The World of Greek Vases

Edited by Vinnie Nrskov, Lise Hannestad,

Cornelia Isler-Kernyi & Sian Lewis

Edizioni Quasar
roma mmIX

Analecta Romana Instituti Danici - Supplementum XLI

Accademia di Danimarca, via Omero, 18, I - 00197 Rome

2009 Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon srl, Roma

ISBN 978-88-7140-420-2

Published with the support of grants from:

Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond
Carlsen-Langes Legatstiftelse
Elisabeth Munksgaard Fonden
Forskningsrdet for Kultur og Kommunikation

Cover: Corinth. A dump of feasting remains from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore
(after Bookidis & Stroud 1997, plate 27c).
Woman walking towards an altar carrying a phiale. Attic red-figure cup, Akestorides
Painter, 475-425 BC, Cambridge, Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Museum
1927.155 (Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, gift of E.P. Warren, Esquire, 1927.155. Photo: Junius Beebe).

Why (not) Paint an Altar? A Study of Where, When

and Why Altars Appear on Attic Red-figure Vases*
by Gunnel Ekroth

In this paper I will discuss the presence of altars on Attic red-figure vases in order to explore
what their depictions can contribute to our understanding of Greek religion.1 Though several
important studies have discussed sacrifices and
other rituals as depicted on vase-paintings, altars have received surprisingly little attention.
Previous work on altars on Attic vases has to a
large extent concentrated on distinguishing various types of altars and on establishing typologies, an approach characterized as Untergliederungsmanie in a recent study of vase-painting.2
It may, of course, be interesting to know which
kinds of altars were most frequently shown, but
my overriding concern here is rather to understand why the altar is in the scene.
My reason for focusing on the altars is the
importance of the altar in Greek cult. The altar was definitely the most essential installation
for religious purposes, clearly superseding the
temple in significance.3 It constituted the focal
point of animal sacrifice, which was the central ritual activity for the ancient Greeks. By
their actions at the altar, they communicated
with the divine sphere, asking for protection,
guidance and help, or expressing gratitude af-

ter wishes fulfilled. In order to understand the

function and meaning of altars in Greek cult, it
seems obvious that we should look at the pictorial evidence.
Considering the major role of religion in ancient Greek society and the intermingling of ritual activity into every aspect of ancient Greek
life, both public and private, one would expect
altars to appear frequently on vase-paintings. A
search for altar and altars in the Beazley Archive database, which currently includes more
than 37,000 Attic red-figure vases, results in almost 1,500 hits, which means that around 4%
of the red-figure vases in the database bear representations of altars.4 Thus, considering that
96% of the vases have no altars on them, an altar was clearly not the first thing that came to
a vase-painters mind when beginning to paint
a vase.
However, we also have to consider what kind
of object an altar is and how it relates to other
components making up the red-figure scenes,
whether inanimate or alive. One of the characteristics of Attic vase-painting is its interest in the living body, be it human, animal or
that of a monster. The surrounding landscape,

* I would like to thank Lise Hannestad, Vinnie Nrskov

and Cornelia Isler-Kernyi for inviting me to the conference The World of Greek Vases. My paper has profited
greatly from the discussions conducted at this seminar.
I have also presented parts of this topic in Edinburgh
and Stockholm and I am grateful for the suggestions
from the audiences; additionally I would like to thank
Susanne Berndt-Ersz for her comments on the text.
1. This paper will treat some central aspects of altar representations on Attic red-figure vases. Considering the
amount of evidence, I hope to pursue this investigation
in greater detail elsewhere.
2. For altar typologies, see Rupp 1991; Aktseli 1996; cf.
Yavis 1949, esp. 135-136, 146, 164-165, 215 for representations of altars in art. For the comment on Unter-

gliederungsmanie, see Gebauer 2002, 516. For a discussion of cult scenes with altars, see Webster 1972,
126-151.
3. In degree of sacredness, it is comparable only to the temenos, the area marked out as holy and set apart from
profane uses and activities; see Bergquist 1967.
4. These figures are based on the contents of the database
in December 2005. It may be of interest to note that of
the 32,847 Athenian black-figure vases included in the
database, only 216 are said to have an altar or altars on
them. The number of red-figure altar representations
should probably be higher, since many of the features
described as blocks are to be considered as altars.
There are also a number of vases not yet included in
the database.

90

gunnel ekroth

In most cases the recognition of an altar in a

vase-painting is uncomplicated, since the appearance of the object on the vase is very close
to that of preserved altars. Occasionally depicted altars have no known preserved parallels,
but the topic of the scene makes it obvious that
the object in question is an altar. In the red-figure period, most altars correspond to regular
square or rectangular stone altars, monolithic
or built of orthostates.7 The crowning arrangements vary and may consist of wings, gables
or volutes, and it is clear that the variations in
appearance correspond to the vase-painters
individual preferences as to how to represent
an altar.8 The mound- or blockshaped altars,
which occur less frequently, are probably depictions of simple boulders or heaps of soil, sods
or even sacrificial debris left at the site of the
sacrifice. Altars made up of such materials are

less likely to be preserved and identified than

the altars constructed of cut blocks, but recent
excavations of Greek sanctuaries employing
more sophisticated methods are beginning to
reveal examples of such altars as well, for example the moundshaped altar at the sanctuary
of Artemis and Apollo at Kalapodi.9 The same
goes for the altars shown as built of field stones,
which previously may have been overlooked in
the archaeological material.
There may be some difficulties, for us that is,
in separating depictions of mound-shaped altars from omphaloi or sacred stones. In the centre of the Ninnion tablet, for example, which
shows divinities and rituals connected with the
initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries, there
is a white mound.10 If this representation is
considered within the wider ritual framework
of Eleusis, this mound most likely represents
a sacred stone, not an omphalos or an altar.
Epigraphical evidence from the sanctuary mentions both the sacred stone and the lithophoros,
the official who carried this stone on various
occasions.11 The local religious context of each
scene obviously needs to be considered whenever possible.
Another difficult distinction is between altars
and thakoi, simple seats often used by mythological and divine characters.12 The shapes are
similar to those of altars and the distinction is
made even more difficult due to the fact that the
persons who sit on the thakoi are often shown
seated upon altars as well. The blend of altar
and seat can go even further, as we see in the
so-called altar-thrones, throne-shaped altars

5. Lissarrague & Schnapp 1981, 282-283.

6. A survey of the 37,183 red-figure vases in the Beazley
Archive/database gives the following figures for other
inanimate objects: 685 trees, 708 rocks or cliffs, 1,112
stelai (the figure includes some white-ground vases as
well), 174 herms, 441 posts, 41 fountains, at least 300
water basins, 1,268 columns and 97 doors. Only chairs
seem to be shown more frequently with more than
1,700 examples, though these are movable and cannot
be compared directly with the altars. There are also at
least 480 tables and 238 couches.
7. See Ekroth 2001; Cassimatis 1987. In the black-figure
period, on the other hand, the altars display a surprising variety of shapes and decoration: see Rupp 1991,
56-62; Gebauer 2002, 517-519. To some extent this diversity may correspond to the Archaic reality in which
altar shapes were still uncanonical, but the variations
are probably best seen as engendered by the inventive-

ness of the vase-painters of the period.

8. Aktseli 1996, 14-18; cf. Rupp 1991, 61-62. The vasepainters individual preferences are also evident
from how they chose to render the bloodstains on
the vertical front of the altar: see Ekroth 2005, 23
and fig. 1.
9. Felsch et al. 1980, 89 and figs. 71-72.
10. See Clinton 1992, 136, Iakchos in Attic vase painting,
no. 1; LIMC IV, s.v. Demeter, no. 392; Mylonas 1961,
213-221 and fig. 88.
11. Clinton 1992, 121-123.
12. For a representative example, see the seat on which
Priam is seated on the Franois Vase in the sequence
showing the death of Troilos, which is inscribed thakos,
see Wachter 1991, 91, no. 112. Cf. also the object under
the handle of the cup shown on my Fig. 7. I would like to
thank Eleni Hatzivassiliou for drawing my attention to
these objects. See also her contribution in this volume.

on the other hand, is all but non-existent and

any spatial decoration is kept to a bare minimum.5 Bearing this in mind, the objects which
can be connected to the surrounding space are
the more interesting. If the altars are compared
to other types of inanimate objects or installations appearing on Attic vases, altars are in
fact the ones most frequently rendered. Trees,
rocks, stelai, herms, posts, fountains, nonportable waterbasins and various architectural
elements, such as columns and doors, are all
shown less often.6

Identification

why (not) paint an altar?

on which Priam is seated when killed. These

objects may have been intended to invite to a
double reading, emphasizing both Priams role
as a king and his dreadful death, cut down on
the altar.13

Scenes

91

al or sacrificial connotation. As will be evident

from the discussion, many altars are not shown
as being used for sacrifices or any other kind
of ritual activities. Why, then, are the altars
included in these scenes; does the altar mark
space, either concretely, as a sanctuary or another location, or symbolically, as consecrated
ground or perhaps only sacredness in general?
Or is it possible that the altar is included without carrying any meaningful function, simply
constituting a manner of filling out a piece of
empty space?
I will approach the altar representations
from different directions, first discussing their
use and function at religious rituals such as
animal sacrifice and libations, and then move
onto altars functioning as spatial indicators. It
should be made clear from the outset that these
categories are not mutually exclusive and overlap to some extent.

Let us now move onto the scenes in which altars

are found. In real life any altar could presumably be used for sacrifices, or rather, all altars
were meant to be used for sacrifices of some
kind, either bloody or vegetarian. What can the
representations of altars tell us about their uses
and about Greek religion? Here we encounter
the first methodological difficulties: to what
extent do the vase-paintings correspond to the
actual, ritual reality? This is a problem which
constantly faces anyone looking at Greek vases:
how do we interpret what we see?14 If focusing
on the altars, which are concrete, non-movable
features with specific areas of use, one would
expect to be spared some of the ambiguities
and difficulties of interpretation. This is not
the case, however, and we should probably be
grateful for that, since it is often the non-obvious and exceptional that can help us to reveal
and define the generic and established norm.
We should of course not treat the vase-paintings as direct depictions of the ancient reality,
but there is certainly a substantial degree of
correspondence between what is shown and the
uses to which altars were put in real life. This
is evident if the iconographical representations
are compared with other kinds of evidence for
sacrificial rituals, epigraphical, literary, archaeological and osteological. The central question
for my purpose is to what extent an altar in a
scene painted on a vase carries with it any ritu-

Animal sacrifice
Since there are almost 1,500 red-figure scenes
which include altars, one would expect a large
number of representations of altars being used
for animal sacrifice, the ritual at which the altar
was of central importance. This is not the case,
however. In all, there seems to be not more than
100 red-figure representations which can be interpreted as depicting some aspect of animal
sacrifice taking place at an altar.15 These scenes
fall into distinct groups and it is obvious that
what we see is only a selection of the uses of
the altar at animal sacrifice.16 The procession of
the worshippers and animal victim(s) to the altar is often shown, as well as the initiatory rituals in which grain and water were sprinkled on

13. Cassimatis 1988, 117-129. Another case of purposeful ambiguity may be the small group of chequered,
mound-shaped objects (four examples) found on the
Tyrrhenian vases, which certainly represent altars in
some scenes but perhaps both altars and burial mounds
in other representations. These altars, if we should call
all of them that, seem to be a speciality of this category
of pottery, not appearing on any other Attic vase, and we
may be dealing here with a idiosyncrasy of the Tyrrhenian group, partly resulting from these vase-painters not
being active in Athens, see Carpenter 1984, 47-48, 54.

14. For discussion of iconographical methods and their application to Attic vases, see for example Baant 1980;
Schmitt-Pantel & Thelamon 1983; Brard & Durand
1989, 23-37; Beard 1991; Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, esp.
4-23; Reden 1995, 200-211; Peirce 1998, 61-62; Nevett
1999, 11-12, 41-50; Lewis 2002, 1-12.
15. See the evidence included in Gebauer 2002 and Straten
1995, and cf. Peirce 1993, 261-266. The total number of
scenes showing animal sacrifice is substantially higher,
since many representations contain no altars.
16. See Peirce 1993, 227-240.

Ritual

92

gunnel ekroth

the victim and the participants (Fig. 1).17 Also

depicted is a later stage of the ritual sequence
when the gods portion is burning in the altar

fire and the splanchna, the edible intestines, are

grilled, often in connection with the pouring
out of a libation (Fig.2).18

Fig. 1. Rituals initiating animal sacrifice at altar built of fieldstones. Attic red-figure bell-krater, close to the
Chrysis Painter, c. 420 BC, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.24, Catharine Page Perkins Fund (photo: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).

17. Bell-krater, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.24, close

to the Chrysis Painter, c. 420 BC; Gebauer 2002, A 6, fig.
116; Straten 1995, V131, fig. 32.

18. Bell-krater, Frankfurt, Archologisches Museum 413,

Hephaistos Painter, 450-440 BC; Gebauer 2002, B 26,
fig. 251; Straten 1995, V178, fig. 126.

why (not) paint an altar?

The altar was apparently an essential element at all of the actions just mentioned. More
surprising is a red-figure amphora in Darmstadt which shows the burning of the gods
portion of the victim (Fig. 3).19 The tail, curling upwards from the heat, has been placed
on a heap of wood which lies directly on the
ground and there seems to be no indication
of a built-up altar structure of any kind. This

93

scene could be read as an abbreviation, the

altar being so obvious that it did not have to
be included20 but I would rather suggest that
what we see here is a representation of a sacrifice taking place at a site where no built-up
altar was found, at an offering place consisting simply of an ash-spot on the ground, as
known from epigraphical and archaeological
evidence.21

Fig. 2. Placing of gall bladder or roll of fat on the altar, preceding the grilling of the splanchna. Attic red-figure bell-krater, Hephaistos Painter, 450-440 BC, Frankfurt, Archologisches Museum 413 (photo: Archologisches Museum, Frankfurt).

19. Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum 478, Kleophon

Painter, c. 430 BC; Gebauer 2002, B 33, fig. 257.
20. A black-figure jug, now in Ferrara (Museo Nazionale
14939; Gebauer 2002, B 16, fig. 242), shows Athena

grilling splanchna on a fire, though the frame hides the

altar itself.
21. For such sacrificial sites, which could be marked by
horoi, see Ekroth 2002, 29-30, 48-49, 57-58.

94

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 3. Burning of the tail of the animal victim on a heap

of wood. Attic red-figure amphora, Kleophon Painter, c.
430 BC, Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum A 478
(photo: Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt).

motif being a black-figure amphora at Viterbo

depicting the victim, a bull, being lifted up and
killed without any altar present.22 The sprinkling of blood on the front of the altar is not depicted, though a large number of altars are rendered with bloodstains.23 Moreover, at scenes
of hieroskopia, when the liver was scrutinized
for signs, no altars are included, and the same
applies to the vase-paintings showing the division of the victim by the mageiroi, the butchers/
chefs.24 Of interest here is rather the handling
of the victims body or parts of that body.
We are clearly facing a conscious choice by
the vase-painters as to what was to be included
in a proper, or should we say functional, depiction of a certain stage of an animal sacrifice.
It seems that the further we move from the divine part of the ritual, the less likely is it that
the altar will be shown. In scenes depicting the
initial procession, the preliminary preparations
and burning of the gods portion, the altar is included. Also the grilling of the splanchna takes
place at the altar, before the fire is extinguished
by a libation.
The actions which followed the inspection
of the intestines for signs, the cutting-up of the
animal and the handling of the meat which was
to be distributed and eaten, all belonged to the
human part of the sacrifice, when the divinity
had already received his or her share. At this
stage the altar seems to have been of little importance, since the communication with the
gods had been completed. Consequently, in the
depictions of the dining concluding the ritual,
the altar is hardly ever found.25

It is clear that certain stages of the sacrificial

process were hardly ever shown on the vases
and if they occasionally are found, no altar is
included in the scene. The most obvious example is the killing of the victim at a regular thysia sacrifice, the only indisputable case of this

Libations
Let us now move on to another category of ritual uses of altars libations (the libations rendered as part of animal sacrifices are excluded
here). The scenes showing such rituals form a
group which is both larger and much more di-

22. Viterbo, Museo Civico; Gebauer 2002, S 1, fig. 134;

Straten 1995, V141, fig. 115. Interestingly, the killing
of victims at sacrifices at which no altar was used, such
as battle-field sphagia, could be rendered, though such
scenes are rare as well: see Jameson 1991 and 1994 for
the evidence.
23. For the iconography of blood at sacrifices and bloodstains on altars, see Ekroth 2005. A white-ground kylix

in Berlin (3408) may be a rare depiction of an altar being sprinkled with blood, see Ekroth 2005, 24, pl. 4.2.
24. For hieroskopia, see Gebauer 2002, H 1-H 3, figs. 212214 (the motif is more common in black-figure). For
the mageiros scenes, see, for example, Gebauer 2002, Z
18-Z 28, figs. 181-190.
25. See Lissarrague & Schmitt Pantel 1988, 218-220 and
fig. 3 b.

why (not) paint an altar?

verse than that of animal sacrifices. There are

more than 300 red-figure libation scenes which
take place at an altar and these scenes clearly
reflect many different occasions and contexts.
What should be noted is that it was far from
necessary to include an altar to show a libation
and there are many libation scenes in which
no such installation is found. When depicting
a proper libation, the equipment used, whether
a phiale, kantharos, oinochoe or other vessel,
and the action itself were clearly the main elements, not the altar.
Libations at altars occur in a wide variety of
scenes, ranging from vases showing only one person and an altar to complex depictions in which
several figures are performing libations. Certain
types of scenes are particularly common and
stand out. The majority of the libation scenes
include only one person and an altar, occasionally complemented by other objects, which indicate where this altar is located (the role of the
altar as a spatial indicator will be discussed below). In most cases the figure at the altar is the
goddess Nike, flying, striding or standing at the
altar with a vessel in one of her hands (Fig. 4).26
The frequency of this divinity is not surprising,
considering that most of these scenes of a single Nike at an altar date to the High Classical
period, that is around 480-430 BC, when this
goddess was one of the most popular divinities
shown on Attic vases in all settings.27 If the figure at the altar is not Nike, it is most likely that
she is a woman. There are more than 70 such
scenes in which the woman is present at the altar, pouring, or about to pour, a libation from a
phiale, an oinochoe or another vessel (Fig. 5).28
The high number of vase-paintings showing a
woman libating should be compared with the
group of youths or bearded males libating alone
at altars, which amounts to around 35 scenes.
Adult men seem to be especially rare.
The question is, what kind of sacrificial action do we see here? At first glance, the libation
scenes seem to show just libations, apparently

26. Lekythos, Cambridge, Harvard University, Arthur M.

Sackler Museum 4.1908, Berlin Painter, 525-475 BC; CVA
USA 8, Fogg Museum and Gallatin collections, Fogg Museum collection, III I, pl. 17.4. See also my Fig. 11 b.
27. See Scheffer 2001, 133, table 2. The most popular di-

95

Fig. 4. Nike holding phiale and oinochoe, moving to

altar. Attic red-figure lekythos, Berlin Painter, 525475 BC, Cambridge, Harvard University, Arthur M.
Sackler Museum (Courtesy of the Arthur M. Sackler
Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Loan
from Estate of Donald Upham and Mrs. Rosamond
U. Hunter, 4.1908. Photo: Michael A. Nedzweski).

not in connection with animal sacrifice. There

are also many representations of single persons
holding vessels which could be used for libations but without any altar being included in
the scenes. As complex motifs can be broken up

vinity in the same period was Dionysos.

28. Cup, Cambridge, Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Museum 1927.155, Akestorides Painter, 475-425
BC.; CVA USA 8, Fogg Museum and Gallatin collections, Fogg Museum collection, III I, pl. 18.1b.

96

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 6. Libating gods. Attic red-figure hydria, Berlin

Painter, 490-480 BC, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 3739 (photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna).
Fig. 5. Woman walking towards an altar carrying
a phiale. Detail of Attic red-figure cup, Akestorides
Painter, 475-425 BC, Cambridge, Harvard University,
Arthur M. Sackler Museum 1927.155 (Courtesy of
the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University
Art Museums, gift of E.P. Warren, Esquire, 1927.155.
Photo: Junius Beebe).

and abbreviated, it would be possible to view

the libating woman or youth (or Nike) as part
of a larger context of animal sacrifice.29 On the
other hand women are, as a rule, not common
in the scenes of animal sacrifice, and when they
are present they rarely hold the phiale or oinochoe.30 Therefore these single women are better
seen as simply performing a libation, perhaps
accompanied by non-bloody offerings in some
instances. The sole male libators are more complex, since they could certainly have occupied
this position at an animal sacrifice.
These libation scenes can be taken to support the notion of womens more peripheral
involvement with animal sacrifice and should
be considered in the light of the modern discussions concerning whether women could

kill sacrificial victims or even were entitled to

eat the meat.31 The sheer number of scenes of
women libating certainly ascribes them an important role within the religious system, though
distinct from that of the men.
A more specific category of altar-use in connection with libations is scenes showing the
departing warrior or hunter. These scenes are
usually constructed with two protagonists, the
departing male, holding a phiale, and a woman, pouring a libation from an oinochoe. This
motif is most frequently found without an altar
and it seems to have been up to the individual
vase-painter whether to add the altar or not.32
The shape of the vase, and therefore the space
available, may also have affected whether the
altar was to be included. In any case, the altar
was not necessary for completing the motif.
A third category of libation scenes including altars shows the ritual being performed
by divinities (Fig. 6).33 Practically all gods can
be shown libating, either alone, in pairs or in
group, with Nike being the divinity most frequently found. This motif has been given vari-

29. For a discussion of the interpretation of a single libator at an altar, see Lissarrague 1995, 134-140. See also
Peirce 1993, 229-230, on pompe scenes which are abbreviated into a human being and an edible, domesticated animal.
30. Gebauer 2002, 484-486.
31. Detienne 1989; Osborne 1993; Goff 2004, 42-43. On
the iconographical evidence for womens involvement
in ritual, see Lewis 2002, 43-54; Gebauer 2002, 482-

486; and Peirce 1998, who discusses in particular the

Lenaia vases and their relation to women and animal
sacrifice.
32. For departure scenes with altars, see Spie 1992, 160179; Lissarrague 1990, 137-139, 167-170; Lissarrague
1995, 140-143.
33. Hydria, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 3739, Berlin Painter, 490-480 BC; CVA, Wien, Kunsthistorisches
Museum 3, III I, pl. 140.1-3.

why (not) paint an altar?

ous explanations.34 The presence of the altar,

however, shows that this should not be perceived as an intra-divine affair. The libating
gods are not worshipping each other or themselves, but are rather represented in their capacity of receiving religious attention, and as
being approachable by humans by the means
of ritual action. The interpretation of the libating gods as a reference to their receiving
cult is also supported by the fact that the altar
between the gods may have bloodstains on the
side and a fire burning on top (see the altar
in Fig. 6), signs of human ritual activity. The
combination of libating gods, and altar with
bloodstains and fire, is thus best seen as referring to the most substantial kind of ritual action: animal sacrifice. The altar gives the message of gods receiving cult.

97

Altars and gods

The altar is used for sacrifices to the gods, but
how often do gods actually appear on the redfigure vases together with altars and which is
the relation between the altar and the divinity?
In all, scenes with both altars and gods are in
fact not as common as one would expect. We see
gods libating at altars, as on the scenes just mentioned, but it is less common to show a god at an
altar where animal sacrifice is being performed.
When present, the divinity is often represented
only by a cult statue (Fig. 2). Gods depicted as
being physically present and receiving sacrifices
at altars are confined to a few cases of Apollo,
Athena, Dionysos and Hermes.35 Most red-figure
scenes depicting animal sacrifice at an altar contain no representation of a divinity in any form
and there was apparently no need to indicate at
whose altar the ritual was executed.

Even less common is for a god to take active part in animal sacrifice at an altar. This
is not surprising since the altar constitutes
a means of communication from humans to
divinities. Sacrificing gods are confined to
a handful of representations of Dionysos or
Nike, but what we see is the killing of the victim with no altar present and some of these
scenes also concern rituals at which no altar
was used.36 Apparently gods may libate at an
altar, but they do not sacrifice animals at the
same site. That the sacrificial treatment of the
animal victim at the altar is human business
is strengthened by the fact that the only divinity shown bringing the victims, cutting them
up, grilling and eating them is Herakles, a divine figure with a mythical background as a
mortal hero.37
In most scenes, however, where both divinities and altars are found, the altar is there
without being used, just placed among a
group of seated or standing gods, sometimes
even under a handle, a space less usable for
larger figures (Fig. 7).38 The divinity and the
altar may also be part of a mythological scene,
in which the altar is more or less related to
the story depicted. In these cases the altar is
not there as an expression of the cult of this
particular divinity. It should also be noted that
the link between gods and altars on the vases
does not reflect the popularity or importance
of the gods worshipped in fifth-century Attica.
Most frequently found in scenes with altars
are Nikai and Erotes, neither of which were
prominent in classical cults.39 Of the principal
gods depicted in connection with altars, we
encounter Apollo, Artemis, Dionysos and Athena, while Hera, Demeter, Zeus and Poseidon,

34. See discussions in Simon 1953, esp. 7-8; Veyne 1990;

Himmelmann 1996, 54-61; Simon 1998; Simon 2004,
242-244; Schneider-Herrmann 1956, 24-25; cf. Lissarrague 1995, 134.
35. Gebauer 2002, 490, with references to the evidence.
36. A fragment of a pelike shows Dionysos teaching Ikarios
how to slaughter a goat, instituting the cult of the god
at Ikaria (Gebauer 2002, S 5, fig. 139). For the depictions of Nikai performing sphagia, Gebauer 2002, 283285 and S 7-S 9, figs. 141-144, and Jameson 1994.
37. Durand 1986, 144-173; Gebauer 2002, 493-497. Cf. the
black-figure jug showing Athena as a splanchnoptes,
grilling intestines on spits, while libating (Gebauer
2002, B 16, fig. 242). The altar is not visible, only the

flames! Similarly, occasional representations of Hermes

as a splanchnoptes come as no surprise, considering his
feat of stealing, sacrificing and almost eating the cattle of Apollo as an infant, an action described in the
Homeric hymn bearing his name: see Gebauer 2002,
491-492, B 7 and B 8, figs. 232-233.
38. Cup, New York, Metropolitan Museum 53.11.4, Briseis
Painter, c. 480 BC; LIMC VII, s.v. Theseus, no. 660;
Barringer 1995, 163-165, pls. 148-149.
39. The frequency of gods on vases at large shows an interesting pattern of distribution, as demonstrated by
Charlotte Scheffer (Scheffer 2001). On Nike as more
prominent in art than in cult and mythology, see further Isler-Kernyi 1969, 47; cf. Thne 1999.

98

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 7. Altar among gods and mythological figures: Theseus, Triton, Poseidon and Nereids. Attic red-figure cup,
Briseis Painter, c. 480 BC, New York, Metropolitan Museum 53.11.4 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase,
Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, 1953 (53.11.4). Photograph, all rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art).

Private or public?
Having discussed altars used for various kinds
of ritual activities, we can look at the scenes in
which the altar functions mainly as a spatial indicator, which is the case for the clear majority
of all altars found on the red-figure vase-paint-

ings. Here the altar is not primarily used for a

religious ritual which we can identify as animal
sacrifice or libation. However, since an altar is
meant to be used for sacrifices, it still can have
religious connotations in such contexts.
An altar by itself, alone without any live presence, either human or divine, seems rarely to
have been represented on the red-figure vases.40
The closest we get is an eye-cup in Florence depicting an altar and a palmtree between each pair
of eyes.41 The combination altar and herm is also
found, but the herm is here best seen as a divine
presence as well (Fig. 8).42 The altar in many of

40. For a representation of an altar scene devoid of human or

animal life, see a black-figure hydria in London (64.107.184) by the Painter of Half-palmettes, Lissarrague
1997, 126-127, fig. 3, and 136 nos. 6, 7, 49 and 81.
41. Museo Archeologico Etrusco 151198; CVA Italy 8, Firenze,
Regio Museo Archeologico 1, III I, pl. 3:3. On the combination altar with palmtree as referring to the cult of Artemis
and marriage rituals, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 99-103.

42. Lekythos, Tbingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universitt,

Archologisches Institut 5606, compare to Icarus
Painter, 475-425 BC; CVA Germany 54, Tbingen,
Antikensammlung des Archologischen Instituts der
Universitt 5, pl. 42.10. For depictions of herms in
connection with sacrifices as well as in other settings, see Zanker 1965, 98-99; Wrede 1986, 56-58;
Shapiro 1989, 128-132.

divinities figuring prominently in the sacred

laws and sacrificial calendars of contemporary
Attica, are surprisingly rare.

Setting

why (not) paint an altar?

Fig. 8. Altar and herm. Attic red-figure lekythos, compare to Icarus Painter, 475-425 BC, Tbingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universitt, Archologisches Institut 5606
(photo: Museum Schloss Hohentbingen, Tbingen).

the scenes with altars and herms has bloodstains

on its front, a sign of worshippers having performed sacrifices. The depictions of altars and
herms may also include pinakes or dead animals,
such as a hare, further indications of human visitors not too long ago. A lonely altar was apparently not specific enough to make any sense.
As an indicator of the setting, an altar may
show that the action is set in public space: a sanctuary, the market place, the palaestra or simply
along a road, all locations where altars would be
found in real life. But the altar also marks the
opposite environment, the private sphere, since

43. On Zeus Herkeios, see Parker 2005, 16-18.

44. Webster (Webster 1972, 145-151) collected a number of
such scenes adding that little more can be said about
them (145).
45. Delorme 1960, 337-361; Shapiro 1989, 119-120, 124;
Scanlon 2002, 199-273.

99

an altar, often dedicated to Zeus Herkeios, was

located on the enclosed courtyard of the house.43
This polarity between public and private is essential, when we look at the vase-paintings showing
a single person at an altar. In order to read these
scenes, both the gender of the person shown and
any other objects included are of interest.
A large group of altar scenes consists of only
one person and an altar, sometimes surrounded
by other objects. Most of these figures are simply standing or sitting at the altar, while others
are bringing vessels or other containers which
may contain offerings such as incense, flowers or wreaths.44 The person most frequently
shown alone at the altar is a woman, in more
than 150 scenes. Almost as many scenes show
a youth at an altar. (In fact, more frequent than
either of these two is Nike alone at an altar, but
we can omit her in this context since she is a
divinity, and instead focus on the women and
the youths). What does the altar signify for the
setting of these scenes? Are we in a public or
private space? Does the altar give different indications of the setting if the person next to it
is male or female? Here it is of interest to compare the objects which occur in the scenes apart
from the person and the altar. Most scenes do
not contain any other objects, but when they
occur there is a variability which can be linked
to the gender of the person present.
The most common objects found in the scenes
of a youth at an altar are wash basins, strigiles, lyres, chairs and columns. Some of these
scenes also contain sponges, aryballoi, sports
equipment, stelai and posts. None of these
items comes as a surprise and we are clearly at
the palaestra. An altar at such a location is perfectly natural considering the close connection
between the palaestra and religion.45 A number
of scenes are harder to pin down spatially, as
they show only a youth at an altar and a column, or a youth at an altar holding a torch or
a libation vessel (Fig. 9).46 Here it is difficult to

46. Cup, Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmshhe T 436, Villa Giulia

Painter, 475-425 BC; CVA Germany 35, Kassel, Antikenabteilung der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen 1,
pl. 39.2. For the possible meanings of columns on vasepaintings, see Meyer 1988, 95-100.

100

gunnel ekroth

tell whether the palaestra, sanctuary or even a

private house is intended. In any case, we may
safely conclude that the male figure at an altar is
predominantly located in a public setting. The
objects in the scenes including women at altars
place them in another milieu. The most common objects here are chairs, columns, doors,
torches and mirrors (cf. Figs. 5 and 10). Sashes
are also found in a number of cases, but some
of these are perhaps meant to represent fillets
or wreaths rather than items of cloth. These objects are of a private nature and set the scene
in the domestic sphere.47 It is tempting to compare these vase-paintings with excavated Greek

houses, for example the private houses from

Olynthus, where the altar was placed in the
courtyard, partially surrounded by columns.48
At the same time, some of the representations
of women at altars include very few additional
objects and these scenes, particularly when a
column is present, may be intended to be read
as set in a sanctuary or another public space.
In many of the scenes showing a single woman at an altar, she is holding various items, for
example, a vessel, a basket, a wreath, a branch
or a torch, indicating that she is at the altar performing a religious ritual, such as a libation or
a vegetarian offering. In the scenes where she
is simply present at the altar, without any additional objects, I think we can imagine a context
of religious activity as well. We may here see a
reference to the ongoing, daily cult connected
with the house and the home, an expression of
regular piety, though the contents of womens
religious duties in the house are actually not
very well known.49 When the woman is carrying a torch or a basket (kanoun), rituals more
specifically linked to the female sphere may be
intended, as for example ceremonies preceding
marriage or linked to the actual wedding.50
The motif woman at an altar can thus be taken to mark the confined and controlled space of
the housewife or the parthenos, but why not also
the domestic setting of the hetaira? The possibility
that we are seeing women with different statuses
needs to be taken into account if we are to explain
the fact that there are so many depictions of women at altars. The bulk of these representations are
found on lekythoi, vessels usually said to have
been produced for and used by women. But the

47. Cf. Meyer 1988, 95-100; Baant 1985, 23-24 on the

changes in the gynaikonitis motif in the fifth century
BC.
48. See Olynthus VIII, 159 and 321-322; Olynthus XII, 189
and 210; Hoepfner and Schwandner 1986, 15, 57-58
with figs. 43, 70, 180; Cahill 2002, 85, 13, 143; Nilsson
1960. Most houses do not seem to have had fixed altars or external hearths: see Jameson 1990, 104-105.
An altar may have been located outside the house as
well, next to the entrance: Parker 2005, 18-19; Jameson
1990, 105.
49. On the religious activities in the domestic sphere, which
rarely seem to have encompassed animal sacrifice, see
Hermary et al. 2004, 109-110; Parker 2005, 13-21. See also
Cook 1914, 1054-1068, and Parker 2005, 15-16, on the cult
of Zeus Ktesios, receiving non-bloody offerings from the

father of the house. For the uses of branches and wreaths

by women in Greek cult, see Blech 1982, 269-383.
50. Torchcarriers, including the brides mother, were part of
the procession escorting the bride to the grooms house
where they were received by his mother also waiting
with torches: see Oakley & Sinos 1993, 26-27, 34-35;
Baant 1985, 26-29; Killet 1994, 98-99. For the depiction of a woman approaching an altar and carrying a
torch as a reference to marriage, see Sourvinou-Inwood
1991, 107-108. Women shown standing at altars holding
baskets, kana, are perhaps also to be taken as a reference
to marriage: Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 111-112, though
a single kanephoros at an altar could also refer to a girl
performing this function in a pompe leading up to an
animal sacrifice: see Gebauer 2002, 170-171; see also
Schelp 1975, 15-21, for the role of girls as kanephoroi.

Fig. 9. Youth at altar holding cup and walking stick.

Attic red-figure cup, Villa Giulia Painter, 475-425 BC,
Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmshhe T 436 (photo: Staatliche Museen, Kassel, Antikensammlung).

why (not) paint an altar?

101

motif woman at an altar is also frequently found

on the interior of drinking cups of the kind used
in the male context of the symposion.51 Why?
If we consider the possibility that these
women are not automatically to be taken as
examples of virtuous housewives and daughters, their presence on the drinking vessels
may seem more understandable. Some representations of women alone at altars are actually found on cups, the exterior of which carry
depictions of men interacting with women in
a manner which has often been interpreted as
implying that the women are hetairai, as is the
case with a cup by Makron, now in Toledo.52 On
the exterior of this cup we see women seated or

standing while the men and youths offer them

money pouches and flowers (Fig. 11 a). In the
interior there is a an elegantly dressed woman
holding a basket in her left hand while libating
with an oinochoe on an altar topped by a fire
(Fig. 11 b). Behind her stands a thymiaterion
on a base. This vase has been widely discussed
and many commentators claim that on the outside we see hetairai interacting with customers,
while the woman on the interior, because of the
altar, must be a respectable housewife or a virgin maiden. The contrast is thought to be deliberate, even ironic, to make the user reflect on
the two kinds of women of Athenian society.53
This reading is not entirely convincing, considering the often-stated difficulties in separating women of various statuses in the Attic
iconographic evidence, and it has recently been
suggested that the woman depicted in the tondo
is a hetaira performing a thank offering to Aphrodite.54 The fact that she is pouring a libation
does not establish her as the wife or daughter of
an Athenian citizen. Hetairai were not excluded
from the Athenian religious sphere, as we know
from their participation in the Adonia and the
Haloa, and they must certainly have performed
religious acts privately.55 Nor is the womans
elaborate clothing a distinctive factor defining her status as a respectable woman she is
dressed in the same manner as the women on the
exterior of the cup, who usually are considered
to be hetairai. Furthermore, literary sources indicate that hetairai often dressed no differently
from ordinary women, except that they could
wear more and better clothes, while the vasepainters could show respectable women wearing semi-transparent clothing, even as brides.56

51. There are more than 90 scenes of a single woman at an

altar on red-figure lekythoi (to which can be added a
handful of white-ground examples with the same kind
of scene) and at least 35 cups with depictions of a woman at an altar on the interior. Some of these cups are
late, e.g.Turin 4120, by the Kalliope Painter, 430-425
BC and Ferrara T430 B, by the Painter of the Neapel
Hydria, 435-430 BC (Lezzi-Hafter 1988, pl. 80 a, no.
101 and pl. 94 a, no. 139). Lewis explains the number
of cups bearing representations of women at altars as
related to their ritual use rather than as drinking vessels at the symposia (Lewis 2002, 43-44).
52. Toledo, Ohio 1972.55, c. 480 BC; CVA USA 17, Toledo, Toledo museum of art 1, pl. 53.1; Reeder 1995, 186, fig. 38.
53. See, for example, Keuls 1985, 223; Reden 1995, 206-

208; Keuls 1997, 242-243; Beard 1991, 28-30; Reeder

1995, 183-187.
54. For discussion of the status of women on Athenian vases,
see Williams 1983; Harvey 1988; Beard 1991, 28-30; Sutton 1992, 17-20; Lewis 2002, 44-45; Sebesta 2002, 128-136.
Even the oikos is not easily identified in Attic vase-painting: Sutton 2004. For the interpretation of the woman on
the Makron cup as a hetaira, see Neils 2000, 216-218.
55. For religious activity of hetairai, see Goff 2004, 138146, 153-158.
56. For the written evidence on the dress-code of hetairai,
see Dalby 2002. The iconography of the female body as
naked, covered or visible through the clothing is discussed by Sebesta 2002, 125-130 and Llewellyn-Jones
2002, 181-190.

Fig. 10. Woman with krotala dancing between building and altar. Detail of Attic red-figure cup, Douris,
500-450 BC, Princeton, University Art Museum 33.34.
Bequest of Junius S. Morgan, Class of 1888 ( 1970
photo: Trustees of Princeton University).

102

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 11 a. Women being courted by a youth and a man. Exterior of Attic red-figure cup, Makron,
c.480 BC, Toledo, Ohio, Toledo Museum of Art, purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment,
Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, 1972.55 (photo: Toledo Museum of Art).

Fig. 11 b. Woman libating at altar. Interior of Attic red-figure cup, Makron, c. 480 BC, Toledo, Ohio,
Toledo Museum of Art, purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, 1972.55 (photo: Toledo Museum of Art).

why (not) paint an altar?

103

There is, in fact, no compelling argument why

the woman in the tondo of the Makron cup was
not seen as an object of erotic desire.
The combination of motifs on the cup by
Makron is not unique. A similar set of scenes
is found on a cup by the Painter of London E
100 in the British Museum which in the tondo
shows a woman libating at an altar, while the
exterior shows a sympotic scene with youths
reclining.57 A cup attributed to a Follower of
Makron bears a representation on the inside of
a woman standing next to an altar holding a
flower, and women with an alabastron or a mirror courted by youths on the outside.58 There
are also examples of cups showing two women
or a man and a woman at an altar in the tondo,
which on the exterior depict youths, men and
women involved in conversation, though the
presence of money pouches suggests courtship.59
I would suggest that the scenes of women
at altars, especially on the cups, can be seen
as an additional facet of the hetaira repertoire
next to the spinning, bathing, and beautification scenes.60 This does not mean that we are
to take all women depicted at altars on the Attic red-figure vases as being hetairai, only that
we should be aware of the possibility that these
figures may represent different categories of
women within ancient Athenian society.

Renderings of female musicians at altars may

further illustrate this point. A cup by the Tarquinia Painter, recently sold in New York, shows
an all-male symposium on the outside, while the
tondo depicts a seated woman playing a barbitos
in front of a simple, block-shaped altar.61 Thematically, this woman may certainly be seen as
linked to the drinking party on the exterior, and
can therefore be suggested to be a hetaira, especially if the object seen hanging in front of her is
meant to represent a money pouch.62 On the interior of a cup now in Princeton (Fig. 10) a woman is seen dancing with krotala between an altar
and a building or a door.63 As krotala are found
in scenes showing marriage, we could take her
to be part of a wedding procession at the house
of the bride or the groom. On the other hand
the instrument is frequently found in Dionysiac
settings and particularly in depictions of symposia.64 Single women with krotala moving in the
same manner, though represented without any
additional objects, are often considered to represent hetairai (some of them are shown naked)
and the presence of the altar poses no objection
to a similar interpretation for this cup.65
Finally, we should consider the cup by the
Painter of the Agora Chairias Cups showing a
naked, crouching woman placing a wreath on
an altar with a fire (Fig. 12).66 As this can hardly
be taken as a depiction of an Athenian housewife

57. London, British Museum E 100 (the painters name

vase), 475-450 BC; ARV2 834, no. 1.
58. Berkeley, Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology 8.923, 475-425 BC; CVA USA 5, Berkeley, University of California 1, pl. 35.1b.
59. For example Rome, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco Vaticano G 72, by the Comacchio Painter, 475-425 BC; ARV2
955, no. 1. One of the women on the interior displays
a kalathos prominently in her left hand. A cup by the
Splanchnopt Painter (Shefton Museum, Newcastle
upon Tyne, 475-425 BC; ARV2 892, no. 10bis) has on
the interior a representation of a draped woman and a
youth at an altar; a money pouch hangs between them.
Draped youths, draped men and women are shown on
the exterior. Another cup by Makron (Paris, Louvre G
149; ARV2 473, no. 212; Kunisch 1997, pl. 77, no. 233) is
also of interest in this context. It depicts on the exterior
youths being courted with gifts such as hares, cocks
and flowers by men and other youths, while the inside
bears a representation of a youth libating at an altar
next to a chair or couch.
60. The cup Museo Gregoriano Etrusco Vaticano G 72 (see
above, n. 58) actually brings some of these elements
together as one of the women at the altar prominently
displays a kalathos in her left hand.

61. New York market, Sotheby, Sale catalogue, 12 June

2003, 37, no. 34, 500-450 BC.
62. On the barbitos as particularly associated with symposia, see Bundrick 2005, 21-22. A female lyre player at
an altar (the exterior is undecorated) on a cup by the
Brygos Painter, now in Paris (Cabinet des Mdailles
581; ARV2 377, no. 114), could be linked to the sympotic
sphere as well. For a discussion of the interpretations
of female lyre players, as connected with symposia or
as Muses, see Lewis 2002, 95, 157-159; Bundrick 2005,
14-18, 92-102.
63. Princeton, University Art Museum 33.34, Painter of
London E 55, 500-540 BC; ARV2 444, no. 232; BuitronOliver 1993, pl. 127, no. E 15. The exterior is undecorated.
64. On the contexts for krotala, see Bundrick 2005, 46-47.
65. The same interpretation is also suggested by Neils
2000, 218, n. 49. On dancing women with krotala, see
Peschel 1987, 41-44, figs. 11-18; Killet 1994, 57-61.
66. Athens, Agora Museum P24102, c. 510-500 BC; Agora
XXX, no. 1562, pl. 147; cf. Neils 2000, 215-216, fig. 8.6.
This scene can be put in context with a group of nude
bathers appearing on red-figure cups in the late sixth
and early fifth century, clearly with an erotic intent: see
Sutton 1992, 22-23.

104

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 13. Zeus pursuing woman (detail). Attic red-figure

kantharos, Brygos Painter, about 490-480 BC, Boston,
Museum of Fine Arts 95.36, Catharine Page Perkins Fund
(photograph 2009 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).

performing religious duties, the scene has generally been accepted as a rare case of a hetaira
performing a sacrifice. If this representation is
placed within the wider interpretation of the status of the women at altars suggested here, it can
be argued that the motif is unusual only since the
woman is naked, not because she is a hetaira.
To further elucidate the popularity of the
motif woman at altar, especially on cups, we
can connect it with another type of scene in
which altars and women are also combined,
namely scenes showing women being pursued
by men, or male gods pursuing human or semidivine females.67 Most such pursuit scenes have
no spatial indicators at all, but if there is one,
it is usually an altar (Fig. 13).68 The altar in the

pursuit scenes can be interpreted in different

ways. It can be taken as locating the action
in the home of the woman, an interpretation
which is strengthened by the fact that in some
such scenes there is, apart from the altar, also
a column or a door.69 In a wider sense, the motif can be seen as alluding to the woman being
abducted from this setting by force and thus
referring, in a violent way, to marriage, which
also resulted in the girl leaving the oikos of her
father for another mans house.70
However, it is more plausible to see most
pursuit scenes with an altar as set in or at a
sanctuary, especially since the scenes also may
contain trees. The young woman visited the
sanctuary and there her male attacker, human
or divine, subsequently spotted her.71 To some
extent, especially in the mythological pursuit
scenes, the altars can also be there to be used
for protection, the woman running to the altar
to seek asylum, though usually in vain.72 In any
case, the altar marks the woman as present in
a public setting where she can be seen and approached. Interestingly enough, sanctuaries
were one of the few non-domestic spaces which
respectable young women could frequent, or
even were supposed to frequent. In fact one

67. On the pursuit motif, see Kaempf-Dimitriadou 1979;

Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 27-143; Stewart 1995. Depictions of Eros pursuing athletes or youths may also be
of relevance here: see Scanlon 2002, 239-242; Shapiro
1992, 58-64.
68. Kantharos, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.36, Brygos
Painter, 490-480 BC; ARV2 381, no. 182.
69. Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 70-74; cf. Kaempf-Dimitriadou 1979, 42.
70. See Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 67-82, 99-111.
71. The motif of such encounters in sanctuaries was also
popular in ancient novels: see Scanlon 2002, 225.

72. The direction in which the woman runs, to or from the

altar, should perhaps not be given too much weight,
since both directions are found, and it is possible that
some of these running figures actually represent dancing women. In the scenes showing a divinity pursuing
a woman and for which we know that the story ended
in the birth of a hero or other mythological character,
the altar may perhaps also allude to the foundation of
a cult to this figure. It has also been pointed out that
proper Athenian behaviour was for the lover to pursue
his beloved and for the beloved to flee: see von Reden
1995, 198.

Fig. 12. Naked woman placing wreath on an altar.

Attic red-figure cup, Painter of the Agora Chairias
Cups, 510-500 BC, American School of Classical
Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations no. P24102
(photo: American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations).

why (not) paint an altar?

of the purposes of young girls participation in

religious rituals in sanctuaries seems to have
been to show them off publicly in order to accomplish a good marriage.73
The combination woman and altar can be
said to offer a mixed message. I would suggest
that the altar marks the woman both as safely
confined within the domestic space and as
present in the public sphere, more specifically in
a sanctuary, and there exposed to the male gaze.
It is the altar which indicates that the woman is
available in some sense.74 Whether she is a respectable woman or a hetaira is less important
and this was up to the viewer of the scene to decide. The woman at the altar can and will attract
attention; the outcome could be marriage, or
perhaps just an erotic encounter, sex, the latter a
suitable theme for a man to rest his eyes on after
having finished his wine at the symposion.75

105

Specific locations
Altars as spatial indicators are also found in
representations of myths in which a central
part of the story is set at an altar. The killing of
Priam at the altar of Zeus Herkeios at Troy is
one example, as is the story of Telephos, who
takes refuge at the altar in Agamemnons house
with the baby Orestes as hostage.76 Achilles
ambush and killing of Troilos can also be set
in a sanctuary, that of Apollo Thymbraios, and
may therefore include an altar, while the egg of
Leda is often depicted as resting on top of an
altar (see article by S. Schmidt, Fig. 1).77 In representations of human sacrifices, such as the
sacrifice of Iphigeneia by Agamemnon and the
Pharaoh Busiris attempt to sacrifice Herakles,
the altar is often present.78

In all these cases the altar marks the story as

taking place at a particular spot, a sanctuary or
the courtyard of the house, indicating not only
the physical space, but also the sacred nature of
this space. Most of these myths, in fact all apart
from the story of Leda and the egg, have a very
violent core and the link between this violence
and the altar serves to underline the dramatic
nature of the action. Altars and their surroundings constitute consecrated ground, where no
birth or death is to take place. The killing of
Priam on the altar of Zeus not only violates
his rights as a supplicant, but defiles the altar
with human blood as well. Similarly accidental
deaths or threats of deaths at the altar, as in the
stories of Busiris, Troilos and Telephos, disturb
the notions of what is sacred and what is not.
The sacrifice of humans, like Iphigeneia and
Herakles, also pervert regular sacrificial practices and ritual behaviour at the altar.
The vase-painters seem consciously to have
played on the tension created by such violations of the altar as a sacred space.79 On a cup
in Ferrara (Fig. 14) which shows the attempted sacrifice of Herakles by Busiris, the vasepainter has depicted an exceptionally rich representation of sacrificial equipment scattered
among Herakles and the panicking Egyptians:
the knife and its sheath, spits, sacrificial baskets and different kinds of vessels for water and
wine.80 It is as if the vase-painter has wanted
to stress the abnormality of what is about to
happen at this altar, the killing of a human being, by depicting all the paraphernalia used at a
regular thysia sacrifice. Furthermore, this vase
is the only scene which contains both an altar
and the sphageion, the wide basin in which the

73. See Goff 2004, 35-43, 85-98, 114; Calame 2001, esp. 258263; for the arkteia at Brauron, see also Ekroth 2003, 9093. For the secluded life of Athenian women broken by attendance at religious festivals, see Just 1989, 110, 120-121.
74. It is possible that the altar in scenes showing Eros pursuing a youth is to be interpreted in the same manner.
75. To read the motif woman at an altar as an allusion to
the entire spectrum from proper marriage to sexual assault should not deter us, considering that the ancient
Greeks clearly had an attitude to forced sex and rape
which was different to ours: see Keuls 1997, 236; Just
1989, 68-70; Stewart 1995, 75-77. On the distinction between seduction and rape in Athenian society, see also
Omitowoju 2002, esp. 131-132, 230.

76. For Priam, see LIMC VII, s.v. Priamos, nos. 94, 95,
124-127; for Telephos, see LIMC VII, s.v. Telephos, nos.
51-53, 55.
77. Achilles killing Troilos at an altar is shown on a cup by
Onesimos in Perugia (Museo Civico 89), see LIMC I,
s.v. Achilleus, no. 370, cf. no. 210 (a black-figure fragment). For the egg of Leda, see LIMC VI, s.v. Leda, nos.
28-29 bis, 31, 32.
78. Durand & Lissarrague 1983; Durand & Lissarrague
1999; Gebauer 2002, Bu 2-Bu 23, figs. 372-375.
79. Durand & Lissarrague 1999, esp. 83-84.
80. Ferrara, Museo Archeologico Nazionale T 499, close to
the Dokimasia Painter, 480-470 BC; Gebauer 2002, Bu
9, fig. 374; Straten 1995, V347, fig. 53.

106

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 14. Egyptians attempting to sacrifice Herakles, Attic red-figure cup, close to the Dokimasia Painter, 480470 BC, Ferrara, Museo Archeologico Nazionale T 499 (photo: su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le
Attivit Culturali).

blood of the victim was to be caught in order

to be prepared for future consumption.81 The
altar and the sphageion are placed under the
cups two handles. The combination of sacrificial equipment, sphageion and human victim at
the altar all together aim at bringing out the full
potential of this perverted sacrifice.
Related to the use of altars as spatial indicators is also the question of whether it is possible
to link the altars on the vases to specific locations in the Athenian topography. On a general
level processions to altars at which Athena is
present may very well depict her main altar on
the Acropolis in the context of the celebration
of the Panathenaia, though such a connection
can rarely be ascertained. The krateriskoi associated with the Arkteia sometimes show an altar, which may have been the altar at Brauron,
or an altar at another sanctuary where this festival was celebrated.82 A group of scenes show-

ing Eros pursuing a youth next to an altar has

been suggested as showing the altar of Eros at
the entrance to the Academy.83
The shape of the altar has also been used
when trying to define the location of a scene.
The simple mound-shaped or block-shaped
altars could probably indicate that the scene
is set in a rustic setting rather than in a regular sanctuary, where the altar would be more
elaborate. On the other hand certain vasepainters showed a preference for specific altar
shapes. Almost all of the mound shaped altars
found on lekythoi, for example, are painted by
the Aischines Painter.84 It is tempting to take
the altars built of fieldstones as a sign that the
activity is taking place in a countryside setting or at least in a grove (Fig. 1). Still, of the
16 known depictions of altars of fieldstones,
seven can be connected to the same myth, that
of Herakles sacrificing to Chryse.85 Interest-

81. Ekroth 2005, 14-19, esp. 16.

82. For the krateriskoi, all black-figure examples, see Kahil 1965, 20-33; Kahil 1981, 253-263; Hamilton 1989,
449-472; Scanlon 2002, 139-155; Ekroth 2003, 65-66.
There are three fragmentary red-figure krateriskoi of
unknown provenience, one of which preserves a small
section of a volute altar: Kahil 1977, 86-98, fig. A, pl.
18.1.
83. For the altar of Eros at the entrance to the Academy,
see Greifenhagen 1957, 58-60; cf. Delorme 1960, 40-

41; Shapiro 1989, 119-120, 124. A cup by the Telephos

Painter (Munich 2669) showing Eros running towards
a volute altar placed on a rocky outcropping may depict
this particular altar: Shapiro 1989, 124 and pl. 56 a.
The altar of Eros at the Academy was also the starting
point for the torch race at the Panathenaia (Scanlon
2002, 256), and depictions of such events are perhaps
also to be seen as linked to this location.
84. See, for example, ARV2 710, nos. 34-45, 48.
85. Hooker 1950, 35-37; Gebauer 2002, 522.

why (not) paint an altar?

107

ingly, of the remaining nine depictions of field

stone altars, six are found in representations
of other myths: the finding of the egg of Leda,
Orestes at Delphi trying to escape the Erinyes
and sacrifices performed by Erechthonios
and Busiris.86 The fieldstone altar indicates
a mythic and perhaps ancient setting rather
than a rustic one.
The link between altar and a specific site is
thus far from self-evident and rarely seems to
have been purposefully intended. Nevertheless I will conclude this paper by discussing an
unusual altar representation, suggesting that it
both depicts a particular location, in the Athenian Agora, and a specific ritual action, the distribution of meat after a public sacrifice.
The vase in question is a cup by the Pan
Painter, now in the Ashmolean Museum in
Oxford, and it is dated to around 470-460
BC.87 Side A (Fig. 15a) shows four persons
standing around a low altar. To the left of the
altar is a young man holding an oinochoe,
then comes a second male figure holding a
kantharos. To the right of the altar we see a
young man pouring a libation from a second
oinochoe and finally a bearded man holding
a third oinochoe. Of the low altar the left volute is preserved. On the altar there is a thick
bedding of burning wood, on top of which the
curling osphys is clearly visible in the flames.
Side B (Fig. 15b) shows four men surrounding a low bench or table constructed from a
plank laid on top of two stones. To the left is
a bearded man holding a staff and a writing
tablet. Next to him we see a youth holding a
number of small red round or oblong objects
in his right hand, extending his left hand. The
third figure is a bearded male with his right
foot on the makeshift table. He holds an open
writing tablet in his left hand and a stylus in
his right. To the right, finally, is a youth carrying a wide basin, a skaphe, filled with red,
roundish objects. On the table stands a lekane

full of objects of the same kind and more are

lying on the right end of the table. In the interior of the cup (Fig. 15c) are two male figures,
the left one carrying a basin filled with red
objects, while the bearded man to the right
carries a closed writing tablet.
The scenes shown are enigmatic and have
consequently been given different explanations.
Of central importance is the interpretation of
the red objects. Similar objects are found in
other vase-paintings, showing, for example, the
procession initiating a sacrifice or the activities
at the altar after the victim has been killed.88 No
scene, however, offers a direct parallel to the cup
in the Ashmolean. It has been suggested that
the objects on the Oxford cup are fruit, perhaps
grapes or figs, and that the scenes can then be
read as a thank-offering in connection with the
harvest.89 Webster proposed in 1972 that the
red objects are pot sherds and that what we see
here is a unique representation of the counting of the ostraka at the ostrakophoria, and this
interpretation has been argued again in detail
in a recent study dealing with the available evidence for ostracism in Athens.90 The sacrifice
shown on side A is here explained in the light of
the fact that the ostrakophoria was considered
as part of the assembly meetings, which were
preceded by a purificatory sacrifice of a piglet.
This explanation is unsatisfactory, however,
since a purification sacrifice would not have
included the burning of the tail on the altar, as
we see here. Still, we do not know whether any
sacrifice was performed in connection with the
ostrakophoria and it is possible that the counting of the ostraka may have included an animal
sacrifice of the regular thysia kind, as the one
represented.
Nevertheless, the fact that the political activities of ancient Athens are hardly ever represented on the Attic vases should lead us to consider
alternative interpretations of this vase.91 In 1996,
Albert Schachter suggested en passant that the

86. Gebauer 2002, 522-523.

87. Oxford, Ashmolean 1911.617; CVA Great Britain 3, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1, III I, pl. 2.9 and 7.3-4; Beazley
1974, 11, no. 19; Gebauer 2002, B 18, 375-377, fig. 244.
88. See Gebauer 2002, 375-377 and P 26, P 45, Z 5.
89. Brommer 1977, 214; Heintze 1995, 203-206. Cf. Mala-

gardis 1985, who suggests that similar objects on a

black-figure skyphos should be interpreted as figs.
90. Webster 1972, 142; Brenne 2002, 174-184; cf. Birth of
democracy 1993, 100, no. 14.10.
91. On the scarcity of political motifs, see Lissarrague &
Schnapp 1981, 284; Neer 2002, 138-149.

108

gunnel ekroth

Fig. 15 a. Sacrifice and libation at low altar. Exterior of Attic

red-figure cup, Pan Painter, 470-460 BC, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1911.617 (photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).
Fig. 15 b. Distribution of meat. Exterior of Attic red-figure cup,
Pan Painter, 470-460 BC, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1911.617
(photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).
Fig. 15 c. Distribution of meat. Interior of Attic red-figure cup,
Pan Painter, 470-460 BC, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1911.617
(photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).

why (not) paint an altar?

109

red items are to be interpreted as pieces of meat,

a suggestion also supported by Jrg Gebauer in
his recent study of sacrificial iconography.92 The
vessels used for keeping the red objects, a basin
on the interior and a basin and a lekane on side
B, fit well into a sacrificial context and are found
in depictions of sacrificial processions, particularly in the scenes showing the animal victim
being butchered. Both basins and lekanai were
used for collecting the blood of the victim and
preparing it for future consumption, but meat
may also have been put in such containers.93
A number of Attic vases show meat.94 The
parts depicted in many of these scenes seem to
be the choice portions given to the gods and the
priests: hind legs and heads. Other representations, particularly those showing banqueting
gods and heroes, render the pieces of meat as
so substantial that they refer to an ideal, heroic
world rather than the Athenian cultic reality.
When cutting up the animal at a thysia sacrifice, most of the meat was divided into portions
of equal weight, which were distributed to all
participants. The size of these portions is very
hard to estimate, but they were probably fairly
small, especially at state and deme sacrifices at
which each adult male was entitled to a share.95
The meat we see on the Oxford cup seems, in
fact, to be compatible with the portions handed
out to a large number of participants at such
public sacrifices. Therefore I find it plausible
that the Oxford cup shows, not only the handling of meat after a thysia sacrifice, a ritual
evident from the tail burning on the altar, but,
more specifically, the distribution of equal meat
portions after an Athenian state or deme sacrifice, a unique motif in Attic vase-painting.

Other elements in the scenes also support such

an interpretation. The libation scene includes
three persons holding oinochoai, which is unusual, and this is an argument in favour of seeing
the ritual as being public and large scale rather
than a private event.96 These three individuals can
be taken to underline the collective character of
the ritual action, as well as the necessity of several ritual functionaries at a sacrifice on such a
substantial scale. The writing equipment shown
on side B and the interior may seem puzzling at
a private sacrifice but would have been useful
at a public event to assure that each deme, and
eventually each member, received his allotted
share and to prevent anyone from leaving with
more than one portion. Epigraphical evidence
informs us that at public sacrifices meat could
be distributed to the demes of the city according to how many eligible members each deme
had.97 The careful noting in many sacred laws
of who was to receive what at a sacrifice further
underlines that the distribution of the meat was
an important event to keep track of.
Finally, we have to consider the altar on side
A (Fig. 15a) which has an unusual appearance
due to its low height, especially considering the
uniformity of red-figure altar representations in
general. Any attempt to explain the lack of height
as related to chthonian rituals is bound to fail,
since all animal sacrifices shown at altars on Attic
vases are thysia sacrifices, at which the gods portion of the victim was burnt in the altar fire and
the meat eaten by the human worshippers.98
I believe that the low height of this altar is no
coincidence and that it is best explained by the
fact that the scene is set at a particular location.99
In the Athenian Agora, just to the south of the

92. Schachter 1996, 620; Gebauer 2002, 376 and 488.

93. See Ekroth 2002, 242-247; Ekroth 2005, 14-19.
94. For depictions of meat, see Straten 1995, 154-155; Gebauer 2002, 334-338; Hermary et al. 2004, 125, nos.
545-550.
95. Epigraphical evidence speaks of meat portions weighing from around 300g. to one kilo, while weights found
in sanctuaries which could have been used for dividing
the meat vary in sizes from c. 140g. to 2kg. For the size
of these meat portions and whether they were distributed raw or cooked, see Ekroth forthcoming.
96. Gebauer 2002, 376-377.
97. IG II2 334, 23-27: Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 81;
Ekroth 2008, 270-272.
98. Ekroth 2001.

99. The shape is also unusual within the repertoire of the

Pan Painter. He preferred high altars, though with various appearances and degree of elaboration; compare,
for example, the volute altar on a column-krater in Naples, Museo Nazionale 127929 (Gebauer 2002, B 17, fig.
240), the altar crowned by a palmette on an oinochoe
in Munich, Antikensammlungen 2455 (CVA Germany
6, Mnchen, Museum Antiker Kleinkunst 2, pl. 86.9-10)
and the simple, cube-shaped altar on a volute-krater in
Durham, Duke University 1972.1 (Straten 1995, V175,
fig. 164). A very large, knee-high volute altar is seen on
a stamnos by the Pan Painter recently sold by Christies, see the catalogue from the auction Antiquities,
New York, Friday, June 14, 1996, 52, no. 83; cf. Beazley
1974, 11, no. 19.

110

gunnel ekroth

Altar of the Twelve Gods, a low altar was excavated in 1952 (Figs. 16 and 17).100 It consisted of
a rectangular platform of fieldstones, framed by
poros stones, measuring 1.76 x 3.77 m. The ends
are slightly raised and the whole structure was
coated repeatedly with fine, brown clay, sealing
ash between the layers. The excavated altar does
not have any volutes, but its most characteristic
features, the low height and the slightly raised
ends, are certainly echoed in the vase-painting.
It is not known to whom this altar was dedicated, but its central location indicates that it
must have been an important cult place.101 That
the altar could have been used at public sacrifices, at which the meat was distributed to the
citizens, seems entirely possible. I would suggest that the cup in Oxford shows both such a
public sacrifice, taking place on the low altar on
the Agora, and the subsequent distribution of
the meat, divided into equal portions, presumably in the vicinity of this altar.102

Fig. 16. Low altar in the Athenian Agora. American

School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations (photo: American School of Classical Studies at
Athens: Agora Excavations).

100. Thompson 1953, 43-46; Agora XIV, 132; Gadbery 1992,

467-469; Ekroth 1999, 119-120; Ekroth 2002, 33-34. The
altar was constructed in the end of the 6th century and
in use down to around 430-420 BC. Due to its low height
it has been labelled eschara, a misleading term, since
this denomination often carries with it assumptions of
certain kinds of rituals. In the classical period, however,
eschara referred to an altar of the bomos kind used for
regular thysia sacrifices, see Ekroth 2002, 25-59.

Conclusion
So, why paint an altar on a vase? To depict animal sacrifice cannot be said to have been the
principal incentive, nor to show the execution of
religious rituals. What seems to have attracted
the vase-painters was rather the notions which
the altar carried with it. The altar is the most
sacred of locations, the focal point of the main
religious ritual, the place were man and god
meet, though on very different conditions. But
the sanctity of the altar also creates a field of tension which is explored by the vase-painters. The
altar marks both the most private and the most
public; it is the place for the virtuous woman but
also a threat to her virtue; it offers protection but
simultaneously poses a danger. When the animal
victims are killed at the altar and the blood sprinkled on its front, it is a sign of a society in order,
while the killing of a human being at an altar is
an offence of the worst kind. Opposites attract.

Fig. 17. Drawing of low altar in the Athenian Agora.

American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations (after Hesperia 22, 1953, 44, fig. 2).
101. For suggested divinities linked to the Agora altar, see
Ekroth 1999, 120.
102. It is known that grain was distributed on the Agora to
the tribes. Inscriptions from the Agora have been interpreted as marking the entrances to the enclosure in
which the voting at ostracism as well as the distribution of grain took place, see Raubitschek 1956, 279-282.
These entrances could perhaps also have been used to
secure the equal distribution of meat at state sacrifices.

why (not) paint an altar?

111

Bibliography
Aktseli, D.
1996, Altre in der archaischen und klassischen Kunst. Untersuchungen zu Typologie und Ikonographie, (Internationale
Archologie 28), Espelkamp.
Barringer, J.M.
1995, Divine Escorts. Nereids in Archaic and Classical Greek
art, Ann Arbor.
Baant, J.
1980, Classical archaeology and French nineteenth-century
realists, LF 103, 193-201.
Baant, J.
1985, Les citoyens sur les vases athniens du 6e au 4e sicle
av. J.-C., Prague.
Beard, M.
1991, Adopting an approach II. In: Rasmussen, T. & N.
Spivey (eds.), Looking at Greek vases, Cambridge, 12-35.
Beazley, J.D.
1974, The Pan Painter, (Bilder griechischen Vasen 4), Mainz.
Brard, C. & Durand, J.-L.
1989, Entering the imagery. In: Brard, C. et al. (eds.), City
of images. Iconography and society in ancient Greece, Princeton, 23-37.
Bergquist, B.
1967, The Archaic Greek Temenos. A study of structure and
function, (ActaAth 4, 13), Lund.
Blech, M.
1982, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen, (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 38), Berlin-New York.
Brenne, S.
2002, Rotfigurige Schale des Pan-Malers (Oxford 1911.617)
aus Cerveteri (470-460 V.Chr.): Auszhlung des Ostraka? In:
Siewert, P. (ed.), Ostrakismos-Testimonien I. Zeugnisse antiker Autoren, der Inschriften und Ostraka ber das athenische
Scherbengericht aus vorhellenistischer Zeit (487-322 v.Chr.),
(Historia Einzelschriften 155), Stuttgart, 174-184.
Brommer, F.
1977, Der Parthenonfries. Katalog und Untersuchung,
Mainz.
Buitron-Oliver, D.
1993, Douris: a master painter of Athenian red-figure vases
(Kerameus 9), Mainz.
Bundrick, S.D.
2005, Music and Image in Classical Athens, Cambridge.
Cahill, N.
2002, Household and City Organization at Olynthus, New
Haven-London.
Calame, C.
2001, Choruses of young women in ancient Greece: Their
morphology, religious role, and social functions, (Greek
studies: interdisciplinary approaches) (rev. ed.), Lanham.
Carpenter, T.H.
1984, The Tyrrhenian group: problems of provenience,
OxfJA 3, 45-56.
Cassimatis, H.
1987, Lautel reprsent dans la peinture de vases: ralit
ou fiction? BSocBiblReinach 5, 31-35.
Cassimatis, H.
1988, propos de lutilisation du motif iconographique:
autel-trne? une bizarrerie de limagerie. In: Christiansen,

J. & T. Melander (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on

Ancient Greek and Related Pottery. August 31-September 4,
1987, Copenhagen, 117-129.
Clinton, K.
1992, Myth and cult. The iconography of the Eleusinian mysteries (ActaAth 8, 11), Stockholm.
Cook, A.B.
1914, Zeus. A study in ancient religion, vol. II, Cambridge.
Dalby, A.
2002, Levels of concealment: the dress of hetairai and pornai in Greek texts. In: Llewellyn-Jones, L. (ed.) 2002, 111124.
Delorme, J.
1960, Gymnasion. tude sur les monuments consacrs
lducation en Grce (des origines lEmpire romain), (Bibliothque des coles franaises dAthnes et de Rome 196),
Paris.
Detienne, M.
1989, The violence of wellborn ladies: women at the Thesmophoria. In: Detienne, M. & Vernant, J.-P. (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks, Chicago, 129-147.
Durand, J.-L.
1986, Sacrifice et labour en Grce ancienne. Essai
danthropologie religieuse (Images lappui 1), Paris-Rome.
Durand, J.-L. & Lissarrague, F.
1983, Hros cru ou hte cuit: Histoire quasi cannibale
dHracls chez Busiris. In: Lissarrague, F. & Thlamon,
F. (eds.), Image et cramique grecque. Actes du colloque de
Rouen 25-26 novembre 1981, (Publications de lUniversit de
Rouen 96), Rouen, 153-167.
Durand, J.-L. & Lissarrague, F.
1999, Mourir lautel. Remarques sur limagerie du sacrifice humain dans la cramique attique, ArchRel 1, 83-106.
Ekroth, G.
1999, Altars in Greek hero-cults. A review of the archaeological evidence. In: Hgg, R. (ed.), Ancient Greek cult
practice from the archaeological evidence. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens 22-24 October 1993,
(ActaAth 8, 15), Stockholm, 117-130.
Ekroth, G.
2001, Altars on Attic vases: the identification of bomos and
eschara. In: Scheffer, C. (ed.), Ceramics in context. Proceedings of the Internordic colloquium on ancient pottery held at
Stockholm, 13-15 June 1997, (Stockholm studies in classical
archaeology 12), Stockholm, 115-126.
Ekroth, G.
2002, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic periods, (Kernos supplement 12),
Lige.
Ekroth, G.
2003, Inventing Iphigeneia? On Euripides and the cultic
construction of Brauron, Kernos 16, 59-118.
Ekroth, G.
2005, Blood on the altars? On the treatment of blood at
Greek sacrifices and the iconographical evidence, AntK 48,
9-29.
Ekroth, G.
2008, Meat, man and god. On the division of meat at Greek
animal sacrifices. In: Matthaiou, A.P. & Polinskaya, I. (eds.),
Mikro;" iJeromnhvmwn. Melevte" eijx mvhvmhn Michael H. Jameson,
Athens, 259-290.

112

gunnel ekroth

Felsch, R.C.S. et al.

1980, Apollon und Artemis oder Artemis und Apollon? Bericht von den Grabungen im neu entdeckten Heiligtum bei
Kalapodi 1973-1977, AA, 38-112.
Gadbery, L.M.
1992, The sanctuary of the Twelwe Gods in the Athenian
Agora: A revised view, Hesperia 61, 447-489.
Gebauer, J.
2002, Pompe und Thysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf
schwarz- und rotfigurigen Vasen (Eikon 7), Mnster.
Goff, B.
2004, Citizen Bacchae. Womens ritual practice in ancient
Greece, Berkeley-Los Angeles.

Kahil, L.
1977, LArtmis de Brauron: Rites et mystre, AntK 20, 86-98.
Kahil, L.
1981, Le cratrisque dArtmis et le Brauronion de
lAcropole, Hesperia 50, 253-263.
Keuls, E.
1985, The reign of the phallus. Sexual politics in ancient Athens, Berkeley.
Keuls, E.
1997, Painter and poet in ancient Greece. Iconography and the literary arts, (Beitrge zur Altertumskunde 87), Stuttgart-Leipzig.

Greifenhagen, A.
1957, Griechische Eroten, Berlin.

Killet, H.
1994, Zur Ikonographie der Frau auf attischen Vasen archaischer und klassischer Zeit, (Wissenschaftlige Schriftenreihe
Archologie 1), Berlin.

Hamilton, R.
1989, Alkman and the Athenian Arkteia, Hesperia 58, 449-472.

Kunisch, N.
1997, Makron, (Kerameus 10), Mainz.

Harvey, D.
1988, Painted ladies: fact, fiction and fantasy. In: Christiansen, J. & Melander, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on ancient Greek and related pottery, Copenhagen
August 31-September 4, 1987, Copenhagen, 242-254.

Lewis, S.
2002, The Athenian woman. An iconographic handbook,
London-New York.

Heintze, H. von
1995, Athena Polias am Parthenon als Ergane, Hippia, Parthenos, III. Die Nord- und die Sdseite. Athena Polias und
Athena Parthenos, Gymnasium 102, 193-222.
Hermary, A. et al.
2004, Sacrifice. Les sacrifices dans le monde grec, ThesCRA I, Los Angeles, 59-134.
Himmelmann, N.
1996, Minima archaeologica. Utopie und Wirklichkeit der Antike, (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 68), Mainz.
Hoepfner, W. & Schwandner, E.-L.
1986, Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, (Wohnen
in der klassischen Polis 1), Munich.
Hooker, E.M.
1950, The sanctuary and altar of Chryse in Attic red-figure
vase-paintings of the late fifth and early fourth centuries
B.C., JHS 70, 35-41.
Isler-Kernyi, C.
1969, Nike. Der Typus der laufenden Flgelfrau in archaischer
Zeit, Erlenbach-Zrich-Stuttgart.
Jameson, M.H.
1990, Domestic space in the Greek city-state, In: Kent, S.
(ed.), Domestic architecture and the Use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study, (New directions in archaeology), Cambridge, 92-113.
Jameson, M.H.
1991, Sacrifice before battle. In: Hanson, V.D. (ed.), Hoplites: the Classical Greek battle experience, London-New
York, 197-227.
Jameson M.H.
1994, The ritual of the Athena Nike parapet. In: Osborne, R. &
Hornblower, S. (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 306-324.
Just, R.
1989, Women in Athenian law and life, London-New York.
Kaempf-Dimitriadou, S.
1979, Die Liebe der Gtter in der attischen Kunst des 5. Jahrhunderts v.Chr., (AntK Beiheft 11), Bern.
Kahil, L.
1965, Autour de lArtmis attique, AntK 8, 20-33.

Lezzi-Hafter, A.
1988, Der Eretria-Maler: Werke und Weggefhrten (Kerameus
6), Mainz.
Lissarrague, F.
1990, Lautre guerrier. Archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans
limagerie attique, (Images lappui 3), Paris-Rome.
Lissarrague, F.
1995, Un rituel du vin: La libation. In: Murray, O. & Tecusan, M. (eds.), In vino veritas. Record of an international
conference on wine and society in the ancient world, held in
Rome from 19th to 22nd March, 1991, Oxford, 126-144.
Lissarrague, F.
1997, Le Peintre des demi-palmettes: aspects iconographiques. In: Oakley, J.H. et al. (eds.), Athenian potters
and painters. The conference proceedings, (Oxbow monographs 67), Oxford, 125-139.
Lissarrague, F. & Schmitt Pantel, P.
1988, Spartizione e comunit nei banchetti greci. In: Grottanelli, C. & Parise, N.F. (eds.), Sacrificio e societ nel mondo
antico, Rome, 211-229
Lissarrague, F. & Schnapp, A.
1981, Imagerie des Grecs ou Grce des imagiers?, Le temps
de la rflexion 2, 275-297.
Llewellyn-Jones, L.
2002, A womans view? Dress, eroticism, and the ideal female body in Athenian art. In: Llewellyn-Jones, L. (ed.),
Womens dress in the ancient Greek world, London, 171-202.
Malagardis, A.
1985, Deux temps dune fte athnienne sur un skyphos attique, AntK 28, 71-92.
Meyer, M.
1988, Mnner mit Geld. Zu einer rotfigurigen Vase mit
Alltagszene, JdI 103, 87-125.
Mylonas, G.E.
1961, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton.
Neer, R.T.
2002, Style and politics in Athenian vase-painting. The craft
of democracy, ca. 530-460 BCE, (Cambridge studies in Classical art and iconography), Cambridge.
Neils, J.
2000, Others within the other: an intimate look at hetairai
and maenads. In: Cohen, B. (ed.), Not the Classical ideal.

why (not) paint an altar?

Athens and the construction of the other in Greek art, Leiden, 203-226.
Nevett, L.C.
1999, House and society in the ancient Greek world, (New
studies in archaeology), Cambridge.

113

Lissarrague, F. & Thelamon, F. (eds.), Image et cramique

grecque. Actes du colloque de Rouen 25-26 novembre 1982,
(Publications de lUniversit de Rouen 96), Rouen, 9-20.
Schneider-Herrmann, G.
1956, Nike pouring a libation, BaBesch 31, 23-25.

Nilsson, M.P.
1960, Griechische Hausaltre, Opuscula selecta linguis anglica, francogallica, germanica conscripta III, Nilsson, M.P.,
Lund, 265-270.

Sebesta, J.L.
2002, Visions of gleaming textiles and a clay core: textiles,
Greek women, and Pandora. In: Llewellyn-Jones, L. (ed.),
Womens dress in the ancient Greek world, London, 125-142.

Oakley, J.H. & Sinos, R.H.

1993, The wedding in ancient Athens, (Winsconsin studies in
classics), Madison.

Shapiro, H.A.
1989, Art and cult under the tyrants in Athens, Mainz.

Omitowoju, R.
2002, Rape and the politics of consent in Classical Athens,
Cambridge.

Shapiro, H.A.
1992, Eros in love: pederasty and pornography in Greece.
In: Richlin, A. (ed.), Pornography and representation in
Greece and Rome, Oxford, 53-72.

Osborne, R.
1993, Women and sacrifice in Classical Greece, ClQ 43,
392-405.

Simon, E.
1953, Opfernde Gtter, Berlin.

Parker, R.
2005, Polytheism and society at Athens, Oxford.
Peirce, S.
1993, Death, revelry, and thysia, ClAnt 12, 219-266.
Peirce, S.
1998, Visual language and concepts of cult on the Lenaia
vases, ClAnt 17, 59-95.
Peschel, I.
1987, Die Hetre bei Symposion und Komos in der attisch-rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei des 6.-4. Jahrh. v. Chr., (Europische Hochschulschriften Reihe 38, Archologie 13), Frankfurt am Main.
Raubitschek, A.
1956, The gates in the Agora, AJA 60, 279-282.
Reeder, E.D. (ed.)
1995, Pandora. Women in classical Greece, Princeton.
Reden, S. von
1995, Exchange in ancient Greece, London.
Rhodes, P.J. & Osborne, R.
2003, Greek historical inscriptions 404-323 BC. Edited with
introduction, translation, and commentaries, Oxford.
Rupp, D.W.
1991, Blazing altars: the depiction of altars in Attic vase
painting. In: tienne, R. & Le Dinahet, M.-Th. (eds.),
Lespace sacrificiel dans les civilisations mditerranennes
de lantiquit. Actes du colloque tenu la Maison de lOrient,
Lyon, 4-7 juin 1988, (Publications de la Bibliothque Salomon-Reinach 5), Paris, 56-62.
Scanlon, T.F.
2002, Eros and Greek athletics, Oxford.
Schachter, A.
1996, Review of Hier kal. Images of animal sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece by F.T. van Straten, AJA 100, 619-620.
Scheffer, C.
2001, Gods on Athenian vases: their function in the Archaic and Classical periods. In: Scheffer, C. (ed.), Ceramics in
context. Proceedings of the Internordic Colloquium on ancient pottery held at Stockholm, 13-15 June 1997, (Stockholm
studies in classical archaeology 12), Stockholm, 127-137.

Simon, E.
1998, Archologisches zu Spende und Gebet in Griechenland und Rom. In: Graf, F. (ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium fr Walter Burkert, StuttgartLeipzig, 126-142.
Simon, E.
2004, Libation. In: ThesCRA I, Los Angeles, 237-253.
Sourvinou-Inwood, Ch.
1991, Reading Greek culture. Texts and images, rituals and
myths, Oxford.
Spie, A.B.
1992, Der Kriegerabschied auf attischen Vasen der archaischen
Zeit, (Europische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 38, Archologie
39), Frankfurt am Main.
Stewart, A.
1995, Rape. In: Reeder (ed.) 1995, 74-90.
Straten, F.T. van
1995, Hier kal. Images of animal sacrifice in Archaic and
Classical Greece, (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 127),
Leiden.
Sutton, R.F.
1992, Pornography and persuasion on Attic pottery. In:
Richlin, A. (ed.), Pornography and representation in Greece
and Rome, New York-Oxford, 3-35.
Sutton, R.F.
2004, Family portraits. Recognizing the oikos on Attic redfigure pottery. In: Chapin, A.P. (ed.), XARIS. Essays in honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, (Hesperia supplement 33), AthensPrinceton, 327-350.
Thompson, H.A.
1953, Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 1952, Hesperia
22, 25-56.
Thne, C.
1999, Ikonographische Studien zu Nike im 5. Jahrhundert v.
Chr., (Archologie und Geschichte 8), Heidelberg.
Veyne, P.
1990 Image de divinits tenant une phiale ou patre. la
libation comme rite de passage et non pas offrande, Mtis
2, 17-30.

Schelp, J.
1975, Das Kanoun. Der griechische Opferkorb, (Beitrge zur
Archologie 8), Wrzburg.

Wachter, R.
1991, The inscriptions of the Franois Vase, MusHelv 48,
86-113.

Schmitt-Pantel, P. & Thelamon, F.

1983, Image et histoire: Illustration ou document. In:

Webster, T.B.L.
1972, Potter and patron in classical Athens, London.

114

gunnel ekroth

Williams, D.
1983, Women on Athenian vases: problems of interpretation. In: Cameron, A. & Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Images of women
in antiquity, Detroit, 92-105.

Yavis, C.G.
1949, Greek altars. Origins and typology including the Minoan-Mycenaean offertory apparatus, Saint Louis.

Wrede, H.
1986, Die antike Herme, (Trierer Beitrge zur Altertumskunde
1), Mainz.

Zanker, P.
1965, Wandel der Hermesgestalt in der attischen Vasenmalerei, (Antiquitas 2), Bonn.