CAPÍTULO 2. ANÁLISIS CRÍTICO DE LA PIZARRA DE BÉISBOL EXISTENTE
2.1 Características generales de los visualizadores utilizados
Figure 1.1: Mosaic in the andron of the house on Menander Street, Athens
In this first chapter the vase is re-situated in the households and taverns of Athens. These relational contexts provide a venue for the circulation of the vase, which arrived as a commodity with economic value, and remained as a performative object with social agency. As outlined in the Introduction, this transformation from commodity to social agent was due to an accumulation of meaning in the life of the vase. This object provoked a response in the user, then making it possible to act as a manifestation of social relations. Here, the vase is a secondary-agent, gaining agency through interaction with another. Beginning with the household and tavern, whose influences on the vase were drawn from the social institution of the symposium, has had
2
a dramatic effect upon scholarly approaches to the vase.1 These two relational contexts are explored together under the term domestic, which is defined here as private and concerned with an individual or family unit. The emphasis on private relates to the separation between public contexts, such as meeting places and institutional buildings, and the environment of establishments and households outside the official controls of the polis. It would be overly simplistic to make a binary distinction between public and private, as the household and other establishments were indirectly influenced by the wider polis.2 Both relational contexts, the household and tavern, had a significantly varied effect upon the performance of the vase, for instance, in the domestic world the vase is both a social facilitator and a ritual offering.
Archaeological evidence for both contexts is generally “patchy” and incomplete amongst the modern buildings of Athens; however, there remains enough material to gain a significant insight into the experience of the vase.3 With particular regard for the domestic context, emphasis is placed upon size as a component of the functionality of the vase. Size is defined quite literarily as the variance in the dimensions of the vase, which resulted in a confused understanding of the relationship between function and shape. Certain vessels in particular were produced in a great variety of sizes, for example, the kylix or cup varies in diameter from 12cms to more than 46cms. Similarly, the lekythos appears in squat form at 14cms high, to later white-ground examples, measuring up to 48cms.4 This discussion explores the impact such variation in size had upon the experience of the vase, with a focus on miniature cups, measuring little more than 1cm high. Before considering these issues, discussion begins by establishing a definition of the symposium aided by archaeological evidence.
Without considering the basic questions of what the vase did in the relational contexts in which it found itself, we cannot hope to understand a society through the vase, until we have understood how society worked with the vase. Here, the intention is to uncover this process.
Two Rooms on Menander Street and the Symposium
On the northern edge of the ancient city of Athens, the 1966 excavations of the Greek
1 For an example of this, see Lissarrague (1990) and (1994) in particular. 2
For an extensive discussion on the distinction between public and private, see Cohen (1992) 71-97, Cohen explains that the intrusion into the private sphere of the household was key to democratic ideals, and therefore broke down the boundaries of public and private.
3 Nevett (1994) 101, Allison (1999) 6. For brief details of excavated houses in Athens, see Thompson and
Wycherley (1972) 173ff, Travlos (1980) 392-9, Graham (1974) 45-54 and Camp (1992) 145ff.
4
3
Archaeological Service unearthed two elaborate mosaic floors from a fourth-century house, now referred to as 'the house on Menander Street'.5 The anteroom, a circle within a square, has a pebble mosaic with griffins in the corner. While only a small section of mosaic from the second room survives, depicting two griffins attacking a stag, this and the entrance through an off-centre doorway has led archaeologists to identify this room as the andron and the anteroom. Both of these rooms are typically associated with the domestic symposium – the use of domestic is significant here (fig.1.1).6
The institution of the symposium in its archetypal form was essential to the formulation of social relationships within Greek society from c.750 B.C onwards. As Phocylides states, the ideal mood was one of restraint and order; “As the cups are going around at a party, you should sit there and chatter pleasantly as you drink your wine”.7 Evidently, such ideals were not always upheld, as the symposium is also heralded as a place of misbehaviour and anti-establishment feeling, particularly during the democracy.8 Murray provides the following definition of the symposium as a ritualised, aristocratic and all male activity; “The time of 'drinking together' (symposion) was separated from the meal before it (deipnon) and became the main focus of attention. The male participants wore garlands, and libations and prayers began and ended the proceedings. The Greeks adopted the practice of reclining on the left elbow (one or two to a couch); from this evolved a characteristic shape of room, and a standard size for the drinking group.”9 Although Murray refers to the domestic location, the implication of having such an institution within the household is not discussed. By inserting 'domestic' before symposium, Nevett makes a significant distinction which allows for variations in experience and venues, as well as directly confronting the location of the archetypal symposium within the domestic zone.10 The non-domestic symposium, similar in form to the domestic symposium, could take place in government buildings, or within sanctuary complexes. However, the location of the “key masculine activity” within the household, Nevett argues, contradicts our understanding of gendered space, and questions the emphasis placed upon the andron as being a separate
5
Deltion 22, 1967.
6 Graham (1974) 51, Wycherley (1978) 243-244, Travlos (1980) 392-9, see Bergquist (1994) for
architecture of symposia, Nevett (2010) 47-48.
7 Athen.10.428b .Translation Olson (2009). 8
For example mutilation of the hermes was thought to have been perpetrated by a drinking group, see Murray (1990) 149-161 and Osborne (1985) 47-67.
9
Murray, O. ‘Symposium’, Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd Revised (2003) 1461.
10
4
world; in reality, this could only have been temporary.11 Davidson discusses the transformative power of the sympotic space over the guests; “Within the little andron the drinkers could travel long distances”.12 In a similar vein, Lissarrague explores the powerful experience of drinking wine within such a closed environment, and suggests that drinkers may “...take an excursion outside oneself”, whilst being confronted with painted vases acting as reflections of the drinkers and their values.13 Neer suggests that the images painted on vases reflect the politicial and social stance of those attending symposium. Furthermore, Neer argues that the chief function of Attic pottery was in the symposium, and therefore, the institution and its culture can be used to illuminate the painted image.14 In Neer’s words, “Attic pottery is symposium furniture”.15
Opposition to this socially polarized view of the symposium has considered the practice of less formal domestic drinking. Fisher suggests that drinking in Athens was done on a much more flexible basis; “Meanwhile, ‘ordinary’ Athenians (and metics) no doubt drank and snacked a great deal and quite cheaply sitting in or outside their local bars, or they took the necessary food and drink home or out on shared picnics.”16 More flexible still are the carts referred to by Alexis, suggesting than some alcohol providers were transportable and likely to be found by springs, selling wine to be drunk straight away.17 Furthermore, Fisher also argues for the social mobility of the period, suggesting that the majority of Athenians did have the chance to experience communal drinking, and emphasises an increasingly democratising influence on the symposium.18 By the end of the fifth century, Wilkins suggests that the symposium was no longer an elite pastime. Elaborate drinking rituals were now available in public dining contexts, discussed in Chapter Two, and comedy of this period played upon a wide interest and knowledge of drinking activities which took a sympotic form. Wilkins states that drinking at the tavern should be seen alongside other forms of commensality, which took place at home, in less formal situations.19 A less rigid definition of the symposium needs to be adopted, which does
11 Nevett (2010) 49. 12 Davidson (1997) 44. 13 Lissarrague (1990) 11. 14 Neer (2002) 9-26 15 Neer (2002) 10 16 Fisher (2000) 355.
17 Alexis 9.5 Kassel-Austin Poetae Comici Graeci (De Gruyter, 1991) Volume 2. For a brief discussion of
the fragment and its place within the drinking facilities of Athens, see Davidson (1997) 55-56 and Kelly- Blazeby (2008) 33-35.
18
Fisher (2000) 355.
19
5
not result in the majority of Athenians drinking only at the tavern.20
Archaeological evidence for the widespread practice of the symposium within the domestic context – which is generally limited to the architectural evidence of andrones, mosaics and raised borders - varies depending first, on the period discussed, and second, upon the definition of the symposium applied to the evidence. For instance, was the andron essential for hosting symposia? Recently, Lynch has challenged the elite status of the symposium during the Late Archaic period by suggesting that the dramatic increase in sympotic pottery excavated from domestic areas was due to an increase in participation in communal drinking. This is not supported by an increase in andrones in households.21 In the pre-Classical period, there is no architectural evidence for the symposium and it is only during the fifth century that clear evidence of andrones begin to emerge.22 In a recent publication, Lynch has conducted the first contextualised symposium in a late archaic house discussed shortly in this chapter.23 Up to this point an analysis of material culture is the only way to understand the spread of communal drinking in the pre-Classical period.
Certain scholarship on this subject has a tendency to treat material culture, particularly painted vases, as substitutes for definitive architectural evidence. Used as an interpretative support for textual references, the usefulness of material culture is limited.24 Futhermore, an emphasis upon the image and form of the vase over and above function, results in a disregard for plain black-glazed tableware which represents the majority of the ceramic material in Athens.25 Of particular interest to Greek cultural historians is the large quantity of so-called sympotic scenes, which depict groups of reclined drinkers. Peaking around 500 B.C, these scenes are fairly generic with no specific iconographic features to contextualise the image. Architectural features such as columns are depicted alongside objects such as tables, leading to a confused amalgamation of the contexts could be domestic, civic or religious.26 For example, a tondo of a red-figure cup, dated to 510 B.C and excavated from a shaft on Kolonos Agoraios, alongside the temple of Hephaistos, depicts a youth reclining and playing kottabos (fig.1.2).27
20 For this suggestion, see Davidson (1997) 59-60. 21
Lynch (2007) 243, 247 and forthcoming.
22 Nevett (2010) 50-55. 23
Lynch (2011).
24 For example, Keuls (1993) and Kilmer (1993), for this point see Nevett (2010) 57. 25
See Rotroff (1997) for red figured vases in context.
26 Nevett (2010) 58, Schmitt-Pantel (1990) 18-20. 27
G 6:3, P 1274. All grid references and vase numbers are taken from the Agora Excavations, specifically Moore (1997).
6
The youth holds a skyphos and flicks wine from a cup. The youth is described as reclining on a couch, and yet the feet of the couch are not visible.28 There is nothing in this image which provides context. Another example, this time a fragment of a red-figure krater, dated roughly to the late fifth, early fourth century, was excavated from a cistern in the residential area behind South Stoa I. The fragment depicts the lower half of a woman, standing alongside a couch and on the decorated frieze of the border, which acts as a mosaic floor. The couch is clearly recognisable due to its pronounced legs (fig.1.3).29 In front of the couch is a table, which suggests the presence of food. The combination of food and drink in the same scene confuses the timing of the symposium as after a meal. Caution should be taken when interpreting these scenes as depictions of domestic symposia.
Painted pottery cannot be reduced to the status of illustrative data. However, this is frequently the case, and demonstrated in the lack of care taken when recording the finds of pottery during excavations of houses in Athens. This results in an inability to use such finds as reconstructions of the domestic environment, its life cycle and lifestyle of the inhabitants.30 This concern is expressed by Ault and Nevett; “Such an attitude to the material suggests that the main interest of the objects found in the houses was still perceived as being intrinsic to those objects themselves rather than lying in the picture created by the assemblages as a whole”.31 An approach of this type fails to engage with the connection between contexts and objects.
The approach of this study perceives the vase as an artefact firmly attached to context which results in an accumulation of meaning. Gosden and Marshall refer to this processs as the cultural biography of objects, stating; “Not only do objects change through their existence, but they often have the capability of accumulating histories, so that the present significance of an object derives from the persons and events to which it is connected”.32 It is this capability, and the performance of the vase which forms a connection between people and things, that in turn results in the vase being able to act as a social agent within a relational context.
In the domestic context, the vase was both a social facilitator during the symposium and a ritual object during ritual practice. This chapter aims to consider both. However, the use of the vase during communal drinking activitues is not restricted to the symposium, which is not rigidly
28 Moore (1997) 342. 29
P 26061.
30 Ault and Nevett (1999) 45, 49. 31
Ibid.
32
7
defined as elite, but as a widespread social event. An exploration into the domestic experience of the vase begins here, first with an analysis of the domestic context, followed by an analysis of the use of size as an evocation for the ritualised meaning of the vase.