is also noted with regard to base shapes. Of the 39 oinochoai with recorded base diameters from three sites (31 in Chart 1 and 8 in Chart 2), 17 have ring bases. An example of a ring base (or ring foot) is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example of ring-based Early Geometric I oinochoe P3687 (Papadopoulos 2003, 100).

During the chaîne opératoire steps for the production of oinochoai (Figure 3), the ring base was formed during a separate episode on the potter’s wheel, which required the vessel to be inverted; therefore, forming such shapes without ring bases reduced the time of production by cutting down one of the chaîne opératoire steps. In the present assemblage, the majority of oinochoai with ring bases come from the period between EGI and MGII (14 out of 17):

This suggests that during the Late Geometric period, production moved towards greater simplification of the chaîne opératoire, while ring bases declined.

Figure 3: The assembling process of the Geometric trefoil oinochoai.

A similar move towards simplification during Late Geometric times is noted in the increase in neck-less shapes. Chart 1 shows that more than half of the Late Geometric trefoil oinochoai with complete profiles (9 out of 17) are neck-less. According to Figure 3, the manufacture and attachment of necks on oinochoai took place during two separate episodes on the wheel’s head; therefore, the production of neck-less vessels reduced the total chaîne opératoire by another two steps.

Figure 4: Four types of oinochoai examined in this article.

According to the comparison of the four oinochoai shapes examined in this thesis (Figure 4), vessels with necks and ring bases are the tallest and most complex of all. By contrast, broad or neck-less vessels with flat bases are shorter and simpler in their conceptualisation and execution (sensu Van der Leeuw 1994, 136-7); therefore, their production probably required less time and effort. As neck-less flat-based pouring vessels increased after LGIa, it is likely that the preference for simpler shapes and the reduction in chaîne opératoire steps were driven by increasing consumption demands. The same demands were probably responsible for greater standardisation in the production of pouring vessels.

The low standard deviations for the proportions of handle attachment height to net height (6.69) and neck length to net height (4.13) for oinochoai after LGIa suggest technological traditions followed in the production of such finewares. The same hypothesis is also likely for pitchers, where standard deviations for most mean proportions range at small percentages, with the exception of base diameter to rim diameter. Both cases require further investigation.

Figure 5: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and neck length. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels from the Agora, Kynosarges, and the British School’s at Athens collections with complete profiles.

Figure 5 presents the correlation of neck length to net height for 24 pouring vessels with necks and complete profiles. Nine neck-less trefoil oinochoai have been left out. According to the graph, the regression lines for oinochoai dating before and after LGIa appear close together. The regression line for the group before LGIa is y = 0.3565x + 0.3913 (where y = neck length and x = net height). In other words, the neck lengths of these oinochoai are roughly equal to 35.65% of a vessel’s net height. The difference of 0.3913 cm is too small to be considered. The coefficient of determination of the regression line (R2=0.7171) shows weak statistical correlation (71.71%).

A similar pattern is noted for the regression line of trefoil oinochoai produced after LGIa. There, the regression line follows the equation y = 0.3183x + 0.6431 (where y = neck length and x = net height). In this group, neck lengths are roughly equal to 31.83% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.6431 cm is too small to be considered. Similarly to the regression line for oinochoai before LGIa, the coefficient of determination (R2=0.7218) shows weak statistical correlation (72.18%).

The proportional pattern for LGII pitchers is unclear. The regression line for 6 vessels in Figure 5 is y = 0.4215x – 1.2491 (where y = neck length and x = net height). In other words, neck lengths of Attic pitchers are roughly equal to 42.15% of their net height, reduced by a difference of 1.25 cm. The coefficient of determination of this regression line shows 72.23% statistical correlation (R2=0.7223), which is equally weak to the correlation of trefoil oinochoai.

According to the above comparison, it is likely that similar patterns existed in the conceptualisation of necks between oinochoai and pitchers; however, these cannot be securely confirmed due to the ambiguous statistical correlations of the regression lines.

Figure 6: The assembling process of Geometric pitchers.

From a chaîne opératoire perspective, both pouring vessels follow a similar sequence in their assembling processes; therefore, they share common features of partonomy. The assembly process of oinochoai followed at least six steps before LGIa, and at least three steps after LGIa, when ring bases and necks were no longer popular (Figure 3). The same assembly process for pitchers included at least five steps, despite the fact that these vessels lacked ring bases and trefoil mouths (Figure 6). The necks of both typological classes were formed and attached during separate episodes on the potter’s wheel; therefore, it is likely that potters shared some similar conceptualisations with regard to neck lengths. In the above assemblage, these conceptualisations cannot be clearly mapped, and more samples are required. The situation is different regarding handle attachment heights.

Figure 7: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and handle attachment height. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels from the Agora, Kynosarges, and the British School’s at Athens collections with complete profiles.

Figure 7 presents the correlation between handle attachment height and net height for 36 of 37 pouring vessels with complete profiles from the three sites. Neck-less trefoil oinochoe P12115 is partly reconstructed with plaster, and its handle attachment height could be wrong; therefore, it was left out. Figure 7 also plots the correlation for neck-less oinochoai separately, given their distinct shape. According to the graph, the regression lines for the two oinochoai groups, dating before and after LGIa, follow different patterns. The regression line for the standard oinochoai group before LGIa is y = 0.6044x – 1.0072 (where y = handle attachment height and x = net height). The handles of these oinochoai are attached roughly at 60.44% of a vessel’s net height with a difference of 1.0072 cm. The coefficient of determination of the regression line (R2=0.8432) indicates an 84.32% correlation between the variables, which is relatively satisfactory.

The regression line for standard trefoil oinochoai produced after LGIa suggests a different pattern: y = 0.6565x – 1.8005 (where y = handle attachment height and x = net height). In this group, handles are attached at roughly 65.65% of a vessel’s net height, reduced by an average of 1.8 cm. By contrast, the coefficient of determination for oinochoai produced after LGIa (R2=0.9793) shows 97.93% statistical correlation, which is nearly perfect. The regression line for neck-less trefoil oinochoai produced after LGIa suggests no clear pattern. It follows the equation y = 0.7408x – 2.4625, and the coefficient of determination (R2=0.6308) indicates a weak statistical correlation.

According to the above, it is likely that the handles of standard trefoil oinochoai were attached with some specific conceptions that could relate to distinct technological traditions: before LGIa, handles were attached at roughly 60% (or 4/5) of a vessel’s net height, while after LGIa at roughly 66% of a vessel’s net height. The second pattern shows similarity with the proportions of handle attachment height to net height of neck-handled amphorae, noted in Chapter 4: both wares have their handles attached at roughly 2/3 of a vessel’s net height (between 65% and 68%). The coefficients of determination suggest that the group of standard trefoil oinochoai after LGIa shows less variability than before LGIa; therefore, the conceptualisation of such vessels was more standardised in the late phases of the Geometric era. Neck-less trefoil oinochoai do not suggest any clear pattern at this stage and will be re-examined later.

The regression line for the same proportion of 6 Late Geometric pitchers in Figure 7 follows the equation y = 0.5507x – 0.2951 (where y = handle attachment height and x = net height). In other words, the handles of Attic LGII pitchers are attached at roughly 55% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.2951 cm is too small to be considered. The coefficient of determination of this regression line (R2=0.8429) suggests 84.29% statistical correlation, which is relatively satisfactory. This pattern could relate to a different technological tradition, in which pitcher handles were attached roughly at the midpoint of a vessel’s height axis.

The Kerameikos cemetery

The analysis of metrical features (metrics) and proportions of medium-sized pouring vessels from Kerameikos is conducted on 24 artefacts with complete profiles. The assemblage consists of 19 decorated oinochoai (one of which is neck-less), 1 oinochoe-lekythos and 4 pitchers. All vessels have been recovered in burials, and their grave contexts are recorded in Charts 4 and 5.

In the original publication of oinochoai from Kerameikos, Karl Kübler (1954) recorded only height measurements. All other features in Charts 4 and 5 were measured on a smaller scale from published photographs and then scaled to the original net height measurements. To ensure the accuracy of calculated measurements, 5 oinochoai from the Kerameikos assemblage were selected for macroscopic analysis, and an accuracy test was conducted as described in the earlier article on large containers (Chart 6). During this accuracy test, it was initially verified that the height measurements recorded by Kübler (1954) were correct. Then, the actual base diameters were obtained by macroscopic examination and compared with those calculated from published photographs of the same artefacts. According to Chart 6, the difference between the real and calculated base diameters for the Kerameikos oinochoai ranges from -0.4 cm to +0.5 cm. Furthermore, differences between the real and calculated proportions of base diameter to net height range from -1.7% to +2.6%. This test shows that differences between real and calculated metrical features exist; however, they are too small to affect the analysis results.

According to the correlation of base diameter and net height in Figure 8, the total assemblage of pouring vessels forms three distinct clusters. Cluster 1 comprises 12 vessels from different chronological periods, ranging from EGII to LGIIb. All vessels have net heights below 25 cm. This cluster includes every Late Geometric oinochoe from the entire assemblage:

Cluster 2 consists of 6 oinochoai, all dating in periods before LGIa:

In this cluster, vessel heights range between 25 cm and 30 cm, while base diameters appear more diverse compared to those of cluster 1. Cluster 3 consists of all pitchers:

This cluster is the most distinct of all. Vessels are taller than 30 cm, and their base diameters do not vary. All pitchers date in LGII. Similar to the pitchers from Kynosarges and the collections of the British School at Athens, pitchers from Kerameikos stand out for their chronological and typological features.

Finally, Figure 8 shows that two vessels are loners: firstly, oinochoe-lekythos 1141 (MGII) is the smallest of all artefacts. This vessel was originally added to the assemblage to test whether oinochoai-lekythoi cluster with other typological classes. Figure 8 suggests that such shapes stand out due to their broad bases and short heights. Secondly, oinochoe 2149 is the largest vessel in the entire assemblage and stands out even in relation to pitchers. Based on its height (40.7cm), 2149 could also be classified as a giant trefoil oinochoe; however, the lack of distinct guidelines for the characterisation of such vessels and the tendency of scholars to see giant oinochoai as a LGI phenomenon (e.g. Brann 1961a; Galanakis 2013) prevent such characterisation for 2149. Instead, this vessel is treated as a standard trefoil oinochoe that happens to be larger compared to average pouring vessels from Kerameikos, and was also treated as such by Kübler (1954, 235). Similar to the cluster with the largest neck-handled amphorae from Kerameikos and the cluster with the largest trefoil oinochoai from the Agora, 2149 has been produced in the period between EGII and MGI.

Figure 8: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and base diameter. Athenian oinochoai and pitchers from the Kerameikos cemetery with complete profiles.

According to the above, all oinochoai produced after LGIa and all LGII pitchers exhibit a lower degree of artefact variability than oinochoai produced before LGIa. Late Geometric vessels appear standardised and likely indicate distinct technological traditions in their production, similar to those discussed for the Agora assemblage.

The analysis of mean proportions across two broader chronological groups, based on the data recorded in Chart 3, shows fluctuations in standard deviation. More specifically, the proportions of neck length to net height and base diameter to net height in oinochoai produced after LGIa are smaller than those before LGIa. By contrast, mean proportions of handle attachment height to net height show the opposite pattern:

Even though the total oinochoai assemblage from Kerameikos consists of 20 vessels (15 before and 5 after LGIa), the proportion of handle attachment height to net height could be calculated for only 17 vessels. This is due to the nature of some published photographs, which were taken from angles that prevent full visibility of the handles. Furthermore, mean proportions for pitchers show low standard deviations, with the exception of the proportion of handle attachment height to net height:

According to the above comparisons, it is likely that the neck lengths of Late Geometric oinochoai and pitchers were determined by potters according to specific conceptualisations, perhaps regulated by technological traditions. These resulted in lower artefact variability, as reflected in the lower standard deviations in the above means. By contrast, the proportion of handle attachment height to net height follows the opposite pattern: oinochoai produced before LGIa exhibit a smaller standard deviation and may be more standardised than those produced after LGIa. Both assumptions require further investigation.

Figure 9 plots the correlation between neck length and net height for 19 Geometric oinochoai with necks and 4 pitchers. By contrast to the material from the Agora, Kynosarges and the British School’s collections, pouring vessels from Kerameikos show different patterns of proportional increase between the two metrical features. Furthermore, regression lines either follow unclear patterns or show limited statistical correlation.

Figure 9: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and neck length with regression lines. Athenian oinochoai and pitchers from the Kerameikos cemetery with complete profiles.

More specifically, the regression line for trefoil oinochoai between EGII and MGII-LGIa is y = 0.4657x – 0.5297 (where y = neck length and x = net height). For this chronological group, necks are roughly equal to 46.57% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.5297 cm is too small to be considered. For this specific assemblage, the coefficient of determination of the regression line (R2=0.7778) indicates a weak statistical correlation of 77.78%.

According to the same scatter graph, all trefoil oinochoai produced after LGIa appear closely clustered, and no clear regression pattern is visible. Their regression line follows the equation y = 0.9888x – 13.705 (where y = neck length and x = net height), which is hard to explain. It could mean that the neck lengths of Late Geometric oinochoai are roughly equal to their net height (99%), reduced by an average of 13.7 cm. The coefficient of determination of this regression line (R2=0.507) shows weak statistical correlation (50.7%). This unclear pattern is most likely due to the sample’s nature and size.

A similarly unclear pattern is noted with regard to Late Geometric pitchers: their regression line follows the equation y = 0.7758x -15.013. This pattern could mean that pitchers' neck lengths are roughly 77.58% of their net height, reduced by an average of 15 cm. The coefficient of determination of this regression line (R2=0.9937) shows a perfect statistical correlation of 99.37%, which makes it more difficult to understand.

Figure 10: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and handle attachment height with regression lines. Athenian oinochoai and pitchers from the Kerameikos cemetery with complete profiles.

The proportions of handle attachment height to net height for the Kerameikos assemblage remain problematic. According to the scatter graph in Figure 10, all oinochoai produced after LGIa, and all pitchers, show regression lines that are difficult to interpret.

The regression line for Late Geometric oinochoai is y = -0.7884x + 29.244, and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.363) indicates a weak statistical correlation (36.3%). This equation does not change even if the neck-less trefoil oinochoe 874 is excluded from the data set. The same can be said of pitchers, where the regression line follows the equation y = 0.0641x + 18.823, showing almost no statistical correlation (R2=0.0337; 3.37%). The only regression line that makes some sense is that for oinochoai produced before LGIa. According to the graph, their regression line follows the equation y = 0.4716x + 0.74. This group of oinochoai from Kerameikos has its handles attached at roughly 47.16% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.74 cm is too small to be considered. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination of this regression line (R2=0.8711) indicates a relatively satisfactory statistical correlation of 87.11%.

According to the above scatter graphs, the material from Kerameikos is problematic, and no clear patterns are visible. The main problem is the small sample size and the dense clustering of all Late Geometric pouring vessels (both pitchers and oinochoai). This clustering is unlikely to reveal patterns similar to those noted for the same proportions discussed for the Agora-Kynosarges-British School assemblage. A larger statistical sample of intact vessels is necessary to supplement the above study.

The British Museum collections

The analysis of metrical features (metrics) and proportions of medium-sized pouring vessels from the British Museum collections is conducted on 23 artefacts with complete profiles. The assemblage consists of 10 decorated trefoil oinochoai (2 of which are giant), 1 oinochoe-lekythos, and 12 pitchers (recorded in Charts 7 and 8). All vessels derive from unknown contexts and are characterised as broadly Attic by Coldstream (2010), apart from those of suspected Athenian origin. Pitcher GR1877,1207.10 is probably from Phaleron and was added to test any similarities between Athens and other Attic fineware production centres.

In the British Museum assemblage, pitchers were the only vessels that could accommodate an accuracy test. For this test, published net height measurements were used to estimate rim diameters from photographs, which were then compared with the actual rim diameters reported in the original publication by Coldstream (2010). According to the test (Chart 9), the difference between the actual and calculated rim diameters for these vessels ranges from -0.8 cm to +0.5 cm. The difference between the real and calculated proportions of rim diameter to net height ranges from -1.9% to +1.6%. In Chart 9 pitcher GR1977,1211.4 could not allow clear calculation of rim diameter due to a large chip missing along its rim; therefore, this vessel was not included in the accuracy test. According to Chart 9, the differences between real and estimated metrical features are too small to affect the analysis results, and bias is expected to be limited.

Figure 11: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and base diameter. Decorated Attic oinochoai and pitchers from the British Museum with complete profiles.

Figure 11 plots the correlation of base diameter and net height for the above assemblage. According to that graph, both vessel types are mixed and scattered differently than in the assemblages discussed in the sections on the Agora and Kerameikos assemblages. Despite the high degree of scattering, the pouring vessels form two clusters. Cluster 1 consists of 14 pots: 8 oinochoai, 1 oinochoe-lekythos and 5 pitchers (3 of which have short necks). The chronological range of this cluster spans over 200 years, as it dates between LPG and LGIIb:

The general characteristic of this cluster is that all vessels are shorter than 35 cm, and their base diameters show greater variability than those of the second cluster. Cluster 2 consists of 9 vessels: 2 giant trefoil oinochoai and 7 pitchers:

This cluster is more homogeneous compared to cluster 1, as all vessels date between LGIb and LGIIb. Pottery in this cluster is taller than 35 cm, which is normal for pitchers and giant oinochoai.

Figure 11 suggests a trend that was not observed earlier in the analysis of the Agora-Kynosarges-British School and Kerameikos assemblages: even though oinochoai and pitchers from previous sites diversified clearly at heights of 33 cm and 30 cm, respectively, pitchers from the British Museum appear at lower heights and mix with oinochoai. This makes it difficult to see clear patterns of artefact variability.

The analysis of mean proportions across two broader chronological groups based on the information presented in Chart 8 shows that standard deviations for all of the oinochoai produced after LGIa are smaller compared to those produced before LGIa:

Even though all oinochoai from the British Museum number 11 vessels in total (6 before and 5 after LGIa), the proportion of handle attachment height to net height could only be calculated for 9 vessels. This is due to the nature of the two published photographs, which were taken from angles that prevent full visibility of handles. By contrast to previous comparisons of mean proportions for pitchers, this assemblage shows high standard deviations that are due to high variability within the statistical sample:

According to the above comparisons, it is likely that the neck lengths and handle attachment heights of oinochoai produced after LGIa were formed on specific conceptions that were not necessarily followed before LGIa. The lower standard deviation in the above means suggests less artefact variability. Both assumptions are investigated below.

Figure 12 presents the correlation between neck length and net height for all oinochoai and pitchers from the British Museum. By contrast with the unclear patterns from Kerameikos, this assemblage follows proportional patterns similar to those observed for the Agora, Kynosarges, and British School vessels. Furthermore, all regression lines appear parallel, and two of them merge almost completely. Oinochoe GR1877,1207.10 is a loner which stands out. This specific vessel probably comes from Phaleron; therefore, it may be the product of a different chaîne opératoire which did not follow the technological patterns seen in the production of Athenian or other Attic pouring vessels.

Figure 12: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and neck length with regression lines. Attic oinochoai and pitchers from the British Museum with complete profiles.

According to Figure 12, the regression line for trefoil oinochoai before LGIa is y = 0.4153x – 0.5853 (where y = neck length and x = net height). This means that neck lengths of early trefoil oinochoai are roughly equal to 41.53% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.5853 cm is too small to be considered. For this specific assemblage, the coefficient of determination (R2=0.5199) shows weak statistical correlation (51.99%). The same regression line for oinochoai produced after LGIa shows a clearer pattern. The regression line follows the equation y = 0.396x – 1.1538, which means that the necks of Late Geometric trefoil oinochoai are roughly 39.6% of a vessel’s net height, reduced by 1.15 cm. The coefficient of determination for this regression line (R2=0.99) indicates a perfect statistical correlation (99%).

All pitchers from the same assemblage follow a similar regression line, with Late Geometric oinochoai, and the two lines merge almost completely. The regression line for pitchers is y = 0.3857x – 0.7614 (where y = neck length and x = net height). The coefficient of determination for this regression (R2=0.7828) indicates a 78.28% statistical correlation, which is not entirely satisfactory. As all pitchers date in the Late Geometric era, the merging of their regression line with that for LG oinochoai could imply the presence of shared conceptualisations in the production of both wares: their necks were formed roughly at 40% (or 2/5) of a vessel’s net height; however, this suggestion must be treated with caution due to the different statistical correlations of both regression lines.

Figure 13: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and handle attachment height with regression lines. Attic oinochoai and pitchers from the British Museum with complete profiles.

Similar patterns are observed in Figure 13 regarding the proportion of handle attachment height to net height. In this scatter graph, all oinochoai produced before LGIa follow the regression line y = 0.4806x + 1.8076, while the coefficient of determination (R2=0.6386) indicates a weak statistical correlation (63.68%). However, the same regression line for oinochoai after LGIa follows the equation y = 0.6228x-1.3916 (where y = handle attachment height and x = net height). The coefficient of determination (R2=0.9619) indicates a strong statistical correlation (96.19%). According to this pattern, the handles of oinochoai produced after LGIa were attached at roughly 62.28% of a vessel’s net height, reduced by roughly 1.4 cm.

The regression line for Late Geometric pitchers in Figure 13 almost merges with that of oinochoai from the same period. Their regression line follows the equation y = 0.6508x – 2.6709, which means that vessel handles were attached roughly 65% of a vessel’s net height below, with an average reduction of 2.67cm. The coefficient of determination of this regression line (R2=0.9448) shows a strong statistical correlation (94.48%). It is likely that the handles of Late Geometric pitchers and oinochoai were attached at similar heights, a little below 2/3 (or 66.67%) of a vessel’s net height.

According to the above, the assemblage from the British Museum supports the lower degree of artefact variability in Late Geometric pouring vessels compared to the Early and Middle Geometric ones. Furthermore, there are strong indications that the conceptualisation of Late Geometric oinochoai and pitchers followed similar proportional patterns. This is more evident with regard to the proportion of handle attachment height to net height, where the regression lines for both vessel types show a strong statistical correlation. In general, the British Museum assemblage shows greater similarities with the Agora-Kynosarges-British School assemblage than with that from Kerameikos.

Analysis of fabrics

Fabric analysis is conducted on 25 Athenian oinochoai from the Agora, summarised in Chart 10. According to hand specimen examination, the fabrics encountered in this assemblage are the same as the ones described for large-sized containers. All vessels are made from the same fabric, available in two similar variants. Variant 1 is finer and harder, while variant 2 is softer, relatively ‘coarser’ and more calcareous (same as for large ceramic containers). By contrast, large ceramic containers were produced from variant 1, and their Munsell (1975) colours mainly belong to the upper 5YR series. The most prevailing fracture colour is 5YR 5/4. There is only one sample, P18618, which was produced from variant 2 and dates in EGII.

Figure 14: Fabric division for 25 oinochoai from the Athenian Agora.

According to Figure 14, variant 1 comprises 96% of the examined material. This fabric was used to produce various oinochoai across periods and contexts of recovery. The use of a single fabric is again indicative of a strong technological tradition in clay selection, manipulation and tempering practices.

Analysis of decorative technology

The analysis of decorative technology is conducted on a total of 56 pouring vessels (both complete pots and sherds) from three sites. The assemblage from the Athenian Agora consists of 47 decorated oinochoai (Chart 11). The assemblage from the Kynosarges burials consists of 1 oinochoe and 1 pitcher, and the assemblage from the British School’s collections consists of 2 oinochoai and 5 pitchers. The latter two assemblages are examined together due to their small size (Chart 12).

The Athenian Agora

Decorative colours of oinochoai from the Athenian Agora follow the same pattern observed for large containers from the same context. According to Figure 14, 94% of the samples dating before LGIa are painted in Group 1 colours (black or brownish black). The same colours prevail in the period after LGIa (93%); however, next to them, colours of Group 2 (brownish red or red) appear at 4% and Group 3 (orange or reddish yellow) at 3%. According to the comparison, the colours used for the decoration of oinochoai were highly standardised over time, with only a few exceptions. Colour Group 3 should be treated as a Late Geometric phenomenon with limited presence.

Figure 14: Comparison of decorative element colours of Athenian decorated oinochoai from the Agora.

Additionally, the period between EGI and MGII-LGIa is characterised by the dominance of coated vessels, similarly to the case of closed ceramic containers. According to Figure 15, vessels with black or brown/black-coated surfaces (colour Group 1) constitute 89% of the assemblage. Red or brownish red-coated oinochoai (Group 2) constitute 5% of the assemblage, and only 6% of all vessels are uncoated. By contrast, after LGIa, the majority of the samples (62%) are uncoated, and the vessels coated in the colours of Group 1 drop to 38%. During the same period, red and brownish red coatings (colour Group 2) disappear.

Figure 15: Comparison of coating colours of Athenian decorated oinochoai from the Agora.

Figure 16: Slip or coating quality of Athenian decorated oinochoai from the Agora.

Despite the decline in coating practices after LGIa, Figure 16 shows that the quality of external treatments in the Late Geometric period is more diverse, including thin lustrous coatings and thick metallic sheens, which do not occur in the earlier assemblage.

The above analysis suggests that Late Geometric oinochoai exhibit greater artefact variability in their decorative characteristics than those produced between EGII and MGII-LGIa. Late Geometric vessels are predominantly uncoated, and this may be due to the spread of the figurative style after c.760 BC, which required larger ‘blank’ surfaces for the painters to work on. The presence of more than one decorative colour and the existence of different coating qualities during the same period indicate advances in paint preparation, resulting in multiple chemical compositions, which are also related to advances in firing control. Similar to the elaborately decorated amphorae discussed in Chapter 4, the practice of coating the external surfaces of oinochoai declined significantly in Late Geometric times, but it was never completely abandoned.

The Kynosarges burials and the collections of the British School at Athens.

The assemblage of oinochoai from those two sites is too small to draw certain conclusions; however, according to the information presented in Chart 12, the assemblage probably follows the patterns observed for oinochoai from the Agora regarding their coatings and decorative colours. The decoration of Late Geometric pitchers appears to be homogeneous. All pots presented in Chart 12 are painted with motifs in colours of Group 1, and all vessels are covered with a thin matte wash in the colour of the original clay. The decoration and external treatment of pitchers follow the same characteristics described earlier for Late Geometric oinochoai.

Summary and discussion of the analysis of pouring vessels

The analysis of artefact variability in trefoil oinochoai and pitchers suggests that both pouring vessels share technological features and must be treated as products of the same chaîne opératoire. Even though standard trefoil oinochoai were produced all along the 9th and 8th centuries BC, neckless, broad and giant trefoil oinochoai, and pitchers appeared for the first time during the Late Geometric period. Neck-less trefoil oinochoai were the products of a simplified chaîne opératoire with fewer steps compared to that of standard trefoil oinochoai. Their production was probably intended to meet increasing demand for pouring vessels during Late Geometric times. Still, neck-less vessels bear the same properties as every other pouring vessel of that time. Pitchers and giant trefoil oinochoai were produced in larger sizes compared to standard, neck-less and broad trefoil oinochoai. Furthermore, pitchers exhibited greater standardisation with regard to their metrical features and decorative characteristics compared to all other typologies. There are some indications that the potters who produced pitchers had similar conceptions with those who produced all other pouring vessels, particularly in the shaping of their necks and the attachment of their handles.

The analysis of metrical features and proportions in this chapter shows that there is a chronological boundary in the production of Geometric trefoil oinochoai, set at the beginning of LGIa. Early and Middle Geometric vessels exhibit greater artefact variability than Late Geometric vessels, which cluster closely with respect to their net height and base diameter measurements. By contrast with amphorae, technological traditions in the production of oinochoai varied over time. The strongest technological traditions in their chaîne opératoire were most likely established in the Late Geometric period.

The regression lines for the proportion of neck length to net height for oinochoai produced before LGIa show that necks range between 35% and 47% of a vessel’s net height; however, all regression lines show weak statistical correlation:

Figure 17: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and neck length. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels produced before LGIa, from the Agora, Kynosarges, Kerameikos, British School at Athens, and British Museum collections, with complete profiles.

Comparing assemblages measured with different techniques (e.g., artefact handling rather than published photographs) can be problematic. Still, the scatter graph in Figure 17 for the proportion of neck length to net height for 35 vessels with necks from all sites verifies the above degree of uncertainty. According to the graph, Early and Middle Geometric oinochoai with necks appear highly scattered, and their regression line follows the equation y = 0.4002x + 0.1697. In other words, oinochoai necks were produced at an average of 40% in relation to a vessel’s net height. The coefficient of determination (R2) for this regression line (0.6301) indicates a weak statistical correlation (63.01%).

The comparison of the same proportions for oinochoai produced after LGIa is confusing due to the nature of the Kerameikos assemblage. The regression for Kerameikos makes no particular sense due to the nature of the sample:

Still, the regressions from the Agora-Kynosarges-British School and British Museum assemblages suggest that the necks of such oinochoai were produced at a proportion between 36% and 40% of a vessel’s net height. This range is smaller compared to that for Early and Middle Geometric vessels. The regression for the assemblage from the British Museum shows almost perfect statistical correlation, suggesting a distinct technological tradition.

The same thing is noted with regard to the same proportion for pitchers, which all come from the Late Geometric era. There, regression lines show that neck lengths range between 38% and 42% in relation to a vessel’s net height, even though the pattern for the Kerameikos assemblage does not match:

Although the regression from Kerameikos shows perfect statistical correlation, it makes no sense due to the nature of this assemblage. Furthermore, the coefficients of determination for the other two regression lines show ambivalent statistical correlation.

Despite this unclear situation, the correlation of neck length to net height for a total of 17 oinochoai with necks and 22 pitchers produced after LGIa from all five sites in Figure 18 suggests at least one technological tradition with high certainty. According to the scatter graph, the regression line for oinochoai is y = 0.3822x – 0.6189. In other words, necks of LG oinochoai were formed roughly 38.22% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.6189 cm is too small to be considered. The coefficient of determination for this regression line (R2=0.9555) indicates a strong statistical correlation (95.55%).

Figure 18: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and neck length. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels produced after LGIa, from the Agora, Kynosarges, Kerameikos, British School at Athens, and British Museum collections, with complete profiles.

The same proportion for pitchers in Figure 18 follows the equation y = 0.4051x – 1.0496 and partially overlaps the regression line of oinochoai. In other words, the necks of these vessels were formed at roughly 40.51% of a vessel’s net height, reduced by 1 cm. The coefficient of determination of the regression line (R2=0.7739) indicates a satisfactory statistical correlation (77.39%). It is interesting that the only pitcher suspected to be from Phaleron stands out. This vessel is most likely the product of a different workshop than the others.

The identification of distinct patterns related to the proportion of handle attachment height to net height of pouring vessels is clearer than that for the proportion of neck length to net height. Regression lines for oinochoai produced before LGIa show that handles were attached at heights between 47% and 60% of a vessel’s net height; therefore, they suggest a high degree of artefact variability:

According to the coefficients of determination, the assemblages from the Agora-Kynosarges-British School and Kerameikos show relatively satisfactory statistical correlations; however, the regression line from the British Museum assemblage must be treated with caution.

Figure 19: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and handle attachment height. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels produced before LGIa, from the Agora, Kynosarges, Kerameikos, British School at Athens, and British Museum collections, with complete profiles.

The scatter-graph for the proportion of handle attachment height to net height for a total of 31 EG and MG oinochoai with recorded handle attachments in Figure 19 verifies the above degree of uncertainty. According to the graph, Early and Middle Geometric oinochoai appear relatively scattered, and their regression line is y = 0.5526x - 0.4307. In other words, the handles of oinochoai were attached at roughly 55.26% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.4307 cm is too small to be considered. The coefficient of determination of this regression line (R2=0.7864) shows weak statistical correlation.

By contrast, the situation with oinochoai produced after LGIa is different. Regression lines for standard trefoil oinochoai from the Agora-Kynosarges-British School and British Museum assemblages show high statistical correlation (above 96%) and therefore a low degree of artefact variability. The handles of such oinochoai were attached between 62% and 66% of a vessel’s net height:

The Kerameikos assemblage and all neck-less vessels from the Agora-Kynosarges-British School assemblage stand out: their regression lines make little sense, and their statistical correlation is weak.

The same phenomenon is noted with regard to Late Geometric pitchers. Regression lines from all assemblages except Kerameikos indicate variations in handle attachment heights of 55%-65%. Statistical correlation varies: it is relatively satisfactory for the Agora-Kynosarges-British School assemblage and strong for the British Museum assemblage.

Figure 19 plots the proportion of handle attachment height to net height for a total of 18 oinochoai and 21 pitchers with recorded handle attachments from all sites. The scatter graph verifies that vessels produced after LGIa exhibit clear regression patterns, parallel alignment, and high degrees of statistical correlation. According to the graph, Late Geometric oinochoai form a regression line that follows the equation y = 0.6042x - 0.3899. In other words, the handles of oinochoai produced after LGIa were attached at roughly 60% of a vessel’s net height, while the difference of 0.3899 cm is too small to be considered. The coefficient of determination for this regression line (R2=0.9491) indicates a strong statistical correlation (94.91%).

The same regression line for Late Geometric pitchers follows the equation y = 0.6156x - 2.0422 and runs parallel to that of oinochoai. This means that the handles of pitchers were attached at roughly 61.56% of a vessel’s net height, with an average reduction of 2 cm. The coefficient of determination (R2=0.8998) for this regression line indicates a relatively strong statistical correlation (90%). Once again, the pitcher suspected to come from Phaleron is a loner.

Figure 19: Scatter-graph of correlation between net height and handle attachment height. Athenian/Attic pouring vessels produced after LGIa, from the Agora, Kynosarges, Kerameikos, British School at Athens, and British Museum collections, with complete profiles.

According to the above comparisons of two basic proportions, it is clear that Late Geometric pouring vessels were more standardised compared to their Early and Middle Geometric counterparts. The lower degree of artefact variability in pottery produced after LGIa suggests a small number of workshops or artisans were involved in the production of pouring vessels. By contrast, the higher degree of artefact variability during the earlier Geometric phases suggests more workshops and greater diversity. Although some distinct patterns for conceptualising different constituent vessel parts might have existed among potters before LGIa, these never became a tradition in the same sense as that noted for amphorae. Artefact variability persisted after LGIa; however, the lower degree of scattered variables and the relatively higher degree of statistical correlation in regression patterns suggest the establishment of specific technological traditions in vessel conceptualisation during Late Geometric times. The neck lengths of standard trefoil oinochoai were formed to be roughly 37.5% of a vessel’s net height, or in other words, roughly shorter than 2/5 (40%). The same conception might have existed for pitchers, although statistical correlation is questionable. Secondly, the handles of all Late Geometric oinochoai (regardless of typological class) were consciously attached at roughly (60%) of a vessel’s height axis, or in other words, at roughly 3/5. The same proportion (roughly 61%) was also followed in the conceptualisation of pitchers. The statistical correlations in the regressions for handle attachment heights of oinochoai and pitchers likely indicate a strong technological tradition followed by almost every Late Geometric workshop.

The Late Geometric material, without context, from the British Museum and the collections of the British School at Athens, shows great similarities with that from the Agora, Kerameikos, and Kynosarges. It is highly likely that all samples from the British Museum and the British School are not only Athenian but also produced at the same site as all other pouring vessels. According to Papadopoulos (2003), this production site matches the Agora. Furthermore, if a small group of Athenian potters or workshops were responsible for the entire production of Late Geometric pouring vessels, it is likely that this production monopolised a large portion of the broader Attic market. The pitchers from the British Museum are a good example supporting this point: all of them exhibit strong similarities with the Kerameikos and Kynosarges clusters, except for GR1877,1207.10, which is probably the product of a Phaleron workshop.

The strongest technological tradition noted in the production of pouring vessels (and, more specifically, oinochoai) concerns the use of a single fabric over two centuries. Hand specimen examination reveals that the majority of oinochoai from the Athenian Agora were produced out of the same clay as amphorae (variant 1).

The dominant colours used for decorative elements and coatings of pouring vessels throughout the Geometric era were black and brown-black (Colour Group 1). The period between EGI and MGII-LGIa was characterised by the general use of thick, lustrous, or matte coatings on the external surfaces of oinochoai. This practice began to decline after LGIa and was gradually replaced by a preference for thin matte slips or plain washes in the original clay colour. This easier way of finishing vessels was most likely related to the spread of the figurative style in pottery decoration. Still, thick coating was never completely abandoned and continued to be practised throughout the Late Geometric period, with patterns of greater variability in quality by contrast with earlier times. Such patterns suggest that more painters were involved in the decoration of Late Geometric pouring vessels than the potters who manufactured them. Painters practised the same coating techniques as earlier times and also enriched them with innovative ideas (e.g., the metallic effect of highly lustrous sheens). By contrast, the decoration of pitchers was standardised: all vessels were painted with brown or black motifs, and none carried coated surfaces.

According to the above conclusions, it is highly likely that the production of pouring vessels faced significant changes sometime at the beginning of LGIa. The shapes of oinochoai became more standardised, probably as a result of fewer workshops or artisans involved in their production. At the same time, neck-less, wide and giant oinochoai, and pitchers appeared alongside as distinct shapes, yet produced with the same conceptualisations as standard trefoil oinochoai. Despite lower artefact variability in their metrical features and proportions, Late Geometric oinochoai exhibited greater variability in their external treatments and decoration. The most likely explanation is that, despite a reduction in the number of potters or workshops involved in shaping such pots, their decoration passed into the hands of a larger number of artisans. Some of these painters were highly experienced in elaborate coating techniques. In that sense, oinochoai are the best vessel class to demonstrate that the work of painters and potters was separate, at least after LGIa.