A Further note on ΕΠΟΙΕΣΕΝ Signatures

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In a recent issue of this journal (xci [1971] 137–8), R. M. Cook argued convincingly that the term ἐποίεσεν should not be taken to mean the craftsman who threw the vase but rather should be taken as a sign of ownership by the head of the workshop producing the pot. While in agreement with Cook's rejection of ἐποίεσεν as a term referring to the craftsman who threw the vase, I am not altogether satisfied with his alternative proposal. Why was the designation of ownership painted on the vase, and by whom was it painted? Cook's suggestion would have the signature act as a trade name to identify the product. If so, why were so few pots designated in this manner? We would expect that a trade name would almost automatically be placed on all goods emanating from a workshop and that if this became customary in the more prominent workshops it would have been adopted in the lesser ones. In short, why were not all Greek vases so designated—at least in the second half of the sixth and the first half of the fifth century?The only ἐποίεσεν signature to appear with any frequency or consistency is that of Nikosthenes on the special amphora form which now carries his name. Other workshops do not provide the extensive signatures; however, if we can determine the meaning of the signature in the Nikosthenic shop we will not be far from the use of ἐποίεσεν in other workshops.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: