Αη Offirint jτοm

GREEK OFFERINGSEssays οη Greek Art ßη honour of JοΙιη Boardman

Ediτed by

Olga Palagia

Oxbo,w Monogτaph 8θ, 1997

|º . Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes

OIga Palagia

Οηε of the most intriguing bronze finds of the last

half century is the cache of large bronzes and smallmarbles that came to light ßη the main port of Piraeus

ßη the summer of 1959.' It ιvas α rescue excavation

that developed into α treasure trove: α number ofspectacular statues òαmε to light ßη α small room

measuring 5.'70 χ2.30 m, ,σrhich \vas presumably part

of α warehouse ßη the ancient port.2 The sculptures

consist of bronze statues of Athena (Figs. 13-Ι4),ΑροΙΙο (Figs, 6-8 and 10), tτvo of Artemis (Figs. 18-20), α bronze mask (Fig. 22) αηd bronze shield frag-

ments, some preserving traces of α chariot ßη relief,as τνεΙΙ as α pair of marble herms (Figs. 4-5) and α

marble goddess of Anatolian origin (Fig. 3). As far

as can be made out from the excavation photographs,

they ιvere packed ßη crates for shipment ,when they

were overtaken by α fire that destroyed the buildingand buried ihem under carbonised wood and tiles.

Athena rvas packed along vvith the Little Artemis:

they were lying οη their sides ßη each other's arms,

ιηιßth the mask placed inside Athena's skirt (Fig.l).Ιη another presumed crate the ΑροΙΙο Ιαγ οη his back,

topped by one of the marble herms (Fig. 2). Next to

him, her feet pointing at his head, Ιαγ the LargeArtemis ,σlith shield fragments at her feet (Fig. 2).

The fact that the statues \vere not retrieved after the

collapse of the vlarehouse suggests that the fire ιναspart of α universal catastrophe ßη ,σlhich the orvners

perished as ,στεΙl.

Βγ the feet of the ΑροΙΙο the excavators found αη

Athenian òοßη τηιßth Zeus οη the reverse, flanked by

Mithridates' stars-betvveen-crescents. As this cointype ,ý/αs issued ßη Athens under Aristion ßη 87/86,

it is good evidence that the building ιναs destroyedduring Sulla's sack of Piraeus ßη 86.3 During the warsrvaged by Mithridates νΙ of Pontos against Rome,Athens managed to join the rvrong side and vras

punished through fire and s,σrord.a Sulla not οηΙγ put

Fig, Ι, Athena with Little Artemis, as found ßη 1959.

Photo after Paraskevaidis fig. Ι4.

Ι,77

ι78 Olga Palagia

Fig, 2, ΑροΙΙο vvith one of the herms, as found ßη Ι959.Photo after Paraskevatrlis fig. 2,

the Piraeus port to the torch but also inflicted dam-age οη the city ιηιαΙΙs and οη various commercialbuildings ßη the Agora of Athens.s Μαηγ Atheniansperished during the sack and α severe and long-last-ing blow was dealt to the Athenian economy.

Even though the Piraeus bronzes were excayatedßη Ι959, they remain unpublished as α group. Theexcayator, J, Papadimitriou, died ßη Ι963, and theexcavation data perished with him. The sculpturesbecame αη awk,σ,lard archaeological problem ιvith-out αη excavation context. Ιnitial attempts to studythem collectively as α find were discouraged and thebronzes came gradually to be considered individu*αΙΙγ οη account of their disparate styles and dates.The most spectacular figures, Athena and ΑροΙΙο,virtually monopolised scholarly attention, However,

each one ofthese siatues presents α number ofprob-lems ιryhich cannot begin to find α solution unlessthey are αΙΙ considered together ßη their originalcontext.

Μγ intention is to highlight questions, pointing toα nev/ approach ßη the study of this important find.For, apart from being beautiful art works, the bronzesprovide important archaeological evidence for thefinal dramatic days before the fall of Athens. If theyhad perished at sea instead of οη land, they ιvouldhave been studied as the cargo of α shipwreck. Ιt is ßηthis light that Ι lvould like to consider them here. Theyshould join three other famous shipιvrecks of the firstcentury: those of Artemision, Antikythera and Mahdia.What their cargoes tell us is directly related to thePiraeus cache. The Artemision cargo included αbronze of the fifth century, the famous God from theSea, along ιryith α bronze of the late second century,the jockey and horse.6 The Antikythera ship \ryas car-rying α bronze of the fourth century, the famous Youth,along ιvith late Hellenistic bronzes and several mar-ble statues freshly made οη commission.7 The Mahdiaship was loaded mostly with ηειτ art vlorks, bothmarble and bronze, and some antiques, like α numberof fourth-century inscriptions and yotive reliefs.8Original decrees of classical Athens τηιετε collectablesßη the first century, as aitested by the surreptitiouscollection of decrees from the Metroon at Athensformed by Apellikon of Teos ßη 88.9

The mixed cargo of nerv and old artifacts alsoapplies to the Piraeus cache. The surface of the threemarble statues is ßη such pristine condition that theymay well haye been ne,wly carved.lo Aihena andΑροΙΙο carry traces of lead οη their undersides forattachment to bases which suggests that they rverenot new, Apollo's feet preserve their lead dowels,ι.ηιhßΙε Athena has α lead dorvel ßη α drapery foldadjacent to her right foot; α second doιvel, found nearher left foot, has since vanished,l1 Athena's left footis damaged, indicating that she had been wrenchedfrom her base. Ηοιν old τηιeτe the bronzes, we maynever κηοτrγ. Very little study has been made of theirbronze casting methods, and the metal alloys are notof themselves evidence enough to reach α conclu-sion.12 The alloys are simply consistent ινßth bronzesmade ßη Greece as opposed to Etruscan and Romanbronzes made ßη ltaly.'3 Ιη general, not enough sci-

entific analysis has been carried out οη Greekbronzes found ßη Greece. It ιτουΙd be interesting to

explore vlhether techniques carry over from the

Hellenistic period into the Roman, as seems to haveoften been the case with marble statuary.

It has been suggested that the casting of the dra-peries of the three female figures ßη separate sec-

tions indicates that portions of actual stiffenend clothhad been used as models.ιa Since the l970s there has

been α recurrent tendency to suggest that αΙΙ the

bronzes ιγετε more or less contemporary, whethercopies or new creations, cast shortly before the disas-

ter that befell them.'s The fact that αΙΙ held phialaihas been taken as αη indication that they rryere made

to α single order.Ι6 The historical circumstances ßηearly first-century Athens, hovιever, cast doubts οη

the assumed production of large-scale bronzes ßη αcity beset ,σlith political and financial troubles. TheΙαòΚ of independeni evidence for the date of each

one compels us to attempt to place the statues αò-

cording to style. ΟηΙγ the ΑροΙΙο contained α fevv

very small, nondescript black-glaze sherds, but theirsmall size and the fact that black-glaze pottery ,was

still produced ßη Attica ßη the first century ratherdiminish their yalue as daiing eyidence.17

Because the marble siatues are easier to date, τηιe

begin our survey with them. ΑΙΙ are of Pentelicmarble, ,,vhich is α possible indication of Attic mαηυ-

facture. The under life-size statue of αη OrienialArtemis (Fig, 3) was probably freshly made judgingby its mint condition. She recalls the types of both

Artemis Kindyas and Artemis Eleuthera as Κηοτ,νη

to us from coins. Artemis Kindyas was α goddess ofAnatolian origin ,σlhose cult, adapted by the Greeks,ι:vas situated at Kindya, near the Carian city ofBargylia.l8 The coins of Bargylia carry the type ofKindyas from the first century onrvard.19 Α similartype of goddess, Artemis Eleuthera, ,was rvorshipped

at Myra ßη Lycia: she first appears οη coins ofAntiochos ΙΙΙ ßη the early second century.20

The Piraeus statue is so far the οηΙγ sculpturalrepresentation of this type of goddess ßη existence.She rvears α chiton under αη ependytes covering herarms and hands. The ependytes is belted at the ιyaistand tied vlith cross-straps across her chest. Α me-

dallion is pinned at the centre of the straps. Thecross-straps rvith the medallion are characteristic of

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes Ιº9

Fig. 3. Artemis Kindyas or Eleuthera. Piraeus Museum3857. Photo after Ι,JυòΚεη 4.Beih. AntK (Ι967) pL α7.

ritual garb. They can be found, for example, οηKanephoroi of the fourth century2l and οη the Cary-atids of the Lesser Propylaia at Eleusis from thesecond half of the first century.2z The goddess isveiled and \I/ears α necklace.23 The style of the faceιvith the blurred feaiures, narTovr' eyes and thin ιvavedstrands of hair belongs to the late Hellenistic period.If the statuette represents Kindyas, it may draιry οηher ιvooden cult statue which stood ßη her sanctuarynear Bargylia,2a and was inyested with miraculouspowers: ancient tradition maintained that it rryas neverrained οη though placed ßη αη open-air shrine.2s

The herms also ΙοοΚ fresh (Figs. 4-5). Both be-long to α variant of the type commonly kno,wn as

ι80 Olga Palagia

:;, ]J

Fig.4 (left). Herm. Piraeus Museum 38)9.Photo after Ch.Panagos, Ο Πειραιεýò2 (Ι995) Ι38.

Fig. 5 (right). Herm. Piraòus Museum 3858.Photo after Ch.Panagos, Ο Πειραιεýò2 (1995) 139.

the Hermes Propylaios of Alkamenes, best repre-sented by αη example from Pergamon ßη Istanbu1.26

The Alkamenes type was created ßη the fifth centuryand reviyed ßη the late Hellenistic period. The Piraeusherms are identical ßη size and vary οηΙγ slightly fromone another ßη the rendering of the hair and beard:\ile are obviously dealing ,with α case of serial pro-duction. Their eyes ινετε originally inlaid, presum-ably ιπith glass or ivory, now lost. This could beinterpreted less as α sign of archaism and more as

standard practice of Attic ιvorkshops, which tendedto favour inlaid eyes ενεη for vvorks of'baroque'style like the Asklepios of Mounychia of the secondcentury.27 Herms of similar date and type producedat other sculptural centres like Delos,28 for example,do not οη the ιvhole have inlaid eyes.

ΑΙΙ three marbles of the Piraeus cache arearchaistic. Arohaism ,,vas indeed one of the strong-est trends current ßη Athenian rvorkshops of the lateHellenistic period. But they are not the οηΙγ sculp-tures of archaic appearance included ßη the cache.The oyer life-size bronze Kouros (Figs. 6-8 and Ι0)rvas immediately identified as ΑροΙΙο οη account ofthe remains of α boιv ßη his left hand, ιηιhßΙe his righthand held out α phiale, norry lost, He ,uvas hailed asthe earliest surviving monumental bronze of classi-cal antiquity, and tentatively dated to the last quar-ter of the sixth century.29 He stands frontal ,with feetplanted firmly οη the ground, shoulders and hipslevel, lvith archaic-looking head and chest. Ιf ryecompare him to α canonical kouros ofthe sixth cen-tury, hoιvever, we begin to realise that he departsfrom the norm οη several counts. His head is inclined(Fie. 7), his arms outstretched and the ηight, not theleft, foot is advanced. Even though the archaic cultstatue of ΑροΙΙο by Tektaios and Angelion οη Delosheld α borv,3o monumental statues pouring libationsare υηΚηοτγη ßη the archaic period.3l Τινο kouros-type Apollos pouring α libation are Κηοινη from thefirst century, hoιyever: the under life-size bronzeΑροΙΙο of Piombino,32 and the ΑροΙΙο reproduced οηα yotiye relieξ probably from Kyzikos, ßη Istanbul.33The tendency to reproduce archaic cult statues οηfirst-century reliefs is also attested by α relief οηDelos, ιηιheτe the ΑροΙΙο by Tektaios and Angelionhas been modernised, as vritness his realistic anatomyand sιvinging hips.3a

Apollo's discrepancies of style ιvere attributed toα putative adaptation ßη bronze of α marble cult statueof the mid sixth century.3s But other, mainly techni-òαΙ, problems remain, Although they have often beenpointed out,36 the main points may be summed υρhere. Το begin with, the eyes are cast ιηιßth the face,α practice common ßη the Roman period.37 The ear-liest surviving Greek monumental bronzes had ßη-laid eyes, beginning vvith the life-size head of αsphinx of the mid sixth century ßη Amsterdam.38 Α

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes ι8ι

Fig, 6, ΑροΙΙο, Piraeus Museum 4645. Photo Τ.Α.Ρ, Fig, 7. ΑροΙΙο. Piraeus Museum 4645. Photo Τ.Α,Ρ.

Fig, 8, ΑροΙΙο. Piraeus Museum 4645.Photo DAI Aτhens Ν.Μ. 5575.

ι82 Olga Palagia

Fig. 9. Sphirιx. Athens, Kerameikoò Museum Ρ Ι050,Photo DAI Athens Ker 580Ι.

late sixth-century head of Zeus from Olympia3g andthe early fifth-century Poseidon of Livadostra alsohad inlaid eyes.40 The half life-size clay moulds oftιιιο archaic heads vvith solid cast eyos from the Athe-ηßαη Agora are too small to be used for comparativepuφoses.4l Apollo's incised pupils imitate stone,workof the mid sixth century (Fig. 8), as exemplified bythe Kerameikos Sphinx (Fig. 9), and his hairstyle isαη adaptation of the same type of sphinx.a2 His hairlength and the fact that the hair locks touch the shoul-ders rather than falling straight dovvn the back areunique for α kouros ofthis date, for kouroi after thefirst quarter of the sixth century tend to have eitherlong locks dοιτη their backs or short hair.a3 The hairof the Piraeus Kouros comes closest to the Kera-meikos Sphinx and it may vrell be that his prototypewas ßη faot just such α sphinx, The fact that his hairis unfinished with the details never carved ßη coldιvork (Fig. 7) is even more reminiscent of α sphinx(Fig. 11), since the hair ofsphinxes tended to be left

Fig, Ι0. ΑροΙΙο. Piraeus Museum 4645,Phoτo DAI Λthens Ν.Μ, 5576.

uncarved οη the sides to be completed ßη paint, Theback of his hair (Fig. l0), οη the other hand, ismeticulously modelled ßη globules and seems to drarry

οη early sixth-century kouroi like Kleobis and Bitonof Delphi.aa Finally, his sideburns, modelled ratherthan painted (Fig. 7), are characteristic ofarchaisticcoiffures. Α good case ßη point is the ΑροΙΙο οη αηarchaistic relief from Piraeus shoιving the strugglefor the tripod, after αη Attic prototype of the secondceιιtury, possibly α tripod base.as

Although Apollo's torso reflects that of αη archaickouros, his extended muscular arms shovl opticalcorrections suggesting α later stage of development,closer to the classical period. His robust legs are notpossible before the Seyere Style. Compare the thighsof α Zeus at Olympia after α Severe Style prototypea6and the lower legs and feet of the ΑροΙΙο Choiseul-Gouffier,a7 The current dating òα. 475 τηιουΙd makethe ΑροΙΙο roughly contemporary ιvith the DelphiCharioteer. The tινο statues, horvever, haye almost

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes ι83

nothing ßη common.a8 It is note,σlorthy that with time,

the ΑροΙΙο is dated progressively later ßη the fifthcentury.ag This is probably due to technioal consid-erations, even though the thickness of 5 mm as meas-

ured οη his cracked thigh cannot at present be used

as αη indicator of date. Measurements of thicknessat several different points are required before αηγ

definite conclusions òαη be reached, because the

thickness ofbronze statues varies considerably.50 Ιηgeneral, thickness, like alloys, may range ηοt οηΙγaccording to date but also according to place ofmanufacture.5l

The ΑροΙΙο is ηο more than the sum of his parts,

and his parts are αη assemblage of various periods.His modern equivalent is the Getty Kouros, com-posed of disparate elements copied after kouroi rang-

ing from the early to the late sixth century.52 Like

Fig, Fig. 1Ι, Sphinx. Athens, Keromeikos MuseumΡ 1050. Photo Alison Frantz Collection,

American School of Classical Studies at Athens,

the Piraeus ΑροΙΙο, the Getty Kouros' head belongsto α style earlier than the body, The ΑροΙΙο ιvas prob-ably not designed to deceive, ho,σlever, but shouldbe attributed to the archaistic trend of Atheniansculpture. Α date ßη the second century is possible,s3for thai .σιαs α period rich ßη archaistic lvorks, notοηΙγ reliefs but also monumental statues like theArtemis of Mounychia ßη Pentelic marble.5a Thereis ηο place for Apollo's particular brand of archaismßη the middle years of the fifth century to ιvhich hehas been assigned: lingering archaic rvorks do notappear beyond ca. 480 and archaistic ιvorks properdo not begin until òα. 41 0.55 His blend of middle and1ατε archaic ιvith Severe Style traits is unkno,wn ßηthe fifth century but current ßη the late Hellenisticperiod. Examples are offered by tιvo under life-sizearchaistic kouroi ßη Pentelic marble from the Athe-ηßαη Agora, depicting Apollo/Dionysos and datingfrom the second and first centuries. The shoulders,arms and legs of the larger kouros (Fie. 12) are re-markably similar to those of the Piraeus ΑροΙΙο; hishair is equally idiosyncratic, being short at the backwith single locks falling οη the shoulders.56 As there

Fig. Fig. Ι2. Archaistic ΑροΙΙο or Dionysos, Athens,Agora S 2Ι09. Photo American School of Classicol

Studies at Athens - Agora Excavations.

.] :'.-ß.-: "]]:;], ßß]ßß

ι84 Olga Palagia

Fig. Fig. Ι3. Athena, Piraeus Museum 4646Ρhοτο DAI Athens 70/Ι3]0.

Ι5, Athena Mattei. Paris, LouvrePhoto Muse,um,

Fig. Ι4. Athena. Piraeus Museum 4646,Photo Athens National Museum.

Fig. 16. Athena MatteL Ρατßò, Louvrò 530.Photo Museum.

Fig.

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes 185

are ηο traces of his forearms οη his sides, they wereprobably extended like the Apollo's. ArchaisticApollos rvere also produced οη late HellenisticDelos,57

The Athena (Figs, 13-14) is perhaps the finest ofthe Piraeus bronzes,58 Her siyle is pure fourth-cen-tury, though at the present state of our knowledge itis impossible to decide vιhether this particular statueis α Hellenistic òοργ. There is α marble copy, theAthena Mattei (Figs. l5-16), ßη the Louvre,sg and as

it is probably later than the first century, it must re-flect either the original (if the Piraeus bronze is notit) or another version, possibly α second original.Multiple originals ιvere of course as possible ßη αη-tiquity as they are today. Athena's stooping shoul-ders indicate that she was meant to be seen from αlow viewpoint.60 Although this kind of subtle fore-shortening is documented by our fourth-centurysources,61 it is οηΙγ noticeable ßη original works, likethe Youth of Antikythera, also designed to be vie,σred

from belo,σ1.62 The Athena vvas found along with sev-eral shield fragments ινhßòh have never been exhib-ited or illustrated. According to the early reports,there ,were tινο shields, one ρΙαßη, the other carryingα chariot device, but the fragments may well belongto one shield, not two.63 Athena must have rested herleft hand οη α shield, and the remnants of lead οηher left ιvrist shovy that α spear once rested there.The half-closed palm of her right hand need not ßη-dicate that she held αη animate object as has oftenbeen maintained. Most scholars have favoured theowl as Athena's attribute.64 It is more likely that sheheld α phiale though ηοt pouring α libation like theother large bronze siatues ßη the cache.

Her dress is simple but at the same time verypeculiar. Her peplos is draped ßη αη oblique manner,forrning α triangular overfold over the left leg, ιvhilethe rear ofthe overfold is dralvn υρ and folded overher shoulders, exposing her girdle placed high, notyisible ßη front. The point ofthe diagonal draping ofthe peplos is the creation of αη apron-like oyerfoldßη front, while the long overfold αt the back couldhave served as α veil, as ßη the fourth-century graverelief of the priestess Polyxena ßη Berlin,65 Athena'shelmei of course prevents her from draιving heroverfold oyer her head but ihe point is made of somesort ofritual garb. ΑΙΙ these interesting details at the

back reveal that the Athena \,vas not meant to be seenfrom the front οηΙγ, she ιταs therefore not α cult statueplaced against α τναΙl. She ιvears α Corinthian hel-met with α horse-tail crest, springing out of α snakecoiled around its base. The helmet is additionallydecorated ,σlith pairs of griffins and oνvls. The copyßη the Louvre has replaced the o,σlls ,,ryith ram's heads(Fig. 16).

T,wenty-four years ago Ι associated the style ofthe Athena ιryith that of Euphranor's cult statue ofΑροΙΙο Patroos ßη the Athenian Agora, dated to the330s (Fig. l7).66 Since the original Patroos is α frag-ment, the similarity is perhaps better understood bycomparison with Apollo's complete copy ßη the Vati

Fig. Ι7. ΑροΙΙο Patroos. Athens, Agora S 2Ι54.Photo Amòrican School of Closòical Studies -

Agora Excavations,

ι86 Olga Palagia

believe this association to be valid also οη accountof Athena's Pheidian overtones ιvhich permeate the

ΑροΙΙο as rvell, Euphranor lvas statΘ artist ßη Athensαß α time of retrospection, ,when the city was politi-òαΙlγ motivated to evoke the glorious days of Periklesand the art of Pheidias inspired by the ideals of free-

dom and by Athenian supremacy ßη the Aegean. The

Piraeus Athena is full of Pheidian allusions. Το be-

gin with, her entire left side is inspired by Pheidias'Athena Parthenos, resting her left hand οη her shield,

α spear supported οη her rvrist and left shoulder.6E

The griffins οη Athena's helmet can be found οη the

Parthenos' cheekpieces. The snake οη her helmet

could be Erichthonios, Athena's sacred snake οη the

Acropolis. Her narrorv diagonal aegis was first ßη-

vented for Athena ßη the ,σlest pediment of the Par-

thenon.69 Last but not least, the overfold of the

unbelted peplos ßη front recalls one of the three

Graces, Athena's companions, οη Pheidias' base ofthe Athena Parthenos.7o The Graces are bearing gifts:thus is the purpose of the long diagonal overfold re-vealed. Is the Piraeus Athena meant to evoke α nur-turing deity like her early fourth-century precursor,the Cherchel Athena, who carries Erichthonios ßη α

basket?7'Is this the additional t,σlist ßη αη otherrvisemartial image, introduced by the fourth-century art-ist? Was it Athena's tender aspect that compelled herassociaiion υροη discovery with the Eirene andPloutos by Kephisodotos?72 Athena's iconographycould οηΙγ be illuminated by the nature of the Athena-cult to ιη,hßòh she,σlas dedicated (see below, ρ.189).

The high quality of the Athena is matched by the

bronze Artemis conventionally known as the LittleArtemis of Piraeus (Figs. l8-Ι9). Her poor condi-tion has contributed to her relative obscurity and it isοηΙγ ßη the past year or two that she is beginning to

18" Little Artemis. Piraeus Museum 4648Photo Τ.Α,Ρ.

]θ. Liπle Artemis. Piraeus Museum 4648.Photo DAI Athens 77/593,

Fis.

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes ι87

appear ßη handbooks.73 Her heighτ of 1.55 m is due το

the fact that she is α teenager. She held out α phiale ßη

her right hand and had α bow and arroιry ßη the left. Αquiver hangs at her back, held ßη place by α strap

decorated ,σlith α maeander ßη silver ßηΙαγ. She wears

α bracelet οη her left upper arm and αη Attic peplosbelted at the waist. Her himation is rolled into α bunch,

folded under her right arm and over her left shoulderand tucked under her belt and quiver strap. This indi-cates αη active figure and has its closest parallel ßηAmphitriτe ßη the wesτ pediment of the Parthenon,

lvho serves as Poseidon's charioteer.?a Contemporaryparallels are offered by t\vo statues of girls of the firstquarter of the third century, acting as sacrificial at-

tendants, the Girl of ΑηΖßο75 and the girl Corinth S

Ι294.16 Artemis' long waved hair is parted ßη the

middle and drarvn υρ to form α bunch at the top ofher head. This hairstyle is typical of young girls and

Fig. 20. Large Artemθs. Piraeus Museum 4647Photo Τ,Α.Ρ.

boys and has its origin ßη the late fourth century, be-ing chiefly known from grave statues like one norry ßηNerv York.77 The ΑροΙΙο of ΑηΖßο is the best-knolvnexample of α boy sporting α version of this coiffure.?8The hairstyle and rather high girding of the bronzeArtemis could indicate α date ßη the last quarter ofthe fourth century or the first half of the third. Herproportions arejust about classical and the rather rigidand erect pose places her ßη the so-called ΡΙαßη Style,current ßη that period.79

The same type of Artemis ßη Aitio peplos is re-produced ßη the Large Artemis of Piraeus (Fig. 20).80

This is α fully gτο,ινη \I/oman. She too held out α

phiale and had α borv and arrorv ßη the left hand, α

quiver once hanging doιvn her back. Her rvorkman-ship is more cursory than that of the Little Artemis,horvever, as not οηΙγ does the quiver strap merge ιviththe belt but also her right shoulder is lo,wered eventhough her right hand is raised. Her hairstyle firstbecame fashionable ßη the last quarter of the fourthcentury.8l It òαη be found, for example, ßη α graverelief ηοιν ßη Boston,82 α graye statue ßη Νενι York,83

as well as ßη the votivθ statue of α little girl from the

sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron,8a There are occa-sional revivals, as ßη α marble statuθtte of Artemisof the late Hellenistic period from Loryma ßη Caria(Fig.2l).85 It also appears ßη later reliefs carryingreflections of late classical statuary.86

The statuary type of the Large Artemis is closelyrelated to the Artemis οη α votive relief from Braurondepicting α family offering sacrifice.87 Οη the reliefArtemis pours α libation oyer αη altar, rryhich throιyslight οη the meaning of the gesture of the LargeArtemis. The relief probably reproduces αη impor-tant statue ßη the sanctuary, but the Large Artemis isnot very likely to be the prototype as has been sug-gested. Not οηΙγ is the hairstyle different, but thestance and proportions are too arvkrvard. The bronzeis not particularly successful and could have beenηο more than αη average dedication. Artemis' Iargehead and long arms have prompted αη attribution toEuphranor οη the basis of Pliny's remark thatEuphranor tended to make the limbs and heads ofhis statues too large ßη proportion to the torsos.88 Thisobservation, however, \vas meant ßη comparison withthe slimmer proportions introduced by Lysippos. Ιηaddition, Euphranor's orryn Patroos does ηοt seem to

ι88 Olga Palagia

Fig. 2Ι. Statuette of Artemis. From Loryma (Caria),British Μυòòυm GR-]864.Ι0-7.53. Photo courtesy of

thò Trustees o.f the British Museum.

justify Pliny's remark since his limbs are rather εΙοη-gatβd (Fig. l7). Neither the style nor the executionof the Large Artemis match the virtuoso perform-ance of Euphranor's ΑροΙΙο Patroos. The poor work-manship, simplified drapery and rather uncouth pro-portions are more readily compared rvith the so-called Themis of Rhamnous by Chairestratos, datedto the early years of the third century.89 Artemis' Atticpeplos would have been too old-fashioned ßη thesecond ceniury, so α date later than the third centuryis less likely unless ιve are dealing with α classicisingwork of ca. 100.90

If the shield fragments make υρ tιvo shields asthe early reports ινουΙd have us believe, the secondshield could not belong to αηγ statue ßη the cache. Ifit exists, it may have been intended as α house orna-

ment, designed to hang from α ιηrαΙΙ, as illustrated ßηCampanian frescoes from Oplontis and Pompeii ßηthe first century AD.9' The large bronze mask musthave served α similar purpose (Fig.22). Ιt is hollowαß the back and has t,,vo holes for suspension οη top.It is α tragic mask though it is not clear ιvhich par-ticular character it reproduces. It is usually dated tothe late fourth century οη account of its low onkos,92but its dishevelled hair lacks parallels ßη that cen-tury. Ιt bears ηο resemblance, for example, to thervispy locks of the boxer's head from Olympia.g3 Itseems closer to the thick, tangled strands of the fig-ures οη the Gigantomachy frieze of the Pergamonaltar.9a This mask and the putative spare shield rvereprobably produced nearer the time of Sulla's sackthan αηγ of the other bronzes.

It has been suggested that the Piraeus cache con-sisted of loot captured during the raid οη Delos car-ried out ßη 87 by Mithridates' general, Archelaos,gsThe sacred treasures of Delos \ryere sent to Athensιvith Aristion, helping him establish himself as ty-rant and encourage the Athenians to perseverΘ ßηMithridates' cause. According to this theory, the stat-ues ryould have been stored ßη Piraeus for over α yearuntil they ιvere overtaken by Sulla's burning of the

Fig. 22, Mask, Piroeus Museum 4649. Photo Τ.Α.Ρ.

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes 189

port. Moreover, the fact that αΙΙ three marble statues

ßη the cache are made of Pentelic marble argues

against α Delian provenance. Sculptures ßη Pentelicmarble are scarce οη Delos, and the majority can be

accounted for by association ,σlith Athenian monu-ments or dedications, for example the acroteria ofthe temple of the Athenians96 and the t,σιο hermsdedicated by the Athenians ßη the Propylon to ΑροΙ-lo's sanctuaryg7 and ßη the Prytaneion.g8 It is more

reasonable to assume that the statues ιvere products

of Attic workshops and had been moved to the ινατε-

house shortly before the siege of Piraeus ßη antici-pation of shipment abroad. The suggestion that the

statues were Sulla's booty and that their storehouse

was accidentally burned raises the question: why,σrere they not recovered? Α universal catastrophe ismore likely to have occurred, i.e. the burning ofPiraeus by Sulla while the statues Ιαγ ßη their boxesawaiting shipment. They could not have been des-

tined for Rome since Athens was at war,"vith Rome.g9

Besides, ßη 88-86 the Aegean ιvas controlled byMithridates, who possessed α po,σrerful ηανγ whileSulla had none.l00 Mithridates or one of his lieuten-ants was α more ΙßΚεΙγ recipient of the shipment. Αηeastern destination is also suggested by the inclusionof the Anatolian goddess Artemis, since ηο cult ofher was Κηο,σιη at the time beyond the southwestcoast of Asia Minor.

The sale of old and venerated art ιryorks rvrested

from sanctuaries ιναs α sign of the times. The Ro-man Senate raised funds for Sulla's campaign against

Mithridates by selling sacred treasures of Rome.l0lSulla did not hesitate to confiscate sacred treasures

from Olympia, Delphi and Epidauros to further fi-nance his Greek campaign.ol2 Aristion, the sacrile-gious tyrant of Athens, was ηο better since he αΙ-

lowed Athena's sacred lamp ßη the Erechtheion togo out for lack of οßΙ and mocked one of the hiero-phantids of Eleusis by giving her pepper instead ofgrain.l03 Suoh αη individual oould easily impound art

treasures from Attio sanctuaries either to finance the

\I/ar or flatter his αΙΙγ, Mithridates, rvho \I/as α great

patron of the arts. He readily appropriated the art

treasures of the sons of Ptolemy Χ that fell into hishands οη Kos.l0a We also get α glimpse of his taste

for luxury from the trophies captured by Pompeyafter his defeat and death ßη 63.105 Modern scholars

tend to assume that αΙΙ traffic ßη art,,vorks ßη the first-century Mediterranean was due west but this couldnot have been true at least \vhilo Mithridates not οηΙγruled the Aegean but also controlled Piraeus.

Several sanctuaries ßη Attica Ιαγ abandoned ßη thefirst century, presumably still preserving part of theirdedications. Α number ofrural sanctuaries had beenseverely damaged by Philip ν of Macedon ßη 200.'06

Ιη 88 the closure of α number of Attic sanctuarieslvas blamed οη the Romans and used as αη afgumentto induce the Athenians to join Mithridates' cause.l07

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that thePiraeus cache consisted of three ηειν marbles (pairof herms and Artemis Kindyas/Eleuthera) two ηεινbronzes (the mask and οηε of the shields if there aretιvo), αΙΙ freshly made for export, as ,σιεΙΙ as four oldbronzes removed from Attic sanctuaries to be soldabroad.lo8 The Piraeus Athena, for example, couldhave been α dedication ßη Athena's sanctuary atSounion which had fallen into bad times. Eight loniccolumns of the fifth-century temple of AthenaSounias ,σrere transplanted for reuse ßη the faEade ofα temple ßη the Athenian Agora some time ßη thereign of Augustus.109 It is possible that Athena's origi-ηαΙ cult statue of the fifth century vvas also moved tothe Agora though it may ηοß have been used ßη thesame temple as the Ιοηßò columns. Georgios Despinishas suggested that the fifth-century cult statue be-longed to the type of Athena Giustiniani οη accountof the fragments of α Roman copy found at Sou-ηßοη.lΙ0 Ηε argued that the οοργ of the Giustiniani\ryas set υρ αt Sounion ßη lieu of the original eventhough the temple itself rvas transferred. Αη addi-tional òοργ of the Giustiniani head found ßη the Athe-ηßαη Agora seems to support his argument.lΙl Thishead is usually dated to the second century but maywell be later. The iconography of the AthenaGiustiniani has several points ßη common with thePiraeus Athena like the hairstyle, the Corinthianhelmet and the diagonal aegis (albeit wider), but mostof αΙΙ the peaceful aspect. She too is accompaniedby the snake Erichthonios ,,vhich emphasises herAthenian affiliation and characterises her as Kouro-trophos. Ιt is noteιvorthy that the helmet of theAthena Mattei (Fig. 16) carries rams' heads οη thecheekpieces just like the Giustiniani. If the Matteiderives from another version of the Piraeus Athena,

ι90 Olga Palagia

it may be that the helmet of α hypothetical secondoriginal òαιτßεd rams' heads instead of oryls.

Whereas Athena's hypothetical home is Sounion,the trvo statues of Artemis could come from the sanc-tuary of Artemis at Brauron, We have seen that theiriconographical types are related to αη Artemis typecommon there ßη the late fourth century, and the ten-der age of the Little Artemis vvould have been par-ticularly appropriate for α goddess ,σlorshipped aspatroness of childhood. Since the sanctuary ofBrauron ιναs ηο longer flourishing ßη the secondcentury, horvever, it would be hazardous to suggestthat it ιvas the original home of the ΑροΙΙο as ,σιεΙl.

The rural sanctuary of ΑροΙΙο Zoster ßη Vouliagmeniis α possibiliτy.'12

The intention of this survey was to point out α

number of alternative solutions ßη addition to thoseproposed so far. Αηγ number may indeed be possi-ble οη α superficial leyel, But ηο definitive or evententative anslyvers acceptable to most scholars can beforthcoming until tlre entire find is properly pub-lished as α ινhοΙe.

This article is α small offering tο α teacher and dearfriend to whom Ι ο,ιυε òο much, not least for havingread my works òενòταΙ times over ΡΙυò ρα change,,.

ΑòκποwιεηGΕΜΕΝτs

Αη early version of this paper was presented as α

Leventritt lecture ßη the Sackler Museum of HarvardUniversity, ßη April, Ι996, οη the occasion of theexhibition "The Fire of Hephaistos." Ι am gratefulto the organiser, Carol Mattusch, for inviting me tospeak and for saving me from many errors with hergenerous advice οη bronze techniques.

ΑΙΙ dates are BC unless specified otherιvise,

AbbreviationsBoardman, Ι99Ια: J.Boardman, Greek Sculpture: the Ar-

chaic PeriodBoardman, l99lb: J.Boardman, Greek Sculpturò: the

Classical PeriodBoardman Ι995: J.Boardman, Greek Sculpture: thò

Late Classical Period

ΒοΙ: P.C.Bol, OF 9, Grossplastik ausBronze ßη Olympia (Ι9']8)

Dontas Ι982: G.Dontas,ArrK25,1982,15-34,pls.3-6

Dontas Ι986: G,Donta§ ßη H,Kyrieleis (ed.), Ar-chaischò und klassiòche griòchischePlastik Ι (Ι986) 18Ι-Ι91, pls.77-78

Houser: C.Houser, Greek Monumental BronzeSculpture of the Fi_fth and FourthCenturies (Ι987)

Mattusch 1988; C.C.Mattusch, GreekBronze StatuaryMattusch 1996: Classical Bronzes. The Art and Craft

Palagia:Paraskevaidis:

Rolley:

Schefold:

WαγινεΙΙ:

of Greek and Roman StatuaryO.Palagia, Euphranor (|98Ο)M.Paraskevaid is, Εßη vvie de rent de c κ-ter Kunstraub der antike? (Ι966)C.Rolley, La sculpture grecquò 7

( 1 994)Κ, Schefold, ΑηιΚ 14, Ι971, 3º42,pls, Ι5-Ι6G.B.Wayιvell, BSA 66, Ι97Ι,3º3-382, pls. 66J2

Notes1. ΑΙΙ are ßη the Piraeus Museum, For accounts of the

discovery see E.Vanderpool, Α"/Α 64, Ι960,265-267, pls. 65-74; Paraskevaidis.

2. For the findspot οη Philonos St.: Κ.-ν. νοηEickstedt, Bòitrιige zur Topographie des antikenPirÜus (Ι99Ι) 158, cat, 1.25, folding ρl. 2.

3. Paraskevaidis 18. Οη the actual coin (Athens, Νυ-mismatic Μυ seum 207 5 / L97 0) : I. Varoucha-Christo-doulopoulou, BCH 84, Ι960, 500b, ρl. l0,5. Οη thecoin type: J.H.Kroll, Agora ΧΧνΙ, The Greek Coins(1993) 66; 69--'ΙΙ;'74, ηο. 97, ρΙ, 9. Iη α nearby roomthe excavators found α Homeric bowl decorated ιyiththe sacrifice of lphigeneia: ParaskevaΙdis 40-4Ι;U.Sinn, Die homerischen Becher,"7.Beih. ΑΜ (1979)1Ι0-1ΙΙ, ΜΒ 53, pls. l,Ι; 22,3;23,5-9. This boιrylneed not have αηγ direct bearing οη the cache ofbronzes.

4. Οη the history of the period see C.Habicht, Αthòη.Die Geschichte der Stadt ßη hellenistischer Zeit(Ι99 5) 297 -3 Ι3 ; R.M.Kallett-Marx, He gemony toEmpire: the Developmònt of the Roman Impòriumßη the East from Ι48 to 62 B.C. (Ι995) Ι98_220,

5. Athens and Piraeus sacked by Sulla: Αρρßαη,Miτhrid.28-41; Plutarch, Sulla 12-Ι4, Damage ßηthe Agora: J.M,Camp, The Athenian Agora (|986)18Ι; Η.Α. Thompson ßη S.Macready and F.H.Thompson (òdd.), Roman Architecture ßη thò GròekWorld (Ι987)

6, Artemision god, Athens, National Museum 1516Ι:

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes 19ι

Mattusch Ι988, 150-Ι53, figs. 6.1O.a-b. Artemisionhorse and jockey, Athens, National Museum 15177:

ν. Kallipolitis, ΑΑΑ 5, |9"Ι2,4Ι9426; P,Moreno,

Sculτura ellenisτica (Ι994) 296-302 ιvith η. 5'73,

figs. 370-377 ; 37 9: 381-382.7. P.C,Bol, Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes νοη

Antikythera,2. Beih, ΑΜ (|9'72).

8. G.Hellenkemper Salies, Η.-Η. νοη Prittrvitz und

Gaffron, G,Bauchhenss (edd.), Das Wrack, Derantike Schiffsfund νοη Mahdia (\994).

9, Athen, 5.214e,10, Ε,Β. Harrison, AgoraXI, Archaic and Archaistic

Sculpture (1965) L2'7 also remarked οη the fresh-

ness of the herms.11. For the Athena see Vanderpool (supra η. 1) 266;

Houser 215. Apollo's lead dolvels: one is illustrated

ßη Dontas 1986, 192.1,2. ΑΙΙ statues seem to have been cast according to the

indirect lost-wax casting method. Bronze casting and

alloys: A,Steinberg ßη WJ.Young (ed.), Applicaτionof Science ßη Εχαmßηαtßοη of Works o/Arr (Boston

1973) Ι06-Ι14, According to StΘinberg's analysis,

the alloys are as follorvs:Copper

ΑροΙΙο 9|ºαAthena 87

Artemis 86Mask 85

Τßη Lead8ºο |Ψο

11 1

ι2ιΙ23

This analysis seems to be based οη single sam-

ples from each statue; more parts should be sam-

pled before α more representative conclusion can be

reached. Compare the table of alloys of the Riacebronzes based οη eleven samples (Mattusch 1988,

206) and of the Youth of Salamis ßη Berlin, based

οη nineteen samples (W.-D. Heilmeyer, Der Jiinglingνοη Salamis [Ι996] 1 1-Ι2). Ιη αηγ case, the alloysof the Piraeus bronzes are comparable to the alloysof other Greek bronzes, as given ßη N.Degrassi, .Lo

Zeus sτiliτa di Ugenτo (1981) Ι36 η, 556 and Houser

303:

Copper Τßη Lead

Antikythera Youth 84Ψο Ι4%Marathon Βογ 88,5 9,2

Cyrene "Berber" 90 10

ΑροΙΙο Chatsworth 89 Ι 0

Closest to the Piraeus bronzes αΙΙογ, however,

comes that of the bronze Augustus fished out of the

northern Aegean, Athens, National Museum Χ23322,.

Lead0,24Ψο

(after Ε.ΤουΙουρα,ΑΜ 10Ι, 1986, 204). His Ιοιν lead

content is merely αη impurity, indicating that it ,σas

not made ßη ltaly but ßη Greece (see infra η. 13),

His thickness ranges from Ι to 5 mm (ΤουΙουρα 202).

Αη additional table of alloys of Hellenistic andRoman bronzes is given by Heilmeyer, Der Jiinglingνοη Salamis, 13.

13. Steinberg (supra η. 12) ΙΙ5 points out that 1οιν con-tents of lead may inüicate that it is merely αη impu-rity. They cannot, horvever, be used as αη indicationof date. Etruscan and Roman bronzes made ßη ltalyare expected to contain more than |Ο% Lead,,

P.T.Craddock, Journal of Archaeological Science19'77, 4, Ι03-Ι23; Heilmeyer (supra η. 12) 13. Αgood example is the Mars of Todi ιvith 79-8Ι7οcopper, 8-1 2Ψο tßτι and 9 -|2Ψο lead (Degrassi [supraη. |2) 13'7 η, 558).

Ι4. Steinberg (supra η. 12) Ι08.15, I.Linfert-Reich , Musen- und Dichterinnenfiguren des

vierten undfriihen dritten Jahrhunderts (diss, Ham-burg Ι969 [Ι971]) 123; F.Eckstein, ΕπιστημονικÞεπετηρßδα τηò ΦιλοσοφικÞò ΣχολÞò τουΠανεπιστημßου Θεσσαλονßκηò Ι5, Ι976, 39-50; ΒοΙ45 η, 2;46; Mattusch |996, 129-L39, Mattuschbases her suggestion οη the similarity of alloys ιvhichshe thinks may reflect α single workshop.

Ι6, B,S.Ridgιvay, Hellenistic ScuΙpture Ι (Ι990) 363.

Ι'7. Mattusch 1988, 75 η. 70; Dontas Ι986, 182 η, 3.

18, Piraeus Museum 3857. Height, 1.05 m. Cult ofArtemis Kindyas: A.Laumonier, Les cultes indigünesde Carie (Ι958) 602-607; Ch. Chaniotis ßη Μ.Würrle and Ρ. Zanker (edd.), Sτadbild und Burger,bild im Hellenismus (1995) 167. The Piraeus statue

identified ιvith Kindyas: I.Jucker ßη Gestalt undG es chichte, F e stschrifτ Κ. Schefold, 4.Belh. AntK(1967) Ι33-1 45, ρL,47; R.Fleischer, Artemis νοηEphesos und verιvandte KuΙtstatuen aus Anatolienund Syrien (19'73) 223-227, ρl. 89; LIMC ΙΙ (|984)s,v. Artemis Kindyas, ηο. 4 (R.Fleischer).

1 9. Coins of Bargylia: Fleischer ( Ι973, supra η . L8) 224,

ρl. 91α (BMC Caria72, ηο. Ι0, ρ1, 11,7); ρ1. 9lb(BMC Caria"I2, ηο, Ι3, ρl. 11,9).

20. Οη Artemis Eleuthera see Fleischer (1973, supra η.

18) 229-233 Laumonier (supra η. 18) 605. Tetra-drachm of Antiochos ΙΙΙ: ibid., ρΙ, 90α (BMCSeleucid Kings 25, ηο, 11, ρl. 8,6); LIMC ΙΙ, s.v.

Artemis Kindyas, ηο. 1.

2Ι, L.J.Roccos, AJA 99, 1995, 661-665.22, E,g. Caryatid from Eleusis, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam

Museum GR,L Ι865. L.Budde and R.Nicholls, Cata-Iogue of the Greek and Roman ScuΙpture ßη the

Fitzwilliam Museum (|964) 4649, ηο. 8Ι, pls. 24-25,

Copper8'Ι,4Ψο

ΤßηΙ2,34%

Ι92 Olga Palagia

23. For α similar necklace of Hellenistic date ßη the artmarket sΘe Minerva º.6 (Ι996) 49, fig. Ι2.

24. Fleischer (1973, supra η. 18) 227,25. Polybios Ι6.12,3; Strabo Ι4.2.20 (C. 658),26, Piraeus herms: Piraeus Museum 3858 and 3859.

Best copy of Alkamenes type: Istanbul, Archaeologi-cal Museum Ι433. Harrison (supra η. l0) Ι22-124,ρΙ, 66c ; T,Brahms Arc hai s mus (199 4) 298, oat, 1 6, 1,

fig, 19, Brahms 302, òαt. 17,1Ι suggests that thePiraeus herms derive from α later variant, best rep-resented by the WarocqÝ herm ßη Brussels, MusüesRoyaux Α Ι432, Brahms tig. 26.

27. Athens, National Museum 258, A.Stevrart, Attika(Ι979) 48-50, pls. 10-1l.

28. E,g. Delos Museum Α 4Ι Ι8: J,Marcadü (ed.), Sculp-tures düliennes (Ι996) ηο, 70 (Jockey).

29, Piraeus Museum 4645. Height, 1.92 m. Paras-kevaTdis 22-25; Vanderpool (supra η, 1); Ν.Kontoleon, Asp ects de Ια GrDce prüclassique (Ι970)81-82; J.Floren, Die griechische Plastik Ι, Diegeometrische und archaische Plastik (Ι987) 3Ι6;Houser 26-54, figs. l,Ι-8; Mattusch Ι988, 74-79;G.M.A,Richter, Kouroi (Ι988) ηο. l59bis; Board-man Ι991α, fig. 150.

30, LIMC ΙΙ (1984) s.v. ΑροΙΙοη, ηο. 390 (W. Lam-brinoudakis).

31. Eckstein (supra η. l5) 45; E.Simon, Opfernde Güττer(Ι953) 7 points out that they begin ßη the fifth cen-tury.

32. Paris, Louvre 6Ι; height, 1.158 m, B.S.Ridgway,AnτPIY|l (Ι967) 43-76; Mattusch Ι996, Ι39, ρl. 6,ιvhere she considers the close relation of thePiombino ΑροΙΙο ιvith the ΑροΙΙο from the house ofC,Julius Polybius at Pompeii, ibid., ρl. 5,

33, Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 4407. L.Robert,Hellenica Ι0, 1955, |25-1'27, ρl. l9,3; M,Flashar,ΑροΙΙοη Kitharodos (Ι992) 80, ηο, 4. Dedicated toZeus, ΑροΙΙο and Artemis.

34. Delos Museum Α 6995. M.-A,Zagdoun, La sculp-ture archaisante dans I'art hellünistiquò ei dans l'artromain du haut empire (Ι989) 2|5, cat. Ι69;Marcadü (supra η, 28) ηο, 79 (Jockey).

35, N.Kontoleon ßη P.Zazoff (ed,), Opus Nobile,Festschrift U.Jantzen (Ι969) 9Ι-98 (dated ca. 500BC).

36. Most recently by Dontas 1986, 184-188,3'7. Cf. the Cartoceto bronzes of the first century AD,

R.Gattai and P,Roma, Ι bronzi di Cartoceto (Ι987)45*48.

38. Allard Pierson Museum 8946. Rotley 66, figs, 59-60. The head, solid cast, must have belonged to αsphinx οη account of the hairstyle: compare thesphinx Figs. 9 and 1l.

39. Athens, National Museum 6440. ΒοΙ Ι02, cat. 3, pls.3-5; Mattusch Ι988, 63-65, fig. 4.15.

40. Athens, National Museum ΙΙ76l. Mattusch Ι988,79-83, tig. 4.20,

41, Mattusch Ι988, 54-58, figs. 4.7 and 4.8.42. Athens, Kerameikos Museum Ρ Ι050. About 560

BC. G.M,A.Richter, The Archaic Gravestones ofAftica (Ι961) ηο, 11, figs. 34-39; Boardman 199Ια,figs, 226.|-2.

43. Contrast the early sixth-century Kleobis and Biton(Delphi Museum 46'7 and Ι524) with the Kouros ofMelos (Athens, National Museum Ι558) and Aristo-dikos (Athens, National Museum 3938): Rolley figs.Ι46;149 and 153,

44. Supra η. 43 and Richter (supra η, 29) πο. l2Α-Β,figs. 82-83.

45. Neo-Attic copy, Piraeus Museum 2ΙΙ8. M,Tiverioslrl ΠρακτικÜ του ΧΙΙ διεOνοýò συνεδρßου κλασικÞòαρχαιολογßαò 3 (1988) 271-275, ρl. 59,Ι; Zagdoun(supra η. 34) 95-96, cat, 354, ρΙ, 26, fig. 98.

46, Olympia Museum L Ι'70, R.Bol, ΟF 15, DerS tatue ηρ ro gramm de s Η ero de s -Α ttic us - Nymphiiums(1984) 187-Ι90, ηο.48, pls. 60-61,

4'7. British Museum 209. LIMC ΙΙ (1984) s.v. ΑροΙΙοη,ηο, 599α (O.Palagia); Boardman 199lb, fig. 67.

48. The dating ca.475 rvas suggested by Dontas Ι986,folloιved by B,S.Ridgιvay, The Archaic StyΙe ßηGreek Sculpturò2 (Ι993) 87. For the Charioteer'sthickness see infra η. 51.

49. Rolley 398-399 now suggests the second quarter ofthe fifth century.

50. For the thickness of the ΑροΙΙο see Dontas Ι986,Ι 82 η. 6. Compare the gfΘat range of thicknesses ofthe Riace bronzes, from 6 to Ι 1 mm (Riace Α) andfrom 3.5 to 8 mm (Riace Β): Due bronzi di Riace,adA Suppl. 3, Ι (1984) ΙΙ0, figs. 2-3.

51. ΒοΙ 77 calculates that the thickness of archaic andSevere Style Statuary tends to be about 1 cm (e.g.head of Zeus, Athens, National Museum 6440, supraη. 39), while classical and Hellenistic bronzes mayhave αη average thickness of about 4-6 mm. Thethickness of the Delphi Charioteer ranges from 8 to25 mm: F.Chamoux, FdDIV,5,L'Aurige (1955) 61,That thickness may be the result of regional varia-tion is demonstrated by the Hellenistic bronze torsoßη the ναηß Museum, ιvhose ιhickness ranges from4 to Ι0 mm: Mattusch Ι996,206-2|6, fig. 6.4, ρΙ,9.

52. Malibu, J.Paul Getty Museum 85.ΑΑ.40. A.Stervart,Greek Sculpture (Ι990) fig, 133; The Getιy KourosColloquium, Aτhens 1992 (Ι993).

53. This date y/as tentatively suggested by C.Rolley, lesBronzes grecs (Ι983) 34,Γlg. Ι7, rvho later retracted:

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes 193

Rolley 398-399, fig. 43Ι; it is ηοιη, maintained by

Mattusch |996, |29-Ι40, Γlg. 4.Ι2, who had earliersupported α late archaic dating: Mattusch Ι988, 74-,79,

54. Piraeus Museum Ι927, L.Palaiokrassa, Το ιερü τηò

ΑρτÝμιδοò Μουνυχßαò (Ι99Ι) Ι01, cat. G Ι3, pls. 10-1ι,

55. Οη archaism and lingering archaic see now Ridgιvay(supra η, 48) 4454'73; Brahms (supra η, 26) Ι9-5ι.

56. Largerkouros, halflife-size: Agora S 2Ι09, Harrison(supra η. l0) 67-68, ηο. l09, ρl. 22 (dated to the

first century); Zagdoun (supra η, 34) 2Ι6, cat,37,

ρl. ?6, figs. 212-2'73; M.Fullerton, The ArchaisticStyle ßη Roman Statuary, Mnemosyne Suppl. lΙ0(Ι990) Ι44-145, fig.72. Smaller kouros, Agora S

308, Harrison 67, ηο. l08, ρΙ, 22 (dated not later

than the second century because found ßη the build-ing fßΙΙ of the Middle Stoa rvhich is dated ca. l80);Zagdoun cat,24, ρl. 75, fig, 271; Fullerton, Ι44-Ι45, fig. 73. Date of the building fill of the MiddleStoa: V.Grace, Hesperia 54, Ι985, Ι-54 (Ι am ßη-debted to Susan Rotroff for this reference).

5'7. J.Marcadü, Αυ MusÝe de Dülos (Ι969) Ι65-167;LIMC ΙΙ, s.v. ΑροΙΙοη, ηο. 583 (O,Palagia); Zagdoun(supra η. 34) 2|5-2Ι6,

58, Piraeus Museum 4646. Height,2.35 m; average

thickness, 3 mm. ΒοΙ 77; Palagi'a 2|-23, figs. 32-33; Houser 212-235, figs, Ι3,1-5; Steιvart (supra

π.52) |79, fig. 511; Boardman 1995,71, fig. 46;

Mattusc| Ι996. l31, fig.4, 13. See also infra η. 73.

59- Paris. Louvre 530. Pentelic marble. Schefold 40-4Ι,

ρΙ. ιü,+ (daτes ßτ το τhε Αητοηßηε period); Wayιvell3'73-3't5, ρ1.66α-ò (dates it to the late Hellenisticperiod); Palagia 22, figs.364O,

60. Pa|agia 22.61. Plato, §opft. 235e-236a.62. Athens, National Museum 13396. Most photos are

taken head οη, thus presenting α distorted view, Forthe Youth see ΒοΙ Ι8-24, pls. 6-9.

63, Paraskevaidis 40; Vanderpool (supra η.1)265-266.64. Paraskevaidis 36; Schefold 38; Wayιvell 374; Houser

2I2.The Nike, another favoured attribute, properly

belongs to Athena Parthenos (Palagia 22).

65. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum Ι504. C. ΒΙýmεΙ, Dleklassisch griechischen Skulpturen (Ι966) ηο. 6 (Κ26), fig. 12; Boardman l99lb, fig. 163,

66. Athens, Agora S 2154. For the attribution: Ο,

Palagia, ΑΑΑ 6, 1973,323-329. For the ΑροΙΙοPatroos: Palagia Ι3-20, figs, 6-Ι7 and see now

Flashar (supra η, 33) 50-60, figs. 37-39, ,,yith ear-

lier references: 50 η, 275.

6'7. Vatican 229. Helbiga Ι, ηο. 23 (Fuchs); Palagia fig.

Ι9; Flashar (supra η, 33) figs. 40-41,68. Οη the Athena Parthenos see W.-H, Schuchhardt,

AntPIII (Ι963) 3Ι-53, pls.20-37.69. O.Palagia, The Pedimenτs of τhε Parthenon (1993)

tig,92.Hellenistic copy from Pergamon ßη Berlin, Perga-monmuseum Ρ 24. Ο. Palagia ßη M.Geerard (ed.),

Opes Atticae, Festschrift R,Bogaert and Η.ναη Looy(1990) 356, fig. 18; Boardman 199lb, fig. 701:' DieAntikensammlung im Pergamonumuseum und ßηCharlottenburg (Ι992) ηο. 75.Pari s, Louvre 8 47 : P alagia 22, Γτg, 41 ; Wayιvell 3 8 1,

ρΙ, 7Ια; Boardman 1991b, fig. 205. Cherchel, Ar-chaeological Museum S 17: C,Landwehr, Dierümischen SkuΙpturen νοη Caesarea Mauretaniae Ι

(1993) ηο. 31.Athena attributed to Kephisodotos: Paraskevaidis35; Schefold 37-42; Waywelι| 3'73-382 (ρl. 72b:

Eirene and Ploutos), Athena's similarity to the Eireneis real though the Athena repre§ents α later stylisticphase; Ι attempted to account for it by suggestingthat Euphranor was Kephisodotos' ρυρßΙ (Palagia66).Piraeus Museum 4648. Houser 244-254, figs. 15,1-4; Boardman Ι995, fig.48; Mattusch Ι996, fig.4.15.Palagia (supra η. 69) fig. l08.Rome, Terme Museum 50170. Helbiga |ΙΙ, ηο.227Ο(νοη Steuben); Moreno (supra η. 6) 308 η. 589, figs.395; 399;400,Her soale is comparable to that of the Little Artemis:heighτ, 1.66 m, H,Lauτer, ΑΜ 86, 1971, Ι47-Ι50,pls. 70-71; 73.Metropolitan Museum of Art 44.1 1.2. G.M.A. Rich-teτ, Catalogue of Greek Sculpiures (1954) ηο. 94,

ρl. 77; Roccos (supra η. 2|) 663, tig. 23.

Rome, Terme Museum |21302. Picard, Manuel ΙΥ2 (1963) 101Ι, fig, 399; Helbiga ΙΙΙ, ηο. 227Ι (νοη

Steuben). Copies of the head ßη Venice, Archaeo-logical Museum27 and 97: G,Traversari, Sculturedel νο-Ινο secolo a.C. del Museo Archeologico diVenezia (1973) nos. 54-55.Οη the ΡΙαßη Style see O.Palagia,I1esperia 5L,1982,ι 08.

80. Piraeus Museum 4647, Height, Ι,94 m; averagethickness, 3-5 mm. Dontas 1982; Houser |97-2||,figs. 12,Ι-4; Boardman 1995, fig. 47; Mattusch1996, 136, fig, 4.14. See also infra η. 90.

81. A,Stewaft, Faces of Povver (1993) 2Ι1 π.62,

82. Museum of Fine Arts Ι979,5Ι0. C.C.Vermeule,Greek and Roman Sculpture ßη America (1981) ηο.

87.83. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Richter (supra η. 77)

ηο,94, ρl. 76.

70.

7|.

,72,

73.

16.

74,15,

7,7,

78.

19,

|94 OIga Palagia

84. Brauron Museum. Ridgvvay (supra η. l6) ρΙ, 176.85, British Museum GR 1864.10-7.53. A,H.Smith, Α

Catalogue of Sculpture ßη ιhe Department of Greekand Roman Antiquities 3 (1904) ηο. 1559; F.H.Marshall, The Collection of Ancient Greek Ιηòòτßρ-tions ßη the British Museum Ιν 2 (Ι916) ηο. 1040.

86. Votive relief, οηòε Tegea Museum 47 (stolen ßηΙ992). O.Palagia, OJA 3, 1984, ΙΙ3-114, fig. 6;

UMCIV (Ι988) s.v. Herakles, ηο,311 (O,Palagia);A.A.Stavridou, Τα γλυπτÜ του Μουσεßου ΤεγÝαò(Ι996) º4, fig. 34,

87. Brauron Museum ΙΙ5l. G,Neumann, Probleme desgriechischen Weihreliefs (1979) 63, ρl. 4Ob; LIMCΠ (1984) s.v, Artemis, ηο, 9'74 (L.Kahil); F.T,VanStraten, Hiera ΚαΙα (Ι995) 292, R 73, fig. 57.

88, Dontas Ι982, 21-25. ΡΙßηγ, ΝΙ1 35. l28, See Palagia9-ΙΙ for Euphranor's proportions.

89. Athens, National Museum 231. O.Palagia ßη W.D.E.Coulson, O,Palagia et αl. (edd.), The Archaeologyof Athens and Attica Under the Democracy (|994)118-Ι 19, fig, 5, where she is identified with NΘm-esis; 121 η, 1 1 for earlier bibliography. The identityof the so-called Themis by Chairestratos \ryas ques-tioned again by P.Karanastassis, ΑτΙ4 |09, Ι994, 127and η. 4l. Ρ. Themelis ßη O.Palagia and W.D.E.Coulson (edd.), Regional Schools ßη HelleniòticSculpture (Ι998, forthcoming) has suggested thatThemis' date must be determined by the fact thatthe dedicant, Megakles, ιναs α choregos of comedy(/G ΙΙ2 3 109): the choregia, being α state liturgy, wasabolished by Demetrios of Phaleron around 3 Ι 6 BC(A.WPickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivalsof Aτhens2 [Ι988] 91-92; Habicht [supra η. 4] 66).Ho,,vever, Megakles' choregia may have been purelyΙοòαΙ, and the comedy could easily have been per-formed ßη the theatre inside the castle of Rhamnous:see J.Pouilloux, Laforteresse de Rhamnonte (\954)152-Ι54, nos, 39-40. Choregiai ßη the demes ofAttica are attested as late as 313Ι2 D, Whitehead,The Demes of Attica, 508Π- ca.250 B.C, (1986) 218(Ι am indebted tο Kevin Clinton for these refer-ences).

90, S. Karouzou suggested α date òα. 300 ßη Actes duVe colloque inernational sur les bronzes antiques,Lausanne Ι978 (19'79) 50-5l. Compare the colos-sal torso of Artemis ßη the temple of ΑροΙΙο ßηKlaros, probably from the end of the third century:Α. Linfert, Kunstzentren hellenistischer Ζòßt (1976)ρl. 2Ι, figs, Ι07-Ι11; LIMC ΙΙ, s.v, Artemis, ηο.ΙΙ34α. Οη its date see Flashar (supra η, 33) 152-153.

9l. Compare G. Cerulli lrelli et α1., Pom7le.janischeWandmalerei (1990) pls. 50 (house of the Vettii,

Pompeii); 58 (house of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii);149 and 154 (νßΙΙα of Poppaea, Oplontis).

92. Piraeus Museum 4649. Height, 0.45 m. M.Bieber,The Hisτory of the Greek and Roman Theatef (|96|)fig. 30Ι; T.B.L.Webster, Monuments lllustratingTragedy and Satyr ΡΙαγ2, BICS Suppl, 20 (1967) 31,ΑΒι.

93. Athens, National Museum 6439, ΒοΙ Ι14-ΙΙ5, ηο.Ι59, pls. 30-32; Mattusch Ι996, 84-87, figs. 3.5.α-

94. Berlin, Pergamonmuseum. Compare HekatΘ from thΘeast side of the Gigantomachy frieze: Die Antiken-sammlung (supra η. ']0) 44,

95. FirstsuggestedbyHarrison(supran. 10) Ι27η. l49;see also Dontas 1982, 32*33. See Αρρßαη, Mithrid,28, "τÜ τε χρÞματα αýτοßò τÜ ßερÜ [Archelaos]Ýπεμπεν Ýκ ΔÞλου δι' ¶ριστßωνοò Üνδρüò ¶θη-ναßου, συμπÝμψαò φυλακÞν τþν χρημÜτων Ýòδισχιλßουò Üνδραò, οßò ü ¶ριστßων συγχρþμενοòÝτυρÜννησε τÞò πατρßδοò..." According to Pausanias3,23.3-5, Delos rvas razed to the ground and manyof its inhabitants ,,Ir'erΘ killed or sold as slaves.

96, Delos Museum. Marcadü (supra η, 28) ιos.24-25(Hermary).

9º. Delos Museum Α 7'756, Marcadü (supra η, 28) ηο.28 (Hermary),

98. Delos Museum Α 6960, MarcadÝ (supra η. 57) Ι55,pls.11-12.

99. The Roman destination ιvas taken for granted υροηdiscovery: Paraskevaidis 2Ι; WαγινεΙΙ 375.

Ι00. Αρρßαη, Miτhrid. 22;33,10l. Αρρßαη, Miτhrid. 22.Ι02. Plutarch, Sulla Ι3,Ι03, Plutarch, Sulla 13.104. Αρρßαη, Mithrid, 23.105. Αρρßαη Ι2.1º,ΙΙ6-L17; Plutarch, Pompey 45.106, Livy 31.26.10-Ιl. Habicht (supra η. 4) 203; Η,Α.

Thompson, Hesperia 50, Ι98Ι, 352-355.Ι07. Aιhen, 5.2Ι3 c-d.108. Jucker (supra η. 18) Ι42 had suggested that the three

Artemis figures and the ΑροΙΙο had originally stoodßη αη Atιic sanctuary of Artemis.

109. Since the columns rvere found built into the post-Herulian ιηrαΙΙ, it is unclear ιyhether they ,"vere re-used ßη the South,ulest or the Southeast temple. TheSoutheast temple contained fragments of α colossalpeplos figure of the high classical period: Ε.Β.Harrison, Hesperia 29, |960,37Ι-373, ρl. 8lc, Οηthe trvo temples see H,A.Thompson, Hesperia 29,Ι960, 339-343; H,A,Thompson and R.E, Wycherley,Agora ΧΙΥ, The Agora of Athens (Ι972) l65-163ιThompson (supra η, 106); W.B.Dinsmoor, Jr.,Hesperia 5Ι, \982, 4Ι0452.

Γ

Reflections οη the Piraeus Bronzes ι95

Ι Ι 0. Athena Giustiniani : Vatican 2223. He|biga 1, ηο, 449

(Fuchs); Wayιvell 376, ρΙ, 69b. G.Despinis, Παρ-

θενþνεια (Ι982) 66, Α fragment of the Roman copyfrom Sounion is illustrated ßη A.Delivorrias, Attische

Giebelskulpturen und Akrotere des filnften Jahr,hunderts (|97 4) ρ1.23α.

ΙΙl. Athens, National Museum 3004, J.-P.Niemeier,Kopien und Nachahmungen im Hellenisιnus (1985)

94-98, fig. 5.

1Ι2. Pausanias 1.31.1, Travlos, ΑπßΚα 46'7468, figs.599-600.