CHAPTER THREE

ATHENA I MINERVA

We have seen that the tradition for archaistic representations of Artemis can be traced back to the later fifth century B.C. Of all other deities, only Athena seems to have been archaized as early. Indeed already in the late Archaic period there occur in vase-painting cult images of Athena which are rendered in an earlier Archaic style in order that they might appear more ancient than the figures surrounding them. 1 Since these are Ar• chaic in form and Archaic in date, they are not, strictly speaking, archais• tic in the sense in which term is used in this study, although they do reflect already at an early date the existence of a self-consciously retrospective mentality. 2 The first truly archaistic representations of Athena occur at about the same time as the first archaistic Hekate figures, during the last quarter of the fifth century B. C. The two general types of archaistic Athena representations• promachos and palladion-describe poses which were already common in Archaic times, 3 and both types find archaistic expression at about the same time. The former refers to a figure which strides forward-usually with the left leg advanced, brandishes a spear in the right hand, and holds out a shield ( or aegis functioning as a shield) in the left. It faces and aims the spear in the direction of its motion, so that the overall composition is often nearly two-dimensional. "Palladion" refers to a more static figure which stands with its legs together, or nearly so; generally it will also hold up a spear in the right hand and shield in the left, but its orientation is essentially frontal. The terms are used here only to describe a general pose and should not be taken too literally; the most famous Promachos• Pheidias' colossal bronze on the Akropolis of Athens-was a standing, not a striding figure, and representations of the Palladion of Ilion sometimes show a figure we would call a promachos. 4 Since the terms have become conventional indications of these two poses and succeed in eliciting certain mental images, their use is continued here.

1 See below on the Vivenzio hydria pp.57-58. 2 For this phenomenon in Early Classical times, see Pollitt 1971, 60-63. Ridgway 1977, 307-313. 3 Niemeyer 1960, 15. Herdejiirgen 1969. Willers 1975, 59. LIMC II (1984) pro• machos: 969-977, palladion: 965-969. Schiirmann 1985, palladion: 17-47, promachos: 71-76. 4 For the Pheidian Promachos: Ridgway 1981, 169 w/previous bibliography, p.189. For Palladia in "promachos" pose, see below p.58. 46 ATHENA / MINERY A

I. Promachos Types Archaic images of Athena in the promachos pose occur in several media, but the archaistic images earlier than the Roman era seem to be limited to works that are essentially two-dimensional. 5 Although some such figures might be considered stylistically transitional between the Archaic and the Classical,6 the first truly archaistic Athena images are found on Athenian vases of the late fifth century B.C., both red-figure and black• figure. 7 From the latter evolve the famous archaistic Athenas of Late Classical and Hellenistic Panathenaic amphorae, and the type is taken up on several coinages of Hellenistic kings beginning with Ptolemy I Soter. 8 Despite the variety among these Classical and Hellenistic archaistic promachoi, there are a number offundamental features which they share. In addition to the pose, these figures all wear the archaistic peplos with overfold, and they generally have a vertical central axis marked by a pleat in the overfold and/or skirt of the peplos. In this they resemble the contem• porary archaistic Hekate and Artemis-Hekate figures. However, in most cases these Athenas also wear the archaistic wrapped "swallowtail" man• tle, a feature not shared with Artemis or Hekate. Although there may have been archaistic sculptural images of Athena created in the Hellenistic period, none are known which could be described as Promachos. 9 It seems then to have been left to the Romans to commission the first statues of Athena in this warlike aspect. Although it has been argued that such sculptures existed as early as the fifth century B. C., the argument is, in each case, based on a presumed prototype for the extant Roman copies. These types must be treated individually.

A. The Herculaneum Pallas Type There existed at least one and possibly two Athenian examples of this statue type in addition to the famous, nearly intact statue from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum (Fig.16). 10 While it is not clear whether

5 Archaic examples include:images on Panathenaic amphorae, the Athena from the Peisistratid pediment, and the figure from the Gigantomachy frieze of the Siphnian Treas• ury. Panathenaics: Beazley 1986, 81-92 w/current bibliography. Peisistratid Athena: LIMC II (1984) 970, no.125. Athena on Siphnian Treasury: Ridgway 1977, fig.63. 6 E.g., the bronze statuette dedicated by Meleso on the Akropolis of Athens or the Athena killing a Giant on a metope from Temple Eat Selinus. Statuette: Akr. Mus. no. 6447. Niemeyer 1964, 21-22, pl.II. Metope: LIMC II (1984) 991, no.393 w/bib• lio~raphy. Fullerton 1989, 63-64. Supra pp.2-3 n.11, 7 n.34. 8 These are the subject of Havelock 1980. 9 See on the Chigi-Munich Athena type (IIIA). to The date for this statue type has been argued on the basis of style in some detail else-