In connection with my studies of the Gigantomachy as an artistic subject throughout

antiquity, I found the Kyllenios Painter Gigantomachy vase on the Beazley Archive
website, photographed in individual fragments. Out of frustration at the lack of a
cohesive detailed image illustrating the entire scene, I decided to collect the
photographs of the shards, digitally enhance them, use my art program to remove
distortion as much as possible, and put them together. Along the way, I discovered
Giants at the Getty and Giants at the Getty - Again, upon which my work is heavily
based. I am incredibly grateful to Professor Moore for her reconstruction efforts on
this vase. Ive done my best on my own to try to figure out a few remaining
mysteries of the vase, but I fully acknowledge that not as much can be done with
images of fragments as opposed to the real items, so I may be entirely wrong. Still -
it was worth a try.

Here are various comments and observations.

I color-coded each god and giant figure for clarity, including outlining the lines on
the fragments in the same colors. Those fragment images have been superimposed
directly over the compiled Moore reconstruction. My process was as follows:
download each image of the fragments digitally enhance and simplify (as
described later) put together all the reconstruction drawings by Prof. Moore into
one complete image put the real enhanced fragment images on top of the drawing
and then do my own drawing, illustrating each figure in color and adding further
details and revisions when necessary. Originally my intention was just to make
clearer images of each fragment out of the photographs and rearrange them to get a
better idea of what was happening in the scene. Then I realized I could build on
prior reconstruction attempts and this entire project developed from there. For the
record, the color-coding does not follow any particular pattern in terms of assigning
colors to characters, other than avoiding putting similar colors beside each other. I
am sure that it is an uncommon method, but it worked extremely well for me. The
colors sometimes helped clear up fragments with lots of overlapping parts and
limbs belonging to different figures.

I will say outright that if there are any glaring errors in this, I apologize profusely.
This project just developed from an idea one afternoon and I spent a few weeks on it
until I found the results satisfactory (but still far from perfect). I am hardly at the
level of any real professional scholar Im still only an undergraduate. It is
completely possible that physical analysis of the shards in real life might disprove
any and all theories that I suggest here. However for the sake of potentially
figuring more out about this wonderful vase, I was willing to accept that possibility.
Heres hoping it doesnt happen but I would like to find out conclusively one way or
another at this point.

Some areas of the compiled Moore reconstruction drawings had to be rearranged or

removed to match with my own small discoveries. It would be completely possible
for me to create a version of the assembled drawings by Moore that I have not at all
changed, and I could absolutely do so on request. As it stands, the document is a
compilation of her original work, her later work, and the vase fragments themselves
trying to reconcile and solve the distortion on three separate sets of images, while
sometimes moving them to be in different places altogether. Such a process is
naturally not free from errors and while Ive done the best I can, I am sure a more
trained eye might have lots of corrections to offer. However I can very easily
implement any changes that might be necessary, according to the feedback of other
scholars. That is the benefit of digital art programs!

The armor of the giants was very interesting. The basic style (curlicue breastplate,
greaves) corresponds closely with other Kyllenios painter vases, which makes me
think this was a stock format/design for his figures. Im still trying to figure out the
stripes on the greaves, which appear on the figures of Hermes opponent, the
kneeling giant, and Mimas. Professor Moore made the ends of the swords/scabbards
flared in the reconstructions; I wasnt sure why so I just made them pointy. This is,
however, a tiny detail.

Considering the complexity of the gods outfits (with the exception of the mostly
nude Ares) as compared to the very ordinary giant armor, the striped breastplate
fragment puzzled me. However, Prof. Moore put a giant into the reconstruction in
that space and the figures raised elbow would indicate an attacking giant, so I
followed that suggestion. Of all the various areas of the vase, that one was the least
intact, and therefore the most unsatisfying.

More about the outfits - the figures of Oranion #2 and the giant to his left are both
also unusually clothed. I am curious about why. Other scholars might have more
insights. A side note: this part of the composition is rather interesting in its own
right - if the figures with the helmets are indeed Apollo and Artemis (and they must
be), then that creates a sequence of four giants that are all facing left. Of these, three
(Ephialtes, Euphorbos, and Oranion #2) have labels; the fourth also must have had
some text, which is now lost. This works out compositionally, though, since each
divine sibling is assigned two giants apiece.

In the same area, Athena attacks from behind, perhaps stabbing an absent fifth giant
which might have been facing right, in her direction. Continuing the theme of
clothing - the kneeling giant also wears a draped cloth, interestingly. Moore placed
this figure overlapping Athena, but I moved it to the right to avoid this conflict. The
area from Athena to Hera suffers from a gap in composition at the top, but there
surely must have been a striding figure or two in that area, at which Hera aims her
spear. Beyond this, further to the right, there is not much of note in terms of giant
wear, aside from the unique helmets for Polybotes and the giant behind him.

Overall it appeared that the gods outfits and figures are drawn with much more
detail than the giants, which tend to be matching stock figures. This is unsurprising.
The gods are, after all, the star of the show. It would be nice to have other vases by
the Kyllenios painter showing the gods in combat. Lacking that, the Tyrrhenian
groups body of work might be a potential resource for gathering more detail about
the scene, but I cant rely confidently on it.

Often I found myself basing my judgments about figures and poses on other vases by
the same artist. This seems to be a sensible strategy and I know other scholars have
used it. The consistency between the Kyllenios painters poses and styles across
vases is impressive, as is his detailed innovation in clothing designs and patterns.
Ultimately I would like, in my reconstruction, to not just indicate the figures poses,
but to fill in the entire vase as it once might have looked. This of course would
require flattened detailed color photographs and a tremendous amount of patience,
neither of which may be possible to find. But it is a tempting thought.

The names on this vase are almost all unique with the exception of Polybotes and
Ephialtes and maybe Mimas. This indicates to me that at the time of this painting,
the full epic poem of the Gigantomachy - which ancient authors mention, and from
which the giant names were most likely always referenced - did not yet exist or had
not reached a coherent form. Maybe there was an alternate version that gave
different names to the giants, or maybe the Kyllenios painter was just making it up
as he went along. It is hard to tell.

I noticed that only one pair of gods and enemies is correctly matched to other
versions (Apollo and Artemis vs. Ephialtes, presuming that the helmets are actually
the twins). Zeus fights Polybotes but Poseidon is missing. The other gods are
assigned to giants with random different names not found elsewhere. Oranion
appears twice (probably). It is easy to wonder about what the other giants might
have been named, but there is no way to know.

The arrangement and scale of the actual fragments was nightmarishly difficult. Most
of it was guesswork - I was lacking anything but old low-resolution black and white
pictures. I did go through these in my digital art program and simplified each
fragment with solid colors for dark and light glaze and white details, then tried to
reduce the distortion to fit these flattened fragment images over Moores
reconstruction lines. It was, I think, helpful in rebuilding the composition to a more
extensive degree, but also a very difficult task with limited resources. It might be
possible to re-do this with better photographs of the fragments, but that remains to
be seen.

Considering the trouble with the photographs, I mostly discounted the decorative
palmettes and lines at the top and bottom of the composition. I know that these are
probably very important in the reconstruction efforts, but theres almost nothing I
could do with them in this format. The multiple versions of the Giants at the Getty
reconstruction drawings also needed to be rearranged and superimposed on top of
each other, which was a challenge in its own right. This involved, in several cases,
edits to the placement of the figures. Much of the original reconstruction was a
wonderful template, though, without which I truly would have struggled. In some
cases I added detail to the outfits of the sketched figures, attempting to correspond
to the Kyllenios painters style or work elsewhere. Other places, where I was more
uncertain, I left it blank to correspond with Moores work.

I will go through my thoughts on each specific figure, in order, left to right. Ive
included a transcription of my original written notes on the sketch, in [brackets]
beneath each paragraph.

[This reconstruction is based upon Mary Moores wonderful work in Giants in the
Getty and Giants in the Getty - Again, to which I am deeply indebted. However, some
of the reconstruction work is my own effort - these figures are marked with an
asterisk beside their names (*).]

POSEIDON: Ironically, he is absent in the version with only my own sketches, but is
the first figure in the complete arrangement of Moores templates. He fits in the
composition nicely, if he was there, but I did not feel confident drawing in any of the
completely absent figures. Unfortunately, I have very little to say about him
otherwise.

[Moore places Poseidon here as the missing opponent of this group of giants. I agree,
although I have not filled him in, since nothing survives of his appearance on this
vase.]

FALLEN GIANT: The connection between this giants fingers and the rest of the body
unfortunately had to be cut off from one end of the image to the other, but it is a
reasonable conclusion to draw, to match these fragments. Ive mostly just followed
the existing work on this figure. It seems to make sense that he would be holding a
shield. This was one of the most intact giants in the whole scene, and an interesting
source of comparison to other fallen giants.

[This giants hand can be found on a fragment at the far right of the scene. His body
is mostly intact - the other arm reaches upward, possibly holding a shield, as Moore
suggests. I agree - this pose concept appears at least twice elsewhere, in different
forms (Euphorbos and Mimas).]

STRIDING GIANT: I added a little bit of detail here in his armor, but followed
Moores work otherwise. He does not strike me as a figure of great importance,
other than possibly overlapping with Dionysus, which might cause a few
compositional difficulties. The gods faces never seem to be obscured, but the
striding giants leg is in front of Dionysuss, so I assume the Kyllenios painter had
some solution for the top half of the image that left the gods face clear. Of course,
the upper body is Moores conjecture, but it is conjecture worth following.

[The striding giant here is known only by the fragment with his legs. If his opponent
is indeed Poseidon, he would normally be named Polybotes, but Polybotes fights
Zeus further in the scene, so his identity remains a mystery. I have clothed him in
the usual armor giants wear on this vase.]
DIONYSUS *: The difference between Dionysuss placement in the first Giants at the
Getty and the revisions after the discovery of the new fragments was a bit of a
challenge to reconcile. I am not entirely confident in the un-distortion work on these
fragments, but it is a very complicated section. The snakes gave me some trouble
and there are several areas with unfinished lines where I just did not know what to
do. The god himself, however, was not so bad - except for his wildcat skin cloak,
which clearly hangs in front of him, overlapping his thigh, and must be tied around
his shoulders. I did later discover a Kyllenios painter vase with an intact figure
(Atalanta) whose cloak is tied that way. This could be used as a template for a more
accurate drawing of Dionysus cloak, but I found that vase after the work was
finished, and saved it for future reference. Any further assistance from other
scholars familiar with this vase, or others like it, would probably be tremendously
helpful to finish out the Dionysus area. I did the best I could but sometimes that is
simply not enough. His face and ivy crown are detailed in an effort to match the
other Kyllenios painter vase containing him, which Ive attached.

[Dionysus was by far the biggest challenge due to the differences in Moores
reconstructions after the discovery of the shards with his legs. I have filled in the
details according to another Kyllenios painter vase (Beazley 310014) for his face
and hair. His animals were equally difficult so I gave it my best guess, following
Moores work. Further analysis of Kyllenios animals would yield more accurate
results, but my focus is the god and giant figures. The pantherskin is baffling. It
appears to hang in front of him. I have only tried to guess at its placement. The hind
legs might be tied across his back.
Some of the lines are left unfinished. This is because I could not figure out what to
put in that made sense with both the first and second Moore reconstructions. They
are almost certainly all either wildcats or snakes.]

ORANION: This is one of two figures labeled Oranion in the scene (I still suspect it
might be a title referencing Ouranos as a divine parent of the Giants). He is assigned
to fight Dionysus. Various snakes and wildcats are intertwined with his figure. He
has the standard shield and spear, plus a sword. One bit of a greave helps place his
forward leg, while the back leg is nearly completely intact from the knee down.
There seemed to be some sort of complicated stripe pattern above the knee on that
fragment - I wasnt sure what to do with it and left it alone, but it is worth noting
here. Unfortunately the top area was impossible to fully un-distort while still
preserving Ares arm, so I had to separate Oranions wrist from the text of his name;
these are attached on the vase itself. I avoided this as much as possible but there
were still a few areas where it was necessary. The pose of Oranion is tilted forward
unusually strongly while reconciling his top half and lower half, which makes me
question the work I did on it, but its at least an approximation.

[Oranion, clearly named here (though see my note on the second Oranion; it may be
a title) can be reconstructed from his intact limb fragments. His hand and spear are
connected but needed to be separated for image distortion fixing. He seems to wear
standard giant armor. The figure layering with the wildcats and legs is also
puzzling.]

ARES: He is present in nearly every Gigantomachy - except, curiously, Apollodoruss

written account - and Ares appears here nude from the waist up, save for a helmet,
perhaps showing off his prowess as god of war, able to fight without injury even
with no breastplate for protection. He has some kind of item wrapped around his
thigh - I wasnt sure what it was for - and presumably it was symmetrical on both
thighs. His back leg is almost certainly on tiptoe as he lunges forward. The front foot
is firmly planted. He is one of the most complete figures in this whole vase, and thus
poses the fewest questions. There was also probably some fastening inside the
shield to hold it on his arm but I couldnt make out any details.

[Ares opponents are named in various sources as Astartas, Bias, and Enaphas
(Siphnian treasury) or Mimon (Aristophanes vase 410 BC). There is unfortunately
no way to tell which giant he is fighting here. Considering the standard outfit,
probably no one special.]

ARES OPPONENT: Also remarkably intact, and unfortunately suffering from

distortion at the far right end of the fragment, requiring artificial separation of the
edges to maintain proportions. He kneels but stays upright in a unique pose and
hefts his spear. There was not as much to fill in here other than his thighs, lower
back, and left arm. Moore did a very fine job of this and I didnt have much to
contribute.

[This giants armor displays the curlicue motif common throughout the scene. I was
unsure about the end of his sword and simply sketched it in loosely. His right arm is
hidden beneath his shield. Unfortunately, some of the distortion in the legs could not
be fixed.]

STRIPED BREASTPLATE GIANT: I mentioned him earlier, and I had trouble not only
with the mystery of the figure itself, but the lines that Moore suggests belong to a
shield. At least the fragment with his elbow clarifies the pose of what is presumably
his left arm. Moore also placed a fallen giant beneath him, which, like Poseidon, I left
absent for lack of evidence, although I do believe it was there.

[This figure is largely guesswork. I found it difficult to interpret the surviving

fragment and followed Moores original attempt. The patterned breastplate is
intriguing.
Moore fills in this space with another fallen giant, who I have not sketched in due to
uncertainty.]

HERMES OPPONENT: I was able to reconstruct the missing legs myself before
consulting with the existing reconstruction (it was one of the earliest amateurish
efforts I made on this), but Moores contributions for the top half certainly outweigh
whatever attempts I might have made. I agree that, following the motion of the
figure, he must have been leaning back, probably holding a spear. Im not sure
where it would have been placed, though - perhaps not in range of Hermes at all,
considering the gods clear triumph here.

[This giant is forced backward into a kneeling position by the power of Hermes
attack. None of the upper body has survived. His greaves seem to have a decorative
pattern.]

HERMES: Hermes puzzled me at the beginning. The unique scaled tunic matches
very closely with the garment worn by Poseidon in the Louvre amphora
Gigantomachy, which initially led me astray. Despite the absence of one leg and arm,
his figure practically fills itself in with the bent arm and striding leg. His legs are
very detailed, which suggests that either this fragment photograph was higher
quality and allowed me to see information missing from the others, or the artist
himself put more effort into the gods figures. Either is possible. Im not completely
certain how his shield remains on his body but there seems to be a strap of some
sort. Im not entirely confident in my assumption that Hermes boots are meant to
be winged, but they might be. Moore adds an ordinary hat - Hermes hat in the other
Kyllenios painter vase of note (Beazley 310014) is a little different, but at the point
of discovering that version, I had already filled in Hermes figure, so Ive just
attached it here for comparison.

[Hermes enemy is rarely named - the only known name is Hippolytus, from what I
have so far found. If this one had a name, it is now lost.
Hermes lunges forward in an attacking pose. Three separate figures overlap with
their lower legs here, but these are arguably a representation of his distinctive
winged boots. One may assume he also has his hat.
The detail of Hermes borrowing the helmet of Hades is clearly missing at this point.
The scale pattern tunic surprised me - on the Louvre amphora Gigantomachy,
Poseidon wears a similar garment, but this cannot be anyone but Hermes.]

APOLLO *: As usual, I mostly followed Moores work, with the exception of a little
extra detail in the hem of his tunic (based off Beazley 310014, again) and a matching
detailed boot on his other leg. The pair of helmets must be the divine twins, as
Moore surmises. I did swap his spear for a sword in an effort not to obscure his face.
It occurred to me that the angle of the spear/sword arm could be changed and the
hand brought forward and up in order to avoid the overlap with Apollos face, but
that might spill over onto the edge of the helmet fragment - and the distortion made
it impossible to tell if this would be a viable option. Apollo does have a sword in the
410 BC Aristophanes Gigantomachy vase, although that is not contemporary with
this vase itself. Of course his usual weapon is a bow and arrow, which he uses in
Apollodoruss written version in 200 AD and most other artistic versions as well.
Ultimately, his figure is all missing, at least for now, so any speculation about the
composition is only just that - guesswork.

[Apollo presented a few problems, which I have tried to resolve. See below.
Apollos leg and helmet survive, but nothing else. I have decorated his tunic to match
his garment in the other Kyllenios vase (Beazley 310014). I also substituted a sword
for the spear that Moore gave him, for the simple reason that a spear would obscure
his face. His boots are very ornate, which corresponds to the elaborate decoration of
other significant figures.]

ARTEMIS: I wish I had more options to reference her outfit - I dont like leaving a
reconstructed figure sketch entirely blank in outlines. But she does not appear
elsewhere in the Kyllenios Painters work, and only possibly in various other
Tyrrhenian Group vases. There is some doubt about her identification, even in the
most promising options. I did alter her bow to match Apollos weapon in Beazley
310014, but couldnt do much else. I have no reason to doubt Professor Moores
wonderful work on Artemiss placement.

[Only Artemiss helmet survives. I have followed Moores work here, with the
exception of the bow, which is styled to match Apollos on the other Kyllenios
painter vase (Beazley 310014).]

EPHIALTES *: I deliberated about what to do with Ephialtes for quite a while before
coming to a solution. I have tilted his figure slightly and moved his legs forward
beyond Euphorboss body, since they clearly cant fit onto that fragment. This
creates a pose that, while unique individually, is not out of place among the other
falling/fallen giant poses. It would be absurd to try to move Ephialtes, and Moore
believes Euphorboss placement is nearby. To move Euphorbos (and thus the rest of
the scene) to the right would create an unsightly compositional gap, so I kept him
as-is and just rearranged Ephialtes pose. As with everything, I could be completely
wrong, but this is the best solution that I saw. The line for the end of his spear
overlaps another giants shield in order to indicate that it would probably have been
behind that area - obviously no changes can be made or added to existing
deciphered fragments. Also, the bit of glaze at the lower left of the Ephialtes name
and face shard suggests - at least to me - the shape of fingers. Ephialtes might be
raising his hand to guard against the twin gods attacks.

[Ephialtes presented a unique challenge. The discovery of the shard with

Euphorboss head made Moores original Ephialtes body posing impossible - there is
no room for his legs. I suggest instead he was falling backwards diagonally, as some
other giants do throughout the scene. The bits of glaze at the edge of his face shard
seem like they should be his fingers, hand raised to protect himself from Apollo and
Artemis. Perhaps his helmet was already knocked off.]

EUPHORBOS: The placement of his helmet versus the ground line and palmette, and
thus the angle of the shard, is still bothering me, but I dont have a better option and
just did my best to follow Prof. Moores work. The figure itself seems clear in its
posing, despite the presence only of the head, elbow, and shins. There are other
fallen giants throughout the scene and thus Euphorbos is not terribly unusual.
[This area is a little unclear - Euphorboss other arm seems to be entirely concealed
by his helmet as he holds up his shield. His hand is visible above the helmet crest.
The decorative palmette and ground line placement is also challenging but can be
blamed on distortion, possibly.]

GIANT BETWEEN EUPHORBOS AND ORANION #2: A significant portion of this

figure is intact from the waist down. I was not sure what to do about the lines on the
thigh nor the parallel lines right beyond his thigh and below his shield. However, the
legs werent bad to figure out. His back hand seems to have let go of his spear, but
the line of the weapon shaft is clearly visible and follows forward to the fragment
with the shield, allowing a simple connection of the lines.

ORANION #2: I couldnt figure out what else the ORA- notation could possibly mean,
hence my suggestion of Oranion as a title, so Ive called him by the somewhat
inelegant name Oranion #2. Like a few others, he had a portion of his figure
discovered after the first reconstruction was made, although it did not change much
- just filled in his back forearm. I believe Moore posed his back leg slightly
differently than I did - I think he must have been on tiptoe, balancing his weight. The
fragment with his front leg is still unfortunately a bit distorted. Not much could be
done about that without disrupting the rest of the image. Most giants appear to
carry both spear and sword, as well as a shield, and he is no exception.

ATHENA: She was the largest challenge of this entire project, but also the most
rewarding. Following Moores suggestions that the small fragment with her figure
contains her aegis, sword, forearm, and helmet crest, I drew in those pieces and did
my best to develop a figure from there that made some sort of sense. I am unsure
about how the aegis might have actually been placed or depicted, but the idea of it
being draped in some way, as Moore says, made me think that it could overlap her
upper arm, facing her missing giant opponent (probably kneeling or falling, facing
her) and protect the rest of her body that way. A striding stance with one bent leg
made sense, and I took slight inspiration from the Louvre Gigantomachy amphora
when filling in her outfit and face. The kneeling giant beside her is still uncertain in
placement - I added the detail of Athenas hand overlapping his wrist (possibly
grasping it) but this is all very theoretical. Nevertheless, I have some confidence in
the structure of her pose - head facing forward to accommodate the helmet crest,
arm raised and angled down with the sword, advancing and holding the aegis in
front of her.

KNEELING GIANT: Draped in a cloth and holding a round shield, this giant is
adorned in striped greaves (one of the more detailed outfits) and is unfortunately all
missing otherwise. The upper body placement is Moores conjecture, but, as usual, I
had no way to infer any better ideas - my only real innovations in this picture are
related to the additional fragments discovered later. There might be some sort of
pattern on the shield but the fragment photograph was mostly too low-resolution to
tell. His placement is a bit mysterious too, since Moore rightly suggests that it would
be odd to overlap fully with Athena, so I just moved him over, as noted in Athenas
segment.

EUBOEUS: The most frustrating part of this figure is the line to the left of his round
shield; its not his elbow and I dont know what to do with it. His right arm holds his
spear - which I broke off to avoid overlapping with the important area beside it, but
may very well have been a full length spear. Theres no way to tell. He is facedown
with one knee bent, it seems.

HERA: The second most important challenge other than Athena - and ironic, since
she was originally thought to be Athena. However, Moore renames her as Hera in
Giants at the Getty - Again and I agree fully. Other depictions of Hera such as the
Louvre Gigantomachy amphora also place her in a helmet, and although that vase
arms her with a sword, a spear is her weapon of choice in nearly all other
Gigantomachies. Furthermore, her figure can, I believe, be connected at top and
bottom. The later-discovered fragment with Euboeuss forehead and hand also
contains two puzzling details - a bit of the hem of a gown, with a complex pattern,
and the heel of a striding foot. Moore believed that these belong to the same figure
but I suggest otherwise: the heel is Heracles and the gown is Hera. It matches with
their known compositions standing beside each other, and of all the figures in this
mythological scene who might be wearing an elaborate gown, it is definitely Hera.
No giant would be randomly assigned a long gown. Although its doubtful that the
pattern extends all the way up to the top of the garment, I drew it in anyhow for
claritys sake. This would place Heras front foot behind Euboeuss shield and her
other foot mostly missing. I say mostly because in Moores reconstruction, a tiny
bit of a fragment is drawn in where the bottom of Heras foot would be, but I was
unable to locate a photograph of that fragment to add it into the document. However
I suspect that that small fragment might accommodate my theory about Heras and
Heracles poses - and if it doesnt, Heras foot could easily be shifted backwards
compositionally. It is hard to tell how this scene might have been constructed
otherwise - there are not many other options that make sense, as far as I know.

HERACLES: The other half of the gown and heel mystery, Heracles is nearly all intact
from the waist up, with the exception of a piece of his forearm, and parts of his legs.
He is dressed up in a decorated cloak and lionskin and he grasps the arm of his
opponent, pushing him backwards in a pose nearly as forceful as Hermes. The back
leg, notably, is missing, except - I think - the heel appears on the newer fragment
with Heras gown, as mentioned above. Not only is Heracles capable of having both
feet on the ground in the composition, as I said in my notes on the sketch, but I also
discovered another vase by the Kyllenios painter (Beazley 350219) where he makes
almost the same exact pose, and is not standing on tiptoe. His back foot appears to
be flat on the ground, or close to it. This might help confirm my idea about how to
solve this piece of the composition. At least, I hope so.

PANKRATES: Heracles named opponent, and wielding a Gorgoneion. The presence

of Gorgon imagery is arguably more interesting than the giant himself. According to
my research notes on other areas of the subject, the temple of Artemis at Corfu has a
Gigantomachy that depicts Medusa herself fighting on the side of the giants. And,
apparently, there is something in the literature of Euripides that mentions that
Medusa was born to fight alongside the giants. This all intersects to some degree
with Athena and the aegis itself, which usually bears the head of Medusa;
Apollodorus says Athena flayed the giant Pallas and used his skin as the aegis.
However, I have found no account of this elsewhere. Of course - its completely
possible that I am overthinking this entire issue and the Kyllenios painter added the
Gorgoneion for an interesting visual flair. Other scholars might have further
insights.

ZEUS: The chief god in charge regrettably suffers from a near-complete loss of his
figure, save for a bit of his helmet, name, and snake shield, plus half his front foot.
Moore rebuilt his pose and figure, which I followed closely, but added extra details
about his thunderbolt and outfit to correspond with Beazley 310014. That vase is a
tremendously helpful resource for gods visual patterns in the repertoire of the
Kyllenios painter, though admittedly while they are at rest, not at war - although
Zeus bringing forth Athena from his mind is probably not exactly at rest. The
double-crested helmet is somewhat mystifying - maybe Zeus intended to deceive the
giants about which way he was going? However, no matter the reason for it, it was
easily referenced from the Louvre Gigantomachy amphora, as was the shield
(though to a much lesser level of detail).

MIMAS: The fallen giant that I have referred to as Mimas might not actually be
named that, but there is no room for a long name ending in -MAS after the discovery
of the fragment above him, so Mimas seemed most likely, of the known names. Most
of him is missing, but there is enough left to rebuild his pose with confidence. Like a
few others, he has the striped greaves. I would love to figure out what those are for,
but it remains a mystery to me, as do most details, due to the low quality of the
photographs - I have worked mostly with poses alone, for that reason. Regardless,
he lies on his back, holding up his shield. Presumably Zeus has already defeated him,
or else he is just taking a rest, but that is unlikely.

POLYBOTES: The unique helmet of Polybotes reminded me fondly of the absurdly

complex helmets in my various Greek vase art books. Moore describes it as a curled
horn helmet and I re-drew it accordingly. Distortion made it tremendously difficult
to correctly line up the pieces of the shield, and it is not at all perfect. However, its
close enough to be sufficient for the purposes of this sketched reconstruction. His
back leg must be overlapping the back leg of the giant standing behind him, since
there is no room for it otherwise. His spear is impressively intact and his free hand
must have been raised to hold it, though the pose or angle is unclear, so I did not try.

GIANT BEHIND POLYBOTES: Another giant with a distinctive helmet, his hand is
intact, holding the end of the spear, but the point disappears behind the overlapping
shields. His lower leg was impossible to un-distort correctly and it is possible to see
the misplaced ground line because of that - but it is in the right area, and that will do
for now. Moore outlined his back leg which I followed quite closely, with a few
changes to the angle. The rest of the figure - elbow and lower back - could hardly be
posed any other way. The shield definitely had a decorative motif on it (it seems that
Kyllenios painter shields usually do, from my research) but I couldnt make out what
it was beyond a few lines, not to mention the difficulty of the substantial missing
piece.

FALLEN GIANT: Of the giant at the very beginning, the hand is over here, connecting
these areas of the vase. The distinct structure of the fingers made it easier for me to
identify what might be Ephialtes fingers on his own fragment.