!

Carroll "!

J.J. Pollitt writes at length about the role of Pergamene art in the Mediterranean world.1 The relation of Pergamon to the rest of the Greek and Roman empires occurred through various media: economic, artistic, cultural, religious, etc. In the seventh chapter of his book, Art in the Hellenistic Age, Pollitt outlines how the discovery of Greek art through Roman conquest changed the cultural landscape of Rome forever2 and, in his fourth chapter, he discourses about the history of Pergamon itself and how so many extraordinary works became byproducts of the Attalid dynasty. One particular king of Pergamon, Eumenes II, will be pivotal in this paper mainly the era of 186 to 179 BCE, during which he undertook campaigns against the barbarian forces of the Bythinians and Pontos, respectively.3 These conflicts resulted in one of the most remarkable works of art in history: the Altar of Zeus, finished in 180 BCE, which was placed upon the Pergamene Acropolis.4 Wrapped around the Altar was a 400 foot long, 7.5 foot high sculptural frieze: the Gigantomachy, which depicts the legendary struggle between gods and giants (the gods won). Many gods are carved into the frieze, only a few of whom can be named by attributes. Nothing about the frieze is uniform except for the horizontal occurrence of characters; gods hurl spears and snake-entwined jars at recoiling giants, lions bite limbs, robes flow, figures take on every manner of pose; and the only discernible characteristic between the gods and giants is that the former are clothed and armed, whereas the latter are weaponless and naked. L.R. Farnell, writing in the Victorian era, states resolutely that the Gigantomachy of Pergamon depicts the triumph of civilized people over brutes.5 This concept, I suggest, cannot be left to its own devices. Many dilemmas arise: Why was the work created? Why was it so grandiose? Where did the style originate?

Carroll #!

How were the Pergamenians so confident in its creation? Why did a routine tussle with neighboring tribes generate such an unprecedented monument? The actual purpose of the monument was perfectly straightforward: dedicate a monument to the according god, and thank him/her for their grace. Why were the Pergamenians so proud of trouncing some Turkish aborigines? Farnells theory plays deeply into these questions. Principally, the triumph of civilization over aboriginal barbarity can be traced all the way back to the founding of Greek city-states after the first millennium BCE. Famously, cities such as Corinth, Sparta, Plataea, etc. had to oust existing tribes and maintain control over land before establishing a city. Pergamon, however, was already well off at the time, and Eumenes had actually multiplied the citys wealth through the Bythinian and Pontic wars. Since, as Pollitt states explicitly, Pergamon sought to become a beacon of culture in their sector of the Greek world,6 I decided to compare the Gigantomachys style to works from another beacon of culture the Athenian Acropolis. A very superficial comparison of 5th century Athenian art (mainly friezes carved into the Parthenon) to Pergamene art (the Gigantomachy) established a lasting connection in my mind; the two styles must share some conscious continuum of method, style, culture, or artistic merit, aside from shared political-military-religious beliefs. My first thesis in this paper is to provide substantial evidence establishing that Pergamon attempted deliberately and meticulously to induct their city into Attic cultural canon. My second thesis originates in the work of Can Bilsel, who wrote extensively on the repatriation of the Altar to Berlin in 1871.7 Following its discovery by Carl Humann, who was constructing roads for the Ottomans in 1864, Germany was unified between 1870 and 1871; previously, it had been a non-specific assemblage of 234 territories that

Carroll $!

were irreverently bartered between superior powers like currency. As Bismarck strove valiantly to inculcate a unifying sense of nationhood into his newly formed state, the Altar of Zeus and the Gigantomachy seemed instrumental in providing the public with a monument that told of triumph over decentralization. As ever, the story cannot be so simple. James E. Young, writing on the concept of memory-monumentality, defines monuments as common loci around which seemingly common national identity is forged (237).8 By employing a work of art, therefore, Bismarck gave the public an item to which all can adhere on an objective basis, and thus all observers become ingratiated into a singular nationalism; unification was a German experience, and everyone born within German borders may have enjoyed it. But what does it mean when a work of art has physically changed places, both spatially and temporally? Can the re-deployment of art alter its actual function? This is a question about what is constant and dynamic, regarding either the piece itself or its context in time and space. Based upon my research over the last couple of months, the second thesis for this paper will read: The Gigantomachy as a monument originating stylistically in 5th century Athens has not changed meaning, whereas its cultural context has changed dynamically over time. Theoretically, the framework for this paper will revolve around many different authors, all of whom will help reprove the theses I have stated. Each section will cover another author that provides a separate perspective. However, the three primary authors I will be invoking are Neil Leach, Celia Pearce, and the previously mentioned James E. Young. Leachs theory of camouflage is essential in discerning the visual, cultural, and political intentions of the Gigantomachy as regards various points in time and space.9 Visual representation, he argues, is a means of mediating information and relating

Carroll %!

oneself (or a collective self) to some kind of literal or figurative landscape. The landscape in question is cultural, and those employing camouflage are Pergamon and Germany. Pearces theories regarding the production of narrative environments will be invaluable to discerning why the Gigantomachy was made, how various cultures view and harness it, and how the work as a virtual conception represents the culture employing it at the time.10 Youngs conception of the monument has already factored fundamentally into this paper, however I will be demonstrating the various ways in which he applies to specific examples of Athenian and Pergamene monuments on Acropoles or in museums. As I have stated, these authors merely constitute the structure of my paper; but many other authors, yet unnamed, will contribute invaluably along the way. Henri Lefebvre11 will grant overwhelming insight into the logic of owning a cultural item, Diether Thimme12 will help establish stylistic meta-narratives, and Sarantis Symeonoglou13 will provide leagues of detail necessary to comparing Athenian with Pergamene art. Diether Thimmes essay on the individuals who actually created the Gigantomachy can help to illustrate necessary principles of the friezes artistic properties. The motive of the frieze, he writes, was probably set by the one who designed the sculpture, rather than by the actual artists who carved it. Each portion of the frieze was divided into sections, each section having been assigned to a single sculptor. This means that there were many executors of the frieze and, as Thimme goes on to say, the entire work was probably completed within two years. Most importantly, Thimme relates what he (and many other critics) call Pergamene Baroque14, a style inclusive of extreme detail, excessive sculptural presence, lots of undercutting, and essential to my analysis the portrayal of dynamic through drapery. Symeonoglou, discussing friezes on the

Carroll &!

Parthenon, comments on the stunning accuracy of how Athenian artists portrayed anatomy in the gods.15 This applies down to the detail of nails, wrinkles, and how their individual feet rest in their sandals. Even more incredible, I find, is the Athenian development of drapery around the gods. A frieze depicting Poseidon, Apollo and Artemis sitting idly about portrays drapery, in Symeonoglous words, as crisp, gently flowing, and elliptically folded.16 Their clothing is also undercut, imbuing it with stunning presence. In addition, the drapery actually forms around Artemis breasts, an artistic point that truly deifies Athenian sculptural stylistics. Thimmes analysis reveals that the Pergamene artists employed precisely the same method of portraying clothing as their Athenian predecessors: drapery is drawn tight against Selenes thrust thigh, Kybeles clothing is tranquilly at rest, and Phoebes drapery is elliptically borne around her stern stance.17 Undercutting occurs in the Pergamene frieze also. Here, it suggests something far more arresting: the freedom with which each figure can move. The singular and formless quality of drapery suggests there is no limb testing its distribution; drawn drapery suggests that the limb is impelled through it. Farnell, writing sixty years before Thimme, corroborates the nature of drapery in the frieze in equal measure. He describes one unnamable figure as behaving too calmly to rustle its drapery, and therefore existing in the friezes narrative as a nonviolent form.18 Incredibly, Farnell goes on to describe a female character, curiously attacking a giant with a snake-entwined pitcher, whose drapery behaves around her breasts in the exact same manner as with Artemis on the Parthenon frieze.19 This implies much more about Pergamene artistic themes than a chance appreciation for sculpted clothing. A pillar of this analysis states that each frieze (Athenian or Pergamene) was carved into stone with

Carroll '!

bare hands, and that the actual images meaningfully transgressed were carefully planned and executed with careful methodology and narrative. On this subject, we can also include Farnells analysis of the Giants. An arguable Hephaestus famously, the ugliest god he describes on the Gigantomachy of Pergamon as possessing a bourgeois expression, in stark contrast to any given Giant on the frieze.20 These latter beings are illustrated by Farnell to have a semi-human face a monstrous creation, overcharged with course animalism21 Insulting a sculpture must impute in him undertones of Victorian elitism, which would not be a non-academic suggestion. He even considers Oriental influences in the portrayal of giants.22 His evaluation is governed by one very important conception: that the Gigantomachy depicts the triumph of clothed, armed, and civilized beings (the gods) over animalistic pseudo-humans (the Giants). This defines the function of the frieze in Pergamene culture circa 180 BCE, and the friezes stylistic motives account for the origin of the works conception. We can deduce so far that Pergamon sought with one stone to execute both a massive homage to Athens and to establish to all observers that they (and all classical Greek culture) triumphed over the forces of barbarism. As stated in the introduction, each mainland Greek city-state had first to defeat many native forces before establishing lasting settlements which settlements later became Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc. As Professor Sandin once suggested, Athens as a beacon of culture pairs it seamlessly with Pergamon in the Classical-Hellenistic transcendence of cultures.23 Pearce applies insofar as Pergamon is clearly attempting to establish a historical identity with respect to Greek culture. Even if some supernatural link between 5th century Athens and 2nd century Pergamon does not exist, we can still safely assume that it attempted deliberately to

Carroll (!

mimic Athens. Producing a work that depicted Eumenes citys beliefs through an Athenian medium was the presented method of creating identity. In order to enjoy Pearce to the fullest, we must interpret her as suggesting that societies create narrative environments (such as the Altar of Zeus) in order to make what is needed; these narratives are, therefore, virtual representations of beliefs that can be engaged and contemplated in the minds of observers. Lefebvres voice resonates here: those observing the Gigantomachy are being observed by others, and this system generates an almost tangible aura of actualized beliefs in Pergamene society. The Pergamenians wanted to uphold and propagate a certain format of societal behavior down through interpersonal relations, and they did so by representing this behavior in a grandiose display via the Gigantomachy (and framing Altar). In order to truly concretize matters, however, further analysis of Athenian culture is required. Jeffrey Hurwits essay on the Athenian Acropolis reveals much about the purposes of dedication-oriented art.24 Works such as the Parthenon were designed to house such ceremonies as prayer, sacrifice, libation and dedication25 all of which were deeply specific in their execution. Dedications and votives were meant to pay the gods, that they might reciprocate with their grace. It was, in other words, a heavenly economic transaction. However, the Acropolis cannot be written off as little more than a stage on which dedications were made; one would still need to explain the daunting detail and craftsmanship extent there, and why such artistic prowess was necessary. If the Athenians wanted merely a space in which to make dedications, they would not have needed to create any structures at all, except for, perhaps, a raised platform. Furthermore, such structures as the Parthenon and Erechtheion sported revolutionary architectural

Carroll )!

feats, otherworldly displays of artistic genius, and, as Pearce would concede, an environment suitable for a convention of men as well as gods. In order to accurately consider the Athenian Acropolis in terms of artistic cause for creation, it must exist in our minds as one collective dedication, to which a successive series of further dedications are made over time, and to which all visitors can contribute. Hurwit explains that, at any given time, the Athenian Acropolis would have been overflowing with minor dedications placed primarily by the local middle class.26 As a massive singular dedication, the Acropolis was also an area in which anyone could enter and make personal dedications pledging minor vows. Having established this, we can proceed to integrate the words of Robert Parker, who wrote at length on religious imagery in Athens.27 Parker explains that the tradition of making artistic dedications to Athena in 6th to 5th century Athens was one not only of protecting the city, but also of discoursing on the dynamic and ever expansive mythological encyclopedia from which Attic civilization could extrapolate. Although the earliest dedications on the Athenian acropolis were made to please Athena herself, some works illustrated at length the tales of other characters related to Pallas or extent in her canon. An early portion of the Temple of Athena portrays a chaotic struggle between beasts on one end of the structure, whereas the other end clearly depicts a gigantomachy scene, where Athena herself is combating giants. One would assume that a culture so dependent on Athenas satisfaction which guarantees the security of their persons, their state, and their prosperity would make more deliberate and specific dedications, not ones that often tend to ramble, as Parker seems to imply exist on the early acropolis. This observation seems to subsume quite a few conclusions: that the Athenians were not all

Carroll *!

that obsessed with the divine lass, that one could only say so much about Athena on one wall (and would have to occupy the remaining space with something), or that her Attic minions were interested in a far richer tapestry of mythological conversation with the divines than one that is straightforward and brief. The Athenians must have enjoyed all mythology for its own sake, and not simply as a sort of financial and political staple. Could this be the key to unlocking Athens transcendent reputation as the everlasting home of art, refinement, and political apotheosis? What one cannot ignore about all observable art from the acropolis is that only so much of it is relevant to Athena herself, and yet the most powerful empire in the Greek worlds prime of prevalence devoted the highest ascensions of artistic prowess, unheard of wealth, and unspeakably intense labor to the production of stories, carved by hand into stone, that tended to digress into fables almost irrelevant to the pleasure of an omniscient dame. The so far established Athenian concern with substance in addition to purpose must have been one of the most prevalent characteristics adapted by the Attalids as they forged works as divine as those whom they served. The entirety of the Pergamene Gigantomachy is itself a blathering mess of irregular, discomfited anarchy, and serves little purpose besides the fulfillment of reiterating a tale that was already quite familiar in the minds of its spectators. The principle of Athenian-Attalid digression is supremely important; it grounds style in the actual people who produced the art in question, and not in the mechanistic dogma that they sought as an end to their rigors the Athens-brand economic transaction between mortal and god. This is above all a point for humanism in the case of trans-Hellenic art, seeing as how, despite the fact that art in Athena was designed for the gods, it was, in the end, purposed for the satisfaction of people.

Carroll "+!

Although Athena as a public concept was no less alive in 180 BCE than in 500 BCE, one cannot cast aside the fact that the most powerful constant at work here is the satisfaction of humans, who are observing art and observing others observing it, in addition to having other cultures (Rome) observe them observing it (and creating it). Stylistically, the very detail one can observe in both Athenian and Pergamene sculptural reliefs may betray some form of this digression. Again, a culture driven to satisfy one particular purpose to please a goddess would be at first assumed to be rather simple or straightforward. Why would Athenian artists spend so much time elaborating on the drapery of gods sitting idly about, on their individual and circumstantial physiques, and on the interaction between anatomy and clothing? This is testament not only to the seriousness with which these works were conceived but also to the intentions that governed the works themselves. However much Athena herself appreciated these works, there is no doubt that the actual knowledge and skill poured into each sculpture, which were entirely human in nature, could only have been designed for the satisfaction of people. The origin of such impetus to produce exquisite works, rather than simple ones, could only have resulted from extensive emotional expression. This is in my opinion the unifying feature to all Pergamene and Athenian art (that is discussed in this research paper), that the essential baroque aspect of these styles was testament to the extremely cathartic nature of their artists. Emotive art can also be observed in other Pergamene art: most notably, and famously, the dying Gaul. Sandin28 evaluates that King Attalos Is 229/228 BCE victories over the Gauls and Seleucids resulted in a magnificent exhibit on the Pergamene acropolis that depicted a field of fallen Gauls. These Gauls were life-sized sculptural

Carroll ""!

depictions of barbarians that had either passed on or were in the process of dying. They are unmistakably characterized by wrenching torsion, facial anguish, futility, pity, and finality. Here is another example of excessive detail and unprecedented fidelity to human anatomy on behalf of Hellenistic Pergamon. Greek virtue, Sandin explained, was centered largely on stoicism, and the free mans subjection to visible emotion or pain was interpreted as a sign of weakness. Depicting others especially those whom a dominant culture had vanquished as exhibiting crippling displays of emotion must have been typical of such a repressed society. The dying Gauls (which Sandin numbers at around forty, arranged once as though populating a battlefield) reinforces Pearces assertion that societies enjoyed virtual spaces as areas of necessity, havens from the mundane, supplements of intellectual reassurance and hopefulness. That both Acropoles enjoyed the baroque digressive style, that they both served as outlets for the interpersonal construction of hopeful identities on a communal basis, that both sought to extol and vow the continuation of sophisticated civilization (as a triumph over brutishness), and that Attalos I29 sought deliberately to proliferate Classical Athenian art, it may now be safely assumed that Pergamons intention in producing the Gigantomachy as an asset of the Altar of Zeus was to re-establish a nearly lost cultural principle as a means of not only constructing a neo-identity but relating themselves by means of interpersonal communality through the actualized conceptuality of beliefs. The creation of some Athenian canon results not only in a shared sense of identity, but in a continuity transcending time and space. This continuity is strictly cultural, and depends entirely on the Gigantomachy itself. Can Bilsel, while not arguing specifically in one direction or the other presents the argument that a work of art may

Carroll "#!

actually change meaning based upon its transference from one culture to another. The piece in the context of a newly formed Germany represents victory over provinciality and external domination.30 Athens and Pergamon used it particularly to symbolize their triumph over the previously prevalent Hellenic tribes who inhabited the Greek peninsula and the ever-invading Gauls. Bismarck, however, must have viewed the Altar of Zeus as a symbol of merely banishing the very concept of being decentralized and somewhat backwards and, most importantly, triumphing over the influence of the Concert of Europe, which up until that point treated the German territories as diplomatic currency. Since the country had unified, Bismarck had a new vision that saw Germany as another player in international politics, and his reclamation of the Altar of Zeus was an example of his domain. The ensuing controversy incited by Bergama, Turkey (modern Pergamon), who seeks now to bring the Altar of Zeus back into the city, opens a seemingly endless realm of questions regarding the hegemonic theft and repatriation of art. Considering Pergamon strove extensively to recreate Athenian style, what are the implications of a society simply taking pre-existing art and placing them in a new context? Pollitt describes Rome in the second century BCE which, at the time, was undergoing a long process of outward military expansion as extending its influence onto the Greek mainland and engaging various generals on the peninsula.31 Remarkably, one Roman general, Aemilius Paullus, managed to eradicate a Macedonian phalanx, the very formation of troops that had conquered almost every territory in the Mediterranean world.32 What Paullus found in Macedonia itself, however, was an entirely new world of art that was yet unknown to the bloody and war-hungry Romans. This art much resembled what was found on the Athenian Acropolis the Classical and Hellenistic

! brands of extremely careful and gentle representation of clothing, unparalleled

Carroll "$!

anatomical fidelity, and all else so far discussed above. Most importantly, however, Paullus came upon an unassuming pillar in Delphi, in the courtyard of the temple of Apollo.33 This pillar he commissioned to be augmented with a likeness of him and have carved into it a representative frieze. The monument was paraded around at the triumphal celebration, and became known forever thereafter as the monument dedicating Paullus victory over the Macedonians. This would count, in Bilsels eyes, as a classic example not only of repatriating art but of taking art from a subjugated people and reappropriating it for functioning in ones own society. Youngs conception of the monument as a public image through which a past event is carried on indefinitely into the future further exacerbates the blasphemy undertaken by Paullus, who may be said to have turned a work of art designed for Greek religious purposes (the temple of Apollo in Delphi was no minor sanctuary) into one designed to exalt himself and the military prowess of Rome. After this surge of Greek art in Rome, however, the Italian capital never recovered. Works of art recovered by Roman generals in the ensuing century would forever hellenize the city,34 and turn it from a civilization of absolute military domination into one forever ruminating on the remarkably displays of Greek craftwork populating the streets. Bismarck, however, seeking to enrich the cultural landscape of a newly formed Germany, did not conquer a society, and nor did he change the Altar in any way in order to depict his authority. He only re-positioned it geographically, so that a new audience might view it. All of this contrasts with the Pergamene method of artistically forging works of art in a certain style; Paullus and Bismarck quite literally

Carroll "%!

took existing art. Although, by virtue of this style having been replicated by at least one culture, the continuity of Athenian sophistication is very real, it is arguable as to whether it has undergone any sort of change since the Altars repatriation. Young can help to justify as he states that, rather than preserving the public memory, the monument displaces it altogether.35 The Altar of Zeus is very much a monument, which commemorated much more than the mythology it depicts. The gigantomachy (as an Attalid dedication) was not just an appreciable example of contemporary artistry at the time. The expediency with which it was completed implies much more about the fervency driving its conception. The enthusiasm with which it is therefore associated must mean far more than the common cause of public unity. It represents the actual battles in which Pergamene generals fought, and in which they observed their comrades demise, in the process of safeguarding Pergamon and upholding tradition. Love for Athenian tradition must have severely intensified the citys appreciation for this work of art, which is itself an impressively elaborate piece as is. In other words, the gigantomachy had practical application to the people of Pergamon in addition to the aristocracy, as it symbolized to every citizen not only the reward for fighting but also the reason for it. To shorten my explanation further, it would help to posit that the work requires no explanation at all: the very centrality of its goodness and its non-existence in any particular context allows its functions and effects to live on unabridged through time and space. Therefore, the very fundamental act of placing a monument, regardless of who constructed it, in a certain context will guarantee a thorough response politically as well as culturally. Those who observe the monument experience history thrust upon them,

! phrased in a specific manner, depicting certain aspects of the subject in gross

Carroll "&!

proportionality. The monument, especially the Altar of Zeus, commemorates war, triumph, and centrality above all else, and can only serve to unite all citizen observers under one image of important events. In this way, the monument does not itself change meaning. Seeing as how the piece was repatriated, as opposed to being altered or fragmented in the process, betrays that artwork is always constant in its wholeness, and that only context is subject to change. In this respect, we can conclude that the Gigantomachy has, contextually undergone much change however, the singularity of its artistic relevance has not changed at all over time. Farnells analysis speaks volumes about the presence of the Pergamene Gigantomachy in history. As a piece presenting a message, the frieze can apply to many different circumstances of societal origin, all of which ultimately point to the will for a political authority to engender pride and unity in its people. Works such as the Altar and the dying Gaul, however archaic they may now be, were heavily defining of an identity that transcends time and space. Athenian-brand sophistication lives on in the remnants of a frieze from an ancient city, which in a modern context can only be enjoyed for its removed and anachronistic assertive qualities. In order to be considered a serious work of art again, as Bilsel may agree, it would have to be extricated from a museum and replaced in a setting that requires a work exalting the triumph of civilization. The discussion of stylistics is, in reality, a question of how an appropriated mass of stone pertains to various circumstances, to whom the work is intended, and who would find interest in it. The Gigantomachys extremely dynamic and baroque characteristics place it in a neo-classical setting in which the new is extolled as the old is subsumed beneath a trampled memory.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

Carroll "'!

J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 150-163. 2 Ibid., 79-110. 3 Ibid., 81-83. 4 Ibid., 97-101. 5 L.R. Farnell, The Works of Pergamon and their Influence, The Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 7 (1886): 251-274. 6 Pollit, Art in the Hellenistic World, 79. 7 Can Bilsel, Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Restitution as Politics of Memory, Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Fall (2000). https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/. The transcript of Bilsels article is not numbered by page, and therefore it is very difficult for me to specify pages on which references occur. In addition, some information I used regarding Germany is merely touched upon in his essay, and much of it is left to common knowledge about Germanys unification. 8 James E. Young, Memory/Monument, in Critical Terms for Art History, 2nd ed., edited by Robert S. Nelson and Richard Schiff (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 237. 9 Neil Leach, C<AMO>UFLAGE, In What is AMO/What is OMA, Considering Rem Koolhaas and the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, edited by Veronique Patteeuw, 89-99. 10 Celia Pearce, Narrative Environments. From Disneyland to World of Warcraft, Space Time Play. Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: the Next Level, ed. by Friedrich von Borries, Steffen P. Walz, and Matthias Bottger, Basel, Boston, and Berlin: Birkhauser (2007) 200-204. Pearce is never directly cited; her ideas decide much of this paper without actually making literal appearances. Her concept of identity and community are crucial, and the idea of a narrative environment is alluded to once without citation by virtue of its ambiguity. 11 11 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, 37-45. 12 Diether Thimme, The Masters of the Pergamon Gigantomachy, American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 50, No.3 (July-September 1946): 345-357. 13 Sarantis Symeonoglou, A New Analysis of the Parthenon Frieze, In The Parthenon and its Sculptures, ed. by Michael B. Cosmopoulos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 542. 14 Thimme, The Masters of the Pergamon Gigantomachy, 350. 15 Symeonoglou, A New Analysis, 6-9. 16 Ibid., 7. 17 Thimme, The Masters, 349-350. 18 Farnell, The Works of Pergamon, 256. 19 Ibid., 262-264. 20 Ibid., 259. 21 Ibid., 257. 22 Ibid., 258. 23 Karl Sandin, class presentation, Denison University, Classical Art and Architecture, January 30, 2013. 24 Jeffrey Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis, History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 5863. 25 Ibid., 58. 26 Ibid., 60. 27 Robert Parker, Athenian Religion: A History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 6972. 28 Sandin, class presentation, January 30. 29 Pollitt, Art in the Hellenisic Age, 83-84.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 31

Carroll "(!

Bilsel, Zeus in Exile. Pollitt, Art, 150. 32 Ibid., 152. 33 Ibid., 155-156. 34 Ibid., 158. 35 Young, Memory/Monument, 237.

Bibliography Bilsel, Can. Zeus in Exile: Archaeological Restitution as Politics of Memory. Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Fall (2000). https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/ Farnell, L. R. The Works of Pergamon and their Influence. The Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 7 (1886): 251-274. Leach, Neil. C<AMO>UFLAGE. In What is AMO/What is OMA, Considering Rem Koolhaas and the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, edited by Veronique Patteeuw, 89-99. NAi, 2004. Parker, Robert. Athenian Religion: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pearce, Celia. Narrative Environments. From Disneyland to World of Warcraft. Space Time Play. Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: the Next Level. edited by Friedrich von Borries, Steffen P. Walz, and Matthias Bottger. Basel, Boston, and Berlin: Birkhauser (2007) 200-204. Pollitt, J.J. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Thimme, Diether. The Masters of the Pergamon Gigantomachy. American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 50, No.3 (July-September 1946): 345-357.

Carroll ")!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Symeonoglou, Sarantis. A New Analysis of the Parthenon Frieze. In The Parthenon and its Sculptures. Edited by Michael B. Cosmopoulos, 5-42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Young, James E. Memory/Monument. In Critical Terms for Art History, 2nd ed. Edited by Robert S. Nelson and Richard Schiff, 234-247. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. !