The Central Group in the Gigantomachy of the Old Athena Temple on the Acropolis

Abstract

Recent examination of the preserved sculpture from the Gigantomachy pediment of the Old Athena Temple on the Athenian Acropolis has shown that a frontal chariot team occupied the center. Two fragmentary horses belong to the team and, judging from what remains, they are a pole horse and a trace horse, thus proving that the team was a quadriga, not a biga. Stiihler suggested that Zeus stood in the chariot, but did not speculate upon the presence of a passenger. On the basis of the iconography established for this myth, with Zeus, Athena, and Herakles always fighting in close proximity, I suggest that Herakles was a passenger in the chariot. This interpretation would explain the hole in the right breast of the wounded giant further to the right as evidence of an arrow shot by the hero.* The Gigantomachy is one of the most important myths depicted in Greek art, especially in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.' Representations begin soon after the Panathenaic Games in honor of Athena were reorganized, and several of the earliest illustrations appear on vases dedicated on the Acropolis.2 One of the most impressive examples was the sculpted Gigantomachy that filled one pediment of the Old Athena Temple, whose foundations are preserved between the Parthenon and the Erechtheion. Much of this pediment is lost, but four of the participants are complete enough that we may be fairly confident of where they appeared in the composition: Athena, who strides to right; a wounded giant, who has fallen backward; and two crawling giants, who filled the narrow corners.3 Many puzzles remain, however. Here I discuss the identity and composition of the central figures of the pediment. In 1972, Klaus Stihler suggested that a frontal chariot team originally dominated the center of the pediment, and also argued persuasively that the building and its sculpture should be dated to the last decade of the sixth century rather than the penultimate one.4 The basis for this iconographical idea was his recognition that two horse protomes, which at the time stood in the courtyard of the Acropolis Museum, should belong to the Old Athena Temple; they are now exhibited in the museum gallery along with the rest of the sculpture from this pediment.5 * I wish to thank M.A. Littauer for discussing the reconstruction drawing with me. The following abbreviations are used: Brouskari M. Brouskari, The Acropolis Museum. A Descriptive Catalog (Athens 1974). Knell H. Knell, Mythos und Polis. Bildprogramme griechischer Bauskulptur (Darmstadt 1990). Schrader H. Schrader, Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Acropolis (Frankfurt 1939). Stahler K. Stihler, Zur Rekonstruktion und Datierung des Gigantomachiegiebels von der Akropolis, Antike und Universalgeschichte. Festschrift Hans Erich Stier (Miinster 1972) 88-112. 1 For the most comprehensive treatment, cf. LIMC IV (1988) 191-270, esp. 1-21 and 104-388, s.v. Gigantes (E Vian with the collaboration of M.B. Moore). 2 The most important examples, all very fragmentary, are Akr. 2211 (LIMC IV [1988] 215, no. 104); Akr. 607 by Lydos (ABV 107.1; Beazley Addenda2 29); Akr. 2134 (LIMC IV, 216, no. 106); Akr. 1632 (LIMC IV, 216, no. 110). 3 For these, cf. Schrader 347-61, cat. nos. 464-67. 4 Stdihler 88-112, esp. 88-91 for the frontal chariot. In this reconstruction (pl. 1), the team is not filled out to include four horses, but Knell 41, fig. 56, accepting this reconstruction, gives a team of four, crediting Stahler. Knell, however, prefers the earlier dating of ca. 520, but does not give a compelling stylistic argument (41-42). His main reason for retaining the earlier date is to link the tyrant's family with the reorganizing of the Panathenaic Games and their association with the representation of the Gigantomachy, which was woven into the new peplos used to adorn the wooden cult statue of the goddess. H.A. Shapiro, however, in his review of Knell (Gnomon 65 [1993] 644-46, esp. 645), reminds us that the temple, without losing its Panathenaic connection, could also be viewed as a monument celebrating the new democracy of Cleisthenes. Elsewhere, Shapiro has opted for the later dating (Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens [Mainz 1989] 38). W.A.P Childs, in recent articles, also accepts the lower dating for the Old Athena Temple (The Date of the Old Temple of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis, in W.D.E. Coulson et al. eds., The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy [Oxford 1994] 1-6 and Herodotos, Archaic Chronology, the Temple of Apollo at Delphi,JdI 108 [1993] 399-441, esp. 404-405). 5 The better preserved example is Akr. 6454; the other is Akr. 15244. The most detailed discussion of them is Schrader 242-44, cat. no. 321. The scale of these horses may, at first observation, appear to be too small to belong with this sculpture, but when they were complete they were