Early Images of Achilles and Memnon

Accademia Editoriale
Early Images of Achilles and Memnon?

Author(s): Jonathan S. Burgess
Source: Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, New Series, Vol. 76, No. 1 (2004), pp. 33-51
Published by: Fabrizio Serra Editore
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20546800
Accessed: 18-06-2016 12:12 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Fabrizio Serra Editore, Accademia Editoriale are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica
This content downloaded from 193.227.1.29 on Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:12:37 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Jonathan S. Burgess
EARLY IMAGES OF ACHILLES AND MEMNON?*
JN EO-ANALYSTS have persuasively argued that the Iliad indirectly demon

strates knowledge of the duel between Achilles and Memnon.1 Yet the
Aethiopis, the Epic Cycle poem that narrates their duel, is usually thought
to be later than the Homeric poems,2 and undoubted representations of
Memnon begin only in the sixth century. A skeptic might therefore con
sider the encounter between Achilles and Memnon a post-Iliadic inven
tion.3 But mythological images are no measure of the date of mythology;
representations of myths often precede their attestation in literature, and
vice-versa.4 And by comparison we should note that representations of
the duel between Achilles and Hector do not precede those of Achilles
and Memnon; in fact, images of Hector dueling Achilles are rare even in
the sixth century, and often non-Homeric at that.5 Iconographical evi
dence tends to lead to a conclusion already suggested by apparent reflec
tions of the Memnon story in the Iliad: that Memnon was a well-known
pre-Homeric character. To confirm further the antiquity of myth about
* A version of this article was read at the CAC annual conference in Quebec City in
1999. I wish to thank Drew Griffith, Steven Lowenstam, Livia Morgan, Paul Rehak, and
Maria Shaw for comments and assistance on ideas expressed here. I also express my gra
titude to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial
support, and to the Canadian Archaeological Institute at Athens, especially Jonathan
Tomlinson, for coordination of research at museums in Greece in March of 2002.
1. See Willcock 1997 for a survey on neo-analysis; Kullmann i960 is the essential pub
lication. On reflections of Memnon in the Riad, see Janko 1992, 311-315, 322, 372-373, 394;
Edwards 1991,18-19, 62,140-141,156-158, 304, 315; Richardson 1993,129, 202-203.
2. The ancient dating of Arctinus, to whom the poem was ascribed, in the eighth cen
tury (Aethiopis test. 1-7 Bernab?) is not trustworthy. The late seventh century is common
ly regarded as a terminus post quern because a) Arctinus was a citizen of Miletos, which be
gan to colonize the north Black Sea ca. 625 and b) the Aethiopis narrated Achilles' trans
lation to Leuke (Proclus), which was the name of an island in the north Black Sea that
played an important role in hero cult for Achilles. Yet ascriptions to authors for Cyclic
poems are generally dubious (see Davies 1989, 5-6;) and, as many have seen, the "White
Island" of the Aethiopis may have been entirely mythological, located somewhere at the
edges of the earth. It is quite possible that scholars attributed the poem to a Milesian
poet solely because it happened to mention Leuke, which had became localized in the
Black Sea and therefore associated with Miletus.
3. As recently claimed at West 2003, 14-15. It cannot easily be argued that Memnon
postdates the Odyssey, since he is mentioned at 4,188 and 11, 522.
4. Snodgrass 1979,120-122; Kannicht 1982, 76; Burkert 1987, 47.
5. For the duel between Hector and Achilles in the sixth century, consider limc s.w.
'Achilleus' nos. 558-559, 562, 567; 'Achle', no. 118; 'Hektor' nos. 57, 63, 65, 67. See Burgess
2001: 67. For Achilles and Memnon, consider limc s.w. 'Achilleus' nos. 807-822, 825-830,
843; 'Memnon nos. 26-43, 5*> 59-60.
34 JONATHAN S. BURGESS
Achilles and Memnon I will consider two representations that might de

pict their duel at a rather early date, one from the mid-seventh century
and the second from the beginning of that century. What is more, I will
explore concepts inherent in this heroic encounter through an examina
tion of a Mycenaean wall fresco.
Literary sources rarely give much detail about the duel between
Achilles and Memnon, and usually the encounter is only briefly men
tioned.6 It is artists who provide us with many details of the story. Depic
tions of the duel become popular in the sixth century. The scene was por
trayed in a variety of ways. Sometimes charioteers await the warriors on
each side. A very common characteristic is the presence of the mothers of
the heroes, Thetis and Eos, standing behind their battling sons. When no
inscriptions are available, often this schema plausibly identifies what
might seem to be a generic duel.
The outcome of the duel between Achilles and Memnon was com
monly thought to be decided by a divine use of scales. Though this scene
became common in art, it is rare in surviving literature.7 It is often
thought that it was present in the Aethiopis of the Epic Cycle, though it is
not mentioned in the summary by Proclus. The assumption that the
Aethiopis did portray the scene is probably correct, but one should not
consider the Cycle poem the single source for images of Memnon, or for
later poetic references for that matter. The motif of divine scales is em
ployed a few times in the Iliad, though of course not in reference to
Achilles and Memnon. The Homeric instance most comparable to our
myth is the use of divine scales to signal the outcome of the duel between
Achilles and Hector in Book 22 of the Riad.8 Whereas the Homeric motif
involved the weighing of keres, or fates, and thus technically is a kerostasia,
the title of the lost Psychostasia by Aeschylus indicates that here the souls
of the two heroes were weighed.9
There is much confusion, both in the ancient and modern worlds, be
tween the concepts of psyche, her, and eidolon.10 In the Homeric poems a
psyche is the soul, or more literally "breath," that remains united with the
6. Aethiopis (Proclus), Pindar, 01. 2, 83, Nem. 3, 61-63, 6, 52-55, Isthm. 5, 39-41, 8, 54,
Apollodorus Epit. 5, 3; Quintus of Smyrna 2, 395 ff.
7. Quintus of Smyrna 2, 507-511, 540-541; Aeschylus, Psychostasia (Radt 3, 374-377). Cf.
the parody at Aristophanes Frogs 1364 if.
8. J?. 22, 209-213; cf. the use of scales for the outcome of battle for the Greeks and Tro
jans at II. 8, 68-74. Brief allusions to the scales of Zeus: 16, 658,19, 223-224.
9. See now West 2000 for a reconstruction of the trilogy in which this play would
have been. His thesis that the trilogy ended with the Nerdds, which involved the funeral
of Achilles, is attractive. Arguably the source for such a trilogy could have been Cyclic
type epic that joined what we think of as Iliadic events with post-Iliadic events (cf. Kopff
1983).
10. For recent discussion on keres, psychai, and eidola, especially their iconography, see
EARLY IMAGES OF ACHILLES AND MEMNON? 35
body and only leaves at death (Bremmer 1983). Then it may be an afterlife
manifestation of a person, dwelling in Hades. Keres are also linked with
each mortal from his birth, but they are conceived as being external to the
body. They are thought to arrive at the moment of death, and so are often
described as hateful or destructive. More neutrally, they can simply be
equated with the fate of a human, as when Achilles famously claims he
can choose between two keres, or destinies, in II. 9. The physical manifes
tation of the psyche and her in epic is not clear. The psyche is birdlike in that
it flies up from the corpse and on to Hades, making a twittering sound; it
can be compared to bats (Od. 24, 5-9). But when it becomes apparent to
mortals in unusual circumstances (as when the shade of Patroclus appears
to Achilles in II. 22, or Odysseus interviews shades in Od. 11) it appears ex
actly like the dead man, if without substance. The her in the kerostasia mo
tif is implied to have a substantiality that can be weighed, at least. As a
representative of death, or death-demon, it seems anthropomorphic
when described dragging corpses in battle on the shield of Achilles, and in
almost identical lines, on the Hesiodic shield of Heracles (J?. 18, 535-538;
Hesiodic Shield 156-160; the Homeric passage is often suspected as an in
terpolation). Here the her wears a bloody cloak, and another passage in
the Hesiodic Shield describes gruesome keres at a battle in horrific detail
(248-257). One might suspect that in epic an anthropomorphic manifesta
tion for the psyche and her is a mere convenience, necessitated by the nar
rative when a character observes a psyche or when an image of the her is
described on an artifact. It is in this context that eidolon, or "image,"
should be understood, for in epic it can denote a psyche, apparently in ref
erence to its ability to appear to others.
Artists obviously needed to indicate a visual manifestation of the psyche
and her. At times the psyche was portrayed as anthropomorphic, and early
on it became conventional to show it as a miniature figure, usually
winged. Pausanias (5, 19, 6) describes a her on the Chest of Kypselos as a
woman with beastly teeth and nails standing behind the dying Polynices.
The brief passage is significant because the chest of Kypselos apparently
dates to the early sixth century, and uniquely this her image is identified
by inscription (according to Pausanias). It is also probably the only known
image of the her as a death-demon, since Vollkommer (1997) has convinc
ingly argued that images of sphinx- and harpy-like demons are not keres.11
That leaves scenes of divine scales for possible artistic renderings of keres.
Here as with psychai hovering by corpses and tombs we see a miniature
figure, which is sometimes winged or armed.
Vermeule 1979, 7-9, 23, 29-35, 39_4i> 69, 76-77; Siebert 1981; Peifer 1989, esp. 11-14; Vollkom
mer 1992,1997. The extensive older bibliography is cited there.
11. Though at Aesch. Sept. 777 the Theban sphinx is identified as a ker.
Since the eidola in corpse, tomb, and weighing scenes are similar, a dis
tinction between psychai and keres iconography would have to depend on
context. In fact conceptions of psychai and keres may have been more
conflated and confused than is apparent in Homeric usage. Apparently
when Aeschylus terms the divine judgement of the duel between Achilles
and Memnon a psychostasia, the psyche is conceived of as existing outside
the body before death. Scholiasts (to ?. 8, 70; 10, 209) branded the play
wright's use of psychai instead of keres a misunderstanding of Homer, but
it is not likely that Aeschylus was using the Iliad as his sole source. More
probably he was following tradition about Achilles and Memnon, includ
ing artistic convention. It is possible that sixth-century artists believed
they were depicting a psychostasia and not a kerostasia.12 In any event, we
cannot necessarily assume that the Homeric kerostasia is prior or more au
thentic to the psychostasia. Here I will refer to the miniature figures on the
vases as ddola and term the scene a psychostasia. The tiny size of the ddola
would seem a convenience for artists, since otherwise they would too
easily become confused with other human or (with wings) divine charac
ters (Siebert 1981, 63-66). For both poets and artists, the depiction, or ei
dolon, of a ker or psyche is thus probably more a matter of necessity than
theology.
In psychostasia depictions the eidola are usually winged, but not always;
sometimes they are naked and other times fully armed. Much variety also
existed in how the general scene was shown as well. The use of scales is
sometimes shown on the same artifact on which the duel is represented.
Sometimes the divine mothers plead with Zeus at Olympus for the lives
of their sons. At other times the mothers anxiously watch the divine
scales. They can also be seen rushing away after the outcome is indicated,
Eos in distress and Thetis triumphant, presumably to join the mortal
scene unfolding on the battlefield. The scene of judgment can even be
mixed with the duel, as when the scales are held between the fighting
warriors.13
Having established that the psychostasia and duel were well-known to
artists of the sixth-century, let us now consider the possibility of earlier
imagery of Achilles and Memnon. A seventh-century Melian amphora
12. Peifer 1989, 47-48 argues that the miniature ddolon was first used by artists for the
ker, and subsequently for the psyche, since divine weighing scenes slightly proceed psyche
scenes in the late sixth century. Vollkommer 1992 assumes that the weighing scenes de
pict keres. Simon 1959, 72-73, followed by Kossatz-Deissmann 1981, 174, supposes that the
artists were depicting psychai in these scenes.
13. Cf. limc s.w. 'Achilleus' nos. 797-806; 'Eos' nos. 293-299; 'Eos/Thesan' nos. 33-34;
'Hermes' nos. 622-629; 'Memnon' nos. 14-25, 98. One other aspect of the artistic images
worth mentioning is that Hermes usually holds the scales, though in Aeschylus Zeus
performed this function, as he does when divine scales are used in the Riad.
(Fig. i) has been commonly thought to depict the duel.14 On the body of
the vase is a depiction of Apollo and Artemis, with what may be two
Muses or Hyperborean maidens. This central scene leads one to suspect
that the image directly above it, on the neck, must be mythological. Here
we see two warriors flanked by two women. This is a typical schema of
Achilles dueling Memnon, and for that reason this representation is often
interpreted as the first plausible image of Achilles and Memnon.
Doubts about that interpretation have persisted, however, and indeed
it is considered dubious by Kossatz-Deissmann in the limc15 There are no
inscriptions, and some aspects of the representation are puzzling. First,
there are the borders that separate the females from the warriors, which
might seem to challenge the view that these women belong with the cen
tral duel. But the alarmed gestures of the women indicate that they are
connected with the central action, not gesticulating wildly to the empty
air. And in the Archaic Age figures technically separated by a border could
form a larger, coherent scene (Hurwit 1977). On the other hand, the bor
ders here need not be without function: they could serve to indicate the
division of dimension between the divine and the mortal. It would not be
obvious to an artist how to express the idea that the goddesses watch the
action from Olympus, or that they are on the battlefield but not visible to
the human actors. As I noted above, later images of this episode approach
the problem in a variety of ways; sometimes the Olympian and Trojan
settings of the story are separated, sometimes juxtaposed, sometimes
mixed together. A poet would similarly need to decide how to depict the
interaction between the divine and mortal characters of the episode. In Il
iad 22 we find both mortal and divine scenes when Achilles and Hector
duel, with the narration intercutting back and forth between the two.16
Undoubtedly in epic, as on the vases, there were varying ways of indicat
ing the mortal and divine aspects of a psychostasia.
A second difficulty in seeing Achilles and Memnon on the neck of the
Melian vase, however, is the armor that is neatly arranged between the
warriors. In later images the heroes often duel over the corpse of An
tilochus, who had been killed by Memnon. On the Melian amphora there
is no corpse, but rather the set of armor. This has led some critics to sup
14- Athens nm 3961 (911); limc s.w. 'Achilleus' no. 846, 'Aias V no. 74.
15. Kossatz-Deissmann 1981 (limc s.w. 'Achilleus') under no. 846; at 1992, 460 (limc s.v.
'Memnon') she hesitates to identify any work before the sixth century as Achilles and
Memnon dueling.
16. The divine scenes occur at 167-187, where Zeus is rebuked by Athena for consid
ering the rescue of Hector and then given permission to go to the battlefield and assist
Achilles, and at 209-213, the kerostasia itself. Athena intersects the realms by moving from
the divine to the mortal, and Apollo as well as Athena demonstrates how divinities, dis
guised or unseen, can interfere in mortal combat.
pose that another scene is depicted, like Ajax and Diomedes dueling over
Sarpedon's armor at the funeral of Patroclus, as narrated in II. 23, or
Odysseus and Ajax menacing each other over the arms of Achilles, con
cerning which they famously quarreled. But the two women on each side
do not fit in with these interpretations. The armor on the field instead of
the corpse of Antilochus is no major problem for the identification of
Achilles and Memnon here, for Antilochus is not an essential element in
imagery of their duel. And perhaps the artist has depicted armor that has
been stripped off Antilochus or some other warrior. Friis Johansen was
surely right to insist this is Achilles and Memnon, as in fact the work is
"generally, and with the greatest feasibility" interpreted.17 In particular,
the participation of the females points to the encounter between the best
of the Achaeans and the king of the Aethiopians.
Before moving on, it is important to note the balance and opposition in
the details of the image.18 In stance both the females and the warriors mir
ror one another. Of help to the composition is the arrangement of the
larger scene below on the belly of the vase: the central horse is directly
below the duel, and it is surrounded by figures balanced on either side,
facing inwards toward the middle. Directly below these at the foot of the
vase are the images of two women, separated by a slit, facing each other.
Other aspects also contribute to the polarity of the duel scene. The female
on the left, whom I take to be Thetis, has a dark head covering, whereas
the female on the right does not.19 Achilles has a dark helmet, whereas
Memnon's is light-colored. The left female's dark robe covers over red
cloth, but the right female's clothing has red over black. All of these fac
tors emphasize the balance inherent in the myth portrayed, the duel be
tween two very evenly matched heroes.
Next let us consider an earlier piece, an Attic bowl stand from the be
ginning of the seventh century (Figg. 2-5).20 Three scenes are depicted.
The largest and apparently central scene has five figures (Figg. 3-4). To the
right of this is a smaller scene, that of a duel over a corpse on the ground
(Fig. 5). To the left is yet another conflict depicted. This scene is poorly
preserved, but it is apparent that one figure has two heads and four legs
17. Filis Johansen 1967, 279-280. This identification is seen likely at Fittschen 1969, 178
179; Hurwit 1985, 152; Ahlberg-Cornell 1992, 70-71 (conflation with the duel over Sarpe
don's armor); Gantz 1993, 623. Osborne 1998a, 61-63 considers the duel anonymous. For
other possible seventh-century scenes of Achilles and Memnon, see Fittschen 1969, 178
179; Stansbury-O'Donnell 1999, 25.
18. For analysis of these elements, see Papastamos 1970, 24-29; Osborne 1998a, 61-63.
19. Thetis has a dark head covering at II. 24, 93; see Slatkin 1991, 94-96.
20. Munich 8936. See Vierneisel 1967, with Figg. 1-3; Fittschen 1969, 196; Ahlberg-Cor
nell 58-59, 61-62, Figg. 86, 91-92, 93; Snodgrass 1998, 78-83, Figg. 27-29. It will be obvious
below that I do not accept Ahlberg-Corneirs Homeric interpretation, which Snodgrass
effectively counters.
coming out of his waist (Fig. 2). Therefore it is likely to be the Siamese
twin of early Greek myth, Aktorione/Molione, whose presence on a
number of late geometric vases has been generally accepted.21 He is
wounded, which suggests that it is Heracles on the right who faces him.
Aktorione/Molione encourages us to look for mythological meaning in
the other scenes, but they have in fact puzzled many. In the central scene
(Figg. 3-4), we see two warriors facing each other, with two females
reaching out to them from behind. There have been some doubts ex
pressed as to whether the central figures are fighting, but it seems clear to
me that they are threatening one another with the swords, not merely
handing them over. The fact that two women stand on each side of appar
ently dueling warriors led the stand's publisher, Vierneisel, to identify the
image as the duel of Achilles and Memnon. At first glance, this seems at
tractive. As with the duel scene on the Melian amphora, balance is
stressed. The two women and the warriors are mirror images of each
other, to the point that the warrior on the right fights with his left arm.
Yet problems remain. What does the central staff with two birds signify,
for instance? Why do the women hold branches in their hands? And who
is the man arriving on the far left, apparently a hunter with his catch?
Other interpretations have been suggested: Fittschen proposed Orestes
slaying Aegisthus and Ahlberg-Cornell argued for the peaceful aftermath
of the duel between Hector and Ajax in book 7 of the Iliad. But these are
even less corresponding to the iconography and have not found favor. It
may indeed be best to follow Fittschen's first inclination, subsequently
maintained by Snodgrass, that the scene is mythological yet unidentifi
able.22
But further considerations should encourage us to consider the
Achilles-Memnon identification as a real possibility. In the lower half of
the field between the left female and the warrior in front of her are a num
ber of chevrons; presumably they existed in the missing section between
the warrior and female on the right. More than fillers, they may serve as a
weak border that establishes a vague separation of the females from the
warriors. The separation is certainly not complete, for the female on the
left touches the warrior in front of her, whereas the one on the left
touches the baldric of the left warrior. But one might compare the Melian
amphora with its borders between the females on either side of the cen
tral duelists, borders which I described above as signifying the essential
division between the divine and mortal dimensions.
21. See recent discussion at Snodgrass 1998, 38-33, with limc s.v. 'Aktorione', where the
Attic stand is no. 13.
22. Fittschen 1969, 196, with n.936 (suggesting Orestes and Aegisthus); Snodgrass 1998,
82.
Yet on this central scene of the Attic stand I do not think the separation
is between divine mothers and their sons. For the central figures are prob
ably not actually dueling heroes. Instead they may be eidola of Achilles
and Memnon, presenting an iconic representation of the duel between
the heroes. Situated between two concerned females, they are reminis
cent of the Achilles-Memnon duel but are too static to represent an ongo
ing duel of flesh-and-blood mortals. Their gestures are threatening, but
unrealistic and frozen in an otherworldly manner.23 Later artists some
times depicted the eidola of the heroes threatening each other as they
stood in their respective pan of the scales. Here we could see the same
phenomenon, only with human-size eidola. In epic, eidola, psychai, and
keres are apparently full-size; artists only later arrived at the convention of
portraying these as miniature figures so as to distinguish them from the
living. In this case the incomplete, lower borders could serve to announce
the categorical difference between goddesses and the eidola.
That the central scene actually depicts a psychostasia seems possible
when we notice the striking prop between the warrior figure: a tall,
central staff with a crossbar upon which two birds sit.24 This mechanism
may signify scales, and the birds on it could signify souls being weighed.
As we saw above, there is some suggestion in Greek myth and literature
that psychai were winged or bird-like. Greek iconography often depicted
souls as winged; Vermeule has linked such iconography with the Egyp
tian Ba-soul, shown as a bird with a human head.25 I admit that the
"scales" and "souls" are sketched out too briefly to suggest this clearly,
but the facing warriors may serve to complete the concept. The con
junction of warriors, staff, crossbar, and birds could signify with iconic
shorthand that a duel is being decided by divine judgement. The mother
deities on either side then display concern not for their sons in the flesh,
but for the fate that is about to be decided. The branches they carry would
signify their state of supplication as they anxiously await the immortal
decision that will decide the fate of their sons.26 It is certainly not the
canonical iconography for scales and psychai, but that is not what we
23. Snodgrass 1998, 81 comments that "there is something undeniably martial about
the two central figures, even if they are not fighting at the moment".
24.1 take the volutes on either side as emblematic and decorative; Vierneisel 1967, 241
supposes they may be leaves or branches of a living or cut tree. Since the bottom is frag
mented and worn, it is impossible to be definitive, but it appears to me that the base is of
artificial construction. A tree would be inconducive to my argument for scales, though it
is worth noting that on a Campanian amphora at the end of the fourth century the divine
scales of the psychostasia hang from a tree (Leiden ammi; limc s.v. Achilleus1 no. 805).
25. Vermeule 1979, 65, 75-77.
26. The carrying of branches occurred in a variety of circumstances, including suppli
cation, sacrifice, revelry, and competition. On vases they can occur in mythological as
should expect at this date. Instead it may be an ambitious and prototypical

image of the psychostasia.
All that may be suggestive, but there is still the hunter who carries an
animal in one hand, with others hanging from a stick held over his shoul
der. The figure greatly resembles the motif of the "returning hunter" on
later vases.27 Here the hunter holds an animal in front of him, perhaps a
hare or deer, perhaps still alive. Though the vase is fragmented behind
the hunter it is clear that the same type of animal, in reverse, is hanging
from the hunter's stick. A line crosses through this animal, perhaps signi
fying the arrow that killed it.28 Most associate the hunter with the central
group of two warriors and two women; it is sometimes supposed that the
hunter is bringing a live animal to a sacrificial scene. Whereas as for Snod
grass the hunter figure precludes the central scene from being Trojan
myth, Vierneisel viewed him as an independent figure, noting the indica
tions of borders on each side of him.29 In this he is partly correct, yet the
half length of the border between the hunter and the central scene sug
gests some connection with what follows to his right.
If that is so, it is not immediately clear how a hunter should be linked
with myth about Memnon and Achilles. But there is another way of inter
preting the hunter that not only allows viewing the two warriors as
Achilles and Memnon, but actually supports it. There is a mythological
figure routinely depicted as a hunter who carries his catch over one shoul
der: Chiron, the pedagogue of Achilles. I propose, therefore, that this
hunter at least suggests the centaur Chiron. That may seem a perverse in
terpretation, since the hunter does not have the backside of a horse, and
therefore cannot be intended as a centaur. But in early Greek art centaurs
commonly appear as a normal man to whom the narrow backside of a
horse is abruptly and unconvincingly joined. As well, in Attic art Chiron
was routinely depicted as completely human in the front, unlike most
centaurs who were shown as quadruped horses from which the torso of a
human sprouted (Gisler-Huwiller 1986, 247). As well, borders or land
scape items were sometimes used to obscure or eliminate Chiron's bestial
well as "real world" situations. Scholars have tended to associate the branches here with
sacrifice, referring to the animal which the hunter carries (see below).
27. See Fittschen 1969, 66-67; Schnapp 1997,194-195, 236-41; Barringer 2001, 41, 58, 80-84,
108,123,175-176.
28. The composition of the two hanging animals in reverse image is comparable to
that of the two birds in the central scene. Moreover, the stick over the hunter's shoulder
with the two hanging animals is reminiscent of a carrier balancing two bundles on a
pole, which in itself is comparable to scales. See Michaelidou 2000, 129-130, with fig. 4,
where this carrying method is seen as the origin for the concept of scales.
29. It was perhaps unfair of Vierneisel not to have an illustration of the hunter, but
this raises a significant point: that from the viewer's perspective the hunter is not visible
in the central scene when seen head on, as in Vierneisers Fig. 3.
hindquarters.30 On the Attic stand there may simply be a lack of space for
a full centaur; as it is, the hanging prey interrupt the chevron and hour
glass border.31
It is possible, then, that the hunter iconography, in connection with
Achilles, brings Chiron to mind. Centaurs are often shown as hunters, for
whom the "returning hunter' motif seems to have originated; in Archaic
art it was more commonly used for centaurs than humans and especially
for Chiron.32 Chiron is routinely shown with the spoil of game slung over
his shoulder when receiving the young Achilles for tutelage. It is also pos
sible for us to see the hunter on the Attic stand as Peleus, who shared with
Chiron an interest in hunting.33 The identification does not really matter
if the essential function of the hunter figure is to evoke Achilles' boyhood
in Phthia, especially his training in hunting.
In this context it is suggestive that the hunter on the Attic stand holds an
apparently live animal forth in his hand. In an important article, Robbins
(1993) emphasizes the importance of the training of Achilles by Chiron.
He notes that the centaur whose name is etymologically linked to the
"hand" was famed in myth for teaching skills of the hand to young heroes
such as Achilles. Primary among these skills is hunting, and by extension,
30. Chiron abruptly cut off before his hind horse legs by a border or cave: limc s.v.
'Cheiron' nos. 18 (Louvre ca 156), 47 (lost, once Rome). On a vase in Berlin (F 1901; limc
s.v. 'Achilleus' no. 22), the border eliminates all but the human front of Chiron. Cf. the
red-figure vase (London F 151; limc s.v. 'Cheiron' no. 103) that depicts a scene from a co
medy, in which a human character identified as Chiron by inscription is pushed from
behind by a doubled over man, with the outline suggesting a centaur.
31. The small image immediately by the hunter's back shoulder is not clear, but I take
it to be a bird that has been killed. It could also be compared to the volutes on the central
staff, which are arguably leaves (see n. 24 above). Centaurs were typically portrayed car
rying branches over their shoulders with many side branches and leaves. Here I think it
unlikely that a single sprig or leaf is shown sprouting from the stick. I recognize that a
stick instead of branch over the shoulder is unusual for Chiron, though he sometimes
carries a staff in addition to the branch.
32. Schnapp 1997, 194-195. Schmidt-Dounas 1989, 71-72 emphasizes hunting aspects of
both Oriental and early Greek centaur images in her argument that the hybrid is of east
ern derivation.
33. In myth Peleus was associated with the Calydonian boar hunt, and was rescued by
Chiron from the machinations of Akastos during a hunting trip on Mt. Pelion. On scenes
of the reception of Achilles by Chiron, Peleus can appear as a hunter, with petasos, hun
ting spears, and even a hound (see Schnapp 1997, 443-444). I do not quite agree with Bar
ringer 2001, 226 n. 48 that the "returning hunter" motif was "grafted" onto Chiron icono
graphy or with Schnapp 1997, 437 that Chiron in Archaic art was a "fusion" of the return
ing hunter and centaur. Though conflation undoubtedly is at play on the black-figure va
ses, the "returning hunter" motif is as least as old for centaurs and Chiron as for non
mythological hunters. It should also be noted that in the later iconography live hares
carried by "returning hunters" signified an erotic gift in p?d?rastie contexts, which has
no bearing on the Attic stand.
killing. In addition, Robbins discusses accounts of the young Achilles

feeding on still-living animals to gain courage and speed.34 The literary
sources for this concept are late, but it is already implied by the Berlin
vase from the early seventh century that shows Chiron with game when
receiving Achilles; in addition, Pindar seems to allude to the concept.35 By
juxtaposing the hunter image with the psychostasia and duel scenes, the
Attic stand would thus link Achilles' boyhood training with his later suc
cess at Troy.36 Of course, a hunter figure, Chiron or Peleus, does not be
long at Troy. But the semi-border of chevrons discourages us from as
suming there is an equation of place or chronology for the two separated
fields. The hunter is to be thought to evoke a different time and place, the
boyhood training of Achilles at Phthia.
What of the scene that follows to the right of the central scene, depict
ing a duel over a corpse (Fig. 5)? Vierneisel (245) suggested Achilles and
Hector over Troilos; I prefer to see the warriors he saw in the central
scene, Achilles and Memnon. The iconography readily brings to mind
later images of Achilles dueling Memnon over the corpse of Antilochos. A
tall bird with squiggly lines gives us another weak border, one which al
lows a connection between the scenes but indicates a temporal and spatial
separation. Or rather, this is a dimensional separation that divides the di
34- The hunter on the Attic stand may hold a hare or deer; in some sources a deer is
specified for the diet of the youthful Achilles, and Robertson 1940, 180 explains that here
by Achilles is to gain speed, whereas animals such as the lion would give him courage.
Thus the Attic stand may allude to the essential quality of "swift-footed" Achilles. His
speed is not merely a decorative epithet, it is the central characteristic of his mythologi
cal career, whether he is outrunning Troilus on horseback, engaging in a deadly footrace
with Hector, or losing his life with his speed when wounded in the lower leg by Paris.
35. Robertson 1940, building upon Beazley.
36. Cf. the possible conjunction of the hunting Chiron and the warrior Achilles on the
votive terracotta shield in Nauplion (4509; limc s.v. 'Amazones' no. 168), which shows a
centaur with a fawn hanging from a branch on one side and a warrior fighting an Ama
zon (Penthesileia?) on the other. This is roughly contemporary to the Attic stand and
also could be thought to pair the origins of Achilles (hunting Chiron) with his later suc
cess at Troy (defeat of Penthesileia, not Memnon, in this case). Consider also the Etrus
can chariot from the sixth century with bronze reliefs (limc s.v. 'Achle' no. 123; ny 03.23.1)
that probably depicts several scenes from the life of Achilles (see Hampe and Simon 1964,
53-65, with plates 22-25). Chiron with game slung over his shoulder is shown with the
young Achilles directly beneath a scene of two warriors duelling. Note also that in the
Cypria (fr. 3 Bernab?) Chiron gave Peleus the spear later used by Achilles, and that at Phi
lostratus 2, 2 Achilles' future success at Troy is stressed during a description of his trai
ning by Chiron (featuring fawns and hares), and the hunting/war relation is also sig
nified by vases that depict a chariot on scenes of Chiron receiving Achilles (see Schnapp
1997, 446). Chiron is also commonly shown with game in scenes of Peleus abducting
Thetis, or at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis. In all these scenes the "returning hunter"
motif may point ahead to training of Achilles, who results from the pairing of Peleus and
Thetis.
vine from mortal realms. The left scene could represent the psychostasia
which occurs at Olympus. The scene to the right, then, could represent
the duel in the mortal realm, which Achilles on the left is about to win
(the warrior on the right appears to have been wounded by the spear of
the one on the left).37 One might object that the warriors are not por
trayed the same way in each scene, especially in terms of armor, and in
any event repetition of one figure in two contiguous scenes would be un
usual at this early date.38 But in my analysis we are not viewing exact rep
etition of Achilles and Memnon; rather, first there is a representation of
their eidola in the balance on the divine plane, followed by a depiction of
Memnon and Achilles in the flesh in the following frame. As I noted
above, at a later date artists sometimes placed the psychostasia on the same
plane as the duel, the divine scene left and the mortal one to the right.39
Here we see the same arrangement, though with a half-border between,
whereas the later images rather remarkably have none at all.
I hope to have shown that it is possible to revisit and transform
Vierneisers original identification of the central scene as Achilles and
Memnon. One image on the vase (Fig. 2), it is commonly agreed, depicts
the Siamese twins Aktorione/Molione (probably losing to Heracles).
This identification encourages us to seek a mythological interpretation of
37- Though the image suits the "rule" that the victor should be on the left, it does not
follow the "rule" that the head of the corpse point toward the victor (see Snodgrass 1998,
106, in reference the Rhodian plate depicting Hector and Menelaus over Euphorbos).
One cannot expect a vase so early to adhere to these later tendencies, however, and
anyway these "rules" were not rigidly followed: Vierneisel 1967, 241-242; Brinkmann
1985, 118-119; Stansbury-O'Donnell 1999, 82. The left warrior sports a "Boeotian" shield,
which as a heroic prop (Snodgrass 1998, 80) would then be most appropriate for Achilles.
The baldric in mid-field above the corpse may signify armor that Memnon was attempt
ing to strip from Antilochus; cf. the armor between the duelists on the Melian vase di
scussed above.
38. Snodgrass 1998, 81 objects to the repetition of Ajax and Hector in Ahlberg-Cornel
l's analysis.
39. This arrangement is found on one of the earliest certain depictions of the psycho
stasia, Vienna iv 3619 (limc s.v. 'Achilleus' no. 799=820). Here the great number of figures
and apparently two separate depictions of the duel scene can seem confusing. We also
find the arrangement on a frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi (limc s.v. 'Memnon'
no. 14; for years, in the prevailing Homer-centric approach to mythological iconogra
phy, this was thought to depict the kerostasia and duel of Patroclus and Sarpedon, not
Achilles and Memnon, until Brinkmann 1985 proved otherwise by recovery of the origi
nal inscriptions). The horizontal arrangement is again found on the Ionian hydria at
Rome (Villa Giulia; limc s.v. 'Memnon' no. 16). Cf. the late fourth-century vase (Leiden
ammi; limc s.v. 'Achilleus' no. 805) that through lack of groundline is able to show the
weighing above and to one side of the duel. Images that show Achilles and Memnon
with Hermes holding scales between them, or indeed even just the duelists encircled by
their mothers, can be thought of as truncated versions of the full Olympian-battlefield
arrangement.
the complex and highly charged imagery elsewhere. The Aktorione/Mo

lione scene is enclosed on both sides by borders, most firmly with the spi
rals to the left but also by the lower chevron and upper hourglass designs
to the right (broken by the hunter's prey, as noted above); this scene can
be considered to be the "back" of the vase, unconnected to the rest of the
iconography.40 The rest of the imagery then constitutes one central scene
in three parts. In the very center the presence of anxious females behind
warriors recalls the Achilles/Memnon story, as Vierneisel saw. Yet in my
interpretation it is the judgment scene that is indicated, not the duel. The
central staff mechanism with its crossbar serves to represent the scales
used in psychostasia scenes. The birds in conjunction with the threatening
yet static, frozen warriors suggest the ddola of Achilles and Memnon,
caught in the balance, while the branches held by the females signify the
supplicatory state of the divine mothers. To the left we see the hunter
with his prey, separated by a half border. He conveys the impression of
Chiron or is perhaps Peleus; that is, he suggests the origins of Achilles'
martial skills at a different time and place.
This interpretation would allow us to conclude that the stand has a
rather sophisticated collocation of scenes, with location, time, and dimen
sion subtly interwoven. The Aktorione/Molione scene (Fig. 2) is strongly
separated by full borders from the rest of the imagery, and therefore is en
tirely independent. The rest of imagery is all connected. Starting with the
hunter (Fig. 3), we are encouraged by his movement toward the right, as
well as by the hounds running to the right on the neck above, to continue
on to the central scene (Figg. 3 and 4) and then finally to the duel imagery
further to the right (Fig. 5).41 With the hunter we start with Achilles' tem
poral and geographical origins, before moving swiftly to the most impor
tant and famous incident of his life, his encounter with Memnon. Both as
pects of this episode, the divine moment of judgment and the bloody bat
tle on earth, are depicted. Here the two scenes are almost concurrent,
since a psychostasia occurs after a duel has begun, but there is still a slight
progression in time, since the divine judgement must precede the deci
sive end of the duel. No figure is repeated, though the first two fields
(hunter, psychostasia) are thematically related to Achilles, who is shown in
the duel on the right. The setting changes in all three fields (Phthia, Olym
pus, Troy), and moving from left to right we see a temporal progression.
The lack of repetition of character, along with the multiplicity of time and
40. Cf. Snodgrass 1998, 78, who calls the wavy line between the Aktorione/Molione
image and the duel scene the "back".
41. Note also the hound and bird designs on dresses of the central females, which also
support viewing movement to the right. As well they might reflect certain thematic
aspects of the main figures (hound-hunter; birds-feeres).
space, qualifies for what has been termed the "serial" or "episodic" style
of pictorial narration.42 That level of sophistication might seem surprising
for this time, and many will prefer not to impose such an explanation on
the imagery, or to conclude that the artist was mistaken or clumsy in his
iconography. But I believe that the stand links its visualization of the com
plex and rather abstract concept of a psychostasia with two independent
images on either side. Such sophistication should not be thought impossi
ble during the active and experimental transition from Geometric to Ar
chaic art.43
The above interpretation of two vases implies that by the seventh cen
tury the story of Achilles and Memnon had its place in the mythological
tradition. Though that cannot be proven, there is no reason to doubt that
the basic elements of their story - a duel between evenly balanced heroes,
the concern of their divine mothers, divine judgment - reach far into pre
history. To emphasize that point, I want to move backwards to the
Bronze Age, where one can find thematic connections between the psy
chostasia and a fresco scene from the "Cult Center" at Mycenae.44 The
fresco was situated over a platform, with a lower fresco scene down be
low to one side. The iconography of both frescoes has attracted much at
tention. The lower image shows a female holding shafts of grain, with the
paws of an animal visible below. It has been thought that this is some sort
of agricultural goddess or potnia theron. Interesting as that is, it is the up
per, larger fresco scene on which I will focus (Fig. 6). Here two white
skinned females face one another. Unfortunately the upper half is dam
aged, but we can still make out that the left female has a sword resting
with its point down, whereas the right one has a scepter. More remark
ably yet, there are two miniature figures seemingly floating in mid-air.
The lower figure is of solid black color, whereas the upper one is all red.
Neither seems to be clothed.
What should we make of this image? It is usually thought that the fe
male on the left with the sword is a goddess, and it is often suspected that
the one on the right is one too. As for the tiny figures in the middle, it is
most interesting that they have been interpreted as eidola.45 What that
42. Cf. Hurwit 1985, 172-174, 311, 349; Stansbury-O'Donnell 1999, 139-142. On early pro
totypes of this type of iconography, see Meyboom 1978 and Froning 1988.
43. For the experimentation and possible sophistication on vases in the late-eighth
and early-seventh centuries, cf. Snodgrass 1998, 40-66; Hurwit 1985, 165-176; Osborne
1998b; Stansbury-O'Donnell 1999, 23-25,36-38,139-142,156.
44. From room 31 of the "Cult Center" at Mycenae, it was once on display at Nauplion
but is being readied for display in the museum under construction at Mycenae. I thank
Martina Meyer for the drawing here; see Immerwahr 1990 plates 59, 60 for photogra
phs.
45. Marinatos 1998, 248, Immerwahr 1990, 121, and Morgan, forthcoming. Rehak 1992,
may mean in this image or at this time is not clear. If the figures are psy
chai perhaps the fresco represents some kind of interaction between di
vinities and two souls of the dead. We do not really know whether the
Mycenaeans had any conception of psychai or how they would represent
them.46 But the two miniature figures bring to mind the later psychostasia
imagery, and indeed additional details encourage that analogy.47 The
fresco seems to feature two goddesses; in the psychostasia scenes two di
vine mothers are key figures. On the fresco the divinities display emblems
of divine power, a scepter and a sword. The scepter of Zeus is common in
the psychostasia scenes, and of course swords are frequent in the duel
scenes that are mixed or joined with the psychostasia. Two warriors
crossed swords over a central implement in the Attic stand examined
above. And at times in the psychostasia images, scales appear to be actually
joined to the scepter of Zeus or the caduceus of Hermes.48 In any event,
we certainly see in the Mycenaean fresco themes of opposition and dual
ity, as in later psychostasia scenes.49 The two large female figures stand fac
ing one another, as the warriors and divine mothers do in psychostasia im
agery. On the fresco the two eidola face in the same direction, but are dis
tinguished by color, one dark and one red.
The coloring of the small figures is very suggestive. In Quintus of
Smyrna the ker of Memnon is described as dark (?ge^vaiT]) and the ker of
Achilles is said to be light (qpaiocf]; 2, 510-511). Quintus describes keres
standing by the duelists, with only a brief mention of scales later (540-541).
Yet this is our only surviving literary description of the psychostasia of
Achilles and Memnon, and it does insist on a color differentiation be
tween the two keres, comparable to that on the fresco. In addition, accord
ing to the color conventions of Aegean frescoes the red figure should indi
48-49 argues on the basis of comparative iconography that they are votaries; Haider
1994,138-139 sees them as mortal.
46. Vermeule 1979, 65 terms "the first psyche in Greek art" an image with "bat-like"
wings on a Tanagra larnax appearing in a funerary context; see further Immerwahr 1990,
155,158. In later Greek art eidola are often winged. On the possibility of a Mycenaean con
ception of the psyche as bird-like or butterfly-like, see further below.
47. Marinatos 1998, 248 must be thinking of the psychostasia when she says that she ini
tially interpreted them as "figurines, suspended and held by one of the goddesses." She
excludes this interpretation because there is no indication of "strings" in the image, and
the hands of the divinities are not placed in the right position. One would wish more was
preserved above the eidola, however, especially where the scepter reaches above them.
48. In addition, Marinatos 1998, 248 interprets the apparently outsized fingers of the
figures as branches, which might be compared to the branches carried by the two fe
males on the Attic stand. In my view, however, these are the figures' hands.
49. Morgan, forthcoming, stresses the duality not only of this fresco but in the lower
one, citing parallels in Aegean and Near Eastern art and religion.
cate an Aegean male and the dark figure an African male.50 That the dark
eidolon could signify an African is startling in the context of my analysis,
since Memnon was king of the Aethiopians. Caution is required here,
since though Memnon and his Aethiopians came to be localized in Africa,
in early Greek mythology it seems they were an entirely mythical people
placed vaguely in the East (Memnon is the son of Dawn, after all). Yet
some of the earliest literary references are ambiguous; at Od. 4, 84, for in
stance, it appears that the Aethiopians are placed somewhere around the
Levant and north Africa. And Drew Griffith has recently argued (1998) for
an early African location for the mythological Aethiopians, reviving the
argument that an Egyptian pharaoh, Amenhotep III, was the historical in
spiration for the mythical Memnon. It gives one further pause that some
connections can be made between the fresco and Egypt. Rehak (1992, 45)
identifies the "cut-away" feature of the architectural design on the fresco
as Egyptian, and Egyptian objects were found in the room of the fresco, as
elsewhere at Mycenae. Indeed, next to the low platform below these fres
cos was found a faience plaque of Amenhotep III, the very same pharaoh
that Griffith supports as the historical inspiration for Memnon.51
It is not my intention, despite that intriguing collocation of associa
tions, to argue that the fresco portrays the psychostasia of Achilles and
Memnon, or some prototype of that story current in the Mycenaean
Egyptian axis of the second millennium. There is no evidence that
Achilles and Memnon were known in the Bronze Age, let alone a story of
the two dueling. Indeed, mythological iconography has not been cer
tainly identified in Mycenaean iconography. In any event there are no
scales visible in the fresco, and one cannot readily identify either female
as a goddess that we know of from later mythology. And it is not obvious
that a mythological scene would be appropriate within the obviously reli
gious context of the room and Cult Center.52 But without insisting on any
strong link between the fresco and the later psychostasia scenes, it is possi
ble to make conceptual connections. The fresco could depict some scene
of divine decision or judgment, with the eidola indicating the polarity of
possible outcomes.
It is also relevant to note that though we do not see scales in this fresco,
there is some evidence that a profound significance was attached to them
in the Bronze Age.53 First of all, it has been thought that non-Greek proto
types for the later psychostasia motif date from that time. Hittite parallels
50. Immerwahr 1990, 96; Rehak 1992, 49; Haider 1994,138-142.

51. Rehak 1992, 59, with n. 205. Memnon was not depicted in Greek art as an African,
though his Aethiopian followers often were.
52. See Morgan, forthcoming, who explores the thematic connections throughout the
whole Cult Center.
53. For a survey of the everyday use of scales in the Aegean and Egyptian world, as
WM
*>*?* ,
,in?Jfc
Fig. i. Athens 3961 (911).
??
Fig. 2. Munich 8936.
>s
^ /? ? -
Fig. 6.
have been adduced, but more often Egyptian. In the Egyptian under
world, as seen in illustrations of spells from the Book of the Dead, the
heart of a deceased man was weighed in the scales against Maat, the di
vine personification of truth or justice.54
In addition, scales made of gold foil were found in the shaft graves at
Mycenae. These were obviously non-utilitarian and must have had some
symbolic significance. Vermeule points out that the butterflies impressed
on the pans of some are reminiscent of later renderings of a psyche.55 In
this connection it is notable that for Aristotle and later authors psyche
could refer to a butterfly.56 It is also worth noting the well-known Bronze
Age krater from Enkomi called the "Zeus" krater, so named because the
figure apparently using scales has been thought to be Zeus judging the
fate of two riders in a chariot.57 We need not have confidence that this is
Zeus, but it is further evidence of scales with profound significance in the
Bronze Age.
In conclusion, a plausible case for the Melian amphora and a possible
case for the Attic stand can be made for early representations of the
Achilles-Memnon encounter. What is more, it is possible that key the
matic components of their story were already present in the Bronze Age.
The general themes of the iconography that we have examined include
the intersection of the divine and the mortal dimensions, significant em
blems of divine power such as the scepter and scales, and ddola. Balance
and polarity are present in these scenes, which I have suggested portray a
moment of fate in which judgment is made by the divine and conse
quences are realized for mortals. It is an intriguing aspect of this investiga
tion that Egypt has sometimes been seen as a source for images or con
cepts. Be that as it may, in the very least I would conclude from this evi
dence that the story of Memnon and Achilles is not a post-Homeric inven
tion. There is some indication that artists knew it by at least the time that
many now date the Homeric poems, and there is also evidence that the
roots for some of its concepts lie much further back in time.
University of Toronto
well as their metaphoric significance, see Michaelidou 2000. Athanassakis 1994,127 cites a
modern Greek folksong in which the pains of being away from home, "xenitia", is found
heaviest when weighed on a golden scale with death, sorrow, and love.
54. For the Hittite comparanda, see Puhvel 1983. For the Egyptian, cf. Dietrich 1965,
294-296; Vermeule 1979, 76-77, 160-162; West 1997, 393-394; R. Griffith 1998, 215; Michaeli
dou 2000, 141-147. The Egyptian motif differs in significant respects: it takes place after
death, and concerns the ethical judgement of a human, not a decision for a duel.
55. Vermeule 1964, 298; 1979, 76.
56. Aristotle, ha 551a 14; see further lsj s.v. tyvxt).
57. Nilsson 1950, 34-36; more cautiously Karageorghis-Vermeule 1982, 14-15. Peifer
1989, 70-71 and Michaelidou 2000, 141 refer to the vase in the context of the psychostasia
motif.
References
Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992, Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art, Jonsered.

Athanassakis, A. 1994, The Eagle of Penelope's Dream through the Milennia of
the Greek Poetic Tradition', Anc. World 25,121-134.
Barringer, J. M. 2001, The Hunt in Ancient Greece, Baltimore.
Bremmer, J. N. 1983, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul, Princeton.
Brinkmann, V. 1985, 'Die aufgemalten Namensbeischriften an Nord- und Ostfries
des Siphnierschatzhause', Bull. corr. hell. 109, 79-130.
Burgess, J. S. 2001, The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle,
Baltimore.
Burkert, W. 1987, The Making of Homer in the Sixth Century b.c.: Rhapsodes
versus Stesichorus', in Papers on the Amasis Painter and His World, 43-62, Malibu,
Calif.
Davies, M. 1989, The Epic Cycle, Bristol.
Dietrich, B. C. 1965, Death, Fate, and the Gods, London.
Edwards, M. W. 1991, The Riad: A Commentary v, Cambridge.
Fittschen, K. 1969, Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den
Griechen, Berlin.
Friis Johansen, K. 1967, The Iliad in Early Greek Art, Copenhagen.
Froning, H. 1988, 'Anfange der kontinuierenden Bilderz?hlung in der griechis
chen Kunst', Jahrb. Deutsch. Arch?ol. Inst. 103,169-199.
Gantz, T. 1993, Early Greek Myth, Baltimore.
Gisler-Huwiller, M. 1986, s.v. 'Cheiron', limc in 1, 237-248.
Griffith, R. D. 1998, The Origin of Memnon', Class. Ant. 17, 212-234.
Haider, P. 1994, 'Menschenhandel zwischen dem ?gyptischen Hof und der mi
noisch-mykenischen Welt?', in s?k 1994: ?gypten und Seine Nachbarn [?gypten und
Levante 6], 137-156.
Hampe, R., and Simon E. 1964, Griechische Sagen in der fr?hen etruskischen Kunst,
Mainz.
Hurwit, J. 1977, Image and Frame in Greek Art', Am.Journ. Archaeol. 81,1-30.
-. 1985, The Art and Culture of Early Greece, Ithaca N. Y.
Immerwahr, S. 1990, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age, Philadelphia.
Janko, R. 1992, The Iliad: A Commentary iv, Cambridge.
Kannicht, R. 1982, 'Poetry and Art: Homer and the Monuments Afresh', Class.
Ant. 1, 70-92.
Karageorghis, V. - Vermeule E. 1982, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, Cam
bridge, Mass.
Kopff, E. 1983, The Structure of the Amazonia (Aethiopis)', in The Greek Renais
sance of the 8th Century b.c., ed. R. H?gg, Stockholm, 57-62.
Kossatz-Deissmann, A. 1981, 'Achilleus', limc i1, 37-200.
-. 1992, 'Memnon', limc vi 1, 448-461.
Kullmann, W. i960, Die Quellen der Rias, Wiesbaden.
limc Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, eds. H. C. Ackermann and J. R.
Gisler, Zurich 1981-1999.
Marinatos, N. 1988, The Fresco From Room 31 at Mycenae: Problems in Method
and Interpretation', in Problems in Greek Prehistory, eds. E. B. French and K. A.
Wardle, Bristol, 245-248.
EARLY IMAGES OF ACHILLES AND MEMNON? <vL
Meyboom, P. G. P. 1978, 'Some Observations on Narration in Greek Art', Med

edelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 40, 55-82.
Michaelidou, A. 2000, 'O Zugos ste Zoe ton Katoikon tou Aigaiou kai tes Aigup
tou, in Krete-Aiguptos, ed. A. Karetsou, Athens, 128-149.
Morgan, L. forthcoming, The Cult Centre at Mycenae and the Duality of Life
and Death', in Aegean Wall Painting. Studies in Honour of Mark A. S. Cameron, ed.
L. Morgan, London.
Nilsson, M. P. 1950, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion, Lund2.
Osborne, R. 1998a, Archaic and Classical Greek Art, Oxford.
-. 1998b, 'Death Revisited; Death Revised. The Death of the Artist in Archaic and
Classical Greece', Art History 11,1-16.
Peifer, E. 1989, Eidola, Frankfurt am Main.
Puhvel, J. 1983, 'Homeric Questions and Hittite Answers', Am. Journ. Philol. 104,
217-223.
Rehak, P. 1992, Tradition and Innovation in the Fresco From Room 31 in the
'Cult Center' at Mycenae', in EIKQN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a
Methodology (Aegaeum 8), 39-62,19 plates.
Richardson, N.J. 1993, The Iliad: A Commentary vi. Cambridge.
Robbins, E. 1993, The Education of Achilles', Quad. Urb. n.s. 45 (74), 7-20.
Robertson, D.S. 1940, The Food of Achilles', Class. Rev. 54,177-180.
Schmidt-Dounas, B. 1985, Der lykische Sarkophag aus Sidon, T?bingen.
Schnapp, A. 1997, Le chasseur et la cit?, Paris.
Siebert, G. 1981, 'Eidola: la probl?me de la figurabilit? dans l'art grec', in Method
ologie Iconographique, ed. G. Siebert, Strasbourg, 63-74.
Simon, E. 1959, Die Geburt der Aphrodite, Berlin.
Slatkin, L. M. 1991, The Power of Thetis, Berkeley.
Snodgrass, A. 1979, 'Poet and Painter in Eighth-Century Greece', Proc. Class.
Philol. Soc. n.s. 25,118-130.
-. 1998, Homer and the Artists, Cambridge.
Stansbury-O'Donnell, M. D. 1999, Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art, Cam
bridge.
Vermeule, E. 1964, Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago-London.
-. 1979, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Berkeley.
Vierneisel, K. 1967, 'Berichte der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen: Neuerwerbun
gen, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek', M?nch. Jahrb. bildenden
Kunst 18, 241-245.
Vollkommer, R. 1992, s.v. 'Ker', limc vi 1,14-23.
-. 1997, 'Eidola', limc vin 1 (Suppl.), 566-570.
West, M. L. 1997, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and
Myth, Oxford.
-. 2000, 'Riad and Aethiopis on the Stage: Aeschylus and Son', Class. Quart. 50,
338-352.
-. 2003, Greek Epic Fragments, Cambridge Ma.
Willcock, M. M. 1997, 'Neoanalysis', in A New Companion to Homer, eds. I. Morris
and B. Powell, Leiden, 174-189.

Early Images of Achilles and Memnon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Images of Achilles and Memnon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accademia Editoriale

Early Images of Achilles and Memnon?

JN EO-ANALYSTS have persuasively argued that the Iliad indirectly demon

Achilles and Memnon I will consider two representations that might de

should expect at this date. Instead it may be an ambitious and prototypical

killing. In addition, Robbins discusses accounts of the young Achilles

the complex and highly charged imagery elsewhere. The Aktorione/Mo

50. Immerwahr 1990, 96; Rehak 1992, 49; Haider 1994,138-142.

Fig. i. Athens 3961 (911).

Fig. 2. Munich 8936.

Fig. 4. Munich 8936.

Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992, Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art, Jonsered.

Meyboom, P. G. P. 1978, 'Some Observations on Narration in Greek Art', Med

You might also like