Oinoe and the Painted Stoa: Ancient and Modern Misunderstandings?

The argive and athenian defeat of the spartans in a battle at Argive Oinoe remains a problem for students of Greek art, Greek history, and the Periēgēsis of Pausanias.¹ A painting of the battle stood in the Painted Stoa in the Athenian Agora (Paus. 1.15.1). At Delphi the Argives dedicated statues of the Seven against Thebes from the spoils of victory, and statues of the Epigonoi nearby celebrated the same engagement, or so Pausanias believed (10.10.4). (See the Appendix for texts and translations.) The Stoa was erected by around 460 b.c.,² and the sculptors of the Delphic statues, the Thebans Hypatodoros and Aristogeiton, appear to have been active in the 450s.³ Pausanias’ battle of Oinoe is therefore usually assigned to the middle of the fifth century, specifically to the period from 462, when Athens formed an alliance with Sparta’s old enemy Argos (Thuc. 1.102.4), to 451, when Athens and Sparta concluded a five–year truce (Thuc. 1.112.1).⁴ But a fifth–century b.c. battle, important enough to be commemorated by the Athenians in the Agora and the Argives at Delphi, yet so obscure that it is ignored by Thucydides and all surviving ancient authors except Pausanias in the second century a.d., is rightly seen as a puzzle. Moreover, the shadowy battle of Oinoe hardly seems to deserve a place alongside three other notable events depicted in the Stoa: Marathon, the Capture of Troy, and the Amazonomachy (Paus. 1.15.1–3). To take Pausanias at his word, therefore, is not an option without difficulties, and the skepticism of the Cambridge Ancient History is justified: “The battle of Oinoe is not easy to believe in.”⁵

But attempts to unravel Pausanias’ meaning raise problems of their own. One option is to amend the text. Thus for “Oinoe” read “Orneai” (Pritchett 1994), the name of a stronghold full of Argive exiles defended by a force of Lakedaimonians, which the Argives and Athenians razed to the ground in 416 (Thuc. 6.7.1–2). This suits Pausanias’ treatment of the Delphic monuments, but it remains unclear why the Athenians chose to celebrate this particular event in such a striking manner. A more popular approach is to argue that Pausanias misreported the painting. For example, the painting commemorated not Oinoe, but Oinophyta, perhaps with the local nymph Oinoe in attendance (Stier 1934). Oinophyta was certainly a famous Athenian victory, but the enemy was Boiotian not Spartan and, so far as we know, the Argives played no part (Thuc. 1.108.2–3). Alternatively, the painting celebrates a real battle at Oinoe via a mythical scene which (it is supposed) was associated with the area: the Athenians demanding the bodies of the Seven from the Thebans on behalf of the Argives (Jeffery 1965). But here again the Athenians would be squaring up to the wrong enemy. Or there is the bold suggestion of Francis and Vickers that the Oinoe painting has nothing to do with Oinoe in Argos but rather depicts the arrival of Plataian forces to join the Athenians at Marathon from the nearby Attic deme of Oinoe—and hence forms a companion piece to the Marathon painting. “We therefore imagine that the scene may have been depicted along the following lines: the Plataians are coming down the mountainside from Oinoe, in the vicinity of the Cave of Pan and perhaps beneath the gaze of Artemis Agrotera” (1985b, 103). From this perspective, though, Pausanias will have badly misread both the participants and the nature of the action.⁶

These last three solutions suffer from the same difficulty. It is clearly unsatisfactory for us to accuse Pausanias of such a careless treatment of the Oinoe painting, while at the same time accepting down to the last detail, as most scholars do, his account of the other three pictures in the Stoa (to say nothing of his lengthy description of Polygnotos’ Sack of Troy and Nekuia in the Knidian Leschē, 10.25–31). Such carelessness is surely not characteristic of...