The Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, as the title suggests, is an amphora, “a two-handled pot with a neck that is considerably narrower than the body,”[endnoteRef:1] that is suspected to have been produced by an artist known as the “Euphiletos Painter” in Athens (within the Attica region of Greece), somewhere between the years of 540 and 530 B.C.E.[endnoteRef:20283] Eventually, however, the piece has come to be housed in the antiquities section of the Philbrook Museum of Art, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since 1967.[endnoteRef:29248] As for the work itself, the dimensions are 15 ⅛ inches tall by 10 ½ inches wide (metrically speaking, 38.4 × 26.7 cm)[endnoteRef:23440], and its medium is black-figured terracotta, as well as the paint used to decorate its surface.[endnoteRef:17399] The work also has not one, but two subjects, located on either side of the vase. The side that’s being displayed from its case illustrates the mythical Heracles grappling with King Triton, whilst the other displays Zeus and his son, Dionysus, flanked on either side by what appear to be satyrs. [1: The Beazley Archive Pottery Database, Classical Art Research Centre, the section is titled “Neck-amphora” (found underneath the “resources” tab), published online, Oxford University, no copyright date found, no page number. https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/tools/pottery/shapes/neck.htm --Most of these databases and museum websites I used don’t have most of the information that you’re looking for in your endnote guidelines, so I just did my best to accurately describe where the information is on each website and filling out the info that I can. I don’t find the Chicago-style format for websites/databases without authors or page numbers give a good idea of where the quote/info came from, so I just tried to be as descriptive with these as possible for you. ] [20283: Object label for Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, at the Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK. Seen on October 5, 2019.] [29248: Object label for Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, at the Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK. Seen on October 5, 2019.] [23440: Object label for Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, at the Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK. Seen on October 5, 2019.] [17399: Philbrook Museum of Art, Collections, Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, http://philbrook.emuseum.com/objects/4104/amphora-with-zeus-and-dionysus?ctx=f496a591-0abb-45e9-9241-73d62624a5fc&idx=1]
The Archaic period of Greek art history, according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET), encompasses works of art whose origin lies somewhere between the years 700 through 480 B.C.E.[endnoteRef:23579] However, two things should be noted here, the first being that the Philbrook Museum of Art does not offer Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus’ stylistic period on either its label, or their collections website, and must therefore be inferred. The second is that Philbrook does offer two different date ranges for the piece... Its entry in the museum’s collections website displays it as being 530-520 B.C.E., but seeing as how the website also appeared not to have entries for some of the other artifacts in the display case alongside it, it seems more likely that the website label is out of date.[endnoteRef:29682] If that is the case, then the date that appears on the physical label, 540-530 B.C.E., is likely the correct date range for Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus.[endnoteRef:19849] [23579: “Ancient Greece, 1000 B.C.–1 A.D.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04®ion=eusb (October 2000).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
] [29682: Philbrook Museum of Art, Collections, Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, http://philbrook.emuseum.com/objects/4104/amphora-with-zeus-and-dionysus?ctx=f496a591-0abb-45e9-9241-73d62624a5fc&idx=1] [19849: Object label for Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, at the Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, OK. Seen on October 5, 2019.]
And so, due to the suspected date of its creation placing it somewhere in the middle of the 6th century B.C.E., the Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus would fall within the Archaic period of Greek art. In comparison to the Geometric period that came before it, the Archaic period can be described as “a more naturalistic style reflecting significant influence from the Near East and Egypt,”[endnoteRef:3123] that emphasized the order and beauty of the natural world around them. Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus is abundant with geometric shapes, and though intricate, the figures could hardly be described as naturalistic, and so it would appear that perhaps it was an anomaly within its period for these reasons. However, this can be explained by the fact that while some artisans from other cities (such as Corinth) did in fact create such naturalistic artwork, “the vase painters of Athens were more inclined to illustrate mythological scenes” during the Archaic period, and Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus seems to have been one of them.[endnoteRef:8107] What’s more, neck-amphorae such as this one were “common from the Geometric period (c. 900 BC) to the decline of Greek pottery”.[endnoteRef:15662] All of this seems to suggest that Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus is more likely to be a continuation of previous styles rather than a break from the new one. But the purpose of Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus likely wouldn’t have been the transportation of liquids, food, and other goods, as was the case with most other amphorae.[endnoteRef:31182] Instead, like other “wide-mouthed, painted amphorae,”[endnoteRef:31548] the purpose of this amphora would likely have been either to serve as a liquid decanter used to store and pour liquids for religious ceremonies or perhaps as a prize for the winner of athletic competition. This last option actually has the most support of the two, as the Euphiletos Painter is also associated with the making of the Terracotta Panathenaic Prize Amphora as well.[endnoteRef:24088] Whatever the Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus did or did not contain within it, the artwork of the amphora itself is prize enough. [3123: Department of Greek and Roman Art. “Greek Art in the Archaic Period.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/argk/hd_argk.htm (October 2003)] [8107: Department of Greek and Roman Art. “Greek Art in the Archaic Period.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/argk/hd_argk.htm (October 2003). ] [15662: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Amphora, Encyclopedia Britannica, inc. Published August 01, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/art/amphora-pottery ] [31182: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Amphora, Encyclopedia Britannica, inc. Published August 01, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/art/amphora-pottery] [31548: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Amphora, Encyclopedia Britannica, inc. Published August, 01, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/art/amphora-pottery] [24088: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Collections, Terracotta Panathenaic prize amphora, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/248902?&searchField=All&sortBy=Relevance&ft=Euphiletos+Painter&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=1]
The medium upon which these two scenes are found is a semi-smooth, goldish-orange terracotta. The terracotta’s coloring appears to radiate a soft glow when light touches its surface and is broken up only by the black geometric patterns and figures that have been painted and etched upon its surface. This contrast of color implemented by the artist makes the figures themselves stand out much more, as though the two stories are silhouetted by some majestic light in their background. The bottom of the vase is ringed by three distinct geometric patterns that lead up to the space in which the narratives of each side are displayed. The bottom two rings appear to be leaves of sorts, while the topmost ring is a rather boxy geometric pattern formed from a singular, traceable line, as though it were following some unseen order. Perhaps the artist intended this sequence of rings to symbolize the importance of order over nature, its victory, even. The framing of the subjects in this way puts them on a sort of a pedestal, magnificent stories that are supported by beauty, nature, and quite literally above all else, order. Within what would otherwise be an empty plane in the center, lie the two subjects of the piece. On the side facing the display, two black figures flank what appears to be a sea monster, half man from the torso up, and a large, serpent-like tail below the waist. Behind and around this irrational creature, another figure appears to be attempting a chokehold on around its neck. This figure is much smaller than his counterpart, and yet appears to be winning the fight due to the pained face of his opponent. Again the author seems to symbolize that idea of order claiming victory over nature, and the non-rational.
As previously mentioned, this figure has been identified as Heracles, the mythical Greek hero whose feats of strength and determination are displayed here, fighting who has been identified as King Triton, the son of Poseidon. The artist’s depiction of Heracles grappling with a sea monster was actually a common trope in Archaic Attic pottery, and a number of theories have been put forth to explain the significance of this scene.[endnoteRef:3388] Firstly, it is asserted by scholars that prior to the 6th century B.C.E. that “so far as poets and mythographers were concerned, Herakles' associations with a mutating sea-god were strictly confined to Nereus.”[endnoteRef:13554] To some, this change can be attributed to Piesastris, the leader of Athens during this time period, who sought to create propaganda out of an Athenian naval victory.[endnoteRef:28911] And it’s suspected, then, Piesastris found that “Nereus was unsuitable for propaganda purposes”[endnoteRef:13252], and in Triton he created a new and more formidable enemy for Heracles to defeat, making his victory seem all the more impressive. The Euphiletos Painter, it seems, was operating under these orders in his depiction of Heracles and Triton, helping Piesastris celebrate his victory. [3388: Glynn, Ruth. 'Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens.' American Journal of Archaeology 85, no. 2 (1981): pg. 121. doi:10.2307/505032. ] [13554: Glynn, Ruth. 'Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens.' American Journal of Archaeology 85, no. 2 (1981): pg. 121. doi:10.2307/505032.] [28911: Glynn, Ruth. 'Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens.' American Journal of Archaeology 85, no. 2 (1981): pg. 131-134. doi:10.2307/505032.] [13252: Glynn, Ruth. 'Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens.' American Journal of Archaeology 85, no. 2 (1981): pg. 132. doi:10.2307/505032.]
On the back side of the Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus, lies the namesake for this particular amphora, and rather ironically, much less is known about the symbolism of this specific iteration of the subject, other than its portrayal of the gods Zeus and Dionysus. The two figures appear to celebrate something, as they share a drink-vessel (presumably filled with wine) whilst surrounded by satyrs. The juxtaposition of the order that the gods represent to the irrationality of the Satyrs seems to suggest an acceptable coexistence between the two. If victory over the irrational is in fact what the Euphiletos Painter was portraying in Heracles and Triton, then this would appear to be its antithesis. But these two subjects are not separate works of art for a reason, and so then perhaps the Euphiletos Painter meant to suggest that through victory over the irrational world, the indulgence in celebrating that victory is at times logical; a message that would likely be welcomely received by the victor who won this amphora more than two-thousand years ago.
The Euphiletos Painter’s Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus appears to have been an exploration into themes of rational men conquering unnatural and illogical aspects to life, and through taming the irrational that they encounter within their world, they might find the perfect balance of the two extremes-- two halves of the whole, the two sides of the same vase. This interpretation seems to accommodate the two stories quite well with one another, as that theme of coexistence between the two realities reflects the dual-sided nature of Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus itself. The piece originally had little effect on me, and I was not particularly moved by what, at the end of the day, was a decorated vase. But the more I looked at the amount of detail that went into each line, the skill and dedication required to craft something that is both simplistic, and complex. Far from its physical reality, Amphora with Zeus and Dionysus isn’t some hollow piece of history, it’s also a vessel for an idea that somebody had a purpose in creating, one that challenges the viewer to rationalize its message.
Stuck on your essay?
