This CVA volume presents the fifth fascicule of Sweden; it covers a total of 152 Corinthian, Etrusco-Corinthian and East Greek pottery items from four collections, one in Uppsala and the other three in Lund. The first section covers pottery in Gustavianum – Uppsala University Museum (GUUM), and the second examines pottery from three separate collections in Lund (The Historical Museum at Lund University [HMLU], The Cultural Museum of Southern Sweden [CMSS] and Malmö Art Museum [MAM]). Uppsala appears for the first time, and Lund for the second in the CVA series. GUUM and HMLU hold study collections, which were established during the twentieth century for university students. The ceramics in all collections were part of distinct private collections prior to their final placement. The history of the collections is briefly introduced at the beginning of each section, and the pottery is organised in two main groups: (1) Corinthian (22 in Uppsala and 41 in Lund) and Etrusco-Corinthian (6 in Uppsala and 3 in Lund); (2) East Greek (57 in Uppsala and 23 in Lund).
The volume certainly gives insights on important classes of previously published as well as unpublished pottery; however, although released in 2020, it rather represents a study completed during the 1990s with minor acknowledgements of recent scholarship. It would have been more welcome if it had been thoroughly updated with recent discoveries and suggestions. At first glance, the initial impression is the weak scholarly treatment, coupled with clumsy draughtsmanship of profile drawings of East Greek pottery in Uppsala that shadows other pottery collections, which are considerably better studied and illustrated.
The CVA series has a strict format, and the content, to a large extent, remains uniform: an introduction to the collections, acquisitions and previous scholarship is followed by catalogue entries grouped under several classifications. The distinctive aspect of each entry is the meticulous description enriched with drawings and pictures. The entries are organized by provenance, source, dimensions, condition, technical features, shape, decoration, comments, date and bibliography. The comparisons are expected to consist of recent literature along with citations to past scholarship and high-quality illustrations. In view of these characteristic aspects of CVA, the current volume displays an unbalanced treatment of each collection that demonstrates an overall non-uniformity.
The sections on Corinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian pottery from the Uppsala and Lund collections are prepared by Blomberg and Werkström and, as noted (pp. 12, 46), the descriptions of more than half of the Corinthian pottery in Uppsala are based on Blomberg's article of 1993, who submitted her part for the Lund collection in 1997. The pottery is organised chronologically (Corinthian Geometric, Protocorinthian and Corinthian), and the classifications are based on the works of three pioneering scholars (H.G.G. Payne, D.A. Amyx and C.W. Neeft), whose chronology and stylistic classifications are accepted despite being published in the previous century. The pottery includes mainly conventional unguent and cosmetic vessels (e.g. alabastron, aryballos, exaleiptron, amphoriskos and pyxis), and a few other common vessel shapes (e.g. kotyle, lebes gamikos, oinochoe, olpe and hydria) of the seventh and sixth centuries. The attribution of artists or groups (e.g. Braunsberg Painter, Warrior aryballoi, Dodwell group) are to a large extent based on Blomberg's and Neeft's observations, and one alabastron is attributed to the Columbus Painter (after M. von Heland, p. 14, nos 7–9).
The largest group in the volume consists of East Greek pottery items, most of which are said to come from Rhodos (HMLU) and Clazomenai (GUUM), and a few from Larisa on the Hermos (GUUM). The HMLU collection (described by Roos) consists mainly of Rhodian products, such as popular saggy lekythoi with ridged necks, aryballoi with pendant concentric hooks and relief pithoi as well as zoomorphic vessels of the seventh and sixth centuries; twelve vases were previously published by G. Bourogiannis in 2019 and a few others by C. Blinkenberg in 1931. Each group is carefully classified with related comments and bibliography; however, some recent research seems to be missing for comparison, especially on Rhodian relief ware.
Nearly two-thirds of the GUUM collection consists of East Greek pottery (described by Nordquist); it is grouped by Protogeometric and Geometric, wild goat style, Clazomenian black figure and East Greek various. Many vessels of distinct classes of north Ionian origin are evidently scattered across these groups; few are other East Greek. In this respect, a regional classification, e.g. ‘Clazomenian and other north Ionian pottery’, would have been more useful. Although very small in number, it is odd to see Classical and Hellenistic pottery amongst archaic vases of ‘East Greek various’. Considering the recent discoveries and important discussions on regional west Anatolian archaic pottery, the book ignores many crucial publications. Most importantly, a specific group has been identified of Clazomenian banded and wave-line pottery, examples of which are attested numerously as local products in well-stratified contexts of Clazomenai (K. Uzun, ‘Clazomenian Wave-lined Pottery’, in R.G. Gürtekin-Demir et al. [edd.], Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies [2018], pp. 315–44). Having been unaware of this group and of Uzun's article, Nordquist diffuses the relevant pottery in ‘East Greek various’ with inadequate assessments and dates that need to be reconsidered (pp. 34–43), and erroneously lists one of these vases among Protogeometric and Geometric pottery (Nordquist suggests a late eighth-century date, p. 26, fig. 35), which is evidently a sixth-century wave-line oinochoe (cf. Uzun [2018], fig. 3h–m). There are other important publications not cited, for example the reassessment of the classification and chronology of regional archaic pottery centres of Asia Minor by M. Kerschner and U. Schlotzhauer (Ancient West & East 4 [2005], 1–56). It is unfortunate that three articles by B. Özer on Clazomenian black-figure material (pp. 30–3) are missing (II. Ulus. Eskişehir Pişmiş Toprak Sempozyumu [2002], pp. 349–54; Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony [2004], pp. 199–219; in: Festschrift für A. Furtwängler [2009], pp. 255–61). There are many discrepancies, some of which are worth mentioning: a number of citations to R.M. Cook and P. Dupont, East Greek Pottery (1998) do not correspond with the entry: for example, the comments on north Ionian wave-line amphora (pp. 38–9, no. 8, fig. 73) cite Cook & Dupont (1998), 32–70, which mentions Ionian wild-goat-style and says nothing about the wave-line group. According to the reviewer, the fragments associated with Aeolis (p. 27, fig. 36–7) are evidently of north Ionian origin. Although on p. 26 Nordquist states that the term ‘Rhodian wild goat style’ is no longer used (which is true), one entry is identified as ‘Rhodian wild goat style I’ (p. 30, no.7, fig. 45). The two-handled bowl (p. 35, fig. 63) is in fact a lekane. The illustrations on pp. 34–44 are of poor quality, coarsely drawn with wobbly lines and occasionally left incomplete (figs. 58–78, especially figs. 72, 74).
The profile drawings of other pottery in the book are of better quality. Except for a few profile drawings, nearly all lack scales. The line drawings of Corinthian pottery at the end of the text and the photographs in general as well as a few colour plates are helpful.
To conclude, although it represents no archaeological context, and from a technical and editorial point of view, such a volume deserves a better expert treatment, pottery in this CVA item, in some way or another, presents a helpful point of reference that especially addresses traces of the lesser-known East Greek pottery groups as well as the relatively better-known Corinthian and Etrusco-Corinthian pottery.
