The Nike of Samothrace: Another View

This article is © The Archaeological Institute of America and was originally published in AJA 120(3):399–410.

This e-print is supplied to the author for noncommercial use only, following the terms outlined in the accompanying cover letter. The definitive electronic version of the article can be found at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.120.3.0399.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

ARCHAEOLOGY656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215 • Tel.: 617-353-9361 • www.ajaonline.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.120.3.0399

Volume 120, Number 3July 2016

www.ajaonline.org

ARCHAEOLOGYThe Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

American Journal of ArchaeologyVolume 120, Number 3July 2016Pages 399–410 DOI: 10.3764/aja.120.3.0399

The Nike of Samothrace: Another Viewandrew stewart

article

www.ajaonline.org

Includes Supplementary Content on AJA Online

399

The recent conservation and reinstallation of the Nike of Samothrace, the restudy of its archaeological context and petrology, the collapse of the consensus that it celebrated the Rhodian naval victories at Side and Myonessos in 190 B.C.E., and the growing accord among naval historians that its ship is not a trihēmiolia together prompt a reexamination of its date and purpose. Fortunately, the monument offers three significant clues, all pre-viously overlooked or underappreciated. First, why was it dedicated on the remote island of Samothrace, and not, for example, on independent Delos? Second, although ancient galleys could not fight in gales and never did, why is it battling one? And third, why is its ship made of imported Rhodian marble and probably a quadrireme, a vessel superseded elsewhere by the quinquereme but still favored by the Rhodians? The Great Gods’ res-cue of pious initiates from storms at sea and second-century B.C.E. naval history point to one occasion in particular: Prousias II of Bithynia’s abortive invasion of Pergamon in 155, his impious assaults on the sanctuaries en route, his fleet’s sudden destruction by a storm, and the Rhodian contribution of five quadriremes to Attalos II’s successful naval counteroffensive in 154.1

A proposal by Hermann Thiersch in 1931 and Karl Lehmann’s reexca-vation and graphic reconstruction of the Nike’s context in 1950 and 1973, respectively, created a broad consensus about the Nike monument (fig. 1; online figs. 1, 2) and its dedicator, authorship, and date. It was agreed that it stood in a fountain-like structure (fig. 2) datable to the early second century B.C.E. by its context pottery. Probably dedicated by the Rhodians after their victories off Side and Cape Myonessos in 190, and contemporary with the Great Altar of Pergamon (at that time often dated to the 180s), it may have been carved by the distinguished Rhodian sculptor Pythokritos.2

1 This article, offered in honorem Sheila Dillon, is an edited version of Stewart 2015, a paper given at the University of California, Berkeley, and at the Musée du Louvre on 5 and 28 March 2015, respectively. I thank Jean-Luc Martinez, director of the museum, and Ludovic Laugier, the organizers of the latter occasion, for their kind invitation to par-ticipate; Ludovic Laugier for discussing the topic with me and showing me the fragments still in storage; Bonna Wescoat for generous advice and comments on my drafts; Bridget Buxton for her expertise on Rhodian naval matters and quadrireme design; Noah Kaye for his views on Attalos and Prousias; Nikolaos Papazarkadas for epigraphical guidance; Jason Hosford and John McChesney-Young for picture research and technical support; the University of Sheffield Library for scanning and handling fig. 2; Rebecca Levitan for fig. 6; and colloquium audiences at both venues, an anonymous reviewer for the AJA, and Editor-in-Chief Sheila Dillon for their suggestions for improvement. Translations are my own un-less otherwise noted. Fig. 5 is my own. Additional figures can be found under this article’s abstract on AJA Online (www.ajaonline.org).

2 Thiersch 1931; Lehmann and Lehmann 1973, 188, fig. 5. For this scenario and its vari-ants, see Brogan 1999, 191, 447–48; Hamiaux 2006, 58, figs. 57–9; 2015; Wescoat 2015, figs. 158–62. Hamiaux (2006, 52–5), Bernhardt (2014, 21–45), and Hamiaux et al. (2015, 72–89, 164–79) summarize the scholarship.

http://www.ajaonline.org/imagegallery/2652


http://www.ajaonline.org/article/2640

400 [aja 120andrew stewart

This consensus has now collapsed. The so-called Nike Fountain (see figs. 2, 3) is nothing of the sort; its surviving walls are Roman, with Early Imperial pot-tery stratified behind them; and its Hellenistic phase is equivocal (open or enclosed?), fragmentary, and its pottery unstratified and undiagnostic.3 Moreover, why dedicate such a monument on Samothrace, which until 168 was under Macedonian domination, when its natural site would have been independent Delos?

As for the block with Pythokritos’ supposed signa-ture, although it was found “in the immediate vicinity of the Nike,” only the words “[. . .]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ” survive. Moreover, the block itself is tiny. Only 5 cm high, it cannot belong to the ship and clearly once supported a marble statuette.4

3 Mark 1996; Hamiaux 1998, 41, no. 51; 2007, 33–5; Lehm-ann and McCredie 1998, 103–8; Brogan 1999, 191, 451–52; Bernhardt 2014, 35–6; Wescoat 2015, 174–77, figs. 158–62; Wescoat (forthcoming).

4 IG 12 8 239 (Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. Ma 4194). First published by Reinach (1892, 197, no. 1), the block is il-

Finally, since the Side-Myonessos consensus has dis-integrated, some urge a third- or even first-century date for the statue, but many now seem comfortable with the proposal, floated as early as 1880, to align it with the Great Altar’s Gigantomachy (fig. 4), now dated to ca. 160, and to place it in the mid second century.5

Yet the differences between the Gigantomachy and Nike should not be overlooked.6 Although not neces-sarily significant chronologically, they likely indicate different hands at work and perhaps also—if the scant pointers to an originally enclosed setting for the Nike are to be trusted (see fig. 3, right)—a contextual differ-ence. Whereas the Great Altar’s sculptures, displayed in full daylight (see fig. 4), evidently were held to re-quire a flamboyantly linear drapery style, a single free-standing figure in the half-light of a naiskos may have been thought to need a chunkier, more voluminous, and more spatially extroverted one.

So what remains? The Nike monument itself offers three significant clues:

1. It was dedicated in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods. As Burkert once bluntly concluded from the texts of such dedications, their “main function . . . [was] to save the worshippers from the perils of the sea.”7

2. Alone of Hellenistic Nikai, this one is truly storm tossed, battling a veritable tempest. Her clothing alternately presses against her body, crisscrosses it like ocean breakers, and streams out behind it like a giant rudder (see fig. 1; online fig. 2).8 Yet ancient galleys could not fight even in moderate winds and seas, and never did.9

lustrated and exhaustively discussed in Thiersch 1931, 341–62, figs. 1–7; contra Hamiaux 1998, 41, no. 51; 2006, 53; 2007, 38–9, fig. 35; 2015, 166–67, fig. 149.

5 Ca. 300: Bernhardt 2014 (citing no sculptural comparanda for this reactionary date). Ca. 30: Knell 1995. Ca. 300–30: Bro-gan 1999, 191, 447–48. Murray (1880, 374–75), followed most recently by Palagia (2010), placed it near the Gigantomachy; contra, e.g., Mark (1998), who stresses the differences and opts once more for ca. 190, and Hamiaux (2015, 168–72), who dates the Nike stylistically to ca. 220–190.

6 Mark 1998; cf. Hamiaux 2015, 170–72.7 The numerous relevant sources range chronologically from

Aristophanes (Pax 277–78) to late antiquity (esp. Ap. Rhod., Argon. 1.915–21). See Lewis 1958 (literary texts); Fraser 1960 (inscriptions); Cole 1984, 2, 45; Burkert 1985, 284; 1987, 20; quotation from 1993, 183. Blakely (2012) oddly disregards the cult’s maritime focus.

8 See AJA Online for all online-only figures accompanying this article.

9 Stewart 1993, 143–46.

fig. 1. The Nike of Samothrace after conservation and rein-stallation in 2014, three-quarter view (© Musée du Louvre, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais/Philippe Fuzeau/Art Resource, NY).


the nike of samothrace: another view2016] 401

fig. 2. The so-called Nike Fountain, conjecturally reconstructed by Karl Lehman (drawing by A. Daykin; © Cindy Allenby).

fig. 3. The Nike monument as conjecturally reconstructed by Bonna Wescoat and Chase Jordan, open (left) and enclosed (right) versions (Chase Jordan/American Excavations, Samothrace).


3. Whereas the Nike herself is carved from pure white Parian marble, her ship, its base, and the ex–signature block all conspicuously are made of blue-gray lithos lartios (see figs. 1, 5). Imported from Rhodes, more than 500 km away against the prevailing winds and seas, this Lartian stone was standard there for statue bases (ship monuments included) but is unknown outside the Dodeca-nese—with this unique exception.10

First, the Great Gods. Identified inter alios with the Dioskouroi, they indeed protected sailors from ship-wreck and drowning and promoted safe, prosperous voyages. Yet the texts emphasize that only the pious—especially initiates into the Samothracian Mysteries—could expect such help. It could easily—and fatally—be withheld.11

10 K.F. Kinch and N.V. Ussing, quoted in Thiersch (1931, 337–41), identified the base as lithos lartios. Their identifica-tion has now been verified by isotopic testing (Maniatis et al. 2012, 269–70, 273–74).

11 E.g., Valerius Flaccus (Argonautica 2.431–32) gleefully de-scribes their vengeance upon the infidos; cf. Lewis 1958, nos. 226–38; Cole 1984, 2, 45; Burkert 1985, 282–85; 1987, 13–14; 1993, 183–84.

fig. 4. Alkyoneus, Athena, Nike, and Gē, from the eastern frieze of the Great Altar of Pergamon, Berlin (© Erin Babnik).

fig. 5. Detail of the Nike’s ship (see fig. 1), showing the enclosed or “cataphract” port outrigger with its two oar ports.

Second, the Nike’s storm-tossed drapery (see fig. 1). Brilliantly evocative and universally admired, it is not only counterfactual but also unique within the genre. As Bieber aptly remarked: “The effect of stormy movement and gale on [the] drapery has hardly ever been more gloriously handled.”12 Carpenter agreed,

12 Bieber 1961, 126.


pointing to a conspicuously hyperbolic flourish, the “flowing panel of cloth [that] flares behind the Nike like a rudder to her airborne flight.”13 Indeed, recent conservation work has shown that at the last minute the sculptor even inserted a thick marble strip between this “rudder” and the himation proper to make the panel protrude even more.14 We might hazard, then, that as the messenger of Zeus Cloud-Gatherer, Thun-derer, and so on, this Nike has actually brought these storm winds along with her, dramatically announcing this fact with outstretched hand.

Yet all other Hellenistic Nikai are quite differently conceived and far tamer (see fig. 4). They flutter or at most swoop down gracefully like the genre’s first great tour de force, the Nike of Paionios.15 Moreover, if the Samothracian one (see fig. 1) merely mimics the effect of the island’s gale-force winds upon cloth, as sometimes argued, the surviving Nikai akroteria from the nearby “Hieron,” two Late Hellenistic and one Roman, might be expected eagerly to echo it but instead do nothing of the sort.16 So as well as contra-dicting the realities of ancient naval warfare, this Nike is also a unique example of its type.

Since meaning resides in the play of difference, these differences must signify. The Nike’s uniquely stormy drapery and its outspoken rejection within the genre argue that both it and its jutting “rudder” are context-bound and deictic. Actively exploiting the island’s notorious gale-force winds, not simply reacting to them, they are attention-getters. They form a pack-age together with the distinctively Rhodian stone of

13 Carpenter 1960, 201.14 Hamiaux et al. 2015, 102, 110–11, fig. 95.15 LIMC 6:862–63, no. 137, pl. 572, s.v. “Nike” (A. Goulaki-

Voutira); Stewart 1990, figs. 408–11; Boardman 1991, 180, fig. 139.

16 LIMC 6:881–88, nos. 380–560, pls. 588–97, s.v. “Nike” (A. Moustaka). On the Samothracian akroteria, inv. nos. SLA 49.490 and 50.117 in the Samothrace Archaeological Museum (Hellenistic) and inv. no. I.680 in the Kunsthistorisches Mu-seum in Vienna (Roman), see Lehmann and Lehmann 1969, 1:364–68, figs. 317–24; 2:113–16, figs. 431–33, 437; Lehmann 1973; Palagia 2010, 162, fig. 10.14. Inv. no. I.345 in the Kun-sthistorisches Museum, once attributed to the Hieron’s north-ern pediment but probably another akroterion or a private votive, is considerably closer to our Nike, but since only its low-er half survives, it can help no further (Lehmann and Lehmann 1969, 1:254–55, figs. 213–14, 253–54; contra Thompson 1973, 229; Palagia 2010, 162–63, fig. 10.15). Its plinth is 5 mm too thick to have stood on the “[. . .]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ” base (cf. Thiersch 1931, 342; Lehmann and Lehmann 1969, 1:245). Also, they were found 60 m apart.

the ship, its base, and the statuette base found nearby; the ship type itself (discussed below); and the monu-ment’s dedication to the storm gods. They seek to alert us to something specific and special, to recall a definite event, to locate the action in real time and space, and to mark it as naval, Rhodian, successful, and involving a storm. In ancient Greek terms, they are sēmeia, or signs. And ancient Greeks were much addicted to signs.17

Third, this mention of Rhodian stone, in turn, may serve to reintroduce the ship, its base (see figs. 1, 5), and the little “[. . .]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ” base found nearby. As Thiersch and many since have seen, the choice of this distinctive Rhodian stone in this remote corner of the Aegean for all three of them is also idiosyncratic, even perverse, and thus highly suggestive. The standard ma-terial for Rhodian statue bases, so far it has been iden-tified elsewhere only in the Rhodian Dodecanese: on marble-poor Karpathos for a few inscriptions and on Nisyros for the prow-shaped base of a funerary statue.18 So, its employment here cannot be a mere sculptor’s whim, especially given the “[. . .]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ” of the statuette base. Moreover, this 12–13 m3 of raw Lartian stone would have weighed at least 30 tons, against only about 4–5 tons for the Parian marble of the statue it-self: a full shipload for a small- to medium-sized Greek merchantman.19

On Samothrace, marble signifies, as a comprehen-sive isotopic testing program has shown.20 Like the sanctuary’s other exotic marbles, these 30 tons of Lartian stone would have sent a clear signal. Rhodian and aimed squarely at Rhodians, they guarantee their participation in the dedication, either alone or with others.21 Probably one of them (the Nike’s sculptor?) dedicated the statuette that once stood on the “[. . .]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ” block found nearby.

17 See esp. Burkert 1985, 111–14.18 Stampolidis et al. 2011, 352–55, no. 26 (Nisyros: M.

Filimonos-Tzopotou); Maniatis et al. 2012, 274. I thank Bonna Wescoat for these references.

19 Using Hamiaux’s (2004, 2006) measurements for the Nike, ship, and base, Hadjidaki’s (1996) measurements for the merchant ships, and the international marble weight standard of 2,563 kg/m3. Hamiaux et al. (2015, 107, 162) give the present weight of ship and base as 27.5 tons, and of the statue (lacking head and limbs, and with its right wing mostly restored in plas-ter) at 2.5–3.0 tons.

20 Wescoat 2003; Maniatis et al. 2012; Bernhardt 2014, 80–81.

21 Thiersch 1931, 337, 341; cf., e.g., Bieber 1961, 126; Mark 1998.


In fact, Rhodians are particularly well represented in the inscribed lists of Samothracian priests, sacred am-bassadors, and initiates into the Mysteries, especially during this period, and dedications to the Samothra-cian Gods are frequent on Rhodes and in its territories. In particular, several Rhodian clubs of Samothraikia-stai (one called the “Rowers”) honored naval officers under whom they had fought, and one Rhodian ship’s crew honored another such officer with a dedication to the Great Gods for “having saved his trireme off Libya,” perhaps from a gale-force Sirocco.22 So the Samothracian-Rhodian connection is secure, strong, and firmly nautical.

But what kind of warship is it? Although its lower ram and prow ornament are missing, they are not es-sential to its identification—unlike the boxed-in out-rigger with its two superimposed oar ports (see fig. 5) and enclosed fighting deck above (see fig. 1). Together, and against much 20th-century scholarship (see appx.), these enclosures must define it as a kataphraktos—an “enclosed,” “shielded,” “decked,” “fortified,” or “armored” vessel—and the two superimposed oar ports clearly indicate that it must be the Rhodian favorite among them, a tetrērēs: a quadrireme, or “four.”23

The “four,” invented ca. 400, strong, fast, stable, and easily maneuverable, had superseded the trireme by the early third century as the mainstay of Hellenis-tic navies throughout the Mediterranean.24 After 200,

22 IG 12 1 43; SEG 33 644 (dedications by Samothraikiastai and other Rhodians in honor of naval officers); Pugliese Car-ratelli 1939–1940, 153, no. 13, pl. 11.2; Cole 1984, 2, 43–5, 49–51, 53, 65, 84–6, 155–59, nos. 33–41 (Samothraikiastai); Dimitrova 2008, 28, no. 5; 59, no. 23 (theoroi); 126–27, nos. 50–1; 137, no. 57 (initiates); 257, no. 1 (Samothraikiastai); to which add SEG 39 737 (Samothraikiastai).

23 Casson 1971, 102–3, 118–19; Basch 1987, 358–59; Gabri-elsen 1997, 87–90 nn. 15–19, 23. Cf., e.g., Polybios (33.13.1, cited below) and McDonald and Walbank (1969, 33) on the “Rhodian affection” for quadriremes. Hamiaux et al. (2015, 156), previously noncommittal, opt for either a quadrireme or a quinquereme. The latter, however, had three banks of oars and a 2-2-1 arrangement of rowers in each vertical stack, or “chamber” (Morrison 1995, 68–9; Morrison and Coates 1996, 269–71, 331, fig. 76). (Contrary to popular belief, the terms “quadri-reme,” “quinquereme,” etc., signaled not the number of banks of oars on each side but the number of rowers in each stack, or “chamber”: two rowers at two oars for the bireme, three at three oars for the trireme, four at two oars for the quadrireme, five at three oars for the quinquereme, etc.; see, e.g., Morrison 1995, 63, 66, 68–71; Morrison and Coates 1996, 260–62.)

24 Basch 1987, 365, 441–42, figs. 743–46, 969; Morrison 1995, 74 (illustration); Morrison and Coates 1996, 215–16,

however, it, too, became obsolete, upstaged in turn by the more powerful quinquereme (pentērēs).25 Yet the Rhodians continued to favor it, perhaps because it re-quired a smaller crew, their crews were mostly citizens, and their population was finite. Thirty-two Rhodian quadriremes fought at Side and 22 at Myonessos, but there were no Rhodian quinqueremes.26

So, to recapitulate, even minus its inscribed dedi-cation, the Nike monument bristles with attention-getting sēmeia. Who were they aimed at, and what did they signal?

As to audience(s), in this case the exemplary “an-cient viewer” is better understood as a medley of no fewer than four separate communities of response: the Great Gods and their ministers (the project’s prime beneficiaries); the Samothracians; the numerous pil-grims to the sanctuary from all over the Aegean; and, last but not least, the monument’s dedicators and their constituents, who (as has appeared) must have included the Rhodians.

In turn, this quartet neatly divides into two: an in-group of discerning deities, their ministers, the monu-ment’s Rhodian dedicators, and their constituents, who immediately would have noticed and appreciated these signs; and an outer one of largely uninformed lo-cals, pilgrims, and tourists, many of whom would have overlooked them—though the now-lost dedicatory inscription would have leveled the playing field some-what. In any case, as every textbook on Hellenistic art recognizes, artists of this period routinely sought to cater to stratified audiences of this kind.

When and why would the Rhodians have commis-sioned such a dramatic and imposing dedication? As table 1 shows, they gained six or seven victories at sea

226–27, figs. 17a–c, 26; Gabrielsen 1997, 88, pl. 6; Hamiaux 2007, 24, fig. 26; Hamiaux et al. 2015, 156, fig. 136. (The Samo-thracian ship’s beam, n.b., has been drastically reduced to save stone and unmask the Nike’s lower legs and feet; see online fig. 2.)

25 McDonald and Walbank 1969, 33; Morrison and Coates 1996, 267–68. For sources, see Gabrielsen 1997, 185 n. 8.

26 App., Syr. 27; Livy 37.23.4, 30.1. Cf. McDonald and Wal-bank (1969, 33), Morrison and Coates (1996, 269), and Ga-brielsen (1997, 86, 93) on tactics, crew size, and manpower. If the ship’s vertical proportions are correct, its ca. 1.6 m freeboard (measuring from the middle prong of its ram) is exactly two-thirds of the ca. 2.4 m that Morrison and Coates (1996, 269, 345) calculate for a real quadrireme. Thus, we should imagine the goddess (originally ca. 2.75 m from head to toe [Hamiaux 2007, 45]) to be ca. 2.5 times human life-sized (i.e., 4.1 m, or 13.5 ft., high).


during the second century: at Chios (included for the sake of completeness), Demetrias, Eretria, Side, Myo-nessos, the Propontis, and possibly Carthage.27

Of these seven, the first five can be ruled out for rea-sons already stated. Until 168 B.C.E., the Macedonians dominated Samothrace; they were the losers at Chios, Demetrias, and Eretria; in all five cases the natural site for such a dedication would have been independent Delos, not a remote northern Aegean island; and no storms are recorded in connection with any of them.28 This leaves the Propontis in 154 and (perhaps) Car-thage in 146.

To take Carthage first, the statement that a Rhodian squadron participated in the great siege of 149–146 is widespread in modern historiography and usually re-ported without further comment.29 In fact, it relies on a highly conjectural reading of just 11 letters in a badly torn papyrus from the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum. Since the three crucial words are lacunose and some quite different readings have been suggested over the years, this pseudofact or “factoid” merits no further discussion here.30

27 What follows is, strictly speaking, a theory (briefly floated in Stewart 2014, 85): a hypothesis that alone, to my knowledge, fits all known facts and is contradicted by none. Though prob-ably it can never be proven, a new or previously overlooked fact could disprove it.

28 In the Third Macedonian War (172–168), which at a stroke deprived the Macedonians of their monarchy, their hegemony, and Samothrace, there was no fighting at sea at all, and the Ro-mans sent the Rhodian squadron of 6 quadriremes home (Livy 42.46.6–7; Polyb. 37.7.13; contra Palagia 2010, 2015; Matsas 2013, 37–8).

29 E.g., Berthold 1984, 215. 30 Papyrus and competing readings: Ind. Stoic. Herc., col. 56

(Traversa 1952, 77–93); cf. App., Pun. 112 (which does not

This leaves the Bithynian War of 156–154, appar-ently never considered in any previous discussion of the Nike monument. As will appear, however, it in-cluded the only second-century naval campaigns that fit all the sēmeia detected above. The context was an ongoing struggle between Prousias II Kynēgos (“The Hunter”) of Bithynia and Attalos II Philadelphos of Pergamon (fig. 6).31

The facts of the conflict bear a brief retelling. (Its origins are obscure and of no interest here.) Briefly, Prousias was attempting to break out of the corral that the Pergamenes had erected around him, and Attalos was striving mightily to keep him inside it. At first, Prousias definitely had the upper hand. After thrash-ing Attalos on land, in 155 he launched a two-pronged offensive against him (see fig. 6). His fleet invaded the Propontis, ravaging the territory of Kyzikos and other Attalid allies along the way. It then sailed down the Hellespont, bypassed Samothrace, attacked Methymna on Lesbos, and descended upon the Pergamene coast, indiscriminately pillaging and sacking numerous sites both secular and sacred. Meanwhile, Prousias and his army marched on Pergamon itself.

Attalos promptly withdrew to his citadel, and Prou-sias camped below it. Polybios (32.15.1) and Diodoros (31.35) continue the story. Polybios begins:

mention Rhodes); RE 18(3):440, s.v. “Panaitios 5”; RE Suppl. 5:800, s.v. “Rhodos”; van Straaten 1962, 3, no. 1, col. 56; Wal-bank 1979, 371, 637.

31 App., Mith. 3; Suda π2914, s.v. “Prousias”; Diod. Sic. 31.35; Polyb. 32.16; 33.1; 32.15; 33.7, 12, 13 (in that order); Fränkel 1890, no. 224; Habicht 1956 (shuffling the sources and estab-lishing the chronology); Hansen 1971, 133–35; Hopp 1977, 74–9; Walbank 1979, 536–41, 555–56; Berthold 1984, 221.

table 1. Rhodian naval victories, 201–100 B.C.E.

Date Location Allied with Against

201 Chios Pergamon Macedon (Philip V)199 Oreos/Demetrias Pergamon Macedon (Philip V)198 Eretria, Karystos Pergamon, Rome Macedon (Philip V)

190 Side Pergamon, Rome Syria (Antiochos III)

190 Myonessos Rome Syria (Antiochos III)

154 Propontis Pergamon, Kyzikos, etc. Bithynia (Prousias II)

(146) (Carthage?) (Rome) (Carthage)


After defeating Attalos and arriving at Pergamon, Prou-sias prepared a magnificent sacrifice and brought it to the Sanctuary of Asklepios. After offering the victims and obtaining favorable omens, he returned to his camp for the day; but on the next day he attacked the Nikephorion, destroyed all the temples and sanctuaries, and plundered all the portraits and the marble statues of the gods. Finally he carried off the cult image of Asklepios, a splendid work of Phyromachos, and took it home—the very image be-fore which he had poured libations and offered sacrifice the day before; desiring, apparently, that the god might in every way support and favor him.

I have spoken of such deeds before, when discussing Philip [V], as sheer insanity. For at one time to offer sac-rifice and endeavor to propitiate heaven thereby, wor-shiping and uttering the most earnest prayers before holy tables and altars, as Prousias did, bending the knee and prostrating himself; and at the same time to violate these sacred objects and to flout heaven by their destruction—can we ascribe such conduct to anything but a man gone

mad? I am sure that this was the case with Prousias: for he then led his army off to Elaia, after treating everything human and divine with petty and spiteful malice.

Prousias attempted to take Elaia, but failed because Sos-andros, the king’s foster-brother, entered the town with an army and repelled his assaults. He then marched off toward Thyateira. On the way, he plundered the Temple of Artemis at Hierakome; and the Sanctuary of Apollo Kynneios at Temnos, too, he not only plundered but de-stroyed by fire. After these so-called achievements he re-turned home, having waged war against the gods as well as against men. But his infantry suffered severely from fam-ine and dysentery on their return march, so that heaven’s wrath appears to have visited him quickly for his crimes.

Diodoros continues:

Moreover, a similar fate also befell his fleet. For when it entered the Propontis a sudden winter storm destroyed it. It sank most of his ships with crews and all, and wrecked

fig. 6. Prousias II of Bithynia’s invasion of Pergamon in 155 B.C.E. and his retreat. In 154, Attalos’ fleet retraced Prousias’ course, perhaps penetrating as far as Nikomedia. Solid black lines show the advance and retreat of the Bithynian army; the dotted black line marks the advance of the Bithynian fleet, and the dotted white line shows its retreat (base image courtesy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ancient World Mapping Center; www.awmc.unc.edu).

http://www.awmc.unc.edu


others onshore. Thus Prousias suffered the first of his re-verses owing to his impiety toward the gods.

Attalos, much heartened, spent the winter prepar-ing his counteroffensive. He mobilized his allies, the Rhodians among them, collected a large army, and prepared to invade Bithynia.

Meanwhile, Polybios (33.13.1) tells us:

His brother Athenaios set sail with 80 cataphract ships. Five of these were quadriremes sent by the Rhodians from those they had mobilized for the Cretan war, 20 from Kyzikos, 27 Attalos’ own, and the other allies contributed the rest. Having sailed up the Hellespont and reached the cities subject to Prousias, he made frequent descents upon the coast, and greatly harassed the country.

The crews of these five Rhodian quadriremes would have totaled at least 1,100 men.32 This was a major sacrifice, since (as Polybios noted) the entire Rhodian fleet was currently embroiled in a desperate struggle against its perennial foes, the Cretan pirates. Yet old alliances still took priority—especially since the mis-sion was reasonably low-risk, for the gods clearly had loaded the scales firmly in the allies’ favor. Even so, Attalos, a canny and careful monarch, no doubt was suitably grateful for the help.

Prousias’ few surviving warships wisely stayed in port, giving the allies carte blanche to wreak their re-venge. By midsummer the allied armada was safely back home at Elaia, having swept Attalos’ old enemy from the seas, ravaged his coastline and bases, and escaped the grim fate of his fleet the year before. At this point, however, the Romans stepped in (Polyb. 33.13.5):

They put an end to the war by compelling the two kings to make peace, on condition that Prousias at once handed over to Attalos 20 cataphract ships, and paid him 500 tal-ents over 20 years, with both sides retaining the territory that they had before the war. Moreover, Prousias had to rectify the damage done to the inhabitants of Methymna, Aigai, Kyme, and Herakleia, by a payment of 100 talents to those towns. After the treaty had been drawn up in writing on those terms, Attalos withdrew his army and navy to his own territory.

By now, every element needed to contextualize the Nike as a Rhodian or (less likely) a Pergamene-Rhodian

32 I.e., ca. 220–225 men per ship (probably 176 rowers and 45–50 sailors, marines, and others) (Morrison and Coates 1996, 269, 349; Gabrielsen 1997, 94–5).

dedication of the late 150s has fallen into place (table 2).

By mid 154, in other words, it was crystal clear that once again the Great Gods (and others) had spoken and acted, firmly and decisively. Was the glorious and justly world-famous Nike (see figs. 1, 5), possibly the last great victory dedication of the Hellenistic Age, the Rhodian response? If so, was it also the last great monument of the Hellenistic baroque, which thereaf-ter apparently vanished from the Hellenistic East along with the independence of the states that created it, only to reappear quite soon in Roman Italy?

Andrew StewartDepartments of History of Art and ClassicsUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeley, California 94720–[email protected]

Appendix: The Samothracian Ship: A Trihēmiolia?

Three Lindian inscriptions published by Blinken-berg in 1941 supposedly clinch the identification of the two Lindian ship monuments and thus the Sa-mothracian one (see figs. 1, 5) as light, unprotected trihēmioliai, or “two and a halves.”33 In fact, they do nothing of the sort.

Blinkenberg’s number 88, inscribed on the large freestanding ship monument on the Lindian Akrop-olis, states that “first fruits of booty” financed it. Its preamble is mostly lost, except for the names of two trierarchs and “the trihēmiolia crews crowned by the dāmos.” So it listed its dedicators in descending order of importance, as usual, ending with the trihēmiolia crews. Number 169, inscribed on the rock-cut ship below the entrance to the Lindian Akropolis, signed by Py-thokritos and honoring Hagesandros, son of Mikion, mentions neither his rank nor a trihēmiolia. Number 445, a dedication by a trihēmiolia captain and others sometimes attributed to number 169, is Flavian and in-scribed on a stray plaque found nearby, so is irrelevant.

Moreover, the two Lindian ships and the Samothra-cian one are clearly kataphraktoi (“enclosed,” “fortified,”

33 For this proposal, see Blinkenberg (1938, 1941), followed by, e.g., Coates (1995, 139), Morrison (1995, 75–6), Mor-rison and Coates (1996, 219–21, 266–69), and, apparently, Stampolidis et al. 2011, 352–55, no. 26 (catalogue entry by Filimonos-Tzopotou).


or “decked”: see Diod. Sic. 20.85.3). So they cannot be trihēmioliai, which were aphraktoi, invented to catch pirates and built as light as possible, like giant racing shells.34

In sum: If the Nike’s ship is a trihēmiolia and thus undecked, what is she landing on?

Works CitedBasch, L. 1987. Le Musée imaginaire de la marine antique. Ath-

ens: Institut Hellénique pour la Préservation de la Tradi-tion Nautique.

34 Polyb. 16.2.10, 16.3.3–6 (cf. Gabrielsen 1997, 87); Hsch., s.v. “trihēmiolia”: “a long ship without a deck”; cf. IG 12 1 43, lines 2–3; LSJ9, s.v. “a light, undecked warship”; Chaviaras 1913, 9–10, no. 9; Iacopi 1932, 190, no. 19, lines 10–11; Segre 1936, 228, line 5; 234. Blinkenberg (1938, 6–16, nos. 9, 12, 33, 34, 34b) cites most of these sources but never considers the crucial term kataphraktos, with fatal consequences for his argument.

Bernhardt, J.C. 2014. Das Nikemonument von Samothrake und der Kampf der Bilder. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Berthold, R.M. 1984. Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age. Ithaca, N.Y., and London: Cornell University Press.

Bieber, M. 1961. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Blakeley, S. 2012. “Toward an Archaeology of Secrecy: Power, Paradox, and the Great Gods of Samothrace.” In Beyond Belief: The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual, edited by Y.M. Rowan, 49–71. Archaeological Papers of the Ameri-can Anthropology Association 21. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Blinkenberg, C. 1938. Triemiolia: Étude sur un type de navire rhodien. Lindiaka 7. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.

———. 1941. Lindos: Fouilles et recherches, 1902–1914. Vol. 2, Inscriptions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Boardman, J. 1991. Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period. New York and London: Thames & Hudson.

Brogan, T.M. 1999. “Hellenistic Nike: Monuments Com-memorating Military Victories of the Attalid and Anti-gonid Kingdoms, the Aitolian League, and the Rhodian Polis, ca. 307–133 B.C.” Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College.

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard University Press.

table 2. The Bithynian War of 156–154 B.C.E. and the Nike of Samothrace.

Date Bithynian War Samothrace/Nike Monument

156 Prousias attacks Attalos by surprise, defeats him, invades Pergamon

Internationally renowned sanctuary adjacent to war zone; popular with Rhodian pilgrims, initiates, and sailors

155 spring

Prousias’ fleet and army plunder and destroy sanctuaries in the Propontis, northern Aegean, and Mysia; besiege Pergamon. Prousias plunders and destroys Pergamene Nikephorion and Asklepieion

Great Gods enraged at Prousias’ impiety and that of his sailors and soldiers

155 late fall

Sudden storm wrecks Prousias’ fleet returning via the Propontis; his retreating army plunders Sanctuaries of Artemis and Apollo en route; is ravaged by dysentery

Great Gods punish Prousias’ fleet for its impiety; the others punish his army

155/4 winter

Rhodes contributes 5 quadriremes to Attalid and allied fleet

Rhodian and other initiates entreat Great Gods for victory and a safe homecoming

154 spring

Allied fleet enters the Propontis unopposed; humiliates remnants of Prousias’ fleet; ravages his territory in revenge; returns home safely

Rhodians (and allies) celebrate their victories and safe return

154 summer

Prousias accepts Roman ultimatum; surrenders remaining 20 cataphract warships to Attalos; begins paying 600-talent indemnity

Samothrace escapes war unscathed; Rhodians commission Nike monument. Lithos lartios chosen for quadrireme, base, and nearby “[….]Σ ΡΟΔΙΟΣ” statuette base; Nike given storm-tossed drapery and gesture of address


———. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard University Press.

———. 1993. “Concordia Discors: The Literary and the Ar-chaeological Evidence on the Sanctuary of Samothrace.” In Greek Sanctuaries, New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 178–91. London and New York: Routledge.

Carpenter, R. 1960. Greek Sculpture: A Critical Review. Chi-cago: The Chicago University Press.

Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chaviaras, M. 1913. “Νισύρου επιγραφή.” ArchEph 52:6–16.Coates, J.F. 1995. “The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems

of Ancient Galleys.” In The Age of the Galley: Mediterra-nean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times, edited by R. Gardiner, 127–41. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press.

Cole, S. 1984. Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great Gods at Samothrace. ÉPRO 96. Leiden: Brill.

Dimitrova, N.M. 2008. Theoroi and Initiates in Samothrace: The Epigraphical Evidence. Hesperia Suppl. 37. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Fränkel, M. 1890. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Altertümer von Pergamon 8(1). 2 vols. Berlin: W. Spemans.

Fraser, P.M. 1960. The Inscriptions on Stone. Samothrace 2(1), Bollingen 60(2). New York: Pantheon.

Gabrielsen, V. 1997. The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 6. Aarhus: Aar-hus University Press.

Habicht, C. 1956. “Über die Kriege zwischen Pergamon und Bithynien.” Hermes 84:90–110.

Hadjidaki, E. 1996. “Underwater Excavations of a Late Fifth Century Merchant Ship at Alonnesos, Greece: The 1991–1993 Seasons.” BCH 120:561–93.

Hamiaux, M. 1998. Musée du Louvre: Département des antiq-uités grecs, étrusques, et romaines. Les sculptures grecs. Vol. 2, La période hellénistique (IIIe–Ier siècles av. J.-C.). Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux.

———. 2004. “La Victoire de Samothrace: Étude technique de la statue.” MonPiot 83:61–127.

———. 2006. “La Victoire de Samothrace: Construction de la base et reconstitution.” MonPiot 85:5–60.

———. 2007. La Victoire de Samothrace. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Musée du Louvre Éditions.

———. 2015. “The Context.” In The Winged Victory of Samo-thrace: Rediscovering a Masterpiece, edited by M. Hamiaux, L. Laugier, and J.-L. Martinez, 164–73. Paris: Musée du Louvre and Somogy Éditions de l’Art.

Hamiaux, M., L. Laugier, and J.-L. Martinez. 2015. The Winged Victory of Samothrace: Rediscovering a Masterpiece. Paris: Musée du Louvre and Somogy Éditions de l’Art.

Hansen, E.V. 1971. The Attalids of Pergamon. 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Hopp, J. 1977. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten At-taliden. Vestigia 25. Munich: Beck.

Iacopi, G. 1932. “Nuove epigrafi dale Sporadi meridionali.” ClRh 2:165–255.

Knell, H. 1995. Die Nike von Samothrake: Typus, Form, Bedeu-tung und Wirkungsgeschichte eines rhodischen Sieges-Anath-ems im Kabirenheiligtum von Samothrake. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Lehmann, K., and P.W. Lehmann. 1969. The Hieron. Samo-

thrace 3, Bollingen 60(3). Princeton: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Lehmann, K., and J. McCredie. 1998. Samothrace: A Guide to the Excavations and Museum. 6th rev. ed. New York: In-stitute of Fine Arts, New York University.

Lehmann, P.W. 1973. “Addendum to Samothrace, Volume 3: The Lateral Akroteria.” Hesperia 41:463–65.

Lehmann, P.W., and K. Lehmann. 1973. Samothracian Re-flections: Aspects of the Revival of the Antique. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lewis, N., ed. and trans. 1958. The Ancient Literary Sources. Samothrace 1, Bollingen 60(1). New York: Pantheon.

Maniatis, Y., D. Tambakopoulos, E. Dotsika, B.D. Wescoat, and D. Matsas. 2012. “The Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace: An Extended Marble Provenance Study.” In Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone: Proceedings of the IX. Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona 2009), edited by A. Gutiérrez-Garcia, P. Lapuente Mer-cadal, and I. Rodà de Llanza, 263–78. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica.

Mark, I. 1996. “The Monument of the Victory of Samothrace: Dating Questions.” Abstract. AJA 100(2):398.

———. 1998. “The Victory of Samothrace.” In Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, edited by O. Palagia and W. Coulson, 157–65. Oxford: Oxbow.

Matsas, D. 2013. The Nike of Samothrace. Athens: Ministry of Culture and Sports.

McDonald, A.H., and F.W. Walbank. 1969. “The Treaty of Apamea (188 B.C.): The Naval Clauses.” JRS 59:30–9.

Morrison, J.S. 1995. “Hellenistic Oared Warships, 399–31 B.C.” In The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times, edited by R. Gardiner, 66–77. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press.

Morrison, J.S., and J.F. Coates. 1996. Greek and Roman Oared Warships. Oxford: Oxbow.

Murray, A.S. 1880. A History of Greek Sculpture. London: J. Murray.

Palagia, O. 2010. “The Victory of Samothrace and the After-math of the Battle of Pydna.” In Samothracian Connections: Essays in Honor of James R. McCredie, edited by O. Palagia and B.D. Wescoat, 154–64. Oxford: Oxbow.

———. 2015. “La Victoire, un chef-d’œuvre à l’aube d’un nouvel âge.” Paper read at “La Victoire de Samothrace: Redécouvrir un chef-d’œuvre de l’époque hellénistique,” Musée du Louvre, 28 March, Paris.

Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1939–1940. “Per la storia delle associ-azioni in Rodi antica.” ASAtene, n.s. 1–2:147–200.

Reinach, S. 1892. “Inscriptions de Samothrace.” RÉG 5:197– 205.

Segre, M. 1936. “Dedica votiva dell’equipaggio di una nave Rodia.” ClRh 8:225–44.

Stampolidis, N.C., Y. Tassoulas, and M. Filimonos-Tzopotou, eds. 2011. Islands off the Beaten Track: An Archaeological Journey to the Greek Islands of Kastellorizo, Symi, Halki, Ti-los, and Nisyros. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art and Hel-lenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. New Ha-ven: Yale University Press.

A. stewart, the nike of samothrace: another view410

———. 1993. “Narration and Allusion in the Hellenistic Baroque.” In Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, edited by P.J. Holliday, 130–74. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

———. 2014. Art in the Hellenistic World: An Introduction. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2015. “La Victoire, un autre avis.” Paper read at “La Victoire de Samothrace: Redécouvrir un chef-d’œuvre de l’époque hellénistique,” Musée du Louvre, 28 March, Paris.

Thiersch, G. 1931. “Die Nike von Samothrake: Ein Rho-disches Werk und Anathem.” GöttNachr:337–78.

Thompson, H.A. 1973. Review of The Hieron. Samothrace 3, Bollingen 60(3), by K. Lehmann and P.W. Lehmann. Archaeology 26:228–29.

Traversa, A. 1952. Index Stoicorum Herculanensis. Pubblica-zioni dell’Istituto di Filologia Classica dell’Università di Genova 1. Genoa: Istituto di Filolgia Classica.

van Straaten, M. 1962. Panaetii Rhodii fragmenta. Philosophia Antiqua 5. Leiden: Brill.

Walbank, F.W. 1979. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wescoat, B.D. 2003. “Athens and Macedonian Royalty on Samothrace: The Pentelic Connection.” In The Macedo-nians in Athens, 323–229 B.C., edited by O. Palagia and S.V. Tracy, 102–16. Oxford: Oxbow.

———. 2015. “Thoughts on the Design of the Nike Pre-cinct.” In The Winged Victory of Samothrace: Rediscovering a Masterpiece, edited by M. Hamiaux, L. Laugier, and J.-L. Martinez, 174–81. Paris: Musée du Louvre and Somogy Éditions de l’Art.

Wescoat, B.D. Forthcoming. The Monuments of the Eastern Hill. Samothrace 9. Princeton: American School of Clas-sical Studies at Athens.

Documents

The Nike of Samothrace: Another View