The subject is, however, one of great difficulty, and it is impossible to attain to scientific accuracy, owing to the differences of time between the authors by whom they are mentioned, the difficulty of explaining types by verbal descriptions, and the ambiguity often caused by the ancient practice of describing a vase of one shape by the name of another.
A study of any collection of Greek vases will make it apparent that there is a great variety in the forms of the different periods. This is especially marked in the earliest ages of Greece, in which the variety is almost endless, and the adoption and development of certain recognised forms practically unknown. It must therefore be evident that the statements of ancient writers must always be used with caution, and that a shape described by an early writer must not be taken as representing the same in a later period, even if the same word be used, or vice versa. For instance, the δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον of Homer, which finds a curious parallel in the gold cup with the doves discovered by Schliemann at Mycenae, is, whatever view we may take of the Homeric civilisation, only an example of a passing fashion. Or again, many of the drinking-cups described by Athenaeus in his eleventh book are doubtless only instances of new experiments in pottery or metal-work characteristic of the Hellenistic age, with its tendency to strive after novelties. Many of his names are little more than nicknames for familiar shapes, which enjoyed a temporary popularity.
Some information may be derived from the vases themselves by means of inscriptions, specimens of which are given in Chapter [XVII]. Thus on the François vase the three-handled pitcher used by Polyxena is inscribed
, or “water-pot,” and enables us to apply the name hydria with certainty to a three-handled vase, of which many black- and red-figured specimens exist.[[495]] Then we have the lekythos of Tataie, and the kylikes of Philto and Kephisophon,[[496]] which testify by inscriptions to the name by which they were known. The names incised in graffito on the feet of vases[[497]] are a more doubtful source of evidence, inasmuch as they may refer either to mixed batches of vases or to the names of measures of capacity.
Examples of cursory mention of names in the ancient writers, such as Aristophanes, are innumerable, but seldom explicit, and the scholia on these writers are hardly more useful, inasmuch as the grammarians probably knew little more about obsolete shapes than we do ourselves, and their commentaries have little critical weight. The loci classici on the subject are the book of Athenaeus already referred to,[[498]] in which he gives a list of over one hundred names, with more or less full explanation and commentary, most of the forms being apparently varieties of drinking-cups, and the Onomasticon of Pollux.[[499]] Notices of vases are also to be found in the lexicographers, such as Hesychius and Suidas, and the Etymologicum Magnum.
In the early days of modern archaeology the first to propose an identification of the shapes of vases was Panofka,[[500]] whose fanciful and uncritical lucubrations were shortly afterwards combated by Letronne[[501]] and Gerhard,[[502]] the latter of whom introduced a more scientific method of criticism and classification, though his results cannot be considered as final. Other writers were Müller,[[503]] Thiersch,[[504]] Ussing,[[505]] Krause,[[506]] and Jahn,[[507]] of whom Ussing followed practically on Gerhard’s lines but with more success; Krause, though exhaustive, is on the whole uncritical; and Jahn has treated the subject with his wonted conciseness and sobriety. Of late years little attention has been paid to it, principally, no doubt, for the reason that so many conventional names have been generally accepted for the ordinary shapes by archaeologists, who have recognised the fact that it will never be possible to treat the subject with scientific accuracy.[[508]]
The classification of the shapes of vases has usually been undertaken on the lines of distinguishing their main uses, such as (1) those in which food or liquids were preserved; (2) those in which liquids were mixed or cooked; (3) those by means of which liquids were poured out or food distributed; (4) drinking-cups; (5) other vases for the use of the table or toilet. Thus we have the pithos and amphora for storing wine, the krater for mixing it, the psykter for cooling it, the kyathos for ladling it out, and the oinochoë or prochoos for pouring it out; the hydria was used for fetching water from the well. Of smaller vases, the names for drinking-cups are innumerable, but the phiale, for instance, was employed chiefly for pouring libations; while dishes and plates are represented by the lekane, tryblion, pinax, and so on. The pyxis was used by women at their toilet, and the lekythos, alabastron, and askos for holding oil and unguents. There is an interesting passage in Athenaeus (iv. 142 D)[[509]] which gives a list of the vases required for use at a banquet: “And on the tripod was placed a bronze wine-cooler (ψυκτήρ) and a κάδος (bucket) and a silver σκαφίον holding two kotylae (one pint), and a ladle (κύαθος); and the wine-jug (ἐπίχυσις) was of bronze, but nobody was offered drink unless he asked for it; and one ladleful was given out before the meal.”
For the purposes of this work it is hoped that the usual method of classification indicated above will be found sufficient, supplemented by the descriptions of Athenaeus and other writers, where any details can be obtained; but it is obvious that a really critical treatment of the subject should be chronological, with endeavours to trace the first appearance and development of each type. In the present state of our knowledge, however, it would seem impossible to do so with success.