Targeted Advertising for Women in Athenian Vase-Painting of the Fifth Century BCE
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article treats an original and seemingly timely topic, proposing that Athenian vase painters targeted their wares at women. While some complex charts (which if reproduced must be shown at full-page scale so as to be readable) show a thorough use of the Beazley Archive database (as is appropriate) and the bibliography included attests a wide breadth of relevant research, much is yet missing. The methodology presented just before the conclusion comes far too late in the article and is a bit heavy on 'terminology' without however getting to the heart of the matter: why mention 'Boolean functions' without saying what limiting factors were selected? What manipulations did the author need to make to create the charts? Another major methodological flaw is that the 5th c. is taken as a continuum 'though great changes are felt in Athens as elsewhere in Greece from the earlier to the latter 5th century. Never is it suggested why only the 5th c. was chosen, yet no examples are from the last quarter of the 5th c. The bibliography covers multilingual scholarship yet nothing in ancient Greek which is a big lacuna for the primary archaeological evidence (e.g. the metro excavations). Kerameikos and Agora reports are not even mentioned either. Missing also is the work of S. Bundrick (esp. on textile workers) and A.C. Smith (esp. on weddings). More bibliography is suggested below.
The overall organisation seems haphazard and at times 'tokenist'. The subheading no. 2 'Women in 5th century BCE Athens' is unnecessary as almost nothing below it relates to this topic. 2.1. 'Marketing' should be expanded to perhaps 'Marketing and advertising', promoted to a higher level subheading, and more thoroughly researched & presented with more thought given to marketing/advertising in 5 c BCE (rather than a hunch that they had such issues too). Transition is needed between 2.2 and 2.3 although better yet find somewhere else to put 2.3. 'Historical considerations' is too vague a title and the material in this section would be better beefed up & dispersed throughout the article. What is the relevance of filtered speeches of women? 2.4 (which should be retitled and refocussed because it treats much more than the shape-image nexus) begins with the bold claim that women are 'shifting more into the political and literary focus' yet no substantiation for this claim is provided here or elsewhere. Likewise what is the source for the 26% assertion on p. 8 ll. 259-60? Section 3 'Discussion' needs a more nuanced title and again in this section the clarification of painters/potters and their marketing efforts seems superficial, without reference to any of the work about what actual artists and their groups were doing.
More thorough treatment is needed of section 2.1. On p. 3 l. 101-2 the claim that 'These methods are apparent in antiquity as well' is followed by reference to an amazing range of scholarship without, however, any attempt to synthesise/present the findings of these scholars. More detail here & elsewhere on workshops, Nikosthenic & otherwise (e.g. Williams & others, most recently in Padgett's Berlin Painter book) would help. Paleothodoros and Osborne have both contributed significantly to the matter of Etruscan markets. See also Volioti + Smith on marketing lekythoi, presented a few years back & soon to be published in the CPNA volume being published by E. Manakidou et al. The meatier paragraph on WWI-WWII marketing at the bottom of p. 3 also needs to be further fleshed out, esp. where references are made to Athenian imagery. The generalisations at the bottom of p. 4 in section 2.2 on distribution of vases need to be fleshed out with references to scholarship including South Italy / Sicily (e.g. Panvini/Giudice Ta Attika 2003). Etruscan tombs are overplayed here as elsewhere (see J.P. Small 1994). The discussion of provenances on p. 5 doesn't give a sense of how many of the total number of vases counted had provenances recorded and how reliable these provenances were (excavations v. 'said to be from' are quite different provenances).
2.4. is also needing further work. Smith 2005 on wedding vases (and chapters of 2011 Polis & Personification) would help with the wedding vases esp. their being advertised to the whole community in the context of processions. On p. 10 top Smith 2016 on (in Glazebrook & Tsakirgis, Houses, Brothels, Taverns) would help. ThesCRA 2011 has a useful section on marriage with reference to many useful primary sources (none of which have been used here or elsewhere in the article). A reading of Bundrick's work on women textile workers would help the discussion on p. 11-12. At the bottom of p. 11 more unsubstantiated generalisations are provided e.g. on the exportof images of daily life scenes. Barely 50% of the Pan Painter's works are provenanced. This argument, if valid, would be much more convincing with reference to specific primary & secondary sources & citation of the actual vases being considered. The summary at the end of p. 13 gives a disclaimer re. nudity that should come much earlier and in the mention of hetairai misses Pinney's 2002 book. I do not understand how bathing can be understood as an explicit sexual act as noted on p. 13 l. 380.
The presentation is very careful and the level of writing quote good, although some persistent problems include usage of colloquialisms—'ads' not 'advertisements'; overuse of hyphen ('well known' etc. shouldn't be hyphenated); p. 1 l. 41 'of ancient markets' rather than 'on...'; 'in which' rather than 'that' on p. 5 n. 179; 'kalathos dedications' rather than 'kalathoi dedications' on p. 6 l. 198; run-on sentences e.g. p. 7 ll. 212-16 need t be curbed; 'signposts' rather than 'sign posts' p. 7 l. 214. Some vague wording needs to be clarified e.g. 'look at' on p. 5 l. 168, 'these areas' and 'this' on l. 180 of the same page. And vague ideas need to be fleshed out. How are women 'regularly interacting with these objects' as suggested on p. 7 l. 224? Where multiple references are massed they are presented in alphabetical rather than chronological order: the latter would be more helpful; the author not the paper has 'looked at' images (p. 13 l. 369) although some other verb might be preferable here.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: While some complex charts (which if reproduced must be shown at full-page scale so as to be readable)…
As regards the size of the charts and images as addressed by Reviewer 1: I have modified the charts to increase the font size whenever possible and reshaped them in order to make them more readable in the pdf version. I have also separated Figures 5a and 5b so that each can be larger. The charts are not full page, but most are half a page or three-quarters of a page now. I believe that these changes have made them much more legible.
Point 2: The methodology presented just before the conclusion comes far too late in the article and is a bit heavy on 'terminology' without however getting to the heart of the matter: why mention 'Boolean functions' without saying what limiting factors were selected? What manipulations did the author need to make to create the charts? Another major methodological flaw is that the 5th c. is taken as a continuum 'though great changes are felt in Athens as elsewhere in Greece from the earlier to the latter 5th century. Never is it suggested why only the 5th c. was chosen, yet no examples are from the last quarter of the 5th c.
The most significant change in the text from the original to the present edition is the revision, expansion, and movement of the methodology section, which was originally placed according to the standard MDPI format. The methodology section has been expanded to be more clear on the search terms used and how data was modified from the BAPD. The section has now been moved much earlier in the article, within the distribution of vases section. This should help clarify some points for the readers. Please note that one of the images selected as examples does come from the last quarter of the 5th century (Fig. 14) and that the images are only serving as examples of the trends, which do draw from the entirety of the 5th century BCE. Additionally, an explanation for the choice of the 5th century has been added to the introduction and the first paragraph of Section 3.1 addresses the fact that the 5th century is full of disruptive events. This has been made clearer throughout the rest of the text as well.
Point 3: The bibliography covers multilingual scholarship yet nothing in ancient Greek which is a big lacuna for the primary archaeological evidence (e.g. the metro excavations). Kerameikos and Agora reports are not even mentioned either. Missing also is the work of S. Bundrick (esp. on textile workers) and A.C. Smith (esp. on weddings). More bibliography is suggested below.
With regards to the cited texts and bibliography, it is difficult to incorporate the suggestions of both reviewers as they are conflicting. Reviewer 1 wants a more thorough and comprehensive bibliography. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, recommended removing some of the references, including lines where Reviewer 1 suggested additional bibliography be added. I understand the perspectives of both reviewers regarding citations and bibliography. I have tried to come to a compromise between the two by adding the most relevant bibliography that can guide readers to the additional authors and by adding specific page numbers for references when appropriate. Originally, excavation reports were not directly referenced because they are so numerous, the references to the pottery in these reports are often only cursory with regards to a discussion of the imagery, and the addition of many of these reports would further add to the criticism of Reviewer 2. That being said, reference to specific reports on relevant contexts (e.g. Shear 1993) have been added.
Point 4: The overall organisation seems haphazard and at times 'tokenist'. The subheading no. 2 'Women in 5th century BCE Athens' is unnecessary as almost nothing below it relates to this topic. 2.1. 'Marketing' should be expanded to perhaps 'Marketing and advertising', promoted to a higher level subheading, and more thoroughly researched & presented with more thought given to marketing/advertising in 5 c BCE (rather than a hunch that they had such issues too). Transition is needed between 2.2 and 2.3 although better yet find somewhere else to put 2.3. 'Historical considerations' is too vague a title and the material in this section would be better beefed up & dispersed throughout the article. 2.4 (which should be retitled and refocussed because it treats much more than the shape-image nexus) begins with the bold claim that women are 'shifting more into the political and literary focus' yet no substantiation for this claim is provided here or elsewhere. Likewise what is the source for the 26% assertion on p. 8 ll. 259-60? Section 3 'Discussion' needs a more nuanced title and again in this section the clarification of painters/potters and their marketing efforts seems superficial, without reference to any of the work about what actual artists and their groups were doing.
The text has been reordered, with some sections being retitled, reworked and expanded to a point, along with one removed entirely. For instance, in the previous version there was a separate section on historical considerations, which has now been removed with its content divided into different areas. The filtered speeches is mainly a reference to the fact that we have very little written about women by women from this time period. The text has been reworked to emphasize this aspect more. Additionally, the 26% assertion has been clarified as deriving from the author’s data analysis. Additional sources are now cited. While many of these sections could certainly be expanded even further than I have in this revised version, the point of the present article is to introduce the idea in a digestible format for a topic that could certainly be a book-length topic and to serve as a counter-point to discussions of Athenian vases in the export market by contextualizing some of the changes going on within Athens in the figured pottery.
Point 5: More thorough treatment is needed of section 2.1. On p. 3 l. 101-2 the claim that 'These methods are apparent in antiquity as well' is followed by reference to an amazing range of scholarship without, however, any attempt to synthesise/present the findings of these scholars. More detail here & elsewhere on workshops, Nikosthenic & otherwise (e.g. Williams & others, most recently in Padgett's Berlin Painter book) would help. Paleothodoros and Osborne have both contributed significantly to the matter of Etruscan markets. See also Volioti + Smith on marketing lekythoi, presented a few years back & soon to be published in the CPNA volume being published by E. Manakidou et al.
Additional bibliography has now been worked into this section and the nature of the references has been clarified. In the present study, the synthesis of these is very brief as they are not the main focus of the analysis, in particular on Etruscan markets, which would be a separate study. Unfortunately, with regards to material that is not yet published and that I have not a chance to read, I do not feel secure in providing a citation. I do, however, look forward to reading these new materials once available and understand that it may affect some of the conclusions presented here.
Point 6: The meatier paragraph on WWI-WWII marketing at the bottom of p. 3 also needs to be further fleshed out, esp. where references are made to Athenian imagery.
This paragraph and the parallels have been expanded and made more clear, although the bulk of the actual discussion of the changes in Athenian imagery is later in the article.
Point 7: The generalisations at the bottom of p. 4 in section 2.2 on distribution of vases need to be fleshed out with references to scholarship including South Italy / Sicily (e.g. Panvini/Giudice Ta Attika 2003). Etruscan tombs are overplayed here as elsewhere (see J.P. Small 1994).
Although now reordered, I believe that these generalizations have been more specifically addressed now by inclusion of additional references. I thank the reviewer for reminding me to include these citations.
Point 8: The discussion of provenances on p. 5 doesn't give a sense of how many of the total number of vases counted had provenances recorded and how reliable these provenances were (excavations v. 'said to be from' are quite different provenances).
This point is now addressed within section 3.2 on methodology.
Point 9: 2.4. is also needing further work. Smith 2005 on wedding vases (and chapters of 2011 Polis & Personification) would help with the wedding vases esp. their being advertised to the whole community in the context of processions. On p. 10 top Smith 2016 on (in Glazebrook & Tsakirgis, Houses, Brothels, Taverns) would help. ThesCRA 2011 has a useful section on marriage with reference to many useful primary sources (none of which have been used here or elsewhere in the article). A reading of Bundrick's work on women textile workers would help the discussion on p. 11-12. At the bottom of p. 11 more unsubstantiated generalisations are provided e.g. on the export of images of daily life scenes. Barely 50% of the Pan Painter's works are provenanced. This argument, if valid, would be much more convincing with reference to specific primary & secondary sources & citation of the actual vases being considered. The summary at the end of p. 13 gives a disclaimer re. nudity that should come much earlier and in the mention of hetairai misses Pinney's 2002 book. I do not understand how bathing can be understood as an explicit sexual act as noted on p. 13 l. 380.
This section now includes a selection of additional bibliography, including the suggestions of the reviewer (please note that Pinney is listed as Ferrari as that is how the edition I have is published and included earlier in the article). The present study is focused on examining the imagery trends through the BAPD, fitting within the special issue of this journal on painting, rather than on analyzing the primary sources. This would be an entirely valid and important contribution as well, but I feel this would be a separate article. I have, however, added some more references to direct readers to these references. Earlier in the article I address the fact that 66% of Athenian vases overall have no provenance, which is in line with the provenance information on the Pan Painter’s works for this statement. One difficulty for such studies is that we are working with limited data on provenance, which will thereby constrain the conclusions that can be drawn at this point. Further excavation work and provenance studies in the future will provide more that that will continue to refine the broad trends examined in this study. Percentages for the Attic and export vases are included in this section now to further support the point as suggested. Also, bathing was not intended to be understood as an explicit sexual act, but rather it is meant as an example of a category distinct from explicit sexual acts. I can see how the sentence, as it stood, could be misread on first reading. This sentence has now been rephrased to make this point clearer.
Point 10: The presentation is very careful and the level of writing quote good, although some persistent problems include usage of colloquialisms—'ads' not 'advertisements'; overuse of hyphen ('well known' etc. shouldn't be hyphenated); p. 1 l. 41 'of ancient markets' rather than 'on...'; 'in which' rather than 'that' on p. 5 n. 179; 'kalathos dedications' rather than 'kalathoi dedications' on p. 6 l. 198; run-on sentences e.g. p. 7 ll. 212-16 need t be curbed; 'signposts' rather than 'sign posts' p. 7 l. 214. Some vague wording needs to be clarified e.g. 'look at' on p. 5 l. 168, 'these areas' and 'this' on l. 180 of the same page. And vague ideas need to be fleshed out. How are women 'regularly interacting with these objects' as suggested on p. 7 l. 224? Where multiple references are massed they are presented in alphabetical rather than chronological order: the latter would be more helpful; the author not the paper has 'looked at' images (p. 13 l. 369) although some other verb might be preferable here.
The colloquialisms and hyphen usage have been addressed, along with the individual grammar and verbiage changes suggested. Additionally, I have tried to flesh out areas of vagueness. In-text citations have been reformatted to follow chronological order, rather than alphabetical order, throughout the article. I sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the comments on this article. I appreciate the time and thought that were clearly put into considering this article. I have tried to address all comments fully and directly whenever possible.
Reviewer 2 Report
Many references need either page ranges or be deleted as they might be only of very general relevance for the topic under discussion. See, for example, lines 101-103, 188-190, 264-270, 372-375.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Many references need either page ranges or be deleted as they might be only of very general relevance for the topic under discussion. See, for example, lines 101-103, 188-190, 264-270, 372-375
With regards to the cited texts and bibliography, it is difficult to incorporate the suggestions of both reviewers as they are conflicting. Reviewer 1 wants a more thorough and comprehensive bibliography. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, recommended removing some of the references, including lines where Reviewer 1 suggested additional bibliography be added. I understand the perspectives of both reviewers with their critiques regarding citations and bibliography, but I have to select one primary focus. I have tried to come to a compromise between the two by adding the most relevant bibliography that can guide readers to the additional authors, as requested by Reviewer 1, and by adding specific page numbers for references when appropriate. When the long lists of sources appear, these sources are meant to be the guide to further information for the reader in areas where the present article will not delve in depth. I have broken most of these longer lists into sections so that the text more clearly indicates why they are being referenced. I hope that the additional page references for some citations and this explanation makes sense. I sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for taking the time to comment on this article and I appreciate the feedback.
