FamilyIdeologyand FamilyHistory:

The FunctionofFunerary Markersin Classical

AtticPeribolosTombs
WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN

Abstract tombs,exemplify a typeof tombfoundthroughout

ThisarticleexamineshowAthenianfunerary markers classicalAttica.Morethan250 suchtombshavebeen
functioned withinthecontextofclassicalAtticperibolos identified in varying statesof preservation, primarily
tombs,or family burialplots.An analysisoftherelation- dating from the last quarterofthefifth century to the
shipbetweenburialsand markers in theCornerTerrace late fourthcentury B.C.E.1The mostprominent fea-
tombsoftheKerameikos indicatesthatcommemoration
in family tombsdid notintendto recordall burialactiv- tureof a peribolostombis a highwallfacingontoa
ity.Instead,selectedcircumstances ofburialwereusedto road and servingas a retaining wallfortheearthfill
presenta constructed imageof thefamilyin the tomb. piledup behind it.The rectangular burialareabehind
The interplay amongfunerary markersin familytombs thefrontwall,usuallyborderedon twoor sometimes
suggeststhatcommemoration likewisedid not aim to threeoftheremaining sidesbylowrubblewalls,con-
identify clearlyall commemorated individualsor trace
tainedthegravesand so providedthespaceforfamily
the completedetailsof a familytree;rather,the tomb
facade prioritizedfamilyconnectionsmore generally. gatherings forfunerals and celebrations oftombcult.2
The collectionoffunerary markersin a peribolostomb, Fromthestreet, thisburialareaisvirtually invisible
(fig.
whentakentogether, painta pictureofa successful fam- 1) . Instead,one sees theshowyfacadecreatedbythe
ilythathas escapedthekindofchallengesthatappearin frontwall,typically constructed ofcarefully executed
therhetoric oftheAtticorators, suchas theextinction of
thefamily line,generationalconflict,andimproprieties in masonry, and the tombstones, usuallystandingin a
thebehaviorofwomen.Funerary markersinclassicalAttic rowabove and oftenjust behindthefrontwall.The
family tombsexpressa generalizedfamily ideologymore funerary markersin the facadeof a peribolostomb
thana specificfamily historyin responsetoan increasing are orientedtowardthestreetand nottheburialarea.
perceptionin latefifth and fourthcentury B.C.E.Athens Fromtheinteriorof theplot,theelaboratemasonry
thatfamilieswerethreatened.*
ofthefront wallis notvisibleand onlytheroughly cut
backsofthefunerary markers can be seen.3Insteadof
lookinginwardtowardtheareawherefamily members
INTRODUCTION
for
gathered burial, the commemorative tombstones
Perhapsthebest-known contextsforclassicalAttic faceoutward towardpassers-by on thepublicroad.Not
gravestelaearetheimpressive
tombsthatlinetheroads only does the road provide bestvantagepointfor
the
runningthroughthe AthenianKerameikos.These viewing the architecture and funerary markers ofthe
well-preserved burialplots,knownas peribolos
family tomb, butitis also the
frequently only locationfor do-

* This article evolved from meikos (Bruckner 1909; Kovacsovics 1990) and at Rham-
my doctoral dissertation,for
whichJ. Stroszeck kindlygave me permission to studythe nous (Petrakos 1999, 1:334-413). See Morris (1992, 128-55)
Kerameikos peribolos tombs. I am gratefulto H.A. Shapiro, and Humphreys (1993, 79-134) fordifferent interpretations
mydissertationadvisor,forhis supportand feedbackboth on of popularityof peribolos tombs in the late fifthand fourth
thatworkand thisarticle.Many thanksto B. Burke, C. Gray, centuries.The term"peribolos tombs"is a modern title.An-
A. Loftus,the anonymous reviewersfor the AJA,and Editor- cientGreek authorsused a varietyoftermsto indicatea family
in-ChiefNaomiJ.Norman fortheirhelpfulcommentson dif- burial plot. Mastrokostas(1966, 281 n. 2) citesthe following:
ferentdraftsof thisarticle.Finally,I owe thanksto the Paul TCOCTpCGa
f]p{a,rcocTpcpaixoccpai, ruiipoi,rcpoyovcov
rcocTpcpoi ripioc,
CarpenterFellowshipFund at BrynAthynCollege foritssup- |xvfjjia,and fjpcoov.
7cot7icbov
2On the
portofmyresearch. funeraryritualthat took place at gravesand the
1All dates are B.C.E. unless otherwise noted. For cata-
ongoing tomb cult after burial, see Kurtz and Boardman
logues of peribolos tombs,see Garland 1982 (supplemented 1971, 142-61; Garland 2001, 34-7, 104-20.
by Morris 1998, 83-4) and Bergemann 1997, 183-210. The 3Garland2001,fig.25.
best published groups of peribolos tombs are in the Kera-

633
American 111 (2007) 633-52
JournalofArchaeology
634 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

Fig. 1. Tomb of Agathonand Sosikles,Kerameikos(E.-M. Czako; © DAI Athens,neg. D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos

5981).

ingso.4The facadewasthemostvisibleplace forfam- familialrelationshipsovera limitednumberof gen-

ilyrepresentation.
In a fundamentalarticle,Humphreys demonstrat-
ed thatclassicalAthenianfamilytombsstressedthe
conceptof familyunitybycomparingClassicalwith
Archaicperiodcommemorative practices,
examining
themesfoundinclassicalfuneraryimageryandinscrip-
tions,and analyzing
thescopeofthefamily groupings
foundinthetombs.13Further, shearguedthatClassical
periodfamilytombsgenerallycommemorated close
erations,ratherthantheextendedfamily.6
Peribolostombsemployeda variety of tombstone
types to commemorate familymembers.7 Afterca.
430,figuralscenesofone or morepeople appearon
severaldifferenttombstone shapes,includingnaiskoi,
stelaewithreliefscenes,and stonevesselsin theshape
oflekythoi and loutrophoroi.8Archaictombstones fo-
cus on theadultmale in hisprime,whereasclassical
tombstones depictwomen,children,and theelderly,

4Becausein most 6
peribolostombsthemarkers are seton Humphreys1993, 111-17, 120. AlthoughBergemann
theearthfillimmediately behindthefacadewallofthetomb, (1997, 14-15) arguesthata widercircleof relationsand a
itisvirtually
impossibletostanddirectlyinfront
ofthetomb- greaternumberof generations weremore commonthan
stonesand viewthemfromthatvantagepoint.Butevenfor Humphreys believed,he neverthelessagreesthatmosttombs
thoseplotsinwhichthemarkers aresetbackfromthefacade, didnotcommemorate a largefamily
grouping, buta medium-
therearesignsthatthemarkers weremeanttobeviewedfrom sizedone (Bergemann 1997,33).
thestreet.A clearindicationappearsin theKerameikos plot 7SeeSchmaltz(1979) fora discussion ofthedifferenttypes
ofEubios (Bruckner1909,108-12;Garland1982,no. A21; offunerary markers.
Bergemann1997,no. A21), in whichthe monumentsare 8Forcataloguesofsculpted monuments,
funerary seeConze
roughly 3.5mbackfromthefront wall.Aninscription
on the 1893-1922;Clairmont 1993.Forstelaewithreliefscenes,see
base ofthecolumnin theplotofEubios (/G227257) isvery Scholl1996.Forlekythoi, 1970.Forloutrophoroi,
seeSchmaltz
awkward to readwhilestandingwithintheplot,due to the seeKokula1984.Forthedebateaboutthedatewhensculpted
angleatwhichitisviewed.However, theinscription
wouldbe funerarymarkers reappearinAthens, seeClairmont 1986,31-
at eye4evelforsomeonestandingon theancientroad,from Stears(2000a) hasarguedformovingthedateof
3. Recently,
whereitcouldbe easilyread. classicalstelaebacktoshortly
theearliest after450.
5 1993,79-134.
Humphreys
2007] FUNERARYMARKERSIN CLASSICALATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS
as wellas men;in thefourthcentury, in place ofiso-
latedfigures, groupscommonlyappear,whichstress
strongfamilialbonds.9Perhapsthe clearestexpres-
sion ofconnectionin classicalfunerary iconography
can be foundin the commonlyrepresenteddexiosis,
orhandshake.10 Some peribolostombsalso had stone
lekythoi or sculpturein theround,particularly pairs
ofanimalsand humanfigures, as pendantsplacedon
eitherend ofthefacadewall.11 Otherkindsof tomb-
stonesregularlydisplayedinscribednameswithout
figuralscenes,mostnotablyrosettestelae,whichare
tall,thinshaftssurmounted byan anthemionor pal-
metteand carvedwithtworosettes on thefrontface.12
Peribolostombsmightalso containtrapezai(large,
low rectangularblocks), kioniskoi (small columns),
and cippi (smallrectangular stones), whichare most
prevalenttowardtheend oftheClassicalperiodand
in the Hellenisticperiod and are usuallylocatedin
thebackarea ofthetomb.13
Thisarticleexploreshowclassicaltombstones were
used withinthesettingof a peribolostomb.Atpres-
ent,the mostthoroughexaminationof thisissue is
Bergemann'sDemosund Thanatos.14 By considering
funerary markersin thecontextof peribolostombs,
Bergemannconvincingly demonstrates howclassical
Athenianfunerary iconography was not focusedon
thedead butdisplayedtheideal rolesofthefamily in
thecontextof thecivicworldofthepolis.15 Building
on thisstudy,I explorehow the settingof the peri-
bolos tombitselfheightenedthe mannerin which
tombstones displayedfamilyinterconnections. After
examiningthenatureoftherelationship betweenthe
twobasic elementsof a peribolostomb,the burial
635
area,and thefacade,I considerhowfunerary markers
in
workedtogether peribolos tombs to emphasizethe
familygroup over both the individualand detailsof
I
genealogy.Finally, consider why Athenians choseto
emphasizefamily groups in theirtombs byexploring
whatchallengeswereofconcerntoclassicalAthenian
families.
Anxiety aboutthreats tofamilycontinuityand
harmonymaylie behindthe increased desireto por-
trayfamilygroupingsin funerary contexts.
BURIAL AND COMMEMORATION:CORNER
TERRACE TOMBS
Investigating thedevelopment ofa tomb'sappear-
ance in relationto itsassociatedburialsoffers one av-
enue forunderstanding howfamiliesused funerary
stelaeto promotefamily ideals.16 The tombsforming
theCornerTerraceare a usefulcase studyforexplor-
ing the natureof thisphenomenon.Althoughonly
some of the CornerTerrace tombspreservetheir
funerary markers, and none of themexhibitsitsfull
complement,theyare the onlyperibolostombsfor
whichdetailedstratigraphy is available.The valuable
workbyKovacsovics presentsthestratigraphy of the
CornerTerracetombsalongwitha studyofthephases
of the architecture and burialsand the chronology
of thesetombs.17 The CornerTerraceconsistsof six
tombs:fourface northalong the northedge of the
terraceand twoface east along thewestside of the
SouthPath (fig.2). Three of thesetombs,thetomb
of Makareus(see fig.2 [19]), the tombof Demetria
and Pamphile(see fig.2 [20]), and the tombof the
Messenians(see fig.2 [21] ) ,preserve enoughevidence
to permitan examinationof the relationship of the

9Forthefocuson the
youngadultmaleinarchaicfunerary graves.
seeFriisjohansen 1951,108-11; Day1989,20-2; 17Kovacsovics 1990.A fewwordsshouldbe saidaboutone
iconography,
Shapiro1991,632-33.Forfamily bondsinfourth-century fu- aspectofthechronology oftheKerameikos peribolostombs
nerary iconography, see Friisjohansen1951,42-8; Schmaltz thatisuniquetothismaterial. Mostoftheperibolostombsin
1983,219; Bergemann1997;Leader 1997,694-98;Ridgway theKerameikos showsignsofdisturbance and destruction to
1997,162-63.Stears(2000b,221) contrasts thispracticewith theirwallsandfunerary markers. Ohly(1965,305-6,341-42)
EarlyHellenisticfunerary monuments, whichgenerally re- tiedtherobbingoutofthewallsand topplingofthemonu-
turnedto emphasizing a singleindividual,thoughwithout a mentsto theyear338 B.C.E. on thebasisofliterary sources
sculptedimage. indicating thatin theaftermath ofthebattleofChaironeia,
10On thedexiosisas a symbolofunity, see,e.g.,Friisjohan- theAthenians, frightened bythepotentialthreatofPhilipII,
sen1951,149-51;Davies1985,esp.628-30;Pemberton 1989. used funerary monuments to quicklythrowup a defensive
Schmaltz(1983,214-15) suggeststhatitcan expresscitizen wall(Aeschin.Against Ktesiphon 3.236;Lycurg.Leoc.43). Ko-
associationsaswellas familialconnections. Stears(1995,126) vacsovics(1990,130-41) arguesthatthestratigraphy ofthe
arguesthatitmayalsoconveytheconceptofequality. CornerTerracesupports theassociationofthedate338with
11Garland1982,129. thedestruction oftheperibolostombs.Itremainsuncertain,
12Fora ifall damagetotombsin theKerameikos shouldbe
catalogueofrosette stelae,see Hildebrandt 2006. however,
13KurtzandBoardman1971,166-69. assignedthedateof338orifsomedestruction wascausedby
14Bergemann 1997. laterevents.I thankJ.Binderforpointingouttome theun-
15 1997;seeesp.7-33foran examination ofthe ofassigning all destructionto338.Becausealterna-
Bergemann certainty
peribolostombsetting. tivesto the338 destruction datedo notsignificantlyimpact
16 thediscussion here,I followKovacsovics'
Bergemann(1997,9-10) has emphasizedhowthede- chronology.
signofa peribolostombseparatesthetombstones fromthe
636 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

Fig.2. Generalplan oftheKerameikos(Knigge1991,fig.165).

markersto theburials.The CornerTerracematerial thatneithericonographynor inscriptions are used

alsounderscores thecomplexinterplay betweenburial consistentlytodistinguish thedead fromthelivingon
and commemoration, forwhilecommemoration was funerary Based on an analysisoftombstones
stelae.19
certainly relatedtotheburialofthedeceased,theste- withsynchronous inscriptionsformultiplegenera-
lae themselves did not alwaysfullyreflecttheburial tions,Bergemannshowsthatthecommemoration of
activityin a tomb. the livingfrequently accompaniedcommemoration
The plotofDemetriaand Pamphile(figs.3,4) illus- ofthedead.20
tratesone difference betweenburialand commemora- The tombofDemetriaand Pamphilecontainstwo
tion:theinclusionof thelivingwiththedead on the stelaethatbothcommemorate thetwowomen.Based
tombstone.18 Thispracticeiswellknownand presents on thestratigraphic datingofthefoundationssupport-
particularchallenges.Althoughin some instancesit ingthetomb'sfunerary dat-
markersand thestylistic
is easyto determine whichfigureor figureson multi- ingofthemarkersthemselves, Kovacsovicspositsthe
figured stelaerepresent thedeceased,moreoftenthis following sequenceofevents.21 A midfourth-century
isquitedifficult,so muchso thatFriisJohansenargued stele,whichdepictsa seatedDemetriashakinghands

18Br(ickner1909,93-8;Garland1982,no.A12;Kovacsovics as Himmelmann
Nevertheless, (1999,57)himself notes,while
1990,73-87;Bergemann1997,no.A12. theremaybe suchiconographic indicationsin somescenes,
19Friis othersdo nothavethemandemphasizefamilial bondsrather
Johansen1951,28-48. On thechallengeofdistin-
guishingbetweenlivingand dead, see also Clairmont1993, thanseparation. ofthedeceased
Thisleavestheidentification
introductoryvol.:119-21;Bergemann1997,35-56; Ridgway unexpressediconographically on numerousmonuments,
1997,163-64.In contrast,
Himmelmann (1999,32-82)argues suggesting wasnota critical
thatthedistinction component of
thatcertainiconographic featuresdo distinguishtheliving manyscenes(pace Himmelmann 1999,80).
fromthedeadon thestelae,suchas theportrayal ofan adoles- 20
Bergemann1997,25-8.
centin a largerscalethanthesurrounding members. 21Kovacsovics1990,75-8.
family
2007] FUNERARYMARKERSIN CLASSICALATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS 637
witha standingPamphile,likelystood on the first to commemorate someoneburiedin thetomb.29 The
foundation in thetomb,locatedalongtheeastfacade statusofan individual on a
portrayed funerary marker
(see fig.3[A]).22Kovacsovicsassociatesthisstelewith could therefore change.
thefirstgrave(DP 14) in the tomb,23 whichhe sug- The tombofMakareus(figs.5, 6) providesfurther
gestsmay have been A
Demetria's.24 second marker information.30 In use forabout70 yearsfromthesec-
commemorating both Demetria and Pamphile(see ond quarterofthefourth century intothethirdcentu-
fig.4) datesto severaldecades later,afterthe tomb ry,the tomb contains 19 Four
graves. stonefoundations
had experiencedsomedestruction and restoration; it thatonce supported the tomb's funerarymarkers are
wasfoundimmediately besideFoundationA,whereit in
preserved the fillimmediately behind the facade
wasprobablyplacedaftertheremodeling.25 Thislater wall,threeofwhich(see fig.6[C, D, E] ) haveelements
steleportrays bothwomen,butthistimePamphileis thatdatetoall threephasesofthetomb.Althoughthe
seatedand Demetriastands.Kovacsovics identifies
a fourthfoundationto the east,whichsupportedthe
graveofa woman(DP 6)26locatedbehindFoundation naiskosof Makareus,was not installeduntilthe sec-
A and aboveGraveDP 14 as a likelycandidateforPam- ond phase,Kovacsovics positsthatan earlierfounda-
The complicated
phile's.27 sequenceofdestruction, re- tionprobablyalso existedherein thefirstphasebut
building,and erectionofnewmarkers is challenging, thatall tracesof itweredestroyed withtheerection
butifKovacsovics'reconstruction is correct,thefirst of the naiskos ofMakareus.31 A base withcuttings for
steleinwhichDemetriaisseatedand Pamphilestands -
twomarkers a steleand a marblevase was - found
wasoriginally setup in themidfourthcentury, when besideFoundationE andprobably belonged
originally
Demetriadied; thesteleon whichPamphileis seated to it,suggesting thatthetombdisplayedfivefunerary
and Demetriastandswas not set up untilca. 317/7, markersalong thefrontwall.32 The ratioof 19 buri-
whenPamphiledied.28In thisscenario,thefirststele als to fivemarkersin thistombillustrates thata new
namedand depictedPamphilein thetombwhileshe markerwasnotsetup foreveryburial;butthisis not
was stillalive,commemorating her in the tombfor surprising. A significant majorityoffiguralstelaefrom
about30 yearsbeforeshe died and wasburiedthere. theClassicalperiodportrays morethanone person,33
The tomb of Demetriaand Pamphileillustrates and rosettestelae commonlylistseveralnames.In-
howtombstones in a peribolostombcommemorate deed, one partially surviving markerfromthistomb,
individualsover time.Because funerary markersin a naiskosroofwithan inscribedarchitrave, namestwo
peribolostombswereplaced at sitesthatcontinued men:Makareusand Archebios.34
to be used forburial,the same sculptedfigurethat The earliestactivity in the tombof Makareussug-
originallyportrayed someonelivingmightlatercome geststhatthe decisionto includefewertombstones

22NM 2708.The arenamedon an architrave (Kera-
figures
meikos1258) belongingtothestele.
23Kovacsovics1990,cat.no. 88.
24Kovacsovics1990,75.
25Kerameikos P 687.Thisreliefisdatedstylistically
toshort-
ofDemetriosofPhaleronin 317/7
lybeforethelegislation
(Kovacsovics 1990,80). Becauseofitslaterdate,itcouldnot
havestoodon thefirst phaseofFoundation A.
26Kovacsovics1990,cat.no. 96.
27Kovacsovics
1990,77,81.
28Kovacsovics( 1990) usesthebroaddate317/7 torepresent
thepossibletimeframeforDemetriosofPhaleron'ssumptu-
arylegislation(Cic. Leg.2.66), whichis traditionally seen
as bringingclassicalsculptedfunerarymonuments toan end.
29Humphreys 1993,106.Schmaltz(1979,17-18) discusses
a stelein theMetropolitan MuseumofArtin NewYork(inv.
no.06.287)thatvividly showshowthenatureofcommemora-
tionina givenfunerary markermightchangeovertime.The
steleshowsa seatedwomanshakinghandswitha standing
malefigurethatwaslaterrecutas a woman.Basedon thisre-
cutting andon thefactthatthetwonameson thestele(Pana-
thenaisand Lysistrate) werein twodifferent hands,Schmaltz
proposedthatthemonument commemorated
originally one
deceasedfigure, Panathenais, shownas a seatedwomanshak-
inghandswitha standingman.Later,he suggests, whenthe
monumentwas used to commemorate a second deceased
family member, Lysistrate,theseatedwomanwasidentified
and thestandingfigurewasrecutto represent
as Lysistrate,
Panathenais. Foran alternative oftherecutfig-
interpretation
ure,see Clairmont 1993,3:404.
30Bruckner 1909,90-2; Garland1982,nos.A8,A9;Kovac-
sovics1990,20-48; Bergemann1997,no. A8/9.Although
Bruckneroriginally designatedthisas twoperibolostombs
(TombsIX andVIII) ,Kovacsovics hasarguedthattheareaac-
one peribolostomb,thefront wallofwhich
tuallyconstitutes
showstwophases.
31Kovacsovicsl990,25.
32Kovacsovicsl990,33.
33In theindextohis
catalogueofAtticfunerarysculpture,
Clairmont onlychil-
(1993,6:5-43)lists142stelaethatportray
drenand no adultsand 454 stelaewith1 adult(190 ofwhich
also includechildren),whilehe records1,288stelaewith2
adults(270 withchildren),656 stelaewith3 adults(95 with
children),138stelaewith4 adults(19 withchildren), 8 stelae
with5 adults(2 withchildren),4 stelaewith6 adults(2 with
children) ,and 1 stelewith7 adults.
34Kovacsovics1990,32-3. The markerhas been associ-
atedwitha base inscribed withan epigramthatalso names
Makareus.
638 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

Fig.3. Plan ofthetombofDemetriaand Pamphile,Kerameikos(Kovacsovics

1990,fig.44).

thanburialswas not drivenby lack of space in the sicaltombstones, itis notunusualtofindinscriptions

35
peribolos.FoundationD and Grave69, whichwas
locatedpartiallybeneaththe foundation,represent
thefirstburialactivity
in thetomb.The nextburial,
Grave14,36 whichwasadded slightly later,is foundat
somedistancefromthefrontfacadeneartherearof
theperibolos,southofGrave69 andFoundationD. No
otherfoundationwasbuiltat thetimeofthissecond
burial,despitetheampleroomalongthefacade.It is
likelythatthemonumenton FoundationD eventually
servedto commemorate boththewomanin Grave69
and theman in Grave14.37In otherwords,a marker
setup in associationwithone burialmightlatercom-
memorateotherburialsas well.Furthermore, on clas-
written in varioushands,indicatingthatnameswere
added to themarkerovertime.38 In peribolostombs,
then,thereisno one-to-one relationship betweenburi-
als and marker, and thewaya markercommemorates
thedead mightchangeovertimeas itcametomemo-
rializeadditionalindividuals.
The plotoftheMessenians(figs.7,8) demonstrates
thatfunerary markersdo notalwaysprovidean accu-
raterecordofall theindividuals interredin a tomb.39
There are nine markersknownfromthisperibolos:
threetrapezai,one block,twostelae,and threecippl.
Theyincludeseveninscribed namesandone unnamed
figuraldepiction,40 but thisfallsfarshortof the ex-

35Kovacsovics 1990,cat.no. 22. betweenimageandinscription, seeSchmaltz 1979,

lationship
36Kovacsovics 1990,cat.no. 23. 15-21.
37The first 1909,98-101;Garland1982,no.A13;Kovacso-
phaseofthetombofDemetriaand Pamphile 39Bruckner
offersa parallelsituation
(Kovacsovics 1990,75-6). Here,the vics1990,87-130;Bergemann1997,no.A13.
40Three
earliest involves
activity threegravesandtwofoundations. The trapezaicommemorateone individualeach:
first
grave(DP 14) (Kovacsovics 1990,cat.no. 88) appearsto Philoxenos, sonofDion;Dion,sonofPhiloxenos; andParthe-
havebeenassociated withFoundation A,alongtheeastfacade. nios,anothersonofPhiloxenos, allMessenians (Kerameikos I
Afterthis,twomoregraves, GraveDP 9 (Kovacsovics 1990,cat. 367,1368,and1369,respectively) .Ablockisinscribed withthe
no. 89) and GraveDP 15 (Kovacsovics 1990,cat.no. 90),were nameofa woman,Philoumene(Kerameikos 1517).Threecip-
dug,and FoundationB wasbuilt.SinceGraveDP 15 is later pi are each inscribed witha singlename:Anna,Dorkasfrom
thanGraveDP 9 and itsedge is underFoundationB, both Herakleia,andSophrone(Kerameikos 1263,1264,and1265,
graveswereaddedbeforeFoundation B wassetup. respectively). One uninscribed steledepictsa seatedwoman
38Fora discussion ofbothsynchronous and suc- (Kerameikos P 686) andanothera lekythosinrelief(Keramei-
thorough
cessiveinscriptionsofmultiplenames,see Bergemann1997, kosP 1477).
25-8.Forhowthecontinueduseofa tombstone affects
there-
2007] FUNERARYMARKERSIN CLASSICALATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS 639
tentof theburialactivity here.The tombcontained
an extraordinary numberofburials - about55 graves
dating from the second half of the fourthcentury
through the firstquarter of the thirdcentury, as well
as twodog burialsand threeritualoffering places.41
The largenumberof burialscontrasts withthenine
commemorative markers.Even ifsome of the origi-
nal markers are missing, itis unlikelythattheywould
havecommemorated all theremaining graves.42 Most
oftheburialsin thistomb,itseems,werenotrecorded
on themarkers.
In thetomboftheMessenians, then,a selectgroup
oftheburialswaschosenforcommemoration. Ofpar-
ticularinterestisthatinphases2 through 4 oftheperi-
bolos,48 burialswereadded,buttheappearancefrom
phase1 seemstohavebeenvirtually unchanged.After
phase 1, onlythreenewfunerary markers wereadded
to thetomb,and theseweresmallcippipositionedat
thebackoftheburialareaand notreadily visiblefrom
thestreet.43It is possiblethatthelaterburialsin this
tombdid notbelongto thefamily ofPhiloxenos,but
wereotherMessenianswhodied inAthens.44 Ifthisis
true,the tombpresentsanothertypeof disconnect
betweenthe circumstances of burialand the nature
of commemoration, since the tombstones takelittle
noticeof anyonebeyondtheimmediatefamily. The
funerary markerspresenta narrowgroupofa father
(Philoxenos),hissons (Dion and Pathenios),female Fig.4. Demetriaand Pamphilerelief,Kerameikos P 687 (©
relatives(Philoumeneand theunidentified womanon DAI Athens,neg.D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos 6003).
thestele),and slaves(Anna,Dorkas,and Sophrone).45
Buteveniftheadditionalburialswereforrelatives, the
imageofa smallfamily grouppresentedin thetomb- memorationthatcreatedpointsofdisparity between
stonesremainedunchangedevenaftertheseburials theburialsin theinteriorofa tomband thefunerary
wereadded.The difference betweencommemoration markersalong itsfacadeto emphasizea core family
and burial,then,mayresultfromtheprioritization of grouping.In the tombof Makareus,forexample,a
closefamily relationsoverotherkindsofconnections newmarkerwas not setup foreveryburial,whilein
in thecommemoration. the tombof Demetriaand Pamphile,existingmark-
The tombsfromthe CornerTerraceof the Kera- ers were adapted to commemoratelaterburials;in
meikoshighlight howfamiliesmade choicesin corn- thetomboftheMessenians,manyburialswerenever

41Kovacsovics 1990,96-7, 113-30.Fordog burials,see Ko- andfindspots 1990,111-12). Bothcippiandkion-

(Kovacsovics
vacsovics1990,cat.nos. 153,154.Foroffering places,see Ko- iskoiare presumedtohavebeenusedpredominantly
generally
vacsovics1990,cat. nos. 126, 159, 167. Offering places,the ofDemetrios
afterthelegislation ofPhaleronlimitedthesize
remains ofritualperformed atthegrave, areareasofburntsoil offunerary markers(KurtzandBoardman1971,166-69;Oli-
containing animalbones,pottery usedforfoodand
(esp.types ver2000,72-4). See Houby-Nielsen (1998) fora recentdis-
drink),and otheritems;see also Kurtzand Boardman1971, cussionquestioningtheroleofDemetrios' andfor
legislation
100-1;Garland2001,145. furtherdiscussionon kioniskoi
42Evenfor sitessuchas theKerameikos, itis 44Kovacsovicsl990,96.
well-preserved
toknowifthemarkers foundin a peribolostomb 45DorkasfromHerakleia, Anna,and Sophrone,all named
impossible
represent all thatoriginallystoodtherebecausetombstones on thecippi,havelongbeen thought to be slaves(Bruckner
werefrequently movedin subsequentperiods,oftenforre- 1909,100;Garland1982,no.A13;Knigge1991, 119),basedin
use eitherin a sepulchral contextoras buildingmaterial. On parton thetombstone formandinparton thefactthatAnna
theprovenances ofclassicalfunerary markers,see Clairmont isa Semiticname,nota Greekone (see Fragiadakis 1986,23,
1993,introductory vol.:47-65. 193,n. 89).
43The
cippiherearedatedon thebasisoftheirinscriptions
640 WENDYE. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

Fig.5. TombofMakareus, (E. Feiler;©DAIAthens,

Kerameikos neg.D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos
13298).

commemorated on thetombmarkers.The family as newburials.Whetheran individualon a tombstone

depictedin the facade of a peribolostomb, then,was was livingmightchangewithtime.Althoughassem-
not an exact reflectionof the familyburiedin the bled out of the specificcircumstancesof burial,the
tomb.Instead,thefamily portrayed in thetombmark- image of the visible
family in the tombfacadewasa
erswastheresultof deliberatechoice.This is not to constructed and flexibleone.
saythatburialsand tombstones werenotrelated.In-
THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE FAMILY
deed, theoccasionof thedeathand burialof a fam-
ilymemberwastheprimereasonforerectingsucha Because a precisecorrelationbetweenstele and
marker.46Nevertheless,as theCornerTerracematerial gravedoes notexist,as theCornerTerracetombsil-
burial
suggests, did notentirely dictateorconstrain
the a funerary
lustrate, markerplacedwithina peribolos
decisionofwhetheror notto commemorate an indi- tombdoesnotfunction inquitethesamewayas doesa
vidualwitha visiblemarker.Instead,thefamily chose singlemarker placedabove a singlegrave.Instead,the
certainmembers,livingas wellas dead, forportrayal ofa
setting peribolos tomb createsan interplayamong
and emphasisin thefacade. individualtombstones.An inscriptionon a fourth-
Norwastheimagethatthetombpresentedstatic. century naiskosbase
fromthefamily tombofHierokles
The tomb'sfacade,withitsarrayoffunerary markers, at Rhamnous47 stronglyunderscores thispoint:
wasnota fixeddesignbutalteredovertimewhenever
a familychose to erecta new marker.As the tombs Whilewalking considerthe
thissteeppath,stranger,
monument wholeftbehindtheir
forfivebrothers,
of theCornerTerraceshow,themessagemightalso
amongwhomHieronwentlasttothekingdom
family,
changein moresubtleways.The originalfunctionof ofHades,leavinghissoulfarbehindin splendidold
a funerarymarkermightbe expandedtomemorialize age.48

46SeeHimmelmann (1999)foranemphasisontheimpor- kos1999,1:387-99.

tanceofthefunerary
andreligiouscontext
forinterpreting 48IG2213102a(Petrakos no.273): "AiTtelav
1999,2:183-84,
markers.
funerary GT£{%C0V aTpOC7tOV, ^8V8 (ppd^SO afj|J,a I 7T8VT8 KaOiyvflTCOV, 01
47Garland
1982,no.N5;Bergemann 1997,no.N5;Petra- yever|veXinovI [cbvfI]epcov nviiaxoq(3aa(Xeia Ai(8)ao I
e\ioXev
2007] FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS 641

Fig.6. Plan ofphase 1 ofthetombofMakareus,Kerameikos(Kovacsovics

1990,fig.21).

Thisbase originallysupporteda naiskosframingthe on thebase asksthepasser-by

reliefofa manand a womanstandingside-by-side and
lookingat each other,themanholdinghislefthand
to his chinand thewomanextendingher rightarm
towardhim (fig.9). The twoare identified bythein-
scription on the stele'sarchitrave
as Hieron,son of
and his
Hierokles, Lysippe,presumably wife,49 butthe
inscription to consider
a monument forfivebrothers,nota monument toHi-
eronand hiswife.It does notevenalludeto Lysippe.
no one steleinthistombportrays
Interestingly, thefive
sonsofHieroklestogether;instead,thefivebrothers
arecommemorated invariousgroupings on different
markerswithinthetomb(fig.10).50The "monument

yfipai 6\))ii6v
\)7i6XX,i7iapcoi On thediscovery
cat07ipo?u7ccov." in showsHierokles withtwooftheothersons,LykeasandIophon
the1977Rhamnousexcavation ofthreefragments complet- (as wellas withDemostrate, thewifeofhisgrandson, and a
ingthetext,see Petrakos1980,7-9. groom). A fourthson,Kleitophon, is commemorated on a
49Naiskos:NM 833; Clairmont1993,2:480;Petrakos1999, (SEG30 221; Clairmont 1993,1:982;Petrakos1999,
lekythos
SEG30 218A;Petrakos1999,
1:397,figs.293,294.Inscription: 1:397;2:185,no. 274) and an anthemion stele(SEG31 206;
2:183,no. 271. Petrakos1999,2:185,no. 275). The fifth son is namedon a
50A centralnaiskos(IG 22 11707;SEG 30 215; Clairmont rosettestelewitha reliefloutrophoros(SEG 30 216;Petrakos
1993,1:981,3:480;Petrakos1999,1:389-91;2:182,no. 270) 1999,2:186no. 277).
642 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

withpartof the tombof Demetriaand Pamphileon theright(© DAI

Fig. 7. Tomb of theMessenians,Kerameikos,
Athens,neg.D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos 479).

offivebrothers" mustbe thetombas a whole.51 When conveyedsome relationships clearly,theydid notof-

usedina peribolostomb,then,funerary stelaearenot ferviewersan easilynavigablefamily tree.Thislackof
discreteunitsbut are interrelated and are meantto claritysuggests communicating information
that such
be read in associationwiththeotherfunerary mark- wasnottheirprimary function.
ers.52
They do not simplypresent a seriesofindepen- The tombof Eubios of Potamos(fig.11), located
dentmemorialsforpeople fromthesamefamily but on the northside of the Streetof theTombsin the
as
operate pieces of a largerwhole. The placementof Three
Kerameikos(see fig.2 [35]), is illustrative.54
funerary markers in a peribolos tomb highlightsthe monumentscan be associatedwiththistomb:a tall
interconnections among all those commemorated columnoriginally surmounted bya marblevase (pos-
within.Indeed,themarkers workedtogetherin peri- a
sibly loutrophoros)55a rosettestelewitha sculpted
bolostombstoexpress - and obscure- specificfamil- panel,56and a naiskos.57
Each ofthese monuments com-
ialrelationships.
Bergemann hasarguedthatperibolos memoratesmore thanone person.The centralcol-
tombsservedas a recordoffamily genealogybecause umnnamesBion theson ofEubiosfromPotamoson
of the important role familyrelationships playedin thebase and Archiklesson ofArchiasfromPotamos
Atheniancitizenship and in thescrutiny forholding on thecapital.The rosettesteleis inscribedwithfive
office.53
But whilethe markersin a peribolostomb names.Threeappearabovetherosettes: Euphrosyne

51The termtranslated hereas "monument" is sema.Sour- peribolostomb.

vinou-Inwood (1995,135) arguesthatsemainHomericepic 53Bergemann 1997,24-5,32,153.
"namesthegravemonument intermsofitsfunction, not,like 54Bruckner 1909,108-12;Ohly1965,339-40;Garland1982,
tymbos,intermsofthephysical objectthatconstitutes it."This no.A21;Humphreys 1993,115;Bergemann 1997,no.A21.
55IG227257.
meaningalsofitswellhere,whereallthetombstones areserv-
56Kerameikos 1993,3:420.A
ingone commemorative function, namelyas a semaofthefive I 277: 7G227263;Clairmont
brothers. rosette steleisa tall,thinshaft withtworosettes
decorated side-
52 withseveralnames.
UsingtheHegeso steleas an example,Schmaltz(1983, by-side andusuallyinscribed
1-23) alsoarguesfortheimportance ofinterpreting sculpted 57Kerameikos P 67,1 169:7G2211360;Riemann1940,2-4
funerary markersin relationto theothertombstones in the no. 3; Clairmont 1993,3:356.
2007] FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS 643

Fig.8. Plan ofthetomboftheMessenians,Kerameikos(Kovacsovics

1990,fig.48).

daughterofPhanipposfromPotamos,Eubiosson of rectlycommemoratedon the funerary marker,in

Phanippos,and Bion son of Eubios fromPotamos.
Presumably,these inscriptionsidentifythe figures
depictedin thereliefpanel belowtherosettes.Here,
a seatedwomanshakeshandswitha standingyoung
manwhilea beardedmanstandsbetweenthetwoand
looksat theyoungerman.A smalldog also appearsby
thechairofthewoman.Belowthepanelareinscribed
thenamesofDexikleiadaughterofPhilionfromOios,
and Archiasson ofEubiosfromPotamos.Finally,the
architraveofthenaiskosnamesEumenios,Eubios,and
Demetria.Onlythe head of a beardedman survives
fromthesculptedpanelwithinthenaiskos.
The relationships
amongthefiveindividuals named
on therosettesteleare relatively
clear.The inclusion
ofpatronymics makesfather/son and father/daugh-
terrelationships and
explicit siblingrelationships eas-
ilydiscernable.Eubios is father
of Bion and Archias.
Euphrosyne and Eubiosare siblings.Further,theuse
of patronymics also expandsthefamilygroupingby
expressingrelationshipsto familymembersnot di-
thiscase to Phanipposand to Philion.Dexikleiaand
Archiasare namedtogetheron therosettesteleand
therefore wereprobablymarried.Althoughsomefu-
neraryinscriptions a womanas a
identify
specifically
most the
wife,58 simplyimply relationship byplacing
thenamestogether.
Othertypesof relationships, however,are not so
clearlypresented. The centralcolumn namesBionson
ofEubioson thebase,andArchikles sonofArchiason
thecapital.Onlyon thebasisofthelastentryon the
rosettestele,whichcommemorates Archiasthe son
ofEubios,could a diligentreaderpiece together that
Archikles isBion'snephew.Becausetheirrelationship
isnowherestateddirectly on thecolumn,thefactthat
they were uncle and nephewdoes notseem to be as
important as the factthattheywerefamily. The fam-
ilyrelationships expressed on thesetwo markers ap-
pear in figure12.
Whileit is possibleto map out some of thesere-
lationships,othersremainimpossibleto determine.

SEG23 161,a rosettestelefromthetombofMeidon(Garland1982,no. Q3; Bergemann1997,no. Q3) .

58E.g.,
644 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

theyconnectedbysomeotherrelationship? Thereis
not
simply enough information provided know.59
to
Although the missingsculptedfiguresmighthave
provided some clues,the reliefon the rosettestele
fromthissametombsoundsa noteofcautionagainst
relying solelyon imagery to determinerelationships.
The inscriptions on therosettestelemakeitclearthat
the figureswho mighthave been takenforfather,
mother,and son based on thesculptureare actually
father, son,and thesisterofthefather.60 Indeed,the
relationship of women to the restof the family is of-
tenleftunstatedin a peribolostomb.The tombcon-
tainingthewell-known Hegesosteleis a case in point.
Neithertheinscriptions nordepictions makeclearhow
Hegeso is relatedto theotherpeople commemorat-
ed in thetomb,althoughshe is generally takento be
thewifeofKoroibos,the firstname inscribed on the
rosettestelethatsitsimmediately beside the steleof
Hegeso.61 Identifying specific relationships among the
people commemorated in thetombwasnotthefunc-
tionofthecommemoration. Further, thepracticeof
addingnewmarkersand inscriptions to a tombover
timemeantthattherewasno stageatwhichthecom-
memorative facadewascomplete;rather,itwasfluid
and ever-changing as new markerswereadded and
different relationsemphasized.
In addition,a quickreadingofthetombstones does
notaccurately revealhowmanypeoplearecommemo-
rated,sincethesamepersoncan be notedmorethan
Fig.9. Hieronand Lysipperelief,NM 833 (E.-M.Czako;© once. Bion is namedbothon therosettesteleand on
DAI Athens,neg.D-DAI-ATH-NM 4661).
thecolumnbase. Eubios also appearson therosette
steleas wellas on the naiskos. Moreover,Eubiosmay
The naiskosnamesEumenios,Eubios,and Demetria. haveappearedtwicein thesculptedrepresentations
Presumably, thisis thesameEubiosmentionedon the as well.The practiceofcommemorating a fewpeople
rosettestele.Or is he Eubios'grandfather?
His grand- morethanonce in a giventombis attestedin at least
son?Is Demetriahiswife?Is Emenioshisson?Or are 10othertombs.62 ThatEubiosandhissonBionappear

59Riemann(1940,4) identifies men); Nikomacheis named

Demetriaas Eubios'wife guesthattheyare twodifferent
and Eumenios'daughter. Clairmont(1993,3:420) also takes on twolekythoi(Bergemann 1997,no. Lla); Agathoniscom-
Demetriato be Eubios'wifebutsuggests thatEumenioswas memorated twicein theperibolosofAgathonand Sosikrates
Demetria'sbrotheron thebasisofEumenios'age. in theKerameikos (Bruckner 1909,64-74;Garland1982,no.
6o/G227263.Stears(2000b,214-16)arguesthattheinscrip- A2; Bergemann1997,no. A2); Demetriaand Pamphileare
tionson funerarymonuments reference
rarely theimagebe- each commemorated twicein theirtombin theKerameikos
yondnamingthefigures shown. (Bruckner1909,93-8; Garland1982,no. A12; Kovacsovics
61 1990,73-87; Bergemann1997,no. A12); Iatroklesis com-
E.g.,Bruckner1909,106. On the tomb,see Bruckner
1909,104-8;Garland1982,no. A20; Bergemann1997,no. memoratedtwicein a periboloson theStreetoftheTombs
A20. (Bruckner1909, 102; Garland1982,no. A15; Bergemann
62 knownfromthearea ofthecity 1997,no. A15); Phanoklesis commemorated twicein the
E.g.,in familyprecincts
of Athens,Autodikosof Erchiais commemorated on two tombof thefamily ofAlcibiadesin theKerameikos(Bruck-
lekythoifoundtogethernear the DiocaresGate of Athens ner1909,102-4;Garland1982,no.A19;Bergemann 1997,no.
(Bergemann 1997,no.F12); Dion ofKydothenaion
andLysis- A19); andonmarkers probably froma tomboutside
originally
tratearebothnamedon twomonuments (Bergemann1997, thesouthern a certainMenyllos
gatesofthecity, iscommemo-
no.F12a); HippiasofLokrisisnamedon twolekythoi (Berge- ratedfivetimes, fourtimes,and twoseparatemen
Astyphilos
mann1997,no.F17); inthetombcommemorating thefamily namedLeon are commemorated twiceeach (Garland1982,
ofLykourgos, Lykophron theson ofLykourgos maybe com- no.T2; Bergemann1997,no.T2).
memoratedtwice(Matthaiou1987; Bergemann[1997] ar-
2007] FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS
Fig. 10. Reconstruction
drawingofthetombofHierokles,Rhamnous(Petrakos1999,vol. 1,fig.288).
twicesuggests thattheirfamilyhada particularinterest
incommemorating thisfather/son pair.Nevertheless,
theemphasisis a subtleone because themethodsof
commemoration do notaccentuatetheirrelationship.
WhileEubiosand Bion are namedand portrayed to-
getheron the rosettestele,theyarejoined here by
Euphrosyne, Eubios'sister.Theyareeach commemo-
ratedagainelsewhereas individuals: Bionon thebase
ofthecolumnand Eubioson the naiskos.
Althoughspecificindividuals and relationshipsare
memorialized, theportrayalofseveralpeopleon a sin-
glemonumentand therepeatedappearanceofsome
people on morethanone markersometimes obscure
whoexactly iscommemorated. In fact,theimagesand
inscriptionsstressthegeneralconceptoffamily rela-
tionshipsoverspecificindividuals,relationships, or
genealogicalrecord.63In thecommemorative markers,
thefactthatthepeople wererelatedwastheprimary
message.Insteadof stressing a connectionbetween
markerand burial,thesettingoftheperibolostomb
createdlinksamongmarkers, requiredviewers toread
betweenthelinestodiscoverunspecified connections
63Himmelmann a pri-
(1999,101) arguesagainstassigning
marilygenealogicalfunction
tomultifigure
monuments.
54Forthetomb,see Bruckner1909,57-64;Garland1982,
no.Al; Bergemann1997,no. Al. Forthetombstones, see IG
645
betweenthosecommemorated, and thusemphasized
a holisticviewofthefamily.
MONUMENTS FOR THE FAMILY
Peribolos tombsdo not portraypurelygeneric
renditionsof families,however.As the rosettestele
fromthetombofEubiosillustrates, therelationships
are notalwayswhatone expects.Further, thespecific
compositionofthefamily groupvariedfromtombto
tomband evenfromgenerationto generation within
one tomb.In thetombforthefamily of Dexileosin
the Kerameikos(see fig.2[18]), forexample,four
people fromDexileos' generationwerecommemo-
rated:Dexileos,his brotherLysias,hissisterMelitta,
and her husband Nausistratos.64 In contrast,only
one memberof each of the twosubsequentgenera-
tionsappearsin the tomb:Lysias'son Lysaniasand
his grandsonKalliphanes.65 It is also usefulto note
whois notincludedin thefacade.Dexileoswasprob-
ablyunmarriedwhenhe died in theCorinthian War
around the age of 20. His brotherLysiasmusthave
been married,sincehissonis namedin thetomb,but
226217 (Dexileos),6227(Lysias),and6230(MelittaandNau-
sistratos).
65IG226226
(Lysanias);IG226226,11817(Kalliphanes).
646 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN [AJA111

Fig. 11. Tomb ofEubios,Kerameikos(E.-M.Czako;© DAI Athens,neg.D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos

5979).

hiswifeis not commemorated. In addition,thereis ratehouseholdaftermarriage,and mortality rates.68

evidencethatDexileos,Lysias,and Melittamayhave
had anotherbrotherwho was not commemorated
at all in thistomb.66 - in-
These twofamilialpatterns
dividuallines of descentand groupingsof siblings,
sometimeswithspouses- are commonin peribolos
tombs.67 Butnotall membersin thesecategoriesare
included.No peribolostombtracesall descentlinesor
commemorates inevery
siblings generation.AsGallant
hasshown,thecompositionofa livinghouseholdwas
fluid,sometimescomprisinga nuclearfamily, while
at othertimesincludingextendedfamilymembers
or more thanone adult generation,dependingon
whenchildrenmarried,whethersons set up a sepa-
Because men weregenerallyolder thanthewomen
theymarried,widowhoodand remarriage werenot
unusual.69The changes to household composition
overtimeand particular tiesofaffectionwithina given
family must have influenced the choice of whom to
commemorate in a peribolostomb.
So, too, did ideology.Humphreyshas noted that
thefamily unitin theClassicalperioddoesnotappear
to havediffered fromthatin theArchaic;rather, pre-
vailingconcepts about the familychanged.70 AsBerge-
mannhasshown,family tombsportray a publicfaceof
theideal Athenianfamily in whichmen publiclyful-
fillobligationsforthecityand womenprivately fulfill

66Kirchner (1901-1903,no. 3229) proposedthattherewas eroussimple,nuclearhouseholds, so prominent inthehistor-

a fourth sibling, attested
Lysistratos, inDemosthenes(Against thenhouseholdson theirwaytoward
ical record,represent
Boiotos2A0.52) and a dedicatoryinscription (/G221177). extension ordemographic Cox (1998,130-67)con-
failures."
67See Closterman sidersfurther in oikoscomposition
(2006,58-61) on descentandsiblingre- complications resulting
lationships inperibolostombs. fromfactors suchas multipleresidenceson scattered
parcels
68Gallant1991,17-30;see forminors, and
esp. 24-5,wherehe discusses ofland,guardianship adoption,remarriage,
thechangingcomposition ofthehouseholdsfoundin Dem- absenceordeathdue towar.
osthenes(Against Boiotos
1.39,2.40). Based on hisanalysis
of 69See Gallant1991,17-19,26-7; Cox 1998,152-55;
Roy
evidencefromAtticforensicspeeches,archaeology, cross- 1999,6-7.
cultural anddemographic models,Gallant( 1991, 70 1993,61-2.
comparison, Humphreys
26) drawsa morecontroversial conclusion, that"[t]henum-
2007] FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS 647

Fig.12. FamilytreeofEubiosofPotamos,based on thefunerary fromthetombofEubiosin theKerameikos.

markers

theirswithinthehome.71 Atticlegal speeches,which were suitableforcontinuingcommemoration, fre-

arecontemporaneous withtheperibolostombs,both quentlydisplaying a family line through more than
idealizefamily harmony andrecognizenumerouschal- one generation.
lenges,many with civicramifications,thataffectedthe The commemoration on rosettestelaeoffersa coun-
familyunit.72 This perceivedthreat to the familymay terpoint to a recurringconcern expressed by the Attic
wellhaveinfluencedtheportrayal and commemora- orators:anxietyaboutfamily linesdyingout.75 A fam-
tionofthefamily in theperibolostomb. ilydescribedas extinctis one thatno longerhas any
WhiletheArchaictraditionof givingspecialcom- directmaledescendants, whether naturaloradopted,
memorationto adultswho died youngcontinued,73 evenifotherrelatives In a speechrecordedin
exist.76
newemphasesand practicesemergedin theClassical Isaeus (7.30), thespeakerstatesas a truism thatevery
period.One newtypeofgravestone frequently found man,shortly beforehisdeath,seekstoensurethathis
in peribolostombsis the rosettestele.The rosette family does notbecomeextinct, adoptingifhe hasno
stelefromthetombofMeidonfromMyrrhinous, now childrenso thatthereis someonetoperform custom-
in theBrauronMuseum,illustrates howthesestelae ary ritesfor him when he dies. The speakerargues
functioned.74 It records11 names overfivegenera- thatthedeceasedknewthatifhe lefthisinheritance
tionsin at leastsixdifferenthands.Tall rosettestelae to his opponentsratherthanadopt a son,his oppo-

1997,69-94. 73Garland2001,86-8.
71Bergemann
72On the offamily 74SEG23161;see also Garland1982,no. Q3; Humphreys
presentation ideologyintheorators, see
Humphreys 1993, 9; Rubinstein
1993, 5. Even though itis dif- 1993,117;Bergemann1997,no. Q3.
ficultto determinetheveracity of manyassertions made in 75 44.2, 11; [Dem.] AgainstMa-
E.g., Dem. AgainstLeochares
thesespeeches,Hunter(1994,96) explainshowgossip, wheth- 75,83-4;Isae.2.15,36-7,7.30;Isoc.19.3,47;see
kartatos43.72,
er trueor false,revealsideology:"gossipis aboutreputation. alsoAsheri1959.The termsgenerallyusedareoikos anderemos.
Whileasserting thecommonvaluesofthegroup,itholdsup On therangeofmeaningsofthetermoikos, see MacDowell
tocriticism,ridicule,orabusethosewhofloutsociety's or the 1989;Cox 1998,132-35;Patterson 1998,1-2; Roy1999,1-2.
community's acceptedrules."See Hunter(1994,54-5) and On theimpactofhighinfant on thecontinuation
mortality of
Roy(1999,8) on therepeatedexpression in family
legaldis- line,see Pomeroy1997,121-22.
thefamily
putesoftheidealthatrelatives shouldnottakeeach otherto 44.15, 24, 27, 33.
76E.g.,Dem. AgainstLeochares
court.
648 WENDYE. CLOSTERMAN
nentswouldcause his familyto become extinctjust
as had happenedon anotheroccasionwhentheyin-
heritedanotherestate(Isae. 7.30,43-4). Preventing
theextinction ofa familylinewasdesirableforone's
ownwelfare; and itwasa publicduty.The opponents'
neglectoftheirbrother'sfamily line is compounded
bythefactthathisfamily wasofsucha financialstat-
ure thatit could funda trierarchy (Isae. 7.32,reiter-
ated in 42).77Thus, the extinctionof such a family
wasdetrimental forAthensbecause itwoulddeprive
thecityof a familythatperformed Indeed,
liturgies.
theextinction ofa familywasenoughofa publiccon-
cernthatthearchonwas chargedwithpreventing it
([Dem.] AgainstMakartatos 43.75; Isae. 7.30;).78The
speechesgo so faras to suggestthatprevention wasa
moralimperative. For theindividualfamily member,
an heirexistedto maintaintombcult;forthe polis,
thefamily continuedtobe able tofulfill publicduties.
Byrecording descentthrough generations, rosetteste-
lae offereda visualrecordofa continuing family line.
Becauserosettestelaefrequently tracedgenerations,79
theappearanceofone in a peribolostombmighthave
communicatedthisidea evenbeforegenerationsof
descendentswererecordedon it.
Multifigured funerarystelae,commonparticularly
in thefourthcentury, frequently depictmultiplegen-
erationstogetherin the same scene,whetherfather
and son,parentsand children,or grandparents and
grandchildren.80 Bergemannhas argued thatsuch
multigenerational stelae referredto the obligation
ofchildrento care fortheirparents.81 The emphasis
on thisdutyat thistimemaybe due to concernover
an increased"generation gap,"82particularly between
fathersand theiradult sons. Issues of property and
[AJA111
inheritanceoftendisruptedtheirrelations,as both
Golden and Cox show.83Other concernsabout fa-
ther/sonconflictmayhavesprungfrommoremeta-
phorical concerns.Strausshas demonstratedhow
the symbolismof father/sonconflictwas a means
of understanding politicsduringthePeloponnesian
War,at the end of which,accordingto Strauss,"[a]s
a meansof restoring orderon theideologicalplane
. . . Atheniansreturnedfromthe rule of the son to
theruleofthefather. Atthebeginningofthepostwar
era, the imputationof disloyalty to one's fatherwas
not to be takenlightly on the partof theaccused."84
Funerary markersand peribolostombsdepictingdif-
ferentgenerationsgroupedharmoniously together
countersanyaccusations ofthistypebydemonstrating
positiverelationsbetweengenerations.
In addition,thesestelaenewlyemphasizeimagesof
women.The Hegeso steleoffers a classicexampleof
one waythestelaedepictedtraits ofan idealizedAthe-
nianwoman.85 On it,Hegeso is shownas thequintes-
sentialAthenianwife,seatedindoorsand gazingdown
at theobject(originally paintedon thestele)thatshe
hasremovedfromtheboxherservant holdsouttoher.
In classicalAthens,marriagetookon increasing pub-
in partas a resultoftherolemothers
lic significance,
playedindetermining citizenshipunderthePeriklean
citizenshiplawof45I/O.86 Becauseofthis,adultery and
marriageto foreignwomenwereseen as endanger-
ingbothfamily and state,a concernthattheforensic
speechesfrequently expressnumerousconcernsabout
thebehaviorofwomen.87 Forexample,Patterson has
shownhowtherhetoric usedin thespeechagainstNe-
airapresentedmarriageto a non-Athenian as beinga
threatto theverysocietyofAthens.88 The increasein

77In contrast,
theadoptedson whowantsto keep thedis- N3; Garland1982,no. Ol andBergemann 1997,no. Ol; Gar-
putedinheritance and continuethefamily lineissaidtohave land1982,no. Q3 and Bergemann 1997,no. Q3; Bergemann
actedas a gymnasiarch at thefestivalof Prometheus(Isae. 1997,no. Q7; Bergemann1997,no. Q14; Bergemann1997,
7.36). no.Q15; andBergemann 1997,no.Q16.
78Rubinstein 80
(1993,2-3) arguesthatconcernaboutcon- Bergemann1997,87-8, 92-3. He showsthatmultiple
tinuation ofa familyline,whichis intertwined withtheprac- generations appeartogether morefrequently thanmarried
ticeofadoption, wasprimarily a personalconcernrather than couples.
a publicone becausethereis no concertedeffort 81 1997,93-4.On thisobligation,seealsoGold-
bythepolis Bergemann
tomakefamilies adopt.Hunter(1994,4), however, notesthat en 1990,101-4.
thereareimportant mechanisms forsocialcontrolthatgo be- 82Strauss'term(1993,217).Whilefather/son conflictmay
yondlegalandgovernmental actions,namely"self-regulation, nothaveactually increased,Strauss(1993,217) showsthatit
consensus, andpersuasion." wasperceivedtohavedoneso,stressing herethat"[h]owever
79Fifteenotherrosettestelaecommemorating twoormore firm thefoundations oftheAthenian oikosinreality,
ideologi-
generations appearin Garlandand Bergemann 's catalogues callyitwasseentobe shaking."
ofperibolostombs:Bergemann1997,no. D8; Garland1982, 83Golden1990,107-10;Cox 1998,84-8.
no. F5 and Bergemann1997,no. F5; Bergemann1997,no. 84Strauss1993,16.
F16; Bergemann1997,no. L13; Bergemann1997,no. L15; 85NM 3624;Clairmont 1993,2:150.
Bergemann 1997,no. L17; Garland1982,no. M2 and Berge- 86Patterson 1998,107-10.
mann1997,no. M2; Garland1982,no. Nl and Bergemann 87Hunter 1994,111-16;Patterson 1998,157-74.
1997,no.Nl; Garland1982,no.N3 andBergemann 1997,no. 88Patterson 1994.
2007] FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS
the number of images of women on classical Atticfu-
nerarystelae mayresultfromthe role mothersplayed
in determiningcitizenship.89
Whatever the reality,the orators' concerns reveal
anxieties about the welfare of the Athenian family.
Alreadyfeeling threatenedwithextinction,concerns
about adultery,marriage to foreignwomen, and con-
flictbetween fathersand sons furtherdisrupted the
harmoniousfamilyunit.A tombwithfunerarymarkers
such as rosettestelae,stelae depictingwomen, and ste-
lae depicting familymembers of differentages made
a statementthatthe familyhad successfullyovercome
the challenges facing it. This message of unityand
survivalwas the primaryobjective of these funerary
markers; less importantwas which familymembers
conveyed the message.
The tomb withthe Hegeso stele is a good example.
The stele stood in a peribolos tomb (see fig.2 [34] ) on
the northside of the Streetof the Tombs in the Kera-
meikos,along witha rosettestele and a thirdstele for
a man who presumablydied at a young age (fig.13) .90
The rosettestele tracesdescent throughat least three
and possiblyfivegenerations.The firstname inscribed
is Koroibos,whichis followedbyinscriptionsforhis son
and grandson. Some time later,the name of Sosikles
was added to the verytop of the stele (above the ear-
lier names) and the name of his son Euthydemoswas
added to thebottomofthelist.91 While the relationship
of Sosikles and his son withthe othersis unexpressed,
the location of theirnames on the rosettereinforces
the image of a familyline continuingthroughseveral
generations.
The Hegeso stele, which provides the only female
name and image in the tomb, presentsa similaram-
biguitybecause, as noted above, her relationshipwith
others in the tomb is unclear. The stele's inscrip-
tion simplystates "Hegeso daughter of Proxenos."92
Schmaltz,who looked at the markerin relation to the
others in the tomb, argued that,in addition to func-
tioningas a memorial to Hegeso as an individual,her
idealized image later came to representthe qualities
of the unnamed wivesof the male descendents whose
names were added to the rosettestele.93In a peribo-
los tomb, one stele showing a virtuouswoman might
stand forall of the women in the family.
Harmonious familygroupings of multiple kinds-
husbands and wives,children, and siblings through
89Osborne 1997,esp.29-31.
90Bruckner1909,104-8; Garland1982,no. A20;
Berge-
mann1997,no.A20.A circular inthebasefortheHe-
cutting
gesostelemayhavehelda fourth marker.
91/G226008.
92IG I2 1079.
649
several generations- presented an image of a well-
functioning familythat was successfullyprevailing
over the perceived threatsto familyharmony.Peri-
bolos tombs,however,provided more than a location
for memorializing such a picture in stone. Rather,
the veryacts of burial and erectingfunerarymarkers
were testamentsto solid familialrelationships.For the
Athenians, privateactions were a barometer of pub-
lic behavior. Strausssummarizesthisconcept as "the
widelyshared ideology thatone could not be a good
citizenwithoutbeing a good man in the oikos, or the
reverse,thatmisbehaviorin the oikos was a sure sign
of misbehaviorin the polis."94A son who cared well
forhis parentswould also care forthe polis, and one
who neglected his parentswould show the same disre-
gard as a citizen. Thus, the officialscrutinyforpublic
officeinquired about a candidate's treatmentof his
parents,includingthe location of theirburials,as part
of determininghis suitability foroffice.95The tombsof
parents do not simplyreinforcethe candidate's civic
credentials;theydemonstratehis care forhis parents.96
The concept thatprivatebehavior had public signifi-
cance resonated in the displayof harmonious family
relationsin peribolos tombs.
In Isaeus 2, funeraryritual provides evidence for
the good characterof individualsand forthe well-be-
ing of the family.Although technicallya defense of
Philonides against a charge of perjury,thisspeech is
partofa largerlegal battleoverthe estateofMenekles,
which had been claimed both by Menekles' broth-
er and by his adopted son, who was the brother of
Menekles' second wife.Here, the adopted son pres-
ents his claim to the inheritance and cites funerary
ritual as evidence for his good character and that of
his family:
I, theadopted son,withtheaid ofmywife,thedaugh-
ter of Philonides here, tended [Menekles] while he
livedand gave his name to mylittleson, in orderthat
his familymightnot lack a representative.On his
death, I buried him in a mannerbefitting both him
and myself, and I erecteda finemonumentto himand
celebratedthecommemorative ceremonyon theninth
day and performedall the otherritesat the tombin
the best mannerpossible,so thatI won the praise of
all the membersof mydeme. But myopponent,his
kinsman,who blames him forhavingadopted a son,
duringhis lifetimedeprivedhim of the landed prop-
ertywhichremainedto him,and now thathe is dead,
93Schmaltz1983,7-10.
1993,41; see alsoHunter1994,96-119,esp.101.
94Strauss
95[ArisL]Ath.Pol.55.3.
96Straussl993,43.
650 WENDY E. CLOSTERMAN
Fig 13. Tomb ofKoroibos,Kerameikos(E.-M.Czako;© DAI Athens,neg.D-DAI-ATH-Kerameikos
wishesto renderhim childlessand wipe out his very
name; thatis the kindof man he is.97
In thispassage,the speakersetsup a contrastbe-
tweenhimself(the adopted son) and his opponent
(Menekles'brother)byjuxtaposinghis own actions
towardMenekleswithhis opponent's.Whilehis be-
haviorbefitsthe role of a good son, his opponent's
is portrayedas inappropriateforhisrelationship as a
kinsman.The act of burial,settingup a monument,
and theperformance ofsubsequenttombcultfeature
prominently in thespeaker'slistofactionsthatcatego-
rizehimas a son.98The speakernotesthathe buried
Meneklesin a mannerthatwasworthy notonlyofthe
deceasedbutalso ofhimself.In otherwords,theway
thespeakerdischargedhis dutiesin funerary ritual,
97Isae.2.36-7(Forster1983,61).
)XThisconceptalsoappearsinbriefattheendofthespeech,
wherethespeakernotesthathe wastheone whobothcared
forMenekleswhilehe livedand buriedhimwhenhe died
(Isae.2.45).
"The performance offuneraryritualisalsousedelsewhere
inthisspeechtodemonstrate thegoodcharacter oftheliving.
Aspartofhistestimony concerning thecharacter ofMenekles,
[AJA111
5969).
includinghow he set up a tombstone,shed a posi-
tivelighton himself,thelivingson and heir,notjust
the deceased.Properbehaviorwithregardto burial
was perceivedas one manifestation of good familial
relationships."
The performance of funerary ritualbyMenekles'
adoptedson explicitly Menekles'wishes.In
fulfilled
section10,thespeakerexplainsthatMeneklesdecided
toadopta sonbecausehe wantedsomeonetocarefor
himin hisold age, to buryhimwhenhe died,and to
maintainthe tombcultforhim,theverydutiesthat
the speakerdeclareshe performed forMenekles.100
The speakercharacterizes his opponent'sactionsin
seekingto depriveMeneklesofhisadoptedson,how-
ever,as an attemptto make the familyof Menekles
Thus,havinga son whowouldcareforhis
extinct.101
thespeakerstatesthatMeneklescarriedout thecustomary
ritesforhisfirstwifebeforeseekinga secondwife(Isae.2.4).
100
Thiswasprobablya commonsentiment. A similaridea
is expressedin Plato (Hp. mai.291d-e). Rubinstein(1993,
63-76) usesthispassagetoframeheranalysis ofthereasons
foradoptioninclassical Athens.
101
See alsoIsae.2.15.
2007] FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS 651

fatherboth in lifeand afterdeath was a visiblesign of des4.Jahrhunderts v.Chr.undzurFunktion dergleichzeitigen

the well-beingof the family.Furthermore,when the Grabbauten. Munich:Biering8cBrinkmann.
Bruckner,A. 1909. DerFriedhof amEridanosbeiderHagia
adopted son sayshe gave Menekles' name to his own Triadazu Athen. Berlin:GeorgReimer.
"little son," he emphasizes the continuation of the
Clairmont,C.W. 1986. "Some Reflectionson theEarliest
familyinto another generation. ClassicalAtticGravestones." Boreas9:27-50.
If one burial and funerarymarkermake a positive . 1993. ClassicalAtticTombstones. 8 vols.Kilchberg:
statementabout the familymember responsible for Akanthus.
Closterman,W.E. 2006. "FamilyMembersand Citizens:
them, how much more might a peribolos tomb ex- AthenianIdentity and thePeribolosTomb Setting."In
press? By displayingseveral funerarymarkerstogeth- Antigone's Answer: EssaysonDeathandBurial,Family and
er, a peribolos tomb conveyed a persistentpatternof Statein ClassicalAthens, edited byC.B. Patterson,49-
care and commemorationformembers of the family. 78. HeliosSuppl. 33. Lubbock: Texas Tech University
Thus, theveryappearance of a peribolos tombimplies Press.
Conze, A. 1893-1922. Die attischen 4 vols.Ber-
Grabreliefs.
that the survivorswere good familymembers who
lin:W. Spemann.
expressed proper concern for their dead. Each new Cox, C.A. 1998. Household Interests:
Property,Marriage Strat-
burial,tombstone,or added inscriptionreinforcedthis and
egies, FamilyDynamics in AncientAthens. Princeton:
idea. Peribolos tombs,then,illustratethe continuation PrincetonUniversity Press.
of the familyover timeand emphasize affectionatefa- Davies,G. 1985."The Significance oftheHandshakeMotif
in ClassicalFunerary Art."AJA89(4):627-40.
milial relationshipsnot onlythroughthe imageryand
Day,J.W.1989. "Ritualsin Stone:EarlyGreekGraveEpi-
inscriptionson the tombstones themselvesbut also gramsand Monuments.''///^ 109:16-28.
through the appearance of a well-tendedtomb. The Forster,E.S., trans.1983. Reprint.Isaeus.Loeb Classical
gravestonesin a peribolos tomb grouped familymem- Library.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.
bers,livingand dead, and therebycomplemented the Original edition,1927.
ritualboth during the actual funeralsand during the Fragiadakis,Ch. 1986. "Die attischenSklavennamenvon
derspatarchaischen Epoche bisin die romischeKaiser-
observance of traditionaltomb cult when the tomb- zeit.Eine historische und soziologischeUntersuchung."
stones were decorated and tended. Ph.D. diss.,University ofMannheim.
Friisjohansen,K. 1951. TheAtticGrave-Reliefs oftheClassi-
CONCLUSION calPeriod:AnEssayinInterpretation. Copenhagen:Ejnar
In the contextof peribolos tombs,classicalAt- Munksgaard.
Gallant,T.W. 1991. Riskand SurvivalinAncient Greece:Re-
tic funerary monumentshad a strongerideological theRuralDomestic Stanford:Stan-
constructing Economy.
thandocumentary function.Theirprimary role was fordUniversity Press.
to presenta familyportrait,ratherthanto serveas a Garland,R.SJ.1982."AFirstCatalogueofAtticPeribolos
forinformation aboutburialor a family's Tombs."BSA77:125-76.
repository
Insteadofproviding a complete . 2001. TheGreek WayofDeath.2nd ed. Ithaca,N.Y.:
genealogicalhistory. CornellUniversity Press.
recordofthoseburiedin thetomb,an easilynavigable Golden,M. 1990. Children and Childhood Athens.
in Classical
portrayaloftheindividualscommemorated, orthein- Baltimore:The JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.
tricaciesof thefamilytree,thefacadeof a peribolos Hildebrandt,F. 2006. Die attischen Namenstelen: Untersuch-
tombconveyedan imageoffamily as mea- ungen zu Stelendes.5. und 4.Jahrhunderts v. Chr.Berlin:
solidarity
Frank8cTimme.
suredagainstthebackdropoftheAthenianideal. By Wiesbaden:
Himmelmann,N. 1999. Attische Grabreliefs.
choosingdetailsfromtheirburialhistory
selectively Westdeutscher Verlag.
and familialrelationsto emphasizein theirtombfa- Houby-Nielsen, S. 1998."RevivalofArchaicFunerary Prac-
cades,familiesportrayed themselveswiththetraitsof ticesintheHellenisticand RomanKerameikos." Proceed-
a successfulAthenianfamily - longevity,virtue,and ingsoftheDanishInstitute atAthens 2:127-45.
Humphreys, S.C. 1993. TheFamily, Women andDeath:Com-
intergenerationalharmony. Studies.2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University ofMich-
parative
igan Press.
BRYN ATHYN COLLEGE Hunter,VJ. 1994. PolicingAthens:SocialControl in theAt-
BOX 717 ticLawsuits,420-320 B.C. Princeton:PrincetonUni-
versity Press.
BRYN ATHYN, PENNSYLVANIA 10,000,
Kirchner,I., ed. 1901-1903. Prosopographia attica.2 vols.
WENDY.CLOSTERMAN@BRYNATHYN.EDU Berlin:GeorgReimer.
Knigge,U. 1991. TheAthenian Kerameikos: History,Monu-
ments, Excavations.Translated byJ. Binder. Athens:
WorksCited KreneEditions.
Kokula,G. 1984. Marmorlutrophoren. Berlin:Gebr.Mann.
nel dirittosuccessorioat-
Asheri,D. 1959."L'oiKoqepr^LOC, Kovacsovics, W.K.1990.DieEckterrasse an derGrdberstrassedes
tico."Archivio
Giuridico25:7-24. Kerameikos. Kerameikos14. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter.
Bergemann,J. 1997. Demosund Thanatos:Untersuchungen Kurtz,D.C., andj. Boardman.1971. Greek BurialCustoms.
zumWertsystem derPolisimSpiegelderattischenGrabreliefs Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversity Press.
652 W.E. CLOSTERMAN, FUNERARY MARKERS IN CLASSICAL ATTIC PERIBOLOS TOMBS

Leader,R.E. 1997. "In Death Not Divided:Gender,Fam- Representations andRealities.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

ily,and Stateon ClassicalAthenianGraveStelae."AJA Ridgway, B.S. 1997.Fourth-Century Stylesin GreekSculpture.
101(4):683-99. Madison:The University ofWisconsinPress.
MacDowell,D.M. 1989. "The Oikosin AthenianLaw." CQ Riemann,H. 1940.Die Skulpturen vom5.Jahrhundert bisin
39:10-21. rbmische Zeit.Kerameikos2. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter.
Mastrokostas, E. 1966. "E7U<xrr||aaTa
ekMupptvouvTCx;." In RoyJ. 1999. "Polisand Oikosin Classical Athens."GaR
Xapioxr\piov eiq Avaozdowv k. OpXdvdovF, 281-99. 46:1-18.
Athens:H evAOtjvock; Apxaio^oyucrj Exaipeiaq. Rubinstein, L. 1993.Adoption inTV.Century Athens. Copen-
Matthaiou,A.P. 1987. "'HpiovAi)Kot)pyo\) Atucocppovcx; hagen: MuseumTusclanumPress.
Bodt(x5o\)." Horos5:31-44. Schmaltz,B. 1970. Untersuchungen zu denattischenMarmor-
Morris,1. 1992.Death-Ritual and SocialStructure
in Classical lekythen.Berlin:Gebr.Mann.
Antiquity. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. . 1979."Verwendung und Funktionattischer Grab-
. 1998. BeyondDemocracyand Empire:Athenian maler."MarbWPr: 13-37.
ArtinContext."In Democracy, Empire, andtheArtsinFifth- . 1983. GriechischeGrabreliefs.Darmstadt:Wissen-
Century Athens, editedbyD. Boedekerand KA. Raaflaub, schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
59-86. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity Press. Scholl,A. 1996.Die attischen Bildfeldstekndes4.Jhs.v. Chr.
Ohly,D. 1965. Kerameikos-Grabung Tatigkeitsbencht Untersuchungen zu denkleinformatigen imspdtk-
Grabreliefs
1956-1961."AA80:277-376. lassischenAthen. Berlin:Gebr.Mann.
Oliver,G.J.2000. "AthenianFuneraryMonuments:Style, Shapiro,H.A. 1991. "The Iconographyof Mourningin
Grandeur,and Cost."In TheEpigraphy ofDeath:Studies AthenianArt."AJA95 (4) :629-56.
intheHistory andSociety ofGreeceandRome, editedbyG.J. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1995. "Reading" GreekDeathtotheEnd
Oliver,59-80. Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversity Press. ofthe Period.
Classical Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Osborne,R. 1997. "Law,theDemocraticCitizenand the Stears,K. 1995. Dead Women s Society:Constructing
RepresentationofWomen in ClassicalAthens."Past- Female Genderin ClassicalAthenianFunerarySculp-
Pres155:3-33. ture."In Time,Tradition and Society in GreekArchaeology:
Patterson,C.B. 1994. "The Case AgainstNeaira and the Bridgingthe "GreatDivide",edited by Spencer,109-31.
N.
Public Ideologyof theAthenianFamily."In Athenian NewYork:Routledge.
Identity and CivicIdeology,editedbyA.L. Boegeholdand . 2000a. "The TimesTheyAreA'Changing:Devel-
A.C. Scafuro,199-216. Baltimore:The JohnsHopkins opmentsin Fifth-Century FunerarySculpture."In The
University Press. Epigraphy ofDeath:Studiesin theHistoryandSocietyofGreece
. 1998. TheFamily inGreek History.Cambridge,Mass.: andRome, editedbyG.J.Oliver,25-58. Liverpool:Liver-
HarvardUniversity Press. pool University Press.
Pemberton, E.G. 1989."TheDexiosisonAtticGravestones." . 2000b. LosingthePicture:Changeand Continuity
MeditArch 2:45-50. inAthenianGraveMonumentsin theFourthand Third
Petrakos,V.Ch. 1980. "AvocGicacpri Pocjivowick;."Prakt CenturiesBC." In WordandImageinAncient Greece,edit-
1977A:3-22. ed byN.K Rutterand B.A.Sparkes,206-27.Edinburgh:
. 1999. OArijiiogrovPa^vovvzog.Ivvoy/ri rcovAvaa- EdinburghUniversity Press.
Kacpcov kociEpevvcov(1813-1998). 2 vols.Athens:H ev Strauss,B.S.I 993.FathersandSonsinAthens: IdeologyandSo-
AO^vcxk; ApxaioXoyiicriExaipeiaq. cietyintheEra ofthePeloponnesian War.Princeton:Prince
Pomeroy, S.B. 1997.Families inClassicalandHellenistic
Greece: tonUniversity Press.