Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:55:57.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A methodological enquiry: the Great Bronze Athena by Pheidias*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Birte Lundgreen
Birte Lundgreen
Affiliation:
Ashmole Archive, King's CollegeLondon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ‘Great Bronze Athena’, or the Athena Promachos by Pheidias, was a famous statue on the Akropolis of Athens, according to the literary sources. Numerous attempts have been made in the 19th and 20th centuries to reconstruct the image of the statue based on various sources: coins, gems, lamps, Byzantine miniatures, and sculpture. However, some of these attempts have revealed a number of inconsistencies in treatment and interpretation of the various sources. This article, therefore, endeavours to separate the valid from the invalid through a careful assessment of all the available evidence relating to the Athena Promachos as the Pheidian statue rather than the iconographic type.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 117 , November 1997 , pp. 190 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I will use the name Promachos as this is generally associated with the ‘Great Bronze Athena’, though this is a much later epithet for the statue, as is explained below.

2 A recent attempt was made by Linfert in 1982 who, as other scholars before him, wanted to see the Athena Promachos copied in the so-called ‘Athena Medici’ statue type; Linfert 66-71.

3 Ridgway, B.S., ‘The study of classical sculpture at the end of the 20th century’, AJA xcviii (1994) 759–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is an extremely useful essay on old and new traditions in scholarship and their uses and abuses.

4 IG ii2 4225L4, cf. Frantz, A., ‘Late antiquity: AD 267-700’, Agora xxiv (1988) 64 n. 49, pl. 47 fGoogle Scholar. Eadem 76-7: the statue was moved to Constantinople not earlier than and shortly after 465 AD.

5 Paus. i 28.2; for all the sources see J.A. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen (Leipzig and Hildesheim 1868-1959) nos. 637-644; inscriptions: IG i3. 1 435; IG i3.2 505. Additional secure sources: Aristid. Or. iii 336; Scholia Aristid. Or. i 354; Scholia Aristid. Or. iii 336; Scholia Dem. Olynthiaca iii; Paus. vii 27.2; Paus. ix 4.1.

6 Text: M.H. Rocha-Pereira (Vol. i, Teubner ed., Leipzig 1973), translation by C. Cullen Davison.

7 The Nemesis at Rhamnous by Agorakritos was likewise erected to celebrate the Marathon victory and that statue is dated to 430-420 BC: see Despinis, G., Symbole ste melete tou ergou tou Agorakritou (Athens 1971) 55–61Google Scholar.

8 The sources from late antiquity have been treated by Mathiopoulos 7-10; Linfert 62-6, believes they describe the Athena Lemnia set up in Constantinople; Frantz (n. 6) 76-7, thinks we can only use Niketas Choniates Diegesis, De Isaac. 738B. Most recently on the Lemnia see E. Harrison, ‘Lemnia and Lemnos: sidelights on a Pheidian Athena’, in KANON Festschrift E. Berger (Basel 1988) 101-7, who identifies the Lemnia in the ‘Athena Medici’ statue type. Possible or related references to the later fate of the Athena Promachos: Apronianos Epigram no. 432 (=IG ii2 4225); Scholia Aristid. Or. 34.28 (by Arethas); Kedrenos Comp. Hist. i 565; Konstantinos Rhodios Ekphrasis 153-62; Niketas Choniates Diegesis, De Isaac. 738B; Theodoras Skutariotes Synopsis Chron. 112.14-16; Tz., Chil. viii 325; Zos. Hist. Nova v 24.7-8.

9 Linfert 67, concludes that the inscriptions cannot be dated securely because of the lack of names of officials; the records merely state that it took nine years to make the statue, and to date according to letter type is uncertain. However, I cannot agree with his downdating to the period of the Athena Parthenos; Linfert emphasizes the warrior-epithet without any discussion of the origins of this name for Pheidias' statue, and this is of course linked to his identification of the ‘Athena Medici” as the Promachos–see further below under the discussion of the attributed statues. The date around 450 for the construction inscriptions is maintained by Lewis in IG i3.1 435, and by most other scholars, see for instance Stewart, A.F., Greek sculpture. An exploration (Princeton 1990) 23, 60, 257Google Scholar, who dates it around 450 and before the Athena Parthenos.

10 Raubitschek, A.E. and Stevens, G.P., ‘The pedestal of the Athena Promachos’, Hesperia xv (1946) 108–14Google Scholar, restored the dedication as ‘The Athenians made the dedication from the Median spoils’; Raubitschek, A.E., Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (Cambridge, Mass. 1949) 198–201Google Scholar no. 172. Most recently, the late Professor D. Lewis at Oxford expressed doubts about this restoration. He pointed to the use of the cross bar theta, which should date the inscription to shortly after 480 BC, a date too early for a Pheidian statue, IG i3.2 505. See also J.A. Bundgaard, Parthenon and the Mycenean city on the Heights (Copenhagen 1976) 165-7, whose conclusion does not contradict Lewis. On the letter types see also Immerwahr, H.R., Attic script. A survey (Oxford 1990) 145–6Google Scholar.

11 Höcker, C. and Schneider, L., Phidias (Hamburg 1993) 11Google Scholar, present the common opinion when they write that Pheidias was probably born around 490 and that his early major state works must be from around 460. However, a sculptor like Michelangelo who was born in 1475 created the Pietà group in St. Peter's Rome in 1496-1500.

12 Beulé, , L'Acropole d'Athenes ii (1854) 307 ffGoogle Scholar; Stevens, G.P., ‘The Periclean entrance court’, Hesperia v (1936) 443–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 491-3, figs, 42-3; Raubitschek and Stevens (n.12) 107-14; Dinsmoor, W.B., ‘Two monuments on the Athenian Acropolis’, in Charisterion, Festschrift to A.K. Orlandos iv (1967-1968) 145–55Google Scholar.

13 Thompson, H.A., ‘A colossal moulding in Athens’, in Charisterion, Festschrift to A.K. Orlandos i (Athens 1965) 314–23Google Scholar: classicistic; Dinsmoor (n.14) 147-8: reworked in the Augustan period.

14 Dinsmoor, W.B., ‘Attic building accounts’ AJA xxv (1921) 118–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raubitschek and Stevens (n.12) 108.

15 Dinsmoor (n.16).; however, according to de Waele, J.A.K.E., The Propylaia of the Akropolis in Athens (Amsterdam 1990) 47Google Scholar, the Propylaia are calculated to have been 14.70 m high.

16 Stevens (n.14) 495-7; Niemeyer, H.G., Promachos. Untersuchung zur Darstellung der bewaffneten Athena in archaischer Zeit (Waldsassen 1960) 789 n. 305Google Scholar.

17 Cf. Weber, M., JDAI cviii (1993) 83–122Google Scholar, esp. 108: it is impossible to extrapolate the height of a statue from the dimensions of its base.

18 Zimmer, G., Griechische Bronzegusswerkstätten (Mainz am Rhein 1990) 62–71Google Scholar: the date could be as late as 440-430 BC. The pit was originally found in 1876/77 and re-excavated in 1963. There are two oval pits which touch on the long sides. The total surface they cover is 8.20 m × 20.90 m and the depth is 3 m. There are different phases in both which complicate the interpretation. The most western pit has a sort of platform at its bottom of 1.8 m × 2.5 m which should be equivalent to the lower part of the item cast here. The pits were earlier dated according to pottery found in the eastern most pit dating from the late fourth century BC. However, in fact, the date is open for the western pit, and Zimmer dates this pit on the shape and technical characteristics of the ‘Formuntersatz’ as compared with one in the Kerameikos (his cat.no. 8.4.1 from mid-fifth century BC), and a similar one in Olympia (cat.no. 8.4.5, Pheidias' workshop). Further parallels are made with evidence from the bronze casting workshop below the Pheidian workshop in Olympia (cat.no. 4.3.2) which Zimmer, 68, finds could have been used by Pheidias or his master caster for an unknown bronze statue. However, I will argue that this evidence does not securely alter the date if the pit is to be associated with the Promachos. The technical characteristics for colossal-scale casting must have been introduced by someone somewhere, and no better occasion exists than the great demands generated by the creation of the large Athena statue on the Akropolis to develop new methods. The date shortly before 450, therefore, should be maintained.

19 Paus. i 23.8.

20 Mathiopoulos 7-47, referred to without questioning by, for instance, Tölle-Kastenbein, R., Frühklassische Peplosfiguren. Originate (Mainz am Rhein 1980), 58Google Scholar; Miller, S.G.Hesperia Supp. xx (1982) 94Google Scholar; LIMC ii (1984), s.v. ‘Athena’ and ‘Athena/Minerva’; contra: e.g. Gauer, W., ‘Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen’, IstMittBeih ii (1968) 103–5Google Scholar.

21 Pick 59-74.

22 Pfuhl, E., AthMitt lvii (1932) 151–7Google Scholar.

23 Shear, J.P., ‘Athenian Imperial Coinage’, Hesperia v (1936) 285–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Kroll passim–see below.

25 Mathiopoulos 7-47.

26 Mathiopoulos 13-22; the bust type was, prior to this, also discussed in connection with Athena Promachos by Pick 59-64.

27 Lacroix, L., Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques (Liège 1949) 281–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, rejected Pick but has unfortunately not been followed by subsequent scholars.

28 Pick 64-72; cf. Svoronos, J.N. and Pick, B., Les Monnaies d'Athènes (Munich 1923-1926) pl. 98 nos. 19–43Google Scholar; Mathiopoulos 13-17. Pick subdivided it into ten groups and he saw two versions of the Athena type in his first group, but this was rejected by Mathiopoulos.

29 Kroll 115-6: second century AD; Riis, P.J., Aarch xlv (1974) 124–133Google Scholar, esp. 130-1 n. 22. In the British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, a specimen of this type is dated to the third century AD.

30 Earlier thought to be the Parthenon; for the identification now see Price, M.J. and Trell, B.L., Coins and their cities (London 1977)77Google Scholar.

31 There are three examples of this out of a total of 31 coins, cf. Svoronos (n.30) pl. 98 nos. 19-20; Pick 65, pl. I 12, Beilage/encl. XXVIII. 1; see also Kroll no. 280 with further examples of the general type and discussion on 124 n. 64.

32 Svoronos (n.30) pl. 98 nos. 23-9.

33 Pick 71: ‘gegürteten Doppelchiton mit Überschlag’; his description has basically been followed by later scholars.

34 Pick 65; Mathiopoulos 16 n. 54 rejects the raised shield.

35 Paus. i 28.2; contra: Linfert 66-7, who finds support for the shield positioned on the back in the Byzantine miniatures; on this subject see further below.

36 This of course also tallies with the typical dress for Athena in the early to mid-fifth century BC representations; see for instance Ridgway, B.S., in Goddess and polis, The Panathenaic festival in ancient Athens, ed. Neils, J. (New Hampshire 1992) 136Google Scholar.

37 Kleiner, F.S., Hesperia xliv (1975) 302–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Head, B.V., Catalogue of Greek coins Attica-Megara-Aegina (London 1888), 69, 84Google Scholar, pl. XV. 3; Svoronos (n.30) pl. 25 nos. 1-10; Mathiopoulos 17-8. Methana in the north of the Argolis, not far from Troizen, seems never to have been settled by Athenian cleruchs. The city was captured by the Athenians in the Peloponnesian war and used as a base for attacks on Troizen and Epidauros. It became independent in the fourth century BC and struck its own coins, cf. Lauffer, S. (ed.), Griechenland. Lexikon der historischen Stätten (Munich 1989) 427Google Scholar. From the third century until the middle of the second century BC the city was a base for the Ptolemies. They gave it the name Arsinoe and put their own images on the coins, cf. Habicht, C., Athen in hellenistischer Zeit (Munich 1994) 162–3Google Scholar with refs. Mathiopoulos 17, even ascribes some of the coins to the Athenian magistrates Niketes-Dionysios of 197-187 BC. According to more recent research there did exist a couple of Athenian coin magistrates of these names, but they are from 98/97 BC, and brothers from the demos Eupyridai, sons of Athenobios (Habicht ibid. 297).

39 Svoronos (n.30) pl. 25 nos. 1-10; Kroll, J.H., Hesperia Suppl. xx (1982) 65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kroll nos. 66, 68.

40 Mathiopoulos 16 n. 53, explains the changing types of helmet on the coin types in the first group as a typical Roman confusion, cf. Langlotz, E., Phidiasprobleme (Frankfurt am Main 1947) 74Google Scholar.

41 Supra n.41.

42 IG ii2 1424L11–16; 1425L307–312; 1426L4–8; 1428L142–146; 1429L42–47; and in IG ii2.2 ii 1424aL362–366; cf. Kroll (n.41) 68 n. 18

43 See in general the comments on interpreting coin images by Thompson, M., Hesperia Supp. xx (1982) 163–71Google Scholar.

44 Dressel, H., Fünf Goldmedaillons aus dem Funde von Abukir (Berlin 1906) 15Google Scholar; Svoronos, J.N., JourlntArchNum xiv (1912) 193–339Google Scholar, esp. 278; Svoronos (n.30) pl. 84 nos. 1–7 & 914; Mathiopoulos 18–20; Kroll nos. 301–2.

45 This is the image Price and Trell (n.32) 76 fig. 132 find ‘conforms most closely to the Athena Promachos shown on the Acropolis coin’; contra Kroll 124 n. 64.

46 Svoronos (n.30) pls. 82–99; Pick 59–60; Mathiopoulos 205; Kroll passim, esp. 121.

47 Pick 61–3, pl. I, 1/2, 6/7.

48 Mathiopoulos 21 and most recently in LIMC ii (1984)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Athena’ no. 145, 1030 (Demargne); ibid. s.v. ‘Athena/Minerva’ no. 60 (Canciani); contra Kroll 124 n. 64.

49 Aspasios gem, Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, see for instance Becatti, G., Problemi fidiaci (Milan and Florence 1951) pl. 63 fig. 188Google Scholar; Castellani gem—see Walters, H.B., Catalogue of the engraved gems and cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum (London 1926) no. 1374, pl. XIXGoogle Scholar.

50 Pick passim; Bailey, D.M., A catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum ii. Roman lamps made in Italy (London 1980) 13Google Scholar; LIMC ii (1984)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Athena’ no. 145 (Demargne); ‘Athena/Minerva’ nos. 36–37, 112 (Canciani); Bailey, D.M., A catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum iii. Roman provincial lamps (London 1988)Google Scholar, passim. Perlzweig, J., ‘The lamps of the Roman period’, Agora vii (1961) 111Google Scholar, criticized Pick and emphasized that the images of Athena with a Corinthian helmet on numerous Roman lamps and emblemata ‘do not bring any direct evidence to bear on the identification of the type; they simply add weight to the argument that the original was a world-famous statue in Athens.’ However, Perlzweig, ibid., is still referred to on a par with Pick.

51 Both groups are known not only in Athens but also in Corinth, Southern Russia, Gaul, Italy, and Egypt (see below).

52 Pick 61–4, fig. 1, Beilage/enc. XXVII; Perlzweig (n.52) 111–12 nos. 659–666; Mathiopoulos 23–5.

53 Mathiopoulos 24; Perlzweig (n. 52) 111; early Corinthian lamps also show an Athena bust but it is an image different to the Athena Promachos, and only Corinthian lamps dated to the third century onwards depict the same image of Athena as the Attic lamp types.

54 There is, furthermore, an earlier example of the same type found in Athens, a lamp from the Kerameikos: Pick 62; Mathiopoulos 23–24, n. 101–2.

55 LIMC ii (1984)Google Scholar s.v., ‘Athena (in Aegypto)’ no. 41 (H. Cassimatis); a reference is made ‘pour une lampe semblable’ in Robinson, H.S., ‘Pottery of the Roman period’, Agora v (1959) 81Google Scholar Group L no. 63, pl. 36; this is not a lamp but a bowl.

56 LIMC ii (1984) s.v. ‘Athena/Minerva’ no. 36 (Canciani), with the reference to Robinson (n.57) as in the previous note, though now correctly to a ‘rilievo del fondo di tazze’. There is unfortunately no cross-reference anywhere in the LIMC volume to these two differing views on the interpretation of the same image of Athena on the two lamps.

57 Perlzweig (n.52) 111, does refer to cautious questioning of Pick by some scholars, and she believes Pick would have had a stronger case had he understood the difference of the Attic Athena Promachos lamps from the early Corinthian lamp types with Athena; Bailey (n.52: 1988) 7; Slane, K.W., ‘The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. The Roman pottery and lamps’ Corinth xviii.2 (Princeton 1990) 15Google Scholar, 28 no. 17 =L 4353.; Gill, D.W.J. and Hedgecock, D., ‘Debris from an Athenian lamp workshop’, ABSA lxxxvii (1992) 411–21Google Scholar.

58 This has been assumed earlier but the evidence has never been discussed in detail; see for instance Niemeyer (n.18) 7686; Gauer (n.22) 103–5 and Kasper-Butz, I., Die Göttin Athena im klassischen Athen (Frankfurt am Main 1990) 178–80Google Scholar.

58 Pick 71–2, Beilage/enc. XXVIII. 5–6; Perlzweig (n.52), nos. 50, 116, 2364; LIMC ii (1984)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Athena/Minerva’, no. 112 (Canciani) =Agora L 2454/50 cf. L 2364, and cf. idem 1079 no. 60 (coin with the bust of Athena).

60 Not many of the extant lamps from Athens depict a standing figure of Athena. Pick gives three examples, which he also associates with the Athena Promachos, two of which perhaps come from the Kerameikos. Pick also refers to some late lamps found at Vari, showing the same bust and a standing Athena figure; for these lamps, see Bassett, S.E., AJA vii (1903) 338–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 3 for the bust and pl. XIII. 1 for the standing Athena.

61 Perlzweig (n.52) nos. 50, 116.

62 Bailey (n.52, 1980) 13.

63 Frontispiece in Frantz (n.6): a lamp from c. 500 ad found on the Agora and which according to the picture text shows the ‘Athena Promachos’, cf. Perlzweig (n. 52) no. 2364. The only ‘Promachos’ discussed in the volume by Frantz is indeed Pheidias’ statue, and when it was possibly moved to Constantinople. I presume it must therefore have been thought that the image on the disc of the lamp could illustrate this famous work of art, but unfortunately there is no attempt made to investigate the trustworthiness of the conclusions originally made by Pick for this particular Athena type.

64 In an attempt to explain why the spear had moved from the shield-side to the other side, as opposed to the coins of Group 1, Pick 72, concluded that the spear was a column, added in later times in order to support the Nike; even the editors of AthMitt lvi (1931) 72Google Scholar n.2 emphasized that they still saw the spear as a spear and not a Nike on a column.

65 Beazley, J.D., The development of Attic black figure vasepainting (rev.ed. Bothmer, D. v. and Moore, M.B., Berkeley 1986) 81–92Google Scholar.

66 Mathiopoulos 9–10; see also Jenkins, R.J.H., JHS lxvii (1947) 31–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar & idem, ABSA xlvi (1951) 72-4; Niemeyer (n.18) 79-83; Gauer (n.22) 103-5; Linfert 59-66, believes this to be the Athena Lemnia; for further discussion of this view: Stichel, R.H.W., Boreas xi (1988) 155–64Google Scholar and Linfert‘s reply in Boreas xii (1989) 137–40Google Scholar.

67 Niemeyer (n.18) 80; Gauer (n.22) 105.

68 Jenkins (n.68, 1947) pl. X, no longer in existence cf. Jenkins (n.68, 1951).

69 The name piece is in the Louvre, Paris, MA 3070, H: 2.605 m. For a list of replicas combine Linfert 76–7 and Karanastassis, P., ‘Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Plastik in Griechenland II: Kopien, Varianten und Umbildungen nach Athena-Typen des 5. Jhs. v. Chr.’, AthMitt cii (1987) 339Google Scholar n.63, nos. B II, 1–9.

70 First Furtwängler, A., Masterpieces of Greek sculpture (Chicago 1964/1894), 26–34Google Scholar; further Lippold, G., ‘Die griechische Plastik’, HdA iii.1 (1950) 156Google Scholar; Linfert 66–71.

71 Shield: Akropolis relief inv.no. 2526 Linfert no. 23; statuette in private collection Linfert no. 21; statuette Athens NM no. 3466 Linfert no. 22; Louvre MA 3070 has the shoulder worked out for attachment of the shield. Spear: cf. right hand of Thessaloniki inv.no. 877 Linfert no. 4.

72 The head type associated with the ‘Athena Medici’, the Carpegna head in the National Museum in Rome inv. no. 55051, carries an Attic helmet, which is of course possible for the Pheidian Athena Promachos but not confirmed securely by the Group 1 coin images.

73 See for instance the statues in Seville nos. 839 and 840, Linfert nos. 2 & 3; and the statuettes from Elis, Athens NM 3000, Linfert no. 16.

74 Thessaloniki inv.no.877, Linfert no. 4, Cyrene cat.no. 14.176, Linfert no. 5, and Ariccia inv.no 19, Karanastassis (n.71) 339 n. 63.

75 Caster and stucco worker J. Bau and director, Dr.phil. J. Zahle, at the Royal Cast Collection in Copenhagen, now director of the Danish Institute in Rome.

76 On the replicas of Athena Parthenos see most recently Weber (n.19) 83–122 and K.D.S. Lapatin, ‘The ancient reception of Pheidias’ Athena Parthenos: the visual evidence in context’, in The reception of classical texts and images. Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 3–4th Jan. 1996, eds. L. Hardwick and S. Ireland (Milton Keynes 1996) 1–20.

77 A comparison with the Parthenon sculpture is instructive, see Brommer, F., Die Skulpturen der Parthenon Giebel (Mainz am Rhein 1963)Google Scholarpassim; Linfert 70, prefers to compare the ‘Athena Medici’ with Parthenon metope no. S 17 for a date in the 440s. Thereby the Athena Promachos would have been almost contemporary with the Athena Parthenos which seems an unlikely conjunction of two such enormous works and one which, most importantly, is not supported by any of the other evidence. Linfert is in other words attempting to downdate the Promachos to suit the date of the ‘Athena Medici’ which is methodologically very dubious.

78 I discuss the statue type of the ‘Athena Medici’ and the many very interesting problems and aspects it raises at greater length in a forthcoming article in ARID xxiv (1996–11 1997)Google Scholar.

79 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 50.11.1; H: 0.149 m. Langlotz (n.42) 74–5; Richter, G.M.A., Metropolitan museum. Catalogue of Greek sculpture (Oxford 1954) 25Google Scholar no. 29; Mathiopoulos 16.

80 See the previous note; Tölle-Kastenbein (n.22) 49–51 no. 8c however, probably correctly, finds there is too little evidence to draw such a conclusion.

81 The owl as a suitable attribute for the Athena Promachos; see Mathiopoulos 25–9. The owl was in general often used as an attribute of Athena in representations of the goddess from the second half of the sixth and early fifth century bc, cf. Groothand, M.H., BA Besch xliii (1968) 35–51Google Scholar; this attribute is also associated with the Athena Polias, see Kroll (n.41).

82 Ridgway, B.S., Fifth century styles in Greek sculpture (Princeton 1981) 169Google Scholar; LIMC ii (1984)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Athena’ no. 205 (Demargne).