Problems and critique of previous approaches on Attic decorated finewares
Introduction
The following information comes from the author's PhD thesis on Attic Geometric and Orientalising pottery. This is an isolated article that identifies problems and critiques previous approaches to the study of Attic Geometric and Orientalising finewares. I also present an overview of our current understanding of Attic Early Iron Age society, as this has been explored through ceramic studies.
Problems and critique of previous approaches on Attic decorated finewares and current understanding of Attic Early Iron Age society
The initial interest of Attic Early Iron Age archaeology in ceramic typologies and styles, which began in the late 19th century among scholars of the ‘German Tradition’ (sensu Whitley 2001, 32-6), is perhaps responsible for the broader interest in art and iconography, which flourished after World War II and continues to this day. The vast majority of such iconographic studies focus on the analysis of Late Geometric and Orientalising figurative representations, thereby creating a gap in the archaeological understanding of periods without figural art, such as the Protogeometric, Early and Middle Geometric. Furthermore, this prevailing focus on iconography has generated confusion, as the Late Geometric period monopolises scholarly interest in the broader discussion on Geometric society. A manifestation of this problem is seen in the recent debate between Langdon (2006; 2008) and Whitley (1991; 2000): although Whitley examines social changes in relation to gender through archaeological evidence from the Protogeometric until the Orientalising period, Langdon’s critique and basic arguments are only backed up in relation to the iconography of the Late Geometric.
Iconographic studies focused on Homer (e.g., Hampe 1952; Webster 1955; Notopoulos 1957; Whitman 1958; Schweitzer 1967) created a legacy that continues in the long-lasting debate over ‘heroic versus mythical’ aspirations in figurative decoration. This debate is evident in the work of John Boardman (e.g., 1983; 1998) and Jeffery Hurwit (e.g., 1985; 2011) and continues. Again, the debate is limited to the figurative representations of the Late Geometric period, and its usefulness for a broader understanding of Early Iron Age society remains uncertain. The extent to which heroic or mythical representations differ is also unclear, especially if they were used simultaneously to create an elite/aristocratic ideology.
The studies on the birth of Western ‘illusionism’ (e.g. Gombrich 1962; Benson 1970; Carter 1972; Hurwit 1985) and the broader view of the Late Geometric as the ‘Greek Renaissance’ (by Coldstream 1968; 1977; 2000) have generated some interesting points in relation to the broader evolution of pictorial arts in Europe. Seeing, though, that the entire discussion began right after World War II, it raises questions about the political parameters behind the debate. Of course, it is not the intention of this thesis to engage in such a discussion, as the concept of art will not be examined in relation to ceramic technologies.
A useful and practical application of iconographic analysis in the study of Attic Early Iron Age finewares is connoisseurship. Its methodology has been applied to discuss chronology (e.g., Cook 1935) and ceramic production through the identification of Geometric and Orientalising workshops (Cook 1947; Davison 1961; Coldstream 1968; Morris 1984; Coulié 2013; 2014; 2015). No matter how useful this methodology is, there are four issues that require further attention. Firstly, the entire discussion of workshops has been confined to the Late Geometric period, and the contribution of connoisseurship to the identification of 7th-century BC workshops is limited. Secondly, the chronological subdivisions of the Late Geometric cannot be cross-referenced with scientific methods, and the dates followed by connoisseurs are stylistic. Thirdly, the methodology of connoisseurship focuses on the identification of systems of rendering, which are supposed to relate to the identity of a specific painter. This raises the possibility that, after several years of apprenticeship, a painter may adopt another painter's rendering systems or consciously modify his or her own. Fourthly, connoisseurship identifies painters, not potters; thus, workshops cannot be defined solely by the work of painters.
The contribution of stylistic studies in establishing a chronological framework for the Geometric and Orientalising periods must not be neglected (e.g. Cook 1935; Kraiker et al. 1939; Kübler 1954). An equal amount of credit must be given to the first scholars who produced synchronisms across various contexts in the Eastern Mediterranean (e.g., Desborough 1952; 1957; Coldstream 1968); however, one must not forget that their broader chronological discussion was again stylistic. It is not always clear whether ceramic styles correspond to actual chronological periods; therefore, the Early Iron Age chronology may be worth revisiting in the future. A general problem in verifying chronologies for the Greek Early Iron Age is that scientific methods such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon (14C) are biased for two reasons: firstly, due to the problem of the Hallstatt Plateau, and secondly, due to the simultaneous existence of a high (‘biblical’) and a low (conventional) chronological system (Coldstream 2003c). For Attica in particular, the most recent study using radiocarbon dating (Fantalkin 2015) verifies the conventional dates proposed by Coldstream (1968, 330), but only up to MGI.
Another problem is that the Orientalising period is underexplored. Stylistic and typological studies have shown that Orientalising finewares reflect the influence of Near Eastern traditions in Greek Early Archaic ceramic production, which blended together with preceding Geometric traditions (e.g. Coldstream 1977; Snodgrass 1980). Furthermore, our understanding of 7th-century BC Attic society is limited in the works of Morris (1987), Whitley (1991; 1994b; 2000) and Osborne (1988; 1989). Their primary focus is the Early Protoattic period, either in relation to the transformations that occurred after the end of the Late Geometric (e.g., gender or political restructuring) or to the social and political ideologies that existed between Athens and other poleis (e.g., Corinth, Knossos, Argos). Morris (1984) expands this discussion in the Middle and Late Protoattic period; however, Whitley (1994b) suggests that her study is unlikely to relate to actual Athenian ceramic vessels.
In relation to studies on the elite ideology of the Geometric period (e.g., Coldstream 1977; Snodgrass 1987; Morris 1987; Whitley 1991), a major problem is that they link the consumption of Geometric fineware with burials. Even though this is true when discussing burial contexts, it gives the impression that ceramic studies can interpret Attic Early Iron Age society only in relation to its funerary practices. It remains an interesting question what the ideological concept of such vessels is in relation to other -commercial or social- functions outside burials. It is also unclear whether the consumption of Attic decorated fineware was restricted to the rituals of aristocratic elites. This may not have always been the case, as archaeologists cannot be entirely sure if decorated ceramic vessels were also purchased and consumed by non-elite groups. With regard to this point, Langdon (2008) makes an important contribution, suggesting that the iconography on such vessels exploited everyday themes to transmit social messages that construct gender ideologies; therefore, the social function of such vessels might not have been restricted to elite burials.
Our current understanding of Attic Early Iron Age society is continually evolving in light of new evidence. Snodgrass (1977, 19-20) saw that the regional uniformity of Geometric pottery in Attica could be connected with the increasing power of the Athenian polis, imposing its distinct ceramic style on its rural periphery; however, Morgan & Whitelaw (1991) proved that similar uniformity can also be noted in other regions of the Greek world. Morris (1987, 205) saw a form of isonomia expressed through Attic LGII funerary rites; however, under the light of recent funerary evidence, Laughy (2010), Schilardi (2011) and Alexandridou (forthcoming) have raised doubts that this isonomia existed, pointing to the arguments by Whitley (1991, 182-3) regarding the collapse of elite ideologies in Attica during that time. The gender debate between Whitley (1991; 2000) and Langdon (2008) suggests that either current archaeological and iconographic approaches are not compatible and cannot produce the same conclusions, or a different approach is required due to the complexity of gender distinctions in Early Iron Age Attica (e.g. in Liston & Papadopoulos 2004).
The author’s own thesis is perhaps tuned to the technological approaches discussed earlier. However, such approaches are equally problematic as others. The broader problem in technological studies of Attic decorated finewares is that they have been carried out independently and have never engaged with the archaeological debate on Early Iron Age society. With particular reference to Athens, although archaeological studies have documented social changes in burial customs and pottery consumption between the 9th and 7th centuries BC, the social response to the ceramic chaîne opératoire remains unknown. By contrast, pottery production and its social role have been approached through stylistic and iconographic studies, which have undermined the potters' role relative to that of the painters. Even though the distinction between the two artisans is not always possible, the prevailing focus on the ideological and symbolic role of Late Geometric figurative decoration has created two broader gaps in our current knowledge: firstly, pottery production modes during periods without figurative decoration are unclear; secondly, the behaviour and social attitude of potters is still unknown. The author’s doctoral thesis aims to address these gaps by applying the chaîne opératoire approach to pottery analysis.