2007]
GLI SCAVI ARCHEOLOGICI E LA COLLEZIONE MANCIATI DI S. CASCIANO BAGNI
91
VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER: A NEW LEKYTHOS
FROM THESSALY *
Katerina Volioti
Abstract
This paper presents a previously unpublished Attic lekythos and discusses visual ambiguity as an intentional drawing
style used by a vase painter who conceptualised the many possible relationships between pot and user, object and
subject. The Gela Painter endowed this hastily manufactured and decorated lekythos with visual effects that drew
the viewer into an inherently ambivalent motif: a mounting Dionysos. This motif, like other Dionysian themes, had a
vogue in late Archaic times but did not necessarily invoke chthonic associations. It had the potential to be consumed
in diverse contexts, including religious festivals, by a wide range of audiences. Such images were not given to the
viewer fully through visual perception but through interpretation.
Introduction
Recent approaches to the study of Attic figured
pottery have emphasised that often vase painters
deliberately avoided the portrayal of specific clues
thus leaving the interpretation of the imagery up
to the viewer, ancient and modern. The inherent
iconographical ambiguity calls into question the
validity of the all-too-common scholarly classification of vase paintings into mythological and nonmythological scenes. This is because in the viewer’s
mind mythological scenes can be associated with
real-life frames of reference and vice versa 1. Late
black - figured vase paintings are generally discussed within the context of the degeneration of
art and technique. Their absence of detail, less refined drawing style and prolific production of similar scenes diminish the potential of these paintings
to be read for content, narrative and meaning with
clarity. The resulting visual ambiguity is associated
with the past and present inability to interpret
these images. Yet visual ambiguity may have been
intentional and relevant to the painter’s style. This
article considers visual ambiguity in the oeuvre of
one of the foremost producers of late black-figured
lekythoi, the Gela Painter. It takes as a case study a
new lekythos from Thessaly showing a male (whose
head is lost) mounting a four-horse chariot while
a female stands behind the horses and an Ionic
column appears on the far right (tav. XIII, a-c).
The Gela Painter is named after Gela in Sicily,
where most of his works have been found 2. From
about 510/505 to 480 BC he produced a very
large number of black-figured lekythoi, most on
red ground but some later on white ground 3.
Although considered one of the better painters in
late black figure 4, it is generally accepted that the
artistic merit of his paintings is only mediocre 5.
* I am grateful to the 13th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in Greece for permission to publish this lekythos,
which I studied on 11 March 2008. Many thanks are due to Mr C. Indzessiloglou and Mrs A. Kalogianni for their kindness and
assistance during my visit. I am indebted to Professors T. H. Carpenter and H. A. Shapiro for suggestions on the iconography,
to Dr N. Dietrich and Mr G. Gerleigner for useful discussion and, above all, to Dr A. C. Smith for reading and commenting
on previous drafts. Any mistakes are mine.
1
Ferrari 2003, pp. 38-40.
2
ABL p. 78. For the Gela Painter see ABL pp. 78-86, 205-215; ABV pp. 473-475, 699-700, 715; Para pp. 214-216; Add2 pp. 118-120;
Mannack 2006, pp. 21-27.
3
ABL pp. 78, 80; Hemelrijk 1974, pp. 118, 129-130; AWL pp. 18, 148: he also produced black-bodied and pattern lekythoi.
4
Robertson 1992, p. 130.
5
ABL p. 80; Hemelrijk 1974, pp. 118, 130. Although Frontisi-Ducroux 1990, pp. 191, 199 argues that we can look at his vases
differently and surpass Haspels’ negativity, she does not re-instate the painter as a deserving artisan.
92
KATERINA VOLIOTI
The lack of unity and cohesion in his imagery 6
and his pre-occupation with symmetry 7 have led
to claims that he was more interested in the design
and visual appearance of his compositions than
their iconographic themes and narrative content 8.
Such discussions have involved an appraisal of the
painter’s knowledge of mythology and Athenian
life 9 as well as drawing skill, notably his ability to
abstract 10. I shall argue that visual ambiguity was
integral to the work of this painter who understood
the many possible nuances in the relationship
between the pot and its viewer(s).
The visual impact of the lekythos
This fragmentary lekythos was found in 1984 in
grave 181 at Nea Ionia (Iolkos) near Volos and is today exhibited in the Athanasakeion Archaeological
Museum of Volos 11. The mouth, neck, handle, most
of the shoulder and many pieces from the body are
missing, yet the lekythos has been recomposed, with
restorations in plaster, and partly repainted 12. This
is a large Type Two lekythos 13. Its preserved height
is 22.2 cm, the diameter of the shoulder measures
11 cm and that of the base 8.7 cm. I would attribute
the lekythos to the Gela Painter. As the figures are
on red ground, it should be considered one of his
early works, from about 500 BC. This attribution
can be justified on account of the stylistic and shape
attributes discussed below.
[RdA 31
The three-palmette configuration on the shoulder is exclusive to this painter 14. Although a small
fraction of the shoulder survives, it is possible to
discern three interspersed dots and traces of a
palmette on the left, of an upside-down palmette
in the middle and of a ten-petalled palmette on the
right, above which two short vertical lines are probably part of a bud pointing to the shoulder edge.
Based on the shoulder decoration, our lekythos falls
under Haspels’ Division IIIb 15, as can be seen, for
example, on a complete lekythos in Treviso 16.
As it is customary for this painter, the ornamental band above the pictorial field comprises a zigzag
connecting two rows of dots, commonly known as
a net pattern, enclosed by two horizontal dilute
lines below and one above 17. A creamy-white line,
now very fugitive, appears at the body-shoulder
junction. The figural zone is set quite high on the
body. Below the scene, starting at the male figure’s
right foot and ending at the horses’ forelegs, there
is a thin ground line above a strip in reserve. At
the point where the black glaze of the lower body
meets the figural zone, there are two red horizontal
lines encircling the vase 18.
The style of drawing and composition exhibit
some of the characteristics Haspels identified for
this painter, such as a long nose for the female and
the fact that the heads and eyes of all four horses
are shown 19. The woman’s eye on our lekythos,
moreover, is drawn in the same manner as that of
a female entering a fountain house on a lekythos
ABL p. 79; Hemelrijk 1974, p. 151. Trümper 2002, p. 60 discusses a lekythos scene where the four standing males represent
different aspects and the narrative does not unfold from left to right; Ta Attika pD56; BA n.: 24312.
7
Frontisi-Ducroux 1990, p. 193. Similarly, Bortolin 2000, p. 74 notes the symmetrical effect of the youths flanking Herakles
and the Nemean lion on a lekythos in Treviso.
8
Frontisi-Ducroux 1990, pp. 192, 198.
9
Hemelrijk 1974, pp. 139, 151 attributes the painter’s insufficient mythological knowledge and understanding of palaistra
events to his foreign origins. Bortolin 2000, p. 73 is right to criticise Hemelrijk since Herakles, for example, appears on more
than 30 lekythoi. Even if this painter was a foreigner, he would have seen palaistra events during his long career in Athens.
10
Frontisi-Ducroux 1990.
11
Inv. n.: BE11198, Inventory Catalogue, Athanasakeion Archaeological Museum of Volos.
12
The surface is worn and damaged with many scratches and abrasions. Modern paint has, in places, splashed over the
ancient surface as, for example, on the shoulder right palmette, the horses’ tail and their lowered heads. There is modern
glue underneath the foot.
13
AWL p. 77.
14
ABL p. 81; Hemelrijk 1974, pp. 119, 122, 134; ABFV p. 147: the Gela Painter reduced the number of palmettes.
15
For division IIIb see ABL p. 81, 209. The shape of our lekythos, however, would qualify for Hemelrijk’s division IIIa. See
Hemelrijk 1974, p. 133.
16
Bortolin 2000, p. 73, figg. 3-4.
17
ABL p. 79; Hemelrijk 1974, p. 119; Agora XXIII p. 46.
18
The red colour of these lines is different from the added purple-brown applied on the folds of the charioteer’s garment
and the horses’ tails.
19
ABL pp. 78-79.
6
2007]
VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER
in Gela 20 and another female riding a bull on a
lekythos in Amsterdam 21, both attributed to the Gela
Painter. Most importantly, two lekythoi, now in Paris
and Agrigento, show exactly the same scene rendered in the same style: a male charioteer, a female
behind the horses and an Ionic column 22. A further
stylistic and iconographic parallel may have been a
fragmentary lekythos from Selinunte-Manicalunga,
from which only the horses’ front bodies and
a Doric column survive 23. In iconographic and
stylistic terms then this new lekythos from Volos is
not unique but exemplifies the painter’s habit of
producing exact replicas across different vases 24.
The shape of our lekythos is characteristic of the
Gela Painter, who is believed to have been his own
potter 25 fashioning, almost exclusively, closed shapes
and specialising in lekythoi, as shown in Table 1.
As is usual for the Gela Painter’s early lekythoi,
the sides swell from the sloping shoulder and then
gradually taper to the base 27. The foot, separated
from the body by a fillet, is in two degrees with
vertical side in reserve and torus in black glaze 28.
The concave underside of the foot, featuring a small
incised circle at its centre, is slipped except for the
edges 29. The vessel exhibits technical imperfections
reflecting hasty manufacture, which was common
for this painter 30. The lekythos wobbles. The foot is
slightly off centre and the contours of the body are
not symmetrical but, in places, protrude disproportionately. The dents on the surface formed, most
likely, when the lekythos touched other vessels before entering the kiln. The lower body is partially
93
misfired: the black glaze has turned greenish and
where it has flaked off the clay is grey.
Shape
Number of vases
Alabastron
  1
Skyphos
  1
Amphora
  3
Chous
  3
Olpe
  8
Oinochoe
 44
Lekythos
317
TOTAL
377
Table 1 - Shapes by the Gela Painter. Source: Beazley
Archive online database, accessed 23 July 2008. Data
supplemented by two lekythoi in Bortolin 2000 and
Delos X 26.
The Gela Painter drew this lekythos hastily as
exemplified by the crude circle for the chariot
wheel and the horizontal incision across the female’s hair 31. In view of its sketchiness, the Volos
lekythos falls within the painter’s lesser products,
those that Haspels marked with an asterisk indicating their lower artistic standard 32. On closer
inspection, nevertheless, it is possible to see that
the painter drew some parts of the composition
with considerable detail, as exemplified by the
four-horse chariot 33. Confident incisions articulate
the manes and harnessing, the yoke and pole ends,
20
ABL p. 207.36; CVA Italy 54, Gela Museo Archeologico Nazionale (III) III H, tav. 14.1; Ta Attika D46; Mannack 2006, p. 22;
BA n.: 685.
21
Hemelrijk 1974, p. 127, fig. 30.
22
ABL p. 211.135; CVA France 10, Paris (Bibliothèque Nationale) 2, tav. 79.18; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 11343. ABL p.
210.117; CVA Italy 61, Agrigento 1, tavv. 55.3-4 and 57.2; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 15723.
23
Giudice, Tusa and Tusa 1992, n. D58; BA n.: 18521.
24
ABL pp. 84-85.
25
ABL p. 78; Hemelrijk 1974, pp. 130-134 acknowledges, however, that the shapes and sizes of his lekythoi vary considerably.
Future research could ascertain whether the Gela Painter worked with different potters during his career. For example, Fritzilas
2006, p. 278, notes that the Theseus Painter, who was contemporary to the Gela Painter, collaborated with various potters.
26
ABL p. 211.139; Delos X, tav. 41.554; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 30107 is mistakenly listed as non-attributed.
27
Our shape is close to that of a complete lekythos from Gela: Ta Attika pD56; Trümper 2002; BA n.: 24312.
28
ABL p. 80; Agora XXIII p. 46.
29
There is a smudge of dilute black glaze on the underside.
30
ABL pp. 78, 85.
31
The painter may have originally intended to show her collar bone with this incision. I am grateful to Dr Smith for this
suggestion.
32
ABL pp. 85, 205.
33
The detailed drawing of the chariot may reflect his general interest in drawing horses, which feature prominently in his
oeuvre.
94
KATERINA VOLIOTI
and the dorsal yoke while dots in added white,
possibly indicating metal studs 34, decorate the
breast strap of the near trace horse. The outline of
this horse’s head is incised with considerable detail
and precision contrasting with the hasty incisions
for the female.
While the heads of the two rear horses are
shown in profile, their two eyes have been drawn
as if they portray one horse in three-quarter view,
creating an illusion of perspective (tav. XIII, e).
Such a desired optical effect may also account
for the way the column has been drawn. The two
incised flutes swerve away from the black-glazed
pillar and then turn inwards again half way down
the column. In avoiding straight incision lines, the
painter appears to have tried to match the flutes to
the curving contours of the lekythos side, indicative
of his usual attention to shapes and volumes 35. The
painter, moreover, applied dots in added white
over the figures’ garments and loosely on the vase
surface 36. While such dots are common amongst
late black-figured lekythoi, it is worth noting their
eye-catching effect. In spite of its imperfect shape
and overall hasty drawing, as a finished product
our lekythos had a considerable visual impact. The
painter endowed it with features that would attract
the viewer’s attention.
Interpretation of the iconography
Lekythoi by the Gela Painter depict a variety of
male charioteers including, for example, a seminaked and a winged man on two vessels from
the Athenian Agora 37 and a draped male on a
lekythos in New Zealand 38. The missing head of
our charioteer makes it difficult to identify him
with certainty. It seems likely, however, that our
lekythos portrays the god Dionysos in the same
manner as the Agrigento lekythos, which shows a
[RdA 31
crowned and bearded Dionysos wearing, as on our
vase, chiton and himation 39. In the absence of a
kantharos or drinking horn, often held by a mounting Dionysos 40, one might wonder whether the
three dot-leaved branches emerging from behind
the charioteer’s body can be taken as a Dionysian
trait. Such surreal representations of branches,
however, neither springing from the ground nor
held in hands, are common space-fillers in late
black figure, irrespective of the scene 41.
Assuming that the charioteer is indeed Dionysos,
who could the female figure be? Chariots are
absent from scenes showing Dionysos’ face-to-face
encounter with one woman 42 while a mounting
Dionysos is, in most cases, accompanied by more
than one female 43. The woman, with hair falling
to the shoulder, wears chiton and himation. White
slip, now fugitive, was painted over the black glaze
for her face, arms and feet. Her outstretched right
arm, in white from the elbow down indicating,
possibly, that her sleeve is pushed up, extends
towards the charioteer. Her bare left arm, painted
in white from the shoulder, is folded. The thumb
of the claw-shaped left hand is excessively long,
suggestive of a drawing error and not that she
holds something, such as a pair of castanets. Her
feet point to the right and although the right foot
is slightly raised from the ground it does not seem
to indicate dancing. Very thin incisions articulate
her large almond-shaped eye, with no pupil,
while her mouth is not indicated. She has, overall,
a quiet demeanour and although she gesticulates
and looks back at Dionysos it is unclear how she
actually relates to him. With her feet pointing to the
right she intends to walk in the opposite direction.
The painter has, moreover, placed her rather far
away from the god: when the viewer has turned
the lekythos so as to see the female there is no sight
of Dionysos (tav. XIII, b and d).
Hedreen discusses the different and overlap-
Crouwel 1992, p. 45.
Frontisi-Ducroux 1990, p. 199.
36
Only the shade of these dots on the charioteer is visible today. The larger white dots on the vase surface have also faded.
37
Agora XXIII nn. 870 and 874.
38
CVA New Zealand 1, tav. 22.3-5; ABV p. 474.11; Add 2 p. 119; BA n.: 330572.
39
ABL p. 210.117; CVA Italy 61, Agrigento 1, tavv. 55.3-4 and 57.2; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 15723.
40
Manakidou 1994, p. 178.
41
Kaeser 1992, p. 335.
42
LIMC III.1 s.v., Dionysos, nn. 281-4 [C. Gasparri].
43
LIMC III.1 s.v., Dionysos, nn. 444-51 [C. Gasparri] where n. 448 is wrongly quoted as showing Dionysos with one maenad.
Graef and Langlotz 1933, n. 726 describe a second female on this fragment.
34
35
2007]
VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER
ping attributes of maenads and nymphs when they,
unlike in our vase, appear together with silens 44.
The identification of our female as maenad is also
complicated by the fact that the word maenad does
not occur in vase inscriptions until the mid-fifth
century 45. Yet females in similar scenes are often
interpreted as maenads. Manakidou observes that
a single maenad is frequently shown in late black
figure in a characteristic posture: she dances behind
Dionysos’ chariot and, as on our lekythos, her torso
is in frontal view and face in profile looking back
to the god 46. Moraw, furthermore, argues that
vase painters in late black figure often show nonecstatic, dignified maenads by purposely omitting
diagnostic traits, such as krotala 47. Could the female
on our vase be a maenad?
It is unlikely that the female figure is Ariadne,
Dionysos’ bride, because in chariot scenes she
normally stands together with him in the car 48.
Another possibility is that she is Semele, Dionysos’
mother, who is shown together with Dionysos in
the absence of other members of the thiasos 49. When
Semele died Dionysos descended to Hades to rescue
her and drive her to Olympos 50. A hydria in Berlin,
dated to about 520 BC, features Dionysos mounting
his chariot while Semele, identified by an inscription, stands behind the horses 51. It shows Dionysos’
journey either to the underworld or to Olympos 52.
This particular hydria is stylistically related to our
lekythos as it is attributed to the Leagros Group,
where the Gela Painter had his roots 53.
There are two problems with identifying the
95
female as Semele on our vase. Firstly, as already
remarked, the female’s pose and location in the
composition make her relation to the charioteer
ambivalent. The relaxed reins in Dionysos’ hands
and the idle goad suggest that the chariot is about
to depart. The anticipatory moment is further
indicated by the fact that only Dionysos’ left foot
is in the car while the other rests firmly on the
ground. The viewer is left with the impression
that Dionysos departs leaving Semele behind,
which contrasts with the story about her rescue 54.
Secondly, Carpenter observes that in terms of
mythological narrative, Dionysos mattered more
than Semele, who serves as a mere “visual epithet” when shown together with the god 55. Even
if the Gela Painter then had Semele in mind, it
is questionable whether he intended to portray a
specific mythological scene.
Does the free-standing column add specificity
to our scene? The single column often found in
black-figured chariot scenes is usually taken to
signify a racing goal-post, a tomb marker or both 56.
Although free-standing columns are common on
lekythoi by this painter, their interpretation varies 57.
They assume a concrete meaning as indicators of
buildings, such as sanctuaries, or mark space in a
more abstract manner 58.
A Doric column on a Gela-Painter lekythos in
New York depicting a reclining Dionysos between
satyrs has been interpreted as Dionysos’ palace 59.
On a number of black-figured vases, a single
column is often taken to show the inside of Hades
Hedreen, 1994.
Carpenter 1997, p. 52, footnote 1.
46
Manakidou 1994, pp. 182-183.
47
Moraw 1998, p. 49.
48
Hedreen 1992, p. 50; LIMC III.1 Addenda s.v., Ariadne [M.-L. Bernhard].
49
Hedreen 1992, pp. 50-51; LIMC VII.1 s.v., Semele [A. Kossatz-Deissmann].
50
LIMC VII.1 s.v., Semele [A. Kossatz-Deissmann]. Carpenter 1997, p. 63: the literary sources about Semele’s rescue are much
later, dating to the second century AD.
51
ABV p. 364.54; Add2 p. 97; BA n.: 302049.
52
See Kerényi 1976, p. 161, footnote 88 for Dionysos’ travel to the underworld. See Shapiro 1989, p. 92 for Dionysos’ travel
to Olympos.
53
ABL p. 80; Robertson 1992, pp. 73, 130. For a lekythos attributed to the Leagros Group showing a mounting Dionysos see,
for example, Korzus 1984, n. 60 and BA n.: 9862 where the vase is mistaken with a different lekythos by the Gela Painter:
Stähler 1983, n. 21.
54
I am thankful to Mr Gerleigner for this suggestion.
55
Carpenter 1997, p. 64.
56
McGowan 1995, p. 628.
57
Udell 2006a, p. 66, footnote 6. Gebauer 2002, p. 76, footnote 354.
58
Frontisi-Ducroux 1990, pp. 193-194.
59
ABV p. 473.2; Udell 2006a, p. 66; BA n.: 330563.
44
45
96
KATERINA VOLIOTI
(e.g., in depictions of Herakles and Kerberos) 60. One
possibility then is that, if the female is Semele, our
lekythos shows Dionysos about to leave a palace,
perhaps the palace of Hades 61.
It is also possible, however, that our column was
not essential to the story-telling of our scene. Beazley described two lekythoi by this painter showing a
harnessing scene as iconographic replicas although
only one of them features a column on the far
right 62. On our lekythos the female and rear horse
overlap the net pattern above the figural field,
and so would the charioteer, but the free-standing
column does not (tav. XIII, e). The column, which
appears to support the ornamental band above the
pictorial field as if it were an architrave, potentially
becomes important in the ‘architecture’ of the visual
image 63. It is also possible to imagine that when
somebody held the lekythos in their hand and rotated it clockwise the iconography opened up like
a scroll 64. The purpose of the column may simply
have been to mark the end of this scrolling.
To summarise, the male charioteer can be tentatively identified as Dionysos. The Gela Painter
portrayed the female in such a way that her identity, pictorial role and relationship to Dionysos are
fluid. As maenad, a mortal worshiper of Dionysos,
she would evoke frames of reference relating to
religious festivals 65. As Semele she could be asso­
[RdA 31
ciated with a mythological narrative. The fact that
she could be either or both blurs the distinction
between a ‘genre’ and mythical signification. It is
not possible to ascertain whether the painter intended the column to set the scene for the actors of
the iconography, for the viewer/user of the lekythos
or for both. Our lekythos then appears to be specific
only at the level of showing Dionysos driving his
chariot.
This iconographic motif is, in general, rare in
black figure 66. It occurs more frequently in late
black figure 67 when the god’s popularity increased.
The motif is conflated with wider pools of images,
such as scenes of gods departing, weddings or
heroic apotheoses 68. The destination of Dionysos’
chariot, moreover, remains always unclear 69. As a
visual image then Dionysos in his chariot evoked
different and, possibly, even mixed narratives.
A mounting Dionysos appears on thirteen lekythoi by this painter 70. This is a very small percentage
(4%) out of the total number of lekythoi. As far as we
can tell, (although eight out of the thirteen lekythoi
are unpublished), the painter produced variations
of this iconographic motif. On a lekythos from Delos,
for example, he portrays Dionysos mounting his
chariot on his own, which is unusual 71.
Perhaps the Gela Painter capitalised on the
inherent ambivalence of the mounting Dionysos by
Karouzou 1972, p. 65.
I am indebted to Prof. Carpenter for this interpretation.
62
For a harnessing scene without a column see ABV p. 474.12; BA n.: 330573 (photo in the Beazley Archive). For its replica
with a Doric column see Para p. 215; BA n.: 340821 (photo in the Beazley Archive). For a further lekythos with the same scene
without a column see ABL p. 208.63, tav. 24.3.
63
I am grateful to Dr Dietrich for this suggestion. See Gebauer 2002, p. 525 for a similar interpretation with reference to a
Gela-Painter oinochoe; BA n.: 330075.
64
For a similar interpretation of the iconography opening up like a scroll, as suggested by the direction of graffiti, see Volioti
and Papageorgiou, forthcoming.
65
Hedreen 1994, p. 54.
66
Carpenter 1997, p. 63; Shapiro 1989, pp. 92-93.
67
Manakidou 1994, p. 180; Jurriaans-Helle 1999, p. 207.
68
Manakidou 1994, pp. 179, 181, 188; Isler-Kerényi 2007, p. 123.
69
Carpenter 1997, p. 63.
70
ABL p. 209.87; BA n.: 390115. ABL p. 209.88; BA n.: 390116. ABL p. 209.92; BA n.: 390119. ABL p. 210.114; BA n.: 390131. ABL
p. 210.117; CVA Italy 61, Agrigento 1, tavv. 55.3-4 and 57.2; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 15723. ABL p. 211.135; CVA France
10, Paris (Bibliothèque Nationale) 2, tav. 79.18; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 11343. ABV p. 473.1; BA n.: 330562. ABV p. 474.10;
BA n.: 330571. Para p. 215; Add 2 p. 119; BA n.: 340805. ABL p. 211.139; Delos X, tav. 41.554; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 30107.
ABL p. 215.2; CVA Italy 54, Gela Museo Archeologico Nationale (III) III H, tavv. 11.1-2 and 12.1-2; Ta Attika D71; Mannack
2006, p. 26; BA n.: 687. ABL p. 215.1; Para p. 214.4; Mannack 2006, p. 26; BA n.: 340791. Stähler 1983, n. 21. Two more lekythoi
show Dionysos in a mule cart, BA nn.: 390100 and 390101. Another lekythos shows either a mounting Dionysos or Ariadne,
BA n.: 340801. A further lekythos shows the harnessing of Dionysos’ chariot, BA n.: 330573. A mounting Dionysos also appears
on an oinochoe, BA n.: 306698.
71
Delos X, tav. 41.554; ABL p. 211.139; BA n.: 30107. Manakidou 1994, pp. 178, 181, 192: a mounting Dionysos is rarely shown
without companions.
60
61
2007]
VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER
purposely leaving out identifying features, such as
a kantharos or krotala, which could make the identity
of the figures less obscure. Instead, the part of the
composition where he engaged in detail was, as
discussed, the chariot. This did not contribute,
however, to making the overall narrative specific.
Such a consideration of where the detail lies testifies
to the painter’s intentionality for visual ambiguity
and makes the end result more intriguing for the
viewer/interpreter.
The ambivalence in the story-telling potential of
our lekythos, calls into question the all-too-eager association of such scenes with chthonic Dionysos 72.
Hemelrijk has attributed the prevalence of Dio­
nysian themes, including a mounting Dionysos,
to allusions about a blissful afterlife in the god’s
presence 73. While Dionysos was important in transitions 74 and chariots facilitated even the transfer
between realms 75, there is no apparent reason to
single out the god’s chthonic nature as the only
relevant context for understanding the iconography
of this lekythos. Dionysos entered one’s life on many
different occasions (e.g., festivals, weddings, private
drinking parties) and was important to the individual at a personal level (e.g., sexuality and rites
of passage) 76. Afterall, the god’s pictorial ubiquity
in late Archaic times could not always invoke
links to funerary interpretations. Our chariot scene
could, for example, recall mid-sixth-century vases
relating to the Apaturia festival, where Dionysos
played a role in the initiation of ephebes 77. Such an
interpretation seems particularly relevant because
scenes pertaining to religious practice are frequent
on Gela-Painter lekythoi, including Dionysian masks
97
and bull processions, which Hemelrijk interprets as
ceremonies for Dionysos 78.
The emphasis on chthonic Dionysos, over and
above other possible interpretations, also reflects
an unjustified general understanding of late blackfigured lekythoi as vases that were used exclusively
and only once during one’s burial. This understanding, however, is nowadays brought into question 79.
It is doubtful whether the Gela Painter produced
the motif of a mounting Dionysos only for funerary
usage as testified, for example, by the votive function of one lekythos from the Heraion on Delos 80.
Our lekythos, furthermore, exhibits wear marks on
the edge of the underside of the foot suggesting
that the vessel was used repeatedly before being
placed in the grave 81. The ambiguity in the meaning of our visual image then is not surprising when
one considers the versatile contexts of use during
the life cycle of the pot and the diverse frames
of reference ensuing from such contexts. How
wide-ranging were the audiences consuming this
painter’s imagery?
Distribution patterns
Provenances are known for 39% of the vases and
38% of the lekythoi by the Gela Painter 82. Most of
his vases have been found in Italy, the majority in
Sicily and, more specifically, Gela, where forty one
of his lekythoi have recently been counted 83. Only
a handful of his works reached eastern Mediterranean destinations 84 while there is an apparent
absence of findspots in Iberia.
See, for example, Udell 2006b, p. 70 with reference to a lekythos by the Marathon Painter.
Hemelrijk 1974, p. 138, footnote 87.
74
Isler-Kerényi 2007, pp. 214-215.
75
Carpenter 1997, p. 64.
76
Isler-Kerényi 2007, pp. 213-215.
77
Jurriaans-Helle 1999, p. 207.
78
Examples of lekythoi with Dionysian masks: Frontisi-Ducroux 1991, pp. 162-165, nn. 99-101; ABL pp. 206.3, 214.196, tav. 25.6
and p. 208.55. Examples of lekythoi with sacrificial bulls: Hemelrijk 1974, pp. 140-150.
79
See, for example, Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, p. 41.
80
Delos X, pl. 41.554; ABL p. 211.139; Mannack 2006, p. 24; BA n.: 30107.
81
Mertens 2004, p. 195: an oinochoe by this painter from Delphi was also used prior to deposition. ABL p. 214.180, tav. 25.5;
Mannack 2006, p. 25; BA n.: 46912.
82
Same source as for Table 1.
83
Giudice et al 2004, p. 30, footnote 29; Mertens 2004, p. 194; Giudice 1989, tab. IX.1; Scheffer 1988 pp. 538-539, tab. 1, fig.
2 and p. 541.
84
Tuna-Nörling 1995, p. 142 lists two Gela-Painter products from Troas and one side-palmette lekythos near the Gela
Painter from Smyrna. For a Gela-Painter lekythos from Cyprus see Gjerstad 1977, tav. 69.1-3; ABV p. 474.8; Add 2 p. 119; BA
n.: 330569.
72
73
98
KATERINA VOLIOTI
A relatively low number of vases by this painter
has been recovered from mainland Greece 85. Apart
from a concentration in the Athenian Agora 86, findplaces include the Athenian Kerameikos, Boeotia
(Levadhia and Rhitsona), Delos, Delphi, Keos,
Korinth, Olympia, Thasos, Thessaloniki and Vrao­
na 87. I think that a non-attributed lekythos from
Amphissa near Delphi could also be by the Gela
Painter 88. His vases, at least on present evidence
and publication, do not appear to have travelled
far north out of Athens. Only one of his lekythoi has
been found in South Russia 89 and just one oinochoe
at Aineia near Thessaloniki 90. The lekythos fragment
from Thasos may not be by the Gela Painter but
by the Haimon Group 91. Whereas the shoulder
pattern on a lekythos from Aiani in North Western
Greece is reminiscent of the Gela Painter, the body
decoration is close to the Athena Painter 92.
Many oinochoae by this painter have been
recovered from Etruria, while lekythoi are clearly
prevalent in Sicilian sites. As a consequence, the
Gela Painter is often cited as an example of market
targeting by shape 93. The findspot of our lekythos
questions whether market specialisation also entailed iconography. At least two identically painted
lekythoi left this painter’s workshop in Athens and
reached locations some distance apart: Agrigento
and Nea Ionia near Volos 94. Additional findspots
of lekythoi featuring Dionysos mounting his chariot
include Delos, Etruria and Gela showing that this
motif was not destined for one export market.
Osborne has convincingly argued that market
specialisation, as exemplified by the Nikosthenic
workshop, was the exception to the rule and that
red-figured painters produced shapes and iconographies for a broad market base 95. Alongside the
concentration at Gela and the Athenian Agora, the
[RdA 31
uneven distribution pattern of vases by the Gela
Painter becomes indicative of the many possible
diverse modalities of pottery consumption. Our
lekythos, furthermore, does not appear to have been
a singleton that was, perhaps, deposited by a random travelling individual. The lekythos was found
together with three more black-figured lekythoi, two
of which also feature palmettes on the shoulder,
implying that they, too, could have originated from
the same or a related workshop 96.
Discussion and conclusions
Visual ambiguity stems from this painter’s
drawing style and is neither a consequence of his
lack of skill nor a reflection of modern scholarly deficiency in interpretation. On this hastily produced
lekythos from Thessaly the eye-catching effects, the
imbalance in detail and the absence of diagnostic
clues expose this painter’s intentional construction
of a visually ambiguous image rather than his
insufficient knowledge and skill. Concerning the
interpretation of the imagery, the male figure is
tentatively recognised as the god Dionysos while
the identity of the female remains unresolved. The
two propositions, maenad and Semele, have not
been discussed in terms of distinguishing between
Dionysos’ mortal worshipers and his mother,
referring to a ‘genre’ and mythical interpretation
respectively. Instead, her features, demeanour,
posture, location and unclear relationship to the
charioteer are indicative of the painter’s ambiguous drawing style. The female figure forms, to
an extent, a relationship with the viewer who is
puzzled about her identity and role. Similarly, the
upright column may have marked mythological or
non-mythological space, and hence relate to the
Agora XXIII p. 46; Hemelrijk 1974, p. 130.
Monaco 2000, p. 185 with earlier bibliography.
87
ABV p. 475.29: Vraona near Sparta; Para p. 215: corrected to Brauron in Attika. See Gebauer 2002, p. 75, footnote 350.
Mannack 2006, p. 26; BA n.: 330075.
88
Kolonia 1989, pp. 190-193, tav. 114; BA n.: 22215.
89
BA n.: 45340.
90
Bakalakis 1969, p. 56; Para p. 216; Add 2 p. 119; Hemelrijk 1974, p. 140, footnote 124; Mannack 2006, p. 27; BA n.: 340838.
91
Kahil 1960, tav. 39.128 attributes the fragment to the Haimon Group; BA n.: 340811.
92
Kefalidou 2001, p. 211, n. 88/10627.
93
Scheffer 1988, p. 544.
94
The provenance of the Paris replica is unknown. The lekythos from Selinunte is too fragmentary to call it an exact duplicate.
95
Osborne 2004, pp. 92-93.
96
I have not inspected these lekythoi in person but have read their short entries in the Inventory Catalogue, Athanasakeion
Archaeological Museum of Volos. Inv. nn.: BE 11197, BE 11199 and BE 11200.
85
86
2007]
VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER
vase iconography, while also relating to the viewer
for its visual impact. Elements of the drawing,
therefore, were intended to invoke a connection
with the viewer.
On the whole, the composition can be understood
as Dionysos mounting his chariot. This inherently
ambiguous motif was reproduced by this painter
in such a way that its lack of transparency came
through. The ambiguity in meaning was suited
to the potentially diverse contexts of use of this
imagery and vase shape. The distinction between
mythological and non-mythological frames of reference became blurred given Dionysos’ pervasiveness
in myth, cult, public and private life. The painter’s
insistence on producing visually ambivalent
imagery might explain his strong preference for
Dionysian scenes in his oeuvre.
The Gela Painter did not produce this motif
with one market in mind. The wide and uneven
geographical distribution of lekythoi showing Dio­
nysos in his chariot testifies to the acceptability of
this visually ambiguous image by different audiences. Our lekythos is much earlier in date than
its duplicate from Agrigento, whose body has
straight sides and figural field is in white ground.
This shows that the Gela Painter persisted with a
visually ambiguous image over the years. During
that time he may have developed awareness that
this iconographic formula was popular, perhaps,
through users’ feedback.
Trade and consumption of pottery, when considered in isolation, may not explain why visual
ambiguity was so integral to this painter’s oeuvre.
Instead, it is possible to argue that the Gela Painter
conceived the salience of user-specific interpretations. Although he clearly cared for the visual
appearance of his vases, his ambiguous images
were not fully given to the viewer through visual
perception but through interpretation. As a painter
and viewer himself he could understand the individuality in the relationship between the pot and
its user(s).
While he produced some unusual scenes, such
as a lekythos from Gela showing either a workshop
or a bathing setting that is unique amongst all
vase paintings 97, a common feature of his oeuvre,
as discussed, is the replication of imagery. This
painter did not have to produce masses of distinct
iconographies to induce individual connections
between pots and their users. Instead, he painted
visually ambiguous scenes, which had the potential
to be interpreted idiosyncratically on a large scale
given various user preferences, contexts of use and
potential destinations for his vases. At the core of
his painting style, therefore, was an understanding
of the pot-user relationship.
For the uniqueness of the scene see Trümper 2002, p. 49; Ta Attika pD56; BA n.: 24312.
97
99
100
KATERINA VOLIOTI
[RdA 31
ABBREVIATIONS
ABL = Haspels C. H. E. 1936, Attic Black-figured Lekythoi,
Paris.
ABV = Beazley J. D. 1956, Black-figure Vase-painters, Oxford.
Add 2 = Carpenter T. H. 1989, Beazley Addenda. Additional
references to ABV, ARV 2 & Paralipomena, Oxford.
Agora XXIII = Athenian Agora; v. 23. Moore M. B. - Philippides M. Z. 1986, Attic Black-figured Pottery, Princeton.
AWL = Kurtz D. C. 1975, Athenian White Lekythoi Patterns
and Painters, Oxford.
Délos X = Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par
l’École française d’Athènes; v. 10. Dugas C. 1928. Les vases
de l’Héraion, Paris.
LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae.
Para = Beazley J. D. 1971, Paralipomena. Additions to Attic
black-figure vase-painters and to Attic red-figure vase-painters,
Oxford.
Ta Attika = Panvini R. - Giudice F. 2004, Ta Attika. Veder Greco
a Gela. Ceramiche attiche figurate dall’ antica colonia, Gela;
Siracusa; Rodi.
BA n.: = Vase number in the Beazley Archive online database.
http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk
REFERENCES
Bakalakis G. 1969, Das Zeusfest der Dipoleia auf einer Oinochoe
in Saloniki, in AntK, 12, pp. 56-60.
Hemelrijk J. M. 1974, The Gela Painter in the Allard Pierson
Museum, in BABesch, 49, pp. 117-158.
Bortolin R. 2000, Una Nuova Lekythos del Pittore di Gela, in
RdA, 24, pp. 70-77.
Isler-Kerényi C. 2007, Dionysos in Archaic Greece. An Understanding through Images, Leiden; Boston.
Carpenter T. H. 1997, Dionysian Imagery in Fifth-Century
Athens, Oxford.
Jurriaans-Helle G. 1999, The Bride, the Goddess, the Hero
and the Warrior. Chariot-Scenes on Attic Black-Figure Vases,
in Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical
Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12-17, 1998. Classical Archaeology
towards the Third Millennium: Reflections and Perspectives, R.
F. Docter and E. M. Moormann (edd.), Amsterdam, pp.
206-208.
Crouwel J. H. 1992, Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in
Iron Age Greece, Amsterdam.
Ferrari G. 2003, Myth and Genre on Athenian Vases, in ClAnt,
22, pp. 37-54.
Fritzilas S. 2006, O Zografos tou Thesea. E Attike Aggeiografia
sten Epoxe tes Neosustates Athenaikes Demokratias, Athens.
Frontisi-Ducroux F. 1990, Quelques remarques sur le peintre
de Gela, in CronCatania, 29, pp. 191-199.
Frontisi-Ducroux F. 1991, Le dieu-masque. Une figure du
Dionysos d’athènes, Paris; Rome.
Gebauer J. 2002, Pompe und Thysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf schwarz- und rotfigurigen Vasen, Münster.
Giudice F. 1989, Vasi e frammenti “Beazley” da Locri epizefiri: e
ruolo di questa città lungo le rotte verso l’Occidente, Catania.
Giudice F. et al. 2004, Il percorso della mostra. Le importazioni
attiche a Gela: construzione del quadro di riferimento, in Ta Attika.
Veder Greco a Gela. Ceramiche attiche figurate dall’ antica colonia,
R. Panvini and F. Giudice (edd.), Gela; Siracusa; Rodi, pp.
23-93.
Giudice F. - Tusa S. - Tusa V. 1992, La collezione archeologica
del Banco di Sicilia, Palermo.
Gjerstad E. 1977, Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery Found
in Cyprus, Stockholm; Lund.
Graef B. - Langlotz E. 1933, Die Antiken Vasen von der
Akropolis zu Athen, Berlin.
Hedreen G. M. 1992, Silens in Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painting.
Myth and Performance, Ann Arbor.
Hedreen G. M. 1994, Silens, Nymphs, and Maenads, in JHS,
114, pp. 47-69.
Kaeser B. 1992, Rebe und Efeu, in Kunst der Schale. Kultur
des Trinkens, K. Vierneisel and B. Kaeser (edd.), München,
pp. 325-335.
Kahil L. 1960, Études thasiennes VII: La céramique grecque.
(Fouilles 1911-1956), Paris.
Karouzou S. 1972, An Underworld Scene on a Black-Figured
Lekythos, in JHS, 92, pp. 64-73.
Kefalidou E. 2001, Late Archaic Polychrome Pottery from Aiani,
in Hesperia, 70, pp. 183-219.
Kerényi C. 1976, Dionysos. Archetypal Image of Indestructible
Life, London.
Kolonia R. 1989, Odos Filotheou Episkopou kai Athanasopoulou
(oikopedo P. Katsimpra), in ArchDelt, 44, pp. 190-193.
Korzus B. 1984, Griechische Vasen aus westfälischen Sammlungen, Münster.
Manakidou E. P. 1994, Parastaseis me Armata (8os - 5os ai.
p.X.). Paratereseis sten eikonografia tous, Thessaloniki.
Mannack T. 2006, Haspels Addenda. Additional References to
C.H.E. Haspels, Attic Black-figured Lekythoi, Oxford.
McGowan E. P. 1995, Tomb Marker and Turning Post: Funerary
Columns in the Archaic Period, in AJA, 99, pp. 615-632.
Mertens J. R. 2004, Vases to and from Gela, in Ta Attika. Veder
Greco a Gela. Ceramiche attiche figurate dall’ antica colonia, R.
Panvini and F. Giudice (edd.), Gela; Siracusa; Rodi, pp. 193196.
2007]
VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER
Monaco M. C. 2000, Ergasteria. Impianti artigianali ceramici ad
atene ed in attica dal protogeometrico alle soglie dell’ ellenismo,
Roma.
Moraw S. 1998, Die Mänade in der attischen Vasenmalerei des 6.
und 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Rezeptionsästhetische Analyse eines
antiken Weiblichkeitsentwurfs, Mainz.
Osborne R. 2004, Workshops and the iconography and distribution of Athenian red-figure potter: a case study, in Greek Art in
View. Essays in honour of Brian Sparkes, S. J. Keay and S. Moser
(edd.), Oxford, pp. 78-94.
Robertson M. 1992, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical
Athens, Cambridge.
Scheffer C. 1988, Workshop and Trade Patterns in Athenian
Black Figure, in Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient
Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen, August 31-September 4
1987, J. Christiansen and T. Melander (edd.), Copenhagen,
pp. 536-544.
Shapiro H. A. 1989, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens,
Mainz am Rhein.
101
Stähler K. 1983, Eine Sammlung griechischer Vasen. Die
Sammlung D. J. In Ostwestfalen, Münster.
Stansbury-O’Donnell M. D. 2006, Vase Painting, Gender and
Social Identity in Archaic Athens, Cambridge.
Trümper M. 2002, Grobschlächtige Arbeiter oder durchtrainierte
Athleten? Zur singulären Darstellungen einer Badeszene auf einer
spätarchaischen schwarzfigurigen Lekythos, in AA, 2002/2, pp.
45-64.
Tuna-Nörling Y. 1995, Die attisch-schwarzfigurige Keramik
und der attische Keramikexport nach Kleinasien, Tübingen.
Udell J. 2006a, Black-Figure Lekythos with Dionysos and Satyrs,
in Classical Antiquities at New York University, L. Bonfante and
B. Fowlkes (edd.), Rome, pp. 65-67.
Udell J. 2006b, Black-Figure Lekythos with Dionysos in a Cha­
riot, in Classical Antiquities at New York University, L. Bonfante
and B. Fowlkes (edd.), Rome, pp. 68-70.
Volioti K. - Papageorgiou M. Forthcoming, A Late BlackFigured Lekythos from Cyprus, in Hyperboreus.
VOLIOTI
a)
- VISUAL AMBIGUITY IN THE OEUVRE OF THE GELA PAINTER
b)
d)
[RdA 31, 2007]
c)
e)
a-e) Athanasakeion Archaeological Museum of Volos, Inv. No.: BE 11198.
Photos by K. Volioti.
TAV. XIII