d i n i n g i n t h e s a n c t ua r y o f d e m e t e r a n d k o r e 1

Hesperia
Th e J o u r nal of the Amer ic a n Sc ho ol
of Cl assi c al S t udie s at Athens

Vo l u m e 8 7
2018

Copyright © American School of Classical Studies at Athens, originally pub-

lished in Hesperia 87 (2018), pp. 545–610. This offprint is supplied for per-
sonal, non-commercial use only, and reflects the definitive electronic version of
the article, found at <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2972/hesperia.87.3.545
 hesperia
Jennifer Sacher, Editor

Editorial Advisory Board

Carla M. Antonaccio, Duke University
Angelos Chaniotis, Institute for Advanced Study
Jack L. Davis, University of Cincinnati
A. A. Donohue, Bryn Mawr College
Jan Driessen, Université Catholique de Louvain
Marian H. Feldman, University of California, Berkeley
Gloria Ferrari Pinney, Harvard University
Thomas W. Gallant, University of California, San Diego
Sharon E. J. Gerstel, University of California, Los Angeles
Guy M. Hedreen, Williams College
Carol C. Mattusch, George Mason University
Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, University of Thessaly at Volos
Lisa C. Nevett, University of Michigan
John H. Oakley, The College of William and Mary
Josiah Ober, Stanford University
John K. Papadopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles
Jeremy B. Rutter, Dartmouth College
Monika Trümper, Freie Universität Berlin

Hesperia is published quarterly by the American School of Classical Studies at

Athens. Founded in 1932 to publish the work of the American School, the jour-
nal now welcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek
archaeology, art, epigraphy, history, materials science, ethnography, and literature,
from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperia is a refereed journal, indexed in
Abstracts in Anthropology, L’Année philologique, Art Index, Arts and Humanities
Citation Index, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Current Contents, IBZ:
Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften-
literatur, European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), Periodicals Contents
Index, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies, and TOCS-IN. The journal is
also a member of CrossRef.

Hesperia Supplements
The Hesperia Supplement series (ISSN 1064-1173) presents book-length studies in
the fields of Greek archaeology, art, language, and history. Founded in 1937, the series
was originally designed to accommodate extended essays too long for inclusion in
Hesperia. Since that date the Supplements have established a strong identity of their
own, featuring single-author monographs, excavation reports, and edited collections on
topics of interest to researchers in classics, archaeology, art history, and Hellenic studies.
Back issues of Hesperia and Hesperia Supplements are electronically archived in JSTOR
(www.jstor.org), where all but the most recent titles may be found. For order informa-
tion and a complete list of titles, see the ASCSA website (www.ascsa.edu.gr). The
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, established in 1881, is a research
and teaching institution dedicated to the advanced study of the archaeology, art,
history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world.
he s p er ia 87 (201 8 ) THE STATUARY OF
Pa ges 5 45– 6 10
ASKLEPIOS FROM THE
ATHENIAN AGORA

ABS TRAC T

This study identifies and publishes the marble statuary of Asklepios from the
excavations of the Athenian Agora. The author explores the religious lives of
the assemblage, mostly statuettes of the Roman period, through close autopsy
and the reconstruction of viewing environments. Following a discussion of
displays in baths and in sacred precincts, the author proposes that most of the
reduced-scale figures belonged to domestic spaces and, at times, performed
roles in household ritual. Varying Late Antique responses of defacing and
continued use are also discussed. The evidence presented here moves beyond
the monumental settings of Athenian cult and into the everyday spaces where
routine interactions with the divine occurred.

The cult of Asklepios left a rich sculptural legacy at Athens.1 The many
votive reliefs erected to the god during the late 5th and 4th centuries b.c.
in exchange for cures or other services are well known, and as many as 160
reliefs have been assigned to the City Asklepieion alone.2 Scenes of wor-
ship, sacrifice, and other ritual characterize the reliefs; a few even depict
Asklepios as he administers intimate healing therapies. By the close of the
4th century b.c., the production of votive reliefs, once prolific in Athens,
had halted suddenly. Most attribute this break to the sharp fall in demand
for funerary sculpture following the sumptuary laws enacted by Demetrios
of Phaleron in or shortly after 317/6 b.c.3 Whatever the cause, the near

1. Research for this study was con-
ducted in Athens in 2011–2012 with
the support of the Craven Committee
of the Faculty of Classics at the Univer-
sity of Oxford, and in 2015–2016 with
the support of the Olivia James Trav-
eling Fellowship of the Archaeological
Institute of America. I express my deep
gratitude to John Camp for permission
to study these sculptures and for his
guidance along the way; to the staff of
the Agora excavations, Sylvie Dumont,
Bruce Hartzler, Pia Kvarnström,
Inge-Marie Raptis, Maria Tziotziou,
and George Dervos, for facilitating
access to these materials; to Craig
Mauzy for the exceptional photography
and the details these pictures have re-
vealed; and to Carol Lawton, Julia
Lenaghan, Milena Melfi, and Bert
Smith for generously reading versions
of this work. The comments of two
anonymous reviewers greatly improved
the manuscript. Finally, I thank those
who offered their expertise on specific
points: Sheila Dillon, Marion Meyer,
Olga Palagia, Molly Richardson, and
Andrew Stewart. Any mistakes are
my own.
2. Hausmann 1948, pp. 166–183.
Still more are known from the Agora;
see Agora XXXVIII, pp. 36–43,
nos. 16–30.
3. Stewart 1990, p. 49; Van Straten
1995, pp. 58–59; Ridgway 1997,
p. 193; Agora XXXVIII, p. 5. On re-
lated document reliefs, see Lawton
1995, p. 22.

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens

546 brian martens

disappearance of votive reliefs over a single generation must have been ac- Figure 1 (opposite). Plan of the
companied by shifts in dedicatory practice, perhaps as money or offerings Athenian Agora indicating findspots
in precious metals replaced sculpture.4 After the production of Attic reliefs of the sculptures presented in this
ceased, surviving depictions of Asklepios in marble were scarce in Athens study. A circle indicates an exact
findspot and a square indicates a
over the next three centuries.5 This long gap in the evidence coincides with
broad region of provenance. The
a decrease in Attic output of divine images in marble during the 3rd and
findspots of two sculptures (21, 29)
early 2nd centuries b.c., the result of sinking demand that led to a market are unknown. Courtesy Agora Exca-
situation in which sculptors turned their attention to portrait statuary.6 vations; additions B. Martens
Marble images of the gods flourished in Roman Athens in the form of
reduced-scale statuary and, among these, Asklepios returned as a favored
subject. To the known Athenian corpus of Asklepian sculpture, 42 certain
or probable freestanding figures of the god, predominately statuettes of
the 2nd and 3rd centuries a.d., can be added from the rich storerooms of
the Agora excavations (Fig. 1).7 For some perspective on this number, 29
freestanding marble figures of Asklepios are known from the god’s famed
healing center at Epidauros.8 The abundant statuary of the god from the
Agora, all of which is under life-size, provides an opportunity to evaluate
Asklepian cult in a way that stretches beyond traditional focuses on monu-
mental architecture and written sources alone. The reduced-scale images
presented here are the objects through which inhabitants of Athens inter-
acted with the god of health—for many, probably routinely, and no doubt
for some, during the most vulnerable and pressing moments of their lives.
In the following, I trace the religious lives of the god’s marble statuary
from the Agora through close autopsy and the reconstruction of viewing
environments.9 In doing so, my aim is to reveal the behaviors and ritual
practices of those who invested, or divested, the images with religious
meanings. For the most part, studies of Greek and Roman statuary of gods

4. Coins were increasingly ex-
changed for healing rituals during
the Hellenistic period, and they appear
in the inventories of the Athenian
Asklepieion; Aleshire 1989, p. 43. On
the exchange of money for cures at
Asklepieia, see Gorrini and Melfi 2002,
pp. 256–264; Melfi 2014, pp. 760–761.
The majority of extant thesauroi, recep-
tacles for receiving coin offerings, date
to the Hellenistic period; for a cata-
logue of the evidence, see Kaminski
1991, pp. 147–177.
5. Some surviving Hellenistic and
Early Roman works from Athens in-
clude 30, 33(?), a 2nd-century b.c.
relief from the Agora (S 593: Agora
XXXVIII, p. 43, no. 30, pl. 7), a 2nd-
century b.c. statue from the Mounychia
Hill at Piraeus (Athens, National
Archaeological Museum 258: Stewart
1979, pp. 48–51; Kaltsas 2002, pp. 260–
261, no. 543), and a 1st-century b.c.(?)
statue found at the Dipylon Gate
(Athens, National Archaeological
Museum 704: Meyer 1994, pp. 33–34,
no. AM1, pl. 17).
6. Stewart 1979, p. 5.
7. Other pieces, not presented here,
may represent Asklepios, but identifica-
tions are not forthcoming due to their
poor state of preservation or lack of
attributes. These include: a statuette
of a seated man wearing a himation
(S 1053: Agora XXIV, p. 41, pl. 39:c;
Stirling 2005, p. 204); an unfinished
head of a statuette of a bearded man
(S 1499: unpublished); a head of a
small-scale statue of a bearded man,
badly weathered (S 2656: unpublished);
a head of a statuette of a bearded man
wearing a thin, plain fillet (S 177: Shear
1933, pp. 530, 533, fig. 15); and the
body of a serpent coiled around a
branch or staff(?) from a statue (S 2170:
unpublished). A statuette-sized head of
Asklepios(?) (S 3288: unpublished)
seems to have been detached from a
high relief due to the flat break across
the back and the abrupt termination of
the fillet before the break; the piece,
however, is unfinished and badly
weathered.
8. For the Roman-period statuary,
see Katakis 2002, pp. 5–26, nos. 1–23.
Pre-Roman statuary includes Athens,
National Archaeological Museum 265,
266 (Kaltsas 2002, p. 261, nos. 545,
544, respectively), and 267, 268
(Kavvadias 1890–1892, p. 216). Two
statuettes, presumably Hellenistic in
date, are on display in the site mu-
seum (Epidauros, Archaeological
Museum 7, 8). A torso acquired by
Lord Elgin in the “neighborhood of
Epidauros” could be included (Lon-
don, British Museum 1816,0610.327:
Smith 1892, p. 290, no. 551; LIMC II,
1984, p. 879, no. 158, s.v. Asklepios
[B. Holtzmann]).
9. On this approach, see Appadurai
1986; Kopytoff 1986; for similar
approaches to statuary, see Smith
2012b; Kristensen and Stirling 2016.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 547

+400

+700
+200

+300

+400

+600
+500
.
ST
DI AS
TIN

N
PY

IO
LO GO
SA

ES
N NORTHWEST S
CR GA ST

TH
ED TE BATHS 16 .
W A
RA
AY STO
32 ILE
ILW POIK
AY

E R
HEP
HAIS
TOS
CA. 150 A.D.
NO S RIV ST.
E RIDA
41 ST. PH

STO L
ILIP

YA
A
RO
HADRIAN ST.

ZEUS
+300 42 AY
22 ILW
RA

STOA of
35 HOUSES
AND SHOPS

HE
PH
AIS
TE

IN

STOA OF ATTALOS
ION

GREAT DRA

PA
OR OS

OON

ION ST .
S

NA
ODEION
AIO

M ET R

TH
AG LON

EN

EU RY SA KE
AI
C

ET
KO

RE
AY
+ 200 13 5 8

ST
SOUTHWEST
S

TEMPLE
THOLO

30

S
EO
12 23
2 28

AR
17
POIKILIS
STREET
MIDDLE STOA 26

EAST BUILDING
33, 43

LIB NTA
34

PA
RA IN
PIR ROMAN

RY OS
A
GA EUS 37 AGORA
TE SOUTH SQUARE

OF
31 18
RESIDENTIAL AND 24 NYMPHAION P O L Y G N O T O S ST.
36 SOUTH STOA II 40 10
INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SOUT
HE
FOUN AST
+100 TAIN
HOUS
E
8 11
6

T
3 7 HE AS
T

STREE
SO UT
14 38 TE MP
LE

4 15

N
(HOUSES)
1

OURO
SOUTHWEST
SOUTHWEST

ACR
HOUSE 20, 39
BATHS 1

DIOSK
9
OPO
N
SINIO
ELEU
L IS
27
(HOUSES)

19
0.00

25
APO

m
100
STL

AREOPAGOS
90m
E

80m

100
PAU

110m
m

11 100m
L

0m
m
120
STR

-100
EET

100m
80m

90m

11
0m
ACROPOLIS
20 40 60 80 100 200 300 meters
-200

and goddesses deemphasize religious meanings, with the exception of those

10. On the nature of divine images,
images displayed inside temples.10 Even the scholarly terminology used to
see, esp., Kristensen 2013, pp. 43–65;
on the methodological difficulties of describe these figures—words such as ideal, mythological, or pagan—denies
determining religious meaning, see the very real religious responses that divine statuary provoked. As images
Stirling 2005, pp. 22–28. of a god produced in a polytheistic society, statuary of Asklepios carried
548 brian martens

inherent religious meaning for contemporary audiences. The figures pre-

sented here reproduced what Gell influentially termed the “personhood”
of the god, and they therefore possessed, through representation alone,
the potential to make Asklepios present and petitionable.11 A look at the
religious lives of these figures refocuses our attention on statuary as evidence
for Greek ritual practice.
The catalogue of statuary presented at the end of this article is orga-
nized by model, size, and state of preservation. Figures are distinguished
according to scale: those measuring less than ca. 60 cm in original height
are called statuettes, and those between ca. 60–140 cm in original height are
called small-scale statues. Additional statuary relevant to Asklepian cult is
housed in the Agora storerooms, including at least four figures of Hygieia
and two of Telesphoros; one, a possible head of Hygieia (43), is published
here.12 Before turning to the religious lives of the figures, I begin with is-
sues of chronology and identification and then consider the iconographic
contributions of the Agora assemblage.

CHRO NOLO GIES AND IDENT IFICAT I ON S

It should be made clear at the outset that chronologies can be problematic.

Many of the figures presented in this study cannot be dated with precision,
and, in particular, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish Roman pieces from
works of earlier periods.13 A close look at statuette 30 (Fig. 2) illustrates
these complexities. The figure’s findspot in a Byzantine wall prevents
the establishment of a terminus ante quem in antiquity, so chronological
markers must be extracted from the statuette itself. On stylistic grounds,
30 belongs in the Hellenistic period, probably the 2nd century b.c. The
figure has softly modeled contours, elongated proportions, and a gentle
curve at the hips. The left shoulder is held back, creating a twisted posture
that is off-axis from the lower body. The musculature is compartmental-
ized: the pectorals and right biceps are rendered as separate units that lack
the cohesiveness of a single muscular system. The separation of the staff
from the body—so thin a line at the hips—is the work of a talented sculp-
tor who sought to illuminate space behind the figure. The rich drapery,
slipping from his left shoulder and passing in a luxuriant swath over his
chest, finds its closest parallels on 4th-century b.c. funerary stelai, but it
diverges in its flatness and only slight indication of rolled material.14 This
composition of drapery is otherwise unknown in statuary of Asklepios,
suggesting that the statuette originates in a period with an interest in the
subtle experimentation of iconographic models.15 Statuette 30 is, then, an
outlier among its compatriots—probably a single non-Roman specimen.

11. Gell 1998, pp. 96–154. On Gell’s
theory and Roman divine images, see
Stewart 2007, p. 170.
12. Hygieia: 43(?), S 376, S 2108,
S 2161 (from outside the excavations).
Telesphoros: S 1626, S 2418. These
figures of Hygieia and Telesphoros are
unpublished. I have not attempted an
exhaustive search to identify all pieces
attributed to these divinities.
13. This has long been a difficulty
for those studying statuary from the
Agora; see, e.g., Agora XI, p. 87;
Stewart 2012, pp. 269–270.
14. See, e.g., Clairmont 1993, vol. 2,
p. 756, no. 2.873a.
15. A small-scale statue from Mor-
rylos (Thessaloniki, Archaeological
Museum 1090: Meyer 1994, pp. 42–44,
no. AM6, figs. 35–38; Despinis,
Stefanidou-Tiveriou, and Voutiras
2003, p. 29, no. 165, figs. 432–435) is
somewhat comparable in that its
drapery has slipped from the left shoul-
der, but the edge of the himation is
thrown lower on the arm and the swath
across the chest is altogether different.

a b
Figure 2. Statuette of Asklepios (30):
(a) front view; (b) right view; (c) back
view; (d) left view. Scale 1:3. Photos
C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
16. In general, the rasp is more ap-
parent on works of the Roman period,
though on its own the application of
the rasp cannot be used as a dating cri-
terion. The rasp is more noticeable, e.g.,
on Attic funerary monuments from the
2nd century a.d.; Agora XXXV, pp. 61,
63. Stewart (2012, p. 269) also notes
heavy rasping on Roman-period hima-
tion statues at the Agora.
17. I thank Andrew Stewart for this
suggestion.
18. I thank Andrew Stewart and
Olga Palagia for their thoughtful dis-
cussion of these pieces. The interpreta-
tions presented are my own.
19. See, e.g., a statuette found at
Epidauros of Hygieia with a snake
(Athens, National Archaeological
Museum 272: Kaltsas 2002, p. 367,
no. 782; Katakis 2002, pp. 31–32,
no. 29, pls. 34, 35); or, too, the figure of
Aigle from the Great Baths at Dion
(Dion, Archaeological Museum 373:
Pandermalis 1997, p. 37, for profile
view). There is no coronet (stephane)
or headband (tainia) carved on 43.
For Aphrodite, see, e.g., S 574, a 1st-
century b.c.(?) head identified as a
version of the Knidia, but with possible
tainia and headscarf(?): Stewart 2017,
pp. 101–102, 109, no. 4, fig. 14.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 549
c d
There is, however, a technical detail that might argue for a later dating.
The heavy presence of the rasp on the drapery could pull the statuette into
the 2nd century a.d. when the textured effect was frequently employed.16
Given the repairs at the figure’s neck and ankles, the rasping possibly oc-
curred during a later renewal of the statuette, perhaps as an update to add
a deliberate en vogue effect.17
Another figure might have been readily placed in the Roman period,
had it not been for an associated head with which it was paired.18 Heads
of small-scale statues of a man (33) and a woman (43), perhaps Asklepios
and Hygieia, were found together in a well south of the Kolonos Agoraios
(Figs. 3, 4). The heads are products of the same workshop: they are at the
same scale, made of matching coarse-grained marble, and have dowel holes
underneath with roughened joining surfaces. The summary detailing of the
right beard of the man, and of the left hair of the woman, demonstrate that
she stood at his right side, and that their gazes intersected—an arrange-
ment that concealed the less-finished areas. The right side of the man’s
neck was worked back, probably because the head looked down with the
beard touching the upper chest and clavicle, an attested pose for Asklepios.
The heads differ strikingly in the use of the drill. The curly hair of the man
is styled with point drilling, whereas the drill is absent altogether in the
hair of the woman. It seems the spirit of the iconographic models dictated
the tools used. The hairstyle of the woman, swept back and gathered into
a wide, folded bun, recalls a common arrangement worn by Aphrodite,
but it can, on occasion, fit Hygieia or the other daughters of Asklepios.19
Moreover, it is possible that 33 depicts another bearded god such as Zeus
or Poseidon, but both are rare subjects among the small-scale statuary of
Athens. For these reasons, Asklepios and Hygieia (or another daughter of
the god), who frequently appeared together, are good candidates.
In terms of chronology, the drilling in the hair and the polished flesh
lean in favor of a Roman date for small-scale statue 33. The figure’s narrow
eyes, gentle modeling, and soft outlines of the hair and beard, however,
550 brian martens

a b

Figure 3. Head of a small-scale statue

c d
of a man, possibly Asklepios (33):
(a) front view; (b) right view; (c) top
view; (d) left view. The piece dates
to the Hellenistic or Roman period
(terminus ante quem of a.d. 250) and
is from the same workshop as 43.
Scale 1:2. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy
Agora Excavations

raise the possibility of Hellenistic manufacture. When viewed alongside

the pendant female, with her narrow eyes, soft hair, and round face with
fleshy jaw, the possibility of earlier production grows even stronger. We
especially see parallels for the face of the woman in portraiture of the
Ptolemaic court.20 Taken together, 33 and 43 are examples for which a
chronology should, cautiously, be left open. Future scientific identification
of their marble, which is not a local Athenian stone, promises some hope
for narrowing a date.
In most cases, we must set aside the possibility of century-specific dating 20. E.g., Berenike II; Smith 1988,
and recognize that the difficulties faced in assigning chronologies to this ma- p. 91.
terial reflect the traditional and conservative nature of the evidence. In general, 21. On Telesphoros, see RPC III,
no. 1744 (Pergamon, a.d. 136/37);
technique is the best criterion for dating, concentrating the evidence almost
Agora V, p. 52; on the egg, see Grimm
exclusively in the Roman period—likely in the 2nd and 3rd centuries a.d. 1989, pp. 170–171; Sirano 1994.
Technical indicators for a Roman date that are frequently visible in the Freyer-Schauenburg (2010–2011,
Agora corpus include a high polish, liberal drill work, the use of drill dots pp. 150–151) places the egg motif as
to accentuate facial features, and sculpting from the front plane inward as if early as the Late Hellenistic period on
the basis of a fragmentary terracotta
the figure were in relief. Iconographic details can hone chronologies further.
mold in the Louvre, the dating of
Telesphoros appears alongside Asklepios from late in the reign of Hadrian which must be treated with caution.
(19), for instance, and Asklepios sometimes holds an egg beginning in the We are on firmer ground with the
reign of Antoninus Pius (20); both chronologies are established by coins.21 numismatic evidence.

Figure 4. Head of a small-scale statue
of a woman, possibly Hygieia (43):
(a) front view; (b) right view; (c) top
view; (d) left view. The piece dates
to the Hellenistic or Roman period
(terminus ante quem of a.d. 250) and
is from the same workshop as 33.
Scale 1:2. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy
Agora Excavations
22. Filges 1999, p. 399; Stirling
2005, pp. 106–107.
23. On identifying Late Antique
statuary, see Stirling 2005, pp. 91–137;
Hannestad 2007, 2012.
24. BI 1222: Camp 2007, pp. 641–
642, no. 11, fig. 16.
25. From the House of Theseus
at Nea Paphos on Cyprus (Paphos,
Archaeological Museum FR 1/67;
H. 48 cm): Grimm 1989, p. 168, fig. 1
(wrong figure cited in text); Fejfer 2006,
pp. 113–117, figs. 45:h, 46:h. Said to
be from Alexandria (Trier, Archäolo-
gische Sammlung der Universität
OL 1985.158; original H. ca. 140 cm):
Grimm 1989, pp. 168–169, fig. 4
(wrong figure cited in text).
26. For production in Alexandria,
see Grimm 1989; more cautiously, see
Hannestad 2007, p. 287.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 551
a b
c d
Moldings along the faces of plinths (15, 19, 31; Fig. 5), another kind of
iconographic marker, are not common before the 2nd century a.d.22
A single figure, statuette 23 (Fig. 6), can be dated with some certainty
to Late Antiquity. The figure has a narrow upper body contrasting with
long, thickset legs, the surface was given a high, glossy polish throughout,
the profile is flat, the drapery is doughy with rounded ridges, and there is
little definition between flesh and himation—all features that accord with a
late chronology, presumably in the 4th century a.d.23 The size of 23 and the
treatment of its drapery recall Late Antique ivories such as the Aphrodite
Anadyomene, found recently in ongoing excavations at the northern side
of the Agora.24 That said, these technical and stylistic characteristics might
equally owe to the statuette’s very fine-grained marble, which is not from
a known Athenian quarry.
Statuette 8 (Fig. 7) is another candidate for late production on ac-
count of its hard polish and rubbery drapery. The statuette bears a striking
resemblance to figures of Asklepios found at Nea Paphos and Alexandria,
particularly in the deep, schematic folds that widen as they move over the
body, most noticeable in 8 under the projecting left arm and over the groin.25
A workshop for the Cypriot and Egyptian statuettes has been proposed at
Alexandria, and the pieces have been dated to Late Antiquity.26 Yet another
parallel, one closer in scale to the Agora image, is in Ankara, and Filges has
552 brian martens

15

19

Figure 5. Statuettes with molded

plinths (15, 19, 31), front and top
views. Scale 1:3. Photos C. Mauzy; cour-
31 tesy Agora Excavations

a b c d
Figure 6. Statuette of Asklepios (23):
connected that statuette to workshops in Asia Minor.27 As the evidence (a) front view; (b) right view; (c) back
now stands, there are several possibilities for the origin of statuette 8. Future view; (d) left view. Scale 2:3. Photos
marble provenance testing will better clarify the production locale of this C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
statuette and its comparable figures.28
27. Ankara, Museum of Anatolian the time of publication. I am grateful to excluded for statuette 8. I thank our
Civilizations 12854; Filges 1999, Yannis Maniatis and Dimitris Tamba- colleagues from the Hellenic Ministry
p. 428, no. 19, pl. 37:4; H. 28.5 cm. kopoulos for sharing their preliminary of Culture and Sports, especially Kleio
28. The marble of 8 has been sam- thoughts on this piece and others. At Tsoga and Maria Liaska, for their sup-
pled, but the results were pending at present, a local Athenian stone can be port in conducting these analyses.

Figure 7. Statuette of Asklepios (8):
(a) front view; (b) back view. Tech-
nical and stylistic characterstics
place this piece in the late 3rd or
early 4th century a.d. Scale 1:3. Photos
C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
29. Athens, National Archaeological
Museum 1396: Lawton 1995, pp. 147–
148, no. 152, pl. 81; Kaltsas 2002, p. 236,
no. 496. On the adoption of Asklepian
iconography by other healers, see Meyer
2001; Gorrini and Melfi 2002, pp. 249–
251. For the iconography of Amphia-
raos, see LIMC I, 1981, pp. 691–713,
s.v. Amphiaraos (I. Krauskopf ).
30. Martens 2015.
31. Rome, Musei Capitolini,
Centrale Montemartini 1846: LIMC II,
1984, p. 879, no. 154, s.v. Asklepios
(B. Holtzmann); Meyer 1988, pp. 120–
122, no. G1, pl. 16; 1994, pp. 7–9,
no. G1, figs. 1, 2, pls. 1–3, with earlier
literature.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 553
a b
In my estimation, we can bracket the chronologies of the Agora as-
semblage between the 2nd century b.c. and the 4th century a.d. Consider-
ing the small size of some of these figures and, in turn, their concealable
nature, it is possible that their uses even postdate the closing of pagan
temples, extending their use-lives into the 5th or 6th century a.d. or later.
The figures thus span a substantial portion of the god’s worship at Athens,
and, as we will see, most were in use for generations.
A brief word on the identifications presented here is also due. As a
group, the figures have been identified as Asklepios, although admittedly,
the iconographic model carries more complex meaning. The image of a
bearded man wearing a himation and leaning on a staff was adopted by
other healers, such as Amphiaraos. A late-4th-century b.c. document relief
from the Agora, for instance, shows Amphiaraos in an Asklepios-like form
alongside Hygieia; inscriptions on the epistyle verify their identities.29 A
further illustration of iconographic complexity is provided by small-scale
statue 25 (see Fig. 24, below) from the northern slope of the Areopagos,
which, as I have argued elsewhere, depicts a hybridized version of Asklepios
and Sarapis.30 We must leave open the possibility that some of these figures
represent other healers in the guise of Asklepios and acknowledge that
audiences interpreted the visual form according to personal need.
TH E MODEL S
Giu st i n i Model
Twenty-four figures from the Agora (1–24; Figs. 8, 9) assume the posture and
composition of the Giustini model, named for an Augustan-period statue
in Rome (Fig. 10) that follows a presumed early-4th-century b.c. original.31
Here, the god stands with his left leg engaged. A himation is draped over
his left shoulder and brought under his right arm. The edge of the himation
arcs across his upper abdomen and terminates over his projecting left elbow,
leaving the right arm and shoulder, and the chest, bare. The outer wrist of
the left hand is nestled behind the hip, clasping the himation. Overall, the
554 brian martens

1:5 1:5 1:3

1 2 3

4 5 7 8
Figure 8 (above and opposite). Com-
garment envelops the body tightly, requiring that anatomy control the form parative compilation of selected
of the drapery. On better-preserved examples of this model, the opposite statuary of Asklepios Giustini, front
hand reaches down to grasp the serpent-entwined staff, which is wedged and back views (1–8). Scale 1:4 unless
otherwise indicated. Photos C. Mauzy;
under the armpit (Fig. 11).32 The feet are sandaled and an omphalos, the courtesy Agora Excavations
sacred symbol of Asklepios’s father, Apollo, is frequently sited at the left
side. The head is bearded and turned to the right, and the hair is bound by
32. Argos, Archaeological Museum
a rolled crown, circular in section, called a corona tortilis. 204: Marcadé 1980, pp. 135–139, no. 2,
There are modifications to the model. In a frequent version first at- figs. 3–5; Meyer 1994, pp. 11–13,
tested on votive reliefs of the late 4th century b.c., the V-shaped folds in no. G4, figs. 5, 20–22, pl. 5:a–c.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 555

1:3

1:5 1:5
1 2 3

4 5 7 8

33. Meyer 1988, p. 154, with exam-
ples of votive reliefs.
34. Uhlmann 1980; Meyer 1988,
pp. 141–149; Berger 1990; Freyer-
Schauenburg 2010–2011.
the drapery below the knees (14, 17) are replaced by diagonal pleats that
stretch from the left hip to the right ankle (2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 22).33 The result
is a shift in focus from the figure’s projecting right knee to the outthrust
left hip, giving a surer indication of the shifted weight. Versions with
this drapery composition have been subdivided into two models, com-
monly known in literature as the London-Eleusis and Amelung types.34
Compared to its London-Eleusis counterpart, the Asklepios Amelung
type is characterized by harder drapery, a head that turns more sharply to
the right, a curtailed S-curve with weight removed from the staff, a left
556 brian martens

1:5 1:5 1:4

9 10 11 12

1:5
14 16

1:4 1:5
1:4
17 18 20

Figure 9 (above, left, and opposite).

Comparative compilation of selected
statuary of Asklepios Giustini, front
and back views (9–12, 14, 16–18,
20–24). Scale 1:3 unless otherwise indi-
cated. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
21 22 23 24 Excavations
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 557

1:5 1:5
1:4
9 10 11 12

1:5
14 16

1:4 1:4 1:5

17 18 20

21 22 23 24
558 brian martens

Figure 10. Statue of Asklepios Gius-

tini. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Cen-
trale Montemartini 1846. Photo
C. Faraglia; Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Rome, neg. D-DAI-ROM-36.947

forearm concealed by the edge of the himation, and bare feet. Moreover,
on occasion, the Asklepios Amelung type adds narrative elements. Some
versions place an egg in the right hand, as in 20.35 Others, not attested at
the Agora, replace the omphalos with a scroll-box, or capsa, and show the
god holding a scroll, and one statuette from Dion shows the god with a
mouse.36 On the whole, the differences between the London-Eleusis and
Amelung formats are sometimes slight, and, as a result, the boundaries
between the two groups can be blurry, especially for our fragmentary
statuettes. Strikingly, most examples of the Asklepios Amelung belong
to the Roman period and are sculpted at under-life-size scales.37 Certain
nuances between the London-Eleusis and Amelung groups may therefore

35. See n. 21, above.
36. On the capsa and scroll, see
Freyer-Schauenburg 2010–2011,
pp. 142–146. A miniature Roman-
period statuette found at Dion (H. ca.
15 cm; pers. obs.) depicts an Asklepios
on a molded plinth accompanied by a
mouse at his left side (Dion, Archaeo-
logical Museum, inv. no unknown:
Pandermalis 1998, pp. 167, 170, fig. 1).
A similar-looking animal accompanies
a statuette of Telesphoros found in
Thessaloniki, misidentified(?) in its
primary publication as a dog (Thessa-
loniki, Archaeological Museum 1960:
Despinis, Stefanidou-Tiveriou, and
Voutiras 2003, pp. 55–56, no. 194,
figs. 535–538). A coin of Lucius Verus,
minted at Pergamon (a.d. 161–165),
shows Asklepios on the reverse with
a mouse; see RPC IV, no. 3209 (tem-
porary number). The mouse, a rare
attribute for Asklepios, may reference
a connection with Apollo Smintheus.
37. For lists of relevant statuary, see
Uhlmann 1980, pp. 35–37; Freyer-
Schauenburg 2010–2011, pp. 151–157.

Figure 11. Statue of Asklepios Gius-
tini. Argos, Archaeological Museum
204. Photo École française d’Athènes,
neg. R877-004
38. Although measuring marks are
known on other unfinished, reduced-
scale statues from the site; see, e.g.,
S 918: Agora XIV, p. 187, pl. 95:a.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 559
owe more to the stylistic shifts that accompany reduced-scale images of
the Roman period than to meaningful iconographic changes.
A side-by-side comparison of figures from the Agora that draw on
the Asklepios Giustini model shows the great variety present among
the assemblage (see Figs. 8, 9). There is general repetition of the major
components, but with each new articulation we find that the sculptor has
imbued uniqueness, particularly in proportions and in the composition
and rendering of the drapery. It is quickly apparent that the Agora figures
are the works of many hands active over generations. With such persistent
differentiation, we are led to an inevitable conclusion: most figures were
rendered from an image in mind that had been transmitted through learned
visual forms. There was, in other words, no need for a physical model.
Sculptors possessed recall of the image-type because of professional need,
but also because they were members of a society that promoted and main-
tained such visual forms. This notion is supported by the lack of evidence
for direct copying, such as measuring points, on the Asklepioi.38
As an exception, small-scale statue 1 (Fig. 12) is a careful reiteration
of the Giustini prototype. Compared to the model’s namesake in Rome,
the Agora figure is about one-third of the size, and there are differences in
proportions—namely, the chest of 1 is broader and the torso longer. The
560 brian martens

a b c d
head, which was located in the depots of the Agora for this study and is Figure 12. Small-scale statue of
now reunited with the torso, introduces a distinctive hairstyle with liberal Asklepios in the Giustini model (1):
drill work that resembles that of portraiture of the Flavian and Trajanic (a) front view; (b) right view; (c) back
view; (d) left view. Of the examples
periods. An asymmetrical band of tight curls, pushed forward by a thin
from the Agora, this piece is the most
fillet, frames the face. The top of the head is, in contrast, carved in flat,
faithful reiteration of the Giustini
parallel, wavy strands. The curly beard is generally symmetrical and is closely prototype (cf. Fig. 10). Scale ca. 1:5.
cropped at the sides, hanging heavier over the chin. The head diverges from Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
other close versions, such as a statue from the Theater Baths at Argos (see Excavations
Fig. 11) or a statue now in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence.39 The torso of
small-scale statue 1 was found in the immediate vicinity of a bathing es-
tablishment southwest of the Agora Square. Its viewing environment and
function are discussed in detail below, but let it suffice to say here that its 39. Argos, Archaeological Mu-
excellent quality and close evocation of a prototype were probably deemed seum 204: see n. 32, above. Florence,
necessary because of its public, civically oriented display inside the bath. It Uffizi Gallery 247: Meyer 1994,
was a carefully considered commission. pp. 9–11, no. G2, fig. 4.
The origins, chronology, and workmanship of the Asklepios Giustini 40. There is a lengthy bibliography
on the type; for summaries with rele-
have been much debated. Most agree that the original was an over-life-size vant literature, see LIMC II, 1984,
bronze statue of the early 4th century b.c., and some think that it stood p. 894, s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtzmann);
inside the temple at the Athenian Asklepieion.40 The image-type’s earliest Isthmia VI, pp. 44–46; for presentation
known occurrence is in Athens, found on a fragmentary late-4th-century b.c. in a tabular format, see also Berger
votive relief.41 Whatever the origins of the prototype, it is clear that by the 1990, pp. 208–209. The association
with the Athenian Asklepieion was first
Roman period the model—particularly in its London-Eleusis and Amelung
made by Neugebauer (1921, pp. 49–53).
manifestations—was favored for representations of the god. Unfinished 41. Athens, National Archaeological
statuettes from the Agora recall the Asklepios Giustini directly (14), or its Museum 2501: Svoronos 1903, pl. CLI;
variants (4, 9, 10, 20, 21, 24), indicating a clear preference among sculptors Meyer 1988, p. 154.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 561

working in Athens. Versions of the Giustini model carried some degree of

civic significance, appearing on issues of the city’s Roman-period coinage
(Fig. 13), though the numismatic use of this image-type was not exclusive
to Athens.42
The preeminence of the Asklepios Giustini in the Agora assemblage
should not itself be taken as evidence for a prototype that was on display
in Athens. The Giustini model and its versions were the most widespread
means of depicting the god in Greece, and as such, an argument based on
the frequency of freestanding images cannot be supported. To make but
one comparison, 16 of the 29 figures of the god found at Epidauros draw
a on the Asklepios Giustini.43 Of course, the high esteem given to the model
at Epidauros is not evidence for the Epidaurian cult statue. We know from
Pausanias (2.27.2) that by the 4th century b.c., the temple image was a
seated chryselephantine statue by Thrasymedes.44 Despite appearing on
coins of Epidauros, the enthroned image was rarely reproduced in stone.45
The evidence as it stands is insufficient for the identification of the Giustini
model as the principal statue on display at the Athenian Asklepieion. We
can conclude only that the Giustini model was the preferred means for com-
municating Asklepios visually in Athens and in other parts of Greece, such as
the Peloponnese. The distribution of the Asklepios Giustini was widespread
and known also in Asia Minor, the Italian peninsula, and North Africa.

b statue survives with its inscribed base, which indicates that it was dedicated
Figure 13. Athenian bronze coin
from the Agora (N 51460) with rep-
resentation of Asklepios in a version
of the Giustini model (a); detail of
figure (b). Notice the pose and com-
position of the drapery. Scale (a) 2:1.
Photo C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
Oth er Model s
Two other models are identifiable in the Agora assemblage. The Eleusis
model (28, 29[?]) is named after a life-size statue of the god found in the
Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis (Fig. 14).46 The eponymous
in the late 4th century b.c. The god holds the general pose of the Giustini
model but is differentiated by the composition of the drapery. The himation
is tucked under his left arm, and there is a long apron-like overfold at the
waist. Statuette 28 (Fig. 15) brings the rolled edge of the himation lower
onto the abdomen so that it is no longer gathered high under the right arm.
The miniature statuette 29 (Fig. 16) is reminiscent of the Eleusis model
with the himation brought even lower over the abdomen, but the weight
is reversed to the right leg.47
The Velia model, named for a reduced-scale statue found in Campania,
is represented by two statuettes at the Agora (26, 27; Figs. 17, 18).48 This
model reverses the posture of the Asklepios Giustini: the right leg is weight
bearing and the right hand rests on the hip. The god wears a loosely fitted

42. In Athens, see J. P. Shear 1936,
pp. 312, 313, fig. 19; Agora XXVI,
nos. 216, 277, 367; elsewhere, consider
Pergamon: RPC III, nos. 1728, 1736,
1744.
43. See n. 8, above, for the account-
ing of the 29 examples.
44. Lapatin 2001, pp. 109–111.
45. A statuette from Corinth
(S-1999-008) is one of its few echoes
in marble; Stirling 2008, pp. 97–101,
no. 3, figs. 5–7.
46. Eleusis, Archaeological Museum
5100: IG II2 4414; LIMC II, 1984,
p. 882, no. 234, s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtz-
mann).
47. In this respect, it resembles the
Tunis type; LIMC II, 1984, p. 884,
nos. 276–278, s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtz-
mann).
48. Velia, Archaeological Museum
4711: LIMC II, 1984, p. 888, no. 356,
s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtzmann). For the
type, see Katakis (2002, pp. 218, 407,
nn. 680, 683), who argues for an eclec-
tic creation of the Roman period.
562 brian martens

a b

Figure 14 (left). Statue of Asklepios

from Eleusis. Eleusis, Archaeological
Museum 5100. Photo E. Gehnen;
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens,
neg. D-DAI-ATH-1990/1117

Figure 15 (above). Statuette of

Asklepios in the Eleusis model (28):
(a) front view; (b) back view. Scale 1:3.
Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
Excavations

himation that hangs freely over his left shoulder as he leans on the staff
positioned under his left arm, as in a small-scale statue from Epidauros that
was dedicated by the Neoplatonist Ploutarchos (Fig. 19).49 Statuettes 26
and 27 are similar in size and are sculpted from closely related, medium-
grained marbles, perhaps owing to their origin in the same workshop.
Finally, in his contribution to Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae
Classicae, Holtzmann assigned 30 (see Fig. 2) to the Albani model.50 Apart
from the figure’s bare left shoulder, the classification is hardly warranted.
The statuette has no close iconographic parallel among images of the god
known to me. As mentioned above, 30 belongs to a period when the god’s

49. Athens, National Archaeological
Museum 264: IG IV2 1, 436; Kaltsas
2002, p. 366, no. 780; Katakis 2002,
pp. 23–25, no. 21, pls. 26–27.
50. LIMC II, 1984, p. 883, no. 258,
s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtzmann). The
statue from which this type receives
its name, formerly in the Villa Albani,
is Paris, Louvre Museum MA 639
(LIMC II, 1984, p. 883, no. 257,
s.v. Asklepios [B. Holtzmann]).
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 563

21 22 23

Figure 16. Comparative compilation

of miniature statuettes of Asklepios
(20–24, 29). Scale 1:3. Photos C. Mauzy;
courtesy Agora Excavations 20 24 29

Figure 17. Statuette of Asklepios in

the Velia model (26): (a) front view;
(b) back view. Scale 1:3. Photos
C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations a b

Figure 18. Statuette of Asklepios

probably in the Velia model (27):
(a) front view; (b) right view. Scale 1:3.
Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
Excavations a b
564 brian martens

Figure 19. Small-scale statue of

Asklepios Velia from Epidauros.
Athens, National Archaeological
Museum 264. Photo E.-M. Czakó;
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens,
neg. D-DAI-ATH-NM-5413

image had greater iconographic fluidity, before certain models became

highly esteemed regulars. Some of the figures presented here are not neatly
categorized, and, as seen with the Giustini model, even within identifiable
image-types there is great diversity.
Heads 32–42 (Fig. 20) especially exhibit varied personalities, and
without a body it is not possible to establish specific models. The heads are
provisionally identifiable as Asklepios because of the corona tortilis (32[?],
35, 36[?], 37[?], 38, 39, 40[?], 41) or thick hair around the face that covers
the ears, brushed back in long, curly tresses (34, 42). Head 33, discussed
above, might represent Asklepios because of the pose and the paired woman.
Four more heads are on bodies and wear the corona tortilis (20, 21) or a
fillet (1, 24); the headgear of a fifth is uncertain (9). The ends of a fillet rest
on the shoulders of yet another statuette (2), but a head is not preserved.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 565

1:4 1:3
32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39

Figure 20. Comparative compila-

tion of certain or probable heads
of Asklepios (32–42). Scale 1:2 unless
otherwise indicated. Photos C. Mauzy;
courtesy Agora Excavations 40 41 42

FINDS P OTS

The spatial distribution of findspots encompasses much of the present

archaeological site, indicating that statuary of the god is found with some
regularity (see Fig. 1). There are clusters on the northern slope of the
Areopagos and in the area southwest of the Agora Square—notably, both
neighborhoods where workshops and private residences were located. Un-
fortunately, as often is the case with sculpture from the Agora, it is a rare
occasion when a findspot reveals a specific place of display. With but a few
exceptions, these figures were excavated in secondary contexts, having been
discarded in late fills, tossed in cisterns or wells, or reused for post-antique
 566 brian martens

20

16
15
Number of Figures

11
10 9

5 Figure 21. Distribution of dates of

deposition of statuary of Asklepios
from the Agora. Pieces of unknown
deposition date were catalogued
0 from uninventoried marbles, often
Before 0 A.D. 0–267 A.D. 267–600 After A.D. 600 Unknown from the demolition of modern
Deposition foundations.

building projects. The abandonment of statuary of Asklepios accelerated in

the centuries following the Herulian invasion in a.d. 267, after the Agora
was excluded from the city’s new circuit wall (Fig. 21).
A number of figures are from unspecified contexts. These sculptures
were catalogued from uninventoried marbles that had been stored on-site.
Generally speaking, they were found in the foundations of the modern
houses that were removed during the early years of the Agora’s excava-
tion. The sculptures were marked with the letter of the excavation sector,
permitting spatial distributions. All, except 21 and 29 (sections unknown),
are represented on the distribution plan in Figure 1 by a square, which is
intended only to provide a broad provenance.
The small size and portability of many of the figures undoubtedly
facilitated their transportation throughout the Agora, if not Athens. This
is especially the case for the smallest specimens (20–24, 29; see Fig. 16),
which are no larger than about 20 cm in original height. Miniatures such
as these were surely itinerant objects in antiquity and likely not intended
for any one fixed location. They could, for instance, have been carried
on one’s person with ease, perhaps as a personal talisman or simply to be
transported from place to place. The very fine-grained marble of 23 is
not local, and it is likely that the statuette was brought to Athens by its
owner from faraway. Folds in the drapery of the statuette are carved under
the projecting left arm, implying that it was meant to be viewed from
multiple angles. Even those statuettes measuring ca. 21–40 cm high—
indeed, the majority of statuary presented here—were highly portable
and could easily be moved or rearranged when the occasion demanded
(Fig. 22). In fact, a statuette around 30 cm tall weighs, on average, only
4 to 7 kg. Perhaps most tellingly, 13, 15, 19, and 31 preserve substantial
plinths that stand on their own and were not intended for insertion
into separate fixed bases. Although tempting, it seems inappropriate to
establish single, static viewing environments for many of these statuettes
that passed through space and time; a broad characterization may be as
close as we now can come.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 567

30
30

25

20
Number of Figures

15

10

2 2
1 1
0
1–20 21–40 41–60 61–80 81–100 101–120 121–140 141–160 161–180 181–200 200+

Height Ranges (cm, estimated original)

Figure 22. Height distribution of

statuary of Asklepios from the Agora
WO RK S H OP S
Some statuettes were found in the Agora because their production occurred
nearby. Eight unfinished examples (4, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21, 24, 28[?]) indicate
that statuettes of Asklepios began their lives in the area and were sold there.
Marble-working establishments of the Roman period have been excavated
in the industrial and residential neighborhoods southwest and southeast
of the Agora Square, in the ruins of the South Square, and in the western
stoa of the Library of Pantainos.51
The unfinished statuettes of Asklepios were probably never sold, and
several were clearly discarded because of mistakes. The head of 9 (see Fig. 9),
for example, splintered away during the initial stages of sketching the figure.
It was tossed into a well on the northern slope of the Areopagos alongside
other unfinished pieces. In the case of 10 (see Fig. 9), the sculptor seems to
have tried to fix the figure’s disproportioned right hand, but a hairline crack
developed—not to mention that the head and neck have altogether broken
away. In both cases, the statuette was discarded in its unfinished state. The
mistakes, presumably the result of flaws in the stone, prevented reworking
the pieces anew. For others, it is more difficult to judge what qualifies as
unfinished. Completion presumably depended on multiple factors, such as
scale, method of display, or personal need. Placement in a niche, for instance,
could have easily concealed the unfinished reverse of 20 (see Fig. 9).

51. Southwest of the Agora Square:
Young 1951, pp. 269–272; Agora XIV,
pp. 177, 187; Lawton 2006, pp. 14–16;
Camp 2010, p. 181. Southeast of the
Agora Square: Thompson 1960, p. 333;
Agora XIV, p. 187. South Square:
Thompson 1960, pp. 361–362; Agora
XIV, pp. 71, 187–188; Lawton 2006,
p. 21; Camp 2010, p. 167. Library of
Pantainos: Shear 1935b, pp. 394–398,
415–416; Stevens 1949, p. 269; Agora
XIV, pp. 114, 187; Camp 1992, p. 142;
Lawton 2006, pp. 22–23; Camp 2010,
p. 133; Stewart 2013, pp. 619–622,
641–642. For a statuette of Asklepios
from the sculptor’s workshop at Aphro-
disias (Aphrodisias Excavations 69-139;
original H. ca. 30 cm), see Rockwell
1991, pp. 140, 143; Van Voorhis 2012,
p. 46.
568 brian martens

BAT H ING ESTABLISH M ENTS

Let us turn now to explore some specific display contexts. Because public
buildings loom large for statuary from the Agora, we begin with statuary
from local bathing establishments. Asklepios, whose cult employed water
for its curative properties, was a recurrent subject in the statuary programs
of baths. There, representations of Asklepios and of members of his family
were appropriate and expected visual prompts that associated bathing with
the renewal of health. So it is that Lucian includes Asklepios and Hygieia
in his detailed sketch of a bathing complex—the only divinities that he
reports: καὶ εἰκόνες ἐν αὐτῷ λίθου λευκοῦ τῆς ἀρχαίας ἐργασίας, ἡ μὲν
Ὑγιείας, ἡ δὲ Ἀσκληπιοῦ ([the combined apodyterion and frigidarium] has
two statues of white marble in the ancient technique, one of Hygieia, the
other of Asklepios).52 In the Eastern Mediterranean, excavations have found
statuary of the god, and often of his daughter, in baths at Argos (see Fig. 11),
Epidauros, Sparta, Neromyloi (Thessaly), Dion, Ephesos, Metropolis,
Miletos, Samos, Cyprian Salamis, and Antioch.53 In Athens, over-life-size
statues of Asklepios and Hygieia were excavated at the Zappeion Baths in
the National Gardens.54 The Athenian complex, one of the city’s largest,
was destroyed when the Zappeion was constructed in the mid-19th century,
thereby hindering contextual analyses.55 Still, at over 2 m high without its
base, the Asklepios statue surely made a focal display. Adding to the list
of Athenian evidence is an assemblage of small-scale statuary of Asklepios
and Hygieia found in a well associated with the West Baths on the site of
the new Acropolis Museum.56
52. Hippias 5; trans. A. Harmon, Museum 375), along with other mem- (Nicosia, Cyprus Museum, Sal.st.17):
Cambridge, Mass., 1913. On Lucian’s bers of the god’s family: Pandermalis Karageorghis 1964, pp. 15–17, nos. 5,
bath, see Yegül 1979. 1988; LIMC VIII, 1997, pp. 778–779, 6, pls. XII, XIV; Fejfer 2006, pp. 92–93,
53. From the Theater Baths at Argos, nos. 1–6, s.v. Machaon (D. Panderma- fig. 10. From Antioch, life-size statues
a statue and small-scale statue of Askle- lis); Pandermalis 1997, pp. 37–39, 69– of Asklepios and Hygieia (Worcester,
pios (Argos, Archaeological Museum 70. From the Baths of Vedius at Ephe- Worcester Art Museum 1939.80A/B,
204) and a statue of Hygieia (Argos, sos, a small-scale statue of Asklepios 1936.36, respectively): Vermeule 2000,
Archaeological Museum 3): Marcadé (Izmir, Kulturpark 640) and a statue of pp. 90, 92, fig. 1.
1980, pp. 135–140, 148–150, figs. 3–6, Hygieia (Izmir, Kulturpark 39): Man- 54. Asklepios (Athens, National
19; Manderscheid 1981, pp. 83–84, derscheid 1981, pp. 88–89, nos. 175, Archaeological Museum 702):
nos. 134, 135, pls. 23, 24. From Epidau- 176, pl. 27. From the baths at Metrop- Manderscheid 1981, p. 83, nos. 130,
ros, adjacent to the bathing complex at olis, a statue of Asklepios (Izmir, Kul- 131, pl. 23; LIMC II, 1984, p. 880,
the northeast corner of the Asklepieion turpark 21875) and a small-scale statue no. 167, s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtz-
in the so-called Epidoteion, fragments of Hygieia (Izmir, Kulturpark 21521): mann); Meyer 1994, p. 11, no. G3,
of an over-life-size statue of Asklepios Aybek 2009, pp. 15–16, 77–81, nos. 69, pls. 3:b, 4:a–c; Kaltsas 2002, p. 129,
(Epidauros, Archaeological Museum 70, pls. 34, 35; Aybek, Meriç, and Öz no. 246. Hygieia (Athens, National Ar-
571): Tomlinson 1983, p. 50; Katakis 2009, p. 138. From the Baths of Faus- chaeological Museum 701): LIMC V,
2002, pp. 20–21, no. 18, pls. 21:α–γ, tina at Miletos, a colossal statue of 1990, p. 565, no. 164 (F. Croissant);
22:α, β. From the Theater Baths at Asklepios (Istanbul, Archaeology Kaltsas 2002, pp. 128–129, no. 246;
Sparta, a statue of Asklepios (Sparta, Museums 1995) and a small-scale Leventi 2003, pp. 160–161, no. St 11,
Archaeological Museum 1007): statue of Hygieia (Izmir, Kulturpark, pl. 66.
Dickens 1905–1906, pp. 435–436, inv. no. unknown): Manderscheid 1981, 55. On the Zappeion Baths, see
fig. 2; LIMC II, 1984, p. 870, no. 25, p. 93, nos. 208, 209, pl. 30; Leventi Travlos 1971, p. 181, no. K.
s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtzmann). From 2003, p. 172, no. St 55, pl. 87. From the 56. Asklepios (Athens, Acropolis
Neromyloi, a small-scale(?) statue of baths at Samos, pieces belonging to a Museum NMA 350): Eleutheratou
Asklepios: Tziaphalias 1990, p. 217. statue of Asklepios: Freyer-Schauen- 2006, p. 66, no. 155; Trianti 2011,
From the Great Baths at Dion, frag- burg 2010–2011, pp. 135, 147. From pp. 387–388, no. 3, fig. 3. Head of
ments of a small-scale statue of Askle- the bath-gymnasium complex at Sala- Asklepios (Athens, Acropolis Museum
pios (Dion, Archaeological Museum, mis on Cyprus, a statue of Asklepios NMA 95): Eleutheratou 2006, p. 68,
inv. no. unknown) and a small-scale (Nicosia, Cyprus Museum, Sal.st.4) no. 162; Trianti 2011, pp. 386–387,
statue of Hygieia (Dion, Archaeological and small-scale statue of Hygieia no. 2, fig. 2. Hygieia (Athens, Acropolis
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 569

Two small-scale statues of Asklepios probably stood in baths near the

Agora. A handsome torso of Asklepios (1; see Fig. 12) was found in 3rd- to
early-4th-century a.d. fill immediately east of the Southwest Baths, a mul-
tiphase complex at the northwestern foot of the Areopagos that was in use
from the 2nd century b.c. to the 6th century a.d.57 The high-quality statue,
datable to the late 1st or early 2nd centuries a.d., was probably commissioned
for a renewed phase. The torso was excavated nearest the caldarium, but its
findspot there does not preclude display elsewhere inside, especially in light
of the complex’s long abandonment after its destruction at the hands of the
Heruli. The joining head, discussed below, was salvaged in antiquity and
reused in a residence on the northern slope of the Areopagos. As with the
Asklepios from the Zappeion Baths, small-scale statue 1 takes the form of
the Giustini model. Close adherence to well-known copies and a very high
level of craftsmanship mark 1 as a piece of particular importance.
Another small-scale statue from the Agora was probably displayed in a
bathing complex. A head of Asklepios (32; Fig. 23) was found in Byzantine
fill above a segment of the Northwest Baths in the northern excavation sector.
The head, belonging to a statue about 130 cm high, is the largest image of the
god identifiable from the Agora. Its upturned gaze and large drooping eyes
impart an extreme empathy that befits the god of healing. In this way, small-
scale statue 32 is a distant reminder of the 2nd-century b.c. Asklepios found
on Mounychia Hill at Piraeus.58 The layout and chronology of the Northwest
Baths, still partly buried under modern buildings, are not well understood.
Portions of the complex have been encountered during rescue excavations
at the west. Work conducted during the Agora excavations has placed a
destruction event and subsequent rebuilding in the 3rd century a.d.;59
the statue was probably commissioned for this phase. The head is related in
style and execution to another male head, identified as a barbarian, found
farther north, which Riccardi has tentatively assigned to the 3rd-century
complex.60 They share the same scale, and both have thick, accentuated upper
eyelids and a deep furrow in the brow. In contrast, the barbarian has incised
irises and drilled pupils; their absence on 32 marks the figure’s divine status.
Representations of Asklepios not only created visual associations with
health and healing but could also designate ritual space. There is good
evidence that Asklepios and his family received cult in some bathing es-
tablishments. A 1st-century a.d. altar dedicated to Asklepios Xenios, the
hospitable one, was found in the bathing complex north of the Olympieion
at Athens.61 The altar, predating the bath, was deliberately moved here
from elsewhere. At Metropolis too, an altar dedicated to the god, and also
to Hygieia, was found inside a bath in the city center.62 In the Great Baths
at Dion, small-scale statues of Asklepios and seven members of his family
were housed in a separate cult room that was furnished with a large marble
basin.63 The largest Dion figures are near the scale of the figure from the

Museum NMA 201): Trianti 2011,
pp. 388–390, no. 6, fig. 6. Telesphoros
(Athens, Acropolis Museum NMA
236): Trianti 2011, p. 390, no. 8, fig. 8.
Other sculptures were found in the
well, including a votive relief depicting
Asklepios. Trianti (2011, p. 384) sug-
gests that the assemblage originates
from the Asklepieion on the southern
slope of the Acropolis, though this
need not be the case.
57. On the Southwest Baths, see
Shear 1969, pp. 394–415; Agora XXIV,
pp. 32–33; Camp 2010, p. 179.
58. See n. 5, above.
59. Shear 1997, pp. 509–512.
60. S 3510: Camp 2007, pp. 638–
639, no. 8, fig. 12; Riccardi 2009,
p. 61, fig. 59.
61. IG II2 4492/3; D’Amico 2006,
pp. 691–692, fig. 3.
62. Aybek 2009, p. 15.
63. See n. 53, above; other frag-
ments may belong to images of Iaso
and Telesphoros, possibly bringing the
group to 10 pieces.
570 brian martens

a b

Figure 23. Head of a small-scale

statue of Asklepios (32): (a) front
view; (b) right view; (c) back view;
(d) left view. Scale 1:3. Photos C. Mauzy;
c d courtesy Agora Excavations

vicinity of the Southwest Baths. We conclude from this short survey of

evidence that the Agora statues may too have performed cultic roles in
their bathhouse settings.
The images ascribed to baths are larger than the other statuary pre-
sented in this study, with the exception of 25. Thirty-eight of our images
stand under one-third life-size, a good starting point for defining a statuette
(see Fig. 22). Of these, 30 images stand between 21 and 40 cm tall. The
large proportion is indicative of a scale used frequently for divine statuary
at Roman Athens. Statuettes, though, were not altogether inappropriate
for baths. A head of Asklepios belonging to a statuette about 30–35 cm
high was found in a bath southwest of the Zappeion in Athens.64 Still, this
is a rare occurrence. The infrequent appearance of statuettes in a context
where Asklepios was often otherwise present shows that, on the whole, 64. Parlama and Stampolidis 2000,
the size distinctions among the Agora statuary reflect separate viewing p. 141, no. 124.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 571

contexts. For the majority of the figures, civically oriented presentations

can probably be excluded. Let us turn, then, to consider the remainder of
the assemblage in sacred and domestic spaces.

SAC RED P RE C I N C TS
There is no archaeologically attested sanctuary of Asklepios in the Agora
with which his statuary can be associated. Lawton has identified a shrine
for Asklepios and Hygieia in the City Eleusinion on the basis of a distri-
bution of votive reliefs as well as related sculptural and epigraphic finds.65
The shrine seems to have been established upon the arrival of Asklepios
in Athens in 420/19 b.c. A fragmentary inscription on an anatomical
relief has been restored as an offering to Asklepios, and it might indicate
the god’s presence at the Eleusinion as late as the 2nd century a.d.66 One
fragmentary statuette (27) was found in the area but probably comes from
modern foundations. Considering the small-scale and fragmentary nature
of the Agora assemblage, it is possible that some images, once sited as vo-
tive offerings, traveled from sanctuaries such as the Eleusinion, but now
we cannot establish their dedicatory character.67 Without a findspot that
locates a piece within a precinct, we must rely on epigraphic evidence to
reveal a votive function. Dedicatory inscriptions were routinely recorded
on plinths or bases, yet the Asklepioi, four of which have finished plinths
(13, 15, 19, 31), do not bear inscriptions. The Agora’s epigraphic collection
suggests that this is indicative of a larger trend. Out of the over 7,600 cata-
logued inscriptions, only three are known to me as dedications on statuette
plinths, although some statuettes were set into separate bases.68 In contrast
to the 4th-century b.c. reliefs that commonly bear the god’s image, votive
uses for his freestanding sculptures were infrequent in Roman Athens.
An exceptional assemblage of inscribed votive statuary of Asklepios was
found at Epidauros.69 The inscriptions on these statues proclaim the healing

65. Lawton 2015; Agora XXXVIII,
pp. 36–37.
66. I 5721: Agora XVIII, p. 299,
no. V574; Agora XXXVIII, pp. 42–43,
no. 27.
67. On the places of worship of
Asklepios in Athens, see Kutsch 1913,
pp. 16–39; Aleshire 1989, 1991;
Riethmüller 2005, vol. 1, pp. 241–278,
vol. 2, pp. 10–22; Vikela 2006; Melfi
2007, pp. 313–433; Agora XXXVIII,
pp. 36–37.
68. Statuette of Aphrodite for
Athena (I 1787): Meritt 1941, pp. 63–
64, no. 29; Agora XVIII, p. 304,
no. V583. Statuette of Herakles or
Dionysos to an unknown deity for
deliverance from a fever (I 4112):
Agora XVIII, p. 299, no. V573, pl. 58.
Statuette of Aphrodite to an unknown
deity by a priestess (S 651 + I 6497):
Meritt 1963, p. 49, no. 74, pl. 15;
Agora XVIII, p. 214, no. H394.
69. IG IV2 1, 436, 437, 475, 478,
498, 576. As far as I am aware, these
are the only small-scale statues or statu-
ettes of Asklepios in Greece that have
votive functions secured by dedicatory
inscriptions. For two statuettes with
Greek dedicatory inscriptions from a
villa at Mediana in Moesia, see Tomo-
vić 1993, pp. 98–99, nos. 112, 113,
figs. 35:4, 36:1, 2. For the possible
association of a statuette of Asklepios
(Athens, National Archaeological
Museum, inv. no. unknown) with a
dedicatory base (IG IV 847), both
found at Kalaureia on Poros, see Mylo-
nopoulos 2003, p. 79. More statuettes,
without inscriptions, have been found
at Greek Asklepieia, possibly sited as
offerings: Piraeus, three statuettes (inv.
no. unknown: Kutsch 1913, p. 134–135,
nos. 122–124); Corinth, three frag-
ments and a snake head (S 1442,
S 1443, S 1446, S 1485: Corinth XIV,
p. 145, nos. 4–7, pl. 59); Thebai Phtio-
tis, Thessaly, a torso (inv. no. unknown:
Sismani-Adrymi 1989–1991, p. 210);
Karditsa, Thessaly, a torso, (inv. no.
unknown: Intzesiloglou 1988, p. 254);
Gonnoi, Thessaly, a torso (inv. no.
unknown: Tziaphalias 1977, pp. 136–
137, pl. 81:β); Dion, a head (inv. no.
unknown: Pandermalis 1983, p. 24);
Kos, two statuettes (inv. no. unknown:
Herzog 1903, p. 196; 1905, p. 10);
Lissos, Crete, a statuette (Chania, inv.
no. unknown: LIMC II, 1984, p. 883,
no. 243, s.v. Asklepios [B. Holtzman]);
Pergamon, a seated statuette and a
statuette with plinth (Pergamon, Ar-
chaeological Museum OH 64 ST 0/2
and OH 69 ST 534/4: AvP XI.2,
pp. 132–133, nos. 694, 695, pls. 70, 71).
572 brian martens

powers of Asklepios, some referring to cures or ritual dreams. Others record

offerings by cult officials to mark priesthoods, including some by well-known
Athenian intellectuals.70 One figure is called “τὸν Ἀσκληπιόν” and another,
unusually, an “ἰκόνα.” The inscribed figures are a late phenomenon at Epi-
dauros, mostly dating between the 3rd and early 4th centuries a.d. These
dedications were made late in the life of the sanctuary, and indeed, some are
among the latest known offerings to Asklepios in Greece. Decline at the
Asklepieion had already commenced by the mid-3rd century, as evidenced
by a drop in the number of dedications. Melfi sees a shift around this time
from a publicly oriented healing center to one frequented by intellectuals
who maintained the sanctuary into the 4th century.71
Two inscribed figures from Epidauros appear to have been recycled
from a preexisting assemblage. In other words, they were not originally com-
missioned for votive use. Stephanidou-Tiveriou has compared two small-
scale statues that are inscribed with the number of years since Hadrian’s
visit: a figure of Athena dated a.d. 304/5 and a figure of Asklepios dated
a.d. 308/9 (see Fig. 19).72 With only a few years between their dedications,
she has argued that they are too dissimilar, both technically and stylistically,
to be contemporaries. Moreover, their molded plinths do not seem to have
been sculpted with the accommodation of inscriptions in mind, suggest-
ing later additions. It is likely that, as sculptural production diminished
in Greece, worshippers turned to preexisting assemblages of statuary to
make their offerings. The relocation of the Athena and the Asklepios from
private spaces to the sanctuary seems probable.73
We can point to another statuette at Epidauros as a probable instance of
reuse.74 A certain Aphrikanos offered a statuette of Aphrodite to Asklepios
around the mid-3rd century a.d. in commemoration of his assumption of a
priesthood for a third time.75 Aphrikanos had made two earlier dedications
in the Asklepieion, both of which appear on bases with earlier inscriptions:
(1) a dedication to Asklepios Klytometis on a base first erected in the
2nd century a.d. by two children honoring their mother following a deci-
sion of the boule and demos; and (2) a dedication to Asklepios, Hygieia, and
Telesphoros Alexiponos on a statue base that supported a figure of a local
Epidaurian child, initially consecrated in the 2nd century b.c. to Apollo
and Asklepios.76 Reuse in these two earlier instances makes reuse of the
statuette highly plausible.

70. Ploutarchos, a priest of Askle-
pios and Dionysos in Athens, dedicated
a small-scale statue of Asklepios at
the Epidaurian Asklepieion (Athens,
National Museum 264); see n. 49,
above. Ploutarchos was probably the
grandfather or great-grandfather of the
late-4th- or early-5th-century a.d.
Neoplatonic philosopher Ploutarchos,
who was also a priest of Asklepios; see
Castrén 1989, pp. 45–48; 1994, pp. 6–7.
Marcus Junius Nicagoras of Athens,
son of M. Junius Minucianus, dedicated
a small-scale statue of Athena to the
goddess at Epidauros (Athens, National
Archaeological Museum 274): IG IV2 1,
428; Katakis 2002, pp. 73–75, no. 70.
On Nicagoras, see Clinton 1974,
pp. 64–66, no. 30.
71. Melfi 2007, p. 126. A new teme-
nos constructed during the reign of
Julian the Apostate enclosed the central
area of the sanctuary, pointing to con-
tinued use of the temple, abaton, and
other ritually important buildings; see
Kanellopoulos 2000.
72. See n. 70, above. Stephanidou-
Tiveriou 1993a, pp. 134–135; 1993b,
pp. 223–227. Katakis (2002, pp. 201–
204) argues for production contempo-
rary with the inscriptions, as does Han-
nestad (2007, p. 275) in the case of the
Asklepios; for a survey of these issues,
see Stirling 2008, pp. 147–150.
73. On the transfer of statuary
from private to public locations in
Late Antiquity, see, e.g., Jacobs 2016,
pp. 108–111.
74. The rededication of older
monuments is well attested at Epidau-
ros in the Roman period; see Griesbach
2014.
75. Athens, National Archaeological
Museum 285: IG IV2 1, 457; Katakis
2002, pp. 58–59, no. 56, pl. 71.
76. IG IV2 1, 471 with IG IV2 1,
686, and IG IV2 1, 472 with IG IV2 1,
213, respectively.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 573

Figure 24. Small-scale statue of

Asklepios-Sarapis (25): (a) front
view; (b) back view. Scale 1:10. Photos
C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations a b
Although votive display should not be excluded altogether for the Agora
assemblage, the lack of votive inscriptions, coupled with the absence of an
archaeologically attested cult place for the god in the Agora, indicates that
votive uses were few. Comparative evidence from the Epidaurian Asklepieion
suggests that statuettes were occasionally recycled, perhaps from private
collections, for secondary votive usage. In such cases, these reduced-scale
images had multipurposed religious lives as they passed from one sphere to
another, all the while remaining objects that brought divine favor.
A small-scale statue of a hybridized Asklepios-Sarapis (25; Fig. 24)
seems to reverse this pattern. On the basis of its larger size (H. ca. 100–
110 cm) and unusual iconography, the statue was probably commissioned
for display in a sacred precinct. The image combines the canonical serpent-
entwined staff of Asklepios with features characteristic of Sarapis, includ-
ing the chiton-covered chest, an outstretched arm, and possibly Kerberos.
Iconographic parallels (broadly speaking), though few, are known at Athens,
Leptis Magna, and with less certainty, Stratonikeia.77 As I have argued
elsewhere, the Agora statue communicated the healing capacities of the
Egyptian cult in Athens, fulfilling a didactic purpose in its place of display.78
The Roman-period statue was excavated in 7th-century a.d. destruction
debris over the Omega House on the northern slope of the Areopagos,
where it may have found renewed life inside the residence.79 As we will
see next, statuary of Asklepios figured prominently in the domestic spaces
of Roman and Late Antique Athens.

77. A small-scale statue from the
National Gardens at Athens, possibly
of Asklepios-Sarapis (Athens, National
Archaeological Museum 1794: Katakis
2007, figs. 8–11); a statue from Leptis
Magna (inv. no. unknown: Tran Tam
Tinh 1983, p. 91, no. IA 5, fig. 6); and
a statue from Stratonikeia, possibly
Asklepios-Sarapis (inv. no. unknown:
Özgan 1999, pp. 124–125, no. K 29,
pl. 39:d).
78. Martens 2015.
79. The statue was found in close
proximity to a limekiln. An alternative
interpretation is that it was transported
here and awaited burning; see Martens
2015, p. 60.
574 brian martens

a b c d
Figure 25. Head of a statuette of
H O U SES Asklepios (39), from a private house:
(a) front view; (b) right view; (c) back
Private houses crowded the edges of the Agora from its designation as a pub- view; (d) left view. Scale 2:3. Photos
lic space. Residential districts were concentrated south and west of the public C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
square, especially along the slopes of the Kolonos Agoraios and the Areo-
pagos, and in the valley between the Areopagos and the Pnyx.80 We find
clusters of Asklepioi in these areas (see Fig. 1), and to judge by the findspots,
it is highly probable that many of the Agora figures performed domestic roles.
Two statuettes of Asklepios (20, 39; Figs. 9, 16, 25) belonged to
the sculptural assemblage of a Roman house located south of the Agora
Square. The residence, called the Southwest House because of its position
in an excavation sector, sits low on the northern slope of the Areopagos
(Figs. 1, 26).81 Its back wall was cut into the bedrock of the hill, preserving
parts of the structure up to 2.50 m in height. A long history of inhabita-
tion beginning in the 5th century b.c. makes the history and layout of the
Roman-period residence difficult to disentangle, but a partial plan can be
discerned. The house had a central courtyard (VI) that opened onto the
street. Two rooms (V, VII) opened onto the courtyard, and there were three
rooms at the south (I, II, III) that were entered through a vestibule. It is
uncertain whether or not two rooms at the northwestern corner (IV, VIII)
belonged to the Roman phase of the house.
The excavator, Eugene Vanderpool, found an assemblage of marble
sculptures over a hard-packed earthen floor at the eastern edge of Room I.
The figures include an archaistic statuette of Tyche, a statuette of a Knidian
Aphrodite, a statuette of Artemis holding a torch, and a suspended plaque
of the Mother of the Gods enthroned.82 In addition, fragments of two
terracotta figurines belonging to an Artemis and an Eros (Fig. 27) were
also excavated, as well as a relief fragment of a satyr in poros limestone.83
A high concentration of painted plaster was recovered in the 0.50 m deep
stratum over the floor, making it clear that the fill belonged to the collapse

80. On houses around the Agora,
see Young 1951, pp. 272–279; Agora
XIV, pp. 173–185; Camp 1992,
pp. 148–150; Tsakirgis 2005, 2009.
81. On this house, see Shear 1938,
p. 325; Thompson 1958, p. 147; Agora
XXIV, p. 36; for a plan of the Roman-
period house, see Agora Notebook Φ 7,
p. 1395.
82. Tyche (S 871): Agora XI, p. 72,
no. 119, pl. 25; Agora XXIV, p. 36,
pl. 23:c; LIMC VIII, 1997, p. 120,
no. 44, s.v. Tyche (L. Villard). Aphro-
dite (S 873): unpublished. Artemis
(S 911): unpublished. Mother of the
Gods (S 872): Vermaseren 1982, p. 25,
no. 61, pl. IX; also part of an in-prog-
ress study by Carol Lawton.
83. Artemis (T 1410): Agora VI,
p. 42, no. 1, pl. 1; LIMC II, 1984,
p. 685, no. 857, s.v. Artemis (L. Kahil).
A head (T 1409), identified in its main
publication (Agora VI, p. 51, no. 278,
pl. 7) as “Attis(?),” in fact belongs to
the Artemis. Eros (T 2266): Agora VI,
p. 76, no. 970. Poros relief (S 874):
Stewart 2013, pp. 629–630, no. 12,
fig. 15; Stewart considers the poros
relief to be a sculptor’s model or para-
deigma, but poros could be used for
functional sculpture in its own right,
especially considering the strikingly
high quality of this piece.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 575

VIII VII
Street
IV V VI
Court

II
Vestibule

I
III

Later wall

Figure 26. Southwest House during

excavation, looking north. Photo
courtesy Agora Excavations; additions
B. Martens

Figure 27. Terracotta statuettes from

the Southwest House: (a) Artemis,
T 1410 + T 1409; (b) Eros, T 2266.
Scale 1:3. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
Excavations a b
576 brian martens

of the residence itself. The destruction event occurred in the late 3rd century
a.d. on the basis of pottery and a coin of Aurelian (a.d. 270–275), thereby
placing the abandonment of the house shortly after its exclusion from the
circuit of the Post-Herulian Wall.84 It was in the above stratum—mixed, but
“not very sharply separated”—that Vanderpool found the two statuettes of
Asklepios (20, 39).85 This layer contained large quantities of the same paint-
ed plaster found below, as well as a lamp dated to the late 3rd century a.d.86
It follows that the layer in which 20 and 39 were found should also belong
to the destruction of the house, with the lamp providing a contempo-
rary chronological indicator. With the addition of the two statuettes of
Asklepios, the assemblage of marbles from the Southwest House rises to
six pieces, none of which stood higher than 40 cm.
Room I, the findspot of the statuettes, is the home’s largest preserved
space, measuring about 5 × 8 m. It did not have direct access to the courtyard
and was reached instead through the vestibule. The concentrated findspots
of the statuary along the eastern wall of the room point to a group display.
Several pieces seem to have fallen from a high position, perhaps from a shelf
or furniture. The torso of the marble Artemis, for instance, was found broken
in two pieces. Other fragments belonging to the statuettes are now missing,
having been displaced by the insertion of a later wall through the center of
the room (see Fig. 26). While the cause of destruction is uncertain (the afore-
mentioned coin dates after the Herulian invasion), a fire is evident, as burned
surfaces were noticed in other rooms of the house. The event must have been
sudden and catastrophic enough to prevent retrieval of the sculptures.
The assemblage from the Southwest House is characteristic of the
homes of Roman Athens where small images of the gods were frequently
displayed. Asklepios and Tyche—concerned with health, welfare, and pros-
perity—were especially appropriate for domestic display. Aphrodite and
Eros oversaw matters of love, sexuality, and fertility, so their presence, too,
at the heart of the family structure is not difficult to explain. Aphrodite,
in fact, ranks as the most frequent divinity among the Agora’s small-scale
marble statuary.87 Small reliefs or statuettes depicting the Mother of the
Gods enthroned within a naiskos figured prominently in household shrines
in Greece, and many have been found in the Agora.88 The appearance of

84. Coin: Agora N 70784. Frantz
(Agora XXIV, p. 36) implied, incor-
rectly, that the statuettes belonged to a
later reoccupation of the house in the
4th and 5th centuries a.d. (contra
Agora Notebook Φ 2, pp. 410–414).
Some measure of later activity in the
Southwest House is known: 4th- and
5th-century a.d. pottery was found in
substantial quantities in a disturbed
part of Room I, suggesting a period of
partial reoccupation (Agora Notebook
Φ 2, p. 414). Moreover, a rubble wall
cutting through Room I should belong
to this later phase (Agora Notebook
Φ 7, p. 1316). Two Late Roman burials
were found near the house, one built
against an exterior wall in the mid-
4th century a.d. A reexamination of
the context pottery for the assemblage
of statuary (lots Φ 117, Φ 118) confirms
Vanderpool’s assessment of abandon-
ment in the later 3rd century a.d. The
pottery resembles Robinson’s group K
(Agora V, pp. 58–72), and there is no
pottery with gouged decoration present.
In addition, a lamp disk stored with
the pottery is mid-3rd century a.d.
(as Agora VII, p. 138, no. 1259, pl. 25).
85. Agora Notebook Φ 2, p. 414.
86. Agora L 2911: Agora VII, p. 118,
no. 778, pl. 17. The context pottery for
this upper stratum, lost shortly after
excavation, could not be studied in
comparison to the lower level. Two
2nd-century a.d. coins were recorded
in this stratum.
87. For a preliminary list of the evi-
dence, see Stewart 2012, p. 338, n. 152.
88. Bouyia 2008, p. 228. A relief
of the Mother of the Gods was found
in situ in a domestic shrine on the
southern slope of the Acropolis in the
so-called House of Proklos (Athens,
Acropolis Museum 1955 NAM 12:
Karivieri 1994, p. 132, fig. 18; Brous-
kari 2002, pp. 125–126, fig. 130). A
statuette of the Mother of the Gods
formed part of a probable domestic
shrine in a 4th-century a.d. villa in the
National Gardens at Athens (Athens,
Ephorate of Antiquities of the City
of Athens M 2549: Katakis 2012,
figs. 5–9). The Agora’s sizable corpus
of marble images of the Mother of the
Gods is the focus of an in-progress
study by Carol Lawton.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 577

the Mother of the Gods may imply a civic connection for the inhabitants of
the Southwest House as her cult was housed nearby on the western side of
the Agora within the city’s archive. The marble statuette of Artemis depicts
the goddess as a huntress carrying a torch. This image could reference a
connection to Hekate, with whom Artemis was sometimes syncretized
and who regularly carried a torch or torches.89 Such images of Artemis
or Hekate were apotropaic devices commonly set up in houses, usually at
thresholds.90 So, too, we might envision the Mother of the Gods, as some
of her images are flanked by Hekate.91 As images of the divine, these figures
carried inherent religious meaning within the polytheistic society of Athens
and had the potential to have religious meanings activated.
Literary and historical sources position Asklepios prominently within the
house. An epigram attributed to the 3rd-century b.c. poet Theokritos (Epigr.
8) memorializes a wooden statue of Asklepios kept by the Milesian doctor
Nikias: ὅς μιν ἐπ’ ἦμαρ ἀεὶ θυέεσσιν ἱκνεῖται, καὶ τόδ’ ἀπ’ εὐώδους γλύψατ’
ἄγαλμα κέδρου (who every day without fail prays to him with offerings and
has had this statue carved from fragrant cedarwood).92 Theokritos does not
state specifically the location of the wooden figure, but surely its routine
worship occurred inside Nikias’s house. At Panamara, within the territory
of Stratonikeia, a stele found in the sanctuary of Zeus Panamaros records
a dedication “to the household gods Zeus Ktesios, Tyche, and Asklepios.”93
The appearance of Tyche alongside Asklepios recalls the assemblage from
the Southwest House, where a statuette of the goddess was found.
These sources describe a private interest in Asklepios that was long-
standing. Asklepios is, in fact, among the earliest marble subjects found
inside a Greek house. A statuette of the god was found in the andron of
House B vi 7 at Olynthos.94 It must date before the destruction of the city
in 348 b.c., making this figure the earliest known appearance of Asklepios
in marble in the domestic sphere.
Statuettes 20 and 39 are the clearest instances of domestic display
among the Asklepioi from the Agora, but connections can be made for
others. Literary sources clarify the functions of statuettes and assist with
recognizing clues in the archaeological record that would indicate domestic
roles. Porphyry (Abst. 2.16.4) preserves a passage by the 4th-century b.c.
historian Theopompos about an Arcadian man’s care for his household
gods. His report indicates that divine images were used in household cult
and that their care was a demonstration of religious piety:
τὸν δὲ Κλέαρχον φάναι ἐπιτελεῖν καὶ σπουδαίως θύειν ἐν
τοῖς προσήκουσι χρόνοις, κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον ταῖς νουμηνίαις

89. On Artemis with a torch,
see LIMC II, 1984, pp. 654–661,
nos. 407–514, s.v. Artemis (L. Kahil);
Vikela 2015, pp. 80–85.
90. See, e.g., in the entrance corri-
dor of House E on Delos, a base dedi-
cated to Artemis Soteira by Spurius
Stertenius (Delos, Archaeological
Museum A 1416): ID 2378; Siebert
1966, pp. 447, 450, 455, figs. 3, 4;
Kreeb 1988, pp. 196–197; Rathmayr
2016, p. 164. The same dedicant
offered a votive relief (Delos, Ar-
chaeological Museum A 3236) to
the goddess showing her carrying
torches, suggesting parallel iconogra-
phy: ID 2379; Siebert 1966, pp. 447,
450, 455, figs. 5, 6.
91. I am thankful to Carol Lawton
for this suggestion.
92. Trans. N. Hopkinson, Cam-
bridge, Mass., 2015.
93. Deschamps and Cousin 1888,
pp. 269–270, no. 54; Şahin 1981,
p. 150, no. 283: τοῖς ἐνοικιδίοις θεοῖς
Διὶ Κτησίῳ καὶ Τύχῃ καὶ Ἀσκληπίῳ.
94. Thessaloniki, Archaeological
Museum 226: Olynthus XII, pp. 130–
137, pls. 115, 116, 118, 119; Despinis,
Stefanidou-Tiveriou, and Voutiras
1997, pp. 49–50, no. 29, figs. 58–61;
original H. of figure ca. 35–40 cm. For
another possible statuette of Asklepios
from Olynthos, found in House A iv 7,
see Olynthus XII, p. 77.
578 brian martens

στεφανοῦντα καὶ φαιδρύνοντα τὸν Ἑρμῆν καὶ τὴν Ἑκάτην καὶ

τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἱερῶν, ἃ δὴ τοὺς προγόνους καταλιπεῖν, καὶ τιμᾶν
λιβανωτοῖς καὶ ψαιστοῖς καὶ ποπάνοις.
Klearchos said that he performed his religious rites and sacrificed
earnestly at the appropriate times. Each month at the new moon
he cleaned and crowned his Hermes and his Hekate and all the rest
of the sacred objects [or “shrines”] that his ancestors left behind,
and he honored them with offerings of incense, barley cakes, and
roundcakes.95
Klearchos’ household gods were the focus of ritual, regularly adorned
and honored with bloodless sacrifices. Hermes, probably in the form of a
herm, and Hekate, probably in the form of a hekataion, were liminal dei-
ties associated with the protection of the home’s thresholds. Tantalizingly
mentioned, but not identified, are “all the rest of the sacred objects [or
‘shrines’],” doubtless referring to additional divine statuary.
The passage preserved in Porphyry serves as a valuable guide for
recognizing images with domestic cult characters in the archaeological
record. Iconographic choices of an assemblage, for instance, might indicate
a domestic shrine, particularly if images of Hekate or Hermes were pres-
ent, as Porphyry records. So, too, the presence of the Mother of the Gods,
who frequently found herself in domestic assemblages, might indicate
ritual roles, as in the case of the Southwest House presented above.96 An
unfinished statuette of Asklepios (9) (see Figs. 8, 9) was thrown down a well
after the Herulian invasion alongside other refuse from a sculptor’s studio,
including a triple hekataion and an enthroned statuette of the Mother of
the Gods.97 Both goddesses were damaged and probably awaited refurbish-
ment. Although the three sculptures were not found in a display context,
their deposition together indicates that they were produced and repaired
in the same workshop, probably for patrons who utilized them in closely
related settings—namely in homes.
Diagnostic of domestic shrines elsewhere in the Empire are images
of the household’s guardian deities, the lares, which were usually sculpted
in bronze. Bronze figurines sometimes occur alongside marble statuettes,
suggesting a comparable function and thus providing a convincing case
for household cult.98 One such assemblage was excavated in a cistern
on the southern side of the Kolonos Agoraios. A plinth of a statuette
of Asklepios (13; Fig. 28) was found together with a plinth of a marble
statuette of Herakles and a marble portrait herm.99 Five bronze figurines,
none taller than 10 cm, came from the same fill: a dancing male youth
wearing an animal skin and holding a lagobolon, or hunting stick, probably
Pan; a Farnese Herakles; a coiled anthropomorphic serpent; a bull, perhaps

95. Trans. Faraone 2008, p. 211.
For the Greek text, see Bonffar-
tigue and Patillon 1979, vol. 2,
pp. 84–85.
96. See n. 88, above.
97. See n. 144, below.
98. For marble statuary found in,
or associated with, lararia at Pompeii,
see Boyce 1937, nos. 10, 13, 42, 67,
118, 200, 220, 259, 350. In Petronius’s
Satyricon (29.8), Trimalchio’s guest
declares: praeterea grande armarium in
angulo vidi, in cuius aedicula erant lares
argentei positi Venerisque signum
marmoreum (and in a corner I saw a
large cupboard containing a tiny shrine,
wherein were silver lares, and a marble
image of Venus); trans. M. Heseltine,
Cambridge, Mass., 1919.
99. Herakles (S 588): unpublished.
Portrait herm (S 586): T. L. Shear
1935a, pp. 443–444, fig. 7; 1936a,
pp. 16–17, fig. 14; Agora I, pp. 35–37,
no. 25, pl. 17; Agora XVIII, p. 199,
no. H372; Gawlinski 2014, pp. 87–88,
fig. 50.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 579

Figure 28. Plinth of a statuette of

Asklepios (13): (a) front view; (b) top
view. Scale 1:3. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy
Agora Excavations a b

a b
Figure 29. Bronze statuettes from a
house on the Kolonos Agoraios:
(a) Pan, B 241; (b) Herakles, B 240;
(c) bull, B 239; (d) serpent, B 253;
(e) Hermes, B 248. Scale 1:2. Photos
C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora Excavations
c d e
Apis or Zeus; and a base for an unknown figure.100 Over the debris of the
house, excavators also found a bronze figurine of Hermes.101 The bronzes
(Fig. 29) were surely used in household cult; they are comparable to other
such deposits from the Agora, one of which includes a lar.102 We cannot
know if 13 came from the same group, but its deposition together with
the bronzes at least raises the possibility.103 The cistern was filled after the
Herulian sack with debris from a nearby house. The source of the fill is
secured by lead tokens with the same countermark that were found both
in the cistern and in the destruction debris of the house.104 No sculpture
was found within the residence, but a herm of Herakles in rosso antico and a
head of a small-scale statue of Dionysos wearing an ivy wreath were found
in a channel leading to the cistern.105
The architectural remains of the house have not been fully published,
and future work will be needed in order to establish the phases of its con-
struction and use. It is clear, however, that the residence was luxuriously
furnished. The herm of Herakles in deep red marble, though small, was

100. Dancing male (B 241): T. L.
Shear 1936a, p. 19, fig. 16. Herakles
(B 240): T. L. Shear 1936a, p. 19,
fig. 16. Serpent (B 253): T. L. Shear
1936a, p. 19, fig. 16; Thompson and
Frantz 1959, fig. 79. Bull (B 239):
Mattusch 1982, p. 10, fig. 21. Base
(B 2253): unpublished. Two terra-
cottas were also found in the cistern:
the head of a male youth (T 873:
Agora VI, p. 55, no. 404, pl. 9), and the
head of a boy, possibly Eros (T 874:
Agora VI, p. 50, no. 253, pl. 6).
101. B 248: T. L. Shear 1936a, p. 19,
fig. 16; Mattusch 1982, p. 26, fig. 53.
102. Sharpe 2014, pp. 145–167.
103. The co-occurrence would not
be unusual. The popular press has re-
ported a recent discovery in a Roman
villa in Aptera, Crete, where a marble
statuette of Apollo was found set into a
base alongside a bronze statuette of
Artemis, possibly in an arrangement
used for cult (http://www.ekathimerini
.com/205425/article/ekathimerini
/life/archaeologists-make-exciting-
discovery-at-aptera-in-crete).
104. See Agora X, pp. 112–113,
137; the other deposits are D 11:6 and
D 11:7.
105. Herakles (S 590): Agora XI,
p. 173, no. 230. Dionysos (S 589):
Shear 1935a, pp. 444–447, fig. 9.
580 brian martens

a rare extravagance at Athens, where few sculptures are known in colored

stone. Two exquisitely carved ivory statuettes of Muses from the cistern were
attached to an elaborate piece of furniture, pointing to an owner who valued
arts and letters.106 The mid- to late-2nd-century a.d. portrait herm found
alongside 13 commemorates Moiragenes, who, according to its inscrip-
tion, was honored as eponymos for paying his tribe’s annual prytany costs.107
The honorific dedication reveals that Moiragenes was from the deme of
Koile and therefore probably not a resident of the Kolonos Agoraios. The
reduced scale of the head—unusual for portrait herms—hints at display
within a private setting where its compact size may have been required.108
If the portrait herm indeed belonged inside the house, then Moiragenes
was maybe an ancestor of the 3rd-century a.d. occupants. Overall, we
have the impression of an affluent home headed by a connected personage.
Differences in scale and medium were common in domestic assem-
blages. At the Southwest House and at the house on the Kolonos Agoraios,
divine images of different sizes in marble, terracotta, or bronze were displayed
together. We recall Klearchos’s images, which were inherited, having been
passed down through his ancestors. They were an assemblage not actively
collected by Klearchos, but acquired over a lengthy period of time and ven-
erable for their associations with his family’s past. Domestic shrines held
eclectic bunches of images, ranging in style, workmanship, material, and date.
Asklepios is known in domestic contexts outside of the Agora. A marble
statuette of Asklepios was found in a Roman house near the Varvakeio
School, located in the neighborhood of Psychiko, where the famous reitera-
tion of the Athena Parthenos was also discovered.109 The early date of the
Varvakeio discovery limits further contextualization. The many statuettes of
Asklepios that have come to light in secondary contexts in Athens probably
also best belong within private houses. 106. BI 166 and BI 167: T. L. Shear
At Eretria, an assemblage of marble statuettes was unearthed in a mixed 1936a, p. 17, fig. 15.
residential and commercial district close to the heart of the Roman-period 107. S 586: Agora I, pp. 35–37,
no. 25, pl. 17 (SEG XIV 129); Agora
city. Four statuettes were discovered together in a pit at the southeastern XVIII, p. 199; Gawlinski 2014, p. 87.
corner of a small room, which contained 3rd- to 4th-century a.d. destruction For a chronology as late as a.d. 160s or
debris. The subjects include Asklepios, Aphrodite embracing a winged Eros, 170s, see Smith 1998, pp. 83–84.
Herakles, and the Mother of the Gods enthroned in a naiskos, or shrine.110 108. H. of head, chin to top, 18 cm.
The excavator, Petros Themelis, identified a small column from the same Cf. the larger scales of the many por-
traits of kosmetai associated with the
pit as a support for a perirrhanterion, or basin. Finds deposited contempo-
Gymnasium of Diogenes; e.g., Kaltsas
raneously in a nearby well are domestic in character, but a few hypocaust 2002, pp. 325–334, nos. 683–707.
tiles from inside the pit could also point, in part, to refuse from a bath.111 109. Lange 1880, p. 372, n. 1. The
In a remarkable discovery at Corinth, an assemblage of nine marble statuette of Asklepios is given in a foot-
divinities was found in the destruction levels of a sumptuous private note and is otherwise unknown to me;
residence.112 A probable earthquake and ensuing fire destroyed the house the assemblage is discussed in Stirling
2005, p. 209.
around a.d. 360–370 on the basis of numismatic evidence. Mosaic floors, 110. Eretria, Archaeological Mu-
marble paving, peristyle courtyards, fountains, and pools point to residents seum 12370, 12373, 12372, and 12371,
of wealth and high social standing. The sculptures include two statuettes respectively: Themelis 1978, pp. 25–28,
of Asklepios, two statuettes of Artemis, a probable Europa, Pan, Hera- pls. 20–25; Ducrey and Rendall 2004,
kles with Telephos, an enthroned Roma, and Dionysos. According to the p. 222; Themelis 2010. The figures are
about 20–30 cm high, with the
chronologies proposed by Stirling, the figures were produced between the
exception of the Herakles, which may
1st and 4th centuries a.d. In addition to the chronological range, and the have reached 45 cm (pers. obs.).
corresponding changes in technique and style, there are striking differences 111. Themelis 1978, pp. 27–29.
in scale. The smallest statuette, a standing Asklepios, is slightly over 20 cm 112. Stirling 2008.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 581

high and thus not smaller than some of the miniatures presented in this
study. Meanwhile, the largest image is a fragmentary Artemis reconstructed
at over 90 cm with its plinth. Wide ranges in chronology and scale imply
that the sculptures were brought together over an extended period of time,
probably inherited as heirloom pieces over many generations, as with
our previous examples. The circumstances of their acquisition cannot be
determined with certainty, but it is clear that they were not sculpted as a
single programmatic commission. The statuettes may have once formed a
household shrine, but at the time of their deposition they were sequestered
away in a small room, having been decommissioned and placed in storage.
Still more houses in the eastern Mediterranean have been found con-
taining marble statuary of Asklepios: at Amphipolis and Dion in northern
Greece, on the islands of Delos and Kos, at Aphrodisias, Ephesos, and Side
in Asia Minor, and at Nea Paphos and Kourion on Cyprus.113 Examples
such as these provide a broader context in which to understand the display
of statuary of Asklepios in domestic settings. Moreover, with the aid of
authors such as Theokritos and Porphyry, we can best envision the place-
ment of statuettes in households for the purposes of cult.
The frequent presence of Asklepios in the private realm is easily
explained: concerned with health and welfare, he attended to universal,
yet personal, human concerns. It is tempting to connect the popularity of
Asklepios inside homes of the Roman period with historical events such
as the widespread plague under Marcus Aurelius.114 Asklepios was, after
all, introduced to Athens in the wake of a devastating epidemic in the early
420s b.c., and to Rome under similar circumstances in the late 290s b.c.115
The so-called Antonine plague, which had been carried by Roman sol-
diers returning from eastern campaigns, seems to have reached Athens
by a.d. 174/5. There is a possible epigraphic reference to the plague in

113. At Amphipolis, from a Late
Hellenistic level(?) of a house, a torso of
Asklepios (Amphipolis, Archaeological
Museum, inv. no. unknown; original
H. ca. 55 cm): Malama and Salonikios
2002, p. 152, fig. 12. At Dion, in the
building where the hydraulis was found,
possibly a domestic structure in part, a
miniature statuette of Asklepios with a
mouse (see n. 36, above). On Delos, a
serpent-entwined staff (Delos, Archae-
ological Museum A 66): Kreeb 1988,
p. 192, no. S 17.3. On Kos, from the
House of the Rape of Europa, a small-
scale statue with plinth (Kos, Archaeo-
logical Museum 101; original H. ca.
130–150 cm): Sirano 2005, pp. 156,
158, fig. 20; from the Casa Romana,
a now-lost statuette: Albertocchi 1997,
p. 120. At Aphrodisias, from a channel
of the North Byzantine House, a statu-
ette on a base alongside a possible Ky-
bele (Aphrodisias Excavations 1986-20;
H. 22 cm): Erim 1990, p. 27, fig. 30;
from the North Temenos House, a
fragmentary small-scale statue (Aphro-
disias Excavations 1966-19, 1966-215
A–C; original H. ca. 75–90 cm): Dil-
lon 1997, p. 742. At Ephesos, from
the Terrace Houses, four statuettes:
(1) Ephesos Excavations H1/91/8; ori-
ginal H. ca. 25–30 cm: Ephesos VIII.4,
p. 191, no. S 2, pl. 74; (2) Selçuk, Ar-
chaeological Museum 13/38/72; origi-
nal H. ca. 30–35 cm: Ephesos VIII.4,
p. 204, no. S 89, pl. 110; (3) Selçuk,
Archaeological Museum 2166; original
H. ca. 40 cm: Ephesos VIII.8, vol. 2,
p. 665, no. B-S 4, pl. 282; (4) Selçuk,
Archaeological Museum 32/44/75;
original H. ca. 30 cm: Ephesos VIII.10,
vol. 2, p. 561, no. S 5, pl. 259. At Side, a
plinth of a statuette from a house(?),
probably Asklepios with an omphalos
(Side, Archaeological Museum 736;
original H. ca. 25–30 cm[?]): İnan
1975, p. 204, no. 218, pl. CI:3. At Nea
Paphos, from the House of Theseus, an
intact statuette with inscribed plinth
(Paphos, Archaeological Museum
FR 1/67; H. 48.0 cm): Daszewski 1968,
pp. 52–53, pl. XIV:1; Fejfer 2006,
p. 114, figs. 45:h, 46:h; a torso with
plinth (Paphos, Archaeological Mu-
seum FR 1/65; original H. ca. 45 cm):
Fejfer 2006, p. 114, fig. 45:b. At Kou-
rion, from the House of the Gladiators,
a small-scale statue with plinth (inv. no.
unknown; original H. ca. 120 cm):
Fejfer 2006, p. 120, fig. 53.
114. On the Antonine plague,
most probably smallpox, see the
important collection of papers in
Lo Cascio 2012.
115. The importation of Asklepios
to Athens for reasons of the plague
alone has been questioned by Wick-
kiser (2008, pp. 90–105). On his
importation to Rome, see Livy 10.47;
Ovid Met. 622–744; see also Renberg
2006–2007, pp. 88–89.
582 brian martens

Athens, though nothing more is known of its extent or impact there.116

Afflicted Athenians surely would have turned to their familiar healing
god for cures.117 The memory of a destructive disease may have spurred
some survivors to acquire statuary of the god, yet we would expect craft
production to decline during times of such poor well-being.118 It is worth
noting that statuettes of all subjects appear in their largest numbers during
the 2nd and 3rd centuries a.d., and for this reason, I do not wish to push
the idea further.119 Moreover, health problems were a constant concern in
antiquity. The persistent appearance of Asklepios in Greek homes from
the 4th century b.c. through the Roman period highlights the god’s long
tradition of domestic veneration and humankind’s never-fading search for
good health.

RESPO NSES IN LATE ANT IQ UI T Y

Excavations at the Asklepieion on the southern slope of the Acropolis have

revealed an impressive period of use that spans some eight centuries from
the late 5th century b.c. until at least the close of the 3rd century a.d.120
The literary tradition extends Asklepios’s presence into the mid-5th century,
the cult apparently having been kept alive by Neoplatonic philosophers.121
The epigraphic evidence, however, fades in the late 3rd century a.d., and
monuments from the sanctuary seem to have been plundered and reused
for the construction of the Post-Herulian Wall.122 Recent excavations,
though, have found a rebuilding after a.d. 267 on the basis of construction
technique.123 While the Late Antique life of the sanctuary deserves further
critical evaluation, it is clear that Christianity eventually displaced pagan
worship at the site from the late 5th century a.d. at the latest, when a large
basilica was built over the precinct.124 Studying the later lives of these figures
uniquely illuminates the final phases of Asklepian cult in Athens in a way
that stretches beyond sanctuary architecture and epigraphic and literary
testimonia. We observe in statuary of Asklepios varying reactions at the
close of antiquity, ranging from defacing to continued use.

116. Oliver 1970 (SEG XXIX 127):
letters from Marcus Aurelius to the
Athenians, 174/5 a.d., plaque II,
lines 57–68, relaxing regulations for
appointment to the Areopagos because
there were so few men eligible in the
city; for the letter as reference to the
plague, see Duncan-Jones 1996, p. 134.
Possible evidence for the plague has
been proposed elsewhere in Greece,
e.g., Asklepios appears more frequently
on coinage at Corinth around the time
of the Antonine plague; see Hoskins
Walbank 2010, pp. 182–184.
117. Aelius Aristides (Or. 48.37–45,
50.9, 51.25), who contracted the plague
at Smyrna around a.d. 165, attributed
his recovery to the intervention of
Asklepios and Athena. In contrast, at
Rome, Asklepios seems to have no
official role in warding off the Anto-
nine plague; see Renberg 2006–2007,
p. 90, n. 9.
118. On the impact to industry
elsewhere, see Duncan-Jones 1996,
pp. 129–130. So, too, we probably should
not expect increases in dedications.
119. The corpus of Roman-period
marble statuettes from the Agora was
the focus of my doctoral dissertation
(Martens 2018).
120. The end of pagan activity at
the site remains controversial; cf. Melfi
2007, pp. 395–407.
121. Marinus (Vita Procli 29: Edel-
stein and Edelstein 1945, pp. 322–324,
no. T 582) indicates that the sanctu-
ary still functioned in some healing
capacity around the mid-5th century
a.d., although there is scant archaeo-
logical evidence.
122. On the reuse of stone from the
Asklepieion after the construction of
the Post-Herulian Wall, see Agora
XVIII, p. 297.
123. Papaefthimiou 2009, pp. 86–
87; for possible use of the altar into the
mid-5th century a.d., see Lefantzis and
Jensen 2009, p. 111, n. 5.
124. A Christian basilica on the site
was probably dedicated to St. Andrew,
who acted as a healer; see Gregory
1986, pp. 237–240; Melfi 2007,
pp. 406–407.
 t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 583

a b c d
Figure 30. Statuette of Asklepios
Giustini (2): (a) front view; (b) right
view; (c) back view; (d) left view. The
piece was defaced through the forc-
ible removal of the god’s attributes.
Scale 1:5. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
Excavations

Figure 31. Detail of the head from

statuette 1 (see Fig. 12) before mend-
ing: (a) front view; (b) left view.
Scale 1:3. Photos C. Mauzy; courtesy Agora
Excavations a b

A statuette of Asklepios (2; Fig. 30) was defaced and discarded in a

125. For a selective pattern of de-
facing at Aphrodisias, where scenes of
cult were among the offensive aspects
of images, see Smith 2012a; on the
selective destruction of specific body
parts of pagan sculptures, see Kristen-
sen 2013, pp. 89–106.
126. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mu-
seum GR.14.1865: Hausmann 1948,
p. 168, no. 28, pl. 20.
cistern on the Kolonos Agoraios around the 4th or early 5th century a.d.
At the base of the neck are gouges where a sharp object was forcibly driven in
order to detach its head. The god’s attributes were also removed, evidenced
by tool marks at these fissures. As sources of the god’s powers, and as
identifying characteristics, the serpent-entwined staff and omphalos were
targeted for removal.125 The amputated pieces were not deposited alongside
the body, but instead probably shattered or otherwise destroyed. A defaced
relief from the City Asklepieion, now in Cambridge, illustrates a similar
erasure of the god’s head and attribute.126
Some mutilated figures were reused and again placed on display.
The head of 1 (Figs. 12, 31) was salvaged from the Southwest Baths and
repurposed. The head was deliberately detached from the torso, as brutal
gouges along the figure’s neck vividly attest. The head then found new life,
584 brian martens

Figure 32. Inscribed statuette of

Asklepios (23). Note that the inscrip-
tion can be read either horizontally
or vertically. Scale 1:1. Drawing A. Hooton

probably in a residence on the northern slope of the Areopagos given its

findspot. It was eventually discarded in a well that serviced a nearby house in
the 5th or 6th century a.d. Fragmentary sculptures are known in Late An-
tique assemblages—a head of Pan in an assemblage from a Roman domus at
Corinth, for example127—and so the disembodied state should not exclude
its display outright. An enigmatic lead-tin pin in the top of the head seems
to be related to its second life. The god already wears a thin fillet, so the
pin is unlikely to have secured a separate attribute such as a wreath. More-
over, it is doubtful that it was for a meniskos because it is off-centered, and
meniskoi are, to my knowledge, not documented on Roman-period statuary.
Most probably, the pin served to stabilize the head in its later display. The
reuse of the head illustrates how a once single object could separate to lead
diverging lives, and how fragmentation did not always result in disuse. The
head of Asklepios obtained different meaning in its new domestic setting.
Meanwhile, the torso remained buried.
Our Late Antique statuette (23; see Fig. 6), sculpted around the
4th century a.d. on the basis of style and technique (not in an Athenian
workshop, given the non-local stone), bears an inscription that is presum-
ably Christian. Three shallowly incised letters appear on the figure’s bare
right arm, not before recorded (Fig. 32): XΜ̣Θ̣. Alternatively, the statuette
could be rotated and the inscription read vertically: Θ̣Σ̣X (see catalogue
for commentary). The latter reading seems less plausible because we need
to accept a four-barred sigma rather than the lunate form.128 Still, a de- 127. S-1999-014: Stirling 2008,
faced head from the Agora provides some evidence in favor of the second pp. 95–97, fig. 4.
reading. A female head from a Roman grave relief has a deeply carved 128. For letter forms in Late
Antique Athens, see Sironen 1994,
inscription centered over its forehead: ΘC.129 The head was discarded in a pp. 57–62.
well on the northern slope of the Areopagos in the 4th century a.d. when 129. S 2443: Agora XXXV,
the water source went out of use with the construction of the Omega pp. 172–173, no. 244, pl. 78. For an-
House. Delivorrias has pointed cautiously to possible interpretations such other example of a probable Christian
as Θ(εοτόκε) C(ῶσον) (Theotokos, save), and Θ(εοῦ) C(οφία) (wisdom of inscription on sculpture from the
Agora, a head of a herm marked “ΚΑ̣ ”
God).130 Grossman adds a letter to the phrase, reading ΛΘC.131 Indeed, to
(S 3422), see Riccardi 2015, p. 339.
the right of the sigma there are two incisions, possibly forming a lambda, Note also a head of Herakles or Alex-
but the depth is significantly shallower, and so the association, to me, is ander the Great from the Kerameikos
doubtful, or the lambda is at least a later addition. with the letters “ΟΑ” incised in two
Elsewhere in the Greek East, the inscription ΧΜΓ appears on statuary. pairs on each cheek (Athens, National
The abbreviation, which has been interpreted as Χ(ριστὸν) Μ(αρία) Γ(εννᾷ) Archaeological Museum 366: Kaltsas
2002, p. 273, no. 572).
(Mary begat Christ), appears on several sculptures at Aphrodisias. The por- 130. Delivorrias 1991, p. 118.
trait statue of the Late Antique governor Oecumenius, for example, bears 131. Agora XXXV, pp. 172–173.
the letters ΧΜΓ on the top of its head.132 Smith has argued that the neatly 132. Aphrodisias Excavations
carved inscription was contemporary with the statue’s manufacture around 00.0037: Smith 2002.

133. Smith 2002, pp. 150–153.
134. Episkopi, Kourion Museum,
inv. no. unknown: Fejfer 2006, p. 120;
see also Hannestad 2007, pp. 286–287;
Kristensen 2013, pp. 33–34.
135. I might venture to offer
Χ(ριστοῦ) Μ(ῆτερ), Θ(εοτόκε) as
one speculative reading. If we are to
read the inscription vertically, perhaps
Θ(εός) Σ(ώτερ) Χ(ριστέ).
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 585
the late 4th or early 5th century a.d., and that, given its hidden location, it
was intended as a private statement of faith, maybe by the sculptor.133 Simi-
larly, the inscription on 23 is difficult to see and is placed at an understated
location on the side of the arm. On the one hand, the inscription could be
original to the figure, added as a mark of faith by its owner or sculptor. A
second possibility is that the inscription reinterpreted 23 for use within a
Christian context. It is thought, for example, that some images of Asklepios
were altered and given new meaning as Christ. On Cyprus, a small-scale
statue of Asklepios from the House of the Gladiators was carefully recut
to remove the snake and staff, while the figure was preserved.134 A further
possibility is that the inscription was an act of defacing, as we suppose for
the Roman grave relief mentioned above. Whatever the intention of the
three letters on 23, the inscription fits within Christian responses to figural
sculpture. Without a parallel, I am hesitant to propose an interpretation
of XΜ̣Θ̣.135 As with any abbreviation, the letters were likely understood
differently according to person, place, and time.
Whereas 23 is a probable work of the 4th century a.d., other statu-
ettes had been produced centuries earlier and continued to be used during
Late Antiquity. As explained above, statuette 30 (see Fig. 2) was probably
produced in the Hellenistic period. Three dowel holes, not original to
the sculpture, establish its longevity; restorations were made once at the
head and twice underneath at the lower mantle and ankles. The extensive
presence of the rasp throughout the drapery might indicate a refinishing
and renewal of the figure’s mantle. The treasured image was apparently
repaired on several occasions during its lifetime. The statuette was reused
as building material in a Byzantine wall, indicating that it was at least
known and available for use late into antiquity. Even as evidence for the
cult declines at the god’s Acropolis sanctuary, this sculpture hints that the
worship of Asklepios continued in the private sphere. The lives of some of
our statuettes were remarkably long, and several no doubt bridge centuries
and generations. We witness in some of these images the final vestiges of
Asklepian cult at Athens.
CON C LU S I ON S
Tracing the religious lives of the marble statuary of Asklepios signifi-
cantly enhances our knowledge of the god’s Athenian cult. Some statues of
Asklepios stood in baths as ritual images, and others perhaps in sanctuar-
ies as offerings. The large majority, though, populated the Roman-period
houses surrounding the Agora Square. Here, in the private sphere, the
presence of the god was intimately felt: Asklepios was positioned in the
home as healer par excellence, ready to address personal and familial needs.
Within the polytheistic culture and society of Athens, these figures carried,
at a minimum, the potential to have religious meanings activated. Indeed,
with the aid of literary sources and comparative assemblages, we can best
envision their presence in the home for purposes of cult.
Within these settings, the establishment of single display contexts for
portable statuettes is best avoided. The non-fixed nature of statuettes allowed
for versatility as they passed through time and space. At Athens there was a
586 brian martens

strong preference for figures of Asklepios in the Giustini model that stand
around 20–40 cm high. The god is one of the most well-represented divini-
ties among the Agora’s divine statuary, outnumbered only by Aphrodite,
the Mother of the Gods, and herms. His concentrated presence reflects
widespread popularity in Athens, and, no doubt, excavations elsewhere
in the city would reveal figures in similar quantities.136 When viewed in
isolation, most of the Asklepioi reveal stubbornly little about their lives.
When viewed as a group, however, their stories are brought to life again,
revealing a great deal about the society and religious culture in which
these images functioned. No doubt the ongoing excavations will add more
evidence that will continue to unravel the religious lives of Asklepios in
the round.

CATA LO G UE OF STAT UARY

1 Small-scale statue of Asklepios, Giustini model Figs. 8, 12, 31

S 1067 + S 1991. The head was excavated May 26, 1938, in well O 18:1 on the
northern slope of the Areopagos (section Ψ at O/15,16–18/13,14) in period-of-use
fill of the 5th and 6th centuries a.d.137 The torso was excavated May 14, 1957,
immediately east of the Southwest Baths at the northwestern foot of the Areopa-
gos (section ΓΓ around E-18) in fill of the 3rd to early 4th centuries a.d. (dated
by the excavator); probable deposition after the Herulian invasion of a.d. 267.138
H. 52.9; W. 28.4; D. 11.5 cm. H. of head, including hair and beard, 12.8;
W. of shoulders ca. 18.0; original H. of figure ca. 70–80 cm. Wt. 17.98 kg.
Two joining pieces: head with torso. Missing: nose, right arm with elbow,
lower body following a diagonal break from the lower right thigh to the left knee,
and most of the staff. Chipped at the brow and along ridges of the drapery. There
are gouges at the front and sides of the neck from the forced removal of the head
with a sharp object. The left side of the drapery was exposed to burning. There
are some root marks.
White, fine-grained marble. The flesh of the torso is polished; the polish is
not well preserved on the face due to a separate depositional history. The himation
was heavily rasped at the sides and at the back. There are drilled channels in the
136. As along the southern slope of
drapery (Diam. ca. 0.4–0.5 cm). The drill was used extensively to create curls in the
the Acropolis; see, e.g., Brouskari 2002,
hair and beard (Diam. ca. 0.2–0.3 cm). At the top of the head, slightly off-center,
pp. 132–133, 183–184, figs. 135, 179,
there is a much corroded lead-tin pin (Diam. ca. 1.6 cm). Bright red pigment is 180.
preserved throughout the himation. Dull yellowish orange pigment is preserved 137. On the deposit, see Agora V,
on the back of the staff.139 p. 126; Agora XXXII, p. 302.
The handsome figure is of the Giustini type. The weight is placed partially 138. Thompson’s report that statue 1
on the left leg, while the balance is distributed on a staff under the right arm. The was found “in the bathing establish-
figure wears a himation over the left shoulder; it wraps under the right arm, passes ment” (1958, p. 154) conflicts with the
across the abdomen, and is thrown over the projecting left elbow. The edge of the excavation notebook: Agora Notebook
himation is folded down as it passes across the front, its border curling inward ΓΓ 15, pp. 2816–2817.
and terminating with a delicate crispness. The himation sags gently under the left 139. Examination with portable
X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) returned
pectoral. The opposite end of the garment is gathered in the hidden left hand,
mercury on the red area, pointing to the
which rests on the outthrust hip. Drapery gathers in a prominent V-shaped fold
pigment cinnabar. Iron was also
below the left forearm, falling in vertical folds down the side of the lower body. detected in this area, and it could
The chest is uncovered, exposing wide pectorals. The costal arch is sharply delin- indicate the presence of an iron oxide
eated, a sign of mature age. The left nipple is raised slightly with a faint incision pigment as well. No traces of gilding
surrounding it. The himation is wrapped tightly around the legs, its form dictated were detected. I am grateful to Dimitris
by the body beneath. Drapery gathers in a V-shaped fold over the pubic area, and Michailidis and Vanessa Muros for
below, three prominent folds fall diagonally from the left hip toward the right their assistance with the study.

140. On the deposit, see Agora V,
p. 125.
141. Examination with portable
X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) found that
the red pigment contains iron and is
likely an iron-oxide based pigment such
as hematite or an ochre. No traces of
gilding were detected. I am grateful to
Dimitris Michailidis and Vanessa
Muros for this result.
142. The fillet does not require that
our subject be a youthful Asklepios; cf.
the bearded statuette 24.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 587
thigh, indicating an outthrust right knee. At the back, the himation arcs from the
left shoulder, gathering under the right arm. Continuous vertical folds fall over
the left arm and undulate at the edge. The drapery, pulled taut over the projecting
right buttock, reveals the figure’s shifting weight.
The most striking feature of the head is the extensively drilled hair and beard.
A mass of curls frames the face and is held forward by a narrow fillet. The hair on
top of the head is rendered as shallow wavy lines radiating from a part that runs
down the center of the head. There is a badly corroded lead-tin pin on top of the
head, which stabilized the head for display during its later reuse. The figure’s eyes
are recessed under a heavy brow. A deep furrow at the forehead and a shallower
one above the nose further indicate a mature age. The gaze is directed forward.
The eyes are almond shaped with thick upper lids. The tear duct is present only at
the left eye. The nose, now missing, was long and narrow at the bridge. The upper
lip barely emerges from the flowing mustache, but the bottom lip is prominently
articulated with a narrow channel between the lips, giving a slight opening to the
mouth. The beard is curly, thicker over the chin.
The head (S 1067) is unpublished. For the torso (S 1991), see Thompson
1958, p. 154, pl. 43:d; Meyer 1988, pp. 121, 125, 128, no. G9; 1994, pp. 17–18,
no. G9, figs. 11–13; Martens 2015, p. 52, fig. 6.6.
Late Flavian or Trajanic period, given the elaborately drilled hair and beard,
the slightly large head, and the rasped drapery.
2 Statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Figs. 8, 30
S 710. Excavated April 2, 1936, in cistern E 11:1 on the Kolonos Agoraios
(section ΠΘ at D/20,E/1–11/16,17).140 The cistern was filled around the 4th and
early 5th centuries a.d.
H. 44.4; W. 23.0; D. 11.0 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 16.0; original H. of figure
ca. 55–60 cm. Wt. 11.24 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right forearm with elbow, feet, most of the staff,
and lower left drapery. Chipped along the ridges of the drapery. There are gouges
at the neck and the lower left drapery from forced removal of the head and at-
tributes with a sharp object. The break along the lower left leg probably indicates
the presence of an omphalos.
White, fine-grained, micaceous marble. The statuette is highly polished on
the front and along the sides, including the drapery. On the back, only the flesh of
the shoulder and parts of the projecting right leg have been polished. The use of
the rasp is visible between the body and the staff, on the drapery at the back, and
around the ankles. The drill was applied between the body and staff and under the
drapery at the ankles. Bright red pigment is preserved on the staff.141
The figure stands in a version of the Giustini model known as the London-
Eleusis type. The weight is placed on the left leg. The right leg is relaxed, bent at
the knee. A himation is worn over the left shoulder, wrapped under the right arm,
and brought across the abdomen. The edge of the himation passes below the first
segment of abdominal muscles in a twisted band, leaving the chest bare. The nipples
are raised slightly and enclosed by light incisions. The garment is collected in the
hidden left hand, which rests on the back of the hip. V-shaped folds collect under
the left forearm and U-shaped folds above the groin. Long folds descend from the
left hip to the right ankle as the right knee is thrust forward. The right biceps is
sizable, giving the impression of a brawny figure. The ends of a flat ribbon rest on
each shoulder, having been tied around the head. Aside from being an attribute, the
fillet performed a practical function to provide additional support to the neck.142
The balance of the figure’s weight is placed on a staff under the right arm. A strut
projects from behind the right knee to secure a now-absent portion of the staff.
Drapery is pulled tightly across the reverse, emphasizing the buttocks. A folded
edge of the himation hangs freely down the left side of the back.
588 brian martens

T. L. Shear 1936b, pp. 197–198, fig. 17; Meyer 1988, pp. 141–142, no. LE5,
pl. 19:3; Freyer-Schauenburg 2010–2011, pp. 139–140.
Middle of the 2nd century a.d.

3 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 8

S 1337. Excavated April 24, 1948, from mixed fill in the residential and indus-
trial neighborhood southwest of the Agora Square (section OO, no grid reference).
H. 14.1; W. 12.6; D. 6.7 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 8.7; original H. of figure
ca. 33–37 cm. Wt. 1.56 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right arm below the shoulder, lower body from
below the hips, and lower left drapery. The fragment is chipped along ridges of
the drapery. There are traces of burning over the right pectoral. There are light
encrustations throughout.
White, fine-grained, micaceous marble. There are traces of a dull polish on
the chest. The himation and flesh were rasped, especially over the upper back. The
drill was used to create deep folds in the frontal drapery and to delineate the space
between the himation and flesh at the left side of the abdomen.
The figure thrusts its hip to the left side, showing that the left leg must have
been weight bearing. The himation is worn over the left shoulder. It wraps under
the right arm and across the abdomen, leaving the pectorals and upper abdominals
bare. Deep vertical folds over the left shoulder sag gently around the pectoral,
giving the impression of a loosely fitted garment. The low and irregular break
at the neck indicates the presence of a beard. The figure has a broad chest with
pronounced costal margin, showing mature age. The left nipple is raised from the
flesh. There is no break preserved for a staff under the right arm, but the highly
gathered drapery shows that one was likely positioned there. The himation sags
over the center of the back, exposing a deep spinal furrow. Vertical folds from the
thrown edge of the himation fall down the back, undulating along the left side.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

4 Torso of an unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 8

S 2006. Catalogued July 1957, from uninventoried marbles on the northern
slope of the Areopagos (section Φ).
H. 17.2; W. 12.3; D. 7.2 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 9.2; original H. of figure
ca. 33–37 cm. Wt. 2.00 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right arm, and lower body from below the hips.
The fragment is chipped at the left shoulder and at the edge of the left drapery.
The front is badly worn.
White, fine-grained marble. The drapery was rendered with long strokes of
the flat chisel. Shorter strokes of the flat chisel were used to model the chest and
the back right shoulder. At the back, the flat chisel was applied over surfaces that
were previously roughed out with a pointed chisel. There are two drill dots (Diam.
0.5 cm) under the right arm. The sculptor worked from front to back.
The standing figure wears a himation in the composition of the Giustini model.
The himation is draped over the left shoulder, arcs across the back in a thick swath,
is pulled under the right arm, swoops low over the abdomen, and is thrown over the
projecting left elbow. The low break extending onto the chest indicates a bearded
figure with head turned toward the right. At the back, vertical and diagonal folds
of the thrown himation run the length of the left side.
Unpublished.
Roman period.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 589

5 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 8

S 2754. Catalogued August 12, 1977, from uninventoried marbles east of the
Odeion (section O).
H. 18.4; W. 11.7; D. 5.8 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 33–37 cm. Wt. 1.36 kg.
Missing: head, right side of torso following a diagonal break from the left
shoulder to the right hip, and right side of thighs following a diagonal break from
the right hip to the left knee. The fragment is badly weathered.
White, fine-grained marble. There are traces of the rasp on the back drapery.
The figure places its left hand on its hip, concealed by the himation. The
heavy mantle is worn over the left shoulder and around the front of the body, and
it is draped over the projecting left elbow. Continuous vertical folds fall behind
the left arm. Clinging drapery emphasizes the buttocks.
Unpublished.
Roman period(?).

6 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 8

S 2232. Excavated July 27, 1968, in modern fill above the workshop of Mikion
and Menon (section K at F-16).
H. 9.7; W. 13.0; D. 5.4 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 9.2; original H. of figure
ca. 32–36 cm. Wt. 0.88 kg.
Two joining pieces: torso and small fragment of the back right arm. Missing:
head with neck, right arm with the elbow, lower body, and most of the staff. The
fragment is chipped at the chest, behind the right shoulder, at the left elbow, and
along ridges of the drapery.
White, medium-grained marble. The flesh is polished. The himation was
rasped, heavily on the back.
The figure rests its left hand on its hip. A staff is positioned under the right
arm. The himation is worn over the left shoulder. The garment arcs across the
upper back, passes under the right arm, swoops low in an untwisted band over the
abdomen, and is thrown over the projecting left elbow. The broad chest and upper
abdomen remain bare. The right nipple is slightly raised from the chest with no
surrounding incision. The spreading break at the neck indicates the presence of a
beard. Drapery falls vertically behind the left elbow.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

7 Legs of a statuette, probably of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 8

S 3160. Catalogued July 24, 1978, from uninventoried marbles in the resi-
dential and industrial neighborhood southwest of the Agora Square (section OO).
H. 9.6; W. 8.4; D. 5.0 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 30–34 cm. Wt. 0.55 kg.
Missing: waist and upper body, and lower legs with feet. The fragment is
chipped at the knee and the lower drapery at the front. There are encrustations
on the back.
White, fine-grained marble. There are traces of polish on the drapery at the
back.
The stance and composition of the drapery recall the London-Eleusis ver-
sion of the Giustini model. The figure places its weight on the left leg, while the
right knee is bent. The figure’s himation is gathered under the missing left arm
and then falls in long, vertical folds along the left thigh and knee. An arcing fold
frames the right leg, falling from the groin to the ankle, while a second fold falls
parallel from the groin to the knee. On the back, parallel folds droop toward the
right leg, emphasizing the projecting knee.
Unpublished.
Roman period.
590 brian martens

8 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Figs. 7, 8

S 1807. Upper body catalogued in February 1954, from uninventoried marbles
in the residential and industrial neighborhood southwest of the Agora Square (sec-
tion ΠΠ). Lower body catalogued in February 1954, from uninventoried marbles
east of the Odeion (section O).
H. 19.1; W. 10.5; D. 5.5 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 8.9; original H. of figure
ca. 30–32 cm. Wt. 1.48 kg.
Two joining pieces: upper and lower body. Missing: head with neck, right arm,
legs below the knees, and most of snake and staff. Large portions are chipped from
the left pectoral and arm, the right knee, and the back below the right shoulder.
White, very fine-grained marble; not a local Athenian stone. The piece has a
hard polish throughout, preserved especially at the sides.
The figure stands with its weight on the left leg, while the right leg is relaxed
and bent at the knee. A heavy himation is draped over the left shoulder, across the
back diagonally, and under the right arm. The garment passes over the abdomen
in a thick swath, barely twisted, and terminates over the projecting left elbow. The
chest and upper abdomen are bare, revealing wide pectorals with thickset abdominal
musculature. Long, diagonal folds fall toward the lower right leg, emphasizing the
projecting knee. On the whole, the drapery is hard and schematic, ranging from
deeply cut to lightly incised folds. Part of the staff, which was positioned under
the right arm, remains at the right knee with a portion of a snake’s twisting up-
per body. The break of the staff follows the side of the figure’s body with a slight
bend while tracing the contour of the hip. Drapery on the back is treated more
summarily. There are diagonal folds from the left shoulder to the right leg and a
mass of fabric falling behind the left arm.
Unpublished.
Possibly late 3rd or 4th century a.d. (see p. 551, above).

9 Fragmentary unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

143. On the deposit, see Shear 1937,
S 854. Excavated March 19, 1937, from mid-3rd-century a.d. fill in well J 18:2 pp. 181–184; Agora V, p. 125; Agora
on the northern slope of the Areopagos (section Y at J/13,14–18/16,17).143 The fill VII, p. 226; Agora XXXII, p. 300.
was deposited immediately following the Herulian sack. Other marbles excavated 144. Votive relief of Aphrodite
in the dumped fill, including three unfinished works, point to refuse from a sculp- (S 851): Shear 1937, p. 181, fig. 7;
tor’s workshop.144 Bronze sculptures were found in the layer.145 Agora XXXVIII, pp. 27–28, no. 4, pl. 1.
H. 32.2; W. 14.0; D. 8.2 cm. H. of figure ca. 27.5; W. of shoulders ca. 7.7 cm. Hekataion (S 852): Shear 1937,
Wt. 4.99 kg. pp. 181, 184, fig. 8; Agora XI, p. 103,
Missing: left side of the head and side of right upper arm. no. 147, pl. 36. Statuette of the Mother
White, very fine-grained marble with purplish streaks; not a local Athenian of the Gods (S 853): Shear 1937,
p. 184, fig. 9; Vermaseren 1982, p. 25,
stone. The statuette was roughed out with a pointed chisel. A small flat chisel
no. 60, pl. IX. Statuette of a satyr
was used to render the head and facial features. The bottom side of the plinth
(S 855): Shear 1937, p. 184, fig. 11.
preserves a face of the quarried block. The sculptor first worked the front plane of Unfinished relief of Men(?) (S 857):
the statuette and moved from top to bottom. Shear 1937, p. 184, fig. 10; Agora
The figure stands with its weight on the left leg. A himation hangs over the XXXVIII, p. 134, no. 200, pl. 55.
left shoulder, is wrapped under the right arm, and passes over the abdomen to Others, unpublished: unfinished
terminate at the projecting left elbow. The right hand is placed at the figure’s side, statuette of Aphrodite (S 856); un-
above a rounded object, possibly the head of a serpent companion. The figure directs finished statuette head of Dionysos
its gaze to the right. Facial features are sketched: bulging eyes, a flat-bridged nose, (S 859).
and a close beard. The hair is parted at the center and rolled along the sides of the 145. Statuette of Aphrodite (B 409),
face. A band of marble around the neck stabilized the head during sculpting. A statuette of a lar (B 413), and statuette
of Isis Lactans (B 412 + B 2119):
diagonal break, however, runs from the top of the head to the left shoulder, surely
Sharpe 2014, pp. 147–154, nos. 1–3,
the mistake that resulted in the statuette’s abandonment. The figure’s anatomy has
figs. 6–10. Pediment-topped plaque
not emerged from the back plane. The bottom of the rectangular plinth is uneven, with Men (B 411): Lane 1964, p. 9,
causing the statuette to lean forward sharply. no. 11, pl. 2. Other bronzes, unpub-
Unpublished. lished: a statuette head of a child
Around a.d. 250, given the context; terminus ante quem a.d. 267. (B 414); small boukranion (B 415).
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 591

10 Fragmentary unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

S 1687. Excavated February 21, 1953, from Herulian destruction debris near
the back wall of South Stoa II (section T at M/19,N/3–15/11,13).
H. 25.9; W. 13.5; D. 10.0 cm. H. of plinth 3.4; W. of shoulders ca. 9.0; original
H. of figure ca. 26–29 cm. Wt. 3.76 kg.
Missing: head with neck. The statuette is chipped along the right shoulder,
the chest, and ridges of the drapery. There is a fracture around the right wrist. The
surface is worn. There are light encrustations on the back.
White, fine-grained marble. The flat chisel was used to render the drapery
and level the underside of the plinth. The drill was used to delineate the body
from the plinth. The back was roughed out with a pointed chisel. At the front,
the statuette’s right and lower sides are less complete, giving the impression that
the sculptor worked from the upper left to the lower right.
The figure stands with its weight on the left leg, while the right leg is bent at
the knee. A heavy himation wraps over the left shoulder, under the right arm, and
across the abdomen. Drapery is still and angular. The chest has been rendered, but
the musculature has not been modeled. The right forearm is too large for the scale
of the statuette. The right hand has been sketched; fingers were roughly articulated
with the edge of a flat chisel. A hairline crack developed around the right wrist.
This defect, along with the broken head, explains the figure’s abandonment during
production. Below the right hand, a serpent’s head has been shaped. The figure’s
feet are roughly worked spheres at the base of the mantle. A lump of marble on the
plinth by the figure’s right ankle was reserved for an omphalos. The back has been
roughed out with projections behind the left arm and across the back reserved for
the edges of the himation. The plinth is roughly oval.
Unpublished.
Probably mid-3rd century a.d., given the context; terminus ante quem a.d.
267.

11 Legs of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

S 3202. Catalogued July 11, 1978, from uninventoried marbles in the resi-
dential and industrial neighborhood southwest of the Agora Square (section ΠΠ).
H. 8.6; W. 8.5; D. 4.8 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 26–30 cm. Wt. 0.39 kg.
Missing: upper body from above the waist, and lower legs from the knees. The
surface is worn and there are heavy encrustations on the front.
White, fine-grained marble. There are traces of a high, reflective polish under
the encrustations, especially along the side of the right leg.
The figure places its weight on its left leg, while the right knee is bent forward.
The figure wears a heavy himation, which falls in a V-shaped arrangement under
the now-missing left arm. Over the groin, the drapery also collects in V-shaped
folds. Drapery at the back was summarily executed.
Unpublished.
2nd or 3rd century a.d.

12 Legs of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

S 2918. Catalogued July 11, 1978, from uninventoried marbles near the
Tholos (section B).
H. 10.3; W. 8.5; D. 5.1 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 24–26 cm. Wt. 0.49 kg.
Missing: upper body from above the waist, and feet with the ankles. The
fragment is chipped at the right knee and along ridges of the drapery. The surface
is worn and there are some encrustations on the drapery at the left side.
White, fine-grained marble. There are no visible tool marks.
The figure stands with its weight on the left leg and the right knee bent. The
himation falls in V-shaped folds at the left side of the waist with vertical folds
592 brian martens

below. Deep V-shaped folds collect over the groin. Drapery at the back is heavy and
schematic. Folds arc from the left side of the figure toward the right knee and ankle.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

13 Plinth of a statuette of Asklepios, possibly Giustini model Fig. 28

S 587. Excavated May 20, 1935, from cistern D 10:1 on the southern side
of the Kolonos Agoraios (section ΠΘ at D/2,5–10/17,19); the associated fill is
Herulian destruction cleanup.146
H. 7.2; W. 13.7; D. 8.8 cm. H. of plinth 4.1; original H. of figure ca. 25–30 cm.
Wt. 1.18 kg.
Missing: figure from above the ankles, including most of the serpent-entwined
staff. The fragment is chipped along edges of the plinth.
White, fine-grained marble. The feet have a high, reflective polish. The rasp
was applied on the top surface of the plinth. The flat chisel was used for the lateral
faces of the plinth. A fine-pointed drill was used to separate the toes. The pointed
chisel was used to level the underside of the plinth.
An irregular pentagonal plinth preserves, at the right, a staff with the tail of
a snake, and at the center, two bare feet. The right foot turns slightly outward,
suggesting that the figure’s weight was placed on the left leg. The toenails are
delicately carved. An omphalos topped with falling drapery sits at the far left. The
stance and attributes correspond to the Giustini model. The top face of the plinth
slopes forward. The sides of the plinth are flat, without moldings.
Unpublished.
Probably 2nd or 3rd century a.d.; terminus ante quem a.d. 267.

14 Lower body of an unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Fig. 9

Giustini model
S 1262. Excavated June 6, 1947, in the residential and industrial district
southwest of the Agora Square (section ΠΠ, no grid reference). A coin of Honorius
(a.d. 393–423) dates the fill.
H. 10.0; W. 13.4; D. 6.9 cm. H. of plinth ca. 2.4; original H. of figure
ca. 23–26 cm. Wt. 1.08 kg.
Missing: body from above knees, upper part of the snake and staff, and front
left corner of the plinth. The fragment is chipped along ridges of the drapery and
along edges of the plinth. The surface is worn and there are some root marks on
the back.
White, fine-grained, micaceous marble. There are successive short, punch-like
strokes of a small flat chisel along the side of the figure’s left drapery. A flat chisel
was used on the top face of the plinth. A drill (Diam. 0.2 cm) traced the contours
of the feet. There are possible traces of red pigment around the coils of the snake,
perhaps instead pointing to a finished state. A pointed chisel was used to level the
underside of the plinth.
The figure wears a heavy himation, terminating above the ankles. There is a
triangular fold in the mantle above the left foot, as in the Giustini prototype. The
right foot is drawn back and pointed outward. The stone around and between the
feet has not been removed beyond the ankles. The himation falls in vertical folds
along the left side of the figure’s body with the bottom edge resting atop a small
omphalos. A serpent-entwined staff abuts the right side of the figure’s body. The
drapery at the back was summarily executed with arcing folds falling from the left 146. On the deposit, see T. L. Shear
side. The plinth is roughly oval. 1935a, pp. 443–447; 1936a, pp. 16–19;
Unpublished. Agora X, pp. 136–137; Agora XXXII,
Roman period. p. 295.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 593

15 Plinth of a statuette of Asklepios, possibly Giustini model Fig. 5

S 3290. Catalogued July 10, 1978, from uninventoried marbles on the north
slope of the Areopagos (section Φ).
H. 6.9; W. 9.1; D. 7.5 cm. H. of plinth 3.7–4.0; original H. of figure ca. 25 cm.
Wt. 0.66 kg.
Missing: body of figure from above the ankles, most of snake and staff, ompha-
los, and left side of the plinth. The fragment is weathered and chipped throughout.
White, coarse-grained marble. The top of the plinth is lightly polished. A
drill was used around the ankles and the attributes.
A plinth preserves the figure’s feet and attributes. Bare feet are set close to the
front edge of the plinth. The right foot points outward, suggesting that the figure
placed its weight on the left leg. To the right side are the lowermost portions of
a serpent-entwined staff. The tail of the snake stretches around the back side of
the figure. A rounded object, probably the omphalos, rests immediately to the left
of the figure; the break over its top suggests falling drapery above. The himation
falls to the ground at the back. Folds of the himation are faintly visible there. The
plinth, as preserved, seems to have been rectangular. A molding runs the front and
right faces of the plinth. The back face of the plinth is flat.
Unpublished.
2nd or 3rd century a.d.

16 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

S 3503. Excavated in 1995 or 1996 from the area of the Classical Commercial
Building (section ΒΕ, no grid reference).
H. 9.1; W. 10.0; D. 6.0 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 7.1; original H. of figure
ca. 25–30 cm. Wt. 0.67 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right arm, lower body from the abdomen, and most
of the staff. The fragment has minor chipping at the ridges of the drapery.
White, fine-grained marble. The fragment was rasped heavily on the back
drapery and flesh. There are traces of a dark red pigment on the left elbow.
The figure wears a heavy himation over the left shoulder, wrapped under the
right arm, brought across the abdomen, and thrown over the projecting left elbow.
The edge of the himation passes over the abdomen in a thick, rolled swath. The
chest and right arm are left bare. The nipples are raised slightly from the chest.
The spreading break at the neck indicates a beard. A staff is positioned under the
right arm. At the back, heavy drapery falls over the left arm, and the thick, rolled
edge of the himation arcs from the left shoulder to under the right arm.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

17 Fragmentary statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

S 357. Excavated May 10, 1933, from Late Roman fill in the Great Drain
southeast of the Tholos (section Z at H/12,13–12/12,13).
H. 21.4; W. 10.4; D. 5.6 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 7.2; original H. of figure
25–30 cm. Wt. 1.20 kg.
Missing: head, right arm with elbow, feet, and lower left drapery. The fragment
is heavily stained from iron corrosion.
White, medium-grained marble. The fragment was rasped heavily on the
drapery and flesh. A drill was used to create a deep cavity under the left arm. A
drill was also used in the deep folds of the himation and under the garment around
the ankles. There is a drill dot (Diam. 0.3 cm) under the right arm, possibly for
attachment of the staff.
594 brian martens

The elongated figure stands with weight on the left leg. The upper body leans
sharply to the figure’s right side. The figure wears a closely fitted himation over
the left shoulder; the garment clings unnaturally to the side of the shoulder and
upper arm. The space under the left arm is drilled deeply, creating a cavity that
exposes the armpit and inner biceps. The himation collects high under the right
armpit, arcs low over the abdomen in an untwisted swath, and is tossed over the
projecting left elbow. The chest and right arm are bare. Thick folds collect under
the projecting left arm. The drapery at the back is schematic and summary. At the
back, parallel, vertical folds run down the left side of the body to create a mass of
drapery that is comparable to statuette 2.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

18 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Fig. 9

S 562. Excavated May 4, 1935, from late fill below the Street of the Holy
Apostles (section K, no grid reference).
H. 12.5; W. 9.2; D. 4.6 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 6.1; original H. of figure
ca. 22–25 cm. Wt. 0.69 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right forearm with elbow, lower body from above
the knees, back left shoulder and drapery, and most of the staff. The fragment is
chipped at the left pectoral, the right shoulder, and along the ridges of the drapery.
There are encrustations on the front. The upper chest and break at the neck were
exposed to burning.
White, fine-grained, micaceous marble. The rasp was used liberally through-
out, including on the flesh.
The figure stands with weight on its left leg. The right leg projects slightly,
presumably bent at the knee. A himation is worn over the left shoulder, is brought
around the back and under the right arm, and passes across the abdomen in a nar-
row, unrolled swath. The left hand is placed on the hip, concealed by the himation.
The left edge of the himation forms a flat surface along the side of the figure’s
body. Part of the staff is preserved under the right arm, angled as if to rest behind
the projecting knee. A small strut on the right thigh shows where the upper body
of the snake connected to the figure, or where the figure’s hand touched the thigh.
Drapery at the back was summarily executed.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

19 Plinth of a statuette of Asklepios with Telesphoros, Fig. 5

possibly Giustini model
S 1252. Catalogued June 12, 1947, from uninventoried marbles in the resi-
dential and industrial neighborhood southwest of the Agora (section NN).
H. 5.4; W. 13.5; D. 7.1 cm. H. of plinth 4.8; original H. of figure ca. 20–25 cm.
Wt. 0.90 kg.
Missing: figure above the feet, Telesphoros, and staff with snake. Chipped at
omphalos and along edges of the plinth.
White, fine-grained marble. The rasp was applied over the tail of the snake
for texture. There is a drill dot (Diam. 0.4 cm) at the central coil of the snake. A
flat chisel was used on the top and sides of the plinth. A pointed chisel was used
to flatten the underside of the plinth and to sketch the molding on the left lateral
face of the plinth.
A roughly rectangular plinth preserves the feet and attributes of a figure with
the stance of the Giustini model. Two sandaled feet rest at the center-right of the
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 595

plinth; the right foot is outturned. The toes and toenails are delineated with inci-
sions. The line separating each toe continues under the strap of the sandal and onto
the top of the foot. At the figure’s right side is the tail of a coiled snake and to the
left is a broken omphalos. The spreading break over the omphalos suggests it was
topped by falling drapery. Telesphoros stands at the front left corner of the plinth,
now preserved only as tiny bare feet brought closely together and emerging from
ground-length drapery. The front and lateral faces of the plinth have a molding
with a top fillet projecting farther than the bottom fillet. The molding at the left
side is incomplete, having only been sketched. The back face of the plinth is flat.
Unpublished.
Mid-2nd to 3rd centuries a.d., given the presence of Telesphoros.

20 Unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Figs. 9, 16

S 875. Excavated April 3, 1937, from Late Roman destruction fill over the
Southwest House on the northern slope of the Areopagos (section Φ at M/1,2–
18/12,13). A head of Asklepios (39) was found in the same stratum. Other marble
sculptures belonging to the assemblage were found over the floor of the house (see
pp. 574–576, above).
H. 19.5; W. 8.7; D. 5.0 cm.
Missing: lower right corner of the figure including part of the snake, staff, and
right foot, with the break extending to the front of the left foot.
White marble. The front of the figure was rendered with a flat chisel. The
back was roughed out with a pointed chisel.
The figure stands with its weight on the left leg. The figure wears a hima-
tion over the left shoulder, across the back, and under the right arm. The edge
of the himation passes in a slightly rolled swath across the upper abdomen. The
bare right arm extends downward against the edge of the staff, holding an egg
to a snake. The figure glances to the right, but its gaze remains directed forward.
The beard and mustache are full. The corona tortilis sits high on the head as thick
curls frame the face below. The drapery at the back is rendered only over the left
shoulder and arm.
Agora XXIV, p. 36, pl. 23:a; Sirano 1994, pp. 207, 215, 217, no. 5, fig. 8:a, b.
2nd or 3rd century a.d., given the presence of the egg; the archaeological
context provides a terminus ante quem of around a.d. 275.

21 Torso and head of an unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Figs. 9, 16

Giustini model
S 3331. Catalogued August 22, 1979, from uninventoried marbles in the
Agora (section unknown).
H. 8.0; W. 6.0; D. 2.7 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 4.1; original H. of figure ca.
16–19 cm. Wt. 0.14 kg.
Missing: figure from below the abdomen. There is a flat break across the
back. There are some encrustations throughout. The sculptor worked from the
front plane inward and left stone around the neck in order to stabilize the head.
White, very-fine grained marble. The face and drapery were rendered with
a small flat chisel.
The bearded figure wears a himation over the left shoulder and under the
right arm, passing in a band across the projecting left elbow. A heavy roll of hair,
parted at the center, frames the face. The head is crowned by the corona tortilis.
Unpublished.
Roman period.
596 brian martens

22 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Giustini model Figs. 9, 16

S 727. Excavated April 17, 1936, from 19th-century fill west of the Hephais-
teion (section KK at D/13,14–6/7,8).
H. 8.6; W. 6.4; D. 3.6 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 4.0; original H. of figure
ca. 13–16 cm. Wt. 0.22 kg.
Missing: head and neck, right forearm with elbow, legs from the knees, and
most of the staff. There is a scratch across the right pectoral. There are encrustations
uniformly on the back, possibly mortar, as if the statuette was once set into a wall.
White, medium-grained marble. There are traces of polish on the back drapery,
under encrustations. The use of a rasp is visible along the right side of body and,
faintly, at the chest and right arm. A drill (Diam. 0.2 cm) was used in the folds of
drapery at figure’s left side. There is a single drill dot (Diam. 0.2 cm) at the side
of the right thigh.
The figure places its weight on the left leg, while the right thigh projects,
presumably bent at the knee. A heavy himation is wrapped over the left shoulder,
under the right arm, and over the abdomen, terminating behind the projecting left
elbow. The right shoulder, chest, and upper abdominals are bare. The right pectoral
overhangs the edge of the himation. The break at the neck extends onto the chest,
indicating the presence of a beard. The figure leans on a staff, a small portion of
which survives under the right arm. The folds of the himation are formalized and
closely spaced. Folds cut into the figure’s flesh at the upper right thigh. The edge
of the himation falls around the upper back in a rounded swath. Wavy folds fall
behind the left arm, arcing to meet the projecting right knee.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

23 Torso of an inscribed statuette of Asklepios, Figs. 6, 9, 16, 32

Giustini model
S 480. Excavated April 18, 1934, from a modern wall west of the Odeion
(section M at K/12,13–11/14,15).
H. 8.9; W. 5.3; D. 2.8 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 3.7; original H. of figure
ca. 13–16 cm. Wt. 0.17 kg.
Missing: head, right forearm with elbow, and legs below the knees. The
statuette is chipped along ridges of drapery. There are encrustations on the back,
probably mortar from placement in a wall.
White, very fine-grained marble, not from a known Athenian quarry. There is
a high, glossy polish throughout. The drill (Diam. 0.2 cm) was used in the himation
at the underside of the left arm.
The statuette has elongated proportions with narrow shoulders and subdued
musculature. Its weight is placed on the left leg. The figure wears a himation over
the left shoulder, concealing the left arm. The mantle is wrapped around the back
and under the right arm, leaving the right arm and chest bare. The rolled edge of
the himation passes across the upper abdomen and is thrown over the projecting
left elbow. Folds are carved under the drapery at the left side, as if the statuette
were to be viewed from all angles. A faint break along the right side of the body
perhaps belongs to a staff.
On the side of the upper right arm, three letters are faintly inscribed side-by-
side: ΧṂΘ̣. The text is probably meant to be read horizontally with the statuette
laid on its front face. Letter H. 0.2–0.3 cm.
Letter 2: A four-barred mu, splayed strokes; a four-barred sigma if the statuette
is rotated to an upright position.
Letter 3: A round letter, depressed at its center, which is obscured by encrusta-
tion: omicron or theta. Stray incisions outside the circle.

147. Piece S 2362 (unpublished)
might be the left foot of this figure. It
was excavated July 25, 1970, from accu-
mulated fill over the nymphaeum of the
same structure (section Ω at Q-21).
The joining surface is not well pre-
served, and the heel is missing. It is
probable that the pieces belong to-
gether because the width of the ankle
and upper foot are equal (3.7–3.8 cm),
and there are corresponding strokes of
the rasp on both pieces. It is difficult to
distinguish, however, whether or not
they are made of the same marble, and
I have excluded the foot from the cata-
logue because of this uncertainty. The
differing patinations could owe to their
separate depositional histories. The foot
rests on a flat, thick sole, presumably
with straps painted on. The sandal is
indented between the big and second
toes. H of plinth 2.4 cm.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 597
Alternatively, the inscription could be read vertically with the statuette in an
upright position, top to bottom: Θ̣Σ̣Χ
Unpublished.
Probably 4th century a.d. (see p. 551, above).
24 Torso and head of an unfinished statuette of Asklepios, Figs. 9, 16
Giustini model
S 1633. Excavated April 15, 1952, from Late Roman fill over the East Build-
ing of the South Square (section T at O/19,P/2–15/4,11).
H. 7.6; W. 6.0; D. 3.4 cm. H. of head including beard 3.1; W. of shoulders
ca. 4.6; original H. of figure ca. 13–16 cm. Wt. 0.17 kg.
Missing: left side of head, right arm, and lower body from the waist. Surface
worn. Some root marks.
White, fine-grained marble. The flat chisel was used to render the face and
upper back. A band of stone remains around the neck for stability during the
sculpting process.
The figure leans on a staff, the stub of which is preserved under the right
arm. The figure wears a heavy himation over the left shoulder and under the
right arm. The rolled edge of the mantle passes over the chest and is thrown over
the projecting left elbow. The figure turns its bearded head sharply to the right
and glances down; the outline of the right eye is preserved. A flat ribbon is tied
around the head with its ends resting on the shoulders. At the back, long folds
of drapery fall diagonally over the left shoulder. A thick band of twisted drapery
swoops over the upper back.
Unpublished.
Roman period.
25 Fragmentary small-scale statue of Asklepios-Sarapis Fig. 24
S 1068. Excavated May 25, 1938, from 7th-century a.d. destruction debris
over the Omega House (section Ω at P-21).
H. 84.0; W. ca. 37.0; D. ca. 18.5 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 28.0; original H. of
figure ca. 100–110 cm. Wt. not measured, mounted for museum display.
Missing: head with neck, right arm above the elbow, feet,147 and lower portion
of the snake and staff. Surface weathered throughout. Chipped at ridges of the
drapery. The snake and staff were defaced, and there are gouges at the back of the
neck from the forced removal of the head.
White, fine-grained marble. The ankles were rasped, as was the surface behind
and under the right knee. There are three dowel holes for separate attachment of
the right elbow and forearm: one under the arm (Diam. ca. 1.1 cm) with a joining
surface preserved (without anathyrosis), and two others at the side of body (Diam.
ca. 1.2–1.4 cm) with a flattened joining surface preserved.
The figure places its weight on the left leg with the right leg relaxed. The
figure wears a chiton beneath a heavy himation. The himation is worn over the
left shoulder and wraps under the right arm, with a prominent overfold hanging
across the midsection. The himation falls freely at the left side as the hand emerges
from the garment in order to grasp the serpent-entwined staff, which is positioned
low and close against the leg. The chiton collects in U-shaped folds over the chest,
which are thick enough to conceal underlying anatomy. The chiton is pinned
along the shoulder and upper arm; its short sleeve apparently ended where the
right arm was attached. The separate attachment of the right arm was original; the
arm probably was outstretched and thus extended beyond the plane of the body’s
quarried block. Heavy, diagonal folds fall to the right knee and ankle from the left
hip, emphasizing the projecting knee. Tool marks along the right knee suggest
598 brian martens

the presence of a figure or attribute, possibly Kerberos; there is no indication of a

tree trunk support. Drapery at the back of the figure is summary and block-like.
Thompson 1976, p. 302; Agora XXIV, p. 41, pl. 39:d; Gawlinski 2014, p. 95;
Martens 2015.
Roman period.

26 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Velia model Fig. 17

S 1805. Catalogued February 1954, from uninventoried marbles at the eastern
end of the South Square (section Π).
H. 13.8; W. 13.9; D. 7.3 cm. W. of shoulders 10.1; original H. of figure 35–40 cm.
Wt. 1.74 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right arm below shoulder to wrist, left forearm with
elbow, legs from below the waist, and most of staff under the left arm. The surface
is worn and there are some encrustations.
White, medium-grained marble. Polish is preserved on the himation-draped
left arm. There are long vertical strokes of the flat chisel on the drapery at the figure’s
left side. A drill (Diam. ca. 0.2–0.3 cm) was used between and under drapery folds
and to separate the chest from the drapery. There is a single drill dot (Diam. ca.
0.2 cm) behind the left shoulder. There are traces of red pigment on the drapery
over the left arm and on the right side of the upper back.
The figure wears a heavy himation over the left shoulder. The himation passes
under the right arm and low over the right abdomen, rises quickly toward the left
pectoral, and is gathered under the arm. The end of the himation hangs freely over
the left side of the torso. The figure thrusts its hip to the right side as it leans on
the staff. The large right hand rests on the projecting hip. The low break over the
chest indicates a beard. Drapery at the back was executed more summarily, where
folds radiate uninterrupted from the left shoulder.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

27 Right side of a statuette of Asklepios, probably Velia model Fig. 18

S 2979. Catalogued July 28, 1978, from uninventoried marbles in the area of
the Eleusinion (section ΕΛ).
H. 19.1; W. 4.6; D. 7.6; original H. of figure ca. 30–35 cm. Wt. 0.78 kg.
Missing: entire left side of the body, head with neck, right arm, and right
leg from below the knee. The fingers and ridges of the drapery are chipped. The
fragment is weathered and there are encrustations throughout.
White, medium-grained marble. There is a stroke of a chisel over the right
pectoral, possibly incurred during later damage. The drill was used under the wrist.
There is an iron dowel (Diam. ca. 0.6 cm) in the right wrist, indicating a later
repair; no joining surface is preserved.
The figure stands with its right hand on the hip. The outthrust hip indicates
that the weight was placed on the right leg. A himation was evidently draped over
the left shoulder. The garment is brought low over the torso in a rolled swath.
There is an overfold at the waist.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

28 Unfinished(?) torso of a statuette of Asklepios, Eleusis model Fig. 15

S 323. Excavated April 3, 1933, from Late Roman fill in the Great Drain,
east of the Tholos (section Z at I/5,6–11/17,18).
H. 17.6; W. 11.2; D. 6.3 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 8.1; original H. of figure
28–32 cm. Wt. 1.46 kg.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 599

Missing: head with neck, right arm from below the biceps, and lower body
along a diagonal break running from the left hip to the right knee. The staff is
broken immediately under the right arm. The surface is worn and there is iron
corrosion on chest. There are root marks on the back.
White, fine-grained marble. There are abundant marks of the flat chisel over
the drapery and the upper abdomen, possibly indicating that this piece is unfinished.
The statuette adopts the posture and composition of the Eleusis model. The
figure stands on its left leg while the right leg is relaxed. The balance of the weight
is placed on a staff, a short fragment of which is preserved under the right arm.
The figure wears a heavy himation over the left shoulder and under the right arm,
leaving the chest bare. The ends of the himation are tucked under the left arm,
apparently having been gathered in the left hand, which hides behind the project-
ing hip. A large overfold in the himation hangs across the waist, almost reaching
the knees. The right arm is held back slightly, probably indicating a bent elbow.
The deep break at the neck suggests a bearded figure who directed his gaze to the
right. The back is almost entirely enveloped within the himation with only the
right shoulder bare. Folds at the reverse are summary.
Hausmann 1954–1955, p. 146; LIMC II, 1984, p. 883, no. 241, s.v. Asklepios
(B. Holtzmann).
Roman period(?).

29 Torso of a statuette, probably Asklepios close to the Eleusis model Fig. 16

S 3041. Catalogued July 11, 1978, from uninventoried marbles in the Agora
(section unknown).
H. 5.5; W. 6.1; D. 3.4 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 4.3; original H. of figure
ca. 14–16 cm. Wt. 0.14 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right arm from below the shoulder, and lower body
from the waist. The statuette is chipped behind the left elbow, over the abdomen,
and along ridges of the drapery.
White, fine-grained marble. There are traces of high, reflective polish through-
out. There is a drilled channel between the abdomen and the himation.
The himation is worn over the figure’s left shoulder and is pulled tightly across
the back. The left arm, wrapped in the garment, is bent and held at the small of
the back. The himation is wrapped under the right arm and passed low over the
waist. The right hip projects dramatically, indicating the weight-bearing leg. Traces
of the figure’s beard are visible below the break of the neck.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

30 Torso of a statuette of Asklepios Fig. 2

S 1589. Excavated March 18, 1952, from a Byzantine wall east of the Odeion
(section O at N/10–11/12,13).
H. 23.5; W. 13.0; D. 5.9 cm. W. of shoulders ca. 8.1; original H. of figure
ca. 30–32 cm. Wt. 2.16 kg.
Missing: head with neck, right forearm with elbow, feet with lower drapery,
and lower portion of the snake and staff. The fragment is chipped behind the right
shoulder, at the left edge of the himation, and along ridges of the drapery. There
are encrustations throughout, and the statuette is stained from iron corrosion on
the front drapery. The figure was drilled for setting into a base in 1952.
White, fine-grained marble. The himation was rasped throughout. A drill
(Diam. ca. 0.6 cm) was used to separate the staff from the body. A dowel hole
(Diam. 0.5 cm) in the neck, without a joining surface, was for an antique repair
to the head. Two other dowel holes (Diam. ca. 0.4–0.5 cm) at the bottom of the
mantle, also without joining surfaces, were used to repair the feet.
600 brian martens

The elongated figure stands wearing a himation in a drapery composition

unparalleled for Asklepios. The figure throws its hip to the left as it places its
weight on the left leg and bends the right knee. A himation is draped over the
edge of the upper left arm and across the back. The garment then passes under
the right arm and continues across the upper abdomen in a thick swath that rests
over the projecting left elbow. Heavy folds gather around the left forearm, giving
clear shape to the appendage. The hidden left hand, bound in the mantle, rests
on the projecting hip. Both shoulders remain bare. The right pectoral and biceps
are compartmentalized, as if separately conceived. The figure leans on a staff with
a climbing serpent, which is preserved under the right arm in its near entirety.
The staff has been expertly separated from the body by a thinly drilled passage. A
small strut at the right hip marks where the right hand touched the body. At the
back, the himation is wrapped closely over the right buttock, with folds falling
from the left shoulder.
Thompson 1953, pp. 54–55, pl. 19:c, d; LIMC II, 1984, p. 883, no. 258,
s.v. Asklepios (B. Holtzmann).
Hellenistic period, possibly 2nd century b.c. (see pp. 548–549, above).

31 Plinth of a statuette, possibly Asklepios Fig. 5

S 2949. Catalogued July 10, 1978, from uninventoried marbles southwest of
the Agora Square (section Δ).
H. 3.2; W. 11.7; D. 8.1 cm. H. of plinth 2.3; original H. of figure ca. 25–
35 cm. Wt. 0.50 kg.
Missing: figure except for part of right foot, most of serpent, and left side of
plinth. The fragment is chipped at the edges of the plinth.
White, fine-grained marble. The top of the plinth was given a dull polish.
The use of the rasp is lightly visible on the top face of the plinth, behind the snake.
The underside of the plinth was leveled with a flat chisel.
A fragmentary plinth preserves the foot of a sandaled figure. The foot touches
the front edge of the plinth. The figure’s toes and nails were articulated with
incisions. To the right of the figure, the tail of a snake is preserved alongside a
circular break, probably as it coiled around a staff. The plinth, if symmetrical, was
octagonal, but with slight corners, almost forming an oval. A molding runs the
perimeter of the plinth.
Unpublished.
2nd or 3rd century a.d.

32 Head of a small-scale statue, probably of Asklepios Figs. 20, 23

S 3406. Excavated August 1, 1989, from Byzantine fill over the Northwest
Baths, located northwest of the Augustan podium temple (section BZ at I/19–2/14).
H. 22.8; W. 17.2; D. 15.0 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 130 cm. Wt. 7.96 kg.
Missing: body from below the neck. The head is chipped at the nose, forehead,
hair, and beard. The fragment is weathered.
White, fine-grained, micaceous marble. A drill (Diam. 0.5 cm) was used
liberally to create the curls of the beard and the locks of hair. There are drill dots
(Diam. 0.5 cm) at the corners of the mouth and above the lip at the part of the
mustache. A pointed chisel was used to render the hair at the back.
The elongated face is characterized by large, thick-lidded, downturned eyes
that impart empathy. The figure directs its gaze upward, and it would have held
its head slightly to the left. The eyes are asymmetrical, with the right lid swoop-
ing lower. The pupils and irises are not carved. A deep line over the forehead is
possibly later damage but could also belong to an exaggerated furrow. The beard
swirls around the jaw and chin in thick locks. The mustache conceals the upper

148. On the deposit, see Agora XII,
p. 386; Agora XXXII, p. 294.
149. Results of the marble sampling
by Norman Herz were inconclusive at
the time and were not published. The
marble has been tested again, but the
results were not yet available at the time
of publication.
150. On the deposit, see Agora V,
p. 124; Agora XXXII, p. 293; Agora
XXXIV, p. 178.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 601
lip. The mouth is closed. Long, tousled hair surrounds the face and falls onto the
shoulders. A narrow band, round in section—possibly the corona tortilis—encircles
the crown of the head. The hair on the back of the head was carved summarily.
Unpublished.
Roman period, probably 3rd century a.d.
33 Head of a small-scale statue, possibly Asklepios Figs. 3, 20
S 759. Excavated May 23, 1936, from well C 13:2, located south of the Kolonos
Agoraios (section ΠΘ at C/15,16–13/14,15). Period-of-use fill of the first half of
the 3rd century a.d.148 A female head (43), possibly of Hygieia or another daughter
of the god, was found in the same stratum and was paired with the figure.
H. 12.0; W. 10.3; D. 9.9 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 65–75 cm. Wt. 1.41 kg.
Missing: body with the neck. The fragment is chipped at the nose and curls of
the hair and beard. There is pinkish orange corrosion over the right side of the face.
Whitish gray, coarse-grained marble, same as 43; not a local Athenian stone.
The flesh is highly polished but not glossy. The top of the head was shaped with
a flat chisel. Point-drilling (Diam. 0.4 cm) was used to create curls in the hair but
not in the beard. There is a dowel hole (Diam. 0.9 cm) at the underside of the
head for separate attachment to the body; a rough joining surface was created by a
small point. A smaller hole (Diam. 0.5 cm) at the underside was drilled for marble
sampling in 1977.149
Long, curly locks of hair are pushed forward, framing the face, but there is
no carved fillet. Strands of hair are barely rendered on the top of the head, and
there is no part. A deep furrow runs the length of the brow. The figure has narrow,
downturned eyes with thickened upper lids. The bridge of the nose is broad, and
the cheekbones are high. A flowing mustache arcs over the mouth, concealing the
upper lip. The thick, full beard is heavier at the right side. The right side of the
neck was worked back, perhaps because the head was turned to the right side and
looked down.
Unpublished.
Hellenistic or Roman period(?); terminus ante quem of about a.d. 250 (see
pp. 549–550, above).
34 Head of a statuette, probably Asklepios Fig. 20
S 947. Excavated May 24, 1937, from well B 14:2, located south of the Kolonos
Agoraios (section ΠΘ at B/8,10–14/6,7). The fragment was found in period-of-use
fill dating from the late 1st century to the late 2nd century a.d.150
H. 10.1; W. 7.7; D. 6.9 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 51–55 cm. Wt. 0.68 kg.
Missing: body from below the neck. Chipped at the back of the head, at the
nose, and in the hair. There is brownish orange corrosion on the back of the head.
White, fine-grained, micaceous marble. The flesh has a dull polish. A flat
chisel was used in the hair along the left side of the face. The back of the head was
shaped with a pointed chisel. The drill was used lightly in the beard and along the
sides of the face. Drill dots mark the sides of the mouth. There are traces of red
pigment in the hair and beard.
The bearded figure glances to the left with an upturned gaze. Curly hair frames
the face; the locks along the left side of the head are rendered more preliminarily
than those along the right side, perhaps hidden by the turning head. The beard
is curly with thick, prominent tufts on and below the chin. A rounded mustache
covers the upper lip, but the lower lip is clearly articulated. The figure’s eyes are set
under a heavy, furrowed brow. The hairline is softly delineated along the forehead.
Unpublished.
Possibly Early Roman period; terminus ante quem about a.d. 200.
602 brian martens

35 Head of a statuette of Asklepios Fig. 20

S 3006. Catalogued July 14, 1978, from uninventoried marbles at the western
side of the Agora (section H′).
H. 5.6; W. 5.7; D. 4.8 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 35–40 cm. Wt. 0.19 kg.
The head is broken across the center of the face and is missing below the
nose and cheeks. The fragment is chipped at the nose, and there are encrustations
along the left side of the face.
White, fine-grained marble. There are traces of a reflective polish on the right
cheek. A small pointed chisel was used on the back of the head to sketch the hair.
The figure’s hair is parted at the center and combed away from the face in long,
curled tresses. The head is crowned by the corona tortilis; at least one incision on the
right side of the headgear indicates rolled material. The small eyes have thick upper
and lower lids. A small corner of the beard is preserved at the upper right cheek.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

36 Head of a statuette, possibly Asklepios Fig. 20

S 1275. Excavated June 25, 1947, from Late Roman fill near a probable house
located south of the Kolonos Agoraios (section ΠΠ near B/18,20–15/9,10).
H. 7.1; W. 5.4; D. 5.3 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 35–40 cm. Wt. 0.28 kg.
Missing: body from below the neck. The fragment is chipped at the upper
right side of the head and around the nose, hair, and beard.
White, fine-grained marble. A small flat chisel was used around the sides
of the beard. A bridge of stone remains around the back of the head in order to
strengthen the neck during sculpting.
The figure’s hair falls in heavy ringlets at the side of the head, bound by a
broad band, probably the corona tortilis. The hair at the crown of the head is not
articulated, almost as if the figure wears a cap. The high headband and the com-
position of the hair are comparable to a head of a statuette of Asklepios found at
Epidauros.151 The eyes are thin with thickened lids.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

37 Fragmentary head of a statuette of Asklepios Fig. 20

S 3272. Catalogued July 14, 1978, from uninventoried marbles near the South
Square (section T).
H. 6.3; W. 3.8; D. 4.7 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 31–35 cm. Wt. 0.13 kg.
Missing: left side of the head with most of the face, and body from below the
neck. The surface is worn.
White, fine-grained marble. The top of the head was shaped with a flat chisel.
A drill was used to create the channel between the right side of the face and the hair.
The figure has long, thick locks of tousled hair bound by a rolled band, circular
in section, probably the corona tortilis. The hair on top of the head has not been
articulated (as on 36). Several tufts of the beard are present.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

38 Head of a statuette of Asklepios Fig. 20

S 1934. Excavated April 12, 1956, from mixed fill in the residential and indus-
trial neighborhood southwest of the Agora Square (section ΠΠ, no grid reference).
H. 6.5; W. 4.9; D. 4.3 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 30–34 cm. Wt. 0.18 kg. 151. Athens, National Archaeologi-
Missing: body from below the neck. The fragment is chipped at the nose, hair, cal Museum 1815: Katakis 2002, p. 13,
and corona tortilis. There are encrustations on the face and in the hair. no. 9, pl. 11.

152. Athens, National Archaeologi-
cal Museum 297: Katakis 2002, pp. 9–
11, no. 6, pls. 7, 8.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 603
White, fine-grained marble. The flesh has traces of a reflective polish. Drill
dots mark the tear ducts, nostrils, and edges of the mouth.
The head glances to the right. It wears the corona tortilis with diagonal incisions
to indicate its rolled material. The figure’s long hair is parted at the center, falling
in long curled locks that frame the face. The full beard with mustache conceals
the upper lip. The upper eyelids are thick. There is a slight furrow at the brow.
Unpublished.
Roman period.
39 Head of a statuette of Asklepios Figs. 20, 25
S 885. Excavated April 5, 1937, from Late Roman destruction fill over the
Southwest House on the northern slope of the Areopagos (section Φ at M/1,2–
18/12,13). A statuette of Asklepios (20) was found in the same stratum. Other
marble sculptures belonging to the assemblage were found over the floor of the
house (see pp. 574–576, above).
H. 5.8; W. 4.3; D. 4.3 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 30–33 cm. Wt. 0.14 kg.
Missing: body below the neck. The fragment is chipped at the nose and the
corona tortilis. There are minor encrustations on the right side and back of the head.
White, fine-grained marble. The flesh is highly polished. The flat chisel was
used to create diagonal bands along the corona tortilis. There are drill dots at the
corners of the eyes, at the corners of the mouth, and for the nostrils. The drill was
also used in the beard and between the neck and hair. There are traces of dark
reddish brown pigment in the hair and along the corona tortilis. There are traces
of a yellowish orange pigment in the underside of the beard.
The hair is parted at the center, radiating in wavy, parallel locks on top of
the head. Curly tresses frame the face, pushed forward by a thick, fillet-wrapped
crown—the corona tortilis, which sits low on the head. Two prominent tufts of
the carefully rendered beard meet over the chin. The figure’s mustache conceals
much of the upper lip. The eyes have thick upper lids with slender incisions for
the eyebrows. Hair falls over the nape of the neck.
The head is closely comparable in style and technique to a statuette of
Asklepios found at Epidauros, especially when viewed in profile. Katakis has placed
the statuette from Epidauros around a.d. 225.152
Agora XXIV, p. 36, pl. 23:b.
Late 2nd or 3rd century a.d., given the volume of the hair and beard, the
heavy upper eyelids, the polish, and the incised eyebrows; the archaeological context
provides a terminus ante quem around a.d. 275.
40 Head of a statuette, possibly Asklepios Fig. 20
S 649. Excavated March 6, 1936, from Late Roman fill above South Stoa II
(section T at L/7,8–15/8,9).
H. 5.0; W. 3.5; D. 3.5 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 25–30 cm. Wt. 0.09 kg.
Missing: body below the neck. The fragment is chipped at the nose and in
the hair. The surface is worn, and there are encrustations, especially along the
right side of the face.
White, very fine-grained marble. A small flat chisel was used in the hair and
beard. There are drill dots at the corners of the mouth. There are traces of reddish
orange pigment in the hair and beard.
The figure wears a thick beard, which is heavy over the neck. The mouth is
closed with lower lip visible under the mustache. The hair is bound by a narrow
fillet, probably rolled as the corona tortilis. Hair falls in long locks over the nape
of the neck.
Unpublished.
Roman period.
604 brian martens

41 Head of a statuette of Asklepios Fig. 20

S 2333. Excavated June 22, 1970, from Roman-period accumulation behind
the Royal Stoa (section ΒΓ at H/9–4/4).
H. 4.8; W. 3.7; D. 4.0 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 25 cm. Wt. 0.09 kg.
Missing: body below the neck. The fragment is chipped at the left side of the
head and at the nose.
White, medium-grained marble. A fine-pointed drill or other tool (Diam.
0.1 cm) was used for the curls of the beard.
The figure has long hair, parted at the center and combed to the sides of the
face in long, curling locks. A narrow corona tortilis with diagonal incisions wraps
around the head. The figure has a short forehead with highly placed features. The
eyes are narrow with thick upper lids. A heavy beard falls over the neck, conceal-
ing the jawline.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

42 Head of a statuette, probably Asklepios Fig. 20

S 426. Excavated February 13, 1934, in front of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios
(section H′, no grid reference). Found under a floor dated to the 6th century a.d.
on the basis of a lamp.153
H. 4.6; W. 3.5; D. 3.4 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 21–25 cm. Wt. 0.07 kg.
Missing: body below the neck. There is minor chipping at the hair, tip of
the nose, and base of the neck. There are encrustations in crevices along the face.
White, fine-grained marble. The face has a high, reflective polish. There is a
dowel hole (Diam. 0.4 cm) under the neck for separate attachment to body; there
is no joining surface preserved.
The hair is parted at the center with individual strands indicated by parallel
incisions in a gentle wave. At the front, long locks of hair are combed outward,
framing either side of the face in a ringleted band. At the back of the head, the
hair is gathered into a rolled mass over the nape of the neck. The eyes are closely
spaced; the left eye is larger than the right. A mustache terminates in outward
curls. The lower lip is visible. The beard is stylized with a cross-hatching pattern.
The neck is broad in proportion to the width of the head.
Unpublished.
Roman period.

43 Head of a small-scale statue of a woman, possibly Hygieia Fig. 4

S 760. Excavated May 23, 1936, from well C 13:2, located south of the Kolonos
Agoraios (section ΠΘ at C/15,16–13/14,15). Period-of-use fill of the first half of
the 3rd century a.d.154 A head of a man (33) was found in the same stratum and
was paired with this head.
H. 11.2; W. 8.7; D. 10.9 cm. Original H. of figure ca. 60–70 cm. Wt. 1.12 kg.
Missing: body below the neck. There are abrasions at the brow, nose, mouth,
chin, and hair. The fragment is chipped along the edge of the neck. There is pinkish
orange corrosion on the face and at the left side of the neck.
Whitish gray, coarse-grained marble, same as 33; not a local Athenian stone.
The flesh has been given a high polish. The hair was rendered with the edge of a flat
chisel. The rasp was used at the back of the neck. Small drill dots mark each corner 153. Agora L 1263: Agora VII,
of the mouth. There is a dowel hole (Diam. 0.9 cm) at the underside of the head p. 175, no. 2400, pl. 38.
for separate attachment to the body; a roughened joining surface was created with 154. On the deposit, see n. 148,
a small pointed chisel. There are traces of yellow pigment in the hair under the bun. above.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a 605

The figure has long wavy hair, parted and gathered at the back into a wide,
folded bun. The hair along the face is combed back; not all strands begin from the
hairline. Detailing of the hair is more summary on the left side of the head; no
strands of hair are carved on the left side of the bun. The head turns to the left.
The part of the hair is slightly off-center, confirming that the face was meant to be
viewed at a minor angle. The woman has a small, closed mouth. The chin projects
roundly and the jaw is fleshy. The narrow eyes have thickened lids. The upper ears
are concealed by the hair. At the right side, the ear is more fully visible, but there is
no detailing of its interior. There are two Venus rings at the left side of the neck.
Unpublished.
Hellenistic or Roman period(?); terminus ante quem of about a.d. 250 (see
pp. 549–550, above).

REF EREN C ES

Agora = The Athenian Agora: Results of XXXVIII = C. L. Lawton, Votive

Excavations Conducted by the Ameri-
can School of Classical Studies at
Athens, Princeton
I = E. B. Harrison, Portrait
Sculpture, 1953.
V = H. S. Robinson, Pottery of
the Roman Period: Chronology, 1959.
VI = C. Grandjouan, Terracottas
and Plastic Lamps of the Roman
Period, 1961.
VII = J. Perlzweig, Lamps of the
Roman Period: First to Seventh
Century after Christ, 1961.
X = M. Lang and M. Crosby,
Weights, Measures, and Tokens, 1964.
XI = E. B. Harrison, Archaic and
Archaistic Sculpture, 1965.
XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Tal-
cott, Black and Plain Pottery of the
6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C., 1970.
XIV = H. A. Thompson and
R. E. Wycherley, The Agora of Ath-
ens: The History, Shape, and Uses of
an Ancient City Center, 1972.
XVIII = D. J. Geagan, Inscrip-
tions: The Dedicatory Monuments,
2011.
XXIV = A. Frantz, Late Antiq-
uity: A.D. 267–700, 1988.
XXVI = J. H. Kroll, with A. S.
Walker, The Greek Coins, 1993.
XXXII = J. W. Hayes, Roman
Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports, 2008.
XXXIV = G. D. Weinberg and
E. M. Stern, Vessel Glass, 2009.
XXXV = J. B. Grossman, Funer-
ary Sculpture, 2013.
Reliefs, 2017.
Albertocchi, M. 1997. “An Example of
Domestic Garden Statuary at Cos:
The Casa Romana,” in Sculptors and
Sculpture of Caria and the Dodecanese,
ed. I. Jenkins and G. B. Waywell,
London, pp. 120–126.
Aleshire, S. B. 1989. The Athenian
Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedi-
cations, and the Inventories, Amster-
dam.
———. 1991. Asklepios at Athens: Epi-
graphic and Prosopographic Essays on
the Athenian Healing Cults, Amster-
dam.
Appadurai, A. 1986. “Introduction:
Commodities and the Politics of
Value,” in The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspective,
ed. A. Appadurai, Cambridge,
pp. 3–63.
AvP XI.2 = O. Ziegenaus and G. De-
Luca, Das Asklepieion: Der nördliche
Temenosbezirk und angrenzende
Anlagen in hellenistischer und früh-
römischer Zeit (AvP XI.2), Berlin
1975.
Aybek, S. 2009. Metropolis İonia 1:
Heykel. Metropolis’de Hellenistik
ve Roma Dönemi Heykeltıraşlığı,
Istanbul.
Aybek, S., A. E. Meriç, and A. K. Öz.
2009. Metropolis: A Mother Goddess
City in Ionia (Homer Archaeologi-
cal Guides 9), Istanbul.
Berger, E. 1990. “Zwei Köpfe und ein
Torso von Asklepios-statuen,” in
606
Antike Kunstwerke aus der Sammlung
Ludwig 3: Skulpturen, ed. E. Berger,
Mainz, pp. 183–210.
Bouffartigue, J., and M. Patillon. 1979.
Porphyre: De l’abstinence, 3 vols.,
Paris.
Bouyia, P. 2008. “Ρωμαϊκά ιερά της Μη-
τρός θεών-Κυβέλης σε αθηναϊκές
αστικές επαύλεις,” in Η Αθήνα κατά
τη Ρωμαϊκή Εποχή: Πρόσφατες ανα-
καλύψεις, νέες έρευνες (Benaki
Museum Suppl. 4), ed. S. Vlizos,
Athens, pp. 207–229.
Boyce, G. K. 1937. Corpus of the Lararia
of Pompeii (MAAR 14), Rome.
Brouskari, M. S. 2002. “Οι ανασκαφές
νοτίως της Ακροπόλεως: Τα γλυπτά,”
ArchEph 141, pp. 1–204.
Camp, J. M. 1992. The Athenian Agora:
Excavations in the Heart of Classical
Athens (New Aspects of Antiquity),
updated ed., London.
———. 2007. “Excavations in the Athe-
nian Agora: 2002–2007,” Hesperia
76, pp. 627–663.
———. 2010. The Athenian Agora: Site
Guide, 5th ed., Princeton.
Castrén, P. 1989. “The Post-Herulian
Revival of Athens,” in The Greek
Renaissance in the Roman Empire.
Papers from the Tenth British Museum
Classical Colloqium (BICS Suppl. 55),
ed. S. Walker and A. Cameron,
London, pp. 45–49.
———. 1994. “General Aspects of Life
in Post-Herulian Athens,” in Post-
Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and
Culture in Athens, A.D. 267–529
(Papers and Monographs of the
Finnish Institute at Athens 1), ed.
P. Castrén, Helsinki, pp. 1–14.
Clairmont, C. W. 1993. Classical Attic
Tombstones, 7 vols., Kilchberg.
Clinton, K. 1974. “The Sacred Officials
of the Eleusinian Mysteries,” TAPS
64, pp. 1–143.
Corinth XIV = C. Roebuck, The
Asklepieion and Lerna (Corinth
XIV), Princeton 1951.
D’Amico, A. 2006. “Le terme dell’Olym-
pieion di Atene,” ASAtene 84,
pp. 689–738.
Daszewski, W. A. 1968. “A Preliminary
Report on the Excavations of the
Polish Archaeological Mission at
Kato (Nea) Paphos in 1966 and
1967,” RDAC 1968, pp. 33–61.
brian martens
Delivorrias, A. 1991. “Interpretatio
Christiana: Γύρω από τα όρια του
παγανιστικού και του χριστιανικού
κόσμου,” in Ευφρόσυνον: Αφιέρωμα
στον Μανώλη Χατζηδάκη 1, Ath-
ens, pp. 107–123.
Deschamps, G., and G. Cousin. 1888.
“Inscriptions du temple de Zeus
Panamaros,” BCH 12, pp. 249–273.
Despinis, G., T. Stefanidou-Tiveriou,
and E. Voutiras. 1997. Catalogue
of Sculpture in the Archaeological
Museum of Thessaloniki 1, Thessa-
loniki.
———. 2003. Κατάλογος γλυπτών του
Αρχαιολογικού Μουσείου Θεσσαλο-
νίκης 2, Thessaloniki.
Dickens, G. 1905–1906. “Laconia: II.
Excavations at Sparta, 1906. 13:
Topographical Conclusions,” BSA
12, pp. 432–439.
Dillon, S. 1997. “Figured Pilaster Capi-
tals from Aphrodisias,” AJA 101,
pp. 731–769.
Ducrey, P., and S. Rendall. 2004. Ere-
tria: A Guide to the Ancient City,
Gollion.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1996. “The Impact
of the Antonine Plague,” JRA 9,
pp. 108–136.
Edelstein, E. J., and L. Edelstein. 1945.
Asclepius: Collection and Interpre-
tation of the Testimonies, 2 vols.,
Baltimore.
Eleutheratou, S. 2006. Το Μουσείο και
η ανασκαφή: Ευρήματα από το χώρο
ανέγερσης του Νέου Μουσείου της
Ακρόπολης. Κατάλογος έκθεσης,
Athens.
Ephesos = Forschungen in Ephesos
veröffentlicht vom Österreichischen
Archaeologischen Institute, Vienna
VIII.4 = C. Lang-Auinger, ed.
Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und
Ausstattung, 2003.
VIII.8 = F. Krinzinger, Hanghaus
2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1
und 2. Baubefund, Ausstattung,
Funde, 3 vols., 2010.
VIII.10 = E. Rathmayr, ed.,
Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohn-
einheit 7. Baubefund, Ausstattung,
Funde, 3 vols., 2016.
Erim, K. T. 1990. “Recent Work at
Aphrodisias 1986–1988,” in Aphro-
disias Papers: Recent Work on Archi-
tecture and Sculpture (JRA Suppl. 1),
ed. C. Roueché and K. T. Erim,
Ann Arbor, pp. 9–36.
Faraone, C. A. 2008. “Household Reli-
gion in Ancient Greece,” in House-
hold and Family Religion in Antiq-
uity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan,
Oxford, pp. 210–228.
Fejfer, J. 2006. “Sculpture in Roman
Cyprus,” in Panayia Ematousa 2:
Political, Cultural, Ethnic, and Social
Relations in Cyprus: Approaches to
Regional Studies (Monographs of
the Danish Institute at Athens 6),
ed. L. W. Sørensen and K. W.
Jacobsen, Athens, pp. 81–123.
Filges, A. 1999. “Marmorstatuetten aus
Kleinasien: Zu Ikonographie, Funk-
tion und Produktion antoninischer,
severischer, und späterer Idealplas-
tik,” IstMitt 49, pp. 377–430.
Freyer-Schauenburg, B. 2010–2011.
“Asklepios, die Buchrolle und das
Ei: Zu einem Asklepiostorso auf
Samos und weiteren Repliken des
Typus Amelung,” Il Mar Nero 8,
special issue, Mélanges d’archéologie
et d’histoire ancienne à la mémoire
de Petre Alexandrescu, ed. A. Avram
and I. Bîrzescu, pp. 133–170.
Gawlinski, L. 2014. The Athenian
Agora: Museum Guide, 5th ed.,
Princeton.
Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An An-
thropological Theory, Oxford.
Gorrini, M. E., and M. Melfi. 2002.
“L’archéologie des cultes guérisseurs:
Quelques observations,” Kernos 15,
pp. 247–265.
Gregory, T. E. 1986. “The Survival of
Paganism in Christian Greece:
A Critical Essay,” AJP 107, pp. 229–
242.
Griesbach, J. 2014. “Jede(r) ist ersetz-
bar? Zur Wiederverwendung
von Statuenbasen im Asklepios-
Heiligtum von Epidauros,” in
Weiter- und Weiderverwendungen
von Weihestatuen in grieschischen
Heiligtümern. Tagung am Archäolo-
gischen Institut der Universität
Zürich 21./22 Januar 2011 (Zürcher
Archäologische Forschungen 2),
ed. C. Leypold, M. Mohr, and
C. Russenberger, Rahden, pp. 55–69.
Grimm, G. 1989. “Alexander the False
Prophet and His God Asclepius-
Glycon: Remarks Concerning the

Representation of Asclepius with an
Egg (‘Type Nea Paphos-Alexandria-
Trier’),” in Cyprus and the East Med-
iterranean in the Iron Age. Proceedings
of the Seventh British Museum Clas-
sical Colloquium, April 1988, ed.
V. Tatton-Brown, London, pp. 168–
181.
Hannestad, N. 2007. “Late Antique
Mythological Sculpture: In Search
of a Chronology,” in Statuen in der
Spätantike, ed. F. A. Bauer and
C. Witschel, Wiesbaden, pp. 273–
305.
———. 2012. “Mythological Marble
Sculpture of Late Antiquity and the
Question of Workshops,” in Ateliers
and Artisans in Roman Art and Ar-
chaeology (JRA Suppl. 92), ed. T. M.
Kristensen and B. Poulsen, Ports-
mouth, pp. 75–112.
Hausmann, U. 1948. Kunst und Heil-
tum: Untersuchungen zu den grie-
chischen Asklepiosreliefs, Potsdam.
———. 1954–1955. “Οινοφόροι,” AM
69/70, pp. 125–146.
Herzog, R. 1903. “Vorläufiger Bericht
über die koische Expedition im
Jahre 1903,” AA 18, pp. 186–199.
———. 1905. “Vorläufiger Bericht
über die koische Expedition im
Jahre 1904,” AA 20, pp. 1–15.
Hoskins Walbank, M. E. 2010. “Image
and Cult: The Coinage of Roman
Corinth,” in Corinth in Context:
Comparative Studies on Religion and
Society (Novum Testamentum
Suppl. 134), ed. S. J. Friesen, D. N.
Schowalter, and J. C. Walters,
Leiden, pp. 151–197.
İnan, J. 1975. Roman Sculpture in Side
(Researches in the Region of Anta-
lya 8), Ankara.
Intzesiloglou, B. 1988. “Νομός Καρ-
δίτσας,” ArchDelt 43, B′1, pp. 253–
258.
Isthmia VI = S. Lattimore, Sculpture II:
Marble Sculpture, 1967–1980
(Isthmia VI), Princeton 1996.
Jacobs, I. 2016. “Old Habits Die Hard:
A Group of Mythological Statuettes
from Sagalassos and the Afterlife of
Sculpture in Asia Minor,” in The
Afterlife of Greek and Roman Sculp-
ture: Late Antique Responses and
Practices, ed. T. M. Kristensen and
L. Stirling, Ann Arbor, pp. 93–117.
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a
Kaltsas, N. E. 2002. Sculpture in the
National Archaeological Museum,
Athens, trans. D. Hardy, Los Angeles.
Kaminski, G. 1991. “Thesauros: Unter-
suchungen zum antiken Opfer-
stock,” JdI 106, pp. 63–181.
Kanellopoulos, C. 2000. Το Υστερορω-
μαϊκό “Τείχος”: Περίβολος τεμένους
και περιμετρική στοά στο Ασκλη-
πιείο της Επιδαύρου, Athens.
Karageorghis, V. 1964. Sculptures from
Salamis (Salamis 1), Nicosia.
Karivieri, A. 1994. “The ‘House of
Proclus’ on the Southern Slope of
the Acropolis: A Contribution,” in
Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life
and Culture in Athens, A.D. 267–529
(Papers and Monographs of the
Finnish Institute at Athens 1),
ed. P. Castrén, Helsinki, pp. 115–139.
Katakis, S. 2002. Επίδαυρος: Tα γλυπτά
των ρωμαϊκών χρονών από το ιερό
του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και του
Ασκληπιού (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθή-
ναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 223),
Athens.
———. 2007. “Τρία μικρασιατικά
αγαλμάτια της Ύστερης Αρχαιότη-
τας από τον Εθνικό Κήπο της Αθή-
νας: Μια πρώτη προσέγγιση,” in
Αμύμονα έργα: Τιμητικός τόμος για
τον Καθηγητή Βασίλη Κ. Λαμπρι-
νουδάκη, ed. E. Simadoni-Bournia,
A. A. Laimou, L. G. Mendoni, and
N. Kourou, Athens, pp. 389–408.
———. 2012. “Αγαλμάτια Δήμητρας
και Κυβέλης των ύστερων ρωμαϊκών
χρόνων από την Αθήνα,” in Κλασική
παράδοση και νεωτερικά στοιχεία
στην πλαστική της ρωμαϊκής Ελλά-
δας. Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου,
Θεσσαλονίκη, 7–9 Μαΐου 2009, ed.
T. Stephanidou-Tiveriou, P. Kara-
vastasi, and D. Damaskos, Thessa-
loniki, pp. 99–114.
Kavvadias, P. 1890–1892. Γλυπτά του
Εθνικού Μουσείου: Κατάλογος περι-
γραφικός, Athens.
Kopytoff, I. 1986. “The Cultural Biog-
raphy of Things: Commoditization
as Process,” in The Social Life of
Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai,
Cambridge, pp. 64–92.
Kreeb, M. 1988. Untersuchungen zur
figürlichen Ausstattung delischer
Privathäuser, Chicago.
607
Kristensen, T. M. 2013. Making and
Breaking the Gods: Christian Re-
sponses to Pagan Sculpture in Late
Antiquity (Aarhus Studies in
Mediterranean Antiquity 12),
Aarhus.
Kristensen, T. M., and L. M. Stirling,
eds. 2016. The Afterlife of Greek and
Roman Sculpture: Late Antique
Responses and Practices, Ann Arbor.
Kutsch, F. 1913. Attische Heilgötter und
Heilheroen (Religionsgeschichtliche
Versuche und Vorarbeiten 12),
Giessen.
Lane, E. N. 1964. “A Re-study of the
God Men, Part I: The Epigraphic
and Sculptural Evidence,” Berytus
15, pp. 5–58.
Lange, K. 1880. “Die Athena Parthe-
nos,” AM 5, pp. 370–379.
Lapatin, K. D. S. 2001. Chryselephan-
tine Statuary in the Ancient Mediter-
ranean World (Oxford Monographs
on Classical Archaeology), Oxford.
Lawton, C. L. 1995. Attic Document
Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient
Athens (Oxford Monographs on
Classical Archaeology), Oxford.
———. 2006. Marbleworkers in the
Athenian Agora (AgoraPicBk 27),
Athens.
———. 2015. “Asklepios and Hygieia
in the City Eleusinion,” in Autopsy
in Athens: Recent Archaeological
Research on Athens and Attica, ed.
M. M. Miles, Oxford, pp. 25–36.
Lefantzis, M., and J. T. Jensen. 2009.
“The Athenian Asklepieion on the
South Slope of Akropolis: Early
Development, ca. 420–360 b.c.,”
in Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult:
Context, Ritual, and Iconography
(Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean
Antiquity 8), ed. J. T. Jensen,
G. Hinge, P. Schultz, and B. Wick-
kiser, Aarhus, pp. 89–122.
Leventi, I. 2003. Hygieia in Classical
Greek Art (Archaiognosia Suppl. 2),
Athens.
Lo Cascio, E., ed. 2012. L’impato della
“peste antonina,” Bari.
Malama, P., and A. Salonikios. 2002.
“Οικιστικά κατάλοιπα από την
αρχαία Αμφίπολη: Σωστική ανα-
σκαφή στο οικόπεδο Δ. Κυπριανίδη,”
Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδο-
νία και Θράκη 16, pp. 145–155.
608
Manderscheid, H. 1981. Die Skulpture-
nausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen
Thermenanlage (Monumenta Artis
Romanae 15), Berlin.
Marcadé, J. 1980. “Sculptures argiennes
(III),” in Études argiennes (BCH
Suppl. 6), Athens, pp. 133–184.
Martens, B. A. 2015. “Sarapis as Healer
in Roman Athens: Reconsidering
the Identity of Agora S 1068,” in
Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeo-
logical Research on Athens and Attica,
ed. M. M. Miles, Oxford, pp. 51–65.
———. 2018. “The Marble Statuettes
from the Athenian Agora, First Cen-
tury b.c. to Fourth Century a.d.”
(diss. Univ. of Oxford).
Mattusch, C. C. 1982. Bronzeworkers in
the Athenian Agora (AgoraPicBk 20),
Princeton.
Melfi, M. 2007. I santuari di Asclepio in
Grecia 1 (Studia Archaeologica 157),
Rome.
———. 2014. “Religion and Society in
Early Roman Corinth: A Forgotten
Coin Hoard and the Sanctuary of
Asklepios,” Hesperia 83, pp. 747–
776.
Meritt, B. D. 1941. “Greek Inscrip-
tions,” Hesperia 10, pp. 38–64.
———. 1963. “Greek Inscriptions,”
Hesperia 32, pp. 1–56.
Meyer, M. 1988. “Erfindung und
Wirkung: Zum Asklepios Giustini,”
AM 103, pp. 119–159.
———. 1994. “Zwei Asklepiostypen
des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: Askle-
pios Giustini und Asklepios Athen-
Macerata,” AntP 23, pp. 7–55.
———. 2001. “Ein Torso im Typus
Doria: Asklepios oder Amphiaraos?”
Mουσείο Mπενάκη 1, pp. 21–32.
Mylonopoulos, J. 2003. Πελοπόννησος
οἰκητήριον Ποσειδῶνος: Heiligtümer
und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Pelo-
ponnes (Kernos Suppl. 13), Liège.
Neugebauer, K. A. 1921. “Asklepios.
Ein Beitrag zur Kritik römischer
Statuenkopien,” BWPr 78, pp. 3–
53.
Oliver, J. H. 1970. Marcus Aurelius:
Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy
in the East (Hesperia Suppl. 13),
Princeton.
Olynthus XII = D.M. Robinson, Domes-
tic and Public Architecture (Olynthus
XII), Baltimore 1946.
brian martens
Özgan, R. 1999. Die Skulpturen von
Stratonikeia (Asia Minor Studien
32), Bonn.
Pandermalis, D. 1983. “Δίον,” Ergon 20,
pp. 23–26.
———. 1988. “Αντίγραφα των αυτο-
κρατορικών χρόνων στη Mακεδο-
νία,” in Πρακτικά του ΧΙΙ Διεθνούς
Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας
Γ ′, Αθήνα 4–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1983,
Athens, pp. 213–216.
———. 1997. Dion: The Archaeological
Site and the Museum, trans. D. Hardy,
Athens.
———. 1998. “Ανασκαφή Δίου 1995,”
Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία
και Θράκη 9, pp. 167–172.
Papaefthimiou, V. 2009. “Recent Ex-
cavations at the Asklepieion of
Athens,” in Il culto di Asclepio
nell’area mediterranea. Atti del Con-
vegno Internazionale, Agrigento
20–22 novembre 2005, ed. E. De
Miro, G. Sfameni Gasparro, and
V. Calì, Rome, pp. 79–89.
Parlama, L., and N. C. Stampolidis.
2000. Athens: The City beneath the
City: Antiquities from the Metropoli-
tan Railway Excavations, Athens.
Rathmayr, E. 2016. “The Significance
of Sculptures with Associated
Inscriptions in Private Houses in
Ephesos, Pergamon, and Beyond,”
in Inscriptions in the Private Sphere
in the Greco-Roman World (Brill
Studies in Greek and Roman
Epigraphy 7), ed. R. Benefiel and
P. Keegan, Leiden, pp. 146–178.
Renberg, G. H. 2006–2007. “Public
and Private Places of Worship in the
Cult of Asclepius at Rome,” MAAR
51–52, pp. 87–172.
Riccardi, L. A. 2009. “Roman Portraits
from the Athenian Agora: Recent
Finds,” in The Athenian Agora:
New Perspectives on an Ancient Site,
ed. J. M. Camp and C. A. Mauzy,
Mainz, pp. 55–62.
———. 2015. “Homage and Abuse:
Three Portraits of Roman Women
from the Athenian Agora,” in Cities
Called Athens. Studies Honoring John
McK. Camp II, ed. K. F. Daly and
L. A. Riccardi, pp. 321–350.
Ridgway, B. S. 1997. Fourth-Century
Styles in Greek Sculpture (Wisconsin
Studies in Classics), Madison.
Riethmüller, J. W. 2005. Asklepios:
Heiligtümer und Kulte (Studien zu
antiken Heiligtümern 2), 2 vols.,
Heidelberg.
Rockwell, P. 1991. “Unfinished Statu-
ary Associated with a Sculptor’s
Studio,” in Aphrodisias Papers 2:
The Theatre, a Sculptor’s Workshop,
Philosophers, and Coin-Types. Includ-
ing the Papers Given at the Third
International Aphrodisias Colloquium
Held at New York University on 7
and 8 April, 1989 (JRA Suppl. 2),
ed. R. R. R. Smith and K. T. Erim,
Portsmouth, pp. 127–143.
RPC = Roman Provincial Coinage,
London
III = M. Amandry and A. Bur-
nett, Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian
(A.D. 96–138), 2015.
IV = C. Howgego and V. Heu-
chert, Antoninus Pius to Commodus
(A.D. 138–192) [with temporary num-
bers], 2006, http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.
uk/volume/4.
Şahin, M. Ç. 1981. Die Inschriften von
Stratonikeia 1: Panamara
(Inschriften griechischer Städte aus
Kleinasien 21), Bonn.
Sharpe, H. F. 2014. “Bronze Statuettes
from the Athenian Agora: Evidence
for Domestic Cults in Roman
Greece,” Hesperia 83, pp. 143–187.
Shear, J. P. 1936. “Athenian Imperial
Coinage,” Hesperia 5, pp. 285–332.
Shear, T. L. 1933. “The Sculpture,”
Hesperia 2, pp. 514–541.
———. 1935a. “The Agora Excava-
tions,” AJA 39, pp. 437–447.
———. 1935b. “The Sculpture Found
in 1933,” Hesperia 4, pp. 371–420.
———. 1936a. “The Campaign of
1935,” Hesperia 5, pp. 1–42.
———. 1936b. “The Current Excava-
tions in the Athenian Agora,” AJA
40, pp. 188–203.
———. 1937. “Excavations in the
Athenian Agora,” AJA 41, pp. 177–
189.
———. 1938. “The Campaign of
1937,” Hesperia 7, pp. 311–362.
Shear, T. L., Jr. 1969. “The Athenian
Agora: Excavations of 1968,” Hespe-
ria 38, pp. 382–417.
———. 1997. “The Athenian Agora:
Excavations of 1989–1993,” Hespe-
ria 66, pp. 495–548.

Siebert, G. 1966. “Artémis Sôteira a
Délos,” BCH 90, pp. 447–459.
Sirano, F. 1994. “Considerazioni sull’
Asclepio ‘Tipo Nea Paphos’: Ipo-
tesi su un gruppo di sculture di età
imperiale,” ArchCl 46, pp. 199–232.
———. 2005. “The ‘House of the Rape
of Europa’ at Cos: Proposals for a
Contextual Study of the Decora-
tion,” BABesch 80, pp. 145–162.
Sironen, E. 1994. “Life and Adminis-
tration of Late Roman Attica in
the Light of Public Inscriptions,”
in Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of
Life and Culture in Athens A.D. 267–
529, ed. P. Castrén, Helsinki,
pp. 15–62.
Sismani-Adrymi, V. 1989–1991.
“Φθιώτιδες Θήβες,” ArchDelt 44–46,
A′, pp. 208–210.
Smith, A. H. 1892. A Catalogue of
Sculpture in the Department of Greek
and Roman Antiquities, British
Museum 1, London.
Smith, R. R. R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal
Portraits (Oxford Monographs on
Classical Archaeology), Oxford.
———. 1998. “Cultural Choice and
Political Identity in Honorific Por-
trait Statues in the Greek East in
the Second Century a.d.,” JRS 88,
pp. 56–93.
———. 2002. “The Statue Monument
of Oecumenius: A New Portrait of
a Late Antique Governor from
Aphrodisias,” JRS 92, pp. 134–156.
———. 2012a. “Defacing the Gods at
Aphrodisias,” in Historical and Reli-
gious Memory in the Ancient World,
ed. B. Dignas and R. R. R. Smith,
Oxford, pp. 283–326.
———. 2012b. “The Second Lives of
Classical Monuments at Aphrodi-
sias,” in Κλασική παράδοση και
νεωτερικά στοιχεία στην πλαστική
της ρωμαϊκής Ελλάδας. Πρακτικά
Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου, Θεσσαλονίκη,
7–9 Μαΐου 2009, ed. T. Stephanidou-
Tiveriou, P. Karanastasi, and D. Da-
maskos, Thessaloniki, pp. 57–73.
Stephanidou-Tiveriou, T. 1993a. “Späte
attische Sarkophage und das Ende
der attischen Werkstätten,” in
Grabeskunst der römischen Kaiserzeit,
ed. G. Koch, Mainz, pp. 133–139.
———. 1993b. Τραπεζοφόρα με πλα-
στική διακόσμηση: Η αττική ομάδα
t h e s tat ua r y o f a s k l e p i o s f r o m t h e a g o r a
(Publications of ArchDelt 50),
Athens.
Stevens, G. P. 1949. “A Doorsill from
the Library of Pantainos,” Hesperia
18, pp. 269–274.
Stewart, A. F. 1979. Attika: Studies in
Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic
Age (Society for the Promotion
of Hellenic Studies Suppl. 14),
London.
———. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An
Exploration, New Haven.
———. 2012. “Hellenistic Freestand-
ing Sculpture from the Athenian
Agora, Part 1: Aphrodite,” Hesperia
81, pp. 267–342.
———. 2013. “Sculptors’ Sketches,
Trial Pieces, Figure Studies, and
Models in Poros Limestone from
the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 82,
pp. 615–650.
———. 2017. “Hellenistic Freestand-
ing Sculpture from the Athenian
Agora, Part 3: Agathe Tyche,
Aphrodite, Artemis, Athena, Eilei-
thyia,” Hesperia 86, pp. 83–127.
Stewart, P. 2007. “Gell’s Idols and
Roman Cult,” in Art’s Agency and
Art History (New Interventions in
Art History), ed. R. Osborne and
J. Tanner, Oxford, pp. 158–178.
Stirling, L. M. 2005. The Learned Col-
lector: Mythological Statuettes and
Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul,
Ann Arbor.
———. 2008. “Pagan Statuettes in
Late Antique Corinth: Sculpture
from the Panayia Domus,” Hesperia
77, pp. 89–161.
Svoronos, I. N. 1903. Το εν Αθήναις
Εθνικόν Μουσείον: Φωτοτυπική
αντιγραφή των εν αυτώ θησαυρών
μετ’ επεξηγηματικού κειμένου,
Athens.
Themelis, P. 1978. “Ανασκαφή Ερέ-
τριας,” Prakt 133, pp. 18–33.
———. 2010. “Aphrodite et Eros,” in
Cité sous terre: Des archéologues suisses
explorent la cité grecque d’Erétrie, ed.
C. Martin Pruvot, Gollion, p. 139.
Thompson, D. B., and A. Frantz. 1959.
Miniature Sculpture from the
Athenian Agora (AgoraPicBk 3),
Princeton.
Thompson, H. A. 1953. “Excavations
in the Athenian Agora: 1952,”
Hesperia 22, pp. 25–56.
609
———. 1958. “Activities in the Athe-
nian Agora: 1957,” Hesperia 27,
pp. 145–160.
———. 1960. “Activities in the Athe-
nian Agora: 1959,” Hesperia 29,
pp. 327–368.
———. 1976. The Athenian Agora:
A Guide to the Excavation and
Museum, 3rd ed. rev., Princeton.
Tomlinson, R. A. 1983. Epidauros,
London.
Tomović, M. 1993. Roman Sculpture in
Upper Moesia (Posebna izdanja 24),
trans. G. Radošević, Beograd.
Tran Tam Tinh, V. 1983. Sérapis debout:
Corpus des monuments de Sérapis
debout et étude iconographique (Etudes
préliminaires aux religions orien-
tales dans l’Empire romain 94),
Leiden.
Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of
Ancient Athens, New York.
Trianti, I. 2011. “Ανάγλυφο Ασκληπιού
από το οικόπεδο Μακρυγιάννη,” in
Έπαινος Luigi Beschi (Benaki Mu-
seum Suppl. 7), ed. A. Delivorrias,
G. Despinis, and A. Zarkadas,
Athens, pp. 381–396.
Tsakirgis, B. 2005. “Living and Work-
ing around the Athenian Agora:
A Preliminary Case Study of Three
Houses,” in Ancient Greek Houses
and Households: Chronological, Re-
gional, and Social Diversity, ed. B. A.
Ault and L. C. Nevett, Philadelphia,
pp. 67–82.
———. 2009. “Living near the Agora:
Houses and Households in Central
Athens,” in The Athenian Agora:
New Perspectives on an Ancient Site,
ed. J. M. Camp and C. A. Mauzy,
Mainz, pp. 47–54.
Tziaphalias, A. 1977. “Εφορεία Προϊ-
στορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτή-
των Λαρίσης,” ArchDelt 32, A′,
pp. 135–139.
———. 1990. “Νομός Λάρισας,”
ArchDelt 45, B′ 1, pp. 214–218.
Uhlmann, V. 1980. “Wandel einer Göt-
tergestalt: Zu einer Asklepiosstatu-
ette der Bernischen Abguss-Sam-
mlung,” Hefte des Archäologischen
Seminars der Universität Bern 6,
pp. 27–37.
Van Straten, F. T. 1995. Hierà kalá:
Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic
and Classical Greece (Religions in
610
the Graeco-Roman World 127),
Leiden.
Van Voorhis, J. A. 2012. “The Working
and Re-working of Marble Statu-
ary at the Sculptor’s Workshop in
Aphrodisias,” in Ateliers and Artisans
in Roman Art and Archaeology ( JRA
Suppl. 92), ed. T. M. Kristensen
and B. Poulsen, Portsmouth, pp. 38–
54.
Vermaseren, M. J. 1982. Corpus Cultus
Cybelae Attidisque (CCCA) 2: Grae-
cia atque Insulae, Leiden.
Brian Martens
O xford Univ ersit y
lincoln col lege
oxford, ox1 3dr
united kingd om
br ian@agathe.gr
brian martens
Vermeule, C. 2000. “The Sculptures of
Roman Syria,” in Antioch: The Lost
Ancient City, ed. C. Kondoleon,
Princeton, pp. 90–102.
Vikela, E. 2006. “Healer Gods and
Healing Sanctuaries in Attica: Simi-
larities and Differences,” Archiv für
Religionsgeschichte 8, pp. 41–62.
———. 2015. Apollo, Artemis, Leto:
Eine Untersuchung zur Typologie,
Ikonographie, und Hermeneutik der
drei Gottheiten auf griechischen
Weihreliefs (Athenaia 7), Munich.
Wickkiser, B. L. 2008. Asklepios, Medi-
cine, and the Politics of Healing in
Fifth-Century Greece: Between Craft
and Cult, Baltimore.
Yegül, F. K. 1979. “The Small City
Bath in Classical Antiquity and a
Reconstruction Study of Lucian’s
‘Baths of Hippias,’” ArchCl 31,
pp. 108–131.
Young, R. S. 1951. “An Industrial Dis-
trict of Ancient Athens,” Hesperia
20, pp. 135–288.