Victory-bringing (Nikephoroi) Gods: The chryselephantine cult statues of Olympian Zeus and Athena Parthenos (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper focuses on the reliefs of the frieze and the parapet of the Athena Nike temple, a small Ionic edifice built on the southwest bastion of the Acropolis in the last quarter of the 5th century B.C. From a close examination of these reliefs and through the study of the relevant modern scholarship and ancient literary sources, I have deduced that these architectural sculptures have many unique elements regarding both their iconography and style. First of all, historical events are depicted on a temple for the first time next to mythological scenes. Secondly, in the sculptural style of the frieze and the parapet we can see a very elaborately carved high relief characterised by a new, very naturalistic rendering of the human body. The artistic innovations mentioned above are connected to the contemporary historical and political context of Athens. The representation of a battle between Greeks and Orientals at the southern frieze for instance recalls the great Athenian victories over the Persians during the Persian Wars. Additionally, the similarities in the treatment and the depiction of divine and human figures on the frieze could reflect the political ideology of 5th-century Athens that put herself into a supreme, epic world equal to that of the gods. In conclusion, my aim is to show that the reliefs of the Athena Nike temple constituted, both intentionally and unintentionally, a visual record of the political and military history of 5th-century Athens and a unique dedication from the Athenians to their victory goddess who would help them to be successful in the contemporary Peloponnesian War.
Günkel-Maschek, Ute et al. (Hrsg.): Gesture, Stance, and Movement: Communicating Bodies in the Aegean Bronze Age. Acts of the International Conference at the University of Heidelberg, 11–13 November 2021, Heidelberg: Propylaeum, 2024, S. 389–404., 2024
The identification of rulers in Aegean Bronze Age iconography constitutes one of its most problematic issues and is addressed in numerous studies. This problem arises from the absence of written sources and clearly defined attributes for rulers, as well as from the mode of self-presentation of the ruling elite, which, at first glance, is different from the practice known from Near Eastern cultural regions. However, it is precisely the comparison with these regions which appears to be helpful in detecting earthly or divine Aegean rulers. This contribution focuses on the analysis of triumph and defeat in depic- tions of a victor and his enemy, through examining postures and gestures expressing higher status or domination over animals and human beings. A triumphant hero, ruler or god and a defeated mortal or divine enemy constitute one of the most important motifs symbo- lizing the victory of civilization and its ruler over wild nature, evil forces and chaos. The motif of a standing male figure in a dynamic posture, striking with a weapon, or deliver- ing a fatal blow to a kneeling or lying enemy occurs from the very beginning of the great empires of Egypt or Mesopotamia and was widespread in many Near Eastern regions. A detailed comparison of different Aegean and Near Eastern images reveals further evidence for the emulation of this motif, not only in known combat scenes. Their distribution, con- texts and interpretation help to explain their meaning in the Aegean, as well as the possi- ble reasons for their adoption and adaptation.
“The Beautiful Monument: The Aristocracy of Images in Athenian Funerary Sculpture (c. 530–480 BCE)”
Marion Meyer – Gianfranco Adornato (eds.), Innovations and Inventions in Athens c. 530 to 470 BCE – Two Crucial Generations,WIENER FORSCHUNGEN ZUR ARCHÄOLOGIE, Bd. 18, Phoibos Verlag, Wien 2020, 167-186. , 2020
The discoveries that have occurred over the last sixty years, together with chronological considerations and the appropriate evaluation of the epigraphic corpus, testify overall to the duration of the system of monumental funerary dedications well beyond the advent of democracy by Kleisthenes (508/7 BCE) and probably up to the end of the Persian Wars. This ‘longue durée’ will require the revision of the interpretation that mechanically links Archaic funerary monuments and the ruling “aristocracy” during pre-democratic political regimes in turn paving the way for a more detailed analysis of patronage. The monument is built according to precise rules of a visual rhetoric, aimed at enhancing its beauty, to match and reflect the excellence of the recipients – largely male and including impressive monuments for non-Athenians (xenoi) – and to define their social position through the joint devices of word and image. The evidence is discussed in detail, and the Author accepts the proposal that the grave statue of Aristodikos, one of the latest examples of the kouros type, wore a helmet. The head of a youth, found in the Kerameikos and likewise once equipped with a helmet might attest to the next “step”: a grave statue in ponderation. The monuments recovered from Piraeus Gate are discussed in detail, as well as Jeffery’s so-called Samian plot; a new interpreation of the bases with athletic scenes is proposed, highlightening the possible connection with Sparta and the Athenian pro-Lacedemonian party (sphairomachia) as well as the connection with Eretria and eastern Attica for the allusion to the Amarysia or to the Attic version of the event (the chariot scenes with hoplites). Concluding, funerary monuments reflect the changes in Athenian society, which in turn are largely influenced by the international situation.
Marking the Victory in Ancient Greece: some Remarks on Classical Trophy Monuments
Iliria International Review 9, 2019
Victory monuments played a vital role in the life of individuals and the civilisation as a whole in ancient Greece. They were an embodied celebration and memorial, both of a specific triumph and of military conflict as such, keeping alive the memory of past actions that would otherwise be forgotten. They carried a message of success both for the present era and for future generations, who thus found a focus in which to admire and honour the courage of their ancestors. The Greeks believed that just as the gods directed and influenced individual human lives, they also decided on the outcomes of conflicts and they therefore considered it their duty to give thanks to them. At first, they gave thanks immediately after a battle by erecting a tropaion on the battlefield, which from the time of the Greek-Persian Wars began to be built from more durable materials. A further gesture was made later by dedicating other weapons captured from the enemy to the gods either at a Pan-Hellenic sanctuary such as Delphi, Olympia or Isthmia, or at a local temple. This was an established custom that was supposed to ensure the support and favour of the gods in subsequent conflicts. Another custom was that a certain period after the end of a war, permanent monuments would be erected by the winning side away from the battlefield and dedicated to a specific god-either within the structure of the victorious polis or at a sanctuary.