ZURÜCK ZUM GEGENSTANDFESTSCHRIFT FÜR ANDREAS E. FURTWÄNGLER

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

Ralph EinickeStephan Lehmann

Henryk LöhrGundula MehnertAndreas Mehnert

Anja Slawisch

Band I

Beier & BeranLangenweißbach 2009

Es ist nicht gestattet, diese Arbeit ohne Zustimmung von Verlag, Herausgebern oder Autoren ganz oder auszugsweise nachzudrucken, zu kopieren oder auf sonst irgendeine Art zu vervielfältigen!

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation

in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographischeDaten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar.

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern.

Verlag: Beier & Beran. Archäologische Fachliteratur Thomas-Müntzer-Str. 103, D 08134 Langenweißbach Tel. 037603 / 3688, Fax 037603 / 3690 Internet: www.beier-beran.de, E-Mail: verlag@beier-beran.deRedaktion: Anja Slawisch, Gundula Mehnert, Andreas Mehnert, Henryk LöhrLayout: Andreas Mehnert (Text), Ralph Einicke (Tafeln)Druck: VerlagHerstellung: Buchbinderei Reinhardt Weidenweg 17, D 06120 Halle/Saale

C: Copyright und V. i. S. d. P. für den Inhalt liegen bei den Autoren.

ISBN 978-3-941171-16-9

Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.Hergestellt in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland / printed in Germany.

Inhalt

Band I

Vorwort .................................................................................................................................................................... I

Tabula Gratulatoria ............................................................................................................................................. VII

Publikationen von Andreas E. Furtwängler ......................................................................................................... IX

Architektur und PlastikRaimund Wünsche

Ein gealterter Jüngling .................................................................................................................................... 1

Rolf A. StuckyGriechischer Marmor in der Levante – Zur Zeitstellung phönizischer Baureliefsund Architekturelemente aus Marmor ......................................................................................................... 7

Latîfe SummererHerakles in Paphlagonien ............................................................................................................................ 15

Helga BumkeNeue Köpfe für alte Damen – Zeugnisse für die Inszenierung von Tradition und Vergangenheit im griechischen Osten ................................................................................................ 25

Wolfgang SonntagbauerZur Genese des klassischen Tempelentwurfes – Zu den Grundrissen der Tavole Palatine in Metapont, des Athenatempels in Paestum, des Aphaiatempels und des Älteren Poseidon-tempels in Sunion .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Bruno JacobsDie Investiturszenen vom Nemrud Dağı ................................................................................................... 51

Orhan BingölDie Gruppe von Boreas und Oreithyia aus Magnesia ............................................................................. 59

Bernard AndreaeDie Skylla im Beinrelief von Dedoplis Gora und die Zeitgebundenheit von Betrachtungsweisen ............................................................................................................................... 69

Erika SimonEin Weihrelief aus Abydos: Aias mastigophoros ..................................................................................... 81

Stephan LehmannMade in Italy – Neues zum Bronzeknaben aus dem Meer vor Montenegro ........................................ 85

Volker Michael StrockaDer Hercules tunicatus auf dem Forum Romanum: Plin. nat. 34, 93 .................................................... 99

Hans LohmannDie sogenannte Domitius-Ara ................................................................................................................... 109

Henryk LöhrZur Botschaft und Datierung der Marcussäule ....................................................................................... 123

Friederike SinnVom Barbar zum „Berufsgriechen“ – Zu einer Porträtbüste severischer Zeit in Dresden ............... 137

Rudolf H. W. StichelKaiser Theodosius I. ‚melior Traiano‘ – Ein Deutungsversuch zur Ausstattung des Forum Tauri in Konstantinopel (mit einem Exkurs zum Zerstörungsdatum der Theodosius-Säule) ................... 151

Peter SchneiderBaureste eines spätantiken Bathrons und das Quellhaus des Titus Flavius Festus im Adyton des Apollontempels von Didyma ......................................................................................... 159

Keramik und Kleinkunst François Bertemes und Karin Hornung-Bertemes

Minoer in Didyma – Ein Siegel und seine Geschichte ............................................................................ 169

Anja SlawischEine runde Sache: Zu einem Fragment einer Bronzekeule aus Didyma ............................................. 195

Nadine LudwigStilistische Untersuchungen zu figürlich verzierten Gürtelblechen aus Transkaukasien ................ 205

Hüseyin CevizoğluZwei Bleimedaillons aus Klazomenai ....................................................................................................... 217

Frauke DonnerEine Vogelkanne vom Taxiarchis in Didyma .......................................................................................... 225

Bettina ReichardtAnasyrma und Liebeswerbung – Ein attisch schwarzfiguriger Skyphos vom Taxiarchis-Hügel in Didyma ............................................................................................................. 235

Gundula MehnertWerbe- und Abschiedsszenen .................................................................................................................... 247

Bekir ÖzerA Painter from Urla Workshop ................................................................................................................. 255

R. Ross HollowayAn Unpublished Terracotta from the Malophoros Sanctuary at Selinus ............................................ 263

Ralph Einicke und Niels WieackerEin Vasenfragment in der Art des Brygos-Malers aus dem Archäologischen Museum der Universität Halle ................................................................................................................................... 269

Michalis TiveriosMinotaur, Apsyrtos or Androgeos, the “ΚΑΤΑ ΠΡΥΜΝΑΝ ΗΡΩΣ”? – The Dinos Painter’s bell krater in Gela once again ................................................................................. 275

Anastasia Georgiadou„Elische“ Lekythen aus der Nekropole von Lithovouni in Aitolien – Aspekte der Datierung und Lokalisierung der Gattung ........................................................................ 283

Florian S. Knauß„Medismos“ in Kolchis ............................................................................................................................... 291

Frauke GutschkeEin griechischer Musterschüler im Robertinum – Zu einem Knabentypus der Koroplastik am Beispiel einer Terrakotte des Archäologischen Museums der Universität Halle ....................... 307

Ulrich ManiaBeinschnitzereien aus Pergamon ............................................................................................................... 315

Horst SeilheimerAnmerkungen zu Funktion, Typologie und Herstellungstechnik der Diatretgläser ........................ 325

Band II

NumismatikTimo Stingl

Äginetische Elektronprägungen? – Zwei Schildkröten auf Münzen aus dem Tresor des Münzkabinetts der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin ............................................... 337

Mando OeconomidèsLes monnaies de Samos de la Collection Grégoire Empédoclès ........................................................... 341

Aliki MoustakaBendis in Thessalien – Zu zwei Varianten eines Münztypus der Stadt Phaloreia ............................. 345

Stella DreniThe Hoard IGCH 137 (Megara 1904) ........................................................................................................ 351

Koray KonukThe Coinage of Hyssaldomos, Dynast of Mylasa .................................................................................... 357

Dorothea MauermannEine prägende Persönlichkeit .................................................................................................................... 365

Brinna OttoAthena und die Kreuzfackel – Zwei Bronzemünzen aus dem Demeter-Heiligtum von Herakleia in Lukanien ................................................................................................................................................... 373

Kult und Kultpraxis Andreas Mehnert

Heraion von Samos: Das Wasserbassin an der Südhalle ........................................................................ 383

Anton Bammer und Ulrike MussDeponien im Artemision von Ephesos ..................................................................................................... 391

Maximilian LubosWeihungen griechischer Söldner in Didyma .......................................................................................... 405

Ulf WeberSonnenaufgang und -untergang am Nemrud Dağı – Der Herrscherkult Antiochos I. von Kommagene und die Sonne ............................................................................................................... 415

Jacques MorinMythmaking and Acculturation in the South Caucasus – Artemis and Apollo at Ats’quri ............ 423

Manfred OppermannDenkmäler des Hekatekultes im Ostbalkanraum ................................................................................... 433

Marcus NenningerZeugnisse der Heraklesverehrung in Moesia Inferior ............................................................................ 443

Piotr O. ScholzDionysos in Meroë ....................................................................................................................................... 453

Archäologische und historische FeldforschungPeter F. Biehl und Eva Rosenstock

Von Çatalhöyük Ost nach Çatalhöyük West – Kulturelle Umbrüche an der Schwelle vom 7. zum 6. Jt. v. Chr. in Zentralanatolien ............................................................... 471

Jochen FornasierZum Beginn der griechischen Kolonisation im nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen historisch-archäologischer Forschungen ................................................ 483

Bilge HürmüzlüRemarks on Cultural Interactions in the Earlier Periods of Northwest Pisidia .................................. 493

Elif KoparalBorder Forts of Klazomenai: Cinderesi Fortification .............................................................................. 501

Andreas MehlEin zyprischer Stadtkönig hilft vertriebenen Samiern bei ihrer Rückkehr in die Heimat ................ 509

Coşkun ÖzgünelEine römische Thermenanlage am Smintheion ....................................................................................... 515

Ioannis M. AkamatisThe Pella archaeological Site Development Project and the latest archaeological Findings ............ 521

Hans-Georg StephanTöpferei, Kugeltopfherstellung, Keramikvertrieb und Haushaltsgeschirr in Sri Lanka – Vergleichende Betrachtungen zu archäologischen Befunden des frühen bis hohen Mittelalters in Südasien und Deutschland .................................................................................................................... 531

H. Dieter MorcheLicht und Schatten in der archäologischen Fotografie ............................................................................ 541

Antikenrezeption Angela Berthold

Die Verwendung antiker Namen als Signaturen auf neuzeitlichen Gemmen und ihre Quellen .... 549

Wolf-R. MegowZum antiken Schmuck der ‚Trapezplatte‘ am Kölner Dreikönigenschrein ......................................... 557

Matthias KolbeNur eine Metapher? – Tetimími, oder: Wo badete die große Badende? .............................................. 567

Thomas KleinVom Exempel zur Novelle – Der mittellateinische ‘Filo’ in der Stofftradition (mit Editio critica und Kommentar) .......................................................................................................... 577

Michael WiemersDürer, Xenophon und die Disziplin der Augen – Zur Bedeutung einer Melanchthon-Anekdote ........................................................................................ 609

Olaf PetersFrancisco Goya und die Antike ................................................................................................................. 623

Dieter SalzmannTheodosius oder Nero: Wen kümmert ’s? ............................................................................................... 631

Michael MaaßWie betreiben wir Archäologie? ................................................................................................................ 635

Minotaur, Apsyrtos or Androgeos, the “ΚΑΤΑ ΠΡΥΜΝΑΝ ΗΡΩΣ”?

The Dinos Painter’s bell krater in Gela once again1

by Michalis Tiverios

believe that Jason is the protagonist; others The­seus. The most detailed and at the same time the most recent studies are those by J. Oakley and H. A. Shapiro. The former stands with those who see in the scene the Argonauts�; while the latter sides with those who associate it with Theseus�.

The interpretation of this scene will also be the subject of our contribution to the present volume, a dedication to Andreas Furtwängler, who has been a perceptive scholar of classical archaeology. By offering new identifications, by drawing atten­tion to certain iconographic details and by stress­ing ancient written sources, we hope to come to a better understanding of this interesting composi­tion of the Dinos Painter�. We would like to begin with two general observations. In this composi­tion, weapons play no role and this is somewhat difficult to justify in a scene that is thought to re­

� Oakley 2007. The first to tie the representation with the Ar­gonaut cycle are A. D. Trendall – A. Cambitoglou, The Red Figured Vases of Apulia 1, Early and Middle Apulian (Ox­ford 1978) 37. The following authors have also connected the scene with the Argonauts: King 1983, 38�–387; LIMC V (1990) �31 no. 11, �37 s. v. Iason (J. Neils). Cf. Siciliano 2003, 71. 73. 81. 92 and K. Papaioannou, L’art grec ²(Paris 1993) 221 fig. 121 (detail).

� Shapiro 200�. Vojatzi 1982, 1�9 f. n. 2�8, is the first to iden­tify the representation with the trip of Theseus to Crete. Of the same opinion are Ε. Simon, Rev. οf C. Sourvinou-In­wood, Theseus as Son and Stepson, in: CR 31, 1981, ��–�� and Sourvinou­Inwood 1997, 2�7 no. 38. 2�8.

� I will not carry out a detailed description of the figures, since they have been clearly and completely described by Shapiro and particularly by Oakley.

1 Among the red­figure Attic vase paintings of the second half of the �th century B.C. with mytho­logical presentations of ambiguous interpreta­tion, there are those that some scholars place with the Argonauts, while others prefer to place with Theseus2. This divergence is owed to the presence of a ship, which could belong to either of the two mythological cycles, as could the representation of one of the protagonists. This latter figure is Medea, the “eastern” witch who fell desperately in love with Jason, the leader of the Argonauts, and because of him deserted her country and her family. The same figure, however, is also tied to Theseus. When Medea was kicked out of Corinth after the appalling act of killing her children, she found refuge in Athens, where she married Ae­geus, the mortal father of Theseus. Both the ship and Medea are seen on the obverse of a large red­figure bell­krater that dates to �20/10 B.C. and is attributable to the Dinos Painter (pl. 1, 1–�. 2, 1–3)3. Although this painting has become known only relatively recently, it has already been given scholarly attention that has split inter­pretation into two groups, about which we have spoken and will continue to speak below. Some

� I thank E. Langridge­Noti for the translation of the Greek text into English, and especially V. Saripanidi for proof­reading it and G. Guidice for the photographs.

� See for example Shefton 19��, 1�0 n. 12; 1�1 n. 20.

� It is in the Archaeological Museum at Gela (there is no in­ventory number and I do not know of its precise dimen­sions). see G. Giudice, Il tornio, la nave, le terre lontane. Ceramo grafi attici in Magna Grecia nella seconda metà del V sec. A.C. rotte e vie di distribuzione, Roma 2007, 1�3 (Cat. 2�1).

27� Michalis Tiverios

present the Argonauts on enemy territory7. Nor can the clear difference in size between the figures of the supposed Argonauts and the local king Aietes be happily justified. On the other hand, if we see the composition as sixteen year old The­seus with his young companions readying for the trip to Crete, under the eye of old Aegeus, the above details fit well (pl. 1, 1).

The central, dominating presence of the whole scene is the figure of the goddess Athena (pl. 1, 2). As is known, the goddess participated in both epic cycles with which this vase has been associ­ated. It is much more probable, however, that the white­haired, sceptre­bearing king who conver­ses with her is the Athenian Aegeus8 (pl. 1, 3) and not the “eastern” Aietes, King of Colchis9. The minor role of Athena in the episode with Aietes does not justify the central role of this conversa­tion in the composition. This is more likely a dia­logue between Aegeus and the patron goddess of his city; a dialogue about the luck of Aegeus’ only son and the future succession to his throne. Thus, I believe that Attica, and not Colchis, is the coun­try referred to in the scene represented here10. If we accept that the seated figure is Aegeus, then it is obligatory to see Medea in the “easterner” who stands behind him (pl. 2, 1)11. The characteristic

� Only one figure carries a sword and holds in his left hand two spears without using them (pl. 2, 2). For the sword, see below.

� All those who connect the scene with Theseus, identify this figure as Aegeus (see above n. �) except Shapiro 200�, 230–232. He, believing that the scene shows the return of Theseus from Crete, identifies this figure with Minos, and the queen in eastern dress who accompanies him with Pasiphaë. These identifications were clearly based on his recognition in the scene of the figure of the Minotaur, an identification that is highly unlikely, see below. Further­more, the arguments that Shapiro developed to justify the eastern dress of the presumed Pasiphae are not strong. I believe that the possibility that Minos is shown here is very limited.

� If this figure was meant to be Aietes (see for example Oakley 2007, 3�2. 3��), then one would expect him to be dressed in eastern costume, just like his alleged queen. This is another piece of evidence that weakens the possibility of the identification of the figure with the king of Colchis.

�0 Perhaps such an opinion can be strengthened by the prob­able appearance of olive branches framing the picture (pl. 1, 1). Oakley 2007, 3�0 does not follow up on the iden­tification of these branches. He writes that “the branches above him (Aietes) may refer to the tree on which the Golden Fleece had been hung” (Oakley 2007, 355).

�� All scholars that recognize in this work of the Dinos Pain­ter a scene related to Theseus, identify this figure as Medea (see above n. �), except Shapiro 200�. King 1983, 38� n. 17,

gesture of her right hand, bent at the elbow and supporting her chin, favors this identification. It is a known motif that, among other things, indi­cates scheming, worry, skepticism, sadness and abashment12. All these elements point to Medea. She was Aegeus’ wife when Theseus arrived in Athens and, indeed, she had also planned The­seus’ destruction. Her plans were revealed and, as a witch, she knew that it would no longer be possible for her to remain in Athens. Aegeus, Medea and Athena are shown in a similar fashion also on other contemporary Attic vases. On some of them a standing Athena speaks with a seated Aegeus, behind whom is found a standing “east­ern” Medea (pl. 2, 5)13. Such parallels, as opposed to the lack of contemporary representations of Medea (or Idyia) and Athena with Aietes, seem to further support our identifications.

Scholars who understand this scene as related to Theseus, see him as the youthful figure behind Athena who moves to the left but turns his head back to where the goddess speaks with his father (pl. 2, 2)1�. As the position of his right leg demon­strates he is readying to go up the ladder that stands before him and leads to the deck of the ship of which the stern, crowned with a wreath and a ribbon, is represented, as are the two rud­ders (pl. 1, �). A young woman, already on the ship, has her two hands on the ladder, presum­ably in order to steady it for Theseus. Clearly this must be the ship in which the seven young men and seven young women, whom the Athe­nians were obligated to send to Crete as “tribute” to Minos, will travel to Crete. Theseus obviously represents the male members of this abhorrent

LIMC V (1990) �31 no. 11 s. v. Iason (J. Neils) and Sicilia­no 2003, 81. 92, also identify the figure as Medea. However, they associate the representation with the Argonaut cycle. Oakley 2007, 3��, identifies this Easterner with the wife of Aietes, Idyia, unknown otherwise in the iconographic tradition.

�� For an extensive discussion on this motif and its meanings, see G. Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden (Berlin 19��) espe­cially 11�–118. 123–138.

�� For another similar scene, see G. d’Henry, La presenza atti­ca nella Valle Caudina, Ostraca �, 1997, �23 fig. 20. Indeed, the presence of Medea in eastern dress on Attic vase­pain­ting of the end of the �th century B.C. and the beginning of the �th century B.C. is particularly perceptible. See Shef­ton 19�9, 1�9–1�3 and especially 1�1–1�3, and Shapiro 200�, 230. For Medea’s oriental costume, see Sourvinou­Inwood 1997, 281–287.

�� See above n. �. All scholars who group this scene with the Argonauts, identify the figure with Jason, see above n. �.

277Minotaur, Apsyrtos or Androgeos, the “ΚΑΤΑ ΠΡΥΜΝΑΝ ΗΡΩΣ”?

“tribute”, while the young woman represents the female1�. If this is the case, then the young wom­an should be special too and, no doubt, Eriboia, the daughter of the king of Megara, Alkathoos, would have been such a woman. Written sources want her not only to have accompanied Theseus to Crete and for Minos to have fallen in love with her, but also for her to have become the wife of Theseus himself1�. I note here that the presence of a young Megarian woman among the candidate victims who were sent yearly to the Minotaur is, as we will see below, to be expected17. In a very persuasive manner, Shapiro justifies the presence of the wreath and the ribbon on the stern of the ship, which, according to tradition, survived into the historical period and was even identified with contemporary Athenian ships18.

Perhaps the key to a full understanding of the whole presentation is the male figure who is par­tially preserved on the bottom left side of the composition (pl. 2, 3–�). A. Shapiro was the first to occupy himself systematically with this figure, whom he understood as dead and thus identified with the Minotaur19. The first part of his interpre­tation must be correct; not, however, the second. As J. Oakley correctly observed, what is shown here is the dead body of a human being and not of a monstrous figure20. With a base in Oakley’s

�� Thus already Vojatzi 1982, 1�9 f. n. 2�8. Some scholars iden­tify this figure wrongly as male; for this, see Shapiro 200�, 230 and n. 8, and Oakley 2007, 3�8.

�� For Eriboia, who is also known by other names, such as Periboia, see Berger 19�8, with all the relevant bibliogra­phy. Cf. LIMC ΙΙΙ (1986) s. v. Eriboia, 819–821 (G. Berger-Doer) and F. Jacoby, FGrHist III B, 334 F 10˙ III b (Supple­ment), I, �3� (33� F 10) and II, �11 f. (33� F 10, no. 1–2). Eriboia appears to have had a role also in Sophocles’ “The­seus”, see A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen (Göttingen 1972) 2�1. Oakley 2007, 3�� identifies the figure with Medea. However, it is somewhat difficult to have an “Easterner” in a scene alleged to be the Argonauts and not to identify her as Medea. For Medea in Greek dress, see Brommer 1979, �0� f. Shapiro 200�, 230, identifies the figure with Ariadne, since he believes that the scene also shows Minos, Pasiphae and the Minotaur. Such identifica­tions are, however very unlikely as we have seen above and will see below. Vojatzi 1982, 1�9 f. n. 2�8 leaves this figure unidentified and speaks of one “von den athenisch­en Mädchen”. Cf. Ε. Simon, Rev. οf C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Theseus as Son and Stepson in: CR 31, 1981, ��.

�� Paus. 1, �2, 2 believes this to be proof that Megara was con­trolled by Athens at this date.

�� See Shapiro 200�, 23�–238. Cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist III b Suppl. 2, 3�8 (328 F 111 no. 13).

�� Shapiro 200�, 231 f.

�0 See Oakley 2007, 3�2–3��.

observations and the identifications that we have followed or suggested above, I believe that in this figure we must see the dead Androgeos, the son of Minos21. His murder in Attica, in which Athe­nians, including Aegeus himself, and Megarians took part, was, as is known, the cause of Minos’ invasion first of Megara and then of Athens, as he sought revenge. The outcome of this Minoan campaign was the Athenians’ obligation to send fourteen young people to Crete each year. The­seus freed the Athenians from this hated tax with his trip to Crete, for which he readies on the Gela krater (pl. 1, 1)22.

Not a single scene of the murder of Androgeos is preserved, nor even a simple representation of the hero. Thanks to later sources, however, and more precisely thanks to Virgil (Aen. �, 20), we know that Androgeos’ death was the subject of a representation that decorated the bronze door leaves of the temple of Apollo in Kyme in Magna Graecia23. The Roman poet gives us no informa­tion about this composition, except that it was the work of skillful Daedalus. It is probably by chance that to the present we know of no certain depiction of Androgeos in Attic art, inasmuch as this hero had a perceptible presence in Attica2�. At least until the time of Pausanias (1, 1, �), there was an altar in his honor in Phaleron2�. In addition, la­

�� Oakley 2007, 3�� f. believing that the Dinos Painter’s repre­sentation is related to the Argonauts, identifies this figure with Apsyrtos, Medea’s half­brother. Apsyrtos was horri­bly killed by the Argonauts and Medea, in their attempt to flee Aietes’ pursuit. For this mythological episode, see J. Bremer, Why did Medea kill her brother Apsyrtus?, in: J. J. Clauss – S. I. Johnston (eds.), Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy and Art (Princeton 1997) 83–100. For some reservations about Oakley’s identifica­tion of the figure with Apsyrtos, see J. J. Maffre, REG 121, 2008, 2�0 no. �70.

�� For Androgeos and his death, see RE I, 2, s. v. Andro­geos, 21�3–1�� (J. Toepffer), ML I 1, s. v. Androgeos, 3�2 f. (W. H. Roscher). see also the comments of Frazer 1921, 11� f. n. 1, where he notes the most important ancient written sources. Cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist III B, 330 F 2˙ III b Suppl. 1, ��0 (328 F 111), �03–�0� (330 F 2) and II, 3�� (328 F 111, nos. �. �), �92–�9� (330 F 2).

�� See LIMC I (1981) 7�� f. s. v. Androgeos (G.­P. Woimant). The reason why such a theme was chosen to decorate the temple of Apollo is not known. For the relationship of An­drogeos with a festival of Apollo, see below.

�� For possible representations of Androgeos, see below, n. 31.

�� This altar was called in Pausanias’ time, “the altar of the hero”, but the periegete notes (Paus. 1, 1, 4) “those, how-ever, who pay special attention to the study of their coun­try’s antiquities know that it belongs to Androgeos”. Cf.

278 Michalis Tiverios

ter sources inform us that he was also worshipped as “kata& pru/mnan h3rwj” (“hero at the stern”)2�. That this last citation seems to relay the placement of the figure in the Dinos Painter’s composition, immediately below the stern of Theseus’ ship, must be more than a mere coincidence (pl. 2, 3)! Moreover, a race had been put into place in his honor at his gravesite in the Kerameikos27 and ac­cording to Helladios (Phot. Bibl. c 279 [p. �3� B]), the Athenians, in order to rid their city of the pol­lution from Androgeos’ unjust death, pilloried and killed two “pharmakoi” (scapegoats) during the Thargelia, the great festival to Apollo, an act which was subsequently incorporated into the program of the annual festival28.

Androgeos had come to Athens to participate in the Panathenaic games, where he defeated all his opponents, some of Megarian origin. Out of jeal­ousy, they set up an ambush and killed him. Some written sources implicate Aegeus himself in the murder. According to other sources, Androgeos was killed by the fire­breathing Marathonian bull, during his attempt to tame the dreadful animal29. This extremely dangerous task had been assigned to him by Aegeus, when the latter was informed that Androgeos, during his stay in Athens, had come into contact with the Pallantidai who cove­ted Aegeus’ throne30.

Pausanias, Description of Greece I, transl. by W. H. S. Jones, The Loeb Classical Library (London 19�9) 7.

�� Clement of Alexandria, Protreptiko&j (The exhortation to the Greeks) 2, 3�, The Loeb Classical Library (London 1919). Cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist III b Suppl. 1, ��0 (328 F 111), �0� f. (330 F 2) and 2, 3�� (328 F 111, nos. 3–�), �9� (330 F 2, nos. 13–1�).

�� Here Androgeos was honored with the name Eurygyes, see Deubner 19�9, 231 and n. 3. Cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist III B, 330 F 2˙ III b Suppl. 1, 603–606 (330 F 2) and 2, 492–495 (330 F 2).

�� Deubner 19�9, 181. Some scholars believe that Androgeos was originally a god, whose worship was introduced to Athens from Crete and thus gained a central role in the Thargelia. This opinion is not generally shared, see Deub­ner 19�9, 181 n. 3.

�� This is the Knossian bull that Herakles had tamed in the past and brought to the Argolid. From there, passing the Isthmus at Corinth, the bull ended up at Marathon. His victims were numerous, among them Androgeos, until he was finally tamed by Theseus. This bull had been sent to Crete by Poseidon to punish Minos, who although he ruled the seas, did not offer Poseidon the appropriate honors. see for example Paus. 1, 27, 9 f. Subsequently, Androgeos’ death could be seen as further punishment for Minos by Poseidon.

�0 For Androgeos, see above n. 22.

No matter where and how Androgeos was killed, all sources agree that his death was the reason that the Athenians were required to send fourteen young people to Crete every year. It should be noted that Medea had planned a simi­lar death for Theseus. The latter had just come to Athens and since she wanted to get him out of the way before he would be recognized by his father, she slandered him as a usurping candidate to the throne. Thus, she persuaded Aegeus to send the dangerous newcomer to tame the man­slay­ing Marathonian bull, in the hopes of his certain death31.

If we return to the vase, the young man who is found above Theseus is the only figure of the composition that has not been given our attention up to now (pl. 2, 2). He shows some close similar­ities to Theseus, as also to the young woman who is already on the ship, and he is thought to be one of the young men who travelled to Crete32. It is worth noticing that this figure does not move to­wards the ship, as does Theseus, but in the oppo­site direction and his lower body is hidden behind a single groundline. This type of figure, male or female, is known from other contemporary Attic vase­paintings and is sometimes identified with personifications of place, or with eponymous he­roes or nymphs33. Having in mind all the above, I suggest that we identify this figure as Phaleros, who aside from being the eponymous hero of the ancient harbor of the Athenians, from where Theseus began his journey to Crete, was also his

�� See for example Αpollodorus, Epitome I. 5. see Frazer 1921, 13� n. 1. On Attic vase­paintings of the end of the �th cen­tury B.C. and the beginning of the �th century B.C. that show Theseus and the Marathonian bull, there is another “hunter” shown aside from Theseus himself. Could it be Androgeos? For these representations, see above n. 13. Add the main scene on the bell­krater in Athens, Nat. Mus. No. 1�3� (CC 1931) from Hermione. For a description of this representation, see Shefton 19��, 1�3.

�� See, for example, Shapiro 200�, 237 f. A common element on all three youthful figures is the white headband (pl. 1, 1. �; pl. 2, 2–3). It appears to be an iconographic element that ties these figures together meaningfully. The dead Andro­geos does not wear this headband (pl. 2, 3–�). Those who identify the scene as part of the Argonautika, identify the figure with an Argonaut (see Oakley 2007, 3��).

�� See for example the female figure that appears behind the groundline on the Painter of Munich 233�’s bell­krater in Madrid, Μuseo Arqueológico Nacional no. red 217, that has been identified as a “local nymph of Marathon”. See Shefton 19��, 1�1 f., pl. �0 figs. 2–3. Cf. Brommer 1979, �0�. Aegeus and the “eastern” Medea are certainly represented on this vase.

279Minotaur, Apsyrtos or Androgeos, the “ΚΑΤΑ ΠΡΥΜΝΑΝ ΗΡΩΣ”?

companion and co­competitor3�. In Phaleron, as we have already seen, there was an altar of An­drogeos, of the “kata& pru&mnan h3rwj”, the figure of whom we identified with the dead body of the youth who lies under the stern of Theseus’ ship (pl. 2, 3–�).

Despite the lack of agreement among written sources with respect to the chronological sequence of the episodes of Theseus’ life with which we have concerned ourselves until now3�, everyone agrees that when Theseus began his trip to Crete, Medea, together with Medos, her son by Aegeus, had al­ready left Attica. Consequently, Medea could not have been present at Theseus’ departure to Crete. She is, however, visible on the Gela krater. It is well known though that in vase­paintings, and more generally in artistic creations, it is possible to have an “illogical” passing of time and place of the episodes represented. An artistic creation can place side­by­side figures that never coexisted3� or episodes that might be interrelated, but are known to have occurred in different moments and sometimes even in different places37. This is due

�� For Phaleros and his iconography, see LIMC VII (199�) 3�1 f. s. v. Phaleros (A. Kauffmann­Samaras). For the meaning of Phaleron in the Theseus myths, see Ε. Simon, Τheseus and Athenian Festivals, in: J. Neils (ed.), Worship­ping Athena. Panathenaia and Parthenon (Madison 199�) 12. For a representation of Phaleros together with the sons of Theseus, see E. Simon, The Kurashiki Ninagawa Muse­um (Mainz 1982) 9�–99.

�� There are, for instance, more than one versions of when Theseus’ recognition by his father took place, see for ex­ample Shefton 19��, 1�0.

�� Of the many examples that could be cited, I bring up only two in relationship to the figures on the Gela krater. On the representation that decorates the outside of a kylix by the Kodros Painter in Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico no. PU 273, Aegeus, Theseus, Medea, Phorbas and Aithra are shown (see Ch. Servadei, La figura di Theseus nella ceramica attica [Bologna 200�] �2 f. fig. 22). The two fe­male figures of this composition must never have met, see Ch. Sourvinou­Inwood, The cup Bologna PU 273: a read­ing, Métis �, 1990, 137–1�3. Another Dinos Painter repre­sentation on a bell­krater in New York, Met. Mus. No. ��. 79, is also typical of this phenomenon. Here Theseus is shown with Tydeus, Aktaion and Kastor. The logical coex­istence of all these figures is impossible, see Ch. Servadei, La figura di Theseus nella ceramica attica (Bologna 200�) 182, fig. 79.

�� I provide again two related examples. The approximately contemporary krater by the Cadmus Painter from Cama­rina, in the Syracuse Museum, shows on the left of one side the first meeting of Dionysos and Ariadne and to the right Theseus and his departure from the island of Naxos. See Shapiro 200�, 232–238 with figs. 13. 1�. Also typical is the representation that decorates the lowest zone of the Mei­dias Painter’s well­known hydria in London, British Mu­

to artists frequently desiring to display in their work as much information as possible and to phrase it in a symbolic fashion38.

Still, we should not completely rule out the pos­sibility that there was also a tradition in which Theseus’ recognition by his father took place during the preparations for the trip to Crete39. It is not so much the presence of Medea in the Di­nos Painter’s representation that makes us sus­pect this, as the sword that hangs across Theseus’ frontal chest, which is known to have been the most important of the signs that led to his recog­nition by his father�0. Furthermore, the fact that all figures in the composition, that is Theseus, Phale­ros, Eriboia, and Medea, turn their heads towards Aegeus and Athena, seems to be consonant with a possible allusion to Theseus’ recognition (pl. 1, 1).

Mata Vojatzi, the first to associate the main scene on the Gela krater with the Theseus cycle, was right to see the Dinos Painter’s composition as a reflection of a major painting�1. The abbrevi­ated boat in the upper left corner of the presen­tation (pl. 1, �), corroborates this idea�2, as do the placement of figures on different levels (pl. 1, 1)�3, the figure of Phaleros who appears behind a sepa­rate piece of groundline (pl. 2, 2), and the defin­ing of space by means of leaf­bearing branches (pl. 1, 1). It is certainly possible that the creator of that composition had in turn been influenced by contemporary theatrical works and indeed by those in which Theseus and Aegeus held a promi­nent position. From some of these works, frag­ments have survived; from others we have only

seum no. Ε 224 (see L. Burn, The Meidias Painter [Oxford 1987] 1�–2�, pls. 3. 7 b. 8. 9). Here we have Herakles in the garden of the Hesperides in the presence of many figures, among them Medea, see Sourvinou­Inwood 1997, 27�–278.

�� see Sourvinou­Inwood 1997, 2�8.

�� Sourvinou­Inwood 1997, 2�7 n. 38. 2�8 did not accept this possibility. I reiterate here that there is not unanimous agreement as to when Theseus’ recognition by his father took place, see above n. 3�.

�0 See for example Αpollod. 1, 5 f. As we have said above, (see n. 7), this sword is almost the only weapon shown in the scene.

�� Vojatzi 1982, 1�9 f. n. 2�8.

�� See Shapiro 200�, 23�.

�� Athena’s figure seems to be standing on a lower level from that of Aegeus and Medea and on a higher one than The­seus. It is probable that Androgeos’ body (or part of his body) was also given on a separate groundline (pl. 1, 1).

280 Michalis Tiverios

the title��. The exact play which might have been the source of inspiration for the vase­painter re­mains, of course, unknown, but if our hypothesis is correct, then the presence of Androgeos in the scene might also reflect his presence, even if indi­rect, in the theatrical play��.

In order to sum up briefly, we believe that the prominent presence of Athena, who is convers­ing with Aegeus, on the Gela krater announces the auspicious outcome of Theseus’ journey to Crete, the preparation for which is shown on the left side of the composition (pl. 1, 1). Moreover, it implies that the goddess is going to protect The­seus from intrigues, like those of the adjacent Medea��, and that she is going to help him win the Athenian throne as the lawful heir of Aegeus. Finally, the dead Androgeos, who lies under the stern of Theseus’ ship (pl. 1, 1; 2, 3), alludes to the cause of the deadly tax imposed to the Athenians by his father, Minos, and, at the same time, to the aetiology of his worship as “kata& pru&mnan h3rwj” (“hero at the stern”).

List of AbbreviationsBerger 19�8

E. Berger, Zur Deutung einer neuen Schale des Ko­drosmalers, AntK 11, 19�8, 12�–13�

Brommer 1979F. Brommer, Theseus­Deutungen, AA 1979, �87–�11

�� See Shapiro 2004, 237 f. Euripides’ “Medea” survives, but there were also works entitled “Cretans”, “Aegeus”, “The­seus” by the same author, as well as a “Theseus” (and prob­ably an “Aegeus”) by Sophocles (cf. above n. 16), a “The­seus” by Achaios and also one by Herakleides. D. F. Sutton, Euripides’ Theseus, Hermes 10�, 1978, �9–�3 postulates that Euripides’ “Theseus” was a satyr play and not a trag­edy. Cf. D. F. Sutton, Lost plays about Theseus: two notes, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 128, 198�, 3�8–3�0. For these works, see also F. Jouan – H. van Looy, Euripide VIII 2, Fragments (Paris 2000) 1�� ff. (Thésée), 303 ff. (Les Crétois). H. Lloyd­Jones, Sophocles 3 ²(Cambridge/Mass. 2003) 18–23 (Aegeus), 10� (Theseus). D. Sutton, The Lost Sophocles (Lanham 198�) � f. (Aegeus), 1�1 ff. (Theseus).

�� At some part of the play, for instance, Androgeos and his death might be referred to by the chorus.

�� For a detailed analysis of the reception of the hostility between Theseus and Medea in fifth­century Athens, see Ch. Sourvinou­Inwood, Myths in Images: Theseus and Medea as a Case Study, in: L. Edmunds (ed.), Approaches to Greek Myth ²(Baltimore 1991) 39�–��� and especially �09–���.

Deubner 19�9L. Deubner, Attische Feste ²(Reinheim 19�9)

Frazer 1921J. G. Frazer, Apollodorus The Library, The Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 2, (London 1921)

King 1983C. King, Who is That Cloaked Man? Observations on Early Fifth Century B.C. Pictures of the Golden Fleece, AJA 87, 1983, 38�–387

Oakley 2007J. Oakley, The Departure of the Argonauts on the Di­nos Painter’s bell krater in Gela, Hesperia 7�, 2007, 3�7–3�7

Shapiro 200�H. A. Shapiro, Theseus and Ariadne on Crete: The Dinos Painter’s krater from Gela, in: R. Panvini and F. Giudice (ed.), TA ΑTTIKA: Veder Greco a Gela. Ceramiche attiche figurate dall’ antica colonia (Roma 200�) 229–238

Shefton 19��Β. B. Shefton, Medea at Marathon, AJA 60, 1956, 1�9–1�3

Siciliano 2003G. Siciliano, Racconti di dei ed eroi nella pittura vas­colare attica: Un percorso didattico tra parola e im­magine (Milazzo 2003)

Sourvinou­Inwood 1997C. Sourvinou­Inwood, Medea at a Shifting Distance. Images and Euripidean Tragedy, in: J. J. Clauss – S. I. Johnston (ed.), Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy, and Art (Princeton 1997) 2�3–29�

Vojatzi 1982Μ. Vojatzi, Frühe Argonautenbilder (Würzburg 1982)

Illustration CreditsPl. 1, 1–4; 2, 1–3: photos G. Giudice — pl. 2, 4: from J. Oakley, Hesperia 7�, 2007, 3�� fig. 9 — pl. 2, 5: from CVA Schloss Fasanerie, Adolphseck (1), pl. �0, 1.

AddressProf. Dr. Michalis TiveriosArtistotle University of ThessalonikiPhilosophical SchoolDepartment of Archaeology��00� Thessaloniki/Greecetiv@hist.auth.gr

Plate 1  1–4: Attic red-figure bell-krater by the Dinos Painter, Gela, Museo Archeologico (2: Athena — 3: Athena speaking to Aigeus — 4: Eriboia?).

1

42

3

281Minotaur, Apsyrtos or Androgeos, the “ΚΑΤΑ ΠΡΥΜΝΑΝ ΗΡΩΣ”?

282 Michalis Tiverios

Plate 2  1–4: Attic red-figure bell-krater by the Dinos Painter. Gela, Museo Archeologico (1: Medea — 2: Theseus (below) and Phaleros? (above) — 3: Androgeos (below left) — 4: Androgeos, possible reconstruction of the figure after J. Oakley) — 5: Attic red-figure kalyx krater by the Kekrops Painter, Adolphseck, Schloss Fasanerie inv. 78.

1 2

3

4 5