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

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

Description (Main Presentation, Part VI):

European scholars recognize the iconographic parallels between the two nude hunters armed with bows on the Caeretan hydria in Boston and the Greek heroes Heracles, Apollo, and Artemis. The same parallels are observable between those two nude hunters and Indian paintings of Rama and Laksmana living and hunting in the wilderness. Because of their ignorance of Indian mythology, classical historians are unable to make these connections between Mediterranean and Asian works of art portraying Rama and Laksmana, and label the Caeretan hydria an unidentifiable or generic hunting scene with unnamed heroes. The same ignorance and cultural arrogance is apparent in their inability to understand the mythological subject matter depicted on the Campana plaques. Because of their wrong assumption that every artifact should be representative of some Greek myth or another, western scholars cannot recognize the true meaning of the narratives shown on the Campana panels and the Caeretan hydria. 

My first proposal to mitigate this offensive lack of knowledge of South Asian legend in academic circles is to rename the 'Boston Deerhunt' with an appropriate title such as 'The Golden Deer Episode of Rama and Sita'. We will conclude this part of the presentation with a brief discussion of the purpose of the Caeretan hydriae - purifying water ceremonies, comic entertainment, and narration of stories with supernatural elements. The Busiris Painter, responsible for the Caeretan Hydria No. 2 that includes Sita's abduction and Rama's deer hunt, employed a detailed style displaying the physical strength and cunningness of his characters for an amusing effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyYFoY_Ykm4

Transcript (Main Presentation, Part VI):

Now that we’ve analyzed the deer hunt pretty thoroughly, I want to move to another topic that’s connected to the same issue of now the nude hunters themselves on the front side. So I’m going to make an iconographic comparison of Rama and Laksmana to Heracles as well as the Letoids, that is the children of the mother Leto in Greek mythology, Apollo and Artemis.

So I’ll just quote from Raffaella Bonaudo in La Culla di Hermes, page 216. She writes that “Nudity and the attribute of the bow appear together within the corpus only for Heracles in relation to the episode of Alyconeus against whom the hero is also equipped with a club.” And you see that on the bottom left here where Heracles is holding a bow and a club and he’s attacking Alcyoneus, the giant demon who’s looking pretty shocked.

So she’s already making a comparison to Heracles because of the nudity and the attribute of the bow to the two nude hunters which are Rama and Laksmana. So she continues and says, “If, then, we consider the iconographic scheme and adopt a structural perspective of permutation, the placement of the figures on the hydria no. 2 corresponds to the pursuit of Tityos by the Letoids, who strike the giant armed with bows.” So that’s the no. 12 hydria in which Apollo and Artemis are also using their bow and arrows to attack Tityos, the demon. So the Letoids are another word for Apollo and Artemis, the siblings. 

So these two heroes, Apollo and Artemis, are analogous to the two heroes Rama and Laksmana. And she’s recognizing that the structure of both scenes is basically the same where Tityos is being striked with the bow and arrows by two siblings, just as Rama and Laksmana are striking the golden deer with their arrows. So they recognize the similarity and it’s pretty obvious because of these similarities that the nude youths must be great heroes, just like Apollo and Artemis, or Heracles. It’s just a natural conclusion that one should make. 

And just another point that I want to make, if you look at the images on the bottom for comparison, you can see that the action is from right to left in both the No. 12 and the No. 2 hydriae, where the hunters are stationed on the right side and they are looking at their target, who is fleeing on the left. In the case of Artemis and Apollo, it’s Tityos who’s on the far left, looking back at them. And then in the No. 2 hydria, of course, it’s the golden stag Maricha, who is looking back at the two hunters, Rama and Laksmana. On the bottom right, you have two images. One of them is a zoomed in photo of the second hunter, which is probably Laksmana, just for your information.

So to continue our discussion about the two ‘nude’ young male heroes Rama and Laksmana, if we see the image down here as well, this is another Indian painting. And you can see how the two young brothers are very close to naked, whereas Rama’s wife Sita is very well-dressed in red. And that is something that accords with the Caeretan hydria as well because on the back side of the Caeretan hydria No. 2, the author Hemelrijk has noted the elaborate dress of the maenad, of both maenads, both of whom are Sita. So it’s very clear that the hydria and this Indian depiction; they’re both very much symmetrical in terms of the dress of all three characters.

The following quote may be the most important quote in the entire presentation, regarding the Caeretan hydria No. 2 in Boston. In it Raffaella Bonaudo in her book La Culla di Hermes, page 217 writes, “In light of this network of relationships that can be established with respect to the criteria for selecting iconographies within the corpus, the two hunters (in the Boston deer hunt) seem to be evoking a particular status with respect to the others, which cannot be defined exactly, and which does not necessarily correspond to a mythical tale not otherwise attested.” Now there’s a lot of negatives in this quote - “not necessarily correspond”, “not otherwise attested”, “cannot be defined”. And it indicates that the author is very non-committal, but is willing to nonetheless admit that this may be the mythical tale of the Ramayana being attested, and that the two hunters are evoking a particular status with respect to other figures on other hydriae, as we have mentioned, including Apollo and Artemis and Heracles. 

So she recognizes the network of relationships that can be established based on the iconographies, compared to other hydriae. And based on that, she realizes that it definitely could be a mythical tale, but she’s non-committal about it, and especially because it hasn’t been otherwise attested, at least in her eyes. But as we have seen with the Campana plaques, they are otherwise attested. That is why I have titled this slide with the question, “Mythical Tale of Ramayana Not Attested?” And interestingly, the Louvre Museum in Paris has made a similar statement as Bonaudo has here about the Campana panels, which we will see on the next slide. These scholars have made the same error in labeling both the Caeretan hydria No. 2 and the Campana series as generic or unidentifiable scenes. They often only publish the image of the lone figure at a fire altar, which is one of the Campana plaques which we will be seeing on the next slide, because it is the hardest among the Campana plaques to pinpoint in terms of the mythological story and the identity of the character, which is probably Bharata from the Valmiki Ramayana, in my opinion.

The Campana slabs, which are currently kept in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France, are also said to have inconclusive mythological interpretations, just like the Caeretan hydria in Boston. And in an archived article titled, “Campana Slab: Man before an Altar”, a French scholar at the Louvre gives us this following commentary, much like Raffaella Bonaudo did about the hydria earlier. They say that “the significance of the decoration and the exact identification of the subjects represented by these paintings, that is the Campana plaques, are still causing controversy today.” But what kind of controversy? Controversy because they’re not Greek in origin and Oriental instead? I mean, for them the definition of controversy in Western Europe seems to be anything that’s non-European in origin or Oriental. And this is again a very good example of the xenophobia that’s blatantly there in many of their comments and works.

Then the next point the scholar at the Louvre adds: “The location in which they (the Campana slabs) were discovered does not allow us to conclude that this is a strictly funerary iconography,” which is correct. That’s a good point. But the next thing that they say is: “Mythological interpretations are hardly more conclusive.” But as we have shown, we can definitely get to an interpretation or reach an interpretation that is very conclusive. And the last point they make is that “moreover, the six slabs,” five of which we are really examining. The sixth one is not actually connected to the other slabs, that is correct. But at least four or five of them are connected to one another. But even here the author says that they (the slabs) “do not consitute a continuous and coherent ensemble.” 

But as I already have shown on the previous slides, I’ve already refuted that claim that this is not a continuous narrative and this is not a unitary narrative. That is just an incorrect claim, and it’s clear that there is a very clear sequence in what we see in the Campana slabs - from the Ayodhya Kanda in terms of the Book of the Kingdom to the Book of the Forest and then the ending, where in the Book of War, Rama finally rescues his wife. So, we’ve already gone through that and it’s quite obvious that they’re just simply wrong here and have not studied these plaques properly or interpreted them properly, because of their xenophobia and their ignorance of Oriental myth.

The last point is that if you look at the graphic on the right here, the Campana slab in the graphic on the right, it is somehow less vague than the others, meaning the other three main Campana slabs that we have already discussed, according to this same scholar, even though you could argue the opposite is true. They write that “the scene taking place on this slab seems more explicit” somehow. “A man, a priest, or simply a devout person, perhaps,” (perhaps, I don’t how that’s explicit) “appears to be making a sacrifice before an altar upon which a fire is lit.” And this “ritual basin is resting,” as you see on the upper right corner, “on a small column placed at the edge of the altar, adding to the religious character of the ceremony depicted.” 

So clearly this is some kind of religious scene with a solitary person doing some kind of sacrifice. And the best interpretation I can come up with is that this character is the younger brother of Rama, Bharata, who is the son of Kaikeyi, (and) who refuses to become the heir to the throne. He refuses the kingdom of Ayodhya, which is what his mother was trying to make happen through her devious plan, and he instead renounces the kingdom and decides to live like a hermit just like his older brother Rama. And this is a very important and famous episode in the Ramayana as well. So there’s no reason to think that this can’t be positively identified even though it is a little bit more vague because of the fact that there’s only one character in it.

Cultural arrogance of western scholars is the fundamental reason why these artworks including the Caeretan hydria in Boston and the Campana slabs in Paris have not been identified correctly, and the reason why they continue to try and somehow insist that they could be, or perhaps could be, Greek myths, even though they clearly are not. So that’s why I make this sort of a joke that, “No way these artworks could be depicting anything but Greek myth!” I mean, how dare we even suggest such a thing? But it’s not just me who’s saying this. Even the classical scholars themselves acknowledge this. 

So we have the following quote from Nancy Thomson de Grummond, an Etruscan scholar, in her book Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend. In the preface she says: “For many classical scholars, Etruscan myth is to be understood as a reflection of Greek mythology, which was indeed known and influential among the Etruscans… But what is erroneous about such an approach is that there is a tendency to recognize first what is known and familiar (i.e., the Greek material) and to turn away from and ignore the representations that cannot be explained easily.” (pg. xii). So in essence they’re like the golden deer - they turn away and ignore anything that’s inconvenient. Anyway, if you look at the graphic on the right, we see again the same scene that we see in the Caeretan hydria depicted in Indian art. Rama, who is barefooted and practically nude, just like the nude youth in the Caeretan hydria, is hunting the stag, which has also the added black shadow of the demon Maricha. And the deer turns its head to look back at the hunter while fleeing away, which is really just the common iconography that you’ll see in all of these scenes of the Golden Deer episode.

On an earlier slide, I mentioned that the Indologist Sheldon Pollock also criticized this cultural arrogance of western scholars, when he makes the comment of the “presumption of truth of a western vision”. So it’s not only the Etruscan scholar here who recognizes this cultural arrogance, which leads to an interpretation of everything as being a Greek myth. But also you can see that even in the community of Indologists they recognize this cultural arrogance as well, that pervades the entire scholarly community in the western world.

So there are many possible titles that we can give to the Caeretan hydria No. 2 to name it instead of the Boston deer hunt, which is too generic. And one title I would offer as a possibility is the Golden Deer Episode of Rama and Sita. That would be L’Episodio del Cervo Dorato di Rama e Sita in Italian. And so it would be like the title of the book La Culla di Hermes, which means ‘The Cradle of Hermes’ by the Italian author Raffaella Bonaudo. That title references the Caeretan hydria No. 3. The title that I’m offering here as a possibility would be L’Episodio del Cervo Dorato di Rama e Sita for Caeretan hydria No. 2, and I think that would be perfect for it. It’s certainly much better than the Boston deer hunt. Other possibilities would be, maybe the Golden Deer Hunt of Rama and Sita’s Abduction, but that may be a little bit too long-winded. So I think that the Golden Deer Episode of Rama and Sita is probably the best title that can be given to the Caeretan hydria No. 2.

To further reinforce the title (Golden Deer…) that I am proposing for Caeretan hydria No. 2, I am displaying below an Indian version of what you see on the Caeretan hydria. It is from central India in the 17th century AD. And if you look on the left, you see what is analogous to the front side of the Caeretan hydria, which is Rama and Laksmana with bow and arrows spotting the golden deer Maricha. And then on the right side what you see is analogous to what you see on the reverse side of the Caeretan hydria, especially on the leftmost side. So on this side in this Indian painting you see Ravana carrying Sita away with long strides across the ocean to the island of Lanka. Modern day Sri Lanka is definitely an island situated south (of India), close to the southern tip of India, across the Indian Ocean. 

You can definitely see the parallels with the hydria, particularly the long strides of Ravana here, which are kind of mimicking what you see with him galloping with horse hooves like a centaur on the reverse side of the Boston hydria. To recap, this central Indian painting from Malwa has two parts to it and those two parts are very similar to the two sides of the Boston hydria. And also just to reiterate, the long strides of Ravana indicate long distance travel in a very short period of time and continuous movement towards a destination, as we see on the reverse side of the Boston hydria.

We’ve looked at the Etruscan depictions of the Golden Deer episode and we’ve also looked at Indian depictions of the Golden Deer episode. So, I just wanted to briefly give you a sample of the Southeast Asian depictions of the Golden Deer episode. On the left side, you’ll see Ravana, who is known as Thotsakan in Laos. He’s again abducting Sita with his arm firmly around her waist, just like the satyr in the Caeretan hydria in Boston. So this is a gilded wooden panel from Luang Prabang in Laos and Sita is known as Nang Sida and Ravana is known as Thotsakan, but the iconography is pretty much identical. And on the right side we have Rama eyeing the golden deer, which is twisting its head to look back at the pursuer again. And this is from the National Library in Bangkok, Thailand.

So now moving on from the Caeretan hydria No. 2 and the deer hunt and the abduction scene, I just want to get back to a more high-level understanding of the Caeretan hydriae themselves. I’m going to examine the purpose behind them in the first place. And according to the author Hemelrijk, who discusses many of these things, he remarks that regarding the ornaments on the hydriae, he believes that the lotus palmettes “derive from East Greek architecture and therefore belong to a sphere of solemnity.” (pg. 70, More on the Caeretan Hydriae: Addenda and Clarifications). Thus, Hemelrijk realizes that they do have a serious and dignified purpose and a sacred value, but they also, as we will see, have an entertainment value for humor as well. 

Another comment made by Konrad Schauenberg is that the painted imagery, not the pottery itself, is what distinguishes the Caeretan hydria. He says that “the Caeretan hydriae are not nearly as good in pottery as they are in painting. It is all the more remarkable that, given their form, they can be considered unmistakably original creations.” And I think that it’s not just the pottery itself or the painted imagery itself that’s original, but it’s also (sometimes) the subject matter. That’s what Hemelrijk gets to in the next point. He says (pg. 70) that “the narrative themes of the hydriae… are bewilderingly numerous. The painter (formerly the hydriae were believed to be the work of one painter only, but now two) has been described by Webster in 1928 as a ‘great comic descriptive artist, he likes seeing somebody done in’ and it is true: catching and killing an enemy or victim is one of the main subjects on the hydriae.”

So in this one (quote), Hemelrijk recognizes that there are numerous themes and in my opinion, they can’t just be all included in the purview of Greek mythology. And he also hints at the fact that this is not just for serious purpose, but also for comic description. And that’s what we see in the abduction of Sita as well as the deer hunt. He’s highlighting the futility of their deer hunt and indicating that they’re being done in, that both Rama and Laksmana and Sita are being done in. And the catching of Sita by Ravana is definitely one of the major subjects, that is the abduction. The next point that I’m trying to make is that the Caeretan hydria No. 2 is thus related to the Campana slabs, but the latter, meaning the Campana slabs, have a more solemn, religious tone. They’re more serious and kind of sacred in their importance, and they might have some value for what you would call salvation or liberation. But the former work of art, that is the hydria, is meant more for entertainment and comedy.

In his book More on the Caeretan Hydriae: Addenda and Clarifications, Jaap Hemelrijk makes an important observation. He says that regarding the purpose of the hydriae, “They were made for storing water for ceremonial purification both in private and public buildings. Such water served domestic and municipal rituals. Ritual water required special containers, special care, and cleanliness. It was to be used for all family rituals: at birth, coming of age, marrying, death, and the countless lesser occasions for feasting and for cleansing during sacrifices. Such lustral water had to be kept apart from the considerable amount of water used in the household; it had to stand ready in ornate containers, such as the Caeretan hydriae actually are.” (pg. 69) 

He continues and concludes that “such containers of holy water should be decorated in a festive, rich way, with scenes that are meaningful for all kinds of occasions, illustrating human life, human strife, tragedy and comedy; and also (this is the most important thing), scenes pregnant of the superhuman, the mysterious world that transcends human life and understanding.”  (pg. 69). And that’s exactly what the Valmiki Ramayana is about - the superhuman dimension and all the incredible interactions that Rama has with the raksasa demons. And it (Ramayana) definitely highlights human strife and tragedy, as well as comedy. So it’s definitely a perfect topic for the artists who painted the Caeretan hydriae.

I would like to talk in more detail now about the Busiris Painter, who has been called a “great comic descriptive artist.” His forte was presenting mythological conflicts in an amusing style and detailed manner. So examples of his great work among the Caeretan hydria include the Boston deer hunt No. 2 that we’ve analyzed; Heracles fighting the Egyptians on No. 34; and Alyconeus the giant being attacked by Heracles with Hermes witnessing and directing on No. 21. What I have observed about this painter is that he enjoys the interplay between brute strength and strategem, with Heracles and Hermes personifications of each respectively, in the number 21 example. 

Now in the No. 2 example, Ravana is the satyr who is employing physical force or brute strength, whereas Maricha meanwhile is applying the strategem of an illusory deer to decoy Rama in the Boston hydria. So on one side you see brute strength being employed and on the other side you see the strategem or trickery. So the Busiris Painter, he likes how a cunning trick coupled with violence leads to corresponding misery for the victim, whether it be the shocked Alcyoneus on No. 21, or the timid Sita on No. 2 vase. And both of these characters are ambushed. Alcyoneus is ambushed by Heracles and Sita is ambushed by Ravana. And Sita definitely fits into the category of victims who, according to Hemelrijk, are “the white maenads (done in) by the big, black satyrs.” (pg. 151, Caeretan Hydriae). These are the characters who are done in, and that’s what the Busiris painter, the comic descriptive artist, specializes in.

And Hemelrijk further concludes that “indeed, for their tendency to caricature and their powerful way of putting across a story, the hydriae are, I think, the best examples of popular humor in Greek art.” (pg. 151, Caeretan Hydriae). And also Rama and Laksmana are being done in by the raksasa Maricha, disguised as the golden deer. So the ‘doing in’, or the characters being done in, are on both sides of the hydria - Rama and Laksmana on the front side and Sita on the back side. So Maricha is disguised as the golden deer and he leads them away from Sita, leaving her unprotected, so that way they are done in. And this theme of being deceived or defeated by one’s recklessness or lack of forethought is thus emphasized on both obverse and reverse sides of the hydria No. 2, and Hemelrijk only notes the latter example (Sita deceived by Ravana).