of large figures (Mattusch 1988). Complex groups became possible. One dedication mentioned by Herodotus, a tithe from Athenian ransom of Chalicidian and Boeotian prisoners (507/6), took the form of a four‐horse CHARIOT, a conspicuously large sculptural composition (5.77.4). It was located at the entrance to the Athenian ACROPOLIS; parts of the base survive (IG I3 501; ML 15).
References to paintings (graphai) are limited to a sanctuary context (1.164.3; 2.182; 4.86). The votive paintings left by the fleeing Phocaeans (1.164.3) were perhaps wooden pinakes (tablets); surviving examples in wood and fired clay are simple compositions, showing mortal or divine subjects. The one work of art described in detail by Herodotus (4.88) is a painting mentioned due to its historical interest. MANDROCLES of SAMOS, the engineer who designed the pontoon BRIDGE for the Scythian campaign of DARIUS I, dedicated the painting as a tithe in the Samian HERAION. On it he had depicted “all the bridging of the BOSPORUS, king Darius sitting on a throne, and his army crossing over”; an epigram accompanied it. The painting sounds more spatially ambitious than anything we know in Greek art of the ARCHAIC AGE; there is no known parallel in the arts of PERSIA, but prior Neo‐ASSYRIAN relief sculpture includes complex historical themes. This image of Darius on a throne VIEWING the crossing of his army perhaps lies behind Herodotus’ own description of XERXES later observing events from an elevated position (7.44; 8.90.4).
A monumental painting of the 460s, the Battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile (“Painted Stoa”) in the Athenian AGORA—a radical new separation of graphic arts from the sanctuary context—possibly served as a source for Herodotus’ account of the iconic battle. Herodotus does not mention the painting; we know of it from elsewhere, notably Pausanias (1.15.3) and a Roman sarcophagus in Brescia including a battle with Persians on ships. Curious gaps in Herodotus’ narrative, and echoes between the apparent tripartite structure of the painting and his account of the battle on the plain, in the marshes, and at the ships, may be explained by the painting (Jeffery 1965). On it CALLIMACHUS as polemarch was conspicuous, but so, too, were the hero Echetlus, the general MILTIADES THE YOUNGER, and CYNEGEIRUS (AESCHYLUS’ brother), whose hand was chopped off as he grasped a Persian ship (6.114). The prominence of Miltiades, father of CIMON THE YOUNGER, is notable. The painting, commissioned by one of Cimon’s circle, evidently aimed to repair family reputability after Miltiades’ post‐MARATHON disgrace. There is good reason to suspect that all subsequent understanding of the battle was shaped by this carefully crafted representation dating a full generation after the actual event.
SEE ALSO: Archaeology; Architecture (Temples); Epigraphy; Inventions; Monumentality; Temples and Sanctuaries
REFERENCES
1 Colonia, Rosina. 2006. The Archaeological Museum of Delphi. Athens: Latsis Foundation.
2 Faure, Paul. 1985. "Les Dioscures à Delphes." AC 54: 56–65.
3 Jeffery, Lillian H. 1965. "The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile: A Problem in Greek Art and History." ABSA 57: 41–57.
4 Mattusch, Carol C. 1988. Greek Bronze Statuary: From the Beginnings through the Fifth Century B.C. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5 Vatin, Claude. 1982. “Monuments votifs de Delphes.” BCH 106: 519–25.
FURTHER READING
1 Barringer, Judith. 2015. The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2 Schaus, G. P. 1988. "The Beginning of Greek Polychrome Painting." JHS 108: 107–17.
3 Stewart, Andrew. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
ARTABANUS (Ἀρτάβανος, ὁ)
CARLO SCARDINO
Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf
Brother of DARIUS I and uncle of XERXES, two successive kings of PERSIA. During Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 BCE. Artabanus served as regent in Persia. In the Histories he appears above all as an ADVISER and warner‐figure. Thus he unsuccessfully warns Darius in a short, indirect speech before the king’s campaign against the SCYTHIANS in 513 (4.83). Similarly he is Darius’ conversation partner in a longer indirect dialogue at the end of that campaign (4.143).
Most significant is his role in the royal council before Xerxes’ campaign against Greece (7.8–19), where Artabanus serves as a warner‐figure against the warmongering MARDONIUS, akin to SOLON or HECATAEUS earlier in the Histories and reminiscent of similar figures lacking broader CHARACTERIZATION from Athenian TRAGEDY. In his first, clearly structured direct speech (7.10), Artabanus warns Xerxes above all with an analeptic reference to Darius’ failed Scythian campaign, a negative exemplum; his speech is initially unsuccessful, as Xerxes’ angry reaction shows (7.11). During the night Xerxes changes his mind on the basis of Artabanus’ explanation (7.12), and on the following day the king states his agreement with his opinion before the council. After Xerxes’ dream ordering him to proceed with the campaign, Artabanus, though skeptical of the divine origin of DREAMS, nevertheless agrees to an experiment in which he sleeps in Xerxes’ place (7.16). After the same dream appears and threatens him, he approves the campaign despite his doubts (7.18).
Artabanus has one more long conversation with Xerxes before the crossing into EUROPE (7.46–52), in which he warns the king of the danger Nature presents, the problem of supplying the army, and the loyalty of the IONIANS. Xerxes takes note of his judgment and attempts to refute each point, before sending Artabanus back to SUSA to serve as regent during his absence from ASIA. After the sack of ATHENS, Xerxes sends a MESSENGER with the report of victory to Artabanus (8.54).
Herodotus specifies that this Artabanus is father of the Persian general TRITANTAECHMES (7.82; 8.26.2); he may also be the Artabanus named as father of three other Persian commanders: ARTYPHIUS (7.66.2), ARIOMARDUS (7.67.1, implied), and BASSACES (7.75.2). Artabanus may be identical with the Irdabanuš named in the PERSEPOLIS Fortification Tablets (PF 1287 and 1555) as SATRAP of Bactria around 500 BCE (cf. Hallock 1969, 703; Balcer 1993, 69–70).
SEE ALSO: Causation; Decision‐making; Speeches
REFERENCES
1 Balcer, Jack Martin. 1993. A Prosopographical Study of the Ancient Persians Royal and Noble c. 550–450 B.C. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
2 Hallock, Richard T. 1969. Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
FURTHER READING
1 Gärtner, Hans A. 1983. “Les rêves de Xerxès et d’Artabane chez Hérodote.” Ktèma 8: 11–18.
2 Pelling, Christopher B. R. 1991. “Thucydides’ Archidamus and Herodotus’ Artabanus.” In Georgica. Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell, edited by Michael A. Flower and Mark Toher, 120–42. London: Institute of Classical Studies.
3 Scardino, Carlo. 2007. Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden bei Herodot und Thukydides. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schmitt, IPGL, pp. 99–101.
ARTABATES (Ἀρταβάτης, ὁ)
CHRISTOPHER BARON
