REPRESENTATIONS of MYTHOLOGICAL WAR SCENES in ATTIC FIGURE POTTERY and APPROACHES in RESEARCH

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 32, 259 - 285, 31.01.2017

Reyhan Şahin

https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.298359

Öz

Comprehensive changes in the subject repertoire of the Athenian Figure
Pottery manifested itself by the second quarter of the 6^th century
BC, by which anthropocentric subjects substituted the animal frieses.
Gigantomachy, Iliupersis, Centauromachy and Amazonomachy were the most
frequently depicted mythological war scenes from the second quarter of the 6^th
century until the middle of the 5^th century BC. On the other hand
Grypomachy and Geranomachy along with Amazonomachy were the most favoured
subjects on the Athenian Red Figure Pottery in the 4^th century BC.
Some researchers including S. Colvin, F. Vian, D. Bothmer and B. Schiffler classified
the mythological war scenes on the Athenian Figure Pottery typologically and
investigated the iconographic changes in the course of time. Also some others
like B. Tarbell, T. Hölscher, M. Langner, M. Mangold attempted to explain their
meaning and submitted different proposals for their interpretation. Considering
the different approaches in research, this paper aims to provide an overview to
the compositional and figural iconography of the mythological war scenes on the
Athenian Figure Pottery. In the last part some remarks and problems related to
the subject are discussed.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

Machy, Athenian Figure Pottery, Gigantomachy, Iliupersis, Amazonomachy

Attika Üretimi Figürlü Seramiklerde Mitolojik Savaş Tasvirleri ve Araştırmalarda Yaklaşımlar

Öz

M.Ö.
6. yüzyılın 2. çeyreği ile birlikte Attika üretimi figürlü vazoların konu
repertuvarında antroposentik konulara doğru belirgin bir geçiş gözlemlenir. Bu dönemden
itibaren M.Ö. 5. yüzyıl ortalarına kadar Gigantomakhia, Iliupersis, Kentauromakhia
ve Amazonomakhia Attika üretimi figürlü vazoların konu repertuvarında önemli
bir yer tutar.  Öte yandan M.Ö. 4. yüzyılda
Attika üretimi kırmızı figürlü vazolar üzerinde en çok tercih edilen mitolojik
mücadele sahneleri Amazonomakhia, Geranomakhia ve Grypomakhia’dır. Mitolojik
mücadele sahneleri 19. yüzyılın son çeyreğinden itibaren çeşitli şekillerde
araştırmalara konu olmuştur. S.Colvin, F. Vian, D. v. Bothmer ve B. Schiffler
gibi bazı araştırmacılar sahneleri ya da figürleri tipolojik olarak sınıflandırmışlar
ve farklı dönemlerdeki tipolojik değişimlerine değinmişlerdir. Öte yandan F.B.
Tarbell, T. Hölscher, M. Langner ve M. Mangold gibi diğerleri ise sahneleri
anlamsal olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada araştırmalardaki farklı
yaklaşımlar dikkate alınarak, mitolojik savaş tasvirlerinde sahne
kompozisyonlarının ve figür ikonografilerinin farklı dönemlerde geçirdikleri
değişim anahatlarıyla sunulmuştur. Sonuç bölümünde ise genel bir değerlendirme
yapılarak araştırmadaki problemler ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Makhia, Attika Üretimi Figürlü Seramikler, Gigantomakhia, Iliupersis, Amazonomakhia

Kaynakça

• Anderson, Michael John (1995). ”Onesimos and the Interpretation of the Iliupersis Iconography”, The JHS 115/1: 130-135.
• Anderson, Michael John (1997). The Fall of Troy in early Greek Poetry and Art, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
• Baur, Paul Victor Christopher (1912). Centaurs in ancient art: The Archaic Period, Berlin, Curtius.
• Beazley, John Davidson (1956). Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
• Beazley, John Davidson (1963). Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters 2nd Edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
• Blok, Josine (1995). The Early Amazons. Modern and Ancient Perspectives on a Persistent Myth, Leiden, Brill.
• Boardman, John (1974). Athenian Black Figure Vases, London, Thames & Hudson.
• Boardman, John (1976). “The Klephrades Painter at Troy” AntK, 19/ 1, 3-18.
• Boardman, John (1989). Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Classical period: a Handbook, London, World of Art.
• Bothmer, Dietrich von (1957). Amazons in Greek Art, Oxford: Clarendon.
• Braund, David (2007). Black Sea Grain for Athens, from Herodotus to Demosthenes, The Black Sea in Antiquity, V. Gabrielsen- J. Lund (eds.), Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.
• Colvin, Stephen (1880). “On Representations of Centaurs in Greek Vase-Painting” JHS 1: 107-167.
• Castriota, David (1992). Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth Century B.C. Athens. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.
• CVA, Deutschland 55 (1988). Kiel 1, Kunsthalle Antikensammlung 1, von Brigitte Freyer-Schauenburg, München, C.H. Beck.
• CVA, France 2 (1923). Louvre 2, by. E. Pottier, Paris, Champion.
• CVA, Italy 37 (1963). Ferrara 1, Museo Nazionale 1, by P.E. Arias, Roma, Libreria dello Stato.
• DNP I (1996). “Arimaspoi”, R. Gordon, Stuttgart, Weimer, J.B. Metzler: 1081.
• DNP IV (1998). “Gryp” Maria Leventopoulou, Stuttgart, Weimer, J.B. Metzler: 609-610.
• DNP VI (1999). “Kertcher Vasen”, S. Drougou, Stuttgart, J.B. Metzlersche Verlag: 447-448.
• Ervin, Miriam (1963). “A relief Pithos from Mykonos”, Aρχαιoλoγικóν Δελτίoν18/1: 37-75.
• Ferrari, Gloria (2000). “The Ilioupersis in Athens”, HSCP 100: 119-150.
• Ferrari, Gloria (2003). “Myth and Genre on Athenian Vases” ClAnt 22/1: 37-54.
• Flagge, Ingeborg (1975). Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Greifen, Sankt Augustin, Richarz.
• Fless, Frederike (2002). Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware: Erwerb und Gebrauch attischer Vasen im mediterranen und pontischen Raum während des 4.Jhs. v. Chr. Rahden/Westf. : M. Leidorf.
• Freyer-Schauenburg, Brigitte (1975). “Die Geranomachie in der Archaischen Vasenmalerei. Zu einem pontischen Kelch in Kiel”, in: Wandlungen. Studien zur antiken und neueren Kunst Ernst Homann-Wedeking gewidmet, Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität München (ed.), Walsassen, Stiftlang Verlag: 76-83.
• Hildebrandt, Frank (2014). “The Gigantomachy in Attic and Apulian Vase-Painting. A New Look at Similarities, Differences and Origins”, in: Athenian Potters and Painters 3, J.Oakley (ed.), Oxford, Oxbow Books: 75-79.
• Himmelmann, Nicolaus (2001). “Klassische Archaeologie, Kritische anmerkungen zur Methode”, JdI, 15 (2000): 254-323.
• Hölscher, Tonio (2000). “Feindwelten, Glückswelten. Perser, Kentauren und Amazonen”, in: Gegenwelten: zu den Kulturen Griechenlands und Roms in der Antike, T. Hölscher (ed.): München: Leipzig: Saur: 287-320.
• Hölscher, Tonio (2003). “Images of war in Greece and Rome: between military practice, public memory, and cultural symbolism” JRS 93: 1-17.
• Ivantchik, Askold (2006). “Scythian' Archers on Archaic Attic Vases: Problems of Interpretation”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 12/ 3: 197 – 271.
• Ivantchik, Askold (2013). “Amazonen, Skythen und Sauromaten: Alte und moderne Mythen”, in: Amazonen zwischen Griechen und Skythen : Gegenbilder in Mythos und Geschichte, C. Schubert, A. Weiss (eds.) , Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 310, Berlin: De Gruyter: 73-87.
• Jäggi, Othmer (2012).” Attische Vasen des 4. Jhs. Aus Kerc und Umgebung: Fragen zu Gebrauch, Verteilung und Rezeption”, in: Vasenbilder im Kulturtransfer: Zirkulation und Rezeption Griechischer Keramik im Mittelmeerraum, S. Schmidt, A. Stähli (eds.), München: C. H. Beck: 165-176.
• Kaşka, Mehmet (2010). “Darstellungen Gegeneinander Kämpfender Amazonen”, Arkeoloji Dergisi 15: 49-62.
• Koçel Erdem, Zeynep (2008). “The Cult and the Mythological Scenes on Athenian Export Red Figure Vases During the 4th Century B.C”, Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 6/7 (2006/2007): 241-252.
• Langner, Martin (2007). “Fremdheit im Mythos”, in: Griechen, Skythen, Amazonen in: U. Kästner, M. Langner, B. Rabe (edts.), Berlin, Freie Universität, Institut für Klassische Archäologie: 31-33.
• Langner, Martin (2013). “Amazonen auf Kertscher Vasen: Wechselnde Blickwinkel auf ein populäres Bildmotiv”, in: Amazonen Zwischen Griechen und Skythen, Gegenbilder in Mythos und Geschichte, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 310, Berlin, de Gruyter: 221-257.
• LIMC I/I (1981). “Amazones”, P. Devambez, A. Kaufmann-Samaras, Zuric, Munic, Artemis Verlag: 586-653.
• LIMC IV/I (1988). “Gigantes”, F. Vian, M. B. Moore, Zuric, Munic, Artemis Verlag: 191-270.
• LIMC VII/I (1994). “Pygmaioi”, V. Dasen, Zuric, Munic, Artemis Verlag: 594-600.
• LIMC VIII/I (1997). “Iliupersis”, M. Pipili, Zurich/Düsseldorf, Artemis Verlag: 650-657.
• LIMC VIII/I (1997). “Kentauroi et Kentaurides”, C. Weber-Lehmann, Zurich/Düsseldorf, Artemis Verlag: 671-727.
• Lissarague, François (1990). L’autre guerrier Archer, peltastes, cavaliers dans ı’imageri attique, Paris, La Découverte.
• Macdonald, Kathleen (1987). The Grypomachy In Fourth-Century Attic Vase-Painting, unpubl. Master Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies at Mc Master University, Hamilton/ Ontario.
• Mangold, Meret (2000). Kassandra in Athen: die Eroberung Trojas auf Attischen Vasenbildern, Berlin, Reimer.
• Moignard, Elizabeth (2002). “Meret Mangold: Kassandra in Athen. Die Eroberung Trojas auf attischen Vasenbildern. Berlin: Reimer 2000”, rev. in: The Classical Review New Series 52/2: 395-396.
• Moraw, Susanne (2003). “Meret Mangold: Kassandra in Athen. Die Eroberung Trojas auf attischen Vasenbildern. Berlin: Reimer 2000”, rev. in: Gnomon, 75/4: 337-341.
• Moore, Mary ( 1979). “Lydos and the Gigantomachy”, AJA 83/1: 79-99.
• Nash, Harvey (1984). "The Centaur's Origin: A Psychological Perspective", CW, 77/5: 273-291.
• Osborne, Robin (2012). “Polysemy and its Limits: Controlling the Interpretation of Greek Vases in Changing Cultural Context”, in: Vasenbilder im Kulturtransfer: Zirkulation und Rezeption griechischer Keramik im Mittelmeerraum, S. Schmidt, A. Stähli (edts.). München: C. H. Beck:177-186.
• Petrakova, Anna (2012). ” Late Attic Red-figure Vases from Burials in the Kerč Area: The Question of Interpretation in Ancient and Modern Contexts”, in: Vasenbilder im Kulturtransfer: Zirkulation und Rezeption Griechischer Keramik im Mittelmeerraum, S. Schmidt, A. Stähli (eds.), München: C. H. Beck: 151-163.
• Raeck, Wulf (1981). Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Bonn, R. Habelt.
• Shapiro, Harvey Alan (1983). “Amazons, Thracians, and Scythians”, GRBS 24: 105-114.
• Shapiro, Harvey Alan (1990). “Old and New Heroes: Narrative, Composition, and Subject in Attic Black-Figure”, ClAnt 9: 114-148.
• Schefold, Karl (1934). Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen, Berlin, de Gruyter.
• Schefold, Karl (1978). Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der Spätarchaischen Kunst, München, Hirmer.
• Schiffler, Birgitta (1976). Die Typologie des Kentauren in der Antiken Kunst: vom 10. bis zum Ende d. 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (Archäologische Studien; No. 4) Frankfurt/M, Bern, Lang.
• Scobie, Alex (1978). “The Origins of Centaurs”, Folklore 89/2: 142-147.
• Steiner, Ann (1996). “David Castriota. Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth Century B.( Athens. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992” Rev. in: The Classical World 89/5: 413.
• Steingräber, Stefan (1999). “Zum Ikonografischen und Hermeneutischen Wandel von Pygmäen- und speziell Geranomachiedarstellungen in Vorhellenistischer Zeit, 6. - 4./3. Jh. v.Chr.”, MeditArch 12: 29-41.
• Tarbell, Frank Bigelow (1920). “Centauromachy and Amazonomachy in Greek Art: The Reasons for Their Popularity”, AJA 24/ 3: 226-231.
• Tül Tulunay, Elif (1986). Theseus ve Kentauromakhi, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
• Vian, Francis (1951). Répertoire des gigantomachies figurées dans l’art grec et romain, Paris, C. Klincksieck.
• Vian, Francis (1952). La Guerre des Géants: le Mythe avant l’Époque Hellénistique, Paris, C. Klincksieck.
• Williams, Dyfri (1991). “Onesimos and the Getty Iliupersis”. Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 5, Occasional Papers on Antiquities 7: 41-64.