The Iconography of Women on Attic Pottery
It’s hot. You hear the rhythmic sound of fire crackling in the background. There’s a wafting smell of singed pine needles and olive oil. A flame erupts outs of a chimney – from the kiln – and is covered by two apprentices; grey smoke fills the air as the fire is choked. Hours later, after the fire has died, what’s left behind are solid, red and black painted pots.
If you will pay me for my song, O potters,
“Kiln,” 1-2
then come, Athena, and hold thy hand above the kiln!
These first two lines are from the poem “Kiln,” written in c. 130-80 BCE by a Psuedo-Herodotus (Noble 102-016). It holds insight into what a Greek potter was possibly thinking as they fired their ceramics; producing its indestructible nature that’s allowed tens of thousands of ceramics to survive, to be found by archaeologists, and to be studied (Lewis 4). How might this relate to women in antiquity? Well, the study of iconography is crucial as it allows scholars a glimpse into antiquity through the perspective of the ancients themselves. Moreover, it’s especially important to study the iconography of women as there is still a “widespread imbalance in the representation of men and women, both in archaeological accounts of the past and in the makeup of the profession” (Hamilton et al. 13). Pottery can depict how women were relevant and valued in Greek society, as well as hold information about women that aren’t found in the literary or archaeological record otherwise. As I’ll explain, women played an active role in the inspiration, creation, purchase, and use of pottery.
However, much like other forms of evidence from antiquity, ceramic evidence is made up of fragmented representations more often than completed scenes. It is unlikely one can create a cradle-to-grave story of Attic women without the use of evidence from other periods and regions; therefore creating an unconvincing whole (Lewis 11-12). Additionally, there is always the pervasive threat of a male-dominated (androcentric) view, both in scholarship and from the ancients. Nevertheless, I’ll be reviewing the depictions of roles that women are thoroughly represented in (bride, wife, mourner) rather than those that are infrequent (young girl, grandmother, widow).
Classical archaeologists didn’t take note of the androcentric bias in their research until 1975 when Sarah Pomeroy, a classicist, published Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, which highlighted the lack of studies on women in antiquity (Brown 257). At this time, first and second-wave feminist scholarship had already been sweeping through academia, with the goal of correcting androcentric biases and focusing on the oppression of women, respectively (Hamilton et al. 13-14). More recently, the field has developed both gender archaeology (studying gender as a system) and the archaeology of women (concentrating on making women visible and represented within the archaeological record and scholarship) (Whitehouse 27). Archaeology has traditionally been controlled by a male ethos and power structure (Brown 241), severely limiting a female perspective of material culture. Classical scholars have used contemporary texts to clarify gender and women’s lives, relegating them to the sidelines and reinforcing the “natural” gender roles of ancient women (257). Yet, as I’ll demonstrate, women were far more active in ancient Greek life and crucial to society’s function and survival than the concept of “housewife” or “dependant” deems.
The field of iconography is extensive, so what I aim to achieve with this webpage is to introduce the reader to the most well-known representations of women in Attic pottery, such as within the domestic setting, weddings, and funerals. Most recovered Greek pottery is from Athens (and Attica) and so it will be more appropriate to focus on this region. Furthermore, Athens is known for its particularly restrictive attitude towards women compared to other Greek city-states, so their perspective and ideals of women will also affect our interpretation of the scenes I will be presenting on this page.
CONTENTS:
- Life of a Pot
- Everyday Life: Domestic Labour & the Home
- A Woman’s Moment: Weddings to Funerals
- Conclusion
- References
Life of a Pot
For my purposes, it’s most important to know that there were two main styles of pottery in ancient Greece: black-figure and red-figure. Black-figure originated in Cornith in approximately 700 BCE, which was then adapted and used extensively by Athens from around 630 BCE onwards. This technique used a black glaze to produce figures and designs, leaving the background the colour of the clay after firing. Engraved lines (done by a sharp instrument) and added colours (red and white) were used to enhance the composition of the scenes. By 530 BCE, this technique was reversed to create red-figure, in which the figures were left as the colour of the clay and the background was filled with black glaze (Sparkes 19). This technique gained huge popularity within Athens and completely drove black-figure out of the market half a century later (Tarbell 273).
With this basic understanding of all the factors that contribute to a single pot – its style, its theme, its period, and its audience – we can truly delve into the iconography of a piece and begin to assemble these parts to create a whole picture, which we can use to further our understanding of antiquity – and in this case, Attica particularly.
Styles, Themes, and Audience
Images of women (and essentially any genre) changed through time as certain themes became fashionable and then faded out of popularity. Black-figure most commonly had scenes of women in mourning and fetching water, whereas scenes of enslaved persons, sex, or domestic work were most common in red-figure pottery. By 440 BCE, scenes of women became much more “standardized and limited” (Lewis 9). Specific scenes of domestic settings, preparations for weddings, and funerary scenes were the only depictions of women at home or engaged in ritual, dominating figural pottery decorations during the Peloponnesian War (Lewis 9).
The war led to an increase in Athenian naval power and territory which also led to an increase in the trade of pottery. Athens managed to corner the market, therefore, by the fifth century BCE, most figure-decorated vases were Athenian. Athens also dominated the Western market, in which most black-figure and red-figure pottery was for export and foreign customers – especially Etruria and Southern Italy (Bron and Lissarrague 12). But, after the middle of the fourth century, there was a rise in female scenes depicted specifically on some decorated vessels, such as pyxides, lekythoi, and hydriai, which stayed within Attica to be used, specifically by women (Lewis 9). Ultimately, one must understand that the audience of the pot plays a crucial role in an iconographer’s interpretation of a scene, as perspective or ideals will differ between viewers.
Potters, Painters, People
Although we know much about the processes of where pots were traded and where they ended up, relatively little is known about where they were made and how pottery workshops functioned, as there are few descriptions of them (Bron and Lissarrague 11), and what information we do have primarily comes from inscribed names (Balachandran, 2019). It’s likely that all Greek city-states had their own potters’ quarters somewhere (Boardman 11), and it’s known that Athens had its own “potters’ quarter” near the Agora (city marketplace) where most craftsmen had individual workshops to carry out their businesses (Sparkes 11). From the inscriptions of names, there is a distinction between the individual who made the pot (potter) and the one who painted the pot (painter). Although not inscribed on all pots, the verb egraphsen refers to the painter of a particular vase, whereas epoiesen refers to the craftsman who made the vessel. Potters would have overlooked the workshop, production, and firing, and negotiated prices for the purchase of materials and sales. On the other hand, painters could have potentially worked anywhere or for multiple potters when they painted (Sapirstein 499-500).
There is also much discourse over who and how many individuals contributed to creating a pot. Masters, metics (resident aliens), apprentices, freed, and enslaved people all likely had a hand in the creation of each vessel (Balachandran, 2019). Due to the fact that not all pots were signed, scholars began to recognize drawing styles. It was proposed by Giuseppe Morelli, and later adapted by Sir John Beazley, that a painter’s style developed distinctively over time, similarly to handwriting, and thus can be recognized. This allowed scholars to distinguish art by the same painter (Moignard 35).
Women were not completely absent from this process. Whenever there have been depictions of pottery workshops, Athena (goddess of wisdom and technical skill) stands at the side of the craftsmen, evidently empowering them to successfully complete their creations (pictured right). Moreover, there have been pots found with a woman seen painting a krater (pictured right, the woman far right) (Bron and Lissarrague 11), kneading clay, and possibly drawing (Balachandran, 2019). To know more about the people behind the production of Attic pottery and what they could have been feeling, below is a podcast episode featuring Sanchita Balachandran discussing the sensory experiences of ancient Greek potters.
Everyday Life: Domestic Labour & the Home
By far, domestic work was one of the most popular themes for pottery decoration as it portrays everyday tasks. It provides important information for the understanding of a woman’s place in society and the home, as artists have illustrated household tasks and essentially reproduced an Athenian wife’s day. However, while we’ll explore pottery that is certainly used by women, not all pots with domestic scenes were for “female use” (Lewis 59). In fact, many scenes of domestic tasks are more often found on pots intended for export, often being sent to Italy or Magna Graecia, where they were placed in the tombs of those who purchased them. This proves there was a market for depictions of women at work, clearly indicating that this sort of imagery was seen as valuable, relevant, interesting, or artful. Regardless of the reason for the high export of domestic scenes, people in antiquity wanted to see these depictions, already making this genre of pottery important in and of itself.
Even though pottery with such depictions was clearly sought out, the work of Athenian women, both slave and free, remains understudied in pottery by modern scholars. Nonetheless, the sphere of work for women was firmly outlined in both society and literature, yet some activities are represented and admired much more than others (Lewis 62). In Oeconomicus, Xenophon defines feminine activities, such as overseeing wool-work, breadmaking, looking after the stores, taking care of the children and the sick, and generally keeping the house in order. I’ll be reviewing some of these categories. For the following sections, I rely heavily on Lewis’s chapter on “Domestic Labour” (59-90) and will cite appropriately where I must.
Wool-work
Wool-work was the Greeks’ “canonical expression of female domestic labour” (Lewis 62) and continues to serve as an ideological marker through literature, epitaphs, and art. It is undoubtedly the most significant female domestic task for painters to illustrate, as spinning and weaving mark a woman as female and virtuous. As it is such a heavily represented theme in pottery, there is a need for distinctions between scenes of work and production (in which wool-work is the focus) and scenes of family-life or leisure (in which wool-work is a marker). A reason why wool-work is so highly valued is because it is seen as contributing to the economy of the oikos (household). However, the whole process of wool-working and its distinct stages are not documented, as painters have only focused on certain aspects of wool-work. Instead, the most common scenes you’ll find are scenes with lumps of wool being put into or taken out of a basket, women weighing wool for their slaves, carding wool (removing burrs and/or dirt before spinning), and spinning with a distaff. Using distaffs (pictured right) became very popular and was the principal way of denoting female wool-work (hanging in the background if not in use). Depictions of women weaving on an actual large loom are rare – there is only one scene of such a loom in use – as distaffs are much smaller and more convenient way to represent wool-working (62-65).
Food Preparation
The Greeks had a range of cooking pots that were developed from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic Period. By the 6th and 5th centuries, there were many differently shaped jugs used for food preparation. It would be intuitive to imagine that these pots were often decorated with scenes of cooking and feasting, however, these vessels were never decorated with figural depictions. The only decoration seen on these pots is that of incised wavy lines or swastikas (which was an ancient religious and cultural symbol) (Spataro & Villing 181-183).
Additionally, there is a lack of representation on decorated pots of women preparing food, despite the fact that the responsibilities of an ancient Athenian wife included keeping the house in order, storing provisions, and managing the food. There is only one depiction of this responsibility on pottery – a skyphos that is now in the Getty Museum (pictured below) (Lewis 65). A woman is depicted drinking from a skyphos, while a small girl, carrying a bundle on her head, follows behind her. However, this is not a depiction of a diligent Athenian housewife, but rather one that falls in line with the stereotype within comedies, wherein husbands hold the keys to the house’s food storage and women steal secretly from them (especially wine) (66). Lewis suggests that this lack of representation could be due to a sense of “gender hostility” (71) wherein depictions of women cooking could be seen as threatening because of the association with women preparing potions or poisons. Both of these examples give us insight into how the ancients typically saw Greek women: as lacking the ability to control herself or something that must be controlled. Overall, there is little iconography of food preparation, and many are indeterminate.
Water
Unlike scenes concerning food, water and washing scenes are shown much more enthusiastically (and often) by Athenian painters. The fetching of water from a fountain-house is considered to be the earliest “domestic” task to be depicted on pottery and is used as a motif on many hydriai. These scenes usually feature a group of women at an “architecturally sophisticated” (Lewis 71) fountain-house bringing empty hydriai and carrying back full ones.
This type of scene became popular on black-figure pottery, but then died out around 500 BCE with the increased popularity of red-figure pottery. Red-figure saw an increase in other popular water scenes, such as women drawing water from wells, holding water jars, and washing clothes. Yet, even these scenes disappear after the 450s, and later scenes involving washing are only mythical in setting (77).
Childcare
Childcare and the upbringing of children was universally considered the mother’s role by the Greeks. However, it must not be mistaken that the mother was the center of the family; the father and his heirs were the central elements of the oikos, whereas women (and girls eventually) were only expected to birth heirs (Lewis 81). Overall, there is little interaction between adults and children in pottery and even less scholarship on the topic. This could be due to the fact that the father was seen as head of the household, and thus the family structure was revolved around him. Yet, this is another demonstration of how women – whose primary role is considered to be a mother – are swept under the rug of academic interest.
Children were most often depicted in pottery as evidence of productivity: some infants stand or crawl to demonstrate their masculinity, and women are shown with babies to demonstrate their “virtuous production” (Lewis 81), which is their expected duty. Lewis states that the reason there could be so few depictions of adults and children together is that the status of a free child and an enslaved person could be difficult to distinguish in scenes of domestic work (as there are no stylistic markers between either) and painters would rather avoid this ambiguity (83).
Agriculture
Although men would provide the raw materials for the household – such as wood, grain, and wine – and women’s responsibilities were within the household, it is likely that only a small fraction of women had the ability to remain inside the house and shun outdoor labour altogether (Scheidel 207). Suggesting women assisted with outdoor labour has been supported through anthropological studies in the Mediterranean (Lewis 83), information from post-ancient societies (Scheidel 208), and Aristotle, who says “for the poor having no slaves are forced to employ their women and children as servants” (Pol. 6.1323a).
While female tasks certainly centered around the house, it is probable that “feeding and milking goats, feeding hens, making cheese, collecting fodder and firewood” (Lewis 83) could have been women’s responsibilities as well. Realistically, such contributions were possibly considered unimportant or even inappropriate to illustrate due to the Greeks’ dominating ideologies of a gendered binary of work. The only scenes that connect women directly with agriculture are those that illustrate women feeding domesticated animals, such as pigs, geese, or chickens (pictured right). Otherwise, the only other connection between women and the outdoors is through the motif of fruit picking (such as the Attic black-figure lekythos AT700 in the Herzog Anton Ulrichs-Museum, Germany). There are many pots that feature groups of women (possibly in orchards) picking fruits and putting them in baskets, or even simply sitting around the tree (83-84). Whether this could be counted as “agricultural work” is unlikely as the actual collecting of the fruit isn’t depicted, suggesting that work is not the central theme. Thus, any agricultural work done by women is unspoken of and successfully eliminated from our sources, allowing for even more unsung labour of ancient women.
A Woman’s Moment: Weddings to Funerals
Both marriages and funerals were very important events in Greek social and religious life and are two stages in which women had the primary role (Lewis 14). Such scenes are most often found on loutrophoroi, which are elongated amphorae used to carry water for the bath that were part of both marriage and funerary rituals. These vessels are almost homogenous in their iconography, as they almost exclusively depict wedding or funeral scenes (Bron and Lissarrague 16). A popular scene for loutrophoroi and on other vessels was the nuptial procession that brought the bride to her new home: the bride – with a veiled head and wearing a crown – is placed in a racing or war chariot drawn by four horses and controlled by the groom, holding the reigns and a whip. The herald with a hat, boots, and caduceus of Hermes stands in front and conducts the procession. A group of women surrounds the couple carrying marriage gifts or ritual objects on their heads. As marriage is a religious event, the gods of Olympus sometimes participate. For this reason, depictions of gods or goddesses, such as Apollo or Athena, may be present in these wedding scenes. Although the nuptial procession scene itself is popularly depicted in Greek pottery, they are not all the same. In one instance, the pot has the nuptial scene unfolding between two poles, from the bride’s parent’s house to her husband’s house (Berard, 98-102).
In funerary and mourning scenes, you will find an almost equal number of men and women (likely due to its communal effect). They often take the Greek pose for mourning: raised arms by their head in an emphatic gesture of grief (pictured below, left). During the Archaic period (c. 800-480 BCE), scenes of death and funerals were more descriptively and precisely portrayed through transfers of the deceased from the house to the cemetery (funerary procession). By the fifth century BCE, however, these scenes became more symbolic with the images of the deceased in the presence of the gods, such as facing Hermes, the god of passages, and Charon, the ferryman for the Underworld (Berard, 103-107).
Women were exceptionally prevalent in funerary rituals and their participation could be divided into two categories: mourning and gift-giving (pictured below, center). Their differences depended on how involved they were in the norms of everyday life; mourning activities were distinct from the every day as women wailed laments, tore out their hair, gashed their cheeks, and beat their chests to display their grief. Mourning behaviour was connected to ritual and was expected to last for thirty days from the moment of death. Conversely, funerary gift-giving was considered an everyday activity and wasn’t limited to a prescribed time period. Women often provided their deceased relatives with food, adornment, and textiles. This care for the dead was an extension of the care which women gave their living household, therefore it is an integrated activity during daily life (Closterman 161-162).
Women gave both post-burial and pre-burial gifts. Besides descriptions of this practice from surviving texts of Athenian tragedies, most evidence of this ritual activity comes from white-ground lekythoi, vessels used to store oil. Lekythoi themselves often served as post-burial gifts – as the majority of iconography found on them is explicitly funerary – but were also used to “pour libations, burn on funeral pyres, deposit in graves, or leave above ground on tombstones” (162). Other gifts left included food to nourish the dead (mainly fruit, but also eggs and cakes) or objects to decorate the tombstone. The function of ritualized gift-giving helped maintain a connection between the living (giver) and the dead (recipient). It allowed women to connect with the dead and to provide for them as they do for their living family and demonstrated a physical record of completed conduct of ritual and fulfilled obligation (162-168).
Pre-burial gifts, such as clothing, pillows, and other textiles (like a shroud), are prepared for the corpse for both the display and burial of the deceased. Within both surviving textiles and iconography, it is known that these funerary textiles are important and lavish: patterned funerary textiles appear frequently in depictions of funerary gift-giving. This is consistent with the Greeks’ ideology of gender – as women were wool-makers for the house – textiles have been historically seen as the quintessential women’s gift and remain a symbol of women’s work and “familial harmony” (Closterman 172).
Overall, it is notable how involved women are in both weddings and funerals compared to other aspects of Greek life. During these times, women are needed as mothers and wives, as well as their other roles in society. Whether one believes that the depictions of these scenes truly appreciate the extent of labour that women put in for both weddings and funerary rituals can be debatable. Although brides, mothers, and mourners are certainly the center of attention in many of these vessels, there is still the expectation or depiction of a waiting groom or deceased man.
Conclusion
Even though I have introduced arguably the three most well-known areas of Athenian women’s lives, this list is certainly not exhaustive. There are still several other themes that fall outside of the scope of this webpage, such as women’s role in warrior departures, in myth, in religious ceremonies and rituals, and much more. Although this suggests that there are many other themes and genres that concern women – and that is still true – the iconography of women is still vastly overshadowed by the iconography of men, along with a female perspective being overshadowed by a male perspective. Trying to piece together women’s lives requires sifting through a vast amount of materials, analyzing numerous factors, and understanding various nuances of the ancients and their material culture. There is also decades of sexism, bias, and gender essentialism within Classics that further inhibit or discourage new ideas and interpretations. Yet, the information I’ve put together on this webpage proves that there are still facets to Greek women’s lives that are difficult or impossible to be found in other mediums and that they likely had a greater role in society that both the ancients and modern scholars unconsciously – or purposefully – disregarded and erased. My hope is to encourage further scholarship and awareness about these ancient women, whose appreciation is well-deserved and long overdue.
May the kotyloi and all the kanastra turn a good black,
may they be well fired and fetch the price asked,
many being sold in the marketplace and many on the roads,
and bring in much money, and may my song be pleasing.
“Kiln,” 3-6
References
Adams, A. (2017, September 24 {of video post}). Death and burial in ancient Greece. Youtube. https://youtu.be/4bN-lQLGd98
Aristotle. (1944). Aristotle in 23 Volumes (H. Rackham, Trans). Harvard University Press. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D1323a (Original work published in ca. 4th century B.C.E)
Berard, C. (1989). The order of women. In C. Berard, C. Bron, J. L. Durand, F. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. Lissarrague, A. Schnapp, and J. P. Vernant (Eds.), City of images: Iconography and society in ancient Greece. (pp. 89-108). Translated by Deborah Lyons. Princeton University Press.
Boardman, J. (2001). The history of Greek vases: Potters, painters and pictures. Thames & Hudson.
Bron, C. & Lissarrague, F. (1989). Looking at the vase. In C. Berard, C. Bron, J. L. Durand, F. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. Lissarrague, A. Schnapp, & J. P. Vernant (Eds.), City of images: Iconography and society in ancient Greece. (pp. 11-22). Translated by Deborah Lyons. Princeton University Press.
Brown, S. (1993). Feminist research in archaeology: What does it mean? Why is it taking so long? In N. S. Rabinowitz & A. Richlin (Eds.), Feminist theory and the classics (pp. 238-271). Routledge.
Closterman, W. E. (2014). Women as gift givers and gift producers in ancient Athenian funerary ritual. In A. Avramidou, & D. Demetriou (Eds.), Approaching the ancient artifact: Representation, narrative, and function (pp. 161-174). De Gruyter, Inc. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acadia/detail.action?docID=1174140.
The Fitzwilliam Museum. (2021, September 14 {of video post}). The story of an ancient Greek pot. Youtube. https://youtu.be/_d0aYNYxGeY
Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R. D., & Wright, K. I. (2007). Introduction. In S. Hamilton, R. D. Whitehouse, & K. I. Wright (Eds.), Archaeology and women: Ancient & modern issues (pp. 13-24). Left Coast Press, Inc.
Lewis, S. (2002). The Athenian women: An iconographic handbook. Taylor & Francis Group. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acadia/detail.action?docID=1144688.
Moignard, E. (2006). Greek vases: An introduction. Bristol Classics Press.
Noble, J. V. (1966). The techniques of painted Attic pottery. Faber & Faber.
Sapirstein, P. (2013). Painters, potters, and the scale of the Attic vase-painting industry. American Journal of Archaeology, 117(4), 493-510. https://www-journals-uchicago-edu.ezproxy.acadiau.ca:9443/doi/abs/10.3764/aja.117.4.0493
Scheidel, W. (1995). The most silent women of Greece and Rome: Rurual labour and women’s life in the ancient world (1). Greece & Rome, 42(2), 202-217. https://www.jstor.org/stable/643231
Sparkes, B. A. (1991). Greek pottery; An introduction. Manchester University Press.
Spataro, M. and Villing, A. (2015). Ceramics, cuisine and culture: The archaeology and science of kitchen pottery in the ancient Mediterranean world. Oxbow Books Ltd.
Tarbell, F. B. (1913). A history of Greek art. Greenwood Press.
Whitehouse, R. D. (2007). Gender archaeology and archaeology of women: Do we need both? In S. Hamilton, R. D. Whitehouse, & K. I. Wright (Eds.), Archaeology and women: Ancient & modern issues (pp. 27-40). Left Coast Press, Inc.
World History Encyclopaedia. (2022, January 8 {of video post}). The roles, rights and lives of women in ancient Greece. Youtube. https://youtu.be/5-ASzrpGZ-k
Xenophon. (2013). Oeconomicus (T. Merchant, Trans. & J. Henderson, Rev.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published in ca. 362 B.C.E)
Images
1. 1772,0320.216 [Pottery]. (c. 440-430BCE). British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/1772-0320-216
2. Eretria Painter. (c. 440-415 BCE). 1874,0512.1[Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1874-0512-1
3. Eretria Painter. (c. 440-410 BCE). 86.AE.243 [Pottery]. Getty Villa, Los Angeles, Unites States. https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103W5R
4. Leningrad Painter. (c. 460 BCE). ARV 571,73 [Pottery]. Torno Collection, Milan, Italy.
5. Brygos Painter. (c. 490-470 BCE). 1873,0820.304 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1873-0820-304
6. Spataro, M. and Villing, A. (2015). Robust forms of the 6th and 5th centuries BC [Figure]. Ceramics, cuisine and culture: The archaeology and science of kitchen pottery in the ancient Mediterranean world, 183.
7. Attic Red-Figure Skyphos (86.AE.265) [Pottery]. (c. 460-450 BCE). Getty Villa, Los Angeles, Unites States. https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103W6D
8. Priam Painter. (c. 510 BCE). 1843,1103.17 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1843-1103-17
9. AD Painter. (c. 520-500 BCE). 1843,1103.49 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1843-1103-49
10. Lysippides Painter. (c. 510 BCE). 1868,0610.3 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1868-0610-3
11. 1873,0820.350 [Pottery]. (c. 440-430 BCE). British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1873-0820-350
12. Achilles Painter. (c. 460-430 BCE). 1874,1110.1 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1874-1110-1
13. 1910,0615.4 [Pottery]. (c. 440-430 BCE). British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1910-0615-4
14. Attic red-figure cup F2306 [Pottery]. (c. 480 BC). Staatliche Museen, Belrin, Germany.
15. 1868,0610.2 [Pottery]. (c. 550-540 BCE). British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1868-0610-2
16. Sophilos. (c. 580-570 BCE). 1971,1101.1 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1971-1101-1
17. 1910,0711.1 [Pottery]. (c. 425 BCE). British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1910-0711-1
18. 1930,0417.1 [Pottery]. (c. 430 BCE). British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1930-0417-1
19. Tymbos Painter. (c. 460-440 BCE). 1966,0119.1 [Pottery]. British Museum, London, United Kingdom. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1966-0119-1
20. Achilles Painter. (c. 440 BCE). 1989.281.72 [Pottery]. Metropolitan Museum, New York, United States. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/255949
Women in Antiquity 