Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T15:46:43.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Medusa Rondanini and Antiochus III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

P. Callaghan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is the fourth in a series designed to chart the diffusion of Hellenistic motifs, not only from province to province but also across craft boundaries. We are seldom able to measure these processes with any degree of chronological precision, but when we can the evidence indicates the astonishing speed with which even the most complex decorative innovations could become common property over wide areas. The Medusa Rondanini and a closely related body of derivative material provide one of the few easily documented cases for such rapid diffusion. Though we cannot expect to understand completely the mechanics of the process, the isolation and examination of its visible proofs provide some valuable controls for a much wider group of objects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 76 , November 1981 , pp. 59 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1981

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

Acknowledgements: Various people have aided in the production of this paper. Dr H. W. Catling and Miss S. Mossman were kind enough to read the drafts and offer comments and Miss E. Faull produced the fine drawing for fig. 2. In Crete, Dr. St. Alexiou, Dr. K. Lembessis, and Professor D. Levi have at various times allowed me to see their material and I have benefited much from my discussions with them.

Abbreviations not in common use

Délos: Exploration archéologique de Délos.

AvP: Altertümer von Pergamon.

Encic. dell'Arte Antica: Enciclopedia dell'Arte antica, classica e orientale.

Sources for illustrations

Fig. 1: 1. Buschor, E., Medusa Rondanini (1958) Pl. I.Google Scholar

2. BCH 95 (1971) 207, fig. 42.

3. Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (1961) fig. 720.Google Scholar

4. Mendel, G., Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines des Musées Impériaux Ottomans I (1912) 148.Google Scholar

Fig. 2: Bielefeld, E., Eine Fundgruppe griechischer Vasen in Deckfarbentechnik (1970) 5.Google Scholar

1 The other three being: AAA 12 (1979) 53–60; BSA lxxv (1980) ‘The Trefoil Style and Second Century Hadra Vases’; ‘Knossian Artists and Ptolemaic Alexandria’ in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico, Studi in honore di A. Adriani.

2 Buschor, E., Medusa Rondanini (1958) pls. i–iii.Google Scholar

3 Thompson, D. B., Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience (1973) 111 and 113.Google Scholar

4 The most up-to-date summary of critical thought on the piece is to be found in AJA 84 (1980) 373–8.

5 E. Buschor, op. cit.

6 Furtwängler, A. in Roscher's Ausfürliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie i (1886–1890) 1724.Google Scholar

7 Furtwängler, A., Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik (1893) 325–32.Google Scholar

8 Gardner, E., JHS 43 (1923) 139–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 E. Buschor, op. cit. 30–1; Robertson, M., A History of Greek Art (1975) 313–14.Google Scholar

10 Harrison, E. B., AJA 81 (1977) 162–4.Google Scholar

11 AJA 84 (1980) 376–7.

12 Ibid.

13 Mørkholm, O., Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV of Syria (1963)Google Scholar; AJA 84 (1980) 378 and n. 51.

14 Syria 31 (1955) 289–307 and esp. 294.

15 Apart from many unpublished fragments from Knossos we might note the following: Gortys: Rizza, G. and Scrinari, V., Il santuario sull' acropoli di Gortina, I (1968) 65 fig. 102dGoogle Scholar; 66 no. 14. Phaistos, : Annuario 4–5 (1921–1922) 172 fig. 8.Google ScholarLato, : BCH 95 (1971) 204–8.Google ScholarPerisakia, : BSA 59 (1964) 67 and pl. 14, 2.Google ScholarPelagia, Aghia: AAA 5 (1972) 235–6Google Scholar, fig. 6 lower right. Astritsi: Unpublished but mentioned in Annuario 4–5 (1921–2) 173. Praesos (?): A brief description of what seems to be a medallion fragment from a Medusa bowl, BSA viii (1901–2) 269. ‘Crete’: Herakleion Mus. Inv. 634, JDAI 27 (1912) 146 fig. 1. ‘Crete’: Louvre MNB 1295, JDAI Suppl. vol. 8 (1909) 7–8 pl. 1.

16 BCH 95 (1971) 205–6 nos. 3–4.

17 Ibid. 207.

18 E. Buschor, op. cit. 17.

19 AD 26 (1971) Chron. B2 Pl. 513 lower left.

20 Edgar, C. C., Greek Vases in the Cairo Museum (1911) 35 no. 26225.Google Scholar The sickle-blade leaves of the palmette are typical of this artist's work. For similar cf. Brooklyn Mus. Ann. 10 (1968–9) 136 fig. 11. The rear panel of this vase is decorated with crescent-tailed dolphins found in combination with the painter's bead and reel (as on the Lyttos bowl) in IHV no. 17.

21 AAA 5 (1972) 235–6 and fig. 6 lower right.

22 Annuario (1965–6) 569 and 574–7.

23 Annuario 4–5 (1921–2) 172 fig. 8.

24 These sherds will be published in a forthcoming BSA Suppl. vol. devoted to the post-Minoan deposits above the Unexplored Mansion.

25 Cf. this volume: ‘The Little Palace Well’ no. 39.

26 Corinth VII, iii, no. 129. The context evidence supports neither the high date proposed for this bowl nor the date bracket suggested for the shape series as a whole. Délos 29, 181 fig. 95; 187–8 figs. 104–5; 238 fig. 175; 259 fig. 217; 277 figs. 230–1. These mosaics all belong to the later second or early first centuries B.C. AAA 6 (1973) pl. 1 and p. 92 illustrates a similar technique in paint. AvP v 1 pls. 31–6 for early second-century B.C. examples of the technique in mosaic work.

27 Medallion, as JDAI 27 (1912) 146 fig. 1.Google Scholar

28 Polyb. xxiii, 15; Strabo x, 479.

29 Davaras, C., ‘Die Statue aus Astritsi’, Antike Kunst Beih. 8 (1972) 30.Google Scholar

30 Strabo x 479.

31 The cities of Rhaukos, Tylissos, and Lykastos which were absorbed into the Knossian city state ceased to function as settlement sites. Elsewhere in Crete similar catastrophes have been noted at Praesos and Phaistos. At an earlier period, Prinias fell, probably to Gortyns, and civilian occupation ceased. Dreros may well have met a similar fate.

32 Bielefeld, E., Eine Fundgruppe griechischer Vasen in Deckfarbentechnik (1970) 14–17.Google Scholar

33 Bielefeld, 4, 9, 11. For other vases by the same hand cf. nn. 34–6.

34 C. C. Edgar, op. cit., no. 26234.

35 IHV no. 2. no. 15 is by the same hand.

36 Boll. d'Arte 41 (1956) 97–103.

37 As yet unpublished. My thanks are due to Dr. K. Lembessi for permission to study, draw and photograph the pots in this deposit.

38 This point is discussed in some detail in ‘Knossian Artists and Ptolemaic Alexandria’, Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico forthcoming.

39 E. Bielefeld, op. cit. 14–17; Boll. d'Arte 41 (1956) 101; Guerrini, L., Vasi di Hadra (1964) 12–14Google Scholar, no. B11.

40 Bielefeld, op. cit., 12 and 15.

41 JDAI Suppl. 8 (1909) 7–8 pl. 1.

42 Boll. d'Arte 41 (1956) 101 fig. 6.

43 AJA 13 (1909) 404–5.

44 L. Guerrini, op. cit. no F, 22.

45 AJA 13 (1909) 403–5.

46 L. Guerrini, op. cit. 19–20.

47 C. C. Edgar, op. cit. 40, no. 26234.

48 Ibid, 35 no. 26225; 40 no. 26234 where the shapes are compared.

49 Boll. d'Arte 41 (1956) 98 fig. 2.

50 L. Guerrini, op. cit. pl. 9, nos. F13 and F15. The dated vase is fully published in JEA 39 (1953) 84–94. The rear panel has a simple pendent palmette with flanking scrolls similar to those in notes 47–8. This may be a sign of conservatism since the vase is not Cretan (pers. comm. J. Boardman) in clay type.

51 IHV no. 9. For a fuller discussion cf. this volume: ‘The Little Palace Well’ no. 59. The three Hadra vases with complex palmette rinceaux are: Agora P7194 Guerrini, op. cit. no. A10; Robinson, D. M. et al. , Greek Vases at Toronto II (1930) pl. 98 nos. 620–1.Google Scholar

52 We might note, for example, the shared treatment of a circle of dots around the neck rosette (Boll. d'Arte 41 (1956) 98 fig. 3 and L. Guerrini, op. cit. pl. 9F 18), the shape of the palmettes and the tear-shaped palmette hearts with strokes.

53 Cook, R. M., Greek Painted Pottery (1972) 208–9Google Scholar; Encic. dell'Arte Antica (1959) ii 317–18.

54 Higgins, R. A., Festschrift für F. Brommer (1977) 175–7.Google Scholar

55 RM 29 (1914) 101–9.

56 Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (1961) fig. 720Google Scholar; Encic. dell'Arte Antica ii (1959) 317 fig. 462.

57 Ibid. 318 fig. 463; Levi, A., Le terracotte figurate del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (1926) pl. 3: 1–2.Google Scholar

58 D. B. Thompson, op. cit. 108–15.

59 Ibid., cf. especially 132–2, nos. 24–5.

60 Higgins, R. A., Greek Terracottas (1967) 126.Google Scholar

61 M. Bieber, op. cit. fig. 720 and Encic. dell'Arte Ant. ii 317 fig. 462.

62 R. A. Higgins, op. cit. 127.

63 AA (1960) cols. 94 ff. no. 21 and fig. 35; Hoffmann, H. and Davidson, P., Greek Gold (1965) 270.Google Scholar

64 Mendel, G., Catalogue des sculptures aux Musées Impériaux, Constantinople i (1912) 148 and 116–18.Google Scholar

65 AJA 84 (1980) 378; O. Mørkholm, op. cit. 23–4.

66 Newell, E. T., The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints (1941) 100–1.Google Scholar

67 Ibid.

68 Newell, E. T., The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints (1938) 50.Google Scholar

69 As did the reverse type of the butting bull, which commemorated an exploit of the king himself, cf. Newell (1941) 101.

70 Ibid. 47–9, 51–3.

71 Ibid. 69, 138–9, 400.

72 Ibid, 400; Newell, op. cit. (1938) 149, no. 406.

73 Paus. i, 21, 3 and v, 12, 4. For a detailed commentary cf. Syria 32 (1955) 289–307.

74 Mørkholm, O.Antiochus IV of Syria (1966) 42–9.Google Scholar

75 O. Mørkholm, op. cit. (1963) Series II, nos. 11–24.

76 O. Mørkholm, op. cit. (1966) 41–2.

77 Polyb. v, 53. 2.

78 Griffith, G. T., The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (1935). On p. 165Google Scholar he includes the Cretans among the mercenaries; on p. 143 he writes allies, ‘Allies’.

79 Polyb. v 79. 3 ff.; 82. 8 ff. Livy xxxvii. 40.

80 Polyb. x 29. 6.

81 Polyb. v 79. 9 and 82. 10. Livy xxxvii. 40.

82 SIG 627 and commentary in Griffith, op. cit. 176. IC 3. III. 3A. Note that half the soldiers must be Hierapytnians though the rest might be mercenaries. There is an element of politics also in the Knossian aid to Aetolia in 219 B.C. (Polyb. iv 53. 8) where half are definitely mercenaries. For Dorylaos cf. Strabo x. 477. For a detailed account of the diplomatic status of recruiting activities cf. Griffith, op. cit. 254 ff., and esp. 258.

83 Livy's mixed mercenaries in xxxvii. 40. Polyb. v. 79, 9 says ‘from Greece’. For archaeological evidence for the mixed nature of some of these detachments cf. the Sidonian grave stelai in Mendel, op. cit. 258–70.

84 Polyb. xvi 18. 7.

85 Livy xxxvii. 40.

86 In 209 B.C. Livy xxvii. 12, 15, 16; Polyb. x I. It was at first proposed to degrade the status of the conquered city, but the decision was postponed until after the war (Livy xxvii. 25). It was later called an allied city as before (Livy xxxv. 16), and so appears to have escaped with its status unchanged.

87 Polyb. xi 12. 6.

88 D. B. Thompson, op. cit. 75–6; 94–6; 117–22.

89 AAA 7 (1974) 203–5 fig. 4a-b. The context is stated as the 2nd c. B.C. The medallions, however, seem to be related to the late Hellenistic–Early Roman Augustusschalen and similar portrait bowls in red ware cf. Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology 5, 81–117; Latomus 48 (1960) 44–9.

90 Antiochus was allied to Philip V at this time. Knossos led the anti-Macedonian group of cities in Crete which broke away from his patronage in 201 B.C.