Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Dossier. Corps antiques : morceaux choisis

Varia

The Apollonian Triad, the Symposion, and Athenian Elite

La triade apollinienne, le symposion et l’élite athénienne

Lavinia Foukara

Résumé

Depictions of Apollo playing the kithara between Artemis and Leto alone or accompanied by other figures appear on 6th and a few early 5th century Attic vases. This article explores the idea that the symposion was the intended setting for the vases under discussion and considers how the above-mentioned representations should be understood in this social framework. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion of the iconography and iconology of Attic vases, which enriches our understanding of Athenian socio-political and religious life and of Greek culture, more generally.

Les représentations d’Apollon jouant de la cithare entre Artémis et Leto, seul ou accompagné d’autres figures, apparaissent sur des vases attiques du VIe et du Ve siècle. Cet article explore l’idée que ces vases sont destinés au symposion et propose d’interpréter les représentations de la triade apollinienne dans ce contexte social. Cette étude sur l’iconographie et l’iconologie des vases attiques constitue une contribution à notre compréhension de la vie sociale, politique et religieuse à Athènes et de la culture grecque dans un sens plus large.

Texte intégral

  • 1 This paper derives from my PhD thesis and I gratefully acknowledge the contributions of my supervi (...)

1A large number of Attic vases dating to the second half of the 6th and early 5th c. BC (though the examples found in the 5th c. are considerably fewer) bear representations of Apollo, Artemis and Leto as a group, i.e., depicted together as a trio, the so-called Apollonian triad. Although the trio appears in a few mythological narratives, such as the abduction of Leto by Tityos (Pindar, Pythian IV, 90) and the killing of Python (Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris 1239-1251), it mainly occurs in scenes without a clear mythological context. The most common representation is one of Apollo playing the kithara (or lyre) between Artemis and Leto, either alone or in the presence of other divine figures. The examination of the above-mentioned motif in Attic iconography of the Archaic period is the subject of the present paper.1

  • 2 E.g. Tiverios 1987; Shapiro 1989, p. 58.
  • 3 Ca. 545-540 BC: Shapiro 1989, p. 48; ca. 540-528 BC: Bruneau, Ducat [1965] 2005, p. 34.
  • 4 For the view that the temple was Attic and dated around the second half of the 6th c. BC, see, e.g (...)
  • 5 For this view, see, e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 48. However, this idea is not documented by Thucydides’ (...)
  • 6 For the theory, see Courby 1931, p. 218; Gallet de Santerre 1958, p. 302. Of the statue group only (...)

2Previous studies have associated the motif under discussion with Peisistratus’ activity on the island of Delos, particularly with the idea of Peisistratus promoting the cult of Apollo as part of his strategy to assert Athens’ leading role among the Ionian cities, especially after his third seizure of power (546-528/527 BC).2 However, Peisistratus’ activity on Delos can be confirmed only regarding the purification of one part of the island during the period between ca. 545 and 528 BC (Herodotus, I, 64, 2; Thukydides, III, 104, 1).3 No evidence, literary, epigraphic or archaeological, supports his involvement in other activities, including the foundation of the first stone temple of Apollo on Delos (i.e., the “Porinos naos”),4 the reestablishment of the Delia festival (Thukydides, III, 104, 3-6),5 and the erection of a statue-group.6 It is interesting to note that most representations of the Apollonian triad are attested after Peisistratus’ death (528/527 BC). And if Peisistratus’ activity on Delos is limited, there is no support for the view that the Apollonian triad depictions in 6th century vase paintings are closely associated to Peisistratid activity on Delos. Instead, we must ask again why and how the motif was linked to Attica.

3In an effort to interpret the scenes in question, scholars have not considered in detail issues, such as on which vase-shapes these representations occur or whether the scenes that vase painters choose to juxtapose with the motif of the Apollonian triad contribute to the investigation of the meaning that this motif had for the Athenians. In addition, no previous study has given adequate attention to the idea that Apollo is represented with Leto and Artemis and instead focused mainly on Apollo. I consider that the above issues, among others, have not been sufficiently investigated. In this article I first examine depictions of Apollo playing the kithara between Artemis and Leto and then explore the motif within its visual as well as in its socio-political and cultural context. This investigation will shed some light on the fundamental issue regarding what information the images under discussion convey to their viewers or users.

Representations of Apollo Playing the Kithara between Artemis and Leto

  • 7 The Attic material has been compiled from a comprehensive study of the published corpus of Attic v (...)
  • 8 All 3 deities: infra, n. 11, 12, 21 (examples 1 and 2). Only Artemis’ name: BAPD 301775. Only Apol (...)
  • 9 Simon 1953, p. 15. For visual representations of libations in Classical Athens, see most recently (...)
  • 10 See Foukara 2017.

4Approximately 149 Attic vases bear images of Apollo playing the kithara, or occasionally the lyre, between Artemis and Leto either alone or accompanied by others.7 The motif appears (though in a limited way) from the second half of the 6th c. BC and wanes after 470/460 BC. Most examples are attested during the period 525-500 BC. The identification of the triad as Apollonian is based on the deities’ names (painted on a few vases, i.e., each figure identified by its name),8 or attributes, as well as taking into account other factors, such as composition, context and subject-matter. From the beginning of the 5th c. BC and persisting throughout the century the motif changes and the divine trio appears in a new iconographical context carrying phialai and oinochoai making or about to perform libations.9 The so-called libation scenes, examined in detail elsewhere,10 will not be discussed here because they differ in terms of subject-matter and composition from the images under discussion. The sixth century scenes present a musical performance and focus on Apollo (to be discussed), while fifth century scenes exhibit a ritual and place emphasis on the concept of a trio rather on one figure. I consider that the scenes of Apollo as musical player between Artemis and Leto evoke certain connotations, which are different from those evoked by scenes that show the trio in ritual activity.

  • 11 Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum L220; ABV 328, 1; Addenda2 89; BAPD 301758.
  • 12 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1626; ARV2 663; BAPD 207770.
  • 13 Note that from the 149 examples only 25 vases (mainly lekythoi) bear representations of Apollo pla (...)
  • 14 For a detail analysis, see Bélis 1985.
  • 15 For a discussion concerning the differences between lyre and kithara as for their size, weight, ma (...)
  • 16 Bundrick 2005, p. 13-20.
  • 17 London, British Museum 1971.11-1.1; Paralipomena 19, 16bis; Addenda2 10; BAPD 350099.
  • 18 Cf. Bundrick 2005, p. 20.
  • 19 For the kithara-player iconography, see, e.g., Maas, McIntosh-Snyder 1989, p. 58-68; Shapiro 1992, (...)
  • 20 Also noted by Shapiro 1992, p. 65.

5Typical of the Apollonian triad depictions is the central placement of Apollo between Artemis and Leto. When the triad is accompanied by others, one or usually two deities flank the central group. A black-figure amphora of 520-510 BC from Vulci attributed to the Pasikles Painter depicts the typical composition of the divine trio in 6th c. Attic vase painting (fig. 1).11 All three figures are labeled, thus securing their identification. As a beardless youth, Apollo is dressed in a long chitōn and himation, has his hair loose and wears a tainia around his head. He plays the kithara between Artemis and Leto. Apart from one instance,12 where Apollo is ready to receive the kithara from Artemis, the god always plays a stringed instrument, a kithara or rarely a lyre.13 A fundamental distinction between the two instruments lies on the construction of their sounding-boards: the lyre’s sound-board was made from tortoiseshell and animal skin, with wooden arms jointed into it,14 while kithara’s sound-board and frame formed a single structure made of pieces of wood.15 In contrast to lyre, an instrument that was part of an Athenian youth’s education and played by amateur musicians (Aristotle, Politics VIII, 1341a), the kithara was a more complex instrument, larger in size, associated with virtuoso performers who would especially demonstrate their skills in musical contests.16 In most cases, as on the Pasikles amphora, he carries a kithara in his left hand and with his right hand strikes the chords with a plēktron. It is worth noting that from the earliest confirmed representations of Apollo in Attic art (i.e., Sophilos’ lebes, ca. 580 BC)17 we find him with a kithara which becomes one of the most common attributes of the god especially in 6th c. Attic vase painting.18 Vase painters even depict the decorated long cloth that hangs from the back of the instrument (fig. 1), a common feature of the kithara-player – kitharōidos, i.e., a kithara player who sings as he plays, or kitharist, i.e., a kithara-player who provides only instrumental music – iconography.19 In fact, without a particular iconographical context it is difficult to distinguish an Athenian kithara-player from his role-model Apollo.20 The appearance of Apollo as a kithara-player and the focus on the musical performance by his central placement in the scene accentuate his role as the god of music.

Fig. 1: Black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Pasikles Painter.

Fig. 1: Black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Pasikles Painter.

520-510 BC; the Apollonian triad. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum L220.

Image from: LIMC, II, 1984, s.v. Artemis, fig. 1107.

  • 21 Three examples: BAPD 200023, 30531, 200022.

6As we can see on the Pasikles amphora, without their painted names it is difficult to distinguish Artemis from Leto given that differentiation in age or in physical appearance cannot be observed. Both goddesses wear chitōnes and himatia, while on some earlier examples they are dressed in peploi. They usually have long hair, adorned by a tainia (e.g., fig. 1), sometimes with their hair tied up in a krōbulos or sakkos, and occasionally crowned with polos. Mother and daughter may also appear – though rarely – with their heads veiled.21

  • 22 London, British Museum E256; ARV2 168; Addenda2 183; BAPD 201543.

7Artemis is distinguishable from Leto only when she is named or carries her familiar attributes, i.e., the bow and the quiver. Such an example appears on a red-figure amphora attributed near the Bowdoin-Eye Painter from the end of the 6th c. BC (fig. 2).22 The vase depicts Artemis with a leopard skin and a quiver, both features that correspond to Artemis as goddess of the hunt and mistress of the wild (e.g., Homer, Iliad V, 51-58).

Fig. 2: Red-figure belly-amphora attributed near the Bowdoin-eye Painter, end of 6th century BC.

Fig. 2: Red-figure belly-amphora attributed near the Bowdoin-eye Painter, end of 6th century BC.

The Apollonian triad. London, British Museum E256.

Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 3: Black-figure oinochoe attributed to the Leagros Group, 510-500 BC

Fig. 3: Black-figure oinochoe attributed to the Leagros Group, 510-500 BC

The Apollonian triad, Dionysos and Hermes. Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau Museum 209.

Image from: CVA, Germany 17, 1959, pl. 31, 5.

  • 23 Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau Museum 209; Paralipomena 167, 246bis; BAPD 351235.
  • 24 For the lifting of the skirt gesture in different contexts, see Blundell 2002, p. 152-156.
  • 25 See Queyrel 1992, s.v. “Mousa”, “Mousai”.
  • 26 Apart from the appearance of the name ΜΟΣΑΙ (painted) on the Sophilos’ lebes and the names of all (...)

8In most cases, however, both goddesses appear without any characteristic that could indicate their identity. Instead, they are depicted holding branches, a flower, or occasionally a wreath as we see them on a black-figure oinochoē of 510-500 BC attributed to the Leagros Group where one carries a flower and the other a wreath (fig. 3).23 Other times, they gesture towards Apollo with one arm either raised to the chest or at head height, or pointing down (e.g., fig. 1). They can also appear pulling up the edge of their respective chitōnes (e.g., fig. 2), a gesture that accentuates their femininity.24 Taking into account that distinction between Leto and Artemis is not particularly evident except when the figures are labeled or carry identifying attributes, one could argue that these females could be easily confused with depictions of Muses.25 Nevertheless, no epigraphic evidence exists to support the view that in the 6th and early 5th c. scene of the trio we see Muses, since they are usually shown in a group of more than two and holding musical instruments (e.g., Sophilos’ lebēs).26 Despite the lack of painted names and distinguishing attributes, we should consider that the women flanking Apollo were intended as Artemis and Leto based on the fact that their appearance has been already confirmed on other vases with the same subject and more or less similar composition and on which all figures are labeled.

  • 27 Hannover, Kestner Museum 753; BAPD 3254.
  • 28 Shapiro 1989, p. 57.
  • 29 The palm tree appears in BAPD 340822, 743, 7860, 200128 and supra, n. 27.
  • 30 E.g. BAPD 6095, 14872.
  • 31 E.g. BAPD 205657; for the palm tree as an important iconographical element in pursuit scenes, see (...)
  • 32 E.g. BAPD, 330984, 352169.
  • 33 A red-figure pyxis from Spina (440-400 BC; Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina T27CVP) is the only e (...)

9In general, representations of the Apollonian triad do not show where the scene is taking place. However, there are some exceptional efforts to designate the setting. As has been argued, the scene is often explicitly set on Delos, marked by the palm tree that is closely associated with the legendary birth of Apollo (e.g., Homeric Hymn to Apollo 16; Pindar, Paean XII, 52m, 15-16, Maehler; Hyperides, fr.67, Jensen), while the conjunction of palm tree and altar as on a black-figure amphora from Tarquinia of ca. 510 BC attributed to the Nikoxenos Painter (fig. 4),27 further indicates the location as Delos.28 The idea that the palm tree is linked to Delos is well established in the literary tradition (e.g., Homer, Odyssey VI, 162-163; Homeric Hymn to Apollo 117). Nevertheless, I should point out that depictions of the palm tree with the Apollonian triad are rare (it is found only a few times and only one representation of an altar in conjunction with a palm tree).29 Moreover, representations of the triad or Apollo and/or Artemis next to a palm tree outside Delos offer a noteworthy amount of evidence that the palm tree does not have to imply always Delos. In fact, the palm tree appears in some mythological scenes that are connected to Delphi, such as the struggle for the Delphic tripod (Pausanias, X, 13, 8),30 Leto’s abduction by Tityos on her way to Delphi (Homer, Odyssey XI, 576-581e)31 and Apollo’s battle with Python, guardian of the oracle at Delphi (Homeric Hymn to Apollo 300-304).32 Considering that (a) the motif of the palm tree next to the Apollonian triad or next to Apollo and/or Artemis is not confined to Delos, (b) the occasional appearance of the palm tree in scenes with the trio, and (c) the fact that the scenes under discussion lack epigraphic or further iconographical evidence to support the view that the setting of the scene is Delos,33 it therefore seems convincing that a specific location cannot be confirmed. The setting can be any place, including Delos, where the deities have been worshipped.

Fig. 4: Black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Nikoxenos Painter, ca. 510 BC.

Fig. 4: Black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Nikoxenos Painter, ca. 510 BC.

The Apollonian triad, altar, palm tree. Hannover, Kestner Museum 753.

Image from: CVA, Germany 34, 1971, pl. 12, 1.

  • 34 Cf. Miller 1983, esp. p. 7-9. Also, for the association of the palm-tree and altar with Artemis’ c (...)
  • 35 See also BAPD 2714 and BAPD 30531 where sacred space is marked by a column and altar and by a burn (...)

10According to the above, depictions of the palm tree next to the Apollonian triad rather should be seen as an attribute of the divine trio and not as an indicator of a particular location.34 The conjunction of palm tree and altar suggests the appearance of the triad in a sacred space, namely, a sanctuary but not necessarily on Delos.35

11To sum up thus far, 149 vases present a scene of Apollo playing the kithara (or lyre) between his mother Leto and his sister Artemis, either alone or accompanied by other deities. Apollo receives special attention due to his constant central placement in the scene and his appearance as kithara-player, which emphasize his function as the god of music. Distinction between mother and daughter is only possible when Artemis appears with her special attributes, the bow and the quiver, given that differentiation in age or physical appearance cannot be observed. In most cases the setting is unknown, though a few attempts to denote a sacred place are noteworthy. After discussing representations of Apollo playing the kithara while appearing between Artemis and Leto, let’s proceed to examine the motif within its visual as well as in its socio-political and cultural context.

The Apollonian Triad in Attic Vase Painting of the 6th and early 5th c. BC: an Iconological Analysis

  • 36 On the role of music at the symposion, see, e.g., Bundrick 2005, p. 80-92.
  • 37 For the symposion in general and the definition of the term, see, for example, Lissarrague [1987] (...)
  • 38 The term “elite(s)” is used throughout this paper to designate a distinguished group characterized (...)
  • 39 For a discussion regarding an elite lifestyle in general, see Murray 1993, p. 201-219, who remarks (...)

12As noted, depictions of the Apollonian triad focus on Apollo, since he is consistently placed in the center of the scene, and accentuate his function as the god of music by depicting him playing a kithara (or lyre) as opposing to just holding it while standing between Artemis and Leto. Taking into account the above, let us take the study a step further. The image of Apollo as musician recalls the importance of music at his festivals, which commonly included musical performances (e.g., musical contests at the Pythian Games in Delphi; Pausanias, X, 7, 2-7), as well as the integral role of music in other contexts where Apollo is evoked in this capacity, such as the symposion,36 that is, a “drinking together” event according to the strict etymological sense of the word that followed a meal linked to both private (e.g., family event) and public celebrations (e.g., celebration of a victory) and as a social institution of male activity regulated by ritual and tradition.37 That the motif appears on shapes that denote, as it will be indicated, sympotic function, and that the reverse of the same vessels bear scenes that also point to the symposion, suggest that the symposion is the intended setting within which we should view the motif under discussion. This idea is further supported when taking into account Apollo’s wider association with the sympotic world. In the Archaic period, the symposion, as an expression of an elite38 mode of life, was the place where ideals, values and preoccupations of the Athenian elite, such as warfare, success in contests (athletic or musical), hunting, and pederasty, were promoted.39 In the sympotic context, as I shall demonstrate, the Apollonian triad reflects values, concerns and aspirations of Athenian elite. First I shall argue that the symposion was the intended setting for the vases under discussion (a) and then consider how the images should be understood in this social framework (b).

(a) Shape, Image, and Symposion

  • 40 Amphorae functioned also as storage vessels for solids and oil, but are best known as containers o (...)
  • 41 See, e.g., Richter, Milne 1935, p. 3-4, 6-8, 11-12, 18-19, 24-25.
  • 42 That some shapes (e.g., oinochoai, kraters and cups) are painted into symposion scenes on Attic va (...)
  • 43 For the use of painted pottery at symposia, see, e.g., Lynch 2011, who discusses the use of figura (...)
  • 44 Scheffer 2001, p. 134-135.

13Let us begin by noting the shapes on which we find the motif under discussion. The motif appears on amphorae (105), lēkythoi (22), hydriai (10), kraters (2), cups (kylikes) (2), oinochoai (6), a pelikē, and on a cylindrical support. According to the above, we can observe that most of the shapes are linked to storage (amphora, pelikē),40 and preparing (krater, hydria, oinochoē), serving (oinochoē) and drinking (cup) wine at symposia as indicated by literary,41 pictorial42 and archaeological evidence.43 The great number of amphorae with the motif is striking, but this should not come as a surprise given that scenes with gods predominate on amphorae during the period 550-480 BC.44 Although we are not in the position to know whether these amphorae were ever used in a symposion, as I shall demonstrate they would fit well in the sympotic context because they bear scenes that indicate a link to the symposion.

  • 45 On the different functions of lēkythoi as mentioned in the literary sources, see Richter, Milne 19 (...)
  • 46 Lynch 2011, p. 139-140. Also, note that a deposit from a household well (460-450 BC) in the Atheni (...)
  • 47 Lynch 2011, p. 140.

14Moreover, within a sympotic setting we could also perceive the use of black- and red-figure lēkythoi (i.e., containers for oil) on which the motif of the Apollonian triad appears.45 Although the connection of black- and red-figure lēkythoi to the symposion is not as definite as with the other vessels (e.g., kraters), their sympotic use draws support from the fact that their presence within the household has been confirmed by literary evidence (e.g., Aristophanes, Plutus 810), and they also have been attested in sympotic archaeological contexts.46 In a sympotic setting, as suggested, the oil could have been used not only for food flavoring but also for perfume.47

  • 48 BAPD 200128, 310341; also supra, n. 11, 22.
  • 49 For kalos on Attic vases, see, e.g., Lissarrague 1999; Shapiro 2004; Steiner 2007, p. 83-85, 238.
  • 50 See, infra n. 81.

15Another factor that points to a sympotic setting for our vases is that some of them (particularly four vases, three amphorae and a cylindrical support)48 preserve the word «ΚΑΛΟΣ» (kalos), a designation that means “beautiful”. Although we cannot be sure whether these acclamations of beauty refer to the painter, the potter, the customer, or someone else altogether, they certainly reveal a concern for male beauty, particularly that of boys (Solon, fr. 25, West).49 This admiration corresponds to the pederastic ēthos of Archaic Athens, including the symposion as indicated by literary (e.g., Theognis, Elegiae 1279-1282) and iconographic evidence.50

  • 51 Lissarrague [Paris 1987] 1990, p. 11.
  • 52 E.g., Bérard et al. 1984; Barringer 2001, p. 2-3; Steiner 2004, esp. p. 38-42; Lissarrague 2009. F (...)

16Having discussed the link between shape and symposia, let us examine what kind of scenes vase painters chose to juxtapose to the Apollonian trio on the same vase and in what way, if any, these scenes related to the motif under examination here. The investigation of these issues will enable us to understand that both the Apollonian triad motif and accompanying images are part of the same decorative program, which would have been appropriate in a sympotic context. “Vases used for banqueting”, as Lissarrague rightly states, “were not only containers but they were vehicles for images”.51 According to recent iconographic studies that have underlain this work, images on vases convey messages to the viewers (or users) and should not be treated as photographs of real life, but as symbols of a visual language that the Athenians employed to denote cultural values and attitudes.52 In particular, the vases under examination, as I shall demonstrate, bear images that reflect elite mores, beliefs and ideals.

  • 53 E.g., BAPD 340482.
  • 54 E.g., BAPD 310367.
  • 55 For repetition beyond its aesthetic significance and as part of a system that suggests meaning to (...)
  • 56 Agrigento, Museo Archeologico Nazionale C1954; ABV 400, 2; Addenda2; BAPD 303017.

17A detailed examination of juxtaposed scenes in relation to the Apollonian triad motif reveals connections that invite the viewer to see the vase as a visual whole. I already pointed out that typical of the iconographical motif of the Apollonian triad – either alone or accompanied by others – is the symmetrical placement of figures around Apollo. Most of the scenes juxtaposed to the Apollonian triad on the same vase also exhibit a symmetrical composition, whether a single figure (e.g., Dionysos between his followers)53 or a central group flanked by others (e.g., Herakles wrestling with the lion between two figures).54 Even though vase painters chose to depict different subjects on the same vase, there is cohesion of the compositions, which invites one to make iconographical comparisons. In a few other cases, coherence is fostered by visual repetitions, i.e., features that can be observed on both sides of a vase.55 So, for example, the connection between the Apollonian triad (reverse) and the scene in which Athena mounts a chariot (obverse) on a black-figure belly-amphora of 520-500 BC from Agrigento attributed to the Dikaios Painter is reinforced by the nearly identical appearance of Apollo as a kithara player and Artemis lifting up her chiton on both sides of the vase (fig. 5).56 These two compositionally discrete scenes are related by common protagonists, Apollo and Artemis.

Fig. 5: Black-figure belly-amphora attributed to the Dikaios Painter, 520-500 BC.

Fig. 5: Black-figure belly-amphora attributed to the Dikaios Painter, 520-500 BC.

Side A: Athena mounting a chariot, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes; side B: the Apollonian triad. Agrigento, Museo Archeologico Nazionale C1954.

Image from: CVA, Italia 61, 1985, pl. 14.

18I turn now to consider which images are paired with the Apollonian triad motif on the same vase, and how their subjects can further our understanding of the connec,

  • 57 Note that the large number of Dionysiac, warfare and heroic scenes is attested in the last quarter (...)

190tion between the triad image and the symposion. The divine trio is often paired with Dionysiac, warlike and heroic scenes BC.57

  • 58 Noted by many scholars, e.g., Scheffer 2001, p. 132-133. For an indirect association of Dionysos w (...)
  • 59 For the cult of Dionysos in Attica during the 6th c. BC, see, e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 84-100; Goett (...)

20I define Dionysiac scenes as those that include representations of Dionysos with his followers (i.e., satyrs and nymphs) or any other element that alludes to the Dionysiac realm (e.g., “Return of Hephaistos”). In most cases, Dionysos with a drinking horn (or a kantharos) and ivy (or vine) branches stands between his followers. Because of his strong connections with wine (Hesiod, Works and Days 614) and therefore the symposion, Dionysos and his world would have been appropriate images for vases used at drinking occasions.58 Moreover, the god is frequently invoked in sympotic poetry (e.g., Anakreon fr. 12, 357 PMG). Finally, we should keep in mind that the attention paid to Dionysiac scenes also could have been influenced by the firm establishment of the god’s worship in Attica in the course of the 6th c. BC according to literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence.59

  • 60 E.g., BAPD 8410, 12553.

21The warlike scenes vary. Some show warriors engaged in fighting. In other scenes, a warrior appears in a chariot with a charioteer or simply stands between other warriors. There are also scenes in which one or two warriors appear between an old man and a woman, scenes that scholars have labeled “warrior’s departure”.60 Mythological battles, such as the Gigantomachy, Amazonomachy, and Centauromachy, are also juxtaposed to the Apollonian triad motif although these are rare occurrences.

  • 61 Cf. Lissarrague 2002, p. 113.
  • 62 E.g., Gaebel 2002, p. 40, 43. Note that there is no evidence for the use of chariots in 6th-centur (...)
  • 63 Some of the 6th-century Athenian victors in equestrian competitions came from wealthy and powerful (...)
  • 64 Kyle 2007, p. 126-127, 161.
  • 65 Day 1989, p. 17-18, 22. For a discussion on Archaic funerary epigrams in relation to epic, see Trü (...)
  • 66 See examples in Richter [1961] 1988, p. 18-19, 32-33, nos 20, 45, figs. 68, 126-128.
  • 67 On Archaic epitaphs reflecting elite ideas and “heroic” images of war, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, (...)

22Warlike scenes, including depictions of warriors, chariots, horsemen, battles and the like, should be viewed within the world of the symposion. They present an idealized vision of warfare closely linked to an elite concern with warfare as a heroic ideal.61 As scholars point out, representations of warriors riding chariots allude to Homeric descriptions of warfare according to which heroes usually used the chariot not as a combat vehicle but as a prestigious way to arrive in the battlefield.62 The horse’s association with wealth, prestige and power is well rooted in Greek social and political thought (Aristotle, Politics 1289B 33-39). When Athenian aristocrats took part in equestrian competitions, such as those at Athens or Olympia,63 they clearly advertised their high social status since participants would have possessed great wealth because of the expense entailed in keeping horses.64 The assumption that warlike scenes are closely linked to elite ideas becomes clearer when we consider that Athenian elites who died in war were often praised for their virtues in Archaic funerary epigrams (e.g., Tettichos as agathos, IG I3 1194bis, ca. 575-550 BC).65 Sometimes, they were even commemorated by their depiction as fully armed warriors standing, or mounting a horse or a chariot, on Attic grave monuments.66 Such representations evoke the Homeric ideal of gaining everlasting memory by dying bravely on the battlefield (e.g., Homer, Iliad VII, 86-91).67

  • 68 E.g., BAPD 302145.
  • 69 E.g., supra, n. 54.
  • 70 E.g., BAPD 310382.
  • 71 New York, Metropolitan Museum 41.162.174; Para 123; BAPD 340505.
  • 72 Munich, Antikensammlungen 1576 (J 145); BAPD 1158.
  • 73 Boardman 1972, p. 60-65. In LIMC, V, 1990, however, Boardman lists some earlier examples of the ch (...)
  • 74 Boardman in various articles (e.g., 1972) develops the theory that Herakles’ image was politically (...)
  • 75 E.g., Bazant 1982, p. 22, 25. For an overview of Boardman’s view and debate, see Stafford 2012, p. (...)

23Heroic scenes include depictions of Herakles, Theseus and heroes from the Trojan cycle. Most of them demonstrate a warlike character sometimes fostered by the hero’s appearance (armed with helmet, shield, spear and sword) as is usually the case with the heroes of the Trojan War even if they do not actually fight (e.g., Aeneas – fully armed – carries his old father Anchises).68 Other times the hero is actually involved in a struggle, as in the case of Herakles wrestling with an opponent, such as the Nemean lion,69 or as Theseus, slaying the Minotaur.70 It is noteworthy that there are altogether more scenes of Herakles, the panhellenic hero par excellence, than any other hero in the Archaic period. The son of Zeus and Alkmene appears not only in combat scenes but also is shown next to Athena, sometimes riding a chariot together with the goddess, and accompanied by Apollo playing on his kithara, Artemis and Hermes (e.g., an Attic black-figure belly-amphora of ca. 510 BC related to the Antimenes Painter, fig. 6).71 In some other instances, the hero simply stands alongside Athena and accompanied usually by other divine figures (e.g., an Attic black-figure neck-amphora of ca. 510 BC from Vulci attributed to the Antimenes Painter, fig. 7).72 Chariot scenes with Athena and Herakles have been identified as the “apotheōsis of Herakles”, perhaps inspired, as Boardman proposed, by Peisistratus’ return to Athens in the early 550s after his first exile (Herodotus, I, 60).73 In other words, Boardman argues for the political exploitation of the “apotheōsis” episode by the tyrant Peisistratus who considered Herakles as his “alter ego”.74 However, many scholars opposed to Boardman’s view correctly remark that the chariot scenes with Herakles cannot originate with the tyrant’s return (550s BC), since the chariot procession already appeared in vase painting ca. 560 BC.75 Also, it should be taken into account that the vast majority of the above mentioned depictions belong to the period after 510 BC, i.e., when the tyranny already had fallen.

Fig. 6: Black-figure amphora A, related to the Antimenes Painter, ca.510 BC.

Fig. 6: Black-figure amphora A, related to the Antimenes Painter, ca.510 BC.

Herakles in chariot with Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes. New York, Metropolitan Museum 41.162.174.

Image from: CVA, USA 12, 1963, pl. 34, 3.

Fig. 7: Black-figure neck-amphora from Vulci attributed to the Antimenes Painter, ca.510 BC.

Fig. 7: Black-figure neck-amphora from Vulci attributed to the Antimenes Painter, ca.510 BC.

Herakles with Athena and others. Munich, Antikensammlungen 1576 (J145).

Image from: CVA, Germany 37, 1973, pl. 390.

  • 76 Following Steiner (1993, p. 211-219; 2007, p. 148-149, 157) who argues for the paradigmatic value (...)
  • 77 E.g., Stafford 2012, p. 165, 170.
  • 78 On the “heroic ideal”, see Donlan 1999, p. 1-33.

24What meaning did images of heroes on 6th-century Attic vases possibly convey to their viewers (or users)? Heroic scenes may have appealed to Athenian elites as exempla for youths, thus promoting elite concerns and values.76 According to this thinking, for example, Herakles, savior of mankind from various threats, averter of evil, was admired for his strength and courage, and his image served as a role model for young male elites.77 The idea of Herakles as an exemplar can be supported by recalling Herakles’ close connection to athletics and games (Pindar, Olympian X, 24-25), Panhellenic (e.g., at Olympia: Pausanias, V, 7, 9) or local (e.g., at Marathon: Pindar, Olympian IX, 89; XIII, 110), at least from the 5th c. onwards. Heroes of the Trojan War clearly recall the glorious past when noble and wealthy kings, such as Ajax, Achilles etc., achieved fame (kleos) and glory (kudos) through their personal skills, abilities and valor. These images are part of an idealized heroic world in which the best (aristoi) were both wealthy and victorious warriors, whose excellence was proved by success in war.78 So far I have argued that the shapes on which the motif appears and the images that were chosen as decoration for the vases under discussion point to the symposion. I turn now to consider Apollo’s larger connection to the sympotic world as documented in sympotic poetry and vase paintings.

Fig. 8: Red-figure kalyx-krater, Euphronios, late 6th c. BC.

Fig. 8: Red-figure kalyx-krater, Euphronios, late 6th c. BC.

Symposion. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 8935.

Image from: Topper 2012, 149, fig. 61.

  • 79 Furley, Bremer 2001, p. 259.
  • 80 Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen and Glyptothek 8935, ARV2 1619, 3bis; Paralipomena 322; Adden (...)
  • 81 For pederastic scenes in sympotic context, see, e.g., Lear, Cantarella 2008, p. 57-59; for pederas (...)
  • 82 Vermeule 1965, p. 34-39, discusses the symposion scene in relation to Ekphantides’ song.
  • 83 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 546; ARV2 377, 26; Paralipomena 365; Addenda2 225; BAPD 203925; Verme (...)

25According to Theognis of Megara, symposiasts invoked Zeus and Apollo before pouring libations to the gods and before starting to drink (Elegiae I, 757-764). Invocations to Apollo, Leto and Artemis are attested in sympotic poetry, as testified, for example, by an Attic skolion of the early 5th c. BC (fr. 3, 886 PMG)79 and an elegy of Theognis (Elegiae I, 1-10). In fact, some vases that depict sympotic scenes and bear inscriptions provide evidence for the performance of songs to Apollo, god of music and poetry, in a sympotic setting. On a fragmentary Attic red-figure kalyx-krater of the late 6th c. BC by Euphronios, two pairs of symposiasts, all named, hold drinking cups and enjoy the music of a flute-player as they recline on klinai (fig. 8).80At the far right, the symposiast Ekphantides reclines on the same klinē next to a beardless youth named Smikros, a representation that stresses the relationship between an older man (erastēs) and a youth (erōmenos) – well documented in written sources – thus emphasizing one of the characteristics of the symposion, i.e., pederasty.81 Ekphantides has thrown his head back and with his mouth open sings to Apollo: “Apollo you and the blessed…” (ΟΠΟΛΛΟΝ ΣΕ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΑΙ[ΡΑΝ]).82 Another such example is a fragmentary Attic red-figure cup of ca. 480 BC attributed to the Brygos Painter where once again a symposiast, reclining on his left elbow signs to Apollo (ΟΠΟΛΛΟΝ).83

26Thus, the consideration of shapes on which the motif occurs and scenes which vase painters choose to juxtapose to the Apollonian triad motif suggest the symposion as the intended setting for the vases under discussion. Apollo’s strong connection to the sympotic world, well documented in sympotic poetry and vase painting, provides further support to this view. Taking into account that the motif should be viewed within the sympotic context, it seems worth exploring its possible elite connotations.

(b) The Apollonian Triad and Athenian Elite

27As discussed, the motif of the Apollonian triad in vase paintings of the 6th c. emphasizes Apollo as the god of music because of his constant appearance as a kithara-player. One wonders if the representation of Artemis and Leto together with Apollo served a purpose and if so, what and why. I propose that the presence of Leto and Artemis, goddesses associated with motherhood and child-care respectively, on either side of Apollo accentuate another capacity of the god that was of special importance to the elites: Apollo as protector of youths. Let us consider the above supposition. Ancient writers repeatedly emphasized the close family relations of Apollo, Leto and Artemis, the effort of both divine children to protect their mother from malevolent actions (e.g., Pindar, Pythian IV, 90; Pausanias, II, 7, 7) and stressed Leto’s role as a mother by the story of her giving birth (e.g., Homeric Hymn to Apollo).

  • 84 E.g., Kahil 1965, 1977; Brulé 1987, p. 179-283; Sourvinou-Inwood 1988; Parker 2005, p. 233-248.
  • 85 For the site see, Hurwit 1999, p. 117, 197-198.
  • 86 For Athena’s and Artemis’ fostering role, see, e.g., Hadzisteliou-Price 1978, p. 21, 101-104; for (...)

28Artemis’ function in nourishing children is well attested in the ritual life of the Athenians. We may briefly mention the participation of girls in the rite of the Arkteia – a puberty rite according to which young girls (age 5-10) were sent to the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron and were involved in ritual acts that marked their transition to womanhood as indicated by literary, pictorial, and archaeological evidence from the late 6th c. BC onwards.84 The importance of Artemis’ worship for the Athenians can be also understood when we think of the establishment of her cult on the most prominent sacred site of Athens, i.e., the Athenian Acropolis, where the patron goddess of the polis, Athena, was worshipped.85 It also demonstrates the concern of the Athenians for the safe growth of their children, given that Artemis was worshipped on the same site as Athena, another goddess known as virgin (e.g., Homeric Hymn to Athena XXVIII, 3), warrior (e.g., Hesiod, Theogony 925-926) and kourotrophos (e.g., Homer, Iliad II, 548).86

29Leto’s maternal character and Artemis’ capacity as safe keeper of children, which was emphasized by her manifestation as Brauronia and the ritual of the Arkteia, suggest that their presence on either side of Apollo underlines the god’s function as protector of male children. Although evidence for Apollo’s role as deity in charge of the well-being of boys and youths in Attica comes from the classical period onwards, it is worth noting two texts from the last quarter of the 8th c. BC that offer evidence for the perception of this role for the god.

  • 87 For the commentary, see Graf 2009, p. 84.
  • 88 E.g., for Dionysos (Euripides, Bacchae 494), for the river Spercheios (Homer, Iliad XXIII, 144), f (...)

30In Odyssey (XIX, 86) we learn that Telemachos, son of Odysseus, is favored (ἕκητι) by Apollo (ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη παῖς τοῖος Ἀπόλλωνός γε ἕκητι) and the scholion (sch. Homer, Odyssey XIX, 86) on this particular verse mentions Apollo as kourotrophos (τῶν ἀρρένων κουροτρόφος ὁ θεός). The kourotrophic role of Apollo also is attested in Hesiod’s Theogony (347), where he is referred to, along with the nymphs and the rivers, as nurturer of youths (αἳ κατὰ γαῖαν ἄνδρας κουρίζουσι σὺν Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι καὶ Ποταμοῖς). Hesiod uses the verb kourizousi which, as noted, is associated with the word “kouros”, a term that designates an adolescent and belongs to the root ker- which means “to shear”.87 The practice of cutting off the hair and dedicating it to a god or a hero at the moment of one’s maturation is well attested in Greek tradition.88

  • 89 For male children as heirs of an oikos’ property, see MacDowell 1978, p. 92-95, 95-98 (for the cas (...)
  • 90 Note that the membership of the four classes, i.e., pentakosiomedimnoi, hippeis, zeugitai and thet (...)

31According to the above, the successful growth of boys under the watch of Apollo would have guaranteed the maintenance, as well as the integrity, of an oikos. As Aristotle remarks, an oikos would not have been complete without children (Politics I, 1253b). Male children were the future masters of their oikoi and the ones that were entitled to inherit the family’s wealth.89 In 6th-century Athens, the elites attached great importance to the maintenance of their oikoi since their political power was based upon them. We should briefly mention that during this period wealth, particularly land ownership, was an important prerequisite for holding the highest office of the state, the archonship, which was open only to the two upper Solonian classes, namely, the pentakosiomedimnoi and hippeis (Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 7, 3).90

  • 91 On Kleisthenic reforms, see, e.g., Ober 1989, p. 70-75; Lewis 2004, p. 292-304.
  • 92 See supra, n. 90.
  • 93 It should be noted that no ancient source reports that Peisistratus and sons or Kleisthenes made a (...)
  • 94 See supra, n. 57.
  • 95 Barringer 2001, p. 43-44.

32Despite the advent of democracy, it is worth noting that the Athenian nobility continued to maintain social and, to some extent, political power. Whatever his true motives, Kleisthenes’ reforms (508/507 BC) benefited the dēmos (e.g., tribal reform; Herodotus, V, 66, 2; 69, 2).91 However, the reforms neither abandoned property qualifications for the archonship, which remained restricted to the two above-mentioned classes,92 nor apparently did anything to reduce the competence of the old aristocratic Council of the Areopagos, which retained its authority until Ephialtes’ reforms of 462 BC (Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 25, 1-2).93 That elite values and ideals were still held in high esteem, even when the Athenian democracy was in its early stages, may explain, for example, why heroic and warlike scenes in Attic vase painting, which possessed elite connotations, were still popular until ca. 475 BC.94 The same explanation applies to the increased number of hunting scenes during the period 520-470 BC, suggesting, as Barringer argues, an elite reaction to the social and political changes that occurred in Athens at the end of the 6th c. and elites’ effort to assert and maintain social control.95

  • 96 See, Ducat 1971, p. 246; Schachter 1994, p. 292.
  • 97 The inscription is dated on the basis of the similarity of the lettering to that of the altar of A (...)
  • 98 See Davies 1971, p. 373; Ducat 1971, p. 248, 256-257; Schachter 1994, p. 299, 302.
  • 99 Most scholars accept the date 522/521 BC for the altar (e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 50; Camp 2001, p. 1 (...)
  • 100 Apart from the altar, several other dedications (the earliest just before 450 BC) by victorious ch (...)
  • 101 On Thucydides’ commentary regarding the Pythion, see Wycherley 1963.

33Finally, we should also consider that members of known and powerful families demonstrated a particular interest in Apollo’s worship both inside and outside Attica, as confirmed by literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence. I have already mentioned Peisistratus’ involvement in purifying one part of Delos. Moreover, we are aware of two Athenian dedications made by well-known elites at the Theban sanctuary of Apollo Ptoieus north of Thebes (Herodotus, VIII, 135, 1). The first was made around 550-540 BC by Alkmeonides, son of Alkmeon, who won a horse race at Athena’s festival (IG I3 1469).96 The second was made by Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus, between 520 and 514 BC (IG I3 1470).97 It is not certain whether these dedications were politically motivated,98 but they certainly demonstrate an interest in Apollo’s worship by two of the most important families of Athens, namely, the Peisistratidai and Alkmaionidai. The latter were also responsible for one part of the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo at Delphi (Pindar, Pythian VII; Herodotus, V, 62, 2-3), which had been destroyed by fire in 548 BC (Pausanias, X, 5, 13). We should also note the dedication of an altar to Apollo Pythios by Peisistratus the Younger in the year of his archonship, according to Thucydides (VI, 54, 6-7) in 522/521 BC (IG I2 761; IG I3 948).99 The altar was found on the western side of the Ilissos River and south of the Olympieion, which, along with other finds from the same area,100 confirm the existence of a shrine of Apollo Pythios (Pythion), which was mentioned by Thucydides (II, 15, 4).101

Conclusion

34This article focused on representations of Apollo playing the kithara between Artemis and Leto on Attic vases of the 6th and early 5th c. BC. As argued, the motif should be linked to Attica. The correlation between motif, shape, and accompanying scenes on the same vase points to the symposion as the intended setting within which we should understand depictions of the Apollonian triad. In this context, the motif, not only stress god’s capacity as the god of music, but also accentuate his role as nurturer of youths. The idea of Apollo as protector of male children is closely connected to elite values concerning the perpetuation of oikoi from which the wealth and power of elite families stemmed in Archaic Athens.

Bibliographie

Arnush 1995: Michael F. Arnush, “The Career of Peisistratos Son of Hippias”, Hesperia 64, p. 135-162.

Barringer 2001: Judith M. Barringer, The Hunt in Ancient Greece, Baltimore-London.

Bazant 1982: Jan Bazant, “The Case of Symbolism in Classical Greek Art”, Eirene 18, p. 21-33.

Bélis 1985: Annie Bélis, “À propos de la construction de la lyre”, BCH 109, p. 201-220.

Bélis 1995: Annie Bélis, “Cithares, citharistes et citharôdes en Grèce”, CRAI 139-4, p. 1025-1065.

Bérard et al. 1984: Claude Bérard et al., La cité des images. Religion et société en Grèce ancienne, Lausanne-Paris.

Blundell 2002: Sue Blundell, “Clutching at Clothes”, in Lloyd Llewellyn Jones (ed.), Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World, London-Duckworth-Swansea, p. 143-169.

Boardman 1972: John Boardman, “Herakles, Peisistratos and Sons”, RA 1, p. 57-72.

Boulter 1953: Cedric Boulter, “Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century from a Well in the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia 22, p. 59-115.

Brulé 1987: Pierre Brulé, La fille d’Athènes. La religion des filles à Athènes à l’époque classique. Mythes, cultes et société, Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 363, Paris.

Bruneau, Ducat [1965] 2005: Philippe Bruneau, Jean Ducat, Guide de Délos, [Paris] Athènes.

Bugh 1988: Glenn R. Bugh, The Horsemen of Athens, Princeton.

Bundrick 2005: Sheramy D. Bundrick, Music and Image in Classical Athens, New York.

Camp 2001: John M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven-London.

Courby 1931: Fernand Courby, Exploration archéologique de Délos : faite par l’École française d’Athènes. Fascicule XII, Les temples d’Apollon, Paris.

Davies 1971: John K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 BC, Oxford.

Day 1989: Joseph W. Day, “Rituals in Stone: Early Greek Grave Epigrams and Monuments”, JHS 109, p. 16-28.

Donlan 1999: Walter Donlan, The Aristocratic Ideal and Selected Papers, Wauconda.

Ducat 1971: Jean Ducat, Les kouroi du Ptoion. Le sanctuaire d’Apollon Ptoieus à l’époque archaïque, Paris.

Duplouy 2005: Alain Duplouy, “Pouvoir ou prestige ? Apports et limites de l’histoire politique à la définition des élites grecques”, RBA 83, p. 5-23.

Filser 2017: Wolfgang Filser, Die Elite Athens auf der attischen Luxuskeramik, Berlin- München-Boston.

Foukara 2017: Lavinia Foukara, “Leto as Mother: Representations of Leto with Apollo and Artemis in Attic Vase Painting of Fifth Century BC”, AA 1, p. 63-83.

Furley, Bremer 2001: William D. Furley, Jan M. Bremer, Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, II, Tübingen.

Gaebel 2002: Robert E. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, Norman.

Gaifman 2018: Milette Gaifman, The Art of Libation in Classical Athens, New Haven.

Gallet de Santerre 1958: Hubert Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archaïque, Paris.

Gericke 1970: Helga Gericke, Gefässdarstellungen auf griechischen Vasen, Berlin.

Giudice, Giudice 2009: Filippo Giudice, Innocenza Giudice, “Seeing the Image: Constructing a Data-Base of the Imagery on Attic Pottery from 635 to 300 BC”, in John H. Okley, Olga Palagia (ed.), Athenian Potters and Painters, II, Oxford, p. 48-62.

Goette 2001: Hans Rupprecht Goette, Athens, Attica and the Megarid. An Archaeological Guide, London-New York.

Graf 2009: Fritz Graf, Apollo, London.

Gruben 1997: Gottfried Gruben, “Naxos und Delos”, JDAI 112, p. 241-416.

Hadzisteliou-Price 1978: Theodora Hadzisteliou-Price, Kourotrophos: Cults and Representations of the Greek Nursing Deities, Leiden.

Hatzivassiliou 2010: Eleni Hatzivassiliou, Athenian Black Figure Iconography between 510 and 475 BC, Rahden.

Hurwit 1999: Jeffrey M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge.

Kahil 1965: Lilly Kahil, “Autour de l’Artémis attique”, AK 8-1, p. 20-33.

Kahil 1977: Lilly Kahil, “L’Artémis de Brauron: rites et mystère”, AK 20-2, p. 86-98.

Kahil 1983: Lilly Kahil, “Mythological Repertoire of Brauron”, in Warren E. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, Madison, p. 231-244.

Kyle 2007: Donald G. Kyle, Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, Malden.

Landels 1999: John Landels, Music in Ancient Greece and Rome, London-New York.

Lapatin 2001: Kenneth D. S. Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford.

Lear, Cantarella 2008: Andrew Lear, Eva Cantarella, Images of Ancient Greek Pederasty: Boys were their Gods, London-New York.

Leitao 2003: David D. Leitao, “Adolescent Hair-Growing and Cutting Rituals in Ancient Greece. A Sociological Approach”, in David B. Dodd, Christopher A. Faraone (ed.), Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives: New Critical Perspectives, London-New York, p. 109-129.

Lewis 2004: David M. Lewis, “Cleisthenes and Attica”, in Peter J. Rhodes (ed.), Athenian Democracy, Edinburgh, p. 287-309.

Lissarrague [1987] 1990: François Lissarrague, The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet. Images of Wine and Ritual, [Paris] Princeton.

Lissarrague 1999: François Lissarrague, “Publicity and Performance: Kalos Inscriptions in Attic Vase Painting”, in Simon Goldhill, Robin Osborne (ed.), Performance, Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, p. 359-373.

Lissarrague 2002: François Lissarrague, “The Athenian Image of the Foreigner”, in Thomas Harrison (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh, p. 101-124.

Lissarrague 2009: François Lissarrague, “Reading Images, Looking at Pictures, and after”, in Stefan Schmidt, John H. Oakley (ed.), Hermeneutik der Bilder. Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei, München, p. 15-22.

Lundgreen 2009: Birte Lundgreen, “Boys at Brauron. The Significance of a Votive Offering”, in Tobias Fischer-Hansen, Birte Poulsen (ed.), From Artemis to Diana. The Goddess of Man and Beast, Copenhagen, p. 117-126.

Lynch 2011: Kathleen M. Lynch, The Symposium in Context. Pottery from a Late Archaic House Near the Athenian Agora, Hesperia Suppl. 46, Princeton.

Maas, McIntosh-Snyder 1989: Martha Maas, Jane McIntosh-Snyder, Stringed Instruments in Ancient Greece, London.

MacDowell 1978: Douglas M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens, London.

Miller 1983: Helena F. Miller, The Iconography of the Palm in Greek Art. Significance and Symbolism, Ann Arbor.

Moon 1983: Warren G. Moon, “The Priam Painter. Some Iconographic and Stylistic Considerations”, in Warren G. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, Madison, p. 97-118.

Murray 1993: Oswyn Murray, Early Greece, London.

Murray [1990] 1994: Oswyn Murray, “Sympotic History”, in Oswyn Murray (ed.), Sympotica: a Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, p. 3-13.

Murray 2009: Oswyn Murray, “The Culture of the Symposion”, in Kurt A. Raaflaub, Hans Van Wees (ed.), A Companion to Archaic Greece, Chichester, p. 508-523.

Ober 1989: Josiah Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Rhetoric, Ideology and the Power of the People, Princeton.

Parker 2005: Robert Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.

Pritchard 2010: David M. Pritchard, “The Symbiosis between Democracy and War. The Case of Ancient Athens”, in David M. Pritchard (ed.), War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, Cambridge, p. 1-62.

Queyrel 1992: François Queyrel, s.v. “Mousa”, “Mousai”, LIMC, VI, p. 673-675.

Richter [1961] 1988: Gisela M. A. Richter, Archaic Gravestones of Attica, [London] Bristol.

Richter, Milne 1935: Gisela M. A. Richter, Marjorie J. Milne, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, New York.

Rhodes 1993: Peter J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford.

Rotroff, Oakley 1992: Susan I. Rotroff, John H. Oakley, Debris from Athenian Dining Place in the Athenian Agora, Hesperia Suppl. 25, Princeton.

Schachter 1994: Albert Schachter, “The Politics of Dedication: Two Athenian Dedications at the Sanctuary of Apollo Ptoieus in Boeotia”, in Robin Osborne, Simon Hornblower (ed.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, p. 291-306.

Scheffer 2001: Charlotte Scheffer, “Gods on Athenian Vases. Their Function in the Archaic and Classical Periods”, in Charlotte Scheffer (ed.), Ceramics in Context. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ancient Pottery, Held at Stockholm 13-15 June 1997, Stockholm, p. 127-137.

Schmitt-Pantel [1990] 1994: Pauline Schmitt-Pantel, “Sacrificial Meal and Symposion: Two Models of Civic Institutions in the Archaic City?”, in Oswyn Murray (ed.), Sympotica: a Symposium on the Symposion, Oxford, p. 14-33.

Shapiro 1989: Harvey A. Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz.

Shapiro 1992: Harvey A. Shapiro, “Mousikoi Agones: Music and Poetry at the Panathenaia”, in Jennifer Neils (ed.), Goddess and the Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, Princeton, p. 53-75.

Shapiro 2004: Harvey A. Shapiro, “Leagros the Satyr”, in Clemente Marconi (ed.), Greek Vases. Images, Contexts and Controversies. Proceedings of the Conference Sponsored by the Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia University 23–24 March 2002, Leiden-Boston, p. 1-11.

Simon 1953: Erika Simon, Opfernde Gӧtter, Berlin.

Sourvinou-Inwood 1985: Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, “Altars with Palm-Trees, Palm-Trees and Parthenoi”, BICS 32, p. 125-146.

Sourvinou-Inwood 1988: Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, Studies in Girls Transition. Aspects of the Arkteia and Age Representation in Attica, Athens.

Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, “Reading” Greek death, to the End of the Classical Period, Oxford.

Stafford 2012: Emma Stafford, Herakles: Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World, Abingdon-Oxon-New York.

Stansbury-O’Donnell 2011: Mark D. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Looking at Greek Art, New York.

Steiner 1993: Ann Steiner, “The Meaning of Repetition. Visual Redundancy on Archaic Athenian Vases”, JDAI 108, p. 197-219.

Steiner 2004: Ann Steiner, “New Approaches to Greek Vases: Repetition, Aesthetics, and Meaning”, in P. Gregory Warden (ed.), Greek Vase Painting, Form, Figure, and Narrative, Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Madrid, Dallas, p. 35-45.

Steiner 2007: Ann Steiner, Reading Greek Vases, New York.

Tiverios 1987: Michalis Tiverios, “Ομφάλη ή Άρτεμη. Παρατηρήσεις στην εικονογραφία της εποχής των Πεισιστρατιδών”, in ΑΜΗΤΟΣ. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Μ. Ανδρόνικο, Βʹ, Thessaloniki, p. 873-880.

Topper 2012: Kathryn Topper, The Imagery of the Athenian Symposium, New York.

Travlos 1971: Ioannis Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London.

Trümpy 2010: Catherine Trümpy, “Observations on the Dedicatory and Sepulchral Epigrams, and their Early History”, in Manuel Baumbach, Andrej Petrovic, Ivana Petrovic (ed.), Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, Cambridge, p. 167-179.

Vermeule 1965: Emily Vermeule, “Fragments of a Symposion by Euphronios”, AK 8, p. 35-39.

Webster 1972: Thomas B. L. Webster, Potter and Patron in Classical Athens, London.

Wilson 2000: Peter Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia. The Chorus, the City and the Stage, Cambridge.

Wilson 2007: Peter Wilson, “Performance in the Pythion: The Athenian Thargelia”, in Peter Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Documentary Studies, Oxford, p. 150-182.

Wycherley 1963: Richard E. Wycherley, “The Pythion at Athens, Thucydides 2, 15, 4: Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2, 1, 7”, AJA 67, p. 75-79.

Notes

1 This paper derives from my PhD thesis and I gratefully acknowledge the contributions of my supervisor Professor Judith M. Barringer. I should note that an earlier version of this paper was presented at the “Greek art in Context Conference” at the University of Edinburgh (April 2014).

2 E.g. Tiverios 1987; Shapiro 1989, p. 58.

3 Ca. 545-540 BC: Shapiro 1989, p. 48; ca. 540-528 BC: Bruneau, Ducat [1965] 2005, p. 34.

4 For the view that the temple was Attic and dated around the second half of the 6th c. BC, see, e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 48; Gallet de Santerre 1958, p. 301-302. For the theory that the Athenians of the 6th c. have reconstructed the “Porinos naos” see, Courby 1931, p. 208, 214-215. But, for a more likely date ca. 520 BC based on the use of the double-T clamps (|—|), see Gruben 1997, p. 373. According to the archaeological evidence, Peisistratus could not have built the temple, since he died in 528/527 BC (Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 17, 1). The Peisistratidai may have been involved in founding it, though there is no written evidence to confirm this supposition.

5 For this view, see, e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 48. However, this idea is not documented by Thucydides’ account or any other ancient reference. Athens’ sacred delegations to Delos are attested epigraphically only from 426/425 BC (IG I3 1468); for the evidence, see Wilson 2000, p. 44-46.

6 For the theory, see Courby 1931, p. 218; Gallet de Santerre 1958, p. 302. Of the statue group only the base was found, dated before the last quarter of the 5th (e.g., Courby 1931, p. 193-194, 214) or late 5th c. BC (e.g., Lapatin 2001, p. 106). However, an earlier date is based on very fragile architectural indications; see further Lapatin 2001, p. 106-107, with previous bibliography.

7 The Attic material has been compiled from a comprehensive study of the published corpus of Attic vases listed in the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum (CVA), the Beazley archive, i.e., ABV, ARV2, Paralipomena, Addenda2, Beazley Archive Pottery Database (BAPD), and the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), museum catalogues, monographs and any other article that includes the representations under discussion.

8 All 3 deities: infra, n. 11, 12, 21 (examples 1 and 2). Only Artemis’ name: BAPD 301775. Only Apollo’s name: BAPD 200128, 200174, 201926; infra, n. 22.

9 Simon 1953, p. 15. For visual representations of libations in Classical Athens, see most recently Gaifman 2018.

10 See Foukara 2017.

11 Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum L220; ABV 328, 1; Addenda2 89; BAPD 301758.

12 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1626; ARV2 663; BAPD 207770.

13 Note that from the 149 examples only 25 vases (mainly lekythoi) bear representations of Apollo playing the lyre.

14 For a detail analysis, see Bélis 1985.

15 For a discussion concerning the differences between lyre and kithara as for their size, weight, material, terminology, construction, playing techniques and social attitudes, see, for example, Bélis 1995, p. 1027-1046; Landels 1999, p. 47-88.

16 Bundrick 2005, p. 13-20.

17 London, British Museum 1971.11-1.1; Paralipomena 19, 16bis; Addenda2 10; BAPD 350099.

18 Cf. Bundrick 2005, p. 20.

19 For the kithara-player iconography, see, e.g., Maas, McIntosh-Snyder 1989, p. 58-68; Shapiro 1992, p. 58-60, 65-70; Bundrick 2005, p. 18. For kitharist and kitharōidos see also Bélis 1995, p. 1046-1065.

20 Also noted by Shapiro 1992, p. 65.

21 Three examples: BAPD 200023, 30531, 200022.

22 London, British Museum E256; ARV2 168; Addenda2 183; BAPD 201543.

23 Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau Museum 209; Paralipomena 167, 246bis; BAPD 351235.

24 For the lifting of the skirt gesture in different contexts, see Blundell 2002, p. 152-156.

25 See Queyrel 1992, s.v. “Mousa”, “Mousai”.

26 Apart from the appearance of the name ΜΟΣΑΙ (painted) on the Sophilos’ lebes and the names of all nine Muses on the so-called François Vase (ca. 570 BC; Florence, Museo Archeologico Etrusco 4209; ABV 76, 1; Paralipomena 29; Addenda2 21), the name ΜΟΣΑΙ or of any Muse name in particular has not been attested from the second half of the 6th to the beginning of the 5th c. BC. It is only in the 5th c., though rarely, that we find again representations of Muses with their names painted on vases; see Queyrel 1992.

27 Hannover, Kestner Museum 753; BAPD 3254.

28 Shapiro 1989, p. 57.

29 The palm tree appears in BAPD 340822, 743, 7860, 200128 and supra, n. 27.

30 E.g. BAPD 6095, 14872.

31 E.g. BAPD 205657; for the palm tree as an important iconographical element in pursuit scenes, see also Sourvinou-Inwood 1985, p. 126-128.

32 E.g. BAPD, 330984, 352169.

33 A red-figure pyxis from Spina (440-400 BC; Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina T27CVP) is the only exception that shows the palm tree in connection to Delos because of the presence of the personified Delos (ΔΗΛΟΣ); ARV2 1277, 22; Addenda2 357; BAPD 216209; LIMC, III, 1986, p. 368-369, s.v. “Delos I” (Bruneau).

34 Cf. Miller 1983, esp. p. 7-9. Also, for the association of the palm-tree and altar with Artemis’ cult see, Sourvinou-Inwood 1985.

35 See also BAPD 2714 and BAPD 30531 where sacred space is marked by a column and altar and by a burning altar respectively. On columns and altars denoting sacred space, see Hatzivassiliou 2010, p. 90-91.

36 On the role of music at the symposion, see, e.g., Bundrick 2005, p. 80-92.

37 For the symposion in general and the definition of the term, see, for example, Lissarrague [1987] 1990, p. 19, 25; Murray 1993, p. 207-210; Murray [1990] 1994, p. 5-7; 2009; Schmitt-Pantel [1990] 1994, p. 15.

38 The term “elite(s)” is used throughout this paper to designate a distinguished group characterized by high birth, wealth, social standing, power, excellence, and education. On the term, see further, for example, Ober 1989, p. 11-13, 55-65, 156, 248-251; Duplouy 2005; Filser 2017, p. 7-89.

39 For a discussion regarding an elite lifestyle in general, see Murray 1993, p. 201-219, who remarks (also Murray 2009) that the symposion was the focus of aristocratic culture in the Archaic age. For the link between hunting, pederasty and symposion and their importance in the ideology of elite masculinity in Athens, see Barringer 2001, p. 70-124. But, see Topper 2012, p. 13-22, 159-161, who challenges the idea of the symposion as an elite institution.

40 Amphorae functioned also as storage vessels for solids and oil, but are best known as containers of wine; see, e.g., Webster 1972, p. 100. For pelikē as a vessel for storage of liquids and solids, see Richter, Milne 1935, p. 4-5; Lynch 2011, p. 171-173.

41 See, e.g., Richter, Milne 1935, p. 3-4, 6-8, 11-12, 18-19, 24-25.

42 That some shapes (e.g., oinochoai, kraters and cups) are painted into symposion scenes on Attic vases (e.g., Gericke 1970, p. 13-15, 32, 36-42) provides visual evidence for their use in a sympotic context.

43 For the use of painted pottery at symposia, see, e.g., Lynch 2011, who discusses the use of figural pottery in an Athenian domestic setting (i.e., a house near the northwest corner of the Athenian Agora, ca. 525 BC). Note that Lynch 2011, p. 127, 130, considers that figural amphorae and hydriai were optional elements in sympotic assemblages, because their presence in archaeological contexts is rare. However, both shapes have been recovered in sites where sympotic activity has been attested; e.g., Boulter 1953, p. 62-64; Rotroff, Oakley 1992, p. 12.

44 Scheffer 2001, p. 134-135.

45 On the different functions of lēkythoi as mentioned in the literary sources, see Richter, Milne 1935, p. 14-15.

46 Lynch 2011, p. 139-140. Also, note that a deposit from a household well (460-450 BC) in the Athenian Agora (section Σ, 45/Θ, grid reference N7) produced few black- and red-figured lēkythoi; see Boulter 1953, p. 70-72, nos. 15, 16, 21, 22.

47 Lynch 2011, p. 140.

48 BAPD 200128, 310341; also supra, n. 11, 22.

49 For kalos on Attic vases, see, e.g., Lissarrague 1999; Shapiro 2004; Steiner 2007, p. 83-85, 238.

50 See, infra n. 81.

51 Lissarrague [Paris 1987] 1990, p. 11.

52 E.g., Bérard et al. 1984; Barringer 2001, p. 2-3; Steiner 2004, esp. p. 38-42; Lissarrague 2009. For an overview of different theoretical approaches in order to understand Greek art, see Stansbury-O’Donnell 2011.

53 E.g., BAPD 340482.

54 E.g., BAPD 310367.

55 For repetition beyond its aesthetic significance and as part of a system that suggests meaning to the viewer, see Steiner 1993; 2007, p. 231-262.

56 Agrigento, Museo Archeologico Nazionale C1954; ABV 400, 2; Addenda2; BAPD 303017.

57 Note that the large number of Dionysiac, warfare and heroic scenes is attested in the last quarter of the 6th c. BC, i.e., the period when most examples of the Apollonian triad were created. For a pottery database, see Giudice, Giudice 2009, p. 51.

58 Noted by many scholars, e.g., Scheffer 2001, p. 132-133. For an indirect association of Dionysos with the production of vases, see Lissarrague [1987] 1990, p. 16-18.

59 For the cult of Dionysos in Attica during the 6th c. BC, see, e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 84-100; Goette 2001, p. 50, 115, 218, 262.

60 E.g., BAPD 8410, 12553.

61 Cf. Lissarrague 2002, p. 113.

62 E.g., Gaebel 2002, p. 40, 43. Note that there is no evidence for the use of chariots in 6th-century Attic warfare, and we cannot reconstruct a picture of Athenian military organization before Kleisthenes due to the lack of evidence; see, e.g., Pritchard 2010, p. 8-12; cf. Gaebel 2002, p. 20. For an opposite view, see Bugh 1988, p. 3-38.

63 Some of the 6th-century Athenian victors in equestrian competitions came from wealthy and powerful families: e.g., Alkmeon I, son of Megakles I, won a chariot victory at Olympia (Herodotus, VI, 125, 5); Davies 1971, p. 371. Callias I, son of Fainippos, won a horse race victory at Olympia and finished second in a four-horse chariot race (Herodotus, VI, 122, 1); Davies 1971, p. 255.

64 Kyle 2007, p. 126-127, 161.

65 Day 1989, p. 17-18, 22. For a discussion on Archaic funerary epigrams in relation to epic, see Trümpy 2010, p. 174.

66 See examples in Richter [1961] 1988, p. 18-19, 32-33, nos 20, 45, figs. 68, 126-128.

67 On Archaic epitaphs reflecting elite ideas and “heroic” images of war, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, p. 170-171, 222-226; Pritchard 2010, p. 14-15.

68 E.g., BAPD 302145.

69 E.g., supra, n. 54.

70 E.g., BAPD 310382.

71 New York, Metropolitan Museum 41.162.174; Para 123; BAPD 340505.

72 Munich, Antikensammlungen 1576 (J 145); BAPD 1158.

73 Boardman 1972, p. 60-65. In LIMC, V, 1990, however, Boardman lists some earlier examples of the chariot procession with Herakles (figs. 2877-2880) and admits (p. 131) that the motif appears on Attic vases ca. 560 BC.

74 Boardman in various articles (e.g., 1972) develops the theory that Herakles’ image was politically exploited in Athens by Peisistratus and his sons.

75 E.g., Bazant 1982, p. 22, 25. For an overview of Boardman’s view and debate, see Stafford 2012, p. 164-165, who remarks that links between Peisistratids and Herakles remain difficult to prove. For chariot scenes suggesting that horses and chariots are symbols of wealth and power and thus would have been associated with all aristocrats and attitudes toward class distinction, see Moon 1983, p. 102.

76 Following Steiner (1993, p. 211-219; 2007, p. 148-149, 157) who argues for the paradigmatic value of the deeds of Herakles and Theseus for Athenian elites.

77 E.g., Stafford 2012, p. 165, 170.

78 On the “heroic ideal”, see Donlan 1999, p. 1-33.

79 Furley, Bremer 2001, p. 259.

80 Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen and Glyptothek 8935, ARV2 1619, 3bis; Paralipomena 322; Addenda2 152; BAPD 275007.

81 For pederastic scenes in sympotic context, see, e.g., Lear, Cantarella 2008, p. 57-59; for pederasty as a rite of transition see, Murray 2009, p. 519-520.

82 Vermeule 1965, p. 34-39, discusses the symposion scene in relation to Ekphantides’ song.

83 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 546; ARV2 377, 26; Paralipomena 365; Addenda2 225; BAPD 203925; Vermeule 1965, p. 38; Lissarrague [1987] 1990, p. 129.

84 E.g., Kahil 1965, 1977; Brulé 1987, p. 179-283; Sourvinou-Inwood 1988; Parker 2005, p. 233-248.

85 For the site see, Hurwit 1999, p. 117, 197-198.

86 For Athena’s and Artemis’ fostering role, see, e.g., Hadzisteliou-Price 1978, p. 21, 101-104; for the kourotrophic nature of Artemis, see further, Kahil 1983, p. 232-243; Lundgreen 2009, p. 117-126.

87 For the commentary, see Graf 2009, p. 84.

88 E.g., for Dionysos (Euripides, Bacchae 494), for the river Spercheios (Homer, Iliad XXIII, 144), for Apollo (Plutarch, Theseus V, 1-2). For the ritual practice of cutting off the hair, see Leitao 2003, p. 109-129.

89 For male children as heirs of an oikos’ property, see MacDowell 1978, p. 92-95, 95-98 (for the case of epiklêros), 100.

90 Note that the membership of the four classes, i.e., pentakosiomedimnoi, hippeis, zeugitai and thetes, instituted by Solon, was defined by an individual’s wealth. According to the Athenaion Politeia (26, 2), it is not until 457/456 BC when the archonship opened to zeugitai as well; see, Ober 1989, p. 60-61; Rhodes 1993, p. 137-141, 148, 330.

91 On Kleisthenic reforms, see, e.g., Ober 1989, p. 70-75; Lewis 2004, p. 292-304.

92 See supra, n. 90.

93 It should be noted that no ancient source reports that Peisistratus and sons or Kleisthenes made any changes regarding the authority of the Areopagos as established by Solon. On the Areopagos in connection to Kleisthenes and Ephialtes, see Rhodes 1993, p. 309-317; Ober 1989, p. 73, 77-78.

94 See supra, n. 57.

95 Barringer 2001, p. 43-44.

96 See, Ducat 1971, p. 246; Schachter 1994, p. 292.

97 The inscription is dated on the basis of the similarity of the lettering to that of the altar of Apollo Pythios (dated 522/521 BC, infra, n. 99) and comparative material.

98 See Davies 1971, p. 373; Ducat 1971, p. 248, 256-257; Schachter 1994, p. 299, 302.

99 Most scholars accept the date 522/521 BC for the altar (e.g., Shapiro 1989, p. 50; Camp 2001, p. 156); for a date in 496/495 BC, see Arnush 1995, p. 144-152.

100 Apart from the altar, several other dedications (the earliest just before 450 BC) by victorious choregoi have been also recovered from the site, and confirm continued cult activity in the area at least from the fourth quarter of the 6th c. BC; for the epigraphic evidence, see Travlos 1971, p. 100; for further dedications by victorious choregoi, see, e.g., Wilson 2000, p. 304; 2007, p. 154.

101 On Thucydides’ commentary regarding the Pythion, see Wycherley 1963.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1: Black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Pasikles Painter.
Légende 520-510 BC; the Apollonian triad. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum L220.
Crédits Image from: LIMC, II, 1984, s.v. Artemis, fig. 1107.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 227k
Titre Fig. 2: Red-figure belly-amphora attributed near the Bowdoin-eye Painter, end of 6th century BC.
Légende The Apollonian triad. London, British Museum E256.
Crédits Courtesy Trustees of the British Museum.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-2.jpeg
Fichier image/jpeg, 151k
Titre Fig. 3: Black-figure oinochoe attributed to the Leagros Group, 510-500 BC
Légende The Apollonian triad, Dionysos and Hermes. Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau Museum 209.
Crédits Image from: CVA, Germany 17, 1959, pl. 31, 5.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 74k
Titre Fig. 4: Black-figure neck-amphora attributed to the Nikoxenos Painter, ca. 510 BC.
Légende The Apollonian triad, altar, palm tree. Hannover, Kestner Museum 753.
Crédits Image from: CVA, Germany 34, 1971, pl. 12, 1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 108k
Titre Fig. 5: Black-figure belly-amphora attributed to the Dikaios Painter, 520-500 BC.
Légende Side A: Athena mounting a chariot, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes; side B: the Apollonian triad. Agrigento, Museo Archeologico Nazionale C1954.
Crédits Image from: CVA, Italia 61, 1985, pl. 14.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 359k
Titre Fig. 6: Black-figure amphora A, related to the Antimenes Painter, ca.510 BC.
Légende Herakles in chariot with Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Hermes. New York, Metropolitan Museum 41.162.174.
Crédits Image from: CVA, USA 12, 1963, pl. 34, 3.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 128k
Titre Fig. 7: Black-figure neck-amphora from Vulci attributed to the Antimenes Painter, ca.510 BC.
Légende Herakles with Athena and others. Munich, Antikensammlungen 1576 (J145).
Crédits Image from: CVA, Germany 37, 1973, pl. 390.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 117k
Titre Fig. 8: Red-figure kalyx-krater, Euphronios, late 6th c. BC.
Légende Symposion. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek 8935.
Crédits Image from: Topper 2012, 149, fig. 61.
URL http://books.openedition.org/editionsehess/docannexe/image/13707/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 128k

Auteur

Australian National University

© Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2019

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540