Classicism to Neo-classicism: Essays dedicated to Gertrud Seidmann 9781841710099, 9781407351209

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
PREFACE
Gertrud Seidmann, a scholar and a friend
The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting
Leda on Ancient Gems
The Changing Image of Alexander the Great
The Price of Sacrilege: Diomedes, the Palladion and Roman Taste
One Hundred and Fifty Years of Wroxeter Gems
Tellus and the Seasons: Gem Copies of a Roman Medallion Type
A Chalcedony Barbarian
The Wiveliscombe Roman Cameo
Imperial Portrait Gems, Medallions and Mounted Coins: Changes in Imperial donativa in the 3rd century AD
'Silver Ring, 11': an Inventory from Roman London
From Komos to Afikoman, Symposion to Seder: two Anglo-Jewish Passover Plates in Oxford
Eastern Gems and Classical Prototypes
Antiquity Misunderstood
The Afterlife of Childeric's Ring
The Rosary -- Veneration and Production: The Dreyfus-Best Collection
Philipp von Stosch, Bernard Picart and the Gemmae Antiquae Caelatae
An Intaglio by Giovanni Beltrami and some considerations on the connection between plaquettes and gems in the late 18th - early 19th century
Conyers Middleton's Gems
The Lewes House Gems: Warren and Beazley
Gertrud Seidmann: A Bibliography
CONTRIBUTORS

Citation preview

BAR S793 1999

Classicism to Neo-classicism Essays dedicated to Gertrud Seidmann

HENIG & PLANTZOS (Eds): CLASSICISM TO NEO-CLASSICISM

B A R

Edited by

Martin Henig and Dimitris Plantzos

BAR International Series 793 1999

Classicism to N eo-classicism Essays dedicated to Gertrud Seidmann

Edited by

Martin Henig and Dimitris Plantzos

BAR International Series 793 1999

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR International Series 793 Classicism to Neo-classicism

© The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 1999 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841710099 paperback ISBN 9781407351209 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710099 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 197 4 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1999. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS PREFACE

V

MARTIN HENIG AND DIMITRIS PLANTZOS

Gertrud Seidmann, a scholar and a friend

1

BRIAN SPARKES

The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting

3

MARIANNEMAASKANT KLEIBRINK

Leda on Ancient Gems

19

MICHAEL VICKERS

The Changing Image of Alexander the Great

29

DIMITRIS PLANTZOS

The Price of Sacrilege: Diomedes, the Palladion and Roman Taste

39

MARTIN HENIG AND ROBERT WILKINS

One Hundred and Fifty Years of Wroxeter Gems

49

ERIKA ZWIERLEI~-DIEHL

Tellus and the Seasons: Gem Copies of a Roman Medallion Type

67

DONALD M. BAILEY

A Chalcedony Barbarian

79

CATHERINE JOHNS

The Wiveliscombe Roman Cameo

83

ADRIAN MARSDEN

Imperial Portrait Gems, Medallions and Mounted Coins: Changes in Imperial donativa in the 3rd century AD R.S.0.

89

TOMLIN

Silver Ring, 11: an Inventory from Roman London

105

TYLER JO SMITH

From Komos to Afikoman, Symposion to Seder: two Anglo-Jewish Passover Plates in Oxford SHEILA

111

E. HOEY MIDDLETON

Eastern Gems and Classical Prototypes

127

JOHN CHERRY

Antiquity Misunderstood

143

ARTHUR MACGREGOR

The Afterlife of Childeric 's Ring

149

ANNA BEATRIZ CHADOUR-SAMPSON

The Rosary - Veneration and Production: The Dreyfus-Best Collection

163

J.J.L.WHITELEY

Philipp von Stosch, Bernard Picart and the Gemmae Antiquae Caelatae

183

GABRIELLA TASSINARI

An Intaglio by Giovanni Beltrami and some considerations on the connection between plaquettes and gems in the late 18th - early 19th century

191

JEFFREY SPIER

Conyers Middleton's Gems

205

JOHN BOARDMAN

The Lewes House Gems: Warren and Beazley

217

GERTRUD SEIDMANN: A BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

231

iv

PREFACE Classicism to Neo-classicism is our way of expressing our gratitude to a splendid scholar. Since her arrival at Oxford, Gertrud Seidmann' s presence has been one of scholarly help and constant inspiration. She is a hard and prolific worker, and our impression is that her subject has benefited greatly from her work as, thanks to her advice, has our own.

Our ambition, however, in editing this volume was to investigate, with the help of our distinguished authors (all good colleagues and friends of Gertrud's) some aspects of what we recognise as 'The Classical Taste' and its presence in European culture in the last couple of millennia or so. The desire for things Greek, or indeed Graeco-Roman, the desire for things that look Greek or imply a significant affinity to Greek taste, is old and persistent. Today, we find its traces more or less anywhere we look, from post-modem architecture to advertising and music videos. As should be expected, much of this volume deals with gems, a special interest of its honorand, and both of its editors. This might be a welcome bias, however. Gems were being produced in vast numbers throughout antiquity, and in the centuries of European Neo-classicism. They are portable as well as charming, an attraction for collectors and later artists. They have been acting as a machine for the diffusion of Classical or Classicizing images from one country to the other, from one generation to the next. The papers presented here range from matters of artistic choice as early in the 5th century BC to archaeological research in the 20th century. Brian Sparkes writes about the Classical monument par excellence, and its influence on contemporary vase-painting, thus tracing the first ever declarations of a classicizing trend. Similar developments, diffusion and evolution of classical themes and motifs at an early date, are also discussed by Marianne Maaskant Kleibrink. Her paper focuses on ancient gems, but offers some thoughts on their modern followers. Michael Vickers discusses Alexander the Great, a figure who has inspired art and literature from the moment he first worn the crown of Macedon to the present day. His idealised likeness in Greek art, however, seems to have confused some of its later recipients thus providing a good opportunity to reflect on the potential (or the failure as the case may be) of imagery to convey its message across the divide of age. Dimitris Plantzos discusses a Greek scene and its subsequent Roman career where it is found with its content reversed, for political reasons nonetheless, a phenomenon not unknown to contemporary politics. Martin Henig, in a paper illustrated by Robert Wilkins who has also contributed many more photographs for this volume, presents the gems from one hundred and fifty years of research at Wroxeter, England and outlines what they tell us about culture, religion and personal aspirations on the site.

Erika Zwierlein-Diehl's paper focuses on a particular scene found on Roman medallions, and its adoption by contemporary gems. Donald Bailey rehabilitates a Roman chalecedony statuette, 'lost' for the last one hundred years or so in the reserves of the British Museum, and Catherine Johns discusses another Roman artefact, a cameo, whose 20th-century adventures offer a useful comment on contemporary collecting and market ethics, as well as the burden undertaken by Museums to produce research in a cold fiscal environment. Adrian Marsden is especially concerned with Imperial Portraits on gems in the 3rd century AD, when the craft of glyptics was beginning to be eclipsed by other arts. R.S.O. Tomlin, finally, publishes a curious text, an inventory from Roman London offering us a glimpse of life in the fringe (both geographical and historical) of the Classical world.

Cross-culture affiliations are investigated by two papers in this volume, Tyler Jo Smith's paper on two Anglo-Jewish Passover Plates, and Sheila E. Hoey Middleton's on Eastern gems inspired by Classical prototypes. John Cherry writes about the reception accosted to antique subject matter by medieval Europe, albeit allowing for a great deal of misunderstanding as far as content is concerned. Arthur MacGregor's paper contributes a note to the accidents and tragedies affecting the survival and diffusion of ancient arta SUQjectmuch more crucial for our own understanding of antiquity than we might usually admit or realise. The remainder of the papers deal with the 'modern' period from the Renaissance onwards. Anna Beatriz ChadourSampson introduces an ill-studied class of objects, rosaries from the Alpine region, which demonstrate an idiosyncratic mixture of piety and superstition. J .J .L. Whiteley writes about Philip von Stosch and his monumental 1724 publication Gemmae Antiquae Caelatae, where ancient gems are for the first time treated as works of art in themselves, and not as mere illustrations of antiquity. Gabriella Tassinari discusses the engraver Giovanni Beltrami and the role played by plaquettes in the diffusion of themes from antique and post-classical intaglios and cameos. Jeffrey Spier's paper offers an outline of the formation of Conyers Middleton's gem collection. Sir John Boardman, finally, comments on the relationship between an eminent 20th-century collector, Edward Percy Warren and the scholar who published his gem collection, none other than John Beazley himself.

Thus, from the Parthenon to Beazley, this volume endeavours to offer a glimpse into the shifts in taste, elements of attitude and questions of personal choice that led from Classicism to Neo-classicism. M.H.&D.P.

Gertrud Seidmann, 1993 photo: R. L. Wilkins

GertrudSeidmann, a scholar and a friend MARTIN HENIG AND DIMITRIS PLANTZOS Gertrud Seidmann was born in Vienna and educated at a girls' grammar school. After completing a first semester in English and Musicology at Vienna University she was not allowed to continue after the Anschluss, but was able to take the Staatspriifung far Musik before emigrating to Britain where the Queen's University, Belfast, offered her a place. She graduated with first class honours in French and German, and then read for a Master's degree awarded for a thesis on German Literature. During the course of a teaching career in London schools, she founded the British Association of Teachers of German, acted as school governor and chief examiner at A-Level, and developed an interest in Applied Linguistics, which led to research in the fields of teaching methodology, testing, and the development of teaching materials in German. Her efforts were recognised by the award of a Goethe Medal in 1968. In 1969 she was appointed a tutor in modern languages at the Institute of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, and three years later moved to Southampton University in order to help with the establishment of a Language Centre, a post from which she resigned after seven years to concentrate on research in a very different field, engraved gems, an interest she had been developing for some time and in which she has been supported by grants from the British Academy, the Mellon Centre for Studies in English Art, the British School at Rome, and the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation for research in Venice. Since then she has published important articles and contributions to books, especially on glyptics and notably on gems of the modern period. As early as 1986 she was regarded as an authority and elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Established in Oxford, she has helped to organise exhibitions at the Ashmolean Museum, has assisted John Boardman, then Lincoln Professor of Classical Archaeology, in cataloguing the collections of casts taken from gems in the Cast Gallery, and has embarked on a catalogue of the post-classical gems in the Museum. In 1990 Gertrud Seidmann was made a Research Associate of the Institute of Archaeology at Oxford, where she at once established herself as a powerful and benign presence in an institution where her advice is often sought and most freely given. Her formal commitment has been shown in her annual German class which has helped many aspiring students. But her most valuable contribution has been to build a bridge between Archaeology and Western Art, in particular deepening understanding of the ways in which men and women in the neo-classical period applied Greek and Roman art to the culture of their own time. In so doing she has restored to archaeology in Oxford something of the breadth of vision which the subject deserves. Never a distant figure, she relishes entertaining a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. Her humour and anecdotes have made her a vital presence in the Common Room and at parties in Oxford as at conferences in several countries: one of us has a vivid memory of the organiser of one international gathering asking her to take over from him for a couple of days! The range of the papers collected here, extending through the world of collecting and antiquarian study, covering diverse parts of the Ancient world and drawing on science as well as the fine arts reflects the mind of a scholar who would have been so much at home in the Enlightenment. The large number of friends who accepted our invitation is but a small measure of the phenomenal range of her interests as of her acquaintance. The editors and contributors are very proud to offer this Festschrift to Gertrud Seidmann as a token of their affection and esteem.

The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting BRIAN A. SPARKES I Study of the Athenian Acropolis and of the Parthenon (fig. 1) shows no signs of abating; indeed, the investigations have become something of a growth industry. The Parthenon stands at a nodal point in time and place and continues to attract research of different kinds, whether technical, social and cultural, or political, both in the context of then and of now (e.g. Tournikiotis 1994). The political aspect is specially critical at the present time, with the current reconstruction of the building and all the attendant problems of heritage management this entails (e.g. Korres, etc. 1983-; Ekonomakis 1994; Korres, Panetsos and Seki 1996). The recent need to safeguard it from collapse and decay has focused attention on aspects of the building that raise new questions and reactivate old ones, and the scouring of the rock, the dumps, and the storerooms of the Acropolis Museum has led to the identification of new fragments from the architectural sculptures (e.g. Despinis 1982; 1984; Mantis 1986a, b and c; 1987a, b and c; Gisler-Huwiler 1988; Mantis 1989; Trianti 1992; Mantis 1997). The Acropolis Study Centre in Athens and the Cast Gallery in the Skulpturhalle in Basel both have the object of reconstructing the decorative elements of the building from casts, and Nashville, Tennessee, with its full-size replica of the Parthenon and of the Athena Parthenos, is fast becoming another major centre. But the Parthenon is still an extremely lacunose building, both outside and in, and what can be said about it is still haunted by the problems of the missing elements. Attempts continue to be made to reconstruct the whole sculptural programme, to reintegrate as much material as possible into the total picture of the original design, first through the reassembling of the missing pieces, then with the help of literary references and the later items of craftsmanship that can be seen to have been produced under the influence of the Parthenon sculptures.

II In this search for influence and how it may assist our understanding of the building's architectural sculpture and the cult statue of Athena Parthenos inside the building, it is natural that the sculptural adaptations that were produced at a large scale are likely to command most attention. The focus of this material is mainly on the Athena Parthenos figure and encompasses such sculptures as the Hellenistic free version of the Athena Parthenos from the library at

Pergamon (Berlin P24: Leipen 1971: fig. 15; Robertson 1975: pl. 105A; Boardman 1985: fig. 101; Smith 1991: fig. 185; Boardman 1993: fig. 106B), the adaptations of the Roman period such as the Piraeus plaques which reproduce groups of figures from the outside of the shield of the Athena Parthenos at full size (Piraeus Museum: Stavropoullos 1950; Strocka 1967; Leipen 1971: figs. 30-36; Stephanidou-Tiveriou 1979: 16-25; Harrison 1981; Strocka 1984; Boardman 1985: fig. 109.1-2; Harrison 1996: 43-48), or the Nike head from the statue of Victory on Athena's hand (Athens, Agora S 2354: Harrison 1982; Boardman 1985: fig. 105; Harrison 1996: 51-52). Influence from the pediments is to be seen on the massive 2nd century AD Triton head from the Odeion of Agrippa in the Athenian Agora that derived its inspiration from the head of Poseidon from the West Pediment (Athens, Agora S1214: Thompson and Wycherley 1970: pl. 61; Boardman 1985: fig. 81; Palagia 1993: fig. 97) and the pedimental groups of the same period on a temple at Eleusis (Athens and Eleusis: Brommer 1963: 104-106; Lindner 1982; Boardman 1985: fig. 82). It is also possible to see the more general effect that the Parthenon figures had; for instance, one of the northern blocks (XXXVIII) of the Parthenon frieze (fig. 2) has often been compared with the early 4 th century Lycian sarcophagus from the royal cemetery at Sidon (fig. 3), made of Parian marble (Istanbul 369: Schmidt-Dounas 1985; Hitzl 1991: no. 17; Boardman 1995: fig. 226); the latter is, in Stewart's words, 'heavily indebted to the Parthenon' (Stewart 1990: 171). Also, the influence of the Parthenon sculptures on the figures of the gods and giants on the Altar of Zeus at Pergamon is well known (Robertson 1975: 537541; Smith 1991: 157-164).

III Various minor arts can also be seen in one way or another to have deliberately echoed the sculptures or unconsciously absorbed the effect of the compositions. Small adaptations such as we find in gems, jewellery, medallions and terracotta and marble figurines once again mainly concern the Athena Parthenos (e.g. Leipen 1971: figs. 38-56; Boardman 1985: figs. 97-98, 99, 102-103, 107-108; 1993: fig. 106C; cf. Brommer 1988). As my title indicates, my concern is with one of the minor arts, that of Athenian vase-painting. It is in these paintings that we may glimpse an immediate and local response to the

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenonand Athenian Vase-painting singly or in file, and may derive their inspiration from the figures on the south side. Also, derived from the south side, there are one or two processions with sacrificial animals that closely parallel groups from the frieze. Some are quality works, and of an Athenian volute-krater found at Spina (Ferrara, from Spina T57C VP: Beazley 1963: 1143, 1 and 1684; 1971: 455; Carpenter 1989: 334; Matheson 1995: pl. 125), Martin Robertson has remarked that 'the artist [the Kleophon Painter] has looked at and appreciated the frieze of the Parthenon ... In his small-scale brief picture on a pot he has come wonderfully close to its feeling' (1992: 223). At the Parthenon Congress held in 1982 at Basel Robertson also put forward what he called 'a new candidate for an Attic vase showing influence from the Parthenon Frieze': a fragment of a youth carrying a basket tray (skaphe);and as Robertson commented, 'the painter had surely looked at and remembered the skaphephoroi of the north frieze' (Robertson 1984: 206). Other vase-painters were unable to retain the exaltation of the original (e.g. Harvard 1959.129: Neils 1992: no. 52).

sculptures. Some responses seem to have been made whilst the Parthenon and its decoration were in process of construction, and the classical vase-painters of that time reacted in various ways. The closest seem to be the Peleus Painter (Korshak 1980; Matheson 1995: 108), the Kleophon Painter (de Miro 1968; Ha.lm-Tisserant 1986; Matheson 1995: 8, 135-141), Polygnotos (Matheson 1995: passim), the Achilles Painter (Matheson 1986: 113; 1995: 8; Robertson 1992: 117, 191; Oakley 1997: 5-9). First we may remind ourselves of some of the undeniable connections that have been noted before we move to the less specific and the questions that are raised.

Metopes. Many connections between the metopes and vasepaintings, both close and generalised, have been made (Praschniker 1928; Brommer 1967: 182-183; Schwab 1988; Matheson 1986; 1995: 50-54, 246; Schwab 1996; Carpenter 1997b). Perhaps the best-known connection is still that made by Adolf Michaelis over a century ago (Michaelis 1871: 138-139; cf. Berger 1986: 37-39) when he recognized the subject matter of two adjacent metopes on the north side (N 24 and 25) through the medium of an Athenian redfigure oinochoe (Vatican inv. 16535: Beazley 1963: 1173, below; 1971: 460; Carpenter 1989: 339; Ghali-Kahil 1955: 90-93, pl. 66, 1-3, no. 72; Brommer 1979: 31, fig. 16; Boardman 1989: fig. 309). The subject is Menelaus making to attack Helen and thus provided a key to the subject matter of the north metopes as the Sack of Troy. The red-figure oinochoe, which is dated to ca. 430 BC, is certainly not a precise reflection of the metopes, but despite the trivialisation of the subject there is no doubting the inspiration. More recently, an Athenian squat lekythos of the same date (fig. 4) has been connected with one of the metopes on the south side of the building (S 28; fig. 5), depicting a centaur wielding a vessel, an animal skin over his outstretched left arm (Getty 71.AE.216: Schwab 1985; 1988: 83, no. 19, pl. 116, 1). On the vase the painter, who has been described as 'not remarkably talented' (Schwab 1985: 94), has again not followed his prototype closely (he omits the fallen figure), but the connection is precise enough to be admitted.

Pediments. The evidence for the influence of the pediments on vase-paintings is more complex (Brommer 1963: 104111 lists only sculptural versions; Matheson 1995: 66-68; cf. Harrison 1967 and Berger 1974 (east pediment) and Metzger 1951: 324-326 (west pediment)). On the east pediment we are saying farewell to the birth of Athena as a subject in Greek art; it had been popular in archaic and early classical art but was now moribund (Arafat 1990: 33). The now famous fragmentary Athenian bell-krater (fig. 8) excavated near Baksy in the Crimea of the later 5th century (St. Petersburg: Shefton 1982; 1992; Robertson 1992: 249; Palagia 1993: fig. 9) seems to display the central trio of that pediment, although on the bell-krater the event in which they take part is certainly not the birth of Athena. These central figures are Hera (not Hephaistos, who must have stood one station further out), Zeus and Athena, and the fragments have helped to concentrate the attention of scholars on that missing group. The Basel reconstruction (fig. 9) places the same three figures in the centre. Brian Shefton in his original publication of 1982 claimed that the Baksy Zeus 'may prove to be the earliest quotation from the central portion of the East pediment' (Shefton 1982: 162); in his second paper on the vase a decade later he was careful to add that there is 'no question of using this krater to work back to the pediment in a literal way' (Shefton 1992: 246).

Frieze. There are also some close connections between the frieze and vase-paintings (Brommer 1977: 199-202; Matheson 1986: 108; 1995: 39-40, 49-50, 55-60, 110-113, 273-8, 291). On an Athenian red-figure pelike (Berlin F 2357: Beazley 1963: 1134, 8; Sparkes 1991: 44-45; Robertson 1992: 227), again dated ca. 430 BC, we have a youth with a horse (fig. 6) which seems to be based on a similar figure (fig. 7) on the west frieze (W XIII 25: Berger and Gisler-Huwiler 1996: 53). As above, the painter has wisely omitted an adjacent figure of another horse behind and concentrated on the pair of figures - almost painstakingly so (crossed front legs of the horse, advanced right leg of the youth, hat on his back), but, having excluded the horse on the right, he is unsure how to deal with the rear of the composition which is rather lifeless and poorly adjusted to the baseline. There are also a good number of scenes on Athenian vases that show riders (Matheson 1986: 108-109; 1995: 39-40, 235), some going from right to left and presumably taking their inspiration from the west or north friezes; more frequently they go from left to right,

The west pediment carries the first image of the contest between Athena and Poseidon for the land of Attica (Boardman 1985: 99-102; Arafat 1990: 157-9) and there are a few echoes of that in later Athenian red-figure (e.g. Athens Acr. 594: Beazley 1963: 1341, 1; Boardman 1989: fig. 331; Robertson 1992: 249, 288). Recently, a late-5th century Athenian red-figure hydria found at Pella (Pella Museum 80.514: Delivorrias 1987: 204-5 (Drougou); Palagia 1993: fig. 11; see also Arafat 1990: 156-9) has raised questions about the central group in the west pediment. On the vase (fig. 10) we see Poseidon at bay about to strike the ground with his trident. Dwarfing Poseidon and Athena on the vase is a gigantic white thunderbolt, the 'messenger' of Zeus in Karim Arafat's phrase (Arafat 1990: 156), lodged in the olive tree that Athena has already planted as her gift for Attica. Should we be reconstructing 4

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenonand Athenian Vase-painting IV

the centre of the pediment to make room for such an object, and at this scale? Or has the vase-painter more likely heightened the drama of the scene and made the meaning more explicit (Arafat 1990: 156-159)? Certainly those who have studied the blocks of the pediment which back the figures can find no room to install such a massive thunderbolt, although its central presence at a smaller scale had already been suggested by Erika Simon before the Pella hydria came to light (Simon 1980: 239-255; cf. Fuchs 1983: 79-80).

It is usual, as we have seen, to study the vase-paintings for what assistance they can give in reconstructing the Parthenon, but it is possible to look at the relationship of the Parthenon to vase-painters' procedures, not for the purpose of learning more about the Parthenon but for understanding more clearly about the practical ways in which the vasepainters may have worked and the difficulties they may have encountered and whether this might make us question how closely we should connect the two media. I am only interested here in what we may call the short-term effects, i.e. those of the years to the end of the century.

Athena Parthenos. Arafat has suggested that the Athena on the Baksy krater (fig. 6) may be a 'quotation' from the east pediment (Arafat 1990: 110), but Brian Shefton had dubbed her as 'one of the earliest references to the Athena Parthenos' (Shefton 1982: 159). Of course this is not the only echo of elements from the Athena Parthenos statue, as she is recognisable in other Athenian vase-paintings in the late 5th century (e.g. Karlsruhe 259: Beazley 1963: 1315, 1 and 1690; 1971: 477; Carpenter 1989: 362; Burn 1987: pls. 39-41; Boardman 1989: fig. 294; Arafat 1990: 118, fig. 2). Also popular in vase-painting were adaptations of the shield with decoration on both sides, Amazonomachy outside, Gigantomachy inside (Stavropoullos 1950; Leipen 1971; Strocka 1984; Harrison 1996: 43-48; inside: von Salis 1940; Arafat 1986; Robertson 1992: 258; outside: von Bothmer 1957: 209-214; Harrison 1966; Strocka 1967; StephanidouTiveriou 1979: 6-25, 113-138; Harrison 1981; Gauer 1988; Robertson 1992: 233-234). It is generally believed that the Gigantomachy on the shield is more likely than the east metopes to have influenced the vase-painters (Arafat 1990: 169; Carpenter 1997a: 34).

The way in which we have just now compared the Parthenon sculptures with the vase-paintings masks a number of practical problems, both modern and ancient. The modern difficulties centre on the defectiveness of our evidence, to which I referred earlier. The Parthenon is now sadly incomplete, both in what is missing and in the fragmentary state of what survives. Similarly, with the estimate of the number of surviving vase-paintings set at far less than 1% of the total production (Oakley 1992: 199200), it is difficult to predict how strong the influence of the Parthenon was. It is possible that there have survived some unrecognised vase-scenes that were influenced by the missing compositions of the temple, but that is obviously a matter of pure guesswork. There were no temples built and decorated with architectural sculpture in Athens in the generation before the Parthenon, and this new programme must have had a startling effect. But it is always possible that some compositions we meet in vases had already been devised before the Parthenon designs (most of the themes were not new), either in sculpture or in the famous panel pictures of Polygnotos and Mikon in Athens that have not survived (Robertson 1975: 240-270; Pollitt 1990: ch. 8; Arafat 1997; cf. Harrison 1996: 45).

General. There are also many vases that have been connected with the Parthenon sculptures because of more general similarities. Such details as the overlapping and smaller-than-life horses, the flying and quieter drapery, the leg drawn back, the shorter hair (Matheson 1986: 108; 1995: 121, 235), the off-the-shoulder chitones such as Artemis wears on the east frieze (Shefton 1982: 159), the backward glance and the arm gesture of the riders (Shefton 1982: 166), the beardless Dionysos on the east pediment and east frieze (Carpenter 1997a: 85-92; Osborne 1997: 519520) and the beardless Hephaistos on the east pediment (Halm-Tisserant 1986; Matheson 1995: 190). Some of these may have been influenced by the Parthenon sculptures but certainly not as directly as those selected above. One might mention here the Gigantomachy on the Panathenaic peplos, woven every four years and carried in procession; we do not know its appearance, but we are informed that it had the battle woven on it and there is a possibility that, being a large flat tapestry and perhaps hung on the Acropolis, it acted as an incentive for the vase-painters (Mansfield 1985; Barber 1992). As we have already noted, the vase-painters did not feel obliged to retain the context nor indeed to copy accurately, had that been possible or within their capabilities. The more imaginative painters adapt freely, the poorer craftsmen copy more painstakingly. But these are the vase-paintings that have been thought to help a little way towards reconstructing the images with which the Parthenon was embellished that would otherwise lie flat in the pages of the testimonia or in fragmentary disarray.

Another problem we face is that of the dating. The Parthenon seems secure enough in both its general and its sequential dating - what Harrison has recently called 'the logic of construction' (Harrison 1996: 39): the metopes and the Athena Parthenos must have been fashioned in the ten years up to the dedication, i.e. between 447 and 438 BC, the pediments most likely between 438 BC and the closing years of the decade. It is more difficult to decide whether the carving of the frieze was finished before the dedication of the temple in 438 BC, started but not completed, or not even started until after that date (Brommer 1977: 171-172; Jenkins 1994: 19). However, whatever the answer, we are dealing with a circumscribed period of absolute time of ca. 15 years, and Plutarch famously remarked on the speed of construction (Perikles 13). The same circumscription does not apply to the vases; their dating is much 'softer' (lsler-Kerenyi 1973: 23-32; LezziHafter 1988: 21-23; Boardman 1989: 9-10; Carpenter 1997a: 23). How soon can we reasonably expect the Parthenon and the Athena Parthenos to have made their effect on the vase-paintings? Or to what extent are the vases now being dated from their presumed relation to the Parthenon? Let us look at a specific problem with the Athena Parthenos. There is much that is original here, and 5

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenonand Athenian Vase-painting almost hidden from sight within the roofed colonnade, so that even with paint and the possibility of reflected light it was not possible to obtain a detailed look from the ground and it was only seen discontinuously between the columns of the outer colonnade (Stillwell 1969; Osborne 1987). If this is the scenario we should reconstruct, then we should not really expect very close approximations to the individual figures - in fact, we should applaud the eyesight, if not necessarily the artistic ability, of the painters, some of whom copied most diligently.

one feature is the shape of her aegis. It is different from earlier poncho-like forms; the Parthenos aegis, in the modern parlance of corsetry, 'lifts and separates'. Interestingly, an unusual figure of Athena (in motion, not stationary) on an unattributed Athenian red-figure columnkrater (Berlin inv. 2928: Furtwangler 1886: 151) wears the same design (fig. 11), The vase-painting has been dated as early as 460-450 BC (Gehrig, Greifenhagen and Kunisch 1968: 127). Was there then an early version of this aegis design in sculpture or on panel paintings that the vasepainter copied, thus making the Pheidian detail less original? Or is this vase-painting later in date and is it, as Shefton has claimed, 'one of the earliest allusions to the Parthenos, not long after its installation' (Shefton 1982: 159, n. 35)?

The third possibility is that the painters had sight of the 'blueprints' of Pheidias during the time the stone-carvers were working on them and after they had finished with them, when they were in some way made available to the vase-painters and other craftsmen. This brings us up against the problem of the nature of the designs. Were there drawings or sketches, whether on whitened boards, clay tablets, parchment or papyrus, of all the different components of the sculptures: metopes, frieze and pediments, and the Parthenos statue? For the metopes and the frieze perhaps no other preliminaries were needed apart from outlines on the actual blocks, though the recent work of Sue Bird, Ian Jenkins and Fabio Levi (Bird, Jenkins and Levi 1998) shows just how complex the arrangement of the frieze was and how important preliminary designs would have been. For the free-standing and interlocking pedimental figures there would be need of detailed and accurate models from which the team of sculptors would work - whether in terracotta or wax or plaster. There is some disagreement on how big these sculptural models were, whether at actual size or on some smaller scale (Jeppesen 1958: 69-101, 109-131; Bundegaard 1957: 96132; Ashmole and Yalouris 1967: 9-10; Carpenter 1971: 252-254; Ashmole 1972: 58; Pollitt 1974: 204-215, 272293; Coulton 1976: 302-304; Palagia 1987: 78; Stewart 1990: 34-36, 335; Waywell 1997: 62; Burn 1997: 84). Were they (of whatever form) available for study in the sculptor's workshop, either during construction or when the work was completed?

I have spent a little time on the difficulties with absolute chronology because it is germane to the problems that we have in visualising the ways in which the borrowing of images by the vase-painters worked at the time. What I find difficult is envisaging how and when the vase-painters gained access to the sculptures. I hope one may assume that the carving of the relief sculptures and the pedimental figures was carried out on the Acropolis (and presumably Pheidias had his studio there in which he assembled the gold and ivory elements of his Parthenos). During that time the Acropolis must have looked much as it has done over these last few years of reconstruction! How easy was access to it during that time? How visible was the work being carried out up there to worshippers, pilgrims and others? There are, I suggest, a number of possibilities when considering the contact that vase-painters might have had with the Parthenon sculptures, and the dates they might have viewed them. The first possibility is that there was access during the period from which work started to be carried out on the construction, i.e. from 447 BC onwards. It might then have been possible for artists to have a close-up view of the sculptures that were being carved at ground level and before they were hoisted into place above. This would presumably apply first to the metopes up to 438 BC and then between 438 and 432 BC to the pedimental figures. Boardman suggests that the pediments were 'on display for a while before installation' (1985: 98).The figures on the north and south sides of the frieze are usually agreed not to have been carved until the blocks were in place on the temple and hence never themselves to have been seen at close hand unless vase-painters along with other artists had the privilege afforded by Alma Tadema to Perikles and his entourage. It would also now seem to be agreed that the west and east friezes, even though the figures are confined to the individual blocks, were also carved when the blocks had been lifted into place (Korres 1988; Jenkins 1994: 18-20; Harrison 1996: 46; cf. Robertson and Frantz 1975: 9-10; Brommer 1977: 168-172).

As for the Parthenos, were the vase-painters allowed to see the statue in process of its construction? Or were they later able to view it in the sanctuary and to make sketches? Certainly those vase-paintings that can be seen to adapt groups from the shield, both inside and out, suggest that, if knowledge was gained from the finished statue, she was not just glimpsed from the doorway, even if windows at the east end gave some light (Korres 1984). Or were Pheidias' designs (of whatever form) available for consultation? We know that where panel-painters were concerned, some of their designs were still available for use centuries later, on wooden tablets and parchment (graphides in tabulis ac membranis, Pliny Natural History 35.68). Indeed, Arafat has recently stressed the need to consider the possibility that many of the proposed borrowings from the Parthenon should be linked with the panel-paintings rather than the sculptures (Arafat 1997). Access was certainly easier and perhaps, being two-dimensional, more attractive to vasepainters, though we have seen above that there is a core of vase-paintings that cannot be divorced from the effects of the sculptures.

The second possibility is that the vase-painters did not see the sculptures until the building was dedicated, when at least the metopes (and maybe some of the frieze) were in place. But once in place, both metopes and frieze were 40 feet up in the air and the frieze, as we well know, was 6

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenonand Athenian Vase-painting Or had Pheidias already undertaken the commission for the Zeus while in Athens and begun to sketch its form whilst still working on the Parthenos?

The question of borrowing from sculpture (whether in progress or completed) is straightforward, if not simple, as long as we are dealing with sculptural work in Athens (whether on the Acropolis or elsewhere) and with the vasepainters working in the same town. But the difficulties are of course multiplied in dealing with those Athenian vasepaintings on which we find quotations, adaptations, echoes, reflections (call them what you will) of sculptures that were not in Athens. Here the Baksy krater provides a special problem as it not only has the three central figures of the east pediment of the Parthenon with elements of the Athena Parthenos mixed in, but the vase also shows details from the seated Zeus of Pheidias at Olympia with the throne depicting the slaughter of the children of Niobe in the sort of detail which scholars had suspected earlier from written descriptions and later adaptations (Liegle 1922; Fink 1967; Robertson 1975: 316-320; Ridgway 1981: 167-168; Shefton 1982; 1992; Harrison 1996: 59-63). The version of Pheidias' career that dates his work on the Zeus statue in Olympia later than his work on the Athena Parthenos (Pollitt 1990: 53-55) seems to be borne out by the excavations of his workshop at Olympia (Mallwitz and Schiering 1964; Schiering 1991). Where then had the vasepainter seen that throne? On a personal visit to Olympia?

A further question arises in connection with this whole matter of borrowing - under what motivation did the vasepainters place their adaptations on the vases? Was it artistic sterility? Were they at a loss for inspiration? Was it the irresistible attraction of this host of figured work that was created in the third quarter of the fifth century after a generation of sculptural starvation? Is it possible that there was demand (whether from home or abroad) for quotations from this new and lavish temple? If such vases as the Baksy krater and other massive Athenian mixing bowls and pelikai found in South Russia were specially made for export to that area, as has been claimed (Shefton 1982: 151, n. 4, and 154 and n. 17), what did the local residents (whether Greek or native) ask for? Simply for scenes of grandeur with the Greek deities on parade? Or did they ask for something more specific? Had the figures on the Parthenon and their arrangement almost immediately begun to impress themselves on the minds of the artists (if not the customers) as the ideal way to represent the figures (cf. Shefton 1982: 177-178)?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have known Gertrud since her attachment to the Language Centre at the University of Southampton in 1972, and it gives me great pleasure to thank her for her friendship over the intervening years.

pemuss10ns to reproduce them here: Marie Mauzy and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (for figs. 1, 2 and 7), Dr Margot Schmidt and the Basel Cast Gallery (for fig. 9), Dr Ursula Kastner and the Staatliche Museen in Berlin (for figs. 6 and 11), the German Institute in Istanbul (for fig. 3), Dr Marion True and the Getty Museum at Malibu (for fig. 4), Dr Ian Jenkins and the British Museum in London (for fig. 2), Professor Olga Palagia (for fig. 10) and Professor Brian Shefton (for fig. 8).

This paper is a revised version of the one I gave at the Triennial Meeting of Classical Societies held in Oxford in July 1995. The illustrations included here are only a small proportion of those it was possible to present at the meeting. I wish to thank the following museums and individuals for photographs and

7

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting REFERENCES ARAFAT, K. 1986: A note on the Athena Parthenos. In Annual of the British School at Athens 81, 1-6.

BROMMER, F. 1988: Phidiasche Nachlange. In Schmidt, M. (ed.) Kanan. Festschirft Ernst Berger (Antike Kunst Beiheft 15) (Basel) 42-45.

ARAFAT, K. 1990: Classical Zeus, a study in art and literature (Oxford).

BUNDEGAARD, J.A. 1957: Mnesicles (Copenhagen). BURN, L. 1987: The Meidias Painter (Oxford).

ARAFAT, K. 1997: Polygnotos & Co. Classical Review 47, 391-2.

BURN, L. 1997: Sculpture in terracotta from Cnidus and Halicarnassus. In Jenkins, I. and Waywell, G.B. (eds) Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese (London).

ASHMOLE, B. 1972: Architect and Sculptor in classical Greece (London). ASHMOLE, B. and YALOURIS, N. 1967: Olympia, the sculptures of the temple of Zeus (London).

CARPENTER, R. 1971: Greek Sculpture (Chicago). CARPENTER, T.H. 1989: Beazley Addenda (2nd edition) (Oxford).

BARBER, E.J.W. 1992: The Peplos of Athena. In Neils, J. Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (Hanover and Princeton) 103-117, 208-210. BEAZLEY, J.D. 1963: Attic Red-figure (Oxford).

CARPENTER, T.H. 1997a: Dionysian Imagery in FifthCentury Athens (Oxford).

Vase-painters

CARPENTER, T.H. 1997b: Harmodios and Apollo in fifth century Athens: what's in a pose? In Oakley, J.H., Coulton, W.D.E. and Palagia, 0. (eds) Athenian Potters and Painters (Oxford) 171-179.

BEAZLEY, J.D. 1971: Paralipomena (Oxford). BERGER, E. 1974: Die Geburt der Athena im Ostgiebel des Parthenon (Basel). BERGER, E. 1986: Der Parthenon Dokumentation zu den Metopen (Mainz).

in

COULTON, J.J. 1976: The meaning of anagrapheus. American Journal of Archaeology 80, 302-304.

Basel:

DELIVORRIAS, A. (ed.) 1987: Greece and the Sea (Athens).

BERGER, E. and GISLER-HUWILER, M. 1996: Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries (Mainz).

DESPINIS, G. 1982: Parthenoneia (Athens). BIRD, S., JENKINS, I. and LEVI, F. 1998: Second Sight of the Parthenon Frieze (London).

DESPINIS, G. 1984: Neue Fragmente von Parthenonskulpturen und Bemerkungen zur Rekonstruktion des Parthenon-Ostgiebels. In Berger E. (ed.) ParthenonKongress Basel, Referate und Berichte 4. bis 8. April 1982 (Mainz) 293-302.

BOARDMAN, J. 1985: Greek Sculpture, the Classical Period, a handbook (London). BOARDMAN, J. 1989: Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Classical Period, a handbook (London).

EKONOMAKIS, R. (ed.) 1994: Acropolis Restoration, the CCAM Interventions (London).

BOARDMAN, J. (ed.) 1993: The Oxford History of Classical Art (Oxford).

FINK, J. 1967: Der Thron des Zeus in Olympia: Bi/dwelt und Weltbild (Munich).

BOARDMAN, J. 1995: Greek Sculpture: the Late Classical Period, a handbook (London).

FUCHS, W. 1983: Zur Rekonstruktion des Poseidon im Parthenon-Westgiebel. Boreas 6, 79-80.

von BOTHMER, D. 1957: Amazons in Greek Art (Oxford). FURTWANGLER, A. 1886: Erwerbungen der Konigl. Museen zu Berlin im Jahre 1885 II Antiquarium. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Archtiologischen lnstituts l, 132-157.

BROMMER, F. 1963: Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel (Mainz). BROMMER, F. 1967: Die Metopen der Parthenon (Mainz). BROMMER, F. 1977: Der Parthenonfries (Mainz).

GAUER, W. 1988: Parthenonische Amazonomachie und Perserkrieg. In Schmidt, M. (ed.) Kanon. Festschrift Ernst Berger (Antike Kunst Beiheft 15) (Basel) 28-41.

BROMMER, F. 1979: The Sculptures of the Parthenon (London).

GHALI-KAHlL, L. 1955: Les enlevements et le retour d'Helene (Paris). GEHRIG, U., GREIFENHAGEN, A. and KUNISCH, N. 1968: Fuhrer durch die Antikenabteilung (Berlin). 8

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting GISLER-HUWILER, M. 1988: Apropos des apobates et de quelques cavaliers de la fiise nord du Parthenon. In Schmidt, M. (ed.) Kanan. Festschrift Ernst Berger (Antike Knust Beiheft 15) (Basel) 15-18.

LEZZI-HAFfER, A. 1988: Der Eretria-Maler: Werke und Weggefahrten (Mainz).

HALM-TISSERANT, M. 1986: La representation du retour d'Hephai:stos dans l'Olympe. Antike Kunst 29, 8-22.

LINDNER, R. 1982: Die Giebelgruppe von Eleusis mit Raub der Persephone. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen lnstituts 97, 303-400.

LIEGLE, J. 1922: Der Zeus des Phidias (Berlin).

HARRISON, E.B. 1966: The composition of the Amazonomachy on the shield of Athena Parthenos. Hesperia 35, 107-133.

MALLWITZ, A. AND SCHIERING, W. 1964: Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia Part 1 ( Olympische Forschungen 5) (Berlin).

HARRISON, E.B. 1967: Athena and Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon. American Journal of Archaeology 71, 27-58.

MANSFIELD, J.M. 1985: The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos (Diss., Berkeley). MANTIS, A. 1986a: Akropolis 2381. Correspondance Hellenique 110, 231-235.

HARRISON, E.B. 1981: Motifs of the City-Siege on the Shield of Athena Parthenos. American Journal of Archaeology 85, 281-317.

Bulletin

de

MANTIS, A. 1986b: Un nouveau fragment de la lOe metope sud du Parthenon. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 110, 619-624.

HARRISON, E.B. 1982: Two Pheidian heads: Nike and Amazon. In Kurtz, D. and Sparkes, B. (eds) The Eye of Greece (Cambridge) 53-65.

MANTIS, A. 1986c: Neue Fragmente von Parthenonskulpturen. In Kyrieleis, H. (ed.) Archaische und Klassische Griechische Plastik 2, 71-76.

HARRISON, E.B. 1996: Pheidias. In Palagia, 0. and Pollitt, J.J. (eds) Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture (Cambridge) 16-65.

der

MANTIS, A. 1987a: Contribution a la reconstruction de la 1le metope sud du Parthenon. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 111, 137-146.

ISLER - KERENYI, C. 1973: Chronologie und 'Synchronologie' attischer Vasenmaler der Parthenonzeit. Antike Kunst Beiheft 9, 23-32.

MANTIS, A. 1987b: Neue Fragmente von ParthenonMetopen. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Archaologischen lnstituts 102, 163-184.

JENKINS, I. 1994: The Parthenon Frieze (London),

MANTIS, A. 1987c: H apokatastasis mias boreias metopes tou Pathenona (M. Akr. 703 + 1094 and M. Akr 3740). In Tiverios, M., Drougou, S. and Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Ch. (eds) Amitos, Timetikos Tomas yia ton kathegete Manoli Androniko 1 (Thessaloniki), 473-482.

HITZL, I. 1991: Die griechischen Sarkophage archaischen und klassischen Zeit (Jonsered).

JEPPESEN, K. 1958: Paradeigmata: Three Mid-fourth Century Main Works of Hellenic Architecture Reconsidered (Aarhus).

MANTIS, A. 1989: Beitrage zur Wiederherstellung der mittleren Siidmetopen des Parthenon. In Cain, H.-U., Gabelmann, H. and Salzmann, D. (eds.) Festschrift fur Nikolaus Himmelmann (Mainz), 109-114.

KORRES, M. 1984: Der Pronaos und die Fenster des Parthenon. In Berger, E. (ed.) Parthenon-Kongress Basel, Referate und Berichte 4. bis 8. April 1982 (Mainz) 47-54. KORRES, M. 1988: Uberzahlige Werkstiicke des Parthenonfiieses. In Schmidt, M. (ed.) Kanon. Festschrift Ernst Berger (Antike Kunst Beiheft 15) (Basel) 19-27.

MANTIS, A. 1997: Parthenon Central South Metopes: new evidence. In Buitron-Oliver, D. (ed.), The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome (Studies in the History of Art 49, Symposium Papers XXIX) (Washington) 66-81.

KORRES, M. etc. 1983-: Melete apokatastaseos tou Parthenonos/Study for the restoration of the Parthenon 1(Athens). KORRES, M., PANETSOS, G.A. and SAEKI, T. 1996: The Parthenon, architecture and conservation (Athens).

MATHESON, S.B. 1986: Polygnotos: an lliupersis scene at the Getty Museum. Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 3, 101-114.

KORSHAK, Y. 1980: Der Peleusmaler und sein Gefahrte, der Hektormaler. Antike Kunst 23, 124-136.

MATHESON, S.B. 1995: Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Classical Athens (Madison, Wisconsin).

LEIPEN, N. 1971: Athena Parthenos, a reconstruction (Toronto).

METZGER, H. 1951: Les representations ceramique attique du IV siecle (Paris). MICHAELIS, A. 1871: Der Parthenon (Leipzig).

9

dans

la

Brian A. Sparkes, The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting de MIRO, E. 1968: Nuovi contributi sul pittore di Kleophon. Archeologia Classica 20, 238-48.

SCHWAB, K.A. 1985: A Parthenonian centaur. Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 2, 89-94.

NEILS, J. 1992: Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (Hanover and Princeton).

SCHWAB, K.A. 1988: The Parthenon Metopes and Greek Vase Painting: a study of comparison and influences (Dissertation, New York University).

OAKLEY, J. H. 1992: An Athenian red-figure workshop from the time of the Peloponnesian War. In Blonde, F. and Perreault, J.Y. Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux epoques geometrique, archai'que et classique (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Supplement 23), 195-203.

SCHWAB, K.A. 1996: Parthenon East Metope XI: Herakles and the Gigantomachy. American Journal of Archaeology 100, 81-90.

OAKLEY, J.H. 1997 : The Achilles Painter (Mainz).

SHEFTON, B.B. 1982: The krater from Baksy. In Kurtz, D. and Sparkes, B. (eds) The Eye of Greece (Cambridge), 149181.

OSBORNE, R. 1987: The viewing and obscuring of the Parthenon frieze. Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, 98-105.

SHEFTON, B.B. 1992: The Baksy krater once more and some observations on the East Pediment of the Parthenon. In Kotinos, Festschriftfiir Erika Simon (Mainz), 241-251.

OSBORNE, R. 1997: Men without clothes: heroic nakedness and Greek art. Gender and History 9, 504-528.

SIMON, E. 1980: Die Mittelgruppe im Westgiebel des Parthenon. In Cahn, H.A. and Simon, E. (eds.) Tainia, R. Hampe zum 70. Geburtstag (Mainz) 239-255.

PALAGIA, 0. 1987: Les techniques de la sculpture grecque sur marbre. In Vanhove, D. (ed.), Marbres helleniques de la carriere au chef-d'oeuvre (Brussels), 76-89.

SMITH, R.R.R. 1991: Hellenistic Sculpture (London). PALAGIA, 0. (Leiden).

1993: The Pediments of the Parthenon SPARKES, B.A. 1991: Greek Pottery: an introduction (Manchester).

POLLITT, J.J. 1974: The ancient view of Greek art: criticism, history and terminology (New Haven, Yale).

STAVROPOULLOS, F.D. 1950: He Aspis tes Athenas Parthenou tou Pheidiou (Athens).

POLLITT, J.J. 1990: The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents (Cambridge).

STEPHANIDOU-TIVERlOU, (Athens).

Th.

1979:

Neoattika

PRASCHNIKER, C. 1928: Parthenonstudien (Vienna). STEW ART, A. 1990: Greek Sculpture: an investigation (New Haven).

RIDGWAY, B.S. 1981: Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeton). ROBERTSON, (Cambridge).

M.

1975: A

History

of

STILLWELL, R. 1969: The Panathenaic Frieze: optical relations. Hesperia 38, 231-241.

Greek Art

STROCKA, V.M. 1967: Pirausreliefs und Parthenosschild: Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der Amazonomachie des Phidias (Bochum).

ROBERTSON. M. 1984: The South Metopes: Theseus and Daidalos. In Berger, E. (ed.) Parthenon-Kongress Basel, Referate und Berichte 4. bis 8. April 1982 (Mainz), 206208.

STROCKA, V.M. 1984: Das Schieldrelief - zum Stand der Forschung. In Berger, E. (ed.) Parthenon-Kongress Basel, Referate und Berichte 4. bis 8. April 1982 (Mainz) 188-196.

ROBERTSON, M. 1992: The art of vase-painting in classical Athens (Cambridge).

THOMPSON, H.A. and WYCHERLEY, R.E. 1970: The Agora of Athens (The Athenian Agora XIV) (Princeton).

ROBERTSON, M. and FRANTZ, A. 1975: The Parthenon Frieze (London).

TOURNIKIOTIS, P. 1994: The Parthenon and its impact in modern times (Athens).

von SALIS, A. 1940: Die Gigantomachie am Schild der Athena Parthenos. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 55, 90-169.

TRlANTI, I. 1992: Neue Beobachtungen zu den ParthenonMetopen. Athenische Mitteilungen 107, 187-197.

SCHIERlNG, W. 1991: Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia Part 2 (Olympische Forschungen 18) (Berlin).

WAYWELL, G. B. 1997: The sculptors of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. In Jenkins, I. and Waywell, G. B. (eds) Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese (London).

SCHMIDT-DOUNAS, B. 1985: Der Lykische Sarkophag aus Sidon (lstanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 30) (Ttibingen).

10

BrianA. Sparkes, The Parthenon and Athenian Vase-painting

80

~

'-'