The Master of Olympia: the Documentary Evidence (1) 
 by 
R. Ross Holloway 
 

Certain problems connected with the history of ancient art may well be termed classic.  They deserve this title not simply because they concern important monuments and important artists or because their seeming insolubility bestows on them the rank of prize enigmas.  These are classic problems because they are intimately bound up with questions of the limitations inherent in the primary evidence on which our knowledge of ancient art is based.  Such is the problem of the authorship of the architectural sculptures of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.  The discussion of this problem presented here will set the commissioning of these sculptures in the context of contemporary artistic activity in the Olympia sanctuary as we know it from documentary evidence, literary and epigraphical.(2)

Even though the recent discoveries in the "Workshop of Pheidias" have clarified the problem, the attribution of the architectural sculpture of the temple remains as much as ever in doubt.  The finds from the workshop, among which is the famous cup base bearing the autograph of Pheidias himself, show that work was going on there at the beginning of the last quarter of the fifth century, or slightly before.(3) No further consideration need be given the hypothesis according to which Pheidias would have made the cult statue of the temple before 450 B.C. and at the same time would have supervised the work of two younger associates on the pedimental statues.  One must exclude, therefore, the attribution of the pedimental sculptures to Paionios and Alkamenes, the two students of Pheidias named in the tradition preserved by Pausanias.  The result of modern scholarship has been a growing acceptance of the term "Olympia Master" for the creator of the sculptures.  There is a tendency to consider him a Peloponnesian, but otherwise he is anonymous.(4)

Though we may be deprived of the contemporary monuments, we still know a great deal about the sculptural activity at Olympia in the first half of the fifth century B.C.  Pausanias described the sanctuary and its monuments at length.  The account of Olympia occupies most of two of the ten books of his work.  Moreover, there are important epigraphical remains of the period from the sanctuary, including inscriptions which confirm the testimony of Pausanias concerning several dedications.  Pausanias may not have described every monument in the Olympian sanctuary, but he certainly described the outstanding pieces, and he did so in extenso.  The Olympian sanctuary, moreover, had not suffered the depredations visited on Delphi by the Aitolians and on Delos by Mithradates of Pontus.  Nero‚s collecting was mild by comparison.  The archaic and early classical sculptures seen by Pausanias had stood largely undisturbed around the Zeus Temple since their erection.  Yet the record preserved by Pausanias of artistic activity at Olympia has never been brought to bear on the problem of the temple sculptures

What is its bearing on the problem?  Very simply, it tells us who were the prominent sculptors of the day known at Olympia.  Though all the world might travel to that famous sanctuary, there is little likelihood that the trustees of the sanctuary, a group of Eleans called the Hellanodikai, visited the rest of Greece.  In another context I have examined how the Hellanodikai determined the program of subjects for the temple sculpture.(5)    Theirs was also the choice of the sculptor, and if we wish to place the problem of the authorship of the temple sculptures in proper perspective we must attempt to place ourselves in the position of the Hellanodikai when they began making their selection.  These Eleans knew the work of the sculptors already represented in the sanctuary and it is among this group of artists that we must look for the man they chose.  Naturally we cannot determine the year when the commission was awarded.  But it was almost certainly in the decade 480-470.  The national victories over Persia and Carthage in 480-479 gave the patriotic impetus as well as the cash offerings useful for such a project.  Undoubtedly the work of execution would occupy a decade or more.  The Parthenon, erected with all the resources of imperial Athens, took over a decade to build.  Since the sculptures of the Olympia Temple seem to have been in place before 456, we reach a date of 470 at the latest for the beginning of the work.  In fact the conquest of Pisa by Elis about 470 resulted in the donations to the sanctuary which, according to Pausanias, made possible the beginning of work on the temple.(6)

Let us now review one by one the centers of Greek artistic life from which the Olympia Master may have been chosen.  The cities of Ionia are least likely to have drawn the attention of the Olympia trustees.  The cultural effects of Persian domination in Ionia had been extremely adverse.  Ionian sculptors, we may recall, had been shanghaied to labor on the great Persian palaces, while many others became refugees in Greece and Italy.(7)   We shall meet one of this latter group in the person of Pythagoras of Samos, a sculptor who was living in Rhegion in the early fifth century.

 Sculptors from the islands are hardly more likely to have been strong candidates for the commission.  One Melian artist of the early fifth century executed a small statue at Olympia for two of his fellow countrymen.(8)   But otherwise the documentary evidence does not support the various attempts made in the wake of Furtwängler‚s Parian thesis to find Ionian influence in the sculptures of the Zeus temple.(9)

A Euoboean sculptor, Philesios of Eretria, executed a bronze steer for his countrymen at Olympia during our period.(10)   But he is hardly a stronger candidate for the temple commission than his Melian contemporary. 

 Passing to Athens, we find one sculptor, generally identified as an Athenian, whose claim to the temple sculptures must be considered, even if we discount the possibility that Pheidias‚ two associates executed the sculpture.  This is Kalamis.  He was in the front rank of internationally known artists of the second quarter of the fifth century working at Olympia, as we see from his participation, together with the Aiginetan Onatas, in the execution of an equestrian monument for the tyrant Hieron of Syracuse.(11)   Pausanias also attributed to Kalamis a group of praying boys dedicated by the city of Akragas in Sicily which he saw at Olympia.(12)

I would disqualify Kalamis in our search for two reasons.  First, he was too young at the time the commission was awarded.  A number of his works can be dated approximately and all suggest that he was primarily an artist of the second quarter of the fifth century.(13)   He was beginning his career about the time the Hellanodikai were laying plans for the temple.  In addition one may adduce stylistic arguments.  It appears more than likely that copies of the Aphrodite Sosandra of Kalamis survive in the so-called Aspasia type, of which the outstanding representative is the recently discovered example from Baiae.(14)   The Aphrodite was commissioned by one Kallias, presumably the wealthy Athenian of the mid-fifth century, and so the statue was probably nearly contemporary with the Olympia sculpture.(15)   It would be difficult to discover in this figure reflections of the Olympia style, although prudence forbids pressing the comparison of architectural sculpture with statuary meant to be seen nearer to ground level.

Another famous Athenian was active at Olympia:  Myron.  We know of four athletes whose dedications he made for the Sanctuary.(16)   Of course Myron‚s work is better known than that of any of his contemporaries thanks to the identification of copies of his Discobolos and Satyr.(17)   However, stylistic arguments derived from these statues will run the same risks as those based on the Aphrodite Sosandra of Kalamis in respect to the Olympia sculptures.  Actually, there is documentary evidence that Myron worked on the sculptures of the Zeus temple, though in a subordinate capacity, as we shall see below. 

 To the first half of the fifth century also belongs the statue of the Pankration victor of 472, Kallias, executed by the Athenian painter-sculptor Mikon.(18) 

 We may now turn our attention to the Peloponnesos and first to Corinth.  We know that there was an active school of Corinthian sculpture at the beginning of the fifth century.  Pausanias mentions a group done by three of its members at Delphi.(19)   But we have no direct evidence of any Corinthian dedications worthy of special note from this period at Olympia, and no other information about Corinthian sculptors.  Corinth, moreover, did not maintain her artistic traditions in major art during the fifth century.  Clearly the city sacked by Mummius in 146 had not lacked for sculptors; but evidently, in the fifth century, their training and traditions had been overshadowed by the Sikyonian and Argive schools.

Sikyon produced one of the great names in late archaic sculpture:  Kanachos.   Beside works in his home city, he did sculpture for the states of Miletos and Thebes and for the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron in Attica.(20)   In the critical tradition preserved by Cicero his style was described as rigid (rigidiora), though this may mean no more than typically archaic.(21)   He is not known to have worked at Olympia, but one of his students, the Theban Askaros, made a Zeus which the people of Phokis dedicated there.(22)   Askaros, however, is not as strong a candidate for identification with the "Master of Olympia" as the representatives of the cities to which we now turn:  Aigina, Rhegion, Elis, and Argos. 

Consideration of Aigina brings us to one of the great centers of sculpture, particularly sculpture in bronze, at the beginning of the fifth century.  At the same time Aiginetan artists also occupied an important place in artistic activity at Olympia.  The statue of Zeus offered by the victorious Greeks after the victory over Persia at Plataia in 479 was the work of the Aiginetan Anaxagoras.(23)   In addition to normal victors‚ commissions, Glaukias of Aigina executed a chariot group including a posthumous portrait statue of the tyrant Gelon of Syracuse and another posthumous dedication for Glaukos of Karystos.(24)   We should pay attention to these dedications by the Sicilian princes. Like the Delphi Charioteer, the dedication of Gelon‚s brother Polyzalos, they were the best that could be had, and artists capable of attracting the attention of the Sicilian tyrants were certainly worthy of the consideration of the Olympia trustees.(25)  But again Glaukias seems to have come to prominence a little late for the Olympia competition.  His work for the sons of Gelon (who died in 478) and for the heirs of Glaukos of Karystos belongs to the 470‚s at the earliest.(26)  Though, no doubt, his career began earlier, he was just beginning his work at Olympia when the Hellanodikai were picking their sculptor.

There are a number of testimonia to the career of Onatas, possibly the leader of the Aiginetan school in the first half of the fifth century.  He collaborated with Kalamis on another Syracusan monument, erected to Gelon‚s brother and successor Hieron after his death in 466.(27)   At Olympia he also did groups for the states of Pheneus and Thasos and for the Achaian confederation.(28)   He was an important sculptor capable of winning big commissions.  Last among this group of Aiginetans are Ptolikos, author of two athletic dedications, and Simion, who worked with Dionysos of Argos on an equestrian group dedicated by Phormis, still another Sicilian magnate and creature of the Deinomenids.(29)

 The Aiginetans, however, did not win the commission for the sculpture of the Zeus Temple.  Here we can make a valid stylistic comparison:  between the sculptures of the Temple of Aphaia on Aigina and those of the Olympia temple.  The Aigina sculptures, which C.H. Morgan argued were completed in the 470‚s, manifest that mixture of early classical anatomy with a persisting fondness for decorative drapery patterns and archaic facial conventions that is not in the line of development of the Olympia style, the formation of which must belong to the same decade which saw the Aigina sculptures finished.(30)   Our field of choice in attempting to recreate the process of selection traversed by the Olympia trustees has thus narrowed to Western Greece, Elis, and Argos. 

 In the western Greek world, we find the sculptor Pythagoras, a Samian by birth, who made his reputation at Rhegion.  We know of seven victor statues done by Pythagoras for the Olympia sanctuary.(31)   They begin with a victor of the Olympiad of 478.(32)   In the early and mid- 470‚s, therefore, Pythagoras, like Kalamis or Glaukias of Aigina, was probably too young or too little known at Olympia to win the commission for the temple sculpture.

Serious consideration, however, should be accorded the local sculptor, Kallon of Elis, all the more since the architect of the temple, according to Pausanias, was also an Elean, Libon.  Kallon was obviously no mean sculptor.  He obtained the commission from the state of Rhegion for a memorial to a boys‚ chorus lost in a shipwreck and created a figure of Hermes also dedicated at Olympia by a private citizen of the same city.(33)   Was he the "Master of Olympia"?  Perhaps he was, but before deciding we must examine the claims of Argos. 

The number of Argive sculptors active at Olympia in the early and middle fifth century equals that of any other city.  The eldest of the group was Ageladas (or Hageladas), whose major commissions began with victors‚ dedications set up at Olympia before the end of the sixth century.  He was working as late as the 450‚s when he executed the small-scale but famous Zeus for the refugee Messenians living at Naupaktos.(34)   The most prominent among the younger Argives were Dionysos and Glaukos, both of whom worked for the munificent Mikythos who never tired of offering statues in the sanctuary.(35)   Dionysos collaborated with the Aiginetan Simon on the memorial of the Sicilian Phormis.(36)   An epigraphical discovery made during the German excavations reveals the activity of another part of the Argive school in the sanctuary.  This is a base which carried the dedication of another Sicilian, one Praxiteles.  Part of the group was the collaborative work of the Argive Athanadoros and Asopodoros the Achaian.  The second part of the group was executed by Ageladas‚ own son Argeiadas in collaboration with another Argive sculptor named Atotos.(37)   Fill dug out of the foundation for the Zeus Temple was mounded up against this dedication, thus obscuring its inscription.(38)   It is no surprise therefore that Pausanias did not mention it.  But it is worth recalling at this point how faithful he was in pointing out to his readers the large-scale monuments of the early fifth century in the sanctuary.  Leaving aside the individual victors‚ monuments, we may note that the surviving bases of the Eretrian bull by Philesios, the posthumous monument to Gelon by Glaukias, Kallon‚s Hermes, Onatas‚ work for Phormis and the Achaian confederation, and statues of Dionysos and Glaukos dedicated by Mikythos all belong to monuments mentioned by Pausanias.

The Argives, like the Aiginetans, boasted a great advantage over Kallon of Elis in the competition for the temple commission.  Ageladas is the only prominent sculptor of the period working at Olympia whose reputation was securely founded on commissions carried out before the 480‚s.  Ageladas was the sculptor whose work the sanctuary trustees knew better than that of any of his possible competitors.  One wishes that arguments from style could be added at this point to bolster Ageladas‚ claim to the commission.  There is a tantalizing bit of evidence regarding the Zeus Ithomaios in the form of a striding Zeus on the coins issued by the Messenians following their return to their ancestral home.  But no experienced numismatist trusts classical coins very far to provide trustworthy graphic versions of three-dimensional works of art.(39)   Nevertheless, our evidence, circumstantial though it may be, does suggest that Ageladas was in a strong position to win the commission for the architectural sculpture of the Zeus temple against Kallon of Elis, the only real rival we have discovered. 

 The span of Ageladas‚ activity is usually placed beginning about 520 when the Tarentine Anochos for whom Ageladas did a victor‚s statue won the stade race and lasting until the early 450‚s, when he made the famous Zeus Ithomaios.  The Herakles statue of the sanctuary at Melite in Attica set up in 430-429 must have been made at an earlier date.(40)   The period of his artistic activity may not be quite as lengthy as the full span between 520 and the early 450‚s, if we allow some delay in the commissioning of the earliest victor statues.  There is no doubt, however, that Ageladas had already made his mark as a sculptor before 500 B.C. and had a reputation of over twenty years‚ work at Olympia to his credit when the Zeus temple was being planned. 

The name of Ageladas has been mentioned before in connection with the Olympia sculptures, by Vollgraff in a small monograph written in collaboration with Beyen and largely devoted to the identification of the Zeus of Artemision as an original work of Ageladas.(41)   Unfortunately Vollgraff‚s argument depended on a single fragmentary relief of modest quality found at Argos with a male figure whom Vollgraff identified as Herakles and offered as a reflection of Ageladas‚ work in the shrine of Melite in Attica.  Moreover, the trail to Olympia had to pass through Selinus and the sculptured metopes of Temple ER.  Both the trail and the starting point drew just criticism.(42)

In making the same suggestion, on  different grounds, it is encouraging for me to note a tendency in recent treatments of the problem of the Olympia Master to follow the lead of Becatti in seeking his home in the Peloponnesos.(43)   However, we have not finished with the documentary evidence, and there remain for consideration other ancient testimonials to the activity of Ageladas than his relations with Olympia. 

 The Argive sculptor was also remembered as a teacher of Polykleitos, Myron and Pheidias.(44)   It is only natural that Ageladas should have been the master of Polykleitos, the Argive sculptor of the later fifth century.  But that the two Athenians should have worked under him has seemed more questionable. 

Ageladas‚ relation with Pheidias is given in the excerpt of an ancient text which has come down to us in the marginalia found in manuscripts of Aristophanes‚ Frogs.  In discussing Ageladas‚ career we have already noted that a Herakles figure by him had found its way to the sanctuary of Herakles at Melite in Attica.  This information is contained in the scholion to the Frogs at 1.501 together with a parenthetical statement identifying Ageladas to the reader as the teacher of Pheidias.  In addition the scholion contains a comment of one Apollodorus on the relation suggested between the line of Aristophanes‚ text and the Herakles sanctuary:

ejn Melivth/ ejsti;n ejpifanevstaton iJero;n  JHraklevou" ajlexikavkou . . . .  to; de; tou~ JHraklveou" a[galma e[rgon Gelavdou tou~ jArgeivou, tou~ didaskavlou Feidivou.  hJ de; i{drusi" ejgevneto kat;a to;n mevgan loimovn.  o{qen kai; ejpauvsato hJ novso", pollw§n ajnqrwvpwn ajpollumevnwn.  jApollwvnio" de; ouj kakw§" uJponenoh§sqaiv favsi to; kwmw/dei~sqaiv tina.   i[sw" de; o{ti h\rxe, di;a tou§to oujk wjnomavsqh, h[ ojlivgon provteron eijrh§sqai.  Kalliva" ga;r oj JIpponivkou ejn Melivth/ w[/kei.  pareikavzei de; aujton a{ma tw/~ JHraklei~, a[ma cleuavzwn dia; to; leonth`/ ejn tai§" macai§" crh§sqai, wJ" ejn toi`" ojpivsw kuvsqou leonth`n naumacei`n ejnhmmevnon.  ejpei; ei[ ge o[ntw" ejpi; to;n JHrakleva anevfere, tiv ma`llon ei[pe to; ejk Melivth", ka;i mh; ejx a[llou dhvmou; pantacou` ga;r Hravkleia ejpifanh`.  sunhqev" te oujc ou{tw levgein ejpi; qew`n.  oujk Melivth", ajll' oJ ejn Melivth/, wJ" kai; Zeuv" oJ ejn jOlumpiva/.  ejpiv de; ajnqrwvpwn, ejk Melivth", ejx Oi[ou, ejk Koqwkidw`n.  Pw~" de; kai; palaiovteron ei\nai jAristofavnou" to; a[galma, eij ajkmavzonto" tou` loimou` iJdruvqh;  sced;on ga;r meirakivsko" h[dh h{pteto tw`n ajgw`nwn.

In Melite there is a very famous sanctuary of Herakles Averter of Evil.  The statue of Herakles was the work of Gelades of Argos, the teacher of Pheidias.  The dedication was made at the time of the great plague but when it was already spent and many were dead.  Apollonios says he suspects that the poet is satirizing someone.  Perhaps, because that person was an archon he could not call him by name or for the reason given above.  Kallias the son of Hipponikos was a resident of Melite.  The poet compares him to Herakles making fun of him through the attribute of the lion‚s skin carried by the hero in battle, as above "fight covered with a lion‚s skin".  If there were no other reference save to Herakles why would he say from Melite and not from another town?  In fact the cult of Herakles was universal.  Speaking of divinities it is not normal usage to say that one from Melite but that one of Melite, for example the Zeus of Olympia.  But for men one says from Melite, from Oios, from Kotokides.  Is it possible that the statue was older than Aristophanes if dedicated during the plague?  Yes because his first prize was won when he was still young.

It is important to emphasize that the scholion does not come from an ancient art historian who was trying to reconstruct artistic dynasties from teacher to pupil and might be suspected of supplying what he did not know.  The source is quite different.  It is historical or topographical in nature and the relationship between Ageladas and Pheidias enters the text only to identify Ageladas in terms of a well-known Athenian.  Gulick saw the passage as deriving from an Atthidographer of the third century B.C.(45)   Wilamowitz, moreover, identified the ancient commentator Apollodorus as the second century B.C. Apollodoros.(46)   Therefore, the passage and its information should be treated with considerable respect.

The source of the Elder Pliny‚s remark that Ageladas taught Myron is not known.  What is certain is that one cannot attack both traditions as two parts of a mistaken ancient artistic genealogy.(47)

Let us then admit the tradition to discussion and ask where and when Myron and Pheidias could have been associated with Ageladas.  One can answer only "At Olympia".  There was work for many hands on such a large project as the Zeus temple. The Athenians in the workshop of Ageladas left a permanent impression at Olympia, and their contribution to the creation of the temple sculptures appears to have been so important that with the passage of time and particularly after the period of Pheidias‚ domination of artistic life in the sanctuary at the end of the century, it became easy to attribute the architectural sculpture to Athenians, as we find done by Pausanias.

There is one further circumstance which recommends the reconstruction which names Ageladas of Argos as the "Master of Olympia" and places Myron and Pheidias among his assistants.  The circumstance is this:  How was Pheidias able to win the commission for the gold and ivory cult statue of Zeus in the Olympia temple?  We often take it for granted that he was the only man for the job, forgetting the gold and ivory cult statue of Hera which Polykleitos did for the Argive Heraion.(48)   Pheidias was the man for the job, but one may doubt that even the fame of the Parthenos would have sufficed to give him the commission in preference to the Argive Polykleitos if the trustees of the sanctuary had not remembered the Athenian‚s work from the years when they both were assistant sculptors under Ageladas fashioning the metopes and the pedimental figures for the same temple.

 Modified 03/28/00
 
   
   
 Back to Article Index  

 
 
   Notes: 

 1) This study appeared first as  Il Maestro di Olimpia, Colloqui del Sodalizio, series 2, 2, 198-70, p. 45-58.  A few bibliographical additions have been made to this English translation. 

  2) Essential bibliography in Enciclopedia dell' Arte Antica 5, 1963, p. 656-661 (Becatti) with additions by B. Ashmole and N. Yialouris, Olympia the Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus, London, 1967.  Complete collection of sources and critical bibliography to date in G. Becatti Il Maestro d‚Olimpia. Florence, 1943, abbreviated Becatti.  Other abbreviations:  Overbeck for J. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen, Leipzig, 1868; Loewy for E. Loewy, Inschriften Griechischer Bildhauer, Leipzig, 1885; Olym. Ins. for W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, Olympia 5 die Inschriften, Berlin, 1896; Eckstein for F. Eckstein, Anathemata, Berlin, 1969. 

  3) A. Mallwitz and W. Schering, Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia, Olympische Forschungen 5, Berlin, 1964. 

  4) A more recent discussion with earlier bibliography is that of J. Dörig, The Olympia Master and his Collaborators Copenhagen, 1987 (on his identification of the Master of Olympia as a Spartan sculptor, see my review in AJA 93, 1989, p. 613-614), also Sarantis Symeonoglou, The Masters of Olympia, forthcoming.  I am grateful to Prof. Symeonoglou for the opportunity to have read his work in manuscript. 

  5)Panhellenism in the Sculptures of the Zeus Temple at Olympia, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 8,1967, p. 93-101. 

  6) 5.10.2. 

 7) J.P. Guépin, On the Position of Greek Artists under Achaemenid Rule, Persica 1, 1963-1964, p. 34-52. 

  8)Loewy no. 26, Olym. Ins. no. 272. 

  9) A. Furtwängler, Zu den Olympische Skulpturen, Archäologische Studien Heinrich Brunn Dargebracht, Berlin 1893, p. 69-91 reprinted in Kleine Schriften 1, München, 1912, p. 313-335; C. Rodenwaldt, Bermerkungen zu den Skulpturen von Olympia, JdI 41, 1926, p. 205-238; E. Langlotz, Die Herkunft des Olympiameisters, JdI 49, 1934, p. 24-44 (attributed sculptures to an Argive artist possibly Dionysos with Ionian assistants); B. Schweitzer, Zu den Skulpturen des Zeus Tempels von Olympia, JdI 43, 1928; L. Laurenzi, Rivisioni e prospettive critiche sui marmi di Olimpia, ArchClass 2, 1950, p. 7-30. 

  10) Pausanias 5:27:9, Overbeck no. 442; the base is preserved; Loewy no. 26; Olym. Ins. no. 248; Eckstein, ch. 6.  Although it must be inferred from Pausanias' text, the contemporary Corcyrean bull at Olympia was apparently the work of Theopompos of Aigina. 

  11) Pausanias 6.12.1; Overbeck no. 524. 

  12) 5.25.15; Overbeck no. 523. 

  13) Compare testimonia Overbeck no. 508-534; P. Orlandini, Calamide, Bologna, 1959; and J Dörig, Kalamis Studien, JdI 80, 1965, p. 138-265. 

  14) M. Napoli, Una Nuova replica della Sosandra di Calamide, BdA 39, 1954, p. 1-10. 

  15) Pausanias 1.23.2; Overbeck no. 517.  One must assume, of course, that this is the Sosandra of Lucian, Imagg. 6; Overbeck no. 519. 

  16) Pausanias 6.2.2, 6.8.4, 6.8.5, 6.13.2; Overbeck nos. 546-549. 

  17) Compare in general P.E. Arias, Mirone, Florence, 1940.  For the work of Myron's son Lykios for the Apollonians at Olympia, cf. Eckstein ch. 1. 

  18) Pausanias 6.6.1; Overbeck no. 1088; the base has survived Loewy no. 41; Olym. Ins. no. 146. 

  19) Pausanias 10.13.7; Overbeck no. 480. 

  20) Sources Overbeck nos. 403-409. 

  21) Brutus 18.70; Overbeck no. 409. 

  22) Pausanias 5.24.1; Overbeck no. 477. 

  23) Pausanias 5.23.1; Overbeck no. 433. 

  24) Pausanias 6.9.4 and 6.10.1; Overbeck nos. 429 and 432.  The base of the Gelon dedication survives, Loewy no. 28; Olym. Ins. no. 143; Eckstein ch. 7.  Other victors‚ commissions Pausanias 6.9.9; Overbeck no. 430 and Pausanias 6.11.2; Overbeck no. 431.  The base of the latter, for Theagenes of Thasos, may be Olym. Ins. 153. 

  25) F. Chamoux, L'aurige (Fouilles de Delphes vol. 4, pt. 5, Paris, 1953). 

  26) For Glaukos cf. J.C. Fraser, Pausanias Description of Greece 4, London, 1913, on 6.10.1. 

  27) Pausanias 6.12.1; Overbeck no. 524 and Pausanias 8.42.8; Overbeck no. 422. 

  28) Pausanias 5.25.8, 5.27.8, 5.25.12; Overbeck nos. 425, 427, 428. 

  29) Pausanias 5.27.1; Overbeck no. 402.  For the base (inscriptions not preserved) of this and the Achaian monument, cf. Eckstein ch. 3 and 5. 

  30) The End of the Archaic Style, Hesperia 38, 1969, p. 205-212. 

  31) Overbeck nos. 490-496. 

  32) For Astylos of Kroton, victor in the stade race in 478, 474, and 470, Pausanias 6.13.1; Overbeck no. 492.  One need not assume that the statue was for the first victory.  The base survives Loewy no. 23; Olym. Ins. no. 144 in addition to a second base for a statue by Pythagoras (victor's name not preserved); Loewy no. 24; Olym. Ins. no. 145. 

  33) Pausanias 5.25.2 and 5.27.8; Overbeck nos. 475 and 476.  The base of the latter is preserved Loewy no. 33; Olym. Ins. no. 271. 

  34) The earliest known work is the dedication for Anochos of Tarentum, victor in the stade race in 520, Pausanias 6.14.11; Overbeck no. 389.  For the Messenian Zeus Ithomaios, Pausanias 4.33.2; Overbeck no. 392, on the date depending on the emendation of Thucydides 1.103 cf.  Meritt, Wade-Gery, and MacGregor, Athenian Tribute Lists 3, Princeton, 1950, p. 167 ff.    Ageladas chronology is studied in a general context by P. Amandry, A propos de Poyclete.  Statues d'Olympioniques et carrière des sculpteurs, Charites, Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft,  Bonn, 1957, p. 63-87.  See also  M. T. Mitsos, Argolike; Prosopographia (Bibliotheke tes en Athenais  Arkaiologike  Etaireia  36). Athens, 1952, s.v. 

  35) Pausanias 5.26.2; Overbeck no. 401.  The basis is preserved, Loewy no. 31; Olym. Ins. no. 267; Eckstein ch. 4.  Mikythos was guardian for the sons of Anaxilas of Rhegion after 476 B.C., Diodoros 11.48. 

  36) Pausanias 5.27.1; Overbeck no. 402. 

  37) Loewy no. 30; Olym. Ins. nos. 266, 630, 631; Eckstein ch. 8.  Praxiteles, who claims citizenship of both Kamarina and Syracuse, was apparently one of the Kamarinians removed to Syracuse in 484, Herodotos 7.1.56. 

  38) Olym. Ins. to no. 266. 

  39) L. Lacroix, Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques, Paris, 1949, p. 227-232. 

  40) A theory attributing to Ageladas a commission for the Herakles statue at the Melite sanctuary in Attica in 429, (Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 501; Overbeck no. 393) but dividing the oeuvre between two sculptors of the name was put forward by A. Frickenhaus in Hageladas JdI 26, 1911, p. 24-48, cf. below p 15. 

  41) H.G. Beyen and W. Vollgraff, Argos et Sicyone, The Hague, 1947. 

  42) P.E. Arias in ArchClass. 1, 1949, p. 93-96. 

  43) Becatti, Il maestro di Olimpia, La Critica d‚Arte 4, 1939, p. 1-16, 53-57.  Osservazioni sul Maestro d'Olimpia, ibid. 6, 1941, p. 65-69. 

  44) Polykleitos Pliny H.N. 34.55; Overbeck no. 919; Myron, Pliny H.N. 34.57; Overbeck no. 533; Pheidias Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 501; Overbeck no. 393, repeated.  Suid. s.v.; Overbeck no. 398 and Tzetz. Chil. 8.235; Overbeck no. 399. 

  45) HSCP 5, 1894, p. 139. 

  46) Aus Kydathen, Berlin 1880, p. 154 followed by W.G. Rutherford, Scholia Aristophanica 3, London 1905, p. 432, note 11. 

  47) As E. Sellers (Strong) in K. Jex-Blacke and E. Sellers, The Elder Pliny‚s Chapters on the History of Art, London 1896, p. li, note 6, H. Gallet de Santerre and H. le Bonniec (Budé text), 1953, and S.  Ferri, C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae quae pertinent ad artes antiquorum, Rome 1946, to 34.55. 

  48) Pausanias 2.17.4; Overbeck no. 932 with other testimonia, nos. 933-939.