Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

8. Considering Works of Art
artistic techniques is also tied in with this rough chronology, because
Pausanias often names innovators or inventors, and technique could
therefore be used to verify or refute local traditions about the date of a
monument. 63
The hallmarks of the earliest examples of Greek sculpture
were particularly fascinating. Those included aniconic objects that served
as images of divinities, or xoana – wooden statues which were often
thought to be particularly ancient. 64 Once the great age of such an artefact
was established, the statue could be appreciated as an awe-inspiring
tangible link to a remote past. Pausanias believed that there were authentic
works by artists such as Daidalos and even the god Hephaistos. He
clearly accepted that artefacts created by such mythical characters survived
in Greece down to his own day, and he judged them on merit: in one
case a claim is rejected because the technique seemed anachronistic for
Hephaistos, but other works of the god are considered authentic, and
Pausanias lists a number of artefacts he accepts as works of Daidalos. 65
It has long been noticed that Pausanias’ selection of art works for his
book was strongly influenced by their age. Larger cities could have thousands
of statues cluttering their public spaces, and most sites probably
had so many monuments that Pausanias had to select a small sample of
the most noteworthy pieces. 66 A majority of the works of art mentioned in
the Periegesis date from the archaic and classical periods, and few are
securely dated to a period after the middle of the second century BC. 67 In
fact, some very conspicuous buildings of the Roman and Hellenistic periods
are omitted altogether, such as the Stoa of Attalos in Athens or the
Nymphaion of Herodes Atticus in Olympia. 68
This preference for the
archaic and classical periods is in line with the tastes of Pausanias’
contemporaries. One should, however, consider this apparent neglect of
later periods with some caution.
As we saw in the last chapter, most cities’ local histories emphasised
particular periods, and although many focused on their earlier history,
there were places where Hellenistic or even Roman events were crucial.
In the same way, Pausanias has no qualms about filling some of his cities
with works of art or buildings which are clearly postclassical or even fairly
recent, while elsewhere later monuments are omitted or perhaps described
without any hints to their actual date. 69
There is no general
attempt to deny the existence of all later artefacts, but in some places they
clearly did not fit the image that Pausanias wanted to present, an image
that was often determined by local history. Some art works provided
valuable evidence for local traditions, or they could serve as convenient
anchors for various logoi. Age or artistic value was probably secondary if
there was a good story to tell. All we can say is that Pausanias often did
not find it worthwhile to discuss the date of Hellenistic or Roman monuments.
Where the history of the monument itself seemed neither
interesting in its own right nor relevant for explaining its historical
significance he tends to omit details that might indicate its date. Historical
115