by Mary Harrsch © 2025
Today's artifact is a Roman marble copy of the shield of the gold and ivory statue of Athena from the Parthenon, showing Pheidias and Pericles as two men standing back-to-back below the central mask of a gorgon: Pheidias the balding figure on the left with arms raised, wielding an ax over an Amazon with Pericles to the right, one foot raised on a fallen Amazon and arms raised obscuring his face from view.
 |
| Roman marble copy of the shield of the gold and ivory statue of Athena from the Parthenon, showing Pheidias and Pericles as two men standing back-to-back below the central mask of a gorgon: Pheidias the balding figure on the left with arms raised, wielding an ax over an Amazon with Pericles to the right, one foot raised on a fallen Amazon and arms raised obscuring his face from view. This fragment in the British Museum was purchased in 1864 from Percy Smythe, 8th Viscount Strangford who inherited it from Percy Clinton Sydney Smythe, 6th Viscount Strangford, a British politician and diplomat who served as Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1821–1824. I photographed it there in 2016. |
By immortalizing themselves within the Athena Parthenos and its decorative program, Pheidias and Pericles emphasized their roles as the architects of Athens’ intellectual and artistic flourishing. The central battle motif was not merely decorative but symbolic, representing the triumph of order (Greek civilization) over chaos (the foreign, often depicted as barbaric Amazons). This imagery resonated strongly with Athenian identity in the 5th century BCE. However, ancient sources (such as Plutarch) suggest that Pheidias faced accusations of impiety and self-aggrandizement for including Pericles and himself in such a significant religious work.
ChatGPT asked me if I thought the symbolism of the Amazonomachy might have carried added meaning in the Roman era, beyond its Athenian associations and I replied yes, due to Rome's continuing struggle against chaos because of the "barbaric" incursions of the 3rd century CE.
ChatGPT responded, "Exactly! The Roman Empire of the 3rd century CE was deeply embattled, grappling with external invasions by "barbarian" groups such as the Goths, Vandals, and Sarmatians, as well as internal instability brought on by the Crisis of the Third Century. The Amazonomachy motif, with its allegory of civilization triumphing over chaos, would have carried heightened resonance during this turbulent time.
For the Romans, "barbarism" was not just a military threat but also an existential one—challenging the very ideals of Romanitas (Roman identity and civilization). The imagery of the Amazonomachy, inherited from Greek art, served as a powerful metaphor for Rome’s ongoing battle to maintain order, unity, and cultural supremacy against both internal and external threats.
The Athena Parthenos’ shield, with its battle scenes, could be seen as particularly relevant in this context:
The Amazons represented "the other," the chaotic and threatening forces that challenged the Greek (and later Roman) ideal of an ordered society.
Athena herself symbolized wisdom, strategy, and martial power—all attributes the Romans would have aspired to embody during their struggles.
The reproduction of such iconic imagery in the 3rd century CE might reflect the Roman elite’s attempt to reinforce these values as Rome faced fragmentation. By celebrating Greek heritage, they linked their current struggles to the heroic past of Athens’ Golden Age, seeking to invoke the same resilience and cultural brilliance.
It’s fascinating to think about how the meaning of these scenes evolved over time. While Athens celebrated its triumphs over mythical foes, the Romans likely saw themselves as the inheritors of that legacy, fighting their own battles to preserve civilization."
ChatGPT then asked me, "Do you think this reinterpretation of the shield’s iconography might have been consciously intended by its Roman patrons?" and I replied yes due to its production date of the 3rd century.
"ChatGPT responded, "That makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the broader cultural and political climate of the 3rd century CE. By consciously selecting this particular motif for reproduction, Roman patrons could project a deliberate narrative of continuity and resilience—framing their own struggles against external threats as a reflection of the legendary victories celebrated in Greek mythology.
"This strategic choice also reinforces the idea of cultural propaganda. Through the reproduction of such iconic works, Roman elites not only paid homage to Athens’ Golden Age but also sought to reinforce their legitimacy as the torchbearers of classical civilization. The symbolism would have resonated deeply with educated Romans, who were steeped in Greek history, mythology, and artistic traditions.
"The depiction of Pheidias and Pericles, specifically, could have been especially significant:
"Pheidias, as the great sculptor of divine and heroic figures, symbolized artistic mastery and cultural achievement.
Pericles, the statesman who oversaw Athens’ transformation, represented strong leadership and the ability to guide a society through challenges.
"For a Roman patron commissioning this reproduction, these figures may have been intended to draw parallels to contemporary Roman leaders striving to restore order and unity in a fractious empire. The shield could thus serve as a subtle yet powerful statement about the role of art, culture, and leadership in shaping and preserving civilization."
Then ChatGPT asked me "Could the shield have been used as a kind of symbolic "self-portrait" of the patron’s own ambitions?"
I replied, "Perhaps, its findspot in Athens but identification as Roman may point to its selection for reproduction by some wealthy magistrate like a proconsul assigned to govern Greece at the time."
ChatGPT then responded: "That's a compelling hypothesis! A proconsul governing Greece during the 3rd century CE would have been an ideal candidate to commission or select this reproduction of Athena’s shield. As a Roman official, their role was not just administrative but also cultural, acting as a mediator between Roman imperial authority and the Greek provinces under their jurisdiction.
"By commissioning or bringing such an artifact to light, the proconsul could have sought to:
Demonstrate cultural fluency: Aligning themselves with Greek heritage, which was highly revered in Roman intellectual circles, could bolster their prestige and legitimacy among both Greek elites and their peers in Rome.
Invoke shared values: The depiction of Pericles and Pheidias on the shield could reflect the proconsul’s desire to highlight their own virtues—leadership, strategy, and cultural refinement—by drawing parallels to these iconic figures of Athenian history.
Promote unity: Amid the upheaval of the 3rd century, celebrating the triumphs of the Greek past might have been a subtle way to reassure the Greek populace of the enduring connection between Rome and Greece, while also reminding them of Rome's stewardship over their legacy.
"The findspot in Athens might further suggest that the shield was displayed in a public or semi-public space, perhaps in an administrative center or as part of a ceremonial display. This could imply that its presence was not just personal but also political—a message from the proconsul to the people of Athens, and perhaps to the broader Roman world, about the values and ideals they sought to uphold during their tenure.
"Given its dual identity—crafted in a Roman context but rooted in Athenian iconography—the shield might symbolize the dynamic interplay between the Roman adoption of Greek culture and the local significance of Athens as a cultural and historical touchstone."
Since the piece was so detailed, I wondered when the original shield in the temple was destroyed and was surprised to learn that the earliest period recorded when the shield may have met its fate was actually far later than I had originally thought, when the city of Athens was invaded by the Heruli, a Germanic tribe in 267 CE. This devastating raid caused significant damage to many structures in the city, including parts of the Acropolis. While it's unclear whether the original Athena Parthenos statue and its shield were still intact by this time, the invasion may have been a critical moment of destruction if they had survived earlier periods. With this copy dated between 200-300 CE, it may have actually been made before the original shield's destruction.
ChatGPT asked me if I thought the symbolism of the Amazonomachy might have carried added meaning in the Roman era, beyond its Athenian associations and I replied yes, due to Rome's continuing struggle against chaos because of the "barbaric" incursions of the 3rd century CE.
ChatGPT responded, "Exactly! The Roman Empire of the 3rd century CE was deeply embattled, grappling with external invasions by "barbarian" groups such as the Goths, Vandals, and Sarmatians, as well as internal instability brought on by the Crisis of the Third Century. The Amazonomachy motif, with its allegory of civilization triumphing over chaos, would have carried heightened resonance during this turbulent time.
For the Romans, "barbarism" was not just a military threat but also an existential one—challenging the very ideals of Romanitas (Roman identity and civilization). The imagery of the Amazonomachy, inherited from Greek art, served as a powerful metaphor for Rome’s ongoing battle to maintain order, unity, and cultural supremacy against both internal and external threats.
The Athena Parthenos’ shield, with its battle scenes, could be seen as particularly relevant in this context:
The Amazons represented "the other," the chaotic and threatening forces that challenged the Greek (and later Roman) ideal of an ordered society.
Athena herself symbolized wisdom, strategy, and martial power—all attributes the Romans would have aspired to embody during their struggles.
The reproduction of such iconic imagery in the 3rd century CE might reflect the Roman elite’s attempt to reinforce these values as Rome faced fragmentation. By celebrating Greek heritage, they linked their current struggles to the heroic past of Athens’ Golden Age, seeking to invoke the same resilience and cultural brilliance.
It’s fascinating to think about how the meaning of these scenes evolved over time. While Athens celebrated its triumphs over mythical foes, the Romans likely saw themselves as the inheritors of that legacy, fighting their own battles to preserve civilization."
ChatGPT then asked me, "Do you think this reinterpretation of the shield’s iconography might have been consciously intended by its Roman patrons?" and I replied yes due to its production date of the 3rd century.
"ChatGPT responded, "That makes a lot of sense, especially in light of the broader cultural and political climate of the 3rd century CE. By consciously selecting this particular motif for reproduction, Roman patrons could project a deliberate narrative of continuity and resilience—framing their own struggles against external threats as a reflection of the legendary victories celebrated in Greek mythology.
"This strategic choice also reinforces the idea of cultural propaganda. Through the reproduction of such iconic works, Roman elites not only paid homage to Athens’ Golden Age but also sought to reinforce their legitimacy as the torchbearers of classical civilization. The symbolism would have resonated deeply with educated Romans, who were steeped in Greek history, mythology, and artistic traditions.
"The depiction of Pheidias and Pericles, specifically, could have been especially significant:
"Pheidias, as the great sculptor of divine and heroic figures, symbolized artistic mastery and cultural achievement.
Pericles, the statesman who oversaw Athens’ transformation, represented strong leadership and the ability to guide a society through challenges.
"For a Roman patron commissioning this reproduction, these figures may have been intended to draw parallels to contemporary Roman leaders striving to restore order and unity in a fractious empire. The shield could thus serve as a subtle yet powerful statement about the role of art, culture, and leadership in shaping and preserving civilization."
Then ChatGPT asked me "Could the shield have been used as a kind of symbolic "self-portrait" of the patron’s own ambitions?"
I replied, "Perhaps, its findspot in Athens but identification as Roman may point to its selection for reproduction by some wealthy magistrate like a proconsul assigned to govern Greece at the time."
ChatGPT then responded: "That's a compelling hypothesis! A proconsul governing Greece during the 3rd century CE would have been an ideal candidate to commission or select this reproduction of Athena’s shield. As a Roman official, their role was not just administrative but also cultural, acting as a mediator between Roman imperial authority and the Greek provinces under their jurisdiction.
"By commissioning or bringing such an artifact to light, the proconsul could have sought to:
Demonstrate cultural fluency: Aligning themselves with Greek heritage, which was highly revered in Roman intellectual circles, could bolster their prestige and legitimacy among both Greek elites and their peers in Rome.
Invoke shared values: The depiction of Pericles and Pheidias on the shield could reflect the proconsul’s desire to highlight their own virtues—leadership, strategy, and cultural refinement—by drawing parallels to these iconic figures of Athenian history.
Promote unity: Amid the upheaval of the 3rd century, celebrating the triumphs of the Greek past might have been a subtle way to reassure the Greek populace of the enduring connection between Rome and Greece, while also reminding them of Rome's stewardship over their legacy.
"The findspot in Athens might further suggest that the shield was displayed in a public or semi-public space, perhaps in an administrative center or as part of a ceremonial display. This could imply that its presence was not just personal but also political—a message from the proconsul to the people of Athens, and perhaps to the broader Roman world, about the values and ideals they sought to uphold during their tenure.
"Given its dual identity—crafted in a Roman context but rooted in Athenian iconography—the shield might symbolize the dynamic interplay between the Roman adoption of Greek culture and the local significance of Athens as a cultural and historical touchstone."
Since the piece was so detailed, I wondered when the original shield in the temple was destroyed and was surprised to learn that the earliest period recorded when the shield may have met its fate was actually far later than I had originally thought, when the city of Athens was invaded by the Heruli, a Germanic tribe in 267 CE. This devastating raid caused significant damage to many structures in the city, including parts of the Acropolis. While it's unclear whether the original Athena Parthenos statue and its shield were still intact by this time, the invasion may have been a critical moment of destruction if they had survived earlier periods. With this copy dated between 200-300 CE, it may have actually been made before the original shield's destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment