WERE ATHENIAN VASES MADE FOR EVERY-DAY USE?
The theory has often been advanced that the painted black-figured and red-figured vases were made for decoration and for votive and funeral purposes, but not for actual use. Percy Gardner in his Grammar of Greek Art (p. 160) holds this view and gives as his reason that the painted vases were too fragile to be easily handled and too porous to contain liquid. Reichhold in Furtwängler und Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, Text, I, p. 82, and Skizzenbuch griechischer Meister, p. 10, is of the same opinion, and bases his assumption on the fact that a number of the vases show ancient rivet marks and could not therefore have served any practical purpose in such a condition; also that no ancient vases show signs of wear, which would have been unavoidable if they had been in daily use. Does our investigation of the technique of Athenian vases help to settle this question? Let us look first at the case in its broader aspects.
Nobody can work long with Greek vases or other forms of Greek industrial art without being impressed with the wonderful combination of beauty and practical utility which these objects show. The Greek vases are not only finely proportioned, but each one is admirably adapted to its purpose. We need only try pouring from an oinochoë to see how easily the liquid flows without any danger of spilling; or from a lekythos to see how the oil trickles through the narrow neck, drop by drop, or in a very thin stream, just right for cooking or the making of salad dressing. We need only drink from a kylix to realize how, contrary to expectations, it is an easy and delightful process—the little curve of the rim preventing the liquid from spilling down one’s cheeks.[53] We need only closely observe the handles of Greek vases to see how their positions, their curves, and above all their extraordinary solidity render them eminently practical. Moreover, the study of a hundred little details, the forms of the knobs on pyxides, the projections for holding the lids in place, the outward or inward curves of the lips, the substantial feet, all combine to form overpowering evidence that these vases were designed for actual use. It is only in isolated instances, such as the loutrophoroi which have no bottoms or the white lekythoi which have no connection between the neck and body, that this rule does not hold good. Such vases, however, belong to clearly defined classes evidently made as votive offerings or as tomb furniture.
That the bulk of vases were made for votive purposes, there is no real evidence. Among the many sixth- and fifth-century inscriptions recording such offerings there are few relating to pottery vases. Nor is it conceivable that these vases were purely ornamental. We know that private houses in Athens were at that period excessively simple, consisting mostly of a courtyard and a few rooms opening on it, so that it is not likely that people surrounded themselves with a lot of useless ornaments; nor can we believe that in a period which, at least in the sixth century, was still one of strenuous endeavor, these vases were exported to all parts of the world merely as decorative bric-à-brac. Everything we know of Greek life at that time points against such an assumption. Moreover, if the Greeks had such decorations in their homes we should expect to see, depicted in the vase paintings, cabinets or shelves with vases displayed on them; instead, when vases are shown, they are invariably in actual use, or hanging on a nail on the wall, ready for immediate service.[54]
There is another consideration. Even if, from our modern point of view, we may hesitate to believe that a beautiful cup of Euphronios was used merely as a drinking vessel, where are we to draw the line? Any one who has worked in a museum or has excavated on fifth-century sites knows that besides the selected specimens exhibited in museum cases there are a large number of inferior examples, hastily decorated, which could hardly have been displayed as ornaments, but which are open to the same objections raised against the vases of better workmanship.
And now let us examine these objections. First, the vases are supposed to be too porous to contain liquid. The fineness of the clay, the polish which was imparted to it, and perhaps the application of the ochre tended to reduce this porosity somewhat. In the course of time the deposit left by wine and oil would still further close the pores. In any case, experiments show that Athenian vases do hold liquids without any difficulty. The unglazed portions become damp, and a damp mark is left on the table if the foot is not glazed; but in the days before highly polished furniture there was no strong objection to that, and there was on the other hand a very real advantage. For it allows a certain amount of evaporation which would tend to cool the liquid—a very desirable thing in a warm climate without a regulated ice supply. Any one who has tried the experiment of keeping water in an unglazed jar in a warm room has found that the evaporation keeps it delightfully cool. In southern Europe today liquids are kept in that manner during the summer. We must also remember that a large number of the early wares from the Bronze Age down, as well as the commoner wares at all times, are either wholly unglazed or have unglazed portions. And surely nobody wants to contend that these vases were not manufactured for use.
The objection that Athenian pottery is fragile is easily disposed of. Actual handling of the vases will show that they are anything but fragile, in fact that they are remarkably strong. All those portions which would get special wear, such as handles and rims, are almost always stoutly made, more so than much of the china and earthenware and glass we use today. Occasionally, of course, we get a very thin and delicate example; and that would have to be handled with special care.
Then, as regards the question of wear. Terracotta is, as a matter of fact, one of the most indestructible materials we have, and especially so when glazed. Glazed earthenware, consequently, even though in constant use shows little trace of wear. What little we should expect, a close inspection of Athenian vases will reveal. The black glaze, even when perfectly preserved on the exterior, is much worn on the interior of stamnoi or kraters (cf. fig. [57]), where the liquid came in constant contact with the glaze, and the unglazed interiors of amphorai and hydriai are certainly not perfectly fresh and unused looking. It is also noteworthy that finely and poorly decorated vases are in the same condition in this respect. A comparison with the Corean pottery of the Korai period, 935-1392 A.D.,[55] which is known to have been made to serve merely as tomb furniture, is helpful. The fresh and clean insides of these vases offer a very different appearance from that of the discolored interiors of Greek amphorai and hydriai—a clear proof that the Athenian ware did not serve the same unutilitarian purpose as the Corean.
Fig. 57. Inside of krater showing extensive wear
Met. Mus. Acc. No. 07.286.74
Lastly, regarding the argument about riveted vases, it is surely natural now and then, instead of throwing away a broken pot, to have it put together and make the best of it in its mended state. We do the same thing nowadays. At all events, the vase could still have been used to contain dry materials. Such Athenian vases with ancient rivet marks are in any case infrequent, and do not compare in number with the broken vases which have not been mended.
Such considerations should once for all explode the theory that Athenian vases were not actually used; so that we can think of them, in the way that appeals to our imagination, as serving in the daily life of the Athenians and as adding to the enjoyment of that life, both by their beauty and by their usefulness.