This voluminous book presents all the Attic black-figure (nos 1–1,290), red-figure (nos 1,291–603) and black glaze pottery with graffiti (nos 1,604–32) excavated in the Ionian city Miletus from 1955–2009 (the rest of the black-glaze imports will be published later).

In the introductory chapter K. discusses the three main sites where the pottery was found: the area around the Athena temple, sites on the Kalabaktepe and in the domestic area south of it, and on the Zeyintepe, where a temple for Aphrodite was found, producing the majority of the Attic imports. Appendices 1–3 provide helpful maps. The next chapters deal with vase-shapes, sanctuary pottery and the various deposits. The earliest Attic imports are a horse-head amphora (no. 2), lebes fragments (nos 53–63) and an olpe by the Gorgon Painter (no. 117). This means that the import of Attic pottery starts around 590/580 b.c., slightly later than in Smyrna and the Heraion on Samos, around the same time as in Klazomenai and Phokaia, and slightly earlier than in Daskyleion. Especially amongst the Attic imports from the Zeyintepe, drinking vessels form the vast majority, as may be expected from sanctuary pottery. Little-master cups (nos 379–939) are best represented, but there is also a remarkably large number of Cassel cups (nos 999–1,104).

Chapter 4 (unfortunately headed 6) presents the inscriptions and graffiti, whereas the following chapter, written by N. Ehrhardt, comments on the names of the dedicators in the graffiti. Next, ancient repairs and clay analysis are discussed. The pottery with ancient repairs was found mainly in the sanctuary of Aphrodite on the Zeyintepe, which shows that this reviewer's hypothesis, that repaired pottery was not deemed appropriate for dedication to a deity, should be adjusted, at least for Miletus (P. Heesen, Athenian Little-Master Cups [2011], p. 258).

The next three chapters allow K. to elaborate on specific objects, starting with the spectacular finds of three Droop cups by Amasis (nos 980–2), a hitherto unknown shape in his œuvre. One is signed under one handle, with a kalos inscription under the other handle. K. dates these cups slightly too early: they seem to be contemporary with three band-cups, also signed under the handle, to be dated c. 545/40 b.c. (Heesen 2011, op. cit., nos 224–6). The spiral ornaments clearly show that Amasis was inspired by the Botkin Class, as is also visible in some of his neck-amphorae. The calyx pyxides (nos 162–208) are treated next (K. rightly avoids the misleading label ‘Nikosthenic’ for this shape); no. 160 seems to be a prototype of the shape, dated to c. 570 b.c., whereas no. 161 in shape shows clear parallels with Laconian ‘chalices’ and in decoration with the Attic calyx pyxides, as they developed from c. 560/50 b.c. Their subject, two women sharing one mantle, has been widely discussed (add to the literature mentioned: M.-C. Villanueva-Puig, ‘Deux ménades sous le même manteau’, REA 106 [2004], 445–54). K. does not convince me when he too easily dismisses the (homo-)erotic meaning often given to the scene, and proposes a generic meaning, in which the images of the women in connection with the function of the vase-shape as perfume holder represent the female realm. The next chapter treats the mystery of how Beazley knew the two fragments by the Altamura Painter (nos 1,292–3), one of which is lost.

The following chapters deal with the Attic imports in light of the history of Miletus. K. notes limited imports before the mid-sixth century, a peak between 540–520, and limited imports again in the last decades of the sixth century b.c. Despite a fixed date of 494 b.c. for the city's destruction by the Persians after the Ionian revolt and not being rebuilt till 479 b.c., earlier excavations at Miletus had not been very helpful for the absolute dating of late Archaic/early Classical pottery. Excavations since 1985 changed that, especially when large numbers of pottery were found in the sanctuary on the Zeyintepe. Since the 1980s, when Francis and Vickers challenged the traditional absolute chronology set out by Studniczka and Langlotz, downdating it by 30–50 years, scholars produced many articles, often dismissing the Francis–Vickers chronology, sometimes trying to find ways in between the two chronologies. K. clearly explains that the finds from Miletus now definitely confirm the traditional absolute chronology. The charts in Chapter 13 dividing the finds according to find location, shape and date, outlining much of the information from the previous chapters, are extremely helpful.

The bulk of the book is devoted to a complete catalogue with concise descriptions. The majority of the items are published for the first time and illustrated by excellent photos, mostly taken by K. and his wife. The crisp profile drawings of the most important, best preserved vases are very useful. Amongst the lip-cup fragments there are two rather puzzling pieces because of their un-Attic decoration. No. 379, decorated with a dog approaching a grasshopper, is painted with reserved details, rather than incised. This technique is known from Fikellura pottery and the earliest Ionian little-master cups. Analysis of the clay, however, shows that the cup was made of Attic clay. In an earlier publication of this fragment U. Schlotzhauer notes that it is more likely that a Milesian painter worked in the Athenian Kerameikos than that Attic clay was imported in Miletus (U. Schlotzhauer, Die südionischen Knickrandschalen. Eine chronologische Untersuchung zu den sog. Ionischen Schalen in Milet, diss. Ruhr-Universität Bochum [2001], pp. 332–3). The second fragment is no. 390, not recognised by K. as extraordinary (which probably explains why the clay is not analysed). This fragment is decorated on the inside and the outside of the lip, a feature that occasionally occurs on Ionian lip-cups, but never on Attic ones. K. ranks this fragment amongst the lip-cups with inside and outside decoration. However, the inside decoration of all known Attic lip-cups is done in a medallion whereas the inside of the lip is always painted black with a reserved line just below the rim. If the clay turns out to be Attic, is this another example of a Milesian painter working in Athens? Could this also be the explanation for two (supposedly Attic) lip-cups with concentric circles inside, another feature of Ionian cups, Heidelberg 91/1 with fake Tleson signature, and New York, Sotheby's, 11 December 2002, no. 34 (Heesen 2011, op. cit., no. 505, p. 208 with n. 1,283)?

Some further notes: the letters -ENO- on no. 407 cannot be part of a Xenokles signature, since the beginning of his signature would be placed much further to the left in the handle-zone; the animal seems to be a wounded or started deer with raised head; no. 520 depicts a donkey chasing a maenad; no. 536: a dog jumping up to the chariot-horses seems more likely than a panther or lion; nos 554, 555 and 577 are probably by the same painter; nos 563 and 564 are probably by the same painter, possibly from the same cup; no. 632 depicts crouching, masturbating youths; no. 643 cannot be attributed to the Tleson Painter; no. 718 depicts a cock and hen; no. 759 could be a Priapos signature; no. 1,278 probably depicts Nessos abducting Deianara.

Even though one may disagree on details, K. has produced an outstanding analysis of the Attic imports in their Milesian context making this book an indispensable reference work for scholars working on Attic pottery. The many new vases from a clear context will further enrich the academic debate whether on questions of attribution, development and distribution of shapes, sanctuary pottery, trade, the use of local and imported ware, inscriptions or iconography.