Olympia: A Cultural History 9780691218533

Citation preview

O LY M P I A

OLY MPI A A Cultural History

Judith M. Barringer p r i n c e ­t o n u n i v e r s i t y p r e s s p r i n c e ­t o n a n d o x f o r d

Copyright © 2021 by Prince­ton University Press Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to permissions@press​.­princeton​.­edu Published by Prince­ton University Press 41 William Street, Prince­ton, New Jersey 08540 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TR press​.­princeton​.­edu All Rights Reserved ISBN 9780691210476 ISBN (e-­book) 9780691218533 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020948351 British Library Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data is available Editorial: Ben Tate and Josh Drake Production Editorial: Debbie Tegarden Text Design: Pamela Schnitter Jacket/Cover Design: Pamela Schnitter Production: Danielle Amatucci Publicity: Alyssa Sanford and Kate Farquhar-Thomson Jacket art: Aerial view of ancient Olympia. Photo by Iurii Buriak / Alamy Stock Photo Publication of this book has been aided by the Classics Department, University of Edinburgh This book has been composed in Minion Pro and Din Printed on acid-­free paper. ∞ Printed in the United States of Amer­i­ca 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

list of illu strat ions   vii ac kn ow l­e d gments  

xiii

ab b rev iations  xv C HRON OL O GY   xvii Introduction  1 Prologue  13 Chapter 1: The Shape of the Altis and Practical ­Matters   34 Chapter 2: The Archaic Period, c. 600–480 B.C.   63 Chapter 3: The Fifth ­Century B.C.   104 Chapter 4: The Fourth ­Century B.C. and the Hellenistic Period   156 Chapter 5: Roman Olympia   205 Chapter 6: The Last Olympiad   237 b ib lio gr a ph y  245 IN DEX L O C ORUM   269 GE N E RAL INDEX   271

v

I L L US T R AT I O N S

HALFTONES Fig. 1. Map of Mediterranean  2 Fig. 2. Photo of excavation of ‘Heraion’ in 1877/1878 by Romaïdes ­brothers  6 Fig. 3. Plan of Olympia, Roman period  8 Fig. 4. Plan of Olympia showing original course of Kladeos River, late eighth ­century B.C.  15 Fig. 5. Map of region of Olympia  16 Fig. 6. Votives from the black layer  18 Fig. 7. Dispersal of black layer at Olympia  19 Fig. 8. Warrior figurine from the black layer, eighth ­century B.C.  19 Fig. 9. Warrior figurine, c. 700 B.C.  20 Fig. 10. Reconstruction of tripod  21 Figs. 11a, b. Near Eastern bronze sheets of ninth to eighth ­century B.C. used for seventh-­century B.C. sphyrelata  23 Fig. 12. Demeter sanctuary, view from west  26 Fig. 13. Double-­headed dog from Demeter sanctuary  27 Figs. 14a, b. Kerberos(?) from Demeter sanctuary  28 Fig. 15. Victors’ list, fourth ­century A.D.  30 Fig. 16. Athens, Akropolis, Athena Nike ­Temple, west frieze, slab I, c. 427–424 B.C.  31 Fig. 1.1. Elean skyphos fragment inscribed to Pelops from the Pelopion, Classical period  36 Fig. 1.2. Pausanias’ route as he visited altars at Olympia  39 Fig. 1.3. Eileithyia sanctuary, view from east  41

vii

Fig. 1.4. Kronos Baths, Roman pavilion above  47 Figs. 1.5a, b. Food mea­sures  48 Figs. 1.6a, b. Inscribed bronze weights  49 Fig. 1.7. Findspots of bronze weights at Olympia  50 Fig. 1.8. Inscribed pointed amphora  51 Fig. 1.9. Kiln found beneath South Hall  52 Fig. 1.10. Iron spits  53 Figs. 1.11a, b. Southeast Building, plan and elevation  54 Fig. 1.12. Kitchen near Southeast Building  55 Fig. 1.13. Leonidaion, plan of the fourth ­century B.C.  57 Fig. 1.14. Olympia, 1892 reconstruction of ash altar and ­temple  62 Fig. 2.1. Olympia, plan of Altis c. 470 B.C.  64 Fig. 2.2. Delphi, plan of Apollo sanctuary  65 Fig. 2.3. Pelopion, plan  66 Figs. 2.4a, b. Head, c. 600 B.C.  73 Fig. 2.5. Winged female figure, c. 590–580 B.C.  74 Fig. 2.6. ‘Heraion,’ south colonnade  74 Fig. 2.7. Marble seat of the Lakedaimonian proxenos, Gorgos, c. 550 B.C.  76 Fig. 2.8. Trea­sury Terrace, plan  77 Fig. 2.9. Megarian Trea­sury, reconstruction  81 Fig. 2.10. Megarian Trea­sury, pediment with Gigantomachy, c. 500 B.C.  82 Fig. 2.11. Satyr and maenad akroteria from the trea­suries  85 Fig. 2.12. Reconstruction of trea­sury with akroteria of Nikai flanking Athena fighting a ­giant  86 Fig. 2.13. Altar of Artemis, Olympia, sixth ­century B.C.  88 Figs. 2.14a, b. Heads of warriors, perhaps hoplitodromos participants, c. 490 B.C.  91 Fig. 2.15. Marble shield with Phrixos on Helle  92 Fig. 2.16. Treaty between Sybaris and the Serdaians, c. 510 B.C.  95 Fig. 2.17. Reconstruction of the Polyzalos group at Delphi  96 Fig. 2.18. Chariot group, eighth ­century B.C.  97 Fig. 3.1. Plan of Altis, c. 400 B.C.  106 Figs. 3.2. Eretrian steer base  107 Figs. 3.3a, b, c. Achaian Monument  108

viii

List of Illustrations

Fig. 3.4. Apollonian Monument  112 Fig. 3.5. Apollonian Monument, inscription  112 Fig. 3.6. Plataian Monument  114 Fig. 3.7. Praxiteles Monument  115 Fig. 3.8. ­Temple of Zeus, reconstruction of facade  121 Fig. 3.9a. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, c. 470–456 B.C.  123 Fig. 3.9b. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, reconstruction  123 Fig. 3.10. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, central group, figures H–­O  124 Fig. 3.11. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, female/Centaur group, figures R–S  124 Fig. 3.12. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, biting group, figures P–­Q  125 Fig. 3.13a. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, c. 470–456 B.C.  126 Fig. 3.13b. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, reconstruction  126 Fig. 3.14. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, central group, figures B–­O  127 Fig. 3.15. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, figure L  127 Fig. 3.16. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, figure N  128 Fig. 3.17. ­Temple of Zeus, reconstruction of east facade of the cella  129 Fig. 3.18. ­Temple of Zeus, reconstruction of the metopes  130 Fig. 3.19. ­Temple of Zeus, east metope, Herakles cleaning the Augean stables, c. 470–456 B.C.  131 Fig. 3.20. ­Temple of Zeus, reconstruction of cella with Pheidian Zeus  133 Fig. 3.21. Zeus, c. 480 B.C.  135 Fig. 3.22. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, Figure Q  135 Fig. 3.23. Bronze coin with Pheidian Zeus, second ­century A.D.  138 Fig. 3.24. Zeus from Dodona, c. 470–460 B.C.  138 Figs. 3.25a, b. Stater from Elis, c. 452–432 B.C.  139 Fig. 3.26. Zeus from Mt. Lykaon, c. 550–525 B.C.  140 Fig. 3.27. Lakonian kylix with seated Zeus and Hera, c. 525–500 B.C.  142 Fig. 3.28. Lakonian kylix with seated Zeus and Hera, c. 530–525 B.C.  142 Fig. 3.29. Inscribed cauldron ­handle, c. 476–472 B.C.  144 Fig. 3.30. Reconstruction of the Nike of Paionios  148 Fig. 3.31. Elean base  149 Figs. 3.32a, b. Pythokles’ base  152 Fig. 4.1. Plan of Olympia, Hellenistic period  158



List of Illustrationsix

Fig. 4.2. Stadion, view from east  160 Fig. 4.3. Model of Olympia  162 Fig. 4.4. South Hall, reconstruction and plan  163 Figs. 4.5a, b. Metroon, plan and elevation  166 Fig. 4.6. Phrixos on ram  167 Fig. 4.7. Dionysos  167 Fig. 4.8. Western Altis, aerial view  168 Figs. 4.9a, b. Philippeion, plan and elevation, c. 330–320 B.C.  169 Fig. 4.10. Statue bases from the Philippeion  170 Fig. 4.11. Plan of statue bases to the west of the Echo Hall  173 Fig. 4.12. Statue bases along east-­west path  174 Fig. 4.13. Daochos group, Delphi Museum  175 Fig. 4.14. Ptolemaic Monument, view from east  178 Fig. 4.15. Ptolemaic Monument, reconstruction  178 Figs. 4.16a, b. Ptolemaic Monument dedicatory inscriptions  179 Fig. 4.17. Philetairos base  184 Fig. 4.18. ‘Terme ruler’  185 Fig. 4.19. Etruscan helmet dedicated by Hieron I, c. 474 B.C.  188 Fig. 4.20. ­Temple of Zeus, metope with attachment hole  190 Fig. 4.21. Male torso, Roman copy of a Greek original of c. 450 B.C.(?)  191 Fig. 4.22. Mummius base  193 Fig. 4.23. Telemachos Monument  196 Fig. 4.24. Kyniska base, c. 390–380 B.C.  198 Figs. 4.25a, b. Head of athlete wearing tainia, c. 340 B.C.  199 Fig. 4.26. Head of Aphrodite  201 Fig. 4.27. Apollo  202 Fig. 4.28. Astragalos base  203 Fig. 5.1. Plan of Roman Olympia  207 Fig. 5.2. Southeast gate, view from west  209 Fig. 5.3. Roman wall along the north-south path in the southwest Altis, view from southwest  211 Fig. 5.4. Metroon inscription  212 Fig. 5.5. Augustus from the Metroon  213

x

List of Illustrations

Fig. 5.6a. Claudius from the Metroon  214 Fig. 5.6b. Agrippina the Younger from the Metroon  214 Fig. 5.7a. Titus from the Metroon  215 Fig. 5.7b. Female from the Metroon  215 Fig. 5.8a. Vespasian(?) from the Metroon  216 Fig. 5.8b. Female from the Metroon  216 Fig. 5.9. Priestess from the Heraion  219 Fig. 5.10. Nymphaion, view from south  221 Fig. 5.11. Nymphaion, reconstruction  221 Fig. 5.12. Hadrian from the Nymphaion  222 Fig. 5.13. Antoninus Pius from the Nymphaion  223 Fig. 5.14. Marcus Aurelius(?) from the Nymphaion  224 Fig. 5.15. Regilla(?) from the Nymphaion  224 Fig. 5.16. Bull from the Nymphaion  225 Fig. 5.17. Demeter Chamyne altar in the Stadion  226 Fig. 5.18. Artemis shrine, view from east, Roman period  231 Figs. 5.19a, b. Tychai, second ­century A.D.  232 Fig. 5.20. Leonidaion, Roman period plan  233 Fig. 5.21. Late antique wall from the ­Temple of Zeus to the South Hall  235 Fig. 5.22. Male head  236 Fig. 6.1a. Olympia, plan, Byzantine structures over earlier site  238 Fig. 6.1b. Olympia, plan, Byzantine period  239 Fig. 6.2. ‘Spolienhaus’, early fifth century A.D.  240 P L AT E S ( following page 204) Pl. 1. Aerial view of Olympia Pl. 2. Char­i­ot­eer of Delphi, c. 470-450 B.C. Pl. 3a. Pelanidas’ base, c. 500 B.C. Pl. 3b. Persian helmet dedicated to Zeus by the Athenians, c. 490 B.C. Pl. 4. Olympia, plan of 1887 with Demeter sanctuary added Pl. 5. Bronze helmets in the storerooms at Olympia Pl. 6a. Bronze and silver ‘Illyrian’ helmet, c. 530 B.C., and bronze greaves



List of Illustrationsxi

Pl. 6b. Spear-­point dedications to Zeus Pl. 7. Aerial view of southwest area with the Leonidaion and ­Temple of Zeus Pl. 8. Satellite map from Google Earth with author’s approximations for the size of the Altis Pl. 9. Plan of Greek Baths Pl. 10. Aerial view of southwest area with Leonidaion and ­Temple of Zeus Pl. 11. ‘Heraion,’ view from northeast Pl. 12. Sikyonian Trea­sury, view from southwest Pl. 13a. Geloan Trea­sury roof line Pl. 13b. Terracotta architectural members from the Trea­sury Terrace Pl.14. Geloan Trea­sury, Olympia, view from west Pl. 15. Zeus and Ganymede akroterion, c. 480 B.C. Pl. 16. Base of Gelon, east of the ­Temple of Zeus Pl. 17a-­b. Warrior, c. 490 B.C. Pl. 18. Bull of silver and gold from Delphi Pl. 19a-­b. Griffin nursing baby, c. 630 B.C. Pl. 20. Bowl dedicated by the Kypselids, c. 625 B.C. Pl. 21a. Eretrian steer base Pl. 21b. Ear and horn of Eretrian steer, early fifth ­century B.C. Pl. 22. ­Temple of Zeus, east metope: Herakles and Atlas, c. 470–456 B.C. Pl. 23. Pheidias’ workshop, exterior Pl. 24. Nike of Paionios, c. 420 B.C. Pl. 25a-­b. Triangular pillar and inscription belonging to Nike of Paionios, c. 420 B.C. Pl. 26a-­b. Stadion tunnel (krypte stoa) Pl. 27a. Metroon, view from northwest Pl. 27b. Zanes bases, view from west Pl. 28. Philippeion, c. 330–320 B.C. Pl. 29a, b, c. Pulydamas base, c. 350–300 B.C. Pl. 30. Head of a boxer from Olympia, c. 330 B.C. Pl. 31a, b. Hermes and Dionysos Pl. 32a. Artemis altar, Roman period Pl. 32b. Pheidias’ workshop, interior depicting transformation into a church

xii

List of Illustrations

A C K N O W L­E D G M E N T S

This book was a long time in the making, and many institutions and p ­ eople have helped me with this proj­ect. The British Acad­emy, the Car­ne­gie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, the Loeb Classical Library Foundation, the State University of New York at New Paltz, and the University of Edinburgh provided both finances and time for this proj­ect. A Se­nior Fellowship from the Internationales Forschungszentrum Kulturwissenschaften in Vienna and a Marie Curie Fellowship from the Gerda Henkel Stiftung at the Freie Universität in Berlin offered excellent facilities, efficient and helpful staff, and welcoming, interested colleagues. ­These opportunities would not have been pos­si­ble without the cooperation and support of my colleagues at the University of Edinburgh. The Εφορεία Αρχαιοτήτων Ηλείας at Olympia, its ephors past and pre­sent, Γεωργία Χατζή and Ερωφίλη Κόλλια, and especially Χρίστος Λιάγκουρας, readily provided access to study objects in the Archaeological Museum and storerooms. Reinhard Senff and his staff at Olympia and at the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens kindly granted numerous requests for access to objects, archives, and materials with patience, generosity, and good cheer. Research for this proj­ect took place at the libraries of the Universität Wien, the Freie Universiät Berlin, the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens and Berlin, the British School at Athens, and the incomparable Blegen Library at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. The excellent facilities, supportive staff, and superb camaraderie at t­hese libraries w ­ ere instrumental in writing this book. I am im­mensely grateful to all of the above, and it is a plea­sure to acknowledge them ­here. Colleagues have shared their thoughts and work with me in discussions, in correspondence, and at lectures where I have had the opportunity to pre­sent some of this material, and ­these many discussions and questions have s­ haped my thinking and this book. I have tried to cite them all at the appropriate place and thank them ­here: Aileen Ajootian, Annetta Alexandridis, Holger Baitinger, Peter Baumeister, Renate Bol, Nancy Bookidis, Diana Burton, Benedikt Eckhardt, Birgitta Eder, Gunnel

xiii

Ekroth, Klaus Hallof, Arndt Hennemeyer, Alex Herda, the late Klaus Herrmann, Bill Hutton, Florian Klauser, the late Uta Kron, Ken Lapatin, Christina Leypold, Claudia Mächler, Hedwig Maehler, Marion Meyer, Toshi Osada, Wilhelm Osthues, Dorothea Roos, Jim Roy, Phil Sapirstein, David Scahill, Jürgen Schilbach, Peter Schultz, Reinhard Senff, Peter Siewert, Ulrich Sinn, Tom Stevenson, Andy Stewart, Julia Taita, Tasos Tanoulas, and Lela Walter-­Karydi. Monika Trümper-­Ritter’s enthusiasm and support for this proj­ect ­were manifested in her proposal of a co-organized workshop on Olympia, which took place in Berlin in February 2015; my many conversations with her have been helpful and always enjoyable. I have profited from the good com­pany and stimulating discussions at Olympia with Gianfranco Adornato, Nancy Bookidis, Hans Goette, Aliki Moustaka, and Robert Pitt. Hans Goette and Felipe Soza read and commented on individual chapters, and Nancy Bookidis and Robert Pitt kindly (and nobly) read through the entire manuscript and offered their time, thoughts, corrections, and suggestions. Detailed comments from the two anonymous readers for Prince­ton University Press ­were also enormously helpful in bettering this manuscript. I remain responsible for all errors that remain. Saskia Bartsch, Edward Harris, Anne Jacquemin, Sophie Minon, Aliki Moustaka, Nicola Nenci, Stephanie Pearson, Oliver Pilz, Christa Schauer, and Sophia Zoumbaki provided last-­minute bibliography or checked citations in libraries for me during the COVID-19 lockdown. Susanne Bocher, Katharina Brandt (Fototek, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen), Carolyn Cruthirds (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), Karsten Dahmen (Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin), Joachim Heiden (Fototek, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen), Wolfram Hoepfner, Tonio Hölscher, Christina Leypold, Mario Iozzo (Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze), Annalisa Lo Monaco, Claudia Noferi (Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze), Νίκος Πετρόχειλος and Αθανασία Ψάλτη (Εφορεία Αρχαιοτήτων Φωκίδος), Ulrich Sinn, Candace Smith, Andrew Stewart, and Eleni Tzimi (Fototek, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen) helped in providing illustrations and permissions, and the University of Edinburgh offered a generous subsidy for color images in this publication. Hans R. Goette deserves special recognition and thanks for the many beautiful photos and drawings he supplied for this book and for fielding my (seemingly) endless requests for refinements and revisions. Ben Tate’s enthusiasm for this book from my first moment of contact with Prince­ton University Press onward has made working with him and his assistant, Josh Drake, a genuine plea­sure. The careful attention of Lauren Lepow, Debbie Tegarden, Dimitri Karetnikov, Pamela Schnitter, and Jenn Backer helped bring this book to fruition. I am grateful to all of the above. Fi­nally, I offer my heartfelt gratitude to dear friends, who have offered their warm support in myriad ways: Eve D’Ambra, Pat and Doug Arlig, Nancy Bookidis, Gunnel Ekroth, Johanna Fabricius, Jason Harris, Maria Liston, Jon McIntyre, Paula Schwartz, and especially Greg Barringer.

xiv

Acknowl­edgments

A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Abbreviations for ancient authors and texts are ­those used by the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 5th ed., edited by S. Goldberg (2016), https://­oxfordre​-­com​.­ezproxy​.­is​ .­ed​.­ac​.­uk​/­classics. Abbreviations for journals and standard reference works are t­ hose used by the American Journal of Archaeology, https://­www​.­ajaonline​.­org​/­submissions​/­abbreviations. Additional abbreviations are as follows: DNO Kansteiner, S., L. Lehmann, and K. Hallof et al., eds. 2014. Der neue Overbeck. Berlin. IvO Dittenberger, W., and K. Purgold. 1896. Olympia V: Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin. [Numbers given refer to the inscription number.]

xv

C H R O N O L O GY

Bronze Age, c. 3100–1100 B.C. Early Helladic, c. 3100–2100 B.C. Middle Helladic, c. 2100–1700 B.C. Late Helladic, c. 1700–1100 B.C. Submycenaean, c. 1100–1000 B.C. Early Iron Age, c. 1000–700 B.C. Geometric, c. 900–700 B.C. Seventh century B.C. (‘Orientalizing’) Archaic, c. 600–480 B.C. Classical, c. 480–323 B.C. Hellenistic, c. 323–31 B.C. Roman Republican period, c. 509–31 B.C. Roman Imperial period, c. 31 B.C.–fourth century A.D.

xvii

O LY M P I A

INTRODUCTION

A hot, late July after­noon in the Peloponnesian countryside in 200 B.C. (Figs. 1, 5). The travelers have walked many kilo­meters over many days, and suddenly someone spies a flash in the distance, and the word spreads quickly: ­we’re nearly t­ here. Olympia! The glint of sun reflecting off bronze and gilt multiplies as they draw nearer, and soon the brilliant colors of marble sculptures are vis­i­ble, and the hum of voices, both animal and h ­ uman, the sounds of wagons, tools, and w ­ ater fill the air. A ­ fter such a long journey through a nearly monochromatic landscape of scrubby brown and green vegetation, almost empty streams, and tranquil mountains, the rich palette of materials, hues, and sounds at Olympia, the greatest Panhellenic sanctuary of them all, is dazzling, overwhelming, magical, and awe-­inspiring. As the travelers approach the site, they mill with hundreds, thousands, of o ­ thers, stopping for a drink of w ­ ater for themselves and their animals, unloading carts, and talking excitedly among each other as they search for a comfortable place to camp for the five days of the Olympic games. Merchants hawk food and votives to the visitors, as priests make offerings at the vari­ous altars in the site. When ­imagined in this way, it is easy to grasp the extraordinary spectacle Olympia and its games must have been for the ancient visitors. New books on the ancient Olympic games proliferate around the time of ­every modern Olympiad. But Olympia was more than athletics in antiquity and offers far more than that for study now. Olympia’s fame rested not only on its prestigious Panhellenic athletic games but also on its religious sanctuary and its oracle, where politics and prestige ­were played out. To hold po­liti­cal and military power in the ancient world meant leaving a mark at Olympia: cities and rulers gravitated to the site and used the placement of their monuments and imagery to vie with, and outdo, one another again and again. Cities victorious in ­battle erected lavish monuments to trumpet their successes, and vari­ous patrons, as well as Olympic officials, recruited monuments—­buildings and sculpture—to foster and propagate ideas about religion and politics, about themselves, their accomplishments, and Olympia itself to the thousands of visitors to the site (Pl. 1).

1




  



 







 











 



   



 

  









   



­€

‚€ ƒ

Fig. 1. Map of Mediterranean.

 ­€­€




 

 

  


 




 

 

  

 
   

  

 



  

  







    









An Olympic victory was the most prestigious athletic achievement one could acquire: Olympic victors’ hometowns frequently celebrated them with extraordinary honors, and ancient authors make it clear that victory on the racing track prepared young men for triumph on the battlefield. Olympic victors enjoyed the special honor of being able to erect a statue of themselves (or someone could do this on the athlete’s behalf) in the Altis, the sacred area, at Olympia. We know of l­ater athletic victor statues at other sanctuaries, such as the well-­known bronze char­i­ot­ eer of Delphi (Pl. 2), but the practice seems to be largely peculiar to Olympia, where ­there ­were hundreds of such thankofferings as evidenced by ancient authors and inscribed bases. ­These mostly bronze (but sometimes marble) statues commemorating military success (often with statues of Zeus) and athletic victories (usually statues of the victors), as well as statues erected as honorifics by poleis (especially Elis, often together with the Olympic Boule) and ­others, stood on inscribed bases, which usually, but not always, rec­ord dedications to Olympian Zeus. Of the original bronze statues themselves, only fragments remain; in a few instances, we are fortunate to have feet still attached to their bases (Pl. 3a). Large-­scale marble statues—­both architectural and non-­architectural, free-­standing and relief—­survive to a greater extent, which is not surprising considering the demand for metal in the late and post-­antique periods. The vast majority of ­these extant sculptures are from the ­Temple of Zeus, the Nymphaion, and the Metroon (see chapters 3–5). S TAT E O F T H E S C H O L A R S H I P A N D G OA L S O F T H E ST U DY One of the first ­things that strikes a scholar (at least, this scholar) who begins to work on Olympia is how much material ­there is and how much we still do not know. This seems strange for one of the most impor­tant sanctuaries in the ancient world. Excavations at Olympia began u ­ nder French direction in 1829 and resumed in 1875 by Germany (Fig. 2); this work eventually came ­under the direction of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (hereafter DAI). The German excavations continue to this day, along with excavations by the local ephorate of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture. The significance of the work of the DAI is hard to overestimate. Without their tireless investigations and conscientious, steady publication, we would scarcely know anything about the physical site of Olympia. We have an abundance of inscriptions in several media from Olympia, and we have the remains of buildings and architectural sculpture—in some cases quite substantial remains, inscribed bases that once supported sculpture, and thousands of votive objects, as well as ele­ments of infrastructure, for example, ­water lines and aqueducts. Numerous studies exist (and others are under way) on many buildings in the sanctuary although new buildings continue to be uncovered and discovered; on the most famous sculpture, that

4 Introduction

from the T ­ emple of Zeus; on the terracotta sculpture; on some bronze objects, including a thorough treatment of the helmets recovered from the site; and on certain areas of the sanctuary, such as the southeast. A narrative history of Olympia, l­imited in its scope and aims, has emerged, but it tends to focus on the main structures and, naturally, is continually subject to revision. However, t­ here has been far less interpretation at a larger level, putting the w ­ hole of what we know together to consider the site in its many facets—­archaeological, po­liti­cal, social, religious—in depth over the longue durée. This challenge is one t­hing, of course, that makes the study of Olympia so lively and exciting, and it is precisely the goal of this study to address ­these issues. This book focuses on the development of Olympia, particularly (but not exclusively) the Altis from the period of its first monumental architecture c. 600 B.C. u ­ ntil the late Roman period, when pagan cult practices w ­ ere officially abolished by the Christian emperor Theodosius in 393 A.D. Although this was followed by a transformation of Olympia into a thriving early Christian community, we w ­ ill not venture ­there. Scholars usually claim that Olympia and its games experienced their peak in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., then declined in the fourth c­ entury, but recent discoveries along with a reconsideration of the already existing evidence should cause us to revise our picture: the site’s prestige and importance and the games continued right up to the time of Theodosius’ decree and beyond. ­Here, I offer a new way of viewing Olympia to answer the primary questions of how and why the site developed as it did over this long period of time. In par­tic­u­lar, my focus is on how sculptural monuments (both architectural and free-­standing) related and responded to each other; what messages patrons intended; and what interpretations w ­ ere available to viewers. The last question is the most difficult to investigate since we have so ­little evidence of specific responses to the site (as opposed to general acclaim and appreciation for Olympia). But the physical context in which the monuments are situated, as well as the social, historical, po­liti­cal, and religious events that occurred at Olympia (i.e., cultural context), help with this issue and often enable us to posit responsible possibilities regarding viewer response. This method employs all available evidence—­material and written—to formulate a picture of the site over time. The goal is to obtain a coherent understanding of the site as it developed, not just in terms of its architecture but also in terms of meaning, to understand why objects w ­ ere placed where they w ­ ere (when we know) and what the intended effect was. This work is meant to offer a method that can be applied to other sites and sanctuaries. Remarkably, such holistic interpretive work has rarely been done for any archaeological site in ancient Greece (Hurwit’s 1999 excellent study of the Athenian Akropolis is an exception), and it is my hope that this study might offer a model to interpret other sites in the ancient world. Abundant archaeological evidence of many va­ri­e­ties—­architecture, sculpture (stone, terracotta, bronze), stone foundations, armor, weapons, pottery, coins—is available

Introduction5

Fig. 2. Photo of excavation of ‘Heraion’ in 1877/1878 by the Romaïdes ­brothers. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-2003.0009.

to help answer t­ hese questions and, read together with written evidence, including a large cache of inscriptions from the site, permits us to make some headway. Pausanias’ two books devoted to Olympia, however, remain the richest written source for the appearance of Olympia in the 160s A.D. and are absolutely instrumental to anyone studying the site. His text is usually regarded as a rare ancient Greek example of travel writing, something like an ancient Baedeker, but this does a disser­vice to his work, which is far more than a list of places and descriptions. It is carefully crafted and includes an abundance of information of what Pausanias saw, thought, heard, and experienced in his own time. Pausanias does not mention every­thing he saw, but only ­those ­things that interested him, which ­were mostly religious. Excavators at Olympia continue to unearth buildings and monuments that he never named, such as the

6 Introduction

‘athletic guild’ in the southwest (Fig. 3, SW Baths), as well as some that he does, such as the sanctuary of Demeter Chamyne (6.21.1; Pl. 4 and Fig. 12); such discoveries sometimes cause us to revise our understanding of the text and the placement of structures. In addition, monuments or buildings the author mentions no longer exist or have not been found, such as the Hippodameion (5.22.2), which compounds the prob­lems in identifying the few structures that do remain. In order to interpret the site, one must first, of course, establish its appearance at any given period. Beyond the major buildings, such as the T ­ emple of Zeus and the ‘Heraion’ whose position was unchanged from what we see ­today, t­ here are smaller buildings, such as the trea­suries, the Southeast Building, the Echo Hall, the Philippeion, and large-­scale monuments, such as the Ptolemaic Monument, whose positions are certain. But the situation with the free-­standing sculptural monuments is

Introduction7

Kladeos wall

North Baths

Kronos Hill

Roman bl

dg.

Kronos Baths

Gymnasion

Sta

retaining wall

Philippeion

aion

altar of Zeus

oon

Sta

temple of Zeus Tem

Greeks baths

Pheidias’ workshop

East-We st path uteri

n

late

Souths bath

Boule

wall

id a io

qu e

Leon

on

e

anti

esthous Roman gu

qu anti lateuses ho

us

enha

Spoli

idaio Le on s bath

SW b

n

a th s

e

Sou

I n II

Tr e a s u r y te r r a ce

Metr

Heraion Pelopion

Palaistra

Kladeos baths

Nymph

n

Echo Hall

neio

all th H

SE gate

Southeast Bldg.

Pry ta

dio

dio

n II

East baths

Greek Bldg.

Statue Bases

Buildings on the Treasury Terrace

1 earlier Zanes bases 2 later Zanes bases 3 Ptolemaic monument 4 Dropion base 5 Mikythos monument 6 Semicircular Elean monument 7 Eretrian Steer monument 8 Achaian monument 9 Nike of Paionios 10 Plataian monument 11 Telemachos base 12 Praxiteles base 13 Apollonian monument 14 Philonides base 15 M. M. Rufus base 16 Phormis dedication 17 Kallikrates base 18 Two-column monument 19 Mummius base

O oikos I Treasury of Sikyon II Treasury III Treasury of Syracuse IV Treasury of Epidamnos V Treasury of Byzantion? VI Treasury of Sybaris? VII Treasury of Kyrene? VIII Treasury IX Treasury of Selinus X Treasury of Metaponto XI Treasury of Megara XII Treasury of Gela B wells D Altar of Demeter Chamyne K Hellanodikai seating R access to Gaion AB-archaic bridge supports FH Early Helladic House III (Building VII) GA Greek Altis wall RA Roman Altis wall NW Northwest gate SW Southwest gate

Altars A1 Altar of Heraion A2 Altar of Herakles A3 Altar of Metroon A4 Altar of Artemis

Baths

----- Greek water lines - -- - fence -15- altitude with respect to the Zeus temple

0

Fig. 3. Olympia, plan of Roman period by K. Herrmann, H. Birk, and M.-­L. Charalambis. Courtesy of DAI.

8 Introduction

50

100

150 m

more challenging and dependent on what is extant (usually only an inscribed base) and ­whether the remains are in situ. The earliest large-­scale free-­standing sculptures, known only from written accounts, are from the sixth c­ entury B.C., but the earliest extant examples are only from the fifth ­century B.C. Reuse and rebuilding occlude the picture: although we have Pausanias’ vivid and detailed account, he describes the site as he found it when he visited in the mid-­second ­century A.D., and not necessarily as it was when the monuments w ­ ere erected.1 In fact, the history of the site is one of reuse: we know with certainty that both Greeks and Romans moved monuments around—in some cases only a short time ­after their erection—to change their location or for reuse in vari­ous ways. Over one thousand statue bases survive, 340 of them with inscriptions, but we can be certain of the original placement of only some 170,2 which w ­ ere found in situ. We can establish monuments to be in situ when their foundations show no signs of disturbance or change, and this requires scrutiny of foundations for all monuments. In addition, we know of other statues only from ancient writers, usually Pausanias, or from inscribed plaques, usually of bronze, that ­were once affixed to bases.3 Altogether, we know of 274 athletic victors’ statues, 98 of which still retain inscriptions.4 Purgold and the authors of IvO, Dittenberger and Purgold, published what was known of the statue bases in 1892 and 1896, respectively, but many more have been found since then. Select types of statue bases, such as ­those associated with Hellenistic rulers, appear in vari­ous publications, for example, Herrmann 1988; Hintzen-Bohlen 1992; Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995; Kotsidu 2000; and Schmidt-Dounas 2000, and, of course, newly discovered bases appear in OlBer; Siedentopf 1968, 89–108 cata­logued bases belonging to equestrian statues according to location at Olympia. As I write this, Christina Leypold is currently engaged in the mammoth proj­ect of studying and publishing all the statue bases, and Klaus Hallof has been entrusted with the even larger proj­ect of restudying and publishing all of the inscriptions from Olympia, including t­ hose previously published in IvO and elsewhere. Several prob­lems dog the study of the archaeological remains. Lack of information—­ whether through lack of excavation (some areas have been excavated, ­others have not), loss in e­ ither antiquity or the modern period, or lack of publication of recovered 1  A surprising number and variety of scholars seem unaware of this fact and base interpretations on this supposition. See, e.g., Lehmann and Gutsfeld 2013, 95–97; Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 207–9; Krumeich 1997, 38–39. 2  Leypold 2014b, 31; Leypold 2014a, 33. Hyde (1912) tries to establish the position of statues on the basis of groupings by ­family, state, artist, or event as enunciated in Pausanias. In other words, he endeavors to reconstruct the appearance of the sanctuary at the time that Pausanias saw it. 3  E.g., IvO 166; SEG 14, 358; 16, 288; 39, 1822; 40, 809; 42, 386. 4  Leypold 2014a, 34. Herrmann (1988) reckoned that Pausanias mentions 197 athletic victor statues and that another 62 are known from inscribed bases but are not mentioned in Pausanias. Habicht (1985, 22) says that Pausanias lists 203 of the “most notable” statues. Cf. Habicht 1985, 65 n. 4, 149; Herrmann 1972, 244 n. 438.

Introduction9

material (sometimes for decades)—­and changes to the site, both in antiquity and more recently, hobble one’s ability to secure a picture of the site at any one moment. Th ­ ese impediments would seem to doom any possibility of addressing the issues outlined above, but that would be too pessimistic a view. We possess the most information about Olympia in the fifth ­century B.C. and the Roman imperial period, but a ­great deal is known beyond ­these chronological par­ameters, and our knowledge is increasing all the time. ­There are limitations to the scope of this proj­ect. This work does not aim at a comprehensive examination of ­every aspect of the site, nor does it concern itself with all sculpture at the site. Rather, my focus h ­ ere is exclusively on material that has been published and that is in situ or can be placed with certainty, while bringing in comparanda as needed. The treatment of material is uneven, in part ­because of the nature of the evidence itself, and in part ­because of the specific goals of this analy­sis. This study is or­ga­nized chronologically in an effort to gain a synchronous and diachronic view of the site. The shape of the Altis and the logistics of Olympia are the subject of chapter 1. New finds enable us to reconfigure the bound­aries of the Altis, which is far larger than ever acknowledged. The chapter also examines the scattered evidence for how the sanctuary actually functioned. W ­ ater, accommodation, hygiene, pasturage for animals (for both transport and competition), and food ­were all concerns for visitors to the site, especially during the Olympic games, when some 45,000– 50,000 (at least in the fourth ­century B.C.) ­were pre­sent at Olympia for five days.5 Chapter 2 concerns the archaic period at Olympia. Questions of who was worshipped, where, and how open this chapter, which goes on to look at the growing internationalism of the site, as expressed through the construction of trea­suries and the types of votives. The placement of buildings and choice of sculptural themes exhibit a jockeying for position and prominence, particularly among western Greek cities, as this Panhellenic site and its number of visitors grew. Politics, religious needs, and an ever-­increasing number of visitors in response to the growing prominence of the Olympic games ­shaped archaic Olympia. The fifth c­ entury is the focal point of chapter 3, which traces the rapid development of the site, now securely ­under Elean control, and the construction of numerous buildings and victory monuments in the Altis. Free-­standing sculptural dedications still in situ enable us to reconstruct ceremonial areas of the Altis, and the sculptures of the T ­ emple of Zeus demonstrate a complex cross-­referencing of mythological themes and compositional motifs with the activities that actually took place at Olympia. In addition, by considering depictions of Zeus at Olympia from the archaic to the clas5  Wacker 2012, 269–70; Lee 1992, 106; Herrmann 1972, 124. The games began as a one-­or two-­day event and extended to five days by the early fifth ­century at the latest.

10 Introduction

sical period, one can observe changes in how the god and his sanctuary w ­ ere regarded by con­temporary Greeks. Chapter 4 takes up Olympia in the fourth ­century B.C. and the Hellenistic period, when new building concentrated on the areas immediately around the Altis with the exception of two major structures within: the ­temple that Pausanias dubbed the Metroon and the Philippeion, which ­housed statues of Philip II, Alexander the ­Great, and their immediate ­family members. The latter was only the most elaborate of a number of dedications from fourth-­century rulers, athletes, and military leaders. The Philippeion’s placement was carefully chosen to respond to ­earlier monuments and served as a reference point for ­later Hellenistic royal monuments. The fourth ­century at Olympia also marks an extraordinary event: warfare within the Altis itself. Romans, of course, frequented Olympia during the Republican period and left their mark on the site. Although military victory monuments became less common at Olympia ­after the mid-­fourth ­century B.C., Mummius revived this practice in 146 B.C. by, among other t­ hings, affixing shields to the classical T ­ emple of Zeus. In d ­ oing so, Mummius aligned himself and his victory with ­those of the past and reified the ­Temple of Zeus’ function as military victory monument. Chapter 5 is devoted to the imperial Roman period during which the Olympic games continued to thrive in spite of several earthquakes at Olympia that caused extensive damage. Although the site continued to function and games w ­ ere held into the late antique period, perhaps the fifth ­century A.D., Olympia’s role in the Roman world had changed, and the monuments—­their placement and function—­reflect that. Non-­sacred buildings, especially baths, multiplied at the periphery of the Altis and along the banks of the Kladeos River, and honorific statues—­for rulers (from local magistrates to emperors), priests and priestesses, benefactors, military leaders, and other dignitaries—­exceeded all other types of monumental sculptural dedications at the site. The site had become a truly Roman sanctuary, yet the new rulers and their new subjects understood the importance of Olympia and its history. The Eleans transformed the e­ arlier Metroon into a Sebasteion in honor of Augustus, and the Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus and Regilla was constructed in the mid-­second ­century A.D., an act of patronage that provided a continual source of ­water to Olympia. Refurbishment and rebuilding of older monuments, particularly the ­temples, seemed to be ongoing during the Roman period, and rulers, such as Nero, not only left statues and structures at the site but also removed objects from Olympia. This seems to have been the case with one of the seven won­ders of the ancient world, the magnificent Pheidian Zeus that once sat in the T ­ emple of Zeus; it was removed to Constantinople in the early fifth c­ entury A.D., where it was destroyed in a fire in 476 A.D. A brief final chapter offers a summary of the transformation of Olympia from the time that the games and pagan cult trailed off in the first part of the fifth ­century ­until

Introduction11

the abandonment of the site in the ninth ­century. Christians increasingly reshaped Olympia for their own purposes, and an agricultural community developed here. Slavs also came to dwell at late antique Olympia, but eventually earthquakes and flooding brought an end to human habitation. Where thousands once cheered athletes on to victory, only the sound of birds and cicadas remained.

12 Introduction

 PROLOGUE

It is hard to overestimate the importance of Olympia in the ancient world. A win in the Olympic games could exalt a mere mortal to the realm of heroes and often guaranteed a f­ uture without financial cares. But Olympia was much more than the site of Panhellenic games or even a religious sanctuary. B ­ ecause of its renown and its hordes of visitors, the site was critically impor­tant in po­liti­cal ­matters and was itself contested ground between Elis (Fig. 5), the nearby polis that controlled the site through much of its history, and other poleis. Like Delphi, one must imagine Olympia as a locus for the exchange of information, po­liti­cal negotiation, and jostling among athletes, rulers, poets, rhapsodes (e.g., Diog. Laert. 8.63 reports that Empedokles’ work was performed by a rhapsode), hucksters, and dignitaries for one-­upmanship in vari­ous spheres. E L I S A N D O LY M P I A : A M U T U A L LY B E N E F I C I A L R E L AT I O N S H I P Elis gained control of Olympia at least from c. 550 B.C.—­perhaps even e­ arlier—­and, with only short periods of interruption, maintained dominance of the sanctuary into the fifth ­century A.D.;1 this administration not only was over the festival and games but also encompassed access to the sanctuary and its finances.2 Written evidence suggests that Elis also exerted some control over the placement and maintenance of monuments, moving them from time to time.3 ­There is controversy regarding ­whether Elis alone or a group of citizens from vari­ous poleis, that is, an amphictyony comparable to that which governed Delphi, administered the sanctuary,4 although communis opinio ­favors the former.5 A sixth-­century B.C. inscription twice refers to the 1 

Pilz 2020a, 103–104; Roy 2013, 107–8. On Elis’ financing of the games and festival, see Taita 2014, who stresses the herds of Zeus, votive offerings, and penalty fines, e.g., violations of the sacred truce, as chief sources of revenue. 3  See Roy 2013, 114–18 with the relevant passages from ancient writers. 4  E.g., Taita (e.g., 2007, 140–42). Roy (2013, 111 no. 27) gathers the bibliography for an amphictyony. 5  See also Mitsopoulos-­Leon 1984, 281–83 on the early history of Elis and its mythological hero, Oxylos. 2 

13

Eleans and their symmachia, a clear reference to a kind of military alliance between Elis and its subservient communities,6 but indicates no involvement in ­matters at Olympia. Olympia served as a kind of archive and trea­sury, a place for the display of agreements, treaties, and contracts concerning vari­ous poleis—­not just Elis—­especially western Greek colonies, inscribed Elean laws, and the deposit of tribute payments and penalties among poleis.7 The display of t­ hese documents indicates Olympia’s centrality in the region in the sixth c­ entury, although it was one—­the most prominent one—of a number of sacred sites in the area. Elis attained the status of a polis through synoikismos c. 471 (Diod. Sic. 11.54.1; Strabo 8.3.2),8 and what had begun as an oligarchy in the sixth ­century developed demo­ cratic tendencies analogous to the situation in Athens in the fifth ­century B.C.9 Scholars suggest that Elis held its boule meetings in the Bouleuterion at Olympia before and ­after the synoikism10 and that the boule publicized its edicts h ­ ere in stone. The first part of the Bouleuterion complex, its southernmost apsidal building, was built in the last quarter of the sixth ­century B.C. (Fig. 3). The building’s northern counterpart dates from a few years ­later but prob­ably was constructed for a dif­fer­ent function.11 Pausanias (5.24.9) recounts that the Bouleuterion h ­ oused the statue of Zeus Horkios before which Olympic athletes and trainers swore their oath of fair play. Elis’ control of the harbor at Pheia (Fig. 5) and its access to the lower course of the Alpheios River also ensured access to materials and l­ abor and for visitors coming by sea, for example, ­those from Magna Graecia. An overland route via Letrinoi (Paus. 6.22.8) also allowed visitors to make their way between Elis and Olympia.12 ­Those approaching Olympia from the west had to cross the Kladeos River to reach the sanctuary, and this meant a bridge in the wet season. The odd diamond-­shaped foundation of large field stones, c. 12m long, ­under the western portion of the Prytaneion apparently provided just such a bridge (Fig. 4). Dated to the late eighth ­century B.C. on the basis of ceramic sherds found within it, the bridge spanned the Kladeos River, which ran just to the west of Kronos Hill in the eighth ­century B.C.13 This construction attests to the importance of the site and the need to access it easily at any time of the year. 6 

Kõiv 2013, 329–30; Roy 1997, 292. Pilz 2020a, 105; Troncoso 2013; Siewert 2001, 247; Hansen and Fischer-­Hansen 1994, 87. 8  Siewert 2001, 246–48. 9  Siewert 2001, 249. 10  Roy (1997, 288) posits that the meetings may have taken place before 471, while Hansen and Fischer-­Hansen (1994, 88–89) suggest that the meetings certainly took place before 471 and perhaps for some time even a­ fter the synoikism. See also Siewert 2001, 247–48. 11  Van de Löcht (2013) offers the most recent study of the building. 12  See Taita 2013, 342–77; Taita 2009, 385. 13  Kyrieleis 2012, 62–63. 7 

14 Prologue

Fig. 4. Olympia, plan of late eighth ­century B.C. by Klaus Herrmann. Shaded area and arrows indicate original course of Kladeos River. Reproduced from Kyrieleis 1990, Abb. 2. Courtesy of DAI.

While Olympia served as the extraurban sanctuary and administrative center of ancient Elis, it did not stand in isolation. By the end of the fifth ­century B.C., Olympia was part of a network of sanctuaries in the region of Eleia,14 although clearly the largest and attracting the greatest audience (Fig. 5). Among the nearby shrines ­were ­temples to Athena and Zeus Soter in the Arkadian polis of Phigalia (first built in the archaic period and enlarged and rebuilt in the fourth ­century B.C.),15 the Doric t­ emple to Athena at Prasidaki (both archaic and classical phases),16 a Doric ­temple to Athena of c. 500–480 B.C. at Alipheira,17 and the Doric 6 × 13 ­temple of Athena at Mazi (ancient Makistos) of the early fifth c­ entury B.C.18 Additional regional sanctuaries and ­temples ­were built ­later, such as the Doric ­temple of Demeter at Lepreon (Paus. 5.5.6) of the fourth ­century B.C.19 14 

On ancient Eleia and the cities controlled by it, see, e.g., Nielsen 1997; Roy 1997. See also Taita 2009, 383–85. Arapojanni 2002. 16  Johr 2020, 146–47; Pilz 2020b, 374–84; Arapojanni 2002. 17  Orlandos 1967–68. 18  Johr 2020, 140; Pilz 2020b, 270–81. For the architecture, see Νακάσης 2004. For the t­ emple’s marble pedimental sculpture and akroteria, which date c. 399 B.C., see Τριάντη (1986), who reconstructs a Gigantomachy in the east pediment, an Amazonomachy in the west, and Nikai akroteria. 19  Johr 2020, 148–52; Pilz 2020b, 363–65. Dörpfeld and Knell identify the t­emple mentioned by Pausanias with remains at Lepreon: Knell 1983. 15 

Prologue15

­






€ 






 






























   



 

  

Fig. 5. Map of region of Olympia.

 

‚







 





Prasidaki 













Prasidaki







 

 

 



 



 



  











Thus, the sanctuary not only was of Panhellenic importance but also operated on a more day-­to-­day basis at the regional level, what one might deem the middle-­level.20 We can widen the scope and consider Olympia as part of a network of sanctuaries in the western Mediterranean stretching from Greece to Sicily, from the Peloponnese to Illyria (modern-­day Albania); the macro-­level (Fig. 1). Olympia was an impor­tant locus for Greek colonists in the west from very early on,21 as is obvious from the numerous offerings made by the western Greeks at Olympia from the eighth through fourth centuries B.C.22 The relationship of Olympia and other mainland sanctuaries to western Greece ­will be mentioned ­here repeatedly and ­will be the focus of a ­future study. This book, however, adopts a micro-­level view of Olympia; a middle-­level volume ­will have to wait ­until we know more about the history of Elis and the region surrounding Olympia. E A R LY H I ST O RY : C U LT The oldest material from Olympia are pottery sherds found beneath the northern wall of the Stadion; ­these date to the fourth millennium B.C., the late Neolithic period and Early Helladic I and II, while Early Helladic II sherds of the mid-­third millennium B.C. ­were recovered beneath what is now the new Archaeological Museum;23 ­these derive from a small Mycenaean settlement near the museum.24 Beyond pottery, ­there are numerous EH buildings at Olympia, including one below Building VII,25 an oval structure of c. 17m × 8m of the tenth to eighth ­century B.C. (Fig. 3). ­Because of Building VII’s proximity and orientation to the Pelopion and early ash altar located on the northern edge of the Pelopion (see chapter 2), Building VII might be considered the “oldest cult building” (“ältester Kultbau Olympias”) at Olympia.26 But, in fact, Building VII’s function is unknown. In addition, as we ­will see in chapter 2, ­there are traces of EH occupation beneath the Pelopion tumulus. The earliest evidence for cult activity at Olympia comes from the area l­ater called the Pelopion and is documented by pottery from the Submycenaean period to the early seventh ­century and some 4,000 terracotta and bronze votives of c. 900–600 B.C. 20  Cf. Pirenne-­Delforge 2019; de Polignac 1994, 14 ill. I.I. See now Romano and Voyatzis (2021), who consider the relationship of the sanctuaries of Olympia and Mt. Lykaon in the Early Iron Age. 21  See Jacquemin 1999, 77, pls. 5a–5b on the origin of offerings at Olympia with two useful maps. On the importance of Olympia to the western colonies, see Meier 1993, 61. 22  Most Italic material from the site dates from the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. See Baitinger 2015–16, 114. 23  Rambach 2002b, 181–82; Mallwitz 1972, 78–79. 24  Eder 2003, 93–94. A band of Mycenaean finds stretches from the area east of the Stadion north wall westward to the area of the l­ater Prytaneion. Th ­ ese may derive from Mycenaean cult places on Kronos Hill, but t­ here can be no certainty about this. 25  E.g., Kyrieleis 2012, 63; Rambach 2002b. 26  Kyrieleis 2012, 63. Rambach (2002a) demonstrates that Pausanias (5.20.6–7) may have seen this building and identified it as the ­house of Oinomaos.

Prologue17

Fig. 6. Votives from the black layer (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: author.

(Fig. 6):27 ­these consist of mostly male and some female figurines, together with ­horses, ­cattle, chariots, deer, many bronze tripod leg fragments, and other objects, as well as remnants of an ash altar located at the northern edge of the tumulus l­ater dubbed the Pelopion (see chapter 2) (Fig. 7). Figurines of h ­ orses and c­ attle suggest the importance of animal husbandry, agriculture, and the wealth of some individuals, while horse-­drawn chariots, some with helmeted char­i­ot­eers, point to chariot racing or Homeric ideals of warfare (as opposed to the actuality in the Geometric period, where chariots ­were not used in combat).28 The forty terracotta male figures are usually armed, sometimes only with a helmet, elsewhere also equipped with ­belt, baldric, shield, and/or spear (Fig. 8).29 ­These have been identified as images of Zeus b ­ ecause of the assumption that this early worship was dedicated to Zeus, the uniformity of the figurines, their numbers, and their numbers at Olympia as compared with elsewhere,30 specifically in his aspect as Zeus Areios.31 Slightly ­later, helmeted male figurines of bronze raise their arms in what may be gestures of epiphany,32 but the 27 

Kyrieleis 2006, 35, 46–50; Eder 2006, 197. Eder dates the latest pottery slightly ­earlier than Kyrieleis, who puts it in the early sixth ­century. 28  Himmelmann 2002, 95. 29  See Barringer 2010, 158 n. 4. 30  E.g., Heilmeyer 1972; Kunze 1946, 102–3. 31  Heilmeyer 1972, 61–65; Mallwitz 1972, 20. Contra: Sinn 1981, 38–39. 32  Heilmeyer 1994, 207 nos. 28–33; Mallwitz 1972, 21, fig. 10.

18 Prologue

Fig. 7. Olympia, dispersal of black layer. Reproduced from Kyrieleis 2006, Beilage 12. Courtesy of DAI.

Fig. 8. Warrior figurine (Olympia, Archaeological Museum T531) from the black layer. Eighth ­century B.C., terracotta, H 8.31cm. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH 1970-0826  + 0791.

Prologue19

Fig. 9. Warrior figurine (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Br 2000), c. 700 B.C., bronze, H 21cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

figures could be worshippers as well (Fig. 9).33 In my view, it is impossible to determine w ­ hether the figures are Zeus or worshippers based on the current state of our knowledge. Numerous altars, t­emples, and, of course, the many offerings attest to religious activity for a large range of deities, although Zeus was the chief deity from the earliest evidence of his worship (see chapter 2) ­until the establishment of the Christian community on the site. Pausanias claims that the earliest deities at Olympia w ­ ere Ge (Gaia), who had an oracle, Eileithyia, and Themis, and that Zeus came ­after ­these. This pattern of previous owner­ship before a change to the currently worshipped chief deity is also pre­sent in accounts of Delphi’s sanctuary, where the worship of Gaia and Themis preceded that of Apollo.34 Sourvinou-­Inwood makes a compelling case to dismiss this claim about Delphi, but the Eileithyia sanctuary, operating at least from the sixth ­century B.C., was located recently at Olympia (see pp. 40–43). Pausanias’ text suggests that Ge was worshipped on one of the oldest areas of the site, Kronos Hill. Erosion at the southwest of the hill has taken its toll, but on a plan of 1829 one can see an isolated hillock, a spur of the hill, on which t­here are foundation blocks; early 33 

Papalexandrou (2005, 164–69) and Himmelmann (2002, 96–97, 99) interpret the figures as mortals, even worshippers, but not gods. Both argue that most of the bronze figurines designated as Zeus are not and, moreover, that most of t­hese figures w ­ ere not free-­standing bronzes but attachments to bronze cauldrons (Papalexandrou 2005, 100–102). Kunze (1940–1941a, 116–25) already recognized the latter point but neither Papalexandrou nor Himmelmann mention this publication. Papalexandrou’s arguments lose some of their weight when he argues against Kunze’s under­lying conclusion that the same repre­sen­ta­tional schema could be used for gods and men for which the only evidence offered is Homeric poetry. The visual arts, however, tell a completely dif­fer­ent story—­think, for example, of the controversy over kouroi and ­whether they represent Apollo or not. 34  The numerous ancient written citations appear in Sourvinou-­Inwood 1991, 236 n. 1; the earliest of ­these is Aischylos’ Eumenides.

20 Prologue

scholars supposed a change of cult from Gaia to Zeus c. 1000 B.C., but ­there is no evidence to support this.35 Of Zeus, however, t­ here is abundant evidence of worship at Olympia, but precisely when it began is unknown. Kyrieleis interprets cultic activity of the late eleventh ­century B.C. at the site of the still partially vis­i­ble tumulus (­later the Pelopion) mentioned above as dedicated to Zeus (Pl. 1, Fig. 3).36 But ­whether the cult activity attested by the black layer belongs to only one deity or more than one is an open question—­one that merits more attention. ­After all, the black layer finds include not only animals, warriors, and chariots but also ­needles and jewelry, objects associated with females (although male deities also receive jewelry), so we might consider that such objects ­were intended for a female deity.37 The earliest dedicatory inscriptions to Zeus (thus confirming worship of him at Olympia) occur on a bronze greave and a bronze b ­ elt buckle of the seventh ­century B.C.,38 and on bronze weapons and stone bases for military victory monuments of the sixth ­century B.C.39 Thus, prior to solid evidence for Zeus’ worship at Olympia, the site is clearly associated Fig. 10. Reconstruction of tripod (Olympia, Archaeological Museum with warfare, and the deity or deities worshipped ­there 340), bronze, H 1.54m. Photo: Hans R. are associated with, not surprisingly, agriculture, as well Goette. as warfare. The greatest number of votives stems from the eighth ­century B.C.: bronze tripod cauldrons in large numbers (Olympia has the largest number of bronze tripod cauldrons of any location in Greece), animal statuettes, and fibulae, which derive from many areas throughout Greece (Fig. 10).40 Dispersal of the material (ashes and offerings) from the ash altar to Zeus occurred c. 700 B.C., and this material, the ‘black layer,’ was spread throughout the northern portion of the Altis down to the area of the ­later ­Temple of Zeus (Fig. 7). Hence, the votives found in this layer have no stratification but can only be dated on the basis of style. This dismantling of the altar apparently 35 

Sinn 2004a, 84; Taita 2007, 90. Kyrieleis 2007, 196; Kyrieleis 2006, 55, 61. 37  Himmelmann 2002, 92. 38  Olympia B67, B553. See Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 200 no. 171, 212 no. 196; Frielinghaus 2011, 547 no. 18; Kunze 1991, 91 no. 30, Abb. 24. Th ­ ere may be an even ­earlier dedication to Zeus, an Italic bronze ­belt buckle (BE 656) of the eighth ­century B.C.: see Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 211–12 no. 195; Kasper 1972, 99–101 no. 222, Taf. 40. 39  E.g., Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 199–207; IvO 244, 252. 40  Kyrieleis 2012, 62. On the changing use of tripods in sanctuaries in the Iron Age and Geometric periods, see Eder 2015. 36 

Prologue21

accompanied other, major changes to the sanctuary: the course of the Kladeos River bed was shifted westward, away from Kronos Hill ­because of repeated prob­lems with flooding (it has regressed somewhat and moved more to the east again).41 Pausanias writes about a series of structures on the west side of the Kladeos River—­a mound containing the grave of Oinomaos surrounded by a stone wall and ruins of buildings used for the stables of Oinomaos; what remains now is a wall, possibly constructed in the archaic period to protect the area from flooding.42 In the early seventh c­ entury B.C., the southeast area was leveled and the number of wells increased, signifying a growing need for ­water, that is, more visitors. In contrast to Delphi, Olympia was more of a Panhellenic sanctuary, receiving relatively few dedications from non-­Hellenes. Kroisos of Lydia’s sixth-­century B.C. offerings at Delphi are well known,43 for example, but offerings by non-­Greeks can rarely be documented at Olympia. ­There are objects that derive from outside ancient Hellas,44 such as bronze relief sheets from the Near East reused for seventh-­century B.C. sphyrelata (Figs. 11a-­b),45 booty from wars against non-­Greek opponents (Pl. 3b), and seventh-­century B.C. Etruscan objects,46 but the donors, when known, tend to be Greeks.47 Warfare was also impor­tant for Olympia’s oracle. Literary mentions of the oracle exist in the fifth ­century B.C.,48 but some scholars have argued for the oracle’s existence ­earlier.49 Among the extant inscriptions from Olympia is one of c. 600 B.C. that may refer to it,50 while seers are mentioned in an Elean inscription from the late sixth or early fifth c­ entury B.C.,51 and two seers appear in the east pediment of the T ­ emple 41 

Kyrieleis 1990, 179–81. A wall, composed of two facades of conglomerate blocks with rubble between them, r­ unning some 846m. Th ­ ere are several repair and addition phases into the Hellenistic and Roman periods. See Matzanas 2012. 43  Hdt. 1.50–55; 92; Maass 1993, 138–43. 44  Kilian-­Dirlmeier (1985, 230–35, 246–48) gathers the evidence. 45  Kyrieleis 2011, 74–76; Seidl 1999. 46  Taita 2009, 383–84; Strøm 2000; Moustaka 1985, esp. 361. See also Paus. 5.12.5, who states that the throne of the Etruscan king Arimnestos was the first offering of a foreigner at the site. See Strøm 2000, 77–78; Eckstein 1969, 68–69. 47  Strøm (2000, 77), however, thinks that the Etruscan objects are dedications made by elite Etruscans. 48  Pind. Ol. 6.4–5, 64–70, Ol. 8.1–3; Hdt. 8.134.1, 9.33–36; Soph. OT 897–99; Xen. Hell. 4.7.2; Strabo 8.3.30; Paus. 5.13.11; Plut. Agis 11.3. 49  See Bouché-­Leclercq 2003, 499–503; Sinn (1991a), who dates its inception at least to the eighth ­century B.C. and notes its new prominence in the seventh ­century B.C. for west Greek colonists (46–50); and Parke 1967, 164–93. See also IvO 4 of c. 475 B.C.; Taita 2009, 383–84; Taita 2007, 120. Moustaka (2002b, 201) posits that the numerous tripods dedicated during the Geometric period are related to the oracle. See also Soph. OT 897–903; and Strabo 8.3.30, who places the oracle’s date before the instigation of the games at Olympia. Cf. the oracle of Zeus at Dodona, which is already mentioned in Il. 16.233–35, and is archaeologically attested as early as the eighth c­ entury B.C.: ThesCRA 3, 31–32 [W. Burkert]. 50  The bronze document, B1292, mentioned in a tantalizingly brief aside, has not yet received full publication. See Siewert 1992, 114. It is worth noting that Pausanias claims that ­there was an even ­earlier oracle at an ash altar to Gaia in the distant past (5.14.10), although ­there is no other evidence to support this claim. On the oracle, see the recent discussion in Lo Monaco 2009, 104–9; Taita 2007, 93–97. 51  Olympia 703; IvO 10. Siewert and Taeuber (2013, 402) provide the extensive list of SEG citations. 42 

22 Prologue

Figs. 11a, b. Near Eastern bronze sheets of the ninth to eighth ­century B.C. used for seventh-­century B.C. sphyrelata (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B5047, 5048). Photo: author.

of Zeus (see chapter 3). The oracle was of ­great importance by the early classical period, especially with regard to colonization and warfare, and was regularly consulted on military m ­ atters in the fifth and fourth centuries (e.g., Hdt. 9.33–36; Xen. Hell. 3.2.22, 4.7.2).52 The Iamidai f­ amily,53 which traced its origins back to Apollo (Pind. Ol. 6.4–5, 64–72),54 presided over Olympia’s oracle; at least from the first c­ entury B.C. onward, members of the Klytiadai ­family also served as seers.55 Ancient authors and lists of cult personnel from the Roman imperial period state that the seers derived from the Iamidai and Klytiadai families, and Herodotos alone (8.27.3, 9.37.1) mentions a third 52 

Xen. Hell. 3.2.22 says, however, that the Eleans claimed in the fourth c­ entury that the oracle could not be consulted about war against other Greeks; this apparently did not hold true e­ arlier—­and not then, ­either, as clear from Xen. Hell. 4.7.2. An ­earlier oracle to Gaia was reported by Pausanias (5.14.10), which Mallwitz (1972, 65) thinks may have included Themis and Zeus. 53  Hdt. 9.33–36; Paus. 3.11.6–8. 54  Hdt. 9.33–36 offers the account of Tisamenos, an Elean-­born seer of the Iamidai and Panhellenic athlete, who made sacrifices and served as seer for the Spartan army in the Persian Wars (where he acted as diviner for the Greeks at Plataia) and ­later. In exchange for ­these ser­vices, Tisamenos demanded, and received, Spartan citizenship for himself and his ­brother, a transaction that imitated the seer Melampos’ relationship with the Argives. See also Siewert 2002, 368 for further discussion of Elean seers in the ser­vice of Greek armies. 55  Although Hdt. 9.33.1 mentions the Klytiadai in his account of Tisamenos. See n. 54 above; Schachter 2000.

Prologue23

f­ amily, the Tellidai.56 Inscriptions from the second third of the sixth ­century to the mid-­fifth ­century B.C. indicate that foreign proxies from other poleis, proxenoi, functioned on behalf of the xenoi or visitors to the site and served as aides to the seers, perhaps in connection with oracular consultations.57 The seers had responsibility for interpreting the flames of the oracle on the ash altar58 and the obligation to keep away ­those forbidden to approach the altar (a duty aided by the proxenoi),59 to receive ­those wishing to make offerings and consult the oracle, to take care of daily offerings at vari­ ous altars and the annual offerings to Pelops, and to renew the ash altar with ­water from the Alpheios River (Paus. 5.13.11). Importantly, the seers ­were excluded from the sacrifices to Pelops (Paus. 5.13.2). Most of this information is derived from Pausanias, but Pindar (Ol. 8.1–7) describes the seers’ prophetic obligations.60 The seers also had duties/privileges outside of Olympia, including reading signs before b ­ attle and lead61 ing armies into ­battle alongside the commanders. F E S T I VA L S Our knowledge of the ancient Olympic festival, the panegyris for Zeus, is quite l­ imited. Like most other ancient Greek religious festivals, a pro­cession led to the altar (in this case, the ash altar), where animals w ­ ere sacrificed in honor of the god. The festival initially lasted a few days but was transformed into a five-­day affair by the fifth ­century B.C.62 Only an inscription of the second quarter of the fifth ­century B.C. makes reference to a hecatomb at Olympia (see chapter 1),63 and Pausanias (5.13.9–11) is the sole writer to discuss the altar and sacrificial practices. While the Olympic festival enjoyed the greatest renown in antiquity, other festivals ­were also celebrated ­there, including the Heraia.64 We know of the Heraia festival solely from Pausanias (5.16.1–6), which makes it difficult to date the inception of this ritual that occurred on a four-­year cycle like the Olympic games. Pausanias describes the sixteen Elean gynaikes, a collegium that we 56  Zoumbaki (2001, 118–19) gathers the ancient sources and modern studies. Taita (2007, 90) suggests that the origin of the Elean population from northwest Greece may have given them a connection to Epirus and Dodona, where Zeus had an oracle. The earliest list of cult personnel is 36 B.C., according to Spawforth (2011, 156). 57  Taita 2004–5, 93–97. Taita posits a kind of Olympic amphictyony of Aitolians to select proxenoi and that a change occurred ­after the mid-­fifth ­century B.C., which may have ­limited Eleans to helping foreigners (105). 58  Sch. ad Pind. Ol. 6.7, FHG 2, Dicaearchus frag. 14. 59  Cf. Pind., Ol. 1.93, who writes of foreign visitors thronging around the ash altar. 60  See also des Bouvrie 2004, 360–61. 61  E.g., Hdt. 9.33–35. 62  See p. 10, n. 5. 63  IvO 14; Taita 2015, 117–27; Taita 2014, 119–20. 64  A bronze inscription (inv. B 6076) of c. 570–530 B.C. from Olympia mentions a sacrifice for Kronos outside of the frame of the Olympic festival. That such a sacrifice should take place is not surprising, but no other information exists about it at this point. See Siewert 2017; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 26–27 no. 1.

24 Prologue

know dates back at least to the early Hellenistic period,65 who wove a peplos for Hera (the weaving seems to have taken place in the agora in Elis; see Paus. 6.24.10) and had oversight of footraces in honor of the goddess;66 the footraces w ­ ere run by parthenoi (virgins), who competed in three age groups on a shortened track in the Stadion at Olympia. During the competition, they wore their hair down and ­were attired in knee-­ length tunics that bared the right shoulder down to the breast (τὸν ὦμον ἂχρι τοῦ στήθους φαίνουσι τὸν δεξιόν). The winners received olive crowns and a portion of the cow sacrificed to the goddess, and like their male counter­parts in the Olympic games, they ­were entitled to dedicate images of themselves (γραψαμέναι εἰκόνας), images that may have filled the niches carved into the ‘Heraion’ columns (see chapter 2). We can establish a terminus post quem for the introduction of this festival: no evidence exists for the cult of Hera at Olympia ­until the fifth ­century B.C.,67 and so we can presume that the festival only appears in this time or ­later.68 Pausanias traces the origins of the Heraia to Hippodameia, who founded the festival on the occasion of her marriage to Pelops.69 Indeed, marriage, like warfare, is a recurrent theme at Olympia. The preparations for the chariot race between Pelops and Oinomaos, which led to the wedding between Pelops and Hippodameia, was the subject of the sculptures in the east pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus, constructed in c. 470–456 B.C. (see chapter 3, Fig. 3.13a-­b). Moreover, marriage also is a key theme in the Centauromachy myth, which is depicted in sculpture in the west pediment of the t­ emple (Fig. 3.9a-­ b), and it is in c. 476 that Pindar composed Olympian 1, which describes Pelops’ winning of Hippodameia as the founding event of the games. In short, the worship of Hera, themes of marriage, and specifically the marriage of the local hero Pelops to his bride Hippodameia mark the second quarter of the fifth ­century B.C. at Olympia so it is plausible, even probable, that the Heraia festival could have been founded at this time.70 Sinn connects the introduction of the festival to the conversion of the ‘Heraion’ into a t­ emple devoted to Hera only, which occurred, in his view, ­after the construction of the ­Temple to Zeus (see chapter 2).71 65 

Pilz 2020b, 56. See Pilz 2020b, 58–59; and Pilz (2020a, 106–110), who also discusses the idea of the weaving as political metaphor. 67  Moustaka 2002b. 68  Cf. Langenfeld (2006, 160), who comes to the same conclusion and does not see it as an initiation rite (162–64). 69  On the origins of the Heraia, see now Pirenne-­Delforge (2019, 200–202), who regards the festival as a local one in contrast to the Panhellenic Olympic games. Pirenne-­Delforge and Pironti (2016, 172–78) discuss the Heraia and parallels between Zeus/Hera and Pelops/Hippodameia. Des Bouvrie (1995, 62) opines that the Heraia was instituted c. 580 in conjunction with the building of the ‘Heraion,’ which she clearly views as a t­ emple to Hera. 70  Cf. Moustaka (2002a, 306), who comes to the same conclusion. Langenfeld (2006, 161–62) allows that the festival may have suffered a caesura but was refounded by the time of Pausanias as part of the general trend in the Second Sophistic. 71  Sinn 2004a, 81. 66 

Prologue25

Fig. 12. Olympia, Demeter sanctuary. View from west. Photo: author.

­ ese sixteen married ­women, according to Pausanias (5.16.5–7), ­were selected from Th the sixteen cities inhabited by Elis, that is, from the region or alliance of Elis. Their marital status can be explained by Hera’s connection with marriage, and some scholars have interpreted the Heraia as a prenuptial event for its young female participants. There will be more to say about marriage, rites, and imagery at fifth-century Olympia in chapter 3. The sixteen w ­ omen of Elis merit closer consideration.72 ­After describing their origins, Pausanias tosses off a remark that is worth noting: before performing any ritual, ­these ­women had to purify themselves with a pig at the spring of Piera on the road from Olympia to Elis (5.16.8).73 Pigs are common offerings for Demeter and are especially associated with the Thesmophoria. What do we know of the cult of Demeter Chamyne at Olympia mentioned above (p. 7)? Pausanias (6.21.1) locates the sanctuary near the Stadion, and archaeology confirms this account: the sanctuary of Demeter was discovered to the northeast of the Stadion in the winter of 2006–7 (Pl. 4, Fig. 12). Pausanias 72 

See Pilz 2020b, 56–62. On the sixteen Elean ­women, see Mitsopoulos-­Leon 1984.

73 

26 Prologue

attributes the foundation of the cult to the ruler of Pisa, Pantaleon.74 This sanctuary has received only brief mention in the popu­lar press and in preliminary publications.75 It consists of a rectangular limestone building of the sixth c­ entury B.C. with Roman baths to the east, as well as a wealth of small finds. Many of the objects are typical of Demeter sanctuaries elsewhere, such as terracotta figurines of females, presumably Demeter or the votary, as well as terracotta figurines of cows and pigs and some terracotta statues of males. But ­there are also some extraordinary finds, including terracotta theatrical masks and ­faces of satyrs, suggestive of Dionysos, who is associated with Demeter elsewhere—at Eleusis, for example. Among the unusual finds are terracotta figu- Fig. 13. Double-­headed dog (Pyrgos, Museum rines of a two-­headed Kerberos holding small cakes Π12390) from Demeter sanctuary, Olympia, in his mouth (Fig. 13), a strange griffin or sphinx, and terracotta. Photo: author. one of the most impor­tant is an animal—­possibly Kerberos (or a sphinx?)—­with an inscription on his chest: [Δά]ματρι Κόρ[α] [Βα] σιλεί, or to Demeter, Kore, and Basileus, thus confirming the identity of the sanctuary’s deities (Fig. 14a-­b). The inscription seems to date the object to the Hellenistic period.76 Basileus may refer to Hades or to Poseidon. Hades is suggested by the presence of Kore, the fact that this inscription occurs on a Kerberos, the presence of the double-­headed Kerberos, and, strikingly, Demeter’s epithet “Chamyne” (Χαμύνη), a term that occurs nowhere e­ lse and that suggests sitting on the earth.77 Myth recounts that Demeter lay on the earth with Iason, and thus produced Hades, which may be one explanation, but sitting on the earth may have a simpler connection to the Underworld: Pausanias (6.21.1) reports that the location of this sanctuary is the place where Hades’ ­horses ­were swallowed up by the earth.78 A more pragmatic, ritual-­ oriented reason for the epithet also is pos­si­ble: perhaps this is where Demeter Chamyne’s worshippers sat and feasted, that is, on the earth, which seems to be a 74 

According to Kõiv (2013, 353–54), this is one of several accounts of Pisatan rulers’ involvement in cults at Olympia. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 97–98 no. 43A; Liangouras 2012; Liangouras 2009; Eleftherotypia, March 7, 2008, http://­archive​.­enet​.­gr​/­online​/­online​_­text​/­c​=­113,dt​=­07​.­03​.­2008,id​=­68442936; http://­www​.­arxaiologia​.­gr​/­site​/­content​ .­php​?­artid​=­4337 of March 12, 2009; and http://­www​.­protinews​.­gr​/­index​.­php​?­option​=­com​_­content&task​=­view&id​ =­10398&Itemid​=­39 of August 26, 2008; SEG 57, 405. For an ­earlier discussion of the cult before the discovery of the sanctuary, see Sinn 2002. 76  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 97–98 no. 43A. 77  On the etymology of Chamyne and its mythological connections, see Vegas Sansalvador 1992. Note the inscribed arm band of c. 475–450 B.C. dedicated to Demeter Chthonia(?) at Olympia in Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 95–96 no. 41; Philipp 1981, 220 no. 813, Taf. 14. 78  Vegas Sansalvador 1992. 75 

Prologue27

Figs. 14a, b. Kerberos(?) (Pyrgos, Museum) from Demeter sanctuary, Olympia, terracotta. Inscribed: [Δά]ματρι Κόρ[α] [Βα]σιλεί (to Demeter, Kore, and Basileus). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

feature of some Thesmophoria, where ­women sat on stibádes (στιβάδες)—­mats of vegetation—­placed on the ground, thus ensuring a close connection to the goddess of vegetation and fertility,79 or on banqueting couches. Certain vegetation was considered more appropriate than ­others for this purpose in order to ensure female fertility and, by extension, agricultural fertility.80 The dining occurred in σκηνή—­huts or bowers, which, to judge from a votive recovered from the Thesmopohorion at Bitalemi near Gela in Sicily (Fig. 1), could be dedicated by the female worshippers.81 It is curious that the use of stibádes is attested in legendary times at Olympia although not for the Thesmophoria: Pausanias (5.7.7) describes how Herakles and his ­brothers, the Curetes, slept on olive branches on the ground. Considering the association of the sixteen Elean gynaikes with Dionysos in Elis, with Hera and Hippodameia, that is, with marriage, and their oversight of the parthenoi who ran the Heraia, I think it is probable that they, perhaps among ­others, including the parthenoi, dined at the Demeter sanctuary during festivals to Demeter.82 In addition, Pausanias reports that the sixteen Elean ­women brought about a reconciliation or interchange (διαλλαγάς) between Elis and Pisa (Paus. 5.16.6) and ­were charged with arranging dances for the Physkoa and Hippodameia.83 Pausanias 79 

Plut. De Is. et Os. 69, 378E; Kron 1992, 622; Kron 1988, 138. Kron 1992, 622. 81  Kron 1992, 614–15, 620. 82  Of course, the entire sanctuary has not been excavated so it may be, as Nancy Bookidis reminds me, that t­ here ­were dining buildings in the sanctuary. 83  See Jacqmin (2013), who dates this event c. 570 B.C. based on Pausanias’ reference to the tyrant Demophon of Pisa (111) and points to an analogy with Gelon’s wife Damarete, who made a compromise between Syracuse and the Cartha­ginians c. 480 B.C (109–10). This date for the reconciliation nicely accords with the date of c. 580, which des Bouvrie proposes for the institution of the Heraia (see n. 69 above). Jacqmin rightly rejects modern scholarly attempts 80 

28 Prologue

(6.23.3) recounts that ­these same ­women had numerous religious duties in Elis, including ­matters concerning the worship of Dionysos84 and Achilles, and also ­were charged with responsibility for the cult of Hippodameia at Olympia (6.20.7).85 The ser­vice of the ­women as peacemakers should catch our attention. As we w ­ ill see in chapter 3, Hippodameia, who was served by t­ hese mortal w ­ omen, also acted as peacemaker between Elis and Pisa when she married Pelops. And it is shortly ­after Elis took control of Olympia that Zeus Olympios at Olympia began to serve as mediator between poleis (see chapter 3). E A R LY H I ST O RY : G A M E S The legendary date of 776 B.C. for the founding of the Olympic games is derived by extrapolating backward from the list of Olympic victors provided by the fifth-­to fourth-­ century B.C. writer Hippias of Elis, but scholars speculate that the games likely took place considerably e­ arlier.86 Archaeology provides a somewhat dif­fer­ent picture: the presence of large crowds, that is, visitors for the games, can be deduced from numerous temporary wells at Olympia, and the earliest fill from such wells dates to the early seventh ­century B.C.87 Ancient writers give credit for the instigation of the Olympic games to Herakles;88 to Zeus to celebrate his overthrow of Kronos, a combat of sorts (Paus. 5.7.10);89 and most commonly to Pelops (Pind. Ol. 1.67–96), hero of Elis, which controlled the sanctuary of Olympia for much of its history (this power was sometimes held by the town of Pisa).90 Other than the list of athletic events, which have been discussed in enormous detail, what do we know about the athletes themselves? They competed in two age classes, boys (adolescents) and men, but not all events had boys’ competitions. A few

to disregard Pausanias’ account of the arbitration as a late Elean invention and points out that the peplos woven by the w ­ omen and the dances in which they partake signify unity, cohesion. Plut. Mor. 251f mentions the sixteen Elean ­women again as serving the cult of Dionysos in reference to an event that happened u ­ nder the Elean ruler Aristotimos in 272 B.C. See also Pilz 2020b, 50. 84  See also Plut. Mor. 251E; Mitsopoulos-­Leon 1984. On the cult of Dionysos in Elis, see Pilz 2020b, 41–55, 62–68. On the sixteen Elean ­women, including their association with the cult of Dionysos, see Pilz 2020b, 56–62. 85  Mitsopoulos-­Leon 1984, 279–90. The proximity of eleventh-­century B.C. graves to the Elean Agora and its Hellenistic theater, together with Pausanias’ account of hero shrines to Elean heroes, led Mitsopoulos-­Leon to conjecture a connection between Dionysos, choral dances, the worship of the dead and of heroes, and the activities of the sixteen ­women. 86  On Olympic victor lists, see Christesen 2007. 87  Kyrieleis 2012, 64–65. 88  Phlegon of Tralles: FGrH 257 frag. 1.1. 89  On early cult sites at Olympia and myths concerning the founding of the games by Zeus or Herakles, see Pirenne-­Delforge (2019, 193–96), who explores the adoption of theogonic myth into a local Olympic form. 90  On the relationship between Pisa and Olympia prior to the sixth ­century, see Pirenne-­Delforge and Pironti (2016, 159–61), who also discuss the mythological tradition of the founding of the Olympic games (166–69).

Prologue29

victors’ lists exist from the ancient world, and ­there are many mentions in ancient lit­ er­ a­ ture about individual victors and their renown and decoration, their super­ natural powers, and their subsequent ser­ vice in warfare and as town found­ers. Moretti’s lists of Olympic victors and his revisions account for some 969–983 victories.91 But thousands of athletes competed—­and lost—of whom no mention survives. Some did not make it home alive: ­there are several instances where competitors in contact sports, that is, the pankration, wrestling, and boxing, died as a result of injuries sustained in their match. Among the burials of the first to fourth c­ entury A.D. at Frangonisi east of Olympia was one of an athlete.92 Christians w ­ ere already pre­sent at Olympia in the third ­century A.D., where they urged abandonment of the old pagan religion.93 Yet games and the religious festival accompanying them continued into the fourth c­ entury A.D., as we know from a recently found list of athletic victors;94 the last entry on this list is for the victor of the boys’ pankration in 385  A.D. (Fig.  15), and scholars suggest that the games continued still further into the early Byzantine period,95 perhaps into the Fig. 15. Victors’ list (Olympia inv. 1148), bronze, H 70cm, W 40cm. Inscribed are names of Olympic victors from the first ­century B.C. to the fourth ­century A.D. The last name is that of Zopyros, who won in 385 A.D. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

30 Prologue

91  Moretti 1957. For a study of their numbers and concentrations, see Farrington 1997. 92  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 118–19 no. 69 (Olympia inv. 848) for a boxer from Alexandria in the second ­century A.D. 93  Sinn 1999, 377; Mallwitz 1972, 116. 94  Olympia, Archaeological Museum 1148. Remijsen 2015, 44–47; Sinn 2012, 109; Sinn 1999, 378; and Ebert (1997), who speculates that the bronze object may have belonged to a club­house of an athletic guild at Olympia (222). Contra: Pleket 1999, 282–83. 95  Sinn 2002, 373.

Fig. 16. Athens, Akropolis, Athena Nike ­Temple, west frieze, slab I (London, British Museum 1816,0610.160), c. 427–424 B.C. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

fifth c­ entury A.D. (see chapters 5 and 6). Competitors continued to come from mainland Greece and the islands, but ­under Roman rule, the games ceased to be Panhellenic and ­were instead open to the entire Roman empire, as indicated by large numbers of victors from outside the Roman province of Achaia (ancient Greece).96 O LY M P I A : G A M E S A N D W A R FA R E The practice of a victorious polis dedicating a tenth part of the spoils of war at Olympia began already in the late eighth c­ entury B.C.97 ­These offerings could take vari­ous forms: tropaia (trophies), individual pieces of armor or weapons, or more elaborate, sculptured monuments of bronze or marble. For the trophies, one must think of weapons or armor normally taken from an ­enemy and affixed to a support, usually of wood. Although no trace of the wooden tropaia supports is extant to give us an accurate sense of their appearance, we know of their depictions in other media, including transformations into stone sculptures (Fig. 16).98 However, the armor itself survives in abundance at Olympia. Thousands of pieces of defensive armor and weapons—­ 96 

Herrmann 1972, 185–87; IvO 54 (SEG 35, 1279; 41, 394; 45, 412; 48, 553; 51, 2281), 527–30 no. 436 (SEG 43, 171; 44, 390; 48, 553). 97  Baitinger 1999, 125. 98  E.g., a marble trophy for Sulla’s victory at Chaironeia in 86 B.C., published in Camp, Ierardi, and McInerney 1992. On marble tropaia, see Rabe 2008; Stroszeck 2004.

Prologue31

shields, helmets, greaves, spear points, over 500 arrowheads, arm guards, swords, daggers, and breastplates—­dating from the early seventh c­ entury to the early fourth century B.C. have been recovered at Olympia, many simply inscribed “to Zeus” or “to Olympian Zeus” (Pls. 5-6a-­b).99 Such numbers underscore Olympia’s dominant importance as a site for military commemoration, which is hardly surprising given Zeus’ close association with warfare and its outcome. The Persian War votives presumably w ­ ere erected in the sanctuary in the period c. 480–470 B.C., such as a bronze Persian helmet inscribed “The Athenians dedicate [this], taken from the Medes, to Zeus,”100 as well as 50 bronze arrowheads, a Persian quiver, and other parts of Persian implements (Pl. 3b).101 Although the specific ­battle commemorated is never noted on the armor, scholars usually deduce the date (and, therefore, the likely event) from the date of the findspot;102 in the case of the conical bronze Persian helmet, its deposition date is before c. 470– 460 B.C., and the naming of the Athenians as sole dedicants suggests the ­battle of Marathon in 490 B.C., where the Athenians played such an impor­tant role.103 The numerous Persian weapons found in and immediately around the Stadion (and not elsewhere) suggest that they may have formed part of a single large tropaion to mark a victory over the Persians, which was placed against the late archaic and early classical Stadion walls.104 The quantity of armor, dedicated in the form of tropaia or as individual objects, found at Olympia vastly outnumbers that recovered at any other sanctuary in the ancient Greek world, and the number is so disproportionately high to that found elsewhere that one cannot reasonably explain this only as a result of the chance survival of objects, that is, that more survives at Olympia than elsewhere by chance.105 To give exemplary comparisons: Isthmia received “at a minimum over 200 helmets,”106 while Olympia has produced more than 1,000.107 Isthmia has yielded scarcely a dozen swords and ­little body armor,108 while Olympia has about 840 metal lance blades, dozens of swords, and hundreds and hundreds of other pieces of offensive weapons,109 as well as 99 

Baitinger 2001; Heilmeyer 1972, 63. Gauer 1968, 22–23, 42. 101  Baitinger 1999. 102  E.g., Baitinger 1999, 126–27. 103  Baitinger 1999, 126–27; Gauer 1968, 22, 23, 42. 104  Baitinger 1999, 126–30. 105  For example, Isthmia has produced only a small fraction of the amount of armor found at Olympia, and all of it dates from the archaic period; no armor was found from the period ­after c. 470, when fire destroyed the archaic ­temple at Isthmia, in spite of the ­temple’s rebuilding afterward. Sinn (1994b, 160–61) and other scholars have remarked on the extraordinary wealth of such monuments at Olympia and the incomparability of it elsewhere, but have not offered accident of survival as an explanation. 106  Jackson 1992, 141. 107  Frielinghaus 2011, 82–85. 108  Jackson 1992, 141. 109  Baitinger 2001, 29. 100 

32 Prologue

some 200 greaves.110 It would be hard to argue that Olympia received more visitors than, say, Delphi, whose oracle attracted vast numbers of religious pilgrims to the site, and literary sources attest that Delphi received large dedications of weapons (e.g., Hdt. 8.27), which have not survived. The role of chance in the survival of armor is undoubtedly impor­tant in this dichotomy between Olympia and Delphi, both of which had numerous military victory sculpted monuments—­there are many wells packed with material at Olympia and far fewer at Delphi, in part ­because of topography and natu­ral disasters (such as landslides at Delphi). But Olympia suffered many floods and earthquakes that surely damaged some of its material, as well. Chance alone is unlikely to account for such an overwhelming difference in numbers of armor votives. The association of Zeus with warfare is also a leitmotif of this work. The link between ancient athletics and warfare has been well-­documented elsewhere. In ancient Greek lit­er­a­ture, in art, and in athletic events themselves, one observes a close association between the two activities, particularly the ability of athletics to offer training for soldiers in terms of stamina, strength, speed, dexterity, hand-­to-­hand combat, and so on.111 As but one example, we can note the armed race or ὁπλιτοδρόμος was added to the roster of athletic events at Olympia in c. 520 to provide military training, according to Pausanias (5.8.10).112 Significantly, Pausanias (5.12.8) reports that twenty-­ five bronze shields used by the hoplitodromos participants, presumably of equal weight and size, w ­ ere kept in the classical T ­ emple of Zeus. We w ­ ill take up the connection of athletics and warfare again in chapter 3. 110 

Kunze 1991. For cuirasses, see now Graells i Fabregat 2016. See Barringer 2005, 226–29 with further bibliography; van Wees 2004, 89–101; Crowther 1999. 112  See Barringer 2005, 228 nn. 49, 50. This agon also existed in Athens. 111 

Prologue33

1 T H E S H A P E O F T H E A LT I S A N D P R A C T I C A L ­M AT T E R S

The sanctuary of Olympia lies near the juncture of two rivers: the Alpheios to the south and the Kladeos at the west (Fig. 5). The latter offered the closest source of w ­ ater, but its proximity was also a disadvantage as flooding was a prob­lem throughout Olympia’s history; eventually the silt from the flooding river led to the gradual abandonment and burial of the site in the late eighth or ninth ­century A.D. The Altis refers to the central sacred area at Olympia. The word derives from the Elean form of ἄλσος (sacred grove), according to Pausanias (5.10.1), and the word appears again in Pindar (Ol. 10.45) and Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.29).1 Scholars presume that the alsos refers to an esteemed grove of olive trees from which the Olympic victors’ crowns ­were cut; ­these grew from the olive that Herakles brought from the Hyperboreans (Pind. Ol. 3.13–34), which is mentioned by several ancient authors.2 Pausanias (5.15.3) places the sacred olive tree just ­behind the opisthodomos of the ­Temple of Zeus in the Altis (Fig. 3): excavations ­here in 1881 revealed a small right-­ angled enclosure wall centered with re­spect to the west colonnade of the ­Temple of Zeus, which is recorded on the plan made then, but nothing remains of it ­today.3 T H E S H A P E O F T H E A LT I S Scholars have conventionally defined the Altis on the basis of Pausanias’ account of his visit to the site and his notation of when he is entering or exiting the Altis. As an eyewitness to places the archaeologist studies ­today, his work is a rich trea­sure trove of information. But understanding his goals and interpreting his text are not straightforward, easy tasks. When German excavations at Olympia began in 1875, the archae1 

See Herrmann (1972, 35–36), who also notes that the wood for the daily offering to Zeus was grown in the Altis (Paus. 5.13.3). 2  Theophr. Hist. pl. 4.13.2; Paus. 5.15.3; Phlegon of Tralles: FGrH 257 frag. 1.11. 3  Herrmann 1972, 33–34, Abb. 11. Herrmann thinks that the ­temple was oriented to the older olive tree, which may have determined the building’s location (34).

34

ologists relied on Pausanias’ text to identify structures and guide their work, as was the case for many con­temporary archaeologists working in Greece. They began at the ­Temple of Zeus, where the stylobate still projected above the deep deposit of silt around it a­ fter the ­earlier excavations of the French (Pl. 7). This was the first place that Pausanias mentions in the Altis at Olympia, and his text served as a guide to interpreting what nineteenth-­century excavators found. ­There was no question that this was the Zeus t­ emple as the size of the free-­standing sculpture revealed by the excavation (Figs. 3.9a, 3.13a) clearly belonged to the pediments of this structure, and the themes accorded with t­hose described by Pausanias: the preparations for the chariot race between Oinomaos of Pisa and Pelops of Elis with Zeus standing between them in one pediment, the Centauromachy in the other (5.10.6–8; see chapter 3). The excavators’ chief goal, as was true of so many nineteenth-­century excavations everywhere, was to find sculpture, specifically the many works by well-­known sculptors described by Pausanias, as well as to burnish the image of the newly formed German state.4 As excavations moved outward from the t­emple, buildings w ­ ere identified based on Pausanias’ description. Naturally, as more buildings w ­ ere discovered, excavators had to correct their e­ arlier assumptions as it became clear that they had misidentified structures. For example, the building now known to be the Bouleuterion was initially misidentified as the Leonidaion b ­ ecause Pausanias (5.15.2) locates the Leonidaion near the festival gate (πομπική ἔσοδος). Only one such gate (in the southeast) was then known, not the one located in the southwest, which is clearly what Pausanias meant, so the Bouleuterion was labeled the Leonidaion (Pl. 1, Fig. 3), and excavation notebooks recorded the finds made ­here as being from or near the Leonidaion. When one apsidal portion of this structure was revealed a few months ­later, the excavators understood that this building—­what we now identify as the Bouleuterion—­was not the Leonidaion. This story continues: excavation continued on the other side of the gate, where what we know ­today as the Southeast Building was uncovered, and then this new structure was identified as the Leonidaion. Only five years ­later was the building inscription of the Leonidaion discovered, which provided the correct identification of the structure in the southwest. Corrections ­were made to the excavation notebooks but not consistently, and one ­mistake was not remedied: the term ‘Leonidaion’ had been used not only for the Southeast Building but also for the entire Southeast complex, including the Roman structures.5 Thus, we can see one prob­lem of using Pausanias as a guide to identifying and interpreting material, especially early on in excavations, and we can also observe its ramifications for l­ater scholars working on material from the site.

4 

See, e.g., vom Bruch 2002; Klinkhammer 2002; Sösemann 2002, 71–72; Marchand 1996, 81–87. Summarized by Baitinger 1998.

5 



The Shape of the Altis35

Fig. 1.1. Elean skyphos fragment inscribed to Pelops from the Pelopion. Classical period. Lot F87-699 (area P 10). Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-2006-0148 (Peter Grunwald).

It is easy to point out the m ­ istakes of the past, but are we certain that we are correct in our pre­sent understanding of Olympia and Pausanias? I think the answer is no. We must continue to reevaluate both Olympia and Pausanias’ account of the site, as new discoveries, read together with Pausanias’ account, yield a new understanding of Olympia. Scholars have questioned the reliability of Pausanias’ description of Olympia. Aspects of his account accord perfectly with the archaeological evidence; the Pelopion described by the writer is the enclosed space on a small mound near the ­Temple of Zeus as evidenced by a classical Elean skyphos inscribed to Pelops (Fig. 1.1). A curving base that once held over-­lifesize bronze statues described by Pausanias as a monument dedicated by the city of Apollonia, as he could read from the inscription, finds a match in a curved base and the dedicatory inscription belonging to it (Figs. 3.1, 3.4, 3.5). Pausanias’ account was also vindicated with the discovery of the statue of Hermes

36

Chapter 1

and Dionysos in the cella of the ‘Heraion,’ where the writer had seen it (Pl. 31a-­b). And indeed the Leonidaion is near the pro­cessional gate—­but it is the gate on the west, not the one in the southeast. Yet, t­ here are scholars who question w ­ hether Pausanias ever even went to Olympia. I regard this viewpoint as implausible since his account is accurate in so many ways;6 for example, he rec­ords inscriptions at the site word for word as we know from surviving inscribed bases. But prob­lems confound our reconciling Pausanias’ description with the archaeological finds. He describes buildings we have never found or identified, for example, the Hippodameion, a shrine to Hippodameia enclosed by a wall that Pausanias locates inside the Altis near the Apollonian Monument (5.22.2) and the pro­cessional entrance on the west (6.20.7). In some ways, this disjuncture between the written text and the archaeological finds is not surprising since material was already being moved around and reused by the ancient Greeks, then again by Romans and the ­later Christians, who inhabited the site. Another example is the Hippodrome, which Pausanias describes in detail: no one doubts that a Hippodrome actually existed, but it has not yet been located south of the Stadion where Pausanias’ description suggests it should be. Elsewhere, Pausanias offers identifications of structures that are difficult to match with the archaeological information. A well-­known example is his identification of the ‘Heraion’ of c. 600 B.C. ([Pls. 1, 11, Fig. 3]; see chapter 2), which makes it the earliest large-­scale building on the site in the historical period. Modern scholars have questioned ­whether the building was originally constructed as a ­temple to Hera; clearly, by Pausanias’ time it served or had served this purpose (it was also being used as a ‘museum’ when Pausanias visited), but one won­ders why the t­ emple on the site would be dedicated to Hera, especially since, as Aliki Moustaka has argued, the earliest evidence other­wise for the cult of Hera at Olympia is from the fifth ­century B.C. But then we must ask ourselves this: if this ­temple ­were originally designated for Zeus, why was the ­later classical ­temple built, and why in a dif­fer­ent location, which is not what one would expect. So in t­ hese cases, we have an apparent mismatch between the traveler’s testimony and the archaeological remains—at least ­until now. A further prob­lem is scholarly interpretations of Pausanias’ text. Scholars normally regard Pausanias’ descriptions of places as a linear account of his walking visit; this is especially the case for his account of his visits to the Athenian Akropolis and the Athenian Agora. But one sees it also in the scholarship concerning Pausanias’ description of Olympia. The structure of his written account of Olympia follows this format: • ­Temple of Zeus • Pelopion • ash altar of Zeus 6 

See the discussion of such views (with which Habicht firmly disagrees) in Habicht 1985, 165–75.



The Shape of the Altis37

• the remaining altars in the Altis (69) • ­Temple of Hera • the Metroon, a ­temple for imperial cult in Pausanias’ time • Philippeion • Zanes statues • other statues of Zeus in the Altis • votive offerings in the Altis • athletic victor statues in the Altis • trea­suries • Kronos Hill • Stadion, Hippodrome • buildings to the west of the Altis Scholars usually regard this as a linear description of Pausanias’ pro­gress through the sanctuary. Yet mapping Pausanias’ description of the monthly honors made at numerous altars in the order in which the rites w ­ ere accomplished (Fig. 1.2), according to Pausanias’ own words (why the order is significant is not explained),7 produces a result that lacks credibility as a real sequence of events. One must ask over which period of time ­these rites took place and ­whether the same personnel ­were involved in ­every one of t­hese rituals;8 some priests could have gone h ­ ere, some ­there, but not all together at e­ very altar, and the rites could have taken place as multiple actions over several days. I think that this linearity is a misguided way to view the text, and this is especially true for a site as large, complex, and relatively flat as Olympia. It is easy to go h ­ ere and ­there without having to clamber up and down, and indeed, in his description, Pausanias covers the same physical territory, the Altis, repeatedly returning to the ash altar of Zeus as a focal point, then starting an account of another monument or type of monument. Should we imagine that he actually traversed the Altis again and again, focusing solely each time on a dif­fer­ent variety of monument, a kind of inventory of types, in each circumnavigation? I think not. Surely, he walked through the Altis several times and wandered around, but the arrangement of dif­fer­ent types of monuments in his text must have happened ­later. And furthermore, Pausanias’ account may not refer to what he witnessed on a single visit but over more than one, separated by 7 

Hölscher 2002; Wernicke 1894, 88–101. The course that Pausanias takes could have been determined by his guides to the site, whose job it was to lead priests to the altars, but the construction of Pausanias’ account of his traversals through the Altis by category makes this improbable. A comparable situation may be the many more altars at the Asklepieion at Epidauros (200 in the Roman period), which required tendance, as discussed by Pfaff (2018), who posits that the numerical marks on the altars may refer to the sequence in which they w ­ ere to be visited. See also Lupu 2009, 74. 8  Wernicke (1894, 97) is exceptional in breaking the traversal of altars into two parts, both done on a single day. Cf. Sinn 2002, 371.

38

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.2. Pausanias’ route as he visited altars at Olympia, drawn by Hubert Vögele. Courtesy of Tonio Hölscher.

a number of years:9 we know, for example, that he made at least two trips to Athens and that the text was composed over a period of at least ten years.10 Recent discoveries at Olympia continue to illustrate prob­lems in using Pausanias to interpret material remains, but they also make clear that our own perceptions and interpretations of his text have l­ imited our imagination and understanding of the site. Rescue excavations have revealed two significant finds in the last few years. Pausanias describes the sanctuary of Demeter Chamyne at Olympia, whose altar is prominently placed on the north side of the Stadion (Pl. 4, Fig. 12), and we have already discussed the discovery of the sanctuary above. H ­ ere, then, is a case where archaeology confirms Pausanias’ account. The second instance is more complicated. During excavation to install a new pipeline in 2011 near the Archaeological Museum, a major find came to light at the foot of Kronos Hill on its north side (Fig. 1.3): the sanctuary of Eileithyia, the childbirth goddess, again identified by inscriptions on two bronze mirrors offered as votive dedications. Material ­here dates from at least the sixth c­ entury B.C. through the Roman period,11 and study of the finds continues. Pausanias (6.20.2) mentions the Eileithyia sanctuary in his account but does not locate it h ­ ere; instead, he describes it as between Kronos Hill and the Trea­sury Terrace, which we know is immediately to the south of Kronos Hill (Pl. 1, Fig. 3). Admittedly, ­there is a lacuna just before this point in his text, which may explain the apparent ‘error,’12 and, of course, it is pos­si­ble that trea­suries once existed to the north of Kronos Hill.13 In any case, Pausanias continues on and says that the Elean god Sosipolis is also worshipped in the Eileithyia sanctuary and that t­ here is a priestess of Eileithyia and an old ­woman who cares for Sosipolis. He then describes the ­temple as having two parts: an altar for Eileithyia, a public entrance, and an inner shrine for Sosipolis accessible only to the caretaker of the god, and he provides the aition for the worship of Sosipolis: Sosipolis’ metamorphosis into a snake scared off the Arkadian army invading Elis (6.20.4), which happened in the fourth ­century B.C.14 Pausanias (6.20.6) adds that a sanctuary for Aphrodite Ourania stood close to that of Eileithyia.15 9 

See, e.g., Hutton 2005, 26–27. Hutton 2005, 17–18. 11  Μουστάκα 2020; Γ. Χατζή, ArchDelt 67: 2:1 (2012) 197; Γ. Χατζή, ArchDelt 66: 2:1 (2011) 309–12; http://­www​ .­tribune​.­gr​/­greece​/­news​/­article​/­104471​/­anakalifthike​-­stin​-­olimpia​-­naos​-­afieromenos​-­sti​-­thea​-­ilithiia​.­html (accessed May 6, 2020). This excavation was conducted by the Ephorate of Olympia ­under the direction of G. Hatzi and (also) in collaboration with Aliki Moustaka and students from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 12  E.g., Pirenne-­Delforge and Pironti 2016, 165. 13  A possibility suggested to me by Nancy Bookidis, for which I am grateful. 14  On Sosipolis, see LIMC VII, s.v. Sosipolis I, 799 [P. Müller]; Pilz 2020b, 136; Pirenne-­Delforge and Pironti 2016, 170–72. Μουστάκα (2020) clearly demonstrates that the worship of Sosipolis, together with Eileithyia, at Olympia dates to the first quarter of the fourth century B.C. and continued into the later Roman period. 15  Kastenholz (1996) proposes that the three shrines ­were located among the trea­suries (Foundations VII and VIII), a proposal that has justifiably not received ac­cep­tance. He is apparently unaware of Heiden’s impor­tant study and several other items of bibliography. 10 

40

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.3. Eileithyia sanctuary, view from east. Photo: author.

The apparent inconsistency between Pausanias’ description of the location of the Eileithyia sanctuary in the Altis and the a­ ctual archaeological remains forces us to reconsider our understanding of the site. While previous scholars interpreted Pausanias’ description of the Altis, the most sacred portion of Olympia, as lying south of Kronos Hill, we can now understand that the Altis includes Kronos Hill, that it extends far to the north of what we thought was its previous border. Around Kronos Hill, Pausanias mentions altars to Themis and Gaia, the latter of whom was honored with an ash altar and oracle (5.14.10); a location on the top of the hill where sacrifice was made to Kronos annually;16 and an altar of Aphrodite Ourania near the sanctuary of Eileithyia. Based on where Pausanias mentions the altars of Themis and Gaia in his account, scholars locate ­these at the southern foot of Kronos Hill. Small shrines have indeed been located ­here, but no archaeological remains identify their honorands. Now, however, we must consider the possibility that the altars to Themis, Gaia, and Aphrodite are on the hill or north of the hill—or even west or east of the hill.17 It is worth noting ­here that the excavations entailed in the construction of the new Archaeological Museum from 1959 to 1964 at Olympia uncovered 81 terracotta figurines

16 

See p. 24 n. 64. It was reported to me that a small stone foundation exists on the north side of the hill, but it has not received publication. 17 



The Shape of the Altis41

(mostly female) of the seventh through fourth centuries B.C., strong indications of a shrine in this vicinity.18 Perhaps one of ­these deities mentioned by Pausanias, including Aphrodite, whose shrine was in close proximity to Eileithyia’s, was worshipped h ­ ere. Indeed, our understanding of the bound­aries of the Altis must be revised in light of ­these and other new finds. The recently discovered Eileithyia sanctuary marks the northernmost known point of the Altis (Pl. 8). A Mycenaean cemetery exists northeast of the German excavation h ­ ouse. We know that t­hese two areas—­Altis and cemetery—­are mutually exclusive, so the Altis must terminate somewhere before this point. With the far northeastern point of the Demeter sanctuary, we may have a definition of the northeastern corner of the sanctuary, a rough northeastern boundary for the Altis, and this would be entirely new and significant information about the contours of the Olympic Altis. While Pausanias does not explic­itly say that the Demeter sanctuary is within the Altis, he never says that the Stadion or Hippodrome lies outside of it, as is his usual habit when he leaves the Altis. In fact, he offers no delimitation of the eastern portion of the Altis. Without Pausanias’ text, we would know to whom the shrines of Demeter and Eileithyia ­were dedicated but we would not know that they constitute part of the Altis. But his text, together with t­ hese finds, extends the Altis far beyond where we once thought it ended at the southern foot of Kronos Hill. The west, south, and southwest limits of the Altis are known from the remains of a Roman wall also mentioned by Pausanias (5.24.8, 5.25.7), which follows the line of a wall from the Hellenistic period, and Pausanias’ discussion of buildings on the west outside the Altis includes Pheidias’ workshop and the Leonidaion; in other words, his account corresponds to the archaeological real­ity (Pl. 1, Fig. 3).19 Further north, Pausanias mentions that the Prytaneion of the Eleans, which he describes as by the ‘exit’ along the Gymnasion, is in the Altis (5.15.8) and near the Philippeion (5.20.9–10); within the Prytaneion was an ash hearth to Hestia, an altar of Pan, and a dining room, where the Olympic victors ­were entertained. How far north might we extend this boundary? Again, recent excavations help to delimit a far western border for the Altis. In 2015, excavation of the Gymnasion immediately north of the previously exposed portion of this structure took place, and test trenches w ­ ere dug further to the north across the road from the site. We now know that the Gymnasion, two long stoas bordering an open area, extends ­toward the Archaeological Museum; the vis­i­ble portion is 78m. Pausanias excludes the Gymnasion from the Altis so the Gymnasion’s eastern stoa provides a boundary for the Altis to the west—at least in the second 18 

Alexandropoulou 2009. Yet, Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.29–30) suggests in the fourth ­century B.C. that the temenos extended beyond the Kladeos River. He states that the Eleans had reached the temenos (το τέμενος), then describes that the Arkadians and Eleans lined up on opposite sides of the Kladeos River, the Arkadians on the east side and the Eleans on the west. 19 

42

Chapter 1

c­ entury A.D., and now we know that that western boundary extended further north than previously known (Pl. 1). Except for the aforementioned Demeter sanctuary, it is harder to establish an Altis border in the east. While we have always assumed that Stadion I-­II straddled the eastern boundary of the Altis (and was more in than out in its earliest phase), we should perhaps reevaluate the possibility that it was within the Altis. In addition, Pausanias mentions a Hippodrome “beyond the Stadion . . . ​at the point where the Hellanodikai (judges) sit” (6.20.10), though he gives no indication of its orientation. ­Whether it should be included in the Altis or not remains unclear although it seems likely that it lay beyond the Altis in Pausanias’ time. Comparanda for hippodromes at Greek sanctuaries are scarce, although Valavanis recently argued that the hippodrome at Delphi was located in the plain below the sanctuary, that is, on level ground, where he identifies blocks belonging to it.20 Returning to Olympia: further to the south on the east side and l­ ater in date, a bit more evidence is available. Pausanias placed the Echo Hall in the Altis but indicates that the Bouleuterion is not. The southern entry portal, dated to the Augustan period, is a boundary. What might one expect to find in the east? Perhaps accommodation for the many officials who ­were needed by the sanctuary on a daily basis: the seers and priests, who made daily sacrifices to Zeus (Paus. 5.13.10–11) and tended the altars and ­temples; the “woodman” (ὁ ξυλεύς) mentioned by Pausanias (5.13.2–3), who received the neck of the ram sacrificed to Pelops at his hero shrine and supplied white poplar wood (brought by Herakles; Paus. 5.14.2) for sacrifices to both cities and individuals; someone to oversee the boule, where the council of Elis met regularly; craftsmen to produce votive objects for dedication and to repair buildings, for example, roofs, as necessary. Such structures would, of course, lie outside the Altis, but their discovery might serve to delimit the eastern boundary of the Altis. As is well known, married w ­ omen ­were forbidden from watching the Olympic games, according to Pausanias, while unmarried w ­ omen and girls w ­ ere f­ree to observe. The sole exception was the priestess of Demeter Chamyne, at least in Pausanias’ time (Paus. 5.6.7, 6.20.9).21 As discussed ­earlier, married ­women celebrated cult at the sanctuary to Demeter Chamyne, and certainly the primary worshippers at the Eileithyia sanctuary ­were w ­ omen. The locations of the sanctuaries of Demeter and Eileithyia, now known, demonstrate that the festivities of ­these two deities could take place out of the sight of the nude athletes in the games if ­these cele­brations w ­ ere simultaneous. Even in the case of the Gymnasion, which extends close to the Eileithyia 20 

Valavanis 2017. See Patay-­Horváth (2017) on this prohibition, which, he argues unconvincingly, derives from a traditional hunting taboo connected to the worship of Artemis. 21 



The Shape of the Altis43

sanctuary, one can understand that the eastern (and western) stoas of the structure blocked the view of anyone nearby. One can immediately grasp the change in our perception as a result of ­these deductions from the new finds read together with the text of Pausanias. Previously, scholars had always considered the southern foot of Kronos Hill to be a northern limit for the sanctuary; now, however, one can see that Kronos Hill is actually in the ­middle of the west side of the Altis, that the Altis fans out from Kronos Hill in all directions, and hence we might look for t­ hose shrines of Themis, Gaia, and Aphrodite mentioned ­earlier on any side of Kronos Hill.22 In sum, Pausanias’ text is an invaluable tool for archaeologists, but both the text and the archaeological remains must be used without preconceptions, and this is especially so ­because our knowledge is in a state of flux. We must also bear in mind that the definition of the Altis space surely changed over time, that it grew and expanded southward,23 that the bound­aries described by Pausanias are ­those of his time. P R AC T I C A L ­M AT T E R S Much has been written about Olympia—­the games, architecture, individual significant monuments, the role of Zeus—­yet ­little has been written about how the site was used on a practical level. Inscriptions attest to vari­ous cult and athletic personnel at Olympia—­theokoloi (priests), spondophoroi (libation offerers), manteis (seers), alytai (guards), proxenoi (foreign officials), mageiros (butcher), xyleus (woodcutter)24—­ and on a day-­to-­day basis, t­here must have been a permanent ‘staff ’ at Olympia to tend the altars and ­temples, including the ash altar; priests to interpret the oracle; and guides to the site’s altars, whom we know from lists of cult personnel at Olympia during the Roman empire.25 During festival times, t­here ­were literally thousands of ­people at the site: the seating capacity of Stadion II, constructed c. 500 B.C., is estimated at 24,000, while that of Stadion III of the mid-­fifth c­ entury B.C. is 45,000 (Figs. 3, 4.2).26 More spectators could be accommodated h ­ ere than at any other event in the Hellenic world, as is demonstrated by comparing seating capacities at other Panhellenic sanctuaries and in civic theaters, even that of Elis, which could only hold 7,900 spectators.27 Diodorus Siculus (17.109.1) informs us that more than 20,000 exiles 22  Dörpfeld (1897, 70) had considered the possibility of including Kronos Hill within the Altis but thought it unlikely. In lectures in Berlin and Athens, Aliki Moustaka also discussed the possibility that the Altis might include Kronos Hill. 23  Dörpfeld 1897, 69–73. 24  E.g., Siewert and Taita 2014; Siewert 2013; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 64–74 nos. 16–20; IvO 58–141. 25  Jones 2001, 37. 26  Schilbach 2012, 282; Nielsen 2007, 55. Kyrieleis (2011, 111) claims that in the classical period, the number was at least 40,000, and this number would exclude slaves, servants, and o ­ thers needed to assist the travelers, their h ­ orses, and so on. Sinn (2004a, 101) puts the number at 50,000. Cf. Epiktetos 1.6.23–28. 27  Nielsen 2007, 57.

44

Chapter 1

at Olympia heard Alexander’s decree recalling exiles pronounced by Nikanor in 323 B.C., and Attalo I’s foal quadriga victory at Olympia was witnessed by 10,000 Greeks (αἱ μυρίαι) according to an inscription from Pergamon.28 Such numbers immediately beg the question: where and how ­were all ­these ­people ­housed and fed? This section gathers together the varied, scattered archaeological evidence for t­ hese practical logistics at Olympia during the time of ‘heavy traffic,’ that is, festivals, to create a more unified picture of the site; this is impor­tant ­because it tells us who was viewing the site and its monuments, when, and u ­ nder what conditions, as well as how this experience was or was not controlled by sanctuary officials. The following questions immediately spring to mind: where did cooking and dining occur, and who dined with whom? Did w ­ omen and men, c­ hildren and adults, ­people of all levels of wealth and status, dine together, or was ­there some segregation system? In the case of the Olympic games, which stretched over several days, where did p ­ eople sleep, what was their source of food day a­ fter day, and what did they eat? Cooking, mea­sur­ing, and weighing implements, pottery, and ashen deposits, read together with written evidence, provide some answers and enrich our picture of festival life at the site. One must always bear in mind, of course, that many objects ­were recovered in fill so removed from their original locations, but large concentrations of objects or patterns of density can be telling. The nature of the evidence ranges over a vast time range with a special concentration on the classical through Roman periods.29

­Water Clean drinking w ­ ater and w ­ ater for bathing and cleaning w ­ ere challenges for the large number of visitors. Surprisingly, Olympia had no permanent well constructions ­until the classical period;30 rather, temporary wells w ­ ere dug on the periphery of the Altis as needed (and ­later used as trash dumps or filled in), and ­there w ­ ere, of course, two nearby rivers, the Kladeos and, further away, the Alpheios, which ­were available for washing and watering animals.31 Wells, which can be useful for charting the growth or decline in the number of visitors to Olympia, range in date from the seventh to mid-­fourth ­century B.C. with a sharp increase c. 700–600 B.C.—­about 250 wells—in the west and northwest of the Altis and about 170 wells in the southeast; this coincides with the time when impor­tant transformations occurred at the site.32 ­These changes suggest that the late seventh c­ entury B.C. experienced an upsurge in the importance of 28 

IvP 1 no. 10, l. 10. Zoumbaki (2001, 56–63) briefly considers the economic impact on Elis of the Olympic games. 30  Gauer 2012, 103, although Gauer does not draw a cause-­and-­effect relationship. 31  Kyrieleis 2011, 113–14. Philostr. VA 8.18 mentions that the Alpheios provides drinking and bathing ­water. 32  https://­www​.­dainst​.­org​/­en​/­projekt​/­​-­​/­project​-­display​/­13329 (accessed April 20, 2020); Sinn 1991a, 36; Kyrieleis 1990, 180. 29 



The Shape of the Altis45

Olympia, a rise in the number of visitors, and the emergence of the west of the Altis as a chief location of dining festivities, which is scarcely surprising b­ ecause of the proximity of the ash altar, the open space, and access to the Kladeos River. Another increase in the number of wells happened c. 520–470.33 We know that the games ­were extended to five days; this change would require accommodations and facilities, including ­water, for visitors over twice the e­ arlier duration of time (assuming a steady number of spectators over the course of the festival). W ­ ater conduits bringing ­water from the Kladeos River into the site ­were constructed in the early classical period, and thereafter fewer wells seem to have been dug. A concentration of wells in one place can indicate where ­people congregated and, therefore, can indicate where ­people stayed and where they dined. From the sixth ­century B.C. onward into the Hellenistic period, most metal and terracotta finds derive from the many wells around the Altis (e.g., ­there are some 250–300 alone in the area near the Stadion, and t­ here w ­ ere a number in the area of the Prytaneion, as well).34 ­Until the fifth c­ entury, many wells—­more than 100—­were used in the area of the Southeast Building,35 and the area where the Leonidaion now stands was ­earlier used as a campsite.36 Wells beneath the walls of the Stadion37 may suggest a campsite in an ­earlier phase h ­ ere when the e­ arlier Stadion was further west, but no evidence of dining has been detected h ­ ere.38 The accumulation of par­tic­u­lar fabrics of vessels recovered from a single well or cluster of wells suggests that the campsites may have been segregated by region or polis.39 The big breakthrough with w ­ ater provision came in c. 153 A.D. with the construction of the sumptuously decorated Nymphaion (see chapter 5; [Figs. 3, 5.10, 5.11]); part of the 3km-­long aqueduct that fed the fountain still stands southwest of the Altis. Baths also provided ­water facilities for bathing, but at no point could the number of baths known to us have been adequate for the number of p ­ eople attending the games. The oldest baths at Olympia, the Kladeos Baths, date from the mid-­fifth ­century B.C. and ­were constructed south of the Palaistra. They w ­ ere equipped with eleven hip baths (Sitzbecken), and an open swimming pool was added l­ ater. A renovation in the mid-­ fourth c­ entury B.C. brought bathing basins (Sitzwannen). Additional bath complexes include a second-­century B.C. installation north of the Prytaneion (the Kronos Baths) that employed partial under-­floor heating (Fig. 1.4),40 the first-­century B.C. Greek Baths (Pl. 9) with a hypocaust system south of the Palaistra, and numerous additional 33 

Gauer 2012, 102–3; Mallwitz 1999b, 194. Gauer 2012, 99–101; Kyrieleis 1990, 180. 35  Gauer 2012, 100–101; Mallwitz 1972, 100. See also https://­www​.­dainst​.­org​/­en​/­projekt​/­​-­​/­project​-­display​/­13329 (accessed April 20, 2020). 36  Fuchs 2013, 280. 37  Gauer 2012, 101. 38  On Olympia’s wells, see, e.g., Mallwitz 1999b, 186–96. 39  Gauer 2012, 102. 40  Sinn, Leypold, and Schauer 2003. 34 

46

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.4. Kronos Baths, Roman pavilion above. Photo: Christina Leypold. Courtesy of Ulrich Sinn.

Roman bath­houses between 100 and 300 A.D.41 ­These provided not just bathing but other body care ser­vices.42 ­Later, sometime in the late third or early fourth ­century A.D., baths ­were added immediately to the southwest of the Leonidaion (see chapter 5; Fig. 3).43

Market and Food Scholars have long surmised that the Agora at Olympia was located south of the Altis, in large part ­because of Pausanias’ mention of altars dedicated to Artemis Agoraia and Zeus Agoraios “to the right of the Leonidaion” (5.15.4),44 and to the west of the projecting portion of the South Hall, which he next mentions, and also b ­ ecause of the archaeological evidence found ­here (Pl. 1, Fig. 3). The Agora seems to have spread further south and further east as time passed, but this assumes that its starting point was at the southwest near the altars mentioned by Pausanias (see below).45 We can think about this proposal as we continue with a review of the evidence, but I am 41 

Sinn 2004a, 124–25. Sinn 2004a, 123–24. 43  Ladstätter in Sinn et al. 1994, 241–47. 44  Kunze and Schlief 1938/39, 32. 45  Heiden 2012, 145; Heiden 2006, 55–56, 58; Hitzl 1996, 96–97, Taf. 43. 42 



The Shape of the Altis47

Figs. 1.5a, b. Food mea­sures (Olympia, Archaeological Museum K1285, H 13.6cm; K1286, H 12.3cm), terracotta. The dipinto reads: [ΔΑ]ΜΟΣΙΑ (public). Photo: author.

inclined to think that the Agora stretched all along the south of the site from fairly early on. The archaeological finds in this area include more than 400 official mea­sures dating to the second half of the fifth c­ entury and the fourth c­ entury, which w ­ ere recovered near the South Hall and the Bouleuterion;46 perhaps ­these w ­ ere stored in one of ­these two buildings. They are of graduated size and inscribed with Zeus’ name, suggesting a lively market for the sale of food and drink for the crowds, as well as a standardization and oversight of sales on the part of the sanctuary or Elean officials.47 Comparing the number found at Olympia—400 dry mea­sures with the four found in nearby Elis—­may also give some indication of relative crowd numbers.48 The mea­ sures at Olympia are of three regular sizes, usually marked ΔΑΜΟΣΙΑ or ΔΑΜΟΣΙΟΝ, more seldom ΟΛΥΜ[ΠΙΑ or [ΠΙΟΝ, and dipinti also indicate their contents ΑΛΦΙΤΟΝ (barley meal/flour) or ΚΑΡΠΟΣ (fruit) (Fig. 1.5a-­b).49 Numerous bronze weights—­far more than at any other site—­have also been found (Fig. 1.6a-­b). Th ­ ese are of vari­ous standards (weights of mostly one mina but also two 46 

Kyrieleis 2011, 112. Schilbach 1999c; Hamdorf 1981. 48  Baitinger and Eder 2001, 190. 49  Wachter 2001, 166–67, 282. 47 

48

Chapter 1

Figs. 1.6a, b. Inscribed bronze weights (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Br 5754, Br 122). Photo: author.

and four minas, as well as fractions of a mina) and ­were inscribed with the name of Zeus in the genitive and sometimes decorated with his lightning bolt or ea­gle. It is pos­si­ble, even probable, that the sanctuary required and controlled the use of t­ hese weights, which could not leave the sanctuary but w ­ ere dedicated by the merchants ­after their use since they ­were the property of the god; this would, in part, explain their large numbers at Olympia.50 The weights have been found scattered all over the site,51 including in the Altis, with the greatest concentration of them on the southern area of the site and in the southwest between the Leonidaion and the South Hall except the latest of the weights and measures—­from the first half of the fourth ­century, which ­were most plentiful west of the Altis (Fig. 1.7).52 In addition, we have some clues as to what they ate beyond fruit and barley (Fig. 1.8): three inscriptions survive—­two on amphorae restored to read “wine from Kos” and “wine from Chios.”53 The third is on the neck of a pot: “fish sauce.”54 As for animal bones: only a small number of ­those that have been recovered have been tested. The small sample—127 fragments of bones (a total of 276 grams)—­from the recent restudy of the sacrificial remains from the Pelopion derive mostly from sheep, goats, and ­cattle, one fragment from a pig, another from a deer.55 The 1,380 animal bones (or fragments of bones) retrieved from the Artemis altar in the southeast (just south 50 

Kyrieleis 2011, 113. Hitzl 1996, 96–97, Taf. 43. 52  Hitzl 1996, 96–97. But see Baitinger 1998, 247–48 for a critique of Hitzl’s plotting of findspots, which relies on the original excavation reports and lays the groundwork for his chronology of the weights. I thank Christina Leypold for bringing this impor­tant review to my attention. 53  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 299–300 nos. 335A–336; Schilbach 1999b, 95, Taf. 15:2; Gauer 1975, 124, Taf. 20:4. 54  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 299 nos. 335; Gauer 1975, 43, 83, Taf. 5:6. 55  Benecke 2006. 51 



The Shape of the Altis49

Fig. 1.7. Findspots of bronze weights at Olympia, according to Hitzl 1996. Courtesy of DAI.

of the ‘House of Nero’ [Figs. 3, 2.13]; the site of the altar is centuries older than the Roman structure) are from mammals except one example from a mollusk and one from a bird, and they display numerous butchering marks: over 78  ­percent are from sheep or goats, 17.5 ­percent from c­ attle, 3.6 ­percent from pigs, and 0.3 ­percent from dogs. Only three bone fragments belong to a wild animal, a hare. ­Every type of bone is represented save for thighs, which prob­ably ­were burned in their entirety on the altar.56 Excavation beneath and immediately to the south of the fourth-­century B.C. South Hall produced an abundant quantity of Attic, Corinthian, and locally made pottery of the fifth ­century B.C., as well as six terracotta kilns (Figs. 3, 1.9, 4.4).57 In addition, an unusual structure—­a 3m-­wide polygonal construction formed of stacked-up roof tiles—in, and under­neath, the South Hall prob­ably served as a temporary merchant’s booth, according to Kunze Fig. 1.8. Inscribed pointed amphora (Olympia, Archaeological Museum), and Schleif.58 All this evidence suggests the use of terracotta, H 50.7cm. Photo: D-­DAI-­ this space as a market prior to the construction of ATH-­Olympia-7392 (Gösta Hellner). the South Hall. The orientation of the South Hall to the south, not the east or the north, where the sacrificial activities took place, indicates that the Doric hall may have been built c. 360–350 B.C. to serve some purpose in the Agora with its southern porch directly facing the posited location of the Agora59 and/or the pro­cessional pathway leading into the Altis.

56 

Ekroth 2017, 15, 19–20, 23; Heiden 2012, 146. Eilmann 1938/39; Kunze and Schleif 1937/38, 33–36. 58  Kunze and Schleif 1938/39, 32. 59  Sinn 2004a (239–40) opines that the South Hall was constructed when the pro­cessional way was transferred 80m to the south of the Altis in the mid-­fourth ­century B.C. and that the projecting southern porch of the hall served as a prohedria used by special guests at the festival. He hypothesizes that the equestrian bases along the original southern pro­cessional way began to be placed along the new path south of the South Hall by the end of the third c­ entury B.C., but that repeated flooding of the Kladeos River made use of this (more) southern pro­cessional route impossible so use of the old, more northern pro­cessional way resumed and persisted ­until the end of cultic rites in the first half of the fifth c­ entury A.D. The supposition that the festival path was moved seems to arise from the South Hall’s porch, not from any other evidence, and I think that the presence of the Agora ­here is a more plausible explanation for the existence of this porch. 57 



The Shape of the Altis51

Where Dining Occurred All festivals ­were accompanied by sacrifice and dining, and in the case of festivals extending across several days, pilgrims would need accommodation. Where did such activities take place? One might think that at a site as large as Olympia with its hordes of visitors that dining was permitted almost anywhere, but our evidence for ­here, as in many places, suggests that a hierarchy of dining is apparent. Pindar relates that Herakles established and marked off the Altis, and set aside the surrounding land for banqueting (Ol. 10.45–47).60 Archaeology supports this claim: drinking cups, burnt areas (fireplaces), iron spits (more iron spits ­were recovered at Olympia than from any other site in the Mediterranean [Fig. 1.10]),61 knives, axes,62 meat forks, ­simple cooking ware, grid irons, ash pits, and animal bones w ­ ere recovered in areas Fig. 1.9. Kiln found beneath South Hall. west, northwest, southwest, and southeast of the Altis,63 Olympia, terracotta. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-­ as well as in the area of the Stadion north wall; the Olympia-1853 (Süsserott). material dates from c. 700 B.C. through the Hellenistic period.64 Drinking and dining ware from the archaic through the Roman periods, primarily from wells, is most heavi­ly concentrated on the west side of the Altis, where we apparently have the greatest accumulation of weights, and near the Pelopion inside the Altis.65 One should note that the metal knives have an especially wide distribution throughout the site.66 Most pottery recovered from the site in general was locally made for sale and use at Olympia; ‘imports’ from Lakonia, Attika, and elsewhere have been found, but they 60  Pindar’s first Olympian ode, composed c. 476 B.C., places the foundation of the Olympian games against a background of dining. The poem concentrates on Pelops’ chariot race with Oinomaos and his winning of Hippodameia, which Pindar claims to be the founding event of the Olympic games, but the poem actually begins by describing the calumny against Tantalos, who was accused of boiling and butchering his son Pelops and serving him up to the gods as a perverse sacrifice. Pindar explains that this slander was in­ven­ted to explain the real occurrence: Pelops’ abduction by Poseidon at a h ­ uman banquet and his transportation to a divine banquet (26–39). Thus, both the a­ ctual event and the fabricated explanation center on the sacrifice/banqueting theme; in one case, Pelops is a participant in conviviality, in the other, he is the meal itself. The poem goes on to mention Tantalos’ further offense in stealing nectar and ambrosia from the gods to distribute to his fellow symposiasts, and of course, his subsequent punishment. Tantalos still manages to get it wrong though he tries to benefit mankind, to allow ­humans to enjoy the pleasures of the gods. 61  Baitinger and Völling 2007, 66. 62  For spits, knives, and axes, see Weber 1944, 166–69. 63  https://­www​.­dainst​.­org​/­en​/­projekt​/­​-­​/­project​-­display​/­13329 (accessed April 20, 2020); Kyrieleis 1990, 180. For the southwest: archaic material found ­under the ­later Leonidaion, see Fuchs 2013, 280. 64  Kyrieleis 1990, 180–81; Weber 1944. 65  See Ekroth 2012. 66  Baitinger and Völling 2007, 100–110.

52

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.10. Iron spits (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-­Olympia-113.

are not so common.67 The area southeast of the Altis produced a large quantity of the archaeological evidence for dining and not just the sale of food. Cups, vessels, and spits (as well as weights) ­were recovered in and below the Southeast Building, which seems to have served as a banqueting hall.68 In addition, high-­quality drinking ware and eating ware, including imports, ­were recovered in substantial quantities from the fill in five ancient trenches, which Mallwitz dates in 364 B.C.,69 in the area southeast of the Altis (G1–­G5).70 This material and the area in which it was found merit a closer look. Xenophon’s mention of the sanctuary of Hestia in Hellenika 7.4.31 has suggested that the cult was located in the Southeast Building, maybe in the circumscribed open area ­behind the structure,71 before moving to the newly built Prytaneion northwest of the Altis in the mid-­fourth c­ entury B.C. The Southeast Building, constructed in c. 370–364 B.C. with reused architectural members of the original T ­ emple of Zeus,72 served as a dining area (perhaps the classical Prytaneion?) to judge by its plan and the nearby finds (Figs. 3, 1.11a-­b). The building originally consisted of two rooms—­the 67 

Mallwitz 1981, 116. On the imported pottery, see Bentz 2013; Bentz 2009; Kunze-­Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000. Furtwängler 1890, 5–6. 69  Mallwitz 1999a, 10–21; Mallwitz 1999b, 251; Schilbach 1999d; Mallwitz 1981, 114–15. 70  The location of the trench and its orientation suggest that it predates the Echo Hall but postdates the Doric Southeast Building. Mallwitz 1999b, 251–52; Schilbach 1999a; Mallwitz 1981, 106. 71  Mallwitz 1972, 202. 72  Partida 2016, 301; Hennemeyer 2013b, 128; Hennemeyer 2013a, 20; Hennemeyer 2012, 124–25; Grunauer 1981, 280 n. 129a. The structure can be dated prior to the ­battle of 364, which was described by Xenophon, ­because a defensive trench constructed for the ­battle, located southwest of the building, was oriented to the Southeast Building (however, the Southeast Building was not necessarily completed by this date). More precisely, Hennemeyer argues for a date just ­after the earthquake of 402/401, which shook Elis and inspired Sparta to war against Elis (Xen. Hell. 3.2.24), rather than the earthquake of 373, as Mallwitz proposed. Hennemeyer also points out that Heiden (1995, 65) connects rebuilding of roofs in the Altis to this earthquake of 402/401. See Hennemeyer 2013b, 128–29; Mallwitz 1999b, 250–51. 68 



The Shape of the Altis53

Figs. 1.11a, b. Southeast Building, plan and elevation. Plan by Christina Leypold. Reproduced by permission. Elevation ­after Dörpfeld 1892b, Taf. 53.

54

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.12. Kitchen near Southeast Building; note the terracotta kalypter tiles used to cover a drain. Photo courtesy of DAI.

northernmost and southernmost rooms joined by a back wall on a two-­stepped limestone foundation—­and the open bounded area ­behind.73 ­Later, perhaps very shortly ­after the original construction in the fourth ­century B.C. (see chapter 4), the addition of the 8 × 19 three-­sided stoa and two additional rooms brought the building’s total dimensions to 36.42m × 14.66m.74 Square rooms with offset doors, such as the four posited for the Southeast Building, are typical of dining rooms at Greek sites, but their size and proportions, which are known, are diagnostic. ­Here, t­ hese rooms could prob­ably hold a minimum of 44 diners so we should think of this building as reserved for the relatively small number of VIPs among the large number of visitors.75 In the late Hellenistic period, the Southeast Building received an addition: a roofed structure in the northeast placed among workshops for sculpture and ceramics. Within this was a room that excavators interpreted as a kitchen b ­ ecause of the use of plastered terracotta slabs, which w ­ ere ­shaped to hold a vessel, and the drain formed from kalypter tiles nearby (Fig. 1.12).76 The 73 

Mallwitz 1972, 200. Leypold (2008, 110–14) gathers the information and bibliography on the building. 75  Sinn (2004a, 238) specifies the Theokoloi and Hellanodikai but does not explain his reasoning. 76  https://­www​.­dainst​.­org​/­projekt​/­​-­​/­project​-­display​/­13329 (accessed April 20, 2020); Mallwitz 1972, 206. 74 



The Shape of the Altis55

superstructure of the Southeast Building was eventually dismantled, broken up, and reused in the nearby ‘House of Nero.’77 The concentration of high-­quality imported ware near the Southeast Building (the largest quantity of Attic pottery at the site was found h ­ ere)78 signals a par­tic­u­lar clientele in this area, dif­fer­ent from t­hose camping out elsewhere on the site. Thus, I think it safe to conclude that the diners h ­ ere ­were of high status, which is hardly surprising: officials, athletes, perhaps even trainers, possibly the athletic victors themselves,79 whose number in the fourth ­century B.C. should have been approximately seventeen. The forty-­four couches posited for the Southeast Building could have accommodated ­these persons, but surely this number of couches was insufficient for the VIPs visiting the site. Pausanias (5.15.12) mentions the Prytaneion, presumably the primary dining structure from the time of its construction in the northwest in the mid-­fourth c­ entury B.C. onward (Fig. 3). It was h ­ ere, Pausanias tells us, that the athletic victors dined. It may be no surprise that commercial activity grew to the west of the Altis just at the time of the construction of the Prytaneion,80 and during the third c­ entury A.D., small rooms, perhaps for shops or “Tavernen,” w ­ ere added on the north-­south path in front of the Palaistra.81 The Leonidaion, located outside the southwest corner of the Altis, provided additional dining space, as well as accommodation (Pls. 1, 10, Figs. 3, 1.13). The building, an Ionic structure, 80.18 × 74m, surrounded by a peristyle with Doric columns, was named for its sponsor Leonides of Naxos, as we learn from the dedicatory inscription carved onto the architrave, and is dated c. 330 B.C. based on its architectural forms. Both in its original incarnation and its ­later Roman iteration—­c. 152/153 A.D.—­the Leonidaion had many dining rooms, with perhaps 300 klinai at its largest.82 Prior to the construction of the Leonidaion, a hall, maybe a workshop area or a ‘Liegehalle,’ as well as a campsite as indicated by classical cooking pans, gridirons, and burnt layers,83 occupied this place in the mid-­fourth c­ entury B.C.,84 which accords well with what we already know about the southwestern part of the site. Pausanias (5.15.1–2) says that in his time, the building was used as lodgings for Roman administrators, and 77 

Mallwitz 1972, 201–2. Bentz 2013, 351–52. 79  Cf. Heiden (2006, 58), who also posits that the athletic victors dined h ­ ere but mentions no other persons. 80  Baitinger and Eder 2001, 193. 81  Mallwitz 1988b, 43. 82  Mächler 2020, 301; https://­publications​.­dainst​.­org​/­journals​/­efb​/­1627​/­4513 (accessed April 20, 2020); Hoepfner 1996, 36. See also Fuchs 2013; and Herrmann (1984), who estimates 90–102 klinai in the dining rooms on the west side of the building. For a discussion of the building and a summary of past scholarship, see Leypold 2008, 104–110. 83  Fuchs 2013, 280. 84  Fuchs 2013, 336. Note that the hall was constructed with unworked blocks, especially geison blocks, which seem to have been intended for the second repair of the ­Temple of Zeus of the fourth ­century B.C. See Partida 2016, 301; Hennemeyer 2013a, 20–21. 78 

56

Chapter 1

Fig. 1.13. Leonidaion, plan of the fourth ­century B.C., adapted by Hans R. Goette from DAI Z. inv. B2673 by M.-­L. Charalambis ­after A. Mallwitz.

recent study reveals that it was decorated with wall paintings and a garden. Some scholars speculate that this large structure may have been rented to Olympic athletic victors or to their poleis in which to host banquets, a privilege for the victors known to us from written sources with the benefit of increasing the revenues to the site.85 Fi­nally, in the Roman period, a special dining pavilion in atrium style overlying the Hellenistic Kronos Baths (mentioned above) was added to the northwest of the site (across from the Gymnasion) in the second ­century A.D. (Fig. 1.4). 86 85 

Hoepfner 1996, 40. See Mächler (2020), who is working on a full study of the Leonidaion. Sinn, Leypold, and Schauer 2003.

86 



The Shape of the Altis57

Accommodation Where did visitors sleep? During the warm temperatures in the course of the Olympic games, camping outdoors, as was the norm in other sanctuaries, was an easy and obvious choice (as at the area l­ ater occupied by the Leonidaion), although it is probable that sleeping in the Altis was forbidden. Temporary structures—­tents, open wooden shelters—­were surely used by the vast majority of visitors to the site—­pilgrims, as well as merchants, as was the case elsewhere.87 For example, parts of what seem to be metal supports for a tent ­were found beneath the Palaistra,88 and the heavy concentration of dining and cooking ware in the west suggests that this was one of, or the, primary campsite at Olympia.89 Alkibiades had a very fine tent, according to Plutarch (Alk. 12.1), when Alkibiades was a hippic victor in 416 B.C.,90 and the tents of Dionysios I of Syracuse w ­ ere magnificently appointed with sumptuous textiles when he was at Olympia in 388 B.C. ­Things did not go well at Olympia for Dionysios and his tents ­were, unfortunately, trashed by the crowds (Diod. Sic. 14.109.2–3). Plato shared a tent with ­others when he visited Olympia (Ael. VH 4.9). A bronze inscription of c. 500 (Olympia B6077) sets out rules for visitors, specifically t­ hose from Epidamnos, Libya, and Crete (N.B. both Epidamnos and Kyrene erected trea­suries in the Altis; see chapter 2), permitting camping outside the sanctuary and pasturage and specifying fees for making offerings at Olympia, presumably during the panegyris.91 The inscription also stipulates accommodation payments imposed on the same group of visitors for use of a guest­house (ξενεών), although we have no indication of which structure this may be or where it was. Archaeology attests to guest­houses from the fourth ­century B.C. onward, and Pausanias (6.21.2) reports that the athletes had lodgings facing the setting sun at the east wall of the Gymnasion, a structure that was initially built in the third c­ entury B.C. In addition to dining rooms, the Leonidaion also had guest rooms (so one might imagine that ­these ­were not the quiet­est of accommodations);92 and a guest­house west of Pheidias’ workshop and south of the Kladeos Baths was constructed over Hellenistic structures in the second quarter of the second c­ entury A.D., then enlarged in a second phase c. 220–230 A.D.,93 when a path was added that led north to the latrines in

87  See the sacred law of Andania, ll. 34–37, Gawlinski 2012, 72, 144–45, as well as Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 58; Meier 1993, 61; Dillon (1990, 73, 78–84), who includes a full discussion of the situation at Olympia; Kron 1988, 142, 144; Goldstein 1978, 50–60. 88  Wacker 1996, 91 n. 67. See also Taita 2014, 123–26 for more on accommodation at Olympia. 89  Bentz (2013, 354) proposes that visitors camped in the south of the site. 90  Kyrieleis 2003b, 95. See Plut. Them. 25.1; and Wacker (1996, 91–95), who collects the evidence. 91  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 29–31 no. 4; Minon 2007, 56–60. I am very grateful to Sophie Minon for sending me her text during the COVID-19 quarantine. 92  Sinn 2004a, 120. 93  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 58–59; Sinn 2004a, 116.

58

Chapter 1

the Kladeos Baths (Fig. 3, Roman guesthouse).94 This was one of several sets of latrines dating from the Roman period.95

Day-­to-­Day Operations In order to maintain such a large sanctuary, Olympia required a staff on site for day-­ to-­day operations. Pheidias’ workshop and the area around it w ­ ere devoted to installations and materials for the manufacture of bronze and chryselephantine sculpture from the mid-­fifth ­century onward, suggesting that cult statues w ­ ere produced and/or repaired ­here (Pls. 1, 23, Fig. 3).96 A stone workshop also was found in the southeast area.97 Seers and cult personnel, as well as workers to maintain and repair buildings and altars, to produce votives for sale, and to care for any animals needed for sacrifice, would have required accommodation, ­water, and pasturage.98 In addition, one won­ders where the seers and cult personnel, known to us from inscriptions,99 resided. No domestic settlement has been found near Olympia that might fulfill this purpose, and again, the area east and north of the site might be fruitful places to look.

Animals, Sacrifice, and Dining The Olympic games, of course, provided numerous occasions for dining. Zeus was honored by animal sacrifices at the ­great ash altar in the Altis (Paus. 5.13.8–11). Pausanias describes animal sacrifice to the god, but ­there is ­earlier evidence for this as well. A single inscription of the second quarter of the fifth c­ entury B.C. refers to a hecatomb, which, Taita argues, occurred during the panegyris and was financed and or­ga­nized by the Eleans, although individual poleis might carry out their own sacrifices in the sanctuary, too.100 Taita goes on to propose that the funds for the costly hecatomb w ­ ere raised from the leasing of land owned by the sanctuary.101 One won­ders where all ­these animals ­were pastured and kept prior to the sacrifice. Tethering rings have been found on and around the ‘Heraion,’ but they are not numerous.102 Prior to c. 600 B.C., sacrificial animals may have been tethered to wooden 94 

Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 59; Mallwitz 1972, 276; Mallwitz 1958, 37–38; Schleif 1944, 66. Southwest Baths: Haseley 2012, 105, fig. 2. South Baths: Mallwitz 1972, 245–46. Leonidaion: Fuchs 2013, 294–95. On latrines and sanitation at Olympia and in other sanctuaries, see Trümper-­Ritter forthcoming. 96  Sinn 2004a, 225–27. 97  https://­www​.­dainst​.­org​/­en​/­projekt​/­​-­​/­project​-­display​/­13329 (accessed April 20, 2020). 98  Cf. IG V.2, 3, l. 1–5. On revenues raised from renting land at Olympia for agricultural use and pasturage between festivals, see Taita 2014, 139. Among the temple and cult personnel were slaves. See Bömer 1990, 217–19. 99  Zoumbaki 2001, 32–36, 106–52. 100  IvO 14; Taita 2015, 117–27. See also Lucian, Bis accusatus sive tribunalia 2.20. 101  Taita 2015. 102  Herrmann and Moustaka 2013, 110–13. 95 



The Shape of the Altis59

posts, which w ­ ere inserted into holes of about 60cm deep found under and in front of the ‘Heraion’ (although they could have been used for tropaia or for cultic accoutrements employed in open-­air ceremonies for Zeus).103 ­After (not simultaneous with) the construction of the ‘Heraion’ ­temple, fifteen holes for tethering animals ­were cut into the southern steps in front of columns S5–­S13, in the east in front of E1, and on the stylobate between E1–2 and E2–3 in the intercolumniations. When precisely they ­were bored h ­ ere is not known, but they must precede the statue bases placed on the lowest step in the Hellenistic or early Roman period since ­these bases would have blocked access to the tethering holes. ­Later still, reused bases with iron rings on their upper surfaces w ­ ere available to tether sacrificial victims; t­ hese w ­ ere found south of the southeast corner of the ‘Heraion’ and two ­others at the northeast corner of the Pelopion. The latter two may have belonged to a row of bases, 8m long, r­ unning parallel to the south of the ‘Heraion’ and seem to date much ­later than the holes on the ­temple steps.104 Another question is how such a large sacrifice was performed: knowing something about animal be­hav­ior, I would propose that all animals ­were slaughtered si­mul­ta­ neously at one moment, not sequentially. Trying to manage 99 bulls, panic-­stricken ­after hearing, smelling, and seeing the fate of the first victim, would be not only difficult but also dangerous, even if the bulls ­were tethered.105 Offerings ­were also made to Pelops at the Pelopion, the purported location of Pelops’ burial; Pausanias (5.13.1–2) describes the location of the sanctuary, and its identity is secured by a classical skyphos inscribed to Pelops (Fig. 1.1).106 The cult to Pelops only began at Olympia in the early sixth ­century,107 and the Pelopion was embellished with a propylon and wall in the fifth c­ entury, one of many building activities, such as the construction of the ­Temple of Zeus, in this period (see chapter 3).108 Pausanias (5.13.2–3) claims that black rams ­were sacrificed to the hero and that ­those who partook of this sacrificial meal must be purified before participation in the sacrifice to Zeus at the ash altar. It is impossible to know if this prohibition applied in the archaic and clas-

103 

Herrmann and Moustaka 2013, 114; Moustaka 2002b, 201–3; Mallwitz 1972, 138. Herrmann and Moustaka 2013, 110–12. 105  ‘Hecatomb’ does not always literally refer to one hundred victims: Herda (2006, 218–20) indicates that a hecatomb mentioned in the inscribed Molpoi regulations of c. 200 B.C. from Miletos refers to only three animals. Based on the percentage of types of animal bones found at the Pelopion, Taita (2015, 131–32) surmises that the early hecatombs at Olympia w ­ ere not composed of bovine but of caprine victims. But considering the tiny amount of bone that has been tested, the presence of oxen bones in the sample, and the ample l­ater written testimony for bovine victims to Zeus, I think this conclusion is unwarranted. 106  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 264 no. 268C; Kyrieleis 2006, 15–16, Taf. 8:2. 107  See p. 68 n. 8. 108  On the peculiar shape of the Pelopion, one might compare two other polygonal heroa, that of Opheltes at Nemea and the other for the Seven Against Thebes at Eleusis. See ThesCRA 4, 32–33. Note also the fifth-­century B.C. heroon at Olympia with its polygonal exterior wall to the west of the Altis (Fig. 3). See Wacker 1996, 80–91. 104 

60

Chapter 1

sical periods although scholars are dubious:109 the Pelopion deposit contains no ram bones, which we might expect if Pausanias’ account ­were accurate.110 The Heraia, discussed in the prologue, was another occasion for dining at Olympia. Since girls w ­ ere awarded a portion of the sacrificed cow, did they eat it at the site, and if so, where? It seems sensible to assume that they dined with the sixteen Elean gynaikes, who administered their festival, which means that the Heraia could not have overlapped in time with the Olympic games, when married w ­ omen, according to Pausanias, ­were forbidden from watching the male athletes compete.

Who Dined with Whom? Did men and ­women dine together at Olympia? In order to answer ­these questions, let’s begin by defining what we know about who was pre­sent at the site. We can assume that religious officials and members of the Elean Boule w ­ ere ­there on a day-­to-­day basis. We know that unmarried ­women ­could be spectators at the games from Pausanias (5.6.7, 6.20.9), and he specifically states that married ­women w ­ ere forbidden on pain of death from watching the games. This is not as strange as it might sound; comparable prohibitions are known from other events, such as the Spartan Gymnopaidai, where unmarried men could not be pre­sent around exercising boys (Plut. Lyk. 15.1), who ­were nude (Ath. 14.630d, 14.631b). The only exception to this prohibition at Olympia was the priestess of the cult of Demeter Chamyne, who was a married ­woman. We have no evidence from any other source that ­these prohibitions applied before Pausanias, but the mention of an exception should lead us to believe that the regulation against married ­women preceded Pausanias: we know that Regilla, wife of Herodes Atticus, was made priestess of Demeter Chamyne in 153 A.D.,111 and this is one ­woman who certainly wanted to watch the games. The fact that Pausanias lists this office as an exception to the rule should be evidence that ­there was a rule. Rites of Demeter elsewhere excluded men from participating in certain activities of the festivals, such as dining, which occurred both outdoors and in permanent structures, hestiatoria,112 so it is likely that w ­ omen celebrating the cult of Demeter Chamyne (see prologue) would have celebrated, dined, without the presence of men. In addition, Pausanias (5.13.10) reports a similar prohibition that parthenoi and gynaikes could ascend to the first level of the ash altar at the times when the games ­were not taking place, but only men ­were permitted to climb higher (Fig. 1.14). So clearly access to the altar was available to married ­women when the games ­were not taking place. Such sexual and status distinctions, in par­tic­u­lar the prohibition on 109 

Ekroth 2012, 114–18. See also Slater 1989 on the rites for Pelops. Benecke 2006. 111  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 60; Sinn 2002, 372. 112  Bookidis 1993. 110 



The Shape of the Altis61

Fig. 1.14. Olympia, 1892 reconstruction of ash altar and ­temple. From Adler et al. 1892, Taf. CXXXII.

married w ­ omen, do not apply in other Panhellenic sanctuaries but are peculiar to Olympia. CONCLUSION As one can see, t­ here is an abundance of archaeological evidence, as well as some written evidence, for the logistical m ­ atters of ancient Olympia yet questions still remain. For example, one might also ask how sacrificial meat was distributed, and who was able to partake of this meal. ­Were c­ hildren spectators at the games, or did they remain home with the married w ­ omen? Where did the regular maintenance staff of Olympia live? One hopes that further excavation and timely publication of finds ­will provide some answers.

62

Chapter 1

2 T H E A R C H A I C P E R I O D, C . 6 00 –4 8 0 B .C .

Although our knowledge of the workings of the archaic sanctuary at Olympia is l­ imited, it is clear from the quantity and types of votive offerings, the scale and extent of building, and the many literary references and inscribed documents from the site that the archaic period witnessed g­ reat activity, vivacity, and importance for Olympia, not only in the Greek world but also further afield in the west and in the Near East. As noted in chapter 1, a steadily growing number of wells from c. 700 to the mid-­sixth ­century B.C. attests to a rise in the number of visitors to the site and the consequent need for ­water. The primary building and religious activity at archaic Olympia was immediately south of Kronos Hill, where we see the first monumental architecture at the site, along with the construction of numerous richly adorned trea­suries on the north terrace (Fig. 2.1). This area of the Altis was framed by the ‘Heraion’ and trea­suries in the north, the Stadion at the east, and the Pelopion and ash altar to the southwest; while the ash altar and the tumulus (­later known as the Pelopion) predate the archaic period, most of the trea­suries, the Stadion, and the ‘Heraion’ are constructions of the sixth c­ entury B.C. B ­ ecause building the ‘Heraion’ affected the ash altar, which itself seems to have been adjacent to the Pelopion, t­ hese three locations w ­ ill be considered together ­after a brief review of them individually. The archaic period also witnessed the dedication of bronze and terracotta offerings and extraordinarily costly riches from tyrants. In addition, archaeological and written evidence indicate the arrival of a significant new cult to the Altis: that of Pelops. This last f­ actor is clearly connected to administrative and po­liti­cal changes—­fundamentally, Elis’ establishing firm control of the sanctuary in the early sixth ­century B.C. Understanding the relationship between the three loci of worship in the archaic Olympic Altis—­the Pelopion, the ash altar, and the ‘Heraion’—is the prerequisite for grasping how the site was used and developed in the archaic period. The big questions revolve around the chronological ordering of ­these three places and where Zeus and Hera ­were worshipped and when; ­these are largely interconnected and interdependent issues. This discussion forms the basis for a consideration of the trea­suries, specifically their siting, as well as patronage and decoration. Their location and ordering,

63

Fig. 2.1. Olympia, plan of Altis c. 470 B.C. Adapted by Hans R. Goette from Herrmann 1972, 107, fig. 74.

lined up in a row at the southern foot of Kronos Hill, and the similarity of their architecture are surprising when one thinks of the nearest parallel: the trea­suries at the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, which accrued in a more haphazard way with a lack of uniformity in both their architecture and orientation (Fig. 2.2). Understanding why the Olympia trea­suries w ­ ere built where they ­were and in what sequence, their contents, and how they may have functioned is illuminating for our comprehension of the archaic site. And while the development of Olympia was concentrated in the north, the construction of the Bouleuterion and an altar to Artemis at the south of the site in the ­later sixth ­century points to patterns of foot traffic and growth of Olympia in ­these years. In addition, largely fragmentary sculptures of stone, bronze, and terracotta from the archaic period remain at Olympia; with only a few exceptions, their original locations cannot be fixed. In spite of t­ hese limitations, we can get a general sense of the site and note the use of sculptural themes—­some common, o ­ thers quite unusual—­ and observe the dedication of some extraordinary objects.

64

Chapter 2

Fig. 2.2. Delphi, plan of Apollo sanctuary. Adapted by Hans R. Goette from P. de la Coste-­Messelière and G. de Miré, Delphes (Paris, 1943), 317.

Fig. 2.3. Pelopion, plan from Kyrieleis 2006, Beilage 1. Courtesy of DAI.

Warfare, marriage, competition among men and among poleis at Olympia, and the importance of Dorian and western Greek cities are the chief themes that emerge from an examination of the archaic Altis. Tyrants from the mainland and western Greece laid claim to the site by offering lavish gifts and erecting costly monuments. A S H A LTA R A N D O R AC L E A vast deposit of ashes, bones, and offerings, the black layer, was dispersed over the northwestern area of the Altis in vari­ous stages ending c. 700 B.C. or even the early sixth c­ entury B.C. A concentration of this material between the ‘Heraion’ and the mound ­later called the Pelopion overlay Bau I just north of the northwest edge of the Pelopion (Figs. 7, 2.3),1 and it is ­here that scholars have identified the earliest ash altar. The black layer contained finds and pottery ranging from the late eleventh ­century, that is, Submycenaean, through the late seventh to early sixth ­century B.C. (Figs. 6, 8),2 so we have some index of the altar’s period of use. Herakles is credited with founding the ash altar, according to Pausanias (5.13.8); in actuality, the date of its earliest use cannot be determined ­because we cannot rule out its being older than the earliest objects recovered in the black layer. However, Pausanias (5.13.8) describes the ash altar at his time (mid-­second c­ entury A.D.) as located to the east of the ‘Heraion’ and Pelopion, which suggests that it had moved further east; as we s­ hall see, this certainly was the case already c. 600 B.C.3 Closely connected with the ash altar was the oracle located atop it (Pind. Ol. 6.70), where readings ­were taken of the flames in response to queries (see prologue).4 P E LO P I O N The mound l­ ater referred to as the Pelopion exhibits some of the earliest cultic activity at Olympia, as discussed in the prologue. In the late sixth c­ entury B.C., the circular tumulus (D 30m) was bounded by a low stone wall in an irregular polygonal shape. A ramp leading to a doorway permitted entry into the precinct; this area was rebuilt in the classical period—­t hese are the foundations vis­i­ble ­today—­but the remains of an archaic doorway are extant (Fig. 2.3).5 The tumulus itself, however, is far older. The ceramics found within it yield a date in the m ­ iddle of the third 1 

Kyrieleis 2006, 35–42. Kyrieleis 2007, 195–96; Kyrieleis 2006, 34, 47, 77. See now Bocher 2015 for an En­glish summary of Kyrieleis’ findings. 3  Kyrieleis 2006, 47–50. Romano and Voyatzis (2021, 19–20, fig. 18) offer possible reconstructions of the ash altar based on Pausanias’ description. 4  See pp. 22–24. In addition, numerous ancient inscriptions deal with the oracle, seers, and proxenoi, who aided the seers. Taita (2004–5) provides further bibliography. 5  Bocher 2012, 143 n. 3 with ­earlier bibliography. 2 



The Archaic Period67

millennium B.C. (Early Helladic II period). Above it was a deep sandy layer on which apsidal buildings and graves dating from Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic (c. 2000 B.C.) ­were placed. A sterile layer of soil, the result of flooding of the Kladeos River, overlay the tumulus. Above this was a portion of the black layer. ­There was no cult continuity between the MH and ­later Submycenaean finds, but the locus of the ­later worship was not accidental.6 Rather, it focused on the still vis­i­ble tumulus, which was recognized as old and significant.7 Greeks of the historical period regarded the tumulus as the burial place of the hero Pelops, who gives his name to the Peloponnese. Yet scholars have recently argued that the connection of Pelops to Olympia—­the establishment of his cult (as opposed to another) at the site of the Pelopion and his association with the foundation of the games—­began in the early sixth ­century B.C., perhaps in connection with Elis’ growing power.8 We ­will return to this issue. ‘HERAION’ A third chief component of the religious complex of the Altis in the sixth ­century B.C. is the building described by Pausanias as the ‘Heraion’ of c. 600 B.C. (Pl. 11).9 This appears to be the first large-­scale structure in historical times (although ­there are remains of two ­earlier roofs, which ­will be discussed ­later in the chapter).10 Its erection incurred moving the location of the ash altar, which stood on the northern edge of 6 

Kyrieleis 2006, 26–27. Kyrieleis 2012, 62; Kyrieleis 2006, 26–27. Ekroth (2012, 101) thinks that worship to Zeus took place at the tumulus. 8  Kyrieleis (2002, 219) dates the inception of Pelops’ cult to the late archaic or classical period but ­later revises his opinion and puts the date in the early sixth c­ entury based on the archaeological finds (Kyrieleis 2007, 196–99; Kyrieleis 2006, 55–58, 79–83; Kyrieleis 2012/2013, 82 dates it only to the sixth c­ entury without further elaboration). Some scholars, however, think that Pelops has a much longer history at the site, e.g., Kõiv (2013, 347, 349), who appears to be unfamiliar with Ekroth 2012 and the issues discussed ­there; Kreutz (2007, 153) believes his cult is older than that of Zeus. 9  The date is derived from the latest finds of the early ash altar of Zeus immediately north of the Pelopion, which had to have moved before the ­temple was constructed, and the latest finds beneath the ‘Heraion.’ See Kyrieleis 2006, 50–55; Mallwitz 1972, 137–49; Mallwitz 1966. 10  See pp. 80, 99. The ground plan of the peripteros of the ‘Heraion,’ 50.01m long × 18.76m wide, is clearly vis­i­ble from the limestone foundations and orthostates, which rise some 1m high. Above them, the walls w ­ ere prob­ably of mudbrick (Fig. 2), and we assume that the superstructure, no longer extant, was wooden save for a roof composed of terracotta Lakonian roof tiles, which are extant (Heiden 1995, 65–68). The cella interior is extraordinary for having small spur walls b ­ ehind ­every second column, thus creating niches along the parallel north-­south walls. Scholars have usually assumed that the 6 × 16 peristyle columns (5.21m high) w ­ ere originally of wood and replaced by stone over time; when Pausanias visited in the m ­ iddle of the second c­ entury A.D., he saw, remarkably, one wooden column still standing (5.16.1). Contra: Donderer (2005), who believes that the replacement columns w ­ ere all erected in a single working campaign. However, the transformation from wood to stone has recently been challenged; instead, this compelling argument proposes that the peristyle columns w ­ ere stone from the outset and that the pronaos and opisthodomos columns may have been of wood, which would explain how one could survive u ­ ntil Pausanias’ time. According to this view, the ­temple discovered in the nineteenth ­century A.D. has columns erected during Roman rebuilding, 7 

68

Chapter 2

the mound l­ ater known as the Pelopion and, therefore, too close to the construction site of the ­temple. Where the altar was moved ­will be addressed in what follows.11 Who built the t­emple, and what was the impetus for d ­ oing so? The periegete (5.16.1) and, much l­ater, Photios (citing Agaklytos in FGrH 411 F1) report that the patrons of the ‘Heraion’ w ­ ere the occupants of Skillountia, who lived in territory belonging to Pisa, which purportedly controlled the sanctuary at Olympia c. 600 B.C.12 This account has been doubted by some modern scholars,13 perhaps with good reason, ­because almost nothing is known about Skillountia at this period. But lack of information does not mean that we can safely dismiss this account; the question remains open. One of the chief prob­lems concerning the ‘Heraion’—­and this has profound implications for archaic Olympia—is the identification of the deity worshipped in this Doric ­temple.14 We have no inscribed votives, and although Pausanias refers to this building as the ‘Heraion,’ it would be a puzzling situation if the first major construction at the site of Olympia in the historical period w ­ ere not dedicated to Zeus, the chief god at the site by the time of the ­temple’s construction (see prologue). Many scholars accept Pausanias’ identification as reflecting the original ‘owner’ of the ­temple and posit that Zeus was worshipped in the open air only at the altar—­a hypaethral sanctuary15—­but Moustaka and ­others argue that the ­temple was originally dedicated to Zeus and that the worship of Hera only began in the fifth ­century B.C.16 which employed vari­ous columns available on the site or nearby (where all t­ hese columns came from is an impor­tant question). See Sapirstein 2016. 11  When the ‘Heraion’ was excavated in the nineteenth ­century, it was believed that two pre­de­ces­sors underlay the structure, but it is now clear that the first ­temple on this site is the one whose remains are vis­i­ble ­today, that is, the t­ emple constructed c. 600. See Bocher 2012, 138; Herrmann 1972, 92–93. Herrmann speculates that if ­there ­were a pre­de­ces­sor of any structure on the site, it would have been a modest building (93). 12  See also Riedel 1993. 13  Patay-­Horváth (2013a, 87; 2012, 40) flatly rejects Pausanias’ account on this point and argues instead, unconvincingly, that the patron was Sparta; Taita (2007, 115) discusses the textual evidence and raises the question of its reliability. Kõiv (2013, 348) is inclined to believe Pausanias on this point. Riedel (1993, 82) accepts it and argues that the Pisatans wanted to assert the cult of Hera in the face of the newly imported Zeus cult brought by Dorian invaders. According to her, the cult images in the t­ emple as described by Pausanias offer evidence of this hierarchy: Hera sits as the ruling goddess and Zeus stands as a “Prinzgemahl.” Curiously, Riedel cites Mallwitz (1972, 144) h ­ ere, but surely Mallwitz depends on Pausanias, whose account may not be entirely reliable in this re­spect. 14  The vari­ous arguments are summarized by Patay-­Horváth (2013a), who advocates that the ­temple was built for Hera Hoplosmia. 15  E.g., Patay-­Horváth 2013a; Simon 2006, 326; Arafat 1995, 467. 16  Kyrieleis 2006, 60–61; Moustaka 2002a, followed by Sinn 2005, 361–62; Sinn 2001, 65. Jacquemin (2001b, 185– 86) even argues that the primary deities at the site w ­ ere not Zeus and Hera but Zeus and Demeter. Contra: Kreutz (2007, 154–55, 157), who believes that Hera may predate Zeus by centuries; Simon 2007, 173–74 n. 17; Simon 2006, 326; Riedel 1993, 82; Romano 1980, 146–47. By implication, Strøm (2009, 97) also disagrees with Moustaka: she interprets the diamond-­or boat-­shaped structure beneath the fifth-­century Prytaneion as connected with Hera cult at Olympia and points to comparisons with wooden votive ships at the Heraion on Samos; that is, she thinks that the Hera cult dates before the fifth ­century.



The Archaic Period69

Moustaka points to Elean coins of c. 420 B.C. bearing the head of Hera as indicative of the introduction of Hera cult at Olympia, perhaps as part of Elis’ efforts to spruce up the sanctuary ­after the synoikism, and so the cult might not have been pre­sent ­until a­ fter the completion of the classical ­Temple of Zeus c. 456.17 According to this view, Hera ­either was added to Zeus’ cult at the ‘Heraion’ or may have assumed his role as chief deity in the ‘Heraion’ when the god’s worship was relocated to the newly constructed ­Temple of Zeus.18 Sinn accepts Moustaka’s arguments for Zeus as the original ‘occupant’ of the time and proposes that the Eleans rededicated the ­temple to Hera in the fifth ­century B.C. in an effort to ‘erase’ this dedication of the Skillountians.19 If the ‘Heraion’ w ­ ere originally built to honor Zeus, then the stone altar to the east of the entrance, which is contemporaneous with the ­temple,20 should be for sacrifices to him. T H E A S H A LTA R , P E LO P I O N , A N D ‘ H E R A I O N ’ The ash altar was dismantled by the time construction on the ‘Heraion’ was ­under way since the ‘black layer’ extends beneath the ‘Heraion,’ and the religious activities associated with the altar had to move elsewhere. Moustaka proposes that the stone 17  Moustaka 2002a, 306–7. See also Pilz 2020a, 106. One might question ­whether the appearance of a deity on coins indicates cult to that deity. A bronze mirror ­handle, stemming from a workshop in the northeast Peloponnese and dating to the start of the fifth ­century B.C., was found at Olympia (B3004). The ­handle’s sculpted figure depicts a girl who may be connected with the Heraia festival (Reinsberg 2012, 259), known other­wise only through the description of Pausanias. If so, this would be evidence of Hera cult in the early fifth century. See Mallwitz and Herrmann 1980, 118 no. 79.2. 18  E.g., Sinn 2004b, 51; Arafat 1995, 465. Arafat (1995) speculates that ­after the construction of the ­Temple of Zeus, the ‘Heraion’ may have ceased to function as a ­temple and began to be used as a storeroom/display area (it would have h ­ oused the archaic statue of Zeus ­after its replacement by the Pheidian Zeus). 19  Sinn 2004a, 81. Contra: Pirenne-­Delforge and Pironti (2016, 179–84), who make the case for the Heraion’s original dedication to Hera. 20  Herrmann and Moustaka 2013; Bocher 2012, 142. This new study of the stone altar also produces evidence regarding sacrificial practice and is instrumental in establishing the location of the ­temple as linked to sacrificial activity. Fragments of some sixty smooth, overlapping rectangular slabs, 13–20cm thick, with grooves in them ­were reused in construction of the ­temple’s stone altar. Their peculiar shape suggested to Dörpfeld (1935) that they ­were paving stones belonging to a cult place, and building on this hypothesis, Mallwitz (1966) proposed that they ­were ‘waterproofed’ by means of clay at the joins so served as the inclined flooring for animal sacrifices intended for the ash altar; this pavement would have permitted the efficient watering down of the blood, excrement, and waste from the place of slaughter. See Herrmann and Moustaka 2013, 109–10; Moustaka 2002b, 201. In addition, Herrmann proposed that the slabs afforded the opportunity to collect blood in a bothros as at the Pelopion (Paus. 5.13.2). But the lack of other evidence in Greek iconography for the practice of collecting sacrificial blood in this manner speaks against this suggestion: blood was usually gathered in a bowl (sphageion) directly from the body. I thank Nancy Bookidis for pointing this out to me. See also Ekroth 2005. Since the stone altar and t­ emple ­were built si­mul­ta­neously, and the t­ emple has no pre­de­ces­sor, Dörpfeld’s suggestion that the reused slabs belonged to some butchering floor seems the most plausible source for t­ hese slabs.

70

Chapter 2

altar built to accompany the ‘Heraion’ assumed the functions of the ash altar and outlines the further history of the altar. According to her, a new, ­great ash altar was established at the time of the construction of the T ­ emple of Zeus c. 470–456 B.C., which would be the altar seen by Pausanias. ­Later, this ash altar was moved on axis with the Zeus ­temple in the Diocletianic period.21 This proposed sequence would solve some prob­lems, for example, what happened to the ash altar when the ‘Heraion’ was built, but creates o ­ thers. The transfer of worship at an ash altar to a stone example would be a very unusual practice in terms of Greek religion, although the archaic Artemis altar at Olympia may be such an example.22 It is pos­si­ble that ­there ­were two altars dedicated to dif­fer­ent aspects of Zeus, which Moustaka acknowledges23—an ash altar (no longer at the northern edge of the Pelopion but further east) and the stone altar in front of the ‘Heraion.’ Pausanias (5.14.7) mentions two in this general region: one for Zeus Keraunios and another for Zeus Herkeios. One must also consider practicalities. The stone altar is very small for the hecatomb sacrificed during the Olympic games (what other occasion is more likely for the hecatomb mentioned in the bronze inscription discussed in the prologue?); it needed to be vis­i­ble to many spectators what­ever was happening on or at the altar—­ slaughtering, burning offerings to the deity, or cooking (and we do not know which of ­these happened at the altar). The modest size of the stone altar is not well-­suited for this purpose. Yet some altar, surely an ash altar, had to be ser­viceable between the time of the dismantling of the old ash altar at the northern edge of the Pelopion and the construction of e­ ither the stone altar east of the ‘Heraion’ or another ash altar at a new location. But where? More logical would be the use of the ‘Heraion’ stone altar for sacrificial activities not connected to the ash altar but for smaller animals, fewer in number, and viewed by smaller crowds. While it would be peculiar that the first large construction at the site in the historical period would not be dedicated to Zeus, the phenomenon of the first ­temple not being dedicated to the main deity is not unknown.24 If the ­temple belongs to Zeus, then the building and altar must honor an aspect of Zeus not addressed at the ash altar. If not Zeus, then one must consider other candidates for the deity associated with the t­ emple, ­either together with Zeus or alone, most prob­ably Pelops or Hera. A joint dedication to Hera and Zeus is unpre­ce­dented: I know of no other t­ emple dedicated jointly to this pair although t­ here is an altar to the two deities 21 

Herrmann and Moustaka 2013, 120–21. See pp. 89–90. 23  Herrmann and Moustaka 2013, 120. 24  See, e.g., Patay-­Horváth 2013a, 83 n. 23. 22 



The Archaic Period71

at Mt. Arachnaion in the Argolid, as Moustaka notes.25 Pelops is not plausible since the hero was worshipped at his own large location nearby already in the early sixth ­century B.C. In short, the ­matter remains open. Closely connected to this issue is the question of the cult statue of the ‘Heraion,’ which, of course, is the impetus for the construction of a ­temple. Nothing remains of a cult statue within the ­temple except the base. Pausanias mentions two images within the ‘Heraion’: a helmeted, bearded Zeus standing beside a seated Hera, and the author refers to them as ἁπλᾶ, or ­simple (5.17.1),26 suggesting their antiquity. The order in which Pausanias describes statues that he saw in this building corresponds to the ­actual findspots of the excavated sculptures, suggesting that his account of their arrangement within the building is reliable at least for his time and afterward. Assuming that his description of the Zeus and Hera statues follows the same pattern, the two statues should have stood on the cult statue base.27 But what was the date of ­these statues? Mallwitz, who excavated the Heraion, believed that the cult statue base was constructed in two phases: it was originally small, then e­ ither replaced or enlarged,28 but other scholars disagree.29 Regardless of the number of construction phases for the base, was t­ here originally a single statue with a second added ­later?30 It may be that the construction of the T ­ emple of Zeus, which was completed in c. 456, was the impetus to move the Zeus cult statue, ­whether or not it was the one Pausanias cites, from the ‘Heraion’ to the t­ emple, where it served as the cult image ­until Pheidias’ creation of the chryselephantine colossos in c. 435–430 B.C.31 If the statues that Pausanias observed w ­ ere old, it is noteworthy that the figure of Zeus is helmeted given what we know of Olympia’s and Zeus’ associations with warfare. 25  Herrmann and Moustaka (2013, 121) cite the joint altar of Zeus and Hera on Mt. Arachnaion mentioned by Pausanias (2.25.10) as a comparison, but the investigation of this area is inconclusive: Rupp (1976) found three ash and bone deposits with the earliest remains from the Geometric period, the latest from the classical period. Rupp concluded that two of ­these deposits belong to the ash altars (βωμοί) mentioned by Pausanias, but the identification of the altars is made only on the basis of Pausanias, not from the archaeological remains. And, of course, Pausanias was writing many centuries a­ fter the latest archaeological remains from this site. In addition to the prob­lem of establishing the identification of the altars on Mt. Arachnaion, Pausanias mentioned altars, not worship shared at a single altar, which is what Moustaka proposes for the stone altar to the east of the ‘Heraion’ at Olympia. Patay-­Horváth (2013a, 83 n. 29) notes that Paus. 9.39.4 mentions a t­ emple with statues of Zeus, Hera, and Kronos in Lebadeia, but Patay-­Horváth thinks that this is prob­ably a late building. 26  Jacquemin (2001a, 295) claims that this passage of Pausanias is corrupt. As for the materials of the cult statues, see Lapatin (2001, 56–57 n. 184); and Arafat (1995, 463, 467), who interprets Pausanias’ text to indicate that ­these statues w ­ ere chryselephantine. 27  E.g., Krumeich 2008, 78. 28  Mallwitz 1966, 325. 29  Nancy Bookidis, private communication with the author. 30  But see, e.g., Moustaka 2002a, 305–7. Kunze (1940–1941a, 123 n. 3) believes that the Zeus that Pausanias sees in the ‘Heraion’ belongs to the time of the ­temple’s construction, c. 600 B.C. 31  See, e.g., Romano 1980, 144 for discussion and bibliography; and Dörpfeld (1935, 1:223–26), who describes the statue seen by Pausanias as Zeus Areios and believes it to have been transferred to the newly built t­ emple as a cult image, along with Zeus’ cult in which Hera shared at the ‘Heraion’ in ­earlier times.

72

Chapter 2

Figs. 2.4a, b. Head (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ1), c. 600 B.C., limestone, H 52cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

The iconographical scheme of Zeus wearing a helmet is nowhere ­else attested to my knowledge. Excluding the cult statue(s), the sculptural decoration associated with the ‘Heraion’ includes: a large terracotta disk akroterion (reconstructed at 2.42m in dia­meter);32 bronze protomes and thin bronze sheets, which may have decorated the Doric building’s metopes;33 and a colossal limestone head (with a flattened back surface, H 52cm), crowned by a polos and originally painted. This head, stylistically dated in the first quarter of the sixth ­century B.C., was long thought to be an image of Hera, but Sinn has argued that it is a sphinx (profile body, frontal head with a decorative tendril springing from the head’s left side), which may have served as a pedimental figure on the ‘Heraion’ (Fig. 2.4a-­b).34 If one seeks some explanation for the peculiar 32 

Danner 1989, 10 no. 21, 33, 34. Danner points out that disk akroteria ­were referred to in antiquity not as akroteria but as ἀσπίδες (shields) (33). See also Volkert 1932, 1–2. 33  Hampe and Jantzen (1937, 92) make the suggestion tentatively. 34  Sinn 1984. Contra: Marconi (2007, 14), who, among other t­ hings, does not believe that the wooden entablature and mudbrick walls could have supported a stone pediment; Simon 2007, 172–73. The bibliography is vast: for an overview with bibliography, see Kreikenbom 2002, 140–42.



The Archaic Period73

Fig. 2.5. Winged female figure (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B6500), c. 590–580 B.C., bronze, H 53.5cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 2.6. ‘Heraion,’ south colonnade with cuttings in columns. Photo: Hans R. Goette. 35 

protrusion on the head’s upper left side, it need not be a tendril. Medusa’s head has snakes emanating from it, for example, and she, too, has wings in archaic sculpture (cf. pedimental sculpture from the ­Temple of Artemis at Corfu of c. 580 B.C.). The Olympia head does not have Medusa’s grotesque visage, but one might think of the generic image of Potnia Theron (Mistress of Animals), a winged female figure holding animals, which is common in the archaic period. Bronze protomes, including a lion of c. 600 (Olympia B4999) and a winged female (Olympia B6500), may once have decorated the t­emple’s metopes (Fig. 2.5).35 The latter, H 53.5cm, wears a chiton and a mantle. She is depicted from mid-­torso upward, that is, as a protome, whose bronze edges of the torso ­were nailed to another piece.36 This figure never possessed arms, and Kyrieleis suggests that she may represent a Nike.37 She dates c. 590–580 B.C. on the basis of stylistic comparisons and the pottery found in the same well.38 A Nike would certainly be well-­suited to a ­temple of Zeus, but the identity of the protome figure is hy­po­thet­i­cal, as is the identity of the ­temple’s deity. Fi­nally, we should return to the cuttings on the peristyle columns of the ‘Heraion’ (Fig. 2.6). ­There is a concentration of such cuttings on the west, south, and east sides of the building, where they ­were most easily vis­i­ble.39 The cuttings may have held inscribed bronze plaques recording the names of the donors of the stone columns that replaced their wooden counter­parts, but this proposal found­ers, of course, if the peristyle columns ­were never of wood, as has

Kyrieleis 2008, 190–98. Other fragments of lion’s head protomes ­were also recovered (B2282, B4357). Philipp (1994b) considers the pos­si­ble uses of bronze sheets as architectural decoration, including their use as door ornaments, at Olympia. 36  Kunze 1994, 119. 37  Kyrieleis 2008, 197–98. 38  Kunze 1994, 125–27; Herrmann 1972, 114. 39  Donderer 2005, 13; Rumscheid 1999, 40–41.

74

Chapter 2

recently been suggested.40 It is pos­si­ble, however, that the columns erected in a posited Roman rebuilding bore dedicatory inscriptions from sponsors.41 Yet another proposal is that the cuttings held lists of cult personnel or votive offerings, perhaps dedications by winners of the Heraia footrace,42 which was run in the Stadion. T H E S TA D I O N The first archaeologically attested Stadion (Stadion I) dates c. 560–550 B.C., although surely t­ here was a racetrack of some sort e­ arlier (Fig. 3).43 Stadion I terminated in the Altis south of Trea­sury Foundation VII so that competitors ran into the Altis (cf. Fig. 2.1).44 Two stone seats belonging to Stadion I w ­ ere designated for Lakedaimonian proxenoi, as indicated by inscriptions, whose letter forms date to the mid-­sixth c­ entury B.C. (Fig. 2.7).45 While dignitaries sat in special seats, ‘ordinary’ spectators would have sat on the hillside. One won­ders why its construction was deemed necessary but Stadion II was constructed c. 500 B.C. or shortly thereafter; placed just south of its pre­de­ces­sor, it possessed a slightly more depressed racetrack.46 Postholes, which had been renewed several times, belonging to Stadion II ­were identified at the far west of the Stadion now beneath the Echo Hall (Fig. 3); ­whether they belonged to the starting gate or to turning posts for the diaulos race (double the distance of the Stadion) is unclear.47 The Stadion was not only the setting for athletic spectacle but also one ‘exhibition space’ for military victory. The postholes on the surface of the earthen hill of the Stadion I south wall once held wooden posts or scaffolding, which seem to have supported tropaia or pieces of armor,48 such as ­those h ­ oused in the trea­suries, at least in Pausanias’ time. This was not only the place with the greatest audience but also the location of all the athletic events save for the ­horse racing. This practice of exhibiting tropaia apparently continued in Stadion II of c. 500 B.C. (the e­ arlier shields from dismantled tropaia ­were placed on the southern embankment of the old Stadion before the new Stadion was constructed), and tropaia ­were also erected in the Altis itself.49 40 

See pp. 68–69 n. 10. See pp. 68–69 n. 10. 42  Bocher 2012, 142; Dörpfeld 1935, 1:170. 43  For the dating of vari­ous phases of the Stadion, see Schilbach 2012; Schilbach 1992. Brulotte (1994, 63) claims that competitors ran ­toward the altar of Zeus. 44  The general location of Stadion I is reckoned from four ­factors: topographical considerations; the location of subsequent stadia, about which more is known; the location of wells, which begin c. 700 B.C. and ‘outline’ the bound­ aries of the stadion; and a row of postholes, which runs along the southern border. See Brulotte 1994; Schilbach 1992; Mallwitz 1988a, 94–95. 45  One of marble for Gorgos (Kyrieleis 2011, 107; Tzachou-­Alexandri 1989, 220; Kunze 1940–1941b), and one of unspecified stone for Euanios (Kyrieleis 2011, 107; Mallwitz 1976, 275). 46  Schilbach 1992, 33–34. Schilbach (2012, 282) points out that the date for Stadion II is insecure. 47  Kyrieleis 2013, 2–3, Abb. 3–4. 48  Baitinger 2019, 136; Rabe 2008, 30; Baitinger 2001, 81; Schilbach 1992, 33. 49  Baitinger 2019, 136; Baitinger 2001, 81. 41 



The Archaic Period75

Fig. 2.7. Marble seat of the Lakedaimonian proxenos, Gorgos (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ192), c. 550 B.C., marble, H 27cm, L 42cm, Br 31cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

The emphasis on the display of weapons and armor in and on the trea­suries and in the Stadion, including Stadion II, is a continuation and further manifestation of the site, its chief deity, and the association of the games with warfare. THE THESAUROI While the ‘Heraion’ of c. 600 B.C. is the first t­ emple and first large-­scale structure at the site, it is not the earliest building at Olympia in the historical period. That distinction belongs to some of the trea­suries, which stood on the northern border of the Altis on the low slope of Kronos Hill (Pls. 1, 12, 14, Figs. 3, 2.8). In addition to two terracotta roofs of c. 650–630 B.C. (of which more below), foundations of twelve small

76

Chapter 2

Fig. 2.8. Trea­sury Terrace, plan. Adapted by Hans R. Goette from Herrmann 1972, Abb. 64.

buildings remain; t­ hese ­were eventually protected by a retaining wall (110m long) buttressing Kronos Hill ­behind them (constructed just ­after the earthquake of 373 B.C.;50 see chapter 4).51 Another retaining wall at the base of, and supporting, the terrace was added in the first half of the fourth ­century B.C.52 All the trea­suries adhered to a rectilinear plan with a main room, usually preceded by a porch with two columns in antis, which is common for trea­suries elsewhere, yet the Olympian trea­sures ­were uniformly Doric, and many incorporated ele­ments of their home city architecture.53 Aside from the stone foundations, remains include painted terracotta moldings (Pl. 13a-­b,), terracotta and stone architectural members, terracotta roof tiles, pedimental sculpture, and akroteria,54 some of which w ­ ere quite elaborate. Some trea­suries ­were erected as military thankofferings (e.g., the Megarian Trea­sury; see below), as we know from written evidence,55 and all should be regarded as religious dedications in the sanctuary. Pausanias (6.19) describes ten trea­suries (thesauroi) that he saw from west to east at the Trea­sury Terrace;56 he identifies the cities that constructed them in this order: 50 

Herrmann 1999, 387 but Herrmann 1972, 168 gives the date as 332 B.C. Although it is clear that ­earlier efforts ­were made to provide some support against Kronos Hill b ­ ehind Trea­ suries I, IX, and XII shortly ­after their construction. See Herrmann 1999, 368–69. 52  Leypold 2013, 121. 53  On the architecture, see now Klein 2016, 121–32. 54  For a summary of the akroteria, see now Reinhardt 2018, 74–78. 55  Herrmann 1992, 25–26. 56  Hering (2015, 126–48) gathers the bibliography and pre­sents basics. 51 



The Archaic Period77

Sikyon Carthage Epidamnos Byzantion Sybaris Kyrene Selinus Metaponto Megara Gela Archaeology, however, has revealed foundations of twelve buildings side by side on the Trea­sury Terrace. So what did Pausanias see—­and what did he not see? Scholars have tried to reconcile Pausanias’ account with the twelve foundations by explaining that some of the foundations ­were altars,57 that some of the buildings ­were no longer standing when Pausanias visited the site, or that part of Pausanias’ text was lost.58 With a general ac­cep­tance of the accuracy of Pausanias’ list with one exception (see below), scholars employ the dates of the extant foundations, when they can be established; extant roof tiles and ornament (clay types, decoration, mea­sure­ments, and/or date);59 inscriptions; and extant architectural sculpture to identify and date the trea­suries and to reconcile the findings with Pausanias’ account. Many parts of the trea­suries ­were reused in the late antique fortification wall (formerly known as the Herulian wall) of the mid-­fifth to mid-­sixth c­ entury A.D., which incorporated the ­Temple of Zeus and the area to the south with a southern border at the southern porch of the South Hall (see chapter 5, Figs. 3, 5.21).60 ­Because of this, it is not always clear which of t­hese 57 

E.g., Kastenholz 1996, 147–48. Baumeister 2012, 83–84; Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, 235–38. Herrmann (1992, 30) dismisses outright the idea of their being altars. 59  Seven trea­sury roofs of c. 580–550 B.C. are of south Italian or Sicilian origin: t­ hose that can be assigned capped the buildings on Foundations III, VI, X, XII, and perhaps Foundation IX, according to Heiden (1995, 83–87, 161–62), including one of c. 580 B.C. assigned to the Trea­sury of Syracuse (Foundation III) by pro­cess of elimination (86, 162–63). Contra: Mertens (2006, 134), who places the last-­mentioned roof on the Trea­sury of Sybaris. Moustaka (1993, 159) matches a sphinx akroterion to the clay and date of this same roof, and Mertens-­Horn and Viola (1990) work through the vari­ous possibilities for the location of the roof. Four further Corinthian roofs date c. 525 to the early fifth ­century B.C., and ­these covered the trea­suries of Foundations V and perhaps VIII. Winter (1993, 150–51) posits an Argive trea­sury (and a ­temple, perhaps to Hera) of the mid-­seventh ­century B.C. based upon roof tiles belonging to the Argive system found at the site. She offers no discussion of where that may have stood. 60  On the late antique wall, see Miller 2019; Völling (2019, 125–27), who discusses the date; Sinn 1991b, 367–68. 58 

78

Chapter 2

Foundation

City

Date

I

Sikyon

7th c.; rebuilt c. 480 (now vis­i­ble)a

II

?

first quarter of fifth c.b

III

Syracuse

first half of sixth c.;c roof replaced in c. 500

IV

Epidamnosd

first half of sixth c.e

V

Byzantion?f

early fifth c.g

VI

Sybaris?h

c. 580–550

VII

Kyrene?i

first half of sixth c.j

VIII

?

third quarter of sixth c.k

IX

Selinusl

late sixth/early fifth c., maybe e­ arlierm

X

Metaponton

c. 580o

XI

Megara

c. 510p

XII

Gelaq

c. 550, renovated c. 500r

a   Many parts of the fifth-­century building, including an anta capital, ­were reused in the ‘Spolienhaus’ (Fig. 6.2). See Kyrieleis 2003a, 2; Mallwitz 1999a, 21. b   Hering 2015, 131, as indicated by capitals; parts of the building ­were reused in a construction of the mid-­second ­century A.D., so building ele­ments w ­ ere available by then. c   Hering 2015, 133. d   Heiden 1995, 164; Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, 240–41. e   Hering 2015, 134. f   Heiden 1995, 163. g   Baumeister (2012, 84–86) demurs from giving an early date to Foundation V since t­ here is no indication of an early date other than the plan. h   Heiden 1995, 163. i   A Lakonian roof is assigned to ­these foundations. Heiden (1995, 68–70) notes the tentative identification. E­ arlier proposals include Sybaris, Kroton, and Metaponto. See Herrmann 1992, 26; Mertens 1984, 217 (Kroton). Contra Mertens: Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, 243–44. j   Hering 2015, 137. k   Hering 2015, 138. Heiden (1995, 87–96, 164) proposes that the trea­sury may belong to Kroton or Paestum. l   Heiden 1995, 164; Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, 240–41. m   Hering 2015, 139. n   Heiden 1995, 164; Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, 240–41. o   Hering 2015, 140. p   Hering 2015, 144. q   Herrmann 1992, 26. See also Moustaka 1993, 158–59. r   Heiden 1995, 28. Neer and Kurke (2019, 240–49, 281–96) would like to downdate the renovation to the 470s B.C. and cite architectural parallels to support this proposal. This lower date would then accord with Pindar’s Olympian 6 dedicated to Hagesias’ Olympic victory. Neer and Kurke interpret the poem as making direct reference to the Geloan Trea­sury, the porch of which they view as a Deinomenid military victory dedication.

‘stray’ architectural ele­ments belonged to which foundation.61 Pausanias’ identification of Carthage as the patron of one trea­sury is universally dismissed as a ­mistake, and Syracuse is nominated as the correct patron. ­These findings yield the identifications and dates tabulated above. 61  Baitinger (2001, 87) speculates that bronze sheets found in this area may have been used as wall revetment, which is an intriguing idea.



The Archaic Period79

­Earlier scholars assigned Foundation II to Syracuse and calculated the date of c. 475 B.C. apparently on the basis of Pausanias’ claim to have seen Cartha­ginian war booty in the structure (Gelon of Syracuse’s victory over the Cartha­ginians occurred in c. 480).62 What Pausanias prob­ably saw is Foundation III, which was still standing in the third c­ entury A.D., whereas Foundation II was already dismantled to the extent that its members w ­ ere built into constructions of the mid-­second ­century A.D.63 Thus, it is likely that Foundation III belongs to the Trea­sury of Syracuse, whose roof was replaced by c. 500 B.C. so it clearly had to be standing some time before.64 This would leave Foundation II (interior space W 5m, L 7.5m), as well as VIII (interior space W 5.6m), unassigned to any city. The chronology of the trea­suries is difficult to establish although ­there are some fixed points. Pausanias (6.19.1–2) credits the tyrant Myron of Sikyon with building the first trea­sury (Foundation I) to commemorate his win in the chariot race of the 33rd Olympiad (648 B.C.). Although the currently vis­i­ble foundations date just ­after c. 480, among the latest of the extant trea­sury remains (Pl. 12), a pre­de­ces­sor below it verifies the traveler’s account.65 This e­ arlier trea­sury was constructed of mudbrick and wood with sandstone foundations and cornice. In addition, one of the two roofs c. 650–630 B.C. mentioned above, the earliest extant architectural remains of the historical period, surely belongs to Foundation I, the Sikyonian Trea­sury.66 Sikyon’s early connection with Olympia is also evidenced by a bronze spear point from Sikyon, one of the earliest inscribed dedications at Olympia.67 The architectural forms of Foundation X, assigned to Metaponto, indicate that it is next chronologically; for example, the Sicilian roof belonging to it dates c. 580 B.C.68 Thus, a surprisingly long gap of time intervened between the construction of the first and second trea­suries. Continuing in this chronological sequence, the ornately decorated terracotta roof of Foundation XII suggests a date in the mid-­sixth ­century B.C.69 Foundation XII underwent modifications c. 500 B.C., when a portico was added, and its orientation changed from east-­west facing away from the ash altar to north-­south facing, an alignment shared by the other trea­suries. The style of Foundation XI’s roof decoration and pedimental sculpture place this building, the Megarian Trea­sury, c. 510–500 (Figs. 2.9, 2.10). Features consistent with a date from the turn of 62 

E.g., Baumeister 2012, 83; Herrmann 1992, 25–26; Herrmann 1972, 99; Mallwitz 1961, 54. Herrmann (1992, 28) questions this attribution and date. 63  Heiden 1995, 86; Herrmann 1992, 28. 64  Heiden 1995, 86–87. See now Adornato (2013, 83), who interprets Pausanias’ text as indicating who made an offering, rather than as indicating the identity of the patron. 65  Baumeister 2012, 84; K. Herrmann 1980. But see Moustaka 1993, 163 n. 457. 66  Herrmann, however, doubts a date for the geisa as early as the mid-­seventh ­century B.C. See Herrmann 2003, 223; Herrmann 2000, 380; Herrmann 1992, 27–28. 67  IvO 245; SEG 51, 547. 68  Heiden 1995, 78–82. This roof was partially removed in the first half of the fifth c­ entury B.C. 69  Baumeister 2012, 86; Heiden 1995, 96–102.

80

Chapter 2

Fig. 2.9. Megarian Trea­sury, reconstruction of facade ­after Dörpfeld 1892b, Taf. XXXVI (scale 1:50).

the sixth to fifth c­ entury B.C. or the early fifth c­ entury are vis­i­ble on the roof assigned to Foundation IX (Selinus).70 The rebuilt Sikyonian Trea­sury was among the latest trea­ suries, just ­after c. 480.71 Its sandstone structure, which has received extensive study,72 was unusual in having a Parian marble roof; the only other building in the Altis to possess such a roof was the fifth-­century ­Temple of Zeus.73 70 

Mertens-­Horn and Viola, 1990, 240. Herrmann 1992, 27–28. Contra: Scott (2010, 62 n. 110), who states that the Sikyonian Trea­sury was constructed c. 550–525 B.C. but offers no explanation for this claim. Gauer (1968, 109 n. 511) thinks it was built to h ­ ouse Persian spoils and possibly was also funded by them. For an e­ arlier discussion of the treasuries—­their identification, architecture, and date—­see Rups 1986, 13–79. 72  E.g., Herrmann 1992. 73  Herrmann 1992, 27. 71 



The Archaic Period81

Fig. 2.10. Megarian Trea­sury, pediment with sculpted Gigantomachy (Olympia, Archaeological Museum), c. 500 B.C. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

As is evident from Pausanias’ text, several of the trea­suries ­were constructed by western Greek colonies of Peloponnesian Dorian poleis, for example, Syracuse was a colony of Corinth, Selinus was a colony of Megara, and Sybaris was an Achaian colony, suggesting that western Greeks w ­ ere keen to be represented in this Panhellenic sanctuary, and evidence from the time of the sanctuary’s early development in the historical period also leads to this conclusion. The earliest dedications of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. w ­ ere objects of Italic origin, including jewelry, helmets, and Italic fibulae.74 Olympic victor lists attest that the first west Greek victor existed already in 672 B.C.,75 and the number of such victors increased in the sixth and early fifth centuries B.C., then declined in the fourth c­ entury B.C.76 Moreover, from the ­middle of the sixth ­century B.C. and especially in the first half of the fifth ­century B.C., western Greek cities established cults to Zeus Olympios in their home cities, and their coinage sometimes made reference to the Olympic games.77 The placement of the earliest datable treasuries—­clustered at ­either end of a west-­ east axis—­merits our attention. One can understand the desire to place the first trea­ sury in close proximity to the ash altar of Zeus or to the ‘Heraion,’ but the next datable examples are at the far eastern end of the Trea­sury Terrace. ­Here, they would have overlooked the Stadion, which, ­until c. 472 B.C., terminated in the Altis at a point about even with the east wall of Trea­sury VII and the west wall of Trea­sury VIII (Pl. 14, Fig. 2.1). Yet trea­suries served as storage facilities, not spectator boxes, and in any case, 74 

Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 211–12 nos. 195–96; Frielinghaus 2011, 1–2; Philipp 1981, 15. Moretti 1957, 63 no. 38. 76  Philipp 1994a, 78–79. See Dreher 2013, 257–59 for a discussion of the numbers of west Greek victors at Olympia. Notable among t­ hese is Astylos of Kroton, who won in three consecutive Olympic games from 488 to 480 B.C. He was honored at Olympia with a statue made by Pythagoras of c. 480–470 B.C. (IvO 145; Paus. 6.13.1; Plin., NH 34.19.59) and by a poem by Simonides (PMG 506). See DNO 1, 580–81 nos. 672–73. 77  Rausch 2001. 75 

82

Chapter 2

the Trea­sury Terrace—­the hill—­was sufficient to satisfy the need for seating during the Olympic games and the accompanying festival. It is pos­si­ble, however, that the porticoes of the trea­suries could have provided sheltered viewing for VIPs. T R E A­S U R I E S : C O N T E N T S Pausanias is key to our understanding the contents of the trea­suries in his own time. The author mentions seeing two bronze chambers (thalamoi) in the Sikyonian Trea­ sury (Pl. 12), which ­housed a variety of objects, including disks for the pentathlon; war booty—­a shield, helmet, and greaves—­dedicated by the Myanians (Lokrians); Pelops’ gold-­hilted sword (his bones w ­ ere displayed in Pisa, according to Paus. 6.22.1); an ivory horn dedicated by Miltiades, son of Kimon; and a wooden image of Apollo with a gold-­plated head, another Lokrian offering (6.19.4–6). Other trea­suries contained images of Zeus, war booty in the form of armor and weapons, mythological images made of cedar and sometimes gold, portraits of Roman emperors, and images of Dionysos and Endymion, partially of ivory. In the case of the trea­sury on Foundation X, Hölscher posits that the building was not only a trea­sury but also a banquet ­house ­because of the silver and gilt phialai and oinochoai stored ­there, according to Polemon of Ilion; such vessels usually w ­ ere employed in the polis’ symposion.78 It is pos­si­ble, of course, that the vessels ­were stored h ­ ere but used elsewhere. The architectural design of the Geloan Trea­sury, a one-­room structure framing a central statue base (Pl. 14, Fig. 2.8), together with its dedicatory inscription (mentioned by Pausanias), led Hölscher to propose that the chief impetus for erecting thesauroi at Olympia and elsewhere was to h ­ ouse a specific sumptuous offering, which was put into place ­after the building was finished; the secondary purpose was to shelter other offerings that required protection from weathering.79 This suggestion is certainly attractive although the logic may not withstand the complexity of the situation: Pausanias occasionally names architects of the trea­suries and sculptors of images within them, and we have posited floruits for the sculptors. Hölscher reasons that the architecture must have been built to h ­ ouse the sculptural dedications within, and infers the date of the architecture from the sculptors named by Pausanias.80 But Pausanias was writing much ­later than the time when the trea­suries ­were first constructed,81 and sculpture was moved from its original location to other places, including into and out of the trea­suries (see chapter 5). 78 

Taita 2014, 124–25; Hölscher 2001, 149. Polemon, as cited by Ath. 479f–480a, also lists fine gold and silver items in the trea­sury of Byzantion (Foundation V). 79  Hölscher 2001. Roux (1984, 157) makes the same claim for trea­suries in general: their raison d’être was to h ­ ouse precious statues, especially ­those made of chryselephantine. 80  Hölscher 2001, 147–48. 81  Pausanias also mentions h ­ ere an ash altar dedicated to Gaia, where once was an oracle to the same deity, and an altar to Themis (5.14.10). No trace of t­ hese remains is vis­i­ble save a stone staircase. The small (3.88m long × 3.94m wide)



The Archaic Period83

THESAUROI: ARCHITECTURAL SCULPTURE The size, style, and workmanship of a number of late archaic and early classical sculptures recovered from Olympia suggest that they once decorated trea­sury pediments or roofs as akroteria, but attempts to link the sculptures with specific trea­suries usually are inconclusive. An exception to this is the limestone Gigantomachy (Fig. 2.10),82 a common theme for architectural sculpture in the ­later sixth ­century (cf. the west pediment of the ­Temple of Apollo at Delphi of c. 510 B.C.), which once filled the Megarian Trea­sury’s south pediment (0.77m high × 5.70m wide).83 The composition, fragmentary though it is, is dominated by the central figure of Zeus wielding a thunderbolt as he strides to our right, while Athena (or Apollo) and Herakles attack opponents on ­either side of Zeus.84 Pausanias rec­ords that an inscribed shield on the pediment declared the trea­sury as the product of war spoils from Corinth (6.19.13),85 but the inscription now on the architrave is of the Hellenistic period.86 Some archaic terracotta figural sculptures are recognizable as architectural ornament for the trea­suries on the basis of clay type and size,87 or can be associated with a given clay roof, which, in turn, sometimes can be linked with a trea­sury.88 At least Building B with a porch and one room with a central base (presumably for a cult statue) postdates the ‘Heraion’ since a roof tile fragment in its Bauschutt belongs to the ‘Heraion.’ The building had been associated with the cults of Eileithyia and Sosipolis, but the discovery of their sanctuary on the north side of Kronos Hill obviates ­these ­earlier conjectures (Sinn 2004a, 85; Mallwitz 1972, 156). Heiden (1995, 147) proposes that B may belong to a trea­sury of Kroton or Paestum and dates the foundations to the mid-­sixth ­century B.C. Another structure is partially covered by the ­later exedra belonging to the Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus and was no longer vis­i­ble to Pausanias, according to Sinn (2004a, 84–85). 82  Ridgway (1993, 299) casts doubt on this interpretation and posits instead that the pediment depicts a scene from “Megara’s mythical past.” 83  Bol 1974. The pedimental architecture was reconstructed by Herrmann (1974). 84  Surprisingly l­ ittle has been written about the sculpture of the Megarian Trea­sury. Marconi (2006, 167) suggests Apollo rather than Athena; see also Bookidis 1967, 98–100; Treu 1897, 5–15, Taf. I–­IV:1–2. 85  Legon (1981, 64, 144–45) discusses the accuracy of Pausanias’ account of the Corinth war spoils. On the shield and its relationship to the Gigantomachy theme below, see Marconi 2006, 167–68. 86  Treu 1897, 5. 87 ­ These include sphinxes (Moustaka 1993, 104–15), h ­ uman heads (Moustaka 1993, 98–103; Danner 1989, 90), and a ­running Gorgon (Moustaka 1993, 149; Danner 1989, 21 no. 136, 31 nos. 241–43). Marconi (2007, 216–18) proposes that the building ornamented by the Gorgoneion may have been a dedication of “Greek Sicilians” (217). Terracotta disk akroteria exist, as well (Danner 1989, 10, 34). 88  Similarity of clay composition can provide links between terracotta sculptures and trea­sury roofs. A reclining lion of c. 580 B.C., for example, prob­ably filled the pediment of the trea­sury of Metaponto (Foundation X). See Heiden 1995, 82; Moustaka 1993, 159. A female head may be part of an akroterion of the trea­sury of Gela (Foundation XII) based on the similarity of its clay to that of the trea­sury’s roof, but it is not entirely clear that she is an akroterion at all (Moustaka 1993, 98–100, 160). More promising is a terracotta h ­ orse, whose clay and paint also are similar to ­those of the roof of the Geloan Trea­sury, and is stylistically con­temporary with it, c. 540/530 B.C.; the ­horse may have crowned the building as the central akroterion. See Moustaka (1993, 126–30, 160, 166), who also acknowledges that it might have served as a free-­standing dedication instead. We also possess several additional akroteria of Nikai ranging in date from c. 530/520 to c. 490 B.C. (Moustaka 1993, 64–97). Although they cannot be linked conclusively to any building, trea­sury or other­wise, the clay of one group of Nikai seems to match that of one trea­sury roof (Moustaka 1993, 81, 161). Terracotta base fragments seem to comprise a m ­ iddle akroterion (the form is comparable to t­ hose of the Zeus-­Ganymede group, Pl. 15, and the Athena-­Giant group), but of what date and to which building it belonged

84

Chapter 2

Fig. 2.11. Satyr and maenad akroteria (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Tc3529, Tc1048) from the trea­suries. Terracotta, H 12cm, 14cm, respectively. Photo: author.

three terracotta groups—­perhaps akroteria—of a satyr grabbing a resisting nymph dated stylistically c. 535–500 B.C. survive (Fig. 2.11).89 One of ­these satyr-­maenad groups,90 together with a Nike of similar style and technical treatment,91 may comprise a group of akroteria of a west Greek trea­sury.92 An akroterion group of Athena quashing a g­ iant of c. 500–480 B.C. may have comprised part of another Gigantomachy, perhaps flanked by Nikai as side akroteria,93 adorning a trea­sury, although which nothing can be said (Moustaka 1993, 152). Moustaka (1993, 153–57) cata­logues and discusses additional unidentifiable architectural and figural fragments. 89  Moustaka 1993, 46–55, 160; Danner 1989, 24 nos. 151–52, 27 no. 166. Schilbach (1982, 34) interprets the fragments as belonging to a single group and raises—­very tentatively—­the possibility that it might belong to the trea­sury of Selinus. Moustaka, however, divides the fragments among three distinct groups. Danner (1997, 55–57) dates the figures c. 520–500. 90  Olympia, Archaeological Museum T 3529. 91  Olympia K181, Tc1071. 92  Hatzi 2008, 169; Danner 1997, 54–55. And possibly a female head (without inventory number), as well: Danner 1997, 90 no. E24. 93  Moustaka 1993, 65, 162–64. On the Nikai, see Moustaka 1993, 65–74.



The Archaic Period85

Fig. 2.12. Reconstruction of trea­sury with akroteria of Nikai flanking Athena fighting a ­giant. By A. Mallwitz from Moustaka 1993, Taf. 15. Courtesy of DAI.

building is uncertain (Fig. 2.12).94 We should also mention the remarkable group of Zeus abducting Ganymede, who holds a rooster in his arms (Pl. 15).95 The date assigned to this last group, c. 470 B.C., is based solely on style, which is now considered 94 

Moustaka 1993, 10–25; Danner 1989, 24 no. 153. Marconi (2006, 167) proposes to place ­these on the Megarian Trea­sury so that the theme of the Gigantomachy is redoubled on pediment and central akroterion. 95  Olympia, Archaeological Museum T1. Moustaka 1993, 42–45, Taf. 33–39.

86

Chapter 2

Peloponnesian, possibly Corinthian. The triangular form of the group’s base indicates that it once crowned a roof as a central akroterion, and the rebuilt Sikyonian Trea­sury might be a suitable venue for it since the structure was rebuilt c. 480 B.C. Some of the trea­suries certainly had limestone sculptures, including warriors in action, ­horses and riders, the hindquarters of a mule, snakes, the torso of a female figure with an accompanying lion, fragments of roosters, and parts of other birds.96 A limestone mule, a hand holding a double-­flute, and parts of a reclining Silen(?) may belong together in a single Dionysiac composition.97 Based on size and stylistic date, it is pos­si­ble to propose matches for some of the limestone sculpture fragments (only a handful are published) to trea­suries. The size of a ­horse, prob­ably topped by a rider and accompanied by a second h ­ orse, makes it best suited to Foundation IV,98 and if the limestone relief figure of the female and lion of the first half of the sixth ­century B.C. ­really depicts Kyrene and her lion, it seems safe to assume that it once belonged to the Trea­sury of Kyrene (Foundation VII?) since the sculptural theme would be a direct reference to the patron city.99 However, the identification of the figure as Kyrene has faced a strong challenge and remains ambiguous.100 While Nikai, h ­ orses, and other animals are typical of archaic and early classical akroteria, the Dionysiac figures—­satyrs and nymphs, Silens, mules, and double-­flutes— in architectural sculpture are remarkable. Dionysiac subjects are not commonly used as architectural sculpture in any medium in mainland or eastern Greece,101 but they are quite common in Etruscan and Magna Graecia t­ emple decoration, suggesting the prevailing influence of western traditions at Olympia, or vice versa.102 Indeed, Danner has suggested that the three groups of maenads resisting satyrs may be of west Greek origin: that two groups (T3529, Fig. 2.11, and T555+T590+T23) served as side and ­middle akroteria for the trea­sury of Selinus (Foundation IX), and that the third (T1048, Fig. 2.11, + T9 + T18) stood atop the building on Foundation III,103 matches that are based on style and clay type.104 If this assignment of Dionysiac-­themed sculptures 96 

Treu 1897, 15–26. Treu 1897, 18–26. 98  Treu 1897, 16–18. See also Kyrieleis 2013, 12; Heiden (1995, 86, 163), who credits Herrmann with the attribution. 99  Cf. Marconi 2006, 175. 100  See LIMC VI, s.v. Kyrene, 169 no. 14 [M.-­A. Zagdoun]. Chamoux (1953, 378–85) instead proposes a master/ mistress of animals (384–85); see also Treu 1897, 19–21. 101  Cf. Moustaka 1993, 49; Schilbach 1982, 33–34. Cf. the sixth-­century B.C. limestone pediment from the south slope of the Akropolis (Athens, National Museum 3131). See Kaltsas 2001, 46 no. 37. 102  Danner 1997, 147; Moustaka 1993, 49. See, e.g., the antefixes from the ­temple of Apollo at Falerii or ­those from Satricum of the early fifth c­ entury B.C. See Carlucci 2006, 14–15, figs. 1.12–1.13; Carlucci 1998, 61, fig. 75; Attema 1986, 73–85. 103  Danner (1997, 57) refers to this foundation as belonging to Epidamnos b ­ ecause he relies on the identities proposed by Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, but the latter w ­ ere apparently unaware that Foundation II was not standing when Pausanias visited, and thus Epidamnos may have constructed the trea­sury on Foundation IV. 104  Danner 1997, 55–57; Mertens-­Horn and Viola 1990, 239–40. Moustaka (1993, 49–51, 82) argues firmly against a west Greek origin and sees them as mainland Greek. 97 



The Archaic Period87

Fig. 2.13. Altar of Artemis, Olympia, sixth ­century B.C. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-­Olympia-5438 (Alfred Mallwitz).

88

Chapter 2

to the trea­sury of Selinus is correct, it would be intriguing: Pausanias mentions that an akrolithic statue of Dionysos was placed in the trea­sury of Selinus (Foundation IX) before that city was sacked by Carthage in 409 B.C. (6.19.10). Hölscher restores this statue to the central base in the building and views it as the raison d’être for the trea­sury.105 Thus, Dionysos seems to have had special importance for Selinus. T H E A RT E M I S A LTA R While development of the sanctuary was concentrated in the north of the Altis during the archaic period, two notable developments took place south of it. One was the first phase of the Bouleuterion, the southern apsidal structure, constructed in the last quarter of the sixth c­ entury B.C. (see p. 14), which was located near one entry point into the Altis, at least to judge from ­later monuments and ­water lines (Fig. 2.1); Mallwitz raises the possibility that the Bouleuterion was within the Altis in this period (N.B. the northern apsidal structure followed a few years l­ater).106 The second is a small rectangular limestone altar to Artemis, erected in the late sixth or early fifth ­century B.C., which stood in the southeast outside the Altis (Fig. 2.13).107 The altar stood atop black layers whose finds point to a date in the Geometric period, thus we can surmise votive activity preceding the construction of the small altar; ­because the dismantling of the ash altar in the Altis took place in roughly the same period as the ash layer beneath the Artemis altar, one won­ders if ­there was a general refurbishment of altars, specifically ash altars, at Olympia at the same time. When discovered, the Artemis altar was surrounded and nearly covered by an undisturbed black burnt layer, which contained numerous terracotta votives (female protomes and statuettes) and bronze armlets from the early fifth ­century to the second ­century B.C.108 On the north side of the altar is a small cylindrical base with three irregular holes on the upper surface,109 and small pillars of stuccoed limestone stood at the four corners of the altar and flanking its short sides. Two of ­these pillars reveal archaic dedicatory inscriptions in the stucco, that is, they originally belonged to a single larger limestone pillar (inv. 1127) dedicated by Phrynos of Leontini in the late sixth or early fifth ­century B.C.110 In c. 450 B.C., this pillar was divided in two for the altar supports, and one pillar was reinscribed ὁ βωμός [Ἀρτέμ]ιδος (the altar of Artemis). Kyrieleis has suggested that the pillars protected the altar from wagon traffic en route to the Hippodrome,111 105  Hölscher 2001, 148; Schilbach (1982, 33) casually raises the possibility that a terracotta group of a satyr and maenad may also belong to the Selinus Trea­sury since Dionysos appears ­there. 106  Mallwitz 1999b, 258. 107  Heiden 2012; Kyrieleis 1994, 15–16. For a recent summary, see Bocher 2015, 56–58. 108  Heiden 2012; Kyrieleis 2006, 36; Himmelmann 2002, 91–92; Kyrieleis 1994, 15–16, Abb. 19–21. 109  Heiden 2012, 145; Kyrieleis 1994, 15–16, Abb. 18. 110  Inv. 1127; SEG 46, 473, 476, 477; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 94–95 no. 40; Pafumi 2004, 73–74; Kyrieleis 1994, 15–16; Luraghi 1994, 152–53. Cf. Paus. 5.22.7. 111  Kyrieleis 1994, 15.



The Archaic Period89

which is believed to have been in the southeast of the site (although it has not yet been discovered). The wheeled traffic may have been connected with the Agora, which could easily have extended this far in c. 450 when the altar supports w ­ ere added (see chapter 1). In ­either case, we are describing a significant pathway at the southeast of the site in the mid-­fifth ­century B.C. VO T I V E S TAT U E S As discussed in the introduction, votive statues w ­ ere abundant at Olympia and w ­ ere power­ful public markers of athletic and military success and of public esteem in the case of honorific statues. The earliest identifiable location of votive statues at the site may have been just southwest of the Metroon, according to Pausanias. He cites twenty-­ two inscribed statues of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., including two wooden statues—­for Praxidamas of Aigina, boxing victor at the 59th Olympiad (c. 544), and Rhexibios of Opuntion, pankration victor in the 61st (c. 536)—­which he locates close to the pillar of Oinomaos (cf. Paus. 5.20.6–7), identified by some as Building VII,112 in the center of the Altis (Paus. 6.18.7); if ­these two wooden statues ­were the original monuments, as Pausanias claims, then they cannot have stood outside for the duration of their existence but must have been sheltered in some way. Oddly, Pausanias claims that the two wooden statues are the oldest statues of athletic victors, yet the monument of Eutelidas, a Spartan boy victor (Paus. 6.15.8) who scored two victories in the 38th Olympiad (c. 628 B.C.), honors an ­earlier victory; Pausanias reports that the inscription was worn with age. We could suppose that Eutelidas’ statue was erected ­after his victory, as was the case with other, l­ ater statues as evidenced by victors’ lists and inscribed bases (see chapter 4).113 What actually remains of votive statues? Inscribed stone bases are numerous, and we know of some athletic victory statues from inscribed bronze plaques that once ­were attached to the stone bases. The oldest of the latter, written in boustrophedon, commemorates a win by Pantares of Gela in c. 530–520 B.C. as reckoned from his mention in Herodotos 7.154.114 The remaining three are of the fifth and fourth centuries, and the early Hellenistic period, respectively.115 112 

Rambach (2002a) revives an idea first suggested by Wernicke in 1894. But see Brulotte (1994), who dissociates the Pillar of Oinomaos from Building VII and claims instead that the pillar that Pausanias saw once served as a turning post for Stadion I, which terminated close to the ash altar of Zeus. If Brulotte is correct, then the statues w ­ ere placed close to this turning post, but one must still reckon with the prob­lem of the statues’ material and Pausanias seeing them centuries ­after their creation. 113  Cf. Herrmann (1988, 120), who suggests the same. On the portrait statues at Olympia, both athletic victor statues and o ­ thers, see Keesling 2017, 83–99, 221–26. 114  Jünger 2006, 38–39 n. 105; Kunze and Schleif 1937/38, 129–30; IvO 142; SEG 11, 1215; 16, 288; 27, 49; 39, 987, 1822; 40, 382, 838; 42, 396. 115  Kunze and Schleif 1937/38, 129–30; IvO 166 (inv. 691); SEG 14, 358; 16, 288; 39, 1822; 40, 809; 42, 386; and IvO 174 (cf. Paus. 6.8.5, who reports that the statue was made by Myron); SEG 14, 362.

90

Chapter 2

Figs. 2.14a, b. Heads of warriors (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ8), perhaps hoplitodromos participants, c. 490 B.C., marble. H 21cm, H. 25.5cm, respectively. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

The statues that once stood atop inscribed bases survive only in fragments of bronze and stone. Two lifesize helmeted heads of c. 490 B.C., shield fragments, and a right foot, all of Parian marble, belong to warriors (Fig. 2.14a-­b). ­These warriors may have been athletic victory statues for participants in the hoplitodromos;116 parts of a dedication depicting a ­battle,117 perhaps a military victory monument; or depictions of heroes.118 The arm (H 27cm) attributed to one figure (on the basis of similar workmanship, marble type, and size) bears a shield decorated in relief with an image identified as Phrixos on the ram (Fig. 2.15);119 the shield carried by another figure bears feathers carved in relief. The less finished surface of one side of one head suggests that the figure was intended to be seen in profile, facing to the viewer’s right and placed against a wall or back surface of some kind; ­because the athletic victory statues that we know of are free-­standing, the rougher surface suggests that this statue may have belonged to another type of image, one that perhaps was meant to be displayed in an interior space. According to our current knowledge, only the ‘Heraion’ and the trea­suries would be candidates for this purpose. Bearing in mind Hölscher’s proposal regarding 116 

Herrmann 2000, 379; Mallwitz and Herrmann 1980, 138–39; Treu 1897, 29–34, Taf. VI:1–4, 9–10. Contra belonging to one group: Treu 1897, 31–33. 118  Keesling 2017, 84–85. 119  Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ7+inv. II 358b; LIMC VII, s.v. Phrixos, 400 no. 16 [P. Bruneau]; Moustaka 1993, 148; Vojatzi 1982, 32–33; Treu 1879, 30, Abb. 30, Taf. 6.5–6. 117 



The Archaic Period91

Fig 2.15. Marble shield with Phrixos on Helle (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: D-­DAI-­ ATH-­Olympia-0649 (Hermann Wagner).

the trea­suries as repositories for a single principal dedication, one won­ders if ­these two helmeted figures constituted one of ­these monuments. This could explain the rough surface on the side of one head, that is, the group was placed close to a wall. The shield device of Phrixos and the ram, who crossed the Hellespont and traveled on to Colchis, could suggest a connection with the trea­sury of Byzantion. Military victory monuments also appear in the archaic period. An unusual and impor­tant recent find is a limestone base topped by the bronze plinth, the right foot, and the left heel; the inscription on the base states that the work was made by Pelanidas of Aigina and was funded by Byzantion with war spoils (Pl. 3a).120 Judging from the pose, the two-­thirds lifesize statue prob­ably depicted the striding figure of Zeus Keraunios, a bellicose figure, which is typical for military victory monuments at Olympia ­until the second quarter of the fifth ­century B.C. The letter forms of the extant 120 

Olympia, Museum B12800; DNO 1, 405–6 no. 489; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 87–88 no. 33A; BCH 128–29 (2004–5) 1352; SEG 54, 493; 55, 549.

92

Chapter 2

inscription suggest a date in the second half,121 prob­ably the end, of the sixth ­century B.C. or first years of the fifth ­century B.C.122 Hallof, Herrmann, and Prignitz surmise that the base was cleared away when the ­Temple of Zeus was constructed on the basis of the findspot directly in front of, and beneath, the southern Altis wall across from the southwest corner of the t­ emple.123 The pillar reused and reinscribed for the altar of Artemis also supported a statue of Zeus Keraunios (Paus. 5.22.7).124 Beyond the ­actual physical remains, written sources inform us about athletic victory statues, such as that erected for the renowned Olympic victor Milon of Kroton (e.g., Paus. 6.14.5–9; Philostr. VA 4.28).125 Pausanias (5.25.2–4) also rec­ords a Messenian sculptural dedication commemorating a completely dif­fer­ent type of event: the shipwreck of a boys’ chorus en route to Rhegion. We also learn that Evagoras of Messene was the patron of a dedication sculpted by Aristokles of Kydonia, which depicted Herakles combatting the Amazon Hippolyte, and this group must date c. 519–494 B.C.126 A R E T H U S A’ S L E A P : T H E W E ST E R N G R E E K P R E S E N C E AT O LY M P I A The tale of the Alpheios River, the nymph Arethusa, and Syracuse points to a strong link between Olympia and Syracuse, a colony founded by Corinth in c. 734 B.C. (Fig. 1).127 The hunter Alpheios desired and pursued Arethusa near Elis. To avoid him, Arethusa metamorphosed into a spring and fled ­under the sea to Ortygia, the island associated with Syracuse, where she surfaced. Alpheios also transformed into a river, followed in her wake, and fi­nally united with her.128 A variant makes Alpheios’ quarry Artemis, who eluded him by smearing mud on her face and ­those of her followers so that he could not distinguish one female from another at a nocturnal festival at Letrinoi.129 According to Pausanias, the Eleans transferred the goddess’ cult to their polis and worshipped this Artemis in her guise as Alpheia (6.22.10).130 121 

Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 87. Curiously, the two lines are written in dif­fer­ent hands and dif­fer­ent alphabets; the artist’s signature is Aigenetan, the dedicatory inscription is Byzantine. 122  Hallof, Herrmann, and Prignitz 2012, 216–25. 123  Hallof, Herrmann, and Prignitz 2012, 216. 124  See p. 89. 125  On a reconstruction of the statue, see Ghisellini 1988. Pausanias also mentions a chariot group of Evagoras from Lakonia; the group does not include Evagoras himself (6.10.8) and should date in the 540s B.C. (Jünger 2006, 29). 126  Paus. 5.25.11. DNO 1, 262–63 no. 357 notes that the partial inscription on a Parian marble base (inv. 93; IvO 836) may belong to this dedication; Pafumi 2004, 74–75; LIMC I, s.v. Amazones, 593 no. 94 [P. Devambez]. 127  See also Sinn 2004a, 96–97. 128  See schol. ad Hom. Od. 3.489; Ibykos frag. 323; Timaios of Tauromenion: FGrH 566 F41b=Polyb. 12.4d; schol. ad Pind. Nem. 1.1–3; schol. ad Pind. Pyth. 2.12; Strabo 6.2.4 (270); Paus. 5.7.2; Pliny, NH 2.106, 31.30. Larson (2001, 214) claims that the myth is first attested in the Augustan period but omits Ibykos fr. 323, a scholiast on Theokritos, and the extensive account of Strabo 6.2.4. She also discusses Alpheios’ network of associations with Ortygia and Olympia. 129  Telesilla frag. 1; schol. ad Pind. Nem. 1.1–3; schol. ad Pind. Pyth. 2.12; Paus. 6.22.9. For a reading of the myth linking astronomy to latitude navigation between the Peloponnese and Sicily, see Bilić (2008), who would date the myth as early as the eighth ­century B.C. (121). 130 ­ Others also associate Artemis with Ortygia and the fountain ­there (Diod. Sic. 5.3.5).



The Archaic Period93

Among his Olympian odes to Syracusan victors, Pindar sings the praises of the Olympic victor Hagesias, who defeated his opponents in a mule race in 472 or 468; the poet refers to him as one of the Iamidai f­ amily (Ol. 6.6), the renowned f­ amily of seers at Olympia, members of which, in fact, took part, together with the Corinthian Archias, in founding the colony of Syracuse, according to a scholiast of Pindar.131 Archaeology also demonstrates the ties between Olympia and western Greece. The trea­suries built by western Greek cities, discussed above, are only one indication of that region’s vested interested in Olympia; the earliest of t­ hese, the trea­sury of Metaponto, was built c. 580 B.C. The first non-­Peloponnesian Greek victor recorded at the Olympic games is Daippos of Kroton in c. 672 B.C., and the proportion of west Greek victors grew in the succeeding two centuries.132 Small objects, such as fibulae and weapons, originating from the west (though not necessarily dedicated by western Greeks) are especially common votives at Olympia in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.133 Western Greek cities dedicated weapons and armor to Zeus—­booty seized from enemies—­ beginning c. 525–500 B.C. and continuing well into the fifth c­ entury B.C.,134 and we have noted the sculptural dedication from the citizens of Leontini. In addition, the city of Sybaris is cited in one of the earliest (perhaps c. 530–510 B.C.) of the numerous contracts between cities that w ­ ere found and presumably displayed at Olympia, as holes for suspension attest (Fig. 2.16), and one of the earliest proxeny inscriptions (c. 550–510 B.C.) from Olympia may be for a western Greek, perhaps from Sybaris.135 By the late archaic period, Sicilian tyrants ­were clearly ­eager to leave their mark on Olympia as attested by lavish monuments—­both military and athletic—­set up in the Altis. Pausanias (6.19.7) describes a dedication of Gelon and the Syracusans that he saw in the Cartha­ginian Trea­sury, which, as discussed above, was prob­ably the Syracusan Trea­sury standing on Foundation III. The gift consisted of a large statue of Zeus and three linen cuirasses to celebrate a military victory, perhaps led by Hieron (cf. chapter 3).136 According to Pausanias (6.9.4–5), Gelon’s quadriga monument for his chariot-­race victory in 488 B.C., no longer in situ,137 bore a portrait of the tyrant and was inscribed as his dedication,138 which was sculpted by Glaukias of Aigina (cf. Delphi) shortly ­after 131 

Dreher 2013, 249, esp. n. 3; Hornblower 2004, 184–86. Philipp 1994a, 78–79. 133  Baitinger 2015–16. See p. 17 n. 22. 134  E.g., Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 168–70 nos. 125–26, 171–72 nos. 129–30, 181–83 nos. 145–46, 186–87 nos. 152–53, 188–89 nos. 156–57. 135  Inv. B4750. See Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 34–35 no. 6. A fragmentary treaty inscribed on bronze before 493 B.C. mentions Zankle: inv. 328. IvO 24; Luraghi 1994, 138–42; Jeffery and Johnston 1990, 243. On the proxenos decree, see Siewert 2013. 136  Luraghi 1994, 314; Adornato 2013, 83. 137  Eckstein (1969, 57–59) proposed that the monument belongs to a quadratic in situ base at the south of the Altis directly east of the circular base of the figure of Nestor belonging to the ­later Achaian Monument (see chapter 3), but Mallwitz (1972, 60–61) points out that the sizes of the extant blocks are not suitable for this base. See Jünger (2006, 9–12), who summarizes the controversy and accepts Pausanias’ account as an accurate description of the original location of the monuments. 138  Pausanias mistakenly identifies the statue as belonging to a private citizen named Gelon, who shares the same name as the tyrant. See Krumeich 1997, 33, 36; Eckstein 1969, 54. 132 

94

Chapter 2

Fig. 2.16. Treaty between Sybaris and the Serdaians (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B4750), c. 510 B.C., bronze, H 15.7cm, W 8.9cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Gelon’s victory. W ­ hether Gelon, the tyrant of Gela and Syracuse (Hdt. 7.154–56), or a char­i­ot­eer stood inside the chariot box is controversial and is not of immediate concern to us h ­ ere.139 Three Parian marble blocks (only one surviving intact to its original dimensions) inscribed with the signature of Glaukias of Aigina and a partial dedicatory inscription confirm Pausanias’ account (Pl. 16);140 ­these ­were found in the Palaistra and stand now east of the ­later T ­ emple of Zeus.141 Restored, the monument consists of a two-­or three-­level base, at least 3.36m wide and 2.34m deep, with the inscription on two sides. Beddings indicate that the inscription was on the front of a monument with four bronze ­horses so that the lifesize ­horses faced the viewer.142 Jünger believes the monument to be closely connected to Gelon’s seizure of power, his role as leader of the cavalry, and his need to legitimize himself.143 One can easily imagine that the monument enhanced Gelon’s international standing, but ­whether the Geloans ­were impressed or not is another m ­ atter. It is hard to accept that this par­tic­u­lar form, a chariot-­race victory monument, is closely linked to the internal politics of Gela or that viewers at the Panhellenic sanctuary would interpret it in such a way. How would Gelon’s display at 139 

Jünger 2004, 53–54. DNO 1, 438–40 nos. 516–17; Keesling 2017, 86–87; IvO 143. For a recent summary, see Schollmeyer 2001, 15–16; Krumeich 1997, 33–36, esp. n. 81. 141  Olympia inv. 382a–­b; DNO 1, 439–40 no. 517; Eckstein 1969, 54; IvO 143; SEG 11, 1223; 48, 1258. 142  Eckstein 1969, 54–60. Krumeich (1997, 34–35) compares the size of this base to the Polyzalos base at Delphi to posit the size of the sculptures. On the ‘Polyzalos base,’ see now Adornato 2008. 143  Jünger 2006, 39–40. 140 



The Archaic Period95

Fig. 2.17. Reconstruction of the Polyzalos group at Delphi (Delphi, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Olympia have confirmed legitimacy in Gela?144 The size and splendor of this monument (as we know it) provide an index for the many other such monuments that appeared in the Altis during the ­later sixth and early fifth centuries B.C. This was not the first bronze quadriga at the site; that honor belongs to Kleosthenes of Epidamnos, victor in 516 (Paus. 6.10.6), whose group, made by the well-­known sculptor Ageladas, included the patron and the char­i­ot­eer.145 ­These two groups, both erected by western Greeks—­one from Epidamnos, the other from Syracuse—­are the first such groups at Olympia, and—­together with the Polyzalos group at Delphi (Pl. 2, Fig. 2.17), also erected by a western Greek tyrant—­are the first monumental bronze quadriga groups in Greek art ever. E ­ arlier bronze figurines at Olympia, for example, portrayed a chariot, ­horses, and char­i­ot­eer (Fig. 2.18), yet t­ hese are very small, por144 

Cf. Snodgrass 1986, 54. But Keesling (2017, 84–86) suggests that the group may date after 480. Nothing remains of the group, but the naming of Ageladas as sculptor suggests a bronze group since the craftsman’s name is known elsewhere in association with bronze works. See DNO 1, 359–71, esp. 364–66 no. 460; Jünger 2006, 34. Jünger (2006, 35) tentatively suggests that this group may have stood on the base later embedded in the Roman gate. 145 

96

Chapter 2

table votives, and we have single marble riders from the archaic Athenian Akropolis; ­these may have been components of groups but t­ hese h ­ orses ­were not yoked together, and instead ridden by single riders. ­These western equestrian monuments ­were clearly designed to impress and convey the power of the western cities. OTHER SCULPTURE In addition to athletic victory monuments, inscribed votive columns topped by statues dotted the sanctuary at Olympia in the sixth ­century though none are in situ. Some are marble examples,146 while ­others are of limestone.147 Terracotta sculpture not only adorned buildings, for example, akroteria on the thesauroi, but also constituted free-­standing non-­architectural sculpture as indicated by the size and pose of surviving figures. For example, a terracotta warrior, H 1.05m, dated stylistically to c. 490–470, is one of a group of combatting warriors, which comprised a free-­standing votive group (Pls. 17a-­b),148 almost certainly h ­ oused indoors. Moustaka suggests that it may have stood where the T ­ emple of Zeus was l­ ater constructed,149 which is probable (cf. the bronze by Pelanidas of Fig. 2.18. Chariot group (Olympia, ArchaeoAigina dedicated by Byzantion discussed above, logical Museum B1670), eighth ­century B.C., and see chapter 3).150 bronze, H 13.5cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette. 146  E.g., the Parian marble column (inv. 405) dedicated to Zeus by the sons of Thrasymachos in the second half of the sixth c­ entury B.C. See Löhr 2000, 19–20 no. 15; Heilmeyer et al. 2012, 428; Herrmann 1984; IvO 272. Cf. Olympia inv. 995 + 763 (IvO 273), an inscription from a dif­fer­ent dedication at Olympia by the sons of Thrasymachos. 147  E.g., the pillar and statue (inv. 1022) made by an Aiginetan sculptor, perhaps Onatas, and dedicated by Pythion of Byzantion. Its letter forms place it c. 525 B.C., according to Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 91–92 no. 35. See p. 110 n. 22. 148  Moustaka (1993, 26–41, 165, 167) notes that they could have stood in a pediment but acknowledges that t­ here was no suitable building at this time. 149  Moustaka 1993, 33. 150  Fragments of late sixth-­century B.C. terracotta helmets and shields belonging to warriors are mostly too fragmentary to allow categorization as ­either free-­standing or architectural (see Moustaka 1993, 56–63). In addition, a terracotta bird existed as a dedication, although where is unknown (Moustaka 1993, 116–17, 166). Pos­si­ble candidates for architectural sculpture of terracotta include fragments of a boar, perhaps belonging to a depiction of the Kalydonian boar hunt, of the third quarter of the sixth ­century B.C. Reliefs of Gorgons and a rider from the last quarter of the sixth ­century may have formed part of a frieze or metopes. See Moustaka 1993, 137–39, 146–47, 160, 166.



The Archaic Period97

D I S I E C TA M E M B R A : T H E C H E ST O F KY P S E LO S A N D O T H E R E X T R AO R D I N A RY O B J E C T S Among the thousands of small-­scale votive sculptures, armor, weapons,151 and tripods dedicated by Greek cities and o ­ thers in the archaic period are costly and unusual items worthy of note. Three free-­standing sphyrelata are extraordinary in combining material from dif­fer­ent time periods and origins:152 reused north Syrian bronze reliefs of the ninth c­ entury B.C. w ­ ere joined with bronze sheets of Greek origin of the second quarter of the seventh ­century to create figures, prob­ably female deities, in Daidalic manner (H 1.60m for one of them, H c. 1.20m for the other two; Figs. 11a-­b).153 The style of the renderings and the construction technique of the sphyrelata point to a Cretan craftsmen.154 In addition, more than a dozen silver strips with silver nails survive of a large sphyrelaton corresponding to the size of the silver bull found at Delphi (Pl. 18), and consequently, the silver strips—­other­wise undatable—­are placed in the first half of the sixth ­century B.C. It is pos­si­ble that the Olympia silver strips belonged to a large bull, as well, perhaps the dedication by Corcyra mentioned by Pausanias (5.27.9).155 Sphyrelata, especially ­those of silver, had to have been ­housed indoors, possibly in one of the trea­suries;156 a trea­sury of Corinth might be a possibility since Corcyra was a Corinthian colony. The Kypselids, tyrants of Corinth, made at least two costly dedications at Olympia (cf. Pl. Phdr. 236b). Pausanias (5.17.5–5.19.10), as well as Dio Chrysostom (11.45), saw the extraordinary chest of Kypselos in the ‘Heraion’; by Pausanias’ time, the ­temple had attained the status of a kind of repository for votives from the Altis (see chapter 5).157 The chest was dedicated by Kypselos (r. 657–627),158 or, more likely, his immediate descendants, at Olympia.159 Pausanias offers a lengthy description of a larnax of cedar with relief images and inlaid figures of ivory and gold with their names inscribed (cf. Dio Chrys. 11.45). Considering its materials, this luxurious container had 151  The weapons and armor began to be dedicated at Olympia already by the late eighth c­ entury B.C. See Frielinghaus 2010. 152  Kyrieleis 2008; Guralnick 2004; Borell and Rittig 1998; Kunze 1994. 153  Borell and Rittig (1998, 206–7) write that the sex of the figures, which they describe as deities, cannot be determined, but Kyrieleis (2008, 177–78) describes them as female. On the original objects to which the Syrian bronze sheets belonged, see Seidl 2017; Guralnick 2004. Kyrieleis (2008) also attributes a bronze relief (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 6444) to the front panel of the garment of a female sphyrelaton (H c. 90cm) of the late seventh ­century and ascribes it to an east Greek, perhaps Samian, workshop (182, 190); and assigns a bronze sheet formed into the front of a head (B5099) and worked in the Ionic, prob­ably Samian, style to a sphyrelaton (185–90). 154  Borell and Rittig 1998, 206. 155  Baitinger 2010, 128–29. 156  Baitinger 2010, 130. 157  Krumeich (2008, 77 n. 24) collects the bibliography to which one can add Arafat 1995. 158  Snodgrass 2001, 128. 159  Löhr 2000, 10; Car­ter (1989) advocates Periander as the donor; Salmon 1984, 228.

98

Chapter 2

to have been kept indoors, but it could not have been placed in the ‘Heraion’ at the time of its dedication since it predates the ­temple, which was constructed c. 600 B.C.160 The only buildings early enough to h ­ ouse such a fragile object w ­ ere some of the trea­suries: certainly the trea­sury of Sikyon (Foundation I) and possibly Foundations II, IV, and VII, whose dates are not established. A logical place would be a trea­sury of Corinth, and this would also fit Hölscher’s hypothesis about a key object serving as the impetus for constructing the trea­ suries. Pausanias does not mention a trea­sury erected by Corinth, but Thucydides (1.121) mentions Corinthian funds stored at Olympia, and I think one can make a compelling case for such a structure on one of the unassigned foundations. We know that Kypselos dedicated a trea­sury in Delphi (Hdt. 1.14; Paus. 10.13.5; cf. Plut. Mor. 399F), so such an occurrence is imaginable at Olympia.161 I am not the first to make such a proposal: Heiden, for instance, suggested that one of the two seventh-­century Corinthian roofs mentioned above belonged to a Corinthian trea­sury, which he would place on Foundation A,162 close to the area of the ash altar,163 and the date of the structure, which Heiden places in the second half of the seventh ­century B.C., would be ideal (Fig. 2.8). However, Corinthian roofs ­were used on at least four structures from the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. at Olympia,164 so the origin of the roof alone should not determine the identification of the city that erected the building.165 But Foundation A offers an attractive possibility for the display place of the chest ­because of its date in the second half of the seventh ­century B.C., coeval with the chest itself. Construction of the first trea­sury, that of Sikyon, near it could be read as an effort at one-­upmanship since Corinth and Sikyon w ­ ere enemies at the time, precisely the kind of competition commonly observed among both elite individuals and poleis in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.166 Pausanias provides a lengthy description of the larnax’s decoration but does not specify its shape, which has prompted scholars to devote extensive discussions to reconstructions: ­earlier scholars prefer a rectangular shape,167 while Splitter ­favors a cylindrical form.168 Something with flat sides is most probable considering the technique 160  Massa-­Pairault (2006, 44) assumes it to have been deposited in the ‘Heraion’ at the time of its dedication. Borg (2011, 81) claims a communis opinio of 580s–570s B.C. for the chest. 161  Jacquemin 1999, 143. 162  See Heiden 1995, 12–18, 161, 168; Mallwitz 1972, 155; Adler 1892, 139, Taf. LXXXIII. 163  Baumeister 2012, 84; Heiden 1995, 161. 164  Heiden 1995, 168. 165  Winter (1997, 795) also expresses skepticism that one of the early roofs belongs to a Corinthian trea­sury. See p. 78 n. 59. 166  E.g., Snodgrass 1986, 54–55. 167  E.g., von Massow 1916. 168  Splitter 2000.



The Archaic Period99

and the likely use of ivory appliqués; while ivory can be rendered in a curving form, ­doing so is difficult and painstaking.169 We might consider ­whether one of the most extraordinary objects recovered from Olympia belongs to the chest: a thin bronze relief of c. 630–620 B.C. depicting a female griffin nursing a baby griffin, which has been attributed to a Corinthian workshop (Pls. 19a-­b). Its size, c. 0.80m square; the nail holes along its entire edge, some still filled with the original nails adhering to bits of wood; and the fact that part of its original wooden backing still adhered to the bronze suggest that it served as architectural ornament, perhaps as a fitting for a metope.170 But to which building could such a piece belong? The only building known to be so early is the Sikyonian Trea­ sury, and this bronze seems too large for a metope on it. ­There may, of course, have been ­earlier structures of wood that no longer survive, but the sculpture may have been destined for another use. At such a scale and from a Corinthian workshop, might this figure have belonged to some portion of the Chest of Kypselos, perhaps the lid, or another object akin to it?171 The theme of the protective griffin ­mother caring for her young would be an ideal fit for the chest: according to legend, Kypselos’ ­mother had hidden her infant son in the chest to secure him from the Bacchiades, who wished to kill the child ­because an oracle had declared that Kypselos would be the ­future king of Corinth. Pausanias explains the chest as a thankoffering dedication of the Kypselids for saving the life of their ancestor. This proposal, of course, demands that the chest be quadrilateral in shape, not round, and that the remnants of wood adhering to the bronze be cedar (they have not been tested to my knowledge). If this is the case, and if the size of the relief gives an approximate size of the lid, such an object would fit in the building that stood atop Foundation A, whose dimensions are 4.67m × 6.10m; the thickness of the northernmost wall is 0.98m.172 One might conjecture that another delicate find from Olympia, a wooden column base, which Mallwitz dated in the seventh c­ entury B.C.,173 served as one of the supports for the chest’s (rounded) wooden legs. ­There is no question that the small, thin column shaft could not have served a structural function, and its material points to an indoor location.174 One might imagine that it was damaged and repaired, then discarded for some reason, while other supports remained. Pausanias’ description begins with images at the bottom of the larnax and moves upward, and ­because he sees many figures named in Corinthian script, he attributes 169 

Lapatin 2001, 74–78. Herrmann 1972, 87; Hampe and Jantzen 1937, 90–92. 171  Hampe and Jantzen (1937, 91–92) raise this possibility, then discard it. They prefer to see it as belonging to a door panel or a metope. 172  Adler 1892, Taf. LXXXIII. 173  Mallwitz 1982. 174  Mallwitz (1982, 262–67) posited that the base was used for a baldachin, explained its good state of survival to its having been ­under the earth in the seventh ­century, and noted the repair to the base. 170 

100

Chapter 2

the texts to Eumelos of Corinth (5.19.10), an epic poet of the eighth to seventh c­ entury. Surely the date of Eumelos is too early for the chest itself, but it is pos­si­ble that the chest’s text takes inspiration from epic themes known from e­ arlier poetry, among other sources.175 Reconstructions of individual scenes, as well as of the w ­ hole, have been attempted using Corinthian vase painting, shield band reliefs, or other works of art—­ some ­later, some con­temporary—as comparanda, but that effort is not the goal of this study.176 Based on Pausanias’ enumeration of the many mythological themes, scholars have sought a unifying program of the chest’s images. For example, Massa-­Pairault argues that Corinthian politics provides the key to unlocking a unified and highly complex program in the chest’s imagery.177 In that case, many of the allusions that viewers w ­ ere intended to perceive would have been accessible to only a handful of individuals, which seems unlikely considering its location in a Panhellenic sanctuary and its sumptuous materials. Moreover, it is impor­tant to keep in mind the possibility that images ­were repaired or replaced over time. Instead of searching for the key to all mythologies à la Casaubon in George Eliot’s Middlemarch, which may be a phantom—­especially during this time period—it is noteworthy that the imagery contains some clear allusions to Olympia and Corinth. The myths touch on themes impor­tant at Olympia—­ marriage, oracles, warfare, and athletics abound—­and many of the figures involved have close associations with Olympia and ­later monuments: Apollo, Herakles, Oinomaos, and Pelops. Other myths have closer alliances with Corinth—­Jason and Medea, for example. One could object that any compendium of myths w ­ ill have some general themes that could be applicable for many sites in the Greek world. But it is the conglomeration of ­these par­tic­u­lar themes that binds the chest to its location at Olympia. On the lowest register, for example, are Eriphyle offering the necklace to her husband, the seer Amphiaraos, and the Boreadai chasing Harpies away from the Thracian seer, Phineus, myths that could allude to the oracle at Olympia. The presence of the funeral games for Pelias (in which Amphiaraos competed)178 may refer to the tradition that Pelias organized the Olympic athletic games (Paus. 5.8.3). Herakles, Zeus’ son, fighting the Hydra and Oinomaos’ chariot race against Pelops, who holds Hippodameia, appear as well; both of ­these myths w ­ ere depicted on the ­later T ­ emple of Zeus (see chapter 3). The chariot-­race myth of Oinomaos and Pelops, one of the founding legends of the Olympic games (Pind. Ol. 1.67–88), is rarely depicted at any time in Greek art 175 

In defense of Eumelos as a source, see Debiasi 2005. The organ­ization of the imagery remains uncertain: although it is generally accepted that the images ­were arranged in long horizontal strips, discussion persists about ­whether the themes ­were ­limited to a single side or traveled part of the way or all around the chest. This issue is not critical to the work h ­ ere nor do I think it can be resolved based on our current knowledge. For previous studies of the arrangement of images, see Myres (1946), who believed the images to be rendered as bronze reliefs. 177  Massa-­Pairault 2006. 178  Stesichoros frag. 178 (Ath. 4.172e). 176 



The Archaic Period101

(see chapter 3). If Pausanias is correct in his identification of this myth—­and b ­ ecause the names w ­ ere inscribed, I think t­ here can be no doubt—­and if this segment belongs to the original decoration (and was not added l­ ater), then the Kypselos chest constitutes the earliest attestation of this myth in antiquity and would also be the earliest association of Pelops with Olympia, which is impor­tant; it links the hero to Olympia already in the l­ater seventh c­ entury B.C.,179 ­earlier than the early sixth-­century date posited for the introduction of his cult at the site. The ornate chest is not the only Kypselid dedication at Olympia.180 A gold bowl, inscribed in Corinthian script, of c. 625–550 B.C. was part of the war booty that Corinth gained from Herakleia (location uncertain) (Pl. 20),181 and several ancient authors refer to a colossal golden statue of Zeus dedicated by the Kypselids or Kypselos, whose fame stretched over many centuries,182 located in the ‘Heraion.’183 CONCLUSION Archaic Olympia was marked by enormous growth in terms of visitors and building, including the first monumental architecture. New cults ­were introduced, and complex religious dynamics demanded the movement of altars. ­Because so many questions remain about Olympia and the date and placement of its monuments in the archaic period, it is difficult to speak of interrelations between dedications. We have a clear view of the general development of the site during this time, even if specifics cannot be fixed. We know that the trea­suries ­were ornamented with brilliantly covered terracotta architectural decoration, as well as architectural sculpture of terracotta and sometimes limestone. The choice of architectural images—­standard for the sixth ­century, such as Gorgons, sphinxes, and so on—­also includes themes and objects whose style and subject ­matter, such as Dionysiac figures, are more at home in western Greece than on the mainland. And the Gigantomachy, while used elsewhere, takes on special meaning in the sanctuary of Zeus, who led the gods against the would-be usurpers of his domain. 179 

In addition, this occurrence would offer a refutation to historians who claim that Pisa did not exist as an entity ­ ntil the fourth ­century B.C. If this ­were so, why would Oinomaos be in conflict with Pelops of Elis on the chest, and u how can we explain the Olympic victors of the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., who are from Pisa (­either a region or a polis)? See bibliography and discussion in Kõiv 2013, esp. 330–32; Nielsen 2007, 37–43. 180  Cf. Pl. Phdr. 236b. 181  Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 21.1843; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 217–18 no.  201; Löhr 2000, 9–10 no.  3; Byvanck-­Quarles van Ufford 1967, 31–32; SEG 1, 94; 11, 1201; 14, 302; 42, 379. 182  On the statue, see Strabo 8.3.30, 8.6.20; Paus. 5.2.3; Servais 1965. Plutarch (De Pyth. or. 400d–­e) recounts that ­after the downfall of the Kypselids, the Corinthians wanted the object’s patronage reassigned to the polis itself; the Olympian officials refused but the trea­sury at Delphi was reinscribed. For a discussion of the significance of ­these actions and the impact of the statue’s epigram on ­later generations, see Gagné 2016, 65–78. The emphasis is on the fall of a power­ful dynasty. 183  Agaklytos: FGrH 411 F 1; Apollas: FGrH 266 F 5 refers to the statue as a sphyrelaton.

102

Chapter 2

We must imagine free-­standing athletic victory statues—­the first of this genre—of wood, marble, and bronze as suggested by Pausanias and by the a­ ctual remains known to us, as well as free-­standing terracotta groups, such as the warrior discussed above. Warfare is a recurrent motif at Olympia in terms of small-­scale votives (both ­earlier and con­temporary) and the tropaia, and the terracotta warriors fit well into this context. Considering the l­imited space of the Altis with the g­ reat concentration of its monuments and the ash altar in the north, the most likely display place for such images would have been further south, perhaps in the large area covered by the l­ater classical ­Temple of Zeus, a space that offered proximity to the northern part of the Altis yet did not interfere with the area and activities of the Stadion or ash altar. Tyrants ruled in Argos, Sikyon, Megara, Corinth, Athens, Samos, the Greek colonies in Sicily, and elsewhere in the sixth ­century B.C., and many left their mark on Olympia, as they did on local and Panhellenic sanctuaries. As one might expect, Olympia was a recipient of this munificence from some—­but not all—­tyrants; although Olympia’s reputation was high within the Mediterranean world, archaeological and written evidence indicates that Peloponnesian and western Greek tyrants, that is, tyrants from the Dorian world, w ­ ere donors. Some may have taken inspiration from eastern rulers, such as Kroisos of Lydia, who made sumptuous dedicatory gifts at numerous sanctuaries, including the Artemision at Ephesos and the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. As we s­ hall see in the next chapter, tyrants continued to erect impressive, arresting monuments at Olympia, and they ­were joined by poleis victorious in ­battle, who commemorated their successes, both singly and jointly, with over-­lifesize bronze sculptures. As the games expanded, so did the sanctuary with additional buildings, including a new ­temple, and many new monuments.



The Archaic Period103

3 THE FIF TH C ­ E N T U RY B .C . *

By contrast with the archaic period, fifth-­century Olympia is far easier to ‘map’ b ­ ecause of an abundance of written sources and archaeological evidence and the absence of knotty topographical prob­lems, such as that concerning the ‘Heraion,’ Pelopion, and ash altar. The fifth ­century B.C., particularly the second quarter, marks the moment of a radical alteration of the sanctuary at Olympia. This included the expansion of building inside and outside the Altis, as well as a reor­ga­ni­za­tion and lengthening of the Olympic games from two to five days, together with the addition of new events, changes perhaps prompted by Elis’ synoikism of the region c. 472–471 B.C. The literal and visual terrain within the Altis changed markedly over the c­ entury with a growth of athletic and military victory monuments of bronze, gilt bronze, or marble sculptures; military tropaia; the construction of the T ­ emple of Zeus c. 470–456 and its phenomenal cult statue in c. 430; and the construction of the last of the trea­suries just ­after c. 480. In addition, the Stadion was enlarged and shifted eastward c. 460–450 (Stadion III), its supporting hill was revamped to provide additional seating, the Hellanodikai received seating on the south embankment, and an offering place was established on the north embankment where the altar of Demeter Chamyne now stands.1 The Bouleuterion expanded in the wake of an earthquake in 464 B.C. to include the small structure, usually called a temenos, between the two apsidal halls (where the Zeus Horkios statue may have stood), as well as the columned hall at the east, which unites all three ele­ments of this complex.2 This chapter begins with an examination of the in situ votive bases that stood in the Altis just ­after the Persian Wars, before and during the construction of the ­Temple * 

Some parts of this chapter ­were previously published. I am grateful to Carol Stein at Hesperia for granting permission to reproduce part of Barringer 2005. 1  Schilbach 2012, 282; Schilbach 1992, 34–37; Herrmann 1972, 163–66, 256 n. 647. Herrmann explains the Stadion’s displacement from the Altis as evidence of a disconnection of the games from their religious function. On the Hellanodikai, see Zoumbaki 2001, 138–44. 2  Dated to the mid-­fifth ­century B.C. on the basis of the pottery found beneath the south side of the hall (van de Löcht 2013, 273–74). Terracotta architectural decoration and a Lakonian roof ­were recovered as well (Heiden 1995, 70–73). Partida (2016, 301–2) and Herrmann (1972, 170) place the colonnaded hall in the fourth ­century B.C. while acknowledging the controversy regarding its date.

104

of Zeus. The next section treats renovations made at Olympia in c. 472–470, including the inception of the T ­ emple of Zeus and its sculptures. We then consider changes to depictions of Zeus at fifth-­century B.C. Olympia; t­ hese changes reflect profound alterations in the perception of the god and his role at the site. The chapter concludes with a brief review of other noteworthy monuments, including west Greek contributions. While our knowledge is still l­ imited with regard to some questions, fifth-­century Olympia is a mine of information compared to its sixth-­century incarnation. PA RT I : VO T I V E STAT U E B A S E S I N S I T U Free-­standing sculptural monuments w ­ ere numerous at Olympia both before and a­ fter the Persian Wars. To judge from Pausanias’ account and archaeological finds, we know that victory monuments, dedications from both athletic and military victors (including t­hose in the Persian Wars) as thankofferings to Zeus, flanked the pro­cessional routes into the Altis, which can be established on the basis of the extant w ­ ater channels that lined them:3 from the south, past the Bouleuterion then into the Altis, and from the west, along the south and then turning into the Altis where the southern route met it (Fig. 3.1).4 Pausanias mentions dozens of monuments for victories prior to the 476 B.C. games, and a number of ­these inscribed bases are extant.5 Of ­those whose original placement is known, a handful can be dated c. 485–470 B.C. One rare instance where part of the ­actual bronze statue survives, along with the three-­step base in its entirety, is the lifesize bronze steer dedicated by the Eretrians c. 480–479 B.C.,6 perhaps as a thankoffering from the Persian Wars (Pls. 21a-­b, Fig. 3.2);7 a horn and ear of the steer have been found (Pl. 21b),8 and ­these provide some idea of the original splendor of such dedications. The accumulation and placement of monuments during c. 485–470 B.C. are intriguing: the in situ bases, such as ­those of the Eretrian steer and the Praxiteles Monument of 484–480 B.C. (its function is unknown),9 indicate a definite pattern r­ unning along the southern end of the Altis and along the western part of the northern route within the Altis, that is, precisely tracing two sides of the area in which the t­emple 3 

Dörpfeld 1897, 77 Mappe VI. For the problematic topic of walls and gates, see Mallwitz 1972, 120–22; Dörpfeld 1897, 69–73. 5  Herrmann (1988) collects the athletic victory monuments, both t­ hose still extant and ­those mentioned only by Pausanias, offers dates, and singles out the one still in situ: that of Telemachos of c. 292 B.C. (167 no. 129; Paus. 6.13.11). See p. 196, Fig. 4.23. 6  Inv. 118; DNO 1, 542–43 nos. 635–36; IvO 248; SEG 12, 216; Eckstein 1969, 50–53; Dörpfeld 1897, 87; Furtwängler 1890, 12. Taf. IV: 4. 4a. 7  Eckstein 1969, 119 n. 10; Gauer 1968, 108. 8  Olympia, Archaeological Museum Br 912 (M 888). Bol 1978, 31–32, 77, 112 no. 134, Taf. 24–26. 9  Eckstein 1969, 61–64. 4 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.105

Fig. 3.1. Plan of Altis c. 400 B.C. with in situ bases. Digital drawing by Hans R. Goette from Herrmann 1972, 107, Abb. 74 and Kyrieleis 2002. Karte (H. Birk).

l­ater stood (Fig. 3.1).10 The monuments within the Altis ­were oriented to the east (except the votive Eretrian steer, of which more below), perhaps staggered in two or three parallel rows r­ unning north-­south, and monuments are known only on the west side of the north-­south route, and on the south side of the southern route.11 Why w ­ ere they ­here, and not just everywhere or anywhere, or on both sides of the routes, and why ­were they oriented to the east? Based on the pattern exhibited at hundreds of other sites, one might surmise that an ­earlier t­ emple, perhaps several e­ arlier ­temples, once existed on the spot of the l­ ater ­Temple of Zeus and so the bases would frame the ­earlier structure. But exploratory excavation beneath a small part of the t­ emple revealed no trace of a pre­de­ces­sor,12 and 10 

Cf. Hyde 1912, 220. Contra: Hyde (1912, 212–13) locates some of the bases north of the southern route. 12  Herrmann 1972, 92; Mallwitz 1972, 95; Dörpfeld 1935, 213; Dörpfeld 1892d, 5. Lehmann-­Hartleben (1923/1924, 47; 1927, 389) posits an archaic pre­de­ces­sor to the ­Temple of Zeus but acknowledges that it has not been found. A thorough investigation is badly needed. 11 

106

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.2. Eretrian steer base. Photos: Hans R. Goette.

no attestation, written or material, indicates how this area was used before the ­temple stood ­here.13 Why are the monuments placed in this odd L-­shaped formation? I think the answer is ­simple: they ­weren’t. I think that the area now covered by the t­emple was filled with many more such monuments, such as the terracotta warrior discussed in chapter 2 (Pls. 17a-­b), ranged in parallel rows facing east, and that ­these monuments ­were prob­ably moved to make room for the ­temple.14 But this still would not explain why the monuments face east or northeast, rather than northwest, which is where the altar (­whether the ash altar or the stone altar of the ‘Heraion’) was located. By examining the individual in situ votives with an eye to their form, theme, placement, and date, and their siting within the Altis, together with the con­temporary activities that occurred in the Altis, we can answer this question. If we consider them in the context of Olympia’s other votives, particularly military victory offerings, we can hypothesize how and why con­temporary viewers ­were meant to engage with ­these monuments both before and ­after the ­Temple of Zeus was 13 

Herrmann (1972, 32–36), among ­others, would locate ­here the sacred grove from which olive crowns ­were created. 14  Cf. Bol 1978, 2. Eckstein (1969, 104–5 n. 11) speculates that a third row of votives, a line marked by the Praxiteles Base, may have been destroyed when the ­Temple of Zeus was constructed in c. 470–456 B.C. Hyde (1912, 213, 220) would place some athletic victory statues in this area, which w ­ ere moved when the ­temple was built.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.107

Figs. 3.3a, b, c. Achaian Monument: a: view of the curving base from east with single circular base of Nestor in the foreground; b: view of the curving base from southeast; c: view of Nestor’s base. Photos: Hans R. Goette.

completed. Let us first examine the monuments still in situ. Naturally, this includes only ­those monuments that have been published as in situ; o ­ thers exist and are u ­ nder 15 study for f­ uture publication.

The Achaian Monument The Achaians dedicated the Achaian Monument in the southeast of the Altis to the west of the north-­south path leading into the temenos. Over-­lifesize, free-­standing bronze figures stood on a long, curved base facing east and turned slightly to the north, that is, t­ oward the open area south of the Stadion and ash altar. Pausanias’ account (5.25.8–10) can be paired with the extant remains: poros foundations and part of two of the three levels of the curving base, which was truncated at the north end (including the foundations), and opposite it, a circular base of the same composition and height (Fig. 3.3a-­c).16 Together, the extant remains and Pausanias’ account indicate that the monument originally depicted nine Achaian heroes, including Odysseus, Agamemnon, and Idomeneos, armed with shields and spears, standing on the curving base. They drew lots from the helmet of Nestor, who stood on the circular base 6.55m opposite them, to determine who would meet Hektor in single combat (cf. Hom. Il. 7.160–89).17 Pausanias also mentions seeing the inscribed name of Onatas of Aigina, the sculptor, on Idomeneos’ shield. By the time that Pausanias visited Olympia, the statue of Odysseus was already gone, having been taken by Nero to Rome, according to the periegete (see chapter 5); presumably, Odysseus stood on the now missing northernmost portion of the base, and when the monument was complete, Nestor was roughly centered with re­spect to the curved part of the monument,18 perhaps across from Agamemnon,19 whose inscribed name is preserved on two limestone blocks.20 The inscription on the monument, according to Pausanias (5.25.10), reads: “To Zeus, t­ hese images w ­ ere dedicated by the Achaians, descendants of Pelops, the godlike descendant of Tantalos.” Scholars usually date the monument before the ­Temple of Zeus, perhaps just a­ fter 480 B.C. b ­ ecause of the attribution of the sculpture to Ona15 

This large proj­ect is being carried out by a team led by Dr. Christina Leypold at the Universität Zu­rich. Eckstein 1969, 27–32. 17  Among o ­ thers, Deubner (1988) discusses the possibility that the Riace bronzes stood on ­these foundations and reconsiders the monument’s date. Harrison (1985, 48–55) also entertains this possibility and ­favors a date for the monument in the 450s B.C. for precisely this reason. W ­ hether the Riace bronzes, ­either both or only one, did or did not form part of the Achaian Monument is not germane to the discussion ­here and cannot be resolved given the pre­sent state of the evidence. 18  Eckstein 1969, 29. 19  Bumke 2004, 169. Contra: Harrison (1985, 51) would place Agamemnon at the north end of the base. 20  Leypold discusses the monument and the inscription, which was studied by S. Prignitz, ­here: https://­ videotheque​.­efa​.­gr​/­​?­m​=­201906 (accessed March 10, 2020). The relationship of the inscription, which Prignitz dates on the letter forms c. 520–500 B.C., to the creative period of Onatas, usually placed c. 470–465 B.C., is problematic. In addition, while the mea­sure­ment of the inscribed blocks fits perfectly to the preserved monument, their limestone composition does not: the upper steps of the monument are other­wise marble. 16 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.109

tas of Aigina,21 whose name is known from numerous ancient authors (Paus. 6.12.1; 8.42.8–9 credits him with Hieron of Syracuse’s chariot victory monument; see below) and appears on inscribed bases.22 The large Achaian Base frames the open area in front of, and south of, the Stadion, while the solitary figure of Nestor ‘closes’ the group at the east. The siting of Nestor across from the Achaian warriors on his own base at a fair distance is unpre­ce­dented. It is probable that the viewer was intended to walk between the two parts of this monument, to become a part of this ensemble (the spacing and interactive qualities are more typical of the Hellenistic period).23 The occasion for the erection of this dedication is unknown, but its theme, multiple figures, scale, prominence, placement, and expense, and the fact that the warriors ­were armed, according to Pausanias, strongly suggest that the monument commemorated a military victory.24 Leypold points out that the monument signifies the fighting spirit of the Achaians and reminds us that Zeus played a large part in this episode: the warriors prayed to the god before drawing the lots that they had thrown into Nestor’s helmet, and Ajax, having been selected, exhorted his colleagues to pray to Zeus for victory,25 which he bestows in the games and warfare. The Trojan War theme of the Achaian Monument is also unusual. Th ­ ere is a parallel for it, and it occurs at Olympia on another curving base: the Apollonian Monument.

21 

Ajootian (2007); Ajootian (2003, 158–59); DNO 1, 427–29 no. 507; and Bumke (2004, 166) place it in the second quarter of the fifth c­ entury B.C. Mallwitz (1972, 211); Eckstein (1969, 27); and Purgold (1892, 146) date the monument before the construction of the ­Temple of Zeus. Ioakimidou (1997, 82–87, 213–25, esp. 83) puts it c. 460–450 B.C.; Walter-­Karydi (1987, 28–29) assigns it to the 450s B.C. on the basis of its similarity to the east pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus (though she does not explain why the train of influence must go in this direction, rather than the pediment taking its inspiration from the Achaian Monument); Dörig (1977, 21) ­favors the period of Onatas’ floruit, which he places c. 470–460 B.C.; and Jacob-­Felsch (1969, 32), singularly, dates it to the end of the sixth ­century B.C. 22  See, e.g., Walter-­Karydi 1987, 19–32; Raubitschek 1949, no. 236, 520–22. Another work of Onatas stood atop an inscribed limestone pillar bearing an early classical dedication of Pythion of Byzantion recovered in a fill area in the southeast (Kyrieleis 1994, 16, Abb. 24–25). But ­whether all of ­these refer to the same person or not is unknown; we do know that the craft of sculpting tended to ‘run’ in families (Pl. Prt. 328A) and that names w ­ ere reused, skipping a generation each time so that one sculptor and his grand­son might have the same name. See, e.g., Themelis 1994, 32, 35–36 on Damophon and his ­family (although Themelis [1996, 183] does an abrupt and unexplained about-­face on the descendants of Damophon being sculptors). On Praxiteles and his ­family, see Δεσπίνης 2007; Pasquier 2007; Stewart 1990, 34, 277. 23  E.g., Bumke 2004, 169–71; Bol 2004, 9; Ajootian 2003, 149, 152, 157–58; Borbein 1973, 61–62; Eckstein 1969, 31; Purgold 1892, 146. Ioakimidou (1997, 219) suggests other­wise: that the ideal vantage point is one that encompasses both parts of the monument in a single view. 24  Ioakimidou (1997, 216) reaches the same conclusion but proposes a ­battle in the 450s B.C., which has a thematic connection to the Trojan War moment, as the monument’s aition. Her methodology, however, is questionable: assuming a date for Onatas’ l­ater work c. 470–450 B.C. as the starting point, the author then seeks a historical event attested in this time period that might be suited to the monument. But Onatas’ work is also dated e­ arlier—­before 480 B.C., according to Ridgway (1970, 88); and Raubitschek (1949, 521). Ajootian (2007) links the monument to the designation of lane assignments for Olympic athletes. 25  See p. 109, n. 20.

110

Chapter 3

The Apollonian Monument Aligned with the path from the west that runs along the south side of the Altis was a major military victory monument, mentioned by Pausanias and confirmed by archaeological finds in situ (Figs. 3.1, 3.4). The periegete (5.22.2–4) describes a dedication to Zeus by the ­people of Apollonia, a colony from Corinth and Corcyra, in Illyria. The monument was erected with a tithe of the spoils from Apollonia’s conquest of Abantis and Thronion, which held lucrative asphalt mines,26 a conflict dated in the first half of the fifth ­century B.C.27 Part of the base of a curved monument opening to the north, that is, t­oward the pro­cessional way, opposite the south flank of the l­ater ­Temple of Zeus, together with a partial dedicatory inscription on two blocks of Parian marble (Fig. 3.5) have been identified with the Apollonian Monument described by Pausanias.28 The two-­stepped base consists of seven limestone blocks for the lower step and, above them, six blocks of Parian marble with cuttings for attached statues. Together with Pausanias’ description, the blocks indicate that the base, 13m in dia­ meter when restored, supported thirteen over-­lifesize bronze statues: Zeus in the center, flanked by Thetis and Himera (supplicating Zeus on their knees or standing), then five pairs of opposed Achaian and Trojan heroes, and at the ends of the base, Achilles on one side and Memnon on the other.29 The date of the monument is difficult to pinpoint. Pausanias names the sculptor as Lykios, son of Myron.30 This has caused scholars to date the monument in the second quarter of the fifth c­ entury B.C. or l­ater, based upon the association with the famed sculptor Myron of Eleutherai, who created the Diskobolos, among other notable works, in antiquity.31 Kunze, who published the inscription, dates the letter forms to shortly before the ­middle of the fifth c­ entury B.C. though he places Lykios’ c­ areer in the early

26 

Ioakimidou 1997, 245. For the monument, see Bumke (2004, 171–85), who summarizes the evidence and includes the previous bibliography; Castiglioni 2003; Ioakimidou 2000, 73–76; Ioakimidou (1997, 92–97, 243–55), who also offers a reconstruction of the group, argues for a date of c. 460–440 B.C. (96–97) and provides a summary of previously assigned dates (97 n. 1); Eckstein 1969, 15–22. 28  DNO 2, 328–29 no. 1079; Keesling 2017, 93; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 89–91 no. 34; Eckstein 1969, 16–22; SEG 15, 251; 30, 24, 26, 427; 44, 388; 52, 479, 574. Kunze (1956, 149–53) first published the inscription and posited—­ with reservations—­the connection of the inscription to the in situ blocks. Pausanias faithfully rec­ords the inscription to judge from the extant remains. For a discussion of the joining of base and inscription, see Barringer 2009, 234. 29  Most scholars reconstruct the group in this fashion, e.g., Bumke 2004, 173, 180, 182; Meyer 1983, 35–37, Abb. 5; Eckstein 1969, 15; Kunze 1956, 150. Rather than having all Achaians on one side and all Trojans on the other, Borbein (1973, 62) alternates opponents, Greek, Trojan, between the opposing figures of Achilles and Memnon and the central triad. Two inscribed bases have been ascribed to this monument: one bearing the name of Memnon (IvO 692) and another with that of Aineias (SEG 2, 373). 30  DNO 2, 327–28 no. 1078. 31  E.g., DNO 2, 1–117, esp. no. 13; Harrison 1985, 52–53; Eckstein 1969, 22. 27 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.111

Fig. 3.4. Apollonian Monument. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 3.5. Apollonian Monument, inscription. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-­Olympia 3413 (Eva-­Maria Czakó). Courtesy of DAI.

classical period.32 Using the ­career of Lykios and the inscription as the only guidelines yields a date of c. 475–460 B.C. or so for the monument.33 32 

Kunze 1956, 148–53. Jeffery (1980a) posits that the inscription might be from the 440s or ­later but is uncertain about the script. See also Barringer 2009, 235. 33  Stewart (1990, 255–57) provides the ancient evidence and thinks that Lykios could not have been active before the 450s (personal communication 17/9/2009); Borbein (1973, 62) dates it shortly before the mid-­fifth c­ entury B.C.

112

Chapter 3

The placement of the Apollonian Base along, and facing, the southern path along the Altis, with its back against the Bouleuterion, is not fortuitous.34 The impact of the large, bronze, over-­lifesize group of figures at this point would have been impressive, the largest group of figures belonging to a single monument at Olympia.

The Plataian Base A number of votives ­were dedicated at Olympia as thankofferings for Greek victories in the Persian Wars. Most spectacular of all ­these was the monument erected to Zeus for his aid in the Greek victory at Plataia. Its base, found in situ, lies not far from that of the Achaian Monument, and its placement might be construed as a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from—­and to overshadow, quite literally—­the Achaian Monument north of it assuming it was already in place or u ­ nder way (Figs. 3.1, 3.6): during the Persian Wars, the Achaians had been neutral or, even worse, had aided the Persians (Hdt. 8.73. 1–3).35 Herodotos (9.81.1) and Pausanias (5.23.1) describe the bronze colossos of Zeus, c. 4.5m high and facing east, which was the work of Anaxagoras of Aigina, according to Pausanias.36 Most scholars reasonably conclude that the monument was erected shortly ­after the Greek victory over the Plataians in 479 B.C. by numerous Greek poleis, which are named by Pausanias.37 Like the many other colossal statues of Zeus dedicated as military votives at Olympia, the statue itself is not extant but the poros foundation, c. 3m × 1.90m, and one course of the marble steps of the base are still in situ 5m north of the southern embankment wall.38 The oblong shape of the base suggests a striding Zeus, perhaps hurling a thunderbolt,39 that is, as Zeus Keraunios, who is known from many other statues.40 The emphasis on the numerous cities involved in the ­battle and their joint dedication signals the sense of Hellenic unity in the face of a foreign ­enemy, and this sense of Panhellenism is further attested by the establishment of a court of arbitration at Olympia just ­after the Persian Wars as known from an inscribed bronze document of c. 476–472 B.C. (see below).41

34  Strøm (2009, 110) surmises that the earliest collections of administrative buildings—­prytaneion, bouleuterion, agora—­that together constitute criteria for the Greek polis have their origins in Apollo sanctuaries. She notes the odd case of Olympia, which possesses a prytaneion and bouleuterion, but is not a polis. 35  Cf. also Paus. 7. 6. 3. 36  DNO 1, 446–48 nos. 522–25. 37  Gauer 1968, 96–98. 38  Mallwitz 1972, 34; Eckstein 1969, 23–26. 39  LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 331 no. 129 [M. Tiverios]; Himmelmann 2001, 159; Eckstein 1969, 23–26; Dörpfeld 1897, 86; Dörpfeld 1892a, 78. 40  LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324–25 [M. Tiverios]; Gauer 1968, 96–98. Contra: Simon (1978, 1433), who thinks the size prohibited a striding position. 41  Olympia, Archaeological Museum B6362: SEG 31, 358; Barringer 2015, 29–30; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 31–32 no. 5; Siewert 1981; Sinn 2000, 55–56. On Panhellenism, see Mitchell (2007, 10–19), who states that Panhellenism, while a response to the war against the barbarian (specifically the East or Persia), was also a way of avoiding war among the Greeks themselves.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.113

Fig. 3.6. Plataian Monument. Photo: author.

The Praxiteles Base and the Eretrian Steer Monument The three monuments discussed above are all military victory monuments or, in the case of the Achaian Monument, are likely to be so. However, the motivation for the erection of the Praxiteles Base and the Eretrian Steer Monument are unknown, and we know ­little about the appearance of the former. The remains of the oblong Praxiteles Base consist of a two-­stepped poros foundation, which is in situ to the south of the southeast corner of the ­later T ­ emple of Zeus (Figs. 3.1, 3.7). It was once surmounted by five Parian marble blocks, which bear a four-­line inscription that indicates that the monument was a dedication of the Mantinean Praxiteles,42 who lived in Syracuse and Kamarina (so a Dorian living in western colonies). The four artists’ names cited—­Athanadoros, Asopodoros, Atotos, and Argeiadas—­prompted Eckstein to suggest that at least four bronze statues, one by

42  Inv. 12, 23, 28, 30, 463. DNO 1, 377–80 no. 469; IvO 266; SEG 11, 1222; 15, 249; 24, 322; 29, 412; 36, 389, 391; 44, 1735; 46, 475.

114

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.7. Praxiteles Monument. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

each sculptor, stood on the base, but an arrangement of two groups of two figures has also been proposed.43 ­Because the upper marble blocks, which presumably held beddings or cuttings for the statues, are lost, no clues remain as to the disposition of the figures supported by them.44 The date assigned to the monument, c. 484–480 B.C., is derived partially from the inscription’s letter forms and partially from the destruction of Kamarina in c. 484, offering a date by which Praxiteles must have been in Syracuse.45 The in situ foundations make clear that the Praxiteles Base was parallel to, and further west of, the Plataian Base; the monument’s statues ­were oriented to the east; and the base stood ­here already before the t­ emple construction was u ­ nder way, then was covered by Bauschutt from the ­temple; that is, Pausanias could not have seen them.46 Somewhat more is known about the Eretrian Steer Monument, which consists of a two-­stepped poros foundation, surmounted by a Parian marble base on which 43 

DNO 1, 377–80 no. 1; Eckstein 1969, 61. Eckstein (1969, 63 n. 10), speculates that the donor’s ­family members might be depicted and suggests pos­si­ble motivations for the dedication. 45  Eckstein 1969, 63 n. 11. 46  Dörpfeld 1935, 268–69; Purgold 1892, 145; Dörpfeld 1879, 42; Furtwängler 1879a, 44–45. 44 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.115

cuttings for the bronze animal’s four hooves and an inscription survive on the top surface (Pl. 21a, Figs. 3.1–2). The inscription announces that Philesios made the monument, which was dedicated to Zeus by the Eretrians. As noted above, a horn and ear of the statue are preserved (Pl. 21b). Like the Achaian Base, the base for the Eretrian dedication was close to the ­later ­temple, but the steer turns slightly to its left as indicated by the cuttings. The inscription’s letter forms provide the date of c. 480–479 B.C.47 To sum up, the dates of the in situ bases, all of marble (and Parian marble when we can identify it), appear to range from just ­after c. 490 for the Achaian Base to c. 475–460 B.C. as the latest date for the Apollonian Base. Even if we discount the Apollonian Base as being in place before the construction of the T ­ emple of Zeus, we see a clear pattern of monuments r­ unning along the west of the north-­south route leading into the Altis.

The Placement of the Bases With no t­ emple yet built to occupy space in the south of the Altis, why w ­ ere the Achaian and other bases placed facing eastward in parallel rows or northward? The impressive and imposing Achaian and Plataian Monuments—­and perhaps the Apollonian Base as well—­would have lost none of their impact had they been placed flush against the southern Altis boundary, a location that would have had the added advantage of leaving more open space. But the patrons or Elean officials designated that it should be other­wise. Why? The peculiar composition of the Achaian Monument, together with a passage of Xenophon, suggest an answer. Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.31), writing in the fourth ­century B.C. and describing the ­battle between Eleans and Arkadians within the Altis, mentions a theatron, which he locates near the hieron of Hestia, identified now by many as the Southeast Building (Figs. 3, 1.11a-­b, 4.1),48 and the Bouleuterion. Using this passage, scholars have argued that the theatron was in the Altis northeast of the T ­ emple of Zeus, just south of the Trea­sury Terrace,49 and along the west slopes of the Stadion ­after its refurbishment c. 460–450 B.C.50 According to this view, spectators of the Olympic festival pro­cession and of the runners racing to the finish line, the athletic award ceremonies, and the animal sacrifices at the (ash) altar originally sat on the slope of the hill formed by the Trea­sury Terrace and ­after the Stadion was moved more to the east c. 460–450 B.C., on the hill built up around its southwestern corner to provide further seating. Such spectacles ­were ideally suited to such a large open space, close to the Stadion and the 47 

Eckstein 1969, 52 n. 10. Sinn 2004a, 113–15; Mallwitz 1972, 203–4. 49  Sinn 2001, 67–68; Sinn 2000, 66; Schilbach 1992, 35. 50  Schilbach 2012; Schilbach 1992, 35; Koenigs 1981, 367. Trojani (1974–75), however, argues that Xenophon’s theatron refers to the spectators’ seating in the Stadion. 48 

116

Chapter 3

ash altar to Zeus (but not too close to the altar; see chapter 2 for a discussion of its location). But before c. 460 B.C., this extra seating along the Stadion had not been constructed; it seems reasonable to suppose that the enormous audience for the games surely spilled over from the Trea­sury Terrace and watched from the open area just south of the Stadion, where they could observe the victors receiving their olive crowns and the animal sacrifices at the altar of Zeus. In other words, I think that the early fifth-­century theatron, as well as its fourth-­century incarnation, was not l­ imited to the small area between the west of the Stadion and the ash altar, which is where Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.29) locates wrestling matches, but was located southwest of the Stadion, as well.51 A closer consideration of Xenophon’s term theatron and its associations in the fifth ­century B.C. suggest that one should have in mind the fifth-­century Greek theater, which was a rectangular space with temporary seats on three sides, and ­these seats ­were often benches made of wood or ikria;52 for example, evidence indicates that the fifth-­century B.C. theater of Dionysos in Athens had such seating,53 and foundations (postholes) ­were also found in the Athenian Agora in straight lines next to the Panathenaic way to accommodate spectators of the Panathenaic pro­cession and the torch races.54 If this same standard is applied to Olympia and the early fifth-­century theatron as defined h ­ ere, we can imagine a rectangular-­shaped theatron of an open area for spectacles, perhaps oriented to the ­angle of the Stadion: the Stadion (or perhaps the Trea­sury Terrace) at its north side, seating or ikria on the east, and the Altis boundary on the south, perhaps with further seating. The Achaian Monument gives further definition—­a western or southwestern border—to this large open space or festival ground ­until the construction of the ­Temple of Zeus beginning in c. 470 B.C. What is more, such an explanation would offer a solution to the question of why the Achaian group and the o ­ thers nearby on the east side of the l­ ater T ­ emple of Zeus faced east or northeast, and why Nestor stands apart from, and opposite to, the Achaian warriors. In the scenario outlined ­here, Nestor stood parallel to the crowd of spectators, which would encourage the audience’s identification with Nestor. For the Eleans in the crowd—or more generally for Peloponnesians—­the association was made explicit in the monument’s inscription, which declares the Achaians to be descendants of Pelops. Likewise, the victorious athletes standing before the crowd, that is, facing east and northeast, and separated from Nestor by a large space, can also be construed as living embodiments of the Achaian warriors, who faced in the same direction. This 51 

Cf. Krinzinger (1980), who suggested a similar location for the ­battle described by Xenophon. Hyde (1912, 209), however, proposes that athletic victory statues extended from the Eretrian steer eastward, perhaps to the fourth-­ century B.C. Echo Hall. 52  Csapo 2007, 103–8; Goette 2007. 53  Papastamati-­von Moock 2015. 54  Camp 1986, 45 figs. 28, 46; http://­agora​.­ascsa​.­net​/­id​/­agora​/­image​/­1997​.­01​.­0439​?­q​=­ikria&t​=­&v​=­list&sort​=­&s​=­3 (accessed September 9, 2020). The same kind of postholes for ikria ­were found along the dromos and inside of the Dipylon in the area of the Kerameikos excavations: Gruben 1964, 409, 418.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.117

idea of image mirroring the real­ity of ritual is but one of many examples at Olympia. For example, one can point to the Eretrian steer, which, as we can see from the extant cuttings for his hooves, was oriented southeast-­northwest with the head to the north; that is, the steer faced and walked in the direction of the ash altar, mirroring the real offerings brought for sacrifice (Pl. 21a, Fig. 3.2).55 In the case of the Achaian Monument, one might object that the Olympic victors are athletic victors, while the Achaians ­were portrayed as armed warriors. But the parallel between warriors and athletes is sound (see prologue). As noted above, two of the in situ bases use a curving format, unusual at this period,56 and both the Achaian and Apollonian Monuments employ a Trojan War theme for their sculptural groups, in the latter case to commemorate a military victory, which is likely for the former, as well. The choice of mythological figures to honor an ­actual fifth-­ century ­battle heroizes both the victors and, for the Apollonian Monument, their worthy, but lesser, opponents.57 In the case of the Apollonian Base, reference to the Trojan War is explicable by the recent Persian Wars, and just as impor­tant for both the Apollonian and Achaian Monuments is the nature of the Olympic games and the site of Olympia at this time.58 Chapter 2 discussed the inception of Pelops’ cult at Olympia in the late sixth c­ entury B.C. and his connections to the site. Pelops also has a connection to warfare, specifically the Trojan War, and to the Achaians in par­tic­u­lar: ­later authors (Apollod. Epit. 5.10; Paus. 5.13.4) relate that the Greeks believed that the Achaians had to have possession of Pelops’ bones in order to take Troy. Moreover, the Trojan conflict offers a parallel to the recent conquest of a g­ reat foreign ­enemy by an assembly of Hellenes from vari­ous poleis and was intended to liken con­temporary Hellenes fighting against foreigners—­whomever they may be—to the noble Achaians of the distant Homeric past.59 This link is made explicit by poetic fragments of c. 479 B.C. by Simonides, who associated recent ­battles of the Persian Wars—­specifically the ­Battle of Plataia—­ with Trojan War heroes, especially Achilles.60 While the poem itself may not have been a direct inspiration for the Olympia monuments, it does attest to the con­temporary analogy between the Trojan War and the Persian Wars. In addition, the Trojan War theme may have been an especially attractive choice ­because of its Homeric and, by extension, aristocratic or elite connotations. Aristocrats continued to comprise most of the athletes competing at Olympia u ­ ntil late in 55 

Eckstein 1969, 52. On the types of sacrificial animals at the Pelopion, see Benecke 2006. See, e.g., Bumke 2004, 95 n. 543; Harrison 1985, 52. 57  Cf. Bumke 2004, 184. 58  Meyer (1983, 35–41) argues for a genealogical link between the legendary Trojan War figures and the con­ temporary opponents. 59  Cf. Ajootian 2003, 139. Kyrieleis (2012/2013, 113–14), in fact, argues that viewers of the Achaian and Apollonian Monuments had to know the Homeric Iliad to comprehend the monuments, but this does not accord with his e­ arlier claims in the same article (109) about the importance of oral traditions in the transmission of myth. 60  See POxy 2327, 3965 with translation in Boedeker and Sider 2001, 13–29; Kowerski (2005), who believes that the fragments do not represent individual poems dedicated to dif­fer­ent ­battles; and Boedeker 2001, esp. 153–61. 56 

118

Chapter 3

the fifth c­ entury (as was true elsewhere in Greece),61 and chariot racing, a costly sport that ultimately derives from warfare and had Homeric connotations for fifth-­century Greeks,62 reached its peak of popularity in the Olympic games in the first half of the fifth ­century.63 As further evidence of the elite panache attached to Olympia, we can cite the epinicians of Pindar; his first extant odes commissioned for Olympian victors ­were composed for the games of 476 B.C.64 Not surprisingly, the two odes produced for adult victors in t­ hese games contain references to Olympia. Curiously, however, they also have mythological references that seem relevant to the Achaian and Apollonian Monuments. Olympian 1 celebrates the tyrant Hieron I of Syracuse for his victory in the single h ­ orse race at Olympia. In this ode (lines 47–51), Pindar discusses the tale of Tantalos and claims that an envious neighbor in­ven­ted the calumny about Tantalos eating his own son, who is Pelops. We might recall the dedicatory inscription on the Achaian Monument: “To Zeus, ­these images ­were dedicated by the Achaians, descendants of Pelops, the godlike descendant of Tantalos.” Pindar’s Olympian 2, composed for Theron of Akragas on the occasion of his chariot-­ race victory in 476 B.C., cites the hero Achilles in his afterlife on the Isles of the Blest and describes his illustrious victories in the Trojan War thanks to aid from his m ­ other, Thetis, including his defeat of Memnon (lines 79–83). The Apollonian Monument with Achilles fighting Memnon and the two warriors’ m ­ others appealing to Zeus immediately springs to mind. It is probable that Achilles also stood on the Achaian Monument base, but this remains only a hypothesis since we only know the names of three of the warriors from Pausanias, and Achilles does not participate in this episode in Homer’s account (though I hasten to add that I do not think that the monument depends on the poem). It is impossible to draw a direct connection between the Pindaric poems and the monuments at Olympia, much less to determine what influenced what, particularly when the dates of the monuments, especially the Apollonian Base, cannot be fixed precisely. However, the coincidence is striking.65 What we can say is that both Pindar and the monuments liken their patrons to illustrious heroes of the past, w ­ hether their achievements ­were martial or athletic, and ­these, in fact, ­were the values of elites, who continued to dominate the games at Olympia ­until l­ater in the fifth ­century. 61 

Crowther 1991, 166; Pleket 1975, 71–74. Miller 2004, 27–28, 75. 63  Cf., e.g., Sinn 1994b, 150. 64  Farnell 1961, 3–4, 12. See the discussion of the date of Olympian 1 by Cairns (2010, 75–76). 65  Scholars have pointed out the many characteristics shared by the Pindaric epinicians and vari­ous works of art but have not argued for a direct association of one par­tic­u­lar ode with a given object (although see Neer and Kurke 2019). O’­Sullivan (2003) summarizes e­ arlier arguments and discusses Pindar’s use of images borrowed from the visual arts. The exceptions to this trend are the sculptures on the east pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus, which Howie (1991, 111–17) seems to suggest ­were designed in response to Pindar’s Olympian 1. The search for influence in this instance is unwarranted for surely the Eleans determined that the sculpture would celebrate their achievement by means of their local hero without needing a prompt from Pindar. 62 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.119

For athletes pro­cessing into the Altis in the 476 B.C. Olympiad, then receiving their crowns before an audience of thousands in the theatron, we must imagine victory monuments, particularly the Achaian and Apollonian votives, as the backdrop—­and as part of—­the spectacle. By visual juxtaposition, t­ hese monuments exalt the athletes to the rank of heroes, an idea reinforced not only by the heroic monuments but also by the over-­lifesize bronze athletic victory monuments,66 which the athletes ­were permitted to erect in the Altis among images of gods and heroes; the victory odes composed in praise of the victors; and the other numerous and elaborate honors victors received at Olympia (as well as at home),67 including the right to host a symposion in the Olympic Prytaneion (Fig. 3).68 Furthermore, for a visitor to Olympia a­ fter 456 B.C., the image of Pelops would have loomed in the east pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus b ­ ehind the Achaian Monument (Fig. 3.3a-­c), two sober and suspenseful dedications offering inspiration and heroic models to athletes competing at the games.69 This juxtaposition would have been underscored by the fact that Pelops and his opponent, Oinomaos, ­were armed, as ­were the Achaian soldiers of the Achaian Monument below. Pindar’s Olympian 1 also describes Pelops’ successful chariot race against Oinomaos, a suitor’s contest, which recalls that for Penelope’s hand—­another Homeric reference that appealed to the elite—as well Kleisthenes of Sikyon’s testing of the suitors for his ­daughter, Agariste (Hdt. 6.126.1–6.131.1); it is noteworthy that Kleisthenes advertised his call for suitors—­the best of the Hellenes—at the Olympic games.70 But we anticipate: in order to understand the full implications of this, we must examine the t­emple and its sculptures. PA RT I I : T H E ­T E M P L E O F Z E U S The Doric t­ emple, constructed of local limestone and designed by Libon of Elis (Paus. 5.10.3), was begun c. 470 and completed in 456 B.C. (Pls. 7, 10, Figs. 3.1, 3.8), as suggested by written testimony read together with historical events (it is impor­tant to note that ­there is nothing that fixes the starting date except the Elean synoikism).71 66  A decree at Olympia in the second half of the fifth ­century B.C. stipulated that only a three-­time Olympic victor could erect (or have erected for him) a statue at Olympia (Plin. HN 34.9), and it could not be over-­lifesize (Lucian, Pro imaginibus 11), which suggests that this was the practice previously. Yet both lifesize and over-­lifesize bases of the fifth c­ entury B.C. have been recovered from Olympia, suggesting that this edict ­either does not date to this period or, if it does, was not enforced. 67  See Barringer 2008, 48–50 with further bibliography. 68  Cf. Andok. against Alkibiades 29–30; though Paus. 5.15.12 says that the Eleans hosted the banquet at Olympia on the victors’ behalf. 69  Ajootian (2003, 140, 153, 159) discusses the relationship between the two monuments. 70  Hall (2002, 156–58) offers an intelligent and intriguing reading of this account from the viewpoint of ethnicity. 71  See p. 122.

120

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.8. T ­ emple of Zeus, reconstruction of facade by P. Grunauer ­after OlBer 10, Taf. 9. Courtesy of DAI.

If Zeus was initially worshipped in the ‘Heraion’ (Pl. 11), we can expect that his cult was transferred to the new structure (see chapter 2). Pausanias (5.10.2) relates that the ­temple was erected by the city of Elis from the spoils of its conquest of neighboring Pisa (Oinomaos’ city), which was captured by Elis c. 470, thus yielding a terminus post quem. This account has been challenged with scholars objecting that Pisa’s riches, what­ever they ­were, could not have funded the ­temple72 and that the funds ­either 72 

Keesling (2017, 98–99, 198–99); Hennemeyer (2012, 121), who also offers the most recent study of the architecture; Patay-­Horváth (2004, 26–27); and Philipp (1994a, 90). They do not believe that the spoils from Pisa could have financed such a splendid structure, and instead, Hennemeyer thinks that the Eleans propagated this fiction to demonstrate their regional power and that the money derived from the regional synoikismos u ­ nder Elis, while Philipp suggests that the building might have been funded with Peloponnesian or west Greek support. Patay-­Horváth (2012) argues that the ­temple was constructed by the Spartans with funds garnered from the Persian Wars. ­There is no evidence in ­favor of this last claim, and the lack of Spartan commissions of structures in any other Panhellenic sanctuary



The Fifth ­Century B.C.121

came from another polis73 or ­were produced by melting down e­ arlier votives in the sanctuary to raise the revenue.74 Funds generated from Olympia itself—­from its animal herds, sanctions, and dedications—­were considerable, as Taita has detailed,75 and another pos­si­ble source of revenue could be fund­rais­ing by subscription, as was the case with the Delphic Amphictyony on occasion. Whichever the case, all scholars agree that the building was a cele­bration of military victory. The Spartans dedicated a gold shield decorated with an image of Medusa at the ­Temple of Zeus as a victory offering for their defeat of Athenians and o ­ thers at the b ­ attle of Tanagra, as declared in an inscription on the shield, according to Pausanias (5.10.4), and an ancient stone inscription with this text, presumably placed at ground level, survives.76 Scholars conclude that the Spartan victory took place in 457; ­because the Spartans placed their shield on the ­temple’s apex, according to Pausanias, the ­temple had to be finished by this time. Although scholars cannot pinpoint the exact date of inception of the construction, the ­temple’s creation followed general improvements to the site in the late 470s, as mentioned above. The pediments, both c. 26m wide and 3.3m high at center, pre­sent a dazzling spectacle of sculpted figures, seen ­today at eye level in the Olympia Archaeological Museum. The west pediment was ornamented with the story of the fight between the Lapith Greek men and the Centaurs, the Centauromachy, overseen by the central figure of Apollo (Fig. 3.9).77 The Centaurs ­were invited guests at the wedding of Perithoos, king of the Lapiths, and Hippodameia, an event that ‘took place’ in Thessaly (Fig. 1).78 The Centaurs became drunk and began to attack the Lapith ­women. The Lapith men, led by Perithoos and his friend Theseus, rushed to the defense of the ­women and fought off the Centaurs, who w ­ ere routed. Scholars have argued over the placement of the vari­ous intertwined groups of energetic, struggling figures and is a strong argument against this. Keesling (2017, 98–99) also believes the building to be connected to the Persian Wars. 73  Patay-­Horváth 2013b. 74  Kyrieleis 2011, 37–38. 75  Taita 2014. 76  IvO 253. See Clairmont 1982; Guarducci 1936 (1937) on the placement and form of the dedication. 77  His left hand presumably held a bow and arrow (Tersini 1987, 141). Tulunay (1998, 454), however, thinks the bow was a fourth-­century B.C. addition by someone who misunderstood the original figure, whom he names as Anatolian Pelops holding a kentron. Paus. 5.10.8 identifies him as Perithoos, and other scholars have adhered to this suggestion (Lapalus 1947, 175–79), but Herakles and a youthful Zeus Areios (Kardara 1970; Dörpfeld, Weege, and Dornseiff, as reported in Lapalus 1947, 174) have also been proposed. Sinn (1994a, 593–94) summarizes the vari­ous arguments and concludes, as have ­others, that the figure is Apollo. 78  On the myth, see LIMC VIII, s.v. Kentauroi et Kentaurides, 671–21 [M. Leventopoulou et al.]. Westervelt (2009, 142–50) believes the west pediment to depict a dif­fer­ent Centauromachy—­Herakles rescuing the d ­ aughter of king Dexamenes of Elis from the Centaur Eurytion during a wedding. She sees no connection between the Thessalian Centauromachy and Olympia, but she apparently has not read Heiden 2003. Moreover, she does not explain why Herakles is not clearly pre­sent in the west pediment, or the identity of all the other Centaurs and females.

122

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.9a. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, c. 470–456 B.C. (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette. Fig. 3.9b. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, reconstruction by Andrew Stewart, drawn by Candace Smith. Courtesy of A. Stewart and C. Smith.

debated the identities of several players, particularly the three central males (Fig. 3.10).79 Most scholars now agree that the central figure is Apollo, god of moderation and order. Flanking him on each side is a youthful (beardless) Lapith fighter: Perithoos on one side, Theseus, an Athenian hero, on the other, arm poised overhead, lunging t­oward his Centaur opponent.80 Radiating out from this central group of three males are intertwined groups of energetic, struggling figures (Figs. 3.11, 3.12): Centaurs attacking Lapith ­women, who resist their advances; Lapith men using daggers, perhaps an ax and sword, counterattacking Centaurs, who carry no 79 

Tersini (1987, 141–45) provides a summary. The heroes’ poses are borrowed from the Athenian statue group of the Tyrannicides, who w ­ ere (falsely) credited with having overthrown Athens’ tyranny in 510 B.C. However, the association stuck and the poses of the commemorative statues of 477, replacements for an ­earlier group, ­were quickly borrowed by other artists to signify ‘heroism’ when applied to any figure as on the Hephaisteion friezes and on vases. On the transfer of artistic motifs from Athens to Olympia, see, e.g., Raschke (1988, 46–47), who posits that the Eleans appropriated Athenian symbols when they a­ dopted a democracy along the lines of that in Athens a­ fter 471. More recently, Kyrieleis (2012/2013) has argued that the Athenian hero Theseus was depicted on the west pediment at Olympia b­ ecause of his ancestral ties to Pelops and “durch offenbar gezielte attische Mythographie als Freund der Peloponnesier und Kämpfer für Recht und Freiheit ganz Griechenlands propagiert wurde” (107). Kyrieleis argues for the significance of Theseus’ Athenian associations in the choice to include him in the sculptural program. As I have argued elsewhere (Barringer 2005), I find the proposed link between Athenian ideology and the sculptural program of the Zeus ­temple to be implausible. 80 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.123

Fig. 3.10. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, central group, figures H–­O (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 3.11. T ­ emple of Zeus, west pediment, female/Centaur group, figures R–­S (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

81 ­

weapons; and reclining figures in the corners. The identities of the corner figures are unknown although they are sometimes labeled as nurses; ­because they are l­ater replacements,81 we are unable to say anything about their original appearance. The Centauromachy on the T ­ emple at Olympia marks the first instance of the use of this myth in architectural sculpture. The over-­lifesize equine figures struggling with ­ humans, male and female, in twisted, tortured poses must have made a profound impression on first-­time viewers.82 The east pediment’s theme, by contrast, would have been unrecognizable to modern scholars ­were it not for Pausanias’ account (5.10.6–8); he identifies the subject of the east pediment (Fig. 3.13a-­b): the preparations for the chariot race between Pelops, who gave

These replacements have been dated to the fourth ­century B.C. and to the Roman period. The equine nature of both pediments is noteworthy, as is Hippodameia’s name (“horse tamer”) and the fact that Perithoos’ wife is sometimes named as Hippodameia, too (e.g., Hom. Il. 2.742). The importance of ­horses and chariot racing at Olympia was not ­limited to the fifth ­century; the numerous bronze dedications of ­horses at Olympia date back to the Geometric period (see pp. 17–18). Mallwitz (1988a, 81–85) notes that all such votives w ­ ere damaged. It is also remarkable that a number of divinities honored at Olympia are linked to ­horses via the suffix Hippios/Hippia (see Paus. 5.15.5–6). Lacroix (1976, 330–31) also points out the importance of ­horses to Elis and also notes their connection with Hippodameia’s name. 82 

124

Chapter 3

his name to the Peloponnese,83 and Oinomaos, king of Pisa, for the hand of Oinomaos’ ­daughter, Hippodameia.84 The basic ele­ments of the myth can be summarized: Oinomaos, king of Pisa, invited suitors to compete with him in a chariot race for the hand of his ­daughter, Hippodameia. Equipped with special ­horses, Oinomaos had already defeated thirteen suitors, who paid with their lives: a­ fter Fig. 3.12. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment, giving the suitor a head start, Oinomaos over- biting group, figures P–­Q. Photo: Hans R. took his opponent, and as he did so, he planted Goette. a spear, a gift from his ­father, Ares, in the suitor’s back.85 Pelops was the ­fourteenth, and he succeeded, winning both the hand of Hippodameia and the kingdom of Oinomaos. Written sources differ as to how Pelops won; the complex tradition86 can be summarized in basically two variants. The ‘divine ­favor’ version claims that Pelops won with divine assistance from Poseidon, his erstwhile lover, who provided special, infallible, winged ­horses to Pelops. The earliest preserved written source for this version of the myth is Pindar, Olympian 1, composed in c. 476 B.C. The ‘cheating’ version maintains that Pelops bribed Oinomaos’ char­i­ot­eer to substitute wax for the metal linchpins of Oinomaos’ chariot so that when the race began, Oinomaos’ chariot fell apart and Pelops won. The char­i­ot­eer subsequently threw himself, or was pushed, off a cliff and as he fell, he called down a curse on the h ­ ouse of Pelops, the famous curse of the h ­ ouse of Atreus, one of Pelops’ descendants. Pherekydes (FrGH 3 F 37), whose floruit is c. 440, provides the first attestation of this account of the myth though it may have existed prior to this date.87 It is likely that the chariot-­race theme was chosen to commemorate Elis’ synoikismos and/or its conquest of Pisa.88 Pelops is often 83 

See Howie 1991, 69 for Pelops as ruler of the Peloponnese; and H.-­V. Herrmann 1980, 59 for Pelops as a Peloponnesian hero. See also Sinn 1991a, 48–49; Lacroix 1976. 84  Patay-­Horváth (2008b) argues that the east pediment does not depict preparations for the chariot race of Pelops and Oinomaos but the Trojan War episode of Agamemnon returning Briseis to Achilles. I am unpersuaded by his arguments for which t­ here is no evidence. Moreover, his interpretation does not explain the tainia held in Zeus’ hand nor the relationship of the myth to the site of Olympia or why it was appropriate for this t­ emple. 85  A list of victims killed by Oinomaos is preserved in Hes. frag. 259 M–­W, but the circumstances of their deaths are not preserved. See Howie 1991 for Pindar’s account and the literary tradition. Bulle (1939, 210–15) and Shapiro (1994, 78–83) discuss the relationship between the poem and the Olympia sculptures. 86  For a complete account of the literary sources, see Howie 1991; LIMC V, s.v. Hippodameia I, 435 [M. Pipili]. 87  Cf. Stewart (1983, 134), who also thinks that the cheating version is Pherekydes’ invention. In ­favor of an ­earlier date for a version involving the corruption of Myrtilos, see Howie 1991, 57–59, 99–100 and passim; Hurwit 1987, 7–9; Becatti in 1939 as reported in Säflund 1970, 36. Other ancient authors who recount this version or variants on it: Eur. Or. 989–97; Ap. Rhod. 1.752–58 and the scholia ad loc; Diod. Sic. 4.73 in which Oinomaos kills himself ­after Pelops wins the race by bribing Myrtilos. Another variant has Hippodameia bribe Myrtilos with sexual ­favors; it is not attested ­until the Hellenistic period although Howie (1991, 95–102) speculates that Pindar’s audience knew this variant. 88  Trianti 2012, 127–28.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.125

Fig. 3.13a. T ­ emple of Zeus, east pediment, c. 470–456 B.C. (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette. Fig. 3.13b. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment reconstruction by Andrew Stewart, drawn by Candace Smith. Courtesy of A. Stewart and C. Smith.

credited with founding the Olympic games, which w ­ ere instigated by this chariot race 89 (Pind. Ol. 1.67–88). Pausanias names several figures, including t­ hose in the center, who have been identified as follows (Fig. 3.14): Pelops (G, the unbearded male) and Hippodameia (K) on one side of a centrally placed Zeus (H), Oinomaos (I, who is bearded) and his wife Sterope (F) on the other. But Pausanias’ use of the terms “right” and “left” in describing what he sees is ambiguous,90 and he also misidentifies the sex of one figure (O) with the result that the original placement of the central figures and some of the ­others is in doubt. Thus, the contribution of Pausanias’ identification of the subject and some figures is partially outweighed since scholars have seized upon this uncertainty and spent the last ­century trying to fix the places of the figures, resulting in over seventy reconstructions to date.91 The rendering of Zeus’ neck muscles suggests that he turned his head ­toward his right, perhaps bestowing divine ­favor on the protagonist, presumably Pelops, on this side of him while his thunderbolt, the symbol of the justice he dispenses, would have been held in his left hand,92 perhaps indicating that Oinomaos was placed on this side. But this is hy­po­ 89 

On the literary tradition, see Barringer 2005. Hölscher (2015) argues that Pausanias’ term refers to the viewer’s right and left. 91  Trianti (2002); Kyrieleis (1997, 13–14); and Tersini (1987, 140–42) summarize the arguments. See also Stewart 1983, 135–36; Säflund 1970 for a summary and another reconstruction; and Simon 1968. 92  See also Patay-­Horváth 2008a, 167–68. 90 

126

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.14. T ­ emple of Zeus, east pediment, central group, figures B–­O (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

thet­i­cal: an argument has also been made that Zeus’ uneasy gesture, gripping his garment with his right hand, indicates that he looks at the object of his wrath.93 This seems highly unlikely since Brinkmann’s recent study of traces of paint on the sculpture reveals that Zeus once held a tainia, stretching from one hand to the other, across his body, prepared to award it to the victor.94 As we ­shall see, the ambiguity as to who is to the left and right of Zeus has influenced scholars’ understanding of the pediment. On each side of the central group is a chariot and seated or crouching figures: Pausanias (5.10.6–7) identifies two of t­ hese as char­i­ot­ eers and says that Oinomaos’ char­i­ot­eer sits in front of his ­horses, but it is not clear which crouching figure should be placed in front of which set of ­horses. An old Fig. 3.15. ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, figure L (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). man on each side (L, N) is recognizable as a seer on the Photo: Hans R. Goette. basis of his pose and appearance (Figs. 3.15, 3.16), and 93 

E.g., Kyrieleis 1997, 21–22; Simon 1968, 155. See now the description of the current arrangement of figures in the Olympia Archaeological Museum, together with an account of new fragments, their position, and technical observations, in Trianti (2002), who makes the argument that Zeus looks to his left, where she places Pelops (294–97). Contra: Kyrieleis 2012/2013, 75 n. 54. 94  Brinkmann 2003, 79. What Zeus held in his left hand is a ­matter of dispute: a spear, scepter, and lightning bolt are candidates. For a summary, see Patay-­Horváth 2008a, 167–68.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.127

Fig. 3.16. T ­ emple of Zeus, east pediment, figure N (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Pausanias reports that the corner figures (A, P), whose placement is certain, are personifications of the local Kladeos and Alpheios Rivers. Passing beyond the outer colonnade at the short ends of the building, visitors encountered sculptured metopes, 1.6m square, adorning the Doric frieze above the pronaos and opisthodomos of the ­temple, six per side (Fig. 3.17).95 The metopes w ­ ere devoted to the twelve ­labors of Herakles (Fig. 3.18), which ­were performed, e­ ither ­because of Hera’s enmity or at the order of king Eurystheus of Argos. Homer, Hesiod, and other early authors mention vari­ous of t­ hese l­ abors, as well as other adventures, which spanned the known world, but they are not treated as a set in lit­er­a­ture u ­ ntil 96 the fifth c­ entury B.C. From left to right on the west side, the hero sits, exhausted by his efforts ­after his strug­gle with the Nemean lion, Herakles tangles with the Hydra, pre­sents the Stymphalian birds to Athena, subdues the Cretan bull, captures the Keryneian hind, and conquers an Amazon. On the east, left to right, we have the ­labor of the Erymanthian boar, the ­horses of Diomedes, Herakles fighting Geryon, Herakles 95  Sinn (2000, 58, 69) claims that the victorious athletes w ­ ere crowned in the ­temple’s pronaos but does not explain this statement; Dörpfeld (1935, 256) wondered if the Olympic victors received their crowns in front of the statue, but does not specify the pronaos. 96  See LIMC V, s.v. Herakles, 5–6 [J. Boardman] for a discussion of the ­labors and their treatment in lit­er­a­ture.

128

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.17. ­Temple of Zeus, reconstruction of east facade of the cella. A ­ fter Curtius and Adler 1897, pl. X.

holding up the world while Atlas retrieves the apples of the Hesperides (Pl. 22), the hero fetching Kerberos from Hades, and Herakles cleaning the Augean stables u ­ nder the direction of Athena (Fig. 3.19). Herakles begins as an unbearded youth and, over the course of the twelve metopes, ages as indicated by the growth of his beard and the maturing of his physique and demeanor. Athena serves as Herakles’ helpmate or companion in four of ­these compositions. The completion of ­these ­labors guaranteed Herakles’ immortality (though he did not die immediately afterward); he was apotheosized at the time of his death, and Herakles is the only mortal to be honored in this fashion. Herakles’ adventures and l­ abors had repeatedly appeared on e­ arlier Greek vases and in Greek sculpture, such as the sixth-­century B.C. chest of Kypselos discussed in chapter 2. ­Here, the ­labors selected for use are largely set in the Peloponnese, and local flavor seems to have been the inspiration for the inclusion of Herakles’ Augean stables ­labor; this Elean story had never appeared before in ­earlier Greek art, and its first written attestation is Pindar, Olympian 10.28, composed c. 476 B.C.97 The myth refers to the a­ ctual event of shifting the course of the Kladeos River, which occurred in c. 700 B.C. (see pp. 21–22). 97  Robertson 1975, 273–74. See also Pimpinelli (1994, 398–403), who interprets the myth as a po­liti­cal statement; and Geertman 1982, 76.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.129

Fig. 3.18. ­Temple of Zeus, reconstruction of the metopes. ­After Treu 1897, pl. XLV.

130

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.19. T ­ emple of Zeus, east metope, Herakles cleaning the Augean stables, c. 470–456 B.C. (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ97), marble. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Herakles is an apt subject for the T ­ emple of Zeus at Olympia. Pindar (Ol. 6.67–69, 10.24–25, 57–59) and Pausanias (5.7.6–10) state that Herakles founded the games, an attempt, some have suggested, to make a clearly Dorian claim to the games since Herakles is a ‘Dorian’ hero,98 although Herakles is, in fact, a Panhellenic hero, recognized 98  Sinn 1991a, 48–49. Zeus is also credited with their foundation in honor of his victory over Kronos (Paus. 5.7.10). On the founding of the Olympic games and the first event(s), see Burkert (1983, 94–96), who maintains that the stadion was “the preeminent agon” at Olympia (96) but does not specify when this was the case. On the numerous equestrian ele­ments of this myth, see Calame 1997, 243–44; Howie 1991, 75.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.131

and revered throughout the Greek world. Pindar specifies that Herakles instituted the games at the site of the Pelopion, which Herakles also founded, according to Pausanias (5.13.2), as a thankoffering to Zeus for his help in Herakles’ defeat of Augeas (Pind. Ol. 10.28). As noted in chapter 2, Pausanias reports that Herakles established the central ash altar to Zeus at Olympia (Paus. 5.13.8), and also introduced the wild olive into Greece from the land of the Hyperboreans; t­ hese olive trees provided the victory crowns for the Olympic victors (Pind. Ol. 3.11–15; Paus. 5.7.7). And, of course, Herakles is the son of Zeus, the god honored by the ­temple. Thus, Herakles has many claims on Olympia. For visitors to the ­temple ­after c. 430, a 12.2m high chryselephantine cult statue of Zeus created by Pheidias c. 430 towered over the cella within (Fig. 3.20).99 The manufacture of the statue took place in Pheidias’ workshop just to the west (Pl. 23, Fig. 3), the dimensions of which match ­those of the ­temple’s cella. Described by ancient writers as one of the seven won­ders of the ancient world, the god sat upon an enormous throne, elaborately decorated with numerous mythical themes. Nothing remains of the statue ­today, and only small fragments of the base survive, but several ancient authors describe the statue, which is also replicated in other media, including coins. The marble roof tiles of the T ­ emple of Zeus w ­ ere thin enough so as to be translucent, creating a 100 glowing effect around the deity. The statue was not planned at the inception of the building since it is clear that the t­ emple was renovated and architectural changes w ­ ere 101 made to accommodate the statue. Included among the alterations was the laying of a flooring of dark Eleusinian limestone bordered by a flat white band of Pentelic marble in front of the chryselephantine statue, an enclosure surrounding the cult statue base and pool that extended through the intercolumniations, as well as the placement of an altar, prob­ably the t­ able mentioned by Pausanias (5.12.5–6) on which the olive wreaths for athletic victors w ­ ere placed.102 According to Hennemeyer, visitors could enter the enclosure and stand before the statue of Zeus, separated by the pool, whose oil enhanced the effect of the light filtering through the translucent marble roof tiles and coming from the doorway, as well as the dramatic impression of the statue.103 The connection between Pelops, founder of the games and hero of Elis, portrayed in the east pediment and Olympia, is clear, but how was the ancient viewer, particularly the athletes who came to compete at the games, meant to understand the architectural sculptures? Although some of the earliest scholars to work on this material viewed Pelops’ repre­sen­ta­tion in the east pediment as a positive one, such an interpretation was largely discarded by ­later scholars who propose that the east pediment 99  The bibliography on this sculpture is vast. Recent discussion includes: Vlizos 2015; DNO 2, 221–84 nos. 942– 1020, which gathers all the ancient sources and a se­lection of modern scholarship; Boschung 2013, 14–16. 100  Hennemeyer 2013c, 4–5; Hennemeyer 2012, 123. 101  Hennemeyer 2013c, 5–16; Hennemeyer 2012, 124. 102  Hennemeyer 2013c, 6–15. 103  Hennemeyer 2015, 26–27; Hennemeyer 2013c, 14–16.

132

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.20. T ­ emple of Zeus, reconstruction of cella with Pheidian Zeus (scale 1:200). A ­ fter Adler et al. 1892, pl. XI.

refers to the cheating version of the myth and often point to parallels in Attic tragedy to support this reading. Accordingly, the two pediments together—­and sometimes the metopes—­are admonitory statements about hubris or justice evidenced in the recent Persian Wars, or declarations about vari­ous types of dike, ethos, and arête represented by all categories of beings in the ­temple’s sculptures.104 The east pediment is commonly read as a warning to the athletes of Olympia not to cheat as Pelops did and bring disaster on one’s f­amily and city as a result of hubris. Such an interpretation clearly assumes that the ‘cheating’ version of the myth is operative. Alternately, Oinomaos is seen as a source of hubris ­because he did not wish his ­daughter to marry and/ or tried to keep his d ­ aughter for himself (and we might add that Oinomaos’ fatal attacks on the suitors from the rear could be regarded as cheating or at least as bad 104  See Barringer 2005, 220–21 for a discussion and bibliography. Westervelt (2009) makes no mention of Barringer 2005 and adheres to the traditional reading of the east pediment as relying on the cheating version of the myth.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.133

sportsmanship).105 Zeus distributes dike on the east pediment while a centrally placed Apollo restores order and defends marriage on the west pediment,106 which has also been interpreted as an illustration of hubris, of civilized forces—­the Greek Lapiths—­ fighting barbaric, uncontrolled creatures. Again, this would be a negative paradigm to instruct athletes against hubristic be­hav­ior. Such an interpretation is joined to the metopes and east pediment, which are all seen in terms of hubris and justice and sometimes given a historical slant: the Lapiths, symbolizing Greeks, punish the barbarian Persians, represented by the Centaurs, for their efforts to conquer Hellas.107 The pediments also have been read in other po­liti­cal ways, including the west as a warning against internal strife in Greece108 and the east as an Elean claim to control all of the Peloponnese.109 However, as I have argued in detail elsewhere, ­these explanations are not convincing ­because they do not consider the local context. When read in their original context, it is clear that the myths depicted by the sculptures originally offered positive models of heroism, arête, and glory expressly aimed at the Olympic competitors, who ­were urged to emulate t­hese examples in vari­ous areas of their lives.110 The ancient viewer’s perception of the ­temple’s images w ­ ere largely s­ haped by the activities and other monuments at Olympia. For example, the armor worn by Pelops and Oinomaos is unsuitable for a chariot race but is in keeping with the idea of athletics as excellent preparation for warfare and with the bellicose nature of the worship of Zeus at Olympia (Fig. 3.21),111 and struggling figures on the west pediment recall athletics and athletes, such as the wrestling hold of one Lapith on his Centaur opponent (Fig. 3.12) or the cauliflower ear, the hallmark of a boxer, of another Lapith (Fig. 3.22).112 The 105  Riedel (1993, 83–84) offers the singular viewpoint that the east pediment can be interpreted as signifying the warring of the invading Dorians with native Pisatans. 106  Sinn 2000, 60. ­Others see the sculptures as expressive of Olympian claims about territorial control or civil strife. 107  E.g., Stewart (1997, 192–93), who does not accept the cheating version as influential on the pediment but does make the case for divine admonition; Knell 1990, 87 re: west pediment; Belloni 1987, 270; Tersini 1987, 140; Raschke 1988, 47; Stewart 1983, 134. Contra: Sinn (1994a, 598–99), who also notes that Simon has proven that the Centauromachy on the Parthenon’s south metopes cannot allude to the Persian Wars (598). Simon (1968, 165–66) and Bulle (1939, 217–18) recognize the theme of hubris and consequent vengeance in the west pediment and with regard to Zeus but do not link it to the Persian Wars. Cohen (1994) reads the use of Herakles’ club instead of his bow as an anti-­ Persian statement (the Persians ­were regarded as ­great archers) in the aftermath of the Persian Wars. 108  Sinn (1994a, 599–600) points to an inscription, inv. B6362. See p. 144 n. 153. 109  Sinn 2004a, 67–68. Kyrieleis (1997, 24) also offers a po­liti­cal explanation for the choice of Pelops in the ­temple’s decoration; he briefly (and correctly) states that the Eleans promoted Pelops in an effort to justify and extend their expansionist policies but this still leaves much unexplained. Likewise, Raschke (1988) argues that the pediments and metopes refer to the democ­ratization of Elis and the Olympic games. Pimpinelli (1994, 406–10), drawing heavi­ly on Pindar, views the sculptures, especially the metopes, as expressions of nature overcome by culture (the νόμος of Zeus) and posits a po­liti­cal reading concerning Elis’ claims to power. 110  Barringer 2005. Cf. Raschke (1988, 48), who briefly states that the viewer of both the t­ emple and surrounding athletic statues was inspired “to emulate an idealized arete.” 111  For the possibility that Pelops’ cuirass is a post-­fifth-­century addition, see Patay-­Horváth 2008a, 55–64, 167. 112  Raschke 1988, 42–43; Rehak 1988, 199.

134

Chapter 3

two pediments’ emphasis on marriage is also significant at this site where Hera and Zeus ­ were 113 worshipped. The date of the t­ emple has already been discussed, but a recent study of the building’s architecture may force us to rethink much about the t­emple and its sculpture. Shortly a­ fter the building’s completion, changes ­were made to the exterior, as well as to the interior of the ­temple’s cella; this was the first of four major renovations over the building’s history;114 as already noted, some modifications w ­ ere clearly a response to the planned installation of the colossal Zeus statue c. 430 B.C.115 A second renovation involved rebuilding the east facade, including reerection and repairs to both pediments’ sculptures and to the lion’s-­head spouts; in fact, the latter ­were repaired so many times that the extant examples range in date from the mid-­fifth ­century B.C. to the third ­century A.D.116 Hennemeyer posits that an earthquake of c. 402/401 B.C., which shook Elis, may have been responsible for ­these second, extensive repairs to the ­temple, which lasted over half a c­ entury and provided much damaged building material that could be—­and was—­used in other structures in the Altis (see chapter 4).117 A third renovation occurred, perhaps in the second half of the first ­century B.C., when, among other t­hings, three of the corner figures in the west pediment ­were replaced in Pentelic 113  Raschke (2013) sees marriage as a meta­phor for national unity as exemplified in the ­temple pediments. 114  Hennemeyer 2013a, 19–20. 115  Hennemeyer 2013a, 24. 116  Hennemeyer 2013b, 128. For waterspouts, see Willemsen 1959. 117  E.g., Hennemeyer 2013c; Hennemeyer 2013b, 128–29, Abb. 119 maps the locations of reused portions of the Zeus ­temple in and around the Altis at Olympia; Hennemeyer 2013a, 20–21; Grunauer 1981, 275–80. As part of the evidence for a mid-­fifth-­century repair, Hennemeyer points to a reworked geison block belonging to the T ­ emple of Zeus that was built into the stoa fronting the Bouleuterion. But van de Löcht (2013, 274) offers a dif­fer­ent reading of this evidence. He thinks that it was rejected for some reason and reused in the stoa, which can be dated on the basis of pottery found beneath its south portion to c. 450.



Fig. 3.21. Inscribed votive to (and of) Zeus (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games B5778+B5500), c. 480 B.C., bronze, H 16cm. Photo: author.

Fig. 3.22. ­Temple of Zeus, west pediment. Lapith (figure Q). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

The Fifth ­Century B.C.135

marble,118 and a final renovation took place in the fourth or early fifth ­century A.D.119 Thus, both facades ­were completely rebuilt, among other ­things, and the pediments (and their sculptures) ­were twice put in place.120 If the columnar supports w ­ ere damaged, if the facades collapsed, then we must assume that the original pedimental sculpture suffered to some degree. Grunauer posited a complete rebuilding of the east facade ­after an earthquake of 373 B.C., which, according to him, included removal and re-­placement of the pediment sculptures.121 With the exception of the substitute corner pediment sculptures, none of the sculpture shows signs of massive repairs though smaller repairs are clearly vis­i­ble, for example, the feet and lower part of the drapery of Zeus on the east pediment and Pelops’ right thigh (Fig. 3.14).122 Kyrieleis reads ­these repairs as responses to earthquake damage in 373, but I won­der if this is the only pos­si­ble interpretation.123 One would expect to find signs of the reattachment of the pedimental sculptures on their backs, but ­these are not apparent.124 Mallwitz speculates that remains of two marble fin­gers (S225, S226), one belonging to an over-­lifesize statue (the fin­ger is 6.4cm long), and both unfinished, belong to the t­ emple sculptures: the larger fin­ger from the pediments and the smaller from a metope.125 The pieces ­were recovered from the area near the foundations of the south stylobate of the Southeast Building (Fig. 3). Might it be that the extant sculptures we see t­ oday are replacements for the originals damaged or destroyed by the earthquake of 402/401? Brinkmann suggests this (and that the east metopes are also replacements) on the basis of style and on Pausanias’ account, which attributes the pedimental sculptures to Alkamenes (west pediment) and Paionios (east pediment), two sculptors known from c. 420–400 B.C.126 Another feature that supports a l­ater dating for the sculptures: their unfinished surfaces, particularly on the back. Pedimental sculptures roughly con­temporary with the original ­temple construction (c. 470–456 B.C.) elsewhere in Greece, such as the slightly ­earlier sculptures from 118 

Hennemeyer 2013a, 21–22. Hennemeyer 2013a, 22–23. 120  Hennemeyer 2015, 22. For a summary of the ­temple’s akroteria and their renovation, see now Reinhardt 2018, 73–74. 121  Mallwitz 1999b, 245–51; Grunauer (1981, 275–80) also thinks that metopes w ­ ere partially rebuilt a­ fter 146 B.C. (277, 279). He concludes his study of the architecture with this dramatic assertion: “Dies würde bedeuten, dass Pausanias nicht mehr vor der originalen Eingangsfront des Tempels gestanden hätte, sondern vor einer Replik derselben, in welche die Originalskulpturen wieder eingefügt waren” (This would mean that Pausanias would no longer have been standing in front of the original facade of the ­temple, but a replica of the same in which the original sculptures ­were reinserted [trans. author]). 122  Kyrieleis 2012/2013, 59–62; Trianti 2002. 123  Kyrieleis 2012/2013, 59–62. 124  Trianti 2002, 292. 125  Mallwitz 1999b, 249–50. 126  Paus. 5.10.8. Brinkmann 2013, 40–44. Jeffery (1980b, 1235–36), reading Pausanias together with the inscription on the base of the Nike of Paionios (IvO 259), proposes that Alkamenes was responsible only for the west akroteria, that Paionios of Mende created the east akroteria, and that the occasion for their addition to the already existing ­temple might be the Thirty-­Year Truce between Sparta and Athens in 420/419. 119 

136

Chapter 3

the ­Temple of Aphaia on the island of Aigina and ­those from the T ­ emple of Apollo at Eretria or the slightly ­later pedimental sculptures from the Parthenon on the Athenian Akropolis, ­were usually finished on the back in spite of the fact that this area would not be vis­i­ble to any ­human spectator once the works w ­ ere installed: the Aigina and Eretria sculptures w ­ ere completely worked in the round, the Parthenon sculptures almost fully worked out. By contrast, the Olympia pedimental sculptures w ­ ere largely unfinished on their back surfaces. By the end of the fifth c­ entury B.C., back surfaces of architectural sculpture ­were sometimes left unfinished. We must consider the possibility that the pedimental sculptures we have t­ oday are not the originals but copies produced at the end of the fifth ­century B.C. The use of the severe style at the end of the fifth ­century B.C. would be anachronistic yet the ­temple’s rebuildings retained the structure’s severe style characteristics throughout its lengthy history, as Hennemeyer has demonstrated.127 Thus, the sculptures would have kept true to the original conception of the Gesamtkunstwerk.128 PA RT I I I : Z E U S , W A R FA R E , A N D O LY M P I A I N T H E CLASSICAL PERIOD In addition to the military victory monuments, such as the large Apollonian Monument discussed ­earlier, military victors w ­ ere honored by bronze statues of themselves although none of t­ hese is clearly in situ. For example, ancient writers indicate that Alexander I of Macedonia (r. 495–452 B.C.) dedicated a gilt bronze portrait of himself just a­ fter 479 B.C. at Olympia (and at Delphi; see Dem. 12.21), apparently funded with the ransom he obtained for Persian prisoners he had captured.129 Likewise, Pausanias (6.3.14–15) rec­ords the inscription on the base of a portrait of the Spartan general Lysander, dedicated by Samians a­ fter his decisive b ­ attle of Aegospotami (405 B.C.).130 But the most common type of military victory sculpture—­outside of tropaia—­were free-­standing monumental images of Zeus placed within the Altis in gratitude for the god’s assistance in a military victory. Zeus was portrayed not just as passively receiving the honors but as fighting himself. I hasten to add that this is true of many images of Zeus outside Olympia, both in sculpture and in vase painting, but at Olympia, Zeus Keraunios was apparently the dominant format for depicting the god, at least u ­ ntil the ­second quarter of the fifth ­century B.C. (e.g., Fig. 3.23).131 Then, images of Zeus at 127 

Hennemeyer 2013a, 23–24. Cf. Hennemeyer 2015, 32. 129  Solin. 9.13; Krumeich 1997, 25–27. Hdt. 5.22 describes Alexander I’s visit to Olympia and his participation in the Stadion race, where he tied for first place. On Alexander I’s visit to the site, see Kertész (2005), who argues for a date of 476 B.C. and provides ­earlier bibliography. 130  Keesling 2017, 99; Krumeich 1997, 160–61, 245 no. S1. On Spartan sculptural monuments at Olympia, see Palagia 2009. 131  Hatzi 2008, 279; LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 332 [M. Tiverios]. 128 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.137

Olympia change. In part, one can attribute the iconographical change to the influence of the regal seated Olympian Zeus created by Pheidias for the ­Temple of Zeus in c. 438– 432 B.C.132 Its size and material guaranteed its fame, and it became an influential image of the god on coinage and in  other media (and not just at Olympia) thenceforth (Fig. 3.23). But at Olympia a change in iconography is already evident some forty years before the Pheidian Zeus. What prompted the new image of the god? I wish to suggest Fig. 3.23. Bronze coin with Pheidian that po­liti­cal and historical events of the second quarter of Zeus (Florence, Museo Archeothe fifth ­century ­shaped a new concept of Zeus at Olympia, logico Nazionale di Firenze 36065), which had a lasting influence on ­later monuments at the site. second ­century A.D. Photo courtesy As discussed in the prologue, Olympia was clearly asof Museo Archeologico Nazionale di sociated with warfare from the time of the earliest votive Firenze (Direzione regionale Musei della Toscana). figurines c. 900 B.C., which depict warriors (Fig. 8), and the earliest identifiable images of Zeus in the archaic and early classical periods at Olympia and elsewhere in Greece, for example, Dodona,133 represent the god as Zeus Keraunios (Fig. 3.24). Elean coins beginning c. 470 employed this type as an image on their reverses (an ea­gle decorates the obverses) ­until c. 400 B.C. when Elis rejoined the Peloponnesian League (Fig. 3.25a-­b), as well as much ­later.134 While Zeus’ weapon is not conventional, its power is devastating, and writers and artists offer evidence that thunderbolt and spear ­were interchangeable for the god. Pindar likens Zeus’ lightning bolt to a spear (Ol. 13.77), and Zeus’ thunderbolt often was used as a weapon, as, for example, in depictions of the Gigantomachy on vases and on the pediment of the Megarian Trea­sury of c. 500 B.C. at Fig. 3.24. Zeus from Dodona (Athens, National Olympia (Fig. 2.10). Indeed, it has been arArchaeological Museum Χ16546), c. 470–460 B.C., gued that images of Zeus Keraunios are imbronze, H 12cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette. 132 

The date is approximate and based on events in Pheidias’ ­career. See, e.g., LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 327 no. 89 [M. Tiverios]; Herrmann 1972, 154–55. 133  See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324 no. 62a–­j [M. Tiverios]; Schwabacher 1962; Kunze 1940–1941a, 134–36, pls. 51–52. For a more recent treatment of Zeus imagery, see Themelis 2004. I thank Monika Trümper-­Ritter for bringing this to my attention. 134  Franke 1984; Schwabacher 1962. On the early coinage of Elis, see Patay-­Horváth 2013a.

138

Chapter 3

Figs. 3.25a, b. Stater from Elis (Berlin, Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 18229090), c. 452–432 B.C., silver, D 2.3cm. Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (R. Saczewski).

ages of Zeus Areios,135 who was honored at Olympia by an altar (Paus. 5.14.6), and we have already discussed the numerous associations of Olympia and warfare: the military victory monuments and tropaia, buildings dedicated with war booty, armor, the oracle’s association with warfare, the addition of the hoplitodromos, and the use of the ­Temple of Zeus as a storage place for the shields for this event, among other ­things. In addition to the Plataian Monument (Fig. 3.6), many of the military victory monument bases, especially from the sixth and early fifth centuries B.C., supported an image of Zeus Keraunios, the striding Zeus, judging by the shape of the base and the attachment holes for the statues’ feet.136 Thus, we should think of the Altis in the early fifth ­century B.C. as heavi­ly populated with free-­standing bronze images of Zeus in vari­ous sizes, but always lifesize or larger, broadcasting the military success of victorious cities.137 Some scholars also propose that a statue of Zeus Keraunios originally stood in the ­Temple of Zeus and was replaced by Pheidias’ colossos in the 430s, but this is pure speculation: we do not know what stood in the Zeus ­temple though surely ­there was some image.138 Pindar also makes the Olympic festival’s association with warfare clear when he describes how Herakles established the games with war booty: Olympian 2.3–4 speaks of ἀκρόθινα πολέμου (firstfruits of war), and Olympian 10.55–59 says πολέμοιο δόσιν 135 

Kardara 1970, 13. A notable exception may be the Spartan dedication (IvO 252; SEG 11, 1203a; 15, 248; 17, 204; 22, 348; 28, 429; 40, 384; 45, 406), which is dated to the late sixth c­ entury on the basis of its letter forms and would, therefore, be the earliest free-­standing monumental Zeus statue in the sanctuary, according to Kyrieleis. The round base held a statue c. 3.60m, according to Pausanias, and Kyrieleis (2011, 103–4) speculates that it once supported a quiet, standing image of Zeus, perhaps wearing a mantle b ­ ecause the base dia­meter is c. 1.27–1.28m. The occasion for the dedication is unknown. 137  One can add statues of Athena and Nike offered as military victory monuments at smaller scale. See Paus. 5.26.6–7. 138  See Gauer 1968, 97; Schwabacher 1962, 13. Contra: Simon 1978, 1429; Gross 1963, 16–18. 136 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.139

(the gift of war). In addition to the myths and early offerings that attest to Zeus’ (and Olympia’s) association with warfare, we can point to the oracle of Zeus at Olympia discussed in the prologue. As a mea­sure of its importance in the fifth ­century, Pindar (Ol. 6.8) indicates that the oracle, founded by Apollo, and the games w ­ ere of equal prominence, and Strabo (8.3.30) claims that the oracle was of primary importance at Olympia only to be overshadowed ­later by the athletic games. Thus far, we have been talking about Zeus’ military associations and have noted his appearance in t­ hose military victory monuments where we know that the god actively participates in the fray. But something changes in the iconography of Zeus at Olympia in the 470s. Victory monuments continue to be erected, but instead of the striding Zeus Keraunios the god’s portrayal is now dif­fer­ent. This is clear from the Apollonian Monument of c. 475–460 B.C. discussed e­ arlier (Fig. 3.4). Zeus no longer participates in the fighting but instead adjudicates and awards victory, and this is not a unique instance. Pausanias reports that both the ­Temple of Zeus of c. 470–456 B.C. and the statue within ­were funded by spoils from Elis’ victory over Pisa. I have discussed the significant military aspects of this monument and its sculptures above and elsewhere,139 yet Zeus does not take part in this athletic/military drama: we do not see him hurling his thunderbolt. He stands quietly, his left hand holding an object, most prob­ably his thunderbolt, by his side. A third example is the cult statue of Zeus by Pheidias (Fig. 3.20): Pheidias depicted the god seated on an elaborately decorated throne, a Nike held in his outstretched right hand, a scepter propped on the ‘ground’ and supported by his raised left arm. An ea­gle perched atop the scepter of the seated god, regal and supremely relaxed. The iconography of a seated Zeus is not new in Greek art—­one sees this on archaic and classical vase paintings of the birth of Athena, as well as in figurines, such as a bronze from Mt. Lykaion of c. 530–520 B.C. (Fig. 3.26).140 This motif also exists on four cups found at Olympia: the Fig. 3.26. Zeus from Mt. Lykaon (Athens, National Archaeological Museum X13209), c. 550–525 B.C., bronze, H 10cm. Courtesy of National Archaeological Museum, Athens (G. Patrikianos) © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund.

140

Chapter 3

139 

Barringer 2005. Athens, National Archaeological Museum X13209. See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 320 no. 37 [M. Tiverios]. Cf. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 6163 of the late sixth c­ entury B.C. from Olympia, which prob­ably also shows Zeus in a similar garment and grasping two objects (now lost) in his outstretched hands (prob­ably a staff in his right hand 140 

seated Zeus, twice shown with Hera, is approached by a figure or figures; two examples, Lakonian cups, bear a dedicatory inscription to the god (Figs. 3.27– 28).141 But it is impor­tant to think of this image of Zeus at Olympia as part of the ­temple, a military victory monument. As if to underscore this quality, combats raged on his throne and footstool: Theseus and Herakles fighting against the Amazons, and Apollo and Artemis shooting down the Niobids. The Pheidian Zeus sat—­aloof, non-­interventionist—to award Nike personified in his outstretched right hand. One might ask, was this the case with portrayals of gods everywhere? Was this change part of a more general trend t­ oward more tranquil images of deities? Himmelmann argued that images of deities changed with the transition from the archaic to the classical period from formal, aggressive depictions to “Daseinsbilder,” as he termed them,142 but this is only partially true. The use of contrapposto in the classical period made energetic figures look more elastic and standing figures more relaxed, regardless of any other f­actors, including narrative context. In addition, Himmelmann draws most of his examples from vase painting, which does, indeed, show more Daseinsbilder in the classical period than previously: Daseinsbilder are most at home on painted vases ­because of the non-­civic nature of vase painting and the ease of creating narrative scenes in this medium. But t­ here are plenty of images of gods fighting and moving energetically in classical vase paintings, as well, for example, in scenes of the Gigantomachy, or Athena Promachos in images of the birth of Athena. Athena Promachos continues to stride forward on Panathenaic amphorae and other vase painting and on coins;143 Artemis and Apollo continue to hunt down the Niobids in vase painting and sculpture, including on the throne of the Pheidian Zeus mentioned above;144 and Artemis is portrayed as a swiftly moving hunter ­whether prey is portrayed or not in vase painting.145 Even in large-­scale sculpture, one continues to see energetically moving gods: one can cite, for example, the depictions of Poseidon and Athena in the contest between the two deities on the west pediment of the Parthenon, or the Gigantomachy in the east metopes of the Parthenon. The Artemision god, whom most scholars believe is Zeus, is a

to judge from its position), but in this case, the god is standing with his legs slightly apart (not striding). See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 321 no. 42 [M. Tiverios]. 141  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 262–64; Kunze-­Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000, 29–32 no. 11 (Lakonian), 63–64 no. 36 (Lakonian), 64–72 no. 37 (Lakonian), 216 no. 12 (Attic black-­figure). For comparanda to the Lakonian examples and discussion of the iconography of the seated male deity on Lakonian cups found in sanctuaries, see Pipili 1987, 60–63. Pipili points to Lakonian votive reliefs to heroes as close relatives to the vase-­painting compositions but also notes significant differences (60). 142  Himmelmann 1959. 143  LIMC II, s.v. Athena, 971–72, 966 no. 76 [P. Demargne]. 144  E.g., LIMC II, s.v. Artemis, 727 nos. 1347–53 [L. Kahil]. 145  E.g., LIMC II, s.v. Artemis, 639 nos. 171–76. 651 nos. 355–66. 653 nos. 392, 396–97, 700 no. 1034 [L. Kahil].



The Fifth ­Century B.C.141

Fig. 3.27. Lakonian kylix with seated Zeus and Hera approached by a crowned youth (Ganymede?) (Olympia K2101), c. 525–500 B.C., terracotta. Photo: D DAI ATH-Olympia 6756 (Gösta Hellner).

Fig. 3.28. Lakonian kylix with seated Zeus and Hera (Olympia, Archaeological Museum K1292), c. 530–525 B.C., terracotta. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-­Olympia-4992 (Eva-­Maria Czakó).

superb example of an early classical statue of a divinity in dynamic motion (and see the discussion of the Zeus by Ageladas below). Himmelmann is correct that we see more Daseinsbilder in the classical period, but other types of images ­were employed as well. Similarly, one might question w ­ hether the iconographical change for Zeus images at Olympia as described ­here was unique to this place. How did Zeus appear elsewhere before c. 470, and did such depictions change afterward? Archaic images of Zeus outside of Olympia ­were more varied than at Olympia: they ­were seated or more commonly standing. In several instances, such as the conflict between Apollo and Herakles for the Delphic tripod, Zeus intervenes to mediate, as one sees on the east pediment of the Siphnian Trea­sury of c. 525 B.C. at Delphi,146 but the Zeus Keraunios format dominated standing types, particularly t­ hose without a narrative context, that is, free-­standing sculpture, while some narratives and large-­scale sculpture employed the seated motif.147 Again, contrary to the situation at Olympia, Zeus Keraunios is the favored format for repre­sen­ta­tions of the god outside of Olympia for several de­cades ­after c. 480: on fifth-­century B.C. bronzes,148 such as the lost Zeus of Ithome by Ageladas of Argos (Paus. 4.33.1–2),149 and vase paintings;150 and ­later on coins of the fourth and third centuries B.C.151 And again unlike the situation at Olympia, only from the 440s B.C. onward does one see an increase in the number of calm, seated Zeus images outside of Olympia. Two bronze figurines from Olympia of mid-­fifth-­ century date (dated on the basis of style) portray Zeus Keraunios,152 but ­these are exceptional. What might explain the change in Zeus’ portrayal? Inscriptions attest to a historical-­political development at Olympia that signals a new role for the god at the site. An inscribed bronze tablet, a reused cauldron h ­ andle, dated to the first half of the fifth ­century on the basis of its letter forms, and more precisely between 476

146  Taking the east pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus at Olympia as his starting point, Osada (2008, 219–23) discusses gods who protect, t­ hose who judge, and t­ hose who mediate. Zeus does the last in depictions (Osada concentrates on vase painting) of Herakles v. Apollo, Herakles v. Kyknos, and the Psychostasia accompanying the conflict between Achilles and Memnon. 147  See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 323–24 [M. Tiverios]. 148  From Dodona and Pherai. See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324 nos. 62i–­j (cf. nos. 62a–­d) [M. Tiverios]. He also appears on a silver sheet from Dodona of c. 450 B.C. See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324 no. 66 [M. Tiverios]. 149  Of c. 455–450 B.C. DNO 1, 371–72 no. 465; LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324 no. 63, 332–33 [M. Tiverios]. Gross (1963, 14–15) follows Lacroix (1949, 228–30) in seeing the statue mirrored in coins of the Messenians; see LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 362 no. 431 [S. Kremydi-­Sicilianou]. 150  LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324 no. 71, 329 nos. 107, 112 [M. Tiverios]. 151  Coins from Messene, Zankle, Ambrakia, Thuria, Olosson, and the Bruttian League. See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 362–63 nos. 427–28, 431–33, 440, 447 [S. Kremydi-­Sicilianou]. He also appears on coins from Corinth of the first ­century B.C. See LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 363 no. 441 [S. Kremydi-­Sicilianou]. 152  LIMC VIII, s.v. Zeus, 324 nos. 62g–­h [M. Tiverios].



The Fifth ­Century B.C.143

Fig. 3.29. Inscribed cauldron ­handle (Olympia Br 6362), c. 476–472 B.C., bronze, H 8cm. Courtesy of DAI. Berlin (P. Grunwald).

and 472 on historical grounds (Fig. 3.29),153 demonstrates that Olympia was established as a place of arbitration ­after the Persian Wars.154 The bronze document reviews and revokes an e­ arlier decision regarding a conflict between Boiotia and Thessaly, on the one hand, and Athens and Thespiai, on the other hand.155 The text of the decision begins Ἄγαλμα Διόϛ, which Siewert interprets as indicating that the decision is made by Zeus himself.156 Scholars explain that the implementation of arbitration at Olympia was a direct consequence of the Persian Wars: that the victory at Plataia achieved by the unity of Greeks inspired the implementation of arbitration to avoid ‘internal’ strife among Greeks.157 The experiences of the Persian Wars seem a likely explanation for the new practice at Olympia, and one might point to the numerous poleis named on the Plataian Monument at Olympia and on the serpent column at Delphi as indicative of a new sense of unity (Fig. 3.6).158 However, this posited sense of newfound togetherness did not p ­ revent the Athenians from erecting their own dedication at Delphi: shields affixed to the north and east metopes of the t­ emple of Apollo at Delphi, together with an inscription indicating that ­these ­were Plataian spoils from the Medes and the Thebans, who collaborated

153 

Olympia, Archaeological Museum B6362. See Siewert 1981, 232, 245–48. Cf. Arafat 2006, 16; Bäbler 2000, 217. 155  Just a­ fter 479, the Boiotians and Thessalians w ­ ere punished for breaking the Olympic truce of 480 b ­ ecause they participated in the sack of Athens and Thespiai. 156  Siewert (1981, 241–42) goes on to discuss a third-­century B.C. inscription from Epidauros that also empowers the Hellanodikai in Epidauros to review and revoke a past decision, and as in the case of the text from Olympia, they do this in the name of the god. In private correspondence, however, Klaus Hallof disagrees with this interpretation and sees t­ hese words as indicating a dedication to Zeus. 157  Sinn (2004a, 80) is the chief proponent of this view, but the same opinion is echoed in Kyrieleis 2011, 110. 158  On the serpent column, see, e.g., DNO 1, 546–50 nos. 639–42; Gauer 1968, 75–96. 154 

144

Chapter 3

with them, another reference to the events that prompted the Olympian arbitration mentioned on the inscribed cauldron h ­ andle.159 Some seventy-­one inscribed bronze and stone documents from the sixth ­century B.C. continuing into the Roman period at Olympia detail laws, treaties, proxeny and citizenship decrees, rules concerning the Olympic festival and games, rules concerning the privileges accorded to vari­ous visitors to the sanctuary, and victors’ lists,160 and at least some of ­these texts may have been stored or displayed in the Bouleuterion (Pls. 1, 7, Figs. 2.1, 3.1). ­There are four other arbitration decrees from the site, all considerably ­later—­the second ­century B.C.161—­than the reused cauldron h ­ andle but this is hardly surprising: in fact, it is remarkable that we have any bronze documents at all from the site considering the fate of metal, especially small (the cauldron ­handle mea­sures W 23cm × H 8cm × D 0.6–1.22mm),162 sometimes flattened sheets of thin metal, in the post-­antique period. But Pausanias (5.6.6) provides additional evidence for Olympia arbitrating a conflict: the Olympian Boule settled a land dispute concerning Xenophon in the fourth ­century B.C. In any case, it is instructive to return to the Apollonian Monument, where the ­mothers of Achilles and Memnon appeal to the god (Fig. 3.4). ­Here, Zeus arbitrates, persuaded by Thetis’ arguments to spare the life of her son, and we have noted that the Apollonian Monument backs up to the Bouleuterion, where the boule from Elis met and voted. The monument’s psychostasia image has a long history in lit­er­a­ture and visual depictions though usually Hermes holds the scales, weighing the souls of the warriors. ­Here, the monument is more meta­phorical as the two ­mothers beseech the god, and Hermes is omitted. The monument’s theme, together with the evolution of Olympia into a site for arbitration, makes me won­der if the unusual practice of dedicating weights—­presumably t­ hose used for weighing amounts of food sold at the festival—to Zeus at Olympia might be not only thankofferings for good profits but also efforts to persuade Zeus to balance his scales in f­ avor of the devotee (Fig. 1.6a-­b). Weights appear as occasional dedications at other sites, but elsewhere their numbers are nowhere near as g­ reat (480 at Olympia; the largest number of weights from any other sanctuary in the Mediterranean is 27).163 Nearly all the inscribed weights render Zeus’ name in the genitive; that is, he is the possessor of the object. Dedicatory inscriptions

159 

Paus. 10.19.4; Gauer 1968, 26, 75. ­These shields ­were ‘renewed’ in the fourth ­century B.C., as we know from Aischin. In Ctes. 116. 160  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, nos. 1–15; IvO 1–43. 161  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, nos. 14–15; IvO 47, 52. 162  Siewert 1981, 228. 163  Hitzl (1996, 42 n. 321) notes that t­here are three additional objects, which may be weights. As comparative numbers, Hitzl (1996, 38) states that 123 bronze and iron weights dating over a five-­hundred-­year period w ­ ere recovered from the Athenian Agora, and Olynthos produced 122 examples. ­These are the largest numbers outside Olympia. Beyond ­these two locations, the numbers drop sharply, e.g., twenty-­four from Delphi, three from Corinth.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.145

at Olympia usually use the dative form but ­there are exceptions, including inscribed armor,164 such as the inscriptions on two bronze greaves, one of c. 650–550 B.C.165 and another of c. 550–525 B.C.;166 like the inscriptions on most of the weights, the dedication on the ­later bronze greave explic­itly states that it is a dedication of Olympian Zeus.167 ­There are metal objects with more prosaic use—­cauldrons, a spit, a bowl, a bucket—­inscribed with the genitive form of Zeus.168 One might argue that ­these ­were official weights belonging to the sanctuary, but the official mea­sures at the site are nearly always inscribed Δαμοσία (see chapter 1, Fig. 1.5a),169 and the weights at Olympia are not. In addition, the findspots of the weights—­nearly all around the east, south, and west of the Altis with concentrations of them near the southeast Artemis altar and near the Leonidaion and only a handful from within the Altis—­support the idea that they ­were once used for commercial transactions (Fig. 1.7).170 In sum, I think the weights can be considered dedications and not (only) official mea­sures. We can cite additional evidence pointing to a change in the perception of Zeus at Olympia. The vast numbers of votive weapons and armor dwindle at Olympia and elsewhere ­after c. 440 B.C., just as the number of dedicated weights begins to increase.171 Siewert explains this phenomenon as reflecting a new policy that prohibited or l­ imited commemorating victory between rival Greek cities with tropaia,172 while ­others propose that the change can be explained by the growing practice of dedicating weapons and armor—­war booty—in city centers, for example, in stoai.173 Si­mul­ta­ neously, we see an increase in the dedication of bronze bars with stamped weights on them, and Siewert suggests that ­these weights ­were made of weapons that ­were melted down, then dedicated.174 If this w ­ ere so, we would have transformed dedications, which perhaps ­were intended to weight Zeus’ scales in military ­matters. But Siewert’s reasoning is improbable since at least two l­ater, spectacularly large monuments at Olympia commemorated victories of one Greek polis over another (see below),175 and Frielinghaus has persuasively demonstrated that inscribed arms 164  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 164. Several objects, such as bronze figurines, are inscribed with the genitive form of Zeus. It is hard to conceive that some of ­these objects, such as figurines of athletes, are anything other than votives to the god. See Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 99–100 nos. 44–46. 165  Inv. B553. 166  Inv. B4202. 167  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 200 no. 171, 202 no. 175. See also the inscribed armor and weapons: Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 200–209, nos. 172–90; a bronze buckle, Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 212 no. 196; and the restored inscription: Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 191–92 no. 160 a, b; as well as the discussion in Siewert 1996, 145. 168  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 222–23. Cf. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 227–28 no. 221. 169  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 251–60. 170  Hitzl 1996, Taf. 43. 171  Siewert 1996, 145. 172  Siewert 1996, 147. 173  Baitinger 2019, 137–38. 174  Siewert 1996, 146–48. 175  Cf. Frielinghaus 2011, 230–31.

146

Chapter 3

continue to be dedicated in the fourth ­century B.C. at Olympia, though ­there are far fewer examples. I am dubious about Siewert’s proposal of transformed dedications, as well, since no evidence exists at Olympia for this pro­cess in the classical period,176 and the motivation for such a laborious pro­cess is puzzling. Recycling of metal votives is a common phenomenon,177 but Siewert’s proposal is not about recycling but changing the form of a dedication from weapons to bars. Frielinghaus argues that changes in religious practice and survival rates may account for what we perceive as a sharp drop-­off; that is, ­there may not have been any sharp drop-­off at all.178 Likewise, I would suggest that the large number of weights and their increasing number from the last third of the fifth c­ entury B.C. onward also may be interpreted as a change in religious practice stimulated by a new perception of Zeus’ role and image at Olympia. Perhaps a mea­sure of how the new image of Zeus with regard to warfare, the non-­ bellicose Zeus, began to take hold is the military victory monuments at Olympia erected ­after the ­Temple of Zeus. Shortly a­ fter the completion of the T ­ emple of Zeus’ cult statue, the Messenians and Naupaktians dedicated a winged Nike 30m to the east of the facade of the ­Temple of Zeus (Pls. 24-25a-­b, Fig. 3.30). The Nike, 2.16m from the plinth to the top of the head, flies through the air and extends her left leg forward in preparation to alight atop an 8.45m-­high, triangular marble base.179 Flying beneath her feet from an amorphous cloud is an ea­gle (his wings ­were added separately) that raises her off the base, which, together with her outspread wings (now largely missing), created the illusion of the figure in midair.180 The triangular-­shaped base bore an inscription on its east or front side, which states that the monument is a dedication from the Messenians and Naupaktians and names Paionios of Mende as the sculptor.181 On the basis of historical and stylistic grounds, the statue is usually dated c. 420 B.C.182 Shields, presumably t­ hose from the e­ nemy Spartans, w ­ ere attached to the base on its three sides as we can see by cuttings and the ‘ghosts’ that they have left ­behind so the offering was another tropaion, though not a conventional one. The size and position of the monument, together with the over-­lifesize marble statue, set this trophy apart and made it immediately vis­i­ble to anyone within the Altis, a 176  Frielinghaus 2011, 82–92, 231. Moreover, Frielinghaus notes that some of the bronze weights contain lead, which would not have been pre­sent in the original weapons. 177  Cf. Leypold 2014b, 35. 178  Frielinghaus 2011, 230–32. She points out, quite rightly, that armor was given in the classical and Hellenistic periods but rarely buried in the earth so that most of it was melted down or taken, hence the small survival rates (230). The decline in armor votives occurs at other sanctuaries, not only at Olympia, perhaps due to a change in votive practices. In fact, they continue to be dedicated, but in smaller numbers, ­until the second ­century B.C. (231). She concludes that ­there was no extant formal regulation to prohibit the offering of armor votives at Olympia. 179  On the pillar and its reconstruction, see Herrmann 1972. 180  On the use of Parian marble, used for the Nike and the pillar, at Olympia, see Herrmann 2000. 181  DNO 2, 635–38 no. 1431; IvO 259. 182  Kreikenbom 2004, 198.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.147

monumental response (pun intended) to the victory shield erected by the Spartans atop the ­Temple of Zeus. Yet, Zeus is nowhere to be seen, except as the ea­gle accompanying the awarding of victory.183 Zeus performs this task in the east pediment of the T ­ emple of Zeus, where he holds a tainia for the victor.184 In the late fifth c­ entury B.C. Olympic victors receiving their crowns in front of the ­temple faced the crowd in the theatron to the east,185 while the Nike of Paionios loomed above, Nikai crowned the ­temple pediments (Paus. 5.10.4), and the god within held Nike in his outstretched hand. Standing in the east pediment was Zeus, who acknowledges the victor in the chariot race within the pediment, as well as that of the athletes standing below, prepared to award victory to both.186 On the throne of the Pheidian Zeus directly across from the entrance to the cella, a boy athlete tied a ribbon around his head, echoing the ­actual crowning of athletes occurring outside the ­temple (Paus. 5.11.3). Zeus appears on a military victory monument once more at Olympia: Pausanias (5.24.4) describes an 8m-­high Zeus from booty taken from a triumphant victory over Fig. 3.30. Reconstruction of the Nike of Paionios by Klaus Herrmann. The Messenians added the lowest inscription, an arbitration decision concerning a dispute between Messenians and Lakedaimonians over borders, c. 135 B.C.

183  A hammered bronze sheet (Olympia inv. 7061) with a relief of Zeus holding a thunderbolt in his lowered right hand, his ea­gle in his left, from the second half of the fifth ­century B.C. mirrors this less aggressive image of Zeus: he has his weapons at hand but does not use them. See Furtwängler 1890, 106 no. 713a; pl. 37: 713a. 184  See p. 127 n. 94. Roy (2013, 116) points out that the placement of this monument within view of the shield dedicated by the Spartans on the T ­ emple of Zeus was a deliberate riposte to Sparta, who had hostile relations to the Naupaktians. He assumes that the Nike was dedicated a­ fter the Peace of Nikias when Sparta and Elis w ­ ere contesting Lepreon. 185  Barringer 2009, 238–39. 186  Sinn (2004a, 79–80) also describes the Centauromachy in the west pediment of the T ­ emple of Zeus as strife between neighbors and its “Schlichtung” and connects it to the Persian Wars, specifically the Greek united stand against the Plataians. As argued elsewhere (Barringer 2005), I do not perceive a connection to the Persian Wars but certainly the west pediment mirrors events of the east pediment—­Elis and Pisa w ­ ere warring neighbors. But the central gods’ role in ­these two compositions is dif­fer­ent: Apollo actively encourages the Lapiths, while Zeus stands quietly.

148

Chapter 3

the Arkadians c. 365–363 B.C. Once again, the inscribed conglomerate base survives in part, although the statue, surely smaller than 8m, does not (Fig.  3.31);187 unfortunately, the surviving slab gives no indication as to Zeus’ pose.188 But even if he ­were Keraunios, we must keep in mind that he was dedicated by the Eleans, t­ hose who had regained control of the site, and perhaps they, and they alone, had Zeus fighting on their side. This same logic might also explain Elis’ continued use of Zeus Keraunios on their coinage of c. 470 to 400 B.C. (Fig. 3.25a): Olympia may have become a site of arbitration as indicated by the bronze inscription and Zeus’ images, but Elis received special dispensation from the god. PA RT I V : O T H E R VO T I V E MONUMENTS A handful of other sculptural monuments can be identified by means of inscription or other unusual characteristics by comparing extant in situ bases with ­those mentioned Fig. 3.31. Elean base. Photo: author. in Pausanias. Although hundreds of sculpted monuments are attested at Olympia through inscribed bases or written accounts, few are known from both categories of evidence and even fewer are in situ.189 In the fifth ­century B.C., nearly all of ­these monuments ­were military or athletic victory monuments. An extraordinary exception is one of several dedications made by Mikythos (Paus. 5.26.3–5); the base of one has been found north of the ­Temple of Zeus (Pl. 7, Fig. 3.1). Part of the original poros foundations remains in situ on top of the building 187  Kyrieleis 2011, 102–3 fig. 108; IvO 260. It was found north of the T ­ emple of Zeus and the statue would, according to Kyrieleis, have overlooked the ash altar. This assumes, of course, that the base was discovered in situ. The cuttings on the top of the base appear to be secondary since one would expect a profile of some kind above the inscribed block. 188  Simon (1978, 1433) again believes that the figure could not be striding ­because of its size. According to IvO 260, the inscribed base, H 1.33m, W 0.71m, D 0.41m, was flanked on both sides by additional blocks. The depth would still be a prob­lem for a statue facing ­toward the inscription, but if the statue ­were turned 90 degrees, it is pos­si­ble. Moreover, one might imagine the depth of the base formed not of a single block but of two or three blocks, which would yield a considerably greater depth. 189  According to current publications; Leypold’s study (see p. 109, n. 15) ­will surely change this.



The Fifth ­Century B.C.149

debris from the construction of the T ­ emple of Zeus, thus yielding a terminus post quem of c. 467: a­ fter the laying of the t­ emple foundations and the return of Mikythos from Sicily (cf. Hdt. 7.170.4).190 Two gray-­white marble blocks with cuttings for bronze statues bear parts of the original inscription (and ­there are fragments of a third inscribed block),191 while two ­others, which are assigned to the monument on the basis of material, format, and technical treatment, ­were reused and reinscribed in the mid-­second ­century A.D.192 The latter blocks have not been ‘placed’ within the monument.193 The group, by Dionysios of Argos according to Pausanias, consists of at least the twelve figures recorded by Pausanias, which stood on the base north of the ­ Temple of Zeus: Persephone, Aphrodite, Artemis, Ganymede, Asklepios, Hygieia, an unbearded Zeus (cf. Paus. 5.24.6), Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Agon, and Dionysos. The Mikythos dedication is highly unusual; unlike nearly ­every other large-­scale classical votive that we know of at Olympia, this one commemorates a personal m ­ atter. Pausanias (5.26.5) explains that the many statues, which include vari­ous deities, mythological figures, poets, and personifications, ­were thankofferings for the recovery of Mikythos’ son from an illness. The extant cuttings for bronze statues indicate that the figures stood in quiet poses. Eckstein reckons that the base, when complete, could hold 20–22 figures, and b ­ ecause the inscription indicates that the base was dedicated to all gods, he restores the twelve Olympian gods on this base, together with the non-­ Olympian figures mentioned above for a total of nineteen figures.194 No apparent connection or narrative exists to unite this vast group beyond s­ imple pairings, for example, Asklepios and Hygieia, but Nero’s removal of some statues to Rome (reported by the periegete) and pos­si­ble replacements made for the gaps left by the absent figures may have destroyed unifying ‘links.’ Pausanias describes another group, of which no trace survives: Poseidon, Amphitrite, and Hestia made by Glaukos of Argos and located in the northeastern pteron of the T ­ emple of Zeus.195 ­Whether Pausanias’ discussion of Mikythos’ dedication is entirely accurate or not, the patron certainly intended to leave an impression on the viewer, to pre­sent himself as impor­tant and munificent.196 190 

Löhr 2000, 42–44 no. 45; Eckstein 1969, 40; Furtwängler 1879b, 151. Inv. 100, 303, 498, 501, 522a–­b, 660; DNO 1, 383–88 nos. 473–74; IvO 267–69; SEG 11, 1221; 28, 431; 42, 396; 43, 1250; 44, 740; 45, 1431; 50, 1712; 57, 949. 192  IvO 316. For the monument’s inscriptions, see SEG 11, 1221; 28, 431; 42, 396; 43, 1250; 44, 740; 45, 1431; 50, 1712; 57, 949. 193  Eckstein 1969, 33–34. 194  Eckstein 1969, 39. 195  DNO 1, 382–83 no. 472; Löhr (2000, 43) places the Amphitrite, Poseidon, and Hestia group in the pronaos of the Zeus t­ emple. 196  Luraghi (1994, 228–29) would like to interpret Agon as a direct reference to the world of the western Greek tyrants. 191 

150

Chapter 3

Beyond these monuments, inscriptions and Pausanias’ account attest to many works by well-­known sculptors, for example, Onatas of Aigina and Polykleitos, suggesting the cost to the patrons and the prestige of the works in this public and sacred space. Proximity to the area immediately to the east and southeast of the ­Temple of Zeus in the classical period was desirable a­ fter the construction of the t­emple.197 ­Here, the statues stood in the Altis among images of gods and heroes, exalting the victorious mortals to a higher status, and they ­were highly vis­i­ble to visitors to the site, who passed along the way ­here to the ash altar. Athletic victory statues for non-­equestrian events typically depicted a solitary standing figure made of bronze, as evident from extant cuttings. An inscribed base supporting a statue of Kallias of Athens, a victorious pankratiast in 472, made by Mikon of Athens serves as example (Paus. 6.6.1; cf. Paus. 5.9.3).198 The base, found immediately to the north of the Eretrian steer but not in situ, bears lead-­filled cuttings for the feet, which ­were turned outward slightly and suggest an over-­lifesize statue of 2.54m high.199 Kallias had a po­liti­cal c­ areer in Athens, where he was ostracized in 450 (Andok. 4.32).200 Over-­lifesize bronze statues ­were apparently not unusual, as suggested by the account of a law restricting the height of victors’ statues to no greater than lifesize. In spite of this effort, over-­lifesize bronze statues commemorating athletic wins continued to be placed in the Altis in the fifth ­century B.C. Truly colossal sculpture, however, appears to have been reserved for deities. As an example of a commission from a renowned sculptor, we have the bronze statue of Pythokles of Elis, a monument with a remarkably complex history. Pythokles’ victory was in the pentathlon, as we know from Pausanias (6.7.10), who also mentions the statue, and an Oxyrhynchus papyrus (no. 222) confirms this and provides a date: 452 B.C.201 The cuttings on the extant black limestone base indicate that the athlete stood in contrapposto with the victor’s name inscribed on the front vertical surface and the sculptor’s name, Polykleitos, written on the top surface (Fig. 3.32a-­b).202 The base was ­later reinscribed with a single inscription combining the names of athlete and sculptor in the second or first ­century B.C. for reasons unknown.203 At some ­later point, the statue was removed; ­either at that time or ­later, another statue was put 197 

Lecture by Christina Leypold, Berlin, 2015. Inv. 119. DNO 2, 757–58 no. 1549; IvO 146; SEG 11, 1225; 46, 2264; 47, 102; Keesling 2017, 89. 199  Krumeich 1997, 89–90. 200  Ostraka with his name inscribed support Andokides’ account: see Brenne 1994, 18–19; Lang 1990, 65. 201  Settis 1985, 489. See FGrH 415, 2. Contra: Keesling (2017, 87, 195, 198) thinks that the type of base is fourth ­century B.C. and therefore assigns it to Polykleitos II, working in the second quarter of the fourth ­century B.C. She believes the portrait to be retrospective. 202  Inv. 675; DNO 2, 475 no. 1232; SEG 16, 288; 29, 416; 49, 2496. Treu 1897, 281–84 nos. 162, 163. Klauser (2016, 256–58) has challenged this and thinks the two inscriptions may not be contemporaneous and that the sculptor’s signature predates the name of the athlete. 203  Settis 1985, 494. 198 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.151

Figs. 3.32a, b. Pythokles’ base and drawing from IvO 162, 163. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

on the base but not in the same location or pose.204 Furthermore, a second marble base, inscribed with the same names—­Polykleitos as the sculptor and Pythokles as the pentathlete victor—­was found in the area of the Templum Pacis in Rome; the inscribed letter forms suggest a date in the second ­century A.D.205 Which statue did this Roman base support? Settis postulates two possibilities: e­ ither some l­ ater statue having nothing at all to do with Pythokles but simply reusing the base without regard to the inscription, or a copy of the original Polykleitan Pythokles, perhaps erected by the pentathletes of an athletic association to commemorate a g­ reat past athlete.206 If the latter, one must then ask what the copyist was copying if the Polykleitan original had already been removed. And, of course, t­ here is the possibility that the original Polykleitan statue was taken to Rome207—­yet ­there has been some question as to the positioning of the cuttings for insertion of the feet on the Roman base; one early scholar claimed that they inverted the stance as seen on the original Olympia base, while another scholar discounted this, pointing to the inverted stance on the Roman base as a result of secondary use.208 The top surface of the Rome base has still not been published.209 While this ‘biography’ of the statue by a famed sculptor and base is unusually complex, it exemplifies the difficulty of working with the disembodied statue bases at Olympia and gives some idea of the afterlife of such images in the Roman world. Western Greeks continued to make their presence felt at Olympia in the fifth ­century B.C.210 Numerous athletic victors from this region are recorded. For example, Euthymos of Lokri won three Olympic victories in boxing (484, 476, and 472 B.C.) and was honored by a statue created by Pythagoras of Samos (Paus. 6.6.4–6). In addition to Pausanias’ testimony, the inscribed Pentelic marble base survives.211 As indicated by a rasura beneath part of the inscription, a change was made in the name of the patron. Pythagoras’ name survives on another, partial base of c. 480–470. It is not clear from the fragmentary inscription ­whether Pythagoras is the sculptor or victorious athlete honored by the monument, but Pausanias (6.13.1) mentions that the sculptor Pythagoras created another statue at Olympia, this time honoring Astylos of Kroton, who was victorious in three Olympiads; it is pos­si­ble that this base supported Astylos’ image.212 204 

Settis 1985, 494. The fate of the original bronze statue is, as usual, unknown. Settis 1985. 206  Settis 1985, 494–95. 207  Asserted by several sources: DNO 2, 476–77; La Rocca 2001, 196–97. 208  Settis 1985, 490. 209  DNO 2, 476. 210  See, e.g., Yalouris 1981. 211  Inv. 357. DNO 1, 581–82 no. 674; IvO 144; SEG 11, 1224; 14, 354; 16, 288; 29, 409; 35, 381; 36, 393; 39, 1822; 40, 809; 42, 384; 48, 546; 50, 461. Part of a second Pentelic marble base with the sculptor’s name is extant but we do not know for whom the base was made nor for which occasion: IvO 145. 212  IvO 145; DNO 1, 580–81 no. 673. 205 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.153

The tyrants of Sicilian cities made impressive sculptural dedications at Olympia to commemorate their equestrian victories at the Olympic games, which also w ­ ere sometimes celebrated with commissioned victory odes (one-­third of the extant Pindaric odes ­were composed for west Greek victors at Olympia).213 Pausanias saw several such dedications southeast of the ­Temple of Zeus in the vicinity of the Plataian base; ­whether this was the original placement of t­ hese images or not is uncertain, although it seems doubtful that such large groups would be removed and reassembled elsewhere. The quadriga monument commemorating Gelon’s chariot-­race victory in 488 was already discussed in chapter 2 (Pl. 16), and we have mentioned Hieron of Syracuse’s horse-­race victory in 476, which was honored by Pindar, Olympian 1. The latter was but one of three victories for Hieron at Olympia: the ­others occurred in 472 and 468.214 The last of ­these was the impetus for Bacchylides’ third epinician and seems to have been the raison d’être for a bronze monument of a quadriga, perhaps lifesize, dedicated by Hieron’s son, Deinomenes, shortly ­after his ­father’s death in 467/66.215 The importance of the quadriga race and victory in this discipline cannot be overlooked and was an especially coveted achievement by Sicilian tyrants.216 Pausanias’ account (6.12.1, 8.42.8–10) describes a quadriga flanked on each side by a boy riding a ­horse, and credits Onatas of Aigina with the chariot and its rider and the sculptor Kalamis with the two ­horses and their mounts.217 Pausanias mentions that a man (ἀνήρ) stood in the chariot, and surely Hieron did, too.218 Although Pausanias describes seeing this base east of the Plataian Monument and southeast of the T ­ emple of Zeus, no trace of the original base remains. Pausanias saw a group of athletic victor statues east of the ­Temple of Zeus, near the Eretrian steer.219 ­These belonged to the illustrious ­family of Diagoras of Rhodes, which produced six Olympic victors, all of whom had bronze statues at Olympia (Paus. 6.7.1–8). Three of the inscribed bases remain: that for Diagoras, whose victory in 464 was, according to Pausanias, celebrated by a statue created by Kallikles from Megara;220 as well as one for his son Damagetos (pankration winner in 452 and 448 B.C.)221 and one for his ­uncle Eukles, who won in boxing in 404 B.C.222 The victory of Diagoras’ 213 

Philipp 1994a, 79. Cf. Paus. 8.42.9. 215  Jünger 2004, 59–60; Schollmeyer 2001, 16–17; Löhr 2000, 41 no. 44; Krumeich 1997, 36–37. On the chariot-­race victory monuments at Olympia, see the discussion in Jünger 2006, 9–143, which usefully summarizes previous scholarship and pre­sents the current state of thinking. 216  Jünger 2004, 58, 60–62. 217  DNO 1, 422–23 no. 502. 218  Jünger (2004, 60) argues against Hieron’s presence while Krumeich (1997, 37–38) ­favors Hieron portrayed as a char­i­ot­eer with a long chiton. 219  DNO 2, 551–52 no. 1336. 220  Inv. 94, 1009–11; DNO 2, 409–10 no. 1157; IvO 151; SEG 16, 288; 49, 476; 50, 733, 1712. 221  Inv. 729; DNO 2, 409 no. 1157; IvO 152; SEG 16, 288; 49, 476; 50, 1712. 222  Inv. 356; DNO 2, 408 no. 1155, 551–52 no. 1336; IvO 159; SEG 16, 288; 49, 476; 50, 1712. 214 

154

Chapter 3

son Dorieus is known from a base inscribed with a list of victories.223 Although Diagoras’ boxing victory was in 464 B.C. (and was celebrated in Pindar, Olympian 7 from which we learn that he was a periodonike), the inscription on his base dates to c. 300 B.C., which may have been a renewal of an ­earlier inscription.224 ­Family groups of statues became ever more common in the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4), so this may be one of the earliest if Pausanias saw ­these works in their original locations.225 The fifth c­ entury B.C. was an extraordinary time for Olympia and its monuments, which closely interacted with each other and reflected religious and historical events. Even though we cannot place all the commemorative monuments, which existed in a variety of formats, it is clear that the erection of such monuments was regarded as a po­liti­cal desideratum, as well as a religious necessity. The impression must have been overwhelming—­large commemorative groups of multiple lifesize or over-­lifesize bronze figures of ­humans, heroes, men, and ­horses among a small army of individual bronze and marble statues of varying sizes—­some atop columns—­crowding the Altis.226 Viewers not only could observe images, such as the Eretrian steer and Pelops and Zeus in the east pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus that mirrored real­ity, but also themselves became part of the visual topography, as they walked among and between monuments, such as the Achaian Monument. Among such com­pany, the divisions between ­human, hero, and god blur visually and meta­phor­ically although Zeus reigns supreme over all. 223 

IvO 153. See also Keesling 2017, 89; and Löhr 2000, 61–63 for this group. DNO 2, 409 no. 1157. 225  On this group and the date of its sculptures, see now Keesling 2017, 87–88. 226  In addition, we should mention terracotta sculptures of the fifth c­ entury B.C., whose original placement and sometimes function are unknown. ­These include a pair of fragmentary lions of the mid-­fifth ­century B.C., which may have served as pedimental decoration or as a free-­standing dedication, while another pair belonged to a similar votive or adorned a pediment; a dolphin—­and prob­ably companion—on waves of the second half of the fifth ­century, which adorned a now unknown structure, perhaps a fountain h ­ ouse; and the well-­known Zeus and Ganymede group (Pl. 15, see pp. 86–87). 224 



The Fifth ­Century B.C.155

4 T H E F O U R T H ­C E N T U RY   B .C . A N D THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD

We have been following a story of Olympia’s continual growth in prestige and importance over time, its multiplication of monuments from poleis and athletes, who ­were ­eager to commemorate and trumpet victories within the Altis, where thousands of visitors could see statues and read their inscriptions. And since ancient Greek seems to have been read aloud, the very act of reading proclaimed and perpetuated the victory once again. This concentrated place of honor and praise for victories in strug­gles on the battlefield and on the athletic field was singular in the multiplied depictions of Zeus, of athletes, and of heroes. But renewed controversy over control of the sanctuary in the first half of the fourth ­century and natu­ral events affected Olympia’s development. War between Elis and Sparta in 402/400 resulted in loss of territory for Elis (Xen. Hell. 3.2.21–31, Fig. 1).1 ­After the ­battle of Leuktra in 371, the Arkadians backed Pisa, which had become a member of the Arkadian League, against Elis in an attempt to gain influence at the site.2 This resulted in a military occupation of Olympia during the Olympic games and a ­battle in the Altis in 364 between the Eleans and Arkadians, who had fortified the sanctuary; Elis regained control of the sanctuary and games in 3623 and erected a military victory monument—­a colossal bronze statue of Zeus—to commemorate it (see pp. 148–49, Fig. 3.31). Earthquakes near Elis c. 402/401 B.C. and 373 had dramatic and deleterious effects on the buildings at Olympia as evidenced by numerous repairs and reuse of discarded members from damaged monuments, such as the east facade of the ­Temple of Zeus and toppled columns of the Bouleuterion’s eastern hall,4 in a num1 

On the war, see Nielsen 2007, 31–35. A fragmentary inscription from Olympia pertaining to the Arkadian League gives some of the evidence for this. See Ringel, Siewert, and Taeuber 1999; Kunze 1961, 212–15. 3  Inv. 90; IvO 260; SEG 11, 1213; 46, 2292; 57, 392, 401; Xen., Hell. 7.4.14–32; Nielsen 2007, 36; Herrmann 1972, 161. 4  By 364, this hall no longer existed so Pausanias never saw it. See Van de Löcht 2013, 274. The workshop in which the repairs to the ­temple sculptures ­were carried out is likely to be that identified in the southeast area of the site 2 

156

ber of new buildings constructed in the fourth c­ entury B.C.5 The ivory of the Pheidian cult statue of Zeus (Fig. 3.20) within the ­temple was repaired by the sculptor Damophon of Messene, who was honored by the Eleans for this work (Paus. 4.31.6), prob­ably a­ fter the earthquake of 183 B.C.6 Some scholars have proposed that Antiochos IV (r. 175–164 B.C.) may have been the patron for this repair;7 we know that he dedicated a purple wool curtain in the T ­ emple of Zeus, where it hung suspended (Paus. 5.12.4), presumably before the Pheidian cult statue, which could be revealed when the curtain was moved aside. Scholars claim that the prestige of the games at Olympia declined throughout the fourth ­century, and ­there was less activity from the western cities.8 Echoing sentiments of Lucian (Timon 4), they assert that Olympia had lost its international appeal and luster in the Hellenistic period, that it was a mere showplace for professional athletes at the games, and this is evidenced, in part, by the lack of new religious structures.9 Yet the archaeological facts and building activity both within the Altis and outside of it clearly cast doubt on this cynical claim and, in spite of the difficulties discussed above, indicate an ongoing vibrancy at the site. One can point to the addition of the Metroon, the Southeast Building (see discussion in chapter 1), the South Hall, the Echo Hall, and the Leonidaion in the fourth ­century B.C., new athletic facilities (the Palaistra and Gymnasion ­were constructed in the third ­century B.C.), and baths in the Hellenistic period (Fig. 4.1).10 Changes and developments also took place south of the Altis in the area posited for the Agora, and the Hippodrome, presumably south of the Stadion, may have achieved its final form at ­ nder the ‘octagon’ complex, where portions of Parian marble ele­ments belonging to the pedimental sculptures ­were u found. See Kyrieleis 1994, 18. 5  On building repairs ­because of earthquake damage in 373 B.C., see Partida 2016. 6  DNO 2, 271 no. 1009; 4, 411–12 no. 3212. 7  Lo Monaco 2009, 146. 8  Herrmann 1972, 161. 9  Freitag (2011, 75) summarizes the many scholars who subscribe to this point of view and specifically points out that ­there is no evidence to support the idea that the games had dropped in popularity (87). 10  See Lo Monaco 2013 for an overview. The Palaistra consisted of an open, nearly square (66.35m × 66.75m) courtyard of c. 41m2 bounded by Doric columns, surrounded by rooms fronted by Ionic columns. The training of boxers, wrestlers, jumpers, and pankratiasts took place in the open space. Some rooms had podia for sculpture or altars and benches lining walls, but no sculpture was found in situ. See Herrmann 1972, 175–77. Athletes in the non-­hippic events trained in the Gymnasion, a long open area (at least the length of the Stadion, c. 220m) to which flanking colonnaded stoas and a propylon ­were added in the second to the first ­century B.C. to monumentalize the entrance and create a divide between sacred and secular areas of the site, according to Lo Monaco (2009, 141–45, 503). However, this explanation is unconvincing since no sacred structures lay south of the Gymnasion where the Propylon was constructed, and the fourth-­century B.C. wall already delimited the nearby boundary of the Altis. See also Sinn 2004a, 126; Herrmann 1972, 178. The name of the patron of this sizable fourth-­century proj­ect is unknown, although Freitag (2011, 74) has nominated Ptolemy II b ­ ecause of close relations between Alexandria and Olympia in the fourth ­century B.C. (and he may have been responsible for the Palaistra, as well).



The Hellenistic Period157

Fig. 4.1. Olympia, Hellenistic period. Plan adapted by Hans R. Goette from Herrmann 1972, 176, Abb. 123.

this time (Paus. 6.20.19–6.21.1).11 ­There was even building activity beyond the traditional confines of the site (although Xen. Hell. 7.4.29–30 suggested in the fourth ­century B.C. that the Altis extended beyond the Kladeos River):12 a colonnaded hall was erected near the Gymnasion on the west bank of the Kladeos River; many Hellenistic ceramic sherds were found here, and the hall was heavi­ly used in the Augustan period to judge from the layer of numerous early imperial ceramics found ­there.13 Hundreds of sculptural dedications, some enormously elaborate, w ­ ere made throughout this entire time period. A few examples are listed below to give a sense of the geo­graph­i­cal range of the donors and honorands; what is most significant is 11 

Herrmann (1972, 167–68) conjectures that it achieved its final form in the late classical period and supposes a length of 770m. 12  See p. 42 n. 19; Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 65. 13  Kyrieleis 2013, 13.

158

Chapter 4

that the dedications ­were made at Olympia at all: had Olympia lost some of its allure, t­here would be no reason for such expenditure. On the contrary, Olympia remained a location imbued with prestige and importance for anyone wishing to stake a claim in the ancient Mediterranean. What changed ­were the types of monuments and structures erected at the site, which ­were, at this time, non-religious with the exception of the Metroon. Buildings for accommodation and dining, and space for commercial and civic activities, grew, suggesting a pressing need to ­house increasing numbers of visitors, and the fourth ­century sees evidence of the first wall outlining the Altis on the west, south, and east. Modifications ­were made to older buildings, for example, a tunnel was added to create a dramatic entrance to the Stadion c. 160 B.C. (Pl. 26a-­b, Fig. 4.2);14 a pebble mosaic pavement with a Triton and Tritoness, laid in or ­after the mid-­third ­century B.C., adorned the floor of the pronaos of the T ­ emple of Zeus (it l­ater was covered with a Roman mosaic);15 and the Trea­sury Terrace received a retaining wall.16 The new athletic facilities and bath complexes suggest a need to expand in light of increased numbers of athletes and visitors,17 and most athletic victors now came from the eastern Mediterranean as opposed to the Greek mainland or western Greece as in ­earlier times; this is true of other victors at sanctuaries elsewhere, as well.18 In short, one can observe a growing cosmopolitanism in the Olympic games, a greater focus on the games and their logistics than previously. This does not mean a decrease in the importance of Olympia’s function as a sanctuary. Sculptural dedications continued in the fourth c­ entury B.C. and the Hellenistic period, but ­there was a shift in commemorative practices, in what was commemorated, where the monuments ­were placed, and who received and donated t­ hese images. Military victory monuments, which had been so prominent ­earlier, diminished in number u ­ ntil they ceased i­n the late fourth c­ entury, then resumed in the mid-­ second ­century B.C. Among the most prominent of t­hese is the Philippeion in the Altis, begun—­and perhaps completed—by Philip II (Pls. 1, 28, Fig. 4.9a-­b). Athletic victory monuments continued to proliferate, although the votive formula using ἀνέθεκε (set up) as a verb, which began to decline in the mid-­fifth ­century B.C., became even 14 

Lo Monaco 2009, 141–46, 501–2; Herrmann 1972, 179–80. Dunbabin 1999, 18. 16  Herrmann 1972, 168. A Zanes base erected in 332 B.C. was embedded in the foundations of the retaining wall for the Trea­sury Terrace and thus yields a terminus post quem for the wall. 17  A bath complex of the second c­ entury B.C. north of the Prytaneion that included partial under-­floor heating and a first-­century B.C. bath with a hypocaust system south of the Palaistra, the Greek Baths, joined the previously existing Kladeos Baths. See Kyrieleis 2013, 7; Sinn 2012, 107; Sinn 2004a, 123–24; Sinn, Leypold, and Schauer 2003; Sinn 1999, 378; Sinn et al. 1994, 241–47. On the possibility of the baths, Gymnasion, and Palaistra being perceived as an architectural unity (although not si­mul­ta­neously built), see Lo Monaco 2013. 18  Freitag 2011, 74, 89. 15 



The Hellenistic Period159

Fig. 4.2. Stadion, view from east. Photo: author.

rarer and, instead, nominative name inscriptions took its place.19 But it is honorific statues—­for and by rulers, politicians, military leaders, phi­los­o­phers, orators, seers, and distinguished private individuals—­that dramatically increased in number, and this trend accelerated over time and well into the period of Roman control of Greece. In addition, a new dedication type makes a first appearance in fourth-­century B.C. Olympia: that made by an individual polis or ruler in honor of a po­liti­cal alliance. Previously, such alliances ­were commemorated by bronze contracts displayed at the site; now, they ­were given dramatic lifesize figural form. In the fourth ­century B.C., Olympia also exhibited its first group dedications depicting ­actual (as opposed to mythological) ­family members, and this practice grew in the fourth c­ entury and Hellenistic period. Th ­ ese developments suggest a surge in the value of social prestige attached to making a mark at Olympia, as ­either patron or honorand, and together with the energetic building activity attest to the enormous power and prestige that Olympia continued to exert in the Mediterranean world. DEFINING BORDERS The pathways leading to and from the Altis and the course of traffic within it are traceable before the mid-­fourth c­ entury B.C. But other than the clustering of monuments to the south of Kronos Hill, ­there is no indication of any physical delineation of the Altis or sacred area at Olympia before that time, although it is difficult to believe that none existed. The construction of a wall no higher than 1.50m ­after the mid-­fourth ­century B.C. marked off the Altis from the path ­running north-­south down the western side of the Altis and along the south (Fig. 4.1).20 Serving no defensive purpose, it constituted a symbolic boundary between the numerous secular structures at the west and the Altis proper and provided a barrier to keep animals from wandering into the sacred area.21 Both inside and outside the wall, statue bases w ­ ere placed against it, even on it, so that it served as both a backdrop and a podium. Leypold also points out attachment holes on the wall’s southern stretch to which stelai, presumably contracts or decrees, ­were attached.22 The construction of the Echo Hall and the wall ­behind it in the east defined the eastern boundary of the Altis. Adjacent to, and west of, the west retaining wall of the 19  Keesling (2017, 89–91) discusses the growth of this “documentary sensibility,” also evident elsewhere in the first victors’ lists of Hippias c. 400 B.C. 20  Ceramics u ­ nder the wall date from the second quarter of the fourth ­century B.C. See Herrmann 2013, 20; Mallwitz 1999b, 263 (Mallwitz says that the south wall could be as late as the early third ­century). An eastern boundary of the Altis is con­temporary with the first building phase of the Echo Hall. See Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 457–58 no. 389; Mallwitz 1972, 121–22. 21  Leypold (2014a, 35) says that the wall “erfüllte wohl mehr den Zweck, die Terrassierung des Zeustempelplatzes abzustützen” (The wall prob­ably served more to support the terracing of the area of the Zeus t­emple). This seems hard to believe for such a small wall at this date at this distance from the t­ emple. 22  Leypold 2014a, 36.



The Hellenistic Period161

Fig. 4.3. Model of Olympia (Olympia, Archaeological Museum), view from west t­ oward Ptolemaic Monument and Echo Hall with Metroon in left foreground. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Stadion,23 a stoa of 44 columns, 98m long and 12.5m wide, was constructed of marble and limestone, using the Doric order on the exterior and an interior Corinthian colonnade (Figs. 4.1, 4.3). Pausanias (5.21.17) states that it was referred to as a Stoa Poikile at the time of its construction, but Pliny indicates that it was also called a Heptaphonos (HN 36.23). The two-­aisled ‘Echo Hall’ underwent three phases of construction, beginning in the fourth c­ entury and completed in the Augustan period.24 Scholars have pointed to architectural similarities between the Echo Hall and the Philippeion opposite it and the size of the proj­ect as suited to a royal patron to connect it with Philip II, but details of the stylobate have caused ­others to think of the Ptolemies.25 23  Note that numerous fragments of column drums and a triglyph from the original ­Temple of Zeus ­were built into the foundations of the Echo Hall. More triglyphs from the ­temple, prob­ably from the pronaos, ­were recovered from a w ­ ater line ­running between the Echo Hall and the Southeast Building. See Hennemeyer 2013a, 20. 24  The three stages: (1) the foundation, stylobate, parts of the walls, and the garden area ­were laid out in the second half of the fourth c­ entury B.C.; (2) a second hall was constructed (its original place unknown) also in the late fourth ­century B.C.; and (3) the second hall was dismantled and its blocks used in the completion of the original hall’s construction in the Augustan period. See Koenigs 1984, 4–6. Sinn (2004a, 238) proposes Herod the ­Great as the patron of the Augustan rebuilding. 25  Alexander the G ­ reat: Sinn 2004a, 226, 238; Gardiner 1925, 136. Philip II: Siebler 2004, 29; Mallwitz 1988b, 22. Ptolemies: Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 456–57 no. 388. The form of the marble stylobate is similar to that of the Philippeion, suggesting the same workmen, according to Koenigs (1984, 2), though not necessarily the same patron. Koenigs also notes that Curtius had ­earlier considered the Hall to be a Ptolemaic commission, but Koenigs

162

Chapter 4

Fig. 4.4. South Hall, reconstruction and plan by H. Schleif from H. Schleif, Die neue Ausgrabungen von Olympia und ihre bisherigen Ergebnisse für die antike Bauforschung (Berlin, 1943), Abb. 2, Taf. 4a. Courtesy of DAI.

The building served as a viewing point for visitors, as a preparation place for athletes, and/or for the storage of athletic equipment.26 Between the initial rear (eastern) wall of the Echo Hall and the west wall of Stadion III was a courtyard area (Fig. 4.1), which stood open to the east u ­ ntil the first ­century B.C. Aligned with the previously existing Southeast Building (see below), t­hese two structures offered an eastern border to the Altis. At the southern edge of the excavated site, the South Hall—­a columned hall of 80.56m in length, Doric on the exterior, Corinthian on the interior—­was constructed c. 360–350 B.C. in alignment with the ­earlier Bouleuterion north of it (Pl. 7, Figs. 4.1, 4.4). A central projecting portico faced ­toward the posited area of the Agora.27 Like the Echo Hall, this building was renovated in the Roman period. does not find this credible on the basis of the Hall’s stylistic properties. Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling (1995, 456–57) summarize the ­earlier scholarship. On Alexander at Olympia, see Freitag 2011, 83. 26  Herrmann 1972, 166. 27  Herrmann 1972, 168–69.



The Hellenistic Period163

I N S I D E T H E A LT I S In addition to the Echo Hall, two other major structures ­were built in the Altis in the fourth ­century B.C.: the Metroon, then the Philippeion. While their architectural forms ­were familiar, the Philippeion exemplifies the fourth-­century shift to a new form of self-­ promotion at the site, a trend that also exists in sculptural dedications, as we s­ hall see. The identification of the 6 × 11 Doric structure (10.62m × 20.67m at the stylobate) just southeast of the Trea­sury Terrace as the Metroon relies solely on the testimony of Pausanias (5.20.9, 5.21.2; Pl. 27a). Scholars question this attribution and propose other possibilities for the identity of the deity worshipped ­here, including Rhea.28 The Metroon faced west, where stood an altar c. 6m beyond, which may postdate the building.29 The cult may precede construction of the Metroon,30 as suggested by a cache of terracotta offerings beneath the building,31 although ­these belong to the black layer and thus cannot be connected to this area with certainty. The building’s conversion to a t­ emple for imperial cult in the Roman period, along with its interior sculptures, ­will be considered in chapter 5. The Metroon was largely destroyed down to the foundation level—­save for the northwest corner of the stylobate—­when its blocks ­were used to build the late antique wall in the fifth ­century A.D.32 The Metroon dates sometime ­after c. 420 B.C. as deduced from debris found in a foundation trench, according to Wilhelm Osthues, who is studying the Metroon architecture.33 Scholars have endeavored to link its date to its proximity and relationship to the line of twelve extant Zanes bases (Paus. 5.21.2–18 describes sixteen) flanking the pathway into the Stadion, the earliest of which is 388 B.C. (Pl. 27b, Fig. 4.1); according to this reasoning, the Metroon had to have been built before the earliest base was put in place.34 However, we now know that some of the Zanes bases are in situ and ­others ­were moved, so their usefulness in dating the Metroon is not so helpful.35 Nonetheless, the Zanes enable us to understand attitudes t­ oward cheating and fair sportsmanship in the games: that cheating was a religious violation, an offense to Zeus, 28 

Hitzl 1991, 9–13; Herrmann 1972, 31–32, 57. A scholiast (FGrHist 31 no. 34a) to Pindar Ol. 5.10 mentions an altar to Kronos and Rhea, but this need not have anything to do with the Metroon. Pausanias makes no mention of this double altar, though he does mention ­others, so it may be that it no longer existed by his time. Hitzl suggests that Rhea was worshipped in the Metroon and Kronos was worshipped on an altar on the hill named for him, but he is careful not to link the worship of Rhea with the building itself. 29  Hitzl 1991, 6–7, 13; Mallwitz 1972, 158–59. See the questions raised in Herrmann 1972, 256 n. 634. 30  Herrmann 1987, 157; Moustaka 1984, 183; Herrmann 1962, 15. Mallwitz (1972, 159) discusses a revival of her cult at the end of the fifth ­century B.C. 31  Herrmann 1972, 56–57; Herrmann 1962, 15. 32  See p. 78 n. 60. Hitzl 1991, 116; Mallwitz 1972, 160–62. Architectural parallels exist with the con­temporary Doric ­Temple of Demeter in nearby Lepreon (Paus. 5.5.6) and the Southeast Building at Olympia. See Knell 1983. 33  Personal communication with the author, January 20, 2019. 34  IvO 637; SEG 13, 272; DNO 2, 581–83 nos. 1370–71. Herrmann 1972, 163; Mallwitz 1972, 161; Fuchs 1956, 71; Purgold 1892, 152. Hitzl (1991, 8) advocates a date at the end of the fifth ­century. 35  Personal communication with Wilhelm Osthues, January 20, 2019.

164

Chapter 4

who selected the winners himself. Pausanias (5.21.2–18) recounts that the bases supported bronze statues of Zeus exacted as penance for cheating in the games; the most common offense appears to have been bribery. Their siting along the walkway to serve as warnings to athletes about to compete is further evidence of the care and consideration given to the placement of monuments at the site. The Zanes could have been placed along the walkways into the Altis, for example, but their target audience is ­those competing in the games, not all visitors to the site. We know ­little about the Metroon’s sculptural decoration. The original Metroon possessed stone metopes, 58cm wide, over the pronaos and opisthodomos as did the T ­ emple of Zeus (Figs. 4.5a-­b); the stone metopes ­were removed and replaced with stucco during the Roman renovation (see chapter 5).36 Scholars have associated small-­scale architectural sculptures dated stylistically to the late fifth or early fourth c­ entury B.C. with the Metroon ­because of their size and posited date. For example, Fuchs and Rudnick argue that a terracotta relief depicting Phrixos riding on a ram may have served as a metope (Fig. 4.6),37 but it seems highly unlikely that the building would use both stone and terracotta metopes, and the attribution “is untenable for technical reasons,” according to Osthues.38 The appearance of Phrixos on a second relief at Olympia (cf. Fig. 2.15) is noteworthy; this is a subject that is highly unusual in any context. Likewise, a Parian marble statue of Dionysos, 0.715m high, seated on a himation-­draped rock, has been assigned to the Metroon’s east pediment, where it fits (Fig. 4.7): it is worked out in full only on its left side, his head is turned to his left, and cuttings (with lead within them) on the back of, and below, the rock ­were designed for attachment. A cutting above the figure’s right shoulder blade suggests the attachment of an object held in the raised and bent right arm, perhaps drapery or a tympanon.39 Unlike Treu, who dated the sculpture in the early third ­century,40 Fuchs assigns it to the early fourth ­century B.C. on the basis of its style and pose.41 He reconstructs the figure in the left half of the east pediment, immediately to the right of the posited central figure of Kybele, with Pan (not extant) crouching at Dionysos’ right side, and suggests that maenads or nymphs stood in the right half of the pediment.42 But since the identity of the building with Meter in this early time is purely hy­po­thet­ic­ al and only the figure of Dionysos survives, we must regard Fuchs’ proposal with skepticism.43 While our knowledge of the Metroon is ­limited, we are well-­informed about the Philippeion, the first of numerous, sometimes spectacular, dedications by late classical 36 

Mallwitz 1972, 163. Olympia, Museum T77a–­b. Moustaka 1993, 147–48, 165, Taf. 118:a–­b; Fuchs and Rudnick 1991/92; LIMC VII, s.v. Phrixos et Helle, 400 no. 15bis [P. Bruneau]; Vojatzi 1982, 38. 38  Personal communication with Wilhelm Osthues, January 20, 2019. 39  Fuchs 1956, 66–67. See also Hitzl 1991, 16; LIMC III, s.v. Dionysos, 439 no. 142 [C. Gasparri]; Pochmarski (1974, 187–91), who dates it to the first half of the fourth ­century B.C.; Mallwitz 1972, 163; Treu 1897, 220–23. 40  Treu (1897, 223) suggested that it had been located in the Prytaneion to judge from its findspot. 41  Fuchs 1956, 68, 71. 42  Fuchs 1956, 71–72. Contra: Herrmann 1972, 163, 256 n. 634. 43  Herrmann 1972, 256 n. 634; Herrmann 1962, 15 n. 59. 37 



The Hellenistic Period165

Figs. 4.5a, b. Metroon, plan and elevation adapted by Hans R. Goette from Adler 1892, Taf. XXIV.

166

Chapter 4

and Hellenistic kings at Olympia. The Philippeion was begun by Philip II of Macedonia, a three-­time Olympic winner (356, 352, and 348 B.C.), as a victory monument for his triumph at the ­Battle of Chaironeia in 338 B.C. (Pls. 1, 28, Figs. 4.1, 4.8–4.9a-­b); it is unclear ­whether the tholos was completed by Philip or by Alexander the ­Great in honor of his illustrious ­father.44 The circular structure, 15.24m in dia­meter, with an exterior peristyle of eigh­teen Ionic columns and nine interior engaged Corinthian columns,45 is located north of the ­Temple of Zeus, at the west end of the Altis. Within the building was a curved base supporting five statues by the well-­known sculptor Leochares, according to Pausanias (5.20.10): Philip and Alexander, Amyntas (Philip’s f­ ather), Olympias, and Eurydike.46 Fig. 4.6. Phrixos on ram (Olympia, The last two had already been moved to the ‘Heraion’ Archaeological Museum T77a–­b), terracotta, by the time that Pausanias arrived at the site in the H 21cm. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-87/166. mid-­second c­ entury A.D. (5.17.4; see chapter 5). The arrangement of the statues on the extant Parian marble base within the Philippeion has been the subject of debate (Fig. 4.10): one of the key issues concerns the central figure—­ whether Philip or Alexander—­and the reconstruction ­here depends on which ruler completed the structure:47 whoever finished the building can be expected to have had his statue in the central location.48 44  Although Pausanias says that the monument was erected ­after the ­ attle of Chaironeia, he does not explic­itly make a cause-­and-­effect link, B but scholars have reasonably inferred that this is his meaning. See Keesling 2017, 93–98; Schultz 2009, 126; Schultz 2007, 205, 221; Lapatin 2001, 117; Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 26; and Seiler (1986, 89, 100), who notes that this Fig. 4.7. Dionysos (Olympia, Archaeological victory monument differs from all o ­ thers in the sanctuary. See also Bring- Museum), marble, H 0.715m, W 73cm. mann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 403–6 no. 329 for a summary of the Photo: Hans R. Goette. scholarship up to that time; they also believe that Alexander, not Philip, built this monument (404). 45  On the architecture, see Townsend 2003, a response to Miller 1973. 46  Note, however, that Pausanias’ text is lacunose h ­ ere, and other proposals have been suggested. See Palagia (2010a), who gathers the bibliography and argues that the Eurydike referred to is not Philip’s m ­ other but his last wife, Kleopatra / Eurydike, and she would place Amyntas, not Philip, in the center of the base. Contra: Schultz 2009, 143, 165 n. 7. On Leochares, see DNO 3, 225–26 no. 2053. 47  Cf. p. 162 on Philip II as possible patron of the Echo Hall because of that building’s architectural similarities to the Philippeion. 48  Favoring Philip as having completed the monument himself: DNO 3, 225–26 no. 2053; Schultz 2009; Schultz 2007, 208–9. ­Those in ­favor of Alexander include: Siebler 2004, 28; Löhr 2000, 117; Hitzl 1995, 12; Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 29; Romano 1990, 71; Seiler 1986, 89; Herrmann 1972, 171. Huwendiek (1996, 156–57) reasons that Philip can



The Hellenistic Period167

Fig. 4.8. Western Altis, aerial view. Photo: S. Gesafidis. Courtesy of DAI.

Although Pausanias (5.20.10) describes the sculptures as made of chryselephantine (Paus. 5.11.1 says the same about the Nike held by the Pheidian Zeus; see chapter 3), the extant cuttings are worked for the insertion of marble plinths, thus the lifesize statues w ­ ere entirely or partially of marble.49 To reconcile Pausanias’ text with the physical evidence, scholars have suggested that what Pausanias saw ­were gilt marble statues,50 or chryselephantine statues on a wooden frame inserted into a marble lower portion.51 ­Whether gilt or partially chryselephantine, such rich treatment, particularly scarcely have planned to have included Olympias since he had disavowed her and married Kleopatra, the illegitimate ­daughter of Attalos, from whom he wished to have a male heir, and that Alexander finished the proj­ect by replacing Kleopatra’s statue with Olympias and including his own. Lapatin (2001, 116–17, esp. n. 197) echoes this thinking and stresses that Alexander altered Philip’s original plan in order to emphasize himself as the rightful heir to Philip through Alexander’s ­mother, Olympias, in order to ­counter the threat posed by a pregnancy of Kleopatra. Huwendiek (1996, 157, 159) further suggests that Philip intended an analogy between his parents and Kronos and Rhea, who w ­ ere both worshipped nearby at Olympia, and another between Hera and Zeus and Kleopatra and himself. 49  Schultz 2009, 152–53; Schultz 2007, 220; Despinis 2004, 254–55. 50  Schultz 2009, 154; Schultz (2007, 221) acknowledges that the gilding may postdate the building and the group’s creation. Contra: Krumeich 2008, 80 n. 41. Jacquemin (2001a, 296) and Eckstein (1969, 127 n. 2) view them as marble and do not mention gilding. 51  Despinis 2004, 255; Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 104; Hitzl 1995, 12 n. 43. See Schultz 2009, 152–53 and Schultz 2007, 231 n. 107 for a response.

168

Chapter 4

Figs. 4.9a, b. Philippeion, c. 330–320 B.C., marble, D 15.24m. Plan and elevation by Klaus Herrmann. Courtesy of DAI.

Fig. 4.10. Statue bases from Philippeion (Olympia, Archaeological Museum), marble. Photo: author.

the latter in large-­scale, was usually reserved for images of deities. While gilt bronze statues, such as the Nikai atop the ­Temple of Zeus, appeared in the Altis long before the Philippeion, none to my knowledge had an architectural frame around it.52 The architecture, sculptural materials, and location of the Philippeion are critical to the interpretation and reception of the w ­ hole. As we have seen, the west side of the Altis ­housed a concentration of sacred structures: the ‘Heraion,’ the Pelopion, and possibly the ash altar to Zeus, which had been in use for centuries, if it had not already moved further east (see chapter 2). It was ­here that the prominent, eye-­catching Philippeion found its place—­surely a choice negotiated between the ruler and the Elean officials in charge of the site to suggest that this building should also be regarded as singular, if not sacred. ­There is ample evidence that Philip II wished to link himself to Olympian Zeus: his silver tetradrachms featured a head of the god on one side,53 and the Philippeion is another example. Like the T ­ emple of Zeus, the Philippeion seems to have been oriented to the east,54 perhaps aligned with the ash altar of Zeus.55 The central statue in the Philippeion was centered with re­spect to the doorway, thus looking east (like the images discussed in chapter 3), and with its gilding or chryselephantine material conveyed the idea of a cult statue within a large building,56 like the Pheidian Zeus seated in the ­temple nearby (Fig. 3.20).57 We might also point to Dio Chrysostom’s account (37.42) of Mummius’ 52 

On the significance of the frame, see Schultz 2009, 154–58. A gilt statue of Alexander I was dedicated at Olympia, but it is not clear what the primary material was. See Solin. 9.13; Krumeich 1997, 25–27. 53  E.g., Prestianni Giallombardo 1982, 524–27. 54  Or southeast. See Seiler 1986, 90. 55  Posited by Schultz 2009, 163; Schultz 2007, 232 n. 30. 56  Cf. Siebler 2004, 28; Borbein 1973, 67. Although Lapatin (2001, 118) claims that chryselephantine alone does not endow a figure with divine meaning. Note, however, that some scholars think that the images would not so much resemble cult statues as offerings in a trea­sury. See Krumeich 2007, 169; Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 114; Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 27. 57  Cf. Krumeich 2007, 169; Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 133; Borbein 1973, 66–67.

170

Chapter 4

refashioning a statue of Philip II at Thespiai into a statue of Zeus, which the general brought back to Rome with him. One won­ders if the statue of Philip II could easily have passed for an image of Zeus.58 ­There is no evidence for cult worship at the Philippeion, nor written testimony to indicate that Philip was worshipped with Zeus at Olympia, but it is clear that this happened elsewhere: an inscription from Eresos on Lesbos dating from the time of Alexander the G ­ reat mentions altars to Zeus Philippios.59 The circular shape of the Philippeion recalls heroa elsewhere,60 and its placement within the Altis adjacent to the Pelopion and ‘Heraion’ and near the altar would have visually linked the structure with ­these other sacred buildings to suggest an elevation of Philip and his ­family to the ranks of heroes or gods.61 In his address to Philip (5.143–145), the fourth-­ century B.C. Athenian orator Isokrates likened Philip to Pelops and Herakles. Some scholars have suggested a dynastic link of the Macedonian royal h ­ ouse to Herakles via the Argead line, which would further explain the building’s close proximity to the Pelopion, founded by Herakles:62 Alexander I of Macedonia competed in the Olympic games in c. 479 B.C. in spite of opposition that he was not a Hellene (see chapter 3); he was able to prove his descent from the Argives, and thus went on to tie for first place in the Stadion race (Hdt. 5.22).63 We might recall the fifth-­century images in the Altis and consider the role of patron, subject, spectator, and context at the Philippeion, where the patron aspires to the super-­mortal realm not only by the placement of this structure but also by the materials used for the sculptures of himself and his f­ amily. The use of a curved base as the format for the statues also advances this argument. While Philip may have taken inspiration from the fourth-­century B.C. Argive monuments, which depict other ­family groups at Delphi in order to underscore his Argive connections (Fig. 2.2),64 a more immediate source at Olympia is likely to have played a greater role. As we saw in chapter 3, two of the most imposing military victory monuments at Olympia ­were statue groups set on curving bases, both from the second quarter of the fifth ­century B.C., the Achaian and Apollonian Monuments (Figs. 3.3, 3.4).65 The Philippeion’s curving base with the ruler flanked by his ­family echoed t­ hese ­earlier monuments and visually implied an association with the Trojan War heroes depicted by them. The Philippeion is the last of the military victory monuments at Olympia that we know of ­until ­those of Mummius in the mid-­second c­ entury B.C. (see below). It is 58 

See also Prestianni Giallombardo 1982, 531. Habicht 1956, 14–16. And Philip was worshipped together with Artemis at Ephesos, as Habicht points out. 60  Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 27; Borbein 1973, 66–67; Herrmann 1972, 171. See also Roux 1992. 61  Seiler 1986, 101–3; Huwendiek (1996, 155–56) notes that heroa or tholoi are usually near ­temples in sanctuaries and raises the possibility that the Philippeion is intended as a heroon; Miller 1973, 192. Siebler (2004, 28) even refers to the Philippeion as a “Rundtempelchen.” 62  See p. 132. Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 105–7, 201; Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 26–27. 63  See p. 137 n. 129. 64  Schultz 2009, 136–38; Schultz 2007, 212. 65  Schultz (2009, 136, 138–39; 2007, 212) mentions the Achaian Base but says nothing about the Apollonian base at Olympia; Seiler 1986, 100–102. 59 



The Hellenistic Period171

also a continuation of monuments at Olympia erected by tyrants, such as Myron of Sikyon, the Kypselids of Corinth, and Hieron and Gelon of Syracuse (Pl. 16), but rather than celebrating an athletic victory, the Philippeion celebrates the ruling Macedonian ­family itself. S C U L P T U R A L D E D I C AT I O N S : H O N O R I F I C S Honorific statues—­known from both inscribed bases and Pausanias—­were abundant at Olympia in the fourth c­ entury and Hellenistic period.66 Elis itself rapidly understood the value of honorific statuary for Romans (their first such statue was for the general Cn. Octavius in the first half of the first c­ entury B.C.) and obliged. Rulers, including several of the Diadochoi and their successors; troops in honor of a leader; the Achaian League, which Elis joined in 191 B.C.; the Olympic Boule; the Hellanodikai; Olympic athletic victors; Roman consuls and other magistrates;67 and Argos,68 Paionia, Bithynia, Corinth, Taormina, Syracuse, Erythrai, Sparta, and Athens all ­were patrons of at least one sculptural dedication, and some, such as Hieron II and Mummius, made several. Honorands included Diadochoi, Olympic victors, priests, seers, phi­los­o­phers, and the historian Polybios.69 Of the Hellenistic rulers, the Antigonids and Ptolemies ­were especially active in this regard, and it is noteworthy that the Attalids made no dedications, the Seleukids made only one, and Athens made only two.70 Scholars have assembled and discussed the evidence for dedications made by and for rulers at Olympia and elsewhere;71 this text w ­ ill deal with only a handful of t­ hese monuments that are immediately relevant to our discussion. As we s­ hall see, t­hese honorific statues ­were deployed as public, visual manifestations of po­liti­cal alliances and rivalries.

Location When known, the location of the early monuments from this period clustered around the eastern side of the T ­ emple of Zeus and in front of the Echo Hall, as Leypold, who is studying the many statue bases at Olympia, has demonstrated. The earliest dedications 66 

E.g., Pausanias (6.11.1): a group of Alexander, Philip, and Seleukos on ­horse­back, and Antigonos Monophthalmos standing. See Zoumbaki 2010, 112. Stewart (1993, 279–80) conjectures that Seleukos and/or Antigonos may have been l­ater additions with Seleukos given the greater status since he is mounted. Pausanias (6.16.2): a parallel monument featuring only Seleukos and Antigonos, which was dedicated by Tydeus of Elis. 67  See Zoumbaki 2001, 161–66. 68  Argos bestowed an honorific statue on Autolykos of Elis (other­wise unknown to us) made by Daippos, as we know from the inscribed marble base (inv. 1147), c. 300 B.C. or in the first de­cades of the third ­century B.C. This was the second use for the base, which was found north of the Prytaneion. See DNO 3, 614 no. 2487; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 103 no. 51; SEG 40, 387; 53, 429; Hallof, Herrmann, and Prignitz 2012, 227–28; Kyrieleis 2003a, 14. 69  IvO 302, a dedication made by the Eleans. Zoumbaki (2001, 156–57) discusses the occasion. On statues connected to Polybios at Olympia, see p. 228 n. 120. 70  Schmidt-­Dounas (2000, 200) points out that although Hellenistic kings made many dedications at the sanctuaries at Delphi and Delos, they left relatively few votives at Olympia. 71  E.g., Kotsidu 2000; Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995; Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992.

172

Chapter 4

Fig. 4.11. Plan of statue bases to the west of the Echo Hall. The Ptolemaic Monument is number 9. Darkest to lightest color = earliest to latest. Drawing: Christina Leypold, reproduced by permission from Leypold 2014a.

­ ere erected in the first phase of building of the Echo Hall, c. 340–330 B.C., and ­were w opposite, and oriented to, the ­Temple of Zeus (Figs. 4.1, 4.11). The bases accumulated roughly from south to north of the Echo Hall (with some deviations) as deduced from the gradual rise of the ground level u ­ ntil the first third of the third c­ entury B.C.72 Of the twenty-­eight in situ bases ­here, single (­human) figures stood on nine bases, while standing ­horses occupied ten o ­ thers. A quadriga may have topped four larger bases.73 Proximity to monuments of illustrious rulers was apparently desirable: two bases (Fig. 4.11 nos. 8, 10) erected ­after the Ptolemaic Monument (Figs. 4.11 no. 9, 4.14) ­were placed nearby and in alignment with its western edge.74 Leypold points out that two bases, number 4 of the late third ­century B.C. and number 7, ­were reused as parts of ­later monuments, which supported quadrigas.75 The Altis path parallel to the Zeus ­temple’s south flank, especially ­toward the west end, and south, along the main path in front of the Leonidaion, also became prime locations for the erection of such monuments and ­were heavi­ly populated by the first ­century B.C. (Figs. 3, 4.1, 4.8, 4.12).76 ­These locations w ­ ere advantageous for the greatest public viewing as crowds passed along ­these routes into the Altis and ­toward the altar and Stadion, and proximity to the ­Temple of Zeus seems to have been highly prized. The effect is that the monuments ‘pro­cess’ with the live crowd along this southern path and also on the north-­south path in front of the Leonidaion; we ­will return to this file of statues in chapter 5.77 Some monuments appear to have been strategically placed close to ­others to underscore dynastic connections. 72 

Leypold 2014a, 35–40, Taf. 1. A previously open ­water channel ­running ­behind the bases and west of the Echo Hall—­a (presumably) fixed point—­had been covered by 30cm of soil by the time of the Ptolemaic Monument’s construction; that is, the ground level had risen to this extent. One can compare the height of this channel to the levels of the earth at the bottom of each base, which vary ­because of sloping terrain and their dates of installation, to establish the relative dates. The results indicate that the earliest bases ­were erected still in the fourth ­century B.C., while the next in time ­were still lying lower than the Ptolemaic Monument of c. 270, so Leypold assigns them to the first third of the third c­ entury B.C. 73  Leypold, 2014a, 36. 74  Leypold 2014a, 38–39. Number 4 extended further to the east by at least one additional block, so prob­ably was used for an equestrian monument, and the size of number 10 suggests that a quadriga stood upon it. 75  Leypold 2014a, 39. 76  Siedentopf 1968, 47–49, 93–98. 77  Leypold 2014a, 41.



The Hellenistic Period173

Fig. 4.12. Statue bases along east-­west path. Photo: author.

Dedications of the Diadochoi: Groups and More The f­amily group in the Philippeion set a pre­ce­dent for group dedications at the site based on familial or po­liti­cal alliances.78 Such ­family ensembles recall the numerous equestrian groups of the dynastic Sicilian tyrants (see more below), as well as ­family groups at other sanctuaries, such as the Daochos Monument at Delphi (Figs. 2.2, 4.13).79 Alexander the ­Great, Philip II, and the Diadochoi received honorifics comprised of such family/po­liti­cal groups at Olympia, which w ­ ere sponsored by poleis. For example, the Eleans dedicated equestrian statues of Philip II, Alexander the ­Great, and Seleukos, together with a standing image of Antigonos I Monophthalmos.80 Po­liti­cal circumstances suggest that the statue of Antigonos I and possibly also that of Seleukos w ­ ere added a­ fter 306 B.C.,81 and that the monument was created 78  We possess literary testimony (Testamentum Alexandri 122, ed. Merkelbach) for a dedication by Alexander the ­ reat of statues of himself, Ammon, Athena, Herakles, Olympias (his ­mother), and Philip II in Olympia and elseG where, but no archaeological evidence exists to support this, and Stewart dismisses the veracity of the account. See Bergmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 406 no. 330; Stewart 1993, 23, 215. A marble head, a copy of a fourth-­ century portrait of Alexander the ­Great, was discovered in nearby Alphiousa: Hatzi 2008, 324. 79  E.g., Bommelaer and Laroche 2015, 242–44. 80  See p. 172 n. 66. 81  Kotsidu 2000, 121–22 nos. 64–65; Stewart 1993, 280.

174

Chapter 4

Fig. 4.13. Daochos group (Delphi Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

before Antigonos’ death at Ipsos in 301.82 While Pausanias (6.11.1) is the only evidence for this group, an inscribed base confirms his account (6.15.7–8) of another comprised of Antigonos I and Demetrios I, which was dedicated by Byzantion in c. 306–301 B.C.83 The fragments of the Byzantion group, which w ­ ere found in, and south of, the ­Temple of Zeus, do not inform us about the figures’ appearance.84 Two Antigonid groups along the southern path, where Pausanias (6.16.3) saw them, ­were even more pointed in their po­liti­cal meaning. One portrays Elis crowning Ptolemy and Demetrios I Poliorketes,85 and the other has Hellas crowning Philip V and 82  Stewart 1993, 105. Mallwitz (1972, 99) associates this group with the conglomerate base inscribed with the name of the sculptor Sophokles in the south of the Altis, which once held bronze equestrian statues (IvO 639, 640 [inv. 32, 267]). Hintzen-Bohlen (1992, 219 no. 5) endorses this view. But Mallwitz’s grounds for this claim are not strong: he simply reasons that ­these are the only rulers who would have been honored in this manner at the end of the fourth ­century B.C. The original placement of this base is uncertain (Purgold 1892, 155). 83  Inv. 138, 443, 527, 869; IvO 45, 304, 305; SEG 50, 663, 1716. Kotsidu 2000, 122–23 no. 66. 84  Kotsidu 2000, 122–25 nos. 66–68. 85  Which Ptolemy was represented is problematic; the Ptolemies ­were never on good terms with the Antigonids so chronology does not narrow down the choices. E.g., Stewart 1993, 279–80. Kruse (1992, 279–87) gets around this issue by nominating an Antigonid military commander by the name of Ptolemy, a nephew of Antigonos Monophthalmos, as the honorand. According to this thinking, the group dates no ­later than 309 B.C. and commemorates two Antigonid military victories.



The Hellenistic Period175

Antigonos Doson;86 the former was ward and successor of the latter. The dates of the two groups are controversial: Ptolemy crowned by Elis has been dated somewhere between c. 311 and 290 B.C.,87 while the image of Hellas crowning Philip V and Antigonos Doson seems to commemorate Antigonos Doson’s reestablishment of the Hellenic League in 224 B.C.88 It is clear that the l­ ater monument’s conceit is to surpass that of the ­earlier monument: Hellas, not just Elis, offers its praise for the leaders.89 While the aforementioned monuments to the Diadochoi and l­ ater Hellenistic rulers are dedications by cities, individuals in the orbit of the Diadochoi also made dedications at Olympia. For example, Philonides of Crete, a military runner/messenger for Alexander the G ­ reat and Olympic victor, erected a statue dedicated to Zeus on an inscribed sandstone base at the southwest of the Altis, which is also mentioned by Pausanias (6.16.5). Although it is not an absolute certainty, Dittenberger and Purgold consider it highly probable (“höchst wahrscheinlich”) that the inscribed slab belongs to an in situ base at the southwest of the Altis ­because of its fit.90 Column monuments, like ­those connected to Hellenistic kings and their associates at Delos and Delphi, framed the Olympic Altis on the west and east. Around 300 B.C. or shortly a­ fter, a two-­column monument was set up on a T-­shaped base near, and to the west of, the Philippeion (Fig. 3).91 The columns ­were c. 6m high, ­were prob­ably topped by Ionic capitals of Asia Minor style,92 and supported statues; a chariot may have stood between the two columns.93 Mallwitz ascribes this monument to a Hellenistic king, one of the followers of Alexander;94 if so, its location close to the Philippeion would be significant and the monument’s form—­two columns with a feature in the 86 

Schmidt-­Dounas (2000, 206) and Stewart (1993, 244) date the group c. 221 B.C. ­Earlier scholars had placed t­ hese figures, together with Demetrios I Poliorketes and Ptolemaios, on a single base with the two personifications, but Kruse (1992, 277–78 n. 9) argues against this. 87  For the dating: c. 311–309 B.C.: Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 205; Kotsidu 2000, 125–27 nos. 69–70. C. 298/297 to commemorate a treaty between Demetrios and Ptolemy III: DNO 3, 799–800 no. 2675. C. 290 B.C.: Stewart 1993, 244. 88  The alliance was first formed by Philip II, Antigonos Monophthalmos, and Demetrios Poliorketes; the initial inspiration for this alignment of interests seems to have been opposition to Kleomenes III of Sparta, who was defeated in ­battle in 222 B.C., and the eventual elimination of the Spartan threat and reestablishment of peace. See Kruse 1992, 289. ­After Doson’s death in 221 B.C., a terminus ante quem for the monument, Philip V took over leadership of the League, and in 217, he wrested territory from Elis and asserted his dominance over the region. He also traveled with his 10,000 troops to Olympia, where they remained for five days (Polyb. 4.73). See DNO 3, 799–800 no. 2675; Stewart 1993, 280; Kruse 1992, 274. Sinn (2004a, 196) suggests that the officers ­were ­housed in the Leonidaion while at Olympia. 89  Kruse 1992 (289–93) perceives a connection to a statue group of Iphitos, a king of Elis, crowned by Ekecheiria, the personification of the Olympic truce, in the pronaos of the T ­ emple of Zeus (Paus. 5.10.10). According to this thinking, both Iphitos and the Antigonids ­were guarantors of peace, a necessary precondition for the Olympic games. 90  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 97 no. 43 (inv. 1133); Mallwitz 1972, 100; IvO 276; SEG 11, 1241; 36, 1547; 42, 1745; 48, 547. 91  Herrmann 2013, 23; Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 204–5. 92  Mallwitz 1972, 104. The capitals ­were found in the Palaistra. 93  Mallwitz 1972, 104. 94  Mallwitz 1972, 105.

176

Chapter 4

intervening space—­and location may have inspired the Ptolemaic Monument a short time ­after.95 Another monument was ­later erected atop this T-­shaped base; we ­will return to this below.

Ptolemaic Monuments At the east of the Altis was another column monument, the Ptolemaic Monument, a rejoinder to other monuments in the Altis (Figs. 4.1, 4.14). A 24m-­long base, interrupted by an exedra at its ­middle point, ­running north-­south, was framed at ­either end by two 8.89m-­high Ionic columns of marble, each of which supported a single statue of a Ptolemaic monarch, for a total height of 12–13m (Fig. 4.15). Only the foundations of the monument and parts of the columns survive; recent anastylosis of one column allows us to visualize the architecture, but we possess no fragments of ­either statue, which w ­ ere prob­ably gilt,96 perhaps bronze.97 Inscriptions on the base indicate that the statues ­were for Ptolemy II and his wife, Arsinoe II, and that this monument was erected by the impor­tant and power­ful nauarch (naval commander) Kallikrates, son of Boiskos, of Samos (Figs. 4.16a-­b).98 The date of the monument must be sometime between the marriage of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II in 278 B.C. and the latter’s death in 270 B.C. since Arsinoe is still referred to in the inscription as Βασ[ί]λισσα (queen).99 ­Because the inscription does not yet name Kallikrates as nauarch, the dedication may predate his appointment to this office. While we do not know the occasion for the dedication, it might commemorate the marriage of the royal c­ ouple,100 or, considering its patron, a highly competent and successful naval commander, the monument might honor Ptolemaic dominance on the seas, which persisted u ­ ntil Ptolemy II’s navy was defeated by Antigonos II Gonatas in 261 B.C. in the Chremonidean War, perhaps even a specific ­battle. But it is worth remembering that Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II,101 like Ptolemy I and Berenike I before them,102 individually won in equestrian events at Olympia: all of ­these victories ­were in chariot racing, save ­those of Arsinoe II, which w ­ ere in ­horse racing. While the Ptolemaic Monument certainly 95  Cf. Leypold (2014a, 38), who also points out a relationship between the two monuments. She asserts that from the vantage point of a visitor arriving from Elis, one could have seen the Ptolemaic Monument in front of the Echo Hall juxtaposed ­behind the two-­column monument in front of the Philippeion. But this would be hard from any ­angle with the height of the Philippeion intervening; a view from further south would overlook the Pelopion’s wall. 96  Mallwitz 1972, 103. 97  Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 77. 98  Inv. 324, 535, 629, 635, 709; IvO 306–7. 99  Hoepfner 1971, 51–52. On the date of the marriage, see the summary in Hauben 1970, 35 n. 3. Müller (2009, 265–66) summarizes the early scholarship in her study, which focuses on the historical and po­liti­cal context of the Ptolemaic ­couple. 100  Hauben 1970, 36. 101  Posidippos: Austin and Bastianini 2002, 102–3, 112–13 nos. 78, 88. 102  Posidippos: Austin and Bastianini 2002, 102–3, 112–13 nos. 78, 87, 88.



The Hellenistic Period177

Fig. 4.14. Ptolemaic Monument, view from east. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 4.15. Ptolemaic Monument. Reconstruction by W. Hoepfner, reproduced by permission.

Figs. 4.16a, b. Ptolemaic Monument dedicatory inscriptions. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-1970-0422, D-­DAI-­ATH-1970-0423 (Gösta Hellner).

does not resemble the descriptions or remains of e­ arlier equestrian monuments, such as ­those of Hieron I (see chapter 3) and Kyniska (see below), its placement of the two rulers atop columns, echoing the Nike of Paionios across the Altis, literally raised ­these two athletic (and royal) victors above all ­others at Olympia. We should note that the Ptolemaic victories continued into the next generation, when Berenike (II) won in the Olympic chariot race.103 Hoepfner has noted that the monument was carefully sited so that the two columns have precisely the same ­angle with re­spect to the southeast corner column of the ‘Heraion’ and the northeast corner column of the ­Temple of Zeus in order to draw a connection between the royal Ptolemaic c­ ouple and the divine ­couple (Fig. 4.1).104 The former’s sibling marriage was likened to that of Zeus and Hera, the two chief deities worshipped at Olympia, in poetry (Theok. 17.131–34) and surely in the minds of con­temporary spectators at the site, according to Hoepfner.105 Some speculation exists as to ­whether Ptolemy II himself had some hand in the design of the monument, which might explain this deliberate choice of placement (and note that Ptolemy II was the patron of the Areus dedication, also a column monument, prob­ably of the same height as the columns belonging to Kallikrates’ dedication; see pp. 181–82). The 103  Posidippos: Austin and Bastianini 2002, 102–3 no. 78. Cf. Hyginus, Poet. astr. 2.24. See also Thompson 2005, 273–79 for a discussion of the identity of the Berenike mentioned in Posidippos 78. 104  Hoepfner 1971, 45, Beilage 1. 105  Cf. Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 78–79. For the literary analogy of Hellenistic kings to Zeus, see Levi 1970.



The Hellenistic Period179

orientation of the monument with re­spect to the two ­temples is hardly accidental and, for the attentive viewer, would underscore an analogy between the Ptolemaic rulers and their divine counter­parts.106 But this would need to be a highly attentive viewer; more likely, this orientation was desired simply to center the monument between the two t­ emples, and this is something that is much more easily perceived on the ground. However, if we imagine that the intended viewers w ­ ere not mere mortals but Zeus and Hera, the significance of the siting would be immediately apparent. Kallikrates became priest of the dynastic cult of the Theoi Adelphoi in 272/1, and we might posit that his connection with this cult may be further evidence of the intended link between the royal c­ ouple and Zeus and Hera at Olympia.107 Additionally, Theokritos’ poem alludes throughout to Ptolemy as Zeus and calls attention to Ptolemy’s descent from Herakles, the son of Zeus,108 references that echo the claims of Philip II. Interpreted in its physical context, we can observe that the materials used for the monarchs and the size, composition, and placement of the monument on the east side of the Altis directly respond to the monument facing it on the west side (Figs. 4.1, 4.8); while numerous statue bases stood between ­these two structures, ­there ­were no intervening buildings to block the view. Like the Philippeion, the Ptolemaic Monument alludes to real individuals and celebrates a dynasty and familial relations, as well as military and perhaps athletic dominance. The Ptolemaic Monument surely takes its cue from the first dynastic monument on the site. The positioning of the ­later Ptolemaic Monument on the far side of the Altis from the Philippeion, which is the monument furthest west, seems a direct response to the ­earlier Macedonian dedication and stakes a claim to the eastern side of the Altis.109 Perhaps one intention was to draw a visual parallel with the chryselephantine statues of the ­family of Philip and Alexander since the Ptolemaic rulers ultimately derived their power from Alexander’s conquest of Egypt. The images of the Ptolemies may also have employed gold to conjure up visual connections to the glittering chryselephantine statues of Alexander and his ­father in the Philippeion, a visual claim to dynastic legitimacy.110 Thus, we can trace the thematic connection: the ‘chryselephantine’ images of Philip, Alexander, and their ­family members, that is, a dynastic monument that emphasizes lineage, echo and draw visual connections to the nearby chryselephantine Zeus (Fig. 3.20). This is 106 

Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 204. Bing 2002/3, 244. 108  Samuel 1993, 181. 109  Cf. Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 78. 110  Although Hoepfner (1971, 47) points to Egyptian obelisks as the inspiration for the monument’s unusual design (but contra: Grossmann 1974, 699). He also notes that a pre­de­ces­sor to a two-­column statuary monument is attested by a pair of Ionic capitals of the late fourth c­ entury B.C. at Olympia that once held statues (see here p. 176). Cf. also the Aristaineta Monument at Delphi, perhaps of the second half of the third c­ entury B.C. See SIG 513; Dillon 2010, 35–36, 48–49; Jacquemin 1985, 33. 107 

180

Chapter 4

hardly surprising since Alexander and his ­father claimed descent from Herakles, who is featured in the metopes on his ­father’s ­temple (Pl. 22, Figs. 3.18–3.19). More importantly, Alexander was identified with Zeus a­ fter his visit to the Siwah oasis in Egypt in 331 B.C., where he was hailed by the priests as Zeus and Ammon; thereafter, the Macedonian ruler claimed worship in divine form.111 While a response to the Philippeion, the Ptolemaic Monument also surpassed it in scale and in audacious claim,112 and also overshadowed the partially constructed 98m-­long Echo Hall immediately to the east of it. The Echo Hall was already ­under construction when the Ptolemaic Monument was erected just 2.40m in front of it, thus partially obstructing the view of the hall from the Altis, one monument elbowing out the other for prominence. If the Echo Hall was a Macedonian commission, then the assertions about the po­liti­cal aims of the Ptolemaic Monument receive further support. Hellenistic rulers erected monuments at Olympia in the wake of po­liti­cal alliances and ­favors, which continued the trend of honorifics, and, as noted above, the Ptolemies w ­ ere especially active patrons at Olympia. At about the same time or shortly ­after the Ptolemaic Monument discussed above, Ptolemy II honored king Areus of Sparta (309/8–265 B.C.) with a column monument, perhaps 268/267–265 or 264 B.C.,113 ­because, as the inscribed limestone base informs us,114 of his benefactions to Ptolemy and the Hellenes.115 The monument seems to have taken the columns of the Ptolemaic Monument as a model,116 and thus joins the three other columns—­the two of the Ptolemaic Monument, and that supporting the Nike of Paionios (Pls. 24-25, Fig. 30)— at the same towering height in the Altis. The original location of Areus’ column is unknown, but placement near the Ptolemaic Monument is an attractive proposal. What did Areus do to deserve such an extraordinary honor? The Spartan king worked hard from 272 to 268 B.C. to forge an alliance with Ptolemy II against the Macedonians; ­these efforts culminated in the Chremonidean decree, an allegiance between

111 

Pausanias (5.25.1) saw a statue of Alexander the ­Great, which, he reports, was mistaken for an image of Zeus, near the ­Temple of Zeus; it was dedicated by a Corinthian of the Roman period, and no trace survives. Stewart (1993, 339–40, 382) posits that the statue depicted the ruler in the likeness of Zeus, holding a thunderbolt as A ­ lexander Keraunophoros, and that it was dedicated shortly ­after 44 B.C. by a Greek, not a Roman. 112  Cf. Hintzen-­Bohlen 1992, 78–79. 113  Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 101–3 no. 58. Kotsidu (2000) places the Areus statue a­ fter the ­battle against Antigonos II Gonatas, which she dates c. 280 B.C. A terminus ante quem for Areus’ column should be 265 B.C., the year in which this Lakedaimonian king was killed in the Chremonidean War, so the monument should prob­ably date before the start of the war in 267. See Jordan-­Ruwe 1995, 20. 114  Inv. 198a–­b; SEG 22, 342; 45, 2299; IvO 308. 115  Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 102 no. KNr. 57. 116  Hoepfner (1971, 47) rec­ords that although the Areus column itself does not survive, the outline of its base is vis­i­ble on the top surface of one stone of the inscription; other parts of the original monument have lifting bosses remaining on them. Based on the restored size of the base, the size of the column is estimated to be the same as that of the Ptolemaic Monument.



The Hellenistic Period181

Elis, Athens, Sparta, and Ptolemy II.117 Elis also honored the Spartan king with an equestrian statue (perhaps shown twice on this monument), placed close to that of Hieron II (Paus. 6.12.5). This alliance continued to ‘produce’ honorific statues into the next generation. Ptolemy III erected a statue for Glaukon of Athens, the b ­ rother of Chremonides and an Olympic victor in the quadriga competition, in the early third ­century B.C.,118 and another—­together with his wife—to Zeus Olympios in honor of the Spartan king Kleomenes in c. 225–222 B.C. Both monuments are known from inscribed bases (or fragments thereof) no longer in situ.119 What type of image—­equestrian or a standing figure—­constituted Kleomenes’ monument is unknown.120 The original location of ­these Ptolemaic dedications cannot be determined with certainty.121 Ptolemy III’s dedication to Kleomenes of Sparta was tied up with politics concerning Aratos of Sikyon, who led the Achaian League. Aratos formed an alliance in 225/224 with Antigonos Doson of Macedonia against Sparta, the Ptolemies’ ally. This partnership also yielded a statue at Olympia: Aratos rewarded Doson with Corinth (Plu. Arat. 36–44), and the city responded by honoring Aratos with a statue at Olympia (Paus. 6.12.5), perhaps ­after Aratos took Acrocorinth from the Macedonians in 243 B.C. (Plut. Arat. 18, 24). That the Ptolemies w ­ ere energetic patrons e­ ager to leave their mark at this Panhellenic sanctuary is significant since public opinion was not always on their side in this locale: Polybios 27.9 describes an Olympian pankration match between two opponents, Aristonikos, the underdog who was supported by Ptolemy V, and the ‘unbeatable’ Kleitomachos of Thebes in Boiotia. While the crowd initially gave their sympathies to the underdog, Kleitomachos successfully appealed to the crowd’s sense of communal identity by asking if they preferred to support the candidate of the Ptolemies over himself, who was winning on behalf of Greece.122 Chauvinism carried the day. In addition to the Ptolemaic Monument, the Ptolemies received other honorific statues at Olympia.123 Ptolemy II may have been featured in an equestrian monument (Paus. 6.16.9), and the Macedonian Aristolaos dedicated a statue of the ruler (Paus. 6.17.3). The Kyreneans, ­under Ptolemaic rule for most of the period from 322 B.C. to 117 

Cartledge and Spawforth 2002, 35–36. Chariot-­race victory: inv. 752, 870. IvO 178; SEG 54, 1852; Paus. 6.16.9. 119  Kleomenes: Olympia inv. 196, 392, 987. Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 103–4 no. KNr. 59; IvO 309; SEG 45, 2299. Glaukon: inv. 481; IvO 296. Criscuolo (2003, 318–19, 321–22), however, suggests a dif­fer­ent restoration of the inscription, which would result in a change of patron from Ptolemy III to Ptolemy II for both monuments. 120  Siedentopf (1968, 59–60) thinks the block sizes belong to an equestrian statue, while Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling (1995, 104) ­favor a standing image. 121  Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 202. 122  See the discussion in Freitag 2011, 72; Giovannini 1993, 283. 123  Ptolemy I received an honorific statue from one Damiskos (Paus. 6.3.1), of which no physical trace remains. 118 

182

Chapter 4

96 B.C., honored one of the Ptolemies with a statue (now lost) atop an inscribed limestone base, whose letter forms point to a date in the second ­century B.C.124

Other Hellenistic Rulers The Ptolemies’ energetic activity at Olympia is unmatched by other Hellenistic rulers, but we should note a few. The Athenians honored Philetairos, son of Attalos I, with a nude, bronze statue, as we know from the inscribed base sometime ­after 174 B.C. when the Athenians issued an honorific decree for the Attalid ruler (Fig. 4.17).125 The inscription refers to Philetairos as an Athenian citizen,126 an honor that may have occasioned this dedication,127 the only attested Attalid image at Olympia.128 Lehmann reconstructs the figure at 3.17m high and raises the possibility that the bronze Terme ruler may belong to the extant base at Olympia (Fig. 4.18).129 While most dedications w ­ ere of bronze, Pausanias (5.12.7) saw an ivory image of Nikomedes I of Bithynia (c. 280–250 B.C.) together with an amber statue of Augustus, which ­were “τοῖϛ κατασκευάσμασι τοῖϛ περιφερέσιν ἐγκείμεναι” ([among] t­ hose set up in the round buildings), a puzzling statement since Pausanias apparently was standing in the pronaos of the T ­ emple of Zeus.130 ­Because of the material, Hannestad speculates that Nikomedes’ dedication was made by the king himself and that the statue may have shown its subject nude.131 Nothing survives of e­ ither image, nor evidence for the occasion of ­these dedications.

Syracusan Dedications ­ arlier chapters have considered the importance of western Greek cities and rulers E at Olympia, and the city of Syracuse resumed its close association with Olympia in the third ­century B.C. The Syracusan tyrant Hieron II (r. c. 270–215 B.C.) received honorific statues at Olympia, his f­ amily made dedications, and he himself may have dedicated statues at the site. But the number of statues connected to Hieron II is problematic b ­ ecause of the ambiguous nature of Pausanias’ account (6.12.4, 6.15.6); he 124 

Kotsidu 2000, 127–28 no. 71; IvO 314. Inv. 187. IvO 312; SEG 50, 1716. Lehmann (1996/97, 120–26) points out that the cuttings are suited to a naked foot. The base, not in situ, is to the southwest of the ­Temple of Zeus. Cuttings on the underside indicate reuse for a ­later equestrian statue. The decree: IG II2, 905. 126  Habicht 1990, 569. 127  Lehmann 1996/97, 121. 128  Kotsidu 2000, 128–29 no. 73. 129  Lehmann 1996/97, 107–9, 116–18, 122–23, 126, fig. 29, or to another (inv. 581; IvO 325) at Olympia for Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, a Philhellene and Roman general in 143 B.C. This base was discovered in a row of bases southwest of the T ­ emple of Zeus and was certainly not in situ. Cuttings on the top indicate that a bronze nude statue stood holding a lance upright and supported on the ground. 130  Kotsidu 2000, 132 no. KNr. 76. 131  Hannestad 1996, 74–75. 125 



The Hellenistic Period183

Fig. 4.17. Philetairos base, IvO 312. Photo: author.

mentions dedications to Hieron II in two dif­fer­ent passages, which would yield six statues altogether, while a more conservative reading yields three.132 It seems prudent in this case to begin with what is certain. Mikon of Syracuse produced a statue of Hieron II at the behest of the polis of Tauromenion(?), a city that came u ­ nder the control of Syracuse in 263 B.C., as we know from the inscribed sandstone base, which was found between the western Altis wall and the Pelopion.133 The terminus post quem for this offering is 241 B.C., the end of

132 

Lehmler 2005, 198; Levi 1970. Inv. 1010. Note that the inscription rec­ords the sculptor’s name as Mikion. The city name, surviving only as two letters, restored as Tauromenion, although Talaria has also been proposed. See DNO 4, 718–20 no. 3507; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 104 no. 52; Eckstein (1958, 205–9), who also considers the identity of the demos, represented on the inscription by only the first two letters (ΤΑ); SEG 17, 196; 19, 332; 25, 461; 56, 1103; 57, 402. The precise date of the inscription is controversial, but it is agreed that the dedication was made during Hieron II’s reign, perhaps as early as c. 270 or shortly ­after. See Dimartino 2006, 704. On the appearance of the two dedications by Mikon/Mikion, see Lehmler 2005, 199. 133 

184

Chapter 4

the first Punic war, when Tauromenion was allotted to their new ruler, Hieron II.134 Note that Pausanias makes no mention of this dedication, and unfortunately, no cuttings are pre­sent on the base to give an idea of the image’s appearance. Now we turn to the more ambiguous evidence. Pausanias (6.12.4) reports that the sons of Hieron II honored their f­ather with two statues—­ one mounted on ­horse­back, the other on foot—­again created by Mikon of Syracuse.135 We have no physical evidence from Olympia for t­ hese monuments.136 A few passages ­later (6.15.6), Pausanias states that the Syracusans dedicated two statues of Hieron and that his sons gave a third. The issue is ­whether the  second passage repeats or adds information. This prob­lem is unresolvable without additional information. Hieron II’s son Gelon II also left his mark at Olympia. His marriage to Nereis, d ­ aughter of the Epirote ruler Pyrrhos, linked two power­ful lines and resulted in monuments at both Olympia and Delphi. Part of a limestone base at Olympia was inscribed with a dedication, which names Βασίλισσαν Ὀλυμ[πιάδα]|Βασιλέως Πύρ[ρου] as one of the honorands.137 The inscription has been heavi­ly restored on the basis of comparison with the inscribed dedication from Delphi: accordingly, the names of the donors, Nereis and Gelon (of ­these two names, only the final letter, Ν, of Gelon is extant), appear. A cutting on the top surface of the Fig. 4.18. ‘Terme ruler’ (Rome, Palazzo Olympia base fragment indicates that it once sup- Massimo alle Terme 1049), bronze, H 2.22m. ported a bronze statue, but was ­there more than one? Photo: Hans R. Goette. The reconstructed base at Delphi includes statues of queen Olympias; king Alexander, son of Pyrrhos; 134  Lehmler 2005, 198–99. Lehmler (2005, 185, 208) states that the statue was prob­ably duplicated in Tauromenion. 135  DNO 4, 718–720 nos. 3506; Krumeich 1997, 38. On the appearance of the equestrian statue, see Lehmler (2005, 87, 199–200), who summarizes ­earlier scholarship. 136  Some scholars have interpreted the image of a galloping rider on bronze coins of Hieron II as a reproduction of the equestrian statue at Olympia, but while the motif is a common one on coins, it is rare so far as we know for honorific statues in sanctuaries. See Lehmler 2005, 199. 137  Inv. 743; SEG 45, 2299; 57, 403, 893; IvO 310. The block was ­later reused and reinscribed.



The Hellenistic Period185

king Pyrrhos, son of king Alexander; and king Ptolemy, son of king Alexander.138 Gelon’s marriage with Nereis took place in 233, so both monuments must postdate this event.139 ­These monuments created by and for the Syracusan rulers puts them on a level with—­and as a continuation of—­their prominent and successful Syracusan pre­de­ces­ sors, including Hieron I, whose chariot-­race victory monument by Onatas of Aigina (Paus. 6.12.1) stood nearby (see chapter 3).140 As another indication of Hieron II’s efforts to emulate his illustrious fifth-­century pre­de­ces­sors, one can point to his coinage, which revives the use of the biga and quadriga on the reverse, a normal motif on the ­earlier issues.141 In addition to the honorific statues he received at Olympia, Hieron II linked himself closely to Zeus in his hometown of Syracuse, where stood a ­temple to Zeus in the Agora, another echo of his fifth-­century pre­de­ces­sors,142 as well as a colossal altar, L 195.85m × W 20.85m, dedicated to the god,143 which was built in connection with an expansion of the theater in the 230s B.C.144 The facet of Zeus worshipped at this altar is disputed; some assume it to be Eleutherios, but the most recent studies assign it to Zeus Olympios,145 and indeed, the god is named in the genitive case in an inscription on the center of the wall b ­ ehind the diazoma in the theater. It is noteworthy that a further four inscriptions appear on this wall, naming Hieron (this inscription is immediately located next to the Zeus inscription), Philistis (Hieron’s wife), and Gelon and Nereis, the donors of monuments at Delphi and Olympia discussed above;146 on the other side of the central Zeus inscription w ­ ere names of heroes and deities, now scarcely discernible.147 138 

Schmidt-­Dounas 2000, 111–12; Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 105–6. Kotsidu 2000, 432 KNr. 306 dates it c. 230 B.C.; Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling 1995, 104–6 no. 61. Lehmler (2005, 194–96) points out that the abolition of the Epirote monarchy in 232 provides a lower limit. She argues on this basis that the monuments at Olympia and Delphi w ­ ere intended to signify the perpetuation of the Epirote dynastic line and draws a comparison with the sculptural group in the Philippeion among o ­ thers. Freitag (2011, 86) and Bringmann, von Steuben, and Ameling (1995, 105), however, are cautious about accepting the reconstruction of the inscription and statues in comparison with the Delphi Monument. 140  Cf. Veit 2013, 35. Lehmler (2005, 198–200) says that the Hieron statues ­were not far from the vari­ous dedications of the Deinomenids and lists the chariot of Gelon made by Glaukos, along with the quadriga for Gelon by Kalamis and Onatas, the Zeus statue and three linen “Panzer” from Gelon and the Syracusans in the Syracusan Trea­ sury, and fi­nally the bronze helmet dedicated by Hieron I and the Syracusans from their victory over the Etruscans in 474 at the ­battle of Cumae (Fig. 4.19). Lehmler (2005, 200) subscribes to the commonly held—­and, in my opinion, erroneous—­view that explains the strong western Greek presence at Olympia as an indication of their wish to demonstrate their Greekness. Hieron I and Gelon also made dedications at Delphi ­after the defeat of the Cartha­ginians at the b ­ attle of Himera in c. 480 (Bommelaer and Laroche 2015, 33, 143, 225–27). 141  Veit 2013, 32. 142  Veit (2013, 35) points out that the citizen lists ­were ­housed in the original shrine to the god at Syracuse. 143  Both mentioned by Diod. Sic. 16.83.2. Cic. Verr. 2.4.119 and Livy 24.21.9 cite the ­temple. 144  Karlsson (1996, 85–87) claims that the koinon of Greeks met in the enlarged theater and the altar was intended to accommodate the sacrifices for this enormous number of ­people. 145  Veit 2013, 35; Karlsson 1996, 86–87. 146  Veit 2013, 33; Karlsson 1996, 87. 147  Veit (2013, 33–34) observes that like the Zeus inscription, all names are in the genitive, perhaps to indicate sections of the theater. The genitive could, as Karlsson (1996) suggests, refer to a seat belonging to the priest of Zeus 139 

186

Chapter 4

The links between Syracuse, a Corinthian colony, and Olympia are manifold, as we can see h ­ ere and previously in this text. The Syracusan dynasts w ­ ere athletic victors in numerous venues, as was the Syracusan military leader Phormis, and erected monuments at Olympia (and Delphi).148 Gelon I, quadriga victor in 488 B.C., erected a large bronze group to commemorate his victory (Pl. 16) and made impressive offerings to the Trea­sury of Syracuse. Hieron I enjoyed three quadriga victories at Olympia; the one of 476 B.C. was celebrated by Pindar’s Olympian 1, and one of the victories (which is uncertain) was commemorated by a posthumous bronze monument dedicated by his son. This monument, like that of Gelon I, was located east-­southeast of the Zeus ­temple when Pausanias saw them. And it is near this monument that Pausanias places the two statues of Hieron II dedicated by his sons and made by Mikon of Syracuse. Thus, the ancient viewer, at least of Pausanias’ time, would have seen dynastic continuity and the strong Syracusan presence at Olympia in a ‘block’ of monuments erected by this ­family. We might recall that Hieron I, together with other Syracusans, offered bronze helmets at Olympia, spoils from their victory over the Tyrrhenians at Cumae in 474 B.C. (Fig. 4.19).149 Pindar’s victory odes—­Olympians 1, 6—­and the myth of Arethusa underscored the tight bonds between the two locales. Some scholars maintain that the prominent presence of Syracuse and other west Greek cities at Olympia in the fifth and third centuries B.C. is the product of a sense of inferiority or concern at being left out of the mainstream Greek world.150 A look at the ­actual evidence clearly refutes this claim. The strong assertion of their presence at Olympia, the largest and most impor­tant sanctuary in the nearest proximity to the west (Fig. 1), should be viewed as a demonstration of Syracuse’s might and influence, its wealth and pride, and Hieron II’s proj­ects in Syracuse testify to the ruler’s interest in Zeus, perhaps Zeus Olympios, on a ­grand scale. The Syracusan rulers’ monuments and actions emulated the practice of Hellenistic rulers elsewhere, especially the Ptolemies; one might note that Hieron II was the first Sicilian ruler to use his portrait on his coinage, and his portrait is crowned by a diadem,151 the signature of Hellenistic monarchs. Far from indicating a sense of inferiority, the Syracusans signaled their importance at this sanctuary, which was central to them, as well as to the rest of the Mediterranean world.152

Olympios, but elsewhere, such names include the title of the office (cf. the priest of Dionysos in the theater on the south slope of the Akropolis in Athens). 148  Adornato 2013; Jacquemin 1999, 71, 85, 252–53, 353. 149  IvO 249; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 189–90 nos. 155–57. 150  Ioakimidou 2000. See p. 186, n. 140. 151  Veit 2013, 32. 152  Cf. Dreher 2013, 264.



The Hellenistic Period187

Fig. 4.19. Etruscan helmet dedicated by Hieron I (London, British Museum 1823,0610.1), c. 474 B.C., bronze, H 19.8cm. Inscribed: ΗΙΑΡΟΝ Ο ΔΕΙΝΟΜΕΝΕΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΙ ΣΥΡΑΚΟΣΙΟΙ ΤΟΙ ΔΙ ΤΥΡΡΑΝΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΚΥ[ΜΑΣ] (Hieron, son of Deinomenes, and the Syracusans to Zeus from the Tyrrhenians at Cumae). Photo: © Trustees of the British Museum.

Mummius and the Achaian League: Competition in Monuments The Roman general Mummius understood well the significance of Olympia, both its past luster and its con­temporary value. Although military victory monuments became less common at Olympia ­after the mid-­fourth ­century B.C., Mummius revived this practice. In ­doing so, he positioned himself in the tradition of a long line of military victors, though

188

Chapter 4

to be sure, the ­earlier monuments ­were usually erected by poleis, not individuals. Unlike many other Roman generals, Mummius also erected new monuments in Greece, in addition to appropriating ­earlier ones or transporting Greek sculpture back to Rome.153 ­After defeating the Achaian League in 146 B.C. and plundering and taking Corinth, Mummius attached twenty-­one gilt bronze shields to the east and south metopes of the T ­ emple of Zeus at Olympia (Paus. 5.10.5), the most heavi­ly trafficked areas of the site and thus with the greatest visibility;154 the ‘ghosts’ of Mummius’ shields ­were vis­i­ble on the metopes in 1892,155 and attachment holes for mounting them are still discernible on some metopes (Fig. 4.20). Viewed in the context of the long history of the ­Temple of Zeus, Mummius’ action is yet another stage in the history of the ­temple as victory monument. We might recall this aspect of the building’s ‘biography’: the temple was built as a victory monument, and the Spartans erected a shield atop the temple to commemorate their military victory at the B ­ attle of Tanagra in 457 B.C.156 Mummius’ victory resulted in the annexation of Greece to Rome, and his dedication of shields on the temple, a practice known elsewhere in the Greek world (e.g., the Athenian action at the ­Temple of Apollo at Delphi in c. 339 B.C.),157 indicates that the ­temple remained a potent symbol of military victory that could be claimed and reclaimed by vari­ous parties to demonstrate supremacy both on the battlefield and at the Panhellenic sanctuary. Adding to this effect w ­ ere the shields decorating the triangular pillar supporting the Nike of Paionios (Pls. 24-25, Fig. 3.30), which stood just in front of the T ­ emple of Zeus (see chapter 3) and commemorated a victory of Messenians and Naupaktians over the Spartans, perhaps a rejoinder to the Spartan claim of victory on the Zeus t­emple. Indeed, the Messenians added an additional inscription to the Nike of Paionios c. 135 B.C. in which they recorded the results of an arbitration agreement between the Lakedaimonians, their old enemies, and themselves concerning a border dispute. Mummius did not neglect to make other thankofferings to Zeus with booty from his conquest of Achaia. Pausanias (5.24.4, 8–9) states that he dedicated two statues of Zeus:158 a bronze one at the northeast of the ­Temple of Zeus and the other, facing east, at the Altis wall (presumably standing against the interior of the west wall). No trace of the bronze statue survives, but Wohlmayr suggests that two marble male torsos

153 

Wohlmayr 2002, 144. On Pausanias’ attitude t­ oward Mummius, see Arafat 1996, 95–97. For a recent treatment of Mummius’ dedications in Greece, see Cadario 2014. 155  Dörpfeld 1892d, 7. 156  Cf. Lo Monaco 2016, 215. 157  See pp. 144–45. 158  On the unusual status of the dedication of a statue of Zeus by an individual, particularly a Roman, see Tzifopoulos 1993. 154 



The Hellenistic Period189

Fig. 4.20. ­Temple of Zeus, metope with attachment hole. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

from Olympia, a partially draped one159 and a fully nude one (Fig. 4.21),160 might reflect the Zeus dedicated by Mummius northeast of the Zeus ­temple and close to the Philippeion. The prominent and vis­i­ble symbols of Mummius’ conquest of the Achaian League ­were especially pointed since the League itself made numerous dedications at Olym159 

Wohlmayr 2002, 147. In addition, Wohlmayr (2002, 144 n. 30) states that fragments of the base near the northeast of the Zeus ­temple remain and cites Dörpfeld (1897, 86). The figure perhaps held a phiale, scepter, or thunderbolt in his right hand, an ea­gle in his extended left hand, according to Treu (1897, 215, 226–30), who believes the sculptor to be Athenian. W ­ hether it is a Roman copy of a Greek original or a Greek original of the mid-­fifth ­century B.C. is unclear although the Pentelic marble points to a Roman work. Its good condition suggests that it was h ­ oused inside a structure. 160  Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ100 has been interpreted as an early classical Greek original (Bol 1981) or as a Roman copy of an original of the mid-­fifth ­century. Scholars have identified the figure as Zeus or Apollo (Hatzi 2008, 190; Wohlmayr 2002, 145–46; Bol 1981; Treu 1897, 214–17, Taf. LVI:2). Wohlmayr (2002, 146–47) places it in the mid-­second ­century B.C. on the basis of style and, like Treu (1897, 215), connects it to the dedications by Mummius. The piece was found in two parts close to the Prytaneion, which suggested to the excavators and o ­ thers that the work originally stood in this vicinity, perhaps in the shadow of a building (which would explain the lack of wear on the lower portion). ­B ecause it was found in the Byzantine wall, it has been assumed that the statue was still standing up u ­ ntil this time. The left leg bears indications of repair. See Bol 1981, 166–67.

190

Chapter 4

pia in the Hellenistic period and l­ater,161 and hegemons of the League received notable monuments at the site. Olympia had served as the depository and display place for arbitration documents between League members or between the League and non-­ league poleis, particularly Peloponnesians.162 The leader of the Achaian League in 180/179 B.C., Kallikrates, tyrant of Leontion, was honored with an equestrian monument in c. 179 B.C., which was commissioned by Spartan exiles, as we know from the inscribed limestone base still in situ.163 The monument stood at the west of the Altis adjacent to the western Greek wall and partially rests on the column monument’s T-­shaped base discussed above.164 The extant cuttings and the three-­part configuration of Kallikrates’ base allow us to reconstruct three h ­ orses; we assume that Kallikrates sat atop the central, rearing, mount placed between two standing ­horses. According to Mallwitz, both this group and the two-­ column monument w ­ ere oriented to the north-­south path, which led over the mountains to Elis.165 One won­ders how close Mummius’ statue of Zeus stood to this ensemble of his ­enemy. Fig. 4.21. Male torso (Olympia, Museum of The Achaian League, recognizing the power­ful the History of the Ancient Olympic Games public relations potential of Olympia, dedicated sev- Λ100). Roman copy of a Greek original of c. 450(?), marble, H when restored c. 2.55m. eral honorific statues to Roman leaders, both to flat- Photo: author. ter the recipients and to demonstrate their po­liti­cal and military alliances. The League erected a statue c. 169 B.C. for the Roman general Q. Marcius Philippus, who led the Roman offensive against Perseus of Macedonia.166 The inscribed limestone base, in situ in front of the Echo Hall (Fig. 4.11), documents that the sculpture was created by the Argive sculptors Andreas and Aristomachos, whose ‘signatures’ ­were inscribed in a dif­fer­ent hand from the rest of the inscription; the base’s size and shape suggest that it supported an equestrian statue.167 The League commissioned another equestrian monument, this 161 

Hupfloher 2007, 99–100. Zoumbaki 2010, 111. 163  Inv. 801; IvO 300. 164  See pp. 176–77. Herrmann 2013, 23; Siedentopf 1968, 99–100. 165  Mallwitz 1972, 105. 166  Livy 43.11.6–43.12.3. 167  Inv. 1044; IvO 318. See DNO 4, 366–67 no. 3164. 162 



The Hellenistic Period191

one for Damon from Patras, who led his soldiers, together with a Roman contingent, against the Gauls. The inscribed limestone base (not in situ) indicates that the Achaian League dedicated the sculpture to Olympian Zeus in Damon’s honor sometime in the second half of the second ­century B.C.168 A third equestrian example, this one cosponsored by the Roman residents of Eleia, honored Egnatius, as known from the inscribed limestone base, which was found in front of the Echo Hall, where it most likely originally stood.169 Another base for an equestrian monument to Egnatius by the same donors was perhaps intended for his son.170 Elis had left the Achaian League just before Mummius’ conquest of Corinth in 146 B.C. and well understood the value of appeasing Mummius, whom Eleans honored in c. 146 B.C., his consular year, with an equestrian monument;171 indeed, Roman conquest brought ­great territorial expansion to the Eleans.172 To judge from the cuttings on the inscribed base, the honorand prob­ably sat atop a rearing ­horse, fighting an opponent on foot.173 A sufficient number of blocks pertaining to this monument have been found to reconstruct it, but its original location is unknown. ­Because of the findspot of the sculptural fragments, Lo Monaco would place it in the area of the Bouleuterion, which is significant ­because honorific statues of Hellenistic rulers on Teos and at Miletos also w ­ ere sited near the boule as if to underscore the monarch’s power (her assumption is that the place of dedication was prob­ably specified by the honorand).174 In any case, Mummius’ equestrian statue seems to have been moved in front of the Echo Hall at a ­later point.175 Mummius also was patron of equestrian monuments at Olympia.176 Two inscribed bases of Pentelic marble with cuttings for equestrian statues w ­ ere dedicated to Olympian Zeus and bear Mummius’ name as donor. Both bases have two inscriptions: the text of the inscriptions on both bases are the same but the orthography of the two inscriptions on each individual base differs; the second inscription on each base is in a dif­fer­ent hand and was added in the Augustan period or the first c­ entury A.D.177 One base has cuttings for three rearing ­horses (Fig. 4.22).178 On the basis of the extant cuttings, Koenigs surmises that both bases each originally supported one ­horse in the 168 

Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 106–7 no. 54 (no. 1001); Kunze 1956, 161–64. Inv. 938, 1013; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 107 no. 55; Eckstein 1958, 214–16; SEG 17, 198; 45, 411; 51, 521. 170  Inv. 438; IvO 333; SEG 57, 410. Contra: Zoumbaki 2001, 157. 171  Inv. 372. IvO 319; SEG 29, 420; 45, 410. See Bergemann 1990, 154; Philipp and Koenigs (1979, 197–99), who discuss possibilities for the composition and raise the possibility of reuse of an older monument; Siedentopf 1968, 102–3. Leypold (2014a, 38) thinks the base was reused. 172  See Zoumbaki 2010, 114–15, whose article addresses relations between Elis and Rome. 173  Lehmann 1996/97, 118. 174  Lo Monaco 2009, 274. 175  Philipp and Koenigs 1979, 197–98, 205–13, 215–16. 176  Siedentopf (1968, 41–51) has studied the galleries of equestrian statues at Olympia and elsewhere, as well as the placement of such statues in relationship to each other. 177  SEG 29, 420; 41, 727; 45, 410; IvO 280, 281. 178  Inv. 604. IvO 278, 279; SEG 29, 420; 41, 727; 45, 410. See Leypold 2014b, 33; Philipp and Koenigs 1979, 213–15. 169 

192

Chapter 4

Fig. 4.22. Olympia, Mummius base (IvO 278). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Hellenistic period. When one block was reinscribed on its opposite side in the Roman period, the original ­horse was already missing, and a new one was added in a position opposite to that of the previous one; that yields cuttings for two ­horses. Then a third use of the same base involved replacing the h ­ orse added in the Roman period with a ­horse (so a third h ­ orse on the base) standing close to the original Hellenistic cuttings.179 Who appeared on the two bases in their original use has been disputed: scholars suppose that they ­were not images of Mummius himself but, accepting an ­earlier proposal, ­favor the Dioskouroi as the ­horse­men.180 Yet this would be an odd choice for Mummius, who seems to have had no difficulty whatsoever with self-­ aggrandizement. I would instead propose that the original statues included at least one image of the triumphant Mummius. A last example of a Mummius monument at Olympia: an inscribed limestone base found in situ southwest of the ­Temple of Zeus supported statues of Mummius with ten of his legates.181 The inscription and base have been dated on technical grounds to the mid-­first ­century A.D. (but Zoumbaki would place it c. 146 B.C. on the basis of the use of the title ὕπατος [consul]),182 so scholars assume that the original statues ­were reerected on this ­later base, which originally must have been at least 5m long.183 This seems inordinately complicated; could it not be that the entire monument dates to the same period, c. 146 B.C.? 179  Philipp and Koenigs (1979, 199–200, 213–16) endorse Guarducci’s proposal that the two riders depicted the Dioskouroi and argue that Mummius may have reused an ­earlier monument; Tzifopoulos (1993, 98–99) thinks that Mummius was depicted on ­horse­back. Without expressly stating so, Wohlmayr (2002, 145) seems to reject Koenigs’ reconstruction of the base with multiple cuttings and instead presumes that Mummius reused an older Greek base (he also proposes that Mummius may have reused the Zeus statues, as well). He makes no mention of a further reuse to account for a third ­horse. 180  Wohlmayr 2002, 144; Philipp 1979, 199–200. 181  Treu 1892, 159; IvO 320–24; SEG 29, 420; 45, 410. 182  Zoumbaki 2001, 155. 183  Lo Monaco 2009, 281–82; Philipp 1979, 197.



The Hellenistic Period193

Honorifics for and by ­Others Thus far, we have been discussing honorific statues of, or commissioned by, royal persons or leaders, and we have seen that Olympia served as a place of competition and alliance by visual and topographic means. But this was just one category of honorifics. Religious personnel also received such distinctions in the Hellenistic period. A statue of the seer Eperastos, a member of the Klytiad ­family, appeared at Olympia in the late fourth or early third c­ entury B.C.; the inscription cites his descent from the ­family of the seer Melampos (Paus. 6.17.5–6).184 The seer Thrasybolos of the Iamidai ­family fought with, and foretold the victory of, the Mantinean army in their ­battle against the Spartans during the reign of Agis IV (244–241 B.C.), according to Pausanias (8.10.5), and Thrasybolos subsequently dedicated a statue of king Pyrrhos of Epiros at Olympia (Paus. 6.14.9). Pausanias (6.2.4–5) describes an extraordinary honorific statue at Olympia for Thrasybolos himself: a dead dog, severed to expose his liver, lay at the figure’s feet, while a lizard crawled along his shoulder. In addition, an honorific statue was erected by one Proxenidas for his f­ ather, Chrestion, who was a priest (Θεοκόλος) at Olympia; the inscription is dated on the basis of the letter forms c. 250–200 B.C.185 Phi­los­o­phers also received statue dedications at Olympia. The fifth-­century B.C. rhetorician Gorgias was honored by his great-­nephew Eumolpos in the fourth ­century B.C., as we know from the inscribed limestone base,186 and from Pausanias (6.17.7–9), who relates that Gorgias addressed the Olympic panegyris.187 A statue of the phi­los­ o­pher Kritolaos from Lycia stood on a limestone base inscribed with an epigram and the signature of the sculptor Eucheir of Athens; it has been dated c. 155 B.C. or shortly thereafter.188 The reconstructed base was at least 1.30m wide, which suggests more than a single statue, and in fact, t­ here may have been three figures altogether: Kritolaos, Karneades, and Diogenes, whom we know traveled together to Rome on behalf of the Athenian government in 156/5 B.C.189 If so, one might imagine that this was an honorific group set up by Athens for ­these three men. Greek soldiers ­were sometimes patrons, as we have seen, and this is also true for soldiers further afield: the general and nauarch Seleukos, son of Bithyos and associate of Ptolemy VII, was honored by a statue at Olympia, which was dedicated by his fellow soldiers when they w ­ ere on Cyprus. Polybios (31–33) documents his military 184 

See Flower 2008, 99–100. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 104 no. 52A; SEG 48, 549; 53, 430; Kyrieleis 2003a, 33, Abb. 36–37. 186  Inv. 101; IvO 293; SEG 11, 1240; 45, 408; 49, 479; 50, 1712. 187  IvO 293. Based on calculating the time when Eumolpos was alive and ­because of letter forms, we can say that the base dates to the fourth ­century but cannot pinpoint the date more exactly. 188  Inv. 1042. The block was found reused as a ­water channel cover near the Leonidaion. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 105 no. 53; SEG 57, 2138; Hallof, Herrmann, and Prignitz 2012, 229–31. 189  Hallof, Herrmann, and Prignitz 2012, 230–31. 185 

194

Chapter 4

experiences on Cyprus from which we are able to date the dedication to the mid-­ second ­century B.C.190 Olympic officials themselves made dedications: the Hellanodikai commissioned an over-­lifesize bronze statue to Olympian Zeus in the early first ­century B.C., which honored Theotimos for the offices he held at Olympia: ἀλλύταρχος (police) and ἐπιμελητής (man­ag­er).191 The Hellanodikai also sometimes joined together with the Olympic Boule to honor individuals with statues. ­These include a statue of the early first ­century B.C. for Telemachos, the son of Leon of Elis,192 and a mid-­first-­century B.C. statue for Glaukos, son of the esteemed Theotimos mentioned above;193 we know of both of ­these through the extant inscribed bases. S C U L P T U R A L D E D I C AT I O N S : AT H L E T I C V I C T O RY STAT U E S The number of extant bases of athletic victory monuments increased in the fourth ­century and continued to multiply in the Hellenistic period; increasingly, rulers who had won in the games left their mark on the site by means of lavish monuments, as was possibly the case with the Ptolemaic Monument discussed above, and a new practice of setting up posthumous monuments for past victors began to take hold. A se­ lection of monuments are discussed ­here to give some idea of the range of material that once stood in and around the Altis. The inscribed statue base for another Telemachos (see above), who enjoyed a hippic victory at Olympia, is one of the very few in situ south of the ­Temple of Zeus and thus offers us firm testimony of the use of this space for athletic victors’ monuments (Fig. 4.23). The letter forms point to a date in the late fourth or first half of the third ­century B.C.194 The name Telemachos occurs not only h ­ ere and on the honorific statue base discussed above but again on yet another honorific statue base;195 ­these could be members of the same ­family. The unusual sculpted base for a statue of Pulydamas of Skotussa exemplifies the practice of posthumous statue commemoration (Pls. 29a-­c). Pausanias (6.5.1–9) describes the extraordinary strength, size, and deeds of the Olympic victor Pulydamas; he triumphed in the 93rd Olympiad (408 B.C.) pankration and was honored by a bronze statue made by the sculptor Lysippos in the second half of the fourth

190 

IvO 301. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 107–8 no. 56 (inv. 1015); Eckstein 1958, 218–21; SEG 17, 199; 55, 548. Cf. IvO 406–10, where Theotimos is identified as the ­father of Glaukos and Damo. 192  IvO 406; SEG 32, 416. Cf. IvO 199; SEG 32, 416. 193  IvO 407; SEG 32, 416. 194  Inv. 189; DNO 4, 394–95 no. 3197; IvO 177; SEG 14, 363; Paus. 6.13.11. See Ma 2013, 23. 195  See n. 192 above. 191 



The Hellenistic Period195

Fig. 4.23. Olympia, Telemachos Monument. Photo: author.

­century B.C.196 The Pentelic marble base, comprised of two parts, was found in close proximity to the Echo Hall—­one portion was found southeast of the Echo Hall, and the other was recovered u ­ nder the northern portion of the Echo Hall, which led Treu to surmise that the monument originally stood in the east of the Altis.197 Treu may be correct since we know that the near-­contemporary Telemachos base, which honored another Olympic victor, stood in situ in this general area (see Fig. 4.23). Part of the limestone inscription pertaining to the monument was found within the epigraphical depot at the Olympia Museum and has been dated to the 330s B.C.198 Episodes of the life of Pulydamas w ­ ere sculpted in relief on three sides of the base: his feat of 196  Keesling 2017, 90–91; Marcadé 1987, 113 (c. 335–325 B.C.); Moreno 1984, 126 (c. 340 B.C.). On the appearance of the statue itself, see Moreno 1995, 91–92. 197  Treu 1897, 209–12; Purgold 1884, 238–44. 198  DNO 3, 361; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 78–79 no. 24; Taeuber 1997, 238; SEG 48, 548.

196

Chapter 4

strength in the court of the Persian king Darios, Pulydamas’ wrestling a lion, and the athlete sitting atop the vanquished animal; another episode prob­ably appeared on the now damaged fourth side.199 Building on a suggestion made by Moreno, Taeuber proposes that the athlete’s adventures ­were intended to call to mind Alexander the ­Great, who was a lion hunter and conquered the Persian king (and empire), and that this constituted part of a policy of Macedonian and Thessalian league propaganda.200 But it seems more probable to me that the depictions of Pulydamas’ adventures ­were designed to liken the victorious athlete to Herakles wrestling the Nemean lion.201 As discussed in chapter 3, Herakles provided a model for athletes to emulate at Olympia. The position of Pulydamas and lion h ­ ere recall the composition of Herakles and the Nemean lion on the ­Temple of Zeus (Fig. 3.18),202 which was surely intentional.203 It may be worth remembering that the Daochos Monument at Delphi (Fig. 4.13), erected in honor of the Thessalian Daochos and his f­ amily members, dates c. 336–322 B.C.; that is, it is con­temporary with the monument erected in honor of the Thessalian athlete Pulydamas at Olympia.204 Like the Olympia monument, the Daochos group honors, among other t­ hings, posthumous athletic victories, in the latter case by Hagias, including an Olympic victory in the pankration. Another extraordinary athletic victory monument is that commemorating the quadriga victory of the royal Spartan Kyniska (born c. 442/1 B.C.), who proudly declared on the inscribed base that she was the first w ­ oman to have won in the Olympic chariot race. The fragmentary circular base of black limestone still bears cuttings for the feet of a bronze statue (Fig. 4.24).205 Pausanias reports that Kyniska herself appeared next to a quadriga with a char­i­ot­eer and that her image was sculpted by Apelleas (Paus. 6.1.6; cf. 3.8.1).206 The rest of the group was on a separate base, adjacent to the surviving black limestone one.207 Based on the dates of the birth of her 199 

Taeuber 1997, 237–38. Taeuber 1997, 242–43; Moreno 1995, 93. Hippotion from Taranto dedicated a group of Herakles defeating the Nemean lion, which was sculpted by Nikodamos at the beginning of the fourth ­century B.C. (based on the letter forms), as we know from the inscribed marble base dedicated to Zeus (inv. 1041) and Pausanias’ description (5.25.7). Four cuttings remain on the top surface of the base, ­either for the lion’s paws (Herakles would then appear on a second, now lost, base), Herakles, or both (the lion would then stand on its back legs). Unfortunately, we do not know the reason for the dedication. For the Nikodamos base, see DNO 2, 619–621 nos. 1413–14; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 96–97 no. 42; SEG 13, 272; 54, 494. Todisco (2004, 96) places the base on the south Altis wall. 201  Marcadé (1987) addresses how the compositions are similar to, but also distinct from, the corresponding Herakles imagery. 202  Purgold 1884, 244. 203  Cf. Moreno 1995, 91–93. 204  Pace Geominy (2007), who downdates the Daochos Monument to 287–277 B.C. 205  Olympia, Museum of the History of the Olympic Games of Antiquity Λ529 (696); IvO 160; SEG 11, 1328; 14, 357; 22, 348; 23, 260; 29, 417; 36, 394; 37, 357; 40, 809; 46, 2374; 50, 1762; DNO 2, 608–9 nos. 1397–98. 206  Jünger (2006, 17–21) provides a discussion of the two dedications by Kyniska. 207  Krumeich 1997, 213. 200 



The Hellenistic Period197

Fig. 4.24. Kyniska base (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ529), c. 390–380 B.C., limestone, H 37cm; and IvO 160. Photo: Hans R. Goette. 208 

f­ather and ­brother, who are mentioned in the epigram, and the letter forms of the inscription, the monument is dated c. 390– 380 B.C.208 Pausanias (5.12.5) mentions a second dedication of Kyniska consisting of bronze h ­ orses in the pronaos of the T ­ emple of Zeus. An inscribed pillar-­shaped marble base was found in this very location and may belong to the monument, not only b ­ ecause of its findspot but also ­because of the inscription, which includes part of the sculptor’s name, again, Apelleas; the name of the donor is not extant.209 An under-­lifesize quadriga prob­ably stood atop this base.210 As was true in the fifth ­century, prominent sculptors w ­ ere commissioned to create athletic victory statues for the site. Polykleitos the Younger of Argos, for example, is credited with a statue for Xenokles of Mainalos, a victor in boys’ boxing (Paus. 6.9.2); the marble base, which held a lifesize bronze statue, was inscribed with the signature of Polykleitos and has been dated on the basis of its orthography to c. 390/380.211 He also created a lifesize bronze statue for Aristion of Epidauros (Paus. 6.13.6), as indicated by the signed base; the inscribed letter forms for this winner in men’s boxing indicate a date in the mid-­fourth c­ entury B.C.212 Kleon of Sikyon manufactured bronze statues of Kritodamos from Kleitor (Paus. 6.8.5)213 and Athenaios of Ephesos (Paus. 6.4.1), 214

Jünger (2006, 17–19) puts the date c. 400–360/59 B.C. (19). IvO 634; SEG 43, 170; DNO 2, 610 no. 1399. 210  Eckstein 1969, 67–69. 211  Olympia, Museum of the History of the Olympic Games of Antiquity Λ530 (inv. 308); DNO 2, 568–69 no. 1357; IvO 164; SEG 14, 349; 16, 288; 36, 389; Keesling 2017, 88–89. 212  Inv. 712. IvO 165; SEG 16, 288. Ridgway 1995, 185 identifies Aristion with Ariston, who won a victory in 452 B.C., but this is dismissed in DNO 2, 567 no. 1354. 213  Inv. 619; DNO 2, 584–85 nos. 1374–75; IvO 167. 214  Inv. 727; IvO 168. 209 

198

Chapter 4

Figs. 4.25a, b. Head of athlete wearing a tainia (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ99), c. 340 B.C., marble, H 27cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

both winners in the boys’ boxing competition. The dates of the victories are unknown, but the letter forms of both inscriptions suggest dates in the fourth ­century. The mention of Kleon of Sikyon leads one to think of the inscribed Zanes base of 388 B.C. (see Pl. 27b), which carried a statue made by the same sculptor or one of the same name. Much rarer than the inscribed bases are remains of the statues themselves. The head of a young athlete fashioned from Pentelic marble c. 340 is likely to have been an athletic victor’s statue (Fig. 4.25a-­b).215 He wears a tainia and has cauliflower ears, the hallmark of boxers, wrestlers, and pankratiasts. The style demonstrates a relationship to work by Skopas, the proportion of head to neck follows the Lysippan tradition,216 and its workmanship indicates that the head was turned ­toward the left shoulder and that the figure was not meant to be seen from ­behind. The good state of its survival suggests that it was displayed indoors.217 Scholars have wanted to link a bronze ­boxer’s head of c. 330 B.C. with the Athenian sculptor Silanion, to whom Pausanias (6.4.5) attributes the portrait of a boxer, Satyros from Elis (Pl. 30),218 a member of the famed Olympic seer ­family, the 215 

Olympia, Museum of the History of the Olympic Games of Antiquity Λ99 (inv. 1543). Tzachou-­Alexandri 1989, 232 no. 231; Herrmann 1972, 172; Treu (1897, 208–9) identified the head as belonging to an image of Herakles. Lehmann (2008) dates the head to the third quarter of the third ­century B.C. and attributes it to an athlete of heavy sports, i.e., boxing or wrestling. 216  Tzachou-­Alexandri 1989, 232. 217  Herrmann 1972, 172; Treu 1897, 208–9. 218  Athens, National Archaeological Museum 6439. Tzachou-­Alexandri 1989, 340–43. Lehmann (1995/96) instead places the head in the second quarter of the fourth ­century B.C.



The Hellenistic Period199

Iamidai, who played such an impor­tant role at Olympia.219 The eyes ­were once inlaid, the lips w ­ ere covered in copper, and he wore a crown of olive leaves, the sign of his victory, of which a ­couple of leaves survive.220 In spite of the suitability of the connection, ­there is, in fact, no firm link between the bronze head and Pausanias’ description.221 O T H E R S C U L P T U R E : D I V I N I T I E S A N D P E R S O N I F I C AT I O N S One of the best-­known images of Olympia for modern scholars is the Parian marble statue group (H 2.15m) attributed to Praxiteles of the adult Hermes holding the baby Dionysos, most of which was found in the cella of the ‘Heraion’ where Pausanias (5.17.3) saw it, while other portions w ­ ere recovered nearby (Pls. 31a-­b). The excavators noted traces of red color in Hermes’ hair and on his eyes and lips; the sandal straps also bore this red color together with remnants of gilt.222 Hermes once wore a bronze wreath in his hair, as indicated by the circular indentation in the hair and attachment holes, and he carried something, perhaps a caduceus, in his left hand. Hermes is restored with a cluster of grapes dangling from his right hand based on a Pompeiian wall painting that seems to reproduce this group in two dimensions. The statue was repaired, as indicated by changes to its limestone base to attach it to the cella wall with metal rods.223 Controversy swirls over ­whether the statue is a Greek original of c. 340–330 B.C., or a Roman copy, and if a Greek original, from which period.224 A recent essay by Andrew Stewart deftly summarizes the scholarship on the statue and offers his own assessment of the statue as a Greek original as deduced from the face of Dionysos and its use of Parian marble.225 I agree with this and would point to the extraordinarily fine treatment of the drapery as a soft mass of complicated folds as an indication of original Greek work. Pausanias (5.17.3) saw the work in the ‘Heraion,’ where it was prob­ably moved from its original location.226 The lack of finishing on the back of the figure is typical of statues whose back sides ­were not vis­i­ble to the spectator, but the current state of the back of the statue may be the result of reworking from a ­later period. The lack of weathering indicates an indoor location for most, if not all, of the statue’s existence; if this is an 219 

Herrmann 1972, 172. Mallwitz and Herrmann 1980, 195–96 no. 137. 221  See also DNO 3, 250 no. 2079. Cf. Lehmann 1995/96. 222  Treu 1897, 194–206. The bibliography on the sculpture group is vast. See DNO 3, 144–48 no. 1945, which includes a discussion of ­whether the work is a Praxitelean original, a Roman copy, or a Hellenistic creation or copy. 223  Hitzl 1991, 123–24. On the base, see Corso (1996, 141), who dates it “not e­ arlier than the IInd c­ entury B.C.,” but he acknowledges that this opinion is tentative; and Purgold (1892, 157–58), who also notes reworking of the base and puts its date in the late Hellenistic or early Roman period. 224  E.g., Moreno (1994, 507) thinks that the group was reworked by Damophon of Messene in the Hellenistic period. Ajootian (1996) and Corso (1996) summarize the vari­ous arguments; Corso concludes that it is a Praxitelean original of the ­later fourth ­century B.C., and Ajootian believes it to be a Roman creation. 225  Stewart 2011, a revision of his ­earlier stated opinion (1990, 177) that the statue was a Hellenistic work. 226  Stewart (2011, 53) states that it was moved to the ‘Heraion’ in the late Hellenistic or early Roman period; Pasquier 2001, 249. Contra: Corso (2013, 167), who thinks the statue is a Greek original dedicated in the ‘Heraion.’ 220 

200

Chapter 4

original Greek work, ­there are only a ­limited number of locations where it could have stood originally: the ‘Heraion,’ the T ­ emple of Zeus, the Metroon, possibly the Echo Hall or the South Hall. The motivation for the dedication of this large statue of fine lychnites marble is unknown; based on the significance of Dionysos for the Eleans, Pasquier suggests that it is a po­liti­cally motivated Elean dedication, perhaps a commemoration of their alliance with Philip II in 343 or the treaty between Eleans and Arkadians in 343.227 Praxiteles’ influence also is evident in a head (H 15.5cm) of Aphrodite made of Parian marble (Fig. 4.26), which is inspired by the sculptor’s famed Knidian Aphrodite,228 and close to the Aphrodite Braschi type in Munich.229 While ­earlier scholars Fig. 4.26. Head of Aphrodite (Olympia, dated it c. 300 B.C.,230 more recent studies place it in Archaeological Museum Λ98), marble, the second or early first c­ entury B.C.231 The head was H 15.5cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette. found in the Leonidaion, where it topped a less than lifesize statue that may have been displayed h ­ ere;232 the cursory treatment of the back of the neck suggests that the back side was never meant to be seen.233 More than forty pieces of Pentelic marble ­were reassembled to form a statue of Apollo (originally c. 2.60m high), which had been destroyed for use as building material (Fig. 4.27).234 His identity is secured not only by his size but also by evidence of a lyre or kithara on his left side. He once wore a metal crown around his head, as indicated by attachment holes. On the basis of its style, scholars identify it as a Hellenistic transformation of an original of the severe style.235 ­Because of his findspot and the fact that he was fully worked out in the round, Treu suggests that the statue 227 

Pasquier 2001, 249. Corso (2013, 167) suggests that the resolution of civil strife in Elis with the help of the Arkadians in 343 B.C. may have prompted the dedication of the group whose figures personify Arkadia (Hermes) and Elis (Dionysos). 228  Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ98; LIMC II, s.v. Aphrodite, 107, no. 1062 [A. Delivorrias]; Treu 1897, 206–7. 229  Taschner 2001, 179. 230  LIMC II, s.v. Aphrodite, 107, no. 1062 [A. Delivorrias]. 231  Corso (2007, 82) dates it to the late second to early first c­ entury B.C.; Taschner (2001, 179) puts it in the mid-­ second ­century B.C. 232  Corso (2007, 82) perceives Pergamene workmanship in the carving of the head and thinks the statue may have served to protect athletic competitors, particularly ­those from Asia Minor staying at the Leonidaion; Treu 1897, 208. 233  Treu 1897, 208. 234  Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ107; LIMC II, s.v. Apollon, 209 no. 192 [O. Palagia]; Treu 1897, 223. 235  LIMC II, s.v. Apollon, 209 no. 192 [O. Palagia]; Treu (1897, 224–25) believes it to be a Greek work inspired by a mid-­fifth-­century B.C. original.



The Hellenistic Period201

Fig. 4.27. Apollo (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ107), marble, H 1.95m. Photo: Hans. R. Goette.

236 

was a free-­standing work originally displayed in the Prytaneion near which Pausanias saw two altars to Apollo (5.15.7).236 Among the most curious sculptural bases remaining at Olympia is an uninscribed marble base in the form of an astragalos, a knucklebone, once located south of the stairs in front of the Trea­sury Terrace (Fig. 4.28); this supported a lifesize or over-­lifesize statue of bronze.237 On the basis of a passage in Pliny (HN 34.19.55) and Pausanias’ observation of an altar dedicated to Kairos (opportunity, the right moment) at the entrance of the Stadion, Benndorf concluded that a bronze statue of a nude personification of Kairos once graced this base.238 This format is extraordinary and at this scale, one must won­der about the motivation. Astragaloi w ­ ere used in divination (and, of course, t­ here ­were seers at Olympia), as well as in games, at least in the first ­century A.D.239 Note that ­there are three bronze weights in the form of astragaloi, one with an inscription indicating that it is a dedication to Zeus.240 In addition, fragments of marble and bronze sculptures survive, some still attached to bases, but rarely can we identify the figures or context.241 Exceptions include fragments of four or five male figures, whose colossal size—1.5 to 2.5 times lifesize—­ suggest divinities, possibly Zeus.242 Where did such colossal marble figures stand when they w ­ ere erected in the Hellenistic period? Not all of them stood out-

Treu 1897, 225. Treu 1897, 212–14. An adjoining piece was found built into a wall to the west. 238  Benndorf 1885. 239  Beerden 2013, 37. 240  Hitzl 1996, 247–48. 241  E.g., a magnificent bronze right foot attached to a limestone base without a surviving inscription: Br 2772; Bol 1978, 47, 118 no. 200, Taf. 36–37. See also Treu 1897, 217–18, 223. 242  Treu 1897, 230–31. Th ­ ese consist of: part of a marble face, 1.5 times lifesize, found partially burned in a lime-­ kiln located on the Trea­sury Terrace; a Parian marble right foot, pierced on the instep for a metal attachment, about 1.66 times lifesize, the weathering of which suggests that it stood outside; a Parian marble right hand with an attachment hole on the ­middle figure’s lowest knuckle, which belonged to a statue prob­ably 5m high; a Parian marble left hand from a statue of approximately 4.5m in height with two attachment holes between the thumb and index fin­ger (its weathering indicates that the inner hand surface was turned downward); the tips of a thumb and ­middle fin­ger from a left hand of a 2.5 times lifesize statue, which have been restored holding a scepter in the attachment hole between the digits; and a right index fin­ger of Pentelic marble belonging to a twice lifesize statue. 237 

202

Chapter 4

Fig. 4.28. Astragalos base (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games), marble, H c. 0.40m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

side, as suggested by the general lack of weathering, but the number of buildings is sharply ­limited: the Gymnasion, baths, and ­temples. This somewhat breathless overview of Olympia in the fourth ­century and Hellenistic period reveals a wealth of material—­both the physical traces and written attestations of works already lost. Construction of buildings at the site continued apace, although the locus of activity generally moved outward from the Altis t­ oward its immediate surroundings. It would seem that both the patronage and the subjects of statues, particularly commemorative images, broadened enormously during the period ­under discussion as compared to ­earlier times. We know a lot about Olympia in the fourth c­ entury B.C. and the Hellenistic period, but our understanding and knowledge of which statue bases at Olympia are actually in situ and which have been moved ­will enable us to make additional meaningful conjectures about patrons’ intentions and the viewer’s experience. ­Earlier scholars’ assessments of a decline in the prestige of the games and Olympia in the Hellenistic period have proven incorrect. The games clearly mattered, as did



The Hellenistic Period203

Olympia itself: ­there would have been ­little impetus to erect honorific statues or multiply the number of bathing establishments, for example, had Olympia lost its luster, and we would do well to bear in mind that one critical ­factor in Olympia’s ongoing prominence was the continued, sometimes enhanced, importance of Elis—­and its enormous revenues from Olympia—in its relations with other poleis, including members of the Achaian League and Aitolian League. While the hiatus in military victory monuments in the later portion of the fourth ­century B.C. is noteworthy (and certainly is not due to the lack of military conflict), and we observe a shift in the kinds of building activity and the kinds of monuments, change does not necessarily signal diminution. On the contrary, the energetic use of honorific monuments and ­family groups for po­liti­cal means indicates Olympia’s continuing centrality in the politics and power dynamics of the Mediterranean. Olympia remained a place of honor and praise for athletic victories, but its role as a showcase for po­liti­cal alliances increased dramatically.

204

Chapter 4

5 R O M A N O LY M P I A

Conquest was the chief means through which Romans became familiar with Greek art. As Roman military leaders, such as Mummius in 146 B.C. (see chapter 4) and Sulla in 87 B.C.,1 defeated Greek cities, they took booty with them back to Rome; they dedicated objects, including booty seized from elsewhere, in Greek sanctuaries and cities; and in some cases, the Romans restored objects taken as booty to their original ‘­owners,’ that is, cities previously defeated by the recently conquered city.2 As we saw in the previous chapter, Olympia was a ‘goal’ of Roman generals, such as Mummius, who revived the tradition of erecting military victory monuments at Olympia, but in addition to d ­ oing so in the form of free-­standing sculpture, he appropriated the ­Temple of Zeus to make his point. He and other Romans understood the value of Olympia and felt compelled to visit and leave their mark. But the Romans, of course, already knew about Olympia before Mummius’ arrival. The first official Roman del­eg­ a­tion visited Olympia during the Olympic games c. 208 B.C. (Liv. 27.35.3–4).3 From (at least) that time on, as we learn from ancient writers, Olympia—­its games, prestige, and treasures—­dazzled Roman visitors. The Pheidian statue of Zeus in the god’s t­ emple (Fig. 3.20) wowed the Roman military leader and consul Aemilius Paullus (d. c. 160 B.C.) (Polyb. 30.10.6; Liv. 45.28.5; Plut. Aem. 28.2), as well as the orator and phi­los­o­pher Dio Chrysostom (b. c. 40/50 A.D.), who extolled it in one of his orations (12.50–52).4 Roman emperors made benefactions in the form of buildings and funding for repairs. They also reshaped the site, competed in the Olympic games, and manipulated Olympia rituals for their own self-­aggrandizement and to make claims to control Olympia, this most esteemed location in the entire Mediterranean. Hellenistic rulers already had made something of a tradition of exploiting the site for po­liti­cal gain, but while retaining Olympia’s monuments and games, Roman emperors transformed Olympia into a Roman site. Roman rulers ‘appreciated’ the Greek culture that they experienced at Olympia so much that they felt 1 

Sulla at Olympia: Diod. Sic. 38.7; Plut. Sull. 12.3; Paus. 9.7.5. E.g., Lo Monaco 2016; Cadario 2014. 3  Zoumbaki 2010, 111. 4  Cf. Epiktetos, D. 1.6.23. 2 

205

compelled to take some of it, specifically sculpture, home with them. Likewise, Elean officials ­were quick to play politics to their advantage by dedicating buildings and honorific statues to Roman emperors and officials, while promoting their own illustrious past. Although most scholars concentrate on the growth of athletic facilities and multiplication of baths outside the Altis as the chief Roman contribution to the site, dramatic Roman changes to the Altis took place from the first Republican contacts u ­ ntil and beyond the time of the official decree of 393 A.D. u ­ nder the Christian Roman emperor Theodosius,5 which forbade vari­ous forms of pagan worship. The text does not specifically mention the Olympic games,6 and, in fact, medieval writers suggest that they continued on, perhaps into the mid-­fifth ­century A.D.7 ­There also is evidence that priestly activity at Olympia continued into the first half of the fifth ­century A.D.8 The first real Roman investment at Olympia occurred ­under the rule of Augustus (Fig. 5.1), who made modifications and renovations to Olympia, and who was honored by the Eleans with the conversion of an ­earlier Greek ­temple, the Metroon, into a ­temple dedicated to his worship (Pl. 27a, Fig. 3); a reor­ga­ni­za­tion of the Olympic games also seems to have occurred during the last part of the first ­century B.C.9 Augustus’ Julio-­Claudian successors ­were also active at Olympia, though less beneficial to the site. Caligula wished to remove the Pheidian Zeus cult statue (see chapter 3) but did not fulfill this plan; it was still vis­i­ble at Olympia in 384, then, according to the written tradition, it went to Constantinople in the 420s or 430s, where it was displayed with other ancient statues in the palace of Lausus u ­ ntil fire destroyed the building in 462.10 Nero took numerous sculptures from Olympia,11 including the figure of Odysseus from the Achaian Monument (Fig. 3.3a-­c) and figures from the Mikythos Monument (Paus. 5.25.8, 26.3; see chapter 3), although surely nowhere as many as claimed by Dio Chrysostom (Or. 31.148). Tiberius participated in the games before or in 4 A.D. (the date is uncertain),12 and Nero in 69 A.D. (the games had been delayed two years at his wish), where he provided a musical performance—­very tiresome, according to Suetonius (Ner. 23–24)—­ and competed in the chariot race, where he fell out of the chariot but was crowned victor anyway. Consequently, Suetonius (Ner. 24) reports, Nero ordered that all ath5 

Cod. Theod. 16.10.10–12. The connection to the Olympic games was first made by the eleventh-­century writer Georgios Kedrenos. See Remijsen 2015, 47–49; Weiler 2004; Gutsfeld and Lehmann 2003, 151. 7  Brown 2006, 315; Gutsfeld and Lehmann 2003, 151. 8  Sinn 2004a, 32; Sinn 2002, 372. 9  Lo Monaco 2003, 486. 10  Josephus, AJ 19.i.8–9; Suet., Calig. 22.2, 57.1–2; Remijsen 2015, 49–50; Brown 2006, 315. 11  Sinn 2004a, 200. 12  Sinn 2012, 105; Zoumbaki 2007, 160–64; Herrmann 1972, 184. 6 

206

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.1. Roman Olympia. Digital drawing by Hans R. Goette from Herrmann 1972, 186, Abb. 129 and Kyrieleis 2002, Karte (H. Birk).

letic victor monuments be destroyed. How much actually was damaged w ­ ill never be known; to be sure, not every­thing since many monuments still stood when Pausanias visited in the mid-­second c­ entury A.D., but the reuse of victors’ monuments in buildings created at this time or just ­after his visit may lend support to Suetonius’ claim. Nero, however, can be credited with at least one benefaction to the site: inscriptional evidence documents his improvements to the w ­ ater supply for Olympia.13 But in an obsequious gesture, the Eleans razed the Southeast Building (Figs. 1.11a-­b) and the Greek building east of it, both of which may already have been in disrepair, to construct a residential quarter for Nero.14 Hadrian and the Antonine emperors had 13 

A lead w ­ ater line and IvO 287. See Sinn 2012, 106; Sinn 2004a, 201–2. See Fig. 3; Mallwitz 1972, 203–10.

14 



Roman Olympia207

a ­great—or perhaps dif­fer­ent—­appreciation for the site: the Pheidian Zeus was impressed on Hadrianic coins (Fig. 3.20).15 Evidence of Christians at Olympia is pre­sent from the third ­century A.D. (although the first unambiguously Christian imagery at Olympia dates only from the fifth ­century A.D.),16 the Olympic games and building continued into the late fourth c­ entury A.D., perhaps even l­ ater, and honorific sculptures for Romans continued to accumulate. This chapter looks at the major changes to the site and some of its buildings during the Roman period, including renovation, and considers the Roman impact on the site and sculptural dedications made ­there. SHAPE OF THE SITE A significant reshaping of the Altis and the approach to it from the south transformed a visitor’s experience of the site; this renovation has been ascribed to Augustus. The southeast arch or gate formalized an entry point into the Altis that had long existed without monumentalization (Figs. 3, 5.1–2).17 At 16.64m long × 4.43m wide with three openings, the gate was a formidable addition to the pro­cessional way to the Metroon and the area of the altar of Zeus. The ­middle doorway of this gate, which was never completed, was clearly the primary access point as indicated by the wear on the threshold, which exceeds that of the flanking thresholds. All three doorways had wooden doors,18 and reused blocks—­ Greek statue bases—­were employed for the threshold. Eigh­teen blocks for the central doorway derive from a limestone base for a quadriga monument as indicated by cuttings on eight blocks;19 ­these bases belong to the first half of the fifth c­ entury B.C. or even the late sixth ­century B.C. to judge by their form.20 Other limestone blocks in the threshold with cuttings for hooves also belong to an equestrian monument, but ­whether to the same or not is unclear.21 An intriguing aspect of the gate is the placement of the reused blocks. The surfaces with the original cuttings are upward; the profile on the southernmost blocks indicate 15 

Bäbler 2000. Sinn 1999, 379. 17 ­ Earlier studies (Mallwitz 1988b, 27) attributed its construction to Nero, but a study of the gate—­orientation and ground level—­with re­spect to the ‘House of Nero’ indicates that the gate is older. Lo Monaco (2003, 494–96) dates it ­after 1 B.C., while Mallwitz (1999b, 270) puts it before 67 A.D. Mallwitz goes on to give a thorough description of the remains and offers a hy­po­thet­i­cal reconstruction (270–74). See also Spawforth (2007, 387), who ­favors an Augustan date. 18  Mallwitz 1999b, 272. 19  Mallwitz 1999b, 273. The placement of hooves suggests that the outer ­horses turned their heads outward, while the inner h ­ orses looked ­toward each other. 20  Jünger (2006, 13–16) includes a discussion of reconstructing the original order of the blocks; Mallwitz (1999b, 272–73) claims that ­these bases do not date before the fourth ­century B.C. ­because of their cuttings. 21  Jünger 2006, 15; Mallwitz 1999b, 273. 16 

208

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.2. Southeast gate, view from west. Augustan. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

the front of the original monument. In other words, the positioning of the blocks with previous cuttings clearly vis­i­ble to the viewer appears to emphasize the Roman reuse.22 We witness this again at one of the most prominent sites at Olympia ­today: the long line of statue bases lining the southern part of the east-­west path south of the T ­ emple of Zeus (Figs. 3, 4.8, 4.12, 5.1). Th ­ ese once supported a row of equestrian monuments in honor of Roman military leaders of the province Achaia.23 This assembly seems to have been created at one moment: the orientation of the bases, their placement equidistant from each other, and the careful alignment of their front edges indicate that ­these ­were planned as a group.24 This row centered around a single, larger base;25 its inscribed top 22 

Mallwitz 1999b, 274. Mallwitz 1972, 106. 24  Griesbach (2016, 162) notes that two of ­these bases ­were relocated to this row between 1967 and 1971 (n. 62). A dif­fer­ent view is offered by Ma (2013, 124), who views them as accumulating over time, but the symmetry around a central statue and absolute regularity—­rather than jockeying for placement—­clearly point to unified planning. 25  Inv. 582. Griesbach 2016, 163. 23 



Roman Olympia209

block, partially restored, rec­ords a dedication from Elis with a statue by Herophon of Macedonia.26 The Roman statues stood atop reused bases, perhaps once supporting statues of Hellenistic rulers, which ­were relocated ­here (with one pos­si­ble exception; see below). The bases stand like sentinels, offering a delineation of the intersection of the north-­south and west-­east paths and yielding a clear southern border to the Altis. As is the case with the southeastern gate discussed above, one can interpret the reuse of the ­earlier Greek bases in a variety of ways. While some scholars regard this as an effort to appropriate and rewrite the past, a common practice in Roman conquest,27 one might won­der if instead—or in addition—­the reuse deliberately points to the ancient pedigree with pride in a way that boasts of the stones’ antiquity. What is the date of this sculptural ensemble? We find a clue in an inscription honoring C. Servilius Vatia, which was found near Olympia’s Byzantine wall; the inscription has been associated with the single ­earlier in situ base in this row. The cognomen Vatia belongs to the gens Servilia, who held offices in the ­middle portion of the first ­century B.C.,28 and therefore, the inscription and reused monument are usually dated c. 75–50 B.C.29 This date then, rightly or wrongly, is applied to the larger ensemble, which turns the corner at the southwest. In addition, the Romans erected an Altis wall superseding the fourth-­century B.C. Greek wall—4m further to the west and approximately 30m to the south (Figs. 5.1, 5.3). The Roman wall stood some 3–4m high,30 considerably taller than its Greek pre­de­ces­sor, and created a more emphatic barrier; access to the Altis, perhaps no longer easily vis­i­ble from outside the wall, was now restricted to gateways in the west and south.31 The new wall enclosed the file of bases discussed above, including the southwestern bases, which faced west, thus cutting off their view from visitors along the north-­south path. Thus, the wall clearly postdates the installation of the assembly of bases.32 If the statue bases ­were installed as a single proj­ect, and if that happened in c. 75–50 B.C., we should imagine that the wall was erected considerably ­later. While some scholars f­ avor an Augustan date when a new hall was added to the Bouleuterion, presumably to contribute to the ­grand new entry gate into the Altis,33 it 26  IvO 317. Cuttings on the top block and an early restoration of the inscription as a dedication to Rome suggest to one scholar that a bronze personification of Roma sat atop the base (Tuchelt 1979, 36–38; IvO 317), but more recent study of the inscription casts doubt on that reading. See DNO 4, 463–65 no. 3260. 27  Griesbach 2016, 166. 28  Inv. 300; IvO 329; Zoumbaki 2001, 157. 29  Griesbach 2016, 162–63; Siedentopf 1968, 95. 30  Dörpfeld 1897, 70. 31  Mallwitz 1972, 108. The wall also enclosed an aqueduct, which eventually served the Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus. See Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 56–57. 32  Cf. Leypold 2014b, 39. 33  Van de Löcht 2013, 269; Lo Monaco 2003, 477–81, 496–97.

210

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.3. Roman wall along the north-south path in the southwest Altis, view from southwest. Photo: author.

seems rather early in relation to the statue bases; instead, the mid-­second ­century A.D. nominated by ­others may be more plausible.34 At least part of the Roman wall at the west of the Altis was destroyed before the late Roman imperial period, when a hall complex was built over this area, adding to, and surrounding, three sides of the Philippeion.35 THE METROON Having passed through the southeastern gate, a visitor could walk northward and encounter another transformed monument, a Greek t­ emple renovated to serve as a Roman Sebasteion. Pausanias remarked on the oddity of the building called the Metroon (5.20.9, 5.21.2) since t­ here was no statue of Meter in it when he visited in the

34 

Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 57. Kyrieleis 2013, 19.

35 



Roman Olympia211

Fig. 5.4. Metroon inscription (Olympia, Archaeological Museum), IvO 366: ΗΛΙΟΙ Θ[ΕΟΥ] ΥΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ[ΣΑΡΟΣ] ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ ΣΩΤ[ΗΡΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΛ]ΛΗΝ[Ω]Ν [Τ]Ε ΚΑΙ [ΤΗΣ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕ]Ν[ΗΣ] ΠΑ[Σ]Η[Σ . . . ​ . . . ​ . . . ..] (the Eleans dedicate [the ­temple] to Caesar [Augustus], the son of a god, the Soter of the Hellenes and of the entire Oikoumene). Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-1986-0097A (Robin Rehm).

mid-­second ­century A.D. (Pl. 27a, Figs. 3, 4.5).36 Indeed, what Pausanias saw was the Greek Doric ­temple of c. 400 B.C. (see chapter 4) refitted in honor of the emperor Augustus with marble, free-­standing imperial portraits. This Roman incarnation was an Elean benefaction: by the late first ­century B.C., the building was in ruins, perhaps as a result of one of the many earthquakes that shook Olympia.37 The Eleans renovated and dedicated the building to Caesar Augustus,38 as known from a now incomplete and only barely legible inscription dated to the Augustan period,39 which was affixed to the limestone architrave: the Eleans dedicate [the t­ emple] to Caesar [Augustus], the son of a god, the Soter of the Hellenes and of the entire Oikoumene (Fig. 5.4).40 In contrast to the building itself, the Roman sculpture found in and around the Metroon was created in the Roman imperial period. Th ­ ese include seven Roman imperial portraits of Pentelic marble with unworked backs, all displaying similar workmanship.41 36 

Arafat (1995, 466) raises the possibility that the original statue may have been moved to the Heraion by Pausanias’ time. But Nero’s (or another emperor’s) proclivity for collecting Greek statues in 68 A.D. may explain the absence of a statue of Meter when Pausanias saw the structure. See Stone 1985, 387. Contra: Hitzl 1991, 24 n. 219. 37  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 62 n. 62; Hitzl 1991, 14. 38  Moustaka 1993, 148; Hitzl 1991, 15–18; LIMC III, s.v. Dionysos, 439 no. 142 [C. Gasparri]; Fuchs 1956, 72–73; Treu 1897, 234. Mallwitz (1972, 160–63) discusses the architecture. Hitzl (1991, 15–16) believes that the sculptures—­ both metopes and pediments—­were damaged before the building was renovated and ­were therefore removed. 39  Lo Monaco (2009, 148) dates the refurbishment to c. 10 B.C. 40  IvO 366; SEG 35, 383. See Hitzl (1991, 19–24), who also offers some corrections to the ­earlier restoration; Stone 1985, 379–80; Mallwitz 1972, 163. ­There are scholars who question ­whether the blocks belong to the architrave of the Metroon or not. See Hitzl 1991, 19 with bibliography. Wilhelm Osthues is currently studying the building’s history and architecture, and we await the results of this work. 41  Deppmeyer 2008, 1:35–36, 2:39–44; Hitzl 1991; Stone 1985, 378; Herrmann 1972, 184.

212

Chapter 5

The largest of ­these is a statue of a partially draped Augustus holding a scepter and perhaps a lightning bolt, that is, in the guise of Zeus, whose size—3.5 times lifesize in comparison to the other, ‘slightly over lifesize,’ sculptures—­suggests that this image was the cult statue (Fig. 5.5).42 Three pairs of male/female figures constitute the ­others:43 • Claudius depicted as Jupiter and his third wife, Agrippina the Younger, engaged in sacrifice (Figs. 5.6a, 5.6b);44 • a cuirassed figure of Titus45 and one of two headless female statues clad in chitons,46 perhaps topped by a head of Flavia Domitilla the Younger and placed in the Metroon in secondary use (Figs. 5.7a, 5.7b);47 Fig. 5.5. Augustus (Olympia, Archaeological Museum • a cuirassed, headless male figure, prob­ Λ110) from the Metroon, marble, restored H 3m. ably Vespasian,48 paired with the other Photo: Hans R. Goette. female49 (Figs. 5.8a, 5.8b). 42 

Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ110α–­λ. Stone 1985, 378–79; Mallwitz 1972, 163; Treu 1897, 232–35. The torso was found on the foundation of the south stylobate and his legs nearby. Bol (2012) claims that this statue did not appear inside the building but outside at the south of the Metroon, a suggestion that has not met with ac­cep­tance. See Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 62 n. 62; Zoumbaki 2001, 152. 43  Stone 1985, 387. 44  Claudius: Olympia, Museum of the History of the Olympic Games of Antiquity Λ 125. Hitzl 1991, 38–43; Stone 1985, 381; Stuart 1939, 615–16. This figure was found on the south stylobate. Hitzl (1991, 122–23) discusses repairs made to the figure in antiquity. Agrippina: Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ143. Leventi 2009, 273–74; Stone 1985, 382–84. 45  Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ126. Stone 1985, 387–88. Contra: Bol (1986, 298–305), who argues that the head of Titus inset into the body is not original to the statue but replaced a head of Nero, which was removed ­after his damnatio memoriae; she thinks this pair is Neronian in date. Hitzl (1991, 60–61) accepts Bol’s argument about the head. 46  The females: Berlin, Pergamonmuseum SK1400, who may have held a cornucopia in her left arm, and Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ142, whose body type recalls images of Hera. See Leventi 2009, 273–74; Boschung 2002, 100–105; Hitzl 1991, 49–52, 55–56, 98; Stone 1985, 384–85, 390. Bol (1986, 306) associates a Pentelic marble head found in the Palaistra (Olympia Λ147) with one of the female figures and identifies her as Claudia Octavia, the ­daughter of Claudius. According to this view, the group is intended to legitimize Nero’s reign through the divinization of Claudius and Nero’s marriage to Claudius’ ­daughter Octavia. Contra: Hitzl (1991, 85–86, 117–19) , who disassociates the head from the statue and sees no place for an image of Claudia Octavia in the Metroon. 47  Hitzl (1991, 49–52, 98–99) dates it to the Neronian period. In its first use, the figure was capite velato. 48  Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ127. Hitzl 1991, 52–55, 69–70; Stone 1985, 388–89. Contra: Treu (1897, 246–48), who views the statue as Domitian, the female statue in Berlin as Julia Titi, and the remaining headless female statue as Domitia. 49  See n. 46 above. Hitzl (1991, 55–56, 101) dates this figure to the Vespasianic period.



Roman Olympia213

Fig 5.6a. Claudius (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ125) from the Metroon, marble, H 2.10m. Photo: Hans. R. Goette.

Fig. 5.6b. Agrippina the Younger (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ143) from the Metroon, marble, H 2.14m. Photo: Hans. R. Goette.

So we have Claudius in divine guise, and two emperors shown as military leaders; Vespasian’s female companion is equipped with a religious implement, the patera. When restored, the figure of Vespasian would be the tallest of the three males other than Augustus and is accompanied by a kneeling female barbarian, perhaps a personification of a province;50 that is, he is shown as conquering general. All but the two headless male statues w ­ ere made by Athenian sculptors, as indicated by signatures on Claudius’ support and Agrippina’s plinth, marble type, and workmanship.51 50 

Hitzl 1991, 52–55, 60. IvO 642, 646, 660; SEG 42, 391. See Palagia 2010b, 437; Leventi 2009, 273–74; Stone 1985, 378, 381. Note that the portrait of Agrippina was found near the east facade of the Heraion, not so close to the Metroon, but scholars accept that it is a pair with the Claudius of the Metroon. 51 

214

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.7a. Titus (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ126) from the Metroon, marble, H 2.0m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 5.7b. Female (Berlin, Pergamonmuseum SK1400) from the Metroon, marble, H 1.81m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

The signatures and bosses remaining at the nape of the neck have led scholars to posit that the statues ­were made in Athens, then shipped to Olympia.52 As is true of nearly every­thing ­else about this building and its sculptures, the placement of the figures is contested. Augustus surely stood at the far end of the cella against its back wall, and one can safely assume that the other figures stood against 52 

See Bol 1984, 21; Stuart 1939, 612. Contra: Goette 1985, 554.



Roman Olympia215

Fig. 5.8a. Vespasian(?) (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ127) from the Metroon, marble, H 1.86m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 5.8b. Female (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ142) from the Metroon, marble, H 1.87m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

the side walls, prob­ably the males depicted as pendants to the females, Claudius facing Agrippina, for example.53 The male figures looked ­toward the colossos of Augustus, while the female figures seem to have looked at the visitor entering the structure.54 On the basis of the figures’ poses and dynastic relationships, one recon53  Hitzl 1991, 27–28; Stone 1985, 381ff.; Treu 1897, 234, Abb. 291. Most scholars place t­ hese figures on the side walls within the intercolumniations, but Hitzl (1991, 85–93) carefully observes how each sculpture was specifically designed for viewing from the entry of the Metroon; that is, each image on the side walls was designed to be seen initially from an ­angle, which would lead the viewer to regard the statues from the front. This is clearly demonstrable for the statues of Vespasian, and is clearly not so for the figure of Titus, nor for the female statue in Berlin, both of which ­were reused; clearly, t­ hese statues ­were not designed for the Metroon. 54  Hitzl (1991, 101–4) posits that all the statues, save for that of Augustus, stood on high, marble-­clad, inscribed bases to mitigate the overwhelming effect of the colossos, and suggests that inscribed marble slabs found in the ‘Heraion’ belonged to the base for the Vespasian statue. See IvO 376. According to Hitzl, the Metroon’s columns ­were

216

Chapter 5

struction has Claudius and Agrippina closest to Augustus, Vespasian across from one of the females in the center intercolumniations, and Titus and the remaining female opposite each other closest to the door,55 while another places Vespasian, the assumed patron of this ensemble, closest to Augustus, with Flavia Domitilla the Elder opposite him, Titus and Flavia Domitilla the Younger nearest the door, and Claudius and Agrippina in the ­middle positions.56 At some point in the late second or early third ­century, a colossal bronze statue (approximately twice lifesize) was placed in the building as evidenced by a bronze foot, surely belonging to a statue of an emperor, from the late Roman period.57 Scholars have argued about the date of the sculptural installation and its intended meaning or function. ­Were the statues added gradually over time, or ­were they created/gathered and placed h ­ ere at one moment? If the latter, then the ensemble clearly dates from the time of Vespasian or l­ater. One scholar sees the entire group as Vespasianic in date, prob­ably 71–73 A.D., and intended to link this emperor with his two deified pre­de­ces­sors, Claudius and Augustus, and to celebrate his and his son’s (Titus’) military conquests.58 By contrast, another scholar regards the sculptures as spanning a range of dates and that the intended arrangement of statues experienced several changes: according to this thinking, the colossus belongs to the Augustan period, Claudius and Agrippina prior to 54, the body of Titus and the Berlin statue to the Neronian period, and the figures of Vespasian and the Olympia female to the Flavian period, with Vespasian as the patron responsible for their assembly in this building.59 Following this reasoning, Claudius initially erected a f­ amily group in the Metroon with statues of himself and Agrippina closest to Augustus, and l­ater t­ hese ­were moved to make room for the Flavian statues of Vespasian and his wife, Flavia Domitilla the Elder.60

removed when the building was converted to use for emperor cult ­under Augustus: they ­were unnecessary and would have obscured the intended effect of the sculptures (see n. 53 above). 55  Stone 1985. Contra: Hitzl 1991, 29 n. 242. 56  Hitzl 1991, 102–5. 57  Inv. Br 3564. Hitzl (1991, 123–24) speculates that the bronze foot may belong to an imperial portrait of the second half of the second ­century or first half of the third ­century A.D. that was added to the pronaos. 58  Stone 1985, 390–91. 59  Hitzl 1991, 93–94. Cf. Lo Monaco 2009, 235–38. 60  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 63; Hitzl 1991, 109–10. Hitzl (1991, 108–14) speculates that statues of Germanicus, Agrippina the Elder, Livia, and Tiberius once stood in the Metroon and that t­ hese ­were moved to the trea­sury of Kyrene, where Pausanias saw them (Paus. 6.19.10), yet Pausanias only mentions statues of Roman emperors in the trea­sury. Cf. Rups 1986, 61–62. Contra: Boschung 2002, 104 n. 600. Some scholars interpret the relevant passage of Pausanias to indicate that the trea­sury of Kyrene was transformed into a place for emperor worship by ­later emperors once the Metroon had been filled with the statues by Vespasian. See Hitzl 1991, 119–22; Curtius 1897, 60; Treu 1897, 256. Contra: Mallwitz (1972, 167), who believes that the trea­sury simply served for storage, a suggestion that Hitzl (1991, 120) finds incredible.



Roman Olympia217

While the Metroon was initially appropriated for the cult of Augustus, w ­ ere l­ater emperors whose statues ­were placed ­there intended to be worshipped, as well?61 The image of Claudius as Jupiter would seem to suggest so, but without further evidence, it is difficult to answer this question. What one can propose with some confidence is that the colossal statue of Augustus portrayed as Jupiter—­not simply as the divinized emperor—­was intended to invite comparison with the regal colossal Pheidian Zeus seated in the ­Temple of Zeus nearby (see chapter 3, Fig. 3.20).62 THE ‘HERAION’ This visual parallel takes on another dimension when we recall the placement of the Metroon directly opposite the ‘Heraion,’ their entrances facing each other (Figs. 3, 4.8, 5.1). Like the Metroon, the ‘Heraion’ also was repurposed, although when this happened is unclear; Hölscher has recently proposed a date in the mid-­or third quarter of the first c­ entury B.C.63 By the time of Pausanias’ visit in the mid-­second c­ entury A.D., the building was still regarded as a sacred space for worship, but now, as suggested by the travel writer, of both Hera and Zeus as indicated by his mention of cult statues of the two deities.64 The building also served as a repository of numerous objects, both older and much newer; the periegete’s account (5.17.1–20.3) reads like a modern museum guide, identifying works and artists (and their pedigrees)—­mostly of the archaic and classical periods—as he strolls along. Among t­ hese are many items that Pausanias describes as chryselephantine,65 the Kypselos chest (see pp. 98–102), and bronze and marble sculptures,66 such as the famed Hermes and Dionysos by Praxiteles (see pp. 200–201), which received a new base in the first c­ entury B.C.—­ perhaps during a renovation of the building,67 when it may have been moved from its original location (Pls. 31a-­b). Pausanias also saw h ­ ere the t­ able that held the Olympic victors’ crowns (5.20.1).

61 

Hitzl and Kropp (2013, 60–65) think that imperial cult was likely for a number of emperors at the site and suggest the possibility that a site of imperial cult lay outside the Altis, apparently a revised opinion for Hitzl, who had ­earlier denied this possibility (1991, 105). 62  Cf. Stone 1985, 379; Treu 1897, 235. 63  Hölscher 2019, 212. 64  Krumeich 2008, 86, 91–92. Contra: Arafat (1995, 464) doubts its use for religious purposes. See chapter 2. 65  He names statues of Horai by Smilis of Aigina (DNO 1, 168–69 no. 249); Themis by Dorykleidas of Lakedaimonia, a sixth-­century B.C. sculptor (DNO 1, 150–51 no. 230); Hesperides by Theokles of Lakedaimonia, which had been transferred from the trea­sury of Epidamnos to the ‘Heraion’ (Paus. 6.19.8; DNO 1, 145–47 nos. 226–27); an armed Athena by Medon, a sixth-­century B.C. Lakedaimonian, which was moved from the Megarian Trea­sury to the ‘Heraion’ (Paus. 6.19.12–14; DNO 1, 147–50 nos. 228–29); seated statues of Demeter and Persephone (Paus. 5.17.3); standing statues of Apollo and Artemis (Paus. 5.17.3); and statues of Leto, Tyche, Dionysos, and a winged Nike (5.17.3). 66  Bronze sculptures: Aphrodite by Kleon of Sikyon, a fourth-­century B.C. sculptor (DNO 2, 583 no. 1372). 67  Krumeich (2008, 82) allows that the renovation could have happened as late as the mid-­first ­century A.D.

218

Chapter 5

The prominence of female statues within the ‘Heraion’ is striking, and it seems that the ‘Heraion’ was the chosen location to honor female members of the Elean elite from the Hellenistic period onward.68 One might recall the importance of the sixteen Elean w ­ omen for the Heraia festival and the cult of Demeter (see prologue, chapter 2), as well as their role as overseers of the cult of Dionysos in Elis; perhaps it is no coincidence that the statue of Dionysos and Hermes also stood in the ‘Heraion.’ The building h ­ oused portrait statues, such as that for a priestess as indicated by the woolen fillets in her hair (Fig. 5.9),69 and statues transferred h ­ ere from other buildings, such as the Philippeion (see chapter 4), trea­suries,70 and the Metroon (see below). First-­ century A.D. honorific statues of Elean w ­ omen, perhaps priestesses of Hera, stood in the pronaos of the ‘Heraion,’ as attested by inscribed Pentelic marble bases found in situ (Pl. 11, Figs. 2, 4.8).71 All three w ­ ere honorifics commissioned by Elis. One was made c. 100 A.D. in honor of Antonia Kleodike.72 A second statue was for Claudia Alkinoa, a member of another illustrious Elean ­family, prob­ably made c. 53 A.D., when her husband, L. Vetulenus Florus, won an Olympic victory;73 we w ­ ill learn more of this ­family below. The third, dated at the end of the first ­century A.D., honors Numisia Teisis.74 Two of t­ hese three bases, ­those for Claudia Alkinoa and her grand­daughter Numisia Teisis, flanked the doorway leading to the Fig. 5.9. Priestess (Olympia, Archaeological cella. Pentelic marble statues (now headless) found Museum Λ144) from the Heraion, marble, H 1.90m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

68 

Bol 2008, 155. Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ144. Bol (2008, 155) proposes that the figure may represent Flavia Gorgo. Bol (1995, 180) ­counters Treu’s (1897, 259, Taf. LXIII:6, LXIV:2–3) identification of the figure as Poppaia Sabina and suggests that the figure may depict a priestess of Demeter Chamyne. 70  See above n. 65. 71  Zoumbaki 2001, 106. On the group as a ­whole, see Trimble 2011, 186–91. 72  See Bol 2008; Bol 1995, 180; IvO 429; SEG 40, 390. IvO 426 pre­sents a genealogical chart of Antonia’s illustrious ­family; her son, a military leader for the Achaians, received an honorific statue at Olympia as well: IvO 430. 73  See Bol 1995, 180–81; IvO 435. For the genealogy, see Zoumbaki 2001, 244–48; Zoumbaki 1993, 227–28; IvO 431–32. L. Vetulenus Florus’ athletic victory was honored by a statue as attested by the inscribed Pentelic marble base IvO 226 found in situ in front of the east facade of the ­Temple of Zeus. 74  Bol 2008, 155; Bol 1995, 180–82; IvO 438. 69 



Roman Olympia219

built into a late antique wall just to the east of the ‘Heraion’ have been associated with ­these bases.75 This emphasis on female figures prompts Hölscher to argue that the ­temple was reconceived as a cult site for ­women when objects ­were assembled t­ here in a clearly designed program in the first ­century B.C.76 If this is correct—­and I find it highly plausible—­then by the ­later first ­century B.C., this building was truly a Heraion. NYMPHAION The ‘exhibition space’ of the ‘Heraion’ finds its complement in the most dramatic—­ and perhaps most useful—­Roman construction at Olympia, the Nymphaion, located at the southern base of Kronos Hill (Figs. 3, 5.10, 5.11). Built on two levels with a dia­ meter of 16.50m and displaying numerous statues,77 the Nymphaion was something of a museum itself in the form of a Roman theater. An exedra on the top—­a two-­ tiered Corinthian arcade with its bottom tier even with the Trea­sury Terrace—­was embellished with sculptures on inscribed bases in the eleven niches in the intercolumniations on each level.78 This ­whole structure framed a basin into which ­water flowed from a 1km-­long aqueduct, which came from the south along the north-­ south path east of the Leonidaion. The basin was bordered at the front by another low wall on which the ends of the exedra w ­ ere placed; atop this wall stood an inscribed statue of a bull (see below), and the wall itself was pierced with openings that allowed the w ­ ater to run into a 30m-­wide U-­shaped basin located 5m below the top level. Small eight-­columned monopteroi, each enclosing a statue,79 stood at ­either end of the lower basin, which was pierced by openings at the front to permit w ­ ater to flow into a drain at ground level. This complicated and elaborate fountainhouse—­such an 75  Claudia Alkinoa’s statue (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ141) was signed by the artist Eleusinios of Athens. See IvO 645; Trimble 2011, 125–26, 363; Treu 1897, 258 Taf. LXIII:5. Eros of Athens signed Numisia’s. See IvO 647; Trimble 2011, 125–26, 364; Bol 1995, 181–82; Treu 1897, 258 Taf. LXIII:4. Another Pentelic marble female statue (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Olympic Games of Antiquity Λ139) found east of the ‘Heraion’ can be linked to Antonia Kleodike. It was signed by the sculptor Erato of Athens below the left knee and was joined to the head (Olympia Λ145) of an older w ­ oman, also of Pentelic marble, unearthed on the threshold of the Heraion’s pronaos, the room in which the statue once stood against the north wall. Bol associates this statue, which is in the form of the Large Herculaneum w ­ oman type, with the base of Antonia Kleodike, whose f­ amily was represented by dedications at Olympia over several generations. See Trimble 2011, 121–25, 363–64 no. 4; Bol 2008; Bol 1995, 181; Treu 1897, 252–55, 259–60, Taf. LXII:6, LXIV:4–5; IvO 648. 76  Hölscher 2019. 77  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 65–85; Longfellow 2012, 141–46; Sinn 2012, 107; Sinn 2004a, 202–5; Mallwitz 1988b, 37–39; Bol 1984. 78  Bol 1984, 50–58. 79  The monopteroi and statues—­one a togatus, the other wearing a cuirass—­were not part of the original plan but ­later additions. Hitzl and Kropp (2013, 68–69, 80–81) even suggest that the statues, Trajanic in date, ­were reused from other monuments and identify them as Trajan in a cuirass and the togate Tiberius Claudius Hipparchos, the grand­ father of Herodes. See also Tobin 1997, 318–21.

220

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.10. Nymphaion, view from south. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 5.11. Olympia, Nymphaion, reconstruction by R. Bol and A. Hoffmann, reproduced from Bol 1984, Beilage 5. Courtesy of DAI.

extraordinary utilitarian structure!—­was built c. 153–160  A.D. ­under the patronage of Regilla, the wife of Herodes Atticus.80 Although the architecture itself is fragmentary, twenty-­two statues, including two statues of Zeus, are attributed to the Nymphaion,81 and numerous bases—­though inscriptions are sometimes missing—­ have survived, as well.82 Attempts to match extant statues and bases and to identify what statues may have existed on unassigned bases have focused on dress, scale, and familial and po­liti­cal relationships. The extant bases belonged to statues portraying members of the imperial f­ amily or to ­those depicting the ­family of Herodes Atticus and Regilla (who was herself the niece of Faustina the Elder).83 From the inscriptions, one can deduce that Regilla, priestess of Demeter Chamyne, dedicated the ­water supply and architecture to Zeus, that Herodes Atticus dedicated the statues of the imperial ­family, and the ElFig. 5.12. Hadrian (Olympia, Archaeological eans w ­ ere named as the official donors of the statues Museum Λ148) from the Nymphaion, of Herodes and his ­family.84 marble, H 1.86m. Photo: Hans R. Goette. Cuirass statues of Hadrian (Fig. 5.12),85 Antoninus Pius (Fig. 5.13), and another figure—­prob­ably Marcus Aurelius (­because of the presence of Faustina the Younger; Fig. 5.14)—as well as fragments belonging to a statue of Lucius Verus,86 are extant although their corresponding bases do not survive. ­These four male figures act as pendants to each other—­Hadrian and Antoninus Pius 80  The se­lection of portraits permits the dating (Bol 1984, 8). Lucian (De morte Peregr. 19) and Philostratus (VS 551) credit Herodes Atticus with bringing w ­ ater to Olympia. Many modern scholars date the Nymphaion ­after the erection of the altar of Demeter Chamyne mentioned by Pausanias ­because the traveler does not mention the Nymphaion, i.e., he did not see it ­because it did not yet exist. See, e.g., Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 60. Contra: Tobin 1997, 315. 81  Bol 1984, 18–21. 82  Some statue bases w ­ ere reused as building material in the Christian church constructed in Pheidias’ workshop in the fifth c­ entury A.D. (Pl. 32b), which suggests that the Nymphaion was in disrepair at this point. See Sinn 2002, 374. 83  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 76, 79; Bol 1984, 14–16. Imperial f­ amily: Faustina the Elder, Faustina the Younger, Aelius Antoninus (son of Marcus Aurelius), Galeria Faustina (­daughter of Marcus Aurelius), another d ­ aughter of Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus. ­Family of Regilla and Herodes Atticus: Appius Annius Gallus (­father of Regilla), M. Appius Bradua (grand­father of Regilla), Vibullia Alcia (­mother of Herodes), Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes (­father of Herodes), Atticus Bradua (son of Herodes), Elpinike (­daughter of Herodes), Athenais (daughter of Herodes), Regillus (son of Herodes), Vibullius Hipparchus (grand­son of Herodes), and Athenais (­daughter of Vibullius Hipparchus, so great-­granddaughter of Herodes). 84  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 74–75. 85  On the breastplate of Hadrian, see Gergel 2004. 86  Bol 1984, 23.

222

Chapter 5

in larger scale with elaborate cuirasses, and Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius with less elaborate cuirasses and at smaller scale.87 The non-­imperial men wore togas, and in one case, a tunic and himation; this last figure extends a patera in his outstretched right hand.88 ­Because of its size, the single headless female statue at the largest scale should be Regilla (Fig. 5.15), to which a crowned head has been associated; that is, she is shown as priestess of Demeter.89 The reconstructed placement of figures within the architecture relies on po­liti­cal and f­ amily relationships, as well as pose, with imperial c­ ouples standing side by side.90 Scholars agree that the imperial ­family stood on one level while the ­family of Herodes and Regilla stood on the other, but scholars disagree about which group occupied Fig. 5.13. Antoninus Pius (Olympia, which of the two levels.91 Undisputed is the place- Archaeological Museum Λ165) from ment of a steer dedicated to Zeus, as indicated by the Nymphaion, marble, H 51.5cm. the inscription on its torso, standing on the edge Photo: Hans R. Goette. of the top basin (Fig. 5.16). A statue of Zeus stood in the center of the imperial f­ amily members,92 and perhaps a second was centered among the f­amily of Herodes and Regilla.93 Scholars have remarked on the innovation and singularity of the Nymphaion in the second c­ entury A.D. As Sinn rightly notes, the emphasis on female benefactors among the Elean dedications within the ‘Heraion’ is striking in view of the fact that the Nymphaion’s dedication was, as announced by the inscription on the bull, made

87  Bol 1984, 23. On the Hadrian and Antoninus Pius statues, particularly the cuirasses, see Gergel 2004, 400–402. 88  Bol 1984, 23–24. 89  Bol 1984, 24–25. 90  Daehner (2007, 101) notes that the three most prominent ­women—­Regilla, Sabina, and Faustina the Elder—­ were depicted in the compositional scheme of the Large Herculaneum W ­ omen. 91  Bol (1984) reconstructs eleven imperial portraits in the lower level of the exedra and eleven portraits of Herodes Atticus, Regilla, and their f­amily in the upper exedra niches, but Hitzl and Kropp (2013, 72–73) argue exactly the opposite based on the evidence from the bases, their moldings, and the quality of the two groups of sculpture. 92  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 73. 93  Bol 1984. Bol (1984, 190–93) places the partially draped Zeus (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ8), based on the Dresden type, in the bottom rank among the imperial f­ amily members. Hitzl and Kropp (2013, 73–74), however, exclude the figure from the Nymphaion and propose the Gymnasion as a pos­si­ble location, where the god oversaw the proper and fair execution of athletic competition.



Roman Olympia223

Fig. 5.14. Marcus Aurelius(?) (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ150) from the Nymphaion, marble, H. 1.87m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Fig. 5.15. Regilla(?) (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ156) from the Nymphaion, marble, H 1.83m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

by Regilla.94 When viewed within the context of Olympia, one better understands its form and meaning. The numerous sculptures ranged in two rows with inscribed bases below are a visual rejoinder to the many sculptural dedications standing in the Altis before the fountain, and this hemicycle monument echoes the curving base of the Apollonian Monument facing it directly south just outside of the Altis (Fig. 3.4). Closer at hand was the curving base inside the Philippeion on which stood the ­family members of Philip II and his illustrious son, Alexander the G ­ reat (Figs. 4.9a , 4.10). 94 

Sinn 2002, 374. On w ­ omen represented among the Nymphaion sculptures, see Trimble 2011, 235–44, 365–67 nos. 5–7.

224

Chapter 5

ll wall a d e o s wa K lladeos

North Baths

Kronos Hill

Roman bld

g.

Kronos Baths

retaining wall Nymp

haion

Tr e a s u r y t e r r a ce

altar of Zeus

temple of Zeus

Greeks baths

Pheidias’ workshop

East-West path uteri

on

sthouse

ue w antiq late

South baths

Boule

all

Roman gue

qu anti lateuses ho

idaion Leon s bath

SW ba

th s

e

Sou

all th H

SE gate

Southeast Bldg.

Kladeos baths

Echo Hall

Palaistra

East baths Greek Bldg.

Statue Bases

Buildings on the Treasury Terrace

1 earlier Zanes bases 2 later Zanes bases 3 Ptolemaic monument 4 Dropion base 5 Mikythos monument 6 Semicircular Elean monument 7 Eretrian Steer monument 8 Achaian monument 9 Nike of Paionios 10 Plataian monument 11 Telemachos base 12 Praxiteles base 13 Apollonian monument 14 Philonides base 15 M. M. Rufus base 16 Phormis dedication 17 Kallikrates base 18 Two-column monument 19 Mummius base

O oikos I Treasury of Sikyon II Treasury III Treasury of Syracuse IV Treasury of Epidamnos V Treasury of Byzantion? VI Treasury of Sybaris? VII Treasury of Kyrene? VIII Treasury IX Treasury of Selinus X Treasury of Metaponto XI Treasury of Megara XII Treasury of Gela

Altars

Baths

A Unidentified altar A1 Altar of Heraion A2 Altar of Herakles A3 Altar of Metroon A4 Altar of Artemis

B wells D Altar of Demeter Chamyne K Hellenodikai seating R access to Gaion AB-archaic bridge supports FH Early Helladic House III (Building VII) GA Greek Altis wall RA Roman Altis wall NW Northwest gate SW Southwest gate

----- Greek water lines - -- - fence -15- altitude with respect to the Zeus temple

Pl. 1. Aerial view of Olympia. Photo: D-DAI-ATH-2017/32557 (S. Gesafidis).

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 1

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 2. ‘Charioteer of Delphi’ (Delphi, Museum 3484), c. 470–450 B.C., bronze, H 1.80m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 2

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 3a. Pelanidas’ base (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games B12800), c. 500 B.C., limestone and bronze, H (base) 35cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette. Pl. 3b. Persian helmet dedicated to Zeus by the Athenians (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B 5100), c. 490 B.C., bronze, H 23.1cm. Inscribed: ΔΙΙ ΑΘΕΝΑΙΟΙ ΜΕΔΟΝ ΛΑΒΟΝΤΕΣ (to Zeus [from] the Athenians having taking [it] from the Medes). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 3

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 4. Olympia, plan of 1887 with Demeter sanctuary added. Adapted by Hans R. Goette from Curtius and Adler 1897, vol. 1, Blatt 2.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 4

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 5. Bronze helmets in the storerooms at Olympia. Photo: Susanne Bocher. Courtesy of DAI.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 5

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 6a. Bronze and silver ‘Illyrian’ helmet (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B5316), c. 530 B.C., and bronze greaves (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B10535, B10418). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Pl. 6b. Spear-point dedications to Zeus (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B6980, B219, B5572), bronze; the middle one is inscribed “(from) the Methanions from Lakedaimonion.” Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 6

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 7. Aerial view of southwest area with the Leonidaion and Temple of Zeus. Photo: S. Gesafidis. Courtesy of DAI.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 7

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 8. Satellite map from Google Earth with author’s approximations for the size of the Altis at its greatest known extent. Drawn by Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 8

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 9. Plan of Greek Baths with colors indicating building phases. Reproduced with permission from Heilmeyer et al. 2012, 210. Courtesy of DAI.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 9

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 10. Aerial view of southwest area with Leonidaion and Temple of Zeus. Photo: S. Gesafidis. Courtesy of DAI.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 10

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 11. ‘Heraion,’ view from northeast. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Pl. 12. Sikyonian Treasury, view from southwest. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 11

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 13a. Geloan Treasury roof line (Olympia, Archaeological Museum 1W167). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Pl. 13b. Terracotta architectural members from the Treasury Terrace (Olympia, Archaeological Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 12

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl.14. Geloan Treasury, Olympia, view from west. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 13

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 15. Zeus and Ganymede akroterion (Olympia, Archaeological Museum T2) from a treasury, c. 480 B.C., terracotta, 1.097m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 14

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 16. Base of Gelon, east of the Temple of Zeus. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 15

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 17a-b. Warrior (Olympia, Archaeological Museum T3), c. 490 B.C., terracotta, H 1.05m. Photo: a: author; b: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 16

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 17

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 18. Bull (Delphi, Archaeological Museum 10660), silver and gold. H 1.25m, L 2.30m. Photo: © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Resources Fund.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 18

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 19a-b. Griffin nursing baby (Olympia, Archaeological Museum B104), c. 630 B.C., bronze, H 79.5cm, W 80cm. Photo: author.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 19

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 20. Bowl dedicated by the Kypselids (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 21.1843, Bartlett Collection— Museum purchase with funds from the Francis Bartlett Donation of 1912), c. 625 B.C., gold, H 15cm. Photo: © 2021. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 20

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 21a. Eretrian steer base. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Pl. 21b. Ear and horn of Eretrian steer (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Br 912, M 888, K1034, K1035), early fifth century B.C., bronze. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 21

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 22. Temple of Zeus, east metope. Herakles and Atlas (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ95), marble. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Pl. 23. Pheidias’ workshop, exterior. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 22

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 24. Nike of Paionios (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ46–48), c. 420 B.C., marble, H (of figure) 2.115m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 23

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 25a-b. Triangular pillar and inscription (IvO 259) belonging to Nike of Paionios, c. 420 B.C., marble, H (of pillar and base) 8.81m. The dedicatory inscription appears above: ΜΕΣΣΑΝΙΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΝΑΥΠΑΚΤΙΟΙ ΑΝΕΘΕΝ ΔΙΙ ΟΛΥΜΠΙΩΙ ΔΕΚΑΤΑΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΩΝ ΠΟΛΕΜΙΩΝ (the Messenians and Naupaktians dedicate a tenth from the war [spoils] to Olympian Zeus). The sculptor’s signature appears below in smaller letters: ΠΑΙΩΝΙΟΣ ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕ ΜΕΝΔΑΙΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΑΚΡΩΤΗΡΙΑ ΠΟΙΩΝ ΕΠΙ ΤΟΝ ΝΑΟΝ ΕΝΙΚΑ (Paionios of Mende made [it] and one set of akroteria on the temple). Photos: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 24

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 26a-b. Stadion tunnel (krypte stoa), from west (above), from east (below). Photo: author.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 25

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 27a. Metroon, view from northwest. Photo: author.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 26

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 27b. Zanes bases, view from west. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 27

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 28. Philippeion, c. 330–320 B.C., marble. D 15.24m. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 28

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 29a, b, c. Pulydamas base (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ45), c. 350–300 B.C., marble, H 26cm, L 44cm, Br 18cm: a: Pulydamas hoisting a lion to demonstrate his strength in the court of the Persian king Darios; b (left): Pulydamas wrestling a lion; c: Pulydamas atop the vanquished lion. Photos: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 29

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 30. Head of a boxer from Olympia (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 6439), c. 330 B.C., bronze, H 31cm. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 30

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 31a, b. Hermes and Dionysos (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ48), marble, H 2.13m. Photos: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 31

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Pl. 32a. Artemis altar, Roman period. Photo: Klaus Herrmann.

Pl. 32b. Pheidias’ workshop, interior depicting transformation into a church. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

BarringerColorSection_2P_corr.indd 32

5/10/21Monday, May 10, 2021 9:28 PM

Fig. 5.16. Bull (Olympia, Archaeological Museum Λ164) from the Nymphaion, marble, H 1.05m, W 1.60m. Inscribed: ΡΗΓΙΛΛΑ ΙΕΡΕΙΑ ΔΕΜΗΤΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΥΔΩΡ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟ ΥΔΩΡ ΤΩ ΔΙΙ (Regilla, priestess of Demeter [to Zeus] the ­water and the [­things] around the ­water). Photo: Hans R. Goette.

Likewise, the Nymphaion pre­sents not one but two ­family groups: the ­family of Regilla and Herodes Atticus and, juxtaposed to it, the Roman imperial f­ amily. The bull prominently placed on the Nymphaion also mirrors another monument in the Altis, the Eretrian steer (Pls. 21a-­b, Fig. 3.2) discussed in chapter 3, and like it and the a­ ctual animal victims, walks ­toward the ash altar now located east of the Pelopion. With ­these three structures—­Metroon, Heraion, and Nymphaion—we observe a clustering of Roman structures and power claims in the northern part of the Altis close to the ash altar (now a bit further east; see chapter 2) and parallel to the ­Temple of Zeus. Visitors approaching from the Augustan gate in the southeast passed the still functioning Bouleuterion, rows of equestrian statues of Elean Roman officials, the ­Temple of Zeus, then entered the Roman sphere at the north. T H E D E M E T E R S A N C T U A RY, R E G I L L A , A N D H E R O D E S AT T I C U S The cult of Demeter Chamyne (see prologue), whose location east of the Stadion was already established in the sixth c­ entury B.C. (Pl. 4, Fig. 12), enjoyed special attention from its priestess Regilla and her husband, Herodes Atticus. Regilla received her title



Roman Olympia225

Fig. 5.17. Stadion, Demeter Chamyne altar. Photo: author.

of priestess of Demeter Chamyne in perhaps 153 A.D.,95 as derived from an inscription on the altar of Demeter Chamyne (Paus. 6.20.9) standing on the north embankment of the Stadion (Figs. 4.2, 5.17). The altar itself was constructed in the second ­century A.D., as known from its materials, which ­were entirely—­with the exception of a single stone—­spolia.96 Herodes dedicated new, replacement Pentelic marble cult statues of Demeter and Kore in the sanctuary in the second ­century A.D. (Paus. 6.21.2); ­these have not been found. Epigraphic evidence attests that the cult persisted long ­after Regilla’s time: four additional priestesses are known, two of whom w ­ ere from prominent Elean families.97 95 

Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 60; Sinn 2002, 372. Sinn 2002, 372; Herrmann 1972, 256 n. 647; Mallwitz 1967, 69–82. Among the spolia is the base of a Hellenistic equestrian monument. 97  Sinn 2002, 373; Herrmann (1972, 256–57 n. 647) regards the office as predating Regilla, while Mallwitz (1967, 74) sees it as a special ‘gift’ to Regilla although the office continued ­after Regilla (see Sinn 2002, 372–73). ­These scholars 96 

226

Chapter 5

S C U L P T U R A L D E D I C AT I O N S Many imperial statues w ­ ere dedicated at Olympia and are known only from their inscribed bases.98 The Julio-­Claudian ­family was represented by several statues, which Boschung, relying on the findspots of the bases, place to the east of the ­Temple of Zeus near the Eretrian bull (Fig. 3.1): Augustus (IvO 367); a group of Drusus maior, Tiberius, and Drusus minor (IvO 369); an equestrian athletic victory monument for Tiberius (IvO 220),99 who also received an honorific statue from his client T. Claudius Apollonius (IvO 369), the first Elean known to us to receive Roman citizenship;100 an equestrian athletic victory monument for Germanicus (IvO 221); a statue of Drusus minor (IvO 372); and a statue of Nero (IvO 373).101 The patron of Germanicus’ chariot-­race victory monument of 17–19 A.D. was a relative of Antonia Kleodike, who herself received a statue from the city of Elis, in the ‘Heraion’ (see pp. 219–20).102 This ­family seems to have been remarkably noteworthy in terms of honorific statues at the site (see below). The Achaian League continued to make dedications into the second ­century A.D.,103 including a statue of Augustus placed to the east of the Zeus ­temple104 and another of the general Tiberius Claudius Pelops (the son of Antonia Kleodike, whose statue appears in the pronaos of the ‘Heraion’) in the second half of the first ­century A.D., as known from the inscribed Pentelic marble base.105 The League’s continued patronage of Olympia is scarcely surprising: scholars have posited that Elis succeeded Patras as the headquarters of the League a­ fter the time of Sulla since ­every epigraphic text from the League dating from the early first ­century B.C. to the foundation of the province of Achaia in 27 B.C. derives from Olympia,106 although Elis seems to have been only one of several centers of the Achaian League during the imperial period.107 Elis, sometimes together with the Olympic Boule, offered honorific statues to prominent individuals, such as Olympic officials,108 including Olympic heralds;109 ­ ere writing, of course, before the discovery of the Demeter sanctuary. Zoumbaki (2001, 149–50) proposes other w office holders, who are named in inscriptions as priestesses without specifying which cult. 98  See Zoumbaki 2001, 166–81. 99  Inv. 767. IvO 220; SEG 40, 389; 46, 453; 57, 308, 407. Kaplan 1990, 223–24. 100  Zoumbaki 2007, 159. 101  Boschung 2002, 104–5, 175. 102  Inv. 121. IvO 221. See also DNO 5, 539 no. 4148. 103  Zoumbaki 2010, 122. 104  As known from an inscribed limestone slab that covered a large base. IvO 367; Hupfloher 2007, 99–100. 105  Inv. 613. IvO 430. 106  Zoumbaki 2010, 117. 107  Zoumbaki 2010, 122–25. 108  IvO 431, 432, 433, 434 for T. Claudius Lyson and his ­father, T. Claudius Agias, who served as officials at Olympia in the second half of the first ­century A.D. Rizakis 2007, 187–88. Inv. 49, 234. 109  See p. 235.



Roman Olympia227

statesmen;110 and prominent intellectuals and rhetors,111 such as Zeno,112 and Dionysios of Halikarnassos.113 Herodes Atticus received such a monument c. 175 A.D.: the marble base was inscribed with his vari­ous religious offices, including his ser­vice as priest of Dionysos.114 The Eleans dedicated statues of kings, such as Archelaos of Kappadokia (r. 36 B.C.–17 A.D.), who received an equestrian statue,115 and Roman emperors, of course, for example, an equestrian statue for Tiberius Claudius Nero,116 and a statue for Antoninus Pius.117 Pausanias (5.12.6) mentions an Elean dedication of a Parian marble image of Hadrian,118 which the travel writer saw standing in the pronaos of the ­Temple of Zeus, together with a statue of Trajan dedicated by all Greeks; b ­ ecause of their proximity to the Pheidian Zeus, some scholars interpret t­ hese as cult statues for emperor worship.119 Pausanias also reports seeing an amber statue of Augustus inside the ­Temple of Zeus (see p. 183).120 110  Siedentopf (1968, 97) discusses a statue of Marcus Maecilius Rufus on an inscribed sandstone base in the first half of the first c­ entury A.D. The monument, composed of four upright blocks, was found in situ on the north-­south path in the southwest of the Altis with its front facing west. ­There is some speculation that the honorand was proconsul of Achaia. IvO 334; SEG 11, 1196. 111  The Olympic Boule and Elis together honored Aurelius Septimius Apollonius from Antioch on the Maeander—­a rhetor, f­ ather of senators, and a chief priest at Sardis—­with an honorific statue, as we know from an inscribed marble plaque (inv. 1016), which also names the Olympiad in which this was de­cided, thus providing a date of c. 221–224 A.D. See Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 111–12 no. 62; and Eckstein 1968, 221–23. 112  The Olympic Boule honored the rhetor Zeno c. 150 A.D. with a bronze statue that stood on an inscribed base. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 108 no. 57 (inv. 380). 113  A base originally used to support a bronze statue was ­later flipped over and reused for this draped honorific statue. The letter forms indicate that the second use took place in the late third c­ entury A.D. Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 112 no. 63 (inv. 1004); Kunze 1956, 167–69; SEG 15, 242. 114  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 109–10 no. 59 (inv. 1031); Schumacher 1999; SEG 49, 483. The base was ­later reused as indicated by cuttings on its top surface. Schumacher discusses a pos­si­ble link between Herodes’ priesthood of Dionysos and the Elean cult of Dionysos, but discards this possibility (425) and instead associates it with Herodes’ return to Athens c. 173/174 A.D. He does, however, discuss the relationship of the Eleusinian cult of Demeter and Kore to Regilla’s priestly title at Olympia and the connection of Dionysos to the cult of Demeter (427–28). 115  Inv. 183; IvO 315; SEG 51, 536, 1005. 116  IvO 371; SEG 51, 2334; 57, 308, 407, 2090. 117  Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 109 no. 58 (marble); SEG 11, 1198a. 118  Treu (1897, 218–20) pre­sents a lifesize marble statue of Antinoos, perhaps shown making an offering, recomposed from fragments of Hadrianic date found in the Palaistra. He speculates that the statue was placed inside the Palaistra b ­ ecause of the good condition of the surface. 119  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 64. An over-­lifesize marble head of Trajan (pp. 234–35, Fig. 5.22) found at Olympia was carved from an e­ arlier portrait of Domitian (Olympia Λ134); the lower half of the face was found 16m east of the southeast corner of the ­Temple of Zeus. See Goette and Hitzl 1987, 289–93. One won­ders if this head might have belonged to the statue seen by Pausanias. 120  Other cities also made dedications. Messene offered several honorific statues at Olympia: a marble base supported a statue of Tiberius Claudius Kalligenes, who was honored with a crown for his ser­vices as chief priest to the imperial ­family at the end of the second c­ entury A.D., and Marcus Tadius Lykortas received a crown and a statue c. 200–250 A.D. See Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 110 no. 60, 111 no. 61 (inv. 1131); Marcovich 1982; SEG 31, 372; 32, 417; 35, 386. Perhaps this Lykortas is a distant relative of Lykortas, f­ ather of the second-­century B.C. historian Polybios, who also was honored at Olympia with a statue dedicated by the city of Messene and another by the Achaian League (IvO 449 and IvO 450, respectively). Heller (2011) discusses the reinscription of t­ hese two bases in the Roman imperial period by T. Flavius Polybios, son of Lykortas, and argues that T. Flavius Polybios wished to draw a connection to the historian ­whether as an a­ ctual relative or as a play on the name, a practice of Greek “mythification” of one’s ancestors that was not uncommon in the second ­century A.D.

228

Chapter 5

Sometime between Sulla and Nero came a wave of reinscription and renewal of inscriptions on e­ arlier statue bases, particularly of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. This was not done uniformly: bases for Eleans, especially Elean athletic victors, ­were accorded greater attention than ­others.121 In other words, Elean administrators made certain to promote their own. The illustrious Elean ­family Vettulenus, which held religious offices at Olympia, exemplifies this trend and also demonstrates that the growth of familial group monuments at Olympia, which began in the fourth c­ entury B.C., continued in the Roman period, as we see with the sculptural ensemble of the Nymphaion (Fig. 5.11). As one example, the Vettulenus ­family dedicated and received numerous statues at Olympia over centuries (21–233 A.D.):122 no fewer than nine statues and two decrees at Olympia are associated with them. As noted, Claudia Alkinoa and Numisia Teisis, whose bases stood in the ‘Heraion,’ belonged to this f­ amily (Pl. 11, Figs. 2, 4.8). Elis Cassia, the ­daughter of Marcus Vettulenus Laetus, was victor in the foal race in 21 A.D. and dedicated a statue to Zeus Olympios; parts of the inscribed marble base survive.123 Another member of this f­ amily, L. Vettulenus Florus, erected a statue in honor of the Elean victor in the games of 53 A.D.124 Olympic athletes honored L. Vettulenus Laetus (the son of L. Vettulenus Florus) for his ser­vice as Agoranomos (overseer of the market) of Elis in 85 A.D.,125 and the Eleans and Olympic Boule dedicated a statue c. 95 A.D. in thanks for his duties as archon, agoranomos, and priest.126 In addition, Marcus Vettulenus Laetus, perhaps the ­uncle of the athletic victor L. Vettulenus Laetus, sponsored an honorary decree for an athletic victor, Tiberius Claudius Rufus from Smyrna, in the time of Trajan or Hadrian. Curiously, the athlete had not won at Olympia—­the statue honors his achievements elsewhere and an indecision at Olympia, where the olive crown was dedicated to Zeus instead of being awarded to one of the contenders. Nonetheless, Tiberius Claudius Rufus received Elean citizenship and the right to erect a statue at Olympia.127 It is tempting to ascribe the awarding of ­these unusual honors to the influence of the Vettulenus ­family of Elis. Another inscribed Pentelic marble statue base of c. 181 A.D. honors the spondophoros (libation pourer) Marcus Vet[tulenus] (Laetus?), perhaps an u ­ ncle of the aforementioned Marcus Vettulenus Laetus, who honored the Smyrna victor.128 Another two monuments honor a female member of this same ­family, Vettulena Kassia Chrysareta: the Olympic Boule, synedros (council), and deme sponsored a 121 

Keesling 2017, 193–98. For a discussion of this ­family and its presence at Olympia, see Ebert 1997, 227–28; Zoumbaki 1993. 123  IvO 233; SEG 40, 391; 44, 389; 48, 550; 51, 521; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 84 no. 31. 124  IvO 226; Zoumbaki 1993, 227–28. 125  IvO 436; SEG 43, 171; 44, 390; 48, 553. 126  IvO 437; SEG 48, 540, 553, 2186. 127  IvO 54, 55; SEG 35, 1279; 41, 394; 45, 412; 48, 553; 51, 2281; no. 55: SEG 41, 394; 45, 412; Pleket 1999, 282–84. Ebert (1997, 223–33) suggests an e­ arlier date in the reign of Tiberius and discusses the curious appearance of Tiberius Claudius Rufus’ name on a victors’ list (inv. 1148). 128  IvO 100; SEG 50, 485. 122 



Roman Olympia229

bronze statue;129 and Elis and the Olympic Boule dedicated a marble statue. Both are dated in the first half of the second ­century A.D.130 The ­family’s dedications continue with an honorific statue for Caracalla made in 211–213 A.D. donated by [Vet]ulena Clau[dia] and her son Asklepiades as inscribed on a reused Parian marble base taken from an ­earlier monument. Remarkably, the statue of Caracalla survives save for the head.131 The last attestation of the Vettulenus clan at Olympia is the cult personnel list preserved on an inscribed Pentelic marble base (perhaps a reused tile from the ­Temple of Zeus) of 233 A.D.132 This exhibition of f­ amily power, wealth, and prominence at Olympia over such a long period is an impor­tant reminder that local Eleans not only ­were instrumental in religious and administrative activities at Olympia but well understood the advantage of their position on this international stage. Kings and emperors advertised themselves at Olympia, but so did local elite families, who had a more fundamental role in the day-­to-­day life at the sanctuary. R E PA I R A N D R E N OVAT I O N We would be remiss ­were we not to cast an eye on the numerous small-­scale building changes that occurred during the Roman period at Olympia. As structures at Olympia aged, they needed repair and renovation, but natu­ral disasters also caused a lot of damage, and the cata­logue of such natu­ral disasters is a long one. We already noted that the repeated flooding of the Kladeos River impelled the relocation of the riverbed in c. 700 B.C. (see prologue, Fig. 4). But efforts to overcome the flooding ­were eventually unsuccessful to the detriment of the place and the p ­ eople living t­ here—­and to the enormous benefit of modern scholars and visitors. Earthquakes are known to have damaged the ­Temple of Zeus beginning in the fifth ­century B.C. (see chapter 3) and frequently thereafter (Pl. 7). ­These necessitated repairs to the roof, the Zeus statue on the east pediment (Fig. 3.14), and the pronaos flooring in the second half of the first ­century B.C. ­under the patronage of Marcus Agrippa, whose name was inscribed on the building—­the location is disputed—in large bronze letters.133 129 

IvO 439; Zoumbaki 1993, 228. IvO 440; Zoumbaki 1993, 228. 131  IvO 386. 132  IvO 116. 133  IvO 913. See Spawforth (2011, 163–64; 2007, 386–87), who notes Chris Pfaff ’s suggestion that the inscription may have been set into the paved flooring; Boschung 2002, 102; Mallwitz 1988b, 26; SEG 31, 377. For a discussion of the date of Agrippa’s repairs, see Lo Monaco 2009, 148; Spawforth (2007, 387), who gives a date of c. 17–15 B.C. with an emphasis on 16 B.C.; and Lo Monaco (2003, 489–90), who places the renovation between 16 and 13 B.C. For a discussion of the ­temple’s architecture, which was recently studied, see Hennemeyer 2015, 2013c, 2013b, 2013a, 2012, 2011, 2006. 130 

230

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.18. Artemis shrine, view from east, Roman period. Photo: D-­DAI-­ATH-­Olympia-5427 (Alfred Mallwitz).

Changes at Olympia from the late first ­century B.C. to the mid-­second c­ entury A.D. included renovations to the Echo Hall and the South Hall in the Augustan period (Fig. 5.1).134 The early imperial period witnessed construction of a naiskos and replacement of the Artemis altar (see chapter 2) (Fig. 5.18) by a stuccoed altar adorned with a dipinto in dark color: ΑΡΤΕΜΙΔ[ΟΣ on its west side, and remains of the same 134 

See p. 162 n. 24. Lo Monaco (2003, 483–84, 498–500) links the changes of the halls to the Augustan gate and to the visual and pro­cessional axis leading to the Metroon but also concedes that the repairs to the Echo Hall have been dated as broadly as 50 B.C.–50 A.D. (500). Changes also w ­ ere made to the retaining wall b ­ ehind the trea­suries c. 200 A.D., specifically the insertion of a new w ­ ater line, which was prompted by a fire that scarred and damaged this wall and affected many other structures at the site. See Herrmann 1999, 384–85.



Roman Olympia231

Figs. 5.19a, b. Tychai (Olympia, Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games Λ111, Λ112), second ­century A.D., marble, H 76cm. Photo: author.

on its east and south (Pl. 32a); this suggests that the goddess’ name once appeared on all four sides.135 As had been the case several times throughout its history, the Stadion was renovated in the Augustan period,136 and again in the second quarter of the third ­century A.D. (Stadion IIIE and IIIF), when the walls w ­ ere raised and the Hellanodikai’s area 137 was enlarged (Figs. 3, 5.1). At some point, two Pentelic marble, half-­lifesize statues of the Nemesis/Tyche type, dated to the second ­century A.D. on the basis of their style, ­were added to the Stadion to flank its arched opening (Figs. 5.19a-­b).138 135 

Heiden 2012; Kyrieleis 1994, 8–15. Schilbach 1992, 36. 137  Schilbach 1992, 36. 138  Olympia, Museum of the History of the Olympic Games of Antiquity Λ111, Λ112. Hatzi 2008, 305; LIMC VI, s.v. Nemesis, 750 no. 180 [P. Karanastassi]; Treu 1897, 237–39. 136 

232

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.20. Leonidaion, Roman period plan adapted by Hans R. Goette from DAI Z. inv. B2674 by M.-­L. Charalambis ­after A. Mallwitz.

Renovations and additions to accommodations and bathing facilities (sometimes combined in the same structure), which tended to cluster to the west of the Altis, point to a steady stream of visitors at Olympia. The Leonidaion experienced renovation perhaps as early as the late first ­century A.D., and work extended into the Hadrianic period with a rebuilding in the first third of the third c­ entury A.D. ­after damage from a fire (Pl. 10, Figs. 1.13, 5.20).139 The open courtyard was enlarged and embellished with gardens, a fountain, sculpture, and a framing colonnade in the Hadrianic period and possibly ­earlier.140 The large late first-­century A.D. Southwest Building/Baths, which also included a swimming pool, may have served as an athlete’s club in conjunction 139 

Mächler 2020, 304–6; Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 55–56. E.g., Mallwitz 1988b, 31, 35.

140 



Roman Olympia233

with the Leonidaion (Pl. 1, Fig. 5.1);141 the building was begun by Nero and completed by Domitian and seems to have been used u ­ ntil the sixth c­ entury.142 It appears that Herakles was worshipped ­here by the athletes,143 which is scarcely surprising since the hero provided a role model to ancient athletes at all times. Baths ­were constructed north of the Prytaneion during the Neronian period,144 and a luxurious renovation of the Kladeos Baths with fine mosaic floors occurred in the second c­ entury A.D.145 The South Baths, just east of the Leonidaion, also provided lodging and dining places for visitors (Fig. 3); ­these ­were renovated in the third c­ entury,146 and in c. 300 A.D., a small guest­house with baths was constructed immediately to the southwest of the Leonidaion (Pls. 1, 7, 10, Fig. 4.8).147 ­There ­were also bathing complexes elsewhere: for example, another was erected in the southeast, near the ‘House of Nero’ (the East Baths), at the beginning of the third ­century A.D. (Fig. 3).148 Beyond the enemies of time and earthquakes, the threat of outside invasion also left a mark on the site. A fortification wall, the late antique wall, was constructed with spolia from many buildings on the site in the mid-­fifth to mid-­sixth ­century A.D. (Fig. 5.21).149 This wall, c. 3m thick and c. 400m long, enclosed only the south-­central part of the site from the ­Temple of Zeus, where the wall extended up to the eaves, south to the South Hall, where the wall reached to the roof.150 ­After the danger had passed, the vari­ous cult sites that had lost their altars to this proj­ect did not receive new altars.151 Earthquakes in 280, 522, and 551 A.D. damaged the T ­ emple of Zeus, the South Hall, the Echo Hall, the Leonidaion, and the workshop of Pheidias.152 The roof of the T ­ emple of Zeus was repaired c. 303 A.D., when it received at least twelve new waterspouts.153 Some repairs ­were made ­later still but by then, the building was more of a ruin than a ­temple;154 a later fire inflicted even more damage.155 Sometime in the Roman Tetrarchic period, someone picked up an early imperial marble head (Olympia Λ134) at Olympia and reshaped it into the image that survives 141  Sinn 2012, 106–7; Sinn 2004a, 241; Sinn 1999; Sinn 1997; Sinn et al. 1994, 233–35, 238–41; Mallwitz 1988b, 32–34. The inscribed bronze plaque (inv. 1148) found ­there suggests its use as an athlete’s club (Fig. 15). 142  Martin 2014, 761; Sinn 2012, 106. 143  Sinn 1999, 378. 144  Schauer 2010, 29; Sinn 1991b, 368–70. 145  Sinn 2012, 107. 146  On the Southwest Baths and the lodging ­house, see Sinn et al. 1994; Mallwitz 1988b, 41. 147  Sinn 2012, 107; Sinn 2004a, 241–42. 148  Hitzl and Kropp 2013, 58; Kyrieleis 1994, 18–22; Mallwitz 1988b, 41 date them to the time of Septimius Severus. 149  See p. 78 n. 60. 150  Miller 2019, 129, 131; Lehmann and Gutsfeld 2013, 97. 151  Mallwitz 1988b, 42. 152  Sinn 2012, 107, 109; Mallwitz 1988b, 41. 153  Mallwitz 1988b, 42. 154  Hennemeyer 2012, 125. 155  Scholia in Lucianum ad 41.9.9–1. Remijsen (2015, 49) dates the fire to the reign of Theodosius (408–450 A.D.).

234

Chapter 5

Fig. 5.21. Late antique wall from the ­Temple of Zeus to the South Hall, plan by Klaus Hermann from OF 34, Taf. 1a. Courtesy of DAI.

t­ oday (Fig. 5.22). This was placed atop a sculpted body, presumably as an honorific dedication in the sanctuary, one of the last sculptural dedications at Olympia known to us.156 The latest inscribed base that we possess for an athletic victor statue dates ­after 261 A.D. and honors Valerios Eklektos from Sinope, who was a herald and a member of the boule in numerous cities, and who enjoyed four Olympic victories, as well as success in athletic games elsewhere. Cuttings on the top surface suggest a draped figure, and additional cuttings indicate that the block was reused. An Athenian inscription informs us that Elis honored Valerios Eklektos with a statue for his talent in declamation.157 As mentioned in the prologue, the last Olympic victor known to 156 

See Lehmann 2007, 51 Abb. 10; Goette and Hitzl (1987) date the original to the first quarter of the first c­ entury B.C. (285) and the reworking to the mid-­third ­century A.D. (286–87). Goette now thinks that the original head was one of Domitian that was then reworked to one of Trajan; personal communication with the author, 2020. 157  Miller 2019, 132; Siewert and Taeuber 2013, 85–86 no. 33 (inv. 1017); SEG 17, 203; Lehmann 2007, 50–51, Abb. 9.



Roman Olympia235

us is the winner of the boys’ pankration in 385 A.D., as evidenced by a recently discovered bronze inscription (Fig. 15). Reuse and renovation mark Roman Olympia, but this brief overview also illustrates that the trends that emerged in the Hellenistic period regarding honorific statues and f­ amily groups persisted and accelerated ­under Roman rule, as Olympia continued to demonstrate its potent allure as a display place for power and prestige. Public ser­vice as statesman, public benefactor, or military leader w ­ ere the primary grounds for commemoration in the Roman period, although athletic victory monuments still existed, especially for imperial f­ amily members. This marks a contrast to the archaic and classical past when Olympic victors and victorious poleis ­were the primary reasons for a statue in the Altis. Fig. 5.22. Male head (Olympia, Archaeological In addition, display of three-­dimensional Museum Λ134), marble, H 32.5cm. Photo: portrait sculpture as artful and integral inteHans R. Goette. rior and exterior ele­ments of architecture, for example, portrait galleries—­a Roman specialty—­made a striking impact at Roman Olympia. The Nymphaion, constructed during the period of the Second Sophistic when Greek culture enjoyed enhanced prestige in Roman intellectual circles, afforded the opportunity to combine public benefaction with self-­promotion, honor, and flattery of the imperial ­family with utilitarian monument (Figs. 5.10, 5.11). Built against the hillside like a Greek theater, the Nymphaion was a multilevel outdoor sculpture gallery of imperial ­family members and the ­family of Herodes Atticus and Regilla, something akin to the gallery of imperial members within the Metroon, or the more eclectic collection of sculptures, including some figures moved from the Metroon, in the Heraion. ­Earlier scholarly claims of decline in Roman Olympia are unfounded. The site and games persisted, as did the site’s prestige. ­There was change, to be sure, but change is not necessarily decay. Roman preferences for artistic display and commemoration required changes, and the shift of power westward to Rome meant that Olympia’s substantial renown was now harnessed and exploited by a new population.

236

Chapter 5

6 T H E L A S T O LY M P I A D

The prohibition of pagan worship in 393 A.D. by the Christian emperor Theodosius followed by the cessation of the games and cultic practices at Olympia in the first half of the fifth ­century A.D. seemingly brought an end to a cultural phenomenon that had lasted for over a millennium.1 But did the Theodosian decree affect the site, and if so, how? ­Were changes instantaneous, or was ­there a slow evolution? How ­were ­these late games or­ga­nized? Did religious worship continue? Th ­ ere is no clear evidence of a last Olympiad, a final festival, nor is ­there, unsurprisingly, a single instant when the site stops being pagan and becomes exclusively Christian. One won­ders what became of all t­ hose daily laborers at Olympia, the priests and workmen, whose livelihoods depended, at least in part, on the day-­to-­day activity at the site. Perhaps they simply applied their skills to the new tasks that faced them, for Olympia was inhabited by a vibrant Christian community in the fourth c­ entury A.D., which, along with ­later inhabitants from c. 420 to the first half of the sixth ­century A.D. (Figs. 6.1a-­b),2 moved and reused stone material for building (e.g., the well-­ made ‘Spolienhaus’ of the early fifth c­ entury included material from the Philippeion and the Sikyonian Trea­sury, as well as bases from athletic victory statues; Fig. 6.2);3 transformed the workshop of the sculptor Pheidias into a church in the 420s using statue bases from the Nymphaion and votive statues and slabs from the Philippeion (Pls. 23, 28, 32b, Figs. 3, 6.1a-­b);4 leveled areas; removed and melted down bronze objects (statues, building clamps, and armor); and dug graves in ancient baths, the Palaistra, and the Altis.5 It was also in c. 420 that Olympia may have been transformed, perhaps by the imperial government, into a “Domäne,” an agricultural

1 

But see Miller’s caution (2019, 143). Lehmann and Gutsfeld 2013, 94. 3  Lehmann and Gutsfeld 2013, 99–100. 4  Lehmann and Gutsfeld 2013, 99; Miller (2019, 134) and Völling (1996b, 145) place the transformation of the building into a church in the mid-­fifth ­century. 5  Remijsen 2015, 50; Lambropoulou and Yangaki 2012/2013, 318; Gutsfeld and Lehmann 2008, 200. 2 

237

Fig. 6.1a. Olympia, plan, Byzantine structures over earlier site, by W. Dörpfeld. A ­ fter Curtius and Adler 1897, Mappe 5a–­b.

community,6 whose activity is attested by winepresses and agricultural tools.7 Athletic facilities—­the Palaistra, Gymnasion, and Stadion, admittedly mostly open areas—­were not rebuilt or remodeled,8 while o ­ thers w ­ ere repurposed, for example, the baths near the Leonidaion w ­ ere transformed into a wine cellar,9 and the Leonidaion and dining pavilion north of the Prytaneion ­were fitted with workshops (Figs. 3,

6 

Remijsen 2015, 50; Lehmann and Gutsfeld 2013, 93; Gutsfeld and Lehmann 2008, 196; Gutsfeld and Lehmann 2003, 151. 7  Lambropoulou and Yangaki 2012/2013, 318; Schauer 2010, 32; Völling 2002 (agricultural tools of the fifth and sixth centuries). Völling (1996a) publishes and reconstructs a winepress of the second half of the fifth c­ entury, between the ancient Gymnasion and Palaistra; it was used ­until the late sixth ­century. 8  Sinn 2002, 373. 9  Sinn 2004a, 228.

238

Chapter 6

Fig. 6.1b. Olympia, plan, Byzantine period. Reproduced from OF 34, Taf. 2. Courtesy of DAI.

5.20).10 The late antique wall delimiting a smaller area stretching from the ­Temple of Zeus in the north to the southern porch of the South Hall was built using many statue bases and architectural members from e­ arlier structures at the site in the midfifth to mid-­sixth ­century A.D. (Fig. 5.21).11 Its careful construction speaks against a hastily erected emergency fortification wall, and b ­ ecause members of so many buildings w ­ ere available for reuse in it, it is likely that the games no longer took place and that the area may have ceased to function as a pagan sanctuary.12 Houses ­were built over the Stadion in the sixth c­ entury A.D.,13 and t­ here is evidence of a self-­sufficient settlement ­here, locals living alongside Slavs, producing bronze objects, pottery (including lamps), glass, and lime, into the late seventh ­century A.D. and early eighth 10 

Miller 2019, 133; Schauer 2010, 29. See pp. 78 n. 60, 234. 12  Miller 2019, 140–43. 13  Sinn 1999, 379. 11 



The Last Olympiad239

Fig. 6.2. ‘Spolienhaus,’ early fifth century A.D. Photo: Hans R. Goette.

c­ entury, perhaps even l­ater.14 Perhaps some appreciation of Olympia’s glorious past impelled inhabitants of late antique/Byzantine Olympia to carefully install twenty ­earlier bronze statues on the south stylobate of the ­Temple of Zeus (or what remained of it), as cuttings t­ here attest; they ­were easily vis­i­ble to t­ hose walking along the main west-­east path lying south of the Zeus t­ emple within the late antique wall, but when the statues ­were erected ­here is unknown.15 One won­ders why ­these statues ­were 14 

Lambropoulou and Yangaki 2012/2013. Among other ­things, they point to ninth-­century A.D. pottery found in a layer of the Southwest Building/Baths and coins from the tenth and eleventh centuries found on the site (334). However, as they themselves point out several times, the dating of the pottery is uncertain. On the ceramic and lamp production, see, e.g., Schauer 2018, 2010, 2002. 15  Miller 2019, 135; Völling 2019, 125.

240

Chapter 6

selected while hundreds of o ­ thers ­were melted down at that time.16 Of course, t­ hese ‘survivors’ ­were eventually removed and vanished as well. Numerous earthquakes in the region, especially two catastrophic ones in the sixth ­century A.D., followed by flooding from the Alpheios and Kladeos Rivers in the seventh ­century A.D. and a­ fter, eventually pushed Olympia into obscurity. By the early ninth ­century, meters of silt had covered the site. In the end, one is left with the impression of a slow fade, but this may, of course, merely reflect the faintness of our knowledge. Modern scholars can be thankful for the natu­ral destructions to the site, which ended up burying and preserving architecture and sculpture to a depth of several meters, material that other­wise prob­ably would not have survived. H ­ ere lay one of the most frequented and impor­tant sanctuaries in the ancient Mediterranean world ­until its ‘rediscovery’ by the En­glishman Richard Chandler in 1766.17 This wide-­ranging study, which covers only part of Olympia’s long history, has endeavored to illuminate the site, its monuments, and its activities from a variety of ­angles—­religious, military, athletic, po­liti­cal, mythological, social. The furthest currently known northern bound­aries of the Altis m ­ ay already have existed in the sixth c­ entury B.C. with the sanctuaries of Eileithyia and Demeter while cult activities extended beyond the southern Altis border—­just north of, perhaps even including, the Bouleuterion— to the altar of Artemis in the southeast. Zeus’ cult, clearly pre­sent by the seventh ­century B.C. and perhaps ­earlier, was joined by cults to Pelops in the early sixth ­century and Hera in the fifth. Numerous other figures, including Herakles, ­were worshipped at Olympia, although they have not been discussed h ­ ere. T ­ emples ­were constructed in c. 600, c. 470–456, and c. 420–400, but only one of t­ hese—­the ­middle in date—­can be ascribed with certainty to a deity, Zeus, who also was worshipped at an ash altar, which changed location several times. The military nature of Zeus’ cult at Olympia was pre­sent from its earliest known manifestations as indicated by the types of objects—­weapons, armor, warrior figurines—­dedicated to the god, and military victory dedications continued to appear at the site ­until the early fourth ­century B.C. ­These military victory dedications took many forms including colossal bronze images of Zeus, over-­lifesize bronze sculptural groups, a colossal marble Nike alighting atop a high column, tropaia, and individual ele­ments of weapons and armor. The Philippeion constructed soon a­ fter 338 resumed the military victory format, now in the form of a tholos containing sculptures of Philip II, Alexander the ­Great, and other ­family members; the placement and medium of the sculptures w ­ ere inspired by the nearby T ­ emple of Zeus, which h ­ oused the colossal chryselephantine Pheidian statue of the god. New military victory dedications ­were largely absent thereafter ­until the time of Mummius’ conquest of the Achaian League 16 

Lehmann and Gutsfeld (2013, 101) and Sinn (2004a, 230–31) suggest something like re­spect for the pagan past as a motivation, and Sinn points to Cod. Iust. 1.11.3. 17  Chandler 1776, 286–94.



The Last Olympiad241

in 146 B.C., which he commemorated at Olympia with two statues of Zeus as thankofferings and by affixing gilt bronze shields, booty seized from the ­enemy, to the metopes on the south and east sides of the ­Temple of Zeus. The bellicose aspect of Zeus and his worship was closely tied to the athletic games for which Olympia was famous. The conviction that athletics was excellent preparation for warfare is well known from ancient Greek written sources; one can easily imagine that racing, the javelin and discus throw, boxing, wrestling, the hippic events, and, of course, the armed race would all perfect skills useful in warfare. But it is intriguing that t­here ­were no team events at all, although hoplite warfare demanded concerted action. Victors in the Olympic games enjoyed the extraordinary honor of being able to erect statues of themselves within the Altis, that is, to stand among images of mythological heroes and gods. H ­ ere, one could achieve everlasting kleos (glory), something denied to average mortals. Myth at Olympia, as was often the case in ancient Greece, was recruited to support po­liti­cal claims, to explain the world as it was and as it is, and to influence public deportment, offering positive and negative exemplars. Myths concerning Pelops, Hippodameia, and Oinomaos, as well as some episodes of Herakles’ l­abors, had local significance and explained the displacement of the Kladeos River to the west, the origin of the Altis, the games and their prizes, and the Heraia, as well as Elean control of the sanctuary. ­Others of Herakles’ ­labors, Trojan episodes, the Centauromachy, and the Gigantomachy w ­ ere recognizable to all Greeks. The myth of Arethusa explained the close ties between Olympia and Syracuse, and by extension, western Greeks more generally. The myths of Pelops’ victory and the Centauromachy featured prominently on the pediments of the T ­ emple of Zeus, where Zeus in the east pediment and Apollo in the west stood in the center of the action, adjudicating and mediating conflicts. The myths and their gods also refer to Olympia’s new role as mediator in disputes between poleis, which seems to have begun just ­after the Persian Wars. Portrayals of Zeus at Olympia, such as that on the Apollonian Monument, demonstrate his transition from bellicose figure participating in the fray to a quiet figure placed between opposing forces and adjudicating conflicts. Politics, in fact, always played a critical role at the site, as poleis, tyrants, monarchs, and rulers left their mark at Olympia and strove to outdo each other with monuments—­ their placement and form. This is especially noticeable for the trea­suries at Olympia and individual sculptural monuments from the sixth ­century B.C. into the fourth ­century A.D.; we might think, for example, of the equestrian victory monuments of the Syracusan tyrants. The placement of monuments was guided by proximity to the chief religious locations and along pathways with the greatest visibility: the original location of the ash altar of Zeus, presumed to be at the north edge of the Pelopion; then near the east facade of the ­Temple of Zeus and along the north-­south walkway from south of the Altis ­running past the t­ emple’s east facade and to the ash altar (now

242

Chapter 6

located further east); and fi­nally in front of the Echo Stoa and lining the north-­south path at the west end of the Altis and the east-­west path north of the Bouleuterion. It is noteworthy that the two buildings added in the Altis during the Roman period—­the Nymphaion and the Metroon (not an addition, but a reused structure)—­were located in the north of the Altis, close to the oldest sacred areas of the site. ­Because of the chronological development of ­these apparent preferences, it might be tempting to see a trend away from choices governed by piety ­toward choices governed by self-­ promotion, but this is prob­ably misguided: lack of space close to the oldest religious areas can also explain this shift, and the Hellenistic and Roman predilection for highly vis­i­ble honorific statues may have far less to do with lack of piety than to traditions of lining public spaces of all kinds, for example, agorai, with honorific statues. But the net effect is clear: while only victorious athletes or poleis ­were able to stand among gods and heroes in the fifth ­century B.C., this privilege was eventually extended so that honorific statues, usually dedicated to Zeus, ­were accessible to anyone with the means—­and that may have meant more than money (see below). Roman reuse of ­earlier Greek monuments was not only common but intentionally displayed, as is the case for the foundation blocks of the southeast gate near the Bouleuterion and in the row of equestrian monument bases honoring Achaian officials along the southern edge of the east-­west path just south of the Altis, as if to draw attention to the distinguished pedigree of the blocks and their Roman appropriation. Patrons’ intentions and viewer response, which ­were ­shaped by cultural standards and by events that took place at Olympia, have been a focal point of this study. With ­little written documentation for ­these two themes, we must rely on our knowledge of ancient Greek culture and ancient Olympia to understand the forces shaping patrons and viewers. Ideas about athletic victory and its potential for achieving immortality; the glory of success in warfare and the athletic training that can accomplish that; Zeus as warrior, as bestower of victory on the racing track and the battlefield, as adjudicator and mediator, as prognosticator; the models that heroic be­hav­ior can provide to athletes, warriors, and mankind, more generally; appropriate comportment for ­women and the importance of marriage; modes of resolving conflict, both bellicose and negotiation; the importance of strug­gle to achieve a worthwhile goal; one-­upmanship between men, rulers, and poleis; the beauty and charisma of the youthful nude male athlete; and fair play all ­shaped the types of images patrons selected and viewers’ reception of ­these images. The relationship of images to real­ity—­objects mirroring real actions, such as the Eretrian bull walking ­toward the ­actual ash altar or Zeus standing above athletic victors to award victory to them—as well as objects interacting with viewers, such as the Achaian Monument’s disposition, which invites the viewer to traverse the space between the Achaian warriors and Nestor, are key ele­ments of fifth-­century dedications at Olympia, and this should grab our attention. Quite aside from the blurring of the bound­aries between mortal and immortal, between ­human and hero, such physical



The Last Olympiad243

manifestations of innovative play with the boundary between object and viewer are characteristic of late classical and Hellenistic art, that is, from the mid-­fourth ­century B.C. onward. One could point to the Knidian Aphrodite’s response to the viewer, the Apoxyomenos’ extended arm into the viewer’s space, the manipulation of viewer expectations in sculptures, such as the sleeping hermaphrodite, or the experience of visiting the ­Temple of Apollo at Didyma or the sanctuary of Athena Lindia on Rhodes. In other words, t­ hese experiments at Olympia are ahead of the curve in­ven­ted by modern scholars. One reason for this may be that Olympic commissions w ­ ere able to attract the very best and most innovative sculptors, as we know from inscribed bases and literary sources. In addition, the disposition of sculptures and tropaia along pathways, in front of and on t­ emples, as centerpieces of trea­suries, on the Stadion walls, near altars is what we might expect b ­ ecause ­these are the places with greatest visibility. But the more orderly linear arrangement of sculptures in the theater-­like Nymphaion, the principal addition to Olympia’s hydraulic infrastructure, and the museum-­like display of older works in the Heraion and trea­suries are evidence of another mode of viewing commensurate with tastes of the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. Although we know a g­ reat deal about this extraordinary site, t­ here are still so many questions about even the most fundamental issues. To the practical questions raised in chapter 1, we can add many more. Who authorized the placement of monuments, a key concern of this study, and was ­there any negotiation with authorities (even using financial incentives), or ­were patrons simply given the choice to accept or refuse what was offered? Aside from the clearly in­effec­tive purported ban on over-­lifesize bronze statues for athletic victors in the fifth c­ entury, ­were ­there other rules about medium, size, number of figures, or costs of dedications at the site? For example, if one wanted to erect a group of figures or occupy more space (e.g., the Ptolemaic Monument), did one have to pay Olympic officials more to do so? How was it pos­si­ble for the Spartans or Mummius to affix shields to the ­Temple of Zeus? How was entry to the site controlled (or was it)? How far does the site (rather than simply the Altis) extend, and ­were the furthest bound­aries officially marked in some way? How many athletes competed in the games at any given time? Where did the daily ‘staff ’—­religious personnel, workmen, perhaps guards—­live? Some of the quotidian questions may be answered by further study of Olympia in new ways, exploring ­matters that w ­ ere of less interest to previous generations, and this is true of virtually ­every site. This is not intended as criticism but a statement of the facts. The other questions may receive answers from new material, particularly inscriptions, which are now u ­ nder study. But in the end, some of ­these questions w ­ ill surely remain unanswered. We may be able to formulate hypotheses based on information from other sites; indeed, it is my hope that the holistic, diachronic, and synchronous methodology and scope of this study ­will provide a model and inspiration for exploration of other ancient Greek sanctuaries and sites.

244

Chapter 6

BIBLIOGR APHY

Adler, F. 1892. “Exedra des Herodes Atticus.” In Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung II: Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 134–39. Berlin. Adler, F., et al. 1892. Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung II: Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler. Berlin. Adornato, G. 2008. “Delphic Enigmas? The Γέλας ἀνάσσων, Polyzalos, and the Char­i­ot­eer Statue.” AJA 112: 29–55. —­—­—. 2013. “Rivalry, Competition, and Promotion: Cities and Citizens of Sicily in the Sanctuaries of Greece.” In Sicily: Art and Invention between Greece and Rome, edited by C. Lyons et al., 82–110. Los Angeles. Ajootian, A. 1996. “Praxiteles.” YCS 30: 91–129. —­—­—. 2003. “Homeric Time, Space, and the Viewer at Olympia.” In The Enduring Instant: Time and the Spectator in the Visual Arts, edited by A. Roesler-­Friedenthal and J. Nathan, 137–63. Berlin. —­—­—. 2007. “Heroic and Athletic Sortition at Olympia.” In Onward to the Olympics: Historical Perspectives on the Olympic Games, edited by G. P. Schaus and S. R. Wenn, 115–29. Waterloo. Alexandropoulou, A. 2009. “Die Terrakotten aus den griechischen Grabungen in Olympia.” AM 124: 187–272. Arafat, K. 1995. “Pausanias and the ­Temple of Hera at Olympia.” BSA 90: 461–73. —­—­—. 1996. Pausanias’ Greece. Oxford. —­—­—. 2006. “War and Greek Sanctuaries in Pausanias’ Description of Greece.” In Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII–­III sec. a.C.) 1, edited by C. Ampolo, 11–18. Pisa. Arapojanni, X. 2002. “Neue archäologische Entdeckungen in der weiteren Umgebung von Olympia.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 317–29. Mainz. Attema, P. 1986. Nieuw licht op een oude Stad. Leiden. Austin, C., and G. Bastianini, eds. 2002. Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia. Milan. Bäbler, B. 2000. “Der Zeus von Olympia.” In Dion von Prusa: Olympische Rede, by H.-­J. Klauck and B. Bäbler, 217–38. Darmstadt. Baitinger, H. 1998. “Review of K. Hitzl, Die Gewichte griechischer Zeit aus Olympia, OF 25.” Nikephoros 11: 246–51.

245

—­—­—. 1999. “Waffen und Bewaffnung aus der Perserbeute in Olympia.” AA 125–39. —­—­—. 2001. Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia, OF 29. Berlin. —­—­—. 2010. “Ein silbernes Sphyrelaton aus Olympia?” AM 125: 119–32. —­—­—. 2015–16. “Votive Gifts from Sicily and Southern Italy in Olympia and Other Greek Sanctuaries.” AR 111–24. —­—­—. 2019. “Commemoration of War in Archaic and Classical Greece: Battlefields, Tombs, and Sanctuaries.” In Commemorating War and War Dead Ancient and Modern, edited by M. Giangiulio, E. Franchi, and G. Proietti, 131–45. Stuttgart. Baitinger, H., and B. Eder. 2001. “Hellenistische Stimmarken aus Elis und Olympia: Neue For­schungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen Hauptstadt und Heiligtum.” JdI 116: 163–257. Baitinger, H., and T. Völling. 2007. Werkzeug und Gerät aus Olympia, OF 32. Berlin. Barringer, J. 2005. “The ­Temple of Zeus, Heroes, and Athletes.” Hesperia 74: 211–41. —­—­—. 2008. Art, Myth, and Ritual in Classical Greece. Cambridge. —­—­—. 2009. “The Olympic Altis before the ­Temple of Zeus.” JdI 124: 223–50. —­—­—. “Zeus at Olympia.” In The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations, edited by A. Erskine and J. Bremmer, 155–77. Edinburgh. —­—­—. 2015. “The Changing Image of Zeus at Olympia.” AA 19–37. Baumeister, P. 2012. “Die Schatzhäuser und die äusseren Beziehungen des antiken Olympia.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 83–89. Munich. Beerden, K. 2013. Worlds Full of Signs: Ancient Greek Divination in Context. Leiden. Belloni, G. 1987. “Olimpia: Considerazioni su alcune sculture del tempio di Zeus.” Quaderni Catanesi di Studi Classici e Medievali 9: 263–96. Benecke, N. 2006. “Die Tierreste.” In Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia, OF 31, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 247–48. Berlin. Benndorf, O. 1885. “Über eine Statue des Polyklet.” In Gesammelte Studien zur Kunstgeschichte: Eine Festgabe zum 4. Mai 1885 für Anton Springer, 255–66. Leipzig. Bentz, M. 2013. “Attisch rotfigurige Keramik aus Olympia.” In Menschen-­Kulturen-­Traditionen 10, Sanktuar und Ritual, edited by I. Gerlach and D. Raue, 349–54. Berlin. Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen: Ehrendenkmäler im öffentlichen Bereich. Mainz. Bilić, T. 2008. “The Myth of Alpheus and Arethusa and Open-­Sea Voyages on the Mediterranean—­Stellar Navigation in Antiquity.” IJNA 38: 116–32. Bing, P. 2002/3. “Posidippus and the Admiral: Kallikrates of Samos in the Milan Epigrams.” GRBS 43: 243–66. Bocher, S. 2012. “Pelopion und Heraion und ihre Bedeutung im Heiligtum von Olympia.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 137–43. Munich. —­—­—. 2015. “Ash, Bones, Votives—­Analysing the Black Strata in Early Greek Sanctuaries.” In Cult Material: From Archaeological Deposits to Interpretation of Early Greek Religion, edited by P. Pakkanen and S. Bocher, 49–64. Helsinki. Boedeker, D. 2001. “Paths to Heroization at Plataea.” In The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire, edited by D. Boedeker and D. Sider, 148–63. Oxford. Boedeker, D., and D. Sider. 2001. The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire. Oxford. Bol, P. 1974. “Die Giebelskulpturen des Schatzhauses von Megara.” AM 89: 65–74. —­—­—. 1978. Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia, OF 9. Berlin. —­—­—. 1981. “Ein frühklassischer Knabentorso.” OlBer 10: 166–70. —­—­—­, ed. 2004. Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst 2. Mainz.

246 Bibliography

Bol, R. 1984. Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes-­Atticus-­Nymphäums, OF 15. Berlin. —­—­—. 1986. “Ein Bildnis der Claudia Octavia aus dem olympischen Metroon.” JdI 101: 289–307. —­—­—. 1995. “Ideal-­und Porträtplastik der römischen Kaiserzeit in Olympia.” Nikephoros 8: 179–82. —­—­—. 2008. “Die Bildnisstatue der Antonia Cleodice im Kontext ihrer Aufstellung im Olympischen Heraion.” In Amicitiae Gratia, edited by Ν. Ζαφειροπούλου, 149–56. Athens. —­—­—. 2012. “Das Metroon.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 149–51. Munich. Bömer, F. 1990. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. Stuttgart. Bommelaer, J.-­F., and D. Laroche. 2015. Guide de Delphes: Le site. Athens. Bookidis, N. 1967. “A Study of the Use and Geo­graph­i­cal Distribution of Architectural Sculpture in the Archaic Period (Greece, East Greece and Magna Graecia).” PhD diss., Bryn Mawr College. —­—­—. 1993. “Ritual Dining at Corinth.” In Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 45–61. London. Borbein, A. 1973. “Die griechische Statue des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” JdI 88: 43–212. Borell, B., and D. Rittig. 1998. Orientalische und griechische Bronzereliefs aus Olympia, OF 26. Berlin. Borg, B. 2011. “Epigrams in Archaic Art: The ‘Chest of Kypselos.’ ” In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, edited by I. Petrovic, A. Petrovic, and M. Baumbach, 81–99. Cambridge. Boschung, D. 2002. Gens Augusta. Mainz. —­—­—. 2013. “Das Meisterwerk als Autorität: drei archäologische Bemerkungen.” In Das Meisterwerk als Autorität: Zur Wirkmacht kultureller Figurationen, edited by G. Blamberger and D. Boschung, 13–18. Munich. Bouché-­Leclercq, A. 2003. Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité (reprint of the edition of 1879–82). Grenoble. Brenne, S. 1994. “Ostraka and the Pro­cess of Ostrakophoria.” In The Archaeology of Athens and Attica u ­ nder the Democracy, edited by W. Coulson et al., 13–24. Oxford. Bringmann, K., H. von Steuben, and W. Ameling. 1995. Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heilingtümer I: Zeugnisse und Kommentare. Berlin. Brinkmann, V. 2003. Die Polychromie der archaischen und frühklassischen Skulptur. Munich. —­—­—. 2013. “Zurück zur Klassik.” In Zurück zur Klassik: Ein neuer Blick auf das alte Griechenland, edited by V. Brinkmann, 15–57. Munich. Brown, A. 2006. “Hellenic Heritage and Christian Challenge: Conflict over Panhellenic Sanctuaries in Late Antiquity.” In Vio­lence in Late Antiquity, edited by H. Drake, 309–19. Burlington. Brulotte, E. 1994. “The ‘Pillar of Oinomaos’ and the Location of Stadium I at Olympia.” AJA 98: 53–64. Bulle, H. 1939. “Der Ostgiebel des Zeustempels zu Olympia.” JdI 54: 137–218. Bumke, H. 2004. Statuarische Gruppen in der frühen griechischen Kunst. Berlin. Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans. Translated by P. Bing. Berkeley. Byvanck-­Quarles van Ufford, L. 1967. “Le bol des Cypsélides.” BABesch 42: 31–34. Cadario, M. 2014. “Preparing for Triumph: Graecae Artes as Roman Booty in L. Mummius’ Campaign (146 BC).” In The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, edited by C. Hjort Lange and F. Vervaet, 83–101. Rome. Cairns, D. 2010. Bacchylides: Five Epinician Odes (3, 5, 9, 11, 13). Cambridge.

Bibliography247

Calame, C. 1997. Choruses of Young ­Women in Ancient Greece. Translated by D. Collins and J. Orion. Lanham, MD. Camp, J. 1986. The Athenian Agora. London. Camp, J., M. Ierardi, and J. McInerney. 1992. “A Trophy from the ­Battle of Chaironeia of 86 B.C.” AJA 96: 443–55. Carlucci, C. 1998. Le antichità dei Falisci al Museo di Villa Giulia. Rome. —­—­—. 2006. “Osservazioni sulle associazioni e sulla distribuzione delle antefisse di II fase appartenenti ai sistemi decorativi etrusco-­laziali.” In Deliciae Fictiles III, edited by I. Edlund-­ Berry, G. Greco, and J. Kenfield, 2–21. Oxford. Car­ter, J. 1989. “The Chests of Periander.” AJA 93: 355–78. Cartledge, P., and A. Spawforth. 2002. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. 2nd ed. London. Castiglioni, M. P. 2003. “Il monumento degli Apolloniati a Olimpia.” MÉFRA 115: 867–80. Chamoux, F. 1953. Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades. Paris. Chandler, R. 1776. Travels in Greece, or, An Account of a Tour Made at the Expense of the Society of Dilettanti. Oxford. Christesen, P. 2007. Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History. Cambridge. Clairmont, C. 1982. “Sparta’s ‘Golden Phiale’ at Olympia.” ZPE 48: 79–85. Cohen, B. 1994. “From Bowman to Clubman: Herakles and Olympia.” ArtB 76: 695–715. Corso, A. 1996. “The Hermes of Praxiteles.” NumAntCl 25: 131–53. —­—­—. 2007. The Art of Praxiteles II. Rome. —­—­—. 2013. The Art of Praxiteles IV. Rome. Criscuolo, L. 2003. “Agoni e politica alla corte di Alessandria: Riflessioni su alcuni epigrammi di Posidippo.” Chiron 33: 311–33. Crowther, N. 1991. “The Olympic Training Period.” Nikephoros 4: 161–66. —­—­—. 1999. “Athlete as Warrior in the Ancient Greek Games: Some Reflections.” Nikephoros 12: 121–30. Csapo, E. 2007. “The Men Who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai, and Arkhitektones.” In The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, edited by P. Wilson, 87–115. Oxford. Curtius, E. 1897. “Entwurf einer Geschichte von Olympia.” In Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung I: Topographie und Geschichte, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 16–65. Berlin. Curtius, E., and F. Adler. 1897. Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veran­ stalteten Ausgrabung I: Topographie und Geschichte. 5 vols. Berlin. Daehner, J. 2007. “The Statue Types in the Roman World.” In The Herculaneum ­Women: History, Contexts, Identities, edited by J. Daehner, 85–111. Los Angeles. Danner, P. 1989. Griechische Akrotere der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Rome. —­—­—. 1997. Westgriechische Akrotere. Mainz am Rhein. Debiasi, A. 2005. “Eumeli Corinthii fragmenta neglecta?” ZPE 153: 43–58. Deppmeyer, K. 2008. Kaisergruppen von Vespasian bis Konstantin: Eine Untersuchung zu Aufstellungskontexten und Intentionen der statuarischen Präsentation kaiserlicher Familien. 2 vols. Hamburg. Des Bouvrie, S. 1995. “Gender and the Games at Olympia.” In Greece & Gender, edited by B. Berggreen and N. Marinatos, 55–74. Bergen. —­—­—. 2004. “Olympia and the Epinikion: A Creation of Symbols.” In Myth and Symbol II: Symbolic Phenomena in Ancient Greek Culture, edited by S. des Bouvrie, 353–91. Bergen. Despinis, G. 2004. “Zu akrolithstatuen griechischer und römischer Zeit.” NAkG 8: 245–301.

248 Bibliography

Δεσπίνης, Γ. 2007. “Πραξιτέλης και υιοί: Νέα ευρήματα, νέες προσπάθειες προσέγγισης.” In Πραξιτέλης, edited by Ν. Καλτσάς and Γ. Δεσπίνης, 62–67. Athens. Deubner, O. 1988. “Die Statuen von Riace.” JdI 103: 127–53. Dillon, M. 1990. “ ‘The House of the Thebans’ (FD iii.1.357–358) and Accommodation for Greek Pilgrims.” ZPE 83: 64–88. Dillon, S. 2010. The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World. Cambridge. Dimartino, A. 2006. “Per una revisione dei documenti epigrafici siracusani pertinenti al regno di Ierone II.” In Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII–­III sec. a. C.) 2, edited by M. Vaggioli, 701–17. Pisa. Dittenberger, W., and K. Purgold. 1896. Olympia V: Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin. Donderer, M. 2005. “Das Heraion in Olympia und sein Säulenkranz.” BABesch 80: 7–20. Dörig, J. 1977. Onatas of Aegina. Leiden. Dörpfeld, W. 1879. “Die Ausgrabungen von Olympia: Berichte.” AZ 37: 41–43. —­—­—. 1892a. “Das Buleuterion.” In Olympia II: Die Baudenkmäler, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 76–79. Berlin. —­—­—. 1892b. “Das Schatzhaus von Megara. In Olympia II: Die Baudenkmäler, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 50–53. Berlin. —­—­—. 1892c. “Der Südostbau.” Olympia II: Die Baudenkmäler, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 73–76. Berlin. —­—­—. 1892d. “Der Zeustempel.” In Olympia II: Die Baudenkmäler, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 4–27. Berlin. —­—­—. 1897. “Lageplan der antiken Bauwerke.” In Olympia I: Topographie und Geschichte, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 69–88. Berlin. —­—­—. 1935. Alt-­Olympia I–­II. Berlin. Dreher, M. 2013. “Olympia und die Westgriechen.” In War-­Peace and the Panhellenic Games, edited by N. Birgalias et al., 249–67. Athens. Dunbabin, K. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge. Ebert, J. 1997. “Zur neuen Bronzeplatte mit Siegerinschriften aus Olympia (Inv. 1148).” Nikephoros 10: 217–33. Eckstein, F. 1958. “Inschriften.” OlBer 6: 205–25. Berlin. —­—­—. 1969. ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ: Studien zu den Weihgeschenken strengen Stils im Heiligtum von Olympia. Berlin. Eder, B. 2003. “Im Reich des Augeias: Elis und Olympia zwischen 1200 und 700 v.Chr.” AnzWien 38: 89–121. —­—­—. 2006. “Die spätbronze-­und früheisenzeitliche Keramik.” In Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia, OF 31, 141–246. Berlin. —­—­—. 2015. “Die Kontinuität bronzener Ringhenkeldreifüsse im sozialen Kontext der Transformation der mykenischen Welt zwischen 1200 und 700.” In ΠΟΛΥΜΑΘΕΙΑ: Festschrift für Hartmut Matthäus anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages, edited by S. Nawracala and R. Nawracala, 115–33. Düren. Eilmann, R. 1938/39. “Die keramische Befund.” OlBer 3: 37–66. Ekroth, G. 2005. “Blood on the Altars? On the Treatment of Blood at Greek Sacrifices and the Iconographical Evidence.” AK 48: 9–29. —­—­—. 2012. “Pelops Joins the Party: Transformation of a Hero-­Cult within the Festival at Olympia.” In Greek and Roman Festivals, edited by R. Brandt and J. Iddeng, 95–137. Oxford.

Bibliography249

—­—­—. 2017. “Bare Bones: Zooarchaeology and Greek Sacrifice.” In Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Greek World, edited by S. Hitch and I. Rutherford, 15–47. Cambridge. Farnell, L. 1961. Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar. Amsterdam. Farrington, A. 1997. “Olympic Victors and the Popularity of the Olympic Games in the Imperial Period.” Tyche 12: 15–46. Flower, M. 2008. The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley. Franke, P. 1984. “Olympia und seine Münzen.” AntW 15: 14–26. Freitag, K. 2011. “Olympia als ‘Erinnerungsort’ in hellenistischer Zeit.” In Griechische Heiligtümer als Erinnerungsorte, edited by M. Haake and M. Jung, 69–94. Stuttgart. Frielinghaus, H. 2010. “Waffenweihungen in Delphi und Olympia—­ein Vergleich.” In Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern: Festschrift für Burkhardt Wesenberg zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck, 93–104. Möhnesee. —­—­—. 2011. Die Helme von Olympia, OF 33. Berlin. Fuchs, W. 1956. “Dionysos aus dem Metroon-­Giebel?” AM 71: 66–73. —­—­—. 2013. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Leonidaion in Olympia auf Grund des Ausgrabungsbefundes von 1954–1956.” OlBer 13: 278–338. Fuchs, W., and B. Rudnick. 1991/92. “Phrixos auf dem Widder.” Boreas 14–15: 45–49. Furtwängler, A. 1879a. “Die Ausgrabungen von Olympia: Zum Bathron des Anathems des Praxiteles.” AZ 37: 43–45. —­—­—. 1879b. “Inschriften aus Olympia.” AZ 37: 144–53. —­—­—. 1890. Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung IV: Die Bronzen und die übrigen kleineren Funde von Olympia, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler. Berlin. Gagné, R. 2016. “Who’s Afraid of Cypselus?” In Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion, edited by E. Eidinow, J. Kindt, and R. Osborne, 62–88. Cambridge. Gardiner, N. 1925. Olympia: Its History and Remains. Oxford. Gauer, W. 1968. Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen. Tübingen. —­—­—. 1975. Die Tongefässe aus den Brunnen unterm Stadion-­Nordwall und im Südost-­Gebiet, OF 8. Berlin. —­—­—. 2012. “Brunnenfunde, Festgesandtschaften und Festgesellschaften.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 98–103. Munich. Gawlinski, L. 2012. The Sacred Law of Andania. Berlin. Geertman, H. 1982. “Riflessioni sulle metope del tempio di Zeus a Olimpia: Disegno e esecuzione.” BABesch 57: 70–86. Geominy, W. 2007. “The Daochos Monument at Delphi: The Style and Setting of a F ­ amily Portrait in Historic Dress.” In Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, edited by P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff, 84–98. Cambridge. Gergel, R. 2004. “Agora S166 and Related Works: The Iconography, Typology, and Interpretation of the Eastern Hadrianic Breastplate.” In ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, edited by A. Chapin, 371–409. Prince­ton. Ghisellini, E. 1988. “La statua di Milone di Crotone ad Olympia.” Xenia 16: 43–52. Giovannini, A. 1993. “Greek Cities and Greek Commonwealth.” In Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, edited by A. Bulloch et al., 265–86. Berkeley. Goette, H. 1985. “Review of R. Bol, OF 15.” Gnomon 57: 551–55. —­—­—. 2007. “An Archaeological Appendix.” In The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, edited by P. Wilson, 116–21. Oxford.

250 Bibliography

Goette, H., and K. Hitzl. 1987. “Zwei umgearbeitete Porträtköpfe in Olympia.” AM 102: 283–93. Goldstein, M. 1978. “The Setting of the Ritual Meal in Greek Sanctuaries.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. Graells i Fabregat, R. 2016. “Destruction of Votive Offerings in Greek Sanctuaries—­The Case of the Cuirasses of Olympia.” In Materielle Kultur und Identität im Spannungsfeld zwischen mediterraner Welt und Mitteleuropa, edited by H. Baitinger, 149–60. Mainz. Griesbach, J. 2016. “Wechselnde Standorte: Griechische Porträtstatuen und die Neu-­ Konfiguration von Erinnerungsräumen.” In Eikones: Portraits en contexte, edited by R. von den Hoff, F. Queyrel, and E. Perrin-­Saminadayar, 149–84. Venosa. Gross, W. 1963. “Kultbilder, Blitzschwinger und Hageladas.” RM 70: 13–19. Grossmann, P. 1974. “Review of W. Hoepfner, Zwei Ptolemaierbauten: Das Ptolemaierweihgeschenk in Olympia und ein Bauvorhaben in Alexandria.” Gnomon 46: 698–703. Gruben, G. 1964. “Die Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos.” AA 384–467. Grunauer, P. 1981. “Zur Ostansicht des Zeustempels.” OlBer 10: 256–301. Guarducci, M. 1936 (1937). “La dedica dei vincitori di Tanagra nel santuario di Olympia.” RendPontAcc 12: 125–32. Guralnick, E. 2004. “A Group of Near Eastern Bronzes from Olympia.” AJA 108: 187–222. Gutsfeld, A., and S. Lehmann. 2003. “Die Umgestaltung ‘panhellenischer’ Heiligtümer im spätantiken Griechenland: Das Beispiel Olympia.” In Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion Globalisierungs-­Regionalisierungsprozesse in der antiken Religionsgeschichte, edited by H. Cancik and J Rüpke, 147–53. Erfurt. —­—­—. 2008. “Pagane Heiligtümer im christlichen Umfeld: Zur Geschichte ‘panhellenischer’ Heiligtümer im spätantiken Griechenland.” Altertum 53: 190–202. Habicht, C. 1956. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. Munich. —­—­—. 1985. Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece. Berkeley. —­—­—. 1990. “Athens and the Attalids in the Second ­Century B.C.” Hesperia 59: 561–77. Hall, E. 2002. Greeks and Barbarians. Edinburgh. Hallof, K., K. Herrmann, and S. Prignitz. 2012. “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Olympia I.” Chiron 42: 213–38. Hamdorf, F. 1981. “Karpometra.” OlBer 10: 192–208. Hampe, R., and U. Jantzen. 1937. “Die Grabung im Frühjahr 1937.” OlBer 1: 25–97. Berlin. Hannestad, L. 1996. “ ‘This Contributes in No Small Way to One’s Reputation’: The Bithynian Kings and Greek Culture.” In Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, edited by P. Bilde et al., 67–98. Aarhus. Hansen, M., and T. Fischer-­Hansen. 1994. “Monumental Po­liti­cal Architecture in Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis.” In From Po­liti­cal Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius, edited by D. Whitehead, 23–90. Stuttgart. Harrison, E. 1985. “Early Classical Sculpture: The Bold Style.” In Greek Art: Archaic into Classical, edited by C. Boulter, 40–65. Leiden. Haseley, A. 2012. “Die Südwestthermen in Olympia.” In SPA: Sanitas per Acquam, edited by R. Kreiner and W. Letzner, 103–8. Leuven. Hatzi, G. 2008. The Archaeological Museum of Olympia. Athens. Hauben, H. 1970. Callicrates of Samos: A Contribution to the Study of the Ptolemaic Admiralty. Leuven. Heiden, J. 1995. Die Tondächer von Olympia, OF 24. Berlin.

Bibliography251

—­—­—. 2003. “Thessalische Lapithen in Elis: Zur Deutung des Westgiebels von Olympia.” AA 183–90. —­—­—. 2006. “Die Agorai von Elis und Olympia.” In Die griechische Agora, edited by W. Hoepfner and L. Lehmann, 53–58. Mainz. —­—­—. 2012. “Artemis-­Altäre.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 144–47. Munich. Heilmeyer, W.-­D. 1972. Frühe olympische Tonfiguren, OF 7. Berlin. —­—­—. 1994. “Frühe olympische Bronzefiguren: ­die Wagenvotive.” OlBer 9: 172–208. —­—­—­, et al., eds. 2012. Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele. Munich. Heller, A. 2011. “D’un Polybe à l’autre: statuaire honorifique et mémoire des ancêtres dans le monde grec d’époque impériale.” Chiron 41: 287–312. Hennemeyer, A. 2006. “Neue Forschungsergebnisse zur Cella des Zeustempels in Olympia.” In Bericht über die 43. Tagung für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung, edited by D. Sack et al., 103–11. Bonn. —­—­—. 2011. “Zur Lichtwirkung am Zeustempel von Olympia.” In Licht-­Konzepte in der vormodernen Architektur, edited by P. Schneider and U. Wulf-­Rheidt, 101–10. Regensburg. —­—­—. 2012. “Der Zeus-­Tempel von Olympia.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 121–25. Munich. —­—­—. 2013a. “Kontinuität und Wandel: Beobachtungen am Zeus-­Tempel von Olympia.” In Menschen-­Kulturen-­Traditionen 10, Sanktuar und Ritual, edited by I. Gerlach and D. Raue, 19–26. Berlin. —­—­—. 2013b. “Die Wiederherstellung des Zeustempels von Olympia in klassischer Zeit.” In Zurück zur Klassik: Ein neuer Blick auf das alte Griechenland, edited by V. Brinkmann, 127– 29. Frankfurt am Main. —­—­—. 2013c. “Der Umbau des Phidias im Zeustempel von Olympia.” Architectura 43: 1–18. —­—­—. 2015. “The ­Temple Architecture and Its Modifications during the Fifth ­Century BCE.” In New Approaches to the ­Temple of Zeus at Olympia, edited by A. Patay-­Horváth, 16–38. Newcastle. Herda, A. 2006. Der Apollon-Delphinios-­Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma: Ein neuer Kommentar der sog. Molpoi-­Satzung. Mainz. Hering, K. 2015. Schatzhäuser in griechischen Heiligtümern. Rahden. Herrmann, H.-­V. 1962. “Zur ältesten Geschichte von Olympia.” AM 77: 3–34. —­—­—. 1972. Olympia: Heiligtum und Wettkampfstätte. Munich. —­—­—. 1980. “Pelops in Olympia.” In Στήλη: Τόμος εἰς μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος, 59–74. Athens. —­—­—. 1987. “Zum Prob­lem des mykenischen Ursprungs griechischer Heiligtümer: Olympia und Delphi.” In Forschungen zur aegaeischen Vorgeschichte: Das Ende der mykenischen Welt, edited by E. Thomas, 151–72. Berlin. —­—­—. 1988. “Die Siegerstatuen von Olympia.” Nikephoros 1: 119–83. Herrmann, K. 1974. “Die Giebelrekonstruktion des Schatzhauses von Megara.” AM 89: 75–83. —­—­—. 1980. “Bericht über Restaurierungsarbeiten in Olympia: Schatzhaus der Sikyonier.” AA 95: 351–60. —­—­—. 1984. “Spätarchaische Votivsäulen in Olympia.” AM 99: 121–43. —­—­—. 1992. “Die Schatzhäuser in Olympia.” In Πρακτικά Συμποσίου Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, edited by W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, 25–32. Athens. —­—­—. 1999. “Die Stützmauer am Kronoshügel.” OlBer 11: 367–90. Berlin.

252 Bibliography

—­—­—. 2000. “Zur Verwendung des Parischen Marmors im Heiligtum von Olympia.” In Paria Lithos: Parian Quarries, Marble and Workshops of Sculpture, edited by D. Schilardi and D. Katsonopoulou, 379–89. Athens. —­—­—. 2003. “Der Terrakottenbrunnen 1 N westlich vom Prytaneion,” OlBer 12: 206–24. —­—­—. 2013. “Berichte über die Arbeiten in Olympia in den Jahren 2000 bis 2005, II.” OlBer 13: 18–50. Herrmann, K., and A. Moustaka. 2013. “Untersuchungen am Heraion-­Altar.” OlBer 13: 100–128. Himmelmann, N. 1959. Zur Eigenart des klassischen Götterbildes. Munich. —­—­—. 2001. “La vie religieuse à Olympie.” In Olympie: cycle de huit conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le ser­vice culturel du 18 janvier au 15 mars 1999, edited by A. Pasquier, 155–79. Paris. —­—­—. 2002. “Frühe Weihgeschenke in Olympia.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 91–107. Mainz. Hintzen-­Bohlen, B. 1992. Herrscherrepräsentation im Hellenismus: Untersuchungen zu Weihgeschenken, Stiftungen und Ehrenmonumenten in den mutterländischen Heiligtümern Delphi, Olympia, Delos und Dodona. Cologne. Hitzl, K. 1991. Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon, OF 19. Berlin. —­—­—. 1995. “Drei Beiträge zu Olympia.” Boreas 18: 5–12. —­—­—. 1996. Die Gewichte griechischer Zeit aus Olympia, OF 25. Berlin. Hitzl, K., and A. Kropp. 2013. “Das Heiligtum von Olympia im 2. Jh. n. Chr.: Alte und neue Impressionen.” Boreas 36: 53–89. Hoepfner, W. 1971. Zwei Ptolemaierbauten: Das Ptolemaierweihgeschenk in Olympia und ein Bauvorhaben in Alexandria, AM Beiheft 1. Berlin. —­—­—. 1996. “Zum Typus der Basileia und der königlichen Andrones.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige, edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Brands, 1–43. Mainz. Hölscher, T. 2001. “Schatzhäuser–­Banketthäuser?” In ΙΘΑΚΗ: Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer, 143–52. Würzburg. —­—­—. 2002. “Rituelle Räume und politische Denkmäler im Heiligtum von Olympia.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 331–45. Mainz. —­—­—. 2015. “Noch einmal rechts und links am Zeus-­Tempel von Olympia.” In New Approaches to the T ­ emple of Zeus at Olympia, edited by A. Patay-­Horváth, 90–93. Newcastle. —­—­—. 2019. “Die Statuenausstattung des Heraion von Olympia.” In Griechische Heiligtümer als Handlungsorte, edited by K. Freitag and M. Haake, 207–25. Stuttgart. Hornblower, S. 2004. Thucydides and Pindar: Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry. Oxford. Howie, G. 1991. “Pindar’s Account of Pelops’ Contest with Oenomaus.” Nikephoros 4: 55–120. Hupfloher, A. 2007. “Der Achaierbund im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr.: zwischen Tradition und Neu­ organisation.” Latomus 305: 97–116. Hurwit, J. M. 1987. “Narrative Resonance in the East Pediment of the T ­ emple of Zeus at Olympia.” ArtB 69: 6–15. —­—­—. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge. Hutton, W. 2005. Describing Greece: Landscape and Lit­er­a­ture in the Periegesis of Pausanias. Cambridge. Huwendiek, J. 1996. “Zur Interpretation des Philippeion in Olympia.” Boreas 19: 155–59. Hyde, H. 1912. “The Positions of Victor Statues at Olympia.” AJA 16: 203–29.

Bibliography253

Ioakimidou, C. 1997. Die Statuenreihen griechischer Poleis und Bünde aus spätarchaischer und klassischer Zeit. Munich. —­—­—. 2000. “Auch wir sind Griechen! Statuenreihen westgriechischer Kolonisten in Delphi und Olympia.” Nikephoros 13: 63–94. Jackson, A. 1992. “Arms and Armour at the Panhellenic Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia.” In Πρακτικά συμποσίου Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, edited by W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, 141–44. Athens. Jacob-­Felsch, M. 1969. Die Entwicklung griechischer Statuenbasen und die Aufstellung der Sta­ tuen. Waldsassen. Jacqmin, C. 2013. “Arbitres et règlements de conflits: Pausanias et la cas des seize femmes des cités d’Élide.” Des femmes en action: L’individu et la fonction en Grèce antique, edited by S. Boehringer and V. Sebillotte Cuchet, 101–15. Paris. Jacquemin, A. 1985. “Aitolia et Aristaineta: Offrandes monumentales étoliennes à Delphes au IIIe s. av. J.-­C.” Ktéma 10: 27–35. —­—­—. 1999. Offrandes monumentales à Delphes. Athens and Paris. —­—­—. 2001a. “Pausanias, le sanctuaire d’Olympie et les archéologues.” In Editer, traduire, commenter Pausanias en l’an 2000. Actes du colloque autour des deux éditions en cours de la “Périégèse,” Neuchâtel et Fribourg, September 18–22, 1998, 283–300. Geneva. —­—­—. 2001b. “Pausanias, témoin de la religion grecque dans le sanctuaire d’Olympie.” In Olympie: cycle de huit conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le ser­vice culturel du 18 janvier au 15 mars 1999, edited by A. Pasquier, 181–213. Paris. Jeffery, L. H. 1980a. “Lykios Son of Myron: The Epigraphic Evidence.” In Στήλη: Τόμος εις μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος, 51–54. Athens. —­—­—. 1980b. “Some Nikai-­Statues at Olympia in the Late Fifth C ­ entury B.C.” In Φιλίας Χάριν: Miscellanea di studi classici in onore di Eugenio Manni 4: 1233–39. Rome. Jeffery, L. H., and A. W. Johnston. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. 2nd ed. Oxford. Johr, J. 2020. “Die Heiligtümer Triphyliens.” In Die antike Siedlungstopographie Triphyliens, edited by J. Heiden, 139–53. Berlin. Jones, C. P. 2001. “Pausanias and His Guides.” In Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, 33–39. Oxford. Jordan-­Ruwe, M. 1995. Das Säulenmonument: Zur Geschichte der erhöhten Aufstellung antiker Porträtstatuen. Bonn. Jünger, F. 2004. “Viergespanndenkmäler sizilischer Tyrannen in Olympia.” In Ikonographie und Ikonologie, edited by W. Hübner and K. Stähler, 51–63. Münster. —­—­—. 2006. Gespann und Herrschaft: Form und Intention grossformatiger Gespanndenkmäler im griechischen Kulturraum von der archaischen bis in die hellenistische Zeit. Hamburg. Kaltsas, N. 2001. Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό μουσείο: Τα γλυπτά. Athens. Kaplan, M. 1990. Greeks and the Imperial Court, from Tiberius to Nero. New York. Kardara, C. 1970. “Olympia: Perithoos Apollo or Zeus Areios?” ArchDelt 25: 12–19. Karlsson, L. 1996. “The Altar of Hieron at Syracuse: A Discussion of Its Function.” OpusRom 21: 83–87. Kasper, W. 1972. “Die buckelverzierten Bleche Olympias.” PhD diss., Ludwig-­Maximilians-­ Universität zu München. Kastenholz, R. 1996. “Die Lokalisierung der Heiligtümer der Eileithyia, des Sosipolis und der Aphrodite Urania.” Boreas 19: 147–53. Keesling, C. 2017. Early Greek Portraiture. Cambridge.

254 Bibliography

Kertész, I. 2005. “When Did Alexander I Visit Olympia?” Nikephoros 18: 115–26. Kilian-­Dirlmeier, I. 1985. “Fremde Weihungen in griechischen Heiligtümern vom 8. bis zum Beginn des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” JRGZM 32: 215–54. Klauser, F. 2016. “Das Siegerstandbild des elischen Fünfkämpfers Pythokles im Wandel der Zeit—­eine Neubewertung.” In Eikones: Portraits en contexte, edited by R. von den Hoff, F. Queyrel, and É. Perrin-­Saminadayar, 249–69. Venosa. Klein, N. 2016. “ ‘Internationalism’ in Architecture: Olympia.” In A Companion to Greek Architecture, edited by M. Miles, 119–34. Hoboken, NJ. Klinkhammer, L. 2002. “Grossgrabung und grosse Politik.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 31–47. Mainz. Knell, H. 1983. “Lepreon: Der Tempel der Demeter.” AM 98: 113–47. —­—­—. 1990. Mythos und Polis: Bildprogramme griechischer Bauskulptur. Darmstadt. Koenigs, W. 1981. “Stadion III und Echohalle.” OlBer 10: 353–69. —­—­—. 1984. Die Echohalle, OF 14. Berlin. Kõiv, M. 2013. “Early History of Elis and Pisa: In­ven­ted or Evolving Traditions?” Klio 95: 315–68. Kotsidu, H. 2000. Τιμή και δόξα: Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler. Berlin. Kowerski, L. 2005. Simonides on the Persian Wars: A Study of the Elegiac Verses of the “New Simonides.” New York. Kreikenbom, D. 2002. “Reifarchaische Plastik.” In Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst I: Frühgriechische Plastik, edited by P. Bol, 133–69. Mainz. —­—­—. 2004. “Der reiche Stil.” In Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst II: Klassische Plastik, edited by P. Bol, 185–258. Mainz. Kreutz, N. 2007. Zeus und die griechischen Poleis. Tübingen. Krinzinger, F. 1980. “Das ΘΕΑΤΡΟΝ von Olympia.” Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch. Innsbruck. Kron, U. 1988. “Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit.” In Early Greek Cult Practice, edited by R. Hägg et al., 135–47. Stockholm. —­—­—. 1992. “Frauenfeste in Demeterheiligtümern: Das Thesmophorion von Bitalemi.” AA 107: 611–50. Krumeich, R. 1997. Bildnisse griechischer Herrscher und Staatsmänner im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Munich. —­—­—. 2007. “­Human Achievement and Divine F ­ avor: The Religious Context of Early Hellenistic Portraiture.” In Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, edited by P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff, 161–80. Cambridge. —­—­—. 2008. “Vom Haus der Gottheit zum Museum?” AntK 51: 73–95. Kruse, T. 1992. “Zwei Denkmäler der Antigoniden in Olympia: Eine Untersuchung zu Pausanias 6, 16, 3.” AM 107: 273–93. Kunze, E. 1940–1941a. “Bronzestatuetten.” OlBer 4: 105–42. —­—­—. 1940–1941b. “Ein Marmorsitz aus dem Stadion.” OlBer 4: 164–66. —­—­—. 1946. “Zeusbilder in Olympia.” A&A 2: 95–113. —­—­—. 1956. “Inschriften.” OlBer 5: 149–75. —­—­—. 1961. “Zwei Marmorstelen des arkadischen Bundes.” OlBer 7: 211–17. —­—­—. 1991. Beinschienen, OF 21. Berlin. —­—­—. 1994. “Sphyrelata.” OlBer 9: 101–32.

Bibliography255

Kunze, E., and H. Schleif. 1937/38. OlBer 2. Berlin. —­—­—. 1938/39. OlBer 3. Berlin. Kunze-­Götte, E., J. Heiden, and J. Burow. 2000. Archaische Keramik aus Olympia: OF 28. Berlin. Kyrieleis, H. 1990. “Neue Ausgrabungen in Olympia.” AntW 21: 177–88. —­—­—. 1994. “Die Ausgrabungen 1962 bis 1966.” OlBer 9: 1–26. —­—­—. 1997. “Zeus and Pelops in the East Pediment of the T ­ emple of Zeus at Olympia.” In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, edited by D. Buitron-­Oliver, 13–27. Washington, DC. —­—­—. 2002. “Zu den Anfängen des Heiligtums von Olympia.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 213–20. Mainz. —­—­—. 2003a. “Bericht über die Arbeiten in Olympia in den Jahren 1982 bis 1999.” OlBer 12: 1–37. —­—­—. 2003b. “Die Untersuchungen zur Frühzeit Olympias im Bereich des Prytaneion, 1986/87 und 1990/91.” OlBer 12: 66–154. —­—­—. 2006. Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia, OF 31. Berlin. —­—­—. 2007. “Τὸ Πελόπιο καὶ ἡ πρώιμη λατρεία τοῦ Πέλοπα στὴν Ὀλυμπία.” Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Ζʹ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν Βʹ, Πελοποννησιακό Παράρτημα 27: 193–205. Athens. —­—­—. 2008. “Sphyrelata: Überlegungen zur früharchaischen Bronze-­Grossplastik in Olympia.” AM 123: 177–98. —­—­—. 2011. Olympia: Archäologie eines Heiligtums. Mainz. —­—­—. 2012. “Die frühe Geschichte Olympias: Mythos und archäologische Forschung.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 61–65. Munich. —­—­—. 2012/2013. “Pelops, Herakles, Theseus: Zur Interpretation der Skulpturen des Zeustempels von Olympia.” JdI 127/128: 51–124. —­—­—. 2013. “Berichte über die Arbeiten in Olympia in den Jahren 2000 bis 2005, I.” OlBer 13: 1–18. Lacroix, L. 1949. Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques: la statuaire archaïque et classique. Paris. —­—­—. 1976. “La légende de Pélops et son iconographie.” BCH 100: 327–41. Lambropoulou, A., and A. Yangaki. 2012/2013. “On the History of Olympia during the Transitional Period of the Byzantine Era.” AM 127/128: 317–54. Lang, M. 1990. Athenian Agora 25: Ostraka. Prince­ton. Langenfeld, H. 2006. “Olympia—­Zentrum des Frauensports in der Antike? Die Mädchen-­ Wettläufe beim Hera-­Fest in Olympia.” Nikephoros 19: 153–85. Lapalus, E. 1947. Le fronton sculpté en Grèce: des origines à la fin du IVe siècle. Paris. Lapatin, K. 2001. Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford. La Rocca, E. 2001. “La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali.” RM 108: 171–213. Larson, J. 2001. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford. Lee, H. 1992. “Some Changes in the Ancient Olympic Program and Schedule.” In Πρακτικά Συμποσίου Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, edited by W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, 105–11. Athens. Legon, R. 1981. Megara: The Po­liti­cal History of a Greek City-­State to 336 B.C. Ithaca. Lehmann, S. 1995/96. “Zum Bronzekopf eines Olympioniken im Nationalmuseum Athen.” Stadion 21/22: 1–29.

256 Bibliography

—­—­—. 1996/97. “Der Thermenherrscher und die Fußspuren der Attaliden: Zur olympischen Statuenbasis des Q. Caec. Metellus Macedonicus.” Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 13: 107–30. —­—­—. 2007. “Der ‘Herulersturm’ und die Kunstproduktion in der Provinz Achaia.” In Die Selbstdarstellung der römischen Gesellschaft in den Provinzen im Spiegel der Steindenkmäler, edited by E. Walde and B. Kainrath, 45–54. Innsbruck. —­—­—. 2008. “Der Kopf einer hellenistischen Athletenstatue in Olympia.” In Thiasos: Festschrift für Erwin Pochmarski zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by C. Franek et  al., 578–90. Vienna. Lehmann, S., and A. Gutsfeld. 2013. “Spolien und Spolisation im spätantiken Olympia.” In Menschen-­Kulturen-­Traditionen 10, Sanktuar und Ritual, edited by I. Gerlach and D. Raue, 91–104. Rahden. Lehmann-­Hartleben, K. 1923/1924. “Libon und Phidias.” JdI 38/39: 37–48. —­—­—. 1927. “Review of E. Gardiner, Olympia, Its History and Remains.” Gnomon 3: 385–98. Lehmler, C. 2005. Syrakus unter Agathokles und Hieron II.: die Verbindung von Kultur und Macht in einer hellenistischen Metropole. Frankfurt. Leventi, I. 2009. “A Colossal Aphrodite from the Theater of Dionysos and Early Imperial Athenian Sculptural Workshops.” In Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux: techniques, styles et iconographie, edited by V. Gaggadis-­Robin et al., 269–77. Arles. Levi, M. 1970. “Zeus olimpico e le statue di Ierone II a Olimpia.” ACME 23: 153–56. Leypold, C. 2008. Bankettgebäude in griechischen Heiligtümern. Wiesbaden. —­—­—. 2013. “Die Statuenbasen im Zeus-­Heiligtum von Olympia.” In Menschen-­Kulturen-­ Traditionen 10, Sanktuar und Ritual, edited by I. Gerlach and D. Raue, 117–24. Berlin. —­—­—. 2014a. “Der topographische Kontext der Statuenaufstellung im Zeusheiligtum von Olympia in hellenistischer Zeit.” In Polis und Porträt: Standbilder als Medien der öffentlichen Repräsentation im hellenistischen Osten, edited by J. Griesbach, 33–41. Wiesbaden. —­—­—. 2014b. “Dem Zeus geweiht—­für alle Zeit? Phänomene des Umgangs mit Weihestatuen im Heiligtum von Olympia.” In Weiter und Wiederverwendungen von Weihestatuen in griechischen Heiligtümern, edited by C. Leypold, M. Mohr, and C. Russenberger, 31–42. Rahden. Liangouras, C. 2009. “Ιερό Δήμητρας και Κόρης στην Ολυμπία.” AAA 61–74. —­—­—. 2012. “Das Heiligtum der Demeter Chamyne in Olympia.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 152–55. Munich. Löhr, C. 2000. Griechische Familienweihungen: Untersuchungen einer Repräsentationsform von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. Rahden. Lo Monaco, A. 2003. “Olympia e Augusto: evoluzione dello spazio sacro all’inizio del principato.” ASAtene 81, series III: 3: 1: 475–510. —­—­—. 2009. Il crepuscolo degli dei d’Achaia. Rome. —­—­—. 2013. “Fuori dall’Altis: tende, bagni e propilei a Olimpia in età ellenistica.” In Roman Power and Greek Sanctuaries, edited by M. Galli, 125–42. Athens. —­—­—. 2016. “Wreaths, Shields, and Old Statues.” In Hellenistic Sanctuaries: Between Greece and Rome, edited by M. Melfi and O. Bobou, 207–27. Oxford. Longfellow, B. 2012. “Roman Fountains in Greek Sanctuaries.” AJA 116: 133–55. Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents. Leiden. Luraghi, N. 1994. Tirannidi arcaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Florence. Ma, J. 2013. Statues and Cities. Oxford.

Bibliography257

Maass, M. 1993. Das antike Delphi: Orakel, Schätze und Monumente. Darmstadt. Mächler, C. 2020. “Das Leonidaion in Olympia: Umbaustrategien in panhellenischem Kontext.” In Umgebaut: Umbau-­, Umnutzungs-­und Umwertungsprozesses in der antiken Architektur, edited by K. Piesker and U. Wulf-­Rheidt, 299–312. Regensburg. Mallwitz, A. 1958. “Das Gebiet südlich der Bäder am Kladeos.” OlBer 6: 12–41. —­—­—. 1961. “Architektur eines Schatzhauses.” OlBer 7: 29–55. —­—­—. 1966. “Das Heraion von Olympia und seine Vorgänger.” JdI 81: 310–76. —­—­—. 1967. “Das Stadion.” OlBer 8: 16–82. —­—­—. 1972. Olympia und seine Bauten. Munich. —­—­—. 1976. “Zu den Arbeiten im Heiligtum von Olympia während der Jahre 1967 bis 1971.” ArchDelt 27, Chronika: 272–80. —­—­—. 1981. “Neue Forschungen in Olympia. Theater und Hestiaheiligtum in der Altis.” Gymnasium 88: 97–122. —­—­—. 1982. “Ein hölzerner Untersatz aus Olympia.” In Praestant Interna: Festschrift für Ulrich Hausmann, edited by B. von Freytag, D. Mannsperger, and F. Prayon, 261–70. Tübingen. —­—­—. 1988a. “Cult and Competition Locations at Olympia.” In The Archaeology of the Olympics, edited by W. Raschke, 79–109. Madison. —­—­—. 1988b. “Olympia und Rom.” AntW 19: 21–45. —­—­—. 1999a. “Bericht über die Arbeiten in den Jahren 1977 bis 1981.” OlBer 11: 1–32. —­—­—. 1999b. “Ergebnisse und Folgerungen.” OlBer 11: 181–284. Mallwitz, A., and H.-­V. Herrmann. 1980. Die Funde aus Olympia: Ergebnisse 100-­jähriger Ausgrabungstätigkeit. Athens. Marcadé, J. 1987. “À propos de la base de Poulydamas à Olympie.” In Lysippe et son influence, edited by J. Marcadé and J.-­L. Maier, 113–24. Geneva. Marchand, S. 1996. Down from Olympus. Prince­ton. Marconi, C. 2006. “Mito e autorappresentazione nella decorazione figurata dei thesauroi di età arcaica.” In Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari greci, edited by A. Naso, 158–86. Florence. —­—­—. 2007. ­Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek World: The Metopes of Selinus. Cambridge. Marcovich, M. 1982. “Zur Inschrift des Tiberius Claudius Calligenes.” ZPE 46: 175–76. Martin, A. 2014. “A Sixth-­Century Context at Olympia.” In Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry, The Mediterranean: A Market without Frontiers, edited by N. Poulou-­Papadimitriou, E. Nodarou, and V. Kilikoglou, 761–68. Oxford. Massa-­Pairault, F.-­H. 2006. “Le Larnax des Cypsélides à Olympie: essai d’interprétation des scènes mythologiques.” In L’image antique et son interpretation, edited by F.-­H. Massa-­ Pairault, 41–74. Rome. Matzanas, C. 2012. “Die Kladeos-­Ufermauer.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 238–39. Munich. Meier, C. 1993. “Die grosse Fest zu Olympia im klassischen Altertum.” Nikephoros 6: 61–73. Mertens, D. 1984. “I santuari di Capo Colonna e Crimisa: Aspetti dell’architettura crotoniate.” In Crotone: Atti del ventitreesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, edited by G. Carratelli, 189–230. Taranto. —­—­—. 2006. Städte und Bauten der Westgriechen. Munich.

258 Bibliography

Mertens-­Horn, M., and L. Viola. 1990. “Archaische Tondächer westgriechischer Typologie in Delphi und Olympia.” Hesperia 59: 235–50. Meyer, H. 1983. Kunst und Geschichte: Vier Untersuchungen zur antiken Historienkunst. Munich. Miller, M. 2019. “Die sogenannte Herulermauer: Ein Beitrag zur spätantiken Geschichte des Heilingtums.” OF 34: 129–43. Miller, S. 2004. Ancient Greek Athletics. New Haven. Miller, S. G. 1973. “The Philippeion and Macedonian Hellenistic Architecture.” AM 88: 189–218. Minon, S. 2007. Les inscriptions éléennes dialectales (VIe–­IIe siècle avant J.-­C.). Geneva. Mitchell, L. 2007. Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece. Swansea. Mitsopoulos-­Leon, V. 1984. “Zur Verehrung des Dionysos in Elis. Nochmals: ΑΞΙΕ ΤΑΥΡΕ und die sechzehn heiligen Frauen.” AM 99: 275–90. Moreno, P. 1984. “Iconografia lisippea delle imprese di Eracle.” MÉFRA 96: 117–74. —­—­—. 1994. Scultura ellenistica I. Rome. —­—­—. 1995. Lisippo: L’arte e la fortuna. Florence. Moretti, L. 1957. Olympionikai: i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici. Rome. Moustaka, A. 1984. “Frühklassische Löwenplastik aus Olympia.” AM 99: 177–83. —­—­—. 1985. “Spätarchaische Weihgaben aus Etrurien in Olympia.” AA 353–64. —­—­—. 1993. Grossplastik aus Ton in Olympia, OF 22. Berlin. —­—­—. 2002a. “Zeus und Hera im Heiligtum von Olympia.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 301–15. Mainz. —­—­—. 2002b. “On the Cult of Hera at Olympia.” In Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, edited by R. Hägg, 199–205. Stockholm. Μουστάκα, Α. 2020. “Αγαλμάτια μικρών παιδιών από το ιερό της Ειλειθυίας στην Ολυμπία.” In ΣΠΟΝΔΗ: Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Γιώργου Δεσπίνη, edited by Ἀ. Δεληβορριάς et al., 309–319. Athens. Müller, S. 2009. Das hellenistische Königspaar in der medialen Repräsentation: Ptolemaios II. und Arsinoe II. Berlin. Myres, J. L. 1946. “Symmetry on the Chest of Cypselus at Corinth (Pausanias 5.17–19).” JHS 66: 122. Νακάσης, Α. 2004. Ο ναός της Αθηνάς Μακίστου. Athens. Neer, R., and L. Kurke. 2019. Pindar, Song, and Space: T ­ oward a Lyric Archaeology. Baltimore. Nielsen, T. H. 1997. “Triphylia: An Experiment in Ethnic Construction and Po­liti­cal Organisation.” In Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, edited by T.  H. Nielsen, 129–62. Stuttgart. —­—­—. 2007. Olympia and the Classical Hellenic State City-­Culture. Copenhagen. Orlandos, A. 1967–68. Η αρκαδική Αλίφειρα και τα μνημεία της. Athens. Osada, T. 2008. “Ein Gott, der nicht richtet: Das Zeusbild am olympischen Ostgiebel und die Religionsanschauung der Griechen.” In Ikarus 3: Akten des 11. Österreichischen Archäologentages in Innsbruck 23.–25. März 2006, edited by G. Grabherr and B. Kainrath, 215–23. Innsbruck. O’­Sullivan, P. 2003. “Victory Statue, Victory Song: Pindar’s Agonistic Poetics and Its Legacy.” In Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, edited by D. Phillips and D. Pritchard, 75–100. Swansea. Pafumi, S. 2004. “Scultura e committenza in occidente.” NumAntCl 33: 41–96. Palagia, O. 2009. “Spartan Self-­Presentation in the Panhellenic Sanctuaries of Delphi and Olympia in the Classical Period.” In Athens-­Sparta, edited by N. Kaltsas, 32–40. New York.

Bibliography259

—­—­—. 2010a. “Philip’s Eurydice in the Philippeum at Olympia.” In Philip II and Alexander the ­Great: F ­ ather and Son, Lives and Afterlives, edited by E. Carney and D. Ogden, 33–41. Oxford. —­—­—. 2010b. “Sculptures from the Peloponnese in the Roman Imperial Period.” In Roman Peloponnese III: Society, Economy and Culture ­under the Roman Empire: Continuity and Innovation, edited by A. Rizakis and C. Lepenioti, 431–45. Athens. Papalexandrou, N. 2005. The Visual Poetics of Power: Warriors, Youths, and Tripods in Early Greece. Lanham, MD. Papastamati-­von Moock, C. 2015. “The Wooden Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus in Athens: Old Issues, New Research.” In The Architecture of the Ancient Greek Theatre, edited by R. Frederiksen, E. Gebhard, and A. Sokolicek, 39–79. Aarhus. Parke, H. W. 1967. The Oracles of Zeus: Dodona, Olympia, Ammon. Oxford. Partida, E. 2016. “Post-­Earthquake Architecture at Olympia: The Impact of Natu­ral Phenomena upon the Builders’ Attitude in the 4th ­Century BC.” In ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝ: Essays Presented to Stephen G. Miller, edited by D. Katsonopoulou and E. Partida, 299–316. Athens. Pasquier, A. 2001. “L’Hermès d’Olympie.” In Olympie: cycle de huit conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le ser­vice culturel du 18 janvier au 15 mars 1999, edited by A. Pasquier, 241–59. Paris. —­—­—. 2007. “Βιογραφικά στοιχεία για τον Πραξιτέλη.” In Πραξιτέλης, edited by Ν. Καλτσάς and Γ. Δεσπίνης, 23–30. Athens. Patay-­Horváth, A. 2004. “Pausanias und der Ostgiebel des Zeustempels von Olympia.” Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44: 21–33. —­—­—. 2008a. Metallanstückungen an griechischen Marmorskulpturen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Leidorf. —­—­—. 2008b. “Zur Rekonstruktion und Interpretation des Ostgiebels des Zeustempels von Olympia.” AM 122: 161–206. —­—­—. 2012. “Die Bauherren des Zeustempels von Olympia.” Hephaistos 29: 35–54. —­—­—. 2013a. “Hera in Olympia: Tempel, Kult und Münzprägung.” Thetis 20: 81–99. —­—­—. 2013b. “Die Perserbeute von Plataia, die Anfänge der elischen Münzprägung und die finanziellen Grundlagen der ‘Grossbaustelle Olympia.’ ” Klio 95: 61–83. —­—­—. 2017. “Why ­Were Adult W ­ omen Excluded from the Olympic Games?” Arys 15: 133–44. Pfaff, C. 2018. “Late Antique Symbols and Numerals on Altars in the Asklepieion at Epidauros.” Hesperia 87: 387–428. Philipp, H. 1979. “Zu den Basen des L. Mummius in Olympia.” AM 94: 193–216. —­—­—. 1981. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia, OF 13. Berlin. —­—­—. 1994a. “Olympia, die Peloponnes und die Westgriechen.” JdI 109: 77–92. —­—­—. 1994b. “ΧΑΛΚΕΟΙ ΤΟΙΧΟΙ—­eherne Wände.” AA 489–98. Philipp, H., and W. Koenigs. 1979. “Zu den Basen des L. Mummius in Olympia.” AM 94: 193–216. Pilz, O. 2020a. “Hera in Elis und Olympia: Kultverbindungen zwischen Stadt und extraurbanem Heiligtum.” In Kulte im Kult, edited by H. Bumke, 103–118. Rahden. —­—­—. 2020b. Kulte und Heiligtümer in Elis und Tryphylien. Berlin. Pimpinelli, M. 1994. “Eracle ad Olimpia: le metope del tempio di Zeus.” Ostraka 3: 349–416. Pipili, M. 1987. Laconian Iconography of the Sixth ­Century B.C. Oxford. Pirenne-­Delforge, V. 2019. “The Politics of Olympus at Olympia.” In Griechische Heiligtümer als Handlungsorte, edited by K. Freitag and M. Haake, 187–205. Stuttgart. Pirenne-­Delforge, V., and G. Pironti. 2016. L’Héra de Zeus. Paris.

260 Bibliography

Pleket, H. W. 1975. “Games, Prizes, Athletes and Ideology: Some Aspects of the History of Sport in the Greco-­Roman World.” Stadion 1: 49–89. —­—­—. 1999. “Review of Joachim Ebert, Agonismata.” Nikephoros 12: 277–84. Pochmarski, E. 1974. Das Bild des Dionysos in der Rundplastik der klassischen Zeit Griechenlands. Vienna. Polignac, F. de. 1994. “Mediation, Competition, and Sovereignty: The Evolution of Rural Sanctuaries in Geometric Greece.” In Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, edited by S. Alcock and R. Osborne, 3–18. Oxford. Prestianni Giallombardo, A. 1982. “Lucio Mummio, Zeus e Filippo II (Favorin., Corinth., 42 = Dio Chrys., 37, 42 (466)).” AnnPisa 3: 513–32. Purgold, K. 1884. “Olympische Weihgeschenke.” In Historische und philologische Aufsätze: Ernst Curtius zu seinem siebenzigsten Geburtstage, 221–44. Berlin. —­—­—. 1892. “Basen.” In Olympia II: Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler, 144–61. Berlin. Rabe, B. 2008. Tropaia: τροπή und σκῦλα: Entstehung, Funktion und Bedeutung des griechischen Tropaions. Leidorf. Rambach, J. 2002a. “Dörpfelds Bau VII in der Altis von Olympia.” AA 119–34. —­—­—. 2002b. “Olympia: 2500 Jahre Vorgeschichte vor der Gründung des eisenzeitlichen griechischen Heiligtums.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 177–212. Mainz. Raschke, W. 1988. “Images of Victory: Some New Considerations of Athletic Monuments.” In The Archaeology of the Olympics: The Olympics and Other Festivals in Antiquity, edited by W. Raschke, 38–54. Madison. —­—­—. 2013. “Panhellenism and the ­Temple of Zeus.” In War, Peace, and Panhellenic Games, edited by N. Birgalias et al., 189–206. Athens. Raubitschek, A. 1949. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis. Cambridge, MA. Rausch, M. 2001. “Die ‘Verstaatlichung’ des öffentlichen Lebens westgriechischer Póleis im 6. und 5. Jh. v. Chr. am Beispiel des Zeus-­Olympios-­Kultes.” In Hesperìa 14: Studi sulla grecità di Occidente, edited by L. Braccesi, 85–103. Rome. Rehak, P. 1988. “Unfinished Hair and the Installation of the Pedimental Sculptures of the ­Temple of Zeus at Olympia.” In ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, edited by K. Hartswick and M. Sturgeon, 193–208. Philadelphia. Reinhardt, C. 2018. Akroter und Architektur. Berlin. Reinsberg, C. 2012. “Sport: Nicht für Frauen aber für Mädchen.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 257–59. Munich. Remijsen, S. 2015. The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. Ridgway, B. S. 1970. The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture. Prince­ton. —­—­—. 1993. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture. 2nd ed. Chicago. —­—­—. 1995. “Paene ad exemplum: Polykleitos’ Other Works.” In Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition, edited by W. Moon, 177–99. Madison. Riedel, N. 1993. “Zu Heratempel und Zeustempel in Olympia.” In Die griechische Polis: Architektur und Politik, edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Zimmer, 82–85. Tübingen. Ringel, E., P. Siewert, and H. Taeuber. 1999. “Die Symmachien Pisas mit den Arkadern, Akroreia, Messenien und Sikyon: Ein neues Fragment der ‘arkadischen Bündnisstele’ von 365 v. Chr.” OlBer 11: 413–20. Rizakis, A. 2007. “Les Ti. Claudii et la promotion des élites péloponnésiennes.” Latomus 305: 183–95.

Bibliography261

Robertson, M. 1975. A History of Greek Art. Cambridge. Romano, D. 1990. “Philip of Macedon, Alexander the ­Great, and the Ancient Olympic Games.” In The World of Philip and Alexander: A Symposium on Greek Life and Times, edited by E. Danien, 63–79. Philadelphia. Romano, D., and M. Voyatzis. 2021. “Sanctuaries of Zeus: Mt. Lykaion and Olympia in the Early Iron Age.” Hesperia 90: 1–25. Romano, I. B. 1980. “Early Greek Cult Images.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Roux, G. 1984. “Trésors, t­ emples, tholos.” In ­Temples et sanctuaires, edited by G. Roux, 153–71. Lyon. —­—­—. 1992. “Structure and Style of the Rotunda of Arsinoe.” In Samothrace 7: The Rotunda of Arsinoe, edited by J. McCredie et al., 92–230. Prince­ton. Roy, J. 1997. “The Perioikoi of Elis.” In The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Po­liti­cal Community, edited by M. Hansen, 282–320. Copenhagen. —­—­—. 2013. “Olympia, Identity, and Integration: Elis, Eleia, and Hellas.” In Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, edited by P. Funke and M. Haake, 107– 21. Stuttgart. Rumscheid, F. 1999. “Vom Wachsen antiker Säulenwälder.” JdI 114: 19–63. Rupp, D. 1976. “The Altars of Zeus and Hera on Mt. Arachnaion in the Argeia, Greece.” JFA 3: 261–68. Rups, M. 1986. “Thesauros: A Study of the Trea­sury Building as Found in Greek Sanctuaries.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University. Säflund, M.-­L. 1970. The East Pediment of the ­Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Göteborg. Salmon, J. B. 1984. Wealthy Corinth. Oxford. Samuel, A. E. 1993. “The Ptolemies and the Ideology of Kingship.” In Hellenistic History & Culture, edited by P. Green, 168–92. Berkeley. Sapirstein, P. 2016. “The Columns of the Heraion at Olympia: Dörpfeld and Early Doric Architecture.” AJA 120: 565–601. Schachter, A. 2000. “The Seer Tisamenos and the Klytiadai.” CQ 50: 292–95. Schauer, C. 2002. “Ἐργαστήριο κεραμικής του 5ου μ.Χ. αἰώνα στὴν Ὀλυμπία.” In Early Christian Messene and Olympia: Urban and Agrarian Area in the Western Peloponnese, edited by P. Themelis and V. Konti, 208–18. Athens. —­—­—. 2010. “Early Byzantine Pottery Workshops in Olympia.” RCRFActa 41: 29–35. —­—­—. 2018. “Late Roman and Early Byzantine Pottery from Olympia.” Πελοποννησιακά 31: 165–88. Schilbach, J. 1982. “Die Silen-­Mänaden-­Gruppe aus Olympia: Ein neuer Rekonstruktionsversuch.” AM 97: 25–34. —­—­—. 1992. “Olympia: Die Entwicklungsphasen des Stadions.” In Πρακτικά Συμποσίου Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, edited by W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, 33–37. Athens. —­—­—. 1999a. “Abfolge und Datierung der Schichten unter dem Südteil der Echohalle.” OlBer 11: 33–54. —­—­—. 1999b. “Die Datierung der Schichten im Südostgebiet.” OlBer 11: 70–151. —­—­—. 1999c. “Massbecher aus Olympia.” OlBer 11: 323–56. —­—­—. 1999d. “Die Tongefässe aus den Brunnen 98–129 im Südostgebiet.” OlBer 11: 285–322. —­—­—. 2012. “Neue Möglichkeiten und Probleme bei der Erforschung des Stadions von Olympia.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 282–83. Munich. Schleif, H. 1944. “Die Badeanlage am Kladeos: Baubeschreibung.” OlBer 4: 32–69. Schmidt-­Dounas, B. 2000. Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heilingtümer II.2: Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft. Berlin.

262 Bibliography

Schollmeyer, P. 2001. Antike Gespanndenkmäler. Hamburg. Schultz, P. 2007. “Leochares’ Argead Portraits in the Philippeion.” In Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, edited by P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff, 205–33. Cambridge. —­—­—. 2009. “Divine Images and Royal Ideology in the Philippeion at Olympia.” In Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual and Iconography, edited by J. T. Jensen et al., 125–93. Aarhus. Schumacher, L. 1999. “Eine neue Inschrift für den Sophisten Herodes Atticus.” OlBer 11: 421–37. Schwabacher, W. 1962. “Olympischer Blitzschwinger.” AntK 5: 9–17. Scott, M. 2010. Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Cambridge. Seidl, U. 1999. “Orientalische Bleche in Olympia.” ZA 89: 269–82. —­—­—. 2017. “Griechische Bronzeschmiede der frühen Archaik im Umgang mit orientalischer Kunst am Beispiel dreier Sphyrelata aus Olympia.” In Figur und Raum in der frühgriechischen Flächenkunst, edited by W. Raeck and H. Philipp, 27–38. Wiesbaden. Seiler, F. 1986. Die griechische Tholos. Mainz. Servais, J. 1965. “Le ‘Colosse’ des Cypsélides.” AC 34: 144–74. Settis, S. 1985. “Policleto, il Diadumeno e Pythokles.” In Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani, edited by S. Bondì et al., 489–97. Pisa. Shapiro, H. A. 1994. Myth into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece. New York. Siebler, M. 2004. Olympia: Ort der Spiele, Ort der Götter. Stuttgart. Siedentopf, H. 1968. Das hellenistische Reiterdenkmal. Waldsassen. Siewert, P. 1981. “Eine Bronze-­Urkunde mit elischen Urteilen über Böoter, Thessaler, Athen und Thespiai.” OlBer 10: 228–48. —­—­—. 1992. “The Olympic Rules.” In Πρακτικά Συμποσίου Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων, edited by W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, 113–17. Athens. —­—­—. 1996. “Votivbarren und das Ende der Waffen-­und Geräteweihungen in Olympia.” AM 111: 141–48. —­—­—. 2001. “Zwei Rechtsaufzeichnungen der Stadt Elis.” In Forschungen in der Peloponnes, edited by V. Mitsopoulos-­Leon, 245–52. Athens. —­—­—. 2002. “Die wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Bronze-­Urkunden aus Olympia.” Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 359–70. Mainz. —­—­—. 2013. “Archaische Bronzeplatte eines unteritalischen Proxenos der Eleer.” Tyche 28: 147–61. —­—­—. 2017. “Hocharchaische Opfervorschrift für das Kronos-­Fest in Olympia (BrU 7).” Tyche 32: 189–223. Siewert, P., and H. Taeuber, eds. 2013. Neue Inschriften von Olympia: Die ab 1896 veröffentlichten Texte. Vienna. Siewert, P., and J. Taita. 2014. “Funktionäre Olympias auf einem hocharchaischen Bronzeblech (BrU 6).” Tyche 29: 183–91. Simon, E. 1968. “Zu den Giebeln des Zeustempels von Olympia.” AM 83: 147–66. —­—­—. 1978. “Zeus III.” RE supp. 15, 1411–41. Munich. —­—­—. 2006. “Olympia und das äolische Thessalien.” In TEKMERIA: Archäologische Zeugnisse in ihrer kulturhistorischen und politischen Dimension, Beiträge für Werner Gauer, edited by N. Kreutz and B. Schweizer, 323–30. Münster.

Bibliography263

—­—­—. 2007. “Frühe Apollonbilder und das Prob­lem früher Zeusbilder.” In Die Welt der Götterbilder, edited by B. Groneberg and H. Spieckermann, 169–82. Berlin. Sinn, U. 1981. “Das Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis bei Kombothekra.” AM 96: 25–71. —­—­—. 1984. “Έκτυπον: Der sog. Hera-­Kopf aus Olympia.” AM 99: 77–87. —­—­—. 1991a. “Olympia: Die Stellung der Wettkämpfe im Kult des Zeus Olympios.” Nikephoros 4: 31–54. —­—­—. 1991b. “ ‘Ο Νέρωνας’ και ‘οι Ἔρουλοι’: δύο μοιραία γεγονότα στην ιστορία της Ολυμπίας? ” In Achaia und Elis in der Antike, edited by A. Rizakis, 365–70. Athens. —­—­—. 1994a. “Apollon und die Kentauromachie im Westgiebel des Zeustempels in Olympia: Die Wettkampfstätte als Forum der griechischen Diplomatie nach den Perserkriegen.” AA 585–602. —­—­—. 1994b. “Die Entwicklung des Zeuskultes von Olympia bei Strabo (VIII 3, 30 p. 353 f.).” In Strabone e la Grecia, edited by A. M. Biraschi, 145–66. Naples. —­—­—. 1997. “Bericht über die Forschungsprojekt ‘Olympia während der römischen Kaiserzeit und in der Spätantike’ VI. Die Arbeiten im Jahr 1996.” Nikephoros 10: 215–16. —­—­—. 1999. “Olympia: Pilgrims, Athletes, and Christians: The Development of the Site in Late Antiquity.” In Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, edited by R. Docter and E. Moormann, 377–80. Amsterdam. —­—­—. 2000. Olympia. Prince­ton. —­—­—. 2001. “Die Stellung des Hera-­Tempels im Kultbetrieb von Olympia.” In Archaische griechische Tempel und Altägypten, edited by M. Bietak, 63–70. Vienna. —­—­—. 2002. “Olympias Spätgeschichte im Spiegel des Demeterkults.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 371–76. Mainz. —­—­—. 2004a. Das antike Olympia: Götter, Spiel und Kunst. Munich. —­—­—. 2004b. “Poseidon in Olympia.” Nikephoros 17: 45–52. —­—­—. 2005. “Olympias ‘Neue Kleider’: Auf der Suche nach dem Kultbild des Zeusheiligtums.” In Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger 2, edited by B. Bradt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter, 361–65. Vienna. —­—­—. 2012. “Olympia und die Spiele in römischer Zeit.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 105–9. Munich Sinn, U., G. Ladstätter, A. Martin, and T. Völling. 1994. “Bericht über das Forschungsprojekt ‘Olympia während der römischen Kaiserzeit und in der Spätantike’ III. Die Arbeiten im Jahr 1994.” Nikephoros 7: 229–50. Sinn, U., C. Leypold, and C. Schauer. 2003. “Olympia: Eine Spitzenstellung nicht nur im Sport.” AntW 34: 617–23. Slater, W. 1989. “Pelops at Olympia.” GRBS 30: 485–501. Snodgrass, A. 1986. “Interaction by Design: The Greek City State.” In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-­Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. Cherry, 47–58. Cambridge. —­—­—. 2001. “Pausanias and the Chest of Kypselos.” In Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, edited by S. Alcock, J. Cherry, and J. Elsner, 127–41. Sösemann, B. 2002. “Olympia als publizistisches National-­Denkmal.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 49–84. Mainz. Sourvinou-­Inwood, C. 1991. ‘Reading’ Greek Culture. Oxford. Spawforth, A. J. S. 2007. “ ‘Kapetōleia Olympia’: Roman Emperors and Greek Agōnes.” In Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals, edited by S. Hornblower and C. Morgan, 377–90. Oxford.

264 Bibliography

—­—­—. 2011. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. Cambridge. Splitter, R. 2000. Die ‘Kypseloslade’ in Olympia. Mainz. Stewart, A. 1983. “Pindaric Dike and the ­Temple of Zeus at Olympia.” ClAnt 2: 133–44. —­—­—. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. New Haven. —­—­—. 1993. ­Faces of Power. Berkeley. —­—­—. 1997. Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. —­—­—. 2011. “(Yet Another) Note on the Olympia Hermes and Dionysos.” In Sailing to Classical Greece, edited by O. Palagia and H. R. Goette, 51–53. Oxford. Stone, S. 1985. “The Imperial Sculptural Group in the Metroon at Olympia.” AM 100: 377–91. Strøm, I. 2000. “A Fragment of an Early Etruscan Bronze Throne in Olympia.” Proceedings of the Danish Institute in Athens 3: 67–95. —­—­—. 2009. “The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Heraion and Its External Relations (8th– 6th ­century B.C.): Conclusions.” Proceedings of the Danish Institute in Athens 6: 73–159. Stroszeck, J. 2004. “Greek Trophy Monuments.” Myth and Symbol 2: Symbolic Phenomena in Ancient Greek Culture, edited by S. des Bouvrie, 303–29. Bergen. Stuart, M. 1939. “How ­Were Imperial Portraits Distributed throughout the Roman Empire?” AJA 43: 601–17. Taeuber, H. 1997. “Ein Inschriftenfragment der Pulydamas-­Basis von Olympia.” Nikephoros 10: 235–43. Taita, J. 2004–5. “Proxenoi ‘santuariali’ all’oracolo di Zeus ad Olimpia: Profilo giuridico e funzioni.” Minima Epigraphica et Papyrologica 9–10: 86–114. —­—­—. 2007. Olimpia e il suo vicinato in epoca arcaica. Milan. —­—­—. 2009. “Fattori geografici e sviluppi cultuali: il caso di Olimpia.” In Die Landschaft und die Religion, edited by E. Olshausen and V. Sauer, 375–88. Stuttgart. —­—­—. 2013. “Olympias Verkehrsverbindungen zum Meer: Landungsplätze bei Pheia und am Alpheios.” OlBer 13: 342–93. —­—­—. 2014. “Quando Zeus deve far quadrare il bilancio: osservazioni sul tesoro del santuario di Olimpia.” In Sport und Recht in der Antike, edited by K. Harter-­Uibopuu and T. Kruse, 107–45. Vienna. —­—­—. 2015. “The ­Great Hecatomb to Zeus Olympios: Some Observations on IvO No. 14.” In New Approaches to the T ­ emple of Zeus at Olympia, edited by A. Patay-­Horváth, 112–39. Cambridge. Taschner, M. 2001. “Aphroditekopf aus Olympia.” In In den Gärten der Aphrodite, edited by K. Stemmer, 179–80. Berlin. Tersini, N. 1987. “Unifying Themes in the Sculpture of the ­Temple of Zeus at Olympia.” ClAnt 6: 139–59. Themelis, P. 1994. “Damophon of Messene: New Evidence.” In Archaeology in the Peloponnese: New Excavations and Research, edited by K. Sheedy, 1–37. Oxford. —­—­—. 1996. “Damophon.” In Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture, edited by O. Palagia and J. J. Pollitt, 154–85. Cambridge. —­—­—. 2004. “Cults on Mount Ithome.” Kernos 17: 143–54. Thompson, D. 2005. “Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies.” In The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, edited by K. Gutzwiller, 269–83. Oxford. Tobin, J. 1997. Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens: Patronage and Conflict ­under the Antonines. Amsterdam. Todisco, L. 2004. “Pausania, V, 25, 7 e la base I 1041 del Museo di Olimpia.” Ostraka 13: 95–99.

Bibliography265

Townsend, R. 2003. “The Philippeion and Fourth-­Century Athenian Architecture.” In The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C., edited by O. Palagia and S. Tracy, 93–101. Oxford. Treu, G. 1897. Olympia: Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung III: Die Bildwerke von Olympia in Stein und Thon, edited by E. Curtius and F. Adler. Berlin. Τριάντη, Ι. 1986. “Ο γλυπτός διάκοσμος του ναού στο Μάζι της Ηλείας.” In Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik 2, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 155–68. Athens. Trianti, I. 2002. “Neue technische Beobachtungen an den Skulpturen des Zeustempels von Olympia.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 281–300. Mainz. —­—­—. 2012. “Die Skulpturenschmuck am Zeus-­Tempel in Olympia.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 127–35. Munich. Trimble, J. 2011. ­Women and Visual Replication in Roman Imperial Art and Culture. Cambridge. Trojani, M. 1974–75. “Senofonte ed il θέατρον di Olimpia.” Atti e memorie dell’accademia patavina di scienze, lettere ed arti 87: 3: 5–15. Troncoso, A. 2013. “Olympie et la publication des traits internationaux.” In War-­Peace and Panhellenic Games, edited by N. Birgalias et al., 209–31. Athens. Trümper-­Ritter, M. Forthcoming. “Sanitation in Greek Sanctuaries.” In Logistics in Greek Sanctuaries, edited by J. Barringer, G. Ekroth, and D. Scahill. Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien. Tübingen. Tulunay, E. 1998. “Pelops statt Apollon? Ein neuer Deutungsvorschlag für die mittlere Figur im Westgiebel des Zeustempels in Olympia.” IstMitt 48: 453–60. Tzachou-­Alexandri, O., ed. 1989. Mind and Body: Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece. Athens. Tzifopoulos, Y. 1993. “Mummius’ Dedications at Olympia.” GRBS 34: 93–100. Valavanis, P. 2017. “Topographical Indications for the Site of the Hippodrome of Delphi: A Preliminary Pre­sen­ta­tion.” BCH 141: 623–44. Van de Löcht, H. 2013. “Zum Buleuterion von Olympia.” OlBer 13: 228–77. Van Wees, H. 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. London. Vegas Sansalvador, A. 1992. “Χαμύνη, ein Beiname der Demeter in Olympia.” Glotta 70: 166–80. Veit, C. 2013. “Hellenistic Kingship in Sicily: Patronage and Politics ­under Agathokles and Hieron II.” In Sicily: Art and Invention between Greece and Rome, edited by C. Lyons et al., 27–36. Los Angeles. Vlizos, S. 2015. “Das Vorbild des Zeus aus Olympia.” In Römische Götterbilder der mittleren und späten Kaiserzeit, edited by D. Boschung and A. Schäfer, 41–69. Paderborn. Vojatzi, M. 1982. Frühe Argonautenbilder. Würzburg. Volkert, K. 1932. Das Akroter in der Antiken besonders der griechischen Baukunst: I. Teil: Archaische Zeit. Düren. Völling, T. 1996a. “ ‘Neuer Most aus alten Löwenkopfen’: Ein frühbyzantinisches Gemach der alten Grabung in Olympia.” AM 111: 391–410. —­—­—. 1996b. “ ‘Der Vogel auf dem Kreuz’: Ein frühchristliches Symbol aus Olympia.” AA 145–54. —­—­—. 2002. “Early Byzantine Agricultural Implements from Olympia.” In Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία: αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στη Δυτική Πελοπόννησο, edited by P. Themelis and V. Konti, 195–207. Athens. —­—­—. 2019. “Die spätantike Spolienmauer in Olympia.” OF 34 119–28.

266 Bibliography

Vom Bruch, R. 2002. “Internationale Forschung, Staatsinteresse und Parteipolitik.” In Olympia, 1875–2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis, 9–17. Mainz. Von Massow, W. 1916. “Die Kypseloslade.” AM 41: 1–117. Wachter, R. 2001. Non-­Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wacker, C. 1996. Das Gymnasion in Olympia: Geschichte und Funktion. Würzburg. —­—­—. 2012. “Das Programm der antiken Olympische Spiele.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by W.-­D. Heilmeyer et al., 269–73. Munich. Walter-­Karydi, E. 1987. Alt-­Ägina II 2: Die äginetische Bildhauerschule. Werke und schriftliche Quellen. Mainz. Weber, H. 1944. “Eisengerät.” OF 1 166–71. Berlin. Weiler, I. 2004. “Theodosius I. und die Olympische Spiele.” Nikephoros 17: 53–75. Wernicke, K. 1894. “Olympische Beiträge.” JdI 9: 88–114. Westervelt, H. 2009. “Herakles at Olympia: The Sculptural Program of the T ­ emple of Zeus.” In Structure, Image, Ornament: Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World, edited by P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff, 133–52. Oxford. Willemsen, F. 1959. Die Löwenkopf-­Wasserspeier vom Dach des Zeustempels, OF 4. Berlin. Winter, N. 1993. Greek Architectural Terracottas. Oxford. —­—­—. 1997. “Review of J. Heiden, Die Tondächer von Olympia.” AJA 101: 795–96. Wohlmayr, W. 2002. “Mummius in Olympia und Rom.” In Temenos: Festgabe für Florens Felten und Stefan Hiller, edited by B. Asamer et al., 141–47. Vienna. Yalouris, N. 1981. “Olympie et la Grand-­Grèce.” In Siris e l’influenza ionica in Occidente, edited by G. Carratelli, 9–23. Taranto. Zoumbaki, S. 1993. “Zu einer neuen Inschrift aus Olympia: Die Familie der Vettuleni von Elis.” ZPE 99: 227–32. —­—­—. 2001. Elis und Olympia in der Kaiserzeit: Das Leben einer Gesellschaft zwischen Stadt und Heiligtum auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Athens. —­—­—. 2007. “Tiberius und die Städte des griechischen Ostens.” In Neronia VII: Rome, l’Italie et la Grèce, hellénisme et philhellénisme au premier siècle ap. J-­C., edited by Y. Perrin, 158–69. Brussels. —­—­—. 2010. “Elean Relations with Rome and the Achaean Koinon and the Role of Olympia.” In Roman Peloponnese III: Society, Economy, and Culture ­under the Roman Empire: Continuity and Innovation, edited by A. Rizakis and C. Lepenioti, 111–27. Athens.

Bibliography267

INDE X LOCORUM

Aelian Varia Historia 4.9: 58 Andokides 4.32: 151 Apollodoros Epitome 5.10: 118 Athenaeus 14.630d: 61 14.631b: 61 De­mos­the­nes 12.21: 137 Dio Chrysostom 11.45: 98 12.50–52: 205 31.148: 206 37.42: 170–71 Diodorus Siculus 11.54.1: 14 14.109.2–3: 58 17.109.1: 44 Diogenes Laertius 8.63: 13 Herodotos 1.14: 99 5.22: 171 6.126.1–6.131.1: 120 7.154–56: 90, 95 7.170.4: 150 8.27.3: 23, 33 8.73.1–3: 113 9.33–36: 23 9.37.1: 23 9.81.1: 113 Homer Iliad 7.160–89: 109 Isokrates 5.143–45: 171

Livy

27.35.3–4: 205 45.28.5: 205 Lucian Timon 4: 157 Oxyrhynchus papyrus 222: 151 Pausanias 3.8.1: 197 4.31.6: 157 4.33.1–2: 143 5.5.6: 15 5.6.6: 145 5.6.7: 43, 61 5.7.6–10: 28, 29, 131, 132 5.8.3: 101 5.8.10: 33 5.9.3: 151 5.10.1: 34 5.10.2: 121 5.10.3: 120 5.10.4: 122, 148 5.10.5: 189 5.10.6–8: 35, 124, 127 5.11.1: 168 5.11.3: 148 5.12.4: 157 5.12.5–6: 132, 198, 228 5.12.7: 183 5.12.8: 33 5.13.1–3: 24, 43, 60, 132 5.13.4: 118 5.13.8–11: 24, 43, 59, 61, 67, 132 5.14.2: 43 5.14.6: 139 5.14.7: 71 5.14.10: 41

5.15.1–2: 35, 56 5.15.3: 34 5.15.4: 47 5.15.7: 202 5.15.8: 42 5.15.12: 56 5.16.1–7: 24, 26, 28, 69 5.16.8: 26 5.17.1–20.3: 72, 218 5.17.3: 200 5.17.4: 167 5.17.5–5.19.10: 98, 101 5.20.1: 218 5.20.6–7: 90 5.20.9–10: 42, 164, 167, 168, 211 5.21.2–18: 164, 165, 211 5.21.17: 162 5.22.2–4: 7, 37, 111 5.22.7: 93 5.23.1: 113 5.24.4: 148, 189 5.24.6: 150 5.24.8: 42, 189 5.24.9: 14, 189 5.25.2–4: 93 5.25.7: 42 5.25.8–10: 109, 206 5.26.3–5: 149, 150 5.27.9: 98 6.1.6: 197 6.2.4–5: 194 6.3.14–15: 137 6.4.1: 198–99 6.4.5: 199–200 6.5.1–9: 195 6.6.1: 151 6.6.4–6: 153

269

Pausanias (continued) 6.7.1–8: 154 6.7.10: 151 6.8.5: 198–99 6.9.2: 198 6.9.4–5: 94 6.10.6: 96 6.11.1: 175 6.12.1: 110, 154, 186 6.12.4: 183, 185 6.12.5: 182 6.13.1: 153 6.13.6: 198 6.14.5–9: 93, 194 6.15.6: 183, 185 6.15.7–8: 90, 175 6.16.3: 175 6.16.5: 176 6.16.9: 182 6.17.3: 182 6.17.5–6: 194 6.17.7–9: 194 6.18.7: 90 6.19: 77 6.19.1–2: 80 6.19.4–6: 83 6.19.7: 94 6.19.10: 89 6.19.13: 84 6.20.2: 40 6.20.4: 40 6.20.6: 40 6.20.7: 29, 37 6.20.9: 43, 61, 226 6.20.10: 43 6.20.19–6.21.1: 7, 26–27, 158 6.21.2: 58, 226 6.22.1, 83

270

Index Locorum

6.22.8: 14 6.22.10: 93 6.23.3: 28–29 6.24.10: 25 8.10.5: 194 8.42.8–10: 110, 154 10.13.5: 99 Pherekydes FGrH 3F 37: 125 Philostratus Vita Apollonii 4.28: 93 Photios (citing Agaklytos in FGrH 411 F1): 69 Pindar Olympian Odes 1: 25, 119, 120, 125, 154, 187 47–51: 119 67–96: 29, 101, 126 Olympian Odes 2: 119 3–4: 139 79–83: 119 Olympian Odes 3 11–15: 132 13–34: 34 Olympian Odes 6: 79, 187 4–5: 23 6: 94 8: 140 64–72: 23, 67, 131 Olympian Odes 7: 155 Olympian Odes 8 1–7: 24 Olympian Odes 10 24–25: 131 28: 129, 132 45–47: 34, 52 55–59: 131, 139–40 Olympian Odes 13 77: 138

Plato Pliny

Phaedrus 236b: 98

Naturalis historia 34.19.55: 202 36.23: 162 Plutarch Aemilianus Paullus 28.2: 205 Alkibiades 12.1: 58 Aratos 18: 182 24: 182 36–44: 182 Lykourgos 15.1: 61 Moralia 399F: 99 Polybios 27.9: 182 30.10.6: 205 31–33: 194 Strabo 8.3.2: 14 8.3.30: 140 Suetonius Nero 23–24: 206 Theokritos 17.131–34: 179 Thucydides 1.121: 99 Xenophon Hellenika 3.2.21–31: 23, 156 4.7.2: 23 7.4.29–30: 34, 117, 158 7.4.31: 53, 116–17

GENER AL INDEX

With the exception of Pheidias, all sculptors’ names are listed ­under the entry “sculptors.” Abantis, 111 accommodation, 10, 43, 45, 46, 52, 56, 58–59, 159, 233, 234 Achaia (region of Greece), 82 Achaia (Roman province; see also equestrian monument), 31, 189, 209, 227 Achaian League, 172, 182, 189–92, 204, 227, 241–42 as patrons, 190–92 Achaian Monument, 109–10, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 155, 171, 206, 243 Achaians, 109, 110, 113, 117, 118, 119, 243 Achilles (see also Elis), 29, 111, 118, 119, 145 Aegospotami, ­battle of, 137 Aemilius Paullis, 205 Agamemnon, 109 Agis IV of Sparta, 194 Agon, personification of, 150 Agora, 47–48, 51, 90, 157, 163 agriculture, 12, 18, 21, 28, 237–38 Agrippina the Younger, 213, 214–17 Aigina, T ­ emple of Aphaia, 137 Aitolian League, 204 Ajax, 110 Alexander I of Macedonia, 137, 171 Alexander II, son of Pyrrhos and king of Epirus, 185–86 Alexander III (the G ­ reat) of Macedonia, 11, 167, 171, 174, 180–81, 197, 224, 241 decree recalling exiles, 45 Alipheira, 15 Alkibiades, 58

Alpheios, 93 Alpheios River, 14, 24, 34, 45, 93, 241 personification of, 128 alsos, 34 altar (see also Artemis; ash altar; Eileithyia; Heraion), 1, 20, 24, 43, 44, 59, 78, 102, 132, 234 of Aphrodite Ourania, 41 of Apollo, 202 of Artemis Agoraia, 47 of Demeter Chamyne, 40, 104, 226 of Gaia, 41 of Kairos, 202 of Pan, 42 of Meter, 164 of Themis, 41 of Zeus Agoraios, 47 of Zeus Areios, 139 of Zeus Herkeios, 71 of Zeus Keraunios, 71 Altis (see also black layer), 104, 105–7, 120, 139, 147, 151, 157, 161, 164, 171, 176, 179, 203, 242 bound­aries of, 10, 34–44, 52, 75, 89, 105, 116, 117, 158, 159, 161–63, 208, 210–11, 241 derivation of word, 34 graves in, 237 Roman changes, 206 sleeping in, 58 warfare in, 11, 116, 156 alytai, 44, 244 Amazons, 141 amber, 183, 228 Amphiaraos, 101

Amphitrite, 150 Amyntas, 167 animals (see also pasturage), 1, 161 care for, 45, 59 herds of, 122 images of, 21, 27, 87 sacrifice of, 24, 59–61, 71, 116, 117, 118 Antigonids, 172, 175 Antigonos I (Monophthalmos), 174–75 Antigonos II (Gonatas), 177 Antigonos III (Doson), 175–76, 182 Antiochos IV, 157 Antonia Kleodike, 219, 227 Antonines, 207–8 Antoninus Pius, 222–23, 228 Apollo (see also Delphi; Herakles; ­Temple of Zeus: pediments, west), 83, 101, 141 ancestor of Iamidai, 23 founder of Olympic oracle, 140 statue of, 83, 122, 123, 134, 201–2, 242 Apollonia, 36, 111 Apollonian Monument, 36, 37, 110–13, 116, 118, 119, 120, 137, 140, 145, 171, 224, 242 Aphrodite (see also altar), 42, 44, 150, 201 Ourania, sanctuary of, 40 aqueduct (see also ­water), 4, 46, 220 Aratos of Sikyon, 182 arbitration, 113, 143–45, 149, 189, 191, 242 Archelaos of Kappadokia, 228

271

Archias of Corinth, 94 Ares (see Oinomaos; Zeus: Areios) Arethusa, 93, 187, 242 Areus of Sparta, 181–82 monument for, 179, 181 Argos, 103, 172 Aristolaos, 182 Aristonikos, 182 Arkadia, 15, 40, 116, 149, 156, 201 Arkadian League, 156 armor, votive (see also tropaia), 5, 134, 146, 237 arm guards, 32 breastplates, 32 greaves, 21, 32–33, 83, 146 helmets, 5, 32, 82, 83, 187 shields, 18, 32, 75, 83, 91, 109, 189 Corinthian, 84 Mummius’ dedication of, 11, 189, 242, 244 Spartan, 147–48, 189, 244 Spartan dedication of, 122, 148 votive, 31–33, 75, 76, 83, 94, 98, 139, 146, 241 Arsinoe II, 177–81 Artemis, 141, 150 Alpheia, 93 Alpheios and, 93 altar of, 49–51, 64, 71, 89–90, 93, 146, 231–32, 241 Artemision god, 141–42 ash altar (see also black layer; oracle; Pausanias), 17–18, 38, 63, 68, 70–72, 104 access to, 61 Artemis altar and, 89 care for, 24, 44 chronology of, 67 dispersal of, 21–22, 89 Eretrian steer and, 118, 225, 243 foundation by Herakles, 67, 132 location, 18, 67, 68–69, 70–71, 170, 225, 241, 242 proximity to trea­suries, 82 sacrifice at, 59, 60, 71, 116 Asklepios, 150 astragalos, 202 Athena birth of, 140, 141 contest with Poseidon, 141 Gigantomachy, 84, 85–86 Herakles and, 128, 129 Promachos, 141

272

General Index

Athens, 14, 40, 103, 122, 144–45, 182, 183, 194, 215 Agora, 37, 117 Akropolis, 5, 37, 97 dedication of shields at Delphi, 144–45, 189 Parthenon, 137, 141 as patron, 32, 172, 183, 194 theater of Dionysos, 117 athletes (see also athletics; Olympic games; Olympic victors), 11, 12, 13, 29–30, 61, 117, 118–19, 134–35, 148, 157, 159, 234, 244 dining, 56, 57 facilities for, 157, 159, 163, 206, 238 heroic models for, 120, 133–34, 165, 197, 234, 243 lodging for, 58 nudity of, 43 oath of, 14 as patrons, 229 as viewers, 132 athletic guild (see baths: Southwest) athletics, 1, 101 and warfare, 4, 31–33, 72, 118, 134, 242, 243 Atreus, curse of ­house of, 125 Attalids, 172, 183 Attalos I, 45 Augeas (see Herakles: ­labors of) Augustus, 11, 183, 206, 208, 212–18, 227, 228 Bacchiades, 100 Bacchylides, 154 bases (see also reuse), 4, 21, 37, 104, 149, 153, 203, 244 circular, 109, 197–98 curved, 36, 109, 110, 111, 118, 167, 171, 224 on ‘Heraion’ steps, 60 number of, 9 reuse of, 60, 208–10 study of, 9, 172 baths, 11, 27, 46–47, 157, 203, 204, 206, 233 Demeter Chamyne sanctuary, 27 East, 234 graves in, 237 Greek, 46 Kladeos, 46, 58–59, 234 Kronos, 46, 57, 234 Leonidaion, 47, 234, 238 South, 234 Southwest, 7, 233–34

Bau I, 67 Bau VII, 17, 90 ­belt, 18, 21 Berenike I, 177 Berenike II, 179 bird, 12, 51, 87 Bitalemi, 28 Bithynia, 172 black layer, 21–22, 67–68, 70, 164 Boiotia, 144 bones, animal, 49–51, 52, 61, 67 booty (see also armor; tropaia; weapons), 22, 31, 111, 144–45, 146, 205 Cartha­ginian, 80 Corinthian, 84 dedicated by Corinth, 102 Mummius, 189, 241–42 Myanians (Lokrians), 83 western Greeks, 94 games founded with, 139–40 Persian, 32, 144–45 Spartan, 147–48 Tyrrhenian, 187 Boreadai, 101 Boule, of Olympia, 145 as patrons, 4, 172, 195, 227–28, 229–30 Bouleuterion, 48, 64, 105, 116, 192, 225 Altis boundary and, 43, 89, 241 Apollonian Monument and, 113, 145 damage to, 156 as display place, 145 Elean Boule and, 14 identification of, 35 location of Zeus Horkios statue, 14 phases of construction, 14, 89, 104, 210–11 South Hall and, 163 boxing, 30, 134, 242 victors in, 90, 153, 154, 155, 198–99 bridge (see Kladeos River) Brinkmann, V., 127, 136 buckle, 21 Building VII (see Bau VII) bull (see also Delphi; Eretria; Herakles: ­labors of), 60, 98, 220, 223–24, 225 Byzantion (see also trea­suries), 92, 97, 175

C. Servilius Vatia, 210 Caligula, 206 camping, 1, 46, 56, 58 Caracalla, 230 Carthage (see also trea­suries), 89 ­cattle, 18, 49, 51 cedar, 83, 98, 100 cemetery, Mycenaean, 42 Centauromachy, 25, 35, 122–24, 133–35, 242 Centaurs (see Centauromachy) Chaironeia, ­battle of, 167 Chandler, Richard, 241 chariot (see also quadriga monument), 18, 21, 96–97, 154, 176 race, 18, 94, 119, 206, 227 on Kypselos chest, 101–2 between Pelops and Oinomaos, 120, 124–27, 242 on ­Temple of Zeus, 25, 35, 124–27, 132–35, 148 victors in, 80, 95, 119, 177, 179, 186, 197, 227 char­i­ot­eer (see also Delphi), 18, 95, 96, 125, 127, 197 cheating, 125, 133, 164–65 Chremonidean decree, 181–82 War, 177 Chrestion, priest at Olympia, 194 Christians (see also Theodosius), 5, 12, 20, 30, 37, 208, 237 chryselephantine, 59, 72, 132, 168–70, 180, 218, 241 church, 237 citizenship decrees displayed at Olympia, 145 as an honor, 227, 229 Claudia Alkinoa, 219, 229 Claudius, as Jupiter, 213–18 Cn. Octavius, 172 coins, 5, 132, 141, 143 Elean, 70, 138, 149 Hadrianic, 208 of Hieron II, 186, 187 of Philip II, 170 western Greek, 82 column monuments (see also Areus; Nike of Paionios; Ptolemaic Monument), 89–90, 93, 97, 155, 176–77, 179, 181, 191 Constantinople, 11, 206 consul, Roman, 172, 193, 205



cooking (see also pottery: cooking), 45, 58, 71 Corcyra, 98, 111 ­Temple of Artemis, 74 Corfu (see Corcyra) Corinth (see also booty; trea­ suries), 103, 182 capture and destruction of, 189, 192 Kypselos Chest and, 101–2 ­mother city of Apollonia, 111 ­mother city of Syracuse, 82, 93, 187 as patrons, 172 Sikyon and, 99 cow, 25, 27, 61 craftsmen, 43, 98 crowns, olive (see Olympic victors) cult statue (see also Heraion; ­Temple of Zeus; Zeus: Pheidian), 59, 170, 213, 226, 228 Cumae, b ­ attle of, 187 Cyprus, 194–95 Damon of Patras, 192 deer, 18, 49 Deinomenes, 154 Deinomenids, 79 Delos, 176 Delphi, sanctuary of Apollo, 13, 187 Amphictyony, 122 Argive monuments, 171 bull, 98 char­i­ot­eer, 4 column monuments, 176 compared with Olympia, 20, 22, 33 Daochos Monument, 174, 197 dedication from Alexander I of Macedonia, 137 dedications from Kroisos of Lydia, 103 Gelon II and Nereis, monument of, 185–86 hippodrome, 43 oracle, 33 Polyzalos group, 4, 96 serpent column, 144 Siphnian trea­sury, 143 ­temple of Apollo, 84, 144–45, 189 shields on, 144–45, 189 trea­suries, 64 trea­sury of Kypselos, 99 tripod, 143 wells, 33

Demeter (see also altar; priestess), 26–28, 61, 219 sanctuary of Demeter Chamyne, 26–28, 40, 42, 43, 225–26, 241 discovery of, 7, 26–27 statues in, 226 Demetrios I (Poliorketes) of Macedonia, 175–76 Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), 4 Diadochoi, 172, 174, 176 dining (see also Prytaneion), 42, 45, 46, 52–57, 58, 59–62, 159, 234 pavilion (Roman), 57, 238–39 Dio Chrysostom, 98, 170, 205, 206 Diogenes, 194 Dionysos (see also Hermes; maenad; satyr), 27–28, 83, 89, 150, 165, 228 Elis and, 28–29, 201, 219 Dionysios of Halikarnassos, 228 Dionysios I of Syracuse, 58 Dioskouroi, 193 discus, 242 Diskobolos, 111 Dodona, 138 dog, 51, 194 Domitian, 234 Dorian, 67, 82, 103, 114, 131 drinking, 48, 49, 52, 53, 83 Drusus maior, 227 Drusus minor, 227 ea­gle, of Zeus, 49, 138, 140, 147–48 earthquakes, 11, 12, 33, 104, 135, 136, 156, 157, 212, 230, 234, 241 Echo Hall, 7, 75, 157, 161–63, 196, 201, 234 Altis boundary and, 43, 161 damage to, 243 monuments in front of, 172–73, 191, 192 Ptolemaic Monument and, 181 renovations to, 231 Eckstein, F., 114–15, 150 Egnatius, 192 Eileithyia, 20 sanctuary of, 20, 40–42, 43–44, 241 Eleia, 15, 192 Eleusis, 27 Elis (see also Chremonidean: decree; coins; Pelops; viewers; ­women), 13–14, 68, 134, 135, 191, 192, 207

General Index273

Elis (continued) Achaian League and, 172, 192, 227 Achilles cult and, 29 agora of, 25 Arkadia and, 40, 116, 149, 156, 201 Artemis cult in, 93 Boule, 14, 43, 145 Dionysos cult in, 28, 201, 219 honors from, 157, 206, 227, 235 laws of, 14 mea­sures from, 48 officials at Olympia, 48, 116, 170, 206, 225, 229, 230 Olympia, and, 10, 13–17, 29, 63, 70, 104, 149, 156, 204, 230, 242 Olympic victors from, 229 as patron, 59, 70, 149, 156, 201, 206, 228–30 of honorific monuments, 4, 172, 174, 182, 192, 206, 210, 219, 223, 227, 228, 235 of Metroon, 11, 212 of Nymphaion statues, 222 of ­Temple of Zeus, 121 Peloponnesian League and, 138 personification of, 175–76 Pisa and, 28–29, 121, 125, 140 priestesses from, 226 Prytaneion of the, 42 Sparta, war with, 156 symmachia of, 14 synoikism, 14, 70, 104, 120, 125 theater, 44 Empedokles, 13 Endymion, 83 Eperastos, 194 Ephesos, Artemision, 103 Epidamnos (see also trea­suries), 96 visitors from, 58 epinicians (see victory odes) equestrian monument (see also Areus; quadriga monument), 9, 97, 154, 174, 177, 179, 182, 208, 209, 242 for Achaian military leaders, 209–10, 225, 243 for Alexander the ­Great, 174 for Antoninus Pius, 228 for Archelaos of Kappadokia, 228 for Damon of Patras, 191–92

274

General Index

for Egnatius, 192 for Germanicus, 227 for Kallikrates of Leontion, 191 for Mummius, 192 for Philip II, 174 for Q. Marcius Philippus, 191 for Seleukos, 174 for Tiberius, 227 for Tiberius Claudius Nero, 228 Eretria bull of, 105, 106, 114, 115–16, 118, 155, 225, 227, 243 ­Temple of Apollo, 137 Eriphyle, 101 Erythrai, 172 Etruria, 87 Eumelos of Corinth, 101 Eumolpos (see Gorgias) Eurydike, 167 Eurystheus of Argos, 128 Evagoras of Messene, 93 ­family statue groups (see also Delphi: Daochos Monument; Metroon; Nymphaion), 155, 161, 174, 204, 236 Julio Claudian, 227 Philippeion, 11, 171, 174, 180, 224, 241 Ptolemaic Monument, 180 Syracuse, of, 174, 187 Faustina the Younger, 222 festivals (see also Heraia; panegyris; Thesmophoria), 28, 44, 45, 52, 61 fibulae, 21, 82, 94 figurines, 18–20, 21, 27, 41, 89, 96–97, 140, 143, 241 Flavia Domitilla the Younger, 213, 216–17 flooding, 12, 21, 22, 33, 34, 68, 230, 241 food, 10, 45, 48, 49–51, 52, 53, 145 footrace, 25, 75, 171, 242 Foundation A, 99, 100 Frangonisi, 30 Gaia (see also altar), 20–21, 44 oracle of, 20, 41 Ganymede, 86–87, 150 gates, 35, 37, 210 southeast (Augustan), 35, 37, 43, 208–9, 210, 211, 225, 243 Ge (see Gaia) Gela (see also Gelon I; trea­suries), 28, 95–96, 172

Gelon I of Gela and Syracuse (see also victory monuments, athletic), 95–96 dedication of Zeus statue and cuirasses, 94 victory over Carthage, 80 Gelon II, and Nereis monument, 185–86 Germanicus, 227 Gigantomachy, 84, 85, 102, 138, 141, 180, 242 glass, 239 Glaukon of Athens, 182 Glaukos, son of Theotimos, 195 goat, 49, 51 gold and gilt, 83, 98, 102, 104, 122, 137, 168, 170, 177, 180, 200, 242 Gorgias, 194 Gorgons, 102 graves (see also Altis; baths; Oinomaos; Pelopion), 68, 237 griffin, 27, 100 guards (see alytai) guest­house (see also accommodation), 58–59, 234 Gymnasion, 42, 43, 57, 58, 157, 203, 238 Gymnopaidai, Spartan, 61 gynaikes (see ­women) Hades, 27 Hadrian, 207–8, 222–23, 228 Hagesias of Syracuse, 94 hall, west of Kladeos River, 158 hare, 51 Harpies, 101 hecatomb, 24, 59, 71 Hektor, 109 Hellanodikai as patrons, 172, 195 seating in Stadion, 43, 104, 232 Hellas, personification of, 175–76 Hellenic League, 176 Hennemeyer, A., 132, 135, 137 Hera (see also Heraia; Heraion; priestess; Zeus), 25–26, 73 on coins, 70 cult of, 25, 37, 63, 69–70, 71, 135, 241 Herakles and, 128 Heraia, 24–26, 28, 61, 75, 219, 242 Heraion, 7, 25, 38, 63, 67, 68–75, 104, 170, 171, 218 altar of, 70–71, 107 cult statues, 72–73, 218 cuttings on columns, 25, 74–75

identification of its deity, 37, 68, 69–70, 74 objects in, 37, 91, 98–99, 102, 167, 200–201, 218–20, 223, 227, 229, 236, 244 patron of, 69 proximity to trea­suries, 82 Ptolemaic Monument and, 179–80 Roman, 75, 98, 167, 218–20, 225 sculpture on, 73–74 tethering rings at/near, 59–60 Herakleia, 102 Herakles (see also ­Temple of Zeus: metopes), 43, 101 ancestor of Macedonians, 171, 181 Ptolemies, 180 Apollo and, 143 apotheosis of, 129 cult of, 234, 241 Curetes and, 28 delimiting the Altis, 52 founder of ash altar, 67, 132 Olympic games, 29, 131–32, 139–40 Pelopion, 67, 132, 171 Gigantomachy and, 84 ­labors of, 128–32, 242 Amazon, 93, 128, 141 Atlas, and apples of Hesperides, 128–29 Augean stables, 129, 132 Cretan bull, 128 Diomedes’ ­horses, 128 Erymanthian boar, 128 Geryon, 128 Hydra, 101, 128 Kerberos, 129 Keryneian hind, 128 Nemean lion, 128, 197 Stymphalian birds, 128 as model for athletes, 197 olive trees and, 34, 132 son of Zeus, 101, 132, 180 herald, 227, 235 Hermes (see also psychostasia) Dionysos and, 36–37, 200–201, 218, 219 heroa, 171 Herodes Atticus (see also Nymphaion), 225–26 priest of Dionysos, 228 Herodotos, 23, 113



heroes, 13, 91, 119, 120, 151, 155, 156, 171, 186, 242, 243 Achaian, 109–10, 111, 118, 120, 243 Trojan, 111, 118, 171 Hesiod, 128, 150 Hestia, 42, 53, 116, 150 hestiatoria, 61 Hieron I of Syracuse, 94, 110, 119, 154, 172, 179, 186, 187 Hieron II of Syracuse (see also coins), 172, 182, 183–87 Himera, 111 Himmelmann, N., 141–43 Hippias of Elis, 29 Hippodameia, ­daughter of Oinomaos (see also chariot: race; ­Temple of Zeus: pediments, east; ­women: sixteen Elean), 37, 242 Heraia and, 25, 28 as peacemaker, 29 and Pelops, 25, 29, 101 Hippodameion, 7, 37 Hippodrome, 37, 38, 42, 43, 89–90, 157 Hippolyte, 93 Hoepfner, W., 179–80 Hölscher, T., 83, 89, 91–92, 99, 218, 220 Homer, 128, 150, 128, 150 reference to, 18, 118–19, 120 hoplitodromos, 33, 91–92, 139, 242 horse race, 119, 154 houses, late antique, 239 Hyberboreans, land of, 34, 132 Hygieia, 150 Iamidai, 23, 94, 194, 199–200 Iason, 27, 101 Idomeneos, 109 ikria, 117 Illyria, 17, 111 inscriptions, 4, 6, 9, 21, 44, 63, 143–45, 156, 244 dedicatory language of, 145–46, 159–61 Pausanias and, 37 renewal of, 155, 229 Isokrates of Athens, 171 Isthmia, 32 Ithome, 143 ivory, 83, 98, 100, 157, 183 Jason (see Iason) javelin, 242

jewelry, 21, 82 Julio Claudians, 206, 227 Kairos, 202 Kallias of Athens, 151 Kallikrates of Leontion, leader of Achaian League, 191 Kallikrates of Samos (naurach), 177, 179, 180 Kamarina, 114, 115 Karneades, 194 Kerberos (see also Herakles: ­labors of), 27 kiln, 51 kitchen, 55 Kladeos River, 11, 34, 45–46, 68, 241 bridge over, 14 diversion of, 22, 129, 230, 242 personification of, 128 structures west of, 22, 158 Kleisthenes of Sikyon, ­father of Agariste, 120 Kleitomachos of Thebes, 182 Kleomenes of Sparta, 182 Klytiadai, 23, 194 knives, 52 Kore, 27, 226 Kritolaos of Lycia, 194 Kroisos of Lydia, 22, 103 Kronos, 29 Kronos Hill, 20, 40, 41–44, 63 Altis border and, 161 retaining wall of, 77 krypte (see Stadion) Kybele, 165 Kypselids, dedications of, 98, 100, 102, 172 Kypselos, 98–99, 100, 102 chest of, 98–101, 129, 218 dedications at Delphi, 99 Kyrene (see also trea­suries), 87, 182–83 Kyrieleis, H., 21, 74, 89, 136 L. Vettulenus Laetus, 229 L. Vetulenus Florus, 219, 229 Lapiths (see Centauromachy; ­Temple of Zeus: pediments, west) latrines, 58–59 laws, 14, 145, 151 Leonidaion, 42, 46, 56–58, 157, 201 damage to, 234 identification of, 35, 37 late antique use, 238–39 Roman renovation of, 233–34

General Index275

Leonides of Naxos, 56 Leontini, 94 Lepreon, 15 Letrinoi, 14, 93 Leuktra, ­battle of, 156 Leypold, C., 9, 110, 161, 172–73 Libon of Elis, 120 Libya, 58 lightning bolt (see thunderbolt) lime, 239 Lokri, 83 Lucius Verus, 222–23 Lysander, Spartan general, 137 maenad, 85, 87, 165 mageiros, 44 Magna Graecia (see western Greece) Makistos, 15 Mallwitz, A., 53, 72, 89, 100, 136, 176, 191 manteis (see seers) Marathon, ­battle of, 32 Marcus Agrippa, 230 Marcus Aurelius, 222–23 Marcus Vettulenus Laetus, 229 marriage, 25–26, 28, 67, 101, 134, 135, 243 Mazi (see Makistos) mea­sures, 48, 49, 146 Medea, 101 Medes (see Persians) Medusa, 74, 122 Megara (see also trea­suries), 82, 103 Melampos, 194 Memnon, 111, 119, 145 merchants, 1, 49, 51, 58 Messene, as patron (see also Nike of Paionios), 93 Meter (see also Metroon), 165, 211–12 Metroon, 4, 11, 38, 157, 159, 164–65, 201, 219 Roman phase, 11, 206, 211–18, 225, 236, 243 Mikythos, dedications of, 149–50, 206 Miletos, 192 Miltiades, son of Kimon, 83 mollusk, 51 monuments (see also ­family statue groups; victory monuments; viewers), 1, 10, 63 interaction of, 5, 151, 155, 189 rebuilding of, 11 removal of, 11

276

General Index

renovation of, 11, 159, 165, 206, 212, 230–34 siting (see also paths), 1, 5, 7, 9, 102, 110, 116–20, 187, 189, 209, 218, 225, 241, 242, 244 of ash altar, 70–72 control of, 13 in front of Echo Hall, 172–73 of Nymphaion, 223–25 of and near Philippeion, 11, 171, 176 of Ptolemaic Monument, 177, 179–81 near ­Temple of Zeus, 106–7, 151, 154, 172–73, 187, 227, 242–43 on and near the walls, 161, 191 Zanes, 165 mosaics, 159, 234 Mt. Arachnaion (Argolid), 72 Mt. Lykaion, 140 Moustaka, A., 37, 69–71, 72, 97 Mummius (see also armor; shields), 170–71, 172, 188–93, 205, 241–42 Myron of Sikyon, 80, 172 Naupaktos (see Nike of Paionios) Near East, 22, 63 Nemesis/Tyche, 232 Nereis, 185–85 Nero, 11, 150, 206–7, 229 Achaian Monument and, 109, 206 competitor in Olympic Games, 206 ‘House of,’ 51, 56, 207, 234 statue of, 227 Nestor, 109–10, 117, 243 Nikanor, 45 Nike, 74 akroteria, 85–86, 87, 148, 170 Pheidian Zeus, held by, 140, 141, 148, 168 Nike of Paionios, 147–48, 179, 181, 189, 241 Nikomedes of Bithynia, 183 Niobids, 141 Numisia Teisis, 219, 229 nymph (see Arethusa; maenad) Nymphaion, 4, 11, 46, 220–25, 236, 237, 243, 244

Odysseus, 109, 206 Oinomaos of Pisa (see also chariot: race; T ­ emple of Zeus: pediments, east), 101, 121 grave of, 22 pillar of, 90 son of Ares, 125 stables of, 22 olive trees, 34, 132 Olympia (see also arbitration; Elis) administration of, 13–14, 63, 230 Archaeological Museum of, 17, 40, 41, 42, 122 as archive, 14 excavation of, 4, 6, 9, 34–35 finances of, 13–14, 59 logistics of, 10, 44–62, 159 military associations of, 21, 25, 32, 72, 101, 103, 138–40 revenues, 122 Southeast area, 5, 22, 35, 45, 49, 52, 90 study of, 4–9 as trea­sury, 14 Olympias, ­mother of Alexander the ­Great, 167 Olympias, ­mother of Pyrrhos II of Epirus, 185–86 Olympic festival (see panegyris) Olympic games (see also athletics; Herakles; Pelops; ­women), 1, 11, 13, 120, 242 delay of, 206 duration of, 10, 24, 45, 46, 104 foundation of, 25, 29, 101, 139 longevity of, 11–12, 30–31, 206, 208, 236, 237, 239 participants in, 31, 119, 159 prestige of, 1, 5, 140, 157, 159, 203–4, 205, 236 reor­ga­ni­za­tion of, 206 rules of, 145 seating for, 83, 104, 116–17 spectators of, 44, 45–46, 62 Olympic victors (see also western Greece), 4, 13, 30, 31, 42, 56, 57, 82, 120, 148, 151, 159, 172, 182 crowns for, 25, 34, 117, 120, 132, 148, 218, 229, 242 as found­ers of colonies, 94 lists of, 29, 30, 82, 90, 145 warfare and, 30 oracle, of Zeus, 1, 22–24, 44, 67, 101 and colonization, 23 and warfare, 22, 23, 139, 140

Orpheus, 150 Osthues, W., 164, 165 paint, on sculpture and architecture, 73, 77, 127 painting vase, 101, 137, 140–41, 143 wall, 57, 200 Paionia, 172 Palaistra, 58, 95, 157 late antique, 237–38 Pan (see also altar), 165 Panathenaic amphorae, 141 way, 117 panegyris, 13, 24, 30, 46, 58, 59, 71, 83, 139, 194, 237 Panhellenism, 113 pankration, 30, 90, 151, 154, 182, 195, 197, 199, 236 Pantaleon, ruler of Pisa, 27 parthenoi, 25, 28, 61 pasturage, 10, 58, 59 paths, 58, 90, 244 into the Altis, 51, 105, 106, 109, 116, 161, 173, 208, 211, 225, 242 east-­west parallel to the Altis, 105, 106, 111, 113, 173, 175, 209, 210, 240, 243 north-­south west of the Altis, 56, 161, 173, 191, 210, 243 into the Stadion, 164, 165 Patras, 227 patrons, 1, 5, 151, 161, 203, 243, 244 Pausanias, 6–7, 9, 14, 20, 22, 24–28, 47, 58, 59, 149, 151, 207 on Achaian Monument, 109, 119 on Antigonid groups, 175–76 on Apollonian Monument, 111 on Arethusa, 93 on ash altar, 61, 67, 71 on Chest of Kypselos, 98, 99, 100–102 and early excavations, 34–36 on Echo Hall, 162 on Elean victory monument, 148–49 on Heraion, 68, 72, 98, 218 on Hermes and Dionysos, 200 on Hieron II, dedications, 183–85, 187 on honorific statues, 172, 194, 228



interpreting his account, 37–44 on Kyniska, 197 on Leonidaion, 56–57 on Metroon, 11, 164, 211–12 on Mikythos dedications, 150 on Mummius’ dedications, 189 on Pelopion, 60–61 on Philippeion, 11, 167–68 on Plataian Monument, 113 on Prytaneion, 56, 202 on Pulydamas of Skotussa, 195 reliability of, 36–37 on ­Temple of Zeus, 121, 122, 124, 126–28, 132, 136, 140 on trea­suries, 77–80, 83, 84, 89, 94 on victors’ statues, 90, 93, 94–95, 105, 137, 151, 153, 154–55, 197–200 on ­women at the games, 61 on Zanes, 165 Pelias, 101 Pelopion, 63, 67–68 ash altar and, 60, 67, 69, 71, 242 cult activity, 17–18, 21, 43, 60–61, 68 foundation of, 132 grave of Pelops, 68 identity of, 36, 60 proximity to Philippeion, 170, 171 sacrificial remains, 49, 61 Peloponnese, 17, 68, 82, 103, 117, 125, 129, 134, 191 Peloponnesian League (see Elis) Pelops of Elis (see also chariot: race; Pelopion; ­Temple of Zeus: pediments, east), 171, 125 ancestor of Achaians, 109, 117, 118, 119 bones of, 83, 118 cult of, 24, 43, 60, 63, 68, 71–72, 102, 118, 241 founder of Olympic games, 29, 126, 132 Hippodameia and, 25, 29 son of Tantalos, 109, 119 sword of, 83 Trojan War and, 118 warfare and, 118 Penelope, 120 pentathlon, 151 Perithoos (see ­Temple of Zeus: pediments, west)

Persephone, 150 Persians, 32, 113, 134, 144 Persian Wars (see also booty), 105, 113, 118, 242 Pheia, 14 Pheidias (see also Zeus: Pheidian) workshop of, 42, 58, 59, 132, 234, 237 Pherekydes, 125 Phigalia, 15 Philetairos, 183 Philip II (see also Philippeion), 170, 171, 174, 180, 201 Philip V, 175–76 Philippeion, 7, 11, 159, 164, 165–72, 174, 176, 211, 219, 224, 237, 241 Echo Hall and, 162 Ptolemaic Monument and, 180–81 ­Temple of Zeus and, 170, 241 Philistis, wife of Hieron II, 186 Philonides of Crete, 176 phi­los­o­phers, 161, 172, 194, 205 Phineus, 101 Phormis of Syracuse, 187 Phrixos, 91–92, 165 Phyrnos of Leontini, 89 Physkoa, 28 Piera, 26 pigs, 26, 27, 49, 51 Pindar, 94, 119, 120, 125, 129, 139–40, 154, 187 Pisa (see also Oinomaos), 27, 28, 29, 83, 121, 125, 140, 156 Plataia ­battle of, 113, 118, 144 Monument of, 113, 116, 144 Polemon of Ilion, 83 Polybios, 172, 182, 194–95 Poseidon 27, 125, 141, 150 pottery, 5, 46, 52, 53 Attic, 51, 52, 56 Augustan, 158 in the black layer, 67 cooking, 45, 52, 56, 58 Corinthian, 51 Elean, 36 Helladic, 17 Hellenistic, 158 Lakonian, 52, 140–41 late antique, 239 local, 51, 52 Neolithic, 17 Submycenaean, 17, 67 Prasidaki, 15

General Index277

Praxiteles of Mantinea, monument, 105, 114–15 priest (see also Herodes Atticus), 1, 11, 38, 43, 44, 172, 181, 194, 206, 237 priestess (see also Regilla), 11, 40, 219 of Demeter Chamyne, 43, 223, 226 of Hera, 219 Proxenidas (see Chrestion) proxenos, 24, 44, 94, 145 Lakedaimonian, 75 Prytaneion, 14, 42, 53, 56, 120, 202 psychostasia, 145 Ptolemaic Monument, 7, 173, 177–81, 195, 244 ­Temple of Zeus and, 179–80 Ptolemies, 162, 172, 177–83, 187 Ptolemy, son of Alexander II of Epirus, 185–86 Ptolemy I, 175–76, 177 Ptolemy II, 177–82 Ptolemy III, 182 Ptolemy V, 182 Punic War, first, 185 Pyrrhos, king of Epiros, 185–86, 194 Pyrrhos II, son of Alexander and grand­son of Pyrrhos, 185–86 Q. Marcius Philippus, 191 quadriga monument, 110, 116–17, 173 of Deinomenes, 154 of Gelon I, 94–97, 154, 187 of Hieron I, 186 of Kleosthenes of Epidamnos, 96 of Kyniska, 197–98 reuse for southeast gate, 208–9, 243 ram (see also Phrixos), 43, 60–61 Regilla, 11, 222, 223–26, 236 priestess of Demeter Chamyne, 61, 222, 225–26 repairs (see also ­Temple of Zeus; Zeus: Pheidian), 43, 59, 156, 205, 230 reuse (see also quadriga monument; ­Temple of Zeus), 9, 37, 236, 237, 243 of architectural members from, 239 Bouleuterion, 156 Philippeion, 237

278

General Index

Southeast Building, 56 trea­suries, 78, 327 of buildings, 164, 243 of objects and bases, 22, 60, 93, 98, 143, 145, 146, 151– 53, 173, 207, 209–10, 213, 230, 235, 237 Mikythos Monument, 150 Nymphaion, 237 Rhea, 164 Rome, 109, 150, 153, 171, 189, 205 Samos, 103, 137 sanctuaries, 17, 58, 159, 205 Eleian, 15–17 Panhellenic, 22, 31, 44, 62, 101, 103 satyr akroteria of, 85, 87 votives of, 27 sculptors (see also Pheidias), 35, 83, 244 Ageladas of Argos, 96, 143 Alkamenes, 136 Anaxagoras of Aigina, 113 Andreas and Aristomachos of Argos, 191 Apelleas, 197–98 Argeiadas, 114 Aristokles of Kydonia, 93 Asopodoros, 114 Athanadoros, 114 Atotos, 114 Damophon of Messene, 157 Dionysios of Argos, 150 Eucheir of Athens, 194 Glaukias of Aigina, 94–95 Glaukos of Argos, 150 Hieron of Macedonia, 210 Kalamis, 154 Kallikles of Megara, 154 Kleon of Sikyon, 198–99 Leochares of Athens, 167 Lykios, son of Myron, 111–12 Lysippos of Sikyon, 195–97 Mikon of Athens, 151 Mikon of Syracuse, 184, 185, 187 Myron of Eleutherai, 111 Onatas of Aigina, 109–10, 151, 154, 186 Paionios of Mende, 136, 147–48 Pelanidas of Aigina, 92–93, 97 Philesios of Eretria, 116 Polykleitos of Argos, 151–53

Polykleitos the Younger of Argos, 198 Praxiteles of Athens, 200–201, 218 Pythagoras of Samos, 153 Silanion of Athens, 199–200 Sebasteion, 11, 211 seers, 22–24, 43, 44, 59, 94, 101, 199, 202 statues of, 127–28, 161, 172, 194 Seleukids, 172 Seleukos, son of Bithyos, 194–95 Seleukos I, 174 Selinus (see also trea­suries), 82 sheep, 49, 51 shields (see also armor), hoplitodromos, 33, 139 shops, 56 Sicily, 17, 28, 103 Siewert, P., 144, 146–47 Sikyon (see also trea­suries), 103 Silen, 87 silver, 83, 98 Simonides, 118 Sinn, U., 25, 70, 73, 223 Skillountia, 69, 70 Slavs, 12, 239 Sosipolis, 40 South Hall, 51, 157, 163, 201 damage to, 234 late antique wall and, 78, 234, 239 renovations to, 231 Southeast Building, 7, 35, 53–56, 116, 157, 163, 207 Sparta (see also armor; shields), 172, 182, 244 ­battle against Elis, 156 ­battle against Mantineans, 194 dedication of exiles from, 191 sphinx, 27, 73–74, 102 sphyrelata, 22, 98 spits, 52, 53, 146 spoils of war (see booty; tropaia) ‘Spolienhaus,’ 237 spondophoroi, 44 Stadion, 52, 109, 202 activities in, 25, 75 altar in, 40, 226 Altis boundary and, 42, 43, 63, 75, 82 chronology and phases, 75, 104, 116, 232 display place, 32, 75–76, 244 krypte (tunnel), 159

late antique, 238, 239 postholes, 75 pottery from, 17 seating, 75, 104, 116–17 seating capacity, 44 weapons and armor in, 32, 75 Zanes and, 164 Sterope, wife of Oinomaos, 126 stibádes, 28 Suetonius, 206–7 Sulla, 205 Sybaris (see also trea­suries), 82, 94 symposion (see drinking) synoikismos (see Elis) Syracuse (see also trea­suries; western Greece), 82, 93, 96, 114, 183–87, 242 altar of Zeus, 186 foundation of, 94 as patron, 172 ­Temple to Zeus, 186 theater, 186 T. Claudius Apollonius, 227 Taita, J., 59, 122 Tanagra, b ­ attle of, 122, 189 Tantalos, 109, 119 Taormina, 172 Tauromenion, 184–85 Telemachos, son of Leon of Elis, 195 Tellidai, 24 temenos (see Altis) ­Temple of Zeus (see also Zeus: Pheidian), 4, 5, 7, 10–11, 35, 60, 120–37, 201, 241 akroteria, 148, 170 Bauschutt, 115, 149–50 cult statue, 72, 104, 132, 135, 138, 139, 140, 148 curtain, 157 damage to, 135–36, 156, 230, 234 date of, 120–22 funding of, 121–22, 140 Heraion and, 70, 72 late antique wall and, 78, 234, 239 metopes, 128–32, 133–35, 136, 165, 181, 189, 197, 242 mosaic, 159 objects in, 132, 139, 150, 183, 198, 228 patron of, 121–22 pediments, 133



east, 22–23, 25, 35, 120, 124–28, 132–37, 148, 155, 230, 242 west, 25, 35, 122–24, 134–37, 242 pre­de­ces­sor, 106 renovation of, 132, 135–37 repairs to, 135, 136, 230, 234 reuse of architecture, 53, 156, 135, 230 roof of, 81, 132, 234 sculptures, 122–37 shields in, 33, 139 shields on, 11, 122, 148, 189, 242, 244 statues on stylobate, 240–41 use of area before, 93, 97, 103, 106, 104–9, 117 as victory monument, 11, 121–22, 140, 141, 189, 205 tents (see also camping), 58 Teos, 192 terracotta sculpture, 5, 41, 64, 77, 84–87, 102, 165 from Artemis altar, 89 from black layer, 17–18 from Demeter Chamyne sanctuary, 27 warrior, 97, 103, 107 theater, 117, 220 theatron, 116–17, 120, 148 Thebans, 144–45 Themis (see also altar), 20, 44 Theodosius, 5, 206, 237 theokoloi, 44 Theokritos, 180 Theotimos, 195 Theron of Akragas, 119 thesauroi (see trea­suries) Theseus, 122–23, 141 Thesmophoria, 26–28 Thespiai, 144, 171 Thessalian League, 197 Thessaly, 122, 144 Thetis, 111, 119, 145 Thrasybolos, the seer, 194 Thronion, 111 thunderbolt, of Zeus 49, 84, 113, 126, 138, 140, 213 Tiberius, 206, 227 Tiberius Claudius Nero, 228 Tiberius Claudius Pelops, 227 Tiberius Claudius Rufus of Smyrna, 229

Titus, 213–17 trainers, 14, 56 Trajan, 228 trea­suries (see also Pausanias; reuse), 7, 10, 40, 63–64, 76–89, 102, 104, 242 of Byzantion, 78–79, 92 of Carthage, 78–79, 94 chronology of, 80–81 of Corinth, 98, 99 of Epidamnos, 58, 78–79 function of, 82–83 of Gela, 78–79, 83 identification of, 78–80 of Kyrene, 58, 78–79, 87 of Megara, 77, 78–79, 80, 84, 138 of Metaponto, 78–79, 80, 94 objects in, 75, 76, 80, 83, 94, 244 placement, 80, 82–83 roofs of, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 99 sculpture on, 77, 78, 84–89, 97, 102, 244 of Selinus, 78–79, 81, 87–89 of Sikyon, 78–79, 80, 81, 83, 87, 99, 100, 237 of Sybaris, 78–79 of Syracuse, 79–80, 94, 187 Trea­sury Terrace, 40, 63, 77, 78, 82–83, 116–17, 159, 220 retaining wall of, 77 treaties, 14, 145 Treu, G., 165, 196, 201–2 tripods, 18, 21, 98 Trojan War (see also heroes), 110, 118, 119, 242 as meta­phor, 118–19 tropaia, 31–32, 60, 75–76, 103, 104, 137, 139, 146, 147, 241, 244 tyrants, 63, 67, 103, 154, 172, 174, 242 Valerios Eklektos of Sinope, 235 vase (see painting; pottery) Vespasian, 213–17 Vetulena Claudia, and Asklepiades, 230 Vettulena Kassia Chrysareta, 299 Vettulenus, ­family of Elis, 219, 229–30

General Index279

victory monuments, athletic, 4, 9, 90, 93, 97, 103, 105, 120, 149, 151, 156, 195–200, 207, 236, 242, 243 in honor of Aristion of Epidauros, 198 Astylos of Kroton, 153 Athenaios of Ephesos, 198–99 Daippos of Kroton, 94 Damagetos, 154 Diagoras of Rhodes, 154–55 Doreius, 154–55 Elis Cassia, 229 Eukles, 154 Eutelidas of Sparta, 90 Euthymos of Lokri, 153 Gelon I of Syracuse, 94– 96, 154, 187 Germanicus, 227 Glaukon of Athens, 182 Kallias of Athens, 151 Kleosthenes of Epidamnos, 96 Kritodamos from Kleitor, 198–99 Kyniska of Sparta, 179, 197–98 Milon of Kroton, 93 Pantares of Gela, 90 Philonides of Crete, 176 Praxidamas of Aigina, 90 Pulydamas of Skotussa, 195–97 Pythokles of Elis, 151–53 Rhexibios of Opuntion, 90 Satyros of Elis, 199–200 Telemachos, 195, 196 Xenokles of Mantinea, 198 retrospective, 195–97 size regulations, 151, 244 victory monuments, military (see also Apollonian Monument; booty; Mummius; Philippeion; Plataia: Monument of; ­Temple of Zeus; tropaia; Zeus: images of, Zeus Keraunios), 4, 21, 33, 90, 94, 104, 105, 107, 114, 137, 139, 147–49, 241 chronology of, 11, 92, 159, 171, 188–89, 204, 205, 241 trea­suries as, 77 victory odes (see also Bacchylides; Pindar), 94, 119, 120, 154, 187

280

General Index

viewers of monuments (see also Olympic games: spectators of; ­women), 5, 45, 95, 101, 107, 147, 148, 155, 173, 187, 203, 243, 244 Achaian Monument and, 110, 117, 155 Metroon and, 216 Nike of Paionios and, 117 Philippeion Monument and, 171 Ptolemaic Monument and, 179–80 ­Temple of Zeus and, 124, 128, 132, 134, 155 visitors (see also accommodation; food; ­water), 1, 13, 14, 24, 29, 45–46, 55, 151, 156, 163, 208, 211, 225, 233 number of, 10, 63, 102, 159 Roman, 205 rules for, 58, 145 walls, 93, 189 Hellenistic, 42, 159, 161, 210 late antique, 78, 164, 210, 220, 234, 239 Roman, 42, 210–11 warfare (see also Altis; athletics: and warfare; Olympia: military associations of; oracle; tropaia; Zeus: warfare and), 67 Homeric ideals of, 18 warriors (see also Achaian Monument; Apollonian Monument) architectural sculpture of, 87 images of, 21, 18–21, 91–92, 97, 103, 110, 117, 118, 138, 145, 241 ­water (see also baths; Nymphaion; wells), 10–11, 34, 45–47, 59, 207 lines, 4, 46, 89, 105, 220 weapons, votive (see also tropaia), 5, 21, 31–32, 76, 83, 94, 98, 138, 146, 147, 241 arrowheads, 32 baldric, 18 daggers, 32 lance blades, 32 spear points, 32, 80 swords, 32 weights (bronze), 48–49, 52, 53, 145–47, 202 wells, 29, 33, 45–46, 52 increase in, 22, 45–46, 63

western Greece (see also coins), 10, 14, 17, 67, 93–97, 103, 105, 114, 153, 157, 183, 187, 242 cult of Zeus Olympios and, 82 Dionysiac subjects and, 87–88, 102 Olympic victors, 82, 94–97, 153 trea­suries and, 82, 85 wine, 49 ­women (see also Heraion: Roman; ­Temple of Zeus: pediments, west), 45, 61–62, 219, 243 access to ash altar, 61 sixteen Elean, 24–29, 61, 219 spectators at the Olympic games, 43, 61 as worshippers, 43 wooden, sculpture, 83, 90, 100, 103 woodman, 43, 44 workers, 59, 237, 244 workshop (see also Pheidias), 55, 56, 59, 238–39 wrestling, 30, 117, 199, 242 Xenophon, 116–17, 145 xyleus (see woodman) Zanes, 164–65, 199 Zeno, 228 Zeus (see also altar; ash altar; Gigantomachy; Olympic games; panegyris; ­Temple of Zeus; Zanes) Alexander the ­Great and, 181 Areios, 18, 139 as bestower of victory, 110, 127, 140, 148, 243 cult of, 18–21, 60, 63, 69, 70, 241 Eleutherios, 186 Ganymede and, 86–87 Hera and, 71, 135, 141, 179–80, 218 Heraion and, 37, 69–72, 74, 121, 218 images of, 4, 18, 126–27, 156, 170–71, 202, 241 on Apollonian Monument, 111, 119, 145 changes in appearance, 10–11, 105, 137–50, 242 on coins, 170 helmeted, 72–73 Kypselid dedication, 102

Mummius dedications, 189–90, 191, 242 Nymphaion, 222, 223 on ­Temple of Zeus, east pediment, 35, 120, 126–27, 134, 136, 148, 155, 230, 242 in trea­suries, 83, 94 unbearded, 150



Zeus Horkios, 14, 104 Zeus Keraunios, 92–93, 113, 137, 138–39, 140, 143, 148–49, 243 Kronos and, 29 as mediator, 29, 143, 137–49, 242, 243 Olympios, 4, 29, 82, 170, 182, 186, 187, 192

Pheidian, 11, 72, 135, 138, 139, 140–41, 148, 168, 170, 180, 205, 206, 218, 228, 241 on coins, 132, 208 repairs to, 157 Philippios, 171 warfare and, 32, 33, 76, 134, 137–49, 241, 242

General Index281