doi: 10.2143/AWE.18.0.3287219 AWE 18 (2019) 265-275

THESEUS AND HIS RECOGNITION IN THE HOUSE OF AIGEUS: THE SCENE ON THE GOLD -RHYTON FROM PANAGYURISHTE,

(†) JOHN HIND*

Abstract This short paper offers a reinterpretation of the scene depicted on the gold amphora-rhyton from the Panagyurishte Treasure in Bulgaria as the recognition of Theseus by his father Aigeus. It discusses other interpretations and reasons for rejecting them.

In 1949, the most magnificent hoard of ancient vessels ever found on Bulgarian territory came to light by chance near the railway station of Panagyurishte, some 40 km north-west of . A great deal has been written about the treasure and it has travelled the world in several international exhibitions.1 This absolves me from the duty of giving a detailed description of the contents of the hoard, its date and place of manufacture. In brief it can be said that it consists of nine vessels, it is generally agreed to date to the 4th century BC (perhaps ca. 360–330), and the atelier is to be sought somewhere on the Asiatic side of the Sea of Marmara, possibly the Greek city of Lampsacus, where a tradition of gold-working existed.2 The nine vessels may not all have been made at the same time, but most of them were designed to be part of a set. Perhaps they had been in a temple, or had been in some Thracian ruler’s possession, before being looted and deposited in the ground and never recovered until the middle of the 20th century (Fig. 1). The first (and second largest) of the vessels is an open ‘bossed’ bowl (phiale mesompha- los), on which the decoration is in concentric bands. The three outer bands consist of negro heads, progressively smaller in the bands towards the centre. Within them is a narrow band of acorns and a diminutive innermost band of berries. Next are two drinking vessels (rhyta) in the form of stags’ heads. One has Herakles and the Krynean Hind, matched probably by Theseus and the Bull of Marathon, either side of the neck. The other has three deities and a hero – Aphrodite, Athena, Hera Alexandros; all four are named and thus represent the Judgment of Paris. A third rhyton is in the form of a young ram’s head, and the scene on the neck is of Dionysos and a nymph, namely Eriope; each is accompanied by a maenad,

* This paper was written in 2005. John Hind died in April 2009. No attempt has been made to update the text or the bibliography. I am most grateful to his widow, Ruth, for permission to publish it and the two other papers in this section. It is a small mark of my regard for John and his work, and of my gratitude for the help he gave me, not simply with AWE but from my earliest days in the West (GT). 1 Gold of the Thracian Horseman 1987; Traci 1989. 2 Concev 1956; Venedikov 1961; Youroukova 1997, 60–65. 266 J. HIND

Fig. 1: The Panagyurishte Treasure. THESEUS AND HIS RECOGNITION IN THE HOUSE OF AIGEUS 267 who dances holding a thyrsus and tympanum. A fourth rhyton has the form of a forepart (protome) of a wild goat. It is handleless, unlike the other three, which have handles in the form of lions rising up to the rim from a columnar lower part of the body of the vessel. This alternative form of rhyton has a very long neck, on which the relief decoration is placed – Hera in central position, with Artemis to the left, Apollo to the right and Nike round the back. Thus, there is a gathering of deities, this time without a hero in attendance. There are also three vases (pitcher-rhyta), representing the heads of young females, frequently referred to as Amazons, because one wears a Phrygian type of helmet with griffin attachments, and the other two wear star-decorated veils over their coiffures. The handles of all three are in the form of sphinxes. No mythological scene appears on any of these three, unless their very shape and grouping implies something of the sort – a trio of Amazons. The ninth vessel, and the subject of the present study, is the largest and most luxuriously decorated. It is usually described as an amphora-rhyton in that it has two upright handles (in the shape of centaurs rearing up to the lip), and two openings near the base of the vase, which are in the form of negro heads acting as spouts. Subsidiary ornament consists of a broad band of lotus and palmette around the shoulder, and a narrow palmette tendril around the base. A thin band of egg-and-dart motif acts as a divider between shoulder and neck, and another is found on the outer rim of the lip. The tall neck is the only area without ornament. Figured decoration exists on the underside of the vase – the infant Herakles strangling two snakes, and an elderly Silenos, holding a cup and a set of double-pipes, as he reclines in a seemingly drunken state (Figs. 2–4). The main body of the amphora-rhyton is covered by a scene which has caused debate and dispute ever since it was found more than 60 years ago. There are seven main figures, disposed round the vase, four of them rush upon a palace door, through the leaves of which a small individual peers, shouts and gesticulates. These four figures are naked except for cloaks; they have scabbards on baldrics around their shoulders and brandish their makhairai (slashing blades), in different but menacing attitudes, as they rush upon the door. Three of them are maturely bearded, one youthful; all are powerfully muscled. These fill one side of the vase, that probably intended as Side B, since it consists of three running figures intent on reaching the door, which is on one side of the vase under the handle. The fourth figure is beneath the second handle. The ground-line beneath their feet seems to indicate an uneven outdoor scene. What I take to be Side A of the vase contains three figures. One of these is compositionally separate from the other two. He is a trumpeter (salpinktes), who turns to the right and sets in motion the onrush of the four abovementioned men with makhairai. The remaining two figures on Side A are set apart by their relative calm, a (regal?) old man and a noble youth, his cheeks sprouting the first down of manhood. Both stand on a relatively flat ground-line, to one side of the palace door (hence within it?), and hold or lean on knot- ted staffs. The old man wears a richly decorated long garment. His staff may be a sign of both age and status. The youth wears a short cloak loosely around his shoulders, bears a sword in its scabbard, and wears sandals; he seems to be distinguished from the rest as a visitor or traveller. He raises his right hand, seemingly in shock at what he sees the older man point to in his open left palm – a fairly large object, which is indistinct and has been differently interpreted as a -cup or a mantic liver. These two figures are absorbed in their meeting and, although there may be some connection with the scene of the five ‘alarmed’ men, their separation is emphasised by the turn of the youth and the trumpeter in 268 J. HIND

Fig. 2: Amphora-rhyton from the Panagyurishte Fig. 3: Amphora-rhyton from the Panagyurishte Treasure: the trumpeter and Theseus and Treasure: the palace door. Aigeus in conversation.

Fig. 4: Amphora-rhyton from the Panagyurishte Treasure: third and fourth onrushing armed men. Below: a negro’s head spout. THESEUS AND HIS RECOGNITION IN THE HOUSE OF AIGEUS 269

Fig. 5: Amphora-rhyton from the Panagyurishte Treasure: drawing of all seven figures and the doorway.

opposite directions. There is also a clear difference in emotional content between the group of two (shared information and shock), and the file of five (tumult and rapid movement). This compositional split is striking in the flat line drawing, but on the curved surface of the vase the trumpeter actually draws the eye round to the four in the agitated onrush (Fig. 5). All the figures and scenes represented on the other vessels of the Panagyurishte Treasure are demonstrably of deities, demigods and episodes culled from the Age of Heroes. Our presumption must be that this is true also of the mystery scene on the amphora-rhyton just described, and indeed most attempts at interpretation have made such their starting point. Hitherto there have been some nine attempts at interpreting it. The first was by Concev (1956), who thought it a scene of Odysseus and Achilles at the palace of Lykomedes, though the only point of resemblance with that story was the presence of the trumpeter. This sug- gestions was followed by Frova.3 Hoffman suggested that the two in deep discussion were Herakles and his companion Iolaos, because they hold clubs,4 but he had no serious explana- tion of the rest of the figures; he did, however, make the original suggestion that the object in the old man’s hand was a liver used in divination.5 This identification has served as the starting point for several different interpretations of the scene. In 1960, Simon produced what has probably been the most favoured interpretation,6 that the figures represent the Seven against Thebes, even identifying individuals: Amphiaraos talking to Partheopaios, Adastros as trumpeter and, those in the onrush, Tydeus, Hippome- don, Kapaneus and Polyneikes. The interpretation of these seven figures as the Seven against Thebes has proved beguiling and been accepted by Boardman (1964), Strong, Hoddinott and Venedikov.7 However, there are serious objections to it, not least that the men in the

3 A. Frova in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale, vol. 4 (Rome), 924. 4 Hoffman 1958, 132–34. 5 Hoffman 1958, 134–36 6 Simon 1960; with further argumentation by Daumas 1978. 7 Boardman (1964) 1985, 207 and fig. 221; Strong 1966; Hoddinott 1975, 85–91; Venedikov in Gold of the Thracian Horseman 1987, 237–41 and in Traci 1989, 231–32. 270 J. HIND onrush are not besiegers of a city, nor are they rushing at a city gate. They are not equipped for this, and the building is a palace door, not an external city defence; there are sphinxes at the bases of the jambs and palmette ornaments above. Nor, if our grouping of the figures is correct, are there seven in the onrush, but five, including the trumpeter, and two figures to be accounted for separately. One might well agree with one critic of this interpretation that the many well-known depictions of the Seven against Thebes differ from this scene toto caeolo since they usually depict fully armed hoplites or men arming themselves for battle.8 In the mid-1960s two further attempts at explanation were made. Roux suggested that the scene represents Neoptolemos being told of his impending murder by the Delphians at the instigation of Orestes.9 In this interpretation the Delphians are being called out by a temple servant, and wield their weapons (makhairai) in the hue and cry. But the reason for the poses of the two figures in deep discussion is not so apparent, and the suggestion has been largely ignored. Griffith broke away from the pattern of explaining the scene in terms of legend, and suggested that it is a comedy – or genre – scene.10 It is, he said, a group of komasts, attacking a house door, i.e. besieging the home of a loved one, and led by a lover. The originality of this view cannot be denied, but its plausibility can. The whole spirit of the scene is epic or tragic, rather than mirroring comedy, low life or parody of tragedy. So far as I know, this view has had no supporters. Another proposal was by Borthwick,11 that the scene was neither mythological nor a genre one, but historical. He suggested that it represents the liberation of Thebes from its pro-Spartan tyrants, and, in the fashion of Simon, he attempted to identify individuals in the story: Pelopidas and others with makhairai; Hippostheneidas setting the trumpeters to sound the signal, the seer Theokritos and the younger son of Charon as the two figures in deep consultation. But such minuteness of knowledge of minor figures at Thebes seems unlikely in a work produced in the north-east of Greece. Furthermore, in such works in general, histori- cal references were more likely to be made allusively through legends rather than directly. We have already seen that the other figured scenes on vases in the Panagyurishte Treasure are of deities or demigods in action. An attempt by del Medico to explain the scene as Alexander attacking the Persian gates12 also had little basis, except the suggestion that Alexander might be the young man represented in the middle of the onrush to one side of one of the handles. Such a position, however, would not seem to be a typical or flattering one for Alexander, and the amphora probably predates Alexander by decades. Neither writer seeking to place the scene in 4th-century history has made out a convincing case. Yet another proposal has been to interpret the scene as one of local religious significance; Kolev linked it specifically with Dionysiac worship and Thracian ritual,13 but some of the details appear absurd. The rushing men are made into Thracian dancers; the doorway is a tomb door; the diminutive figure is a spirit of the dead peering out of the door; the two quiet figures are priests consulting a liver; the dress ornaments and the Silenos on the bottom of

8 Griffith 1974, 45 9 Roux 1964. 10 Griffith 1974; 1980. 11 Borthwick 1976. 12 del Medico 1967–68. 13 Kolev 1976. THESEUS AND HIS RECOGNITION IN THE HOUSE OF AIGEUS 271 the amphora-rhyton are Dionysiac hints at the meaning of the main scene, as the five- petalled rosettes in the bottom is a sun symbol. None of this hangs together as a consistent interpretation and the failure of all these historical and genre explanation must lead us back to mythology, to the cycle of stories, told and retold in epic and tragedy, and drawn from the ‘noble Age of Heroes’. If a suitable hero and tale can be identified, this would fit the spirit of Greek art of this time and this type of object far better than a scene depicting everyday life, religion or recent history. An element running through several of these identifications is that the object in the elderly figure’s left hand is a liver, used by a seer to foretell the fate of his young companion. However, the Bulgarian scholars who first published the hoard thought that the unclear object was a cup or bowl,14 and similar suggestions persist, that it might be a dish or ;15 at any rate it cannot be taken as established that the object is a liver – with the consequence that the old man should be a seer. Keeping this problematic object in mind, and noting also the use made of other attributes held by the figures, we may now turn to the interpretation of the scene or scenes. In 1983, I proposed that the hero represented is Theseus, but then I pointed to a phase too late in his life (the arrival of Oedipus at Athens) and I offered what I now see as too compli- cated a combination of myth and history.16 It now seems possible to produce an improved Theseus interpretation. That the youth with sword, sandals and club is Theseus is in my view certain. The first two are the famous ‘recognition signs’ (gnorismata), which were left under a great boulder at Troizen by his father, Aigeus. These were then recovered by Theseus, when he came of age.17 The knotted club is the iron koryene, taken from Periphetes, the ‘club bearer’ of Epidauros, which became a regular attribute of the young Theseus (Plutarch Theseus 8; Pausanias Desc. Graeciae 2. 1. 4) used in the episodes of his overland journey to Athens. Striking is that this figure bears the first growth of a beard on his cheek, which befits the 16-year-old Theseus on his arrival at Athens (Plutarch Theseus 5; Pausanias Desc. Graeciae 1. 27. 8). It is also possible that the uniquely short hair on this figure is intended to recall the distinctive (cropped) ‘Theseis’ hair style (Plutarch Theseus 5), which seemingly was intended to offer the least grip to his opponents during his personal unarmed bouts of combat. Finally, in this scene the sword is held by this figure a little above the club; it was the hilt of his sword which was the means of recognition, since it was Aigeus’ own, and it had a distinctive ivory handle (Ovid Metamorphoses 7. 423–424). The youth then has several attributes by which to recognise him as the youthful Theseus. This directs us to look for an episode in the cycle of his early deeds. The old man with whom he speaks is not so clearly labelled, but there might be a presumption that such a figure is intended to be his father, Aigeus, and the location should be his palace in Athens, which Theseus has now reached. The figure stands just behind the palace door; he wears a richly decorated garment, draped from his left shoulder and round his hips; he has a long knotted staff (a baktron or skeptron), propped against his left knee. In the past this has led to the

14 Concev 1956; Venedikov 1961, 15. 15 Griffith 1980, 409. 16 Hind 1983. 17 Plutarch Theseus 3, 6, 7; Pausanias Desc. Graeciae 1. 27. 8; Apollodorus Bibl. 3. 16. 1; Brommer 1973, 210–58; 1982, 3–34; Neils 1987. 272 J. HIND identification of the figure as Herakles, 18 but he has none of the other attributes expected and his staff is not the club broadening out at the end (xylon, skytale; rhopalon) that was that hero’s typical weapon. This is rather the staff of an elderly or regal figure, which might be used for support, to symbolise his status or, on occasion, to chastise presumptuous under- lings (baktron, of the aged Phineus resting on a staff, Apollonius of Rhodes 2. 198; skeptron, used by Odysseus against the disorderly – it had gold studs, Iliad 2. 265). This staff, then, signals the old man’s official status, greater at this time than that of the young man, Theseus, who has arrived at his palace. Theseus’ club (the skytale of Periphetes) is suitably outranked by the staff of the aged king, his father. We have already identified the palace door, to the right of which both stand, as the palace of Aigeus. This part of the scene is the arrival of Theseus at Athens and his famous recognition by Aigeus, who sees the sword, which he had left in Troizen 16 years before, in the visiting youth’s possession. The timely recognition famously prevented his being poisoned by a draught concocted by Medea, since Aigeus dashed the drink to the ground in time to prevent his taking it. This raises the question of the object in the old man’s left hand, at which he points with his right forefinger, and which Theseus reacts to with a gesture of surprise or horror, raising his right hand and arm up and away from it. As we have seen, this object was identified as a kylix cup, or phiale, and only later reinterpreted as a liver in the hand of a seer. In the present context it is possible that it is intended for the cup in which Medea had prepared poison for Aigeus to give to Theseus. This is said to be a kylix in some versions. Here it would be represented as tipped up at an angle in the hand of Aigeus on the Panagy- urishte amphora-rhyton. It is also possible that another wine receptacle might have been shown as containing the poison, one with a shape more like a liver, which some scholars insist on seeing on the vase. This is the leather, baggy, wine , which was used for carry- ing one’s personal wine ration. This is a particularly attractive idea, since Aigeus’ askos was the subject of a ‘much quoted’ Delphic oracle, which he had mistaken the import of, and had in consequence fathered Theseus outside of Athens at Troizen (Euripides Medea 679, 681; Plutarch Theseus 3). Furthermore, the phrase aigeios askos; aigios askos was familiar to Greeks from Homer; both the Iliad (3. 247) and the Odyssey (6. 78–79; 9. 196) mention this everyday object, a ‘goatskin wine flask’. It seems very likely that the phrase aigeios askos, so familiar as a stock phrase in Homer, was adapted in punning fashion to apply to Aigeus, all the more readily because Aigeus was associated with the askos riddle of the Delphic oracle. The unclear object in his hand would then be an additional punning attribute of Aigeus (aigeios askos), recognisable in his hand, when one has realised that the two figures by the palace door are Theseus, at his homecoming, and Aigeus, who has been persuaded by Medea to poison him. In this scene the aigeios askos would serve not only as the label for Aigeus but also would point to the wine and the cup or flask which had carried the poison. It is clear that askoi (leather containers) came in several sizes, large ones of ox skins (for water), smaller ones for wine (goatskins), others for varied objects, wallets, pouches (askoperai; perai, kibiseis).19 These figured items are considerably earlier in date (ca. 659, ca. 450 BC), but there is an

18 Hoffman 1958. 19 For the baggy shape and rough indications of size, see Carpenter 1991, 104, figs. 150, 153. THESEUS AND HIS RECOGNITION IN THE HOUSE OF AIGEUS 273 example of an askos in clay of roughly the same date as the Panagyurishte vase; it come from Thrace (Maikata mogila 1992, Central Bulgaria).20 We now turn to the trumpeter on this side and the four figures filling the other side and the area under one of the handles. These clearly form part of one scene with the palace door, which they are attacking, and with the small bearded figure, who waves his arms and calls out loud (silently to us). All these figures are heroically proportioned; they seem agitated, and wave their swords at different, threatening, angles; these swords are slashing sabres (makhairai), sometimes used in murderous enterprises, but they might also be cavalrymen’s swords, kept conveniently at home. The men are probably rushing to a crisis within a city, almost certainly not attacking city walls, for which armour would be required. I suggest that this is the scene of alarm raised in response to a perceived threat, typically called out by a trumpet blast (Aeschylus Agamemnon 1349: kerussein boēn; Sophocles Oedipus Coloneus 850, ‘help, help’). The seriousness of intent of these men would not be out of place, when an enemy was sup- posedly at hand. The small figure within the leaves of the door would then be a palace servant, actually calling boē; inviting the onrush, not closing the door on it. There is just such an alarm raised in connection with Theseus’ arrival at Aigeus’ palace. It is best exemplified in Bacchylides’ dramatic dialogue (dithyramb), named Aigeus or Theseus.21 This starts with a chorus asking Aigeus: ‘Why has the trumpet lately sounded a war note from its bell of bronze?’. The dithyramb continues with an account of the progress of an unknown youth from Troizen to Athens, killing a series of brigands on his way. His personal victories and his arms and armour are described, but his identity is unknown. The other possibilities that the chorus has feared were serious indeed – that the enemy was upon them or that raid- ers were taking off their flocks of sheep. The trumpet-roused citizens’ alarm was a serious matter, and would fit the scene. The Bacchylides dithyramb shows that Theseus’ arrival at Athens was the cause for alarm even in the expectation of it. It seems that the realisation of it in drama made it even more celebrated. A lost play by Sophocles, Aigeus, also covered the exploits of Theseus on his way to Athens; it probably presented his ‘recognition’ by Aigeus, when the king saw the ivory hilt of the sword left by him at Troizen 16 years before.22 Whether our scene was inspired by Sophocles’ play it is impossible to say, but it is possible to show dramatic performances of the story were well enough known to do so (Theseus, Aigeus amd Medea on an Apulian ).23 The file of attackers, closing on the palace door on our vase, does not appear on other works of art depicting the attempted poisoning. But it does fit the story of Aigeus and Theseus well, for they could be the Pallantidai (‘five’ for the 50 of the story), who wished to displace Aigeus, and were eventually to be defeated by the newcomer Theseus (Plutarch Theseus 13). The Pal- lantidai were a formidable clan, who would have led the citizens’ response to the alarum, and, just to add a little touch to aid the recognition of these opponents of Theseus, there are five of them and the Pythagorean name for five was Pallas (LSJ s.v. Pallas). These attackers may be five for the 50 sons of Pallas (Plutarch Theseus 3).

20 Kitov and Theodossiev 1995, 325, fig. 7. 21 Jebb 1905, 230; Snell 1949, 65. 22 Pearson 1917, 15, 20–21. 23 Trendall 1989, 110. 274 J. HIND

It is argued that the identification of the elements on the scene of the amphora-rhyton depends first and foremost on the recognition of Theseus. Thereafter, the episodes in the ancient story, and the poses and attributes of the other figures, lead us first to Aigeus, then to an alarm call to the citizens, and finally to the Pallantidai, long-term opponents of Aigeus and ultimately victims of Theseus. The scene is the youthful appearance at the palace of the great Athenian hero, and it may well have had some relevance to the Athenian ambition and policies in the Propontis region and Thrace in the 350s–340s BC, which is where most, if not all, of the items in the Panagyurishte Treasure were produced and used.

Bibliography

Boardman, J. 1985: Greek Art, 2nd rev. ed. (London). Borthwick, E.M. 1976: ‘The scene on the Panagjurischte amphora: a new solution’. JHS 96, 148–51. Brommer, F. 1957: ‘Attische Könige’. In Schauenburg, K. (ed.), Charites: Festschrift Ernst Langlotz; Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft (Bonn), 152–64. —. 1973: Vasenlisten zur griechischen Heldensage, 3rd ed. (Marburg). —. 1982: Theseus: Die Taten des griechischen Helden in der antiken Kunst und Literatur (Darmstadt). Carpenter, T.H. 1991: Art and Myth in : A Handbook (London). Concev, D. 1956: ‘Der Goldschatz von Panagjurište’. In Svoboda, B. and Concev, D., Neue Denk- mäler antiker Toreutik (Prague), 118–64. Daumas, M. 1978: ‘L’amphore de Panagurište et les Sept Contre-Thebes’. Antike Kunst 1, 23–31. del Medico, H.E. 1967–68: ‘À propos du trésor de Panagurište: un portrait d’Alexandre par Lysippe’. Persica 3, 37–67. Dugas, C. 1943: ‘L’évolution de la légende de Theseus’. REG 56, 1–24. Gold of the Thracian Horsemen 1987: Gold of the Thracian Horsemen: Treasures from Bulgaria (Exhi- bition Catalogue) (Montreal). Griffith, J.G. 1974: ‘The siege scene on the gold amphora of the Panagjurischte Treasure’. JHS 94, 38–49. —. 1980: ‘Some further thoughts on the amphora-rhyton from Panagjurischte’. In Vulpe, R. (ed.), Actes du II Congrès international de thracologie: Bucarest, 4–10 septembre 1976, vol. 1 (Bucharest), 405–11. Hind, J.G.F. 1983: ‘The scene on the gold amphora from Panagyurischte’. In Poulter, A.G. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria, vol. 1 (Nottingham), 253–74. Hoddinott, R.E. 1975: Bulgaria in Antiquity (London). Hoffman, H. 1958: ‘The date of the Panagurishte treasure’. RomMitt 65, 121–41. Jebb, R.C. 1906: Bacchylides (Cambridge). Kitov, G. and Theodossiev, N. 1995: ‘New data on Thracian archaeology and religion from the tumuli near the villages of and Sheynovo in the Kazanluk region (Preliminary publica- tion)’. Thracia 11, 317–36. Kolev, K. 1976: ‘Scènes thraces sur l’amphore-rhyton du trésor d’or de Panagurište’. In Fol, A. (ed.), Pulpudeva: Semaines philippopolitaines de l’histoire et de la culture Thrace, vol. 1 (), 184–205. Neils, J. 1987: The Youthful Deeds of Theseus (Rome). Pearson, A.C. 1917: Sophocles, Fragments, vol. 1 (Cambridge). Pryce, F.N. 1936: ‘An illustration of Bacchylides’. JHS 56, 77–78. Roux, G. 1964: ‘Meurtre dans un sanctuaire sur l’amphore de Panagurište’. AntKunst 7.1, 30–41. Shapiro, H.A. 1962: ‘Theseus, Athens and Troezen’. AA, 291–97. —. 1994: Myth into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece (London). Shefton, B. 1956: ‘Medea at Marathon’. AJA 60.2, 159–63. THESEUS AND HIS RECOGNITION IN THE HOUSE OF AIGEUS 275

Siebert, G. 1990: ‘Observations sur l’iconographie de Thesée’. REA 92.3, 305–08. Simon, E. 1960: ‘Der Goldschatz von Panagjurište – eine Schöpfung der Alexanderzeit’. AntKunst 3.1, 3–39. Snell, B. 1949: Bacchylidis Carmina cum fragmentis (Leipzig). Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1979: Theseus as Son and Stepson: A Tentative Illustration of the Greek Mytho- logical Mentality (London). —. 1990: ‘Myth as History in Images: Theseus and Medea as a Case-Study’. In Edmunds, L. (ed.), Approaches to Greek Myth (Baltimore), 395–445. Strong, D.E. 1966: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London). Traci 1989: Traci: Arte e Cultura nelle terre di Bulgaria dale Origini alla Tarda Romanita (Exhibition Catalogue) (Venice). Trendall, A.D. 1989: Red-Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily (London). Venedikov, I. 1961: The Panagyurishte Gold Treasure (Sofia). Venedikov, I. and Gerasimov, T. 1973: Trakiiskoto Iskusstvo (Sofia). Webster, T.B.L. 1967: Hellenistic Art (London). Youroukova, Y. 1997: ‘The Amphora of the Panagyurishte treasure and the coinage in the first half of the Fourth Century BC’. Archaeology in Bulgaria 1.1, 60–66. Zontschew, D. 1959: Der Goldschatz von Panagjurischte (Berlin).