Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
61
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting:
The Frontal Face of a Foreigner
FOTINI XYDAS
Introduction
In 1987, Martin Bernal initiated a wave of successive inquiries into the origins of Greek culture and the relationship between ancient Greece and her Eastern
neighbors with the publication of his controversial book, Black Athena: the
Afroasiatic Roots of Civilization. Martin Bernal analyzed the origins of classical
scholarship and blamed modern European nationalism and anti-Semitism for the
rejection of Oriental influences on ancient Greek civilization. Bernal argued that
the “Ancient Model,” in which the ancient Greeks themselves recognized their
Afroasiatic roots, thrived from the 5th century BC up until the 19th century.1 During the 19th century, however, the “Aryan Model” was promulgated by Eurocentric
historians who sought to derive the ancient Greeks’ roots in northern Europe. The
“Aryan Model” replaced the “Ancient Model” in advancing the idea of a pure,
white, European civilization distinct from its Eastern neighbors. By charging 19th
and 20th century scholars with the awesome responsibility and dishonor of having disregarded Eastern influences on ancient Greece, Bernal forced modern scholars to reexamine their very discipline and the European history which it helped
fabricate.
John Boardman in The Greeks Overseas, and Walter Burkert in The
Orientalizing Revolution, subsequently examined the interaction of ancient Greece
and the East, and identified numerous Eastern influences on ancient Greece. While
recognized prior to Burkert and Boardman, the Orientalizing period, between 750
and 650 BC, was further substantiated as a period of heightened contact between
Greece and the East.2 Burkert explains that early scholars ignored the Greeks’
adoption, during the Orientalizing period, of the Phoenician alphabet that was
later modified and used to record Greek literature. Immigration and large-scale
trade further brought Eastern products, motifs, and skills into Greece. Burkert
demonstrates that numerous violent incidents, such as the war between the Ionians
and Assyrians in 700 BC, did not interrupt communication between the East and
West.3 Instead, Oriental imports and their domestic imitations actually appear in
greater quantities in Greece, possibly as a result of increased interaction of refugees and traders. Thus, Greece and her Eastern neighbors historically share intimate relations that date back to the Minoan and Mycenaean settlements of the 12th
and 11th centuries BC. Moreover, these relations resulted not only in the adoption
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
62
Fotini Xydas
of Greek elements in the East as held by many 19 and 20 century historians, but
also the espousal of Eastern influences in Greece.
Like Bernal, Burkert explains that the idea of a self-contained Greek civilization originated during the 19th century, primarily in Germany. Greek nationalists
and their European supporters advanced the idea of an isolated Greek civilization
originating in antiquity in order to gain support for their efforts to free Greece of
Ottoman rule. Such purist conceptions were part of a Greek campaign to acquire
military aid from other European nations in Greece’s struggle for independence.
However, Burkert, as well as Sarah Morris and a number of other scholars, further
recognize that “the Greeks had become aware of their own identity as separate
from that of the ‘Orient’ when they succeeded in repelling the attacks of the Persian Empire”4 In Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, Sarah Morris goes so far
as to argue that “Bernal’s ‘Aryan Model’ began in the 5th century BC after the
Persian wars and not in modern Europe, “such that the object of study—classical
culture—already had determined the mode of approach, long before the eighteenth
century.”5 According to Morris, Athens’ successful defeat of Persia and subsequent rise to power as the leader of Greece resulted in its obsession with the concept of autochthony, meaning that Athenians were the indigenous inhabitants of
Attica and Greece.6 Edith Hall, in Inventing the Barbarian, agrees with Morris
and further argues that the idea of Easterners as being barbarian, or inferior, and
the antithesis of ideal Greeks, originated during this period of the early 5th century
BC as a result of the Greeks’ attempt at self-definition. Hall maintains that while
notions of foreigners being inferior existed prior to the Persian wars, the wars
resulted in greater unity within Greece and the conception of all foreigners as a
universal “other.” In fact, the term “barbaros,” originally meaning one who does
not speak Greek, entered mainland Greece from the eastern Aegean during the
Persian Wars.7 At first, “barbaros” referred to only Persians, but later to all foreigners that the Greeks encountered. In this way, the “polarization of Hellene and
barbarian” emerged under these historical circumstances primarily through the
Greeks’ leader, Athens.8
While Morris, Hall, and a number of other scholars rightly identify the tendency to view the East as distinct from and inferior to Greece as a 5th century BC
phenomenon following the Persian wars, scholars have failed to recognize that
the distinction occurs only later in the mid-5th century BC and not immediately
during or after the Persian wars. During the early 5th century BC, the Greeks’
enemies are not limited to Persians, or even foreigners. Greek city-states are primarily headed by Greek tyrants, whose rule many Greeks wish to overthrow. Furthermore, there is much inter-state rivalry within Greece, as that between Athens and
Sparta. Therefore, the Greeks face not only Persian or other foreign enemies, but
Greek enemies as well. The supposed pan-Hellenic unity that forms during the
th
Penn History Review
th
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
63
early 5 century BC in order to combat a common Persian foe seems to be only
superficial and political in objective. Consequently, scholars have tended to underestimate Greece’s city-state constituency and lack of a unified national state.
This underestimation has resulted in an exaggeration of ancient Greece’s ethnocentrism, and the notion that the Greeks perceived all Easterners as a universal
“other.”
Indeed, Greece’s leader, Athens, was responsible for advancing the idea of a
common Greek enemy that was largely identified as specifically Persian rather
than any foreigner. Only after Athens’ rise to power and subsequent attempt to
maintain its stronghold over the other Greek states are Persians depicted as distinct from Greeks, in both exterior and essence. Moreover, the Persians’ portrayal
as irrational, inferior, and weak as opposed to Greek heroes is exemplified by vase
painters’ recurrent use of a frontal and three-quarter view of the Persians’ faces.
Such three-quarter or frontal faces, while used occasionally prior to the 6th century
BC and usually for figures associated with excess or weakness, become a common
mode of depicting Persians during the second half of the 5th century. The reason
for such a depiction lies in the greater expressive advantage of the frontal face.
th
Vase Painting Before and Directly After the Persian Wars
A comparison of Greek vase painting of the 6th century BC with that during
and directly following the Persian Wars of the early 5th century BC, and subsequently that of the mid-5th century BC will help to determine whether Greeks at
this time did in fact perceive all Persians and Easterners as distinctly foreign. Due
to the importance of dates to such an inquiry, vase painting best serves as the
medium for examination. As a result of its mass-production and frequency in the
archeological record, pottery is contemporaneous to the historical context assessed,
as opposed to other media, such as architecture and sculpture, which may be
produced some time after the period in which they are initiated.
For instance, a comparison of Amazonomachy scenes demonstrates that the
Greeks’ mythological enemies were not consistently associated with the Persian
enemy during the late 6th century BC when Persia’s increasing power posed a
threat, nor during or immediately after the Athenian victory over the Persians in
490 BC at the Battle of Marathon. It is only later, towards the middle to end of the
5th century BC that the Amazons, female warriors and mythological enemies of the
Greeks, take on distinguishingly Persian or Eastern characteristics. An
Amazonomachy scene on a kantharos by Douris of 490 BC in Brussels, depicting
Herakles in combat with the Amazons, shows that both Greeks and Amazons are
depicted in a similar manner. [Fig. 1] Except for Herakles, whose nudity and lion
skin draped around his head and shoulders serve to identify him as the Greek
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
64
Fotini Xydas
hero, the Greeks’ and Amazons’ dress and headgear are nearly identical. Their
dress is that of a typical Greek hoplite. A hoplite costume, usually worn in war,
consists of greaves that protect the shins and knees and curl around the legs over
the calves, a cuirass with shoulder piece worn over a chiton that protrudes over
the upper arms and thighs, a Corinthian helmet usually shown pushed up, and a
spear and shield.9
In contrast, another Amazonomachy from the end of the 6th century BC by
Euphronios, again depicts Herakles in combat with the Amazons, but now specifically assigns Persian attributes to several of the Amazon figures. [Fig. 2] The
two outermost figures, one of which has just fallen to the ground by being struck by
a Greek warrior, wear specifically Persian garb in their long-sleeved, one-piece,
patterned suit. This riding habit was worn by the Persians in battle. Therefore,
Euphronios chose to depict two of the five Amazons in the Amazonomachy scene
of Figure 2 in Persian military attire, though only one Amazon wears an Eastern
cap and both are barefoot, without the sewn-in feet of the Eastern costume.
While two of the Amazons of Figure 2 are clad in the Persian costume, there
are three Amazons in the composition whose dress is not Eastern, and actually
similar to that of Telamon. They wear short chitons and greaves. One of the
Amazon figures to the right of Herakles even displays a distinctively Greek meander frieze on his dress. Furthermore, there is an inconsistency in the headgear
worn by the Amazons. While four of the five enemies wear the rounded helmet
with face guard also worn by Telamon, the fallen warrior to the extreme left wears
the typically Persian helmet that lacks the protective face covering and has ear
flaps. Neither side is provided with distinctive weaponry, as both Greeks and
Amazons use swords, or bows and arrows. Moreover, there does not appear to be
any relation between facial or body characteristics and ethnic identification. The
two Greek heroes appear to be victorious despite overwhelming odds in standing
against five opponents. While two Amazons have fallen, there are still three standing, and they pose a sufficient challenge to the Greeks. Thus, while two of the
figures imply an association with the Persians, this association is inconsistent.
A black-figure amphora by Exekias from c. 540-530 BC depicting Achilles
killing Penthesilea similarly demonstrates a lack of Persian association with the
Amazon enemy. The Amazon queen, Penthesilea, is shown fully clad in Greek
costume. [Fig. 3] Except for the panther skin draped over her shoulders like
Herakles, she lacks any specifically Eastern attributes. Both Achilles and
Penthesilea wear Corinthian helmets and hold spears as weapons. While
Penthesilea kneels on one leg as she falls to the ground in a traditional Greek
victims’ pose, her back is still upright and she clings to her spear in exhibiting
poise and strength as a worthy opponent of the Greeks. A hydria by the Berlin
Painter from c. 490 BC also portraying Achilles killing Penthesilea demonstrates
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
65
the inconsistency of Persian, or Eastern attributes projected onto the Amazon figures. [Fig. 4] Penthesilea is now slightly differentiated as an Easterner from the
Greek Achilles by her pointed helmet, which may be Scythian. She wears Greek
dress—a short chiton. However, there is a further distinction in the weaponry
used by the two opposing parties. Penthesilea now holds onto her Eastern bow
and arrow, while Achilles carries a large shield and spear. Penthesilea again
kneels on one leg in the same victimized, yet noble pose, but now stretches her
hand out, palm up, towards Achilles in a gesture signifying surrender. She is thus
further weakened while simultaneously inheriting some Eastern, though not specifically Persian, characteristics.
In contrast, an amphora depicting Theseus’ rape of Antiope displays the
Amazon completely clad in Persian dress. [Fig. 5] In Greek mythology, Theseus
won Antiope as a spoil of war after joining Herakles in his expedition against the
Amazons, and Antiope consequently gave birth to their son, Hippolytus. Theseus
is shown here abducting Antiope. The vase-painter consciously decided to depict
Antiope as a Persian in her one-piece suit and helmet. Her outstretched arm in
surrender further demonstrates her fear. In addition, the other side of this amphora depicts the fall of Croesus, the Lydian king, at Sardis. When the king’s
empire was attacked by the Persians, Croesus commanded a pyre to be built into
which he threw his wife and daughters, and finally himself, rather than succumb
to the slavery of the Persian King, Cyrus.10 Croesus sits on a throne, pouring a
libation over the pyre as his servant prepares to ignite a fire. The scene seems to be
a respectful image of the king despite his Eastern descent. However, the scene’s
depiction on the reverse, of Theseus’ Rape of Antiope, is significant in showing a
narrative of recent events.11 Indeed, Croesus’ fall at Sardis at the hands of the
Persians led to the Persians’ entry into Ionia, and subsequent encounter and defeat by Athens, as evoked in Theseus’ Rape of Antiope. Thus, the vase refers to the
specific historical events of the Persian wars and the Athenian victory, while also
demonstrating that all Easterners were not perceived as a common enemy. Regardless, numerous other vases of this period, as demonstrated, do not associate
mythological enemies with Persia. In general, there in an inconsistency during
this period in projecting Persian or Eastern features onto such opponents.
Since the Persians rose to power in 539 BC when the Persian king Cyrus
conquered the Lydian and Neo-Babylonian Empires, and also subdued the Ionians
of Eastern Greece, the Persians were a growing threat to the Greeks during the end
of the 6th century BC.12 Although the eastern Greeks were nominally subject to the
Lydian king Croesus before the fall of the Lydian Empire, Croesus was a philhellene
who sent expensive offerings to the sanctuaries of the Greeks gods, and allowed
the Ionians to live in relative freedom.13 As a result, the change in rule caused
anxiety for many Ionians, who immigrated to Attica in large numbers as a result of
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
66
Fotini Xydas
the Persian presence in these Greek cities, and consequently raised Athenian
awareness of the Persian infiltration and threat.
The inconsistency in vase painting of this time to associate fully the opponent with the Persians despite their growing danger may be due to several factors.
Obviously, the Persians were still not a direct threat to Athenians. Thus, any such
connection would be premature. Nevertheless, the occasional implication requires
some explanation. This inconsistency in representation may be the result of the
intimate relations of the recently expelled Greek tyrants with Persian rule prior to
and during the Persian wars. Margaret Miller and E. D. Francis both demonstrate
the Greeks’ association of tyranny with Persia at this time. During the 7th and 6th
centuries BC, Greece was ruled by tyrannies, which were often supported by the
Lydian, and subsequently Persian, empires. For example, Athens’ tyrant from the
mid-6th century BC up to c. 528 BC, Peisistratos, captured the Greek city of Sigeion
from the Ionian island Mytilene, and established his son, Hegesistratos, as tyrant
ruler under the jurisdiction of a Persian satrap.14 Relations such as this with
Persia were quite common under the tyrannies’ rule in Greece. In 510 BC,
Peisistratos’ other son, Hippias, was deposed from tyrant rule of Athens, and
democracy was subsequently instituted. In about 507 BC, the Athenians sent a
messenger to Sardis in hopes of creating an alliance with Persia to counter a Spartan threat. Hippias, now exiled, convinced the Persians to establish him at Athens
as a Persian vassal, but when the Athenians found out, they resolved to open
hostilities against Persia, joined the Ionian revolt in 499 BC, and were finally
victorious at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC.15 Consequently, many Greeks
suspected Athenian aristocratic families of secretly having tyrannical aspirations.16
Hence, Athens’ relations with Persia were intimate and complicated. It appears
that Persia, just like Sparta, was viewed as both potential ally and enemy, but not
as yet as distinctive foreigner.
The Greeks even recognized a hereditary relationship with Easterners. In
Greek mythology, the ancestors of the Medes and Persians, Perses and Medus,
were both sons of Greek heroes and exotic women.17 Zeus’ first human son was
believed to have been the lord of Egypt, and Argos and Thebes to have been subsequently founded by his descendants.
Moreover, the Greeks of the 5th century BC still had intimate relations with
Easterners and Eastern products, even more so than before, as many Eastern workers and slaves entered Greece. Many Persian soldiers remained in Greece after the
wars, as did Greek soldiers in Persia. Trade between the East and West continued,
particularly with Egypt, Syria, Phrygia, Lydia and Phoenicia.18 The overall quantity of Attic pottery imported to the western fringes of the Achaemenid Empire
actually increased in the late 6th and 5th centuries BC.19 Margaret Miller proves
that through such contact, the Greeks appropriated many Eastern status symbols,
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
67
even as Easterners are referred to as barbarians in art and literature. Eastern
objects such as parasols, fans, and fly-whisks, as well as the attendants that hold
such objects, are appropriated by aristocratic Greeks. Miller asserts that:
Even while diffusing the threat of Achaemenid power and enhancing their
own self-definition by portraying barbaroi as weak, emotional, and incapable of
rational thought, the Athenians appropriated and reshaped aspects of Achaemenid
culture to their own social and imperial needs.20
Therefore, Miller demonstrates that Eastern influences remain and are particularly used, or so depicted in Greek art, by aristocratic Greeks. Furthermore, the
appropriation of Persian luxury culture among the Athenian elite reflected a “direct continuation of that which had prevailed in the period of aristocratic hegemony before the Persian wars.”21
Both Miller and Francis convincingly argue that the Greek tyrants and Persians are closely associated in the Greeks’ view at this time, and that both are
perceived as an enemy. However, rather than interpreting this information as
further evidence of the Greeks’ enmity for the Persians, it is also proof of the intimate relations that existed between Greeks and Persians. The Greeks were not yet
unified, and oligarchic factions still existed side by side with democratic ones.
Aristocratic families that favored tyrant rule, and perhaps thus even Persian rule,
lived side by side with democrats. In this way, the Greeks’ perception of the
Persians was extremely complicated, and best understood as a political foe, just
like many other states within Greece, rather than as an ethnic “other.”
Consequently, the vase paintings of this period, from the late 6th century to
early 5th century BC, seem to demonstrate the Greeks’ lack of differentiation between Greek and Persian, or other Easterner. Perhaps the Amazons in Greek dress
fighting Greek heroes side by side with those in Persian garb are representative of
the Greeks’ projection of not only Persian, but also Greek attributes onto the general mythological enemy. This fusion of both Greek and Persian features displayed on the enemy indicates that other Greek states, such as Sparta, as well as
particular Greeks tyrants, like Hippias, posed as great a threat to Athens as Persia
at this time.
Later 5th Century BC Vase Painting
Only later, in the second quarter to mid-5th century BC, and not immediately
after or during the Persian Wars, does the explicit association of Persian as enemy,
as well as barbarian and inferior, come to the fore. Up to this point, even when the
enemy depicted is specifically shown to be Persian, the Persian is presented as a
strong and worthy opponent of the Greeks. The Greeks’ victory over Persian enemies under overwhelming odds may have actually been desirable in demonstratSpring 2003
Penn History Review
68
Fotini Xydas
ing that the gods’ help was instrumental in the opponents’ defeat. However, later
in the century, Persians are specifically depicted as enemies in combat scenes to a
greater degree, and are now shown as weaker, inferior opponents of the Greeks.
Edith Hall has provided evidence of the Greeks’ negatively altered perception of foreigners in the 5th century BC. In Athenian theatre, many tragedies portray barbarians, usually as inferior characters that are the polar opposites of Greeks.
In fact, nearly half of the 1000 tragedies produced in the 5th century BC portrayed
barbarian characters or were set in non-Greek lands, or both.22 For instance, the
Titans are subdued by Zeus and the Olympian gods, Herakles civilizes monsters
and giants, Perseus repels the Gorgons, Odysseus is victorious over the Cyclops
and satyrs, and the Lapiths and Phrygians put down the Centaurs and Amazons.23 Barbarians are characterized as emotional, cruel, subservient, cowardly,
unintelligent, feminine, irrational, and primitive. In his literary works, Aeschylus
presents excessive grief, and near hysteria as Oriental, barbaric characteristics.24
These barbarian features are contrasted to the supposed virtues of the Greeks, like
self-control and courage. Hall also explains that due to the Persian Empire’s
association with the deposed Greek tyrants and luxurious spoils of war, like gold
objects imported to Greece, the East also became associated with excess and revelry. An examination of depictions of foreigners on Attic vase painting further
leads to these same conclusions.
Indeed, an Amazonomachy scene by the Painter of the Woolly Satyrs from
the 2nd quarter of the 5th century BC on a volute-krater demonstrates that the
Amazonomachy’s association with the Persian wars is now fully exploited. [Fig.
6. Fig. 7] All of the Amazons are dressed in Persian costumes. Certain elements in
the composition signify the inferiority of the Amazons, and consequently the Persians that they evoke. The detail of the vase in Figure 7 shows an Amazon who is
being stabbed by a Greek from behind. The pain and pathos of the fallen Persian
is clearly expressed in her languid, uncontrolled body, and anguished facial expression. Her large eyes expressively droop towards the sides, and her mouth
hangs open in pain. The Amazon’s full face, unlike the Greeks’ profile views, is
revealed to the viewer. To the left of this fallen Amazon another defeated Amazon
directly stares out at the viewer with a frontal face expressing emotional anguish.
In contrast, the crouching Greek warrior on the belly of the krater hides behind his
shield. The viewer is not even allowed a glimpse of the Greek warrior’s pain and
grief, whereas the Amazons’ pain is fully disclosed. The painter of the Woolly
Satyrs makes use of the innovative visual technique of the frontal face, rare prior to
the 5th century BC, in order to emphasize the Amazons’ expressions of suffering.
Moreover, the only Amazon left standing in the detail of Figure 7 does not stand
courageously with poise, as in previous representations of the same theme, but
rather slouches, conveying the antithesis of Greek virtues, or cowardice. Although
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
69
holding a spear, this Amazon also carries a crescent moon shaped shield, typically carried by Greek soldiers of the lower strata of society, unlike the large, elaborately decorated, circular shields exhibited by the Greeks in Figure 6,.
Nevertheless, the Amazons still pose a challenge to the Greeks. A number of
Persian figures are still left standing and the Greek figure in the middle foreground,
though hidden behind his shield, retreats from a Persian horseman in a helpless
state of defense. Both the Amazons and Greeks carry hoplite weaponry, rather
than bows and arrows. The Greeks are outnumbered and greatly challenged by
their Eastern adversaries. The Amazons are not explicitly depicted as inferior,
base characters, as this is an earlier rendition of the scene made prior to Athens’
intensification of anti-Persian images.
In a rare instance, an oinochoe from around 460 BC specifically refers to a
contemporary battle with the Persians at Eurymedon, where Athens attempted to
usurp Persian control over even non-Greek people, the Phoenicians, on the coast
of Asia Minor.25 [Fig. 8] It displays a Greek and Persian, who is identified by his
Persian dress, soft cap and shoes, and also by the inscription beside him that
reads: ‘I am Eurymedon. I stand bent over.’ The satirical scene is obviously meant
to convey the Greeks’ recent victory at Eurymedon through the Greek’s sexual
domination over the Persian. Once again, only the Persian’s face is shown frontally. The Persian’s posture and upraised hands further present him as an unresisting, and passive victim.
An oinochoe displaying a Lion Attacking a horse with Fleeing Persian of the
later 5th century BC similarly mocks a Persian. [Fig. 9] The lion’s tail is in between
his legs in a stance insinuating sexual domination over the horse, which it is
biting. The fleeing Persian further implies that the horse is now seeking to dominate him. It presents a bitter mockery of the Persians and further associates them
with excess and revelry, perceived as the antithesis of Greek virtues, as is the
cowardice signified by the Persian fleeing. In addition, Miller notes that this animal combat motif seems to have been extracted almost exactly from an Achaemenid
Persian relief from Persepolis, except that in this original portrayal the tail of the
lion does not sit in between his legs.26 [Fig. 10] Thus, Miller suggests that the Greek
artist may have purposely adopted and transposed the motif in order to mock the
Persians.
In a cup from the 2nd quarter of the 5th century BC, Achilles is once again
shown killing Penthesilea. [Fig. 11] Unlike the previous Achilles-Penthesilea scene
discussed on the neck-amphora by Exekias, this rendition now reveals much more
emotion in the contact between Achilles and the Amazon queen. One feels the
tension between the two figures as Achilles is struck with love at the moment
before he kills Penthesilea. In this later version, Penthesilea is not differentiated by
Persian dress, but her fellow Amazon, who is dead, is completely draped in PerSpring 2003
Penn History Review
70
Fotini Xydas
sian garb. Her hands are thrown up in clenched fists that are either bound together, or just completely helpless, as her entire body twists lifelessly. Unlike the
Greek warrior on the left, the Amazon is left standing, completely unaware of the
occurrence beside him. The fallen Amazon is also the only figure shown frontally,
with mouth open and eyes almost closed in an expressive display of pain and
grief. Achilles is shown naked, except for the mantle draped over his shoulder,
probably due to the rise in popularity of representations of heroes as nude athletes
at this time. Unlike earlier renditions, Penthesilea now lacks Persian features, in
contrast to her Amazon partner, because the love story between Achilles and
Penthesilea no longer makes it acceptable to depict her in Persian dress. It is as if
Achilles’ love and physical contact transform Penthesilea into a Greek heroine,
and cause her to leave her Eastern roots behind. This cup exemplifies the Athenian tendency of this period, after about 470 BC, to modify myth and appropriate
foreign figures and elements as her own in recreating her mythological history as
autochthonous.
Frontal Faces
“Throughout the Archaic period, when the most characteristic type of freestanding sculpture was the kouros, represented with rigid frontality from head to
toe, Greek vase-painters clung with few exceptions to the convention of depicting
the face in strict profile.”27 Frontal faces are only occasionally drawn on vases
from the early 6th century BC, and three-quartered faces slightly earlier.28 Yvonne
Korshak recognizes an element of pathos in these frontal faces that assigns them
an “affective power,” as does their rarity.29 Korshak traces the use of such frontal
faces in vase painting of the 6th century BC and discovers an iconographic pattern
in their application. She identifies the Gorgon, and other demonic or animal figures like panthers and lions, as the origin for frontal faces in Greek vase painting.
In the 6th century BC, frontal faces are rarely used in illustrating dead or wounded
figures, figures that are emotionally affected, satyrs and centaurs, and komasts
and symposiasts.
The various figures depicted with frontal faces during the 6th century BC
“are in a state of diminished control over the self.”30 Thus, the use of the frontal
face during the later 5th century BC in depicting Persians and their surrogates
further associates Persia with the excess and lack of Greek virtues found in these
figures. Moreover, the greatly heightened expression of the Persian frontal-faced
figures demonstrates a desire to expose their anguish and inferiority at the hands
of the Greeks.
Reasons for the Greeks’ Derogatroy Depictions of Persians After the Persian War
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
71
The development of the depiction of Persians as barbaric, inferior characters
in vase-painting seems to derive partly from the Greeks’ self-definition, developed
mainly through their center at Athens. While Edith Hall explains this self-definition, and consequent polarization of Greek and barbarian as the result of panHellenism, in the Greeks’ attempt at unification against a common opponent, it
seems that this polarization only develops with Athens’ rise to power and Persia’s
decline as a Greek threat. After the Greek victory at the Battle of Marathon in 490
BC, the Persians invaded Greece under king Xerxes in c. 480 BC and were once
again defeated.31 Although Athens provided the primary force by which the Greeks
defeated the Persians at the Battle of Marathon and the Battle of Salamis, Athens’
Greek competitor, Sparta, provided the means for victory at the Battle of Plataea in
479 BC. “From then on, the two city-states became rivals for the leadership of
Greece.”32 While the Spartans did not pursue the Persians any further after the
Persian defeat at Plataea, the Athenians continued to focus their attention on the
Persian enemy.
Around 478 BC, Athens created the Delian League, with itself as the leader
over 200 member states, as an alliance between the Greek cities and islands for the
purpose of driving out the Persian enemy.33 The Delian League had its headquarters at Delos, an island in the Aegean believed to have been holy. Member states
contributed either ships or money to the League in defense against the perceived
common foe, Persia. With the defeat of Persia, however, there was no longer a need
for the association. Nevertheless, Athens continued to badger cities into joining
the alliance. In fact, Aegina was brought into the League by force in 458-7 BC.34
Following the attempts of many of the Greek states to withdraw, Athens responded
with force in maintaining Greek state membership. For instance, Thasos was
forcibly prevented from leaving the League in 465-4 BC. As J. J. Pollitt explains, “to
abandon the force which the Athenians had organized against them [Persians]
meant the abrogation of Athens’ new power and prestige.”35 Other states in the
League became more subjects than allies to Athens. Athens then used a setback in
conquering land from the Persians in Egypt as an excuse to transfer the treasury of
the League from Delos to Athens in 454 BC.36 From this point on, one sixtieth of the
League’s money was dedicated to Athena, and the rest to Athens. In c. 449 BC,
Pericles arranged a peace treaty with Persia but once again did not relinquish his
control over the Delian League. In resuming building projects in Athens, which
had been halted until 450 BC as a reminder of Persian destruction, Pericles utilized the League’s money. Pericles justified such exploitation of resources in asserting that Athens provided protection and security to the states in exchange,
despite the actual absence of danger.37 “A democracy at home, Athens practiced
empire abroad.”38
In addition, even within Athens there was political conflict between a conSpring 2003
Penn History Review
72
Fotini Xydas
servative, aristocratic, pro-Spartan faction led by Cimon, and a democratic faction
led by Pericles around 478 BC.39 Thus, even after the establishment of democracy,
this political conflict was manifest throughout Greece in the opposition of oligarchic parties to democracy. It appears that Periclean, Athenian propaganda further
associated these oligarchic families with the tyrannical rulers of the preceding
generations, as well as Persians. Pericles failed to subdue the numerous oligarchic coups d’état, and in 448-446 BC lost control of Boeotia, Phocis, and Megara.40
In 446 BC, Pericles signed a peace treaty with the Peloponnesian alliance, led by
Sparta, but uprisings did not cease. Finally, in 431 BC Sparta and its Peloponnesian
allies invaded Athens and commenced the Peloponnesian War. Even in the
Peloponnesian War, Persia was considered as an important potential ally for both
the Spartans and Athenians.41 However, Artaxerxes, the Persian king, chose not
to join either side. Leaving the two parties to fight was in his best interest.
Therefore, vase paintings in which foreigners are now depicted as barbaric
characters, as previously described, may be a result of Athenian propaganda.
They may serve as reminders of Athens’ role as protectorate and leader against the
Persian opposition, even when Persia no longer poses a threat, just like the Persian
spoils and monuments destroyed by the Persians left untouched and displayed
prominently within the city. Although the vases may not have been created with
intentional propagandistic purposes, ideas such as this—of Athens serving as the
leader of Greece against Persia—were certainly circulating Athens, especially in
competition with inter-state rivals like Sparta, and are therefore probably reflected
in the iconography of these vases.
The tragedies of the mid to later 5th century BC that Hall documents further
demonstrate Athenian efforts to alienate the Persians in the Greeks’ perception.
Hall notes that the most important distinction that Athenian writers draw between the Greeks and barbarians is political in nature. Athenian writers juxtapose democratic, egalitarian principles of Greeks with tyrannical and hierarchical
tendencies of barbarians.42 Hence, features used to describe barbarians are also
representative of the Greek tyrants that ruled Athens and many parts of Greece.
These characteristics are projected onto the barbarians by Athenians in order to
maintain their power over the rest of Greece. Furthermore, the Greek tragedies
showcase barbarians, who Hall asserts are conceived as universal, inferior “others” to Greeks, partly as a result of the Greeks’ use of foreigners as slaves.43 However, the direct, recent relations between the Greek tyrants and Persians, and the
Persian wars, would have particular resonance in referring to Persians and Greek
oligarchic factions.
Furthermore, Hall exaggerates the Greeks’ unity during and following the
Persian wars and views Greece of the 5th century BC as markedly different from a
preceding period of greater city-state importance. Hall states that “the invention
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
73
of the barbarian in the early years of the fifth century was a response to the need for
an alliance against Persian expansionism and the imposition of pro-Persian tyrants.”44 In reality, Greeks still seem to have held greater allegiance to their citystates than the League, as evidenced by the subsequent Ionian revolts and interstate competitions for power. Greece was composed of small independent communities, or poleis, that varied in their governance. These city-states were usually
ruled by a group that served its own interests, but were occasionally usurped by
tyrants in the 6th century BC. These tyrants often had close links to Persia, in their
excessive luxury and even their support, as already mentioned, and thus helped to
associate Persia with tyranny in the Greek mind. These so-called tyrants were
always backed by a strong faction within the group that was usurped, and thus
were not really an exception to the rule.45 It must also be remembered that the
historical record is also slightly skewed as a result of Athenian domination, particularly over the pottery market, and the consequent proliferation of Athenian
propagandistic imagery and writings. Indeed, the Athenians posed the Persians
as an inferior, base enemy of the Greeks, and the battle against the Persians for
power over the Aegean as a battle to uphold democracy, when in reality Athens
was limiting its fellow city-states of freedom.
Rather than viewing all foreigners as a universal enemy as Hall and other
scholars suggest, it seems that Athenian images specifically refer to Persians when
alluding to foreigners. Representations of excess and luxury reflected onto Persians further related to Greek aristocracies, remnants of tyrannical rule, and were
thus references to Greeks as well. Athenians did not only view Persians, nor
foreigners, as exhibitors of antithetical Greek virtues. The very name for “Ionia”
was a “byword for effeminacy.” Therefore, the democratic Athenians had the
same air of superiority in relation to their fellow Ionians, and Athenian oligarchies, as to foreigners.
In his article, “The Nearly Other: The Attic Vision of Phrygians and Lydians,”
Keith DeVries demonstrates a “Persianizing” progression in the Phrygians’ representation in vase painting.46 Indeed, the Phrygians, the foreigners with which the
Greeks were in contact with the most in comprising the largest number of Greek
slaves, are initially depicted in a Greek, generic costume as in the neck-amphora of
the Harrow Painter from c. 480 BC. [Fig. 12] The amphora depicts the story of
Midas, the Phrygian king, who tries to capture Silenos, a satyr of exceptional
wisdom. Midas’ hunter is rendered in a Greek tunic, holding a spear, as he leads
Silenos away bound. In a later rendition of c. 440 BC of the same scene by the
Midas Painter, the Phrygian hunter directing Silenos is clad in an exotic dress.
[Fig. 13] He wears a Persian riding cap, and his dress resembles that of the riding
habit. Midas now also has donkey ears.
DeVries views this transformation in the Phrygians’ dress as exemplifying
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
74
Fotini Xydas
the Greeks’ tendency in the 2 half of the 5 century BC to depict foreigners and
mythological enemies as Persians. Indeed, as the images previously discussed
indicate, the Greeks did increasingly render their mythological enemies as Persians. However, rather than interpreting this tendency as evidence of the Greeks’
merging of all foreigners into a universal, abominable “other,” as DeVries and
Hall suggest, it may rather reflect just the opposite. The Greek artists deliberately
refer to Persians in illustrating Greek enemies. The Persian costumes that such
figures exhibit are quite specific and accurate in their depiction, rather than generalized, Eastern attire. Greeks were in close contact with various foreign groups,
such as Thracians, Scythians, Egyptians, and Lydians, as many were taken as
slaves. Thus, though the Greeks may have viewed these foreign groups as inferior,
just as the foreign and Greek peltasts of the 6th century BC, they also would have
been well aware of their native attire. In addition, DeVries explains that the Persian dress was adopted by the Phrygians and other previously established populations of central and western Asia Minor some decades after the Persian conquest
of the 540’s BC.47 Consequently, a depiction of the hunters in Persian dress is
probably an accurate portrayal. Furthermore, the production of such a large vessel
meant for public display, decorated with foreign figures, indicates that not all
foreigners were perceived as inferior, vile characters, as the venerable portrayal of
the figures further demonstrates.
Edith Hall and Sarah Morris demonstrate that it is also during this time that
Athens asserts her autochthony, in modifying and inventing Greek mythologies
that recreate her history as ever-present, self-contained, and pure. Indeed, characters such as Daidalos, Theseus, and Kadmos are adopted as having derived or
arrived at Athens. It is during this period that Theseus overshadows Herakles as
a prominent mythological hero, as Herakles’ relation to Thebes becomes unacceptable. Theseus is adopted as the mythological founder and patron of Athenian
democracy.48
Indeed, Cimon, Athens ruler, “or his political patrons chose Theseus as a
heroic archetype for their policies since, unlike Herakles, Theseus’ ancestry and
mythical enterprise were pre-eminently Athenian.”49 Theseus now became a reminder of the Athenian triumph over the Persians and tyranny as a propaganda
figure of Athens’ ruling power, just as Herakles was previously portrayed by the
Peisistratids as their cult hero.50 For instance, on a stamnos by the Kleophrades
Painter, Theseus is shown fighting Procrustes. [Fig. 14] Procrustes was a brigand
who Theseus came into contact with between Eleusis and Athens on his legendary journey from Troezen to Athens.51 Procrustes is presented as an inferior opponent, with his hand outstretched signaling fear and surrender, and his hair and
beard unkempt in disarray and lack of control. The Athenians’ adversary is once
again depicted with a three-quarter frontal view of his face, while Theseus is stond
Penn History Review
th
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
75
ically and unemotionally rendered in profile. Furthermore, Michael Taylor notes
that Theseus, as in many other representations at this time, is illustrated in a
characteristic pose. Theseus’ stance mimics that of statues of Harmodios and
Aristogeiton, two Athenian men who became famous in having killed Hipparchus’
brother and erroneously credited with having brought democracy to Athens.52
Statues of these figures would have been familiar to Athenians of the 5th century
BC, as they were erected as democratic heroes in the Stoa Poikile. Taylor argues
that Theseus’ pose was used to evoke the Tyrranicides. In this way, Theseus, and
the Athenian government which he symbolizes, is shown victorious over tyranny.
Conclusion
Consequently, the projection of inferior characteristics and stereotypes onto
Persian figures and those associated with them, as exemplified by frontal faces,
must be understood within the political context of ancient Greece and the imperial
tendencies of Athens following the Persian Wars. As one might expect, prior to the
Wars, Persians and foreigners are depicted as inferior enemies no more than other
figures, including even Greeks themselves. Surprisingly, however, in examining
Attic vase painting during and immediately after the Wars, it becomes apparent
that the supposed universal enmity that Greeks share for Persians and all “others” is not substantiated. While Persian or Eastern attributes are occasionally
used to describe foreign mythological enemies of the Greeks, Greek enemies are by
no means consistently associated with foreigners. City-state rivalries, as well as
inter-state political conflicts, prevented Greek ideological unity. Greek tyrants
and city-states sought alliances with Persia in combating rival Greeks. Oligarchic
factions did not relinquish Eastern ties well after the Persian Wars and Athens’
rise to power. Although Athens’ campaign to create a common enemy in the
visual record was successful, this common enemy should not be interpreted, as by
many scholars, as a universal “other.” Greek enemies are usually depicted with
specifically Persian attributes. Athens sought to maintain its stronghold over
Greece even with the decline of the Persian threat, and thus these visual references
would have served as reminders to the ancient Greeks of recent historical events.
These historical events involved a Persian enemy, and not just any Easterner, or
foreigner. Even when representations of enemies do not specifically refer to Persians, they exhibit excess, irrationality, and other antithetical Greek values that
would have also referred to Greek aristocrats. It is through such visual propaganda that Athens combated competing factions and states, and upheld its control over Greece. Indeed, Athens would only remain in power so long as it could
convince the ancient Greeks that Persia and tyranny were vital threats from which
Athenian protection was essential.
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
76
Endnotes
Fotini Xydas
1 Martin Bernal, Black Athena: the Afroasiatic Roots of Civilization, vol. 1,
(New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) 1-2.
2 Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1992) 6.
3 Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1992) 12-13.
4 Burkert 1.
5 Sarah P. Morris, Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1992) 5.
6 Morris 329.
7 Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 10-11.
8 Hall 1.
9 Robin Osborne, “An Other View: An Essay in Political History,” Beth
Cohen, ed., Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other
in Greek Art, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Kohinklijke Brill NV, 2000) 29.
10 E. D. Francis, “Greeks and Persians: The Art of Hazard and Triumph,”
Denise Schmandt-Besserat, ed. Ancient Persia: The Art of an Empire,
(Malibu: Undena Publications, 1980) 71.
11 John Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure Vases, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979) 20.
12 J. J. Pollitt, Art and Experience in Classical Greece, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1972) 11.
13 Pollitt 12.
14 Margaret C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in
Cultural Receptivity, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 4.
15 Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through
Tragedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 56.
16 Hall 58.
17 Francis 3.
18 Miller 65.
19 Miller 67.
20 Miller 1.
21 Miller 189.
22 Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through
Tragedy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 1.
23 Edith Hall 52.
24 Hall 84.
25 Miller 41.
26 Miller 56.
27 Yvonne Korshak, Frontal Faces in Attic Vase-Painting of the Archaic
Period, (Chicago: Ares Publishers, Inc., 1987) 1.
28 Martin Robertson, The Great Centuries of Greek Painting (Skira, Geneva:
Editions d’Art, 1959) 120.
29 Korshak 2.
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
77
30 Korshak 23.
31 J. J. Pollitt, Art and Experience in Classical Greece (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1972) 9.
32 John Griffiths Pedley, Greek Art and Archaeology, (New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1993) 148.
33 Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through
Tragedy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 2.
34 Martin Robertson, A Shorter History of Greek Art (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1981) 90.
35 Pollitt 65.
36 Pedley 202.
37 Pollitt 66.
38 Pedley 202.
39 Pollitt 25.
40 Pollitt 67.
41 Miller 25.
42 Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through
Tragedy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 2.
43 Hall 2.
44 Hall 16.
45 J. J. Pollitt, Art and Experience in Classical Greece, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1972) 10.
46 Keith DeVries, “The Nearly Other: The Attic Vision of Phrygians and
Lydians, Beth Cohen, ed., Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (Leiden, The Netherlands: Kohinklijke Brill,
NV, 2000) 342.
47 DeVries 348.
48 Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through
Tragedy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 58.
49 E. D. Francis, Image and Idea in Fifth-Century Greece: Art and Literature
after the Persian Wars, (New York: Routledge, 1990) 2.
50 E. D. Francis, “Greeks and Persians: The Art of Hazard and Triumph,”
Denise Schmandt-Besserat, ed., Ancient Persia: The Art of An Empire,
(Malibu: Undena Publications, 1980) 74.
51 Mark P. O. Morford and Robert J. Lenardon, Classical Mythology (New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, 1999) 450.
52 Michael W. Taylor, The Tyrant Slayers: The Heroic Image in Fifth Century
BC Athenian Art and Politics, (New York: Armo Press, 1981) 2.
Bibliography
Akurgal, Ekrem. The Art of Greece: Its Origins in the Mediterranean and Near
East. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.
Bernal, Martin. Black Athena, vol. 1. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press,
1987.
Boardman, John. The Archaeology of Nostalgia: How the Greeks Re-Created
their Mythical Past. London: Thames and Hudson, 2002.
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
78
Fotini Xydas
Boardman, John. Athenian Black-Figure Vases. London: Thames and Hudson,
1974.
Boardman, John. Athenian Red-Figure Vases. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1979.
Boardman, John. Early Greek Vase Painting. London: Thames and Hudson,
1998.
Boardman, John. The Greeks Overseas. London: Thames and Hudson, 1999.
Boardman, John. Pre-Classical: From Crete to Archaic Greece. Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1967.
Burkert, Walter. The Orientalizing Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1992.
Cohen, Beth, ed. Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the
Other in Greek Art. Boston: Brill, 2000.
Coleman, John E. and Clark A. Walz, eds. Greeks and Barbarians: Essays on the
Interactions between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997.
Cook, Robert M. Greek Painted Pottery. London: Butler and Tanner, 1960.
Francis, E. D. Image and Idea in Fifth-Century Greece: Art and Literature after
the Persian Wars. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Harrison, Elizabeth B. “The Composition of the Amazonomachy on the Shield
of Athena Parthenos.” Hesperia. American School of Classical Studies at
Athens: vol. 25, p. 107-133, 1966.
Kearns, Emily. The Heroes of Attica. London: University of London, Institute of
Classical Studies, 1989.
Korshak, Yvonne. Frontal Faces in Attic Vase Painting of the Archaic Period.
Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1987.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. & Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Meskell, Lynn. “Archaeology Matters.” Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism,
Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. New
York: Routledge, 1998.
Miller, Margaret C. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in
Cultural Receptivity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Morford, Mark P. O. and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical Mythology. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 1999.
Morris, Sarah P. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1992.
Parker, Robert. Athenian Religon: A History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Pedley, John Griffiths. Greek Art and Archaeology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1993.
Pfuhl, Ernst. Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1955.
Pollitt, J. J. Art and Experience in Classical Greece. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1972.
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
79
Robertson, Martin. The Great Centuries of Greek Painting. Skira, Geneva:
Editions d’Art, 1959.
Robertson, Martin. A Shorter History of Greek Art. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1981.
Shapiro, Alan. “The Origins of Allegory in Greek Art.” Boreas. Munster: vol. 9,
1986.
Shapiro, H. A. Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens. Mainz am Rhein:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989.
Shepherd, William, trans. Herodotus: the Persian War. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1982.
Taylor, Michael W. The Tyrant Slayers: The Heroic Image in Fifth Century B.C.,
Athenian Art and Politics. New York: Arno Press, 1981.
Weinberg, Saul S., ed. The Aegean and the Near East. New York: J. J. Augustin,
1956.
Figure 1
Kantharos signed by Douris, c. 4908 C.
Herakles and the Amazons
(Brussels Musées Royaux A 718.ARV 445, 256).
(John Boardman, Athenian Red-Figure fig. 298).
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
80
Fotini Xydas
Figure 2
From an unsigned Krater by Euphronios, end of the 6th c. BC,
Herakles and the Amazons: Revellers.
(Arezzo, Museo Civico I465, ARV 15, 6).
(Ernst Pfuhl, Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting. Plate 47).
Figure 3
Neck amphora signed by Exekias,
Achilles fights Penthesilea, c. 540-530 BC.
(London, British Museum B 210,ABV 144).
(Boardman, Athenian Black
Figure Vases, Figure 98).
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
81
Figure 4
Hydria by the Berlin Painter, c. 490 BC.
(New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 10.210.19)
(J.J. Pollitt, Art and Experience in Classical Greece, Plate 8).
Figure 5
Pottery Amphora (Louvre G 197).
(E.D. Francis, Image and Idea in
Fifth-Century Greece, Figs 27-28).
Theseus’ Rape of Antiope (reverse).
Croesus on the Pyre at the fall of Sardis
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
82
Fotini Xydas
Figure 6
Amazonomachy (body), Attic red figure volute krater.
Painter of the Woolly Satyrs, c. 460 BC.
(New Yor, Metropolitan Museum of Art 07.286.84)
(Martin Robertson. A Shorter History of Greek Art, Fig 17.2)
Figure 7
Detail of vase in Figure 17.
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
83
Figure 8
Greek Man Rapes Defeated Persian,
Attic red-figure oinochoe, unattributed, c. 465 BC.
(Hamburg, 1981.173)
(Best Cohen, Not the Classical Ideal, Figs.3.6.-3.7)
Figure 9
Lion Attacking a Horse with Fleeing Persian,
Attic red-figure oinochoe, unattributed, later 5th c. BC
(Paris, Louvre 473)
(Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Centruy BC, figs 14-15).
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
84
Fotini Xydas
Figure 10
Achaememid relief of lion attacking a bull. Persepolis,
Apadana, Eastern Stairway, South Side.
(Miller, Fig 17)
Figure 12
Silenos Led Away Bound
Attic red-figure
(Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University B13)
(Beth Cohen, Not the Classical Ideal, fig 13.4)
Penn History Review
Spring 2003
Representations of Persians in Greek Attic Vase Painting
85
Figure 11
Athenian Cup from Vulci, Battle of Greeks and Amazons
second quarter of the 5th c. BC
(Munich, Antikensammlungen 2688).
(Ernst Pfuhl, Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting, p. 116)
Spring 2003
Penn History Review
86
Fotini Xydas
Figure 13
Silenos Before King Midas,
Attic red-figure stamnos,
Midas Painter, c. 440 BC
(London, British Museum E447)
(Cohen, Not the Classical Ideal, Fig 13.5)
Figure 14
Stamnos by the Kleophrades
Painter, Theseus and Prochistes
(London, British Museum E441).
(Taylor, The Tyrant Slayers, Plate 6).
Penn History Review
Spring 2003