Greek Art in Context - Duke University

Greek Art in Context

This volume gathers together selected contributions which were originally presented at the conference ‘Greek Art in Context’ at the University of Edinburgh in 2014. Its aim is to introduce the reader to the broad and multifaceted notion of context in relation to Greek art and, more specifi -cally, to its relevance for the study of Greek sculpture and pottery from the Archaic to the Late Classical periods. What do we mean by ‘context’? In which ways and under what circumstances does context become relevant for the interpretation of Greek material culture? Which contexts should we look at – viewing context, political, social and religious discourse, artistic tradition . . .? What happens when there is no context? These are some of the questions that this volume aims to answer.

The chapters included cover current approaches to the study of Greek sculpture and pottery in which the notion of ‘context’ plays a prominent role, offering new ways of looking at familiar issues. It gathers leading schol-ars and early career researchers from different backgrounds and research traditions with the aim of presenting new insights into archaeological and art historical research. Their chapters contribute to showcase the vitality of the discipline and will serve to stimulate new directions for the study of Greek art.

Diana Rodríguez Pérez is the current Junior Research Fellow Mougins Museum in Classical Art and Material Culture at Wolfson College, Oxford, and was previously the Research Assistant for the Beazley Archive Pottery Database at the Classical Art Research Centre.

Copyright Material – Provided by Taylor & Francis


Greek Art in Context Archaeological and Art Historical Perspectives

Edited by Diana Rodríguez Pérez


First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2017 Diana Rodríguez Pérez

The right of the editor to be identifi ed as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Greek Art in Context (Conference) (2014: University of

Edinburgh) | Rodríguez Pérez, Diana, editor. Title: Greek art in context: archaeological and art historical

perspectives / edited by Diana Rodríguez Pérez. Description: New York: Routledge, 2017. | Includes bibliographical

references and index. Identifi ers: LCCN 2016049783 | ISBN 9781472457455 (hardback:

alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315195667 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Art, Greek—Congresses. | Material culture—

Greece—Congresses. | Art and society—Greece—Congresses. | Archaeology and art—Greece—Congresses.

Classifi cation: LCC N5633.G75 2014 | DDC 709.38—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016049783

ISBN: 978-1-472-45745-5 (hbk)

Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC


Contents

List of fi gures viii Notes on contributors xiv Acknowledgments xix List of abbreviations xxi

Introduction 1 DIANA RODRÍGUEZ PÉREZ

PART I Location and the fi nd-spot 17

1 Statues as artefacts: Towards an archaeology of Greek sculpture 19 SHEILA DILLON AND TIM SHEA

2 Itinerant statues? The portrait landscape of the Athenian Agora 30 ELIZABETH P. BALTES

3 New perspectives in the study of pottery assemblages from settlements and their cemeteries in central Macedonia during the Archaic Period 42 ELENI MANAKIDOU

PART II Experiencing material culture 55

4 Seeing the Parthenon frieze: Notes from Nashville 57 BONNA D. WESCOAT AND REBECCA LEVITAN

5 Lost in translation? Theoretical implications of considering iconography in context 73 WINFRED VAN DE PUT


vi Contents

6 Volitional consumption: Repetitive vase scenes in a psychophysiological context 81 KATERINA VOLIOTI

7 Reviewing space, context and meaning: The Eurymedon vase again 97 LLOYD LLEWELLYN-JONES

PART III Historical and artistic contexts 117

8 Contexts of contest: Athena, Poseidon and the Martyria in the west pediment of the Parthenon 119 MARION MEYER

9 The Stoa of the Herms in context: (Re)shaping paradigms 132 MATTEO ZACCARINI

10 Not quite Pheidias: Status and labour specialization in Athenian sculpture 142 HELLE HOCHSCHEID

11 (Un)identifying Helen and Paris in late fi fth-century BCE Athenian vase-painting: How context is crucial 156 SAMANTHA MASTERS AND ALEXANDER ANDRASON

12 Is there a context behind the context? A group of Apulian red-fi gure vases in the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg 168 FRANK HILDEBRANDT

PART IV Recontextualization 183

13 Contexts of use of fourth-century Attic pottery in the Iberian Peninsula 185 CARMEN SÁNCHEZ FERNÁNDEZ

14 The reception of an Attic prize vessel: On the import and local production of amphorae of Panathenaic shape in Southern Italy 198 STINE SCHIERUP


Contents vii

15 Greek images and local identities in Lycia: The case of the Heroon of Trysa 211 ALICE LANDSKRON

16 Ancient art in a museum context: The Kent Collection of Greek and Cypriot pottery in Harrogate 223 SALLY WAITE

References 239Index 277


Figures

1.1 Find-spots of tombstones in the area of the eastern cemetery

Map : Timothy D. Shea 21 1.2 Location of Roman portraits from the Athenian

Agora found in debris deposits from the Herulian sack and built into the post-Herulian wall

Map : Modifi ed by Timothy D. Shea, based on the plan by R.C. Anderson 1991/6 24

2.1 The Athenian Agora ca. 150 ce Image courtesy of the American School of

Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations. Modifi ed by author 31

3.1a Mende, Chalcidice. General view of the Archaic cemetery with burial vases

Photo reproduced by permission of Dr S. Moschonissioti 44 3.1b Burial 130 (Mende, Chalcidice). Archaic pithoid

amphora, Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum 12724 Photo reproduced by permission of Dr S. Moschonissioti 45 3.2 Ano Toumba, Thessaloniki. General view of the residential

area with storage rooms, Archaic-Classical periods Photo reproduced by permission of Dr K. Soueref 46 3.3 Assiros, Thessaloniki. Typical local vessels from

Phase I, late eighth-early seventh century bce Drawing reproduced by permission of Dr K.A. Wardle,

copyright Diana Wardle 48 3.4 Karabournaki, Thessaloniki. Archaic local oinochoai

and olpai from the settlement Photo : Archive of the Aristotle University Excavation 49 3.5a–b Therme/Sedes. Late Archaic ‘Chalcidian’ column

krater and kotyle from the cemetery. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum Θε 288 and 12665

Photo reproduced by permission of Dr E. Skarlatidou, Thermi, The Ancient Cemetery Beneath the Modern Town , 2007, Figure page 21 50


Figures ix

4.1 Nashville Parthenon, from the west Photo : Robin Prater 58 4.2 Sightlines for viewing the Parthenon frieze.

After Stillwell, ‘Panathenaic Frieze’, fi g. 1 Courtesy of the Trustees of the American School

of Classical Studies at Athens 59 4.3 Installation of the relief panel in the frieze zone

of the Nashville Parthenon Photo : K.E. Cupello 63 4.4 Photograph taken from outside the western colonnade

of the Nashville Parthenon, showing canvas painted panels (left) and the relief panel, with coloured and monochrome portions (right). Bird netting (partially rolled back) appears in the upper section of the image

Photo : K.E. Cupello 63 4.5 Photograph taken within the pteron of the Nashville

Parthenon, showing canvas panel (left) and relief panel (right) Photo : K.E. Cupello 64 6.1 Side A of Haimonian cup skyphos from Mieza, western

Macedonia; Veroia, Π 1627 Photo : Katerina Volioti. Published with permission

of the 17th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Greece 83

6.2 Side B of Haimonian cup skyphos from Mieza, western Macedonia; Veroia, Π 1627

Photo : Katerina Volioti. Published with permission of the 17th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, Greece 83

6.3 Haimonian lekythos from Pherai, eastern Thessaly; Volos, K3323.001


6.4 Haimonian lekythos from Pherai, eastern Thessaly; Volos, K3322.89


6.5 Haimonian lekythos from Nea Ionia, eastern Thessaly; Volos, BE 11591


7.1a The Eurymedon vase (side A). Hamburg, MKG 1981.173 © Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg.

Photo: Maria Thrun 98


x Figures

7.1b The Eurymedon vase (side B). Hamburg, MKG 1981.173 © Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg.

Photo: Maria Thrun 98 7.2 Brace position suggesting 3D depth Drawing by the author 103 7.3 Athenian red-fi gure cup by the Triptolemos Painter.

Edinburgh, NMS 1887.213 Source : Line drawing, unknown artist, ca.1930 104 7.4 Athenian red-fi gure hydria fragments by the

Kleophrades Painter. Malibu, Getty 85.AE.188 Drawing by the author 105 7.5a Athenian red-fi gure pelike attributed to

Euthymides (side A). Boston, MFA 1973.88

Photo: © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 107 7.5b Athenian red-fi gure pelike attributed to

Euthymides (side B). Boston, MFA 1973.88

Photo: © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 107 7.6a Drawing of the Eurymedon Vase Drawing by the author 108 7.6b Drawing of the Eurymedon Vase Drawing by the author 109 8.1a–b West Pediment of the Parthenon (drawing of 1674) © Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France 120 8.2 Approximate location of the martyria at the time

the Parthenon was built: (a) olive tree in the Pandroseion (b) salt water in the temenos preceding the west

cella of the Erechtheion Source : drawing by A. Papanikolaou, after:

Lambrinoudakis, ‘Le mur’, 556, Figure 3, used with permission 121

8.3 Erechtheion, foundations of Old Temple, Parthenon, seen from south-west

Photo : Hans R. Goette 121 8.4 Attic hydria (ca. 400 bce ). Pella, Archaeological

Museum 80514 © 17th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities 123 8.5 Attic hydria (ca. 350 bce ). St. Petersburg, The State

Hermitage Museum P 1872.130 © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Yuri Molodkovets 124 10.1 The House of Mikion and Menon south-west

of the Agora Image courtesy of the American School of Classical

Studies at Athens, printed by permission 145


Figures xi

10.2 Mikion’s stylus from the house of Mikion and Menon Image courtesy of the American School of Classical

Studies at Athens, printed by permission 146 10.3 House F on the Street of the Marble Workers Image courtesy of the American School of Classical

Studies at Athens, printed by permission 147 10.4 Stele of Pherenika, Athens, EM 491 Photo by the author, printed by permission of the

Hellenic Ministry of Culture. Copyright: Archaeological Receipts Fund 150

10.5 Stele of Euktitos, Athens, EM 8866 Photo by the author, printed by permission of the

Hellenic Ministry of Culture. Copyright: Archaeological Receipts Fund 152

12.1 Volute krater. Side B showing Hera and Iris in a quadriga, in the centre Herakles surrounded by giants, as well as Poseidon, Demeter, Hephaistos and Hestia. Hamburg, MKG 2003.130

© Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg. Photo: Maria Thrun 171

12.2 Fragment of a volute krater showing the struggle of Athena and Enkelados. Hamburg, MKG 2010.18


12.3 Volute krater with the body surrounded by three friezes. From top down: Greeks fi ghting Orientals, fl oral decoration with Nike and the mourning Asia, Nereids and ships Hamburg, MKG 2003.129


12.4 Fragment of the lekythos with battle of Greeks and Orientals. Hamburg, MKG 2009.7


12.5 Lekythos showing a ruler or god with ram horns in a palace, accompanied by Orientals. Hamburg, MKG 2003.131


13.1 Bell krater with Iberian lid. Retorted Painter. Tomb 52 from Villaricos (Almería). 375–350 bce

After Cabrera and Sánchez, The Greeks in Spain: In the Footsteps of Herakles , 1998, 212, Figure 7 186

13.2 Bowl with out-turned rim from tomb 176, Baza, Granada. Ca. 380 bce

After Domínguez Monedero and Carmen Sánchez, Greek Pottery in the Iberian Peninsula 2001, 191, Figure 1 187


xii Figures

13.3 Fragment of cup by the Group of Vienna 116 from tomb 21, Baza, Granada. Ca. 360 bce

Drawing by the author 189 13.4 L’Orleyl Tomb, Castellón. Ca. 350 bce After Cabrera and Sánchez, The Greeks in Spain:

In the Footsteps of Herakles , 1998, 138, Figure 1 190 13.5 Recreation of the tomb 43 from Baza, Granada,

with original grave goods Source : Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid 192 14.1 a–b: Taranto, Via Genova, ‘Tomb of the Athlete’,

ca. 480 bce ; c–d: Taranto, Contrada Montegranaro tomb, ca. 440 bce

After Lo Porto, ‘Tombe di Atleti Tarentini’, 1967, fi gs. 4–5, 8–9 200

14.2a–b Pseudo-Panathenaic amphora. Metaponto, MN 310.897 Photo : courtesy of Metaponto, Museo Archeologico

and the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Basilicata 203

14.3 Fragment of pseudo-Panathenaic amphora. Copenhagen, NM ChrVIII757

Photo: courtesy of The National Museum of Denmark 203 14.4 Lucanian red-fi gure amphora by the Amykos Painter.

Munich, AS 3275 Photo: courtesy of Munich, Antikensammlung 204 14.5 Lucanian red-fi gure amphora. Paris, Louvre CA308 Photo: courtesy of RMN, Musée du Louvre 205 15.1 Heroon from Trysa. West wall: ‘City-siege’ © Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Photo: W. Burger 212 15.2 Heroon from Trysa. West wall: ‘City-siege’.

Vienna, KM I 462 © Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 213 15.3 Heroon of Trysa, South wall: Banquet-frieze.

Vienna, KM I 496 © Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 215 15.4 Heroon of Trysa, South wall: Banquet-frieze.

Vienna, KM I 497 © Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 215 15.5 Heroon from Trysa, South side, door lintel Source : after Benndorf and Niemann, Heroon , pl. VI 216 16.1 A pottery case in the museum room at Tatefi eld Hall Photo : courtesy of Daphne Ewen 225 16.2 Benjamin Kent with an Attic black-fi gure amphora

in his collection (Harrogate, Kent Collection 3859, ca. 550 bce )

© Bradford Museums and Galleries. From a slide taken by Sidney Jackson in the 1960s 226


Figures xiii

16.3 Lucanian red-fi gure pelikai from the Canino Collection (Harrogate, Kent Collection 3801 and 9799, ca . 440 bce )

© The Mercer Art Gallery, Harrogate Borough Council 229 16.4 A Campanian red-fi gure bell krater from the

Disney Collection (Harrogate, Kent Collection inv. no. 3778, ca . 400 bce )

© The Mercer Art Gallery, Harrogate Borough Council 230 16.5 A Cypriot cup from the Cesnola Collection

(Harrogate, Kent Collection 10048, ca . 800 bce ) © The Mercer Art Gallery, Harrogate Borough Council 232


Notes on contributors

Alexander Andrason is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Semitic languages at the Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University. He specializes in Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Niger-Congo languages. He is inter-ested in several linguistic frameworks, including cognitive linguistics, grammaticalization theory and fuzzy grammar, as well as in various modellings of languages, such as evolutionary-biological adaptive mod-els, complexity theory, chaos theory, game theory, thermodynamics and fuzziology. He received a doctorate in Semitic Languages from the Uni-versity Complutense of Madrid in 2010. He has recently completed his second PhD in African Languages at the University of Stellenbosch. He has published extensively on various aspects of linguistics in numerous journals and edited volumes.

Elizabeth P. Baltes is Assistant Professor of Art History at Coastal Carolina University. She received a PhD in Classical Art and Archaeology from Duke University. Her research interests lie at the intersection of sculpture, politics, and public space in the Greek world, and she has published on the statue landscapes of both Athens and Delos. Her dissertation, Dedication and Dis-play of Portrait Statues in Hellenistic Greece: Spatial Practices and Iden-tity Politics, investigates how social and political pressures were negotiated through portrait dedication, while her current project traces the practice of setting up public honorifi c portrait statues from antiquity to the present.

Sheila Dillon is Professor of Art History and Classical Studies at Duke University. She received a PhD in Classical Art and Archaeology from the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University. Her books include The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World (2010) and Ancient Greek Por-trait Sculpture: Contexts, Subjects, and Styles (2006), which was awarded the James R. Wiseman Book Award from the Archaeological Institute of America in January 2008. She is currently working on a history of portrait sculpture in Roman Athens, focused on material from the Athenian Agora, and a digital mapping project of the archaeology of Athens, a collabora-tive endeavour centred in Duke’s Wired Lab that involves undergraduate and graduate students at Duke and international colleagues in Athens.

Frank Hildebrandt is the head of the Ancient Arts and Antiquities Depart-ment of the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg and since 2013


Notes on contributors xv

additionally responsible for the project management of all temporary exhibitions. He studied Classical Archaeology, Ancient History, Pre-history and Medieval Archaeology at the Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen and at the Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg im Breisgau. There he got his doctorate with a work on the Attic ‘ Namenstelen ’. His main research interests are Roman wall-painting and portraiture of the Emperor Claudius, south Italian vase-painting as well as visual language and narration and the protection of world heritage. He has published two books and numerous papers and contributions to edited volumes on aspects of vase-painting and sculpture.

Helle Hochscheid lectures in archaeology and heritage studies at Univer-sity College Roosevelt, Utrecht University. She received her PhD from the University of Amsterdam in 2010. Her research interests range from Greek sculpture and the processes of its manufacture to the image of the female body in the ancient world. She is the author of Networks in Stone (2015) and co-founder of the Ancient Sculpture Association.

Alice Landskron received her doctorate at the University of Vienna in 1996 with a Doctoral Thesis entitled Parther und Sasaniden in der römischen Kunst , which was published as a monograph in 2005. She has led numer-ous research projects since then, among them, the research project ‘The Heroon from Trysa’, funded by the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien since 2007. A two-volume monograph on the same subject was pub-lished in 2015 which is at the same time as the postdoctoral qualifi cation (habilitation) at the University of Graz. In addition, she has undertaken a research project on the sculptural decoration of domestic spaces in Ostia, sampling the ‘Domus della Fortuna Annonaria’, and is currently lead-ing a research project ‘Roman Sculpture from Side in Context: the Ideal Sculpture’ at the University of Graz. She lectures in Greek and Roman Art at the University of Vienna, at the University of Salzburg and the University of Graz.

Rebecca Levitan is a PhD student studying the art and architecture of the ancient Mediterranean world at the University of California, Berkeley. She previously completed a MLitt at the University of St Andrews as a Robert T. Jones Scholar. Levitan has excavated in Greece, Italy and Belgium, and has completed illustration and drafting for the Sanctuary of the Great Gods at Samothrace and the Athenian Agora Excavations.

Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones is Professor of Ancient History at Cardiff Univer-sity. He took up his previous position as a Lecturer in Ancient History at Edinburgh in August 2004, being appointed Senior Lecturer in 2010. He received his PhD and MA from the University of Wales, Cardiff, and a BA from the University of Hull. His main research interest lies in the history, culture and society of Achaemenid Iran and of ancient Greek perceptions of Persia. He works on Greek texts and images of Persia and has recently co-authored a volume entitled Ctesias’ History of Persia: Tales of the Orient for Routledge; this is a full translation of the ‘Persica’,


xvi Notes on contributors

with an introduction. He also researches on Persian court society and the role of monarchy in ancient Near Eastern cultures. Within this fi eld, he is particularly interested in the role of royal women.

Eleni Manakidou is Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology at the Department of Archaeology, School of History and Archaeology, Aris-totle University Thessaloniki. She has been a Guest Professor and Senior Fellow at European universities and research centres – Archaeological Institute of the Free-University and Interdisciplinary Research Pro-gramme TOPOI in Berlin, 2008–2009; Archaeological Institute of the Free-University in Brussels, 2012; École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, 2013. She co-directs the university excavation at Kara-bournaki and is responsible for two research programmes on pottery fi nds in northern Greek settlements. She is the author of three monographs and co-editor of two volumes on Greek art and archaeology. She pub-lished many articles in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. Her main research interests are about ancient pottery, religion, women’s iconography and topography in the periphery of the Greek world.

Samantha Masters obtained her PhD in Classics at the University of Exeter in 2012 and before that, a Master of Arts and an Honours degree in Classics at the University of Natal, Durban. She is a Lecturer in the Depart-ment of Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Her main research areas are Attic vase-painting, iconography and the lan-guage of images, emotional and erotic themes in Greek art, the reception of Classical antiquity in South Africa and Classical collections and col-lecting in (former) British colonies. In addition to research, Dr Masters teaches courses in ancient Greek and Roman culture, supervises postgrad-uate students and regularly gives public lectures on Classical themes.

Marion Meyer is a Classical archaeologist. She received her PhD from the Uni-versity of Bonn in 1984 and the habilitation from the University of Ham-burg in 1997. She has taught at the universities of Munich (1985–1990), Hamburg (1990–1996), Florida (1996) and Bonn (1997–2003). She has been Professor of Classical Archaeology at the University of Vienna since 2003. Her main interests lie in culture and cults in ancient Athens and the Eastern Mediterranean: creation, tradition, use, function and signifi cance of images, as well as phenomena of acculturation. She is currently working on a monograph, Athena, Goddess of Athens: Cult and Myth on the Acropolis until Classical Times , which explores the changing interests of the Athe-nians in their main goddess at the times when they planned or built eight temples for her in the sanctuary on the Acropolis (ca. 700 to ca. 400 bce ).

Diana Rodríguez Pérez is the current Junior Research Fellow Mougins Museum in Classical Art and Material Culture at Wolfson College, Oxford, and was previously the Research Assistant for the Beazley Archive Pottery Database at the Classical Art Research Centre. Before moving to Oxford she was FECYT Postdoctoral Fellow in Classical Archaeology at


Notes on contributors xvii

the University of Edinburgh and DAAD Fellow at the University of Hei-delberg. She received a European Doctorate in History of Art from the University of León (Spain) in 2010 with a PhD thesis entitled: The Snake in the Ancient Greek World: Myth, Rite and Image . She has published two books (one of them co-authored with Thomas Mannack) and con-tributed several articles on various aspects of Greek material and visual culture to international peer-reviewed publications and edited volumes. Her research interests are in the areas of Greek art and archaeology, Athe-nian pottery in the archaeological record, myth and religion.

Carmen Sánchez is Professor of Classical Art at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and head of the Department of Art History and Theory of the same university. Her main lines of research are Athenian pottery, archaic and Classical Greek iconography, Greek art and the transmission of Greek images into the Iberian world. Her more relevant publications include the book Greek Pottery in the Iberian Peninsula authored with Adolfo Domínguez Monedero, the book A New Look at Classical Art (in Spanish) and the book Arte y Erotismo en el Mundo Clásico , with a German edition entitled: Die Geburt der Nacktheit aus dem Geiste der Griechen und Römer.

Stine Schierup is a research curator at the Collection of Classical and Near Eastern Antiquities, The National Museum of Denmark. She obtained her doctorate in 2014 from the University of Aarhus with the thesis ‘Cultural Encounters – Material Transformations. The Reception of Greek Pottery in Southern Italy in the Fifth and Fourth Century bc’ . The central theme in her research is cross-cultural interaction in the Mediterranean area – the diffusion of cultural practices, rituals and ideologies – as refl ected through the trade and regional production of Greek pottery and/or pot-tery infl uenced by Greek shapes and styles. She has published several papers on these topics and edited the volume The Regional Production of Red-fi gure Pottery: Greece, Magna Graecia and Etruria (2014).

Tim Shea is a PhD Candidate at Duke University in the Department of Art, Art History and Visual Studies. His research considers the human processes that bring sculpture from quarry to statue base and eventually to the archaeological context in which we discover them. He has been a member of the Morgantina Excavations in Sicily (2012, 2014) and has been a trench supervisor at the Azoria Project in Crete from 2013–2015. His dissertation, ‘The Art and Archaeology of Classical Attic Cemeter-ies’, situates now-scattered Classical Attic tombstones in their original cemetery contexts and focuses on the relationship between cemetery and settlement in Attica.

Winfred Van de Put studied at the University of Amsterdam, soon spe-cializing in Attic vase-painting in the Beazley tradition. He published two fascicules of the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum of the Allard Pierson Museum, dealing with black-fi gured and red-fi gured lekythoi. Dissatisfi ed


xviii Notes on contributors

with a mainly stylistic approach, he turned to analysing the imagery of the Attic lekythos during its 250 years of existence from the point of view of its use. He defended his PhD successfully in 2012 at Ghent University. Dr Van de Put participated in fi eldwork in Carthage, Malta, Sozopol, Halos and Boeotia and is presently involved at Thorikos. He taught Clas-sical Archaeology at the universities of Amsterdam, Ghent and Nijmegen and was curator at the Allard Pierson Museum. From June 2014, he has been appointed director of the Nederlands Instituut Athene.

Katerina Volioti is an art historian with a passion for Greek vases. She was awarded her PhD from the University of Reading, UK, in 2013. Her major publication to date, ‘The materiality of graffi ti: Socializing a lekythos in Pherai’, appears in an edited volume by Routledge (2011). She has taught Classical art at the Universities of Reading and Roehampton and has published widely on the iconography, function and trade of Attic pots.

Sally Waite is currently a Teaching Fellow in Classics at Newcastle Univer-sity and has recently completed the ‘Shefton Archive Project’, cataloguing the Greek and Etruscan artefacts on display in the Shefton Gallery of the Great North Museum, Newcastle. She obtained her doctorate at Newcas-tle with a PhD thesis entitled ‘Representing Gender on Athenian Painted Pottery’ in 2000 and has published on Athenian vase-painting and the history of collections. She is a co-editor of the book On the Fascination of Objects: Greek and Etruscan Art at the Shefton Collection (2015).

Bonna D. Wescoat is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Art History at Emory University and Director of Excavations in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods, Samothrace, Greece. A fi eld archaeologist and architectural historian, her research centres on architecture and sacred experience in ancient Greece. She has worked particularly with 3D digital modelling to recreate the ancient environment, trace the passage of the pilgrim and shed light on experiential and environmental aspects of Greek religion. In addition to her research on Samothrace, Wescoat has also worked on the Temple of Athena at Assos, the Parthenon frieze and the ancient city of Syracuse in Sicily .

Matteo Zaccarini studied Ancient History and Cultural Heritage at the Uni-versity of Bologna, Italy. He obtained his PhD in Ancient History in 2013 from the University of Bologna and King’s College London (cotutelle), with a thesis on fi fth-century Greek history and historiography dealing with the fi gure of Cimon of Athens. Afterwards, he pursued his studies in Bologna (postdoctoral research), Birkbeck College, London (Honorary Research Fellow) and, currently, Edinburgh (IASH Postdoctoral Research Fellow). He has published several articles on the subjects of Classical Greek history, historiography, religion and military history, as well as teaching and con-temporary reception of the past; he is author of a monograph on Angelos Sikelianos’ Delphic Festivals and co-editor of a forthcoming book on the Lex sacra of Selinous. Currently, he is revising his PhD thesis for publication.


Acknowledgments

An edited volume like this is the product of the work of many people and organizations to which I would like to thank in these lines. First of all, I want to express my gratitude to Ulrike Roth, former head of the Clas-sics subject area at the School of Classics, History and Archaeology of the University of Edinburgh. Without her support and trust, the conference ‘Greek Art in Context’ and, consequently, this book would not exist. Judith Barringer facilitated my stay in Edinburgh and has offered me her support throughout the years in various ways. Glenys Davies, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, John Bintliff, Sally Waite, Amy Smith, Eberhard Sauer and Douglas Cairns provided advice at various stages, and Elaine Philip, Sarah Duffy and Elaine Hutchinson helped with conference logistics. Antonis Kotsonas and Carmen Sánchez Fernández kindly agreed to deliver the keynote lectures. Eugenia Michailidou, Alana Newman, Cassy Dalrymple and Sergio Robles assisted me during the conference. The fi nancial support came from the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, the Classical Association and the Institute of Classical Studies. A Postdoctoral Fellowship by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport and the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) funded my two years research stay in Edinburgh.

I am extremely grateful to Routledge publishing for making this volume a reality, and very particularly to my very helpful editor Michael Green-wood, with whom it has been a pleasure to work. This volume would not exist were it not for the authors included in it, whose expertise, willingness and professionalism have contributed enormously to turn the all-too-often cumbersome experience of editing a book into a blissful adventure. The remaining participants of the conference have inadvertently contributed much to this volume with their ideas and inputs at the conference and they must be acknowledged. My gratitude and that of the contributors also goes to the many friends, family and colleagues who have encouraged and helped us when it was most needed. We also wish to thank museums and collectors recorded in the fi gure captions for permissions to use illustra-tions. Funding towards the production costs of the volume has been gener-ously provided by the Lorne Thyssen Research Fund for Ancient World Topics at Wolfson College.


xx Acknowledgments

Last but not least, I would also like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues at the Classical Art Research Centre and the Beazley Archive, Claudia Wagner, John Boardman, Giles Richardson, and most specially, to Thomas Mannack and Peter Stewart, who have supported me and this project in many ways since my arrival in Oxford.

Diana Rodríguez Pérez Oxford, August 2016


Abbreviations

Abbreviation for journals and standard scholarly works cited in this book follow the guidelines of the German Archaeological Institute. Abbreviations for ancient authors and works follow those listed in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

A list of abbreviations for works not included in the above follows.

ABL Haspels, Caroline Henriette Emilie. Attic Black-fi gured Lekythoi . Paris: Boccard, 1936.

Athens, AM Athens, Agora Museum Athens, EM Athens, Epigraphical Museum Athens, NM Athens, National Archaeological Museum BAPD Beazley Archive Pottery Database http://www.

beazley.ox.ac.uk Berlin, AS Berlin, Antikensammlung Paris, BNF Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France Bochum, KS Bochum, Kunstsammlung der Universität Boston, MFA Boston, Museum of Fine Arts CID Lefèvre, François, Didier Laroche and Olivier

Masson, eds. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. 4 vols. Paris: Boccard 1977–1922.

Copenhagen, NM Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark CVA Getty 8 Moore, Mary B. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.

Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum 8 (USA 33) . Malibu, CA: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1998.

CVA Hamburg 2 Hurschmann, Rolf. Corpus Vasorum Antiquo-rum Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe 2 (Germany 91) . Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012.

CVA Copenhagen 8 Friis Johansen, Karsten. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Copenhagen, Musée National VIII (Danemark 8). Copenhagen: Librairie Einar Munksgaard, 1965.

Edinburgh, NMS Edinburgh, National Museums of Scotland


xxii Abbreviations

FGE Page, Denys L. ed. Further Greek Epigrams: Epi-grams before AD 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources. Not Included in Hellenis-tic Epigrams or The Garland of Philip. Cam-bridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Hamburg, MKG Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe IG I 3 Lewis, David and Lilian Jeffery, eds. Inscriptiones

Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores. 3rd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981–1998.

IG II 2 Kirchner, Johannes, ed. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1918–31.

JHC Journal of the History of Collections LIMC I ‘Amazons’ Dévambez, Pierre and Aliki Kauffmann-

Samaras. ‘Amazons’ . In LIMC I, 586–653. Zurich: Artemis, 1981.

LIMC IV ‘Hélène’ Ghali-Kahil, Lilly. ‘Hélène’. In LIMC IV, 498–563. Zurich: Artemis, 1988.

LIMC IV ‘Erechtheus’ Kron, Uta. ‘Erechtheus’. In LIMC IV, 923–51. Zurich: Artemis, 1988.

LIMC IV ‘Gigantes’ Vian, Francis and Mary B. Moore. ‘Gigantes’. In LIMC IV, 191–270. Zurich: Artemis, 1988.

LIMC V ‘Herakles Woodford, Susan and John Boardman, ‘Herak-les and Apollon/Apollo’. In LIMC V, 133–43. Zurich: Artemis, 1990.

LIMC VI ‘Meleagros’. Woodford, Susan, Georg Daltrop and Ingrid Krauskopf. ‘Meleagros’. In LIMC VI, 414–35. Zurich: Artemis, 1992 .

LIMC VI ‘Mnesteres II’ Touchefeu-Meynier, Odette. ‘Mnesteres II’ . In LIMC VI, 631–4. Zurich: Artemis, 1992.

LIMC VII ‘ Poseidon’ Simon, Erika. ‘Poseidon’. In LIMC VII, 446–79. Zurich: Artemis, 1994.

LIMC VII ‘Priamos’ Kahil, Lilly. ‘Priamos’. In LIMC VII, 515–20. Zurich: Artemis, 1994.

London, BM London, British Museum LSA Last Statues of Antiquity database, Oxford Uni-

versity http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk Malibu, Getty Malibu (CA), The J. Paul Getty Museum Metaponto, MAN Metaponto, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale ML Meiggs, Russell and David M. Lewis, A Selection

of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

and Apollon/Apollo’


Abbreviations xxiii

Munich, SA Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek

New York, MET New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art Paris, Louvre Paris, Musée du Louvre Tarquinia, MNT Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale Tarquiniense Vienna, KM Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum



1 Statues as artefacts Towards an archaeology of Greek sculpture

Sheila Dillon and Tim Shea

Introduction

Much of Classical sculpture has been found reused in fortifi cation walls, dis-carded in fi ll, dumped into wells and built into post-antique buildings; that is, sculpture tends to be found in contexts that tell us nothing about when it was made or where it was originally set up. Because answering these ques-tions drives much of the scholarship on Greek sculpture, such fi nd contexts tend not to play an important role in our analyses. In this chapter we argue that secondary and even tertiary fi nd locations are an important dimension of the life history of sculpture and need to fi gure into our interpretations; the relevance of a particular fi nd context and the information that it might pro-vide cannot be fully appreciated unless we fi rst try to take it into account. In addition to the more usual concerns of when statues were made, where they were set up, who dedicated them and why, we claim that a full contextual analysis of sculpture should also include what statues have survived, how they have survived and where they have been found. Our aim is to consider what we might learn if we treat sculpture archaeologically, in addition to treating it art historically. To test this hypothesis, we focus on two groups of sculptural material from Athens: fi gured tombstones of the Classical period that are recorded as having been found in the area of the east cemetery and Roman portraits from the Athenian Agora found in the debris from the Her-ulian sack and in the post-Herulian wall. Our aim is to ask: what happens if we treat sculpture more like excavation pottery, as artefacts whose study should include consideration of their full life cycle, from initial production through to fi nal discard? This chapter is a modest fi rst attempt at answering that question. 1

The idea for the current project grew out of Dillon’s experience at Aphro-disias in Turkey. One of the fi rst tasks we were assigned during those early seasons of work at Aphrodisias was to pick a building or an area of the site, go through the notebooks to identify the sculpture that had been found during the excavation and mark the fi nd locations of all the sculpture on a plan. These fi nd-spot plans were critical for establishing the archaeological contexts of the many sculptural fragments stored in the depots of the Aph-rodisias museum and they were an essential fi rst step in the reconstruction


20 Sheila Dillon and Tim Shea

of individual statues by associating statue fragments found together or in close proximity in excavation but now dispersed in the storerooms. This painstaking archival-depot work was also fundamental to understanding the sculptural landscape of the city in its fi nal late Antique phase. The analy-sis of fi nd contexts helped us to comprehend a number of important dimen-sions of this late Antique landscape that might otherwise have remained obscure: the building of the city walls in the mid-fourth century caused a major disruption in the city’s ‘statuescape’, as the outer face of the wall is made up entirely of reused marble blocks, many of which are statue bases. Many of the statues that once stood on these bases were apparently left behind in the city centre; some were recycled for late Antique portrait mon-uments, others appear to have been set up as venerable art works from the city’s past. A few imperial-period portrait statue monuments survived for hundreds of years on display in their original form. 2 It is our hope that such archival-depot work in Athens might yield similar results or at the very least help us to understand more clearly how the statue and cemetery landscape in discrete areas of the city changed over time.

Sculpted Attic tombstones from the area of the eastern cemetery

Much has been written on the distribution of burials and the formation of cemeteries in Athens, but tombstones are rarely taken into account in these studies. Because they are almost always found reused in later contexts, grave monuments tend to be overlooked as evidence either for the loca-tion of cemeteries or their social composition. This seems a missed opportu-nity, as inscribed tombstones can provide important information about the deceased, such as familial relationships, deme affi liation and, in the case of foreigners, the cities or regions outside Athens from which they immigrated. Of course, tombstones could move and certainly were moved; the many fragments of sculpted Attic grave monuments found in the Athenian Agora were obviously brought in from elsewhere in the city. 3 Just how far they might wander from their original use locations is, perhaps, unknowable, but the wealth of grave monuments found in the Kerameikos excavations suggests that, in some cases at least, they did not move very far. And Nathan Arrington has recently made a very compelling case for the location of the demosion sema based partly on the fi nd locations of inscribed casualty lists. 4 What might we learn if we perform a similar exercise and plot the fi nd-spots of tomb monuments?

To explore this question, I have relied primarily on the location informa-tion painstakingly compiled by Alexander Conze in his monumental multi-volume catalogue of Attic tombstones, in which he recorded the fi nd-spots of hundreds of monuments. 5 Because the Kerameikos has received so much scholarly attention, I focus on tombstones found beyond the Diochares Gate and in the vicinity of Syntagma Square and the Greek Parliament build-ing, in an area commonly referred to as the eastern cemetery 6 ( Figure 1.1).


Figu

re 1

.1 F

ind-

spot

s of

tom

bsto

nes

in t

he a

rea

of t

he e

aste

rn c

emet

ery:

1)

CA

T 2

.831

c; 2

) C

AT

2.7

11;

3) C

AT

2.8

87;

4) C

AT

1.2

31;

5) C

AT

3.3

74; 6

) C

AT

0.8

49; 7

) C

AT

2.3

69b;

8)

CA

T 2

.419

a; 9

) C

AT

1.7

86; 1

0) A

rchD

elt

9, 1

924–

1925

, 71,

no.

6; 1

1) C

AT

0.

691;

12)

CA

T 2

.421

; 13)

CA

T 4

.219

; 14)

CA

T 2

.219

a; 1

5) A

rchE

ph 1

958,

117

, no.

118

; 16)

CA

T 1

.760

; 17)

Arc

hEph

195

8,

119,

no.

122

; 18)

Arc

hEph

195

8, 1

20, n

o. 1

23; 1

9) C

AT

2.4

13c;

20)

CA

T 2

.053

; 21)

CA

T 3

.354

b; 2

2) C

AT

0.8

69a;

23)

CA

T

2.83

5; 2

4) C

AT

3.4

63;

25)

CA

T 2

.832

; 26

) C

AT

2.4

47;

27)

CA

T 3

.211

; 28

) Pa

rlam

a an

d St

ampo

lidis

, A

then

s , 2

23,

no.

168;

29

) A

AA

2, 1

969,

329

, no.

1; 3

0) A

AA

2, 1

969,

329

, no.

2; 3

1) C

AT

3.4

30a;

32)

CA

T 3

.430

a; 3

3) C

AT

5.1

50; 3

4) C

AT

3.2

10;

35)

CA

T 3

.427

a; 3

6) C

AT

2.7

25e.

Map

: Tim

othy

D. S

hea.



As Conze’s locations range from the vague – a neighbourhood – to a spe-cifi c city block or even an exact street address, I focus primarily on those tombstones whose fi nd-spots were more precisely recorded and then correlate these fi nd-spots with the locations of burials found in the Metro Excavations. 7 Information from the excavations shows that the area was in use as a cem-etery until the later second century ce ; the gradual closure of the area to burial is likely due to the eastward expansion of the city in the Hadrianic period. 8

Approximately thirty-six tombstones of the Classical period are recorded as having been found in this area of the city. 9 Eleven are dated to 430–390 bce ; eight to 390–360; fi fteen to 360–330; two to after 330. 10 The entire range of dates for which Classical sculpted tombstones are thought to have been permissible, either socially or legally, is, therefore, represented. There is also a broad range of monument types: nine naiskos stelai, nine, more modest, bildfeld stelai, fi ve inscribed stelai, four ampho-raloutrophoroi and nine marble lekythoi; in total forty-one male fi gures and twenty-eight female fi gures are depicted. Only two of the seven stelai depict more than one fi gure and only two are large enough to have fi gures that approach life-size: one depicts a standing woman ( CAT 1.231) and one a seated woman ( CAT 2.413c). Both are only preserved in a frag-mentary state. 11 Twenty-nine of the monuments are inscribed; nine of the inscriptions include a demotic affi liation. Five refer to city demes (Melite and Kydathenaion), while four belong to inland demes (Erchia, Hagnous and Aithalididai). 12 Three of these tombstones have been associated with the peribolos of Aristokles of Melite, which was located directly outside the Diochares Gate. 13

Of these thirty-six tombstones, I focus here on one group of grave monu-ments found in the area of the Royal Stables. 14 The group comprises fi ve tombstones found during the demolition of the stables and reported in Conze, 15 and two found during excavation of the area by Kyparissis in 1922, when a large concentration of burials from the Archaic and Classical periods were also discovered. 16 Marble loutrophoroi and other funerary sculpture such as sphinxes are noted by Kyparissis in his report, but none of these were illustrated or described in detail. 17 The area received further investigation during the recent Metro Excavations, in the shaft located at the corner of Amerikis and Panepistimiou Streets. 18 One-hundred eighty-eight additional burials were uncovered at this time, the majority of which are dated to the fi fth and fourth centuries bce ; of note are forty-two child burials. 19

By considering their fi nd locations, these seven monuments, unearthed over the course of more than century, can now be collocated and studied as a group. The tombstones found by Kyparissis include an undecorated inscribed stele for Archetimos son of Stratios, a war hostage from Thasos, 20 as well as a fi gured naiskos stele of a seated woman named Kallippe. 21 The small inscribed stele likely dates to the late fi fth century, after the Athenians attack Thasos in 407/406 bce . 22 The naiskos stele of Kallipe ( CAT 1.786) is dated to the fi rst half of the fourth century (390–60) and


Statues as artefacts 23

shows Kallipe seated in a high-backed chair holding a bird out to a small child standing in front of her. The monuments recorded by Conze include three bildfeld stelai 23 and two naiskos stelai. 24 Children fi gure prominently in these monuments. Two commemorate boys: the naiskos stele for Ona-toridos from Boeotia ( CAT 0.849) and the bildfeld stele for a Polyeuktos ( CAT 0.691). The tombstone of Polyeuktos is dated to 430–390 bce , while that of Onatoridos is dated to after 330. Both fi gures stand in profi le facing left and hold a bird out to a small dog. The naiskos stele of Mynnion ( CAT 2.421), whose father Chairestratos is from the deme Hagnous, pictures the girl with her mother, who holds her daughter’s chin in her hand and puts her arm around the girl’s shoulder. Mynnion wears a high-girt peplos and a chiton with buttoned sleeves, and is slightly shorter than her mother. This stele with its touching scene is dated to 360–330. The two other bild-feld stelai both show a seated female shaking hands with a standing male; one commemorates Sogenes and Demetria ( CAT 2.369b) and is dated to 430–390, the other is for a Doris ( CAT 2.419a), who was a slave; it is dated to 360–330.

The tombstones found in the area of the Royal Stables are a diverse group: they range in date from the end of the fi fth century to the late fourth, they commemorate children, citizens, foreigners, a war captive and a slave, and they vary in size and quality. They may have once stood in close proximity to one another and suggest the agglutinative formation process of a standing monument cemetery. They are also a testament to the diverse demographic make-up of the Athens’ cemeteries and are further proof that the long-held notion of ‘citizen cemeteries’ needs to be re-examined. 25 The variety of other fi nds uncovered in the area of the eastern cemetery also suggests that cem-eteries in Athens were neither formal nor bounded and, in fact, were not used exclusively for burial: the remains of a large bathhouse, probably built origi-nally in the fourth century, were found just outside the Diochares Gate, 26 and evidence for bronze working, including several foundry pits from the second half of the fi fth century, were found in the Syntagma Station excavation. 27 Clearly the area outside the city walls was a lively place, even if it was also a place of the dead. While I have focused here on a small number of examples, there are hundreds of tombstones for which some kind of location informa-tion is known. The plotting and analysis of these fi nd-spots should bring further resolution to our image of cemeteries in Classical Athens.

Roman portrait statuary from the Athenian Agora

The Roman portrait statuary found in the excavations of the Athenian Agora provides an important body of evidence for the archaeology of sculp-ture as the fi nd locations of this material have all been carefully recorded. I focus here on two fi nd contexts: the debris from the Herulian sack of 267 ce and the material built into the post-Herulian wall, built during the reign of Probus (276–282 ce ) 28 ( Figure 1.2). The sculpture found in


Figu

re 1

.2 L

ocat

ion

of R

oman

por

trai

ts f

rom

the

Ath

enia

n A

gora

fou

nd in

deb

ris

depo

sits

fro

m t

he H

erul

ian

sack

and

bui

lt in

to t

he p

ost-

Her

ulia

n w

all.

Map

: Mod

ifi ed

by

Tim

othy

D. S

hea,

bas

ed o

n th

e pl

an b

y R

.C. A

nder

son

1991

/6.



Herulian destruction debris likely stood within the Agora; the material found in the post-Herulian wall could have been brought in from elsewhere. Both contexts provide important information about the portrait landscape in Athens in the mid-third century ce . Individual examples may shed new light on some technical aspects of Athenian portraiture.

There were sixteen portraits found in contexts identifi ed as destruction debris from the Herulian sack: nine heads and seven statue bodies. 29 The portraits range in date from the early fi rst century to the mid-third, come from both statues and busts, include both male and female subjects and appear to have come from both public and private contexts. For example, two male portrait busts, one of a young man in heroic costume, 30 the other of an elderly man in himation and chiton, 31 were found in the same room of a large Roman house located on the northeast slope of the Hill of the Nymphs. The bust of the old man is very well preserved, missing only the nose and its base. The bust of the young man has a number of unusual fea-tures: the break surfaces are worn and the pieces missing from the portrait were not found in the sealed destruction deposit. These details, the original date of the portrait and the makeshift base on which it was resting when found suggest a long history of use and creative curation. Both apparently were on display for about two centuries.

Likely from a public context is a series of male himation statues, two seated and fi ve standing, found during excavation in 1937 in the area of the Odeion. 32 The bodies are stylistically and technically homogeneous and were dated by Evelyn Harrison to the Antonine period. According to Homer Thompson, they were all probably made for display in or around the Odeion when it was rebuilt in the mid-second century. The building was destroyed by the Herulians and it and the associated sculpture apparently lay in ruins until the early fi fth century, when a sprawling palace-like complex, known as the Palace of the Giants, was built over the earlier remains. At this time, it would appear that these earlier statues were repaired and set up in asso-ciation with this new building complex. Since the publication of Harrison’s Agora volume, a portrait head that she had included was found to join one of these Antonine statue bodies. 33 Harrison had dated the head to the late third-early fourth century, but it would seem, if the date of the Palace of the Giants is correct, that the head should probably now be placed in the early fi fth. 34 As with a number of late Roman portraits, the head appears to have been reworked from an earlier one. This is the just the kind of crea-tive reuse and redeployment of earlier statuary that is well documented at Aphrodisias.

Finally, some observations on the technique and fi nish of three portraits – two female and one male – found in Herulian destruction debris. All are well preserved and all date to the mid- to later-second century. One of the female heads was found dumped in a well that belonged to a Roman house, along with other household debris from the sack. 35 Although she considered it unfi nished, probably because of the rasped surface of the fl esh, Harrison



thought the head had been kept in the house as decoration. The second female portrait was found buried with other debris in a hole in the fl oor of a room in the Library of Pantainos identifi ed as a sculptor’s workshop. 36 Harrison considered this portrait unfi nished as well: the fl esh was rasped and the eyes were not engraved, although the later second-century fashion hairstyle had been completed. The male head, 37 also considered unfi nished because of unsmoothed chisel work on the face and rough drilling in the hair, comes from a well near the Tholos, in a deposit that also contained two beautifully fi nished male portraits of the third century. 38 Given their contexts, the status of these three portraits as unfi nished perhaps merits some rethinking. As Harrison herself asked, what were these heads doing for the approximately 100 years between when they were made and when they were discarded? We might also ask, in what sense was a portrait on dis-play in some manner for about a century unfi nished? Perhaps, for example, we should allow for more fl exibility in terms of technique, such as the lack of drilled eyes in portraits of the post-Hadrianic period, and a greater range of possibilities in terms of surface fi nish; the female head from the Roman house with the rasped fl esh has had the details of the eyes cut and the eye-brows carefully carved. A rasped fl esh surface, which seems to have been a hallmark of Athenian portraiture, is also found on two portraits from the Agora that are considered fi nished. 39 And the male portrait head from the well may simply represent a lower level of production quality than the two third-century heads with which it was found. Completely fi nished portraits from Aphrodisias, for example, show varied levels of fi nish, particularly on the sides and back of the head, which was probably due to where and how the statue was displayed. 40

Only two portrait heads were found in the post-Herulian wall, at least in the area of the Agora: a beautiful bust of the early fi rst century, 41 and a fi nely fi nished but defaced portrait head of the early second century, worked for insertion into a statue. 42 More illuminating is the many fragmentary statue bases found built into the wall’s face or used in its fi ll. These bases range in date from the mid-fi fth century bce to the third century ce and include, for example, a base of the mid-fourth century bce for the statue of a daughter of Menon of Archarnae, 43 a base of the Hellenistic period for a statue of Euthyphron, signed by the sculptor Timon, 44 the base for a bronze statue of Civica Barbarus, set up by Herodes Atticus in 157, 45 and the base for a bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius Apphianos of Marathon, set up in 235/6. 46 While we always knew from Pausanias that the statue landscape of Roman Athens was one that preserved the city’s deep history, the statue monuments built into the post-Herulian wall provide an important archaeo-logical correlate to Pausanias’ description, which tended to leave out most of the Roman statues. As at Aphrodisias, we can see that the building of the wall in the later third century caused a major disruption in Athens’ statuary landscape. Additional archival-depot work may help to clarify the fate of the statues that once stood on these bases.



Conclusion

Although it is clear that the contexts in which both portraits and gravestones are typically found tend not to be directly related to their original display contexts, these fi nd locations can provide important information about the life histories of these objects. The fi nd-spots of the tombstones can help us to understand the social composition of the various cemeteries of Athens and how the monument landscape changed over time, as we believe that more material has been found closer to where it was originally set up than has previously been recognized. And while the contexts of the portraits may tell us more about the ends of these statues’ lives than about their beginnings, they are no less important for that. The ways in which Classical sculpture entered the archaeological context – the depositional practices – have hardly been explored. 47 Why, for example, are so many statues preserved either as headless bodies or bodiless heads? Analysing how statues were disposed of might tell us something about attitudes towards and behaviour around these images. Attention to fi nd context could also help us to understand what has been preserved and how, which would in turn allow us to comprehend more clearly the representative nature of the sculpture that has survived. The analysis of depositional processes, fragmentation, context and the rep-resentative nature of archaeological assemblages are all important aspects of archaeological interpretation. Bringing such questions to bear on the study of Greek sculpture would bring archaeology and art history into productive conversation and expand the range of evidence we consider in exploring Greek art in context.

Notes

1 Dillon is responsible for the introduction, the study of the portraits from the Agora and the conclusions; Shea is responsible for the study of the Attic tomb-stones and the illustrations.

2 The results of this work have been published in Smith et al. , Roman Portrait Statuary from Aphrodisias , 2006.

3 Grossman, Funerary Sculpture , 2013, 65. 4 Arrington, ‘Topographic Semantics: The Location of the Athenian Public Cem-

etery and Its Signifi cance for the Nascent Democracy’, 2010, 499–539. 5 Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs , 1893, 1900, 1906; see also the provenance

index in Clairmont, Classical Attic Tombstones , vol. VI, 1993, 299–311. 6 Vestiges of this cemetery have been found stretching from Grigoriou V to Karay-

iorgi Servias Streets; see Theocharaki, ‘The Ancient Circuit Wall of Athens: Its Changing Course and the Phases of Construction’, 2011, 88, n. 53.

7 Parlama and Stampolidis (eds), Athens: The City Beneath the City , 2001, 132–47 (O. Zarchariadou), 148–89 (O. Zachariadou), 190–207 (O. Zachari-adou), 208–23 (E. Lygouri-Tolia).

8 Giatroudaki et al. , ‘Ρωμαϊκά παροδια νεκροταφεία της οδού προς τα Μεσόγεια’, 2008, 167–84.



9 Clairmont, CAT , 1993, nos. 0.691, 0.849, 0.969a, 1.231, 1.760, 2.053, 2.219a, 2.369b, 2.413c, 2.419a, 2.421, 2.447, 2.711, 2.725, 2.831c, 2.832, 2.835, 2.887, 3.210, 3.211, 3.354b, 3.374, 3.427a, 3.430a, 3.463, 4.218, 4.219, 4.432, 5.150; AAA 2, 1969, 329, nos. 1 and 2; Kyparissis, ‘Άνασκαφαι Τών Βασιλικών Στάβλων’, 1922–1925, 68, fi gs. 1 and 71, fi g. 6.

10 These dates are taken from Projekt Dyabola’s Datenbank der attischen Grabre-liefs des 5 . und 4 . Jahrhunderts v. Chr ., http://dyabola.de.

11 CAT 2.413c depicts a seated woman in high relief, with the lower half preserved to a height of 0.62 m; CAT 1.231 depicts a standing woman, preserved from below the neck at a height of 0.47 m.

12 Four from Melite ( CAT 2.711, 4.432; AAA 2, 1969, 329, nos. 1 and 2); one from Kydathenaion ( CAT 2.887); two from Erchia ( CAT 2.219a, 4.219); one from Aithalidai ( CAT 3.430a); one from Hagnous ( CAT 2.421).

13 Garland, ‘A First Catalogue of Attic Peribolos Tombs’, 1982, cat. F5, 154–5. 14 See nos. 6–12 on Figure 1.1 for the location of these tombstones. 15 The Royal Stables were located on the block enclosed by Stadiou, Panepistimiou,

Amerikis and Voukourestiou Streets; 6) CAT 0.849; 7) CAT 2.369b; 8) CAT 2.419a; 9) CAT 1.786; 10) ADelt 9, 1924–1925, 71, no. 6; 11) CAT 0.691; 12) CAT 2.421.

16 Kyparissis, ‘Άνασκαφαι’, 68–72. 17 Ibid., 71. 18 Parlama and Stampolidis, Athens , 224–45 (E. Hatzipouliou). 19 Ibid., 225. 20 Άρχέτιμος Θάσιος ὅμηρος Στρατίου παις ( IG I 3 1373). Kyparissis, ‘Άνασκαφαι’, 71,

fi g. 6. 21 Ibid., 68, no. 1; stele of Kallipe: CAT 1.786. 22 For the presence of Thasians in Athens in the fi fth and fourth centuries bce , see

Walbank, ‘An Inscription from the Athenian Agora: Thasian Exiles at Athens’, 1995, 63–4.

23 CAT 0.691=Conze, Grabreliefs , 1900, 204, no. 956; CAT 2.369b=Conze, Grabreliefs , 1893, 51, no. 225; CAT 2.419a=Conze, Grabreliefs , 1893, 33, no. 122.

24 CAT 0.849=Conze, Grabreliefs , 1900, 206, no. 963; CAT 2.421=Conze, Gra-breliefs , 1900, 191, no. 896.

25 This notion has already been seriously called into question by Cynthia Patterson, ‘ “Citizen Cemeteries” in Classical Athens?’, 2006, 48–56.

26 Trümper, ‘Urban Contexts of Greek Baths’, 2013, 38, no. 3 and 283; Tsouk-lidou-Penna, ‘ Οδός Βουλής ’, 1987, 28–31; Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ath-ens , 1971, 180–81.

27 Parlama and Stampolidis, Athens , 155–6. 28 For my larger project, I have yet to understand the full implications of the move-

ment into the Agora in the post-Antique period of huge quantities of sculpture and inscriptions from all over Athens; see Stewart, ‘Hellenistic Free-Standing Sculpture from the Athenian Agora, Part 1: Aphrodite’, 2012, 269.

29 Harrison, Portrait Sculpture , 1953, nos. 11 (S 1631), 14 (S 1319), 19 (S 1299), 30 (S 938), 35 (S 1237), 36 (S 362), 38 (S 954), 41 (S 1307), 48 (S 950), 57–61 (S 936, S 850, S 1346, S 849, S 1347); Thompson, ‘The Odeion in the Athenian Agora’, 1950, 124–5, nos. 1–2 (seated statues).

30 Harrison, Portrait Sculpture , 25–6, no. 14, pl. 11 (S 1319, early Flavian).



31 Ibid., 30–1, no. 19, pl. 14 (S 1299, Trajanic). 32 Ibid., nos. 57–61; Thompson, ‘Odeion’, 124–5, nos. 1–2. 33 Harrison, Portrait Sculpture , 67–8, no. 52, pl. 34 (S 1604). 34 The head is dated to the mid- to late-fourth century, reworked from an earlier

portrait, in the Last Statues of Antiquity database (Oxford University), record no. LSA 2293, http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/.

35 Harrison, Portrait Sculpture , 46–7, no. 35, pl. 22 (S 1237, period of Faustina the Younger).

36 Ibid., 48–9, no. 36, pl. 23 (S 362,160–80 ce). 37 Ibid., 42, no. 30, pl. 20 (S 938, Antonine). 38 Ibid., 51, no. 38, pl. 25 (S 954, 215–25 ce); 62–3, no. 48, pl. 31 (inv. S 950,

253–68 ce). 39 Ibid., 9–10, no. 1, pl. 1 (S 270, portrait of Herodotos (?); 12–4, no. 3, pl. 3

(S 333, portrait of a priest, mid-fi rst century bce). 40 Smith et al. , Roman Portrait Statuary , 108–11, no. 3, pls. 8–10; 297–9, no. 221,

pls. 161–3. 41 Harrison, Portrait Sculpture , 17–20, no. 7, pls. 5–6 (S 356, 10 bce–20 ce). 42 Ibid., 33–4, no. 23, pl. 12 (S 837, period of Hadrian). 43 Geagan, Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments , 2011, 174, H322. 44 Ibid., 184, H337. 45 Ibid., 240, H439. 46 Ibid., 80, C145. 47 But see now Kyriakou and Tourtas, ‘Detecting Patterns through Context Analy-

sis: A Case Study of Deposits from the Sanctuary of Eukleia at Aegae (Vergina)’, 2015, 357–84.


Documents

Greek Art in Context - Duke University