Ramayana in Archaic Greek & Etruscan Art at Caere, Conclusion

Description (Main Presentation, Conclusion & Appendix):

My main conclusion is that Eurocentrism and racist xenophobia, akin to the designation of India and most of South/Southeast Asia as a collection of primitive third-world countries, are the root cause of the stubborn unwillingness to accept the Indian mythological content on these Caeretan works of art. Without researchers of all ethnic backgrounds, East and West, there is little chance that we can arrive at a comprehensive understanding of everything that can be known about the ancient world. European classical scholars are actually doing themselves and others a disservice by not welcoming the input of scholars of Asian or African descent, because this leads to massive gaps in knowledge of their own history, as I have demonstrated in this presentation. Their ignorance of Indian myth and religion, as opposed to Greek myth and religion, is particularly glaring, despite the significant number of Indologists of European descent.

Raffaella Bonaudo and Jaap Hemelrijk concede the potential mythological content painted on the Caeretan hydria in Boston, but they are non-committal and unsure about how to solve this enigma. Otto Brendel is more supportive of the belief in a mythological explanation for the Campana plaques, but is unaware of their close association with the Caeretan hydria No. 2. The inability to correlate these two works of art, which Bonaudo also admits to when she calls the Ramayana episode seen on the Boston hydria "an otherwise unattested mythical tale in Etruria", has led to an inconclusive resolution to this dilemma. The Etruscan art historian Brendel astutely suggests a way out of this quandary when he proposes that the mythological subject matter in ancient Italian artifacts may sometimes be Oriental, even though the production technique is always Greco-Etruscan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm_HY8NPAqk

 

I conclude the presentation with more examples of Indian art, including ancient stone sculpture and medieval painting, to definitively prove that the Caeretan hydria No. 2 in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, dated approximately to 525 BCE, must be a depiction of the golden deer chase of Rama and Laksmana on the front and the abduction of Sita by Ravana on the back. It is a remarkable but true story of the merger of Ionian art and Indian legend in an Etruscan workshop in the late sixth century BCE! Hopefully, this presentation will motivate classical historians, Indologists, curators at major art museums, specialists in South Asian religion, and amateur researchers to also come together in the 21st century AD to tell this amazing story.

Transcript (Main Presentation, Conclusion & Appendix):

Now my main conclusion is that the combination of xenophobia and Eurocentrism lies at the heart of why these works of art have not been identified as Oriental or Indian mythological scenes. And my own personal motivation is not revisionist history per se, but the history that we are not told, simply because these classical scholars choose to focus only on Mediterranean Europe and the Near East, to the exclusion of West and South Asia. A more complete narrative of world history is only possible with the input of researchers who adopt a more holistic approach to the subject, which is what I believe I have done. 

There is a double standard unfortunately in the academic circles. There are far more western scholars of European descent who study Oriental history and myth, including the field of Indology. But compared to that there are very few scholars of Asian or African (that is non-European) descent who study classical history and myth, that is the Greek and Roman myth and culture. So this imbalance of having too many scholars in one field and not enough scholars in the other field and lack of diversity; this imbalance leads to a Eurocentric world historical view.

Returning to the same issue of why these works of art, including the Boston hydria, have not been identified as Oriental mythological scenes, I have the following quote from Jaap Hemelrijk, who does indirectly concede the potential mythological content on the Boston hydria. Like the Italian author Raffaella Bonaudo previously, Hemelrijk is non-committal, however. He writes: “The two painters had a great liking for narrative scenes and a surprising knowledge of mythology and literature. They were fond of myths that are rare, or even lacking in the work of other studios. This preference for unusual stories, which are sometimes hard to identify, suggests that certain scenes, so far not regarded as mythological, may represent definite myths as well.” (pg. 119, Caeretan Hydriae). So he really echoes Bonaudo, who also stated previously (as we showed on an earlier slide) that the Boston deer hunt “cannot be defined exactly and… does not necessarily correspond to a mythical tale not otherwise attested.” (pg. 217). They’re very close to the truth but are still hesitant to go any further than kind of knocking on the door.

Now, if you compare that to another scholar’s remarks - Otto Brendel’s remarks about the Campana slabs - we see a more affirmative statement that they at least realize they must be mythological. So he says that, “About the meaning of these representations (on the Campana plaques), general agreement has not yet been reached, though obviously the abduction of a young woman by a winged being calls for some mythological explanation.” (pg. 175, Etruscan Art). So he does realize that there needs to be some kind of mythological explanation. But he’s a little bit incorrect with his wording, because he’s calling it the “abduction of a young woman by a winged being”, when it really is a rescue of a young woman by a winged being. 

And I think that’s where, if they would compare the Caeretan hydria in Boston to the Campana plaque that he’s referring to, they would see the distinction between the abduction of a young woman versus the rescue of a young woman. And that’s the problem - not only they’re not able to identify definitively whether the scene is mythological or not, but they’re not doing enough comparison with other scenes that are similar, and could reveal the mythical origins.

So I want to present another very important quote from an Etruscan scholar, who realizes that the Etruscans probably represented some Oriental stories in their artworks. The scholar’s name is Otto Brendel and in his book Etruscan Art on pages 66 to 67, he writes: “By this time (which is the beginning of the sixth century) the Etruscan artists had acquired sufficient freedom and mastery of representational form to attempt occasionally the rendition of subjects which lay outside the limits of the Greek parent art. The possibility must at least be taken into consideration that Etruscan works occasionally represent subject matter acquired from Oriental art, which may not be immediately obvious to a modern critic because it has been translated into Greek or Greco-Etruscan techniques and forms of representation.” And this is an extremely important observation, and is thought-provoking for all modern scholars. It basically summarizes everything that I have presented to you in all these slides. 

The translation of the subject matter of the Valmiki Ramayana is not something that is immediately obvious to the modern classical scholar, but that’s what has happened, and it has been translated into the Ionian-Etruscan techniques and forms of representation. And so therefore, it’s not easy to see it on the surface immediately, especially for somebody who’s not familiar with Oriental myth or Indian myth. In addition, when Brendel (see previous quote) says that “the possibility must at least be taken into consideration that Etruscan works occasionally represent subject matter acquired from Oriental art,” he’s basically or essentially pleading with the classical scholars in the western world to at least consider the possibility that this is an Asian myth, rather than a Greek myth. And he’s quite right to do that and to condemn in essence their Eurocentric views and xenophobia.

And finally, I would just like to draw your attention to the graphics below. Once again, we can see the similarity between the Indian depiction on the right of the golden deer chase, and the Ionian representation of it on the left. The Indian painting on the right was made in Jaipur in the 19th century and it actually is one half of a full painting in which on the bottom, you see the abduction of Sita by Ravana. Actually, the demon Ravana disguises himself as a beggar while Rama is distracted by hunting a golden deer in this top scene. So in the bottom scene there is Ravana approaching Sita as a beggar. And in this top scene which I’m displaying here on this slide, (there is) Rama distracted, along with his younger brother Laksmana to the left of him, while hunting the golden deer, which has two heads again, metaphorically indicating the elusiveness of the deer.

And also normally if we are going to be very technical or by the book, only Rama is the one who actually hunts the golden deer, whereas Laksmana only meets him in the forest after he has killed Maricha, in the actual poem of Valmiki. But there’s obviously liberties taken by artists, where you see these variations where Laksmana also joins Rama in hunting the deer. So that’s why we should not be surprised if the Ionian artists also did the same thing, with what we see on the Caeretan hydria - we see Rama and Laksmana, the two nude youths hunting the golden deer Maricha. 

To finish this presentation I would like to definitively declare that we have proven exhaustively that the Caeretan hydria No. 2 in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, depicts the Golden Deer episode of the Valmiki Ramayana. What happened here is an amazing combination of Ionian art and Indian legend. They were brought together in an Etruscan workshop from the late 6th century BC. It’s a remarkable story that has never really been told, but needs to be told. So thank you. This painting from Jaipur, Rajasthan is actually kept at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, and you can see it yourself at the link that I’ve provided below the painting on this slide - if you care to analyze it further.

Now this presentation has been thorough and complete, in my opinion, but I wanted to give another example in this appendix of the Golden Deer episode in ancient stone sculpture, rather than medieval painting. This carved stone relief that you can see on this slide depicting two simultaneous events from the Valmiki Ramayana, should be all too familiar by now. It dates to the Kushan period, which is placing it around the 2nd to 3rd century AD, and comes from ancient Gandhara, located in what used to be northwest India or what is now modern Pakistan. So this is in the very ancient past compared to the medieval paintings that we’ve been using for comparison. 

And also because Gandhara was near the eastern frontier of the Persian empire in the 6th century BC, and eventually became part of it under Darius around 520 BC, it is my contention that Indians in that region were the ones who narrated the story of Rama to Ionians and Persians when they came into contact with them, in that second half of the sixth century. And this oral tradition then traveled west to Ionia very quickly due to the fast transportation network within the Persian empire, which was also vast. That’s why they talk about the Royal Road from Susa to Sardis. So it was a very vast and fast transportation network.

What is important to not about this particular work of art is that it is one of the oldest sculptures from India that depicts the golden deer hunt as well as the moments before Sita’s abduction where Ravana approaches her. So this work of art is found at the British Museum and you can see that in the link that I provided here. Now the British Museum does give us a description of this scene, and they are non-committal though, about whether the subject is actually the Ramayana. They say that the “subject may be a version of the Rama legend or a theme shared with it.” So they’re not totally sure themselves, but I think as we go through this analysis, I think most people will be certain that it must be, or at least there’s a very high probability that it is.

So in the middle scene here the British Museum tells us that an archer, which I believe is Rama, is holding the bow and is ready to strike his quarry, which is the two rearing cervids that are to the left of Rama, and the nearer one is looking over its shoulder. So if we compare to the Caeretan hydria, we can see that there’s almost a one-to-one match here, where you have multiple deer again that are being portrayed. But the actual reality is that it’s one deer and it’s just moving in a sequence away from Rama. And they’re both rearing, meaning that they are standing on their hind legs in a panic. That is again in accordance with what we see in the Caeretan hydria, with one of the poses. And they’re also showing that one of them is looking over its shoulder, which is again the same twisted head that we see in the middle deer of the Caeretan hydria (the middle pose in the Caeretan hydria).

So really I mean it’s so close to the Caeretan hydria, and it’s also one of the oldest examples from India. So that should really clue us in that this is probably how the Ionian artists really understood it, that this comes the closest to what the Ionian artists were really picturing or imagining themselves. And you can see that the leftmost cervid is not looking back and it’s fleeing away. And that’s analogous to the leftmost deer that we see on the Caeretan hydria. Now if we look at the other scene on the left side, Ravana is posing as an “unhappy suppliant” in the British Museum’s words, and he’s approaching Sita, who is seated in a “partly leaf-covered hut”, according to the British Museum. And this hut is what is acting as kind of a dividing line between the two scenes. 

Also in the rightmost part of the middle scene we see that Laksmana and Sita are probably the two standing figures behind Rama, who is the archer hunting the deer. So really it’s again the same two events - the abduction of Sita and the deer hunt - just as we have seen throughout this presentation, including with the main work of art that we’ve been analyzing, the Caeretan hydria from Boston. I think this should be as conclusive as it gets.

Ramayana in Archaic Greek and Etruscan Art at Caere, Part VIII

Description (Main Presentation, Part VIII):

Once it is accepted that the Caeretan hydria in Boston and the Campana plaques are representations in all probability of episodes from the legend of Rama, the question of how the story was transmitted from India to Etruria is equally confounding. The basic explanation, given the absence of any written documentation, is that the Persian Achaemenid empire (c. 550-525 BCE), through its noted religious tolerance, permitted artists, bards, and pundits from northwest India to narrate the story of Rama to Ionians and other foreigners that they came into contact with throughout West Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor. This process certainly occurred centuries later when the Ramayana traveled from India to China and Southeast Asia in the eastern direction.

Reaching the boundaries of Indian states such as Gandhara and Taxila, the Persian empire facilitated peaceful movement of stories, beliefs, and people from South Asia to Ionia in Asia Minor (Anatolia). The immigrant artists who moved to Caere in the latter half of the sixth century most likely came from the Ionian city of Phocaea; here they probably gained exposure to the Ramayana because of their strong interest in epic literature and mythology. The Etruscan aristocracy in Caere, having been steeped in Orientalizing influences since at least the seventh century BCE, naturally gravitated towards this legendary hero of Rama and his wife Sita. Their obsession with marital bliss in the afterlife, religiosity, desire to learn about other cultures, fascination with animal hunting and Greek myths of abduction, and interest in emulating great Oriental monarchs, were all factors in the Caeretan embrace of the Valmiki Ramayana.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NIR4xyekvQ

Reproductions of the Campana slabs in full color assist us in properly analyzing the mythological content in them, including four major episodes of the Ramayana. Unfortunately, no reproductions or color photos of the Caeretan hydria in Boston have been made available for further examination. Given this discrepancy in the graphic research material, there are more speculative interpretations that have been proposed for the Campana plaques than the hydria. These guesses about the identity of each figure on the Campana panels reveal ignorance of the actual myth but also useful insights about the general narrative depicted on each panel and the roles of each character. 

Finally, we compare two Indian paintings to the two most important Campana slabs. The flight of Vishnu and Lakshmi, gods who incarnate as Rama and Sita in Hindu religious belief, is a reasonable counterpart to the winged Rama flying through the air with Sita cradled in his arms. The familiar scene of Rama, Sita, and Laksmana walking through the forest in a Bengali painting is a close match to the Campana plaque where Rama leads Sita and Laksmana in their travels outside Ayodhya. In each scene, one of the characters holds a plant or leaf, signifying their life in the wilderness.

Transcript (Main Presentation, Part VIII):

Now that we have examined the Caeretan hydria in great detail, as well as the Campana slabs, the question arises, of course, “Well, okay, these are Ramayana scenes, we can concede that. But how do you prove that they even knew about this legend in the first place? I mean, how did the Oriental legend of Ramayana travel from India to Etruria?” It’s an excellent question and one that is not possible to answer within the scope of this presentation, but I can touch upon it briefly and try to explain how it happened on a high level. 

So this process of transmission of the Ramayana, it happened during the 550 BC to 500 BC range, that is the latter half of the 6th century. And that was when the Persian Achaemenid Empire had stretched itself from Ionia to India (to the borders of northwest India), and that’s in essence what allowed the epic Ramayana to be told for the first time to Europeans in the Mediterranean world. This process is not as certain or as easy to describe in detail because it’s not been documented that well, given that it’s over 2500 years old. But we do have documentation of the fact that the Valmiki Ramayana was transmitted to China and many Southeast Asian countries about 1500 to 2000 years ago. And these Southeast Asian countries are numerous. They include Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, and Indonesia. And if it could travel 2,000 years ago to these Southeast Asian and East Asian countries, then it definitely could travel far westward as well. So if it could travel far eastward from India, then it surely could also have traveled far westward. It’s only because of the superiority complex of Europeans that it’s not something they’re willing to even admit could have happened.

Generally speaking, the classical scholars like to emphasize how the Greeks influenced the Persians and the Indians, and not the other way around. And that is part of the Eurocentric bias that I’ve been talking about. If you look at the quote from Margaret Miller below, from her book Athens and Persia… A Study in Cultural Receptivity, she notes the “peaceful conditions that were helpful to trade under the new empire (the Achaemenid Persian empire),” starting around 530 BCE, which just happens to coincide with the starting date of the Caeretan workshop that produced all these hydriae (pg. 67). So, in my opinion, there’s too much emphasis on the Greek influence on the Asian countries rather than the other way around. And I think that’s again, part of the problem with the effects of colonialism, and the way the modern world is structured, with the Western world being more materially advanced.

To continue our conversation about the transmission of the Ramayana via the Persian empire, I want to present this graphic which comes from Lindsay Allen’s book The Persian Empire. (Side note: According to the author, the Persian monarchy “fostered unprecedented international communication and cultural exchange.”). And in it (the map) you can see the roads that were existing at that time in the 6th century BC that allowed the Indians to communicate the story all the way to the Mediterranean borders of Ionia. And if you look at it, you can see the roadways connecting from the Indus River Valley in the region of Gandhara and Bactria all the way to Lydia and Caria and Lycia, as well as other parts of Ionia, including Phocaea, where the artists of the Caeretan hydria probably came from.

To make this more specific, the Indians communicated the story of Valmiki’s Ramayana to the Ionians, specifically the Phocaeans in all probability, who then told it in Etruria. The Persian empire reached northwest India - Gandhara, Takshashila (or what is known as Taxila). These areas of northwest India are where the myth of Rama and Sita were probably told by bards, and this included the Golden Deer episode, which then likely traveled all the way to the western coast of Asia Minor, that is Ionia.

Hemelrijk in his book (More on Caeretan Hydriae, Addenda and Clarifications, pg. 76) states: “I take it that the two master-painters of our hydriae left East Greece (Phocaea) before the age at which they would become adult ceramicists. The refugees from Asia Minor fleeing from the Persians in the 40s of the sixth century who wanted to found a new home in Corsica must have been about the best educated people of the time and among them, we gather, our painters grew up. This explains their great interest in literature and mythology.” So this is certainly a very dense explanation and detailed one of the education of the painters, how well-informed they were, and also why they were leaving potentially from Asia Minor, and when they were leaving as well, in the 40s of the sixth century. So there’s a lot of detail here. 

Some of it is not necessarily correct because in my opinion, the idea that Ionian artists were fleeing the tyranny of the Persian oppressors is only one possibility. It is also just as possible that stable conditions around 540 to 530 BCE (which Margaret Miller hints at in the previous slide) may have allowed safe travel and secure trade for the Phocaean immigrants to explore new business opportunities and settle themselves in a land with more hope for a higher quality of life. This is a hypothetical situation of course, but it does resemble contemporary times. People in the 20th century have immigrated to America, not necessarily to escape tyranny, but often simply for a chance at a better life. So what I’m saying here is that there could be a variety of reasons why they immigrated from Asia Minor all the way to Caere in Etruria, but suffice to say they did immigrate, that’s for sure. And they did it early on in the latter half of the sixth century. And they were very well-educated, and they clearly knew about a great variety of myths in literature, not just in the Greek world but even outside of the Greek world.

Now that we have explained how the Ramayana was transmitted to Etruria, the next question would be well, Why did the Etruscans embrace the story of Rama and Sita in the first place? In my opinion, the Etruscans could relate to the ancient Indians and their epic story, even though they were not related at all to them ethnically, racially, linguistically, etc. So they didn’t have any biological relationship with them, but that’s not how they related to them and their epic story. So how could they relate to the main protagonists Rama and Sita? I think one needs only to view the great works of art depicting the happily married couples enjoying the afterlife together, which you can see in the Villa Giulia Museum in Rome, including the famous Sarcophagus of the Spouses (which also comes from Caere). And you just need to see those works of art to see how the Etruscans must have valued the Indian paragon of faithful spouses, Rama and Sita. They definitely put an emphasis on marriage between man and woman, and the marital bliss in their art. 

The next point would be, I believe the Etruscans saw nobility and strength in the story of the Ramayana as well as great drama, especially in the abduction scene of Sita, which was clearly one of their favorites. And I think the popularity of the narrative of satyrs chasing maenads, and hunting animals such as deer, made it easy for this part of the story to become accessible and convertible into a medium that was understandable to the native population in the Mediterranean world. It was easy to translate this part of the story, the Golden Deer episode, into a form that was going to become very popular in the Mediterranean world. And the third point would be that Rama’s qualities of self-restraint, valor, and loyalty were unparalleled in the Indian lore. And the Etruscan kings or the aristocrats, you could say, in Rome and in Caere, likely wanted to emulate these traits. And that’s what explains the somber and devotional tone that you see in the Campana plaques.

The fourth point would be that the Etruscans, being socially isolated from the rest of the world because they were speaking a language that was not part of any major family, Semitic or Indo-European (they were not speaking a language that was Semitic or Indo-European), probably had an unusually strong desire to learn about other cultures and their mythical stories. The tomb also was the perfect storage house for preserving the relics of their far-ranging interests. I think all of these factors contributed to the survival of amazing artifacts that allow us to peer into a mostly undocumented and shadowy period in human history. Therefore, why don’t we celebrate, rather than doubt, the embrace of Indian influence by Etruscan aristocrats of the sixth century?

The Etruscan scholar Jean MacIntosh Turfa explains this Etruscan embrace of Oriental cultures in three words. She calls it the “cosmopolitan inquiring spirit” of the Etruscans, which is a great way to summarize who they are. Another comment I want to make is that we should not be surprised that the Etruscans preserved artistic works depicting the Ramayana better than the Indians themselves were able to do. Because even if we look at the modern world of today, one could very much argue that the traditions of yoga, and even the health system of Ayurveda, are better preserved in the Western world than they are in India itself, and will continue to trend in that direction.

Regarding preservation, (for) the photos you see here of the Campana slabs both on the left and the right, you can see a clear distinction between the color and black and white photos. And furthermore, we don’t have any corresponding color photos for the Caeretan hydria in Boston like we do for these Campana slabs. Even the color photos that you see here that we have of the Campana series are often inferior in quality. So if you look at the bottom left, you’ll see that the black and white image of Rama and Sita and Laksmana walking forward is quite a bit better than the color image. 

And also on the right hand side here we have the fifth Campana slab that we have yet to analyze. And the main reason is that unfortunately part of it is broken off. And so we don’t have the face of the lady completely painted and depicted. But I think the most likely explanation for this one is that it’s just a romantic scene between Rama and Sita during their stay in the forest. So it’s not as important as the other four slabs, but definitely seems to be a continuation of the slab on the left where Rama and Sita and Laksmana are walking in the forest here. It’s probably the two of them just casually relaxing, during their time in exile. 

Also, I want to add that the scholar Mario Del Chiaro (see also Part III) noticed that there were “essentially congruent profile heads exhibited by the women depicted on three of the Campana panels,” including this last panel here, which is broken off. And that indicates clearly that Sita is being depicted in three of the scenes, in all three scenes. There are also three congruent profile heads of Rama in the Campana panels, including these two scenes that you can see on this slide, where you have Rama holding bow and arrows on the leftmost slab, as well as on this broken slab where he’s unarmed and enjoying a romantic moment with his wife. You can see the same shape of the beard, the same type of eyes and facial appearance and long hair. And you also see a gesture with the right hand as well in both, and similar clothing. 

They really are the same person on three of the slabs, including the other one where he’s rescuing Sita. In that one, there’s two versions of Rama. The one on the leftmost side is also bearded, just like these two characters here. So, there are actually three congruent profile heads for Sita and for Rama in the Campana slabs. That really confirms that these are the two most important characters that are featured on these Campana panels. I think that people should petition the Boston Museum of Fine Arts to put the Caeretan hydria No. 2 with the Boston deer hunt on display so that people can look at it in color, and also take photos of course, but especially to be able to view it and see it in its full glory and really judge for themselves what they think it is.

We actually do have reproductions of the Campana slab paintings at the Bologna Etruscan Museum, which is in the northern part of Tuscany. And these provide more visual evidence of the Valmiki Ramayana, through these modern renditions, where the characters are restored and the painting is restored to what it may have been originally. So if we examine these modern renditions, these reproductions in Bologna, we see that in the bottom left corner from left to right, King Dasaratha is again seated with his preceptor Vashishta, with Kaikeyi flying over to intervene. And you can see her right hand raised to interfere with what they were discussing. Then in the middle we have the Rama and Sita and Laksmana walking close together, both in the top and bottom photos. They’re the photos of the same picture (of the same artwork that’s been reproduced). And on the bottom right you have Bharata performing penances in solitude at a fire altar. So that’s the bottom right. And then on the top right corner you can see Rama again, carrying his wife back home as a triumphant hero.

I want to give a brief overview of some of the speculative interpretations of these Campana plaques. The Etruscan researchers have come to conclusions that reflect both their ignorance of the actual myth from the Ramayana and also their sporadically correct observations of the characters’ general roles. So the first quote I’m going to give you is correct actually. It’s a correct statement and it’s found in the book Etruscan Art by Otto Brendel. He writes (pg. 174) that “evidently five of the slabs formed part of a continuous decoration,” meaning that they formed a connected narrative. And definitely this is a statement that I agree with and it refutes the published views of the Louvre Museum that we discussed earlier. 

But the problem is that Otto Brendel incorrectly guesses the meaning of the three main Campana slabs. He writes that “in one slab one may identify Iphigenia led to her sacrifice by two men carrying weapons.” (pg. 175). So instead of it being Sita, and Rama and Laksmana leading her in the front and back, it’s instead Iphigenia being led to a sacrifice by two nondescript men. But clearly these two men are not nondescript. They’re clearly great heroes, just like the two youths in the Caeretan hydria. So we can refute that one right away. Now the next statement is, in another slab, he says that “Calchas the seer and King Agamemnon, seated, (are) deliberating about the means of reconciling the offended goddess Artemis.” (pg. 175). So you can see that he does come close here in the sense that he identifies that one is a king and one is a seer, just like King Dasaratha and the seer Vashishta. So conceptually he’s right, but the characters he has gotten wrong because of the obsession with trying to fit this forcibly into some kind of Greek myth.

And the last statement is in the abduction scene: “Iphigenia may again be recognized, this time rescued from the sacrificial altar by Apollo with bow and arrows (which would be the left figure) and then Artemis (who’s the winged figure in his eyes), who carries her away through the air.” (pg. 175). Now, there is one problem with this, which is pretty glaring. And Warren G. Moon, which is the next quote that I’ll give you, he observes in his book Ancient Greek Art and Iconography that “Artemis is identified as the winged figure (in Brendel’s book) even though her flesh is not painted white as is Iphigenia’s.” (pg. 117). And this observation is critical because it proves that the character is not female like Artemis, but is male with a tanned face and a shaven face. But if you look at the skin color (and I think we’ve discussed this earlier), the females tend to be painted lighter skinned or fairer skinned than the male characters. If you again look at any of the Campana plaques, you’ll see that Rama is depicted with a darker skin and Sita is depicted with fairer skin. So this statement or this opinion that it’s Artemis who’s the winged figure just simply does not accord with the reality that it’s a male figure, clearly because of the tanned color of the face.

Now that’s wrong, yes. But he has gotten something right here. And that’s the fact that he realizes that Iphigenia, who is really Sita, is again recognized a second time (and he also seems to recognize that Apollo, who is really Rama, is rescuing the lady). So he recognizes that the same character is being depicted in two different Campana slabs. And that’s exactly what I’ve been talking about with not only the Campana slabs, but also the Caeretan hydria, that Sita is the maenad in both scenes on the left and right on the reverse side of the hydria. So he does get that right. He does realize that the same female character is being depicted twice (he also nearly realized that Rama is depicted twice on this particular slab, but felt like identifying the brother Apollo with his sister Artemis in a dual rescue).

I wanted to finish our discussion about the Campana slabs with a presentation of two Indian counterparts to two of the main Campana slabs that are not exactly the same. But (they) are definitely similar to the two Campana slabs in which Rama and Sita and Laksmana are walking in the forest, and the other Campana slab where Rama is carrying Sita in the sky as a winged figure. So on the left hand side we see here the royal, divine bird Garuda carrying the divine couple Vishnu and Lakshmi. Now Rama and Sita are earthly incarnations of these two Hindu gods Vishnu and Lakshmi respectively, and you can see them smiling at each other while flying in the sky in this painting on the left.

In the book In the Realm of Gods and Kings: Arts of India, they describe this scene in more detail. They say Garuda, the divine bird (“king of birds”), “bears Vishnu with his consort Lakshmi in stately flight,” and Vishnu “holds a bow and arrow” just like Rama (pg. 114-115). And “the divine couple here gaze at one another with serene devotion.” (pg. 115). And we can see that even in the Campana plaque with Sita gazing at her husband and hero, Rama, with that same kind of serene devotion.

Now on the right hand side we see another Bengali folk painting depicting Rama and Sita in the middle and Laksmana walking behind them through the forest. And what you will notice is that Laksmana is the one holding the leaf this time over their heads to protect them, probably from the rain or whatnot. And as you can see it’s very similar to the Campana slab again. Just the variation is in the person who is holding the leaf or flower. It could be Rama, it could be Sita. It could be Rama, Sita, or Laksmana himself. So it could be any one of the three characters holding the leaf or flower or branch, signifying that they are walking through the wilderness. And you can also see the design of green leaves on the top of the painting as well, just like the lotus palmettes in the Caeretan hydria.

Ramayana in Archaic Greek and Etruscan Art at Caere, Part VII

Description (Main Presentation, Part VII):

In this section we find similarities and differences between specific Greek myths of abduction and the Indian myth of Sita's abduction by Ravana. The Greek myth of Nessos abducting Deianira, wife of Heracles, is especially comparable to the Indian myth of Ravana abducting Sita, wife of Rama, with the additional help of the demon Maricha. The deceptive methods utilized by the perpetrators Nessos and Maricha reach their maximum effect right at the time each monster is killed with the bow and arrow by each of the heroes, Heracles and Rama, respectively. The main contrast between the Ionian depictions of each myth is structural - the Greek myth of Deianira with Heracles pursuing Nessos is shown in one scene on a Caeretan hydria, whereas the Indian myth of Sita with Rama pursuing the golden deer Maricha is divided into multiple scenes appearing on both sides of the Caeretan hydria in Boston. This is reflective of Indian influence in promoting continuous narrative or a series of episodes displayed in a logical sequence. Because there are two demons Ravana and Maricha conspiring together instead of one (Nessos), multiple painted scenes were deemed to be necessary or ideal.

The facial characteristics of the Indian demon Ravana in his 'satyr' form on Caeretan hydria No. 2, including the enlarged head and nose, are grouped together with those of similar looking figures such as Alcyoneus and Tityos. All these figures exhibit mixed features from humans and other animals. Another Greek myth of abduction that parallels Ravana's abduction of Sita is Eos's abduction of Kephalos, which is depicted in contemporary sculpture and Caeretan hydria No. 3. The shared iconographical details of each abduction include the grasping of the arm of the abductee by the abductor and the turning of the head of the abductee to look at the abductor while moving away to flee in the opposite direction. The common theme of sexual conquest observed in Ravana-Sita and Eos-Kephalos interactions and the aforementioned contemporary and shared iconography of abduction seen in depictions of both myths confirms the correct placement of Caeretan water vases No. 2 and No. 3 into the same group with other hydriae by Jaap Hemelrijk. The author Hemelrijk does not realize, however, that this indicates that the No. 2 hydria contains paintings of mythological characters with names, not generic figures, like almost every other vase in that group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgAgUfXxk3s

Regarding the two Caeretan hydriae (No. 2 and No. 3), there is a metaphorical relationship between the obverse and reverse sides in both artworks. The analogy between the often deceptive chases or abductions of animals and humans for selfish purposes is recognizable in No. 3, 'The Cradle of Hermes' and No. 2, 'The Golden Deer Episode of Rama and Sita'. Hermes deceives Apollo and steals his cattle, while Eos chases Kephalos to abduct him. On both sides valuable entities are kidnapped; cows on one side, and a human on the other side. Similarly, Maricha deceives Rama and Laksmana in their golden deer chase, while Ravana 'steals' Sita from Rama by abducting her. Rama and Apollo are tricked despite their status as divine heroes, whereas the innocent young woman Sita is taken away like Apollo's cattle or the innocent young man Kephalos. 

However, in contrast to No. 3, the two sides of the No. 2 hydria are related episodes from the same myth (Ramayana) that form a connected narrative. Jaap Hemelrijk felt that the two sides of No. 3 should have formed a connected narrative, by placing the stolen cattle of Apollo on one side and the sleeping Hermes in the cradle with Maia and Apollo talking beside it on the other side. He would have been impressed if he had realized that the No. 2 hydria was illustrating a connected narrative all along. Finally, I will examine some technical findings of Konrad Schauenberg regarding the Caeretan hydria in Boston that buttress my opinion that it shows the Golden Deer episode of the Ramayana in a three-part narration.

Transcript (Main Presentation, Part VII):

So on the next few slides I am looking to make a specific comparison between one Greek myth, that of Heracles of Deianira and Nessos, and the myth of Rama and Sita and Ravana. And the title of this slide is that Heracles fights centaurs and Rama fights the raksasa demons, who are very similar in many ways to the Nightstalkers of European folklore. On this graphic here we see the Caeretan hydria No. 17. And on the left you have Heracles with a bow and a club about to attack Nessos the centaur, who has Deianira in his grasp or is trying to take her away through another abduction. 

So as I said on the previous slide, I’m trying to detect the similarities between Greek and Indian myths of abduction or rape, using these specific two myths as a case study: The Greek myth of Heracles, Nessos, and Deianira versus the Indian myth of Rama vs. Ravana and Maricha, along with his wife Sita. So Deianira is the wife of Heracles and she’s being abducted by Nessos, whereas Sita, the wife of Rama, is being abducted by the demon Ravana (with Maricha’s assistance).

In literature the first point that I want to make is that Heracles always deals the fatal blow to the centaur Nessos with bow and arrows, and Rama always kills Maricha, and later Ravana as well, with his bow and arrows. The Italian author Bonaudo observes that "Heracles is always armed with a bow" on the Caeretan hydriae (pg. 146, La Culla di Hermes). So on the Caeretan hydriae you’ll always see Heracles armed with a bow and similarly, Rama is the perfect analogue for Heracles because he’s always got the bow in his hand as well. The bow is a prominent weapon for both of these heroes as well as Apollo. Now the next point is that when we look at the demons, Nessos the centaur is depicted unarmed on all three Caeretan hydriae (No. 16, 17, 20) and Maricha the deer is also unarmed of course in his golden deer form. And like the demons Tityos and Nessos, he contorts his animal body to look back at his assailants. And you can see in the previous slide, Nessos also looking back at Heracles, while he’s trying to abduct his wife Deianira.

 

               Caeretan Hydria No. 20 at the Villa Giulia Museum, Rome

                 Another depiction (like No. 17) of Heracles, Deianira, and Nessos

Now the last point of comparison is the most complicated. At the very moment that Rama kills him, Maricha deceives Sita with cries of ‘Oh Sita, Oh Laksmana!’, in Rama’s voice, so that Laksmana himself leaves Sita alone to help Rama, and then Sita is alone and Ravana is able to abduct her. So in this situation, Maricha uses Rama’s voice to fool Sita into sending Laksmana (unwillingly) to help protect his elder brother Rama. And that isolates her and that’s what gives Ravana an opportunity to kidnap her. So she’s deceived in many ways in this episode. She’s deceived by the golden deer itself and its alluring qualities as well as these cries at the end by Maricha that are meant to decoy Laksmana away and make Sita believe Rama is in trouble. And also the other deception is Ravana’s disguise as a mendicant which allows him to approach Sita and then kidnap her. So she’s deceived in three different ways actually.

Now for comparison’s sake if we look at the character of Nessos, he is about to die at the hands of Heracles by a poisoned arrow. And what he does is that he deceives Deianira in that final moment into poisoning her husband with what she thinks is a so-called love potion, but is actually the poison from the arrow - the poisoned blood from his wound. So, both Nessos and Maricha are treacherous with these alluring illusions - “seductive beverage” and “seductive golden deer”, respectively. Nessos deceives Deianira and Heracles when he acts as a ferryman to help them cross a river intially, but then after that, he tries to run off with Deianira and have intercourse with her. So, that’s the first deception. And then the second deception is at the very end when he’s about to die, just like Maricha, and ends up causing Heracles’s death.

Both Nessos and Maricha, along with Ravana, are deceiving the protagonists on multiple occasions. So the main difference between the two stories is really just that Ravana and Maricha are working together, whereas Nessos is acting alone. But other than that, you can see a lot of similarities between the two stories. And I just want to reiterate that Maricha’s deception of Sita, like that of the centaur Nessos, who deceived Deianira, is emphasized many times by Valmiki in the poem that he wrote of the Ramayana. The deception actually occurs in Sarga 42 (near the end of Sarga 42) in the Aranya Kanda, or the Book of the Forest. 

And later on after Rama realizes that Laksmana has been deceived, he speaks to Laksmana in the forest when they’re together away from Sita, and she’s already been abducted, in Sarga 56, Verses 13 to 14. He says to Laksmana: “It must have truly frightened even you when that cunning, evil raksasa demon cried out: ‘Oh, Laksmana!’ at the top of his voice. I suspect Sita must have heard that voice so like my own and in her panic sent you off at once to find me.” And I think the key word is “panic” here. That’s really, I think, what the artist is kind of highlighting, is Sita’s panic when she gets abducted by Ravana on the back side of the hydria.

Now I just want to compare and contrast the narrative art styles of the Etruscan depictions of these two myths, Greek and Indian, in the Caeretan hydriae. So we’re going to compare the Greek and Indian mythological characters, and also contrast the narrative structure. If we notice on the No. 17 hydria, the main characters of the Greek myth, Heracles, Deianira, and Nessos, are all placed together in the same scene as is the custom in Greek art. But if we look at hydria No. 2, it does not depict a complete narrative in one scene, but in three connected scenes, which is also the norm in Indian medieval art. And the main characters Rama and Laksmana are on one side, along with the golden deer Maricha. And on the other side we have Sita and Ravana depicted twice each, in two different scenes that are divided by the lotus palmette. 

Now comparing the characters themselves, we see that the two villains, Maricha and Ravana, represent the same role as Nessos in the Greek myth. Nessos also flees like Ravana and turns toward the hero Heracles, just like Maricha in the deer hunt, as well. So in the No. 17 hydria, we see Nessos fleeing, as well as looking back at the assailant Heracles, who’s attacking him. And it’s the same as what we see with Maricha, who’s also fleeing and looking back at the two assailants Rama and Laksmana. Now Sita herself, the lady, she represents the role of Deianira of course, and they both raise their hands against an abduction, either to get help from the hero or to resist the villain. In the case of Deianira, it seems to be to get help from Heracles, whereas in the case of Sita, it seems to be quite obviously resistance against the villain Ravana.

Now the next point is that Rama and Laksmana are the two heroes who represent the same role as Heracles and they’re both armed with bows, all three of them. And the last point (general point) I want to make is that the hydria with Heracles is meant to be viewed from left to right - that is, the hydria No. 17 where it’s called the punishment of Nessos. The hydria No. 2 with Rama is meant to be viewed from right to left on both sides. So there is a contrast here in terms of the way the narrative is actually seen and understood. And the last point I want to make is that based on all this information, I think a good title for the theme of the Caeretan hydria No. 2 is the “Golden Deer Hunt and Sita’s Abduction”, because both are equally important to understanding the connected narrative. You need to know both to really understand that it’s a connected narrative. So that’s another title that it could be given.

 

   Rama and Laksmana astonished to see such a seductive deer near the hut (Bengal)

    Ravana approaches Sita (tiny, like the deer above) in the disguise of a priest (Malwa)

The facial characteristics of Ravana the satyr have been compared to many different monstrous figures in the Greek mythology. And that includes the centaurs on the Caeretan hydria No. 25, which you can see on the bottom left. And you see two different centaurs fighting Heracles. And if you look at the right graphic, the figure on the right, it’s a comparison between several different figures, all of whom have similar facial characteristics. According to the author Raffaella Bonaudo, who detects similar facial structures of these demons, she writes that the “somatic characteristics of the liminal figures” are grouped together and they include Alcyoneus, Tityos, the satyr (which is Ravana), and the centaur that you see on No. 25, or at least one of the centaurs.

The use of the word “liminal” indicates that all four characters exist on the boundary between man and animal, just like the followers or companions of Dionysus, the Silene. We can also look at a quote from Hemelrijk on page 80 of his book. He confirms Bonaudo’s grouping here of these four different demons when he writes: “The head of Alcyoneus,” which we see on No. 21, “is of the same family as that of the satyrs and centaurs of the hydriae, especially the nose.” (Caeretan Hydriae). 

Now, Ravana does not only behave like the satyrs or other monstrous creatures, male creatures in Greek myth, but ironically he also behaves very similar to the goddess Eos in her pursuit of Kephalos in another Greek myth that was contemporary. And what I’m going to show you here are graphics that are an explicit comparison between the two abductions. These two above here are representing on the left, the moment before the abduction of Kephalos by Eos, and that is from a limestone metope from Sicily in the early 5th century BC, and I believe this is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art; the same thing with the right hand side here on the top we have the abduction itself of Kephalos by Eos, who grabs his arms if you notice, and this is from a terracotta altar from Sicily as well, in the early 5th century BC in the ancient city of Selinus.

Now as you can see we have on the left the moment before abduction and then we have the abduction on the right. Now looking below on the two scenes that we have already looked at in the Caeretan hydria No. 2, we see on the left the abduction of Sita by Ravana, who grabs her by the right arm just like Eos grabs the arms of Kephalos on the top right. And now on this bottom right scene we see the moment just after the abduction (not before but after) with Ravana carrying Sita off, and this is from the late 6th century BC as we have discussed, and is on the reverse side of the Caeretan hydria. So the conclusion is that Ravana is behaving like any aggressive pursuer of another sexually desired prey or object that he is wanting and desiring very badly. So they don’t have to conform to any specific look. It’s more just a depiction of predator and prey, or the pursuer and the object in a sexual conquest.

So if we compare the two abductions, we can also see that on the top left, Kephalos is looking back at his pursuer Eos, just like Sita is also looking at her pursuer in Ravana by twisting her head towards him. So you can see that on the top left and the bottom left. Now on the top right, you can see Kephalos; his feet are turned away in the opposite direction just like Sita also has her feet turned away in the opposite direction looking to flee, but is unable to get away because Ravana is grabbing her arm just like Eos is grabbing Kephalos’s arms. So definitely you can see the similarity in the iconography and in the structure of how they depict an abduction, no matter who the abductor is and who the object is of the abduction.

So what we have here on the right is a color photo of the No. 3 hydria on the reverse side, and it depicts Eos, the goddess, chasing Kephalos, who’s fleeing on the left. And my topic today on this slide is to show you at least an initial comparison with Ravana approaching Sita on the Caeretan hydria No. 2. So the No. 3 hydria that you see on the right, it contains a depiction of Eos, the winged goddess, and Kephalos on the reverse side. And on the front side, the main scene that you see is Apollo and Hermes and the stealing of cattle. So Hermes is in the cradle and Apollo is questioning why his cattle have been stolen. They (front and back of No. 3) seem to be totally unrelated in some ways on the surface, (that is) those two scenes.

But getting back to this hydria overall, this No. 3 hydria is in the same group as No. 2 hydria of the so-called satyrs chasing maenads, which is called Group A, according to Hemelrijk. And the similarities between the abduction and pursuit scenes in the No. 2 and No. 3 hydriae, along with the examples from Selinus in the previous slide, certainly indicate that they are both mythological scenes with named characters. Meaning, the No. 3 hydria has many mythological characters that we can name, but the No. 2 hydria should have the same (feature). It should also have mythological characters that we can name because they both have very strong similarities in terms of the abduction and pursuit. 

And finally, the quote from Hemelrijk I will give you is that “Gods are restricted to Group A,” which is what No. 2 and No. 3 are a part of, “and females are plentiful in Group A and rare in Group B… There is not a single vague scene in Group A,” according to Hemelrijk. But in his opinion, “the identification of Eos and Kephalos on the reverse of No. 3 (3B) has sometimes been doubted… There cannot be any doubt, however, that Group A generally represents an earlier phase than Group B.” (pg. 125, Caeretan Hydriae). So he’s definitely acknowledging that Group A is an older set of vases than Group B, and that No. 2 and No. 3 are a part of Group A. 

He’s also acknowledging that gods are restricted to Group A. And so therefore, we should expect to find not only mythological heroes on No. 2 and No. 3, but also heroes that are divine. And that’s what Rama is. He’s a divine hero just like Apollo or Heracles. And he also admits that females are plentiful in Group A. So clearly if we can name Eos or Maia, the mother of Hermes or Apollo, on the front side of the No. 3 (hydria), then we can also name Sita on the No. 2 hydria.

So now I just want to make a comparison systematically between the story of Eos and Kephalos, and the story of Ravana and Sita. And the comparison will span both the scenes on the painted hydriae, as well as the sculptures from Selinus. So the first point is that Ravana grabs Sita to prevent her escape in the Caeretan hydria and Eos does the same with Kephalos on the altar’s carved sculpture at Selinus. And the next point is that Sita flees in the opposite direction while still facing Ravana in fear; Kephalos turns away to flee from Eos while still looking back at her in the limestone metope as well. So you can see the similarities already in those two points.

And then both scenes are sexual conquests through forced abduction and they date from the same time period as well - late 6th century BC to early 5th century, so circa 530 to 470 BCE. So they’re roughly from the same time period as well. And another point is that it is illogical to claim that one is a mythological scene with characters that can be explicitly named and the other is somehow just some generic scene with no personalized figures. And that’s what they seem to conclude for the Caeretan hydria, which makes no sense at all for the Boston hydria (No. 2). So they’re able to positively identify the scene of Eos and Kephalos or at least they make a conjecture about it or they have a strong belief that it might be. But with the other scene from Boston, they just simply want to stick to the belief that it’s generic somehow, when that just does not make any sense.

And lastly, both events occur when the victim or the victim’s husband is out ‘hunting’, as if to metaphorically tell us that the hunter has now become the hunted. Remember that the youthful lady Sita implores her husband Rama to hunt the golden deer in the Valmiki Ramayana, but instead Ravana hunts her down. Similarly, Kephalos is said to have been chased down by Eos when he was hunting outside. And you can see the source of Apollodorus 1.9.4. You can also look at the story of Atalanta for another similar theme of the hunter becoming the hunted. This really systematically proves that these stories are very, very similar, and therefore are very useful for our analysis here.

Now, what we have here on the right side is a full-size view of the front side of the Caeretan hydria in Boston, where we see the deer hunt by the two nude youths. And what my topic here on this slide will be is a discussion about the mythological content either being vague, or not so vague. And some Italian authors like Raffaella Bonaudo think it is vague and uncertain and they admit that they don’t really know what it is, but Jaap Hemelrijk seems to disagree. So he seems to believe that the No. 2 and the No. 3 hydriae belong to the same group, and he calls that Group A, and that all scenes in this group can be identified with certainty. But the problem is, if vases in Group A contain scenes that are not vague, why has the author not identified the mythological content in the hydria depicting the Ramayanic scene? Maybe he does really believe with “certainty” that it is merely a scene of satyrs chasing maenads, and young men hunting deer. But that would make No. 2 an extreme outlier among the vases in that group, almost all of which depict one or more Greek mythological characters such as Heracles, Atalanta, Hephaestus, Europa, Hermes, Apollo, Artemis, you get the idea, etc. But the reality is that the truth is that it really is an outlier, but only in the sense that it depicts Indian mythological characters, and not in the fact that it’s somehow not even mythological at all. That is not the reason why it’s an outlier.

So I would like to talk about Hemelrijk’s questionable conclusions, especially in the area of finding a metaphorical relationship between the obverse and reverse sides of the two Caeretan hydriae, No. 3 and No. 2. He struggles to explain where the metaphorical relationship is occurring, and really frankly, I think he just doesn’t quite understand it. So the first point is that one could argue that Ravana’s abduction of Sita and Eos’s abduction of Kephalos could have been depicted on the obverse and reverse sides of a Caeretan hydria, just for the sake of argument, as a metaphorical comparison by the artists of Indian and Greek stories. Now of course, the author does not think of this hypothetical choice. He says, “I confess that I find it hard to imagine a satisfactory obverse scene portraying the pair of Eos and Kephalos of No. 3B,” that is the reverse side of the No. 3 hydria (pg. 126, Caeretan Hydriae).

So the next point is that I personally believe that the obverse scene (A) on the No. 3 hydria where Hermes steals the cattle of Apollo, is connected analogically to the reverse scene (B) of Eos and Kephalos. They both represent, on both sides, the divine mischief of the gods in kidnapping or abducting valuable entities - animals such as cows or even human beings - for self-serving reasons. But unfortunately the author does not agree with my point of view and starts critiquing the painters themselves and gives us his own opinion on what they should have done!

And he writes that “the bad composition of the main scene proves that it should have occupied both sides of a vase. The herd of cattle and the forest with hare clearly belong to a reverse scene… The discussion over the sleeping Hermes should occupy the entire obverse frieze… This explanation of the unusual composition also makes it superfluous to look for a connection between A and B” on the No. 3 hydria (pg. 126). So he’s basically just writing off any possible metaphorical connection at all between the two sides of the No. 3 hydria. And he’s instead looking for a more connected narrative between the cattle being stolen and the sleeping Hermes in the cradle on the other side.

So I will give you my main conclusion here on both scenes - The ‘Cradle of Hermes’ in the No. 3 hydria, as well as the ‘Golden Deer episode of Rama and Sita’ on the No. 2 hydria. In my opinion, both hydriae cleverly depict a metaphorical relationship between two mythological scenes on the obverse and reverse sides. Now, Jaap Hemelrijk believes the cattle being stolen in the forest should be on one side of No. 3, and the sleeping Hermes with the other characters should be on the other side, to create a connected narrative. And he’s on to something there because, not only the No. 2 hydria has a metaphorical relationship between the two sides A and B, but they also form a connected narrative.  

And so (we have) the stealing of the stranded Sita, like a cow or female mammal, by Ravana on one side, and the unaware youths Rama and Laksmana, husband and brother-in-law of Sita, respectively, hunting the golden deer for her on the other side. You can definitely see not only a metaphorical relationship between the hunted Sita and the hunted golden deer, but you can also see obviously, the connected narrative from the Golden Deer episode of the Valmiki Ramayana. Now when it comes to comparing to the No. 3 hydria, you can sort of see that the unaware youths Rama and Laksmana are a bit like the clueless Apollo who is questioning the mother Maia of Hermes about what happened to his cattle. Where did they disappear? So in both No. 3 and No. 2, Apollo and Rama, the biggest hero (in each), is tricked and deceived, illustrating that even the greatest men, or gods, or god-men, or god-heroes, can be fooled by a cunning scheme.

So just to summarize and reiterate, the stranded Sita is a lot like the stolen cattle of Hermes. And the unaware youths, Rama and Laksmana, are very similar to the frustrated Apollo, who is questioning what happened to his cattle, just like Rama and Laksmana face the disappearance of Sita after they hunt the deer and get frustrated in trying to hunt it down. But the distinction between the No. 2 and No. 3 hydria is also in the fact that one has a connected narrative and then the other doesn’t. The metaphorical relationship is there in both between the two sides and between the two hydriae themselves as I just showed you. But when it comes to a connected narrative only the No. 2 hydria is able to also form a connected narrative. And that’s why it kind of eluded, I think, Hemelrijk’s notice, as well as his lack of knowledge of Indian myth.

Finally, I would like to share some observations of the German scholar Konrad Schauenberg, regarding the Caeretan hydria in Boston. He remarks and observes that “the vertical handle of most Caeretan hydriae has four ribs. Only the Vienna Busiris hydria and the New York hydria have six-ribbed rear handles. The handle of the Boston hydria, though, is three-ribbed.” He also adds, “Unusual are the large black dots at the bases of the vertical handle and the limitation of the palmette below that to five leaves. In addition, the fact that the palmettes and lotus blossoms in the frieze below the figures (below the two maenads and satyrs) each have only three leaves, (and this) is also unusual.”

So what do we make of these observations here, which are very specific to this Boston hydria? Well, the feature of three leaves at the bottom with the lotus blossoms and palmettes alternating is possibly a feature that is meant to indicate the three major events happening in a sequence on the water jar, which we discussed earlier. They start from the deer hunting diversion on the front side, and then next to the assault, abduction, or capture of the lady on the reverse side, and then finally, the act of fleeing or running away with the kidnapped woman from the area. The satyr Ravana leaves with big strides like a galloping horse to signify that he is taking his victim far away very quickly, while the two young men are occupied with the deer.

Schauenberg also seems to realize that there are two large black dots at the top handle’s base, which act as a kind of reflective mirror or symmetrical motif that divides the two main events of abduction and carrying off of the maenad Sita on the back side. In my opinion, the two black dots symbolize not only the two-part nature of the scene, but the two-faced nature of Ravana, more animal-like on the left than on the right.

So just to summarize, the three-ribbed handle at the top as well as the three-leaf lotus blossoms and palmettes that are alternating in a row in the bottom frieze are all an indication; they’re all pointing to the three-part nature of the story that’s being told on the hydria. Another interesting thing that he notices is the limitation of the palmette in the middle to five leaves. And if you look a little bit closer, you’ll see that on the left scene, Ravana the satyr, his biceps is overlapping with one of the leaves of the palmette. And this may explain why it was limited to five because the artist may have underestimated how much space he needed in order to enlarge the form of Ravana and depict him carrying Sita off in the left side. So again, just to reiterate, if you look very closely at the five palmette leaves, you’ll see the leftmost is covered slightly by Ravana’s left arm. And I think this was probably an accident, a mistake by the painter of underestimating how much room he really needed in order to depict his enlarged form and just simply to depict him carrying Sita off, i.e. the whole scene of taking her away to wherever he was going to take her away, which was probably Lanka.

The two-part nature of the scene, which is symbolized by the two black dots, also reminds us about the shift from the static to dynamic movement from the right scene to the left scene. And this shift reflects the change in the circumstances from lady trying to exert her freedom and maintain independence to a subdued woman who has all but surrendered to the monstrous raksasa.

 

Ravana holds Sita by the hair while taking her to Lanka in his donkey-drawn flying chariot - Mughal era painting from India