Etruscan and South Italian Bird-Askoli

A Technological View

By: William D. Glanzman

Originally Published in 1987

View PDF

The pottery vessels of Classical antiquity represent some of the finest ever produced in the Old World. They come in numerous distinct shapes and often carry painted decorations which scholars have been able to assign not only to narrow time spans, but also to various regions of production and even to specific workshops. The vast number of decorative themes, the unparalleled mention of the names and functions for many of these vessels from a variety of ancient texts, and painted scenes actually depicting the use of some of these vessels have led scholars to study Classical pottery primarily as works of art and historical docu­ments, rather than as examples of technological development.

Comparatively few studies of Classical pottery have concerned themselves with aspects of ancient ceramic technology (see Noble 1965). Fewer still address the processes involved in the production of specific vessel farms. Often, only brief comments are provided in such studies, with descriptive terms such as “hand-made” or “molded” employed in discussions of how a particular vessel achieved its shape. It was the question of the relationship of form to manufacturing processes that led me to select a series of vessels for study using two non­destructive techniques: macroscopic examination and xeroradiography.

In 1985 the Curator of the Mediterranean Section, Professor Emeritus G. Roger Edwards, and I began a review of that section’s Classical collection in preparation for an investigation of the manufacturing methods responsible for some of the pottery. Selection of the pieces to be studied was by no means an easy task, for there are hundreds of complete vessels carefully packed away in the section’s storage area, and broken sherds from other vessels are even more numerous. As we began our search it became obvious that the most suitable artifacts for analysis were intact vessels with uncertain proveniences.

In the early days of The University Museum (and most other museums with extensive archaeological and ethnographic collections), many artifacts were acquired from private collectors, usually in the form of a gift. Unfortunately, the provenience and archaeological context of such artifacts are often unknown or have been guessed at by the collector or dealer. Occasionally there are a few scraps of information that can be tracked down through the Museum’s accession card for each object. More often, it is left to the archaeologist to narrow down the date of the object and/or attribute it to its cultural milieu based on comparisons with artifacts from better documented archaeological contexts.

The most suitable examples of pottery for my fabrication study turned out to be a series of closed vessel forms technically known as askoi (Fig. 1). The term askos is the ancient Greek word for “wineskin,” and in the context of pottery it refers to a vessel form having a rounded or bag-shaped body, a convex top, and a handle arching between the body and a spout. This form has a very long history through­out the Mediterranean, beginning in the early 3rd millennium B.C., or Early Bronze Age. At that time, the forms were mostly one-handled jugs whose spout had a naturalistic profile akin to the curvature of a bird’s neck. A number of morphological varieties developed thereafter, one of which was the bird-askos. The Etruscans in particular fancied this class of zoomorphic vessels.

As we had expected, little infor­mation concerning the archaeological origins of the six askoi selected for study could be gleaned from the registration cards. One vessel (L 64­38) came from the “Roman Campagna,” as indicated in pencil on its base. Another (L 64-516; not illustrated here) was attributed to a specified tomb group, and the intact condition of the rest suggests that they also came from burials. It is primarily through stylistic comparisons that we are able to say that this group of askoi originated within South Italy or Etruria (Fig. 2), during the 6th through the 3rd centuries B.C.

For the scholar interested in study­ing the complex burial customs of specific regions within Italy during the 1st millennium B.C., or in char­acterizing the painting style(s) exhibited by the ceramic products of such a region, these vessels have little if any value. At best, the scholar may be able to attribute the style of painting exhibited by an unprovenienced vessel to a specific region (as documented by vessels with known provenience). The obvious question, then, is to what use one can put such generously donated but poorly documented pieces in the Museum’s collections?

Previous ceramic investigations indicate that subtle changes in vessel shape or morphology can be directly linked to particular fabrication methods. A knowledge of methods of manufacture within a given area and time range can be of general value for the history of technology. When vessels can be placed within more specific stylistic groups, the technological characteristics they exhibit may provide unexpected results. For example, some of the bird-askoi considered here were re­cently studied by Professor Del Chiaro (Expedition 26[3], 1984). From his research Del Chiaro noted the importance that this vessel class had with respect to Etruscan chro­nology and commerce. Using certain morphological criteria and painted decoration, he defined four visually different types of bird-askoi. He explained the four types as the prod­ucts of four different workshops; variants within each type were at­tributed to changes in workshop production through time. Yet the reasons for the variation in morpho­logical features were not specifically addressed, nor was there a discussion of just how the ancient potters had achieved such intriguing forms. In this article I will reconstruct the forming techniques employed in the manufacture of bird-askoi, and will use this information to suggest modifications in the grouping of these vessels as workshop products.

Pottery Manufacture and Xeroradiography

Macroscopic examination (with the naked eye) of pottery vessels in order to discern details of their manufacture is an essential first step toward understanding the various methods employed by the potter in antiquity. We can define three essential stages through which the potter puts a vessel prior to its being fired into a durable product: formation, final shaping, and surface finishing. The specific techniques used in each stage leave a set of marks on the vessel’s surface. Occasionally, a visual examination of the finished pot will yield very precise information and enable the observer to reconstruct the various stages involved. More often, however, each subsequent stage erases or masks the marks left by that preceding. For example, the horizontal striations characteristic of manufacture on a wheel are often obliterated by surface smoothing and/or by coating the surface with a thin layer of clay (slip). In such cases the surface markings on the end product may give a false impression of how the product was made. Macroscopic examination alone will not enable the observer to reconstruct the spe­cific operations utilized by the ancient potter. Obviously, a different and complementary examination method is required. The method best suited at present is xeroradi­ography.

Xeroradiography has been most widely applied in the field of medicine, especially breast cancer research. It differs from conventional medical radiography in the way, in which the image is obtained and processed. As its name implies, xeroradiography uses a dry processing technique essentially similar to that used in electrostatic copying machines developed by the Xerox Corporation. The entire time necessary for exposure and image development is only a few minutes.

The chief advantage of xeroradiographic for ceramic analysis lies in its ability to produce sharp images of details within the wall of a vessel. After a vessel or large sherd has been exposed to x-rays (Fig. 3), particles of toner are blown across an electrostatically charged plate which will then retain the x-ray image. When the toner particles move into position, they create a crisp outline of the pot (or sherd); within the clay matrix, regions of entrapped air are revealed, as are mineral (lithic) and/or organic in­clusions (Fig. 4).

Air voids are of primary impor­tance in the study of manufacturing techniques. Air is trapped in the clay fabric whenever two or more clay members are joined together. The trapped air produces pockets along the contiguous surfaces. If the potter manipulates the vessel exten­sively after joining the clay members together, then the air pockets, here called “air voids,” become distorted in response to the pressures that have been applied. For example, when a potter builds a vessel from several clay coils, the contiguous surfaces of the coils trap air. If a potter shapes a vessel by thinning out its sidewall while it is rotated on a tournette or potter’s wheel, then minute air voids tend to elongate essentially in two directions: horizontally or spirally in response to the rotary motion, and vertically in response to the drawing movements of the potter’s hands as he pulls the clay upward (Fig. 5). The xeroradiography reveals the presence and alignment of those air voids; macroscopically, all one usually sees are the surface markings left by the subsequent shaping and/or finishing stage.

Thus by studying both the xeroradiographic image and the visible surface markings, one can define and reconstruct the methods used by the potter at each stage of manufacture. It is also possible to discern the kind of clay body that the potter had prepared, both in qualitative and (semi-) quantitative terms.

The Askoi: Manufacturing Methods, Clays, and Clay Sources

Each of the askoi examined was made by a distinctive manufacturing process that determined the overall shape of the vessel. A combination of macroscopic and xeroradiographic examination resulted in the definition of three basic methods of manufacture, one of which has two variants. Figure 5 provides schematic drawings of each of these methods.

Method 1

Askos MS 5871 was made by Method 1. It has an elongated shape with a spout placed at one end. Macroscopically, its exterior has a roughened appearance, and the inte­rior of its spout reveals an incomplete join, possibly that of a coil. The entire body was wet-smoothed (see glossary). The base is flat, and a blunt ridge is found on the body, beneath and parallel to the handle.

Xeroradiographic images (Fig. 4a, b) prove that this vessel was hand­made by coil-building onto a flat­tened slab base (Fig. 5a). Even the spout was made of a coil, wound upon itself as a spring. While a coil seam was visible on the spout before xeroradiography, the wet-smoothing efforts of the potter completely masked the other joins. The elliptical mouth of the vessel was closed by a strip placed over it that formed the visible ridge. The join between spout and body was haphazardly sealed on the interior, in contrast to the secure exterior seal, and the handle was then applied. In the lateral xeroradiographic image of the han­dle, large air voids are revealed, demonstrating that little wads of clay were applied between its ends or termini and the vessel body in order to securely seal the joints. The image shows that the clay fabric of this askos has numerous strongly radiopaque lithic inclusions (see glossary), many of them angular, in a wide range of shapes and sizes. Their size and shape would have made it difficult for the potter to shape the clay into an askos by any method other than hand-building. The clay also contains many irregu­larly shaped radiolucent structures that may be the remnants of burned-out organic matter.

Method 2

The duck-shaped askos (MS 5315) was made by manufacturing Method 2. Macroscopically, it has an elon­gated body, with its long axis ori­ented horizontally. Its breast end is rounded yet blunt, retaining traces of trimming marks that spiral out­ward from its center; cut vertically, it has a circular cross-section. The tail end is horizontally flattened, with traces of a slight upward fold over its wide tip. Wet-smoothing marks cover both surfaces. Feathers are depicted by paint and incised lines. The base of the askos is merely a flattened portion of the vessel wall.

A xeroradiographic image reveals the reason for its naturalistic shape (Fig. 6). In the image, a series of vertical lines appear, spiraling up from the duck’s blunt breast toward its tail, indicating that the vessel was wheel-made. When the vessel was being formed, the blunt end served as its base: the potter drew up the vessel wall into a cylindrical or slightly conical form while its clay mass rotated with the potter’s bat—the device that rests upon the wheel-head of the wheel proper. While the clay was still moist enough to manip­ulate, the opening at the top of the vessel was constricted and folded together (Fig. 5b). Some excess clay was smeared over the fold in order to seal it shut. A fairly life-like duck’s body was achieved by reori­enting the vessel, using the blunt base as the breast and the folded orifice as the tail; the only modifica­tion needed was a slight trimming of the breast. The base of the askos was created by flattening the side-wall once the desired orientation had been achieved.

Large air voids clearly show the methods by which spouts and handle were attached. Each of the vessel’s spouts was wheel-thrown, and af­fixed over holes punctured through the vessel wall. In the xeroradio­graph, one can see the clay that still hangs down from these holes, attest­ing to the potter’s actions. The head and bill of the duck appear to have been added to the forward spout as separately formed, handmade clay members. The handle was attached after both spouts had been affixed. One little wad of clay was deemed sufficient by the potter to secure the rear join of the handle.

A horizontal line in the middle of the body represents the incised de­lineation of the feather pattern on the vessel’s exterior. On the interior, some material has apparently ce­mented onto the surface, especially beneath the spout holes. The askos clay fabric can be described as having a moderate frequency of minute, strongly radiopaque inclu­sions, thus standing in vivid contrast to the large angular inclusions in our handmade askos.

Method 3

Despite obvious differences in size and painted decoration, the remaining four askoi all can be described under one general manu­facturing method, with two minor variants (3A and 3B). Macroscopi­cally, all of these vessels have a rather squat body with an oval cross-section along the horizontal axis. A spout and/or tail is positioned at either end of the body. The lower half of the body was trimmed down to a new basal feature, a ring-base. Each askos exhibits the marks of wet-smoothing by hand, especially on the ridge which runs along the back, between the head and tail. On the example representing Method 3A (50-1-86), there is a sharp con­toured ridge directly beneath the handle. The large Method 3B exam­ple (MS 1596) has a blunt edge beneath and parallel to one edge of the handle, with a lateral incision running beneath the opposite edge of the handle.

Xeroradiographic images (Figs. 7-9) reveal a method of formation that is radically different from the askoi described above. Wheelmarks, clearly visible, are oriented horizon­tally, and spiral upward from the base to the handle. These marks indicate that each vessel was wheel-thrown, and that the present orien­tation of the vessel is that in which it was formed (Fig. 5c). The lateral xeroradiographic images all show a fold of clay along the back that is not unlike that in the tail of MS 5315, but with a greater overlap. The oval bodies of these askoi were therefore formed by pinching the sides of the orifice together to form the duck’s back.

The two variants of Method 3 represent slightly different ways of closing the askos back, and can be distinguished solely by means of xeroradiography. In Method 3A, a strip of clay was placed along the back in order to securely seal the pinched sides (Fig. 7a, b). It is this strip that is responsible for the sharp ridge on the exterior noted above. In Method 3B, the overlap of the two sides was large enough to seal properly without requiring an addi­tional strip {Fig. 9b). Perhaps the reason for these two varieties lies merely in the skill or preference of the potter.

At either end of the back seam on a Method 3 vessel, a hole could be left to serve as a guide for the placement of a spout. Since the overlap was substantial, the holes seem to have required additional widening. This the potter accom­plished by inserting his finger, which resulted in some clay being forced in toward the interior (Figs. 7a, 9a). The way in which handles were attached varies. On the large painted Method 3 askos (MS 1598; Fig. 8), the handle curves up between two spouts and forms a nearly complete arc, with the handle termini stretched smoothly out along the back seam. On the small plain askos with two spouts (50-1-86; Fig. 7) the handle terminus adjacent to the nar­row pouring spout has been set into the back seam; the opposite end follows the curve and the filler spout and is smoothed into the back seam. This method of attachment creates a highly stylized shape, with emphasis seemingly shifted to the wide filler spout. The second small askos (L 84-38; Fig. 9) has only one wide spout which forms the “head.” A small wad of clay was added to the underside of the handle terminus next to the vestigial tail. Elaboration of the tail occurred either by pinch­ing up excess body clay, or by adding a small clay wad.

All of the filler spouts on Method 3 askoi were wheel-thrown and added separately. The naturalistic head spout on MS 1596, however, was formed by a coil wound upon itself as a spring (Fig. 8). A large break occurs in its neck near the head, and the xeroradiographic image reveals a slightly different fabric in each segment. The “neck” area, like the body of the vessel, has a moderate frequency of moderately radiopaque lithic inclusions as well as radiolucent structures. The latter are probably the result of burned-out organic matter, although no consistency in size or shape is found. The head’s fabric, on the other hand, has many minute radiolucent structures together with lithic inclu­sions exhibiting strong radiopacity. These data coupled with macro­scopic observation suggest that the head is a modern restoration. The fabric of L 64-38 (Fig. 9), though similar to MS 1596 in the types of inclusions, exhibits a different and more homogeneous size range of lithic inclusions. Askos 50-1-86 (Fig. 7) has apparently been leached severely on its interior, resulting in its patchy appearance. Note that its fabric has a high frequency of strongly radiopaque lithic inclusions, quite unlike any of the previous examples.

Toward Workshop Attributions

From the discussion above, it is clear that a number of different potting techniques were used to produce the askos in Etruria and South Italy during the Classical period, ca. 600-300 B.C. What is thought to be the earliest vessel in the corpus was entirely handmade, by Method 1 (MS 5871).

Its style indicates that it was made by an Italic tribal group located along the southeast coast in the second half of the 6th century B.C. (Green 1986:48). This group, the Daunians, continued to make some handmade vessels painted in a local style even after Greek influence had been established and wheel-made vessels became common; typical Daunian vessels and Greek imported vessels occur in the same tombs (Kyle Phillips, pers. corn. 1987).

It is the wheel-made, painted Etruscan askoi that have been stud­ied by Del Chiaro. As stated in the introduction, Del Chiaro defined four groups or types based solely on certain morphological criteria, and on painted style. It is interesting to compare his analysis with the results obtained here through a study of manufacturing techniques and de­tails of vessel form.

Del Chiaro’s “Clusium Group” is characterized by life-like portrayals of ducks. Vessels assigned to this type have a gaily painted body, with folded wings that taper toward a fan-like tail. There is a filling spout set toward the rear of the body while the duck’s bill becomes a narrow pouring spout. Del Chiaro believes that this kind of vessel was manufactured at Chiusi, ancient Clusium, in northern Etruria (1984: 15-16, Figs. 1-3). Our askos MS 5315 is most closely related to this type. It suggests that the naturalistic shape of Clusium Group askoi is a direct result of the way in which these vessels were formed on the potter’s wheel. The body was given a realis­tic attitude by placing it lengthwise, and folding the narrow rim to form the pointed tail. The potter could then accentuate morphological traits of the duck, such as the wings, by incision and/or paint.

Del Chiaro’s second group, la­beled Type A, is thought to have been manufactured near Tarquinia or Vulci. Less gracile and naturalistic than the ducks in the Clusium Group, Type A “bird-askoi” have a deep, truncated body. Again the filling spout is set toward the rear, and the head has a pierced bill for pouring. Two variants are recognized (Types A.1 and A.2), based primarily on painted decoration, tail shape, and slight differences in the placement of the rear filling spout (Del Chiaro 1984: 16-19, Figs. 4-7). The Museum’s painted askos made by Method 3B, MS 1596, is included within Type A.2 by Del Chiaro.

The third group, Del Chiaro’s Type B, has an even deeper body than Type A. It may have either a double spout or a single spout. Those with a single spout have a knob-like tail. In general, the painted decoration on this group of bird-askoi is debased and highly abstract in ap­pearance, with less decorative en­hancement of anatomical features. Del Chiaro attributes this type to a workshop in Caere (1984:16, 19, 20, Figs. 8-9).

A fourth type (the “Spout-Tail” askos; Del Chiaro 1984:19-20, Fig. 10) is a South Italian product, and represents a further evolution of the single-spouted version of Type B. Its painted decoration is unrelated to a bird’s anatomical features.

Method 3 as defined here was probably used to make both Type A and B askoi. This is not too surprising, since Del Chiaro saw some continuity in the “concept of a bird” between his groups. We have shown that this morphological con­cept is directly related to the manner in which the vessel was made. The form of the bird’s body necessarily became stylized once the original orientation of the thrown vessel was retained and the pinched and folded rim was used as a back. Given the similarity in form of the Spout-Tail askos and our askos L 64-38, it seems likely that the former was also made by Method 3.

Del Chiaro used style to postulate four regional manufacturing centers for bird-askoi. Even though the provenience for all but one of The University Museum askoi is un­known, they too can now be used to argue for the existence of a number of ceramic workshops. The xerora­diographic images have revealed several distinctive manufacturing methods. In addition, the clay fabric differed: the sizes, angularity, and frequencies of lithic and organic inclusions prove that different clay bodies had been prepared by the potters. Since the inclusions reflect the geological environment of the region from which the potters obtained their raw material, future compositional analyses may help to more narrowly define the locations of askoi workshops than was possi­ble using criteria of painted style, vessel shape, and paste color.

This study demonstrates the value of careful macroscopic examination and xeroradiographic images as a means of gathering information on ceramic production that comple­ments that obtained through more traditional methods. The xeroradio­graphs also raise a whole new set of questions concerning the relation­ships between workshops producing a given vessel shape by the same manufacturing method. For exam­ple, does a sharing of manufacturing methods necessarily imply close contact between pottery workshops, or does it merely reflect an aesthetic demand placed on the potter by the buyers? Were painted decorations deliberately varied in order to dis­tinguish the otherwise similar products of different workshops? To what extent does a clay fabric repre­sent a compositional “fingerprint” of the workshop that produced it?

Once properly excavated and documented Etruscan and South Italian askoi have been examined macroscopically and xeroradio­graphically, these questions will have answers. We will have more concrete data with which to define manufacturing groups, and we may be able to relate products to specific workshops, and perhaps even pat­ters. The ability of the xeroradio­graphic technique to quickly define the characteristics of a vessel’s shape and fabric in a non-destructive man­ner, enabling a better understanding of the finished product, will surely make it an invaluable tool for all archaeologists concerned with pot­tery typologies and traditions, work­shop identifications, and trade pat­terns. Our askoi are now back on their shelves and in their display cases, having brought to light the potential that exists in their study from a new point of view. The same potential exists for many other pot­tery vessels in The University Museum’s collections.


Clay body: A mixture of raw clay and any other ingredient, such as organic matter or sand, to create a clay mass that has the desired working properties.

Coil: A long, sausage-like roll of clay used to build up pottery vessels by its application either as concentric rings piled one upon another, or as a series of partial spirals applied end-to-end.

Inclusion: An organic or inorganic ma­terial that has either been added by the potter (i.e., temper) or occurs naturally in the raw clay deposit from which the potter obtains his/her clay.

Morphology: The study of structure and form.

Orgianic matter: Organic materials, such as straw, chaff, and seeds, which have been added to clay to alter its working properties.

Radiography: The examination of ma­terials, such as skin and bone tissues or ceramics, using an x-ray beam. This technique uses a wet chemical process to develop the image obtained on a plastic sheet coated with silver bromide.

Radiolucence: The quality of a material which enables it to absorb very little x-ray energy, based on a relatively low atomic number of its elemental compo­nents, thus creating a whitened area in the resultant positive radiographic or xeroradiographic image.

Radiopacity: The quality of &material which enables it to absorb relatively high levels of x-ray energy, based on a relatively high atomic number of its elemental components, thus creating a darkened area in the resultant positive radiographic or xeroradiographic im­age.

Slab: A piece of clay that is hand-modeled, often into the shape of a pancake or square. It usually serves as the base onto which a series of other slabs or coils can be applied to form a pottery vessel.

Temper: Organic or inorganic materials intentionally added to a clay by the potter in the creation of a clay body.

Toner: The tiny particles of pigment that adhere to an oppositely charged medium, such as the selenium-coated plate inside the xeroradiographic cas­sette (see Fig. 3), thus enabling the transference of an image. The toner often used in xeroradiography (see below) is blue, while that used in elec­trostatic image transference is black.

Voids: Radiolucent structures within the clay matrix of a vessel, comprising either pockets of air trapped between applied clay members such as coils, or radiolucent inclusions.

Wet-smoothing: A surface finish applied to a ceramic vessel while it is still moist, usually involving the moist fingers of the potter, a leather chamois or a piece of cloth, in order to achieve a smoother, more regular surface.

Wheel-head: The upper, usually circular component of the device known as a potter’s wheel upon which a circular wooden or plaster board (“bat”) is placed. The clay body that the potter will “throw” into the shape of a pot is then placed on top of the bat. Once the clay vessel is formed, the bat can be removed while the vessel dries, and another bat placed upon the wheel-head with yet more clay. This enables the potter to produce more than one vessel at a sitting.

X-ray: Electromagnetic radiation, pro­duced from the disruption of the outer electron bond of a metallic compound such as tungsten by electron bombard­ment, having the ability to be absorbed by various materials.

Xeroradiography: The examination of materials, such as skin and bone tissues or ceramics, using an x-ray beam, but involving a dry physical process in developing the image (see Fig. 3). Re­lated to electrostatic image transference, popularly but incorrectly known as ‘xeroxing,” as developed by the Xerox Corporation.

Recent Acquisitions and Bibliography

Acquisition information on the askoiMS 1596: Collected by the American Exploration Society in 1898-97; gift of Mrs. Phoebe A. Hearst in 1897.MS 5315: No acquisition data available.50-1-86: Collected by Mr. R. Hare Davis; gift of Mrs. R. Hare Davis 1950.

MS 5871: Found uncatalogued and undocumented in the Museum in the Mediterranean Section’ collections in 1979.

L 84-38: Bequest of Mr. William S. Vaux to the Philadelphia Museum o Art in 1882.


Principles and Applications of Radiography and Xeroradiography

Boag, J.W.
1973 “Xeroradiography.” Physics in Medicine ant Biology 18(1):1-37.

Braun, D.P.
“Radiographic Analysis of Temper in Ceramic Vessels: Goals and Initial: Methods.” Journal of Field Archaeology 9(2):183-192.

Dessauer, J.H., and H.E. Clark, eds.
Xerography and Related Processes. London: The Focal Press.

Foster, G.V.
“Identification of Inclusions in Ceramic Artifacts by Xeroradiography.” Journal of Field Archaeology 12(3):373-376.

Clansman, W.D., and S.J. Fleming
“Ceramic Technology at Prehistoric Ban Chiang: Fabrication Methods.” MASCA Journal 3(4):114-121.
“Xeroradiography: A Key to the Nature of Technological Change it Ancient Ceramic Production.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A242:588-595.

Maniatis, Y., R.E. Jones, I.K. Whitbread, A. Kostikas, A. Simopoulos. Ch. Karakalos, and C.K. Williams, II
“Punic Amphoras Found at Corinth: An Investigation of Their Origin and Technology.” Journal of Field Archaeology 11(2):205-222.

Ceramic Technology

Noble, J.V.
The Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery. New York: Watson Guptill.

Rye, O.S.
Pottery Technology. Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archeology 4. Washington, DC: Taraxacum.

Askoi and Other Classical Pottery

Del Chiaro, M.
“Late Etruscan ‘Duck Askoi’.” Revue archéologique n.s. fasc. 1:27-38.
“Etruscan Bird Askoi.” Expedition 26(3):15-20.

Green, J.R.
Gnathia Pottery in the Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn. Mainz: Philipp von Zabem.
South Italian Pottery, Part 1. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, U.S.A. fasc. 22. The University Museum, fasc. 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum.

Richter, G.M.A., and M.J. Milne
Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Rüdiger, U.
“‘Askoi’ in Unteritalien.” Römischer Mitteilungen 73/74:1-9.

Cite This Article

Glanzman, William D.. "Etruscan and South Italian Bird-Askoli." Expedition Magazine 29, no. 1 (March, 1987): -. Accessed September 30, 2023.

This digitized article is presented here as a historical reference and may not reflect the current views of the Penn Museum.

Report problems and issues to