The Panathenaic Games: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 11-12, 2004 9781782979821, 1782979824

Citation preview

THE PANATHENAIC GAMES Proceedings of an international conference held at the University of Athens, May 11–12, 2004

edited by

OLGA PALAGIA AND ALKESTIS CHOREMI-SPETSIERI

Oxbow Books

Published by Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN

© Oxbow Books and the individual authors, 2007 Paperback Edition: ISBN 978 1 78297 982 1 Digital Edition: ISBN 978 1 78297 983 8 Mobi Edition: ISBN 978 1 78297 984 5 PDF Edition: ISBN 978 1 78297 985 2 A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

This book is available direct from Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN (Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449) and The David Brown Book Company PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA (Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468) or from our website www.oxbowbooks.com

This book is published with the assistance of the Association of Friends of the Acropolis

Printed in Great Britain by Short Run Press, Exeter

Contents Foreword by Olga Palagia and Alkestis Choremi-Spetsieri Panathenaic amphoras ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Michalis Tiverios Panathenaic prizes and dedications ............................................................................................................... 21 Petros Themelis Gods and athletic games ................................................................................................................................ 33 Jon D. Mikalson Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia ........................................................ 41 Jenifer Neils Games at the lesser Panathenaia? .................................................................................................................. 53 Stephen V. Tracy The iconography of the Athenian apobates race: origins, meanings, transformation ................................... 59 Peter Schultz Torch race and vase-painting ......................................................................................................................... 73 Martin Bentz A unique new depiction of a Panathenaic victor ........................................................................................... 81 John H. Oakley Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos: some new aspects and results .................................... 91 Norbert Eschbach “Not that the vases are easy to interpret...” Some thoughts on Panathenaic prize amphorae .................... 101 Bettina Kratzmüller Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες Despina Tsouklidou ................................................................................................................................ 109 “Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests .........................................................117 Hans Rupprecht Goette Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως .................................................. 127 Panos Valavanis Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia ................................................................ 135 Julia L. Shear The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period: Panathenaic prize-amphorae and the Biel throne ................................................................................................................................. 147 Dyfri Williams Athens and Herculaneum: the case of the Panathenaic Athenas ................................................................. 159 Carol C. Mattusch Colourr Plates .............................................................................................................................................. 165

Foreword The papers in this volume were presented at an international conference organised in Athens on May 11–14, 2004. It was hosted by the University of Athens and sponsored by the Greek Ministry of Culture and the Association of Friends of the Acropolis. The occasion was provided by the Olympic Games of Athens in 2004. The Olympics gave us the opportunity to experience the games at Athens in the exhilarating environment of international competition, athletic contests in the Panathenaic Stadium, prize awards witnessed by a cast of thousands, and the festive atmosphere of torch races, musical and theatrical events, regattas in the Piraeus and celebrations on the Athenian Acropolis. On the occasion of the Athens Olympics the First (Acropolis) Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities refurbished the Agora Museum, conducted fresh investigations of the Panathenaic Way and organised a display of the newly conserved west frieze of the Parthenon in the Acropolis Museum. It issued a series of guidebooks on sites administered by the Ephorate, and collaborated with the information and education service of the Committee for the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments on a new educational programme concerning the depiction of the Panathenaic procession on the Parthenon frieze and the games at Athens. Scholars celebrated the games at Athens in their own way. The complex problems posed by the study of the Panathenaic Games, a Panhellenic athletic event that lasted for nearly a millennium, demand an interdisciplinary approach. An international assembly of archaeologists, art historians, ancient historians, epigraphists and classical scholars contributed to the discussion of the origins and the historical development of the Panathenaic Games in general and of individual contests in particular. The role of royal and other patrons in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, as well as the form and meaning of victory dedications and other monuments generated by the games were also examined. The question of the function of Panathenaic prize amphorae, introduced by the keynote speaker Michalis Tiverios, prompted a lively and ultimately very rewarding debate that reverberates through the pages of the proceedings. The Panathenaic Games conference was held thanks to the initiative of the Association of Friends of the Acropolis and its president emeritus, Ph. Stratos, who raised funds and provided the inspiration. The publication of this volume was made possible through a generous grant of the Association of Friends of the Acropolis and Titan Group. We are grateful to the rector of the University of Athens, Georgios Babiniotis, for the use of the Drakopoulos auditorium and to the vice rector, Michalis Dermitzakis, for his support. David Brown kindly agreed to publish this volume in his monograph series. Bibliographical abbreviations follow the guidelines of the German Archaeological Institute as published in Archäologischer Anzeiger 112, 1997, 612–625. Olga Palagia The University of Athens

Alkestis Choremi-Spetsieri Acropolis Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities

Panathenaic Amphoras Michalis Tiverios

Panathenaic amphoras make up one of the most characteristic and distinct groups of Attic pottery. They are usually about 0.60–0.65 m in height and of a maximum diameter of about 0.40 m. They contained the socalled sacred olive oil, offered as prize to victors at the Panathenaia, the greatest festival of ancient Athens (Figs. 1–2).1 We have a large number of complete or partially preserved Panathenaic amphoras. The earliest are dated to slightly before 560 B.C., while the latest are dated to the early fourth century A.D.2 Thus it is not too much to say that a study of the thousand-year history of these vases illuminates an important part of the history of the Panathenaia. It is now generally accepted that when the literary sources mention the re-organization of the Panathenaia in 566/5 B.C., what they imply is the foundation of the Great Panathenaia, with which Panathenaic amphoras are directly associated. It was then, with the introduction of athletic competitions, that olive oil was instituted as a prize for the victors and this led to the manufacture of Panathenaic vases.3 This conclusion is supported by the fact that the earliest surviving amphoras, one by the potter Nikias, in the

1

2

Fig. 1–2. Panathenaic prize amphoras. London, British Museum B 134 and B 130. Photos after M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) pls. 17 (right) and 1 (right). For the dimensions of Panathenaic amphoras, the height of which occasionally exceeds 0.80 m. (without their lids), see M. Bentz, Panathenaïsche Preisamphoren, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) 123 ff., 200 (Anhang 2), 202 f. (Anhang 4–6). 2 For Archaic and Classical Panathenaic vases, see the highly detailed monograph by Bentz (supra n. 1). 3 Literary sources on the foundation of the Great Panathenaia: J. L. Shear, “Polis and Panathenaia” (Diss. University of Pennsylvania, 2001) 505 ff. Sources dealing with the foundation myths of the Panathenaic festival: Shear, 31 ff. Shear, 962 ff., 988 ff. and 1133 ff., also collects literary and epigraphical sources on the Panathenaic festival. 1

2

Michalis Tiverios

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the so-called Burgon Panathenaic amphora in the British Museum in London (Fig. 2 and Colour Pl. 1) are dated to slightly before 560 B.C.4 The special features of the Panathenaic amphora, its protuberant belly, small handles, short neck and small and rather unstable base arose, no doubt, from its function. It was manufactured to hold the olive oil awarded to Panathenaic victors, which was eventually, in a good number of cases, exported. It was therefore natural that the shape should be influenced by amphoras for carrying and trading Athenian olive oil, known as “SOS” type amphoras. In fact, their shape was influenced by a late variant of those amphoras, known by the unfortunate name à la brosse.5 These “SOS” type amphoFig. 3. Attic “SOS” type amphora. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa ras share all the features of the Panathenaic Giulia 90203, 90205. Photo after M.A. Rizzo, Le Anfore da transporto e il commercio etrusco arcaico (1990) fig. 362. amphoras that we have mentioned, and it was these features that made them suitable for shipment on boats, the main means of conducting commerce in antiquity. The close connection between Panathenaic amphoras and “SOS” type amphoras is further confirmed by the type of inscriptions found on examples of both groups. Early Panathenaic amphoras carry inscriptions such as “τῶν Ἀθήνηθεν ἄθλων ἐμὶ” (Fig. 2) or “διαυλοδρόμου εἰμὶ”6 and “SOS” type amphoras have inscriptions such as “Κόρακός εἰμι” (Fig. 3) or “Σμόρδωνό εἰμι”.7 The first inscriptions mean, “I am from the olive oil given as a prize at the Panathenaia” and “I am the olive oil prize for the victor in the Panathenaic diaulos race”.8 The other inscriptions mean “I am the olive oil of Korax” and “I am the olive oil of Smordon”. These two were perhaps olive oil traders or, more probably, producers, although there is the possibility that the same person could perform both roles.9 Furthermore, in the case of both Panathenaic and “SOS” type amphoras, these words, as it were, are “spoken” by the contents of the vases, thus the olive oil, rather than by the vases themselves. Another consideration that reinforces the connection between the two types of vases is the fact that soon after the appearance of Panathenaic vases, in about 560 B.C., production of “SOS” type amphoras diminishes and eventually stops. The main, if not sole, reason for this was that the Panathenaic games required from the start large quantities of olive oil, which meant that there was little or no surplus oil left over for sale in foreign markets.10 We now deal with the decoration of Panathenaic amphoras. The main features emerged at the beginning,11 among them the inscription “ΤΟΝ ΑΘΕΝΕΘΕΝ ΑΘΛΟΝ” (Figs. 1–2), which certified that the vases were manufactured to contain the olive oil awarded to the victors at the Panathenaia. The scenes on both sides are framed by a metope. On side A Athena Promachos strides forward. In the first centuries of production of Μ. Moore, MetrMusJ 34, 1999, 44 ff. has convincingly shown that Nikias’ amphora is earlier than the Burgon amphora. Μ. Tiverios, in Μύρτος. Μνήμη Ιουλίας Βοκοτοπούλου (2000) 522; Bentz (supra n. 1) 18f.; J. Neils, in J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis. The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) 38 f. For bibliography on “SOS”-type amphoras, see Tiverios, op.cit., 519 f. n. 4. 6 Moore (supra n. 4) 39, 41 f, 48. 7 H. Immerwahr, Attic Script. A Survey (1990) 13 nn. 37 and 40. 8 The readings of these inscriptions are not always correct. Cf. Bentz (supra n. 1) 57 and n. 310; J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 87 and n. 1. 9 Tiverios (supra n. 5) 520 ff. 10 Tiverios (supra n. 5) 523 ff. 11 For the decoration of Panathenaic amphoras, see Bentz (supra n. 1) 41 ff.; cf. J. Mansfield, “Prize-amphoras and Prize-oil” (ms., University of California at Berkeley, 1985) 38 ff. 4 5

Panathenaic amphoras

3

Fig. 4. Sherds of Attic black- figure amphora. From the Acropolis. Athens, National Museum 2211. Photo after B. Graef and G. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I (1925–1933) pl. 94.

Fig. 5. Sherds of Attic black-figure kantharos. From the Acropolis. Athens, National Museum 2134. Photo after B. Graef and G. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I (1925–1933) pl. 94.

Panathenaic amphoras Athena moves to left, exposing her shield device.12 Side B shows the contest for which the prize was offered.13 Athena’s presence on a vase intimately associated with her greatest festival in Athens is to be expected. Nevertheless, the choice of Athena shown as Promachos requires an explanation. A warlike Athena certainly suits the competitive spirit of the Panathenaic games. There were, however, further reasons for this choice, not counting the possibility that she might represent a well-known statue.14 There is evidence, some from ancient literature, that associates the Panathenaia with the battle between gods and giants, in which Athena played a leading role.15 The peplos, for example, that the Athenians offered the goddess during the 12 For an exceptional Athena striding to right, see R. Lindner, Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 6, 2000 (Occasional Papers on Antiquities 9) 79 ff. According to Neils (supra n. 5) 31, a Panathenaic amphora from Knidos, now in Marseilles, dated to around 420 B.C. (Bentz [supra n. 1] 155 n. 5, 203, pl. 90), depicts Athena to left as usual, but looking back. 13 The view that victors may have received Panathenaics showing contests other than those in which they had competed (R. Hamilton, in J. Neils [ed.], Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon (1996) 141 ff.; R. Lindner, in H. Froning et al. [eds.], Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon [1992] 146 n. 5) is not convincing. The problem is discussed in Bentz (supra n. 1) 83 ff. Cf. M. Tiverios, in M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaïka (2001) 46. 14 See the discussion in Bentz (supra n. 1) 41 ff. Cf. Neils (supra n. 5) 36 f.; Μ. Tiverios, Ο Λυδός και το έργο του (1976) 111 n. 272; H. A. Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (1989) 27 ff. At any rate, the iconographic tradition points strongly to the existence of a statue of “Panathenaic Athena” in Archaic times. B. S. Ridgway, in Neils (supra n. 5) 127 ff., does not accept the suggestion that the prototype of the Panathenaic Athena was a statue. See also Ε. B. Ηarrison, AJA 61, 1957, 209. 15 Shear (supra n. 3) 31 ff. See also Bentz (supra n. 1) 43 and J. A. Davison, JHS 78, 1958, 24 f.

4

Michalis Tiverios

Fig. 6 (above). Attic black-figure amphora. Aberdeen, University Museum 684. Photo after LIMC IV 2 (1988) 128, no. 226a. Fig. 7 (right). Attic black-figure amphora. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 245. Photo after E. Böhr, Der Schaukelmaler (1982) pl. 184 A.

course of the Panathenaic festival, was decorated with the Gigantomachy. Some idea of the composition on the peplos of the first Great Panathenaia is given by various depictions of the Gigantomachy, contemporary with the event but sadly fragmentary. They are painted on Attic vases found on the Acropolis (Figs. 4–5).16 This first peplos must have particularly impressed the Athenians and of course the potters, who started to copy its depiction of the battle of gods and giants. This is also confirmed to some degree by the ancient literary record, which has preserved the names of the makers of this peplos, “Ἀκέσεως καὶ Ἑλικῶνος ἔργα ἐπὶ τῶν θαύματος ἀξίων. Οὗτοι γὰρ πρῶτοι τὸν τῆς Πολιάδος Ἀθηνᾶς πέπλον ἐδημιούργησαν”.17 In all these examples of Attic vase painting, Athena is depicted as Promachos. It thus seems very likely that the Athena Promachos on the Panathenaic amphoras is the Athena of the Gigantomachy (Fig. 6).18 These considerations contribute to a better understanding of such illustrations, as that on an Attic black-figure neck amphora in the Cabinet des Médailles (Fig. 7), which contains elements present in the decoration of Panathenaic amphoras. Here a scene depicting Athena Promachos fighting a giant is framed by two columns, each topped by a cock.19 Moreover, representations of Athena Promachos sometimes display scenes from the Gigantomachy on her dress, for example, on a Panathenaic amphora from Olynthus (Figs. 8–9), dated to around 400 B.C.20 16 For bibliography on these vases, Μ. Tiverios, Προβλήματα της μελανόμορφης Aττικής κεραμικής² (1988) 138 n. 614. See also Shapiro (supra n. 14) 38 f. The motifs employed in these many-faceted and complex compositions, executed by different hands, are so similar to one another, that it seems certain that their painters were inspired by a common prototype. For example, the leg of a god with a greave to right stepping on the helmet of a fallen giant, the tail of a feline, apparently accompanying Dionysus and the trident of Poseidon on fragment (b) of amphora no. 2211 (Fig. 4) are repeated on fragment (d) of kantharos no. 2134 (Fig. 5). Other details, such as a wooded mountain with animals, do not seem to draw on vase-painting or sculpture but are more likely inspired by contemporary murals or textiles, and the peplos of Athena depicting the Gigantomachy was precisely a textile contemporary with these vases. On this matter, see Tiverios, op.cit. 137 ff. and figs. 40–41. 17 For sources on the manufacturers of the first peplos, see. J. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen (1868) nos. 385–387. For the peplos of the Great Panathenaia, see J. M. Mansfield, “The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos” (Diss. University of California at Berkeley, 1985). See also E. J. W. Barber, in Neils (supra n. 5) 103ff. 18 Tiverios (supra n. 14) 60 and 111 n. 272. See also D. Kyle, in Neils (supra n. 13) 119; G. Ferrari Pinney, in J. Christiansen and T. Melander (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen, August 3–September 4 1987 (1988) 471ff., also associates the Athena on Panathenaic amphoras with the Gigantomachy, but believes that the Panathenaic Athena performs an armed dance rather than fights, a suggestion that could hardly be accepted. See Neils (supra n. 5) 197 n. 43. 19 E. Βöhr, Der Schaukelmaler (1982) 112 (M 2), pl. 184 A. There are also other vases related to Panathenaic amphoras, depicting scenes from the battle of gods and giants. Bentz (supra n.1) 21 and n. 84, 43 n. 206. 20 Μ. Tiverios, in W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia et al. (eds.), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (1994) 135 f., figs. 5–7. For armed Athena in sculpture, where the goddess’ drapery is decorated with scenes from the Gigantomachy, see

Panathenaic amphoras

Fig. 8. Detail of Panathenaic amphora. Polygyros, Archaeological Museum 8.29 (R 100). Photo: author.

5

Fig. 9. Detail of Panathenaic amphora. Polygyros, Archaeological Museum 8.29 (R 100). Drawing: T. Mitta.

The decoration of Panathenaic vases took about forty years to reach its canonical form. About 530–525 B.C. Panathenaics begin to exhibit their standard features (Fig. 1). Scholars have labelled Panathenaic amphoras dated before 530–525 B.C. (Fig. 2) “pre-canonical”. The decoration on these vases sometimes displays certain features that did not survive, for example, inscriptions on side B naming the contest depicted. Thus we have, for example, “δίαυλος” and “στάδιον ἀνδρῶν”.21 Mural paintings may have been partly responsible for the presence of these inscriptions, as indicated by an ancient source: “ὅτε ὑπήρχετο ἡ γραφικὴ τέχνη καὶ ἦν τρόπoν τινά ἐν γάλαξι καὶ ἐν σπαργάνοις, οὕτως ἄρα ἀτέχνως εἴκαζον τὰ ζῷα, ὥστε ἐπιγράφειν αὐτοῖς τοὺς γραφέας· ‘τοῦτο βοῦς, ἐκεῖνο ἵππος, τοῦτο δένδρον’”.22 Literary sources inform us that murals frequently carried titles describing the composition.23 About 540–535 B.C. we see for the first time two columns flanking Athena. They are usually Doric24 with a cock on top (Fig. 1). The significance of these columns is somewhat problematic. On the basis of other examples, drawn mainly from Attic vase painting, the presence of columns is frequently interpreted as an oblique reference to the temples or precincts of Athena on the Acropolis. Nevertheless, the presence of cocks and lack of entablature weaken this interpretation. Nor do the cocks or the large size of the columns support the view that the latter recall the turning posts in racecourses. Some scholars have considered the possibility that the columns with cocks echo Acropolis dedications. Other scholars have linked them to the possible existence, on the Acropolis, of columns used in the worship of Zeus or some other deity, a form of worship traced to prehistoric times.25 However, literary and iconographical evidence may suggest another interpretation. Ancient literary sources talk of pillars or columns of Heracles and Dionysus, which indicate the boundaries of the activities of these divinities.26 It should be recalled that the column to which Prometheus is tied in Archaic vase paintings marks the boundary of the east. (Fig. 12 and Colour Pl. 2)27 Thus it may be that the columns flanking Athena depicted on Panathenaic amphoras define the limits to the activity and influence of the goddess, that is, the limits of the known world. On Attic black-figure vases, for example, the limits to the activity of other figures is shown in a similar way, that is, with two columns framing the protagonists of the episode (Fig. 10).28 LIMC II, 2, 803, s.v. Minerva, no. 223. 21 The mention of the “στάδιον ἀνδρῶν” indicates that athletic events for ephebes or boys were introduced into the Great Panathenaia very early. For these inscriptions, see also Neils (supra n.5) 41 f. For “pre-canonical” Panathenaic amphoras, see Moore (supra n. 4) especially 38 ff. 22 Tiverios (supra n. 16) 42. 23 A similar phenomenon can be seen, albeit only occasionally, in Attic vase painting of the sixth century B.C. The most typical example is the lebes by Sophilos from Pharsalos, on which the inscription “ἆθλα ἐπί Πατρόκλῳ” identifies the scene. On this, see Tiverios (supra n. 16) 41f. and n. 120. 24 For columns of different orders, see e.g. Bentz (supra n. 1) 52 and n. 269. 25 For a discussion of columns, see Bentz (supra n.1) 51 ff.; Neils (supra n. 5) 37f.; Mansfield (supra n. 11) 40. 26 LSJ, s.v. Ἡράκλειος, -α,-ον, κίων, στήλη. 27 Μ. Tiverios, Αρχαία Αγγεία (1996) 100, fig. 65, 275 f. (no. 65). 28 See, for example, S. Pfisterer-Haas, JdI 117, 2002, 8, fig. 6; C. R. Williams, The Archaeological Collection of the Johns Hopkins University (1984) 156; N. Alfieri, P. E. Arias, M. Hirmer, Spina (1958) figs. 64–65; B. A. Sparkes, AntK 11, 1968, 3 ff., figs.

6

Michalis Tiverios

Fig. 10. Attic black-figure hydria. London, British Museum B 330. Photo after JdI 117, 2002, 8, fig. 6.

The cocks are more easily interpreted. Most scholars agree that they symbolize the competitive spirit, since the aggressive spirit and persistence of these animals were well-known. The fact that on Panathenaic amphoras the cocks face one another probably refers, albeit indirectly, to the widespread and fatal cock fights of antiquity.29 This hypothesis is reinforced by consideration of some vase paintings depicting two cocks facing each other on either side of a Panathenaic Athena Promachos (Fig. 11).30 However, it is possible that the cocks atop the columns of the Panathenaic amphoras framing Athena (and thus Athena of the Gigantomachy) may also refer to the rising of the sun, that is, the coming of the next day, the day after the fearful battle in which the gods triumphed over the giants. Ancient literary evidence informs us that Zeus forbade Helios Fig. 11. Attic white-ground black-figure lekythos. Buffalo, Albright(Sun) to rise during this battle until he could Knox Art Gallery 33.135. Photo after J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis find and destroy the herb that was sought by Gē (1992) 18, fig. 55. (Earth), with which she could render her children invulnerable.31 In antiquity, too, cocks that herald the coming of the day are a widespread motif. Pausanias (5.25.9) explains the significance of a cock used as a shield device on a statue of Idomeneus at Olympia, “τῷ δὲ Ἰδομενεῖ γένος ἀπὸ Ἡλίου…, Ἡλίου δὲ ἱερόν φασιν εἶναι τὸν ὄρνιθα καὶ ἀγγέλλειν ἀνιέναι μέλλοντος

2–3, pls. 2.1–2, 3.1 and 3. 29 For discussion of the cocks, see Bentz (supra n.1) 51ff.; Mansfield. (supra n. 11) 41 f. On a pseudo-Panathenaic amphora by the Princeton Painter, dated to ca. 540 B.C., the cocks on the columns, instead of facing each other in the normal fashion, turn their heads away: Νeils (supra n. 5) 43, fig. 18. 30 Neils (supra n. 5) 18, fig. 55. 31 Apollod. Bibl. 1.6.1.

Panathenaic amphoras

7

Fig. 12. Laconian black-figure cup. Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco 16592. Photo after Μ. Τιβέριος, Ελληνική Τέχνη. Αρχαία Αγγεία (1996) 100, fig. 65.

τοῦ ἡλίου”.32 Thus it is possible that the cocks allude to sunrise and the eventual victory of Athena, apart from hinting at the competitive spirit of the games and perhaps of Athena herself. All this illuminates the scene on the amphora mentioned (Fig. 7), showing the Gigantomachy, in which Athena is playing a leading role, framed by columns with cocks.33 It actually seems that the cock became one of Athena’s sacred animals, since, for example, a black-figure skyphos by the Theseus Painter found on the Acropolis (Athens, National Museum 1265), depicts Athena seated, accompanied by her sacred animals, an owl, a cock and very probably a snake, while a Doric structure places the scene in one of the goddess’ sanctuaries on the Acropolis (Fig. 21).34 A cock is probably placed on the column to which Prometheus is chained, on the Laconian cup of the Arkesilaos Painter in the Vatican (Fig. 12 and Colour Pl. 2).35 If it is a cock, it seems probable that here, too, its presence hints at the coming of the day and the rising of the sun, since “καθ’ ἑκάστην…ἡμέραν ἀετὸς ἐφιπτάμενος αὐτῷ τοὺς λοβοὺς ἐνέμετο, τοῦ ἥπατος αὐξανομένου διὰ νυκτὸς” (Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.1). The point that the column marks the boundary of the east, whence the sun rises daily, supports this suggestion. However, Laconian pottery is idiosyncratic, which means our suggestion must remain tentative.36 We now turn to Athena’s shield devices, particularly in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.37 Up to the end 32 See also Plut. Mor. 400 C: “…ὁ τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα ποιήσας ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἑωθινὴν ὑπεδήλωσεν ὥραν καὶ καιρὸν ἐπιούσης ἀνατολῆς....” According to some scholars, the same significance can be attributed to the cock on the coins from Himera, see C. M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (1976) 208. 33 See above, p. 4 n. 19. 34 B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I (1925) 140, no. 1265, pl. 77; C. Melldahl and J. Flemberg, From the Gustavianum Collections in Uppsala 2 (1978) 67–68, fig. 15. 35 Supra n. 27. It is of course not certain that the bird here is a cock. However, it does not seem to be an eagle, as there are clear differences between our bird and the eagle that tears at the chest of Prometheus in the same scene. An eagle or a hawk may be the bird of prey depicted on top of an Ionic column on an East Greek amphora that bears a cartouche with the name of the pharaoh Apries: B. Kreuzer, Frühe Zeichner 1500–500 vor Chr. ägyptische, griechische und etruskische Vasenfragmente der Sammlung H. A. Cahn, (1992) 52 ff. (no. 51); T. Schattner, JdI 110, 1995, 65ff.; M. Weber, AA 1995, 163 ff. In one such case, it may be that the boxing scene depicted here is supposed to be taking place in a sanctuary of Zeus. On columns bearing eagles in sanctuaries of Zeus, see Pausanias 8.38.7. 36 Our reservations regarding the interpretation offered above arise chiefly from the frequent presence of birds on architecture on Laconian pottery: M. Pipili, Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century B.C. (1987) 28, figs 42–43, 51 fig. 77, 75, fig. 107. The tondo of a Laconian cup from Teucheira (Tocra) is typical: a bird is shown on a Doric capital where probably Zeus sits as well. See Pipili, 46, fig. 70. I thank Dr Pipili for drawing my attention to this vase. 37 For Athena’s shield devices on Panathenaic amphoras, see Bentz (supra n. 1) 48 ff., 204 ff., 207. For an early if somewhat different version of the views presented here, see M. Tiverios, in Neils (supra n.13) 164 ff.

8

Michalis Tiverios

of sixth century, there is a wide range of devices. But from the end of the sixth and during the whole of the fifth century there is more uniformity. During this period, Panathenaic vases that are contemporary or near-contemporary and often painted by the same artists, show the same shield device for Athena. Many scholars think that the potters were responsible for the repetition of the same motif. Were this true, we would expect the same phenomenon in the rest of the pottery produced by these craftsmen; this, however, is not the case. Other scholars suspect that these motifs may be linked with Athena herself and the Panathenaia,38 although, at least in some cases, this does not seem likely. It should be recalled that the choice of iconography on these vases produced for the state could not have fallen on the artists of the Athenian Kerameikos. It must have been due to the initiative of the officials of the Athenian government, who were charged with overseeing the manufacture of the vases. Various scholars, such as J. Boardman39 and M. Robertson,40 have recently suggested that the choice of motifs rested with government officials, rather than with the potters themselves. Among the Fig. 13. Detail of Panathenaic prize amphora. London, changes that occur on Panathenaic vases at the beginning of British Museum B 606. Photo after E. Pful, MuZ, fig. fourth century B.C. is the name of the eponymous archon of 306. the year in which the vase was fashioned, inscribed on side A. Moreover, the cocks on the columns flanking Athena are replaced by statues.41 Since vases of the same year usually carry the same statue,42 it has been suggested that the eponymous archons were responsible for the choice of statues and that perhaps these statues had special significance for these officials.43 Aristotle ([Ath.Pol.] 60.2–3) states that in the fourth century B.C. the eponymous archon was responsible for the collection of the olive oil, which he received from the owners of the properties where the sacred olive trees (“αἱ ἱεραὶ μορίαι”) were located, three ἡμικοτύλια (less than half a kilo) of oil per tree. He then gave this oil to the ταμίαι of the goddess on the Acropolis. If any irregularity was noticed during this procedure, the eponymous archon was barred from becoming a member of the Areopagus. The inscribed name of this archon and the presence of his “emblem”, as it were, on the Panathenaic vases in which the oil that he had gathered was stored, allowed the state to check the exact amount of olive oil that the official in question had handed over to the ταμίαι of Athena. It is reasonable to assume that similar strict controls on the part of the Athenian state, regarding the amounts of olive oil that were handed over to the ταμίαι of the goddess, were applied also in earlier years. The agreed amounts of olive oil to be gathered would have been stored in Panathenaic amphoras which must have carried distinctive symbols similar to the marks denoting the eponymous archons on Panathenaic vases of the fourth century. These distinguishing marks must have pointed either to the private citizens who were obliged to hand over to the Athenian state a certain amount of olive oil every year or with the state officials charged with the duty of gathering the oil. The present writer believes that Athena’s shield devices are such symbols, intended to help state control.44 Their great variety in the first decades of Panathenaic amphoras suggests that, 38 N. Yalouris, MusHelv 7, 1950, 52 ff.; V. Tsantila, ΑDelt 47, 1992, 213f.; H. Cahn, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n.13) 146; P. Marx, AntK 46, 2003, 25f. 39 J. Boardman, Athenian Black Figure Vases (1974) 168. 40 M. Robertson, The Art of Vase-painting in Classical Athens (1992) 65 f., 197 f., 260 f., 276. See also E. Langridge-Noti, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n.13) 81. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the New Style silver coinage of Athens, where the symbols are connected with Athenian officials: M. Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens (1961) 600 ff. For a more detailed discussion of this subject, see M. Tiverios in the volume in honour of I. Touratsoglou (forthcoming). 41 For statues types atop columns on Panathenaic vases of the fourth century B.C., see N. Eschbach, Statuen auf panathenäischen Preisamphoren des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (1986). 42 For exceptions, see Bentz (supra n. 1) 54. 43 Eschbach (supra n. 41) mainly 164 ff.; Bentz (supra n. 1) 53ff., mainly 56 f. 44 Τiverios (supra n. 37) 164 ff., mainly 168 ff. Contra, Μ. Τurner, MedA 13, 2000, 119.

Panathenaic amphoras

9

until the end of the sixth century, such symbols can be associated with private citizens and very probably with the landed gentry.45 They possessed the greatest amount of property and it was presumably in their land that the sacred olive trees were to be found. Thus it seems likely that until the end of the sixth century B.C. it was the Athenian elite that handed over the agreed amounts of olive oil to the ταμίαι of the goddess. If this is true, it seems reasonable that Athena’s shield devices on the sixth-century Panathenaic amphoras would refer to these landowners.46 Certainly the choice of devices could be determined by several criteria,47 but if family (πάτρια) crests did exist, they would have surely been chosen.48 The existence of such emblems is confirmed by the literary evidence. Alcibiades’ case is typical. According to the ancient sources, he chose as his shield device “nothing ancestral (οὐδὲν τῶν πατρίων)” but “Eros bearing a thunderbolt (Ἔρωτα κεραυνοφόρον)”.49 All this allows perhaps a better understanding of the inscription “EYΦΙΛΕΤΟΣ ΚΑΛΟΣ” running around Athena’s shield device (a wheel) on a well-known Panathenaic amphora in the British Museum (Fig. 1).50 It is not impossible that Euphiletus was a member of a landowning family obliged to produce olive oil for the state, but it is more likely that he was a young man whose beauty was admired by the aristocrat whose oil was stored in the amphora. Sir John Beazley has pointed out a similar case, known from the literary sources, which states that Pheidias wrote the name of his beloved Pantarces from Eleia (“Παντάρκης καλός”) on the finger οf the chryselephantine statue of Zeus at Olympia!51 The increasing uniformity of Athena’s shield devices from the end of the sixth century on may be due to certain changes in the procedure involved in the gathering of the Panathenaic oil immediately upon the foundation of Athenian democracy. It is to be noted that changes in the Panathenaic games are to be observed also in later times, whenever there were political shifts or radical changes in Athenian polity. Such changes occurred immediately after the fall of the Thirty at the end of the fifth century,52 with the rise to power of Demetrius of Phalerum in the closing decades of the fourth century,53 and with the violent break in relations between the Athenians and the Macedonians at the beginning of the second century B.C.54 All this clearly demonstrates the close relationship between the Panathenaia and the Athenian state. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that at the end of the sixth century the newly founded Athenian democracy took over an active role in the gathering of the Panathenaic oil, limiting the role and the profile of the aristocracy. Thus it is possible that government officials undertook the collection of the olive oil at this time. If this is so, perhaps Athena’s shield devices from 507 B.C. on may be connected not only with the private citizens who provided the olive oil but also with the officials themselves. Aristotle ([Ath.Pol.] 60.2) informs us that before the eponymous archons undertook to provide the state with three ἡμικοτύλια of oil “ἀπὸ τοῦ στελέχους ἑκάστου ... δ’ ἐπώλει τὸν καρπὸν ἡ πόλις”. This passage presents certain difficulties. It may mean that before the fourth century the city farmed out the sacred olive trees to one or more private producers, with the obligation that they should provide an adequate amount of oil every year to cater to the needs involved in celebrating the Great Panathenaia.55 In this case, the amounts Tiverios (supra n. 37) 169. The emblems on Archaic Athenian coins known as “Wappenmünzen” have also been associated with the Athenian aristocracy, see Kraay (supra n. 32) 56ff.; J. Kroll, ANSMusNotes 26, 1981, 9. 47 Cf. Kroll (supra n. 46) 9 f. 48 Most scholars do not accept the existence of family (πάτρια) crests in Archaic Athens, originally suggested by Seltman, see e.g. R. J. Hopper, in C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (eds.), Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson (1968) 26; J. Spier, BICS 37, 1990, 119 f., nn 144–147. However, other scholars accept this premise, see e.g. F. Jacoby, FHG III b (Supplementum.) I (Text) 328, F200, Commentary p. 566, FHG III b (Supplementum.) II (Notes, Addenda, Corrigenda, Index) 328 F115, n. 15 (bottom of p. 361 f.), 328 F200 ns 1, 3 (p. 454 f.), n. 25 (p. 458 f.); M. R. Alföldi, Antike Numismatik I (1978) 85. M. Giuman, ΟΣΤΡΑΚΑ 9, 2000, 31 ff. now connects “emblems” on “Wappenmünzen” and shield devices on Archaic Attic vases with the military organization of Archaic Athens, which was based on the four tribes before Cleisthenes. 49 Τiverios (supra n. 37) 169, 173 n. 29. For shield devices as family (πάτρια) crests, see H. Philipp, Archaische Silhouettenbleche und Schildzeichen in Olympia, OF 30 (2004) 123ff. and n. 756. For Alcibiades’ shield see P.v. Blanckenhagen, in L. Freeman and Sandler (eds.), Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann (1964) 38 ff. 50 See e.g. Bentz (supra n. 1) 128, no. 6.059, pl. 17 (right). 51 J. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-figure³ (1986) 84. On ancient literary sources relevant to the topic, see J. Οverbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der Bildenden Künste bei den Griechen² (1971) nos. 740–743. 52 See e.g. P. Valavanis, AA 1987, 467f., 469, 474 ff. 53 W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (1911) 55f. See also G. R. Edwards, Hesperia 26, 1957, 333; Shear (supra n. 8) 97. 54 S. V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 137. 55 For the interpretation of this passage, see Valavanis (supra n. 52) 478. 45 46

10

Michalis Tiverios

of olive oil handed over by each producer would be stored in Panathenaic amphoras with the same emblem, indicating this particular source. This would have aided the Athenian state in checking the amounts of Panathenaic oil delivered to them. The increasing paucity of emblems after 510 B.C. would then indicate that only a small number of individuals, perhaps occasionally just one individual, rented the trees in the course of the fifth century. This is suggested by a number of Panathenaic amphoras from this period some of which issue from the same vase painter or workshop and which, even though not always contemporary with each other, display the same shield device. It might be objected that, if the Panathenaic olive oil at this period came from a unique source, there would be no need for a symbol to indicate the individual who had rented the olive trees. Nevertheless, the use of such symbols might be expected to continue, since the close link between the emblems and those currently renting the olive trees would have been established.56 The possibility that private citizens supplied the ταμίαι of the goddess with Panathenaic olive oil is perhaps confirmed by a scene on an Attic vase from the last decades of the fifth century (Figs.15–18 and Colour Pls. 3–5), which will claim our attention more fully below.57 The scene depicts two private citizens delivering the agreed amount of olive oil to the goddess, which might mean directly to her ταμίαι, without the interference of any state official. Nevertheless, as was said above, one cannot write off the possibility that Athena’s shield after 510 B.C., instead of alluding to an individual, may refer to an official responsible for collecting the olive oil and delivering it to the ταμίαι. Such an official could have been, for example, the ταμίας of the Military Fund. Aristotle ([Ath.Pol.] 49.3) states that he indeed played an active role in the great festival of Athena, since “μετὰ τῆς Βουλῆς συνεπιμελεῖτο τῶν ἄθλων εἰς τὰ Παναθήναια”. Furthermore, his role is confirmed by his presence on Panathenaic amphoras dating to Hellenistic times.58 Since the ταμίας τῶν στρατιωτικῶν was voted into office, he could be re-elected several times.59 The presence of the same shield device on Panathenaic amphoras of different years can thus be justified. But the involvement of the ταμίας τῶν στρατιωτικῶν in gathering the Panathenaic oil during the course of the fifth century is doubtful on account of the fact that there is no record of this office before the fourth century.60 If it did not exist in the fifth century, we must look for some other official(s) responsible for gathering the Panathenaic olive oil. It is obvious that the choice of shield devices for Athena on Panathenaic amphoras of the fifth century would not have depended on considerations valid before the foundation of the Athenian democracy. This is because the shield devices were now linked to government officials or to private individuals whose influence, even if they sprang from aristocratic families, was now perceptibly lessened. Thus, for example, for the Panathenaic festival of 402 B.C., that is, immediately after the restoration of the democracy in Athens, the Tyrannicides statuary group was chosen as the shield device for Athena, with obvious political symbolism.61 The choice of this particular symbol may be part of a more widespread tendency that seems to have appeared in Athens in the last quarter of the fifth century, whereby monumental sculpture and murals with political overtones make an appearance on Panathenaic amphoras. This occurred presumably because these vases, produced by the state, provided an excellent opportunity for the exercise of political propaganda. The peplos of Athena, for example, on a Panathenaic amphora of 404/3 B.C. (Fig. 13), when power was in the hands of the proSpartan Thirty Tyrants, is decorated with what may be a reflection of the saltantes Lacaenae of Callimachus, which may have had political connotations.62 On yet another Panathenaic amphora, dated to about 430–420 B.C., the peplos of Athena is decorated with an Amazonomachy, possibly influenced by a mural or panel painting.63 Amazonomachies at this time must have served as propaganda for the Athenian democracy and its mythical founder, Theseus.64 The urge to use well-known statues as Athena’s shield devices on Panathenaic amphoras, as was the case Τiverios (supra n. 37) 169. G. Steinhauer, Τα Μνημεία και το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο του Πειραιά (1998) 39, pl. 5; id., Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Πειραιώς (2001) 102 f., 130 ff., figs 192–196; J. Fink, Gymnasium 70, 1963, 133 ff., pl. 13; K. Clinton, Myth and Cult. The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries (1992) 202, figs 69–70. See also below, p. 12; P. Themelis, this volume. 58 Edwards (supra n. 53) 331, 343 n. 27, 346 n. 41, pls. 81, 84. 59 On this office, see P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia² (1993) 513f. Cf. Edwards (supra n. 53) 331 and n. 38 (with bibliography), 333; Shear (supra n. 8) 97 n. 46. 60 See Rhodes (supra n. 59); Shear (supra n. 8). 61 Valavanis (supra n. 52) 470 ff. and n. 13 with bibliography. 62 Μ.Tiverios, ΑΕphem 1981, 28 ff. 63 Tiverios (supra n. 20) 131 f., fig.1. 64 Tiverios (supra n. 20) 132 ff., 136 ff. 56

57

Panathenaic amphoras

11

Fig. 14. Detail of Panathenaic prize amphora. Athens, National Museum 20046. Photo: P. Valavanis.

with the Tyrannicides, may have eventually driven out the cocks that had originally occupied the columns flanking Athena. It may be that the officials overseeing the manufacture of the vases considered that it was more appropriate to move the statues from the shield devices to the top of the columns (Fig. 14). This may have occurred, as Panos Valavanis has observed, because the image that resulted was more realistic, given that it had long been the custom to place statues on columns.65 The depiction of statues on columns or pillars on both sides of Panathenaic amphoras, albeit occasionally, well into Hellenistic times.66 Thus it seems likely that Athena’s shield device on Panathenaic amphoras of the sixth and fifth centuries played an important role in the process of collecting the Panathenaic olive oil by the Athenian state. It was for precisely this reason that Athena strode to the left rather than the right, even though victors in Greek art are usually shown facing right.67 When the symbols, as it were, migrated from the shield of Athena to the columns, it was natural for the device to lose the significance it had enjoyed until the end of the fifth century. Indicative of this loss of significance is the fact that in the fourth century, when eponymous archon names began to appear on Panathenaic vases, Athena’s shield device is not always repeated,68 while for about forty years a star device appears with great frequency.69 It is obvious, therefore, that from the early fourth century shield devices are no longer necessary. This is further indicated by the fact that the shield is now rendered in three-quarter view or profile, naturally restricting the space allotted to the device.70 Thus there was no problem, when, perhaps in 363/2 B.C. or certainly in 360/359 B.C.71 vase painters started to depict Athena to right. Valavanis (supra n. 61). On these dedications, see M. Jordan-Ruwe, Das Säulenmonument (1995) 8 ff. Cf. D. Tsouklidou, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n. 13) pls. 13.1–2, 5; 14.1, 4; 16.4; 17.2. 67 Shapiro (supra n.14) 38. See also S. Papaspyride-Karouzou, AEphem 1948–1949, 15. 68 For example, on Panathenaic amphoras of the archon Charikleides (363/2 B.C.) a star and a gorgoneion are used as shield devices. See Bentz (supra n. 1) 170 f. Cf. Papaspyride-Karouzou (supra n. 67) 15 f. 69 For example, a star is used as a shield device on Panathenaic amphoras of archons Asteius (373/2 B.C.), Polyzelus (367/6 B.C.) and Charikleides (363/2 B.C.): Bentz (supra n.1) 168 f., 170 f. The star recalls the giant Aster or Asterios, whose elimination by Athena led, according to Aristotle, to the foundation of the Lesser Panathenaia. See Gr. Nagy, Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music (2002) 93f. 70 Bentz (supra n. 1) pls. 111 (right), 113 (right). 71 Athena faces to right for the first time on a Panathenaic amphora of 363/2 B.C. in the J. Paul Getty Museum. However, since this vase bears a potter’s signature instead of giving an archon’s name, it should be considered as a sample submitted to the state in 363/2 B.C. in order to obtain a contract for the manufacture of Panathenaic amphoras. On present evidence, Athena faces to right for the first time on an amphora actually used as a prize in 360/59 B.C.: Bentz (supra n. 1) 41, 59, 170, 172f. For “παραδείγματα” 65 66

12

Michalis Tiverios

The exterior of the shield was initially foreshortened (Fig. 14) and finally disappeared altogether,72 so that there was no room for a shield device. However, it seems probable that the significance held by the shield devices of the sixth and fifth centuries was renewed in later times. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that on Panathenaic amphoras of the second century B.C. of the agonothetes Pausimachus of the Aigeis (Αἰγηίς) tribe, a shield is depicted whose device is an impressive aegis (αἰγίς).73 Evidently this was a telling symbol of the Aigeis tribe, a phenomenon known from other monuments associated with Attic tribes.74 A scene depicting the delivery of Panathenaic olive oil to the Athenian state by private citizens, who had sacred olive trees in their land, was painted by the Dinos Painter about 420–410 B.C. on side A of a type-B amphora (Fig. 15; here pp. 21–22, Figs. 1–3 and Colour Pls. 3–5) from Trachones, the ancient deme of Euonymon. This vase, which we have mentioned above, once belonged to the Geroulanos Collection and is now in the Piraeus Museum.75 It depicts two men, each holding a pointed amphora and facing right towards Athena. The first man, who is bearded, has started to empty the contents of his vase into a large amphora in front of the goddess and it is implied that the other man, who is beardless, is about to do the same. Fig. 15. Attic red-figure amphora. Piraeus, Archeological As for the contents of the pointed amphoras, there can Museum 7341. Photo: K.-V. von Eickstedt. be no doubt that it is olive oil. This is confirmed by a sacred olive tree standing between the two men, which, Fink believes, may perhaps be the sacred olive tree on the Acropolis, the “mother” of all the olive trees of the goddess in Attica.76 The large amphora is evidently not a Panathenaic and stands on a separate base. The fact that Athena herself oversees its filling implies that the vase depicted in the scene is an official government measure for fluids, with the volume, evidently, of an amphora. Thus it is very likely indeed that the scene executed by the Dinos Painter shows a private citizen whose property held some sacred olive trees. He and his son are delivering the agreed amount of oil to the Athenian state, which here is represented by its patron deity. The clothing worn by the two men indicates that they are farmers and not government officials, not, for example, the ταμίαι of the goddess. They wear a short, belted chitoniskos, which leaves their right shoulder bare (an ἐξωμίς), a type of dress that was typical, among others, of farmers.77 Equally remarkable is the fact that both wear an olive crown. Their names are inscribed in the background but only that of the bearded man of Panathenaic amphoras see below, pp. 17–18. 72 Cf. Bentz (supra n. 1) pls. 110 (left), 113 (left), 115 (bottom left), 117, 119, 121, 127–129, 134 (left). 73 D. Tsouklidou, AM 118, 2003, 383 ff., pls. 82–84, 85.3 believes that this aegis alludes to the aegis dedicated by Antiochus IV (or III) on the south fortification wall of the Athenian Acropolis. Cf. C. Habicht, Athen. Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit (1995) 224; id., Chiron 19, 1989, 11f. On a Pausimachus, courtier of Eumenes II, who was honoured by the Athenians, see Habicht, 226 f. It is also probable that the gorgoneion on an imposing shield on top of a column, depicted on a Panathenaic amphora, is connected to agonothetes Adeimantus, who had also been epimelētēs of the Athenians on Delos in 141–140 B.C., since the vase was manufactured during his tenure of office. See Ν. Metaxa-Prokopiou, ΑDelt 25, A, 1970, 97ff, pl. 32β. However, Adeimantus’ reason for selecting a gorgoneion as a shield device on this amphora remains unknown. See also here, p. 150. 74 Compare the double-sided relief depicting horsemen of the Leontis tribe found in the Athenian Agora (here p. 120, Fig. 3), where a lion apparently symbolizes the name of the tribe. J. Camp, The Athenian Agora (1986) 121 f. 75 ARV² 1154, 38 bis. For bibliography on this, see supra n. 57. 76 Fink (supra n. 57) 135. 77 Cf. Η. P. Laubscher, Fischer und Landleute (1982) 7f. See also M. Pipili, in B. Cohen (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal (2000) especially 154, 175, 176.

Panathenaic amphoras

Fig. 16. Detail of Fig. 15, with the inscription ΑΛΚΙΜΟΣ. Photo: K.-V. von Eickstedt.

13

Fig. 17. Drawing of the inscription ΑΛΚΙΜΟΣ, from Fig. 15. Drawing: G. Miltsakakis.

can be read with certainty. He was named Alkimos (Figs. 16–17).78 Only four or five letters of the young man’s name can be vaguely made out (Fig. 18).79 The two named men and, indeed, the unusual scene suggest that the vase was made to order. It must have been commissioned by the landowner Alkimos, who probably had his properties and house in the deme of Euonymus, where the vase was found and where sacred olive trees must have stood. Another piece of evidence supports the suggestion that the vase was made to order. It has the same dimensions, and so probably the same volume, as a vase in Munich (Fig. 20), which is certainly an official state fluid measure, with the volume, it Fig. 18. Detail of Fig. 15, with traces of a second inscription. would seem, of an amphora.80 This, together with Photo: K.-V. von Eickstedt. our interpretation of the scene on the amphora from Trachones, may mean that the latter is a measure, specially ordered by Alkimos, so that he could measure the volume of the olive oil, before he handed it over to the Athenian state. Further possible proof of this is provided by the fact that this vase is of exactly the same type as the amphora it depicts, which is a vase for measuring amounts of fluid. The rest of the decoration on the Trachones amphora supports the view that it belonged to a landowner. On side B (Fig. 19) we see an equally unusual scene, depicting the great divinities of agriculture and of vegetation and fertility in general, Demeter, Korē and Pluto.81 The decoration on the lip of the vase points in the same direction (Figs. 15, 19): an ivy crown is an obvious reference to Dionysus and therefore to another great gift of the earth, the vine.82 This, and the ancient repair to the amphora, reinforces the suggestion that it was made to order. It was commissioned to be used as a measure for fluids and, with Cf. G. Steinhauer, Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Πειραιώς (2001) 131. The name is certainly appropriate (Ἄλκιμος= ‘strong’) for a farmer, who is a manual labourer. 79 Οnly O Γ Μ can be discerned, see Fig. 18. 80 B. Kaeser, MüJb 38, 1987, 228 ff.; H. A. Shapiro, in R. M. Rosen and J. Farrell (eds.), NOMODEIKTES. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (1993) 213 ff., fig. 1. See also Bentz (supra n. 1) 35; K. Schauenburg, JdI 103, 1988, 70, 71, figs. 3–4. The fact that the two vases have the same dimensions (Munich amphora: h. 0.566 m., diam. 0.387 m; Piraeus amphora: h. 0.575 m., diam. 0.40 m.), does not necessarily mean that they have the same capacity. See Bentz (supra n. 1) 31 and n. 136. Nevertheless, the Munich amphora and the amphora from the Geroulanos Collection display closely similar profiles, which suggest that the two vases are of the same capacity, although only proper measurements will confirm this. 81 LIMC VIII 1, 964 no. 137, s.v. Persephone (G. Güntner); LIMC IV 1, 373 no. 29 and IV 2, 212 no. 29, s.v. Hades (R. Lindner); LIMC IV 1, 870 no. 306 (with bibliography), s.v. Demeter (L. Beschi); Clinton (supra n. 55) 108 and n. 12, figs. 67–68. 82 Fink (supra n. 57) 136. For the relation between ivy and Dionysus, see K.Vierneisel and B. Kaeser (eds.), Kunst der Schale, Kultur des Trinkens (1990) 331 ff. (B. Kaeser). 78

14

Michalis Tiverios

Fig. 19. Side B of Fig. 15. Photo: K.-V. von Eickstedt.

Fig. 20. Attic black-figure amphora. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 9406. Photo after MüJb 38, 1987, 229, fig. 6.

the passing of time, it became a family heirloom, perhaps because it depicted family ancestors, Alkimos and his son. Such a conjecture accords well with its findspot: it is reported to have been found in a pit dug in the third century B.C. to serve as a deposit for refuse from some establishment that eventually functioned until the first century B.C.83 The scene on the vase by the Dinos Painter (Fig. 15) is important in illuminating the well-known inscription IG II2 2311 (here p. 118, Fig. 1), listing the prizes in various events of one section of the Panathenaic festival, sometime in the first decades of fourth century B.C.84 The scene in Fig. 15 indicates that the olive oil was measured out in pots of the capacity of an amphora. It is thus possible that, when the prize list names e.g. a prize of “30 amphoras of olive oil” offered to the winner of the boys’ boxing,85 it actually means that the capacity of 30 amphoras, rather than 30 Panathenaic amphoras is to be awarded. To be more precise, the word “amphora” may refer to a measure of volume, rather than to a vase. Such a view has been put forward in the past and was recently reiterated by Bettina Kratzmüller.86 Her strongest argument in favour of this view is the fact that surviving Panathenaic amphoras, even those from the same year, frequently vary in terms of capacity, sometimes surprisingly so.87 This accords with the varying prices of Panathenaic amphoras listed in the well-known inscriptions of the Δημιόπρατοι (= public auctioneers). Panathenaic amphoras seized in an Athenian house sometime during the penultimate decade of the fifth century B.C., were valued at various prices, ranging from 2.4 to 3.7 obols.88 These price differences are probably due, not to the condition of the vases, but to their different volumes. Thus it is not possible that the numbers in the inscription IG II2 2311 refer to the number of Panathenaic vases. Otherwise it would have been impossible to define the exact amount of olive See Fink (supra n. 57) 133. Bentz (supra n. 1) 13 ff., 199 (Αnhang 1); Shear (supra n. 8) 87 ff. See also S. V. Tracy, H. R. Goette, this volume. 85 Bentz (supra n. 1) 199 (IG II² 2311, ll. 32–33). 86 B. Kratzmüller, in B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner (eds.), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext. Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in Kiel vom 24–28.9.2001 (2003) 277 ff. See also Βentz (supra n.1) 31 ff. 87 Kratzmüller (supra n. 86) 277, 278, fig. 54. On the capacity of Panathenaic amphoras, see Bentz (supra n. 1) 31ff. 88 W. Κ. Pritchett, Hesperia 22, 1953, 251 (v. 41–60); D. A. Amyx, Hesperia 27, 1958, 178 ff. See also Μ. Tiverios, ΑDelt 29, A, 1974, 149 f. and Bentz (supra n. 1) 27, 91 f. and n. 488. 83 84

Panathenaic amphoras

15

Fig. 21. Sherds of Attic black-figure skyphos. From the Acropolis. Athens, National Museum 1265. Photo: S. Frintzilas.

oil awarded to the winners in the first decades of the fourth century, given that not all Panathenaic amphoras had the same volume. But the calculation of the amount of olive oil was a matter of vital importance to the Athenian state, to the athletes competing at the Panathenaia and, in general, to everyone concerned with this important Athenian festival. So, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, when IG II2 2311 mentions, for example, a prize of “30 amphoras of oil”, this does not mean 30 Panathenaic amphoras, but the amount of oil held by 30 amphoras, with “amphora” used in the sense of a fluid measure.89 Likewise, it would seem that a text attributed to Simonides, which deals with the prize won by a victor in the pentathlon of the Panathenaic games, refers not to a number of Panathenaic vases, but to a particular volume of oil. The “60 kadoi of oil” that the victor is said to have won, must mean “60 amphoras of oil”, with the word “amphora” again used as a standard fluid measure.90 The words kados and amphora are often used as synonyms, while the word kados is also employed as a measure of fluid, equal to that of an amphora.91 The exact definition of the weight of oil that corresponds to the volume of an amphora is a vexed question. Many scholars believe that an amphora had the volume of a metrētēs, that is, 39.312 kilos of water, that is, about 36 kilos of oil.92 The completely preserved Athenian state fluid measure, of a volume of, most probably, one amphora, which we have referred to above and which is dated to about 510–500 B.C. (Fig. 20), is of decisive importance here.93 The capacity of this vessel has been calculated at 35.5 kilos of water, which corresponds to a weight of 32.50 kilos of oil. Scholars who believe that an amphora contained the volume of a metrētēs, that is, about 36 kilos of olive oil, are of the opinion that the capacity of the Munich amphora was too small, which was why, in their view, it was withdrawn, to find its way into a grave.94 However, it Another fact that makes this interpretation more plausible is that in the slightly older inscriptions of the Δημιόπρατοι the Panathenaic vases are named “Panathenaic amphoras”, rather than “ἀμφορεῖς ἐλαίου” that occurs in the inscription IG II² 2311. 90 Bentz (supra n. 1) 14 and n. 41. Here, too, the text mentions “κάδους ἐλαίου”, rather than “Panathenaic amphoras”. Something similar is to be observed in the inscription IG II2 231l, which names “αμφορεῖς ἐλαίου”. The fact that both these texts mention “κάδους” or “ἀμφορεῖς ἐλαίου” instead of “Panathenaic amphoras”, as in the inscriptions of the Δημιόπρατοι (supra n. 88), seems to confirm the suggestion that we are dealing with measures of volumes of fluid, and of olive oil in particular, rather than with Panathenaic vases. 91 See e.g. Amyx (supra n. 88) 186ff.; B. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Agora XII (1970) 201 n. 1; LSJ s.v. κάδος, κάδιον. 92 M. Lang and M. Crosby, Agora X (1964) 58f.; Tiverios (supra n. 88) 150. 93 See above, p. 13 and n. 80. On the dating of the amphora around 510 B.C., see Shapiro (supra n. 80) 215 ff. 94 Kaeser (supra n. 80) 228 ff. See also Shapiro (supra n. 80) 221 f. and Bentz (supra n. 1) 55. 89

16

Michalis Tiverios

may well be that the Munich amphora preserves the official volume of an amphora in Athens, at least during the fifth century B.C. and right after the foundation of the democracy. The Munich amphora probably has the same volume as the Trachones amphora, which was used as a fluid measure. It thus confirms the view that the weight of a metrētēs in Athens was diminished about 500 B.C.95 In any case, we have enough evidence to suggest that the volume of different fluid measures in Athens varied over time.96 This is also a modern phenomenon, and should be constantly borne in mind. The varying capacity of Panathenaic amphoras, which increases or diminishes variously over the period of their production,97 may indicate that the amount of olive oil awarded to victors in the Panathenaic games changed from one festival to the next. The chief factor that influenced the volume of olive oil awarded was obviously the amount produced in the years immediately preceding the festival, since the yield of olive trees can in some years be extremely low.98 There must certainly have been other factors that influenced the amount of oil produced, for example, disease, fire or war would certainly have had an effect, since they could have damaged the olive groves. Thus it is very likely, as Julia Shear has recently argued, that the value and size of the Panathenaic prizes listed in IG II2 2311, in reference to some Panathenaic festival at the beginning of the fourth century B.C., cannot be used as evidence for the Panathenaia in general in Archaic and Classical times.99 This consideration and the point that the figures listed do not refer to numbers of Panathenaic amphoras but to amounts of olive oil, initially at least, do not to allow us to calculate the total number of Panathenaic amphoras awarded in a festival that took place in the first decades of the fourth century, still less to calculate the numbers of Panathenaic vases produced from the sixth to the fourth centuries.100 However, on the basis of IG II2 2311, about 1,500 to 1,600, or, according to some, about 2,000 to 2,100 amphoras (with the word used in the sense of the official state fluid measure) must have been awarded to the Panathenaic victors of one set of competitions at the beginning of the fourth century. And it is possible that between 1,500 and 2,100 Panathenaic amphoras would have been needed to carry this oil. Most surviving Panathenaic amphoras could hold 32.5 kilos of olive oil,101 which amounts to the same volume, as we have seen, of an official amphora of olive oil. This means that it is not out of the question that the volume contained in an official amphora of olive oil could be held in a Panathenaic amphora.102 Furthermore, Panathenaic amphoras cannot have been filled to the brim. The oil may occasionally have reached only to the beginning of the neck103 to avoid spilling during transport, often to very distant destinations, sometimes overland.104 If a group of contests of the Panathenaic festival at the beginning of the fourth century required between 1,500 and 2,100 vases, then the number of surviving Panathenaic amphoras is remarkably small in comparison with the total number produced, at least during that particular period. Indeed, the number of surviving Panathenaic vases definitely dated to the first three decades of the fourth century is not more than ten!105 This is also very probably the ratio for surviving black- and red-figure vases in comparison with the total amount produced. On the basis of the inscriptions of the Δημιόπρατοι, to which we have referred above, we can work out, in general terms at least, the cost of producing the 1,500 to 2,100 Panathenaic amphoras that were probably required for one session of the Great Panathenaic festival during the first decades of the fourth century. The prices recorded for Panathenaic amphoras, between 2.4 and 3.7 obols, presumably refer to second-hand vases. Thus, we would not be wrong in assuming that the manufacture of one vase would cost the Athenian state Kaeser (supra n. 80) 230. Cf. Bentz (supra n.1) 34 f. with bibliography. 97 Βentz (supra n.1) 31ff , 200 ff. (Anhänge 2–6). On the capacity of Panathenaic amphoras, see also Edwards (supra n. 53) 335 f. n. 55. 98 Tiverios (supra n. 5) 524; Shear (supra n. 8). 99 Shear (supra n. 8) 102 f. 100 On such efforts, see A. Johnston, BSA 82, 1987, 125ff.; Bentz (supra n.1) 17f. and n. 59; Shear (supra n. 8) 102ff. 101 Bentz (supra n.1) 31 ff., 200 ff. (Anhänge 2–6). 102 See Lang (supra n. 92) 59, who believes that “the relationship between Panathenaic amphoras and official measures is strengthened by the use of the former as apparently standard containers for various amounts of oil specified as prizes for the various contests (IG II² 2311)”. 103 See Bentz (supra n. 1) 31. 104 If, for example, the Panathenaic victor happened to come from mainland Greece, this meant that the olive oil he had won had to be transported by land. 105 Bentz (supra n. 1) 167–168. 95 96

Panathenaic amphoras

17

about one drachma, the total production of 1,500–2,100 vases costing from 1.5 to 2 talents.106 The Athenian state obviously awarded the contract for the production of the vases after a public competition. Pottery workshops would have presented samples of their work to the officials responsible for awarding the contract. Obviously the main criteria were economy and quality, although clearly the officials would have sought some guarantee that the workshop in question would be able to execute the order in the required time.107 Pottery competitions in Athens are attested by the sources. In an inscription of 330 B.C., inscribed on the lower step of a grave monument to the potter Bacchius, son of Amphistratus, of the deme Kerameis, we read the phrase, “ὧν προὔθηκεν ἀγῶνας ἥδε πόλις πάντας τῶνδε ἔλαβε στεφάνους”.108 This phrase confirms the hypothesis that the Athenian state held competitions for the manufacture of Panathenaic amphoras, particularly since we happen to have Panathenaic vases with the name of the potter Bacchius.109 Thus the inscriptions on Panathenaic amphoras accompanied by the verb “ἐποίησεν” must chiefly refer to the owners of the pottery workshops.110 Moreover, the phrase of Aristotle (Ath.Pol. 49.3) “ἔκρινεν δὲ ποτε καὶ τὰ παραδείγματα καὶ τὸν πέπλον ἡ βουλή, νῦν δὲ τὸ δικαστήριον τὸ λαχόν˙ ἐδόκουν γὰρ οὗτοι καταχαρίζεσθαι τὴν κρίσιν” leads to the conclusion that the state did indeed award the contract for manufacturing the Panathenaic amphoras after a competition. The word παραδείγματα would seem to refer to the samples of Panathenaic amphoras that the potters produced and displayed, so that the Boulē or later, in the time of Aristotle, the δικαστήριον τὸ λαχὸν could choose the most suitable workshop to which to award the contract of manufacturing the Panathenaic vases.111 The phrase that immediately follows in the text of Aristotle (Ath.Pol. 49.3), “καὶ τῶν ἄθλων τῶν εἰς τὰ Παναθήναια συνεπιμελεῖται (ἡ βουλή) μετὰ τοῦ ταμίου τῶν στρατιωτικῶν” does not contradict the meaning we have assigned to the term παραδείγματα, since Aristotle uses ἆθλα to mean not the vases, but their contents, as is obvious in another passage ([Ath.Pol.] 60.3): “ἔστι γὰρ ἆθλα…τοῖς δὲ τὸν γυμνικὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν ἔλαιον”. Yet another passage from the Constitution of the Athenians tends to confirm our interpretation. Aristotle ([Ath.Pol.] 60.1) writes “…διοικοῦσι (οἱ ἀθλοθέται) τήν τε πομπὴν τῶν Παναθηναίων καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς μουσικῆς καὶ τὸν γυμνικὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν, καὶ τὸν πέπλον ποιοῦνται, καὶ τοὺς ἀμφορεῖς ποιοῦνται μετά τῆς βουλῆς, καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον τοῖς ἀθληταῖς ἀποδιδόασι”. The phrase “καὶ τὸν πέπλον ποιοῦνται, καὶ τοὺς ἀμφορεῖς ποιοῦνται μετά τῆς βουλῆς” supports our interpretation of παραδείγματα, since here it is even more clearly indicated that the Boulē was responsible for seeing to the manufacture and preparation of the Panathenaic amphoras. At this point in Constitution of the Athenians (60.1), the peplos, the Panathenaic amphoras and the olive oil, that is, the prizes for the victors, are all mentioned together, which is further evidence in support of our view, even more since these three elements occur together once again in the same text ([Ath.Pol.] 49.3), so long of course as our interpretation of παραδείγματα is correct. It seems, moreover, that such παραδείγματα (samples) have actually survived. For example, certain Panathenaic amphoras, which do not vary in terms of shape or decoration from the canonical type, nevertheless do not bear the inscription “ΤΩΝ ΑΘΗΝΗΘΕΝ ΑΘΛΩΝ”112 or the name of the eponymous archon, even though they date from the fourth century B.C.113 These vases, in our view, must be παραδείγματα. It cannot be a matter of chance that three of these Panathenaic amphoras from the fourth century that do not give the See Βentz (supra n.1) 27, 91f. It should be noted that more than the absolutely necessary number of amphoras would have been produced for each session, to cover any loss by breakage. This accounts for the unused amphoras found in the Athenian Kerameikos remarked upon by J. Frel, Panathenäische Preisamphoren (1973) 18; cf. also N. Eschbach, this volume. Furthermore, the prices and costs that we offer here are based upon the assumption that that pottery prices did not change dramatically between the date of the δημιόπρατοι inscriptions and the early decades of the fourth century, when IG II2 2311 is to be dated. It does, however, seem to be the case that pottery prices remained stable. 107 On competitions for potters, see Tiverios (supra n. 88) 144 ff.; Bentz (supra n. 1) 27 ff. On the criteria of selection, cf. Plut. Mor. 498 Ε. 108 Bentz (supra n.1) 27 and n. 112 for bibliography. See also Robertson (supra n. 40) 293 f. 109 Bentz (supra n. 1) 168, nos 4.006 and 4.007. For a third Panathenaic vase possibly signed by the potter Bacchius, see Bentz. (supra n. 1) 29 and n.119, 188, no. 4.260. 110 For signed Panathenaic vases, see Βentz (supra n. 1) 28 f. 111 Tiverios (supra n. 88) 145 f. Contra, Bentz (supra n. 1) 29 and n. 125. Other scholars believe that “παράδειγμα” has to do with the peplos, see Rhodes (supra n.59) 568 f., 671 f.; Nagy (supra n. 69) 91 ff. 112 See, for example, Tiverios (supra n. 88) 146 f. and n. 24. 113 See e.g. Bentz (supra n. 1) 167 no. 4.004, 168 f., nos. 4.007, 4.013, 4.015, 4.016, 170, no. 4.024, 172, no. 4.052, 173, no. 4.055. 106

18

Michalis Tiverios

name of the eponymous archon, carry the potter’s signature,114 which is highly unusual for this numerous group of Attic vases. However, potters’ signatures are readily explained if these vases were παραδείγματα, that is, as samples from various pottery workshops. It cannot be accidental that on one Panathenaic vase, bearing the name of the potter Bacchius, instead of the inscription “ΤΟΝ ΑΘΕΝΕΘΕΝ ΑΘΛΟΝ”, we have an abbreviation, “ΤΟΑΘΕΝΕΝ”!115 Panathenaic amphoras have been found in cemeteries, houses, sanctuaries and other public spaces.116 Some amphoras found outside Attica may have reached their destinations through trade and their final owners need not have been Panathenaic victors.117 However, other amphoras must have remained in the possession of their original owners, that is, victors in the Panathenaic games. Even though the oil was the chief prize in the Panathenaic festival, the amphoras themselves would have had a special significance for the victors.118 Once their contents had been consumed, only the vases would have served to recall and attest the victory of their owner. Thus, for example, in a well-known Hadrianic relief in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (59.11.19), the depiction of a Panathenaic amphora alludes to the victory of a certain Rhamnusius at the Panathenaia.119 Furthermore, it is possible that at least in Hellenistic times, Panathenaic amphoras were manufactured from precious metals120 and these valuable vases must therefore have been used in their own right as prizes. The intrinsic value of these amphoras is attested by the existence of marble Panathenaics that served as grave markers or dedications.121 There is no doubt that some of the Panathenaic vases won at the festival were sold with their contents, but the victors would certainly have retained some of the olive oil for their own use. The fact that at least 102 empty Panathenaic vases were confiscated from an Athenian house at the end of the fifth century B.C. is proof of this.122 However, Panathenaic amphoras have also been found in many sanctuaries of the Greek world, including, naturally, the Acropolis of Athens, and this confirms the importance that the vases had in their own right.123 Their value is also attested from scenes on Attic black- and red-figure vases, which depict processions of Panathenaic victors, evidently heading towards the Acropolis to dedicate the Panathenaic vases that they have won to the deity of the city.124 Furthermore, the significance of Panathenaic vases is indicated, even if in an indirect way, by the fact that their decoration is imitated on other Attic vases, that do not seem to have any link with the Panathenaic festival.125 An exception that proves this rule may be certain amphoriskoi, whose shape, iconography and decorative technique imitate those of the Panathenaic vases. These amphoriskoi are dated to about 400 B.C. In Beazley’s view, they contained a kind of aromatic oil, the panathenaicum mentioned by Pliny, which perhaps the Athenian state (or the priesthood of Athena) produced and marketed for visitors to buy during the first festival held after the fall of the Thirty.126 Moreover, a considerable number of potters, not only from the Kerameikos of Athens, apart from imitating the decoration of Panathenaic vases, also imitated their shape.127 Panathenaic amphoras must have been of particular significance, as objects in themselves, also in the final years of the Panathenaic festival. It is possible that at that time only an empty Panathenaic vase, rather than

114 Bentz (supra n.1) 168f. nos. 4.007, 4.013, 4.024. For a different interpretation of the lack of archon’s name from Panathenaic amphoras of the fourth century B.C., see P. Valavanis, Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από την Ερέτρια (1991) 115. 115 Βentz (supra n.1) 168, no. 4.007. 116 Βentz (supra n. 1) 95 ff. See also Neils (supra n. 5) 48ff. 117 Bentz (supra n. 1) 89 ff. 118 Tiverios (supra n. 88) 151 f. Cf. Kyle (supra n. 18) 122, 134 n. 90; Tracy (supra n. 54) 143. 119 Neils (supra n. 5) 51, 191 n. 71, fig. on p. 14; Frel (supra n. 106) 31f., fig. 34. 120 P. Valavanis, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n. 13) 170 ff.; M. Tiverios, in 10th International Symposium on the Odyssey. Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics. Ithaki, September 15–19, 2004 [in press]. See also Papaspyride-Karouzou (supra n. 67) 32; Tiverios (supra n. 13) 53; H. Kotsidu, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n. 13) 61. 121 P. Valavanis, AM 114, 1999, 199ff.; id., Eirene 36, 2000, 89ff.; Edwards (supra n.53) 323 and n. 6, pl. 87. 122 See above, p. 14 n. 88. 123 For Panathenaic amphoras found in sanctuaries, see Tiverios (supra n. 13) mainly 43ff. 124 See P. Valavanis, AA 1991, 487ff. 125 On “pseudo-Panathenaic” amphoras, see H. Kotsidu, Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit (1991) mainly 93 ff., 293ff; M. Bentz, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n. 13) 111ff., 177ff., 199ff. (the list here is compiled by J. Neils, J. H. Oakley, H. A. Shapiro). See also Neils (supra n. 5) 42 ff.; R. Hamilton, Choes and Anthesteria: Athenian Iconography and Ritual (1992) 131f. nn. 32, 35; Shapiro (supra n.14) 32 ff. 126 J. Beazley, BSA 41, 1945, 10ff. See also Bentz (supra n. 1) 196 ff. (for a list). 127 See Valavanis (supra n.120) 161 f., 167.

Panathenaic amphoras

19

olive oil, was awarded to the victors.128 This is suggested by a hole made before firing in the base of the latest surviving Panathenaic amphora, which Jiři Frel dates to the early fourth century A.D.129 The aim of the hole was perhaps to ensure that the amphora would not be used as a container, thus preserving its sacred character. Something similar can be observed in the funerary customs of antiquity, where offerings and certain grave goods were “killed” thus rendered practically useless.130 If this is really the case, then one may assume that, during the difficult times when ancient religion was dying and the Athenians had to face severe financial hardship, perhaps they associated the Panathenaic festival with the divine alone. Maybe they hoped thereby to ensure the help of their patron goddess, so that her festival would survive, now that they themselves were able to do little in this direction. Over the thousand years of life of the Great Panathenaia, some of the greatest vase painters of the Athenian Kerameikos were responsible for the decoration of Panathenaic amphoras. Among these painters we may enumerate Lydos, Exekias and Euphronios in the sixth century B.C., the Kleophrades, the Berlin and the Achilles Painters of the fifth century B.C., the Pourtalès, the Marsyas and the Wedding Procession Painters of the fourth century B.C. The excellence of these painters was certainly worthy of the brilliance of the great festival of Athens. In Hellenistic and Roman times, when black- and red-figure had died out, the quality of the decoration on the pots naturally declined, as is evident from the latest known amphora of the fourth century A.D., which we have already mentioned and which was found in the Agora in 1959. What is mainly preserved is part of the scene on the rear, showing the lower part of a victor. Of the Athena on side A, nothing but her toes is preserved.131 Perhaps the goddess herself made sure of this, hoping to ensure that she, and the ancient religion she represented, could make a dignified exit.

Acknowledgements For assisting me in various ways I would like to thank G. Steinhauer, N. Aksioti, S. Frintzilas, K.-V. von Eickstedt, G. Miltsakakis and especially V. Saripanidi. I would also like to thank A. Farrington for the translation of the Greek text and Olga Palagia for substantially improving my English text.

Note References are restricted to the essential and most recent. The reader will find earlier references in the articles and books cited in the notes.

128 Similar events are known from the final years of Greco-Roman antiquity in other areas. For example, the sophist Himerius (Or. XLIV 7) tells us that on one occasion the people of Andros wanted to sacrifice to Apollo, to thank him for his help. However, because of lack of goods, they had nothing to offer and so decided to simply light the fire on the altar “καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἤσθη τῷ τρόπῳ καὶ μόνην τὴν φλόγα προσίετο καὶ σπονδῆς προέκρινε τὰ τῆς προαιρέσεως σύμβολα”. The fact that there are very few Panathenaic vases surviving from Hellenistic and scarcely any from Roman times leads one to believe that Panathenaic victors were offered a symbolic small amount of olive oil, and eventually no oil at all. The abandonment of the Attic countryside and the ensuing destruction of its olive trees is evidently the reason for this. Perhaps the victors of the Panathenaic games were sometimes awarded one empty Panathenaic amphora, of purely symbolic significance. 129 Frel (supra n. 106) 32, fig. 33. 130 See D. C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs (1971) 215ff. 131 Frel (supra n.106) 32.

Panathenaic prizes and dedications Petros Themelis

The prizes A red-figure Type B Attic amphora (Figs. 1–3; here pp. 12–14, Figs. 15–19 and Colour Pls. 3–5) with a scene related to the olive oil for the Panathenaia which Olga Palagia drew to my attention is the main subject of my paper. The amphora was found on the estate of J. Geroulanos at Trachones, in the Attic deme Euonymon. It was kept in the private collection of the Geroulanos family (inv. no. 1034) until 1987, when it was removed to the Piraeus Museum, where it is now exhibited (new inv. no. 7341).1 The amphora was known to Sir John Beazley, who attributed it to the Dinos Painter or his circle, c. 420–410 B.C.2 It was published by Joseph Fink in 1963.3 It receives brief mention and is well illustrated in a recent book on the Piraeus Museum sponsored by the Marianna Latsis Foundation.4 The amphora was broken in several pieces and mended in antiquity using a number of lead dowels, which are still preserved on the body, the neck and the base.5 A part of the belly on the right side of the back was restored with plaster of Paris soon after its discovery by J. Geroulanos. The fact that it was repaired extensively in antiquity using expensive chunks of lead indicates that it was an object of high symbolic value for its owner (and patron?) and, though no longer in use, it must have been kept in its owner’s house long after its repair, at least as long as the owner was still alive.6 The scene on the front of the amphora (Fig. 1; here p. 12, Fig. 15 and Colour Pl. 3) is of special importance to our discussion and consequently deserves detailed description

Fig. 1. Attic red-figure amphora from Trachones. Piraeus Museum 7341.

On Euonymon, see RE 6 (1909) 1156–1158, s.v. Euonymon (A. Milchhoefer); L. Ross, Archäologische Aufsätze 1 (1855) 16, discusses the words φελλεύς (= rocky or stony ground) and Trachones and refers to a vast cemetery at Trachones; from this cemetery derive all the objects, especially the complete vases dating mainly from the Geometric to the Classical periods, of the former J. Geroulanos collection, now in the Piraeus Museum; cf. R. Loeper, AM 17, 1892, 319–433; D. W. Bradeen, Transactions of the American Philological Association 86, 1955, 22–30; C. W. J. Eliot, Coastal Demes of Attica (1962) 8 and 13–18. The amphora Figs. 1–3 is also discussed by M. Tiverios in this volume. 2 ARV2 1154, 38 bis. Height, 0.58 m, diam. of base, 0.218 m, diam. of body, 0.40 m., diam. of lip, 0.355 m., thickness of lip, 0.064 m. 3 J. Fink, Gymnasium 79, 1963; E. Raftopoulou, in Ελιά και Λάδι (1993) 114. 4 G. Steinhauer, Το Μουσείο του Πειραιά (2002) 192–196. 5 On the meaning of repairs: D. M. Robinson, Olynthus 13 (1950) 59–64; M. F. Vos, OudhMeded 62, 1981, 33–35. 6 We know that most, if not all, of the vases of the J. Geroulanos collection came from tombs in the vast cemetery on his estate at Trachones (supra n. 1); it seems thus probable that the Piraeus amphora also comes from a tomb. 1

22

Petros Themelis

Fig. 2. Attic red-figure amphora from Trachones. Piraeus Museum 7341. Youth.

Fig. 3. Attic red-figure amphora from Trachones. Piraeus Museum 7341. Athena.

and interpretation. Two men are depicted, a bearded, older man in front and a younger one behind him (Fig. 2), both barefoot and wearing exomides, a type of dress known also as the heteromaschalos chiton, usually but not exclusively worn by manual laborers or slaves.7 Each of the two men carries a pointed transport amphora full of olive oil; the younger man holds his amphora by both handles in an upright position, ready to give it to the older man, who, standing out as the main figure in the scene, pours the contents of his transport vessel into a Type B amphora that stands on a base slightly above ground level. The image of the amphora on the ground and the actual amphora that bears the representation are identical in type and form. Above the head of the main figure is an inscription in faded white-painted letters indicating his name: ΑΛΚΙΜΟΣ (here p. 13, Figs. 16–17).8 The letters are 0.0025 m high, while the spaces between them are about 0.012 m. A young olive tree with a tall, thin trunk, two or three tiny branches, and some scanty leaves that stands between the two men can be identified with Athena’s sacred olive tree that grew on the Acropolis; it alludes on the one hand to the precious liquid, the Panathenaic olive oil of the sacred olive trees (moriai) which is being transported in the two pointed amphoras, and on the other hand to the place where the measuring out and the storing of that oil took place, the Acropolis of Athens.9 High above the head of the young man and A. Pekridou-Gorecki, Mode im antiken Griechenland (1989) 87. On the incsription, see also M. Tiverios, this volume. For the name, see J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens 2 (1994) 48–49; cf. M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II, Attica (1994) s.v. Ἄλκιμος. The name of the artist Alkimos is inscribed on a stone disc from Akragas: M. B. Comstock and C. C. Vermeule, Sculpture in Stone: The Greek, Roman and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (1976) 57, no. 89. I examined the Trachones amphora and checked the inscriptions with the help of Voula Bardani. When I first saw the vase through the glass of the display case in the Piraeus Museum, I had the impression that the name of the older man could be read ΑΛΚΑΙΟΣ not ΑΛΚΙΜΟΣ. Alkaios was eponymous archon at Athens in 422/1 B.C.: R. Develin, Athenian Officials 684–321 B.C. (1989) 137–139. 9 On the sacred olive tree of Pallas Athena and the olive tree of the Academy: Paus. 1.27–30.2; Hdt. 5.82; 8.55; Apollod. 3.14.1 The Academy was considered a precinct of Athena where 12 moriai grew: Ath. 13.561; cf. RE 16:1 (1933) cols. 302–303, s.v. moriai (K. Latte); the olive tree symbolized Athena herself, according to the Delphic oracle: H. Baumann, Die griechische Pflanzenwelt in 7 8

Panathenaic prizes and dedications

23

very close to the leaves of the olive tree, a second inscription, partly preserved, reads: ΘΑΛΛΟ[…](here p. 13, Fig. 18, with different reading). It might be the young man’s name (Thallon?) but a connection with the sacred olive tree cannot be excluded, particularly if we consider the Aeschylean verse (Pers. 616–617): “ἐν φύλλοισι θαλλούσης βίον / ξανθῆς ἐλαίας.” Moreover, both participants in the olive oil ceremony on the Trachones amphora θαλλοφοροῦσιν, i.e. wear olive wreaths. A similar tree that probably once had painted leaves appears between Athena and a bearded male figure on a document relief of 410/9 B.C., IG I3 375, the so-called ‘Choiseul Marble’ (Paris, Louvre MA 831).10 The tree has been recognized as Athena’s sacred olive tree that grew near the Erechtheion. It is worth mentioning that on the ‘Choiseul Marble’, the treasurers of Athena Polias and Athena Nike made a payment for the expenses of the Greater Panathenaia of 410 B.C., of which the considerable sum of 5 talents and 1,000 drachmas went to the athlothetai, while the hieropoioi received 5,114 drachmas for the hecatomb. The festive atmosphere of the Trachones scene is manifest not only in the epiphany of the goddess Athena (Fig. 3 and Colour Pl. 5), who stands on the right of the panel to supervise the transport and measuring out of the sacred olive oil, but also by the fact that both men carrying the oil are crowned with olive wreaths that mark them as distinguished participants in a great celebration (Fig. 1). The youthful Athena, looking calm and feminine, wears a peritrachelion and a Corinthian helmet with upraised cheek-pieces and a tall magnificent crest; in her raised right hand she holds a spear upright like a scepter. As she carries no shield, her warlike aspect is not emphasized. She wears a himation over a long chiton with aegis and the anthropomorphized gorgoneion on her breast. Her name (ΑΘΗΝΑΑ) is written in front of her head, with the second A to the right of her spear. She brings her left hand, covered by the rich folds of the himation, to her waist in a pose similar to the later Athena Rospigliosi type.11 The epiphany of the goddess emphasizes the symbolic character of the scene and identifies the two named men, Alkimos and Thallo[n?] not as peasants or slaves but as Athenian citizens, more specifically a senior official and his young assistant, in the service of the great goddess and her festival, the Greater Panathenaia, which had a strong religious character, and was at the same time a great national and popular celebration. The figure of the older man is comparable to the treasurers and other “generic” honorands represented on Attic document reliefs.12 The scene of the olive oil being poured from the transport amphoras into the Type B ampora located on the ground clearly evokes Alkimos’ measuring out the oil in the presence of Athena on the Acropolis, where the Panathenaic oil was stored for approximately three years until the next Panathenaia. The verb appropriate to this act would be ἀπομετρεῖν.13 It is the verb Aristotle uses to describe the measuring of the Panathenaic olive oil during the Games: “The treasurers keep the olive oil stored on the Acropolis and measure it out to the athlothetai during the Panathenaia, the athlothetai in their turn measure it out and deliver it to the victorious athletes”, that is, to the winners of the gymnastic and equestrian contests as a prize according to the order of precedence set by law.14 We cannot exclude the possibility that Alkimos, most probably a citizen of the deme of Euonymon (in the region of Trachones), was one of the tamiai or athlothetai of Athena in the period 420–410 B.C. and comissioned the amphora in order to commemorate his term in office. On the back of the amphora are depicted Demeter and Kore, with a torch in her hand, standing beside Plouto, who is represented as an old, bearded man (here p. 14, Fig. 19). The names ΠΛΟΥΤΩΝ and ΦΕΡΡΕΦΑΤΤΑ (sic) are written in white paint above the couple’s head; the spot where Demeter’s name was written is now broken off. The close relationship of Athens to Eleusis is very well known, but the presence of the Eleusinian deities on a vase connected with the Panathenaia must have a special meaning. Which Eleusinion is actually implied, the one at Eleusis, or the smaller precinct and building complex sacred to Demeter and Kore that abutted the processional road southeast of the Athenian Agora? The latter, I believe, for reasons to be explained below. The inscription which preserves the lower part of three Panathenaic victor lists, from the games of 170, 166 and 162 B.C., allows us to determine with certainty the entire sequence of the equestrian events and to

Mythos, Kunst und Literatur (1982) 58; cf. M. Detienne, RHistRel 178, 1970, 5–23. 10 C. L. Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient Athens (1995) 86–87, no. 8. 11 Cf. B. Schlörb, Timotheos (1965) 60–63, pls. 17–18. 12 Lawton (supra n. 10) 60–61. 13 LSJ, s.v. ἀπομετρέω. 14 [Ath. Pol.] 60.2–3.

24

Petros Themelis

gain a complete picture of the athletic program.15 A part of the equestrian competition, comprising horse and chariot races, most probably open only to Athenian citizens, took place “in the Eleusinion” bordering the processional route southeast of the Agora. “As the Panathenaic Way left the square and began to mount the slope towards the Acropolis, it ran along the Eleusinion which was to the left. This part of the Panathenaic Way, especially where it ran through the square, was very wide and was known as the dromos, the racecourse. The terminus of this course closest to the Acropolis was apparently the Eleusinion and it was probably in the precinct of the Eleusinion that victory in these events was declared by the judges.”16 Consequently, the presence of the Eleusinian deities on the back of the Trachones amphora seems to allude to the special relation of the Athenian (rather than the Eleusinian) Eleusinion to the Panathenaic games. Alkestis Choremi has recently published a fragment of an important marble relief of the fourth century B.C. from the area of the Athenian Eleusinion.17 The relief represents the Panathenaic wheeled ship and part of a procession. The Panathenaic procession stopped at the Eleusinion with the ship, then the sail-peplos was taken down from the ship’s mast and was hand-carried up to the Acropolis, while the ship remained there till the next Panathenaia.18 The woven peplos of Athena was the raison d’être of the procession and the high point of the whole Panathenaic festival, as Jenifer Neils has pointed out.19 And the most important day of the whole festival, both of the Lesser and Greater Panathenaia, was the 28th Hekatombaion, the day of the procession, Athena’s birthday and ‘wedding’ anniversary, according to the ingenious interpretation of the Parthenon frieze proposed by Angelos Delivorrias.20 Furthermore, the so-called Attic Stelai of 414/3 B.C. listing the sale by the Athenian state of goods belonging to Alcibiades and his co-conspirators, who had been accused of defacing the herms and profaning the Eleusinian Mysteries in 415 B.C., were set up in the Athenian Eleusinion.21 Among the goods from Alcibiades’ house are recorded 100 empty second-hand Panahenaic amphoras, which fetched on average 3 obols (from 2.4 to 3.4 obols each). Such a price means that they were reckoned cheap, even cheaper than the hydrias and pelikai, which were valued from 12 to 18 obols each.22 To return to the Trachones amphora (Fig. 1), the scene of the decanting of olive oil from the pointed transport amphora to the Type B amphora on the ground is related to the ritual of measuring it out in front of the goddess. The Type B amphora placed on the ground on a special low base for emphasis serves as a standard measure for the Panathenaic olive oil. The Athenian vase painter has symbolically represented one of the four phases of the olive oil procedure: collecting, delivering, storing and distributing the Panathenaic olive oil to the victorious athletes. This was the procedure set by Athenian law, described in [Ath. Pol.] 59.60 as follows: Phase I: The eponymous archon collected three hemicotylia of oil from each olive tree (στέλεχος) from the owners of the land where the sacred moriai grew.23 S. V. Tracy and Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 60, 1991, 187–236; S. V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 133–153. Tracy (supra n.15) 140. The marble relief base by Bryaxis (here p. 121, Fig. 4) that supported a bronze tripod, prize for a victory in the anthippasia, was found on the road leading to the Eleusinion: IG II2, 3130, SIG III, 1920, 1074; T. L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia 40, 1971, 271, pl. 27c. See also H. R. Goette, this volume. 17 A. Spetsieri-Choremi, AEphem 2000, 1–18. 18 H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (1977) 33–50; cf. Philostr. 2.550. Some scholars make a distinction between the sailpeplos of the Panathenaic procession and the dress-peplos presented to the cult statue of the goddess: E. J. W. Barber, in J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) 103–117; Spetsieri-Choremi (supra n.17) 9–11 with bibliography; G. Nagy, Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music: The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens (2002) 90; Ch. Tsochos, Πομπάς πέμπειν: Prozessionen von der minoischen bis zur klassischen Zeit in Griechenland (2002) 220–221 with n. 874 and 236–237 with n. 950. 19 J. Neils, in Neils (supra n. 18) 26. 20 P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (1981) 670 and 693; Nagy (supra n. 18) 88–91; cf. A. Delivorrias, Η ζωοφόρος του Παρθενώνα: το πρόβλημα, η πρόκληση, η ερμηνεία (2004) 47–53. G. F. Pinney, in H. A. G. Bridjer (ed.), Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium, Amsterdam 1984 (1988) 465–477 and J. D. Mikalson, AJPh 97, 1976, 141–153 do not accept that Athena’s birthday was the principal aition for the Panathenaia. 21 W. K. Pritchett, Hesperia 22, 1953, 225–311; idem, Hesperia 25, 1956, 178–328; idem, Hesperia 30, 1961, 23–29; D. A. Amyx, Hesperia 27, 1958, 163–310; J. M. Camp, The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (1986) 88. 22 B. A. Sparkes, Greek Pottery: An Introduction (1991) 130–131; idem, The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pottery (1996) 142; Camp (supra n. 21) 88. 23 If “στέλεχος” means “tree”, then the quantity of olive oil collected from the sacred moriai all over Attica (3 hemicotylia per tree) would hardly be enough to fulfil the need of more than 43 tons(!) of olive oil for the games; LSJ, s.v. στέλεχος (= crown of the root, 15 16

Panathenaic prizes and dedications

25

Phase II: The archon delivered the olive oil to the tamiai, who stored it on the Acropolis. Phase III: The tamiai measured the olive oil out and dispensed it to the athlothetai during the Panathenaic festival. Phase IV: The athlothetai distributed the sacred olive oil to the victors in the gymnastic and equestrian events.

Aristotle’s account is of course based on the law valid in his own lifetime, during the second half of the fourth century B.C., not in earlier or later periods. As Davison has pointed out, at least until 418 B.C., in the period in which the Trachones amphora was made, the hieropoioi (Phase IV), not the athlothetai, were responsible for the distribution of olive oil to the victors of the games.24 Moreover, during the fourth century B.C. and the Hellenistic period, the Panathenaic olive oil was probably stored in the Pompeion in the Kerameikos or in the Arsenal, the large hypostyle building north of the Hephaisteion.25 The Type B amphora from Trachones must have been used as a standard measure (like the Type B amphora depicted on it) before it was broken, mended and kept as a precious heirloom in the house of its owner. The representation on its front alludes either to the third phase described above (one of the tamiai measures out the olive oil on the Acropolis and delivers it to the hieropoioi or the athlothetai), or to the fourth phase (one of the athlothetai measures out the olive oil to be distributed to the victorious athletes). On the evidence of the Trachones representation we may draw two conclusions: first, that the Panathenaic olive oil was stored on the Acropolis or elsewhere, not in Panathenaic prize amphoras but in Type B amphoras used as standard measures, and second, that the Panathenaic olive oil was usually trasported over short or long distances, both on land and sea, not in Panathenaic amphoras, but in SOS amphoras or in the standard, strong, easy-to-carry pointed transport amphoras. “Für Öl und Wein gab es die bekannten unverzierten Transportamphoren,” as Ingeborg Scheibler points out.26 The pointed amphora was the main vessel used in the trade of olive oil from Attica, Panathenaic or not.27 The depiction of a pointed trade amphora on early Athenian coins symbolized the exchange of the city’s basic products, olive oil for Athens, as sylphium was for Cyrene or corn for Metapontum.28 Athens derived large revenue from the olive oil trade. During the Peloponnesian War the Lakedaimonians ravaged the olive groves of Attica in order to reduce the economic power of their Athenian rivals.29 The sizes of the Panathenaic amphoras differ greatly. Their capacity was never the same, varying from c. 30 to c. 40 litres. Their bases and lips are fragile, their walls are usually very thin (at least in the majority of the cases I know from the fourth century); moreover, their tall, fragile lids would hardly survive transportation if the amphoras were full of olive oil. The great range of sizes and thus of capacity indicates that it is quite impossible for them to have been used as standard measures of olive oil.30 For example, six Panathenaic amphoras of archon Kallimedes (360/59) found at Eretria have a capacity of 38–40 litres, while three of archon Charikleides (363/362) found at the same site have capacities of around 30 litres.31 Nor do the Eretrian amphoras represent the most striking case.32 The height of the Panathenaic amphoras of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. found in South Italy and Sicily, for example, varies from 0.49 m to 0.695 m, to say nothing trunk, log). Olive plantations where the moriai grew belonged to the Athenian landed aristocracy: Dem. 43.79; Plut. Mor. 838b–c. 24 J. A. Davison, JHS 78, 1958, 23–42; Develin (supra n. 8) 14 (athlothetai) and 17 (hieropoioi); cf. B. Nagy, GrRomByzSt 19, 1978, 307–313. 25 R. L. Pounder, Hesperia 52, 1983, 250–251; Camp (supra n. 21) 167 and fig. 151. 26 I. Scheibler, Griechische Töpferkunst: Herstellung, Händel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefässe (1983) 158. The tonnage of trading ships was calculated on the basis of the quantities of pointed amphoras on board (Plin. HN 6.22). On wine amphoras of the late fifth century B.C., see M. L. Lawall, Hesperia 69, 2000, 3–90. For a similar conclusion that Panathenaic prize amphoras were not used for the storage of olive oil, see N. Eschbach, this volume. 27 G. Olcese, in Die Griechische Klassik: Idee oder Wirklichkeit, exh. cat. Berlin (2002) 111–113. 28 C. T. Seltman, Athens, its History and Coinage before the Persian Invasion (1924) (Wappenmünzen); H. A. Cahn, MusHelv 3, 1946, 133; cf. N. Yalouris, MusHelv 7, 1950, 52–54, who relates the so-called Wappenmünzen and their symbols (wheel, owl, horse, amphora etc) to the Panathenaia; Th. Anagnostopoulou, “The Relation Between Early Athenian Coins and Archaic Sculpture and Vase-Painting” (diss. London 1970) 28; L. Lacroix, Monnaies e colonisation dans l’ Occident grec (1965) 220; cf. M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun (eds.), La production du vin et de l’huile en Mediterranée, Actes du symposium international d’Aix-en-Provence et Toulon 1991 (1993); H. A. Cahn, in M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaïka, Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (2001) 145–146. 29 A. Persson, The Tombs of Dendra (1942) 109–110 n. 1; D. Kagan, The Peloponnesian War (2003) 67. 30 M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) 31–40. 31 The measurements were taken at Eretria upon my request by M. B. Wallace in 1978 and used by Panos Valavanis in his Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από την Ερέτρια: συμβολή στην αττική αγγειογραφία του 4ου αι. π.Χ. (1991) 56. 32 Bentz (supra n. 30) 31–40.

26

Petros Themelis

of the so-callled uninscribed pseudo-Panathenaics, the height of which varies from 0.30 m to 0.444 m.33 The traces of black slip on the inner surface of some fragments of Panathenaic amphoras from the Kerameikos cannot be taken as evidence that Panathenaic olive oil was transported, stored or even exported in Panathenaic prize vases.34 The Panathenaic prize amphoras were not locally made containers for sacred olive oil.35 The “ΑΜΦΟΡΗΣ ΕΛΑΙΟ” (amphoras of olive oil), 1,200, 1,300, 1,423 or 1,500 in number, awarded in the Panathenaic games, as recorded in the fragmentary inscription IG II2 2311 (here p. 118, Fig. 1) of the early fourth century, do not necessarily refer to the Panathenaic prize amphoras as most scholars suggest, who take for granted the suggestion that Panathenaic amphoras were used as standard measures and presented to the athletes full of olive oil.36 Bettina Kratzmüller is certainly right to point out that “eine Panathenäische Preisamphora weiterhin als Normalgefäss und offizielles Mass anzusehen ist absolut unmöglich. Sommit können die erhaltenen PPA nicht mit den auf der Inschrift IG II2 2311 genannten ΑΜΦΟΡΗΣ ΕΛΑΙΟ gleichgesetzt werden.”37 To assume that boys or second-class participants might have received “undersized Panathenaic amphoras” of lesser capacity is untenable.38 The “amphoras of olive oil” recorded in IG II2 2311 seem to be amphoras of a standard capacity, with Type B amphoras the most probable candidates, on the evidence of the Trachones amphora.39 Nevertheless, we must admit that there is no solid evidence for the standard capacity of an Attic measuring amphora (metretes). Although scholars have generally assumed that the Panathenaic prize amphoras were official Attic standard measures, their capacity varies greatly, as pointed out above, from less than 34.56 litres to 38.88 and 39.31 litres.40 The size of some Panathenaic amphoras is considerably smaller.41 The literary sources are contradictory, while the inscriptions and papyri are less than reliable regarding size and capacity.42 It will suffice to quote Alan Johnston’s remarks on the problem of prices and capacities: “It is frustrating that so often the lack of a given size, or an undefined plural, or the fragmentary nature of the texts makes for difficulties…A welcome addition to the fragments of the Attic Stelai now gives us a price for oil, but we have to note that the size of the amphora is not noted; the price, 11 drachmas, is curiously unhelpful, since eleven tallies poorly with the “standard” amphora of 7 or 8 choes (though quite well with 7⅓).”43 Judging from later oil prices, we might assume, he observes, that a price of about one drachma per chous, so that 7 to 8 drachmas was the price of the olive oil contained in a “standard” amphora, not 11 or 12 drachmas as scholars have generally accepted.44 Accordingly, the quantity of sacred olive oil given to the winners of the gymnastic and equestrian events seems 33 N. Stampolides and G. Tasoulas (eds.), Μεγάλη Ελλάς: αθλητισμός και ολυμπισμός στην περιφέρεια του ελληνικού κόσμου (2004) 143, no. 59 148, no. 65;153, no. 69; 168 no. 82; 182, no. 100; 206, no. 128; 208, no. 130; 210–211, no. 132; 213, no. 134; 218, no. 139; 222, no. 143. The sizes of the pseudo-Panathenaics included in the exhibition ’Die Griechische Klassik’ in Berlin vary from 0.50 to 0.995 m: M. Bentz, in Die Griechische Klassik (supra n. 27) 255–259. 34 J. Frel, Panathenaic Prize Amphoras (1973) 9, 14, 15 attributes the black slip to consolidation of the amphora wall and protection from the acidity of the olive oil as suggested also by M. Tiverios, ADelt 29, 1974, Α’, 152–153. 35 D. G. Kyle, Athletics in Ancient Athens2 (1993) 34. 36 A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum2 (1898) 65–97 (1,300 prize amphoras); M. Lang, BCH 76, 1952, 26 and n. 1; D. A. Amyx, Hesperia 27, 1958, 178–186; Tiverios (supra n. 34) 142–153 (1,200 prize amphoras); P. Valavanis, in J-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques, BCH Supplement 13 (1986) 454–455 (1500 amphoras); idem, in J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters (1997) 87 (1500 amphoras); A. W. Johnston, BSA 82, 1987, 125–129 (1423 prize amphoras). On IG2 2311, see also M. Tiverios, S. V. Tracy, H. R. Goette, this volume. 37 B. Kratzmüller, in B. Schmalz and M. Söldner (eds.), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext, Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in Kiel (2003) 277–278. 38 Kratzmüller (supra n. 37) 277; Bentz (supra n. 30) 31. 39 Rhodes (supra n. 20) 647–675 suggests that the sacred olive oil was stored in large jars before it was given to the victors. 40 M. Lang and M. Crosby, Weights, Measures and Tokens, Agora 10 (1964) 58ff.; Tiverios (supra n. 34) 150; Valavanis, in BCH Supplement 13 (supra n. 36) 454–455; idem, AA 1987, 467–480; Bentz (supra n. 30) 31 and n. 134; O. A. W. Dilke, Mathematics and Measurements (1992) 26. 41 For example, the prize amphora British Museum B134 (here p. 1, Fig. 1) with a height of 0.44 m instead of the normal height of about 0.70–0.75 m: A. H. Smith, CVA British Museum 1, III He, 4 pl. 5,2. 42 On metrology in general, see F. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie (1882) (19712) 7–14; W. F. Richardson, Numbering and Measuring in the Classical World2 (2004); cf. M. B. Wallace, in BCH Supplement 13 (supra n. 36) 88–94; Kratzmüller (supra n. 37) 279 nn. 15 and 16 with bibliography. 43 H. B. Mattingly, JHS 101, 1981, 80–85 and n. 18; M. B. Wallace, Ancient World 10 (1984), 13; A. Johnston, in I vasi attici ed altre ceramiche coeve in Sicilia II (1996) 81–82 and Appendix on page 87 (olive oil: IG I3 422, lines 100–102). 44 Johnston (supra n. 43) 82 with n. 9; cf. W. K. Pritchett, Hesperia 25, 1956, 184.

Panathenaic prizes and dedications

27

to have been less than 43 tons, and its concomitant value was lower than some scholars suggest.45 The prizes for all the events had, no doubt, a monetary value. This is true also for the olive oil: the athletes competed for the oil, not the containers.46 This valuable liquid had to be sold as soon as possible, before it became stale and rancid. Three years’ time is the longest time span that olive oil can be kept and remain ‘edible’. Its quality and consequently its value falls abruptly beyond this time limit. The musical competitions in the Panathenaia, which displayed the artistic ability and talent of the competitors, were more highly regarded than the athletic contests.47 The winning competitors in Homeric rhapsody, not only the first and second but also the third, received prizes of the highest monetary value.48 In singing accompanied by the kithara, the first prize was a crown of golden olive leaves worth 1,000 drachmas in addition to 500 silver drachmas.49 This competition included a prize even for the fifth-place winner.50 A bull valued at a hundred drachmas was awarded to the victorious tribe in euandria (manliness), another bull of the same value went to the boys, youths or men victorious in the pyrrhic dance, a hydria (probably of silver) worth 30 drachmas went to the winner in the torch-race, and 300 drachmas was the prize for the winning tribe in the boat race, to which were added 200 drachmas for the tribe’s communal feast.51 The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the number of “amphoras of olive oil”, i.e. “standard measures of olive oil” that winners received as prizes in the gymnastic and equestrian events, was not identical to the number of Panathenaic prize amphoras as symbols of the city and the games.52 Some Panathenaic amphoras in the Kerameikos Museum and the J. Paul Getty Museum seem never to have been filled with oil.53 In contrast to the valuable but perishable olive oil, Panathenaic amphoras remain up to the present to commemorate these victories for future generations.54 Their value was cultural and agonistic not monetary.55 They were dedicated in sanctuaries all over the Mediterranean, not exclusively by Panathenaic victors; they were deposited in burials as objects which the deceased had prized most in life, kept in homes as heirlooms or exhibited in public buildings or in front of private residences to enhance the owner’s prestige.56 The blackfigure amphoras in imitation of Panathenaics that were given to victorious athletes at the festival of Helios, the Halieia on Rhodes, had similar value.57 The prizes in the Halieia were originally bronze hydrias, later replaced by black-figure ceramic amphoras. From the second century B.C. onwards, the prize in the Halieia became a poplar wreath. Athenian aristocrats, winners in the Panathenaic games, did not dedicate Panathenaic amphoras however; they preferred to erect expensive metal tripods with cauldrons or bronze statues on the Acropolis to commemorate their victories (see The dedications below). Unfortunately, there is no evidence on the exact number of Panathenaic prize amphoras that winners received in gymnastic and equestrian events. It seems improbable that over a period of 460 years, from about Tiverios (supra n. 34) 150. During the period the Aristotelian Athenian Constitution was written (330–320 B.C.), Attica suffered from a drought (from which also the olive trees were probably affected) according to J. McK. Camp II, in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson, Hesperia Supplement 20 (1982) 9–17. 46 M. Vickers and D. Gill, Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (1994) 18 n. 77. 47 On musical competitions, see H. Kotsidu, Die musischen Agonen der Panathenäen in archaischen und klassischen Zeit (1991) 74–80, 101–105; S. G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics (2004) 133–134. 48 Unfortunately the beginning of the inscription IG II2 2311, lines 1–3, mentioning the prize-winning rhapsodes, is broken off; Johnston (supra n. 36) 126 tries to restore the missing text. 49 Nagy (supra n. 18) 38–39. 50 R. R. Holloway, Archaeology 19, 1966, 112–119; Kotsidu (supra n. 47). 51 J. Neils, in W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear, Jr., H. A. Shapiro, F. J. Frost (eds.), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (1994) 151–152 gives a rather free and not quite correct translation of the last lines of the inscription IG II2 2311; N. Crowther, AntCl 54 (1985) 285–291; cf. J.-C. Poursat, BCH 91, 1967, 102–110; A. Makri, “The Institution of Choregia in Classical Athens” (diss. Oxford 1994) 254–263. 52 Empty, I think, are the Panathenaic amphoras carried on the shoulders of victorious athletes who march in processions: P. Valavanis, AA 1991, 490, fig. 1, and 493, fig. 3. 53 J. Frel, Studia Varia (1994) 28. See also N. Eschbach, this volume. 54 Pind. Nem. 10.33–36. 55 H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (1977) 34; Kyle (supra n. 35). 56 P. Charneux, BCH 109, 1985, 370–374 (for prizes preserved as heirlooms); J. Neils, in Neils (supra n. 18) 29–52; M. Bentz, AntK 44, 2001, 10–11; H. Kotsidu, in Bentz and Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaïka (supra n. 28) 55–62; J. Neils, in Bentz and Eschbach, op.cit.,125 -130; Bentz (supra n. 33) 250–253; M. Tiverios, AEphem 130, 1991, 40–41 and n. 108. 57 W. Hoepfner, Der Koloss von Rhodos und die Bauten des Helios (2003) 30, fig. 43 (fragments of a Rhodian prize amphora of 330–320 B.C. with representation of Helios on a chariot). The same meaning was applied to the pots given to athletes in the Panathenaia of Miletus in Asia Minor. 45

28

Petros Themelis

560 to 100 B.C., 138,000 Panathenaic amphoras were manufactured.58 We must not overlook, underestimate or misinterpret the fact that only about 400 prize amphoras have survived to the present day from a period of 115 celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia. Besides, to award victorious athletes 30, 60 or 140 Panathenaic prize amphoras depicting the same athletic event 30, 60 or 140 times, even if painters strove mightily to vary the figures and the composition, would deprive these state sponsored prizes of their artistic and symbolic value. Brauchitsch upheld the view that victors in the Panathenaia received a great quantity of olive oil but only one Panathenaic prize amphora, as a symbol of the city and the games.59 Gardiner, Mingazzini and Peters supposed that winners in the games must have been awarded more than one Panathenaic amphora, without however specifying how many; in any case not as many as the measures of olive oil attested in IG II2 2311.60 It was Amyx who first proposed that the number of Panathenaic prize amphoras given to victorious athletes should be equal to the number of “aphoras of oil” mentioned in the above inscription; this view has enjoyed almost unanimous acceptance ever since.61 The largest, most characteristic, best preserved, and most fully published group of Panathenaic amphoras made in the same archon year, on which the same athletic event (in this case wrestling) is represented, was found in two neighbouring houses at Eretria.62 Three of them, intact prize amphoras made during the archonship of Charikleides (363/2 B.C.), had been awarded in the Greater Panathenaia of 362, while six, made during the archonship of Kallimedes (360/59 B.C.), were awarded in the Greater Panathenaia of 358.63 According to a reconstruction of the entire sequence of athletic events based on inscriptions, boys (paides), youths (ageneioi) and men (andres) competed in wrestling and received olive oil and prize amphoras.64 According to IG II2 2311, boy winners in wrestling received 30 measures of olive oil as first prize, while second prize was 6 measures, i.e. one-fifth of the first prize. First prize for youths victorious in wrestling was 40 measures, and the second prize was 8 measures of olive oil. Men victorious in wrestling most probably received 60 measures of oil as first prize, with the second prize being 12 measures. The column of the inscription that contained the prizes for the men’s gymnastic events is broken off; the lost figures have been supplied by using the ratio of awards between boys’ and youths’ events.65 The gradual increase in the number of measures of olive oil given to victorious boys, youths and men should be accompanied by an analogous increase in the number of Panathenaic amphoras given to them. On the evidence of the iconography, the three Panathenaic amphoras of archon Charikleides from Eretria must have been given to youths who won in wrestling not to boys or men. Men are usually depicted bearded, while boys are generally characterized by flowing hair, more delicately rendered bodies and smaller size. Although the distinction between young men and boys is not always obvious, I think, for example, that the wrestlers on the Panathenaic amphora of the late fifth century B.C. (Athens Nat. Mus. 451) are more likely boys.66 Panathenaic prize amphoras awarded to first-place winners should be distinguished in some way from those destined for second-place winners. For example, the presence of Victories (Nikai) and personifications of the games standing beside or flying above the athletes, could be taken to indicate first-place winners. On the basis of this indication, the three Panathenaic amphoras of Charikleides from Eretria (X1, X2 and X3)67 may be imputed to the first-place winner in wrestling among youths (ageneioi). On the basis of the same indication we could distinguish the four Panathenaic amphoras of Kallimedes’ year (K1, K3, K5 [here p. 107, Fig. 5] and K6) as first prize vases, while supposing that the Panathenaic amphora of the same archon (K2) was a second prize vase in wrestling for youths. The Kallimedes amphora (K4) must have been the first prize for 58 Tiverios (supra n. 34) 153 with n. 56; cf. R. M. Cook, JdI 74, 1959, 120; T. B. L. Webster, Potter and Patron in Classical Athens (1972) 3–5. 59 G. Brauchitsch, Die Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (1910) 159. 60 E. N. Gardiner, JHS 32, 1912, 183; P. Mingazzini, Vasi della Collezione Castellani (1930) 352; K. Peters, Studien zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (1942) 4. 61 D. A. Amyx, Hesperia 27, 1958, 181; Tiverios (supra n. 34) 152 and n. 55. See also M. Tiverios, this volume. 62 P. Themelis, ΑΑΑ ΙΙ.3, 1969, 409–215; idem, in ΣΤΗΛΗ in memory of Nikolaos Kontoleon (1980) 265–280; Valavanis (supra n. 31) 17ff.; Bentz, AntK 44 (supra n. 56) 3–12. 63 Twenty-two Panathenaic vases have so far been assigned to the year of Charikleides on the basis of the archon inscription and/or the acanthus columns and the individual figures of Nikai; twelve amphoras have been assigned to Kallimedes’ year, eight or nine of which carry representations of wrestling: Valavanis (supra n. 31) 222–231, 240–242 and 344. 64 Tracy (supra n.15) 138. 65 Johnston (supra n. 36) 128. 66 O. Tzachou-Alexandri (ed.), Το πνεύμα και το σώμα: oι αθλητικοί αγώνες στην αρχαία Ελλάδα (1989) 270–271, no. 162. 67 According to Valavanis’ numbering.

Panathenaic prizes and dedications

29

winning in the pankration. If the ratio 1:5 for olive oil given to the first- and second-place winners is also applicable to the number of additional Panathenaic amphoras awarded to them, then the first-place winner in wrestling for youths would receive 5 Panathenaic amphoras and 40 measures of oil, while the second would receive 1 Panathenaic amphora and 8 measures of oil. I should point out that the representation of flying, standing or striding Victories is a feature of Panathenaic amphoras exclusively of the fourth century B.C.; it does not occur on prize amphoras of earlier or later periods. Consequently, as regards the sixth and fifth centuries, some other iconographic element should be sought on which to base a distinction between prize amphoras for first-place winners and those for secondplace winners.68 The Panathenaia underwent significant changes in their institutional framework and prizes during the long period of their existence. The first half of the fourth century appears to have been an age of plenty as regards the quantities of olive oil which Attica with its poor soil was able to provide. The contests of the Panathenaia had by that time ended up as essentially chrematic. Nevertheless, the sacred olive trees (moriai) of thinsoiled Attica were always few in number, and the quantity of olive oil necessary for the Greater Panathenaia (probably also for the Lesser) could not have been collected in a single year.69 In any case, we should take into consideration the fact that the value of prizes given at contests of the Panathenaia diminished drastically in the final quarter of the fourth century B.C.70 The fundamental cause of this change should probably be sought in the reduction in quantity of the olive oil which the relatively few moriai could produce because of the drought which seems to have struck the region during this period, when the Constitution of the Athenians surely must have been written.71 The scarcity of Panathenaic amphoras between 310 and 248/7 B.C. – the archonship of Diomedon, when the treasurers of the stratiotic fund appear on the amphoras in place of the eponymous archon – is taken to mean that the prizes had also changed. Besides, the sons of the renowned potter Bakchios emigrated to Ephesos at the end of the fourth century, probably in order to make Panathenaic amphoras for the local Panathenaia of that city, since the Panathenaia in Pallas’ city were in decline.72 It is interesting that Panathenaic white-ground amphoras were awarded from the third century onwards as prizes for the musical contests of the Panathenaia, while earlier, as IG II2 2311 informs us, the prizes were gold crowns and cash.73 Worth noting, finally, is the view of John Mansfield that metal Panathenaic amphoras may have been given as prizes to victors at certain periods and for certain contests, such as the musical ones.74 This view is supported by the sixteen silver amphoras which adorned the Dionysiac procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos in Alexandria (Ath. 5.199 D-E). In conclusion, I would concede that the problem of the number of Panathenaic amphoras given to first- and second-place winners in the games, like that of the relationship of the Panathenaic amphoras with the main prize, the olive oil from the moriai, remains open. I hope that the views I have expressed will at least help to dispel certain fictions about the Panathenaic amphoras which unfortunately continue to be repeated, on no good grounds, in my opinion, as in the case of the controversy over the models (paradeigmata) described in the Constitution of the Athenians (49.3 and 60.1)75 and especially the significance attributed to the supposed repetition of certain devices that appear on Athena’s shield on the Panathenaic amphoras. The repetition is statistically inadequate to provide a secure basis for interpretation, as only five of the approximately thirty painters or groups of painters of Panathenaic amphoras repeat the same shield devices, and when a shield device does recur, it is more likely to have been a matter of the painter’s personal choice, prompted mainly by Athena’s various cult aspects.76 68 Cf. the Panathenaic amphora (Nauplion Museum, Glymenopoulos Collection no. 1, here p. 86, Fig. 8) representing the reception of a boy jockey winner in the horse race: Tzachou-Alexandri (supra n. 66) 307–310, no. 197. 69 I wonder if gymnastic and equestrian contests could have also taken place at the Lesser Panathenaia. Aristotle [Ath.Pol.] nevertheless refers generally to “Panathenaia”, not to Greater or Lesser. On this question, see S. V. Tracy in this volume. 70 Tiverios (supra n. 56) 27–28 and n. 51. 71 Camp (supra n. 45). 72 J. M. Baringer, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 B.C. (2003) 250 n. 48. 73 Cf. Tiverios (supra n. 56) 27. On white-ground Panathenaics, see also D. Tsouklidou in this volume. 74 J. M. Mansfield, “The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic ‘Peplos’” (diss. Berkeley 1985) ap. M. Tiverios, Μακεδόνες και Παναθήναια (2000) 53. 75 Rhodes (supra n. 20) 671–672; Tiverios (supra n. 34) 141–151; Kyle (supra n. 35) 33; Nagy (supra n. 18) 91. 76 V. Tsantila, ADelt 47–48, 1992–1993 (1997) A, 213–242.

30

Petros Themelis

The dedications Unlike the Olympic victor lists, no list of Panathenaic victors has survived into our time. Despite this circumstance, we know the names of certain victors, thanks to the dedications they made or, rather, thanks to the Panathenaic dedicatory inscriptions, which come principally from the Athenian Acropolis. Of interest to us here are certainly not the names of the victorious dedicants, but the type and form of the dedications made by Panathenaic victors. For these dedications, unfortunately, very little data are preserved. My information is drawn from Raubitschek’s Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis and from Catherine Keesling’s recent book, The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis, which is rich in information and new ideas. 1.

A member of the family of the Alkmaionids, probably a son of Alkmaion I and grandson of Megakles I, set up a bronze tripod or cauldron on the Acropolis ca. 550–540 B.C., together with another unknown dedicant (perhaps Kroisos or Anaxileos), whose name is lost (IG I3 597; Epigr. Mus. 6222). The dedication took place after a victory in the pentathlon and in an equestrian contest, most likely in the Greater Panathenaia.77 2. A dedication for a victory in a chariot race, contemporary with no. 1 of the same Alkmaionid and his charioteer Knopi[adas], from the Ptoion in Boeotia, refers to the Panathenaia (IG I3 1469). The dedication was, again, either a bronze cauldron or a statue on a column dated to ca. 545–540 B.C.78 3. Base for a tripod (?), dedicated at the Ptoion in Boeotia by Hipparchos, son of Peisistratos, 520–514 B.C., after a victory perhaps connected with the Panathenaia. The dedication was, however, politically motivated, aiming to rival the dedication of the Alkmaionid family in the same sanctuary (no. 1. above.) 4. Dedication, perhaps a cauldron, of an unknown victor in the foot race, probably in the Panathenaia, dated to the first half of the sixth century B.C.79 5. The tripod dedications by Chionis and Philon, sons of Aresios, probably refer to choregic victories in the Panathenaia of the fifth century B.C.80 6. Following his victory in the Panathenaia of 500 B.C., the citharode Alkibios dedicated a tripod, the inscribed base of which is preserved.81 7. An inscribed base with sixteen flutes, more probably for a tripod than a statue of Athena. Dedication of the citharode Ophsis (rather than Ophsiades), IG I3 763 (Epigr. Mus. 6249). And a second dedication of Ophsis, a stepped base by Kalon of Aigina, for his victory in the Panathenaia of ca. 500 B.C.82 8. Fragments of the base, shaft and Ionic capital of a columnar monument of the polemarch Kallimachos that bore a statue of Nike. Between the flutes is the inscription IG I3 783 (Epigr. Mus. 6339) of shortly after 490 B.C.83 Evelyn Harrison thought that Kallimachos dedicated the monument in the Panathenaia of 490, as soon as he assumed office, but that the monument was renovated and re-erected after his death.84 9. Kallias, son of Hipponikos, known as lakkoploutos (‘pit-rich’) of the Kerykes clan, who were dadouchs at Eleusis, dedicated a bronze statue on the Acropolis in the mid-fifth century B.C. in consequence of his athletic victory, probably in the Panathenaia of ca. 480 B.C.85 10. Fragment of a fluted column which bore a statue of Kallias, son of Didymos, according to IG I3 826 (Epigr. Mus. 6338–6442), who had been victorious as a boy in the Panathenaia, probably of 482 B.C. It is uncertain whether the so-called Kritios Boy is connected with this column, although the dating and findspot do not exclude the association.86 11. Circular base for a dedication (statue) with moulding below and an inscription by Kallias, son of Didymos, victor at the Olympics, the Pythian games (twice), the Isthmian games (five times), the Nemean games (four times), and the Greater Panathenaia. 77 A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (1949) no. 317; C. M. Keesling, The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis (2003) 66. 78 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) no. 339; A. Schachter, in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower, Ritual, Finance, Politics (1994) 291–306; D. Donos, “Studien zu Säulen- und Pfeilermonumenten der archaischen Zeit” (diss. Frankfurt/Main 2003) 348 and 404, no. K 89 with bibliography. 79 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) no. 318. 80 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) nos. 319, 322. Although, according to Plutarch (Per. 13), musical contests in the Panathenaic Games were first established by Pericles, musical scenes appear on Panathenaic amphoras already in the sixth century B.C.: H. A. Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens (1989) 41–43. 81 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) no. 84. 82 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 12, no. 7; 45, no. 41; 91–93, no. 85; 94, no. 86; Donos (supra n. 78) 435, no. Κ 143 and Κ 148 with bibliography. 83 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 18, no. 13; Donos (supra n. 78) 420–421, no. K 117. 84 E. B. Harrison, GrRomByzSt 12, 1971, 5–24, pl. 1; Keesling (supra n. 77) 66. 85 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 111; G. Schörner, Votive im römischen Griechenland (2003) 67–68. 86 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 25, no. 21; Donos (supra n. 78) 441, no. K 139 with bibliography.

Panathenaic prizes and dedications

31

A second dedication of the same Kallias, son of Didymos, as in the preceding inscription (no. 10), probably replaced an earlier monument destroyed by the Persians. The victory of Kallias at the Olympics is reckoned to have taken place in 472/1 B.C. (Paus. 5.9.3 and 6.6.1).87 12. Base of a dedication by Pronapes, son of Pronapes, for his victories at the Nemean and the Isthmian games, as well as at the Panathenaia. It probably bore a bronze quadriga.88

Further observations It is evident that the Geometric-Archaic tradition of victors in the games dedicating bronze tripods with cauldrons continued through the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., even in the case of Panathenaic victors, who did not usually dedicate clay Panathenaic amphoras, despite the prevailing view. Of special interest is the fact that many dedications, primarily bronze tripods and cauldrons, were set up on columns or columellae. Also, dedications which are not directly related to the Panathenaia, such as owls, sphinxes, scribes, kouroi, korai, bronze dedications of horses, dogs, bulls, and lions stood on columns or pedestals.89 Only owls appear on columns of Panathenaic amphoras (Agora P 24661).90 The type of high pedestal and column monument seems to have been introduced to Athens by Ionian artists like Aristion of Paros and Endoios, the Naxian sphinx at Delphi being the most prominent example.91 Ludwig Ross was the first to take an interest in votive columns as part of his systematic work on the Athenian Acropolis in 1841.92 The closest parallels he found were the columns depicted on the Panathenaic amphoras on either side of Athena Promachos, an iconographic feature which led him to conclude that this kind of column may have supported sacred animals such as the well-known marble owl from the Acropolis, which is about one meter in height (Acropolis Mueum. 1347).93 This huge owl must have been out in the open for a long time, since its surface is heavily weathered. Ross’s interpretation seems probable, although it is also possible that this owl functioned as a temple acroterion.94 The owl, beyond its known relation to the goddess of Athens, was considered a symbol of victory as well, according to the Suda (s.v.): “ἡ πτῆσις τῆς γλαυκὸς εἰς νίκης σύμβολον ἐλογίζετο.”95 What, however, is the significance of birds on columns, that accompany Athena almost exclusively down to the end of the fifth century B.C.? “The cocks are there as symbols of the fighting spirit,” suggested Sir John Beazley in 1951, and no one has ventured to disagree with him ever since.96 He added, however, that “the columns perhaps refer to Athena’s temple, but possibly they are only there to support the cocks.”97 The fundamental interpretative proposal for understanding columnar monuments, supported by all the relevant studies on the subject in combination with the textual evidence, is nevertheless the following:98 the columns constitute the synoptic or selective representation of sacred buildings or precincts, as pars pro toto. They are symbols of divinity and of sacred space. They define the area of manifestation by the divinity and of the performance of a ritual act. Just as the columns by general agreement symbolically indicate sacred ground, in the case of the Panathenaic amphoras they must also indicate the sanctuary of the goddess on the rock of the Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 181–184, no. 164. Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 205–207, no. 174; M. Korres, in Delphes cent ans après la Grande fouille. Essai de bilan, BCH Supplement 36 (2000) 296–312. 89 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 456, 479–481 and 493; I. Trianti, in Coulson, Palagia et al. (supra n. 51) 83–91; Donos (supra n. 78) 96–105. 90 M. B. Moore and M. Z. P. Philippides, Attic Black-figured Pottery, Agora 23 (1986) 141, no. 319, pl. 32. 91 Raubitschek (supra n. 77) 493; Donos (supra n. 78) 35. A complete series of significant monographs on the subject of columnar and pedestal monuments has been published, beginning with R. Borrmann, JdI 3, 1888, 269ff.; A. E. Raubitschek BSA 40, 1939/40, 17ff.; B. Wesenberg, Kapitelle und Basen, BJb 32. Beih. (1971); E. P. McGowan, “Votive Columns of the Aegean Islands and the Athenian Acropolis in the Archaic Period” (diss. New York 1995); K. Kissas, Die attischen Statuen- und Stelenbasen archaischer Zeit (2000); D. Döpner, Steiner und Pfeiler für die Götter: Weihgeschenkgattungen in westgriechischen Stadtheiligtümern (2002). The recent dissertation of Demosthenes Donos (supra n. 78) presents a thorough and detailed discussion of the subject. 92 Ross (supra n. 1) 201ff., pl. 14. 93 Donos (supra n. 78) 99. 94 But see the owls on columns on the pseudo-Panathenaic in Austin, Texas, and the panthers on columns on the pseudo-Panathenaic in Liverpool: Shapiro (supra n. 80) 32–34, pls. 13c-15b. 95 C. Vlassopoulou, Αττικοί ανάγλυφοι πίνακες της αρχαϊκής εποχής (2003) 70 n. 279. 96 J. D. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-Figure (1951) 84. 97 Beazley (supra n. 96) 84. 98 Donos (supra n. 78) 20–21. 87 88

32

Petros Themelis

Acropolis. Consequently, cockerels standing on columns – conspicuous, tranquil, and by no means aggressive – must in my opinion have a significance comparable with the emblematic character and the symbolic power of the columns and pillars.99 Cockerels are generally not distinguished only by their combativeness, competitiveness and emphatic eroticism; one of their basic characteristics is that they announce the rising of the sun. Idomeneus, for example, who was descended from Helios, had a cockerel emblazoned on his shield. The same hero also dedicated a rooster to Helios to herald his rising (Paus. 5.25.9).100 An Attic double-sided votive relief to Helios and Men once in the Lanckoronski Collection in Vienna and now in Boston includes, inter alia, the representation of a cockerel and a hen under an offering table.101 The silver staters of Phaistos (322–300 B.C.) show Zeus Velchanos seated in front of the Idaian Cave holding a cockerel in his right hand.102 Not only did the poet Ion write an epigram about the cockerel (cited by Beazley since it supported his interpretation), but a poem on the same subject was also composed by the Tegean poetess Anyte (Anth.Pal.7.202).103 Anyte’s poem does not mention the bird’s combativeness, but rather its waking of the writer from bed at daybreak: “ὄρσεις ἐξ εὐνῆς ὄρθριος ἐργόμενος” The arrival of dawn also signals the beginning of the day; thus, the crowing cockerel as a symbol of the city and of the early morning hours appears on coins of Himera, while the cockerel is “herald of the day” (karux hameras) on the coins of Karystos.104 The combativeness of Athena Promachos was a given, just like the spirit of competition in the games, and did not require the help of cockerels for its promotion. Erika Simon wondered whether the statue of the Promachos set up on the Acropolis under Peisistratos (561/0 – 528/7 B.C.) was flanked by two columns with roosters on them.105 Pausanias (8.38.7) refers to two columns carrying eagles, the symbols of Zeus, that were erected in front of an altar on Mount Lykaion.106 In the post-Augustan period, the list of Pyloroi on the Acropolis included a trumpeter (salpinktes), whose task was to signal, at sunrise and sunset107 the opening and closing of the gates to the citadel, where the imposing sanctuary of the castle-goddess Athena was also situated.108 The equation of the Pyloroi with cockerels (alektores) is readily apparent; moreover, it emerges from the characterization of a trumpeter as a “public cockerel” (κοινοῦ Ἀθηναίων ἀλέκτορος: Ath. 3.99). The cockerels of the Acropolis atop Athena’s columns represented a system of communication between mortal and god, just like other birds that are related to divinities and shrines, while at the same time they functioned as instruments of divine epiphany, like doves and owls.109 In the same symbolic framework are also situated the two small cockerels standing on the pitched roof of the pediment of the Pelargikon of the Acropolis, as typified by the well-known Telemachos relief from the Asklepieion on the south slope of the Acropolis.110

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the organizers of this conference, Alkestis Choremi and Olga Palagia, who provided the impetus for this study. I am most grateful to Dr. Stefanie Kennel for her meticulous editing and the translation of the second part of my paper. Donos (supra n. 98) with bibliography. Tiverios in this volume; of interest is the story of Perdikkas and the light of the Sun reported by Herodotos (8.137–139): W. Burkert, Creation of the Sacred (1996) 157–159 and 165–171. 101 Comstock and Vermeule (supra n. 8) 53, no. 78. 102 J. Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crète ancienne (1890) 259, no. 31, pl. XXIII: 26. 103 On Anyte’s image, see P. Schultz, in Palagia and Tracy (supra n. 72) 191. 104 C. M. Kraay, The Archaic Coinage of Himera (1971) 13, series VI, pl. I,14. 105 E. Simon, Die Götter der Griechen (1969) 192; cf. C. Kardara, AAA 5, 1972, 119–129; S. Alexiou, AAA 2, 1969, 84–888; A. Moustaka, in R. Hägg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults (2002) 201–204 (=holes for masts connected with the cult of Zeus). 106 K. Kourouniotes, AEphem 1904, 171, fig. 7, pl. 8,1; Donos (supra n. 78) 21. 107 G. C. Nordquist, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence (1994) 85–86; these trumpeters served various cults and are usually listed with demotic, cf. I. Stephanis, Διονυσιακοί τεχνίται (1988) nos. 2074 ff. 107 108 A. J. B Wace and F. H. Stubbings, A Companion to Homer (1962) 472 point out that “the shielded goddess, being worshipped by some warlike king or baron has herself become warlike, as Athena did in her own city, where her pre-Hellenic name and the existence of Mycenaean remains on the Acropolis combine to indicate that she was the castle-goddess”. 109 A. Gratzioti-Tatti, Kernos 3, 1990, 178–181. On the significance of cocks on Panathenaics, see also M. Tiverios, this volume. 110 L. Beschi ASAtene 80, Ser. III, 2, 2002, 1, 19–29, fig. 6, with bibliography; cf. S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion (1989) 7–11. 99

100

Gods and athletic games Jon D. Mikalson In his second Isthmian Ode Pindar has Poseidon, at his own Isthmian Games, give victory to Xenocrates of Acragas in a chariot race:1 οὐκ ἄγνωτ’ ἀείδω Ἰσθμίαν ἵπποισι νίκαν, τὰν Ξενοκράτει Ποσειδάων ὀπάσαις, Δωρίων αὐτῷ στεφάνωμα κόμᾳ πέμπεν ἀναδεῖσθαι σελίνων, εὐάρματον ἄνδρα γεραίρων, Ἀκραγαντίνων φάος. (Isthm.12–17) I sing of a not unknown Isthmian victory with horses. Poseidon bestowed it on Xenocrates, and he sent to him a crown of Doric celery to bind in his hair, “honoring” the man with the good chariot, the light of the people of Acragas.

Poseidon, a god of cult, in his own games, “bestowed” victory,2 sent the Isthmian victory crown, and gave γέρας to Xenocrates. This is one of the most explicit and comprehensive statements of divine assistance to an athletic victor we have from the classical period, and I use it to open a broader discussion of how the Greeks of the archaic and classical periods, in their poetry and dedications, conceived of divine assistance in the athletic contests of their great festivals. First, we should note what is missing. Pindar claims Poseidon’s help for Xenocrates at the Isthmian Games, as he later claims Apollo’s help for the same Xenocrates at the Pythian Games (Isthm. 2.18), but nowhere in this Ode does he give any indication of the nature of that assistance. Nor does he do so for a victor in any of his other Odes, nor does Bacchylides. Nor, in fact, do any of the victors themselves in the numerous inscribed dedications they erected either at the festival sites or back in their home cities. Divine aid for the victor is stated by the poets, is sometimes claimed in the dedications, but nowhere is the nature of that aid described. Here we must banish from our thoughts the lively description of the contests of the funeral games for Patroclus in Hom. Iliad 23, where Athena, Apollo, and other gods involve themselves directly in the action. They cause competitors to recover a lost whip in a chariot race, to hit a target in an archery contest, and to run fast in a footrace. Pindar, in describing the chariot race of Pelops and Oinomaos, does have Poseidon give to Pelops “a golden chariot” and “unwearying winged horses” (Ol. 1.86b–87), but this race, like the funeral games of Patroclus, is set in heroic times. Pindar imagines no such material help from the gods for the contemporary victors he celebrates in his poems. In the funeral games of Patroclus gods also try to help their favorites by harming other competitors, as when Apollo takes the whip of Diomedes or Athena causes Ajax to slip in a pile of dung, but only Bacchylides, and only once, and then only uncertainly, suggests that 1 I am indebted to Olga Palagia for her invitation to this most interesting conference, and to Thomas Hubbard and William Race for their invaluable help and suggestions on Pindar and Bacchylides. 2 ὀπάζω and πόρω are the voces propriae for such divine giving. E.g., ὀπάζω, Pind. Ol. 8.84, 13.14, Pyth. 8.65 and Bacchyl. 8.28; πόρω, Pind. Pyth. 4.66, 8.64–65 and Isthm. 1.61, 3/4.39, and 7.49.

34

Jon D. Mikalson

a god, if not inattentive judges, caused a boy to lose in a wrestling competition at Olympia (11.34–36).3 In the rhetoric of the classical period, the gods give victory; they do not cause defeat. In Pindar’s view Zeus “made” his descendants Timosthenes and his brother Alcimedon of Aegina victors, one at Nemea, one at Olympia: Τιμόσθενες, ὔμμε δ’ ἐκλάρωσεν πότμος Ζηνὶ γενεθλίῳ. ὃς σὲ μὲν Νεμέᾳ πρόφατον, Ἀλκιμέδοντα δὲ πὰρ Κρόνου λόφῳ θῆκεν Ὀλυμπιονίκαν.4 (Ol. 8.15–18)

Or it is said, as in Pind. Pyth. 8.61–65, that the god, here Pythian Apollo, “bestowed” on Aristomenes of Aegina τὸ μέγιστον χαρμάτων, a victory in the Pythian Games or that the Thessalian Hippocles, as a boy, won the diaulos in the Pythian Games by the μήδεσι of Apollo (Pyth. 10.11). But such explicit statements of the god “giving victory” or making a man a “victor” are rare in the epinician odes, as they are on victors’ own dedications. The only example I have found among the dedications is that by the Elean Hellanodicast Troïlos, on a bronze plaque of the mid-fourth century from Olympia: Ἑλλήνων ἦρχον τότε Ὀλυμπίᾳ, ἡνίκα μοι Ζεὺς δῶκεν νικῆσαι πρῶτον Ὀλυμπιάδα ἵπποις ἀθλοφόροις, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον αὖτις ἐφεξῆς ἵπποις. υἱὸς δ’ ἦν Τρωίλος Ἀλκινόο. (Ebert, no. 38 = CEG no. 828) Then I was ruling the Greeks at Olympia, when Zeus granted to me to win for the first time an Olympic victory with prize-winning horses, and a second time in succession with horses. I was Troïlos, the son of Alcinoös.

The apparent reluctance of the poets and the dedicators to claim, simply, that the god “gave” the victor his victory may suggest an intention not to undercut the accomplishment of the victor himself. In Isthmian 6, in honoring Phylacidas of Aegina and hoping for an Olympic victory for him, Pindar offers what seems to be a list of prerequisites for victory: εἰ γάρ τις ἀνθρώπων δαπάνᾳ τε χαρείς καὶ πόνῳ πράσσει θεοδμάτους ἀρετάς, σήν τέ οἱ δαίμων φυτεύει δόξαν ἐπήρατον, ἐσχατιαῖς ἤδη πρὸς ὄλβου βάλλετ’ ἄγκυραν θεότιμος ἐών. (Isthm. 6.10–13) If a man delights in the expenditures, if he exercises in hard work his god-given ἀρεταί, and if a daimon joins in creating lovely δόξα for him, then he, god-honored, casts his anchor at the ultimate of prosperity.

The god here has his role, but to attribute the victory solely to a god would diminish the competitor’s own δαπάνα, πόνος and ἀρεταί. We find the same reluctance simply to attribute victory to a deity also in the many dedications the Greeks erected after successful battles. From the many possible I select two, the first [ἀ]λλ’ ἢ θεὸς αἴτιος, ἢ [γ]νῶμαι πολύπλαγκτοι βροτῶν [ἄ]μερσαν ὑπέρτατον ἐκ χειρῶν γέρας. For numerous other Homeric parallels, see H. Maehler, Die Lieder des Bakchylides 2 (1982) 216–217. For the remote possibility of another instance of a god causing an athletic failure in Bacchyl. 4.11–13, see the restorations proposed in A. S. McDevitt, Liverpool Classical Monthly 19,1994, 20–21. Pindar attributes the failure of Alcimidas and Polytimidas of Aegina to win crowns at Olympia to a κλᾶρος προπετής, not to a god (Nem. 6.61–63). 4 Cf. lines 83–84. In line 67 Alcidemon is said to have won, τύχᾳ μὲν δαίμονος, ἀνορέας δ’οὐκ ἀμπλακών. The δαίμων here is surely Zeus. In Nem. 6.24 Pindar also associates a victory σὺν θεοῦ ... τύχᾳ. Cf. Ol. 13.115 and Nem. 5.48. 3

Gods and athletic games

35

the bronze four-horse dedication the Athenians erected after their defeat of the Boeotians and Chalcidians in 506: ἔθνεα Βοιωτῶν καὶ Χαλκιδέων δαμάσαντες παῖδες Ἀθηναίων ἔργμασιν ἐν πολέμου δεσμῷ ἐν ἀχλυόεντι σιδηρέῳ ἔσβεσαν ὕβριν τῶν ῾ίππους δεκάτην Παλλάδι τάσδ’ ἔθεσαν. (Hdt. 5.77.4) In deeds of war the children of the Athenians defeated the peoples of the Boeotians and Chalcidians. They quenched their hybris with painful, iron chains, and they dedicated, as a tithe, these mares to Pallas Athena.

The second is the dedicatory text the Greeks eventually put on the gold tripod monument at Delphi commemorating their victory at Salamis over the Persians: Ἑλλάδος εὐρυχόρου σωτῆρες τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκαν, δουλοσύνης στυγερᾶς ῥυσάμενοι πόλιας. (Diod. Sic. 11. 33.2) The saviors of Greece with its broad dance floors dedicated this, after they saved their cities from hateful slavery.

In the second the god, Apollo, is not even mentioned, and in neither is the aid of the god described. Neither god is said, simply, to have given “victory.” Both texts emphasize, at the god’s expense, the efforts of the humans in achieving their victories.5 So do, to an even greater extent, the dedications of the victors in the athletic games. That dedications were made, by victors in both wars and games, seemingly indicates gratitude to the deity, but the dedications put far greater emphasis, often sole emphasis, on the accomplishments of the victors. Instead of “victory” the poets more commonly claim that the gods gave one of the accessories of victory, such as κῆδος, δόξα, γέρας, and ἀγλαΐα.6 Here there is an interesting difference from the dedications. The epinician poets repeatedly describe these accessories of victory that attend the victor, god-given or not, but the dedications make rare mention of them.7 That is probably because the dedicated monuments themselves, often statues of the victors, embody the κῆδος, δόξα, γέρας, and ἀγλαΐα of the victor.8 They do not need to be restated in the accompanying inscription.9 One common element to victory in battle and victory in athletic competitions was prayer.10 The Delphians J. D. Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars (2003) 19–20. E.g., κῆδος, Pind. Pyth. 4.66–67; δόξα and εὐδοξία, Pyth. 5.8–9 and Isthm. 6.12 (above); γέρας, Isthm. 2.17; ἀγλαΐα, Pyth. 2.9–10 and 8.96, and Isthm. 2.18. 7 In dedications the victor’s κλέος is mentioned in Ebert, nos. 46 (= CEG no. 877), 48 (= CEG no. 849), and L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (1953) no. 32 (= CEG no. 833), and his κῆδος in Ebert, no. 57 (= CEG no. 790). All refer to the victor in the second or third person. No victor speaks of his own κλέος or κῆδος. In Ebert, no. 57 the viewer is bidden to stop, κυδαίνων the victor (Cf. Ebert, no. 48.2 = CEG no. 849). 8 On the dedications the “crowns,” κλέος, and ἀγλαΐα attributed to the victor by the poets are, instead, given to their homeland by the victors: e.g., “crowns,” Ebert, nos.12, 35, 39 (= CEG no. 811); κλέος, nos. 15, 27 (= CEG no. 386), 41 (= CEG no.788); ἀγλαΐα, no. 39 (= CEG no. 811). In the poets, too, of course, a victor brings κλέος (Pind. Nem. 3.68; Bacchyl. 6.16), κῆδος (Pind. Ol. 4.11–12, 10.66, Pyth. 1.31–32 and Isthm. 1.10–12; Bachyl.10.15–18) and γέρας (Pind. Pyth. 5.124 and Nem. 5.8) to his homeland. 9 P. Bing, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker (eds.), Hellenistic Epigrams (2002) 39–66 treats the interesting question of the relation of the inscriptions to the sculptured monuments and concludes, “Indeed on sculptural monuments or votive objects at least, it is safe to say that inscriptions were in general secondary features of the monument, not meant to strike the viewers at first sight or excite their attention” (p. 46). One hopes, despite Bing’s several arguments to the contrary, that the inscriptions of these dedications were actually being read by someone in the classical period. 10 Closely related to prayers for victory are wishes for the same. T. Hubbard (Illinois Classical Studies 20, 1995, 35–37) provides a list and summary of eight explicit such “wishes” in Pindar’s Odes. Three may be better thought of as prayers (Pyth. 5.122–124, Nem. 10.29–31, and Isthm. 7.49–51, see below). Of the five remaining, two are directed to a deity, both, in fact, to Zeus for victory in the Olympic Games (Ol. 13.101–106 and Isthm. 6.3–9). 5 6

36

Jon D. Mikalson

and the Athenians, for example, separately prayed to their gods for the storm that devastated the Persian fleet off Artemision, and it occurred (Hdt. 7.178 and 189). In the funeral games of Patroclus both Odysseus and Meriones prayed for divine help in their contests, and both won. Eumelus and Teucer had not prayed to the gods before their competitions, and both lost.11 So too prayer, but only occasionally, is introduced as a factor in victory at agonistic festivals. Chromios of Aetna, as he mounted his chariot at the games at Sicyon, invoked Apollo, Artemis, and their mother Leto (Pind. Nem. 9.4–5). Hieron of Syracuse in local games of Artemis prayed to Poseidon before his chariot race (Pind. Pyth. 2.11–12). Both not surprisingly won. Pindar has Theaios of Argos also praying to Zeus to add an Olympic victory to his many other victories (Nem. 10.29–31). In Pind. Ol. 6.77–81, there is the implication that the sacrifice and prayers of Hagesias’ Arcadian ancestors to Hermes had led to the success which Hermes and Zeus granted to him at Olympia.12 Bacchylides offers the fullest description of such a prayer in an ode on one of his countrymen, perhaps Liparion of Ceos:13 ὦ Ζεῦ κ[ε]ραυνεγχές, κα[ὶ ἐπ’ ἀργυ]ροδίνα ὄχθαισιν Ἀλφειοῦ τελέσ[αις μεγ]αλοκλέας θεοδότους εὐχάς, περὶ κ[ρατί τ’ ὀ]πά[σσαι]ς γλαυκὸν Αἰτωλίδος ἄνδημ’ ἐλαίας ἐν Πέλοπος Φρυγίου κλεινοῖς ἀέθλοις. (8.26–32) Zeus who holds the thunderbolt, also at the banks of the silver-eddying Alpheios may you bring to pass the prayers for god-given great fame, and may you bestow around his head the grey crown of Aetolian ivy in the famous games of Phrygian Pelops.

Here, apparently, the poet prays to Zeus that he answer Liparion’s prayers and “bestow” on him the olive crown of victory.14 Pindar once prays to Zeus to grant a victory at Olympia to the race of Battos (Pyth. 5.124) and once to Apollo Pythios, that he “provide” to “us” τεαῖσι ἁμίλλαισιν εὐανθεία καὶ Πυθόι στέφανον (Pind. Isthm. 7.49–51). Dedications, too, though rarely, record prayers of competitors. Philippos of Arcadia, in about 300, prayed to Zeus that he “restore good κλέος to Arcadia and “honor” (τίμασον) Philippos himself ” (Ebert, no. 55 = CEG no. 827). In a similar vein Polyzelos of Gela, after a victory in the Pythian Games, on his dedication asked Apollo to “increase” or “magnify him” ( [τ]ὸν ἄεξ, εὐόνυμ’ ᾿Άπολλ[ον.], Ebert, no.13 = CEG no. 397). Tantalizingly, the first “epigram” in Ebert’s collection (no.1 = CEG no. 355), an early sixth century B.C. jumping weight from Isthmia/Perachora contains only three certain words, one being εὐχόμενο[ς]. Here it is noteworthy that Pausanias reports that a statue-dedication of the Spartan Anaxandros, a victor in the chariot race at Olympia, represented him “praying to the god” (εὐχόμενος τῷ θεῷ, 6.1.7). Meriones’ prayer to Apollo in the funeral games of Patroclus was in the form of a vow, that he would sacrifice a hecatomb of lambs to Apollo if he won, as he did, the archery contest (Hom. Il. 23.863–865, 872–873), and it is noteworthy that none of the prayers in the epinician odes takes this form. Only one dedication, CEG no. 394, a bronze tablet of 600–550 B.C. from Sybaris, has the votive tag εὐξάμενος, in the aorist tense, so common in other types of dedications.15 This would suggest that these dedications were not, literally, “votive offerings.” This raises the question of the religious significance of the various monuments erected by victors in agonistic festivals.16 Clearly they memorialized the victory and victor, but were they, in a religious sense, dedications to a god? They were not, as we have seen, literally “votive” offerings. Were they then “thankofferings” for the victory? It would seem natural to assume so, especially when the victors erected them in Hom. Il. 23.546–547, 768–770, 863–865, and 872–873. The εὖχος of Ol. 10.63 (in a description of the first Olympic Games) and of Pyth. 5.21 may both indicate that the acquired victory “had been prayed for,” but other interpretations are possible. Psaumis’ future prayers, foreseen by Pindar in Ol. 4.12–13, may well also be for athletic victories. 13 On the uncertainties of the victor being celebrated, see Maehler (supra n. 3) 2.137–138. 14 Much hangs on the restorations τελέσ[αις] or τέλεσ[ας] in line 27 and [ὀ]πά[σσαι]ς or [ὄ]πα[σσα]ς in line 28. In the text I accept the restorations to give optatives. If one accepts the restorations to give aorist indicatives, then Zeus has answered Liparion’s prayers and has already bestowed the Olympic crown on him. For readings and interpretations, see Maehler (supra n. 3) 2.141. 15 For contrast, note the dedicatory epigram of a fourth-century choregos on Delos, CEG no. 838. 16 On several of the issues involved here, see Ebert, 16–18. 11

12

Gods and athletic games

37

the sanctuary of the god in whose festival they competed, as in the Altis for a victory at Olympia or on the Acropolis for a victory in the Panathenaia. But even here it is remarkable how infrequently, compared to other types of dedications, the god is mentioned. Twenty-seven of the thirty-three archaic and classical inscribed plaques, statue bases, and athletic equipment (nos. 142–174) from Olympia collected by W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold in Die Inschriften von Olympia, Olympia V (1896) are sufficiently preserved to allow tentative conclusions. Only two (nos. 145 and 171) are explicitly dedicated to Zeus. One other (no. 166 = Ebert, no. 38 = CEG no. 828) is Troïlos’ claim that Zeus gave him victory, and another (no. 174 = Ebert, no. 55 = CEG no. 827) is Philippos’ prayer. Twenty-one make no mention of a god. Of the fifty-eight archaic and classical epigrams for athletic victors collected and reedited by Joachim Ebert, twelve are too fragmentary to allow conclusions whether or not the gods were addressed. Of the remaining forty-six, two have the prayers we have already seen, by Polyzelos to Apollo (no. 13) and by Philippos to Zeus (no. 55). One has Troïlos’ claim that Zeus gave him victory (no. 38). Six name a god only to identify the games or festival site.17 Only five are unmistakeable dedications to a named god (three to Zeus, nos. 2 = CEG no. 362, 6, and 17; two to Apollo, nos. 3 = CEG no. 302 and 30).18 Remarkably, thirty-two of these epigrams make no mention of a god and give only the victor and his victories, and, usually, his father and his homeland. Thus only a small minority, five of forty-six, of the epigrams on victory monuments, whether at the festival sites or at the victor’s homeland, are explicit dedications to a god.19 Even in Athens the one statue base on the Acropolis by a winner in the Panathenaia alone (IG II2 3131 of the mid fourth century B.C.) makes no mention of Athena. Interestingly, one Athenian victor in the Panathenaia erected his dedication in the sanctuary of Demeter in his home deme of Eleusis (IG II2 3126 of the mid fourth century B.C.). What are we to make of this Eleusinian dedication and of the many other monuments erected by victors not at the festival sanctuary but in their homelands? Athenian winners at Olympia, Isthmia, Nemea, and Delphi erected monuments on the Acropolis in the classical period,20 but on none of these is Athena mentioned.21 What did it mean to erect such a monument on the Acropolis to celebrate a victory won in another country, at another god’s festival? It is most unlikely, I think, that it was a “thank-offering” to Athena. What Pausanias (5.25.1) says of statues of athletes at Olympia may also be true, though for different reasons, of most statues of athletes in sanctuaries: “they are statues dedicated (ἀνατεθείσας) not in honor (τιμῇ) toward the divine (τὸ θεῖον), but in favor (τῇ χάριτι) towards the men themselves.”22 It would appear from the epinician odes and the dedications that divine help, in whatever form it occurred, came to a victor from the god whose festival was being celebrated. But I close with four cases that suggest that sometimes the situation was more complex, or at least could be made to appear more complex by the poets. Pindar, in his apparently mislabeled Pythian II, celebrated Hieron’s victory in a chariot race in local games

nos. 4, 5 = CEG no. 398, 14 = CEG no. 381, 26, 42 = CEG no. 803, and 48 = CEG no. 849. The dedications to Zeus at Olympia and Nemea (Ebert, nos. 2, 6, and 17) are self-explanatory. Why the Athenian Alcmaionides dedicated at Ptoön a statue of Apollo for his victory in the Panathenaia (no. 3), and why the Cretan Alcon dedicated his Isthmian crown to Apollo (at Delphi?) (no. 30) have generated considerable discussion, for which see Ebert, ad loca. 19 Moretti’s collection of agonistic inscriptions (supra n. 7) offers three examples of explicit dedications to local deities for victories in local games: no. 6 (CEG no. 391) to the Dioscuri from games on Cephallenia; no. 10 (CEG no. 364), a dedication of an altar (?) of the Anakes for victory in games in Argos; and no. 18 (CEG no. 821) to Artemis Orthia for boys’ games at Sparta. Spartans, it seems, were inclined to make a dedication to one local god (no. 16 = CEG no. 378, Athena Poliachos; no. 9 = CEG no. 374, Apollo Karneios) for victories in several contests. 20 E.g., DAA nos. 76 (= CEG no. 265), 164, 174 (= CEG no. 278); IG II2 3122, 3125 (Ebert, no. 40 = CEG no. 758), 3127– 3129. 21 The restorations to include “the gods” in DAA nos. 76 and 174 are unlikely given the lack of undefined “gods” on other agonistic dedications. They have not been retained in CEG nos. 265 and 278 and IG I3 823 and 880. 22 Pausanias is here distinguishing between usual dedications and the statues of athletes at Olympia which were, he claims, given as prizes of victory (5.21.1 and 55.1). He then proceeds to describe the dedications and statues separately (5.21.1–27.12 and 6.1.1–18.7). It is noteworthy that Pausanias here distinguishes also between Athens and Olympia. On the Acropolis at Athens, he claims, all statues and everything else are dedications (5.21.1), and that implies (cf. 5.55.1) that these statues on the Acropolis were directed to τὸ θεῖον. If Pausanias is correct about Athens, then we should hesitate to deny the term “dedications” to the statues and monuments of victorious athletes on the Acropolis, but should rather expand our definition of “dedications” beyond votive and thankofferings to the gods to include these monuments which primarily and perhaps solely glorify the victors. 17

18

38

Jon D. Mikalson

of Artemis, probably the Artemis Alpheioa of Syracuse.23 “Without her,” Pindar claims, “Hieron would not have mastered the foals” (7–8). But, he adds, Artemis and Hermes Enagonios created for Hieron this ἀγλαέντα κόσμον, i.e. “victory” (9–10), and when Hieron was yoking his chariot for the race, he invoked Poseidon, the ὀρσοτρίαιναν εὐρυβίαν θεόν (10–12). Artemis, goddess of the festival, aided him, but involved in the victory were also Hermes Enagonios and Poseidon.24 Poseidon’s interest in chariot races, most familiarly in that of Pelops and Oinomaos at Olympia, may have dictated his role here.25 At Olympia, Athens, and elsewhere he was worshipped as Poseidon Hippios, and we have already seen how he “bestowed victory” on Xenocrates in the chariot race of the Isthmian Games (Isthm. 2.12–17, above). Hermes Enagonios was a subsidiary deity in several athletic festivals. As Pindar claims, Hermes ἀγῶνας ἔχει μοῖράν τ’ ἀέθλων (Ol. 6.79; cf. Nem. 10.52–53), and had “provided” many good things to Herodotos of Thebes in his many chariot race victories at various festivals (Isthm. 1.60–62). This one example of Hieron shows, at the least, that a poet might imagine several deities contributing to one victory, and this poetic conception is, in a way, confirmed by the altars at Olympia. Just on the equestrian side, there were at the hippodrome altars of Poseidon Hippios, Hera Hippia, Ares Hippios, Athena Hippia, and the Dioscuri, all solely or intimately associated with equestrian events. Near the stadium was the altar of Hermes Enagonios (Paus. 5.14.9 and 15.5–6). All must have been thought, at some level, to have contributed to the competitions. Hieron at Syracuse and those victors in races at Olympia may thus have been thought to have benefitted not just from the god of the festival but also from other gods interested in that competition. Bacchylides tells us that Alexidamos of Metapontion was “received by Apollo with a kindly eye” (ἴλεῳ ... βλεφάρῳ) and went on to win a victory in the boys’ wrestling contest at the Pythian Games (11.15–17).26 But Bacchylides appears to give primary credit for this victory to Artemis Agrotera: νῦν δ’ ᾿Άρτεμις ἀγροτέρα χρυσολάκατος λιπαρὰν [Ἡμέ]ρα τοξόκλυτος νίκαν ἔδωκε. (37–39) And now Artemis Agrotera, of the golden shaft, Hemera, famous for the bow, gave (him) victory.

But why Artemis and, in particular, why Artemis Agrotera? Bacchylides goes on to explain this in the next 85 lines. Briefly, very briefly, Proitos, king of Tiryns, vowed to Artemis a sacrifice of 20 cows if she rescued his daughters from the madness inflicted upon them by Argive Hera. Artemis did as she was asked, and Proitos’ daughters founded for her an altar and sanctuary at Lousoi in Arcadia, the place where they were freed from their madness.27 There the daughters made the vowed sacrifice and celebrated Artemis with dances. And from Arcadian Lousoi was founded, Bacchylides tells us, the cult of Artemis Agrotera at Metapontion in South Italy, Alexidamus’ homeland, and this Artemis was to be a major deity of Metapontion.28 Through this tale Bacchylides connects the aid Artemis gave to Alexidamos in the Pythian Games to the Artemis of his homeland. Here, uniquely, a deity of a competitor’s homeland gave him victory in a festival of another G. W. Most, The Measure of Praise (1985) 62–65 thinks the games must have been held at either Thebes or Syracuse, and argues for Thebes. Games for Artemis are unknown at Thebes, however, and I follow R. L. Farnell (The Works of Pindar [1930] 119–120) and M. R. Lefkowitz (The Victory Ode: An Introduction [1976]164 ff.) in placing the games at Syracuse. For the claim that Pythian 2 celebrates Hieron’s victory in the chariot race at Olympia in 468, see D. C. Young, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 87, 1983, 42–48. 24 Most (supra n. 23) 60–132, in his extensive literary treatment of this ode notes “the extraordinary accumulation of Olympic deities in these lines” (70) and explains this “hyperbolic Olympic congregation” by Pindar’s attempt to show that what distinguishes Hieron “from ordinary men” is his victory as the “gift of the gods” and that Hieron “acknowledges willingly his dependence upon them” (71). 25 Pind. Ol. 1.71–87. Cf. Ol. 5.21, Pyth. 6.50, and Isthm. 1.52–54. 26 In Pyth. 8.18–20 Pindar has Apollo “receive” the victor εὐμενεῖ νόῳ after his victory in the Pythian Games. In Nem. 6.35–37 Callias of Aegina won the boxing competition at Delphi, ἁδὼν ἔρνεσι Λατοῦς. 27 The epithet of Artemis at Lousoi was Hemerasia (Paus. 8.18.8) or Hemera (Bacchyl. [Ἡμέ]ρα, line 39, and Callim. Hymn 3.233–236). Cf. Polyb. 4.18. On the restoration and the epithet, see Maehler (supra n. 3) 2.219–220. 28 Cf. Hyg. Fab. 186. On the cult of Artemis at Metapontion and Metapontion’s ties with Lousoi, see Maehler (supra n. 3) 2.195–196. For an argument that Alexidamos’ victory celebrated in Bacchyl.11 was not at the Pythian Games but at the Hemerasia of Lousoi, see R. Merkelbach, ZPE 11, 1973, 257–260. For a refutation of Merkelbach’s argument, see A. Koehnken, WürzbJb 2, 1976, 49–51. 23

Gods and athletic games

39

god, hundreds of miles away. But this, I suspect, we should view as a poetic fantasy. The idea does not appear where we might expect to find it, on the many dedications that victors set up in their homelands. These victors offer no thanks to their home deity for their victories in the Olympian, Pythian, or other international festival games. Bacchylides offers us also our third example, also idiosyncratic and perhaps the most remarkable assignment of divine aid in festival contests. Argeios of Cos won the boy’s boxing competition at Isthmia. As Bacchylides tells it in his first Epinician, Apollo had “bestowed” on Argeios’ father Pantheides “good things” which concerned skill in medicine and the art of honoring well his xenoi: τόσα Παν[θείδᾳ κλυτό]τοξος Ἀπό[λλων ὤπασε]ν, ἀμφί τ’ ἰατο[ρίᾳ] ξείνων τε [φι]λάνορι τ[ι]μᾷ. (147–150) So many good things Apollo famous for the bow bestowed on Pantheides concerning the physician’s arts and the philanthropic honoring of xenoi.

Pantheides left five sons, and Zeus made one of them, Argeios, an Isthmian victor and a victor at other games because of the εὐεργεσίαι of his father: [τ]ῶν ἕνα οἱ Κ[ρο]νίδας ὑψίζυγος Ἰσ[θ]μιόνικον θῆκεν ἀντ’ εὐεργεσιᾶν, λιπαρῶν τ’ ἄλλων στεφάν[ων] ἐπίμοιρον. (155–158) One of his sons the high-stationed son of Kronos made an Isthmian victor in return for good services, and he made him share in other brilliant crowns.

In short, because of the “good services” resulting from the “good things” Apollo gave to Argeios’ father Pantheides, Zeus made Argeios a victor in the festival games of Poseidon.29 Apart from the number of major gods involved and their unusual motivations, unique here is Bacchylides’ claim that a victor won because of the “good services” of his father, a claim which, of course, diminishes somewhat the accomplishment of the victor, a type of claim which one does not find in Pindar’s epinician poems. I close with a fourth variation of divine aid, this one one step removed from the victors themselves. It brings us back, appropriately for today, to Athens and Athena Polias. Pytheas of Aegina won a victory in the pancration at the Nemean Games of, perhaps, 483 B.C., and for this victory he received epinician odes from both Pindar (Nemean 5) and Bacchylides (13). Both poets mention Pytheas’ trainer, Menandros of Athens. Pindar says of him, “It is fitting that the craftsman for athletes be from Athens:” χρὴ δ’ ἀπ’ Ἀθηνᾶν τέκτον’ ἀεθληταῖσιν ἔμμεν. (49)

Bacchylides is considerably more effusive, describing Athena’s contribution to the successes of this Athenian trainer: νίκαν ἐρικυ[δέα] μέλπετ’, ὦ νέοι, [Π]υθέα, μελέτα[ν τε] βροτωφ[ε]λέα Μενάνδρου, τὰν ἐπ’ Ἀλφειοῦ τε ῥο[αῖς] θαμὰ δὴ τίμασεν ἁ χρυσάρματος Maehler (supra n. 3) 2.18–20, would have “the good things” Apollo gave to Pantheides a Pythian victory “because of” (ἀμφί) his skill in medicine and good treatment of xenoi. This, too, would be an unparalleled reason for athletic success. Maehler disassociates Pantheides’ εὐεργεσίαι from his medical skill and honoring of xenoi, and claims that Bacchylides does not specify them but that they may have been a dedication. This seems to me an unnecessary multiplication of variables, but, in any case, Argeios still owes his victory to the εὐεργεσίαι of his father. 29

40

Jon D. Mikalson σεμνὰ μεγάθυμος Ἀθάνα, μυρίων τ’ ἤδη μίτραισιν ἀνέρων ἐστεφάνωσεν ἐθείρας ἐν Πανελλάνων ἀέθλοις. (190–198) Young men, sing of the glorious victory of Pytheas and of the man-benefitting training of Menandros. Athena of the golden chariot, revered, great hearted honored this training many times at the streams of the Alpheios and crowned with fillets of victory the hairs of ten thousand men in the contests of all Greeks.

Athena, in Bacchylides’ version, often “honored” the efforts of Menandros at Olympia, and, remarkably, herself crowned the heads of many, of tens of thousands, of Menandros’ victors in the contests of the Greeks. Here not the god of the festival, not the god of the victor’s homeland, but the goddess of their trainer’s homeland, χρυσάρματος σεμνὰ μεγάθυμος Ἀθάνα helped bring victory to his students in games throughout Greece. And this is, I think, the only explicit mention to be found of aid to an athlete by Athena Polias of the Athenian Acropolis. In conclusion, an athlete apparently addressed his wishes, hopes, and prayers for aid in his competition primarily to the deity of the festival, but the nature of that aid was undefined and the victors certainly did not stress the fact of that aid. Other gods interested in the event, such as Poseidon Hippios or Athena Hippia, or a deity of competition itself, such as Hermes Enagonios, might also have contributed, but athletes and poets gave even less credit to them. The more complex cases of divine aid, our last three examples, are all owed to poets, and in fact only to Bacchylides, and we may suspect that he was more willing, more willing certainly than the athletes and even than Pindar, to take advantage of poetic license and put a poetic coloring on how gods aided athletes in the “sacred games.”

Abbreviations CEG DAA Ebert

P. A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca I (1983), II (1989) A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (1949) J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (1972)

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia Jenifer Neils

Imagining the first Greater Panathenaia of 566/5 B.C. is an intellectual challenge. As is well known, the most significant epigraphical evidence (IG II2 2311 [here p. 118, Fig. 1]) dates some two hundred years after the traditional founding year of the festival and deals only with awards for some of the athletic, musical, and equestrian contests. In two hundred years much can change; in Athens in the summer of 2004 we saw how the modern Olympics have evolved in the century since their first occurrence in this city. Lacking contemporary texts and with few extant inscriptions, how can we possibly conjure up what happened on the 28th of Hekatombaion in the third year of the 53rd Olympiad? Given the importance of the Panathenaia for the civic identity of Athens, this is not simply an intellectual exercise; rather it forces us to envision the polis as it emerged from relative obscurity and became a leading actor on the stage of Greek history – in direct competition and emulation of other poleis. The ways in which the major religious festival in honor of the city’s patron deity was configured can reveal a great deal about the civic and religious mentality of the Athenians at an early point in their history – just as in later times the Greater Panathenaia reflected their democratic ideals and imperial ambitions.1 Although we are fairly certain of the foundation date of 566/5, many other aspects of the early Greater Panathenaia are disputed: the meaning of its name; its mythical founder (Erichthonios or Theseus); its historic re-organizer (the archon Hippokleides or the soon-to-be tyrant Peisistratos); its program of gymnastic and equestrian contests; the timing of the inclusion of musical contests; the nature of the prizes for non-athletic competitions; and the extent to which its predecessor (the Athenaia?) influenced the newly founded festival.2 The only official epigraphic evidence dating to this period is the problematic dromos inscription (DAA 326) and its successors (DAA 327–328), carved on poros limestone stelai erected on the Akropolis. The pillars were dedicated by the hieropoioi or sacred officials who claim to have made the dromos and established the agon for the “owl-eyed maiden.” Raubitschek and most other scholars believe that this inscription refers to the institution of the Panathenaia in 566/5 because of the word protoi and the archaic letter forms. If they are correct and the words dromos and agon are correctly translated as ‘racetrack’ and ‘contest’, then we can assume that already in 566 there was a board of religious officials in charge of the festival and at the very least a footrace.3 There is also considerable archaeological evidence for increased cult activity on the Akropolis, and a veritable explosion of new artistic imagery depicting athletics and athletes. Scholars have noted the flurry of new construction at this time on the Akropolis: a large Doric peripteral temple (Hekatompedon or Old Athena Temple) with sculpted limestone pediments was constructed; the cult of Athena Nike was established on the bastion (part of its inscribed altar survives, DAA 329); and a wide ramp some ninety by eleven meters was For the early fourth-century prize inscription, see A. W. Johnston, BSA 82, 1987, 125–129; J. L. Shear, ZPE 14, 2003, 87–108. See also M. Tiverios, S. V. Tracy, H. R. Goette, this volume. 2 Many of these issues are raised and discussed in two articles on the origins of the Panathenaia: J. A. Davison, JHS 78, 1958, 23–41, and N. Robertson, RhM 128, 1985, 231–295. See also Neils 1992, 13–24. G. Anderson has made the intriguing suggestion that the festival was called “Athenaia” down to the era of Kleisthenes; see The Athenian Experiment (2003) 174–177. 3 For the inscriptions, see DAA 350–358, nos. 326–328; D. Kyle, Athletics in Ancient Athens2 (1993) 26–28. For the meaning of the term agon, see T. Scanlon, Arete 1, 1983, 147–162; and for the term dromos, see N. B. Crowther, Nikephoros 6, 1993, 33–37. The association of these inscriptions with the Panathenaia is refuted by M. Stahl, Aristokraten und Tyrannen im archaischen Athen (1987) 247–248. Two hieropoioi are depicted with Athena on a black-figure lekythos by the Athena Painter from Gela now in Buffalo, Albright-Knox Art Gallery 33.135; see M. Bieber, AJA 48, 1944, 121–129; Neils 1992, 18 and 183, no. 55. 1

42

Jenifer Neils

erected as a grand new approach to the citadel. This building activity has naturally been associated with the founding of the Greater Panathenaia; a grander festival demanded a more august home for the goddess’ cult statue, competitive events contributed to the popularity of Nike (Victory), and both large-scale building and a great procession necessitated convenient and enlarged access to the Akropolis.4 The earliest marble dedications by wealthy Athenians, such as life-size korai and the Moschophoros, appear in the decade 570–560, and elaborate black-figure vases with new iconography are dedicated on the refurbished Akropolis. The importance of athletics in Athens ca. 560 is demonstrated, for instance, by marble grave stelai set up in the Kerameikos with finely carved images of athletes: a young pentathlete on the Diskophoros stele and an older, battered boxer on another.5 In the second half of the 560s sporting scenes, such as the footrace, boxing, wrestling, and horse races suddenly appear on Siana cups, as noted by Brijder and others.6 Representations of a winged female, most likely Nike, figure prominently in the tondos of such cups. These symposium vessels attest to the new popularity of gymnastic and equestrian competitions among the citizenry of Athens. Fragmentary inscriptions, traces of buildings and individual sculptures, however, do not inform us about the actual contests held or ceremonies performed at these early Panathenaic festivals. For clues to these events we must turn to other major festivals, to vase paintings from the sixth century with obvious Panathenaic imagery, and even to works of art with less obvious connections to the festival, for these have yet to be considered by scholars in such a context. By 566 the four crown games had been established and since Athenians participated in them, we can assume that they influenced the program in Athens, and because religious spectacles on the order of the Panathenaia were striking visual phenomena, they must have had a profound effect on artists, as we shall seek to demonstrate. I propose various methods of reconstructing the earliest celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia. First, looking to the other major festivals, and in particular Olympia, which surely must have had a considerable influence on the organizers of the Panathenaia in early sixth-century Athens. We know that Athenian athletes had been participating in the Olympic festival since at least 696 B.C. when a certain Pantakles is recorded as winning the stadion. (He came back in the next Olympiad to win both the stadion and the diaulos). Other stadion winners from Athens are recorded for 672 (Eurybates) and 644 (Stomas), and the would-be tyrant Kylon won the diaulos in 640, earning him a statue on the Akropolis. In the next century wealthy Athenians like Alkmaeon (592) and Kallias (564) won the prestigious equestrian contests at the Olympics.7 Given the active participation of contestants from Athens, it is axiomatic that they and their retinue brought back ideas for expanding their own local festival. Although we have few records of Athenian victories at the Pythian Games at Delphi, this festival founded in 586 no doubt also had a significant impact on the institution of the Panathenaia as we shall see.8 A second productive approach is to examine the extensive imagery of Attic vase painting in the second quarter of the sixth century. The earliest Panathenaic prize vases and their imitations, the so-called pseudoPanathenaics, can determine which athletic and equestrian events were held in the first decades of the Greater Panathenaia, as well as other possible contests such as those in music. Although these early black-figure amphoras, that is before c. 550–540, are relatively few in number, they are significant for being contemporary documents of the actual competitions held in the mid-sixth century. Less verifiably connected with the Panathenaia, the imagery on other Attic black-figure vases produced in the second quarter of the sixth century may reflect otherwise undocumented aspects of the festival, such as the facilities erected for spectators, the procession to the Akropolis, and the presentation of the peplos. While much of what I offer here is admittedly speculative, I believe that a major civic and religious event like the Panathenaia must have had a profound effect on vase painters, many of whom were commissioned to decorate prize vases for the festival itself. 4 On the building activity of 566, see E. Vanderpool, in D. W. Bradeen and M. F. McGregor (eds.), Phoros: Tribute to B. D. Meritt (1974) 156–160; J. M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (2001) 31–32. 5 See B. S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture2 (1993) 234–235 and 261 n. 6.43. The Kerameikos base with riders (P 1001) may belong to the Diskophoros stele; perhaps it represents an early form of a Panathenaic cavalcade as later depicted on the Parthenon frieze. See also J. Neils, The Parthenon Frieze (2001) 44–45, fig. 34. 6 H. A. G. Brijder, Siana Cups I and Komast Cups (1983) 127–128 (C Painter); 140, 161 (Taras Painter); idem, Siana Cups II: The Heidelberg Painter (1991) 391–393. Cf. the comment of J. D. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-figure (1951) 22: “An increasing interest in athletic contests is among the characteristics of Attic vase-painting in the second quarter of the sixth century.” 7 For these early Athenian athletes, see Kyle (supra n. 3) passim. 8 For a recent discussion of these festivals, see P. Valavanis, Games and Sanctuaries in Ancient Greece (2004) 21–161 (Olympia) and 163–267 (Delphi). On the Pythian Games, see also J. Fontenrose, in W. J. Raschke (ed.), The Archaeology of the Olympics (1988) 121–140.

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia

43

Such a colorful and varied spectacle surely inspired some of their paintings of religious, athletic, musical, and equestrian subjects, and even those with mythological themes, as I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere in relation to the François Vase.9 Finally what certainly pervaded the mentality of the Athenians at this time was epic poetry. The elaborate funeral games described by Homer no doubt imbued the earliest celebrations of the Panathenaia – just as they influenced the contemporary tyrant of Sikyon Kleisthenes to conduct athletic competitions for the hand of his daughter Agariste. Certain specifically Athenian contests like the apobates have greater resonance with the Bronze Age, and as such may have been deliberate attempts on the part of the Athenians to forge a link to the heroic past. Most significantly, the Homeric contests involved lavish prizes like metal tripods and lebetes, and the Panathenaia is distinctive among major religious festivals for presenting victors with more than a crown. For a demonstration of these approaches, one can consider the high point of the Panathenaic festival, the presentation of the peplos. In an important early article on the Panathenaia Davison called the gift of the peplos to Athena an “archaising imitation of the Olympic ritual” held in honor of Hera.10 It is a rite that has significant epic associations: the presentation of a robe to Athena as narrated in the Iliad (2.269–311) was a ritual carried out by women for the well-being of the city. The sole representation of the Athenian version of this ceremony appears in the center of the east frieze of the Classical Parthenon (and even this is not undisputed)11. But does the peplos appear in art in the previous century nearer the time of the founding of the Panathenia? Along with Karouzou in her monograph on the Amasis Painter, I believe that one of the two blackfigure lekythoi of c. 550 attributed to this painter in New York depicts the weaving of the Panathenaic peplos.12 The seated goddess on the shoulder directly over the warp-weighted loom argues for this interpretation as do the two young girls, certainly the arrhephoroi, who are working at it. A Panathenaic-shaped amphora of c. 540 in New York attributed to the Princeton Painter (Fig. 1) also may depict the peplos, carried on the head of a young woman at the far right to the sanctuary of Athena as indicated by the altar and “Promachos” statue.13 The aulos player at the left suggests that a religious ritual is in progress, and the Athena type depicted here, not to mention the shape of the vase, surely bespeaks the Fig. 1. Aulete, Athena, and girl with peplos (?). Attic blackPanathenia. Finally it is possible that the girl with a figure amphora of Panathenaic shape, attributed to the Princeton similar ring-shaped cushion on her head in the small Painter, ca. 550–540 B.C. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Olive-Tree Pediment, probably part of the oikemata Art 53.11.1. Rogers Fund, 1953. Photo: Museum. 9 J. Neils, in M. Iozzo and H. A. Shapiro (eds.), The François Vase: New Perspectives (forthcoming). For a similar approach to Dionysiac scenes, see G. Hedreen, JHS 124, 2004, 38–64. 10 Davison (supra n. 2) 26. 11 Neils (supra n. 5) 166–171. 12 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1931.33.10. ABV 154, 57; D. von Bothmer, The Amasis Painter and His World (1985) 185–187, no. 48 (with further bibliography). For the interpretation of the scene as the weaving of the Panathenaic peplos, see S. Karouzou, The Amasis Painter (1956) 43–44. 13 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1953.11.1, attributed to the Princeton Painter (ABV 298, 5). See Neils 1992, 25, fig. 14. The suggestion that the girl is an arrhephoros was first made by H. Cahn. A young woman carrying a folded garment on her head in a similar fashion (i.e. on a head ring) appears on a Locrian pinax (Reggio Calabria, Museo Nazionale 57482) with two other processional figures; see E. Lissi Caronna et al. (eds), Pinakes di Locri Epizefiri, Museo di Reggio Calabria e di Locri (1999). A cock stands on the ground behind the woman with the cloth.

44

Jenifer Neils

of the archaic Akropolis, is also one of two arrhephoroi, bearing the sacred garment to the original temple of Athena.14 The olive tree incised on the pediment wall secures the setting for this scene, as does the hiproofed building, a possible predecessor of the Old Athena Temple. The early sixth-century designers of this monument seem to be suggesting that the ritual of the peplos dates back to the earliest worship of Athena on the Akropolis. Whether they are deliberated “archaizing” this rite and manipulating history is not the point; rather they are demonstrating that the idea of “being worthy of the peplos” was a rudimentary concept of Athenian civic identity at an early date. Going farther afield of strictly Panathenaic iconography one can turn to Attic black-figure vases of the third quarter of the sixth century for reflections of the peplos’ imagery. We know from later sources that the gigantomachy (or racing chariots) was woven into this garment, and so the sudden appearance of this subject on vases dedicated to Athena on the Akropolis almost certainly reflects the impact of the textile’s imagery on artists. The upper register of a black-figure dinos by Lydos depicts the gigantomachy, as does a fragmentary kantharos from the Akropolis, probably dedicated by the potter-painter Nearchos since it bears his signature.15 Several other black-figure vases found on the Akropolis also bear this subject, which Alan Shapiro has shown to be one of several new ones that first appear in Athenian art c. 565–560.16 It is not unlikely that a newly woven, brightly colored, multi-figured textile would have inspired these vase painters. And so while the ritual of the peplos cannot be securely dated to the 560s by inscriptional or other written documentation, there is sufficient evidence in early archaic Athenian art to establish its central importance at the time of the founding of the Greater Panathenaia.

The Olympic and Delphic Models For competitive events and sacrificial rituals let us begin by looking at the earlier and more prestigious festivals held quadrennially at Olympia and Delphi. By the 53rd Olympiad there was an impressive temple to Zeus and Hera in the Altis, and there were no doubt many images of the god – both cult statue and votives. In Greek myth and religion Athena is particularly intimate with her father and both were worshipped on the Akropolis as Polias and Polieus respectively. It is no surprise then that they appear in the same pose as “Promachos” types in small bronze votive statuettes.17 If the early bronze warrior figurines at Olympia represent Zeus, their pose may have inspired the “Panathenaic” Athena who appears first on the Burgon amphora dated to 566/5 in a similar pose.18 In terms of foundation myths the sanctuary of Olympia was created by Zeus’ mortal son Herakles, who cleared the grove, laid out the boundaries of the Altis, and instituted the first games in honor of Zeus, according to Pindar.19 The Athenians also ascribed the foundation of their festival to a heroic figure from their distant past, Erichthonios, the adopted child of Athena. As for rituals, the hecatomb sacrificed to Zeus was certainly an old, well-established rite since the ash altar at Olympia dates as far back as the tenth century. As we know from the Parthenon frieze and other sources, a hecatomb of heifers was offered to Athena on the Akropolis. Because the area around Olympia was a rich cattle-raising land, such a lavish sacrifice makes sense for the Eleans and Pisans. However, Athens had less grazing land and so a hecatomb of cows was exceptional and likely modeled on the Olympian sacrifice. According to Pausanias (5.24.6) the oaths of the Olympic athletes were taken over a dismembered boar. Because this practice also appears in the Iliad (19.266–67), it is probably a very old, sacrosanct ritual. A sow may have been sacrificed to Athena in early times as we shall see below. The grand and colorful procession around the Altis, preceding the sacrifice, was also no doubt one of the original aspects of the festival. While a procession was certainly part of the festival of Athena before 566, the wide ramp constructed before the west entrance of the Akropolis at this time indicates a much expanded Panathenaic pompe. The actual participants in early manifestations of this procession are perhaps shown in For this suggestion, see H. A. Shapiro, in E. D. Reeder (ed.), Pandora (1995) 39–48. Athens National Museum, Akr. 612, signed by Nearchos. ABV 83, 3. 16 H. A. Shapiro, ClAnt 9.1, 1990, 129. 17 See J. Neils, in S. Deacy and A. Villing (eds.), Athena in the Classical World ( 2001) 219–232. 18 For another reading of the Panathenaic Athena, see G. F. Pinney, in J. Christiansen and T. Melander (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery (1988) 467–477, who argues that Athena is not in a ‘Promachos’ pose, but is dancing the pyrrhiche in celebration of the gods’ victory over the giants. 19 Alteratively the games were founded in honor of Pelops. 14 15

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia

45

Fig. 2. Procession to altar of Athena. Attic black-figure band cup, ca. 560 B.C. Paris, Niarchos collection. Photo: D. Widmer 837.

abbreviated fashion on an especially large Attic black-figure band cup of c. 560 in the Niarchos collection (Fig. 2).20 Here an impressive group of worshippers is approaching the flaming altar of Athena behind which stand the goddess (or her statue?) and her priestess. The leader of the procession is a bearded man bearing a branch, and immediately behind him is a female kanephoros. The sacrificial animals consist of a trittys: bovine, sow and ewe, tended by three beardless youths and two older men. The next participants appear in groups of three: musicians (two aulos-players and a kitharist), branch-bearers (thallophoroi?), and hoplites with a bearded marshal among them. Bringing up the rear is a single mounted knight with spear, but because the rear end of the horse disappears beyond the handle one might imagine more equestrians to the right. One of the intriguing aspects of this image is the repetition of the number three (not unlike the number ten on the Parthenon frieze) which suggests that the significant political divisions of Attica at this time were not tribal so much as regional – a suggestion perhaps supported by the triple-bodied character in the Hekatompedon pediment which Boardman has argued represents the Plain, Shore and Hill parties.21 Of course it is not possible to determine whether this vase painting references the Lesser or Greater Panathenaia, but given the proximity in date to the foundation of the latter and its resemblance to the Parthenon frieze, it may well be the earliest extant representation of the re-organized festival. The trittys or trittoia is the sacrifice of three different animals: bull, ram, and boar.22 At the Pythian festival at Delphi there were naturally major animal sacrifices at the altar of Apollo, but they were preceded by a trittys (bull, ram, and goat) and so this type of sacrifice at Athens may have been inspired by Delphic rite. The same type of sacrifice also appears on the black-figure dinos of c. 560 signed by Lydos and dedicated on the Akropolis mentioned above, although here the victims are female.23 The destination of this procession is not preserved but since it was found on the Akropolis and the upper register depicts the gigantomachy, we can assume the recipient was Athena. The evidence of the Lydan dinos and the Niarchos cup (Fig. 2) together suggests that the offering to Athena Polias at the earlier Panathenaias may have been the trittys, and that it later changed to a more lavish hecatomb of cows (with ewes for Pandora). When the Greater Panathenaia was established in 566/5, the athletic program at Olympia was fairly complete. It consisted of three footraces (stadion, diaulos, and dolichos), the pentathlon, wrestling, boxing, 20

L. I. Marangou, Ancient Greek Art from the Collection of Stavros S. Niarchos (1995) 86–93, no. 12 (with earlier bibliogra-

phy). For the suggestion that this monster represents the body politic, i.e. the people of the Hill, the Shore and the Plain, see J. Boardman, RA 1972, 57–72, and further discussion in Ridgway (supra n. 5) 286–287. 22 On the trittoia, see H. T. van Straten, Hierà kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (1995) 16–17 who, on epigraphical evidence, argues that this sacrifice did not take place at the Panathenaia but rather at a deme festival. 23 Athens, National Museum, Akr. 607, attributed to Lydos. ABV 107, 1; van Straten (supra n. 22) 196, no. V13, fig. 6. 21

46

Jenifer Neils

and pankration. Equestrian events included the tethrippon or four-horse chariot race, and horse racing. As we have already mentioned, the Athenians competed and won in the footraces in the seventh century. In the sixth century the Athenians began to stack up victories in the prestigious four-horse chariot race. Alkmaion won in 592, Kallias in 564, and possibly Miltiades in 560. According to Pausanias (6.10.8; 6.19.6) the oldest dedication by a chariot victor at Olympia was the inscribed ivory horn set up in the Treasury of the Sicyonians by Miltiades. Thus Athenians were not only prominent victors in the most prestigious contest at Olympia, but were dedicating lavish offerings at the sanctuary advertising their victories. Turning now to another major and influential festival, the Pythia held at Delphi in honor of Apollo, it, like the Olympics and the Panathenaia, was also penteteric. The Pythia and the Panathenaia in fact both took place in the late summer of the third year of the Olympiad. The first reorganization of the games is attributed to the tyrant Kleisthenes of Sikyon and is dated after the first Sacred War to 582. At this date the flute-contest was added to the earlier lyre competition as well as gymnastic contests. Distinctive of this festival are its musical contests which obviously relate closely to the god worshipped. In spite of textual evidence that states that Perikles established the musical contests at the Panathenaia, artistic evidence, i.e. black-figure vase paintings, suggests that they were already part of the festival in the mid-sixth century, and so were almost certainly modeled in this regard on the Pythia.

Evidence of the Panathenaic Amphoras Turning now to the artistic evidence from Athens we can determine which elements of the Olympic and Pythian festivals may have been incorporated into the reorganization of the Panathenaia in 566. There are extant forty-eight Panathenaic prize amphoras from what Bentz calls “the first generation,” dating from 566–530. Only nineteen of these vases preserve enough of the reverse imagery to provide evidence for the athletic and equestrian contests held in the early years of the festival. Approximately fifty percent (or 10 of the 19) depict the stadion or sprint, such as the vase in New York dated to 565 and signed by Nikias,24 while two show a longer race or diaulos as indicated by the inscription on a fragment of a Panathenaic amphora from Attica.25 There are two prize Panathenaic amhoras with the hoplitodromos and two with wrestlers. Only one vase illustrates the pentathlon, one a chariot race, and one, the famous Burgon amphora (here p. 1, Fig. 2), the synoris or mule cart. With the exception of boxing, the pankration and the horse race, this list corresponds to the contests held at Olympia. Of particular interest, however, is the hoplitodromos which did not occur on the Olympic program until 520. This might well represent a case of reverse influence in which a contest, more pertinent to the interests of the martial goddess, gained popularity in Athens and then was added to the roster of Olympic contests. The pseudo-Panathenaics help us flesh out this picture of the earliest contests held in Athens. Produced from c. 550 to the end of the century, these undersized reproductions of the canonical prize vases invariably show competitions on the reverse. Bentz has recently compiled a complete list of these vases which total 325 examples – only 25 of which date before c. 530. Of these early pseudo-Panathenaics, five depict the footrace, an event well documented by the earliest prize vases. There are also five pseudo-Panathenaics that show a contest of wrestlers, such as the fragmentary example in the Getty Museum attributed to the Swing Painter that places a prize dinos conspicuously between the wrestlers.26 It is noteworthy that Athena’s shield device on the obverse is another prize, a tripod, a topic to which we shall return. Three of these early pseudo-Panathenaics depict the chariot race,27 and, significantly, two represent the horse race which is missing from the earliest prize Panathenaics.28 Another by the Swing Painter, who seems to have specialized in pseudo-prize

24 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1978.11.13, signed by potter Nikias. M. Moore, MetrMusJ 34, 1999, 37–56; Bentz 1998, 126, no. 6.007, pl. 5. 25 Athens, National Museum 2468, attributed to the Painter of Boston C. A. ABV 69, 1; Bentz 1998, 126, no. 6.044, pl. 11. 26 Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum 86. AE.71, attributed to the Swing Painter. Bentz 2001, 189, no. 245. 27 Heidelberg University 73.3; Bentz 2001, 187, no. 212. Liverpool, Public Museums 56.19.27; Bentz 2001, 188, no. 227 (Swing Painter). Norwich, Castle Museum; Bentz 2001, 190, no. 265 (Princeton Painter). 28 London, British Museum B 144, attributed to the Swing Painter. H. A. Shapiro, Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens (1989) 32, pl. 12a; Bentz 2001, 189, no. 238. Tampa Museum of Art 86.42; Bentz 2001, 194, no. 309.

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia

47

Panathenaics, shows boxers contending over a Panathenaic amphora,29 suggesting that boxing appeared in Athens as it did at Olympia.30 Among these earliest pseudo-Panathenaics we find that another five present musical contests, usually an aulos-player, as an early example at the University of Texas at Austin, or singer accompanied by the aulos, as on another attributed to the Princeton Painter in New York.31 These scenes naturally strongly suggest that aulete and aulode contests were part of the Panthenaia in its early years, and it is noteworthy that they emphasize the audience. As for the kithara, it appears on other shapes of amphora whose subsidiary iconography alludes to the Panathenaia. An example is the Type B amphora in San Antonio where the citharist is posed between two cock columns, albeit Ionic.32 The idea for musical contests clearly derived from Delphi, and was intended to enhance the Panthenaia over and above the Olympic model. If we want to speculate which, if any, of these events might have existed before 566, it is necessary to consider two possible proto-Panathenaic amphoras. The first is a large neck-amphora in Athens which depicts an aulos-player with audience on one side and a horseman with trainer on the other.33 In the original publication Karouzou argued that in shape it was a forerunner of the prize amphoras, and in imagery it illustrated the musical and equestrian events held before 566, to which the athletic competitions were added.34 However, the shape is a standard ovoid neck amphora and there is none of the subsidiary decoration, such as the lotus and palmette cross, found on the necks of early Panathenaic-shaped amphoras. Hence there is little here to suggest the Panathenaia, although, as we have seen on the Niarchos cup (Fig. 2), musicians and riders were part of the Panathenaic procession. With the domestic goose on one side and the trainer on the other, the scenes on this vase could be taken as the two aspects of the education of a rich Athenian youth, horsemanship and music. The other vase is an unpublished amphora of true Panathenaic shape in Boulogne-sur-Mer (Figs. 3–4).35 In shape and neck decoration it is close to the early Panathenaic prize amphoras with sprinters in Halle and New York,36 but lacks rays at the base and has tongues at the juncture of neck and shoulder on both sides. One side depicts a bearded male wearing a short tunic and cloak, riding an ithyphallic mule to the right. He is flanked by youths wearing chlamydes. Above the rider is what appears to be a dedicatory inscription, but it is incomplete. Because the rider has an ivy wreath on his head, he has been identified as either Hephaistos or Dionysos, but the lack of revelry on the part of the bystanders might suggest a religious procession. The other side shows two tall draped males flanked by two smaller nude attendants – the one at the left carries an aryballos, the one at the right a leafy twig. The male in the long chiton and mantle with a staff is reaching out to the muscular man in front of him who wears only a chlamys. The action of the official-looking older male and the attributes held by the attendants point to the crowning of a victorious athlete. He is similar to the nude victor standing before Athena on the slightly later prize Panathenaic attributed to Lydos in Florence.37 While it is difficult to determine the relation of the mule-rider to the Panathenaia unless it is part of the procession (as also possibly on the amphora in Athens discussed above), the victorious athlete could be one of the first attempts on the part of Athenian vase painters to depict the new gymnastic contests added to the Panathenaia in 566. As we shall see below in the case of the horse race, the recognition of the victor rather than the action of the contest seems to be the key element. While probably not an official prize, this large inscribed amphora may have been commissioned by the victor for dedication as a votive. These Basel art market, attributed to the Swing Painter. Shapiro (supra n. 28) 333, pl. 12b; Bentz 2001, 184, no. 152. A unique, small Panathenaic-shaped amphoriskos in the Vlastos collection in Athens (BS 144), dated to c. 560, is of particular interest because it depicts a cavalcade. On the body there are five horsemen with a running figure, possibly a marshal (?). Both shoulders depict a bull attacked by lions, the same subject of the pediment of the Temple of Athena Polias at this time. The figures are named by inscriptions and so may indicate real Athenian knights participating in the cavalcade, just as they do later on the Parthenon frieze. Possibly by the Painter of Boston 08.291 (ABV 92). 31 Austin, University of Texas 1984.34; Neils 1992, 64 and 155, no. 17. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1989.281.89; Neils 1992, 43, 63 and 155, no. 18. 32 San Antonio Museum of Art 86.134.40, attributed to Group E. Neils 1992, 65 and 156, no. 20; K. Kilinski, H. A. Shapiro et al. (eds.), Greek Vases in the San Antonio Museum of Art (1995) 86–89, no. 40. Cf. also the Panathenaic-shaped amphora in London with the kitharoidos: ABV 139, 12. 33 Athens, National Museum 559: ABV 85, middle 1. 34 S. Papaspyridi-Karouzou, AJA 42, 1938, 495–505. 35 Boulogne-sur Mer, Musée Communale 592. See Annali del Seminario di Studi del Mondo Classico 11, 1989, fig. 25.1–2. 36 Halle University 560; ABV 120, Bentz 1998, 123, no. 6.002, pl. 3. New York: supra n. 24. 37 Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 97779, attributed to Lydos. ABV 110, 33; Bentz 1998, 124, no. 6.008, pls. 6–7. 29 30

48

Jenifer Neils

3

4

Figs. 3–4. Victorious athlete being crowned; man on mule flanked by two youths. Attic black-figure amphora of Panathenaic shape, ca. 570. Boulogne-sur-Mer, Musée Communale 592. Photo: Devos.

two ‘proto-Panathenaic’ vases, as well as other amphoras such as the “Horse-head” group, may allude to the festival, but they are not official prizes like the later inscribed Panathenaic vases. One exceptional pseudo-Panathenaic of c. 540 B.C. (Figs. 5–6) has attracted considerable attention because of its unique iconography.38 Both its shape and the Panathenaic Athena on the obverse indicate that it has to do with the festival, but the event(s) on the reverse is problematic. It looks as if a warrior with two shields has leapt onto the rump of a horse led along by another rider to the tune of the aulos played by a male figure standing behind a barrier. While it has been interpreted as the euandria, a later tribal event for which the prize was shields,39 it suggests to me a conflation of several contests: the horse race is the most prominent, whether one horse or two is not clear. At the far right is some sort of pole-vaulting, for which the youth holding an axe under the horse appears to be preparing the landing pit. In the background and most enigmatic is a warrior/gymnast wearing a helmet and greaves and holding two shields. He may be doing a dance to the tune of the aulos, or taking part in the hoplitodromos with two shields (as also seen on a prize Panathenaic of later date). At the far left is the grandstand, or ikria, with three gesticulating draped men and a nude youth. An inscription emerging from the mouth of the lowermost figure reads: a kados (jug; often misread as kalos) for the tumbler. Both rider and hoplite/gymnast look back at the gesticulating crowd, as if performing a victory lap. The two sides of this vase thus emphasize the concept of prizes (tripod as Athena’s shield device and a lebes on each column and on the reverse the reference to the kados), and the importance of spectators and worshippers in addition to the contestants. This “speaking” vase brings to mind another of similar date that also emphasizes prizes, in this instance the tripod.40 An amphora of Panathenaic shape from the circle of the Princeton Painter (c. 540 B.C.) depicts Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 243, unattributed. Shapiro (supra n. 28) 33, pl. 12c–d; Bentz 2001, 191, no. 275. First suggested by Davison (supra n. 2) 26 n. 4. See also N. B. Reed, Ancient World 15, 1987, 59–64. 40 Another is the well-known Type B amphora attributed to Group E of c. 540 in New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art 56.171.13) with the price inscription (“Two obols – and hands off”) written in a vertical line (like a Panathenaic prize inscription) in front of a warrior holding his helmet, shield and spear. The other side shows a nude male with a fillet around his shoulders, presumably a victorious athlete, carrying off a prize tripod. ABV 136, 50; CVA New York 3 (12) pl. 12; Kephalidou, 173–174, no. T6, pl. 13. 38 39

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia

49

6

the Panathenaic Athena flanked by Hermes and a draped man on the obverse.41 On the reverse a herald at the right is announcing the victorious horse of Dysneiketos (=Dynniketos) which follows him. At the far left is a nude youth carrying a tripod on his head and a wreath in his outstretched left hand. Just as other pseudo-Panathenaics show the victor in the presence of the goddess (or her statue), so on this vase the elder draped male on the reverse, sometimes identified as Zeus, might be Dynniketos himself, the owner of the winning horse. The messenger Hermes is then announcing his Panathenaic victory to 5 Athena. Clearly on account of the shape and the PanaFigs. 5–6. Panathenaic Athena flanked by youths; spectathenaic Athena a victory in the Panathenaia is indicated, tors and acrobatic performance. Attic black-figure amphora but in this period it seems surprising that a tripod constiof Panathenaic shape. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 243. tuted the prize. Although golden tripods were reputedly Photo: Museum. awarded at the first games at Delphi, we have no record of them serving as prizes in Athens. Rather scholars have interpreted it as a device on the part of the artist symbolizing victory in terms more readily recognizable to the viewer of the vase. Alternatively the tripod could be seen as a dedication on the part of the victor. One of the earliest dedications on the Akropolis was a monumental column supporting a tripod (DAA 317), dedicated jointly by Alkmeonides and Kratios (?), who won the pentathlon and the hippios race respectively probably in the Panathenaia of 550/49.42

Other Early Black-Figure Vases If we turn to other black-figure vase paintings of this period, we find that there is a striking nexus of tripods and horse races, beginning with a fragmentary dinos in Herakleion from the circle of Sophilos c. 570–560,43 and found in great profusion among Tyrrhenian vases.44 The tripod is conspicuously featured as a prize borne by a victor on a Siana cup of the same decade attributed to the C Painter and now in Heidelberg.45 In the words of Beazley, “Carrying on his head the bronze tripod won as a prize at the games, he is met by the worthies of his family and village, who hold phialai and drinking-horns for the rejoicings to come.” On the other side of this cup are four horses racing to the right, and on the interior, appropriately enough, a winged Nike. One can only assume that the winner of a horse race is carrying off his prize tripod. 41 London, British Museum 1849.11–22.1, attributed to the circle of the Princeton Painter. ABV 307, 59; Kephalidou, 226, no. I2, pl. 8. 42 See Kyle (supra n. 3) 196, no. A6. The same Alkmaeonides dedicated a statue in the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios in Boeotia in commemoration of his chariot victory in the Panathenaia of 546/5. 43 Herakleion Museum, from Gortyn. Beazley, Paralipomena 18, 14bis; G. Bakir, Sophilos ( 1981) 72, B.2, figs. 158–160. 44 See E. Maul-Mandelartz, Griechische Reiterdarstellungen in agonistischen Zusammenhang ( 1990) 62–75, and pls. 14–15. 45 Heidelberg S1. ABV 51, 1; J. D. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-figure2 (1986) pls. 17.4 and 18.1; Kephalidou, 172, T1, pl. 13.

50

Jenifer Neils

As noted above, the keles or horse race is conspicuously absent from the first generation of prize Panathenaics.46 The earliest inscribed prize vase connected with it is the Panathenaic of c. 530–520 in Nauplion, but here the race is not shown; 47 rather the victorious horse being led by its owner is receiving phyllobolia from two other draped men. As on Dysneiketos’ vase in London, the emphasis is on the victor, not the contest. In fact the earliest extant Panathenaic prize vases to show the actual horse race are those produced in the Antimenes Painter’s workshop and dated to the decade 520–510.48 Finally an unusual and early (c. 560 B.C.) pseudo-Panathenaic in Bonn with plastic lions’ heads at the base of the handles shows two horses with riders confronting a tripod.49 This early ceramic evidence strongly suggests that the prize in the horse race in the first few decades of the Panathenaia may have been a tripod, rather than amphoras filled with olive oil. Although the horse race entered the Olympic program fairly late (648 B.C.), it was one of the original events of the Pythian Games in 586 and so a tripod may have been the monetary prize in the first set of competitions at Delphi. Also it seems likely that in the early years of the Panathenaia the moriai or olive trees of the goddess may not have been plentiful enough to produce olive oil for every event; it would have taken a few decades to plant enough trees to ensure a large crop for the expanding festival. Later in the sixth century, Type B amphoras, especially those in the orbit of Exekias, show tripods in the company of victorious athletes and charioteers rather than riders. Two tripod-bearers on an amphora in the Villa Giulia follow a larger nude athlete whose build indicates that he is a victorious pugilist,50 and one on a vase in Washington D.C. by the Painter of Berlin 1686 is part of a victory ceremony.51 The victorious athlete is being crowned by a judge seated at the left while a tripod-bearing attendant stands behind him. Finally, a somewhat later Type B amphora in Philadelphia displays the Panathenaic Athena before a tripod, which may possibly be the award for the dance on the reverse.52 At this point it does seem that the tripod has become a victory token, whose place will be taken by Nike in fifth-century red-figure vase painting. Bronze tripods originally had epic connotations because of their association with the funeral games of Patroklos and for this reason may have been an appropriate prize for the wealthy Athenians taking part in the prestigious keles at the earliest Panathenaia. The prize was clearly an important aspect of the early celebrations of the greater Panathenaia, and Kyle has emphasized the importance of such awards for attracting non-Athenians to the festival. This prominent display of material rewards on early Panathenaics and other Athenian vases amounts to a kind of visual rhetoric that advertises this distinctive aspect of the Panathenaia in relation to the other crown events held at this time. The Panathenaic prize inscription (“of the prizes at Athens”) carries the message to the literate that the festival at Athens is potentially lucrative and so worth attending. It also advertises the wealth of the city and the patronage of the goddess who produced the original olive tree.

Conclusion While the Lesser Panathenaia surely existed before 566 B.C., its main components were incorporated into a grander festival, which was enlarged and made into a penteteric event based on the Olympian and Pythian Games. The evidence from the earliest Panathenaic prize amphoras and their imitations demonstrates the high probability of inspiration from and modeling after these earlier festivals in terms of athletic and equestrian competitions, the presentation of a robe to the goddess, and also perhaps tripods as prizes in the horse race. The first generation of Panathenaics, produced between 566 and 530, depicts already a fairly full program not unlike Olympia. The most distinctive feature of the Pythian Games was the musical contests and, as we have On the keles, see D. Bell, Stadion 15, 1989, 167–190. Nauplion Museum 1, attributed to the Mastos Painter. ABV 260, 27; Bentz 1998, 127, no. 6.051, pl. 13; Kephalidou, 225–226, I1, pl. 8. 48 St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum 1510 (Beazley, Paralipomena 127; Bentz 1998, 129, no. 6.071) and Paris, Louvre F 274 (ABV 291, 3; Bentz 1998, 130, no. 6.075). 49 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 589, attributed to the Painter of London B 76. ABV 86, 7; Maul-Mandelartz (supra n. 44) 120, PS2, pl. 31. 50 Rome, Villa Giulia 8340, near Exekias. ABV 149, 1; Kephalidou, 183, no. G26, pl. 15. 51 Washington D. C., Smithsonian , Museum of National History 136415, attributed to the Painter of Berlin 1686. ABV 297, 18; Neils 1992, 17, fig. 2; Kephalidou, 184, no. G28; S. Schwarz, Greek Vases in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. ( 1996) 16–17, pls. 3–6. 52 Philadelphia, University Museum MS 2489, unattributed. See Aspects of Ancient Greece (1979) 42–43, no. 18. 46 47

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia

51

seen, these became an important part of the sixth-century Panathenaia. On the evidence of a Panathenaicshaped amphora of c. 540 in Liverpool, Shapiro has argued for performances by rhapsodes in the early years of the Panathenaia.53 Parenthetically we know that Kleisthenes of Sikyon banned rhapsodic contests during his war with Argos according to Herodotos (5.67), so these were not unknown at this time, even if there is no evidence for them at the Pythia or the Olympics. A peculiarly Athenian contest known as the apobates was also perhaps performed since it is depicted already on Attic Geometric vases.54 Other evidence for the earliest Panathenaic festivals comes from the topography and monuments of the Akropolis. As Hurwit has written: “Between 575 and 550, the Acropolis, which had been for so long the modest sanctuary of a provincial polis, became a grandiose spectacle of the first order, the visible expression of a city that was now entering the first rank in Greece, the place where the Athenians increasingly reminded themselves, and formulated through their art and architecture, what it was to be Athenian.”55 As a sixth-century visitor made his way up the wide ramp, confronted the large temple of Athena, perhaps got a glimpse of the colorful textile draping the olive-wood statue of the goddess, admired the expensive marble dedications, and saw the numerous ceramic offerings many of which were prize amphoras advertising the games at Athens, he could not help but be impressed by the revitalized city. Who, he might wonder, was responsible for this transformation? While Peisistratos is often cited as the architect of the Panathenaia, his political career began slightly later. The archon in 566 was the “richest and most good-looking man in Athens” (Herodotos 6.127). Hippokleides, the son of Tisander, is best known for dancing away his bride in the famous Contest of the Suitors in Sikyon. In spite of his questionable conduct it is worth speculating to what extent he was impressed by the competitions conducted by the tyrant Kleisthenes a few years earlier, such that he expanded the local Athenian festival with athletic games – and perhaps instituted the slaughter of one hundred cattle, as the tyrant had done for the suitors in Sikyon. Kleisthenes prepared for the contestants by building a race track (dromos) and a wrestling ground, not unlike the ‘first’ actions of hieropoioi in Athens. Both the Contest of the Suitors and the Panathenaic festival are imbued with the same atavistic spirit, taking their cue from epic poetry. Both, like the athlothetes Achilles, demonstrate a desire to showcase the best and finest male athletes with rewards (a bride or a tripod or an amphora of olive oil) for those who compete and win. The fact that the Panathenaia had second and third prizes is more reminiscent of the games held at Troy, than the Olympics which had only first-place winners. Like the wedding rhyme “something old, something new, something borrowed….” the original Panathenaia had both traditional and novel components. As presented in Athens in 566/5, it was already characterized by an interest in display, self-promotion, and distinctiveness – aspects it would develop more fully in the centuries to come.

Acknowledgements I am very much indebted to the work of Martin Bentz, Eurydike Kephalidou, Alan Shapiro, and Panos Valavanis – all of whom have done much to elucidate various aspects of the ancient games at Athens. I thank Donald Kyle for reading a draft of this paper and making many valuable suggestions.

Abbreviations Bentz 1998 Bentz 2001 DAA Kephalidou Neils 1992

53 54 55

104.

M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds), Panathenaïka (2001) A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (1949) E. Kephalidou, ΝΙΚΗΤΗΣ ( 1996) J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992)

H. A. Shapiro, in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece (1998) 92–107. K. Reber, AntK 42, 1999, 126–141. See also Peter Schultz in this volume. J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present (1999)

Games at the lesser Panathenaia? Stephen V. Tracy We know very little about the lesser Panathenaia. By comparison, the greater or penteteric Panathenaic festival is reasonably well-known. Recent work by Jenifer Neils, Christian Habicht, Stephen Tracy and now Julia Shear has contributed much to our understanding of the agonistic program of the festival.1 The complete athletic program at the greater Panathenaia has been reconstructed based on the inscriptions.2 It very probably lasted at least four days and was held at three different sites. The open non-equestrian events took place in the stadium; equestrian events of a quasi-military character featuring the Athenian cavalry were held on the racecourse in the Agora. The hippodrome was the venue for the thoroughbred horse races and chariot races. The program undoubtedly reached a climax on the final day in the hippodrome. The victor lists of the Hellenistic period record only the winners in the events that received prizes of sacred oil. The festival included much else. Aristotle in section 60 of his treatise on the Athenian constitution gives an invaluable account of the duties of the athlothetai. They served for four years. Their main duties were to organise the great procession, the music competition, the gymnic competition, the equestrian events, and to distribute the oil to the athletes. In anticipation of the games they arranged for the preparation of the sacred robe and the amphoras. Aristotle adds that the prizes for the winners in music were gold and silver, shields for the winners in euandria (‘manliness’), and oil for the winners in the gymnic and equestrian events. The competitions are listed consistently in the following order: musical contests, gymnic events for boys, youths, and men, and finally the equestrian competition. The major events were undoubtedly held in this order. IG II2 2311 (here p. 118, Fig. 1), an early fourth-century list of prizes, records at the end the prizes for the competitions of the tribes.3 These tribal competitions thus probably came near the close of the festival and some may have occurred at the all-night celebration. What is very striking when one considers the whole picture is the degree to which the Athenians arranged the games so as to include many parts that were for Athenians only. The musical and gymnic competitions were open to all, but the beginning and end of the equestrian competition was open only to Athenians as were the tribal competitions, the massed cavalry display known as the anthippasia,4 and the torch race. These would have appealed for the most part primarily to locals, though others may have enjoyed them or at least taken an interest out of curiosity or politeness. The Athenians thus combined in the greater Panathenaia panhellenic aspirations and local pride. The cash value of the prizes they offered was considerable5 and so acted no doubt as a drawing card to bring foreign competitors who probably found the local character of significant parts of the competitions unusual, even a bit chauvinistic. After all, the four crown-awarding games, the Pythian, Nemean, Isthmian, and Olympic games were truly panhellenic with all competitions open. J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992); Ch. Habicht and S. V. Tracy, Hesperia 60, 1991, 187–236; S. V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 133–153; J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 87–108. See also the contributions in the present volume, especially those by Martin Bentz, Hans Goette and Peter Schultz. 2 See especially Habicht and Tracy (supra n. 1) 196–201 and Tracy (supra n. 1) 138–143. The following inscriptions, all of the late third and second centuries B.C., preserve parts of one or more Panathenaic victor lists: Hesperia 60, 1991, 188–189; IG II2 2313–2317. 3 New edition by J. L. Shear in ZPE 142, 2003, 87–108, esp. 103–105. 4 IG II2 3079, Agora I 3495 (Hesperia 43, 1974, 313). 5 In the early fourth-century prize list IG II2 2311, the winners in the boys’ gymnic events receive 30 amphoras of oil and the winners among the young men receive 40. See also P. Themelis, this volume. 1

54

Stephen V. Tracy

The most important evidence for the annual (τὰ κατ’ἐνιαυτόν) or lesser (τὰ μικρά) Panathenaia is IG II2 334, an inscription of about the year 335 B.C. (Fig. 1).6 It survives on two non-joining stones. Fragment a, broken on both sides, preserves the remains of a law creating a special fund to pay for the lesser festival; fragment b records an amendment specifying in detail the sacrifices and distribution of the meat from them. From two separate sacrifices portions of meat are to be set aside for the organisers (lines 35–40). In addition, a special fund of forty-one minas (4100 drachmas) was created to purchase cows for the main sacrifice (lines 41–43); this would buy roughly 50–60 animals7 which were enough to feed about 8000 people depending on the size of the animals and of the portions. From these, the most beautiful was to be sacrificed on the altar of Athena Nike, just at the entrance to the Acropolis; the others on the great altar of Athena to the east of the Erechtheion. After this sacrifice to Athena Polias and Athena Nike the hieropes were to distribute the meat to the people in the lower city in the area known as Kerameikos (lines 44–50)8 and to allot it to the demes according to the numbers from each who had participated in the procession (lines 50–52). Before it breaks off, the inscription instructs the hieropes to arrange the all-night celebration as beautifully as possible and to dispatch the procession promptly at daybreak (lines 56–59). The central part of the inscription is lost so we can not know what was in the missing part. The main thrust of the law that the preserved parts contain is to ensure that everything related to the festival for the Goddess be celebrated properly (καλῶς line 31). From this document, we have evidence at the lesser Panathenaia of the all-night celebration (pannychis lines 57–58), the sunrise procession (lines 58–59), the sacrifices on the Acropolis at the end of the procession (lines 43–45), and the distribution of the meat and feast in the lower city (lines 49–52). In addition to purchasing the animals for slaughter the hieropes are allotted 50 drachmas to pay the cost of the parade, food preparation, decoration for the altar and other sundries needed for the festival and the pannychis (lines 53–56). Officials who receive special portions of the sacrifice are the prytaneis (line 36), the nine archons (lines 36–37), the paymasters of Athena (line 37), the hieropes (lines 37–38), the generals and taxiarchs (lines 38–39), the parade marshals (line 39) and the kanephoroi (lines 39–40). These are doubtless the officials who participated in the parade. The presence of the generals and taxiarchs may suggest that some units under them also took part, not to mention, of course, the general populace. Two inscriptions, IG II2 10349 and 1036,10 that praise the ergastinai, the maidens who prepared the wool for the peplos of Athena, list them as having participated as assigned most beautifully in the procession. These texts belong to the years 103/2 and 108/7 respectively, both years of the lesser Panathenaia. The reference in line 2 of the latter to the current year’s peplos (τὸν ἐφέτειον πέπλ[ο]ν) makes it fairly certain that, at least in the late second century B.C., a peplos was offered to Athena each year at the lesser festival. Pseudo Xenophon, better known as the Old Oligarch, speaks (3.4) of choregoi every year at the Dionysia, Thargelia, Panathenaia, Promethia, and Hephaestia. There were thus at least some performances involving choruses at the lesser celebration. Moreover, the speaker at Lysias 21.2 tells us that he provided a circular chorus, that is, a dithyrambic chorus, at the lesser Panathenaia of the year 409/8.11 This is the extent of our evidence for choral performances at the lesser festival. 6 Re-edited by A. G. Woodhead as Agora XVI, no. 75; see also the recent edition of C. Schwenk, Athens in the Age of Alexander (1985) 81–94. 7 This is based on an estimated cost of about 70 drachmas per animal. Cost figures for cows are infrequent and fluctuate. The sacred calendar of Thorikos of about the year 375 specifies in lines 28–30 that a cow should be sacrificed costing not less than 40 and up to 50 drachmas (G. Daux, AntCl 52, 1983, 150–174, esp. 152–154). By contrast, line 87 of Agora I 3244, the sacrificial calendar of the Marathonians, of the year 363/2 gives the price of an ox as 70 drachmas. This text was published by W. S. Ferguson in Hesperia 7, 1938, 1–9 = Agora XIX, no. L4a. 8 The word Kerameikos at the beginning of line 50 is entirely restored except for the final letter which is the iota adscript marking the dative case. The restoration suits the available space and seems inevitable. Kerameikos here seems to be the name of the district composing the inner and outer Kerameikos, i.e. encompassing the deme Kerameis and much of the area from the Agora to the Academy. The closest to a parallel is Plut. Demetr. 11.4, where Stratokles is described as driving through the Kerameikos, proposing a thank offering and making a distribution of meat to the people by tribe. It is unclear whether Plutarch means that the distribution took place in the Kerameikos, but it seems likely. 9 For the association of IG II2 1943 with this text and a new edition of the latter, see S. V. Tracy, Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. (1990) 217–219. 10 Recently re-edited by S. B. Aleshire and S. D. Lambert, ZPE 142, 2003, 65–85. 11 Circular choruses always refer to performances of dithyramb. See A. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy, 2nd ed. revised by T. B. L. Webster (1962) 32–33.

Games at the lesser Panathenaia?

Fig. 1. IG II2 334. Law (with amendment) on the lesser Panathenaia from ca. 335 B.C.

55

56

Stephen V. Tracy

The same speaker also informs us that he won with the youth pyrrichistai at the lesser Panathenaia of the year 403/2 (Lysias 21.4). J. Shear has recently argued that IG II2 3025, another inscription mentioning these tribal contests for dancers in armor, the pyrrichistai, belongs to the year 323/2, a lesser Panathenaic year.12 So, there were at least some contests annually for the tribes. The most vexing question is whether or not there were athletic competitions for individuals associated with the lesser festival. Many have thought that the few references to winning an event at the greater Panathenaia13 or to announcing golden crowns at the gymnic contest of the greater14 imply the existence of these events at the lesser. This is not a necessary conclusion, but only a possible one. The emphasis placed on the greater may be simply the natural tendency of honorific language to indulge in fullness of expression. The complete absence of officials connected with games from the list of officials awarded portions of the sacrifice in lines 36 to 40 of IG II2 334 is striking. It constitutes to my mind a very strong argument against there being athletic games associated with the lesser Panathenaia. These lines are all but fully preserved and the restorations in them are certain. There is no room for any additional officials. There is no mention of the athlothetai, the officials who administered the games at the greater Panathenaia,15 nor of an agonothetes. If there were games, there had to be officials to oversee them and surely they must have participated in the parade and the subsequent sacrifice and feast. Moreover there are no mentions of the athlothetai that must refer to the lesser Panathenaia; all can refer to their role in preparing for the greater festival.16 What then are we to make of the provision on inscriptions beginning in the late third century and continuing into the first of announcing the award of gold crowns at the new performances of tragedies at the city Dionysia and at the gymnic games of the Panathenaia, the Eleusinia, and sometimes the Ptolemaia (καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν [στέφανον] τοῦτον Διονυσίων τῶν ἐν ἄστει καινοῖς τραγωιδοῖς καὶ Πανα[θη]ναί[ω]ν καὶ Ἐλευσινίων καὶ Πτολεμαίων τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν)?17 Since a number of these texts were passed in years other than just prior to the year of the greater Panathenaia, they have been taken as evidence for athletic games at the lesser festival. But is that necessarily the case? It is first of all most noteworthy that three of the earliest proclamations of gold crowns at the Panathenaia that survive are explicitly – the text specifies it – to be made at the greater festival.18 In the case of the other two early examples, IG II2 456b of the year 307/6 and 492 of 303/2, the greater Panathenaia is not specified by the language of the decree, but the next celebration was the greater festival, so it did not perhaps need to be stipulated. These texts date from the years 307/6 to 250. It is quite clear that such announcements, when they were made during these years, regularly took place at the greater Panathenaia. Chronologically the next text that survives that specifies the proclamation of the award of a gold crown at the Panathenaia, Agora XVI, no. 224, dates about twenty-five years later. It was passed in the third prytany of the year of Ergochares in honor of the peripatetic philosopher Prytanis of Karystos. Ergochares was archon most probably during the year 226/5.19 The next festival of the greater Panathenaia was scheduled for the first month of the year 222/1, that is, three or four years later, depending on which is the correct year for Ergochares’ archonship. Can the announcement of the award have been put off for so long or must we conclude that there has been a change in practice and that this proclamation was to be made at the lesser festival and therefore that there were now gymnic games at the annual Panathenaia?

J. L. Shear, JHS 123, 2003, 164–175. See, e.g., IG II2 3126, 3131. 14 IG II2 557 line 17, Agora XVI, no. 208 line 28, and IG II2 682 line 77. 15 On them, see Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 60 and IG II2 784. The date of this inscription and of the archon Athenodoros is not certain; at present all indications point to the year 238/7, a year of the greater Panathenaia, as most probable (G. Steinhauer, AEphem 1993, 47; see also S. V. Tracy, Athens and Macedon: Attic Letter-Cutters of 300 to 229 B.C. [2003] 1–2, 165–168). 16 Cf. B. Nagy, GrRomByzSt 19, 1978, 307–313. On the athlothetai in decree I of IG II2 1060 and 1034, see Aleshire and Lambert (supra n. 10) 70–71. 17 Agora XVI, no. 225 lines 9–11; other representative examples are IG II2 891 lines 13–14, 900 lines 9–10, and 956 lines 33–35. 18 IG II2 557 line 17, Agora XVI, no. 208 line 28, and IG II2 682 line 77. 19 On the date, see Woodhead, Agora XVI, pp. 319, 320–321. J. D. Morgan in a private communication argues that the sequence of archons from Heliodoros to Antiphilos should be moved later by one year, thus placing Ergochares in 225/4. 12 13

Games at the lesser Panathenaia?

57

The added honor of the public proclamation of a gold crown, we must remember, was relatively rare. When it was awarded, it went only to those who had performed services that were perceived as crucial to the preservation of the city against its enemies. Of the six inscriptions mentioned above, only Agora XVI, no. 208, praising arbitrators from the city of Lamia in a dispute between the Athenians and the Boeotians, gives no details in the preserved parts that let us know the historical circumstances. The others, even though fragmentary, allow us to see something of the context. IG II2 557 is very fragmentary, but the remains in lines 3 and 4 show that the citizens of an unknown city are being praised for giving money for safeguarding the Athenians. Phaidros of Sphettos is honored in IG II2 682 for a long career of military activity on behalf of his city. The honors awarded by IG II2 456b in the year 307/6 to the people of Kolophon, we learn from a decree of the next year, IG II2 470, were related to their support of the Athenians in their war against Cassander.20 Apollonides of Piraeus received a gold crown in the year 302 for his crucial role in winning Demetrios Poliorketes’ help against Cassander at the close of the same war.21 Finally Prytanis of Karystos, a prominent member of the Lyceum, is praised in 226/5 or 225/4 for negotiating frankly on behalf of the city with Antigonos Doson.22 We may suspect that it was far from easy, and perhaps even dangerous, to persuade the King to accept a democracy that had been set up in Athens just a few years earlier, in the year 229/823 – especially since the Athenians had taken advantage of an unstable situation in Macedonia caused by the death of Demetrios II early in that year to persuade the Macedonian governor to disband his troops whom they paid off with 150 talents.24 In addition to these awards to foreigners and prominent individuals, the ephebes and their kosmetes (once a year) and the agonothetes of the Theseia (once every four years) are honored regularly with the award of a gold crown and its proclamation at the Panathenaic games. These awards fit the model of honors given to those who have performed services crucial to the safety of the city. The kosmetes and the agonothetes of the Theseia after all played significant roles in the military training of young Athenians. The occasions chosen for the announcements were the major festivals at which there were open competitions. The annual performance of the new tragedies at the city Dionysia was an important competitive occasion with prizes awarded to the performances adjudged the best. The producers and authors were predominantly, but not exclusively, Athenian. The performances were open to all and attended by many foreigners.25 Likewise the athletic, i.e. gymnic events, at the penteteric festivals were also occasions of wide appeal with many foreigners in attendance. Therefore, the people voted in select cases that public proclamations of the awards of gold crowns were to be made at the next occurrence of these festivals. This would entail in some cases that the announcements were made at contests separated by a number of years. This, I submit, is not a problem. There were not so many awards that the honor will have been diluted by the mind-numbing recitation of a multitude of such proclamations. Moreover, the context of open games offered an impressive occasion to remind those in attendance, Athenians and foreigners, of recent recipients of what was the city’s highest honor, the gold crown. Thus public proclamation of Prytanis of Karystos’ crown at the greater Panathenaia of the year 222/1, three or four years after it was initially awarded, will have reminded those in attendance of his important actions and functioned in a sense as a renewal of the honor bestowed upon him. In short, there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that there were individual athletic competitions at the lesser Panathenaia. To conclude, the lesser Panathenaia was, it appears, a strictly local festival overseen by the hieropes. It included some events contested by the Athenian tribes – we know for certain of circular choruses and the pyrriche or armed dance –, the all-night celebration with perhaps a torch relay race, the day-break procession to the Acropolis, the offering of a peplos to Athena’s statue followed by the sacrifices on the Acropolis and the feast at the Kerameikos. It was a relatively small affair probably lasting just two or three days.

On this four-year-long struggle, Ch. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (1997) 74–76. IG II2 492. 22 Agora XVI, no. 224 lines 20–21. 23 The language of lines 16–17 of the decree, οὔτε πόνον οὔτε κίνδυνον ὑπολογισάμενος οὐθένα, seems notable in this regard. 24 Plut. Arat. 34, IG II2 834 lines 10–14. See Ch. Habicht, Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit (1982) 79–84. 25 For foreigners at the festival, Ar. Ach. 505–506, Aeschin. In Ctes. 43. On the program of the festival, see A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed. revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis (1968) 57–101. 20

21

The iconography of the Athenian apobates race: origins, meanings, transformations Peter Schultz

In referring to “origins,” the title of this paper is a little misleading since it will not directly discuss what most scholars believe to be the actual, historical genesis of the apobates competition. By this I refer to the popular notion that the apobates race is rooted in Homeric contexts and that the event self-consciously recalled an age of legend in which warriors cruised into battle on chariots, leapt from their speeding vehicles and then remounted to continue the fray. If this was our subject, then we would begin with middle and late Geometric vase painting (Fig. 1) which is often seen as providing the earliest representations of the apobates competition.1 This, however, does not concern us here. Instead, I would like to discuss how the apobates race may have been reinvented iconographically over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. in Athens. Examination of the creation and manipulation of the etiological tradition of the contest and its related iconography may shed new light on the apobates competition itself. Since the end of the fifth century the apobates race was seen not only as an anachronistic survival of the Homeric age but also as the invention of the Athenian hero Erichthonios in conjunction with his patron goddess Athena.2 The earliest literary source for this idea is pseudo-Eratosthenes, Katasterismoi 13, citing a lost play of Euripides, produced c. 438–410. The reference is worth citing in full:

Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the neck of a Geometric amphora found in House IV at Eretria, possibly showing the apobates race. About 760 B.C. After K. Reber, AntK 42, 1999, fig. 2.

Having grown up, [Erichthonios] discovered [the chariot] and, being a master, he was admired. He also celebrated the Panathenaia with honor and, having a parabates with a small shield and a triple-crested (τριλοφίαν) helmet, he raced the [first] chariot. From this the so-called apobates race comes through imitation.3 Apobates race in Geometric vase painting: H. A. Thompson, AA 76,1961, 224–231; R. Tölle, AA 78,1963, 225; H. Metzger, Recherches sur l’imagérie athénienne (1965) 71–72; G. Ahlberg, SIMA 32, 1971, 191–194; P. Kahanes, AntK 16, 1973, 133 with n. 80; L. Roller, AJA 85, 1981, 115 with n. 61; D. Kyle, Athletics in Ancient Athens, Mnemosyne Supplement 95, 1987, 16–17 ; T. Rombos, The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery (1988) 119–123; H. Szemethy, “Der Apobatenagon. Eine philologischepigraphisch-archäologische Studie” (Diss. University of Vienna, 1991) 92–99; K. Reber, AntK 42, 1999, 126–141 with comprehensive bibliography. See also infra n. 6. 2 Szemethy (supra n. 1) 17–18; 21–23, idem, in Fremde Zeiten. Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt (1996) 123–132; J. L. Shear, “Polis and Panathenaia. The History and Development of Athena’s Festival” (Diss. University of Pennsylvania, 2001) 43–49. 3 Date and authorship of the Katasterismoi: Shear (supra n. 2) 44 n. 55; 46–47; K. Geus, Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur 1

60

Peter Schultz

While heroes sometimes wear triple-crested helmets like that described above, it can probably be assumed that any mention of this particular type of headgear in post-Pheidian Athens would have been associated with the chryselephantine image of Athena Parthenos and her own famous triple-crested helmet.4 More to the point, when considered within the context of the mythologized “invention” of the Athenian apobates contest, Erichthonios can be subordinate to no one except Athena. The only plausible identification for the armed, triple-crested parabates driven by the founder of the Panathenaia is the goddess herself.5 Attic vase painting confirms the early pedigree of this story and suggests that the tradition was known by the end of the sixth century. In 1862 Sophus Birket Smith interpreted the apobates scene on a famous late sixth century oinochoe in Copenhagen (Fig. 2) as depicting Athena’s invention of the apobates race, a reading that has been widely accepted.6 Having leapt down from her chariot, Athena sprints towards a white end-post (τέρμα), the iconographic confirmation that the scene depicts a race. Athena’s status as a victorious competitor is suggested by the tripod device on her shield, a common sign for agonistic νίκη. The speed and energy of the event, emphasized by the streaming mane and tails of the horses and the leaping wheels of the ἅρμα, are further accentuated by Athena’s flying, pin-wheel pose and, most importantly, by the glance over her shoulder towards her invisible, trailing opponent. This particular iconographic device – the glance over the shoulder – is consistently used in apobates imagery to designate the winner of the event. It is the racing Athena – Athena Hippia – mistress of horses, chariots and equestrian contests that is captured here. Clearly by the late sixth century a painter and his customers understood – or at least could imagine – the notion of Erichthonios and Athena as contestants in the apobates competition. hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (2002) 211–223. 4 Shear (supra n. 2) 48. Compare Aesch. Sept. ll. 384–385, but see infra n. 5. 5 The representation of Athena wearing a triple-crested helmet begins in the mid fifth century and lasts well into the Roman period (see, for example, LIMC II [1984] s.v. Athena, nos. 75, 298, 328 and LIMC II, s.v. Athena/Minerva, nos. 13, 35, 71 and 269). The conceptual basis for the iconography, however, can be found much earlier. Athena’s single crest in sixth and early fifth century Athenian vase painting and figurines is often three times the height of normal plumes or even larger (see, for example, LIMC II, s.v. Ares, nos. 37, 40 and 41 – for a convenient comparison with another war god – and LIMC II, s.v. Athena, nos. 40, 60, 121, 146 and 182 – for general illustrations). This consistent pattern of representation signified the goddess’s elevated status, as well as her heroic and warlike persona, associations established by Homeric descriptions of large helmet crests since the eighth century. Equally significant is the fact that Athena’s helmet plumes on Panathenaic amphorae are the largest crests in the corpus of Attic vase painting (see, for example, M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren, AntK Beih. 18 [1998] nos. 6.016; 6.049; 6.050; 6.055; 6.072; 6.074; 6.096; 5.026; 5.046; 4.011; 4.012; 4.013; etc.). Since the prefix τρι- is often used as an indefinite stress or emphasis (like τριβάρβαρος or τρίβαφος), Eratosthenes’ description of the parabates escorted by Erichthonios as τριλοφίαν should probably be read literally as “triple-crested” and metaphorically as “emphatically” or “forcefully” crested. This second sense seems to be the substance of the word as used in later sources like Aelian (NA 5.21), Alciphron (Epist. 2.13.2) or Plutarch (Αrat. 32.2.1; 33.2.4), whose descriptions of vigorously crested helmets (and even birds!) are set in blatantly heroic or poetic contexts. If this much is accepted, then Pheidias’ development of the triple-crested helmet for the Parthenos in the 430s would represent the ultimate sculptural evolution of an Archaic iconographic convention. For technical and structural reasons Athena’s tall, traditional crest was impracticable for the Parthenos. In its place, Pheidias developed the very elaborate – and very stable – triple-plumed helmet. The descriptive terminology remained consistent. 6 Black figure oinochoe (Copenhagen, National Museum Chr.VIII. 340; CVA Denmark 3 124.2a–b; here Appendix cat. no. 6) assigned to the Painter of Oxford 224 by Beazley (ABV 430.27; 435.1). For the scene as a depiction of the first apobates race: S. B. Smith, De malede vaser i Antikkabinettet i Kjøbenhavn (1862) 33–34, no. 108 (I am indebted to Jesper Jensen for a photocopy of this catalogue entry); S. B. Smith, AZ 23, 1865, 59–61; E. Pfuhl, AA 1917, 37–38; CVA Denmark 3, 100; N. Breitenstein, in J. Brøndsted (ed.), Antik-Cabinettet 1851. Udgivet 1 Hundredaaret af Nationalmuseet (1951) 122 with n. 199; S. d’Ayala Valva, AntK 39, 1996, 5–13; J. Neils, The Parthenon Frieze (2001) 141; Shear (supra n. 2) 48–49 with nn. 69–71 and 305 with n. 340. For the oinochoe generally, see E. Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen I (1923) 271; J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis. The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) 21 fig. 6; d’Ayala Valva, op.cit., 8, fig. 2.1. Many scholars (supra n. 1) have seen apobates competitions in eight and early seventh century depictions of chariot processions, but these images seem to have little to do with the Archaic mythologizing of the event. Indeed, it is not entirely evident that these vessels (e.g. Fig. 1) show the race at all. While it is possible that some form of an “apobates race” was conducted in eighth and seventh century Athens (especially when we consider the well-known heroic, aristocratic and funerary contexts of early athletics that encompass Geometric painting) we must admit that the iconographic evidence for these early apobates scenes consists predominantly of warriors stepping into chariots. Skeptics may find this act by itself insufficient for confident identification of the apobates race, especially since no end-posts are shown. While there is no conceptual problem with an early invention of the event (see, for example: H. Evjen, OpAth 16, 1986, 51–56; Kyle [supra n. 1] 15–31; M. Poliakoff, Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence and Culture [1987] 149–157; C. Morgan, Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C. [1991]; S. Müller, Nikephoros 9, 1996, 63–65; M. Golden, Sport and Society in Ancient Greece [1998] 88–95 and Shear [supra n. 2] 53–54), these early pots should perhaps be separated from later vessels that surely show the apobates race until the discovery of further evidence allows a clearer picture.

The iconography of the Athenian aprobates race

61

Fig. 2. Black figure oinochoe by the Painter of Oxford 224, showing Athena as apobates. Copenhagen, National Museum Chr. VIII.340. About 520 B.C. After S. d’Ayala Valva, AntK 39, 1996, fig. 1.2.

How far back this particular etiology can be traced is difficult to say. Julia Shear has recently suggested that the “original” model for the race, as laid down by Athena and Erichthonios, should date to the Peisistratid reorganization of the games in 566/5 B.C.7 This makes perfect sense, especially since catalogue nos. 1–5 in the Appendix show that our first certain representations of the apobates race correspond closely with the Peisistratid period in Athens. The notion of a Peisistratid re-invention of the apobates race also works nicely when viewed alongside the well-known story of Peisistratos’ second attempt to seize power. During the course of this coup, Peisistratos took on the role of a charioteer and drove, at least according to Aristotle ([Ath. Pol.] 14.4) and Kleidemos (FHG 323 f15), an armed and armored parabatic “Athena” up to the Acropolis. The idea of Peisistratos playing the part of Erichthonios would have accorded perfectly with his own dynastic plans and can be seen as an attempt to legitimize – however ham-handedly – his own power claims. The construction of this sort of mythology was universally practised by sixth century tyrants throughout the Greek world. Periander’s famous appropriation and transformation of the Aiolidai and their mythology in sixth century Corinth, Kleisthenes’ importation and manipulation of the cult of Melanippos in sixth century Sikyon (Herodotos 5.67–68), the conscious transformation of Ajax and his line in sixth and fifth century Athens (Plutarch, Solon 10; Strabo 9.1.10) or Peisistratos’ own well-known manipulation of the Homeric epics (pseudo-Plato, Hipparchos 228b) are only the most obvious examples of particular legends being constructed and/or manipulated under specific political circumstances by sixth century tyrants.8 The “re-invention” of the apobates race under Peisistratos fits nicely into this class of Archaic origin/propaganda myths. Whatever the precise date of this legend, the iconographic tradition of Athena as apobates continued into the fifth century. A famous series of black figure lekythoi, assigned by Beazley to the Haimon Group, consistently shows Athena running beside a racing chariot.9 The regular use of apobates motifs particular to the Haimon Group in these scenes – the specific position of the runner, the armor and spears of the apobates and, most Shear (supra n. 2) 53. See H. A. Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (1989) and J. Whitley, The Archaeology of Greece (2001) 155, both with bibliographies. 9 Beazley ABV 545.184–95. Here, Appendix cat. nos. 7–73. For the Haimon Painter and his group, see C. H. E. Haspels, Attic Black-Figure Lekythoi (1936) 130–141 and now CVA Greece 6, 73–74 with bibliography. 7 8

62

Fig. 3. Black figure lekythos by the Haimon Painter showing the apobates race. St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum. About 480 B.C. After K. Gorbunova, Attic Black-figure Vases in the Hermitage (in Russian, 1983) no. 132.

Fig. 4. Black figure lekythos by the Haimon Painter showing the apobates race with Athena as apobates. St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum. About 480 B.C. After K. Gorbunova, Attic Black-figure Vases in the Hermitage (in Russian, 1983) no. 133.

Peter Schultz

The iconography of the Athenian aprobates race

63

importantly, the consistent presence of the white end-post – all indicate that Athena is shown in the guise of an apobates, a point that Beazley already noted. A comparison of two of these lekythoi, now in the Hermitage, provides an interesting glimpse into how the race – and Athena’s position in it – was conceptualized at the beginning of the fifth century (Figs. 3–4). Both lekythoi are standard examples of the Haimon Group’s treatment of the subject – although it should be noted that Athena is sometimes represented running in the opposite direction, perhaps turning the corner for her final lap. Both vessels show the apobates running beside their chariots in full equipment – the hoplite with his helmet, shield and spears, Athena with her spear and aegis – and both, most importantly, show the end-post that serves as the indicator that we are, in fact, looking at a race. Indeed, the basic iconographic pattern of the Haimon Group lekythoi is so similar to the Copenhagen oinochoe mentioned above (Fig. 2), that in 1931 Christian Blinkenberg suggested that the apobates scenes of the Haimon Group with Athena might represent the “founding” of the race and of the Panathenaic games in general.10 While this attractive idea is unprovable, at the very least it can be said that by the beginning of the fifth century there would have been nothing surprising about seeing Athena as an archetypal apobates.11 In addition to helping confirm Athena’s status as an apobates, the Haimon Group lekythoi offer other points of interest. Even though the group is well-known, the specifics of its iconography have never been systematically studied.12 The preliminary catalogue provided in the Appendix is offered here as a small step towards a more comprehensive picture of this imagery. As it turns out, the Haimon Group’s scenes may shed light on several questions that have consistently shadowed the nature of the apobates race. One of the most familiar problems associated with the study of the race is the reconstruction of the event itself. This famous problem stems from a supposed conflict between the definition of the event as given by the late lexicographers and the account of Dionysios of Halikarnassos (7.73.2–3).13 For the lexicographers, the team consists of a chariot, charioteer and an apobates who ran the race stepping in and out of his moving chariot. No information is given as to how the race is finished. For Dionysios of Halikarnassos on the other hand (who quotes third century historian Fabius Pictor’s description of the apobates race as practised in fourth century Italy and, possibly, Athens), the apobates completed the race by leaping from his chariot and sprinting madly to the finish line on foot. No information is given as to what takes place during the rest of the race. Since both sources describe different phases of the race, it is hard to locate the specific contradiction, a point already made by Ernst Gardner in 1910.14 On the contrary, it seems possible that this elaborate spectacle could easily have involved a combination of mounting, dismounting and a dramatic final sprint. This reconstruction is supported by the literary evidence. In Demosthenes’ famous description of the apobates race (60.25), for example, the event is said to provide the most exhilarating spectacle and to consist of the greatest number and the greatest variety of athletic feats.15 In other words, by the mid-fourth century the race was a fully Lindos I, 641. What is interesting in what has been discussed so far is the fact that there seems to be no trace of the standard explanation given for the origins of the apobates race – the notion that it is specifically rooted in Homeric legend – in sixth and early fifth century Athens. And this raises an interesting question: while there is little doubt that the apobates race was anachronistic in terms of sixth and fifth century warfare – and in this sense the race was heroic or “Homeric” in general terms – does this fact necessarily mean that its historical roots are specifically tied to aristocratic funerary games of the ninth and eighth centuries? Indeed, if the apobates race recalls or reflects Homer, then why is it known only in Athens until the fourth century, at which time it is exported to Athenian satellites and outwards to the rest of the Mediterranean? (For this, see Szemethy [supra n. 2] and Neils [supra n. 6] 220. See also H. R. Goette, this volume.) The material corroboration of a Homeric origin should be the presence of this spectacular game throughout the Greek world or, at the very least, at the major Panhellenic sanctuaries. And yet there is no evidence for this. Might it be possible that a Homeric origin is something that we, as modern scholars, have invented to cover our own inability to explain the origins of this event? The alternative is that the Athenians, possibly Peisistratos, simply invented the race and its specifically Athenian etiology sometime in the sixth century as a way to separate and distinguish the Athenian games from the other Panhellenic festivals with which the Panathenaia competed. 12 While the following remarks are based on the study of a large number of vases (see Appendix), they must be seen as preliminary. Further study of the Haimon Painter’s apobates imagery and its contexts might yield more interesting (and more complex) results. Szemethy (supra n. 2) 112–116 and Shear (supra n. 2) 52 give preliminary discussions of the iconographic problems. 13 N. B. Crowther, JHS 111, 1991, 75; Müller (supra n. 6) 57–63; N. Reed, More Than Just a Game: The Military Nature of Greek Athletic Contests (1988) 43–44. 14 E. N. Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (1910) 238. Neils (supra n. 6) 138 and S. G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics (2004) 143 now support a similar reconstruction of the event. 15 See Crowther (supra n. 13) on the passage. 10 11

64

Peter Schultz

blown theater-event with a wide range of dramatic components, each of which required absolute and independent mastery. (Indeed, the real question seems to be exactly how many different skills the apobates had to master in order to win.) It is for this reason that Demosthenes (60.25) points out that simply learning the complex maneuvers required to complete the race should be seen as a great prize in itself for those hungry for ἀρετή. The idea that the race could have consisted of a number of different sub-events – including a final dash in armor is not out of the question. The Haimon Group lekythoi add something to this discussion. A fine example, now in the archaeological collection of the Bank of Sicily in Palermo, presents a particularly vivid picture (Figs. 5–6). The body of the vessel shows standard Haimon Group apobates imagery (Fig. 5). The apobates, wearing a short chiton, carrying his shield and spear, has leapt from his car and sprints towards the white endFig. 6. Black figure lekythos by the post. Unfortunately for him, however, Fig. 5. Black figure lekythos by the Haimon Painter showing the apobates he has already been beaten to the goal by Haimon Painter showing the apobates race. Palermo, Bank of Italy. About 480 race. Palermo, Bank of Italy. About 480 another apobates (in identical costume), B.C. After CVA Italy 50: 2223.2. B.C. After CVA Italy 50: 2223.1. who sprints past the post, giving his opponent the standard glance over the shoulder that signifies victory (Fig. 6). That the runner continues past the white post might be seen as evidence that we are, in fact, looking at an end-post (τέρμα) rather than a turning post (καμπτήρ). Most importantly for us however, is that the race was clearly finished on foot, at least in this case. Now, because these Haimon Group lekythoi were mass produced in the early fifth century, there will always be very fair questions as to how “accurately” these images reflect actual athletic practice and how malleable the iconography was within any given type-set. In this particular instance, however, it seems that we are on solid ground, since the evidence provided by this particular vessel is supported by the Haimon Group apobates scenes as a whole. Out of nearly one hundred vessels, every lekythos that preserves an end-post shows the apobates finishing the event on foot. This reconstruction of the race is also supported by the depiction of the event on the north side of the Parthenon frieze as reconstructed in Stuart and Revett, The Antiquities of Athens (Figs. 7–8), in which the winning athlete – we assume that he is winning because he is shown about to be crowned – adopts the standard victory pose, looks back at the trailing apobates and finishes the race on foot.16 All this is worth mentioning because as recently as 1996, Stefan Müller argued against Dionysios of Halikarnassos’ description of the race and his insistence that the event was finished with a sprint.17 Dionysios seems to have been right and Müller’s hypothesis may need to be revised. If the Haimon Group lekythoi do, in fact, show the apobates race, then they show the race being finished with a final dash. The presence of the crown (if it existed) shown in J. Stuart and N. Revett, The Antiquities of Athens II (1787) pl. 20, could complicate interpretations of the Parthenon frieze claiming that it represents some sort of simplistic photographic representation of the Panathenaic procession. For the frieze rightly interpreted as an artistic construct – and thus able to include and incorporate multiple, juxtaposed Panathenaic themes – see Neils (supra n. 6) 173–201. 17 Müller (supra n. 6) 57–58 n. 64. 16

The iconography of the Athenian aprobates race

65

Fig. 7. The Parthenon frieze. Cast of North XII in Basel, composed of a slab in London and a fragment in Athens, showing the coronation of an apobates. After E. Berger and M.Gisler-Huwiler, Der Parthenon in Basel. Dokumentation zum Fries (1996) fig. 52.

Fig. 8. The Parthenon frieze. Engraving of North XII by James Stuart, 1751–53, showing the crowning of an apobates. After E. Berger and M.Gisler-Huwiler, Der Parthenon in Basel. Dokumentation zum Fries (1996) fig. 83.

Another useful iconographic point that can be taken from the Haimon Group lekythoi is the fact that, on these vessels, the apobates always runs with either one or two spears. This is significant since the presence of a spear – or lack thereof – has been taken by some as the defining iconographic criterion for the race. In 1998, for example, Nancy Reed argued that the apobates race could be distinguished from standard departure scenes in Athenian vase painting based on the presence of spears in the latter.18 In other words, the iconographic “rule” is this: if the warrior is shown carrying a spear then he cannot be an apobates since, according

18

Reed (supra n. 13) 47–48.

66

Peter Schultz

to Reed, it would have been too difficult to carry a spear while racing. The spears carried by the apobates of the Haimon Group are thus rejected as a product of artistic license. This is an interesting idea, but the archaeology suggests another possible interpretation. Of nearly one hundred vessels assigned to the Haimon Group, there is one lekythos – catalogue no. 62 – in which the apobates does not carry a spear. Clearly this consistency has little to do with artistic license and everything to do with standard iconographic types. For the painters of this particular group, the presence of spears was normal, natural and pervasive. Of course, this cannot prove anything regarding the presence of spears during the actual apobates competition, but it does work nicely with what we have seen regarding the presence of a spear brandishing Athena in similar scenes. If the race is somehow rooted in the heroic age of legend, if an armed Athena becomes the archetypal apobates in the sixth century and if we are dealing with a game that “copies the realities of warfare with the use of martial weapons . . . and simulates the might of the gods by way of majestic equipment” – to quote Demosthenes (60.24) – then the presence of spears in the race is not surprising. Indeed, the “decorative” use of offensive arms is attested in other games as well, most notably the πυρρίχη, and such display – and potential danger – may have helped give the event its edge. What, then, do we have so far? We have a race that was “invented” by Athena and Erichthonios, an etiology that seems to have a mid-sixth century pedigree. We also have a race that was probably finished on foot by spear brandishing warriors, from whom Athena is sometimes indistinguishable. All this seems clear, but there is still yet another basic question that needs to be asked: if Athena was the prototype of the apobates, then with whom did she compete?19 Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear answer to this question – and maybe there was none – until the middle of the fifth century when the “origins” of the apobates race may have been transformed yet again. In 1875, E. Petersen suggested that the west pediment of the Parthenon, which showed the competition of Athena and Poseidon for the patronage of the city, might be connected to the Athenian apobates race (Fig. 9).20 Knowing what we now know regarding apobates iconography, it seems worthwhile to take another look at this idea. It may be that the Parthenon’s west pediment represents a Periklean answer to the question posed above regarding Athena’s “original” opponent. On the other hand – and a little less radically – it might be that the pediment designers used apobates iconography to render their story intelligible to their fifth century audience. Five points become relevant. 19 This is an important question for two reasons. First, in terms of early Greek agonistic iconography, when a scene depicts a single competitor – whether runner or chariot – the presence of his rivals is always assumed, even though they are not represented. It is also assumed that the lone athlete will win the represented contest. Solitary racers (when they are shown) merit their depiction as such precisely because they are conceptualized as fundamentally victorious and thus ahead of the pack. Take, for example, the famous Malibu Panathenaic amphora of the year 340/39 B.C., recently re-studied by Martin Bentz ([supra n. 5] 78–79, no. 4.080). The vase shows only the victorious team. Does this mean that there were no other competitors? Of course not. Instead, the existence of the opposing teams is assumed, behind the winning chariot and its apobates, who merits depiction precisely because he is a victor. We are dealing with iconographic convention here, not athletic reality. Athena did compete with someone in that “first” race, the vases just do not tell us who it was. Second, with regards to athletic origin tales generally, it should be noted that if our Athena apobates somehow does not have an opponent, then the legendary invention of the Athenian apobates race stands outside the history of founding Greek athletic mythology as a whole. Think of the famous examples like Pelops and Oinomaos at Olympia or Herakles and Apollo at Delphi, for instance. (Pelops and Oinomaos at Olympia: A. Köhnken, ClQ 24,1974, 199–206; G. Nagy, Transactions of the American Philological Association (=TAPA) 116, 1986, 71–88; W. Hansen, TAPA 130, 2000, 19–40. Apollo and Herakles at Delphi: Shapiro [supra n. 8] 61–64; Morgan [supra n. 6] 221.) From at least the seventh century and afterwards, these heroic examples were used by artists and poets both as a means by which the games were explained and as the divine models for victorious athletes. Indeed, famous examples like these serve to illustrate the well-known fact that the entire mythico-agonistic ethos of Archaic sport rested upon constructed divine or heroic paradigms that encompassed victor and vanquished, both of which where then treated as honored founders of the event in question. While most of us believe that Greek athletics sprang from the cloudy Dark Age of hero cult and funerary games -- and that the later legends, like those noted above, represent the etiological mythologizing of the contests – the internal logic of these stories and the manner in which these myths were represented is still of critical importance for understanding the re-conceptualization of civic athletics in the seventh and sixth centuries. Kyle (supra n. 1) 15–31; Morgan (supra n. 6) with bibliography. Evjen (supra n. 6) also gives a useful perspective (I am indebted to Paul Christensen for this reference). For etiological mythology generally, see F. Graf, Greek Mythology: An Introduction (1993) 110–118. In this context, the question remains: when the tale of the “original” apobates race was generated and developed over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries, whom did Athena overcome? 20 E. Petersen, AZ 33, 1875, 115–128 who hints at the possibility of a connection. A similar idea has now been independently suggested by Shear (supra n. 2) 738.

The iconography of the Athenian aprobates race

67

Fig. 9. The west pediment of the Parthenon. Drawing by Jacques Carrey, 1674. After O. Palagia, The Pediments of the Parthenon [1993] (1998) fig. 3.

First, reading the Parthenon’s west pediment as an apobates competition helps confirm that the scene shown was, in fact, a race. The bibliography on this problem is vast, but in her famous 1984 article Judith Binder cut through most of it and demonstrated that the literary tradition for the contest between Athena and Poseidon clearly shows that the contest was based on speed, a reading that has been recently supported by Andrew Stewart and Olga Palagia, among others.21 The west pediment, then, shows a mythological competition in which two armed deities race to the Acropolis, leap from their chariots, finish the race on foot, then plant their weapons to claim victory. The structural correspondence between all phases of this “original” race and the iconography of the apobates race is very close. Indeed, the Haimon Group lekythoi (Fig. 4) that show Athena throwing her spear at the end-post no longer seem so strange. A second point in favor of this idea is that it might explain why Nike becomes a charioteer in apobates scenes from about 430 on. The development might be directly attributed to the influence of the Parthenon pediment on apobatic imagery. As is shown in the Appendix, charioteers in apobates scenes are always male. After the completion of the Parthenon sculptures, however there is an evolution in the iconography. Nearly half the preserved vessels with the race from 430 on show Nike as the charioteer. One of the best examples of this change can be seen on a red figure crater from Olynthus in which an apobates (or is it actually Athena?) jumps back into her galloping chariot driven by Nike (Fig. 10). What makes this vessel important for us is that its iconography was directly influenced by monumental sculpture on the fifth century Acropolis, a point made by D. M. Robinson in 1933.22 The obverse of the pot shows a Nike erecting a trophy, a motif taken directly, as Robinson pointed out, from the Nike temple parapet. If the back 21 J. Binder, in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday. GrRomByz Monographs 10 (1984) 15–22; A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (1990) 153–154; O. Palagia, The Pediments of the Parthenon (1998 [1993]) 40 with comprehensive bibliography; eadem, in J. Neils (ed.), The Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present (2005) 243. 22 D. M. Robinson, Olynthus 5 (1933) 97–99.

68

Peter Schultz

of this vessel quoted the parapet, then it seems possible that the front could allude to the west pediment of the Parthenon: by c. 425 the pediment may have pushed the notion of Nike as an apobates race charioteer into the repertoire of Athenian painters. A third point worth considering pertains to the significance of Athena’s pose in the west pediment. The nature and meaning of the goddess’s stance has been debated for a century, but Brommer’s well-known description of her as “recoiling” from the center is now almost universally followed.23 However, if the goddess is momentarily considered to be an apobates, her flying pose with the glance back over her shoulder – and the identical pose of Poseidon as well – takes on a radically different meaning. In apobatic iconography, as we have seen, this pose is the absolute norm and was used for victors and for Athena herself since the end of the sixth century. Indeed, the closest parallel for Athena’s pose in the west pediment comes from the Parthenon frieze (Figs. 7–8), in which every detail of the victorious apobates there – down to his outstretched shield, his huge helmet crest and the attached bronze gorgoneion on his cuirass – is based on Athena’s appearance. As the mortal or heroic winner of the event that Athena Fig. 10. Red figure crater from Olynthus, identified by D. M. “invented,” the apobates on the frieze naturally adopts Robinson as a mounting apobates. After Olynthus 5, pl. 68. the goddess’s pose and adornment. That Poseidon takes an identical stance is hardly surprising since the race, at least according to Isokrates (Pan. 193), was actually won by the sea god. If what the west pediment shows is the final dramatic finish of an apobatic dead-heat – almost certainly as an intentional attempt to out-do the sedate east pediment “race” on the temple of Zeus at Olympia – then the figures are posed exactly as we would expect them to be. They are shown tied as honored and divine victors, a perfect aesthetic solution to what must have been a tough compositional and conceptual problem. Since Alan Shapiro has already documented the closeness of the two cults in Athens after 480, there is little reason to believe that the two principle patrons of the city were meant to be seen ferociously battling over Attica as is sometimes proposed.24 But a dynamic, divine race shown in its most dramatic moment makes good sense. A fourth advantage of this hypothesis is that it allows the west pediment to take its place alongside the east pediment, the east metopes and, most importantly, the Parthenon frieze as being deeply connected to Athena’s great festival. The iconographic program of the Parthenon is dominated by Panathenaic imagery, a point that nobody disputes.25 The west pediment, however, has always stood outside this otherwise unified program. If, however, we read the west pediment as the depiction of the “founding” of the most spectacular equestrian event of the festival – or, as I would put it, if we are looking at a constructed “re-invention” of the apobates 23 F. Brommer, The Sculptures of the Parthenon (1979) 47. See also, for example, E. Simon, in Tainia. Festschrift für Roland Hampe (1980) 239–255; Binder (supra n. 21); B. Spaeth, Hesperia 60, 1990, 333; Palagia (1998, supra n. 21) 44; C. Rolley, La sculpture grecque II, La période classique (1999) 76–77; and Shear (supra n. 2) 735. 24 Shapiro (supra n. 8) 105–108. For Athena and Poseidon in conflict see, most famously, Simon (supra n. 23), who is generally followed by Spaeth (supra n. 23) and Rolley (supra n. 23) 78. The notion that Poseidon, patron of the Athenian navy and empire, would be shown as hostile to Athena simply because they compete athletically is foreign to early Greek thought. Indeed, since Poseidon had very firm connections to the Athenian polis-hero Theseus (H. A. Shapiro, AA 1982, 291–297; R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History [1996] 169–170) and was worshipped by the Athenians as Soter after the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 7.192), also sharing cult space with Athena on the Acropolis (Hdt. 8.55; Shapiro [supra n. 8] 101–102; Palagia 2005 [supra n. 21]), the characterization of Poseidon as aggressor seems wrong, especially on a monument built by patrons whose power rested on the favor of the sea god. On Poseidon’s key position on the Parthenon, see also Palagia, op. cit., 252. 25 See, for example, Neils (supra n. 6) and Shear (supra n. 2) 742–761.

The iconography of the Athenian aprobates race

69

origin myth – then the scene at once takes its place within the Parthenon’s tightly woven iconographic matrix that holds the Panathenaia at its center. Again, the specific connection between the west pediment and the apobates race on the frieze seems too close to be a coincidence and this, in turn, matches very nicely the well-known resonance of motifs seen elsewhere in the decorative scheme of the Parthenon.26 The fifth and final advantage of connecting the west pediment to the apobates race is topographical. It is quite well accepted that the apobates competition took place somewhere in the Agora, possibly along the Panathenaic Way.27 Exactly where, nobody knows, but in the second century B.C., two famous inscriptions, IG II2 2316 and IG II2 2317, suggest that the apobates dismounted at the Eleusinion on the Acropolis north slope.28 As has been often remarked, this makes good sense since the slope of the Acropolis becomes steep at this point and thus difficult and even dangerous for horse racing. But a question remains. If the apobates did, in fact, finish the race on foot and if they were leaping from their chariots at the base of the Acropolis, where exactly did they run? One answer might be that they run up to the Acropolis in direct imitation of Athena and Poseidon in a manner similar to the torch race that also played such an important role in Athena’s festival.29 Racing up the great ramp to the cheers of the city – the crowd gasps when an armor laden warrior slips slightly with exhaustion, sweaty bronze scraping on marble – the apobates cross in front of the Parthenon, directly beneath their mythical exemplars and ancestors and beside the Parthenon north frieze which showed the event with winner crowned.30 This is dramatic spectacle indeed. And if this reconstruction works, then the topographical relationship between the west pediment of the Parthenon and the apobates “course” would have been analogous to the relationship between the east pediment of the temple of Zeus and the races at Olympia which originally terminated beneath the gaze of Pelops and Oinomaos.31 Under the watchful eyes of both gods and founding heroes, the apobates citizen-athletes of ancient Athens re-enacted a “re-created” event, one that Demosthenes rightly called “the noblest and grandest of competitions ... that through the magnificence and the equipment simulates the power of the gods.”

Acknowledgements The research for this paper was funded by a post-doctoral fellowship granted by the State Scholarship Foundation of Greece (ΙΚΥ) while a Tytus Summer Fellowship from the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati and a generous grant from the Hendrickson Fine Arts Endowment of Concordia College facilitated its completion; I thank these institutions and foundations for their generous support. It is also a pleasure to thank several friends whose comments have improved the quality of the ideas that follow: Paul Christensen, Nigel Kennell, Jesper Jensen, Jenifer Neils, Julia Shear, Andrew Stewart and Stephen Tracy. I am also indebted to Phyllis Graham (for help in the Carl W. Blegen Library at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens) to Amy Sorna (for help in the Carl B. Ylvisaker Library at Concordia College) and to Jacquelene Riley, Mike Braunlin and David Ball (for help in the Carl W. Blegen Library at the University of Cincinnati). Finally, I am grateful to Olga Palagia for offering me the opportunity to discuss these hypotheses in Athens. All mistakes are mine.

J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis (1999) 228–232. J. Camp, The Athenian Agora (1986) 45–46; S. V. Tracy and Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 60, 1991, 198; S. V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 140; J. Neils and S.V. Tracy, The Games at Athens. Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book No. 25 (2003) 7; Miller (supra n. 14) 143. 28 Kyle (supra n. 1) 188; Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 28) 198; Tracy (supra n. 28) 140; Reed (supra n. 13) 50–51; Neils (supra n. 6) 138. 29 For a similar steep race track used at the Pythian Games (with which the Panathenaic Games competed) see SIG3 ll. 15–16, which stipulates that the torch race is to begin below in the gymnasium and is to be finished high above at the great altar in front of the Temple of Apollo. (I am indebted to Nigel Kennel for this reference.) 30 A possible coronation of the apobates on North XII deserves further thought, especially since it raises questions as to what, exactly, is shown on the frieze and what is the location of individual episodes. Are we to see this particular scene as taking place in the Eleusinion on the north slope, where the apobates may have been crowned or on the Acropolis itself? Is this part of the procession, the event itself or, as Neils (supra n. 6) 146 has suggested, an artistic merging of both competition and ceremony? 31 E. Brulotte, AJA 98, 1994, 53–64; Whitley (supra n. 8) 155. 26 27

70

Peter Schultz

APPENDIX Catalogue of Select Attic Vases Showing the Apobates Race Only vases certainly (or almost certainly) showing the apobates race are listed No.

Date1

ABV2

Style and Shape

Apobates3

Charioteer

Illustration

Notes4

1

540

137.62

Attic black figure, neck amphora

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Jacobsthal 1927, fig. 37c

Group E

2

530

--

Attic black figure, skyphos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Switzerland 4: 179.5–6; 8–9

Group of Rhodes 11941

3

530

--

Attic black figure, skyphos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Hornbostel 1977, no. 242

Hermogenes Group

4

530

--

Attic black figure, band cup

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Boardman 1974, fig. 114

signed by Hermogenes

5

530

--

Attic black figure, skyphos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Βοκοτoπούλου 1986, p. 19

Haimon Group

6

520

430.27

Attic black figure, oenochoe

Athena

male

CVA Denmark 3: 124.2a-b Neils 1992, fig. 6

goal

7

480

544.149

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA U.S.A. 1: 27.2

Haimon Group; goal

8

480

544.150

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite

male

CVA France 10: 465.10–11

Haimon Group; goal

9

480

544.152

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Jucker 1970, pl. 17.47

Haimon Group; goal

10

480

544.154

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Great Britain 6: 260.13

Haimon Group; goal

11

480

544.155

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Germany 7: 312.5

Haimon Group

12

480

544.156

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Belgium 3: 121.7

Haimon Group

13

480

544.157

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite

male

CVA Belgium 2: 61.29a-b

Haimon Group

14

480

544.158

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Shear 1993, pl. 81b

Haimon Group; goal

15

480

544.161

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Netherlands 195: 102.1–2

Haimon Group; goal

16

480

544.162

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA France 16: 705.13

Haimon Group; goal

17

480

544.163

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Schwarz 1996, pl. 24.12

Haimon Group; goal

18

480

544.164

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spears

male

Stackelberg 1837, pl. 12

Haimon Group; goal

19

480

544.165

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Spain 3: 112.2

Haimon Group

20

480

544.166

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spear

male

García y Belido 1948, pl. 73.3

Haimon Group; goal

21

480

544.167

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Spain 3: 111.1

Haimon Group; goal

22

480

544.168

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

García y Belido 1947, fig. 202.3

Haimon Group; goal

23

480

544.170

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Belgium 2: 61.24a-b

Haimon Group; goal

24

480

544.172

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Denmark 3: 113.12

Haimon Group; goal

25

480

544.177

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Sestieri 1951, fig. 16c

Haimon Group; goal

26

480

545.179

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

CVA Great Britain 12: 539.6

Haimon Group; goal

27

480

545.182

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

OF 28, pl. 82.218

Haimon Group

28 29

480 480

545.186 545.187

Attic black figure, lekythos Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena Athena

male male

CVA Poland 3: 109.3 Lindos I, pl. 128.2649

Haimon Group Haimon Group; goal

30

480

45.189

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

CVA Denmark 3: 113.7

Haimon Group; goal

31

480

545.190

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

CVA Germany 5: 200.3

Haimon Group; goal Haimon Group

32

480

45.192

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

Almagro 1953, p. 181, fig. 15

33

480

45.193

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

Langlotz 1932, pl. 107.381

Haimon Group

34

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Netherlands 4: 195.3–4

Haimon Group; goal

35

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

CVA Netherlands 4: 195.5–6

Haimon Group

36

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

CVA Netherlands 4: 195.7–8

Haimon Group

71

The iconography of the Athenian aprobates race No.

Date1

ABV2

Style and Shape

Apobates3

Charioteer

Illustration

Notes4

37

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Netherlands 4: 196.3–4

Haimon Group; goal

38

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Czech Republic1: 32.4; 8

Haimon Group; goal

39

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

CVA Czech Republic1: 32.1–3

Haimon Group; goal

40

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Italy 41: 2761.3–4

Haimon Group; goal

41

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

CVA Italy 50: 2223.1–2 Giudice 1992, D200

Haimon Group; goal *opponent in lead

42

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Italy 50: 2223.3–4 Giudice 1992, D204

Haimon Group; goal

43

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Italy 50: 2223.5–6 Giudice 1992, D203

Haimon Group

44

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Italy 50: 2223.7–8 Giudice 1992, D205

Haimon Group; goal

45

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Giudice 1992, D202

Haimon group; goal

46

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA Switzerland 3: 131.1–3

Haimon Group; goal

47

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

armed hoplite with spears

male

CVA France 20: 889.4–5

Haimon Group; goal

48

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Κωνσταντίνου 1965, pl. 355

Haimon Group

49

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Κωνσταντίνου 1965, pl. 355

Haimon Group

50

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Κωνσταντίνου 1965, pl. 355

Haimon Group

51

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Gorbunova 1983, no. 130

Haimon Group; goal; *apobates behind chariot

52

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

Gorbunova 1983, no. 132

Haimon Group; goal

53

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

Gorbunova 1983, no. 133

Haimon Group; goal *Athena throws spear

54

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Laurens 1984, pl. 32.29

Haimon Group; goal

55

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

de Miro 1989, pl. 36.1

Class of Athens 581 (?) or Haimon Group

56

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Scholl 1984, pl. 31.10–12

Haimon Group

57

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite

male

Schlörb-Vierneisel 1966 pl. 25.1.6

Diosphos Painter

58

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

OF 28, pl. 82.219

Haimon Group

59

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite

male

OF 28, pl. 82.220

Haimon Group

60

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spears

male

OF 28, pl. 84.247

Haimon Group

61

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior with spear

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 16.3.1

Haimon Group; goal

62

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior without spear

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 25.1.1

Haimon Group; goal

63

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

Athena

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 26.2.2

Haimon Group

64

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior with spear

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 29.1.2

Haimon Group

65

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior with spear

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 39.3

Haimon Group; goal

66

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior with spear raised

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 51.3

Haimon Group

67

480

--

ttic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior with spear

male

Kerameikos 9, pl. 90.4

Haimon Group

68

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed warrior with spear

male

Boulter 1963, pl. 36, A7

Haimon Group

69

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite

male

Laurens 1984, pl. 32

Haimon Group; goal

70

480

--

Attic black figure, lekythos

with spear semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Brownlee 1995, pl. 92.T1325

Haimon Group; goal

71

480

Para. 275

Attic black figure, lekythos with spear

semi-armed hoplite

male

Brownlee 1995, pl. 92.T1081 goal

Haimon Group;

72

480

Para. 275

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite

male

CVA Germany 17: 827.1–3

Haimon Group

72

Peter Schultz

No.

Date1

ABV2

Style and Shape

Apobates3

Charioteer

Illustration

Notes4

73

480

Para. 275

Attic black figure, lekythos

semi-armed hoplite with spear

male

Orlandini 1965, pl. 62.1

Haimon Group

74

450

--

Attic red figure, krater

semi-armed hoplite

male

CVA Italy 26, 1192.3

Athena present

75

425

--

Attic red figure, column crater

Athena

male

Τιβέριοs 1991, fig. 6

goal with tripod

76

425

--

Attic red figure, pelike

semi-armed hoplite

Nike

Olynthus 5, pl. 66

77

400

--

Attic red figure, crater

Athena

Nike

Olynthus 5, pls. 68–70

78

390

--

Attic red figure, fragment

semi-armed hoplite

?

Agora 30, pl. 79.765

79

375

--

Attic red figure, bell crater

semi-armed hoplite

male

CVA Vienna 3: 130.1–4

Hermes present

80

375

--

Attic black figure, Panathenaic amphora

semi-armed hoplite

Nike

CVA Germany 11: 472.4

fragment

81

365

--

Attic red figure, crater

semi-armed hoplite

Nike

Κεφαλίδου 1996, pls. 75–76

Hermes present

82

360

--

Attic red figure, oenochoe

semi-armed hoplite

?

Bruns 1940, pls. 22.1, 41.2

fragments

83

350

--

Attic black figure, Panathenaic amphora

semi-armed hoplite (?)

?

Τιβέριοs 1991, fig. 4

fragment

84

350

--

Attic red figure, chous

semi-armed hoplite

male

van Hoorn 1951, fig. 127

umpire present

85

350

--

Attic red figure, crater

semi-armed hoplite

Nike

CVA France 8, 382.5–6

86

150

--

Attic black figure, Panathenaic amphora

?

male

Edwards 1957, pl. 81

fragment

fragment

Notes All dates are approximate (± 10 years). References to Beazley outside of ABV are given as such. ABV 544.151; 153; 159–60; 169; 171–176; 178; 545.180–81; 183 and another 8 vases in Paralipomena 275 are also listed by Beazley as Attic black figure lekythoi from the Haimon Group showing the apobates race. These pieces are currently unpublished or were unavailable for study. ABV 545 184–85; 188; 191 and 194 are also listed by Beazley as Attic black figure lekythoi from the Haimon Group showing Athena as running with chariot. These pieces are either unpublished or were unavailable for study. 3 “Semi-armed apobates” = hoplite with shield, helmet and mantle. “Armed apobates” = hoplite with shield, helmet and cuirass. 4 “Goal” = turning post or goal post. 1 2

Catalogue Abbreviations Agora 30 Almagro 1953 Βαλαβάνης 1991 Boardman 1974 Βοκοτοπούλου 1986 Brownlee 1995 Boulter 1963 Edwards 1957 García y Belido 1947 García y Belido 1948 Giudice 1992 Gorbunova 1983 van Hoorn 1951 Hornbostel 1977 Jacobsthal 1927 Jucker 1970 Κεφαλίδου 1996 Kerameikos 9 Κωνσταντίνου 1965 Langlotz 1932 Laurens 1984 Lindos I de Miro 1989 OF 28 Olynthus 5 Orlandini 1965 Schlörb-Vierneisel 1966 Scholl 1984 Schwarz 1996 Sestieri 1951 Shear 1993 Stackelberg 1837 Τιβέριοs 1991

Moore, M. B. Attic Red Figure and White Ground Pottery (1997) Almagro, M. Las Necrópolis de Ampurias Βαλαβάνης, Π. Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από την Ερέτρια Boardman, J. Athenian Black Figure Vases Βοκοτοπούλου, Ι. Θεσσαλονίκη. Από τα προϊστορικά μέχρι τα χριστιανικά χρόνια Brownlee, A. Hesperia 64, 337–382 Boulter, C. Hesperia 32, 113–137 Edwards, R. Hesperia 26, 320–349 García y Belido, A. Ars Hispania García y Belido, A. Hispania Graeca Giudice, F., F. Tusa and V. Tusa. La collezione archeologica del Banco di Sicilia Gorbunova, K. Chernofigurnie atticheskie vazi v Ermitazhe van Hoorn, G. Choes and Anthesteria Hornbostel, W. (ed.), Kunst der Antike. Schätze aus norddeutschem Privatbesitz (Katalog Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe) Jacobsthal, P. Ornamente griechischer Vasen Jucker, I. Aus der Antikensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums Κεφαλίδου, Ε. ΝΙΚHΤΗΣ. Εικονογραφική μελέτη του αρχαίου ελληνικού αθλητισμού Knigge, U. Der Südhügel (1976) Κωνσταντίνου, Ι. ADelt 20, B, 299–307 Langlotz, E. Griechische Vasen. Martin von Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg Laurens, A. Société Archéologique de Montpellier. Catalogue des Collections II Blinkenberg, Ch. Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902–14 (1931) de Miro, E. Agrigento. La necropoli greca di Pezzino Kunze-Götte, E., J. Heiden and J. Burrow. Archaische Keramik aus Olympia (2000) Robinson, D.M. Excavations at Olynthus 5, Mosaics, Vases and Lamps of Olynthus Found in 1928 and 1931(1933) Orlandini, P. ArchCl 17, 133–140 Schlörb-Vierneisel, B. AM 81, 4–111 Scholl, A. Boreas 7, 413–432 Schwarz, S. J. Greek Vases in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Sestieri, P. NSc 76, 135–150 Shear, T. L., Jr. Hesperia 62, 383–482 Stackelberg, O. M. Die Graeber der Hellenen Τιβέριοs, Μ. AEphem 130, 1991, 15–44

Torch race and vase-painting Martin Bentz For Burkhardt Wesenberg on 14.10.2005

I The torch race of the modern Olympic Games was established at Berlin in 1936, where it was also put to the wrong use serving Nazi propaganda. Nevertheless the tradition is still alive and the fire is brought every four years from Olympia to the city where the games are held, symbolizing the ancient roots of the modern games. The modern torch race, however, as was recently shown,1 has nothing to do with the ancient tradition.2 In ancient panhellenic games the torch race was not part of the official programme except for the Panathenaia in Athens, as we know from the well-known prize list of the fourth century B.C. (here p. 118, Fig. 1).3 The end of the preserved part of the inscription lists events open only to tribal teams of the Athenians: the pyrrhiche (armed dance), the euandria (a kind of beauty contest that we do not know much about), the torch race (lampas) and the boat race. Other inscriptions add the anthippasia, a mock cavalry battle.4 While the valuable prizes, olive oil in Panathenaic amphorae, were established in Athens to attract foreign athletes – and in fact most of the winners in the gymnastic and hippic contests where non-Athenians – tribal events promoted civic identity and tribal solidarity. That is why for these events the prizes were an ox worth 100 drachmas for the tribal victory banquet. The single victor of the torch race was awarded a hydria worth 30 drachmas. The winning team in the boat contest received a higher prize: three oxen and 200 drachmas for the banquet. The torch race was very popular, that is why we have nearly a hundred representations of it, so far studied only in part. It is the only athletic competition that was depicted in all its phases: preparation, start, race, arrival, victory ceremony and celebrations. Torch races were not held only at the Panathenaia but also at the Hephaisteia, Prometheia, Nemesia and Bendidia. The torch race in Athens was a relay race starting near the Academy next to the altar of Eros and/or Prometheus,5 and ending at the altar of the deity in whose honour it was held, where the sacred fire was symbolically renewed. Not all aspects of torch race iconography can be treated here; we will focus on the typology of the images with some remarks on the personifications represented and the form and function of the vases carrying torch race scenes. Eleven types of scenes are distinguished here.

II 1. Preparation. First there are images showing the preparation of the runners. A cup by the Jena Painter (Fig. 1) shows an athlete with a torch at the centre; on the left stands a youth with an aryballos and on the right 1 B. Kratzmüller, in Sport et idéologie, VIIe congrès international du comité européen de l’histoire du sport, 26–29 Septembre 2002 (2003) 85–97. 2 Principal references on the torch race: O. Gottwald, in Mitteilungen des Vereins klassischer Philologen in Wien (1928) 46–74; G. Q. Giglioli, ArchCl 3, 1951, 147–162; J. Jüthner, Die athletischen Leibesübungen der Griechen II (1968) 134–156; E. Kefalidou, Νικητής (1996) 85 ff., 218 ff., cat. L 1–20; E. Parisinou, The Light of the Gods (2000) 36–44, 203–206; B. Kratzmüller, in Akten des 9. Österreichischen Archäologentages 2001 (2003) 119–122. 3 Athens, Epigraphical Museum 8070, 8092, from the Acropolis: IG II² 2311. A. Johnston, BSA 82, 1987, 125–129; M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren (1998) 13 ff.; J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 87–108 ; R. Wünsche and F. Knauss (eds.), Lockender Lorbeer (2004) 63 (new German translation). 4 On team sports in general: J. Neils, in W. E. D. Coulson, O. Palagia et al. (eds.), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (1994) 151–160; N. B. Crowther, The International Journal of the History of Sport 12, 1995, 127–136. 5 Paus. 1. 30. 2 (altar of Prometheus), Plut. Sol. 1.4 and Schol. Pl. Phdr. 231 E (altar of Eros).

74

Martin Bentz

Fig. 1. Cup, Vatican Museum 16551. Preparation in the gymnasion. After V. Paul-Zinserling, Der Jena-Maler und sein Kreis (1994) pl. 83, 2.

another youth with a strigil.6 The scene is obviously situated in a gymnasion. On a cup by the Fauvel Painter from Spina a whole team of torch racers is depicted.7 They wear their distinctive spiked crowns made of reed and are shown in conversation – one sits on a rock, others test their torches, one is cleaning his body, another is looking at the crown of his companion. 2. Handing over of the torch to the starter. In a second type of images the torch is given to a runner, probably the starter of the team. The figure passing the torch is usually an anonymous man in a himation, representing perhaps the citizens of his tribe;8 but some representations, never discussed before, have to be explained in a different way. On a cup in St. Petersburg (Fig. 2 and Colour Pl. 6),9 we see a female figure with a sceptre which I would interpret as the personification of the tribe. In the late fifth century there is an increasing number of female personifications which are difficult to interpret if their name is not inscribed.10 As in this case the sceptre precludes an interpretation as a normal polis citizen, the identification as a phyle seems the most convincing solution. In this picture we can also recognize the characteristic form of the torch with a holder made of clay or bronze with a plate-like hand guard. In the upper part of the holder pine wood is inserted and bound together.11 An oinochoe from Bologna, published recently, shows the handing over of the torch with the runner already in a starting position to the right. Here

Fig. 2. Cup, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum B 4526. The personified tribe hands the torch to the first runner. After D. Vanhove (ed.), L’olympisme dans l’antiquité I (1993) 58.

Vatican Museum 16551, V. Paul-Zinserling, Der Jena-Maler und sein Kreis (1994) pl. 83, 2. Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina, Tomb 563 Valle Trebba, ARV² 1286; S. Aurigemma, Scavi di Spina I (1965) pl. 216. 8 Cf. a cup in London, British Museum E 111, Paul-Zinserling (supra n. 6) pl. 82, 2. 9 Hermitage Museum B 4526, Beazley, Paralipomena 487 (manner of the Codrus Painter); D. Vanhove (ed.), L’olympisme dans l’antiquité I (1993) 58. 10 On Phyle, LIMC VIII (1997) 996–998 s.v. Phylai (U. Kron); on personifications in general, H. A. Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art (1993); on political personifications, O. Tzachou-Alexandri, in Coulson, Palagia et al. (supra n. 4) 55–72; A.. C. Smith, “Political Personifications in Classical Athenian Art” (Diss. Yale 1997). For further personifications in an agonistic context, M. Bentz, AntK 44, 2001, 7 f. 11 On the torch and its construction, Kratzmüller (supra n. 2) 119–121. A very rare example of an original, probably Hellenistic, bronze torch holder is in a Swiss private collection, Wünsche and Knauss (supra n. 3) 208, fig. 22.5. Compare also the fourth-century bronze hand guard from Vergina Tomb II: M. Andronicos, Vergina (1984) fig. 32. 6 7

Torch race and vase-painting

75

Fig. 3. Cup, Leipzig, Antikenmuseum T 507, The start. Photo: Museum.

we have a female figure, also in my opinion, the Phyle, like in the previous example.12 3. The start. A cup in Leipzig (Fig. 3) shows the only true starting scene.13 The runner is in the typical position we know from other races – feet level, knees bent and arms forward. The starting point is marked by a stele or herm not an altar as attested by the ancient sources.14 4. The race. The fourth type of representations shows the race itself, with only one or two runners. A miniature Panathenaic prize amphora in Bonn (Fig. 4 and Colour Pl. 7) clearly alludes to the torch race of the Panathenaia.15

Fig. 4. Miniature prize amphora, Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1627. The race. Photo: Museum.

5. The handing over. The most difficult and important part of the relay race was the handing over of the torch to the next runner as shown on a chous in Rome, Villa Giulia Museum (Fig. 5).16 This is always represented realistically with the torch in the left hand of the first runner about to be handed into the right hand of the second runner, a technique still used in modern relay races. The location is never specified. Two or three runners are usually shown.17

12 Bologna, Museo Civico, from the Arnoaldi necropolis, tomb 52, R. Macellari, Il sepolcreto etrusco nel terreno Arnoaldi di Bologna: 550–350 a.C. (2002) 109, pl. 68. A red-figured bell-krater of Corinthian fabric, attributed to the Pelikai Painter, was kindly brought to my attention by Victoria Sabetai, who will publish it in CVA Athens, Benaki Museum 1. It adds a hitherto unattested act. A female figure lights the torch held by the starter by means of a smaller torch or twig. She may be Phyle personified; on the other hand, as she lacks a sceptre and the vase is Corinthian, not Attic, she may well be a priestess. 13 Leipzig, Antikenmuseum T 507, Wünsche and Knauss (supra n. 3) 208, fig. 22.6; CVA Leipzig 3, forthcoming. 14 Supra n. 5. 15 Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1627, ABV 662b; M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaika (2001) 196, no. 4; B. Rieger, in Sportschau. Antike Athleten in Aktion (2004) 170–172, figs. 113–114. 16 Ex Castellani, Giglioli (supra n. 2) pl. 37, 3. 17 On the neck of the volute-krater in Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina 3033, N. Alfieri, Spina, Museo archeologico (1979) 80–82, a longer sequence of ten runners and five handing-overs is shown.

76

Martin Bentz

Fig. 5. Chous, Rome, Villa Giulia Museum. Handing over the torch. Photo: Museum.

Fig. 6. Cup, Rome, Villa Giulia Museum 25011. The winner reaches the altar. Photo: Museum.

6. Finish, reaching the altar. The sixth type shows the runners reaching the altar. A cup in the Villa Giulia (Fig. 6) carries an abbreviated scene with only the runner and altar.18 Around the neck of a volute-krater from Spina a whole team of ten runners is illustrated plus the winner reaching the altar, in front of which stands a priest.19 Because of his myrtle wreath20 and the representation of the Hephaistos myth on the belly of the vase, he must be the priest of Hephaistos and the race takes place at the Hephaisteia. A similar scene appears on the well-known bell-krater at Harvard University.21 The olive tree behind the altar and the hydria – a prize for the single victor at the Panathenaic torch race – entail the Panathenaic Games. If this is correct, the male figure by the altar could be the archon basileus. According to Aristotle,22 he was responsible for the organization of the torch race. A hydria at the finish indicating the Panathenaic torch race is represented on other vases as well.23 7. Lighting the fire. The lighting of the fire is never shown in vase-painting. A relief in the British Museum dedicated by a gymnasiarch after a victory at the Panathenaia fills this gap, as was recently shown by Olga Palagia.24 8. The victory ceremony with Nike. The next step depicts the victory ceremony. On the famous bell-krater by the painter Nikias in the British Museum (Fig. 7),25 the victor with the torch stands beside the altar – Nike (her wings probably misrepresented as garment)26 approaches from the left with a tainia in her hand; behind Inv. 25011, Kefalidou (supra n. 2) 219, no. L 3, pl. 61. Supra n. 17. 20 I thank Erika Kunze-Götte for this suggestion. 21 Fogg Art Museum 1960.344, ARV² 1041, 10; Kefalidou (supra n. 2) 218, no. L, 1 pl. 10. 22 [Ath. Pol.] 57. 23 Cup in Jena University SAK 0485, Paul-Zinserling (supra n. 6) pl. 82; Agora P 10675, M. B. Moore, Attic Red-figured and White-ground Pottery, Agora 30 (Princeton 1997) no. 663, pl. 71; calyx-krater Athens, National Museum 14902, Kefalidοu (supra n. 2) no. L 14, pl. 61. 24 O. Palagia, in Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων, Études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahil, BCH Supplement 38 (2000) 403–408. 25 Inv. 98.7–16.6, ARV² 1333, 1; Kefalidοu (supra n. 2) 219, no. L 4, pl. 56. 26 See also M. Tiverios, in Πρακτικά του ΧΙΙ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας 3, 1983 (1988) 273. 18 19

Torch race and vase-painting

77

Fig. 7. Bell-krater, London, British Museum 98.7-16.6. The winner is honoured by Nike. Photo: Museum.

Fig. 8. Bell-krater, Vatican Museum 35024. Nike and the winning team after the victory. Photo: Museum.

the altar an old, white-haired and bearded man with lifted head and open mouth seems to proclaim the victor. On the right a member of the winning team wears the same crown with alternating high and low spikes, and on the left a member of a losing team leaves the scene. On the crown of the winner is written Antioch[..]; regardless of the ending of the inscription, the most likely explanation is that the bearded figure – the runners on this and all vases are beardless – is Antiochos, eponymous hero of the Antiochis tribe. The painter’s signature has always been perceived as significant: Nikias Hermokleous Anaphlystios epoiesen. Nikias does not only sign his name but also includes his patronymic and demotic. His deme, Anaphlystos, belongs to the Antiochis tribe. The painter thus created a vase to honour his own tribe. Other paintings of this type show the real, human and thus beardless winner of the race, like on a bell-krater by the Suessula Painter in Florence. The figures beside the winner are named by inscriptions.27 9. Nike and victor without altar. The ninth scene is situated at a later phase with Nike and the winner in less official surroundings, not next to the altar. The single victor sits on his prize hydria as on a calyx-krater in Athens28 or on his himation as on a bell-krater in the Vatican (Fig. 8).29 Nike holds the torch; the winning 27 Museo Archeologico Etrusco 151520 (PD 509), ARV² 1345, 10; Kefalidou (supra n. 2) 220, no. L 5, pl. 56, with discussion of the correctly read inscriptions on p. 126. I am grateful to Mario Iozzo for kindly controlling the reading. 28 Supra n. 23. 29 Inv. 35034, ex Astarita, ARV² 1447, 4. 1694; Kefalidou (supra n. 2) 222, no. L 11.

78

Martin Bentz

team is depicted with wreaths and tainias, while the single victor is crowned by one of his fellows. Not the victor/personification as on Figs. 7 and 9 but Nike is here in the centre of the composition. In less elaborate paintings the standing Nike and the victor are shown alone.30 10. The victor. In an excerpt of this scene the sitting victor can be shown alone – as on several miniature prize amphoras – or with team companions as on an unpublished bell-krater in the Louvre (Fig. 9) showing the single victor seated on his himation with a tainia in his hands, the torch on the ground and two other runners with strigils.31 11. The ox led to sacrifice. The most discussed scene is painted on a large group of vases which show the prize for the team, the ox led to sacrifice during the celebrations.32 On a bell krater in Leipzig (Fig. 10

Fig. 9. Bell-krater, Paris, Louvre CA 1850. The victor and his team. Photo: Museum.

and Colour Pl. 8) we see a female figure holding the ox by the horns.33 We can see the winning team with the same spiked crowns; one of the athletes is holding the torch not only to demonstrate the victory but perhaps also to illuminate the way as the scene takes place at night. On a calyx-krater in Mannheim a similar female figure holds the torch and the ox, assisted by a winged male figure.34 In these scenes the female figure was first called the personification of the tribe by Henri Metzger,35 an interpretation that was widely accepted. The male figure on the Mannheim vase may be Eros or – as was convincingly suggested by Metzger – the personificaton of Agon.

Fig. 10. Bell-krater, Leipzig, Antikenmuseum T 958. An ox as prize for the torch race, is led to sacrifice by the tribe and the winning team. Photo: Museum.

Less secure is the interpretation of such vase-paintings as celebrations of torch race victories when not only one but several torches are shown with one team as on a bell-krater in Vienna (Fig. 11).36 Moreover, the torches do not have hand guards but are the usual long shafts used in the komos and other occasions (“Stabfackeln”).37 Other images usually called

Cf. cups by the Jena Painter, Paul-Zinserling (supra n. 6) pl. 40. Inv. CA 1850, Kefalidou (supra n. 2) 223, no. L 15. 32 H. Metzger, Les représentations dans la céramique attique du IVe siècle (1951) 352–357; J. L. Durand, in C. Bérard (ed.), Images et société en Grèce ancienne (1987) 227–241. 33 Antikenmuseum T 958, Wünsche and Knauss (supra n. 3) 210, fig. 22.10. 34 Reiss-Museum Cg 123, CVA 1 pl. 29, 4; Parisinou (supra n. 2) pl. 5. 35 Metzger (supra n. 32). 36 Kunsthistorisches Museum IV 1050, CVA 3, pl. 136, 1–3. 37 Compare also the bell-krater in New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 56.171.49, ARV² 1347, 3; Kefalidou (supra n. 2) no. L 18, pls. 59–60. In this case, however, a torch race appears on the other side of the vase, so that an interpretation of the celebration 30 31

Torch race and vase-painting

79

Fig. 11. Bell-krater, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum IV 1050. An ox, prize for a victory in a tribal contest, is led to sacrifice. Photo: Museum.

celebrations of a torch race victory are even more problematic as the athletes not only hold the wrong torches but also do not wear spiked crowns. Perhaps these images are intentionally vague so that they can represent generic victories in tribal contests without specification.38 The ox was awarded for all tribal contests at the Panathenaia, not only for the torch race. So it cannot be used as an argument for a specific interpretation. After the victory it was customary – mostly in the fourth century – to set up commemorative monuments. We know several reliefs from monuments for tribal contests,39 four of them for the torch race. I have already mentioned the only one which can surely be linked to the Panathenaic festival.40

III This short survey shows the enormous popularity of the torch race in Athens. As we said above, no other athletic competition is described in such detail. The numerical distribution of images on the different phases of the race is very regular. We know about ten depictions of every scene.41 The victory celebrations are not more frequent than the preparation scenes or the race itself. It is remarkable that very few vase types were used. We have exactly one third bell-kraters, 20% cups, 20 % oinochoai and choes and ca. 10% miniature prize amphoras. These last are a special case, since their shape connects them exclusively to the Panathenaic Games; they are mainly found in graves. As they were filled with perfumed oil, they might have been a kind of souvenir of the festival.42 In the graves they seem to replace the usual lekythoi. All three main vase types used – kraters, oinochoai and cups – form a kind of drinking set for the symposion. No other popular vase shapes like hydriae, amphoras or lekythoi, often used for sports scenes, depict the torch race. On the cups we find nearly exclusively scenes of preparation, rarely of the race itself, while scene as pertainting to a torch race victory seems plausible. 38 Compare the bell-kraters, Dublin University 197, CVA, pl. 26, 3–4, and Bologna, Museo Civico P 328, Macellari (supra n. 12) 127, pl. 74. On the problem, see Kefalidou (supra n. 2) 87 f. 39 See Hans R. Goette, this volume. 40 Palagia (supra n. 24). 41 Only the start is shown once. 42 M. Bentz, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n. 12) 113, 117 and 196–198 with a list of 53 examples.

80

Martin Bentz

oinochoai and choes are only used for the different running images, and bell-kraters tend to show the different celebration scenes. The relationship between shape, function and painted image is not always immediately apparent. The depictions of victory celebrations on kraters – chiefly on the popular bell-krater – must therefore be particularly significant. These might be special commissions for the celebrations organized by the tribes. This suggestion is supported by the appearance of inscriptions naming the team or specific persons, sometimes giving precise indications of cult and location. The other scenes are reserved for the smaller shapes (cups and oinochoai), probably for practical reasons. Palaistra scenes are traditionally depicted on cups, where the athletes can easily be aligned on the outside, whereas celebratory scenes involving many participants and complex compositions must be deployed on larger pots. The observations made above, the great popularity of the torch race, the special commissions for public celebrations and the victory memorials highlight the significance of this and other tribal contests in the life of the polis. While most of the participants and winners of the ‘normal’ gymnastic and hippic contests were foreigners, the tribal events were a source of civic pride to the Athenians. This aspect is underlined by the personifications of the eponymous hero and the tribe. The active participation of the Athenians is vividly described by Aristophanes, Frogs 1089 ff., where the merciless spectators laugh at a slow runner and beat him up so that he blows out his torch and drops out quickly. The tribal identity of the citizens obviously consolidated the polis structure and was politically welcome. As the tribes were created during the Kleisthenic reforms in the late sixth century, many scholars believe that the torch race was established in the years around 500 B.C.43 But there are no depictions of torch races before 430/20 B.C. and all commemorative monuments set up by victorious tribes in the Agora and elsewhere are of later date. Therefore, I would prefer the idea that tribal events were introduced under Kleisthenes but only became part of the official Panathenaic programme in the last third of the fifth century alongside other new events like the militaristic hippic contests, which were founded after the reform of the Athenian cavalry under Perikles.44

43 44

Cf. Neils (supra n. 4) 4; M. Rausch, Nikephoros 11, 1998, 83–106. Bentz (supra n. 3) 82 f.

A unique new depiction of a Panathenaic victor John H. Oakley

In the Archaölogischer Anzeiger for 1991 Panos Valavanis made the significant observation that there is no known depiction of a Panathenaic prize amphora that can be connected with the proclamation or honoring of a Panathenaic victor.1 He went on further to suggest that very likely the prize amphorae were not given to the victor at the same time as the other official prizes of the state (wreaths, small olive branches, palm branches, and taenia) but later at a different ceremony. An interesting, early fourth-century red-figure bell-krater in Montreal, which I present here, sheds new light on his statement and suggestion (Figs. 1–4 and Colour Pl. 9). The vessel is complete, except for a few small fragments from the foot where it has been reattached to the lower body by a modern restorer with three wires. It was accessioned by the Musée des Beaux-Arts in 1944, and although unpublished, Ian McPhee attributed it in 1979 to the Nostell Painter, a minor artist of the ‘Plainer Group’ to whom Beazley attributed four other red-figure bell-kraters.2 The painter takes his name from a krater formerly at Nostell Priory, which was later sold at Christie’s in London. The three youths found on its reverse match up well with the three on the back of the Montreal krater (Fig. 2), and a comparison of other details between the two leaves no doubt that McPhee’s attribution is correct.3 One odd feature on the Montreal krater is the nature of the pattern-band which runs around the vase beneath the scene. It is perhaps best termed as a modified leaf and tongue pattern, although the tongues have more the form of an egg than a leaf. Normally at this time bell-kraters are decorated with a pattern-band having groups of meanders that alternate with pattern squares.4 Both the laurel wreath on the Montreal krater’s rim and the floral pattern with superimposed palmettes underneath the handle are the norm on the artist’s bellkraters, as for example the one in Los Angeles.5 These two patterns are similar to the types found on other contemporary bell-kraters. It is the scene on the obverse, however, which is of greatest interest. In the center two youths stand before a white Doric column mounted by a female figure holding an olive sprig or aphlaston that is painted white (Colour Pl. 9). An elegant wreathed Nike, who flies in from the left, adorns the youth on the left with a ribbon in added white, now mostly lost. She is painted white and dressed in a diaphanous chiton whose details are rendered in golden dilute glaze. Wreathed with an olive branch, he already has a broad ribbon tied around his head. The other youth wears chlamys, olive wreath and boots, and a petasos hangs from his neck. His head is turned up, his mouth open, and his draped left hand rests upon his hip. The painter became confused where his right hand overlaps the other youth’s left hand, for what at first glance appears to be an object that the youth on the left holds is most likely part of the other’s chlamys. This is not the only place that the painter has become confused, for the woman atop the column has two right arms. Valavanis 1991, 487–488. ARV2 1422,1–4; Beazley Addenda2 376; Ian McPhee has attributed a fragmentary bell-krater to “Compare to the Nostell Painter”: Corinth, Archaeological Museum C1977.203: Hesperia 56, 1987, pl. 54, 40. 3 London Market, Christie’s: ARV2 1422,3; Beazley Addenda2 376; Christie’s, London, 30 April 1975, pl. 21,57. Compare also, for example, the drapery of the male figure on the far right of the obverse on each vase. 4 The leaf and tongue, as well as modified versions of it are often found on calyx-kraters by a contemporary artist, the Meleager Painter: e.g. Athens, National Museum 12489: ARV2 1409,10; Paralipomena 490; Beazley Addenda2 374; K. Kathariou, Το εργαστήριο του Ζωγράφου του Μελεάγρου και η εποχή του (2002) 390, pls. 11b and 12. For bell-kraters at this time, see most recently eadem, HASB 18, 2002, 5–14 and n. 4 with earlier bibliography. 5 Los Angeles, County Museum of Art 50.8.34: ARV2 1422,2; Beazley Addenda2 376; CVA Los Angeles 1 USA 18, pl. 32,1–3. 1 2

82

John H. Oakley

1

2

Figs. 1–2. Attic red-figure bell-krater attributed to the Nostell Painter. Montreal, Musée des Beaux Arts, 1944.Cb.2. Photo: Museum.

To the right of the group stands a mantled youth with left arm akimbo who holds a long staff that ends in branches and leans against his right shoulder. He is a judge, a type of figure frequently found in pictures of athletic competitions.6 In the archaic and early classical periods judges are often shown holding forked staffs, but starting in the third quarter of the fifth century B.C. they mainly hold staffs similar to the one shown here. A bearded judge on a bell-krater by the Nikias Painter from c. 410 B.C. is a good example. He stands on the left while hoplitodromoi cast lots by a statue atop a column in the middle.7 Although it is not certain what material the staff is made of – reed has recently been suggested as a possibility – most likely it is meant to represent a palm branch, since victors and Nikai, as well as the judges, are shown carrying it:8 for example, the victors on a Panathenaic amphora in Paris of 340/39 B.C. (Fig. 5) and the Nike on another in London of 336/5 B.C.9 And not all the judges who carry them are bearded: another example, besides the one on the Montreal krater, is the youthful judge at a wrestling match on a Panathenaic prize amphora of 363/2 B.C. from Cyrene.10 To the left of the central group on the Nostell Painter’s krater is a short procession led by a wreathed youth with arms bent by his side. The small amount of space available for this element of the scene forced the painter to limit the number of figures in the procession. This youth is followed by another wreathed one who holds a horse by the reins at his side with his right hand while supporting an amphora on his left shoulder with the other. The shape of this vase recalls that of Panathenaic prize amphorae, and there can be little doubt that this is what the painter has meant to represent. Heide Frielinghaus has recently assembled all the known depictions of Panathenaic amphorae in Attic vasepainting (Fig. 6).11 Her excellent study has demonstrated that it is difficult to be a hundred percent certain in many cases if a Panathenaic prize amphora has been depicted rather than some other type of amphora, if one For judges on vases, see J. Jünther, Die athletischen Leibesübungen der Griechen I (1965) 170–180. Once Paris Market: ARV2 1334, 18: E. M. W. Tillyard, The Hope Vases (1923) pl. 25, 149. 8 Valavanis 1990, 345 and 353; Bentz 1998, 81 n. 438; B. Kratzmüller, in M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaϊka. Symposion zu den Panathenaϊschen Preisamphoren. Rauischholzhausen 25.11–29.11 1998 (2001) 104–107, who questions if they all really represent palms and suggests that some may be reeds. 9 Paris, Louvre MN 706: ABV 415, 3; Bentz 1998, pls. 117–118. London, British Museum B 607: ABV 415, 4; Bentz 1998, pls. 119–120. 10 Cyrene, Museum F 4522: Bentz 1998, 4.028; J.-J. Maffre, in B. Sabattini (ed.), La céramique attique du IV e siècle en Méditerranée occidentale (2000) 266, fig. 2. See also the judge on the right of Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 1034: ARV2 1333,3; Paralipomena 480; Beazley Addenda2 365; CVA Vienna 3, Austria 3, pl. 122, 1–4. 11 H. Frielinghaus, in Bentz and Eschbach (supra n. 8) 147–159. 6 7

A unique depiction of a Panathenaic victor

83

3

4

Figs. 3–4. Attic red-figure bell-krater attributed to the Nostell Painter. Montreal, Musée des Beaux Arts, 1944.Cb.2. Photo: Museum.

84

John H. Oakley

Fig. 5. Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora. Paris, Louvre MN 706. Photo after M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) pl. 118,1.

Fig. 6. Drawing of Panathenaic amphorae on Attic vases by H. Freilinghaus. Photo after M. Bentz and N. Eschbach, Panathenaïka. Symposium zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren, Rauischholzhausen 25.11.–29. 11 1998 (2001) 151, fig. 4.

A unique depiction of a Panathenaic victor

85

relies solely on comparing the exact details of the amphora drawn with those of a Panathenaic prize amphora. Indeed, one could argue that the amphora on the Montreal krater is not meant to be a Panathenaic amphora, for there are no figures or other decoration drawn on it; the body is not as plump as one might expect, nor is the mouth or foot drawn exactly like those of a Panathenaic amphora. But I think we should not worry here, for if we take into consideration the conventions of red-figure vasepainting and the quality of the artist’s drawing, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the artist meant the viewer to understand the vase as a Panathenaic amphora. It is well-known that vase-painters did not create photographic images which provide exact details of the objects they rendered. For example, many birds and other animals that they painted are not exact species but more general in form.12 Other objects are equally difficult to identify – for example the circular ones that women are often shown juggling which may be balls of wool or apples, or some other round object.13 And vase-painters often are extremely sloppy, drawing details inaccurately or forgetting them altogether. We have already noted the problems that the Nostell Painter had with drawing the area where the hands of the two central figures intersect and the two right arms that he gave to the small figure atop the column. To these others can be added. The proportions of the horse are off: the animal is too short in height and length, and its hindquarters are sunk too low. The left hand of the youth holding the amphora is not delineated, rather the arm flows without break into the amphora handle. And the foot of the vase is not carefully defined, but is a poorly articulated mass resting over his shoulder. The artist simply has not concerned himself with accurately rendering these details, and I think that because of the athletic subject matter here we can safely assume he meant the viewer to recognize the vase as a Panathenaic amphora. How then do we best interpret this scene? The Nike personifies the victory of the athlete whom she decorates with a fillet, and helps to indicate that we are witnessing an award ceremony. The horse and amphora, I believe, indicate that the event was the horse race at the Panathenaic games. Depictions of the Panathenaic horse race (κέλης) are found on Panathenaic amphorae starting in the last quarter of the sixth century, and they continue to around the middle of the fifth century. A good example is one in London by the Eucharides Painter (Fig. 7).14 It shows two horses in full gallop going to the right. Two young boys serve as jockeys, each applying a whip to his steed. Two running horses is the most common composition, although as many as four can be shown and once a judge and twice a turning post are included in the picture. The scene disappears in the second half of the century, but reappears in the fourth. Because only one of the five examples can be dated securely – to 336/35 B.C. – and the other four are too fragmentary to say anything more than that they are fourth-century, it is impossible to say when the scene starts to be used again on the prize vases, although one suspects it is during the second half of the fourth century B.C. This would leave a gap of a hundred years when none were made. Red-figure vases do not help fill this hole, because although horse racing was a popular subject on Attic black-figure vases, it was less so on red-figure, and no red-figure depiction can be shown to represent the Panathenaic race.15 Depictions of the events after the Panathenaic horse race proper are even rarer. The only one found on a Panathenaic amphora is by the Mastos Painter in Nauplion (Fig. 8).16 It shows the winning horse being led in shortly after the race. A bearded man, perhaps the trainer, stands by the animal apparently adjusting a fillet to the animal’s reins. The jockey is still mounted, but already wreathed and holding branches. The horse wears a wreath as well, a good reminder that these animals could be honored as well as their owners.17 Greeting them is another bearded man who pats the head of the horse with his left hand while holding up branches and a wreath in the other. He may be the owner. Another man behind the horse holds out branches in the Another example is many of the fish on fish plates: I. McPhee and A.D. Trendall, AntK 33, 1990, 31–32. S. Karouzou, JHS 64, 1945, 42; V. Sabetai, “The Washing Painter. A Contribution to the Wedding and Genre Iconography in the Second Half of the Fifth Century B.C.” (Diss. University of Cincinnati, 1993) 82–84. 14 London, British Museum B133: ABV 395, 1; Bentz 1998, 5.046, pl. 56 – see 75–76 for the other depictions and n. 394 for the earlier literature about the horse race. 15 E. Maul-Mandelartz, Griechische Reiterdarstellungen in agonistischem Zusammenhang (1990) – see 201–8 for the red-figure depictions. Her list is not complete. For some others, see J. H. Oakley, The Phiale Painter (1990) 40–41, pls. 43b and 44–46; and T. B. L. Webster, Potter and Patron in Classical Athens (1972) 189. 16 Nauplion, Archaeological Museum, Glymenopoulos Collection 1: ABV 260, 27; Beazley Addenda2 67; Bentz 1998, 6.051, pl. 13. 17 J. D. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-Figure2 (1986) 85; E. Kephalidou, ΝΙΚΗΤΗΣ. Εικονογραφική μελέτη του αρχαίου ελληνικού αθλητισμού (1996) 94–96. 12 13

86

John H. Oakley

Fig. 7. Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Eucharides Painter. London, British Museum B 133. Photo after M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) pl. 56.

horse’s direction. Perhaps he is, as Beazley suggests, the owner’s son. All this indicates that some initial prizes were presented at the immediate conclusion of the race – wreaths, fillets, and branches. A related scene is found on a pseudo-Panathenaic amphora in London where a bearded man leads a youth atop a horse followed by another carrying a tripod and wreath.18 An inscription before the man tells us that “the horse of Dysneiketos is victorious”. Tripods, however, were not one of the recorded prizes at the Panathenaic festival, but often prizes for other horse races, particularly mythological ones, so that we do best not to think of this scene as one specifically showing the Panathenaic festival. Actual depictions of Panathenaic winners being proclaimed and receiving their initial prizes were collected and analyzed by Panos Valavanis in 1990.19 Sometimes the victors are wreathed by a judge or they hold branches before a judge, and sometimes a salpinx player is present. The one on a fourthcentury fragment from the Kerameikos is depicted on the left tooting his horn, while a victorious boxer holding a palm branch and his boxing thongs along with a bearded judge stand to the right of him.20 Occasionally the loser is also rendered, and

Fig. 8. Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Mastos Painter. Nauplion, Archaeological Museum, Glymenopoulos Collection 1. Photo: German Archaeological Institute, Athens, neg. no. ARG 204, Czako.

London, British Museum B 144: ABV 307, 59, where it is assigned to the Swing Painter; E. Böhr, Der Schaukel-Maler (1982) 110, no. P 4 and pls. 170–171 assigned it to Near the Princeton Painter; Beazley Addenda2 82. For other related scenes, see MaulMandelartz (supra n. 15) 120–129. 19 Valavanis 1990. See also Kephalidou (supra n. 17) 52–80; Bentz 1998, 81–82. 20 Athens, Kerameikos PA 156: Bentz 1998, 4.416, pl. 136. 18

A unique depiction of a Panathenaic victor

87

sometimes the victorious athlete is shown twice, once as he competes and once after as the victor. One of the Achilles Painter’s Panathenaic amphorae in Bologna is a good example of the latter (Fig. 9). On the left two youths are in the heat of a hotly contested sprint, while to the right the winning youth stands holding branches in his hands before a bearded judge.21 None of these scenes of winners, however, show Panathenaic amphorae, and none save the Mastos Painter’s piece has anything to do with the horse race. Panathenaic amphorae are shown being presented only on two red-figure vases, in both instances by a Nike. A bell-krater in Cambridge from ca. 430 B.C. shows the goddess flying in from the right holding the vessel toward a young jockey who rides a horse standing still on the left.22 Another prize amphora stands on a pillar behind him. The other representation is on an amphora of ca. 440–430 B.C. by the Peleus Painter from the Agora (Fig. 10). It shows the goddess with vessel flying toward the driver of a racing quadriga.23 Both of these presentations are obviously symbolic and not part of a specific ceremony. Besides the obvious fact that Nikai did not take part in the ceremony, it is the owners of the horses who received the vases, not the jockey or chariot driver, and on the Agora amphora the race is still in progress. All these scenes are different from that on the Montreal krater, and it is clear that the krater does Fig. 9. Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Achilles Painter. Bologna, Museo Civico 18039. Photo: not depict the events immediately following the race, Museum. but must show those at a later time. This indicates, as Valavanis postulated earlier, that there were two award ceremonies, one immediately following the event, and a second at a later time during which the Panathenaic amphorae were presented. It is this second award ceremony that I believe is shown on our krater, which, if I am correct, makes it the only known depiction of this event.24 The youth being decorated by the Nike on the Montreal krater can be identified as the first place winner of the horse race. The other youth is most likely a herald who announces the winner. This is indicated by his upturned head and open mouth, as well as his clothes.25 Although we have no source that tells us specifically that heralds announced the winner at the Panathenaic festival, we do know that they did proclaim other honors and crowns in Athens, and that they played a major role at the Olympic games.26 So much so, Bologna, Museo Civico 18039: ABV 409, 1; Paralipomena 177; Beazley Addenda2 196; J. H. Oakley, The Achilles Painter (1997) 71, 153, no. 297, and pls. 153A and 154A; Bentz 1998, 5.163, pl. 75. See also B. Kratzmüller, this volume. 22 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum 43.8: ARV2 1164, 47; Beazley Addenda2 338; Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 62, 1981, pl. 15. 23 Athens, Agora P 9486: ARV2 1040, 18; Paralipomena 443; Beazley Addenda2 319; M. B. Moore, Agora XXX, Attic Red-figure and White-ground Pottery (1997) pls. 3,7 and 4,7. 24 Valavanis 1990, 352, especially n. 135; Valavanis 1991, 487–488 and n. 5; Bentz 1998, 82. 25 I thank Bettina Kratzmüller for suggesting this identification and the following reference: N. B. Crowther, Nikephoros 7, 1994, 135–155. Heralds were sent to various cities and lands to proclaim the intentions of a polis, so the traveller’s garb of chlamys, boots, and petasos is an appropriate dress for them; see Crowther (supra) 148 and also the herald on Fig. 6. 26 W. F. Vocke, “The Athenian Herald” (Diss. University of Cincinnati, 1970) 267. Pl. Leg. 8. 833A says that heralds should summon the short distance runners. 21

88

John H. Oakley

Fig. 10. Attic red-figure amphora attributed to the Peleus Painter. Athens, Agora P 9486. Photo: American School of Classical Studies – Agora Excavations.

that a competition for heralds and trumpeters was introduced in 396 B.C. to the Olympic games which is approximately contemporary with this vase. The olive wreath that the youth being decorated wears is one of the prizes given earlier to this Panathenaic victor. It also helps remind us that the winners of the horse race were normally the owners of the horses, not the jockeys – the same as modern practice – for normally the jockeys shown on the vases (Fig. 7) are much younger and considerably smaller than this young man. He must, therefore, be the owner, not a jockey. The presence of the judge, perhaps one of the athlothetai responsible for distributing the prize amphorae,27 suggests that this ceremony did not take place too long after the race, perhaps at the end of the day’s events or at the end of the festival. The figures on the left suggest that a formal procession including the winning horse was part of the ceremony. The youth before the horse may be the second place winner of the event. We know that Panathenaic amphorae were given only to the top two finishers in the horse race.28 Or he may simply be a member of the procession. The Panathenaic amphora suggests that at least one of them, if not more, were awarded at this time to the winner or top two finishers; the others may have been picked up at a later time. The female statue atop the column possibly represents a divinity, but who is uncertain because of the lack of a defining attribute. The olive sprig or aphlaston she holds is a sign of victory, appropriate in this setting and also carried by Nike and Athena when represented on the columns of fourth-century Panathenaic prize amphorae.29 It is tempting to speculate that dedications by victors of monuments of this sort are the inspiration for both those on this and other contemporary red-figure vases, like the bell-krater by the Nikias Painter with hoplitodromoi casting lots mentioned earlier,30 as well as those that start to appear on the fourthcentury prize Panathenaic amphorae.

Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 60.1; D. G. Kyle, Athletics in Ancient Athens (1987) 38–39. See most recently Bentz 1998, 14–15 and J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 87–108. 29 E.g. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 572: ABV 412,1; N. Eschbach, Statuen auf panathenäischen Preisamphoren des 4. Jhs. v.Chr (1986) pl. 7, 3–4. Eleusis Museum 2669: Eschbach (supra) 37, no. 24, fig. 19 and pl. 10, 3. 30 See supra n. 7 for the Nikias Painter’s vase. For this type of victory dedication connected with the Panathenaia, see J. L. Shear, JHS 123, 2003, 164–180. 27 28

89

A unique depiction of a Panathenaic victor

12 Figs. 11–12. Attic red-figure amphora of Panathenaic form. Athens, Agora P 10554. Photo: American School of Classical Studies - Agora Excavations.

There are three other vases that have been interpreted as showing a Panathenaic amphora being carried in a procession. The earliest is a fragmentary black-figure amphora of ca. 520 B.C. from the Leagros Group, on which a six-figured procession is rendered.31 The male leading the group carries an amphora horizontally on his left 11 shoulder, only fragments of which remain. Not enough of it is preserved to determine if it represents a Panathenaic amphora or a pointed amphora, making it, therefore, uncertain if the procession has anything at all to do with the Panathenaic festival. Two details indicate that it is not the same procession as on the Montreal krater. First is the fact that the amphora is carried on its side, indicating that it is empty, not full like the amphora on the Montreal krater probably is. Second is the goat which the leading figure holds the reins to in his right hand. The animal is undoubtedly meant to be sacrificed, and we would do best, as has been suggested, to understand the scene as either Dionysiac, if the amphora is a pointed one, or as a procession of a Panathenaic winner to make thank offerings to the goddess on the Acropolis, if the amphora is a Panathenaic amphora.32 In either case, the procession is not taking place at the same occasion as the one as on the Montreal krater. Another six-figure procession decorates a late fifth-century red-figure amphora of Panathenaic form from the Agora (Figs. 11–12).33 The vase is fragmentary, and originally there may have been more figures. The pose of the first figure preserved on the right of side A suggests that he may be playing the auloi (Fig. 11). The first four letters of his name are preserved, ΧΡΥΣ[...], which has led to the suggestion that he is Chyrsogonos, a famous flute player known for his victory in the Pythian Games and for providing the rhythm for the oarsmen of Alcibiades’ trireme when he returned to Athens in 408 B.C.34 Two youths follow carrying a shallow tray. The last is named Kopreus. An olive tree stands in front of them, suggesting that the event takes place on the Acropolis. On the other side of the vase parts of three more youths remain (Fig. 12), the last of whom carries a Panathenaic amphora in a manner similar to that of the youth on the Montreal krater. Above the amphora is inscribed ΕΥΠΟΜΠ[...] which may either be restored with ΟΣ in the singular as the youth’s name – good conductor/attendant – or with ΟI in the plural as an epithet for all the figures on this side – good conductors or attendants. All the youths wear mantle and olive wreath. Despite the similarity of the youths holding the 31 32 33 34

Athens, National Museum, Acropolis 842: ABV 369, 119; Valavanis 1991, 490, fig. 1. Valavanis 1991, 489–491 and 495–498. Athens, Agora P 10554: Valavanis 1991, 492–493, figs. 3a and b; Moore (supra n. 23) pl. 9. See Valavanis 1991, 493–495 for a full discussion of the vase and a summary of earlier interpretations.

90

John H. Oakley

amphora on both, the elements and setting of this procession are also different than that on the Montreal krater, and the suggestion by Valavanis that the picture shows a procession on the Acropolis where the Panathenaic amphora will be dedicated seems to me to be the most likely, although Corbett’s idea that it might show the transfer of the prizes to the place where they will be awarded cannot be ruled out completely.35 The final depiction is on a red-figure amphora of Panathenaic form of 480 B.C. by the Painter of Palermo 1108.36 On one side is a mantled youth who carries a Panathenaic amphora on his shoulder in a manner similar to the youths on the Agora amphora and the Montreal krater, and on the other side is another youth who carries olive sprigs and a votive plaque. It is unclear if both figures belong to a single procession or to any procession at all, despite various attempts to interpret them as such. They may simply be two victorious athletes who are about to give thank offerings, or they may be excerpts from a larger procession or processions. In either case, the depiction on the Montreal krater remains unique, and if it depicts, as I have suggested, the second awards’ ceremony at which the Panathenaic amphorae were given to the Panathenaic winners, it gives us our first glimpse of this event. This krater also reminds us that even if a vase-painting is not particularly well-drawn, it still can provide us with new and stimulating evidence for events that happened long ago - in this case some of those at the Greater Panathenaic Games in classical Athens.

Acknowledgements For help in obtaining photographs and permission to publish them I thank J. Jordan, M. Krumme, and G. Meconcelli. I also want to thank the Reves Center for International Study for a travel grant that helped defry the costs of my trip to present this paper and John Fossey for facilitating my study of the Montreal krater.

Abbreviations Bentz 1998 Valavanis 1990 Valavanis 1991

35 36

55.

M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren. Eine Athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., AntK Beih. 18 (1998) P. Valavanis, BCH 114, 1990, 325–359 P. Valavanis, AA 1991, 487–498

Valavanis 1991 and Bentz 1998, 82, especially n. 445 and P. E. Corbett, Hesperia 18, 1949, 306–308. Munich, Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 2315: ARV2 299,2; Valavanis 1991, 491, fig. 2; Kephalidou (supra n. 17) pl.

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos: some new aspects and results Norbert Eschbach Since the inception of excavations at the Kerameikos cemetery in the late nineteenth century, fragments of Panathenaic prize amphorae have been uncovered with great regularity.1 More than 1,600 fragments and over 800 inventory entries are noted so far. Early material of the sixth and the first decades of the fifth century B.C. is very rare. In addition to the well known amphora PA 443 signed by Hypereides as potter (560 B.C.) and used for a burial, and the amphora PA 192 from the workshop of the Eucharides Painter (500–480 B.C.), only a few fragments preserve traces of painting. In the second half of the fifth century the amount of Panathenaic amphorae from the Kerameikos increases steadily; in the fourth century the material is very extensive2 and a relatively large number can be dated to the Hellenistic period. The excavations of U. Knigge in the area south of the Sacred Gate, in “Building Z,”3 have yielded a rich crop of fragments of this type; some 90 inventory entries, around 400 sherds, have been taken into account. Some of them belong to the fifth century and support the stratigraphical dates of the building’s periods Z1 and Z2. By far the largest number of sherds dates to the second half of the fourth century and is connected with the periods Z3 and Z4 of the building. A selection of five Panathenaic amphorae of the nine largest groups of sherds from this material, more than 200 fragments altogether, will be presented here, because of the special light they throw on the last three decades of the fourth century B.C. Some of them have been found scattered over the excavation area, but most come from layers which could be dated independently from the amphorae. None of the fragments belongs to contexts earlier than 325–310 B.C.; most belong to two higher levels (3c, 4) whose time frame reaches the beginning of the third century (not later than 290 B.C.).4 1. PA 647 and PA 648. About 41 fragments can be associated with both sides of the first Panathenaic amphora (PA 647) from the above mentioned contexts (Figs. 1–3, 6).5 Large parts of the garment of an Athena Most recent comprehensive discussion: Bentz 1998. Add: V. Tsantila, ADelt 47A, 1992 (1997) 213ff. (about shield devices); J. J. Maffre, in B. Sabattini (ed.), La céramique attique du IVe siècle en Méditerranée occidentale (2000) 265ff. (amphorae from Cyrene); M. Tiverios, Μακεδόνες και Παναθήναια. Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς απο τον βορειοελλαδικό χώρο (2000); M. Bentz – N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaika. Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren, Rauischholzhausen, 25.11.–29.11.1998 (2001); M. Bentz, AntK 22, 2001, 3ff. (amphorae from Eretria); J. J. Maffre, CRAI 2001, 1065ff. (amphorae from Apollonia); P. A. Marx, AntK 46, 2003, 14ff. (iconography of Athena); M. Luni, QuadALibya 18, 2003, 97ff. (new finds from Cyrene); J. M. Barringer, in O. Palagia – S. V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 B.C. (2003) 244ff. (Hellenistic Panathenaics). 2 For a summary, see J. Frel, Panathenäische Preisamphoren, Kerameikos-Heft 2 (1973). Many fragments are listed in Bentz 1998, 229f. – For the amphora of Hypereides, Bentz 1989, 123, cat. 6.004 (PA 443), pl. 4; the amphora from the Eucharides Painter’s workshop: Bentz 1989, 143, cat. 5.050; Frel, οp. cit., 10f., fig. 10 (11 fragments are illustrated here, whereas 44 fragments are connected to the group). Frel attributed them to the painter himself. But the details seem to refer to another member of the workshop, the Painter of Berlin 1833, compare Bentz 1998, 144, cat. 5.067–70, pl. 58–61. 3 The publication is in press. Reports: U. Knigge, AA 1980, 256ff.; U. Knigge – W. Kovacscovics, AA 1981, 385ff.; U. Knigge – W. Kovacscovics, AA 1983, 1983, 209ff.; U. Knigge, AA 1984, 27ff. – For a summary, see U. Knigge, Der Kerameikos von Athen (1988) 88ff. – About the possible functions of period Z1–2: H. Lind, MusHelv 45, 1988, 158ff. 4 The findspots are partly written in pencil on the inner surface of the fragments; these notices, completing a preliminary inventory of the finds from the area of Building Z, were written by J. Frel. I am very grateful to U. Knigge for further information. 5 A full publication in the Kerameikos series is in preparation by the author. The fragments and groups of fragments carry Kerameikos inventory numbers. All photos are by the author. For PA 647 (fragments with *: see Figs. 1–3): Side A: PA 647A* (7 fragments). A2* (1). B* (3). C* (1). D* (1). E* (3, joins PA 637). F (6, joins 645B [1], 645C [1]). G (1). H (2). I–K (1 each). N* (1); assigned: PA 645A* (2, joins PA 643 [2]); Side B: L* (3). M* (3). Perhaps also associated: PA 645D (1). – Unpublished. Cf. Bentz 1

92

Norbert Eschbach

to right are preserved. A small section of the little figure on the right column (PA 647N) was already recognized during the first inventory as the simplified wings 637 of a Nike. Another fragment (PA 637) N from the same context but from another group of sherds forms a join, offering a further, small but important detail of the little figure on the left column: a small rounded fist somewhat below Athena’s elbow carrying an aphlaston drawn in E fine and accurate lines. This type of column-figure, Nike with aphlaston, points B to two possible dates in the second half C D of the fourth century: the year of archon Hegesias (324/3 B.C.), represented by three amphorae, and the year of Archippos (321/0 B.C.), from which only one amphora is known to us.6 Two out of the four have been attributed to the same painter, both vases of Hegesias and Archippos in the Louvre.7 The surviving parts of Athena in the Kerameikos fragments match both of them in every detail, therefore a link with the same A painter and one of the two archon years seems justifiable. Three details stand out: A2 1. the arrangement of the folds flanking the right breast, 2. the incisions in the Fig. 1. Kerameikos PA 647. Side A. inner border of the shield, which are identical to those in the two previously mentioned amphorae and a third from the year of Kephisodoros II (323/2 B.C.),8 and 3. the incisions in the hem of Athena’s chiton (vertical lines with wavy endings), which associate the sherds from the Kerameikos with the vase of the year of Archippos. The small scale and position of the figures on the columns of PA 647 point to the latest possible date (321/0). Based on the above mentioned details only, however, we do not have sufficient amphorae from the years of the two archons to come to a final decision. Fortunately there is a group of fragments, PA 645A (Fig. 3), which was previously attributed to a different vase. But technical reasons and the fact that some sherds of this group join PA 647 indicate that both groups should belong together.9 Parts of the picture frame and the column on Athena’s left, along with a fraction of the little figure on the abacus are preserved. To the left of the column and near the edge of the picture three letters, APX [...], written kionedon, are visible. The flaring ends of the abacus seem to be a particular trait of this painter. The right foot of Nike can be detected on top of the column.10 Irrespective of the question whether 1989, 181, cat. 4.138. 6 For Hegesias (324/3 B.C.), see, most recently, Bentz 1998, 178, cat. 4.102 – 4.104, pls. 129–131. For Archippos (321/0 B.C.): Bentz 1998, 179, cat. 4.113, pl. 132. 7 Paris, Louvre MNB 3223 (Bentz 1998, cat. 4.102) and Paris, Louvre MN 705 (Bentz 1998, cat. 4.113). For the attribution: Eschbach 1986, 150f., pls. 37, 2–3; 39, 1–2; Valavanis 1991, 296ff., pl. 158 α–δ. 8 Paris, Louvre MN 704 (Bentz 1998, 178, cat. 4.105, pl. 131). Figures on the columns: Nike with extended arms, cf. Eschbach 1986, 150f., pl. 38. 9 In addition to the congruence of the potter’s wheel marks, fragments B und C of group PA 645 join sherds of PA 647F (not illustrated here), which preserve traces of the left column on side A (6 fragments). 10 For details, see Valavanis 1991, pl. 158 α–γ. For the drawing of the column-figure compare his pl. 158 β with nearly identical incisions.

93

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos this is an archon inscription (ArchB) or a prize-inscription (AthB), its placement is very unusual. Only one other example of such an AthB inscription is known, while there are five examples of the archon’s name written in similar fashion.11 Three of the latter are on sherds from Building Z, one being our fragment PA 645. The other two, PA 642 and PA 644 (Fig. 4), are by the same scribe.12 On both of them the word archon is at the end of the inscription, a rule which is followed by the known six amphorae of the years of Hegesias, Kephisodoros II and Archippos without any exception and contrary to common practice in earlier and later years.13 Therefore it seems very likely that PA 645 carried the archon name Archippos. Only a few fragments from the reverse of this Panathenaic are preserved (Figs. 2, 6). On the left of PA 647L we see the upper part of the torso and the head of a referee wearing a white wreath (Fig. 6). On the right, parts of the back, shoulder and neck of an athlete leaning to right are preserved (Fig. 2). Three more fragments, PA 647M, add only small traces of his left lower leg along with the lower legs of his opponent. Both of his knees are clearly bandaged,14 a detail which occurs only on one other Panathenaic, PA 648 (Fig. 5).15 This too comes from Building Z and shows the wrestling scene in nearly the same way but in somewhat better condition.

L

M Fig. 2. Kerameikos PA 647. Side B.

645A

645A

643 Fig. 3. Kerameikos PA 645A + PA 643.

642 644

Fig. 4. Archon names.

Bentz 1998, 58f. with n. 322 lists 2 AthB und 5 ArchB placed to the left of the left column. AthB: 1. cat. 4.143, Kerameikos PA 657. Fagment. 657E, however, must be seen together with PA 657F (lower edge of the picture, on the right); both are reddish, being discoloured, misfired pottery. The fragments 657B/C from the upper part of the body of Athena show that the misfired area evolves to the right (see Fig. 11). The position of this AthB is therefore to the left of the right column. – 2. cat. 4.303. – ArchB: 1. cat. 4.021, 2. cat. 4.287, 3. cat. 4.289 (Kerameikos PA 642), 4. cat. 4.290 (Kerameikos PA 644); 5. 4.291 (Kerameikos PA 645A = connected here with our PA 647). 12 The fragments PA 644 (3, see n. 11) and PA 642 (2) should be by the same hand on account of the letter-forms, especially the Ω. Because of the identical forms of the letters ΑΡΧ on PA 642 and PA 645A(4), both PA 642 and PA 644 must be associated with PA 645A (4). PA 642 cannot be connected with the group PA 647, however, not only because of the uniform pale colour of its coating but also because of the short distance between the edge of the picture and the column. Sherd PA 644, on the other hand, displays similar technical characteristics as PA 647. 13 So far as can be ascertained by the placement of the ArchB: until and including the year of Charikleides (363/2 B.C.), the ArchB begins with the archon’s name. For Kallimedes (360/59 B.C.) and Lykiskos (344/3 B.C.) more often than not the office comes first. Thereafter and until Nikokrates (333/2 B.C.), the archon’s name is first (with one exception). From then on until (and including) Hegemon (327/6 B.C.) and Neaichmos (320/19 B.C.), the office prevails. 14 The double incisions below and above the knees extend over the entire leg. On the left thigh the incision, running parallel to its inner contour, stops short of the double incisions. The incisions modelling the inner part of the knee would normally look different: compare Bentz 1998, cat. 4.015, pl. 106; cat. 4.097, pl. 126 or cat. 4.102, pl. 130. 15 This group comprises 22 fragments (fragments with *: see Fig. 5): Side A: PA 648Abis (1 fragment). Side B: PA 648A* (7); from the wall of the body and partly with the frame of the picture: E (4). C+H+F (4). D (1). G (1). I (1). J (1). Attributed: PA 633* (2). Colour of clay and coating, but also the traces of the athlete’s neck and shoulder do not allow association with PA 647. Unpublished. Cf. Bentz 1989, 181, cat. 4.137. 11

94

Norbert Eschbach

Fig. 6. Kerameikos PA 647L: referee.

For technical reasons and judging by the style of the drawing on PA 633, where both heads of the athletes are visible, these two must be associated. The scene on PA 648L, with parts of a neck and shoulder, is Fig. 5. Kerameikos PA 648A + 633. Side B. clearly to be completed following the same posture and orientation of the wrestlers on PA 648. On their left we see a small column, well known since the earlier amphorae from the year of Charikleides, where it is also connected with wrestling.16 On PA 647 some fragments (647G) with such a column are preserved too. Both amphorae are certainly painted by the same hand. The surviving parts of the pictures allow us to compare some details with figures from two known archon years.17 Posture, proportions and incisions of the referees, especially the modelling of the hair (Fig. 6) are identical. For our athletes one can point out some details of the drawing too, for example, the somewhat misshapen lower legs, the emphasized kneecaps and the somehow random incisions of the lower part of the body. The drawing of the heads, especially profiles and hair, betrays the same hand. The connection of both amphorae from the Kerameikos with the painter of the two complete amphorae in the Louvre should therefore be accepted – and if one agrees with my interpretation of the letters on PA 645A, the otherwise patchy knowledge of the year of Archippos is now enriched with two interesting vases. At this point, a particular technical feature of the group PA 647 should be pointed out, because of the light it throws on a very interesting problem discussed at the conference. The reverse of the sherd PA 647M (Fig. 7) shows, in addition to its clean surface with well preserved marks of the potter’s wheel, a crude repair in its thin wall (3–4 mm thick). A lump of clay, nearly 2 cm wide, plugs a hole, and is barely aligned to the wall. On the outside (Fig. 2) the joins (2 and 4 mm) are visible within the right lower leg of the athlete on the right. The painter drew his picture over this clumsy repair which made the amphora unusable for the storage of liquids, and the amphora was fired. Technical features of this kind, e.g. very thin walls (sometimes less than 2 mm thick),18 hardly visible mistakes or careless fitting of the separately formed parts of the amphora (which is surprising if the vase was intended to carry heavy liquids), and at the same time very smooth and well preserved inner surfaces are very common in the rich material from the Kerameikos.19 But despite such flaws Valavanis 1991, 162ff. for X2 (Athens, Nat. Mus. 20047) pls. 17, 32β, 35β und X3 (Eretria, Arch. Mus. 14813) pls. 19, 36a. Compare the referee on the PA of Hegesias: Bentz 1998, cat. 4.102, pl. 130; and the referee of the PA of Archippos: Bentz 1998, cat. 4.113, pl. 132. 18 Such thin walls have also been noted during the restoration of the amphorae from Eretria (Valavanis 1991, passim), as Petros Themelis informed me at the conference in Athens. 19 The completely preserved amphorae known to me by autopsy, so far as they are not affected by accidents in their afterlife, exhibit the same phenomenon. J. Frel had already noted the pristine inner surfaces of the Kerameikos Panathenaics. His suggestion that the “unused” pieces from the Kerameikos were either leftovers of overproduction or thrown away because defective or damaged (Frel [supra n. 2] 16) is not impossible, but it cannot apply to our entire material. Beyond that, I know of no secure means for detecting the storage of olive oil in prize amphorae for a long period. Peculiarly blistering surfaces (Frel [supra n. 2] 9) are not a safe indication because this kind of damage is visible both inside and out; more to the point, it can differ strongly from one join to the next. 16 17

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos

95

in their fabrics, these amphorae carry painted decoration executed in all its fine details. This leads to the following conclusions: 1. The above mentioned technical problems and mistakes were of no importance, otherwise the flawed vases would have been discarded before applying the expensive decoration and surely before firing. 2. Panathenaic amphorae (at least since the late sixth century) – and not only those from the Kerameikos – never carried olive oil and were not produced for this purpose.20 Some further observations, which will be published elsewhere, lead to the conclusion that the function of these amphorae was not to serve as transport vessels or containers of the quantities of olive oil (more than 5,000 litres),21 which constituted Fig. 7. Kerameikos PA 647M: inner surface. the real prize of the Panathenaic Games. The well known inscription IG II2 2311 (here p. 118, Fig. 1), which gives detailed information about the amount of olive oil used for the different contests, names the official measuring amphora,22 not the amphora known to us as the Panathenaic amphora. 2. PA 656. Some 34 sherds belong to both sides of the Panathenaic amphora PA 656. The striking details of Athena’s garment date it firmly to a specific year in the late fourth century even though the figures on the columns and the archon’s name are lost (Figs. 8–9).23 The sherds derive mostly from contexts dated not later than the early first quarter of the third century B.C. (layers 4 and 3c; fragment A: layer 2 [290–270 B.C.?]). The preserved parts show a very narrow lower part of Athena’s body with the swallow-tailed ends of the himatidion pendent from her left arm brushing her left thigh (Fig. 8). The edges of her garments curl upwards, while the hems are modelled with white brushstrokes. In contrast to the dotted hems common in the second half of the fourth century, Athena’s garment is here highlighted with wide strokes, and the system is enriched by additional vertical strokes over her midriff. The characteristic proportions of the goddess and the idiosyncratic drapery decoration can be found on the known amphora of archon Neaichmos (320/19 B.C.) in St. Petersburg;24 it is therefore with some certainty that one can attribute our fragments from the Kerameikos to the same painter. The scene on the reverse is the hoplitodromos. Eleven fragments depict three runners: PA 656M, N and Mbis make up a nearly complete figure of the athlete at the left, marking the end of the group. Because fragment 656Q has parts of a right shoulder and a shield, also a fraction of the shield of our athlete running at the end, the second runner has to be located immediately in front of him. His right forearm and hand, together with his right foot are visible on PA 656N. As the gap behind the left runner is twice as big as that in front, it seems unlikely that there was a fourth runner. The fragments PA 656P and R should be assigned to the winner of the race; his toes are behind the leg of the athlete in the middle of the group. In that case, the traces on fragment 656O (inverted in Fig. 9) can be identified as the lower leg and heel of either the winner or the second runner. The taut torso, overlong thigh and somewhat misshapen arms, as well as details of the abdomen incisions and the broken hip line can be also found in the amphora of 320/19 in St. Petersburg. The lack of any “sealing” of the inner surface by slip, noted already by Frel (supra n. 19) basically forbids the storage of liquid for it penetrates the clay. The brownish slip often recognized inside prize amphorae beginning with the Robinson group and especially the Kuban group in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, is very often only an extremely thin layer not covering the whole interior. For a similar conclusion that Panathenaic prize amphorae did not carry olive oil, see P. Themelis in this volume. Contra, M. Tiverios in this volume. 21 Bentz 1998, 17 (production), 23ff., 31ff. (volume). See also P. Themelis, this volume. We admit that the wide range of dimensions and volume of these amphorae is difficult to explain. 22 For the inscription, see Bentz 1998, 199 n. 1, and supra n. 21. See also M. Tiverios, this volume. About the role of the measuring amphora, see P. Themelis, this volume. – The only known complete example of such an amphora is in Munich: B. Kaeser, MüJb 38, 1987, 228ff., fig. 5f. 23 The group of PA 656 (fragments with *: see Figs. 8–9): side A: PA 656A* (1 fragment). B* (1). C* (8). D* (3). E* (1); side B: M* (2). N* (2). Nbis* (2). O (reversed!) -R* (1 each). Attributed: PA 657K* (1). Other: F-J (je 1). K (2). Kbis-L (je 1). Unpublished. Cf. Bentz 1989, 181, cat. 4.140. 24 About the pieces of this archon year, see Bentz 1989, 179f., cat. 4.114–121, pl. 133 (St. Petersburg Ak.B. 45). 20

B A

C

D

E Fig. 8. Kerameikos PA 656. Side A.

Q

M

Nbis 657K

N

O

R P Fig. 9. Kerameikos PA 656. Side B.

97

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos

Our representation of the hoplitodromos (Fig. 9) marks the end of the development of the iconography of the subject, a process which can be traced back to the third quarter of the fourth century. On the Panathenaic prize amphora from the year of Pythodelos (336/5 B.C.) in London (B 608) with the last known representation of this race moving to left, the painter twisted the shields to uncover the muscular bodies. Thereafter the athletes run to right. At first they still carry their shields in profile, perhaps in order to exhibit their devices.25 On our later amphora from the Kerameikos this awkward posture has been abandoned as the rendering of the bodies has become more important than the shields themselves. 3. PA 660 and 657. More than 80 sherds, mostly from layer 3c of Building Z4 (300–290 B.C.), belong to group PA 660 (Figs. 10, 12–13).26 Athena’s peculiar appearance does not allow a date earlier than the late fourth century. Only parts of the interior of her shield, her garment, the himatidion, and her feet are preserved. But the figure on the left column beside her survives nearly complete: a little Athena Promachos to right (Fig. 10). Apart from some drapery details of the central Athena, this figure allows us to connect PA 660 with a second group from the same context: PA 657, which includes about 18 fragments of side A (Fig. 11) with a

A

B

K G

D

E C

H F

Fig. 10. Kerameikos PA 660(1). Side A. So Bentz 1989, cat. 4.087, pl. 121; about the subject: 66ff., 213 (list). Illustrated here are only fragments with parts of the picture: side A: PA 660A (2 fragments). B (2). C (1). D (1). E.G (2). F (4). H (1). K (1); side B: L (9). M (9). N (2). O (1). P (1). X (4). – (PA 660A, see Eschbach 1986, cat. 104, pl. 43). Cf. Bentz 1989, 181, cat. 4.144. 25 26

98

Norbert Eschbach

A (–)

B

J

C

I

636 A D E

H

G

F

Fig. 11. Kerameikos PA 657. Side A.

little white figure of Athena Promachos on the column as well.27 Happily for us more parts of the goddess’ body and garment together with a greater piece of her helmet are preserved. Clay and coating of these two groups are very different. The surface of PA 660 has a dark reddish colour and a mostly brown-greenish-coloured painting. On PA 657 a light reddish (misfired) area starts from the breast of Athena but hardly affects the right side of the amphora, so the division of the sherds is very clear. Some 26 sherds are preserved from the reverse, showing two wrestlers. Near the left frame of the picture stands a referee wearing a white wreath. The exceptional talent of the painter is evident in the referee’s head (Fig. 12, detail). When rendering the wrestlers’ bodies he pays special attention to their swelling musculature although he can be clumsy too. The perspective of the bodies and their posture, as well as the shape and incisions of the left wrestler’s legs seen from the rear are executed remarkably well. These qualities are lacking in the modelling of the right athlete, whose lower legs and feet give a more awkward impression – without the evidence of so many sherds, one might not have attributed the two athletes to the same vase. This group of sherds from side B comprises four other pieces with a similar pair of wrestlers (Fig. 14) even though it is hard to accommodate them in the preserved parts of the scene.28 The representation and quality of draughtsmanship are much the same as the athletes on PA 660 (no. 1) (Fig. 13), we can therefore conclude that the same painter must be at work. This conclusion is borne out by comparing the head of the athlete with that of the referee. The contours of the hair and beard are highlighted in a similar characteristic manner with brief incisions. The same feature can be recognized only in the runners on side B of the late (but not exactly dated) amphora in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu 76.AE.5.29 The damaged surface of 27 All fragments from side A: PA 657 (1 fragment). A (1) B.C (3). D (1). E (3). F (2). G.H (4, joining PA 636A). I (1). J (1). – Unpublished except for the column figure (PA 657, Eschbach 1986, cat. 103, pl. 43). Cf. Bentz 1989, 181, cat. 4.140. 28 PA 660 (II): side B: PA 660I (1 fragment), V.Q (3), unpublished. 29 Bentz 1998, 180, cat. 4.130, pl.134. The archon’s name is lost. Earlier examples show rather crude draughtsmanship, compare

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos

99

X

P

L Fig. 12. Kerameikos PA 660 (1). Side B: referee (detail).

our sherds (Fig. 14), bearing traces of misfiring and abrasion, may point to a connection with the group PA 657, but the more reddish colour of the clay and the colour of the painting are too different to allow joins. The correlations of the potter’s wheel marks on the inner surfaces show close connections of the two groups but there is no possibility to make joins with our supernumerary fragments. They must belong to a third amphora by the same hand. The above two, more likely three, Panathenaic prize amphorae of the same year have not been hitherto dated precisely. The drapery details of Athena are closely related to the amphora of Euthykritos in London, B 611 (328/7 B.C.) but are even more akin to the amphora of Hegesias in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (324/3 B.C.). In some details the amphora of Kephisodoros II (323/2 B.C.) in the Louvre is also very close.30 Consider the ivy-leaf on Athena’s helmet and the two short, curved incisions above its spiral crest on PA 657 (Fig. 11); the characteristic integration of her head and helmet into the tongue ornament of the amphora neck should be mentioned too. The use of white colour instead of incision for the interior decoration of the shield (PA 660B, Fig. 10) and for the palmettes under the handles does not appear on Panathenaic prize amphorae of the later fourth century until the archonship of Neaichmos (320/19 B.C.). The first examples can be seen on the above mentioned amphora and, in my opinion, on the later amphora in Malibu. The representation of the wrestlers and other stylistic traits do not allow a connection with any dated prize amphorae. The erratic accuracy in the rendering of single features together with an increased use of incised contours recalls the amphora of Neaichmos. But we have to consider the fact that we are dealing with a very Kerameikos Museum PA 156: O. Tzachou-Alexandri (ed.), Mind and Body. Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece (1989) 316, cat. 200. 30 PA of Euthykritos: Bentz 1998, 187, cat. 4.100, pl. 128; of Hegesias: Bentz 1998, 178, cat. 4.103, pl. 129; of Kephisodoros II: Bentz 1998, 178, cat. 4.105, pl. 131.

100

Norbert Eschbach

R Q U

I

V

Fig. 14. Kerameikos PA 660 (2). Side B.

limited time span. We have as yet no published complete Panathenaic prize amphorae dated after 320/19 B.C. Thus, with the exception of some details, it is M N difficult to form a more concrete idea about their subjects and styles. The groups of fragments from the Kerameikos PA 657 and 660 (I and II) now O fill in the gap after 320/19, however, on account of their connection to unpublished material from Rhodes: fourteen Fig. 13. Kerameikos PA 660 (1). Side B: wrestlers. Panathenaics, (all?) dated to the year of archon Demokleides (316/15 B.C.). The dating of the Kerameikos fragments must depend on that of the amphorae from Rhodes, the reverses of which invariably show a chariot-race. Some of them show the little white column figure of Athena also known from our pieces from the Kerameikos. We can therefore suggest with some confidence that in addition to chariot-race and boxing, wrestling is now documented for this archon year thanks to the Kerameikos fragments.31

Acknowledgements This paper is the English version of my contribution to the congress delivered in Greek. It deals exclusively and in detail with some groups of sherds from Building Z in the Kerameikos. I thank Debbie Plum for her help with the translation of my manuscript. All photos are by the author by kind permission of the Kerameikos Excavations of the German Archaeological Institute.

Abbreviations Bentz 1998 Eschbach 1986 Valavanis 1991

M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren. Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (1998) N. Eschbach, Statuen auf Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (1986) Π. Βαλαβάνης, Παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από την Ερέτρια. Συμβολή στην αττική αγγειογραφία του 4ου π.Χ. αι. (1991)

I thank Eos Zervoudaki for kindly providing detailed information about the Rhodes find. The little white figure of Athena Promachos is not the only type of column figure. A second type is a large Nike in a white garment (very close to the Nike on the undated amphora in Malibu, see n. 29). A third type is a smaller variant of Nike. Different column figures in Panathenaics of the same year are a well known phenomenon in the second half of the fourth century. On the Panathenaics of 316/15, see Bentz 1998, 180, cat. 4.122–6. The only published fragment from Rhodes with a head of Athena (G. Konstantinopoulos, ADelt 23 B1, 1968, pl. 403) gives no further information in reference to our fragments; the parts of the goddess preserved there are lost on our sherds. 31

“Not that the vases are easy to interpret...” Some thoughts on Panathenaic prize amphorae Bettina Kratzmüller

“Not that the vases are easy to interpret...” notes Mark Golden when discussing athletic events painted on Greek vases.1 This quotation can be used too for the reverses of Panathenaic prize amphorae.2 The gestures of the competitors are of primary importance, because their interpretation affects our understanding of the performance of individual contests.3 In Attic black- and red-figure vase-paintings some of the athletes’ gestures are directly related to the contest and the objects used for it. For example, runners of the short-distance footrace with stretched arms and dolichos runners with bent elbows can be distinguished from one another thanks to the position of their arms.4 Other gestures are not required for the execution of the event but allow nevertheless a specific reading of the scene. Raising a hand – with one or two fingers extended – is the best known example, e.g. when a defeated boxer or pankratiast announces his apagoreuein (withdrawal from the contest).5 Other scenes are not easy to interpret, e.g. the reverse of an unattributed Panathenaic prize amphora in Naples (Fig. 1).6 Only the word pankration inscribed above the scene allows a clear interpretation. We see five men, whose bodies take up most of the available space. A judge in a himation, his bent arms raised, stands in the middle, flanked by two pairs of athletes, each pair consisting of a standing and a crouching figure. The competitors were sorted into pairs by drawing lots and the umpire holds little sticks to that effect.7 Gestures and movements of the other figures in the scene, however, are not as easily interpreted. Two of the athletes are crouching or kneeling. The crouching figure on the left is perhaps a space filler, but this does not apply to the kneeling figure on the right. His position must be significant. Kneeling figures are depicted in graveyard scenes or can be suppliants, e.g. seeking refuge at an altar. Women kneel before gods on votive reliefs of the fourth century B.C., but such scenes are exceptional. Kneeling on both heels (kathizesthai) was a gesture of devotion, confined to the religious sphere.8 Other figures shown crouching can be slaves or artisans, therefore of lower status. This interpretation applies to the two athletes on the Naples Panathenaic: they are crouching because defeated. A boxer who “settled down on the heels” as described in a scholion to Pindar9 – would have given up the fight if his coach had not egged him on. The crouching athlete of the left pair, stretching out his arm, looks up at the standing athlete who has placed M. Golden, Sport and Society in Ancient Greece (1998) 58. Panathenaic amphorae are cited by catalogue numbers in Bentz 1998. 3 By “gestures” we mean the figure’s pose and position of his limbs. The term “gesture” and even more so the German “Gestus” and “Gebärde” are used in different ways by modern scholars, e.g. Richter 2003, 1–2. Basic references are: Sittl 1890; Neumann 1965; T. J. McNiven, Gestures in Attic Vase-Painting: Use and Meaning, 550–450 B.C. (1982). 4 Bentz 1998, 63. The Panathenaic in Volos, Archaeological Museum Ka 4266/91 (archon Pythodelos, 336/5 B.C., Bentz 4.090) can be readily compared with that in London, British Museum B 609 (archon Nikokrates, 333/2 B.C., Bentz 4.095). 5 The typical starting stance of participants in violent competitions is another example. Apagoreuein (Panathenaic in St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum Ku.1913.4/389, Kouban Group, 400 B.C., Bentz 5.237); starting position (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 1960.55–3, ex Robinson Collection, Kleophon Painter, 430/20 B.C., Bentz 5.177). On apagoreuein, see Neumann 1965, 40. 6 National Museum 81294, first half of the fifth century B.C. (Bentz 5.091). 7 See B. Kratzmüller, in L. Dollhofer et al. (eds.), Altmodische Archäologie. Festschrift für Friedrich Brein (CD-Rom 2000) 131–140 (Forum Archaeologiae 14/III/2000); Miller 2004, 49–50, 127. 8 Kneeling: F. T. van Straten, BABesch 49, 1974, 159–189; R. Kabus-Preisshofen, AntPl 19 (1988) 15–19, figs. 1–2, pls. 2–13. 9 Schol. Pind. 10.19. 1 2

102

Bettina Kratzmüller

his left hand on the head of his opponent.10 Such a gesture is familiar from other vase-paintings with palaistra scenes, e.g. an Attic red-figure stand by the Antiphon Painter in Berlin, where an athlete makes this gesture towards his slave boy.11 In general, the placement of hands on other figures indicates familiarity or family ties. Gerhard Neumann describes it as a gesture of encouragement, “welcher stets eine enge, auf Sympathie beruhende Beziehung voraussetzt.”12 As can be seen in the case of the athlete and his slave boy, he who has the other’s hand laid upon him, is “defeated” in some way. He who wishes to be defended, places himself under the protection of the extended hand; this is also a gesture of encouragement or praise. The figure imposing the hand, has to be the “stronger” in every case. Affection demonstrated between competitors in a contest seems nevertheless curious. Quintus Smyrnaeus states that boxers and wrestlers kiss after the boxing match in order to show good will.13 The conventional behaviour of sporting opponents is described by Plutarch, “[wild beasts] live in a state of war in the same way that athletes, who compete in the same event, are rivals; on the other hand, boxers are friendly to pankratiasts, dolichodromoi to wrestlers, aiding and cheering each other.”14 No contact, however, exists between the athletes on the right side of the Panathenaic prize amphora in Fig. 1. Panathenaic amphora. Naples, National Museum 81294. Naples. The standing athlete faces the umpire and es- After M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18, pl. 70, 5.091. tablishes contact with him. The kneeling athlete behind him raises his hand, arm bent. Standing figures too show this gesture, for example the figure at the extreme right of a torch race on a bell-krater in London (here p. 77, Fig. 7). Bronze statuettes may repeat this gesture. Gerhard Neumann interprets it as a victor’s demonstration of gratitude towards a deity.15 This explanation, however, cannot apply to the kneeling athlete on the Naples Panathenaic. He is neither beating his chest nor clasping his head – as is common with gestures of surprise or mourning.16 And he is not covering his face with his hand, but brings his hand to his head. His stance, bowed head in particular, expresses grief or disappointment.17 This hand gesture in non-athletic scenes may signify embarrassment and perplexity. The scene on the Naples amphora shows the sorting out of winners of preliminary rounds by drawing lots for the next round. The crouching athletes, characterized clearly as defeated by their poses, have withdrawn from the game. As stated above, the sticks point to a scene of drawing lots. The reverse of another Panathenaic prize amphora of the Aigisthos Painter in Naples can also be interpreted in this way – perhaps for the paides’ boxing, although no sticks are now visible.18 The lots would have been held by the umpire on the right, but this part 10 An athlete looking up on a fragmentary Panathenaic from the Athenian Acropolis (Athens, National Museum, Acr. 1046, first half of the fifth century B.C., Bentz 5.157) must have belonged to a similar scene. 11 Staatliche Museen F 2325 (Neumann 1965, 72, figs. 34, 74; N. Himmelmann, Archäologisches zum Problem der griechischen Sklaverei [1971] 26–27, fig. 37). 12 Neumann 1965, 73. 13 Quint. Smyrn. 4.271. 380 (third century A.D.; Sittl 1890, 38 n. 7). 14 Plut. Mor. 486b. 15 Attic red-figure bell-krater, London, British Museum 98.7–16.6, Nikias Painter, 410 B.C.; bronze statuette, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 08.258.10, second quarter of the fifth century B.C. (Neumann 1965, 80–81, fig. 40). 16 Mourning gestures: I. Huber, Die Ikonographie der Trauer in der griechischen Kunst, Peleus 10 (2001). 17 Sittl 1890, 155, 275. 18 National Museum, Santangelo 693, about 460 B.C. (Bentz 5.090).

“Not that the vases are easy to interpret...”

103

is now restored. A hint to the existence of lots is given by the boy standing at the left, whose forefinger is bent – he originally held something small in his hand. The raised right hand, palm outwards, of the boy standing at the right, is typical of athletes drawing lots on other vases, e.g. an Attic red-figure stamnos of the Syleus Painter now in Toledo, Ohio.19 There are two possible interpretations here. The athletes respond to the umpire’s roll-call by a gesture of their hands, as told by Statius.20 Or the athletes take an oath to Zeus, as described by Lucian,21 “One competitor after another approaches, says his prayers to Zeus and draws one of the lots.” Invoking a deity by the same hand gesture is also known from an Attic red-figure neck-amphora in London, where Phineus, standing in front of a table laden with food, calls upon the gods, as is evidenced by the inscription theoi.22 A fragmentary cup by Makron, now in London, also shows the drawing of lots: athletes raise their hands as they line up before the umpire. A fragment from the same vase shows the hand of an umpire holding a lot.23 The basin behind the judge under one of the handles can be interpreted as a water-basin, but it is also possible to see it as a container for mixing up the lots. A similar basin appears on an Attic red-figure cup by Onesimos in Basel showing the preparations for a hoplitodromos race.24 A man in a himation sits next to the basin. Three of the athletes, carrying no shields, are holding up their hands in the usual way, presumably drawing lots. Various interpretations are possible here. One possibility is the drawing of lots or tokens for the assignment of shields. Standardized shields are attested in Olympia according to Pausanias (5.12.8): twenty-five shields for the hoplitodromos race were stored in the temple of Hera. Tokens were used for the assignment of arms to the military as explained by John H. Kroll on the evidence of lead tokens of the third century B.C. found in the Athenian Agora.25 They show weapons – helmet, corselet, greaves or shield – on one side. The reverse carries a letter, alpha, gamma or delta: these have to be interpreted as signs for different sizes, as Kroll suggests. The assignment of a shield to an athlete by an official is illustrated by the wellknown Panathenaic prize amphora in New York (Fig. 2).26 Identification of individual shields was essential.

Fig. 2. Panathenaic amphora. New York, Zoullas Collection. After M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18, pl. 43, 5.010. 19 Museum of Art 56.58, about 480 B.C. (CVA Toledo [1] III I pl. 42). Compare also the Attic red-figure cups by Douris (Stuttgart Arch. 79/2; D. Buitron, Douris, Kerameus 9 [1995] cat. 15, pl. 10) and Makron (Paris, Louvre G 294; N. Kunisch, Makron, Kerameus 10 [1997] cat. 209, pl. 72). 20 Stat. Theb. 6.663 (Sittl 1890, 218 n. 4). 21 Lucian, Hermot. 40. 22 British Museum E 291 (Neumann 1965, 78–79, fig. 37). 23 British Museum E 63 (Kunisch, Makron, cat. 351, pl. 120). 24 Antikenmuseum BS 439 (CVA Basel [2] pls. 10.3; 12.1–2). 25 J. H. Kroll, Hesperia 46, 1977, 141–146 notes that vase-paintings showing hoplites with shields carrying the letter “alpha” point to official shields of the city of Athens. 26 Zoullas Collection, Kleophrades Painter, 500/480 B.C. (Bentz 5.010).

104

Bettina Kratzmüller

Fig. 3. Panathenaic amphora. Berlin, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 1833. Photo after M. Bentz, Antk Beih. 18, pl. 58, 5.067.

Shield devices could correspond to those on the lots or tokens.27 The starting places of the runners were also decided by lot. This is indicated by the fact that sixteen different letters mark the sixteen places of the Early Classical starting mechanism in Corinth.28 Runners competing in races run in heats were also sorted out by drawing lots. Pausanias (6.13.4) describes the proceedings in Olympia: “the competitors are grouped in two heats by drawing lots. The victors of each heat had to compete against each other in the end, so the final victor had in fact won the stadion race twice.” A Panathenaic prize amphora of the Achilles Painter in Bologna showing a short-distance footrace of paides can also be used as evidence of a race run in two heats (here p. 87, Fig. 9). While a victor is being honoured by the umpire on the right, another race takes place on the left. However, if we look at a Panathenaic prize amphora in the Louvre (here p. 84, Fig. 5) made about a century later, showing the coronation of an athlete while a crowned athlete leaves the scene running to left, it is not certain whether the victors of two heats or the first and second winners are being honoured.29 As we have demonstrated, hand and arm gestures can affect the interpretation of a particular scene. An extended hand with palm outwards is a common gesture of diskos-throwers not only on Panathenaic prize amphorae but also on other Attic vases.30 This can also function as a speaker’s gesture, meaning a dispute between athlete and umpire. The same can be indicated by a gesture, where the forefinger alone or with the middle finger are only slightly bent. Another group of Panathenaic prize amphorae with scenes of heavy athletics and the different events of the pentathlon on the reverse, presents some interesting hand gestures. On the Panathenaic prize amphora in See the shield devices of the hoplitodromoi on an Attic red-figure calyx-krater in Rhodes, Archaeological Museum 11985 (Clara Rhodos 2 [1929] 248, fig. 245), showing an alpha and an epsilon (I owe this reference to E. Trinkl). 28 Races in two heats: see e.g. Decker 1995, 68; Kratzmüller (supra n. 7) 134–135 n. 21. Starting installation in Corinth: Decker 1995, 169. 29 Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico Pell. 11, Achilles Painter, 440/35 B.C. (Bentz 5.163); Paris, Louvre MN 706, archon Theophrastos, 340/39 B.C. (Bentz 4.079). See also J. H. Oakley, this volume. 30 Panathenaic in Taranto, Museo Nazionale 115474, Kleophrades Painter, 500/480 B.C. (Bentz 5.028); Attic red-figure cup, Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum 85.AE.25, Carpenter Painter, 515/10 B.C. (G. Waddell, Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 5, 1991, 99–106, esp. 102, figs. 3–4). 27

“Not that the vases are easy to interpret...”

105

Fig. 4. Panathenaic amphora. Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Odheden PC 6. After M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18, pl. 40, 5.002.

Munich and the name vase of the painter of Berlin 1833 the ephedros, represented beside the actual combat, raises his hand striking his fingers: he clearly bends two fingers, while the forefinger, middle finger and thumb are extended (Fig. 3).31 The same gesture is also shown by umpires standing near athletes who exercise heavy athletics or the pentathlon. On two Panathenaic prize amphorae of the Kleophrades Painter with pankratiasts, the umpire holds his staff extending his forefinger and middle finger (Fig. 4).32 On a lekythos in Munich with pentathlon athletes the umpire makes the same gesture.33 A similar gesture can be seen on a youth in a himation on a neck-amphora by the Berlin Painter in Baltimore, with a diskobolos on the obverse.34 At this point we should consider an amphora of the Leningrad Painter in Munich, showing the crowning of a victorious kitharoidos.35 The reverse carries three youths wearing himatia and holding the typical staffs of the Athenian citizen. Both men standing at the sides make the same gesture. If we assume that the obverse and reverse form part of a single episode, we have evidence of the use of this gesture in musical events. But the athletes themselves can strike their fingers in this way, for example the long-jumper on a Panathenaic prize amphora of the Kleophrades Painter in Munich: his forefinger and the middle finger are clearly stretched. Comparable gestures are made in the context of different games.36 Gestures made by players of board games 31 Panathenaic in Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 1455.WAF, Painter of Berlin 1833, 500/480 B.C. (Bentz 5.068); Panathenaic in Berlin 1833, name vase, 500/480 B.C. (Bentz 5.067). A fragment of a Panathenaic in Syracuse, Museo Archeologico Regionale “Paolo Orsi” (Bentz 6.135) showing part of a bearded ephedros has to be restored the same way. The same gesture is adopted by Iolaos watching Herakles’ struggle with the Nemean lion (fragment of Attic black-figure oinochoe, Heidelberg University S 64, 520/10 B.C.; CVA Heidelberg, Universität [4] pl. 147.4+11). 32 Panathenaics in Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden PC 6 (Fig. 4) and in New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 16.71, 500/480 B.C. (Bentz 5.002; 5.009). 33 Umpires’ gestures in cautioning athletes are noted by Richter 2003, 41 n. 154. 34 Attic black-figure lekythos, Munich 1892, Acheloos Painter (C. H. E. Haspels, Attic Black-Figured Lekythoi [1936] 48, pl. 15.3); Panathenaic amphora, Munich 1456.WAF, Kleophrades Painter, 500/480 B.C. (Bentz 5.005); Attic black-figure neck-amphora, Baltimore 48.57, Berlin Painter, 490/80 B.C. (CVA Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery [1] pl. 9). 35 Munich 2323, 460/50 B.C. (CVA München [5] pl. 213.3–5). Both youths holding hoops on an Attic black-figure lekythos from the Kerameikos KER 7636. 1761 (workshop of the Athena Painter, 490 B.C.; U. Knigge, Der Südhügel, Kerameikos 9 [1976] 193, cat. Pr 5, pl. 99.1–4) seem to signal to one another. 36 Representations of the game of morra involve a good number of hand signals. This was played by two players and has been

106

Bettina Kratzmüller

can be particularly meaningful. Some vase paintings of board game scenes – as on the Exekias amphora in the Vatican – carry inscribed numbers.37 It is therefore certain that victory depended on the throw of the dice. On other vases different gestures are shown and some of these signals indicate numbers. Literary and visual evidence attests hand signals signifying numerals. The representation of numerals generally depends on which and how many fingers are bent. Manuscript illuminations, e.g. those in the Vatican Library, give a good array of Roman numerals illustrated by hand gestures. In addition, Roman tessarae – game tokens – show a number at one side and the corresponding gesture on the other side.38 The main source for the reconstruction is an anonymus text under the title “Computatio Romana” from A.D. 688, which is transmitted through Beda Venerabilis about A.D. 725.39 The fingers of one hand can count up to ten: “If you want to count one, bend the little finger, for two lay the ringfinger beside it, for three add the middle finger, for four stretch out the little finger again, for five also the ringfinger; for six bend the ringfinger to the palm. For seven stretch out all fingers and bend the little finger towards the wrist. For eight lay the ring-finger beside it. For nine lay the ‘unchaste’ (that is the middle-) finger beside them.[...] Two fingers of the left hand, thus forefinger and thumb, can count till 90. To mark ten, place the nail of your forefinger in the middle of your thumb”. The pictures on the tessarae and the above instructions deal with hand signs of the Roman period. It is as yet uncertain whether these signs apply to the Greek world. Carl Sittl wrote that, according to Plutarch, the Persians also began to count with the little finger.40 And according to Aristophanes, it can be supposed that Greeks also signalled “one” with the little finger. Let us for the sake of argument try to explain hand gestures on Greek athletic scenes following the Roman system and disregarding the modern method of counting on the extended fingers.41 As a result, figures playing board-games and holding the thumb, fore- and middle finger stretched out, can indicate “two.”42 On a belly-amphora in Berlin the right player bends his forefinger to the stretched out thumb counting ten.43 In many of the different examples we have discussed, however, interpretation is at best tentative. The hand sign with stretched fore- and middle finger (“Zweifingergestus”) especially can also be found in different contexts, e.g. as a good-luck sign. Even if an interpretation as the number “two” is possible – as on the fragment of an Attic red-figure hydria in Tübingen with the punishment of Eros,44 where the number of strokes could be meant – it could also be a rhetoric gesture or a sign for speaking or pointing.45 Hand signs in sports scenes are also difficult to interpret. In heavy athletics the gestures of the ephedros could signify withdrawal of the defeated. Sometimes not only the defeated athlete but also the ephedros stretches out reconstructed in the following way: each player held his right hand behind his back and stretched out an optional number of fingers. At a certain sign the arms were pulled out from the back and the person who first called out the total number of extended fingers, won. The two players held a stick on which points could be marked by moveable tokens. See, for example, an Attic red-figure hydria in Würzburg, Martin-von-Wagner-Museum 5341, 370 B.C. (CVA Würzburg [2] pl. 25; Richter 2003, 153 n. 532). 37 Achilles and Ajax playing a board game, Attic black-figure amphora, Vatican Museum 16757, 535/30 B.C. (LIMC I [1981] 96–103, s.v. Achilleus IX: Achilleus und Ajas beim Brettspiel, esp. 97–98, cat. 397 [A. Kossatz-Deissmann]). 38 A. Rieche, BJb 186, 1986, 165–192, esp. 169, fig. 3 (Vatican Library, Urbinus Latinus 290 fol. 31r.); 174–175 fig. 4 (Roman tessarae). 39 Rieche (supra n. 38) 168–172; Richter 2003, 153 n. 530. 40 Plut. Regum apophth.; Ar. Ach. 367 with Schol. (Sittl 1890, 257 n. 1). 41 See, for example, the gesture of a youth in a himation on an Attic red-figure hydria in Berlin F 2177, circle of the Early Mannerists, about 460 B.C., with four extended fingers interpreted by E. Böhr as the sign of “four” (CVA Berlin [9] pl. 12). 42 E.g. the hero on the right on an Attic bilingual belly-amphora, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8037, Andokides Painter, 530/20 B.C. (Kossatz-Deissmann [supra n. 37] 101, cat. 421), Eros on the right on an Attic black-figure cup, Copenhagen, National Museum 13521 (about 530 B.C.; A. Greifenhagen, Griechische Eroten [1957] 49–50, figs. 36–37) or a symposiast on the right of an Attic black-figure pelike, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 68.27 (Plousios Painter, 520/10 B.C.; A. Schäfer, Unterhaltung beim griechischen Symposion [1997] pl. 20.3). 43 Attic black-figure belly-amphora, Berlin 1962.28, Chiusi Painter, about 510 B.C. (Kossatz-Deissmann [supra n. 37] 98, cat. 402). 44 Attic red-figure hydria, Tübingen University S./101609, circle of the Meidias Painter, 420/10 B.C. (CVA Tübingen [4] pl. 34). 45 Richter deals with this gesture (“Zweifingergestus”) specifically in Roman times with occasional nods towards the Greeks (Richter 2003, 41 n. 154, 147 n. 511, 153 n. 530). On rhetorical gestures, see also Neumann 1965, 10–17; H. Schulze, in C. Neumeister – W. Raeck (eds.), Rede und Redner. Bewertung und Darstellung in den antiken Kulturen. Kolloquium Frankfurt/Main 14.–16. Oktober 1998 (2000) 119–150; T. Richter, in Neumeister – Raeck (supra) 249–268.

“Not that the vases are easy to interpret...”

107

Fig. 5. Panathenaic amphora. Eretria Museum 14814. After M. Bentz, AntK Beih. 18, pl. 114, 4.054.

thumb and forefinger.46 But the hand sign can also be interpreted as a sign of “three”. In a wrestling context this hand sign could show how many times a wrestler was down. If a wrestler hit the ground three times he had to leave the game. This interpretation, however, does not apply to boxing or pankration, where the fight continued till one of the boxers could not continue.47 It could have signalled the round in which the athletes fought, or the number of athletes left for the next match. In cases where the little and the ringfinger are bent the number “two” is meant. This also applies to the different events of the pentathlon. The number indicated by a hand signal may signify the number of throws. Sophocles, for example, says that the diskobolos was allowed three throws.48 On a lekythos in Toronto with five athletes, the athlete with empty hands stretches out his fore- and middle finger (“two”). By contrast, a crouching javelin-thrower on an olpe of the Gela Painter bends the little finger of his left hand (“one”).49 A hand gesture made it easier for the umpire to remember certain numbers. This must be the case with the judge on a stamnos in Würzburg.50 He sits on a diphros okladias between two columns and awaits a group of dolichodromoi. If this is not the end-spurt of the long-distance run, it is possible that the umpire’s gesture – three bent fingers and stretched out forefinger and thumb – tells us that the runners have run “three” laps.51 Attic black-figure neck-amphora near the Acheloos Painter, London, British Museum B 271, 520/500 B.C. (Miller 2004, 55, fig. 92). 47 Much is written about victors in violent contests, see Decker 1995, 74–93; Miller 2004, 46–60; U. Sinn, Das antike Olympia (2004) 147–158. McNiven (supra n. 2) 50 denies this interpretation when he writes that this gesture “cannot be the number of falls because it also appears in a boxing scene.” 48 Sophocles fr. 380. 49 Attic white-ground lekythos, Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 963.59, Kephisophon Painter, about 500 B.C. (H. R. Immerwahr, Hesperia Supplement 19 [1982] 59–65, pl. 6a–c); Attic black-figure olpe, Rome, Villa Giulia 20915, Gela Painter, beginning of the fifth century (J. M. Hemelrijk, BABesch 49, 1974, 117–158, esp. 152–153, figs. 64–66). 50 Attic black-figure stamnos, Würzburg 328, Perizoma Group, Michigan Painter, about 510 B.C. (H. M. Lee, JHS 96, 1976, 70–79, pl. 2c). 51 Another way of marking the laps can be seen on an Attic black-figure krater in Bochum (University S 1199, Leagros Group, 510 B.C.) showing a chariot race, where four posts are stuck into the earth (N. Kunisch, Erläuterungen zur Griechischen Vasenmalerei [1996] 117–120 describes these posts as “Stangen mit Aufsätzen aus Federn oder Buschwerk”). 46

108

Bettina Kratzmüller

We move on to vase-paintings with the dokimasia – official scrutiny of cavalry horses in Archaic and Classical Athens. On a fragmentary cup of the Splanchnoptes Painter in Basel a youth in a himation holds up his hand not only to signal that he is speaking, but also perhaps to mark the number “three”. All details together with the name of the horses’ owner were written down by the katalogeus on a writing tablet.52 Ancient athletic scenes repay study, especially those on Panathenaic prize amphorae. Two of them (Fig. 5)53 – showing Olympias personifying the ancient Olympic games – bring to the mind the year 2004, when the Olympic Games were held in Athens.

Abbreviations Bentz 1998 Decker 1995 Miller 2004 Neumann 1965 Richter 2003 Sittl 1890

M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren, AntK Beih. 18 (1998) W. Decker, Sport in der griechischen Antike (1995) S. G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics (2004) G. Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst (1965) T. Richter, Der Zweifingergestus in der römischen Kunst, Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften (2003) C. Sittl, Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (1890)

Attic red-figure cup, Basel, Antikenmuseum HC 1678 (H.A. Cahn, in E. Böhr – W. Martini [eds.], Studien zur Mythologie und Vasenmalerei. Konrad Schauenburg zum 65. Geburtstag am 16. April 1986 [1986] 91–93, pl. 16.2–3). On an Attic red-figure amphora of Panathenaic shape in Munich 2314 of the Triptolemos Painter, however, it is Athena herself who is writing down the results of an Athenian pentathlon (H. Jung, JdI 110, 1995, 95–147, esp. 134–136, fig. 21). 53 Eretria Museum 14814 (Fig. 5), Marsyas Painter, archon Kallimedes, 360/59 B.C. (Bentz 4.054); Cambridge, Harvard University, Fogg Art Museum 1925.30.124A, Marsyas Painter, archon Theophrastos, 340/39 BC (Bentz 4.081). 52

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες Δέσποινα Τσουκλίδου Abstract This paper deals with a white-ground Panathenaic amphora depicting a cithara-player. The amphora is dated to the first half of the first century B.C. and presents a new specimen of the white-ground Panathenaics that replaced the cash prizes and gold wreaths awarded to victors of musical contents according to Arist. [Ath. Pol.]. This replacement was thought to have taken place in the third century B.C. but there is now evidence of amphora awards to Panathenaic musicians even before the fourth century.

Εισαγωγή Οι λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς αποτελούν μια ξεχωριστή και ιδιαίτερα ολιγάριθμη ομάδα σε σχέση με τα κανονικά παναθηναϊκά αγγεία, την οποία γνωρίζουμε κυρίως από τα δημοσιευμένα αγγεία και όστρακα που προέρχονται από τις ανασκαφές στην αρχαία Αγορά της Αθήνας.1 Τα αγγεία αυτά θεωρείται ότι πρωτοεμφανίζονται τον 3ο αι. π.Χ.,2 και απονέμονταν ως έπαθλα στους μουσικούς αγώνες των Παναθηναίων, καθώς επίσης και στους δραματικούς αγώνες, μετά την εισαγωγή των τελευταίων αυτών στο πρόγραμμα της εορτής γύρω στα μέσα του 2ου αι. π.Χ.3 Σ’ αυτήν την ευάριθμη ομάδα αγγείων ευπρόσδεκτη προσθήκη αποτελεί ο αμφορέας που παρουσιάζομε εδώ, αρκετά ελλιπής αλλά με πολλά ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία. (Εικ. 1–4). Για το αγγείο δεν υπάρχουν δυστυχώς ανασκαφικά δεδομένα και η μόνη ένδειξη που έχουμε είναι ότι βρέθηκε πιθανότατα κατά τις εργασίες διαμόρφωσης στην περιοχή του τουριστικού περιπτέρου του ΕΟΤ, στου Φιλοπάππου, όταν διαμορφωνόταν η οδός Διονυσίου Αρεοπαγίτου στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του ΄60. Από το αγγείο σώζονται τρία μεγάλα τμήματα: ο λαιμός χωρίς το χείλος και μέρος του ανώτερου σώματος με τη μία λαβή, το κατώτερο μέρος της κοιλιάς με το πόδι, στο οποίο σώζεται η αρχή της βάσης, και μεγάλο μέρος του σώματος από την οπίσθια όψη· σώζονται επίσης και τέσσερα όστρακα που προέρχονται από το σώμα του αγγείου (Εικ. 5 α–δ).4 Ως προς το γενικό σχήμα, ο αμφορέας φαίνεται κοντόχονδρος, με σώμα 1 Βασική για τους λευκούς παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς εξακολουθεί να παραμένει η δημοσίευση του σχετικού υλικού της αρχαίας Αγοράς της Αθήνας από τον Edwards. Για νεότερα ευρήματα, βλ. Μ. Τιβέριος, ΑΕφημ 1991, 26–28. 39 και Tsouklidou (2001). Tsouklidou (2003). βλ. και την ανακοίνωση του Π. Βαλαβάνη στον παρόντα τόμο. 2 Edwards, 327–328. 345 κε., αρ. 40 κε. Ο Τιβέριος (ό.π. σημ. 1) παρουσιάζει όστρακο παναθηναϊκού αμφορέα με λευκό επίχρισμα σε μετόπη, από την αγορά της αρχαίας Πέλλας, το οποίο χρονολογεί στον 4ο αι. π.Χ. (πιθανόν στο β μισό του), και θεωρεί ότι πρόκειται για τον παλαιότερο σωζόμενο λευκό παναθηναϊκό αμφορέα. Πρέπει να σημειώσουμε πάντως ότι ( όπως και ο ίδιος παρατηρεί) η διακοσμητική πρακτική των λευκών μετοπών σε ένα κατά τα λοιπά μελανό αγγείο είναι τελείως διαφορετική από την ακολουθούμενη στους γνωστούς, βέβαιους λευκούς παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς του 2ου αι. π.Χ., όπου όλο το αγγείο είναι λευκό. Επίσης προβληματική φαίνεται η ανάπτυξη της τυπικής διακόσμησης της κύριας όψης του αμφορέα μέσα σε μετόπη αυτήν την εποχή. 3 Tsouklidou (2003). 4 Το αγγείο φυλάσσεται στις αποθήκες της Γ’ Εφορείας Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων με αρ. ευρ. Α 16500 α- γ και Α16501 α-δ. Το τμήμα του λαιμού Α16500α έχει ύψος 30 εκ. και διαμ. 8,4 εκ., το τμήμα του σώματος Α16500β έχει ύψ. 25,5 και πλ.31 εκ., ενώ το τμήμα με το πόδι Α16500γ έχει ύψ. 24,5 εκ., διαμ. 35 εκ. και διαμ. ποδιού 8 εκ. Το πάχος των τοιχωμάτων κυμαίνεται από 6 έως 8 χιλ.. Το σωζόμενο ύψος του αγγείου υπολογίζεται κατά προσέγγιση στα 56 εκ. και η διάμετρός του στα 39 εκ. Από τα τέσσερα όστρακα, το 5α έχει ύψ. 6,3 εκ., πλ. 8 εκ. και παχ. 6 χιλ., το 5β ύψ. 3,8 εκ., πλ. 8 εκ. και παχ. 5 χιλ., το 5γ ύψ. 16 εκ., πλ. 17,5 εκ. και παχ. 6 χιλ., ενώ το 5δ (ανάποδα στην εικόνα) έχει ύψ. 5,5 εκ., πλ. 10,5 εκ., παχ. 6 χιλ. και προέρχεται πιθανότατα από τον ώμο του αγγείου. Αν και το αγγείο δεν σώζεται πλήρως, η απόδοση ολόκληρης της τομής στην εικ. 1 έγινε εφικτή από το γεγονός ότι, όπως προκύπτει από την παράσταση της οπίσθιας όψης του αγγείου, το ελλείπον τμήμα στο στενότερο σημείο δεν θα υπερέβαινε τα 5 εκ.

110

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες

βαρύ και διογκωμένο. Ο λαιμός είναι σχετικά κοντός, με τον χαρακτηριστικό δακτύλιο στο μέσον του άτονα πλασμένο (αντίθετα από ό,τι συνήθως), και μάλιστα χωρισμένο στα δύο με αύλακα,5 ενώ και το πόδι είναι κοντό, όπως προκύπτει από την ελάχιστα σωζόμενη αρχή της βάσης. Η γραπτή διακόσμηση έχει εκτελεστεί με σκούρο ερυθρό πάνω σε υπόλευκο ή αμυδρά κιτρινωπό επίχρισμα, ελαφρότατα στιλπνό, και αναπτύσσεται μέσα στις γνωστές πλευρικές ταινίες. Στην πρόσθια, ελλιπέστερη όψη, κάτω από το πεντάφυλλο ανθέμιο που κοσμεί τον λαιμό και στις δύο όψεις, σώζεται ο λόφος και μικρό τμήμα της κορυφής του κράνους της Αθηνάς, στραμμένης προς τα δεξιά, καθώς και τμήμα της άντυγας της ασπίδας της. Σώζεται επίσης το κατώτερο μέρος της θεάς, με τον πέπλο που σχηματίζει βαριές πτυχές εμπρός, και τα άκρα πόδια που αποδίδονται κατά τομή. Σε ένα από τα σωζόμενα όστρακα (Εικ. 5α ) διακρίνεται μέρος του δεξιού τμήματος του κορμού της θεάς, με τη ζώνη του πέπλου της και την αιγίδα αποδοσμένη με απλά τμήματα κύκλου, καθώς και το σε σχήμα χελιδονοουράς άκρο του ιματιδίου που θα έπεφτε από το μη σωζόμενο δεξί της χέρι. Το όμοιο άλλο άκρο του ιματιδίου, από το αριστερό χέρι, σώζεται σε ένα ακόμη όστρακο (Εικ. 5β). Αριστερά της θεάς διακρίνεται η πλευρική κάθετη ταινία, ενώ και σε ένα από τα όστρακα σώζεται τμήμα της πλευρικής ζώνης με τις κάθετες ταινίες, πιθανότατα από την πλευρά δεξιά της (Εικ. 5γ). Η οπίσθια όψη του αμφορέα σώζεται πληρέστερα. Εικ. 1. Αμφορέας Α16500, τομή. Κάτω από το ανθέμιο του λαιμού, στη θέση των χαρακτηριστικών για τους παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς γλωσσών, εικονίζονται τρία ανεστραμμένα λογχωτά φύλλα με στιγμές ανάμεσά τους, τα οποία ορίζονται κάτω από ταινία. Ακολουθεί, μεταξύ δύο οριζόντιων ταινιών, η μετόπη με παράσταση μουσικού (κιθαριστή ή κιθαρωδού) προς τα δεξιά, από τον οποίο σώζεται ο αυχένας και το πίσω μέρος της κεφαλής, όλο το σώμα από το στήθος και κάτω, μικρό μέρος του αριστερού πήχυ, ο δεξιός ώμος και μεγάλο τμήμα του δεξιού χεριού. Ο μουσικός φορεί ζωσμένο στη μέση χιτώνα και ιμάτιο που πέφτει από τον δεξιό ώμο, και κρατά κιθάρα, από την οποία σώζονται έξι χορδές. Στο κεφάλι του φορεί στεφάνι και ταινία τα οποία διακρίνονται ελάχιστα στις φωτογραφίες (Εικ. 6–7).6 Στα αριστερά του μουσικού υπάρχει απλός, χωρίς βάση, κιονίσκος με αγαλμάτιο Αθηνάς στην κορυφή του (σώζεται το κεφάλι και η αρχή των ώμων της θεάς, Εικ. 7–8). Η θεά στο υψωμένο δεξί χέρι της θα κρατούσε δόρυ που δεν σώζεται, ενώ στο κεφάλι φορεί κράνος που μοιάζει με στρογγυλό καπέλο με γείσο, στο οποίο επικάθεται ένα σχηματοποιημένο λοφίο, ίδιο ακριβώς με το λοφίο του κράνους της θεάς στην πρόσθια όψη. Το άκρο μιας ελαφρά λοξής γραμμής μπροστά της δεν είναι αρκετό για να υποθέσουμε το αντικείμενο που κρατούσε η θεά στο αριστερό της χέρι.7 Σε αυτή την όψη του αγγείου ενδέχεται να υπήρχε και άλλος κιονίσκος, στα δεξιά του μουσικού, ενώ η ύπαρξη κιονίσκων στην πρόσθια όψη πρέπει να αποκλειστεί.8 Στο αγγείο δεν σώζονται κατά προσέγγιση (βλ. Eικ. 7). 5 Απ’ όσο γνωρίζω, το χαρακτηριστικό αυτό είναι μοναδικό στους ύστερους παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς. 6 Για την κιθάρα, βλ. Σ. Μιχαηλίδης, Εγκυκλοπαίδεια της αρχαίας ελληνικής μουσικής (1982) λ. κιθάρα. Βλ. επίσης Μ. ΜaasJ. McIntosh Snyder, Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece (1989) 53–70. 165–166. 171–175, για την εξέλιξη του οργάνου στην αρχαιότητα, τον τρόπο παιξίματος, την ενδυμασία των μουσικών κλπ., και Μουσών Δώρα, Μουσικοί και χορευτικοί απόηχοι από την αρχαία Ελλάδα (2003) σποραδικά. 7 Διακρίνεται ελάχιστα αλλά σαφώς στην Εικ. 8, μεταξύ του κεφαλιού της θεάς και της κάθετης συρραφής των οστράκων. 8 Για κιονίσκους, βλ. Tsouklidou (2003) 387 σημ. 16.

Δέσποινα Τσουκλίδου

111

επιγραφές, η ύπαρξή τους όμως στα ελλείποντα τμήματα του αγγείου δεν μπορεί να αποκλειστεί.

Η χρονολόγηση του αγγείου

Εικ. 2. Αμφορέας Α16500α, πρόσθια όψη.

Εικ. 3. Αμφορέας Α16500β, πρόσθια όψη.

Εικ. 4. Αμφορέας Α16500γ, οπίσθια όψη.

Για την χρονολόγηση του αμφορέα ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία παρουσιάζει τόσο το σχήμα όσο και η διακόσμησή του. Έτσι, στην περιοχή του λαιμού, ο μεταξύ των λαβών δακτύλιος, ο οποίος εδώ χωρίζεται πρωτότυπα στα δύο με αύλακα, εξακολουθεί να παραμένει στο μέσον σχεδόν του λαιμού, χωρίς να εμφανίζει την ανύψωση προς το χείλος που παρουσιάζουν (από το δεύτερο σχεδόν μισό του 1ου αι. π.Χ.9) οι αμφορείς που προσδιορίζονται ρωμαϊκοί.10 Ως προς το σώμα του αγγείου εν γένει, σημειώνουμε απλώς τις βαριές σε σχέση με άλλους ύστερους παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς αναλογίες,11 η σπάνις όμως ολόκληρων παναθηναϊκών αμφορέων ή αμφορέων που το σχήμα τους μπορεί με βεβαιότητα να αποκατασταθεί δεν επιτρέπει τη διάγνωση μιας γενικής εξέλιξης του σχήματός τους. Ως προς τη διακόσμηση του αγγείου, στην περιοχή του λαιμού λείπουν τα σχηματοποιημένα φύλλα που υπάρχουν συνήθως εκατέρωθεν του ανθεμίου που κοσμεί τον χώρο στους παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς του 2ου π.Χ. αιώνα.12 Επίσης η παρουσία των λογχωτών φύλλων αντί των γλωσσών πάνω από την μετόπη στην πίσω όψη αποτελεί καινοτομία που απομακρύνει το αγγείο από παγιωμένα για τους παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς διακοσμητικά σχήματα όπως είναι οι γλώσσες.13 Αν και το δημοσιευμένο υλικό λευκών παναθηναϊκών αμφορέων είναι ολιγάριθμο, η σύγκριση των εικονιζομένων μορφών στο αγγείο μας με τις αντίστοιχες στον λευκό παναθηναϊκό αμφορέα P8522 από την Αγορά, του πρώιμου 2ου αι. π.Χ., και στον επίσης λευκό παναθηναϊκό αμφορέα του Παυσιμάχου, των μέσων του ίδιου αιώνα, δείχνει την απομάκρυνση του ζωγράφου του αγγείου μας από την «φυσιοκρατικότερη» - στα μέτρα πάντα της αγγειογραφίας κατά την ελληνιστική εποχή – αντίληψη που εμφανίζει η εικονογράφηση αυτών των αγγείων (Εικ. 3, 4, 9, 10).14 Έτσι, η απόδοση των πτυχώσεων των ενδυμάτων είναι ξηρή, γραμμική και διακοσμητική και δεν επιτυγχάνει να αποδώσει π.χ. τη λειτουργία τους, τόσο σε σχέση με το ίδιο το ένδυμα όσο και με το σώμα που το φορεί. Παραστατική είναι η παραβολή του σωζόμενου κάτω μέρους της Αθηνάς του αμφορέα μας με τη θεά στον αμφορέα P8522 και στον αμφορέα του Παυσιμάχου, όπως και του μουσικού

Το χρονολογικό αυτό στοιχείο προέρχεται από αδημοσίευτο ακόμη σχετικό υλικό που μελετά η γράφουσα. Βλ. Εdwards, πίν. 88, αρ. 24. 25. 11 Βλ. Tsouklidou (2003) εικ. 2 a-c. 12 Βλ. Tsouklidou (2001) 34 σημ. 5 και Τsouklidou (2003) 386 σημ. 8. 13 Αν και τα φύλλα αποδίδονται σχηματοποιημένα, πρόκειται πιθανότατα για φύλλα ελιάς με καρπούς, τα οποία βλέπουμε και σε παναθηναϊκούς αμφορείς του β´ μισού του 4ου αι. π.Χ., στην πρόσθια όψη τους, στο μεταξύ των λαβών τμήμα του λαιμού , βλ. London, British Museum B 607 (άρχων Πυθόδηλος, 336/5 π.Χ.), Berlin, Staatliche Antikensammlungen 3981 (άρχων Ευθύκριτος 328/7 π.Χ.), Μ. Βentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren. Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (1998) αρ. 4086, πίν. 119, και 4099, πίν. 128 αντίστοιχα. 14 Tsouklidou (2003) πίν. 82, 1. 83, 1–3. Edwards, αρ. 41, πίν. 84. 86, σελ. 346. 9

10

112

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες

α

β

δ γ Εικ. 5. Αμφορέας Α16501 α-δ, συνανήκοντα όστρακα.

Εικ. 6. Αμφορέας Α16500γ, οπίσθια όψη. Κεφαλή μουσικού.

Εικ. 8. Αμφορέας Α16500α, οπίσθια όψη. Αγαλμάτιο Αθηνάς.

Εικ. 7. Αμφορέας Α16500α/γ, οπίσθια όψη. Μουσικός.

Δέσποινα Τσουκλίδου

113

του αγγείου μας με τους μουσικούς στους αμφορείς P 8522 και P10431 της Αγοράς ή ακόμη με τη Νίκη στον αμφορέα του Παυσιμάχου.15 Η γραμμική και διακοσμητική τάση είναι σαφής, ενώ επιπλέον στο ένδυμα του μουσικού του αγγείου μας ο ζωγράφος, αβέβαιος για την πλαστικότητα με την οποία έχει αποδώσει το ιμάτιό του, χρωματίζει σκουρότερα το εσωτερικό των πτυχώσεών του για να δηλώσει βάθος. Ενδιαφέρουσα πάντως είναι και η σύγκριση της Αθηνάς μας με την Αθηνά του (μελανόμορφου) παναθηναϊκού αμφορέα P18008 από την Αγορά, με την οποία υπάρχει σαφής τεχνοτροπική συγγένεια ως προς το ένδυμα, τόσο στο κάτω μέρος του όσο και στα ελάχιστα σωζόμενα τμήματα του άνω κορμού (απόδοση ιδίως της παρυφής της αιγίδας - όφεις ;- με απλά, ανεστραμμένα εδώ, τμήματα κύκλου, Εικ. 5α, 5β, 11).16 Ως προς το κράνος, τέλος, της Αθηνάς, στην πληρέστερη μορφή που το βλέπουμε στη θεά επί του κιονίσκου αλλά και στην αποσπασματική του μορφή στην κύρια όψη του αγγείου, αυτό αποτελεί εξέλιξη του κράνους στον αμφορέα PA 36 από τον Κεραμεικό, που χρονολογείται στο 98/7 π.Χ.17 Περαιτέρω εξέλιξη του κράνους αυτού αποτελεί το κράνος στο όστρακο από ρωμαϊκό παναθηναϊκό αμφορέα της Αγοράς P 8961,18 ο λόφος του οποίου μοιάζει πολύ με του αμφορέα μας. Συνεκτιμώντας, συνεπώς, όλα τα παραπάνω στοιχεία, θα μπορούσαμε να τοποθετήσουμε χρονικά το αγγείο μας μέσα στο πρώτο μισό του 1ου αι. π.Χ., επεκτείνοντας έτσι τη σειρά των λευκών παναθηναϊκών αμφορέων και στην ύστερη αυτή εποχή. Εικ. 9. Αμφορφέας Παυσιμάχου (Α 6103).

Μουσικοί αγώνες και έπαθλα

Με το νέο αγγείο αποκτούμε έναν ακόμη κρίκο στην αλυσίδα των λευκών παναθηναϊκών αμφορέων-επάθλων σε μουσικούς αγώνες. Οι μουσικοί αγώνες αποτελούσαν μέρος της γιορτής των Παναθηναίων από τον 6ο ήδη αιώνα μέχρι και την ύστερη ελληνιστική εποχή, όπως μαρτυρείται τόσο από τις άφθονες παραστάσεις στα αγγεία, ιδίως. κατά τους αρχαϊκούς χρόνους, όσο και από φιλολογικές ή επιγραφικές πηγές. Στο μακρό αυτό διάστημα είναι φυσικό ότι υπέστησαν αλλαγές στη μορφή, την οργάνωση κλπ.· μάλιστα ο ίδιος ο Περικλής φαίνεται ότι συνδέεται με επανεισαγωγή τους ύστερα από βραχύχρονη διακοπή ή με αναδιοργάνωση τους.19 Όπως παραδίδει ο Αριστοτέλης ([Αθ. Πολ.] 60. 3), τα έπαθλα των μουσικών αγώνων των Παναθηναίων ήταν «αργύριον και χρυσά», ενώ επιγραφή που χρονολογείται στο 380–370 π.Χ. (IG ΙΙ2 2311, Εικ. 1 στη σελ. 118),20 15 Για τον αμφορέα P10431, βλ. Edwards, αρ. 48, πίν. 85, σελ. 347 και για την Νίκη στον αμφορέα του Παυσιμάχου, Tsouklidou (2003) πίν. 84, 1–2. 16 Edwards, αρ. 19, πίν. 86, σελ. 341. Το αγγείο βρέθηκε σε σύνολο ευρημάτων πρώιμων ρωμαϊκών χρόνων και έχει χρονολογηθεί στο τρίτο τέταρτο του 2ου αι. π.Χ. Όμως η γραμμικότητα και ξηρότητα της σχεδίασής του σε σχέση με άλλους αμφορείς της ίδιας εποχής θα μπορούσε να οδηγήσει σε αναθεώρηση της χρονολόγησής του προς τα κάτω. Αρκούμεθα εδώ να σημειώσουμε απλώς τη συγγένεια με τον λευκό αμφορέα μας, χωρίς να μπορούμε να προχωρήσουμε σε άλλες σκέψεις λόγω ελλείψεως περισσότερων στοιχείων. 17 J. Frel, Panathenäische Preisamphoren, Kerameikos-Heft 2 (1973) εικ. 32. 18 Edwards, αρ. 13, πίν. 77, σελ. 339. Το όστρακο προέρχεται από υστερορρωμαϊκό σύνολο ευρημάτων. 19 Για γενική πραγμάτευση των μουσικών αγώνων των Παναθηναίων, βλ. Kotsidu. H. A. Shapiro στο Neils (1992) 53–75 και J. A. Davison, JHS 78, 1958, 33–41. Για τον ρόλο του Περικλή, στον οποίο ο Πλούταρχος αποδίδει την εισαγωγή των μουσικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια, βλ. Davison, ό.π. 41. Τιβέριος (1989) 25 σημ. 31. 53. Kotsidu, 31. 34. Maas - McIntosh Snyder, ό.π. (σημ. 6) 61 και σημ. 39. Shapiro, ό.π. 57. Tsouklidou (2003) 384 σημ. 3. 20 Για δημοσίευση της επιγραφής, βλ. SIG αρ. 1055, σελ. 209 κε. M. Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca II (1969) 362 κε. Επίσης για την επιγραφή και τη χρονολόγησή της, βλ. Μ. Τιβέριος, ΑΔελτ 29, 1974, Α, 147–148. H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (1977)

114

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες

Εικ. 10. Αμφορέας P 8522 από την Αγορά. Αθηνά και μουσικός. Σχεδιαστική απόδοση από G. R. Edwards, Hesperia 26, 1957, πίν. 86, αρ. 41.

η οποία πιστεύεται ότι αποδίδει το πρόγραμμα των αγώνων μετά από αναδιοργάνωσή τους, μας πληροφορεί αναλυτικότερα για στεφάνια ορισμένης αξίας από πολύτιμο μέταλλο και για χρηματικά ποσά που δίνονταν στους νικητές των αγώνων αυτών. Το μεγαλύτερο βραβείο, χρυσό στεφάνι αξίας 1000 δραχμών και χρηματικό έπαθλο 500 αργυρών δραχμών, το έπαιρνε ο πρώτος κιθαρωδός, ενώ στεφάνια μικρότερης αξίας δίνονταν επίσης στον πρώτο αυλωδό, τον πρώτο κιθαριστή και τον πρώτο αυλητή .21 Η πρακτική αυτή ίσχυε ασφαλώς για τον 4ο αι. π.Χ., δεν γνωρίζουμε όμως με ασφάλεια αν εφαρμοζόταν και σε παλαιότερους χρόνους. Για το θέμα έχουν υποστηριχθεί δύο απόψεις. Σύμφωνα με την πρώτη, η οποία στηριζόταν στην ύπαρξη ενός μοναδικού μέχρι πρόσφατα παναθηναϊκού αμφορέα-επάθλου με παράσταση κιθαριστή στην Αγ. Πετρούπολη (Eρμιτάζ 17295), ο οποίος χρονολογείται στο 430–420 π.Χ.,22, τα έπαθλα που δίνονταν στους νικητές των μουσικών αγώνων των Παναθηναίων ήταν ίδια με τα έπαθλα των γυμνικών και ιππικών αγωνισμάτων, δηλ. αμφορείς ελαίου. Στα τέλη όμως του 5ου αι., μετά την εκδίωξη των Τριάκοντα και την αποκατάσταση της Δημοκρατίας στην Αθήνα, η πρακτική αυτή άλλαξε με νομοθετική ρύθμιση του 402 π.Χ., εφαρμογή της οποίας θεωρείται ότι αποδίδει η κατά είκοσι και πλέον χρόνια μεταγενέστερη επιγραφή IG ΙΙ2 2311.23 Κατά την δεύτερη άποψη, αντιθέτως, η βράβευση με «αργύριον και χρυσά» ίσχυε και πριν από τον 4ο αι. π.Χ., ενώ η ύπαρξη του παναθηναϊκού αμφορέα με παράσταση μουσικού στην Αγ. Πετρούπολη είχε ερμηνευτεί ως παρέκβαση της πρακτικής αυτής, ίσως λόγω του Πελοποννησιακού πολέμου, 35. A. W. Johnston, BSA 82, 1987, 125–129. P. Valavanis, AA 1987, 476. Kotsidu , 100–101. Shapiro ό.π. (σημ. 19) 57 και σημ. 39. J. Neils στο Neils (1992) 15–16. Βλ. και τις ανακοινώσεις των M. Tiverios, S. V. Tracy στον παρόντα τόμο. 21 Για τα βραβεία, βλ. M. F. Vos στο ENTHOUSIASMOS, Essays on Greek and Related Pottery Presented to J. M. Hemelrijk (1986) 122. 124. Τιβέριος (1989) 31–33. Parke, ό.π. (σημ. 20) 35. Kotsidu, 100–101. Shapiro ό.π. (σημ. 19) 57 και σημ. 39. 58. Για ανασύνθεση του προγράμματος των μουσικών αγώνων, βλ. Kotsidu, 56–62. Επίσης Shapiro, ό.π. (σημ. 19) 58. Π. Βαλαβάνης, Ιερά και αγώνες στην αρχαία Ελλάδα (2004) 366. Ζ. Παπαδοπούλου στο Μουσών Δώρα, ό.π. (σημ. 6) 53. A. Γουλάκη-Βουτυρά στο Αγών, Κατάλογος Έκθεσης, (2004) 46–51. Για ανασύνθεση του όλου προγράμματος των αγώνων των Παναθηναίων, βλ. Neils, ό.π. ( σημ 20) 15. 22 Για τον αμφορέα, βλ. Bentz, ό.π. (σημ. 13) 152 αρ. 5179, πίν. 81, με βιβλιογραφία. 23 A. Hönle στο W. Hoepfner, Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgbauten, Kerameikos Χ (1976) 243. Valavanis ό.π. (σημ. 20) 475. Kotsidu, 88. 100–102. R. Hamilton στο Neils (1996) 138.

Δέσποινα Τσουκλίδου

115

όταν υπήρξε ανάγκη εξοικονόμησης πολύτιμων μετάλλων.24 Την πρώτη άποψη φαίνεται να ισχυροποιεί ιδιαίτερα η εμφάνιση και δεύτερου ενεπίγραφου παναθηναϊκού αμφορέα με παράσταση μουσικού, ο οποίος παρουσιάστηκε σε πρόσφατη δημοσίευση το 2003. Ο αμφορέας, ο οποίος βρέθηκε στην Κυρηναϊκή και χρονολογείται στο δεύτερο μισό του 5ου αι. π.Χ., απεικονίζει αγώνα αυλητικής, ο οποίος μάλιστα διεξάγεται μπροστά στην ίδια τη θεά, που παριστάνεται ένοπλη και καθήμενη στην οπίσθια όψη του αγγείου.25 Στον τρόπο βράβευσης των μουσικών αγώνων επισυμβαίνει μια νέα αλλαγή κάποια εποχή μέσα στον 3ο αι π.Χ., όπως υποδεικνύει η εμφάνιση των λευκών παναθηναϊκών αμφορέων, αν και δεν υπάρχουν γι’αυτό γραπτές μαρτυρίες.26 Μας είναι άγνωστοι οι λόγοι που την υπαγόρευσαν, όμως στον ταραγμένο για την Αθήνα 3ο αι. π. Χ., με την υποταγή της πόλης στην μακεδονική εξουσία, την οικονομική δυσπραγία, τις συχνές σιτοδείες και, τέλος, την ανάκτηση της ελευθερίας της, το 229 π.Χ., με την καταβολή πολύ μεγάλου χρηματικού ποσού για την αποζημίωση του Εικ. 11. Αμφορέας P 18008 από την Αγορά. Αθηνά. Σχεδιαστική απόδοση στρατεύματος κατοχής,27 είναι βέβαιο ότι θα από G. R. Edwards, Hesperia 26, 1957, πίν. 86, αρ. 19. υπήρξαν αρκετοί λόγοι εξοικονόμησης πόρων, και μάλιστα πολύτιμων μετάλλων, ώστε να επανέλθει μια πρακτική που, ούτως ή άλλως, είχε ήδη εφαρμοστεί στο παρελθόν.28 Εάν όντως αιτία ήταν η εξοικονόμηση μετάλλων, τότε οι λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς, (που δεν περιείχαν παναθηναϊκό λάδι), ενδέχεται να αντικατέστησαν στα βραβεία των δημοφιλών νικητών των μουσικών αγώνων μόνο το μέρος εκείνο του βραβείου που εκφραζόταν με στεφάνια από πολύτιμα μέταλλα, χωρίς να μπορούμε να αποκλείσουμε την περίπτωση να αντικατέστησαν το σύνολο του επάθλου. Οι παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς από μακρού ήδη είχαν αναδειχθεί σε σύμβολο όχι μόνο των πανελλήνιας και διεθνούς εμβέλειας αγώνων της Αθήνας αλλά και αυτής της ίδιας της πόλης, η οποία προβαλλόταν μέσα από αυτούς, ενισχύοντας σε όλη τη μετακλασική περίοδο το κύρος της ως κέντρου πολιτισμού και παιδείας.29 Ενδέχεται, συνεπώς, να μπορούσαν να υποκαταστήσουν σε συμβολική αλλά συγχρόνως εμπράγματη και ανταποδοτική (εξαργυρώσιμη) αξία τα πολύτιμα στεφάνια και τα αμέσως καταβαλλόμενα χρήματα.

Davison ό.π. (σημ. 19) 37. Τιβέριος (1989) 32. 34–35. Shapiro ό.π. (σημ.19) 60. Bentz ό.π. (σημ. 13) 16. M. Luni, QuadALibya 18, 2003, αρ. 19, σελ. 109, εικ. 18. 26 J. M. Barringer στο Ο. Palagia – S. V. Tracy (επιμ.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 B.C., Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24–26, 2001 (2003) 248. 27 Για την ιστορία της Αθήνας κατά τους ελληνιστικούς χρόνους, βλ. Ch. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (1997), και για το γεγονός της αποζημίωσης, στο ίδιο 124 κε. 28 Ο Edwards, 328 έχει διατυπώσει την άποψη ότι οι λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς ήταν μίμηση αργυρών αγγείων με χρυσή διακόσμηση . Βλ. και Barringer, ό. π. (σημ. 26), 248–250. 255. 29 D. G. Kyle στο Neils (1996) 122–123. P. Valavanis στο M. Bentz - N. Eschbach (επιμ.), Panathenaïka. Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (2001) 172–173. 24 25

116

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες

Συντομογραφίες Εκτός από τις πάγιες συντομογραφίες (ΑΑ 1997), χρησιμοποιoύνται εδώ και οι ακόλουθες: Edwards Kotsidu Neils (1992) Neils (1996) Τιβέριος (1989) Tsouklidou (2001) Tsouklidou (2003)

G. R. Edwards, Hesperia 26, 1957, 320–349 H. Kotsidu, Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit (1991) J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis. The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) J. Neils (ed), Worshipping Athena. Panathenaia and Parthenon (1996) M. Τιβέριος, Περίκλεια Παναθήναια. Ενας κρατήρας του ζωγράφου του Μονάχου 2335 (1989) D. Tsouklidou στο M. Bentz – N. Eschbach (επιμ.), Panathenaïka. Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (2001) 33–40, πίν. 13–17 D. Tsouklidou, ΑΜ 118, 2003, 383–395

Για τη σχεδίαση του αγγείου ευχαριστώ τον Σ. Μπονάτσο, καθώς και το προσωπικό των αποθηκών της Γ’ Εφορείας Προϊστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων για τις διευκολύνσεις κατά τη διάρκεια της μελέτης μου. Ευχαριστίες οφείλονται επίσης στον Π. Βαλαβάνη για τις πάντα εποικοδομητικές παρατηρήσεις του.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests Hans Rupprecht Goette

Introduction The Athenian democracy financed a major portion of citizen services, especially cultural events, by means of private sponsorship provided by wealthy citizens designated as choregoi.1 Such sponsors included the gymnasiarchs and choregoi for several festivals and competitions. Best known are the choregic offerings erected after victories in dithyrambic competitions at the City Dionysia:2 these took many forms and varied over time, from small bases with the choregic inscriptions on their faces to architectural structures that resemble temples. All primarily served as supports of the victory prize, i.e. the bronze tripod, which the victorious choregos received together with an ivy wreath from the Athenian state.3 This paper takes up another kind of choregic monument: those erected by sponsors of contests held at the Panathenaia. As we will see, unlike their Dionysia counterparts, it is much more difficult to define and locate the choregic monuments commemorating Panathenaic victories.

Terminology Part of the difficulty lies in determining exactly what constitutes a choregic monument. For example, tripods set up on bases are typical prizes given by the state to successful choregoi of the dithyrambic competitions in the Dionysia. The accompanying inscriptions name the sponsors of a tribe. When we look at the victory monuments (usually just the bases) for the Panathenaia, we cannot be sure if they were set up by the choregoi, the teams or single athletes. The inscriptions moreover suggest many and varied prizes for the several contests. So the question arises: what prize would a victorious choregos of a Panathenaic contest receive from the state for public display on a choregic monument? Two conditions must be met before we identify a choregic monument in commemoration of a Panathenaic competition: first, the contest has to be limited to Athenians, and second, the competition must be organized by a tribe.4

Literary and epigraphical sources Lysias’ speech 21 and IG II2 2311 (Fig. 1), both of the fourth century B.C., are the primary evidence for such contests. Boat races apart, there were five competitions fulfilling the conditions just mentioned: euandria, kyklios choros in a dithyrambic competition, pyrrhiche, lampadedromia (lampas), and anthippasia. The vicP. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (Cambridge 2000) passim; bibliography: 395–420. IG II2 3027–3062, 3073–3089; Wilson (supra n. 1) 21–25, 199–235. 3 RE Supplement 8 (1956) 861–888, s.v. Tripodes (H. Riemann); P. Amandry, BCH 100, 1976, 15–93; id., BCH 121, 1997, 445–487; H. R. Goette, in M. Fano Santi (ed.), Studi di archeologia in onore di Gustavo Traversari I (2004) 463–476. 4 In IG II2 2311 the tribal events are listed at the end (Fig. 1), so contests for Athenians are separated from those open to all: S. V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 146–147; J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 87–108, esp. 90–91 nn. 7, 11; Mind and Body, 43–44 with fig.; Agon, 340–341, no. 208 with fig. See also M. Tiverios, P. Themels, S. V. Tracy, this volume. On tribal competitions in Athens, see M. Rausch, Nikephoros 11, 1998, 83–105, esp. 95–102. 1 2

118

Hans Rupprecht Goette

Fig. 1. Athens, Epigraphical Museum 8070+8092. Detail of the Panathenaic prize list IG II2 2311.

tory prizes in at least four of these contests (the prize for the winning tribe of the anthippasia is not attested5) were oxen (Fig. 1) and a certain amount of money; this makes a remarkable difference from the olive oil (usually thought to have been handed over in Panathenaic amphorae6) or crowns awarded to athletic and musical competition winners. We can imagine that the animals were sacrificed and consumed by the victorious tribal groups as was the case for the naval race, where the members of the fastest boat received three bulls and additionally 200 meals. What is not clear is: to whom were the oxen awarded? Were the animals the prize of a l l members of the tribal team or were they bestowed on the choregos, who then invited his team for a meal? And since the prize was not an object to be set up like a tripod, what did the victorious choregos dedicate? An additional complication is the fact that there were prizes not only for the winning tribe but also for individual winners in a tribal Panathenaic contest – at least this is true of the torch race and seems to be true of the euandria as well; who, then, dedicated choregic monuments to commemorate the victory?

The monuments With these questions in mind, let us examine the evidence for the victory monuments associated with the five Panathenaic tribal contests. First, the euandria: this contest of “manly excellence” is much discussed. We do not know what it involved though speculation abounds.7 IG II2 3022 is a choregic inscription of the mid fourth century that mentions the euandria in addition to the lampadedromia at the Panathenaia. Unfortunately, the inscription has come down to us as a fragmentary marble slab, so we do not know the type of monument to which it belonged; was it, for example, part of a statue base? Evidence from a contemporary Attic writer, once thought to be Andocides (IV 42), supports the idea that the euandria was funded by a liturgy and executed according to tribal order. In Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Socrates claims that “no other city can bring together euandria to compare with those in Athens” – so the Panathenaic euandria must have provided a means for the Athenian state to promote its ideals of male physical and aesthetic excellence. But at present, what we know about the 5 6 7

Shear (171 n. 37) thinks it “highly likely that the successful team in the anthippasia” received oxen as well. See N. Eschbach and P. Themelis in this volume for a view that Panathenaic amphorae did not hold olive oil. Rausch (supra n. 4) 100–101, citing the ancient literary sources and the modern discussion.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests

119

Fig. 2. Athens, Acropolis Museum 3176+5460+2635. Statue base dedicated after a victory of the tribe of Oineis.

euandria is so vague that it is not possible to define it any further, nor can we associate with certainty any victory monument with it. Lampadedromia: as already noted, IG II2 3022 mentioning a victory in the torch race provides no information about the type of monument to which it belonged. All one can say is that the speech of “Andocides,” confirming that the contest was funded by a sponsor, allows us to posit that the inscription belonged to a monument of a choregos who funded teams of both a torch race a n d a contest of euandria. Torch races occurred not only at the Panathenaia but also at the festivals of the Prometheia and the Hephaisteia in Athens, the Nemesia at Rhamnous, the Bendideia at Piraeus and several other festivals honoring gods (Eros, Pan, Hermes) and heroes (Theseus, Heracles), at least in Classical times. Reliefs of Nemesis at Rhamnous were dedicated by the gymnasiarchs of the victorious teams.8 Scholia to Demosthenes and Aristophanes also attest to this practice. O. Palagia, in Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων. Mythes et cultes: Études d´iconographie en l´honneur de Lilly Kahil, BCH Supplement 38 (2000) 403–408. – For the torch race, see now Agon, 234–237; M. Bentz, this volume. 8

120

Hans Rupprecht Goette

Pointing to iconographical similarities with Attic vase paintings, F. Rausa has demonstrated that a large statue base with a relief depicting young athletes as apoxyomenoi in the Acropolis Museum might be connected with a victory monument after a torch race (Fig. 2 and Colour Pl. 10).9 The demotics attached to the preserved names of the athletes inscribed below the figures indicate that the team belonged to the tribe of Oineis. The findspot of the base, the Acropolis, suggests that the celebrated torch race took place at the Panathenaia but this remains hypothetical. Because the Athenian Acropolis was the most prominent place for dedications in Athens, one cannot exclude the possibility that the torch race was held in honor of another deity. I would moreover argue that it is possible to interpret the base as a victory monument for a contest of euandria. As both the main inscription with the dedication and the statue standing on the base are lost, we do not know the identity of the dedicant and whether he was named as a choregos or gymnasiarch; whether the monument was erected by an individual winner in a torch race or by the whole group of athletes, either lampadephoroi or contestants in the euandria; and the appearance of the statue or statues once placed on the base eludes us. Its long rectangular shape suggests that more than one statue originally stood on it; possibilities include, but are not limited to, a portrait of the sponsor who funded the team or of the individual winner, or images of a personification, deity, or heroes, such as the eponymous heroes of Oineis, or a depiction of the god honored by the contest. In sum, we must conclude that again we lack sufficient information to designate this monument as a choregic dedication with any degree of certainty. The same is true of the fragment of another Attic statue base in the Musée Rodin in Paris (CO 229).10 The depiction of athletes with torches makes it highly likely that the relief fragment is part of a monument commemorating a victory in a lampadedromia; but we do not know for which deity, at which festival, or by whom (choregos, gymnasiarch, or a member of the team) the dedication was made. Anthippasia: the situation here is more promising. We know three reliefs, two of them on bases erected after a tribal victory. Since Julia Shear has recently discussed these monuments in extenso, I can summarize the arguments briefly. 11 The statue base Agora I 7515 showing riders on the two long sides is a monument for a certain Hierophanes son of Polyaratos of Alopeke, who competed with the anthippasia team of the tribe Antiochis.12 Hierophanes may have been a hipparch or a phylarch, a point to which I shall return. Because he was not the dedicant (the tribe set it up in his honor), it is not truly a choregic monument. The base supported a pillar carrying the now lost and unknown dedication. The reliefs and the surviving inscription suggest that the original monument was intended to be seen from all sides. Shear proposed that a double sided relief crowned the pillar, similar to that set up by the tribe Leontis, now in the Agora Museum (Fig. 3).13 While one side of the Leontis relief shows a group – there were once about 15 figures – of youthful riders with Fig. 3. Athens, Agora Museum I 7167. Double sided relief by the tribe a bearded, older officer bringing up the rear, Leontis after a victory in the anthippasia. the inscription and a depiction of the heraldic 9 Athens, Acropolis Museum 3176+5460+2635: Mind and Body, 180–182, no. 71 with fig.; Rausa, 192–217, pls. 34–35; Agon, 38, fig. 2. – This base is now in the Museum of the History of the Ancient Olympic Games in Olympia. 10 J. Frel, Les sculpteurs attiques anonymes 450–300 (1969) 47, no. 335, pl. 42; Kosmopoulou, 203, no. 38, fig. 59. 11 Shear passim, with catalogue and bibliography of the related monuments: 175–180. 12 Shear, 177–178, pl. 6. 13 Athens, Agora I 7167: Mind and Body, 335–337, no. 226 with fig.; J. M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (1986) 121–122, figs. 96–97; Shear, 171, fig. 1; 177; Agon, 240–241, no. 128 with fig.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests

121

Fig. 4. Athens, National Museum 1733. “Bryaxis base”, dedicated by three phylarchs after a victory of the tribe Pandionis in the anthippasia.

figure of a lion on the reverse reveal that the tribe Leontis won an equestrian contest, which must have been the anthippasia. Although it seems an attractive idea that double reliefs crowned the pillars on top of bases like that in the Agora (I 7515, see n. 10), it is puzzling that part of the inscription on this base was written on the left, i.e. the short side and perhaps continued on the fourth or right side, which is not preserved. The closest parallel to the Agora base is the so-called Bryaxis base in the National Museum (Fig. 4),14 also found in the Agora and also decorated with reliefs not only on one or two sides but on three, while the fourth is inscribed with three names (father and two sons) of phylarchs from the tribe Pandionis.15 That the phylarchs were victorious in the anthippasia is noted in the inscription and indicated in the reliefs by a large tripod, which the figures approach. The three riders are bearded as is the officer on the Leontis relief (Fig. 3), therefore the man at the rear of the riders on the Agora base should be interpreted as a phylarch as well. The tripod is a common victory token. It appears on other monuments commemorating victories at the 14 Athens, National Museum 1733: Travlos, Athens, 18, figs. 24–25; Mind and Body, 320–321, no. 205 with fig.; Kaltsas, 254, no. 530 with fig.; Kosmopoulou, 190–191, no. 27, fig. 46; for the reconstruction of the tripod on top of this base: N. Pharaklas, ArchDelt 24 A, 1969, 59–65. 15 IG II2 3130.

122

Hans Rupprecht Goette

Panathenaia.16 One example is a base in the National Museum,17 bearing the relief of a racing four-horse chariot with the charioteer in the typical long garment; he (or more probably the owner of the quadriga) should be interpreted as the dedicant of the monument.18 In any case it is highly probable that this monument celebrated a success in a quadriga race, one of the most prestigious contests of the Panathenaia.19 The prize for such a victory was a large quantity of olive oil. Thus, the tripod depicted on the base does not signify the actual prize given to the winner but simply symbolizes victory, and we are inclined to draw the same conclusion in the case of the Bryaxis base as well: it does not necessarily represent the prize for the winning tribe in the anthippasia. The circular depression with a cavity in its center on top of the Bryaxis base probably supported a small column. It was once thought that the column formed the middle support of a tripod, but if this was the case, there should be three smaller cavities around it for the tripod legs. Since these do not exist, Pharaklas and Kaltsas conclude that a small tripod was erected on top of the support, which may have been either round or three-sided. Such a reconstruction – a tripod on a support – would be visible from all sides like the base was. A similar reconstruction of the monument on the base Agora I 7515 is quite plausible. In any case, it is not possible to determine if the anthippasia monuments were erected by the choregos on behalf of the tribe: not enough is preserved to declare them choregic monuments rather than victory monuments erected by individuals. Kyklios choros performed by boys and men was the fourth tribal contest of the Panathenaia. It may have comprised a performance very similar to the Dionysia – very little is in fact known about this competition at the Panathenaia. It is not even attested as a tribal event and so the liturgical support can be doubted. But because of the great importance attached to dithyrambic competitions in major Athenian choral festivals,20 we may plausibly expect the tribal order at the Panathenaia as well. What we do know is that kyklioi choroi danced and sang at both the Lesser and the Greater Panathenaia. A possible depiction of this dithyrambic competition appears on the left block of the well known Atarbos base in the Acropolis Museum (Fig. 5).21 Seven men in himatia – divided into two groups of four and three – are led by a much discussed female figure which may be interpreted as a personification of the festival. The inscription on the upper moulding states that the monument was erected to commemorate a victorious kyklios choros of men. Julia Shear has discussed this monument in detail. She showed convincingly that the whole Atarbos base, consisting of two blocks, has two phases, and that the enlargement with the block of the men´s chorus took place within the same year because the archon’s name inscribed on the right block (Fig. 5) seems to date both events. This seems the most plausible explanation, but if we follow Shear´s argument that such bases 16 It is worth mentioning here that “there is no evidence that tripods were ever awarded to victors at the Panathenaia,” Shear, 171 n. 37. 17 Athens, National Museum 2784: Kaltsas, 222, no. 461 with fig.; Kosmopoulou, 196–197, no. 32, fig. 51; Agon, 182, no. 72 with fig. – There is an unpublished base with a similar depiction in the Elis Museum (Λ 88): Kosmopoulou, 198–199, no. 34, fig. 53: this base seems to be Attic – a detailed publication including a description of the other sides would clarify this matter. – On chariot races: Agon, 178–187. 18 The broken upper surface carries a square cutting for a pillar on the left and two irregular cuttings for a statue on the right. 19 These monuments – if related to Panathenaic contests – are obviously not choregic dedications because chariot races were not tribal competitions. In this respect they are similar to the bases with apobates scenes (compare the north and south friezes of the Parthenon, cf. P. Schultz in this volume): a) Athens, Acropolis Museum 1326: I. Trianti, Το Μουσείο Ακροπόλεως (1998) 399 with fig.; Kosmopoulou, 210, no. 43, fig. 64; Shear, 178, pl. 5 a.b; – b) Athens, Agora Museum S 399: Mind and Body, 299, no. 187 with fig.; Kosmopoulou, 182–183, no. 20, fig. 38; Shear, 176, pl. 5 c–d. Since there is anathyrosis (Shear: “rusticated panel”) on both sides of this base below the upper moulding two more blocks seem to have been attached (later, in a second phase of this monument?) to this block; this reconstruction is supported by the cuttings for two stelai on the upper surface. Votive reliefs (not bases for victory monuments) with apobates scenes are known from other sites, for example, the Amphiareion of Oropos, where they commemorated apobates victories during the Amphiareia: c) Athens, National Museum 1391: Mind and Body, 297–298, no. 186 with fig.; Agon, 241–242, no. 129 with fig.; – d) Berlin, Staatliche Museen 725: C. Blümel, Die klassisch griechischen Skulpturen (1966) 72, no. 85, fig. 121; LIMC I (1981) s.v. Amphiaraos, no. 63 with fig. (I. Krauskopf). Another example, in the Volos Museum, comes from Mylai: H. Biesantz, Die thessalischen Grabreliefs (1965) 126, L 56, pl. 50; Αγώνες και αθλήματα στην αρχαία Θεσσαλία, exh. cat. Volos Museum (2004) no. 22. 20 P. Wilson, in D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World (2003) 163–196, esp. 167–170, 182–184; Shear, 173 n. 46. 21 Athens, Acropolis Museum 1338: Mind and Body, 210, no. 101 with fig. (right block); Rausa, 226, pl. 36, 1–2; Shear, pls. 2 – 3; bibliography: 176; add Trianti (supra n. 19); Kosmopoulou, 205–206, no. 39, fig. 60.

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests

123

Fig. 5. Athens, Acropolis Museum 1338. Atarbos base.

Fig. 6. Athens, Acropolis Museum 6465+6465a. Xenokles base.

might have been pre-fabricated and “were on hand when the victor entered the shop,” it is possible that both blocks were commissioned at the same time and after the same festival. Only the difference in letter sizes – the dedicant’s and archon’s names were cut in larger letters than the text – might be an argument in favour of an enlargement after a second festival in the same year. But if we explain the bigger size of the lettering of the names as a means of emphasizing the importance of the individuals named (the victorious events could easily be made out from the pictures) then it seems possible that the relief block with the men´s chorus shows a tribal victory at the Panathenaia. The top of the right part of the base clearly has two phases as Shear has explained. If the left block of the Atarbos base held a monument commemorating a victory in the Dionysia as she seems to prefer, one would expect – as attested by many bases – the cavities to accommodate a bronze tripod. But there was a statue instead. Shear suggested a bronze statue of the choregos, Atarbos himself. This is not easy to imagine, especially since two additional statues stood on the right block, one bigger than the other. The reconstruction remains hypothetical, but I would like to propose that the eponymus hero of the winning tribe stood on the left, while the right block held a singer of the men´s chorus and a dancer of the youths’ or boys’ pyrrhiche. Pyrrhiche: with the Atarbos base (Fig. 5) and its problems of interpretation we come to the last competition commemorated by choregic monuments, the pyrrhiche, a militaristic tribal contest danced by boys, (“beardless”) epheboi, and men. Besides the Atarbos base there are two other bases commemorating this Panathenaic competition. The Xenokles base in the Acropolis Museum (Fig. 6) was dedicated by the well known politician Xenokles

124

Hans Rupprecht Goette

Fig. 7. Athens, National Museum 3854. Base for a choregic dedication of a man from Pallene after a victory at the City Dionysia and in the pyrrhiche contest at the Panathenaia.

of Sphettos as stated by the inscription. 22 Again we do not know what stood on this large base – certainly an impressive statue or two. As the inscription runs directly above the heads of the pyrrhic dancers, I would suggest that there was no other inscription on the plinth of the statue or elsewhere. Thus it seems that Xenokles would not have been named as choregos of the tribal team, and there was perhaps no information on the date and the victorious tribe. It is therefore possible that Xenokles was simply a member of the team and erected the monument as one of the winners. The third example of a dedication after a victory in the pyrrhiche contest at the Greater Panathenaia is a base in the National Museum (Fig. 7).23 The inscription mentions a choregia of the boys’ pyrrhiche at the “Panathenaia ta megala” and the relief shows three naked youths, two of them wearing helmets and holding shields and spears, similar to other pyrrhiche images. But there is a major iconographical difference: one of the pyrrhichistai stands on another’s shoulder in a stance reminiscent of the iconography of Athena Promachos. This scene has no parallel in Greek art and is usually interpreted as a celebration after a tribal victory, the tribe being represented by only three members. The inscription is explicit: the monument commemorates a choregia of the pyrrhiche;24 this is particularly noteworthy because the monuments in honor of tribal victories at the Panathenaia already discussed are not certain dedications of choregoi. This base is usually thought to have been erected mainly to celebrate a victory in the pyrrhiche, and the relief scene is identified as its front face. If we turn to the right side of the base (Fig. 7 right), we find another inscription, written alone on the block, without an additional relief. The second inscription is again a choregic one and could be restored as naming a man from the deme of Pallene who won with a boys’ chorus at the Dionysia in Athens. The size and style of the letters are identical to those of the inscription on the other side. Additional, smaller letters below the choregic inscription name Amymon, probably the sculptor of the monument which stood on the base. It is now impossible to determine if it was a statue or a tripod because the top of the base is damaged.25 The sculptor’s signature on this side indicates that this is the front of the monument. The best parallel is provided by the Bryaxis base (Fig. 4), where the sculptor’s signature appears below the names of the phylarchs, while the three other sides are decorated with reliefs. This means that the dedicants are named on the front face and I would think this also applies to the pyrrhiche monument in the National Museum. Athens, Acropolis Museum 6465+6465a: Rausa, 217–234, pl. 37, 1–3; Kosmopoulou, 197–198, no. 33, fig. 52. Athens, National Museum 3854: C. Poursat, BCH 91, 1967, 102–110, figs. 1–3; Mind and Body, 207–210, no. 100 with fig.; Rausa, 225, pl. 37, 4; Kaltsas, 127, no. 242 with fig.; Kosmopoulou, 185–186, no. 23, fig. 42; Agon, 341–342, no. 209 with fig. 24 SEG 22, 103. 25 While there are no traces of a cutting for the monument on top we can see a circular cutting at the bottom of the fragmentary block which served for attaching the base to a (stepped?) pedestal. – I am very grateful to N. Kaltsas and M. Salta for allowing me to study the base in detail when it was removed from exhibition in May 2004. 22 23

“Choregic” or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests

125

This base is unfortunately heavily damaged, more than half of it being lost. So we do not know if there was a relief on the opposite side from that of the pyrrhichistai. One could imagine a scene of the boy’s chorus of the Dionysia, a similar motif as on the left block of the Atarbos base – but this has to remain hypothetical. At any rate, in addition to the sculptor’s signature, the layout of the inscription – the choregic inscription for the victory at the Dionysia – without a relief supports the view that this is the face of the base. We have to conclude that the pyrrichistai are depicted on the left side and that their victory was not the principal reason for the dedication of this monument, which is instead a memorial to a victory at the Dionysia. There is another example of such a combination, i.e. a choregic monument for a dithyrambic victory at the Dionysia which commemorates other liturgies on the sides: the Glaukon monument of 280/79 B.C. (Fig. 8). From twelve fragments found in the Dionysos theater in 1862, a monument can be reconstructed to form a small, roughly square Fig. 8. Athens, Epigraphical Museum 8707-8711: fragment of the building.26 The architrave in front bears the choregic right side of the Glaukon monument (IG II2 3079, corona III) cominscription, and the two sides showed, in addition to memorating a victory in the anthippasia. an ivy wreath in relief, six olive wreaths inscribed with six other liturgies or offices held by Glaukon. One of them reads, Panathenaia ta megala. We can imagine the bronze tripod given by the state to the choregos crowning the roof of this marble naiskos – this was the main purpose of the Glaukon monument: a dedication after a victory in a dithyrambic competition at the City Dionysia. We can see that this monument also commemorated other liturgies by the same person, and this provides a good parallel to the base in the National Museum with the relief of pyrrhichistai on its left side.

Conclusion This brief survey of memorials to victories in the tribal events of the Panathenaia has demonstrated the difficulties in determining which are true choregic monuments, i.e. set up by wealthy members of the tribes, who funded the tribal teams. Those that happen to be choregic dedications were set up primarily after a victory at the Dionysia, not the Panathenaia. This confirms the observation that the monuments erected in honor of Panathenaic victories were usually not as elaborate as the monuments dedicated by the choregoi of dithyrambic competitions of the City Dionysia.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the organizers, A. Choremi and O. Palagia, for inviting me to this interesting and stimulating colloquium; and J. M. Barringer for her helpful comments and for correcting my English. All photographs are by the author by kind permission of the directors of the Agora Museum, the Akropolis Museum, the Epigraphical Museum and the National Archaeological Museum.

26

IG II2 3079; H. R. Goette, AM 104, 1989, 97 listed under i; Goette (supra n. 3) 473 nn. 44–45.

126

Hans Rupprecht Goette

Abbreviations In addition to the abbreviations proposed by the German Archaeological Institute in AA 112, 1997 and in Archäologische Bibliographie, the following are used here: Agon Kaltsas Kosmopoulou

N. Kaltsas (ed.), ΑΓΩΝ, exh. cat., Athens, National Archaeological Museum (2004) N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (2002) A. Kosmopoulou, The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases in the Archaic and Classical Periods (2002) Mind and Body O. Tzachou-Alexandri (ed.), Mind and Body. Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece, exh. cat. Athens, National Archaeological Museum (1989) Rausa F. Rausa, AM 113, 1998, 191–234 Shear J. L. Shear, JHS 123, 2003, 164–180 Bibliographical notes are restricted to the most recently published literature where further references can also be found.

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως Πάνος Βαλαβάνης Αbstract The new victors’ lists published by Tracy and Habicht have triggered the suggestion put forward in this paper that the Stoa of Eumenes II and the Hellenistic stage of the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens formed part of a single building project, initiated by the king in order to celebrate the introduction of dramatic games at the Panathenaia, here dated to the period 178–162 B.C. The type and location of the Stoa are attributed to Eumenes himself, inspired by Pergamene practice. The Stoa was not put to the limited use described by Vitruvius but the terrace of 5,000 m2 spreading before it must have enhanced the social life of the city. Its construction turned a residential area into a monumentalized public space. The Hellenistic stage of the Theatre of Dionysus may have been due to Eumenes’ generosity because of his well-known interest in the god and in drama, and attests to his aim to associate Pergamon with Athens. The victors’ lists, naming representatives of all branches of Hellenistic royalty, are good evidence of the prestige of the games and of the Athenians’ ability to exploit them to their city’s advantage, as a source of income and gifts. The Panathenaic Games provided the opportunity for peaceful encounters among highly competitive Hellenistic rulers; their political significance on the international scene of the second century B.C. is comparable only to that of the Olympic Games.

Εισαγωγή Η δημοσίευση από τους καθ. S. V. Tracy και Ch. Habicht της νέας, μεγάλης επιγραφής με τους τρεις καταλόγους νικητών στους αγώνες των Παναθηναίων του 170, του 166 και του 162 π.Χ. πρόσθεσε ένα νέο κεφάλαιο στην ιστορία των Παναθηναϊκών αγώνων κατά τους ελληνιστικούς χρόνους. Πρόκειται για την αναφορά διεξαγωγής δραματικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια, σε τμήμα που σώζεται αποσπασματικά στο τέλος της τρίτης στήλης, δηλαδή αυτής που αναφέρεται στο 162 π.Χ.1 Ήταν από παλιά γνωστό, ότι μία από τις εκδηλώσεις των Παναθηναίων στα ύστερα χρόνια ήταν και οι δραματικοί αγώνες.2 Όμως η εισαγωγή τους τοποθετούνταν στους ρωμαϊκούς χρόνους, με αφορμή μιαν ενεπίγραφη βάση αναθήματος του 1ου αι. μ.Χ. που αναφέρει ότι ο αναθέτης και τραγωδίαν Παναθήναια τὰ Μεγάλα καινὴν διδάξας.3

Παρατηρήσεις στην επιγραφή SEG XLI 115, col. III 39–43 τοὺς δὲ σκηνικοὺς ἀγῶνας π[ca.10] εύξις ἐποίησε καὶ τοὺς ἐν τα[ca. 10] αις τοῖς εὐεργέταις ἡμέραν [ca. 10] ἀγωνισαμένους εἰσήγαγεν [ca. 11] τῆς πανηγύρεως ἐπέθηκε [ca. 12]

Η επιγραφή με τον κατάλογο των νικητών της χρονιάς 162 π.Χ. εμφανίζει μία, μοναδική μέχρι σήμερα, ιδιαιτερότητα: μετά το τέλος του καταλόγου των αγωνισμάτων και των νικητών, ακολουθεί κανονικό, συνεχές κείμενο, στο οποίο μεταξύ άλλων αναφέρονται και σκηνικοί (δραματικοί) αγώνες. Οι δύο μελετητές Tracy – Habicht, 203. SEG XLI 115 col. III 39–43. Γενικά για τη θεατρική δραστηριότητα κατά τους Ελληνιστικούς χρόνους βλ. G. M. Sifakis, Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama (1967). G. Xanthakis-Karamanos, Dramatica. Studies in Classical and post-Classical Dramatic Poetry (2002) 295–311. 2 Διογ. Λαερτ. 3, 56: τέτρασι δράμασιν ἠγωνίζοντο Διονυσίοις, Ληναίοις, Παναθηναίοις, Χύτροις. 3 IG II2 3157. Tracy – Habicht, 203. D. Tsouklidou, AM 118, 2003, 385–395, ιδ. 390–391. 1

128

Πάνος Βαλαβάνης

προβληματίζονται αρκετά για τη συμπλήρωση του ημιτελούς στίχου 39 και προτείνουν είτε τη συνήθη φράση τοὺς δὲ σκηνικοὺς ἀγῶνας π[άντας καλῶς] Ζεύξις ἐποίησεν, είτε την πιο ενδιαφέρουσα π[ρῶτος πάντων. Η αποδοχή της τελευταίας θα σήμαινε ότι οι δραματικοί αγώνες εισήχθησαν για πρώτη φορά στη γιορτή του 162 π.Χ.4 Χωρίς να υπεισέλθουμε ακόμη στην ουσία του θέματος, θα λέγαμε εκ των προτέρων ότι η συμπλήρωση π[ρῶτος πάντων στο συγκεκριμένο σημείο θα πρέπει να αποκλειστεί για δύο λόγους: α. Η ύπαρξη του άρθρου τους στην αρχή του στίχου 39 σημαίνει ότι οι σκηνικοί αγώνες δεν αναφέρονται στο σημείο αυτό του κειμένου για πρώτη φορά. Αλλιώς θα έπρεπε να έγραφε σκέτο σκηνικοὺς ἀγῶνας π[ρῶτος πάντων] Ζεύξις ἐποίησεν. β. το λεξιλόγιο και το υφολογικό περιβάλλον στο τελευταίο αυτό τμήμα της επιγραφής (στ. 39–43) προσιδιάζει σε λεκτικό τιμητικού ψηφίσματος για τον αναφερόμενο Ζεύξιν, στο οποίο ταιριάζει πολύ καλύτερα η συμπλήρωση π[άντας καλῶς. Οι παρατηρήσεις αυτές δεν σημαίνουν ότι αποκλείεται η πιθανότητα οι σκηνικοί αγώνες να εισήχθησαν το 162 π.Χ. Το αντίθετο. Η ύπαρξη στο στίχο 41 της λέξης ἡμέραν μπορεί να υποδηλώνει, όπως προτείνουν οι εκδότες, την προσθήκη μιας ακόμη ημέρας στη γιορτή, που θα ήταν απαραίτητη για τη διεξαγωγή των νέων αγώνων.5 Επίσης, το γεγονός ότι και ο Ζεύξις αναφέρεται χωρίς προσδιοριστικά στοιχεία (πατρωνυμικό και εθνικό) σημαίνει ότι το όνομά του, όπως ίσως και η ίδρυση των σκηνικών αγώνων, είχε αναφερθεί ξανά στην αρχή του κειμένου, προ του καταλόγου των νικητών. Αν λοιπόν στο ανώτερο μέρος της στήλης υπήρχε και κάποιο είδος προοιμίου, τότε θα μπορούσαμε να θεωρήσουμε ότι αυτός ο κατάλογος των νικητών των Παναθηναίων ήταν ενταγμένος σε κάποιο ψήφισμα, κάτι όμως το οποίο δεν έχει μέχρι σήμερα παράλληλο.6 Σε κάθε περίπτωση ωστόσο, είναι βέβαιο ότι το έτος 162 π.Χ., αν δεν είναι το έτος εισαγωγής των δραματικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια, είναι ένα ασφαλέστατο terminus ante quem για τη διεξαγωγή τους.7

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική Θεωρώντας ως αυτονόητο ότι οι δραματικοί αγώνες των Παναθηναίων, όπως και αυτοί των Μεγάλων Διονυσίων, τελούνταν στο Διονυσιακό θέατρο, μπορούμε να υποθέσουμε εύλογα ότι η εισαγωγή τους θα είχε ποικίλες συνέπειες στη μορφή του θεάτρου αλλά και στην τοπογραφία όλης της νότιας κλιτύος της Ακροπόλεως. Τις πιθανές αυτές συνέπειες θα προσπαθήσουμε να ανιχνεύσουμε παρακάτω. Ένα από τα πλέον πολύπλοκα και δυσεπίλυτα προβλήματα είναι η χρονολόγηση των φάσεων του σκηνικού οικοδομήματος του Διονυσιακού θεάτρου. Εκείνο που μας ενδιαφέρει εδώ, είναι ότι όλοι οι ερευνητές δέχονται ριζική ανακαίνισή του κατά τους Ελληνιστικούς χρόνους, στην οποία αποδίδουν την πρώτη λίθινη διώροφη σκηνή με υψηλό προσκήνιο. Η χρονολόγηση της φάσης αυτής, με βάση αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα, δεν μπορεί να γίνει με ακρίβεια. Συνήθως τοποθετείται γενικά μέσα στον 2ο αι. π.Χ., από άλλους στο α΄ μισό του 2ου αι. και από μερικούς ακόμη και γύρω στο 200.8 Δεν λείπουν βέβαια και απόψεις για κατασκευή της στον 1ο αι. π.Χ., μετά τις καταστροφές που υπέστησαν τα οικοδομήματα της νότιας κλιτύος της Ακροπόλεως από τον Σύλλα το 86.9 Επειδή όμως τα αρχιτεκτονικά δεδομένα είναι ανεπαρκή, η χρονολόγηση της εισαγωγής της διώροφης σκηνής συνδέεται και με τη σκηνική εξέλιξη του δράματος.10 Έτσι, τελευταία προτάθηκε ότι η σκηνική δραματουργία των ύστερων έργων του Μενάνδρου προϋποθέτει την ύπαρξη διώροφης σκηνής, άρα η αρχιτεκτονική της Tracy – Habicht, 203–205. Tracy, 147. Tracy – Habicht, 203–204. 6 Σημειώνουμε πάντως ότι οι περισσότεροι κατάλογοι νικητών σώζονται σπασμένοι στο ανώτερο και κατώτερο τμήμα τους. 7 Ενισχυτική της άποψης αυτής είναι η εμφάνιση ενός και μοναδικού μέχρι σήμερα λευκού παναθηναϊκού αμφορέα, επάθλου σε δραματικούς αγώνες των Παναθηναίων, με το όνομα του αγωνοθέτη Παυσιμάχου, που η Τsouklidou ό.π. (σημ. 3) χρονολογεί γύρω στο 150 π.Χ. H J. M. Barringer, στο O. Palagia, S. V. Tracy (επιμ.), The Macedonians in Athens. 322–229 B.C. (2003) 252 προτείνει, χωρίς όμως στοιχεία, πιθανή εισαγωγή δραματικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια ήδη από τα μέσα του 3ου αι. π.Χ. κατ’ επίδρασιν των δελφικών Σωτηρίων. 8 Γύρω στο 200 π.Χ. ο H. D. Blume, Einführung in das antike Theaterwesen (1978) 51. Tον 2ο αι. π.Χ. γενικά οι E. Fiechter, Antike griechische Theaterbauten. Das Dionysos Theater in Athen. Die Ruine (1935) 77 και H. Schleif, AA 1937, 26–51 ιδ. 40. Στο α΄ μισό του 2ου αι. π.Χ. οι T. B. L. Webster, Greek Theatre Production (1970) 22 και A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theater of Dionysus in Athens (1946) 214. 9 W. Dörpfeld – E. Reisch, Das griechische Theater (1896) 82 και L. Polacco, Il teatro di Dioniso –Eleutereo ad Atene (1990) 180. H. Froning στο S. Moraw, E. Nölle (επιμ.), Die Geburt des Theaters in der griechischen Antike (2002) 59. Στον 2ο αι. π.Χ. ή μετά το 86 π.Χ. η M. Bieber, The History of Greek and Roman Τheater (1961) 123. 10 Sifakis ό.π. (σημ. 1) 126–135. 4 5

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως

129

έκφραση θα πρέπει να είχε ολοκληρωθεί ήδη πριν το 290 π.Χ.11 Στο θέατρο της Πριήνης πάντως, όπου διαπιστώνεται ύπαρξη υπερυψωμένης σκηνής ήδη από το 300 π.Χ., ο A. von Gerkan υποστηρίζει εκ νέου ριζική ανακαίνισή της γύρω στο 170–160 π.Χ.12 Με βάση όσα αναφέρθηκαν παραπάνω, καθώς και με τα νέα δεδομένα της επιγραφής, μπορεί να υποστηριχθεί ο συσχετισμός των εργασιών για τη νέα σκηνή του θεάτρου του Διονύσου στο α΄ μισό του 2ου αι. π.Χ. με την εισαγωγή των δραματικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια. Το θέμα γίνεται ακόμα πιο ενδιαφέρον, αν η ενέργεια αυτή σχετιστεί με ένα άλλο μεγάλο έργο που έγινε στην περιοχή την ίδια ακριβώς εποχή, το οποίο μάλιστα συνδέεται αμέσως με το Διονυσιακό θέατρο: πρόκειται για την ανέγερση της στοάς του Ευμένους, του εντυπωσιακού οικοδομήματος των 163 μ. μήκους, που χάρισε στην πόλη των Αθηνών ο βασιλιάς της Περγάμου Ευμένης Β΄. Σχετικά με την ακριβή χρονολογία της ανοικοδόμησης της στοάς, οι περισσότεροι αρκούνται σε τοποθέτησή της γενικά μέσα στο χρονικό διάστημα της βασιλείας του Ευμένους B΄ (197–158 π.Χ.).13 Όμως, ειδικότερες μελέτες έχουν καταλήξει σε τοποθέτησή της στο β΄ μισό της βασιλείας του (180–160 π.Χ.), με βάση α. τη στιλιστική μελέτη των κιονοκράνων του οικοδομήματος14 και β. το γεγονός ότι την εποχή αυτή χρονολογούνται τα περισσότερα από τα μεγάλα αναθήματα του Ευμένους Β΄ στην ίδια την Πέργαμο και σε άλλες πόλεις και ιερά.15 Η χρονική εγγύτητα των δύο έργων, της ελληνιστικής επισκευής του θεάτρου και της ανοικοδόμησης της στοάς, η γειτονία τους στη νότια κλιτύ, καθώς και ο κοινός τους ρόλος στην υπηρεσία των δραματικών αγώνων, μας επιτρέπει να τα εντάξουμε σε ενιαίο οικοδομικό πρόγραμμα που, με αφορμή την εισαγωγή δραματικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια, στόχευε στην ανανέωση των σχετικών χώρων. Δωρητής μάλιστα και των δύο έργων θα μπορούσε να ήταν ο ίδιος ο Ευμένης, εφόσον διαθέτουμε αρκετά στοιχεία, που ενισχύουν μια τέτοια υπόθεση:

Ευμένης Β΄ και Διονυσιακό θέατρο Είναι γνωστή η στενή σχέση του ίδιου του βασιλέως αλλά και όλης της δυναστείας με τον Διόνυσο, που με το επίθετο καθηγεμὼν έπαιζε ιδιαίτερο ρόλο για τους Ατταλίδες και λατρευόταν στο θέατρο της Περγάμου.16 Η σχέση αυτή φαίνεται ότι οδήγησε τον Ευμένη σε μια ιδιαίτερη προτίμηση στην κατασκευή θεάτρων, εφόσον γνωρίζουμε ότι ο ίδιος κατέβαλε τα έξοδα για την οικοδόμηση ή ριζική επισκευή δύο τέτοιων οικοδομημάτων, και μάλιστα την ίδια περίοδο: τον χειμώνα του 160 π.Χ. του θεάτρου της Ρόδου, και το 160–158 π.Χ. της σκηνής του θεάτρου των Δελφών, που υπηρετούσε τη διεξαγωγή των μουσικών και δραματικών αγώνων των Πυθίων.17 Εκτός τούτου, φαίνεται ότι υπήρχε ιδιαίτερη σχέση των Περγαμηνών βασιλέων με το αθηναϊκό θέατρο του Διονύσου. Η αρχιτεκτονική μελέτη του θεάτρου της Περγάμου έδειξε ότι αποτελεί αντίγραφο του Διονυσιακού.18 Ακόμα είναι φανερό, και μόνο από την απλή αντιπαραβολή των κατόψεων, πως η όλη εικόνα του τμήματος της περγαμηνής ακρόπολης με το θέατρο, το ναό του Διονύσου και τη στοά αποδίδει την αντίστοιχη αθηναϊκή, στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως.19 Η σύγχρονη έρευνα δέχεται ανεπιφύλαχτα ότι πρόκειται για συνειδητή επιλογή του ίδιου του Ευμένους, που επιθυμούσε να τονίζει με κάθε τρόπο τους συσχετισμούς μεταξύ των δύο πόλεων.20 11 Βλ. π.χ. Η. D. Blume, Menander (1998) 49. S. Gogos, ÖJh 67, 1998, Beiblatt 84–108. Του ιδίου στο ΔΑΦΝΗ. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Σ. Ευαγγελάτο (2001) 69–75. Του ιδίου, Το αρχαίο θέατρο του Διονύσου. Αρχιτεκτονική μορφή και λειτουργία, 188–189. 12 A. von Gerkan, Das Theater von Priene (1921) 55 κ.ε., ιδ. 81. 13 Με βάση τα τελευταία δεδομένα ο Ευμένης δεν πέθανε το 159 αλλά το 158 π.Χ. Βλ. Habicht, 564 με σημ. 11. 14 H. von Hesberg, Konsolengeisa des Hellenismus und der frühen Kaiserzeit (1980) 27. Πρβλ. J. J. Coulton, The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (1976) 69. Σύγκριση επιμέρους αρχιτεκτονικών χαρακτηριστικών των περγαμηνών οικοδομημάτων με περγαμηνά αναθήματα εκτός Περγάμου βλ. τελ. B. Kidd, “The Doric Revival under the Attalids of Pergamon” (διδ. διατριβή, University of Missouri-Columbia 2003) σποραδικά. 15 Schmidt-Dounas 38. 65. Η. Schaaf, Untersuchungen zu Gebäudestiftungen in hellenistischer Zeit (1992) 88. 16 Schmidt-Dounas 64–65. 17 Την πληροφορία για το θέατρο της Ρόδου έχουμε από τον Διόδωρο 31. 36, που αναφέρει ότι η δωρεά συνδυάστηκε με την αποστολή 280.000 μεδίμνων σίτου στο νησί. Βλ. Bringmann, 244. Το οικοδόμημα δεν έχει βρεθεί. Για τις εργασίες στο θέατρο των Δελφών βλ. Sifakis ό.π. (σημ. 1) 106–108. Bringmann – v. Steuben, 148–153 και Schmidt-Dounas, 62–64. 18 Schmidt-Dounas, 65. 228–229. Schaaf ό.π. (σημ. 15) 89. 110. 19 Βλ. π.χ. Coulton ό.π. (σημ. 14) εικ. 55 και 102. 20 Ό.π. Με την ίδια έννοια έχει ερμηνευθεί και η ομοιότητα στην κάτοψη του ελληνιστικού Μητρώου στην Αγορά των Αθηνών

130

Πάνος Βαλαβάνης

Η ιδιαίτερη αυτή σχέση μας οδήγησε στη σκέψη ότι ο ίδιος βασιλιάς θα μπορούσε να έχει χρηματοδοτήσει και την κατασκευή της ελληνιστικής σκηνής του θεάτρου, την ίδια περίοδο που κατασκεύαζε και τη στοά που φέρει το όνομά του. Ένα άλλο στοιχείο που θα ενίσχυε την απόδοση και της ελληνιστικής σκηνής στον Ευμένη είναι ότι ένα τόσο δαπανηρό έργο δύσκολα θα το άντεχαν τα δημόσια οικονομικά του αθηναϊκού κράτους, που την εποχή αυτή δεν ήταν ιδιαίτερα ανθηρά. Είναι γνωστό άλλωστε, ότι όλα τα μεγάλα δημόσια έργα στην Αθήνα κατά τον 2ο αι. π.Χ. ήταν αποτέλεσμα των δωρεών ξένων ηγεμόνων, στο πλαίσιο της πολιτιστικής πολιτικής τους.21 Παρά το γεγονός ότι στην ελληνιστική σκηνή χρησιμοποιείται σε β΄ χρήση αρκετό υλικό από την προηγούμενη, λυκούργεια, φάση, αυτό δεν είναι αρκετό για να αποσυχετίσει την κατασκευή της ελληνιστικής σκηνής από τον ίδιο τον Ευμένη, αφού μπορεί να πρόκειται για έργο της αθηναϊκής πολιτείας, που όμως να εκτελέστηκε με βασιλικά χρήματα. Ανεξαρτήτως πάντως του ποιος ήταν ο εκτελεστής του έργου, τα στοιχεία είναι αρκετά για να αποδοθεί η ανοικοδόμηση της ελληνιστικής σκηνής του Διονυσιακού θεάτρου στην ίδια περίοδο, με αφορμή την εισαγωγή των δραματικών αγώνων στα Παναθήναια.

Το ιστορικό πλαίσιο Με βάση τα παραπάνω, εν μέρει ασφαλή και εν μέρει υποθετικά δεδομένα, μπορούμε να εκφράσουμε κάποιες σκέψεις σχετικά με τη διαδικασία που ίσως ακολουθήθηκε για την εκτέλεση των δύο αυτών έργων. Οι Αθηναίοι, απαλλαγμένοι πλέον, με τη βοήθεια των Περγαμηνών και των Ρωμαίων, από την απειλή του Φιλίππου Ε΄ της Μακεδονίας, προσπαθούν από τις αρχές του 2ου αι. π.Χ. αφενός να τονώσουν το πατριωτικό τους αίσθημα και αφετέρου να επανέλθουν στη διεθνή σκηνή.22 Ένα από τα ισχυρότερα μέσα, το οποίο είχε επανειλημμένα χρησιμοποιήσει για τους σκοπούς αυτούς η αθηναϊκή πολιτεία, ήταν και η γιορτή των Παναθηναίων. Σε μια εποχή πλήρους στρατιωτικής και οικονομικής αδυναμίας του αθηναϊκού κράτους, η γιορτή, μαζί φυσικά με τις φιλοσοφικές σχολές, ήταν το καταλληλότερο μέσο πολιτικής προβολής, για να θυμίσει και στους Αθηναίους αλλά και σε όλους τους Έλληνες τον ηγετικό ρόλο της πόλεως, τουλάχιστον στα πολιτιστικά πράγματα.23 Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι προχωρούν σε ανανέωση της γιορτής, αφού, στους καταλόγους των νικητών Παναθηναίων, από το 178 π.Χ. διαπιστώνεται σταδιακή διεύρυνση του προγράμματος, με αύξηση κυρίως των ιππικών αγωνισμάτων.24 Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της ανάπτυξης, θα πρέπει να εντάχθηκαν και οι δραματικοί αγώνες, θεσμός με μακρά ιστορία στην Αθήνα, που είχε προσφέρει πολλά στη διεθνή παρουσία της πόλεως. Η ενέργεια αυτή υπήρξεν απολύτως επιτυχής, αν κρίνουμε και από το γεγονός ότι η διάρκεια διεξαγωγής τους παρακολουθείται μέχρι και τους αυτοκρατορικούς χρόνους.25

Ευμένης Β΄ και Αθήνα Οι σχέσεις του Ευμένους με την Αθήνα είχαν αρχίσει ήδη από τότε που ήταν νεαρός πρίγκιπας και επιτάθηκαν με την ανάληψη της βασιλείας.26 Ήδη τον πρώτο χρόνο της αρχής του επισκέφθηκε ο ίδιος την Αθήνα27 και οι επαφές συνεχίστηκαν σταθερά σε όλο το διάστημα της βασιλείας του, όπως προκύπτει από πάμπολλα αθηναϊκά ψηφίσματα που τιμούν τον ίδιο ή συνεργάτες του. Τακτική ήταν επίσης η παρουσία αθηναϊκών πρεσβειών στην Πέργαμο.28 Αλλά η σχέση του βασιλέως με την Αθήνα αποκαλύπτεται κυρίως από την εμπλοκή του στα Παναθήναια, όπως διαπιστώνεται από τους καταλόγους των νικητών. Tο όνομα βασιλεὺς Εὐμένης βασιλέως Ἀττάλου της Ἀτταλίδος φυλῆς αναφέρεται τρεις φορές στις νικητήριες επιγραφές του α΄ μισού του 2ου αι., αφού άλογα ή με τη Βιβλιοθήκη στην Πέργαμο. Βλ. τελ. P. Valavanis, AM 117, 2002, 221–255, ιδ. 226. 21 Schaaf ό.π. (σημ. 15) 108–111. 22 Tracy – Habicht, 235. Tracy, 137. Barringer ό.π. (σημ. 7) 255. 23 Βλ. Τracy, 137. Στο ίδιο πλαίσιο θα πρέπει να ενταχθεί και η ίδρυση της γιορτής των Θησείων κατά το διάστημα 170–160 π.Χ. Βλ. Tracy – Habicht, 199. 24 Tracy – Habicht, 199–200. 235. Tracy, 136. 25 Βλ. παραπ. σελ. 127 και σημ. 3. 26 Ήδη από τα μέσα του 3ου αι. π.Χ. έχουμε τη διεξαγωγή Παναθηναίων στην Πέργαμο, ενώ και ο πατέρας του Ευμένους Άτταλος Α΄ είχε ευεργετήσει ποικιλοτρόπως την πόλη. Βλ. σχετ. Habicht, 561–564. Τracy – Habicht, 234. Μ. Τιβέριος, Μακεδόνες και Παναθήναια (2000) 50–53. Barringer ό.π. (σημ. 7) 251. 27 Λίβιος 35.39.1–2 28 Habicht, 564–568. 570. 575.

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως

131

άρματά του κερδίζουν σε διάφορους ιππικούς αγώνες κατά τα Παναθήναια του 178, του 170 και του 162 π.Χ. Χαρακτηριστικός είναι και ο τρόπος με τον οποίο δηλώνεται η στενή σχέση που είχε με την Αθήνα: στους αγώνες αυτούς ο βασιλεύς λαμβάνει μέρος όχι ως περγαμηνός αλλά ως αθηναίος πολίτης της Ατταλίδος φυλής.29 Αυτό φυσικά δεν σημαίνει ότι παρευρισκόταν ο ίδιος αυτοπροσώπως στην Αθήνα, γεγονός όμως που δεν μπορεί και να αποκλεισθεί. Το πιθανότερο είναι να συμμετείχε διά αντιπροσώπων του, που θα ήταν μέλη της βασιλικής οικογενείας ή ανώτατοι κρατικοί αξιωματούχοι. Ιδιαιτέρως όμως στα Παναθήναια του 178 θα μπορούσε να ήταν και ο ίδιος παρών, ως αρχηγός της πολυπληθέστερης περγαμηνής θεωρίας σε Παναθήναια, που έγινε ποτέ. Στους αγώνες αυτούς έλαβαν μέρος και στέφθηκαν νικητές σε τέσσερα διαφορετικά ιππικά αγωνίσματα, τέσσερα μέλη της περγαμηνής δυναστείας: ο ίδιος ο βασιλεύς και τα τρία αδέλφια του, οι πρίγκιπες Άτταλος, Φιλέταιρος και Αθήναιος.30 Την ίδια χρονιά μάλιστα βρισκόταν στην Αθήνα προερχόμενος από τη Ρώμη και ο Σελευκίδης πρίγκιπας Αντίοχος, ο κατοπινός βασιλεύς Αντίοχος Δ΄ Επιφανής, ο οποίος ήταν πιθανότατα παρών κατά τη διεξαγωγή των αγώνων και μάρτυρας της νίκης των τεσσάρων περγαμηνών αδελφών.31 Ίσως δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι τρία χρόνια αργότερα άρχισε ένα άλλο μεγάλο έργο στην Αθήνα, που χρηματοδοτήθηκε απ’ αυτόν: η ανοικοδόμηση του ημιτελούς ναού του Ολυμπίου Διός, που πραγματοποιήθηκε κατά το διάστημα της βασιλείας του, από το 175–163 π.Χ.32

Ο ρόλος της στοάς του Ευμένους Η μόνη πληροφορία που έχουμε για τη στοά από την αρχαία γραμματεία προέρχεται από τον Βιτρούβιο (5.9.1), που την αναφέρει παρεμπιπτόντως ως παράδειγμα σύνδεσης θεάτρων με στοές. Συμπληρώνει μάλιστα ότι χτίστηκε για προστασία των θεατών από τη βροχή και ως χώρος συνάντησής τους.33 Νομίζω ότι η αναφορά του Βιτρουβίου για τη λειτουργία της στοάς σε σχέση με το θέατρο δεν αποκαλύπτει όλο το εύρος της χρήσης της. Τα θέατρα δεν έχουν ανάγκη από στοές. Πιο πιθανό είναι η σχέση της στοάς με το θέατρο να υπήρξε δευτερογενής λόγω της γειτνίασης. Σαφώς εξυπηρετούσε τους θεατές του θεάτρου, εφ’ όσον αυτοί ήταν το πολυπληθέστερο σύνολο ανθρώπων που συγκεντρωνόταν στην περιοχή, αλλ’ αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι η στοά φτιάχτηκε για τον σκοπό αυτόν ή ότι λειτουργούσε μόνο κατά τη διάρκεια των θεατρικών παραστάσεων.34 Τελευταία προτάθηκε και άλλη μία λειτουργία της, αντίστοιχη με αυτή της στοάς του Αττάλου, δηλαδή ως χώρος παρακολούθησης ιερών πομπών, που θα περνούσαν από μπροστά της.35 Αλλά κι αυτός δεν θα μπορούσε να είναι ο λόγος κατασκευής της. Ο ρόλος της στοάς ήταν πολύ ευρύτερος: από πρακτικής απόψεως, η διώροφη στοά του Ευμένους αναδεικνυόταν σε έναν από τους ωραιότερους χώρους θέασης για τη νότια Αθήνα, αφού η θέση της πρόσφερε απεριόριστη θέα προς τα νότια της πόλης, μέχρι τη θάλασσα. Ακόμη, το πολύ μεγάλο άνδηρο πλάτους 32 μ., άρα συνολικής επιφάνειας άνω των 5000 τ.μ., που διαμορφώθηκε μπροστά της, δημιούργησε μία από τις μεγαλύτερες πλατείες στην πόλη, που εξυπηρετούσε την κοινωνική ζωή στη νότια κλιτύ.36 Εκτός όμως από τις πρακτικές υπηρεσίες, η ανοικοδόμηση της στοάς και της πλατείας αναβάθμισε όλη την περιοχή, στολίζοντάς την με ένα λαμπρό οικοδόμημα. Η στοά μνημειοποίησε τη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως 29 Δεν αποκλείεται η αναγραφή του βασιλέως ως Αθηναίου να έχει να κάνει με το γεγονός ότι ο ίδιος ήταν και αγωνοθέτης της γιορτής, εφόσον τη λειτουργία αυτή μπορούσαν να αναλάβουν μόνον Αθηναίοι πολίτες. Για τις επιγραφές βλ. Habicht, 568. Tracy – Habicht, 216–217. 232. Tracy, 144–146. Για τους λόγους που οι ηγεμόνες επιδίωκαν συμμετοχή στα Παναθήναια βλ. το άρθρο της J. L. Shear στον παρόντα τόμο. 30 IG II2 2314 (II) στ. 84–90. Τον σχολιασμό βλ.τις παραπομπές της σημ. 29. 31 Habicht, 569. 32 Habicht, 569. 576. 33 Σημειωτέον ότι ο Βιτρούβιος αποτελεί την μοναδική σε όλη την αρχαία γραμματεία αναφορά που έχουμε για το σημαντικότατο αυτό μνημείο. Μ. Κορρές, ΑΔελτ 35, 1980, Β1, 18–19. Μ. Korres στο Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike (1983) 205–206. Coulton ό.π. (σημ. 14) 18. 34 Θα μπορούσε επίσης να λειτουργεί συμπληρωματικά, με κάθε άλλη, πλην της θεατρικής, χρήση του διονυσιακού θεάτρου, όπως π.χ. ως χώρου συγκεντρώσεων της Εκκλησίας του δήμου, που γνωρίζουμε ότι από τους κλασικούς αλλά κυρίως κατά τους μεταγενέστερους χρόνους συνερχόταν εκεί. Για τη χρήση αυτή του θεάτρου βλ. Travlos, Athens, 467. 538; F. Kolb, Agora und Theater, Volks- und Festversammlung (1981) 92. 35 Schmidt-Dounas, 49–50. 36 Ίσως να πρόκειται για τη μεγαλύτερη ελεύθερη επίπεδη επιφάνεια σε όλη την Αθήνα. Για την πλατεία αυτή βλ. Travlos, Athens, 523, καθώς και στο ΑΔελτ 35, 1980 Β1, 12, σχ. 1. Ενισχυτική αυτού του ρόλου της στοάς είναι και η ύπαρξη μικρής κρήνης στο εσωτερικό της, αντίστοιχης με της Νότιας Στοάς ΙΙ στην αθηναϊκή Αγορά. Βλ. Μ. Λεφαντζής, Μ. Μριάνα-Πρωτοααδάκη, Ανθέμιον 13, 2005, 26.

132

Πάνος Βαλαβάνης

προεκτείνοντας προς Δυσμάς τις κιονοστοιχίες του Ωδείου του Περικλέους και της δωρικής στοάς του ιερού του Διονύσου, συμφώνως προς τις επιταγές της ελληνιστικής αρχιτεκτονικής και χωρορυθμίας.37 Επίσης η μνημειακή αυτή στοά, καθώς φαινόταν από τα νότια, θα λειτουργούσε ως ‘αισθητικό αρχιτεκτονικό υπόβαθρο’ του Παρθενώνος που δεσπόζει στον ιερό βράχο, ακριβώς από πάνω.38 Η τοποθέτηση του συγκεκριμένου οικοδομήματος στη συγκεκριμένη θέση θα πρέπει να ήταν προσωπική επιλογή του ίδιου του βασιλέως, η οποία έγινε δεκτή από τους Αθηναίους, παρά τα προβλήματα που προκάλεσε στην πόλη. Οι έρευνες στην περιοχή έδειξαν ότι, εκτός από την ανάγκη απαλλοτρίωσης πολλών ιδιωτικών περιουσιών, το μακρότατο οικοδόμημα διέκοψε ακόμα και οδικές αρτηρίες που οδηγούσαν στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως, αφήνοντας τελικά στα άκρα του μόνον δύο στενωπούς.39 Τι ήταν αυτό, λοιπόν, που οδήγησε στην επιλογή ενός τέτοιου οικοδομήματος; Φαίνεται ότι ο περγαμηνός βασιλεύς ήθελε να σφραγίσει την παρουσία του στην περιοχή ή και σε ολόκληρη την πόλη των Αθηνών με ένα νέο και χαρακτηριστικό περγαμηνό οικοδόμημα, που εξυπηρετούσε απολύτως και την κρατική ιδεολογία και τις προσωπικές επιδιώξεις του ίδιου του Ευμένους.40 Επέλεξε λοιπόν τον τύπο και τη θέση για να θυμίζει τις αντίστοιχες στοές στις απότομες κλιτύες της δικής του πόλης.41 Γνωρίζουμε επίσης, ότι την εποχή αυτή κυρίαρχη ήταν η επιθυμία των ελληνιστικών βασιλέων να δωρίζουν σε πόλεις και ιερά όσο το δυνατόν μεγαλύτερες στοές, που αναφέρονται ως σταδιαίες.42 Δεν είναι λοιπόν τυχαίο που η στοά του Ευμένους είναι η μακρύτερη στοά στην Αθήνα και μία από τις μακρύτερες σε όλη την αρχαία ελληνική αρχιτεκτονική.43 Δεχόμενοι την πρόταση του Μ. Κορρέ, ότι το οικοδόμημα προκατασκευάστηκε στην Πέργαμο και μεταφέρθηκε έτοιμο στην Αθήνα, μπορούμε να σκεφθούμε ότι αυτό δεν προέκυψε μόνον από πρακτικούς λόγους, όπως πιστεύει ο ίδιος, δηλαδή για να δώσει ο βασιλεύς δουλειά και στους υπηκόους του.44 Εξίσου αποφασιστικοί θα μπορούσαν να είναι και ιδεολογικοί παράγοντες: με τον τρόπο αυτό η Αθήνα θα στολιζόταν με ένα καθ’ όλα περγαμηνό δώρο, με ένα οικοδόμημα κατασκευασμένο σε μια αντίστοιχη της Περγάμου θέση, με περγαμηνά χρήματα, από περγαμηνά υλικά και από περγαμηνούς τεχνίτες! Μετά τις σκέψεις αυτές, είναι δυνατόν να οριστεί ακριβέστερα η χρονολόγηση της οικοδόμησης της στοάς του Ευμένους και πιθανόν και της ελληνιστικής σκηνής του θεάτρου του Διονύσου στο διάστημα από το 178 π.Χ., οπότε παρατηρείται η διεύρυνση του προγράμματος της γιορτής, έως το 162 π.Χ., οπότε έχουμε την πρώτη ασφαλή μαρτυρία για τη διεξαγωγή των δραματικών αγώνων.45 Η πρώτη θεατρική παράσταση των Παναθηναίων θα πρέπει να έγινε στο ανακαινισμένο θέατρο και προφανώς με την παρουσία αν όχι του ίδιου του Ευμένους, τουλάχιστον εκπροσώπων της περγαμηνής αυλής. Αυτό μαρτυρείται από το γεγονός ότι και στους αγώνες του 162 ο Ευμένης ενίκησε και πάλι σε ιπποδρομία μακράς αποστάσεως, στο αγώνισμα του ἵππου πολυδρόμου, όπως αναφέρει η επιγραφή.46 Άρα θα πρέπει να είχε έλθει στην Αθήνα περγαμηνή θεωρία υπό υψηλόβαθμους αξιωματούχους, που θα παρέλαβαν φυσικά και τα έπαθλα. Αντίστοιχη λειτουργία επιτέλεσε και η στοά του ελληνιστικού Μητρώου της Αγοράς, που έχει αποδοθεί στον Άτταλο Β΄, διάδοχο του Ευμένους και δωρητή της ομώνυμης στοάς. Βλ. τελ. J. M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (2001) 182. Για τον ενοποιητικό ρόλο των στοών στην ελληνιστική αρχιτεκτονική βλ. και S. Patronos, “Public Architecture as Civic Identity in Classical and Hellenistic Ionia. The case of Miletus and Priene” (διδ. διατριβή, Oxford 2002) 237–239. 38 Βλ. σχετ. την πλαστική αναπαράσταση της νότιας κλιτύος της Ακροπόλεως από τον Μ. Κορρέ, στο Αθήνα. Προϊστορία και αρχαιότητα (1985) 30–31, εικ. 2. Παρόμοια μνημειοποίηση στη βόρεια κλιτύ προσέδωσε λίγα χρόνια πριν, η δημιουργία της μακράς στοάς του Γυμνασίου του Πτολεμαίου, που με μεγάλη πιθανότητα υποθέτει στην περιοχή ο S. G. Miller στο M. H. Hansen (επιμ.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City State. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2 (1995) 201–244. 39 Όπως και κάτω από το Διονυσιακό θέατρο, έτσι και κάτω από τη στοά του Ευμένους βρέθηκαν κατάλοιπα από οικίες της κλασικής περιόδου. Βλ. Ν. Πλάτων, ΑΔελτ 20, 1965, Β1, 25. Μ. Κορρές στο H. R. Goette (επιμ.), Ancient Roads in Greece (2002) 1–31. 40 Ο J. J. Coulton, Greek Architects at Work (1977) 18, αναφέρει τις στοές Αττάλου και Ευμένους ως χαρακτηριστικά παραδείγματα επίδρασης των δωρητών στο σχεδιασμό αρχιτεκτονικών έργων. Η Schaaf ό.π. (σημ. 15) 108–111 αναλύει την πολιτική κατάσταση στην Ανατ. Μεσόγειο την εποχή αυτή και εξηγεί τις πολιτικές αφετηρίες των αναθημάτων του Ευμένους στην Αθήνα. To πολιτικό περιβάλλον των ευεργεσιών των περγαμηνών ηγεμόνων στις πόλεις και τα ιερά της κυρίως Ελλάδος στο πλαίσιο του ανταγωνισμού με τη Ρώμη βλ. Patronos ό.π. (σημ. 37) 190–192. 41 Coulton ό.π. (σημ. 14) 69. Για τη σύγκριση των δύο περιοχών πρβλ. Coulton ό.π. εικ. 55 και 102. 42 Patronos ό.π. (σημ. 37) 164. 43 Coulton ό.π. (σημ. 14) 54. 44 Κorres ό.π. (σημ. 33) 201–207, ιδ. 206. Camp ό.π. (σημ. 37) 172. 45 Αν μάλιστα δεχθούμε την πρόταση των Tracy – Habicht ότι το 162 έγιναν οι πρώτοι δραματικοί αγώνες των Παναθηναίων (βλ. παραπ. σελ. 128 και σημ. 4–7), τότε το διάστημα κατασκευής της στοάς μικραίνει ακόμα περισσότερο, τοποθετούμενο γύρω στο 160 π.Χ.. 46 SEG XLI 115 col. III 23–24. 37

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως

133

Ελληνιστικοί βασιλείς στην Αθήνα Ένα ακόμα στοιχείο στο αποσπασματικό τέλος της επιγραφής είναι και η αναγραφή του ονόματος του Ζεύξιδος, ο οποίος ἐποίησε τοὺς σκηνικοὺς ἀγῶνας .. καὶ εἰσήγαγεν κάτι προς τιμήν τῶν εὐεργετῶν της πόλεως και ἐπέθηκεν …, δηλαδή προσέθεσε κάτι άλλο.47 Όλες αυτές οι ενέργειες που αποδίδονται στον Ζεύξιν, οδήγησαν τους Τracy και Habicht να τον ταυτίσουν με τον αγωνοθέτη ολόκληρης της γιορτής του 162, μια λειτουργία που απαιτούσε τεράστιες δαπάνες. Το άγνωστο έως τότε στην Αττική όνομα οδήγησε ακόμη τους ίδιους μελετητές σε συσχετισμό του με ονοματοθεσία οφειλόμενη σε κάποιον αξιωματούχο της αυλής των Σελευκιδών, πιθανότατα τον γνωστό στρατηγό του Αντιόχου Γ΄, ο οποίος όμως ανάγεται σε παλιότερα χρόνια.48 Άλλο ενδιαφέρον σημείο της επιγραφής είναι η ταυτότητα των ευεργετών στο στίχο 41, οι οποίοι τιμώνται με κάποια εκδήλωση της γιορτής. Το γεγονός ότι στους αγώνες των Παναθηναίων του 162, στους οποίους αναφέρεται το συγκεκριμένο σημείο, είχαν ανακηρυχθεί νικητές, μαζί με τον Ευμένη Β΄ της Περγάμου, οι βασιλείς Πτολεμαίος ΣΤ΄ και Κλεοπάτρα Β΄ της Αιγύπτου, μας κάνει να αναρωτηθούμε μήπως ως ευεργέτες της πόλεως δεν νοούνται μόνον οι Ρωμαίοι, που είχαν παραχωρήσει στους Αθηναίους τη Δήλο τέσσερα χρόνια πριν, όπως πιστεύουν οι εκδότες49 αλλά και αυτοί οι ελληνιστικοί βασιλείς, που τόσο είχαν ευεργετήσει την Αθήνα κατά το α΄ μισό του 2ου αι. π.Χ. Οι καταληκτήριες φράσεις του κειμένου, που θυμίζουν καθαρά διατύπωση ψηφίσματος, δείχνουν σαφώς ότι τα Παναθήναια του 162 θα πρέπει να ήταν μια ιδιαίτερη γιορτή, που τελέστηκε με μεγάλη λαμπρότητα.50 Σ’αυτήν εκπροσωπήθηκαν τρεις μεγάλες αυλές της ελληνιστικής ανατολής, οι Ατταλίδες της Περγάμου, οι Πτολεμαίοι της Αιγύπτου και οι Σελευκίδες της Συρίας (αν ο αγωνοθέτης Ζεύξις σχετίζεται πράγματι μ’ αυτούς), δηλαδή οι ηγεμόνες που με τις ευεργεσίες τους άλλαξαν την εικόνα της πόλεως των Αθηνών, δίνοντάς της τον σύγχρονο χαρακτήρα της Ελληνιστικής εποχής.51 Αν πράγματι οι υποθέσεις αυτές έχουν σχέση με την ιστορική πραγματικότητα, τότε αναδεικνύεται ένα ακόμα στοιχείο: η διπλωματική ικανότητα των Αθηναίων της εποχής, που στηριζόμενοι στη φήμη και τη μακρά πολιτιστική παράδοση της πόλης τους εκμεταλλεύονταν άψογα την επιθυμία των ηγεμόνων των πλούσιων ελληνιστικών βασιλείων, να φαίνονται ως συνεχιστές του λαμπρού παρελθόντος της. Αυτός άλλωστε ήταν ο μοναδικός τρόπος να κερδίζουν για την πόλη τους χρήματα και δωρεές, για να χτίζουν δημόσια οικοδομήματα, ανεβάζοντας το επίπεδό της αλλά και δίνοντας δουλειά σε πολλούς Αθηναίους. Ταυτοχρόνως, και πάλι με ‘ξένα’ χρήματα, όπως βλέπουμε από την αγωνοθεσία του Ζεύξιδος, διεξήγαγαν, μερικές τουλάχιστον φορές, τη μεγάλη γιορτή των Παναθηναίων, από την οποία αντλούσαν ευχαρίστηση και ‘εθνική’ υπερηφάνεια αλλά ταυτοχρόνως εύρισκαν την ευκαιρία να τιμήσουν σε διάφορες εκδηλώσεις της και τους μεγάλους ευεργέτες της πόλεώς τους.52 Οι Αθηναίοι των ελληνιστικών χρόνων, λοιπόν, ενώ απολάμβαναν τόσες ευεργεσίας, το μόνο που παρείχαν ως ανταπόδοσιν ήταν η ψήφιση ανέξοδων αποφάσεων για παροχή τιμών στους δωρητές, ενώ το μόνο σημαντικό έξοδό τους ήταν η ανάθεση ανδριάντων προς τιμήν τους σε επίκαιρες θέσεις μέσα στην πόλη, συνήθως στην Ακρόπολη ή κοντά στα κτήρια που είχαν αυτοί ανοικοδομήσει.53 Αν και έχουμε πληροφορίες ότι και τους τιμητικούς ανδριάντες τους πλήρωναν καμιά φορά οι ίδιοι οι τιμώμενοι.54 Ενδιαφέρον είναι επίσης και το γεγονός ότι στις γιορτές αυτές των Αθηνών όχι μόνο συγχρωτίζονταν ηγεμόνες, που οι μεταξύ τους σχέσεις δεν ήταν και οι καλύτερες, αλλά συναγωνίζονταν κιόλας στους ιππικούς 47 SEG XLI 115 col. III 39–43. Η συμπλήρωση στον στίχο 42 από τον Raubitschek της φράσης [καὶ τὰς θυσίας]/ τῆς πανηγύρεως ἐπέθηκε[ν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων] δεν φαίνεται τόσο πιθανή (Tracy – Habicht, 204 και SEG ΧLI 115, σελ. 50). 48 Tracy – Habicht, 204. 49 Tracy – Habicht, 235. 50 Βλ. την ίδια άποψη στους Tracy – Habicht, 204. 51 Habicht, 576. Για τη συμμετοχή ελληνιστικων ηγεμόνων στα. Παναθήναια βλ. και J. D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (1998) 196–199. 52 Για τον ρόλο των επάθλων της γιορτής, των Παναθηναϊκών αμφορέων, σε όλη αυτή την διαδικασία βλ. P. Valavanis στο M. Bentz, N. Eschbach (επιμ.), Panathenaika. Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (2001) 171. 53 Για τα τιμητικά αγάλματα που είχαν ιδρύσει οι Αθηναίοι προς τιμήν των περγαμηνών βασιλέων βλ. Habicht, 573 με σημ. 69 και τελευταία Μ. Κορρές στο Delphes, Cent ans après la Grande Fouille. Essai de bilan, BCH Supplement 36 (2000) 293–329. Γενικά για τις τιμές που δέχθηκαν στην Αθήνα βλ. H. Kotsidu, ΤΙΜΗ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΞΑ. Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler (2000) 23–103. Πρβλ. Kotsidu ό.π., 592–597 για τις έννοιες δόσις και ανταπόδοσις. 54 Βλ. επιστολή του Ευμένους Β΄ προς το Κοινόν των Ιώνων, C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (1934) 209–219, αρ. 52 στ. 56–58.

134

Πάνος Βαλαβάνης

αγώνες. Για παράδειγμα, το βασίλειο της Περγάμου διέκειτο εχθρικά προς τους Σελευκίδες το 178 π.Χ., όταν στα Παναθήναια της χρονιάς αυτής συναντήθηκαν πιθανότατα μέλη της οικογένειας του Ευμένους με τον πρίγκιπα Αντίοχο.55 Χαρακτηριστικό είναι δε ότι τρία χρόνια αργότερα, με την ανοχή φυσικά των Ρωμαίων, δόθηκε μεγάλη βοήθεια των Ατταλιδών στον τελευταίο, ώστε να καταλάβει το θρόνο της Συρίας.56 Ο αθηναϊκός δήμος ικανοποιήθηκε τόσο πολύ για το γεγονός αυτό, ώστε ευχαρίστησε τους πολίτες της Περγάμου με ένα ενθουσιώδες ψήφισμα, αντίγραφο του οποίου ανακαλύφθηκε στην Πέργαμο.57 Η θερμότητα με την οποία χαιρέτησαν το γεγονός οι Αθηναίοι, όπως μαρτυρείται από το κείμενο του ψηφίσματος, ίσως οφείλεται στη διάθεσή τους να βρίσκονται σε καλές σχέσεις μεταξύ τους όλοι οι φιλαθήναιοι βασιλείς, αφού αυτό απαιτούσε το συμφέρον της πόλεως. Επίσης, η συνεύρεση στα Παναθήναια του 162 ηγεμόνων ή αξιωματούχων των εχθρικών μεταξύ τους βασιλείων της Συρίας και της Αιγύπτου, δηλαδή του αγωνοθέτη Ζεύξιδος, πιθανότατα της αυλής των Σελευκιδών, με τον Πτολεμαίο ΣΤ΄ και την Κλεοπάτρα, δίνει μια άλλη διάσταση στο ρόλο της γιορτής και των αγώνων των Παναθηναίων κατά τους Ελληνιστικούς χρόνους: Η Αθήνα θα πρέπει να γίνεται διεθνές διπλωματικό κέντρο και οι αγώνες της να αποκτούν ρόλο με ευρύτερες πολιτικές προεκτάσεις, ανάλογο με αυτόν των πανελληνίων αγώνων.58 Στο α΄ μισό, τουλάχιστον, του 2ου αι. π.Χ. τα Παναθήναια είχαν τέτοια διεθνή απήχηση, που ανταγωνίζονταν ακόμα και τα Ολύμπια, στα οποία από την περίοδο αυτή δεν μας έχουν σωθεί πληροφορίες για αντίστοιχες συμμετοχές βασιλικών προσώπων και αξιωματούχων στους αγώνες.59 Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι η Αθήνα σε μια περίοδο αδυναμίας κατόρθωσε να επιτύχει κάτι που δεν είχε κατορθώσει στις περιόδους της πιο μεγάλης ακμής της: η μεγάλη της γιορτή να αναδειχθεί τόσο σημαντική όσο και η μεγαλύτερη γιορτή όλων των Ελλήνων, τα Ολύμπια.60

Ευχαριστίες Μερικά από τα θέματα που θίγονται εδώ είχα την τύχη να συζητήσω με τους συναδέλφους, Σ. Γώγο, Β. Δούνα-Schmidt, M. Kreeb, Μ. Μικεδάκη, Κ. Μπουραζέλη, Χρ. Παπασταμάτη – von Moock, Σ. Πατρώνο, Β. Σπηλιοπούλου, Μ. Τιβέριο και Δ. Τσουκλίδου. Και φυσικά με την Έ. Μπαζιωτοπούλου. Ιδιαιτέρως τα επιγραφικά προβλήματα συζητήθηκαν με τον Ά. Ματθαίου και πολλές από τις εκφραζόμενες για τις επιγραφές απόψεις είναι αποτέλεσμα των συζητήσεων αυτών. Ευχαριστίες οφείλω και στην Όλγα Παλαγγιά για την αγγλική μετάφραση της περίληψης. Εκτός από τις συνήθεις συντομογραφίες (βλ. ΑΑ 1997, 611–628), εδώ χρησιμοποιούνται και οι ακόλουθες:

Συντομογραφίες Habicht Tracy – Habicht Tracy Bringmann – von Steuben Schmidt-Dounas

Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 59, 1990, 561–577 S. V. Tracy – Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 60, 1991, 187–236 (= Ch. Habicht, Athen in hellenistischer Zeit (1994) 73–139) S. V. Tracy, Nikephoros 4, 1991, 133–151 K. Bringmann – H. von Steuben, Schenkungen hellenisticher Herscher an griechischen Städte und Heiligtümer, I Zeugnisse und Kommentare (1995) Β. Schmidt-Dounas, Geschenke Erhalten die Freundschaft (2000)

Βλ. Tracy, 145 και σημ. 52. Βλ. E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (1984) 646–647. 57 Dittenberger, OGIS, 248. Ch. Habicht, Athen. Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit (1995) 225. 58 Βλ. και Tracy, 146. Τη σκέψη ότι η Αθήνα ήταν ένα ‘ανεξάρτητο’ διεθνές κέντρο την εποχή αυτή την ενισχύει και το γεγονός ότι πάρα πολλά από τα μέλη των βασιλικών οικογενειών της Ελληνιστικής Ανατολής σταματούσαν κατά τις μετακινήσεις τους από και προς τη Ρώμη, ενώ συχνά διέμεναν στην πόλη και για μακρό χρονικό διάστημα. 59 Παρόλο που δεν υστέρησαν, κυρίως οι Πτολεμαίοι, σε δωρεές για την κατασκευή αθλητικών εγκαταστάσεων, όπως το γυμνάσιο και η παλαίστρα. Για τις βασιλικές δωρεές στην Ολυμπία βλ. Bringmann – v. Steuben, 456–461 και Schmidt-Dounas, 200–209. 60 Για το θέμα βλ. Π. Βαλαβάνης, Παναθηναϊκοί Αμφορείς από την Ερέτρια (1991) 152–155. M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren (1998) 86 με σημ. 465. 55 56

Royal Athenians: The Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia Julia L. Shear

In 178/7 B.C. the double-length horserace for the four-horse chariot, an event limited to citizens, was won by Arketos, the son of Echedemos, of the tribe Pandionis, as we know from the inscribed list of victors; the victory was presumably proclaimed in this form.1 Four years earlier in 182/1, however, the herald had found himself calling out ‘King Ptolemy, the son of King Ptolemy, of the tribe Ptolemais’ as the winner in the same race.2 Citizenship such as that which the Athenians awarded to Ptolemy V is described by Michael Osborne as being ‘essentially honorific’ and he further states ‘none of these recipients was particularly interested in or likely to implement the Athenian citizenship’, that is, the Athenians did not expect the recipients actually to exercise their rights and to participate as active citizens of the city.3 Elsewhere, Osborne links the implementation of such citizenship with enrolment in a deme, a tribe, and a phratry.4 In his view, recipients of these ‘honorary’ grants, such as Ptolemy V, would not have had an Athenian deme or tribe because the grant would not have been implemented. The inscribed victors’ lists for the Panathenaia, however, show that at least some ‘honorary Athenians’ did act on their citizenship and did so at the city’s most international and most important festival. In this essay, I want to look more closely at the citizen kings of these victors’ lists and to ask: what was in it for the Hellenistic kings to compete in the Panathenaia and what was in it for the city of Athens.5 As I shall argue, for the Ptolemies and the Attalids, winning contests restricted to Athenians proclaimed their Athenian status in the international setting of the Panathenaic Games. When the lists of victors were inscribed, their citizenship was listed on a public monument in the city and their status would have been apparent to anyone examining the lists. For the Athenians, the participation of these men emphasised the importance of the city’s festival which drew such politically powerful individuals. Their presence also reinforced the existing equation between participation in the celebration and one’s status as an Athenian. At the same time, by bestowing on these royals the right to take part in the festival as Athenians, the city was able to reward them for their political and military aid. This close relationship displayed between the city and the royals further suggested that the Athenians could expect royal support to continue in the future.

The Inscribed Victors’ Lists and Royal Participation Our evidence for the participation of Hellenistic royalty in the Panathenaia derives solely from the inscribed victors’ lists found at Athens. The publication of SEG XLI 115 by Stephen Tracy and Christian Habicht in 1991 provided us not only with parts of three additional lists but also with enough chronological indicators to fix the other preserved lists.6 None of these inscriptions is complete and the dating is based on the prosopography of the victors, the relationships between different lists, and the chronologies of the men who inscribed IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.72–73. IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.40–42. 3 M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens III–IV (1983) 187, 192; for similar conclusions, see P. Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.): Contribution à l’histoire des institutions, BCH Supplement 12 (1985) 150–152. 4 Osborne (supra n. 3) 171. 5 On the evidence of the victors’ lists, it is not correct to say, as Gauthier does, that ‘nul roi lagide, séleucide, antigonide, ou attalide n’est inscrit comme euergétès et proxène, ou comme citoyen, dans une cité grecque’: Gauthier (supra n. 3) 45. 6 S. V. Tracy and Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 60, 1991, 189–236. 1 2

136

Julia L. Shear Table 1. Royal victors at the Great Panathenaia in the second century B.C.

Date 182/1 B.C.

178/7 B.C.

Victor King Ptolemy V Epiphanes

Event ἅρματι δίαυλον

Contest Location Tribal: Ptolemais Agora

Ptolemy VI Philometor, son of King Ptolemy V

[ἅρματι] τελείωι

Open

Hippodrome

Attalos II, son of King Attalos I

[συνωρίδι τελείαι]

Open

Hippodrome

King Eumenes II

ἅρ[ματι τελείωι]

Open

Hippodrome

Philetairos, son of King Attalos I

[ἅρματι πωλικῶι]

Open

Hippodrome

Athenaios, son of King Attalos I

[κέλητι τελείωι]

Open

Hippodrome

ἅρματι πολεμιστηρίωι

Tribal: Attalis

Hippodrome

174/3 B.C. 170/69 B.C.

Not Preserved King Eumenes II

συνωρίδι δίαυλον

Tribal: Attalis

Hippodrome

166/5 B.C. 162/1 B.C.

Attalos II, son of King Attalos I No Royal Victors Queen Kleopatra II

ἅρματι τελείωι

Open

Hippodrome

King Eumenes II

ἵππωι πολυδρμ[ωι]

Tribal: Attalis

Hippodrome

158/7 B.C.

154/3 B.C. 150/49 or 146/5 B.C.

King Ptolemy VI Philometor συνωρίδι πολεμιστ[ηρίαι]

Tribal: Ptolemais Hippodrome

Mastanabal, son of King [συνωρίδι] πωλικεῖ Masinissa King Ptolemy VI Philometor κέλ[η]τι πωλικῶι

Open

Hippodrome

Open

Hippodrome

Not Preserved King Alexander Balas

[συνωρίδι πωλικεῖ]

Open

Hippodrome

King Alexander Balas

ἅρματι τελείωι

Open

Hippodrome

Testimonia IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.40–42 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.55–56 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.84–85 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.86–87 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.88–89 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.90–91 SEG XLI 115 col. I.37–38 SEG XLI 115 col. I.47–48 SEG XLI 115 col. III.21–22 SEG XLI 115 col. III.23–24 SEG XLI 115 col. III.31–33 IG II2 2316.42–44 IG II2 2316.44–46 IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.36–37 IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.46–47

the documents. These lists cover the period between the Great Panathenaia of 182/1 and the festival of either 146/5 or 142/1, as well as two earlier festivals, probably in 202/1 and 198/7.7 Between 182/1 and the 140s, the lists for the festivals in 174/3, 154/3, and perhaps 150/49 are no longer extant. Despite these lacunae, these 40 or so years are by far the best documented period for victors in the whole history of the games. Some fifteen royal victors are known from this period (Table 1). Victories by the Ptolemies and Attalids dominate the lists: out of the fifteen known victories, five were won by members of the Ptolemaic royal family and seven by individuals from the Attalid royal family; in contrast, only two Seleukid successes are attested. Since these victors’ lists record only the names of individuals who won the event, we do not know how many times members of Hellenistic royal families competed but did not win the event in which they entered. That the same individual may have taken part in more than one race is suggested by Alexander Balas’ two victories For the dates, see Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 192–193, 217–221. The two earlier festivals are represented by IG II2 2313; see Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 218, 221. 7

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia

137

in either 150/49 or 146/5; the disposition of the text on the stone makes it certain that two different teams of animals were involved.8 Royal victories are attested in a range of events and not just in the most prestigious four-horse chariot for adult animals, evidence which may also point to multiple entries by the same person. The numbers of royal participants were probably higher than the preserved lists indicate and some of the known victors may have entered other contests but did not win.9 We also cannot rule out the possibility that members of different royal families took part in the same race which only one of the participants could win. The royal victors competed only in hippic events, both those open to all contestants and those open only to Athenian citizens. By the early second century, six hippic events were open to all, three for colts or fillies and three for adult horses.10 For both immature and mature horses, there was a horserace, a contest for the synoris or racing chariot drawn by a pair, and a race for the four-horse chariot. That these six events were the ones held at all the Panhellenic games made them well known;11 when they appeared on the Panathenaic programme, potential competitors were familiar with them and knew exactly what they entailed. Individuals who indulged in such sport could send their charioteers and jockeys along with their horses and equipment to Athens just as they did to other festivals. The owners of these horses and chariots did not normally compete themselves; they sponsored the animals and teams which were regularly ridden and driven by professionals both at the Panathenaia and at the Panhellenic competitions.12 This use of professionals means that these kings were not actually adventuring their royal persons in the races. It also explains how Ptolemy VI was able to compete successfully in the race for the four-horse chariot at the Panathenaia despite his very young age in 182/1.13 Similarly, this role of sponsor allowed both Queen Kleopatra and several other women to compete and win in various open events in Athena’s games.14 The use of professionals in the open events at the Panathenaia set these contests off from the tribal hippic competitions in which the owners were probably also the competitors.15 The tribal hippic events were open only to Athenians and the contests were much more liable to change during our forty-year period than the six open competitions (Tables 2–3). As Tracy and Habicht have convincingly shown, the contests fall into two groups: the first held on the Panathenaic Way between the Dipylon Gate and the Eleusinion and the second held in the hippodrome and, therefore, outside the city proper;16 the precise location of this venue is not certainly known. Both sets of competitions included different length events: the akampion, the single-course race, for horses and various vehicles and the diaulos, the double-course race, again for horses and various vehicles. In addition to the four-horse chariot and the synoris, there was also the zeugos, another vehicle pulled by a pair of horses. The animals seem to have been an ordinary team rather than the racing team used with the synoris and the vehicle was probably not designed specifically for racing as the synoris was.17 Some events required specifically the war-zeugos, the war-synoris, or the four-horse warchariot or the processional zeugos or the four-horse processional chariot.18 The animals used in the horseraces IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.36–37, 46–47. Compare Ch. Habicht, ClAnt 11, 1992, 78. 10 IG II2 2313.8–15, 55–62; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.47–56, 84–95; IG II2 2316.41–53; IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.36–47; SEG XLI 115 col. I.27–34, col. II.21–33, col. III.11–22; Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 200; J. L. Shear, “Polis and Panathenaia: The History and Development of Athena’s Festival” (Diss. University of Pennsylvania, 2001) 295–296. 11 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 200; M. Golden, Sport and Society in Ancient Greece (1998) 41; R. Weir, Roman Delphi and its Pythian Games (2004) 21, table 1.1. 12 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 201, 216–217 with further references; D. G. Kyle, in J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) 89; N. B. Crowther, Nikephoros 7, 1994, 128. Jockeys and charioteers are attested at the Panathenaia already in the second half of the sixth century B.C.; see IG I3 1469; Archaeological Museum, Nauplion, Glymenopoulos Collection 1 (here p. 86, Fig. 8): M. Bentz, Panathenäische Preisamphoren: Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., AntK Beih.18 (1998) no. 6.051. 13 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.55–56 and see below with n. 41. 14 Kleopatra: SEG XLI 115 col. III.21–22; other female victors: IG II2 2313.8–9, 12–15, 59–60; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.47–54, 94–95; SEG XLI 115 col. I.30–34, col. II.28–29, col. III.11–12, 17–18; Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 216–217 with further references. 15 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 199–201. 16 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 198. 17 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 199; J. L. Shear, ZPE 142, 2003, 92 n. 17. 18 At IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.100 in the list for 178/7, Tracy and Habicht restored the event as [ζεύγει πομπικῶι]; Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 222. This competition, however, is not attested until in 166/5 (Table 3). Since the ζεύγει δίαυλον is attested already in 170/69, it is a more likely restoration for this line. 8 9

xx xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx

xx xx

line 25 line 26

line 19 line 21 line 23

line 17

line 13 line 15

line 12

line 10

line 9 line 7

xx xx xx xx xx

xx

xx

xx

170/69 B.C.: SEG XLI 115, col. I

line 17 line 19

line 11 line 13 line 15

line 1 [not pres.] xx line 3 xx line 7 xx xx line 5 xx xx xx xx xx line 9

166/5 B.C.: SEG XLI 115, col. II

line 7 line 9

[line 1]** [line 3] line 5

[not pres.] [not pres.] xx [not pres.] xx [not pres.] xx xx [not pres.] xx xx xx xx xx [not pres.]

162/1 B.C.: SEG XLI 115, col. III

line 38 lines 39-40

lines 31-32 lines 33-34 lines 36-37

xx lines 22-23 xx xx xx lines 20-21 xx lines 24-25 line 26 xx xx xx lines 28-29

line 19 line 17

158/7 B.C.: IG II2 2316

line 13 line 17

line 11 line 15 line 9

150/49 or 146/5 B.C.: IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.1–48 [not pres.] [not pres.] xx [not pres.] xx xx xx [not pres.] xx line 4 line 2 xx xx xx lines 6-7

[not pres.]? [not pres.]?

[not pres.]? [not pres.]? [not pres.]?

146/5 or 142/1 B.C.: IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.50–65 [line 48] line 49 [line 51] line 61 line 53 [line 63] xx line 59 line 57 xx line 55 xx xx xx [not pres.]?

xx

συνωρίδι ἀκάμπιον

[line 104]

[line 96] [line 98] xx xx [line 100]** xx xx xx [line 102]

178/7 B.C.: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. II

xx

xx

lines 49, 51, 53 (3 races)

line 43 line 45 line 47

line 41

line 35 line 37 line 39

170/69 B.C.: SEG XLI 115, col. I

xx

xx

xx lines 44, 46 (2 races) lines 48, 50, 52 (3 races)

line 42

line 38 line 40

line 34 line 36

166/5 B.C.: SEG XLI 115, col. II

line 37

xx line 27 line 29 [line 33] line 31 xx line 35

line 23 line 25

162/1 B.C.: SEG XLI 115, col. III

Notes: xx indicates that the event was not held in this year. [line + number] indicates that the entry is either completely or mostly restored. * The second list of IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118 does not preserve these events and no restoration has been suggested. ** Restoration: J. L. Shear.

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

182/1 B.C.: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. I

ἵππωι πολυδρόμωι ἅρματι πολεμιστηρίωι ἅρματι τελείωι ζεύγει πομπικῶι ζεύγει δίαυλον ζεύγει ἀκάμπιον συνωρίδι πολεμιστηρίαι συνωρίδι τελείαι συνωρίδι δίαυλον

Event

Table 3. Tribal hippic contests in the hippodrome.

line 66

line 54 lines 56-57 xx line 58 line 60 xx lines 62-63 xx line 64

158/7 B.C.: IG II2 2316

[line 32]

line 34 [line 20] xx [line 22] [line 24] [line 26] line 28 xx [line 30]

150/49 or 146/5 B.C.: IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.1–48

*

* * * * * * * * *

146/5 or 142/1 B.C.: IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.50–65

Notes: xx indicates that the event was not held in this year. [not pres.] indicates that the event is not preserved on the stone but was probably held. [line + number] indicates that the entry is either completely or mostly restored. ** Restoration: J. L. Shear. The first part of the first list of IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118 and the second part of the second list are not preserved and only minimal restorations have been suggested.

line 43

xx

line 36 line 38 line 40

ἀποβάτης ἡνίοχος ἐγβιβάζων ἅρματι δίαυλον ζεύγει δίαυλον ἅρματι ἀκάμπιον ζεύγει ἀκάμπιον ἅρματι πομπικῶι ζεύγει πομπικῶι ζεύγει πολεμιστηρίωι συνωρίδι δίαυλον συνωρίδι ἀκάμπιον ἵππωι πολεμιστεῖ ἵππωι δίαυλον ἵππωι ἀκάμπιον ἐκ τῶν φυλάρχων ἵππωι πολεμιστεῖ ἵππωι δίαυλον ἵππωι ἀκάμπιον ἐκ τῶν ἱππέων ἵππωι πολεμιστεῖ ἵππωι δίαυλον ἵππωι ἀκάμπιον

178/7 B.C.: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. II line 70 line 68 [line 72] xx line 74 xx line 76 xx xx xx xx line 78 line 80 line 82 xx

182/1 B.C.: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114, col. I

Event

Table 2. Tribal hippic contests on the Panathenaic Way.

138 Julia L. Shear

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia

139

were probably ordinary riding horses because the term used for them is hippos rather than keles, the racing thoroughbred used in the open horseraces.19 As Tracy and Habicht suggest, the owners were probably also the competitors, particularly in the horseraces restricted to the phylarchoi and the hippeis.20 Since IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114 preserves the hippic events at the end of the lists for 182/1 and 178/7 as well as some of the uninscribed space below the last line of the two columns of text, the development of the tribal hippic events in this period is clear.21 The events on the Panathenaic Way are already attested in 182/1 and they were probably established long before the early second century; in contrast, the first hippodrome contests were certainly not held until four years later in 178/7. The general pattern is one of increasing numbers of races both on the processional way and in the hippodrome. The programme for the races on the Panathenaic Way doubled between 182/1 and 178/7 and, by 170/69, the numbers had risen to twelve, a level at which they remained for the next twenty or so years. These figures suggest that the races on the processional route were popular, a particularly striking situation when we consider the course between the Dipylon Gate and the Eleusinion: a hard road sloping uphill, bordered on one side by a gutter, and restricted near the southeast corner of the Agora by the various stoas under construction during just this period.22 The potential for disaster must have been high, especially in the apobatic contest and all the double-length races; the slightest miscalculation would have resulted in broken ankles, wrecked vehicles, or worse. Nevertheless, it was in exactly these races, in the diaulos for the chariot to be precise, that King Ptolemy V both competed and won in 182/1 (Table 1).23 Significantly, all other royal victories in the tribal contests were won in the hippodrome: in 170/69, King Eumenes II with the war-chariot and Attalos II in the diaulos for the synoris and, in 162/1, Eumenes II in the race for the long-distance horse and King Ptolemy VI with the war-synoris (Table 1). For these events under the regular racing conditions of the hippodrome, the standard royal racing teams could probably have been used. It would not be surprising if, for this reason, these tribal contests were considerably more attractive to the Ptolemies and the Attalids than the events on the Panathenaic Way. In 182/1, however, the option of competing in the tribal contests in the hippodrome did not yet exist. From their introduction in 178/7, they seem to have been popular: initially in 178/7, there were five events, but, eight years later in 170/69, they had increased to ten (Table 3). Ten races were also held in 166/5, but henceforth seven or eight was apparently the norm. The races on the Panathenaic Way seem to have been even more popular: in 182/1, there were four contests, but, four years later in 178/7, there were eight, and, in 170/69, twelve (Table 2). The overall programme for tribal hippic events appears to have been very carefully designed to provide a range of different opportunities. Although in 182/1, half of the races on the Panathenaic Way involved the four-horse chariot, this vehicle had been taken off the programme by 170/69 and did not reappear until either 146/5 or 142/1. It was replaced in 170/69 and the following festivals by a series of events for the zeugos, which was presumably less expensive than the four-horse chariot because it involved only a pair of animals. Similarly, in the hippodrome events, the four-horse chariot was not particularly prominent and only the four-horse war-chariot appears regularly; instead the programme was dominated by pair events for both the zeugos and the synoris. Particularly striking are the multiple races for the synoris in 170/69 and 166/5 because, in these events, the regular synoris racing teams from the open events could have been used by Athenians rich enough to own them or by the Ptolemies and Attalids. The events on the Panathenaic Way indicate that members of the cavalry were also being encouraged to participate. In 178/7, three horseraces were added for war-horses, animals which would probably have been owned only by the hippeis and their

Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 199. Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 199–201. 21 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) pl. 76. 22 Middle Stoa: construction begun ca. 180 B.C. (deposit H-K 12–14): Rotroff, Agora XXII, 102; Rotroff, Agora XXIX, 457; cf. Thompson and Wycherley, Agora XIV, 67–68. Stoa of Attalos: begun ca. 150 B.C. (deposit P-R 6–12): Rotroff, Agora XXII, 106; Rotroff, Agora XXIX, 468–469. East Building: ca. 150 B.C.: Thompson and Wycherley, Agora XIV, 65–66, 68; cf. Rotroff, Agora XXIX, 462–463. The gutter along the southwest and west side of the Panathenaic Way also belongs to this overall project and was installed in the second half of the century: T. L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia 42, 1973, 124; Thompson and Wycherley, Agora XIV, 200 n. 43. When the project was completed, the section of the Panathenaic Way between the south end of the Stoa of Attalos and the east end of the Middle Stoa was reduced to slightly under 10 m. in width. 23 Despite this clear evidence, Tracy and Habicht still state: ‘a royal figure is never certainly associated with an event in the Agora’: Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 202. The reasons for their hesitation are unclear to me. 19 20

140

Julia L. Shear

officers; the races were presumably open to all members of the cavalry.24 By 170/69, the number of races had been doubled and separate divisions for the hippeis and for the phylarchoi had been introduced. The Athenians evidently wished to encourage participation from a fairly wide range of individuals: the cavalry, Athenians wealthy enough to have a team for zeugos competitions but not perhaps synoris events, and men owning a proper racing synoris and even occasionally the four-horse chariot. This last category would certainly have included the Ptolemies and Attalids and we might ask if the Athenians wished to encourage their participation in the tribal competitions; if they did, then introducing and later increasing the number of races in the hippodrome would have been obvious decisions. Adding more events to the contests on the Panathenaic Way would have ensured at the same time that there were still plenty of races for Athenians who did not wish to contend directly with the royal resources in the hippodrome races. From this overall pattern of development, we may suggest that the Athenians were not only encouraging general participation in the tribal events but also, and more specifically, the participation of the Ptolemies and Attalids.

Participating as an Athenian These conclusions bring us back to the issue of participation and what was at stake in competing in these contests at the Panathenaia. As the victors’ lists make clear, not everyone took part in the festival in the same way. While anyone with time, talent, and money could compete in the open hippic events, the athletic games, and the individual musical events, only members of the Athenian tribes could take part in the tribal competitions. These distinctions in participation should be considered as marked, not trivial, and they are especially evident not only in the games, but also in the offerings made to Athena. Our evidence shows that the ability to make a dedication during the festival was restricted to Athenians, their colonists, and the allies of the city. This point is most clear in the period immediately after the Chremonidean War when dedications commemorating Antigonos Gonatas’ victories over the barbarians on behalf of the safety of the Greeks were made, not by the king himself, but on his behalf by the agonothetes Herakleitos, the son of Asklepiades, of the deme Athmonon; the most plausible explanation is that the king did not have Athenian citizenship at this time.25 Similarly, all known sacrificial victims were offered to the goddess by demes or other subdivisions of the Athenians,26 by colonists,27 by allies,28 or by the city as a whole.29 Consequently, we should see the sacrifices and the subsequent distribution of meat as marking an important moment in identifying and distinguishing between the actual members of the sacrificing community, that is, the Athenians, their colonists, and their allies, and visitors present in Athens as spectators not able to participate fully in all aspects of the festival.30 Non-Athenian competitors helped to glorify Athena but they did not share in the close relationship which the sacrifices created between the goddess and the sacrificing community. Since they could not offer a dedication to her, they probably also were not able to set up a victory monument in her sanctuary to celebrate their victories; certainly no example survives. Conversely, their Athenian citizenship made it possible for the Attalids and the Ptolemies to erect in the city memorials permanently commemorating their successes in the games; the two Attalid pillar monuments located west of the Propylaia and at the northeast corner of the Parthenon on the Akropolis very probably represent such memorials for Panathenaic victories.31 Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 200. IG II2 677; Shear (supra n. 10) 187, 202, 203–206, 476–477. Antigonos eventually seems to have received citizenship: he was voted a statue, regularly linked for foreign monarchs with citizenship, and he is described as a saviour and benefactor of the demos; IG II2 793; V. C. Petrakos, Ὁ δῆμος τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος II (1999) no. 7.2–6; Osborne (supra n. 3) 94, 97 n. 323, 114, 116; I. Kralli, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 B.C. (2003) 61–66. 26 Demes: Plotheia: IG I3 258.22–28; Skambonidai: IG I3 244A.15–21; tribes (probably): Dem. 21.156 with the Pat. schol. Dem. 20.21; gene: Salaminioi: RO 37.88–89; other groups: technitai of Dionysos: IG II2 1330.51–54. 27 IG I3 46.15–16; 71.55–58; IG II2 456b.3–8; SEG XXXI 67.2–6; I.Priene 5.2–6, 10–15; 45.8–12; schol. vet. Ar. Nub. 386a; schol. rec. Ar. Nub. 386b; schol. Tzetz. Ar. Nub. 386. 28 IG I3 34.41–43; 71.55–58. 29 IG I3 375.6–7; Hdt. 6.111.2; cf. IG II2 1496.98–101, 129 and Agora XVI 75.32–52, which pertain to the annual Panathenaia. 30 Sacrifices and the sacrificial community: M. Detienne, in M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant (eds.), The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (1989) 3–4, 131–132; J.-L. Durand, ibid., 104; M. H. Jameson, in I. Morris and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy 2500? Questions and Challenges (1998) 178; R. Osborne, in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Religion (2000) 311–312; cf. L. Bruit Zaidman and P. Schmitt Pantel, Religion in the Ancient Greek City (1992) 34, 36. 31 M. Korres, in A. Jacquemin (ed.), Delphes: cent ans après la Grande fouille. Essai de bilan, BCH Supplement 36 (2000) 24 25

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia

141

Just as taking part in the sacrifices marked one’s membership in the community of the Athenians, so also participation in the tribal events identified a man’s status as an Athenian. In the second century, the only attested tribal competitions are the hippic events on the Panathenaic Way and in the hippodrome, and they belong to the sphere of adult activities because only a grown man would have the strength to control the horses involved. These events also have a strong military aspect: to the armed apobates, we should add the warzeugos, the four-horse war-chariot, the war-synoris, and the races for war-horses, as well as the competitions specifically for the phylarchoi and the hippeis; as the entries for these last events in the victors’ lists indicate, the members of the cavalry wore their armour in at least some of their races.32 Since war was the province of the grown man, the military aspect of these events emphasised the adult status of the participants. Taking part in the tribal competitions, then, established the individual’s status as a male citizen, a category which was still important in Hellenistic Athens as this evidence demonstrates. At the same time, these martially flavoured competitions fit into the overall military theme of the Panathenaia which celebrated the gods’ victory over the giants.33 The only other event with a martial aspect was the hoplites, the race in armour, contested by adult men in the athletic competitions open to all participants.34 Since the hoplites was also included in the programmes of the Panhellenic games, in which it was the only contest with military overtones, it was something of an anomaly at Athens.35 With the single exception of this competition, martial competitions at the Panathenaia were all restricted to Athenians who were the only ones appearing in military guise. As the figurative descendants of Erichthonios, the founder of the festival and the mythical inventor of the apobatic race and the chariot, the special status of the Athenians was emphasised.36 In this setting, in which participation in the Panathenaia clearly marked one’s status and one’s relationship to Athens, the decisions of the Ptolemies and the Attalids to participate in the tribal events displayed their status as Athenian citizens to the Athenians themselves, to the other participants in the games, and to the visiting spectators. The audience for their display was suitably international: the victors’ lists record successes in the open athletic and hippic events by individuals from as far west as Liguria and as far east as Antiocheia on the Mygdonios (Nisibis) and Seleukeia on the Tigris (Table 4).37 Cities in central and southern Greece, the islands, and Asia Minor are particularly well represented in these sections of our extant lists. Since the links between Panathenaic contests, especially hippic events, and warfare were so close, the royals’ participation in them suggested that they would also fight for Athens. It was not an empty gesture. At the battle of Pydna in 168, the forces fighting against Perseus of Macedon included Attalos II and his brother Athenaios as well as at least some Athenians.38 In the third century, the Ptolemies provided significant support, both military and otherwise, for the city. Ptolemy I, for example, (figuratively) fought on her behalf in 287 when the Athenians revolted from Demetrios Poliorketes.39 During the Chremonidean War, Ptolemy II’s commander Patroklos

314–318, 320–325 with references to earlier discussions. 32 Armour: IG II2 2316.28–29; IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.6–9; Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 198. 33 Arist. fr. 637 (Rose); quoted by the schol. Aristid. Or. 1.362 (Lenz and Behr) = Dindorf 3.323 = Jebb 189.4; cf. schol. Ar. Eq. 566a (II); repeated by Suda s.v. πέπλος; F. Vian, La guerre des Géants: Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique (1952) 246–259; G. F. Pinney, in J. Christiansen and T. Melander (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery (1988) 465–477; P. Siewert, in M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaïka: Symposion zu den Panathenäischen Preisamphoren (2001) 4–5; Shear (supra n. 10) 31–38, 42. 34 Hoplites: e.g. IG II2 2313.53–54; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.34–35, 66–67; IG II2 2316.15–16; SEG XLI 115 col. I.5–6. 35 Kyle (supra n. 12) 88; Golden (supra n. 11) 41; Weir (supra n. 11) 21, table 1.1. The evidence of sixth-century Panathenaic prize amphorae suggests that the hoplites was on the programme at Athens before it was introduced to the Olympic and Pythian Games. Perhaps its introduction to the Panhellenic competitions was due to its place on the programme of the Panathenaia; Shear (supra n. 10) 272. 36 Erichthonios: Hellanic. FGrHist 323a F2 and Androt. FGrHist 324 F2, both cited by Harp. s.v. Παναθήναια; IG XII.5 444 = FGrHist 239, A10, lines 17–18, 21; Eratosth. [Cat.] 13; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.6; Serv. Comm. Verg. G. 3.113; Phot. Lex. s.v. Παναθήναια; schol. Pl. Prm. 127a; repeated by Suda s.v. Παναθήναια, Apostol. 14.6; Aristid. Or. 1.43 (Lenz and Behr); 37.14 (Keil); Ael. VH 3.38; Euseb. Chron. s.v. year of Abraham 546 (Helm 46b; Schoene 33); Plin. HN 7.202; Hyg. Poet. astr. 2.13; Fulg. Myth. 2.14; schol. Pind. Pyth. 5.10b (Drachmann); Shear (supra n. 10) 43–60 with further references; Peter Schultz, this volume. 37 Liguria: SEG XLI 115 col. I.31; Antiocheia on the Mygdonios: SEG XLI 115 col. II.25; Seleukeia on the Tigris: SEG XLI 115 col. I.6. 38 Livy 44.36.8; Agora XVI 291.12–16; Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 59, 1990, 573; Habicht, Athens, 215, 218–219. 39 Ptolemy’s military aid, involving both mercenaries and a fleet, was brought by Kallias of Sphettos from Andros; SEG XXVIII 60.11–32 and cf. 32–40; Habicht, Athens, 95–97.

142

Julia L. Shear Table 4. Second-century non-royal victories in open events.

City Magna Graecia and Italy Liguria Total Western Greek Islands Korkyra Total Greek Mainland Epeiros Boiotia

Number of victories

References

1 1

SEG XLI 115 col. I.31

3 3

IG II2 2316.7–8, 8–9, 15–16

2 4

IG II2 2313.24, 34 IG II2 2313.3, 19; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.9, 11 IG II2 2313.17, 40, 58; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.33, 65; IG II2 2315.32, 40, 42; IG II2 2316.2–3 IG II2 2316.5–6, 9–11 IG II2 2316.12–13, 14–15 IG II2 2313.9, 13, 15, 62; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.17, 48, 50, 54, 95; IG II2 2315.18 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.27, 59 SEG XLI 115 col. I.34

Athens

9

Sikyon Corinth

2 2

Argos

9

Messene Lakedaimonia Total Greek Islands Tenos Tenedos Samos Kos Total Asia Minor Kyme Sillyos Smyrna Erythrai Kolophon Ephesos Magnesia on the Maiandros Alabanda/Antiocheia Chrysaoron Mylasa Myndos Halikarnassos Total Southern Turkey Gagai (in Lykia) Zephyrion (in Kilikia) Antiocheia on the Kydnos (Tarsos) Antiocheia on the Pyramos (Magarsos/Mallos) Total Cyprus Kition Karpasia Total North Africa Ptolemais/Barka Kyrene Alexandria Total Near East Antiocheia near Daphne (Antiocheia on the Orontes) Laodikeia by the sea (in Syria) Laodikeia in Phoinikia (Berytos) Sidon Tyre Antiocheia on the Mygdonios (Nisibis) Seleukeia on the Tigris Total Total cities: 41

2 1 31 1 1 1 1 4

IG II2 2315.38 IG II2 2313.48 IG II2 2313.44 IG II2 2313.32

1 1 5 2 3 2 1 4 1 1 3 24

IG II2 2315.16 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.13 IG II2 2313.7, 30; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.19, 25; IG II2 2315.26 IG II2 2313.38; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.29 IG II2 2313.28, 46; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.5 IG II2 2313.36; IG II2 2315.20 IG II2 2313.52 IG II2 2313.54; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.15, 23; IG II2 2315.36 IG II2 2315.24 IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.43 IG II2 2313.22, 26; IG II2 2316.4–5

1 1 5

IG II2 2315.30 SEG XLI 115 col. I.29 IG II2 2316.47–48; SEG XLI 115 col. II.27, 29, 31, 33

2

IG II2 2316.49–50; SEG XLI 115 col. I.32

9 1 2 3

SEG XLI 115 col. I.28 IG II2 2313.56; IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.46

1 1

IG II2 2313.50 IG II2 2313.60 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.35, 52; IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.39; SEG XLI 115 col. I.33, col. III.18

5 7 3

IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.31; SEG XLI 115 col. I.4, col. II.23

1 1 2 1

IG II2 2317 + SEG XLI 118.41 IG II2 2316.51-52 IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.21; IG II2 2316.53 IG II2 2315.28

1

SEG XLI 115 col. II.25

1 10

SEG XLI 115 col. I.6

Total victories: 92

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia

143

actively campaigned in Attica with a contingent of soldiers.40 In both the third and second centuries, such royal military support was a critical factor in preserving the independence and well-being of Athens. These political and military relationships were displayed every time the Ptolemies and Attalids participated in the tribal events. They also suggested that would-be attackers, such as the Macedonian kings, would feel the wrath not just of the Athenians but also of the kings of Egypt and Pergamon. This emphasis on individuals’ status as adult citizens had further consequences and was not limited to the actual moment of the race. It probably explains why Ptolemy VI was entered in the open chariot race in 182/1: since he was not more than four years old, he could not compete in the tribal hippic events;41 similarly, in 162/1, Queen Kleopatra could take part only in the open events. The stress on status displayed in the inscribed victors’ lists was again emphasised when the victory was proclaimed. In 182/1, Ptolemy V was announced as ‘King Ptolemy, the son of King Ptolemy, of the tribe Ptolemais’, whereas, four years later, as victors in open events, Attalos II and Eumenes II were proclaimed as ‘Attalos, the son of King Attalos’ and ‘King Eumenes, the son of King Attalos’.42 By competing in the open events, both the Athenian tribe and the ethnic of the royals were lost so that only their status as royalty was proclaimed. The single exception to this pattern is the boy Ptolemy VI in 182/1, who was apparently listed as ‘Ptolemy, the son of King Ptolemy, Macedonian’; this form was otherwise reserved for non-royal victors, such as, for example, ‘Kallias, the son of Sosikrates, Athenian’, the winner in the men’s pankration at the same games.43 The only way, accordingly, for royalty to gain an ethnic was to participate in the tribal events as Athenians, but not every member of every royal family had Athenian citizenship. For those individuals who did, competing in the tribal hippic contests was an ideal way of displaying this status. At the same time, such participation emphasised to individuals like Mastanabal, the son of King Masinissa, that he was not an Athenian but an outsider; Queen Kleopatra was not only an outsider, but also a woman and so could not have been awarded Athenian citizenship. At the same time, the victors’ lists indicate that the Ptolemies and Attalids were competing with each other for success. The two Ptolemaic victories in 182/1, for example, were followed four years later by four Attalid victories; similarly, in 162/1, both King Eumenes II and King Ptolemy VI competed in the tribal contests in the hippodrome and won (Table 1). Although these two families dominate the Panathenaic lists, they were not competing with equal fervour at Olympia: neither family has any known wins in the Olympic Games in the second century. Athens was evidently the place to race at this time, as far as they were concerned. For them to compete at Olympia would have been to demonstrate that they were Greek, but to compete at Athens, particularly in the tribal contests, was to display their special relationship with a city which was politically not an international power of the same class as the Hellenistic kingdoms but culturally was without peer. At the same time, competing at the Panathenaic Games indicated that the royals were not passive bystanders but active participants in the city’s culture. We have separate evidence for this desire for active participation in their gifts to the city: the Gymnasium of Ptolemy and the stoas of Eumenes II and Attalos II were spaces for cultural pursuits.44 With these projects, the royals also followed the precedents set by such earlier Athenians as Peisianax, a relative of Kimon who built the Stoa Poikile, and Perikles and Lykourgos, who are both credited with construction in the Lykeion, one of the three original gymnasia in the city.45 Similarly Kimon had beautified the Academy and the Agora, 40 Petrakos (supra n. 25) no. 3.23–24; Habicht, Athens, 144–146. For a summary of Ptolemaic relations with Athens, see Habicht (supra n. 9) 68–90. 41 Ptolemy VI seems to have been born in 186; J. D. Ray, JEA 64, 1978, 117–119 with further references. I accept Tracy’s and Habicht’s restoration of his name in IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.56; Tracy and Habicht (supra n. 6) 221; contra: Golden (supra n. 11) 123 n. 16. Out of 110 instances in which we know or can guess the identity of the victor, the entry in question represents the only Macedonian (cf. Table 4). In light of Athens’ alliance with Rome and her recent hostilities with Philip V, the absence of Macedonians from the victors’ lists is not surprising; on the political situation, see Habicht, Athens, 194–215. 42 182/1: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.40–42; 178/7: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.84–87. 43 Ptolemy VI: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.55–56; Kallias: IG II2 2314 + SEG XLI 114.32–33. 44 Gymnasium of Ptolemy: Wycherley, Agora III, nos. 456–463. Stoa of Attalos: Wycherley, Agora III, nos. 99–102; Thompson and Wycherley, Agora XIV, 103–108. Stoa of Eumenes: J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present (1999) 272–273, 318. 45 Peisianax: schol. Aeschin. 3.186; cf. Diog. Laert. 7.1.5; Isid. Etym. 8.6.8; Harp. s.v. βασίλειος στοά; Suda s.v. βασίλειος στοά, Zήνων, Πεισιανάκτειος στοά. Perikles: Philoch. FGrHist 328 F37; Harp., Suda s.v. Λύκειον; Hesych. s.v. Λύκηον. Lykourgos: [Plut.] X orat. 841D, 852C; Paus. 1.29.16; IG II2 457b.5–9.

144

Julia L. Shear

while Themistokles, Telemachos, and Konon had built temples and founded precincts.46 These royal gifts identified the donors as worthy successors of these earlier Athenian citizens who had been active on the city’s behalf and had helped to make her a place of culture through their donations. Most of these fifth- and fourthcentury men had also been among the political leaders of Athens and many of them owed their prominence to their activities against the city’s barbarian enemies. By aligning themselves with these men, the Ptolemies and Attalids were able to reinforce what their participation in the tribal contests of the Panathenaia suggested: that they would fight for Athens against her (barbarian) enemies and, when they had been successful, they would adorn the city with additional monuments celebrating their achievements as citizens. These dynamics also have important consequences for the structures erected by the Ptolemies and Attalids because they must be seen as the work of citizens and not of foreigners imposing themselves on the city. 47

The Ptolemies, the Attalids and the City of Athens The Panathenaia provided an especially splendid opportunity both for the Ptolemies and Attalids and for the city of Athens because to participate in this festival was not simply to display one’s status in the city but to show the world that one was integral to this political entity which also remained the capital of Greek culture. For the Ptolemies and Attalids, competing in the tribal hippic games emphasised their position as citizens of Athens, a status reinforced when their victories were proclaimed and again when the victors’ lists were inscribed and yet again if they erected victory monuments. The tribal affiliations of the Ptolemies and Attalids stressed their participation in the games and indicated that their monuments were not about displaying some sort of political power over the city but about showing off their position within it. In the open events at the Panathenaia, the listing of the royal victors without any ethnic served by contrast to emphasise their citizenship indicated in the tribal competitions, and the nature of the hippic events further stressed the traditional link between citizenship and fighting for the city. In the case of the Ptolemies and Attalids, these dynamics emphasised the close connections which the royals had with the city and suggested that they were concerned with her well-being. The city which gave them the opportunity to display their status as Athenians could, in turn, expect their help and support in other ventures, both political and military. For the Athenians, the participation of Hellenistic royalty in the Panathenaia added lustre to the proceedings and stressed their importance; the contemporary absence of these families at Olympia points by contrast to the significance of being seen at Athens. At the same time, the royals’ interest in the city and her most important festival emphasised that Athens remained an important centre of power in the second century. The city was also able to display the support, both political and military, which these royals, particularly the Ptolemies and Attalids, were providing to her. By offering the Ptolemies and Attalids the opportunity to compete in the tribal contests and so to show off their Athenian status, the city was able to remind spectators and participants alike that she had such important citizens; their presence in this particular setting served to warn potential enemies that Athens would not easily be defeated because she had such powerful support. The city benefited in a further way from granting citizenship to these royals. Since no limit seems to have been imposed on the number of individuals rewarded with these honours, the Athenians could grant citizenship to members of more than one royal house. By honouring several different kings, they made sure that multiple sources of political and/or military support were available, if needed. If these various royals subsequently chose to compete in the tribal events at the Panathenaia, then the Athenians’ sources of potential aid were very clearly displayed to everyone present. These honours were part of an on-going reciprocal relationship prominently displayed both in the international setting of the festival and more permanently in the cityscape. They marked Kimon: Plut. Cim. 13.7; Plut. Prae. ger. reip. 818D. Themistokles: Plut. Them. 22.2–3; Plut. De malig. Herod. 869C-D; Telemachos: SEG XXV 226; Konon: Paus. 1.1.3. 47 The latter approach is exemplified by Habicht’s statement that ‘from the late third century, foreign rulers on good terms with Athens had contributed to the city’s imposing appearance by financing large public buildings. These projects were not only gifts to the city but also a means of self-promotion, as if Athens were a form of world’s fair at which a country or dynasty ought to be represented’; Habicht, Athens, 331. For similar sentiments, see e.g. J. J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (1986) 93, 281–282, 283–284; A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (1990) 210, 219; R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture, A handbook (1991) 103–104; Hurwit (supra n. 44) 262, 265, 269, 273, 274; J. M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (New Haven, 2001) 170–171. This interpretation firmly ignores the very clear evidence of the Panathenaic victors’ lists and the dynamics which they reflect. Further discussion of these monuments lies beyond the scope of this essay. 46

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia

145

the importance of both the celebration and Athens and they emphasised that active participation in the city’s affairs continued even in the day of the Hellenistic kingdoms to be the critical marker of citizenship.

Acknowledgements It is my pleasure to thank both Olga Palagia and Alkestis Choremi for their invitation to contribute to their very interesting conference “The Panathenaic Games” and the participants for their helpful comments and suggestions. A very early and rather different version of this paper was presented at the meetings of the American Philological Association in Dallas in 1999 and I would like to thank that audience for their suggestions. Special thanks are also due to K. DeVries, P. E. Easterling, S. D. Goldhill, A. Kuttner, S. D. Lambert, J. McInerney, R. Osborne, R. Rosen, T. L. Shear, Jr., and D. J. Thompson. Any remaining mistakes are, of course, my own.

Abbreviations Habicht, Athens RO Rotroff, Agora XXII Rotroff, Agora XXIX Thompson and Wycherley, Agora XIV Wycherley, Agora III

Ch. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (1997) P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne (eds.), Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 B.C. (2003) S. I. Rotroff, Agora XXII: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls (1982) S. I. Rotroff, Agora XXIX: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (1997) H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, Agora XIV: The Agora of Athens: The History, Shape, and Uses of an Ancient City (1972) R. E. Wycherley, Agora III: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (1957)

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period: Panathenaic prize-amphorae and the Biel Throne Dyfri Williams This paper is intended to provide a brief overview of the Hellenistic and Roman phases of Athens’ great Panathenaic stadium, using the evidence provided both by the architectural remains and the Panathenaic prize-amphorae.1 The 330s B.C. were a time of great events for Athens. The battle of Chaironeia (338 B.C.), the assassination of Philip II (336 B.C.), Alexander’s dedication of 300 panoplies from the Persians (334/3 B.C.), as well as the rise to power in Athens of Lykourgos, son of Lykophron, treasurer for a dozen years between about 336 and 324, the year of his death.2 These were, of course, also the years in which the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia was written, a vital document for our understanding of the Panathenaic Festival. Although David Romano has argued that the Panathenaic stadium, recorded as having been laid out by Lykourgos, was in fact on the Pnyx, most would agree that it was rather to the southeast of the city in a ravine between two hills on the far side of the Ilissos River.3 Inscriptions and literary evidence reveal that Lykourgos, the financial genius and beautifier of Athens, achieved the new stadium in about 330 B.C. by means of his typically pragmatic approach: with the help and wealth of others. The land was, at Lykourgos’ instigation, donated to the city by a certain Deinias, while Eudemos of Plataiai provided a thousand pairs of oxen to enable the necessary earth moving (honours voted in 330/29).4 Furthermore, Lykourgos even managed to have surplus long wooden beams transferred from Philo’s Arsenal in the Piraeus, another of his projects, for use in the stadium (332/1–37 yardarm beams and 16 masts)5 – these were perhaps to support the wooden seating. As a result, the city seems to have paid for little more than the building of the foundation wall (krepis), whether this was a low wall separating the track from the sloping sides or a supporting wall that helped close off the end of the ravine.6 Although it might not seem absolutely clear from the verbs used in connection with the stadium (exergazomai and epiteleo) whether Lykourgos both started and finished the project or whether, as in other of his important building works, including the Arsenal, his achievement was to bring to a successful completion an earlier and perhaps stalled or recalcitrant project, his role in getting the land from Deinias must mean that he was actually responsible for it from its inception. It seems certain that the new stadium was ready for the Great Panathenaic Games of 330/329.7 Nothing, however, is left now that definitely comes from Lykourgos’ stadium, although Stephen Miller has persuasively argued that some blocks from the tunnel on the east side might actually date from the Lykourgan phase, while Aristea Papanicolaou-Christensen has claimed in her recent book on the Panathenaic stadium that unspecified traces of the Lykourgan stadium were found when excavations were carried out in 1895 as work began on

I am very grateful to the National and Capodistrian University of Athens and the Ministry of Culture, in particular to Professor Olga Palagia and Dr. Alkestis Spetsieri-Choremi, for inviting me to participate in such an interesting conference. I am also much indebted to Dr. Julia Shear for generously allowing me to consult her fundamental doctoral thesis on the Panathenaic Games. 2 On Lykourgos, see Mitchel, LA; Habicht, AAA, 8 and 22–30; Mikalson, RHA 11–32. 3 D. G. Romano, AJA 89, 1985, 441–454. 4 For Deinias, see Plut. Mor. 841 D; for Eudemos, IG II² 351, cols. 15–18. See also Shear, 837. 5 IG II² 1627, 380–387; 1628, 539–542; 1629, 1017–1020 (cf. also 1631, 242–244). See Mitchel, LA, 196–197; Shear, 837. 6 Plut. Mor. 841 D and 852 C. 7 IG II² 351. 1

148

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period

Fig. 1. Panathenaic prize-amphora, British Museum B 609 – detail of Athena with aphlaston.

Fig. 2. Panathenaic prize-amphora, British Museum B 610 – detail of Nike on a ship’s prow.

the construction of the Olympic Stadium for the 1896 Athens Games.8 The stadium no doubt consisted of a dromos and a theatron for the spectators, surrounding the track on three sides and furnished with wooden seating; whether the closed end was curved or straight is uncertain, but it was more probably curved. Miller has suggested that there was also a tunnel and changing room (apodyterion) to the east, as at Nemea, Epidauros and probably Olympia.9 The creation of the new Panathenaic stadium needs to be set alongside these other seemingly roughly contemporary developments. One could argue that, since the Panatheniac stadium was part of a wide-scale improvement of Athens over a number of years, its redevelopment might have spurred other cities, but there is too much uncertainty over dating to give such a tempting, Athenocentric idea great weight. So-called Panathenaic prize-amphorae are preserved that date from the archonships of Nikokrates (333/2) and Niketes (332/1), the years in which the oil was pressed from the sacred olives, the moriai, and stored for presenting as prizes at the Great Panathenaia of 330/29, the gymnastic events of which were held in the new Lykourgan stadium.10 It is very interesting and surely significant to find that the sculptures on the pillars on either side of the Athena – an Athena holding an aphlaston (Fig. 1) on the Nikokrates amphora and a Nike on a ship’s prow (Fig. 2) on Niketes’– share a single iconographic theme, that of the navy. This prompts one to wonder whether their choice here and for much of the second half of the fourth century was less a matter of the annual archon’s particular interest than of wider contemporary Athenian issues.11 Lykourgos, during his tenure of financial control in Athens, not only did much else besides building the Panathenaic stadium to improve the city’s cultural and athletic life, he also repaired the Long Walls and completed the building of the Arsenal (skeuotheke) and ship-sheds around the harbour of Zea.12 It seems most likely that it was this work Miller, Nemea II, 210–222; Papanicolaou-Christensen, 23. See Miller, Nemea II, 178–210. 10 For listings of preserved examples, see Eschbach, 132–141. 11 M. Tiverios, in J. Neils (ed.), Worshipping Athena (1996) 163, holds that the archon did choose the figure on the columns; Eschbach, 166–169, is less dogmatic. 12 Strabo IX.1.15; IG II² 1668 – see D. Blackman ap. Morrison and Williams, 189. See also Habicht, AAA, 24–25; Mitchell, LA, 48–51; N. G. Ashton, BSA 72, 1977, 1–11; J. S. Morrison, JHS 107, 1987, 88–97. 8 9

Dyfri Williams

149

in the dockyards, and the build up of the fleet,13 that is celebrated by these statues on the pillars. We might even suppose that Athena holding an aphlaston would have been a particularly suitable statue for Lykourgos to commission for the new harbour complex, while the very vivid figure of Nike on a ship’s prow might point to wished for success at sea in the future, or actually refer back to the success quickly achieved by Diotimos against the Aegean pirates, following the joint proposal of Lykourgos and Aristonikos in 335/4.14 There is one other interesting connection between the Panathenaia and the navy that should be mentioned in this context. When the Panathenaic peplos was carried in procession, so that the citizenry could clearly see it, it was attached to the mast and yardarm of a wheeled float in the form of a small boat (skaphe).15 When this float was brought to the Akropolis, it seems that the boat part was left below and the peplos carried up, probably still attached to the mast and yardarm. From the important fragment of a votive relief found in the area of the Eleusinion beside the Panathenaic Way at the foot of the Akropolis, and dated by Alkestis Choremi to the third quarter of the fourth century, a Fig. 3. Panathenaic prize-amphora, British Museum B 607 fragment that in its upper register preserves part of – detail of Athena with mast and yardarn (seen behind shoulder) and aphlaston (?) with an owl on top. the rear of the Panathenaic ship-float, we know that it took the form of a small trireme on wheels or rollers and equipped with a pair of steering oars, but perhaps without oars.16 From inscriptions we hear more of the mast, yardarm and rigging that were used to display the peplos, for there are records of donations for new equipment from the end of the fourth century (in 298/7, 282/1 and 142/1), in particular for ropes, masts and yardarms.17 It is interesting to note, therefore, that from 340/39 the figure of Athena is occasionally shown on top of the columns on the Panathenaic prize-amphorae holding what might perhaps rather be a mast and shortened yardarm, topped by the bronze truck called a karchesion, than the stylis or ornament for the stern with which it usually identified (Fig. 3).18 Other symbols of ships, pars pro toto, include, of course, the prow, the stylis (a post to carry a flag more usually at the prow than at the stern, to judge by the illustrations of sixth and fifth century Athenian boats), the stern ornament itself (the so-called aphlaston), and the steering oars. Of these the prow and aphlaston could be very ornamental, while the steering oar was a potent symbol of direction and so of government, but the mast and yardarm had little such obvious elegance or symbolism, despite their obvious importance to navigation. If, however, there was a specific connection with the Panathenaic peplos then we may find a much deeper significance in representations of Athena holding a mast and yardarm (Fig. 3), if that is what it is, on Panathenaic prize-amphorae. By 330/329 the fleet consisted of 392 triremes, most at battle readiness (see Plut. Mor. 852 C), as well as some 50 quadriremes (cf. IG II² 1629, 783–812). 14 Diotimos was awarded honours by Lykourgos in 334/3 B.C.: Habicht, AAA, 25. 15 See J. M. Mansfield, “The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos” (diss. University of California at Berkeley, 1985) 68–78; Shear, 143–155. 16 A. Spetsieri-Choremi, AEphem 2000, 1–18. Cf. also the later relief (Hellenistic or Roman) on the main entrance of the Little Metropolis in Athens: Spetsieri-Choremi, op. cit,. fig. 4. For a possible marble model of the Panathenaic ship see H. G. Martin, Skyllis 2, 1999, 138–152. For Egyptian equivalents, see K. Hornig, Skyllis 5, 2002, 4–18. 17 For 298/7 B.C. (following the damage done in 302/1 B.C., see Plut. Demetr. 12, 3), see IG II² 657, 14–16; for 282/1 B.C., see SEG xxviii no. 60, 66–69; for 142/1 B.C., see IG II² 968, 48–49. See S. V. Tracy and Ch. Habicht, Hesperia 60, 1991, 234; and Shear,145–147. 18 Eschbach, cat. nos. 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65 (Nike), see pp. 95 and 108. For the karchesion, see Morrison and Williams, 199; J. Boardman JHS 99, 1979, 149–151. 13

150

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period

The Lykourgan stadium was repaired some time in the middle of the third century B.C., perhaps in 258/7.19 This was carried out by Herakleitos of Athmonon, presumably as agonothetes. Herakleitos was, of course, a staunch supporter of King Antigonos Gonatas. The repair may well have been necessitated by damage done during the Chremonidean War but it also almost certainly went hand in hand with the new sense of independence given to the city by Antigonos in 256/5, when he “gave the Athenians their freedom”.20 It is perhaps significant that at just about this time dateable Panathenaic prize-amphorae seem to reappear, their dates now secured by the presence of the names of tamiai ton stratiotikon, rather than archons.21 A fragment from the Akropolis bears the name of Eurykleides as tamias, of 248/7, while the inscription on the capital of the column on a fragment from the Agora has been read as naming Eurykleides’ son, Mikion, whose tenure of the post of tamias may have been in c. 215.22 Judith Barringer’s recent controversial suggestion that the figure on the column on both fragments might be Antigonos Gonatas himself could be thought to gain a little more support, if we consider the likelihood that Herakleitos actually set up a statue of Antigonos in or near the stadium as a means of celebrating his patron and his repairs. In the second half of the second century B.C. the Panathenaic prize-amphorae record another change of official, for the name of the tamias is now replaced by that of the agonothetes: the first recorded holder was Deinias of Erchia in 266/5.23 It seems likely that this official played a growing part in the financing of the festival and that he was chosen on grounds of wealth and influence. Work by Nike Metaxa-Prokopiou in 1970, and more recently by Despoina Tsouklidou, has clarified the sequence of known Panathenaic prize-amphorae from this period. Prokopiou published an amphora with the name of Adeimantos as agonothetes, found in the Philopappos Hill area in 1961, and also connected with it in style a couple of still unpublished fragments from the Kerameikos and the Agora.24 Adeimantos, son of Adeimantos, from the deme of Ikarion, was magistrate of the mint in 147/6 and epimeletes of Delos in 140/39.25 He was probably agonothetes in either 146/5 or perhaps, less probably, in 138/7. In the Giessen Conference volume Tsouklidou published a number of finds from Athens, including the amphora with the name of King Ariarathes V of Cappadocia (163–130) as agonothetes, perhaps dating from 138/7 or 134/3.26 In so doing she grouped together some six Panathenaic prizeamphorae as the work of one artist, whom she dubbed the Giessen Congress Painter, although one might have wished that she had chosen the more appropriate sobriquet of the Ariarathes Painter. To this sequence we can now add a new fragment acquired by the British Museum in 2002 (Fig. 4 and Colour Pl. 11).27 It came from the collection of Gustav Mustaki, who recorded that it came from the Hadra cemetery at Alexandria. It is actually by the same painter as the amphora naming Adeimantos as agonothetes: one might compare in particular the forms of eye, eyebrow, and hair curls, as well as the treatment of the musculature. Since the new London fragment came from the Mustaki Fig. 4. Panathenaic prize-amphora fragment, British Museum GR collection, it is interesting to note that his rival 2002.4–20.1. IG II² 677, 1–6. See Shear, 600 and 1017–1018; S.V. Tracy, in Macedonians in Athens, 59. Euseb. Chron. s.v. Olympiad 131, 1. See Habicht, AAA, 152. 21 The last archon named was Polemon of 312/311 B.C. and it is supposed that the change of procedure implied by this change of official formed part of the reforms of 310 B.C. by Demetrios of Phaleron: see Shear, 399. 22 Athens Akr. 113a and Agora P 109: J. M. Barringer, in Macedonians in Athens, 243–256, esp. 251–255, figs. 1 and 2. 23 SEG xxv no. 186, 1–4. 24 N. Metaxa-Prokopiou, ADelt 25 A, 1970, 97–99 (the fragments are Kerameikos 515 and Agora P 8665). 25 For the career of Adeimantos, see Ch. Habicht, Chiron 21, 1991, 7 and Hermes 119, 1991, 197, 201–203, 209 and 214. 26 D. Tsouklidou, in Panathenaïka, 33–40. 27 British Museum GR 2002.4–20.1: D. Williams, British Museum Magazine 44, 2002, 37. 19 20

Dyfri Williams

a

b

c Fig. 5a–c. Panathenaic prize-amphorae fragments: Athens National Museum, Benaki collection.

151

as a collector in Alexandria, Loukas Benaki, also acquired a group of fragments from Hellenistic Panathenaic amphorae, now in the National Museum in Athens (Fig. 5a–c).28 Some of these are not only by the same painter, but may perhaps even be from the same vessel as the London fragment (Fig. 5a and c right: perhaps also fragments Fig. 5b right and c upper left). The remains of the agonothetes inscription on the London fragment clearly does not match the name Adeimantos, but may well preserve parts of the first letters of Miltiades, son of Zoilos, from the deme of Marathon.29 Miltiades agreed to take on the task of agonothetes in 142/1 B.C. when nobody else would, and when the assigned revenues proved not to be enough, he contributed a considerable amount of his own funds. The procession and the sacrifices are recorded as having been particularly magnificent, while his own daughter served as one of the kanephoroi. To the works of this painter of Panathenaics, whom we might call the Adeimantos Painter, we may also add fragments of three unusual small-scale amphorae of Panathenaic shape from the House of the Comedians on Delos (height 22.5cms) (Fig. 6a–b).30 These amphorae are three times larger than the miniatures of the so-called Bulas Group of the end of the fifth and early fourth century B.C., but are also somewhat smaller than most of the series of pseudo-Panathenaics from the second half of the sixth and early fifth century B.C.31 The function of such small scale Panathenaics is uncertain, but we should note the possibility that they might well have been made to hold wine at symposia.32 It is not clear from our sources whether Adeimantos or Miltiades was the earlier agonothetes. This crux is sadly not resolved by the Panathenaic amphorae, for they are from the same hand and impossible to differentiate in date. It is intriguing, however, to note that the fragments of the three reduced-size Panathenaics found in the courtyard of the House of the Comedians, the only such small-scale pieces known after the fifth century B.C., would seem to date from the very time that Adeimantos was epimeletes on Delos (140/39). Is it possible that he commissioned special vessels for himself to record

G. R. Edwards, Hesperia 26, 1957, 348 and pl. 87. For Miltiades, see IG II² 958, 968 and 3867; SEG xxix no. 161; Shear, 479–480. 30 P. Bruneau et al., Délos XXVI: L’îlot de la maison des comédiens (1970) nos. D70–72, pl. 43. 31 For pseudo-Panathenaics and the Bulas Group see most recently M. Bentz, in Panathenaïka, 111–117 and 177–198. 32 T. B. L. Webster, Potter and Patron (1972) 159–160; M. Bentz, in Panathenaïka, 116–117. The precise function of full-sized Panathenaics is now being challenged; see P. Themelis, this volume. 28 29

152

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period

a Fig. 6a–b. Pseudo-Panathenaic prize-amphorae from Delos (after Délos XXVI, pl. 43). b

his benefaction and to be used at his banquets? Furthermore, could it actually be that he was the first occupant of this grand and sophisticated house with its superb paintings and courtyard exceptionally all of marble? Panathenaic prize-amphorae continued to be decorated into the first century B.C., one thinks in particular of a fragment from the Kerameikos with the name of the agonothetes Sarapion of Melite of 98/7.33 The sack of Athens by Sulla in 87/6 no doubt caused something of a caesura in both the Games and the production of Panathenaic amphorae, but at about the time of the Battle of Actium some repairs seem to have been made to the stadium.34 It is clear that the Festival did continue, under increasing control from the emperor, although the material evidence is very slim, with only the odd scrap of a Panathenaic prize-amphora being preserved.35 The reign of Hadrian was to herald a new era in the Panathenaic Games when he gave them increased status, elevating them into the ranks of the major Panhellenic competitions themselves. From A.D. 119/20 years were reckoned in “Panathenaids”, like Olympiads.36 Hadrian died in A.D. 138, the same year that saw the death of the father of Herodes Atticus and his accession to enormous wealth. Herodes Atticus, when he accepted as agonothetes the responsibility of directing the next Great Panathenaia in A.D. 143/4, now clearly a four year office, vowed to the Athenian people to build a new “stadium of white marble.”37 Herodes kept his promise and the stadium was ready for the Games, although I suppose someone might have quibbled that it was not all built of marble, for Piraeus limestone was used as well as Pentelic marble. Excavations in 1869–70 carried out by the architect Ernst Ziller and in 1895–6 by the contractor Perikles Kyriakos revealed that the stadium took the form of a curved horseshoe, the arms of the horseshoe being slightly curved inwards to improve visibility for all.38 The theatron was divided into two horizontal tiers (diazomata). At the bottom of J. Frel, Panathenäische Preisamphoren (1973) figs. 31–32 (Kerameikos PA 342 and 36). SEG xxvi no. 121, 50; Ch. Habicht, ZPE 111, 1996, 84–86. 35 Edwards (supra n. 28) nos. 12–13, pl. 77. 36 See Shear, 639–640, using O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (1900) no. 180, 1–11. 37 Philostr. V S II, 549–550. W. Ameling, Herodes Atticus I (1983) 61–62, prefers the archonship date of 136 and the completion of the stadium in 140. 38 Ziller; see also M. Kardamitse-Adame and A. Papanikolaou-Kristensen, Ernst Ziller (1997); Papanicolaou-Christensen. See also K. Welch, JRA 11, 1998, 133–138. 33 34

Dyfri Williams

153

the theatron was a second walkway, with a system of underground drainage beneath it and a marble parapet (stethaion) in front to protect the spectators from the more violent displays that were clearly intended to be staged there from the beginning of the stadium’s use – the top of the parapet reveals evidence for a system of metal gratings to further protect adjacent spectators.39 Vertical staircases punctuated the theatron to aid circulation, creating a total of thirty blocks of seating (cuniei or kerkides). This seating consisted of marble benches and gave the stadium a total seating capacity of about 50,000. Where the eastern end of the sphendone straightens there is, as mentioned earlier, a tunnel with an arched entrance that served to admit the contestants straight into the stadium from their changing room (apodyterion), as suggested by Miller. The rear of the sphendone was supported by arched buttresses; at the north end of the stadium the supporting walls were built of Piraeus limestone. Herodes also seems to have constructed a propylon or stoa at the open north end, and no doubt the double arched bridge across the Ilissos was his too, since it is aligned centrally on the stadium. On the basis of a few architectural fragments, Ziller restored the stadium as having a Doric stoa at the top of the sphendone.40 The location of this stoa remains somewhat problematic and Travlos omitted it from his reconstruction.41 Indeed, we know little of the decoration of this splendid stadium, except the few pieces of sculpture found by the nineteenth century excavators, namely parts of Classicizing double-headed herms and the decoration of the ends of the long benches and the legs of the prohedria seats, to which we shall return, all in the form of owls.42 One should suppose that there was in reality far more sculptural decoration, especially in the area of the propylon and even on the bridge. Both Pausanias and Philostratos speak of the stadium with great admiration and cite it as one of the most beautiful stadia of their time.43 One other piece of sculpture that might be associated with the stadium is a fragment in the National Museum in Athens. It is no more than a sliver from a female head, found in 1869 during the excavations in the stadium itself, a piece usually said to date from about 420 B.C., but which could perhaps be later, even Roman.44 On top of the Ardettos Hill to the west of the stadium and overlooking it Herodes constructed a temple of Tyche, whose first priestess was his wife Regilla, a temple that contained an ivory cult statue of the goddess.45 To the east of the stadium, it has been argued that the existing remains come either from the tomb of Herodes or, perhaps more convincingly, from the foundations erected for the display of the elaborate Panathenaic shipcar with 1,000 oars that he had specially made for his festival in A.D. 143/4.46 This great stadium of Herodes Atticus seems to have served the Panathenaic Games until their cessation, probably at the end of the fourth century A.D. By the fifteenth century all the marble seating had been stripped away, either to be reused elsewhere as building blocks (in the case of the prohedria thrones as special seats connected with churches), or to be burnt as lime – indeed, three lime-kilns were discovered on or next to the running track when the stadium was excavated in 1869–70. In the early 1970s Carlo Gasparri began a full study of the Panathenaic stadium.47 In pulling together all the evidence for Herodes’ stadium he assembled all the fragments of long marble benches ending, whenever they met the vertical staircases, in owls. Following on from the piece found by Ziller in 1870, he brought the total to some 18 examples. He was also the first to associate a series of 11 marble thrones with owl legs with the Panathenaic stadium, even though the primary find-spot of none are known (five are still to be found in the southwest corner of the Zappeion Gardens).48 The curvature of the backs of these thrones indicates that they must have been placed at the bottom of the Welch (supra n. 38) 136–137. Ziller 3 with pl. 2 (= Papanicolaou-Christensen, fig. 37); reconstructed in drawings by A. Metaxas, Papanicolaou-Christensen, figs. 54 and 56–57. 41 Travlos, Athens, 501, fig. 630. 42 Ziller, pl. 3 figs. 1–2 and 4 (= Papanicolaou-Christensen, fig. 39). 43 Paus. 1.19.6 and Philostr. V S II, 1,5. 44 Athens, National Museum 3739: Ziller, pl. 3, fig. 3; Karouzou, 66; Kaltsas, no. 228. 45 For the Temple of Tyche, see Tobin, 174–176. 46 Tomb: Welch (supra n. 38) 136 and 138–145. Foundations for Panathenaic ship: J. Tobin, AJA 97, 1993, 81–89; and Tobin, 177–185. 47 C. Gasparri, ASAtene 52–53, 1974–75, 313–392. 48 G. M. A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (1966) 100–101 notes that A. E. Raubitschek had assembled a group of these thrones with owls’ legs but thought they came from an exedra in front of the Odeum. For some of these, see D. Williams, British Museum Magazine 41, autumn/winter 2001, 40. 39 40

154

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period

Fig. 7. N. Revett, measured drawings of right-end throne (1751–3), British Museum.

sphendone nearest the track. We cannot know now how many chairs there were and so how many cunei they filled (2, 4 or all 6 that made up the sphendone). They were the prohedria seats, the honorary allocation of which we occasionally find references to between 314/3 B.C. and the 180s.49 Such awards could be made to benefactors, cities and boards of officials. One of the decorated end thrones is first known from detailed drawings made by Nicholas Revett in 1751–3 (Fig. 7).50 On 22 May 1801 the Rev. Philip Hunt, Lord Elgin’s chaplain, however, wrote from Athens to Elgin at Constantinople:51 “The Archbishop has given Mr. Nisbet [Lady Elgin’s father] out of the Metropolitan Church an ancient marble throne (Fig. 8 and Colour Pl. 16) on which the Gymnasiarch sat at the Public Games – the weight of it will make transportation difficult”. This last comment was to prove prophetic, for on September 15, 1802 the throne left on board Lord Elgin’s own ship, the Mentor, only to go down with the ship when it sank in a storm off the island of Kythera, with other pieces from Lord Elgin’s collection. After it was eventually salvaged at considerable expense, it was shipped to England and finally transported north See Shear, 424–428; evidence for prohedria in the Roman period is sadly minimal. Stuart and Revett 19 (engraving) and 25. For the detailed measured drawings in the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum, see Gasparri (supra n. 47) 352, figs. 39–40. 51 Letter at Broomhall: see A. H. Smith, JHS 36, 1916, 186–188; J. P. Nisbett Hamilton Grant, The Letters of Mary Nisbet of Dirleton Countess of Elgin (1926) 223. 49 50

Dyfri Williams to Biel in Scotland. It remained in the family’s collection, first in Scotland and then in southern England, until exactly 200 years later the British Museum was able to purchase it.52 The throne is decorated on the sitter’s right side only (Fig. 8). Here we find an amphora of Panathenaic shape, with a sprig of olive in the top, resting on an elaborate four-legged table along with three wreaths. Under the table are two palm branches and in the background to the left grows an olive tree. Elaborate volutes decorate the armrests and two owls form the front legs. The left side is undecorated, but has a carefully worked frame and picked central panel so that it could be set up close against another throne. The matching throne from the other end of the arc of prohedria chairs was also seen and drawn by Revett (Fig. 9).53 Its decoration was, of course, identical. In 1805–6 Edward Dodwell sketched this second chair (Fig. 10), presumably because the other one had already been removed by Hunt and Lusieri for the Hamilton Nisbets.54 The Dodwell sketch shows the throne now much damaged – indeed the relief decoration was so defaced that he could no longer recognise the stump of the olive tree or the foot of the Panathenaic amphora, leading him to draw instead a fourth wreath. This second throne now seems to have disappeared completely. The iconographic scheme of these elegant thrones makes a perfect counterpoint to the stadium. The owls are of course Athena’s own; the olive-tree is hers too. The table is of a particular four-legged type and is usually referred to as an agonistic table – it appears, along with other Panathenaic symbols, on some second century bronze coins of Athens which are regularly associated with Hadrian’s First Panathenaid, while particularly similar tables may be seen on coins of the 260s A.D., images that might perhaps even have been influenced by the decoration of the Herodean Panathenaic stadium.55 The amphora is of Panathenaic shape and the sprig of olive in

155

Fig. 8. “The Biel Throne”, British Museum GR 2001.5–8.1.

Fig. 9. N. Revett, engraving of lost left-end throne (1751–3).

British Museum GR 2001.5–8.1: D. Williams, British Museum Magazine 41, autumn/winter 2001, 40; P. Valavanis, Games and Sanctuaries in Ancient Greece (2004) 383 (wrongly described as the “Elgin Throne”, which is really in the J. Paul Getty Museum). 53 Stuart and Revett 29; on p. 25 the text stating that two thrones are shown on p. 19 must be a confusion – there is only one, seen in two views; the second must be the one shown on p. 29. 54 Dodwell sketchbook in Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. It had also been noted by Fauvel – see Gasparri (supra n. 47) 352 with n 2. Two more thrones from this arc, undecorated on either side, were drawn by the Dilettanti in 1812 – see sketchbook in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. One of these was drawn again in the mid 1830s by Christian Hansen: Papanicolaou-Christensen, 64, fig. 42. 55 See J. H. Kroll, Agora XXVI: The Greek Coins (1993) 123 with n. 53, types 184 and 192–194 (Hadrianic) and types 386–400 (A.D. 264–267). 52

156

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period

Fig. 10. E. Dodwell, sketch of lost left-end throne (1805–6), British Museum.

its mouth indicates its function as one of the prizes to be awarded. The three olive wreaths on the table on the Biel Throne all appear to be of different sizes and we may perhaps conclude that they were intended to refer to the three categories of events, those for boys, for beardless youths and for men, as Tony Spawforth has suggested to me. In this paper we have seen something of the Panathenaic stadium in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Indeed, we need to view both periods together, not only because it seems likely that all the main features of the later stadium were already present in the Lykourgan period (curved end and tunnel), but also because the development of the stadium by Lykourgos out beyond the Illissos was surely not an isolated project, but must have had other elements and the key to them probably lies in the Roman renewal. We should perhaps imagine a Lykourgan bridge over the Ilissos, like the one built probably by Herodes, and perhaps an improved road leading to the Lyceum, wherever that was actually located. There must also have been in the immediate vicinity of the stadium not only altars but perhaps even a temple. Indeed, it is tempting now to suggest that there was also once a fourth century B.C. temple on top of the Ardettos Hill. The erection of such a temple might well have been what necessitated the transferral elsewhere, probably by the last quarter of the fourth century B.C., of the public swearing of the heliastic oath which used to be held on the hill.56 Could such a temple also have been dedicated to Tyche, as its Herodean successor was? We know that Lykourgos was sympathetic to the cult of Tyche for she is listed as one of the deities whose cult equipment, kosmos, he made provisions to improve.57 With the thought of this putative fourth century B.C. temple in mind one might also note a fragment in the National Museum which preserves part of the torso of a draped female, one breast bared. It is usually identified as an Aura, although it could easily be from a Nike, and thought to be from a temple akroterion.58 It was found in 1890 to the east of the stadium, between it and the bridge, but has been Harp. s.v Ardettos, quoting Theophr. Nomoi fr. 17. R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (1996) 243–244 and 231–232; Mikalson, RHA, 37; I. Leventi, in Macedonians in Athens, 129 with n. 14 (speculation on alternative location of sanctuary). Praxiteles was to produce a statue of her, but that was for the Prytaneion: see O. Palagia, in W. E. D. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear, Jr., H. A. Shapiro, F. J. Frost (eds.), The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy (1994) 120 with n. 67. 58 Athens, National Museum 228: Karouzou, 64; Kaltsas, no. 243. 56 57

Dyfri Williams

157

dated to the early fourth century B.C., sadly perhaps making it too early for a relic of a Lykourgan temple of Tyche. Stadia and athletic competitions were powerful political symbols in antiquity and they have remained so over the centuries. Indeed, in 1896, with funding from Georgios Averoff, the Panathenaic stadium was rebuilt for the first of the current series of Olympics, those in Athens. Completion then was a race against time, as it no doubt had been in Herodes Atticus’ day too, when all had to be done in four years. The marble seating for the 1896 stadium was only finished in 1904 and the propylon only added in 1906. More recently preparations for the return of the current series of Olympic Games to Athens in 2004, despite being dogged by various problems, were finished on time and the Games celebrated with great success.

Abbreviations Eschbach Habicht, AAA Kaltsas Karouzou Macedonians in Athens Mikalson, RHA Miller, Nemea II Mitchel, LA Morrison and Williams Panathenaïka Papanicolaou-Christensen Shear Stuart and Revett Tobin Ziller

N. Eschbach, Statuen auf Panathenäischen Preisamphoren des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (1986) Ch. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (1997) N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (2002) S. Karouzou, National Archaeological Museum, Collection of Sculpture: A Catalogue (1968) O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 B.C. (2003) J. D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (1998) S. G. Miller, Excavations at Nemea II: The Early Hellensitic Stadium (2001) F. Mitchel, Lykourgan Athens, 338–322 (1970) J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships 900–322 B.C. (1968) M. Bentz and N. Eschbach (eds.), Panathenaïka: Symposion zu den Panathenaïschen Preisamphoren (2001) A. Papanicolaou-Christensen, The Panathenaic Stadium: Its History Over the Centuries (2003) J. L. Shear, “Polis and Panathenaia: The History and Development of Athena’s Festival” (diss. University of Pennsylvania, 2001) J. Stuart and N. Revett, The Antiquities of Athens III (1794) J. Tobin, Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens: Patronage and Conflict Under the Antonines (1997) E. Ziller, Ausgrabungen am panathenäischen Stadion (1870)

Athens and Herculaneum: The Case of the Panathenaic Athenas Carol C. Mattusch

Sculptures made in traditional styles were popular among the Romans, and workshops around the Bay of Naples produced works ranging from copies of the Athenian Tyrant-Slayers to Classical masterpieces to archaistic statues and busts, some of which may have been passed off as legitimate ‘old’ works. The many owners of villas in the region provided an unlimited demand for these sculptures, and it is not unusual for more than one example of a popular work to survive. The Villa dei Papiri, overlooking the Bay of Naples just west of Herculaneum, is the largest Roman villa that has been discovered to date, and it is by no means fully uncovered. Its public areas, which were tunneled out during the 1750’s, cover approximately 20,000 square meters or 65,000 square feet, including a large garden surrounded by a colonnade consisting of 25 × 10 columns. Excavations in the area of the atrium were conducted during the 1980’s and 1990’s, revealing two additional stories besides the single level drawn by Karl Weber in the plan that he finished in 1758.1 The Villa yielded wall paintings, floor mosaics, about 1,000 papyrus rolls, and nearly ninety bronze and marble sculptures. Most of the sculptures are classical in style, and many of them are either reproductions of well-known Greek statue-types or portraits of famous Greeks. The bronzes come in all sizes; statues, busts, and herm-heads come in all sizes, but almost all the marbles consist of life-size herm-heads and over-lifesize statues. In what appears to have been the tablinum, a vast room measuring 88 square meters with a polychrome marble floor, eight bronze busts were uncovered in the center of the room: a mellephebe (Naples National Museum 5633) and a short-haired “Polykleitan” type of athlete (Naples N.M. 5614); three life-size portraits of Romans (N.M. 5634, 5586, 5587); and small-scale busts of Demosthenes (N.M. 5469), Epikouros (N.M. 11017), and a Julio-Claudian lady, perhaps Agrippina (N.M. 5474). At one side of the room stood a colossal statue of a draped, veiled woman (N.M. 6240), evidently carved in Carrara marble. Between two columns outside the entrance to the room stood an over-life-size archaistic statue of an armed, striding Athena, carved in Pentelic marble (Fig. 1 and Colour Pl. 13). Use of the archaistic style conjures up ancient traditions and origins. As such, an archaistic image can be used to link the present context to the past, and to establish the bloodlines or the legitimacy of the present context. The statue of Athena from the Villa dei Papiri provides a fascinating range of associations. Images of the armed, striding Athena first became popular during the Archaic period, particularly in the city of Athens. The attacking Athena in the Gigantomachy from the pediment of the large late Archaic temple on the Acropolis – the Archaios Neos2 – strides forward on her left foot, leaning aggressively over her fallen opponent. Athena’s head is bent, and her long locks fall forwards over the left shoulder, backwards over the right one. She stretches out her left arm and grabs a snake on her aegis to threaten her fallen adversary. No doubt she was wielding a spear in her right hand, aiming it at the giant. The striding Athena on a lekythos attributed to Douris is not unlike the one from the Archaios Neos: she too is about to strike a falling giant with her spear; and she too is conceived as part of a group.3 See C. C. Parslow, Rediscovering Antiquity: Karl Weber and the Excavation of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabiae (1995) 96–103; C. C. Mattusch, The Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum: Life and Afterlife of a Sculpture Collection (2005) 33–64. 2 B. S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (1977) 207; J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present (1999) 123–124: ca. 500. 3 Cleveland Museum of Art 78.59. J. Neils, Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) 147 and 1

160

Athens and Herculaneum: the case of the Panathenaic Athenas

On Panathenaic amphorae of all periods, Athena maintains her archaistic character. She wields a spear and carries a shield extended in front of her as if she is on the attack, one foot usually in front of the other. At the same time, and in an apparent contradiction, she maintains an upright position. This Athena has no adversary; and her vertical stance relieves the composition of the need for another figure. The Panathenaic Athena also delivers a pointed political message: she is aggressive but unchallenged; and sport takes the place of battle. The armed attacking Athena appears as a bronze statuette in Athens and elsewhere during the Archaic period. When striding forward, she fits the Panathenaic type. The ones that stand upright are likely to be the precursors of the colossal armed and standing Bronze Athena that Pheidias designed for the Acropolis, and that was financed from the spoils of the Persian defeat at Marathon (Pausanias 1.28.2). This famous image that stood on the Acropolis was later given the title of Promachos (Warlike), because Pheidias’s statue was, after all, a monument honoring the Athenians’ victory over the Persians. She was armed like the other Athenas, but she was never described either as being old-fashioned in style, or as striding forwards. In other words, Pheidias’s Bronze Athena of the 450’s B.C. must have been Classical in style, and she undoubtedly looked very different from the traditional Panathenaic Athenas, who were actively Fig. 1. Marble statue of Panathenaic Athena from the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum. Naples N.M. 6007. H ca. 2 m. Photo: Museum. engaged in attack and Archaic in style.4 The archaistic striding Athena from the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum is about 2 meters tall, and she is one of more than twenty-five marbles and sixty bronzes that have been recovered to date from that villa. Nearly all of them were found during the eighteenthcentury Bourbon excavations, though a few marbles have been found in the recent excavations.5 Most of the marbles retrieved from this vast Roman collection were in excellent condition, and, if they were broken, the pieces were recovered and reattached, with the exception of one statue’s head, which was lost (N.M. 6126).6 All in all, relatively few repairs were made, even to the noses, almost all of which survived intact beneath the mud-flows from the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. When Karl Weber excavated the Villa dei Papiri between 1750 and 1761, he recorded only a “life-size marble statue, Minerva” in the notes that he wrote around the edges of his plan of the villa.7 fig. on p. 102: c. 480 B.C. 4 For the meaning of the images of Panathenaic Athena, ibid. (supra n. 3) 36–37; for the Athena Promachos and for the bronze Warlike Athena by Pheidias, see C. C. Mattusch, Greek Bronze Statuary: from the Beginnings through the Fifth Century B.C. (1988) 169–172. 5 Mattusch (supra n. 1) 51–54. Dottore Stefano De Caro and Dottoressa Maria Rosaria Borriello allowed Henry Lie, Director of the Straus Center for Conservation at Harvard University, and myself to study the bronzes and marbles from the Villa dei Papiri. We have documented the evidence related to ancient production and repair and to modern restorations, all of which provided indispensable evidence in our study. 6 The head was replaced in the eighteenth century with a copy of a head of Sophokles in the Farnese collection. Mattusch (supra n. 1) 144–145. 7 Mattusch (supra n. 1) 364, transl. of Fourth Explanation at “h,” and, for the statue, 147–151.

Carol C. Mattusch

161

The surface of the Athena has very little encrustation or erosion, but there are repaired breaks in the crest of the helmet, at the base of the neck, in the aegis, across the chiton, at the left hand, at the right wrist, and above the right elbow at the sleeve where there was originally a join. The right arm may have been replaced. The outer edge of the base appears to be a modern replacement, but the feet are original. Some scraping and rechiseling by the eighteenth-century restorers can be detected in white depressions and incisions. Furthermore, modern molds were taken more than once from this statue Fig. 2. Mold-making scratches on drapery of Panathenaic Athena from Hercufor use in making reproductions. Vertical laneum. Photo: Henry Lie. mold-cutting lines mark the back of the right sleeve. About five more mold-cutting lines go all the way around the statue at the thigh (Fig. 2). In some places, red mold-making lines parallel these incisions. These red lines may have had something to do with why the statue was once thought to have been gilded: it was not. When Johann Joachim Winckelmann described seeing the statue on exhibition in the Bourbons’ summer palace at Portici, he did not mention any repairs. He described the statue as “...Pallas (...) as big as life.” And he went on, “It is the best of all the marble statues, and, according to appearance, not of Italian workmanship. It looks almost ancient enough to be of the earliest ages of Greece. As a proof of what I advance, I must remark, that the face of this figure wears a certain character of rudeness, and that the folds of its drapery are stiff, and form, as it were, so many parallel tubes. The attribute of Pallas most remarkable in this figure is her aegis hanging from her neck, and thrown over her arm, by way of buckler, perhaps in the battle with the Titans; for she is here represented as running, and raising the right arm to throw a javelin.”8 In fact, Winckelmann should have said that the statue is larger than life, for it measures approximately 2 meters in height. He could have mentioned the swallowtail folds of the short himation, and how the chiton clings to Athena’s legs in loose catenary folds that descend all the way down her legs to gather across the arches of her feet. The aegis is stretched across the statue’s entire back, covering the left arm, and the left hand is wrapped in the aegis (Fig. 3). Long wavy locks of hair are incised in the back of the aegis and over the right shoulder (Fig. 4 and Colour Pl. 14). A row of tightly curled snakes rims the scalloped hem of the aegis. There is no weapon, “javelin” or otherwise, but in her right hand Athena once held a weapon angled slightly downwards so as not to hide her face. Considering the dozens of statues in a wide range of styles that Winckelmann saw coming from the excavations at Herculaneum, it is no wonder that he felt the need to classify them. Nor is it surprising that he identified this one as a very old statue: Athena’s torso is frontal; her head is in profile; and her apparently active pose seems to be at odds with her rigid upright position. Her face is expressionless, though her lips are slightly parted, perhaps in reference to her exertions. There are drilled spiral locks across her forehead (Fig. 5). Griffins and a fat grimacing gorgoneion adorn her helmet (Figs. 6 and 7), and she has earrings or medallions over her ears and a double row of large beads around her neck (Fig. 5 and Colour Pl. 15). In obvious contrast to her blank expression, the plump frontal gorgoneion at her upper arm is frowning, squinting, and sticking out her small tongue between parted lips, as if she is pouting (Fig. 7 and Colour Pl. 16). Today we recognize Athena as an archaistic statue, combining features that can be assigned to both Archaic and Classical styles. The face can be described as

8 J. J. Winckelman [sic], Critical Account of the Situation and Destruction by the First Eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabia;...In a Letter (Originally in German) to Count Bruhl [sic]...first English trans. (from French edn.) of Sendschreiben (1762), (1771) 42.

162

Athens and Herculaneum: the case of the Panathenaic Athenas

Fig. 3. Head, torso, and left arm of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: author.

Fig. 4. Back of aegis with long locks of hair of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.

Fig. 5. Right profile of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.

Fig. 6. Griffin on helmet of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.

Classical, the pudgy snake-free type of gorgoneion derives from the fourth century, and the dress is a variation on the Archaic style.9 The Herculaneum Athena is usually described as being of the Promachos type, but she cannot be, because that statue was not archaistic, whereas the Panathenaic Athena is. It is interesting that the Panathenaic Athena appears on coins minted by Ptolemy I (d. 283/2), by Pyrrhos (319–272 B.C.), by Demetrios Poliorketes (337–282 B.C.), and by Antigonos Gonatas (320–239 B.C.), all of whom had ties at one time with Athens. And portraits of at least two of these individuals have been identified among the herms that were found in the Villa dei Papiri.10 9 10

For the gorgoneion, see J. Floren, Studien zur Typologie der Gorgoneion (1977) 192–197. C. M. Havelock, AJA 84, 1980, 41–50 and pls. 7.2, 7.5, 7.7. For identifications of portraits from the Villa dei Papiri as Demetrios

Carol C. Mattusch

163

Fig. 7. Gorgon on aegis of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.

The Herculaneum Athena once stood between the columns separating an interior square courtyard from the tablinum of the Villa dei Papiri, according to Karl Weber’s notes on his plan.11 Like the rest of the statues and busts from the Villa, she shows Fig. 8. Right profile of fragmentary face of Panathenaic Athena from the Athenian Agora. Agora S a strong Greek bias. One might wonder whether there was any 1064. Photo: American School of Classical Studies intended relationship between the Athena and the other over- – Agora Excavations. life-size marble statue – of a veiled matron in classical dress – that was found in the tablinum (N.M. 6240). Was that woman placed there so that her virtues could be compared with those of Athena? The portrait of the woman appears to be made of Carrara marble, whereas the Athena is Pentelic marble,12 but their relative proximity to each other calls to mind another pair. Two herms of women were placed together in the Villa’s large garden, one representing Athena (N.M. 6322) and the other a veiled woman in the classical style (N.M. 6188).13 Again, the woman’s proximity to Athena may be intended as a mark of her character. But to return to the tablinum, the sculptures found in that room included portraits of four Romans, but also heads of a mellephebe (N.M. 5633), a Classical athlete (N.M. 5614), and of Demosthenes (N.M. 5469) and Epikouros (N.M. 11017). The archaistic attacking Athena, made of Pentelic marble, and placed near these famous Greeks and classical types surely says something about the owners of this Villa. The archaistic Athena has a particularly powerful association with the city of Athens, specifically with the Panathenaic Games. Oddly enough, a few fragments of another archaistic Athena just like this one, of the same size and also carved in Pentelic marble, were discovered on and below the Athenian Acropolis. The pieces include part of the face and neck (Fig. 8), and some of the drapery from the torso and the aegis over the left arm – with a hole for the attachment of the gorgoneion. There are also vertical folds from the chiton and some swallowtail folds from the himation near the right knee, as well as the drapery over and behind the left knee. Do these pieces come from the “original” Panathenaic statue of Athena, as has been suggested?14 There is fairly broad general agreement that the Villa dei Papiri was built by Lucius Calpurnius Piso, the father of Calpurnia, Julius Caesar’s third wife. Piso had strong ties to Greece. In 57 B.C., the year after Piso had served as the consul from Campania, he was given the proconsulship in Macedonia, where he spent two years, Poliorketes (N.M. 6149), Pyrrhos (N.M. 6150), and as a Ptolemy, see Mattusch (supra n. 1) 161–164, 264–267. 11 See also D. Comparetti and G. De Petra, La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni (1883, rpt. 1972) 277, no. 81. 12 Stable isotope ratio analyses were made by the Department of Geology at the University of Georgia. 13 Mattusch (supra n. 1) 179–181. 14 Part of head, from the North Slope of the Acropolis: Athenian Agora S 1064, Pentelic marble. Fragments of aegis, left arm, hair, and chiton from unidentified contexts: Acropolis Museum nos. 3198, 7181, 2899+7782, 8750. M. Bruskari, in H. Kyrieleis (ed.), Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik II (1986) 77–83, pls. 107–108. For the argument that the Athens fragments come from the original statue of this type, see E. B. Harrison, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Agora 11 (1965) 51, 63, 66, 73–75, no. 124.

164

Athens and Herculaneum: the case of the Panathenaic Athenas

ruling all of Achaia. Piso visited Samothrace, and an inscription there records a dedication to him as ruler and patron.15 Furthermore, he and his son, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Pontifex (d. 32 A.C.) had particular ties to Athens, and a fragmentary Acropolis base records a dedication set up in honor of his son.16 Either Piso set up one statue of a Panathenaic Athena in Athens and ordered another one for his home, or else he saw one in Athens and ordered one for himself as a reminder of his Greek sojourn. Both statues are carved in Pentelic marble, making one wonder whether the finished statue was shipped from Athens, or whether a cast was sent, along with the marble, to be carved in a workshop near the Bay of Naples.17 Plaster casts from the marble workshop at Baiae, along with multiple examples of popular statues from villas around the Bay of Naples, reveal the wealth of the sculpture industry in that region. The pseudo-Seneca, the type of the Sciarra Amazon, the Doryphoros, the Polykleitan Herakles, Epikouros, and Demosthenes were all in great demand, as were portraits of women dressed as the so-called Small and Large Herculaneum types.18 Models for these images were on hand locally, marbles from Carrara, Pentele, and Paros were all in stock, and one could hire a resident Greek artist to fill an order. Certain types were always popular, like the Doryphoros, whose bust, signed by an Athenian named Apollonios, was found in the Villa dei Papiri. There were also two of what we call “Polykleitan” heads, one in bronze and the other in marble.19 The poor condition of the Athenian fragments makes it difficult to assess their quality, but clearly we do not need to compare Athenian and Neapolitan workmanship, since entrepreneurial Athenian sculptors had followed the market’s demand and were working around the Bay of Naples. What survives of the fragmentary Athenian head shows crisp carving and fine precise details, evidence of better workmanship than on the statue for the Villa. Some surfaces on the latter were left rough, and there are crude striations and visible chisel marks here and there. Near the waist, some of the scales on the aegis are crudely marked and look like feathers. Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn here is that the buyer of the statue for the Villa dei Papiri was not a particularly exacting judge of quality. But the less skilful carving of the statue in the Villa cannot necessarily be used to dismiss the work as a poor local copy of an “original” in Athens, for shops around the Bay of Naples regularly used imported marbles, and their carvers produced sculptures of the highest quality for their sophisticated clientele. Instead, it might be argued that the statue in Athens is not the “original” either, but that the two statues were made for Roman buyers, perhaps even for a single Roman buyer, with close ties to Greece, and in particular to Athens. These two statues are better understood as the only two surviving three-dimensional examples of a type of armed Athena with powerful emblematic reference to Athens, to the past, and to tradition. This is what the art collection in the Villa dei Papiri was all about: it called up Classical names and Archaic traditions, with the intention that the owners of that collection might fix themselves firmly within that context. The statue in Athens, erected in public and evidently on the Acropolis, might well have served the same function, whenever it was erected, and whoever the dedicator might have been.

See H. Bloch, AJA 44, 1940, 485–493; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 99 B.C. – 31 B.C. 2 (1951) 202; and summary in Mattusch (supra n. 1) 20–23, and 31 n. 62. 16 M. D. Fullerton, AA 104, 1989, 57–67. 17 For a detailed discussion of the archaistic style in freestanding sculpture and for a consideration of the Herculaneum Athena and its Athenian counterparts, see M. D. Fullerton, The Archaistic Style in Roman Statuary (1990) 1–12, 45–49, 69–70. For a general evaluation of the style in sculpture and relief, large- and small-scale, see M.-A. Zagdoun, La sculpture archaïsante dans l’art hellénistique et dans l’art romain du haut-empire (1989) passim. 18 For discussion of the significance of these familiar female statue-types, see J. Trimble, JRA 13, 2000, 21–68. 19 Doryphoros, N.M. 4885: Mattusch (supra n. 1) 276–282; “Polykleitan” heads, N.M. 5610 and 6164: Mattusch (supra n. 1) 178, 242–245. 15

Plate 1. Burgon Panathenaic prize amphora. London, British Museum B 130. Photo H. R. Goette.

Plate 2. Laconian black-figure cup. Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco 16592. Photo after Μ. Τιβέριος, Ελληνική Τέχνη. Αρχαία Αγγεία (1996) 100, fig. 65.

Plate 3. Attic red-figure amphora from Trachones. Piraeus Museum 7341. Photo: P. Themelis.

Plate 4. Attic red-figure amphora from Trachones. Piraeus Museum 7341. Youth. Photo: P. Themelis.

Plate 5. Attic red-figure amphora from Trachones. Piraeus Museum 7341. Athena. Photo: P. Themelis.

Plate 6. Cup. St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum B 4526. The personified tribe hands the torch to the first runner. After D. Vanhove (ed.), L’Olympisme dans l’antiquité I (1993) 58.

Plate 7. Miniature prize amphora. Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1627. The race. Photo: Museum.

Plate 8. Bell-krater. Leipzig, Antikenmuseum T 958. An ox as prize for the torch race, is led to sacrifice by the tribe and the winning team. Photo: Museum.

Plate 9. Attic red-figure bell-krater attributed to the Nostell Painter. Montreal, Musée des Beaux Arts, 1944.Cb.2. Photo: J. H. Oakley.

Plate 10. Statue base dedicated after a victory of the tribe of Oineis. Athens, Acropolis Museum 3176+5460+2635. Photo: H. R. Goette.

Plate 11. Panathenaic prize-amphora fragment. British Museum GR 2002.4–20.1. Photo: Museum.

Plate 12. “The Biel Throne”. British Museum GR 2001.5–8.1. Photo: H. R. Goette.

Plate 13. Marble statue of Panathenaic Athena from the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum. Naples N.M. 6007. H ca. 2 m. Photo: C. C. Mattusch.

Plate 14. Back of aegis with long locks of hair of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.

Plate 15. Right profile of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.

Plate 16. Gorgon on aegis of Panathenaic Athena from Herculaneum. Photo: Henry Lie.