Athenian Potters and Painters: Volume II

By John H. Oakley and Olga Palagia

This volume presents the proceedings of the second Athenian Potters and Painters conference, which was held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens 2007. Together with the 1994 conference (Volume I, Oxbow 1997), these are the first of their kind - focusing purely on Athenian pottery and addressing key aspects of its study. The thirty-two papers contained here are the result not only of a large amount of new material but also the dynamic appearance of a younger generation of scholars dealing with the subject. Subject areas range from the study of the potters and painters themselves, to shape, subject matter, chronology, export, excavation pottery, context, and the influence of Athenian vases on pottery from other regions of the Mediterranean and vice versa. Three papers in Greek.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: May 1, 2009
• ISBN: 9781782973225

Book preview

1 Dionysos in Context: Two Attic Red-figure Kraters of the Early Fourth Century BC

Amalia Avramidou

The iconography of Dionysos has always fascinated scholars of Attic vase-painting, and even today his multi-faceted character continues to fuel our interests as he occurs in a variety of myths and representations related to theater, ritual and, of course, wine-drinking.¹ In this paper I would like to examine two Attic red-figure vases with Dionysiac iconography and demonstrate how contemporary vase-painters illustrate the same god in largely different contexts, each derived from a different source of inspiration. By placing these two vases within their historical context, I will show how vase-paintings can complement our study of a specific time-period by exhibiting a plethora of associations, even when they involve the iconography of only a single god.

Both vases share certain features in common: they are calyx-kraters, date to the first decades of the fourth century, and were found on Aegean islands under Athenian control. Even though Dionysos is the principal character in the main scenes on both, each krater shows a different guise of the god and each representation is particularly revealing when associated with significant events of the early fourth century BC. The first krater will be examined in relation to the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleutherios on the south slope of the Acropolis and the influences from the iconography of the birth of Erichthonios, while the second will be analyzed with regards to the adoption of eastern motifs and practices in Athenian art and lifestyle. A further attempt will be made to include the buyer’s perspective in regards to the meaning of the scenes on these two vases.

The first krater was excavated in a necropolis on the island of Paros in the early 1990’s (Fig. 1).² It is partially preserved, dates from around 400–380 BC, and according to Ian McPhee, it belongs to Beazley’s Plainer Group.³ Even though the joining fragments reconstruct a large portion of the primary side of the vase and the lip, still the decorative scene remains open to interpretation.

The krater shows on the right the goddess Athena in a peplos. She is armed with a spear and helmet, and wears bracelets and a necklace, but no aegis (Fig. 2). Athena raises her right arm in a gesture of epiphaneia, as she faces three women dressed in elegant clothes and jewelry. The first two are crowned with ivy wreaths, as is the young boy supported by the seated woman. He is eager to leave her lap as he raises his right hand to Athena.⁴ Next is a woman in a chiton who stands in a very elegant pose as she pulls her himation over her shoulder (Fig. 3). The third woman makes a gesture that roughly mirrors those of Athena and the boy. On a lower level between the two standing women is a partially preserved male head wearing an ivy wreath surrounded by large ivy leaves. Two altars placed above the handles flank the scene indicating its sacred character.

Fig. 1. Red-figure calyx-krater. Paros, Arch. Museum 3255. 400–380 BC. Delivery of Dionysos to Athena. Photo: Museum.

When Aliki Kauffmann-Samaras first published this vase, she interpreted the scene as a variation of the domestic representations popular in Attic vase-paintings in the second half of the fifth century. She identified Athena as a kourotrophos and related the depiction of the boy with rituals of youths and ephebes in honor of Athena. The second woman from the right she identified as Aphrodite, while the partly preserved ivy head was generally placed in the realm of Dionysos. The scene was explained as a picture of the ideal Athenian family and the deities as protecting the boy at an important stage of his life.⁵

Fig. 2. Red-figure calyx-krater. Paros, Arch. Museum 3255. 400–380 BC. Athena, Dionysos and the Nymphs. Photo: after Kauffmann-Samaras pl. 1b.

I would like to suggest an alternative reading of the scene, namely the delivery of Dionysos to Athena by the Nymphs. The young boy can be identified with Dionysos on account of his ivy wreath and the similarity with other depictions of the baby Dionysos,⁶ while the poorly preserved ivy-wreathed head probably belongs to a seated satyr.⁷ In this context Athena’s gesture can be taken as a greeting to the newborn god. I prefer to explain the three women as nymphs (or perhaps Charites) responsible for the upbringing of the god, since all three are dressed in a similar way. They face in the same direction and react to the presence of Athena with gestures indicative of their solemnity and acknowledgement of the goddess’s appearance.⁸ In addition, if we accept the identification of the figure in the center as Aphrodite, the interpretation of the scene as the delivery of Dionysos need not be altered, but on the contrary, her presence here would provide a topographical reference supporting our hypothesis further.

The birth of Erichthonios and the birth of Ploutos could also be considered as possible interpretations of the Paros krater, but identifying the boy as Dionysos is our best choice for the following reasons. First, the identification with Ploutos must be ruled out, since we lack the protagonists of this Eleusinian myth, Demeter and Kore. The case for Erichthonios is stronger, but the iconography of the depictions of his birth is quite different than that of the scene on the Paros fragment. The major difference is the absence of Gaia rising from the ground to deliver the baby to Athena. In addition, the goddess holds no special cloth to receive the child, nor does she lean towards the child to embrace it, as in the depictions of Erichthonios; instead she majestically appears in front of it. Even in the case of the squat lekythos by the Meidias Painter, where Gaia is identified with the seated figure, the maternal instincts of Athena are clearly manifested as she carefully leans over Erichthonios to cover him with a patterned peplos.⁹ The boy on the Paros fragment does not wear any amulets, typical for newborns, only an ivy wreath, Dionysos’s favorite plant. If the three women are the Aglaurids, then it is surprising how calm and benevolent Athena is towards the untrustworthy custodians of the child, a rarity compared to vases that show her inflicting punishment on the girls.¹⁰

Fig. 3. Red-figure calyx-krater. Paros, Arch. Museum 3255. 400–380 BC. The Nymphs and Dionysos. Photo: after Kauffmann-Samaras pl. 1a.

If our interpretation of the Paros krater as the delivery of Dionysos to Athena is correct, then we need to place it within a larger framework by taking a twofold approach. First, it is necessary to study other representations of Dionysos’s infancy on Attic vases, as well as to examine how often the two gods, Athena and Dionysos, are jointly represented. Second, one needs to explore how and if these scenes can be associated with the development of the sanctuary of Dionysos on the south slope of the Acropolis.

The iconography of the infancy of Dionysos includes an abundance of intriguing examples that can be largely arranged in three groups: representations of Semele or Zeus giving birth,¹¹ scenes where Dionysos is handed from one figure to another – in most cases it is Hermes that hands him over to either Silenus, the nymphs or the maenads¹² – and vase-paintings that stray from the typical scenes of Dionysos’s infancy, such as the bell-krater by the Altamura Painter with Dionysos (or Zeus) holding a boy with all the attributes of the wine god, and the cup by Makron that depicts a young Dionysos carried by Zeus amidst a procession of Olympian gods.¹³

Fig. 4. Hydria by the Semele Painter. Berkeley, Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum 8.3316. End of the fifth century BC. The Birth of Dionysos. Photo: Museum.

Athena is rarely present among the deities assisting or witnessing the birth of Dionysos, with the exception of two vases from the early fourth century, of the same period as our krater. The first vase is a hydria by the Semele Painter, which shows Hermes saving the baby Dionysos from Iris under the auspices of Zeus and Aphrodite, who are depicted on the upper register. Semele lies exhausted on a couch, while a nymph and a figure identified either as Hera or Athena flank the scene (Fig. 4).¹⁴ Athena has an even more active role on a pelike in the Hermitage by the Eleusinian Painter, where a female figure identified as the nymph Dirce comes up from the earth to deliver Dionysos to Hermes. Right next to him, Athena is depicted as vigilant and in full armor, determined to protect the young god. A flying Nike above the goddess indicates her success, while a maenad plays the tympanon in honor of the newborn god. On the upper register, Zeus and Hera along with Demeter and Persephone witness the scene. The arrangement and cast of the participating figures suggest an influence from the representations of the birth of Erichthonios and Ploutos, but despite the borrowed artistic vocabulary, the scene unmistakably portrays the delivery of Dionysos, since a baby wrapped in a nebris can only be identified with the wine god.¹⁵

Based on the above observations, the interpretation of the calyx-krater from Paros as a variation of the delivery of young Dionysos becomes more plausible. Apart from the figures that one would expect to find in this episode, the nymphs and the satyr, the Paros fragment includes the goddess Athena in a protagonistic role. She acts as a surrogate mother of Dionysos, not so much in her power as kourotrophos, but rather as the mighty daughter of Zeus, who according to later sources saved the heart of Dionysos after his dismemberment by the Titans.¹⁶ Thanks to her protection and intervention the god of wine is reborn.

As a pair Athena and Dionysos decorate predominantly black-figure vases of the late sixth and early fifth centuries BC,¹⁷ a period, which coincides with the first major phase of the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleutherios. Within the same timeframe, Dionysos and Athena are also depicted in divine gatherings, like the exceptionally fine divine symposium represented on the psykter-krater by the Troilos Painter,¹⁸ and in mythological episodes, such as the Gigantomachy, the introduction of Herakles to Olympos and the celebration of Dionysos’s wedding to Ariadne.¹⁹ It is interesting to note that even on the Pella hydria and the Hermitage hydria depicting the contest of Athena and Poseidon, Dionysos is portrayed by Athena’s side as a faithful ally, thereby stressing even further his significance as a civic deity in late fifth- and early fourth-century Athens.²⁰ With regard to religious practices, the two gods were brought together during the Athenian festival of Oschophoria,²¹ and they also enjoyed neighboring sites of worship, since the temple of Dionysos lies on the south slope of the Acropolis, which carries the sanctuary of Athena par excellence.

Fig. 5. Red-figure calyx-krater. Rhodes, Arch. Museum Π 15768. Ca. 380–370 BC. Photo: Author.

It is interesting to note that a fragmentary cup by Makron possibly depicts the introduction of the young Dionysos to his sanctuary. The vessel dates to around 490 BC,²² a time when the theater of the mid sixth-century shrine of Dionysos Eleutherios received its first simple orchestra and seating. Such an important event could have inspired the decoration on the kylix by Makron, which, interestingly enough, was dedicated in the sanctuary of Athena on the Acropolis.²³

Similarly, the majority of Attic vases depicting the birth and delivery of Dionysos to his caretakers dates to around the middle of the fifth century and therefore can be chronologically associated with the Periclean phase of the sanctuary of Dionysos.²⁴ At the turn of the century and during the first decades of the fourth century there is a renewed interest in Dionysos’s childhood, which can be perceived of as a lingering reaction to Pericles’s contribution to the sanctuary of Dionysos, namely the building of the Odeion. The construction of such an extraordinary monument presupposes the revamping of adjacent structures, especially the nearby theater. Pericles could have also planned a new structure to house Alkamenes’s gold and ivory statue of Dionysos, even though the modest Archaic temple was ultimately maintained in this phase.²⁵

During the same period, there are several dramas based upon the infancy of gods and heroes, including the Dionysiskos, a satyr play by Sophocles produced ca. 440–435 BC.²⁶ Scholars have long ago associated vase-paintings with this play, the most famous being the white-ground calyx-krater by the Phiale Painter (440–435 BC),²⁷ but the fragmentary state of the Paros krater does not permit a similar association to be made.²⁸

By correlating the representations of young Dionysos on Attic vases with the architectural phases of his sanctuary on the Acropolis, one may tentatively suggest that the scene of the delivery of Dionysos to Athena on the Paros krater was inspired by the additions and renovations to the sanctuary introduced by Pericles. If such a hypothesis is valid, then we may interpret the scene on the krater in Paros as the celebration of the young Dionysos’s introduction to his new and improved sanctuary under the auspices of Athena, both literally and symbolically.

As mentioned earlier, the three women accompanying Dionysos on the Paros fragment can be identified either as nymphs or Charites. If we accept the latter interpretation, then their presence may also serve as a topographic reference to their cult both on the Acropolis,²⁹ as well as on the island of Paros, the findspot of our vase and one of the main sites where the three Charites were worshipped.³⁰ Alternatively, if we agree with the identification of the middle figure as Aphrodite, we gain another symbol of local topography, since Aphrodite was worshipped on the south slope of the Acropolis as Pandemos³¹ and as Ourania in the northwestern corner of the Agora, alongside the Charites. Even more tantalizing information appears in an inscription from the theater of Dionysos mentioning a priest of Charites and Demos. Although the inscription dates to the third century BC, the cult of Charites and Demos is probably earlier, forming a parallel to the fifth-century cult of Demos and the Nymphs.³² The choice of figures on the Paros fragment indicates that the vase-painter, consciously or not, combined deities whose sanctuaries were neighboring to Dionysos’s.

Paros was often in conflict with Athens, and even though it remained under Athenian control for most of the fifth century and participated in the Athenian Confederacy in the fourth, Attic red-figure pottery was a rare commodity on the island.³³ This observation, along with her interpretation of the scene as an Athenian ritual, led Kauffmann-Samaras to suggest that the owner of the Paros krater was probably an Athenian.³⁴ Indeed, the funerary context of the krater supports the hypothesis of an owner enjoying high status and Athenian affiliations, but the reason for its import to the island appears to be more the result of its Dionysiac iconography and less the nostalgic ties with the motherland.

Dionysos enjoyed a significant cult on Paros that is thought to have been introduced by the lyric poet Archilochos himself,³⁵ and Dionysos was worshipped at the Archilocheion together with Athena as symbomoi theoi.³⁶ Part of the theater has been discovered under the hieron of the Katapoliani church in Paroikia, but the temple of Dionysos has not yet been located. However, the remains of the Late Archaic temple of the patron deity of the city, no other than Athena, are still evident at modern-day Kastro.³⁷ An Attic red-figure krater depicting the delivery of Dionysos to Athena was an appropriate grave gift for a wealthy Parian, not only on account of its aesthetic value, but also because it combined two of the most significant deities of the island. At the same time, the myth of the rebirth of Dionysos, implied on the Paros krater, was in accord with the fourth-century rise of mystery-cults, and the subject was a very appropriate one for a funerary gift.³⁸

Fig. 6. Red-figure calyx-krater. Rhodes, Arch. Museum Π 15768. Ca. 380–370 BC. Dionysos and Ariadne accompanied by Athena. Photo: Author.

The second fragment that we will examine belongs to a calyx-krater found in the 1960’s on the island of Rhodes (Fig. 5; Color Pl. 1A). It was discovered within an unidentifiable structure outside the medieval walls of the city, along with three fragmentary female statuettes that postdate the vase. The krater was once decorated with ample white color and brownish/gold diluted clay. According to McPhee, it is difficult to attribute it to a specific painter and should be dated to ca. 380/370 BC.³⁹ It depicts a couple sharing a couch, while another seated woman and a smaller figure to her right complete the scene (Fig. 6).

The male figure reclines on the couch, resting his elbow on lavishly decorated pillows, and he is dressed in a mantle that covers only the lower part of his body. He holds a phiale with his left hand, while a scepter or a thyrsos rests on his left shoulder. With his right hand he raises a rhyton of extraordinary elegance and size, that is decorated with a bull protome. His companion is richly dressed in a white chiton with fine folds and a patterned himation; her hair is neatly arranged in a kekryphalos, crowned by an ivy wreath. Her crossed feet nearly touch the stool set in front of the couch, while she raises her right hand to receive the rhyton from her partner. The ivy crown of the woman, the possible remains of a thyrsos, along with the extravagant libation vase and the motif of a couple sharing a couch can all be associated with the iconography of Dionysos. For this reason I suggest the identification of the couple as Dionysos and Ariadne, and interpret the scene as a divine libation.⁴⁰

Fig. 7. Red-figure calyx-krater. Rhodes, Arch. Museum Π 15768. Ca. 380–370 BC. Detail of Athena. Photo: Author.

The couple’s intimate ceremonial moment is witnessed by another woman seated to the right of the couch (Fig. 7). The figure is preserved from the bust down, and she is dressed in a dotted chiton and a starry patterned mantle with a reddish/brown border. Lacking attributes and inscriptions, the first impulse is to identify her as a well-behaved maenad from the Dionysiac thiasos. However, a closer inspection of her garment reveals traces of what could be identified as a gorgoneion decorating her chest, thereby suggesting an identification of the figure with Athena. This hypothesis is further enhanced by the large size of the figure, equal to that of Dionysos, as well as by the object leaning by her side behind an olive branch, which could be a shield instead of a tympanon. To the left and slightly overlapping Athena are the legs of a figure rendered in white, perhaps a flying Eros or Nike. The oddly-shaped traces by Athena’s left shoulder may belong to the right foot of another figure now lost.

The scene on the Rhodes fragment remains a rare illustration of Athena joining Dionysos and his wife while the wedded couple libate.⁴¹ A similar, although much earlier composition decorates the psykter-krater by the Troilos Painter, which depicts Dionysos and Ariadne on a couch enjoying a banquet in the company of Herakles and Nike, while Athena in full armor sits at the end of the scene.⁴²

Fig. 8. Red-figure bell-krater attributed to the Philocleon Reverse Group. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 910. Early fourth century BC. Detail of symposium. Photo: Museum.

The motif of a shared couch occurs on both the Rhodes fragment and the krater by the Troilos Painter and follows a long tradition of representations of Dionysos and his bride.⁴³ At the same time it raises the question of its relation to the Totenmahlreliefs, the funerary banquet popular on reliefs in the fourth century. The reliefs usually depict the deceased reclining while performing a libation and assisted by a female companion seated on the couch next to him.⁴⁴ The heroic status of the deceased is often implied by a rhyton.⁴⁵

The production of Attic clay rhyta inspired by oriental prototypes begins around 500 BC and reaches its peak with the workshop of Sotades, only to become popular again towards the end of the century with the so-called Persian Class rhyta.⁴⁶ In Attic vase-painting drinking horns are depicted in various sizes and held by both mythological figures and mortals, while illustrations of rhyta from the turn of the century and later, are extremely detailed and ornate. The red-figure krater attributed to the Philocleon Reverse Group is an instructive example of this tendency. It depicts four symposiasts on couches, the first of whom on the far right performs a libation by pouring liquid from a horse protome rhyton into a phiale (Fig. 8; Color Pl. 1B).⁴⁷

The rhyton on the Rhodes fragment is decorated with a bull protome, one of the favorite animals of Dionysos, and both its subject and ornamental qualities speak for metal prototypes similar to the ones found in contemporary Thrace and Achaemenid Persia. Both cultures were in contact with Athens from much earlier times, but this interaction culminated in the early fourth century with the intense interest of Athens in Thrace and the involvement of the Persian King in the political arena of the Greek city-states.

The Athenian desire to consolidate her presence in southern Thrace is demonstrated by the foundation of Amphipolis, and the alliances Athens made with and the honorary decrees she issued for members of the Odrysian royal family.⁴⁸ Apart from Herodotus’s narrative, the most enlightening account of early fourth-century Thracians and their customs is Xenophon’s Anabasis. During the long retreat of the remaining 10,000 hoplites, Xenophon and his men crossed the Bosporos and became mercenaries of the Thracian ruler Seuthes II, who aspired to the throne of the Odrysian kingdom.⁴⁹ Seuthes II considered the Athenians kinsmen and friends to the Thracians, a claim confirmed by the strong diplomatic relations between Thrace and Athens attested in epigraphical and literary sources.⁵⁰ During the same encounter, Xenophon experienced the local customs for banqueting and gives us a detailed description of how the Thracians sat in a circle, threw meat to their guests and drank wine from drinking horns,⁵¹ vessels that could not have differed much from the golden rhyton from the Panagyurishte treasure or the rhyta from Borovo.⁵² Thracian rhyta fall into two categories: vases in the shape of a long curved horn that terminates in an animal protome, usually a horse, and small rhyta decorated with an animal head.⁵³ The rhyton held by Dionysos on the Rhodes krater clearly belongs to the first category.

The opulence of the Persian lifestyle along with the deep-rooted eastern tradition of banqueting was quite familiar to the Greeks in the early fourth century BC.⁵⁴ Even though our knowledge of Persian dining customs is limited, the scale and exoticism of the royal banquets is graphically described in the sources, stressing the use of precious metal vessels.⁵⁵ The political and historical circumstances that approximated the two cultures in geographical terms during the fifth and early fourth century affected significantly Athenian artistic production, as is evident in the copying of luxurious toreutic vessels by Athenian potters.⁵⁶

The close encounters of Athens with Thrace and Persia resulted in an influx of foreign iconographical elements and a fusion of banquet practices. Expensive metal vases of oriental style are described in literary sources and inventory lists. According to Margaret Miller, the Athenians used the word protome to describe compound vessels such as rhyta, and often they referred to them by the name of the animal head they were decorated with, e.g., onos, tragelaphos, etc.⁵⁷

Fig. 9. The so-called Actors Relief. Athens, National Museum 1000. Ca. 400 BC. Photo: after N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (2002) 138, no. 264.

The so-called Actors’ Relief from the Piraeus dated to around 400 BC provides a close iconographical parallel to the Rhodes krater (Fig. 9). It depicts a young man reclining on a couch about to perform a libation by pouring from a horn-rhyton with two panther-protomes into the phiale he holds in his left hand. An inscription names him as Dionysos, but he has been also identified as a heroized poet. Equally confusing is the identity of the woman that shares his couch. From a later inscription naming this figure only the last three letters are now visible, –ΔIA, which allows a variety of suggestions. On the left part of the relief, three actors complete the scene.⁵⁸

The libation scene on the Rhodes krater is similar to ceremonial banquets decorating reliefs from Asia Minor, the best example being the Satrap frieze of the Nereid Monument at Xanthos, an early fourth-century work renowned for bringing together Lycian, Persian and Greek elements. Erbinna, the local ruler, is shown reclining on a kline holding a rhyton decorated with a winged griffin in one hand and a small phiale in the other, a motif that stands very close to the reclining Dionysos on the Rhodes fragment.⁵⁹ The elevated status of the deceased is highlighted by the elaborate rhyton, recalling not so much a Greek symposiast but rather a downscaled image of the Persian King.⁶⁰

Located in the southeast corner of the Aegean, Rhodes was a crossroads of products and ideas between Greeks and the East. Although a member of the Athenian League, Rhodes oscillated between supporting Athens or Sparta in the last decades of the fifth century, reflecting the power struggle of its own political parties. The city of Rhodes was founded in 408 BC, and during the first half of the fourth century the polis was consumed by the turmoil of revolts and invasions. In 357 Mausolus of Halikarnassos conquered the island, and less than two decades later it submitted to Philip II.⁶¹

After examining the historical context in which the Rhodes krater was produced, it comes as no surprise that an Athenian vase-painter of the early fourth century chose to embellish the familiar scene of the Dionysiac couple by placing in the hands of Dionysos a highly elaborate rhyton. Such a scene appealed not only to Athenian taste, but it was also recognizable by the Rhodian clientele, long accustomed to Eastern, if not particularly Lycian practices. Dionysos enjoyed a festival in Rhodes,⁶² while a Dionysion is mentioned in the sources as near to the agora of the fourth-century city.⁶³ Since the context of this krater is unclear, we cannot speculate about its owner or his status.⁶⁴ We could infer, however, that no matter whether the Rhodes krater was a dedication in a sanctuary, a grave gift, or a household item, it uses the semantics of an elaborate banquet, a scene that in Eastern societies is symbolic of elevated status, to speak of both the power of Dionysos and its transmittance to its beholder.

The study of the Attic red-figure kraters from Paros and Rhodes helps to demonstrate some of the great variety of scenes in which Dionysos participates. Whether or not these two kraters were inspired by Athenian projects, such as the renovation of the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleutherios, or by Eastern practices infiltrating the Greek lifestyle, as I have proposed, they do reflect without doubt in the most eloquent way the catalytic power of Dionysos and his diverse iconography.

Abbreviations

Notes

2 Attic Red-figure Pottery from Olympia

Martin Bentz

Since the beginning of excavations at Olympia the study of pottery has not played an important role, for much more attention has been paid to the bronzes that have been found there in great quantities than to the pottery. In 2000, however, there was a change, for the Laconian, Corinthian and Attic black-figure sherds from the excavations finally were published.¹ In addition to these fabrics, there are also different kinds of red-figure pottery that have been found at Olympia – mainly Attic and local Elean, but also a little South Italian, Corinthian and vases of other regional fabrics. In this brief survey just the Attic material will be presented, with the aim of encouraging this trend of interest in the pottery found at Olympia, as well as gaining a better understanding of the function of this class of painted ware in the sanctuary.²

The first fundamental observation is that there is not much Attic red-figure pottery in Olympia. Up to now there exist fragments of about 120 vases, of which only a small part has already been published.³ There are about the same number of Elean red-figure sherds.

Chronology

The Attic fragments range in date from the last decade of the sixth century until the beginning of the fourth century (Fig. 1). There are only very few Archaic red-figure vases, the main bulk being from the second and third quarters of the fifth century. Nearly nothing dates to the fourth century. This gap is filled by local Elean red-figure which starts in the second half of the fifth century.

One of the few Late Archaic pieces is a fragment of a calyx-krater with the lower part of the garment of a female figure which shows the typical stacked folds of the late sixth century (Fig. 2).⁴ There is also a large group of column-kraters, mostly from the Mannerist Workshop of the second quarter of the fifth century. An example by the Leningrad Painter shows two komasts and a female; the komast leading the procession has an oinochoe in his right hand (Fig. 3).⁵ There is a good parallel in New York where the figures are identical; only the attributes differ.⁶

Fig. 1. Chronological distribution of Attic red-figure pottery from Olympia

Fig. 2. Fragment of calyx-krater, from around 500 BC: Olympia, Inv. K 10281. Photo: Author.

Fig. 3. Fragment of column-krater by the Leningrad Painter, 475–450 BC: Olympia, Inv. K 10265. Photo: Author.

Fig. 4. Rim of a calyx-krater by the Hector Painter, 450–425 BC: Olympia, Inv. K 10244. Photo: Author.

From the third quarter of the fifth century there is the well-known bell-krater showing Nike by the Kleophon Painter, which was found in Phidias’s workshop,⁷ and several pots by other artists from the Polygnotan Group, such as a fragment of the rim of a calyx-krater that is perhaps by the Hector Painter (Fig. 4).⁸ One of the latest Attic red-figure vases is the lid of a cylindrical, Type D pyxis (Fig. 5; Color Pl. 1C) belonging to the period around 400 BC. As frequently is the case, it has a letter inscribed on the underside.⁹

Shapes

Figure 6 shows the forms attested up to now. Exactly 50% are craters, shown in white on the chart (mostly column-kraters, fewer calyx-kraters, bell-kraters and volute-kraters); about 15% are small drinking mugs indicated in light grey on the chart (skyphoi and oinochoai of type 8); and about 25% are lekythoi, both squat and cylindrical (in darker grey). The rest are forms attested only once. There is not one kylix, amphora or hydria.

Only very few special shapes or techniques can be found. There are two head vases: one aryballos in the form of a negro head and one double-headed vessel with female faces. Both date to the Late Archaic period.¹⁰ And there is one white-ground plate of Early Classical date showing an Amazon with her horse.¹¹

Images

This may be the most difficult aspect to fully understand, as the fragmentary state of the vessels often does not allow us to reconstruct and interpret the scenes that are depicted on the vases. The most frequent subjects are Dionysiac, and there are more than twenty examples, showing a thiasos, a symposium, or a komos; most are found on kraters. One might expect lots of athletic scenes in a place like Olympia, but there are only two certain examples. One is on the neck of a volute-krater and shows boxers or pankratiasts, and the other is on a small oinochoe with both a javelin- and a discus-thrower; both date to the Late Archaic period.¹² There is one fragment that may show an athletic victor being crowned, but only his head is preserved.¹³ Another fragment with a naked male body may represent an athlete.¹⁴ A fragment with a man holding a shield in front of a stele (or altar?) might be a runner in the race in armor or just a normal warrior.¹⁵

Other images are even less clear and might allude to athletic victory, although this does not seem very likely. For example, two depict a Nike who represents victory, but she, of course, is not shown only in athletic contexts; so also is the case of a flying Eros with a wreath in his hand. Since these images occur only on small lekythoi, which are also often found showing the same images when placed in graves, the scenes probably have a different meaning.

Very few pictures recall religious rituals in the sanctuary. Only one scene on a mug depicts a sacrifice:¹⁶ a crowned priest stands holding an oinochoe with his right hand held over the altar and a kanoun in his left. Two more fragmentary altars occur on cylindrical lekythoi.¹⁷

Mythological scenes or pictures of gods are very rare as well. Twice Herakles is shown, twice Nike, once Athena, once Eros and once an Amazon. We have no god, myth or mythological figure which has anything to do with Olympia, like Zeus and Hera or Pelops and Oinomaos, or the like. Some depictions seem to belong to the ‘male’ world: for example, the youths on two skyphoi,¹⁸ and a warrior and a chariot on two column-kraters.

It seems evident then, that there is no specific type of image that was specially used in the sanctuary, but that every kind of vessel has the type of image which that shape normally employed. Thus, kraters have Dionysiac scenes, horses and other ‘male’ themes; the lekythoi have women, Nike, Eros or animals.

Fig. 5. Pyxis-lid with griffin, around 400 BC: Olympia, Inv. K 10257. Photo: Author.

Fig. 6. Shapes of Attic red-figure pottery from Olympia.

Fig. 7. Distribution of Attic red-figure pottery from Olympia.

Excavation context (Fig. 7)

It is interesting to consider if the findspots give us any hint for interpreting the function of the vases. There are only a few fragments that come from the inner sanctuary within the temenos wall: one small lekythos comes from the foundations of the Metroon and one fragment from the terrace of the Treasuries. One might think that the excavators of the nineteenth century, who mainly worked in this central area of Olympia, did not care about ceramics, but we do know that they did collect any painted fragment they found. Indeed, there is quite a lot of black-figure preserved from the early excavations.

A dozen red-figure fragments came to light in the workshop of Phidias.¹⁹ Some of the better classical fragments were found in the chronologically homogeneous layer of the workshop debris, together with the moulds used for the work on the statue of Zeus, so that is quite probable that this material was brought and used here by Athenian workmen. Another dozen fragments come from the fillings of the slopes and pits of the stadium. Nothing can be said about their original location and use. Most of the red-figure sherds were found in the southern and eastern part of Olympia: a dozen from the South Stoa and most of the remaining material from the East Baths and the so-called South-east Zone. During the course of new building activities in Classical and Late Classical times, the whole area was levelled and filled with earth, stones and debris that came from all over the sanctuary. Unfortunately, we have no idea from where exactly it was brought. One hypothesis, which could only be proved with new research in this area, is that the Greek remains under the so-called House of Nero might have been a kind of public dining place, like the later Leonidaion in the west. This could well explain the concentration of pottery here. For the moment, however, this is pure speculation.

An original ritual context in this area is the black ash layer near the altar of Artemis, just south of the Roman Baths, where fragments of eight red-figure vases were found.²⁰ They must have been used during religious ceremonies.²¹

Use of the vases

To sum up what we have discussed so far, we can state that Attic red-figure is not very common at Olympia and that it occurs mainly in the fifty years between 475 to 425. There are mostly kraters (and this is even more evident with the local red-figure where kraters are not 50% but 80% of the whole material) and several lekythoi, skyphoi and mugs. The find spots give little hint to the use of the vases, and the vessels are found in only a few ritual contexts. The images show no particular relation to the sanctuary and its cults, and Dionysiac images are the most popular.

Figs 8–9. Detail of bell-kraters with ancient repairs: Olympia, Inv. K 10311 and K14364: Photo: Author.

To the above, we can also add the following:

The role of pottery in Greek sanctuaries varies greatly. In order to better understand how it was used, it is important to relate the different classes of vases at one site. In the case of Olympia we can state that luxurious ceramics never played a great role, and every class of vases has its own rules. There is quite a lot of black-figure, more than five times as much as red-figure, but the black-figure is represented only by small shapes, mostly lekythoi, and no pots and very few cups; thus it was not used for symposia, but the oil and perfume in the lekythoi was primarily for personal use.²⁵

We have twice as much Corinthian as Attic red-figure. Half are drinking vessels and kotylai, and half aryballoi and other shapes containing oil, but there are only seven kraters out of 258 Corinthian vases. In general, the quality is very poor.²⁶

The Laconian vases are of better quality but not exceptional when compared to those found on Samos or other sites. Although Sparta is not very far from Olympia and dominated the games for a long time, we have fragments of only about 100 Laconian vases. Ninety percent of them are cups, part of which might have been used as votive offerings, since several have votive inscriptions.²⁷

All these fabrics were imitated locally more or less successfully. One type of ceramic that has not yet been published is Attic black gloss. It might be interesting to compare their forms to that of the painted wares and to the local imitations published by Jürgen Schilbach.²⁸

To facilitate our understanding of the use of painted, ‘luxurious’ vases in sanctuaries, I propose to distinguish four different categories of usage:

Vases of the first three categories may bear votive inscriptions, as they were used in the sanctuary during rituals and so belonged to the god or goddess. The last category is a new one, not discussed until now.

In my opinion, all the observations we have made so far lead us to the conclusion that most of the Attic figured vases from Olympia were not used as mere votive offerings. Nothing but the white-ground plate may belong to the first category. Probably parts of the vases found in the ash layer near the altar of Artemis were used in a ritual ceremony and may therefore belong to either category 2 or 3.

Olympia differs from other sanctuaries in that numerous foreign visitors came for a long stay during the Olympic Games and had to live nearby – mostly in the south towards the Alpheios – in tents or other temporary dwellings. When the religious and athletic program ended in the evening, secular celebrations took place outside the sanctuary. There were modest, private meals, official banquets by the representatives of the city states and enormous mass-celebrations like that of Alkibiades who invited all visitors to his celebration after his victory in the chariot race in 416 BC. So maybe it is not by chance that most of the ceramics were found south and south-east of the altis and not inside.

Of course, it is not easy to distinguish between categories 3 and 4, ritual meals and ‘private’ meals, for which the kraters were brought from Athens to Olympia, but I would not call the dinner of an athlete’s family in their tent, after having come to Olympia to support their son, a ritual meal. The best proof for the secular use of painted pottery is the well-published context of the Workshop of Pheidias. It is evident that the vases found there were used by the workmen privately and not in any kind of religious context. Why so many kraters and so few painted drinking vessels were used is not easy to explain. For drinking obviously black-gloss pottery like the famous Phidias-cup was preferred.³²

To conclude, painted pottery never played a great role in Olympia and was mostly used for secular and not for ritual or votive purposes. The only exception might be Laconian pottery.³³ Gifts to the gods in Olympia were mostly made of bronze and not of clay. The same situation seems to be found at Delphi from where not many vases are known. In other sanctuaries like those of Hera and Demeter, for example, the situation is quite different, where lots of vases are usually found; just compare to the Olympia material the finds from Eleusis presented in this volume by Michalis Tiverios which have lots of images related to cult. Is there a distinction between male and female deities, or are there local or regional peculiarities? But here is not the place to discuss this problem in detail.

I want to end with a question of a more general kind that arises from the Olympia material – what role did Athenian painted pottery play in Greece at all? If we look to archaeological research, there is a large number of studies – monographs, colloquia and articles – on the diffusion and meaning of Attic pottery in Etruria, the Black Sea area or in North Africa and in Spain, but we have no clear idea of Greece itself. It seems to me that there is relatively little Attic pottery, especially from the Peloponnese.

Notes