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

By Olga Palagia and Alkestis Spetsieri-Choremi

The papers in this volume were presented at an international conference organised in Athens (May 11-14, 2004) and focus on the study of the Panathenaic Games, a Panhellenic athletic event that lasted for nearly a millennium. 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, making this a truly interdisciplinary study into this fascinating event. Two papers are in Greek.

"This handsomely-illustrated conference volume is the first to concentrate exclusively on the games." Jackson, Journal of Hellenic Studies

"A handsome, well-illustrated, large-format volume of the proceeding, mostly in English, of a conference held in Athens in 2004 in connection with the modern Olympics." - Tsetskhladze, Ancient West & East

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Feb 26, 2015
• ISBN: 9781782979838

Book preview

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: [phone]; Fax: [phone])

and

The David Brown Book Company

PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA

(Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone])

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

Michalis Tiverios

Panathenaic prizes and dedications

Petros Themelis

Gods and athletic games

Jon D. Mikalson

Replicating tradition: the first celebrations of the Greater Panathenaia

Jenifer Neils

Games at the lesser Panathenaia?

Stephen V. Tracy

The iconography of the Athenian apobates race: origins, meanings, transformation

Peter Schultz

Torch race and vase-painting

Martin Bentz

A unique new depiction of a Panathenaic victor

John H. Oakley

Panathenaic prize amphorae from the Kerameikos: some new aspects and results

Norbert Eschbach

Not that the vases are easy to interpret... Some thoughts on Panathenaic prize amphorae

Bettina Kratzmüller

Λευκοί παναθηναϊκοί αμφορείς και μουσικοί αγώνες

Despina Tsouklidou

Choregic or victory monuments of the tribal Panathenaic contests

Hans Rupprecht Goette

Δραματικοί αγώνες και αρχιτεκτονική στη νότια κλιτύ της Ακροπόλεως

Panos Valavanis

Royal Athenians: the Ptolemies and Attalids at the Panathenaia

Julia L. Shear

The Panathenaic stadium from the Hellenistic to the Roman period: Panathenaic prize-amphorae and the Biel throne

Dyfri Williams

Athens and Herculaneum: the case of the Panathenaic Athenas

Carol C. Mattusch

Colourr Plates

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.

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.

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 so-called 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 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

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).

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 manu factured 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 amphoras share all the features of the Panathenaic 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.

Fig. 3. Attic SOS type amphora. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia 90203, 90205. Photo after M.A. Rizzo, Le Anfore da transporto e il commercio etrusco arcaico (1990) fig. 362.

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 εἰμὶ⁶ and SOS type amphoras have inscriptions such as Κόρακός εἰμι (Fig. 3) or Σμόρδωνό<ς> 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 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 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

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.

Fig. 6. Attic black-figure amphora. Aberdeen, University Museum 684. Photo after LIMC IV 2 (1988) 128, no. 226a.

Fig. 7. Attic black-figure amphora. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 245. Photo after E. Böhr, Der Schaukelmaler (1982) pl. 184 A.

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

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

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 (Sun) to rise during this battle until he could find and destroy the herb that was sought by Gē (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 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

Fig. 11. Attic white-ground black-figure lekythos. Buffalo, Albright-Knox Art Gallery 33.135. Photo after J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis (1992) 18, fig. 55.

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

We now turn to Athena’s shield devices, particularly in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.³⁷ Up to the end 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 changes that occur on Panathenaic vases at the beginning of fourth century B.C. is the name of the eponymous archon of 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

Fig. 13. Detail of Panathenaic prize amphora. London, British Museum B 606. Photo after E. Pful, MuZ, fig. 306.

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, 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 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