26. Toward the Derveni Krater: On the Rarity of Large Bronze Vessels of the Archaic and Classical Periods Bearing Large Figural Registers

  • Jasper Gaunt, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, Atlanta


Evidence is presented suggesting that large bronze vessels with figural registers in relief, such as the Derveni krater, were extremely rare in Classical times. The most significant reason for this may not have been technical, since large pieces of armor were decorated using precisely the same techniques at the same time. Rather, this rarity may reflect the high cost of labor-intensive work.

Figure 26.1. Bronze volute-krater from Vix (Burgundy, France). Greek, Laconian, ca. 570 BC. Chatîllon sur Seine, Musée du Pays Chatîllonais, inv. nnn Image: Cratère de Vix, Musée du Pays Châtillonnais, Trésor de Vix © Mathieu Rabeau, RMN-GP
Figure 26.2. Volute-krater from Derveni. Bronze with silver and copper. Greek, early fourth century BC. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum, inv. B1 Image: © Michael Greenhalgh, CC BY-SA 2.5

A simple observation provides the point of departure for this paper. The decorative schemes of two Greek bronze volute-kraters—the Archaic one found at Vix in Burgundy (fig. 26.1) and the Late Classical one from Derveni near Thessaloniki (fig. 26.2)—differ radically.1 The critical distinction lies in the prominent Dionysian frieze in high relief on the body of the latter. It is most unusual to find figural decoration at a large scale on the bodies of substantial Greek bronze vessels of the Archaic and Classical periods. The figural decoration on the body of the Derveni krater, too, was well outside the usual canon even at the time of manufacture, far removed from the generally austere appearance of Archaic and Classical bronze vessels, even when taking into account some important fifth-century developments in surface treatments, notably reeding. The restrained decoration of most Greek bronze vessels was a deliberate aesthetic choice, as suggested by comparison with contemporary pieces of armor: these are often much more elaborately embellished. Contemporary representations of these objects show that this difference is not simply a function of chance survival. This comparison inspires a generalizing rule: plain vessels, but elaborate armor. The contrast, I propose, goes back to the Homeric poems, which clearly articulate such a distinction. The underlying reasons for these profound differences, I will argue, may well have been economic.

In stark contrast to the opulence of the Derveni krater, the surviving large Greek bronze vessels of the Archaic and Classical periods (kraters, amphorae, hydriai, and so forth) are, to a remarkable degree, homogeneous in the restraint of their decoration. Three archaeological contexts are especially illuminating: the series of graves of Balkan chieftains at Trebenischte; the so-called heroon at Paestum; and the finds at Pischane, Ukraine.2 Collectively, they account for over one hundred completely preserved bronze vessels. Leaving aside restricted pattern-work like shoulder tongues, every one of these vessels has a plain body. The decoration was confined primarily to the cast elements that served utilitarian functions—handles, feet, and bases—while on larger vases appliqués were sometimes also attached to the shoulder or neck. Well-known examples include the volute-krater from Trebenischte, now in Belgrade, and the hydria with a lion peering over the rim from Paestum.3 This general scheme of decoration is also familiar from other shapes, such as the oinochoe in Budapest whose handle is modeled in the form of an equestrian astride the spout; or the pointed amphora at the Metropolitan Museum in New York (fig. 26.3), whose body is relatively elaborately decorated with shoulder tongues above a guilloche band.4 Many more examples could easily be found, especially on hydriai.5

Figure 26.3. Pointed neck-amphora with stand. Bronze. Greek, ca. 500–450 BC. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 2004.171a–b Image: © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, www.metmuseum.org CC0

This subdued decoration on larger vessels should, I believe, be respected as the considered choice of Greek metalsmiths and their customers, rather than reflecting any technical limitation. The craftsmen who made the Vix and Derveni kraters, for example, could surely have made anything they chose. Walls of vessels with figural decoration in repoussé like the Derveni krater were prone to crack, thereby causing leaks; but, as Beryl Barr-Sharrar has discovered, that krater was lined after completion with a protective layer of beeswax and a film of clay.6 Furthermore, the concept of a double-walled vessel—the outer elaborately decorated, the inner a plain liner (familiar from small-scale Hellenistic and Roman silver cups)—is actually already present in the Archaic series of black- and red-figure psykter-amphorai and kraters that were made in Athens and Rhegium. These begin in the mid-sixth century with the Lydos amphora in London and continue until the Troilos Painter’s column krater of around 470 BC, now in New York.7 Earlier still is a series of Phoenician bowls with double walls, some of which found their ways into Greek contexts.8

Furthermore, the practice of decorating large areas of metalwork, whether through engraving, casting, repoussé, or a combination of techniques, is familiar from contemporary Greek armor. The famous breastplate from Olympia, with Zeus and Apollo between deities, exemplifies engraved work.9 The magnificent shield devices document repoussé at a large scale: from the Archaic griffin suckling her young or the “composite Gorgon” from Olympia to a Late Classical rampant lion in Mougins (fig. 26.4).10 The shield bands offer a view into small-scale work using the same techniques; one in the J. Paul Getty Museum gives us the earliest of all signatures for metalsmiths, Aristodamos of Argos.11 Other pieces of armor, notably helmets and their cheekpieces but also greaves, sometimes reveal astonishing decorative metalwork.12 While a great deal of plain armor does of course survive, other examples were perhaps more for parade than for battle; the helmet in St. Louis (fig. 26.5),13 for example, was evidently made for a figure of elevated importance, the very same class of persons that commissioned the vessels.

Figure 26.4. Shield device in the form of a rampant lion. Bronze with (missing) inlays. Macedonian, fourth century BC. Mougins, Museum of Classical Art, inv. 648 Image: © Musée d’Art Classique de Mougins (MACM) 2016
Figure 26.5. Helmet from Metaponto. Greek, South Italian, Archaic Period, 525-500 BC. Bronze with ivory and Bronze restoration. 19 ⅜ x 12 ¾ x 6 ¾ inches. Saint Louis Art Museum. Museum Purchase 282:1949 Image: St. Louis Art Museum

The restrained decoration accorded Archaic and Classical Greek bronze vessels stands in marked contrast not only to contemporary Greek armor but also to products of workshops outside Greece making similar vessels. The magnificent Orientalizing cauldrons from North Syria and elsewhere, with figures in high relief on the stands, were familiar enough in Greek sanctuaries.14 They were also popular in Etruria, where they engendered elaborate local responses, such as the tripod cauldron from the Barberini tomb in Palestrina.15 From Italy and central-northern Europe comes a series of bronze situlae whose walls are decorated all over with figural registers.16 These were surely known in Greece because their elite Italic and Celtic owners supplied Greek aristocrats with the thoroughbred horses from the Veneto, which are attested as early as Alkman.17

The objection may be raised that, because so few Greek bronze vessels survive, any observations concerning their appearance are largely speculative. To counter this objection, we turn to traditions of representations of these vessels in four different media: coins, gems, terracottas, and back- and red-figure vases. Of these four, two—coins and gems—are interrelated, while images on terracottas and black- and red-figure vases stand apart. All four types, however, suggest independently that metal vessels with major figural decoration were extremely uncommon. Furthermore, the ceramic dinoid krater in the J. Paul Getty Museum (fig. 26.6) demonstrates that surviving examples do indeed correspond closely with their representations.18 Just this sort of vessel is depicted on contemporary volute-krater fragments near the Pronomos and Talos Painters, now in Würzburg, while a neo-Attic marble version in a private collection evidently derives from the very same models (fig. 26.7).19

Figure 26.6. Red-figure dinoid volute-krater with stand, attributed to the Meleager Painter. Greek, Attic, ca. 380 BC. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, inv. 87.AE.93
Figure 26.7. Marble dinoid volute-krater. Greek, neo-Attic, first century BC–first century AD. Private collection Image: Courtesy of Sotheby’s, Inc. © 2017

On coins and gems, scale alone does not explain why figural decoration on vessels is not shown: these same objects record minute details of ornate hoplite equipment, particularly in the wake of Pheidias’s chryselephantine Athena Parthenos.20 Perhaps the most detailed glyptic example is the rather later intaglio in Rome signed by Aspasios that conscientiously reproduces the helmet of the Parthenos, but similar detail occurs on an earlier carnelian cameo of Perseus of Macedon, now in Paris, in which a centauromachy decorates his helmet.21 On coins, helmets with elaborate figural decoration first appear on late fifth-century staters of Heraclea (continuing through the fourth century), and on gold twenty-litra coins of Camarina; and, through the fourth century, on staters of Thurium, distaters of Metapontum, and later didrachms of Hyele.22 Representations of shield devices are encountered on staters minted in late fourth-century Taranto (depicting Pegasos) and Opuntian Locris (griffin); and on didrachms in early third-century Epirus under Pyrrhus (Gorgoneion).23

This wealth of figurally decorated armor recorded on gems and coins contrasts markedly with contemporary representations of metal vessels in the same media. Archaic and Classical glyptic representations of kantharoi clearly depict metal rather than ceramic vessels, as we know from the treatment of the handles and also from the aristocratic clientele they were made for.24 Nevertheless, almost all of these vessels are represented as entirely plain. Just occasionally, as on the beaded rim of the kantharos held by a satyr and the krater that stands beside it on a famous scarab in London, some understated surface elaboration is suggested.25 An Archaic glyptic representation of a hydria with reeding or tongues on the shoulder, and a Classical version of a calyx-krater with reeded body are preserved; but not, to my knowledge, vessels with figural decoration.26

A similar picture emerges in numismatics. The amphorai on Archaic coins from Athens, Chios, Terone, and of unknown Macedonian mint are naturally plain, being “transport” amphorai.27 Yet so too are the many kantharoi depicted, most famously on early fifth-century staters of Naxos.28 As with the gems, the only decoration accorded to vessels on coins is reeding, as for example on the shoulders of volute-kraters on fourth-century hemidrachms minted in Lamia and staters minted in Thebes.29 As Barr-Sharrar has noted, these compare well with the shoulder tongues on the Derveni krater and those of an early Apulian volute-krater by the Painter of the Birth of Dionysos in Ruvo.30

Images on coins and gems, therefore, suggest that metal vessels were either plain or only partially decorated with pattern-work such as reeding. The terracotta plaques from Locri would tend to confirm this.31 Three types depict a variety of vessels together. On one, in which Persephone returns folded cloth to a chest, a plain lekythos and kantharos are shown hanging from pegs.32 A second type shows a table or cupboard on which stand four vessels: two plain alabastra, a plain pointed oinochoe, and a larger oinochoe with beaded rim, shoulder tongues, and tongues or rays at the foot.33 A third type, with two women, one enthroned, depicts two phialai and a hydria hanging from pegs, while the seated woman holds a deep bowl. The bodies of all are reeded or, for the phialai, articulated with lobes.34

Evidence for the appearance of major figural decoration on metal vessels from representations on vase paintings is more complex, but it, too, strongly suggests its rarity.35 Plentiful representations of vessels, sometimes washed in dilute glaze to approximate the appearance of polished metal, clearly depict these vases. The bail-handled amphora drawn in the tondo of a cup by Douris in New York (fig. 26.8) is clearly metal because the mechanism for the swinging handle is carefully drawn.36 The hydriai carried as part of the Ransom of Hektor on the Brygos Painter’s skyphos in Vienna furnishes another example.37 Like surviving examples, the ones drawn are plain.

Figure 26.8. Attic red-figure cup with a woman carrying a bail-handled amphora, attributed to Douris, ca. 480 BC. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 1986.322.1. Gift of Norbert Schimmel Image: © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, www.metmuseum.org CC0

There is also, however, an important series of images of vases on vases that do bear figural decoration. These are essentially confined in the sixth and fifth centuries to Attic black- and red-figure vases, and proliferate during the fourth century in Apulia. Dirk Oenbrink has compiled a list of around forty Attic examples, a number that, by comparison with the representations of plain vases, is almost insignificant.38 Among many observations possible, two are pertinent. First, most such images appear in the late fifth and fourth centuries, a time when evidence exists for greater decorative elaboration on works of art in general. Second, while each example is unto itself, nevertheless several of them clearly reference ceramic rather than metal vases. Heading the list are the magnificent mid-sixth-century column-krater fragments in New York with the Return of Hephaistos, where maenads and satyrs fill two volute-kraters with wine.39 Mary Moore has rightly argued that the ivy on the handles, the rays at the base, and the animal fight on one of them that compares so well with other black-figure kraters, all suggest the artist had ceramic rather than metal vases in mind.

The practice of reeding for toreutic vessels must, by contrast, have been widespread. We have already encountered it on the shoulder tongues of the Derveni krater, and in representations of vessels on coins, gems, terracottas, and even vase paintings. The technique spread to black-glazed pottery during the second quarter of the fifth century.40 Although most common on small mugs, it is also found on larger vessels, especially hydriai but also on volute-kraters, not only black-glazed but also red-figure.41 The Parthenon inventories record a golden oinochoe in this technique.42 Brian Shefton rightly observed that the rising popularity of reeding may reflect emulation of Achaemenid metalwork,43 but the practice may also follow natural diversification of pattern-work accorded to that most sacred of shapes, the phiale, which can be traced back into the seventh century.44

The limited evidence for surviving vessels similarly conceived with major relief friezes, like the Derveni krater, begins with the famous fragment of a late fifth-century cast calyx-krater with maenads in Berlin published by Wolfgang Züchner.45 To this may be added a few cast statuettes of seated figures that may once have formed parts of kraters like that from Derveni, and an ancient plaster cast from something similar found at the Athenian Agora,46 with the important proviso that they may or may not have been quite as elaborate.47 Doubtless more common, being much smaller, were decorated situlae.48 Yet even here the preponderance of surviving examples suggests that, in general, only small areas of the body at the handles were decorated, whether with figures or simply with palmettes associated with handle attachments. Situlae with larger friezes wrapping around the (upper) body would appear to have been much less common.49 More recently, a spectacular bronze neck-amphora has come to light at Parion in the Troad. The body is decorated in relief with a Dionysian thiasos, while large plaques below the handles (their placement recalling hydriai) show Eros.50

A major source of late fifth- and fourth-century evidence must finally be acknowledged: the ceramic vases with figural decoration in relief spread over large surfaces of the body, made in Athenian workshops of the late fifth and fourth centuries. One such is the hydria by the Painter of the Wedding Procession depicting the struggle between Athena and Poseidon for Attica, familiar most recently from Beth Cohen’s marvelous exhibition at the Getty, The Colors of Clay.51 In light of the evidence for the rarity of what these ceramic versions appear to be emulating, perhaps we should think of them in terms that include elements of wishful fantasy as well as actual imitation.

This paper has argued for a conscious distinction between the generally restrained appearance of Archaic and Classical Greek bronze tableware and the exuberant decoration of contemporary armor. Symposiast and hoplite are, of course, one and the same person: a sort of ancient commonplace for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It remains to advance some explanation for this phenomenon. Elaborate armor, I suggest, would seem consciously to emulate the legendary examples starting with the most famous of all, the set made by Hephaistos at the request of Thetis for Achilles in the Iliad.52 Such literary descriptions continue via the Shield of Herakles described by Pseudo-Hesiod, to those Aeschylus bestowed upon the shield devices carried by the Seven who fought against Thebes.53 With these literary descriptions go both surviving examples and representations or derivations of others, not least the Pheidian Shield of Athena Parthenos, that are nothing less than spectacular.54 Taken together, they make it clear that the Homeric (heroic) vision for going into battle armed with glorious metalwork was very much alive in Archaic and Classical Greece.

In contrast to the epic taste for supremely elaborate armor, the Homeric vision for tableware is notably plain. Many vessels are mentioned in the two epics, but only one is described at any length, the Cup of Nestor.55 Of that cup’s decoration, we learn only that it was beautifully wrought, that it was set with golden nails (rivets), that it had four handles, and that around these handles were fashioned two doves of gold, feeding. In other words, the vessel had a plain body, the decoration was confined to the handles, or near them, and the parts were assembled with rivets. This is precisely the character of bronze vessels of the Archaic and Classical periods that we have seen.

Archaic and Classical bronze vessels circulated in an intellectual climate in which the act of conferring a highly polished surface to the metal was probably more prized than its elaboration: the very gleam of polished metal rendered it intrinsically godlike. In the end, however, it was perhaps not a simple aesthetic preference for plain bronze vessels that was the driving force among Greek bronzesmiths and their customers, nor yet a desire to distinguish the appearance of armor from that of tableware, but rather the forces of raw economic reality. As Demaratus is quoted as saying to Xerxes, it was poverty that was native to Greece: “τῇ Ἑλλάδι πενίη αἰει κοτε συντροφός ἐστι.”56 An Athenian inscription, concerned with commissioning cult statues of Athena and Hephaistos for the Hephaisteion in 421/420 BC, records the price of tin and copper as 230 and 35 drachmae per talent (a talent weighing 25.86 kg or 57 lb.).57 Put another way, a silver tetradrachm would purchase 448 grams of tin or 2,956 grams of copper. Very approximately, therefore, the cost of the raw materials—that is, the bullion value—of the Derveni krater, which weighs 40 kilograms (88 lb.) and contains 14.88 percent tin, would be 53.14 drachmae for the tin and 46 for the copper.58 To this must be added provision for silver elements like the wreaths (possibly as much as 40 drachmae?), for a total of more than 140 drachmae for the materials alone. A second inscription, recording accounts for the Erechtheum, indicates that craftsmen in Late Classical Athens were paid one drachma per day.59 The estimate reported by Barr-Sharrar that the Derveni krater “could well have taken five or six artisans, working together, more than eighteen months to produce,”60 implies potentially staggering costs for the actual workmanship, something conceivably in the order of 3,000 drachmae. Although this estimate to my mind is greatly exaggerated, it presupposes that the labor costs alone for the Derveni krater could have purchased sufficient silver to make three full-size hydriai of the types mentioned in the Parthenon inventories.61 Since these labor costs were completely unrecoverable in the frequent emergency situations that precipitated the melting down of metal plate, they must have struck many Greeks as an irresponsible and even profligate use of precious resources.

The impression that the sheer opulence of the Derveni krater is in some ways conceptually un-Greek may be refined by considering the findspots of the most elaborately decorated bronze vessels of the time. The Berlin krater with maenads was found in the northern Caucasus as part of the “Maikop Treasure.” The Athenian red-figure vases with relief were made largely for export to the Black Sea or Italy; the situlae for the most part come from northern Greece and Thrace, the new neck-amphora came from the Troad, while the Derveni krater itself was inscribed for one Aristouneios who came from Larisa. Common to these regions is a greater depth of wealth than one would find in Greece itself. In such places, the resources could be found to expend enormous, irrevocable sums on tableware for the purpose of display.


My warmest thanks to the congress organizers, Jens Daehner, Kenneth Lapatin, and Ambra Spinelli, as well as Jeffrey Spier and Paige-Marie Ketner. For valuable discussions, I thank Günter Kopcke and Andrew Stewart.


  1. For the Vix krater, see Rolley 2003, 77–143. For the Derveni krater, see Barr-Sharrar 2008.
  2. For the tombs at Trebenischte, see Filow 1927; Stibbe 2003. For the “heroon” at Paestum, see Rolley 1982, 26–27. For the finds from Pischane, see Hanina 1970; Reeder 1999, 193–205.
  3. For the Belgrade krater, see Godart 2010. For the lion hydria from Paestum (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 49801), see Bennett et al. 2002, 126–29.
  4. Budapest, Szépmúvészeti Múzeum, inv. LA 18: von Bothmer 1979, plate 21. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 2004.171a–b: Picón et al. 2007, 101, no. 107, 427.
  5. Sowder 2009.
  6. Barr-Sharrar 2008, 103.
  7. London, British Museum, inv. B 148, by Lydos: ABV 109, no. 29; BAPD 310175. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 1986.11.12: Padgett 2002; BAPD 15922. On the series, see also Pasquier 1999. For the Chalcidian examples, see Rumpf 1927, 121–22.
  8. Markoe 1985, 9.
  9. Olympia Museum, inv. B 3501: Hampe and Simon 1981, 125–26, figs. 195–96.
  10. Olympia Museum, inv. B 104: Hampe and Simon 1981, 110, fig. 170b (drawing); and B 4990 (“composite gorgon”): Rolley 1986, 152, fig. 135. Mougins, Musée d’art classique de Mougins, inv. 648: Merrony 2011, 183 and 196, fig. 40.
  11. J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 84.AC.11: LIMC [1992] VI 843, s.v. “Nessos,” no. 97, plate 551; Mattusch 2014, 60–61, fig. 37. For shield bands in general, see Kunze 1950; Bol 1989.
  12. For elaborately decorated armor, see (for instance) Hoffmann and Raubitschek 1972; Hampe and Simon 1981, 117–28; Pflug 1989 (helmets). For cheekpieces, see Aitken 1982; for a plaster cast in the Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn, see Rolley 1986, 172, fig. 151.
  13. St. Louis Art Museum, inv. 282.1949: Neils 1995, 443, fig. 18.
  14. Herrmann 1966–79.
  15. See n. 13.
  16. For example, Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico, from the Certosa cemetery: Sprenger and Bartoloni 1977, 125, no. 168 and figs. 168–69.
  17. P Louvre E 3320, line 51. For an edition of this papyrus, see Page 1951; for a translation, Campbell 1988, 360–76.
  18. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 87.AE.93: Burn 1991; BAPD 44230.
  19. Würzburg, Martin-von-Wagner-Museum, inv. H 4781: ARV21338, 1690; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 75, fig. 71; BAPD 217516. Sotheby’s, New York, Antiquities, June 4, 2009, lot 119.
  20. Lapatin 2001, 63–79.
  21. Aspasios gem: Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 52382: Lapatin 2015, 135, plate 92, 246. Perseus gem: Vollenweider 1995, no. 201.
  22. Heraclea: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 309, nos. 255, 257, 258, plates 88–89. Camarina: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 294, no. 153, plate 54. Thurium: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 308–9, nos. 252–54, plates 87–88. Metapontum: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 307, no. 242, plate 84. Hyele: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 306, no. 227, plate 80.
  23. Taranto: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 315, no. 313, plate 107. Opuntian Locris: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 338, no. 465, plate 148. Epirus: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 339, no. 473, plate 150.
  24. These include Archaic: London, British Museum, inv. 466: Boardman 2001, 181, no. 300 (satyr with kantharos and jug). Ex Ionides: Boardman 2001, 181, no. 302 (youth with jug and kantharos). Athens, Numismatic Museum, Tzivanopoulos Coll. 6: Boardman 2001, 183, no. 340 (satyr with amphora on shoulder, with Cypriot inscription). New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 42.11.16 inscribed by Anakles: Boardman 2001, 185, no. 373 (reclining satyr holding out kantharos). Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, inv. 42.461: Boardman 2001, 185, no. 376 (kneeling satyr draws bow, a kantharos beside him). Classical: New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 21.88.39: Boardman 2001, 199, fig. 205 and 283, fig. 205 (kantharos between dolphins). St. Petersburg, Hermitage inv. Π.1850-31: Boardman 2001, 288, no. 470 (Chiot amphora). Once Oxford, Arthur Evans: Boardman 2001, 294, no. 613 (calyx krater). Once London market: Boardman 2001, 301, no. 774 (woman with torch and jug).
  25. London, British Museum, Gem 465, inv. 1865,0712.106: Boardman 2001, 181, no. 301.
  26. Reeded: Berlin, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, inv. F 159: Boardman 2001, 184, no. 358 (inscribed by Semon; naked girl kneels to fill hydria). Athens, Agora T 3334: Boardman 2001, 286, no. 271, and 235, fig. 271 (clay impression, on one face a calyx-krater).
  27. Early Athenian amphora: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, no. 339, plate 114. Chios: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 357, nos. 605–6, plate 180: Terone: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 331, no. 401, plate 130. Uncertain Macedonian mint: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 328, no. 374, plate 123.
  28. Kantharoi are commonly depicted on coins, for example: Sicilian Naxos: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 282, nos. 6, 7, 9, and 12, plates 2–4. Taranto: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 314–15, nos. 298, 299, and 303, plates 103–5. Mende: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 331, nos. 403–6, plates 130–31. Maroneia: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 334, no. 430, plate 139. Thasos: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 335, no. 438, plate 141. Thebes: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 337, nos. 449–50, plate 144. Naxos: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 345–46, nos. 523–24, plate 162.
  29. Lamia: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 339, no. 469, plate 149. Thebes: Kraay and Hirmer 1966, 337, no. 459, plate 145.
  30. Ruvo, Museo Jatta, inv. 1494: RVAp, 35, no. 7; Sichtermann 1966, 35, no. 38, plates 56–59. Barr-Sharrar 2008, 74–100 passim.
  31. Prückner 1968; Lissi Caronna 1997–2007.
  32. Prückner 1968, plate 4.4.
  33. Prückner 1968, plate 31.1.
  34. Prückner 1968, plate 7.6.
  35. On representations of vases on vases, see Gericke 1970.
  36. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 1986.322.1: Buitron-Oliver 1995, plate 11; BAPD 1142.
  37. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 3710: ARV2 380, 171; Simon and Hirmer 1976, plates 146–47; BAPD 204068.
  38. Oenbrink 1996.
  39. Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 1997.388: Moore 2010.
  40. For reeding, see Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 21–22.
  41. For black glaze, see Kopcke 1964; for red-figure, notably the volute-krater, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 24.97.25a–b, and discussion, see Gaunt 2002, 305–18; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 92–95 and passim.
  42. Harris 1995, 167, no. 293.
  43. Shefton 1971.
  44. For the shape, see Luschey 1939.
  45. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, inv. 30622: Züchner 1938; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 140–43, fig. 127 (part).
  46. Agora T 2126: Reeder 1976, 52–53, no. 5, plate 6; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 84, fig. 76.
  47. Barr-Sharrar 2008, 87–88 and 74–100 passim.
  48. On bronze situlae, see Barr-Sharrar 1982, 2000; Shefton 1994.
  49. E.g., Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 03.1001: Comstock and Vermeule 1971, 302–3, no. 428.
  50. Parion PIC 214 from grave TSM2: Basaran 2015, 163–65 (H. Kasapoglu).
  51. St. Petersburg, Hermitage, inv. P 1872.130: Cohen 2006, 339–41, no. 105; BAPD 6988.
  52. Iliad 18.457–616.
  53. Hesiod [Scutum]; Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 375–651.
  54. Harrison 1981.
  55. Iliad 11.631–36.
  56. Herodotus 7.102.1.
  57. IG 13 456–58, no. 457.
  58. For the weight and metallurgical comparison of the Derveni Krater, see Barr-Sharrar 2008, 21, 31.
  59. IG 13 459–76, nos. 474–79.
  60. Barr-Sharrar 2008, 103 (quoting conservator Richard Stone and further corroborative conversation with metalworker John Tzelepis).
  61. Harris 1995, 153, nos. 215–18, and 158–62, nos. 251–60. Their weights (values) are approximately 1,000 drachmae.


Aitken 1982
Aitken, B. T. 1982. “A New Cheekpiece.” AntK 25, 58–61.
Barr-Sharrar 1982
Barr-Sharrar, B. 1982. “Macedonian Metal Vases in Perspective: Some Observations on Context and Tradition.” In Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, ed. B. Barr-Sharrar and E.N. Borza, 123–40. Washington, DC: The National Gallery of Art.
Barr-Sharrar 2000
Barr-Sharrar, B. 2000. “Some Observations on the Cast Bronze Ovoid Situla.” In Antike Bronzen, Werkstattkreise: Figuren und Geräte. Akten des 14. Internationalen Kongresses für antiken Bronzen, ed. R. Thomas, 277–90. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Barr-Sharrar 2008
Barr-Sharrar, B. 2008. The Derveni Krater: Masterpiece of Classical Greek Metalwork. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Basaran 2015
Basaran, C. 2015. Parion, The Flourishing City of Ancient Troad. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Bennett et al. 2002
Bennett, M., A. J. Paul, and M. Iozzo. 2002. Magna Graecia: Greek Art from South Italy and Sicily. Exh. cat. Cleveland, Cleveland Museum of Art. New York: Hudson Hills Press.
Boardman 2001
Boardman, J. 2001. Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical. New expanded edition. London: Thames and Hudson.
Bol 1989
Bol, P. C. 1989. Argivische Schilde. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
von Bothmer 1979
von Bothmer, D. 1979. “A Bronze Oinochoe in New York.” In Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen, ed. G. Kopcke and M. B. Moore, 63–67. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin.
Buitron-Oliver 1995
Buitron-Oliver, D. 1995. Douris: A Master-painter of Athenian Red-figure Vases. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Burn 1991
Burn, L. 1991. “A Dinoid Volute-Krater by the Meleager Painter: An Attic Vase in the South Italian Manner.” In Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum, vol. 5, 107–30. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Campbell 1988
Campbell, D. A. 1988. Greek Lyric, vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library 476. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen 2006
Cohen, B. 2006. The Colors of Clay: Special Techniques in Athenian Vases. Exh. cat. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum.
Comstock and Vermeule 1971
Comstock, M. B., and C. Vermeule. 1971. Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.
Filow 1927
Filow, B. 1927. Die archaische Nekropole von Trebenischte am Ochrida-See. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Gaunt 2002
Gaunt, J. 2002. “The Attic Volute-krater.” PhD diss., New York University, Institute of Fine Arts.
Gericke 1970
Gericke, H. 1970. Gefäßdarstellungen auf griechischen Vasen. Berlin: Hessling.
Godart 2010
Godart, L. 2010. L’Italia e il restauro del Magnifico Cratere: Capolavori del Museo Nazionale di Belgrado. Rome: Presidenza della Repubblica.
Hampe and Simon 1981
Hampe, R., and E. Simon. 1981. The Birth of Greek Art, from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hanina 1970
Hanina, O. D. 1970. Antychni bronzy z Pishchanoho. Kiev: Mystetstvo.
Harris 1995
Harris, D. 1995. Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrison 1981
Harrison, E. B. 1981. “Motifs of the City Siege on the Shield of Athena Parthenos.” AJA 85: 281–317.
Herrmann 1966–79
Herrmann, H.-V. 1966–79. Die Kessel der orientalisierenden Zeit. 2 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hoffmann and Raubitschek 1972
Hoffmann, H., and A. E. Raubitschek. 1972. Early Cretan Armorers. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Kopcke 1964
Kopcke, G. 1964. “Golddekorierte attische Schwarzfirniskeramik des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” AM 79: 22–84.
Kraay and Hirmer 1966
Kraay, C., and M. Hirmer. 1966. Greek Coins. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Kunze 1950
Kunze, E. 1950. Archaische Schildbänder: Ein Beitrag zur frühgriechischen Bildgeschichte und Sagenüberlieferung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lapatin 2001
Lapatin, K. D. S. 2001. Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lapatin 2015
Lapatin, K. D. S. 2015. Luxus: The Sumptuous Arts of Greece and Rome. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Lissi Caronna et al. 1999–2007
Lissi Caronna, E., C. Sabbione, and L. V. Borrelli, eds. 1999–2007. I pinakes di Locri Epizefiri. Rome: Società Magna Grecia.
Luschey 1939
Luschey, H. 1939. Die Phiale. Bleicherode am Harz: Nieft.
Markoe 1985
Markoe, G. 1985. Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mattusch 2014
Mattusch, C. C. 2014. Enduring Bronze: Ancient Art, Modern Views. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Merrony 2011
Merrony, M. 2011. Musée d’art classique de Mougins: La collection famille Levett. Mougins: Musée d’art classique de Mougins.
Moore 2010
Moore, M. B. 2010. “Hephaistos Goes Home: An Attic Black-figured Column-krater in the Metropolitan Museum.” MMJ 45: 21–54.
Neils 1995
Neils, J. 1995. “The Euthymides Krater from Morgantina,” AJA 99: 427–44.
Oenbrink 1996
Oenbrink, W. 1996. “Ein ‘Bild im Bild’-Phänomen: Zur Darstellung figürlich dekorierter Vasen auf bemalten attischen Tongefässen.” Hephaistos 14: 81–134.
Padgett 2002
Padgett, J. M. 2002. “A Unique Vase in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” In Essays in Honor of Dietrich von Bothmer, ed. A. J. Clark and J. Gaunt, 249–66. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.
Page 1951
Page, D. L. 1951. The Partheneion, Alcman. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pasquier 1999
Pasquier, A. 1999. “Un cratere-rafraichissoir au Musée du Louvre: du vin frais pour un banquet de luxe.” MonPiot 78: 5–51.
Pflug 1989
Pflug, H. 1989. Antike Helme: Antikenmuseum Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz zu Gast im Rheinischen Landesmuseum. Bonn: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.
Picón et al. 2007
Picón, C., et al. 2007. Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pruckner 1968
Pruckner, H. 1968. Die lokrischen Tonreliefs: Beitrag zur Kultgeschichte von Lokroi Epizephyrioi. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Reeder 1976
Reeder, E. D. 1976. “Ancient Clay Impressions from Greek Metalwork.” Hesperia 45: 41–66.
Reeder 1999
Reeder, E. D. 1999. Scythian Gold: Treasures from Ancient Ukraine. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Rolley 1982
Rolley, C. 1982. Les vases de bronze de l’archaïsme recent en Grande-Grèce. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard.
Rolley 1986
Rolley, C. 1986. Greek Bronzes. London: Sotheby’s Publications.
Rolley 2003
Rolley, C. 2003. La tombe princière de Vix. Paris: Picard.
Rumpf 1927
Rumpf, A. 1927. Chalkidische Vasen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Shefton 1971
Shefton, B. 1971. “Persian Gold and Attic Black Glaze: Achaemenid Influences on Attic Pottery of the 5th and 4th Centuries BC.” AAS 21: 109–11.
Shefton 1994
Shefton, B. 1994. “The Waldalgesheim Situla: Where Was It Made?” In Festschrift für Otto-Herman Frey zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. C. Dobiat, 583–93. Marburg: Hitzeroth.
Sichtermann 1966
Sichtermann, H. 1966. Griechische Vasen in Unteritalien: Aus der Sammlung Jatta in Ruvo. Tübingen: Wasmuth.
Simon and Hirmer 1976
Simon, E., and M. Hirmer. 1976. Die griechischen Vasen. Munich: Hirmer.
Sowder 2009
Sowder, A. A. 2009. “Greek Bronze Hydriai.” PhD diss., Emory University.
Sparkes and Talcott 1970
Sparkes, B. A., and L. Talcott. 1970. Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C. Athenian Agora 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sprenger and Bartoloni 1977
Sprenger, M., and G. Bartoloni. 1977. Die Etrusker: Kunst und Geschichte. Photography by Max and Albert Hirmer. Munich: Hirmer.
Stibbe 2003
Stibbe, C. M. 2003. Trebenishte: The Fortunes of an Unusual Excavation. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Vollenweider 1995
Vollenweider, M.-L. 1995. Camées et Intailles, Les Portraits grecs du Cabinet des médailles. Catalogue raisonné. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Züchner 1938
Züchner, W. 1938. Der Berliner Mänadenkrater. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.