divine images and human imaginations in ancient greece and rome edited by joannis mylonopoulos

8/19/2019 Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome Edited by Joannis Mylonopoulos

1/456


2/456

Divine Images and Human Imaginationsin Ancient Greece and Rome


3/456

Religions in theGraeco-Roman World

Editors

H.S. Versnel

D. Frankfurter

J. Hahn

VOLUME 170


4/456

Divine Images and Human

Imaginations in Ancient Greece

and Rome

Edited by

Joannis Mylonopoulos

LEIDEN • BOSON2010


5/456

Tis book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Divine images and human imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome / edited by Joannis

Mylonopoulos.p. cm. – (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world, ISSN 0927-7633 ; v. 170)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN 978-90-04-17930-1 (hardback : alk. paper)1. Greece–Religion. 2. Rome–Religion. 3. Divine images and cult statues–Greece. 4. Divineimages and cult statues–Rome. I. Mylonopoulos, Joannis. II. itle. III. Series.

BL785.D58 2010292.2'18–dc22

2009041612

ISSN 0927-7633ISBN 978 90 04 17930 1

Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to Te Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.


6/456

CONENS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I l l us trat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction: Divine images versus cult images. An endless story about theories, methods, and terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


A pantheon without attributes? Goddesses and gods in Minoanand Mycenean iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Fritz Blakolmer

Aniconism and the notion o “primitive” in Greek antiquity . . . . . . . . 63

Milette GaimanFinding the gods. Greek and Cypriot votive korai revisited . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Catherine M. Keesling

Gods and Statues—An approach to archaistic images in the fhcentury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Fernande Hölscher

Greek priests and “cult statues”: In how ar are they unnecessary? . . 121

Vinciane Pirenne-Delorge

Teseus and the stone. Te iconographic and ritual contexts o aGreek votive relie in the Louvre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Gunnel Ekroth

Odysseus with a trident? Te use o attributes in ancient Greek i m a g e r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1


Te lie story o a cult statue as an allegory: Kallimachos’ HermesPerpheraios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Ivana Petrovic


7/456

Arcadian cult images between religion and politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225anja Scheer

Synnaos theos. Images o Roman emperors in Greek temples . . . . . . . . 241Dirk Steuernagel

Simulacra deorum versus ornamenta aedium. Te status o divineimages in the temples o Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257Sylvia Estienne

Te dedication o cult statues at the altar. A Roman pictorial

ormula or the introduction o new cults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273Katja Moede

Ornamenta, monumenta, exempla. Greek images o gods in thepublic spaces o Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Alessandra Bravi

Bibl iography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303Index o passages cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361Subject index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367F i g u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 7


8/456

FOREWORD

Te present volume derives rom the conerence “Images o Gods-Imagesor Gods”, which I organised at the University o Erurt in June . Tebasic goal o the colloquium was to bring together scholars rom variousdisciplines, nations, and scholarly traditions in order to explore icono-graphic, iconologic, contextual, and methodological questions associated

with divine images in Greek and Roman antiquity. Te conerence wasmade possible by the generous nancial support o the Gerda HenkelFoundation. I am also thankul to the Max-Weber-Kolleg at the Univer-sity o Erurt or cordially hosting the colloquium. Without the encour-agement o my ormer colleague Jörg Rüpke the conerence would havesimply remained a nice idea. I am deeply indebted to him or his con-tinuous advice and support. Diana Püschel, Gudrun Lichotka, SolveigHoppe, and Martin Hohmann also provided invaluable help during the

preparation and the actual staging o the conerence.Te idea o publishing the papers was embraced immediately by al-

most all the participants o the conerence to whom I am very grateul. Iam also indebted to Milette Gaiman and Fritz Blakolmer or their will-ingness to contribute articles, even i they did not participate in the Erurtconerence. I am prooundly thankul to all contributors, only one o whois a native speaker, or agreeing upon a strictly monolingual publicationin English. Susannah Edmonds stoically mastered the unthankul task o

the papers’ correction, and once more the generous Gerda Henkel Foun-dation stepped in as a sponsor. I was able to nish the bibliographicalunication o the individual contributions, the checking o the ootnotes,and urther editorial responsibilities in a relatively timely manner only thanks to the act that, during the academic year /, I enjoyedthe benet o a ellowship at the Harvard Center or Hellenic Studies inWashington DC. I am extremely grateul to the directors o the Center,Greg Nagy and Douglas Frame, or giving me the opportunity to work in

such an inspiring environment.Shortly afer the conerence, I approached Henk Versnel about pub-lishing the papers o the Erurt conerence in the series “Religions inthe Graeco-Roman World”. Ever since our rst discussion in Heidel-berg, Henk Versnel has been exceptionally supportive o this publication,and the volume proted enormously rom his scrutinising, constructive


9/456

critical remarks. I also owe much gratitude to Brill’s anonymous internaland external reviewers who decisively contributed to the renement o the volume. Te nal publication was somewhatdelayed owing to a majorrelocation in early autumn , and I am indebted to Brill’s editorialteam or their patience and understanding.

At Columbia University, I consider mysel ortunate to have a researchassistant as diligent, productive, and open-minded as SeungJung Kim.Te detailed index, an indispensable part o any scholarly publication, isentirely the result o her work.

Joannis MylonopoulosNew York, April


10/456

AUHORS

F B is Associate Proessor at the Institute o ClassicalArchaeology at the University o Vienna, where he teaches Minoan andMycenaean Archaeology. His main research interests are the arts o the Aegean Bronze Age (especially wall-painting and relie art), thehistory o research, colour and its signicance in antiquity, and tomb

orms o Classical Lykia. He has published widely on all these topics.He is currently nishing a monograph entitled Minoisch-mykenischeReliefunst. Grundlagen einer rühägäischen Kunstgeschichte.

A B is a research ellow at the Institute o Classical Ar-chaeology at Heidelberg University. Her interests ocus on the percep-tion o works o art in the Roman and Byzantine world (Die Bilderwelt Konstantinopels: Das decorum und die Präsenz klassischer Bildewerke in

öffentlichen Gebäuden im .–. Jh. n. Chr .), images and civic identity inRoman Asia Minor, and the cultural identity o the Jewish communitiesin the Diaspora. Her book Decorum e senso pratico dell’arte. Opere grechenegli spazi pubblici di Roma is about to be published.

G E is a Research Fellow at the Department o Archaeology and Classical Studies at Stockholm University. She is the author o TeSacricial Rituals o Greek Hero-Cults () and o numerous papers on

various aspects o hero-cults. She has also worked on the shapes and useso altars, the treatment o blood, the division o meat, and the handlingo bones at animal sacrice. She is currently preparing a study o thepractical aspects o Greek sacricial ritual.

S E is Assistant Proessor at the Department o History atthe École Normale Supérieure (Paris). Her research interests ocus on therole o the images o the gods in the Roman cult, especially on the relation

between images and ritual practices. Her current research includes thestudy o the Roman temples’ organisation and the relation between imageand religion. She co-edited the volume Image et religion dans l’antiquité

gréco-romaine ().


11/456

M G is Assistant Proessor at the Classics Department atYale University. Her research ocuses primarily on Greek religious art.She is interested in topics such as the divine image in Greek religion, therelationship between art and ritual, the variety o orms in Greek art—rom the naturalistic to the non-gural—as well as the historiography o the scholarship o Greek art. She is currently nishing the publication o her PhD entitled Beyond Mimesis in Greek Religious Art: Aniconism in the

Archaic and Classical Periods.

F H teaches Classical Archaeology at the Department

o Literary Studies at the University o Constance. Her main elds o interest are Greek and Roman iconography (Die Bedeutung archaischer ierkamilder []; Römische Bilderwelten. Von der Wirklichkeit zumBild und zurück []), the archaeology and iconology o Greek andRoman ritual, and the historical development o Greek cult statues.She has published several papers on all these subjects. She is currently preparing a monograph entitled Die Gottheit im Bild .

C M. K is Associate Proessor at the Department o Classics at Georgetown University, Washington DC. Her publicationsinclude Te Votive Statues o the Athenian Acropolis (),aswellasarti-cles and book chapters on Greek sculpture o the Archaic and Classicalperiods, Greek epigraphy, and commemorative monuments. She is cur-rently writing a book entitled Portraiture and Memory in Ancient Greece:Greek Portrait Statues and their Aerlives, ca. to .

K M is a Researcher at the Institute o Classical Archaeology atFree University, Berlin. Her research interests ocus on various aspects o the archaeology o Roman religion, especially the visualisation o ritualsin Roman art and the orms o the religiously accentuated spatial organ-isation o agriculturally used landscape (research and excavation projectin Italy together with the Parco Regionale Naturale Monte Navegna eCervia). Her monograph Ritual und Bild: Die Darstellung religiöser Rit-uale im römischen Relie is about to be published.

J M is Assistant Proessor at the Department o ArtHistory and Archaeology at Columbia University. His research primarily ocuses on Greek religious art, Greek sanctuaries, and the iconography o terracotta gurines (Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon au der Pelo-

ponnes []; Archäologie und Ritual []). He is currently nishing


12/456

a monograph entitled Odysseus in the Cavern? erracotta gurines romthe Polis-Cave on Ithaca, while working on a book about Te Visual Con-struction(s) o the Divine in Ancient Greece.

I P is Lecturer at the Department o Classics and AncientHistory at the University o Durham. Her research interests includeGreek and especially Hellenistic poetry, Greek religion, and magic. Shehas published several papers on these topics. Her monograph Von denoren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp. Artemiskult bei Teokrit und Kallimachos () deals with the reception o contemporary religion

in Hellenistic poetry. She is currently working on A commentary onCallimachus’ Hymn to Artemis.

V P-D is Senior Research Associate o the Fondsde la Recherche Scientique (FNRS), Lecturer at the University o Liège,and scientic editor o the journal Kernos. She is the editor and author o many works relating to Greek religion, especially to Greek gods (L’ Aphro-dite grecque []; Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs

[]; Κπι. De la religion à la philosophie []). Her research hasalso ocused on Pausanias, on whom she has published a monographentitled Retour à la source. Pausanias et la religion grecque ().

S is Full Proessor at the Department o Ancient History at Oldenburg University. Her research ocuses primarily on Greek andRoman religious and cultural history ( Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung

griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte

[]; Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechi-scher Kultbilder in Religion und Politik []), the Roman Imperialperiod, Late Antiquity, and gender studies. She is currently nishing amonograph entitled Antike Geschlechterbeziehungen.

D S is a Research Associate at the Department o Classi-cal Archaeology at the University o Frankurt/Main. His main researchinterests are the iconography o myth and ritual ( Menschenoper und

Mord am Altar. Griechische Mythen in etruskischen Gräbern []),the archaeology o religion in Roman cities in Italy and the easternprovinces o the Empire (Kult und Alltag in römischen Haenstädten.Soziale Prozesse in archäologischer Perspektive []), and the maniolduses o Greek temples during the period o Roman rule.


13/456


14/456

ILLUSRAIONS

Blakolmer

. “Shrine o the double axes” in the palace o Knossos, afer: Evans , g.

. Wall paintings in the “House with the resco complex” at Mycenae(drawing by L. Papageorgiou), afer: Marinatos , g.

. Painted plaque rom the “sountas house” at Mycenae (drawing), afer:Rehak , pl. a. erracotta statue rom Gazi, so-called Goddess with upraised arms, afer:

Rethemiotakis , pl. . Seal rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Seal impression rom Chania (drawing), afer: CMS V Suppl. A no. . Seal rom Crete (drawing), afer: CMS V Suppl. B no. . Seal impression rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Seal rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Seal rom omb at Mycenae (drawing), afer: CMS I no.

. Seal rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Seal impression rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Seal in the Benaki Museum, Athens (drawing), afer: CMS V no. . Seal impression rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Signet ring rom Mycenae (drawing), afer: CMS I no. . Signet ring rom Vapheio (drawing), afer: CMS I no. . Te “Master impression” rom Chania (drawing), afer: Hallager ,

g. . Signet ring rom Knossos (drawing), afer: Evans , g. . Signet ring rom Isopata (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Signet ring rom Kalapodi (drawing), afer: CMS V Suppl. no. . Cylinder seal rom Ayia Pelayia (drawing), afer: Gill , pl. g. . Te so-called Sacred-conversation-ring rom Poros (drawing), afer:

Dimopoulou – Rethemiotakis , g. c. Seal impression rom Knossos (drawing), afer: CMS II no. . Signet ring rom the “reasure o iryns” (drawing), afer: CMS I no.

. Wall painting in Xeste in Akrotiri, Tera (drawing by Ray Porter), afer:

Betancourt , g. .

. Painted bowl rom Phaistos, afer: Levi , pl. a

Keesling

. Kore statue rom the Athenian Acropolis (Acr. ) © Alison FrantzPhotographic Collection, American School o Classical Studies at Athens(neg. A )


15/456

. Te sanctuary o the Great Goddess at Idalion, Cyprus, showing votivekore statues reportedly ound in situ (drawing by M. Ohnealsch-Richter),

afer: Ohnealsch-Richter , pl. LVI

Hölscher

. Panathenaic amphora, London, Te British Museum B , afer: Simon –Hirmer , pl. LI

. Hermes “Simonetti”, Munich, Glyptothek DV © PhotosammlungArchäologisches Institut Heidelberg

. Hekateion, Athens, British School at Athens S , afer: Willers , pl.

. Black gure olpe, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles ,afer: CVA Bibl. Nat . , pl. .. Black gure band cup, Paris, Niarchos Collection, afer: TesCRA I pl.

Gr. . Red gure hydria, Naples, Mus. Naz. , afer: Simon – Hirmer ,

pl. . Black gure amphora, Art Market Geneva/New York, afer: Kunze-Götte

, pl. .. Red gure amphora, London, Te British Museum E , afer: LIMC IV.,

pl. .

. Red gure amphora, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, afer: Mangold, g.

. Red gure calyx-crater, Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum , afer:rendall – Cambitoglou , pl. .a–b. Courtesy o the Allard PiersonMuseum Amsterdam

. Red gure volute-krater, Ferrara, Mus. Naz. , afer: TesCRA I pl. Gr.

. Red gure pyxis, Naples, Mus. Naz. (H), afer: TesCRA IIpl. .

Ekroth

. Votive relie, Paris, Louvre Ma © M. and P. Chuzeville, Musée duLouvre, Paris

. Votive relie, Paris, Louvre Ma (detail: inscription) © M. andP. Chuzeville, Musée du Louvre, Paris

. Figure no. on the east rieze o temple o Athena Nike, Acropolis,Athens © Hans-Ruprecht Goette

. Votive relie, Paris, Louvre Ma (detail: lef hand o Sosippos) © M. andP. Chuzeville, Musée du Louvre, Paris

. Votive relie, Eretria Museum inv. no. © Ministry o Culture, EleventhEphorate o Prehistorical and Classical Antiquitites, Chalkis

. Votive relie, Tasos Museum inv. no. © École Française d’Athènes(Photo B. Holtzmann, neg. no. .)

. Votive relie, Catania, Museo Civico Castello Ursino, afer: Comella a, g.


16/456

. Suggested location o the Archaic Agora north-east o the AthenianAcropolis, afer: Shear , g. (reproduced with the permission o

the American School o Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations). Honorary decree rom Athens or elesias o roizen, /, Athens,

Epigraphical Museum inv. no. + + © Epigraphical Museum,Athens

. Te Lithos © American School o Classical Studies at Athens, AgoraExcavations

. Red gure pelike, Rome, Villa Giulia © Soprintendenza per i BeniArcheologici dell’Etruria Meridionale (photo n. )

Mylonopoulos

. Red gure squat lekythos, Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum derUniversität © Archäologisches Institut der Universität Bonn

. Red gure krater, Schloss Fasanerie © Hessische Hausstifung, MuseumSchloss Fasanerie, Eichenzell/ Fulda

. White ground lekythos, Athens, National Museum © Author. Black gure olpe, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles

(drawing), afer: Anti , g. . Boeotian black gure skyphos, Oxord, Asmolean Museum V ©

Ashmolean Museum

. Marble statue o Jupiter Aigiochos, Cyrene Museum ., afer:Canciani , g. b.

. Marble statue, Aigion, Archaeological Museum, afer: Petsas , g. . Reproduced with permission o the Sixth Ephorate o Prehistoricaland Classical Antiquitites, Patras

. Black gure amphora, London, Te British Museum B © Te rustesso Te British Museum

. Kylix, Munich, Antikensammlungen J © Staatliche Antikensammlun-gen und Glyptothek

. Kylix, Munich, Antikensammlungen J (detail) © StaatlicheAntikensammlungen und Glyptothek . Kylix, New York, Te Metropolitan Museum o Art .. © Author. Grave stele rom Sardis, Istanbul, Archaeological Museum © German

Archaeological Institute, Istanbul (D-DAI-IS /). Grave stele rom Sardis (detail), Istanbul, Archaeological Museum ©

German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul (D-DAI-IS R )

Steuernagel

. Pergamenean coin (drawing), afer: Stiller , g. . Te temple o Artemis at Sardis, afer: Gruben , pl. . Portrait o Antoninus Pius rom Sardis © Archaeological Exploration o

Sardis, Harvard University, photograph no. .: (S ..:). Portrait o Antoninus Pius rom Sardis (side view) © Archaeological

Exploration o Sardis, Harvard University, photograph no. .:(S ..:)


17/456

. Portrait o Lucius Verus rom Sardis © Archaeological Exploration o Sardis, Harvard University, photograph no. .: (S.:)

. Portrait o Antoninus Pius (side view), Castle Howard/Yorkshire, CarlisleCollection © Forschungsarchiv ür Antike Plastik, Köln (Neg. FA –)

. Portrait o Septimius Severus rom the Athenian Agora, Athens, NationalMuseum © National Archaeological Museum, Athens

. Te temple o Athena at Priene, afer: Schrader , pl. . Te temple o Athena at Priene (the cella), afer: Pullan , pl. . Statue o Augustus rom the Olympian Metroon (drawing), afer: reu

, g. . Te chryselephantine statue o Zeus at Olympia (drawing), afer: Curtius –

Adler , aelband , pl.

Moede

. Altar o the Lares, Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Proano (lef narrow side), afer: Hölscher , cat.

. Altar o the Lares, Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Proano (right narrow side), afer: Hölscher , cat.

. Altar o the Lares, Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Proano (back side),afer: Hölscher , cat.

. Altar o the Lares, Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Proano (ront side),

afer: Hölscher , cat. . Altar dedicated to Minerva, Rome, Museo Capitolino (ront side) ©

German Archaeological Institute, Rome. Altar dedicated to Minerva, Rome, Museo Capitolino (back side) ©

German Archaeological Institute, Rome. Vesta relie, Palermo, Museo Regionale () © German

Archaeological Institute, Rome. Base rom Sorrento, Sorrento, Museo Correale (ront side) © German

Archaeological Institute, Rome. Base rom Sorrento, Sorrento, Museo Correale (back side) © German

Archaeological Institute, Rome. Base rom Sorrento, Sorrento, Museo Correale (lef narrow side) ©

German Archaeological Institute, Rome. Base rom Sorrento, Sorrento, Museo Correale (right narrow side) ©

German Archaeological Institute, Rome


18/456

ABBREVIAIONS

AR Archaeological Reports ARV 2 J.D. B, Attic red-gure vase-painters, nd edition, Oxord

CEG Carmina epigraphica GraecaCIL Corpus inscriptionum LatinarumCMS Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel , Berlin –

CVA Corpus Vasorum AntiquorumFGrHist Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker , ed. F. J, Berlin

–IG Inscriptiones GraecaeILLRP Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei publicaeLGPN A lexicon o Greek personal names, ed. P.M. F –

E. M, Oxord –LIMC Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zürich –LSAM F. S, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure, Paris LSCG F. S, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Paris LSJ H.G. L – R. S – H.S. J, A Greek-English Lexikon,

th edition, Oxord LSS F. S, Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément , Paris

OGIS W. D, Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, vols,

Leipzig –P Callimachus, vols, ed. R. P, Oxord –RE Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Alterthumswissenscha ,

Stuttgart – Munich –

SEG Supplementum epigraphicum GraecumSH Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. L-J – P. P,Berlin – New York

TesCRA Tesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, Los Angeles –West Iambi et Elegi Graeci, vols, ed. M. W, nd edition, Oxord


19/456


20/456

DIVINE IMAGES VERSUS CUL IMAGES.AN ENDLESS SORY ABOU HEORIES,

MEHODS, AND ERMINOLOGIES*

J M

Pseudo-Lukian, in his Affairs o the Heart , describes the rst encountero a young Athenian with the statue o Aphrodite in her temple atKnidos. Te youth entered the temple and upon encountering the statue’sunearthly perection he

suddenly raised a shout ar more renzied than that o Charikles. ‘Herak-les!’ he exclaimed, ‘what a well-proportioned back! What generous anksshe has! How satisying an armul to embrace! How delicately moulded the

esh on the buttocks, neither too thin and close to the bone, nor yet reveal-ing too great an expanse o at! And as or those precious parts sealed inon either side by the hips, how inexpressibly sweetly they smile! How per-ect the proportions o the thighs and the shins as they stretch down in astraight line to the eet!’

But then henoticed a mark on onethigh, like a stainon a dress,andtook itor a natural deect in the marble. Te attendant had, however, a differentstory to tell. A young man o a good amily ell in love with the goddess.

All day long he would sit acing the statue with his eyes uninterruptedly xed upon her. One night the unortunate inamorato slipped unnoticedinto the temple, and in Pseudo-Lukian’s words:

Why do I chatter on and tell you in every detail the reckless deed o thatunmentionable night? Tese marks o his amorous embraces were seenafer day came and the goddess had that blemish to prove what she hadsuffered.1

* Te present paper proted enormously rom the suggestions o David Frankurterand Henk Versnel.

1 Ps.-Luk. amor . –: ρως πλ τ αρικλυς µµανστερν νεησεν,Ηρκλεις, ση µν τν µεταρνων ερυµα, πς δ’ µιλαες α λαγνες, γκ-λισµα ειρπλης· ς δ’ επεργραι τν γλυτν α σρκες πικυρτνται µτ’γαν λλιπες ατς στις πρσεσταλµναι µτε ες πργκν κκευµναι πι-τητα. τν δ τς σις νεσραγισµνων κατρων τπων κ ν επι τις ς δς


21/456

Tis is, o course, ction. Divine images and especially those in theround were washed and dressed, carried in processions or carried away as booty. Tey may have been touched and kissed, but they were notphysically raped. Nevertheless, Pseudo-Lukian’s story 2 raises a series o important issues: the unction o statues in temples, their transormationrom objects o cult to objects o aesthetic delight—even o sexual desire,the relationship between the image and the god or mortal it represents,the boundaries that separate mortals and gods, and the behaviour o

visitors to temples. But above all, Pseudo-Lukian’s narration conrontsus with questions concerning the parameters that constitute a signicant

part o the visual construction o the divine in Graeco-Roman antiquity:the style, the material, the habitus, and the ingenious mise en scéne.

In the case o the Knidian Aphrodite one may identiy several param-eters that visually provided an instant understanding o her essence: a)the sensual style o Praxiteles, who was considered to have even achievedrendering the humid, erotic look in the goddess’ eyes, b) the Pentelic mar-ble,3 amous or its exquisite qualities, which could create a eshy impres-sion without the use o colour thanks to the golden tinge o its iron par-

ticles,4 c) the complete nudity o a divine image in a temple (a highly revolutionary detail), and d) the concept o a sacred building purpose-ully unctioning to stage, as it were theatrically, the unveiled sensuality o the statue.5

γλως· µηρ τε κα κνµης π’ ε τεταµνης ρι πδς κριωµνι υµ . . .

κα τ γρ ρρτυ νυκτς γ τλµαν λλς π’ κρις µν διηγµαι ; τν ρωτι-κν περιπλκν νη τατα µε’ µραν η κα τν σπλν εεν ες ν παενλεγν. On cases o agalmatophilia, see Corso , –.

2 For an understanding o Pseudo-Lukian’s narration in the context o other ekphras-tic texts, see Platt .

3 Pseudo-Lukian identies the material with Parian marble (amor . : Παρας δλυ δαδαλµα κλλιστν). On the contrary, Lukian reers to Pentelic marble (Iupp.trag .: λυ τ λευκ Πεντληεν). Regarding the material, all other sources onAphrodite’s statue in Knidos either remain silent or generally reer to stone or marble.

4 Moltesen – Herz – Moon , : “recognizable [Pentelic marble] rom its textureand its warm, golden patina”.

5 Ps.-Luk. amor .: στι δ’µυρς νες κα τς λυσι κατ ντυ τν ενδεν κρις, να µηδν ατς αµαστν . δι ’ εµαρεας ν στι τ τρα πλ ηπαρελσιν τν πισεν εµραν διαρσαι (the temple had a door on both sides or the benet o those also who wish to have a good view o the goddess rom behind, so that no part o her be le unadmired ). In addition, Corso , considers the conception o the image that emphasises its ront and back side part o Praxiteles’ theatrical approachto Aphrodite’s Knidian statue.


22/456

Te example o the Knidian Aphrodite clearly demonstrates how im-portant the materiality o the divine gure was. It is, thus, surprising thatthree o the most recent general studies o divine images are primarily 6 oreven exclusively 7 based on textual evidence. Already in antiquity authorsstressed the importance o the very physicality o the divine image.Besides Pausanias, the ather o art history, Cicero delivered perhaps themost intriguing ancient advocacy or the study o images:

It has been sagaciously discerned by Simonides or else discovered by someother person, that the most complete pictures are ormed in our minds o the things that have been conveyed to them and imprinted on them by the

senses, but that the keenest o all our senses is the sense o sight, and thatconsequently perceptions received by the ears or by reexion can be mosteasily retained in the mind i they are also conveyed to our minds by themediation o the eyes, with the result that things not seen and not lyingin the eld o visual discernment are earmarked by a sort o outline andimage and shape so that we keep hold o as it were by an act o sight thingsthat we can scarcely embrace by an act o thought.8

Sensitivity to visual evidence, o course, typies many archaeologicalpublications. But archaeology too has its limitations, such as pressing

visual materials into overly strict chronological or iconographic cate-gories,9 which are ofen incapable o comprehending deviant and hybridexamples.10

6

Steiner .7 Scheer and Bettinetti .8 Cic. de oratore .: Vidit enim hoc prudenter sive Simonides sive alius quis invenit,

ea maxime animis effingi nostris quae essent a sensu tradita atque impressa; acerrimumautem ex omnibus nostris sensibus esse sensum videndi; quare acillime animo teneri posseea quae perciperentur auribus aut cogitatione si etiam commendatione oculorum animistraderentur; ut res caecas et ab aspectus iudicio remotas conormatio quaedam et imago et gura ita notaret ut ea quae cogitando complecti vix possemus intuendo quasi teneremus.

9 For example, Damaskos is a typical study o divine images based on a chrono-logical categorisation, while Filges represents a study primarily based on the iconog-raphy o young standing emale divinities.

10 See, or example, Vlizos . Even i Vlizos’ strictly iconographic study o pre-served statues o Zeus seated on a throne is helpul, yet by neglecting the literary and epi-graphic evidence or statues o Zeus in the same or similar posture the author presentsonly a very small part o what actually existed in antiquity. In this respect, the LIMC entries offer in most cases a more balanced overview o the various categories o evi-dence, since they offer a more holistic impression o the iconography o the divine in theGraeco-Roman world.


23/456

Cult statues: emic and etic approaches

With ew exceptions,11 most scholarship on divine images, whether tex-tual or material in orientation, has ocused on cult statues. But in itsel this ocus uncritically reies a term that never existed in antiquity.12 Teambiguous modern terminology and the lack o clear-cut ancient deni-tions or religious statuary continue to create scholarly phantoms, such asthe idea o the Athena Parthenos being a “votive” statue and the AthenaPolias as the only cult statue on the Athenian Acropolis.13

It is one o the contentions o this volume that the very opposition

o “cult statue” and “votive offering” is methodologically problematic.Even those images located in the centre o a temple were normally

votive offerings o the city to its gods. Miraculous images—allegedly notman-made but instead “delivered” to worshippers as divine gifs—wouldalso be exceptions to the “cult-statue”/“votive offering” dichotomy. Suchdivine images had to be progressively recognised and accepted as imageso cult by a society, incorporated into a normative religious and ritualramework. Tus, in the present volume I P discusses one

such case: the miraculous statue o Hermes Perpheraios as described by Kallimachos. In his seventh iambos, the Hellenistic poet allows a statueo Hermes Perpheraios to describe the tormented origins o its cult in theTracian city o Ainos. Beore his semi-iconic image was even recognisedas a statue that deserved respect and veneration, its shapeless orm wasconsigned to be cut up or rewood, burned, and thrown into the sea.But an oracle arriving rom Apollon put an end to the statue’s suffering.Kallimachos’s story does more, however, than simply narrate the etiology

o a holy statue. As P demonstrates, the poet ingeniously usesthe image o Hermes Perpheraios as a cipher or Archaic iambic poetry.While the statue narrates its story, on a meta-level the poet gives anallegorical account o the genre, in which the curriculum vitae o thedivine image is embedded.

In a critical study o the use o the term “cult statue” in modern schol-arship, A. Donohue has discussed the semantic problems associated with

11 Himmelmann-Wildschütz .12 Most recently in Boschung .13 See the most recent synthesis in Prost .


24/456

that term. In her case, she comes to reject the category without offeringa real alternative to it.14 Subsequently, . Scheer and S. Bettinetti haveoffered in-depth analyses o ancient Greek terms associated with imageso gods. In her invaluable discussion o agalma, xoanon, hedos, and bre-tas, Scheer demonstrated that the Greeks had no rm vocabulary or themodern term “cult statue”.15 Bettinetti also studied words such as andrias,eikon, and hidryma and independently reached the same results.16 Temultitude o terms in Greek antiquity that describe visualisations o thedivine reveals a uid understanding o the unctions and orms o animage used in cult. Tus, it is obvious that in ancient Greece no mono-

lithic notion o a cult image ever existed. Moreover, the transormationo the honorary statue o the athlete Teagenes on the island o Tasosinto a statue that received cultic veneration obviously demonstrates thatmany images in the round could be cult statues in spe.17

From a Roman point o view, the situation appears less problematic. Inher contribution, S E demonstrates that in Latin despite theactthattermssuchas statua, signum, simulacrum, effigies, or imago couldbe used as designations o a statue in general, signum and simulacrum

are the two terms most ofen used to address images o gods. Bothsignum and simulacrum can be, but are only rarely used to describerepresentations o humans. Interestingly enough, neither term seems toreer to a specic unction, but rather to a orm o representation: whilesignum is more generally any visual sign o the invisible, simulacrumseems to describe an anthropomorphic image. E also discussesthe term ornamentum and shows that this term can inter alia designatea divine image, but o a quite different juridical status: an ornamentum

can be removed rom a temple and its status can change rom sacred toproane.

14 Donohue . See also Linant de Belleonds etal . who take a similarly agnos-tic position. In their TesCRA entry, we read the ollowing very diplomatic denition(p. ): “Il est usage, dans le vocabulaire moderne, de distinguer les images ‘votives’,simple offrandes à la divinité, de la statue ‘cultuelle’, seule véritable représentation du dieu vivant. Cette dernière aurait occupé une place centrale dans le temple, aussi bien dans le

monde grec que dans le monde romain, et elle seule aurait reçu des offrandes et autresmaniestations de vénération. Or, il aut bien reconnaître que les sources écrites, pas plusque l’iconographie ou l’archéologie, ne nous apportent de certitudes à ce sujet. Il n’existe,ni en grec ni en latin, de terme précis désignant explicitement une statue de culte”.

15 Scheer , –.16 Bettinetti , –.17 Paus. ..–.


25/456

An emic approach to dening cult images in both Greek and Roman cul-tural contexts, one based on the semantics o ancient terminology, seemspractically impossible. Etic approaches, which extrapolate heuristic pat-terns in usage and labelling, may be more easible. Tere have been threegeneral dimensions to such etic approaches, concentrating on aspects o an image’s ) position, ) appearance, and ) cult involvement. Teseaspects strike us as signicant or distinguishing a divine image as anobject o veneration, even i they are not drawn rom ancient literary sources.

. Position: In most cases, divine images centrally placed in the cella o atemple are automatically regarded as cult statues, while all other divineimages in the spatial context o a sanctuary are interpreted as votive offer-ings.18 Tis line o argument not only neglects religious spaces such assacred grooves, caves, or enclosures, but also ignores the innumerablestatues that were objects o veneration in sanctuaries dedicated to otherdivinities.19 For example, Pausanias, while visiting the temenos o Apol-lon Ismenios, saw statues o Hermes and Athena, both venerated by the

Tebans with the epiclesis Pronaios resp. Pronaia.20 Admittedly, the twostatues stood in a sanctuary, but not in their own. More importantly, thestatue o Poseidon in Elis was not even standing in a sacred precinct:Pausanias reers to an old statue o the god that he saw in the most hec-tic place o the city, probably the agora, without any integration into asacred building or even an open temenos.21 And yet, the statue receiveda garment, one o the most important rituals connected to cult statues.Obviously, the exact position o a divine image in a specic religious

18 For example, Boschung , .19 Damaskos , stresses the importance o the display within a temple, but he also

explicitly adds urther architectural and spatial contexts such as the gymnasium or theagora as possible places or the erection o a cult statue. He does not, however, explain thereasons behind his considering the existence o bases specically made or the statues asa signicant actor in identiying them as objects o cultic veneration.

20 Paus. ..: στι δ λς ν δει τν πυλν ερς Απλλωνς· καλεται δ τελς κα ες Ισµνις, παραρρντς τ πταµ τατ η τ Ισµην. πρτα

µν δ λυ κατ τν σδν στιν Αην κα Ερµς, νµαµενι Πρναι · πι-σαι δ ατν Φειδας, τν δ Αηνν λγεται Σκπας· µετ δ νας κδµηται .(there is a hill sacred to Apollo to the right o the gate. Both the hill and the god are called Ismenian, because the river Ismenos rows by the place. First near the entrance are stoneimages o Athena and Hermes named Pronaioi. Te Hermes is said to have been made by Pheidias, the Athena by Scopas. Te temple is built behind ).

21 Paus. ..–.


26/456

spatial context is an important aspect, but it cannot be the only decisiveparameter or its characterisation as a cult statue.22

. Incorporation into ritual activity : Te involvement o a divine imagein cult activities has been repeatedly used as a heuristic tool or a reliablerecognition o cult statues.23 F. Hölscher, or example, completely rejectedthe importance o a statue’s placement in a sanctuary and exclusively denedcultstatuesonthebasisotheirintegrationintothecult.Tiscult,however, had to be repetitive, or the nonrecurring veneration o a statuethrough a prayer could not transorm a dedicated divine image into a cult

statue.24 Although I basically nd mysel in agreement with Hölscher,the aspect o recurring worship may be somewhat over-emphasised.We should rather distinguish between permanent cult statues and thoseimages o gods that occasionally or under specic circumstances couldbe momentarily transormed into a cult statue. Herms or Hekataia onthe roads, or example, were not permanent cult statues, but in thosemoments that someone went by and addressed a prayer to them, they were indeed temporarily unctioning as a cult statue.Tus, rituals dened

cult statues and not the other way round.D. Steiner described more concretely the kind o rituals that she con-

sidered typically associated with cult statues: “Images o tutelary godsworshiped in Greek cities were anything but static, and, unlike the un-wieldy ‘votive’ images whose very size and weight prohibited all mobil-ity, many were carried about in annual processions designed to allow the deity to visit the various chie sites in his or her constituency andreclaim them as their own”.25 One example, albeit chronologically and

religiously distant, should demonstrate that the dichotomy o “unwieldy votive image” versus “mobile cult statue” makes a problematic basis ortheorizing the nature o cult images. A Byzantine miniature rom a Latinand Greek bilingual Psalter dating around shows the venerationo the icon o the Virgin Mary Hodegetria, an icon believed to have been

22 See, however, Catherine Keesling’s paper in the present volume.23 Oenbrink , – attempted to distinguish between cult (Kultbild ) and

votive statues (Votivstatue) depicted on vases based on ormal and contextual analyses

o the images. He concluded that only the embedment o an image in a ritual act coulddecide whether the viewer would be able to recognise a cult statue as such.

24 F. Hölscher , : “denn die einmalige Vererhrung der Statue durch das Gebet. . . macht die als Weihgeschenk augestellte Götterstatue . . . nicht zum Kultbild”.

25 Steiner , . On the interconnection between divine image and procession,see also Broder who studies divine images both as “actors” and as “spectators” o procession, thus offering a more holistic view.


27/456

painted by the evangelist Luke. A large icon is shown behind a grille.More importantly, below the miraculous icon is a smaller copy o theimage, which was detachable or kissing and perhaps or use in proces-sions.26 Which is the cult image in such a depiction? Is it the large iconpainted by Luke or is it the small icon, the copy, which was also used ina ritual context? Tey should, in act, both be considered images o cult,serving different purposes in various ritual contexts.

In her study, Bettinetti offered a combination o very concrete char-acteristics o those statues that should be dened as cult images: ) they had to have a miraculous background,27 ) they had to be placed in a

prominent spot within the architectural space o a temple, and ) they had to be consecrated with magic-religious rituals.28 Te latter elementis an inversion o Hölscher’s and Steiner’s models: in Bettinetti’s view, it isnot the rituals afer the erection o a statue that dened it as a cult image,but the rituals during the act o its installation. For V P-D, too, such hidrysis or installation rituals represented an impor-tant parameter that dened a cult image. Hidrysis ritual integrated a deity among humans and on a symbolic level signied the very rst commu-

nication between the divinity and its worshippers. Te ceremonial, col-lective setting-up o an image did not transorm it into a god, but it didchange it into a cult statue and also signalled the beginning o an interac-tion between the divine and the human spheres. Cult images were meansocommunicationandinthisrespecttheywereverymuchlikethepriestswho participated in estivals dressed like gods, thus evoking the presenceo the honoured deity without being transgured into a divine being.

. Appearance: Apparently, there is no way to recognise a divine imageused in cult based exclusively on its appearance. Moreover, especially in the context o Archaic sculpture the visual distinction even betweenrepresentations o mortals and images o divine beings seems to bealmost impossible, unless the context enables a clarication.29 Obviously,the same artistic language was used or the visualization o both the

26 Cormack .

27 Faraone .28 Bettinetti , –.29 Te visual ambiguity o Kouroi and Korai led to innumerable interpretations o

these two most important sculptural types o Archaic sculpture. For the interpretationso the Kore type, see the table accompanying Catherine Keesling’s paper in this volume.Kouroi have been inter alia identied as Apollines, Dioskouroi, or anonymous votaries;see most recently Brüggemann , –.


28/456

quintessence o young members o a society and the visual constructiono divinities: they were both represented with a physical appearance thatreached the highest degree o perection. C K shows inher paper that the visual ambiguity o Archaic statuary had something todo with the act that its reception in antiquity was more contextual thanit was iconographic. Rather than the ormal composition alone, it wouldhave been the location and exact placement o the statue, its insertioninto local religious traditions and rituals, as well as its historical ramethat delivered the decisive clues or understanding the gure. Ksuggests that, based on their visual experience, ancient viewers were

in a undamentally intuitive way able to read images and differentiatebetween representations o gods and those o humans without having tolook at images the way modern scholars supposedly do. Te difficultieswe experience in dealing with Archaic images most probably have noantique equivalents.

Statues could be made out o almost any material, such as bronze, mar-ble, terracotta, gold and ivory, or wood,30 so that any hierarchy o repre-sentations o the divine based exclusively on their material would appear

inconclusive. Ancient authors do not seem to have avoured any spe-cic material,31 although wood and gold were ofen endowed with spe-cial signicance (wooden images ofen denoting time-honoured relics,while golden statues alluding to a Golden Age). Iconographically, the vastmajority o images o Greek and Roman divinities are anthropomorphic,but there are, nevertheless, rare zoomorphic statues such as the woodenimage o the horse headed Demeter Melaina in Arcadia. Even i they dobelong to a sepulchral context, the aprosopon statues rom Cyrene, most

recently re-evaluated by F. Frontisi-Ducroux,32

demonstrate the widerange o possibilities or the visualisation o the invisible. In addition, ani-conic “representations” o gods clearly attest to the importance o non-images in the Graeco-Roman world and show that the visualisation o the divine cannot be exclusively associated with guration.33 As demon-strated by M G, aniconic representations o the divine,or example in orm o argoi lithoi, were certainly not part o an early

30 Boschung , –.31 In Luk. Iupp. rag . – there is, however, a clear hierarchy based on material and

the ame o the sculptors involved.32 Frontisi-Ducroux .33 Freedberg , –, esp. –.


29/456

cultural and artistic stage in Greece.34 Te evolutionist models, whichwere usually applied in order to understand the phenomenon o ani-conism ailed to recognise the act that the dedication and venerationo shapeless stones was indeed a meaningul religious act in its own rightand not a orm o primitiveness. Ancient authors who reer to aniconism,such as Xenophon, Teophrastos, or Pausanias, describe the worship o aniconic “images” as either harmlessly absurd or highly esteemed. It is inthe polemic o Early Christian authors like Clement that aniconism wastransormed into the diametrical opposite o cultural progress or into thesymbol o a degenerate or primitive stage in human thought. Aniconism

cannot be regarded as especially ancient or meaningul; it is yet anotherway to visualise the divine.

Furthermore, size cannot be considered a decisive parameter or thecultic nature o a divine image, either: the image o Zeus in Olympia wascolossal, but the statue o Athena in egea was denitely under lie-size.35

I easily determinable acts such as material or size are not conclusive,can a more subjective parameter such as style then be an indicator o acult image? Te rojan Palladion is very ofen represented in a manner

reminiscent o Archaic images, while the type o Kouros is used on vaseso the fh and ourth centuries as a visual sign indicating a statue o Apollon.36 What exactly made Pheidias’ artistry appropriate to the godsand the orm o the statues he created worthy o the divine nature?37

We must now turn to the heuristic method(s) that would help denethe iconography o style and the semantics o orm in respect to divineimages. Archaistic styles, or example, scholars usually attribute to a

visual need or quality and stability, the inherent assets o earlier peri-

ods.38

F H, however, illustrates that even i archaisticimages were indeed highly esteemed in both fh-century Athens andAugustan Rome, the conscious evocation o the Archaic style was notsimply a way to enhance the religious importance o an image. Especially in the case o Athenian imagery, archaistic style and archaistic monu-

34 Most recently on baetyls and aniconism, see Stewart who rightly stresses that“there is no reason to believe that the treatment o the images themselves [baetyls] wasundamentally different rom that o iconic statues” (p. ).

35 Based on Statius, however, Cancik demonstrated that colossality could alsohave had a special notion within a religious rame. In such a context, colossality probably alluded to the supernatural and superhuman eatures o the divine.

36 De Cesare , – and Oenbrink , – pl. –.37 Dio Chrys. or . .. See also Clerc , –.38 Palagia , –. Despite Donohue , Palagia uses the term xoanon as a

designation or Archaic wooden images.


30/456

ments should be understood in their specic historical context. On theone hand, H recognises certain symbols in the gure o Athenaon Panathenaic amphorae, as well as in the images o Hermes Propylaiosand Hekate Epipyrgidia that would induce, through their orm and style,a traditional divine protection associated with a very specic and impor-tant part o the Athenian topography, the Acropolis. Te reerence to thepast by means o style did not have a normative quality, but it was usedas a visual sign. On the other hand, archaistic divine images in variousnarrative contexts in vase painting were most probably pictograms or“(cult) statue”.

Yet perhaps there is a more unambiguous criterion or distinguishingbetween cult statues and divine images not involved in cult activities. Inmy view, the mythological narrative and more importantly its absencecould serve as an element or the semantic and unctional separation o cult statues rom divine images in general. wo well-known examplescould exempliy the difference between the two categories o renderingso the divine: the cult statue group in the temple at Lykosoura stood inront o the back wall o the cella and presented to the visitor a quite

static picture, or not a single one o the represented divinities was showninvolved in any action whatsoever. In contrast, the Athena-Marsyas-Group rom the Athenian Acropolis showed Athena in an explicit mytho-logical narrative context. Communication was admittedly the most im-portant aspect o Greek and Roman religions. Te visitors to a templeor sanctuary could immediately interact with an image that was pre-sented to them rontally and without being engaged in a mythical narra-tive. Tis is exactly the case with the statues in the temple o Lykosoura,

where the visitor would have been able to visually communicate with therontally depicted divinities. On the contrary, any attempt to interact withthe Athena o the Myronian group, or instance, would have signied aconscious intrusion o a human being into the divine sphere and mark abreak in the uid progress o the visually narrated myth.39 Te story o Aktaion is one o the numerous examples attesting to the ate that awaitedanyone who dared to enter the divine world uninvited and interrupt thedivine narrative.

39 Tese preliminary thoughts are part o a study by the author on “Te visual con-structions o the divine in ancient Greece” started at the Harvard Center or HellenicStudies. For the ar more complicated process o visualising the divine in the Arab-Graeco-Roman Near East, see Friedland .


31/456

A unique scene on a red gure oinochoe in Te Metropolitan Museumo Art (..) dating around / illustrates the importanceo the one-to-one communication between the worshipper and the di-

vine image: an older bearded man stands behind a statue o Athenaplaced on a high column. He wears a cloak, holds a staff, and raises hisright arm in an unusual gesture o adoration with his orenger almostpointing towards the statue o the goddess. Remarkably, the statue turnsits head back towards the male worshipper, as i it is directly reactingto the attempt o the older man to communicate with the image o thegoddess not only verbally, but also visually.40 It would be interesting to

investigate, whether we nd in literary sources reerences to statues thatare centrally positioned in the cella o a temple and showing the god orthe gods engaged in an explicit mythological narration.41

Visually constructing the divine: the lie stories o divine images

It becomes apparent that neither the spatial position o a statue in a sanc-

tuary, nor its involvement in cult, nor its appearance can explain by itsel the essence o a cult statue. Te most reliable indicator o a statue’s mean-ing obviously consists in its integration into ritual activities, but neitherliterary, nor epigraphic, nor archaeological evidence clearly attests to theritual context o images. Still, there are some linguistic or epigraphic indi-cators by which one can detect those images that were involved in ritualactivities and thus characterize them as cult statues—with more success,at least, than archaeological and art-historical arguments.

Indeed, the identication o the cult statue rom the point o view o archaeology and art history has been singularly problematic. Such eldshave no problem identiying as cult statues, or example, the amouschryselephantine images in Olympia, Athens, Argos, or Epidauros, andthose statues ound more or less in situ like the Nemesis o Rhamnous orthe statue group at Lykosoura. But what do we do with those innumerablecult statues known solely through Pausanias and other ancient authors,or those reerred to in inscriptions? Can we identiy among surviving

statues cult images mentioned in the literary and epigraphic sources? Not

40 Oenbrink , pl. .41 ogether with my research assistant Madeleine Kloss, I started a project that aims

at the creation o a database o all divine and heroic images described in Pausanias’Periegesis. We hope to nish the collection and analysis o the material by early .


32/456

with absolute certainty! And yet, that is not always the most importanttask at hand: especially i one is less interested in the precise Greek andRoman denition o a cult statue than in the various ways in whichimages o gods visually constructed the divine in antiquity.

Te imagery o Bronze Age art in particular demonstrates that eventhe simple denition o a divine gure can be a methodologically intri-cate task. Without the support o literary descriptions, the identicationo Bronze Age divine images must be exclusively based on the archaeo-logical context and the ormal and stylistic eatures. In his contribution,F B establishes that a signicant degree o abstraction

in the visual conception o Minoan and Mycenaean deities obstructedany tendencies o iconographic specicity in the Bronze Age Aegean.Although there are both textual and visual evidence or a rich Minoanand Mycenaean pantheon, the artistic language neglected (or rejected?)any denition o what a deity might be. Innumerable sacred objects,animals, and abulous creatures populated scenes o religious charac-ter, but their unction was certainly not to speciy which gures weredivine. One gets the impression that Minoan and Mycenaean artists pre-

erred rather anonymous, and thus undecipherable modes o represent-ing the divine. Consequently, the Minoan and Mycenaean imagery o thedivine presents itsel as deeply iconic in the gurative conceptualisationo orms and meaningully aniconic in the constant rejection o speci-city.

While sacred objects in Minoan and Mycenaean imagery could beused as general ritual signiers, they apparently did not signiy specicgods. Te so-called sacred knot, or example, visually evoked an aura o

sacredness without pertaining to any particular divinity. Attributes in thearts o the Bronze Age Aegean world were polyvalent visual signs thatcould be used in different contexts with varying meanings. Tis princi-ple contrasts long-held scholarly assumptions that certain iconographicattributes (Herakles’ club, Athena’s helmet, or Hermes’ winged boots)served as absolute indicators o divine, heroic, and human gures. Tewords o the twentieth-century art historian C. Picard typiy this rigidassociation between divine gures and specic attributes: “un dieu por-

teur à la ois du thyrse et du canthare ne saurait être que Dionysos lui-même”.42 In a brie paper, H. Metzger urged that art historians couldno longer regard attributes as reliable signs o identication o divine

42 Picard –, –.


33/456

gures.43 Although Metzger was absolutely correct in pointing out thesevere methodological problems inherent in overemphasising the impor-tance o attributes as absolute signiers, he neglected the multi-acetedways that artists used attributes in Graeco-Roman antiquity. In my con-tribution to this volume I also argue against the preconception thatattributes were used in antiquity as mere identiers or divine images,as some sort o visual caption. Even i attributes did serve an image’srecognisability, sacred objects and animals accompanying divine gurescontributed so much more. Even the absence o attributes, as in the early depictions o the judgement o Paris, could have been a signicant artistic

contribution to the narrative qualities o the scene. Tus, attributes werepurposeully ambiguous visual signs and their semantic ambivalence wasexploited by artists who used them as an initial point or viewers to think not only about the visual construction o the divine, but also about itsontology.

Te ambiguity o attributes used as signiers is not conned only tothe visual construction o the divine, but can be observed also in thecontext o heroic imagery. When dealing with the reciprocal relation-

ship between divine image and human imagination, heroic gures shouldplay an important role in our understanding o the process that trans-orms the invisible into a physical entity. Heroic gures such as Herak-les and Teseus clearly demonstrate that similar visual strategies wereemployed. G E illustrates the strategies applied in the visualconstruction o heroic gures by ocussing on an unusual private votiverelie showing Teseus being approached by two worshippers. While theiconography o the virtually naked hero is not very distinctive (the hel-

met is a ar too generic attribute to be associated only with Teseus), aninscription in the nominative leaves no doubt that the viewer is con-ronted with an image o the most Athenian o heroes. However, theheroic gure is visually contextualised and enhanced as an image o cultand Athenian identity by the existence o a strange mound in the centreo the scene that E identies with a stone. Owing to the simpleaddition o a semantically ambiguous object, the heroic gure o Teseusis now embedded in a much broader religious, political, and cultural con-

text: the stone could be seen not only as a generic reerence to an altar orsacrices and libations, but also as a specic visual allusion to the Horko-mosion, an important location in the Archaic Agora where oaths were

43 Metzger .


34/456

taken, or even as a reminder o the stone covering the gnorismata centralto the myth o Teseus, the prototype o the Athenian ephebes. Te sizeo the gure and its heroic nakedness44 visually separate Teseus rom theworshippers, but it is the stone that transorms the Athenian hero into aconcrete gure o cult at a specic locality.

In numerous narrative scenes that involve heroes, a divine gure isofen shown accompanying and even actively helping the strugglinghero. Athena introduced Herakles to Mount Olympus, and was deeply involved in Perseus’ successul conrontation with Medusa. Tus, godscan be used both in myth and in art as a means or the enhancement

o a lesser gure. In a similar way, divine images can become an instru-ment or the visual construction and elevation o human beings or evenobjects. Te case o the alleged marriage between Demetrios Poliorketesand Athena Parthenos45 exemplies, in an admittedly exaggerated ormthe way Hellenistic rulers and later Roman emperors (ab)used cults anddivineimagesorthepromotionotheirownagendas.InGreeceandAsiaMinor, Roman emperors were not always worshipped in newly oundedtemples explicitly created or the cult o the living emperor, but ofen

together with traditional Greek gods in already existing sacred buildings.D S ocuses on the phenomenon o the Roman emperoras a synnaos o Greek gods. While it has ofen been assumed that theplacement o a Roman emperor’s image next to a divine statue in the cellao a temple expressed visually that the emperor was the sole representa-tive o the gods on earth, neither the iconographic nor the archaeologicalevidence support that assumption. S demonstrates that theimages o the gods accompanying that o the emperor served as a visual

guarantee o the divine status o the emperor. In addition, the associationo the emperor’s image with the statue o a divinity in the cella would alsoacilitate the entrance o the emperor’s cult into a local pantheon. Tus,in a sense, the divine image was transormed into an identier o theemperor’s divine status. Nevertheless, the relationship between emperorand divinity was always reciprocal, or the conviviality between the imageo the god and the image o the emperor automatically implied that thetraditional gods were also participating in the Imperial power.

44 Tis is certainly not the place to discuss the phenomenon o the so-called heroicnudity in Graeco-Roman antiquity. See, in general, Himmelmann and Hallett .

45 Clem. Alex. Protr . .. Scheer , –, esp. – rejects the historicity o the marriage between the Hellenistic king and the statue o Athena.


35/456

Tat cases o abuse, reuse, or transormation o cult images were notalways associated with a religious or highly political background is shownin S’s contribution. Te intriguing story o the statue o Athena Alea rom egea demonstrates that a time-honoured cult imagecould be deprived o its religious context and reinterpreted as a seal o quality and authenticity or another object that was consideredeven more

valuable. S illustrates that Augustus removed the cult statue o Athena rom egea and brought it to Rome, so that it could serve as aproo or the authenticity o the tusks o the Kalydonian boar, which healso removed rom the temple o Alea. Te removal o the statue was

not an offensive act o a Roman aggressor against a deenceless Greek city, but simply a necessity or the antiquarian interests o Augustus: thestatue—most probably kept in the gardens o the emperor—would havesubstantiated the identity o the boar tusks. From a egean point o view,the loss o the statue did not result in the demise o the sanctuary, orthe people o egea transerred to their city the statue o Athena Hippiarom Manthourea, a village ew kilometres away. Just like the originalstatue o Athena Alea was “re-invented” in its new Roman context, the

Manthourean statue o Athena Hippia was transormed into an AthenaAlea statue and was re-installed in a new cultic context. Functions,contexts, and identities o cult images indeed appear to have been moreuid than modern scholarship tends to acknowledge.

In art, divine images are ofen an explicit reerence to the topographi-cal context o a mythical incident. For example, in renderings o the mytho Kassandra’s rape by Ajax the rojan statue o Athena is a pars pro totoor the temple o the goddess,46 where the unspeakable sacrilege took

place. Moreover, artists also used divine images in a more general way,as a cipher or “sanctuary” or “sacred place”. In her contribution, KM shows that divine images in a narrative context could even beused as a cipher or a rather explicit ritual act. A very specic momentin the lie o a cult or a sanctuary may be intimately associated with itsoundation. From a Greek point o view, there is no iconographic ormulathat visualises the installation o a cult, its hidrysis. Te amous stele o elemachos,47 or example, represents the arrival o Asklepios in Athens

and the beginning o its Athenian cult in the late fh century, yet the visual language o the relie is unusual, hardly suggesting any ormula orthe depiction o a cult’s installation. In contrast, M shows that in

46 Connelly and the more differentiated Hölscher in this volume.47 Beschi –b and Beschi .


36/456

Roman art o the Augustan period there was a quite concrete pictorialormula or representing the establishment o a cult: to wit, a series o monuments associated with cults o Vesta, the lares, and Minerva that allbear a similar moti o a (cult) statue being handed over in the vicinity o an altar. Even i the handing over o the statue is a momentary action,the pictorial ormula unctioned also as a symbol or the beginning o the regular perormance o rituals that would honour the newly installeddeity.

Divine images had not only a lie,48 but also an “afer-lie”. InnumerableGreek statues ound their way to Rome and its surroundings, where they

decorated public spaces, state buildings, and private villas. In some cases,Greek divine images even continued their previous lie and were re-usedin cult. For example, the cult statues in the temple o Apollo on the Pala-tine were Greek originals created by renowned artists: Apollo was madeby Skopas, Artemis by imotheos, and Leto by Kephisodotos.49 In theirnew setting, Greek divine images were contextually “transormed” intoRoman, but they were still placed within a similar religious system. Terise o Christianity, however, meant a radical change in the rame, within

which ancient pagan divine images were supposed to unction and to be viewed. Tis historical period o transition is usually associated with thedemolition o temples and the destruction o the images.50 Tere is, nev-ertheless, also a very different story o transormation, adaptation, andcontinuation told in this volume by A B. Te cultivatedclasses o the aristocracy in Byzantine Constantinople were reinventingthemselves and their past based on the memory o Greek paideia andculture. Tis notion o Hellenicity was visually expressed through innu-

merable Greek statues o originally religious character, which decoratedthe public spaces o the new centre o the world.Even i within a Christiancontext, Constantine did continue in his new capital the Roman aestheticperception o Greek works o art, which were seen not only rom a reli-gious perspective, but also as monuments o victory and exempla o social

virtues. Surprisingly enough, the Classical heritage o Constantinoplesuffered its rst severe damage as late as , when the city was cap-tured by uncivilised hordes o Western crusaders. Te divine images that

expressed knowledge, cultural identity, and memory or the Greek elite

48 Petrovic in this volume.49 Leèvre , .50 Boschung , : “so demonstrierten am Ende des . Jhs. n. Chr. die zerschlage-

nen Kultstatuen und die geleerten empel, dass es diese Götter nicht gab”.


37/456

o the city were or the Christian Latins an abominable world o symbols,which had to be destroyed. Te same divine images had obviously shapeddiametrically opposite human imaginations.

In the late second or early third century , Athenaios is describing the“ordeal” o a man rom Metapontum who had lost his ability to laugh:

And Parmeniskos rom Metapontum, as Semus tells us in the fh book o his History o Delos, a man o the highest consideration both as to amily and in respect o his wealth, having gone down to the cave o rophonios,afer he had come up again, was not able to laugh at all. And when he

consulted the oracle on this subject, the Pythia replied to him: “You’reasking me, you laughless man, about the power to laugh again? Te motherwill give it to you at home, i you approach her with reverence.” So, hehoped that upon returning to his country he should be able to laugh again;but when he ound that he could laugh no more now than he could beore,he considered that he had been deceived, until, by chance, he came toDelos. While he was admiring everything he saw in the island, he cameinto the temple o Leto, expecting to see some very superb statue o themother o Apollo; but when he saw only a wooden shapeless gure, heunexpectedly burst out laughing.51

More than any other story told by an ancient author, the suffering o the laughless Parmeniskos is the perect illustration o the interrelationbetween described, depicted, or rendered divine image and the humanimagination: onthe one hand, divine images are indeed shapedby humanimagination, by the imagination o a society longing or the visualisa-tion o the invisible in word and image and by the imagination o theartist or the author reacting to the call o his social surrounding. But

on the other hand, these divine images—conceived, invented, visually and verbally produced in various historical and ritual situations—in turnbecame models that would “mould” human imagination. o return toour opening narrative, this is the reason why the tormented visitor romMetapontum laughed at the shapeless wooden statue o Leto on Delos.Parmeniskos’ experience as a viewer o divine images—his “visual past,”

51 Athen. .: Παρµενσκς δ Μεταπντνς, ς ησιν Σµς ν ∆ηλιδς

κα γνει κα πλτ ω πρωτεων ες Τρωνυ κατας κα νελν κ τι γελνδνατ. κα ρηστηριαµν ω περ ττυ Πυα η· ερ η µ’ µ γλωτς,µελιε, µειλιι· δσει σι µτηρ κι · τν α τε. λπων δ’ ν πανλ η εςτν πατρδα γελσειν, ς δν ν πλν, µενς ηπατσαι ρετα πτε καττην ες ∆λν· κα πντα τ κατ τν νσν αυµων λεν κα ες τ Λητν,νµων τς Απλλωνς µητρς γαλµα τι εωρσειν ιλγν· δν δ’ ατ λνν µρν παραδως γλασεν.


38/456

as it were—could not have prepared him or the “image” he encoun-tered on entering the temple o the goddess. Te dissonance he expe-rienced between vision and remembrance demonstrates the interdepen-dency between divine image and human imagination in Graeco-Romanantiquity and beyond.


39/456


40/456

A PANHEON WIHOU ARIBUES?GODDESSES AND GODS IN MINOAN AND

MYCENAEAN ICONOGRAPHY*

F B

More than a hundred years afer the beginning o Arthur Evans’ exca-

vations at the palace o Knossos, scholarship is still unable to decidewhether a single “Great Mother Goddess” or a maniold pantheon o numerous emale and male deities was worshipped on Minoan Crete. Asregards Mycenaean Greece, more than hal a century ago the Linear Btexts were deciphered and their content became accessible. Tis, how-ever, does not suggest that our attempts to correlate the textual evidenceor Mycenaean deities with the archaeological and iconographic sourceshave been successul. As a consequence, M.P. Nilsson’s ofen-cited state-

ment about Aegean Bronze Age religion as being a “picture book withouttext” holds widely true even today.1 Tese brie introductory observa-tions suffice to demonstrate that the knowledge o Minoan and Myce-naean religion still stands rather somewhere at its beginning. Tus, anadequate analysis o Aegean religious systems requires many method-ologically resh and interdisciplinary approaches. Te omnipresence o religion in Aegean Bronze Age societies cannot be thoroughly investi-gated in all its aspects in the present article, so that this contribution will

ocus on some central problems o religious iconography, aiming at anadequate comprehension o the existing problems in the visual denitiono images o deities in Aegean prehistory.

A study o this kind has to start with an elaboration on the ques-tion o polytheistic systems in the Aegean Bronze Age and a discus-sion o the evidence or divinities in the various media o inormation.Te question about the existence o cult images in the Aegean and thenotion o attributes in Aegean religious iconography constitute essential

* I am very grateul to Joannis Mylonopoulos or his kind invitation to contribute tothe present volume. I am urther indebted to Walter Müller and Ingo Pini or giving mesome helpul inormation and to Philip P. Betancourt and Ray Porter or allowing thereproduction o g. .

1 Nilsson , ; Nilsson , .


41/456

points that would lead urther into the topic o a denition o divinegures. Tese topics are closely interrelated to each other and enable amore adequate consideration o the iconography o Minoan and Myce-naean deities. Since the aim o this study is mainly to discuss somemethodological problems when dealing with Aegean iconography, itappears reasonable to treat Minoan and Mycenaean religious systemsin their entirety. Although the actual evidence or a Minoan pantheonon Neopalatial Crete (ca. /–) is by no means identi-cal with that o the Mycenaean palace period (ca. –), thearchaeological sources as well as the iconographic problems in den-

ing a divine gure are in act very similar. Tis should not imply, how-ever, that my approach postulates a common, homogeneous “Minoan-Mycenaean religion”. Although in the present contribution several prob-lems o Aegean Bronze Age religion will be addressed, it is clear that noneo them can be discussed exhaustively or even solved in the space limita-tions o a short article. Tus, the aim is not so much to ormulate any nalsolutions, but rather to outline the character o possible methodologicaland iconographic problems.

Te limits o concretisationin the imagery o the Bronze Age Aegean

At rst sight, the large amount o narrative scenes o religious or rit-ual character in Aegean wall paintings, seal images, relie art, and ree-standing gures seems to offer highly appropriate preconditions or the

discussion and denition o Minoan and Mycenaean divine images.Aegean gurative art is by itsel all but proane. However, a deeper insightinto this prominent topic o Aegean Bronze Age archaeology reveals thesame strong, almost insurmountable barriers, which are so characteristico Aegean imagery in its entirety. Beore moving to religious iconogra-phy itsel, we have to be aware o the very special character o palatialiconography and artistic language o Minoan Crete and the Mycenaeanmainland, both o them lacking several eatures essential to the arts o

other Eastern Mediterranean civilizations as well as to Classical antiq-uity.2

2 See also Blakolmer b, esp. –.


42/456

Minoan and Mycenaean arts are strongly connected with palaces andtheir “derivatives”, such as so-called Minoan villas and rich Mycenaeantombs, i.e. with the highest level o palatial elites. What appears evenmore remarkable is that in sharp contrast to contemporary civilizationso the Near East, in the Aegean Bronze Age monumental arts or a publicaudience are mostly missing. Tereore, Aegean iconography is connedto very peculiar elds o visual communication: images are concentratedon objects o prestige, on seal stones and signet-rings, on ritual vesselscirculating among members o the elite, on monumental wall paintingsin high-level, palatial architecture and, last but not least, on gurines in

different materials such as ivory, bronze, and terracotta, in the last casereaching a slightly broader audience. Tus, gurative scenes in Minoanand Mycenaean iconography are basically coined by elevated palatialideas and reect very seldom a regional diversity. Tis already warns usagainst prematurely expecting a multitude o “iconographic dialects”, i.e.the depiction o any local divinities in images on prestigious arteacts inthe palatial periods o the Aegean.

Te iconography o the Aegean Bronze Age conronts the viewer with

a highly anonymous visual world composed by gures that widely lack eatures o individuality such as portraiture and annotated names ortexts. Whereas the existence o individual rulers can be denied neither onMinoan Crete nor in Mycenaean Greece, both cultures lack any imageso a portrayed ruler.3 Furthermore, not in a single case might we detectthe depiction o an individual event o historical character. Wall paint-ings, stone relie vessels, seal images and urther iconographic media aredepicting mainly generic scenes. Political and cosmological ideologies o

the elites have rather been transported on a metaphorical level o “hyper-individual” character. Tus, Aegean art appears o a widely “apolitical”and non-historical character. A urther point is the question o mytholog-ical scenes and heroes in Aegean iconography: in spite o the existence o numerous hybrid animals, such as griffins, sphinxes, and a-wrt demons,a concrete reconstruction o any coherent mythological cycles in Minoanas well as in Mycenaean iconography simply appears impossible.4 Fur-thermore, there hardly exists any clear distinction between humans and

supernatural, heroic beings in human shape. No special gurative cate-gory o heroes, or example, denable by nakedness, long hairs or otherdistinctive attributes, can be ound in the iconography o Bronze Age

3 C . Davis .4 C ., or example, van Leuven .


43/456

Greece. In these and urther respects, Aegean art, and apparently alsoAegean ideology, unctioned in a way different rom those o Egypt, theNear East, and Homeric and post-Homeric Greece.

In the early twenty-rst century, scholarship cannot but admit that therange o Aegean narrative scenes known to date is statistically relevant,and thereore, the problems we are conronted with are certainly not dueto our incomplete knowledge o the arteacts. We have to realise thatMinoan as well as Mycenaean iconography obviously had a lot o partic-ularities, so that it may appear to us rather strange and even enigmatic.Tus, the nature and the rigid limits o visual narratives in the arts o

the Aegean Bronze Age are not the most ruitul context or a more con-crete depiction o clearly denable and recognisable gods and goddessesin Minoan and Mycenaean gurative arts. Tis act causes considerableproblems in identiying and understanding the innumerable images o an apparent religious and ceremonial character.

Polytheistic systems o belie?

Among Aegean archaeologists, there is a certain anxiety to prematurely dismiss any hypothesis towards the existence o a monotheistic religiousconcept on Minoan Crete. Most historians o religion, however, wouldagree that such a “monotheistic model” bears a very low or no prob-ability.5 Nevertheless, in Aegean studies, the idea o a universal “GreatMinoan Goddess” is a traditional and widespread one, and this appearsquite reasonable, at least at rst sight.6 A. Evans’ observation that in

Minoan Crete “we do not encounter any such multiplicity o divinities asin the Classical World”7 still characterises our impression. Nevertheless,as it has been briey demonstrated above, Aegean visual rhetorics appearhighly peculiar and by no means clearly understandable. Te main prob-lem in recognising polytheistic systems o belie in Aegean Bronze Agecivilizations derives rom the act that Minoans as well as Mycenaeansdepicted their deities mainly as unspecic humans. Although there doesexist a consensus among scholars that, or example, the male gure

5 See the scepticism already expressed by Nilsson , – and Marinatos ,–.

6 Dickinson , –; Goodison – Morris ; Peateld ; Moss ,–; Morris .

7 Evans , .


44/456

shown in a dominating pose on the so-called Master Impression romChania ( g. )8 represents “the most powerul expression o a divinity”,9

scholarlyargumentsorclearrulesaboutthevisualdenitionoadivinity in the Bronze Age arts can hardly be brought orward. In order to attaina more concrete picture o an Aegean pantheon and to demonstrate theproblems that accompany such an endeavour, a brie survey through thediverse elds o evidence might be helpul.

Te textual evidence

Te Linear B texts engraved on clay tablets offer important rst-handinormation, however ltered by the bureaucratic necessities, about theexistence o a rich pantheon in the Mycenaean palace-states o Pylos,Tebes, Mycenae, Knossos, and Chania, or they mention the nameso at least thirty our male and emale divinities as recipients o offer-ings, but also in other contexts.10 Tese rec

divine images and human imaginations in ancient greece and rome edited by joannis mylonopoulos

Documents