47
TONIO HOLSCHER
47TONI H4LSCNI LER TOC T7intnS7 ns HRCETHTHCN HE CLdt7 SdCCo LdT
ub Hleahuhvc ip,19e0m kuhy r4,lepa f,awe.h ua ipemeah Tu0em ralua hyeirmh
47TONIN H in itsdoublesense as bothan individualandacollectiveconcept, has since the 1970s become a keyterm of discourse on historical as well as contemporary societies. Thisnotion ofI7TONIN isnot only used as a descriptivecategoryof his torical and sociologicalanalysis but is also,and above all,asserted asa universally legitimate claimofindividualand collective entities;today individual persons as wellas socialgroups and national populations claim the rightto live accordingto, and to fight for, their identities. In the contextof this contribution, I amgoing to focuson theaspectofcollective identity.
Nobody will deny the importance of collectiveidentity. Communities can
not exist without a conscious or unconscious knowledge of what theyare,that is, howthey identify themselves. Norwill anybody in principlecontest theright of communitiesto cultivate and defend their identities:weconcede this rightto the Greeks in theirfight against thePersians aswell asto contemporarypeoples who aresuppressed by superpowersorthreatenedbyforeign enemies. It is, however, also evident thatsuch emphasis onidentity is anything but innocent. For there can be no doubt thatduring the last generation the increasing assertion of collective andnational identity has produced enormous potential for conflicts throughout the world. And the same is trueof classicalAthens and republican Rome. In this sense, the term andthe notion of LSCCTLNIETRI7TONIN has recently been subjectedto an overall critical examination.1
In general, the notion of collective identity involves twohighly problematic and even potentially dangerous features.First, the emphatic searchfor and insistence oncollectiveidentity by social groupsor “national” entities testifies to a high degree of self-centerednessthat—not necessarily butnotoriously all too often—tends to neglect, ignore,and even destroy the identityof otherentities. Identityis difficult to socialize. Second, identity is a highlyconservative concept.Identitymanifests itself in how anentityhas come into existence,how itperseveredthrough the ages, howit stuck toits ownvaluesand thereby stayed“identical with itself. Sure, tradi tions of identity can be reshaped andvalues can be reconceptualizedaccording to historical development and change,buttheinherent power of traditions, whether old or newlycreated, is in favor of stability andagainstchange. In this sense, the notion ofidentitycan become asort of sacred dogma that is basednot somuch on reason and insight but on the affective valuesof descentandheritage—a habitual self-righteousnessthatcannot be calledinto question.The dangers of irrationality are evident.
Originalveröffentlichung in: Erich Stephen Gruen (Hrsg.), Cultural identity in the ancient Mediterranean, Los Angeles 2011, S. 47-65
48
HOLSCHERThese problems become even moreurgent when iSCINILnCRI7TONIN is consciously founded on the memory of itsown specific past. Commonmemory is highly exclu sive: it excludes all thosewho donot—and even worse, those whocannot—share the same memories.Thememory of the Nibelungs can be adopted and cultivated only bynative Germans, the Rutli oathcanbe commemorated onlyby Swiss,the French andthe Americanrevolutions only by French andAmericans. Even inclu
sive myths,like the Romanlegendofblending Trojans and Latins,whicheventually provideda modelfor the incorporationof Italianpeoples, was atotally Roman centered device. A much more reasonableconcept would found communities not onexclusive pastsbut on common values open to all those who accept them through insightand free choice.
It is probably not by chancethat the conceptof LtCNtsnCRdTdSs oNunN is,the referenceto an exclusivepast—issosuccessfulwithin theWestern world in this period of conservative self-reflection.However, I am not convinced that forour own time itis a healthydevice tofound collective identities onthe basis of a set of prefixedmemories,and to stickfaithfully to the unchanging values incorporated in thesememories justbecause of their age-old authority. Of course, recentresearch hasshown that collective memory is anythingbut a stablesetof generally accepted facts and notions: memorycan bea flexible instrument in the service of changing historical positions and tendencies. But this is aconclusion from a metahistori- cal standpoint, for the implicit NTO7TOL or explicitIONTONISOof a historical entity in foundingits collective identity on collective memoriesis to createfor itself an enduringexclusive stability.
It is withthiscriticalviewthat I am going toapproach somebasic aspects of howacollective entity creates identity using the memoryof a mythicalheroic past in early Greece.
gb frhe,puem ,; 4vhy,9,uwr9 Hleahuhv
The creation of collective identity through myths iseffectuated by establishing a meaningful relation between the mythical pastandthepresenttimeofactual societ ies.Moreprecisely, thisisan act of“identification” between, on the one side,a spe
cific person or community ofthepresent and, on the other, specific characters and eventsofthe mythical past. Through this act the individual or community derives an identity froma mythical model, shaping the identity inthis sense: individuals or communities become to some degree“identical” withtheir mythical models and, through this “identicality,” with themselves.
However, this relation betweenpresent-day societies and the mythical past is anything but static dependence ona fixed mythical tradition. Greek commu
nities—entire poleisaswell as the social groupstherein—dramatically changed theircharacter, and by implication their identity,from one generation to another.
Consequently, each generation,both as awhole as wellas in its subdivisions,cre ated new versionsof mythological identification, either by selecting new “model myths” orby inventingnew versions oftraditionalmyths.Thus, the actual pres ent and themythical past areinterfering with eachother throughsome kindof
MYTHS,IMAGES, ANDTHE TYPOLOGY OFIDENTITIES
49
reciprocal dynamics. Explicitly,the present society conceives and shapesits identity according to the model of myth;but by implication, the mythical modelis adapted to the changing structureandvalues ofthe present-day society,as itmust in order to become anauthoritative prefigurationof this actual societys featuresand ideals.
The construction of identity between myths and the present is achieved along three basic lines, thedistinctionof which seemsto be crucial for aproperunder
standing of the relevantstrategiesandphenomena.2
bTOTnCSlILnCRI7TONIN means a legitimizing reference togreat ancestors. This category comprises two aspects. On theonehand, there is individualphysical descent: thePeisistratids,for example, derivedtheir origins fromNeleus while the kings of Sparta, as well as those of Macedonia, derived theirs from Heracles. On the other hand, there is the extraction from corporate ancestors : theAthenians traced their common origins backto their mythical kings Cecropsand Erechtheus, the Romansto their founder-kingRomulus. From such genealogical origins, individ uals andcommunitiesderived theirspecific claimsof prestige and predominance.
eSLnCRI7TONIN means a venerating reference tomythical figuresof specific places or regions. Thus,Agamemnonwas venerated in Argos,andMenelausand Helen in Sparta, wherethe Dorian invaders hadcut oft all genealogical lineages. Likewise, Oedipus was worshipped inAthens,his genealogical descendants inThebes having been extinguished long before. These heroes could arouseveneration andeven assign identity because the power theyexertedin their specificCSLnCsphere was so great.
ansn7IldnNILRI7TONIN means thecollective acknowledgment ofmythical heroes who incorporatesuch valuesor modelsof behavior that are valid in aspecific com
munity and, further,are considered essential for its identity.Suchideal modelsare in principle independent ofdirectsuccession, either genealogical or local. Thus, Heracleswas adopted as an individualmodel of physical, military, and/or ethical virtue by many monarchs andgenerals whohadno genealogical or localrelation.
Similarly, Hellenistic Pergamon founded its collective cultural identityon the succes sion of classical Athens, although ithad not been foundedby Athens and therefore had no specific claimwhatsoever as a “physical daughter ofthe greatmetropolis.
These arepurelyidealorideological models, working as insn7IldnNIL examples.
Acommonfeatureof genealogicaland local traditionsisthatthey cannot with outpreconditionsbe transferredto or adopted by anyindividualperson or col lective entity; thosewho didnot descendfrom a specific hero or live in thisheros specific realmcould not makeanygenealogicalorlocal claim onhim.Conversely, paradigmatic modelsare accessible to allthosewho arereadyorwilling to identify themselves with thevalues represented.
In general,genealogical, local, and paradigmatic identities are not to be adopted as exclusivelydistinct categories. Oftengenealogical ancestors areat the sametime localheroes; bothtypes may also become paradigmatic models. Nevertheless, in the senseofWeberian 47TnCN iTOHthedistinctionseemsto beuseful.
Genealogical aswell as local identityserves to legitimize privileges in the same way that hereditary property transmitted from ancestors or predecessors is legitimately inherited by descendants or successors. Genealogical myths are efficient claims to an individual’srank and privileges as well as to acommunity’s
50
hOlscherpredominance andpower. Ingenealogical arguments, the claimants own qualifica tionbecomes secondary incomparison withhisorherpredetermined hereditary excellence. Incomparison, local myths and heroesare forceful factors for etiologi
cal foundations of ritualsand institutionsof religionand politics. Moreover, local heroes convey powerandprotection within their sphere ofinfluence. Paradigmatic identity, on the contrary,places values, qualities, and achievements at the fore.Thus, theglory of the Greekheroesof the Trojan Warbecame a model of idealidentifi
cationforallthosewhodared to comparetheir ownachievements with those of the Greeks. In this method of identitycreation,there were no other connections between myth and the present except forachievements andvalues as such.
The analytic power of these categories canbe provenby looking atparticular historical moments in which a revealingshiftwas madefrom one to another of these strategiesof creating identity. Particularlystriking isthe case of Roman gen
erals of the late republicreferring to Venus as their great tutelarygoddess. Sulla and Pompey bothveneratedher as the divineguarantorof hTCILINnvH that is, as a representative of a general ideological concept. Julius Caesar,however, outdidall his predecessorsand rivalsbyexclusively claiming Venus ashis personal ancestress.
Here, Caesar’suse of the genealogical strategy served to establishanindividual statesmans monopolyof a hitherto generally adopted ideology of hTCILINnvc Pompey must have beenwellawareofhis rival’s superior claim, as evidencedby anightmare in which hewasadorning the Templeof Caesar’s Venus.3
At the sametime, however, theefficiency of mythological strategies depended greatly on the actual political power of the claimant. For example,when Sulla besieged Athens^and the Athenian embassies askedhim to spare the city fromvio lent conquestbyevokingthegreatpastof Theseus, Eumolpus, and the Persian wars, he replied: “Go off, good men,and take yourspeeches with you; forIwas not sent by the Romans to Athens forlove of learning but to subdue itsrebels.”4 Incasesof conflict, policy mostly dominates over myth.
xb semhu:e i,hhepvral de9uu,Gm LpwyuhewhGpeua LpwyruwSpeewec L P,p9l ,;irprlu0rhuwHleahuhv
Theprehistoryof myths in Neolithicand Bronze AgeGreece is amatter ofmuch speculation,and no onecan guess whether or in whichsensethey served tocreate social and culturalidentity. However, a new andemphatic interest in myths oldand new that originated inthe eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e. obviously correlates with thecontemporary emergence of basically new social, political, andcultural patterns,which ultimately werean element oftheemergentpolissociety. As is well known, within this period the great past of myths wasre-created in three different fields: the epicpoetry ofHomerandhis fellow bards; imagesonvasesand other precious equipment used by the elite to celebrate festivalsand rituals; and cults performed atrevived BronzeAgetombs, obviously considered to be burial places of powerfulheroesof the great past.5
Various explanations have been given for the increased importanceof myths during this period. An old but still influential view, recently revived by Jan
MYTHS, IMAGES, AND THE TYPOLOGY OF IDENTITIES
51
Assmann,6seesthe workof Homer (the 4CIn7 andthep7 vvT , at the origins of Greekcultureas it tookshape in theearlyarchaic period—an authoritative book that created, contained, andpropagatedthosetraditions ofcollective memoryon which Greekidentitywasfoundedthroughout antiquity. This view is open to sev eralobjections.7 First, the impactofthe 4CIn7 and the p7 vvT onearlyGreekart is not very significant:ofall representations ofmyths downto circa 600 b.c.e.,10 per
cent at most deal with subjects fromthese two poems. Second, even in these cases there are good reasonsfor assumingthatit was notthe authority of Homer that caused the popularityof these topics(see below). The function ofa founding book seems rather to apply to—and to be conceived after the model of Israel,whereas earlyGreeksocietiesare, in contrast,characterized by a significant lackot powerful acknowledged authorities, whether political, religious, or cultural. Probably, then, Homer’s role as a primordial founder of Greek culture wasconceivednoearlier than the fifth century b.c.e.
My aim in the following considerations is notto give an overallexplanation of early Greek mythmaking but to focus on images in the visual arts. The question will behow far and in whatsensethese images can be understoodas testimonies of identities—of self-conceptualizations of various communities and social groups, changingthrough timeand space. My basicassumption isthat these imagesmust have played their rolesduring three specific phases of early Greece, duringthe early poleis oftheeighth to seventhcenturies,in the developed citizenpoleis ot the sixth century, and inthe politicized poleis of the fifth centuryb.c.e. In this context one of the crucial questions will be whether the identities createdthrough different genres—thatis, images created for different social situations are identical to or diverse from oneanother.
Tyeiepu,l,; hye Crp9v i,9umFtrhe Cuyhy hyp,Gy Ne:eahy feahGpuem b.c.e.)
The structure of theworld,asitwasexperiencedin the early phase of archaic Greece, canbeschematically described as two concentric circles.8 An inner circle comprised the realmof theemergingpolis,with a central settlement anditsterritory of arable land, andanouter circle included the entiresphereof civilized peoples, in principle coincidingwith theworldofall Greek poleis. Both of these realms were surrounded by aliminal zoneof threatening wilderness, which was conceived in opposition to the order that had beenestablishedwithin thesingle polis on the one hand and within the entire realm of human/Greek civilization on the other, the polis was encircled by uncultivated woodsand mountains, fullof wild beasts, while theworld of civilized manwas surrounded by a zone thought to be a dreadful end of the world,” aplace where thereliable laws of civilization and nature were no longer valid. This twofold, concentric structureof the opposition betweencivilization and wilderness is atthe basis of imagesof Greekmyths in their initial phase, from the lateeighth through seventh centuries b.c.e. Here,the worldof order is defined and defended against a fictitious worldof enemies.
The most importantgeneralthemeofthese images is heroes combating terrible wild beasts and threatening monsters. These combats arelocatedprecisely in those
52
HOLSCHERliminal zones thatdelineate the structure of civilizedhumanorder. Heracles, in his first six labors,fights beastsand creaturesin the wilderness at the margins of the poleis of thePeloponnesus, the core region of Greek civilization. He battles the Nemean lion, which isreportedtohave threatened herds and travelers; theHydra, which hindered the access to the fountain of Lerna; the boar of Mount Erymanthos and the hind of Kerynai, whichdevastated the fields;and the centaurs, who bytheir bestial lust threatenedtwo basic institutionsof Greek societies: institutionalized communication between male hostsand guests(as when the centaurs disturbed thebanquetofHeracles in the cave of Pholus) andinstitutionalizedcommunication betweenmenandwomen (as whenthey attacked Heracles’ bride,Deianira).9 Inthe aboveexamples, the crucialelementsofearly Greek poleis are at stake:herds and fields, potable water,travel routes, and the traditional relationships between hosts and guests as wellas betweenmen and women. These threats to the polis commu
nity are both literally and conceptually located in thesurrounding wildernesswhere Heraclesdefends the island of human civilization.
Myths aboutthe outer zone surroundingthewhole of civilized mankind area favorite topic of theart of this period. Numerous great heroes advanceto the end of the world, where they havetoface the mosthorriblemonsters. Heraclesis sent to the far west, to theislandof Erytheia,located in or beyondthe ocean, where he has to fight the three-bodiedGeryoninorder toget his famous herd of cattle, which is guarded bythe dreadful houndOrthrus, a brother of the hellhound Cerberus.
Perseus has to make his way toremote wilderness to killtheGorgon,cuttingoff her petrifying masklikehead. Jasonconducts his expedition to Colchis, in thefareast, where thesunrises, in order to win the golden fleece, guarded by a terrible dragon.
Bellerophonis sent tothe far-off mountains ofLycia in orderto defeat the monster Chimaera—partlion,partram,part snake. Lastbut not least,Odysseusand hiscom
panionsareexposed ina remote fantasyland to the cannibalPolyphemus. Obviously, these myths are transformations ofthose experiences, fantasies, and fears that the seafarers,merchants,and pirates of this period faced in their daring enterprises.10 Closer interpretationshows that in the images representing these myths some central values of Greek self-conceptualization—such as technicalskill, inventiveness, clever
ness in critical situations, and notleast, thefavor of the gods—are brought to the fore.
Thus, bothofthese general themes ofearly myth representationare concep
tualizationsof communities: on the one handthat of the polis, and on the other hand that of civilized/Greekmankind. Inlight of the categoriesdiscussed earlier in thisessay, it is striking that genealogical and localcriteria do not seem toplay any role at all in these images.Heracles is a favorite hero all over Greece; the same is true of Odysseus, whoisrepresented in Athens, Argos, Samos, and Caere. Even the specificallyCorinthian hero Bellerophon does not appear more frequently in Corinth than in Athens, Naxos, and other places. The significance of the images that use these particular myths is purely paradigmatic; they donotcreate the local or genealogical identityofa specific city but instead conveya general, ideal identity to both individual polis communities as well as the entire community of civilized men.
One mayask whether this is due to the specific functions of the decorated objectsthemselves,which perhaps favored themes of moregeneral paradigmatic
MYTHS, IMAGES, ANDTHE TYPOLOGY OF IDENTITIES
53
relevance. Indeed, most oftheobjects belong to social situations that are collective and inclusivein character. Paintedvessels, for instance, were usedfor symposia orfuneral rites, while votiveofferings were dedicated duringpublic festivals. In suchcollectiveand inclusivesocial situations,specificgenealogical claims of single families were out of place;for collectivegenealogiesof thewholecommunitythere wasno audience. Unfortunately,there is no controlling elementfor thisexplanation, since in this period therearenoothergenresof visual art,suchas the decoration of public architecture, whose function would motivate an essentially differentmode ofcreating identity.
ipu:rheLph ral iG19uw4,aG0eahm uahye iepu,l ,;hyeRe:e9,.el Lpwyruw i,9umFNuAhy feahGpvb.c.e.)
Theearly sixth centuryb.c.e. isthroughout Greece a periodof a significant consoli dation and condensation ofgreat,comprehensive communities. These communities areagaindividedintotwogroups. On theone hand arethe polis communities,the powerof which is evident intheir collectiveenterprises, including the construc
tion of monumental temples andpublicbuildings,the establishment of common meetingplaces, andthe reorganization of religious cityfestivals,like theAthenian Panathenaia. Ontheother handis the all-Greek community of the inter-polis elite class, which finds itsexpression in common military campaigns,like theFirst SacredWarforDelphi, or in thefoundationof panhellenicfestivals,like those at Delphi,Isthmia, andNemea between 582 and 573 b.c.e.Bothofthese communities are prefigured incontemporaryrepresentations of myths.
Thisis the period in which,among others, threemyths of greatbattlesbegin to appear in Atticvasepainting:gods against giants,Lapiths against centaurs, Greeks against Amazons. These are archetypal communities who fight against arche
typal enemies, anticipating thatugly credoof Greek identity: thepride of being bornas aGreek and notas a barbarian(godsversus giants), as a manand not as a woman (Greeks versus Amazons), as a human beingand notas an animal(Lapiths versus centaurs).
The chiefwitness of ideal structures andvaluesof this period is the Francois krater.11 In the upper register of the piece, the youthsand maidens of mythical Athens, rescued by Theseus from the threatof theMinotaur, are united in a ritual dance.Their inscribed names identify them asrepresentativesof all parts ofAttica.
Hippodamiaand Menestho from Athens, Coronis from East Attica,Daduchos from Eleusis, andso forth.12 Thus, the mythical group of youngAthenians, united ina religious ritual, constitutes the model ofthearchaic community ofAttica, asit had been brought together” by thereforms ofSolon. Below this scene, the Lapiths, assisted bytheAthenian hero Theseus, battle the centaurs, demonstrating the unani
mouscoherenceof a“political” community in warfare; thiscorresponds closelyto thenew unanimity of theAthenianmilitary elite, fondof itshoplitearmor, asit was created in thetimeof Solon.
In oppositionto these“political” entities, a third partoftheFrancois krater depicts a panhellenic community of mythical heroescooperating under the leadership of Meleager in huntingthe Calydonian boar: Peleus and Admetus from Thessaly, Castor
54
HOLSCHERandPolydeucesfromSparta,and soon. Suchwere the inter-polis communitiesthatin this period began to unite for commonmilitary campaigns likethe First Sacred War.
Moreover,the panhellenic aspect is emphasized by a fourth frieze, representing the funerary gamesforPatroclus,organized by Achilles, in which again heroes fromall parts of Greece wereengaged. This is a precise anticipation of the all-Greek games that were institutionalized for the inter-polis aristocracy in exactly these years.
Taken together, these four scenes add uptoa comprehensiveandalmost system atic panelof coherent communities, as theydeveloped during the first halfof thesixth century b.c.e. invarious sectors of social life—religion, warfare, hunting, and games— in the frame of the polis as well as in the wider horizon of the entire Greekworld.
Again, these are myths of almostpurelyparadigmatic character. As in early archaicart, this is a widely diffused phenomenon in vase paintingof this period.
Where theFrancois krater brings a new aspect to the traditionis in itsslight emphasis on Athenianmyths, evidentin the youthsandmaidenled by Theseusand in the same hero’s participation inthe Lapiths’ fight against the centaurs. However,these Athenian accentsare integrated into a wide panoramaof myths from all parts of Greece; there fore,localandgenealogical identityis stillofless relevance in this instance.
In additionto the above example ofprivate banquetequipment, the sixth cen
tury b.c.e.providesfor comparison withimages decorating public architecture, in particular the polis treasuries at Delphi. Herewe might expectan expressionof moreexplicit and exclusive political identity. This expectation,however, is not ful filled by contemporaryexamples.
A seriesof metopesfrom Delphi, of about 560 b.c.e. andattributed by most scholars toa treasuryofSicyon, combines various mythsthat arenot united by any common genealogicalor local band whatsoever.13 Instead, they are manifestly stampedbyparadigmatic concepts. Themetope with the Calydonianboar, supple
mentedbyother lost metopes representing groups of hunters, is anenterprise of a panhellenic group of heroes. Equallypanhellenic isthe characterof Jason’sexpedi tion toColchis with the ship 1slS9 this mythalso unites heroesfrom all parts of the Greek world and thus becomes a mythical prototype of common maritime enter
prises to far-off destinations. Thosemembers of the crew that are preserved—the Dioscuri on horseback and two lyreplayers, oneof them Orpheus—represent the noblest talents of the aristocracy in archaic Greece:horsemanship and musicianship.
In contrast,another very impressive metope depicts Castor and Polydeuces together with theApharetids Idas and Lynceus stealing aherd of cattle. Here,theemphasis is on the solidarity andcooperation of glorious heroes in an act of robbery, which in archaic times was considered a demonstration of manly virtues.Also comple mentary to these assertions ofmanly virtues, another metope represents Europa carried off by Zeus in the guiseof a bull. This myth is obviously tobeunderstood as a mythical projection of theinstitutionof marriage,which in early Greece was conceived as a violentabductionof thebride by the bridegroom—in this case as represented by the most powerful bridegroom of myth andincorporating inhis metamorphosis the strongest forces of virility.
Thepreserved metopes of the Sicyonian treasury arejust a part of the original set and thereforedo not addup to a complete andcoherent program. Yet, what one
MYTHS,IMAGES,ANDTHE TYPOLOGY OF IDENTITIES
55
can see is that this panorama doesnot create any specific genealogical or local iden
tity of aparticularpolis; rather, it conveys values that are paradigmatic in the sense that they constitute ideal models of behaviorandachievementswithin the frame of basic structures andsituationsof archaicGreeksocieties.
The same general focus isto berecognized onegenerationlater inthe treasury of Siphnos atDelphi.14 Here, too, the relief decoration of thefriezesis full of para digmatic meaning validwithin the entire Greek world: the combatot Achillesand Memnon in the presence of theassembly of the gods represents valuesof nsTNTH gloriousdeath in battle,anddivine controlof human destiny; the battle of the gods against the giants underscoresthepersistenceof the divineorderof the world, the judgment of Parisexemplifies the choices oflife;and the fourthfrieze perhaps depicts the famous abduction ofthe Leucippides as a prototypical marriage.Again, thesethemes could havebeen adopted andcelebratedbyany Greek polis.
Nevertheless,this Iv identity. The citiesthat erected these precious buildings identified themselves with those mythsand the valuesthey conveyed. 11asked, the citizens would havesaid, yes, this is what we stand for.It didnot matter that in this they were not unique, andthat other citiesidentified themselves with the same or similar mythsand values. Identity is not necessarily individual, nor is it exclusive.
The remarkable feature of thisphenomenonis that even on the panhellenic stage of Delphi,wherethegreat city-states competed for glory andprestige, the Sicyoniansas 'veil as the Siphniansdidnot aimatdistinguishingthemselves by uniqueand exclu
sive local orgenealogicalprofilesbut presented themselves instead as representatives ofwidelyrecognized collective values.Certainly there was competition among the individual poleis—but thiscompetition was not aboutclaims for uniqueidentities but about who wasthe best protagonist of those common myths and values.
An interesting case in this respect is the policy of the tyrantCleisthenes of Sicyonregardingthe Homeric poems.Duringa conflict with Argoshe excluded the rhapsodes fromallpublic festivals since,by performing the works of Homer, they glorified mainly the heroes of the neighboring enemycity.For thesame reasonhe aimed to expel the Argive hero Adrastus,who received heroic cult in a temple in the agora of Sicyon.The enemy city, therefore, was considered to possess a specific identity derived from localor genealogical heroes ofmyth. Interestingly,however, Cleisthenes didnot think ofreplacing Adrastus with a hero of Sicyon but instead transferred thecultof the hero Melanippus from Thebes tohis own city. Ihe reason tor thiswas thatin mythical times Melanippushad been a furious enemyot Adrastus and therefore was expectedto bean efficient mythical protagonist in theexpulsion
°f thehatedArgive intruder. Thus, a specific mythicalidentity based onCSLnC heroes Wasadopted only in response to anenemy; but as soon as a proper hero was to be established in Sicyon, thishero could be chosen from abroad, as ainsn7IldnNIL utodel offorceful fightingagainst the Argive foe.15 Indeed,there is no contradiction tn thefact that heroes oftencame from faraway, for once they have played their role ln their newplace-as in the caseoffounderslike Cadmus inThebesorof refugees
ike Oedipusin Athens—they could exert their power as CSLnC representatives.
Ihisdoes not mean, however,that genealogical and local identity playedan entirely negligible role in preclassical times. A conspicuous caseis the heroshrine
56
HOLSCHERestablished by theArgives for the “Seven against Thebes” on their agorain the middle of the sixth century b.c.e.16 Here it was precisely Adrastus who emphatically hIltsT7RnvRnOR1slIETRuTsS9RnCNuStluRdSvNRShRNuTR0mTETOkRLndTRhsSdRSNuTsRLINITvHRNuT followed Adrastus astheir leader. Argos thus presented itself throughthis cult place as the home of political leadership.
Nevertheless, suchreferences toagenealogical or local pastseem tohave been relativelyrare in monuments of archaic times. In vase painting they seem to be almostabsent. There, as a norm, paradigmatic identity seems topredominate.
Onemay thinkin this contextof what has been termed “aristocratic interna tionalism.”17 In fact, this remarkable opennessandpermeabilityseems to be a basic feature of archaic aristocratic city-societies.If we gofurther and ask fortheunder lying sociological preconditions of this phenomenon, it seems tobe grounded in a fundamental structure ofearly Greek poleis: their specificlackof institutionalized political power. In the absence of strong political or religious institutions, like mon
archies or mighty priesthoods, powerin the communities was in an unstablebal ance, changing from one group to another; often the competing groups cooperated more with their friends ina neighboringcity than with rivals in their own.Under such conditions, each individual polis didnot generate a specific polis ideology that embraced the entirecitizen-body; instead, theyall played the samegame with the same rules—striving for the same kind of paradigmatic identity, often by appropri ating the same mythical models—whichof course does notmean that they wereall equally successful.
jb iG19uw 4,aG0eahm ral ipu:rhe i,hhepv uaf9rmmuwr9 Speewec Tye f,a;9uwh“Seaeprhua fyrprwhep ,; i,9uhuwr9 Hleahuhv
A newlevel of potentially aggressiveidentity wasreached in the polis monuments of classical Athens and Sparta. At the core of this development was both cities striving for aposition of hegemony within theworld of Greek city-states. In Athens, this claim was from thebeginning inherentin the new political order of Cleisthenes.
The intensified participation of the wholecitizen-body in the commonaffairs of the polismust havemassively increased the collective self-consciousness.For this purpose, various devices of political self-assertion were developed, amongwhich mythologyandpublic monuments were of paramount importance.
Intherealm ofmyths, first of all a new hero was broughtto the fore: Theseus.18 In archaictimes the favorite heroes of public and private art were chosen regardless of their provenance, yet, toward the endof the sixthcentury, in Cleisthenic Athens, Theseus wasemphatically re-createdasapatrioticheroof Athens, conveying to the city a marked local andgenealogicalidentity.
Theachievementsthroughwhich a young Theseus becameequal to Heracles weredesigned asaglorioustravel sequencefromhisbirthplace,Troezen, tohis mother city, Athens.His further exploits were conceived asactions thathelped lay the foundations of theAthenianstate. All genres of art were called intoservicefor propagatingstoriesabout this founder-hero of patriotic identity. For example, a nar
rative mediumdescribingthe sequence of the hero’sdeeds—a poem“Theseis”—has
58
HOLSCHERThecharacteristic strategy of this patriotic mythmaking isto take over the Greek worlds greatparadigmatic myths and,atthe sametime, to transform them into genealogicallyand locally specific Athenian achievements—ultimately to demonstrate Athens’s superior position.This strategy was complemented bythe well-known ideology ofautochthony,which created an absolutely unbeatablegene
alogical claim of Athenianuniqueness. Thus, in this case localand genealogical identityserved as adeviceof highlyexclusive and aggressive politicalclaims, which created an enormous potential for explosive conflict.
However,Athenswas not the only state to develop such strategies.Other cities—
“democratic” aswellas “aristocratic” ones—competed for superioritywith similar monuments. Early in thefifth century the Phocians erectedatDelphi an ambitious statuarygroup celebrating their victory over theThessalians.22 Itrepresented no fewer than three leadingindividuals of the Phocian army, the commanders of the hoplitesand the cavalry, Rhoeus and Daiphantes,together with the seerTellis, and moreovera number of unnamed Phocian heroesof the mythicalpast, all under the protection of Apollo, who was not only the godof the sanctuary but at the same time the principal divinity of thePhocians themselves.Thisis the most explicit presence onecan imagine of an aristocratic state’sidentity in apanhellenic context.
Late inthe century, after the victoriousexit of the Peloponnesian War,even Sparta joined the all-Greek“warof monuments” by erecting at Delphi the most numerous of all classical statuarygroups, comprising Apollo togetherwith various Spartan gods and heroes, all honoring the glorious commander Lysander, with his seer, his herald, and thirty-eightshipadmirals of his confederation.23Thus,this kind ofself
asserting politicalidentity is tobe interpreted as a general development of politi
cal practice infifth-century Greece.One may arguethatthiskind of local focus is a functionof democraticideology,promotedbythedominant political power of Athens. I, however, prefer to see it asa developmentof the general political dis
course, heated up by theincreasingly “worldwide”dimensionsof political conflicts— and ensuing dangers—between Athens and Sparta, Greeceand the “barbarians.”
The new, sharp antithesis of Greeks and “barbarians”—especiallyPersians—that was established during the Persian wars has been abundantly investigated andcom
mented on in recentyears.Duringthat period, Greek identity wasemphatically defined against the archenemy in theEastwhoembodied all that was considered non-Greek andforeign.24Without repeating anddiscussingthese approaches, Iadd some theoreticalconsiderations andsuggestsome ensuing consequencesforour understanding of this antithesis between Greece andits eastern antipodes.
A major problem is rooted in the fact that Greek identity is often too eas ily associatedwith amonolithicconceptof “culture.” From this premise derives the expectation ofan equally monolithic relation between the Greeks and the Persians—and consequentlycontroversial opinionsof scholars when this expecta tion is confrontedwith historical evidence that points to a more variedandcomplex relationship between the two groups. In fact, one of the major targets of future approaches should be an attempt tointroduce categories of differentiation between various fields of cultural practice—such as politics, economy, religion, lifestyle, and soforth—in order tobetter understand the realityofthis antithesis.
60
hOlscheragain becoming more and more appreciated.26 Conceptsof Greek identity and“oth
erness” thus differed in differentareasof culture.27
”b Hleahuhvral hye Oumh,pura
As a conclusion, I would like to raisetwogeneral questions, one regarding theschol
arly reach of these results, the other concerningourown role as historians.
First, the results regarding the changing existence, experience, and creation of paradigmaticversus genealogical and local identities have beenworked out on the basis of images decorating objects of “private life”and imagesappearingon monu
ments erectedin public spaces. Thus, all such testimonies correspond to specific spheresoflife—to discourses during the symposium, funeraryrituals, assertions of piety and social statusin sacred places,political representation in city centers, and panhellenic sanctuaries. What wehave toask, and toexplore further inan interdis
ciplinary effort, iswhether theseresults canbe considered generallyvalid for the specificsocietiesand epochs,or whether other sourcesreferring to other sectors of life presentdifferent pictures, thustestifying to “sectorial”identities, whichare valid onlyin particular situations.
Second,ourtaskas historians isto preserve and create historical memory. For many scholarsthis also means to preserve and create collective identity, based on commonmemory, forourown societies. For, of course, we are not only distant observers of historical worlds butat the sametime agents in the present-dayworld.
Considering the highlyproblematic characterof collective identity Ihfounded on a collective reference to anexclusive,“proper”past, I amnot convinced of the sound
ness of such an operation. The searchforidentity creates anextremelynarrow bottleneckfor historical experience,excluding all phenomena that are foreign to this “identity.”Rather,Iwould prefer a widerhorizon:a comparative perspective onhistorical pasts, free from the claim of identification, including paradigmatic as wellas exclusivist concepts, with the aimof exploring them as a wide fieldof interested experience.
-u19u,pr.yv
Assmann, Jan. rnvRftCNtsTCCTRbT7nLuNOIvc Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992.
Bell, Sinclair, and Inge Lyse Hansen, eds. wSCTR.S7TCvRIORNuTRwSdnORgSsC7R47TONIN RnO7 1vvIdICnNISOc Ann Arbor: Univ, of Michigan Press, 2008.
Boardman, John. “Heracles, Theseus, and Amazons.” In Donna Carol Kurtz and Brian A. Sparkes, eds., ;uTRx TRShRbsTTLTRmNt7ITvRIORNuTR1sNRShR1NuTOvH 1-28. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982.
Brinkmann, Vinzenz. rITR:sITvTR7TvRmIiuOITsvLunNGuntvTvc Munich: Biering & Brinkmann, 1994.
Castriota, David. . NuHRxNuSvHRnO7R1LNtnCIN RphhILInCR1sNRIOR:IhNuPFTONts RycLcR1NuTOvc Madison: Univ, of Wisconsin Press, 1992.
Coldstream, John N. “Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer.” AStsOnCRShRjTCCTOILRmNt7ITv 96 (1976): 8-17.
62
HOLSCHERNeer, Richard. “The Athenian Treasury at Delphi and the Material of Politics.” FCnvvILnC 1ONI/tIN 23 (2004): 63-94.
Neer, Richard. “Framing the Gift: The Politics of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi.”
FCnvvILnCR1ONI/tIN 20 (2001): 273-336.
Neils, Jenifer. “Theseus.” eT’ILSOR4LSOSlsniuILtdR. NuSCSlInTRFCnvvILnT 7 (1994): 922-51.
Neils, Jenifer. ;uTR5StNuhtCRrTT7vRShR;uTvTtvc Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1987.
Niethammer, Lutz. zSCCTfNIETR47TONIN7NRjTIdCILuTRVtTCCTORTIOTsRtOuTIdCILuTORzSOJtOfNtsc Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2000.
Nippel, Wilfried. “La costruzione dell’altro.” In Salvatore Settis, ed., 4RbsTLIRmNSsInHRLtCNtsnH nsNTHRvSLITN7 1:165-96. Turin: Einaudi, 1996.
Pariente, Anne. “Le monument Argien des ‘Sept contre Thebes.’” ”tCCTNIOR7T FSssTviSO7nOLTRjTCCTOI/tTH suppl. 22 (1992): 195-225.
Raeck, Wulf. —tdR”nsynsTOyIC7RIOR7TsRztOvNR1NuTOvRIdR3cRtO7RMcRAnusutO7TsNREcRFusc Bonn: Habelt, 1981.
Rolley, Claude. enRvLtCiNtsTRlsTL/tTc Vol. 1. Paris: Picard, 1994.
Schauenburg, Konrad. “Eurymedon eimi.” .INNTICtOlTOR7TvRrTtNvLuTOR1sLunSCSlIvLuTO 4OvNINtNvHR1NuTOIvLuTR1yNTICtOl 90 (1975): 97-121.
Schefold, Karl. :sIIulsITLuIvLuTRmnlTOyIC7Tsc Munich: Hirmer, 1964.
Schefold, Karl. bSNNTsPRtO7RjTC7TOvnlTORIOR7TsRvinNnsLunIvLuTORztOvNc Munich: Hirmer, 1978.
Schefold, Karl. bSNNTsPRtO7RjTC7TOvnlTOR7TsRbsITLuTORIOR7TsR:sINuPRtO7RjSLunsLunIvLuTO ztOvNc Munich: Hirmer, 1993.
Schnapp, Alain. “Pourquoi les Barbares nbnt-ils point d’images?” In Tonio Holscher, ed., bTlTO-TCNTORGtR7TORztCNtsTORbsITLuTOCnO7vRtO7RwSdvRIOR7TsR1ONIfTH 205-16.
Munich: Saur, 2000.
Shapiro, Harvey Alan. “Theseus: Aspects of the Hero in Archaic Greece.” In Diana M.
Buitron-Oliver, ed., “T-RaTsviTLNIETvRIORxnsC RbsTTfR1sNH 123-39. Washington, D.C.:
National Gallery of Art, 1991.
Simon, Erika. rITRlsITLuIvLuTOR^nvTOc Munich: Hirmer, 1976.
Snodgrass, Anthony M. “The Archaeology of the Hero.” 1OOnCIR7IR1sLuTSCSlInRTRmNSsIn 1ONILn 10 (1988): 19-26.
Snodgrass, Anthony M. jSdTsRnO7RNuTR1sNIvNvc Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
Szeliga, George. “The Composition of the Argo Metopes from the Monopteros at Delphi.”
1dTsILnORAStsOnCRShR1sLunTSCSl 90 (1986): 297-305.
Torelli, Mario. eTRvNsnNTlILR7IRzCTINInvc Milan: Electa, 2007.
Wannagat, Detlev. ‘“Eurymedon eimi’—Zeichen von ethnischer, sozialer, und physischer Differenz in der Vasenmalerei des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” In Ralf von den Hoff and Stefan Schmidt, eds., zSOvNstfNISOTORESORgIsfCILufTINR”IC7TsRIdRbsITLuTOCnO7R7Tv 5.
tO7R2cRAnusutO7TsNvREcRFuscH 51-71. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001.
Whitley, James. “Early States and Hero-Cults.” AStsOnCRShRjTCCTOILRmNt7ITv 108 (1988):
173-82.
E,hem
I am most grateful to Erich Gruen for a challenging invitation to his stimulating conference, although he knew my problems with the notion of identity. My paper
MYTHS,IMAGES,AND THE TYPOLOGY OFIDENTITIES
63
has profited enormously from two of the conferences participants: Jonathan Hall presented an inspiring response to my first draft, including some very healthy criticisms; although he refrained from publishing it, he generously allowed me to integrate some of his basic points. Moreover, Margaret Miller wrote a thought
provoking comment that helped me clarify some of my essential issues. To them my warmest thanks.
i. Lutz Niethammer, zSCCTfNIETR47TONINnNRjTIdCILuTRVtTCCTORTIOTsRtOuTIdCILuTO zSOJtOfNts (Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2000).
2- A first sketch of these categories was presented by the author in Francesco de Angelis and Susanne Muth, eds., 4dRmiITlTCR7TvR. NuSvR”IC7Ts-TCNRtO7ReTyTOv-TCN (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999), 12-13.
3- Plutarch aSdiTItv 68.2.
4- Plutarch mtCCn 13.4.
5- John N. Coldstream, “Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer, AStsOnCRShRjTCCTOILRmNt7ITv 96 (1976): 8-17; Anthony M. Snodgrass, “The Archaeology of the Hero,” 1OOnCIR7I 1sLuTSCSlInRTRmNSsInR1ONILn 10 (1988): 19-26; James Whitley, Early States and Hero-
Cults,” AStsOnCRShRjTCCTOILRmNt7ITv 108 (1988): 173-82; and Maria Deoudi, jTsSTOftCN IORuSdTsIvLuTsR—TINH BAR 806 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999)-
6- Jan Assmann, rnvRftCNtsTCCTRbT7nLuNOIv (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992)- esP- 272-8o.
See Karl Schefold, :sIIulsITLuIvLuTRmnlTOyIC7Ts (Munich: Hirmer, 1964); and Karl Schefold, bSNNTsPRtO7RjTC7TOvnlTOR7TsRbsITLuTORIOR7TsR:sIIuPRtO7RjSLunsLunIvLuTO ztOvN (Munich: Hirmer, 1993).
7- For what follows see Anthony M. Snodgrass, jSdTsRnO7RNuTR1sNIvNv (Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998). For more, see a monograph by the author on myths and images in early Greece (in preparation).
8. Tonio Holscher, ed., bTlTO-TCNTORGtR7TORztCNtsTORbsITLuTOCnO7vRtO7RwSdvRIOR7Ts 1ONIfT (Munich: Saur, 2000), 12-15.
9- For early Greek Heracles myths in art (not for the interpretation here presented), see Schefold, bSNNTsPRtO7RjTC7TOvnlTOR7TsRbsITLuTOH 95-114-
10- See Tonio Holscher, “Immagini mitologiche e valori sociali nella Grecia arcaica, in Francesco de Angelis and Susanne Muth, eds., 4dRmiITlTCR7TvR. NuSvR”IC7Ts-TCNRtO7 eTyTOv-TCN (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999), 17-24.
u' Erika Simon, rITRlsITLuIvLuTOR^nvTO (Munich: Hirmer, 1976), 69-77- pls- 51—57- An ambitious interpretation (not precisely coinciding with the view presented here) is given by Mario Torelli, eTRvNsnNTlILR7IRzCTINInv (Milan: Electa, 2007).
l2- Stressed by Simon, rITRlsITLuIvLuTOR^nvTOH 72-74.
For the Sicyonian treasury, see Pierre de la Coste-Messeliere, 1tR.tvTTR7TRrTCiuTv (Paris: Boccard, 1936), 1-233; George Szeliga, “The Composition of the Argo Metopes from the Monopteros at Delphi,” 1dTsILnORAStsOnCRShR1sLunTSCSl 90 (1986): 297- 305; Heiner Knell, . NuSvRtO7RaSCIv (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1990), 19—23;
Eckart Kdhne, rITRrISvftsTORIOR7TsRlsITLuIvLuTORztOvNRESOR7TsR1sLunIfRyIvRGtd xO7TR7Tv 5. AnusutO7TsNvREcRFusc (Hamburg: Kovac, 1998), 29_44l and lonio Holscher, Architectural Sculpture: Messages? Programs? Towards Rehabilitating the Notion of‘Decoration,’” in Peter Schultz and Ralf von den Hoff, eds., mNstLNtsTHR4dnlTH psOndTONR1sLuINTLNtsnCRmLtCiNtsTRIORNuTRbsTTfRgSsC7 (Oxford: Oxbow, 2009), 54-67.
64
hOlscher14. On the Siphnian treasury, see Richard Neer, “Framing the Gift: The Politics of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi,” FCnvvILnCR1ONI/tIN 20 (2001): 273-336.
15. Jonathan Hall in his response very pertinently added that Adrastus received cultic recognition in many other places, and that the same is true of his compan
ion Amphiaraus. For more reflections on the multilocality of Greek heroes, see Jonathan M. Hall, “Beyond the aSCIv The Multi-Locality of Heroes,” in Robin Hagg, ed.. 1OLITONRbsTTfRjTsSRFtCNRasSLTT7IOlvRShRNuTR:IhNuR4ONTsOnNISOnCRmTdIOns SOR1OLITONRbsTTfRFtCNHR8qP8WR1isIC 1995 (Stockholm: Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1999), 49-59.
16. Anne Pariente, “Le monument Argien des ‘Sept contre Thebes,”’ ”tCCTNIOR7T FSssTviSO7nOLTRjTCCTOI/tTH suppl. 22 (1992): 195-225. For a similar case, of the stat
ues of Cleobis and Biton dedicated by their mother-city Argos at Delphi, see Claude Rolley, enRvLtCiNtsTRlsTL/tT (Paris: Picard, 1994), 1:168-70.1 do not share the doubts on their identification as the Argive brothers.
17. This was suggested to me by Margaret Miller. I agree with her in that these phenom
ena reflect a shared social thought-world and are not sufficiently explained by itin
erant artists (which of course are well attested). On the wider horizon of this issue I owe thanks to Jonathan Hall for his important remarks; see also Jonathan M. Hall, jTCCTOILIN R”TN-TTORxNuOILIN RnO7RFtCNtsT (Chicago: Univ, of Chicago Press, 2002).
18. John Boardman, “Heracles, Theseus, and Amazons,” in Donna Carol Kurtz and Brian A. Sparkes, eds., ;uTRx TRShRbsTTLTRmNt7ITvRIORNuTR1sNRShR1NuTOv (Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), 1-28; Jenifer Neils, ;uTR5StNuhtCRrTT7vRShR;uTvTtv (Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1987); Harvey Alan Shapiro, “Theseus: Aspects of the Hero in Archaic Greece,” in Diana M. Buitron-Oliver, ed., “T-RaTsviTLNIETv IORxnsC RbsTTfR1sN (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1991), 123-39; and Schefold, bSNNTsPRtO7RjTC7TOvnlTOR7TsRbsITLuTOc
19. Piene de la Coste-Messeliere, mLtCiNtsTvR7tR;sTvSsR7TvR1NuTOITOvH 2 vols., Fouilles de Delphes 4 (Paris: Boccard, 1957); and Richard Neer, “The Athenian Treasury at Delphi and the Material of Politics,” FCnvvILnCR1ONI/tIN 23 (2004): 63-94.
20. On the Eurymedon palm tree, see Plutarch “IfInv 13.5; Pausanias 10.15.4-5; and Werner Gauer, gTIulTvLuTOfTRntvR7TORaTsvTsfsITlTO (Tubingen: Wasmuth, 1968), 105-7. On the Marathon group, see Pausanias 10.10.1-2; Gauer, gTIulTvLuTOfTH 65-70; and Chrissula loakimidou. rITRmNnNtTOsTIuTORlsITLuIvLuTsRaSCTIvRtO7R”NIO7T ntvRvinNnsLunIvLuTsRtO7RfCnvvIvLuTsR—TIN (Munich: Tuduv, 1997), 66-77,179-200.
21. See David Castriota, . NuHRxNuSvHRnO7R1LNtnCIN RphhILInCR1sNRIOR:IhNuPFTONts RycLc 1NuTOv (Madison: Univ, of Wisconsin Press, 1992).
22. Pausanias 10.1.7; loakimidou, mNnNtTOsTIuTOH 34-36,135-43. For this issue I owe thanks again to Margaret Miller for her helpful comments—although perhaps she will not totally agree with my interpretation.
23. Pausanias 10.9.7-10; and loakimidou, mNnNtTOsTIuTOH 107-15, 281-306.
24. Edith Hall, 4OETONIOlRNuTR”nsynsInORbsTTfRmTChP47TONIhILnNISORNusStluR;snlT7 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989); and Jonathan M. Hall, jTCCTOILIN H 172-89.
25. On the Stoa Poikile, see Pausanias 1.15.30; Tonio Hblscher, bsITLuIvLuT
jIvNSsITOyIC7TsR7Tv 5. tO7R2cRAnusutO7TsNvREcRFusc (Wurzburg: Triltsch, 1973), 50-84;
Francesco de Angelis, “La battaglia di Maratona nella Stoa Poikile,” 1OOnCIR7TCCn
MYTHS, IMAGES, AND THE TYPOLOGY OFIDENTITIES
65
mLtSCnR“SsdnCTRmtiTsISsTR7IRaIvn 4, no. 1 (1996): 119-71. On the Eurymedon Oinochoe Hamburg, see Konrad Schauenburg, “Eurymedon eimi,” .INNTICtOlTOR7Tv rTtNvLuTOR1sLunSCSlIvLuTOR4OvNINtNvHR1NuTOIvLuTR1yNTICtOl 90 (1975): 97-121; Tonio Hblscher, rITRtOuTIdCILuTRzCnvvIfR7TsRbsITLuTO (Bamberg: C. C. Buchners, 1989), 18-20; and Detlev Wannagat, “‘Eurymedon eimi’—Zeichen von ethnischer, sozialer, und physischer Differenz in der Vasenmalerei des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., in Ralf von den Hoff and Stefan Schmidt, eds., zSOvNstfNISOTORESORgIsfCILufTINR”IC7TsRId bsITLuTOCnO7R7TvRMcRtO7R2cR,nusutO7TsNvREcRFusc (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001), 51-71.
26. Wulf Raeck, —tdR”nsynsTOyIC7RIOR7TsRztOvNR1NuTOvRIdR3cRtO7 5. AnusutO7TsN EcRFusc (Bonn: Habelt, 1981), 101-63; Hblscher, jIvNSsITOyIC7TsH 38-49; Hblscher, 6OuTIdCILuTRzCnvvIfH 18-20; Tonio Hblscher, “Feindwelten—Gluckswelten:
Perser, Kentauren, und Amazonen,” in idem, ed., bTlTO-TCNTORGtR7TORztCNtsTO bsITLuTOCnO7vRtO7RwSdvRIOR7Ts1ONIfT (Munich: Saur, 2000), 301-4; and Susanne Muth, bT-nCNRIdR”IC7 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 239-67. On the cultural interrelations between Greece/Athens and Persia in classical times in general, see Margaret C. Miller, 1NuTOvRnO7RaTsvInRIORNuTRMNuRFTONts R”cFcR1RmNt7 RIORFtCNtsnC wTLTiNIEIN (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997); and Hblscher, bTlTO-TCNTOH with the contributions of Albrecht Dihle, “Die Philosophic der Barbaren,” 183-203, and Alain Schnapp, “Pourquoi les Barbares nbnt-ils point d’images? 205-16.
27- The questions raised here are the topic of a research project titled The Origins of the Antithesis East-West Before and After Alexander the Great, initiated by Zentrum fur Altertumwissenschaften of the University of Heidelberg (part of the research program “Asia and Europe in a Global Context”).
